« PreviousContinue »
THE LAW AS TO BIGAMY.
SECURITIES FOR MONEY, tions in connection with the law relating to bigamy. The LAW OF MONEY SECURITIES. By C. CAVANAGH, B.A., The prisoner's first marriage (which was solemnised in LL.B. (Lond.), of the Middle Temple, Barrister-atIreland in 1871) was duly proved, but as regards the Law. London: Stevens & Sons. second marriage, the evidence was that the ceremony was performed by Roman Catholic priests in a Roman
This is an interesting treatise upon the important Catholic church at a town in Illinois, in the United branch of law with which it purports to deal." In its States, both parties being British subjects and Roman design and scope the work is, we think, novel, and Catholics. Previous publication of the banns was proved, it will serve, therefore, to fill a place that has been as well as subsequent cohabitation, but there was no
hitherto empty on the shelves of our law libraries. The evidence as to the marriage law of the State of Illinois. title, as the author himself suggests, is open to remark The prisoner was convicted, but Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and criticism. The phrase " money securities " has an reserved the case, the following being the principal points unfamiliar ring about it, and needs to be explained and urged by the counsel for the prisoner:-1. The marriage defined. The author tells us that he has been led to law of the State of Illinois, or of the United States, coin a new phrase from a feeling that the expressions ought to have been proved by the prosecution, and there commonly in use to denote securities of a monetary was no evidence that the ceremony was in the form pre- nature are unsatisfactory, as being used in a sense too scribed by either of those laws. 2. The offence, if any,
narrow or else too broad. Lawyers talk of " securities was committed against the law of the State of Illinois, for money,” laymen of " securities” simply, and neither and was only punishable there, and the words, " whether
one nor the other bave, in the author's opinion, any very the second marriage shall have taken place in England clear and definite idea of the object they mean to exor Ireland, or elsewhere," in the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. press. There is, no doubt, some truth in this statement. 57, only refer to the dominions of the Queen.
What is or is not technically a security for money
is The court were divided in opinion. The Lord Chief Jus- only to be learnt by wandering through "a wil
, tice of the Queen's Bench (with whom Mr. Justice O'Brien derness of single instances," and it must be confessed concurred) held that the validity of the marriage must that it is not easy to understand the principle depend upon the law of the country where it was celebrated, underlying the decisions. It has been considered that and that therefore the marriage law of the State of Illi
an 1.0.U. does not pass under a bequest of " money and nois ought to have been proved as a question of fact. securities for money (see Re Mason's Will, 13 W. R. He declined to make any presumption in favour of the 799, 34 Beav. 499); and the same has been held with validity of the marriage. On the other hand, the Lord regard to bank stock and canal shares (Ogle v. Knipe, Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Fitgzerald, and Justices Barry and 17 W. R. 1090, L. R. 8 Eq. 434); while under a bequest Lawson upheld the conviction, holding, first, that the of "all my moneys” a balance due on a bauker's dewords " or elsewhere” rendered every subject of the posit account, and secured by deposit notes bearing Crown who might commit bigamy in any part of the interest, is held to be included. These decisions, and world amenable to the law if at any time he came within others of a like nature, go to establish technical refinethe Queen's dominions; and, secondly (on the authority ments which it would perhaps be difficult to classify by of Rex v. Inhabitants of Brampton, 10 East. 282), that reference to any known principle. On the other hand, a marriage between British subjects performed abroad, if the legal interpretation of securities for money errs on and having all the essence of a contract of marriage, the side of narrowness, the popular use of the word will be presumed to be valid according to the law of the “security” errs still more on the score of vagueness. country where it was celebrated, and that therefore it In the work before us, the term is limited to securities was unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that there of a strictly monetary nature, such, e.g., as life assurance was no provision of that law which would invalidate the policies, guarantees, mortgages, bills of exchange, &c., marriage.
as distinguished, on the one hand, from securities for The case of Reg. v. Allen (20 W. R. 756, L. R. 1 property, such as fire insurance policies, and the like ; C. C. R. 367), which had the effect of overruling and, on the other hand, from title-deeds and other the decision of the Irish judges in Reg. v. Fanning (17 documents establishing the right to property, which, Ir. C. L. 289), was much discussed during the argument. strictly speaking, are not securities at all. Mr. Baron Fitzgerald held that the case had no applica The brief opening chapter treats of the LO.U. as tion, but Mr. Justice Lawson accepted it as an authority, being a money security of the simplest form, while He quoted the following language of the Lord Chief other chapters relate to the subjects of lien and Justice of England :-"Where a person already bound mortgage. The chapter on Bills of Sale discusses the by an existing marriage goes through a form of marriage various changes in the law effected by the Bills of Sale known to and recognized by the law as capable of pro- Act of the present year. Locke King's Act and the two ducing a valid marriage, for the purpose of a pretended amending Acts are fully dealt with, and some useful and fictitious marriage, the case is not less within the suggestions made as to various points in connection with statute by reason of any special circumstances which, in- them. The different Statutes of Limitation are given in dependently of the bigamous character of the marriage, their chronological order, followed by a lucid summary may constitute a legal disability in the particular parties, of the changes in that branch of the law introduced by or make the form of marriage resorted to specially in the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874. A useful and applicable to their individual case”; and he drew from interesting chapter, containing
a detailed account of the it the inference that “if two British subjects contract a Stock Exchange, its constitution, and the rules by which marriage which would be valid if celebrated in their own
it is governed, concludes the volume. The author has country, it is immaterial whether that marriage takes the gift of a pleasant style: there are abundant and place in a country whose laws do not at all recognize that correct references to decisions of
a recent date ; form of marriage as valid, so far as the crime of bigamy and, in the matter of newly-enacted statutes, attempts is concerned.” This point seems really to dispose of the are made, and, as we think, not witbout success, to whole case, so far as regarded the evidence of the grapple with points of practice and interpretation American marriage.
which as yet remain judicially unsolved. An appen. dix, in which is embodied the full text of several important statutes, adds to the utility of the work as & book of reference ; and there is a good index.
the Treasury considered important enough to be taken up by Government.
24, Chancery-lane, Dec. 10, To CORRESPONDENTS.- All letters intended for publica
tion in the “ Solicitors' Journal” must be authenticated by the name of the writer. The Editor cannot
THE LADY CANDIDATE. undertake to return MSS. forwarded to him.
[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. Sir,-My attention has been called to a paragraph
which has appeared in print to the effect that a young [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]
lady had applied to be examined at the Preliminary Sir,—On the 9th of October last, I sent to the Incor. Examination for Solicitors, and which paragraph proporated Law Society the following letter :
ceeds to state that “ we understand that the young lady “24, Chancery-lane, London, W.C., will present herself for examination in February next." "9th October, 1879. As there is a slight misapprehension in this statement,
I should be obliged if you would permit me to correct it. “ Myself v. Puxley and another.
The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have ex. “I beg to draw your attention to this case, where the pressed their inability to accede to that young lady's defendants came to me with a most plausible tale application, and I believe that she has no intention whatas to salvage on a ship they had rescued on the Gun ever of presenting herself for examination in the face of Fleet Sands.
their refusal to accept her notice. “Thinking it was a swindle I allowed them to go on, The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have and, after some trouble, got a detective at the office, definitely said that they do not feel themselves at liberty and succeeded in capturing both of them. Full to accept the notice of any woman, and here the matter details appear in the daily papers of the 29th of Sep- will in all probability rest until it shall be thought tember last.
advisable, by those interested in seeing women enabled to "On the remand there were over a dozen solicitors take part in any suitable branch of the legal profession, present who had been swindled by the prisoners, and to test the question by taking steps to obtain judicial there is no doubt that they had been living for a long time opinion. on the proceeds of these frauds.
I may add that an association was formed last "My solicitor, Mr. Warde, who prosecuted for me, year, of which I am the secretary, with the twofold informs me that the prisoners are committed for trial, object of promoting the legal education of women, and and that the bench expressed an opinion that it was such of assisting them to take part in any suitable branch of a wholesale fraud on the legal profession generally the legal profession. And I shall be very glad to receive, that the Law Institution ought to be communicated from any of your readers, any suggestion or criticism in with, with a view to taking up the prosecution.
reference to the work of the association. "I shall be giad to furnish you with any further infor
R. LICHFIELD KING. mation you may require.
10, Sussex-place, Regent's Park, Dec. 17. “I have the honour to be, Sir,
[But what is the “ suitable branch ? "-ED. S. J.] “ Your obedient servant,
“F. MORESBY-WHITE. “To E. W. Williamson, Esq., Law Institution.”
It appeared that the priscners had been carrying on their frauds for some time, and had swindled a great
Cages of the deek. number of solicitors, no less than five cases having been proved against them.
WILL-TRUSTEES-SPECULATIVE SECORITIES - DISCREUnder these circumstances, therefore, one would think TION TO POSTPONE CONVERSION.—In a case of In re Norringthat it was a case for the Incorporated Law Society to ton, before the Court of Appeal on the 15th inst., a testator, interfere, but, knowing their dilatory movements, I by his will, gave his trustees a limited power of investment thought it best to communicate at the same time
of the trust funds. The life interest in the funds was given with the Home Secretary, which I did, and within three
to his widow, with remainder absolutely to his daughter. days from that date the Treasury took up the prosecu; applied as the income after conversion. The will expressly
Until conversion the net income of the property was to be tion. The prisoners were committed for trial, and empowered the trustees “to postpone, for such period as they, sentenced at the last sessions at the Central Criminal in their free discretion, shall think fit, the sale and conversion Court to a year and eighteen months' imprisonment into money of all or any part of my real and personal estate," respectively, and it was not until the end of De- and directed that the trustees were not to be responsible for cember (some time after they were tried and sentenced) any loss, risk, or damage that might be occasioned by or that I received the following letter from the secretary result from such postponement. The testator died in 1870. to the Incorporated Law Society :
At the time of his death his estate consisted, in part, of four “ Incorporated Law Society,
Egyptian bonds, and of some shares in an unlimited bank“Chancery-lane, London, W.C., ing company. At the time of the testator's death, the bonds “ 1st of December, 1879.
were worth £80 a piece. One of them was afterwards paid “Sir,--I am directed by the Council of the Incorpo
off at par, and the other three were sold in 1876 at £53 & rated Law Society to acknowledge the receipt of your piece. After the sale the price fell still further. The bank
was in very good repute until in 1878 it stopped payment, letter of the 9th of October last.
and further calls were afterwards made on the shareholders. "The council desire me to inform you that they
The daughter sought to make the trustees responsible for the cannot assume the conduct of the prosecution re loss which bad resulted by their not having converted the bonds ferred to.
and the bank shares within a year from the testator's death. “I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Bacon, V.C., held that the trustees were protected by the dis“ (Signed) E. W. WILLIAMSON, Secretary. cretionary power given to them by the will, and this deci. * F. Moresby-White, Esq., 24, Chancery-lane, W.O." sion was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, It is hardly necessary to draw attention to the fact
and THESIGER, L.JJ.). " JAMES, L.J., said that if the court
were to hold that the trustees were not to have the benefit of that it took the society from the 9th of October till the provision contained in the will
, it would be making a the 1st of December to answer a letter which the Home
will for the testator, not construing the will which he had Secretary answered within three days. Also, that the
made. THESIGER, L.J., said that the words which the Incorporated Law Society did not think fit to conduct testator had used gave the trustees an absolutely unfettered a prosecution on behalf of the legal profession which discretion. He thought that the oğurts had gone quite far
enough, if not too far, in making artificial rules for the con- amount, as he was only earning £1 a week. It was argued. struction of wills. Such rules tended to the construing of on the authority of Barrett v. Hammond (L. R. 10 CH. D. wills according to the view wbich bad been taken at some re 285), that the object of the imprisonment under the Debtors mote time of the way in which testators ought to dispose of Acts was not punishment, but merely to get payment of the their property. JAMES, L.J., expressed his concurrence in debt, and further that the defendant was not in a fiduciary the observations of Thesiger, L.J.
capacity under the 4th section of the Debtors Act, 1869. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that the defendant was a person
in a fiduciary capacity within the meaning of the 4th section MINE-COLLIERY LEASE" Wix.”_On the 16th inst. of the Debtors Act, 1869, and that this was an extremely bad the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, case, and one that deserved puuishment. He dissented L.JJ.), affirmed the decision of Fry, J., in a case of Lord entirely from the notion that the Act of 1869 was not in. Rokeby v. Elliot (27 W. R. 58, L. Ř. 9 Cb. D. 685). The
tended to be vindictive, and that the power of committal question was as to the meaning of the word "win ” in a was not intended as a punishment. The object of the old Act lease of a coal mine. The plaintiff was the owner of the had not been altered by the Act of 1878, and that Act was mine; the defendant was the lessee, and he was also the only intended to give the court the power in a very hard case owner of an adjoining colliery. The lease gave the defend
—such as he had had before him before the present Act was ant power, by such ways and means as he should think fit,
passed, when a poor man was dying in prison, and he had to win and work the plaintiff's coal, and in the first place to had no power to help him-of releasing a prisoner, or of reimburse himself all such costs, charges, damages, and refusing to send bim to prison. The want of means ho expenses whatsoever, wbich he should bear, pay, sustain, certainly did not look upon as a case for the exercise of that expend, or be put onto “in and about ihe winning thereof," discretionary power, and in the present case he was by no by, with, and out of the profits to arise by sale of the means sure the defendant had not the means to pay, and coals which should be brought or gotten out of the plaintiff's might not even now bave the money he had misappropriated mine, and, after payment of the costs, &c., of winning the under his power or control. He looked upon the present coal, a royalty was to be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant defendant as certainly most deserving of punishment, and he had worked the plaintiff's coal by means of a driftway from should make the order asked for for his committal. the adjoining colliery, and he commenced the working on the 15th of July, 1864. The action was brought for an account and payment of royalties. And the main question LANDS CLAUSES ACT, 8. 704" REAL SECURITIES"-INwas when the defendant could be said to have “won”.
VESTMENT IN CORPORATION BONDS.—In a case of Re Levick's the coal, and wbat deductions he was entitled to make in Irusts, before the Master of the Rolls on the 16th inst., & respect of the costs of “winning." Fry, J., held that the
question arose whether, under the 70th section of the coal was won on the 15th of July, 1864, when the defendant | Landa Clauses Consolidation Act, & sum of money, paid first worked it for the purpose of sale. The winning was a single act, and it was not because there was capital expendi.
into court for the purobase-money of certain land taken by
a corporation, could be laid out in the bonds of the corture for the subsequent purposes of the colliery that coal could be said not to be won. The defendant was, therefore,
poration as constituting an investment in “real securities." | The corporation were authorized to borrow a large som, at
the entitled to be allowed bis expenditure in making the driftway up to the 15th of July, 1864, but not the expense of
four per cent., secured by mortgage of their borough rates.
It was stated that a similar order had been made in sinking a shaft which he sank in the year 1867 for the purpose of better ventilation.
apotber branch of the court. JESSEL, M.R., considered JAMES, L.J. (who delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal), said that their lord
that "real securities” meant mortgages of freehold or ships thought that the definition of winning ” contained
oopyhold property. The borough rates could not be said in Lewis v. Fothergill (L. R. 5 Ch. 105), was as accurate as
to be real property. He certainly should not follow the any definition could be. In that case James, V.C., said that
order that was referred to, upless he saw the reasons for “ the coal was won when it was reached so as effectually to
the judgment and found them satisfactory. He also be worked.” And Lord Hatherley, C., said he conceived
| refused to allow the petition to stand over to produce some that “the coal is won when it is put in a state in which con.
other authority for the order now asked, as the object tinuous working can go forward in the ordinary way.”
could only be to show that borongh rates were "real" JAMES, L.J., added that the coal was won when full prac
property, which he could not hold. The petition must be ticable available access was given to the coal hewers so that | amended, and the money invested according to the Act. they might enter on the practical work of getting the coal.
PRACTICE-ADMINISTRATION ACTION-INFANT DEFENDAGREEMENT TO REFER TO ARBITRATION - EXTENT OF ANT-HEARING AS SHORT CAUSE-GUARDIAN AD LITEM NOT ARBITRATOR'S POWERS.-In a case of Piercy v. Young, before APPCINTED UNTIL AFTER THE HEARING.-In & case of Re tbe Court of Appeal on the 17th inst., the question was whether Goodwin (deceased), Harris v. George, before Hall, V.C., on certain matters in dispute between the parties to the action the 13th inst., which was an action for administration of the were included in an agreement which they bad entered into real and personal estate of a testator, it was mentioned to to refer to arbitration. The case of Willesford v. Watson, the court that, as one of the defendants was an infant, and (21 W. R. 350, L. R. 8 Ch. 473) was cited to show that, no guardian ad litem had yet been appointed, the con. under such an agreement, it is for the arbitrator to determine sent of that defendant could not be obtained to the cause whether the particular dispute is or is not comprised in the being heard “short." Hall, V.C., said that the order agreement. JESSEL, M.R., said that no such proposition was appointing the guardian ad litem might be produced to the laid down by that case, but that it is only a decision that, registrar, and the judgment dated as of a day subsequent to upon the construction of the agreement there in question, the date of that order. power was given to the arbitrator to decide whether any particular dispute came within the agreement.
PRACTICE- EVIDENCE TAKEN DE BENE ESSE-SUIT TO
ESTABLISH RIGHTS OF CUSTOMARY TENANTS-LAPSE OF FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP - MOTION TO COMMIT - No SIXTY-FIVE YEARS—PUBLICATION OF DEPOSITIONS-FORM MEANS TO PAY-DEBTORS Act, 1869, s. 4-DEBTORS ACT, OF ORDER.-An application was made, upon motion, to 1878, s. 1.-In a case of Manis V. Ingram, before the Master Hall, V.C., on the ilth inst., on behalf of the plaintiffs in of the Rolls on the 12th inst., a question arose whether the | a suit of Phillips v. Llanovír, that certain depositions of court would exercise the discretionary power given to it) witnesses, who had been examined de bene esse in the year under section 1 of the Debtors Act, 1878, of refusing to send | 1814 in a suit of Moggridge v. Hall, might be published and a debtor to prison. The defendant had acted as agent to his used as evidence, saving all just exceptions and a father of a farm, and had sold the farming stock, and bad tions as to their admissibility. The circumstances, briefly misappropriated the proceeds of sale, and an order bad been stated, were as follows:- The suit of Moggridge v. Hall was made in the action directing him to pay £1,000 into court, brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of them.selves and Upon disobedience to the order a morion was now made to others, the customary tenants of the manor of Abercarne, commit bim for bis contempt. In bis affidavit in answer to the to obtain a declaration of title to the mines and minerals of motion he claimed a large set-off against the sum due, for his the manor. In the year 1814 the evidence of twelve aged services, and also alleged that he had no means to pay the persons was, by order, taken de bene esse on commission. This commission and the depositions were duly filed in the VENDOR AND PURCHASER-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE_NoRecord Ofice. In June, 1870, Lady Llanover and her TICE TO MAKE TIME OF ESSENCE OF CONTRACT-REASONABLEtrustees commenced a suit, Llanover v. Humphrey, praying NESS — PRACTICE — PLEADING - SPECIFIC DENIAL-Evia declaration that they were entitled to the mines and DENCE-COUNTER-CLAIM- REPLY-AMENDMENT — ORD. 19, minerals as lords of the same manor. In April, 1871, Hall RR. 3, 17, 20, 22-ORD, 27, R. 1.-In a case of Green v. being then dead, J. and P. Phillips, two of the defendants Sevin, before Fry, J., on the 13th inst., a question arose as in the last-mentioned suit, commenced a suit, Phillips v. to the validity and reasonableness of a notice given by a Llanover, against Lady Llanover and her trustees, and the vendor to rescind his contract for sale, if the purobaser did trustees of the deceased defendant in the first suit, praying, not complete it by a specified day. There was also a by amended and re-amended bill of complaint, that the question as to the effect of a reply to a counter-claim, and plaintiffs, as customary tenants of the same manor, might a further question as to the right of the plaintiff to call be declared to be entitled to the mines and minerals of the witnesses in answer to the counter-claim. The plaintiff, same manor, and for other relief relating to the same subject. who was the leggee of a factory, granted an underleage of matter, and that the suit might be deemed to be & supple | it to the defendant. The underlease contained a provigo mental suit to Moggridge v. Hall, and to have the benefit that the defendant should have the option, at any time thereof, and, if necessary, be as a cross-suit to Llanover v. daring the first seven years of the term thereby created, of Humphrey. None of the suits had ever been brought to a
purobasing the demised premises and the original lease for hearing. The present application was made in the three suits, £5,000. On the 15th of March, 1877, the defendant gave and, as above stated, on behalf of the plaintiffs in Phillips
the plaintiff notice of his intention to exercise the option of V. Llanover, in reliance upon the order of Lord Hardwicke
purchase. On the 20th of March an abstract of the plainin Duke of Hamilton v. Meynel (2 Ves. Sen. 496), and of
tiff's title was sent to the defendant's solicitor, and on the the Court of Appeal in Vane v. Vane (24 W. R. 565). The
29th of March he sent to the plaintiff's solicitora draft assignmotion was strenously opposed by Lady Llanover and her
ment of the original lease to the defendant. The plaintiff bad trustees, but HALL, V.C., held that upon the authorities,
previously mortgaged the original lease, and a dispate bad as they stood, he could not refuse an order for publication,
arisen between him and his mortgagee as to the amount but that the order must be without prejudice to any ex
due on the mortgage. To settle this dispate an action was ceptions as to the admissibility of the depositions in evidence.
brought in the Chancery Division, and this led to great The costs of the motion to be costs in the suit of Phillips v.
delay in the completion of the parohase. The draft Llanorer.
assigoment was retained by the vendor's solicitor until the
25th of March, 1879, when he returned it to the par. MINE-TRESPASS - ACCOUNT ALLOWANCES-STATUTE OF
chaner's solicitor considerably altered, and not then finally LIMITATIONS.—lo a case of Trotter v. Maclean, before Fry,
settled so that it conld be engrossed. There was also sent J., on the 3rd inst., the action was brought in respeot of a
with it a supplemental abstract of a further charge on the trespass consisting in an unauthorized working and removal
property, which had been created by the vendor since the of coal belonging to the plaintiffs by the defendant, who was
purcbager had given notice of his intention to exercise his the owner of anadjoining colliery, and the plaintiffs claimed
option. On the 3rd of April, 1879, the vendor's solicitor an account and payment of the value of the coal which had
gave notice to the purobaser's solicitor that, if the pur. been taken. The principal questions were whether the
obase was not completed before the 22nd of April, the defendant was to be treated as having taken the coal
vendor would put an end to the contract. The fraudulently, and whether the Statute of Limitations
purchase was not completed on that day, and on the applied, so as to restrict the account to a period of six
23rd of April the vendor commenced the aotion, claiming years before the issue of the writ in the action. The
a deolaration that the contraot for sale had been duly plaintiffs were the trustees of a will, and had, in fact, no
determined. The purchaser delivered a defence and power to let or sell tbe coal. But onder some misapprehen.
counter-claim. The defence made some admissions, and sions as to their powers, negotiations had taken place in
contained various statements of faots on which the defendOctober, 1871, between the defendant and one of the then
ant relied. And the counter-claim was as follows:trustees, who was a solicitor, and acted as solicitor to the
“And, by way of counter-claim, this defendant repeats trustees, for a lease of tbe coal to the defendant, and
the several matters hereinbefore stated and admitted, and after an interview between the solicitor and the defend.
claims as follows." The claim was for the specifio perant's manager, the latter wrote to the solicitor that he had
formance of the contract of sale. By his reply the plaintiff instructed the person in charge of the defendant's colliery
admitted some of the particulars of the defence, and joined at once to commence working the trustees' coal. The
issue “upon the several defences, gave as aforesaid, and working was accordingly commenced in November, 1871,
save in so far as the same do not admit the statement of In July, 1872, the trostees',solicitor wrote to the defendant's
olaim." And then, “in reply to the statemente alleged by manager that he bad discovered that the trustees had no
way of counter-claim by the defendant, the plaintiff repower to lease their coal, and that, consequently, it was
peats the several matters stated in the statement of claim impossible for him to enter into any terms for the lease.
and the admissions bereinbefore made, and says that, save After this the working was continued by the defendant op
as stated in the statement of claim or herein before to October, 1872. The action was commenced in April,
admitted, each of sach allegations is untrue.” Upon the 1878. The solicitor trustee had died in 1875, and the
merits FRY, J., held that, at the time when tbe vendor plaintiffs did not, in fact, kdow of the defendant's working
gave the notice to make time of the essence of the contract, until January, 1877. Fry, J., held that all the trustees
there had been no default or delay on the part of the purmust be taken to have had notice, through their solicitor,
cbaser. And he said that in all the cases in which it that the defendant was about to work their coal, and that,
| had been held that one party to a contract, by which time inasmuch as the defendant acted in the first instance in the
was not originally made of the essence, was entitled to give bona fide belief that he would obtain a good title to the coal,
a notice making time of the essence, it was so beld because he could not, in respect of the coal w biob bad been worked
the other party bad been guilty of some default or unreaby him down to July, 1872, wben he received distinct notice
sonable delay. Indeed, it was clear upon pripoiple that that the trustees could not give him a title, be treated as
that must be so, for one party to a contract could not be having worked the Coal fraudulently. After that notice,
allowed of his simple volition to alter the terms of the conhowever, his working must be treated as fraudulent.
tract. And, in the present case, even if the vendor was The Statuto of Limitatione, tberefore, applied to the work.
entitled to give the notice, yet the time fixed by it for the ing before that notice was given, and the account would
completion of the contract was, ander the circumstances, only extend to April, 1872, but it would lie on the defendant
onreasonably short. The great delay which had taken place to prove that the coal wbich he had taken bad been taken
on the part of the vendor would justify the purobaser in inbefore April, 1872. In respect of the coal taken before
vesting his purchase-money in such a mode that he could July, 1872, the defendant would be allowed the cost of
not obtain it in so short a time as less than three weeks. severance, as well as tbe cost of bringing it to bank; in
Moreover, the supplemental abstract had to be verified, and respect of the coal taken after Joly, 1872, he would be
the draft assignment had to be finally settled and engrossed. allowed only the cost of bringing it to bank.
The vendor was not justified in limiting 80 short a time for completion after his own great delay. On both grounds, therefore, the notice was invalid, and the original
action must be dismissed, with costs. It followed that the Savings Bank, and to the Police Committee for West defendant was entitled on the counter-claim to judgment for Sussex. He was also solicitor to the Pet worth Association specific performance of the contract, with costs. The ven for the Prosecution of Kelons, steward of the Manor and dor's title being admitted, there would be a reference to cham Honor of Petworth, and of other large Sussez manors, and bers to settle the assignment, in case the parties sbould superintendent registrar for the district. He was for many differ ; and, subject to the claim of the mortgagee, whose years clerk to the Petworth Board of Guardians, Assessment security was created before the contract, the defendant would Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, but recently retain his costs out of the purchase-money.
resigned in favour of bis son and partner, Mr. Charles The question as to pleading was this. It was contended on James Daintree, who was admitted a solicitor in 1875. His behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff's reply amounted to health had long been delicate, but his death was caused by an admission of all the facts alleged by way of counter-claim. the bursting of a blood vessel upon his brain. Mr. Daintree And Fry, J., held that this was so, inasmuch as there was not was buried at Petworth on the 6th insta & specific denial of each fact. He said that the object of the rules was that the exact point of the denial should be shown by the pleading, and it was not enough to deny a proposi
MR. WILLIAM MOORE. tion in general terms. But bis lordship gave leave to amend Mr. William Moore, solicitor, died at his residence, the reply. There was, he said, no surprise, and moreover Herrington Hall, Sanderland, on the 24th ult. Mr. Moore the counter-claim had been drawn in a way which put a very was admitted a solicitor in 1843, and had practised for unnecessary difficulty in the way of the plaintiff. It might thirty-six years at Sunderland. He was formerly assoor might not be an admissible mode of pleading, but it
ciated in partnership with his brother, the late Mr. pitchforked into the counter-claim all the statements contained
Anthony John Moore (who was steward of the Manor of in the defence, and threw upon the plaintiff the obligation
the ancient borough of Sunderland), add, subsequently, of a very detailed pleading in reply, which might possibly
with his nephew, Mr. Anthony Jobn Moore, jan., but more very unnecessary. His lordship said tbat when he decided Til. destey y. Harper (26 W. R. 263, L. R. 7Ch. D. 403) he thonght recently
be had practised alone. He had a good com
mercial practice, and was for many years solicitor to the that, if a party chose to come to trial with such admissions
Sanderland Gas Company and to the Sunderland and on the pleadings, the opposite party was entitled to have the
South Shields Water Company. He actively supported benefit of the admissions. The Court of Appeal, however, took a different view (27 W. R. 249, L. R. 10 Ch. D. 393),
tho Liberal party, and his firm were formerly solicitors to
the Sunderland Reform Association. His death bas caused and held that the practice should be the same as that which had existed in chambers with regard to the amendment of
great regret in Sunderland and the neighbourhood, pleadings. The question as to evidence arose thus. After the
MR. WILLIAM HAYES. plaintiff's case had been closed, the defence andcounterclaim were opened, and evidence was called in support of
Mr. William Hayes, solicitor, of Halesowen, died at that them. When the plaintiff's counsel came to reply he in
place on the 20th alt. Mr. Hayes was the son of Mr. sisted that he was entitled to call further evidence in opposi William Steel Hayes, of Halesowen, where he was born in tion to the counter-claim, urging especially that, though he 1807. He was admitted a solicitor in 1832, and in the might not be able to succeed in obtaining a declaration that first instance practised at West Bromwich. Ho afterwards the contract had been rescinded, yet he might be able to show returned to Halesowen and went into partnership with his that the defendant was not entitled to specific performance of father. He was next associated with Mr. Arthur Wright, the contract. Fry, J., however, without laying down any the firm having branch offices at West Bromwich and Oldgeneral rule, refused to admit any further evidence, on the
bury, and more recently he
was joined by Mr. ground that in the particular case the issues of fact on the Arthur George Hayes, who was admitted a solicitor in claim and on the counter-claim were identical.
1874. He had been clerk to the county magistrates for the Halesowen Division for forty years, and to the county magistrates for the Rowley Regis Division ever since its
formation. Mr. Hayes was & perpetual commissioner for Obituary.
Worcestershire, Staffordshire, and Warwiokabire, and clerk
of the deputy.coroners for the county.
MR. EDWARD NEWMAN. bourne-terrace, on the 3rd inst., iu his eighty-second year. Mr. Edward Newman, solicitor, died at Barnsley on the Mr. Unthank was the son of Mr. William Unthank, 5th inst. Mr. Newman was born in 1799, and was admitted solicitor, of Norwich, where he was born in 1798, and he a solicitor in 1821, and about two years later commenced to was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he practise at Barnsley. He was formerly in partnership with graduated B.A. in 1822. He practised for many years as a
Mr. William Newman, but more recently he was associated special pleader, and was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn with his sons, Messrs. Charles Newman and Thomas James in Hilary Term, 1843. He was formerly a member of the
Newman. He was a perpetual commissioner for the West Northern Circuit. In 1859 he was appointed by Lord Riding, and had been registrar of the Rotherbam County Campbell to a mastership in the Court of Queen's Bench, Court (Circuit No. 13), ever since the passing of the first and he discharged his official duties with great ability and County Courts Act, jointly with Mr. William Fretwell Hoyle, success, being highly respected by both branches of the pro of Rotherham. He was also clerk to the Brampton Bierlow fession for the patience and courtesy which he always dis and Hooton Roberts Turnpike Trust, to the commissioners played. About two years ago, after nearly nineteen years
under the Barnsley Church Acts, and to the trustees of the service, he was compelled by ill-health to retire upon a
Hemsworth Hospital, and the Hemsworth Grammar pension. Mr. Unthank was married to the daughter of the
School. Mr. Newman, about twelve years age, relinquished late Colonel Monier Williams, H.E.I.C.S., and sister of
his practice in favour of his sons, but retained the county Professor Monier Williams.
court registrarship. Soon after his retirement he was appointed a magistrate for the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Mr. Newman's funeral took place at St. George's Church, MR. ARTHUR DAINTREE.
Barnsley, on the 9th inst., a large number of his friends Mr. Arthur Daintree, solicitor, died at Petworth on the
being present. 1st inst. Mr. Daintree was the son of Mr. George Daintree, solicitor, of Petworth, and was born in 1803. He was admitted a solicitor in 1834, and soon afterwards succeeded
MR. RALPH PARK PHILIPSON. to his father's practice. He was a commissioner to administer oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature, and a perpetual upon-Tyne, on the 16th inst. Mr. Philipson was born in
Mr. Ralph Park Philipson, solicitor, died at Newcastle commissioner for Sussex, and ho held several important 1798. He was admitted a solicitor in 1819, and had public appointments. He was clerk to the trustees of the practised for nearly sixty years at Newcastle. He was for Petworth and Five Oaks Turnpike Roads, to the Petworth many years in partnership with the late Mr. John Trotter