Page images
PDF
EPUB

Hollett, Robert, Bradninch, Devon, Baker. Feb 2 at 12 at ofces of
Huggins, Paul st, Exeter

Hollin, Henry John, Peterborough, Dyer.
Gaches, Cathedral gate, Peterborough

Jan 24 at 3 at offices of

Holt, Robert, Dunham, Farmer. Jan 27 at 11 at offices of Hodgson, Tib lane, Manchester

Howarth, David, Bury, Lancaster, Commission Agent. Jan 26 at 3 at offices of Haslam, Market st, Bury

Hunt, George, sen, and George Hunt, jun, Liverpool, Joiners. Feb 3 at 3 at Law Association, Cook st, Liverpool. Bartlett and Atkinson Liverpool

Hudson, Abraham, Manningham, York, Glass Dealer. Jan 26 at 11 at offices of Last, Tyrell st, Bradford

Jackson, William, Burslem. out of business. Jan 24 at 11 at offices of Ashmall, Albion st, Hanley

James, Henry William, Truro, Falmouth, Cornwall, Travelling Draper. Jan 24 at 1 at offices of Cock, Coombs lane, Pyder st,

Truro

Jeffery, Walter, and George Jeffery, West Ashling, Sussex, Millers.
Jan 26 at 2.30 al Anchor Hotel, West st, Chichester. Janman,
Chichester

Johnson, James, South Shields, Mariner. Jan 26 at 2 at offices of
Salmon and Osborne, King st, South Shields
Joliffe, George, Pontypool, Painter. Jan 23 at 12.30 at offices of
Dauncey, Albion chmbrs, Newport

Jones, George, Selattyn, Salop, Miller. Jan 26 at 2.30 at Public Hall,
Oswestry. Minshalls and Co. Oswestry

Jones, William, John, and William Winterburn, Brighouse, York, Wood Turners. Jan 29 at 3 at offices of Barker and Co, Estate blogs, Huddersfield

Kidd, Emila, Birmingham, Electro Plater. Jan 26 at 11 at offices of Taylor, Colmore row, Birmingham

Lack, William, Felton st, Hoxton, Baker. Jan 30 at 11 at Masons'
Hall Tavern, Masons' avenue, Basinghall st. Fulcher, Horton rd,
Hackney

Lane, Heury Thomas, Winterbourne St Martin, Dorset, Farmer, Jan 30
at 11.45 at the George Hotel, Frome. Sparks and Blake, Crewkerne
Lewis, Edward Richard, Poclton-cum-Seacombe, Chester, Builder.
Jan 26 at 11 at offices of Knowles, Cook st, Liverpool
Lipop, Charles, Farmers rd, Camberwell, Caterer to a Club.

Jan 20 al 3 at offices of Clark and Cooper, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields Lofts, David William, Little Abington, Cambridge, Farmer. Jan 29 at 11 at offices of Ellison and Co, Alexandra st, Petty Cury, Cambridge

Lomas. William, Blackley, near Manchester, Grocer, Jan 26 at 3 at the Thatched House Hotel, New market pl, Manchester. Warner and Bulder, Manchester

Lord, Joshua, and John Henry Wagstaff, Manchester. Japanned Goods Manufacturers. Jan 22 at 11 at offices of Eltoft, King st, Man

chester

Lubbock. Leonard, Norwich, Baker. Jan 26 at 12 at offices of Blyth, Castle chambers, Norwich

Lynas, Ralph, Coatham, York, Painter. Jan 22 at 11 at Victoria Hotel, High st, Stockton-on-Tees

Manning, John, Weston Favell, Northampton, Farmer. Jan 28 at 3 at offices of Howes and Percival, Abington st, Northampton

Marston, Henry Ebbing, Ipswich, Theatrical Manager. Jan 28 at 11 at offices of Mills, Elm st, Ipswich

Master, James, Roath, Cardiff, Builder. Jan 27 at 11 at offices of Gunn and Jones, St Mary st, Cardiff. Nettleton, Cardiff

McNichol, Andrew, Liverpool, Iron Merchant. Jan 27 at 3 at offices of Masters and Fletcher, North John st, Liverpool

Miller, Edword, Leicester, Brazier. Jan 26 at 3 at offices of Felsteed, Granby st, Leicester

Miller, James, Abb-Kettleby, Leicester, Baker. Jan 23 at 11 at offices of Barker, jun, Sherrard st, Melton Mowbray

Mitcalfe, William Broderick, Coal Exchange, Lower Thames st, Coal Factor. Jan 29 at 2 at offices of Good and Daniels, Poultry. Argles and Co

Mockford, Joseph Chandler, Uckfield, Sussex, Grocer.

Jan 28 at 3

at offices of Goodman, North st, Brighton Morton, Maurice Sewell, Manchester, Baker. Jan 29 at 2 at the Mitre Hotel, Cathedral gates, Manchester. Rideal, Manchester Murphy, William, Manchester, Boot and Shoe Maker. offices of Vaughan-Jones, Bridge st, Manchester Myatt, Joseph, Hanley, Stafford, Miner. Tennant and Co, Cneapside, Hanley

Jan 27 at 3 at

Jan 26 at 3 at offices of

at effices of Kewney, Howard st, North Shields

Neavins, William, North Shields, Licensed Victualler. Jan 23 at 12.30

Needham, John, Rusholme, Lancaster, Beer Retailer.

at offices of Goodwin, Bridge st, Manchester. chester

Jan 27 at 2 Tremewen, Man

Newman, Harry, Brompton, Kent, Eating House Keeper. Jan 24 at
12 at offices of Norman, Ordnance terrace, Chatham
Nicholas, Thomas, Matson, Gloucester, Farmer. Jan 23 at 3 at the
Ram Hotel, Southgate st, Gloucester. Taynton and Sons, Glou-

cester

Nickless, William, Netherton, Worcester, Licensed Victualler. Jan 24 at 11 at offices of Horner, High st, Brierley hill

Noble, Andrew, Gateshead, Durham, Builder. Jan 23 at 2 at offices of Milburne, Moseley st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Legge and Dennison, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Nuttall, Robert, Stockport, Cheshire, Watchmaker. Jan 26 at 3 at offices of Newton, Bank chambers, Market place, Stockport Osborn, William, Rushock, Worcester, Farmer. Jan 28 at 11 at offices of Boskell, Union chambers, Stourbridge

Page, Herbert, Birmingham. Jan 22 at 11 at offices of Rooke, Bennett's hill, Birmingham

Pelham, Samuel, the Pavement, Tottenham, Butcher.

offices of Hopkins, Moorgate station buildings

Jan 21 at 3 at

Parkinson, John Thomas, and Robert Fowler, Manchester. Common Brewers. Jan 27 at 1 at offices of Butcher and Litton, Princess st, Manchester. Johnson, Manchester

Peel, Norris, Huddersfield, Woollen Manager. Jan 23 at 11 at offices of Learoyd and Co, Buxton rd, Huddersfield

Perry, George, Torquay, Devon, Confectioner. Jan 27 at 11 at the Queen's Hotel, Queen st, Exeter. Lindep, Torquay

Plips, Frederick, sen, and Frederick Phill'os, jun. Union rd, SouthWark Builders. Jan 21 at 3 st offices of Cooper, Chaz ery lanc

Porter, Thomas William, Blackstock rd, Highbury, Dealer in Bedsteads. Jan 24 at I at offices of Cooper, Chancery lane Potter, Samuel, Nottingham, Furniture Dealer. Jan 28 at 12 at offices of Fraser, Brougham chambers, Wheeler gate, Nottingham Poysor, Elizabeth, Kidsgrove, Stafford, Licensed Victualler. Jan 22 at 2 at offices of Sherratt and Son, Kidsgrove

Price, Benjamin, Llanbedr-Painscastle, Radnor, Innkeeper. Jan 26 at 12 at offices of Page, Chancery lane

Pryce, Edward, Henfron, Montgomery, Farmer. Jan 29 at 12 at offices of Harrison, Berriew st, Welshpool

Redford, Henry, Spa rd, Bermondsey, Grocer. Jan 20 at 10 at Ridler's
Hotel, High Holborn. Hope, Bell yd, Fleet at
Ramsay, William, Manningham, York, Clothier. Jan 27 at 2 at the
Movely Hotel, Market st, Manchester. Last, Bradford
Rayner, Samuel, Stisted, Essex, Corndealer. Jan 26 at 11 at the White
Hart Hotel, Bocking. Cunnington, Braintree

Reynolds, Joseph Benjamin, Barwell, Leicester, Surveyor. Feb 3 at 3 at offices of Chadwick and Toller, Berridge st, Leicester. Burnaby, Leicester

Roberts. Owen, Bootle, near Liverpool, Mason. Jan 27 at 3 at ofces of Radcliffe and Layton, Hockin's Hey. Liverpool

Roberts, Robert, Denbigh, Join:r. Jan 21 at 12 at offices of Gold & Co, Denbigh

Robinson, Thomas Fisher, Hu me, Commission Agent. Jan 29 at 11 at the Commercial Hotel, Brown st, Manchester

Ruddock, Wiliam, Leeds, Juvenile Tailor. Jan 26 at 11 at offices of
Weston. Park row, Leeds

Sanders, John Jackson, St Peter's rd, Mile End, out of business,
Jan 22 at 11 at the Old Catherine Wheel Inn, Bishopsgate st With-
out. Hicks, Victoria park rd
Screaton, Alfred, Leicester, Clothier.
Pocklington's walk, Leicester

Feb 3 at 3 at offices of Buckby,

Sedgwick, Henry, Sneinton, Nottingham, Joiner. Jan 27 at 12 at offices of Belk, Middle pavement, Nottingham

Seymour, John, Sheffield, Fruiterer. Jan 21 at 11 at offices of Pierson, Queen st, Sheffield

Skinner, Joseph, Ashburton, Devon, Licensed Victualler. Jan 29 at 11 at offices of Tezer, East st. Ashburton

Smith, Edward, Wilmington, Kent, Market Gardener. Jan 29 at 11.30 at offices of Haywards and Co, Fredericks pl, Old Jewry

Smith, Ralph, Stoke-upon-Trent. Potter. Jan 27 at 3 at offices of
Tennant and Co, Cheapside, Hanley

Smith, Thomas, Painsthorpe, York, Farmer. Jan 26 at 11 at Buck
Hotel, Pocklington. Powell and Sargent, Pocklington
Stogdale, Robert William, Copmanthorpe, York, Farmer.
12 at offices of Jones, Coney st, York

Jan 23 at

Stringer, Herbert, Bilston, Stafford, out of business. Jan 24 at 11 at
Globe Inn, Mount Pleasant, Bilston. Fellows, Bilston
Sturland, Charles, Penmawn Park, Llanfairfechan, Carnarvon, Beer
Retailer, Jan 28 at 12 at offices of Kellas and Co, Kennedy st, Mac-
chester. Higham, Manchester

Swinton, James, Runcorn, Chester, Game Dealer. Jan 26 at 2 at
Wilson's Hotel, Runcorn. Davies and Co, Warrington
Taylor, George Gibson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Boot Dealer. Feb 3 at
11 at Royal Hotel, Leicester. Keenlyside and Co, Newcastle
Taylor, Rebecca, Batley, York Grocer. Jan 26 at 3 at offices of
Booth and Sons, Hanover st, Batley. Watts and Son, Batley
Thompson, John, Lockwood, nr Huddersfield, Lath Merchant. Jan 26
at 3 at offices of Bottomley, New st, Huddersfield
Thompson, Richard, Hopper, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Shipbroker. Jan
26 at 3 at offices of Pinkney, John st, Sunderland

Trevett. Thomas, Leicester, Butcher. Jan 27 at 3 at offices of Owaton and Dickinson, Friar lane, Leicester

Vinsen, Walter William, Cambridge, Carriage Builder. at the Wrestler's Hotel. Petty Cury, Cambridge. bridge

Jan 21 at 2 Lyon, Cam

Feb 3 at 12 at

Wadsworth, Thomas, Woodford, Northampton, Baker. offices of Richardson and Son. Thrapston Weidenburgh, Harry, Leather lane, Picture Frame Maker. Jan 16 at 11 at the Britannia Public house, City rd Wigginton, Eliza, Tadlow, Cambridge, Farmer. Jan 27 at 3 at the Crown Inn, Potton. Turner, Cambridge

Wing, Edward, and Thomas Edward Wing, Kingston-upon-Hull, Wholesale Stationers. Jan 24 at 11 at the Queen's Hotel, Birmingham. Woodhouse and Peach, Hull Wingham, Robert, Albion Villas, Kensal Town, Baker. Jan 22 at 3 at offices of Cooper, Chancery lane

Wilkins, William Henry, Brixton rd, Contractor. Jan 23 at 3 at offices of Apps, South sq, Gray's inn Wiseman, John, Luton, Bedford, Printer. Jan 22 at 1 at 64, Chancery lane. Ewen and Roberts, Luton Wright, William Jchn, Liverpool, Provision Merchant.

Jan 26 at 3

at offices of Gibson and Co, South John st, Liverpool. Lynch and Teebay. Liverpool

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA,

Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder.

Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."

Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, Isuits all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.

Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Break ast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny.

COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Vanilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is pronibited.

In tin packets at 1s. 6d., 3s., &c., by Chemists and Grocers.
Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors,

H. SCHWEITZER & CO., 10, Adam-street, London, W.C.

[ocr errors]

THE

ACADEMY,

A Weekly Review of Literature, Science, and Art.

PRICE THREEPENCE: FREE BY POST THREEPENCE-HALFPENNY,

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 13s.; BY POST, 15s. 2d.

PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.

PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY IN TIME FOR THAT DAY'S POST.

CONTAINING EVERY WEEK

Signed Reviews of important new books, English and Foreign, in Belles-Lettres, Travel, History, Biography, Philosophy, Natural Science, Philology, the Fine Arts, and Archæology. PERIODICAL NEWS-LETTERS from Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Rome, Florence, Berlin, and other Centres of Learning and Literary Activity.

Obituaries of Distinguished Men. Transactions of Learned Societies. Correspondence.

Notes and News, Literary, Geographical, Scientific, and Artistic. Jottings respecting rare Books, Sales, and Curiosities. Publishers' Announcements, &c.

Notices of Exhibitions in London and the Provinces, and of important Novelties in Music and the Drama ORIGINAL ARTICLES on Current Topics of Literary Interest.

THE ACADEMY has always maintained the principle of Signed Articles as affording the best guarantee of fairness and competence. In the list of its Contributors will be found the recognised Authorities in their several departments of Knowledge. Its half-yearly Volumes are of permanent value for purposes of Reference, especially to those interested in the English Classics, in History, Philology, and Oriental Studies.

A

A New Volume commences January 3, 1880.

SPECIMEN

NUMBER

Sent to any part of the United Kingdom on receipt of Threepence-Halfpenny in postage stamps.

52, CAREY

PUBLISHING OFFICE:

STREET, LINCOLN'S INN, W. C.

To be had at all Railway Stations, and of all Newsvendors in Town and Country.

Scale of Charges for Advertising in "The Academy."

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Advertisements should be sent to the Publisher, H. Villers, at the Office, 52, Carey-street, W.C., on or before the Wednesday previous to the Saturday ou which they are intended to appear.

"THE ACADEMY" is a desirable medium for all Advertisements addressed to the educated classes.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

"Byfoged Christensen," Tae Owners of the, v. The Owners of "The Frederick William" (P.C.)

CASES REPORTED IN THE WEEKLY REPORTER Bagnall v. Villar (Ch.Div. V.C.H.)

........ 260

[ocr errors]

233 257

Castle v. Downton. Bradley, Claimant (C.P.Div). "City of Mecca," The (Prob. Div. and Adm. Div., Adm.) Cobbold, and others v. Pryke (Divl. Court) ...................................... 259 Crawford v. Toogood (Ch.Div. Fry, J.).. 248 Elwes v. Payne (App). 234 "Empusa, The (Prob. Div. and Adm. Div., Adm.) .............................. 263 Harford's Trusts (Ch.Div. M.R.) ... 239 Hawkins (deceased), In re. Hawkins v. Hawkins (Ch. Div. V.C.M.) 240 Jones v. Cwmorthin State Company (Limited) (App.)........................ ... 237 Mastey v. Allen (Ch.Div. V.C..) ...... 243 262

256

Queen, The, on the Prosecution of the Churchwardens and Overseers of St. Margaret and St. John the Evangelist, Westminster, Pespondents, v The Institution of Civil Engineers, Appellants (Q.B.Div.)

"Matthew Cay," The (Prob. Div. and Adm. Div., Adm.). Mayor, The, and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v. John Low and John Low, the younger (Q.B.Div) 250 Morier, Ex parte. In re Willis, Percival, & Co (App.).. ..... 235 Myers v. Detries (Fx.Div.) Pickard v. Baylis (C P.Div.)

....

.........

Robinson v. Davies (Q.B.Div.)

253 255

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

....... 238 239 244 239

Rossiter v. Rossiter (Ch. Div. M.R.)......

Tapley v. Eagleton (Ch. Div. M.R.)

Trotter v. Maclean.

(Ch.Div. Fry, J.)

Trotter v. Vaughan.

Wedderburn v. Pickering (Ch. Div. M.R.)

[ocr errors]

....

Whitley, Partners (Limited), In re. Steel's case (Ch.Div. V.C.B.) 241

CURRENT TOPICS.

ON FRIDAY WEEK, in the course of the hearing of a case before the Master of the Rolls, a statement was made in open court by a solicitor to the effect that the chancery taxing masters are in the habit of giving their opinion to any solicitor who may ask it on the subject of items to be inserted in a bill of costs, thereby, as he inferred, practically taxing bills not referred to them, or, at any rate, bills the reference to tax which had not yet been brought in. The Master of the Rolls seemed to be astonished at this positive statement, and directed the registrar to communicate with the taxing masters, aud inquire as to whether there was any truth in it. Tuesday last, on returning into court after the midday adjournment, the Master of the Rolls took occasion to state that he had received a communication from the taxing masters stating that there was not a shadow of

On

truth in the statement; and he thought it just that those officials should at once be relieved from the imputation which had been made.

THE PROMOTION of Mr. Graham to the vacant Mastership in Lunacy, calls attention of the office, which he has hitherto so efficiently filled, of Principal Secretary to the Lord Chancellor. This is one of those posts in which knowledge and ability of a high order are imperatively required, and receive but little notice from the world in general. The business of the principal secretary is not only to conduct the Chancellor's official correspondence, but to assist him in preparing written judgments; he has also to master and advise upon materials submitted for the Chancellor's consideration, and to see all visitors whom the Chancellor is unable himself to receive. It will be seen that the best testimony which can be given to the success of a principal secretary is that he has never caused a complaint, and has consequently never been heard of by the public.

RAPID PROGRESS is being made with the buildings on the west side of the great quadrangle at the Royal Courts of Justice. Already the greater part of the scaffolding has been removed, and the plastering of the rooms has commenced. These rooms include the offices of some of the Chancery Chief Clerks, and they will be ready for occupation in the course of the present year. The bar room in this part of the building is sufficiently near completion to enable an idea to be formed of its general effect. It is situated at the south end of the great quadrangle, and opens from the corridor on the court floor. The room, which is lofty and well proportioned, runs east and west, and receives light from three large windows on the north and south sides. The ceiling is panelled in oak, and it is understood that the decorations are to be of a very elaborate description. It is to be hoped that more important matters will not be overlooked. It is essential to the success of the room that it should afford means of private consultation, and that it should be near to the bar library, which, we presume, will be provided in the new building.

ONE OF THE MOST REMARKABLE documents probably ever laid before a Home Secretary is stated to have been presented to Mr. Cross last week, in the shape of a memorial from the President and Council of the English Church Union, with reference to the proceedings of Lord The memorial, Penzance in the Miles Platting case. after referring to the case, cites, from the bill of costs delivered to the inhibited clergyman, certain alleged extracts, such as the following :

Feb. 3.-Attending his lordship again in the evening and long interview, when he agreed in our construction of the Act and rules, and was prepared to authorize the course we suggested; but having regard to the present difficulties of procedure under the Public Worship Regulation Act, he advised that the proceeding should be commenced de novo 1 10 Feb. 3.-Paid cab-hire on this and preceding visit 0 76 Feb. 4.-Writing very specially therewith to Mr. Jepson, detailing the views of the judge Feb. 4.-Writing provincial registrars, the result of our interview with the judge

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

0 13 4 SHOULD THE PROVISO FOR RE-ENTRY BE QUALIFIED?

And the memorialists, after questioning the propriety of the course taken by Lord Penzance in "privately assist. ing by his advice the solicitor for the complainants," end with praying" that you will be pleased to cause inquiry to be made into the truth of the statements contained in this memorial, and will take such other steps as may seem right and just in reference thereto." We confess we are at a loss to see what "other steps" Mr. Cross is to take, or, indeed, what he has to do with the matter. It is true that under the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, the Queen, by warrant under the hand of the Home Secretary signified her approval of the appointment of Lord Penzance as a judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York; and the appointment was "during good behaviour." But it was not made by the Queen, but by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

IN THE COURSE of last year we remarked upon the anomalous result arrived at with respect to the cotton trade-marks of Messrs. Archibald Orr Ewing & Co., of Glasgow, which had at that time been refused registration by the Court of Appeal, on the authority of the Manchester Committee of Experts, while in a case of Orr Ewing v. Johnston Mr. Justice Fry had granted protection against infringement to those marks, as being valid trade-marks. We then observed that it appeared to us that if the marks were not common to the trade they ought to be registered, or that if they were common to the trade, other traders ought not to be prevented from using them. One of the conclusions we then indicated as reasonable has now been arrived at, for in Orr Ewing v. Registrar of Trade-marks the House of Lords decided last July that the mark in question should be admitted to registration, and in Orr Ewing v. Johnston the Court of Appeal has just (as will be seen from the note in another column) affirmed the decision of Mr. Justice Fry, by which an infringement of the marks was restrained.

A VERY UNUSUAL TRIBUTE to the memory of a parliamentary agent was paid on Monday at the opening of the sittings of the Examiners of Private Bills. Before the business was commenced, Mr. Frere took occasion to refer to the sudden death last week of Mr. Shrubsole, of the firm of Dyson & Co., who had practised in the Parliamentary Committees for a long series of years. He was a man, Mr. Frere said, of sound professional judgment, of the highest honour and integrity, and remarkable alike for courtesy and hospitality. He was sure the profession generally would join with him in expressing their deep sense of the loss they had all sustained by Mr. Shrubsole's sudden removal from amongst them. We believe there are no members of the profession who came in contact with the late Mr. Shrubsole who will not heartily concur in this expression of respect.

In a case heard at the Lancaster Assizes the plaintiff was stated by counsel to be a solicitor practising in Lancaster who had given the late Mr. Justice Cresswell his first brief, besides delivering briefs to Lord Brougham and Lord Abinger, when, as Mr. Brougham and Mr. Scarlett, they were practising on the Northern Circuit.

In a night-poaching case before Lord Justice Bramwell, at the Maidstone Assizes, on the 16th inst., a curious point arose after the trial was over. The counsel for the prosecution applied to his lordship for an order on the police to deliver up to the keeper, who bad been beaten, an air gun carried by one of the poachers. His lordship, however-no statute being cited giving him such a power-declined to exercise it, but said that if the keeper had it and the poacher sued him for it, the keeper would have a counter-claim for an assault.

There are,

THERE is some fear lest the rather sudden awakening of lessees to their dangers, shown by the recent correspondence in the Times, should lead to legislation of a more sweeping character than is needed. speaking broadly, three great classes of leases: mining leases, building leases, and ordinary rack-rent leases, to each of which different considerations are applicable.

The lessee of mines has usually to incur a very heavy outlay at the commencement of his lease and before he can reap any profit. He has also to enter into numerous covenants relating to the mode of working the minerals, and of exercising his surface rights. Not only are the consequences of the exercise of a proviso for re-entry on breach of covenant exceptionally serious to the lessee, but he is liable to have it put in force for acts and omis sions of his workmen of a trivial nature. Lord Justice James, in his judgment in Hodgkinson v. Crowe (23 W. R. 886), mentioned an instance where a long lease of copper mines and works was forfeited because the lessee had neglected to keep up a fence, although not one shilling's-worth of damage had been thereby caused to the lessor. In this class of leases it is plainly reasonable that some qualification should be attached to the landlord's rights under the proviso, and, so far as the writer is aware (although it is always unsafe to draw general conclusions from the limited experience of individuals), such a qualification is generally conceded by lessors. In all the precedents of leases of mines contained in the most recent standard collection of precedents (Key and Elphinstone's Precedents in Conveyancing) there is to be found a clause restricting the exercise of the land lord's right of re-entry.

As regards building leases, it is also, of course, true that the lessee incurs a heavy expenditure at the com mencement of his lease, either in building the house or buying it from the builder who has erected it under a building agreement, and the consequences to the lessee of a forfeiture are very serious. But he is usually better able to guard against the occurrence of a forfeiture than is the mining lessee. The covenants are usually few and simple, and with the exception of the covenant to repair, there is little fear of any breach occurring, in the case of a lessee of ordinary prudence and vigilance, which will result in absolute forfeiture. Instances of provisoes for re-entry covering such trivialities as breaches of covenants to register assignments with the lessor's solicitor, do, no doubt, occur on certain large estates where the form of lease is stereotyped, and an alteration of even a few words causes a flutter of horror in the "'estate office"; but we doubt whether such a state of things exists at all generally. But though there may be no great risk of incurring a forfeiture of a building lease by breach of covenant, yet it cannot be denied that the penalty of forfeiture, when incurred, is often preposterously in excess of the damage done to the ground landlord. Moreover, the circumstances under which the form, of these leases is determined are not very conducive to fairness. The builder is comparatively seldom either free or concerned to reject obnoxious stipulations. He enters into a building agreement specifying the terms, or containing in the schedule the form of lease, to be granted of the houses to advances either by the ground landlord or his solicitor, be erected, but as he often relies for his funds on he is not in a position to criticize carefully the provisions of the leases to be granted. And as he hopes that before the leases are granted the houses will be off his hands, and as, if not, they will certainly be in the hands of his mortgagees, he is probably not greatly exercised about the risks arising from the proviso for re-entry. Considering the frequent disparity between the offence and its penalty in the case of forfeiture for breach of covenant in a building lease, and the circumstances of pressure under which the provisions of building leases are often

settled, it seems reasonable that some qualification should be attached to the proviso for re-entry in these leases. And in proof that the insertion of such a clause has commended itself to the judgment of conveyancers of experience, we need only refer to the work already quoted (p. 512), where the authors say, "It is considered that, except in rack-rent leases, the clause [i.e., the proviso for re-entry on breach of covenant] ought, in general, to be qualified by the proviso given below."

With regard to rack-rent leases, however, no such case of hardship can usually be made out. There is, no doubt, some expense and inconvenience incurred by the tenant of a house in being forced to remove, and still more to the tenant of a farm in being compelled to quit, but in neither case does the tenant lose, or the landlord put into his pocket, any large outlay on the demised premises. In neither case are the covenants of the lease usually such as to render it difficult for a tenant to avoid a forfeiture. The intending tenant of a house is usually free to stipulate for any modification of the provisions of his lease which he may think desirable, and, under present circumstances, the intending tenant of a farm is certainly not less unfettered in dealing with the owner. If he neglects to stipulate for the qualification of the proviso for re-entry, he has only himself to blame for the consequences of his neglect. It must not be lost sight of that if there are unconscientious landlords there are also unprincipled tenants, and we are inclined to think on the whole that lessees at rack-rent may be left to take care of themselves.

an

But what should be done in the case of leases not at rack-reut? Several remedies have been suggested. "Lincoln's-inn" is anxious to have "a short Act, enabling the High Court to give relief in all cases of forfeiture for breach of covenant." It is easy enough to airily describe such an Act as "a short Act," but let " Lincoln'sinn" try his hand at drafting it. Let him look at the provisions of the Bill promoted three years ago for the same object. Mr. Marton, Q.C., is experienced draftsman and a competent lawyer, but we were compelled to protest energetically, in the interests of the profession, against the complication of the provisions of his Bill, and the difficulties likely to be occasioned by it; and as soon as the measure came under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, it was slaughtered. Highly as we estimate the discretion of the judges of the High Court or of the Chancery Division, we should not be willing to accord to them an absolute power of granting relief against forfeiture. And, independently of the difficulty of providing proper safeguards for the exercise of the powers of the court, we do not see why the tenant should be driven to a chancery action in order to obtain relief.

The writer of two able and forcible letters in the Times has disinterred the optional form of proviso for re-entry contained in the Ecclesiastical Leasing Act, 1842, s. 1, and the Universities and College Estates Act, 1858, s. 11, which is to the effect that "no breach of covenant shall occasion any forfeiture unless or until judgment shall have been obtained in an action for such breach of covenant, nor unless the damages and costs to be recovered in such action shall have remained unpaid for the space of three calendar months after judgment shall have been obtained in such action," and he suggests that this should "be substituted compulsorily" for the common form of the proviso. The suggestion is ingenious, and the fact that the clause is no novelty (see a better expressed form in 5 Davidson, 156), and has received the sanction of the Legislature, might disarm opposition. But why should a landlord who has to complain of a breach of covenant be compelled in all cases to bring an action for damages before exercising his power to re-enter? His tenant may be insolvent, and in many cases useless trouble and expense would be incurred.

We do not pretend to give a decisive opinion on a question of much difficulty, but so far as we can see at

present, the best mode of legislation would be to provide, in effect, that in all leases (past or future) not at a rack rent, there shall be deemed to be inserted a clause providing that no breach of any of the covenants and conditions shall occasion any forfeiture unless and until the lessor shall have given notice in writing of the specific breach of covenant or condition complained of, and default shall have been made by the lessee, for a specified time after the notice, in remedying the breach or making full compensation to the lessor for any breach which cannot otherwise be made good.

AFFIDAVIT OF EXECUTION OF BILL OF SALE.

THERE are some points relating to the practice under section 10 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, which are still unsettled and which it may be useful to notice.

[ocr errors]

What is to be the form of affidavit where the bill of sale is made or given by a company? The affidavit, it will be remembered, is required to be "of the time of such bill of sale being made or given, and of its due execution and attestation, and a description of the residence and occupation of the person making or giving the same, and of every attesting witness to such bill of sale." The "residence" of a company is, there can be little doubt, its principal and registered office; but how should the "occupation" of the company be stated? Apparently in the words of the memorandum of association, so far as these relate to the carrying on of a particular business. It will be safer thus to describe the occupation in all cases; but in Shears v. Jacob (14 W. R. 609, L. R. 1 C. P. 513) it was held, under the like provision of the old Act, that the name of the company giving the bill of sale, "The Glucose Sugar and Colouring Company," was a sufficient description of its occupa tion, and that no further description of occupation was necessary in the affidavit.

The

In this case of Shears v. Jacob the bill of sale was sealed with the seal of a company and countersigned by two of the directors, but the affidavit did not give the addresses of these directors. It was contended that they were attesting witnesses whose residences and occupations must be given in the affidavit. But the court held that the directors merely signed "as part of the execution of the instrument" and not of its attestation. same decision was arrived at in Deffell v. White (15 W. R. 68, L. R. 2 C. P. 144). But it is to be observed that in Shears v. Jacob there was evidence that it was usual for two directors to countersign after the seal of the company was affixed, and in Deffell v. White there was a resolution of the directors providing that the affixing of the seal should be attested by the signatures of two directors; and Erle, C.J., laid some stress upon the circumstance that in executing the deed the two directors were "bound to put their names to it." It will, obviously, be safer to shut out all question by stating in the affidavit the residence and occupation of the directors who countersign.

Next, how is the provision of the Act as to the explanation of the effect of the bill of sale to the grantor to be carried out in the case of a bill of sale made by a company? Where the power of borrowing money and giving securities for it is placed by the articles in the discretion of the directors, or where there is a general delegation in the articles of the powers of the company to the directors-i.e., in the vast majority of cases-there can be little doubt that an explanation to the directors will suffice. The directors, in such cases, are, in fact, the grantor. But where-as is sometimes the case in companies of small dimensions-the borrowing power can only be exercised under the sanction of a special resolution, a question may be raised whether explanation to the directors will be sufficient. We should suppose, however, that even in this case the directors would be held to be the persons to receive the

« PreviousContinue »