« PreviousContinue »
been complied with, for that no notice had been given of TIME FOR APPEALING-INTERLOCUTORY ORDER-SUMthe intention to ask for the issue of an attachment. The MONS UNDER VENDOR AND PURCHASER Act, 1874-ORD. 58, court (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and COTTON, L JJ.), held that RR. 9, 15.-In a case of In re Blyth, before the Court of the order ought to have been drawn up (as, indeed, the Vice- Appeal on the 13th inst., the appeal was brought from an Chancellor bad made it) in the terms of the notice of motion, order made upon a summons under the Vendor and Par. and in accordance with the form given in the schedule to the chaser Act. The notice of appeal had not been given rules, and that it must be rectified accordingly. It was within twenty-one days, and it was objected that the then urged on behalf of the defendant that the evidence did appeal was consequently too late. On the other side it was not show that he had the means of paying the amount in urged that the order was not interlocutory, bat final. The question, and that the Vice-Chancellor ought to have come court (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and COTTON, L.JJ.) held that to a different conclusion on this point. The plaintiff's the order having been made in a “matter not being an counsel contended that section 5 gave the judge of first action," was governed by rule 8, and that consequently the instance a judicial discretion to decide upon the ability of appeal ought to have been brought within twenty-one days, the debtor to pay, and that no appeal lay from his decision. and was therefore too late. JAMES, L.J., said that, without laying down an inflexible rule that the Court of Appeal would never differ from the decision of the judge of first instance, still, as a general rule, they would not differ from his conclusion upon the
ATTACHMENT_DEFAULT BY TRUSTEE–INABILITY TO Pay evidence before him as to the debtor's ability to pay
-DEBTORS ACT, 1869, s. 4-DEBTORS Act, 1878, s. 1.-In the debt. It would require an overwhelming case
a case of Macquoid v. Robson, before the Court of Appeal induce them to do so. The mischief of appeals in such
on the 12th inst., an application was made for an order to eases would be enormous. The court accordingly rectified attach a trustee who had failed to obey an order of the the Vice-Chancellor's order in form, and as there had been a
court for the payment of trust-money which he had remiscarriage in drawing it up, they gave no costs of the tained in his hands. It was alleged that the trustee appeal.
had not the means of paying the money, and it was argued that the power of imprisonment reserved by section
4 of the Debtors Act, 1869, in the case of debts of this CHIEF CLERK'S CERTIFICATE-EVIDENCE--CLAIM AND nature was not intended to be used by way of punish. COUNTER-CLAIM-SHORTHAND Writer's NOTES. --In a case
ment, but merely for the purpose of compelling payment of Dicks v. Brooks, before the Court of Appeal on the 14th of the debt, and that no order of attachment ought to be inst., a question arose as to the evidence on wbich the made when it was shown that the debtor was unable to ehief clerk had based his certificate. The plaintiffs were
pay the debt. JESSEL, M.R., took occasion to repeat what the proprietors of a weekly periodical. The defendants were he said, when sitting in the Rolls Court, in the case of the proprietors of the copyright of an engraving of a picture. Mains v. Ingram (ante, p. 144). He said that he dissented The plaintiffs bad publisbed in one of the numbers of their from the view expressed by Bacon, V.C., in Barrett F. periodical a pattern for wool-work, which embodied the Hammond (L. R. 10 Ch. D. 285), that the object of the Act principal incident in the picture. The defendant issued a circular containing a warning against the sale of any copy not intended as a punishment. On the contrary, he was
was not vindictive, and that the power of committal was of the subject of the picture without their stamp, and of opinion that the whole object of retaining the power stating that all unstamped copies were unlawful imitations. imprisonment in such cases was pnnishment; and the The plaintiffs alleged that the publication of this circular court (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and Corron, L.JJ.) was a libel on their pattern, which they said was not an imitation of any picture the copyright of which belonged the defaulting trustee the discretion given by the Act of
held that there was no ground for exercising in favour of to the defendants, and they claimed an injunction to restrain 1878, and made the order for his attachment. the publication of the circular, and damages for slander of title. The defendants delivered a statement of defence and eounter-claim, by which they asserted their title to the engraving, and alleged that the plaintiffs had unlawfully
NON-APPEARANCE OF DeFerdanT-PRACTICE – FILING copied it. And they claimed an injunction to restrain the
OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM-PERSONAL SERVICE OF CLAIN publication by the plaintiffs, and the penalty of 58. for WITH WRIT-RULES OF Court, 1875, ORD. 19, R. every copy sold by the plaintiffs, under the Act, 8 Geo. 2,
21, R. 1 (b).--Ia a case of Renshaw v. 6. 13, which provides that half the penalty shall go to the Renshaw, before the Master of the Rolls on the 13th Crown and half to the owner of the pirated engraving. inst., a judgment was taken on the 13th of Decem: Bacon, V.C., held that the plaintiff's had been guilty of ber against a defendant who had not appeared. It piracy, and dismissed the action with costs. And on the appeared that he had been served personally with the statecounter-claim, he held that the defendants were entitled ment of claim with the amended writ, but that, owing to a to the injunction which they claimed, and that the plaintiff's mistake, the statement of claim had not been filed pursuant must pay the penalty on every copy which they bad sold of 10 ord. 19, r. 6. On an objection to draw up the order an their pattern, referring it to chambers to ascertain the number application was made on behalf of the plaintiff that the of copies which bad been sold. The chief clerk by his cer order might be drawn up, notwithstanding that the statetificate found tbat 25,000 copies had been sold, and stated
ment of claim had not been filed.
It was argued that that his finding was based upon the evidence taken at the inasmuch as the statement of claim had been delivered trial. The plaintiffs applied to the Vice-Chancellor to personally to the defendant, under ord. 21, r. 1 (b), it was not pary the certificate, and the application being refused by necessary subsequently to file the same; and reliance was him, was renewed in the Court of Appeal. Two objections placed upon a case of Whitaker v. Thurston (Weekly Notes, were taken-(1) that the chief clerk bad read the short
1876, s. 232), where it was held that a summons personally hand writer's notes of the evidence taken at the trial, there served need not be filed, a summons being within ord. 19, r. being no affidavit of their accuracy ; (2) that the evidence 6. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that it was not necessary upon which he bad relied had been taken upon the trial of
to file the claim when it had been personally served, and the claim, before the counter-claim had been opened. The directed the order to be drawn up without the filing. Court of Appeal (JAMES, BaggalLAY, and COTTCN, L.JJ.) ultimately ordered the bearing of the appeal to stand over until the hearing of an appeal which the plaintiffs had pre PRACTICE - Costs — ADMINISTRATION ACTION-PARTIES septed from the judgment at the trial. But they ex. APPEARING IN CHAMBERS BY THE SOLICITOR-SUBSEQUENT pressed an opinion that the chief clerk was justified in SEPARATE APPEARANCE IN COURT CONSOLIDATED ORD. making use of the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence. 40, R. 28—Rules Of Court (Costs), 1875, R. 21.-In a JAMES, L.J., also said that the strong inclination of his case of Re Steggles (deceased), Steggles v. Haslam, opinion was that in such a case the evidence given on the before the Master of the Rolls on the 13th inst., a ques. elaim was not evidence on the counter-claim, which was tion arose on further consideration whether the beneficiaries pot for anything in the nature of a setoff or a cross-de were entitled to separate costs of their appearance in mand, bat was an action by the defendants, on behalf of court, or whether only those beneficiaries were entitled the Crown and themselves, to recover a statutory penalty. to appear and have their costs who had represented the BAGGALLAY and Cotton, L.JJ., however, declined to ex others in chambers. It was contended, on the authority press any opinion at present on the second point.
of Sharp v. Lush (L. R. 10 Ch. D. 648), that the separate
appearance in court could not be allowed. Jessel, M.R., the surface and subsoil to a certain extent passed to the said that the general order did not refer to the appearance board. If, therefore, the property in the street were once in court; and, therefore, that such costs were in his disore vested in the local board, he did not see how it could be tion. Where there was any bona fide question to be argued taken away again, even if the street became disused. There he should allow such costs, but he certainly would not was nothing in the Act to take away the property given to permit any sacb appearance merely for the purpose of mak the vestry, and, in fact, the 154th section distinctly ing costs. In the present case he thought the appearance showed they had a right of sale, and therefore of dealing was bona fide, and allowed the costs.
with the land. He should therefore make a declaration that the plaintiff was not entitled to convert to his own use
any part of the streets ordered to be stopped up. ASSURANCE COMPANY-POLICY_PAYMENT TO DEPOSITEE - ABSENCE OF LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE — WiLL-DIRECTION TO SETTLE REAL ESTATE-POWER OF INTEREST.-In a case of Webster V. British Empire Assur- SALE AND EXCHANGE.-10 a case of Wise v. Piper, before ance Company, before the Master of the Rolls on the 14th | Fry, J., on the 13th inst., a question arose as to the validity inst., a question arose whether an assurance company were of a power of sale in a marriage settlement which had been liable to pay interest on a policy where the policy-holder executed in accordance with directions contained in the could not give a discharge, and where the company had will of the wife's father. The action was brought by a kept the money at call. The policy had been deposited with vendor for the specific performance of an agreement for the one William Brown, but no written assignment had been purchase of real estate. The vendor's title was derived taken. On the death of the life assured, W. Brown duly throngh a person to whom the property had been sold proved his birth and death, and thereupon, according to the under the power of sale, and the purchaser objected that the terms of the policy, the money became payable. The office insertion of the power in the settlement was uot authorized declined to pay except to, or with the concurrence of, the
by the will of the testator so far as regarded an undivided
by the will of the testator legal personal representative of the person assured, and as he
moiety of the settled property. The testator by his will, had died insolvent, his will had not been proved. The above
made in 1810, had given the remainder of his property to action bad been commenced by W. Brown's executors, on
his trustees, on trust for all his children living at his death, the authority of Crossley v. City of Glasgow Assurance Society
| and had directed that his daughters' shares should be so (L. R. 4 Ch. D. 421), asking for payment of the policy
settled that, if they married, one-balf of their fortune moneys in the absence of the legal personal representative of
should be settled on them and their children, exclasive of the person assured, and for interest from March, 1875, when
their husbands. He died in 1820, leaving an only child, a the money had become payable. The secretary of the
daughter, living at his death. She was then an infant. company filed an affidavit, in which he stated that the
Soon after the testator's death his trustees and executors company had been willing to pay over the money, but
instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery for the adminiscould not get a discharge ; that they had kept the money at
tration of his estate and the execution of the trusts of his call, expecting the appointment of a legal personal re
will. In 1824, the daughter, who was still under age, presentative, and that they had not made any interest or
married with the sanction of the court, articles for the profit with the money. On this it was contended they ought not to pay interest. JESSEL, M.R., said it would be
settlement of her fortune being previously executed with
the approbation of the master. By these articles it was monstrous to allow the company to retain the money, and yet not pay interest. They could have paid the money into
agreed that one moiety of the testator's devised real court, and they did not even allege that they had placed it
estates should, when the wife should attain twentyto a separate account. They must pay interest at four per cent.
one, be conveyed to trustees upon trusts in accordance from March, 1875. As the action had been caused by the
with the directions contained in the will, and that the negligence of the parties, the company would have their
other moiety should be conveyed to the trustees upon costs as between solicitor and client, and would deduct the
certain other trusts. And it was agreed that in the settlecosts from the amount payable under the policy.
ment to be executed there should be contained a power for the trustees, at the request, during their joint lives, of the husband and wife, to sell or exchange all or any part of the
settled estates ; “but as to the said moiety first heroinMETROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT Act, 1855, s. 96 after settled, so far only as the same moiety may be lawMEANING OF WORD “VEST”-STREET-DISUSER.-In a fully or equitably sold or exchanged in reference to the case of Rolls v. Vestry of St. George, before the Master
trusts affecting the same by virtue of these presents and of of the Rolls on the 13th inst., a question was raised as to
the will of the testator.” A conveyance of the devised the meaning of the word “vest” in the 96th section of the
estates to the trustees was made in 1827 in accordance Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855. By that section with the articles. In 1874 the trustees of the settle"a vestry or district board sball, within their parish and dis
ment, professing to act in exercise of the power trict, execute the office of and be surveyor of highways, and
of sale, and at the request of the husband and wife, all streets being highways, and the pavemente, stones, and conveyed a part of the settled estates to a predecessor other materials thereof shall vest in, and be under the;
in title of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff afterwards management and control of, the vestry or district board
agreed to sell the part so acquired to the defendant. The in which such highways are situated.” By the 154th
validity of the plaintiff's title depended upon the validity of section, the vestry or district have power " to sell and dis
the power of sale in reference to a moiety of the property. pose of any property whatever vested in them under the
FRY, J., held, upon the authority of Peake v. Penlington Act, which it may appear to them may be properly sold or (2 V. & B. 311) and Turner v. Sargent (17 Beav. 515), that disposed of.” Certain streets, of which the plaintiff was
the power of sale and exchange was a usual and proper tenant for life, had been stopped up and disused, new
power to insert in a marriage settlement, and that its streets having been made in their places. The old streets
insertion was authorized by the testator's direction to settle had been streets within the above Act, and the plaintiff
bis daughter's shares, and he held that the effect of the desired to convert the land forming the old streets to his
provision (above quoted from the settlement) was that, if the own use. The vestry contended that the effect of the
power of sale could be lawfully inserted in regard to the above section was to vest the land in them, so as to prevent
moiety first settled, it was to stand as to that moiety. His the owner from dealing with the same, except on a re
lordship therefore held that the will justified the insertion parchase and conveyance from the vestry. Reference was
of the power, and that it had been properly inserted. The made to a decision on a similar section of the Public Health
plaintiff had therefore shown a good title, and there must be Act, 1875, of Coverdale v. Charlton (L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 104),
judgment for the specific performance of the agreement, where the Appeal Court had held that the effect of the section was to vest tbe land to a certain depth in the local board, but it was attempted to distinguish that case SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-CONTRACT FOR SALE OF REAL from the present. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that the Estate-STATUTE OF FRAUDS. In a case of Mundy v. case was really within the case of Coverdale v. Charlton, and A sprey, before Fry, J., on the 14th inst., the action was therefore he should pronounce no opinion himself on the brought by a vendor for the specific performance of an case. The decision in Coverdale v. Charlton was this, that agreement for the purchase of land. The agreement was a property in the street to a certain depth, though the judges originally a parol one. A conveyance was prepared by the did not define what depth, vested in the local board, and that purchaser's solicitors, and the ingrossment was, on the 10th
of April, sent by them to the vendor's solicitors, together with a letter signed by them. The ingrossment contained a
Appointments, Etc. recital of an agreement between the vendor and the purchaser for the purchase of the property. On the 16th of
Mr. JAMES MARSHALL, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court April the vendor executed the ingrossment, and after this
of the Gold Coast Colony, bas been appointed Chief Justice another letter was written by the purchaser's solicitors,
of the Gold Coast Colony, in succession to Mr. Philip stating his readiness to complete the purchase. Subsequently
Anstie Smith, deceased. The new Chief Justice was called the purchaser repudiated the agreement, and by his state
to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Hilary Term, 1868. He was ment of defence he pleaded the statute. On behalf of the
.appointed chief magistrate for the Gold Coast in 1873, and vendor it was urged that the recital in the ingrossment of an agreement to purchase, coupled with the letters signed by
puisne judge of the Supreme Court in 1876. the purchaser's solicitors as his agents, constituted a memo- Mr. THOMAS JAMES NEWMAN, solicitor, of Barnsley, has randum in writing of the agreement sufficient to satisfy the been elected Clerk to the Trustees of Hemsworth Hospital, statute. Fry, J., however, held that there was no sufficient in succession to his father, the late Mr. Edward Newman. Mr. memorandum, and dismissed the action.
T. J. Newman was admitted a solicitor in 1855.
Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, Legal Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has been created a Knight
Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Sir Obituary.
Julian Pauncefote is the third son of Mr. Robert Paupcefote, of Preston Court, Gloucestershire, and was born in
1828. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in MR. SERJEANT PARRY.
Easter Term, 1852, and formerly practised on the Oxford Mr. Serjeant John Humffreys Parry, died at his residence,
Circuit. He was private secretary to the late Sir William 66, Holland-park, Kensington, on the 10th inst., from con
Molesworth, when Colonial Secretary, and he was appointed gestion of the lungs. He was the son of the late John
Attorney-General of Hong-Kong in 1865. He became Chief Rumffreys Parry, barrister, author of several works on
Justice of the Leeward Islands in 1873, and was soon after. Welsh literature, and he was born in 1816. He was
wards knighted. He was an Assistant Under-Secretary of educated at the London Philological School, and was for a
State for the Colonies from 1874 till 1876, when be was short time in a merchant's office in the City. He was after
appointed Legal Assistant Under-Secretary for State for wards engaged in the literary department of the British
Foreign Affairs. Musum, and was called to the bar at the Middle Temple Mr. ERNEST ALGERNON SPARKS, barrister, has been in Michaelmas Term, 1843. He juined the Home Circuit, appointed Assistant Director of Prosecutions for England and soon obtained an extensive criminal business, becoming and Wales. Mr. Sparks was called to the bar of the Inner one of the leaders at the Central Criminal Court and Temple in Easter Term, 1863, and has practised on the Middlesex Sessions. In 1856 he became a serjeant-at-law, Midland Circuit, and at the Lincolshire, Nottinghamshire, being appointed at the same time as Mr. Serjeant Ballantine. Derbyshire, and Birmingham Sessions. His advancement was extremely beneficial to him, for while
Mr. FRANCIS CAULFIELD WADE, solicitor, of Kidsgrove, continuing to be specially retained in large criminal cases
has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in he gradually acquired a lead at Nisi Prius, both on circuit and in London, and in 1864 he received a patent of preced
the Supreme Court of Judicature. ence. He was a most successful advocate, being gifted with
Mr. JOHN WEBSTER, solicitor, of Whitehaven, has been a commanding presence, a clear voice and a manner impressive elected Coroner for the Egremont District of the County of but unaffected. He never failed to exercise great weight Cumberland. Mr. Webster was admitted a solicitor in 1854, with a jury. He was largely engaged in compensation cases, and is clerk to the county magistrates for the Bootle Division. and frequently appeared as leading counsel for the London, MR. JAMES EDWARD WRIGHT, solicitor (of the firm of Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company. He had also Wright & Son), of Bacup, Rawtenstall, and Haslingden, hay held briefs in many important and interesting cases. He been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the was junior counsel for the prisoner, Manning, in the
Supreme Court of Judicature. . Permondsey murder case in 1849 ; leading counsel for the delerce of Muller for the murder of Mr. Briggs ; and he was
Mr. OSMOND ARTHUR WYATT, barrister, has been al-o retained in the Overend and Gurney prosecution. He
appointed by the Duke of Beaufort, Lord Lieutenant of was associated with the present Mr. Justice Hawkins in the
Monmouthshire, to be Clerk of the Peace for that county, ia conduct of the Tich borne prosecution in 1873-4, and he was
succession to the late Mr. Charles Burton Fox, of Newport. one of the counsel in the Bravo ipquest. He was also
Mr. Wyatt was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in leading counsel for the defendant in the recent protracted
Michaelmas Term, 1837. He is a magistrate for Monmouthlupacy case of Nowell v. Williams. His disposition was
sbire, and agent for the Duke of Beaufort's estates in that most amiable and genial, and he was greatly esteemed by
county. all the members of the bar. He unsuccessfully contested the city of Norwich in the Liberal interest in 1847, and DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIP. Finsbury in 1857. Mr. Serjeant Parry was elected a bencher of the Middle Temple soon after the dissolution of Serjeant's
JOHN FOSTER JOHNSON and JOE ARTHUR ROBINSON, ion. He was twice married. His second wife predeceased
solicitors, Huddersfield (Robinson & Johnson), December
31. (Gazette, January 9.) him by only a few hours.
JOSEPH SEWELL, GEORGE FREDERICK NEWMARCH, and
EDWARD CLARE SEWELL, solicitors, Cirencester (Sewell, MR. HENRY GARTSIDE.
Newmarch, & Sewell). (So far as regards George Frederick
Newmarch; business will in foture be carried on by Joseph Mr. Henry Gartside, solicitor, town clerk of Ashton-under. Sewell and Edward Clare Sewell, under the firm of Sewell &
addenly on the 8th inst. Mr. Gartside was Son.) December 31. (Gazette, January 9.) admitted a solicitor in 1838, and had ever since practised at | CHARLES ALFRED SWINBURNE, and HENRY WILLIAN Ashton. He conducted the legal proceedings for obtaining | PARKER, solicitors, 28, Bedford-row, London (Swinburne & a charter of incorporation for the borough, and in 1847 was Parker), and 87, Fountain-street, Manchester (Swinburne, elected the first town clerk. He was also for several years Parker, & Company). December 31. (Gazette, January clerk to the borough magistrates jointly with Mr. Henry · 13.) Hall, but in 1862 he resigned both offices. He was, however, re-elected town olerk in 1874, and retained that office until his death. He was a perpetual commissioner for Lancashire Several of the clerks engaged at judges' chambers having and Cheshire, clerk and solicitor to the Asbton and Dukin been withdrawn for circuit duties, great inconvenience has field Bridge Company, and solicitor to the Ashton-under been caused to the public by the general dispatch of business Lyne, Staleybridge, and Dukinfield Waterworks Company. there being delayed by reason of the insufficient number of He was married to his cousin, a daughter of the late Captain clerks remaining to do the work. It is stated that an apGartside, Mr. Gartside was a man of very liberal and plication for the appointment of temporaay assistants has cbaritable disposition. Christ Church, Densbaw, was built been made to the judge sitting at chambers, who promised and endowed at the sole cost of himself and his wife.
that the matter should receive his early attention.
Law Student's Journal.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY.
an order dated Nov 17, appointed Samuel Lovelock, Coleman s',
to be official liquidator LAXE ENDS ESTATE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, pre
Fented Jan 8, directed to be heard before V.0. Hall on Jan 23. Gregory and Co, Bedford row, solicitors for the peti'ioner TINEMOUTH AQUARIUM AND WINTER GARDEN COMPANY. LIMITED.
V.C. Hall bas, by an order dated Dec 15, appointed John Yonng, Coleman st, and Thomas Young Strachan, Graioger st West, Newcastle-on-Tyne, to be oticial liquidators
(Gazelte, Jan. 9.] COLOMBIA CHEMICAL FACTORY, MANURE, AND PHOSPHATE WORKS,
LIMITED Petition for winding up, presented Jan 9, directed to be beard before V.C. Hall, on Jan 23. Russel, Coleman st, solicitor for the petitioners FITZROY BESSEMER STEEL HEMATITE IRON AND COAL COMPANY,
LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 9, directed to be heard before V.C. Hall, on Jan 23. Musgrave, Queen Victoria st,
solicitor for the petitioner HAMPSHIRE CO-OPERATIVE MILK COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for
winding op, presented Jan 9, directed to be heard before V.C. Hall, on Jan 23. Lydall, Southampton Sidgs, Chancery lane, solicitor for
the petitioner SUBUREAN FARM AND DAIRY PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIA
TION, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 10, directed
[Gazette, Jan. 13.]
[Gazette, Jan. S.]
LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.
The usual weekly meeting of this society was held at the Law Institution, Ohancery-lane, on Tuesday evening last, Mr. Lloyd Jones occupying the chair. The subject appointed for the evening's discussion was, “Should the right of presentation to Church livings by private persons be abolished?" and was opened in the affirmative by Mr. Collier, who strongly condemned the existing abuses in the exercise of patronage, and urged that all livings should be vested in public persons. The motion was opposed by Mr. Lewis Bowdell, who argued that the abuses were capable of being remedied, and that no sufficient substitution for this right had been suggested. Mr. Barry ably argued for the negative, and was followed on the same side by Messrs. Bateman, Napier and Ellis. Mr. Collier then replied, and the question being put to the meeting was decided in the negative.
UNITED LAW STUDENTS SOCIETY. A meeting of the above society was held at Clement's-inn Hall on the evening of Wednesday last, when the subject for debate, “ That children born out of wedlock should be legitinatized by the subsequent marriage of the parents," was opened in the affirmative by Mr. W. C. Owen, who was supported by Messrs. Leadam, E. Robinson, and W. H. Kelke; Messrs. E. Rundle Levy and T. Bateman Napier opposing. Mr. Owen replied, and the chairman (Mr. R. G. Templer) having summed up, the motion was put to the vote and carried by a majority of six.
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING
SOCIETY. The following gentlemen have been appointed to conduct the Honours Examination in 1880 :
The sixth meeting of this society was held on Tuesday Mr. J. A. Iliffe.-The Principles of the Law of Real and evening, at the Law Library, Cross-street Chambers, when Personal Property, and the Practice of Conveyancing.
the chair was taken by Mr. J. W. Hamilton, LL.B., barMr. E. L. A. Clarke.—The Law, Practice, and Procedure
rister-at-law. The minutes of the last meeting having been of the Chancery Division.
read by the hon. secretary (Mr. T. W. Millar) and passed, Mr. M. D. Osbaldeston.—The Law, Practice, and Pro
the chairman called upon Mr. Hislop, in place of Mr. Hardcedure of the Common Law Divisions and the Court of Bank
man, to open the debate in favour of the affirmative. The ruptcy.
subject for discussion was as follows:-"A railway passenger Mr. V. J. Chamberlain.-The Law, Practice, and Pro
gives his portmanteau to a servant of the company, who asks dedure in Criminal Cases in the Probate, Divorce, and
will he bave it with him in the carriage, and on the passenger Admiralty Division, and Ecclesiastical Law.
assenting places it in a carriage some time before the train The following gentlemen have been appointed Assistant starts. The portmanteau is stolen before the passenger enters Examiners for the year 1880:
the carriage. "Is tbe railway company liable for its value ?" FINAL EXAMINATION.
Mr. Hislop was followed by Messrs. Butcher, Law, Ellison, and Mr. E, F. Turner.- The Law of Real and Personal
Hardman. Mr. Rycroft replied for the negative, and was folProperty and the Practice of Conveyancing.
lowed by Messrs. C.M. Smith, Hawkins, Price, and Rayner, and Mr. Eugene Wason.-Common Law.
Mr. Tolly also took part in the debate. Mr. Hislop having Mr. F. W. Steward.-Equity.
replied, the chairman summed up and the question was decided Mr. Thos. Webster.-Bankruptcy.
in favour of the negative by a majority of three votes. A Mr. C. 0. Humpbreyg.-Criminal Law.
vote of thanks to the chairman, proposed by Mr. Tolly, Mr. J. R. F. Rogers.- Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty
seconded by Mr. Winser, brought the meeting to a close. Division.
COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION.
DECEMBER EXAMINATION, 1879,
of Court, held at Lincoln's-inn Hall on the 18th and 19th of Mr. Justice Grove, addressing the grand jury at the December, 1879. Welshpool Assizes, said for the second time in eight years The Council of Legal Education have awarded the followit had happened to him that there were no prisoners for trial ing prizes to the undermentioned students:at these assizes. It seemed hard that in that and other Jurisprudence, Roman law, and international law.-John counties, where the criminal and civil business was so light, Carey Hall, of the Middle Temple, a prize of £50; Alfred grand and petty jurors should four times a year be called to Crooke, of the Middle Temple, a prize of £25; James getber. In a monetary point of view, it was heavier upon Alexander Boyle McConnel, of Gray's-inn, a prize of £15. the petty jury, and became a kind of fine or punishment to Common law.-H. Batty, of Lincoln's-inn, a prize of £25. them. It was the opinion, not only of himself, but of a large Real and personal property law.-Eustace T. Smith, of number of his brother judges, that some means ought the Inner Temple, a prize of £50; Richard W. Giles, of the to be taken to avoid the inconvenience of these arrange. Middle Temple, a prize of £25; J. A. H. Lewis, of the ments, by reducing or consolidatiog assizes at such places. Middle Temple, a prize of £15. Personally, he would be more usefully employed in London, The Council have also awarded to the students who where the pressure of business was great, than in travelling obtained the greatest aggregate number of marks in the about the country calling out sheriffs and juries to hold assizes subjects of the lectures given by two of the professors-viz., of so light a obaracter.
Equity, and real and personal property law.-J.J. Brown, Shand, George John Cayley Smith, William Frederick of the Middle Temple, a prize of £70 ; and Charles Valentine Webster, and Edward Gordon Williams, of Lincoln's-inn ; Hickie, of the Middle Temple, a prize of £30.
Arthur William A'Beckett, Frederick William Batchelor,
Gibbons, of Gray's-inn, Esqs.
By order of the Council,
(Signed) GENERAL EXAMINATION of STUDENTS of the Inxs of COURT,
S. H. WALPOLE, Chairman. held at Lincoln's-ion Hall, on the 29th, 30th, and 31st
Council Chamber, Lincoln’s-inn, Jan. 10. of December, 1879, and 1st, 2nd, and 3rd of January, 1880. The Council of Legal Education have awarded to William
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON. Percy Pain, of the Inner Temple, and William Edward
1880. Johnson, of the Middle Temple, studentships in juris.
FIRST LL.B. EXAMINATION. prudence and Roman law of one hundred guineas, to con
PASS LIST. tinue for a period of two years ; and to Simon John Fraser Macleod, of the Middle Temple, and Percy Ferdinand
First Division. Wheeler, of Lincoln's-inn, studentships in jurisprudence Amedroz, Henry Frederick.- Private study. and Roman law, of one hundred guineas, for one year. Anderton, Francis Ince, M.A.-Lincoln's Inn.
The Council have also awarded to the following Bowen, Henry Storer, B.A.-Lincoln's Inn. students certificates that they have satisfactorily passed Chaster, Albert William.-Private study. a public examination : --Frederic Michael Abrahams, | Hart, Isaac John.-Private study. Charles Comber Arnold, James Kenyon Bourne, William Jones, Alfred Hawkins.- Private study. Stewart Brancker, Robert Berkeley Butt, Arthur William Jones, Joseph Birdsall.—Private study. Montgomery Campbell, Herbert Cavan-Irving, William Morris, Reginald Burnet.-Trinity College, Cambridge. Clifford, William Henry Cross, Charles Robert South | Norman, Arthur William.---Private study. well Dimsdale, Frank Joseph Fisher, Edgar Cæsar | Orme, Eliza.- Private study. Foà, Robert Arthur Germaine, Francis Hugh Irvine, Piper, John Edwin.-King's College and private study. Charles Hyndman Jones, Sir Kenneth Hagar kemp, Schreiner, William Philip.-Downing College, Cambridge. James Lumb, Ralph Stavely McKerrell, Keith Maitland,
Stable, Daniel Wintringham.-Private study.
| Avery, Arthur Robinson.-Private study and tuition, Hamill Stewart, Archibald William Stirling, Graham
Clarke, Edmund Wearne.-Univ. Edinb. and private study Tahourdin, Allen Cottrell Travis, Hon. Edward Reginald
and tuition. Clement Villiers, and Alexander Dundas Ogilvy Wedder
Duncan, James Archibald.-Trinity College, Cambridge. burn, of the Inner Temple; Edward Bushnell Chambers,
Evans, John Overend.-Private study.
Fraser, Arthur.- Private tuition.
Greig, James William, B.A.-University College.
Gupta, Matilal.—University College.
Gurney, Walter Gerald.- Private study.
Lawrence, Arthur Moss.-University College.
Ratherford, John.-Private study.
Spence, Thomas Edward Joseph.-Private study and Arthur Capel, Frederic John Church, Harry Claude
tuition. Edmonds, Howard Douglas Leonard Galton, Oswald
Thompson, Joseph Marshall.–St. Asaph Grammar School.
New Orders, Etc.
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT. Charles Henry L. Neish, Thomas Morgan Pbillips, Thomas In a circular respecting the above Act addressed to William Phillips, Hume C. Pinsent, John O'Connor Power, magistrates, the Home Secretary says :-“ It is not intended Martin Luther Ronce, Robert Roy, Daniel Ward, and that the new system shall supplant, but only supplement, Bernhard Ringrose Wise, of the Middle Temple ; Francis the system at present in use. In the great majority Anderton, Walter Mew Barnes, William Craddock Bolland, of cases there will be no need for the interferenco Abrabam Crompton, Francis Gaskell, Charles Vernon Peal' of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Should he, cock Keene, Walter Norman Powys, Robert Arthur Berthon in any case which may be brought in any way to his Preston, James McMullen Rigg, John Auchmedden Baird notice, think that the prosecution should be taken up by