Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors]

(1) The imposition of a more severe test of general education than that of the preliminary examination as now conducted.

(2) The institution of a separate examination in the principles of general jurisprudence, to be passed at the expiration of the first year of service.

"(3) The classification according to merit of successful candidates at the intermediate examination, and the award of prizes to those deserving such distinction.

[ocr errors]

(4) The excision of the subjects of probate and divorce, admiralty, and ecclesiastical law from the honour subjects at the final examination, since, in the opinion of this congress, an acquaintance with them, whilst generally useless, is necessarily acquired at the expense of a sound knowledge of the more important subjects of common law, equity, and conveyancing.

"(5) The introduction of viva voce in every examination in legal subjects."

Mr. A. WHITEHOUSE (Wolverhampton), in seconding the resolutions, supported the introduction of a severer preliminary examination, and deprecated the system of making known the books on which the examinations would be held. He did not think a student could be expected to pass an examination in general jurisprudence at the end of the first year of service, but he heartily supported the suggestion as to the awarding of prizes in the third resolution. He could not support the excision of probate and divorce law from the honours examination, inasmuch as the necessity for a knowledge of the branch occurred in every practice occasionally; but that did not apply to admiralty and ecclesiastical. He could not support the introduction of viva voce because he thought it would tend to increase cramming. The questions at present asked at examinations were of a too crammed character, and it was impossible for the student to answer them in the time allotted unless he had got them put in his mind. The questions should be of a character to show that the student not merely knew the law but understood it. For instance, a lithographed abstract might be prepared and the student required to draw a draft upon it.

Mr. G. BATEMAN NAPIER (bon. secretary of the Law Students' Debating Society, London) thought they had made out at least a prima facie case for a severer preliminary examination. The better education of the law student was a means of improving the status of the profession, and would tend to keep out of the profession incompetent persons. For a fairly educated man five years of articles was too long, but the term could not be shortened unless a higher standard of proficiency were required before entering into them. If a severer preliminary examination were enforced, the term of the articles should then be reduced to four years, for members of universities to three years, and no clerk should enter into articles till eighteen years of age. On the whole he gave the proposed reforms his hearty support. Mr. J. B. WHEELWRIGHT (Bradford), in supporting the first resolution, advocated the abolition of judges' orders for the admission of ten-year's men; but as to the second resolution, thought what was required was rather the improvement of the present examinations than the institution of fresh ones. The country articled clerks should be more considered. In the last equity paper, for instance, the question was put: "Sketch the form of a notice of motion 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 countryman had ever seen such a thing. With regard to the honours examination he thought the probate and divorce should be retained, but not admiralty and ecclesiastical, as it was only in a very few offices that a knowledge of them could be attained.

Mr. J. T. GREEN (Sunderland) thought that, instead of raising the standard of examinations, they should turn their attention to improving the system of education of law students, by (for instance) the introduction of a system

He would retain the subject

of compulsory law lectures. of admiralty law in the honours examination. Mr. C. JOHNSTON EDWARDS (Birmingham) moved as an amendment to the first resolution the addition of the words, "and the application of such improved test to all persons other than those who are exempted therefrom by reason of having passed one of those examinations, the passing of which confers the privilege of such exemption." He also moved as an additional resolution, "That it is expedient that greater attention should be given to the character of the questions asked at the final examination, so as so far as possible to decrease the evil of cramming which has taken so great a hold of law students."

Mr. THOS. W. BAYLEY (Wolverhampton) seconded the amendments.

Mr. G. L. COLLINS (Liverpool) was in favour of the retention of admiralty law in the honours examination, but that the students should have the option of choosing their subjects.

MR. F. J. LESLIE (Liverpool), in order to meet the objections which seemed to be made to the retention of the subjects named in the fourth resolution, would move the following amendment: "That a candidate at the final examination for honours should be allowed to present himself for examination in one only of the following subjects, probate, divorce, admiralty, and ecclesiastical law, the selection to be in his own discretion."

MR. G. L. COLLINS (Liverpool) seconded the amend

ment.

The discussion was continued by Messrs. Thos. H. Bayley (Wolverhampton), W. C. H. Cross (Bristol), and W. Showell Rogers (Birmingham).

Mr. C. F. BENNETT (Sheffield), moved as an additional resolution :

"That at the intermediate examination a sufficient number of questions were not asked to test the knowledge of the student on the work selected by the examiner."

Mr. W. T. BURDEKIN (Sheffield) seconded the resolution.

Mr. W. C. OWEN (United Law Students' Society, London} defended the imposition of a severer preliminary examination, on the ground that it was fairer to the student than inducing him to enter the profession by passing an easy preliminary examination, and then for him to find at the end of his term that he was incapable of passing the final. With reference to the second resolution on the paper, he should propose that the words "elementary principles of common law, conveyancing, and equity," be substituted for "general jurisprudence." Amongst students it was a recognized thing that the first year and a half was devoted to studying the principles of law, and that was the principle that should be applied to all legal education. Then, having secured the studying of general principles by examination, the subsequent examinations should not include all sorts of different branches because that would occupy the student's time just when he was becoming of real use to his employer, and when he had a good opportunity of becoming acquainted with the practice.

The hour of adjournment having arrived, the further debate was adjourned till the evening on the motion of Mr. T. BATEMAN NAPIER, seconded by Mr. H. BARBER (Nottingham).

A vote of thanks to the presidennt for his services in the chair was moved by Mr. C. T. BENNETT (Sheffield), seconded by Mr. W. SLATER (Manchester), and carried with acclama

tion.

The CHAIRMAN, in returning thanks, expressed a hope that the general subject of legal education would profit by themeeting of the congress, and he would take care that whatever resolutions were sent to the Law Society should be duly debated by the Education Committee.

The second meeting was held at seven o'clock, when Mr. T. Bateman Napier presided.

The CHAIRMAN having explained the reason why the committee had thought it advisable that the representatives of the London societies should preside over the second and third meetings of the congress, the debate on the resolutions and amendments proposed at the first meeting was resumed by Messrs. H. BARBER (Nottingham), G. F. HIRST (Bradford), and Mr. J. S. RUBENSTEIN (London), who supported the introduction of vivá voce examination, on the ground that it

would encourage articled clerks in acquiring a facility of speech which would be of great advantage to them in their after life.

Mr. GEO. E. WEARE (Bristol) objected strongly to viva voce examination, on the ground that it would act unfairly to those gentlemen who were of a retiring disposition. If it was intended to foster fluency of speech let that be made the subject of examination. He also objected to the term "generally useless," in the fourth resolution, as applied to admiralty law. It was part of the county court practice, and he should vote for its retention as one of the subjects of the honours examination.

The Chairman then proceeded to put the various resolutions and amendments to the vote.

Mr. Edwards' amendment to the first resolution having been carried by seventeen to five, the resolution as amended was put as a substantive motion and stood as follows:

"That the provisions now made for the education of articled clerks require extension and amendment, and that the special attention of the Incorporated Law Society should be at once directed to the attainment of the following objects:

"(1) The imposition of a more severe test of general education than that of the preliminary examinations as now conducted, and the application of such improved test to all persons other than those who are exempted therefrom by reason of having passed one of the examinations, the passing of which now confers the privilege of such exemption."

Mr. Owen's amendment to the second resolution was then put and carried by fourteen to nine, the resolution as amended standing as follows:

"(2) The institution of a separate examination in the elementary principles of common law, conveyancing, and equity, to be passed at the expiration of the first year of service."

The third resolution, "The classification according to merit of successful candidates at the intermediate examination, and the award of the prizes to those deserving such destinction," was then carried unanimously.

Mr. Leslie's amendment to the fourth resolution was then put, and on a division declared to be lost.

The excision of all the three subjects-viz., probate and divorce, admiralty, and ecclesiastical law-was then put to the vote, when the votes were ten for and fourteen against; one only voted in favour of the excision of probate and divorce; and sixteen for and six against omitting admiralty law. The congress were unanimous in favour of excising ecclesiastical law, and the motion was then carried unanimously as follows:

"(4) The excision of the subjects of admiralty and ecclesiastical law from the honour subjects at the final examination, since, in the opinion of this congress, an acquaintance with them, whilst generally useless, is necessarily acquired at the expense of a sound knowledge of the more important subjects of common law, equity, and conveyancing."

The fifth resolution, "The introduction of viva voce into every examination in legal subjects," was then put and declared to be lost, three only voting in its favour.

The next resolution was then carried unanimously, "That it is expedient that greater attention should be given to the 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." Mr. Bennett's resolution was then put, but rejected by thirteen to nine.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. A meeting of this society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday last. The subject appointed for the evening's debate-"Should the right of action for breach of promise of marriage be restricted to the actual pecuniary loss sustained by the injured party?"-was opened by Mr. G. H. Radford, LL.B., in an amusing speech, the tenor of which was slightly affirmative. The speaker urged that whilst the injury wrought to a woman by the breach of a promise to marry was in very many cases considerable, yet the majority of these actions were brought by designing and worthless females, and that the better class of young ladies would not be prevailed upon to take vengeance through the arm of the law. Mr. Stirling and Mr. Kirk followed upon the

same side, urging, amongst other things, that the damages in this action were incapable of reasonable estimation, and that gross injustice was usually perpetrated by the verdicts of juries. Mr. Munton, in an able address, replied to the previous speakers, and was followed by Mr. Mills, who supported the affirmative, and in doing so related various extraordinary and entertaining anecdotes. Messrs. Bateman Napier, F. J. Green, Sargeant, and J. A. Neale then upheld the negative of the question, and Messrs. Cowdell and Barry spoke in the affirmative. Mr. Radford replied, and the question, on being put to the meeting, was decided in the affirmative.

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

A meeting of the above society was held on Wednesday ject was debated-viz., "That in all schools supported by evening last at Clement's-inn Hall, when the following subthe State, the education should be of a purely secular character." Mr. Shirley Shirley opened the debate in the affirmative, and a spirited discussion followed, in which Messrs. E. F. Spence, E. H. Pickersgill, R. G. Templer, W. Dowson, and A. D. Maclaren supported the opener, and Messrs. S. A. Jones, S. Ward, A. St. J. Stephenson, A. Derry, and Parker Seeton opposed. Mr. Shirley Shirley having replied, and the chairman (Mr. Barren) summed up, the motion was put to the vote and carried by a majority of three. On Wednesday next the subject for debate will be "That the action for breach of promise of marriage should be abolished." Mr. F. B. Moyle will open, and Messrs. J. M. McColla and S. A. Jones are also deputed to speak upon the motion. There will also be a committee meeting upon this evening.

MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS DEBATING'

SOCIETY.

The second meeting of the session of this society was held on Tuesday evening last at the Law Library, Cross-street Chambers, when, in the first instance, the chair was taken by L. Stocks, Esq., solicitor, of Manchester. The minutes of the last meeting having been read by the hon. sec. (Mr. T. W. Millar) and passed, and other formal business transacted, the chair was taken by James Cottingham, Esq.,barrister-at-law, deputy-recorder of Wigan. The question for discussion was as follows:-" Has a tenant from year to year, who holds over after the determination of his tenancy, and so becomes a tenant at sufferance, a right to remove fixtures during the time he continues in possession as such tenant at sufferance?" Mr. Law opened the debate in favour of the affirmative, and was followed by Messrs. Price, Lowndes, J. C. Wilson, Hodgkinson, and Butcher. Mr. Rycroft undertook the negative side of the question, and was supported by Messrs. A. Smith, Hardman, and Hislop. Mr. Law having replied, the chairman summed up in favour of the affirmative. and the question having been put to the meeting was decided in the affirmative by a majority of fourteen. A vote of thanks to the chairman, proposed by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Marshall, brought the meeting. to a close.

[blocks in formation]

This was an action brought by a solicitor against a client to recover the sum of £63 10s. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the question for the court was whether a certain sum of £25 had been taken by the plaintiff in accord and satisfaction. It appeared that in February, 1877, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant for a cheque to balance his costs. The defendant asked for a reduction to be made in the amount, and the plaintiff, after considering the matter, wrote on the 14th of March, 1877, offering to accept a cheque for £50, thereby making a considerable reduction. The defendant wrote asking for a further reduction. This the plaintiff declined, but repeated his offer to accept £50in discharge. After some farther correspondence, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff on the 24th of March, 1877, a

letter containing these words -"However, in order to put an end to this if you will, receive the enclosed in settlement-viz., £25, of course without prejudice;" and a cheque for £25 was enclosed. This cheque was refused by the plaintiff as a settlement, but was detained by him on account, and on the 26th of March he wrote informing the defendant that he declined to accept the cheque in discharge, but had placed it to his (defendant's) credit. He also stated that unless the defendant paid the additional £25, he should withdraw the offer he had made. On the 27th of March the defendant replied requesting theplaintiff to return the cheque if he would not accept it in satisfaction. To this letter the plaintiff made no reply, and it was proved at the trial that the plaintiff had cashed the cheque before it was demanded. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The Common Pleas Division had granted a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.

Willis, Q.C., and Tindal Atkinson, for the plaintiff, urged that, technically, he had done wrong in detaining the cheque, but morally, and as a man of business, he had done right.

Kemp, Q.C., and R. O. B. Lane, for the defendant, contended that at the trial the correspondence had not been properly left to the jury at all, inasmuch as the learned judge, when so doing, had expressed a very strong view against the defendant.

The COURT (JESSEL, M.R., and BRAMWELL and BRETT, L.JJ.) regretted that the reasons for the decision of the court below had not been laid before them. They were of opinion that the letters brought before them did not form accord and satisfaction, and that the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff did not bind him so as to make him agree to the terms proposed. The terms of the question left to the jury were not complained of except that the learned judge left it with a strong expression of opinion, in which opinion, however, the jury agreed. The strong expression of a judge was not a misdirection, and therefore the rule for a new trial must be discharged.-Times.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
EXCHEQUER DIVISION.

(Before HUDDLESTON, B., and HAWKINS, J.)

Nov. 9.-In the Matter of a Solicitor.

There was an action on some bills of exchange brought by Stogdon against one Hopcraft, and judgment was signed on those bills under order 14, whereupon the defendant took out a summons to set this judgment aside, on the grounds of irregularity and breach of faith, and the master made an order granting the summons in consequence of certain matters appearing in an affidavit. The plaintiff then appealed to Field, J., who made an order directing the defendant to pay £50 to the plaintiff, as terms of being allowed to defend as to the residue of the claim, and his lordship made a suggestion that the defendant's solicitor should be brought before him with a view to an inquiry into certain matters mentioned in the affidavit. Thereupon the plaintiff's solicitor the next day took out a summons calling on the defendant's solicitor to show cause why he should not attend and explain, and Field, J., made an order thereon, varying the terms of the summons, and ordering an inquiry before the master as to the making, swearing, and issuing of the affidavit used by the defendant's solicitor; and this was the order now appealed against.

Murphy, Q.C., for the appellant, contended that the learned judge had no jurisdiction to make such an order and to assume ex mero motu the office of a public prosecutor. This was not a judicial proceeding, and why should his client be called on to answer a charge of subornation of perjury in this irregular manner?

After Macrae had been heard in support of the order, HUDDLESTON, B., delivered judgment, upholding the order of the learned judge, and remarked that, in his judgment, a judge failed in his duty towards the public who did not order a full investigation, in chambers or elsewhere, when circumstances arose tending to excite his suspicion that justice was being subverted. If the result of the master's report was unfavourable, then his lordship might take what course he pleased, either directing a proceeding in pœnam or handing over the papers to the society of which the solicitor was a member. He thought the case was one of importance, and the appeal would be dismissed with costs.

HAWKINS, J., had no shadow of a doubt that the judge had jurisdiction to request the master to make the inquiry; but he had some doubt as to whether he could summon the solicitor to appear before him. Mr. Murphy contended he ought to have dismissed the summons with costs. The solicitor was not prejudiced because he was asked to show cause why the judge should not do something which he had power to do before the summons was granted. He might appear, and might bring forward his reasons, if he thought fit, for inducing the judge to hold his hand. But the learned judge had not by the order summoned the solicitor before him; there was no necessity for him to appear, and there was no hardship on him. As for himself, he had formed no opinion and he expressed none on the merits of the case.

Murphy asked for a stay of proceedings, that he might go to the Court of Appeal.

HUDDLESTON, B., said he must leave the appellant to take what course he pleased, and he could not consent to any stay that would indicate that he had any doubt on the matter.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.-Times.

Court Papers.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
SESSION, 1879.

(Sittings for Judicial Business during the Prorogation.) CAUSES STANDING FOR HEARING.

McMurray v. Mathew and others. England. Presented August 15, 1878; set down November 8, 1878. Not reported. Debtor and creditor-Disputed account. Appt.Hanbury, Hutton, & Whitting. Respts.-T. H. Bartlett; J. S. Bertram.

The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings v. Angus and Company. England. Presented February 13, 1879; set down May 5, 1879. Dalton v. Angus and Company. England. Presented March 13, 1879; set down May 23, 1879. 27 W. R. 623, L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 162. Lateral support of house by adjoining soilTwenty years' uninterrupted enjoyment without grant by adjoining owner-Presumption of grant made and lost in modern times-Prescription Act (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71)Employer and contractor-Liability of employer for injury caused to neighbouring property by the execution of work dangerous in its nature. Appts.-Hare & Fell. Respts. -Shum, Crossman, & Co. Appt.-Prior, Bigg, & Co. Respts.-Shum, Crossman, & Co.

Montgomery V. Montgomery. Ireland. Presented February 17, 1879; set down May 30, 1879. Not reported. Execution of disentailing deed by protector of the settlement where no previous instructions for preparation of the deedParty being at the time of execution mentally and bodily incapable. Appt.-White, Broughton, & White. Respt.Cutler & Co.

Metropolitan District Railway Company v. Sharpe. England. Presented May 5, 1879; set down June 17, 1879. 27 W. R. 420. Statute-Construction of Consolidation Act -Incorporation with special Act-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 34-Costs of arbitration-Ascertaining amount-Condition precedent-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1869, s. 1. Appts.-Baxters & Co. Respt.-T. Noton.

Easton and another v. Blyth and Tyne Railway Company. England. Presented December 9, 1878; set down June 20, 1879. Not reported. Breach of contract-Carriage of coal. Appts.-Maples, Teesdale, & Co. Respts.-Williamson, Hill, & Co.

The Lord Advocate v. Lord Lovat. Scotland. Presented April 21, 1879; set down June 20, 1879. Scottish Law Reporter, vol. 16, p. 418. Fishing-Salmon fishingBarony title-Possession-Rod fishing. Appt.-T. W. Gorst. Respt.-Grahames, Wardlaw, & Currey.

Great Eastern Railway Company v. Mayor, &c., of Harwich and another. England. Presented May 6, 1879; set down June 26, 1879. Not reported. Rate on coal brought within the limits of the town of Harwich-Drawback. Appts.-Capel A. Curwood. Respts.-Batty & Whitehouse.

Levy and another v. Lawes. England. Presented May 15, 1879; set down July 4, 1879. Not reported. Special case-Construction of contract for delivery of sacks. Appts.-Hollams, Son, & Coward. Respt.-W. Beck.

Hooper and another v. Bourne and others. England. Presented December 6, 1878; set down July 4, 1879. 26 W. R. 295, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 258. Railway-Superfluous lands-Lands taken under powers of special Act-Lands acquired for extraordinary purposes-Lands not in actual use at expiration of period limited for disposing of superfluous land, but subsequently becoming useful for purposes of undertaking-Mines and minerals expressly conveyed to railway company, ownership of, where surface afterwards becomes superfluous land-Inclosure--Grass and herbage arising upon soil of road running between allotments-41 Geo. 3, c. 109, s. 11-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), ss. 12, 13, 127-Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Viet. c. 20), s. 45. Appts.Field, Roscoe, & Co. Respts.-R. R. Nelson.

Rankin and others v. Lamont. Scotland. Presented May 26, 1879; set down July 31, 1879. Appts.-Hewitt & Alexander. Respt.-Faithfull & Owen.

Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England v. Rowe. England. Presented June 19, 1879; set down August 1, 1879. 27 W. R. 373, L. R. 4 Q. B D. 63. Statute of Limitations -Land annexed to a deanery becoming vested in Ecclesiastical Commissioners-3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, ss. 2, 29-3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, ss. 50, 57, 75-Inclosure-Allotment to tenant in right of his lease. Appts.-Jennings, White, & Buckston. Respt.-Field, Roscoe, & Co.

Julius v. The Lord Bishop of Oxford and another. England. Presented June 27, 1879; set down August 8, 1879. L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 245. Ecclesiastical law-Church Discip line Act (3 & 4 Vict. c. 86), 8. 3-"It shall be lawful": Statute, construction of-Words importing obligation-Obligation on bishop to issue commission on complaint of ecclesiastical offence against clerk-Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 85). Appt.-J. Girdlestone. Respts.-Cunliffe, Beaumont, & Co.; Brooks, Jenkins, & Co.

[blocks in formation]

CP 198 King (Carr, Fulton and Co) v Smith (Procter and A)
CP 199 Halbert (Miller, S and B) v Rowland Bros (Parkers)
Ex 200 Withall (Withall and C) v Perry and anr (Crook and S)
Ex 201 Cullin (Dawson and Co) v Bamford (J E Turner)
CP 202 Holroyd (Andrew and B) v Beall (In Person) SJ
CP 203 Haslam (R Wastell) v Driver (Evans and E)

CP 204 Bokenham (S Price) v N Metropolitan Tram Co (H C Godfray) SJ

Ex 205 Macdonald, Field and Co (J N Mason) v Russell, Bart (F
W Mount)

Ex 206 Ibbotson (Bordman) v Buckley and ors (Jukes and Co)
Ex 207 Brogden (Porter and S) v Tahourdin (Tahourdin and H)
Ex 208 Wickham (Rooks and Co) v Earp (Combe and W)
QB 209 Snell (W M Greenip) v Watkins (Clarke, W and R)
CP 210 Tucker (J Tucker) v Redgrave (J Holder)

SJ

Ex 211 Wilson and anr (Yorke and B) v Willina and ors (H W Lindus; C A Swaine)

CP 212 Graves and ors (G R Dodd, jun) v Copland (G Reader) QB 213 Venables (Pike and Son) v Moseley and ors (Kisch, Son and Co)

CP 214 Taylor (C V Lewis) v McKeand and anr (Hicklin and W) CP 215 Todd and anr (Todd and Dennes) v Winckworth (Billing. hurst and W) SJ

Ex 216 Evans (J S Ward) v Williams (Roy and C)

CP 217 Sheffield (G R Burn) v Luck and ors (J Geaussent)
Ex 218 Mears (G T Parker and Co) v Syer (T C Russel)
CP 219 Cooper (Hicks and Arnold) v Cooper (Pawle, F and Co)
Ex 220 Boubée Freres (Plunkett and L) v Siebe (J C Winkworth)
Chy 221 Lewis (Smith, Davies and Co) v Harris (W A Downing)
Ex 222 North Central Wagon Co (Chester, M, H and B) v North
Wales Carriage and Wagon Co (Llewellyn, A and H)
CP 223 Harrap (Noon and C) v North Metropolitan Tram Có (HC
Godfray) SJ

Ex 224 Hobbs (E W and R C Mote) v Baker (J W Cook)
CP 225 Williams (G E Carpenter) v Nowell (A G Ditton)
QB 226 Cresswell (Walls, A and M) v Welsh, Tennent and Wife
(C C Ellis, M and Co) SJ

Ex 227 Mighell (Clennell and F) v Seaton (S Roberts)
Ex 228 Cranfield and Wife (G F Parker) v London, Brighton and
South Coast Ry (Norton, Rose and Co) SJ

CP 229 Wright (F C James) v Freeman (Dixon, W L and W)
CP 230 Bossey (T Beard and Sons) v Easton and anr (T H Devon-
shire) SJ

Ex 231 Dawson (J Mason) v Huggins (H C Morris)

QB 232 Wooder (M Abrahams and R) v Lyon (Peckham, M and P) Chy 233 Sovereign Life Assurance Co limd (Campbell R and H) v

Dent (Crook and S)

QB 234 The Queen (W R Preston) v Heritage (in person) SJ
CP 235 Grigg (G L P Eyre and Co) v Pearce (G Godwin)
Ex 236 Sorrell (Dangerfield and B) v Ottaway (Lumley and L)
Ex 237 Jaques (A H Miller) v London Tram Co lmd (Foss and L) SJ
CP 238 Hyam and Wife (J C Button and Co) v London Gen Omni-
bus Co (Stevens and H) SJ
CP 238a Marshall and anr trading, &e (HR Jones) v Scarborough
Laundry and Washing Co (E Doyle and Sons)

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
(C Parke)

Ex 241 Robiolio (Wordsworth and Co) v Spiers and anr (W HG Jones) SJ

CP 242 London and County Banking Co (Paterson, Sons and G) ▼

Laud (W T Boydell)

Ex 243 Mac Intosh (Morley, R and E) v Page (Lewis and Lewis)
QB 244 Keays (L Keays) v Wallace (G Castle)

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)
ČP 247 Phillips (G Palmer) v Cocks (J Frost)

Ex 248 Golding (Peacock and G) v Gutteridge (Emanuel and Co)
CP 249 Collins (Lewis and Indermauer) v Fuller (J J Harlow)
CP 250 Mason (Parkers) v Coffre (Ley and B)

CP 251 Tatham (W Rawlins) v Tatham (Bicknell and H) CP 252 Hayward Bros (Ashurst, M, C and Co) v Heritage (F Heritage and Co)

QB 253 Risley and anr (Johnson, Upton and Co) v Bultitude and Co (A G Ditton) SJ

Ex 254 Loaring (Janson, C and P) v Gibbs (H A Lovett)

Ex 255 Fleury (Pitman and Lane) v Lamare (Linklater and Co) Ex 256 Norman (Elwes and S) v Robinson and ors (Last and Son Aldridge, T and M) SJ

OP 257 Parks (Chapman and B) v The London Tramways Co (H
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 C Barker)
CP 261 Jackson (B W Jones) v Rose (In Person) com

CP 262 Norsnoss Block Ice Shipping (Herbert and Kent) v Royal
Mail Steam Packet Co (Wilson, B and C)

Ex 263 Warner (C A Swaine) v Edgington and Co (W Evans)
CP 264 James (Lewis and Sons) v James (Evans and E)

QB 265 Edwards (Stibbard, G and Co) v Long (Field, R and Co)
SJ

QB 266 Bellenger (Brighten, J and N) v Macaire (W W King)
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)

Ex 270 Burnell (Rhodes and Son) v Gillespie (Hardwick and J) Ex 271 West Combe Park Estate, limd (Mathews and Smith) ▼ Poulton (S S Seal)

QB 272 Clark and Wife (J P Biggenden) v The North Met Tram Co (HC Godfray) SJ

Ex 273 Hallett (H A Dowse) v Webster (Webster and G)
QB 274 Harrison (Pike and Son) v De Crespigny (J Ellerton)
QB 275 Archard, Extrix (F Bradley) v The Midland Ry Co (Beale,

M, B and G)

QB 276 Bayley, trading, &c (Milne, R and M) v Harrison and Son (W Rawlins)

Ex 277 Anderson and anr (Herbert and Kent) v Royal Mail Steam

Packet Co (Wilson, B and C)

Ex 278 Carpenter (Le Riche and Son) v Lane (Wade and L) SJ
Chy 279 Lovering (Rooks and Co) v Hannen (F Norton)
QB 280 Hubback (Eardley, H and R) v Everett (W R Philp) SJ
CP 281 Scalia (J Knight) v Dalgairns (E Tillyard) com
QB 282 Murray (H Sydney) v Henkriks (Lewis and L)

Ex 283 Goldring and anr (E Jukes) v Headley and ors (Mercer and M)

QB 284 Wildman (J T Hazeldine) v Gillies (Turner and Son)
Ex 285 Prudential Assurance Co, limd (A H Wildman) v Cain (J T

[blocks in formation]

Legal News.

The long controversy in the Times upon photographic copyright has been concluded with a letter from "A 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 photographers artists '-to have his portrait taken, on the usual understanding that he shall pay a sum and receive a certain number of copies or 'prints,' then the copyright, not merely in the prints,' but in the whole of the negatives taken, vests in A. But if B has agreed to take A's portrait without any payment, because it is understood that he may make a profit by selling 'prints,' then the copyright in the negative vests in B, and A cannot stop 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 Court, taking his seat for the first time at the Guildhall, Bristol, Mr. J. H. Clifton, as senior member of the profession present, in welcoming his Honour, said that his Honour, he was sure, would feel that in welcoming him to the court he could not help alluding with very great regret to the departure of one who had endeared himself to them all-his learned predecessor, Mr. Fisher. His urbanity and kindness to them all bad strongly attached him to them; and he spoke in the name of all the practitioners in that court when he said that they regretted his loss very acutely. He trusted that, as his successor, the learned judge might be long spared to preside in that court, and speaking for the members of the profession, he hoped they would endeavour to demean themselves towards his Honour in the same way as they had towards his predecessor, so as to win his Honour's esteem. His Honour said he thanked them very much for the kind expression of opinion they had bestowed upon him. As regarded his late predecessor, he was not at all surprised to hear that he had endeared himself to every class of men with whom he had been brought into contact, and that they very much regretted his loss. He was quite satisfied, from what he had heard of the gentlemen practising 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 many years ago, some twenty-five, he had the honour of sitting for the late Serjeant Storks in one district. Still the practice was somewhat novel to him, and he hoped they would extend their kindness towards him, and co-operate with him, not taking advantage of his inexperience in these matters, but endeavouring to carry out the ends of justice for the benefit of the public.

In Sergeant v. Roberts (1 Pick. 377), says the Central Law Journal, after a case had been heard and the jury had been out six hours, the foreman wrote to the judge stating that they could not agree and asking for directions. The judge, the court having adjourned, answered in writing that he was unwilling to let them separate, and giving them further instructions. He also directed them to bring his letter into court to be filed with the papers. They then agreed upon a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff moved for a new trial, on the ground of the communication, which was granted by the Supreme Court, Parker, C.J., stating the law of the question thus:-"The object of the note of the foreman was probably to obtain leave for the jury to separate, and the answer of the judge was calculated to enable them to revise the case in a systematic manner, in the hope that such a revision would produce a union of opinion on one side or the other of the cause. It probably had that effect. As it is impossible, we think, to complain of the substance of the communication, the only question is whether any communication at all is proper, and if it was not, the party against whom the verdict was, is entitled to a new trial. And we are all of opinion, after considering the question maturely, that no communication whatever ought to take place between the judge and the jury, after the cause has been committed to them by the charge of the judge, unless in open court, and where practicable, in presence of the counsel in the cause. The oath administered to the officer seems to indicate this as the proper course. suffer no person to speak to them, nor to speak to them himself unless to ask them whether they are agreed; and he

He is to

[blocks in formation]

son.

Enf.Pr. 54 per Cent., May, 81
Ditto Debentures, 4 per Cent
April, '64

Do.Do,5 per Cent., Aug. "73
Do. Bonds, 4 per Cent. £1000
Ditto, ditto, under £1000

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS

BIRTHS. ADDISON.-November 3, at 3, Lime-grove, Manchester, the wife of John Addison, barrister-at-law, recorder of Preston, of a BRADSHAW.-Nov. 1, at South Bailey, Durham, the wife of Thomas Bradshaw, judge of county courts, of a daughSTOCKEN.-Oct. 29, at Richmond, Surrey, the wife of Walter Stocken, solicitor, of a son. DEATHS. ASHWELL.-Nov. 9, at Brunel-terrace, Nottingham, John M. Ashwell, solicitor, aged 51.

ter.

ROBERSON.-Nov. 2, at St. Leonard's-on-Sea, Charles James Scholey Roberson, solicitor, late of Oxford, aged 72.

LONDON GAZETTES.

Bankrupts.

FRIDAY, NOV. 7, 1879.

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.

To Surrender in London.

Birks, Charles, Bow lane, Commission Agent. Pet Oct 31. Murray. Nov 21 at 12

Friend, Charles Thomas, Penywern rd, South Kensington. Pet Nov 5. Brougham. Nov 18 at 11.30

Scott, Thomas, Pentonville rd, Marble Merchant. Pet Nov 6. Hazlitt. Nov 26 at 11

To Surrender in the Country. Andrews, Joseph, and Wilkinson Andrews, Clayton, York, Joiners. Pet Nov 4. Robinson. Bradford, Nov 18 at 9 Dold, Anton, Great Grimsby, Jeweller. Pet Nov 3. Daubney. Great Grimsby, Nov 19 at 1

Finding, Samuel, Bedford, Watchmaker. Pet Nov 5. Pearse. Bedford, Nov 20 at 10.30

Gibson, Henry, Rowlands Castle, Southampton. Pet Nov 3. Renny. Portsmouth, Dec 4 at 12

Kershaw, Thomas, Over Darwen, Lancaster, Builder. Pet Nov 3. Bolton. Black burn, Nov 20 at 11

Sharp, John, Bristol, Baker. Pet Nov 4. Harley. Bristol, Nov 19 at 2 Skuse, Peter, Wavertree, Lancaster, Licensed Victualler. Pet Nov 5. Bellringer. Liverpool, Nov 19 at 11

Ward, James, Liverpool, Metal Dealer. Pet Nov 4. Bellringer. Liverpool, Nov 18 at 11

TUESDAY, Nov. 11, 1879.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »