Page images
PDF

prietary rights of the greatest importance might fairly come under consideration; for the right of the individual to hold and propagate what religious opinions he pleases is scarcely adequately discussed without a definition of the limits within which he is entitled to devote his property to their support, a definition which may become of great importance in view of the increasing influence of the writers who are opposed to dogmatic religion. Would a bequest to promote the doctrines of the positive philosophy at the present time be upheld F It would seem more likely to be bad, on the prin ciple on which Briggs v. Hartley (14 Jur. 683) was decided, where a bequest for the purpose of promoting a belief in the sufficiency of natural religion was held void. These cases with regard to endowment are really some of the most important factors in determining the legal limits to freedom of opinion. But although the author goes into a variety of questions concerning Church property, which are rather curious than useful, the law relating to endowment, as well as that with regard to the important subject of church buildings, are not treated of at all.

Apart from any question as to the general design of the work, such a wealth of learning as the author appears to have at his disposal demands, perhaps, a more finished execution than is here displayed in order to make it as useful as it might become. A lawyer reading such a sentence as this: "As an advowson is in most respects capable of being dealt with as other real estate, it is capable of being exchanged, which, however, is an operation which involves a double resignation and a double induction" (p. 405); or this: "No spiritual person can hold more than two benefices or more than one benefice and one cathedral preferment " (p. 445)— would be apt to give the author less credit for precision of statement than he actually deserves. With reference to the general observations or reflections by means of which Mr. Paterson undoubtedly succeeds, to the great benefit of the unlearned reader, in adding the attribute of "readableness" to a mere legal disquisition, they are always interesting, but they sxe sometimes rather too discursive to be appropriate to a legal handbook, and they are not always suggestive of a sufficiently wide survey of the subject-matter. He says, for instance (p. 379), "Except for the purpose of solving difficulties between the members of the Church, whether clerical or lay, and which the law is bound to solve for the same reason that it solves all other difficulties between man and man, the worth or truth of any religious doctrine is deemed by the law of no intrinsic importance." Surely the smallest consideration of the cues upon those charitable endowments for religious purposes to which we have alluded would show that this proposition is not true. Things may have altered since the time when Lord Hardwicke declared that the Christian religion was part of the law of the land, but they have not altered to the extent of making it a matter of indifference to the courts whether a testator gives his property to the support of one religion or another. But in fptte of such minor imperfections as those to which wo have referred, the book is a useful and valuable summary of many branches of the law which are as interesting to the general public as to the professional reader.

SOCIETIES.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held »t the Law Institution, Chancerylaaa, London, on Wednesday, January 12, the following directors being present:—Mr. Phillip Hickman (deputychairman) in the chair, Messrs. Asker (Norwich), Hedger, Kay*, Pennington, Roscoe, Smith, Styan, Veley, and Woolbanj Mr. Eiffe (secretary). A sum of £145 was distributed in grants of assistance, fourteen new members were admitted, and other general business transacted.

CASES OF THE WEEK.

Bills Of ExchangeRemittances To Cover AcceptAncesSpecific Appropriation.—On the 19th inst., the Conrt of Appeal (jessrl, M.K., and Brett and Cotton, L.JJ.) reversed in part the deoisioD of Malins, V.C., in the case of In re Gothenburg Commercial Company (28 W. R. 456). The question was whether there had been a specific appropriation of bills of exchange which had been remitted to the company in London by a bank in Sweden to put the company in funds to meet other bills which they had accepted for the bank, the company receiving a commission for so doing. It was part of the arrangement that the company should be at liberty to discount the remitted bills, and to deal with the proceeds for their own purposes before their own acceptances matured, paying interest on the proceeds until their acceptances should mature. The company stopped payment on the 20th of January, 1879, and was ordered to be wound up on a petition presented on the 22nd of January. At the time of the stoppage there were outstanding acceptances of the company for the bank to the amount of £2,197, to meet which other bills had been remitted by the bank to the amount of £2,300. Of the remitted bills some had been discounted by the company before the stoppage ; the proceeds of the remittancss wore received after the stoppage from the persona liable upon tbem, partly by the company between the stoppage and the presentation of the petition, and partly by the liquidator afterwards. The bank afterwards met the bills which the company had accepted. Malins, V.C., held that the bank were entitled to have paid to them the amount of the proceeds of all the remitted bills, both those which had been discounted by the company before their stoppage, and those which were collected afterwards. The Court of Appeal held that a line must be drawn at the date of the stoppage, and that the bank were entitled only to the proceeds of such of the remitted bills as remained in specie at that data. By virtue of the arrangement between the company and the bank the proceeds of the remitted bills had become the property of the company. But, when they stopped payment, they stopped for all purposes; they rendered themselves thereby inoapable of performing the condition—viz., meeting their acceptances, until the remitted bills had been sent to them, and they were then entitled only to retain those of the remitted bills which remained in specie in their hands as an indemnity against liability upon their own acceptances. Thia liability having been discharged by the bank, the bank were entitled to have the remitted bills which remained in specie restored to them.—Solicitous, Plewr, Irvine, d; Hodges; Ashurst, Morris, <£■ Co.

Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict, C. 85), ss. 7, 9, 13—Jurisdiction Op JudcePowek To Enforce Obedience To Inhibition By ImprisonmentValidity Of Forms Framed Under ActSignificavitWrit Te Contumace Capiendo—5 £liz. C. 23, s. 2—53 Geo. 3, c. 127, s. 1—12 & 13 Vicr. c. 109, 3. 26.—In two case* of In re Dale and In re Enraght, before the Court of Appeal on the 15th inst., some questions were raised upon the construction of the Public Worship liegnlation Aot, 1874, and the validity of the forms which have been framed under it. The questions were raised upon applications for writs of habeas corpus with the view of obtaining the release of two clergymen who had been imprisoned for disobedience to inhibitions issued by the judge of the Court of Arches, in proceedings instituted under the Aot, and for writs of prohibition to the judge, on the ground that he had exceeded his jurisdiction.

The first question was whether the judge appointed under the Act has power to enforce obedience to bis order (and in particular to an inhibition) made in proceedings under the Act by the process of significavit, or whether he has no power of enforcing his order under the Act but suoh as is expressly conferred upon him by the Act. Seotion 7 of the Act empowers the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, but subject to the approval of her Majesty, to appoint from time to time a barrister who has been in sotual practice for ten years, or a person who haa been a jndge of one of the superior courts, "to be a judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York." And it provides that whenever a vacancy Bhall occur in the offiie of official prinoipal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, the judge BO appointed shall become ex officio such offioial prinoipal, "and all proceedings thereafter taken before the judge in relation to matters arising within the province of Canterbury shall be deemed to be taken in the Arches Court of Canterbury," and whenever a vacancy shall oooor in the office of official prinoipal of the Chanoery Court of York, the jndge shall become ex officio such offioial prinoipal, "and all proceedings thereafter taken before the judge in relation to matters arising within the province of York shall be deemed to be taken in the Chanoery Court of York." Section 9 provides that the judge shall, after hearing and pronouncing judgment upon the matter of a representation referred to him by the archbishop of the province, "issue such monition (if any)" to the incumbent whose acts have been complained of by the representation, "as the judgment shall require." And seotion 13 provides that "obedienoe by an incumbent to a monition or order" of the judge "shall be enforced (if neoeisary) in the manner prescribed by rules and orders, by on order inhibiting the incumbent from performing any service of the Church, or otherwise exercising the cure of souls within the diocese for a term not exceeding three months; provided that at the expiration of such term the inhibition shall not be relaxed until the incumbent shall, by writing under his hand in the form prescribed by the rules and orders, undertake to pay due obedience to such monition or order "; "provided that if such inhibition shall remain in force for more than three years from the date of the issuing of the monition, or from the final determination of an appeal therefrom, whichever shall last happen, or if a second inhibition in regard to the same monition shall be issued within three years from the relaxation of an inhibition, any benefice or other ecclesiastical preferment held by the incumbent in the parish in which the church or burial ground is situate, or for the use of which the burial ground is legally provided, in relation to which church or burial ground such monition has been issued as aforesaid, shall thereupon become void," unless the bishop shall, for some special reason, postpone the date of avoidance for a period not exceeding three months. The section also enables the bishop, during the inhibition, to make dne provision for tho service of the church, and the cure of souls, and to raise tho sum required for that purpose by sequestration of the profits of the benefice. Both the cases related to matters arising in the province of Canterbury, and before the proceedings were commenced, the judge appointed under the Act had, on a vacancy caused by the resignation of Sir K. Fhillimore, become official principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, or Dean of Arches. In both cases a monition had issued by the judge to an incumbent, warning him to desist from certain ceremonial practices, and in each case the monition had been disobeyed and an inhibition bad issued. The inhibition hsd in each case been disregarded, and to enforce obedience to it the judge had issned a significavit to the Chancery Division, under which a writ de contumace capiendo had been issued out of the Chancery Division, in pursuance of which the incumbent had been arrested and imprisoned. Writs of habeas corptu were then applied for in the Queen's Bench Division, and also four writs of prohibition to the judge of the Arches Court, on the ground that he had exceeded his jurisdiction. It was contended that the judge appointed under the Act, even after he, by reason of a vacancy in the office of official principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, succeeded to that office, was still, as to proceedings instituted under the Act, exercising a new jurisdiction, and not the ancient jurisdiction of the Court of Arches, and was not an ecclesiastical court within the moaning of the Act 53 Geo. 3, c. 127, which substituted the writ de contumace capiendo, for the former writ de excommunicato capiendo, and that he could not, therefore, enforce obedience to his orders by means of the process of significavit. Reliance was especially placed ou the provisions of section 7 of the Act of 1874, that after the jndge should have become official principal of the Court of Arches proceedings before him as to matters arising in the province of Canterbury should be deemed to be taken in the Arches Court. This, it was said, implied that the proceedings were not in fact in that court, otherwise it would be unnecessary to say tbat they should be deemed to be taken there. And it was farther contended that, as the Act had provided expressly that if an inhibition remained in force for more than three years, the clerk who had failed to promise obedience to the monition in respect of which it had issued should be at once deprived of his benefice, this

was the only method by which the judge could enforce obedience to the inhibition, though it was suggested that obedience might be enforced by the promoters in other ways, such as by indictment or by prooeedings against the clerk in an eoclesiastical court for brawling in his church. The court (james, Beett, and Cotton, L.JJ.), however, held (affirming the decision of the Queen's Bench Division, Coleridge, C.J., and Field and Manisty, JJ.) that no new jurisdiction has been created by the Act of 1874, but only a new method of procedure, and that the jud»e appointed under it was from the first a judge of the two old provincial courts, and is now the official principal of the old Court of Arches, with all the old jurisdiction of the court, and with the same power of enforcing his orders as that court always had.

The second question was whether the form? mads use of in the monitions and inhibitions had sufficiently shown on the face of them the jurisdiction of the judge. It was urged that, inasmuch as the Arches Court was subject to prohibition, it was an inferior conrt, and, therefore, bound to show on the face of its orders that the circumstances were such as to give it jurisdiction. Section 19 of the Act of 1874 empowers the Queen, by Order in Council, by and with the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the judge appointed under the Act, and the archbishops and bishops who are Privy Councillors, or any two of those persons, one being the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice, to "cause rules and orders regulating the procedure and settling the fees to be taken in proceedings under this Act, so far as the sams may not be expressly regulated by this Act, and from time to time to alter and amend such rules and orders. All rules and orders made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within forty days after the same are made, if Parliament is then sitting, or, if not, within forty days after the then next meeting of Parliament, and if an address is presented to her Majesty by either of the said Houses, within the next subsequent forty days on which the House shall have sat, praying that any such rules shall be annulled, her Majesty may thereupon, by Order in Council, annul the same, and the rules and orders so annulled shall thenceforth become void, without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings already taken nnder the same." Rules and orders were made under this power, and to them was annexed a schedule of forms to be used in proceedings under the Act. In both the cases before the court the forma of monition and inhibition given in the schedule had been used. The court held that the power to make rules and orders included a power to make form--, and that the forms had a statutory validity. Brett, L.J., was also of opinion that the Court of Arches was not an inferior court, and it was not bound to show its jurisdiction on the face of its orders.

The third point was that in each case the writ de contumace capiendo had been irregularly issued. The statute 5 Eliz. c. 23, by section 2, enacted that every writ of de excommunicato capiendo that should be granted out of the Court of Chancery "shall be made in the time of the term, and returnable before the Queen's Highness, her heirs and successors, in the court commonly called the King's Bench, in the term next after the teste of the same writ; . . . and after the same writ shall be so made and sealed, that then the said writ shall be forthwith brought into the said Court of King's Bench, and there, in the presence of the justices, shall be opened and delivered of record to the sheriff or other officer to whom the serving and execution thereof shall appertain." The statute 53 Geo. 3, o. 127, by seotion 1, abolished excommunication (except in certain cases), and substituted for the writ de excommunicato capiendo a writ de contumace capiendo, which was to issue out of the Court of Chancery in the same way, "on all causes cognizable in the ecclesiastical courts," upon the judge whose lawful orders had not been obeyed, pronouncing the person who had disobeyed them contumacious, and in contempt, and signifying the same to the Court of Chancery. And it was expressly provided that the provisions of the Act 5 Eliz. c. 23, should extend to the writ de contumace capiendo, and the proceedings following thereupon, "as if the same were herein particularly repeated and enacted." In both the oases before the o001'' the writ de contumace capiendo, instead of being brought into the Queen's Benoh Division, and "there, in the presence of the justices, opened and delivered of record to the sheriff," had been simply taken to the Crown Office ; and it appeared that this was in accordance with the practice which had generally been followed in such cases sinco the passing of the Petty Bag Act (12 & 13 Vict. c. 109), which by section 26 provided that every writ of any deacrip ion thereafter to be issued out of the Petty Bag Office, should or might be issued or tested on any day (not beiog Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day), whether such day should be in term time or vacation, and that every writ so issued and tested on any day in vacation should be of the like validity as if issned or tested in term time. It was contended that the provisions of the Act of Elizabeth for the opening of the ■writ in the presence of the justices was merely a description of what would usually take place at the time when the Act was passed, inasmuch as then every proceeding in the courts was taken in open court and not in chambers or offices. The court, however, in accordance with whatwassaid by Lord Holt in one case, that the judges were not issuing the process "as instruments or conduit pipes, but judioially, as judges," held that the provision was not merely directory or a mere matter of form, but that it was a matter of substance, the object being, as James, L.J., said, that the jndges might, if necessary, apply their minds judicially to the question whether the writ was such an one as the oourt would take npon itself to execute. The writ would not necessarily be read by the judges, or read to them, but it would be the duty of the officer who opened it and read it immediately to take the opinion of the jndges if he thought there was anything upon the writ which required to be considered, or which might cause the court not to adopt it, or be instrumental in enforcing it. The Queen's Benoh Division held that this provision of the Act of Elizabeth had been by implication repealed by the Petty Bag Aot, and it was contended that this view was right, because formerly the courts cat in banco only in term time, and therefore the abolition of the necessity of issuing the writ in term time by implication had repealed the enaotment that it should be opened in court. The Conrt of Appeal, however, held that there was no such necessary implication, and that the provision of the Statute of Elizabeth, as confirmed by that of Geo. 3, remained still in force. The resnlt was that the applications for writs of prohibition failed, but that the appellants were entitled to be released from arrest. Brett, lij., said that even if the objection founded on the Statute of Elizabeth had been a mere matter of form, he should bare held that the appellants wonld have been entitled to their release, it being a well-settled principle in the English courts that a man who seeks to procure the imprisonment of another must show that he has followed all the required forms with the utmost striotness.

A fourth point arose in In re Enrayht in this way. The appellant had, by the monition, been admonished not to use certain specified vestments, or others of a like nature. The inhibition recited that he had disobeyed the monition by uBing one of the specified vestments, and also by using another vestment which was not specified in the monition; but there was no express finding that the latter vestment was one of a like nature to those which had been specified in the monition. It was urged that the inhibition was bad in toto, beoause it did not appear how for the sentence was to be attributed to the aot which had been specified in the monition, and how far to the aot which had not been specified. The oourt overruled this objection, on the ground that it might form a good ground of appeal from the inhibition, but that it was not a ground for prohibition.—Solicitors, Brooks, Jenkins, t Co.; J. GirdUsUme; Solicitor to the Treasury.

PracticeEvidence Op Foreign LawDeposition Op "law Agent."—In a case of Saldanha v. Andrews, before the -Master of the Rolls on the 14th inst., a question arose whether on a point of foreign law the evidence of a person describing himself as a "law agent" was admissible. Jesezl, M.R., after reference had been made to Taylor on Evidence and Hosooe's Nisi Brius Evidence, held that the tvidence of a witness who was only described as a "law agent" was inadmissible to prove a question of foreign law, and declined to hear his deposition.—SoliciTors, Croi*dy,Son, £ Tarry; Angell, Imberl-Terry, Baye.

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS. (Before Mr. Registrar Brougham, acting as Chief Judge.) Jan. 13.TM£x parte Brown, Be Inns.

In the operative part of a bill of sale it was expressed to be made in consideration or £300 by the mortgagee paid to the mortgagor at or before the execution thereof. The deed contained a proviso for redemption on payment of that sum, "together with a bonus of £200 added thereto, making together the sum of £500."

Held, that the consideration for the deed was correctly stated at the sum of £300, and that the provisions of section 8 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, had been complied with.

This was an application on behalf of Mr. Joseph Brown, for the payment to him of the amount realized from the sale of certain oabs, horses, and other property formerly belonging to Thomas Henry Inns.

On the 25th of Septembor, 1880, T. H. Inns executed a bill of sale in favour of the applicant of the property in question. The deed contained the following recital: "Whereas the said mortgagor hath applied to the said mortgagee to advance to him the sum of £300 whioh the mortgagee hatb agreed to do upon the terms and conditions hereinafter expressed, and upon having the benefit of any security which he now holds, or which may hereafter be given, in respect of the said advance by guarantee or otherwise."

Then the deed witnessed that, in consideration of the said snm of £300, "hereinafter called the advance by the mortgagee, paid to the mortgagor at or before the execution hereof, the receipt whereof the mortgagor hereby acknowledges, the mortgagor doth by these presents grant, bargain, sell, and transfer" "all and singular" [then specifying the property] "to the mortgagee, his exeoutow, administrators, and assigns absolutely."

Then followed a proviso in this form :—" Provided always (but subjeot, however, to all the covenants, powers, provisoes, and conditions hereinafter set forth), in case the mortgagor shall pay to the mortgagee the said snm of £300, together with a bonus of £200 added thereto, making together the sum of £500, by twenty-fonr monthly payments of £20 17s. eacb, the first of suoh instalments to be paid on the 23rd day of October, and a like instalment of £20 17s., on the 23rd of eaoh succeeding month thereafter until the whole snm of £500 be fully paid and satisfied, or on snoh other extended days as may from time to time be agreed npon and assented to by the mortgagee in writing (and in default of payment of any one instalment the whole amount remaining unpaid shall beoome immediately due), until by means of snoh payments the said sum or any fnrtber sum advanced upon this security shall have been fully satisfied, together with all costs, payments, charges, damages, and expenses hereinafter mentioned, then these presents and every part thereof shall cease and become void."

T. H. Inns subsequently presented a petition for liquidation under the 125th and 126lh sections of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and, at the first meeting, the creditors passed a resolution for liquidation by arrangement, and appointed a trustee. Such resolution was duly registered, and the property comprised in the bill of sale was afterwards sold, and the registrar directed the proceeds to be paid into court. T. L. Wilkinson, in support of the application. B. C. Willi*, for the trustee.—The bill of sale is void against the trustee, on the ground that the consideration for the deed is not set forth in it in compliance with the provisions of section 8 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878. The bonns of £200 is part of the consideration, and should have been set forth in the recital.

Mr. Registrar Brougham.—Do you say that the deed ought to have recited £500 as the consideration when the debtor received only £300?

Willi*.—It should have said, "In consideration of £300 then advanced, and £200 further covenanted to be paid." The payment of the bonus is an important and substantial part of the deed, and, if the recital omits to state the fact, a creditor may be misled; he cannot tell how much is owing to the mortgagee.

Mr. Registrar Brougham said he thought the word "consideration" meant that which was borrowed, and not what the borrower agreed to repay the lender. The "consideration " in the present case was £300, money advanced by BrowD, for which the debtor agreed to pay £300 and the further sum of £200. The bill of sale was perfectly valid, and the consideration was properly set forth. The creditor was entitled to the benefit of his security, and the application must be granted.

Solicitor for the applicant, W. Maynard.

Solicitor for the trustee, Hope.

SOLICITORS' CASES. Queen's Bench Division. (Sittings in Banc before Lord Coleiudge, C.J., and Bowen, J.)

Dec. 19.—In the Matter of Francis Murphy, a Solicitor.

In this case an application had been made on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society for a rule to strike a solicitor off the roll npon certain charges alleged against him into which it is not necessary to enter, as it was admitted on his part that his conduct had been improper and indefensible. His defence was that he had no personal motive, and had acted only as he believed to protect his client against a fraud. Iu effect it came to this, that he had concocted a fictitious judgment on which there was an affidavit of debt and a summons served for the attachment of certain moneys in the hands of an auctioneer, and to which bis cliont, he said, was entitled, though in the result it turned out that he was not.

Charles Russell, Q.C., with French, appeared for the solicitor, and was heard at some length on his behalf, admitting the impropriety of his conduct, and that it was Tery properly brought before the court, but endeavouring to show that he had no motive of personal gain, and was innocent of a corrupt intention.

Murray, for the Incorporated Law Society, urged that it was in fact a conspiracy, and a conspiracy to concoct a pretended judgment with a view to get hold of certain property, the attempt being supported by a false affidavit. It was a conspiracy to deprive a man of his goods by a fictitious judgment and a false affi lavit of debt, and this, he submitted, was a serious matter.

Lord Coleridge said the facts were not in dispute, and the undisputed facts were that a solicitor had lent himself to a proceeding which could enly be described as the concoction of a debt to deprive a man of that which turned out afterwards to be his right, and in order to carry out this scheme he had used bis professional skill and given his professional advice. It was true that it was not a raud in the sense of a scheme to acquire personal profit. It certainly was a serious case however. He confessed that he was disposed to take rather a stern view of such cases of misconduct, but he did not think this was a case which called for the severe measure of striking the solicitor off t he roll. Still it called for some punishment, as it was prostitution of the legal knowledge of one of the officers of the court. The solicitor said "it was only an error of Judgment." It was more than a mero error of judgment, it was an attempt to carry ont an object he thought right by means he knew to be wrong. Under these circumstances he thought justice would be satisGed by sentencing him to pay all the costs and to be suspended from practice for a year.

Mr. Justice Bowen concurred.

Exchequer Division. (Sittings in Banc before Lush, L.J.) Jan. 16.—In the Matter of G. Tedder, a Solicitor. In this case Murray, on behalf of the Incorporated Law Sooiety, moved to make a rule absolnte to strike Mr. Tedder off the roll.

The rule was granted on a certificate of conviction, and notice had been served on the defendant, who is now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in C)ldbath-fields Prison for a criminal offenoe. No cause being shown,

His Lordship ordered the rule to be made absolute.— Times.

MANSION HOUSE POLICE COURT. Jan. 6, 10.—Ball v. Priest. This was a summons under the "Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 79)," to show cause wh

certain furniture, good9, and chattels alleged to have been illegally distrained on should not be ordered to be restored.

Molland, for the oomplainant.

Boxall, to oppose the order being made.

Mrs. Priest is the owner of a house and premise! in Tudor-street, Blackfriars, London. She demised these premises to A. Thompson for a term of three years from March last, at a yearly rent of £75, payable quarterly, the tenant to pay all rates and taxes. Thompson sub-let a part of the premises —viz., the shop, basement, and parlour—to the complainant, Ball, at a yearly rent of £70, exclusive of rates and taxes. Thompson retained the occupation of the upper part of the house and lived there -, Ball did not sleep on the premises, and only used them for business purposes. The quarter's rent to Christmas, 1880, being in arrear, Mrs. Priest put in a distress for rent, and Ball's goods were seized. He claimed the benefit of the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, tendered to the broker the balance of rent whioh he alleged was due from him to Thompson on the curre nt quarter, and served on the bailiff employed to levy the distraint a declaration under that Act. The goods seized were sold, and Ball then issued the above summons.

For the complainant it was argued that this case came within the decision of Phillips v. Henson (26 W. R. 214, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 26), and that, though Mr. Ball was an under-tenant, still, under the authority of the above case, he was a "lodger" within the meaning of the Act.

On behalt of Mrs. Priest it was urged that, as Ball did not sleep or live on the premises, this case was distinguishable from Phillips v. Benson, and that the exclusive occupation of a part only of a house as business premises could not convert an under-tenant into a lodger ; and a definition of the word "lodger" given by Bovill, C.J., in the case of Thompson v. Ward (L. R. 6 C. P. 327, 360) was quoted.

The Magistrate decided that Ball was not a lodger within the meaning of the Act, as the premises were demised to him, and as he did not inhabit the premises but enly used them for business purposes.

Summons dismissed.

Solicitor for complainant, A. Harrison.

Solicitor for defendant, Eustace W. Owles.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. John Batten, solioitor, F.S.A., has been appointed a Deputy-Lieutenant for Dorsetshire. Mr. Batten is the eldest son of Mr. John Batten, solicitor, of Yeovil, and was born in 1815. He was admitted a solicitor in 183S, and formerly practised at Yeovil. He was for several years town clerk of that borough, and, after his retirement from practice, he was appointed a magistrate for Somersetshire and Dorsetshire. He is also a deputy-lieutenant for the former county.

Mr. Evelyn Hay Murrat has been appointed Secretary of Presentations to the Lord Chancellor, in succession to Mr. Carrington Francis, resigned.

Mr Francis Sharp Powell, barrister, who has bean elected M.P. for the Borough of Wigan in the Conservative interest, is the son of the Rev. Benjamin Powell, and was born in 1827. He was formerly fellow of St. John's College, Cambiidge, where he graduated as a senior optima, and also in the second class of the claasioal tripos, in 1850. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1853, and be formerly practised on the Northern Cironit. Mr. Powell is a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for the West Riding of Yorkshire. He Wbb M.P. for Wigan from 1857 till 1859, for Cambridge from 1863 till 1868, and for the Northern Division of the West Riding from 1872 till 1874.

Mr. Rorert Letcester Upton, solicitor and DOtary, of Calcutta, has been appointed Solicitor to the Government of India, in succession to Mr. Charles Sanderson, resigned.

Mr. Henry Whjtfobd, solicitor (of the firm of Whitfo-'J & Sons), of St. Colomb, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the County of Cornwall.

[ocr errors]

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. William Pyxe and William Hdbert Hbnrt Haxson (Frost, Pyk . & Hanson), Launceston, Cornwall, solicitors and conveyancers. Dec. 21. William Fyke will continue to carry on the said business,

J. B. Tlppbtts, J. Tickle, and W. J. B. Tippetts, solicitors (Tippetts, Son, & Tickle), 4, Great St. Thomas Apostle, London. Deo. 31.

[Gazette, Jan. 14, 1881.]

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. Joint Stock Companies. I.I v m n in Chahceby. Elxmx BrrLDiHa Ahd Qr/ABBYiHO Compahy, Limited.—The M.R.

has fixed Jan 21 at 12 at his chambers for the appointment of an

official liquidator Mcliam Aid Compahy, Limited.—Petition for continuing the

voluntary winding up presented Jan 14, directed to bo heard

before Bacon, V.C., on Jan 22. Baker und Nairne, Crosby sq,

solicitors for the petitioners Ttistx Mktals Pboducts Compahy, Limited.—Petition for winding

np presented Jan 5, directed to be heard before the M.R. on Jau

23. Lewis, Old Broad st, solicitor for tho petitioner TmiiscoMBE Slate Compahy, Limited.—Hall, V.C., has by an

order dated Dec 10, appointed Pctheram, Lombard ct, to bo official

liquidator

[Gazette, Jan. 14.J

/jrBLO-FEEHcn Beewkby Compahy, Limited. — Tho M.R. has fixed Jan 27 at 11 at his chambers for the appointment of an official liquidator

xxmsn Kmpibe Newspapee Compaht, Limited.Molina, V.C., has by an order dated Dec 23 appointed Greening, King st, to be official liquidator. Creditors are required, on or Tjeforo Feb 28, to ■end their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims to the above. March 8 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

Cottages Ahd Villas Buit.dihg Ahd Ihyestmeht Compaht, Limited.—Petition for winding up presented Jan 11, directed to be heard before M.R. on Jan 29. Bryden, Benet's hill, Doctor's Commons, solicitor for tho petitioner

Cold Comtaxy or Souther* Ixdia, Limited.—By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated Jan 11, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Greenhill, solicitor for the petitioner

C-bocee's 8ociett, Limited.—Petition for winding presented Jan

13 directed to be heard before the M.R. on Jan 29. Hudson and

Co, Buclclersbury, solicitors for the petitioners Kabxvx Aqcabicm Compaht, Scarborough, Limited.—Petition

for winding up presented Jan 15, directed to bo heard before tho

M.R. on Jan 29. Taylor and Co, Great James st, Bedford row,

solicitors for the petitioner 7iAirwATS Share Ihtestmxht Compaht, Limited.—Petition for

winding up presented Jan 13 directed to be heard before Bacon, ! V.C.,on Jan 2ft. Bellamy and Co, Bishopgatc st "Within, solicitors

for the petitioner

IGazetle. Jan. 18.]

Friendly Societies Dissolved. BorrHAHPTOH District Bbahch Op The Graxd Uhited Order or Oddfellows, George Inn, Above Bar, Southampton. Jan 10

{Gazette, Jan. 14.]

StTDKBLAHD Tatlors* Fbiehdly Society, Borough Stores, Dunning st, Sunderland, Durham. Jan 14

[Gazette, Jan. 18.J

In the House of Commons, on the 17th inst., Mr. Norwood asked the Attorney-General if it were the intention of the Government, as stated in some public prints, to appoint a commission of judges, barristers, and solicitors to inquire into the working of the Judicature Acts ; and, if so, whether the Government would consider the desirability of adding to the commission two or more laymen to represent the interests of the suitors. Tbe Attorney-General said that it was not the intention of the Government to appoint such a commission as was referred to. Bnt it appeared that the tiue had come when some effort for diminishing the costs of litigation should be made. For that purpose alterations in the rules and orders would be nects«ary, the responsibility of which would rest with the Lord Chancellor and the committee of judges. But to make the inquiry as complete as possible the committee was to be assisted by two counsel of the inner bar, two of the outer bar, and two solicitors. The work would be of a technical character.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION.

Tbe Council of Legal Eduoation have awarded to— Theodore Hall Hall, Linooln's-inn, and Richard Robert Cherry, Middle Temple, studentships in jurisprudence and Roman law of 100 guineas, to continue for a period of two years.

William Philip Sohreiner, Inner Temple, and Walter John Napier, Lincoln's-inn, studentships in jurisprudence and Roman law, of 100 guineas, for one year; and to

William Herbert Upjohn, Grays-inn, a oertifioate of honour of tbe second class.

Tbe eounoil have awarded the following prizes to the following students :—

Roman law, constitutional law, and international law. —Stevenson Stewart Moore, Middle Temple, a prize of £50; George Manchester Cohen, Middle Temple, a prize of £25; Richard Walter Kittle, Linooln's-inn, a prize of £15; George White, Middle Temple, a prize of £10.

Common law.—Henry Terrell, Middle Temple, a prize of £50; Manoherji Dadabhai Dadysett, Middle Temple, a prize of £25 ; John Carey Hall, Middle Temple, and Robert Colin Ringrose, Middle Temple (asq.), a prize of £12 10s. each.

Real and personal property law.—C. H. Grafton, Inner Temple, a prize of £25 ; John Lenton Pulling, Gray's-ion, a prize of £10.

Equity.—James Kelleher, Inner Temple, a prize of £50; Charles Halman Beard, Middle Temple, a prize of £10.

The council have also awarded to the students who obtained the greatest aggregate number of marks in the subjects of the lectures given by two of the prolessors—viz., in:—

Equity, and real and personal property law.—Richard William Giles, Middle Temple, a prize of £70; and Charles Valentine Hickie, Middle Temple, a prize of £30.

The Council of Legal Education have awarded to the following students certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination :—

Reginald Brodie Dyke Acland, Inner Temple ; Absanuddin Ahmad, Inner Temple; Henry Fredi-iick Amedroz, Inner Temple; Arthur Jacob Ashton, Inner Temple; Philip Arthur Ashworth, Inner Temple ; John Armytage Batley, Lincoln's-inn; Arthur Anthony Bmmann, Inner Temple ; Clauds Yilliers Emilius Bayley, Inner Temple; Robert Augustus Bennett, Inner Temple; Nasarvanji Framji Bbandarn, Middle Temple; Arthur Hatfield Summer Bird, Inner Temple; Edward Oliver Pleydell Bouverie, Inner Temple; Cecil Ertkine B ivill, Middle Temple j Henry James Broun, Inner Temple; Albert William Chaster, Middle Temple; Herbert Henry Child, Lincoln's-inn; William Francis Clerke, Inner Temple; Walter Baker Clode, Inner Temple; Charles Augustus Vansittart Conybare, Gray's-inn; Charles Lewis Coote, Lincoln's-inn; Benjamin Francis Conn Costelloe, Lincoln'sinn; Milverton Godfrey Dauglish, Lincoln's-inn; Thomas Hugh Anderson Denman, Lincnln's-iun; Cecil Fane De Snlis, Inner Temple ; Alfred Doran, Inner Temple; William ElliottLewis, Gray's-inu; William Ellis Chute Ellis.Inner Temple; Richard Farrell, Lincoln's-inn; Henry Siackhouse Luther Fry, Lincoln's-inn; James Gibson Gartside, Middle Temple; James Greenwood, Inner Temple; Henry Percy Harris, Lincoln's-inn; George Frederic Hart, Lincoln'sinn; Henry Charlton Hawkins, Lincoln's-inn; Allan George Ferrers Howell, Inner Temple; William Ellis HumeWilliams, Middle Temple; Charles Stephen Hunter, Inner Temple; Clarendon George Hyde, Middle Ti-mple; William Jeans, Middle Temple; Henry Campbell Jenkins, Middle Temple; Clarence Kirkpatrick, Lincoln's-inn; James Alexander Boyle M'Connell, Gray's-inn; Malcolm Reginald M'Millan, Middle Temple; George Thomas John Millar, Lincoln's-inn; John liarou Moyle, Lincoln's inn; William Anthony Byam MusRrave. Inner Temple; William Henry Myers, Inner Temple; Kumar Gojendra Narayan, Middle Temple ; Montagu Lewis Parfcin, Lincoln s-inn; Charles Parsons, Lincoln's-inn; Harry Arthur Pearson, Inner Temple; Lorenzo Frederick Pearson, Grav's-inn; Thomas William Phillips, Middle Temple; Alexander Pulling, Inner Temple; William T. Raymond, Middle Temple: Stanislas Matthew Rhodes, Inner Templo; Rees Jenkins Rhys, Inner Tomple;

« PreviousContinue »