« PreviousContinue »
CAPE of Good DOPE DE CONVERSION BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION STOCK.
RICHARD FLINT & CO.
PARTRIDGE & COOPER, notice by advertisement in the London Gazette
Law Copying and Engrossing.
of the PUBLIC DEBT. AUTHORITY.
LONDON and WESTMINSTER BANK Interest at £3 per cent. per annum, payable Half(Limited) are instructed by the Government of the Yearly at the Bank of England, on ist January Cape of Good Hope, in consequence of numerous
and 1st July. The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1883
applications from the holders of Cape of Good
Hope Government Deben tures who did not avail Every requisite under the above Acts supplied on the themselves of the Conversion offered in August. 1886, ISSUE OF £1,000,000 3 PER CENT. STOCK. shortest notice. to make a further OFFER to the HOLDERS of
Authorized by Acts 43 & 44 Vict.. C. 178; 44 & 45 Vi.t., outstanding DEBENTURES of CONVERSION into
C. 68; and 45 # 46 Vict., c. 61.
ER NT. MEMORANDA and ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATIOx bearing interest at four per cent. per annum, created MINIMUM PRICE OF ISSUE £92 speedily printed in the proper form for registration and for the purposes of this Conversion, under the Acts
The First Dividend being Six Months' Interest distribution. SHARE CERTIFICATES, DEBENTURES, of the Cape Legislature, No. 16 of 1891, as amended
will be payable 1st January, 1889.
accordance with the provisions of the “Colonial
of the stock kept by the London and Westminster to invest any moneys in nominal Debentures or nominal Solicitors' Account Books.
Bank (Limited), and is transferable, without charge Debenture Stock issued under the Local Loans Act, 1875,
Government, at the London and Westminster Bank THE BANK OF ENGLAND give notice that by Stationers, Printers, Engravers, Registration Agents,
(Limited), Lothbury, on the 15th April and 15th arrangements made with the Corporation of Birming
October in each year, by dividend warrants, which, ham, under the provisions of the Act 44 & 45 Vict. 49, FLEET-STREET, LONDON, E.C. (corner if desired, can be sent by post to the stockholders ; c. 68, and in pursuance of resolutions of the Town of Serjeants’-inn).
and the stock will be redeemable at par at the same Council of Birmingham, they are authorized to re
bank on the 15th October, 1936, but the Government Annual and other Returns Stamped and Filed.
ceive tenders for £1,000,000 of BIRMINGHAM CORPORAof the Cape of Good Hope have the option of re TION STOCK, bearing interest at £3 per centum per demption at par in London on or after the 15th annum, payable half-yearly at the Bank of England
or any of the Country Branches. and in the "Times" newspaper, or by post to the
The Stock will be redeemable at par, on or after LAW AND GENERAL STATIONERS, then stockholders at their registered addresses.
1st day of July, 1947, at the option of the Corporation, Stock certificates to bearer, of the denominations
upon one year's notice having been given by public 1 & 2, CHANCERY LANE LONDON E.C. of £100, £500, and £1,000 with coupons of the half
advertisement, should the same not have been preyearly dividends attached, are obtainable in ex
viously cancelled by purchase in the open market change for inscribed stock at the London and
under the operation of the Redemption Fund conWestminster Bank (Limited), Lothbury, on payment
stituted by the Stock Orders. of the prescribed fees, and such certificates can be The Books of the Birmingham Corporation Stock
re-inscribed as stock at the will of the owner. Deeds and Writings engrossed and copied on the Premises
are kept at the Bank of England, where all assignwith punctuality and dispatch, at the lowest scale of
The revenues of the Colony of the Cape of Good ments and transfers are made; and holders of the charges. A good Discount allowed on agreed accounts
Hope alone are liable in respect of this stock and the Stock bave the option of taking out Stock Certificates
dividends thereon, and the Consolidated Fund of the to bearer, transferable by delivery, with coupons LAW PRINTING.
United Kingdom and the Commissioners of her attached, at the same rate of charge as in the case of
Majesty's Treasury are not directly or indirectly Government Stock. STATEMENTS OF CLAIM AND DEFENCE, AFFI- liable or respor sible for the payment of the stock or
Transfers and Stock Certificates to bearer are free DAVITS, and other PLEADING, Printed at 1s. per folio. the dividends thereon, or for any matter relating DEEDS, CONVEYANCES, MORTGAGES, &c., Printed thereto.-40 & 41 Vict. cap. 59,
of Stamp Duty.
Dividend Warrants are transmitted by post, when
tions of Cape of Good Hope Government Debentures,
Stock, and must state what amount of money will be ABSTRACTS, BRIEFS, PETITIONS, DRAFTS
given for every £100 of tbe Stock. Tenders for other conversion, can be obtained of the London and MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, Lithographed
than even hundreds of Stock, or at a price including Westminster Bank (Limited). at reduced prices. London and Westminster Bank (Limited), Loth
fractions of a shilling other than sixpence, will not be PLANS OF ESTATES, SPECIFICATIONS, BUILD
accepted. Tenders are to be delivered at the Chief
bury, London, E.O., 5th May, 1887. ING SOCIETIES' DEEDS, LEASES, &c., Lithographed
Cashier's Office, Bank of England, before Two o'clock with accuracy and dispatch.
of the PUBLIC DEBT.-Notice is Hereby Stock applied for must be written on the outside of Samples and Catalogues sont post-free. Given, that the above conversion will CLOSE on the
the tender. 30th July, 1887.
The minimum price, below which no tender will be London and Westminster Bank (Limited), Loth accepted, has been fixed at £92 for every £100 of Stock. HODGKINSON & CO'S
bury, London, E.C., 1st July, 1837.
A deposit of £5 per cent. upon the amount of Stock SIX per CENT. GUARANTEED MORTGAGE
tendered for must be paid at the time of the delivery HAND-MADE BRIEF, FOCLSCAP,
of the tender, but the deposit must not be enclosed
with the tender. Where no allotment is made the and other PAPERS.
amount of the deposit will be returned, and in case
-Capital paid up, 1,000,000 dols.; Liability of of partial allotment the balance of the deposit will be THE MOST SUITABLE FOR SOLICITORS, Shareholders, 1,000,000 dols.; Surplus and Reserve, applied towards the first instalment.
250,000 dols. ; Total, 2,250,000 dols. £450,000). Can be obtained through all Stationers. Head Office-Boston, Mass., Mr. B. Lombard, jun.,
In the event of the receipt of tenders at or above President.
the minimum price for a larger amount than that Western Office --Kansas City, MO , Mr. J. L. Lom- proposed to be raised, the tenders at the lowest price DINNEFORD'S MAGNESIA
bard, Vice-President and Manager.
accepted will be subject to a pro ratâ diminution. Sole Agent for Great Britain and Ireland-Mr. H. The dates at which the further payments on The best Remedy for
Ramsden (Ramsden & Austin, Bolicitors), 150, account of the Loan will be required, are as fol-
lows:ACIDITY of the STOMACH, HEARTBURN, HEADACHE
The Company is prepared to receive money for investment in First Registered Mortgages of Freeholds
On Tuesday, the 19th July, 1837, so much of the GOUT and INDIGESTION,
amount tendered and accepted as, when added to the And safest Aperient for Delicate Constitutions, Ladies
years, yielding 6 per cent. interest, payable by coupons paid for each hundred pounds of Stoc's.
half-yearly, in London, principal and interest Children, and Infants.
guaranteed by the Company. For full information On Friday, the 19th August, 1887, £25 per cent.;
as to these investments apply to the London Office. DINNEFORD'S MAGNESIA
On Tuesday, the 20th September, 1887, £25 per
ESTABLISHED 1851, MADE WITH BOILING WATER. B
I R K B E O K BANK.
On Thursday, the 20th October, 1837, £30 per cent. Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane.
But those who so desire may, on and after the 19th THREE per CENT. INTEREST allowed on
July, 1897, pay up in full, and will be allowed a disDEPOSITS, repayable on demand.
count at the rate of £2 per cent, per annum upon the TWO per CENT. INTEREST on CURRENT anticipated payments. In case of default in the payACCOUNTS celculated on the minimum monthly
ment of any instalment at its proper date, the debalances, when not drawn below £100.
posit and instalments previously paid will be liable The Bank undertakes for its Customers, free of
Charge, the Custody of Deeds, Writings, and other
Interest will be payable 1st January and 1st July
in each year; six months' interest on the full amount and sale of Stocks, Shares, and Annuities. Letters of Credit and Circular Notes issued.
Scrip Certificates to bearer will, in due course, be lars, post-free, on application.
The BIRKBECK ALMANACK, with full particu- delivered at the Chief Cashier's Office. Bank of EngMADE WITH BOILING MILK.
land, in Exchange for the Letters of Allotment. FRANCIS RAVENSCROFT, Manager. The Stock will be inscribed on and after the 20th
Oct er, 1887, but Scrip paid up in full may forthwith be inscribed as Stock.
No tender will be received unless made upon the priated form, which may be obtained at the Chief Cashier's Office, Bank of England; of Messra. Mullens, Marshall, & Co., Stock Brokers, 4, Lombardstreet, London, E.C.; and at the Borough Treasurer's Office, the Council House, Birmingham. BANK OF ENGLAND,
6th July, 1887.
PARCHMENT AND LEGAL PAPERS CAPE OF GOOD HOPE-CONVERSION prices must be on separate torms. denboe amount of
in the States of the United States of America, for five deposit, will leave Eighty Pounds (sterling) to be
697 .......... 683
CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK.
purposes of evidence a certified copy should in all cases be proIn the Solicitors' Journal. In the Weekly Reporter.
vided. No one need in future be deceived by a copy of a docu
ment from the Probate Registry designated as an office copy. All Adam Eyton (Lim.), Re
Burgess, Ex parte, In re Burgess 702 copies will in future either be marked "
non-official,” or will
be certified as examined.
Hastie's Trusts, In re...
692 Colonization Co.
626 Hermann Loog (Limited), In re Hobbs, Re, Hobbs v. Wade 626
WE ARE GLAD TO SEE that a reform. we have several times urged
Knight v. Coales
with regard to the annual provincial meetings of the Incorporated and Trade Protection Societies
Monk, In re, Wayman v. Monk 691 Law Society is now likely to be carried out. In writing on the Bir-
Rust v. Victoria Graving Dock Co. 673 meetings are not to degenerate into mere legal pic-nics, some new
Schulze & Co. v. Great Eastern ation (Lim.)
683 arrangements will have to be made as to the subjects to be Walker v. The General Mutual In Shafto v. Bolckow, Vaughan, & Co. 686 discussed. These should not be left to the chance of someone vestment Building Society
Todd, Ex parte, In re Ashcroft.... 676 offering a paper. We cannot see why the suggestion we
have made before should not be adopted—viz., that certain subjects 701
of general interest to the profession should be fixed upon by the
council and papers invited upon them, opportunity being given for The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. the reading of voluntary papers on other subjects.” A resolution
was carried at the recent meeting for the appointment of a comLONDON, JULY 16, 1887.
mittee “ to consider and report on the arrangements of the October
Meetings, and particularly as to choice of subjects ; selection of CURRENT TOPICS.
readers and speakers, limiting length of speeches, and giving right
of reply; time of distributing prints of the papers ; previous MR. JUSTICE CAITTY, Mr. Justice North, and Mr. Justice publication of the programme of the meeting ; admission to debates Stirling will take no more witness actions during the present of solicitors not yet members; and all other points likely to increase sittings than those which have already appeared in their respective the interest and beneficial influence of these meetings." The effect daily lists; and no more special jury actions will be taken in the of the adoption of arrangements for the selection of the subjects Queen's Bench Division during the present sittings.
for discussion will, we believe, be materially to increase the value and interest of the provincial meetings. There can never be any
difficulty in finding topics of general interest, and if they are stated IT IS ANNOUNCED that on and after Monday next the judges in the circular convening the meeting, members will come presitting in Court of Appeal No. 1 will act as a Divisional Court of pared to express considered views upon them. We are not at all the High Court, and take appeals from county courts, of which clear, however, that the speakers ought to be selected beforehand, there are about forty waiting to be heard. Notice will be given but we very heartily desire to limit the length of the speeches. of any days on which Court of Appeal No. 1 will take interlocutory appeals, and application may be made for the hearing of pressing appeals in the Final List.
THE CONCLUDING STAGES of the Land Transfer Bill in the House of Lords were marked by something like a mutiny of the
Conservative peers. There were fifty-five yotes in favour of the We publish in another column a list of the attendances of omission of clause 39, relating to succession to real estate on the members of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, intestacy, and the clause was carried by a majority of sixty-six, both at meetings of the council and at committees. We think largely composed of Liberal peers. There was a still narrower that the result, as regards the majority of the ordinary members, majority (73 to 67) against Lord HERSCHELL’s amendment to clause will be considered exceedingly satisfactory, and the assiduity with 2, throwing the duty of registering on the purchaser and not on which some of the busiest men in the country render their gratui- the vendor; and we think it may safely be said that, but for the tous services in the transaction of the affairs of the society deserves loyalty to party to which Mr. Williams referred at the meeting acknowledgment. It will be observed that one member of the of the Incorporated Law Society last week, there would have council achieved the enormous number of 152 attendances on been in both cases considerable majorities against the Government.
The amendments moved by the Lord Chancellor which we noted last week (p. 604), were all agreed to, and, with the exception of
a somewhat elaborate further amendment of clause 39, dealing MEETING of the Incorporated Law Society with the new law of succession to lunatics' and infants' property, last week the ever-recurring topic of the society's accounts no further alteration has been made. The discussion of the Bill by formed the subject of a long debato. The objections raised the House can hardly be said to have been adequate. The silence of related mainly to the form of the accounts, some of the members peers like Lord SELBORNE, Lord Hobuouse, and Lord MackaguTEN, wanting more details. If there is no insuperable objection—and possessed of sufficient technical knowledge and experience to make we confess we do not see any—there seems to be no reason why the their criticisms of value, is greatly to be deplored. Lord accounts should not be modified to some extent to meet the objec- HERSCHELL, on whom the brunt of the discussion was thrown, contions raised ; and, in order to prevent the waste of valuable time ducted the controversy with great ability, but the subject was at future meetings, we hope that the council will give the matter necessarily unfamiliar to him.
THE TANKS of the profession are due to the authorities of the IT IS A CURIOUS L'EATURE of modern practice that in one cases a Principal Registry of the Probate Division for a reform which was defendant who fails to appear to an action is in a better position much needed, and the necessity for which has been frequently urged than a defendant who appears and defends. In the Queen's Bench in these columns. The fact that so-called * office copies” of wills Division, where a defendant fails to appear, judgment goes bere produced in court which could not with propriety be described against him for the relief claimed, but in the Chancery Division it masnis. copice, not to say office copies (never having been examined) is otherwise, and the fact is worthy of note by practitioners. The ported the frequent incorrectness of these so-called office copies, have oth inst., is an illustration of this result. The plaintiffs, in that idopted all such plain copies are marked «i non-official," follow" (1) payment of principal and interest, and (2) foreclosure. The
case, were mortgagees, and the indorsement on the writ claimed licial copies of orders. A no.-oficial copy of a willis of service mortgage deed, setting out the covenant to pay principal and infor office use, as it may be examined with the original, but for the | terest, and the assignment of the premises subject to redemption.
The defendant did not appear, and the amount due was verified by addressed. But in the Court of Appeal it was pointed out by Lord affidavit. The case was heard on motion for judgment, when the Justice Cotton that the advice given by the brother was not given plaintiffs asked for the usual judgment as settled in the case of at the time of the gift, but at some time previous, when a mere inFarrer v. Lacy, Hartland, & Co.(34 W. R. 22, 31 Ch. D. 42) direct- tention to make the gift was formed. Hence, at the time of the ing (1) payment, and (2) foreclosure. Mr. Justice STIRLING refused, actual gift there was no independent advice to neutralize the unin the absence of the defendant, to give judgment for payment or to due influence, and equity might properly interfere. So far the do more than make the usual foreclosure order. Had the defendant other members of the court went with him. The only question appeared and admitted the facts, it is difficult to see how he could remaining was whether Miss ALLCARD had commenced her action have resisted judgment in the form asked for. It is worthy of in time. She left the sisterhood in 1879, and, in the next year, consideration whether, in cases where a personal judgment is of demanded back her will, but made no mention of the money. It importance, it will not be advisable to issue a writ in the Queen's was held by Lord Justice COTTON that there had been no undue Bench Division on which judgment can be obtained for payment delay, as the plaintiff was not aware of her rights, and that, so of principal and interest, and to follow it up by a summons in the far as the sisterhood was concerned, it had in fact incurred no Chancery Division for foreclosure. The double proceeding would be special expense on the faith of the money which would raise an more certain in its results and would not be much more costly than equity in its behalf. However, both Lord Justice LINDLEY and the attempt to combine two remedies in one action with the risk of Lord Justice BOWEN thought differently. If the plaintiff did not being hampered by an absent defendant.
know her own rights it was her own fault, and in 1880 she had, by demanding back her will and not the money, really confirmed the gift after the undue influence was at an end. Ever since that
time she had allowed the sisterhood to regard the money as their THE UNCERTAINTY of the law relating to bills of sale received own, and it was too late now to claim it back. It is curious how further illustration in a case of Wiit v. Banner decided on the point as to the time of the trother's advice was not noticed by Tuesday. By section 4 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, it is re- Mr. Justice KEKEWICH, and yet was so conclusive with the Court quired that the personal chattels comprised in the bill of sale shall of Appeal, and further, how the whole matter turned finally upon be specifically described in the schedule. The question has now the delay of the plaintiff, and was not really affected by the undue arisen as to what constitutes a sufficient description within these influence which seemed to be, and indeed was, the most important words? The above case referred to pictures, and these were set
feature in the case. down as 300 oil pictures in gilt frames, 20 water-colour pictures, &c. Obviously it would be very difficult to identify any particular picture from this description, but then it is difficult to imagine any description which would in many cases really identify a picture.
THE JUDGMENT of the House of Lords in Trevor v. Whitworth, Mr. Justice Wills said that the construction of the term “ speci- reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal, is of great fically described” must be reasonable, but in the case before importance to the numerous “private companies” which have him he contented himself by saying that the description was been formed in recent years. One of the main objects in these certainly not enough, without venturing to define what would companies is to keep the shares in the hands of those who were have satisfied him. It had been said by Lord Justice LINDLEY, in partners in the old firm which has been converted into a company, Roberts v. Roberts (13 Q. B. D. 794), that an inventory must or of such persons as the directors might think desirable, and the describe the chattels as men of business would describe them. way in which this is sometimes sought to be accomplished is by But when this test was proposed to Mr. Justice Wills he pointed enabling the shares of the company to be purchased out of out that the construction of the document lay with him, and be the funds of the company: There has been an impression was not a man of business, but a judge. Counsel then ventured that a mere power to purchase shares for the benefit of the on the suggestion that it might be enough to describe them as an company (not being a power to traffic in shares) may be validly ordinary man would do. This is satisfactory as far as it goes, but granted by the articles, without being also contained in the it remains to be seen how an ordinary man would describe a picture memorandum; the authority cited for this proposition being the by an unknown artist and representing no very definite subject. decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Dronfield Silkstone Co. Of course, if pictures are hanging in a room and not liable (29 W. R. 768, 17 Ch D. 76). In the recent case the articles of in the ordinary course to be changed, they can be defined by the a private company provided that “any share may be purchased by
But in other cases it will apparently be necessary to the company from any person willing to sell it at such price, describe each picture as carefully as possible. At any rate, this is not exceeding the then marketable value thereof, as the board one more proof that no caution can be too great in drawing bills think reasonable”; but the memorandum did not contain any of sale.
provision on the subject. The company had, under the power in the articles, purchased no fewer than 4,142 of its shares, and
amongst other purchases had bought from the respondents shares of THE JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice KEKEwich in Allcard v. Skinner the value of £2,800, and this sum was allowed by them to remain in has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal, but the judgment was the hands of the company as a loan, bearing interest at 5 per cent. not unanimous and it differed altogether in its reasons from that of per annum. Four years afterwards an order was made by the the court below. There was no doubt that the reletion between Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster for the Miss Allcard, the donor of the property in question, and Miss voluntary winding up of the company, and objection was taken to SKINNER, the lady superior of the sisterhood to which the property the respondents ranking as creditors for this sum of £2,800. The was given, was such as to call for the intervention of equity. The Vice-Chancellor held that the respondents were not entitled to rank religious influence resulting from it was so strong that the donor as creditors in respect of that sum, but his decision was reversed could not be regarded as a free agent. But at one time, when she by the Court of Appeal (Cotton, Bowen, and Fry, L.JJ.), who was on the point of joining the sisterhood and was forming the held that, although a company could not by its articles authorize a design of giving her property to it, she had the advice of her trafficking in its own shares, it might authorize the board to buy brother. Mr. Justice KEKEWICH held that this was sufficient its shares whenever they thought it desirable for the purposes of to re-establish her in the position of a free person and to overcome the company," or "in cases where it was incidental to the the objection of undue influence.
In commenting upon his legitimate objects of the company that it should do so." The judgment at the time, we pointed out (ante, p. 227) that in House of Lords unanimously reversed the decision of the Court of certain respects it made the law more definite, inasmuch as the Appeal, on the ground that the purchase of the shares was an competent independent advice which was one means of effecting indirect mode of reduction of the capital of the company. The the above purpose need not be legal advice, and that, provided it decision, it should be observed, does not touch the case where were in fact offered to the donor, it made no difference that the power to purchase its own shares is given to a company by its religious influence was so strong as to make it certain that the ad- memorandum as well as by its articles. But where this is not the rice would not be taken ; though probably, as we there surmised, case there is no power to purchase shares out of the funds of the the result might be different if the undue influence had been company. As Lord HERSCHELL said :—" If certain shareholders exerted with special force by the donee, or the donor had no sufficient intelligence of the transaction to which advice could be willing to sell their shares, they may be bought out, but this must
are disposed to hamper the proceedings of the company, and are
be done by persons, existing shareholders or others, who can be land company, which had purchased a building estate on the east induced to purchase the shares, and not out of the funds of the side of the river Itchin, and had made roads on it, constructed company." "Nor does the decision affect the forfeiture, or perhaps the Cobden Bridge in order to connect their new roads with an the surrender, of shares. The former is expressly recognized by existing road from Southampton on the other side of the river. the Companies Act, 1862, and the latter does not involve any pay. There was no doubt about the dedication of the bridge, for it was ment out of the funds of the company.
opened and dedicated to the public with much ceremony, nor was there any doubt as to user by the public. Before long the ques
liability for repair arose, and the land company indicted WE UNDERSTAND that an influential committee has been formed the county at the Bristol Winter Assizes in 1886. Mr. Justice to carry out the suggestions contained in our Correspondence Stephen appears to have directed the jury that mere user by the column a few weeks since as to the formation of a Law Library, public was sufficient to throw the liability on the county, and the &c., for the City of London. Mr. HERBERT M. Low, of 12, Bread” above cases certainly support this view. The verdict was street, Cheapside, E.C., is the secretary pro tem.
accordingly given against the county. Next, an application was made to a divisional court for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection. This is reported in 17 Q. B. D. 424. An elaborate judgment was delivered by Wills, J., and, in this, after admitting
that one of the conditions precedent to any liability on the part of LIABILITY FOR REPAIR OF BRIDGES.
a county for the repair of a bridge is that it should be of public The liability for the repair of public bridges falls, as a general utility, he went on to consider the further question of adoption by rule, upon the county, but it is remarkable that there should be the county. He referred to some other observations of Lord no recognized procedure essential for the creation of this liability in Ellenborough in the judgment just referred to, where he the case of new bridges. The uncertainty of the law in this speaks of the public adopting the bridge by lying by respect has been made very clear by the recent case of The Queen witbout objecting to it, and hence he infers that the bridge must v. Inhabitants of the County of Southampton, and the protracted be so built that the public must be able to object to it; but this litigation which it has produced has done little to remove it. It will only be the case where it is built in the line of an existing is settled that mere user on the part of the public is not necessarily highway, for then, both during its construction and after its sufficient, and that there must be, in a certain sense, an adoption erection, it could be objected to as a nuisance. Hence, in addition by the county ; this adoption, however, is not to be a formal act, to the utility of the bridge, we have two other requisites; it must but is a question to be left to the jury on all the circumstances of be in the line of an existing highway, and it must not have been
objected to as a nuisance. This is exactly the view taken by It might be expected that, as bridges form a part of highways, Bayley, J., in Rex v. St. Benedict (4 B. & Ald. 450). "In the the same law would be applicable to both, and it is strange that case of bridges there is always what is to be considered as an this has not been provided for by recent legislation. The greater acquiescence by the county. The county is not liable except for inconvenience of the law relating to highways probably explains bridges made in highways; the makiug of the bridge, and thereby why these have been dealt with separately. The natural procedure, obstructing the road while the bridge is making, may be treated as of course, when a highway or bridge is given by a private person a nuisance, and the county may, if it think fit, stop its progress to the public with the intention that the future liability for repair by indictment, and the forbearing to prosecute in that way is an shall fall upon them, is to require a formal dedication by the donor acquiescence by the county in the building of the bridge." It is and an acceptance by the public. To constitute such acceptance true that the restriction to bridges in a highway was not adopted there should be, not merely a user by a portion of the public, by Mr. Justice Wills. The particular kind of acquiescence but a formal acceptance by some representative body on behalf of mentioned above was, in the Southampton case, out of the questhe whole public on whom the subsequent cost will fall. Under tion, but he did not feel called upon to state what was to take its the old law, however, this latter requirement was dispensed with place. At any rate, the acquiescence must be proved in some other in the case of highways, and a mere dedication by the owner way than by the mere fact of user by the public. Such being the brought after it the consequence that the highway became re common law, it remained to consider the Statute of Bridges, pairable by the inhabitants of the parish or district. The unsatis- 22 Hen. 8, c. 5, which provides for the remedy of “all manner of factory nature of this state of things being evident, the matter was annoyances of bridges broken in the highways to the damage of dealt with by the Highway Acts, 1835, s. 23, and 1862, s. 36. It the King's liege people.” Of this it will be enough to say that it is there provided that the question shall be submitted to a vestry was held to refer only to bridges in existing highways, and, theremeeting of the inhabitants of the parish. But with regard to bridges fore, was not applicable to the present case. the case is different. So long ago as 1803 it was evident that the Accordingly, there was a rule for a new trial, and this was held public authorities ought to have some control over their construction, before Mathew, J., at the last Bristol Winter Assizes. The judge and it was provided by section 5 of the County Bridges Act of that directed the jury in accordance with the ruling of the Divisional Fear that no bridge should be deemed a bridge repairable by the Court, leaving it entirely to the jury whether, under all the inhabitants of the county unless it should be erected in a sub- circumstances, there had been such a dedication to the county as stantial and commodious manner to the satisfaction of the county would make it liable for repairs. This time there was a verdict in surveyor--a provision subsequently modified by 41 & 42 Vict. c. favour of the county, but with the same result as before—an 27,5 21, which enables the county authority to order that bridges application to the Divisional Court for a new trial on the ground Bertified by the county surveyor shall be repairable by the county. of misdirection. This has recently been argued before a full Highway Acts-viz., the necessity of formal acceptance by the public, refusing a new trial there seems to have been a feeling that nothing Litigation in the case of the Southampton Bridge. It is true that Mathew had been very guarded in his direction to the jury, and the doctrine of the law appeared to be that some adoption by the the Lord Chief Justice and his brethren were unable to extract delenceless condition as formerly with regard to highways ; but therefore, to do anything to disturba verdict with which the judge te manner of such adoption was so uncertain that this gives little had not expressed himself dissatisfied. But this result will give
The original idea, indeed, seems to have been that the true test tion by the county is necessary ; it is clear, too, that if the brdge is en that of utility to the public. Thus, in Rex v. West Riding in the existing line of highway, the omission to prosecute as a nuisgemeen builds a bridge, and it becomes useful to the county in But in other cases, where there is mere user by the public, this cameral, the county shall repair it." And in a case of the same may or may not be sufficient, according to the circumstances of the name in 2 East. 341 Lord Ellenborough, C.J., refers to this as
case. Apparently it will only be sufficient when, in addition to merely evidence of utilitz. a in the Southampton bridge casins tion by the esunty. But what is to constitute this remains quite
unsettled. So far as actual use by the public goes, there could cause of its extreme unpopularity, and it is to be hoped that the hardly be a stronger case than the present one. However, the system of 1887 may be saved the responsibility of perpetuating jury decided that it was not sufficient, and the court has been such awkward expedients. That they are not necessary to a content to leave the matter so.
register is proved by the Torrens provisions above mentioned.
Mr. Humphry devotes a considerable space to pointing out a hardShip that the Bill imposes on the ordinary landowner by offering him Hobson's choice of an “absolute” title, which he usually
cannot get, or a title with an objectionable epithet” (p. 267). THE LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW ON THE LAND The justice of this criticiem depends upon two things, not yet very TRANSFER BILL.
clear. First, whether the absolute title will, under the new pro. THERE are two interesting notices of the Land Transfer Bill in cedure, be so difficult to get as to be beyond the reach of an the current issue the Law Quarterly Review. While various ordinary landowner; and, secondly, will a possessory title, under critics of the Bill are found to select various points for special the altered circumstances of universal compulsion, be considered attack, still it is notable (like the ballot of the Greek generals objectionable ? after Salamis) what a very general consensus there is as to some
Mr. Sargant makes a suggestion as to estates tail that of the points which are usually mentioned as "minor."
seems valuable, and is mainly in accord with Mr. Hunter's Both Mr. H. M. Humphry and Mr. C. H. Sargant agree in paper, already noticed. It is that the protector of the settlevigorously attacking the general form of the Bill, also section ment should be abolished, and that then estates tail should be 21 of the Act of 1875 as to adverse possession ; and Mr. retained.” Their abolition is probably a concession to popular Humphry supplements this objection with criticisms on the sentiment merely, and would be unnecessary if the protector of 19th clause of the amended Bill, which he describes as the settlement were abolished. Estates tail express an idea which the most difficult of interpretation that the Bill contains.” could otherwise be expressed, if at all, only by a long and clumsy His detailed remarks on the clause are substantially in accord paraphrase, and they would be wholly innocuous if once the ance with the view already expressed in these columns.
The present difficulty in barring them when in reversion were two critics also agree in considering that clause 42 (administra- removed." Quite apart from the functions of the protector, there tion of realty and personalty pari passu) will not be so easy to
are numerous cases in which a family estate would, if thus apply as it appears, considering the different beneficial interests entailed, remain in the male line, where, if a fee simple only is that may arise in the two species of property (but see the amend permissible, it must go to females. An esteemed correspondent ments noticed in our last week’s issue). On the vexed subject of makes a strong protest in another column of our issue this week compulsion, however, Mr. Humphry's view is that a scheme that against the inconvenience likely to result from the proposed is looked upon by the public as a panacea for the evils of convey
abolition of estates tail. ancing ought to be able to win its way by less violent means; critics in the Law' Quarterly, that the descent of the legal estate
We may remark, in conclusion, that the statement of one of the while Mr. Sargant holds that “the Bill marks a great advance on the Act of 1875, in that it proposes to render registration com
to executors or administrators is inseparable from the institution pulsory."
of a register, is not in accordance with the experience of the In his inquiry into the causes of the failure of the Act of Torrens registries, which have been worked under the old law 1875, Mr. Sargant notices an imperfection in the essence of the with perfect ease, though in some colonies real representatives scheme which is not remedied by the present Bill, and which, have been instituted subsequently for quite other reasons. considering the enormous amount of land affected by it, is certainly a very grave omission—that is to say, that registered proprietorship confers no power to lease. For, though sections 7 and 30 of the Act of 1875 in terms confer an absolute fee simple on the registered proprietor which would, at first sight, imply absolute power, not
REVIEWS. only to lease, but to settle, to devise, to charge in any way he may think proper, so as to make such a person a satisfactory fount of title, A DIGEST OF CASES OVERRULED, NOT FOLLOWED, DISAPPROVED,
DIGEST OF CASES OVERRULED, &c. even for dealings which have to be conducted off the register, yet the better opinion now is that this is not the case, and that the
APPROVED, DISTINGUISHED, COMMENTED ON AND SPECIALLY CON
SIDERED IN THE ENGLISH COURTS FROM THE YEAR 1756 to 1886 "fee simple” of the registered proprietor is not really a fee simple INCLUSIVE. By CHARLES WILLIAM MITCALFE DALE, M.A., LL.B., at all; that in many cases it is, in fact, no more a fee simple than and RUDOLF CHAMBERS LEHMANN, M.A., assisted by CHARLES the “proprietor” is a proprietor in the ordinary sense of the word. H. L. NEISH, M.A., and HERBERT H. CIIILD, B.A., Barristers-at
:n perusing the remainder of the Act, that the Law. Stevens & Sons; H. Sweet & Sons; W. Maxwell & Son. “proprietor's' fee simple" solely consists of a power to charge This book constitutes a new departure in digests. The aim of the and a power to transfer the land (sections 22, 29) in the prescribed compilers is to enable the practitioner to discover how any case has
The prescribed manner is a very prescribed one indeed, been treated by the judges who have discussed it and how much of it and does not include (for instance) the creation of a rent-charge remains good law. The mode in which this is carried out is by first or the subsequent institution of a sub-mortgage, nor of the limita- of all presenting the cases in a tabular form, giving a brief statement tion of a life estate or term of years. If such things are wanted of how the case has been treated, where (with the date) and by whom, the proprietor of the land or charge must prove his title by some
and a reference to the column of the subsequent digest in which the means external to the register. It is surely time, now that this would not be elucidated by extracts from judgments,
case is treated in detail. Cases which stand by themselves, and which
or such extracts system is to be enforced on everybody, that some attempt should would be too lengthy for the limits of tắe book, are noticed in the be made to improve it by making it, in substance, more conform tabular index only, and reversed cases since 1856 also usually appear able to every-day needs, and less misleading to the unwary stu·lent in the index only. Then follows a digest, arranged according to sub: by the use of familiar terms in such very unfamiliar senses. The jects, with headings and sub-headings, and containing short extracts Torrens Acts are immeasurably superior to our own in these from the judgments in which the case has been dealt with. The respects; they provide, for instance, not only for the creation of best mode of giving an idea of the digest is to take a particular case life estates and estates in remainder and terms of years by the us to rawford (13 Sim. 91)." Looking in the index, we find it has been, registered proprietor, but also for their direct registration on the
commented on register-books. Why, as Mr. Sargant justly suggests, the pro- w.R., and upheld" by the Court of Appeal; and turning to column prietor's fee simple should not be a fee simple (at least as regards 1330 of the digest we find, under the head of " trustee,” sub-head all third parties, for all intents and purposes it is most difficult to
The Procrustæan system of cutting down the modes of (14 Benv. 536) ? a statement that in Oslorne to Rowlett (13 Ch. D. 774) utilizing and enjoying landed property to suit the inflexible Cooke v. Crawford was held overruled, and extracts from the judgrigidity of two official formulæ, relegating all excrescences, how- ments in Re Hurton and Hallett (15 Ch. D. 143). The advantage to erer vital, to the limbo of the equitable estate, is hardly the way thiy question is as to the mode of execution of the working Careof so fatal a fault in the system of 1875 is doubtless largely the ) cution is very creditable. The cases given are extremely numerous, and, to produce a system satisfactory to landowners. The prevalence sidering the enormous labour involved, we think that the end,
For it appear