« PreviousContinue »
honours examination should be limited to those who had of compulsory law lectures. He would retain the subject already passed, and that it should not be held till the result of admiralty law in the honours examination. of the final examination was known.
Mr. C. JOHNSTON EDWARDS (Birmingham) moved as an Mr. BAYNES W. SUMERTHWAITE (Leeds) then proposed amendment to the first resolution the addition of the words, the following resolutions for discussion:
"and the application of such improved test to all persong " That the provisions now made for the education of other than those who are exempted therefrom by reason of articled clerks require extension and amendment, and that having passed one of those examinations, the passing of the special attention of the Incorporated Law Society should which confers the privilege of such exemption." He also be at once directed to the attainment of the following moved as an additional resolation, “That it is expedient objects :
that greater attention should be given to the character of " (1) The imposition of a more severe test of general the questions asked at the final examination, so as so far education than that of the preliminary examination as now as possible to decrease the evil of cramming which has conducted.
taken so great a hold of law students." " (2) The institution of a separate examination in the Mr. Tuos. W. BAYLEY (Wolverhampton) seconded the principles of general jurisprudence, to be passed at the expira
amendments. tion of the first year of service.
Mr. G. L. COLLINS (Liverpool) was in favour of the “ (3) The classification according to merit of successful
retention of admiralty law in the honours examination, candidates at the intermediate examination, and the award of but that the students should have the option of choosing prizes to those deserving such distinction.
their subjects. “(4) The excision of the subjects of probate and divorce,
MR. F. J. LESLIE (Liverpool), in order to meet the obadmiralty, and ecclesiastical law from the honour subjects at
jections which seemed to be made to the retention of the the final examination, since, in the opinion of this congress,
subjects named in the fourth resolution, would move the folan acquaintance with them, whilst generally useless, is
lowing amendment: “ That a candidate at the final examinanecessarily acquired at the expense of a sound knowledge of tion for honours should be allowed to present himself for exthe more important subjects of common law, equity, and
amination in one only of the following subjects, probate, conveyancing.
divorce, admiralty, and ecclesiastical law, the selection to "(5) The introduction of viva voce in every examination
be in his own discretion." in legal subjects."
MR. G. L. COLLINS (Liverpool) seconded the amendMr. A. WHITEHCUSE (Wolverhampton), in seconding the
ment. resolutions, supported the introduction of a severer pre
The discussion was continued by Messrs. Thos. H. Bay. liminary examination, and deprecated the system of making
ley (Wolverhampton), W. C. H. Cross (Bristol), and W. known the books on which the examinations would be held.
Showell Rogers (Birmingham). He did not think & student could be expected to pass an
Mr. C. F. BENNETT (Sheffield), moved as an additional examination in general jurisprudence at the end of the first
resolution :year of service, but he heartily supported the suggestion as
“That at the intermediate examination a sufficient numto the awarding of prizes in the third resolution. He could
| ber of questions were not asked to test the knowledge of the not support the excision of probate and divorce law from the
student on the work selected by the examiner."
studen honours examination, inasmuch as the necessity for a know
Mr. W. T. BURDEKIN (Sheffield) seconded the resolu. ledge of the branch occurred in every practice occasionally ; tion. but that did not apply to admiralty and eoclesiastical. He
Mr. W. C. OWEN (United Law Students' Society, London could not support the introduction of viva voce because he
| defended the imposition of a severer preliminary examinathought it would tend to increase cramming. The questions tion, on the ground that it was fairer to the student than at present asked at examinations were of a too crammed
inducing him to enter the profession by passing an easy character, and it was impossible for the student to answer them
preliminary examination, and then for him to find at the end in the time allotted unless he bad got them put in his mind.
of his term that he was incapable of passing the fioal. With The questions should be of a character to show that the
reference to the second resolution on the paper, he should student not merely knew the law but understood it. For
propose that the words "elementary principles of common instance, a lithographed abstract might be prepared and the
law, conveyancing, and equity," be substituted for “ general student required to draw a draft upon it.
jurisprudence.” Amongst students it was a recognized thing Mr. G. BATEMAN NAPIER (hon. secretary of the Law that the first year and a half was devoted to studying the Students' Debating Society, London) thought they had made principles of law, and that was the principle that should be out at least a primd facie case for a severer preliminary applied to all legal education. Then, having secured tbe examination. The better education of the law student was a studying of general principles by examination, the subsequent means of improving the status of the profession, and would examinations should not include all sorts of different brancbes tend to keep out of the profession incompetent persons. because that would occupy the student's time just when he For a fairly educated man five years of articles was too was becoming of real use to his employer, and when he long, but the term could not be shortened unless a higher had a good opportunity of becoming acquainted with the standard of proficiency were required before entering into practice. them. If a severer preliminary examination were enforced, | The hour of adjournment having arrived, the further dethe term of the articles should then be reduced to four years, bate was adjourned till the evening on the motion of Mr. for members of universities to three years, and no clerk T. BATEMAN NAPIER, seconded by Mr. H. BARBER (Nottingshould enter into articles till eighteen years of age. On the ham). whole he gave the proposed reforms his hearty support.
A'vote of thanks to the presidennt for his services in the Mr. J. B. WHEELWRIGHT (Bradford), in supporting the chair was moved by Mr. C. T. BENNETT (Sheffield), seconded first resolation, advocated the abolition of judges' orders for | by Mr. W. SLATER (Manchester), and carried with acclamethe admission of ten-year's men; bat as to the second resolotion, thought what was required was rather the improve The CHAIRMAN, in returning thanks, expressed a hope that ment of the present examinations than the institution of the general subject of legal education would profit by the fresh ones. The country articled clerks shonld be more meeting of the congress, and he would take care that whatconsidered. In the last equity paper, for instance, the ever resolutions were sent to the Law Society should be duly question was pat: “Sketch the form of a notice of motion debated by the Education Committee. for an injunction against an obstruction of light and air where such notice is served by special leave, and with copy of the writ in the action." He guaranteed that not one. The second meeting was held at seven o'clock, when Mr. conntryman had ever seen such a thing. With regard to the T. Bateman Napier presided. honours examination he thought the probate and divorce The CHAIRMAN having explained the reason why the com . should be retained, but not admiralty and ecclesiastical, as mittee bad thought it advisable that the representatives of it was only in a very few offices that a knowledge of them the London societies should preside over the second and third could be attained.
meetings of the congress, the debate on the resolutions and Mr. J. T. GREEN (Sunderland) thought that, instead of amendments proposed at the first meeting was resumed by raising the standard of examinations, they should turn Messrs. H. BARBER (Nottingham), G. F. HIRST (Bradford), their attention to improving the system of education of and Mr. J. S. RUBENSTEIN (London), who supported the law students, by (for instance) the introduction of a system ( introduction of vivâ voce examination, on the ground that it
would encourage articled clerks in acquiring a facility of same side, urging, amongst other things, that the damages speech which would be of great advantage to them in their in this action were incapable of reasonable estimation, after life.
and that gross injustice was usually perpetrated by the Mr. Geo. E. WEARE (Bristol) objected strongly to vivá verdiots of juries. Mr. Munton, in an able address, voce examination, on the ground that it would act unfairly to replied to the previous speakers, and was followed by Mr. those gentlemen who were of a retiring disposition. If it Mills, who sopported the affirmative, and in doing so was intended to foster fluency of speech let that be made the related various extraordinary and entertaining anecdotes. sabject of examination. He also objected to the term Messrs. Bateman Napier, F. J. Green, Sargeant, and J. A. “ generally useless," in the fourth resolution, as applied to Neale then upheld the negative of the question, and admiralty law. It was part of the county court practice, Messrs. Cowdell and Barry spoke in the affirmative. Mr. and he should vote for its retention as one of the subjects of Radford replied, and the question, on being put to the the honours examination,
meeting, was decided in the affirmative. The Chairman then proceeded to put the various resolutions and amendments to the vote.
Mr. Edwards' amendment to the first resolution having UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. been carried by seventeen to five, the resolution as amended was put as a substantive motion and stood as follows:
A meeting of the above society was held on Wednesday That the provisions now made for the education of evening last at Clement’s-inn Hail, when the following sub
ject was debated—viz., " That in all schools supported by articled clerks require extension and amendment, and that
the State, the education should be of a purely secular the special attention of the Incorporated Law Society should
character." be at once directed to the attainment of the following
Mr. Shirley Shirley opened the debate in the objects :
affirmative, and a spirited discussion followed, in which
Messrs. E. F. Spence, E. H. Pickersgill, R. G. Templer, “(1) The imposition of a more severe test of general
W. Dowson, and A. D. Maclaren supported the opener, and education than that of the preliminary examinations as
Messrs. S. A. Jones, S. Ward, A. St. J. Stephenson, now condacted, and the application of such improved test to all persons other than those who are exempted therefrom by having replied, and the chairman (Mr. Barren) summed up,
A. Derry, and Parker Seeton opposed. Mr. Shirley Shirley reason of having passed one of the examinations, the passing the motion was put to the vote and carried by a majority of of which now confers the privilege of such exemption.” Mr. Owen's amendment to the second resolution was then "That the action for breach of promise of marriage should
three. On Wednesday next the subject for debate will be put and carried by fourteen to nine, the resolution as
be abolished.” Mr. F. B. Moyle will open, and Messrs. amended standing as follows:
J. M. McColla and S. A. Jones are also deputed to speak “ (2) The institution of a separate examination in the elementary principles of common law, conveyancing, and
upon the motion. There will also be a committee meeting equity, to be passed at the expiration of the first year of upon this evening. Service."
The third resolution, “The classification according to merit of successful candidates at the intermediate examina
MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS DEBATING tion, and the award of the prizes to those deserving such
SOCIETY. destinction,” was then carried unanimously.
The second meeting of the session of this society was held Mr. Leslie's amendment to the fourth resolution was on Tuesday evening last at the Law Library, Cross-street then put, and on a division declared to be lost.
Chambers, when, in the first instance, the chair was taken The excision of all the three subjects viz., probate and by L. Stocks, Esq., solicitor, of Manchester. The minutes of divorce, admiralty, and ecclesiastical law-was then put to the last meeting having been read by the hon. sec. (Mr. the vote, when the votes were ten for and fourteen against ; T. W. Millar) and passed, and other formal business transone only voted in favour of the excision of provate and acted, the chair was taken by James Cottingham, Esq.,divorce; and sixteen for and six against omitting admiralty barrister-at-law, deputy-recorder of Wigan. The question law. The congress were unanimous in favour of excising for discussion was as follows:“ Has a tenant from year to ecclesiastical law, and the motion was then carried unani. year, who holds over after the determination of his tenancy, mously as follows:
and so becomes & tenant at sufferance, a right to remove "(4) The excision of the subjects of admiralty and fixtures during the time he continues in possession as such ecclesiastical law from the honour subjects at the final terant at sufferance?” Mr. Law opened the debate in Examination, since, in the opinion of this congress, an ac favour of the affirmative, and was followed by Messrs. Price, quaintance with them, whilst generally useless, is necessarily Lowndes, J. C. Wilson, Hodgkinson, and Butcher. Mr. acquired at the expense of a sound knowledge of the more Rycroft undertook the negative side of the question, and was important subjects of common law, equity, and conveyanc supported by Messrs. A. Smith, Hardman, and Hislop. ing."
Mr. Law having replied, the chairman summed up in favour The fifth resolution, “The introduction of viva voce into of the affirmative. and the question baving been put to the Every examination in legal subjects," was then put and meeting was decided in the affirmative by a majority of declared to be lost, three only voting in its favour.
fourteen. A rote of thanks to the chairman, proposed by The next resolution was then carried unanimously, “ That Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Marshall, brought the meeting it is expedient that greater attention should be given to the to a close. character of the questions asked at the final examination in order, as far as possible thereby, to decrease the evil of cramming which has taken so great a hold on law students.”'
Solicitors' Cases. Mr. Bennett's resolution was then put, but rejected by thirteen to nine.
COURT OF APPEAL.
Nov. 10,--Miller v. Davies. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.
This was an action brought by a solicitor against A meeting of this society was held at the Law Institu a client to recover the sum of £63 103.
The jury tion, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday last. The subjeot found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the question for appointed for the evening's debate—“Should the right of the court was whether a certain sum of £25 had action for breach of promise of marriage be restricted to been taken by the plaintiff in accord and satisfaction. the actual pecadiary lose sastained by the injured It appeared that in February, 1877, the plaintiff party ?”—was opened by Mr. G. H. Radford, LL.B., in wrote to the defendant for a cheque to balance his costs. an amusing speech, the tenor of which was slightly The defendant asked for a redaction to be made in the affirmative. The speaker urged that whilst the injary amount, and the plaintiff, after considering the matter, wrought to a woman by the breach of a promise to marry wrote on the 14th of March, 1877, offering to accept a was in very many cases considerable, yet the majority of cheque for £50, thereby making a considerable reduction. these actions were brought by designing and worthless The defendant wrote asking for a further reduction. This females, and that the better class of young ladies would the plaintiff declined, but repeated his offer to accept £50 not be prevailed upon to take vengeance through the arm in discharge. After some further correspondence, the deof the law. Mr. Stirling and Mr. Kirk followed upon the fendant wrote to che plaintiff on the 24th of March, 1877, &
letter containing these words :-" However, in order to HAWKINS, J., had no sbadow of a doubt that the judge pat an end to this if you will, receive the enclosed in had jurisdiction to request the master to make the settlement-viz., £25, of course without prejudice ;” and inquiry ; but he had some doubt as to whether he could a cheque for £25 was enclosed. This cheque was refused summon the solicitor to appear before him. Mr. Murphy by the plaintiff as a settlement, but was detained by him on contended he ought to have dismissed the summons with account, and on the 26th of March he wrote informing the costs. The solicitor was not prejudiced because he was defendant that he declined to accept the cheque in dig- asked to show cause why the judge should not do somecharge, but had placed it to his (defendant's) credit. He thing which he had power to do before the summons was also stated that unless the defendant paid the additional granted. He might appear, and might bring forward his £25, he should withdraw the offer he had made. On the reasons, if he thought fit, for inducing the judge to hold 27th of March the defendant replied requesting theplaintiff his hand. Bat the learned judge had not by the order to return the cheque if he would not accept it in satis
summoned the solicitor before him; there was no necessity faction. To this letter the plaintiff made no reply, and it for him to appear, and there was no hardship on bim. As was proved at the trial that the plaintiff had cashed the for himself, he had formed no opinion and be expressed cheque before it was demanded. The jury found a verdict
none on the merits of the case. for the plaintiff. The Common Pleas Division had granted Murphy asked for a stay of proceedings, that he might a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. go to the Court of Appeal.
Willis, Q.C., and Tindal Atkinson, for the plaintiff, HUDDLESTON, B., said he must leave the appellant to urged that, technically, he had done wrong in detaining take what coarse ho pleased, and he could not consent to the cheque, but morally, and as a man of business, he had any stay that would indicate that he had any doubt on the done right.
matter. Kemp, Q.C., and R. O. B. Lane, for the defendant, con Appeal dismissed, with oosts.— Times. tended that at the trial the correspondence had not been properly left to the jury at all, inasmuch as the learned judge, when so doing, bad expressed a very strong view against
the defendant. The COURT (JESSEL, M.R., and BRAMWELL and BRETT,
Court Papers. L.JJ.) regretted that the reasons for the decision of the court below bad not been laid before them. They were of opinion
HOUSE OF LORDS. that the letters brought before them did not form accord and satisfaction, and that the subsequent conduct of the
SESSION, 1879. plaintiff did not bind him so as to make him agree to the
(Sittings for Judicial Business during the Prorogation.) terms proposed. The terms of the question left to the
CAUSES STANDING FOR HEARING. jury were not complained of except that the learned jadge McMurray v. Mathew and others. England. Presented loft it with a strong expression of opinion, in which opinion, August 15, 1878; set down November 8, 1878. Not rebowever, the jury agreed. The strong expression of a ported. Debtor and creditor-Disputed account. Appt. judge was not a misdirection, and therefore the role for a Hanbury, Hutton, & Whitting. Respts.-T. H. Bartlett; new trial must be discharged.- Times.
J. S. Bertram.
The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public
Buildings v. Angus and Company. England. Presented HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE,
February 13, 1879; set_dowo May 5, 1879. Dalton v. EXCHEQUER DIVISION.
Angus and Company. England. Presented March 13, (Before HUDDLESTON, B., and Hawkins, J.)
set down May 23, 1879. 27 W. R. 623, L. R. 4 Nov. 9.-In the Matter of a Solicitor.
Q. B. D. 162. Lateral support of house by adjoining soil
Twenty years' uninterrupted enjoyment without grant by There was an action on some bills of exchange brought adjoining owner–Presumption of grant made and lost in by Stogdon against one Hopcraft, and judgment was signed modern times—Prescription Act (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71).on those bills under order 14, wherenpon the defendant Employer and contractor-Liability of employer for in. took out a summons to set this judgment aside, on the jury caused to neighbouring property by the execution of grounds of irregularity and breach of faith, and the master work dangerous in its nature. Appts.-Hare & Fell. Respts. made an order granting the summons in consequence of -Shum, Crossman, & Co. Appt.--Prior, Bigg, & Co. certain matters appearing in an affidavit. The plaintiff then | Respts.—Shum, Crossman, & Co. appealed to Field, J., who made an order directing the de. Montgomery v. Montgomery. Ireland. Presented fendant to pay £50 to the plaintiff, as terms of being allowed February 17, 1879 ; set down May 30, 1879. Not reported. to defend as to the residue of the claim, and his lordship Execution of disentailing deed by protector of the settlement made a suggestion that the defendant's solicitor should be where no previous instructions for preparation of the deed 'brought before him with a view to an inquiry into certain Party being at the time of execution mentally and bodily matters mentioned in the affidavit. Thereupon the plain- incapable. Appt.— White, Broughton, & White. Respt. tiff's solicitor the next day took out a sommons calling on Cutler & Co. the defendant's solicitor to show cause why he should not Metropolitan District Railway Company v. Sharpe. Engattend and explain, and Field, J., made an order thereon, land. Presented May 5, 1879; set down June 17, 1879. varying the terms of the summons, and ordering an inquiry 27_W. R. 420. Statute-Construction of Consolidation Act before the master as to the making, swearing, and issuing -Incorporation with special Act-Lands Clauses Consolidaof the affidavit used by the defendant's solicitor ; and this tion Act, 1845, s. 34-Costs of arbitration-Ascertaining was the order now appealed against.
amount-Condition precedent-Lands Clauses Consolidation Murphy, Q.C., for the appellant, contended that the Act, 1869, s. 1. Appts.-Baxters & Co. Respt.-T. learned judge had no jurisdiction to make such an order Noton. and to assume ex mero motu the office of a public prosecutor. Easton and another v. Blyth and Tyne Railway Company. This was not a judicial proceeding, and why should his England. Presented December 9, 1878; set down June 20, client be called on to answer a charge of subornation of 1879. Not reported. Breach of contract-Carriage of perjury in this irregular manner ?
coal. Appts.—Maples, Teesdale, & Co. Respts.- WilliamAfter Macrae had been heard iu support of the order, son, Hill, & Co.
HUDDLESTON, B., delivered judgment, upholding the order The Lord Advocate v. Lord Lovat. Scotland. Presented of the learned judge, and remarked that, in his judgment, a April 21, 1879 ; set down June 20, 1879. Scottish Law judge failed in his duty towards the public who did not Reporter, vol. 16, p. 418. Fishing-Salmon fishingorder a full investigation, in chambers or elsewhere, when Barony title-Possession-Rod fishing. Appt.-T. W. circumstances arose tending to excite his suspicion that Gorst. Respt.-Grahames, Wardlaw, & Currey, justice was being subverted. If the result of the master's Great Eastern Railway Company v. Mayor, &c., of Harreport was unfavourable, then his lordship might take what wich and another. England. Presented May 6, 1879; set course he pleased, either directing a proceeding in pænam or down June 26, 1879. Not reported. Rate on coal brought handing over the papers to the society of which the solicitor within the limits of the town of Harwich-Drawback. was a member. He thought the case was one of importance, Appts.-Capel A. Curwood. Respts.—Batty & Whiteand the appeal would be dismissed with costs.
Lery and another v. Lawes. England. Presented May CP 217 Sheffield (GR Burn) v Luck and ors (J Geaussent)
Ex 218 Mears (GT Parker and Co) v Syer (TC Russel) 15, 1879; set down July 4, 1879. Not reported. Special
CP 219 Cooper (Hicks and Arnold) v Cooper (Pawle, F and Co) case-Construction of contract for delivery of sacks. Ex 220 Boubée Freres (Plunkett and L) v Siebe (JC Winkworth) Appts.-Hollams, Son, & Coward. Respt.-W. Beck. Chy 221 Lewis (Smith, Davies and Co) v Harris (W A Downing) Hooper and another v. Bourne and others. England.
Ex 222 North Central Wagon Co (Chester, M, H and B) v North
Wales Carriage and Wagon Co (Llewellyn, A and H) Presented December 6, 1878; set down July 4, 1879. 26
CP 223 Harrap (Noon and C) v North Metropolitan Tram Có (HC W. R. 295, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 258. Railway-Superfluous
Godfray)_SJ lands-Lands taken under powers of special Act - Lands
Ex 224 Hobbs (È W and RC Mote) v Baker (J W Cook)
CP 225 Williams (G E Carpenter) v Nowell (À G Ditton) acquired for extraordinary purposes-Lands not in actual
Q B 226 Cresswell (Walls, A and M) v Welsh, Tennent and Wife use at expiration of period limited for disposing of super
(CC Ellis, Mand Co) SJ fluous land, but subsequently becoming useful for purposes Ex 227 Mighell (Clennell and F) v Seaton (S Roberts) of undertaking-Mines and minerals expressly conveyed to
Ex 228 Cranfield and Wife (GF Parker) v London, Brighton and
South Coast Ry (Norton, Rose and Co) SJ railway company, ownership of, where surface afterwards
CP 229 Wright (F C James) v Freeman (Dixon, W L and W). becomes superfluous land-Inclosure--Grass and herbage CP 230 Bossey (T Beard and Sons) v Easton and anr (TH Devonarising upon soil of road running between allotments—41
Ex 231 Dawson (J Mason) v Huggins (H C Morris) Geo. 3, c. 109, s. 11-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act,
Q B 232 Wooder (M Abrahams and R) v Lyon (Peckham, M and P) 1845 (8 & 9 Víct. c. 18), ss. 12, 13, 127—Railways Clauses Chy 233 Sovereign Life Assurance Co limů (Campbell R and H) v Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20), s. 45. Appts.
Dent (Crook and s) Field, Roscoe, & Co. Respts.-R. R. Nelson.
QB 234 The Queen (W R Preston) v Heritage (in person) SJ
ČP 235 Grigg (GLP Eyre and Co) v Pearce (Ğ Godwin) Rankin and others v. Lamont. Scotland. Presented
Ex 236 Sorrelì (Dangerfield and B) v Ottaway (Lumley and L) May 26, 1879; set down July 31, 1879. Appts.—Hewitt & Ex 237 Jaques (A H Miller) v London Tram Co lmd (Foss and L) SJ Alexander. Respt.-Faithfull & Owen.
CP 238 Hyam and Wife (JC Button and Co) v London Gen Omnia
bus Co (Stevens and H) SJ Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England y. Rowe. Eng
CP 238a Marshall and anr trading, &c (H R Jones) v Scarborough land. Presented June 19, 1879; set down August 1, 1879.
Laundry and Washing Co (E Doyle and Sons) 27 W. R. 373, L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 63. Statute of Limitations Q B 239 Holdstock (Hicklin and w) v Floyd Bros (G H'Mirfin)
CP 240 Collingridge and anr (Beard and Sons) v Francis and Co -Land annexed to a deanery becoming vested in Ecclesiasti
(C Parke) cal Commissioners—3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, ss. 2, 29—3 & 4 Ex 241 Robiolio (Wordsworth and Co) v Spiers and anr (WHG Vict. c. 113, ss. 50, 57, 75-Inclosure-Allotment to tenant
Jones) SJ in right of his lease. Appts.—Jennings, White, & Buckston.
OP 242 London and County Banking Co (Paterson, Sons and G)
Laud (W T Boydell). Respt.-Field, Roscoe, & Co.
Ex 243 Mac Intosh (Morley, R and E) v Page (Lewis and Lewis) Julias v. The Lord Bishop of Oxford and nother. Eng. Q B 244 Keays (L Keays) v Wallace (G Castle) land. Presented June 27, 1879; set down August 8, 1879.
Chy 245 Hewes (Field, R and Co) v Cole and ors (Cole and J)
QB 246 Lamb (J W Marsh) v Brewster and anr (Collyer and Co) L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 245. Ecclesiastical law-Church Discip.
CP 247 Phillips (G Palmer) v Cocks (J Frost) line Act (3 & 4 Vict. c. 86), 8. 3—“It shall be lawful". Ex 248 Golding (Peacock and G) v Gutteridge (Emanuel and Co) Statute, construction of-Words importing obligation-Ob OP 249 Collins (Lewis and Indermauer) v Fuller (J J Harlow)
OP 250 Mason (Parkers) v Coffre (Ley and B) ligation on bishop to issue commission on complaint of
OP 251 Tatham (W Rawlins) v Tatham (Bicknell and H) ecclesiastical offence against clerk-Public Worship Regula- CP 252 Hayward Bros (Ashurst, M, C and Co) v Heritage (F Heri. tion Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 85). Appt.-J. Girdle
tage and Co) stone. Respts.-Cunliffe, Beaumont, & Co.; Brooks, Jen Q B 253 Risley and anr (Johnson, Upton and Co) v Bultitude and
Co (A G Ditton) SJ kins, & Co.
Ex 254 Loaring (Janson, C and P) v Gibbs (H A Lovett)
Aldridge, T and M) SJ
C Godfray) SJ
Ex 258 Henderson and anr (Gowing and Co) v Watts (In Person)
CP 259 Fitzgerald (J B May) v Coopman and ors (J P May)
Ex 260 Gray (C Mossop) v Woodhead and anr (H O Barker)
CP 261 Jackson (B W Jones) v Rose (In Person) com Monday, Nov. 17Mr. Merivale Mr. Farrer Mr. Cobby OP 262 Nersnoss Block Ice Shipping (Herbert and Kent) v Royal Tuesday 18 King Teesdale Jackson
Mail Steam Packet Co (Wilson, B and C) Wednesday....
19 Merivale Farrer Cobby Ex 263 Warner (C A Swaine) v Edgington and Co (W Evans) Thursday 20 King
CP 264 James (Lewis and Sons) v James (Evans and E) Friday. 21 Merivale Farrer
Q B 265 Edwards (Stibbard, G and Co) v Long (Field, R and Co) Cobby
SJ Saturday 22 King
Q B 266 Bellenger (Brighten, J and N) v Macaire (W W King)
Mr. Justice Chy 267 Pidsley (Stocken and J) v Wilson and anr (Bell and Co;
Plunkett and L)
Ex 268 Farrow (H S Winnet) v Farrow (Turner and Son)
CP 269 Barton (Willborne and Son) v Le Veaux, sued, &c (Lewis
and L) Wednesday.. 19 Pemberton Leach
Ex 270 Burnell (Rhodes and Son) v Gillespie (Hardwick and J) Thursday 20 Ward
Ex 271 West Combe Park Estate, limd (Mathews and Smith) v Friday ........ 21 Pemberton Leach
Poulton (S S Seal)
(HC Godfray) SJ
Q B 274 Harrison (Pike and Son) v De Crespigny (J Ellerton).
M, B and G)
QB 276 Bayley, trading, &c (Milne, R and M) v Harrison and Son (Continued from page 15.)
(W Rawlins) OP 198 King (Carr, Fulton and Co) v Smith (Procter and A) Ex 277 Anderson and anr (Herbert and Kent) v Royal Mail Steam CP 199 Halbert (Miller, Sand B) v Rowland Bros (Parkers)
Packet Co (Wilson, B and C) Ex 200 Withall (Withall and C) y Perry and anr (Crook and S) Ex 278 Carpenter (Le Riche and Son) v Lane (Wade and L) SJ Es 201 Callin (Dawson and Co) v Bamford (J E Turner)
Chy 279 Lovering (Rooks and Co), v Hannen (F Norton) CP 202 Holroyd (Andrew and B) v Beall (In Person) SJ
QB 280 Hubback Eardley, H and R) v Everett (W R Philp) SJ CP 203 Haslam (R Wastell) v Driver (Evans and E)
CP 281 Scalia (J Knight) v Dalgairns (E Tillyard) com CP 204 Bokenham (S Price) v N Metropolitan Tram Co (H C God QB 282 Murray (H Sydney) v Henkriks (Lewis and L) fray) SJ
Ex 283 Goldring and anr (E Jukes) v Headley and ors (Mercer Ex 205 Macdonald, Field and Co (J N Mason) y Russell, Bart (F
and M) W Mount)
Q B 284 Wildman (J T Hazeldine) v Gillies (Turner and Son) Ex 206 Ibbotson (Bordman) Buckley and ors (Jukes and Co). Ès 285 Prudential Assurance Co, limd (A H Wildman) v Cain (JT Ex 207 Brogden (Porter and s) v Tahourdin (Tahourdin and 6)
Hazeldine) Ex 208 Wickham (Rooks and Co) v Earp (Combe and W)
Ex 286 Somerville and anr (Yorke and B) v Green and anr (R QB 209 Snell (W Greenip) v Watkins (Clarke, W and R) SJ
Chandler) CP 210 Tucker (J Tucker) v Redgrave (J Holder)
Ex 287 Aitken (R Jones and Co) v Lincoln, Bennett and Co (LumBx 211 Wilson and anr (Yorke and B) v Willina and ors (H W
ley and L) Lindas; C A Swaine)
Ex 288 Butler (Saffery and H) v Harvey and anr (Terrell and H),
CP 289 Brooker and anr (G Palmer) v Beckmann (W Webb) SJ and Co)
(To be continued.) CP 214 Taylor (OV Lewis) McKeand and anr (Hicklin and W) CP 215 Todd and anr (Todd and Dennes) v Winckworth (Billing. hurst and w) SJ
No Gas IN DAYTIME.--See Chappuis' Reflectors.-69, Fleet-street. Ex 216 Evans (J S Ward) v Williams (Roy and C)
is not to suffer them to separate until they are agreed, unless by order of the court. When the court is adjourned the judge carries no power with him to his lodgings, and has no
more anthority over the jury than any other person, and any The long controversy in the Times upon photographic
direction to them from him, either verbal or in writing, is
direction to them from n copyright has been concluded with a letter from "A l improper » Barrister,” in which he says :-" I assert that under the present law, if any person (A) applies to a photographer (B)--we will not confuse the question by calling photo.
PUBLIC COMPAVIES. graphers 'artists '-to have his portrait taken, on the
Nov. 13, 1879. nepal understanding that he shall pay a sum and receive a certain number of copies or prints, then the copy
GOVERNMENT FUNDS. right, not merely in the prints,' but in the whole of 3 per cent. Consols, 988 | Annuitias, April, 85, 97
Ditto for Aoccunt, 98
Do. (Red Sea T.) Aug. 1908 the negatives taken, vests in A. But if B bas agreed to
Do. 3 per cent. Rednced, 96 Ex Bille, £1000, 2per Ot. 17 pm. take A's portrait without any payment, because it is under. Now 3 per Copt., 964
Ditto, £500, Do, 17 pm. stood that he may make a profit by selling prints,' then Do. 84 per Cont., Jan.'94 Ditto, 8100 & £200, 17 pm.
Do. 24 per Cant., Jan.'94 Bank of England Stock, 2683 the copyright in the negative vests in B, and A cannot stop
Ditto for Account. the sale of the prints.'
On the 3rd inst., on the occasion of Mr, W.J. Metcalfe, Q.C., the newly appointed judge of the Bristol County
INDIAN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. Court, taking his seat for the first time at the Guildhall, Ind. Stk., 5 per C., July,'80, 2031 Enf.Pr. 54 per cent., May, 81 Bristol, Mr. J. H. Clifton, as senior member of the profession
Ditto for Account,
Ditto Debentures, 4 per Cent present, in welcomiog his Honour, said that his Honour, he
Ditto 4 per Cont., Oct. '88, 1024 April, '64
Do.Do, 5 per cent., Aug.73 was sure, would feel that in welcoming him to the court he Ditto Enfaced Ppr., per Cent. Do. Bonds, 4 per cent. £1000 could not help alluding with very great regret to the de 2nd Enf.Pr., 5 per C., Jan,"79 Ditto, ditto, under £1000 parture of one who had endeared himself to them all-bis learned predecessor, Mr. Fisher. His urbanity and kind. ness to them all bad strongly attached him to them; and he spoke in the name of all the practitioners in that court
BIRTIS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS when he said that they regretted his loss very acutely. He trusted that, as his successor, the learned judge might be
ADDISON.-November 3, at 3, Lime-grove, Manchester, the wife long spared to preside in that court, and speaking for the
of John Addison, barrister-at-law, recorder of Preston, of a members of the profession, he hoped they would endeavour
Bon. to demean themselves towards his Honour in the same way | BRADSHAW.-Nov. 1, at South Bailey, Durham, the wife of as they had towards his predecessor, so as to win his Honour's Thomas Bradshaw, judge of county courts, of a daughesteem. His Honour said he thanked them very much for ter. the kind expression of opinion they had bestowed upon STOCKEN.-Oct. 29, at Richmond, Surrey, the wife of Walter him. As regarded his late predecessor, he was not at all Stocken, solicitor, of a son. surprised to hear that he had endeared himself to every class
DEATHS. of men with whom he had been brought into contact, and
ASHWELL.—Nov. 9, at Brunel-terrace, Nottingham, John M.
Ashwell, solicitor, aged 51. that they very much regretted his loss. He was quite satis
ROBERSON.—Nov. 2, at St. Leonard's-on-Sea, Charles James fied, from what he had heard of the gentlemen practising Scholey Roberson, solicitor, late of Oxford, aged 72. in this district, they would get on in perfect harmony together. He should ask them kindly to extend to him their consideration for some little time, for he was not familiar with the practice of the county court at present, although
LONDON GAZETTES. many years ago, some twenty-five, he had the honour of sitting for the late Serjeant Storks in one district. Still the
Bankrupts. practice was somewhat novel to him, and he hoped they
FRIDAY, Nov. 7, 1879. would extend their kindness towards him, and co-operate
Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. with him, not taking advantage of his inexperience in these
Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.
To Surrender in London. matters, but endeavouring to carry out the ends of justice
Birks, Charles, Bow lane, Commission Agent. Pet Oct 31. Murray. for the benefit of the public.
Nov 21 at 12 In Sergeant v. Roberts (1 Pick. 377), says the Central Law
Friend, Charles Thomas, Penywern rd, South Kensington. Pet Nov 5.
Brougham. Nov 18 at 11.30 Journal, after a case had been heard and the jury had been Scott, Thomas, Pentonville rd, Marble Merchant. Pet Nov 6. Hazlitt. out six hours, the foreman wrote to the judge stating that Nov 26 at 11 they could not agree and asking for directions.
To Surrender in the Country.
Andrews, Joseph, and Wilkinson Andrews, Clayton, York, Joiners. the court having adjourned, answered in writing that he was
Pet Nov 4. Robinson, Bradford, Nov 18 at 9 unwilling to let them separate, and giving them further Dold, Anton, Great Grimsby, Jeweller. Pet Nov 3. Daubney. Great instructions. He also directed them to bring his letter into
Grimsby, Nov 19 at I court to be filed with the papers.
Finding, Samuel, Bedford, Watchmaker. Pet Nov 5. Pearse. BedThey then agreed upon a
ford, Nov 20 at 10.30 verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff moved for a new Gibson, Henry, Rowlands Castle, Southampton. Pet Nov 3. Renny. trial, on the ground of the communication, which was Portsmouth, Dec 4 at 12 granted by the Supreme Court, Parker, C.J., stating the
Kershaw, Thomas, Over Darwen, Lancaster, Builder, Pet Nov 3.
Bolton. Blackburn, Nov 20 at 11 law of the question thus:-“ The object of the note of the Sharp, John, Bristol, Baker. Pet Nov 4. Harley. Bristol, Nov 19 at 2 foreman was probably to obtain leave for the jury to Skuse, Peter, Wavertree, Lancaster, Licensed Vio tualler. Pet Nov 5. separate, and the answer of the judge was calculated to
Bellringer. Liverpool, Nov 19 at 11 enable them to revise the case in a systematic manner, in the
Ward, James, Liverpool, Metal Dealer. Pet Nov 4. Bellringer. Liver
pool, Nov 18 at 11 hope that such a revision would produce a union of opinion
TUESDAY, Nov. 11, 1879. on one side or the other of the cause. It probably had that
Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. effect. As it is impossible, we think, to complain of
Oreditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.
To Surrender in London. the substance of the communication, the only question is Chadwick, William Covington, Earl's court sq, Brompton. Pet July whether'any communication at all is proper, and if it was not, 29. Murray. Nov 28 at 11 the party against whom the verdict was, is entitled to a new
Nicholls, William Hawkins, Seething lane, Wine Merchant. Pet Nov trial. And we are all of opinion, after considering the
7. Pepys. Nov 26 at 12
Prideaux, Samuel William, Philips rd, Peckham Rye. Pet Nov 6. question maturely, that no communication whatever ought to Hazlitt. Nov 26 at 11 take place between the judge and the jury, after the cause
To Surrender in the Country. has been committed to them by the charge of the judge,
Braund, Juliana Mary Kelly, Clifton hil, Exeter. Pet Nov 6. Daw.
Exeter, Nov 24 at 11 unless in open court, and where practicable, in presence of Garget, Robert Taylor, Darlington, Joiner. Pet Nov 6. Crosby. the counsel in the cause. The oath administered to the Stockton-on-Tees, Nov 24 at 11 officer seems to indicate this as the proper course. He is to
| Griffin, Elizabeth, Malden, Sarrey. Pet Nov 6. Bell. Kingston, Noy
27 at 4 suffer no person to speak to them, nor to speak to them Hant. Thomas. Turville. Bucks, Innkeeper. Pet Nov 6. Watson. himself unless to ask them whether they are agreed ; and he | Aylesbury, Nov 26 at il