« PreviousContinue »
the road; and “excessive weight” means weight beyond condition," no right of compensation shall arise. This the weight usually put on the road by the traffic as a
is obviously a very defective species of legislation. The whole. It will be seen that both definitions practically
qualification introduced by the 2nd section is not really come to the same thing as the terse expression of Lord | in the nature of a proviso or exception, and the limitaJustice Bramwell, and that the question really is, Has
tion therein contained ought to have formed part of the any extra burden been thrown on the road beyond its same enactment which creates the liability. The 3rd ordinary and normal use ?
sub-section of section 2 further limits the operation of In Wallington v. Hooking the question turned on what the previous section. It enacts that there shall be no is the ordinary and normal use of a highway. The
compensation" in any case where the workman knew of justices had found that the traffic was not extraordinary,
the defect or negligence which caused the injury, and but that the weight of the traffic was excessive, and that
failed within a reasonable time to give, or cause to be the expense of the repairs was extraordinary. The
given, information thereof to the employer, or some Queen's Bench Division held that, upon the evidence, | person superior to himself in the service of the em. the burden thrown on the road was not beyond the ordin. | ployer, unless he was aware that the employer or such ary use. “Regard being had,” said Lord Coleridge, superior already knew of the said defect or negliC.J., “to the character of the district, and of its in.
gence." To some extent it would appear that these dustry, and to the form of wagon in use, I do not think
provisions only affirm the common law. The employer that the weights are excessive. If the district were au
was always held liable for defective machinery, &c., agricultural district they would probably be so; but
when there was personal negligence on his part. when once it is allowed that the production of the stones The law, however, is altered in so far as the emis the recognized industry of the district, and that it is | ployer is made responsible for the neglect in this carried on in the usual manner, I think that the weight respect of any person in his service, and intrusted by cannot be called excessive within the meaning of the
him with the duty of seeing that the ways, works, Act."
machinery, or plant were in proper condition. The The evil which the section was intended to remedy
liability thus entailed is very sweeping in respect of was the great expense caused in repairing roads during
certain enterprizes, such as collieries. There will be very the construction of a railway or other public under
difficult questions of fact as to what amounts to an taking; and in these cases, even though quarrying intrusting with the duty of seeing that the ways, &c., of stones is a “recognized industry" of the district, it
are in proper condition. The master will not only be is clear that the unusual and sudder: increase of traffic made liable for the negligence of persons in the position over the roads will bring the contractors within the of superintendents or managers, but for the misconduct section.
of very subordinate and inferior servants. It must frequently be the case that the duty of seeing that some part of the plant is in proper condition is inevitably
intrusted, to some extent, to persons of inferior position. THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY The idea involved in some of the arguments heretofore ACT.
used on the subject is that the negligence of persons
who are in the nature of vice-masters should render the Tus Act comes into operation to-day. The circum. master responsible. There is some justice in this idea. stances under which it was passed, and the doctrine of There are matters which, it may be said, the master English law which gave rise to the necessity for it, will ought to look to himself, or as to which, if he delegates be known to our readers. We have on various occasions his functions, he ought to be responsible for his delegate. discussed this topic in relation to then future legislation. The difficulty is to define what has been called a viceThe measure that on those occasions was in fieri is now master. But the provisions we are discussing go far in Esse, and the question arises how far the legislation of beyond any such idea. Again, the provision which last session on this subject is satisfactory. We cannot enables the servant, though he kuew of the defect, to say that the statute is a good piece of workmanship so throw the liability on the employer, if he gives notice of far as its expression or arrangement are concerned. It the defect to any person superior to himself in the service bears on the face of it the marks of being a compromise. of the employer, is one of a very vogue and uncertain Its expressions are loose and unscientific. What it nature. One difficult question that will arise will be appears to give in one section it takes away in another, who is a person “superior to himself.” The person may and the general impression left on the mind of the be so slightly superior that very little protection will reader is one of clumsiness and obscurity.
thereby be afforded to the employer. The provisions of the Act are confined, it should be Tho 2nd sub-section of section 1 makes the empremised, to railway servants and persons to whom the ployer responsible for injuries caused to workmen by Employers' and Workmen Act, 1975, applies. This ex. reason of the negligence of any person in his service clades menial servants from the operation of the Act, who has any superintendence intrusted to him while in and probably various other kinds of servants. We do the exercise of such superintendence." The definition not quite understand why, if the principle of the Act is given, by section 8, of a person“ who has any superiojast, all servants should not have the benefit of it. tendence intrusted to him" is "a person whose sole or Menial servants, however, are not a political power as principal duty is that of superintendence, and who is not the operatives are.
ordinarily engaged in manual labour." This seems to be The 1st sub-section of section 1 provides that when an attempt at a definition of the “vice-master," to whom the injury to a workman is caused by reason of any we have before alluded. How far such definition will defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery, prove successful, time alone can show. It will, however, or plant connected with or used in the business of the it is pretty obvious, give rise to troublesome questions of employer," there shall be the same right of compensation | fact. The proviso contained in sub-section 3 of section and remedies against the employer " as if the workman 2 also applies to this sub-section of section 1, and conhad not been a workman of nor in the service of the sequently if the workman knows of, but gives informaemployer, nor engaged in his work." Sub-section 1 of tion of, the negligence of the superintendent to the section 2 entirely alters the effect of the preceding employer, or to any person superior to himself in the section. It enacts that“ under sub-section 1 of section service of the employer, the employer is responsible. 1, unless the defect therein mentioned arose from, or had This seems to involve an absurdity in some cases. The not been discovered or remedied owing to, the negligence negligence may be that of the manager of the concern, of the employer, or of some person in the service of the intrusted with plenary power over all the men employed. employer, and intrusted by him with the duty of seeing 'If the workman injured tells any one, however slightly that the ways, works, machinery, or plant were in proper superior to himself in the service of the employer, though
such person would no more dare to complain to the us is that in many places railway servants constitute a employer or the manager than the workman himself, the formidable voting power. employer is to be liable.
The 3rd section limits the amount of compensation An important question will arise as to all the sub- recoverable to such sum as may be found equivalent sections of section 1. They all refer to an injury caused to the estimated earnings, during the three years preto a workman “by reason of,” &c. How far is the ceding the injury, of a person in the same grade doctrine of contributory negligence left open on this employed during those years in the like employment phraseology ? An accident may be the result of the and in the district in which the workman was employed negligence of two parties, that of the person for whom at the time of the injury. It was obvious that the the employer is responsible, and that of the workman man's own earnings could not be taken as the limit, himself. It would appear that the question of con. because he might have been out of work à considerable tributory negligence will be open in all the cases to part of the three years. This provision is most which the Act refers except, perhaps, in some cases anomalous. If the principle of the Act is right, this under the 3rd sub-section of section 1, to which we shall limitation cannot be founded in justice. It reads like hereafter refer. The effect of the 3rd sub-section of a confess ion that the principle of the Act is very section 2 would appear to be that if the workman doubtful. Section 4 provides for the period of limitaknew of the defect or negligence, and failed to give the tion. The remaining sections relate to matters of proinformation to his employer or superior as required by cedure with regard to the mode of recovering the section, he will not be entitled to recover, quite apart compensation. There appears to be no provision prefrom the question of contributory negligence. In other venting the workman from contracting himself out of words, the question for a jury will be whether he knew the Act. The result has been that, in many cases, the of the defect, &c., and failed to give the information; | workman has already done so. not generally whether he was guilty of contributory negligence.
Sub-section 3 of section 1 makes the emploger liable in respect of injuries caused to workmen" by reason of
THE JUDICIAL STATISTICS. the negligence of any person in the service of the em
DIVISIONAL COURT OF APPEAL. ployer to whose orders or directions the workman at the BEFORE the Divisional Court there were during the year time of the injury was bound to conform, and did conform,
| 4 special cases, 2 of which were argued. The special where such injury resulted from his having so conformed.”
cases filed under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, were 71, of which Our notion of the meaning of this sub-section is that it
32 were argued. There were also 30 appeals from county is meant to protect the workman in cases where he is
courts, 2 only of which were argued, one decision being ordered to do some dangerous act, or incur some obvious
affirmed, and one reversed. There were also 4 appeals risk, by a superior whose orders he cannot practically
from the Lord Mayor's Court, 3 from the Court of Pasresist without the probability of dismissal. We doubt,
sage, Liverpool, and 3 from the Salford Hundred Court. therefore, whether the doctrine of contributory negligence
Iu 59 other appeals, by way of motion, orders nisi were would here apply, at least so far as the mere incurring
granted, 13 of which were made absolute, and 10 disof the risk in conformity with the orders goes. Let us take an illustration. A workman is ordered by his
THE COURT OF APPEAL. superior in the service to work in some place where there is danger from unfenced machinery. Assuming that it is
The total number of appeals from final judgments not negligence on the part of the superior to give him the
awaiting a hearing at the commencement of the year order, by the common law he could not recover, for two
was 183; during the year 286 were set down, making reasons: the negligence (if any) would be the negligence
469 appeals from final orders. During the year 224 were of a fellow-servant, and he himself would voluntarily
heard, and 46 otherwise disposed of, leaving 199 awaiting incur the risk. Our idea is that the Act was meant to
a hearing at the end of the year. In the previous year meet such a case as this, but the language is somewhat
there were 127 of these appeals at its commencement, clumsy, and difficult questions may arise upon it.
and 346 set down, making 473; 290 were heard or other. The 4th sub-section of section 1 provides that the
wise disposed of, and 183 were left. employer shall be liable in cases where injury is
Appeals from interlocutory orders waiting for hearing
at the commencement of the year numbered 39. There occasioned “by reason of the act or omission of any person in the service of the employer, done or made in
were set down during the year 202; 196 were heard or obedience to the rules or bye-laws of the employer, or in
otherwise disposed of, and 45 left at the end of the year. obedience to particular instructions given by any person
There were 61 original motions, of which 60 were heard delegated with the authority of the employer in that
or otherwise disposed of, and 1 left. behalf.” Sub-section 2 of section 2 provides that the
From the County Palatine of Lancaster there were 10 workman shall not be entitled to compensation unless the
appeale; 6 being heard, and 4 remaining, injury resulted from some impropriety in the rules, bye.
From the Stannaries Court there were 7 appeals ; 4 laws, or instructions ; and that when the rule or bye-law
were heard or otherwise disposed of, and 3 remained.
The appeals from the London Bankruptcy Court has been approved by any department under any Act of Parliament, it shall not be deemed improper or defective
awaiting a hearing at the commencement of the year for the purposes of the Act. Nice questions will arise
were 28, and 106 were set down during the year; 107 as to whether the particular act or omission complained
were heard or otherwise disposed of, leaving 27 awaiting of was done or made in obedience to the rules or bye
a hearing at the end of the year. laws, or in obedience to the instructions of the employer's
I The Court of Appeal sat at Lincoln's-inn on 187 days, delegate ; also as to when a person is delegated with the
and at Westminster on 127 days. authority of the employers in that behalf. The 5th sub.
The following summary shows the whole work of the section of section 1 provides that the employer shall be
two divisions of the Court of Appeal during the year liable in the case of injury caused to any workman “by
ending the 31st of October, 1879:reason of the negligence of any person in the service of
Appeals, both interlocutory and final, in the employers who has the charge or control of any
the lists at the beginning of the year. 257 Set down during the year
665 signal, points, locomotive engine, or train upon a railway.” Difficult questions will arise as to what is a
Heard during the year. “ train." This last sub-section is a curious instance of
Otherwiso disposed of . legislation. It suddenly throws over all abstractions and
Awaiting a hearing at the end of the year 279 makes an anomalous provision with regard to certain
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. concrete cases. The observation that suggests itself to ! The number of appeals entered for hearing before the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the year 1879 total amount for which plaints were issued was £132,567, was 64. The cases heard and determined numbered 73, and and the sums for which judgment was obtained amounted 16 were dismissed for non-prosecution. The number of to £45,717, the costs being £4,472. The fees on all proappeals lodged since the 1st of April, 1875, which re- ceedings were $13,518, and the court sat on 157 days. mained for hearing on the let of January, 1880, was 94. Equity Proceedings. There were only 15 equity proThe total amount of costs taxed in appeals, in which the ceedings in the City of London Court during the year, costs on one side only were taxed by the registrars, was the subject matter of which amounted to a total of £1,968. $18,181.
Admiralty Proceedings.-Under the admiralty jurisHOUSE OF LORDS.
diction of the City of London Court 168 suits or proThe return of the judicial proceedings of the House of ceedings were commenced. The aggregate amount of Lords during the session of 1879 shows that there were the claims was £19,020, and the costs £1,378. 33 appeals from the Court of Chancery of England,
The LORD Mayon's Court, LONDON. 3 from that of Ireland, and 40 from the Court of Ses
The number of actions entered in the Mayor's Court sion, Scotland. During the same period 11 appeals were withdrawn, and 13 dismissed for want of prosecution.
in 1879 was 14,016, showing a gradual increase from
the year 1876, when the number was 8,548. The total The total number of judgments delivered in 1879 was
amount for which actions were entered was $277,052. 46, including causes heard in the previous session and
There were 470 foreign attachments issued for a total of standing for judgment, and in 37 of these cases the decision of the court below was affirmed. In 1878 the
£142,299. On the equity side of the court there were 6 House delivered 53 judgments, and 36 of these affirmed
bills of complaint filed in 1879, and 5 in 1878. The
fees on all proceedings amounted to $7,041. the previous decisions. Only 18 effective causes remained at the end of the session of 1879. The total amount of
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. fees was £1,884 15s.
The number of suits in the ecclesiastical courts in County Courts.
1879 was 12, as against 13 in 1878. Five of these were
in the Arches Court of Canterbury. Of the 12 suits 3 Formerly there were 59 county court circuits, but
were under the Public Worship Act, 1874; 2 for grantthree having been absorbed in those adjoining them, 56
ing a faculty, 3 for a monition, and 4 for other objects. now remain, and courts are held at 499 places. The
Further, there were 288 suits for faculties, in 279 of number of plaints entered in county courts in 1879 was
which faculties were decreed. The court fees in 1879 1,044,414, and there were besides 874 cases from
amounted to £1,289. superior courts. The cases determined numbered 615,127, of which 1,079 were with a jury and 614,048 without. Judgment summonses were issued to the number of 135,137, of which 76,886 were heard ; 31,201 warrants of commitment were issued, and 6,246
REVIEWS. debtors imprisoned. Executions against goods were issued in 223,203 cases, and 5,536 sales made. The
MORTGAGES. total amount for which plaints were eutered was | A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF MORTGAGE. By R. H. £3,380,734. The amount of debts recovered was Coote, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. FOURTH EDITION. £1,646,757, and of costs £13,070. The fees amount By W. WYLLYS MACKESON, Esq., Q.C. Stevens & Sons ; to £445,068. The principal of the foregoing figures H. Sweet; W. Maxwell & Son. are a slight increase on those of the previous year, with
This is, as the editor observes, not so much a new the exception of costs, which in 1878, on the recovery of a smaller amount than in 1879, amounted to £119,620.
edition as a new book. Coote has disappeared from There were 22 warrants issued to arrest absconding
the lawyer's shelves, or is only kept for occasional debtors, and 791 orders registered for protection of
reference in the dusty corner where Burton's Compendium
and Fearne on Contingent Remainders repose. Within vives deserted by their husbands. The average
the thirty years which have elapsed since the last edition amount of each plaint was £3 48. 8d., as against
was published, many branches of the law of mortgage £3 4s. 9d. in 1878.
have undergone complete change, and others, one may Equity Proceedings. The plaints entered for ad
almost say, have been newly developed. Nor are these ministration of estates numbered 191; for the execution
the only causes for the disuse of Coote. The style of of trusts, 8; for foreclosure or redemption of mortgages,
text-books has been radically altered. 68; for specific performance, 6; and for dissolution of
practitioner has become impatient of long-drawn statepartnership, 49. There were also 144 petitions and notices filed, and 23 payments by trustees under
ments of the facts of cases. He wants to have his text30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 24. The amount of the subject.
books as comprehensive as possible, and as terse as
possible. He looks for the effect of a decision, not for a matter of these plaints was £77,061, and the amount of
report of a decision; for in these days of cheap law solicitors' costs £3,282. The fees amounted to £1,940.
reports and numerous public law libraries, he has little There were 4 county court appeals. Admiralty Suits.-Under the county courts' admiralty
difficulty in finding a report of any case he may wish to
examine in detail. jurisdiction there were 234 suits or proceedings, as against 305 in 1878 and 432 in 1875; 117 vessels were
Mr. Mackeson has adapted his book with considerable
skill to these modern notions. He has spread his net arrested, and there were 68 final decrees. The claims
over every branch of the subject of securities upon prop. amounted to £24,000, and the costs allowed to £1,139.
erty, including, besides mortgages of all kinds, properly The fees under this jurisdiction amounted to £919.
so called, judgments, liens, and pledges. While reCITY OF LONDON COURT.
taining Mr. Coote's general arrangement of the subject, In the City of London Court there is still an increase he has cut out the long statements of cases, and his of business. The plaints entered were 22,712 in 1879, additions are always tersely expressed. As far as as against 21,163 in 1878, and 11,739 in 1875. There conciseness of statenient goes, the book could hardly were also 9 cases from the superior courts. 9,674 cases be surpassed. Here and there, indeed, it is carried to were determined, 59 of which came before a jury. In the extent of disregarding the proprieties of style; see, 212 only of these cases was the judgment in favour of for instance, the statement of Ex parte Parke (L. R. 18 the defendant, and in 237 there was a non-suit. Judg | Eq. 381), on p. 689, and the curious sentence on p. ment summonses were issued to the number of 1,587, 451, with reference to order and disposition, “Similarly a and 691 of these were heard ; 217 warrants of commit custom of leaving goods sold in vendor's possession for ment were issued, and 15 debtors imprisoned ; 4,206 exe convenience of vendee, as in case of pigs; whisky in cutions of goods were issued, and 63 sales made. The bonded warehouse (and it is immaterial whether & delivery order is given); tea warrants ; hay; and pianos practice enables us to speak with some confidence of the on hire and sale, takes case out of statute."
excellence of its design, and of the execution as being, With regard to the author's mode of treatment of the on the whole, careful and satisfactory. The present subject, the chapter relating to the consolidation of edition appears in a considerably enlarged form, and securities affords a fair illustration. This is contained includes a large number of new forms. The precein about twelve pages. After defining the difference dents of agreements-one of the most useful sections of between consolidation and tacking, the author deals with the book-do not, however, appear to have been inthe case of one mortgagor and one mortgagee, and then creased in number, but we observe several substitutions, proceeds to the case of a transferee of the two mort. We do not understand why the precedent of an agreegages, and subsequently to the case where the equities ment to grant a lease of brickworks to a company should of redemption are in different persons. He then dis. bave been omitted. Some precedent of an agreement to cusses the question of the union of the mortgages; and grant a lease to a company ought to be inserted to make here, we think, with all our liking for Mr. Mackeson's this part of the work complete. The common forms in brevity of statement, a little more space might well memoranda of association and the forms of objects claus cs have been devoted to Lord Justice Cotton's admirable have been considerably increased. The latter now em. judgment in the recent case of Mills v. Jennings (28 brace a very wide range, and are a curious index to the W.R. 549, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 639); or, if this could not whims of the day. Thus we have now for the first time an be spared, the result of that case might have been better object clause for coffee-taverns; and in his note Mr. stated, in the words of the Lord Justice, as being that Palmer says that during the last eighteen months the purchaser of an equity of redemption “is not sub- scarcely a week has passed without the formation of ject to any equity arising from acts done by his vendor more than one coffee-tavern company. The temperayco subsequently to the sale, and, therefore, as against a pur music-hall object clause is another novelty. The oyster chaser of an equity of redemption of an estate, there and mussel company has disappeared from the list, but can be no consolidation of a mortgage subsequently we observe with surprise that the skating-rink still created on another estate.” On the other hand, the remains, notwithstanding that these institutions have effect of Cummins v. Fletcher (28 W. R. 272, L. R. 14 ceased to enjoy popular favour. Both as regards Ch. D. 699) could hardly be better stated than it is by memoranda and articles, we are glad to observe increased Mr. Mackeson in his next sentence-" The right to con. attention paid to the private" company, which now solidate does not apply where there has been no default occupies so much of the attention of the company in respect of one of the securities." Throughout this draftsman. Forms 82 and 83, though they do not chapter we find all the decisions cited and stated with cover nearly all the variations which have been adopted clearness; and at the end (as in many other places in as regards the transfer of shares in such companies, will the volume) the author gives a summary of the law on furnish a good basis for working upon. the subject in a series of propositions. In some respects One of the least satisfactory parts of the previous the chapter might, perhaps, have been better arranged, edition was that relating to debǝntures. We are glad but it constitutes an excellent practical digest of the to observe that many of the precedents have been greatly law on the consolidation of mortgages. A similar improved, possibly (though we cannot bo certain on this remark applies to the other parts of the book which we point) by access to precedents which owe their origin to have examined. The chapter on the Bills of Sale Acts the ingenuity of two draftsmen who devoted: much care is a good specimen of clear and careful statement, the to this subject, one of whom is now on the bench and simple device of indicating the alterations made by the the other has become an eminent Queen's Counsel. Act of 1878 in italics saying a great deal of explana Nearly half the book now consists of forms of orders tion.
relating to companies. The orders and precedents in The omissions we have come across are few and winding up bave been enormously increased in number, slight. In the sections relating to the attorument clause and are now a most complete collection, covering and power of distress, some reference should have been the proceedings at every stage. Forms of orders in made to the provisions of section 6 of the Bills of Sale actions and proceedings by and against companies (18, Act, 1878; and to the statement on p. 245, that under for instance, in actions for rescission of contracts obtained the Bankruptcy Rulo 28 of 1871, the leave of the court | by misrepresentation, and against promoters and directors must be obtained for a disclaimer, there should have in rospect of secret profits) are a new feature in this been added a reference to the recent case of Reed v. edition, as also are the forms of orders and precedents in Harvey (28 W. R. 423), in which it was held that a proceedings for arrangements under the Act of 1870. Mr. disclaimer of a leasehold interest by a trustee is opera. Palmer has also added nine precedents of private Acts. tive, though no application for leave has been made to It will be seen that the scope of the work has been the court. The book is dated November, 1880, so that largely increased. no reference could be given to the recent case of Barrow The notes, as in the former edition, are practical, and, so V. Manning (ante, p. 95), in which the Court of Appeal | far as we have tested the additions, we have found them, exploded many of the notions as to oppressive and generally speaking, reliable. Some few of the notes in the irregular sales by a mortgagee under a power of sale, I former edition were a little incautious, but this cannot which were set on foot by Robertson v. Norris (1 be said of the observations we have examined in the Giff. 421, 443) and other cases; but we observe that present edition. Thus, under the new form, under Mr. Mackeson has stated the doctrine laid down by these | Memoranda of Association, relating to the purchase by cases with due caution on p. 231.
a company of its own shares, Mr. Palmer says that the We think that the book will be found a very valuable better opinion is that, as a purchase involves a reduction addition to the practitioner's library. Considering the of capital, it can only be effected with the sanction of the wide range, and the difficulty, of the subject, Mr. Macke- court given pursuant to the Acts of 1867 and 1877. We son may be congratulated on the success with which he have always, notwithstanding Hope r. International has converted an old and rather long-winded text-book Society (25 W. R. 203, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 327), considered into a complete, terse, and practical treatise for the this very doubtful, and shoald have thought that Mr. modern lawyer.
Palmer would have treated it, as Mr. Buckley dɔcs, as a
quære. The judgment of the Court of Appeal a few COMPANY PRECEDENTS,
days ago, in In re The Dronfield Silkstone Company COMPANY PRECEDENTS FOR USE IN RELATION TO COMPANIES
(ante, p. 155), appears to have disposed of this “ better SUBJECT TO THE COMPANIES Acts, 1862 to 1880. With °P Copious Notes. By FRANCIS BEAUFORT PALMER, Barrister-at-Law. SECOND EDITION. Stevens & Sons. Use of the first edition of Mr, Palmer's book in 1
age who ar3 found engaged in casual employment during JUVENILE OFFENDERS.. illegal hours, and to convey them to a suitable place of
detention, not being a prison or a police cell, for the night, The following is the report of the Manchester Javenile unless they be claimed in the meantime by their parents or Offenders' Executive Committee.
guardians. Tbe committee report that they are of opinion
“13. That, in order to recognize more fully the legal duty "1. Tbat the power to imprison in common gaola of parental responsibility, the maximum contribution from children and young persons under fourteen years of age , parents towards the maintenance of
parents towards the maintenance of their children in certified should be abolisbed, except in very grave cases.
industrial and certified reformatory schools should be raised "2. That, in order to provide for the proper treatment from fire shillings to seven sbillings per week, the actual of juvenile offenders on arrest or when under remand, or
average cost of such detention, and that the amount to be after committal, there should be established in populous | levied in each case should be determined by the court at places special places of detention, with separate wards the time of the committal of the offender. for males and females, and with proper arrangements for "14. That a certain number of justices should be annually the regular occupation and instruction of the inmates. selected at quarter sessions to serve as ex-officio members "3. That, where special places of detention' are not
on the committee of each certified reformatory and certified provided, it should be lawful (with the sanction or under
industrial school situated in their division, the orders of the Secretary of State for the Home Depart
“15. That, where special places of detention are pot proment) to use certified industrial sohools, certified reforma
vided, it would often be useful to commit to reformatory tory schools, or other suitable institutions as sach places
and industrial schools for short terms, and that it is desir. of detention ander proper regulations for the purpose.
able that power be given to commit, in such cases, for any * 4. That it is desirable to make the minimum age for
short term, at the discretion of the magistrates. committal in the case of certified industrial sobools eight
“16. That it is further desirable that provision should be years, and of certified reformatory schools twelve years.
made for the reception, in some public institution, of juve. "5. That, in order to enable magistrates to deal satis
pilo offenders who, by reason of disease, of physical or of factorily with the various classes of juvenile offenders who
mental weakness, or of a confirmed criminal disposition, are are brought before them, it is desirable, where the offender
not now received into certified reformatory or certified ind us. is a child, to retain the power to inflict a fine of not exoeed.
trial schools." ing 403., or (if a male) to order not more than six strokes
The committee generally advise that the utmost possible with the birch rod, and, where the offender is a young
freedom of action and of choice of punishment should be person, to retain the power to ipflict a fine of not exceeding
accorded to magistrates in dealing with juvenile offenders, £10, or (if a male) to order not more than twelve strokes
and that it is important that the statute law with respect to with the birch rod; to extend the panishment of bircbing to
certified reformatory and certified industrial schools should male offenders under sixteen years of age for pon-indictablo
be revised and amended so as to bring it into agreement offences, and to abolish imprisonment in a common gaol as
with such of the above rocommendations as may be adopted
by Parliam nt. & prioc condition of the committal of a juvenile offender to a certified reformatory sobool.
*6. That an order to birch should only be given by two justices or by a stipendiary magistrate, and that, in every case, the parent or guardian of the offender
LEGAL APPOINTMENTS. should be informed of the order, and should have the right Lord Justice BAGGALLAY has been elected an Honorary to be present. That every juvenile sentenced to be birched
Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge. should first be examined by a medical officer, who shall certify that he is fit for such punishmeit.
Mr. Isaac Newton EDWARDS, solicitor, of St. Albans, “7. That it would often be of great assistance to magis. has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Hertfordtrates to bave the parent or guardian of a juvenile offender in
sbire, for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married court on the bearing of the charge, and that it is, therefore, Women. desirable to enact power to summon the parent or guardian Mr. WILLIAM THOMAS HAMLIN, solicitor (of the firm of in all such cases.
Hamlin & Grammer), of 7 and 3, Staple-inn, and also of "8. That it is desirable to give to magistrates power to
Gunnersbury, has been appointed a Commissioner to adaccept from the parent or guardian, or other friend of a ju.
minister Oaths in the Supreme Court of Jadicature. venile offender, a surety for his future good conduct, or to bring him up for judgment when called upon, and that it is,
Mr. Arthur Hughes, solicitor, of Aberystwith, has been tterefore, recommended that power be given to take such re
elected Town Clerk of ihat borough. Mr. Hughes was ad. cognizances, and to provide the processes for effectually es.
mitted a solicitor in 1870. treating them when necessary.
Mr. John PATRICK MURPHY, Q.C., who has been "9. That, as in many cases parental neglect or misconduct conduces to the offence, the court should have power to
appointed a Commissioner of Assize for the Midland Circuit,
was called to tbe bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas proceed against the person who causes the offence as well Term, 1856. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1874, and as against the juvenile offender, and, further, that, as many
practises on the South-Eastern Clrcuit. He is a bencher of offences are committed by juveniles through want, arising The Middle Temple. from parental neglect, the court should have power to pro. ceed against either or both parents for gross neglect of family,
Mr. ALFRED WILLS, Q.C., who has been appointed a rbetber or not the dependents may have become chargeable
Commissioner of Assize for the Oxford Circuit, is the son of to the parish.
the late Mr. William Wills, solicitor, of Birmingham. He “10. That it is desirable to give to courts of assize and was educated at University College, London, and graduated to courts of general and quarter sessions power, in cases B.A. at the University of London in 1849. He was called wbich are brought before them, to commit juvenilo offenders to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1851. to certified reformatory and certified industrial schools, | Mr. Wills became a Queen's Counsel in 1872, and is now a and generally all and every power to deal with juvenile member of the North-Eastern Circuit. He was appointed offenders as they might be dealt with summarily.
| recorder of Sheffield a few months ago, aod he is a bencher “11. Tbat no child charged with larceny ought to be con of the Middle Temple, a member of the Incorporated Council victed of felony, but that every such offender should be of Law Reporting, and examiner in common law and the deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor only, and that the law of evidence at the University of London. offence should be punishable as larceny by a court of sum. Mr. WILLIAM WEBB, solicitor, of Morpeth, has been mary jurisdiction. " 12. That in order to remove one source of juvenile delin.
elected Clerk to the Chevington Local Board. quency, more especially in large quarters of industry, the
Mr. HERCULES CAMPBELL Yates, solicitor, of Macclesfield, casual employment clauses of the Elementary Education has been elected (after a poll) to be Coroner for the Eastern (Scotland) Act, 1878, be made applicable to England and Division of Cheshire, in succession to the late Mr. John Wales. It is also recommended that any officer of a school Edward Garside, of Congleton,
Oerd or of a school attendance committee shall bave power to remove from the streets any juveniles under the specified