Page images
PDF
EPUB

and sent to him by the grantor. This was done, and a receipt for the purchase-money was signed by the grantor. But no money passed, or was intended to pass, it being intended that the purchase-money should be set off against the grantee's liability on the promissory note. The grantee paid the note when it be came due, and a few days afterwards the grantor filed a liquidation petition, and was ultimately adjudicated a bankrupt. When the petition was filed the goods which had been sent to the grantee remained in his possession, and were not in the apparent possesion of the grantor, Bacon, C.J., held that the transaction by which the grantee had obtained possession of the goods amounted to a fraudulent preference, and he ordered the grantee to return the goods to the trustee, or to pay the value of them. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, COTTON, and THES IGER, L.JJ.) reversed this decision, on the ground that the property in the goods had passed to the grantee by the bill of sale, and his title to them could not be impeached under the Bills of Sale Act, because they were not in the apparent possession of the bankrupt at the time when the act of bankruptcy was committed. It did not make any difference that the grantee had obtained possession of the goods by means of a transaction which would have been a fraudulent preference, if there bad been no bill of sale.-SOLICITORS, C. J. Mander; Fletcher, St. Paul, & Co.

COPYHOLDS-ENCROACHMENT BY TENANT ON WASTE NATURE OF TITLE ACQUIRED.-In a case of The AttorneyGeneral v. Tomline, before the Court of Appeal on the 4th inst., the question was raised whether, when a copyhold tenant encroaches on the waste of the manor, he acquires a copyhold or a freehold title to the land the subject of the encroachment. The action was brought by the AttorneyGeneral, on behalf of the Crown, to restrain the lord of a manor from digging for coprolites under a portion of the inclosure surrounding a martello tower, which was in the possession of the Secretary of State for War. The inclosure was of a rectangular shape, and may be considered as divided by a diagonal line into two parts, which may be described as the north-west and south-east parts of the rectangle. The digging complained of had taken place in the south-east part. The north-west part was in June, 1809, surrendered for value to a tenant, in trust for the Crown. There was evidence that in 1819 both parts formed one inclosure, surrounded with one fence, and occupied by the Crown as the site and inclosure of a martello tower, the tower standing on the north-west part. There were to be found on the court rolls of the manor successive admissions of tenants on behalf of the Crown to the north-west part, but the Crown could show nothing but a possessory title to the south-east part, that possession being traced back to 1819. But in November, 1808, the then lord of the manor had granted a licence to the then governor of a fort in the neighbourhood to inclose the southeast part, which was then waste of the manor, to hold to him during his life, or so long as he should continue to fill the office of governor. He ceased to hold that office in 1811. He had used the land thus inclosed as a garden. There was nothing to show the history of the south-east part between 1811 and 1819, when it was, as already stated, shown to have been in the possession of the Crown as part of the inclosure of the tower. Under these circumstances Fry, J., held that the Crown had acquired a copyhold title to the south-east part of the rectangle. He was of opinion that the principle of the cases in which it has been held that a leasehold tenant who encroaches on waste land adjoining his tenement, does so for the benefit of his landlord, and that the encroachment becomes an accretion to his original holding, applies equally as between the lord of a manor and his copyhold tenant (vide 21 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 559, 25 W. R. 803, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 750). And his lordship held the coprolites are minerals, and consequently that the lord of the manor could not dig for them (though they were his property) under a copyhold tenement without the consent of the tenant. And he granted an injunction to restrain the defendant from digging under the south-east part of the rectangle, and directed an inquiry as to damages. When the chief clerk had made his certificate the defendant objected that a sufficient deduction had not been made from the gross proceeds of the sale of the coprolites, and he moved to vary the certificate. Fry J, refused the application, and it was then renewed

before the Court of Appeal. The udgment at the trial, as drawn up, contained no declaration of the title of the Crown to the south-east part of the rectangle, and consequently it was open to the Court of Appeal (though the time for appealing from the judgment had expired) to support the finding as to the damages, either on the ground that the Crown had acquired a copy hold title, or on the ground that it had acquired a freehold title to the south-east part. The court (JAMES, COTTON, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) held that under the particular circumstances of the case the Crown must be taken to have acquired a freehold title, and on this ground they dismissed the appeal. And, though it was unnecessary to decide the point, they also intimated an opinion that the principle of the decisions as to encroachments by leaseholders does not apply as between the lord of a manor and his copyhold tenant.-SOLICITORS W. Tindal Perkins; W. F. Stokes.

MORTGAGE-CONSOLIDATION-DEFAULT UPON ONE MORTGAGE ONLY.-Ou the 8th inst. the Court of Appeal (JAMES, COTTON, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) reversed the decision of Hall, V.C., in the case of Cummins v. Fletcher (28 W. R. 272). The question was as to the right of a mortgagee to consolidate two mortgages upon different properties of the same mortgagor. One of the mortgages was executed in 1871; the other was executed in 1874. Both of them were given to a building society, and provided for the payment of the principal and interest by instalments. Default had been made in payment of the instalments payable under the mortgage of 1874, but no default had been made in respect of the mortgage of 1871. The mortgagees claimed the right to consolidate their two mortgages, and insisted that the mortgage of 1871, which was a more than sufficient security, could not be redeemed except on the terms of the mortgage of 1874, which was insufficient, being also redeemed. Hall, V.C., held that the right to consolidate existed. The Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of consolidation had no application when there was no default upon one of the two mortgagee. JAMES, L.J., said that consolidation is the condition which a court of equity imposes on a mortgagor who invokes its aid to relieve him from the legal consequences of his default. If he had not committed default, he was entitled at law to the reconveyance of his estate, and he did not need the assistance of a court of equity, and that court had no right to impose any condition.-SOLICITORS, J. Crowdy & Son; Wilde, Berger, & Co.

[ocr errors]

POWER OF APPOINTMENT - EXERCISE - GENERAL BE. QUEST BY WILL-CONTRARY INTENTION-WILLS ACT, s. 27. On the 7th inst. the Court of Appeal (JAMES, COTTON, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision of Bacon, V.C., in Maddick v. Marks (28 W. R. 342). The question was whether a general bequest in a will operated as an exercise of a power of appointment by deed or will reserved to the testator in a settlement of personal estate. The settlement was a voluntary one, executed by the testator himself in June, 1866. The will was dated in September, 1871. It contained no reference to the power, but there was a bequest of the residue of the testator's personal estate. The testator, in December, 1873, made a codicil to his will, in which he referred to both the will and the settlement, but did not revoke the will. It was contended that the reference to the settlement in the codicil showed that the testator treated it as still subsisting, and thus manifested an intention that its provisions should not be defeated by the residuary bequest in the will. Bacon, V.C., held that there was no manifestation of a • contrary intention," and that the power had been exercised by the will, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Their lordships intimated their disagreement with a pas sage in Lord St. Leonards on Powers (8th ed., p. 305) in which he expresses his approval of the decision in Moss v. Harter (2 W. R. 540, 2 S. & G. 458).-SOLICITORS, Wilkin son & Son; Phillips & Son.

PRACTICE DISCOVERY - RIGHT OF DEFENDANT TO COUNTER-CLAIM TO INTERROGATE PLAINTIFF IN ORIGINAL ACTION-JUDICATURE ACT, 1873, ss. 24 (SUB-SECTION 3) 40 —Ord. 16, rr. 13, 17-21-ORD. 22, RR. 5-9-ORD. 31, R. 1.-In a case of Molloy v. Kilby, before the Court of

Appeal on the 9th inst., the question was raised whether a person, who is made a co-defendant to a counter-claim with the plaintiff in the original action, is entitled to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiff. The co-defendant to the counter-claim claimed the property which was the subject of the action adversely to the plaintiff, but he had not been made a party to the action. It was argued that, though the defendant was not strictly an "opposite" party to the plaintiff, yet he was opposite in interest to him, and was, therefore, entitled, by virtue of rule 1 of order 31, to obtain discovery from him by means of interrogatories. And reliance was placed on the decision in McAllister v. Bishop of Rochester (28 W. R. 584, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 194), that the plaintiff in an action is entitled, under rule 11 of order 31, to discovery of documents by a person on whom a third-party notice has been served, and who has entered an appearance in the action. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R.. and COTTON and THESIGER, L.JJ.) affirmed the order of Hall, V.C., refusing to allow the defendant to the counterclaim to interrogate his co-defendant, the plaintiff in the original action. JESSEL, M.R., said that the answer to the application was that there was no issue raised between the applicant and the original plaintiff, and his lordship was at a loss to imagine any interpretation of the words "opposite party" which would include a codefendant. Co-defendants were, so to say, side by side parties, not opposite parties. If a defendant to a counterclaim desired to interrogate the plaintiff in the original action, and had a proper case, he could apply to the court under rule 13 of order 16 to be made a defendant to the original action, and, if he was made a defendant to that action, he would have a right, as an "opposite party," to interrogate the plaintiff. COTTON, L.J., said that the question really was whether one co-defendant to an action had a right to interrogate another co-defendant. Counterclaims were allowed for the purpose of saving expense, but & counter-claim was really an independent action. The plaintiff was not plaintiff in that actior, but in another Opposite parties were parties between whom issues had been raised, parties who were face to face. If a third party was brought in by notice and became an opposite party to the plaintiff, then no doubt the right to interrogate would exist. THESIGER, L.J., said that in the case cited a litigation had originated between the plaintiff and the third parties; they had become " opposite parties."―SOLICITORS, Boxall & Boxall; W. Lane O'Neill.

action.

[ocr errors]

--

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT -IMPORTATION SALE COSTS OF ACTION-KNOWLEDGE OF PIRACY-COPYRIGHT ACT (5&6 VICT. c. 45), 's. 17.-In a case of Cooper v. Whittingham, before the Master of the Rolls on the 4th inst., a question arose whether a defendant ought to pay the costs of an action under the following circumstances. The defendants were agents for some publishers in America of a monthly magazine. The plaintiff was proprietor of a similar magazine in England, and received a copy of the American magazine, prior to its being sent to the defendants, which contained some pirated letterpress and drawings from his magazine. On this the plaintiff gave notice to the defendants of the fact of the piracy and not to sell any of the copies of the magazine when they arrived. The defendants on the arrival of the parcel of magazines saw that it contained piracies from the plaintiff's publication, and determined not to sell or publish any of the copies. On the same day of the arrival, the defendants were served with a copy of the writ in the action and an interim injunction not to import, sell, or publish any of the pirated magazines. The defendants subsequently gave an undertaking in the terms asked for and put in a defence stating the above facts. On motion for judgment they contended they ought not to pay the costs of the action. Section 17 of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, is in part as follows: "And be it enacted that after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any person not being the proprietor of the copyright, or some person authorized by him, to import into any part of the United Kingdom, or into any other part of the British dominions for sale or hire, any printed book first composed or written or printed or published in any part of the United Kingdom wherein there shall be copyright and reprinted in any country or place whatsoever out of the British dominions." JESSEL, M.R., said that when a plaintiff established a legal right, and no misconduct or omission or neglect on his part sufficient to deprive him of his costs were shown, he was entitled to his costs as a matter of right. Such misconduct might be of any nature, or there might

be a miscarriage in the proceedings, or vexatious conduct on a plaintiff's part, or in the mode of conducting the proceedings sufficient to deprive him of his costs. Where a man asserted a legal right, and the defendant simply said if he had known he would not have infringed that legal right, that, in his opinion, was not sufficient to deprive him of his costs; and according to section 17 of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, it was an offence to import pirated works, and, therefore, people who imported such things did so at their own peril. There was nothing said in the section as to knowledge on the part of the offender, and he must look out that the books he imported were not piracies. The defendants in the present case had imported certain pirated works, and had thereby, in his opinion, committed an unlawful act, and the plaintiff could sue them without any notice. The giving them notice was no doubt an act of courtesy, but was wholly unnecessary to establish an offence under the section. The defendants no doubt did not intend to infringe the copyright by selling, but their offence was the receiving for sale, and the costs, under the circumstances, must be given as a matter of course to the plaintiff. In his opinion courts of equity had always had the power of preventing a threatened illegal act by granting an injunction, but at all events, under the Judicature Act, he certainly considered they had such a jurisdiction. Defendants frequently had the idea they could escape paying the costs of an action merely because they did not intend to do wrong, but somebody must pay the costs, and he did not see who else but the defendant could pay them.— SOLICITORS, Alfred Hicks, & Arnold; Merriman, Pike, & Merriman,

PRACTICE-COSTS AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENTADMINISTRATION ACTION-CREDITOR'S ACTION-CREDITOR HAVING CONDUCT.-In a case of Re Richardson, Richardson v. Richardson, before the Master of the Rolls on the 7th inst., the action was commenced by the administrator of an estate against the sole next of kin for administration. The estate turned out to be insufficient for the payment of debts and the action was not prosecuted by the plaintiff. The conduct of the action was subsequently given to a creditor, and he now applied on further consideration for his costs as between solicitor and

client. It was contended that the creditor having the conduct was in the position of a creditor instituting an administration action, in which case costs had been allowed on that footing. It was also argued that even in an action instituted by a beneficiary, where the assets were deficient, the plaintiff was entitled to his costs as between solicitor and client, and reliance was placed upon a case of Re Burrell (9 Eq. 443). JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that Re Burrell was not correctly decided on the point as to costs. The correct rule had been laid down by Kindersley, V.C., in Thomas v. Jones (1 Dr. & Sm. 134), in an elaborate judgment, and the principle there laid down was that in a creditor's suit where the assets were deficient, it being in fact his own fund, the costs would be allowed as between solicitor and client.

That

rule did not apply to a suit instituted by a residuary legatee and à fortiori to the case of a next of kin, as the fund where assets were deficient to pay debts could not be said to be the plaintiff's fund. In Re Burrell that case had not been cited nor another case of Wetenhall v. Dennis (12 W. R. 66), following Thomas v. Jones, and James, V.C., could certainly

In the pre

not have intended to overrule both those cases. sent case, as the administrator had declined to go on with the action, and the conduct had been given to a creditor, it in fact became a creditor's action, and the principle as laid down in Thomas v. Jones applied, and, therefore, the plaintiff would have his costs of the action as between solicitor and client. The defendant, the next of kin, would have only party and party costs.-SOLICITORS, Pritchard, Englefield, & Co.; Miller, Smith, & Bell; Pawle & Fearon.

PRACTICE-OBJECTION OF WANT OF PARTIES-NOTICE TO

THIRD PARTY-Costs-Ord. 16, rR. 17, 19.-In a case of The Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 v. The Royal Horticultural Society, before Fry, J., on the 5th inst., the defendants by their statement of defence had taken the objection that some other persons ought to be parties to the action, but they did not before the trial make any application to have those persons brought before the court. At the trial the defendants' counsel in opening their case insisted on the objection, and FRY, J., was of opinion that rule 17 of order

16 applied, and that it was desirable that the question in the action should be determined, not only as between the plaintiffs and the defendants, but as between the defendants and the third parties. He accordingly adjourned the trial for a week, and directed the plaintiffs, under rule 19, to serve a notice of the motion and of its object on the persons in question, informing them that they were at liberty to attend the proceedings. But, inasmuch as the defendants might have applied to the court before the trial, his lordship ordered them to pay the costs of the day.-SOLICITORS, Fladgate, Smith, & Fladgate; Webb, Stock, & Burt.

PRACTICE-THIRD PARTY NOTICE-COSTS-Ord. 16, rr. 17-21.-In a case of Witham v. Vane, before Fry, J., on the 7th inst., a question arose as to the costs of some third parties upon whom notice of the action had been served at the instance of the defendants, who claimed indemnity from them against any liability which might be imposed upon the defendants as the result of the action. The third parties appeared, and at their instance a notice was served on some fourth parties, from whom they, in their turn, claimed indemnity. The fourth parties also appeared. At the trial judgment was given for the defendants on the substantial question in the action, and FRY, J., ordered the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the third and fourth parties. This decision appears to differ from that in Williams v. South-Eastern Railway Company (26 W. R. 352), which, however, was not cited to the court. See also The Yorkshire Waggon Company v. The Newport, &c., Coal Company (28 W. R. 505, L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 268).--SOLICITORS, Markby, Wilde, & Burra; Parkin, Pagden, & Woodhouse; Rogerson & Ford; Horns & Murray; Benn Davis.

SOLICITOR-APPLICATION AT SUGGESTION OF JUDGE TO STRIKE OFF ROLL-JURISDICTION-COSTS-ORD. 51, R. laORDER OF LORD CHANCELLOR OF 19TH JUNE, 1877-JUDICATURE ACT, 1873, s. 87.-In a case of Cave v. Cave, before Fry, J., on the 4th inst., a question arose as to the jurisdiction to entertain an application to strike a solicitor off the roll. At the trial of the action, FRY, J., was of opinion that a solicitor, who was one of the defendants, had been guilty of improper conduct, and he communicated this to the official solicitor. The cfficial solicitor then applied for leave to serva notice of motion on the solicitor, to show cause why he should not be struck off the roll. FRY, J., was at first disposed to think that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application which was made, not only in the action, but also in the matter of the solicitor. Rule la of order 57, he said, gave him power to order that any proceeding in the action subsequent to the trial should be taken before himself. But the Lord Chancellor's order of the 19th of June, 1877, directed that no causes or matters should be assigned to Fry, J., by being marked by the plaintiff or petitioner with his It was pointed out by the counsel for the applicant that, by section 87 of the Judicature Act, 1873, every judge of the High Court has jurisdiction over solicitors, and it was urged that the matter had not been assigned by any one to Fry, J., but that he was acting in it mero motu. His lordship acceded to this view, and gave leave to serve the notice for a motion before himself.-SOLICITOR, Official Solicitor.

name.

The difficulty experienced in the new Police-court at Bristol in the matter of acoustics leads, says the Bristol Times, to some very curious misapprehensions of what is said. The magistrates can't hear what is said by the prisoners; the magistrates' clerk, although favourably placed, can't hear what the witness says, the prisoner is in delightful ignorance of the evidence being given against him, and the admonitions of the bench must be lost upon the hardened one, whilst the reporters have to report cases three parts of the evidence in which they cannot possibly hear. The following is an illustration that occurred on Thursday week of the state of things, and it is only a sample of what occurs every day. Witness: He came nto the shop and asked for a quarter of a pound of black padding. Magistrate's Clerk: A quarter of a pound of blacking. Magistrate (to constable): What state was he (prisoner) in? Constable: In St. Phillip's. And so it goes on during the day.

Societies.

UNITED LAW CLERKS' SOCIETY. The forty-eighth anniversary festival of this society was held at the Freemasons' Tavern on Monday last, the 7th inst., the Hon. Mr. Justice Bowen in the chair. The following gentlemen, amongst others, sat down to dinner:Sir W. Charley, Q.C., Common Serjeant of London, F. M. White, Q.C., H. M. Bompas, Q.C., Montague Cookson, Q.C., W. C. Gully, Q.C., J. T. Crossley, Q.C., F. O. Crump, J. C. Bigham, E. H. Pollard, F. A. Archibald, George Lewis, E. G. Saunders, W. A. Saunders, N. T. Lawrence (president of the Incorporated Law Society), G. B. Hughes, J. Merivale, E. W. Owles, J. Beaver, S. Hall, T. H. Devonshire, J. Waddell, and other well-known members of the profession, together with the Right Rev. Bishop Beccles and Dr. Thompson, the medical officer of the society.

The toasts of the Queen and Prince and Princess of Wales having been proposed and duly honoured. The CHAIRMAN proposed "The Army, Navy, and Auxiliary Forces."

Mr. F. O. CRUMP responded.

The CHAIRMAN next gave the toast of the evening, "Prosperity to the United Law Clerks' Society." He said: I believe that this is the only occasion in the year on which all branches of the great profession to which I have the honour to belong meet under a common roof, and, I believe, it is with the greatest pleasure that we all meet here to acknowledge the common bond which unites us together, and in acknowledging it to do honour to, and to show all good wishes for, the society whose anniversary this is. More especially is it a pleasure and a pride to those of us who, like myself, and like many others whom I see immediately around me, do not belong to that particular branch of the profession whose society this is, to come here-to come back some of us-among friendly faces that we know, in order to pay respect and honour to those two branches of the profession who have inaugurated this society, and by whose chief efforts this society lives and flourishes and increases. Whatever the world may say, the experience of my life, and, I believe, the experience of the lives of almost all lawyers) is that of all professions none surpasses ours in integrity and honour. When I think of the vast interests which are confided to the consciences and the honours of the members of the legal profession, how the fortunes of great houses and the characters of private persons are intrasted fearlessly, and I venture to say without danger, to the keeping of lawyers, and of those who are employed by lawyers, I think it no slight testimony to the profession to be able to challenge the experience of the longest lived amongst us to say whatever may have been or may be our failingswhether he has ever known a case of a client sold or of a confidence betrayed? And, gentlemen, the honour of the profession is in the keeping, not merely of the barristers, who become Queen's Counsel and judges, or the solicitors, who rise to distinction and to fame-it is equally in the hands and in the safe keeping of those who assist them both. It is sometimes, I know, said that men are the architects of their own fortunes, but, I believe, that the experience of most of us will justify the view that there is no fortune in the world, and no fame or reputation in the world, built by a single architect, but that for every edifice there are many masons, and those of us who rise in our profession either to wealth or promotion cannot bat look back with gratitude to the friends who have assisted 08. The law clerks of the solicitor and our own are the clerks who, between them, have laid the foundation from which we have achieved success. I should desire to be permitted, if it is not an intrusion, to say that nobody can acknowlege with more heartfelt gratitude and respect than myself the kindness and indulgence which barristers receive

from their clients. And to the other branch of the profession, the clerk to the barristers, what can we say of the man who makes the fortunes of his employers? because I believe that no work is done more industriously, none with greater integrity, none with more unflagging loyalty towards his employer than the work which is done by the clerk to the rising barrister. I am not going to detain you with a long speech. I am simply going to ask you to drink the health

of this admirable society. It has now lasted for nearly fifty years, and during that fifty years the good which it has done may be said almost to be untold. It combines in itselfwhat charities do not always combine the principle of providence and insurance on the one hand, and the principle of benevolence and charity on the other, and during the last fifty years what I may call an enormous sum of money bas been spent in its good work. As every year progresses, the efforts of a society, which, in part, is an insurance society, must depend more and more on the extension of the society's numbers. Every year that this society lasts deaths occurthe term so to speak of human life runs out-and the necessity increases every year, if possible, for extending the area of the society's benefits by increasing the income of the society. And I firmly believe that there is nobody present here who will not cordially unite with me in wishing health and prosperity to this society; in recognizing the admirable labours of those who undertake its administration, and in hoping that for many many years it may continue to set an example to other provident and benevolent societies, both by the simplicity of its administration, and by the excellent manner in which its charity is distributed.

Mr. COOKSON, Q. C., next proposed "The Patrons of the Society." He said the well wishers of the society might be regarded in three aspects; first of all there were the ex-officio patrons of the society, amongst whom it was the good fortune of the society to number those holding the highest places in the legal profession. They would recollect that the Lord Chancellor last year filled the chair, and on one occasion the Lord Chief Justice of England, whom they all reverenced if they did not even love, presided over one of these great anniversaries. The second class of patrons were humbler individuals, like himself, from the bar, who were well wishers to the society, to which he considered the bar owed a great obligation; for he believed that owing to that society a counterpart institution which germinated about ten years ago had now grown into a great success-he meant the Barristers' Benevolent Association. That institution would never have been called into being but for the success and example of the United Law Clerks' Society. They of the bar might well then give this society God speed. But the best patrons of the society were those of the third class-the actual members. The best patron of the society was the man who subscribed to it, and the next best, or rather the better, the one who got another man to subscribe to it. He asked the law clerks to extend the benevolent field of the society by making it more widely known, so that at last it shall embrace, as its rules permit, every law clerk resident within twelve miles of the metropolis. He begged to couple with the toast the name of Mr. Meadows White.

Mr. MEADOWS WHITE, Q.C., in responding, said he could speak from his own experience of the advantages to be derived from the society, having had a clerk who, in sickness, was relieved from its funds, and at whose death his widow was substantially assisted. He was sure he could say for the patrons that they valued and recognized its work, and that they wished it every success.

Mr. H. M. BOMPAS, Q.C., gave the health of the chairman, which having been duly responded to,

Mr. W. C. GULLY. Q.C., proposed, "The Bench, the Bar, and the Profession." He regretted that the numbers of the "visitors" were not larger. No doubt this was to be ascribed to some extent to the fact of the recent dissolution of Parlia

ment, and that some who would otherwise have been present had had the misfortune to be returned to the new Parliament, and were attending to their duties there, whilst some, perhaps, were at present busy with the petitions against their return; so that they were reduced to a certain number of defeated candidates, and a certain number of other gentlemen who had not had the courage to face the electoral war; and there were still others who did not trouble themselves about politics one way or the other, but who were always to be found at their posts on these occasions, and who were, therefore, the best friends of the society. It was not necessary for him to recommend the toast, because he was not speaking to strangers, but to a number of gentlemen who had ample opportunities of judging of the merits of the bench, the bar, and the profession, and if they did not find ground for wishing health and prosperity to them from their own knowledge, he was sure they would not do so from anything he could say in their favour. As far as regarded the bench, they need not regret the absence of other judges

when they saw the chair so worthily occupied as it was that evening; and, as far as the bar and the profession were concerned, he might say that those who were present might be taken as a fair sample of the whole body of the joint profession in their wishes, which they endeavoured to express by coming there, for the prosperity and success of the society. He coupled with the toast the names of Sir Willian Charley (common serjeant of the City of London), Mr. Francis Turner, and Mr. Ñ. T. Lawrence, the President of the Incorporated Law Society.

Sir WM. CHARLEY, Q.C., replying on behalf of the bench, said there was no profession in whose honour and integrity the public had greater confidence than in the judicial bench. The ermine of the judges was unsullied. One source of their strength was that the bench was recruited from the great bar of England. This was an advantage which foreign countries did not possess. Whilst at the bar the future judge acquired that knowledge of human nature which would serve him so well when promoted to a seat on the bench. He did not know that it was so desirable that a judge should seek popular applause, but he thought it desirable that he should seek the approval of his profession, and he thought it a good criterion as to whether a judge was doing his duty or not if he had or had not the good opinion of the profession.

Mr. F. TURNER, on behalf of the bar, said they were glad to know that an Englishman had in every age been glad to trust himself in the hands of the profession-he might be allowed to say especially in the hands of the bar; and whilst he said this with respect to the bar especially, he knew well it was not for the bar to arrogate to itself any pre-eminence above those who prepared their cases for them, and by whom the out-of-sigh, the more laborious, the less honour-giving, labours of the profession were performed, for they knew that not only were those he was addressing conversant with the labours and responsibilities of the profession, they knew also its high traditions, and from the most junior clerk who engaged in the profession up to the place of honour which the judges of the land occupy, al! felt the same sense of duty, the same desires for the interests of their clients; and therefore it was that he might with something of pride return them his very hearty thanks on behalf of the bar for the kind manner in which they had received the toast.

Mr. N. T. LAWRENCE (president of the Incorporated Law Society) responded on behalf of the solicitor branch of the profession.

Several other toasts having been drunk, the proceedings terminated.

The attendance of visitors was smaller than usual, and this will account for the falling off in the donations received during the evening, which amounted to a little over £300.

It may be mentioned that the society is formed of clerks in every branch of the profession and of clerks to parliamentary pecuniary assistance and medical advice in sickness, of a agents. The advantages of the society principally consist of pension for life in old age or permanent affliction, and of an allowance on death. In addition the society has a benevolent fund, out of which its necessitous members, their widows and children, are assisted with small gifts of money. Similar relief is also granted to law clerks who are not members and their widows. Members pay a fixed subscription, which is supplemented by the donations of the profession. Every member disabled by illness is entitled to a weekly allowance of a guinea for a period not exceeding one year. Should his illness be of longer duration, he is entitled to half the amount during the second year. Should it assume a permanent character, if the member has been such not less than sixteen years, he is entitled to be placed for life on the Superannuation Fund. The relief then granted consists of a weekly allowance vary. ing from 103. to 14s. The allowance on the decease of a member is £50, and half that amount on the death of his wife. There is also what is called a casual fund, out of which relief is afforded to law clerks, whether members or not, their widows and children. The assistance thus granted consists of small gifts of money not exceeding £5, and is never granted without the recommendation of a subscriber nor without the circumstances and need of the applicant being fully investigated. The ing from temporary pecuniary pressure in the shape of loans committee also grant relief by way of loan to members sufferwithout interest, to be repaid by instalments. During the expenditure of £467 18. 6d., and in addition 32 were in past year 46 members have received relief in sickness at an

receipt of the superannuation allowance. Of the present pensioners, 38 in number, two receive yearly £31 4s., and the remaining 36 £36 8s. each. The total expenditure in cases of death during the past year was £990, and since the foundation of the society £20,890. Of the general fund £62,711 17s. 1d. is invested in the names of the trustees in Government and other stock. There is also a sum of £1,857 Reduced Annuities, invested with the intention at some future day of granting some small pensions to the most necessitous and deserving of the members' widows. The society, since 1832, has expended £65.372 in assisting law clerks, their widows and families, in affliction and temporary distress.

Law Students'
Students Journal.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. The weekly meeting of this society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday evening week, Mr. C. E. Barry in the chair. The question appointed for the evening's discussion was the following: "Is it desirable to place married women upon the same footing with single women as to property?" and was opened by Mr. F. D. Williams in the negative. Messrs. A. E. Ward, A. M. Ellis, LL.B., J. A. Neale, B.A., and J. Van Sommer, jun., sup. ported the same side. Messre. Kirk, Lloyd Jones, and Bateman Napier supported the affirmative. On being put to the meeting the motion was decided in the negative. It was decided at the meeting to hold the annual dinner of this society in the month of July next, and the 13th of that month has been fixed as the day.

The weekly meeting of this society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday evening last, Mr. J. A. Neale, B.A., in the chair. There was a large attendance of members. The subject appointed for the evening's debate was the following:-"A. devised land to B. and C. and their heirs. And he declared that during their joint lives they should share their profits equally. The whole to belong to the survivor. Are B. and C. joint tenants?" and was opened in the affirmative by Mr. Spiers; Mr. Heppell followed in the negative. The following gentlemen then addressed the society :-Mr. J. W. Evans (affirmative), Mr. Green (negative), Mr. Kirk, Mr. Ellis (affirmative), Mr. Van Sommer. The chairman then summed up. The question on being put to the meeting was decided in the affirmative. The following cases, amongst others, were referred to:-Barker v. Giles (2 P. Wms. 280); Patterson v. Rolland (28 Beav. 347); Coolison v. Bingham (17 Beav. 262); Jones v. Randall (J. & W. 100); Haddersley v. Adams (22 Beav. 260).

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. The society held its usual weekly meeting at Clement'sinn Hall, Strand, on Wednesday last, Mr. C. Kains-Jackson, in the chair. Mr. B. T. Bartrum opened the subject for discussion :-"That, having regard to the facilities now enjoyed by barristers wishing to become solicitors, concessions should, to an equal extent, be granted to solicitors wishing to join the bar"-and was supported by Messrs. E. F. Spence, H. N. Harvey, F. Harvey, and W. P. W. Phillimore; Messrs. W. C. Owen and E. H. Pickersgill opposing. The motion, on being put to the vote, was carried by a majority of six. The annual dinner of the society will be held at Anderton's Hotel, Fleet-street, on Wednesday, the 30th inst., at seven p.m., Mr. Montague Cookson, Q.C., in the chair.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

A meeting of this society was beld on Tuesday evening week, in the Law Library. Mr. A. Godlee presided. After the election of an ordinary member to serve on the committee, and the addition of several books to the library, a debate ensued on the following moot point:-"A widow, in contemplation of a second marriage, settled money in trust for her separate use for life, and after her death for such persons as she should by deed or will appoint, and subject thereto in trust for her next of kin who would have been

entitled had she died intestate, and 'without having been married' The widow died without exercising the powers of appointment, leaving three children of the former and two of the second marriage surviving. Would these children be entitled to the trust fund?" Wilson v. Atkinson (4 De G. J. & S. 455); Re Ball's Trust (L. R. 11 Ch. D. 270); Upton v. Brown (L. R. 12 Ch. D. 872); Emmins v. Bradford (27 W. R. 531, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 493). Mr. Davis opened in the affirmative and was supported by Mr. Barrows. The speakers on the negative were Messrs. Phillips, Crosskey, Rogers, Barber, and Samuel. After an able summing up by the chairman the question was put to the meeting and carried in the negative by a large majority. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded to the chairman.

The fourth of the series of lectures, now being delivered to the society by several local barristers and solicitors was given by Mr. J. Loxdale Warren, barrister-at-law, on Tuesday evening week, on "Land Law Reform." After a few introductory remarks, Mr. Warren proceeded to consider the various legislative enactments passed during the last half century with reference to the transfer of land and the dealing of settled estates. The learned gentleman pointed out the principles on which legislation in this direction should be based, and the means for carrying his suggestions into effect, and closed the lecture with a careful review of the provisions of the three Billa introduced by the late Lord Chancellor on the subject. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded to the lecturer.

CALLS TO THE BAR.

The following gentlemen were on Wednesday called to the bar :

INNER TEMPLE.-Roper Lethbridge, M. A, Oxford, C.I.E.; Frederick Barnes Peacock; James William Best, B.A., Cambridge; Thomas Robert Redfern, B. A., Oxford ; William Edward Thompson Sharpe, B.A., Dublin; Alfred Clayton Cole, B.A., Cambridge; Joseph Smith, B.A., Ox. ford; Wilson Noble, B.A., Cambridge; Walter Frith, B.A., LL.B., Cambridge; Hugh Francis Seymour, B.A., Cambridge; George Spencer Bower, B.A. Ox ord; George Cave (holder of a pupil scholarship in real property law, awarded by the Inner Temple, July, 1879). B. A., Oxford; James Meadows Rendel, B.A., Oxford; William Fowler Carter, B.A., Oxford; Arthur M'Arthur Kingsmill, B.A., Cambridge; Francis Amboor Keating (holder of a pupil scholarship in common law, awarded by the Inner Temple, July, 1879), B.A., Oxford; Elward John Eveleigh Wyndham, M.A., Oxford; Henry Reynolds Solly, B.A., Cambridge; Nicholas Lower Paliologus, Oxford; William Foord-Kelcey, B. A., Oxford; William Hodgson Horsfall, B.A., Cambridge; Francis Palmer Kemp; Eustace Conway, London; Thomas Edward Ellison, London; Paul Henry Foley, B.A., Oxford; Charles Oakleigh Walker, M.A., Cambridge; Edward Cunliffe-Owen, B.A., Cambridge; William Daniell, B.A., Oxford; William Henry Cross, B.A., London; Frederic Michael Abrahams, London; John Wingfield, M.A., London; William Snowden Robson, B.A., Cambridge; Synd AbdurRahman, F.S.S., F.R.C.I.; Robert Henville Simonds, M.A., Oxford; Amyas Philip Longstaffe; Louis Stephen White, B.A., LL.B., Cambridge; James Lumb, M. A., Cambridge; William Bounce Milton, B.A., Cambridge; James Gordon Jones, B.A, Cambridge; John Kendall Brooke, B.A., Ox. ford; and William Robert Bousfield, M.A., Cambridge Esqs.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Joseph Gatey, of the University of London, first class Real and Personal Property Scholar, second class Honours Trinity Examination, 1880; Frederic William Richards Fryer; Thomas Orde Hastings Lees, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin; George Jamieson, M.A., Aberdeen University; Michael Joseph McGauran, B.A. Dublin University; Henry William Forsyth Harwood-Harwood; Alexander Michael Colgan, LL.B. London University; Alfred Aspinall-Tobin, B.A. University Col lege, Oxford, International and Constitutional Law Scholar, 1878, Common Law Scholar, 1879; Harry Fiennes Speed, Brasenose College, Oxford; William Herbert Greaves, B.A. St. Edmund Hall, Oxford; Harry Charles Hannam Man; Harold Wright, B.A., LL B, Pembroke College, Cambridge; William Augustus Hobson; John Thomas Blazé, M.A. Merton College, Oxford; Julius Berkeley Hallé, University of London; Robert Armstrong Yer

« PreviousContinue »