« PreviousContinue »
g Oct. 1, 1887 THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL.” 763
to make a compulsory order. He would say nothing harsh as to the procedure of Mr. Chaplin and the liquidators, who had apparently put the matter almost entirely in Chaplin's hands, but he was not satisfied with the notices sent out of the meetings of the 29th of August and the 16th of September. The first notice gave no hint of Chaplin being the purchaser, and the second notice was not much more specific; it gave the resolution of the 29th of August, and that a meeting was to be held on the 16th of September, to confirm it, that a company was to be formed to piuchase the property, and that the resolution was passed by shareholders holding 12,176 shares. It was not, however, stated that among the shareholders voting Mr. Chaplin held 7,000 shares. The agreement was to be seen at the company's oflices, but no one could have learnt the true facts from that; Woodrow was the apparent purchaser as trustee for the new company. Considering the singular reticence and the unsatisfactory language of the notices, he did not approve of the conduct of the winding up remaining in the hands of these gentlemen. It was not necessary to remove them; it he made a compulsory order, and appointed liquidators, the office oi the provisional liquidators would come to an end. He made the usual order, and appointed James Hutton, of Glasgow, and Samuel Lovelock, of London, accountants, to be liquidators. —c0UNSBL, Marten, Q C., and Archibald Brown ,- Lrithzm, Q.C , and H. H. Finch; Scarlett; Charles Jllaenaylitan; lllillur, Q,.C , and Rylriml; Hag/isld Green; Hyde; and Nzuonyth. Soucirons, J. W. Smrrt; Rolht Q Sons,‘ Fr-(ml: B. Wriylilsim ,' Wilson, Brislow, if Oarpmael; Wiiiiiwright §- Baillie.
The London Gazelle of Tuesday contains an Order in Council directing that in (pursuance of the Winter Assizes Acts the jurisdiction of the Central riminal Court at any session held in October, November, December, or January shall extend to such parts of the county of Surrey as are not now included in the Central Criminal Court district. Other orders direct that the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland shall for the coming winter assize be united as winter assize County N 0. 1, the assizes to be held at Carlisle ; the Northern and Salford Divisions of Lancashire as County No. 2, the assizes to be held at Manchester; the North and East Riding Division and the West Riding Division as County No. 3, the assizes to be held at York; the counties of Lincoln and Nottingham and the county of the city of Lincoln as County No. 4, the assizes to be held at Nottingham; the counties of Derby, Leicester, and Rutland as County No. 5, the assizes to be held at Leicester ; tho counties of Bedford, Northampton, and Buckingham as County No. 6, the assizes to be held at Bediord; the counties of Norfolk and Suflolk as County No. 7, the assizes to be held at Ipswich; the counties of Huntingdon and Cambridge as County No. 8, the assizes to be held at Chesterton (Cambridge) ; the county of Hartford and so much of Essex as is not included in the Central Criminal Court district as County No. 9, the assizes to be held at Chelmsford; the county of Sussex, the county of the city of Canterbury, and so much of Kent as is not included in the Central Criminal Court district as County No. 10, the assizes to be held at Maidstone : the counties of Oxford and Berks as County No. 11, the assizes to be held at Oxford; the counties of Monmouth and Gloucester as County No. I2, the assizes to be held at Gloucester; the counties oi Salop and Stafford as County No. 13, the assizes to be held at Stai-ford ; the counties of Southampton, Wilts, and Dorset as County No. 14, the assizes to be held at \Vinchester; the counties of Devon and Cornwall as County N0. 15, the assizes to be held at Exeter ; the county of Somerset and the count of the city of Bristol as County No. 16, the assizes to be held at Bristoly; the counties of Chester, Flint, Montgomery, Merioneth, Carnarvon, Anglesey, and Denbigh as County No. 17, the assizes to be held at Chester; the counties of Glamorgan, Carmarthen, Pembroke, Cardigan, Brecknock, and Radnor, the county of the borough of Carmarthen, and the town and county of Haverfordwest as County N o. 18, the assizes to be held at Swansea ; the county of N orthumberland and the 0115! and county of Newcastle-on-Tyneyas County No. 19, the assizes to be held at Newcastle; and the counties of Worcester and Hereford as County N 0. 20, the assizes to be held at Worcester.
Mr. \ViLLiau Honnincivenrn QUAYLE Joxss, Queen's Advocate of the Gold Coast Colony, has been appointed Chief Justice of the West African Settlements, in succession to Mr. Francis Frederick Pinkett, deceased. Chief Justice Jones is the eldest son of the Rev. Charles William Jones, vicar of Pakenham, Suffolk. He was educated at Cains College, Canbridge. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in November, 1877, and he was formerly a member of the South-Eastern Circuit. He has been Queen’s Advocate of the Gold Coast Colony since ‘1883.
Mr. Anriiiso BRAY Kimre, barrister, who has been appointed Chancellor of the Diocese of Southwsll, in succession to Mr. Justice Charles, is the third son of the Rev. John Edward Kempe, rector of St. Jaines’s, Piccadilly, and was born in 1849. He was educated at St. Paul's School, and he was formerly scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as a wrangler in 1872. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1873, and he is a member of the Western Circuit. Mr. Kempe is also Chancellor oi’ the Diocese of Newcastle. He was formerly one of the stafi of the Weekly Reporter, and he was Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission.
Mr. EDWARD Auci-ii>ai.x FFOOKS, solicitor, of Sherborne, has been appointed Clerk to the Sherborne Local Board. Mr. Ffooks was admitted a solicitor in 1882.
Mr. HENRY COLEMAN’ FOLKAED, barrister, has been appointed Recorder of the city of Bath, in succession to Mr. Justice Charles. Mr. Folkard is the sou of Mr. William Folkard. and was born in 1827. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s-inn in Hilary Term, 1858, and he practises on the Western Circuit and at the Somersetshire and Bristol Sessions. Mr. Folkard is a revising barrister for Hampshire.
It is stated that alarge farm near Spalding of 164 acres was sold by auction on the 23rd ult. at £37 10s. per acre, and that a farin near Ashford has been let at the extraordinary price of 7s. 6d. per acre.
We are informed that part oi the Suflield-park Estate at Cromer, belonging to Lord Suflleld, comprising 142 plots of freehold building land, was sold on Monday last at Cromer, by Messrs. Baker & Sons, ot Queen Victoria-street, E.C., for £400 per acre. _ _
Tho Liverpool Board of Legal Studies have issued their programme for the new session, from which it appears that, in addition to lectures and classes on the law of personal property, equity, and contracts, a course of ten lectures on jurisprudence is to be delivered by Professor Munroe.
The relatives of Mr. Payn, the late Dover coroner, have received_a letter of condolence from the Queen through her private secretary, in which her Majesty expressed her interest in the _fact that Mr. Payn, who proclaimed her accession at Dover, should have lived to_ree her J HD1166.’
We regret to announce that Mr. A. R. Oldman, solicitor, of Serjeant sinn, London, was one of the passengers drowned in the wreck of the steamer Romeo in the Seine on the 21st ult. His body was recovered at Rouen two or three days ago. Mr. Oldman, who was admitted in 11.865, was in good practice, and will be deeply regretted by his professional
rl .d .
f er s _
The following are the circuits chosen by the Judges of the Queen s Bench Division for the ensuing Autumn _Assizes :—North-Eastern Circuit, Lord Coleridge, C.J.; Western Circuit, Denman, J.; South-Eastern Circuit, Field, J.; Midland Circuit, Huddleston, B-; Olfwi Circuit» Hawkins, J .; North and South Wales Circuits, Cave, J . ; Northern Circuit, Dsy and Grantham, JJ.
COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. LIMITED Is CHANCERY. L1vER1>ooL ExcHANGR BANKING Co , LmITED.—The Vice-Chancellor has fixed Monday, Oct 10, at 11, at 9, Cook st, Liverpool, for appointment of oflicial
ALLIANOE SUPPLY STORES, L1MITED.—PetI1 for winding up, presented Sept 21, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge on Oct 5. Powles, Guildhall chbrs, Basinghall st. solor for petners _
A. M. WooD’s Snips " Woonrra" PROTECTION Co., LmITED.—The Vacation J ridge has fixed Thursday, Oct 6, at 11. at his chambers, for appointment of ofiicial liquidator
BRITIsH AND COLONIAL AGENCY, LImTED.—By an order of Charles. J .. dated Sept 21, it was ordered that the agency be wound up. Goodchild, Gresham House, solor for petners
COUNTY PALATINE or LANCASTER.
YORKSHIRE WOOL AND FLOCK Co., LIMI'I'ED.—Petn for winding up, presented
S t 20 KING, §?0AH, Blunham, Bedford, Publican. Bedford. Pet Sept 21. Ord Sept 21
RECEIVING ORDER RESCINDED. er,soN.E1>wsaD ALBERT, Bennett's bill. Solicitor. High Court. Ord Sept 16.
FIRE I l BURGLARS I !
ROBFDE “D S°’;'AKERs UNTEARABLE LETTER ' OOPYING BOOKS.
To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of
JEFFERSON, J osErR, Holme Cultram, Cumberland, Farmer. Carlisle. Pet Sept
THERE Is_s cunrous nnunnna in section 6 of the Margarine Act of last ses~ion (50 & bl Vict. c. 29). Section 4 provides ii penalty for any person “ dealing in margarine, whether wholesale or retail, whether as manufacturer, importer, or as consignor or consignee, or as commission agent or otherwise ” who is guilty of an offence under the Act. Section 5 then provides for the exemption from the penalty of an employer who proves that he “had used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act." Then comes section 6, relating to marking of cases, which provides that “every person dealing in margarine in tlie mamwr describerl HI the preceding section shall conform to the following regulations.” The “ preceding section ” does not describe any manner of dcaling in_iuargarine, but section 4 does; and the blunder has obviously arisen from the proviso in section 5 being made into a separate section instead of being appended to section 4. Probably the courts will adopt a liberal construction of the words “ preceding §@°t1°l1,’_’ and will not construe them as meaning “ the last preceding section.”
WHEN A JUDGE of such wide experience as Mr. Justice ll!-:xi:wrci1 directs that the “ parcels ” should be set out verbatim in an order of the court vesting real property, we are bound to assume that there must have been some good reason for his decision. In the case of Re Adams (ante, p. 717), that learned judge appears to have made such an order. There may be special reasons which do not appear in the short report of_ the case, but it seems that the vesting oider was of copyholds, with the consent of the lord, under section 28 of the Trustee Act, 1850, which section expressly provides that, on such an order, the land-1 “shall, without any surrender or admittance in respect thereof, vest accordingly.” There was therefore no reason why the parcels should be set out for the purpose of surrender or admittance, and we confess we are puzzled to know why the parcels were set out in the order. It would seem that the court has no means of knowing what the propcrty vested is; it only knows, as in this case, where the Pmperty was d iiived under a will, that the testator purported to devise certain properly, but does not know what passed under that devise. The practice has been to vest “what passed under the will and still remains subject to the trusts." It is obvious that such a solemn act as that of transferring by order of court land which has not been proved to be the subject of the devise should °"_1Yl}e done with the greatest circumspection. A vista of comPlmations opens before the eyes of the conveyancer who contemP11=l§€§ the possible consequences of such an order, and we cannot Mmclllate that the case of Re Adams will be taken as a precedent.
Ir is RATHER srriiriirsrivo that there are so few applications made of the nature of that in Berridga v. Turner reported in another column. Test-ators possessed of large and complicated estates appoint executors and trustees, and omit to provide any adequate remuneration for duties which, if transacted personallv are likely to occupy a considerable part of the time of the executor; and trustees. N o doubt, in most of these cases, reliance is placed on the business being transacted by the solicitors to the estate, But suppose one of the executors and trustees is himself a solicitor, and the usual solicitor-trustee clause is emitted 01- is under the peculiar circumstances of the property, likely to’ afford altogether inadequate remuneration? In this case the prudent course is for the executors and trustees, before proving the will or “°"'”P!€"%_€fi¢"‘:¢, ti) Btgpulg-fie forphrisflsongble fpemuneration. They are a i cry o o is wi e ene ciaries without the intervention of the court (Re S/ieriwoad, 3 Beav. 338), but it very seldom happens that all the beneficiaries are of age or ascertained ; and these bargains arc regarded with great jealousy by the court (see A3/lifie v. Zl[urra_i/, 2 Atk. 58; Moore v. Frowde, 3 My. & Cr., at p. 48). The bargain must be shewn to have been entered into without pressure, and with a full knowledge on the part of the cestuis que truslent of their rights (In re Wyche, ll Beav. 209, 210); and the intervention of an independent solicitor to peruse the 8.gI‘6€lE1€Dl2S0l1l)8l]8lfP0f‘l7l16 cestuis que lrustent is generally necessar see fanesv. ar'er 9Beav. 385 . The bettercourse is for the eyxecutors and trustees ti) apply to tlie court to settle and sanction their remuneration. It seems to have been assumed in the recent case that this application must necessarily be made before the executors and trustees have proved the will oraccepted the trusts, and Brocksopp v. Barnes (5 Mad. 90) and Browne v. Collins (21 W. R. 222) are to this efiect; but it is to be observed that in Bainbrigge v. Blair (8 Beav. 596), the solicitor-trustee to whom an allowance was authorized had proved the will and acted in the trusts, and in his judgment Lord Lsimnsna said that, “where a trust being in the course of execution, and many things remaining to be done which can be done beneficially only by a particular trustee, who cannot, from his situation, do it without grievous personal loss, and that party comes to the court, and states that he is in a situation, and is willing to do these things, but that he cannot, consistently with his own interest, proceed with such duties and gratuitously devote his time for thc benefit of the trust-—in such a case it is competent for the court, considering what is beneficial to the cestuis qua trustent, and is calculated to promote their interest, to take the matter into consideration, and to give proper remuneration to that person who alone, by his own exertion, can produce that benefit.” The safe course, however, is no doubt to apply before undertaking tho duties. The allowance by the court to a solicitor-trustee will not be of the usual professional charges in trust business, but of a fixed remuneration (Bairibrigge v. Blair, 8 Beav., at p. 595).
Tun cocnrs frequently have to decide, as between two innocent parties, which of them ought to suffer for the delinquency of a fraudulent trustee. In the case of Magnus v. Queensland National Bank, reported in the current nuuiber of the Law Reports (36 Ch. D. 25), the choice lay between two negligent parties. Shortly put, the facts were as follows :—Two trustees, A. and B., employed their co-trustee, C., to manage the investmcnts of the trust money. Upon the pretext that he wished to sell out B. Stock and invest in N. E. Stock, he induced A. and B. to sign a transfer to two persons who were really trustees for ii bank. C. then used the transfer to borrow money for his own purposes from the bank by mortgage of the B. Stock. Subsequently, this money was paid off, but the trustees of the bank, instead of re-transferring to A., B., and C., transferred to a purchaser from C. C. received the purchase-money and invested it in his own name in N. E. Stock. For a time he paid the dividends regularly to the beneficiary, and he reported the re-investment to A. and B. They never inquired, however, into the truth of this report, and C. had, in fact, already sold out the N. E. Stock and appropriated the proceeds. In the sequel he absconded and was made bankrupt. At first sight it certainly looks as though the loss were due to the negligence of A. and B., who had omitted to make any inquiry as to the genuineness of the re-investment. But there