« PreviousContinue »
But in Baker v. Gray (24 W. R. 171, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 491), property as it was, he should have made an express reservaVice-Chancellor Hall, whose experience in conveyancing tion in his conveyance, and not having done so, he was not made his opinion on such a point of great value, though he entitled to more now. He therefore overruled the demurrer, felt bimself bound by the decision, disapproved the principle with costs. on which, in their lordships' opinion, the judgment, as reported, was based. With all respect for the Lords Justices who decided Tassell v. Smith, their lordships thought they
TRADES UNION ACT, 1871, 8. 4-EXPULSION OF MEMBER did not sufficiently consider that they were allowing a sub OF TRADE UNION-Right TO SUE--INTERFERENCE WITH seqnent act of a vendor to defeat the right acquired by
RIGHT OF PROPERTY_OBJECTS OF ACT-JURISDICTION.-In the purchaser from him. The principle laid down by their a case of Rigby v. Connol, before the Master of the Rolls on judgment would enable any settlor or vendor of an equity the 24th inst., a question arose as to the right of a member of redemption to throw a burden on those interested under of a trade union to sue, in respect of an alleged wrongful the settlement or purchase, and practically to defeat the expulsion from the union. The plaintiff had been a member -settlement or sale, by a subsequent mortgage of an entirely of tbe union for twenty-seven years, but in consequence of different estate to secure a sam far beyond its value, which | his son having gone to work with a certain firm, contrary, she mortgagee would be induced to advance in reliance on | as was alleged, to the rules of the union, the plaintiff his right to consolidate it with the mortgage of which the
was fined, and on his refusal to pay the fine, or take equity of redemption had been settled or sold. As a rule
his son away from the shop objected to, the committee exthe present Court of Appeal ought to treat the decisions of
pelled him from the union. The plaintiff now brought this the Court of Appeal in Chancery as binding authorities, action, seeking to have it declared he was entitled to parbut it was at liberty not to do so where there was a sufficient
ticipate in the benefits of the union, and for an injunction to reason for overruling them. As the decision in Tassell v.
restrain the defendants from excluding him from such Smith might lead to consequences so serious, their lordships | participation. A preliminary objection was taken to the thought that they were at liberty to reconsider and review
plaintiff's right to sue, either under the Act of 1871, or other. the decision in that case as if it were being re-heard in the
wise, and this question was accordingly argued. By section old Court of Appeal in Chancery, as was not uncommon.
3 of the Trades Union Act, 1871, the purposes of any trade In their opinion, the principle on which the rule as
| union shall not, by reason merely that they are in restraint to consolidation of securities was based was misapplied | of trade, be unlawful, so as to render void or voidable any .and, to some extent, departed from in that case. They agreement or trust. By section 4, nothing in the Act“ shall therefore declined to follow that decision so far as enable any court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted it authorized a subsequent mortgage effected by a
with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages vendor to be consolidated as against a purchaser from for the breach of any agreement” (inter alia) for tho“ appli. him of the equity of redemption of another estate.
cation of the funds of a trade union to provide benefits to members." JESSEL, M.R., said he must give an opinion on
the construction of the Trades Union Act which he EASEMENT-WAY OF NECESSITY_RESERVATION-ExtenT could not find was covered by any authority. The OF IMPLIED GRANT.-In a case of Mayor of London v. Riggs, first question he would consider was what was the before the Master of the Rolls on the 23rd inst., an in ground on which the courts interfered in the case of portant question arose as to the extent of a way of necessity a club or society. The ground recognized in all the the court would imply as reserved to the grantor of certain cases had been a right of property, which right had been land where he retained land entirely enclosed by the interfered with. If an association, whether for social, or other land sold by him. It appeared tbat the plaintiffs had scientific, or charitable objects, had no property attached to purchased a tract of land from the defendant Heathcote, it in which the members were interested, the court did not but he had kept a small piece entirely surrounded by the interfere at the instance of any member. The court would land sold by him, and which, at the time of the grant to the not, in fact, enforce any contracts which were merely plaintiffs, was used for agricultural purposes only. The de personal, such as, for instance, those between master and fendant Heathcote subsequently leased the land to the de servant. On a question of this sort, therefore, a plaintiff to fendant Riggs, who now proposed to erect a house of succeed must show that he had & right of property which refreshment upon it, and so required the plaintiffs to give him was taken away or interfered with. In the present case the a right of way for more than agricultural purposes. The plain- ' plaintiff did not state in his claim that the union had any tiffs commenced this action for a declaration that the defend property wbatever, and that of itself was a fatal objection to ants were entitled only to a way of necessity for agricultural his action. But even if he had alleged that the union had any purposes, and the defendants demurred to the statement of property, as they in fact had, the result must bave been the claim. The question was argued what right of way the same. The property they had wus apparently the proceeds defendants were entitled to-whether such a right of way as of the subscriptions of members which were, according to the was sufficient for the necessity at the time of the grant, or rales, applicable to two classes of purposes—first, benefit to a general right of way so as to be sufficient for any pur purposes; and, secondly, strictly trade purposes; and the pose the defendants might put the land to. JESSEL, M.R., funds were to be applied towards both. The plaintiff had un. said tbat whatever his decision was, he was making new law doubtedly a right to participate in the benefit purposes if he as, potwithstanding the number of cases that had been adhered to the rules. Now, in his claim he asked for a declara. Teferred to, he could not find that the point was covered by tion of his right to participate in the benefits of the union, authority, or even, in fact, ihat it had been seriously dis. | andthese benefits, in fact, arose from the subscriptions cussed in any case. It was laid down in numerous cases to the vuion—in other words, the subscriptions were its that the only case in which a man could derogate from his only property. The next question was, How did the own grant was in the case of a way of necessity. According Act of Parliament affect his right to sue ? The object to the old pleading rules, such way of necessity must be of the Act primarily was, no doubt, to give trade pleaded as a re-grant by the grantee, and the question was, unions a legal status so as to enable them to prosecute What was the extent of the re-grant ? The only scintilla their treasurers and secretaries who had defrauded them. of authority on the subject were some observations of Another object was to enable the unions to sue and also to Lord Cairns, in Gayford v. Moffatt (L. R. 4 Ch. 133), hold property, but it was not intended that contracts entered from which he gathered that the way of necessity must be into by the members inter se should be made legal, so as to suitable for the necessity at the time the grant was made. enable the members to come into a court of law to enforce Trying the question on principle, and treating it as an them. The result would have been to reduce workmen to a exception to the grant, why should the exception be larger state of bondage if their contracts as to working could be than the necessity required? The object of the presumed ) enforced against them. The 4th section was intended to re-grant was that the grantee shoald occupy and derive the prevent the Act giving the court jurisdiction to entertain same benefit from the land as he did at the time of the proceedings in reference (inter alia) to the application of the grant. In his opinion, in the present case, the grantor funds of a union providing benefits for members. This was would only be supposed to reserve himself such a right of exactly what the plaintiff asked by his claim, and his lordship way as wonld enable him to enjoy the thing as it then was, was, in fact, asked by the plaintiff to give him specific perform. as, if he did more, the result would be to enable him to ance of thecontract contained in the rules, and this, in his enjoy his property as if he had a general right of way over | opinion, the Act did not enable him to do. Then the only the land sold by him. If the grantor had desired to reserve remaining question was whether, as the Act did not give him to himself more than was necessary for his enjoyment of the the power, he had power to entertain the application independently of the Act. Without the Act, however, the union bare feet on the sea-shore, with a spade in one hand and a was clearly unlawful, as nearly all the provisions in their | bucket in the other, the spade in each case being placed across. rules were in restraint of trade. Without the Act the rules the shoulder. The dress and attitude of the two figures were clearly illegal, and the plaintiff could not come into were, however, different, and there were some other differences. court for any aid to enforce an illegal contract. He did not The evidence of the defendant, which was uncontradicted, think the Legislature had intended that any member of proved that bis chromo-lithograph had been copied from these trade unions should invoke the aid of the courts, and a photograph published in New York, and that neither in bis opinion that was not only the fair construction of the the defendant nor the artist whom he had employed bad Act, but also its manifest meaning. The plaintiff's case seen or heard of either the painting or the engraving until failed on all grounds, and, he must, therefore, give judgment after the chromo-lithograph had been produced. There was for the defendants, with costs.
no evidence to show under what circumstances the pbetograph had been produced in New York. Fry, J., held
that the assignment to the plaintiff was either a limited SOLICITOR AND CLIENT_VERBAL RETAINER-CONFLICT assignment of the copyright of the paintiog for the ONUS ON SOLICITOR.-In a case of Wilson v. Emmerson, purpose of making an engraving of one size, or a before the Master of the Rolls on the 13th inst., a question licence to copy the painting for that limited purpose arose whether a solicitor could prove his retainer under the only, leaving in the original proprietor of the copyright of following circumstances. It appeared that he had no written the painting the right to make copies of it in any other retainer, but he deposed that he bad received a verbal re manner, and of any other size, a right which he could tainer, although there was, in his lordship's opinion, no assign to any other person. And, by section 11 of the Act entry in his diary or any other book referring thereto. The (5 & 6 Vict. c. 45), the registration was only made prima question arose on a motion to make the solicitor pay the costs facie evidence of proprietorship, which was capable of being of proceedings instituted by him without authority. The rebutted, and in the present case the prima facie evidence retainer was denied, and the solicitor only said that he was was rebutted by the very terms of the assignment to the instructed to take the necessary steps to protect the client's plaintiff. The plaintiff was, therefore, the proprietor only interests. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion there was no of the copyright of the engraving. The evidence proved sufficient evidence of any retainer. It was the dnty of every that the defendant's chromo-lithograph had been copied solicitor to take a written retainer from his client, but if he from the New York photograph, and assuming, as was very did not, it was still open to him to prove a parol retainer, probable, that the photograph itself had been copied or or to prove that his acting as solicitor came to the client's imitated from either the painting or the engraving, it might knowledge, and that be adopted it. That was decided in the have been just as well copied from the painting in which cases of Lord v. Kellett (2 My. & K. 1), and Atkinson v. the plaintiff had no copyright as from the engraving in Abbot (3 Dr. 251). Moreover, in the case of the solicitor's which he had a copyright, and the court would not, in the unsupported evidence, which was met by a specific denial, absence of evidence, assume that it had been copied from the in his opinion, credit must be given to the client. That was engraving. The plaintiff could not succeed unless he proved the effect of the cases of Allen v. Bone (4 Beav. 493), and that the photograph had been copied from the engraving, Wright v. Castle (3 Mer. 12). The retainer in this case and this he had not done. The action was accordingly entirely failed.
PRACTICE-ARBITRATION-RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSUR- Bill or SALE OF STOCK, INCLUDING FUTURE-ACQUIRED ANCE COMPANY ACT, 1864-ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES.- PROPERTY-GRANTOR LEFT IN POSSESSION AND CARRYING An application was made, by motion upon potice, to Vice-l on BUSINESS POWER TO GIVE A GOOD TITLE TO Goods Chancellor Hall, on the 19th inst., In re Davey and The SOLD IN ORDINARY COURSE OF THAT BUSINESS.-In the case Railway Passengers' Assurance Company, for an order that al of the National Mercantile Bank v. Hampson, which came submission to an arbitrator might be made a rule of court. before the Queen's Bench Division on February 24, the By the Act regulating the company (27 & 28 Vict. c. / plaintiff, the grantee of a bill of sale given by a farmer, cxxv.), provisions are made for the reference to an arbitrator claimed to recover damages against the defendant for wheat of disputed questions as to compensation for personal sold by the grantor to the detendant, after the bill of sale, injuries, and in particular it is enacted (section 24) ibat the and iocluded in it. The claim set out so much of the bill arbitrator may call for the production of documents, and of sale as showed that it included the whole of the farm examine witnesses upon oath, and (section 32) that the sub stock and utensils, and the future-acquired property. The mission may be made a rule of court upon the application | grantor was left in possession, and the defendant in his of either party. The present application was made, on defence alleged that he bought the wheat in the ordinary behalf of the claimant, against the company, on the ground course of trade without notice of the bill of sale. The that the order asked was necessary in order to empower him plaintiff demurred. The court (LUSH and MANISTY, JJ.), to compel the attendance of witnesses. The motion was overruled the demurrer, on the ground that where a person opposed upon the ground that it was altogether unnecessary takes a bill of sale from a person trading of the whole of bis to make the submission a rule of court, except for the purpose stock-in-trade and the future-acquired property, there is an of taxation of costs, or the enforcement of the award, the implied authority to carry on his trade, and therefore he practice being for the solicitor on either side to certify upon can convey a good title to goods sold by him in the ordiaffidavit the names of the witnesses necessary for his client's nary course of that trade. case, and to file the list at judges' chambers (Common Law Division), when an order for their attendance was made as
PRACTICE-Costs_TAXATION OF-HIGIER SCALE, NOT of course by a master. HalL, V.C., agreed with this state
NECESSARILY ALLOWED BECAUSE INJUNCTION CLAIMED-ADment as to the practice, and, considering the present motion
DITIONAL RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 6, R. 2.-In Chapman to be unnecessary for any present purpose, be refused it,
v. Midland Railway Company, application was made in the with costs.
Queen's Bench Division on Monday, the 23rd inst., to set
aside an order of Field, J., at chambere, refusing to allow the COPYRIGHT-PAINTING-ENGRAVING-REGISTRATION 5 costs in the action to be taxed on the higher scale provided & 6 VICT. C. 45, s. 11-25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, s. 1.--In a case by the Judicature Act. The order of the judge at chambers of Lucas v. Cooke, before Fry, J., on the 25th inst., a question confirmed the decision of the master. The action was for arose as to the rights of a person to whom the owner of the l trespass to land, and the writ claimed damages and an incopyright of a painting has assigned tbat copyright for a junction. The trespass had been committed by the defendlimited purpose only. The owner of the copyright of a lants along an occupation road, which crossed a field of the painting had assigned the copyright to the plaintiff“ for the plaintiffs'. The defendants had used this road for the cart: purpose of producing an engraving of one size.” The plair. | age of materials, &c., from the high-road to their line of tiff bad registered himself at Stationers' Hall as the pro- | railway during the course of its construction. The plaintiffs prietor of the copyright of the painting, and had then obtained a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants published a steel mezzotinto engraving of the painting. The from further trespase, and the question of damages for past defendant afterwards published a chromo-lithograph, which injuries was settled between the parties. It was conterde the plaintiff alleged to be an infringement of his copyright, on behalf of the plaintiffs that the action was one for a special and he claimed an injunction and damages. Both the paint injunction to restrain the commission or continuance of 10 ing and the chromo-lithograph represented a young girl with | juries to property, and was one in which such injunction was the principal relief sought to be obtained. It was, there- tion in a case where such a restriotion would be unreasonfore, such an action ag, by ord. 6, r. 2, of the Additional | able-.e., it would operate iagt where it onght not, and if Rules of Court, 1875, entitled the parties to have the costs it was an artificial hard and fast role, it could be evaded taxed according to the higher scale. The court (Lush and by making a single exception, however small, and no exMANISTY, JJ.), without calling on the other side, held that ception to it could be merely colourable. His lordship the case was not one in which the bigher scale of costs should thought that he ought not to hold that such a role existed, be allowed. The class of cases enumerated in the order unless it was clearly established. No doubt there were were those in which an injunction was claimed to restrain the cases in which it had been said that the restriction as to commission of an irreparable and permaneat injury. In
space must not be aniversal, but he thought that in most the case before them the trespass was of a temporary nature, of those cases the restriction was considered an qoreasonand did not come within the class of cases contemplated. able one. No doubt, ‘in Allsopp v. Wheatcroft (21 W. R. The rale did not apply to all cases in which an injunction | 102, L. R. 15 Eq. 59), Wickens, V.O., did say that the rule was asked for, but only to those of that particular class. It was a hard and fast one. But James. v.o. took a differ must depend upon the facts in each case whether the case ent view in Leather Cloth Company v. Lorsont (18 W. R. came within the class or not.
572, L. R. 9 Eq. 345) ; and, on the whole, his lordship held that there was no such hard and fast role. And as to
the question of reasonableness, his lordship was of opinion THE PRISONS ACT, 1877 (40 & 41 VICT. C. 21), ss. 4, 57–
that, as the defendant was seeking to limit the freedom of EXPENSES OF CONVEYING PRISONERS COMMITTED BY JUSTICES
contract, the burden was cast on him of sbowing that TO PRISON NOT TRANSFERRED TO SECRETARY OF STATE.
the restraint imposed by the agreement was plainly and - In the case of Mullins v. The Treasurer of the County of
obviously beyond that which the protection of the plaintiffs' Surrey, which was heard in the Queen's Bench Division on
interests required. This he held that the defendant had not the 20th inst. upon a special case, the plaintiff was a police conslable, and claimed the expenses of conveying to prison
done, and therefore he should grant an injunction to re
strain him from carrying on the business of an importer of two prisoners committed to prison by the police magistrate sitting at Lambeth, in the county of Surrey. One prisoner
champagne wine for ten years from the time of his leaving was summarily convicted, and the other committed for trial.
| the plaintiffs' employment. The case was a test case, to ascertain whether these expenses which, under 27 Geo. 2, c. 3, and 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, the prisoners having no means, would have been
THE GOVERNMENT LAND BILLS. payable by the treasurer of the county of Surrey, were now payable under the Prison Act, 1877, by the
| The Lord Chancellor on Monday stated, as follows, the proSecretary of State; section 4 of that act providing that
visions of the Bill which he has introduced with referall future expenses incurred in the maintenance of prisons
ence to the sale of settled estates :-"He would at once and of prisoners therein shall be defrayed out of moneys pro
state the powers they proposed to give to the tenant for life vided by Parliament, and section 57 defining “ maintenance
as incident to his estate. They proposed that, in the first of a prisoner," and containing a proviso that nothing in the
| place, he should have power to sell; that where there were Act shall exempt a prisoner fron payment of any costs or
copyholds parcel of the estate, the tenant for life should expenses in respect of his conveyance to prison or otherwise,
have power to sell the copyhold so as to enfranchise. They which he would have been liable to pay if this Act had not
proposed to give bim power to exchange, giving or receive passed. It was argued that this proviso was useless, unless
ing money for equality of estate, and also power of partitionthe Act transferred these expenses, whereas, in this case, the
ing, giving or receiving money in the same way for equality prisoner could not pay them. The court (Lush and MANISTY,
of exchange. The Bill proposed that those powers should be JJ.) held that the county treasurer was still liable to pay
guarded in the usual way adopted to secure the obtaining these expenses, there being nothing to transfer them in the
of the best price at sales by auction. Now, all those enacting words of the Act, which only related to expenses
powers were such as would naturally be contained in any after the prisoner was actually in prison.
well-drawn settlement, and were given to the tenant for lite, or to the tenant for life with the consent of the
trustees, or to trustees with the consent of the tenant for life. COVENANT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE-VALIDITY-EXTENT
It was further proposed that certain checks should accom
pany those powers which were conferred on the tenant for -REASONABLENESS.--In & case of Roussillon v. Rousillon, before Fry, J., on the 23rd ingt., a question arose as to the
life as being incident to the estate. So also as to leases,
they proposed to grant to the tenant for life power to grant validity of a covenant in restraint of trade. The plaintiffs were champagne merchants, at Epernay, in France. The
agricultural leases for twenty-one years, building leases for
ninety-nine years, and mining leases for sixty years; and, defendant had been for many years their traveller in
further, that with the consent of the court, where in any England and elsewhere. He had entered into an agree
part of the country there was a special custom existing in ment with them that, if at any time he left their house for
reference to building or mining leases, as was the any reason whatever, he would not establish bimself, nor
case in some parts of England, there should be associate himself with other persons, in the champagne
power given to conform to that special custom. It was, of trade. The plaintiffs had ceased to employ the defendant,
course, necessary to make provision for securing the best and he had started in London as a retail wine merchant,
rent, and to add covenants as to the buildings and as selling champagne and other wines. He described himself
to streets and open spaces in cases where buildin his circulars as of " Ay, Champagne," and he placed a
ing leases were granted. It was also provided that similar brand on the corks of his bottles. He had no es the tenant for life should have correlative powers tablishment in Champagne, bnt imported the champagne of taking surrenders of leases, and in the case of copywine which he sold from growers in Champagne. On be holds to grant licences to the copyholder for the purposes half of the defendant it was contended that there had been mentioned in the Bill. He would now state what was no breach of the agreement, and forther, that the proposed to be done with the purchase-moneys in the agreement was invalid, because the restriction imposed cases of sales, and with the capital moneys produced by the was more than was reasonably required for the pro. exercise of those powers. The proposal was that they tection of the plaintiffs' trade. And it was said that, should not be paid to the tenant for life, but to trustees, beyond that, the cages bave laid down a bard and not being less than two or be paid into court; fast rule that a covenant in restraint of trade is necessarily | and as to the purposes to which the moneys might be apinvalid if it is unlimited in regard to space. FRY, J., plied, he would take the enumeration of them from the held that there is no such hard and fast rule, but that the Bill. They were-in payment of incumbrances and redemponly question is that of reasonablenees. Independently of tion of the land tax; payment for any improvement of the aathority, he thought that such a hard and fast rule would estate authorized by the act; payment in respect of be unreasonable, for many trades are carried on over the equality of value of estate, after exchange or purchase ; whole kingdom, or over a still wider area, while other payment for the enfranchisement of copybold land which trades are localized. The role would allow a complete was settled ; payment in respect of the merging of leaseprotection to the latter class, but not to the former. Also, hold interests in the reversion; purchase of leasehold it would apply to cases where a restriotion unlimited as to lands and copy hold which were to be settled ; purchase of space would be reasonable, while it would have no opera. I freehold land and of mines and minerals; payment of
claim of any person having power to give an absolute We have noticed elsewhere the leading provisions of the discharge; payment of the charges incident to the exercise Bill “for simplifying and improving the practice of conof the powers of the Act. Until these payments were veyancing, and for amending in various particulars the law made the money was to be invested on such security as of property, and for other purposes.” With regard to the the trustees were authorized to invest the trust money in, Bill relating to the remuneration of solicitors, the Lord with powers to vary the settlement, but subjeot to the
Chancellor said, “The next Bill related to the remunera. directions given by the settlement. These were the
tion of sclicitors, who would no longer be paid according general purposes to which the moneys might be applied. to the length of the deeds they prepared, a mode of remanWith regard to improvements, the second of the purposes
eration as absurd as that of paying & pbysician according named, he would not go into them at any length, to the quantity of medicine he supplied. It was felt that but he might state that they were twenty in nomber, it would be inexpedient to abolish one system of charging and he believed they comprised every improve and to provide nothing in its place. It was therefore ment it would be desirable to execute on any land, provided by the third Bill tbat there should be a and their lordships would understand that these power on the part of the Lord Chancellor, of the Master were not improvements upon particular land, but upon of the Rolls, and of the three chiefs of the Common Lan almost any part of any land subject to a settlement; so Divisions, to make rules for the remuneration of solici. that the money, although arising from one portion of tors for non-contentious business, such as settlements, settled land, might be employed upon any other part of by charging a commission or percentage, 80 that solicithe land. The next provision in the Bill related to im- tors might be remunerated in the way that brokers and provements of a different kind. It might be convenient others were upon the sale and transfer of shares. Such a to a tenant for life to execute improvements with his own
plan would be very desirable for solicitors and also for the money, and it was proposed that if he did so he might public. Nothing could be more satisfactory to the person obarge the land with the money so laid out, to be raised
who was going to buy an estate than to know that if it cost after his death and disposed of by his will. In that case
£50,000 he could tell beforehand what he should have to it was provided that there should be a certificate of the I pay a solicitor for his costs. The Bill also provided that Inologore Commissioners to the effect that the improve
solicitors and their clients might agree upon the rements had been properly executed and were worth the
muneration for non-contentious business, but if it was a per money expended on them, and further, that they were
centage it was not to exceed that fixed by the authorized continuing improvements on the land. The mention of the Joclosure Commissioners reminded him to state the provi
The fourth and last Bill, the Lord Chancellor added, resion made in one of the Bills with respeot to them. The
| lated to a somewhat different subject, the limitation of Inclosure Commissioners were at present a board
actions. In 1874, a measure was passed which made conhaving three names under Acts of Parliament,they were
siderable change in the periods of limitation as regarded Inclosure Commissioners, Copybold Commissioners, and
actions for the recovery of land. He proposed that an also Tithe Commissioners; and he was sure that not one
alteration should be made in the terms of limitation in other of those names represented properly the greatest amount
cases. An action for recovery agaiost the administrators of of business they now discharged. They proposed to get
an intestate's estate was now limited to twenty years, and he rid of all those three dames, and that the commissioners
proposed to reduce the term to twelve. He proposed a similar should in future be called Land Commissioners. The next
reduction in the case of specialty debts, such as actions provision of the Bill related to the settlement money at
arising upon instruments under seal. The period of limita.
tion in the case of simple contract debts was that fixed in the present in the Chancery Division. It was of very consider
reign of James I. Considering the diffusion of knowledge, able amount-trust-money which had arisen from land
the increased facilities of communication, and the increased taken by railway companies or for other public ondertak
facilities for recovering debts by legal procedure, he thought ings, money which was subject to settlement, but had not
the period of limitation might well be reduced from six been re-invested. It was proposed that such money might
years to three years. Other questions of detail were dealt be used for any of the purposes for wbich, if it bad re
with by the Bill. mained settled land, the money produced by the sale of such land might be applied to. He would state the qualifications or checks on these powers. First of all, with regard to the mansion-house on any settled land usually Law Student's Journal. occupied therewitb, it should not be sold or leased without the consent of the trustees of the settlement or an
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. order of the court to that effect. There should not be, as a matter of course, the right to
sell or lease onder the Bill. That should not be dealt with by
January, 1880. lease or sale without the authority of the court; and At the examination for honours of candidates for admis. wherever the court, under this Bill, was to be invoked, a sion on the roll of solicitors of the Supreme Court, the summary application should be made, and the court should, | examination committee recommended the following gentle. if necessary, communicate with the Land Commissioners, men, under the age of 26, as being entitled to honorary and the court would not give its sanction to leasing and distinction:selling the mansion-house without notice to the parties
FIRST Class. In order of merit.] interested. Next, with regard to improvements, the check proposed was this—that none of the capital money arising
1. Alexander Neale, who served his clerkship to Messrs. under the Act was to be employed in paying for any im.
Tippetts, Son, & Tickle, of London. provement without the certificate of the Land Commis
2. Frederick Joseph Mogg Gould, LL.B., who served his sioners, certifying that it was an improvement authorized by
clerkship to Messrs. Newman and Lyon, of Yeovil and Lon. the act, and that it was properly executed.
He would now state the difference between existing settlements and
3. Martin James Greener, who served his clerkship to future settlements. With regard to existing settlements, he
Messrs. Dibb, Raley, & Clegg, of Barnsley; Messrs. Richardproposed that some of the powers he mentioned should exist,
son & Byron, of Harrogate ; and Messrs. Shum, Crossman, but they should not be exercised without an order of court,
Crossman, & Prichard, of London. acting with due regard to all parties concerned, and giving
4. Richard Archer Henry Julian, who served his clerkship zotice to all whom it was necessary to bring before it. In
to Messrs. Fairfoot & Webb, of London. the first instance, the court should hear what the trustees
5. Rhodes Kennedy Calvert, who served his clerkship to had to say, and,' surther, notice should be given to other
Messrs. Rawson, Best, & Son, of Leeds. persons. The check with regard to future settlements
SECOND CLASS. [In alphabetical order.) was this :-He proposed that the tenant for life, when about Henry Benwell, B.A., who served his clerkship to Messrs. to exercise any of the powers, should inform the trustees of Marchant & Purvis, of London, the settlement what he was about to do. If the trustees James Cochrane, who served his clerkship to Mr. Francis made no objection, the power might be exercised ; if, on the | Willowes Topham, of West Bromwich. other hand, they objected, the court, under a summary | Arthur Ross Dagg, who served his clerkship to Messrs. proceeding, would decide the question. That was a general | Duncan, Warren, & Gardner, of London ; and Messrs. Longa tatement of the powers conferred by the Bill."
more & Sworder, of Hertford.
Frederic Hall, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Freer, not to lose sight of the third quality-namely, accuracy, Hett, & Hett, of Brigg; and Messrs. Collyer-Bristow, Withers, which Lord Bacon specified. The importance of accurate & Russell, of London.
thought and accurate expression could not be overrated. But Frank Howl, who served his clerkship to Messrs. H. & J. io such subjects as the society was in the habit of dealing E. Uoderhill, of Wolverhampton; and Messrs. Wilkins, with, it was eminently adapted to cultivate accuracy and ful. Blyth, & Fanshawe, of London.
ness as well as readiness. In politics and social questions much Philip Suneiton Maclagan, who served his clerkship to heat and personal feeling were present, butsuch elements could Messrs. Sanderson & J. Ř. Weatherhead, of Berwick-upon- hardly be imported into the discussion of legal questions. The Tweed ; and Mr. David Wilson Darling, of the same place. society also did useful work in promoting the examination
William Henry Moore, who served his clerkship to Messrs. of questions of jurisprudence as well as of existing law. They Moores & Romney, of Tewkesbury; and Messrs. Duignan & thus became accustomed to consider what the law onght to Smiles, of London.
be as well as what it was. We should not be satisfied Nicolai Christian Schou, jun., who served his clerkship with the law as it is until it became what it ought to be. to Messrs. Earle, Son, Orford, Earle, & Milne, of Manchester; There was no study more beneficial than the comparison and Messrs. Orford & Milne, of Manchester.
of our own law with that of other civilized countries. In each Reginald Gwynae Templer, who served his clerkship to country there were points superior to the systems of other Mr. R. W. Templer, of Teignmouth; and Messrs. Gregory, countries. He therefore recommended the comparison in Rowcliffes, & Rawle, of London.
particular cases of our own law with that of other countries ; THIRD CLASS. [In alphabetical order. ]
he would instance the law of bills of exchange. A great Alfred Cornett, who served bis clerkship to Messrs. Goffey advantage of this society was that it embraced both branches & North, of Liverpool.
of the profession, and brought them into contact with each
other. He believed there was, notwithstanding its unJohn Alexander Ellerton, who served his clerkship to Mr. John Ellerton, of London ; and Messrs. Withall & Comp popularity, no class of the community more useful than the OD, of London.
legal profession. No greater boon than an incorruptible and Charles Hodgkinson, who served his clerkship to Messrs.
speedy administration of the law could be conceived. Each Ascroft & Sons, of Oldham,
member, therefore, of the profession ought have a high John Mill, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Palmer, notion of his duties as an important trust committed to his Bull, & Fry, of London.
charge. Beaufoi Alfred Ravn Drogheda Moore, who served his
Mr. Digby SEYMOUR, Q.C., in moving the first resolution, clerkship to Messrs. Roberts & Barlow, of London.
“That the meeting of practitioners and students of both John Bamford Slack, B.A., who served his clerkship with
branches of the profession is much to be encouraged, since the late Mr. Samuel Loech, of Derby ; and Mr. Francis
by the discussion of subjects of both legal and general Charles Greenfield, of London.
interest qualities are developed which are in the highest Henry Layton Staffarth, who served his clerkship to
degree necessary for the practice of the profession," paid a Jessrs. Whyley & Piper, of Bedford ; and Messrs. Speechly,
tribute to the high position of Mr. Herschell in the proMumford, & Co., of London.
fession. He relerred to the historio interest attaching to The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have ac
the ball in which he spoke. He dwelt on the advantages cordiogly given class certificates and awarded the following
to be derived from a codification of the law, and upon the prizes of books :
reforms necessary in the laws of real property ; questions To Mr. Neale, the prize of the Honorable Society of
which had a political as well as a legal bearing, and the Clement's-ind. Value 10 guineas.
importance of becoming acquainted with the principles of To Mr. Gould, the prize of the Honorable Society of Clif
which would lead to a satis'actory solution of all the difficul. ford's-inn. Value 5 guintas.
ties involved in those questions. He would also recommend To Mr. Greener, the prize of the Honorable Society of
the study of legal biography as an incentive to energy and New-inn. Value 5 guideas.
effort. To Mr. Julian and Mr. Calvert prizes of the Incorporated referred to the loss the society bad sustained by the death
Mr. MONTAGUE Cookson, Q.C., in seconding the resolution, Law Society. Value 5 guineas each. The council have given class certificates to the candidates
of Mr. Serjeant Parry. in the 2nd and 3rd class-s.
Mr. Willis, Q.C., in speaking to the resolution, dwelt on The number of candidates examined was thirty-six.
the necessity of simply saying what one thought and believed By order of the council,
and what was necessary to say, and of by all means avoiding E. W. WILLIAMSON, Secretary.
mere eloquence and flights of oratory and of not minding the Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, London.
opinions of others. He recommended his audience to cultivate
the habit of thinking upon their legs and avoiding prepared LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY,
essays and artificial language ; in fact, most of what was said
in our day. The weekly meeting of this society was held at the Law Mr. Eddis, Q.C., moved a resolution that it was desirable Institution on Tuesday evening last, Mr. Bowen in the to maintain an organized communication between the chair. The subject appointed for the evening's debate was, different law students' societies in the country, especially "Is it desirable to increase the namber of national holidays ?" as the tendency in these days to the localization of the adand was opened by Mr. Barry in the afirmative. 'Mr. ministration of justice might lead to a divergency of thought Neale opposed the motion, and was followed by Mr. and even of legal decision of possibly disastrous consequence. Cooper in the affirmative. Massrs. Kirke, Napier, Bedford, Mr. LOCOCK WEBB, Q.C., seconded the resolution. He Chant, Hobrow, Wright, and Ellis then spoke in the referred to the existence of nineteen thriving associations in negative, and Mr. Lloyd Jones in the affirmative. The connexion with the London Society. He spoke of the society question being pat to the meeting was decided in the as continuing the ancient practice of moots or debates in the negative by a large majority.
Inns of Court and in Clement’s-inn, and the other Inns of
Chancery, all of which, as Coke had said, formed a legal UNITED LAW STUDENTS SOCIETY. university.
Mr. F. H. Janson supported the resolution. The annual meeting of this society was held on Wednes
Mr. Snagge and Mr. Busk having also spoken, a vote day evening at St. Clements-inn Hall, Strand ; Mr. Farrer
of thanks to the chairman was proposed by Mr. W.C. OWEN Herschell, Q.C., M.P., in the chair.
and seconded by Mr. Dowson. The report of the committee for 1879 congratulated the
The proceedings then terminated. members on the prosperous position of the society, and mentioned that sixty-one new members had been added to the list. The Davis Prize, for the best essay on the “ Law
MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING
SOCIETY. of Joint-Stuck Companies," had been awarded to the secretary, Mr. W. C. Owen.
The ninth meeting of the session of this society was held The CHAIRMAN said that the great advantage of a debating on Tuesday week, at the Law Library, Cross-street Chambers, society was that it cultivated readiness of speech, but there when the chair was taken by Mr. Wm. Lawrence Chew, was danger of pot developing the other faculties which Lord solicitor. The minutes of the last meeting having been read Bacon mentioned that it was apt to sacrifice “fulness
by the hon. secretary and passed, the chairman called while it developed "readiness," and it was important also upon Mr. Millar to open the debate in favour of the affirma.