Page images
PDF
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

_ Ave 6. 1881- THE SOLICIT

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

authorities refused to admit the children. Under the rules of the
Secretary of State for regulation of prisons, children of prisoners are only
admimd with a magistrate‘s order, and no such order had been giv.n.
The police conseauently took them all back to Rugby, and the following
day they were ta en before the magistrates there. The magistrates asked
the women whether they were willing the children should be taken to the
workhouse. Th_e women strongly objected, and in the result they were
llb‘I'8t€d on their own rcoognizances. The prisoners, it seems, were gipsy
lrampl, and, not unnaturally, failed to appear to take their trial,

At the Derby Assizes Mr. Justice Hawkins expressed an opinion that the rule under which a plaintiff is able to lay the venue at whatever place he chooses is very unsatisfactory. The result was that many country cases wire tried in London. He greatly preferred the old system by which cures were heard in the locality in which the cause of action arose. He thought that if, previous to the commencement of the circuits, the country cises _were selected from the Middlesex and London lists and sent down for trial in the localities _in which they originated, a considerable amount of benefit would be obtained. The London jurors would then be relieved from trying cases which ought not _to fall to them, the expenses of litigat-on would be diminished, and the judges would not be wanted in town, sllld could thus get through_ the work on circuit with more expedition l‘hs present system was ruining the circuits. Mr. Dugdale, Q.C., said ihut he entirely concurred with his lordship‘s observations.

(_)n Saturday last Court of Appeal No. 1, sitting as a divisional court, finished the list of county court appeals set down for hearing. The Master of the Rolls, upon the conclusion of the business, said that during these appeals they had heard a great many of the younger members of the bar arguing cases, and he desired to express his admiration of the “"‘.Y_"J Whwh they had discharged their duty. They had done so with admirable skill ior_the most part, and had shown courage, ability, judg¥1fP{i'4. and discretion. He was delighted to think that the junior bar vihich was coming up would well uphold the traditions of their profession.

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

Inmate on Saturday, the 22nd day of October, 18-S7, both days inclusive.
L __

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

UNDER 2: 8: 23 VICT. CAP. 35.
Lasr DAY or Cnam.
London Gazette.—TUEBDAY. July 28.
ANCELL, HANNAH, Salford, Lancaster. Sept 29. Lloyd. Manchester

[ocr errors]

BROWNJOIIN, ELIZABETH, Brighton. Aug 26. Harker, Brighton

BUTCHER, CHARLES WOODHOUSE. Island of Walney, Barrow in Fllflltfli, Lan-
ce.-ter, Gent. Aug 31. Park, Ulverston _
CARE, Jame, Kingston upon Hull. Sept 6. Wilson 6: Son. Hull

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

T5160 HANNAH. Manchester, Licensed Victu-rller. Manchester. Pet Ju'y 15. BEA

Crd July 27

Tonnes, SOLOMON. Newcastle on Tyne, Morey Lender. Newcastle on Tyne. BEE

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

33. Carey st, Lincoln's inn

GODDARD. ARTHUR. Prisoner at Wandsworth, Builder. Aug 15 at 3. 109. Vic- M

toria st. Westminster

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

nwis, Tuonas, Swansea. Tailor. Swansea. Pet July 21. Ord July 23

arrririrs. G1-zones, Ford st, Middlesex, Boat Manufacturer. High Court. Pei.
July 6. Ord July 27
o1.n, Isaac, Colchester, Boot Maker. Colchester. Pet July 13. Ord July 26

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

arnon, Fnanrmrcx, Leeds, Earthenware Manufacturer. Leeds. Pet July 26.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Agent Northampton. Pet July 23. Pet July 2.1

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

July 29 h rl Gloucestershire, Cattle Dealer. Ch l

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

p Publisher.

All letters intended for publication in the “ Solicitors’ Journal” must b6

Where dificulty is experienced in procuring the Journal with regularity» in the Country, it is requested that application be made direct to t/W

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

UNTEARABLE LETTER M ““““< COPYING BOOKS.

the Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c. (HOWARD’S PATENT.)

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

1

the summons need be served on the trustees of the trust instrument. In the present case the Court of Appeal did not require the presence of the trustees; and, as we understand that Lord Justice Corroiv inquired during the hearing why the trustees were not represented, it must be taken that the Court of Appeal mooted the point, but considered that service of the summons on the trustees is not necessary.

[graphic]

TEE nnorsion of the House ot Lords in Toulmin v. Millar will probably occasion some consternation to auctioneers and estate agents. It is clear that when the owner of property goes to an estate agent and requests him to find a purchaser, naming at the sa_uie time the sum which he is willing to accept, that will constitute a general employment; and should the estate be eventually sold by the owner to a purchaser introduced by the agent, the latter will be entitled to his commission, although the price paid should be less than the sum named at the time the employment was given. The mention of a specific sum prevents the agent from selling for a lower price without the consent of his employer; but it is given merely as the basis of future negotiations, leaving the actual price to be settled in the course of the negotiations. But suppose the owner oi property goes to an estate agent for the purpose of letting, and instructs him to let, but, in reply to a question by the agent, says that he is willing to sell for a specified sum, but for no less sum ; the agent succeeds in letting the property, and the owner subsequently sells it to the t/euant for a less sum than he named to the auctioneer, is the auctioneer entitled to commission on the subsequent sale to the purchaser, who was originally introduced by him to the vendor? The House oi Lords say, in substance, “ N 0; the right to remuneration for a sale depends on the employment to sell; and in this case the employment of the agent was only to let or sell, not to let and sell; hence, when the agent let, his agency came to an end.” And, assuming that the evidence shewed that the employment was really thus limited or alternative, we do not see how any other conclusion could be arrived at. The specific question what the parol contract between the owner and tho estate agent was—which is at the root of the whole matter—does not, however, appear to have been left to the jury at the trial, although it was, no doubt, brought bcforc them by Lord Cotamnoa in his summing up, and was presumably considered by them as one ot the elements of their finding against the estate agent. The House of Lords were “not satisfied that the jury could not reasonably derive from the evidence inferences of fact fatal to the plaintiff's claim,” and therefore refused to disturb the verdict. We propose hereafter to consider at some length the results of the decision.

Tnii DECISION in the case of Pretty and others v. Fowl-e, tried before Mr. Justice Srsrni-:iv, and subsequently reserved toifurther consideration, reveals a serioiis _liability to_ which solicitors may expose themselves. A Birmingham solicitpr was (as it is stated) employed by trustees to find a good security for. £500, and himself instructed a valuer to report on certain business premises for the purpose of an advance of that sum. The val uer reported that the property was a good security for £500, and the trustees advanced that sum upon it. Subsequently, the security proved insuflicient, and the trustees then turned round on the solicitor and brought an action for negligence against him, on the ground that the instructions which he gave to the valuer were insutficient. The solicitor had not correctly informed the valuer as to the terms of the tenancy under which the premises were held; he had stated to the valuer that the premises were held by the tenant at a rent of £80, and that there was no written agreement with the tenant; whereas there was a written agreement for ii. lease under which the landlord was bound to pay rates and taxes amounting to over £20 a year. But it appeared that the iigreement contained ii clause empowering the landlord to “mortgage in his own name as owner.” It is ditficultto understand tbe object of this strange provision (assummg that its purport is correctly stated), unless it was to enable the landlord to grant the premises to his mortgagee free from the agreement for a lease. As a matter of fact the solicitor, Who, It V115 admitted on all hands, had acted throughout in good _fB.1t}§11 framed his instructions to the valuer upon the intormation_ e possessed. He had, at the commencement of the negotiations

« PreviousContinue »