« PreviousContinue »
explanation, inasmuch as it is with them that the suggestion of borrowing money and making a bill of sale Geirer al Correspondence. originates, and it is by them that the transaction is carried out.
To CORRESPONDENTS.-A.Z., Next week. In Ex parte Carter, In Re Threappelton (27 W. R. 953), Bacon, C. J., held that it was not necessary that
ADMINISTRATION OF THE EFFECTS OF A the affidavit should state in terms that before the exe
DECEASED SOCIETY. cution of the bill of sale its effect had been explained to the grantor by the attesting solicitor. Probably, how
[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] ever, few practitioners will omit to add this statement, Sir,-I see it is stated that the Legal Practitioners' considering that the statute requires the affidavit to be Society is now no more except for the purpose of dis. “of the due ... attestation" of the bill of sale. posing of the funds in hand. Allow me to suggest
A few words may be added as to the question whether the through your paper that the said fands, whatever their attesting solicitor of the bill of sale may be the solicitor amount, should be divided equally between the Soliciof the grantor. An impression has gained ground, so far tors' and Barristers' Benevolent Associations. as we know unsupported by any reported case, but
A SUBSCRIBER. understood to have been sanctioned by judicial opinion, that the solicitor of the grantor must not be the attesting solicitor. So far as this view is founded on the Warrant of Attorney Acts we think it is a mistake, for under
Lases of the deek. those Acts the attorney is not merely required to attest, but to have been expressly named by the defendant and to TRADE-MARK – INJUNCTION-ONUS OF PROOF-DECEP. be attending at his request. As Alderson, B., pointed out TION OF ULTIMATE PURCHASERS-EXTENT OF INJUNCTION. in Mason v. Kiddle (5 M. & W. 573), the original rule On the 20th inst, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of under the Acts was “ that the cognovit must be executed Fry, J., in the case of Orr Ewing f: Co. v. Johnston (27 W, R. in the presence of an attorney. Under that rule it was | 575, 23 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 406). The action was brought to held sufficient if it was executed in the presence of the
restrain an alleged infringemeat of the plaintiffs' irade-mark. plaintiff's attorney. This was found to lead to incon
The plaintiffs and the defendants were both manufacturers of venience and fraud, and it was therefore added to the
Turkey red yarn, which was exported to Bombay, and other
places in the East. The plaintiff's had, for many years, rule that the attorney should be expressly named by the
affixed to the packets in which their yarn was made up, defendant and attending on his behalf. That clearly
ticket, upon which were embossed a crown, between two means an attorney other than the plaintiff's. The Act
elephants, and under the crown a banner. On the bander of Parliament has now embodied these rules, and made was printed, in Guzerathi characters, the name of the plain. them the law of the land.” It will be seen that so long tiffs firm. The defendants had recently adopted a ticket of as the Acts were in pari materia with the provision in similar shape and colour. On it also were embossed two section 10 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, it was held elephants, but between them was, instead of a crown, the that the attorney of the person executing the warrant figure of a Hindoo idol. The elephants were in a different might properly act as the attorney who was to inform
position from those on the plaintiffs' ticket, and each bad him of its nature and effect; and it was only when
on its back a howdth with a native in it, whereas the plain. words were added which are not to be found in the Bills
tiffs' elephants had nothing on their backs. Under the idol of Sale Act, that the courts held that the plaintiff's
was a banner, on wbich was printed the name of the deattorney could not act for this purpose. But we need
fendants' firm, in English letters. The defendants had oply hardly say that, as matters stand at present, prudence
recently introduced their goods into the Bombay market, and will dictate the employment of another solicitor to
previously to their doing so, they had used a ticket on
which was embossed the figure of the idol alone. The explain the effect of the bill of sale to the grantor. evidence showed that the plaintifis' yarn bad been known in
the Bombay market as “Bhe Hatbi” (i.e., two-elephant) yarn, and that no other yarn was known there by that name. It was asked for and sold under that name. There was no
evidence of any actual deception of purchasers by means of Rebiews.
the defendants' ticket, hut there was evidence that, though the dealers in Bombay would not be deceived, it was probable that
the ultimate purchasers of the yarn—.e., the native weavers, STATUTORY LAW.
who lived up the country-would be deceived. Fry, J.,
held that the defendants had taken a material and substantial THE CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT OF STATUTORY LAW, WITH part of the plaintiffs' ticket-viz., the two elephants, which had
AN APPENDIX. BY HENRY HARDCASTLE, of the Inner | given the name to their goods in the Bombay market, and Temple, Barrister-at-Law, London : Stevens & that it was the duty of the defendants to use such precautions Haynes.
tbat all reasonable probability of error and deception would be It has recently been said that law books may be divided
avoided, and that the onus was on the defendants to show that
they had used those precautions. This onus, his lordship held into two divisions-viz., those which treat of the theory
that the defendants had not discharged, and he granted an of a subject, and those which contain positive rules in
injunction to restrain the defendants from using the ticket force. It is to the latter of the two classes that the which they had adopted, or otherwise imitating the plaintiffs present treatise belongs, and its object is twofold. It | ticket. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and aims at settingforth in a methodical way (1) the legal | COTTON, L.JJ.), were of opinion that the defendants' ticket rules for the interpretation of British statutes, and was clearly calculated to deceive, and that it had been used (2), having ascertained how statutes are to be in. | by the defendants under circumstances of suspicion, and, terpreted, to explain their effect and operation. this being so, they agreed with Fry, J., that the onus was For a work of such a character the author's plan
on the defendants to prove that their ticket had not been of arranging the subject-matter in a series of dis
adopted improperly. And the court held tbat the injunction tinct propositions, each of which, when mastered, may
had been rightly granted. It was objected, on behalf of the be readily applied to different sets of facts, and form a
defendants, that the injunction ought not to be a general
one, but that it ought to extend only to the use of the de definite basis for legal arguments, is well adapted,
fendants' ticket in those markets in which the deception had and Mr. Hardcastle has, we think, done his work well.
taken place, and ought not to prevent the defendants from As a compilation and the book claims to be nothing
using it in any other places. The court, however, said that more-it appears to be accurate, complete, and clear, as the defendants had not used their ticket in any other The volume concludes with a useful appendix, con- | places, and had not alleged that they intended to do so, there taining a list of words and expressions used in statutés / was no reason for limiting the generality of the injunction. that have received judicial or statutory construction.
ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY--ANNULLING WITH Con. on each copy of the prospectus and ciroulars on taxation, SENT OF PETITIONING CREDITOR.-On the 15th inst. an and he said tbat 3d. would bave been allowed on each copy application was made to the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAG to cover postages, &o. The solicitor insisted that he bad a GALLAY, and COTTON, L.JJ.) to annol an adjudication of right to have his bill referred to the taxing master for taxabankruptcy (an appeal from which had been previously rion in the ordinary way, but the registrar declined to refer dismiseed), with the consent of the petitioning creditor. it, and affirmed the decision of the trostee. The Court of The act of bankruptcy was the non-compliance with a Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and Cotton, L.JJ.) held debtor's summons issued by the petitioning creditor. The that the registrar had taken the right course, and adjudication had not been advertised, and the order of the affirmed his decision. JAMES, L.J., said that, though Court of Appeal bad not been drawn up. The court at a solicitor bad a right, under section 37 of the above Act, first selt some difficulty in acceding to the application, on to appiy for a reference to taxation after the expiration of a the ground that an adjudication, when once made, enured month from :he delivery of a signed bill, he had no absolute for the benefit of all the bankrupt's creditore, and that right to bave the amount due to him determined by taxation there was no proof that the other creditors had been paid, alone. When a proof was tendered in bankruptcy for a bill or that they consented to the appolling of the adjudication. of costs the registrar had a right to deal with it, taking proper Bat, ultimately, under the special circumstances of the assistance if necessary. And that was what the registrar case, the court said that they would treat the application had actually done in this case. The delivery of a signed bill as a continuation of the hearing of the appeal, and would was not made by the Act a condition precedent to proof by anpol the adjudication. JAYES, L.J., added that the debt the solicitor in the bankruptcy of the client. Cotton, L.J., establisbed by the petitioning creditor was oply a little said that taxation was not the only way in which a client was above £50, and there had been a very nice question of entitled to protect himself. If an action was brought by a account between the parties.
solicitor for his costs, no doubt in an ordinary case the judge and the jury would not go through the items of tle bill,
which could be much better dealt with in tbe taxing BANKRUPTCY PETITION WITHDRAWAL BY DEBTOR OF master's office. But in the present case the items in quosNOTICE TO D'ISPUTE PETITIONING CREDITOR's Debr-BANK tion all involved the same principle, and, as the solicitor RUPTCY ACT, 1869, ss. 8, 9-BANKRUPTCY RULES, 1870, R. had not any statutory right to have the proper amount of his 36.-In a case of Ex parte Learoyd, before the Court of charges ascertained in one way only, the registrar was perAppeal on the 15th inst., the question arose whether a fectly entitled to deal with the case as he did. And the debtor, against whom a bankruptcy petition had been pre. court expressed an opinion that the charges made for the sented, and who bad withdrawn a notice which he had prospectus and circulars were improper, and said that given, under role 36, of bis intention to dispute the peti
a solicitor bad no right to make a profit on the printiog, tioning creditor's debt, was entitled afterwards on the addressing, and posting of documents for his client, which hearing of the petition to dispute the amount of tbe debt. was not pro'essional work at all. The petition was presented on the 6th of Augost, and it alleged a debt of £70. On the 22nd of August the debtor gave notice of bis intention to dispate the debt. The
LIQUIDATION-REGISTRATION OF RESOLUTIONS-VOTING heariog of the petition was from time to time adjourned
OF CREDITORS AT MEETING — BLANK PROXY-BANKRUPTCY by consent, and on the 19th of September the debtor
Act, 1869, s._80, SUB-SECTION 8-BANKRUPTCY RULES, withdrew his notice. The petition came on for hearing on
1870, R. 85-BANRRUPTCY FORMS, 1870, No. 32.-In a the 11th of December. The debtor had not given any
case of Ex parte Duce, before the Court of Appeal on the fresh notice of his intention to dispute the debt, but be
15th inst., the question arose whether the solicitor of a tthen proposed to prove that less than £50 was due, and
debtor who had filed a liquidation petition, to whom one of the registrar allowed him to give evidence that he bad paid blank, was entitled, without any express instructions so to
the creditors had sent a proof of debt with a proxy signed in he creditor since the withdrawal of the notice a sum which reduced the amount due below £50. The petitioning behalf of the creditor in favour of accepting a composition
do, to fill up the blank with his own name, and to vote on creditor was not himself present, and the registrar rofased an application on bis beball for an adjournment to
offered by the debtor. The solicitor of one of the creditors enable him to come and give evidence to contradict that
wrote to the debtor's solicitor asking him to send bim a of the debtor, and the petition was dismissed. The Court
form of proof of debt, as the one which had been sent to
his client had been mislaid. In adswer to this request, the of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and Cotton, L.JJ.) held that
debtor's solicitor sent a form of proof, asking, at the same the debtor was not precluded from disputing the debt, but
time, that it might be sent back to him by return of post, that the petitioning creditor ought to have had an oppor
as the second meeting of the creditors was fixed to be held tanity of being heard, and they remitted the case to the
in a few days. The creditor filled up the form of proof thus registrar for that purpose.
sent to him, and made the affidavit, and he also signed the
form of proxy at the foot of the proof, but did not fill in PROOF IN BANKRUPTCY-Solicitor's BILL OF Costs- | the name of any person as his proxy. He then handed the TAXATION—6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 37.-In a case of In re
proof and proxy to his solicitor, who returned it to the Woods, before the Court of Appeal, on the 15th inst., the
debtor's solicitor, without giving him any express directions
as to the use of the proxy. Tbe debtor's solicitor filled question arose whatber a solicitor who bad teodered a
in the blank with his own name, and voted at the meeting proof in a bankruptcy in respect of a bill of costs which be alleged to be due to him from the bankrupts, was en
in the name of the creditor in favour of a composition titled to insist opon baving the bill taxed by the taxing registration of the resolations accepting the composition,
offered by the debtor. The creditor afterwards opposed the master of the court. The proof tendered was for £574 ;
but was met by the objection that he had himself voted in the trustee bad admitted it to the extent of £400. The
favour of them. He then applied to the court to take his bankrupts had carried on a proprietary club, which they proxy off the file of the proceedings, and to erase his vote. had before their bankruptcy attempted to make over to a
He deposed that be intended the blank to be filled up with joint stock company, and for that purpose a prospectos and
the name of his own solicitor or his clerk, and that he never circolars had been sent to all the members of the olub. In intended to appoint the debtor's solicitor his proxy. The the solicitor's bill a charge was made for drawing the pro
Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and COTTON, L.JJ.) epeotos and tbe circulars, and also a charge (at the rate of
affrmed the decision of the Chief Judge, refusing the appli23. per copy) for "copies of the prospectus and circulars,
caiion. They held that, under the circumstances, the sendaddressing, postages, &c.” As there were 900 copies of ing of the blank proxy to the debtor's solicitor implied an each, this charge amounted to more than £200. No signed authority to him to insert his own name as the proxy, and bill bad been delivered to the bankrupte. The solicitor
to vote on the creditor's behelf. applied to the court to reverse the trustee's decision. Evi. dence was given by a printer that his charge for setting op the prospectus in type and printing 1,000 copies would LIQUIDATION PETITION—GENERAL MEETING OF CREDITORS have been £3 159., and that his charge for lithographing -REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE-VOTING-CREDITOR PRESENT BUT the circulars and printing 1,000 copies would bave been NOT DESIRING TO VOTE-PROXY-SALE OP Debts- BONA £2 23. for eacb. During the hearing the registrar con. FIDES-BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1869, 88. 16, 80-BANKRUPTCY sulted the taxing master as to what would have been allowed Rules, 1870, RR. 85, 269, 271, 273, 293, 305, 307,
In a case of Ex parte Evans, before the Court of Appeol and that no persou could deal with the property except under on the 15th inst., a question aroso as to the applicability of the authority of the court. The defendant asked for the the role laid down by the Court of Appeal in Ex parte Orde appointment of himself as receiver without salary, and without (19 W. R. 1103, L. R. 6 Cb. 881). In that case it was held security, and eventually the Master Of The Rolls made the that avery creditor who has banded in bis proof of debt at order for a receiver in that form. He also give leave to the first meeting ander a liquidation petition most, unless either party to tendtr for a sale of the properly. be withdraws bis proof as provided by rule 273, be taken to be present at the meeting, and to bave diggented from the resolutions proposed, unless he has signed them as
PRACTICE-EXAMINATION BEFORE EXAMINER--Refusal voting in their favour. If be desires not to be considered
TO SIGN DEPOSITIONS-FORM OF ORDER.-In a case of as present, he most withdraw his proof under rule 273.
Stein v. Stephen, te'ore the Master of the Rulls on the In Ex parie Evans a debtor liad filed a liquidation petition,
16th inst., it appeared that a party who had been crossand the creditoro had resolved op a liquidation by arrange
examined before the examiner refused to attend to complete ment, and bad appointed a trustee. Two years after some
his re-examination, or to sign the depositions. A motion of the creditors, professing to be one-fourth in value of
was made that he might be ordered to attend and complete those who had proved their debts, summoned a general
his re-examination and sign the depositions. The respond. meeting of the oreditors for the porpose of removing the
ent did not appear, and the MASTER OF The Rolls said that trastee. The meeting was held, and a resolation to remove
it was unnecessary to require the person to attend and be rethe trostee was proposed, and it purported to have been examined, which was for his own benefit
, and the order he
should make would simply be for the examiner to file the pasged by the proper majority in value of the creditors
depositions without their being signed. personally present, or represented by proxy, at the meeting. The registration of the resolution was opposed by some of the dissentient creditors, on the ground (inter alia) that a BURIAL ACTS-CLOSING or CEMETERY-PRESENT INTERcreditor, named Scrivener, who was actually present at the
ORDERS IN COUNCIL INTERFERENCE WITH meeting, was pot inserted in the list of those wbo were Owner IN Fes-ULTRA VIRES-PRACTICE-INQUIRY AS present. He was a creditor in bis own right for £105, and TO DAMAGES Directed BEFORE OFFICIAL REFEREE. bę also beld a proxy for a Mrs. Simpson, who was a creditor In the case of Jacobson y. St. Paneras Vestry, before the for £5,473. His proof, and that of Mrs. Simpson, were on Master of the Rolls on the 19th iost., a question was raised the file of proceedings, as was also the proxy. At the as to the right of a vestry to interfere with the owner in fee meeting be stated that he had no intention of voting of a piece of ground formerly used as a burial-ground. It upon the resolution. It was objected, on the authority of appeared there had been no burials since 1850, and that in Ex parte Orde, that, as the proofs had not been withdrawr, the year 1853 the grouod waz by an Order in Council, under both be and Mrs. Simpson ought to have been counted as the 15 & 16 Vict. C. 85, formally closed for the purposes of present at the meeting. His own debt would have made burial. The Act, however, reserves the rights of particular Do difforence, but the result of counting Mrs. Simpson as persons 10 bury in a closed burial-ground provided the present would have been tbat the resolution would not have previous sanction of the Secre:ary of State is obtained. In been carried by the proper majority in value. Mr. Regis 1857 the ground was in the possession of mortgagees who trar Murray overruled the objection, and the Court of had begun to deface the tomb-stones, and the owners of the Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and Cotton, L.JJ.) affirmed graves filed a bill, and the mortgagees were restrained by his decision. They said tbat the principle of Ev parte Orde injunction from doing any act to prevent future interments did not apply to the case of a creditor who was entitled to
in the event of such interments being permitted by the be present both in his own right and as proxy for another Secretary of State. The case is reported sub nom. Merland creditor. A proxy only conferred an authority to represent
v. Richardson (24 Beav. 33). in 1862 the ground was sold in the principal; it did not of necessity make the person ap.
building lots by the Court of Chancery, and the present pointed proxy the representative of the principal on every
plaio tiff purchased the land in question, but subject to the subsequent occasion." The proxy could not be taken to
rights, if any, of the owners of private graves, as defined by represeut the principal unless he had dove some act to
Merland v. Richardson. In 1864 and 1865 Orders in Council slow tbat he was presept on his bebalf on the particular
were made under the supposed authority of the 20 & 21 Vict. occasion. The proxy might have been revoked, or the
c. 81, s. 20, as a niended by 22 Vict. c. 1, s. 1, but they were not principal might have told the proxy not to appear for him
acted upon, and the land continued waste land. In 1879 on the particular occasion. The persons present ought to
complaints were made to the vestry of the condition of the be asked for whom they appeared, and their names should
ground, and they proceeded to lay it out as a garden, wherebe inserted in the list of creditors accordingly. Of course,
upon the plaintiff
' commenced this action. "The plaiotiff if a person was not entitled to be present in his own right,
relied on Foster v. Dodds (L. R. 3 Q. B. 67), as showing that but could only appear as proxy for some one else, it would
the Orders in Council were invalid as not having been made in reference to a place then used for burials.
The defend be a different tbing. Their lordships reserved their opinion ants, however, contended that the decision in Merland on the question whether Ex parte Orde applied at all to
Richardsin was sufficient to distinguish the case. meetings subsequent to the registration of liquidation or
MASTER OF THE Rolls was of opinion that the case was in composition resolutions, when proofs could not be with: drawn without an application to the court. Arother objec.
effect covered by Foster v. Dodds, and he accordingly granted tion to the registration of the resolutions was that some of
an injunction to restrain the vestry from interfering with tbe creditors who bad signed the notice summoning tbe
the plaintiff's freehold, and gave him leave to take an meeting, and had voted for the resolation, had previously
inquiry as to damages before the official referee. He said sold tbeir debts to anotber creditor, against whom the
that where an inquiry involved the taking of viva coce trustee bad instituted proceedings in relation to the
evidence, he always directed the same before the official debtor's estate.
reserees instead of his chief clerks, Their votes were, therefore, it was said, really the pote of the creditor who had an interest in the removal of the trustee, and this tainted the whole pro. PRACTICE-ORDER OF COURSE FOR Taxation—WHERE opeding. The court held that there was no force in this OBTAINABLE_New Rules OF COURT.-Daring a case of objeotion, because the voting creditors stood in no fiduciary In re Argles and Rawlins, before the Master of the Rolls position to the other oreditors, it not beiog a case where on the 20th inst.-a case for a review of taxation-his the rights of a minority were to be affected by the votes of LORDSHIP took occasion to remark on the number of taxation a majority.
matters tbat come before him. He said that under the new rules of court his scoretary became an officer of the
High Coort, and, therefore, the power to issue orders of RECEIVER-APPLICATION BY MORTGAGOR IN POSSESSION course was not now limited to bis secretary, but sach -ACTION FOR FORECLOSURE BY EQUITABLE MORTGAGEE orders could now be issued by the judges of the other DISPUTED MORTGAGE.-In a case of Taffe v. Whinney, before branches of the court, and by their chief clerke. the Master of the Rolls on the 16th inst., the action was one by an equitable mortgagee for foreclosure, and a motion was made by the defendant, the mortgagor in possession, for a
PRACTICE-PREPARATION OF BRIEF OX SUMMONS-Costs receiver. The grounds of the application were tbat the -DISALLOWANCE.-Ia a case of Lacey y. Hill, before the property was unlet, that the plaintiff's mortgage was disputed, I Master of the Rolls on the 20th inst., an application wa
made for a review of the master's taxation in reference to the costs of preparation of a brief on the summons, which
Societies. were very heavy, and upon which the whole question, involving a sum of about £600,000, had been decided. The case had eventually gone to the House of Lords. The
SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. taxation was as between solicitor and client, but the taxing The usual monthly meeting of the Board of Directors of master had disallowed all costs for preparation of the brief this association was held at the Law Institution, Chanceryon the hearing of the summons. Jessel, M.R., said that lane, London, on Wednesday, January 14; Mr. 8. Smith the practice in the case of briefs on summonses was not to in the chair ; the other directors present being Messrs. allow anything for preparation of the brief. The question Asker (Norwich), Brook, Gregory, M.P., Hedger, Kays, that the matter was very heavy made no difference ; besides, Paterson, Pennington, Rickman, Roscoe, Rose, Styan, and the applicants had already had sufficient allowed them for
Woolbert (Mr. Eiffe, secretary). A sum of £135 was discosts, and he sbould make no order on the application. tributed in grants of relief, nine gentlemen were admitted
as members of the agsociation, and other general business
was transacted. WILL-CONSTRUCTION–Gift SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCY. - In a case of Blight v. Harinoll, before Fry, J., on the 17th inst., a question arose on the construction of a will, whether a contingency, which was attached to a particular gift, affected the subsequent limitations. A testatrix gave to
Obituary. her sister, during her life, an annuity of £50, charged on the rental of a wharf, and, after her death, the testatrix directed
MR. THOMAS MORGAN. that the annuity should be paid to her daughter S., during her life. And, after her death, she directed her executors to Mr. "'homas Morgan, solicitor, of Cardigan, died at his pay the annuity to L., the daughter of S., during her life, residence at that place, on the 28th ult., after a and if L., after having commenced to receive the annuits, few days' illness. Mr. Morgan was born in 1802, and was should die before the expiration of the term of years under | admitted a solicitor in 1833, and soon afterwards went inte which the wharf was let, the testatrix directed her executors parinership with the late Mr. Lewis Evans, town clerk of to continde to pay the annuity out of the rental to the then Cardigan, and clerk to the borough magistrates. Mr. surviving children of L. in equal shares, and, in the event Morgan was himself for several years town clerk of the of there being then or at any future time no such surviving borough and clerk to the Cardigan Urban Sanitary Authority, children of L., then the testatrix directed her executors to but about five years ago he retired from office on account of pay the annuity out of the rental to the surviving children failing health. He had been for the last few years in of her daughter S. in equal shares. The testatrix diei in partnership with Mr. Charles Evans Richardson,
Mr. 1854. L. died unmarried in 1870. S. died in 1875, and the Morgan had a good private practice. sister of the testatrix died in 1877. The result was that L. had not died “after having commenced to receive the annuity," and the question was whether, under such circum
MR. ROBERT BAYLEY FOLLETT. stances, the subsequent limitations to the surviving Mr. Robert Bayley Follett, many years one of the taxing children of her mother could have any operation ; masters of the Chancery Division, died on the 11th inst. Mr. and whether the children of S. took the annuity or Follett was the son of the late Mr. Benjamin Follett, solicitor, it was undisposed of and fell into the residue. Fry, of 2, Paper-buildings, and was a brother of the late Sir J., said that this depended upon whether the gist to William Follett, and of Mr. Brent Spencer Follett, Q.C., the surviving children of S. was an independent and sut the registrar of the Land Registry Office. He was born in stantive gift, or whether it was one of a series of gists all 1804, and was admitted a solicitor in 1827, and soon afterof which depended upon Li's commencing to receive the wards succeeded to his father's practice. In 1842, he received appuity. His lordskip held that the gift was an independent from Lord Lyndhurst the appointment of taxing master of the cae. The testatrix had dealt with two contingencies—the Court of Chancery, and discharged the duties of that office death of L. after having commenced to receive the annuity, for over thirty years. A few years ago he retired on a and there being no surviving children of L.--and following pension. Mr. Follett was a director of the Legal and each of them there was a separate direction to pay the General Life Assurance Society. annuity. This led to the conclusion that the gifts were intended to be independent. The gift, therefore, to the surviving children of S. was not affected by the prior contin
MR. JOHN NEIVBOULD. gency, and the annuity would go to the children of S. who
Mr. Jolin Newbould, solicitor (of the firm of Newbould survived at the death of the sister of the testatrix.
& Gould), died at Sharrow Bank, Sheffield, on the 20th iost., after a few days' illness. Mr. Newbould was the
second son of Mr. Henry Newbould, of Sheffield, and was The Daily Chronicle says, it is stated that the ball of
born in 1823. He served his articles with Messrs. Rickards Serjeant's Ion, Chancery-lane, which, with the other & Walker, of Lincola's.inn.fields, and was admitted a solicitor blocks of buildings forming the inn, was some time ago and during the last twelve years had been in partnership
in 1848. He had practised for over thirty years at Sheffield, parebased by the late Mr. Serjeant Cox, is about to undergo with Mr. Thomas Gould. His private practice was very large. & conversion into offices, now that it is no longer required He took an active part in local business, and was a constant for its original purpose, in consequence of the serjeants, as a body, having ceased to exist. On Wednesday the furniture supporter of religious and educational projects. For several
years he was church warden of St. Andrew's, Sharrow, and and effects belonging to the ball were sold by auction in the dining-room of the hall, and consisted of upwards of
he was local treasurer to the National Society. He was a
member of the Sheffield School Board, and a governor of 60 lots, inclading the large dioing table, at which many
the Sbeffield General Infirmary and of the Sheffield and eminent judges and serjeants bave in past times feasted. Hallamshire Savings Bank. Xe was an active member of The antique dinner service, containing 144 pieces, each
of the local Conservative party. Mr. Newbould's funeral piece bearing the arms of Serjeant's Ion, also formed one of the lots. Nominal prices only were realised, and the
will take place to-day at Eccleslall. memorials of the ancient Ion of the serjeants have now in many instances passed into the hands of the Wardour. street brokers and otber dealers in antiquated relics. The dioder service, which for so many years past bad been
Appointments, Etc. utilized for the entertainment of some of our brightest legal laminaries, was sold for the nominal sum of £1 58., Mr. WALTER MAY BARTON, solicitor, of East Derebarı, although in excellent condition. It is said that in the has been slected Clerk to the Magistrates for the Division contemplated alterations the external features of the west of Mitford and Launditch, Clerk to the Mitford and frontage of the hall will not be distarbed. An inscription Laundicth Board of Guardians, Royal Sanitary Authority, beneath the pediment records that the hall was erected and Assesment Committee, Saperintendent Registrar, and more tban 200 years ago, namely in 1678,
Clerk to the Commissioners of Taxes for Mitford and
Launditob, on the resiguation of bis partner, Mr. Oharles Wright. Mr. Barton was admitted a solicitor in 1870, and was a prizeman of the Incorporated Law Society. He is also deputy.coroner for the Liberty of the Duoby of Lancaster, and for the Liberty of the Duke of Norfolk, and clerk to the Derebam Barial Board.
Mr. HENRY J. L. GRAHAM, who has filled the office of Principal Secretary to the Lord Chancellor since 1874, bas been appointed by the Lord Chancellor to succeed Mr. Barlow as Master in Ludacy, which office Mr. Barlow has resigned.
Mr. John HANDS, of 60, Queen Victoria-street, E.C., solicitor, has been appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Canada, a Commissioner for taking Affidavits for all Courts in that Province.
Mr. HENRY SNAITH, solicitor, of Boston, has been elected Clerk to the Holland Fen Highway Board, and Clerk to the Swine'sbead School Board. Mr. Smith was admitted a solicitor in 1875.
and bad served two years and a half under articles to & writer (solicitor) in Glasgow, previous to his being bound in this country.
The motion was opposed on the ground that the Master of the Rolls had, after conference with the other judges, including Mr. Jastice Lawson (then one of the Lords Commissioners having oustody of the Great Seal), decided that such attendance at lectures and passing of examioa. tion during the term of apprenticeship bad not the effect under the 9th section of the 19 & 20 Viot, of entitling him to be admitted at the expiration of four yeare.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that this young gentleman's knowledge of Scotch law, which he had no doubt acquired in Scotland, might not be of any use at all here, because the principles were so different. With regard to precedent, his lordship was unable to find any whatever for the granting of this application, and be thought that if a precedent were now made it would be the means of opening the door to great irregularities in futore and similar cases. He must, therefore, refase the motion, with costs.
DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP.
(Before J. W. de LONGUEVILLE GIFFARD, Esq., Judge.) Companies.
Drake v. Holmes.
This was a debtor's summons issued by Mr. Thomas
Drake, of Huddersfield, solicitor, against Mr. W. C. Holmes, LIMITED IN CHANCERY.
of Huddersfield and London, gas engineer, to recover the ROCHDALE PROPERTY AND GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Bacon dated Jan 5, it was ordered that
sum of £748 9s. 10d., for a solicitor's bill of costs, and the the company be wound up. Clarke and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, 80
application was on behalf of W. C. Holmes to dismiss the licitors for the petitioner
debtor's summons. (Gazette, Jan. 16.)
Learoyd, solicitor, appeared for Mr. Holmes. JEFFRESTON ANTIBACITE COAL COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 15, directed to be heard before the M.R. on
Shaw, barrister, appeared for Mr. Drake, Jan 31. Norris and Co, Bedford row, solicitors for the petitioners
Learoyd applied that the summons should be dismissed STANSFIELD PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are raquired, on with costs, on the ground that it was an abuse of the process or De ore Feb 18, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts and claims, to William Eckersley Guest, 42, George
of the court. He stated that an action was brought on the st, Manchester. Feb 26, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudi
17th of December, 1879, by Mr. Drake to recover the amount cating upon the debts and claims
of bis bill; that the defendant disputed his liability on the W. AND J GARFORTH, LIMITED.- V.C. Hall has, by an order dated Jan 9, appointed Robert Joseph Fletcher, Ashton-under-Lyne, to be
ground that the charges were excessive, and that Drake official liquidator.
had been guilty of negligence; but as to the latter allega
[Gazette, Jan 20.] tion, Mr. Holmes had been advised to assert it in a crossUNLIMITED IN CHANCERY. LONDON AND EASTERN BANKING CORPORATION-V.C. Bacon will, at
action which had been brought and which was now pending; his cbambers, 11, New sg, Lincoln's inn, on Feb 3, at 12, appoint a
and as to the former complaint he was advised to obtain sole official manager in the place of John Ball, deceased
an order for the taxation of the plaintiff's bill. On the 24th
[Gazette, Jan 16. of December, 1879, an order for taxation was obtained wbich STANNARIES OF CORNWALL.
provided that the pending action should be restrained, and NORTH TRESKER BY MINING COMPANY.-By an order by Vice-Warden, dated Jan 14, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Hodge
the carriage of the order was given to Mr. Drake. No and Co, Truro, solicitors for tha petitioners
order bad upon the summons been made for security or for
[Gazette, Jan 20.) payment of any part of the claim into court. No more FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.
had been made by Mr. Drake to bring on the taxation, he CHEADLE CATHOLIC FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Cheadle, Stafford, Jan 14
had retained the order in his possession, and on the 31st of [Gazette, Jan 20.] December, 1879, he issued the debtor's summone. It
was contended, first, that, as a matter of discretion in the court, the summons could not be sustained; the object of a debtor's summons was to make an insolvent man bankrupt; that was an extremely harsh and severe process, Dever intended against a man of
means, and certainly never as a process to enable HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, IRELAND. a solioitor to evade the taxation of his bill. The CHANCERY DIVISION.
case of Ex parte Sewell (Weekly Notes, December 6, 1879, p. (Before the LORD CHANCELLOR of Ireland.)
186) was referred to. It was also contended that even in
a case where there was an admitted act of bankruptoy, Jap. 19.-In re Davidson.
and an admitted debt, the court was not bound to An application was made in the course of last Michaelmas adjudicate if the process taken was inequitable. The Sittings tbat Mr. Davidson be allowed to present himself caseof In re Davis, Ex parte King (L. R. 3 Ch. at the final examination which was to take place during ) D. 461), was relied upon. Next, it was contended that the the present sittings, notwithstanding that he had only debtor's summons could not be sustained, for in order to gerved four years onder the indentures. The ground of support it there must be a debt then capable of being the application was that the applicant bad attended a enforced, and according to section 6, sub-sections 6 and 7, three years' course of law lectures in the Queen's Univer- | there must be a debt dae and payable ; that in this case sity, Belfast, and bad passed the prescribed examination there was no liquidated or ascertained debt; that it was in the Law School, and during bis term of apprenticeship | referred to a legal tribunal, bat now pending ; and thut the bad obtained two law scholarships. Mr. Davidson had also debt for work and labour had been transferred into a passed the necessary sessional examination in the lectures liability ander the order when ascertained; that the order delivered by the professor of the Incorporated Society, I admitting the retainer and allooatar should be enforoed at