« PreviousContinue »
FIRST MEETINGS. ALLONRY. JOHN. Liverpool, Team Owner. Oct 24 at 3. Oi! Rec, 35, Victoria 1 ool
ANSP:g.III.JiIi;!OpPOLD, Edmund pl. Aldersgate st. Costume Manufacturer. Oct 21 at 12. 33. Carey st, Lincoln's inn
BAcxHonsI~:. THOMAS. Holme Oultram, Cumberland, Yeoman. Oct 24 at 5. Ofi Rec, 34. Fisher st, Carlisle
BAINTON. HENRY, Stanningley, Yorks. Mason. Oct 24 at 11. Ofl Rec, 22, Park row. Leeds
BATE, GEORGE Birmingham. Gun Manufacturer. Oct 25 at 11. 25, Colmore row. Birmingham
Burns, WILLIAM J OHN, Vfinchester, Builder. Oct 24 at 2.30. Oif Rec, 4, East st. Southampton _
BEAR. ALFRED JOHN, Buckiwgham rd, Kingsland, Pubhcan. Oct 21 at 3. 109, Victoria st. Westminster
BLAND. FREDERICK, Fordham, Cambridgeshire, Farmer. Oct 27 at 11.30. ‘White Hart Hotel. Soham
BOWMAN. HENRY CBOWTHER. and ALm=:Rr THOMAS BOWMAN. Manchester. Stock Brokers. Oct 24 at 11.30. Off Rec, Ogdcn's chbrs, Bridge st, Mancheater
BRAY, NICHOLAS, St Kew, Cornwall, Carpenter. Oct 22 at 2. Ofll Rec, Boscawen st. Truro
CAnRINEs, ROBERT RIcIIARDs. St Ives, Cornwall, Gardener. Oct 22 at 12. Off Rec. Boscawen st, Truro
CARB.ICK.GEORGE. Melkridge, nr Halt-whistle, Innkeeper. Oct 24 at 4. Oi! Rec, 3-1, Fisher st. Carlisle
CoLLINsoN, GEORGE FREDERICK HAMPTON, Chancery lane, Solicitor. Oct 21 at 1. 38. Carev st. Lincoln's inn
COOK. THOMAS WESLEY, Liverpool, Importer of Provisions. Oct 25 at 2. Ofl Rec. 35. Victoria st, Liverpool
DWBLLBY. CHARLES. Bow rd. Coach Builder. Oct 21 at 12. Bankruptcy bdgs, Portugal st. Lincoln’s inn fields
EDwARDs, WILLIAM. Perry Barr. Staiiord, out of business. Oct 24 at 11. 25, Colmore row. Birmingham
GEORGE,d '1' 11_<[JJMAS. Ashton under Lyne, Builder. Nov 24 at 2. Townhall, Ashton un er yne
GIDRON, BENJAMIN. Llawhaden, Pembroke, Farmer. Oct 25 at 11.15. Butzen Arms Hotel, Narbev th
LovEDAY, "RARLRs PERKINS. and JOHN EDWARD EvANs, Swansea, Builders. Oct 21 at 3. Off Rec. 6. Rufland st. Swansea
MILLER. EDWARD Bishonston. Gloucestershire, Bank Clerk. Oct 21 at 3. Off Rec. Bank chmbrs. Bristol
RoLLA)soN, ALEXANDER EDWARD, Rochester, Clerk. Rochester. Pet Sept '*9- Ord ct I3
ROWE. WILLIAM CHARLES, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, Innkeeper. King's LYn“- Pet Oct 10. Ord Oct 10
SAUNDERS. FRANCIS WOOLHOUSE, Sandy, Beds, Saddler. Bedtord. Pet Oct 15. Ord Oct 15
Woon. SYDNEY PEDRICK, Torquay, Tailor. Exeter. Pet Oct 13. Ord O:t13 The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the L (1
1. BELL, ROBERT, Rastrick, nr Halifax, Joiner. Oct 26 at 11. Oif Rec, Halifax
Cox, EDWARD OALEB. Milton, Hampshire, no occupation. Southampton. Pet
GRIFFITH, HENRY, Llanfairisgaer, Carnarvonshire, Contractor, Bangor. Pet
Hannrs, THOMAS, St Albans, Builder. St Albans. Pet Sept 20. Ord Oct 13
LUCKMAN, VVILLIAM, Coventry, F ruitercr. Covcutl y. Pet Oct 14. Ord Oct 15
Monms, DAVID, Macsteg, Glanlorgan, Collier. Neath. Pet Oct 13. Ord Ott 13
NUNN, EDGAR, Thrandestm, Sutfolk, Farmer. Ipswich. Pet Sept 12. Ord
'- SPABLING, HENRY, Bury St Edmunds, Commercial Traveller. Bury StE.1munds.
South-square, Gray's-inn, aged 7 7. p
C. . -H ’f ’ 1" tb All letters intended for publication m the “Solicitors Journa mu8 8
I authenticated by the name of the writ"
§ EDE AND SON,
l Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town Clerks.
WORPDIIAIIOII RDBES. UNIVERSITY Mill CLERGY BIJWNS
D] ADEIRA.-REID'S HOTELS.—Splen
did Climate; eveiy comfort for Visitors ;
LONDON GAZETTE (published by authority) and
H ENRY GREEN, Advertisement Agent,
(HOWARD’S PATENT.) 1,000 Leaf Book, 5s. 6d. 500 Leaf Book, 3s. 6d. English made. THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK OUT,
7, BERLE STREET, AND 1, PORTUGAL STREET, LINCOLN'S INN. W.C.
MlLNER’S Strong, Holdfast, & Fire Resisting Safes & Bankers Strong Rooms.
For Books and documents ,. 3 16
SOLICITORS’ BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATIONFor the Reliqf qf Poor and lVvces.si!0ue Solicilors and Praciors in England and Wales, and their Wives,
Wcdnesday, the 26th inst., at 12 noon :—To receive from the Board their usual Half-yearly Report ; to elect Directors and Auditors for the ensnil>8
ycar ; and to transact other general Business.
9, Cliflord's-inn, London, E.C., October 3rd, 1887. JAMEQ THOMAS SCOTT, Secretary.
GENERAL Mar-rise oi the Members of this Association will be held at the Gnsxn Horst, E.isrizorn>'E.' °“
g ve sstbourne by the Evening Trains, an early Dinner will be provided at the Grand Hotel at
_ - - . cmen w o may desire to dine, will please send their names to RICHARD Pincocx. Eaq., Solicitor, Spencer House, Eastbourne, on or before Fiunsr, Oc-ronim 21st.
Tn:-: RESIGNATION by Mr. C. M. ROUPELL of the post of ofiicial referee places at the disposal of the Lord Chancellor an ofiice worth £1,-500 a year. It is to be observed, however, that under section 83 of the Judicature Act, 1873, the number of the ofiicial referees to be appointed from time to time is to be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the presidents of the divisions of the High Court and with the sanction of the Treasury. The number of references to the ofiicial referees has, during the last three years, kept up to a fairly high average, the figures being 108 in 1883-4; 108 in 1884-5; and 94 in 1885-6; so that it does not seem likely that occasion will be taken to reduce the number of these oflicers to two. The highest number of cases referred to the oflicial referees was in 1880-I, when there were 113.
W1: BELIEVE it has been hitherto supposed that an application for the postponement of the hearing of an appeal, not actually in the day's paper, would be granted almost as a matter of course, if made with the consent of all the parties. It appears, however, from the result of such an application to the Court of Appeal No. 2 on Monday that this is not a correct view of the practice. The parties to an appeal which stood third in the list of final appeals for the present sittings, and which was expected to come into the paper on Wednesday, agreed to a postponement of the hearing for three weeks, and applied to the oflicer of the court to mark the appeal as standing over accordingly. He, finding that the appeal had once been in the paper before the Long Vacation, said that the matter must be mentioned to the court. The application was accordingly made to the court on Monday by counsel, who stated that he had the consent of all the parties, and that the postponement was asked for because the attendance of some witnesses from a_ distance would probably be required, and also because the solicitor of one of the parties was at present abroad. The court refused the application, and Lord Justice Corrorr said that it was a great mistake to suppose that such an application was a matter of course. The court could not allow the parties to settle the paper themselves. If it was desired that a case should not come on in its regular tum, an application must be made to the court, and some siifiiciciit reason for the postponement must bc shewn. No good reason had been shewn on the present occasion.
WE VENTURE to think that if the proper construction to be placed on the above-mentioned rlicfizm of the Court of Appeal is that it is the right of the court to force appellants to come into court, whether they "Y8 prepared for a hearing or not, the doctrine is altogether new. “ The court,” Lord Justice COTTON said, “ cannot allow the parties to settle the paper themselves.” But can it be called “settling 71° Pflpfr ” when the parties, by mutual agreement, simply prevent an appeal from coming into the paper? Merely setting
Ir WILL an iiniisninnnan that in Re Faulkner (ante, p. 661) Mr. Justice Noarir held that where an auctioneer was employed and piiidiby the client, a solicitor, although not entitled to the “ conducting fee,” was entitled to be remunerated under Schedule II. for work preliminary to that done by the auctioneer. The rule was laid down by the learned judge in the following terms :— “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 solicitor—viz., when an auctioneer has been employed at the client's expense." Accordingly, in Re Faulkner, the solicitor was held to be entitled to proper charges according to Schedule ll. for “ attendances on the auctioneer, preparing advertisements of sale, attending to insert advertisements in newspapers, examining proofs of particulars of sale, attending auction, &c." In Re Peace and Ellis, decided by Mr. Justice Nonrri on Wednesday, and reported elsewhere, the solicitors claimed the “conducting fee,” although the auctioneer had been paid by the client. This was, of course, disallowed; but the taxing master seems, in spite of Re Faulkner, to have held that the solicitors could only claim the scale fee for contract, deducing title, and completing. Mr. Justice NORTH held that, though they were not entitled to the “ conducting fee," they were entitled to be remunerated under Schedule II. for such of the items of work properly done by them as were specified in their bill of cos-Is, and which were not covered by the fee paid to the auctioneer. They could not, however, claim for any items not specified in their bill. The lesson of the case is that where the auctioneer is paid by the client, the solicitor should not claim the conducting fee, but should be careful to claim under Schedule II. for all of the matters specified in Ra Faulkner which he has attended to.
SEBIOUS QUESTIONS must sooner or later arise both as to whether an appeal lies against a conviction under the Margarine Act (50 & 61 Vict. c. 29) and as to the procedure under which an appeal, if it lies, is to ‘be conducted. The opening sections of the Act impose certain penalties fcr improperly dealing in margarine, and the 12th section provides that “ all proceedings under Iliis Act shall, save as expressly varied by this Act, be the same as prescribed by sections twelve to twenty~eight inclusive of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875.” Sections 12 to 28 of the Act of 1875 contain numerous provisions as to the effect of the certificate of an analyst and otherwise which are clearly applicable to summary proceedings, and also a provision (section 23) that any person convicted of_ any offence punishable under the Act _may appeal to quarter sessions. Is this provision included in the incorporated sections ? In strictness it is not one of the proceedings imder Hie Jlfargnrine A02‘, so as to coiue within the 12th section, butthe intention seems to be tolerably plain; and, the 23rd section of the Act of 1875 being numerically ipcliitdlei amongst the incorporated sections, we‘ t111D1§i °1} H19 wh° 9» H: a court would be in favour of_ legally including 15, fl1°“8h1 31}! 9 other hai: d, it must be borne in mind that an _appeal 1_16V6l'h ies it common law, so that the burden of proof lies on him w o see s to establish a right to it. More difficult is thp qiaesgion what procedure is to be followed. The Sumlilflrl’ “H5 “lawn Act, 1879, though it established an i1_li1f°!m P1'°°9t:_r° for the future, allowed appellants under prior Act! $0 1'9 "1