the convenience of the public must give way to the whim of the City and parochial authorities. IF ANY PROOF were needed of the advantage to the profession of local law societies, it is furnished by an incident which has recently occasioned considerable comment in Liverpool. A form of agreement with reference to the performance of the duties of presiding officers at parliamentary, school board, and municipal elections was tendered to the solicitors who have usually acted in that capacity, and they were requested to sign it. It contained conditions which appeared to these gentlemen to be inadmissible. The Liverpool Law Society thereupon summoned a meeting of the solicitors of the city, and at this meeting it was resolved to decline to accept the terms proposed. The agreement has, we are informed, since been withdrawn, and the solicitors have agreed to act as presiding officers at the ensuing elections. It may be stated that a clerk who has recently left the service of the Incorporated Law Society was in no way connected with the department in which the society's funds are regulated. Mr. J. Seymour Salaman, solicitor of the Trade-Mark Protection Society, writes to the daily papers to state that a Trade-Mark law has been enacted in Denmark, under which British subjects can register their marks, but that the time is short-commencing on the 15th of November and ending on the 27th of November. He adds, "I have been in communication with an eminent trade-mark lawyer in Copenhagen on behalf of several subscribers who are about to register, and, as the forms require some time and care to prepare and complete, our secretary will be happy to give information to all persons desiring to register." An appendix to the Reports of the Supreme Court of British Columbia gives, says the Canada Law Journal, a mass of correspondence revealing some singular legislation in the Province of British Columbia in relation to the Judicature Act. Not the least is this, that a bill was passed taking the whole regulation of the courts, chambers, rules and orders, forms and busi ness generally out of the hands of the judges and giving it to the Lieut.-Governor-in-Council-a most unheard of proceeding, which can only be characterized as silly. This absurdity was equalled by the Government bringing their Judicature Act into force after only two days' notice, and then making an Order in Council to the effect that the rules in force in England under the English Judicature Act should be the rules and orders under the British Columbia Judicature Act! In McAbe v. Thompson, Minnesota Supreme Court, says the Albany Law Journal, the question was whether unfinished coffins, held by a manufacturer for the purpose of being finished and sold, constituted part of his "stock-intrade," within the meaning of the exemption law. The court said: "The respondent here, as shown by the findings, which are reasonably supported by the evidence, was a manufacturer, engaged in the business of buying burial cases and caskets, which were in an unfinished condition, but which were so far advanced in the progress of manufacture as to be ready for the trimmings on the outside and the lining on the inside, and finishing them himself by his own work and labour; and the addition of such other materials as were necessary to fit them for sale and use. It is found as a fact that this additional work, labour, and material were necessary in order to finish them, and to fit them for sale and use; and the uncontradicted evidence shows that they would thereby be enhanced in value about two-thirds. The property which is the subject of this action, and which it is claimed was exempt, consisted of several of these incomplete and unfinished burial cases and caskets, which the respondent had thus bought and was holding for the sole purpose of so finishing and fitting them for sale and use. They constituted as much a part of his stock-in-trade, within the meaning of the statute, liberally construed as it must be, as did the screws, nails, trimmings, and lining which were used in completing or finishing them." DOES A WILL OF COPYHOLDS, WITHOUT SURRENDER, bar freEBENCH? THE Master of the Rolls, in Lacey v. Hill (23 W. R. 285, L. R. 19 Eq. 346), decided that a will of copyholds (without surrender) operates as a bar of freebench; but several considerations, which we venture to think are very material, were not referred to in the arguments or judgment in that case. Before the Act of 55 Geo. 3, c. 192, unquestionably a will, without surrender, did not bar the freebench in any manor; for, except by special custom, the tenant could not devise at all without a surrender, and, where the custom to devise without surrender existed, he could not, by the devise, bar the freebench (see Watkins, vol. 2, p. 60, n. (m). Although, however, a will, without surrender, did not pass any estate at law, except by special custom ; yet, if there was a clear intention to pass the copyholds, or in cases of moral obligation—as a provision for a wife, or child, or in favour of a creditor, the Court of Chancery would aid the defect, and decree the heir to surrender (Watkins, vol. 1, 175, 179). But there was no case of a surrender being supplied so as to defeat the widow's freebench. Then the Act of Geo. 3 provided that, in manors where the copyholds passed by wills declaring the uses of surrenders, a disposition by will, without surrender, should be as effectual, to all intents and purposes, as if a surrender had been made. These words are very general; yet there is some reason for thinking that they were not intended to make, and did not make, the will operate as a bar of freebench without surrender. There is nothing in the recital, or elsewhere in the Act, to show that freebench was intended to be affected. If the Legislature had intended to enable a tenant to defeat his widow's free bench by will, it would have done so in all manors, and not merely in those where the custom was to surrender to the uses of the will. Moreover, the Dower Act was not passed till many years afterwards. The words are "to all intents and purposes," but we submit that these words should be read "to all the intents and purposes of this Act." Unquestionably if a surrender had been made by the testator, the freebench would be barred, but the Act has not the words “by the testator," although they are in the 3rd section of the Wills Act hereafter referred to. And Mr. Scriven urges that the Act only supplies an ideal formal surrender for the purpose of giving effect to the will; and in the 5th edition of his work on Copyholds (p. 57) he states in the text as the law, that the admission of the husband's devisees in trust will defeat the widow's customary estate, if he surrender to the use of his will, but not otherwise; and, in a foot-note, he says he inclines to think that this distinction must have prevailed even after the statute of 55 Geo. 3., a statute which greatly perplexed the minds of text-writers on this point (see Watkins vol. 2, p. 61, n. (1); Jarman on Wills vol. 1, p. 51). Lastly, it might be urged that the will did not come into effect till the death, and consequently after the widow's right to freebench had attached (see Scriven, p. 58). This statute, however, was repealed by the Wills Act; and by section 3 of that Act every person was enabled to devise all real estate to which he was entitled at the time of his death, and which, if not so devised, would devolve upon the customary heir; and it was provided. that the power thereby given should extend to all real estate of the nature of copyhold, notwithstanding that the testator may not have surrendered the same to the use of his will. The question we are discussing is to be determined by the proper construction of this section. The power to devise all real estate, &c., which, if not so devised, would devolve upon the customary heir, is not (if the latter words are to have any meaning at all) a power to devise the inheritance. It is merely a power to devise the inheritance less the freebench, which often amounts to a life interest, and in some manors swallows up the whole inheritance. In all cases the inheritance is a different estate from the inheritance less freebench (see Watkins, vol. 2, p. 61, n. (1)). Copyholds and freeholds are dissimilar in this respect, for the widow of a copyholder is a tenant of the manor, whilst the widow of a freeholder is a tenant of the heir and not of the lord (Watkins, vol. 2, p. 57). It is submitted that this power is not enlarged by the subsequent part of the section, which merely points out over what kinds of real estate the power thereby given is to extend, and provides that the power is to take effect notwithstanding the omission to surrender. This was the opinion of the text-writers before the case of Lacey v. Hill was decided. Thus in Jarman on Wills (vol. 1, p. 51, n. (u)) we find it stated that "whatever might have been the effect of the peculiar wording of the statute 55 Geo. 3, c. 192, it is clear that under the present Act, 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 3, a will of copyholds (without surrender) will not operate as a bar of freebench." said in favour of the reversal of this plan of construction. The practice, which has now become universal, of authorizing in each Act the use of a short title, may lead the reader to look, first of all, for this familiar short title. For instance, a practitioner wanting to find the Ground Game Act, would probably look for "Ground Game" and not for "Game Law." We do not, therefore, complain of the adoption of the plan we have mentioned for the statute index. What we do complain of is the way in which the plan is carried out. Assuming such a principle as we have mentioned last to be adopted, we should expect to find three points attended to: first, the "catchword" of the short title to be selected as that under which the chapter and title of the Act are stated, should be the word which the practitioner would be likely first of all to look for; such catchword, moreover, should be one which is either to be found in the short title or accurately describes the main object of the Act; The case of Lacey v. Hill is the only one directly in secondly, if the chapter and title of the Act are stated point. There it was assumed that under the Act of more than once, this should only be done where it is Geo. 3, a devise without surrender barred the free- essential to the convenience of the practitioner. To do bench, and we have endeavoured to show that, at the this unnecessarily, is to render the index cumbrous and least, this was a doubtful point. The Master of the embarrassing. And, lastly, the general headings should Rolls, in his judgment in Lacey v. Hill, after first refer- be well selected, and the cross-references full and ring to the Act of Geo. 3, read section 3 of the Wills Act, complete. Now, let us see how far the index of the and then said, "That means that a testator is to have past year's statutes fulfils these requirements. We will the same power of devising his copyhold estate as if he take only the index for 43 & 44 Vict., the second session had done all the things which are there mentioned as of the year. if there had been a surrender, or as if there had been a custom." No explanation is given how the words of the section come to have this meaning. And if by custom the Master of the Rolls meant custom to devise without surrender, the judgment is inconsistent, for there can be no doubt that, before the Wills Act, in manors where there was a custom to devise without surrender, the devise did not defeat the freebench. If a married copyholder enfranchises, his wife's freebench is expressly saved by 4 & 5 Vict. c. 35, s. 79, and 15 & 16 Vict. c. 51, s. 34. Suppose, then, he devises all his real estate and dies without having surrrendered, what, according to Lacey v. Hill, would come of the freebench? It is to be regretted that these considerations and authorities (particularly the opinion of the learned editors of Jarman on Wills) do not seem from the report to have been brought to the consideration of the Master of the Rolls in the recent case. CONCERNING THE INDEX TO THE READERS must have often wondered on what principle First, as to the convenience and accuracy of the catchwords selected for the statement of the full titles and chapters of the statutes. The Act of last session for defining legal time will naturally be looked for under the head of "Time." Neither the chapter nor the title will be found under that head, and the reader will have to refer to "Statutes," which word, although it is in the title of the Act, is inaccurate, inasmuch as the Act extends not merely to time in statutes but also to time in deeds and other legal instruments. Again, the Act relating to indecent assaults on young persons, which is to be found under the head of "indecent assaults," is given as "Indecent assaults on females." It should, of course, have been " on young persons," since the Act relates to assaults on both sexes. The Acts relating to Merchant Shipping are all stated under the general heading of "Merchant Shipping," except that relating to seamen's wages, which is placed under "Merchant Seamen," no cross-reference being given under "Wages." Now of these three Acts relating to Merchant Shipping the first relates to joint ownership of ships, and one would expect to find it stated under the head of "Ships," or at least to have a cross-reference under that head. There is neither statement nor cross-reference given under that head. The second Act relates mainly to wrecks; there is no heading "Wrecks" in the index. Chapter 19, an Act to render valid certain orders in bastardy, will naturally be looked for under "Orders in Bastardy"; it appears only under the head of "Bastardy," and no cross-reference is given under the heading "Orders in Bastardy." But perhaps the most curious instance of a heading is that under which cap. 23 is placed "Education and Schools." Of course, this Act should have been placed A few lines lower under "Elementary Education." down we find the cross-reference "Elementary Education Acts. See Education and Schools." Could anything be more absurd than this? As regards redundancy of statement, we need only take two or three instances. The Wild Birds Protection Act is stated as to title and chapter twice; under the proper head of "Wild Birds Protection," and again under the head of "Birds Protection." We are happy to say, however, that it is not again given under the head of "Protection." The County Bridges Loans Extension Act is stated under "County Bridges Loans Extension" and also under the head of "Bridges (County.)" The Burials Act is given under "Burial Laws Amendment"; and also-for plain “burial" is no doubt apt to be misunderstood-is fully stated under the head of "Interments." The general headings and cross-references are very singular. To the Courts of Justice Building Act Amendment (which relates entirely to the acquisition by Lincoln's-inn of the deserted offices at Stone-buildings) two cross-references are given, under the heads of "Administration of Justice," and "Justice, Administration of." There is no general heading “ Criminal Law,” and no general heading "Master and Servant," but, on the other hand, we have an astonishing wealth of cross-references to the highly-important Act relating to holidays in Revenue offices in Scotland. This is cited under "Customs Offices (Holidays)," "Revenue Offices Holidays," "Holidays (Revenue Offices)," "Inland Revenue Offices (Holidays)," "Bank Holidays," "Scotland, Acts Relating Exclusively to"! Legislation of the Year. LEGAL TIME. 43 & 44 VICT. c. 9.-STATUTES (DEFINITION OF TIME) ACT, 1880. The title of this little Act is misleading. It is not an Act merely to define legal time in Acts of Parliament, but also in deeds, or "other legal instruments." It will be remembered that in May last we drew attention to the subject, and pointed out that, according to the only authority on the subject, the time a court ought to go by is not Greenwich time, but the time of the town in which the court sits. In the case in which this rule was laid down—Curtis v. Marsh (28 L. J. Ex. 36)—the facts were that Mr. Baron Watson came into court at Dorchester precisely at ten o'clock, as it appeared by the clock at the Town Hall; but this clock was regulated by Greenwich time, and was several minutes faster than the clock outside the hall, and other clocks in the town. No one appearing for the defendant in an action (an ejectment which stood first on the list), the plaintiff's counsel took a verdict for the plaintiff. Afterwards the defendant's counsel appeared, and said he was in time according to the clocks in the town. The judge pressed the plaintiff's counsel to consent that the cause should be tried, but the plaintiff's attorney would not consent unless the defendant would find security for costs, which he was unable to do, and the verdict stood. Upon a rule to set aside the verdict, Pollock, C.B., said that the time a court ought to go by is the time of the town in which the court sits, and not Greenwich time. The present Act provides that whenever any expression of time occurs in any Act of Parliament, deed, or other legal instrument, the time referred to shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held in the case of Great Britain to be Greenwich mean-time, and in the case of Ireland, Dublin mean-time. THE CENSUS. 43 & 44 VICT. c. 37.-THE CENSUS ACT, 1880. This Act contains almost the same provisions as those which were inserted in the Census Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 107), by way of provision for the census of 1870. The chief innovations introduced on the present occasion are these. First, the taking of the census will be superintended by the Local Government Board, instead of by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; secondly, in section 6, which provides for the enumerators distinguishing the parishes within their respective divisions, and stating what parts of them within any borough, constituency, or any urban or rural sanitary district, or any ecclesiastical district or parish, are the phrase "civil parish" is for the first time used, and is defined by section 19 as "a place for which a separate poor rate is or can be made," while in the metropolis it is to have the same meaning as in the Metropolis Management Act, 1855. The taking of the census is as usual enforced by stringent penalties. Section 4 imposes a fine of not more than £5 nor less than £1 upon every occupier who shall "wilfully refuse or without lawful excuse neglect to fill up the said schedule to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, or to sign and deliver the same as herein required, or who shall wilfully make, sign, or deliver, or cause to be wilfully made, signed, or delivered, any false return of all or any of the matters specified in the said schedule." Section 17 imposes & similar penalty for refusing to answer, or wilfully giving a false answer to any necessary question put by an enumerator. Section 16 imposes a penalty of not more than £5 and not less than £2 upon any superintendent registrar, registrar, enumerator (or person bound under the Act to act as an enumerator, if required) for making wilful default in any matter required by the Act, or for making a wilfully false declaration. The census will be taken for the night of Sunday, April 3. MERCHANT SHIPPING. 43 & 44 VICT. c. 16-MERCHANT SEAMEN (PAYMENT OF WAGES AND RATING) ACT, 1880. By section 1 this Act is to be construed as one with the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876. Section 2 renders void (after the 1st of August, 1881) any document authorizing or promising the future payment of money on account of a seaman's wages, conditionally on his going to sea from any port in the United Kingdom, if the wages have not been earned when the document is made; and no money paid in respect of such a docu ment is to be deducted from a seaman's wages, or to give any right of action or set-off against a seaman or his assignee. Allotment notes made under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, are not to be affected by this provision, but section 3 makes some important modifications in the law affecting such allotment votes. They may, if the seaman so requires, stipulate for the allotment of not more than half his wages in favour of his wife or any other of the relations named in section of a savings bank. 169 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854; or in favour Payment under an allotment note is to begin at the end of one month, or if in favour of a savings bank at the end of three months, from the date of the agreement, and payment is to be made (only in respect of wages already earned) at the end of each subsequent month, or of the period fixed by the agreement. By section 4 the owner or master of a foreign-going ship is to pay every seaman when he lawfully leaves the ship at the end of his engagement, either £2 on account or one-fourth of the balance due to him (whichever is least), and the balance within two clear days. In the event of the wages remaining unpaid or unsettled, and in the absence of default by the seaman, or of any reasonable dispute, or of any cause not being the act or default of the owner or master, the wages are to be payable till the final settlement. Any question of wages, if no more than £5 is in dispute, may be adjudicated upon by the superintendent of a mercantile marine office, whose decision is to be final. Section 5 imposes fine or imprisonment upon any unauthorized person who goes on board a ship arriving at the end of its voyage before the seamen are discharged, or remains on board after due warning to leave; and this provision may, by section 6, be extended to foreign ships, by an Order in Council. Section 8 empowers any court (including a magistrate) when a dispute has arisen between a seaman and a shipowner, to rescind any contract between them, and proceedings may be instituted for the sole purpose of obtaining such a rescission. Section 10 imposes fresh punishments for desertion or absence without leave; and section 11 repeals section 13 of the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, so far as it excludes seamen and sea apprentices from the operation of the Act. 43 & 44 VIOT. c. 18.-THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1854, AMENDMENT ACT, 1880. This Act simply amends section 37 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and provides, by section 2, that (except in the case of a company represented by a registered owner or joint owner) no more than sixty: four individuals are to be entitled to be registered at the same time as joint owners of any ship. 43 & 44 VICT. c. 22.-THE MERCHANT SHIPPING (FEES AND EXPENSES) ACT, 1880. This statute, which is to be construed as one with the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876, contains provisions for the application of the proceeds of unclaimed wreck towards expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, in connection with the wreck; for the expenses of removal of wrecks, and of advertising notices of foreign sea-marks, and for other miscellaneous purposes. I have only to add that I shall with pleasure contribute to any fund which may be set on foot for the purpose. ANOTHER TOWN MEMBER. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, I quite agree with several of the remarks of your correspondent "A Town Member," and I have no doubt, from what I have heard, that the Brighton meeting will be very numerously attended-in fact, there is every probability of its being the largest yet held. Many of the London members of the Incorporated Law Society have repeatedly expressed their desire, in some way, to return the hospitality they have received, now for several years, from the members of the provincial societies. The country members will not listen to the proposal to hold one of what are termed the annual provincial meetings in town; but, from inquiries I have made, it seems they would not be unwilling to come to London at some other time of the year, and indeed I have learnt that the occasion of the annual meeting in July would not be objected to, by some at least, for accepting such hospitality. I am convinced the Sussex Law Society would not be disposed to accept the assistance, or co-operation, of the London members of the Law Society in the way 43 & 44 VICT. c. 43.-THE MERCHANT SHIPPING (CAR- suggested by your correspondent; but if an arrangement RIAGE OF GRAIN) ACT, 1880. By section 3 of this Act, if a grain cargo is laden on a British ship, all necessary precautions are to be taken to prevent it from shifting. In default of this the master and the agent charged with the loading are each subjected to a penalty not exceeding £300, and the owner is similarly punishable unless he can show that he took all reasonable means to enforce the observance of the section and was not privy to the neglect. Sections 4-6 state the precautions which are to be taken in the case of particular voyages, and the notices to be given by the master to the consular agent or the principal customs officer, and by section 7 any master making a false statement or omitting any material particular in such a notice is subject to a penalty not exceeding £100. could be made for each member attending the meeting to pay for his ticket for the banquet-which suggestion has been thrown out on different occasions, and fully and readily assented to by all the members to whom I have mentioned it-the Sussex Society could easily, and I may say they would with the greatest pleasure, bear the other expenses of the meeting. To expect them-or I may even say to allow them-to do more, would, it is felt by all I have spoken to on the subject, be most unfair and unreasonable, having regard to the comparative smallness of the society. I happen to know that a similar suggestion was discussed by one of the reception committees at one of the large towns the society has visited; for it was foreseen that the expenses attending these meetings, particularly those of the banquet, which is the largest item, would fall heavily upon smaller towns, and possibly, in fact, prevent our visiting them; but the committee felt that it would scarcely do for them, however desirous they might be of setting the example, to be the first to make the proposed alteration. G. R. D. London, Oct. 26. General Correspondence. THE BRIGHTON MEETING. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-Whether the suggestion made by "A Town Member" takes the precise form he gives it, or no, I beg leave to express my hearty concurrence in its spirit. I suppose he is right in saying that the stipulated meetings must take place in the country. Would it not be possible to arrange that the expense of them should be, in some proportion, borne by the town members ? or that, periodically, the town members should invite their country brethren to meet at a provincial rendezvous ? This would be within the rule. The town members form so overwhelmingly large a majority as compared with those in even the largest provincial centres that some variation of the arrangements hitherto adopted seems to be called for. No doubt these meetings are useful in more ways than one. The tendency of legislation and of things in general, during the last half-century, has been in some directions to consolidate, but in others to disjoin, the interests of town and country solicitors, and opportunities of friendly meeting are valuable; at the same time, to attach to them too sumptuous a character would, I submit, be undesirable in itself, and would tend to prevent such meetings from being held in places otherwise suitable. THE NEW BURIALS ACT. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, Can there be any real doubt that the new Burials Act extends only to the burial of parishioners ? The words of the 9th section are distinct: "Nothing in this Act shall authorize the burial of any person in any place where such person would have had no right of interment if this Act had not passed." Now it would seem clear that a non-parishioner has no right to be buried in the churchyard, not even in a family vault, at all events without the consent of the incumbent, and probably also of the churchwardens (see in addition to Phill. Ecc. Law quoted by you, Ex parte Blackmore, 1 B. & Ad. 122; Nevill v. Bridger, L. R. 9 Ex. 214). How, then, can the Act apply to the case of a non-parishioner? But another question may arise. Can the incumbent alone, or with the assent of the churchwardens, consent to the burial of a non-parishioner with such Nonconformistservices as mentioned in the Act? Can it be contended that the moment the incumbent (or incumbent and churchwardens) assent to the burial of a non-parishioner, such non-parishioner acquires "a right of interment"? If not, will not the incumbent be guilty of an offence in permitting unauthorized services in the churchyard? The words "nothing shall authorize" are very different from “nothing shall entitle the relatives to require,” or the like. The subject has recently been brought under my notice by the death of a friend of mine, an old lady belonging to a county family, who had desired to be buried in the family vault with other services than those of the Church of England. She was not, however, at her death resident in the parish where the vault was situate, and the vicar positively refused to consent to her interment unless with the rites of the Church of England, simply referring the relatives to the 9th section of the Act. For the reasons mentioned above, I advised them that he was within his rights in so refusing; but as you suggest that the point is a difficult one, it would seem important that it should be carefully considered. H. [We think, for the reasons we stated, that our correspondent was right. The difficulty to which we referred is whether, supposing the church-wardens authorize the burial of a non-parishioner, the incumbent can prevent the burial from taking place under the new Act.ED. S. J.] THE REWARD OF HONESTY. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-A lady of very moderate means, who recently left her purse in a railway carriage on the South-Western Railway, gave the porter who found it ten shillings as a reward for his honesty. How are we to reconcile this act with that related by you of a wealthy firm of solicitors rewarding a porter at the Royal Courts with twenty shillings for returning papers valued at thousands of pounds? Perhaps when you publish this letter the firm may be induced to do something worthy of note. Obituary. A SUBSCRIBER. MR. CHRISTOPHER HILL GATES. Mr. Christopher Hill Gates, solicitor, registrar of the Lutterworth County Court, died at his residence at that place on the 20th inst. Mr. Gates was born in 1824, and was admitted a solicitor in 1846. He originally practised at Leamington, but about twenty-eight years ago he removed from that place to Lutterworth, when he was appointed assistant clerk of the Lutterworth County Court (Circuit No. 20). After the passing of the County Courts Act, 1856, he became registrar of that court, and he retained the office until his death. Mr. Gates had a good private practice and he was universally esteemed. He was one of the governors of the Lutterworth Grammar School. He was honorary secretary to the committee for the restoration of the parish church, and he contributed liberally to that object. MR. CHARLES SMITH THOMAS. Mr. Charles Smith Thomas, solicitor, proctor, and notary, died at Uplands, Godalming, on the 16th iust. Mr. Thomas was born in 1809. He was admitted a solicitor about the year 1832, and he practised for a long time as a proctor in Doctors'-commons, having offices at 11, Great Carter-lane. He was first in partnership with Mr. Richard Stone, and afterwards with Mr. Frederick Capes. He had a large practice in the old courts at Doctors'-commons, including very extensive agency business in connection with the Western counties, and he was also a notary public. He retired from business more than twenty years ago, and his health had long been failing. His only son, Mr. Charles Shea Thomas, was admitted a solicitor in 1875, and is now a member of the firm of Palin, Wade, & Thomas, of Shrewsbury. Mr. Thomas was buried at Godalming on the 22nd inst. Societies. BRISTOL INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. The following is the report of the council of this society: : In presenting their tenth annual report, the council take the opportunity of congratulating the society on the increased number of the members, who are now 123. The finances of the society are also in a satisfactory position, the treasurer's account showing an investment of £200 in Exchequer bills, and a balance in hand of £92 13s. 4d. In the short session preceding the dissolution of Parliament, three Bills of great interest and importance to the profession were introduced by Lord Cairns, the late Lord Chancellor-viz., the Settled Land Bill, the Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill, and the Solicitors' Remuneration Bill. After the dissolution the Bills passed the House of Lords and were sent down to the Lower House, but owing to the pressure of other business they were not read a second time. It is presumed, however, that the same or similar Bills will be brought in by the present Government next year. It may be remembered that in their last report the council alluded to a new scale of remuneration by commission, which had been settled by a joint committee of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom and of the Associated Provincial Law Societies. The scale was adopted by the council of the Incorporated Law Society in January last, and forwarded by them to the then Lord Chancellor, the council being of opinion that the change of the system of remuneration should be effected by Act of Parliament. One of the clauses of the Solicitors' Remuneration Bill authorizes a general order being made by the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the chiefs of the three common law divisions, for regulating the remuneration of solicitors, and provides that such order may prescribe that the remuneration shall be according to a scale of percentage. The scale adopted by the council of the Incorporated Law Society is set out in their report submitted to the general meeting of their members, held in July last. The attention of the courcil having been called to the practice of the sanitary authority in selling their salvages, excluding purchasers from requiring any abstract of or covenants for title, the subjoined resolutions were passed by the council on the 5th of July last, and forwarded to the clerk to the sanitary authority :-"That, in the opinion of this council, the practice which is now adopted by the Bristol Sanitary Authority of providing on sales of their salvages that the title of the authority is to be accepted without question or investigation, and that the parchaser is not to have any covenant for title or production of deeds, is objectionable, as being contrary to the established practice of conveyancing, and as throwing the whole risk of a defective title on the purchaser without giving him an opportunity of ascertaining the nature of such risk.” “That, as the authority purchase for street improvements, and sell their salvages on the terms above referred to, thereby at once freeing themselves from all risk and responsibility, there is not the same inducement to exercise care in investigating titles as is the case with a purchaser buying either to hold or to sell again under usual conditions; and it is desirable that persons purchasing of the authority should understand the effect of the present practice, which does not give them the means of supporting their title if questioned, or of showing it in case of sale or mortgage, thus materially decreasing the value of the property." That a copy of the two preceding resolutions be sent to the clerk to the sanitary authority, with a request that he will lay the same before his com mittee." The council received on the 20th of July last a letter from Mr. Heaven, the clerk to the authority, that the resolutions were under the consideration of the Streets Improvement Committee, and on the 14th of September last. Mr. Heaven forwarded to the hon. secretaries copy of a resolution passed that day by bis committee, "That no alteration be made in the conditions of sale." The opinion of the council having been asked as to the right of the solicitor of a grantor to prepare the conveyance to the grantee, when the sale was made in consideration partly of a gross sum and partly of a rent, they passed a resolution to the following effect:-"That in the opinion of this council, when the consideration for a grant is wholly or |