« PreviousContinue »
the second edition, by inserting precedents of bills of
THE BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1878. costs on winding up a company. They have also added precedents of bills of costs in proceedings before the [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Privy Council, and on passing residuary and succession accounts. The work is now very complete and assignment of part of a piece of leasehold land, subject
Sir,-Has the point ever been raised as to whether an will probably take its place as a necessary part of the
to a proportionate part of the rent reserved in the lease, solicitors' library.
such assignment containing the usual cross powers of distress for securing payment of the rent, requires to be registered under section 6 of this Act ?
The power would seem to be given by one person to General Correspondence. another person by way of security for a “contingent
A SUBSCRIBER. TO CORRESPONDENTS. — All letters intended for publica- ! [No doubt, but has not our correspondent overlooked
tion in the “ Solicitors' Journal” must be authenti the subsequent words of the section, AND whereby any cated by the name of the writer. The Editor cannot rent is received or made payable as a mode of providing undertake to return MSS. forwarded to him.
for the payment of interest on such debt or advance" ?
These words are inapplicable to the case he mentions.CONVEYANCING MONOPOLY,
ED. S.J.] [To the Editor of the Solicilors' Journal.] Sir,- Referring to the editorial remarks in your issue of the 25th ult. on the subject of the conveyancing
DIGEST OF LAW. monopoly insisted on by the Corporation of London [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] and the city companies, the following letter, which is
Sir,—The subject of this letter has frequently occupied recorded in the transactions of the Newcastle-upon
your columns, and was submitted to the consideration of Tyne and Gateshead Law Society, may be of interest to
a Royal Commission in 1866. That commission was apthose by whom the grievance alluded to is felt :
pointed “to inquire into the expediency of a digest of “ Town Clerk's Office, Newcastle. law, and the best means of accomplishing that object, “ November 13, 1833.
and of otherwise exhibiting in a compendious and acces“To the Secretaries of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne sible form the law as embodied in judicial decisions.” and Gateshead Law Societies.
In their first report (May 13, 1867) the commissioners, “Dear Sirs, -Will you have the kindness to communi. after referring to the three great heads of the common cate to the profession that I have obtained the consent law, the statute law, and “the law embodied in, and to of the Common Council to omit in all future renewals of a great extent created by, judicial decisions and dicta," leases the clause_which confines the preparation of and pointing out the evils arising “from the extent and assignments to the Town Clerk, and that with respect to variety of the materials from which the existing law the existing leases, I forego the benefit of that clause in has to be ascertained,” say that "a digest, correctly favour of my professional brethren.
framed, and revised from time to time, would go far to “I remain, dear Sirs,
remedy” those evils, and they proceed :-“ For a digest “ Yours very truly, (in the sense in which we understand the term to be used
“ JOHN CLAYTON." in your Majesty's Commission, and in which we use it in I am happy to say that Mr. Clayton is one of the few
this report) would be a condensed summary of the law survivors of a generation which has nearly passed away
as it exists, arranged in systematic order, under apprc. since he thus generously acknowledged the rights of his priate titles and sub-divisions, and divided into distinct professional brethren to his own pecuniary disadvantage,
articles or propositions, which would be supported by and I have much pleasure in recalling an incident at
references to the sources of law whence they were once so graceful and characteristic.
severally derived, and might be illustrated by citations Thos. Geo. GIBSON,
of the principal instances in which the rules stated had Hon. Sec. of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne
been discussed or applied.” They then answer the first Incorporated Law Society.
branch of the inquiry committed to them by reporting their opinion that a digest of law is expedient.
As to the second branch of their inquiry, the com
missioners say :-“We do not desire to conceal that the THE COMMON LAW CAUSE LISTS.
task of forming such a digest as we contemplate would [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] necessarily require a considerable expenditure of time Sir,-Permit me to thank you for the extremely kind and money, though we are strongly of opinion that the terms in which you speak of my pamphlet benefits that would result from it would amply comon the Cause Lists. Your article puts the main pensate for any such expenditure. part of my argument into a clearer and more con “We think it clear that a work of this nature (regard cise form than I was able to accomplish. Your being had especially to the importance of its carrying criticisms are plainly fair, well considered, and forcible, with it the greatest weight) could not be accomplished and without expressing any opinion as to how far they by private enterprize, and that it must be executed by should prevail, I will not fail to call the attention of my public authority, and at the national expense. official superior, Lord Coleridge, to them. I shall do so With respect to the means of accomplishing it, we in accordance with my sole object in writing the have considered various plans. Any plan must, wo pamphlet, which was that of submitting to the authori- think, involve the appointment of a commission or body ties and the legal profession any points in the subject of for executing or superintending the execution of the the lists which seemed to be material, with the view of work.” They “recommend that a portion of the digest, supplying such aid as my experience as Associate enabled sufficient in extent to be a fair specimen of the whole, me to offer towards the final establishment, with general should be in the first instance prepared, before your acceptance, of a proper system.
Majesty's Government is committed to an expenditure
T. W. ERLE. which will be considerable, and which, when once begun, Common Pleas Division, Westminster Hall, Nov. 6. must continue for several years, if it is to be at all
The commissioners continue:-"We are not authorized by the terms of your Majesty's Commission to undertake the execution or direction of such a work, but we are of
opinion that it might be conveniently executed under “ the issue of subsidiary or other publications relating to our superintendence."
legal subjects," and to this further fact, that it appears They further say :-—"In the progress of the work . .
from the annual reports and financial statements circu. difficulties, not now foreseen in detail, will doubtless be lated among the profession that the council have a con. encountered, and the best way to overcome them will be
siderable and increasing surplus, and I wish then to ascertained. The solution of questions which have
suggest (the suggestion may not be new, for the ques. already occurred to us will be attained, or at any rate tion of judiciously applying their surplus has evidently promoted. Some of these questions are the following, been before the council) that some of the fund could be what is the best mode of dealing with statute law in the
very suitably applied to the execution of a digest, under digest, how should conflicting rules of law (if
any), and the superintendence of the council or a select number of doubts which have been authoritatively raised respecting their body. The council would probably be able either particular cases or doctrines of law, be treated ?
to give it to their subscribers or to issue it to their subThe commissioners, having obtained the sanction of the scribers for a small payment. Government to the preparation of specimen digests and
I would desire to add that, in thus aiding in the great determined on three subjects for the purpose, issued in work of digesting the English law, there could be no November, 1867 a circular letter to the four Inns of necessity that the council should be pledged to undertake Court inviting competition for the several works; three the whole work of a digest. If really the work begun gentlemen were selected and their specimens sent in to and ended with a single volume on any one branch of the commissioners, who subsequently made their second our law it could not fail to be a boon to the profession. (and final) report May 11, 1870, in which they say : Temple.
A. J. Woon. “ The gentlemen whose assistance we have had have laid before us materials of considerable value, and have enabled us to form conclusions as to the conduct of the
Cases of the deek. entire work. “But we think it unadvisable to continue any further
PRACTICE-APPEAL-SECURITY FOR COSTS_POVERTY OF this mode of proceeding.”
APPELLANT_ORD. 58, R. 15.-In a case of Cruse v. Smith They then, after pointing out that the proper exami an application was made to the Court of Appeal, on the 3rd nation and revision of these materials would involve con
inst., that an appellant might be ordered to give security siderable further delay and expense, and that these speci. for the costs of his appeal. The appellant had been ordered mens would have to be revised and perhaps re-cast when by the court below to pay costs which it was sworn would the time arrived for inserting them as portions of a com amount, on taxation, to at least £70, but the taxation had plete work, say,
not yet been completed. The ground of the applioation "The experiment, however, has served a useful pur was that the appellant lived in lodgings, that his pose. It has brought out very clearly the difficulties to
furniture was not worth more than £5, and that he was be contended with, and the conditions under which the engaged in an employment for which he received wages work must be executed;" and afterwards continue—"we
amounting to 258. a week. Hence, it was argued, he would are of opinion that the work of a general digest, based
be totally unable to pay the costs which he had been ordered on a comprehensive plan, and with a uniform method,
to pay, or to pay the costs of the appeal if it should be should be at once undertaken.
ungnccessful. The court (Earl CAIRNS, C., BAGGALLAY, and
THESIGER, L.JJ.) refused the application. Ear) CAIRNS, "A complete digest cannot be executed without the C., said that he could see no ground for the application. assistance of the most highly-skilled persons whose ser There was no evidence whether the appellant's wages vices can be procured. The success of the work will were his whole means of subsistence. There was no proof depend on their efficiency. They must give to the of his insolvency, or of his inability to pay the costs of the undertaking the whole of their time and energy. And it appeal, or even the costs which he had been already is obvious that the services of such persons, and under such ordered to pay. If the court were to grant the application conditions, cannot be obtained without the offer of per it would be proceeding merely on conjecture. BAGGALLAY manent employment and high remuneration.”
L.J., said that, no doubt, the actual insolvency of an They therefore reported their opinion that it was ex
appellant or proof of his inability to pay costs was a special pedient that a body of persons such as they had described,
circumstance, and a very strong circumstance, which of itself
was enough to entitle the respondent to security, unless its not exceeding three in number, should be constituted for
effect was removed by other circumstances. executing the digest as a whole, being provided with the necessary means and assistance, and acting under such
PRACTICE directions and control, either of a committee of her
Costs Majesty's Privy Council, or otherwise, as to her Majesty
FOREIGNER RESIDING ABROAD.-In a case of De Oleaga v. should seem fit.
The West Cumberland Iron and Steel Company, before the From this report Mr. Justice Willes dissented, but
Court of Appeal on the 3rd inst., application was made for inasmuch as he agreed that a first-rate modern digest of costs of his appeal.
an order that the plaintiff shonld give security for the
He was a Spanish subject, domiciled English law was to be desired (for professional use), and and resident in Spain, but he had an office in Liverpool his objection was only that it would be the makeshift for where be carried on business. There was no evidence a code, which he advocated, I think he may, for practical whether he was in the habit of coming to England purposes, be considered really not to have differed from and staying there for any time. The court (Earl Cairns, C., his brother commissioners.
and BAGGALLAY and THESIGER, L.JJ.) ordered security to Several years being now elapsed since the date of the
the amount of £50 to be given. last of the reports referred to, I have thought it desirable
PRACTICE-TRANSFER OF ACTION-COGNATE ACTIONS to quote them in some detail, in order to show, in what -Costs OF MOTION.-In a case of De Bergue v. De appeared to me the best way, the commissioners' views Bergue, an application was made to the Lord Chancellor in favour of a digest, of the plan of the work, and of on the 3rd inst. for a transfer to Malins, V.C., of an the difficulties of its execution, also their scheme for action which had been commenced before the Master of the getting the work executed.
Rolls, on the ground that a decree had been made by Now, as the ultimate recommendations of the commis
Malins, V.C., in a cognate action. The LORD CHANCELLOR
made the order for transfer, observing that the question sioners appear to have produced no direct result-and
was one of convenience, and that it was most convenient seem unlikely to produce any-and as there can scarcely
that cognate actions should be disposed of by the same be two opinions as to the desirability of a good digest, I judge. But his lordship refused to give the applicant any wish, through your columns, to draw attention to the costs of the motion, on the ground that he had not, before fact that, among the objects mentioned in the memoran. making the motion, applied to the respondent to consent to dum of association of the Council of Law Reporting, is the transfer.
PRACTICE-DISCOVERY-APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF BE- | the discretion of any other judge, but his own practice was FORE DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCB_ORD. 31, not to order a member of a company to angwer interrogaRR, 11, 12.-In a case of the Union Bank of London v. tions, unless he was satisfied that there was no officer of Hanby, before the Court of Appeal on the 4th inst., the the company who could give the discovery, and that the question arose whether an order for discovery by a de member could give it. It must be a member who had tendant had been properly made before he had delivered placed himself in such a position that he ought to answer his statement of defence. The action was brought by as if he were an officer of the company. For instance, he second mortgagees against the first mortgagee and the might have been the chairman of the company during the mortgagor for the redemption of the first mortgagee, and whole of the transactions in question, and might have re. the foreclosure of the mortgagor. Immediately after the signed only tbe day before. The company were always delivery of the statement of claim the plaintiffs moved for served with notice of the application, and they had the an order that the defendants should make the common greatest interest in having a proper person to answer. affidavit of documents, and for production. Hall, V.C., The usual practice was for the company's solicitor to act made the order, and the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAG. for the member, and then he would charge the costs against GALLAY, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) affirmed bis decision. The the company, and the member would incur no expenge. case of Hancock v. Guerin (27 W.R. 112, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 3) | His lordship did not wish to encourage the employment of was relied upon by the appellant, but the court said that a separate solicitor by the member in such a case. He in such an action as that before them the issues to be tried had never heard the question raised whether such costs were quite plain before the delivery of the statement of were costs in the action. They were taxed as a matter of defence, and there was no reason why the discovery should course, and if the company were successful they got them not be given at once.
as part of the costs of the action. The practice introduced by Fry, J., would bring back the mischief of the old
system of making defendants for the mere purpose of dig. ADMINISTRATION ACTION-APPLICATION BY CREDITOR TO INCREASE AMOUNT FOUND DUE TO HIM BY CERTIFICATE.-In
covery. BAGGALLAY, L.J., was by no means so satisfied ag a case of Re Metcalfe's Estate, before the Court of Appeal on
the Master of the Rolls was, that the member, if he acted the 4th inst., a sum had been found due by the chief clerk's
independently of the company, would ever be able to get certificate to a creditor of the testator in the action (which
| bis costs. Bat, if he could not, this was a liability to was for the administration of the testator's estate), and,
which he was exposed by becoming a member of the comon further consideration before Fry, J., on April 9, an order |
pany. THESIGER, L.J., said that the rule was a mere exwas made for the raising and payment of the sum so found
tension of section 51 of the Common Law Procedure Aot, due. In Jane the creditor (who was the executor of another
and ought to be worked as that had been. It would not testator) presented a petition, alleging that since the hearing produce any injustice. It was clear that the examination on further consideration he had discovered that a further sum
was intended to be of a person who was an alter ego of the was due to his testator for interest on the debt, and asking that corporation which could not be examined. Under the this further sum might also be raised and paid to him. Fry, Common Law Procedure Act the corporation alone wag J., dismissed the petition, with costs, but the Court of Appeal represented; the officer never appeared in any shape or way. (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) held that the and could make no application for costs. The corporation petitioner was entitled to the order which he asked. They ! alone had any claim to costs. Consequently there could treated the case as analogous to those in which a creditor be no duplication of costs, which there would be if this who has omitted altogether to prove against an estate at the new practice was allowed. proper time bas been allowed afterwards to come in and prove against funds remaining undistributed.
PRACTICE-TAKING ACCOUNTS-COURT FEE-ORDER OF
28TH OF OCTOBER, 1875.-In a case of Armitage v. ElPRACTICE DISCOVERY-MEMBER OF COMPANY-Costs- worthu, before the Court of Appeal on the 5th inst.. a ques. ORD. 31, RR. 4, 6, 10.-On the 5th inst, the Court of Appealtion arose as to the amount of the court fees to be charged (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and THESIGER, L.JJ.) | under the above rule. The action was an administration reversed the decision of Fry, J., in the case of Berkeley v. one, and the decree had directed an account to be taken of The Standard Discount Company (27 W. R. 835, L. R. 12 the receipts of the testator's executors, and another account Ch. P. 295, 23 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 741). Under the provi- of the receipts of the trustees of the will. There were three sion of rule 4 of order 31 that, when a party to an action is a trustees, two of whom were also the executors. The execujoint stock company, “any opposite party may apply at cham tors in their account discharged themselves of the sums rebers for an order allowing him to deliver interrogatories to ceived by them mainly by means of payments made to the any member or officer of such company, and an order may be trustees, and the sums thus paid over to the trastees apmade accordingly," an order had been made giving the peared in their account as receipts by them. In this way plaintiff liberty to deliver interrogatories for the examination sums amounting altogether to £290,000 appeared as receipts of a Mr. Stirling, who was a member, but not an officer, of in both accounts. The rule provides for the payment of a the defendant company, though he bad formerly been a court fee of sixpence for every £50 found to have been director. The interrogatories were delivered, and an received by executors, trustees, and others on taking their affidavit in answer to them was prepared on Stirling's accounts, and the question was whether a double fee was behalf, but he refused to file it until he bad been paid by payable in this case-i.e., a fee on the receipts by the executhe plaintiff his taxed costs of the affidavit. The plaintiff tors, and a fee on the receipts by the trustees. Fry, J., held then took out a summons to compel Stirling to answer the that the double fee must be paid, and the Court of Appeal interrogatories, and Fry, J., held that he could only be com (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and THESIGER, L.JJ.) pelled to answer on payment of his taxed costs by the affirmed the decision, saying that the case fell literally plaintiff. His lordship thought it was not reasonable that a within the words of the rule. There was the further quesmere member of the company should be compelled to make tion whether, when the trustees had placed sums of money the discovery at his own expense, and that the case was on deposit at their bankers, and had afterwards withdrawn governed by the analogy of a witness, subpoenaed in the them, the withdrawals ought to be treated as receipts by the ordinary way in an action, who is entitled to refuse to trustees, chargeable with the percentage. Both Fry, J., and answer until his expenses have been paid. JESSEL, M.R., I the Court of Appeal held that the withdrawals ought to be said that he could not recognize the propriety of the so treated. JESSEL, M. R., said that the reason for making Dew practice which Fry, J., bad attempted to introduce. this new rule, which substituted a percentage on receipts for There had been a long experience of the working of the old fee of £1 on the certificate, was this—that under section 51 of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, the old practice the cost of the administrative business of which only differed from rule 4 of order 31 in that the the Court of Chancery was really borne by the Consolidated latter extended to a member as well as an officer of a com Fund instead of by the parties whose property was being pany. Wben the company was a party to an action a administered. Therefore the percentage was introduced, member was really in the position, not of a witness, but of which was a rough way of apportioning the costs, though no a party. A member was a partner or quasi-partner in the doubt it had the effect of making the rich estates pay for company, and, thougb, by reason of a technical rule tbe mem- the poor ones. It would not have done to charge a perbers were pot named on the record, they were the real defend- centage on the net surplus realized, for then the insolvent ants to the action. The Master of the Rolls said that he estates would have paid nothing, and they were often the was not disposed to lay down any role which would fetter most troublesome to administer.
cated in their report, will find themselves frustrated. Perhaps, however, the most generally interesting portion of
our report is that which deals with the assize question. It LIVERPOOL INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
is known to all of you that for years this society endea
voured to obtain for the Liverpool public the great boon of The annual general meeting of the Incorporated Law
continuous sittings here of judges of the High Court, sucSociety of Liverpool was beld on Wednesday, in the offices
ceeding each other at short intervals, so as to avoid the of the Law Library, Union-court. Mr. Wm. Bartlett pre
great evil of having “ local” judges. Latterly, the comsided, and there were also present Messrs. Stone, Jevons, mittee bave limited their exertions to obtaining for LiverT. E. Sampson, Gill, H. W. Collins, Thornely, Hughes, pool four civil assizes each year, the number recommended Lowndes, Dickinson, Warr, J. B. Wileon, R. A. Payne, by the Judicature Commissions in 1872 ; and when the Act Mortop, Eden, Squarey, Holden, H. L. Gregory, Alsop, of Parliament making four gaol deliveries in the year by the Style, Bateson, Cleaver, H. Quinn, Quilliam, Dismore, judge compulsory was passed, the committee did not anticiLayton. Bird, James, Frodebam, Radoliffe, W. Smith, 1 bata any difficnlty
pate any difficulty
obtaini Kenion, Rutherford, J. J. Yates, Paget, and Bellringer. demand. Since, I think, 1859 and up to 1877 we had, as
The report was taken as read. We hope to print it next sou all know, three assizes per annum, which, although not week.
originally meant to divide the year evenly, did in praotice The PRESIDENT, in moving the adoption of the report, make a division into three pot very unequal parts. Viewsaid : -I think there are few of you who are in the habit of ing that arrangement as one giving to Liverpool all the practising in the Chancery of Lancashire who will not assize accommodation which she required, it must be resympathize with the committee in their desire to obtain garded as decidedly insuffioient, but looking at it simply as increased official strength in the Liverpool District Regis. a provision of three ageizes, it was perhaps on the whole try, or who could not give frequent instances of delays the best which could have been made. Inga fflcient as the which promise to rival those of the High Court of Chan- | provision of assizes previously was, it was, however, better cery in its unreformed days. I do not wish, nor do the than what has been accorded to as this year, for we have had committee, to speak in any other than the kindest language | no assize between February and Augasta period which of the district registrar, whose ability and experience are I need not remind you includes the busiest portion of of the highest order, but it is quite obvious that the work the legal year; and assuming, as I think we very fairly may, of the registry bas grown beyond his strength and is
that we are not to have an assize at the old time in Decanstill growing; and while we may admire the ease with ber, we shall have had this year only two in the twelve which, when at his chambers, he gets through as much of that
months. You will see that the committee have not left a work as any one man can possibly do, and far more than
stone unturned to obtain four assizes each year for the trial most men could, we must not, in the interests of our clients,
of civil causes; and, although we have not succeeded, we relax our efforts to procure the appointment of an assistant
cannot but feel that in putting forward in every likely or deputy registrar. With reference to the clerkship of the
quarter our views upon the subject, we have made substanpeace of the county, it is, I venture to say, impossible to read
tial progress in gaining over to them members of Parliament the report of the Committee of Justices to the last annual ses and others in a position to help us, and have in all prosion at Preston, and the documents set out in it, without
bability greatly lightened the labours of our successors, who coming, however reluctantly we may do so, to the inevitable
we are sure will not fail to exert themselves to obtain what conclusion that that large and influential body of gentlemen
we have striven for. You will, doubtless, have read with -the justices of Lancashire—who should by virtue of their
pleasure the statement that our efforts to obtain a provisional office be examples to others of a ready obedience to the law,
entry of causes for trial in the county has so far succeeded have deliberately laid their heads together to try to frastrate
that we won over the Attorney-General to our views, and the beneficial objects of an Act of Parliament for which they
induced him to embody them in a clause in a Government have no liking, notwithstanding that it was afterwards
Bill. amended at their request, and this action has been taken in
Mr. Stone, in seconding the resolution, said he had hoped the teeth of the strong opposition of the Chancellor of the
that they would have got to a better condition of things as Duchy. To the minds of most reasonable men a provision
regarded the trial of civil causes at the assizes; but as a in an Act of Parliament that rules shall be made for distri
matter of fact, they had got to a worse. Suitors were kept buting the business of an office, previously held by one
waiting for their causes to be heard for two consecutive officer, among three officers, and for fixing the places where
periods of six months each; and that was a state of things such officers are to live, plainly indicated the intention of
which ought not to happen in a commercial town like Liver. the Legislature that such officers shall live in different places, and that each shall transact in such place such duties as may
Mr. HilL expressed the opinion that the action which the be assigned to him ; in fact, that there shall be what has been
authorities were taking in the matter was simply abominable. called a “territorial division” of the duties of the clerk of
Public convenience should be considered; but that was not the peace so far as such duties can be properly divided. Our
the principle on which the bar, not to say higher authorities, letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy, who was good enough
had proceeded. to consult us on the subject, shows to what a considerable
Mr. I. GILL said he hoped they would receive the active extent those duties can be divided : but even tbe duties / support and help of the mercantile bodies of Liverpool. enumerated under the first three heads would furnish ample
The report was adopted, and after the transaction of some employment for deputy clerks of the peace at Liverpool and
other business the proceedings terminated. Manchester. And yet we had the justices stating to the Chancellor their opinion that it is neither possible nor advisable to divide the duties of the office, and that con. sequently if the deputy clerks of the peace resided elsewhere
The term of the Supreme Court of the United States com. than in Preston they would in effect hold almost sinecure menced on the 13th of October. There are 821 cases on the offices. It is somewhat significant that, although it is provided by the Act of 1871 that the deputy clerks of the peace The Central Law Journal says that lottery speculations are to be paid such salaries as the justices may, with the have received a severa blow in the opinion just issued from approval of the Chancellor, determine—and the provision is the office of the Assistant Attorney-General for the United not repealed by the amending Act of 1876, which merely pro States Post-Office Department. Its purport is that, accordvides that the salaries of the deputy clerks shall be paid by ing to the provisions of the statutes, letters addressed to the clerk of the peace out of his salary-get the justices in lottery companies, or to individuals as agents of such their report avoid fixing the salaries of the deputy clerks, companies, are unmailable per se, and that postmasters must whom they apparently wish to reduce as nearly as possible refuse to register such letters. There are said to be at least to the position of managing clerks in a solicitor's office. I one hundred lottery schemes which hereafter will be cut off cannot possibly believe that the Legislature passed two Acts from the use of the Post-Office. They can neither send cirof Parliament for the purpose of enabling the appointment of culars, nor can letters to be sent by mail be addressed to two such unimportant officials, and I hope that in the next them. It will now be held that the fact that the letter is session of Parliament the jastices, if they act upon the ad-addressed to a lottery company must be taken as furnishing vice of the Chancellor of the Dachy and attempt to procure sufficient evidence that it is a letter concerning a lottery, and further legislation upon the subjeot in the direction indi. | therefore is unmailable.
Law Student's Journal.
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
The lectures on conveyancing, by Alan Stewart, Esq., SUBJECTS
barrister-at-law, commenced on Thursday last, and will be FOR DISCUSSION BY LAW
continued op guccessive Thursdays till December 11th. STUDENTS' SOCIETIES.
The course of lectures will embrace some or all of the folWe have had occasion before to comment on the importance
lowing subjects:-Joint tenancies and tenancies in common; of exercising care in the selection of suitable questions for
reversions, remainders, and executory interests ; leaseholds discussion by the members of the numerous law students'
-landlord and tenant; marriage settlements—real and societies. We are quite aware of the difficulty of devising
personal ; volantary settlements; mortgages; bills of new matter for debate, but we should like to see one or two
sale. principles of selection more acted upon than they appear
Stadents are recommended to stady, in conneotion with to be.
these lectures, Mr. Joshua Williams' books on Real and Per. In the first place, societies should avoid very wide questions sonal Property, and also the dissertations in Davidson's wbich cannot by possibility be thoroughly discussed. We Conveyancing. remember, for instance, to have seen in the paper of an excellently conducted society the following question for discussion : *Is the tendency of modern times towards the obliteration
COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION. of national distinctions in Europe ?" If that society had
MICHAELYAS EXAMINATION, 1879. sat continuously for a few weeks, perhaps some answer worth having might have been obtained; but the notion of
GENERAL EXAMINATION of STUDENTS of the Inns of COURT, answering such a question in an hour or two is somewhat
held at Lincoln's Ion Hall, on the 20th, 21st, 22nd, and
23rd of October, 1879. absurd. Secondly, avoid the old stock subjects. We fervently
The Council of Legal Education have awarded to the folhope we may not have to record any reference to the subject
lowing Students Certificates that they have satisfactorily of primogeniture or the game laws. We suppose the in
passed a Public Fxamination :--Abul Fazl Mohammad terest of the question of “whether competitive examinations
Abdur-Rahman, Edward Berger, Barada Das Bose, George are desirable" is perennial, but capital punishment might
Spencer Bower, Nathaniel Foderingham Briggs, Eldred now be interred, and the venerable conclusion that "honesty
John Brook Smith, Robert Jardine Browning, Joha Fielden is the best policy" need not, we think, again be im
Cobbett, Eustace Conway, Frederick Augustus D'Arenberg, peached.
Benedictus D’Korte, Walter Morgan D'Saram, Harry Duff, Thirdly, questions which involve the getting up of know
Hugh Edward Egerton, Alfred Charles Richard Emden, ledge which will be useful to the articled clerk in his profes
Evelyn Leighton Fanshawe, Henry Alfred Harding Goodsion are obviously to be preferred to social or political
ridge, Richard Foulkes Griffiths, James Archibald Gordon questions. And it tends, of course, to impart interest to
Hamilton, Henry Sheehy Keating, George Alexander Leon, the discussion if the legal question relates to some matter
Benjamin James Leverson, Fitz Hardinge Robert Bayfield of the day. We have said before, and we say again,
Liebeurood, John Thomas Meeson, Frederick Lancelot without intending to disparage other societies, that the legal
Hamilton Morrice, William Herbert Pardoe, Edward Pon. questions discussed by the Birmingham Law Students'
sonby, Fitzpatrick William Bulkley Praed, Felton George Society are usually models of appropriateness. We bave
Randolph, Arnold George Rogers, Sydney Henry Shadbolt, no private knowledge of the society or any of its members,
William Thornton Sharp, Charles John Syer Wilkinson, and but it seems to as tbat, taking only the three last questions
Frederick Sims Williams, of the Inner Temple ; William the discussion of which we have recorded, viz.-(1) the
Atkinson Daniel, Edmund Robert Bartley Denniss, question in Boby v. Foster ; (2) the question in Household
Vasudev Krishnarav Dhairyavan, Edgar Clement Dumble. Insurance Company (27 W. R. 858); and (3) the question
ton, Frank Foster, Reginald Cunningham Glen, Robert in Niboyet y. Niboyet (26 W. R. 683)-it would be difficult
Goddard, William Herbert Greaves, Samuel Robert Groom, to find three better subjects for discussion.
Thomas Anstey Guthrie, Abdul Haleem, Joseph Turner
Jones, Abul Hosen Khan, Mark Knowles, John Lloyd,
Julien Adrien Hilaire Louis, Henry Milton, Frederick
George Rücker, Francis Robert Winn Sampson, Mabommed Mr. H. E. Barren, of 46, Lyndhurst-road, Peckham, S.E.,
Serajuddin, Alfred William Stanfield, Joseph James Stansthe hon. secretary of the Legal Correspondence Department of the United Law Students' Society, desires to draw atten
feld, and Frederick Taylor, of the Middle Temple ; Archi.
bald John Allen, Francis Alan Bower, George Earle Buckle, tion to that department of the society. He says that “ Although the ranks of legal correspondents are pretty
William Henley Chater, Josias Candingham, John Ent
wistle, James Lysagbt Finigan, Charles Frost Foster, extensive, still I constantly find that the department is
William Coryton Graham, Harry Baird Hemming, Thomas unknown. The advantage to law students in becoming skil.
Simpson Jones, Nicholas Algernon Mercer, Robert McKil. ful in writing legal opinions is obvious ; the art cannot be
lian Routledge, Henry Shera, and Walter Sydney Sichel, of too early practised. They acquire the useful habit of expressing themselves clearly and forcibly on legal points.
Lincoln's-inn; and Theodore Le Gallais and Edward Rundle The habit proves of service in the answering of examination
Levey, of Gray's-inn, Esqs. questions. Three members recently obtained honours. One essential feature of the system is the bringiog into amicable The following students passed a satisfactory examination controversy both London and country law students. They in Roman law :-Reginald Brodie Dyke Acland, Herbert peruse one another's opinions, and it is not improbable that Peroy Alleyne, William Herbert Bootb, Moses Nathaniel their knowledge in this respect becomes augmented. A Bottomley, Alfred Clayton Cole, Clement Kinloch Cooke, paper, just returned, bas passed through London, Birming- Cecil Henry Cranstoun Machell Cowper, Hanbary Davies, ham, Newport, Bristol, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Lampeter, Saumarez De Havilland, Walter Russell Donogh, Arthur Canterbury, Hitchin, and Portsea. The opinions, respec Lee Ellis, William Ellis Chute Ellis, Artbur Evans, Paul tively, are interestingly various. Many articled clerks Henry Foley, George Francis Gregory, Vincent Walda decline to join on the ground that they have not read enough | Calmady Hamlyn, Edward William Hansell, William Dagto be able to derive any advantage from the department. dale Harland, Alfred Edward Hippisley, John Muir Hunter, The result of my experience points in a contrary direction. | Frederick Willoughby Jones, Henry George Lefroy, Henry Even if at first they refrain from writing opinions, the atten. Jobn Hopwood Marlen, Ralph Staveley McKerrell, Sandtion bestowed in looking up the points cannot be otherwise ford Moore, George Musgrave, Francis James Newton, than beneficial, and a text-book grows more familiar when Thomas Arthur Roberts, Charles Read Seymour, Bovill in perusal a land mark’ is met with in the shape of a William Smith, Thomas Henry Yorke Trotter, Stanley knotty point which is remembered to have been keeply John Weyman, and Robert Aagastas Arthur Wright, of debated. I shall be bappy to give any information to law the loner Temple; Charles William Black, Reginald Brett, students, and to forward them specimen papers for inspec R. Donglas Broadfoot, Arthur B. Catty, Malcolm P. Douglas, tion.”
George Ennis, John Gibson Garteide, Henry Parkes Greenhow, Henry Campbell Jenkins, Harry Norman Lachlan, Mark Louie, Paul Gregory Melitus, Arthur H. Moriarty,