Page images
PDF
EPUB

would have had no diffioulty in proving a minimum could not help thinking that the Legislature must have cost, and then, if the defendant did not aboose to inserted the words in the proviso ex abundanti cautela in case abon bis books, the judge would bave been well there might possibly be some such provision in a general or warranted in assuming that the defendant's cost of special Act, and not with a view of limiting the generality manufacture did not exceed that minimum, and in chargiog of the section. On the whole, therefore, although not feel. him accordingly. But to disallow the defendant the whole ing very confidenc, he was of opinion that the Railway Com. cost of manufacture was, in fact, to change the judgment missioners had jurisdiction to decide the matters in difference from a judgment for profits into a judgment for gross pro- between the two companies, and be should therefore disceeds of sale. JAMES, L.J., said that, assuming that the charge the rule nisi with costs.-SOLICITORS, Nelson ; Terrell defendant had acted improperly in throwing obstacles in the f Atkinson; Solicitor to the Board of Trade. way of the plaintiffs, still the court would not be justified in saying judicially that which it knew not to be the fact-viz.,

WILL-GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY that the article cost nothing to manufacture, and in pun. GENERAL DEVISE-SUBSEQUENT WILL REVOKING DEVISEishing the defendant by depriving him of the whole cost of

WILLS ACT, s. 27.-In a case of Sotheran v. Dening, before manufacture. If there was absolutely no evidence of the

the Master of the Rolls on the 21st inst., a question arosa cost, the court would have to fix a nominal sum for the cost,

whether a power to appoint by will had been well exercised but that was not so in the present case.-SOLICITORS, E.

under the following circumstances :-By a settlement made Woodard; J. R. Gole.

in 1870, certain real estate was directed to be held on trust

for such persons as A., whether covert or sole, should by will RAILWAY COMPANY-STATUTURY AGREEMENT AS TO IN

appoint, with remainder in default of appointment to B. in TERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC—AGREEMENT TO REFER DIF.

fee. A. made a will in 1871, and thereby, in exercise of FERENCES TO SINGLE ARBITRATOR-JURISDICTION OF RAIL

the power, appointed the real estate to the plaintiff in fee.

In 1877 A. made another will, commencing “I revoke all WAY COMMISSIONERS TO INTERVENE-REGULATION OF RAILVAYS ACT, 1873, s. 8.-In a case of Great Western Railway

former wills," which contained a general devise of all her real Company v. Waterford and Limerick Railway Company,

estate in favour of the defendant, but not in terms referring to

the power. In 1878 A. made a third will, dealing with her noted ante, p. 297, cause was shown against the role nisi then stated to have been granted in prohibition, before

personal estate only, but concluding with the words, “ Hereby the Master of the Rolls on the 18th inst. The defendants

revoking all former or otber wille, I declare this to be my bad applied to the Railway Commissioners to decide upon

last will and testament." The real estate subject to A.'s

power was claimed (1) by the plaintiff, on the ground that certain disputes that bad arisen between them and the

the appointment by the will of 1871 was not affected by the plaintiff onder an agreement entered into for the interchange of traffio in pursuance of a power in a special Act.

later wills; (2) by the defendant, on the ground that the

appointment in the first will was revoked by the general By the agreement all disputes were to be referred to a

devise operating as an exercise of the power in the will of single arbitrator, to be appointed as therein mentioned.

1877, and that this will was not affected by the will of 1878; The Master of the Rolls granted, on the 14th ingt., a role

and (3) by the representative of B., on the ground that the risi, retornable on the 18th, probibiting the Railway

appointments contained in the prior wills had been revoked Commissioners from hearing the application. By sec

by the revocatory clause in the will of 1878, and consequently tion 8 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873,

that the property went as in default of appointment. JESSEL, "wbere any difference between railway companies is M.R., was of opinion that the third will had revoked both under the provisions of any general or special Act, the former wills, and that the property remained unappointed. passed either before or after the passing of this Act, -SOLICITORS, Gunnet f: Son; J. W. Smith. required or authorized to be referred to arbitration, such difference shall, at the instance of any company party to the difference, and with the consent of the commissioners, PRACTICE-ORD. 16, R. 17-CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST Co. be referred to the commissioners for their decision in lien DEFENDANT.-A summons in an action of Benecke v. of being referred to arbitration : Provided that the power Craddock, adjourned into court and heard before Viceof compelling a reference to the commissioners in this sec Chancellor Hall on the 19th inst., raised a point of practice tion contained sball not apply to any case in wbich any as to the determination of questions between co-defendants. arbitrator bas, in any general or special Aot, been designated The action was brought by a mortgagee for foreclosure and by his name or by the name of his office, or in which a sale of the interest of Messrs. Craddock and Smith in the plant, standing arbitrator having been appointed under any machinery, and agreements for leases of a colliery, under an general or special Act the commissioners are of opinion agreement made between themselves and one Senior, Senior that the difference in question may more conveniently bad been made a co-defendant in the action with Craddock be referred to him.” The Railway Commissioners bad and Smith, and claimed sums due to himself under the in the meantime been made parties to the action, agreement, and the right tɔ retain possession of the property and cause was shown in their bebalf, and on the until he was paid. Craddock and Smith set up in their part of tbe defendants, the Waterford Company, against statement of defence a cruss-claim in respect of certain money the rule. It was stated that the Railway Com. balances against Senior. The present application was by missioners had, since 1875, exercised jurisdiction in

Craddock and Smith that they might have the leave of the similar cases, and two cases before them are reported

court that service of their statement of defence upon Senior in which they have held they had jurisdiction. The might be notice of their cross-claim. The rule (ord. 16, r. main contention in favour of the jurisdiction was that no

17) under which the application was made provides that general or special Act could be found where an arbitrator

"where a defendant is, or claims to be, entitled to contribuwas appointed by name or by the name of his office, and

tion or indemnity, or any other remedy or relief over against it was therefore argued that the words of the proviso were any other person, or where from any other cause it appears mere surplusage, and that the commissioners had jurisdic. to the court or a judge that a question in the action should tion in all cases of disputes between two railway companies. | be determined, not only as between the plaintiff and defendFor the plaintiffs it was contended that tbey came within the ant, but as between the plaintiff, defendant, and any other words of the proyiso, and that the jurisdiction of the com- person, or between any or either of them, the court or & missioners was excluded. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion judge may, on notice being given to such last-mentioned that the section was by no means easy to construe, but he person, make such order as may be proper for having the most not forget that he was asked, sitting as a single judge. question so determined." His lordship, in the present case, to overrule the opinions of three judges. He should not do so

considered that it would be highly inconvenient that the unless he felt very clearly that their construction was wrong. question between the co-defendants should be tried in the and this he was by no means prepared to say. Although, no action, and doubted, moreover, whether the application was doubt, the proviso created great difficulty. still, in his right in form. The summons was therefore dismised, opinion, the meaning of the section was tbat all disputes be- | with costs.--SOLICITORS, Bradford & Farish ; Torr & Co. tween two railway companies could be adjudicated upon by the commissioners. No one had been able to discover any l

1 SOLICITOR AND CLIENT-CUSTODY OP TITLE DEEDS-LIEN general or special Act in which specifio differences between TOR Costs—ABSCONDING SOLICITOR.-On the 24th inst., & two railway companies had been referred to a named arbi- | motion was heard before Vice-Chancellor Hall in an action trator, or to an arbitrator by the name of his office, and he of Molloy v. Kilby, whereby the plaintiff sought to obtaia

an order against Messrs. Smiles & Co., solicitors, to direct dation by arrangement or composition with creditors them to deliver over certain title deeds relating to real estate instituted by Daniel Jacobs (describing him). belonging to the plaintiffs. The circumstances under which « Received the sun of £7 118. 3d., being the amount of the deeds came into the possession of Messrs. Smiles & Co. the composition of one shilling in the pound on our claim in were as follows:- The former solicitor of the plaintiffs in the this matter.

"J. & J. GOODMAN." action, O'Neill by name, baving been committed for trial On the 7th of October they received a crossed cheque for upon a criminal charge, had absconded from his bail and not the amount, and they did not send any further acknowledgsince been heard of, but, upon his disappearance, the deeds ment to the debtor or his solicitor. Subsequently, Messrs. were handed to Messrs. Smiles & Co. by a third party actiog Goodman, believing that they were not bound by the under a power of attorney from O'Neill, and Messrs. Smiles & resolution, instructed their solicitor to issue a fi. fa. on a Co. were instructed to hold and use them for the purposes of judgment wbich they obtained against the debtor on the 1st the action, but subject to a lien on the part of O'Neill for of June, 1880, for a portion of their debt of £151 33. id., heavy costs incurred in the action. No offer was made by and to commence an action for the balance. The sheriff the plaintiffs to indemnify Messrs. Smiles & Co. against any entered into possession under the fi. fa. on the 21st of Janclaim on O'Neill's part in respect of his lien, although they uary, and on the same day the debtor was served with a offered to hand over the deeds if that were done, but an un. writ at the suit of Messrs. Goodman. conditional order was asked. His lordship, however, said On the 25th of January the debtor obtained an order from that he could not do what was in effect to confiscate the this court restraining the plaiotiffs from proceeding under property of a man committed for trial, s.c. O'Neill's lien for the judgment and the fi. fa. issued thereon, and on the 28th unpaid costs, and made an order for the delivery up of the the plaintiffs were served with & notice of the present deeds on the plaiotiff's undertaking to submit to O'Neill's application. claim, if, and when, established. He referred to give any E, C. Willis, for the applicant.—The plaintiffs are bound costs of the motion.-SOLICITORS, T. D. Pettiver ; Smiles & Co. by the terms of the composition, and they had no right to

levy an execation. They accepted the sum of £7 1ls. 3d. in satisfaction of the composition on their debt.

R. V. Williams, for the plaintiffs,—This is a mere ques. CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY

tion between the debtor and the plaintiffs whether they REGISTRARS.

agreed to receive the money in satisfaction, and a common (Before Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM, acting as Chief Judge.) | law court is in a position to deal with the whole matter. Feb. 10.-Re Jacobs.

The provisions of a composition are binding upon those Creditors who have proved their debt under resolutions for

creditors only whose names and the amount of whose debts composition, and opposed such resolutions, but who have re

appear in the debtor's statement. Ex parte Lacey (29 W. R. ceived the composition, restrained from proceeding at law, not

299, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 131) shows that where a creditor is withstanding the fact that their debt is not sufficiently set forth not bound by the resolution at the time of registration, in the debtor's statement of affairs.

be cannot come in afterwards and obtain the benefit of the This was an application on behalf of Daniel Jacobs for an

resolution. The debt due to the plaintiffs not being correctly

| stated, the resolutions are not binding upon them. order that Messrs. Goodman and the sheriff of Middlesex should be absolutely restrained from taking aay further pro

Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM.-They are bound to the ceedings under an execution levied upon the goods of the

extent of the amount which appears in the statement of applicant in an action in which Messrs. Goodman were plain.

affairs—$76. tiffs, and Hyman Lipson and the applicants were defend

Williams.—The principle upon which the court should

act is laid down in Ex parte The Paper Staininy Company v. On the 30th of July, 1880, Daniel Jacobs filed a petition

Bishop (L. R. 8 Cb. 595), and if a creditor objects to for liquidation by arrangement or composition. At the first

be bound by a resolution on grounds peculiar to himself, he meeting, held on the 17th of August, the creditors passed a

ought not to be restrained. He also cited Breslauer v. Brown resolution to adjourn, and at the adjourned meeting resolu

(26 W. R. 536, L. R. 3 H. L. Cas. 672); Lewis v. Leonard tions were carried that a composition should be accepted of

(L. R.5 Ex. D. 165). one shilling in the pound, to be paid within fourteen days of

Willis, in reply.- The plaintiffs had no right to come in registration at the office of the debtor's solicitor, and that the

and take the composition, and then turn round and say security of Solomon Barnett should be accepted for the com

they were not bound by the resolutions. A creditur whose position. The solicitor for Messrs. Goodman attended the

claim has not been omitted from the debtor's statement may, first meeting, apd objected to the adjournment, but Messrs.

nevertheless, come in under the resolutions. Goodman did not attend, nor were they in any way repre

Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM, after referring to the facts, sented at the adjourned meeting.

which he said were not in dispute, said that in Breslauer v. At the second meeting, held on the 15th of September, the

Brown, Lord Blackburn made these observations : “I take oreditors confirmed the resolutions for composition. Messrs.

it that if a man came in during the proceedings and said, I Goodman then attended by proxy, and put in their proof for

claim to prove for £1,000 which has been left out of the £151 3s. 1d., but did not assent to the resolutions. They

list, and if his proof was admitted, and then he ased his subsequently opposed registration, on the ground that the

power to vote against the composition, being an absolutely resolution for the adjournment had not been duly passed, but

dissenting creditor, waiving the condition for his benefit for the registrar overruled the objection.

the very purpose of opposing the resolution, nevertheless, if The debtor returned Messrs. Goodman in his statement of

the resolution was carried by the statutory majority, he would affairs as creditors for £76 58. 8d. only, which was admittedly

be bound by it." Those remarks seemed to apply here. In an insufficient amount.

that case the creditor was not put down in the statement of On the 5th of October, Messrs. Goodman received a letter

affairs ; here the creditors were put down, but not for the from the debtor's solicitor in the following terms :

whole amount. If, however, they had come in for the larger " 17, Gracechurch-street, E.C.-Sept., 1880.

amount, they could not have prevented registration of the “I beg to inform you that you may receive the composi

resolution. But having proved for the amount of their tion of one shilling in the pound on £151 3s. 1d., the amount

claim, and opposed the resolution, they must be considered of your claim in this matter, upon applying at my offices as

as bound to the full amount; and, even if it had been a above, between the hours of eleven and four.

matter of discretion, whether this court wonld allow the “ Any bills or other securities you may hold must be

matter to go on or not, he thought the creditors ought to be produced.

restrained. " The amount of the composition will be transmitted by |

Application granted. post at your risk upon the return of this notice with the

Solicitor for the debtor, John Cotton. receipt attached, duly signed, or it will be paid upon the

Solicitor for the plaintiffs, O. G. Harman. production of this notice and the receipt duly signed.Yours obediently, “HENRY ALBERT PATIENCE, “Solicitor in the matter.”

(Before Mr. REGISTRAR Hazlitt, acting as Chief Judge.) Messrs. Goodman thereupon signed a receipt in the follow

Feb. 12.-Re Boulden, the Younger. ang form, and forwarded it to Mr. Patience : -

Leave given to debtor to file a second petition for liquida“The Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

tion when proceedings under the first have fallen through. “In the matter of proceedings for or towards the liqui- The debtor recently presented a petition for liquidation,

ants.

and, at the adjourned first meeting, held on the 26th of Cave, Q.C., and Stone appeared for the defendant; Kerans January, the creditors passed a resolution to accept a compo. for the plaintiff. sition of two shillings in the pound, one-half payable forth. After considerable argument, with, and the other half by instalments. The resolution was | GROVE, J., gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. duly filed, and the second general meeting appointed to be -There were three grounds of action against the defendantheld on the 8th of February, when four creditors whose debts viz., neglect, breach of duty, and misconduct. Those terms amounted to £157 voted for the confirmation of the resolu. might or might not be applied to the same kind of action, tion, and four creditors to the amount of £106 dissented from but, in his judgment, whether the defendant's conduct was it. The resolution was not, therefore, carried by the statutory more properly described as breach of duty or as neglect, majority.

either was sufficient to support the action. It could only not Thomas Noton (solicitor), for the debtor, applied for leave | be a breach of duty by the defendant alleging ignorance, in to convene a new first meeting of creditors, He stated that which case it would be negligence; bat to his mind it seemed one creditor had taken proceedings against the debtor hardly credible that & solicitor should be ignorant of 80 and was in a position to sign judgment, and two others had manifest a duty as, having been actually retained for one obtained orders of committal against him, and it was desir. client, to accept duties for another in direct conflict with able they should be restrained.

the interests of the first. It was not necessary that there Ur. REGISTRAR HAZLITT.-I do not see any special circum

should be collusion between the solicitor and his second stances to justify the application. The creditors have met,

client. The judgment of Chief Justice Tindal in the case of and the creditor has not carried the resolution. I cannot

Taylor v. Blacklow, which had been cited in the argu. allow a bew first meetiog to be convened, but leave may be

ment, sufficiently showed that a breach of duty might be given to file a fresh petition for liquidation.

actionable. That was a case where the defendant, an attorney, being employed to raise money on mortgage for

the plaintiff, disclosed to the proposed lender certain defects Feb. 18.-Re Nobbs.

in the plaintiff's title, in consequence of which the plaintiff New first meeting of creditors allowed in a case where, partly

was exposed to certain actions at the suit of the proposed owing to the confusion and noise which prevailed at the first lender and suffered certain damage. Chief Justice Tindal meeting, no resolution was put, and creditors to a large amount in discussing the conduct of the defendant, said that, desired to accept a composition.

instead of faithfully discharging his duty of raising money The debtor presented a petition for liquidation on the 27th upon his client's deeds, he disclosed defects of title to of January, and the first meeting of creditors was appointed to the very person who was about to lend. In conbe held on the 15th of February. The debts amounted to about sequence of this disclosure the plaintiff sustained certain £5,500 in the aggregate, and creditors to the extent of £575 injuries. There was, therefore, a breach of duty on the resided in Germany. At the first meeting considerable con

part of the defendant which there was no ground for saying, fasion and noise prevailed. The proxies of some of the foreigu was not actionable. This judgment he (Grove, J.) creditors did not appear to be aware of their rights or duties, adopted as strictly applicable to the present case. A pregand the proceedings terminated without any resolution being nant instance of the hardehip on the plaintiff had been put to the meeting.

afforded by the defendant's own conduct, for, according to the H. Wyatt Hart applied for leave to convene a new first evidence, he admitted that he felt himself incapacitated from meeting of the creditors. He produced an affidavit which taking any part in impugning the bill of sale, which it showed tbat creditors to the extent of £4,600 out of a total of might have been his imperative duty to do on behalf of the £5,500 desired to avoid the expenses of a bankruptcy by ace plaintiff in securing to him the fruits of his judgment. cepting a composition from the debtor ; and he contended, It had been argued that if the defendant had not advised upon the authority of Ex parte Terrell (25 W. R. 153, L. R. Harris some other solicitor would have done so and to the 4 Ch. D. 293), that the court might properly allow a new same effect.

same effect. This argument might possibi

This argument might possibly affect the meeting to be held. The omission to pass a resolution was a question of damages, but it did not touch the main quesmistake on the part of the creditors, consequent upon tbe tion, his answer being that it was not the defendant's confusion and noise which prevailed at the meeting.

business to consider whether or not Harris would consult Mr. REGISTRAR HAZLITT held that, as no resolution had

anybody else. His one and only duty was to protect the been put to the creditors at the first meeting, and a large body

interests of his client, the plaintiff. Upon the whole ques. of the creditors now desired to accept a composition, a new

tion, therefore, he was clearly of opinion that there first meeting might be allowed.

had been a palpable breach of faith, and that the Solicitor, Greening.

judgment of the county court judge was right, not only in respect to his decision on the merits, but also with regard to the damages, which ought not to be disturbed.

LINDLEY, J., concurred. The duties of a solicitor to a client SOLICITORS' CASES

were positive and negative, and the latter were as clear and

as definite as the former. It was the duty of a solicitor to COMMON PLEAS Division.

abstain from doing all acts inconsistent with his positive duty (Sittings in Bancı, before Grove and LINDLEY, JJ.) towards his client and from any act which might prejudice or Feb. 21.-Barker v. Stone.

defeat that client's interests. Mr. Cave had relied on various The fasts of this case were as follow :-An action for

instances which he had referred to of solicitors aoting for

different clients with different interests, sach as creditors to a damages had been brought in a county court by the plaintiff

bankrupt's estate, and no doubt these cases occurred every against a man named Wearn, the present defendant Stone

y and properly : but the answer was that in such cases being employed to conduct the action as the plaintiff's soli

there was no direct conflict of interests. Here there was, and citor. The judge intimated at the conclusion of the case that his jadgment would be for the plaintiff, in any event, for £25,

he had no doubt whatever that the defendant's conduct was

manifestly on the wrong side of the line. bat reserved formal judgment in order to consider whether

Cave asked for leave to appeal, but the plaintiff was not entitled to £15 more. At the next sitting of the court judgment for the full amount was given ;

GROVE, J., said that, although he agreed the case was imbut in the interim between the sittings of the two courts, one | this decision that they could not encourage such a course.

portant, yet the court were so absolutely without doubt in Harris, hearing tbat an action had been brought, consulted Times. Stone with reference to a claim wbich he bad on Wearn's furniture and effects. Stone, without consulting the plaintiff or telling Harris that he had been solicitor in the action, advised Harris to obtain a bill of sale with a view to perfect

An American legal journal publishes the following his title, and Harris, taking this counsel, procured and

advertisement : registered a bill of sale to the prejudice of Barker, who thus

“BRIEFS skilfully and logically prepared by able and lost the fruits of his judgment. Barker then sued Stone in

experienced lawyers, members of the N. Y. Law Institute Library

(students not employed). Satisfaction and absolute secrecy the county court for negligence, and the judge, though nega guaranteed. Lawyers practising in N. Y. State or other States can tiving negligence, held that there had been a distinct breach thus secure thorough Briefs, for use in the Court of Appeals or of faith on the part of the defeodant, and gave judgment for

elsewhere, and avoid costly counsel who cannot serve you so well

as a carefully prepared Brief submitted without argument. Terms the plaintiff. “Against this judgment the defendant now low. For particulars, etc., address, NEW YORK BRIEF COM. appealed.

PANY, P, 0. Box 2,160, N. Y. City."

“Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, W.C., REFRESHERS.

Feb. 23, 1881.

“Dear Mr. Attorney-General, -I have laid your letter of The following correspondence has been published : the 18th inst. before the Council of the Incorporated Law “Now-coart, Temple, Feb. 17.

Society, and with reference to the concluding passage, in “My dear Mr. Clabon,-My attention bas been called

which you intimate that my letter would have been read

with greater pleasure if the bar could learn from it what by members of the bar to the fifth paragraph in the sug. gestions made by the Council of the Incorporated Law

meaning the members of the council attach to the words

contained in their suggestions (paragraph 5), I have been Society, pablished in the Times of yesterday. It is as

requested to state that their meaniag and intention were to follows :

point out the objections to the system, and not to make "65. There can be no reasonable doubt that the main

personal charges against those who use it. cause of the heavy expense of modern litigation is due to

“In making the suggestions the council were guided the largely increased fees paid to counsel of late years,

| simply by a desire to reduce, in the interests of the public, and especially to the comparatively recent practice of

the expenses of legal proceedings; and as their own branch giving daily refresher fees, which were all but unknown a

of the profession has frequently been charged with unneces. quarter of a century ago. It is therefore recommended

sarily lengthening legal documents, because the payment for that daily refreshers should be abolished, as being one of

their preparation is according to length, the fault being in the principal causes of the undue lengthening of trials, and

the system (which they have long striven to get altered) and the increased expense thereby occasioned.'

not in themselves, so the suggestion was that the system of “It appears to me and others that most persons would refreshers' has an inevitable tendency to the result regard the above statement as containing a direct charge | indicated, the system again, and not the individuals, being against the honour-even the hopesty—of every member of at fault. the bar ; for it apparently means that barristers who are “It must be obvious that any change reducing expenses in the habit of receiving refreshers intentionally prolong in the mode under discussion would diminish the fees of cages to an unnecessary length (and, therefore, injurious to solicitors as well as the fees of the bar to the benefit of their clients), for the sake of pecuniary advantage to them the suitor. selves.

“I have already assured you that the council in making “I cannot think that the Council of the Incorporated

the suggestion had not the least intention to bring any Law Society intended to prefer such a charge. But still, accusation against the bar or any member of it, and I will the words employed are so likely to be construed in the only add that it would give the council pleasure if in any senge I have indicated, that I venture to address you, as way they could act jointly with the bar in diminishing the President of the Incorporated Law Society, and to express cost of legal proceedings for the public advantage. the hope that the meaning which has been attached to the “I am, dear Mr. Attorney-General, yours very faithabove suggestion is incorrect, and that the council had no folly.

"John M. CLABON, Presidert. intention of making any accusation against an important "To her Majesty's Attorney-General, Q.C., M.P., 1. section of the profession to which they themselves belong. New-court, Temple."

“I shall be glad if you will place this letter at your early convenience before the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. I am, dear Mr. Clabon, yoors very truly,

" HENRY JAMES. "J. M. Clabon, Esq., President of the Council of the

OBITUARY. Iccorporated Law Society." “Chancery-lane, W.C., Feb. 18.

MR. GERALD WOLFE LYDEKKER. “Dear Mr. Attorney-General,-I have laid before the

Mr. Gerald Wolfe Lydekker, barrister, died at bis residence, council your letter of the 17th inst., referring to the fifth

The Lodge, Harpenden, on the 12th inst. Mr. Lydekker paragraph of the suggestions made by the Council of the

was the only son of the late Dr. Richard Lydekker, of St. Incorporated Law Society with regard to the expense of and

Albans, and was born in 1811. He was educated at Eton

and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated in delays in proceedings under the Judicature Acts, and saying that it appears to you, and others, that most persons would

the first class of the classical tripos in 1833. He was called regard the statements contained in that paragraph as con.

to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1841, and taining a direct charge against the honour-even the honesty

he practised for several years on the Home Circuit, and at -of the bar, as apparently meaning that barristers who are

tbe Essex, Herts, and St. Albans Sessions. He had a fair in the habit of receiving refreshers intentionally prolong cases

criminal business at the assizes and sessions, but he retired to an unnecessary length (and, therefore, injuriously to their

from practice a few years after his call to the bar, on succlients), for the sake of pecuniary advantage to themselves.

ceeding (by his father's death) to the estates at Harpenden. "The council unanimously direct me to assure you, and

Mr. Lydekker was a magistrate for Bedfordshire, Hertfordthrough you the whole bar, that they did not intend to prefer

shire, and the Liberty. of St. Albans, and since 1875 he had such a charge, and that the meaning wbich has been attached

been deputy-chairman of quarter sessions for the St. Albans to the gaggestion in paragraph 5 is incorrect. The council had

Division of Hertfordshire. He was also a director of the no intention of making any accusation against so important

Clerical, Medical, and General Life Assurance Company. & section of the profession to which they themselves belong.

Mr. Lydekker was buried in the family vault at St. Peter's “I have the honour to be, dear Mr. Attorney

Church, St. Albans, on the 16th inst. He was married in General, your faithful servant,

1848 to the daughter of the late Mr. Serjeant Peake, and he John M. CLABON, President. leaves four sons. “To her Majesty's Attorney-General, Q.C., M.P., &c., 1, New-court, Temple."

MR. JOSEPH AUGUSTUS YORKE. “House of Commons, February 18.

Mr. Joseph Augustus Yorke, barrister, died on the 14th “My dear Mr. Clabon,-I have to acknowledge the receipt inst. Mr. Yorke was the only son of the late Hon, and Very of your letter of to-day's date.

Rev. Grantham Munton Yorke, Dean of Worcester, and « The members of the bar will, I am sure, be glad to learn was grandson of the tbird Earl of Hardwicke. His mother that the meaning which had been attached to the suggestion was the daughter of Sir Henry Conyingham Montgomery, contained in paragraph 5 of the communication from the Bart. He was born in 1831, and was called to the bar at Council of the Incorporated Law Society to the Judicature the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1854. He formerly pracActs Committee is incorrect. I hope you will forgive me for tised on the Home Circuit, and for several years he held a saying that I think your letter would be read with greater commission in the luns of Court Rifle Volunteers. He was pleasure if we could learn from it what meaning the members secretary of presentations to Lord Chelmsford when Lord of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society attach to the Chancellor, and in 1867 he was appointed one of the regiswords contained in their suggestion.

trars of the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, but the office was "Believe me, yours very truly,

abolished by the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and he retired upon J. M. Clabon, Esq.”

“ HENRY JAMES." a pension. In 1875 he was appointed by Sir Richard Cross to be police magistrate for the borough of South Shields, was admitted a solicitor in 1857, and is in partnership with but he did not hold the office very long, since about a year Mr. James Norton Dickons. ago he was compelled by ill-health to retire upon a pensions Mr. John HENRY WADE, solicitor and notary (of the Mr. Yorke was married to the daughter of Mr. Thoma.

firm of Rawson, George, & Wade), of Bradford, has been apChambré.

pointed a Magistrate for that borough, Mr. Wade was ad-
mitted a solicitor in 1852, and is solicitor to the Bradford
School Board, also a director of the Bradford District

Bank.
LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.
The Hon. GEORGE CHARLES BRODRICK, barrister, bas
been elected Warden of Merton College, Oxford, in succes-

COMPANIES.
sion to the late Dr. Robert Bullock Marsham. Mr. Brod-
rick is the second son of the seventh Viscount Midleton,
and was born in 1831. He was educated at Harrow and at

WINDING-UP NOTICES. Balliol College, where he graduated as a double first (classica

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. and law and modern history) in 1854. In the following year

LIMITED IN CHANCERY. he obtained the Arnold Prize and the Chancellor's Prize for BARBADOS GAS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, prean English essay, and he was afterwards elected a fellow of sented Feb 17, directed to be heard before the M.R. on Feb 26. Merton College. He graduated LL.B. of the University of

Smith and Wood, Great James st, Bedford row, agents for Southall

and Co, Birmingham, solicitors for the petitioners London in 1858, and he was called to the bar at Lincoln's.

COTTAGES AND VILLAS BUILDING AND INVESTMENT COXPANY, inn in Trinity Term, 1859. Mr. Brodrick formerly prac LIMITED.-The M.R. has fixed Feb 28 at 11 at his chambers for tised on the Western Circuit, and he was for a short time a the appointment of an official liquidator member of the School Board for London for the Westminster

CLEDDAU VALLEY SLATE QUARRIES COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition

for winding up, presented Feb 11, directed to be heard before the Division.

M.R. on Feb 28. Andrew and Co, Great James st, Bedford row, Mr. FRANCIS RICHARD TURNER BLOXAM (of the firm of

solicitors for the petitioners

HAMPTON-Ox-SEA ESTATE ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.-Creditors are Paterson, Snow, & Bloxam), of 25, Lincoln's-inn-fields, has required, on before March 18, to send their names and addresses been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the and the particulars of their debts or claims to John Jervis Garrard, Supreme Court of Judicature.

Leadenhall st. March 25 at 12 is appointed for hearing and ad

judicating upon the debts and claims Mr. POPE ALEXANDER COOPER, barrister, who has been | TRAMWAYS CORPORATION LIMITED.-By an order made by the V.C.H. appointed Attorney-General of the Colony of Queensland, in

dated July 9, it was ordered that the corporation be wound up.

Miller and Miller, Sherborne, solicitors for the petitioner succession to Mr. Henry Rogers Beor, deceased, was called to

[Gazette, Feb 18.] the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1872. He was called to the bar at Brisbane in 1874, and is member for

BAGWORTH COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED,-By an order made by

the M.R. dated Feb 12, it was ordered that the company be wound the Cook District in the Queensland Legislative Assembly. up. Field and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, solicitors for the peti. Mr. WILLIAM HENRY CUTLER, solicitor, of 10, King-street,

tioner

H. A. BROWN AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the St. James's-equare, has been appointed a Commissioner V.C.H. dated Feb 11, it was ordered that the company be wound to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. up. Burn, Clement's lane, solicitor

. Mr. HENRY CECIL GEARE, solicitor, of 57, Lincoln's-ino.

UNION LAND AND BUILDING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order

made by the V.C.M. dated Jan 11, it was ordered that the voluntary fields, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths winding up of the company be continued. Dixon, South sq, in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Gray's inn, agent for Needham and Co, Manchester, solicitors for

the petitioner Mr. GEORGE DOMETT GOULD, solicitor, of Leeds, has

i Gazette, Feb. 22.] been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY. Supreme Court of Judicature.

MADRAS IRRIGATION AND CANAL COMPANY.--Petition for winding Mr. GEORGE HADFIELD, solicitor, of Manchester, who has

up, presented Feb 12, directed to be heard before the M.R. on Feb

28. Ashurst and Co, Old Jewry, solicitors for the petitioners been elected President of the Manchester Incorporated Law

[Gazette, Feb. 18.] Society for the ensuing year, is the son of Mr. George Hadfield, solicitor, of Manchester, many years M.P. for

COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.

MERSEY STEEL AND IRON COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made Sheffield. He was admitted a solicitor in 1850.

by Bristowe, V.C., dated Feb 15, it was ordered that the company Mr. JOSEPH HANDS, of Loughborough, has been appointed

be wound up. Simpson and North, Liverpool, solicitors for the

petitioner a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court

[Gazette, Feb. 18.] of Jadicature.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. Mr. WILLAN JACKSOX, solicitor, of Wellingborough, has SHEFFIELD DISTRICT CLERKS' FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Aldine chmbers. been appointed Clerk to the Irthingborough and Earls | Feb 12 Barton School Boards, on the resignation of his partner, BUD OF HOPE TENT 69 INDEPENDENT ORDER OF RECHABITES, 40, Mr. Matthew Reid Sharman. Mr. Jackson was ad.

Radnor terrace, South Lambeth. Feb 15

[Gazette, Feb. 18.] mitted a solicitor in 1876.

SICK AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE ROSEBERRY LODGE OF THE ROYAL Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL JAMES (of the firm of James & Co., I

ANTEDILUVIAN ORDER OF BUFFALOES FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Tower, solicitors, of Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare), has been ap Artillery st, Bishopgate. Feb 18 pointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme

[Gazette, Feb. 22.] Court of Judicature.

Mr. ALEXANDER SMITH KINNEAR, advocate, LL.D., has been elected Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, in succession to Lord Fraser.' Mr. Kinnear is an LL.D. of the

SOCIETIES. University of Edinburgh. He was called to the bar in Scotland in 1856, and he holds the office of Solicitor of NOTTINGHAM INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. Teinds,

At the sixth annual meoting of the society, held at the The Hon. HENRY JAMES MONCRIEFF, advocate, has been

| Town Hall, Nottingham, on the 29th of January, 1881, appointed Sheriff of Renfrewshire and Buteshire, in succes.

the president (C. Butlin, Esq.) in the chair, sion to Lord Fraser. Mr. Moncrieff is the eldest son of the

It was resolved :Right Hon. Lord Moncrieff, Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland,

That the annual report of the council be taken as read, and was born in 1840. He was educated at Harrow and at

and that the same be received and adopted. Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was placed in the

That the thanks of the society be given to Mr. Charles first class in the LL.B. examination in 1861. He was called

| Butlin for his services as president during the past year. to the bar in Scotland in 1861, and he was appointed an ad

That the thanks of the society be given to Mr. Arthur vocate-depute in April, 1880.

Browne for his services as secretary of the Law Library Mr. SAMUEL Price, solicitor, of 38, Walbrook, has been Committee during the past year. sppointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Su- That the thanks of the society be given to Mr. Arthur preme Court of Judieature.

Williams for his services as secretary during the past year. Mr. THOMAS ADAM WATSON, solicitor, of Bradford, has That the thanks of the society be given to T. T. Weightbeen appointed a Magistrate for that borough. Mr. Watson man, Esq., and H. Y. Stanger, Esq., barristers-at-law, for

« PreviousContinue »