Page images
PDF
EPUB

ESTABLISHED 1869.

THE ACADEMY,

Weekly Review of Literature, Science, and art.

PRICE THREEPENCE: FREE BY POST THREEPENCE-HALFPENNY,

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 13s.; BY POST, 18s, 2d.

PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.

PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY IN TIME FOR THAT DAY'S POST.

CONTAINING EVERY WEEK

SIGNED REVIEWS of important new books, English and Foreign, in Belles-Lettres, Travel, History, Biography, Philosophy, Natural Science, Philology, the Fine Arts, and Archæology. PERIODICAL NEWS-LETTERS from Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Rome, Florence, Berlin, and other Centres of Learning and Literary Activity.

Obituaries of Distinguished Men. Transactions of Learned Societies. Correspondence.

Notes and News, Literary, Geographical, Scientific, and Artistic. Jottings respecting rare Books, Sales, and Curiosities. Publishers' Announcements, &c.

Notices of Exhibitions in London and the Provinces, and of important Novelties in Music and the Drama. ORIGINAL ARTICLES on Current Topics of Literary Interest.

THE ACADEMY has always maintained the principle of Signed Articles as affording the best guarantee of fairness and competence. In the list of its Contributors will be found the recognised Authorities in their several departments of Knowledge. Its half-yearly Volumes are of permanent value for purposes of Reference, especially to those interested in the English Classics, in History, Philology, and Oriental Studies.

A New Volume commenced July 3, 1880.

A SPECIMEN

NUMBER

Sent to any part of the United Kingdom on receipt of Threepence-Halfpenny in postage stamps.

PUBLISHING OFFICE:

52, CAREY

STREET, LINCOLN'S

INN, W. C.

To be had at all Railway Stations, and of all Newsvendors in Town and Country.

Scale of Charges for Advertising in "The Academy."

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Advertisements should be sent to the Publisher, H. Villers, at the Office, 52, Carey-street, W.C., on or before the Wednesday previous to the Saturday on which they are intended to appear.

"THE ACADEMY" is a desirable medium for all Advertisements addressed to the educated classes.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

A GOOD DEAL of excitement seems to have been caused at the Revising Barristers' Courts in the metropolis by the application of the doctrine laid down by Lord Coleridge and Mr. Justice Denman in Pickard v. Baylis (28 W. R. 256, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 235). That doctrine is certainly a strong instance of reading words into an Act of Parliament. Section 23 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 26) 23, provides that" in the case of a person claiming to vote as a lodger, the declaration annexed to his notice of claim shall, for the purposes of revision, be primâ facie evidence of his qualification." There is no express provision restricting the operation of these words to what we may call old lodger claims, but in Pickard v. Baylis, Lord Coleridge said the section was amply satisfied by holding that it points only" to such claims, "and that a lodger once on the list of voters, although still put to his formal claim in each succeeding year, shall not be brought before the revising barrister time after time to sustain his vote, but rely upon the declaration annexed to the claim as prima facie evidence of his qualification." And Denman, J., added that the section "can only be read as referring to claims made by persons who were before entitled to vote. It appears to me to be clear that section 23 does not apply to one claiming for the first time to vote. Mr. Justice Lindley thought the meaning of the

[ocr errors]

may

section doubtful, and declined to give an opinion which was not necessary for the purpose of the decision in the case. When we come to look at the grounds alleged for the dicta (for they were nothing more) of the other two judges, we do not find anything very substantial. Lord Coleridge seems to have based his opinion on a speculation as to the presumed intention of the Legislature. The intention, he thought, was to remedy the hardship to the lodger in the circumstance that, while other voters having once claimed and got onto the register were not put to the trouble of claiming again, and unless objected to were not obliged to appear to support their rights, the lodger voter was compelled to stand every year practically in the position of a fresh claimant. No doubt the Legislature intended to do this, but where is the proof that they intended to do this only? The words they have used have a much more extensive literal meaning. Mr. Justice Denman thought it would be unreasonable to suppose that there should be given to lodgers claiming for the first time the privilege of obtaining by a mere declaration that which all other voters could only obtain by a more difficult process, It may be unreasonable, but we submit that the reasonableness or unreasonableness of legislative provisions is not a matter for the judges. The only question should be, What has the Legislature said ?

[ocr errors]

ASSUMING THE GENUINENESS of a letter which appeared in a daily paper on Thursday, we think that Professor Piazzi Smyth has hitherto mistaken his vocation. Unfortunately for the interests of this little orb, he has hitherto confined his attention to the mightier worlds of the midnight sky, but having been induced to cast a glance around his fellow-creatures here, he has discovered an "honest, industrious community, who are taxed almost beyond endurance to support expensive law-courts, police-offices, prisons, gaolers, and finally to pay for the clothing and food of the able-bodied prisoner." "Is there," he asks, "any other mode of punishing such offences proportionately to their supposed wickedness, with due care to the health of the culprits and with any decided improvement as to public economy?" And he replies, Certainly there is. Dr. Tanner's mode of fasting furnishes us with the identical arm which the law has so long been in want of, prompt, salubrious, and mentally improving — viz., starvation from everything but cold water, for a period of one, two, or any number of days under forty. The thing can be put in force instantly and everywhere, and then behold the result! The present continually increasing expense of prisons to the community would be cut down to generally three days, in place of three years; while the hitherto too well-fed vagabonds would be returned to society in a purer state of physical constitution, and with a lively presentiment, enforced by Nature herself, that they must work honestly in future if they would eat." This is indeed, as the professor remarks, "the Philosopher's Stone." It affords a cheap and thoroughly effectual way of extirpating crime, for the most hardened thief, if kept long enough under the process, will never thieve again. The only weak point in the system appears to be the absence of anything corresponding to hard labour in aggravated crimes, and this might be supplied by a judicial direction to the gaoler to hold at the keyhole of the cell door, during certain specified hours, a savoury dish, the odour of which will pervade the cell. The nature of the dish should be varied in proportion to the seriousness of the crime and the tastes of the criminal. Offenders of the

deepest dye should starve amid the fumes of roast goose,

and Scottish criminals should suffer in the midst of an atmosphere of haggis.

THE RECENT ALARMS in Ireland have naturally led to the inquiry whether the Government intend to take any

or

extraordinary measures for the protection of life and property in that country, but it now seems to be understood that the ordinary powers of the law will be relied on as sufficient. These powers do not appear to differ in substance from those in force in England, the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts of 1861 applying for the most part to Ireland. The principal enactment applicable to the present state of things in Ireland would seem to be the 66th section of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, by which 66 any constable or peace officer may take into custody without a warrant any person whom he shall find lying or loitering in any highway, yard, other place during the night, and whom he shall have good cause to suspect of having committed or being about to commit any felony as in this Act mentioned". i.e., any of the felonious offences generally known as "offences against the person". Should more severe measures be requisite, however, it would be necessary to summon Parliament for the purpose of either (1) reviving the Peace Preservation Acts, which were last continued in 1875, by 38 Vict. c. 14, until the 30th of June, 1880, when they were suffered to lapse; or (2) suspending the Habeas Corpus Acts. There is a precedent for summoning Parliament before Christmas to deal with Irish troubles, for the first Peace Preservation Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 2) received the Royal assent at the unusual date of 20th of December, 1847. That Act, as is well known, gives power to the Lord-Lieutenant to "proclaim a district," and makes it unlawful to carry arms in a proclaimed district. It did not prove sufficient for its purpose, however, being shortly afterwards followed by the Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 35, which suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, a course afterwards again taken in 1866, by 29 Vict. c. 1, which suspended the Habeas Corpus Act from the 17th of February to the 1st of September, 1866. We can find no precedent for Government suspending the Habeas Corpus Act and afterwards coming to Parliament for an indemnity. Such a course has been, once at least, taken in the case of the Bank Charter Act (see 21 & 22 Vict. c. 1), but, of course, the illegal issue of a few millions of paper money is a far less serious matter than the illegal imprisonment of the humblest individual amongst her Majesty's subjects, "without being brought to answer by due process of law."

THE MIDDLESEX REGISTRY OFFICE was called upon by the House of Commons last session for a return for each of the years 1878 and 1879 of the fees received by the registrars of Middlesex, the expenses of the office, and the net amount paid to the surviving registrar and to the Queen's Remembrancer; and of the name or names of the registrars, and number of days on which each of them attend at the registry; and in reply it has been stated that the "fees received for the year 1878 were £14,657 Os. 5d., and the expenses £4,967 28. 8d., and the fees received for the year 1879 were £15,381 4s., and the expenses, £5,204 7s. 2d., these amounts being divisible between the Crown and Lord Truro. The present registrars are the Right Hon. Lord Truro and the Queen's Remembrancer, the latter of whom never attends to official duties at the registry. Lord Truro superintends the office and staff, and attends whenever his lordship's services are required. The fees and emoluments of the office are divisible between the Queen's Remembrancer and Lord Truro, the Remembrancer's share being placed to the public account at Messrs. Hoare's bank." The history of the fees charged is a curious one; surely without parallel in any similar office in any other country. Under the 7 Anne, c. 20, by which the office was established, the registrars were allowed (section 11) for the entry of every memorial "the sum of one shilling, and no more, in case the same do not exceed 200 words, but if such memorial shall exceed 200 words, then after the rate and proportion of sixpence an hundred for all the words contained in such

memorial over and above the first 200 words, and the like fees for the like number of words contained in every cer tificate or copy given out of the said office, and no more; and for every search in the said office, one shilling and no more." It appears, however, that these fees were altered about the year 1768; as was stated in a return to the House of Commons in 1862 "in pursuance of an arrangement between the then registrars and the public," but without any authority whatever. The altered charge was seven shillings for memorials not exceeding 500 words and sixpence for every 100 words above that number. The Act evidently contemplated that the shilling search fee should be the whole sum chargeable for searching in respect of any transaction, but by some mysterious means a separate search fee of a shilling for each name searched for was introduced. And, as we all know, this fee was swollen after the preparation of the lexicographical index to two shillings and sixpence. The result of these little changes has been during the past year to give to Lord Truro an income of over £5,000 from his sinecure office.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE appears in the new issue of The Nineteenth Century as a writer on 66 The Chase-its History and Laws." He states at the commencement his intention to be to pass in review the leading incidents in the history of the chase, and the laws which have regulated its exercise, or determined the extent to which property could be asserted or acquired in the wild ani mals which it is beyond the art, or foreign to the purpose, of man to domesticate; but as he only gets so far in his first paper as the hunting of the Eastern world in ancient times, there is no legal aspect of the matter to consider. It is, as he says, with the Romans that we first find any question raised as to the relative rights and obligations of the hunter and the owner of the soil, inter se.

The Worcester Election Petition against the retura of Mr. T. R. Hill and Mr. McIntyre, which was partly heard in July last, will be resumed at Worcester, on Tuesday, the 26th prox., before Mr. Justice Lush and Mr. Justice Manisty. The second election petition will be tried at Worcester on the 30th of October, following the Worcester petition.

At the meeting of the Court of Common Council on the 23rd inst., a letter was read from Mr. Commissioner Kerr, the judge of the City of London Court, stating that, the Court of Common Council having declined to make any alteration in the arrangements as to his attendance at the Central Criminal Court, he had consulted the recorder as to the number of days he should henceforth set aside for his actual and contingent duties at the Old Bailey, and he felt that for the future he must reserve two full weeks for each session. There would thus remain for the City of London Court, after allowing for the usual holidays, twenty-eight weeks, or if September be deducted, twenty-four weeks in the year-neither of which could afford sufficient sittings, with proper intervals, for the present business of the court. To prevent difficulty in the regular hearing of cases, delay in the execution of the process of the court, and dissatisfaction on the part of suitors, to whom he wished to afford the facilities they had hitherto possessed, and to permit the statutory requirements of the Admiralty Acts being complied with, he was prepared to appoint an assistant judge (as he was entitled) to hold courts during the fortnights reserved for the Old Bailey, but he would for many reasons prefer that two judges should be appointed directly by the corporation, before he sought such assistance. Having now served upwards of twenty-one years, he was quite willing to give the court an opportunity of appointing two judges, or of replacing himself by one who could undertake (which, in the present circamstances, he could not) the extensive and varied duties now pertaining to his office. After a brief discussion, in the course of which it was hinted that the court ought gladly to avail themselves of the last suggestion of the learned judge, the letter was referred to the Law and City Courts Committee for consideration and report,

THE GROUND GAME ACT.

II.

We stated last week the effect of this measure (1) where the right to kill and take hares and rabbits is in the occupier, and (2) where this right has been granted by the occupier to another person. We have now to consider the operation of the Act

(3) Where the right to kill and take hares and rabbits has been reserved to the landlord. If the land is let on lease for years, made before the 7th of September, 1880, the Act will not affect the rights of the landlord during the continuance of such lease, except by the general prohibitions contained in section 6 against killing hares and rabbits by firearms (between certain hours), spring traps, or poison.

If the land is let under a contract of tenancy from year to year, made before the 7th of September, 1880, the Act will not affect the rights of the landlord (except by the prohibitions above mentioned) until after the time at which the tenancy would have ended if notice to quit had been given on the 7th of September, 1880 (section 5). If the Agricultural Holdings Act has been excluded, this time will be the end of the current year of the tenancy, expiring not less than one half-year after the 7th of September-e.g., in the ordinary case of a Ladyday tenancy the rights of the landlord will be unaffected until after the 25th of March, 1881.

If the land is let on a tenancy at will (section 5), since this tenancy may be determined at once by mere demand of possession, it would seem that the Act will operate from the 7th of September, 1880.

We come now to the nature of the rights which are given to the occupier. We shall have occasion to observe on the absence of a definition of this term, but it is provided (section 1 (2)) that a person shall not be deemed to be an occupier of land by reason of his having a right of common over such land, or by reason of an occupation for the purpose of grazing, or pasturage of sheep, cattle, or horses for not exceeding nine months. The Act confers on the occupier an inalienable right (section 3), subject to certain restrictions, by himself and certain other persons authorized by him in writing, to kill and take bares and rabbits on the land in his occupation, concurrently with the landlord or any other person who may be entitled to kill and take hares and rabbits on the same land (section 1). The occupier and the persons authorized by him are relieved, for the purpose of exercising their rights under the Act, from the necessity of taking out a licence to kill game, and the occupier is enabled to sell the hares and rabbits killed by himself or the persons authorized by him as if he had a licence to kill game; but both he and persons authorized by him must take out a gun licence (section 4).

The restrictions imposed by the Act relate (1) to the persons who may be authorized by the occupier, and (2) to the mode and time of killing.

(1) The occupier can only authorize members of his household resident on the land, persons in his ordinary service on such land, and one other person bona fide tion employed by him for reward in the taking and destrucof hares and rabbits (section 1 (1) (b)). For the purpose of killing hares and rabbits with firearms, the occupier can only authorize one of these persons (1b. (1) (a.)), but he may authorize any number of them to kill and take hares and rabbits in any other mode not prohibited by section 6. Every person authorized by the occupier must produce his written authority on demand by any person having a concurrent right to take and kill rabbits and bares on the land, or any person authorized by him in writing to make such demand; and in default of production the person holding the occupier's authority is to be deemed an unauthorized person.

(2) Neither the occupier nor any one else can employ firearms to kill hares and rabbits between the end of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last

hour before sunrise, or employ spring traps except in rabbit holes, or employ poison (section 6). In the case of moorlands and uninclosed lands (not being arable lands, and not being detached portions adjoining arable lands, and less than twenty-five acres), the rights conferred by the Act on the occupier and persons authorized by him can only be exercised between the 11th of December and the 31st of March, both inclusive (section 1 (3)).

Proceeding now to our examination of the Act, section by section, the first point to be noticed in section 1 is the absence of any definition of "occupier." The term used in the Hare Act is "actual occupier," and the use of that phrase in the present Act would certainly have tended to remove a good deal of difficulty. Who

[ocr errors]

is to be deemed the "occupier" where a farm is carried on by trustees or executors, in pursuance of the provisions of a will, by means of a bailiff who lives at the farmhouse? Occupying land does not mean living upon it, and residence at the farm-house is nowhere required to constitute an "occupier" (although members of the occupier's "household resident on the land in his occupation are mentioned among the persons who may be authorized by him), and it appears to us that in the case supposed each of the trustees or executors would be deemed to be an "occupier" within the Act. Where a farm is carried on by two or more persons in partnership, each would, apparently, under the Act, be entitled to kill and take hares and rabbits. In such a case too the authority in writing must be a joint one, although no doubt one partner might be taken to act as agent for the other upon very slight evidence.

The authority in writing is not expressly required to be signed; and, notwithstanding the decision of Jessel, M.R., in Pooley v. Driver (25 W. R. 162, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 458), that a "contract in writing" under Bovill's Act means "a signed contract in writing," it may be doubted whether, under the Ground Game Act, signature to the "authority in writing" will be necessary. A form of authority is given in the schedule to the Hare Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 29), as follows:"I, A. B., do authorize C. D. to kill [ground game] on the lands occupied by me within the [here insert name of of parish or other place]. Dated the

Upon the provision of sub-section (1) (a) that "the occupier himself and one other person authorized in writing by such occupier shall be the only persons entitled under this Act to kill ground game with firearms," the words "under this Act will, of course, be observed, and it may be pointed out that the last words of the clause do not exclude air-guns, which, in the Gun Licence Act, 1870, are expressly distinguished from firearms.

Section 3, which provides that

"Every agreement, condition, or arrangement which purports to divest or alienate the right of the occupier as declared, given, and reserved to him by this Act, or which gives to such occupier any advantage in consideration of his forbearing to exercise such right, or imposes upon him any disadvantage in consequence of his exercising such right, shall be void,"

must be taken to mean" void so far as regards the divesting or alienating or preventing the exercise of the right of the occupier" (see Gaskell v. King, 11 East. 165, and the other decisions on the somewhat similar clause in the Property Tax Acts). For instance, a lease which reserves the right to kill hares and rabbits to the landlord will only be void so far as it excludes the concurrent right of the occupier. It will, of course, be necessary to reserve this right if it is desired that the landlord shall have a concurrent right to kill hares and rabbits.

With regard to the provision in section 4 that "nothing in this Act contained shall exempt any person from the provisions of the Gun Licence Act, 1870, it will be remembered that under section 6 of that Act a register is to be kept containing the names and addresses of every person licensed, and that such register

is open to the inspection of any person licensed under the Act.

Section 5, dealing with existing contracts, provides that

"Where at the date of the passing of this Act the right to kill and take ground game on any land is vested by lease, contract of tenancy, or other contract bona fide and for valuable consideration, in some person other than the occupier, the occupier shall not be entitled under this Act, until the determination of that contract, to kill and take ground game on such land."

[ocr errors][merged small]

Here it is curious to remark that the general word "contract - not "lease or contract"-is used in the phrase "determination of that contract." In the case of a lease containing an option to the tenant to determine it by notice, a determination by such notice would seem to be within the Act, and "determination' will, no doubt, include "determination" by forfeiture, surrender, or any other mode.

[ocr errors]

With regard to tenancies from year to year the words of the section are:

"For the purposes of this Act, a tenancy from year to year, or a tenancy at will, shall be deemed to determine at the time when such tenancy would by law become determinable if notice or warning to determine the same were given at the date of the passing of this Act."

The effect of this provision has been already explained, but attention should be drawn to the words " by law." The effect of these words appears to be that if the parties to a contract of tenancy from year to year have agreed upon a shorter period of notice to quit than that provided by implication of law or statutory provision, the right of the occupier will not accrue upon the determination of such tenancy, but only at the time at which, if no such agreement as to the notice to quit had been made, the tenancy would have determined (see Wilkinson v. Calvert, 26 W. R. 829, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 360).

The only remaining section we have to notice is the 10th, by which "nothing in this Act shall authorize the killing or taking of ground game on any days or seasons, or by any methods prohibited by any Act of Parliament in force at the time of the passing of this Act." The close days are clearly Sunday and Christmas-day for the killing of hares (not rabbits), on which days a penalty is imposed by 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32, s. 32; but we have searched the Statute-book in vain for a close "season" for either hares or rabbits, and the "method of taking hares by poison, which is the only prohibited method under the same statute, is also prohibited by section 6 of the Ground Game Act itself.

money in the hands of the executor at the end of each year; and, on the other hand, that interest should be charged in his favour on the payments made by him to the legatees, with interest on such payments to the time of making the report. That is not the proper mode to calculate the interest. The proper course will be, as is done in this country, to make rests at the end of each year, and to strike a balance and charge interest on the balances." And the House of Lords accordingly varied the decree of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland by the insertion of a declaration that rests should be made and interest computed in the manner above stated. If these cases are to be accepted as authorities, it would seem that compound interest must be charged in every case of unjustifiable retention of trust funds by a trustee or executor. But Stacpoole v. Stacpoole has been said to be carelessly reported (see 15 Beav. 466); and it is possible that in Willson v. Carmichael some facts are omitted which might have explained why compound interest was charged. But if these cases are difficult to understand, the judgment of Lord Brougham in Court v. Robarts (6 Cl. & F. 65) is bewildering. It was urged by counsel in that case that the trustee had employed in his own trade the money which came into his hands as such trustee, and that, as accounts were taken with rests in the trade carried on by the trustee, taken with rests. The will also contained a direction to the costuis que trust were entitled to have the account accumulate. Either of these circumstances, as we shall presently show, has been considered as necessarily charging a trustee or executor with compound interest; but Lord Brougham said (p. 93) that the question of ordering rests "is entirely discretionary, and must always depend on the whole circumstances of the case and the whole conduct of the parties." That is to say, Lord Brougham seems to have considered the charging of compound interest in the light of a penalty; but, although a similar expression of opinion is to be found in Jones v. Foxall (15 Beav., at p. 392), yet this is not only opposed to the principle as to charging interest which has been laid down in the recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, but also to the decision of Lord Eldon in Piety v. Stace (4 Ves. 620), where the court, notwithstanding that the executor had committed gross breaches of trust, refused to charge him with annual rests. The order which was made in Court v. Robarts charged the trustee who had employed the trust funds in his own trade with simple interest at five per cent., on the ground, as Lord Brougham explained (see p. 93), that four per cent. interest with half-yearly rests, "would have brought the rate of interest up to about five per cent. without rests." Notwithstanding Sir T. Plumer's decision in Crackelt v. Bethune (1 Jac. & W. 586), it may be said to be now quite clearly settled that interest at five,

CHARGING A TRUSTEE OR EXECUTOR WITHI❘ and not four, per cent, will be charged where the trustee

INTEREST. IV.

We now approach the most obscure part of our subject, and have to consider the circumstances under which a

trustee or executor will be charged with compound

interest. A series of decisions of the House of Lords has thrown great doubt on the principles on which the court will act. Thus in Stacpoole v. Stacpoole (4 Dow. 209), it is stated in the report that an administrator was charged by the order of the House of Lords with "the full legal rate of interest on the sum remaining undistributed,

making annual rests in the accounts and charging interest on the annual balances" (p. 230). There were, apparently, no special circumstances in this case beyond the retention of the assets by the administrator. In Willson v. Carmichael (2 Dow. & C. 51, 58, an Irish appeal) a similar doctrine seems to have been laid down. An executor had kept balances in his hands. The report does not disclose any other circumstances, but Lord Lyndhurst in delivering judgment said, "The decree of 1826 directed interest to be charged for the

has employed the trust money in trade. All that can be said of the decisions of the House of Lords to which we have referred is that they appear to have been disregarded in subsequent cases; and we shall leave them out of account in stating the result of these cases.

The circumstances under which a trustee or executor has been charged with compound interest are as follows:

(1) Where he has employed the trust moneys in trake for his own benefit and without authority. In this case the court presumes that his accounts have been taken in the ordinary way in which commercial accounts are taken-viz., with £5 per cent. interest, made up annually and therefore with rests, (Penny v. Avison, 3 Jur. N. S. 62; Jones v. Foxall, 15 Beav., at p. 392; Williams v. Powell, Ib. 461; Burdick v. Garrick, 18 W. R. 387; L. E 5 Ch., at p. 241). Thus, in Walker v. Woodward (1 Russ. 107), an administrator admitted that he had carried on the business of a farm with stock belonging to the assets of the intestate and that he had made a profit, but stated that, not having kept any accounts and having

« PreviousContinue »