« PreviousContinue »
which could deprive the creditor of his rights. Cotton, directed all costs to be taxed by the registrars. That was, L.J., said that the mere fact that the creditor did not say at however, only a power to regulate the proceedings in their the meeting that he intended to exercise his legal right was own courts, and that enactment did not repeal the previous not an acquiescence in the debtor's statement of affairs, power given to tax county court costs in the High Court. which did not mention that he had that right. He bad in He sbould, therefore, direct an order of course to issue.no way misled the other creditors or held out to them that SOLICITORS, Pritchard, Englefield, & Co. the had no security for his debt. -SOLICITORS, Bellamy, Strong, d. Co.; C. T. Foster,
Practice-Costs-ORDER OF COURSE-SPECIAL ORDER
--MONEY IN HANDS OF SOLICITOR OVER TWELVE YEARSRAILWAY COMPANY_TRAFFIC AGREEMENT-REFERENCE SOLICITORS Act, 1843, s. 37.-In a case of Re Horrex, also TO SINGLE ARBITRATOR — JURISDICTION OF RAILWAY before the Master of the Rolls on the 15th inst., a motion was COMMISSIONERS TO DECIDE QUESTIONS IN DIFFERENCE-IN. made to commit the solicitor for not obeying an order of « JUNCTION - PROHIBITION.- In a case of Great Western course, and a cross-motion was made by the solicitor to dis. Railway Company v. Waterford and Limerick Railway charge the order of course. It appeared that the solicitor, in Company, before the Master of the Rolls on the 14th inst., 1868, had received some purchase-money for his client, a motion was made to restrain the defendants from proceeding amounting to over £100, that he had subsequently done upon an application they had made to the Railway Com. business for her in three separate matters, and had ever since missioners to arbitrate upon certain points in difference be retained the whole amount without rendering any account or tween the two companies under an agreemect for the bill of costs. There was a conflict as to whether any applicainterchange of traffic, entered into in April, 1872, in pursu. tion had been made to him for an account. The client ance of a special Act. By the agreement in question, recently obtained a common order to tax without mentioning the plaintiffs contended that all matters in dispute were the fact that the money had been in the solicitor's hands to be referred to a single arbitrator, and that the jurisdiction | for over twelve years, or that no bill had been delivered. of the Railway Commissioners was thereby excluded. JES JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion, on the authority of Re HindSEL, M.R., was of opinion that he onght not to grant an in marsh (1 Dr. & Sm. 129), and IVatson v. Woodman (L. R. 20 junction to restrain persons proceeding to arbitration, on the Eq. 721), that the solicitor did not hold the moneys in a ground of want of jurisdiction in the arbitrators. If the fiduciary position, and that the Statute of Limitations would arbitrators had no authority to act, then their award would run in his favour. He was also of opinion that the order of be invalid, and that objection could be taken at a later course was improperly obtained, the petition not having stage, when it became necessary to enforce the award, or a disclosed the fact that the money was so long owing, and prohibition could be issued against the Railway Commis- therefore that it must be discharged. He said that the motion sioners. He did not, therefore, think an injunction was the to comunit must, of course, also fail. As, however, he strongly proper remedy. He accordingly refused the motion, and disapproved the conduct of the solicitor, whose duty, he said, made the costs costs in the action. As, however, he was to have handed over the money to his client immediately considered there was a serious question to be tried as to the on receiving it, he discharged the order of course, without jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners, he gave the costs, and he also declined to give the solicitor any costs of plaintiffs leave to amend their writ and ask for a prohibition, the motion to commit.-SOLICITORS, Parkers : C. P. Pritchand he gave them a rnle nisi for a prohibition.-SOLICITORS, ' ard & Marshall. Nelson, Terrell f Atkinson.
TRADE-MARK-RECTIFICATION OF REGISTER-DEVOLUPRACTICE - COUNTY COURT PLAINT - SOLICITOR AND | TION OF TITLE-LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE-TRADECLIENT-COSTS — TAXATIONIN High COURT OR COUNTY MARKS Act, 1875-TRADE-MARKS RULES.-In a case of Re COURT – SOLICITORS Act, 1843, s. 37 — COUNTY COURT Farina's Trade-mark, also before the Master of the Rolls on ACT, 1856, ss. 33–36-County Court Act, 1875, s. 8. the 15th inst., a motion was inade for the rectification of the -lo & case of Re Worth, before the Master of the register of trade-marks under the following circumstances, Rolle, on the 15th inst., an application was made to | It appeared that a trade-mark belonging to a German firm the Master of the Rolls for his directions as to whether was entered on the register as the property of one of the an order of course for taxation should issue in the High firm oply, although in his application that member of the Court under the following circumstances : - Worth had firm stated that he made the applicatin on behalf of his acted as the solicitor of ore Kershaw in an administra- firm, to whom the mark really belonged. The member of tion action of an estate worth more than £20 in the county | the firm was now dead, and it was desired to rectify the court of Saddleworth, in Yorkshire. Kershaw had pre- register by inserting the present firm as the proprietors of sented a petition of course for the taxation of his solicitor the trado-mark. JESSEL, M.R., said he did not see his way and client costs in the county court to the High Court, and to rectify the register in the way suggested, but if a legal the question was whether that court had jurisdiction or personal representative of the member of the firm in whose whether the county court had not exclusive jurisdiction in name the mark was entered were constituted in England, be the matter. By the Solicitors Act, 1843, s. 37, the Chancery thought he could then, on an assignment by him to the Division inay now tax any bill “in case the business con firm, enter their names as assignees under the Trade-Mark tained in such bill shall have been transacted in the High Rules 25 and 26. It would only be necessary to take out a Court of Chancery or any other court of equity.” By the representation limited to the trust interest in the mark, and County Courts Act, 1856, e. 35, as to claims above £20, the the application would stand over for that purpose.-SOLICIregistrar, on the application of either solicitor or client, may TORS," ‘Potter d: Sandford ; Soli.itor to Registrar of Tradetax the solicitor and client costs. By section 36 costs for | marks. claims under £20 can only be allowed according to section 91 of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, and extra costs on the written certificate of the registrar. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion PRACTICE-JURISDICTION-LA.CASTER PALATINE COURT that under the Solicitors Act, 1843, s. 37, solicitor and -VACANCY IN OFFICE OF VICE-CHANCELLOR - HIGH client costs in any court of equity, which this county court COURT OF JUSTICE.-An application was made on the 10th was, could be taxed by a judge of the Higb Court, and that inst., before Vice-Chancellor Hall in an action of white v. there was nothing to restrict that jurisdiction, which was Jones, wbich involved the question of the jurisdiction of the confirmed by the Judicature Act. The only question was Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in relation whether that jurisdiction was cut down by the County Court to the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of LancasAct, 1856, s.35, which gave the registrar jurisdiction to tax ter. Another action of White v. Jones in the Palatine Court the solicitor and client costs on all claims for more bad been dismissed with costs. Thoge costs, which were than £20 ; but there was nothing to oust the jurisdic taxed at £714 11s. 7d., not having been paid, a writ of elegit tion of the High Court as to those claims, although as to was issued in the action, under which the sheriff took claims ander £20 they must apparently be taxed in the possession of the goods and chattels at the residence of the county court. There was a power conferred upon the plaintiff. The plaintiffs in the present action, being the county court judges by the County Court Act, 1875, s. 8, trustees of the marriage settlement of the plaintiff in the and the County Courts Act, 1856, to frame rnles for the regu. original action, claimed that certain of the goods were sublation of the practice of their own courts, and under that Iject to the settlement, and accordingly issued a writ out of power they had, by ord. 36, r. 1, of the rules of 1875, the Liverpool District Registry of the Chancery Division for an injunction to restrain the defendants in the first action, Hannex, P., said that he was not called upon to construe and the sheriff, from proceeding under the writ of elegit, so the will. The case was governed by Allen v. Maddock 17 far as concerned certain furniture subject to the settlement. W. R. 825, 11 Moo, P. C. 427), where it was held that the It was in dispute as to what goods were settled. An interim identification must be a question of evidence. There must injunction had been granted by Vice-Chancellor Hall on be an affidavit that no other will of the deceased was known February 5, and the present application was, by motion upon to be in existence at the date of the codicil, and upon that notice, for a continuance of that order until the trial of the ac. | assumption he should hold that the will was sufficiently tion. An objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the court, identified by the codicil, and must be admitted to probate which was answered by the contention that, inasmuch as, at therewith.-SOLICITORS, Jameson ; Cree f Son. the time when ike interim order was applied for, no appoint. ment had been made to the then vacant office of ViceChancellor of the Duchy, the plaintiffs were, thereföre,
CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY compelled to come to the Chancery Division in the
REGISTRARS. emergency. His lordship held that upon the point of jurisdiction the application must fuil. Had he sufficiently
| (Before MR. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judg.) koown the circumstances, he should never have granted the
Feb. 9.-E.c parte Lord, Re Cliff. interim injunction. There must be means of trying the dis In February, 1879, C. presented a petition for the liquidation puted ownership in the Lancaster Court, and, without saying | of his affairs, under which the court appointed a receiver and whether an application should have been made under the manager. At the first meeting under the petition the proceedcircumstances to the Chancellor of the Duchy or to the ings fell to the ground, no resolution being passed either for Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court, it was sufficient to
liquidation or composition. The receiver and manager did not decide that he did not himself, by reason of the vacancy
apply to the court for his discharge. existing, acquire the jurisdiction under which he was now
in January, 1880, C. was adjudicated a bankrupt.
Held, that he receiver and manager under the liquidation asked to act.-Solicitors, W. W. Wynne & Sons, for
petition was not entitled to be paid the amount of his charges in Forshaw & Hawkins, Liverpool; Pritchard, Engle field, & priority to the other creditors of C., either under rule 292 or Co., for Mather, Liverpool.
upon any other ground.
This was an application on behalf of John Lord, the
trustee under the bankruptcy of Ernest Richard Cliff, før PROOF IN BANKRUPTCY-PARTNERS—CAPITAL OF De a declaration that George Monk, the receiver and manager CEASED PARTNER RETAINED IN BUSINESS-PROOF BY PER. appointed under a petition for liquidation presented by the SONAL REPRESENTATIVE.-In a case of Ex parte Blythe, bankrapt, was not entitled to be paid the balance claimed before the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy on the 7th inst., the by him, or any part thereof, in priority to the other question arose whetber the administratrix of a deceased creditors of the bankrupt; and that the trastee might be partner was entitled to prove in the liquidation of the sur- at liberty to treat Monk as an ordinary creditor for such viving partners in respect of the deceased partner's share of
amount as he could legally prove to be due to him from the the capital of the firm, wbich had been retained by the sur- bankrupt. viving partners in the business without any authority from On the 19th of February, 1879, the bankrupt, who then him to do so, the business having been carried on without
carried on business as a grocer and wine merobant, preany articles of partnership. When the proof was tendered
sented a petition for liquidation under the provisions of the there were some debts of the old partnership of the three still
Bankruptoy Aot, and George Monk was appointed receiver remaining unpaid. It was contended in support of the proof
and manager of the estate and business. that the surviving partners had committed a breach of trust
At the first meeting the creditors failed to pass any in retaining the deceased partner's share of the capital in the
resolution either for liquidation or composition, and, on the business, and tha:, consequently, on the authority of Ex parte |
| 19th of January, 1880, E. R. Cliff was adjudicated a backWestcott (22 W. R. 813, L. R. 9 Ch. 626), the ordinary rule that a partner, or, as laid down in Nanson v. Gordon (24
rapt, the aot of bankruptcy being the non-compliance with W. R. 740, L. R. 1 App Cas. 195), the representative of a
the terms of a debtor's sommons issped by one of the
creditors. deceased partner, cannot prove in bankruptcy in competition with that partner's creditors, did not apply. BACON, C.J.,
The trustee, upon his appointment, applied to the re. however, held that the case was governed by Nanson v.
spondent to furnish him with an account as receiver and Gordon, which, he said, was in all respects distinctly applic
manager, and, after some correspondence, he rendered able. There being creditors of the old firm still unpaid, the
three accounts by which be claimed to be entitled to the deceased partner, bad he been alive, could not have proved in
som of £95 145. 40, in full, in priority to the other credicompetition with them, and his representative could stand in
torg. The respondent bad never been discharged by order no better position. Ex parte IVestcott did not copilict with
from his office of receiver and manager, por bad he made this. There a surviving partner had laid hold of assets of the
any application for that purpose. deceased partner wbich were not part of the joint estate, and
E. Č. Willis, for the trustee. It is submitted that the had employed them in the business, and bad thus committed
respondent is not, under the circumstances, entitled to a devastavit, in respect of which a proof was allowed on behalf
priority, and that the trastee may treat him as an ordinary of the separate estate of the deceased partner. That had no
creditor. The petition for liquidation having been filed 80 application to the present case.—SOLICITORS, Last & Sons ;
long since as February, 1879, and the bankruptoy occurring Sharpe, Parkers, & Co.
in January, 1880, it is impossible to say that the liquidation proceedings were “ pending" so as to entitle the re
spondent to payment of his charges in full: Ex parte PROBATE-- MARRIED WOMAN-WILL DURING COVERTURE Jeffery, Re Hawes (L. R. 17 Eq. 61, and upon appeal, 22 -CODICIL DURING WIDOWHOOD--INCORPORATION-IDENTI. W. R. 287, L. R. 9 Cb. 144); Rule 282. FICATION. -- In the Probate and Admiralty Division, on R. V. Williams, for the respondent. The debtor, by filing the 15th inst., an application was made (In the Goods his petition for liquidation, committed an act of bankruptcy, of Heathcote) for probate of a will and codicil under of which the creditors might have taken advantage, and the the following circumstances:-A married woman, having proceedings were pending at the date of adjudication. There a power of appointment under her marriage settlement, exe. was nothing to prevent the creditors having the benefit of culed a will, which did not purport to have been made in the appointment of the receiver and manager. The adjudica. pursuance of any power. After her busband's death sbe tion has relation back to any act of bankruptcy committed executed a codicil which began with the words, “ This is a within twelve months. Ex parte Jeffery is really in favour codicil to the last will and testament of me, Sophia Matilda of the respondent. In that case Mellisb, L.J., says, “ The Heathcote,” &c., but which contained no appointment of an object of the rule was that solicitors might know that if executor, and no disposition of the residue. Both the will they acted properly they would get their costs of a liquidaand the codicil were holograph, and were written upon the tion petition, notwithstanding baukruptcy might ensue, and same paper. The metion on bebalf of the executor named | as far as the words will allow us we must fairly carry into in the will, for probate of the will and codicil, was opposed effect the object of the rule." When did the right of the by certain cf the next of kin of the deceased, on the ground receiver to remuneration cease? It is submitted that he is that the will did not purport to have been made in pursu- 1 an officer of the court, and primâ facie en Sitled to be paid; ance of a power, and was not sufficiently identified by the and, until he is discharged, he holds the property for the codicil as to be taken as having been incorporated therein. I benefit of the creditors generally.
Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY held that, having regard to the Brough.-There the notices of the meeting were issued. dates of the petitions, and to the facts that more than six promptly, and before the creditors had obtained judgment... months had elapsed between the presentation of the liquida. The circumstances of that case were exceptional, and it is ? tion petition and the adjudication, and that the adjudication submitted that the present application comes too late, and was not made with reference to the act of bankruptcy com that to allow the debtor to call a fresh meeting, and to obtain mitted by the filing of the petition for liquidation, there was an injunction after the creditors have incurred the costs of ; no authority for allowing the costs claimed by the receiver an action, will be to open the door to a very mischievous ; and manager. It seemed to him that the liquidation pro- practice. The power given by section 126 to vary the pro. • ceediogs were not “pending" before the court when the ad- visions of the composition is to be without prejudice to any judication occurred, and that the receiver could not properly persons taking interests under such provisions who do not ; make an application for payment of the costs. If he had any assent to the alteration. specirl ground for showing that he was entitled to these H. W. Jones (solicitor), for Hirsh & Co., relied one charges, he ought to have informed the court of the circum Re Hatton. stances upon which he rested his claim, and not have left tbe Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY gaid he was bound by the court in a state of ignorance. For anything that the regis- decision of the Chief Judge in Ec parte Radcliffe Investment trar knew, the amount of the charges might have been Company, Re Glover. In that case his lordship beld that satisfied by the debtor. When the liquidation proceedings the provision of section 126 enabled the creditors to reduce fell through it was the duty of the receiver anů Danager to the amount of the composition previously accepted by them,get bis accounts passed and his charges provided for ; and, and to bind a dissentient creditor to the same extent as he he could not allow the charges now, under rule 292, or upon was bound by the original resolution, and that the word any other ground whatever. The order would be made,“ persons " in the above clause was used in contradistinc. without prejudice to the respondent's right to prove under tion to the word " creditors.” In that case the first instal- the liquidation.
ment of the composition had been paid, as here, and the Solicitors for the trustee, Piesse f. Son.
Chief Judge affirmed the decision of the registrar restraining Solicitors for the respondent, Lousada f. Emanuel.
an action by a creditor. He could not distinguish the present case from Ex parte Radcliffe Investment Company,
and the injunction would, therefore, be continued until foux (Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.) days after the meeting of creditors, to add to vary the Feb. 9.-- Re Cotton.
original resolution. At the first meeting held under a petition for liquidation
Solicitors for the debtor, Noon f. Clarke. presented by C., the creditors accepted a compositioa of five Solicitor for Cooper and Manus, Sydney. shillings in the round, payable by three instalments. C. paid Solicitor for Hirsch & Co., Nicol, Sons, and Jones. the first iastılmeat, but made default as to the second, and some of the creditors sued him, and obtained judgment. He then issued notices of a meeting to add to, or vary the terms of, the composit:on, and applied for an injunc ion to restrain proceedings by tbe creditors who were suing him. Held, that C. was entitled to an injunction until after the
OBITUARY meeting of creditors.
This was an application on behalf of Charles Bull Cotton, a deb:or, who had presented a petition for liquidation by
MR. JOHN MUSKETT. arrangement or composition, for an order that the injunction
Mr. John Muskett, solicitor (of the firm of Muskett & granted by the court on the 4th inst., restraining W. C.
Garrod), of Diss, died at his residence at that place on the Cooper, M. Manus, and A. F. Hirsch & Co. from taking any 25th ult. Mr. Muskett was born in 1809, and was admitted farther proceedings in the actions brought by them against a solicitor in 1834, and he bad ever since practised at Diss. . the debtor, or upon the judgments recovered, or executions He was for a short time in partnership with Mr. Fraderick issued thereon, be continued until the further order of the Cross, but more recently was associated with Mr. Henry court.
Edwin Garrod, who is clerk to the Commissioners of Land and On the 8th of August, 1880, the debtor filed his petition, Income Tax at Diss. Mr. Muskett was solicitor to the Diss and at the first meeting ibe creditors accepted a composition Gas Company, a commissioner to administer oaths in the of fire shillings in the pound, payable, by three instalments, High Court, and a perpetual commissioner for the counties of at fourteen days, tbree months, and six months respectively | Norfolk and Suffolk. He had also a large private practice, from registration, and the resolutions were duly confirmed | and he held several public appointments. He had been for and registered on the 21st of September.
over forty-five years clerk to the county magistrates at Diss, . The first instalment of tbe composition had been paid. but and he was also clerk to the Diss Local Board, and coroner the debtor made default in regard to the second instalment. for the liberty of the Duke of Norfolk. Mr. Muskett's W. C. Cooper, M. Munus, and F. Hirsch & Co. being health and strength had for a long time been failing. creditors of the debtor, thereupon ened him for the balances of their respective debts. Messrs. Cooper and Manus obtained
MR. CHARLES ROSE LUCAS. judgment, and leave bad been given to Hirsch & Co. to sign judgment in the acıion, but with a stay of execution for four
Mr. Charles Rose Lucas, solicitor, late of 8, New-quare, . dars.
Lincoln'g-ind, died very suddenly at the Clifton Downs On the 24th of January Messrs. Noon & Clarke, the Hotel, Bristol, on the 27th ult. Mr. Luvas was the eldest debtor's solicitors, caused notices to be issued of a general son of the Rev. Charles Lucas, of Devizes. He was born in meeting of the creditors, to be held on the 14th of Febroary, 1808, and was admitted a solicitor in 1833. He originally to add to or vary the resolutions to accept five shillings in the carried on business at 5, Arlington street, Camden-town, but : pound, and on the 4 h of February the registrar granted an , afterwards removed to 8, New-square, Lincoln's inn, and i wlerin injunction to restrain proceedings by the thr:e went into partnership with Messrs. Charle: Meredith and creditors named.
Philip Reeve, the firm being afterwards joined by Mr. Henry E. C. Willis, for the debtor, in support of the application. Tbornton, and he had a very extensive family business. Mr.. -A meeting having been appoin'ed for the purpose of adding | Lucas withdrew from the firm about ten years ag>, and to or varying the resolutions, the court may properly con shortly afterwards relinquished practice. tinue the injunction until further order, or, at all events, until the result of the meeting has been ascertained. Brough, for Cooper and Manus.-- Default having been made
CHIEF JUSTICE MOSS. by the debtor in payment of the second instalment of the The Hon. Thomas Moss, Chief Justice of the province of: composition, the creditors are remitted to their original rights, Ontario, died at Nice, on the 4th ult., at the age of forty. and are entitled to sue for their original debts: Edwards five. The Chief Justice was born in 1836, and was called - 5. Coombe (L. R. 7 C. P. 519). The court has no power in to the bar in Upper Canada in Micha-lmas Term, 1861. He soch a case to grant an injunction : Re Hatton (20 W. R. rapidly obtained a good practice, and was created a Queen's : 978, L. R.7 Ch. App. 723).
Counsel for the Dominion of Canada in 1872. In the same Mr. REGISTRAB MURRAY.-How do you distinguish this year he acted as a member of the Ontario Commission on case from Ex parte Radcliffe Investment Company, Re Glover Law Reform, and in the following year he was offered, but (22 W. R. 235, L. R, 17 Eq. 121)?
| declined, an appointment as Vice-Chancellor. In Novem.
ber, 1873, be was elected a memb:r of the Dominion House Holrosd served upon two Royal Commissions on the Law of of Conmons, and about two years later he was appointed a | Bankruptcy and Insolvency, and he for many years advocated puisne judge of th· Court of Error and Appeal for Ontario. the abolishment of imprisonment for debt. He was married in November, 1877, h became President of that court, and to the daugbter of Mr. Charles Pugsley, of Ilfracombe. in November, 1878, Chief Justice of the province. He had sılso been for several years V1C3-Chancellor of the University of Toronto.
MR. NATHANIEL COBHAM.
Mr. Nathaniel Cobham, solicitor (of the firm of Cobham & MR. MATTHEW HENRY MARSH.
Hunt), died at Ware on the 6th inst. Mr. Cobham was Mr. Matthew Henry Marsh, barrister, formerly M.P. | born at Ware in 1800. He served his articles with the late for Salisbury, died at Bournemouth, on the 26th ult. Mr. Mr. Albany Carrington Bond, of Ware (whose daughter he Marsh was the eldest son of the Rev. Matthew Marsh, married, and to whose business be afterwards succeeded), and Canon of Salisbary, and was born in 1810. He was edu be was admitted a solicitor in 1829. He was at one period in cated at Westminster, and at Christ Church, Oxford, and
partnership with Mr. Charles Joseph Asbfield, but more was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term,
recently he had been associated with Mr. Joseph Hunt, the 1835. He formerly practised on the Western Cirouit and
clerk to the Buntingford Board of Guardians. He had a large at tbe Wiltshire Sessions. He spent several years in
local practice, and held several important appointments. He Australia, and from 1851 till 1854 he was a member of
had been for nearly forty years clerk tothecounty magistrates, the Legislative Council of the colony of New South
and he was also clerk to the Ware Local Board and Burial Wales. In 1857 Mr. Marsh was elected M.P. for the city
Board, and to the feoffees of the Ware Charity Estates. Mr. of Salisbury in the Liberal interest, and beld the seat for
Cobham's death has caused general regret at Ware. He was eleven years. He gave a general support to the Liberal
buried at Stapleford Churcb, on the 9ih iost. party, alıbough in 1866 he joined Mr. Lowe, Mr. Horsman, and others in opposing Mr. Gladstone's Reform Bill. He retired at the general eleotion of 1868. A year later be
MR. FRANCIS TYSSEN AMHERST. unsuccessfully contested Salisbury, but did not again attempt to enter Parliament. Mr. Marsh was a magistrate
Mr. Francis Tyssen Amherst, barrister, died on board for Wiltshire and Hampsbire, and a deputy-lieutenant
the steamship Bokhara on the 3rd inst. Mr. Amherst was for the former.county. He was married to a daugbter of
the second son of the late Mr. William George Daniel Tysthe late Mr. Sergeant Merewether, and he leaves three
sen Amberst, of Didlington Hall, Norfolk, and he was born
in 1842. He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, where daughters.
he graduated B.A. in 1965, and he was called to the bar at
the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1867. He joined the SIR RICHARD MACDONNELL.
Home Circuit, but a few years afterwards went to Australia. Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, K.C.M.G., C.B., LL.D.,
He was admitted to the bar at Brisbane, in September, 1876, died on the 5th inst.
and he had been for some time a member of the Queensland The deceased was the sin of the Rev.
Legislative Assembly as representative of the district of Richard MacDonnell, D.D., Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and bis mother was the daughter of the Very Rev.
Mackay. Mr. Amberst was a younger brother of Mr. William Richard Graves, Dean of Ardagh. He was educated at
Amberst Tyssen Amherst, M.P. for West Norfolk. He died
on the voyage home from Australia to England. Trinity College, Dublin, where he graduated B.A. in 1835, and LL.D. in 1862, and he was called to the bar in Ireland in 1838. In Hilary Term, 1841, he was called to the bar at Lincoln's-ion, and he was Chief Justice at the Gambia from
MR. GROSVENOR HODGKINSON. 1843 till 1847, wben he was appointed Governor of that
Mr. Grosvenor Hodgkinson, solicitor, many years M.P. for colony. He remained in West Africa till 1851, and he was
Newark, died at his residence at that place on the 14th inst. afterwards successively Governor of St. Lucia, St. Vincent,
| Mr. Hodgkinson was the son of Mr. George Hodgkinson, soand South Australia. He was appointed Governor of Nova licitor, of Newark, his mother having been a daughter of the Scotia in 1864, and in the following year he became Governor
Rev. John Beevor, rector of Clay pole, Nottingbamshire. He of Hong Kong, and in 1872 he retired on a pension after
was born in 1818, and was educated at King Edward's Dearly thirty years' colonial service. Sir R. MacDonnell re
Grammar School, Louth, and he was admitted a solicitor in ceived the honour of knighthood in 1855, having been
1839. He practised for about thirty years at Newark, where created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath in
he bad a large and lucrative business. He was at first in 1852, and he became a Knight Commander of the Order of
partnership with his father, and then he practised for several St. Michael and St. George in 1871. While Governor of
vears alone. At a later period he was joined by Mr. Becher the Gambia he commanded a body of colonial voluateers Tidd Pratt, and by his son, Mr. Grosvenor Hodgkinson, against the King of Keenung in 1849, and against the King
junior. M:. Hodgkinson took an active interest in local and of Combo in 1851, and when in South Australia he took a
political business at Newark, and at the general election of warm personal interest in the exploration and development
1859 he was elected M P. for the borough in the Liberal inof the colony. He was married to the daughter of Mr.
terest. He was a frequent speaker in the House of Commons, Francis Skurray, of Brighton,
and was one of the most prominent speakers in the debates upon the Reform Bill of 1867, especially with reference to
the sections relating to compound householders. He finally MR. EDWARD HOLROYD.
retired from Parliament at the general election of 1874. He Mr. Edward Holroyd, barrister, many years a commis. | bad been for many years a director of the Law Life Insurance sioner of bankruptcy, died at his residence, Elland Lodge, Conipany, and also of the Midland, and London, Chatham, Wimbledon, on the 29th ult., in his eighty-seventh year. The and Dover Railway Companies. He was married in 1845 to deceased was a member of a branch o! the same family as the the daughter of Mr. Robert Harvey, of Balderton, Notting. Earl of Sheffield, and he was the third son of Sir George hamshire. Sowler Holroyd, many years one of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. He was born in 1794, and he was edu. cated at the Charterhouse and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He practised for some time as a special pleader below the The Lord Chancellor on Wednesday received at the bar, and be was called to the bar at Gray's-inn in Easter House of Lords a deputation from the Council of the Term, 1826. He originally joined the Northern Circuit, but
Incorporated Law Society in reference to the Solicitors' he shortly afterwards became a member of the Oxford Cir.
Remuneration Bill. The deputation consisted of Mr. J. cuit,. He acted as a bunkruptcy commissioner under the old system, and after the passing of the Bankruptcy Act,
M. Clabon, the president, and Mr. C. C. Druce, the vice1832, he was appointed one of the first cominissioners of the
pesident of the society, and some other members of the new Court of Bankruptcy. He held the office for thirty
council. The Lord Chancellor received the deputation seven years, and was for a long time the senior commis with great courtesy, and gave attentive and very favour. sioner. His office was abolished on the passing of the
able consideration to the suggestions which were made to Bankruptcy Act, 1869, when he retired upon a pension. Mr. Į him.
the committee of the Manchester Law Association are of SOCIETIES.
opinion that a solicitor ought to be appointed to the office of registrar, whenever such office becomes vacant in any regis
try, if an efficient and suitable solicitor present himself.” SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. A copy of the resolution was forwarded to the Right The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of
Honourable John Bright, M.P., Chancellor of the Duchy of this association took place at the Law Institution, Chancery
Lancaster, and to the Vice-Chancellor of the County lane, London, on Wednesday, the 9th inst. Present, Mr.
Palatine. Notwithstanding the representations of the two Rickman, deputy-chairman, in the chair ; Messrs. Brook,
law societies, and also of the Incorporated Law Society of Kays, Keen, Roscoe, Rose, Smith, Walters, Williamson,
the United Kingdom, the Chancellor of the Duchy, instead and Woolbert, with Mr. Eiffe, secretary. A sum of
of appointing a solicitor, conferred the office upon Mr. £140 was distributed in grants of relief, 'six new mem
F. W. Taylor, of the Chancery Bar, who was called in June, bers were admitted to the association, and other general
1872. business transacted.
District Probate Registrars. — The Incorporated Law
Society of the United Kingdom baving submitied a report MANCHESTER INCORPORATED LAW
of a special committee of that society with rezard to district
probate registrars acting professionally in probate business, ASSOCIATION.
and invited the opinion of your committee thereon, the The annual general meeting of the members of the associa following resolution was adopted :tion was held on Thursday, the 20:h of January, 1881, ut "That in the opinion of this committee do person shruld their rooms, Cross-street Chambers, Cross-street, when an be appointed a district registrar of the Probate Court who accounts of the receipts and disbursements (previously audited is not a barrister or a solicitor. by two of the members) was submitted and passed, and the “That it ought to be the duty of the registrars of the officers and committee were elected for the ensuing year, Mr. Probate Court to receive and return by post papers from George Hadfield being elected president.
a distance in common form basiness.
“That the employment of an agent in the distriot The following are extracts from the report of the com
registry town is not, in the opinion of this committee, mittee :
necessary, as a rule, in these cases." In presenting the forty-second annual report of the associa The subject was considered at a meeting of the Assotion your committee bave again the pleasure of congratulating ciated Provincial Law Societies, held in London, in the the members upon the prosperity of the society, and upon a
month of May, when the following resolution was considerable accession of new members during the past year. passed :
Civil Assize Arrangements in Lancashire. This subject “That the practice of solicitors sending papers to the has continued to receive the attention of your committee in district registrars by post is most convenient, and should conjunction with thet of the Incorporated Law Society of be continued, and that the distriot registrars should receive Liverpool. The Liverpool Society, with a view to future and return such papers and settle forms free of charge." action, have prepared a report on the present facilities for the It was also resolved to communicate the above regolatrial of civil causes in Liverpool and Manchester, to which tion to Sir James Harnen, the judge of the Court of is appended a reprint of the speech of Sir Henry James (the | Probate, and to ask bim whether any objection exists to present Attorney-General) in the House of Commons on the application of this role to the Principal Registry of the the 21st of March, 1879, on the administration of Court of Probate. justice, and of a leading article from the Times of the 24th of March. In this speech Sir Henry James proposed that
Professional Remuneration. The new scale of fees for courts should be constantly open in Manchester, Liverpool,
conveyancing business adopted by the joint committee of Leeds, and some town of the Midland Counties, presided over
the Incorporated Law Society and the Associated Pro. by judges of the superior court. A copy of the report
vicial Law Societies, mentioned in the last annual report was forwarded to the present Lord Chancellor, with a
of your committee, was forwarded by the council of the letter from the president of the Liverpool Law Society ask
Incorporated Law Society to Lord Chancellor Cairos, in ing his lordship to receive a deputation from that society and
January last, and on the 3rd of February a deputation from your association. The Lord Chancellor in reply promised
that body submitted to his lordship clauses which they to give his careful attention to the views expressed, but did
bad prepared for giving legal sanction to the proposed not think it necessary to trouble a deputation to attend him
change in the system of solicitors' remuneration. The to express what he was prepared to consider attentively if
Solicitors' Remuneration Bill, when brought in by Lord made in writing. A paper on the subject was read by Mr.
Cairns, though providing for the establishment of a scale F. D. Lowndes, of Liverpool, at the meeting of the Incor.
of remuneration in conveyancing and non-contentions porated Law Society at Sheffield, in October. A conference
business, was not in accordance with the clanses submitted of the law societies chiefly interested took place in Liverpool,
by the council, and it contained a proviso that where reon the 22nd of December, to consider the question, at wbich
muneration was allowed on a percentage scale a solicitor 2 deputation from your association attended, and at which
should not be entitled, under any agreement, to recover the law societies of Liverpool, Birmingham, and Newcastle
any greater amount than that allowed by the scale. This apon-Tyne were also represented. The resolutions passed
proviso appearing to your committee to be objectionable, at this meeting will be found in the appendix to this report, they passed the following resolutions on the subject, which and it was decided to communicate them to the Associated were at once communicated to the Lord Ohancellor :Provincial Law Societies, with a request that a meeting of the
“That in the opinion of this committee the provisions of members of that body should be called, at an early day, to
the Bill now before the House of Lorde, for making better coasider them.
provision respecting the remuneration of solioitors in conChancery of Lancashire.-District Registrar.-A vacancy veyancing and other non-contentious business, are in the office of district registrar, at Liverpool, of the Court calculated to effect great improvements in the mode of Chaocery of the County Palatine of Lancaster having of remuneration of solicitors, and to facilitate occurred in consequence of the resignation of Mr. Winstanley, | improvements in the practice of conveyancing who had filled the office since the reconstitution of the court, and other non-contentious matters. But while a scale o and held the same office in Manchester prior to the separa- j fees such as is contemplated by clauses 3 and 4 may be tion of the registries, your committee, in support of the devised so as to be almost universally applicable, there will action taken by the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool, arise exceptional cases, not only in which a lower charge than passed the following resolution :
| that of the proposed scale may be fairly accepted, but also in "That taking into consideration that the office of registrar which the scale charge would be quite inadequate, and this of the Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster involves committee therefore think that sub-section (7) of clause 8 of the discharge of many duties which are intimately associated the Bill should be omitted. The committee do not see any with the practice of a solicitor, and with respect to which reason why the matter of special contracts should not be solicitors bave an experience which barristers cannot reason left unfettered, as sub-section (6) sufficiently provides ably be expected to possess, and tha: the business done by against abuse by way of undue influence or extortion. him is principally similar to that which is discharged by the " The committee also think it most desirable that before chief clerks in the fligh Court, who are invariably solicitors, settling the scale of costs the judges should be solicited to