Page images
PDF
EPUB

FLETCHER, JOHN, Yardley, Worces, Jeweller. July 29 at 11. 25, Colmore row,
Birmingham
GAUNT, WILLIAM. Bradford, Commission Agent. July 27 at 12. Off Rec, 31,
Manor row, Bradford

GEGORY, JOHN, sen, and JOHN GREGORY, jun, Birmingham, Manufacturers of
Horticultural Buildings. Aug 3 at 11. 25, Colmore row, Birmingham
GREGORY, JOHN, jun (Sep Estate), Birmingham, Manufacturer of Horticultural
Buildings. Aug 3 at 11. 25, Colmore row, Birmingham
GREGORY, JOHN, sen (Sep Estate), Birmingham, Manufacturer of Horticultural
Buildings. Aug 3 at 11. 25, Colmore row. Birmingham
HAMPTON, JAMES, Bush Hill pk, Enfield, Builder. July 26 at 11. 16, Room, 30
and 31, St Swithin's lane

HARPER, JAMES, Moseley, Worcester, Commercial Traveller. July 28 at 11. 25,
Colmore row, Birmingham

HILLIARD, WILLIAM BENJAMIN, Wallingford, Berks, Coal Merchant.

11 30. Off Rec, 1, 8t Aldates, Oxford

July 27 at

JACOB, ERNEST AUGUSTUS, Butleigh, Somerset, out of business. July 28 at 1. Off Rec, Bank chmbrs, Bristol

LIGHTFOOT, WILLIAM, Stockton on Tees, Implement Dealer. Aug 2 at 12.15. Station Hotel. York

LUSH, JOHN STEPHEN BULWARK, Pontypridd, Glamorgan, Clothier. July 28 at 11. Bankruptcy bdgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields

MANWARING, GEORGE FREDERICK, Chatham, Commercial Traveller. July 26 at 11.30. Off Rec, High st, Rochester

MITCHELL, THOMAS, Oldham, Architect. July 26 at 11.30. Off Rec, Ogden chbrs, Bridge st, Manchester

MORRIS, THOMAS, Monmouth, Grocer. July 27 at 12. Off Rec, 12, Tredegar pl, Newport, Mon

MOSES, JOHN, juu, Hebden Bridge, Yorks, Mason. July 27 at 1. White Horse Hotel, Hebden Bridge

MUIRHEAD, ROBERT DALRYMPLE STEWART, Onslow sq, South Kensington. July

28 at 12. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn

PORTER, ALFRED, Streatham hill, Nurserymen. July 26 at 3. 109, Victoria st, Westminster

RIELLY, HUGH JOSEPH, Stockton on Tees, Grocer. Aug 2 11.15.

Albert rd, Middlesborough

Off Rec, 8,

[blocks in formation]

BAILEY, FRANCIS EDWIN, Tamworth, Warwickshire, Ironmonger. Birmingham. Pet July 15. Ord July 15

BASTOW, THOMAS WILLIAM, South Brent, Devon, Carrier. East Stonehouse. Pet July 13. Ord July 15

BEESLEY, JOHN, Reading, Upholsterer. Reading. Pet July 13. Ord July 13 BEILBY, JAMES, Leamington Priors, Gilder. Warwick. Pet July 7. Ord July 15 BIDDER, HENRY, Pembroke Dock, Grocer. Pembroke Dock. Pet July 11. Ord July 16

BOSWELL, BENJAMIN RAWLINS, Knighton, Leicestershire, Builder. Leicester. Pet June 30. Ord July 16

BRIERLEY, JOHN THOMAS, Oldham, Accountant. Oldham. Pet July 8. Ord July 14

BURNETT, JOHN, West Melton, near Rotherham, Provision Merchant. Sheffield.
Pet July 14. Ord July 14

BURY, SYDNEY JOHN, Union ct, Old Broad st, Auctioneer. High Court. Pet
May 28, Ord July 15
CARELESS, RICHARD, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, Commission Agent.
Banbury. Pet July 15. Ord July 16

COPE, JOHN, Rhuddall Heath, nr Tarporley, Cheshire, Joiner. Nantwich and
Crewe. Pet June 1. Ord July 5

COWPER, WILLIAM, Campsall, Yorks, Builder. Sheffield. Pet July 14. Ord July 14

Cox, EDWARD BURTON, EDWARD JOSHUA COX, and EBENEZER COX, Marlborough rd, Drapers. High Court. Pet May 3. Ord July 15

ELLISON, WILLIAM, North Shields, Grocer. Newcastle on Tyne. Pet July 16. Ord July 16

EVANS, JOHN, Swansea, Licensed Victualler. Swansea. Pet July 14. Ord July 15 EVANS, THOMAS, Swansea, Draper. Swansea. Pet July 11. Ord July 15 FREEMAN, WILLIAM CHARLES, Leadenhall st, Merchant. High Court. Pet July 14. Ord July 14

FULLER, WILLIAM STEPHEN, Worthing, Coachbuilder. Brighton. Pet July 15. Ord July 15

GALE, GEORGE, Tredegar, Mon, Butcher. Tredegar. Pet July 12. Ord July 15
GHENT, WILLIAM HEWETT, Sackville st. Piccadilly, Lodging house Keeper.
High Court. Pet May 10. Ord July 15

HILLIARD, WILLIAM BENJAMIN, Wallingford, Berks, Coal Merchant. Oxford.
Pet July 9. Ord July 15
HOBSON, HORACE, Sheffield, Painter. Sheffield. Pet July 15. Ord July 15
HOGBEN, THOMAS, Hawkinge, nr Folkestone, Veterinary Surgeon. Canterbury.
Pet July 16. Ord July 16

IVES, GEORGE. New Scarborough, nr Wakefield, Grease Manufacturer. Wakefield. Pet July 14. Ord July 14

JACOB, ERNEST AUGUSTUS. Butleigh, Somersetshire, out of business. Wells. Pet July 11. Ord July 15

JACOBSKOTTER, WILLIAM, Toxteth pk, Lancs, Mercantile Manager. Liverpool.
Pet July 6. Ord July 14
JOHNSON, GEORGE. High st, Godalming, Chemist. Guildford and Godalming.
Pet July 14. Ord July 14
JONES. JOHN OWEN, Bachellaeth, Carnarvon, Farmer. Bangor. Pet June 9.
Ord July 15
LIGHTFOOT. WILLIAM, Stockton on Tees, Implement Dealer. Stockton on Tees
and Middlesborough. Pet July 1. Ord July 14
LYONS, SAMUEL, Crewe, Cheshire, Fitter. Nantwich and Crewe. Pet July 14.
Ord July 14
MOLYNEAUX, JOHN, Chorley, Lancs, Licensed Victualler. Bolton. Pot July 16.
Ord July 16

MORRIS, THOMAS, Monmouth, Grocer. Newport, Mon. Pet July 11. Ord
July 15
MUIRHEAD, ROBERT DALRYMPLE STEWART, Onslow sq, South Kensington.
High Court. Pet May 14. Ord July 15

PARKER, ROBERT CLINCE, Macclesfield, Grocer. Macclesfield. Pet July 13. Ord
July 14
RIELLY, HUGH JOSEPH, Stockton on Tees, Grocer. Stockton on Tees and Mid-
dlesborough. Pet June 30. Ord July 14

ROBERTS, JOSEPH, Hartland rd, West Ham, Builder. High Court. Pet May 19.
Ord July 14

SHAW, SAMUEL, Heaton Norris, Lancs, Coal Merchant. Stockport. Pet July 14. Ord July 15

SIDEY, JAMES, Ashford, Kent, Plasterer. Canterbury. Pet July 13. Ord July 13 VAN DEN BORG, JOHN, Tredegar rd, Bow, Boot Manufacturer. High Court. Pet July 9. Ord July 16

WILSON, ANN FRANCES, Mountsorrel, Leicestershire, Draper. Leicester. Pet June 25. Ord July 12

ADJUDICATION ANNULLED.

LAWLESS. HENRY JOSEPH, Broughton, nr Manchester, Brewer's Traveller. Manchester. Adjud Oct 2. Annul July 14

SALES OF ENSUING WEEK.

July 25.-Messrs. BAKER & SON, at the Spotted Dog Inn, Barking, at 7 p.m., Freehold Building Land (see advertisement, July 9, p. 4).

July 25-Messrs. EDMUND ROBINS & HINE, at the Mart, Freehold Properties, Valuable Life Interest in Landed Estates, Freehold Ground-rents (see advertisement, July 9, p 3).

July 27.-Messrs. ALFRED SAVILL & SON, at the Mart, Freehold Building Estate (see advertisement, July 23, p. 4). July 27.-Messrs. EDWIN Fox & BOUSFIELD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold and Freehold Properties (see advertisement, July 16, p. 4).

July 27.-Messrs. FAREBROTHER, ELLIS, CLARK, & Co., at the Mart, Residential Estate (see advertisement, July 2, p. 4).

July 27.-Mr. JOHN DAVIES, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Property (see advertisement, July 23, p. 4).

July 28.-Messrs. PERKINS & CESAR, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold and Leasehold Properties (see advertisement, July 23, p. 4).

July 29.-Messrs. BUCKLAND & Co., at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Residence (see advertisement, July 23, p. 4).

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

ODGERS.-July 19, at Fitzjohn's-avenue, Hampstead, the wife of W. Blake
Odgers, barrister-at-law, of a son.
OGLE.-July 14, at Adelaide-road, N. W., the wife of John Ogie, barrister-at-
law, of a daughter.
MALLESON. July 18, at Pitt-street, Campden-hill, Kensington, the wife of
Mortimer Drewe Malleson, barrister at-law, of a daughter.
STABKEY.-July 17, at Ladbroke-grove, W.. the wife of F. Vere Starkey,
barrister-at-law, of a son.

MARRIAGE.

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

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA.
Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder.
Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality,

with the excess of fat extracted.
The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, per-
fectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or
Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children.'

Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps for years in all climates, and is four times the strength cf cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.

Made instantaneously with boiling water, a te spoonful
to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny.
COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible,
cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when
richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tins at 1s. 6d., 38., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and
Grocers.

Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietor,
H. SCHWEITZER & Co., 10, Adam-st., Strand, London, W.C.

AW LECTURES.-The Liverpool Board tions by Gentlemen willing to deliver at Liverpool during the Session 1887-8 a course of 10 Lectures on Jurisprudence. Fee. £75 (inclusive of travelling expenses). Address, the SECRETARY OF THE BOARD, Law Library, Liverpool.

EDUCATION.To Solicitors and other

Professional Men and Gentlemen of Limited Income.-A few boys, sons of the above, are admitted into a well-known School of high tone on greatly reduced fees.-For full particulars address, in strict confidence, "Mu." care of Messrs. Relfe Bros., 6, Charterhouse-buildings, Aldersgate, City, E.C.

IF you want Money without Fees-amounts

£10 to £1,000-before applying elsewhere see Mr. O. CLIBURN, personally if possible, 43, Great Towerstreet.

IMP

MPEDIMENTS of SPEECH.-The Rev. Professor D'ORSEY receives Resident and Visiting Pupils at 13, Prince's-square, W. Consulta tion daily, at 11 o'clock.

ROYAL ALBERT ORPHAN ASYLUM.

MORTGAGE CALLED IN.

A Mortgage for £10,000, amply secured on the Asylum and about 200 acres of Freehold Land at Bagshot, has been necessarily called in for purpose of division among the lender's family.

In obtaining a fresh loan the managing committee are very desirous to reduce the rate of interest, and now seek to learn whether any lender would advance the amount at the rate of Three and a Half (34) per Cent, and so diminish the burden hitherto falling on the annual income of this most useful society. Address, 62, King William-street, E.C.

YAC

RICHARD WITHERBY, Secretary. ACHTING CRUISE to the BALTIC and the GULF of FINLAND.-On completing her cruising programme to the Norwegian Fjords, as previously advertised the Steam Yacht CEYLON." 2,200 tons register, Chas. Edwd. Stewart. R.N.R commander, will leave Gravesend on SATURDAY, 27th of August, for a THIRTY DAYS' Grand CRUISE, to the SCANDINAVIAN CAPITALS, and CRONSTADT. for St. Petersburg. Moscow, and the Great Fair at Nijni-Novgorod, on the Volga. For full particulars address the MANAGER, Yacht " Ceylon" Office, 7, Pall Mall, London, S. W.

A

on

TLANTIC ISLANDS. On October 1st it is intended to despatch the "CEYLON" a THIRTY DAYS' YACHTING CRUISE to MADEIRA, the Canaries (for Santa Cruz and Oratava), and the Azores (St. Michael's), provided forty berths are taken by September 17th. Single berth, £50; whole cabin, £75.

MEDITERRANEAN On February 25th,

1888. a Grand CRUISE of SEVENTY-FIVE DAYS will be made by the Steam Yacht " CEYLON" to various places on the MEDITERRANEAN Shores including Constantinople, the Holy Land, and Egypt, for which early application should be made.-Programmes of the latter two will be issued later on."Ceylon" Office, 7, Pall Mall, London, S.W.

NORWAY.-First-class Passenger Steamer

"NORGE" from NEWCASTLE to BERGEN every Tuesday evening; from Bergen every Saturday evening. Fares: £3 single, £5 return (available any time during the season), including all meals and steward's fees.-BORRIES, CRAIG, & Co., Newcastleon-Tyne.

SUMMER TOURS IN SCOTLAND

[blocks in formation]

HE MORTGAGE INSURANCE COR-
PORATION, LIMITED.
AMOUNT OF CAPITAL SUBSCRIBED, £710,000
Offices of the Corporation-
Winchester House, Old Broad-street, E.C.

Rt. Hon. E. PLEYDELL BOUVERIE, Chairman.
Sir SYDNEY H. WATERLOW, Bart., Deputy-Chairman.
Policies are now being issued by this Corporation
insuring Mortgages of Freehold and Leasehold
Property. holders of Mortgage Debentures and

[blocks in formation]

Debenture Stock, against loss of principai and in- ACCIDENTS AT HOME AND ABROAD

terest.

These Policies will be of especial advantage to Trustees who may be held responsible for losses consequent upon their Investments.

Mortgagors insuring with the Corporation will

Railway Accidents, Employer's Liability,

INSURED AGAINST BY

also be enabled to obtain Advances at the lowest THE RAILWAY PASSENGERS' ASSURANCE COMPANY

possible rate of interest.

holders insuring the return of the Amount invested
The Corporation also grants Policies to Lease-
at the expiration of their leases or at any fixed
periods.

For particulars and conditions of Insurance apply
to the Secretary.
By order,

JAS. C. PRINSEP, Secretary.

SIX per CENT. GUARANTEED MORTGAGE
BONDS.

Lo

OMBARD INVESTMENT COMPANY.
-Capital paid up, 1,000,000 dols.; Liability of
Shareholders, 1,000,000 dols.; Surplus and Reserve
250,000 dols.; Total, 2,250,000 dols. (£450,000).
Head Office-Boston, Mass., Mr. B. Lombard, jun.,
President.

Western Office-Kansas City, Mo. Mr. J. L. Lom-
bard, Vice-President and Manager.
Sole Agent for Great Britain and Ireland-Mr. H.
Ramsden (Ramsden & Austin, Solicitors), 150,
Leadenhall-street, London, E.C.

The Company is prepared to receive money for in-
vestment in First Registered Mortgages of Freeholds
in the States of the United States of America, for five
years, yielding 6 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 Office.

NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY

LONDON: 1, Moorgate-street, E.C. ABERDEEN: 1,

Union-terrace.

INCOME & FUNDS (1886) :

Fire Premiums
Life Premiums
Interest...
Accumulated Funds

LA

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

AW UNION FIRE and LIFE INSU-
RANCE COMPANY.

ESTABLISHED IN THE YEAR 1854.

The only Law Insurance Office in the United Kingdom
which transacts both Fire and Life Insurance Busi-

ness.

Chief Office

216, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C.
The Funds in hand and Capital Subscribed amount to
upwards of £1,900,000 sterling
Chairman-JAMES CUDDON, Esq., of the Middle
Temple, Barrister-at-Law.
Deputy-Chairman-CHARLES PEMBERTON, Esq. (Lee
& Pembertons), Solicitor, 44, Lincoln's-inn-fields.
The Directors invite attention to the New Form of

GL LASGOW and the HIGHLANDS (Royal Life Policy, which is free from all conditions.

Route via Crinan and Caledonian Canals). Royal Mail Steamer COLUMBA or IONA from Glasgow Daily at 7 a.m., from Greenock at 9 a.m., conveying, in connection with his West Highland Steamers, passengers for Oban, Fort- William. Inverness, Lochawe, Skye. Gairloch, Staffa, Iona, Glencoe, Stornoway, &c. Official Guide, 3d.; Illustrated, 6d. and 1s., by post, or at W. H. Smith & Sons' Railway Bookstalls. Time Bill with Map and Fares free from the owner, DAVID MACBRAYNE, 119, Hope-street, Glasgow.

Policies of Insurance granted against the contin-
gency of Issue at moderate rates of Premium.
The Company ADVANCES Money on Mortgage of
Life Interests and Reversions, whether absolute or
contingent.

The Company also purchases Reversions.
Prospectuses, copies of the Directors' Report and
Annual Balance Sheet, and every information, sent
post-free on application to

FRANK MCGEDY, Actuary and Secretary.

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

Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane. THREE per CENT. INTEREST allowed on DEPOSITS, repayable on demand.

TWO per CENT. INTEREST on CURRENT ACCOUNTS calculated on the minimum monthly balances, when not drawn below £100.

The Bank undertakes for its Customers, free of Charge, the Custody of Deeds, Writings, and other Securities and Valuables; the collection of Bills or Exchange, Dividends, and Coupons; and the purchase and sale of Stocks, Shares, and Annuities. Letters of Credit and Circular Notes issued.

The BIRKBECK ALMANACK, with full particulars, post-free, on application. FRANCIS RAVENSCROFT, Manager.

MESSRS. JOHNSON & DYMOND beg

to announce that their Sales by Auction of Plate, Watches, Chains, Jewellery, Precious Stones, &c., are held on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays.

The attention of Solicitors, Executors, Trustees, and others is particularly called to this ready means for the disposal of Property of deceased and other clients.

In consequence of the frequency of their sales Messrs. J. & D. are enabled to include large or small quantities at short notice (if required).

Sales of Furniture held at private houses. Valuations for Probate or Transfer. Terms on application to the City Auction Rooms (established 1793), 38 and 39, Gracechurch-street, E.C.

Messrs. Johnson & Dymond beg to notify that their Auction Sales of Wearing Apparel, Piece Goods, Household and Office Furniture, Carpets, Bedding, &c., are held on each day of the week Saturday excepted).

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Strick v. Swansea Tin Plate Co.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Trufort, Re, Trafford v. Blanc .... 661 In the Weekly Reporter. Apthorpe v. Apthorpe

725

Esdaile v. City of London Union.. 722 Griffiths v. Justices of Lancaster.. 732 Hendry, In re, Watson v. Blakeney 730 Jack, In re.................................. .................................. 735 Lea v. Facey

.....

721 *******.......... 725

[ocr errors]

Lyell v. Kennedy
Morton. In the Goods of
Paterson, Ex parte. In re Rathbone 735
Reg. v. Licensing Justices of Mar-
ket Bosworth

Roe v. Mutual Loan Fund Associa-
tion

734

723

Towgood Bros. v. Pirie & Sons.... 729

Tunnicliffe v. Birkdale Overseers.. 731 Ward v. Huckle

736

than by being heard (owing, probably, in many cases, to delays caused by lack of judicial strength), while the average number per judge actually heard during each of those three years was 414. If these figures are considered we think it will be seen that there will be ample work for another judge.

COMPLAINTS ARE MADE that the Chancery Paymaster crosses the cheques he sends to parties through the post. Such complaints appear to be most unreasonable. The rule (Supreme Court Funds Rules, 1886, r. 48) makes it a condition that all such cheques shall be crossed so as to be "payable only through a banker," as otherwise the Paymaster would have but little assurance that the money reached the proper hands. Although it would be very unwise to alter this practice, it should be observed that, under the same rule, the Treasury has power to vary the conditions of such pay

The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter.ments from time to time, but we fail to see how they could be altered,

[blocks in formation]

ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED to an interesting letter in another column in which Mr. MUNTON sets out the points taken by the counsel for the Middlesex Registry in the recent case. They do credit to the ingenuity of the learned counsel, but appear to have failed to raise doubt in the minds of the judges. It seems that the case is to be appealed, and that the appellants mean to rely mainly on their novel discovery that the witness to a memorial must not only have attested the execution of the deed by the grantee, but also by the grantor. It is to be hoped that the appeal will be heard before the Long Vacation, as, until the question is settled, practitioners are placed in a somewhat embarrassing position.

LORD SELBORNE's question to the Lord Chancellor on the 21st inst. elicited the information that the appointment of an additional judge of the Chancery Division is delayed only by the state of business in Parliament. The authority for the appointment is to be obtained under section 18 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, which provides that "whenever any two of the paid judges of the Judicial Committee shall have died or resigned, her Majesty may, upon an address from both Houses of Parliament represent ing that the state of business in the High Court of Justice is such as to require the appointment of an additional judge, fill up one of the vacancies created" by the transfer under that Act of three judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. As the vacancy created was in the Queen's Bench Division, we presume that the intention is to appoint a judge to that division, and then, under section 31 of the Judicature Act, 1873, transfer the judge to the Chancery Division. The Lord Chancellor held out some hope that the opportunity for moving the address might occur before the close of the present session; but Mr. W. H. SMITH, on being questioned on the subject, did not give much encouragement to this idea.. It is difficult to see how any serious opposition or lengthy debate could be raised in the House of Commons upon a proposal, relating to the judicial machinery, made by the Lord Chancellor on the authority of a recommendation of the Chancery Chambers Committee, and strongly supported by two ex-Lord Chancellors.

even for the purpose of very small payments, without removing a very material safeguard, especially having regard to the possibility of the Treasury having to replace money improperly paid. It might be suggested that small payments might be made by means of postal orders or post office orders; but these must be paid for, and if the amount paid for an order were to be deducted from the amount paid complaints would increase, and, moreover, the Paymaster would be compelled to make a vast increase in the number of entries in his books, and would have some difficulty in procuring a proper receipt for the money paid. A crossed cheque comes back to the paymaster with the receipt of the payee indorsed.

AN IMPORTANT POINT on the Remuneration Order was decided by Mr. Justice NORTH on Monday in Re Faulkner. Mr. FAULKNER, a solicitor, had been employed by the vendor in connection with the sale of some property, and had done some work preliminary to that done by the auctioneer, who had been employed and paid by the client for conducting the sale by auction. The preliminary work, for which the solicitor made separate charges, consisted of attendances on the auctioneer, preparing advertisements of sale, attending to insert advertisements in newspapers, examining proofs of particulars of sale, attending auction, &c. The question was whether the solicitor, who, of course, was not entitled to the "conducting fee," was entitled to be paid for such preliminary work. The taxing master disallowed the items on the ground that Re Field (33 W. R. 504, 553, 29 Ch. D. 608) and Re Emanu 1 & Simmonds (34 W. R. 613, 33 Ch. D. 40) apply to sales as well as to leases. The case of Re Wilson (29 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 438, 29 Ch. D. 790) was cited to the master, but he considered that it did not affect the question. Objections to the taxation were carried in, but the master adhered to his decision. The attention of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society was then called to the case, and as they considered the principle involved to be an important one to the profession generally, and as the master's contention seemed to them untenable, they supported the solicitor in an appeal, and in the result Mr. Justice NORTH held that Re Wilson applied, and that the taxing master had acted on a wrong principle, and he therefore referred the bill back to him for further consideration as to the propriety of particular items, the learned judge intimating that, if anything which the solicitor had done was properly the auctioneer's work, the solicitor would not be entitled to be paid for it. The gist of the decision appears to be contained in the following extract from the shorthand notes of the judgment:"It seems to me that, if there is anything done by the solicitor which is not auctioneer's work, and which is necessary towards conducting the sale, he ought to receive payment for it. According to the decisions in cases relating to the fee for deducing title when a solicitor has done part of the work, but not the whole, he is not allowed the scale fee, but he is allowed to charge for the work he has done. It seems to me that these cases are authorities for saying that the same rule must be applied to the fee for conducting a sale when the whole of the work has not been done by the expense."

THE STATISTICS given by Lord SELBORNE, in his question asked in
the House of Lords on the subject of the appointment of an
additional judge of the Chancery Division, were in some respects
imperfect. Having carefully gone through the statistics avail-
able, we find that during the last five years the average number of
causes in the Chancery lists at the commencement of each of the
four sittings has been close on 780, making a yearly average of
about 3,120, and that, during the first three of those years (for
which alone the judicial statistics are as yet published), the
average number of causes per judge of the Chancery Division dis-
posed of per annum was 557; and this number includes those THE REPORTS of the committee of the Gloucestershire and Wilt-
causes which appeared in the lists and were disposed of otherwise shire Incorporated Law Society generally contain matter of

solicitor-viz., when an auctioneer has been employed at the client's

interest, and there will be found in the report for the present year a very clear, able, and temperate exposition of the society's grounds of objection to the Land Transfer Bill. The first is, of course, the introduction of compulsion. The committee admit that, if compulsion is to be applied at all, the Bill is as little objectionable as may be, but they point out that this does not make it the less true that if the system should prove to be really for the benefit of landowners, it would need no compulsion to secure its adoption. The second objection is to the requirement that the vendor shall be registered before transfer, which appears to the committee to involve unnecessary expense. We confess we do not understand why this provision of the Bill should have been so strenuously maintained against Lord HERSCHELL'S proposal for amendment. The narrowness of the majority (6 only) by which it was retained in the House of Lords seems to render it probable that the provision will disappear before the Bill passes into law. Among other objections, we are glad to see that the committee lay special stress on the suspicious vagueness of the Bill as to the intended status of solicitors in regard to practice in the Office of Land Registry. The amendment introduced by the Lord Chancellor shortly before the Bill passed the House of Lords, confining the provisions of clause 53 (4), relating to the remuneration by fees of "officers employed on behalf of applicants for registration or other persons dealing with the Land Transfer Office," to examiners of title, surveyors, and other persons as provided by the rules, is still far from satisfactory; and a strong effort will have to be made to supplement it by an express proviso to the effect of the clause we suggested in April last (ante, p. 422), which was taken from the South Australian statute relating to land transfer.

A VENERABLE and learned county court judge, the "father" of the county court bench, has had a very singular adventure. He seems to have wandered from his distant Northern Circuit to this wicked Metropolis, and to have fallen into the hands of an interviewer. He has been made to disclose his opinions as to the extent of his judicial labours and the way in which he has done his judicial work (on which points his opinions are favourable); also on "the British House of Commons" and the "legal bigwigs in town" (on which his opinions are less favourable). His "facial contortions," his "eloquent smile," and his mode of sitting back "somewhat haughtily" in his chair, have also been duly noted, and these opinions and habits have been disclosed in the columns of the Pall Mall Gazette to an eagerly interested public. He has also been represented as holding a conversation on the extension of county court jurisdiction, from which the following are extracts :

back.

It is to be feared that there is undue consolation for "the legal big-wigs," fattening on their country cousins' nourishment, in the consideration that the "light of better days," together with the county court judge's "unshackled hand," are yet "far away in the distance"; and some of them may even venture a doubt as to whether a "local point of view" is, in the abstract, always synonymous with a legal point of view, and whether knowledge of "the fads and fancies of the district" is an essential qualification for the administration of justice. They may, perhaps, suggest that one of the best judges who ever sat on the county court bench (not far from Judge INGHAM's district) was once a legal bigwig in town," ignorant of district "fads and fancies," but with a plentiful supply of legal knowledge and common sense-which, perhaps, are not very bad substitutes.

[ocr errors]

THERE OUGHT TO BE no doubt on the question whether a judge of first instance has power to vary an order made by another judge of equal standing, but an application made to Mr. Justice KEKEWICH On Wednesday last appears to have raised such a doubt. In the case of Kurtz v. Spence (35 W. R. 26, 33 Ch. D. 579) Mr. Justice CHITTY made an order striking out certain specific words from the plaintiff's statement of claim. The application made to Mr. Justice KEKEWICH, to whom the action has been transferred, was for leave to amend the statement of claim by inserting the words that had been struck out. The learned judge, not being satisfied that he had the jurisdiction to make the order, refused the application. It transpired that the application was made to Mr. Justice KEKEWICH, not so much with the expectation of its being granted, as with a view to giving the plaintiff an assured position when applying to the Court of Appeal. It is difficult to see how any hesitation on the part of the learned judge could have arisen. If he has power to vary or reverse an order made by one of his colleagues in the Chancery Division, where is he to draw the line? And how far may he go without infringing on the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal? The latter court will, if necessary, solve this question.

[ocr errors]

REMOTENESS IN BEQUESTS TO CHILDREN. THE case of Re Coppard's Estate, Howlett v. Hodson (35 W. R. 473, 35 Ch. D. 350), ought not, we think, to be passed over with. out notice. The case was this:-A testatrix directed that her trustees should hold one moiety of the residue of her estate "upon trust for the benefit of the children or child of my said nephew, William Hodson, to be vested interests in them as to such of them "Well, and what kind of a tale have you to tell, Judge INGHAM, after as shall be sons or a son on their or his respectively attaining the your lifetime of legal toil? Not a bad one; that which cannot be age of twenty-five years, or being daughters or a daughter on their altered must be tolerated and made the best of. I have always striven or her respectively attaining the said age of twenty-five years, or to do the best with the material at hand. But the ridiculous limit that has been rigidly maintained upon our jurisdiction has been a great draw-respectively being married before that age, which shall first And you propose-what?' 'I propose that our happen.' William Hodson was still living. He had seven chiljurisdiction be extended.' 'But what would be the benefits arising dren, all infants, four having been born in the testatrix's lifetime out of such extension?' 'In the first place a suitor could go to law and three since her death. The eldest daughter of William Hodson without the prospect of ruination in the matter of costs in case of failure. Secondly, we consider ourselves better fitted to deal with local was married in February, 1887. Mr. Justice Stirling held, on the cases from a local point of view than the judges of the higher courts, authority of Elliott v. Elliott (12 Sim. 276), that the fund was who cannot be expected to be conversant with something they never pre- divisible between such of the four children living at the death of viously heard about. In my own case I have worked my present circuit the testatrix as being sons might attain twenty-five or being for forty years, and, knowing the fads and fancies of the districts, I am daughters might attain that age, or marry, and that the daughter better able to grasp the innumerable questions that crop up. Thirdly who married in 1887 had at the present time alone become entitled and most important of all-the judges of the higher courts would be relieved of most of their work, which, as matters go at present, of necessity is subjected to considerable delay. But,' continued Judge INGHAM, with an eloquent smile whose meaning was plain to be seen without a word of text, I don't suppose the judges want easing of any work-in fact, when such a proposal is even broached, they it is who oppose it tooth and nail. The one object seems to be to retain as much work as possible in London.' But surely you don't mean to say, Judge INGHAM, that the legal big-wigs in town are bent upon thriving out of nourishment that really belongs to their country cousins, if the latter were justly dealt with?' 'Indeed I do; that is the very thing. Of course we are supposed to be incapable of dealing with a county court case in which more than £50 is involved-but then that is all nonsense. Far away in the distance, immediately behind a conglomeration of agrarian legislation, is the light of better days, and once the powers of the county court are elaborated and the judges given an unshackled hand the present small debt court will merge into an institution of greatness, dealing with all manner of questions, and wielding a power in the

land.'"

[ocr errors]

to a vested interest.

It is clear that had the age mentioned in the will been twentyone instead of twenty-five, the children born after the death of the testatrix would, subject to fulfilling the condition as to age or marriage, have been entitled to share with the other children. The question to be considered is whether, as such a construction would have made the gift obnoxious to the rule against perpetuities, Mr. Justice Stirling was warranted, on the authority of Elliott v. Elliott, in deciding that the gift was confined to the children living at the testatrix's death, instead of holding that it was altogether void; and we shall endeavour to shew that the decision was not justified. We are not concerned to deny that Elliott v. Elliott was in point as a precedent, but we contend that that case ought not to have been followed.

The learned judge, after noticing that Elliott v. Elliott was

decided in 1841, after argument, and admitting that he had found no case since in which it had been followed, said: "Yet, upon the other hand, I have found none which can be said to be directly in conflict with it, or in which it has been dissented from or even doubted"; and, after referring to the earlier case of Kevern v. Williams (5 Sim. 171) as tending in the same direction, his lordship added, "Therefore I think that, under the circumstances, if Elliott v. Elliott is to be set aside, it is for the Court of Appeal to do it, and not for me."

Now, certainly in one case at least, dissent or doubt was clearly expressed with reference to Elliott v. Elliott by no less able a judge than the late Vice-Chancellor Wigram; for in Mainwaring v. Beevor (8 Hare, at p. 48) he said this:-"If the class is to be confined to the grandchildren in esse at the death of the testatrix the argument is intelligible. In the case of Elliott v. Elliott the Vice-Chancellor seems to have adopted that construction on the ground that it brought the bequest within the rules of law as to remoteness, proceeding, I suppose, upon the principle that where a will admits of two constructions, that is to be preferred which will render it valid. The rules of construction cannot, however, be strained to bring a devise or bequest within the rules of law." It appears to us that, although this was perhaps an obiter dictum, it is a strong condemnation by Vice-Chancellor Wigram of the decision referred to. It appears to us also that the rule for the construction of gifts of the class in question laid down in the House of Lords by Lord Selborne in Pearks v. Moseley (29 W. R. 1, at p. 2, 5 App. Cas. 714, at p. 719) shews that the construction adopted in Elliott v. Elliott was wrong, and confirms what was said by Vice-Chancellor Wigram. Lord Selborne said: "The rule which has always been applied to cases of remoteness is this: you do not import the law of remoteness into the construction of the instrument, by which you investigate the expressed intention of the testator. You take his words, and endeavour to arrive at their meaning, exactly in the same manner as if there had been no such law, and as if the whole intention expressed by the words could lawfully take effect. I do not mean that, in dealing with words which are obscure and ambiguous, weight, even in a question of remoteness, may not sometimes be given to the consideration that it is better to effectuate than to destroy the intention; but I do say that, if the construction of the words is one about which a court would have no doubt though [qu. if] there was no law of remoteness, that construction cannot be altered, or wrested to something different, for the purpose of escaping from the consequences of that law." We think that had the above observations of Vice-Chancellor Wigram and Lord Selborne been present to the mind of Mr. Justice Stirling he would have been well justified in not following Elliott v. Elliott.

question in the suit was whether the gift to the children of T. R. Dimsdale and C. J. Dimsdale was or was not too remote. It does not appear to have occurred to the counsel for the plaintiffs (one of whom was the late Mr. Tinney) to contend that the gift might be limited to children living at the testatrix's death. Their argument, as against the next of kin, was based entirely upon some expressions from which it was conter ded that the vesting was not postponed, but only the payment. The judgment is very short; Lord Langdale, having taken time to read over the will, said that the will was really free from ambiguity; that the vesting was not to take effect till twenty-five or marriage, and that the gift was therefore too remote.

We think we have shewn that Elliott v. Eliott has been dissented from or doubted, but, moreover, we now come to a case "in conflict" with it; we refer to Griffith v. Blunt (4 Beav. 248), decided in the same month as Elliott v. Elliott, not apparently brought to the attention of the court in the principal case, in which a decision on a case almost identical with Re Coppard's Estate was pronounced by Lord Langdale, M.R., quite at variance with Elliott v. Elliott, Lord Langdale having held that the gift was too remote. The case was this: A testatrix gave a third part of her residuary personal estate to trustees in trust to accumulate the same and the interest and to stand possessed of the same and the accumulations "in trust for all and every the child and children of my said two nephews T. R. Dimsdale and C. J. Dimsdale, equally to be divided between or amongst them, if more than one, share and share alike, per capita and not per stirpes, the share or shares of such of them as shall be a son or sons to be an interest or interests vested in him or them respectively at his or their age or respective ages of twenty-five years, and the share or shares of such of them as shall be a daughter or daughters to be an interest or interests vested in her or them respectively at her or their age or respective ages of twenty-five years or day or respective days of marriage with the previous consent of her or their parents or guardians, which shall first happen." The testatrix died in 1832. T. R. Dimsdale and C. J. Dimsdale survived her. The plaintiffs were their only children and were all under the age of twentyfive, and one, who was a daughter, had married with the consent of her father. From the report in 10 L. J. Eq. N. S. it appears (see p. 373) that the youngest child was twelve years old at the institution of the suit in 1840. The

Having regard, then, to the decision in Griffith v. Blunt, to ViceChancellor Wigram's observations as to Elliott v. Elliott, and to the rule of construction enunciated by Lord Selborne in Pearks v. Moseley, we do not hesitate to express our conviction that the decision in Re Coppard's Estate cannot be supported.

REMISSION OF ACTIONS OF TORT TO THE COUNTY COURT.

I.

[In a short note, some time ago, on the decision of the Divisional Court in Stokes v. Stokes (35 W. R. 613) we intimated an opinion according with the view adopted by the court and recently affirmed by the Court of Appeal. We have since been favoured with the following elaborate discussion of the question, and the importance of the matter, as well as the division of opinion to which it has given rise among the profession, seem to justify us in giving the other side of the argument.]

HARDLY any subject connected with the administration of justice has of late years engaged more earnest attention than the costs attendant on legal proceedings. Whether it be that the general stagnation of business and the all-prevailing depression have tightened litigants' pockets, or that practitioners have become more exorbitant, or that greater publicity is now given to the sums paid for legal services, certain it is that its expense has become the most prominent feature in modern litigation. For meeting the popular complaint on this head various expedients have been devised; that which has found most favour both with the Legislature and with the framers of the Rules of Court is the development of county court jurisdiction. This development takes place in two ways-one by actual addition, as where a new class of business is by statute brought within county court cognizance ; the other by increased business, as where resort to the county court is stimulated in cases in which the High Court has also concurrent jurisdiction. Instances of the former kind of development are furnished by the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, and by the Acts under which actions and proceedings may be transferred to the county court (19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, s. 26; 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, ss. 7, 8, 10; 47 & 48 Vict. c. 61, s. 17); instances of the latter kind of development are furnished by the statutory provisions and rules of court which take away or diminish costs in the High Court where redress might have been had in the county court. Of the various enactments under which a transfer to the county court may be effected, the most important is, perhaps, section 10 of the County Court Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 142); this and sections 5, 7, and 8 of the same statute are, by section 67 of the Judicature Act, 1867, made applicable to the High Court of Justice. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Stekes v. Stokes (W. N., 1887, p. 141), affirming the Divisional Court (35 W. R. 613, 19 Q. B. D. 62), that an action for slander may be remitted to the county court, affords a fitting opportunity for inquiring into the true interpretation of the above sections. By section 10, then, of the County Court Act, 1867, it is provided that a defendant against whom an action for malicious. prosecution, illegal arrest, illegal distress, assault, false imprisonment, libel, slander, seduction, or other action of tort is brought in a superior court may apply for an order to remit the action to the county court on an affidavit that the plaintiff has no visible means of paying the costs of the defendant in the event of the plaintiff's failure to obtain a verdict. By section 67 of the Judicature Act, 1873, it is provided that sections 5, 7, 8, and 10 of the County Court Act, 1867, shall apply to all actions com

« PreviousContinue »