SOLICITORS' AND REGISTRARS' GOWNS.
BARRISTERS' AND QUEEN'S COUNSEL'S DITTO,

TOWANAPITALISTS £500, 1,000, SOMICITORS Spare

Capital on good Reversionary Securities. Good Interest and other advantages. Address B., care of Smith, Stationer, 14, Cursitor-street, Chancery-lane, E.C.

TO BE SOLD.-Freehold House and Shop, situate

at St. John's Wood, let on repairing lease at £75 per annum.Apply to Mr. TURNER, Auctioneer, 47, Moorgate-street, E.C.

YOUNG IRISH SOLICITOR, who has

CORPORATION ROBES UNIVERSITY & CLERGY GOWNS, &C A practised in Ireland for four years, would be glad to re-serve

ESTABLISHED 1689.

94. CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

RESTAURANT PARISIEN (LATE MADME. JANET),

10, CASTLE-STREET, HOLBORN
(OPPOSITE THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY).
First-class Luncheon Bar for gentlemen in the neighbor hood. Public
and Private Dining Rooms. Dinners for 3s. 6d., 4s. 6d., 5. 6d., 7s. 6d.,
and 10s. 6d. Will be served in the Private Dining Rooms; no extra
charge for room or pianoforte. Choicest Wines, Beer, and Spirits.-
Proprietors, DOBER BROTHERS.

AN IMPORTANT CONVENIENCE TO LAW WRITERS AND
SOLICITORS.

his articles with a good London firm. No premium to be asked for. He would be willing to devote his whole time to the service of the business. For particulars as to salary, &e., please apply to X. X., 41, Waterloo-street, Birmingham.

WA

ANTED, by a Highly-Respectable Married Person, CARE of OFFICES or CHAMBERS. Thorough good Cook and Housekeeper. Could cater for two or three Gentlemen. Husband employed during the day. Would sleep on the premises. Seven years' good reference. No family. Can furnish own rooms, if requred.-B. W., 170, Upper Kennington-lane.

STEPHENS' SCARLET INK FOR STEEL PENS LAWA Solicitor (admitted 1879)

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 Impe al Quarts of 40 ounces at 6s. each. Also in glass bottles at 6d. and 1s. each.

desires a

Managing Clerkship (Conveyancing or Chancery, or both) with slight supervision, and with or without a view to Partnership. Unusually good references.-Apply, A. B., "Solicitors' Journal" Office, Carey-street, Chancery-lace, W.C.

LA

AW COSTS and ACCOUNTS.-An experienced Bill Clerk offers his services. Understands Accounts, including Kains', Knowledge of Conveyancing and General Business Department or otherwise. Shorthand writer.-ROWLAND, 4, Highbury-parade,

Bristol.

COSTS Drawn and Settled on Fair Terms by a

Solicitor who has had 20 years' experience in settling costs and legal accounts in offices with large practices.-Address Costs, 117, Chancery-lane, W.C.

WANTED to PURCHASE, to Complete a Set, price for the whole or any single vol. to ALPHA, care of E. W. Owles, Esq., 22, Chancery-lane, W.c.

THE CHURCH

PREFERMENT

GAZETTE

(issued Monthly), containing full particulars of Advow sons, Presentations, &c., for sale, together with useful advice to purchasers, should be referred to by every purchaser. Edited by Mr. W. EMERY STARK (Associate Institute of Actuaries, F.R.G.S., &c.).-Address (enclosing six stamps), Messrs. W. EMERY STARK, 23, Beaford-street, Strand.

CITY OFFICES.-Five First-floor Rooms, with

separate entrance, in a leading City thoroughfare. Suitable for a Solicitor or other professional man. Rent moderate.-Apply to CHARLES HIGHAM, 27, Farringdon-street, London, E.C.

KINAHAN'S LL WHISKY Gold Medal, Paris STRO

Exhibition, 1878; Dublin Exhibition, 1865, the Gold Medal.
20, Great Titchfield Street, London, W.

CO.' S OWN SAUCE.

BRAND AND
OUPS, PRESERVED PROVISIONS,

SOUP

TRONG ROOMS.-To LET, in New-square, Lincoln's-inn, on the Ground and Basement Floors, with separate entrance from ground floor, two large strong rooms, with Chubb's fittings and all modern improvements and lavatory, &c.-Apply to Z., care of Mr. Eyre, Law Stationer, 14, New-square, Lincoln's-inn.

RE

EVERSIONARY and LIFE INTERESTS in
LANDED or FUNDED PROPERTY or other Securities and
Annuities PURCHASED, or Loans or Annuities thereon granted,
by the EQUITABLE REVERSIONARY INTEREST SOCIETY (LIMI
Capital, £500,000. Interest on Loans may be capitalized.
F. S. CLAYTON,
C. H. CLAYTON, Secretaries.
LONDON GAZETTE (published by authority) and LONDON and
COUNTRY ADVERTISEMENT OFFICE.

TED), 10, Lancaster-place, Waterloo Bridge, Strand. Established 1835.

No. 117, CHANCERY LANE, FLEET STREET.

Joint

S PECIALITIES for INVALIDS. HENRY GREEN, Advertisement Agent, begs to

CAUTION:-BEWARE OF IMITATIONS.
Sole Address,

11, LITTLE STANHOPE STREET, MAYFAIR, W.

direct the attention of the Legal Profession to the advantages of his long experience of upwards of thirty years, in the special in sertion of all pro forma notices, &c., and hereby solicits their continued support.-N.B. One copy of advertisement only required, and the strictest care and promptitude assured. Officially stamped forms for adverstise ment and file of "London Gazette " kept. By appointment.

Solicitors' Journal. the foot, and others have not. Some are preceded by the

LONDON, MAY 29, 1880.

CONTENTS.

CURRENT TOPICS:

The Leases Bill..

The Rules of the Supreme Court

What is Legal Time?

Marriage Settlement Costs

The Government Employers' Liability Bill

LEADERS

567

567

567

Rules of the Stock Exchange and the Law of Bankruptcy 569 Recent Decisions on Disclaimer by Trustee in Bankruptcy 570 570 ................................ 571

RECENT DECISIONS

REVIEWS

GENERAL CORESPONDENCE ...

572

the signatures of the judges who make them printed at order of the Lord Chancellor made periodically under the 17th section of "The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876," and in some cases this order is omitted. For example, all the Rules of the Supreme Court up to those of March 22, 1879, were preceded by the then current order of the Lord Chancellor, and bore the signatures of the several judges making them; the rules of March 22, 1879, though preceded by the order, had no names of judges printed at the foot. The Rules of December, 1879, were issued in a similar form, but those of April, 1880, showed neither the authority to make the rules, nor the names of the judges making them. In May, 1880, the Rules are issued without the authority to make them being shown, but with an array of eight judges' names at the foot. It is not particularly important that all the details relating to the questions of who made the rules and by what authority should be set forth, but want of uniform practice in such a matter is to be deprecated as

Dodson v. Martin........................................... 572 likely to lead to questions which, without reference to Johnson v Egan

the original signed documents, would be hard to solve. It may be suggested that the last mode employed is the best, and that the signatures of the judges, being ap...................................................................... 574 pended, they may be presumed to have acted under proper authority.

........................................................................................ 574

MR. MARTEN's Leases Bill of last session has been re-introduced in a somewhat altered form by Mr. Warton. It is now proposed to be provided that no proviso for re-entry for breach of any covenant in any lease shall be enforced, except with the consent and by the order of the High Court of Justice, to be obtained on application made by claim or defence in any action, or by motion in a summary manner. Upon such application the court may refuse to give effect to such proviso, and may relieve against the forfeiture, either absolutely or upon terms as to making good the breach of covenant or payment of compensation, &c. We fail to see that the addition to the original clause is an improvement. It does not appear that the tenant is to be served with notice of the motion by the landlord for an order to enforce the forfeiture, and the notion of throwing the onus of applying to the court and of justifying his re-entry on the landlord is very unfair. The proper provision is that adopted by Lord Cairns-viz., that the landlord should not re-enter until after due notice to the tenant, requiring him to remedy the breach -a provision which would, in many instances, lead to a settlement of the questions in dispute-but that in case the dispute be not so terminated, and the landlord proceeds, by action or otherwise, to enforce his right of re-entry, the lessee should have the right to apply for relief to the court, which relief the court may refuse or grant upon terms.

AS A MATTER OF CURIOSITY, it would be interesting to know why, among other peculiarities in the publication of Rules of the Supreme Court, some have

A CURIOUS DISCUSSION has been raised as to legal time. It may be material for many purposes to ascertain the correct hour at which an event happened, or at which a poll is to be closed. How is this to be ascertainedby Greenwich or by mean time? In Curtis v. Marsh (28 L. J. Ex. 36), the facts were that Mr. Baron Watson came into court at Dorchester precisely at ten o'clock as it appeared by the clock at the Town Hall; but. this clock was regulated by Greenwich time, and was several minutes faster than the clock outside the hall, and other clocks in the town. No one appearing for the defendant in an action (an ejectment which stood first on the list), the plaintiff's counsel took a verdict for the plaintiff. Afterwards the defendant's counsel appeared and said he was in time according to the clocks in the town. The judge pressed consent that the cause the plaintiff's counsel to should be tried, but the plaintiff's attorney would not consent unless the defendant would find security for costs, which he was unable to do, and the verdict stood. Upon a rule to set aside the verdict, Pollock, C.B., said that the time a court ought to go by is the time of the town in which the court sits, and not Greenwich time; the true time is the "mean time" at that place, and not Greenwich time. This opinion might be convenient at the time it was uttered, but in this, as in other respects, a good many things have happened since. As a correspondent of the Times points out, all our clocks now keep Greenwich time. No person knows any other time, and common sense seems to say.now that that is the most convenient time to keep.

UPON THE QUESTION raised by our correspondents last week as to liability for marriage settlement costs, the case of Helps v. Clayton and wife (13 W. R. 161) is in point. It was there held by the Court of Common Pleas that "the retainer is to be considered as that of the lady or her parent, as the case may be, but usage makes the husband liable to indemnify whoever, on the part of the wife, has properly incurred expense by retaining the solicitor to prepare a settlement, in the preparing of which the latter has so large an interest." It was in this case that the late Mr. Cookson, to whom the question whether a marriage settlement of personalty should be prepared by the solicitor of the husband or of the wife, decided that the practice in the profession was that the lady's solicitor should draw the settlements; and, he added, the gentlemen has the privilege

of paying for them. A very little consideration will
show the origin and reason of the rule. All marriage
settlements were originally, and most of them are still,
entered into for the protection of the wife, who, without
this protection, would, at least until the passing of the
Act of 1870, not only have been deprived of all her
own personal property by the marriage, but left without
any provision out of her husband's property, except
such as he might chance voluntarily to make for her. It
is true that, down to 1834, her right of dower was,
where the husband was seised of real estate, of consider-
able value, but it was not of a nature to be easily avail-
able for a provision even in the event of widowhood, and
it had no existence at all during the coverture. This
being so, the general principle that every grant
ought to be prepared by or on behalf of the grantee,
whose interest it is that it should be valid and effectual,
and approved by or for the grantor, who is only
concerned to see that it does not go beyond the
contract, applied to this case, and as the benefit of
the settlement accrued to the wife, she was the proper
person to give instructions for its preparation, and the
duty of preparing it accordingly devolved on her solicitor.
But when the costs came to be paid, she was a married
woman, and therefore, as the law then stood, not only
not liable to be sued, but having a husband liable for all
her debts, as well pre-nuptial as others; the husband
therefore was legally bound to pay these costs, at any
rate whenever the wife was herself the client of the
solicitor to whom they were due; and as it was clearly
the interest of this solicitor to get payment from the hus-
band-who was ordinarily a stranger to him-rather than
from the wife's father, who would generally be his own
client, the course adopted was to treat the instruc-
tions as coming from the lady herself, and in that form
to send in the bill of costs to the husband or his solicitor.
This practice the Court of Common Pleas in the case
above referred to treated as a usage binding the husband
to indemnify anyone who on behalf of the wife has retained
a solicitor to prepare the marriage settlement. We
apprehend that the late changes in the law as to the
husband's liability for his wife's pre-nuptial debts, how-
ever much they bear upon the reason for the usage, do
not affect the decision based upon that usage; and that,
at all events, until the doctrine of Helps v. Clayton has
been considered by the Court of Appeal, the husband must
pay
the costs.

gence which may work extensive mischief at any moment and involve the employer in ruinous liability. He says nothing about it; he dare not, for fear of losing his place, inform the employer. The mischief results. We think it is unjust that the employer should have to compensate that workman or his family if he is killed or injured. The man may be a fit subject for pity and excuse, but we think that no one but a person whose mind is thoroughly warped by class feeling could doubt as to the justice of the case. It will be said that this case would

be covered by the provision of the Bill that exempts from its operation cases where the workman injured materially contributes by his own negligence to the cause of his injury. We doubt this very much. This, however, is a matter of detail. We think on the whole that, if duly limited, some such provision as that contemplated by this second head must be accepted. It seems now inevitable from the course discussion on the subject has taken. With regard to the first head above. mentioned-viz,, where the injury is occasioned by defective works, &c., we entertain doubts. So far as the works are defective through the negligence of the master himself, the present law seems sufficient; so far as they are so through the negligence of a superintendent employé, the second head seems to cover the first. We doubt whether anything further than this ought to be included. The machinery may be defective through the negligence of an ordinary co-employé. Suppose a fellow-miner allows his Davy lamp to get out of order under circumstances involving no negligence on the part of the overlooker, is the master to be responsible for the results of an explosion? The third head seems to us rather doubtful, but we suppose the same principle is involved as in the case of the second head. The notion is that the vice-master's negligence is to be that of the master. The fourth head divides itself into two branches. The first is where the injury arises from the act or omission of any person in the employer's service done or made in obedience to the employer's rules or bye-laws. We do not like this phraseology. If the act is done or omitted by the employer's direction, we should think the present law sufficiently meets the case, assuming that the act is one the doing or omitting of which, on the part of the employer himself, would be negligent. But we can see all sorts of difficulties arising from the language used. The act may be one which would give no cause of action against the employer himself, and yet, apparently, according to the words, if it can be said liable. The second branch of this head seems to depend to be the cause of the injury, the employer is to be on the same principle as the second and third beads. We expect that these provisions, if the Bill becomes law, will give abundant opportunity to the courts for the exercise of their powers of interpretation. We only hope that they will not be found to do much mischief by subjecting various branches of industry to intoler

able conditions.

THE BILL on the subject of Employers' Liability, which has been introduced by the Government, is now printed. It proposes to make the employer responsible, first, where the injury to the servant is occasioned by reason of defective works, machinery, plant, or stock connected with the employer's business. Secondly, where the injury is due to the negligence of any person in the employer's service who has superintendence intrusted to him. Thirdly, where the negligence is on the part of any person in the employer's service to whose orders or directions the workman is bound to conform; and, fourthly, where the injury arises from the act or omission of any person in the employer's service done or made in obedience to the employer's rules or bye-laws, or in obedience to instructions given by any person delegated with the employer's authority on that behalf. It seems to us that the principle of the second head above referred to may perhaps be admitted. If a person in the position of a vicemaster foreman or is negligent, we think it may perhaps be right that the master should The Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary suffer, though even here great difficulty arises. Oaths, which was presented on the 20th inst, was to the The idea often put forward is effect that, in the opinion of the committee, persons entitled dare not complain of a person who is in authority, and under the provisions of the Law of Evidence Amendment if the master puts a person in such a position he must Act, 1869, and the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, 1870, to make a solemn declaration instead of an oath in take the consequence of such a delegation of authority, courts of justice, cannot be admitted to make an otherwise the workman is in a cleft stick, and has affirmation or declaration instead of an oath in no redress. There is a very dangerous doctrine really the House of Commons, in pursuance of the provisions involved in this. Take this case. The workman knows of the Act of the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 19, and of the 31 & 32 Vict.

that the servant

It appears from the Blue Book containing "Statement and Abstracts of Reports deposited with the Board of Trade under the Act of 1870, for the year 1878" that twentyalone the sum of £934,270, or more than one-seventh of eight British insurance companies paid away for commission the whole amount of premiums for fire insurances.

that the superintending person is guilty of some negli- I c. 72.