« PreviousContinue »
extraordinary measures for the protection of life and memorial over and above the first 200 words, and the like property in that country, but it now seems to be under fees for the like number of words contained in every cerstood that the ordinary powers of the law will be relied tificate or copy given out of the said office, and no more ; on as sufficient. These powers do not appear to differ and for every search in the said office, one shilling and in substance from those in force in England, the Criminal no more." It appears, however, that these fees were Law Consolidation Acts of 1861 applying for the most altered about the year 1768 ; as was stated in a return part to Ireland. The principal enactment applicable to the House of Commons in 1862 " in pursuance of an to the present state of things in Ireland would seem to arrangement between the then registrars and the public," be the 66th section of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, by which but without any authority whatever. The altered charge " any constable or peace officer may take into custody was seven shillings for memorials not exceeding 500 without & warrant any person whom he shall find words and sixpence for every 100 words above that lying or loitering in any highway, yard, or number. The Act evidently contemplated that the other place during the night, and whom he shall have shilling search fee should be the whole sum chargeable good cause to suspect of having committed or being for searching in respect of any transaction, but by some about to commit any felony as in this Act mentioned " | mysterious means a separate search fee of a shilling for i.e., any of the felonious offences generally known as each name searched for was introduced. And, as we all "offences against the person". Should more severe know, this fee was swollen after the preparation of the measures be requisite, however, it would be necessary to lexicographical index to two shillirgs and sixpence. The summon Parliament for the purpose of either (1) reviving result of these little changes has been during the past the Peace Preservation Acts, which were last continued year to give to Lord Truro an income of over £5,000 from in 1875, by 38 Vict. c. 14, until the 30th of June, 1880, his sinecure office. 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,
The Lord Chief Justice appears in the new issue of for the first Peace Preservation Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 2) | The Nineteenth Century as a writer on “ The Chase-its received the Royal assent at the unusual date of 20th
History and Laws." He states at the commencement of December, 1847. That Act, as is well known, gives his intention to be to pass in review the leading incidents power to the Lord-Lieutenant to “proclaim a district,"
in the history of the chase, and the laws which have and makes it unlawful to carry arms in a proclaimed
regulated its exercise, or determined the extent to which district. It did not prove sufficient for its purpose,
property could be asserted or acquired in the wild anihowever, being shortly afterwards followed by
mals which it is beyond the art, or foreign to the purpose, the Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 35, which suspended
of man to domesticate; but as he only gets so far in his first the Habeas Corpus Act, a course afterwards again paper as the hunting of the Eastern world in ancient taken in 1866, by 29 Vict. c. 1, which sus
times, there is no legal aspect of the matter to consider. pended the Habeas Corpus Act from the 17th of It is, as he says, with the Romans that we first find any February to the 1st of September, 1866. We can find
question raised as to the relative rights and obligations no precedent for Government suspending the Habeas of the hunter and the owner of the soil, inter se. 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
The Worcester Election Petition against the retura of Mr. matter than the illegal imprisonment of the humblest T. R. Hill and Mr. McIntyre, which was partly heard 10 individual amongst her Majesty's subjects, “ without
Joly last, will be resumed at Worcester, on Tuesday, the 26th being brought to answer by due process of law.”
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. THE MIDDLESEX REGISTRY OFFICE was called upon by
At the meeting of the Court of Common Council on the
| 23rd inst., a letter was read from Mr. Commissioner Kerr, the House of Commons last session for a return for each
the judge of the City of London Court, stating that, the of the years 1878 and 1879 of the fees received by the
Court of Common Council having declined to make any registrars of Middlesex, the expenses of the office, and alteration in the arrangements as to his attendance at the the net amount paid to the surviving registrar and to Central Criminal Court, he had consulted the recorder as to the Queen's Remembrancer; and of the name or names the number of days he should henceforth set aside for his of the registrars, and number of days on which each actual and contingent duties at the Old Bailey, and he felt of them attend at the registry; and in reply it has been that for the future he must reserve two full weeks for each stated that the “ fees received for the year 1878 were
session. There would thus remain for the City of London £14,657 Og. 5d., and the expenses £4,967 2s. 8d., and
Court, after allowing for the usual holidays, twenty-eight the fees received for the year 1879 were $15,381 48.,
weeks, or if September be deducted, twenty-four weeks in and the expenses, £5,204 7s. 2d., these amounts being
the year-neither of which could afford sufficient sittings divisible between the Crown and Lord Truro. The
with proper intervals, for the present business of the court.
To prevent difficulty in the regular hearing of cases, delay in present registrars are the Right Hon. Lord Truro and
the execution of the process of the court, and dissatisfaction the Queen's Remembrancer, the latter of whom never
on the part of suitors, to whom he wished to afford the attends to official duties at the registry. Lord Truro
facilities they had hitherto possessed, and to permit the superintends the office and staff, and attends whenever statutory requirements of the Admiralty Acts being complied his lordship's services are required. The fees and emolu. with, he was prepared to appoint an assistant judge (as he was ments of the office are divisible between the Queen's entitled) to hold courts during the fortnights reserved for the Remembrancer and Lord Truro, the Remembrancer's Old Bailey, but he would for many reasons prefer that two share being placed to the public account at Messrs. judges should be appointed directly by the corporation, before Hoare's bank.” The history of the fees charged is a
he sought such assistance. Having now served upwards of curious one; surely without parallel in any similar
twenty-one years, he was quite willing to give the court an office in any other country. Under the 7 Anne, c. 20,
opportunity of appointing two judges, or of replacing bimself by which the office was established, the registrars were
by one who could undertake (which, in the present circumallowed (section 11) for the entry of every memorial
stances, he could not) the extensive and varied duties nos “the sum of one shilling, and no more, in case the same
pertaining to his office. After a brief discussion, in the course
of wbich it was hinted that the court ought gladly to arsi do not exceed 200 words, but if such memorial shall themselves of the last suggestion of the learned judge, the exceed 200 words, then after the rate and proportion of letter was referred to the Law and City Courts Committee for sixpence an hundred for all the words contained in such consideration and reporte
hour before sunrise, or employ spring traps except in TAE GROUND GAME ACT.
rabbit holes, or employ poison (section 6). In the case II.
of moorlands and uninclosed lands (not being arable We stated last week the effect of this measure (1) where
lands, and not being detached portions adjoining arable the right to kill and take hares and rabbits is in the
lands, and less than twenty-five acres), the rights conferred occupier, and (2) where this right has been granted by by the Act on the occupier and persons authorized by him the occupier to another person. We have now to con
can only be exercised between the 11th of December and sider the operation of the Act
the 31st of March, both inclusive (section 1 (3)). (3) Where the right to kill and take hares and rabbits
Proceeding now to our examination of the Act, section has been reserved to the landlord. If the land is let on
by section, the first point to be noticed in section 1 lease for years, made before the 7th of September, 1880,
is the absence of any definition of “occupier.” The the Act will not affect the rights of the landlord during
term used in the Hare Act is “actual occupier,” and the continuance of such lease, except by the general pro
the use of that phrase in the present Act would certainly hibitions contained in section 6 against killing hares and
have tended to remove a good deal of difficulty. Who rabbits by firearms (between certain hours), spring traps,
is to be deemed the “occupier” where a farm is carried or poison.
on by trustees or executors, in pursuance of the provisions If the land is let under a contract of tenancy from
of a will, by means of a bailiff who lives at the farmyear to year, made before the 7th of September, 1880, house ?. , Occupying land does not mean living upon it, the Act will not affect the rights of the landlord (except and residence at the farm-house is nowhere required to by the prohibitions above mentioned) until after the time
constitute an “occupier" (although members of the at which the tenancy would have ended if notice to quit occupier's household resident on the land in his had been given on the 7th of September, 1880 (section be authorized by him), and it appears to us that in the
occupation" are mentioned among the persons who may 5). If the Agricultural Holdings Act has been excluded, this time will be the end of the current year of the
case supposed each of the trustees or executors would tenancy, expiring not less than one half-year after the
be deemed to be an “occupier" within the Act. Where 7th of September-e.g., in the ordinary case of a Lady
a farm is carried on by two or more persons in partnerday tenancy the rights of the landlord will be unaffected
ship, each would, apparently, under the Act, be entitled
to kill and take hares and rabbits. In such a case too until after the 25th of March, 1881.
If the land is let on a tenancy at will (section 5), the authority in writing must be a joint one, although since this tenancy may be determined at once by mere
no doubt one partner might be taken to act as agent for demand of possession, it would seem that the Act will
the other upon very slight evidence. operate from the 7th of September, 1880.
The authority in writing is not expressly required We come now to the nature of the rights which are
to be signed; and, notwithstanding the decision of given to the occupier. We shall have occasion to
Jessel, M.R., in Pooley v. Driver (25 W. R. 162, L. R. observe on the absence of a definition of this term, but it
5 Ch. L. 458), that a “contract in writing" under is provided (section 1 (2)) that a person shall not be
Bovill's Act means "a signed contract in writing,” it deemed to be an occupier of land by reason of his having may be doubted whether, under the Ground Game Act, a right of common over such land, or by reason of an
signature to the “authority in writing" will be neces. occupation for the purpose of grazing, or pasturage of
sary. A form of authority is given in the schedule to sheep, cattle, or horses for not exceeding nine months. | the Hare Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 29), as follows :The Act confers on the occupier an inalienable right (sec
“T, A. B., do authorize C. D. to kill [ground game] on tion 3), subject to certain restrictions, by himself and
the lands occupied by me within the [here insert name of
of certain other persons authorized by him in writing, to parish or other place). Dated the kill and take bares and rabbits on the land in his occu Upon the provision of sub-section (1) (a) that “the pation, concurrently with the landlord or any other occupier himself and one other person authorized in person who may be entitled to kill and take hares and writing by such occupier shall be the only persons rabbits on the same land (section 1). The occupier and entitled under this Act to kill ground game with fire. the persons authorized by him are relieved, for the arms,” the words "under this Act” will, of course, be purpose of exercising their rights under the Act, from observed, and it may be pointed out that the last words the necessity of taking out a licence to kill game, and
of the clause do not exclude air.guns, which, in the the oczupier is enabled to sell the hares and rabbits Gun Licence Act, 1870, are expressly distinguished killed by himself or the persons authorized by him as if from firearms. he had a licence to kill game; but both he and persons Section 3, which provides that authorized by him must take out a gun licence (section “Every agreement, condition, or arrangement which 4).
parports to divest or alienate the right of the occupier as The restrictions imposed by the Act relate (1) to the declared, given, and reserved to him by this Act, or which persons who may be authorized by the occupier, and (2) gives to such occapier any advantage in consideration of to the mode and time of killing.
his forbearing to exercise Buch right, or imposes upon him (1) The occupier can only authorize members of his apy disadvantage in consequence of his exercising such household resident on the land, persons in his ordinary right, shall be poid,” service on such land, and one other person bonâ fide must be taken to mean“ void so far as regards the divesttion employed by him for reward in the taking and destruc- ing or alienating or preventing the exercise of the right of hares and rabbits (section 1 (1) (6)). For the purpose of the occupier” (see Gaskell v. King, 11 East. 165, and of killing hares and rabbits with firearms, the occupier the other decisions on the somewhat similar clause in can only authorize one of these persons (16. (1) (a.)), but the Property Tax Acts). For instance, a lease which he may authorize any number of them to kill and take reserves the right to kill hares and rabbits to the land, hares and rabbits in any other mode not prohibited by lord will only be void so far as it excludes the concursection 6. Every person authorized by the occupier rent right of the occupier. It will, of course, be necesmust produce his written authority on demand by any sary to reserve this right if it is desired that the landperson having a concurrent right to take and kill rabbits lord shall have a concurrent right to kill hares and and bares on the land, or any person authorized by him rabbits. in writing to make such demand ; and in default of pro With regard to the provision in section 4 that duction the person holding the occupier's authority is to thing in this Act contained shall exempt any person be deemed an unauthorized person.
from the provisions of the Gun Licence Act, 1870, it (2) Neither the occupier nor any one else can employ will be remembered that under section 6 of that Act firearms to kill hares and rabbits between the end of the a register is to be kept containing the names and first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last addresses of every person licensed, and that such register
is open to the inspection of any person licensed under money in the hands of the executor at the end of each the Act.
year; and, on the other hand, that interest should be Section 5, dealing with existing contracts, provides charged in his favour on the payments made by him to
the legatees, with interest on such payments to the time “ Where at the date of the passing of this Act the right
of making the report. That is not the proper mode to to kill and take ground game on any land is vested by lease,
calculate the interest. The proper course will be, as is contract of tenancy, or other contract bond fide and for valu done in this country, to make rests at the end of each able consideration, in some person other than the occupier, year, and to strike a balance and charge interest on the the occapier shall not be entitled under this Act, until the balances.” And the House of Lords accordingly varied determination of that contract, to kill and take ground game the decree of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland by the inon such land."
sertion of a declaration that rests should be made and Here it is curious to remark that the general word
interest computed in the manner above stated. “contract” — not “ lease or contract"-is used in | If these cases are to be accepted as authorities, the phrase "determination of that contract.” In the it would seem that compound interest mu case of a lease containing an option to the tenant to in every case of unjustifiable retention of trust funds by determine it by notice, a determination by such notice
a trustee or executor. But Stacpoole v. Stacpoole has would seem to be within the Act, and “determination"
been said to be carelessly reported (see 15 Beav. 466); will, no doubt, include “determination” by forfeiture,
and it is possible that in Willson v. Carmichael some surrender, or any other mode.
facts are omitted which might have explained why comWith regard to tenancies from year to year the words
pound interest was charged. But if these cases are of the section are :
difficult to understand, the judgment of Lord Brougham “For the purposes of this Aot, a tenancy from year to
in Court v. Robarts (6 Cl. & F. 65) is bewildering. It year, or a tenancy at will, shall be deemed to determine at
was urged by counsel in that case that the trustee had the time when such tenancy would by law become deter
employed in his own trade the money which came into minable if notice or warning to determine the same were
his hands as such trustee, and that, as accounts were given at the date of the passing of this Aot.”
taken with rests in the trade carried on by the trustee,
the cestuis que trust were entitled to have the account The effect of this provision has been already explained,
taken with rests. The will also contained a direction to but attention should be drawn to the words“ by law.”
accumulate. Either of these circumstances, as we shall The effect of these words appears to be that if the
presently show, has been considered as necessarily parties to a contract of tenancy from year to year have
charging a trustee or executor with compound interest; agreed upon a shorter period of notice to quit than that
but Lord Brougham said (p. 93) that the question of provided by implication of law or statutory provision,
ordering rests “is entirely discretionary, and must the right of the occupier will not accrue upon the de
always depend on the whole circumstances of the case termination of such tenancy, but only at the time at
and the whole conduct of the parties.” That is to say, which, if no such agreement as to the notice to quit
Lord Brougham seems to have considered the charging had been made, the tenancy would have determined (see
of compound interest in the light of a penalty; but, Wilkinson v. Calvert, 26 W. R. 829, L. R. 3 C. P. D.
although a similar expression of opinion is to be 360).
found in Jones V. Foxall (15 Beav., at p. 392), yet The only remaining section we have to notice is the
this is not only opposed to the principle as to 10th, by which “nothing in this Act shall authorize the
charging interest which has been laid down in the killing or taking of ground game on any days or seasons,
recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in Chan. or by any methods prohibited by any Act of Parliament
cery, but also to the decision of Lord Eldon in in force at the time of the passing of this Act.” The
Piety v. Stace (4 Ves. 620), where the court, notwithclose days are clearly Sunday and Christmas-day for the
standing that the executor had committed gross breaches killing of hares (not rabbits), on which days a penalty is
of trust, refused to charge him with annual rests. The imposed by 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32, s. 32 ; but we
order which was made in Court v. Robarts charged the have searched the Statute-book in vain for a close
trustee who had employed the trust funds in his own “season " for either hares or rabbits, and the “ method”
trade with simple interest at five per cent., on the ground, of taking hares by poison, which is the only prohibited
as Lord Brougham explained (see p. 93), that four per method under the same statute, is also prohibited by sec.
cent. interest with half-yearly rests, "would hare tion 6 of the Ground Game Act itself.
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 WITII
and not four, per cent, will be charged where the trustee INTEREST.
has employed the trust money in trade. All that can be
said of the decisions of the House of Lords to which we We now approach the most obscure part of our subject,
have referred is that they appear to have been disreand have to consider the circumstances under which a
garded in subsequent cases; and we shall leave them trustee or executor will be charged with compound
out of account in stating the result of these cases. interest. A series of decisions of the House of Lords
The circumstances under which a trustee or executor has thrown great doubt on the principles on which the
has been charged with compound interest are as fol. court will act. Thus in Stacpoole v. Stacpoole (4 Dow.
lows:209), it is stated in the report that an administrator was (1) Where he has employed the trust moneys in trade charged by the order of the House of Lords with “ the full for his own benefit and without authority. In this case legal rate of interest on the sum remaining undistributed, | the court presumes that his accounts have been taken in . . , making annual rests in the accounts and the ordinary way in which commercial accounts are charging interest on the annual balances" (p. 230). taken-viz., with £5 per cent. interest, made up annually There were, apparently, no special circumstances in this and therefore with rests, (Penny v. Avison, 3 Jur. X. case beyond the retention of the assets by the adminis. S. 62 ; Jones v. Foxall, 15 Beav., at p. 392; Williams T. trator. In Willson v. Carmichael (2 Dow. & C. 51, 58, Powell, Ib. 461 ; Burdick v. Garrick, 18 W. R. 387; L.E. an Irish appeal) a similar doctrine seems to have been 5 Ch., at p. 241). Thus, in Walker v. Woodward (1 laid down. An executor had kept balances in his hands. Russ. 107), an administrator admitted that he had carried The report does not disclose any other circumstances, on the business of a farm with stock belonging to the as but Lord Lyndhurst in delivering judgment said, “The sets of the intestate and that he had made a profit, but decree of 1826 directed interest to be charged for the stated that, not having kept any accounts and having
blended the transactions of the farm with his other con be made ; thus, as Sir T. Plumer said (1 Mad., at p. 300), cerns, he could not set forth the amount of his profits. giving double compound interest. Lord Eldon doubted It was ordered that in taking the accounts against him an. (see 11 Ves. 111) whether this had ever been done nual rests should be made and interest should be calcu - before, and we cannot find that it has been done since lated at five per cent. upon those annual rests (see except in Burdick v. Garrick, where Vice-Chancellor Attorney General v. Solly, 2 Sim. 518, where it was Stuart decreed an account to be taken with half-yearly alleged in argument that the order for making rests (see 18 W. R. 387, L. R. 5 Ch. 233); but on annual rests in this was obtained by sur. appeal the direction as to charging compound interest was prise). On the other hand, it is to be ob struck out, and in subsequent cases in which compound served that in Ashburnham v. Thompson (13 Ves. 402 : | interest has been charged against a trustee or executor see a statement of the case from an original note in yearly rests have been ordered. As Lord Brougham 1 Mad. 303), where executors kept a balance in their said in Docker v. Somes (2 My. & K., at p. 663), "all the hands for twenty years and employed it for their own judges who have mentioned the decree in Raphael v. advantage, although it was urged (see 1 Mad. 303) that, Boehm have considered it as severe”; but it would seem as the executors had made compound interest, they ought on principle that where half-yearly rests are made in the to be charged with it, the Master of the Rolls refused to trade in which trust money has been employed, the do so. And in Attorney-General v. Solly (2 Sim. 518), trustee will be charged with half-yearly rests. where the trustee had employed the trust money in The effect of a direction that yearly rests shall be carrying on his trade, Sir L. Shadwell declined to order made was explained in Heighington v. Grant (5 My. & yearly rests to be made. Recent decisions, however, have Cr. 258, 266). The interest will be calculated upon each clearly recognized the liability of the trustee to be of the sums received and retained by the trustee or charged with compound interest in all cases where the executor from the time it is received up to the end of trust funds have been engaged in a trade in which com. the current year, as the case may be; then the amount pound interest is ordinarily made upon the money em of such interest will be added to the principal; and from ployed in it. (See Burdick v. Garrick, 18 W. R. 387 ; that time interest will be calculated on the sum so made L. R. 5 Ch. 233; Vyse v. Foster, 21 W. R. 207 L. R. 8 up of principal and interest, the same process being Ch. 309, 337).
repeated at the end of each subsequent year. The rule, as already explained, has been based in the Where a trustee has acted so as to incur the liability recent cases upon the presumption that the trustee or
to interest, and has become bankrupt, the court will executor has made compound interest on the trust money
decree interest against his estate (Morris v. De Bernales, which he has embarked in trade. Where the trade in 1 Russ. 301, 305 ; Dornford v. Dornford, 12 Ves. 127). which the money has been employed is one in
It is immaterial whether the sum which the trustee which compound interest is not made, and in which or executor has wrongfully retained is the capital of rests would not be made in making up the ac.
the trust funds or accumulated interest thereon. In counts, the trustee will not be charged with compound the latter case the claim for interest on the sum im. interest (Burdick v. Garrick, 18 W. R. 387, L. R. 5 Ch. properly retained is made, not on account of the arrears 233, 242). Thus it was said by Lord Hatherley in the of income, but for the improper keeping back of a sum, last-mentioned case that “there is nothing like com
from whatever source derived, which the trustee or exopound interest obtained on the money employed by a
cutor ought to have paid over (Blogg V. Johnson, 15 solicitor. On the contrary, he is out of pocket for a W. R. 626, L. R. 2 Ch. 225: Bee Hollingsworth v. considerable period by those moneys which he expends, Shakeshaft, 14 Beav. 492, 498). and upon which he receives no interest for, possibly, three
Interest will be given by the court, although it may or four years ”; hence the court refused to charge with not be asked for by the pleadings (Goodyere v. Lake, compound interest a fiduciary who had employed money
Amb. 584; Turner v. Turner, 1 J. & W. 39; Pearse with which he had been intrusted in the business of a
v. Green, 1 J. & W. 135; Woodhead v. Marriott, 0, solicitor.
P. Cooper 62; Melland v. Gray, 2 Coll. 295; Hollings. (2) Compound interest will also be charged against a
worth v. Shakeshaft, 14 Beav. 492, 498); and interest trustee or executor who, notwithstanding an express
will be given upon further directions, although the ques. trust or direction in the trust instrument, to accumulate
tion was not reserved at the hearing (Hollingsworth v. the income (or surplus income: Knott v. Cottee, 16 Beav.
Shakeshaft, 14 Beav., at p. 497 ; Johnsonv. Prendergast, 77) of the trust funds, keeps them in hand, without en
28 Beav. 480). deavonring to invest them so as to fulfil the trust (Raphael v. Boehm, 11 Ves. 92, 13 Ves. 407; Wilson v. A correspondent of the T'imes cites the following provisions Peake, 3 Jur. N. S. 155 ; Jones v. Foxall, 15 Beav. 388; of the German Handelsgesetzbuch, with reference to traders see also the observations of Lord Selborne in Vyse v. being compelled to keep regular books. Art. 28.-Every Foster, 23 W. R. 355, L. R. 7 H. L., at p. 346; but see trader is bound to keep books in which his business transDornton v. Dornton (13 Ves. 402), where, although the actions and his financial position are fully disclosed. Further, will contained a direction to accumulate (see 1 Mad. he is bound to keep the business letters which he receives and 301), compound interest was not ordered). The trustee copies of the letters which he sends Art. 29.-Every trader, or executor will be considered as having lent the trust
on commencing business, is bound to make an inventory con. money to himself upon the terms upon which he could
taining an exact description of his property and liabilities ; have lent it to others, and as often as he ought to have
it must state the value of such property as is in land. He lent it (Raphael v. Boehm, 11 Ves., at p. 107); hence
must also draw up a balance-sheet of his property and lia.
bilities. In each subsequent year the trader must draw up a the account will be taken against him with rests.
similar inventory and balance-sheet. Art. 30.--The inven. (3) It would also seem that, although the trust in- tory and balance-sheet must be signed by the trader. In the strument contains no express trust or direction to accu case of a partnership every partner, personally liable, must mulate the interest, yet if, under the circumstances of sign. Art. 31.-In making up the inventory and the balancethe case (e.g., the cestui que trust being an infant main
sheet the property and the debts due to the estate must be tained by his father), the interest upon the investments
estimated according to their existing value. Doubtful debts of the trust fund improperly retained ought to have
must be estimated according to their probable value. Bad
debts must be written off. Art. 32. -The books must be been invested from time to time, the trustee executor will be charged with compound interest must be left between the entries. Entries must not be erased
bound, and each page of them must be numbered. No space (Walrond v. Walrond, 29 Beav. 586 : see the observa
or made illegible in any way. Alterations must not be made if tions in Jones v. Foxall, 15 Beav., at pp. 393, 394; also they are of such a character as to make it uncertain whether the remarks of Lord Selborne in Vyse v. Foster, 21 W. they were original or subsequent entries. Art. 33.-Traders R. 207, L. R. 8 Ch., at p. 346).
are bound to keep their books, inventories, and balanceIn Raphael v. Boehm half-yearly rests were ordered to sheets for ten years from the time they were made up.
Legislation of the Year.
Cases of the umeek.
PRACTICE-ATTACHMENT FOR CONTEMPT-BANKRUPTCT
INABILITY TO DO ACT ORDERED--RELEASE-DISCRETION OF 42 Vict. c. 8.-ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS June
JUDGE.-Ic a case of Pooley v. Whetham, before tbe VacaAct, 1879, AMENDMENT ACT, 1880.
tion Judge on the 29th alt., a motion was made to discbarge This little Act need alarm no one. It merely reads the plaintiff from custody under the following circamout of the recited Act words which had been inserted stanoes :-An order was made in September, 1879, for tbe therein by mistake. The words swept out of the statute- plaintiff's committal for contempt in pot obeyiog an order book are these, “in the form set forth in the third
for the delivery by him of a railway in Jersey to the schedule bereto." The form in question was a form of receiver in the action. The plaintiff evaded the order by mortgage of labourers' dwellings to the Public Works
going abroad, and has not given up possession of the rail. Loans Commissioners. Such commissioners may still
way to the present time. After the order for his comadvance the money, but must get their mortgages
mittal the plaintiff was adjudicated a bankrapt, and his
trustee recently obtained a request in the nature of a wris drawn in the usual manner. The section apparently
of agsistance to the Jersey court to enable kim to could not have been worked without the amending Act.
obtain possession of the railway. In June last the The statutory amendment of statutory clerical errors is
plaintiff was arrested in France under the Extradition Act not at all infrequent, but the only instance we can call
for certain offences against the Bankroptoy Act, and was to mind of a clerical error having a whole Act of Par. examined before a magistrate in London on these obarges, liament to itself is the filling up of a blank in 1 Vict. and was acquitted. On going out of court be was arrested C. 23, s. 7, by 1 & 2 Vict. c. 29. The former Act under an order of Bacon, V.C., and committed to Holio. allowed an incumbent to sell an inconvenient parsonage way Gaol for his contempt in not obeying the order of and land contiguous not exceeding - acres. The later September, 1879. The plaintiff moved for his discharge one directed that the word "twelve " should be inserted before the Vice-Chancellor and also the Court of Appeal, on between “exceeding” and “ acres."
the ground that his arrest was an evasion of the Extradi.
tion Act, under which a person can only be committed for PROBATE DUTY.
the one offence for which he is extradited ; and also on tbe
ground that the extradition was obtained by collusion and 42 Vict. c. 14.-THE CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE for the real parpose of attaching the plaintiff. The Court Act, 1880.
of Appeal, however, refused to release the plaintiff on either The provisions of part 3, sections 9-13, were ex
of the above grounds, and he accordingly remained in prison. plained in our columns at the time of the passing of the
| The present application was based on the statute, li Geo.
4, and I Will 4, c. 36, s. 15, which gives tbe court a discreAct; and it is only necessary to add here that section 11
tion to discharge a prisoner for contempt, and on the ground extends the provisions of section 41 of 16 & 17 Vict. c.
that by reason of the bankruptcy the plaintiff could not 61, enabling the commissioners to commute future
now do anything further to give possession of the railway succession duty. The former provision required the
to the receiver, and that he should not be kept in prison for application to be made by the person entitled to the an indefinite time. It was also urged that he had been in succession in expectancy; the new provision enables the prison now three months, was in failing health, and was sisir. application to be made by the executor or trustee or eight years of age, and, therefore, that the court should exer other person who would be accountable for the duty in cise its discretion in his favour. LUSH, J., after some respect of the expectancy if it were then in possession. discussion, said that the object of the committal was to The former provision had reference to succession duty
compel obedience to the order of the court, and, therefore, il only; the new one enables the commissioners to com.
he saw that the plaintiff could do nothing forther mute any legacy duty or succession duty presumptively
towards giving up possession of the railway to the receiver payable in respect of any interest in expectancy upon the
he should discharge hin. As, however, this fact did not sp
pear on the affidavits of either party, he should direct the determination of a life, or other temporary, interest in
motion to stand over to the 7th proximo, when he would dispossession in a legacy, or residue, or in personal property pose of the case himself on the fresh evidence.-SOLICI. comprised in a succession.
TORS, Harper, Broad, & Battcock; Newman, Stretton, Section 12 enables executors, administrators, and Hilliard. trustees to relieve themselves from their liability to legacy or succession duty (under 36 Geo. 3, c. 52, s. 6, and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51, s. 44) in respect of any funds in their hands which they intend to distribute, on delivering to the commissioners notice in writing for any claim to the duty, and furnishing them with all particulars which DALTON-IN-TURNESS.-(Mr. E. MACRORT).-Sept. 25. they may require, and satisfying any claims to duty Claim in respect of enfranchised customaryholds. made by the commissioners. The personal representa
An important question was raised upon claims by persons tive or trustee will, thereupon, obtain a certificate of dis.
occupying freebold houses bailt on land which was formerly charge from the commissioners, but the liability of the
customarybold and had been enfranchised, but the mines persons beneficially interested will remain unaffected. and minerals were reserved to the lord of the manor.
THE BARRISTER ruled that in claiming in respect of free
bold houses the claimout was wrong, as the property was A few weeks ago the stipendiary magistrate of Brigh. | not freehold. ton, Mr. Bigge, who bas held the appointment for a quarter
MIDDLESEX (BETUNAL GREEN).-(Mr. J. N. GOREN).of a centary, applied to the town coupoil for an increase of
Sept. 29. his salary, and the increase (from £800 to £1,000), having been granted, it was arranged that a fresh commission
Foreign name of claimant. sbould be issued to him. In view of this Mr. Bigge In the parish of St. Leopard, Shoreditob, a person of the resigned his seat, but subsequently it was asoertained that name of Isaao Lolosky made a claim for freehold property. an alteration in the law prevented him from taking it again Mr. Pym (Conservative) raised the objeotion that tbe until be bad bad the oath administered to bim at quarter claimant's dame being a foreign one, it ought to be prored sessions, before the Lord Chancellor, or by a judge sitting that he was properly paturalized. in open court. The result bas been that for over a week Mr. Prince (Liberal) contended that it must be 18the criminal business of the borough has been left in the sumed that he was naturalizedopless Mr. Pym could prodace bands of the unpaid magistracy, causing both inconvenience some evidence to the contrary. To raise auch ap objection and delay in more than one instance. Mr. Bigge, how- on new claim, and without evidence, would lead to great ever, baving been duly sworn in in London, again took his trouble, and much discussion would constantly arise as to seat on Wednesday,
I whether a name was a foreign one or not.