Page images
PDF
EPUB

Lee, Henry Charles, New Cross, Kent, House Decorator. Mar 23 at 2 at offices of Pook and Son, Tudor House, Greenwich Levers, Thomas, East Bridgford, Nottingham, Farmer. Mar 24 at 3 at offices of Rothera and Sons, High st pi, Nottingham Light, John, New Hampton, Carman,

Mar 19 at 11 at offices

Schultz and Son, South sq, Gray's-inn Little, William, and Willi m Tebby, Small Heath, Birmingham, Builders. Mar 19 at 3 at offices of Fallows, Cherry st, Birmingham Lloyd, George, Madeley, Salop, Baker. Mar 29 at 11 at offices of Taylor, King at, Wellington

Long, Louisa Elizabeth, Uplyme. Devon, Farmer. Mar 18 at 1 at the Talbot Arms, Uplyme. Tweed, Honiton

Lover, Edmund Arthur, Portsea, Woolen Merchant.

1.45, Cheapside. Blake and Reed, Portsea

Mar 24 at 1 at

Luker, Joseph, Rumney, Monmonth, Market Gardener. Mar 25 at 12 at offices of Morgan and Scott, High st. Cardiff

Lyon, Reuben, Ely pl. Helbern, Dealer in Leather Goods. Mar 22 at 3 at offices of Abrahams, Bedford row

Maygothling. James, and Ephraim Chetwyn, Worcester, Boot Manufacturer. Mar 22 at 2 at offices of Allen and Beauchamp, Sansome pl, Worcester

McMorrin, William, Derby, Linen and Woollen Draper. Mar 24 at 2 at offices of Terry and Robinson, Market st, Bradford Merrall, George Hartley, York, Stuff Manufacturer.

Mar 22 at 11 at

[blocks in formation]

Morecroft. Thomas Frederick, Barton-under-Needwood. Stafford Cement Manufactuer. Mar 19 at 3 at offices of Jennings and Co, High st, Burton-on-Trent

Morris, John Henry, Newtown, Montgomery, Innkeeper. Mar 22 at 12.30 at offices of Williams and Co, Ma ket st, Newtown Newman, John, Christian Malford, Wilts, Farmer.

Mar 20 at 11 at the George Hotel, Chippenham. Pinniger and Co, Chippenham Nicholls, Robert Owen, Bridge st, Wallbrook, Provision Dealer. Mar 19 at 12 at offices of Whitehouse. Castle st, Dudley

Norford, Henry, Northey st, Limehouse, Fish Buyer. Mar 22 at 3 at
offices of Ley and Brocklesby, Water lane, Gt Tower st
Packman, Samuel, Covent garden, Fruit Salesman. Mar 17 at 11 at the
Mason's Hall Tavern, Mason's avenue, Basinghal st.
Moorgate st

Gregory,

Pae, William Patterson, West Hartlepool, Durham, Draper. Mar 22 at 3 at offices of Simpson. Church st, West Hartlepool Partridge, John Charles, Irthlingborough, Northampton, Shoe Manufacturer. Mar 19 at 11 at the Hind Hotel, Wellingborough. Andrew, Northampton

Pearson, Joseph, Milnsbridge. near Huddersfield, York, Contractor. Mar 22 at 11 at offices of Ramsden and Co, John William st, Huddersfield

Peircey, John, Hockley, Warwick, Grocer. Mar 19 at 11 at offices of Jackson and Sharpe, High st, West Bromwich

Philpott, Rev Newnham George, Thwaite, Norfolk, Clerk in Holy Orders Mar 24 at 12 at the Royal Hotel, Norwich. Cooper and Norgate, East Dereham

Phipps, John, Raiton, Sedg'ey, Stafford, Shopkeeper. Mar 22 at 2 at offices of Burn and Co, Wolverhampton st, Dudley

Poucher, William, Rotherham, York, Builder. Mar 24 at 11 at offices of
Hoyland, Bank bldgs, College st, Rotherham

Price, Richard Theophilus, Richmond, Surrey, Licensed Victualler.
Mar 18 at 2 at offices of Allen and Son, Carlisle st, Soho sq
Price, Thomas William, Birmingham, Furniture Dealer. Mar 22 at 3
at offices of Fallows, Cherry st, Birmingham

Quilter, Alfred Churchfie d rd, Acton, Grocer. Mar 23 at 2 at offices
of Tanner, Circus pl, Finsbury circus
Read, Richard Henry, Birmingham, Confectioner. Mar 24 at 11 at
offices of Rowlands, Corporation chambers, Ann st, Birmingham
Reed, James Thomas, Stokesay, Salop, Temperance Hotel keeper.
Mar 22 at 1.30 at Bull Hotel, Corve st, Ludlow. Corner, Hereford
Reynolds, George Frederick, Norwich, Publican. Mar 22 at 3 at offices
of Overbury and Gilbert, Upper King st, Norwich

Roberts, John, Rhyl, Flint, Builder. Mar 19 at 3 at offices of Williams, Water st, Rhyl

Robinson, Charles, Luton, Bedford, Blocker. Mar 20 at 11 at offices of Ewen and Roberts, Park st West, Luton

Rowe, Alexander, Rose cottages, Peckham, Cigar Dealer. Mar 24 at 3 at 3 Newgate st. Rowe

Scroxton, Joseph Henry, City rd, Shop Fitter. Mar 22 at 3 at offices

of Morris, Paternoster row

Scudamore, George, Treworgan, Hereford, Farmer. Mar 22 at 12 at

offices of Boycott, Palace yd, Hereford

Shears, William, Dunsford, Devon, Miller. Mar 22 at 2 at Bude Haven Hotel. Exeter. Bremridge

Sherriff, Elizabeth Rymer, Tredunnock, Hereford, Farmer. Mar 24 at 11 at offices of Minett and Piddocke, Ross

Mar 24 at 11 at offices of

Sims, Thomas, Witney, Oxford, Boot dealer. Mar 24 at 2 at Merchants
Association, Broad st, Bristol. Sibly, Bristol
Spiller, Robert, Ilton, Somerset, Yeoman.
Paull,Court Barton, Ilminster
Stainsby, Georze, Wet Hartlepool, Durham, Contractor's Foreman.
Mar 25 at 3 at offices of Bell and Son, Church st, West Hartlepool
Steed, Robert Barnard, Long Melford, Suffolk, Plumber. Mar 20 at 1
at Cannon st Hotel, London. Mumford, Sudbury

Stevens, Edward William, Ramsgate. Kent, Greengrocer. Mar 20 at
10 at Pantechnicon offices, Camden rd, Ramsgate
Swift, William, Frome, Somerset, Umbrella maker. Mar 23 at 3 at
offices of Ames, Cork st, Frome

Mar 18

Tarleton, Audley Parnther, Edgbaston, Birmingham, Clerk. at 12 at offices of Solomon, Ann st, Birmingham Taylor, Charles, Walsall, Horse Collar Maker. Mar 22 at 2.30 at offices of Loxton, Bridge, Walsall

Taylor, George, Phipp st, Curtain rd, Cabinet Maker. Mar 22 at 3 at offices of Mogg, Shoreditch High st. Noon and Clarke, Blomfield

[ocr errors]

Throp, Thomas, Carltom-cum-Ouzelewell Green, nr Wakefield, Rope Maker. Mar 20 at 11 at ofces of Boiaton, Old Bank chambers Leeds

Tromans. Charles Albert, Cradley Heath, Stafford, Grocer. Mar 20 at 11 at offices of Homer, High st, Brierley hill

Tuckfield, William, Stogumber, Somerset, Farmer. Mar 20 at 12 at at offices of Clifton and Carter, Broad st, Bristol

Tyson, George, jun, and Henry Tyson, King Cross, Halifax, Contractors. Mar 22 at 3 at offices of Boocock, Silver st, Halifax Wagstaff, William, Droitwich, Worcester, Grocer. Mar 22 at 11 at offices of Blick, Queen st, Droitwich

Mar 30 at 3

Wainwright, George, Birmingham, Boot Manufacturer. at offices of Clark and Co, Waterloo st, Birmingham Waller, Edwin, Lower Ranelagh grove, Pimlico, Bricklayer. Mar 27 nt 3 at 144, Fleet st. Symonds, Tottenham

Walton, Edwin, Oldham, Lancaster, out of business. Mar 20 at 11 at White Lion Inn, King st, Darlaston. Watson, Oldham

Ward, Robert. Adlington, Chester, ont of business. Mar 24 at 3 at offices of May, Church side, Macclesfield

Wasserberger, Anton, Stamford st, Blackfriars, Manufacturer of Chemical Preparations. Mar 17 at 3 at offices of Cooper, Chancery

lane

Webster, John Hebden, Danby Wiske, York, Innkeeper. Mar 17 at 2 at the Railway Hotel, Romanby, near Northallerton. West, Thirsk West, James, Plumstead, Kent, Carman. Mar 23 at 3.30 at offices of Cooper, Plum-tead rd, Plumstead

Wheeler, Jonn, Capel, Kent, Farmer. Mar 22 at 2.30 at offices o Stenning, High st, Tonbridge

White, Thomas, Bristol, Butcher. Nicholas st, Bristol

Mar 17 at 12 at offices of Meeres

Woolfe, James, Longton, Stafford, Printer. Mar 23 at 11 at offices o Kent, Chanc-ry lane, Longton

Wotton, Joshua, Derby, Boot and Shoe Maker. Mar 31 at 3 at the Royal Hotel, Derby. Close, Derby

Zimmerman, Laurence Woolff, Liverpool, Watch Importer.

Mar 22

at 3 at offices of Gibson and Co, South John st, Liverpool. Pemberton and Co, Liverpool

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA,

Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder.

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

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

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

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

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

In tin packets at 1s. 6d., 3s., 58. 6d., &c., by Chemists and Grocers. Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors,

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

[blocks in formation]

To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the Judicial Bench Corporation of London, &c.

SOLICITORS' AND REGISTRARS' GOWNS. BARRISTERS' AND QUEEN'S COUNSEL'S DITTO, CORPORATION ROBES UNIVERSITY & CLERGY GOWNS, &C ESTABLISHED 1689.

94. CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

TO SOLICITORS, A Gentleman (M.A., B.C.L..

Oxford), aged 26, to be admitted this month, desires a Conveyancing or General Clerkship. London preferred.—Address, B.C.L., 13, Bernard-street, Russell-square, W.C.

MODEL SETS OF OFFICES (eight or sixteen

rooms). Two self-contained sets of premises, 14 and 15, Unioncourt, Old Broad-street, to be LET. Strong-room and all conven iences -Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, & FARMER, 80, Cheapside, E.C.

MR

R. INDERMAUR (Clifford's Inn Prizeman, Editor of the Law Student's Journal, and Author of Various Works for Law Students) receives pupils for all legal Examinations, or reading both in class and privately, and also prepares students through the post. The number in each class is limited to 12. At the Final (Solicitors) lately, for five terms in succession, pupils have taken Honours. During that time 68 sent up, of whom 61 passed, 10 of these taking Honours. For terms and further particulars apply, personally or by letter, to Mr. INDERMAUR, 22, Chancery-lane, London.

MR.T. latt)

|R. T. BATEMAN NAPIER, late 1st Prizeman,

year 1876, and Conveyancing Gold Medallist, prepares for the Preliminary, Intermediate, and Final. Classes for the Trinity Final commence on Tuesday, the 16th of March. During the past year 28 of Mr. Napier's pupils passed out of 32 sent up. Students prepared through the post.-1, Mitre-court-buildings, King's Bench-walk, Temple.

[blocks in formation]

HURGOOD & CO., Estate and Land Agents, Surveyors and Auctioneers, Lonsdale Chambers, 27, Chancery. lane, W.C., hold PERIODICAL SALES of Property, at the MART, the Second Tuesday in each month. Railway, School Board, Corporation,

[blocks in formation]

Board of Works, and other Compensations conducted. Valuations for STEPHENS' SCARLET INK FOR STEEL PENS

Probate, Mortgages, &c. Estates managed.
A scale of charges upon application.

MESSRS. DEBENHAM, TEWSON & FARMER'S

LIST of ESTATES and HOUSES to be SOLD or LET, including Landed Estates, Town and Country Residences, Hunting and Shooting Quarters, Farms, Ground Rents, Rent Charges, House Property and Investments generally, is published on the first day of each month, and may be obtained, free of charge, at their offices, 80, Cheapside, E C. or will be sent by post in return for two stamps.-Particulars for inser tion should be received not later than four days previous to the end of the preceding month.

[blocks in formation]

LA

GEORGE CUTCLIFFE, Actuary and Secretary.

AW UNION FIRE and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. Chief Office-126, Chancery-lane, London, W.C The Funds in hand and Capital subscribed amount to upwards of £1,500,000 sterling.

Chairman-JAMES CUDDON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Goldsmith-build ing, Temple. Deputy-Chairman-C. PEMBERTON, Esq. (Lee & Pembertons), Solicitor 44, Lincoln's-inn-fields.

Every description of Fire and Life Insurance business transacted. The Directors invite attention to the new form of Life Policy, which free from all conditions.

The Company advances Money on Mortgage of Life Interest and Reversions, whether absolute or contingent.

Prospectuses, Copies of the Directors' Report, and Annual Balance sheet, and every information, sent post free, on application to FRANK M'GEDY, Actuary and Secretary.

В

[blocks in formation]

Current Accounts opened according to the usual practice of other Bankers, and Interest allowed on the minimum monthly balances. No commission charged for keeping Accounts. The Bank also receives money on Deposit at Three and a half per cent. Interest, repayable on demand. The Bank undertakes for its Customers, free of charge, the custody of Deeds, Writings, and other Securities and Valuables; the collection of Bills of Exchange, Dividends, and Coupons; and the purchase and sale of Stocks and Shares. Letters of Credit and Circular Notes issued for all parts of Europe and elsewhere. A Pamphlet, with full particulars, on application. FRANCIS RAVENSCROFT, Manager. Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane.

This new Ink supplies the demand continually made but never before met, for a Red Ink which is uninjured by Steel or other Metallic Pens. Steel Pens left in this ink for months do not impair the beauty of its colour, nor are the Pens in the least corroded by it. The existing Red Inks rapidly destroy Steel Pens, and lose their red colour if used with other than Gold or Quill Pens. This new colour is a very rich scarlet red of great beauty. The colour of this ink is not affected by use upon parchment, and is consequently of great value to Solicitors and Draughtsmen.

Sold in stone bottles, retail at 1s., 2s., 3s; and Imperial Quarts of 40 ounces at 6s. each. Also in glass bottles at 6d. and 1s. each. PARTRIDGE & COOPER,

WHOLESALE

AND RETAIL

STATIONERS 192, Fleet-street, and 1 & 2, Chancery-lane, London, E.C. Carriage paid to the Country on Orders exceeding 20s. DRAFT PAPER, 58., 6s. 6d., 7s. 6d., 7s. 9d., and 98. 9d. per ream. BRIEF PAPER, 15s. 6d., 17s. 6d., and 23s. 6d. per ream. FOOLSCAP PAPER, 10s. 6d., 14s. 6d., and 18s. 6d. per ream. CREAM-LAID NOTE, 38., 4s., and 58. per ream.

LARGE CREAM-LAID NOTE, 48. 6d., 68. 6d., and 8s. per ream. LA BGE BLUE NOTE, 38. 6d., 4s. 6d., and 6s. 6d. per ream. ENVELOPES, CREAM OR BLUE, 3s. 9d., 4s. 6d., and 6s. 6d. per 1000. THE "TEMPLE" ENVELOPE, extra secure, 9s. 6d. per 1000. FOOLSCAP OFFICIAL ENVELOPES, 1s. 9d. per 100. PARTRIDGE & COOPER'S VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE NOTE, 9s. 6d. ream. This incomparable Paper has raised up a host of worthless imitations. Purchasers are particularly requested to observe that each sheet bears the fac-simile water-mark, "PARTRIDGE & COOPER'S VELLUM-WOVE CLUB-HOUSE PAPER," without which none is genuine.

INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled, 2s. 6d.

ch, 288. per doz., 135s. per roll. SECONDS OR FOLLOWERS, Ruled, 2s. 1d. each, 24s. per dozen, 115s. per

roll.

RECORDS OR MEMORIALS, 8d. each, 7s. 6d. per dozen.
Ledgers, Day Books, Cash Books, Letter or Minute Books.
An immense stock in various bindings.

The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1879. Every requisite onder the above Acts supplied on the shortest notice

The BOOKS and FORMS kept in stock for immediate use MEMORANDA and ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION speedily printed in the proper form for registration and distribution. SHARE CER TIFICATES, DEBENTURES, &c., engraved and printed. OFFICIAL

SEALS designed and executed.

Solicitors' Account Books.

RICHARD FLINT & CO.

Stationers, Printers, Engravers, Registration Agents, &c., 49, FLEET-STREET, LONDON, E.C. (corner of Serjeants' inn).

Annual and other Returns Stamped and Filed.

KINAHAN'S LL WHISKY.

K'

INAHAN'S LL WHISKY. Pure, Mild and Mellow, Delicious and most Wholesome. Universally recom mended by the Profession. The Cream of Old Irish Whiskies. INAHAN'S LL WHISKY. Dr. Hassall says"Soft and Mellow, Pure, well Matured, and of very excellent

K1

quality."

Gold Medal, Paris

Exhibition, 1878; Dublin Exhibition, 1865, the Gold Medal.

20, Great Titchfield Street, London, W.

section, to recover from his client, in respect of that

Solicitors' Journal. business, any greater amount than that prescribed or

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

THERE HAS BEEN a good deal of discussion during the week on the proposed changes in the duties on probates and administrations, and it may be interesting, with the help of a Parliamentary return, to compare the present and proposed rates of duty. Up to £400 the proposed rate is lower than the present probate duty; on estates over £800 and under £1,000, it is exactly the same as the present probate duty; beyond that amount it gradually rises above the present probate duty; but it is not till it reaches estates above £14,000 and under £16,000 that the proposed duty equals the present administration duty. The percentage on the mean value of the proposed duty on estates of over £1,500 is about 2 per cent., while the mean percentage on testate and intestate estates of the present duty varies from 3 per cent. on estates between £1,000 and £1,500 to 166 per cent. on estates above £200,000 and under £250,000.

THE SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION BILL, as amended on report, does not contain the clause providing that "where by general orders under the Act remuneration for any business is prescribed or allowed to be according to a scale of rates of commission or percentage, a solicitor shall not be entitled, under any agreement under this

allowed, according to that scale, for the same business." If, therefore, the Bill is passed in its present form, solicitors will be able to make bargains for remuneration higher than the scale. In other respects the provisions of the Bill are unchanged.

A CORRESPONDENT draws our attention to a novelty in journalistic enterprize. He encloses a circular issued by the publishers of a newspaper apparently intended mainly for Anglo-Indians, in which the following passage

occurs:

"A special feature of this journal is the 'GRATIS LEGAL OPINION' column, which is devoted to the answer, free of charge, by an eminent firm of solicitors, of such questions respecting British, Indian, and Continental law as may be sent to the editor by the readers and subscribers."

66

If this obliging offer is generally taken advantage of, some interesting questions are likely to arise. Who will be the "eminent firm's" client-the proprietor of the journal, or the subscriber whose questions are answered? Against whom will be the remedy of the latter if the "eminent firm" in the course of their efforts to answer questions on British, Indian, and Continental law" should occasionally come a cropper? If the remedy is against the eminent firm, it would seem to be only fair that their names should be published; and, indeed, this course appears to be imperatively demanded in the interests of the profession. Really we ought to know the name of the eminent firm who are ready to answer "free of expense any question in English, Scotch, Isle of Man, Jersey, or other "British " law, or in Indian law, or "Continental law," in order that we may not omit to salaam as we pass the door of their gorgeous offices, and look in to humbly beg for a morsel of their omniscience.

[ocr errors]

A BILL to amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, is now before Parliament, apparently promoted by the Chambers of Commerce, which proposes to effect some important changes. It provides (clause 6) that "every bill of sale to which the principal Act applies shall be duly attested and registered in accordance with the provisions of that Act within seven days after the making or giving thereof, and shall set forth the consideration for which it was given, and such bill of sale shall not be valid as a security or have any force or effect either at law or in equity [charming forgetfulness of the Judicature Act] until it has been so attested and registered as aforesaid.' That is to say the doctrine of Davies v, Goodman (27 W. R. 150) is to be established. The Bill also proposes that within seven days after the registration of a bill of sale, notice thereof shall be given by the grantee by advertisement in the London Gazette, and such notice shall state the name, address, and occupation of the person by whom the bill of sale was given, and also the name of the person to whom or in whose favour it was given. And lastly, by a clause which ought to be known as the Malins clause, the Bill proposes to enact that "a solicitor of the Supreme Court attesting a bill of sale shall, before the execution thereof, explain its full meaning and effect to the grantor." Have the framers of this Bill considered how long it would take to explain the "full meaning and effect" of a legal instrument to an ignorant man? The Bill will doubtless reappear in the new Parliament, and the law societies ought to keep an eye upon it.

THE CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL now passing through Parliament is very simple in form, but as it deals with a much controverted question, both in law and practice, it can hardly be expected to produce a very satisfactory state of things. The Bill, which continues the well

[ocr errors]

known set of Corrupt Practices Acts which began with the Corrupt Practices Act, 1854, merely recites and repeals the 36th section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, which prescribes that "it shall not be lawful for any candidate, or any one on his behalf, at any election for any borough (except East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, Much Wenlock, and Aylesbury), to pay any money on account of the conveyance of any voter to the poll, either to the voter himself or any other person; and if any such candidate, or any person on his behalf, shall pay any money on account of the conveyance of any voter to the poll, such payment shall be deemed to be an illegal payment within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854." The term illegal payment" was an ill-chosen one, for in the Act of 1854, which defines "bribery," and "treating" very precisely, the term "illegal payment" does not occur. The giving, however, of "any money or valuable consideration to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting," or the corruptly" doing 'any such act as aforesaid, on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election," is one of the numerous offences defined as "" bribery by section 2. In Cooper v. Slade (6 E. & B. 447) the Exchequer Chamber held that the conditional payment of travelling expenses was within this section, but that the unconditional payment of them was not. The reversal of this decision by the House of Lords (see 27 L. J. Q. B. 449) quickly led to the passing of 21 & 22 Vict. c. 87, to which, after the proposed repeal of section 36 of the Act of 1867 has been accomplished, recourse must be had for the law of the subject. The Act of 21 & 22 Vict. c. 87, enacts that “it shall be lawful for any candidate or his agent

66

to provide conveyance for any voter for the purpose of polling at an election and not otherwise, but it shall not be lawful to pay any money or give any valuable consideration to a voter for, or in respect of, his travelling expenses for that purpose." The words "provide conveyance seem to point to providing carriages, and do not appear, strictly speaking, to include the procuring of railway passes.

THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS BILL. THIS is a Bill which will probably re-appear in a future Parliament, and calls for a very careful scrutiny on the part of the profession and the public. Introduced without having been specially demanded, and having hitherto escaped remark in the House of Lords, it effects very material changes both in the substance and the form of the law, and fuses into one a part of a series of statutes and cases which are perhaps unparalleled for crabbedness and complexity. Shortly put, the Bill greatly abridges the periods of limitation as far as all the subject-matters dealt with by the Statute of James and by the Act 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, are concerned, but leaves untouched the subject-matters dealt with by the more recent Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, and by the "Nullum Tempus" Acts. A complete "limitation" code, therefore, it does not profess to be, but on the whole we are inclined to think that, granting its principle to be correct, it accomplishes its object in a sufficiently convenient manner.

The following table exhibits the nature of the changes proposed :

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Period of Limita. tion proposed by the Bill. 12 years. 12 years.

3 years.

3 years.

* See Cork and Bandon Railway Company v. Goode (13 C. B.

Assault or false imprisonment. Slander.

Libel, trespass, trover, and other causes of action "not elsewhere in the

our

Act provided for."

To take these in their order.

[blocks in formation]

the period of the limitation in the first two cases has cordial approval. The sanctity of a contract by deed as compared with a contract by parol or writing is quite sufficiently protected by the interval of twelve years, and the burdens upon administrators are already so great that the proposal to accelerate the operation of the Statute of " Repose" in their case is to be commended. In this respect the Bill re-enacts, with a merely verbal alteration, the statute 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38, s. 13, as far as intestates' estates are concerned, but with the important extending words that, "for the purposes of this section, the expression 'share of the personal estate of any person dying intestate shall be deemed to include the undisposed-of portion of the personal estate of a person dying testate."

It is upon the 6th clause, which abridges the period of limitation of "an action for a debt other than a specialty" from six years to three, that the greatest controversy will arise. Lord Westbury, it will be remembered, proposed to abridge the period from six years to two, but he was quickly compelled to abandon his measure by pressure from without, and it never so much as passed the House of Lords. It is not to be supposed that the Chambers of Commerce will be mollified into acquiescence by this proposal to give them one year more, and it is to be hoped that if the Bill be re-introduced next session, the question of principle will be discussed at greater length than has hitherto been the case. For the public generally there is little

doubt that the alteration would be beneficial for two reasons. First, those who pay ready money would have to pay much less to compensate their creditor for his losses by the "bad debts" of other people. Secondly, there would be far less need for hoarding up accumulations of receipts to provide against the possibilities of being called upon to pay the same bill twice. Still, the question is one upon which the evidence of experts ought to be had, and we should not be surprised if the Bill were to be referred to a Select Committee in order that such evidence might be taken.

more

With regard to the other causes of action, the sug gested shorter periods are, with one or two exceptions, desirable than the present longer periods. It is absurd that a man should have an action for libel hanging over him for six years, or an action for assault for four. But the question arises whether the

cases

in which an action for these causes is unduly delayed are sufficiently numerous to call for an alteration of the law. We never, ourselves, knew or heard of a case in which the Statute of Limitations was pleaded to an action for slander or false imprisonment. These are actions which, being brought to clear the character, are always brought speedily or not at all. The exceptions in which, perhaps, no change is required are trespass and trover. On the other hand, malicious prosecution might well be placed in the same category as false imprisonment if any alteration should be deemed desirable.

We will now notice the principal amendments of detail. Two of them are placed together in clause 10, of which the first two sub-sections are as follow:

(1) In the case of a cause of action being concealed

816); Companies Act, 1862, s. 16. By clause 15 of the Bill, a "specialty debt " "does not include money payable under a statute, unless it is declared by the statute to be a specialty debt." The effect of this will be that calls under the Companies Clauses Act will be barred in three years, but that calls under the Companies Act will not be barred' till twelve. Is this intended ?

from the person entitled to bring such action, the right to bring an action in respect of any matter affected by that coucealment shall be deemed to accrue from the time at which such cause of action is or might, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered by the person for the time being entitled to bring the action.

(2) In the case of a sum due by a banker to his customer as such, the cause of action shall not be deemed to accrue until demand has been made for the sum by such customer or his legal personal representative.

The first of these sub-sections is suggested by Imperial Gas Light and Coke Company v. London Gas Light Company (10 Ex. 39), and the second by Pott v. Clegg (16 M. & W. 324). In the former of these cases it was held that it was no answer to a plea of the statute 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, that the plaintiff was prevented by the defendant's fraud from knowing of the cause of action until after the time of limitation has expired, but it was also held that such fraud might of itself constitute a cause of action. The alteration effected by the Bill follows the words of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 26, which prevents the time from running in real property cases, and which the cases of Chetham v. Hoare (L. R. 9 Eq. 571), and Vane v. Vane (21 W. R. 252) have recently made better known than they would otherwise have been.

The proposed reversal of the somewhat artificial rule of Pott v. Clegg, that a banker, who has retained his customer's money for more than six years without payment of any cheque or allowance of any interest, may proceed to appropriate it to his own use, is a far more serious matter. The Bill, as we have seen, by the enactment that the cause of action is not to accrue until demand has been made for the sum standing to the customer's account, practically abolishes the Statute of Limitations so far as banker and customer are concerned. Now, on the one hand, it is flat injustice that the mere neglect to draw a cheque for six years —or, à fortiori, three—should have the effect of turning a loan into a gift; while, on the other hand, it is very hard upon a banker that he should be obliged to keep dead accounts, large or small, open for an indefinite time. We think it doubtful whether many bankers could be found who would avail themselves of the protection of the law, but we have no doubt whatever that the cases in which bankers get the benefit of dead men's accounts from pure ignorance of executors are pretty frequent. Only the other day a professional “inquirer” sued executors upon a promise to pay him a share of an account in consideration of his giving them "information as to the bank with which the account had been kept. The only evidence is the pass-book, and misers, old women, and persons of weak intellect, who are the best friends of bankers, are not unfrequently in the habit of secreting a pass-book, or perhaps one of two pass-books-a practice which would most effectually keep an executor off the scent. What then is to be done? The simplest amendment should be, that the clause should stand as it is, with the proviso that after the lapse of ten years the right of the customer should be barred. It might perhaps be suggested that the banker should pay the money into court under the Trustee Relief Act, or "to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being,"-as a testator once phrased it-"for the use and behoof of his beloved country, Great Britain" (Nightingale v. Goulburn, 5 Hare, 484); but both these suggestions are a little too fanciful for a House of Commons, of which not a few bankers are distinguished ornaments. An enactment that it should become the duty of a banker to furnish his customers with annual statements of accounts in all cases where a balance exceeds, say £100, might perhaps meet the case sufficiently; and we do not see why this or some other remedial enactment should not come into operation at once, and not be deferred, with the rest of the Bill, till the 1st of January, 1883.

The re-enactment of the saving for absence beyond seas, which appeared in the Statute of James, but was

repealed by the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, does not seem necessary. The repeal was no doubt carefully considered, and seems to have been suggested by the increased facility of communication with foreign parts which is the leading feature of modern times. We cannot but think that this facility has been at least doubled by the multiplication of railways and telegraphs since 1856, and the proposed repeal appears to be uncalled for, and likely to prove troublesome in practice. At any rate, there should be some utmost allowance for disability, as in the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874.

NAMES OF COMPANIES. II.

[ocr errors]

SINCE What it is sought to prevent is the attraction to itself by one company of business intended for another company, it is evident that the remedy would be very inefficient if it could only be called for when the two names were identical. Hence the rule is, that protection will be granted, not only against identical names, but against names substantially the same. Hence, in Lee v. Haley, Lord Justice Giffard speaks of the assumption by a defendant of "the same name, or the same name with a slight alteration" as the plaintiff uses; hence, in Brooklyn White Lead Company v. Masury (25 Barb. S. C. 416), Mr. Justice Mitchell, in the Supreme Court of New York, states that "any false name that is assumed in imitation of a prior true name is in violation of the right of the owner of that prior name. It is seldom, indeed, that it is the same name that the defendants adopt, but when that is the case, the plaintiff is generally relieved from discussing the probability of deception, since there can be little doubt of that probability. However, in Lawson v. Bank of London, and Newby v. Oregon Central Railway Company (Deady, 609), the plaintiff failed-in the first case, because he had not pleaded that he had actually used the name by carrying on business; in the second case, because the plaintiff was not the injured company, but a bondholder and creditor of that company, who was held not to be entitled to sue until the company had itself refused to take proceedings. In India Rubber Comb Company v. Meyer (New York Superior Court, 1875) the plaintiffs succeeded.

When the names are not identical, but only more or less similar, then it is that the second point suggested by Vice-Chancellor Shadwell, in the London and Provincial Society's case, comes to the front, and it becomes necessary for the court to consider "whether, taking all the names together, it is or is not apparent that there is such a deceptive quality as is likely to produce the injury complained of." And in estimating the probabilty of deception, a right conclusion has to be arrived at, not only by examining the names side by side, but also by weighing the other circumstances of the case, as will be seen from a recapitulation of the decisions.

The first case on the subject was that of The London and Provincial Law Assurance Society v. The London and Provincial Joint Stock Life Assurance Company (17 L. J. Ch. 37), in which Vice-Chancellor Shadwell thought that no deception was probable, and that there was a doubt as to the length of user, and consequently refused to grant an injunction on motion, but directed an action to be brought. Next came Purser v. Brain (17 L. J. Ch. 141), in which "The London Manure Company" sought to restrain the use by another company of the name "The London Patent Manure Company," and the same result followed, there being again a question as to the length of time during which the plaintiffs had traded under their name. Then comes the case before the Supreme Court of New York, Brooklyn White Lead Company v. Masury, mentioned above, in which, the plaintiffs being in the habit of labelling

« PreviousContinue »