Page images
PDF
EPUB

they cite this case in a subsequent page. This will

RAILWAY LAW IN ITALY. probably be held to be the law by the ultimate Court of

The Law of Italy RELATING TO CONCESSIONS, RAILWAYS, Appeal, for it is a clear result of the principles laid down in Attorney-General v. Brunning (8 W.R. 362, 8 H. L. C.

AND TRAMWAYS, EXPROPRIATION AND COMPANIES. Trans243). The judgment in that case ought, by the way,

lated into English and annotated by 0. W. WALLIS, to have been referred to by the authors, when they say,

Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & Sons. under the head of “Book Debts," that “in Moses It appears that the Italiaa Government are holding 9. Crafter (4 C. & P. 324) Lord Tenterden, C.J., ruled out inducements to capitalists, in the shape of subsidies that desperate and doubtful debts could not be included and concessions, with the view of encouraging the conin calculating the amount of probate duty, and that an struction of public works likely to develop the resources executor had a right to exercise his judgment fairly and

of the kingdom. For the benefit of English capitalists bona fide, whether a debt is doubtful or bad.” In Mr. Wallis gives a translation of the provisions of the Attorney-General v. Brunning it was intimated that Italian law relating to railways and tramways and exmere uncertainty as to the amount to be recovered is propriation, and of the Italian Code of Commerce relat. no excuse for omitting such amount from the affidavit. ing to partnerships and companies and associations. Tnder the head “Goodwill, stock-in-trade, farming We caunot pretend to judge as to the accuracy of the stock, and implements of husbandry," the authors point | translation, but references are given to the articles of out that the value at the date of grant of growing crops the original code, and the translation is clearly expressed. on land farmed by the deceased, and moneys received from the sale thereof before the date of grant, must not be omitted. It will be seen that the mode of treatment of the subject adopted by the authors is eminently prac

CORRESPONDENCE. tical, and the same remark may be made as to the whole book. Chapter 4 contains forms and regulations, and in an appendix the statutes and tables are given in

THE BRIGHTON MEETING. full.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir,-It is quite evident from the correspondence which “ COACHES.”

has appeared in your columns that there will be a large

attendance at the society's next provincial meeting at INTERMEDIATE LAW EXAMINATION MADE EASY: A COMPLETE

| Brighton, and it is unreasonable to expect the GUIDS TO SELF-PREPARATION IN STEPHEN'S COMMEX

members of the Brighton Society, however willing they TARIES. SECOND EDITION. By ALBERT GIBSON, Solici.

may be to incur the liability, to entertain at their own tor. Reeves & Turner,

expense all those who may be expected to be present. The author splits up Stephen into sections, apportion I do not quite gather in what way Mr. Munton proing & week or a fortnight to each. We thus learn that poses to give effect to the suggestion contained in his it takes twenty fortnights to go through the Commen letter, but I think the matter is of so much intertaries, provided the student can only give three hours a est to the profession generally that it is one which the day; if he can devote six hours a day the book council of the Incorporated Law Society might of their may be devoured in twenty weeks. Besides this, the own accord be invited to take up and consider. Mr. student who has swallowed his allowance for eight weeks Howlett is an official member of the council, and there (or four weeks, as the case may be) is advised, like the can be no difficulty in some member unofficially introboa constrictor, to devote a little time to digesting his ducing the subject to him, and ascertaining the form in meal. It takes two weeks to " revise” vol. 1 of Stephen, which it will be most acceptable to the Brighton Society or one week if six hours a day can be given to the for the matter to be brought under the notice of the process. Mr. Gibson gives a summary of the contents council. of the four volumes, and papers of questions.

Your own suggestion that the Sussex Society might consent to admit, as honorary members, those solicitors

practising in London who would wish to acknowledge the DIGEST OF THE QUESTIONS SET IN THE BAR AND SOLICITORS'

hospitality received by them from the provinces, is, no FINAL EXAMINATIONS FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS, &c., doubt, well worthy of consideration. In the first inWITH ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS. By Joseph A.

stance, however, I submit that the views of the SHEARWOOD, Barrister-at-Law. Reeves & Turner.

council should be ascertained, and then, subject to Mr. Shearwood gives the questions asked at the bar

what the council may propose to do, Mr. Munton would

probably not be unwilling, since he has affixed his signaand final examinations during the last ten years, arrang

ture to his letter, to promote a meeting of the members of ing the questions alphabetically, and stating also the

the society to consider the matter. No doubt, the counnumber of times each question has been asked ; and he

cil would gladly place one of the rooms belonging to the adds, in a separate (part of the book, answers to the

institution at his disposal for the purpose of holding a questions.

meeting.

I do not think the suggestion made by your corres. ROMAN LAW.

pondent“ G. R. D.,” whose initials are easily recognized, INTRODUCTION TO ROMAN LAW. By W. A. HUNTER, Bar

that each member attending the Brighton meeting should rister-at-Law, Professor of Jurisprudence, University

pay for his ticket of admission to the banquet, would College, London. W. Maxwell & Sons.

altogether meet the exigencies of the case. This sugges

tion was adopted, I believe, when the society held its We have delayed too long our notice of this excellent

provincial meeting at Oxford, but then the circumstances Little book. It provides exactly what the student is often of the meeting at Oxford are very different to what those in need of--a companion to the Institutes of Justinian, of the Brighton meeting will be. comparing the English law with the Roman law, and I am rather disposed to favour the view that the supplementing the defects of the Institutes. The book

council should take a bold step, and give effect to the is pleasantly written, and gives clearly and in a small

suggestion of “ Another Town Member," and make the compass information which it would otherwiso take the meeting next year at Brighton to a very great extent a student much labour to obtain. The author has, we meeting promoted by the town members, in co-operation think, been specially successful in dealing with the sub- , with the Sussex Society. Gect of testamentary succession.

I agree with him that it is unwise to attach too much importance to what I may term the hospitality and excursion character of these meetings. The primary object is, and ever must be, to meet, discuss, and exchange views written in the Times last month on the subject of Bells op matters of interest to the profession ; but, at the same at the burials of Nonconformists under the recent Act. time, after listening two days, in the somewhat warm If this be so, I should be obliged to you to state in your atmosphere of a crowded room, to a variety of different next number that the letter was not written by me, and matters, the entertainments which follow after the does not express my views. meetings are certainly a pleasant and agreeable change, The letter in question was signed W. P. W. Phillimore. and should not, therefore, be omitted.

These, though not my initials, are perhaps sufficiently Probably most of the members of the council have alike to account for the mistake which many people have seen the correspondence on this subject in your columns, made, and which has caused me much annoyance. and one of them will, I hope, see fit to take an early

WALTER G. F. PHILLIMORE. opportunity of ascertaining the views of his colleagues 4, Paper-buildings, Temple, Nov. 11. thereon. Until this step has been taken, it seems un- [Dr. Phillimore has been misinformed. We ascribed necessary for Mr. Munton, or anyone else, formally to the letter to “ a learned correspondent of the Times,” but move in the matter. It may be, however, that the did not in any way refer to Dr. Phillimore.-ED. S. J.] council would like some representation made to them, and if this should be the case, Mr. Munton could take an early opportunity of inviting to a meeting at the Law Institution those of the town members who have CASES OF THE WEEK. attended recent provincial meetings, and thus ascertain

PARTNERS-SHARING OF LOSSES—INSURANCE COMPANY how far any of the suggestions which have been made

2.made PARTICIPATING POLICY HOLDERS.-In & case of In re The will be likely to meet with the approval, if not of all the Albion Life Assurance Society, before the Court of Appeal on members of this society, at least of those who have been

the 3rd inst., the question arose whether the participating guests at the previous provincial meetings.

policy holders of an insurance company were liable to conI wish at once to enter my protest against“G. R. D.'s" | tribute to the payment of the debts of the company and the suggestion that the town members should invite the costs of the winding-up rateably with the shareholders, or provincial members to a meeting in London, assuming whether the liability must be thrown primarily on the tbat the meeting could be properly held in London, in shareholders, recourse being had to the policy holders only the month of July. At that period of the year profes

after the shareholders had been exhausted. It was admitted, sional and social engagements multiply too rapidly

and, indeed, it had been so decided by Fry, J., in Winstone's already, and I think it would be impossible for town

case (27 W. R. 752, L. R. 12 Ch. D. 289), that, by virtue of members to give anything like the time necessary to

the articles of association of the company, which provided that entertain their provincial brethren in July.

the holders of policies entitled to participate in profits should

be members of the company, they were liable as conIt has often occurred to me that it would be a great

tributories to the outside creditors of the company. The advantage if the society's annual meeting could

question was how the liability was to be borne as between be held at some other period of the year than themselves and the shareholders. The whole of the subJuly; and that, if it must be held in July, four scribed capital had been called up, some before the comor five o'clock in the afternoon would be a much mencement of the winding up, and the remainder afterwards. more convenient time than two o'clock. Most London The liability of the shareholders was unlimited, but the solicitors in July are pressed with business, and can ill policies issued by the company contained a proviso that they spare the time to attend a public meeting in the middle were to be satisfied only out of the funds and property of the of the day. unless their attendance is professionally company. The articles of association provided that interest required. This is how it has so often happened that the

he at the rate of six per cent. per annum should be paid to the annual meetings of the society have either practically

shareholders out of the profits on the amount for the time passed off as a matter of form, or been taken in hand

being paid up on their respective sbares. The capital was to

be a guarantoe fund, over and above the accumulations from by one or two speakers only (generally the same every

same every profits, but it was subject to be paid off, with the sanction of year) who hardly seem to care to deal seriously with the à general meeting, the shareholders receiving back the council's annual report, but rather appear to endeavour, | amount of their paid-op capital, with a bonus of fifty per by the exercise of some ingenuity, to amuse those cent., whenever the net amount of the profits standing to the present by describing nearly every conclusion to which credit of the assurance fund should be equal to double the the council may have come as being “lame and im. amount of the bonuses which would be thus payable to the potent." This may be witty and amusing at the time, shareholders. After this payment off of the capital, the but it is by no means satisfactory or worthy of the

company was to become a mutual association, the only society.

fund for the payment of the liabilities of the company In the multitude of counsellors it has been well said

being the assurance fund. This power to pay off the capital there is wisdom, and there is no doubt that out of the

had not been acted on before the commencement of the

winding up. In every third year there was to be & variety of suggestions which have been made to the

valuation made of the assets and liabilities of the company, council they will, if they give their attention to the and of the profits of the assurance fund, and the directors matter, be able to evolve a plan more or less satisfactory were to declare the amount which might be dealt with as the to all parties.

A LONDON SOLICITOR. profits of that fand. The amount of profits thus declared

was to be apportioned in this way: one-fourth among the A DISCLAIMER.

shareholders (if any) and the other three-fourths, or the

whole, if the capital should have been paid off, by way of [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

bonus among the holders of subsisting policies entitled to Sir,— With reference to the report of certain proceed- | participate in profits on which at least five years' premiums ings in the Common Pleas Division headed, as reported should have been paid in full, regard being had to the dates in the Times of yesterday's date, “In the Matter of of the policies, the ages of the lives assured, and other cirKisch, a Solicitor," we desire to draw your attention to cumstances. The bonus apportioned to any policy was to the fact that the gentleman therein referred to is not a

be added to the amount thereof, and to be payable therewith member of, neither has he any business in connection

in reversion, and was, in the meantime, to be retained and

applied as any other capital of the company, but power was with, our firm.

given to the directors to pay any policy holder, who should Kisch, Sox, & HANBURY.

give notice within a prescribed time, the then present value 3, Chancery-lane, W.C., Nov. 11.

of his bonus. It was contended on behalf of the share

holders that the holders of participating policies were liable BELLS AT BURIALS.

with them to contribute to the payment of the debts of the [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

company and the costs of the liquidation, in the proportion

of three-fourths to one-fourth, that being the proportion in Sir,--I bave been recently informed that you have, in which the profits were divisible between the policy holders one of your late numbers, attributed to me a letter and the shareholders. Malins, V.C., held (L. R. 15 Ch. D. 79) that the policy holders could not be called on to taken in evidence on the trial, on their being filed before a contribute until the shareholders had been exhausted, and day named, the plaintiff undertaking to produce the witthis decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, nesses for cross-examination at the trial. This order was M.R., and JAMES and COTTON, L.JJ). JESSEL, M.R., made upon an affidavit of the plaintiff's solicitor that, since admitted that in the case of an ordinary mercantile deed of the agreement to take the evidence by affidavit had been partnership, if there was no express provision as to the come to, he had ascertained that there were several witnesses bearing of losses by the partners, the fair inference would be whose evidence was necessary and material to support the that the losses were to be borne in the same proportion as the plaintiff's case, who declined to make affidavits. The names profits. But, he said, the question was really one of infer- of the persons thus refusing were not, however, stated. ence from the provisions of the deed. In the present case The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and JAMES and COTTON, the profits were not really to be divided in any definite pro- LJJ.) discharged the Vice-Chancellor's order. JESSEL, portions. The bonus to be given to the policy holders was M.R., thought that in the particular case there was reversionary-ie., was payable only out of the funds of the no jurisdiction to make the order, and that if there had company, if there should be funds when the policy should been jurisdiction, the order could not have been maintained. become payable, and it varied with the circumstances of After an agreement of the parties that the evidence each policy. It was, in truth, not a payment out of profits, should be taken by affidavit, tbe evidence could but a return of the excess of the premiums paid above the be taken in no other way at the trial. If, however, amount actually necessary to secure the sum assured. Look. it should afterwards appear that one of the parties had ing at all the provisions of the articles, no inference could be entered into the agreement in the mistaken belief that the drawn as to the division of the losses from the provision as to persons whose evidence he required would make affidavits, the division of profits, And, that being so, the only reason. he could be relieved from the consequences of his mistake able way of dividing the losses was to treat the shareholders by means of an application to the court. In cases of this as baying carried on the business. The only other way kind before his lordship the practice had been for the soliciwould be divide the losses per capita between sbareholders

tor of the party to make an affidavit that he believed when and policy holders, and this would be most absurd and un he entered into the agreement that his witnesses would just. It was not reasonable to suppose that, if the capital make affidavits, but that he had since ascertained that some should be insufficient, the policy holders were not only to of the witnesses, whose names he stated, refused to do lose their policies, but also to contribute to the payment of the 80. And then he asked that the witnesses in question company's debts.-SOLICITORS, V. J. Chamberlain ; Miller, might be examined orally at the trial, or, at the option of Smith, ý Bell; G. Blagden.

the other party, that all the evidence might be taken orally; and his lordsbip had made orders of that nature. But no

such application was made in the present case. Rule 4 of EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR-ORD. 45, R. 1. order 37 was expressed in general terms, but it was almost In a case of The Republic of Costa Rica v. Strousberg, copied from section 4 of the Act 1 Will. 4, c. 22. The words before the Court of Appeal on the 4th ingt., a question were, “ The court may, in any cause or matter where it sball arose as to the extent of the power of examining a appear necessary for the purposes of justice, make any order judgment debtor " as to whether any and wbat debts are for the examination upon oath before any officer of the owing to him," which is conferred by rule 1 of order 45. court, or any other person or persons, and at

The plaintiffs had recovered judgment against the de any place, of any witness or person.” It could fendant for a large sum of money, and they then obtained not be necessary for the purposes of justice that a: an order under rule 1 that he should attend for examina.

witness who could attend at the irial should be examined tion. He attended accordingly, but declined to answer

before the trial, and accordingly section 4 bad always been many of the questions which were put to him, insisting that

applied to cases where a witness was going abroad before the he was only bound to say whether any debts were owing

trial, or where, from illness, or old age, or other similar reason, to him and what they were. He said that the plaintiffs

it was probable that he would be unable to attend at the trial. owed him an amount exceeding their claim against him,

In such cases an order would be made for the witness to and he refused to give any further information, The

attend and be examined de bene esse, both parties attending questions pot to him were of this patare—whether he bad

the examination, but the order would only be made upon banking account with any banker other than some

evidence of the facts. His lordship did not wish to confine specified bankers; whether he was carrying on any

rule 4 to the cases he had mentioned. But the case must be business; whether he bad any pending contracts; whether

one in which it was necessary for the purposes of justice that any money was due to him under any pending contracts ;

the order should be made. It could not be necessary for whether any rent was due to him. All these questions he

those purposes that there should be an ex parte examination, refused to answer, and Malins, V.O., held that he was

Therefore, even if there was jurisdiction to make the order, it entitled to do so. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R.,

was not a proper one to have made. Moreover, the order and JAMES and COTTON, L.JJ.) held that the defendant

ought to have stated the names of the witnesses who were to

be examined. As it stood, it would enable the plaintiff to was bound to answer the questions, and any other similar questions which were fairly pertinent to the discovery of

summon all the defendant's witnesses and examine them debts dae to him. JESSEL, M.P., thought that the role

| ex parte before the trial, wbich would be very unjust.

SOLICITORS, Janson, Cobb, f Pearson ; J. W. Sykes, had the same meaning as tbe orders which had constantly been made under section 60 of the Common Law Procedore Act, 1854-viz., that the debtor should be examined DISCOVERY-INTERROGATORIES-ORDER 31.-On the 4th touching or concerning any debts owing to bim. JAMES, inst., the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M,R., and JADES LJ., said that the examination was intended to be a cross- and COTTON, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision of Bacon, V.C., examination of the severest kind.-SOLICITORS, Freshfields in a case of Benbow v. Low (28 W. R. 891). The quesWilliams ; Lee, Houseman & Brodie.

tion was whether the plaintiffs were bound to answer an interrogatory which had been delivered to them by the

defendants. The plaintiffs and the defendants were rival AGREEMENT TO TAKE EVIDENCE BY AFFIDAVIT-REFU soap manufacturers. The plaiotiffs alleged that they had for SAL OF WITNESS TO MAKE AFFIDAVIT-ORD. 37, K. 4.- many years used labels bearing a trade-mark very similar In a case of Warner v, Mosses, before the Court of Appeal to that of the defendants. The defendants denied this, on tbe 4th inst., the question arose what is the proper course and said that the plaintiffs had only recently commenced of procedure when, after an agreement has been come to to use such labels. The defendants had obtained an inbetween the parties to an action that the evidence shall be junction in America restraining the plaintiffs from using taken by affidavit, some of the persons whose evidence is these labels, and the plaintiffs brought this action claimintended to be relied upon by one of the parties, refuse to ing a declaration that they were entitled to use the labels make affidavits. In the present case, under such a state of in question for their soap, and an injunction to restrain circumstances, Bacon, V.C., on the application of the the defendants from interfering with their manufacture, plaintiff, made an order that he should be at liberty and damages. The defendants by a counter-claim askəd to examine witnesses ex parte touching the matters in ques- for an injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from using tion in the action, and appointed a special examiner for the labels bearing a trade-mark only colonrably differing purpose. And it was further ordered that the plaintiff from that of the defendants, and an account of all soap should be at liberty to give all or any of the depositions thus I sold by the plaintiffs as and for soap of the defend.

[ocr errors]

ants, and of the profits made thereby, and payment of the LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY - WINDING UP — POLICY amount of such profits. The defendants delivered inter HolderCREDITOR-DISCHARGING FIAT - LIFE ASSURrogatories to the plaintiffs, one of which required the ANCE COMPANIES ACT, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 61), s. 21.plaintiffs to set forth the respective quantities of soap sold In a case of In re Great Britain Mutual Life Assurance by them in connection with their labels from 1862 to 1879 Society, before the Master of the Rolls on the 6th ingt., inclusive, distinguishing the quantities sold in each of a motion was made by the society that a fiat on a petition those years. The plaintiffs declined to answer this inter | for the winding up of the society might be struck out, and rogatory, on the ground that the accounts asked for formed that the petition might be referred to chambərs according part of the relief sought by the counter-claim, and that to the mode pointed out in section 21 of the Life Assurance the defendants were not entitled to those accounts until Companies Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 61). By that they had obtained judgment in their favour on the section the court may order the winding up of any counter-claim, that the accounts were not necessary for the company in accordance with the Companies Act, 1862, on trial of the action, and the interrogatory not material at the application of one or more policy holders or sharethe present stage of the action. Bacon, V.C., held that

bolders, apon its being proved to the satisfaction of the the plaintiffs were not bound to answer this interrogatory,

court that the company is insolvent." The section then and the Court of Appeal affirmed his decision. The appellants relied mainly upon the decision of the Court of Appeal

| provides how the josolvency is to be ascertained ; for in Saunders v.Jones (26 W.R. 266, L. R.7 Ch.D.435). JESSEL,

security for costs, and that the petition is not to be heard M.R., said that the rule that one party to an action was not

until a prima facie case of solvency is to be ascertained. entitled, under the name of discovery, to obtain the par

It has been the practice with petitions under the section

to mark them with a special fiat ordering them to ticulars and details of the evidence of the other party was of

be referred extreme importance in the conduct of litigation, and ought to

to the judge in chambers to inquire be strictly observed. The object of it was to guard against

whether a prima facie case of insolvency within the that which might be done by dishonest litigants. On the

meaning of section 21 is establisbed, and to consider other hand there was a rule that full discovery of the nature of

the security for costs to be given ; and that the the case made by, and of the written documents in the posses

result should be certified to the court. The petitioner was the sion of, his opponent must be given to each side. What the

holder of a policy in the society on the life of one Popham, defendants were really asking was to see the details of the

who died in April, 1879; the claim was disputed by the society, plaintiffs' evidence. If a party was surprised at the trial by

and an action brought upon the policy in June, 1880, and the evidence given by his opponent, he could either apply to

notice of trial given in July, 1880. On the 27th of October the judge to adjourn the trial, or move for a new trial on the

the company's solicitors wrote to the petitioner offering ground of surprise. As his lordship understood Saunders v.

terms of compromise of the action, to which her solicitors Jones, the principal point of the decision was this: that the

replied that they would consult their client on the matter. plaintiff would have been entitled in a common law action

On the same day, without any further communication with to particulars of the misconduct alleged against him, and

the society, the petitioner presented a petition under the that in such a case the practice of the Court of Chancery

Companies Act, 1862, for the winding up of the society, was to allow those particulars to be obtained by means of

and the petition was advertised in the usual way under interrogotories, and that there was no reason for departing

that Act. The grounds of the petition were the insolvency from that practice. The other point in that case was this:

of the society, and also that no extraordinary meeting had that the court had a discretion to require a defendant to

been called pursuant to their deed of settlement for the answer as to the result of an account before the trial. In

consideration of the petitioner's claim. The petition had Saunders v. Jones the judge of first instance had required

| not yet been heard, and the above motion was now brought, this to be done, and the Court of Appeal refused to interfere on the ground that the petition was not presented bond fide, with the exercise of his discretion, and, moreover, approved and further that the practice under the Life Assurance of what he had done.-SOLICITORS, C. E. Withall; Lucas Companies Act should have been followed. JESSEL, M.R., & Son,

was of opinion that the construction of the 21st section of

the above Act did not admit of doubt, and that, according COMPROMISE — INFANT8 - JURISDICTION.-In a case of to the literal interpretation of the section, the petitioner In re Birchall, before the Court of Appeal on the 5th inst., was a “ policy holder.” That being so, the petitioner had the question arose whether the court has jurisdiction to order not the ordinary right of presenting a petition as a creditor a compromise to be carried into effect as beneficial to infants, under the Companies Act, and she ought to have followed when it is opposed by their guardian and by their legal advisers. the practice ander the Life Assurance Companies Act. The action was brought for the administration of the estate of The motion must, therefore, be allowed with costs.a testator, and in it a claim was made by the testator's widow SOLICITORS, Prideaux & Son; Longcroft & Myers. to some property which he had bequeathed on trast for two infants, on the ground that it represented property of hers, LEASE-COVENANT-BREACH—“NUISANCE OR Annoywhich he had not reduced into possession, and of which she ANCE"-SANATORIUM-INJUNCTION.-In a case of Watson v. alleged that he was a trustee for her. When the matter | Leamington College (Limited), also before the Master of the came before Malins, V.C., he suggested that the widow Rolls on the 6th inst., a motion was made to restrain the should take a part of the property in dispute, and that she defendants from using a house and premises at Leamington should relinquish her claim to the remainder of it. The as a sanatorium ic breach of a covenant in a lease of the guardian of the infants objected to this compromise, and property not to carry on any business or trade on the their counsel refused to consent to it. But the Vice premises, or do anything which should be a nuisance or Chancellor, in spite of their opposition, referred it to annoyance to the neighbourhood. The defendants intended chambers to inquire whether the compromise would be for to use the property for the purpose of accommodating six the benefit of the infants, and he afterwards approved of it, | boys in connection with their college, and who required and ordered that it should be carried into effect. The Court temporary removal. It was argued by the plaintiff that a of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and JAMES and Cotton, L.JJ.) house used for the purpose of locating boys, who might be held that there was no jurisdiction to make such an order. suffering from fever or any other infectious disease, would be an JESSEL, M. R., said that neither he nor the Lords Justices had annoyance within the above covenant. JeśSEL, M.R., said, ever heard of such a course being adopted before. The court that in his opinion, the covenants were separable, and there was had jurisdiction to approve of a compromise on behalf of not only the covenant not to carry on any trade or business, infants, but it could not force a compromise upon them but also the separate covenant not to do anything which contrary to the opinion of their legal advisers. If a next could be a nuisance or annoyance to the neighbourhood. He friend or guardian was refusing his assent to a compromise, was of opinion that having six boys in a sanatoriam who which was evidently for the benefit of infants, proceed 1 were affected with fever or other infectious diseases, must, of ings migh: be taken to remove him, His own practice necessity, be an annoyance to the neighbours if it was not a was, before approving of a compromise on behalf of | nuisance. It perhaps might be difficult to appreciate the an infant, to require that it should be assented to difference between the meaning of the words nuisance and by the next friend or guardian, and also that the nfant's annoyance, but as both were used, it was evident that the solicitor should depose that he considered the compromise to word annoyance was intended to mean something less than be for his benefit, and that his counsel should give an opinion nuisance. As he considered the sanatorium would be an to the same effect.-SOLICITORS, Ridsdale, Craddock, & Co.; annoyance to the neighbours, he should grant the injunction Gregory, Rowcliffes, f Co.

asked for.-SOLICITORS, Field & Co.; Hunt g Son,

[ocr errors]

PRACTICE-DISMISSED ACTION-EXTENSION OF TIME FOR | parte Gibbs, In re Webb (L. R. 10 Cb.), in which, at p. 384, APPEALING AGAINST Master's ORDER.-Carter v. Stubbs, Mellish, L.J., said, “But if from some accident or some wbich came before the Common Pleas Division on Novem mistake on the part of the debtor, no valid resolution has or ber 4, was a case in which there were three appeals from could be passed, then it appears to me that, fairly cnpsiderthree orders made at chambers under somewhat peculiar ing the Act (though it is true there is neither rule nor sec. circumstances. The defendant in the action administered tion ordering it), a fresh meeting may be held.” interrogatories to the plaintiff, but the latter not having Mr. REGISTRAR Pepys. —Was there any opposition to the answered them, Master Francis made an order at chambers resolution ? dismissing the plaintiff's action unless he filed answers to Pollock.-By one creditor. the interrogatories within seven days. This order, however, Mr. REGISTRAR PEPYS.-It does not appear that the was not strictly complied with, for the plaintiff did not file dissenting creditor bas received any notice of this applicahis answers until the eighth day. The defendant thereupon | tion. Before I make any order for a new meeting, I think contended that the aetion was dead and could not be revived, you must give notice to him. The application may be rethe importance to him of maintaining this view being that, newed. supposing the action to have abated, and a fresh action to Solicitors, Angell, Imbert Terry, & Page. be necessary, the Statute of Limitations had intervened and barred the greater portion of his claim. On the 9th of July last, however, Master Gordon, on the application of the

SOLICITORS' CASES. * plaintiff, made'an order rescinding the order of Master Francis, and thereby restoring the plaintiff's action. The defendant

COMYON Pleas Division: appealed against this order, and on the appeal coming on (Sittings in Banc before LINDLEY and LOPES, JJ.) before Hawkins, J., at chambers, on the 20th of July, he

Nov. 4.-Re A Solicitor. adjourned the appeal to the 4th of November, making, however, at the instance of the plaintiff, two orders in his

This was an application for a role calling on a solicitor to favour; one extending the time for appealing against the

show cause why he should not answer certain affidavits, or be order of Master Francis dismissing the action, and the other

struck off the rolls. substitating fourteen days for the seven days withia which,

In compliance with the instructions of a Mr. Savil, the ander Master Francis' order, the interrogatories should have

solicitor commenced an action against one Hardy for the rebeen answered. All three appeals now came on before the

covery of £109 9s, 6d. Ultimately, Hardy agreed to pay the court. On behalf of the defendant it was urged that the

debt by iostalments through the solicitor, who received the action became dead owing solely to the neglect of the plain

money but failed to pay it over to Mr. Savil, although repeated tiff to file his answers within the given time, and that the

applications were made to him for it. Subsequently, the solici. plaintiff was not entitled to an extension of time, and that

tor gave a promissory note for the amount, but it was disord. 57, 1. 6, did not apply to a case like the present, where

honoured at maturity, and as no settlement could be obtained, the defendant bad in no way contributed to the plaintiff's

these proceedings were instituted. mistake. The plaintiff's contention was that, on the authority i

The Court granted a role nisi. of Burke v. Rooney (27 W. R. 915), he was entitled to the

Nov. 4.-Rea Solicitor. indulgence asked. The court (LINDLEY and Lopes, JJ.), decided that the order of Master Gordon must be set aside,

This was a motion for an attachment against a solicitor. and the orders of Hawkins, J., confirmed.

English Harrison stated that in the course of 1877 and

They thought that the words of ord. 57, r. 6, were large enough to permit

1878 the solicitor acted for a Mr. Genning, who, on of the plaintiff's time being extended.-SOLICITORS, Hunter,

the completion of the business, obtained an order, dated Gwatkin, & Haynes; Wild, Barber, & Brown.

the 30th of July, for the solicitor to deliver his bill of costs, and to give credit for certain sums of money received by him. On the 14th of January, 1880, a peremptory

order was made to the same effect, but both these orders had CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY

been disregarded, except the delivery of a small bill REGISTRARS.

relating to certain liquidation proceedings which formed

only a part of the whole. Up to the time of making this BEFORE MR. REGISTRAR Pepys.

application, no account of the money in the solicitor's Nov.9.-Ec parte Vendrell, Re Ramos and Vendrell. hands had been rendered, nor had the whole bill been deNotice of an application for a new first meeting of creditors

livered. under a liquidation petition should be given to a creditor who

R. Vaughan Williams, for the solicitor, stated that the has dissented from the resolution proposed at the first meet client had formerly filed a petition for the liquidation of his ing.

affairs, and he then returned his solicitor as a creditor for a This was an application on behalf of Firmin Vendrell, one large sum. A composition of sixpence in the pound wag acof the debtors, for leave to summon a new first meeting of | cepted and received, and what the client was asking was really creditors under his separate estate.

the items of a bill which the solicitor believed was discharged On the 26th of July last, the debtors, Messrs. Ramos and by the payment of sixpence in the pound, and he therefore Vendrell, presented a petition for liquidation by arrange

contended that the bill should notinclude matters concerning ment or composition with their creditors. At the first meet- which advantage had been taken of the Bankruptcy Act, ing of the creditors of the joint estate, a resolution was passed 1869. by which the creditors accepted a composition of one | Lopes, J.-But what right had the solicitor to disobey shilling and sixpence in the pound, and the amount had | the orders ? since been paid, the resolution being duly registered. At R. V. Williams.-If the case is to be decided on its merits, the first meeting under the separate estate of F. Vendrell, I have a complete answer; if it is not, I make these objecthe creditors accepted the like composition, but, upon thé | tions:-1. That there has been no personal service of the latter resolution being presented for registration, it was | order on the solicitor, nor was the original shown to him at ascertained that in consequence of the omission to give | the time of service as it should have been. 2. Before a notice to one of the creditors (Mr. Chainbers), the necessary

motion for an attachment is made, the person sought to be majority bad not been obtained.

attached should be served with copies of affidavits, and that The debt of Mr. Chambers, which amounted to £102, had | has not been done in this case. been incurred by the wife of the debtor Vendrell in reference English Harrison. I shall submit that, when I appeared to a loan of a larger amount made to her for the purpose of ex parte, I had to show that the order had come to the carrying on a lodging house, which she conducted as a knowledge of the solicitor, and I could not do that withont separate business free from tbe control or interference of her showing that he received it. If he received it that is busband. Vendrell stated that he had executed a bill of sofficient. sale, joiotly with his wife, upon a portion of her separate R. V. Williams.- No, there must be personal service. property as security for the advance. No notice had been The order is to give effect to 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, which given to Chambers of the meeting-Vendrell alleging that deals with the taxation and delivery of solisitors' bille. the omission arose through ignorance-and he also stated | The object of delivery is that a bill may be taxed; the bill that he was informed he had joined in a covenant to repay | must therefore be taxable, which the one asked for is the amount of the loan.

Edward Pollock, in support of the application, cited Ex * Reported by W. Blew, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

« PreviousContinue »