« PreviousContinue »
the Treasury, 1833-4. P.C. 1837. Commissioner of Woods and Forests, 1850-54. March 1.
KYLE, William Cotter, Esq., LL.D. Trinity Coll., Dublin, Barrister-at-Law (lrel.), aged 77. Called 1825. Secretary to Board of Endowed Schools. j.P. for Co. Roscommon. ./March 25.
LAWLEY, Frederick, Esq., Solicitor, Rugeley. Admitted 1839. March 28.
LEE, William, Esq., Solicitor, Sandwich, aged 79. Admitted 1820. March 23.
LEEMING, Charles, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-atLaw, Knight of the Papal Order of St. Gregory, aged 51. Called 1854. fan. 4.
LEONARD, Maurice, Esq., Solicitor (lrel.), aged 74. Admitted 1829. March 1.
L1-zwrs, George Coleman Hamilton, Esq., Solicitor, aged 73. Admitted 1834. March 13. '
Mac DONALD, VVilliam Patrick, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Called 1864. April 4.
MANDER, Henry Waterland, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barristerat-Law. Called 1847. fan. 31.
Masrsmvum, William Stanley, Esq., Solicitor, Croydon. Admitted 1838. Feb. 20.
MILLIGAN, john Swan, Esq., S.S.C. (Scot.) Admitted 1850. Feb. 21. Moons, Edward, Esq., Solicitor (lrel.), aged 82. Feb. 16.
lvloaonn, Francis, Esq., Solicitor (lrel.), aged 73. Admitted 1833. March 15.
Monnm, james, Esq., Solicitor (Irel.) March 5.
MURRAY, john, Esq., S.S.C. (Scot.) Admitted 1836. fan. 23.
Nears, Charles, of Norham Manor, Northumberland, and of Linc0ln’s Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, aged 71. M.A. and Senior Fellow of Oriel Coll., Oxon. Called 1832; but his legal career was abruptly closed after a few years, in consequence of the spirited but unprofessional manner in which he resented an insult received in Court from Mr. Bethell (afterwards the late Lord Chancellor Vi/estbury). After filling the post of Secretary to Sir Francis Baring, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Neate subsequently returned to Oxford to reside on his Fellowship. In I857 he was appointed Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, and the same year was elected M.P. (Liberal) for Oxford City, but was unseated on petition. He was re-elected in 1863, and sat till 1868. Before going to Oxford, Mr. Neate received his education in France, and won the Essay Prize open to all France, an honour which was also carried off by his great friend Sainte Beuve. He published several brochures in French, Latin, and English, writing all three languages with equal ease and lucidity. Genial, kind-hearted, and vivacious, he will be regretted by many both within and without the University, in the affairs of which he always displayed so active an interest. Feb. 7.
NICHOLSON, Joseph, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barristerat-Law, aged 59. B.A. Caius Coll., Camb. Called 1844. March 26.
OGLE, Robert, of Erlingham Hall, Northumberland, and of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, aged 61. B.A., B.N.C., Oxon. J.P. for Northumberland. Called I846. March I5.
OLDHAM, Henry, Esq., Solicitor (Irel.), aged 65. Admitted 1839. ';’an. 14.
PARKER, Arnold, Esq., Solicitor, Sheffield, aged 45. Admitted I852. March I7.
PARKER, Vi/'llliam, of Ware Park, Herts, and of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, aged 75. J.P. and D.L. for Herts, and J.P. for Middlesex. Called 1849. April 9.
PEARCE, James, Esq., Solicitor, VVoolwich, aged 69. Admitted I83i. April 9.
PLASKITT, \/Vil1iam,Esq., Solicitor, Gainsborough, aged 68. Admitted 1835. _'}an. 30.
QUAYLE, Mark Hildesley, Esq., Clerk of the Rolls for the Isle of Man, aged 74. Called to the Manx Bar 1825. March 19.
RENNY, VVilliam John, Esq. \V.S. (Scot.), aged 56. Admitted 1844. J.P. and D.L. for the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright. fan. 25.
Rnonas, Thomas, Esq., Solicitor, Market Rasen, aged 88. Admitted 1816. March 29.
ROBERTS, VVilliam. Esq., formerly Solicitor, Rochdale, aged 67. Feb. 18.
ROMNEY, Churchill, Esq., Solicitor, Tewkesbury, aged 39. Admitted 1860. fan. 29.
SANDES, Maurice Fitzgerald, Esq., Barrister-at-Law (Irel.), aged 71. Called 1831. B.A., Trinity Coll., Dublin. Registrar of the Supreme Court, Calcutta, 1848. Administrator-General of Bengal, 1850. J.P. for Co. Kerry. March 4.
SEMPLE, David, Esq., F.S.A., Scot., Writer (Scot., 1828), aged 7o. Der. 23.
SMITH, Arthur Denman Tyler, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, aged 38. LL.B., Trinity Coll., Camb. Called 1870. March 1.
Srnurr, John., Esq., Solicitor, aged 70. Admitted 1830. Mhrch I9.
Txrr, James Campbell, Esq., W.S. (Scot.), aged 81. Admitted 1823. Son of the late Craufurd Tait, Esq., W.S., by Susan, daughter of the late Sir Islay Campbell, Bart., of Succoth (Lord Succoth, and Lord President of the Court of Session), and elder brother of the present Archbishop of Canterbury. jan. 17.
TORRANCE, John, Esq., W.S. and S.S.C. (Scot.) Feb. 20.
UDNY, George, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law (late ‘of the Bengal Civil Service), aged 56. Called I855. April 7.
V\/Arson, William, Esq., Solicitor, Hull. Admitted 1850. ]an. 25. '
WEBSTER, James, Esq., S.S.C. (Scot.) Admitted 1839. Feb. 4..
‘V!-IITAKER, Marmaduke William, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, aged 4.1. B.A., Trinity Hall, Camb. Deputy Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Liberty of Ripon. Called 1862.
WHITE, Archibald, of Lincoln’s Inn, Esq., Conveyancer, Great Missenden, Bucks, aged 78. Admitted 1827. March 3.
W1-uranunsr, Charles Howard, of the Middle Temple, Esq. Q.C., and a Bencher, aged 82. B.A., Oxon. Called 1822. March I 3.
WILSON, Thomas R., Esq., Solicitor tlrel.) Admitted 1863. March 14.
Wooo, Charles Paul, Esq., Solicitor, aged 50. Admitted 184.9. Feb. 12.
WRIGHT, Thomas, Esq., Solicitor, Carlisle. Admitted 1849. March 3o.
WR1<;H'rsoN, William Battie, of Cusworth, Yorkshire, and of Lincoln’s Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, aged 89. Called 1815. M.P. (Liberal), for East Retford in 1826, but unseated on petition; for Hull I831-2, 1835-65. J.P. and D.L. for \Vest Riding of Yorkshire. Feb. 10.
The Law of the Ofiee and Duties of the Sheri]. VVith the Writs and Forms relating to the Office. By CAMERON CHURCHILL, B.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Assisted by A. CARMICHAEL BRUCE, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & Sons. 1879. '
The opening paragraphs of this book are somewhat disappointing. VVe do not expect writers on technical law to be profound historians, but we have a right to expect from two learned authors who undertake to give, however briefly, an account of the “ origin " of the oflice of Sheriff, something better than an extract from Dalton, quoting “an ancient writer," Speed (who published his History in 1614.), to the following effect. “Alfred first dividing this Kingdom into several counties or shires, instituted a prefect, or lieutenant, in each of those counties, which [sic] were then called eustodes and afterwards comites, earls, who were to keep the counties in obedience,” &c. Further on we are told, on the authority of Dalton, “ but afterwards, when estates for life and inheritance were granted of the office, then the vice-comites were made who had the same authority that the ancient romifes had." The proverbial schoolboy, if consulted by Messieurs Churchill and Bruce, could have informed them that the ascription to King Alfred of the division of England into shires was a vulgar error, and could have given them the very good reason that only a portion of this kingdom was ever subject to Alfred‘s sway. In his own kingdom of \Vessex, the division and even the name of “ shire " existed long previously, in the reign of Ina, who speaks of the “Scirman, or other judge,” refers to the forfeiture of his seir by an ealdorman, and forbids the dependent to withdraw from his lord into another scir. On the other hand the arrangement of the whole kingdom in shires could not possibly have been completed until it was first permanently united under Alfred's great-grandson, Edgar. But in fact, as Palgrave and Stubbs have pointed out, the historical shires or counties owe their origin to various causes. Some like Kent, Sussex, Essex, Middlesex and Surrey, represent ancient kingdoms. Norfolk and Suffolk are two divisions of East Anglia, probably representing the “ fylkis," or folks, into which the Norsemen divided their province; and several of the Northern shires have become such since the Norman Conquest. The early history of the Sheriffdom is both interesting and constitutionally important. The title of “ vice-comes," by which the shire-reeve was known subsequently to the Conquest, is apt to mislead. The ancient shire was subject to a system of double government by ealdorman and scir-gerefa, the former being a national officer, chosen by the King and VVitan, and frequently administering several shires, while the latter was the King’s steward and judicial president of a single shire, and, as a rule, was nominated by the King alone. Vi/hile the ealdormanships tended to become hereditary, the office of Sheriff did not; and it was by means of the Sheriffdom that the Norman and Plantagenet Kings were enabled to oppose one powerful obstacle to the growth of a Continental feudalism within the jurisdictions of the great Earls. Our authors profess to “ summarize briefly what the authorities have stated on the subject," but 1t would seem either that they themselves are yet in blissful ignorance as to the “ authorities " on .Legal History and Constitutional Law, or that the names of Palgrave, Kemble, Stubbs, cum multis aliis, are to them names and nothing more.
Turning from the chapter on the “ origin and appointment " of the Sheriff to the more technical parts of the book, we are glad to be able to speak in higher terms. The functions of the Sheriff are conveniently treated under the two divisions of judicial and Ministerial. The first division is sub-divided into five parts, discussing of his judicial duties (1) at the election of coroners; (2) in outlawry proceedings; (3) in the election of Members of Parliament; (4) on a writ of inquiry; and (5) in the Compensation Court. Similarly the Sheriffs Ministerial duties are grouped under the five heads of (1) at assizes ; (2) in the summoning of juries; (3) in the execution of criminals; (4) as to interpleader; and (5) in the execution of writs. The final chapter treats of the remedies against Sheriffs, both by way of attachment and by action, and of the evidence to connect the Sheriffs. The Appendix contains a collection of I56 Forms, and also extracts from the 19 and 2o Vict., c. I08, as to priority of process issuing out of the High Court and the County Court, and from the Bills _of Sale Act, 1878. The authors appear to have taken pains to be accurate and concise, and are always careful to support their propositions in the text by references to decided cases and other trustworthy authorities. High Sheriffs (who, being personally responsible for the acts of