not answer to the warranty-in which case, as Mr. Justice Littledale said in Bywater v. Richardson (1 A. & E. 508), it is "as if the vendor had said after so many hours or days I do not warrant. But unless the warranty is held to be thus limited, is difficult to see how a mere provision that any horse not answering to warranty must be returned within a certain time can be held to restrict the remedy of the purchaser for breach of warranty to that one mode of redress: To hold that an unlimited specific warranty given with a horse may be cut down by ambiguous general expressions in the conditions of sale to a warranty for only a very limited time, is to afford direct encouragement to unfair practice.

The

It

In Head v. Tattersall (20 W. R. 115, L. R. 7 Ex. 7) the plaintiff bought a mare at a sale by auction under the condition mentioned at the commencement of these remarks. The mare was described in the catalogue as having been hunted with the Bicester and Duke of Grafton's hounds. This statement was untrue, and it appeared that after the sale the plaintiff was told that it was untrue. plaintiff, however, had the mare taken away, but returned her within the time limited by the condition, and brought an action to recover the price he had paid for her. was contended that the plaintiff, having had notice that the representation was false, ought not to have removed the mare, and that by doing so he had waived his right to return her. The court, however, held that the plaintiff had not debarred himself from returning the mare; he could not, said Kelly, C.B., "have left the mare incumbering the defendant's premises while he ascertained the truth of the representation." A more important point, decided in the same case, was that the plaintiff was not precluded from returning the mare by the fact that she had, while in his possession, but not through his default, sustained an injury. If, however, a horse, while in the possession of the purchaser during the period limited for return by the conditions of sale, is used for a purpose not necessary for testing the truth of the warranty, and injury to the horse results from such use, the purchaser will not be entitled to return the horse (see the judgment of Bramwell, B., in Head v. Tattersall.)

POINTS UNDER THE NEW BURIALS ACT. THE new Burials Act has caused the disinterment of two

quaint points of ecclesiastical law. A Cumberland vicar, on notice being given for a burial under the new Act, objected that, by section 9, the Act is not to authorize the burial of any person in any place where such person would have had no right of interment if the Act had not passed; that non-parishioners had no right of interment in the parish churchyard without the consent of the incumbent; the deceased person was not a parishioner, and, therefore, could not be interred in the parish churchyard without his consent, which he declined to give, if the service was not to be conducted by himself. The point is one of considerable difficulty. There are two classes of persons whose rights may be infringed by the burial of a stranger in a parish churchyard: the incumbent, in whom, to a qualified extent, the freehold of the churchyard is, and to whom the profits of the surface belong; and the parishioners, who have a right to the use of the churchyard for the burial of their dead. It is clear that without the consent of the churchwardens, on behalf of the parishioners, non-parishioners dying outside the parish cannot lawfully be interred in the parish churchyard; but it is not so certain whether, supposing the churchwardens to consent, the consent of the incumbent is also necessary. There does not appear to be any case in the reports in which it has been laid down that his consent must be obtained; but the churchwardens of Harrow are said (see 1 Phill. Ecc. Law, 843) to have been cited before the Ecclesiastical Court (presumably by

the incumbent, though this is not stated) for suffering strangers to be buried in their churchyard; and, on the culprits appearing and confessing the charge, “they were admonished not to suffer the same for the future." The opinion of a learned civilian, Dr. Harris, also cited in the same work, states that since the surface of the churchyard belongs to the incumbent, and the "interior part" thereof to the parishioners, no "outdweller " ought to be buried without the consent both of the incumbent and the churchwardens. In Bardin v. Calcott (1 Hagg. 17), Sir W. Scott said that the permission for strangers to be buried in the parish churchyard "should be sparingly granted, since there can be no absolute claim of that kind;" but in that case the learned judge thought that there was enough to prove that the churchwardens were authorized to give such leave, since a table of fees was produced in which there was a fee prescribed "for the burial of strangers." It appears that the incumbent cannot legally refuse to bury anyone who dies in his parish (see the opinion of Dr. Swabey, sen., 1 Phill. Ecc. Law, 845). On the whole it would seem that unless the nonparishioner has died in the parish, the consent of the incumbent as well as of the churchwardens is in general necessary to burial in the parish churchyard.

one

The other point referred to above is whether the incumbent can refuse to allow a bell to be tolled at funerals taking place under the new Act. The 67th canon of 1603 provides that, "when any is passing out of this life a bell shall be tolled, and the minister shall not then be slack to do his last duty. And after the party's death, if it so fall out, there shall be rung no more but one short peal, and one other before the burial, and one other after the burial." A learned correspond. ent of the Times has expressed an opinion that as the "passing bell," which now takes the place of the short peal" immediately after the death is known to the sexton, must almost of necessity be rung before the friends have elected to avail themselves of the Act, it would be unreasonable to forbid the same bell to be tolled at the funeral a day or two later. We certainly agree that it would be both unreasonable and ungracious, but the question is whether it would be illegal. As to this he fails to point out that while the canon provides, that the bell shall be tolled while the person is passing out of life, it only provides that there shall be rung no more than the peals specified after his death. This would probably be held to imply, in the case of a burial not under the new Act, that the peals specified must be rung at the burial; and if so, one does not see why this accompaniment of burial in the parish churchyard should be lost upon an interment in such churchyard conducted in a different manner, but legalized by Act of Parliament,

Legislation of the Year.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION.

43 & 44 VICT. c. 35.-THE WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880.

The history of previous legislation on this subject is not very creditable. In 1869 the Seabirds Preservation Act was passed, which created a close season from 1st of April to 1st of August, and made it penal to kill or wound, or attempt to kill or wound or take the seabirds specified in the interpretation clause during the close season, but omitted (except by implication or doubtful construction) to make it penal to take them, and also omitted to impose any penalty on unsuccessful attempts to kill or wound or take. The schedule to the Wild Birds Act of 1872 was notoriously defective in its enumeration of birds, and the fine and costs imposed under the Act were not to exceed five shillings. The Wild Fowl Act of 1876 re-enacted the provisions of the Act of 1872 with reference to thirty-five of the seventynine kinds of wild birds specified in the schedule to the

former Act, but altered the close season and gave power to the Home Office to extend or vary it. It also raised the penalty to £1 and costs, but repeated the provision in the Seabirds Act above referred to, relating to the penalty on any person who in the close season should "kill or wound, or attempt to kill or wound or take." The new Act, which comes into operation on the 1st of January next repeals, as from that day, all three previous Acts, and consolidates with amendments the law relating to the subject. It provides that any person who between the 1st of March and the 1st of August shall (1) “knowingly and wilfully shoot or attempt to shoot, or shall use any boat for the purpose of shooting or causing to be shot, any wild bird"; or (2) shall use any lime, trap, snare, net, or other instrument for the purpose of taking any wild bird; or (3) shall expose or offer for sale, or shall have in his control or possession after the 15th of March, any wild bird recently killed or taken, shall, in the case of any wild bird included in the schedule annexed to the Act, be subject to a penalty of not exceeding a pound for each bird in respect of which an offence has been committed; and, in the case of any other wild bird, "shall for a first offence be reprimanded and discharged on payment of costs, and for every subsequent offence forfeit and pay for every such wild bird in respect of which an offence is committed, a sum of money not exceeding five shillings, in addition to the costs, unless such person shall prove that the said wild bird was either killed or taken or bought or received during the period in which such wild bird could be legally killed or taken, or from some person residing out of the United Kingdom." The section is not to apply to the owner or occupier of any land, or to any person authorized by the owner or occupier of any land, killing or taking on such land any wild bird not included in the schedule. But it appears that any owner or occupier of land killing or taking in the close season any of the birds included in the schedule (which includes a large number of species and such birds as the goldfinch and woodpecker) will become subject to the penalty of £1 for each bird killed or taken. The Act enables a Secretary of State, upon application by quarter sessions, to extend or vary the close season in respect of all or any wild birds.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT.

43 & 44 VICT. c. 45.-THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1880.

In Reg.

This Act makes an important alteration in the law as to indecent assaults, and clears up the doubts which had been raised in some of the earlier cases as to the effect of the consent by a child to such an offence. v. Martin (9 C. & P. 216) it was held by fifteen judges that an attempt to have carnal intercourse with a girl between ten and twelve years of age is not an assault if she consents to what is done, and this decision was followed in Reg. v. Read (1 Den. 377), where the prosecutrix was only nine years old, and Lord Denman observed:-"It has been solemnly decided that if the girl assents the act is not an assault." Reg. v. Johnson (14 W. R. 815, L. & C. 632) was an indictment under the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 52, for indecently assaulting a girl over ten, but under twelve, years of age, and Cockburn, C.J., laid it down that," the statute does not take away the power of assent to an indecent assault," and he observed:-"Independently of authority, the point is clear." On the other hand, in Reg. v. Lock, (21 W. R. 144, L. R. 2 C. C. R. 10), on an indictment for indecently assaulting two boys, each about eight years old, it was held that the fact that the boys had submitted to the assault, without knowing the nature of the act, was no defence. The latest case of this kind was Reg. v. Hoadley (49 L. J. M. C. 88, 28 W. R. Dig. 71). On a prosecution for an assault on a child seven years old, the chairmar of quarter sessionsrefused to allow the

counsel for the defence to address the jury on the question of the child's consent, but the court held, on the authority of Reg. v. Read, that this was a misdirec tion. The new statute makes the consent of the injured party irrelevant in the case of any child of either sex under the age of thirteen, for by section 2" it shall be no defence to a charge or indictment for an indecent assault on a young person under the age of thirteen to prove that he or she consented to the act of indecency."

Reviews.

LANCASTER CHANCERY COURT. THE PRINCIPAL STATUTES, CONSOLIDATED AND GENERAL ORDERS, AND RULES OF COURT OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. With Copious Notes. By THOMAS SNOW, Esq,, Barrister-at-Law, and HUBERT WINSTANLEY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & Sons.

The change effected by the Judicature Acts in the procedure of the Chancery and Common Law Courts has had very little direct influence on the practice of the Lancaster Chancery Court; but, indirectly, an almost identical change has been made in its practice by those Acts. This has been brought about by the issue, under the powers of the Court of Chancery of Lancaster Acts, 1850 and 1854, of rules and orders which in all import ant points are the same as the rules and orders under the Judicature Acts. The new procedure took effect on the 1st of January, 1877, so that at its commencement the court, and also the practitioners therein, had the benefit of many valuable interpretations of the corresponding rules and orders under the Judicature Acts. For though we suppose the construction put by the High Court upon the latter rules and orders is not technically binding on the Lancaster Court when interpreting its own rules, yet it is clear that as appeals lie from both courts to the same Court of Appeal this technicality is not of much practical force. In fact for this purpose the Lancaster Court may be regarded as a branch of the Chancery Division. This explains the presence of the long and elaborate notes on the Lancaster rules and orders given in Messrs. Snow and Winstanley's work; they are, in fact, resumés of the decisions on the rules of the High Court, and some of our readers may perhaps find the book useful on this account. In addition to these annotated rules, the authors have interwoven the Lancaster Consolidated Orders of 1861 with the cognate rules, giving in a separate form such of the Consolidated Orders as could not usefully be dealt with in this way. As the book also contains the Acts of 1850 and 1854 which we have already mentioned, and Lord Cairns' Act and Sir John Rolt's Act, it will be seen that so far as its contents are concerned it may be regarded as a tolerably complete manual of the practice of the Lancaster Court.

With respect to the style in which the authors have done their task, we can speak on the whole in a favourable way. We cannot, however, approve of the practice which they have adopted of printing Acts of Parliament and statutory rules with italicized words or passages. In some instances, perhaps, this may enable the authors to dispense with an explanatory note or caution. But it must very frequently have the injurious effect of diverting the attention of the reader from some other important part of the section or rule. It seems to us that when, in a book of practice, Acts and rules are given in extenso, they ought to be exact transcripts of the Acts and rules as passed or issued, and nothing more nor less. This remark applies also to the punctuation, and though we have not seen an official copy of the Lancaster Rules, we are inclined to think that the authors have followed their own ideas of the true punctuation. At any rate, the punctuation of the rules as given by them does not, in many cases, tally with the punctuation of the correspond.

ing Judicature Rules; and we notice that in the parts of the Judicature Acts which are given at length, the punctuation varies from that in the copies published by the Queen's Printer.

As regards the notes to the Acts and rules, they will be found useful, though, judging from the few we have been able to consider with some degree of care, we are inclined to think that it will be safest in most cases for the practitioner using the book to check the notes by a perusal of the cited cases. For instance, at page 251, the case of the Duke of Northumberland v. Todd (26 W. R. 350, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 777) is cited as having decided that "an affidavit must not be sworn before a member of the firm of the deponent's solicitors, even though they are not the solicitors on the record." The facts, however, in that case were that the solicitor before whom some of the affidavits filed on the part of the plaintiff were sworn, was 8 member of a firm of country solicitors who were employed by the solicitors on the record to get up the country evidence in the case. It was on this ground, and not because the country firm were the usual local solicitors of the plaintiff, that the affidavits were held inadmissible. The word "deponent" in the extract shows another misapprehension of the case; the authors must have meant to write "party." Again, we find at page 203 a curious quære, founded on Harbord v. Monk (27 W. R. 164, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 616), to the effect that it is doubtful whether leave is required for the plaintiff to administer interrogatories-i.e., a first set of interrogatories. The rule on which this quære is made is exactly the same as ord. 31, r. 1, of the High Court, and we cannot see how any one can read it and come to the conclusion that leave is required.

LANDS CLAUSES ACTS.

WITH

THE LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACTS; DECISIONS, FORMS, AND TABLE OF COSTS. BY ARTHUR JEPSON, Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & Sons.

Mr. Jepson's book is avowedly a digest of decisions on the Acts, and is compiled on the ancient plan of giving the decisions in notes to the sections; the notes being, however, printed in larger type than the sections to which they relate. We have not observed any omissions of cases of importance, and the purport of the decisions we have examined is fairly well stated. The costs under the Acts are given, and the book contains a large number of forms, which will be found useful as affording hints to practitioners. The index is capable of considerable improvement.

LEGAL DIARIES.

WATERLOW BROTHERS AND LAYTON'S LEGAL DIARY AND ALMANACK FOR 1881. Edited by H. ALAN SCOTT, Barrister-at-Law. Waterlow Brothers & Layton. This is a very valuable compendium of information as well as a very convenient diary. It contains, in addition to the usual almanack information, lists of counsel, and London and country solicitors, and parliamentary agents, a list of stamp duties from 1804 to the present time, a table of succession to real and personal property, and full practical directions as to the preparation of succession accounts, which may be placed with advantage in the hands of articled clerks.

THE SOLICITOR'S DIARY, ALMANACK, AND LEGAL DIRECTORY FOR 1881. Edited by CHARLES FORD, Esq., Solicitor. Waterlow & Sons (Limited).

This diary also contains lists of counsel, and solicitors, and parliamentary agents, and full and satisfactory information of the kind usually contained in these diaries. There is also a digest of statutes, and a summary of proceedings in the last session of Parliament.

General Correspondence.

THE BRIGHTON MEETING.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, It is probably a wise arrangement for the In. corporated Law Society at their provincial meetings to fix the place at which the society shall meet in the following year immediately after the delivery of the president's address, inasmuch as those who may intend to invite the society will not have had the opportunity of experiencing the liberal hospitality of their hosts at the meeting at which the invitation is given.

Mr. Howlett, speaking on behalf of the Brighton Law Society, was very anxious that the invitation of that society to Brighton for next year should be accepted, and Mr. Williams was no less desirous that the society should visit that place. The invitation was readily and cheerfully accepted. It may be doubted, however, whether Mr. Howlett had not, before leaving Sheffield, some misgivings as to the task he had undertaken, having regard to the liberal hospitality of the Law Society of that town.

The tendency of these provincial meetings is to increase in numbers every year, and there can be no doubt that the Brighton meeting will be numerously attended, especially after the interesting article which appeared in the Times on Saturday, the 9th inst.

It was estimated by some who were present at Sheffield that there might at least be a thousand members who would accept invitations, and many intimated it to be their intention to be present. I think it is, therefore, very likely that the Brighton meeting will be very numerously attended, and that the estimate of one thousand will prove not altogether inaccurate.

The majority of the members of the council will, of course, feel it incumbent upon them to be present, and the proximity of Brighton to London will naturally induce a large number of town members to attend, besides which the natural attractions of Brighton will cause many from the Northern and Midland counties to put in an appearance.

I can well imagine that Mr. Howlett and his colleagues at Brighton are already busily engaged in considering the arrangements that will be necessary for receiving so large a number of guests, and it is, I believe, no secret that Mr. Bramley has been visiting Brighton, and he has no doubt given some valuable suggestions.

The Brighton solicitors can hardly allow their guests to leave without showing them the splendid suite of rooms at the Pavilion, which can only be seen to the best advantage at night. Following, therefore, the good example set by our Sheffield friends, a dance at the Pavilion will necessarily form an important feature in next year's programme. In addition, a visit must be arranged to Arundel Castle, which can be most appropriately reached by a drive from Brighton, which is one of the best in Sussex. No doubt the noble owner, imitating the example so well set by the Duke of Marlborough, who so bountifully provided for the wants of the society at Blenheim when it met at Oxford, will arrange luncheon for a stipulated number of guests, for which ample accommodation exists at the castle. There will, of course, be the inevitable banquet, and though familiar with the town of Brighton, I know of no place except the Corn Exchange or the Dome Room where it can be held, even if either of these will afford the requisite accommodation.

The solicitors of Brighton, as I know from some slight experience, are rather noted than otherwise for their hospitality, and, therefore, they will be very reluctant to dispense with the usual dinner.

It was suggested at the meeting held last year at Cambridge that the society should meet this year in London, to give town members the opportunity of returning the hospitality which they had enjoyed in various

parts of the provinces. This proposal, made by Mr. Bircham, was supported by Mr. Clabon, but Mr. Bramley was so persistent in his desire that the society should meet this year at Sheffield-in order, no doubt, to show how well Sheffield could entertain her guests-that the suggestion to meet at London was abandoned.

Upon reflection, it would seem that the society can never properly hold this meeting in London, since it is the society's provincial meeting, and it was, I think, one of the conditions when the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association was amalgamated with the Incorporated Law Society that the latter society should, at least once a year, go into the provinces to hold a meeting.

It was suggested by some that our Brighton friends might be content with the natural attractions which this queen of watering places in the South undoubtedly possesses, and that after providing lunch during the two days' meeting the guests might be left to amuse themselves as they would have no difficulty in doing in this celebrated watering place. Brighton would thus be setting an example to smaller towns desiring to receive the society, and yet hesitating to do so on account of the heavy expense and trouble which would have to be incurred, and which would probably fall upon a few—a burden of course, which, though some might be willing, all could not be expected, to accept.

In this state of things the question arises, What is to be done? and as it is very improbable that Mr. Howlett will, for a moment, allow his society to entertain their guests in any other than the most liberal and handsome manner, I think that, as Brighton is practically London by the seaside, and as this provincial meeting can never be properly held in London, the town members of the society should co-operate with the Brighton society, and resolve to make the Brighton meeting a great success, and thus to give London members the opportunity for which they are so anxious, of returning in some way the hospitality which they have now for seven years received from the provinces.

There is no mistake about the circumstance that a great deal of importance is attached to the society's next provincial meeting at Brighton. The gentleman who is to fill the office of president has, I understand, been already collecting his ideas for the requisite address. It has been jokingly observed that an unexpected attack of illness might compel the future president next October to go abroad, and that, therefore, the duty of presiding would fall upon the society's then vice-president. All, however, who know Mr. Charles Claridge Druce must feel that he will be fully equal to the task of delivering an address which, while reflecting credit upon himself, will compare favourably with those previously delivered. I am quite sure, therefore, that Mr. Druce will, if his health is spared, rise to the occasion and make his address heard throughout the whole of the assembly in whatever room the meeting may be held.

The society has taken lately a new start in many respects. It now conducts its own examinations. It is about to issue a calendar which will contain a great deal of valuable information, and if Mr. Keen can get his way the society will probably before long possess a parliamentary representative. It also contemplates legislation enabling solicitors to become members of the bar without waiting three years. All these existing and anticipated advantages should be celebrated in a manner worthy of the society. I think, therefore, advantage may well be taken of the Brighton meeting for London members to join the Brighton Law Society and thus endeavour to make next year's provincial meeting a period to be noted in the history of the society, which, taking its origin many years ago from a small source, has now spread, and is continuing to spread, its influence, exercised in the really good work done by the council, not merely in promoting the personal and pecuniary benefits of its members, but also those of the public at large.

If the suggestion should seem to meet with general approval, it will, no doubt, be formally brought under the notice of the council, and no difficulty will probably be experienced in obtaining the assent of the Brighton Society thereto. A TOWN MEMBER.

Oct. 21.

Cases of the Week.

COMPANY-VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION-DISTRESS-SALEMISLEADING LESSOR-ALLOWING DISTRESS TO PROCEED— COMPANIES ACT, 1862, ss. 85, 133, 138.-In a case of In re Newent Coal and Iron Company (Limited), before Field, J., sitting as Vacation Judge, on the 20th inst., a motion was made to restrain a sale under a distress by the liquidator of a company in voluntary liquidation under the following circumstances. The company were the assignees of a lease granted by one R. F. Onslow, of certain mineral property at increasing dead rente, amounting, after the third year, to £1,200 per annum. On Onslow's death in 1879, a large amount of rent was due, and his trustees requiring payment, negotiations commenced with the company as to payment, and also as to certain alterations in the terms of the lease. On the 23rd of June, 1880, the negotiations continued, and the solicitors of the trustees then wrote to the company that they had heard that portions of the plant and machinery were being removed by them, and that if such were the case, they must advise the trustees to take the most stringent measures possible to enforce their rights under the lease. In reply a letter was written on behalf of the company stating that nothing was being removed. On the 28th of June the trustees' solicitors again wrote, stating that no arrangement could be made unless the rents were paid, and that the trustees required immediate payment. They also desired the company to accept the letter as notice not to remove any of the machinery or plant. On the 30th of June one of the directors wrote to say he was in receipt of the letter of the 28th of June, which would be duly considered at a meeting of the company on the 2nd of July. On the 5th of July a letter was written on behalf of the company, stating that as only a few of the shareholders were present at the meeting held on the 2nd, at which the letters of the 23rd and 28th of June were read, it was decided to call a special meeting for their careful consideration. Further letters were written by the trustees' solicitors, but on the 16th of July, without any further notice by the company, an extraordinary resolution was passed to wind up the company. In September, the liquidator having given notice of his intention to remove the machinery and plant, the trustees distrained for the rent then due, amounting to £2,266, and were about to proceed to a sale. liquidator then obtained an ex parte injunction restraining the sale, and now moved to continue it. For the liquidator it was argued that by the 133rd section the assets of the company must be distributed pari passu, and that as to all the rent accrued due before the winding up the distress was illegal, and therefore, that, under the combined effect of the 138th and 85th sections, the court would restrain the same. As to the current half-year's rent, it was submitted it was apportionable, and that the distress could only be good so far as regarded the apportioned part since the winding up. For the trustees it was submitted that the company had deceived them into not enforcing their legal rights pondence, and that they were accordingly entitled, on the earlier by the representations made to them in the corresauthority of In re Great Ship Company (4 De G. J. & S. 63), In re Bastow (L. R. 4 Eq. 681), In re Londos Cotton Company (L. R. 2 Eq. 158), In re Railway Steel and Plant Company (L. R. 8 Ch. D. 183), and In re Richards & Company (L. R. 11 Ch. D. 676), to proceed with their distress, notwithstanding the winding up. FIELD, J., was of opinion that the motion must be refused. From the correspondence that had passed, and particularly from the letter of the 5th of July, he considered that the trustees had been lulled into not enforcing their legal rights by the representation that a meeting of the company would be held to consider the matter, and that the passing of the resolution for a winding up, notice of which must have been given within a day or two of their previous letter, was only a device to avoid pay. ing the lessors. The principle laid down in the cases cited he considered to be this, that a person's legal rights in a winding up were not to be interfered with where that person

The

had been induced by the representations of the company to abstain from enforcing those rights. Under the circumstances he considered the motion failed, and he therefore refused the same with costs. He also allowed the trustees an inquiry as to any damages sustained by them by reason of the ex parte injunction.-SOLICITORS, Rogerson & Ford; Field, Roscoe, & Co.

Obituary.

LORD JUSTICE THESIGER.

The Right Hon. Alfred Henry Thesiger, one of the judges of the Court of Appeal, died at 5, South Eaton-place on Wednesday last, the 20th inst., at the age of forty-two. Lord Justice Thesiger was the third surviving son of the first Lord Chelmsford, and was born in 1838. He was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford. He did not become a candidate for honours, but he graduated with an honorary

fourth class in the final classical school in 1859. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1862, and joined the Home Circuit and Surrey Sessions. About a year after his call he was engaged as junior counsel for the plaintiff in the case of Roupell v. Haws, which arose out of the notorious Roupell forgeries, and the trial of which occupied many days at Chelmsford, the town in which his father had obtained his first introduction to assize business. This case was the means of bringing his name prominently before the profession, and he was soon fully occupied with junior business of a high class, both in London and on circuit. In 1873, although only of eleven years' standing, he received a silk gown from Lord Selborne. In the first instance his leading business was mainly confined to parliamentary committees and to compensation cases, but he soon acquired a leading business at Nisi Prius, and was extensively employed in the House of Lords, not only in English cases, but also in appeals from Scotland and Ireland. Without much pretension to eloquence, he commended himself by his common sense and clearness of apprehension, and his arguments of questions of law always displayed great legal knowledge and powers of reasoning. He served upon the Extradition Commission, and the Fugitive Slave Law Commission. In September, 1877, he was appointed Attorney-General to the Prince of Wales, and two months afterwards, upon the resignation of Sir Richard Amphlett, he was appointed & Lord Justice of Appeal, and was sworn a member of the Privy Council. As he was then only thirty-nine years old the appointment was severely criticised, but he soon justified Lord Cairns' selection. His judgments were carefully prepared and well reasoned, and his courteous manner rendered him a general favourite with the bar. It will be remembered that, during the Zulu War Lord Justice Thesiger addressed several letters to the Times, complaining of the criticism to which his elder brother, Lord Chelmsford, had been subjected, and vindicating the military reputation of the latter. The Lord Justice was spending the long vacation at his seat in Hampshire. Being attacked with inflammation of the ear, he came to town for medical advice, but symptoms of blood poisoning developed themselves, and he died after three weeks' illness. Lord Justice Thesiger was a bencher of the Inner Temple. He was married to a daughter of the late Hon. George Handcock, but leaves no children. He will be buried on Monday next at the Brompton Cemetery. At the vacation sitting on Wednesday last, Mr. Justice Field said that he had a most painful announcement to make to the bar, namely, that Lord Justice Thesiger had just died, after a very short but painful illness. He was sure that everyone who knew the deceased gentleman would deeply regret to hear the announcement he had just made, not only on account of the deceased's personal character, but also on account of his high professional ability. He was also a man possessing large administrative capabilities. If he (Mr. Justice Field) consulted his own personal inclination, he would feel inclined to adjourn the business of the court, but such he knew would not be the wish-if he were alive-of the late Lord Justice. Mr. Marten, Q.C., in replying on behalf of the bar, expressed sorrow not only for himself but for all those connected with the bar, at the unexpected death of the Lord Justice, and bore testimony to the able manner in which the deceased had carried out the extremely difficult duties attaching to his high office.

MR. JOHN GUEST.

Mr. John Guest, solicitor, many years registrar of the Birmingham County Court, died at The Warren, Moseley, on the 3rd inst. Mr. Guest was born in 1810. He was admitted a solicitor in 1833, and practised for nearly forty years at Birmingham, where he had a good business. He was for several years clerk of the Old Court of Requests, and received the appointment of clerk of the Birmingham County Court (Circuit No. 21) upon the passing of the County Courts Act, 1847. Mr. William Harvard Arnold was at first associated with him in the office. Mr. Guest afterwards became sole registrar of the court, but about fifteen years ago the late Mr. Thomas Chauntler was appointed as junior registrar. Mr. Guest discharged the duties of registrar (in the busiest county court district in England) with great ability, and enjoyed the confidence of several successive judges of the court, and of the whole legal profession in Birmingham. About five years ago he resigned the registraship and retired from practice.

MR. ROBERT LUXTON,

Mr. Robert Luxton, solicitor (of the firm of Luxton & Johnston), died at Tavistock on the 21st ult. Mr. Luxton was born in 1809. He was for many years a clerk in the office of the late Mr. Surrey Edward Samuel Carpenter, with whom he served his articles. He was admitted a solicitor in 1859, and practised at Tavistock until his death. He was for some time in partnership with Mr. Carpenter, next with his son, Mr. Henry Luxton, and finally with Mr. John Douglas Johnston. He was a commissioner for affidavits in the Stannaries Courts, and he had an extensive private practice. Mr. Luxton also held several important public appointments. He was superintendent registrar and clerk to the Tavistock Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, Rural Sanitary Authority, and School Attendance Committee, to the county magistrates and Commissioners of Income Tax, and also to the Tavistock Highway Board and the Whitchurch School Board.

MR. WILLIAM TYM MIDDLETON.

Mr. William Tym Middleton, solicitor, died at Stone on the 12th inst. Mr. Middleton was the son of Mr. John Tym Middleton, solicitor, and was born in 1823. He was admitted a solicitor in 1848, and had practised for over thirty years at Stone, having been originally associated in partnership with his father. He was a perpetual commissioner for Staffordshire, and held several important appointments. He was appointed clerk to the county magistrates at Stone in 1852, and clerk to the Stone Board of Guardians in 1855, and he retained both offices until his death. He was also registrar of the Stone County Court (Circuit No. 26), clerk to the Stone Assessment Committee and Rural Sanitary Authority, and superintendent registrar for the district. He had a large and important private practice, and was solicitor to the Stone Gas Light and Coke Company, and to the Stone Freehold Benefit Building Society. Mr. Middleton was buried at Christ Church, Stone, on the 16th inst.

MR. THOMAS WATSON PARKER.

Mr. Thomas Watson Parker, solicitor, of Lewisham, died at his residence at Blackheath on the 14th inst. Mr. Parker was the eldest surviving son of the late Mr. Thomas Parker, solicitor, and he was born in 1834. He was admitted a solicitor in 1858, and had ever since practised at Lewisham, having been for several years in partnership with his father (to whom he had been articled), and with Mr. George Parker. He succeeded his father in the office of clerk to the Commissioners of Income and Property Tax for the Blackheath Division, and he had been for many years clerk to the Lewisham Board of Guardians. He was also a superintendent registrar, and clerk to the Lewisham Assessment Committee and Rural Sanitary Authority. Mr. Parker had a good private practice in the district, and his death has caused general regret.