Page images

prietary rights of the greatest importance might fairly
come under consideration ; for the right of the individual CASES OF THE WEEK.
to hold and propagate what religious opinions he pleases
is scarcely adequately discussed without a definition of

BILLS OF EXCHANGE-REMITTANCES TO COVER ACCEPTthe limits within which he is entitled to devote his

| ANCES-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION.-On the 19th inst., the property to their support, a definition which may become

Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, of great importance in view of the increasing influence

I the increasing influence | L.JJ.) reversed in part the deoision of Malins, V.C., in the of the writers who are opposed to dogmatic religion. case of In re Gothenburg Commercial Company (28 W. R. Would & bequest to promote the doctrines of 456). The question was whether there had been a specific the positive philosophy at the present time be upheld ? appropriation of bills of exchange which had been remitted It would seem more likely to be bad, on the prin ciple on to the company in London by a bank in Sweden to put the which Briggs v. Hartley (14 Jur. 683) was decided, company in funds to meet other bills which they had accepted where a bequest for the purpose of promoting a belief in

for the bank, the company receiving a commission for 80 the sufficiency of natural religion was held void. These

doing. It was part of the arrangement that the company cases with regard to endowment are really some of the

should be at liberty to discount the remitted bills, and to deal most important factors in determining the legal limits to

with the proceeds for their own purposes before their own freedom of opinion. But although the author goes into

acceptances matured, paying interest on the proceeds until

their acceptances should mature. The company stopped a variety of questions concerning Church property, which

payment on the 20th of January, 1879, and was ordered to are rather curious than useful, the law relating to en

urious than useful, the law relating to en- bo wound up on a petition prosented on the 22nd of January. dowment, as well as that with regard to the important | At the time of the stoppage there were outstanding accepsubject of church buildings, are not treated of at all. tances of the company for the bank to the amount of £2,197,

Apart from any question as to the general design of the to meet which other bills had been remitted by the bank to work, such a wealth of learning as the author appears to the amount of £2,300. Of the remitted bills some had been have at his disposal demands, perhaps, a more finished discounted by the company before the stoppage ; the proceeds execution than is here displayed in order to make it of the remittances were received after the stoppage from the 23 aseful as it might become. A lawyer reading such a

persons liable upon them, partly by the company between sentence as this : “As an advowson is in most respects

the stop page and the presentation of the petition, and partly capable of being dealt with as other real estate, it is

by the liquidator afterwards. The bank afterwards met the

bills which the company had accepted. Malins, V.C., held capable of being exchanged, whicb, however, is an

that the bank were entitled to have paid to them the amount operation which involves a double resignation and a

of the proceeds of all the remitted bills, both those which double induction” (p. 405); or this: “No spiritual had been discounted by the company before their stoppage, person can hold more than two benefices or more than and those which were collected afterwards. The Court of one benefice and one cathedral preferment” (p. 445) Appeal held that a line must be drawn at the date of the would be apt to give the author less credit for precision stoppage, and that the bank were entitled only to the proof statement than he actually deserves. With ceeds of such of the remitted bills as remained in specie at reference to the general observations or reflections

| that date. By virtue of the arrangement between the comby means of which Mr. Paterson undoubtedly suc- pany

| pany and the bank the proceeds of the remitted bills had ceeds, to the great benefit of the unlearned reader,

become the property of the company. But, when they in adding the attribute of “readableness” to a mere

stopped payment, they stopped for all purposes; they renlegal disquisition, they are always interesting, but they

dered themselves thereby incapable of performing the conare sometimes rather too discursive to be appropriate to

dition-viz., meeting their acceptances, until the remitted bills

had been sent to them, and they were then entitled only to a legal handbook, and they are not always suggestive of retain those of the remitted bills which remained in specie in a sufficiently wide survey of the subject-matter. He their hands as an indemnity against liability upon their own says, for instance (p. 379), “Except for the purpose of acceptances. This liability having been discharged by the solving difficulties between the members of the Church, bank, the bank were entitled to have the remitted bills which whether clerical or lay, and which the law is bound to solve remained in specie restored to them.-SOLICITORS, Plews, for the same reason that it solves all other difficulties | Irvine, f Hodges ; Ashurst, Morris, & Co. 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

PubLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict.

| c. 85), ss. 7, 9, 13-JURISDICTION OF JUDGE-POWER TO cases upon those charitable endowments for religious

ENFORCE OBEDIENCE TO INHIBITION BY IMPRISONMENTpurposes to which we have alluded would show that this

VALIDITY OF FORMS FRAMED UNDER ACT-SIGNIFICAVITproposition is not true. Things may have altered since

WRIT DE CONTUMACE CAPIENDO-5 Eliz. C. 23, s. 2-53 the time when Lord Hardwicke declared that the Chris GEO. 3, c. 127, s. 1-12 & 13 Vicr. c. 109, s. 26.-In tian religion was part of the law of the land, but they two cases of In re Dale and In re Enraght, before the have not altered to the extent of making it a matter of in. Court of Appeal on the 15th inst., some questions difference to the courts whether a testator gives his prop were raised upon the construction of the Public erty to the support of one religion or another. But in Worship Regulation Act, 1874, and the validity of the spite of such minor imperfections as those to which we forms which have been framed under it. The questions have referred, the book is a useful and valuable summary were raised upon applications for writs of habeas corpus with of many branches of the law which are as interesting to the view of obtaining the release of two clergymen who the general public as to the professional reader.

had been imprisoned for disobedience to inbibitions issued by the judge of the Court of Arches, in proceedings insti. tated under the Act, and for writs of probibition to the judge, on the ground that he had exceeded his jurisdiction.

The first question was whether the judge appointed SOCIETIES.

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 SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

has no power of enforcing his order under the Act but The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of such as is expressly conferred upon him by the Act. Seothis associa:ion was held at the Law Institution, Chancery tion 7 of the Act empowers the Archbishops of Canterbury lane, London, on Wednesday, January 12, the following and York, but subject to the approval of her Majesty, to apdirectors being present:-Mr. Phillip Rickman (deputy point from time to time a barrister who has been in actual chairman) in the chair, Messrs. Asker (Norwich), Hedger, practice for ten years, or a person who has been a judge Kays, Pennington, Roscoe, Smith, Styan, Veley, and Wool- of one of the superior courts, “to be a judge of the Probert; Mr. Eiffe (secretary). A sum of £145 was distributedvincial Courts of Canterbury and York." And it provides in grants of assistance, fourteen new members were admitted, that whenever & vacancy shall occur in the office of offand other general business transacted.

cial principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, the judge

[ocr errors]

80 appointed shall become ex officio such official principal, was the only method by which the judge could enforce " and all proceedings thereafter taken before the judge inobedience to the inbibition, though it was suggested that relation to matters arising within the province of Canter. obedience might be enforced by the promoters in other ways, bory shall be deemed to be taken in the Arches Court of such as by indictment or by proceedings against the clerk in Canterbary," and whenever a vacancy shall occur in the an ecclesiastical court for brawling in his church. The office of official principal of the Chancery Court of York, court (JAMES, BRETT, and Corton, L.JJ.), bowever, the judge shall become ex officio such official principal, held Caffirming the decision of the Queen's Bench " and all proceedings thereafter taken before the judge in Division, Coleridge, C.J., and Field and Manisty, JJ.) that relation to matters arising within the province of York | no new jurisdiction has been created by the Act of 1874, shall be deemed to be taken in the Chancery Court of but only a new metbod of procedure, and that the judge York." Seotion 9 provides that the judge shall, after appointed under it was from the first a judge of the two old hearing and pronouncing judgment upon the matter of a

provincial courts, and is now the official principal of the representation referred to him by the archbishop of the old Court of Arches, with all the old jurisdiction of the province, “issue such monition (if any)" to the incumbent

court, and with the same power of enforcing his orders as whose acts bave been complained of by the representation, that court always had. “as tbe judgment shall require." And section 13 pro The second question was whether the forms made vides that “obedience by an incumbent to a monition or use of in the monitions and inhibitions had suffi. order” of the judge “gball be enforced (if necessary) in ciently shown on the face of them the jurisdiction of the the manner prescribed by roles and orderg, by an order judge. It was urged that, inasmuch as the Arches Coort jnhibiting the incombent from performing any service of was subject to prohibition, it was an inferior court, and, the Church, or otherwise exercising the oure of souls within therefore, bound to show on the face of its orders that the the diocese for a term not exceeding three months ; pro | circumstances were such as to give it jurisdiction. Secvided that at the expiration of such term the inhibition shall tion 19 of the Act of 1874 empowers the Queen, by Order not be relaxed until the incumbent shall, by writing under in Council, by and with the advice of the Lord Chancellor, his hand in the form prescribed by the rules and orders,

the Lord Chief Justice of England, the judge appointed undertake to pay due obedience to such monition or order”; under the Act, and the archbishops and bishops who are “provided that if such inbibition shall remain in force for | Privy Councillors, or any two of

Privy Councillors, or any two of those persons, one being the more than three years from the date of the issuing of the

Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice, to " cause rules monition, or from the final determination of an appeal there

and orders regulating the procedure and settling the fees to from, whichever shall last happen, or if a second inhibition be taken in proceedings under this Act, so far as the same in regard to the same monition shall be issued within three may not be expressly regulated by this Act, and from time years from the relaxation of an inhibition, any benefice or other to time to alter and amend such rules and orders. All rules ecclesiastical preferment held by the incumbent in the parish

and orders made in pursuance of this section shall be laid bein which the church or burial ground is situate, or for the

fore each House of Parliament within forty days after the use of which the burial ground is legally provided, in rela same are made, if Parliament is then sitting, or, if not, within tion to which church or burial ground such monition has

forty days after the then next meeting of Parliament, and if been issued as aforesaid, shall thereopon become void,” an address is presented to her Majesty by either of the said unless the bishop sball, for some special reason, postpone the

Houses, within the next subsequent forty days on which the date of avoidance for a period not exceeding three months.

House shall have sat, praying that any such rules shall be The section also enables the bishop, during the inhibition,

annulled, her Majesty may thereupon, by Order in to make dae provision for the service of the church, and the

Council, angul the same, and the rules and orders curo of souls, and to raise the sum required for that purpose

so annulled shall thenceforth become void, without by sequestration of the profits of the benefice. Both the

prejudice to the validity of any proceedings already cases related to matters arising in the province of Canterbury,

taken under the same." Rules and orders were and before the proceedings were commenced, the judge

made under this power, and to them was annexed a schedule appointed under the Act had, on a vacancy caused by the resig.

of forms to be used in proceedings under the Act. In both nation of Sir R. Phillimore, become official principal of the

the cases before the court the forms of monition and ia. Arches Court of Canterbury, or Dean of Arches. In both hibition given in the schedule had been used. The cases a monition had issued by the judge to an incumbent,

court held that the power to make rules and orders warning him to desist from certain ceremonial practices, and included a power to make forms, and that the forms had a in each case the monition had been disobeyed and an inhibi statutory validity. BRETT, L.J., was also of opinion that the tion had issued. The inhibition had in each case been Court of Arches was not an inferior court, and it was not disregarded, and to enforce obedience to it the judge had | bound to show its jurisdiction on the face of its orders. issned a significavit to the Chancery Division, under which The third point was that in each case the writ a writ de contumace capiendo had been issued out of the de contumace capiendo had been irregularly issued. The Chancery Division, in pursuance of which the incumbent had statute 5 Eliz, c. 23, by section 2, enacted that every been arrested and imprisoned. Writs of habeas corpus were writ of de excommunicato capiendo that should be granted then applied for in the Queen's Bench Division, and also four out of the Court of Chancery "shall be made in the writs of prohibition to the judge of the Arches Court, 1 time of the term, and returnable before the Queen's on the ground that he had exceeded his jurisdiction. Highness, her heirs and successors, in the court comIt was contended that the judge appoioted under the Act, monly called the King's Bench, in the term next after the even after he, by reason of a vacancy in the office of official teste of the same writ; . . . and after the same writ shall principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, succeeded to | be so made and sealed, that then the said writ shall be forth. ibat office, was still, as to proceedings instituted under the with brought into the said Court of King's Bench, and there, Act, exercising a new jurisdiction, and not the ancient juris- | in the presence of the justices, shall be opened and delivered diction of the Court of Arches, and was not an ecclesiasticall of record to the sheriff or other officer to whom the serving court within the meaning of the Act 53 Geo. 3. c. 127, which, and execution thereof shall appertain.” The statute 53 Geo. substituted the writ de contumace capiendo, for the former 3, c. 127, by section 1, abolished excommunication (except in writ de excommunicato capiendo, and that he could not, certain cases), and substituted for the writ de excommunicato therefore, enforce obedience to his orders by means of the capiendo a writ de contumace capiendo, which was to issue process of significavit. Reliance was especially placed on out of the Court of Chancery in the same way, "on the provisions of section 7 of the Act of 1874, that after the l all causes cognizable in the eccleeiastical courts," upon judge should have become official principal of the Court of the judge whose lawful orders had not been obeyed, Arches proceedings before him as to matters arising in the l pronouncing the person who had disobeyed the province of Canterbury should be deemed to be taken in the | contumacious, and in contempt, and signifying the Arches Court. This, it was said, implied that the proceed. same to the Court of Chancery. And it was expressly pro-, ings were not in fact in that court, otherwise it would be un- vided that the provisions of the Act 5 Eliz. c. 23, should necessary to say that they should be deemed to be taken | extend to the writ de contumace capiendo, and the proceedinge there. And it was further contended that, as the Act had following thereupon, “ as if the same were herein particularly provided expressly that if an inhibition remained in force 1 repeated and enacted.” In both the cases before the court, for more than three years, tbe clerk who had failed to l the writ de contumace capiendo, instead of being brought promise obedience to the monition in respect of which it I into the Queen's Benoh Division, and “there, in the presence had issued should be at once deprived of his benefice, this of the justices, opened and delivered of record to the

od pressly that it is

the clerk respect

the rit in


[ocr errors]

sheriff," had been simply taken to the Crown Office; and it appeared that this was in accordance with the practice CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY which had generally been followed in such cases since the

REGISTRARS. passing of the Petty Bag Act (12 & 13 Vict. c. 109), which by (Before Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM, acting as Chief Judge.) section 26 provided that every writ of any descrip ion there. after to be issued out of the Petty Bag Office, should or might

Jan. 13.-Ex parte Brown, Re Inns. be issued or tested on any day (not being Sunday, Good Friday, In the operative part of a bill of sale it was expressed to be made or Christmas Day), whether such day should be in termin consideration of $300 by the mortgagee paid to the morttime or vacation, and that every writ só issued and tested | gagor at or before the execution thereof. The deed contained on any day in vacation should be of the like validity as if

a proviso for redemption on payment of that gum, “together issued or tested in term time. It was contended that the

with a bonus of £200 added thereto, making together the sum

of £500.” provisions of the Act of Elizabeth for the opening of the Held, that the consideration for the deed was correctly stated writ in the presence of the justices was merely a description at the sum of £300, and that the provisions of section 8 of the of what would usually take place at the time when the Act | Bills of Sale Act, 1878, had been complied with. was passed, inasmuch as then every proceeding in the courts

This was an application on behalf of Mr. Joseph Brown, was taken in open court and not in chambers or offices. The court, however, in accordance with what was said by Lord Holt |

for the payment to him of the amount realized from the sale in one case, that the judges were not issuing the process “ as

of certain cabs, horses, and other property formerly belonginstruments or conduit pipes, but judicially, as judges,” held |

ing to Thomas Henry Inns.

On the 25th of September, 1880, T. H. Inns executed a that the provision was not merely directory or a mere matter of form, but that it was a matter of substance, the object

bill of sale in favour of the applicant of the prop. being, as JAMES, L.J., said, that the judges might, if neceg

erty in question. The deed contained the followsary, apply their minds judicially to the question whether

ing recital: “Whereas the said mortgagor hath ap

plied to the writ was such an one as the court would take apon itself

the said mortgagee to advance to him to execute. The writ would not necessarily be read by the

the sum of £300 which the mortgagee hath agreed to do judges, or read to them, but it would be the duty of the

| upon the terms and conditions hereinafter expressed, and officer who opened it and read it immediately to take the

upon having the benefit of any security which he now holds, opinion of the judges if he thought there was anything

or which may hereafter be given, in respect of the said upon the writ which required to be considered, or which

advance by guarantee or otherwise.”

Then the deed witnessed that, in consideration of the might cause the court not to adopt it, or be instrumental

said sum of £300, " hereinafter called the advance by the in enforcing it. The Queen's Bench Division held that this provision of the Act of Elizabeth had been by implication

mortgagee, paid to the mortgagor at or before the execution repealed by the Petty

hereof, the receipt whereof the mortgagor hereby acknowBag Act, and it was contended that this view was right, because formerly the courts

ledges, the mortgagor doth by these presents grant, barsat in banco only in term time, and therefore the abolition

gain, sell, and transfer" "all and singular" (then specie

fying the property] “to the mortgagee, his executors, of the cation had repealed the engotment that it should be

| administrators, and assigns absolutely."

Then followed a proviso in this form :-"Provided opened in court. The Court of Appeal, however, held that always (but subject, however, to all the covenants, powers, there was no such necessary implication, and that the

provisoes, and conditions hereinafter set forth), in case provision of the Statute of Elizabeth, as confirmed by that

the mortgagor shall pay to the mortgagee tbe said som of of Geo. 3, remained still in force. The result was that the applications for writs of prohibition failed, but that the

£300, together with a bonus of £200 added thereto,

making together the sum of £500, by twenty-four monthly appellants were entitled to be released from arrest. BRETT, L.J., said that even if the objection founded on the Statute

payments of £20 178. each, the first of such instalments of Elizabeth had been a mere matter of form, he should

to be paid on the 23rd day of October, and a like instal. have held that the appellants would have been entitled to

ment of £20 178., on the 23rd of each succeeding month their release, it being a well-settled principle in the English

thereafter until the whole sum of £500 be fully paid and courts that a man who seeks to procure the imprisonment

satisfied, or on such other extended days as may from time

to time be agreed upon and assented to by the mortgages of another must show that he has followed all the re-l in writing (and in default of payment of any one instalquired forms with the utmost strictness. A fourth point arose in In re Enraght in this way.

ment the wbole amount remaining unpaid shall become

immediately due), until by means of such payments the The appellant bad, by the monition, been admonished

said sum or any further som advanced upon this security not to use certain specified vestments, or others of

shall have been fully satisfied, together with all costs, & like nature. The inhibition recited that he had disobeyed the monition by using one of the speci.

payments, charges, damages, and expenses hereinafter

mentioned, then these presents and every part thereof fied vestments, and also by using another vestment

shall cease and become void.” which wag not specified in the monition; but there was no

T. H. Inns subsequently presented a petition for liquida. express finding that the latter vestment was one of a like tion under the 125th and 126th sections of the Bankruptcy nature to those which had been specified in the monition.

Act, 1869, and, at the first meeting, the creditors passed a It was urged that the inbibition was bad in toto, because it

resolution for liquidation by arrangement, and appointed & did not appear how far the sentence was to be attributed

trustee. Such resolution was duly registered, and the to the act which had been specified in the monition, and

property comprised in the bill of sale was afterwards sold, how far to the act which had not been specified. The court and the registrar directed the proceeds to be paid into court. overruled this objection, on the ground that it might form & T. L. Wilkinson, in support of the application. good ground of appeal from the inbibition, but that it was F. C. Willis, for the trustee.-The bill of sale is void Dot a ground for prohibition.-SOLICITORS, Brooks, Jenkins, against the trustee, on the ground that the consideration for & Co.; J. Girdlestone; Solicitor to the Treasury.

the deed is not set forth in it in compliance with the provisions of section 8 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878. The

bonus of £200 is part of the consideration, and should have PRACTICE-EVIDENCE OF FOREIGN LAW-DEPOSITION OF | been set forth in the recital. “LAW AGENT.”-In & case of Saldanha v. Andrews, before MrREGISTRAR BROUGHAM.-Do you say that the deed the Master of the Rolls on the 14th inst., a question arose ought to have recited £500 as the consideration when the whether on a point of foreign law the evidence of a person | debtor received only £300 ? describing himself as a "law agent” was admissible. Willis.-Jt should have said, “In consideration of £300 JESSEL, M.R., after reference had been made to Taylor then advanced, and £200 further covenanted to be paid.” on Evidence and Roscoe's Nisi Prius Evidence, held that The payment of the bonus is an important and substantial tbe evidence of a witness who was only described as a part of the deed, and, if the recital omits to state the fact, " law agent” was inadmissible to prove a question of a creditor may be misled; he cannot tell how much is owing foreign law, sod declined to hear his deposition.-SOLICI- | to the mortgagee. TORS, Croudy, Son, & Tarry; Angell, Imbert-Terry, d Page. 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 “con| sideration” in the present case was £300, money advanced

by Brown, for which the debtor agreed to pay $300 and the certain furniture, goods, and chattels alleged to have further sum of £200. The bill of sale was perfectly valid, been illegally distrained on should not be ordered to be and the consideration was properly set forth. The creditor restored. was entitled to the benefit of his security, and the application Rolland, for the complainant. must be granted.

Boxall, to oppose the order being made. Solicitor for the applicant, W. Maynard.

Mrs. Priest is the owner of a house and premises in Solicitor for the trustee, Hope.

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 SOLICITORS' CASES.

tenant to pay all rates and taxes. Thompson sub-let a part QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

of the premises – viz., the shop, basement, and parlour--to the

complainant, Ball, at a yearly rent of £70, exclusive of rates (Sittings in Banc before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., and

and taxes. Thompson retained the occupation of the upper BOWEN, J.)

part of the house and lived there ; Ball did not sleep on the Doc. 19.- In the Matter of Francis Murphy, a Solicitor. premises, and only used them for business purposes. The

In this case an application had been made on behalf of the quarter's rept to Christmas, 1880, being in arrear, Mrs. Incorporated Law Society for a rule to strike a solicitor off Priest put in a distress for rent, and Ball's goods were the roll upon certain charges alleged against him into which seized. He claimed the benefit of the Lodgers' Goods Proit is not necessary to enter, as it was admitted on his part tection Act, tendered to the broker the balance of rent which that his conduct had been improper and indefensible. His he alleged was due from him to Thompson on the current defence was that he had no personal motive, and bad acted quarter, and served on the bailiff employed to levy the disonly as he believed to protect his client against a fraud. In traint a declaration under that Act. The goods seized were effect it came to this, that he had concocted a fictitious judg. sold, and Ball then issued the above summons. ment on which there was an affidavit of debt and a For the complainant it was argued that this case came summons served for the attachment of certain moneys in the within the decision of Phillips v. Henson (26 W. R. 214, hands of an auctioneer, and to which bis client, he said, was L. R. 3 O. P. D. 26), and that, though Mr. Ball was an entitled, though in the result it turned out that he was under-tenant, still, under the authority of the above oase, he not.

was a “lodger” within the meaning of the Act. Charles Russell, Q.C., with French, appeared for the On behalf of Mrs. Priest it was urged that, as Ball did not solicitor, and was heard at some length on his behalf, | sleep or live on the premises, this case was distinguishable admitting the impropriety of his conduct, and that it was from Phillips v. Henson, and that the exclusive occupation of very properly brought before the court, but endeavouring to A part only of a house as business premises could not con. show that he had no motive of personal gain, and was vert an under-tenant into a lodger; and a definition of the innocent of a corrupt intention.

word “lodger" given by Bovill, C.J., in the case of Thompson Murray, for the Incorporated Law Society, urged that it v. Ward (L. R. 6 C. P. 327, 360) was quoted. was in fact a conspiracy, and a conspiracy to concoct a pre THE MAGISTRATE decided that Ball was not a lodger tended judgment with a view to get hold of certain property, within the meaning of the Act, as the premises were demised the attempt being supported by a false affidavit. It was a to him, and as he did not inhabit the premises but only used conspiracy to deprive a map of his goods by & fictitious | them for business purposes. judgment and a false affidavit of debt, and this, he sub Summons dismissed. mitted, was a serious matter.

Solicitor for complainant, A. Harrison. Lord COLERIDGE said the facts were not in dispute, and Solicitor for defendant, Eustace W. Owles. the undisputed facts were that a solicitor had lent himself to a proceeding which could only 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 his professional skill and given his LEGAL APPOINTMENTS. professional advice. It was true that it was not a raud in the sense of a scheme to acquire personal profit.

Mr. John BATTEN, solicitor, F.S.A., has been appointed a It certainly was a serious case however. He confessed that

| Deputy-Lieutenant for Dorsetshire. Mr. Batten is the he was disposed to take rather a stern view of such cases of

eldest son of Mr. John Batten, solicitor, of Yeovil, and was misconduct, but he did not think this was a case which

born in 1815. He was admitted a solicitor in 1838, and called for the severe measure of striking the solicitor off the

formerly practised at Yeovil. He was for several years roll. Still it called for some punisbment, as it was prosti

town clerk of that borough, and, after his retirement tution of the legal knowledge of one of the officers of the from practice, he was appointed a magistrate for Somersetcourt. The solicitor said “it was only an error of judgeshire and Dorsetshire. He is also a deputy-lieutenant for the ment.” It was more than a mere error of judgment, it was former county. an attempt to carry out an object he thought right by means he knew to be wrong. Under these circumstances he

Mr. EVELYN HAY MURRAY has been appointed Secretary thought justice would be satisfied by sentencing him to | Carrington Francis, resigned.

of Presentations to the Lord Chancellor, in succession to Mr. pay all the costs and to be suspended from practice for a year.

Mr FRANCIS SHARP POWELL, barrister, who has been Mr. JUSTICE BOWEx concurred.

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 Col. EXCHEQUER DIVISION.

lege, Cambridge, where he graduated as a senior optime, and (Sittings in Banc before LUSH, L.J.)

also in the second class of the classical tripos, in 1850. He Jan. 16.-In the Matter of G. Tedder, a Solicitor.

was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term,

1853, and be formerly practised on the Northern Circuit. In this case Murray, on behalf of the Incorporated Law |

Mr. Powell is a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for the Society, moved to make a role absolute to strike Mr. Tedder

West Riding of Yorkshire. He was M.P. for Wigan from off the roll.

1857 till 1859, for Cambridge from 1863 till 1868, and for The rule was granted on a certificate of conviction, and the Northern Division of the West Riding from 1872 till notice had been served on the defendant, who is now 1874. andergoing a sentence of imprisonment in Coldbath-fields

Mr. ROBERT LEYCESTER UPTON, solicitor and potary, of Prison for a criminal offence. No cause being shown, His LORDSHIP ordered the rule to be made absolute.

Calcutta, has been appointed Solicitor to the Government of Times.

India, in succession to Mr. Charles Sanderson, resigned.

Mr. HENRY WHITFORD, solicitor (of the firm of Whitford

& Sons), of St. Colomb, has been appointed a Perpetual ComMANSION HOUSE POLICE COURT.

missioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by MarJan, 5, 10.–Ball v. Priest.

ried Women for the County of Cornwall. This was a summons under the “ Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 79),” to show cause whi


DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. WILLIAM PYKE and WILLIAM HUBERT HENRY HANSON (Frost, Pyke, & Hanson), Launceston, Cornwall, solicitors and conveyancers. Dec. 21. William Pyke will con

COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION. tinue to carry on the said business.

The Council of Legal Education have awarded toJ. B. TIPPETTS, J. TICKLE, and W.J. B. TIPPETTS, solici

Theodore Hall Hall, Lincoln's-inn, and Richard Robert tors (Tippette, Son, & Tickle), 4, Great St. Thomas Apostle,

Cherry, Middle Temple, studentships in jurisprudence and London. Dec. 31.

Roman law of 100 guineas, to continue for a period of two [Gazette, Jan. 14, 1881.]


William Philip Sobreiner, 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,& certificate of COMPANIES.

honour of the second class.

The council bave awarded the following prizes to the

following students :WINDING-UP NOTICES.

Roman law, constitutional law, and international law. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

-Stevenson Stewart Moore, Middle Temple, a prize of LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

$50 ; George Manchester Cohen, Middle Temple, a prize of HALIFAX BUILDING AND QUARRYING COMPANY, LIMITED.--The M.R.

£25 ; Richard Walter Kittie Linimo emple, a prize of

£25; Richard Walter Kittle, Lincoln's-ind, a prize of £15 ; has fixed Jan 24 at 12 at his chambers for the appointment of an

George White, Middle Temple, a prize of £10. official liquidator

Common law.-Henry Terrell, Middle Temple, a prize YCLEAN AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for continuing the

of £50; Mancherji Dadabhai Dady sett, Middle Temple, & voluntary winding up presented Jan 14, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.O., on Jan 22. Baker and Nairne, Crosby sq,

prize of £25; John Carey Hall, Middle Temple, and Robert solicitors for the petitioners

Colin Ringrose, Middle Temple (@q.), a prize of $12 105. WASTE METALS PRODUCTS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding

each. up presented Jan 5, directed to be heard before the M.R. on Jan 22. Lewis, Old Broad st, solicitor for the petitioner

Real and personal property law.-C. H. Grafton, Inner TIFELISCOMBE SLATE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Hall, V.C., has by an Temple, a prize of £25; John Lenton Pulling, Gray's-ion, order dated Dec 10, appointed Petheram, Lombard ct, to be official a prize of £10. liquidator

[Gazette, Jan. 14.]

| Equity.-James Kelleher, Ioner Temple, a prize of £50;

Charles Halman Beard, Middle Temple, a prize of £10. ANGLO-FRESCH BREWERY COMPANY, LIMITED. — The M.R. has The council have also awarded to the students who

fized Jan 27 at 11 at his chambers for the appointment of an obtained the greatest aggregate number of marks in the official liquidator PRITISI EMPIRS NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Malins, V.C., subjects of the lectures given by two of the professors—viz., has by an order dated Dec 23 appointed Greening, King st, to be in :official liquidator. Creditors are required, on or before Feb 28, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts

Equity, and real and personal property law.-Richard or claims to the above. March 8 at 12 is appointed for hearing and

| William Giles, Middle Temple, a prize of $70; and Charles adjudicating upon the debts and claims

Valentine Hickie, Middle Temple, a prize of £30. COTTAGES AND VILLAS BUILDING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY, The Council of Legal Education have awarded to the LIMITED.-Petition for winding up presented Jan 11, directed to be heard before M.R. on Jan 29. Bryden, Benet's hill, Doctor's

following students certificates that they have satisfactorily Commons, solicitor for the petitioner

I passed a public examination :GOLD COMPANY OF SOUTHERN INDIA, LIMITED.-By an order made Reginald Brodie Dyke Acland, Inner Temple ; Ahsanud.

by Hall, V.C., dated Jan 11, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Greenhill, solicitor for

din Ahmad, Inner Temple; Henry Frederick Amedroz, the petitioner

Inner Temple ; Arthur Jacob Ashton, Inner Temple; GROCER'S SOCIETY, LOITED.-Petition for winding presented Jan Philip Arthur Ashworth, Inner Temple ; John Armytage 13 directed to be heard before the M.R. on Jan 29. Hudson and Co, Bucklersbury, solicitors for the petitioners

Batley, Lincoln's.inn; Arthur Anthony Baumann, Inner NABIXE AQUARICH COMPANY, SCARBOROUGI, LIMITED.-Petition

Temple ; Claude Villiers Emilius Bayley, Inner Temple ; for winding up presented Jan 15, directed to be heard before the Robert Augustus Bennett, Inner Temple; Nasarvanji M.R. on Jan 29. Taylor and Co. Great James st, Bedford row, Framji Bhandara, Middle Temple ; Arthur Hatfield solicitors for the petitioner TRAXWAYS SHARE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for

Summer Bird, Inner Temple; Edward Oliver Pleydell winding up presented Jan 13 directed to be heard before Bacon, Bouverie, Inner Temple; Cecil Erskine Buvill, Middle 5 V.C., on Jan 20. Bellamy and Co, Bishopgate st Within, solicitors Temple ; Henry James Broun, Inner Temple; Albert for the petitioner

[Gazette, Jan. 18.]

William Chaster, Middle Temple; Herbert Henry Child,

Lincoln's-inn; William Francis Clerke, Inner Temple; FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

Walter Baker Clode, Inner Temple; Charles Augustus SOUTHAMPTON DISTRICT BRANCH OF THE GRAND UNITED ORDER | Vansittart Cony bare, Gray's-inn; Charles Lewis Coote, OF ODDFELLOWS, George Inn, Above Bar, Southampton. Jan 10 Lincoln's-inn; Benjamin Francis Conn Costelloe, Lipcoln's

i Gazette, Jan, 14.]

inn ; Milverton Godfrey Dauglish, Lincolo's-inn; Thomas SUNDERLAND TAILORS' FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Borough Stores, Hugh Anderson Denman, Lincoln's-inn; Cecil Fane De Salis, Dunning st, Sunderland, Durham. Jan 14

[Gazette, Jan. 18.]

Inner Temple ; Alfred Doran, Inner Temple; William Elliott-
Lewis, Gray's.inn; William Ellis Chute Ellis, Inner Temple;
Richard Farrell, Lincoln's-inn; Henry Sackhouse Luther
Fry, Lincoln's-inn; Jaces Gibson Gartside, Middle

Temple; James Greenwood, Inner Temple; Henry Percy In the House of Commons, on the 17th inst., Mr. Nor Harris, Lincoln's-inn; George Frederic Hart, Lincoln's. wood asked the Attorney-General if it were the intention of inn; Henry Charlton Hawkins, Lincoln's-inn; Allan George the Government, as stated in some pablic prints, to appoint Ferrers Howell, Inner Temple; William Ellis Humea commission of judges, barristers, and solicitors to inquire | Williams, Middle Temple; Charles Stephen Hunter, Inner into the working of the Judicature Acts; and, if so, whether | Temple ; Clarendon George Hyde, Middle Temple ; William the Government would consider the desirability of adding to | Jeans, Middle Temple; Henry Campbell Jenkins, Middle the commission two or more laymen to represent the interests | Temple; Clarence Kirkpatrick, Lincoln's-inn; James of the suitors. The Attorney-General said that it was not Alexander Boyle M'Connell, Gray's-inn; Malcolm Reginald the intention of the Government to appoint such a commis M'Millan, Middle Temple, George Thomas John Millar, sion as was referred to. But it appeared that the tive had Lincoln's-inn; John Baron Moyle, Lincoln's inn; William come when some effort for diminishing the costs of litigation Anthony Byam Musgrave, Inner Temple; William Henry should be made. For that purpose alterations in the rules Myers, Inner Temple; Kumar Gojendra Narayan, Middle and orders would be necessary, the responsibility of which Temple ; Montagu Lewis Parkin, Lincoln's-inn ; Charles Parwould rest with the Lord Chancellor and the committee of 800s, Lincoln's-inn; Harry Arthur Pearson, Inner Temple; judges. But to make the inquiry as complete as possible the Lorenzo Frederick Pearson, Gray's-inn; Thomas William committee was to be assisted by two counsel of the inner ! Phillips, Middle Temple; Alexander Pulling, Inner Temple; bar, two of the outer bar, and two solicitors. The work | William T. Raymond, Middle Temple; Stanislas Matthew would be of a technical character.

| Rhodes, Inner Temple ; Rees Jenkins Rhys, Inner Temple;


« PreviousContinue »