Page images
PDF
EPUB

property of the builder should be taken by the landowner in his jurisdiction. The appellant claimed his costs of the appeal full satisfaction of his claims against the builder. It was so far as it related to the habeas corpus, and in opposition to analogous to a sale of property with a power to re-purchase. bis claim it was urged that the proceeding was of a criminal BRETT, L.J., said that it was admitted that a sale of the nature, and that the court had no power to give the costs of it. materials by the builder to a third person would not have The court (JAMES, BRETT, and Cotton, L.JJ.) held that affected the rights of the landowner under the agreement, the appellant was entitled to his costs. JAMES, L.J., said and this was conclusive to show that the title of the trustee that it was an abuse of terms to call the application for a in the liquidation was subject to the landowner's rights. habeas corpus a criminal proceeding, as the offence for which COTTON, LJ., said that if by an assignment of the materials the appellant was imprisoned was a contempt of court; and for valne the right of the landowner could not be defeated, BRETT, L.J., said that when a habeas corpus was applied for on so long as the materials remained on the land, there was no behalf of a prisoner, it was applied for on the ground that he was provision in the Bankruptcy Act which placed him in a an innocent person, and there was nothing criminal in that. Forse position as against the trustee. The order and dis. | And, as to the costs of Lord Penzance, it was urged that he was position clause did not apply, because the landlord was not not entitled to them, because it was unusual and unnecessary The troe owner of the materials until he had exercised his for a judge to appear to support his jurisdiction. The Queen's right to seize them.--SOLICITORS, S. G. Ashwin; H. | Bench Division did not give him his costs of his appearance Montagu.

in that court. The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing to exclude the application of the ordinary rule, and

that Lord Penzance must be paid his costs of the appeal by PRACTICE-BANKRUPTCY APPEAL-TIME FOR A PPEALING the appellant. — SOLICITORS, Brooks, Jenkins, & Co.; J. FROM COUNTY COURT TO CHIEF JUDGE-BANKRUPTCY RULES, Girdlestone ; Solicitor to the Treasury. 1870, R. 143-BANKRUPTCY RULE OF May 26, 1873.- In a case of Ex parte Hall, before the Court of Appeal on the 27th olt., the question arose whether the time for STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL-APPLICATION appealing from a bankroptcy order of a county court | TO COURT OF APPEAL-DEATH OF JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE to the Chief Judge has been varied by the Rules

-ORD. 58, RR. 16, 17.-In a case of Bostock v. Pearson an under the Jadicatore Act, or whether it is still rego. application was made ex parte to the Court of Appeal, on lated by the Bankruptoy Rale 143 of 1873, as inter the 31st ult., with reference to a stay of proceedings pending preted by the Bankraptcy Rule of the 26th of May,

an appeal from a decision of the Vice-Chancellor of the 1873. Rale 143 provides that “ap appeal against a deci.

Lancaster Court. By virtue of rule 17 of order 58 such an sion or order of the Chief Judge in Bapkroptoy, or a judge

application ought to be made in the first instance to the of a county court, shall be entered with the Registrar of

court whose decision is appealed from, but in the present Appeals withio, and not later than, twenty-one days from

case, owing to the death of Vice-Chancellor Litile, it was the said decision or order.” And rule 150 provided that

impossible to make the application to that court. Under -"* the office for entering bankroptcy appeals to be heard by

these circumstances the court (JAMES, BRETT, and COTTON, the Court of Appeal in Chancery shall be closed during

L.JJ.) thought that the application might be properly made the ordinary vacatione of the Court of Chancery, and the

at once to the Court of Appeal, and they gave leave to time during which such office sball be closed shall not be

serve a notice of motion for the purpose. -SOLICITORS, reckoned in the number of days ordered for the entering

Cross, Sons, & Riley. of appeals to be beard by such Court of Appeal in Chancery." This role was rescinded by the role of the 26th of |

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AS TO USE OF LAND—"Beershop.” May, 1873, which provided that “the office for entering

-In a case of The London and Suburban Land and Building bankroptcy appeals sball be open daily throughout

Company v. Field, before the Court of Appeal on the 31st tbe year, except on Sunday, Christmas Day, Good

alt., a question arose upon the construction of a cove. Friday, the Saturday after Good Friday, Monday and "Taesday in Easter week, and on any day appointed

nant in restriction of the use of land. The defendant

was subject to a covenant not to erect on a piece of land, for a public fast or thanksgiving; ... and the days on which the office shall be wholly closed shall not be reckoned

forming part of an estate laid out for building, "any in the number of days ordered for the entering of appeals."

poblic-house, tavern, or beershop," nor to use any house It was decided by the Chief Judge, in Ex parte Hicks (23

erected on the piece of land as such. A shop had been built W. R. 852, L. R. 20 Eq. 143), that, by virtue of this rule,

on the piece of land, and the defendant who was the ocSundays are not to be counted in reckoning the twenty-one

cupier of the sbop, bad obtained a licence authorizing him days under rule 143, so that, in effect, twenty-four days are

to sell beer there not to be drunk on the premises, and be gisen for appealing, and this has ever since been accepted

was selling beer there accordingly. The action was as the practice in appeals to the Court of Bankruptcy. But

brought to restrain him from breaking the covenant. in Ex parte Viney (25 W. R. 354, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 794), the

Jessel, M.R., overruled a demarrer to the statement of Court of Appeal held that the time for appealing from deci.

claim. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that sions of the Chief Judge to the Court of Appeal is now regu.

the word “beershop” had a technical meaning, equivalent lated entirely by the rules under the Judicature Act, and ibe

| to that of “ beer-house,” i.e., a place where beer was sold to Sundays are not to be excluded from the computation of the

be drunk on the premises, and that, consequently, there twenty-one days fixed by rule 15 of order 58. The court

had been no breach of tbe covenant. The court (JAMES, was not, however, then called upon to decide whether the

| BRETT, and Cotton, L.JJ.), however, following the decision old practice remains in regard to appeals from the county

of the Queen's Bench Division in The Bishop of St. Albans .courts to the Chief Judge. In Ex parte Hale, this point

v. Battersby (26 W. R. 979, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 359), held that was raised, and Bacon, C.J., held that, with regard to such

the word “beersbop” had no technical meaning distinot appeals, the old practice is still in force, and that, conse

from its ordinary meaning, and that it must be taken to quently, Sundays are to be excluded from the computation

| mean a shop where beer was sold, even if it was consumed of the twenty-one days under rule 143. The Court of Ap- | off the premises.-SOLICITORS, Shum, Crossman, & Co. ; peal (JAMES, BRETT, and Cotton, L.JJ.) affirmed this

T. W. Rogers. decision.-SOLICITORS, G. Presswell ; Clarke, Rawlins, f. Clarke.

CLUB-EXPULSION OF MEMBER—JURISDICTION OF COURT

TO INTERFERE.-In a case of Dawkins V. Antro"us, before Costs-APPEAL-HABEAS CORPUS-PROHIBITION - AP- | the Court of Appeal on the 1st inst., the question aros 3 PEARANCE OF JUDGE TO DEFEND JURISDICTION-ORD. 58, whether the court had jurisdiction to review the decision of a R. 5.—The case of In re Dale (noted ante, p. 217) camel general meeting of the members of & club, expelling the again before the Court of Appeal on the 29th ult. apon the plaintiff from membership. The original rules of the club question of the costs of the appeal. The appellant, who had contained no provisions ior the expulsion of members, but failed altogetber in the Queen's Bench Division, succeeded there was a power to alter the rules by a majority at a general in the Court of Appeal upon his application for a writ of / meeting, at which at least forty members were present. After habeas corpus, but failed in his application for a writ of the plaintiff became a member a new rule was passed under probibition to Lord Penzance, as the judge of the Provincial this power, which provided that in case the conduct of any Court of Canterbury appointed under the Public Worship member, either in or out of the club-house, should, in the Regulation Act, 1874, on the ground that he had exceeded opinion of the committee, be injurious to the character and

interest of the club, the committee should be empowered, if ; in the pleadings, the plaintiff had not disclosed any cage they deemed it expedient, to recommend such member to for relief against the defendant. The material words of the resign, and, if he should not comply within a month, the rule are as follows:-“Any party to an action may, at any committee should then call a general meeting, and if a stage thereof, apply to the court or a judge for such order majority of two-thirds of that meeting should agree by | as he may, upon any admissions of fact in the pleadings, be ballot to the expulsion of the member, his name should be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any erased from the list, and be should forfeit all right and claim other question between the parties. Any such application upon the property of the club. The plaintiff was an officer may be made by motion so soon as the right of the party in the army, and he alleged that a general officer, who was applying to the relief claimed has appeared from the pleadalso a member of the club, had, while acting as a member of ings." The arguments turned mainly on the question a military court of inquiry, held for the purpose of investiga- whether the defendant could be said to be entitled to any ting certain allegations made by the plaintiff, acted improperly “relief,” as he had not counter-claimed, and a decision of and unfairly towards him. The plaintiff publisbed a pamphlet, | Hall, V.C., of Litton v. Litton (L. R. 3 Cb. D. 793), was wbich contained allegations of gross misconduct against the relied on in support of the view that a defendant, under the Duke of Cambridge, the Secretary of State for War, and | above circumstances, was not within the rule. JESSEL, various officers in the army, including the general officer in M.R., was of opinion that the motion was well founded. If question, and sent a copy of the pampblet by post, addressed Hall, V.C., had decided the point, he should have followed to the general officer at the Horse Guards, in an envelope bav. bis decision; but, in his opinion, he had not decided the point ing printed on the outside of it words imputing dishonourable that arose in the present case. In Litton v. Litton, default conduct to bim. The committee of the club called upon the had been made in replying, and the Vice-Chancellor beld plaintiff for an explanation. The plaintiff failed to give any that tbe proper mode in such a case was for the defendant explanation, and ibe committee then called upon him to re- to give notice of trial or to move to dismise. Moreover, if sign his membership. This he declined to do, and a general the books of practice had been uniform as to the construction meeting was then called to expel bim, notice being given to of the rule, he should probably have followed the general him. The meeting was held, and a resolution for the ex role adopted by them, but they were not uniform as to the pulsion of the plaintiff was passed by a majority of 108 to construction to be adopted, and he must, therefore, construe 36. The plaintiff, by his action, claimed a declaration that the rule himself. Now, on the rule, it was clear that "any the resolution of the meeting was null and void, and it was s party" could move, and those words must include a defendcontended on bis bebalf that the resolution bad been come to ant. The later words were more ambiguous, and the diffiin a capricious, unfair, and arbitrary manner, and not bonâ culty was as to the meaning of the word * relief.” In other fide, and that the committee had been unduly biassed against places in the rules where the word “relief” occurred, it the plaintiff, several of them being officers in the army and was not confined to its old narrow meaning of the “relief" in the same regiment as the officer to whom the pamphlet had claimed by bill in chancery, but was to be used in its ordinbeen sent. Jessel, M.R., though he said (vide 23 SOLICI ary and wider sense. He did not see that a defendant could TORS' JOURNAL, 681) that he shouid himself have felt very ask for greater relief than to have the action dismissed, and great difficulty in holding that the mere sending a copy of he thought the word was used in that sense. He was, the pamphlet to a member of the club, not at tbe club, in moreover, of opinion that the first and enacting part of the an envelope with the objectionable words printed on it, was rule was not to be cut down by the later portion, which “injurious to the character and interests of the club," he only showed the way in which the enacting part was to be could not take upon himself to say that the committee bad carried out, unless by clear and unequivocal words. On the acted so unreasonably as to enable him to impute legal construction of the rule, and on the reason of the thing, he malice to them. He could not say that they, or the general

thought the defendant, in such a case as the above, came meeting, had acted without reasonable or probable cause, or within the rule; and he should, therefore, not allow the obthat the allegation of malice was sufficiently made out. He jection to the motion on that ground. On the merits, however, therefore dismissed tbe action. This decision was affirmed by his lordship dismissed the motion.-SOLICITORS, Dolman 9 the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BRETT, and COTTON, L.JJ.) on Pritchard, Henry Aird. substantially the same grounds, JAMES, L.J., said that be entirely agreed with what was said by the Lords Commissioners in Inderwick v. Snell (2 M. & G. 216), in relation to the re.

WILL-GIFT OF RESIDUE TO WIDOW FOR LIFE WITH moval of directors of a company by a meeting of the

REMAINDER TO CHILDREN - ADVANCES TO CHILDREN shareholders, wbich was directly applicable to the case of a

HOTCHPOT CLAUSE-INTEREST.-In a case of Re Rees, Rees club. If the meeting of the members bad been duly con

v. George, before the Master of the Rolls on the 29th ult., vened and had power to decide the particular question,

the testator, by his will, gave the income of bis residuary the court bad no jurisdiction to interfere unless it could

estate to his widow for life, and after her death, after legacies be shown that the decision was so grossly unfair and un

to his sons, directed bis residuary estate to be divided amongst reasonable that it could not have been arrived at except

| all bis cbildren at twenty-one, or marriage. The will confrom some malicious motive. If the committee and the

tained a declaration that every sum of inoney advanced to his general meeting were pot acting fraudulently, and there was

children during his life, or any money paid by the testator no ground for assuming that they were so acting, they were

towards their maintenance or education, should be brought the sole judges wbether the rule as to expulsion ought to

into hotcbpot and accounted for as part of the respective share be applied, and the court could not intersere. His lordship,

of such child in his residuary estate. The testator died in bowever, was of opinion, with deference to the Master of

1860, and the chief clerk certified that he left nine children, the Rolls, that nothing could be more injurious to the

all of whom attained their majority, and that he had made character and interests of a c'ub than the conduct of the

advances to four of them. The widow died in 1880, wbere. plaintiff in sending the pamphlet in question. BRETT,

upon the residuary estate became divisible, and on a petition L.J., said that, unless there was clear proof of mala fides,

for payment out of court of the nine shares, the question arose which there was not in this case, the court bad no authority

from wbat date the advanced children, in bringing their adto consider whether what was done by the meeting was

vances into hotchpot, were to be charged with interest on reasonable or not, or to interfere with their decision, even

their shares. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that the interest if of opinion that it was wholly beyond reason and with.

was to be charged on the advances from the date of the death out reason, - SOLICITORS, Guscoite, Wadham, & Daw;

of the widow, and not from the date of the testator's death. Nicholl, Manisty, & Co.

-SOLICITORS, Warriner ; Clarke, Woodcock, d Ryland.

PRACTICE-MOTION ON ADMISSIONS IN THE PLEADINGS

HUSBAND AND WIFE-PROTECTION ORDER-DISCHARGERULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 40, R 11-Right OF DE: DEATH OF WIFE -- Will — SEPARATE ESTATE — PROBATE FENDANT TO MOVE WHO HAS NOT COUNTER-CLAIMED-Right | ACTION-COUNTER-CLAIM-DIVORCE Act, 1857 (20 & 21 TO “RELIEF."--In a case of Pascoe v. Richards, before the

| Vict. c. 85), ss. 21, 23-JUDICATURE ACT, 1873, s. 2 Master of the Rolls on the 28th ult., the defendant had put 14, SUB-SECTION 3. - In the Probate, Divorce, and in a defence to tbe statement of claim, but had not counter. | Admiralty Division, on the 1st inst., the case of Mudge claimed for any relief. The plaintiff ihen replied specially, v. Adams was argued upon a demurrer to portions of and the defendant rejoined by joining issue on the reply. The the statement of defence and counter-claim. The defendant now moved under ord. 40, r. 11, that the action plaintiff propounded the will of the wife of tbe defendant, might be dismissed, on the ground that, on the admitted facts and the statement of olajm alleged that the deceased bad

appointed the plaintiff as her executor by a will doly executed by her when living apart from ber husband, after

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY baving obtained a proteotion order, and being poggessed

REGISTRARS. of separate estate. The defendant alleged in his state (Before Mr. REGISTRAR Pepes, actiog as Chief Judge.) ment of defence and counter-claim that the protection Jan. 25.-Ex parte Foreman and another, Re Roberts. order had been obtained by his wife without his know

A bill of sale was expressed to be made in consideration of ledge, and by means of fraud and false representations, $1.250. being a debt owing to the grantee by the gras

e by the grantor, £24 and that he had not been guilty of desertion. By his for interest due, and $100 then paid by the grantee to the counter-claim he asked that the court should pronounce grantor. In fact the grantor received £94 only by cheque, £6 against the will and grant letters of administration to him beiog deducted for one year's interest, in anticipation, on the as the lawful husband of tbe deceased, and also for a de

£100. claration that the protection order was fraudulent and

Held, that the deed was, by section 8 of the Bills of Sale Act, void, and should be set aside and discharged. The plain

1878, void against the trustees in the liquidation oi the grantor. tiff replied that the defendant for a long time during the

This was an application on behalf of the trustees of the lifetime of the deceased knew of and acquiesced in the

property of Edwin Roberts for an order declaring that a existence of the protection order, and allowed the deceased

bill of sale, dated 9th of June, 1879, and made between to act thereunder, and was thereby estopped from now

the debtor of the one part, and James Miles of the other

part, was null and void against the said trustees, and that questioning ite validity. The plaintiff also demurred to so much of tbe statement of defence and counter-claim as

the property comprised therein, and the proceeds theroof, alleged that the protection order was obtained without his

belonged to them.

By the bill of sale, which was registered pursuant to koowledge and by means of fraud and false representa

the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, the debtor, carrying on busitions, and ought to be set aside, and that the defendant had not been guilty of desertion. It was argued by the

ness as a pawnbroker, assigned to James Miles, who now

claimed to be entitled to the benefit of the security, all his plaintiff's counsel that the protection order precluded

furniture, goods, fixtures, chattels, and other effects upon tbe defendant from disputing the will of the de.

the premises occupied by him at No. 138, St. James's-road, ceased, and that be could not, after his wife's

Holloway, the pledges and stock-in-trade therein, and also death, take any stop to bave the order discharged.

all other goods, chattels, and effects which might thereafter HAXXEN, P., stopped the argoment of the counsel

come into or upon the said premises or any other premises for the delendant, and overruled the demurrer, upon the

of the debtor during the time any money might be due general principle that ad order obtained by fraud may be

under and by virtue of the said bill of sale, by way of set aside at the instance of the party complaining of the

security for the sum of £1,250, in the said indenture ex. fraod, noless the rights of innocent parties would be pre

pressed to be a debt owing to J. Miles by the debtor for judiced by so doing. The interests of the executor or of the

money lent, and the sum of £24 for interest due thereon, legatees uoder a will made by a married woman who has

and a further sum of £100, in the said indepture expressed obtained a protection order were not such rights as would be

to be then paid by Miles to the debtor, making thereby prejudiced by the discharge of the order, and the making of

the sum of £1,374, with interest thereon at the rate of £6 a will was not among the “acts" done by the wife between

per cent. per annum. the making and the discharge of the protection order, which

The sum of £100 was not, in fact, paid by Miles to the are specially protected by the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 108, s. 8, in

debtor at the time. The debtor received 194 only, by a the event of ihe order being discharged. The 20 & 21 Vict.

cheque for that amount, date: 6th of Jane, 1879, the sum c. 85, s. 21, placed a wife who had obtained a protection

of £6 having been deducted and retained by Miles for one order in the same position, with regard to property and con

year's interest on the £100. There was a question upon the tracts, as if she had obtained a decree of judicial separation,

evidence whether a sum of £13 was not also paid by Miles, while section 23 enabled a husband or wife against whom a

being the premium upon a policy of insurance effected on decree of judicial geparation has been pronounced, “at any

the debtor's life and deposited with Miles by way of secutime thereafter," to present a petition to reverse the decree,

rity. on the ground that it was obtained in his or her absence, or

1 On the 9th of April, 1880, the debtor filed a petition for that there was reasonable ground for the desertion. The

liquidation of his affairs, and at the first meeting trustees words " at any time thereaster” showed that the death of

were appointed, with a committee of inspection. the husband or wife was not a bar to the application for the

| Robson, in support for tbe application :- Apart from any reversal of a decree of judicial separation, and for the same

other question the bill of sale is void against the trustees reason the death of the wife did not preclude an application

by reason of the consideration for which it was given not to discharge the protection order, al bough, no doubt, it cast having been truly set forth in accordance with section 8 of a heavy onus upon the husband. Secondly, the defendant

the Bills of Sale Act, 1878. If anything be deducted for was eniitlei to raise the question of the discharge of the

interest or discount the fact should be stated : Ex parte protection order in the probate action, since he had properly

National Mercantile Bank, Re Haynes (28 W. R. 848, L. R. claimed by his pleadings, in respect of a legal right, such

15 Ch. D. 42, 23 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 504). In the present relief as the court could have granted “in any suit insti.

case interest in anticipation was deducted, and Ex parte tuted for that purpose, against the same plaintiff," within

Charing Cross Advance and Deposit Bank v. Parker (L. R. section 24, sab section 3, of the Judicature Act, 1873. In

16 Ch. D. 35) applies. He also cited Ex parte Challinor the present case the procedura was simplified, because both

(28 W. R. 205). tbe probate and the discharge of the protection order were E. C. Willis, for the respondent :- It is not clear from matters within the jurisdiction of the same division. He

the evidence that the £94 was the only sum paid. But therefore held the counter-claim to be gcod, but reserved assuming that it was, the practice of deducting expenses all questions as to costs until he bad heard all the facts of is well known. Ex parte Challinor shows that the expenses the case.-SOLICITORS, Poole, Hughes, f Poole; Wedlake &

attendant upon the mortgage may properly be deducted from the amount advanced.

Mr. REGISTRAR PEPys said be could not distinguish the

present case from Ex parte Charing Cross Advance and A Qaeen's Counsel writes to the Times : “As one of Deposit Bank, In re Parker. The amount deducted was not those who signed the requisition for the meeting of the bar, 80 large as the agreed sum in that case (£30), but still it which I bave just left, I beg to say that, whatever was in the nature of a deduction for interest; and the its verdict, it seems to me to be valueless. It was im. Court of Appeal bad laid it down that, when interest was depossible to hear, bardly more possible to see, and very many

deducted from the consideration, the deed was, by section of the working members of the bar, more especially of those 8 of the Bills of Sale Act, void as against the trustee in in the fullest practice, are conspicuous by their absence. If the liquidation of the grantor. He must bold, therefore, it is a mere counting of noses, well; if anything more, it is that the bill of sale in this case was in valid, but the order simply valueless as any sort of aid in deciding a very grave would be made without costs. question once and for all. I may add that three other Solicitors for the trustees, Wright & Law. working members of the bar-one a Queen's Counsel of long Solicitor for the respondent, Nevett, standing, whose experience and opinion are worth consideration-left at the same time as myself and for the same reason."

Letts.

[ocr errors]

on Thursday, 3rd of Randed Law Society, Chancero Jana

tention; and he believed it was the intention of that gentleOBITUARY.

man to take great credit for makiog the Bill one of the best measures that could be framed. He (the president)

also believed there was almost an avowed intention of getting VICE-CHANCELLOR LITTLE.

the measure tbrough without the intervention of the solici. Mr. George Little, Q.C., Vice-Chancellor of the Chancery tors. He could only say, if the solicitors had no hand in Court of the Docby of Lancaster, died on the 27th olt. | framing the measure, that the new Binkruptcy Bill would Vice-Chancellor Little was called to the bar at the Middle be very unlikely to carry out that which it was de. Temple in Easter Term, 1840, and practised for many sired to do. If, however, they were takec into consultation years in the Court of Chancery, and in the Lancaster | by the persons dealing with the subject, the joint action Palative Court. He became a Queen's Coangel in 1866, would result in the passing of a proper measure. when he selected the court of Vice-Cbancellor Maline, bot Mr. CARSLAKE seconded the motion. his practice was cbiefly in bapkraptoy appeals. In 1871 | Mr. T. MARTINEAU spoke with reference to the evils in he succeeded the late Sir John Wickens as Vice-Chancellor connection with the present administration of justice in the of the Duoby of Lancaster, and he held that office till provinces, and drew atiention to the remedies proposed by his death. Abont four years ago he retired from practice, the conference at Liverpool. He asked them, if Liverpool, and he had since devoted the whole of his attention to his with its three civil assizes each year, felt the evil conjudicial duties. Mr. Little fully justified the expectations sequences of the present system, how much worse off was a that were entertained at the time of his appointment, and town of tbe magpitude and commercial importance of Birbe obtained the esteem and respect of the bar, and the con mingham, which had either to send cases for trial at Warwick fidence of the suitors in his court. It may be remembered or London, or perbaps had to send for settlement or arbitra. that about two months ago his judgment in Duncan y. North tion? A great many people bad felt that Birmingham should and South Wales Bank, which had been reversed by the be not only an assize town, but the centre of an assize disCourt of Appeal, was unanimously restored in the House

trict. He was glad to point out that the scheme agreed of Lords.

upon at Liverpool would, if carried out, give Birmingham more than had been anticipated in their most sanguine moments. It not only proposed that Birmingham should be

the centre for civil and criminal purposes, but that Birming. SOCIETIES.

ham should practically buve a resident judge and continuous

sittinge. He had always taken the greatest interest in the LAW ASSOCIATION.

question of assizes for Birmingham, but he had kaowo no

scheme so comprehensive, complete, and effective, as this At the usual monthly meeting of the directors, held at bronght forward by the Liverpool Society, and it should rethe ball of the Incorporated Law Society, Chan

ceive no heartier support than from the town of Birmingon Thursday, 3rd of February, the following being present, ham. viz., Mr. Desborough (obairman), and Messrs. Boodle Mr. SAUNDERS also expressed his approval of the scheme, Desborough, jon., Hedger, Sydney Smith, Styan, and and added that the resolutions passed at Liverpool had been A. B. Carpenter (secretary), a grant of £5 was made to a adopted at the conference of Associated Provincial Societies non-member, and the ordinary general business was in London, and would be submitted forth with to the Goveratransacted.

ment, in the hope that they would be taken into immediate consideration. Of course, the important question would

arise, that in Birmingham there were no courts in which the BIRMINGHAM LAW SOCIETY.

| assizes could be held. In this respect, they were in the hands The annual meeting of the Birmingham Law Society of the town council, but no doubt with such influential memwas held on the 28th uit., at the Library Room, Wellington | bers as Messrs. Johnson and Martineau this difficulty would passage, Bennett's-hill. Mr. J. Marigold, president of the receive consideration. Referring to the present imperfect society, occupied the chair, and among those present were means of educating law students in Birmingham, Mr. Messrs. W. S. Allen, C. F. Arnold, T. Assinder, S. Balden, | Saunders announced the proposed appointment of a reader jud., J. W. Browett, A. G. Buller, J. F. Butlin, A. Canning, for the elementary classes, and a lecturer for those more J. B. Carslake, J. Chirm, E. M. Coleman, H. D. Cromy advanced, in conjunction with the Council of the Incorporated too, J. E. Deakin, E. Docker, T. S. Eddowes (Sutton Cold. Law Society, the examination committee of which had defield), M. A. Fitter, T. A. Garland, A. Godlee, H. M. cided to report to the council in favour of a grant in aid of Goodman, E. J. Hayes (town clerk), T. Horton (hon. secre- the payment of the fees. tary), W. Horton, J. Jelf, G. J. Johnson, W. Johnson, | The report and statement of accounts were then adopted. E. ú. Lee, T. G. Lee, L. W. Lewis (Walsall), W. Lowe, The CHAIRMAN next proposed, " That this meeting tenders J. Marigold, T. Marlow (Walsall), T. Martineau, C. E. its hearty thanks and congratulations co Mr. Thomas Mathews, W. Morgan, H. New, C. E. Newey, H. Parish, Horton, the honarary secretary, on the occasion of the R. J. Parr, R. A. Pinsent, G. T. S. Plant, W. H. publication of the new catalogue of :he library, and hereby Powell, E. B. Rawlings, J. Rider, Joseph Rowlands, instructs the committee to take into their consideration in Jacob Rowlands, T. H: Russell, C. T. Saunders, S. R. what manner, agreeable to Mr. Horton himself, the society Shore, T. S. Smith, G. T. Smith, S. N. Solomon, and J. T. can record their grateful scose of the benefits conferred on Springthorpe.

the society, the profession, and the town, by his long-conThe report was taken as read.

tinued and successful labours in the increase, arrangements, Toe PRESIDENT, in moving its adoption, drew attention to and cataloguing the library.” its principal features. He remarked that the number of Mr. G. J. JOHNSON seconded the resolution, speaking in members showed satisfactory increase, and that it was also the highest terms of the services of Mr. Horton, who, he said, gratisying to see the exercise of the privilege of using the had made their library the finest out of London. The motion library by the articled clerks. The financial report was was cordially agreed to, and also satisfactory. Referring to the library, the president Mr. Horton, in expressing his acknowledgments, referred said too much praise could not be awarded to their to the assistance he had received in the compilation of the hon, secretary for the immense labour he had brought to subject-index from his partner, Mr. E. H. Lee. bear upon, and the extraordioary time he had given to, the Mr. J. E. DEAKIX moved as a recommendation to the comcompilation of the catalogue. The library was founded in mittee to consider whe:her some action should not be taken to 1832, when it consisted of 647 volumes ; in 1840, the num- enable solicitors to enforce the return of fees paid to counsel ber had increased to 900, in 1857 to 1,450, in 1865 to 1,903, in respect of the work undertaken, but not performed by in 1873 to 3,599, and at the present time contained 8,500. them. Parliament had not, during the past year, been able to effect Mr. T. G. LEE seconded the motion, but any changes in the law, and from the Irish stew at pre Mr. G. J. JOHNSON advised them not to take up the sent before the House of Commons it did not appear likely matter unless they were prepared to go to the root of the that there would be very much improvement or many new evil and urge the total revision of the existing understanding, aws during the present session. There was, however, pro- making arrangements between barristers and those by whom mised a Bankruptcy Bill, to which the President of the they were instructed of the nature of an ordinary contract, Board of Trade had promised to give his very great at with the usual responsibilities for non-fulfilment.

Upon the suggestion of the CHAIRMAN and other gentle centres of the High Court of Jaslice, with continuous men, who promised that the committee would take the sittings at soch centres, for the trial of all causes arisiog question into consideration, the notion was withdrawn. witbin the distriots attached to them.

The election of members upon the committee concluded 5. It is suggested tbat Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, the proceedings.

and Birmingham should be constituted local centres, with After the conclusion of the meeting a telegram was re. proper distriots allotted to them, and that at each local ceived from the Incorporaced Law Societs stating that the centre, subject to arrangements for reasonable vacations, gold medal prize had been awarded to Mr. George Francis and perhaps for occasional sittings for criminal business, & Huggins and Mr. Arthur Leslie Crockford, bracketted equal. judge of The High Court should be contingjusly engaged

in disposing of all civil actions arising within the district.

6. It is not contemplated or desired tbat jadges should The following are extraots froin the report of the com reside permanently at local centres. The rotation in mittee:

which they would attend, and the period during which the Members.-Your committee report a satisfactory progress rotation judge would remain at the local contre, are in the prosperity of the society, the number of members now matters which could best be arranged by the judges them. being 217 as against 206 for the year 1880.

selves with reference to their other engagements. Parliamentary.—The Bills introduced by the late Govern 7. All questions of law arising on the trial of any ment before the dissolution-viz., the settled Land Bill, action should be decided without delay at the local the Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill, and the centre by the judge before whom the action is tried. Solicitors' Remuneration Bill-were considered by your committee, but betore any action was determined upon Parlia. ment was dissolved. The measures were reintroduced into the House of Lords on the assembly of the new Parliament, but it soon became evident that there would be no legislation LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. with reference thereto in the then session.

Professional Remuneration. This question has received considerable attention from your committee, who are pre

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. pared to co-operate in any movement to give effect to the

FINAL EXAMINATIONS, 1880. principle of remuneration by conimission, believing that any

Special Prizes. injustice to the profession in the scale adopted would soon be

Reardon Prize.-To Charles Thwaites, who, from among Telieved. Bankruptcy.--The attention of your columittee was

the candidates during the year 1880, has shown himself best

acquainted with the theory, principles, and practice of the -directed to the Bill introduced by the late Government, but

law, and attained honorary distinction, the council have the measure was not taken up by the present Government

awarded to bim the prize founded by Miss Ellen Reardon, in in tbe late session. The legislation promised for the present session will at once be considered by your com

memory of the connection of her father, Mr. Daniel Reardon,

of London, with the legal profession. Mr. Thwaites served mittee.

his clerkship with Mr. Frederick Wm. Fisher, of Doncaster ; Administration of Justice.-On the request of the Liver.

and Messrs. Van Sandau & Camming, of London, and obpool Law Society your vice-president, Mr. Saunders, with

tained a prize iu June, 1880. Mr. Martineau, attended, as a deputation from your com

Timpron Martin Prize for candidates from Liveroool.mittee, at a conference at Liverpool upon this important sub.

To Walter Herbert Cow), who, from among the candiject, the law societies of Manchester and Newcastle-on

dates from Liverpool in the year 1880 passed the best Tyne being also represented. The following resolutions

exmination, and who attained honorary distinction, the vere adopted at this meeting, and the sane are to be taken

council have awarded the prize, consisting of a gold medal, into consideration at a further conferer ce of representatives

founded by Mr. Timpron Martin, of Liverpool. Mr. Cowl to a meeting of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, con.

served his clerkship with Mr. Arthur Edwin Cowl, of Liververed for the 22nd of January iostant :

pool and Great Yarmouth, and obtained a prize in June, 1. Tbe inadequacy of the present arrangements for the

1880. trial ot causes in the large centres of population has long

Atkinson Prize for candidates from Liverpool or Preston.been admitted. The causes of this state of things bave been

To Walter Herbert Cowl, who, from among the candidates fully stated on previous occasions, and it is unnecessary now

from Liverpool or Preston in the year 1880 has shown to do more than shortly to recapitulate them.

himself best acquainted with the law of real property and 2. The opportunities for the trial of causes are not suf

the practice of conveyancing, has otherwise passed a satis. ficiently numerous, and this leads to accumulation of business at the assizes now held. The time allowed at the aesizes

factory examioation, and has attained honorary distinctior, for disposing of the civil business is insufficient, and

the council have awarded the prize, consisting of a gold

medal, founded by Mr. John Atkinson, of Liverpool. Mr. this causes arrangements of the most inconvenient kind

Cowl served his clerkship with Mr. Arthur Edwin Cowl, of to be made for the dispatch of business. The trial of causes

Liverpool and Great Yarmouth, and obtained a prize in is unduly burried, and questions of law arising on trials, instead of being decided, as they ought to be, after argu

June, 1880.

Broderip Prize for real property and conveyancing ment, by the judge during the sitiing, are postponed for

(open to all candidates).-Charles Thwaites, having, among argument and decision in London at some subsequent

the candidates in the year 1980 shown bimself best ac period, thas greatly increasing the expenses. 3. The consequences to the public interested are that the

quainted with the law of real property and the practice of decisions of questions of great importance are ofter ooduly

conveyanciog, baving pasged a satisfactory examination, delayed ; that causes, if tried at all, are frequeotly disposed

and having attained honorary distinction, the council have

awarded to bim the priz', consisting of a gold medal, of under conditions of baste and pressure which are very

founded by Mr. Francis Broderip, of Lincoln's-inn. Mr. dosatisfactory ; tbat causes which both parties desire to

Thwaites served big clerkship with Mr. Frederick Wm. bave tried, and in the preparation of which for trial great

Fisher, of Doncaster; and Messrs. Van Saudau & Camming, trouble and expense have been idoarred, are, against their

| of London, and obtained a prize in June, 1880. wish, and under the alternative of being made remanets to

Scott Scholarship (open to all candidates). -Charles a sabsequent assize, either referred to arbitration, which

Thwaites being, in the opinion of the council, the candisimply means the waste of the money spent in preparing date best acquainted with the theory, principles, and prac. for trial, and the adoption of a method of decision almost

| tice of law, they have awarded to him the scholarship invariably tedions, costly, and distasteful to the parties con founded by Mr. Jobn Scoit, of Lincolo's-inn-fields, Lon, cerned, or compromise, equally distasteful to them, on | don. Mr. Thwaites served his clerkship with Mr. Frederick terms which might as well have been arranged before the Wm. Fisher, of Doncaster; and Messrs. Van Sandan & expense and trouble of getting up the case for trial had | Cumming, of London, and obtained a prize in June, 1880. • been incorred.

Birmingham Law Society's Prize for candidates from Bir4. For these grievances the post effectual remedy would mingham. --The examiners also reported that among the seem to be the adoption of the system advocated by the candidates from Birmingham in the year 1880 Mr. Arthur present Attorney General in the House of Commons, on Leslie Crockford and Mr. George Francis Huggins passed the 21st of Marob, 1879-yiz., the establishment of local l the best examination, and were of equal merit. Mr. Crock

« PreviousContinue »