Page images
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

I)AVl"lS, and other PLEADING, Printcd at ls. por folio.

_ in form for Registration.
Discount allowed for cash on agreed accounts.
MINU'l‘ES OF EVIDENCE, Litliogrnphod
at reduced prices.

PLANS OF ESTATES, SI-‘ECIFICATIONS, BUILDING socii-;'i'ii:s' DEEDS, LEAsiss,sc., Litliographed with accuracy null dispatch.


Samples and Catulmzucs soul. post-free. MADE WITH BOILING WATER.

[merged small][ocr errors]




Oiliccs of the Cogioi-ationWnichcster House, Old road-street, E.C.

[ocr errors]

Policies am now being issued by this Corporation insuring Mortgages of Freoliold and Leasehold Property. liol<lr:i‘s of Mortgage Dcbontiircs and DEl)8tDt\1l‘6 Stock, against loss of pI‘l.llCl1)Bl and int .

eéfelilese Policies will be or especial advantage to Tnistoos who may be held responsible for losses consequent upon their Investments.

l\I0rt_:r:i;:r\rs iiisurinz with the Corporation will also be enabled to obtain Advances at the lowest possible rate of interest.

The Corporation also grants Policies to Lenseholders illlsllflfllir the return of the Amount invested at tbs expiration cl their leases or at any fixed

er o s.

S Eggr iénrticulars and conditicnsiaol Igsnrnnce apply e ecretary. or er ° JAB. c. PRINSEP. Secremry.

[ocr errors]

s en .

Western Oillco--Kansas (‘it_v. Mo . Mr. -T. L. Lom

bard. Vice-President rind himmgei“.

Sole Agent for Great Britain and Ir(-land—l\Ir. H. Rniiisden (Riinisden or Austin, Solicitors), 150, Leadenhnll-street. London. E.C.

The Company is Iprcpared to receive money for investuient in First czistered Morttrazes of Frecholds in the States of the United States of America, forflve Years, yielding G per cent. interest. payable by coupons half-yearly in London, principal and interest guaranteed by the Company. For full information as to these investments apply to the London Oflice.

Established 15136.
Loxnoin 1, Moorgrate-street, E.C. Asnnnin 1,
INCOME tt FUNDS (1886) :-


Firc Premiums ... ... ... ... £582,000

Lifs Premiums ... ... ... ... 198.000

Interest... ... ... ... ... 13 5000 Accumulated Funds .. . . . . £3,297,000

REVERSIONABY and LIFE INTERESTS in LANDED or FUNDED PROPERTY or other Securities and Annuities PURCHASED,or Loans or Annuities thereon granted, by the EQUITABLE REVERSIONAIIY INTEREST SOCIETY SLINLITED), 10, Lancaster-place, Waterloo Bridge, Btran . Established lS35.a1Caéoital, £500,000. interest on Loans may be ca ‘t ize .

P‘ r. s. CLAYTON 2 Joint 0. H. CLAYTON’, Secretaries



Southnmptcn-bnildln€. Chancery-lane.

THREE par CENT. I TEREST allowed on DEPOSITS, rosgyéible on demand.

TWO per L T. INTEREST on CURRENT ACCO TS calculated on the minimum monthly balances, when not drawn below £100.

The Bank undertakes for its Customers, tree oi Charge, the Custody oi Deeds, \Vritinge, and other Securities n.nd Valuables; the collection at Bills or Exchange, Dividends, and Cou one; and the purchase and snlo cl Stocks, Shnres,undpAmiuit.1es. Letters oi Credit and Circular Not-es issued.

Tho BIRKBECK ALMANACK, with lull particulars, post-heo, on aiiglication.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

EDUCA'I‘ION.—To Solicitors and other Professional Men and Gentlemen of Limited Income.—A few boys, sons ct the above. are admitted into awell-known School of high tone on_greatly reduced iecs.—-Foi;'full particulars address, in strict confidence, “Mir. _oare of Messrs. Belie Bros., 6, Chartcrhouse-biiildings. Aldersgate, City, E.C.

[ocr errors]



Route viii Crinan and Calednnian Canals). Royal Mail St-comer COLUMBA or IONA from Glasgow Daily at 7 a.m., from Greenock at 9 a.m., conveying, in connection with his West Highland Steamers. paesen ers for Obnu, Fort- William. Inverness, Lochowe, Slgye. Gairloch, Staiia, Iona, Gleucoc, Stornowny, &c. finial Guilie. 3d.; Illustrated, Gd. and 15., by post, or at W. H. Smith R Suns‘ Railway Bookstnlls. Time Bill with Map and Fares free from the owner, Dsvm MACBRAYNE, 119, Hope-street, Glasgow.




H ENRY GREEN, Advertisement Agent, begs to direct the attention of the Legal Profession to the advantages cl’ his long experience of upwards ct forty years, in the special insertion of all pro forms notices, &c., and hereby solicits their continued support.N.B. One copy of advertisement only required, and the strictest. can and prcmptitnde assured. Ofllciel stamped forms for advertisement and file of “London Gazette"

kept. Bvanpointment.

“ESSRS. PUTTICK & SIMPSON, Literary l and FineArtAuctioneers 47, Leicester-square London, W.O., beg to inioi-in I-lxecutors, Trustees, Solicitors, and the Trade. that their Season for the disposal by Auction or Libraries of Books and Music. En avings, Paintings, and other works connected witIir tlic Fine Arts, Musical Instruments, and all descriptions oi! V aluable_ Property, will commence on October 17, and that their warehouses are open daily for the reception of oods consigned to them for sale.

Messrs. P. or B. W51 hold several impoi-t.a.nt Sales during the_Senson, and will include small properties in appropriate Sales, thus aflording the sauie_adva_ntages to small a.s_ to lax-ire consignments. Libraries and other properties cato ogued, arranged. and valued tori Probate and Legacy Duty, or for Public or Private Sa e.

ESSRS. JOHNSON & DYMOND beg to announce that their Sales by Auction oi Plate, Watches, Chains, Jewellery, Precious Stones. tea gzrdedlgeld on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdayfl.

an ys._

The attention of Solicitom, Executors. Trustees. and others is particularly called to this ready mean! flllil‘ $586 disposal of Property ct deceased and other


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][graphic][ocr errors]
[merged small][graphic][graphic]
[merged small][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][graphic][ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

\Vatson, In re. Ex parte Phillips. . 709


The Solicitors’ Journal and Reporter.
LONDON, JULY 23, 1887.


Mii. Jvsi-ics DENMAN and Mr. Justice KEKEWICBI will be the vacation judges, and Mr. CARRINGTON and Mi-. KOE will be the chancery registrars in vacation.

Mr. HENRY SKIPPER Rrniivn, solicitor (of the firm of CLARKE, Wooncocs, & RYLAXD), of ll, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, has been appointed an additional taxing master of the Supreme Court of J_Iud%%iEt;re, Chancery Division. Mr. Ryland was admitted a solicitor in .

THE APPOINTMENT of the additional chancery taxing master will be hailed with satisfaction by the profession, partly on the ground that Mr. RYLAND is a most suitable man to fill the post, and partly because his appointment increases the number of the taxing masters to nine. Mr. RYLAND is a practitioner who has always been, as he has described himself, “ a working solicitor,” that is, he has ziycn attention personally to the details of practice and procedure. His figure has for many years been a familiar object in the ofiices, and he is well known to, and respected by, all the chancery officers. The satisfaction which will be felt on account of the increase of the number of taxing masters is somewhat marred by the fact that l\Ir._ WALKER, who was recently appointed from the District Registry at Manchester, has already broken down in health, and is now absent from his duties on leave for several months.

[graphic][merged small][ocr errors]

Ma. MUNTON (who was backed by the Council of the IncorP°T8ted Law Society) is to be congratulated on having again succeeded in clipping the wings of the Middlesex Registry. The "1716 msz for a mandamus, obtained by him in May last, was on ll ednesday made absolute by a divisional court, and the result is that tow_n witnesses may now depose to a deed before a London Commissioner, instead of being required to attend at the registry. This result, besides the great convenience to witnesses, involves "E8111 by the commissioners in fees of something like £3,000 or £4,000 a year. The action of the council in this matter of the Teglfitry will be warmly approved by their London constituents.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

chancery business will take place every Wednesday, commencing on Wednesday,_the 17th of August. The chief clerks of Mr. Justice KAY _will take the chamber business, and Mr. Justice KEJKEWICH will, until further notice, sit in chambers every ll ednesday at 10.30, being half an hour before the time of his sitting in court. It is to be observed that the notice varies tho term_s of preceding notices by stating that “the chambers of Mr. Justice Ker will be open during the vacation,” in place of on certain days in e_very week during the vacation. Whether this means an alteration in the practice remains to be seen.


THERE nave nuns two satisfactory announcements this week in P116 H.°use of Commons with regard to the Laud Transfer Bill. It is not to be divided, and the Govemment are considering whither it should be referred to a select committee. On Monday evening Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE asked whether the Government would assent to the suggestion that the clauses of the Bill relating to inheritance and the abolition of primogeniture, “ to which there was no opposition from the Liberal side of the House,” should be separated from the rest of the Bill, “which would give rise to much discussion.” Mr. S2iiii'n’s reply was that the Government were exceedingly anxious to pass the Bill as a whole, and that it was not desirable to take part out of it. In other words, the object of the Government is, as we have thought all along, land transfer, and they are not disposed to give all the jam out of the tart to the Liberal side of the House this year in order to find the “discussion ” of the crust exclusively reserved for them next session. In reply to Mr. H. FOWLER the next night, Mr. SMIIII stated that he was aware that the Conveyancing Act and Settled Land Acts had been very carefully considered by a select committee, and that it would tend to the advantage of the Land Transfer Bill if a similar course could now be pursued also. The second reading (fixed for last Thursday) is accordingly put ofl‘ for the Government to consider the question. A select committee would be useful, but the committee suggested by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society would be much better. Meanwhile, it may be observed that this amending Act bids fair to outgrow its parent stem before it passes into law. Though its number of sections is only 69 and 2 schedules as against 129 in the Act of 1875, yet, if pages are counted, the 1875 Act is only 38, while the present Bill has got to 34, and is still growing.

[ocr errors]

Ir WFLL ss. sum from the report of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society (ante, p. 631) that the Bill which the Council are promoting with a view to protect purchasers against the danger disclosed in the case of Re Pops (d4 W. R. 654, 693, 17 Q. B. D. 743), proposes to make all writs, processes of execution, and orders for enforcing judgments, statutes,_or recognizances void as against a purchaser for value unless registered at the Central Otfice, and also provides that a bankruptcy shall not affect a purchaser for value unless the receiving order is registered. The Bill also protects purchasers against statutory charges for improvements, drainage, or other purposes, unless they are registered at the Central Office ; and provides that the clauses of the Conveyancing Act, 1082, as to Ofliclfll Searches shall apply to the registers and entries proposed to be created and made; and also provides for the making of'general rules by the judges and the presidents for the 't1ll16 being of the Incorporated Law Society and one of the provincial law societies, following in this respect the precedent of the 50liC1t0TBRem11"9"1t1°11 Act 1881. We regret extremely that the Lord Chancellor has not seeii his way to aflording facilities for the introduction of this Bill during the present session. We believe that, notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to explain away Re Pope, the remark with which our recent series of articles on Searches commenced--viz., that “no purchaser of land can safely pay his purchase-money ”—is now admitted to be correct. Surely this state of things calls for immediate remedy, and we should have thought that the efiect which the amend_inent_ proposed by the Bill Wpuld have in facilitating the first registration of land under any and transfer system would have inclined the present Governmenttitfi promote the Bill by all the means _in its power. Strangerds _ does it seem that no effectual provision should_have been ma e an the Land Transfer Bill for removing the difiicult)’ “aglgar 5


registered land. Clause 24, providing for the registration of rights in or overland, enables provision to be made by rules for registering in subsidiary registers (interalia) “ (d.) any writ, execution, process, or order affecting the land ” ; but the benefit of th_is provision is destroyed by the subsequent clause—“ (2) Nothing_ in this Act, or in any rules under this Act, shall make registration under this section compulsory.” It would seem to be the simplest matter in the world to take (d.) out of this section and make a distinct section of it, providing that any writ, &c., affecting the land shall be registered. This would afford a satisfactory remedy as regards registered land; but we hope to see the more general proposals of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society passed into law next session.

Ouii READERS will find a case of Harvey v. Olliuer reported in another column, relating to the costs which will be allowed on an appointment of new trustees. There has been a singular lack of authority on some of the questions involved in the decision, and disputes with regard to them have not been infrequent. On the first point noticed by Mr. Justice KAY, however, we apprehend there could be no doubt. The proper costs of appointing new trustees, undera power contained in the instrument creating the trust, always fall on the trust estate. This seems to have been regarded as settled so long ago as 1859, for Sir J oun R0iiiLi.Y, M.R., said, in Carter v. Sfibfllqllf (26 Beav., at p. 376), that, on an appointment of new trustees, “ the costs are paid out of the estate generally, or out of corpus.” But the question of difliculty always is, What are proper costs? We should have thought that the costs of the donee of the power, consisting of the bill of the solicitor acting for the donee, relating to obtaining the consents of, and appointing, the new trustees, were unquestionably proper ; and, except on the technical ground taken by the taxing master, we are at a. loss to see how these costs (apart, of course, from particular items) could be said to be improper. But the new trustees had paid to the executor of the last surviving trustee expenses incprred by him before the appointment of new trustees, in connection with the administration and proposed transfer of the trust estate. The executor refused to transfer the trust estate until these costs had been paid. Mr. Justice KAY allowed these costs, saying that_it was for the defendants to shew that they were not charges which the original trustees were entitled to make against the trust estate, and the defendants had not shewn this. Again, the new trustees had incurred costs in examining by their own solicitor into the condition of the trust estate (which consisted, we believe, largely of investments on mortgage) and into the validity pf their appo_intment._ These costs also were allowed, the learned judge remarking_that_ it was not only the right, but the duty, of new trustees to inquire into the condition of the estate of which they were to be trustees. The case was one of great complication, and we have not been able hitherto to ascertain the details of the costs ; but it_ seems probable that there may be ultimately extracted from the decision some principles which will be of service to the advisers of new trustees.


Fsimaas will be distressed to learn that mushroom-gathering is not a criminal offence. It was held in the recent case of Gardner (Appellant); Mansbridge (Respondent), that mushroom-gathering was not within the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97). The information was laid under section 52 of the Act, which enacts that“ whosoever shall wilfully or molioiousl commit any damage, injury, or spoil to or upon any real oi personal property whatsoever for which no pllnisliment is ho;-oin. before provided " [i'.e., in the preceding sections of the Act which embrace most imaginable specific injuries to specific kinds of property] shall, on conviction thereof, either be Oolnmitted to prison o_i- forfeit and pay such sum, not exceeding five pounds og to the justice shall seem meet. In Mr. G.iiinxEii’s case the mushrooms grew in n wild state on his farm, and were ‘a source of profit to him. The respondent picked mushrooms to the value of two_shillings. but did no damage to the grass or fences The ]l1TitlC§lB dismissed a summons under the section above mentioned

. Y I an t o court (A. L. Suirii and “ILLS, _]J_) has held that they


were right, on the ground that, to constitute an offence of damaging real property within the section, there must be actual damage to the realty itself, and that mere damage to the product growing upon the realty was insuflicient. From the occurrence of the word “spoil” in the section, we have some doubt as to the correctness of the decision, and it is at any rate to be regretted that, the case being a criminal one, no appeal lies. The offence apparently cannot be brought within any of the sections (ss. 31-37) of the Larceny Act, 1861, which deal with “ larceny of things attached to or growing on land," those sections only applying to t-recs or shrubs or cultivated roots or plants. There is therefore apparently no criminal remedy for the farmer who has his mushrooms gathered and taken away at once in the usual way, but he has a civil remedy, which will usually be practically worthless.

A novnr. ronvr of divorce practice arose before Sir Juiss HANNEN last Saturday in a case of Story v. Story and O'Connor. The petitioner sued for a dissolution of marriage and for damages, while the respondent made recriminatory charges of adultery against her husband. The jury found that the respondent and co-respondent had been guilty of adultery, and they assessed the damages at £300; but they also found that the petitioner had committed adultery, and thereupon the President, acting under the provision of section 3l of the Divorce Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), that “ the court shall not be bound to pronounce such decree if it shall find that the petitioner has, during the marriage, been guilty of adultery,” dismissed the petition. Then arose the question as to the efiect of this decision upon the co-respondent, who, in his answer, had not denied the acts of adultery, but only the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. There was no authority on the point, but it was suggested that, since section 38 of the Divorce Act, 1857, enables a husband to claim damages from an adulterer, “either in a petition for dissolution of marriage or for judicial separation, or in a petition limited to such object only,” the corespondent could not avail himself of the circumstances which had caused the court to dismiss the petition, the two issues being independent of one another; but the President held that the refusal of the decree involved the failure of the petitioner’s right to damages.


NOTHING illustrates better the mode in which the common law of this country has adapted itself to the requirements of a mercantile community tlian the treatment by the courts of the claims of commission agents or middlemen. To the bare employment to sell a house, an estate, or a ship the law has attached anumber of implied terms and stipulations, which it would take very many words to express, but which the daily practice of business men has shewn to be necessarily involved in the transaction. Thus a contract on the face of it simple, involving but one consideration and a corresponding promise, becomes in a court of law a complex and somewhat intricate agreement, with many stipulations on either side.

To illustrate this we will consider the ordinary case, of most usual occurrence, where the owner of a property simply requesffi an estate agent to find a purchaser. Here, of course, there is 1111 implied promise to pay for the services of the agent, and at first sight this is all that the contract discloses. But the disputes which have arisen as to the rights of the parties under an agreement apparently so simple have been as numerous as, perhaps, have arisen in connection with any kind of transaction, and have resulted in the evolution of many implied stipulations which lay dormant under the simple form of contract, until one by one they have been exposed in deference to the exigencies of justice or the acknowledged practice of the business concerned. It will not be out of place to state as briefly, but as exhaustively, as possible what, according to well-known and long approved decisions, 15 really the engagement involved in the bare employment ofan Bgfllt to let or sell property.

The employer is at liberty to emplov as many other agents as he likes to do the same oflice, and if any other agent succeeds in performing the service, with however little labour, there is no liability t0 him who was first engaged, how evcr great the trouble and expo11B°i°

which the agent first employed may have been put. As it is ex- If I W

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

pressed, the agent or middleman is paid for the success of the services which he offers to give. In this respect the contract is anomalous and in antagonim to the fundamental principle which entitles a man to remuneration '\which he has undertakeg<at another's request. ’

Another respect in which the contract of the middleman is

anomalous is this, that he has no right to insist upon a continuance of the authority given him, nor, if it is withdrawn, can he rely upon the averment that he was ready and willing to perform the contract entered into. In Simpson v. Lamb (4 W. R. 328, 17 O. B. 603) the defendant employed the plaintifi, a clerical agent, to sell an advowson for him for commission at the rate of five per cent. on the purchase-money. The defendant afterwards, without communicating with the agent, sold the living himself to a person with whom the agent had had no communication. The agent sued for wrongful revocation of authority. It was held that he could not recover, as an agent's authority is not “coupled with an interest,” but it was intimated by the court that, had he incurred trouble or expense, he would have» been entitled to compensation. As we have seen, even this right would not have remained to him had the principal sold through another agent. _ Such being some of the more important stipulations attaching by implication to the bare employment of middlemen, it is unnecessary to say that all or any of these may be excluded by express agreement of the parties. In the words of Lord Justice Bowen in a recent case in the Court of Appeal (Millor v. Toulm1'n,* 34 W. R. 695, 17 Q. B. D. 603) :—" Without special words in each particular ease, the mere approach of the employer to the person who is employed, if the person employed is a middleman, is suflicient to raise the inference that the contract is in the usual form, and the ordinary form has been by habits of business crystallized into that form of contract; but a person, even in regard to these contracts, may make a contfflot in a special form if he chooses: he need not adopt the ordmary terms of employment into which the habits of business men have moulded the implied contract. It is for a jury to say what is the contract in such eases.”

In the great majority of cases which have come before the courts it has happened that the contract was the ordinary one, resulting from bare employment without special terms. The question for decision has generally had reference to the performance of It. It is of frequent occurrence for an owner who has property to 59111 18¢, or pledge to deal with persons with whom he has been bfmlghli _m contact by the action of the agent, but with whom he negotiates directly. In the decision of such cases the courts follow the rule that it is the introduction which is to be regarded, rather than the conduct of the negotiations or the completion of the contract. Thus, in the case of Green v. Ba/lletl (14 C. B. N. S. 681), where an agent was employed to sell the Island of Herm on the terms that he should be paid commission on the price if he sold it, but if he failed he should he paid _£25 to cover expenses, it appeared that the agent, having failed to dispose of the property at the auction held for the P‘"'P°f9, the principal afterwards withdrew the property from the "Sent! hands, paying him the £25. The owner subsequently 5°15 E0 8. person who had heard of him and his property at the aent B motion room. The court held that the agent, under these c1!'C\1mSt8l1C85, was entitled to the commission on the sale price, “P°1} the ground that the relation of buyer and seller between the parties was really brought about by him. The effect of this case, as SW95 by Willes, J., in Curtis v. 1Vi.ron (24 L. T. 706), is to wbstltllle the agreement made by the owner for that which the afiehll would have made. The case of Mansell v. Ulements (9 5- P- 1§9) illustrates how strong is the claim of an agent through whose action a purchaser has been put in treaty with his principal, '“1dh°W_little will entitle him to his full commission in such a gas?» while from Wilkinson v. Alston (48 L. J. C. I’. 733) it is to .°t€“lher_d that his claim will not be defeated on account of the "1 ervention of other persons between him and the buyer. The Ease Of JlIilla_r v. Toulmin involves an interesting question on one t£*‘l3?l1_°§ this subject, on which we refrain from comment until

‘it e°lB10_l1 of the House of Lords has been given.

_ {oinains only to add that the agent will not forfeit his right to gnmission because the bargain between the principal parties falls


' This case is now being heard on appeal in the House of Lords.


through, provided he has introduced a person willing to fulfil the conditions of the bargain which he was employed to negotiate (Fisher v. Drewett, 27 W. R. 12; Pricketl v. Badger, 5 W. R. 117, 1 C. B. N. S. 296)._ In the words of Lord Cairns in Green y. Lucas (33 L. T. 584) it would be forcing the liability of agents if they were to be held liable for what happened after the introduction. If the contract goes ofi from the caprice of the principal or the infirmity of his title, it is immaterial to the agent.



Sir,-Will you permit me to correct a. serious error made last week by your reporter? I did not state at the annual meeting of the Incorporated Law Society that the society’s income had increased. The reverse is the case. I stated at that meeting that it has decreased £124 9s. 1d. These figures have been oflicially admitted to be correct.

I will, with your leave, take this opportunity of saying that I regard Mr. Peiinington’s explanation of the increase in the expenditure on certain items from £2,936 10s. 8d. in 1884 to £5,503 2s. 4d. in 1886 as most unsatisfactory and incomplete. Vague assertions that the council has spent a large sum of money over the distribution of “ rules ” are not snflicient. The finances of the society will never be on a satisfactory basis until the council recognize that it is their duty to give much fuller details of their expenditure and to explain in their report the reason for any abnorma disbursement.

I will not now say anything about the duty of properly allocating the society’s expenditure on “articled clerks" and “registration,” although it is remarkable that a similar allocation is always made by the General Medical Council. Are doctors better accountants than lawyers? W. P. W. PIIILLIMOBE, M.A., B.G.L.

[ocr errors]

THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION. [To the Editor of the Solicitors’ J'ou'rnal.]

Sir,—I ani directed by the council to inclose to you _for publication a prospectus of the Prelini_ina.i'y Examuiation embodying the new regulations which will come mto force on and from the lst


of January, 188s. _

The regulations as they now stand vary the former regulations only to the following extent :— _ _ _ _ _

(1) Candidates are given the option of taking, in addition to elementary Latin, two languages as heretofore, or of taking one language only with algebra, inclusive of simple equations and the first four books of Euclid. _

(2) In the langua e examinations, instead of passages being set from books preyiouslyspecified, as hitherto, (passages will be set for translation at sight, with the assistance of a ictionary.

Assistant Secretary.

Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, W.C.,

20th July.

The following is the prospectus referred to :—

SUBJECTS or Eiramrxarion DI THE YEAR 1888.

1. Writing from dictation. _ _

2. \Vriting a short English composition._

3. (a) The first four rules of arithmetic, simple and compound ; the rule of three; and decimal and vulgar fractions; (b) algebra up _to and inclusive of simple equations, and the first four books of Euclid.

4. Geography of Europe and History of England.

'. ' — 1 l - .

Z iiiduiin; l3\1:(:llflfil;:yl19¢g€S to be selected by the candidate out of thelfollowing six—riamely, (1) Latin, (2) Greek—-Ancient, (3) French,

. S - 11, c It 1' . ‘ (4)lVcilt3hni:iie,r<gili:e Itilintlhe siilijecltslhliimbered 3 and 6, no candidate is obliged to take up algebra or Euclid (No. 31:), but if any candidate elects to do so, he may take up these with one only of the languages

[ocr errors]

Shrewsbury, Swansea, Worcester, York.


Candidates are required to give, at least 30 days before tho day appointed for the examination, notice to the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, of the languages i.n which they propose to be examined, the town at which they wish to be examined, and their age and resirierice, and place or mode of education.

All notices should be addressed to the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, W.C.

Candidates who fail to pass, or attend at the examination for which they have given notice, may attend at any subsequent examination. A renewed notice must, in that case, be given fourteen days at least before the date of such subsequent examination.

[graphic][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

This was an appeal from the decision of a divisional court (Denman and Mathew, JJ.), reported 3a \V, R 497. The plaintiffs were the trustees underfhe will of E. J. Esdsile, and, as such, were possessed of his interest in the annual sum of £6,600, payable under the following circumstances. The Act_3l Hen. 8, c. 12, provided for the annual payment to the clergy of cerfainsums of money (which were in the Act called tithes) in resgzect of houses in the pai'is_h of St. Botolph Without, Aldgate. In 1881 . J. Idsdaile was the lay impropriator of those tithes or sums of 11%°%@_Y» B1111 111 that year, by th_e St. BOl.0lph Without, Aldgate, Act (44 8: 4 ict. c. cxcvii.), it was provided that the annual sum of £6,500 should be paid to the lay impropriator instead of such annual tithes or sums of Eoppy, and tlxt such sum should be levied on the persons bylaw rateable to the poor rat s_ in that parish. In June, 1095, the plaintiffs were rated

gpoop rs ein respect of the sum of £6,aO0 as lay impropriators. It pa-sth mirte; fthat the tithes or sums of money had never been assessed qrth e re ierho the_ poor, and that no one had ever been rated in respect téellfigglhA8BB£nd£:ln§h1::l0:%p:llled dgthnst the 1mteQ1a1;li,d' nae Court of

owe e a ea an eir ecision

upheld by the Divisional Court. PP ' was

TIRE C_o§IR'r (Lord Esncn, M.R , Li.\' and Lorizs, L.JJ.) affirmed their decision. Lord Esusn, li1.R., said that, in order to make this sum glfngntguezy rateable, it must be shewn that it represented tithes within ~13 th . . or payments in lieu of such tithes as were made rateable by

at Act. It was clear that the sums of money which were now repi-Q. tinted ‘the annual payment of £0,500 were not tithes in the ordinary Bhlélis shat tsilword. They were_not payable on land, but on houses. To that mhes may warp gaymelpts is lieu of_ tithes, however, it must be proved, that tithes hadcigs e band ad slencxtinguislied. There was ii_o evidence there an eviden etll tetellhpalizde in the city of London; my ks? was and “myth cc ia i es existed thereaiid had been extinguished,

4. ese payments had been substituted for them. It appeared far gplrc likely that these were personal payments for the support of the

gy which were not rateable, and this view received confirmation fr

the fact that these payments had never been assessed to the oo in LINDLBY, L.J., said it would be contrary to the intention of the lature to make the annual sum of £6,500 rateable if those a menlgliii-i respect of which it was given were not rateable. It was 1?!0Z8(1'bl‘s ‘f those payments were rateable, that they would not have been ratedli ii, i and it was a fair inference from that fact that they had never b e me’ sidcred as falling within 43 Eliz. o. 2. LOVES L J said that them connients had none of the attributes of tithes, whichlwere char esese llmyd and recoverable by distress. If they were payments in liei ¥n.€‘,:’ there ought to be some proof of the existence at one time of tzth I as which they had been substituted.— Covsasi. Sir Edward Cla -l.- S Q for John llendrrsofl; Sir R. E. Webster, A.G., 8,1111 Sidn W9 I 0'3 ' Qand Bag/[is Q Pearce; Winter-1 Q Go. W 0f' ' 0Ln'“0Rs'

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

in a contract made by the commissioners under the authority of such Acts. The defence set up was, infer alia, that the defendant had not received notice of action as required by section 264 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and also that the plaintiff had not obtained the consent of the AttorneyGeneral to the action, as required by the Public Health (Members and Ofiicers) Act, 1885. By certain local Acts which incorporated the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847, a board of improvement commissioners was constituted for the district of Abergavenny, which by virtue of the Public Health Act, 1875, became the urban sanitary authority within such district. The defendant was a member of such board, and had actcd as such by voting for the imposition of an Improvement Act district rate. The expenses to meet which the rate was made, were, some of them, expenses authorized to be incurred by the local Acts only, some of them authorized to be incurred by the Public Health Act only, and some of them authorized both by the local Acts and the Public Health Act. The plaintifi alleged that the defendant, when so acting, was disqualified by reason of his being lessee from the commissioners of certain premises. The sole question dealt with at the trial was whether the restrictions imposed by the Public Health Act on actions against members of urban sanitary authorities applied to acts done by a member of a board of improvement commissioners, being an urban sanitary authority, in the exercise of the powers of the local Acts. The defendant had not received any notice of action, nor had leave to bring the action been obtained from the Attorney-General. Wills, J., held that the effect of the Public Health Act was to reconstitute the improvement commissioners as new bodies under the Act, and that, therefore, such commissioners, when subsequently acting in exercise of the statutory powers conferred by the local Acts, were acting under the Public Health Act, and were entitled to the protection and privileges given by that Act, and he gave judgment for the defendant accordingly. The plaintifi appealed.

Tun Counr (Lord Esiiim, M.R., LINDLEY and LOPB8, LJJ.) dismissed the appeal. Lord Esiisa, M.R., said that two points were raised, first, that the defendant was at the time he acted in point of law not a member of the urban sanitary authority, in consequence of some disqualification, and, secondly, that what he did was done under the local Acts, and not under the Public Health Act, 1875. As to the first point, the evidence was clear that, even if he was disqualified, the defendant ban/ifide believed that he was a member of the urban sanitary authority, and acted accordingly. That brought him within the case of Hughes v. Iiuvklami (15 M. & W. 346), which decided that a ersou acting under a bonri fide belief was entitled to protection. As to the second point, section 10 of the Public Health Act, 1875, had transferred all rights and powers of a board of improvement commissioners to the sanitary authorities appointed by that Act, and, therefore, when the urban sanitary authority assumed to act under the local Acts, they were in reality acting under the Public Health Act, 1875, and were entitled to the protection given by that Act and by the Act of 1885. L1.\'DLE\' and Lor-cs, L.JJ., delivered judgment to the same eifect.—Cocz<siai., Cunningham Glen. SOLICITORS, J. F. <9 G. F. Marshall, for Ga-bl: Q Walfurd.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Action on a promissory note for £200, payable on demand. In 1876 the defendant’s father borrowed £200 from the plaintiff, and in 1877, when the defendant came of age, the plaintiff brought a blank stamped form of promissory note to the houso where the defendant and his father were living. There was no evidence as to what occurred then, except that the promissory note was filled in and signed by the defendant and his father as security for the above loan of £200 in the following f0l'H1Z—“w9| jointly and severally, promise to pay to VV. Crears or his order £200, bemg money lent, with interest on same, half-yearly, at the rate of 5 per 081117per annum." The father having died, the plaintiff now sued the defendant upon the note, and the defence set up was no consideration. The jury were of opinion that the defendant signed the note in order that the plaintifif might give time to the father to pay the £200, and the plaintiff did give time. A. L. Smith, J ., entered judgment for the plaintiff, but the Divisional Court entered judgment for the defendant, on the ground that there was no consideration for the defendant's signature. The plaintiff appealed. Crafts v. Beale (11 O. B. 172), Olderahaw v. King (2 H. 6: N. 517), and illiles V. Ncw Zeuland Alford Estate 6'0. (34 \V. R. G69, 32 Ch. D266) were cited.

Tue Couar allowed the appeal. Lord ESHER, l\I.R., said that l-11011811 the promissory note on its face did not delay payment of the £200, yet. from the provision as to payment of interest, it shewed that it was intended by the parties that it was not to be sued on at once. There was no HERE‘ ment by the plaintiff not to sue the father, but the substance of the transaction was that if the defendant signed the note as surety the plaiulilf would forbear from suing the father. If a person requests a creditor to forbear from suing the original debtor, and the creditor, though he I109! not bind himself to forbear, does, as a fact, forbear from suing the debtor. that constitutes a good consideration for that other person bcc0ml{18 Euflfflutor. It was not necessary that there should be a binding Prflmlm to forbear. The case of Okla-.i.'iuw v. King shewed that. The request to forb_ear need not be express, but might be implied from the surrouudillfi circumstances. In this case there was evidence from which the jury mlglli infer such ii request, and, as a matter of fact, the plaintifi did forbeflf from suing the father. The judgment of the Divisional Court muflli be reversed, and the verdict of the jury restored. and LOPBS» L.JJ., concurred.—Couxsizi., French, Q C., and Jllattinmn; Gully, Q~O'9

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »