WILL-POWER IN GROSS-EXERCISE

OF POWER BY INFANT. In the case of In re D'Angibau, deceased, Andrews v. Andrews, before the Master of the Rolls on the 18th inst., a question arose whether a married woman, an infant, could exercise a power of appointment in favour of her husband. By a marriage settlement a life interest in certain personal property was given to a wife for life, with remainder to her husband for life, determinable on bankruptcy, with usual remainders to children, with remainder, in default of issue as the wife should appoint, with remainder if the husband should survive, in trust for the wife's next of kin, as if she had died a widow. At the date of the settlement the wife was a minor, and was so described in the settlement itself. While still a minor and there being no issue of the marriage she executed the power in favour of her husband absolutely. She shortly afterwards died a minor, and her husband after her death became bankrupt. At the time of his wife's death her next of kin were her mother and her brother. This action had been commenced by the trustee in bankruptcy of the husband against the trustees of the will and the settle. ment, and the wife's next of kin, asking a declaration that the trustee in bankruptcy of the husband was entitled to payment of the whole fund. One of the next of kin of the wife demurred to the relief claimed, on the ground that the plaintiff had no title, as the wife could not exercise the power while yet an infant. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that the power had been well exercised. He said that it had been decided that an infant could exercise a power merely collateral, and as to those powers which were given to a person who had an interest, but whose interest could not be affected by the exercise of the power, he was also of opinion that they could be exercised by an infant. As to such powers in the case of real estate he had himself decided in Re Cardross' Settlement (L. R. 7 Ch. D. 728), that it depended on the question of intention as appearing in the instrument whether they were to be exercised by the infant or not. In the present case he was of opinion, if it had been necessary to consider the question, that there was an intention shown that the infant should exercise the power. She was named a party as an infant, and he could see no reason why she should not exercise the power during minority. He should overrule the demurrer and make the costs costs in the action.

PRACTICE-AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS-RULES of Court, 1875, ORD. 27, RR. 1, 6-NEW CAUSE OF ACTION-COSTS ALREADY INCURRED.-In a case of Blackmore v. Edwards, before Hall, V. C., on the 13th inst., the plaintiff having brought an action for the specific performance of a building agreement, a statement of defence to his claim was put in. The plaintiff then, without having amended his writ of summons, obtained an unconditional order at chambers, in the presence of the defendant, for leave to amend his statement of claim generally, under ord. 27, rr. 1, 6. By his amended statement he claimed no longer specific performance, but a Hien for damages upon certain buildings then erected and completed by the defendant himself upon the land which was the subject of the alleged contract, thereby, as the defendant alleged, instituting an entirely fresh action. The defendant now applied to the court, by motion, that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff might be ordered to pay him all his costs of the action hitherto incurrred, and that, until payment, all proceedings might be stayed. HALL, V.C., observing that the claim had been so totally altered on amendment that it might as well have been for damages for breach of a promise to marry, made the order against the plaintiff as asked, with the costs of the motion.

STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL PROPER COURT TO APPLY TO-ORD. 58, rr. 16, 17-ORD. 51, R. 1A. -In a case of Orr Ewing v. Johnston, application was made to Fry, J., on the 12th inst., for a stay of proceedings under the judgment at the trial, pending an appeal. The action was set down before Hall, V.C., and was afterwards transferred by an order of the Lord Chancellor to Fry, J., for trial, and was tried by him, when he gave judgment for the plaintiffs. Upon the hearing of the application to stay proceedings, the question was raised whether it ought not to have been made to Hall, V.C. FRY, J., said that under rule la (June 19, 1877) of order 51 he had power to direct that proceedings subsequent to the trial should be taken before himself, and he made an order that the application should be made to him, and then disposed of it.

VENDOR AND PURCHASER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE REASONABLENESS OF NOTICE TO MAKE TIME OF ESSENCE OF CONTRACT.-In a case of Crawford v. Toogood, before Fry, J., on the 14th inst., the question was whether a notice, given by a vendor of real estate to the purchaser subsequently to the contract for sale, to complete the purchase within a specified time, and that in this respect time should be of the essence of the contract, was a reasonable notice. The abstract of title was sent by the vendor's solicitor to the purchaser's solicitor on the 17th of June, with a letter requesting an acknowledgment of its receipt. No reply was sent to this letter or to several similar ones subsequently sent, two of which said that, in default of a prompt reply, it would be inferred that the plaintiff did not intend to complete the purchase. On the 17th of September a letter was written to the purchaser himself, telling him of the prior letters to his solicitor, to which he replied that he would at once communicate with his solicitor. No further communication having been received from the purchaser or his solicitor, the vendor gave the purchaser the notice in question, that, unless he completed the purchase on or before the 31st of October, the vendor would treat the contract as at an end. To this the purchaser replied on the 26th of September, saying that he had seen his solicitor, who had promised to proceed as soon as possible. On the 1st of November, no further communication having been received from the purchaser or his solicitor, the vendor's solicitor wrote to the purchaser that the vendor, in pursuance of his notice, declared the contract at an end. The purchaser then brought the action for specific performance of the contract. FRY, J., held the notice invalid. He said that the reasonableness of the notice must be determined with reference to the time when it was given. And looking at what then remaine! t> be done to complete the purchase-viz., requisitions on the title, replies, and possibly rejoinders, preparation of the draft and execution of the conveyance, and especially having regard to the time of the year (the Long Vacation)-his lordship thought that the time fixed for the completion of of the purchase was unreasonably short. Specific performance was accordingly decreed, with an inquiry as to title, and the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the action up to and including the trial.

PRACTICE-ORDER 55--DEPRIVING SUCCESSFUL PLAINTIFF OF HIS COSTS.-Collins v. Welch, which was before the Common Pleas Division on the 11th inst., was an action brought by the plaintiff, a diamond setter, against a cab owner for injuries sustained in a collision with the defendant's cab, and for compensation for a ring lost in the collision. The case was tried at the last Summer Assizes at Croydon, before Denman, J., and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for £12. When the verdict was given, and after some remarks by Denman, J., as to costs, the plaintiff's counsel made some observations on behalf of plaintiff, pointing out why he should not be deprived of his costs. Defendant's counsel made no "application," but on the jury intimating that their verdict included the value of the ring, Denman, J., refused the plaintiff his costs. Counsel for the plaintiff now moved to set aside the order of Denman, J., as to costs, and argued that Turner v. Heyland (48 L. J. C. P. 535) had Harris v. Petherick, in which, he contended, it was decided been overruled by Myers v. Defries (27 W. R. 791) and that a judge had not the power to deprive a successful plaintiff of his costs unless """ upon application made at the trial" by the defendant's counsel. Held, by GROVE and LOPES, JJ., that Turner v. Heyland was distinguishable from Myers v. Defries and Harris v. Petherick, and that an application by counsel at the trial was not a condition precedent to the judge at the trial disallowing costs.

HIGHWAYS AND LOCOMOTIVES (AMENDMENT) ACT (41 & 42 VICT. c. 77), s. 23-EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES-EXCESSIVE WEIGHT-EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC.-The case of Lord Aveland (Appellant), Lucas (Respondent), the first under the above Act, came before the Common Pleas Division on the 18th inst. on appeal from a decision of the justices of Oakham, and raised a question as to the construction of the 23rd section of the Act. It appeared that Lord Aveland owned real estate in the parishes of Edith Weston, North Suffenham, and Normanton, and, for the purposes of building and repairing operations in which he was engaged, required

a considerable quantity of timber, tiles, granite, &c. Prior to the 30th of July, 1877, the building materials were conveyed to the estate im the North Suffenham Railway_Station, in carts drawn by horses, but, on the 31st of July, 1877, the appellant used two traction engines, each drawing two wagons, for the transport of the building materials. The respondent, the surveyor of highways for the parish of Edith Weston, sent a certificate to the highway authorities, in which he certified that the use of the traction engines and wagons (an engine and two wagons fully laden were stated to weigh twenty-four tons) injured the road and caused damage to a certain part of it to the extent of £40. To recover this sum, proceedings were taken by the surveyor against Lord Aveland before the Oakham Justices under 41 & 42 Vict. c. 77, s. 23. The appellant contended (1) that the weight of his engines and wagons being less than that allowed by law could not be excessive within the meaning of the 23rd section of the above Act; (2) that the traffic was not extraordinary, because it was only in proportion to the extent of his estate, and to the repairs being carried out thereon; (3) that, if he was liable to pay anything, there was no evidence to show what proportion of the whole cost of repairing the road was to be attributed to the use of the traction engines. The justices were of opinion that the weight had been excessive, the traffic extraordinary, and that £40 was the amount of the extraordinary expenses incurred in consequence of such traffic. From their decision Lord Aveland now appealed. GROVE and LINDLEY, JJ., held that the question whether weight was excessive and traffic extraordinary was to be considered in relation to the road over which it passed, and, in the present case, they agreed with the justices that the traffic was extraordinary and excessive. It did not appear how the justices arrived at the conclusion that £40 was a just proportion for the appellant to pay. They seemed to have been guided entirely by the cost of repairs in other parishes, and to have taken the difference as the sum to be paid by the appellant. The Act did not contemplate the average of repairs in other parishes being the sole test of what a person should pay. Judgment would, therefore, be for the respondent, subject to the question of what sum was to be paid by the appellant, which part of the case must be remitted to the justices.

Societies.

LAW ASSOCIATION.

At the usual monthly meeting of the directors, held at the Hall of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, on Thursday the 6th November, the following being pregent, viz., Mr. Desborough, clair, ord Messrs. Tylee, Burt, Collisson, Drew, Hedger, Parkin, Sidney Smith, Steward, and A. B. Carpenter, secretary, it was resolved that the treasurers be authorized to accept, in lieu of the capital of the association (£5,470) in the East Indian Railway Company, the offer of the Government No. 3 Option. One new member was elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF
LIVERPOOL.

The following are extracts from the report of the committee, presented to the fifty-second annual meeting of the society.

THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.

In the month of November last the committee memorialized the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and also put themselves in communication with the Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy and the registrar for the Liverpool district for the purpose of procuring the appointment of a deputyregistrar to assist the district registrar in the performance of his duties. Power to appoint such a deputy is given by the 33rd clause of the County Palatine of Lancaster Act of 1850, and also by order 11 of the Regulations of 1863.

It was alleged by the committee that the absence of the district registrar from the office during his holidays, or when prevented from attending to his duties by illness, was productive of the greatest inconvenience to suitors and practitioners in the court; and further that the work of the

court had increased so largely that it was impossible for the present staff efficiently to cope with it.

The Vice-Chancellor, to whom the memorial had been referred by the chancellor, requested the committee to state specific instances of delay or inconvenience which had occurred, on receipt of which he would proceed to consider the committee's request.

The committee made an attempt to obtain from members of the society practising in the court evidence in support of the complaints which had been made, but in consequence of the not unnatural disinclination and hesitation which was felt by them to comply with the request of the committee, the latter have been unable up to the present time to submit to the Vice-Chancellor the data he has asked for.

The committee think it right to add that the griev ance of which they complained in their memorial has not abated.

COURT OF PASSAGE.

The committee have to draw the attention of members

to the project of extending the jurisdiction of this court over the Hundred of West Derby; the proposal has been already submitted to and approved of by the committee, and it is expected will shortly be in force.

The attention of the committee has been drawn to the practice which unfortunately obtains among some solicitors of procuring an order for serving a writ of summons upon without, the jurisdiction, at his residence, a proceeding a defendant, who carries on business within, but resides which necessarily increases the expense of the actions by the amount of the costs of such order.

A representation on the subject was made to the deputyregistrar of the court, suggesting to him that in such cases he should require, before granting an order for service out of the jurisdiction, evidence of an attempt at service at the defendant's place of business.

CLERKSHIP OF THE PEACE (COUNTY).

It will doubtless be within the recollection of the members. of the society that in the year 1871 the society, with the valuable assistance of Mr. Wm. Rathbone, M.P., and the Manchester Incorporated Law Association, promoted an Act of Parliament for regulating the office of clerk of the peace for the county, which, previously to that Act, had been a sinecure office, the duties of which were performed by deputy.

The 2nd section of the Act requires the appointment by the Chancellor of the Duchy of three "able and sufficient persons," the one to be clerk of the peace, and the other two to be deputy clerks of the peace for the county.

The 3rd section provides for the payment of the fees receivable by the clerk of the peace to the county treasurer in aid of the county rate, and for payment out of the county rate to the clerk and deputies respectively of such salaries as the justices of the county in sessions may, with the approval of the Chancellor, determine.

The 5th section enacts that subject to any rules that may be made all matters to be done to or by the clerk of the peace may be done to or by the deputy clerks.

By the 6th section it is left to the justices of the county in sessions to make rules subject to approval by the Chancellor of the Duchy.

1. For distributing the business of the clerk of the peace amongst such clerks and the deputy clerks.

2. For fixing the places in which such clerk or deputy clerks are to live.

3. For regulating any other matters whether similar or not to those particularized in that section which may be necessary or expedient for giving effect to the provisions of the Act.

The principal Act is amended by a local Act of the year 1876 (39 Vict. c. iv.), which transfers the power of appoint-ing the deputy clerks of the peace from the Chancellor of the Duchy to the clerk of the peace subject to the approval of the Chancellor, and provides that the clerk of the peace shall out of the salary to be paid to him under the principal Act, pay the salaries and expenses of the deputies, but except that it provides that the deputies shall be solicitors of seven years' standing, it in other respects leaves the principal Act unaltered.

This latter Act was promoted by the justices of Lancashire, and was strongly opposed by this society as will be seen by referring to the report for the year 1876-77. Both Acts came into operation upon the death, on the 4th of March

last, of Mr. R. J. Harper, the late clerk of the peace, and on the 18th of the same month Mr. F. C. Hulton was, upon the recommendation of the lord-lieutenant, appointed clerk of the peace by the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Previously to recommending the appointment of Mr. Hulton, the lord-lieutenant, in accordance with a promise made to the president of the society in 1876, communicated with Mr. Hulton upon the subject of the appointment of the deputy clerks of the peace, and the rules to be made under the Acts of Parliament, and procured from Mr. Hulton a statement upon the subject which his lordship considered satisfactory.

At the annual session of the peace, held upon the 3rd of April last, the justices appointed a committee to consider the provisions of the Acts with regard to the salary to be paid to the clerk of the peace, and the rules to be made under the Acts. No communication was made by that committee to the committee of this society, but the Chancellor of the Duchy, in consequence it is believed of the statements made by this society and the Manchester Incorporated Law Association in 1873, intimated to the committee of the justices that he would not approve of any rules which did not provide for the residence of one deputy clerk in the Salford Hundred, and the other in the West Derby Hundred.

The committee of justices had an interview with the Chancellor in London on the 13th of June last, from their report of which it appears that in the opinion of the com. mittee "it was not advisable, even if it were possible, to distribute or to attempt todistribute, the business of theoffice between the clerk and the deputy clerks of the peace, and that, in the general interests of the public, and having due regard to an efficient performance of the duties of the office, it was essential that the clerk of the peace should be held alone responsible, and that the deputy clerks should be under his immediate control and acting in the same office. It was further pointed out that from the peculiar circumstances of this county, and so long as it remained undivided, it was necessary that the business of the office should be performed at Preston, where the other county offices are situated, and where the court of annual session, at which the county financial business is transacted, is by law held."

"That if the deputy clerks were required to reside elsewhere, it would in effect be creating two almost sinecure offices, because the business they would have or could by possibility have to perform, would be of infinitesimal amount, while the clerk of the peace at Preston, unaided by his deputies, would have virtually to perform the whole work himself. Upon these grounds the committee urged that it was undesirable and unnecessary to make any rules with reference to the various subjects mentioned in the 6th section of the Act, while it was further pointed out that the power to make such rules was permissive and not compulsory."

The Chancellor upon the following day communicated with the president of this society upon the subject, asking whether the society had any observations or additions for his consideration.

In reply it was submitted to the Chancellor on the 21st of June, that the object of the Act of 1871 was to effect a territorial division, so far as the duties of clerk of the peace are concerned, of the county of Lancaster, which had become too populous to allow of those duties being satisfactorily performed by a single officer, and particularly by an officer focated so far from the chief centres of business in the county as Preston.

The rules to be made under sub-section 1 of section 6 should therefore, it was submitted, be rules dividing and distributing the duties of the clerk of the peace, so far as they were of a local character and did not affect the whole county, between the clerk of the peace and the two deputies, each taking one territorial division of the county. The most proper territorial divisions to be made, it was pointed out, were already marked out by the existing divisions of the county for the purpose of quarter sessions; which would point to one of the deputies taking the Salford Division, the other the Kirkdale Division, and the principal clerk of the peace the rest of the county.

It was submitted that the following were the duties which should be assigned to the clerk of the peace and the deputies respectively, each in his own territorial division:

A. The preparation of indictments arising in the petty sessional districts included in each division, inasmuch as

D. The duties connected with the gaols, bridges, lunatic asylums, police and militia of each division.

E. The duties relating to the deposit, receipt, custody, and examination of parliamentary plans of proposed works in each division, and of inclosure awards and other decuments of a local character directed to be deposited with clerks of the peace.

F. The working of the orders regulating the cattle trade and of other subjects of Orders in Council in each division.

G. The collection of information on any subjects connected with county administration.

H. Any other duties of the clerk of the peace of a local character.

To the principal clerk of the peace it was considered should be assigned all duties connected with the general finance of the county, and all sessions for financial or general purposes, and the keeping of all records relating thereto.

Under sub-section 2, the rule should, if it were thought necessary, prescribe that the clerk of the peace and the deputies should each live in his own division. This subsection (it was stated) does not indicate any requirement as to where the offices should be located, which is a more important matter than the place of residence of the officer, but this might be accomplished under sub-section 3, and the offices should of course be required to be in Preston, Manchester, and Liverpool respectively.

The committee stated their belief that, in order to carry out the highly beneficial objects of the Act of 1871, it was obviously necessary to secure proper persons to carry out the duties which were to be assigned to them. It was submitted that the deputy clerks should be solicitors of standing, practising at Manchester and Liverpool respectively, and that the salaries should be in proportion of £1,200 or £1,000 to the clerk of the peace, and £1,000 or £800 to each of the deputies.

The committee of justices having been requested by the Chancellor of Duchy to prepare and submit to him rules in accordance with the Act drew up and submitted for his approval the following rules.

"1. That the clerk of the peace shall with the assistance of the deputy clerks of the peace perform all the duties which are by law required to be performed by a clerk of the peace of the county.

"2. The clerk of the peace shall with the assistance of the deputy clerks act as clerk to the undermentioned standing committees of the county.

"Name of Committee. "General Purposes "County Constabulary "Militia Storehouse. "Reformatory Schools “Parliamentary "County Analyst County Rate. "County Highway "Executive Cattle Plague

Place where Committee meets.

Preston.

Preston.

Preston.

Preston or Manchester.

Preston.

Preston.

Preston.

Preston.

Preston.

Lancaster, Preston, Manchester, and Liverpool.

"The clerk of the peace shall also act as clerk to any other committee which may from time to time be appointed by the courts of annual general, or general quarter sessions for the transaction of any special business.

"3. The office of the clerk of the peace shall be at Preston, in the county of Lancaster, and unless prevented by sickness or other unavoidable cause, the clerk of the peace or one of the deputy clerks shall be in daily attendance at the said office.

"4. An office with all necessary accommodation for the due performance of his and their duties, shall be provided for the clerk of the peace and the deputy clerks, in the new county offices, to be erected at Preston, under the provisions of the Lancashire County Justices Act, 1879.

"5. Until the erection and completion of the county offices, the clerk of the peace shall provide and find such temporary accommodation for the performance of the duties cf his office, as he may deem expedient and necessary."

The Chancellor apparently took the same view of the matter as your committee, and on the 31st of July the secretary to the Council of the Duchy wrote the chairman of the committee of the justices that "with reference to the rules themselves, they do not appear to the Chancellor to provide for the purposes mentioned in either of the two first sub-sections of the 6th section of the Act,-1.-Distributing the business. 2.-Fixing the places in which the clerk or deputy clerks are to live-purposes which, as the Chancellor understands from your letter, have been advisedly omitted.

"The Chancellor considers that it is not competent for him to approve any rules unless they are made (and he is advised by the Attorney-General of the Duchy that these are not made) in conformity with the Act in question. He regrets that any difference of opinion should arise between himself and any considerable section of the magistrates of the county as to the way in which the Act should be carried out. I am therefore to suggest for the consideration of the magistrates whether in view of that difference it would not be better that a Bill should be brought in at the early part of next session for placing all questions relating to the office of clerk of the peace upon a clear and satisfactory footing, and that in the meantime the framing of rules should be in abeyance, and that in the event of no Act being then passed, rules for all purposes contemplated by the Act should in due course be made and submitted for the approval of the Chancellor."

At the annual sessions of the peace, held at Preston, on the 11th of September last, the committee presented their report in which after setting out the above facts with the exception of the letter from the committee of this society to the Chancellor, they recommended their re-appointment with power to confer with him, and to take such measures as they should deem expedient, to place all questions relating to the office of clerk of the peace on a clear and satisfactory basis. They also recommended that the rules which had been submitted by them to the Chancellor should be adopted by the court pending the result of further conference, and with respect to the salary of the clerk of the peace they recommended that £4,500 should be granted to him, out of which he was to pay the salaries and expenses of the two deputy clerks and of all clerks employed by him, and all other office expenses and disbursements.

They also recommended that, in addition to the above salary, he should receive £800 a year for performing the duties of county solicitor.

This report was adopted by the court.

Nothing further has been done in the matter; but the committee will carefully watch any attempt on the part of the justices to procure any further alteration of the exist ing Acts.

CIVIL ASSIZE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LANCASHIRE.

It having come to the knowledge of the committee that it was not intended to hold a spring assize for the year 1879, the committee, in concert with the northern provincial law societies, proceeded to urge upon the authorities the necessity for increasing the facilities for the trial of civil causes in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Northumberland, and Durham.

In the meantime the council of the Incorporated Law Society (U.K.), acting upon the resolution of the annual provincial meeting of that society held last year at Manchester, drew the following amendment to the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts Amendment Bill :

"ASSIZES:-Assizes for the discharge of civil business shall be held in the counties of York and Lancaster not less than four times in each year, and in the counties of Northumberland and Durham not less than three times in each year; and it shall be lawful for her Majesty to issue such commissions and to make such regulations by Order in Council, or otherwise, as may be necessary for giving effect to this section.

This amendment was placed by Mr. G. B. Gregory, M.P., upon the paper of the House of Commons, which was anxiously and constantly watched by your committee, members of which on several occasions attended at Westminster for the purpose of procuring the assistance of members of Parliament. The support of the law societies of the north of England had been promised, and many members of Parliament had pledged themselves to assist when the Bill was discussed in committee.

A memorial reviewing the whole question and forcibly

reiterating the contentions of the committee in favour of additional civil assizes was extensively signed by the members of the society, and sent to the Lord Chancellor ; copies were also forwarded to all the law societies in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Northumberland, and Durham, and to the leading solicitors in towns where there was no law society, with a request that similar memorials should be presented by them to the Lord Chancellor. An influential deputation from this and other societies waited upon the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, urging upon them the views of the joint societies on this most important subject.

Owing to pressure of business in the House of Commons the amendment was never discussed, the Bill becoming a dropped order.

The

Subsequently a deputation from the committee met a deputation of the Northern Circuit Bar, and conferred with them in the hope of being able to propose an arrangement which would be satisfactory to both branches of the profession. The deputation, although strongly contending that four civil assizes in each year were necessary for the proper dispatch of the legal business of the town and district, urged that if that number could not be obtained, the old arrangement of holding assizes in the months of March, August, and December, by which the year was divided into three nearly equal portions, and which had prevailed for fifteen years, was the next preferable to the present one. gentlemen of the bar, on the other hand, stated that it was impracticable for them to attend a December assize in Lancashire as they were closely engaged in London at that time, and they represented that it was impossible to obtain civil assizes which were not held on the same dates as the criminal assizes, viz., January, April, July, and October, and that solicitors in this county and their clients must make a choice of three out of these four months. Finally the gentlemen of the bar suggested that a joint memorial should be presented to the Home Secretary, proposing that the civil assizes should always be held at fixed dates and in the months of March, July, and October, the rule prohibiting the delivery of pleadings during the long vacation being suspended with respect to Lancashire. No such memorial has been received from the bar, and the committee do not not view the proposal with favour, as it would cause a lapse of nearly six months between the October and March Assizes. The experience of the winter assize during the last fifteen years has shown that whenever an assize has produced a large number of causes, there has always been an adequate bar in attendance to conduct them.

The memorial to the Lord Chancellor above referred to, and the more important correspondence on this head, together with a full report of the conference with the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, will be found in appendix C. to this report.

PROVISIONAL ENTRY OF CAUSES.

The committee during the past year have continued their endeavours to obtain a provisional entry of causes at the Liverpool Assizes. In November last they entered into correspondence with the judges of the then forthcoming assize in the hope of inducing them to direct a provisional entry of causes. Being disappointed in this expectation, deputations from this society and the Manchester Law Association waited upon Lord Justice Thesiger and Mr. Justice Lindley, and fully explained the advantages of the proposal. Further, at the instigation of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom, an amendment to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Amendment Bill was placed by Mr. Gregory, M.P., upon the paper of the House of Commons, proposing to enact what the committee was contending for. This amendment, by the combined efforts of this and other law societies, was accepted by the Government, but as before stated, owing to pressure of business in the House of Commons, the Bill never passed into law. The committee then addressed themselves on the matter to Mr. Justice Lush, who courteously received a deputation from this and the Manchester Law Associations during the last assize, and at his suggestion a rule (see Appendix D.), has been drawn which it is proposed should be in force over the whole kingdom, and which Mr. Justice Lush has most kindly undertaken to submit to the committee of judges. The committee have therefore great hopes that this much-needed convenience will be at length accorded.

ADMIRALTY SITTINGS IN LIVERPOOL.

The reply of the Lord Chancellor to the joint memorial of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, the Liverpool Underwriters, Steamship Owners, and Shipowners' Associations, and of this society, praying for periodical sittings of the Admiralty Division in Liverpool which is mentioned in last year's report, and set out in Appendix C. thereto, was only received by the committee in February last, and was, the committee are sorry to say, to the effect that the request of the memorialists could not be complied with.

COUNTY COURT BILL.

A Bill contemplating most important changes with reference to county courts was presented to the House of Lords last session by the Lord Chancellor. Two other Bills dealing with the same subject were also introduced into the House of Commons by private members.

The committee carefully considered all the Bills and decided to petition the House of Commons against them, on the ground that the changes proposed were undesirable, and that they did not deal with the subject on the lines suggested by the Judicature Commission and the suggestions made by this and four other law societies to that commission several years ago.

The report of the committee, which deals minutely with the whole question of county court jurisdiction, has been widely circulated among persons and public bodies interested in the subject.

At the meeting of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, already referred to, these Bills were very fully debated; but owing to their being dropped it was unnecessary for your committee to deal further with the matter.

TAXATION OF COSTS IN DISTRICT REGISTRIES.

The attention of the committee has been drawn to a decision of the Master of the Rolls in a case of Kurtz v. Crosfield (unreported) which they deem worthy the attention of the profession. The circumstances therein were as follows:

The action was for the administration of certain real and personal estate in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, and was brought in the Liverpool District Registry of the Chancery Division of the High Court. All the parties resided in or near to this town, and were represented by the same firm of solicitors, who carry on business here. With the exception of the first hearing of the action, and the hearing on further consideration, all the proceedings had taken place in Liverpool. Accordingly, on the hearing on further consideration, the Master of the Rolls was asked that the taxation of costs

should take place in the district registry, but apparently considering himself bound by the decision of Vice-Chancellor Hall in Day v. Whitaker (L. R. 6 Ch. D. 734) he ordered the taxation to take place in London.

The committee consider that in cases of this nature the costs should be taxed in the district registry. The result of the taxation taking place in London is that either the solicitors of the parties, who alone have any knowledge of the case, must attend there at a great waste of time and considerable expense; or an agent in London having no personal knowledge of the case or the difficulties met with in the course of it, must be employed to attend the taxation. To instruct an agent in the proceedings in the suit would necessarily be a work of much labour, and the result, at the best, very imperfect.

The committee accordingly memorialized the Lord Chancellor, praying for a rule providing that all taxations of costs in actions pending in district registries should take place in the district registry in which the action is proceeding, unless the court otherwise order.

The committee do not yet know the result of the memorial.

PROFESSIONAL REMUNERATION FOR CONVEYANCING BUSINESS* The committee are now in communication with the secretary of the Associated Provincial Law Societies on this subject, and have lately sent deputations to the meetings of that body at which the question has been discussed. There seems to be a perfect unanimity of opinion as to the advantages of adopting a system of charges in conveyancing matters regulated by a scale, but there is a very considerable diversity of opinion between solicitors from different parts of the kingdom as to the details of such a scale. The whole question is now being considered by the council of

the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom, who have great hopes that if a reasonable scale be presented to the Lord Chancellor as the unanimous result of the deliberations of the law societies of the country he will sanction and authorize its use by the taxing masters.

The council had a conference with the committee of the Associated Provincial Law Societies on the 1st of August, at which certain scales were agreed to.

These scales, and the resolutions of the committee on this subject, are set forth in Appendix E. to this report.

Law Student's Journal.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. A meeting of the above society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday last, Mr. J. A. Neale, B.A., in the chair. The following question was opened by Mr. H. W. Trenchard, B.A., in the affirmative:" The A. Railway Company has running powers over the B. Company's line. A passenger in getting out of the A. Company's ordinary carriage at the B. Company's station, is injured in consequence of the difference in level between the carriage and the platform. Is the A. Company liable to the passenger for the injury sustained by him? The following cases amongst others were referred to: Wright v. Midland Railway Company (21 W. R. 460, L. R. 8 Ex. 137); Marshall v. York and Newcastle Railway Company (21 L. J. C. P. 34); Foulkes v. Metropolitan District Railway Company (L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 267). Mr. Mills for Mr. E. R. Carr, LL.B., supported the negative side of the question. Messrs. J. W. Evans, G. H. Bower, J. T. Heppell, E. Seymour, and Chant Holrow then addressed the society on the subject, and the question being put to the meeting was decided in the affirmative.

At the meeting of the society on Tuesday next, a "The paper will be read by Mr. J. A. Neale, B.A., on Wars of the Roses: A Review of Eight Dramas by Shakespeare," and a discussion upon the paper will take place,

LIVERPOOL LAW STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION. A meeting of this association was held at the Law Library on Monday, November 17, E. H. Blease, Esq., solicitor, in the chair. The secretary read a letter which he had received from the late president, William Bartlett, Esq., cordially expressing his best wishes for the continued

prosperity of the association, and enclosing a cheque for

£5 58., as a donation towards the cost of the law lectures its members had recently promoted. On the motion of the secretary, seconded by Mr. McMaster, a hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Bartlett for his kindness was passed by acclamation. The secretary, Mr. F. J. Leslie, then gave some account of the proceedings at the recent congress of law students. He thought that the congress had, on the whole, been a success, and that some beneficial result to articled olerks might be fairly looked for. He expressed an opinion, however, that the Committee of Management had erred in not selecting as chairman of the second and third meetings of the congress some eminent and influential members of the profession, as by so doing much greater weight would have been given to the deliberations of the congress. He also explained the action of the Liverpool delegates, in common with those of Birmingham, Norwich and other societies, in objecting to the improper wording of one of the resolutions passed. A vote of thanks to the delegates of the association at the congress was unanimously passed. The debate was then opened on the following subject appointed for discussion:-"In an action for slander are damages recoverable for injury sustained consequent upon the tortious act of a third party, such act having been directly induced by the slander? J. W. Reid opened in the affirmative, and Mr. A. T. Clegg followed in support of the negative. The debate was continued by Messrs. Mills, Cameron, McMaster, W. B. Jones, and the chairman. Mr. Reid having replied, the question was put to the meeting and decided in the negative by a majority of three.

Mr.