Page images


full, with references in the margin to the articles relating to them in the text.




OP DECEASED PERSONS. By STUART CUNNINGHAM This is a careful and elaborate treatise, covering the

MACASKIE, Law. Stevens & Sons. whole ground of high way law. Mr. Spearman groups

Mr. Macaskie does not give any hint of the class for his chapters under the general headings of highway

whose benefit his book is meant. If it is intended for areas and authorities; the creation, maintenance, and

the practitioner, we fear we must say that it can hardly elteration of high ways; the funds available for the

be successful. The subject is not one which, for the maintenance of high ways; offences; and locomotives,

purpose of practice, lends itself easily to abridgment. turnpikes, and miscellaneous provisions. The matter of | A large part of it consists of judge-made law, to be each chapter is expressed in the form of articles of a

gathered from numerous cases, and most of the rules code, and to many of these articles there are appended

which have been laid down are honeycombed with exnotes containing a digest of the decisions or authorities

ceptions and qualifications. Not only are the cases cited on the subject. Naturally these notes are the most

by Mr. Macaskie only a small selection from the mass pumerous and lengthy in what we may term the non

of decisions on the subject, but there is too much statutory part of the book-chiefly in that relating to

of what we may term gliding over difficulties to sait the creation and maintenance of highways. Here we

the reader who wants to find help in the decision of think that in many places the author expresses very well

the points which come before him in practice. Thus, in the result of the authorities. For instance, on the

the chapter on the duties of the legal personal represubject of the supposed right to deviate, he says (p. 47)

sentative, under the head of “ Payment of Debts," the that, " although it has been laid down in most text-books

author says that “ if the deceased should have died in*that if a highway became so out of repair and foundrous

solvent, the administration of the assets will be regulated as to be impassable, or even incommodious, the public

by section 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, upon which, have a right to go on the adjacent ground, whether it be

however, a somewhat narrow construction has been put." cultivated or uncultivated,' no such rights exist ; in the

What this construction is he fails to tell us, beyond a first place, there is no vestige of authority for assum.

reference in the foot-note to Re Suche & Co. (L. R. 1 Ch. ing the possibility of such a right, save where

D. 48). So again, on p. 130, we are told that the rule that the road passes over common waste or uninclosed

an executor who trades with the assets must account for land; but, secondly, even this limitation would be

the whole of the fund, if it should be lost, and for the insufficient-deviation in the sense above used means

whole of the fund and profits, if the venture should be deviation from the highway, not from the beaten track ;

successful, “ was perhaps somewhat narrowed by the but the only authority is Duncombe's case, and there the decision in Vyse v. Foster, but the facts of that case deviation was out of the beaten track on to certain out

were peculiar, and the case one of great hardship." lets which were part of the highway; the other cases

And on p. 139 we read that "in one or two cases an are where the owner wrongfully obstructed the way

inquiry has been ordered what would be a proper itself, and in such cases the grantees even of a private

remuneration to a solicitor-executor for his trouble, but right of way have a right to deviate ; but such a right,

these cases are altogether exceptional.” What the profounded on the misfeasance of the owner himself, can

fessional reader wants to be told is, how far and in what be no authority to support a right founded on non

way a rule has been narrowed by a decision, and under feasance by a third party over whom he has no control.”

what exceptional circumstances an inquiry as to the It will be seen that the author does not content himself

remuneration of a solicitor-executor has been ordered. with stringing together head-notes of cases or conclusions

But if Mr. Macaskie's book is intended for the student, of previous writers, but examines the authorities for

it is likely to be useful, for it presents the leading prinhimself. Generally speaking, the notes we have exa.

ciples of the law in a terse form ; it is apparently mined in this part of the book are very satisfactory;

accurate as far as it goes, and the style in which it is under article 70, however, relating to the ownership of

written is easy and interesting. the soil, although the author cites the case of Beckett v. Corporation of Leeds (20 W. R. 454, L. R. 7 Ch. 421),

RAILWAYS. he omits to call attention to the important observations of Lord Justice James, who said that he “should be very

The Law OF RAILWAY COMPANIES, BEING A COLLECTION OF slow to come to the conclusion that where there is a road

THE Acrs AND ORDERS RELATING TO RAILWAY Com. going through an estate, and a site is granted by the

PANIES, WIth Notes OF ALL THE CASES DECIDED THEREON, roadside for the erection of a cottage or house, and a

&c. By J. H. BALFOUR BROWNE, Barrister-at-Law, oottage or house is built upon that site, the mere

Registrar to the Railway Commissioners, and H. S. conveyance or grant of a piece of land as the site

THEOBALD, Barrister-at-law. Stevens & Sons. of a house is, in presumption of law, a grant up This is a book of which there is little to be said except to the middle of the high road." As regards the that it includes all the Acts directly or indirectly relatstatutory part of the work, the notes appear gener. ing to railways, and that the decisions on the leading ally to give a reference to the decisions, but Mr. | Acts have been diligently collected and concisely stated Spearman might with advantage have occasionally in notes following the sections to which they relate. The attempted to supply rather more in the shape of expla Lands Clauses Act is annotated with great elaboration mation or comment. Thus we find the difficult section and care, and in many of the notes-e.g., that relating to of the Highway Act, 1878, relating to extraordinary the cases in which a landowner is entitled to compenexpenses occasioned by excessive weight or extraordinary sation-the decisions are well grouped. Their effect, so traffic (section 23), left, on p. 166, without any attempt far as we have examined them, appears to be correctly to elucidate its provisions; nor, do we find any reference stated. The Acts are arranged in chronological order, here to the case of Lord Aveland v. Lucas (28 W. R. and the orders made under the Railway Companies Act, 571, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 351), which, however, is cited on 1867, the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, and the p. 260. On the whole, however, we can commend the Orders in Council under the Explosives Act, 1875, so far book as a well-arranged and accurate digest of the law as they affect railway companies, are also printed. We of highways. Book 6 contains a large number of forms, are surprised to observe that some sections from the and in the appendix the existing statutes are given in Local Government Act, 1858, are printed at p. 413,

although that Act was wholly repealed by 38 & 39 Vict.

AFFIDAVITS OF RESIDUE. c. 55, s. 343. The appendix contains the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the bye-laws relating to

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.) the conveyance of railway passengers approved by the Sir, It may be interesting to some to know that in the Board of Trade.

Chancery Registrar's Office where an order directs so much of a sum of consols as will raise $100 to be sold, and “80 much of the residueof the consols as will raise £50 to

be also sold, no directions for sale of consols to raise CORRESPONDENCE.

this latter sum will be granted without an affidavit

being sworn and filed, and the office copy produced THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. showing the amount of such “residue," although such

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] amount is already shown by the Paymaster General's Sir,-I understand that the question of acknow

certificate of the fund in court. ledging in some suitable way the hospitality which

If, however, instead of the words “ so much of the the London members of this society have received at the

residue" the words " so much more of the consols" be society's various provincial meetings is now under the

used, then the foregoing affidavit is not required. It is consideration of a committee of the council, who have

to be regretted that the registrar's clerk, when invited some difficulty in determining the most fitting way of

to explain the distinction between these two expressions, entertaining the provincial members.

and the use of the affidavit in the former case, should The chief aim should be to entertain as many as pos.

have had “no time to discuss abstract questions." sible in the most agreeable and acceptable manner, and

Jan. 24.

W. H. G. at the same time to utilize the opportunity to advance (We believe that the Chancery Paymaster invariably and promote the interests of the society, and to create and requires au affidavit where the word "residue" is used foster a feeling of amity and goodwill between the various in such a case as that referred to by our correspondent. members of the society, most of whom are comparative Why it should be necessary for the Paymaster, knowing strangers to each other. A public banquet has neces. | better than anyone else the amount of the residue, to sarily been suggested, as well as a conversazione or a con- require this affidavit, seems difficult to explain. If cert. Some, however, of the younger and more active under the Chancery Funds Rules he does not consider members of the council would, I have some reason to himself at liberty to dispense with it, the sooner the suppose, prefer a vall. I cannot doubt that the council rules are altered the better.- ED. S. J.] will be most desirous of adopting that method of entertainment which shall be found to be most acceptable to the largest number of members, as well as be most likely to be best appreciated. I do not know in what way CASES OF THE WEEK. the expenses are to be borne, but if the London members are to be asked to contribute individually, it would seem

DEATH OF LUNATIC-RIGHTS OF REAL AND PERSONAL that care should be taken to ascertain what may be the REPRESENTATIVES-APPLICATION OF MONEY ARISING FROM views of the members of the society generally, unless, of SALE OF REAL ESTATE-PARTITION ACT, 1868 (31 & 32 course, the council are tolerably sure that the course VICT. C. 40), s. 8.-In a case of In re Barker, in Lunacy, they may adopt will be generally acceptable. For my before James and Cotton, L.JJ., on the 24th inst., a question own part, whether there is or is not to be a dinner, was raised between the real and personal representatives of a I am quite satisfied that a ball will afford attrac

deceased lunatic as to the right to a sum of money which had tions and advantages which no other kind of entertain

arisen from the sale of real estate of the lunatic, but which ment can possibly afford. The society's hall, library,

was standing in court to the account of the lunatic generally.

The lunatic was under the will of his father entitled to an and adjacent rooms afford most admirable accommodation for receiving a large number of guests at a dancing

undivided ninth share of real estate. Before he had been

found a lunatic an action was commenced for the partition of party, and if the voice of the ladies is to be allowed to

the estate, and after he had been found a lunatic a decree exercise even the smallest influence, there cannot be a

mallest influence, there cannot be a was made, under section 4 of the Act, at the request of pardoubt but that they would largely declare in favour of a ties interested in the property to the extent of a moiety, for

a sale of the property. Under this decree a sale took place, The truth is that the society wants, to some extent, and the lunatic's share of tbe purchase-money was ordered popularizing amongst the younger and rising members of to be carried over to his account generally, instead of to the the profession, who would infinitely prefer the attrac- | account of his real estate. After bis death the money was tions of a dance to the delicacies of a well-appointed

claimed by his personal representatives as well as by his banquet, or the most popular or classical music which

which heir-at-law. Section 8 of the Partition Act provides that could be performed, either of which can, of course, be

sections 23 to 25 of the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates obtained almost as advantageously outside the society as

Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 120), "sball extend and apply to money within its ranks. This, however, would not be the case

to be received on any sale effected under the authority of this

Act." Section 23 of the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates with a ball, which, held in the society's hall, would pre

Act provides that “all money to be received on any sale sent an appearance which could hardly be obtained else

effected under the authority of this Act ... shall be where in London,

applied as the court shall from time to time direct to some It would not be difficult to point out that the prepara one or more of the following purposes--namely, the purtions for a ball would be far less onerous than those for chase or redemption of the land tax, or the discharge or any other kind of entertainment, and I cannot help redemption of any incumbrance affecting the hereditaments in feeling that the elder members of the profession will not respect of which such money was paid, or affecting any other allow their natural preference for a dinner to outweigh hereditaments subject to the same uses or trusts; or the the attractions, probably to some of themselves, as to l purchase of other hereditaments to be settled in the same the great majority of the younger and rising members of | manner as the hereditaments in respect of which the money the professioa in London and in the country, which a

| was paid ; or the payment to any person becoming absoball would be certain to afford.

lutely entitled." Their LORDSHIPS held that the circumApologizing for trespassing so much upon your

stance that the money had been carried to the general account valuable space in respect to a question of comparatively

of the lunatic, instead of to the account of bis real estate, small-though from one point of view of no slight-im

could not affect the rights of the parties. The lunatic

himself was not in a position to make an election to take the portance, and trusting to hear the sentiments of other

money as personal estate, and the Court of Lunacy had never members of the society through the medium of your made any election for him. And their lordships were of widely-circulated journal, I beg to subscribe myself, opinion that, though section 23 of the Leases and Sales Act,

Jan. 21. A CONSERVATIVE MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. | as it stood in the Act, necessarily applied only to settled


estates, yet, as it was perfectly general in its words, when it the respondents were entitled only to the costs of an aban. was read into the Partition Act there was no such limita. doned motion. The court (JESSEL, M.R., and Brett and tion on the generality of its meaning, and consequently it Corron, L.JJ.), held that the respondents must bave the applied, not only to the case of settled property sold in a costs of the motion, and that the appeal must be dismissed partition action, but to any property sold in such an action. | with costs. But JESSEL, M.R., said that this would not The money was, therefore, to be paid to “any person preclude the taxing master from considering whether the becoming absolutely entitled," and the beir-at-law of the respondents' briefs had been properly delivered before the deceased owner was such a person. The money in court, | appeal had been set down.-SOLICITORS, W. Howland therefore, belonged to the lunatic's heir-at-law.-SOLICITORS, Jackson ; H. W. Chatterton. Ridsdale, Craddock, d Ridda'e.

APPEAL-ORDER GIVING TIME-DISCRETION OF Judge. LEAVE TO APPEAL AFTER EXPIRATION OF TIME-SPECIAL -In a case of De Mora v. Concha, before the Court of ApCIRCUMSTANCES-ORD. 58, R. 15.-In a case of In re The peal on the 26th inst., an appeal was brought from an Normanton Iron and Steel Company, an application was order made by Bacon, V.C., in court, giving the rospondent made to the Court of Appeal, on the 24th inst, for leave to six months for the completion of evidence in answer to the appeal from an order of Jessel, M.R., notwithstanding tha ex. appellant's evidence. The court (JEESEL, M. R., and BRETT piration of the twenty-one days limited by rule 15 of order 58. and COTTON, L.JJ.) dismissed the appeal, saying that it Jessel, M.R., bad, following his own previous decision in In was an appeal from ibe exercise of a discretion by the judge, re Printing and Numerical Registering Company (26 W. R. and that the Court of Appeal would not interfere unless it was 627, L. R. 8 Ch. D. 535), held that, by virtue of section 10 very clearly shown that his discretion had been wrongly exerof the Judicature Act of 1875, section 87 of the Bankruptcy cised. This had not been shown in the present case. Act, 1869, is imported into the winding up of a company, COTTON, L.J., said that appeals in cases of applications for and consequently that the proceeds of an execution which time ought to be discouraged. JESSEL, M.R., expressed had been levied on the company's goods belonged to the some astonishment at finding that the hearing of an appli. liquidator, for the benefit of the company's creditors cation of this kind had been adjourned by the Vice-Changenerally, and not to the execution creditor. The Court of cellor into court. He said that the practice in his own Appeal having since, in In re The Withernsea Brick Works chambers was that applications for time should be heard by (29 W. R. 178, ante, p. 135), reversed this view of the construc a junior clerk, subject, of course, to the right of appeal to tion of section 10 of the Act of 1875, the execution creditor the judge in chambers. He should not even allow the costs desired to appeal from the decision of Jessel, M.R. The fund of employing counsel in chambers in such a case. Brett, which had under the order been paid over to the liquidator and COTTON, L.JJ., declined to express any opinion as to had not been distributed by him, but remained still in his which was the better practice.-SOLICITORS, Ward, Mills, hands. It formed the only assets of the company, and the & Co. liquidator had incurred costs in advertising for creditors. Under these circumstances the court (JAMES, BRETT, and

CROSS-NOTICE OF APPEAL-QUESTION NOT AFFECTING COTTON, L.JJ.) held that leave to appeal ought to be given,

| ORIGINAL APPELLANT_ORD. 58, R. 6.-In a case of In re but that the liquidator must be paid out of the fund all costs

Cavander's Trusts, before the Court of Appeal on the 26th properly paid or incurred by him on the faith of the validity of the order. This would include the costs of advertising for

inst., & question arose as to the validity of a cross-notice of

appeal, given by a respondent under rule 6 of order 58. The creditors. But the liquidator was not entitled, as had been contended, to charge the fund with remuneration for his

appellant having served his notice of appeal, one of the services, nor ought the costs of any creditors incurred by

| respondents gave notice to all the parties (including the

appellant), that on the bearing of the appeal he should conthem in consequence of the liquidator's advertisement to be

tend that the order appealed from ought to be varied in a paid out of it. JAMES, L.J., said this was not like the case

manner which he specified. The variation thus suggested of a man who had got money into his bands under an order

would not have affected the interest of the appellant. The of the court, and whose statutory right to keep it after the

Court (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, L.JJ.) held expiration of the time limited for appealing ought to be

that, under such circumstances, rule 6 did not apply, and maintained. In the present case the money was still in the

that the respondent ought to have given an independent hands of the officer of the court to be dealt with. BRETT,

notice of appeal. JESSEL, M.R., said that, though the last L.J., said that each case must depend on its own circum

words of rule 6, “be shall give notice of such intention to any stances. If the money had been distributed among the

parties who may be affected by such contention" are very creditcrs, the distribution ought not to have been altered.

general, yet, looking at the introductory words, “ It shall Bat, as the money was still in the bands of the court, there

not, under any circumstances, be necessary for a respondent was no reason wby that which by law belonged to one man

to give notice of motion by way of cross-appeal," it was should be given to another. – SOLICITORS, Tahourdins &

obvious that the notice of the respondent's intention was Hargreaves ; Singleton & Tattershall.

only intended to be a substitute for a cross-appeal. A cross

appeal must necessarily affect the original appellant, but it APPEAL-ABANDONMENT-Costs.-Io a case of Charlton

might affect other parties, and, if it did, notice must be given v. Charlton, before the Court of Appeal on the 26th inst.,

to them. It was not intended that a respondent should be a motion was made for the dismissal of an appeal under the

able, by a notice under the rule, to raise some new question following circumstances :--An order having been made that

between himself and other respondents wbich did not affect part of a fand, which had been set apart to meet the costs

the appellant. If a respondent wished to bring forward & wbich should be found due to the former solicitor of the

new question of that kind, he must give a fresh notice of plaintiffs, should be released, the solicitor, on the 20th

appeał. It was not a cross-appeal. That this must be so of December, served a notice of appeal from the order.

appeared also from the consideration that the notice must be The appeal was not get down, and on the 12th of January

given to the appellant, and why should notice be given to the appellant wrote to the respondents' solicitor that be

him when ex hypothesi he had no interest in the matter ? His withdrew his notice of appeal. Before, however, this

lordship added that he was reported to have said in one case, letter was received the respondents' solicitor bad delivered

and he probably did say, that, after such a notice had been briefs to counsel to oppose the appeal, and on the 12th of

given, the appellant could not withdraw his appeal, but that

only meant that the appeal could not be withdrawn so as to January he wrote to the appellant, telling him that he had already delivered briefs to oppose the appeal, and

prevent the respondent who had given the notice from

raising the question mentioned in it. Under the circumstances asking him to give an undertaking to pay the respondents'

leave was given to the respondent to serve a notice of appeal. costs of the appeal; otherwise, he said, be should take pro

It should be observed that this decision appears to conflict ceedings to enforce payment. No answer having been

with that of the Court of Appeal (James, Brett, and sent to tbis letter, the respondents' solicitor, on the 19th

Cotton, L.JJ.) in Ralph v. Carrick (28 W. R. 67, L. R. 11 of January, served a notice of motion before the Court of Ch. D. 873), which case, however was not referrid to. Appeal for the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecn

SoziciTORS, T. W. Buckler; W. H. Orchard; Finnis of tion, and that the respondents might be ordered to pay

Wylie. the costs of the appeal, and of the motion. On the bearing of this motion it was urged on bebalf of the appellant that

WILL-SPECIAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT-RESIDUARY COMPANY --AGREEMENT FIR USER OF PATENTS IN Con. DEVISE-WILLS Act, 8. 27 - PROPERTY INEFFECTUALLY SIDERATION OF PAYMENT OUT OF DIVIDENDS - IMPLIED Con. APPOINTED COMPRISED IN RESIDOARY DEVISE. — In & TRACT TO CONTINUE BUSINESS—WINDING OP.-In aca-e of Re case of Freme v. Clement, before the Master of the Rolls Edison Telephone Company of London, before the Master of the on the 25th inst., a question arose, where in a will, Rolls on tbe 22nd inst., an application for a winding-up dated after the Wills Act, & special power of appointment, order of the company was made by a shareholder, so the given to him hy a settlement before the Wills Act, was ground that the company had ceased to carry on business exercised by the testator, but so that the appointment was | by reagon of its having sold its property to another comvoid for remoteness, and where the will contained a resi- | pany, in consideration of siares in the later, in pursuance duary devise in favour of some of the objects of the power, i of a power to that effect in its memorandum. A patentee whether the property comprised within the power passed to by certain agreements had sold certain patent rights to the the residuary devisee or passed as in default of appointment. company in consideration of their paying him balf their The question turned to a great extent upon the meaniog of surplus dividends after £5 per cent. had been paid to their the word "devise" in the various sections of the Wills Act, shareholders. By the articles, dividends were only payable and whether it included a special power of appointment out of net profits, and by another article the patentee was Jessel, M.R., was of opinion that, although the instrument entitled in respect of one share allotted to him to exercise giving the power was executed before the Wills Act, still half the voting power of the shareholders. The patentee that the appointment was to be construed as to its execution now objeoted to any windiog-up order being made, on the and construction according to the law then in force, and, ground that the company had impriedly contracted with therefore, that the rules under the Wills Act would apply him to continue their business so as to enable them to to the construction of the appointment. After an elabor. carry out their agreement with him. The liabilities of the ate examination of the various sections of the Wills Act, he | company, except under the agreement with the patentee, had came to the conclusion that the words devise and bequest in all been provided for. JEGSEL, M.R., was of opioion that the 27th and other sections included property over which the it was a case for a winding-up order notwithstaoding the testator bad a special power of appointment, and, therefore, dissent of the patentee. According to his agreement with that the property comprised within the appointment passed the company he was only to be paid by ineans of dividends, under the residuary devise in the will.-SOLICITORS, Field, i and tbese were only payable out of net profits. His contenRoscoe, & Co.; Brownlow f Howe ; Dean & Taylor, R. M. tion that the company were impliedly bound to continue & F. Lowe.

their business had really no bearing on the present case, because, according to their memorandum, of which the

patentee had notice, the company had an absolute power to PRACTICE - SOLICITOR — DELIVERY OF BILT -- With.

sell their business as they thought fit, and to prevent any DRAWAL-ORDER TO TAX-SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.-In a injustice to the patentee the power had evidently been incare of Re Holroyde & Smith, before the Master of the

serted giving him the preponderance of voting power. The Rolls on the 21st inst., a motion was made to discharge a

company hud sold their business out and out, and had taken common urder to tax a solicitor's bill. On the 8th of No.

as the consideration certain shares in the buying company, vember Messrs. Holroyde & Smith sent their client, a Mr. which shares were doubtless part of their assets and saleable Mitohell, a bill of their solicitor and client costs of an action as such. The company could not earn any further dividends, conducted by them, but the bill was not signed. The bill, and there was nothing left to be done but to divide the pro. had cbarged (inter alia) £5 58. a day for certain journeys ceeds of the sale among the shareholders. The patentee to London, instead of the usual charge of £3 39. Mitchell's might have a claim on the asse's, but, in his opinion, he had now solicitors wrote to Holroyde & Smith on the 17th of no right to stop the making of a winding-up order, which November, stating they had instructions to have the bill 1 bis lordship accordingly made. He also refused to stay the taxed, and bad they any suggestions to make to avoid a tax. I proceedings in the winding up pending an appeal.-SOLICI. ation. An interview took place between the solicitors, but TORS, Preshfields di Williams ; Renshaw & Renshaw; Waterthey did not come to any agreement, and on the 19th of house & Winterbotham. November Holroyde & Smith wrote to Mitobell enclosing a fresh bill, and stating that, "inasmuch as you have sugtained a logs in this matter by extra costs, it is our desire

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY to relieve you as much as possible, and we should be sorry

REGISTRARS. to have any unpleasantpens, and therefore, upon considera (Before Mr. REGISTRAR PEPys, acting as Chief Judge). tion, we have made out a fresh bill of costs, wbich we

Jan. 25.- Re Challis. desire you to accept in lieu of the former one, and, in fact,

New first meeting under liquidation petition ordered, by consent we beg to give you notice we only consider you liable upon of creditors who have voced against resolutions for liquida. the bill sent with this letter." Mitchell subsequently ob tion by arrangement, notwithstanding that a petition for tained the common order for taxation, and Holroyde & adjudication has been presented against the debtor. Smith now moved to discharge it, on the ground that there

This was an application for leave to convene a new first were special circumstances justifying them in withdrawing

meeting of creditors under a petition for liquidation prethe bill, and that the case fell within the authority of Re

sented by A. J. Challis. Chambers (34 Beav. 177). JESSEL, M. R., was of opinion

It appeared that at the original meeting, held on the that there were ny special circumstances in the case to | 19th of January, resolutions were proposed for liquidation bring it within the principle of the decision in Re Chambers ; by arrangement of the affairs of the debtor, and five crediand he therefore refused the motion, with costs.--SOLICI

tors whose debts amounted to £2,200 voce in favour thereof, TORS, Layton & Jaques; Bower & Cotton.

and five other creditors whose debts amounted to about

£200 voted against them. The resolutions were therefore PRACTICE-ABSCONDING DEFENDANT-SUBSTITUTED SER

lost, a majority in number of the creditors not being ob

tained, and since the meeting Messrs. Taylor & Sons, who VICE-EQUITAPLE MORTGAGE-RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 9 R. 2.- In a case of Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking

were large creditors, had presented a petition for adjudica

tion against the debtor. Rather than the matter should go Company v. Bond, also before the Master of the Rolls on the

into bankruptcy the dissenting creditors now expressed 21st inst., a motion was made for substituted service of the writ, or directions for notice in lieu of service.

their willingness to assent to resolutions for liquidation by

The plaintiffs were equitable mortgagees, Bond being the mortgagor,

arrangement, and they consented to the present application

being made. who bad absconded in May last. None of his relations

H. Reed, in support of the application. knew where he was, though it was believed he had gone to

Mr. REGISTRAR Pepys : Do I distinctly understand that Australia. JESSEL, M.R., gave leave for substituted service

all the creditors who dissented from the resolutions are now on the defendant's relations, and directed advertisements to

willing that a new meeting be appointed ? be inserted in the Times and in a local paper; he also re

Reed said that was 80. quired the production of an affidavit showing that the value

Mr. REGISTRAR Pepys said, that under the circumstances, of the property was not substantially more than the amount

leave would be given to convene a new meeting. of the incumbrances on the property, and required the plain

Solicitors, Layton, Son, & Co. tiffs to undertake to apply for a sale at the trial.--SOLICITORS, Ullithorne, Currey, of Villiers, for Neve f Rutter, Wolver- | bampton,





The general annual meeting was held in the library on

January 24, 1881, at wbich the following members were Mr. George Mounsey Gray, solicitor, late of Staple-inn, present:Mr. T. G. Hyde, president, in the obair, and died at his residence, 7, Upper Bedford-place, on the 19th Messrs. W. P. Haghed, vice-president, R. P. Hill, Catler, inst., at the age of eighty-five. The deceased, who was one Beale, Parker, Jeffery, Davis, Alleo, hop, secretary. of the oldest solicitors in London, was the son of the late The treasurer's accounts showing a balance of £75 28.70 Mr. John Gray, his mother having been a daughter of Mr.

were andited and passed ; the report of the committee last George Mounsey, of Carlisle, and he was born in 1795. He

year was read and adopted. was admitted a solicitor in 1818, and practised at 9, Staple The following election of officers for the present year took inn for about fifty years. He was formerly in partnership

place :with Mr. Henry Mounsey, Dext with Mr. Richard Baynes

Mr, T. G. Hyde, president; Mr. W. P. Hughes, viceArmstrong, and finally with Mr. Ewart Simon Moungey.

| president; Mr. W. Allan, treasurer and also hon. Becretary. Aboat twelve years ago he retired from practice on account

All the above-named gentlemen were re-elected. Mesare. of failing strength. Mr. Gray bad for many years a large

| Beale, Barker, H. Corbett, Jeffery, and Davis were elected private practice, and was the head of a firm having an exten

on the committee for the present year. sive agency connection with the North of England.

It was resolved that a sum of £5 be given opt of the

funds of the society for providing prizes for tbe Worcester MR, FRANCIS HUNT.

and Worcestershire Law Students' Society under regulations Mr. Francis Hoot, solicitor, formerly of Witney, died at

to be made by the committee. A vote of thanks was Oxford, from bronchitis, on the 17th inst.

passed to the president for his services duriog the past

The deceased was born in 1809, and was admitted a solicitor about the year

year. 1837. He formerly practised at Witney, but he retired from business several years ago. Mr. Hunt had for many years an extensive practice at Witney, where he held several public appointments. He was clerk to the Witney Board of Guardians, and superintendent registrar, and also clerk to the county magistrates and to the Commissioners of Land, COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION. Assessed, and Income Taxes for the hundred of Bampton.

EASTER EXAMINATION, 1881. Examination of Candidates for Pass Certificates.

The attention of students is requested to the following SOCIETIES.

rules :

No student admitted after the 31st of December, 1872,

shall receive from the council the certificate of fitoess for LAW AMENDMENT SOCIETY.

| call to the bar required by the four Inns of Court unless MARRIED WOMENS' PROPERTY.

he shall have passed a satisfactory examination in the A paper on tbe Bill to amend the Acts relating to the

following subjects-viz., (1) Roman law; (2) The law property of married women which has been introdaced

of real and personal property ; (3) Common law; and (4) this session, was read by Mr. C. B. B. M'Laren, M.P., on

Equity. Saturday. The chair was taken by Mr. J. Hinde Palmer,

No student admitted after the 31st of December, 1872, Q.C., M.P. Mr. M'Laren maintained that the law with

shall be examined for call to the bar until he shall have respect to the property of married women ougbt to be

kept nine terms; except that students admitted after that fondamentally changed in accordance with the relations

day shall have the option of passing the examination in of modern society, and that all amendments ought to pro

Roman law at any time after having kept four terms. ceed upon the principle that the labour of each of the

An examination will be held in April next, to which a partners in matrimony sbould be for the use of both, and

studert of any of the Inns of Court, who is desirous of

becoming a candidate for a certificate of fitness for being that neither partner sboalā be responsible for the acts of the other. The Bill of 1881 proceeded upou this principle,

called to the bar, will be admissible.

Each student proposing to submit himself for examination and at the outset it enacted tbat the act of marriage

will be required to enter his name, personally or by letter, should leave the property both of bosband and wife un- |

at the treasurer's or steward's office of the Ina of Court to affected. It secured in the case of a happy marriage the

which he belongs, on or before Thursday, the 24th day of enjoyment of tbis property to botb, wbile in the case of March next : and he will further be required to state in domestic differences it gave to each the complete dominion writing whether his object in offering himself for examinaover his or her separate estate. The Bill really secared to tion is to obtain a certificate preliminary to a call to the all women the advantages now posseused only by the rich,

bar ; or whether he is merely desirous of passing the who could afford the luxury of a settlement; and it thus

examination in Roman law under the above-stated rule. revealed wbat really amounted to an oppressive and pro

The examination will commence on Tuesday, the 5th bibitive tax upon justice to the poor. Oat of every thirteen day of April next, and will be continued on the Wednesday, wives not more than two could pay for or really under Thursday, and Friday following. stond the need of a murriage settlement; but this Bill It will take place in the ball of Lincoln's-inn; and the would afford protection to all. The Bill migbt be made a doors will be closed ten minutes after the time appointed for complete code of the law of conjagal property ; but this the commencement of the examination. would be too bold an effort. Some of its details, however, The examination by printed questions will be conducted were valuable instalmente of reform.

in the following order :-Tuesday morning, April 5, at ten Sir Arthur Hobhouse, Mr. G. Palmer, M.P., Mr. Horace until one, on the law of real and personal property ; WedDavey, M.P., Sir D. Wedderburn, M.P., aod some others nesday morning, April 6, at ten until one, on common law; having spoken in favour of the principle of the Bill, the Thursday morning, April 7, at ten until one, on equity ; chairman, in somming op the discussion, said that consider. | Friday morning, April 8, at ten until oue, on Roman law. ing the character of the present Bill, he was not sorry that it The oral examination will be conducted in the same would have to undergo the ordeal of examination by a select order, and on the same subjects, as above appointed for thu committee of the House of Commons. Referring to a passage examination by printed questions. in the speech in which Lord Cairps introduced Mr. Russell | The examiner in the law of real and personal property Gurney's Bill of 1870 in the House of Lords, he said Lord will examine in the following subjects :--The elementary Cairns had there laid down what the promoters of this Bill principles of the law of real and personal property, with wished to see carried into effect. The Lord Chanceilor had, reference chiefly to the treatises of Mr. Joshua Williams on in a private interview, had the provisions of the Bill ex- those subjecte. plained to him, and Mr. Palmer said he thought he was The examiner in common law will examine in the followjastified in saying that his lordship took a favourable viewing subjects :-(1) The law of contracts ; (2) The law of of the general principles upon which they proceeded. | torts; (3) Criminal law; (4) The procedure in the common

« PreviousContinue »