Page images
PDF
[graphic]

every manufactory of margarine must be registered by the owner or i

occupier with the local authorities authorized to appoint analysts under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Prosecutions for offences against the Act are encouraged and supported by the directions—( 1) that samples for analysis may be taken under that Act without any form of purchase being gone through ; (2) that any dealer is to be liable to conviction “unless he shews, to the satisfaction of the court before whom he is charged, that he purchased ” the margarine “as butter, and with a written warranty or invoice to that effect, that he had no reason to believe at the time when he sold it that the article was other than butter, and that he sold it in the same state as when he purchased it” (these words are copied from section 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875); and (3) that any part of the penalty recovered may be paid to the prosecutor by order of the court. The penalties are for the first offence not more than £20; for the second not more than £50; and for the third or any subsequent ofl'ence not more than £100. The Act does not come into operation until January, 1888, prior to which date the Local Government Board may be expected to prepare general regulations as to registration of manufactories, though there is no express authority to that effect in the Act.

[graphic][merged small]

Sir,—A clause, of which I send a copy below, of the nature of that 3“8gested by you at p. 732, has to some extent been introduced into trust instruments during the last few years. In using such a clause it seems to me that an alteration should be made in the investment clause ; instead of specifyin the securities in which trustees may invest, give them an absolute gscretion to select any securities they think fit, exclusive of any which the creator of the trust may name. Can, however, such a wide indemnity clause as that now given and the one Suggested by you be made effective as regards the trustees, and at the same time a power to consent to investments be given to the life tenant P B.

The following is the clause referred to :—

“ And it is hereby lastly agreed and declared (and the trustees or trustee acting under this settlement for the time being are to be taken {I5 Mcepting ofiice upon this express condition independently of, and In addition to, any other protection or indemnity provided by law) that no trustee under this settlement shall be in any way obliged to enforce or see after the performance of, or be in any way responsible for the non-performance of, the aforesaid covenant on the part of the said A. and B., or either of them, for payment of the aforesaid sum of £ and interest, nor shall any trustee under this settlement, or his T°Pl'98elitatives, be in any way liable or accountable for anything in connection with this settlement, or the trusts, powers, or provisions th°1'°°fi or the trust funds or property subject thereto, or otherwise pelatéug thereto respectively, short of his or her individual actual

rau . '

[See observations under the head of “ Current Topics." VVe may lie_reafter refer to the suggestions of our correspondent not noticed this week.—Ed. S.J.]

mi
THE TRANSFER OF LAND BILL, 183;‘.
[ To the Editor Q/' the Solicitors’ Jom-nal.]

Bl!‘-—In H revious letter I commented upon the registration scheme. The Bill then proceeds with “Amendments of law of real PP°P§1'ty.” Real estate is to vest in the personal representatives find is to be dealt with, subject to certain exceptions, as personalty. This important alteration has no reference to the rights of creditors, since real estate is now liable to payment of debts of all kinds. In the order of administration of assets for the payment of debts, real estatehas the advantage ovcr personalty. But surely the present is not the time to withdraw this benefit. Agricultural land during the last few Years has fallen at least 40 per cent. in value ; it is still falling, B1111 unfortunately is rapidlv becoming actually unsaleable. A farm worth £5,000 to-day may, three years hence, not be worth £1,000. 011 the other hand the public funds, railway shares, and other kinds °f personal estate have maintained their value. If the pr0po89d "_§'"11118iion should take place, a devisee of a farm valued at death at £0,000, and alegatec of £5,000 Consols would be liable to contribute e%"3uY_ for payment of the debts of a deceased owner. But in a 9 Ort time it might prove that the devisee had been compelled to

£25; J91? much more, in proportion to respective values, than the e.

[graphic]

Extensive powers are proposed to be given to personal representatives. Under clause 41 land might, with the assent of the legatee, be appropriated in satisfaction of a legacy. If this appropriation took place, and the land decreased in value, the legatee would not obtain the benefit intended for him by the testator. On the other hand, if, by the lifting of the cloud of existing depression, the land rose in value, those interested in the residuary estate would suffer. And under clause 42, sub-clause 4, the personal representatives for the piu-pose of administration might value the real estate “in such manner as they think fit and the valuation shall be conclusive save as otherwise directed by the court.” This valuation, however, is to he in accordance with “ the prescribed provisions ”; but in the absence of the rules, which are so necessary for giving form and substance to the Bill, it cannot be known what restriction would be placed on the arbitrary discretion which the representatives would possess. Then take the case of an intestacy, with young children entitled to real estate. The administrator mi ht consider that his wisest course was to sell at once. He sold, and land having recovered something like its former value (which let us hope is apossibility), the children, when they came of age, would find that their property had been sacrificed. But, large as these proposed powers seem to be, personal representatives would soon, find that they would have to act with the utmost caution, and ever keep in view the dread severity of the Chancery judges. The present position of trustees is uncomfortable enough, and they know to their cost that “ powers ” prove_too often to be mere pitfalls; but were the Bill to pass into law their perplexities, anxieties, and responsibilities would be largely increased. The assimilation of land with personalty is in no way called for, and it would be unlikely to serve any useful purpose. It seems to be devised to assist the symmetry of the registration scheme, by enabling personal representatives to appear as owners on the register. _

The Bill provides that in case of intestacy of the husband the wife shall take a life interest in the whole of his real estate. _ This would be a very mischievous alteration, since it would place children completely at the mercy of the mother. A iiia_n might leave _little but real estate, his widow might marry again, and his children might be reduced to actual beggary. _

The Bill would do away with primogeniture. Such a change is a matter for the consideration of the polit_ici:in rather than tho lawyer. It may, however, be observed that the importance of the pi-mciple of primogeniture is greatly exaggerated. (_]ases of intestacy, where there is real estate, are infrequent; and a quite unnecessary noise is made about the hardship of one son succeeding to an estate, to the enclusion of other sons and daughters. Where any such hardship occurs,biihe fault lies withi the oyvner yvllilo neghgeptly omitted to make a suita e testamentary isposi ion o is pro er y.

It is further proposed to abolish estates taili The advantage to_be gained by this abolition is far from obvious; and the alteration savoiirs of an arbitrary interference with the wishes of owners of estates. No practical general result would be obtamed, _for the alteration would not prevent an estate, or the proceeds of its sale, bein tied up during a life in being, and for twenty» one years afterivariii. Experience shows that entails, as a rule, _do not extend beyond such a period. Existing entails, where there is a protector ql the settlement, are not to be affected by the Bill; but I10 efltllte ll"-1 is to be created in future. Such a prohibition would mvolve a resiil t which is not without importance._ It _is possible that some of t _e noble lords who voted for the Bill this session may, _without their knowing it, owe a good deal to the existing law of entail; for it $ay have saved their estates from the money lenders.h Ttese accommodating people do not lend on a base fee, ang. _t ii inherposition of a protector has saved many an_ estate from ti eir otil 0 <33 This class would rejoice should the alteration be effecte , as It vgophe g,dd15,1'gQlytO their gains. It be said that it isdno par orrhat duty of a Government to protect 1mP1'°“delf reglaln 9rnen' of an may be, but still it is a.q_ue!t_10n W11Btl19P,_1f t 9 exmg: of the aristocracy be b‘.mefi.°w'l.’ It is wise-unnecewndyttlii remtiiileso stem can props which maintains it. N o evil effect from h e an bbfifion that be shewn. The Settled Land itctgot rid ofdt edllli Y ‘hlthe S stem could be alleged—nan\ely, that It lied “P hm ‘"1 bu Y‘ t f edywith cannot be proved work harm, it ought 110212011 e in er epd not ht; Even should entails be abolished, the 10“! 0 3 51189 1W0‘; The sutiated. Law “l‘8f0I11115 nllvals ll safe all (1 p(;putBtl misfit‘ for next move would be to do away w-ith_ every km houlseb 9 rohibited already there are those who urge that life estates s o _0htoe§ ct thug and only absolute ownerships permitted. _So We b . peossible before long a settlement of land on marriage woiifl 8 1€s1f er: That might be followed by E prohlbmon bl ill etlizxiibolitioh of sonalty, for this would not be more iinrcasono. 0 ml ~ lmltiefgiiiiiiilgledliiic more to the_ registration scheme, and in lCOt1:)0ll1(l;ll%' my remarks. let me "Y ill?‘ 1* “"?“1d be wen1f‘out-hiaeéileiaortrbfgtlie due attention to the following weighty Passage. fed b , mi; Home of strongly constituted committee which was flPP°m -7

[graphic]

Commons in 1878, to inquire into the causes of the failure of the Act of 1875 :—“ Upon the whole, therefore, the position of the question appears to your committee to be as follows :—On the one hand, they are informed on the authority of Mr. Follett and Mr. Holt (the registrar and assistant-registrar under Lord Westbury‘s and Lord Cairns’ Acts) that no system of registration of titles can be devised which will be voluntarily adopted ; and, on the other hand, they are told by the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns) that he has not yet seen any way in which the registration of titles could be made compulsory. Without expressing any final o inion on the latter question, and without discussing the practicability of the schemes which have been propounded for the compulsory or quasi-compulsory registration of titles, your committee think it sufficient to observe that it would be very difficult to force on every purchaser or mortgagee in this country a mode of dealing with his property which not one purchaser or mortgagee in 20,000 at present adopts of his own accord. Your committee feel that in arriving at the above conclusion they are only acting upon the axiom which is laid down by the Royal Commissioners of 1868 in their report, and which they believe to be perfectly sound, that for an institution to flourish in a free country it must offer to people they thing that they waut." J. B. 9th September.

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

In the case of Hours v. Gray, before Kekswich, J., on the 9th inst. the question arose as to who, in the absence of the chief clerk on hiii holiday, should be nominated to execute a conveyance in pursuance of section 14 of the Judicature Act, 1884. That section provides that where any p_erson_ neglects or refuses to comply with a judgment or order directing him to execute any conveyance, the court may order that such conveyance shall be executed by such person as the court may nominate for that purpgse; and in such case_the conveyance so executed shall operate and _for all purposes available as if it had been executed by the person originally directed to execute it On the 17th of August last Kekewich, J ., made a foreclosure order in the action and ordered the defendant, within seven days, to execute a conveyance td the plaintiff The seven days had expired, the conveyance had been prepared and enl grossed, but the defendant refused to execute it. It was said, on behalf stir::::*'.:r:*.%.:“:.:.*2ss.:.£"= P.'£‘°°‘°° 0* “==::,“;; *~ ;;*===i==s

. was ' be ndminated to execute the conveyanczllgges B at t 6 "Bum" should

KEKE“'ICK. -7-. said that he had consulted the registrar in court and he

padtploiésented to execute the conveyance; he, therefore, nominated him ll pl1rpose.—Coimsiii., George Hmdn-son. Souorrons, Hunters Q Co.

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

the tpompany on the 24th he should think it right to reconsider the eti on.

P On behalf of the petitioner, a holder of 800 shares of £5 each, counsel consented that the petition, after the statement of counsel for the company, must be reconsidered. On the merits, however, it was contended that the company had been incorporated more than twelve months, and had not yet commenced business ; the assets were being wasted. The mills were situated near Bristol, but no persons of consideration in Bristol were concerned in the company, and it was unlikely to be successful. It was just and equitable that the company should be wound up. On behalf of the company it was said that shareholders holding 1,800 shares of £5 each out of 3,300 issued opposed the petition. Though the company had not commenced business, capital was forthcoming to complete the works; and but for the petition the company was likely to succeed. The case wasnotwithin section '79 of the Companies Act, 1862 : see the Jlliddleiborougli Assembly Rooms Cu. (14 Ch. D. 104), Buckley on Companies (4th ed.), p. 189. The company was not a bubble company, and it would not be for the benefit of the shareholders that it should be wound up.

Ksiuiwicii, J ., said that he thought it a proper case to reconsider, but upon hearing the evidence on behalf of the company he still thought it was a proper case for a winding-up order, which he made that day. It was the practice to take no notice of adjournments; the petition would, therefore, not be taken as part heard, but the order would be drawn up as if made that day. There would be the usual order as to costs.—Couxssi., Edward Ford; Jfrlrtm, Q.C., and Puchin. Bonicrrons, Rogers Q“ C’/rave ,' A. M. Brariley.

[ocr errors]

In the case of Jay v. Ladler, before Kekewich, J ., on the 9th inst., the question arose whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from infringing his trade-mark, where it was not stated in the afizldavits in support of the motion at what time the plaintifi discovered the infringement. This was a motion on behalf of Mr. Jay, the registered owner of No. 31,350 Trade-Mark, in Class 38, for sealskin mantles, being a picture of a lady and a bear, for an iniunction against the defendant for publishing a similar trademark of a ady and a bear. The plaintiff alleged that the trade-mark was infringed in a newspaper called the Quem of the let of October, 1885, when the defendant agreed to withdraw his block of the lady and the bear, and not to publish it any more ; the plaintiff only discovered that the defendant was still publishing his picture on the 28th of August, 1887. The plaintiff asked for up injunction, and, as the defendant could not be found, that service on his wife should be deemed good service. The time of the plaintiff's discovery of the infringement was not stated in the afildavits.

Kiiiiawioii, J., said that if the defendant had been there he should have taken the objection that it was not stated in the aflidavits in support of the motion at what time the plaintiff discovered the infringement, but_ as the defendant did not appear he should assume everything against himHe granted an injunction until trial or further order.-—Cousssi., Fmhm Q.C., and Edward Ford. SOLICITORS, Taylor, Hoarr, Taylor, Q Box.

[ocr errors]

In the case of Flake v. Hall, before Kekewich, J., on the 9th inst., the question arose whether a cane blind manufacturer paying £20 a your T6119, whose tenancy expired at Christmas next, was entitled to B.l1ll‘l_]l1I10ll0l1 restraining persons from erecting a booth or tent so as to darken his ancient lights. This was a motion on behalf of Plake, a cane bllllfl manufacturer, carrying on his business at 54, Whitfield-street, T0tt§flham-oourt-road, to restrain the defendants, Hall 8: Beach, from erecting or permitting to remain a booth or tent on a disused burial-ground at the back of 54, Whitfield-street, so as to darken the plaintiff's ancient liBl}“For the defendants it was said that it was not a case for the Vacation Court, that the plaintiff's tenancy expired at Christmas, and he only paid an annual rent of £20. There had also been delay in bringing the actionThe case was too trivial for the court to interfere. In mercy to the bhndmaker, who probably was not so well off as the defendants, the collli should refuse the motion.

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

receiver and manager, saying that he had heard of his appointment, and I

giiving him notice that he was a mortgagee and intended to take posseson.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

In the_case of Cone v. Rimell, before Kekewich, J., on the 14th inst., the question arose as tn whether the judge should make an order for committal or give lea_ve to issue a writ of attachment. This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiff t_o commit the defendant Charles James Rimell for breach of an l1ll¢7‘_fm injunction I‘6El§l:B1111IJ8 him from removing sand from, °l' °_h°°m18 fllhblsh upon, the plaintiffs land; in the alternative the motion asked for leave to issue a writ of attachment. The motion stood over from Friday, September 9, to enable the defendant to file an aflidavit. O_n behalf of the plaintiff it was said that the defendant continued to disobey the order, and _an order should be made to commit him—comniittal was less eirpensive than attachment. The defendant in person asked for further time ; he had not made an aflldavit, he had no money.

_Ksi:swica, J., said that he had no doubt that the defendant was defying the order of the court, and that could not be allowed. He should not commit the defendant, though that might be less expensive. He considered it a better practice to give leave to issue a writ of attachment.COUNSEL, Boonie; Defendant in Person. SOLICITORS, G. 5' W. Webb.

[ocr errors]

In the case of Timion v. Wilson, before Kekewich, J ., on the 14th inst., the question_arose as to the grantmg of an interlocutory injunction in the case of fouling a _stresm with sewage. This was a motion on behalf of Captain Henry Tiinson to restrain the defendant Mr. Courtenay F. \\ ilson, a l1tlgl1b0l1l', from permitting sewage or noxious matter in a dead well orvcesspool to overflow into a watercourse running from the defendant. s land through the plaintiffs land, and into a pond on the plaintlfi_s land, and from otherwise causing a nuisance. On behalf of the plaintiff it was said that he had recently cleaned out his pond and found it _full_ of matter from the defendant's cesspool. £20 would remedy the mischief. On behalf of the defendant it was said that the overflow from the cesspool had gone on for years ; it was not a case for an interlocutory Injunction.

KBBW'l(§H_, J., said that, on the balance of convenience and on the P181Pl5_liT gi_v1ng an undertaking in damages, the plaintifi was entitled to an injunction until the trial or further order. The motion went too far. There would be an order restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, and workmen, from causing or permitting the sewage and noxious matter in the dead well or cesspool at, or adjacent to, the defendant's residence to oveiflow or flow or escape into the watercourse or ditch running from the land of the defendant through the land of the plaintifi, and into a P°!Id on the plaintiff's laud to the injury of the plaintilf.—Coui\'ssi., ‘¥""'¢'l| QC , and W. H. Horsley; Lailiam, Q.O., and B. J. Leversm. 5°!-ICITDRS. Barlow Q James, for Corwell 5- Pops, Southampton; Upton, Atlcey, Q Upton.

[ocr errors]

,In the case of Field 4» (Jo. v. T/I8 American Exhibition (Lim.), before lxekewich, J ., on the 14-th inst., the question arose as to whether, in an action on a contract brought by persons residing out of the jurisdiction, the name of a co- laintifi, residing in the jurisdiction, but not a party to the contract, should be struck out. This was an action brought by C. W. Field &Co. and O. R. Beswetherick to restrain the defendants from interfering with the exclusive privilege granted by the defendants to the plaintiffs Field & Co. to sell certain machines at the Exhibition. The case came on on motion on behalf of the defendants to strike out the name of the plaintiff C. R. Beswetherick, and asking that the plaintiffs held & Co. might be ordered to give security for costs. There was a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs for an injunction, but the motion of fhe_ defendants was heard first. For the defendants it was said that the Plaintiffs Field 8: Co. were resident out of the jurisdiction of the court, and» therefore, another gentleman, Mr. Beswetherick, their agent in this °°'"1¢Py. Was joined with them as co-plaintiff to carry on the actionBu_t the contract (if any) was made between the American Exhibition (I-_lm.), and Field & 00.; there was no contract with Beswetherick. His name should be struck out; he was not a partner; he had no right to sue any more than one of the attendants at a stall. C. R. Beswetherick, "1 P935011, said that he was entitled to fifty per cent. on the sales made under the contract between Field & Co. and the Exhibition.

Ksxswicii, J ., said that he might be doing a great injustice in striking out Beswetherick's name. The application oould be made at any stage of the action. \Vhen the pleadings were delivered the defendants could see better the state of affairs, and could renew their application. It Would be a harsh proceeding to make an order now. The plaintiffs Field 8: Co., however, must give security for costs—£l0O—and proceedings would be stayed, including the motion for injunction, until seflflmber 21.—CovussL, Butcher; izmm, Q.c., and Lawrenve F. Jankina. Sonicrroiis, Ullithoms 5- Currey ; Braasour Q Oakley.

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

Mr. EDWIN’ WITCHRLL, F. G.S., solicitor, of Stroud, died suddenly on the 20th ult. from congestion of the lungs. Mr. Witchell was the son of Mr. Edwin Witchell, of Nymhsfield, and was born in 1823. Hewas admitted a solicitor in 1847, and he had for nearly forty years conducted an extensive practice at Stroud. He was at the time of his death associated in partnership with his sons, Mr. Edward Northam Witchell and Mr. Percy Witchell. He was a perpetual commissioner for Gloucestershire and clerk to the local boards at Stroud and Bisley. He was also solicitor to the Stroud Association for the Prosecution of Felons. Mr. Witchell devoted all his leisure to geological and other scientific studies. He was a fellow of the Geological Society, and treasurer of the Cotswold Field Club, and he had pfiibgihfid lstpveral works on the geology of the district. He was buried on t e t u .

Mr. THOMAS Fisnsiz, solicitor (of the firm of Unett, Page, & Fisher), of Birmingham, committed suicide on the 26th ult. He was found in his oflice in a dying condition, with a revolver beside him. At an inquest held on the following day it was shewn that he had for some time been in a state of depression, caused by ill-health, and a verdict of temporary insanity was returned. Mr. Fisher served his articles with Messrs. Ryland & Martineau, of Birmingham. He was admitted a solicitor in 1874, and he shortly afterwards joined the firm of Unett & Page. He was at the time of his death in partnership with Mr. George Page. Mr. Fisher was married to the daughter of Mr. Alfred Hickman, of Birmingham. He leaves two children.

Mr. EDWARD HENRY JOHN Cnsni-"can, barrister, many years M.P. for Ayr, died suddenly on the 30th ult., in his seventy-first year. Mr. Craufurd was the eldest son of Mr. John Craufurd, of Auchenames, Ayrshire, and was born in 1816. He was formerly scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as a senior optima in 1841. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1845, and he formerly practised on the Home Circuit, and at the Middlesex Sessions and the Central Criminal Court. He was for many years prosecuting counsel to the Mint for Middlesex and the City of London. He was M.P. for the Ayr Boroughs from 1852 till 1874, and he was a steady supporter of the Liberal party. Mr. Craufiird was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Ayrshire and Buteshire.

Mr. JOHN HAWKES1-‘ORD, solicitor, of Wolverhampton, died on the 3rd inst., in his eighty-first year. Mr. llawkesford was born in 1807. He was admitted a solicitor in 1840, and he practised at Wolverhamptonfor about forty-five years. He was formerly in partnership with Mr. William Manley, and more recently with Mr. Herbert Charles Owen. _He was for many years connected with the Wolverhampton Town Council. He became an alderman in 1861, and he was elected mayor of the borough in 1863. Mr. Hawkesford leaves a widow and three sons. He was buried on the 7th inst.

Sir Ci-i.uu.ias Lswasscii Yonwo, Bart., died at Hatfield Priory, Essex, on the llth inst. His death was sudden, although he had _1ong been out of health. Sir C. Young was the third son of Sir William Lawrence Young. He was born in 1839, and he succeeded to the bsronetcy on his brother's death in 1854. Ho was educated at Winchester and at _New College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Iniier_I‘einple in Trinity Term, 1865, and he formerly practised on the Home Circuit, and at the Essex, Hertford, and S_t. _Albans Sessions. Sir C. Young was a member of the Copyright Commission. Ho was well known as an accomphshed amateur actor, and he was the author of the well-known drama, Jim

" f th r la s He was inarried first in 1863 to the

[ocr errors]

Hertfordshire, who died in 1870, and secondly 1

daughter of the Rev. William Serocold Wade, vicar_ of Redbourne, Hertfordshire. He is succeeded in the banonetcy by his eldest B011, Ml‘William Lawrence Young, who was born in 1864. Sir C. loung was

buried on the 15th inst.

[blocks in formation]

f Sept 17

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]

Mr. Houses Epiumn Avosr, barrister, has been appointed Prosecuting Counsel to the Mint for the County of Middlesex and City of London, i_ii succession to the late Mr. Edward Hemp John Craufurd. Mr. Avory is the son of the late Mr. Henry Avory, c erk of arraigns at the Central Criminal Court. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1875, and he practices on the South-Eastern Circuit and at the Surrey Sessions and the Central Criminal Court.

Mr. Srrriuus Bum" has been appointed a Queen's Counsel for the Colony of Western Australia.

Mr. Psiicr WI1-ci-IELL, solicitor, of Stroud, has been appointed Clerk to the Bisley Local Board and Secretary and Solicitor to the Sti-cud Society for the Prosecution of Felons. Both appointments were held by his father, the late Mr. Edwin Witchell.

Mr. WILLIAM LLBWELLYN Liiwis, barrister, has been appointed a Stipendiary Magistrate for the Island of Trinidad, in succession to the late Mr. Robert Dawson Mayne. Mr. Lewis was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in January, 1876.

PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED.

GEORGE CATTELL GREBNWAY and BRABAZON CAMPBELL, Warwick, solicitors (Greeuway & Campbell). Sept. 7. Mr. Brabazon Campbell will carry on the business. [Gazette, Sept. 9.]

GEN ERAL.

Mr. Arthur Charles, Q.C., was sworn in as one of her Majesty’: judges of the High Court of Justice on the 8th inst. He will be in attendance at Queen’s Bench J udges’ Chambers on Tuesday next, and will take his seat open court for the first time on the following day, Wednesday, the

st.

Mr. Robert J . Block (Lord Justice Bowen's clerk) has recently published an exceedingly useful “ Table of the Judges of England during the Fifty Years of the Reign of Queen Victoria” (W. Clowes & Sons, Limited). The table is so arranged as to shew the succession of the judges and those who were contemporaneous in any given year; and an alphabetical list is added containing the dates of the appointments, resignations, and deaths of the judges. A further table gives a list of the law oiiicers during the fifty years.

A curious dispute is stated to have arisen at Dorchester between the Corporation and the Western Counties Telephone Co. It appears that the latter erected wires without obtaining permission from the municipal authorities, and was at once request/edto remove them. This the company_has refused to do, claiming a right to erect the wires with tho permission of the owners of property, and demanding to know the right of the corporation to enforce the removal. In reply, a letter was received insisting on the “obstruction” being removed, the corporation, under an old charter, claiming the freehold of the entire borough. The gpmpany has announced its intention of contesting at law this novel

aim.

It appears from the address of the President of the American Bar Association, printed in the Albany Law Journal, that the Legislature of Kansas has passed an Act of an imusual description :—“ It is made unlawful to introduce into the State any substance which in the opinion of the Board of Health may produce a liability to contagion or infection of any disease among the_people, whether the same shall be in the form of bacteria germs, microbes, virus (vaccine virus excepted), or any other substances, claimed to contain the elements of any infectious or contagious'disea_se, whether introduced for the purpose of inoculation or otherwise, without permission of the Board of Health. By this Act the Legislature intended to prevent an in-uptioii from the tropics of a number of persons, some of them no doubt charlatans, who proposed to inoculate the people_ with yellow fever or cholera germs. One man proposed to introduce into the City of New Oi-leans yellow fever microbes, suflicient to inoculate ten thousand persons ;_it was apprehended he might in this way produce s yellow fever epidemic."

The Institut de Droit International has been holding its eleventh :;sBl0n a_t Heidelberg. The meetings commenced ori the 5th inst. The WSIlhBllb]8ClJ discussed was the conflict of laws with regard to marriage.

_it reference to formahties, it was, of course, resolved that compli auce with the forms of the l¢_x ZOFL is sufficient, and it was held tobe also necessary, with reservations m_ favour of diplomatic and consular marriages._ After ii long debate, it was resolved that such marri es are admissible only when both parties belong to the nation representedfii the °°n511- It W88 Iewlvod that capacity in point of age depends upog the personal law of the husband, and not upon the local law. With respect to the prohibited degrees, it was held that compliance with both laws is necessary, and so also as to the necessary consents and the previous ub. 1i°"*ti°n °f bmn5- [BY the “Personal law"of the parties is meant? the law of the nation to which they belong not the law of their domicil Other subjects discussed were railways in time of war . H -ii] blockade"; the draft of code of existing law of Prize Courts ’ Pam c

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

om Sept 7 FIRST MEETINGS. ABBEY, Rrcinnn, Scarborough, Gardener. Sept ic at 12.30. Station H.otel,York

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »