Page images

not, as it was discharged by the liquidation, and the client is no loDger chargeable with the bill. ,_ After some farther discussion,

The Court granted a rale upon the understanding that it shonld not be drawn np for a fortnight.

Solicitors, Baker, Nairne, $ Co. ; The Solicitor.

(Sittings in Sane before Lord Colkbidge, C.J., Lindley, and Lopes, JJ.).

Nov. 3, 9.—Re Joel Kisch, a Solicitor.

This was a rule calling upon the above-named solicitor to show cause why he should not be struck off the rolls.

The Attorney-General (Sir H. James), showed cause.

Wills, Q.C., and Murray, appeared for the Incorporated Law Society.

The material facts of the case appear in the judgment of the court.

Lord Colebidge.—This case has been very properly brought before us by the Law Society, because it is, as has been said, the abuse of a privilege conferred by the court, and abused under circumstances to move one's indignation; and that being the case, I agree with the learned counsel who made the observation, that one ought to be carefully on one's guard that one's feeling of indignation shonld not mislead one a single step beyond the strict line of what it is just to do under these circumstances iu a case of this sort. But the facts, and as I understand the undisputed facts of this case, are shortly these, and the shortest and barest statement of them will, as I trust, fully justify the conclusion at which the court has arrived. It appears that in the year 1878, an action was brought by a man and his wife for damages occasioned to one of them—to the wife—by an accident, and a sum of £200 was recovered in that action. It seems to be admitted that £200 was more than could reasonably have been expected to be retained, and that a new trial of the case, upon the ground of the damages being in excess, was inevitable. That being the state of the case, the solicitor for the plaintiffs compromised the action, and it is admitted for the purpose of this proceeding that the compromise is one to which no exception could be justly taken. £150 was paid in full of damages and costs by the defendant to the solicitor before the court, and that £150 was received—I take on purpose the latest date, when I am not certain—at all events inOotober, 1878. Now, from Ootober, 1878, when it was stated to the solicitor that his bill would be required, until the month of January, 1879, nothing was done—nothing, that is, was done to deliver over, on the part of the solicitor, any portion of the money he had so received to his clients; and in 1S79, after repeated applications had been made by the clients in person, they employed a solicitor, and the solicitor in January, 1879, applied for the money and the bill. He desired to have the bill of costs, that the bill of costs might be taxed and the residue paid over. Correspondence by telegrams, by letter, and once or twice by personal interview took place between the two solicitors. Nothing was, however, done until the month of March or April. I think in the month of April the bill was delivered, and the compromise having been effeoted for £150, the bill of costs for obtaining that compromise of an action in the county court which had been tried onoe and once only, and then in the county court—that is to say in the inferior court in London—the bill of coBts delivered was £155. So that the wholo of the money that was obtained by the compromise, and £5 more if he could get it, was proposed by the solicitor to be passed into bis own pocket. Now, to that naturally, the clients objected, and an appoint ment was made to tax the bill before the master. The bill, after repeated orders for the solicitor to attend, was ultimately taxed on the 16th of May, and the allocatur of the master was given upon the 20th of May. £49—I think Mr. Murray said £47, but I think it was £49, it is not verymaterial, but a sum of £17 or £49—was ascertained by the master as the proper amount of costs to be paid to the attorney, nearly one-third of the total sum recovered, and £49 for an action tried in one of the inferior courtsof the city of London should seem to be, on the face of it, a very sufficient amount to pass into the pocket of the solicitor. But whether it was sufficient or whether it was not, whether the taxation was what has been called severe or whether it was not, appears to me for the purposes of this inquiry to be wholly beside the question. If there had been much less than this ascertained by the master's allocatur, by the master's judgment, the mode of reviewing the master's taxation is, and must have

been, known to the solicitor in the action, and if he had? been dissatisfied with the master's taxation there were wellknown means of immediately and inexpensively reviewing it. He does nothing of the sort, but the master having ascertained on the 20th of May, 1879, nearly a year after the money bad been reoeived, that £108 was due to his olient, not one farthing is paid over. There are proceedings, there are applications, there are letters, there is a promise of payment in May, there is a promise to settle next week in June, there is a promise of a cheque next week in July, but from the month of May to the month of November, this £108 having been ascertained by the proper officer to be due to this gentleman's clients, every farthing of it is retained in this gentleman's pocket. It is said that during that time—I am not certain whether it was during that time at this moment, bat that again is immaterial for the purposes of this inquiry—it is said at that time, or at any rate, at some time between that and the taking of these proceedings, a sum of £30 was offered by the solicitor to his client.

The Attorney-General.—That was as early as February.

Lord Coleeidoe.—However, the offer waa repeated) afterwards as I understand.

The Attorney-General.—Yes, my lord.

Lord Coleridge.—After the £108 had been obtained, a sum of £30 having been offered before the taxation, was offered after the taxation from the solioitor to his olient, and was deolined, and the suggestion is that the solicitor thought that was the real sum to whioh, after he had properly paid himself, the residue would amount, and to which, therefore, his client Bhoald be entitled. That is the view that the Attorney-General has presented. The facts snggest another view. It appears from this gentleman's own affidavit that he has stated, and it rests upon his statement, that his clients had said they should be satisfied with £10 or £20, and the suggestion that these facts inevitably create in one's mind is this, that this gentleman being prepared to stale, and having stated that was what his clients had said they would be satisfied with, was prepared to give them what he was prepared to swear he thought was enough, and keep the rest, whatever the sum might be, in bis own pocket. There are those two views possible of this offer of £30, and I confess, under the whole of the circumstances of this case,. I hope, not uncharitably, my mind is drawn to the second of those views, that it was with that view the £30 was offered before taxation, and was offered after taxation. However, op to November nothing is done, and in November, 1879, the Law Society is pat in motion, and the Law Society proceed, and it is not, as I understand, until April or May of the present year, 18S0, under the pressure of proceedings from the Law Society and under the pressure of certainly what would befall him at the hands of this court if payment was not made, the £108 which bad, in fact, been in his pocket from May, 1879, is paid over to those persons, his clients. Now, then, the money is received by virtue of his character, and that character is a character which is conferred upon him by this court. This court gives him the means of receiving the money and clothes him with the character which he is euableJ by the act of the court itself thus to use to the injury of his client. What ought the court under those circumstances to do? It might be said, and I am not sure there would not be very good reason, for saying, that iu the execution of the strict rule and right of this court to vindicate its character in its discipline over its officers, and to compel its officers tocommon honesty in their dealings with those persons outside the court who must consult them and who are led to consult them by the character and authority with which these persons are clothed by the court—that it is due to them that the character so abused should no longer be retained, but we have considered that that is the ultimate and greatest punishment that can be inflicted, and that this is a case— although I concur with Mr. Wills in many of its features, exceedingly moving to one's mind and to one's feelings—it is a case whicb stops short of some of the cases that unfortunately are from time to time brought before us and to which it is our duty to affix the ultimate penalty which lies iu our power. Under those circumstances we have come to the conclusion that the justice of the case will be satisfied by suspension, but it must be suspension of a serious and lengthened character, and we order this gentleman to be suspended from the practice of his profession for eighteen months and to pay all the costs of these proceedings.

Mr. Justice Lindley.—I agree for the same reasons.

Mr. Justice Lopes.—So do I.

Wilh.—An entry will be made on the roll of the

Lord Couekidck.—If you please.



The annual meeting of the Incorporated Law Sooiety of Liverpool was held on the 3rd inet., at the Library, Union-court; the president, Mr. William Stone, in the chair.

Mr. Charles H. Morton, honorary secretary, presented 1 report, extraots from which we hope to give

The President, after referring to the affairs of the society, said that on the subject of the Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster, on hearing of the resignation of Mr. Winstanley, a deputation from the society had waited on the Chancellor of the Duohy and the VioeChancellor, and had urged the appointment of a district or assistant registrar. They had admitted that there were plenty of funds, but after all no deputy-registrar had been appointed, and matters still remained in the very unsatisfactory state in which they were at the time of Mr. Winstanley's resignation, it being impossible for the duties of registrar to be carried out without an assistant. On the subject of the civil asBize arrangements for Lancashire, the president stated tbat a carefully prepared report had been to other law societies, and to the Home Secretary and Attorney and Solicitor-Generals. This report a copy of the speech of Sir Henry in the House of Commons, on the 21st of March, 1879, in which he stated tbat in the large centres, assize towns snch as Liverpool and Manchester, half the causes which were set down could not be heard owing to the want of judicial power and the defective assize arrangements, while in the smaller towns only about four per cent, were not brought to trial. The president considered .that the fact that during the years 1879 and 1S50 there bad been but four assizes in Liverpool, was clear proof that the city required better arrangements for the bearing of causes, and that the space of six months between two assizes prevented many causes being heard, which, owing to the witnesses being migratory, or for other reasons, required to be heard without any umeasonable delay. The reason for not improving this state of affairs, given by Lord Cairns in reply to a letter written by the late president, was that a fourth assize was not possible with the existing staff of judges; while, on the other hand, in reply to a joint letter from the society and the Manchester Lsw Association during the past year, Lord Beaconsfield had stated his hope that when more time had been given to observe the effects of reoent legislation, for the purpose of improving and simplifying the law and legal procedure, such a step might be found unnecessary. Thus the lawyers and suitors had so far (alien between two stools; but he still recommended the society to keep pushing their claims until they had gained their point, and had got things put on a satisfactory basis. The question of remodelling the county 1 would no doubt be brought forward at the ensuing of Parliament, and the whole arrangement of the 1 ought to be pone into as one comprehensive scheme. The committee considered that tbe proper mode of dealing with the matter was to make the county courts a branch of the Supreme Court of Judicature, having pleadings in actions over £20; to separate the civil and oriminal business now transacted at the same assizes, and to have a judge sitting continuously in Liverpool. With the provisional entry of causes, which, after having been found to work most satisfactorily for some yeara, had been taken away from Liverpod, he bad much pleasure in saying that the committee had saeceeded in restoring the provisional entry by getting a rule of the Supreme Court passed for that purpose. He called the attention of members to the unfairness of the present arrangements as to tbe admission of solicitors to the bar—a

barrister of five years' standing can become a solicitor bypassing an examination, while a solicitor must wait some years after leaving his profession before he could be called to the bar. He considered this a gross injustice. In conclusion, he was glad to say that Mr. Morton had consented to continue to act as secretary of the society and Mr. Mason as treasurer, and he returned his thanks to the other officers and members of the committee for the kind assistance he had received from them throughout the year. Mr. George Mason seconded the adoption of the report. Mr. Edwaed Whitley, M.P., who was received with applause, said he had to congratulate the members of the society upon the very satisfactory report they had presented to them. It had always been his desire in "another place" to further the interests of the society. Very important Bills were likely soon to come before the Legislature. He did not know one more deeply interesting than the Bankruptcy Bill. It was a very important Bill. He was upon the committee dealing with that Bill, and he had already brought before the committee the views of that society, and a great many of these had been adopted more or less by the committee. The resolutions of the committee had been referred to the Attorney-General with the view of a Bill being introduced in the forthcoming session. A Bill had been introduced with regard to real property; it was likely to have an important bearing upon the interests of the profession, and he should be glad to forward to the proper quarter any suggestions that the society might have to make upon that measure. The Bill of the late Lord Chancellor had received the approval of the profession at large, and a good many of the provisions of that measure would, no doubt, be incorporated in the Bill as well the present Government. All these measures would be carefully watched in the interests of the profession as well as the public at large. He was quit6 sure that the views of the legal profession were not adverse to the views of the pnblic at large, and that they would bo glad to do all in their power to carry out a Bill satisfactory to the public at large, and not merely support a Bill which would only promote their own interests, A view was prevalent that the profession only considered their own interests. He felt satisfied that the great bulk of the profession were anxious to promote those measures which would be most satisfactory to the public and most workable. With regard to other measures that might be brought forward, he remarked that there was a general feeling amongst the members of the profession, as well as in tbe House of Commons that many of the duties discharged by district registrars should be referred to judges. There was also a great feeling with regard to the necessity of having either a continuous court in these great centres of commerce or more frequent visits of the judge of assize. The great difficulty upon this point hitherto had been on the part of the judges themselves. The judges, from old associations, were very unwilling to change the present practice. But he was convinced, and it was apparent to the profession and the publio at large, that in great centres of commerce like Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds, there should be more frequent assizes. The disposition of the Legislature, he believed, was to grant this, to which they were undoubtedly entitled. If that society, the chambers of commerce, and other bodies interested in this question would co-operate in the matter, he should be very glad to do everything in his power to promote a scheme which would be of advantage to the city oi Liverpool and the other great centres of commerce. The report was unanimously adopted. A discussion took place in regard to some routine matters affecting the management of the society, members of committee were elected, and the proceedings terminated with a vote of thanks, proposed by Mr. John Yates and seconded by Mr. Squarey, to the president.

A new order has been issued by the Commissioner of Police, to the effect that all persons found " drnnk and incapable" in a public thoroughfare are to be locked up and released when sober, their own recognizances being t«keu for their appearance before a magistrate. In Cshcs where the persons charged fail to appear before the magistrate, the matter is to be reported to the commissioner, who will then decide what course is to be adopted.


LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. The weekly meeting of this society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday evening last, at eeven o'clock, Mr. Spiers in the chair. The subject appointed for the evening's debate was, "Is the acquisition of the railways by the State desirable in the interests of the ■public ?" and was opened in the negative by Mr. C. A. 'Betts j Messrs. Trenchard, Raymond, Barker, Bartlett, Kirk, and Bury followed on the same side ; whilst Messrs. .F. D. Williams, Napier, Kains-Jackson, and R. Mossop supported the affirmative. Mr. Betts having replied, the question was put to the meeting and decided in the negative by 18 votes to 7 in the affirmative.


A meeting of this society was held on Monday, the 8th inst., at the Law Institution, Mr. C Uyer in the ohair. The qnestion for discussion—" Is the construction put upon the Partition Act, 1868, by the House of Lords in Pitt v. Jones (L. R. 5 App. Ca.), the correct one? "—was opened by Mr. E. Jenks in the affirmative. Messrs. Samuel, Roaher, Brown, and Pickersgill argued in favonr of, and Messrs. Tillotson, Maclaren, Bartrnm, Hobbs, and Hull argued -against, the opinion of the hoD. opener. The opener replied, and after the chairman bad snmmed up, a division was taken, and the question deoided in the affirmative by the ens tine; vote.

The usual weekly meeting of this society was held on Wednesday, the 10th inst., at Clement s-inn, Mr. Jackson in the ohair. The motion on the paper—" That the principle of a national soheme of compulsory insurance Reserves adoption "—was brought forward by Mr. Maclaren, who was supported by Messrs. Curtis and Collyer, and opposed by Messrs. Spence, Levey, Parsons, and Donner. Mr. Maclaren replied, and upon a division the motion was -carried by a majority of fonr votes.

GRAY'S INN MOOT SOCIETY. The first meeting of the above society for the current term ■was held in the hall of Gray's-inn on Thursday evening, the 4th inst., when the following question was argued before several masters of the bench, under the presidency of Montague Cookson, Esq., Q.C :—" V. describing himself as the "freeholder of the Crown Inn," but not otherwise disclosing his name, sends his solicitor, M., to P., with a letter ottering- to «ell him the inn for £2,000. P. tells M. he is willing to buy at that price, and adds that he shall instruct his solicitor, N., to settle a contract on his behalf, and that N. must also .approve the title. M., at this interview, tells P. that he will iind the gross returns of the business average at least £30 a week. Before any abstract is delivered, P., by arrangement ■with M., but without the knowledge of V., enters on che premises 'without prejudice' for three weeks, in order to test the truth of M.'s statement. He remains in possession for six week, during which a fire occurs, destroying Borne old trade-fixtures, insured by V., for which P. substitutes new -ones. At the end of the six weeks Y. dies, having devised his realty to X., and his personalty to Y., and having appointed Z. his sole executor, On V.'s death, P. quits the inn, on the ground that the returns are only £10 a week. Eive months after the will has been proved, Z., who has received the proceed* of the fire policy, commences an action for specific performance against P., who delivers a counterclaim seeking rescission on tho ground of fraud, or, in the alternative, reduction of the purchase-money. What defences are open to the plaintiff and defendant respectively? How far ought they to prevail ? and, assuming the above facts to be proved, what should the judgment be?" Mr. A. R. Ingpen, barrister, of the Middle Temple, and Mr. E. H. Pickersgill, student, of the Inner Temple, appeared for the .plaintiff, the defence being conducted by Mr. C. A. Russell, barrister (Gray's-inn), and Mr. G. Cave, barrister (Inner Temple). The learned president gave judgment as follows: —" The claim and counter-claim dismissed, withcoits. Costs to follow the rule in Saner v. Bilton." There was a fair .attendance of gentlemen from the several Inns of Court. The next meeting of the society will take place on Thursday, the

18th inst., at eight p.m., in Gray's-inn hall, when Mr. A. V. Dicey will preside. All members of the Inns of Court are invited to attend.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. At a meeting of this society, held in the Law Library on Tuesday, the 2ud inst., Mr. T. S. Kemp in the chuir, a debate took place on the following moot point:—" In a bill of sale, dated October 24, 1879, the consideration was stated to be £560 that day paid by the mortgagee to the mortgagor; as a fact £500 only were actually paid to the mortgagor ; of the remaining £60, £20 were paid to an auctioneer for valuation of the debtor's effects, and £40 were retained by the mortgagee in respect of the costs of the bill of sale and other professional charges. Was the consideration for such bill of sal e truly set forth within the meaning of the 8th section of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878 ? "—Credit Company v. Pott (42 L. T. 592); Re Threappkton (27 W. R. 943, L. R. 12 Ch. D. 90 8); Re Hayncs (28 W. R. 848); Re Rogers (42 L. T. 808, Article in Solicitors' Journal, Sept. 18, 1880, p. 845). The speakers in the affirmative were Messrs. O'Connor, Cochrane, Rogers, and Barrow, and in the negative, Messrs. Gover, Swinson, and Ludlow. The chairman having summed np, the question was pnt to the meeting and decided in the affirmative. A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting.


The second meeting of the society was held on Wednesday, the 3rd inst., at the Law Library, Cross-street, in that city, when, after the usual routine business, the chair was, in the presence of some seventy msmbers, afterwards taken by J. F. Milne, Esq., solicitor. Votes of thanks were passed to the officers (Messrs. Millar, honorary secretary, and Marshall, honorary treasurer), and the committee for che past session, and to Mr. T. E. Hayle, a member of the society, its congratulations were tendered upon his taking the first Dauntesey Scholarship in law at the Victoria University. R M. Pankhurst, Esq., LL.D., barrister-at-law, then delivered a lecture on "The Law of Bankruptcy, with. Suggestions for its Amendment," advocating most particularly a more complete control by creditors' committee, or court, as might be appointed, over the proceedings of trustees,and a greater restraint upon the discharge of debtors, and many other matters which, if introduced, would undoubtedly work great changes for the better. His lecture wa3 then, with his permission, criticised by Messrs. Hislop, Norton, Rycroft, the honorary secretary (Mr. Butcher), and the learned chairman, to which criticisms Dr. Pankhurst replied. Votes of thanks to the lecturer and chairman concluded the proceedings of a very useful and e ijoyable evening.


The following is a list of the officers of the above society for the ensuing year :—Hon. secretary, Mr. Charles F. Bennett, 16, Caaips-lane ; hon. treasurer, Mr. T. W. Hall; committee—Messrs. Russell, W. F. Smith, S. A. Ashington, Foster, and Briggs.

The first meeting of the session was held at the LawLibrary on Tuesday, the 9th inst., under the presidency of George Denton, Esq., when the subject for debate was as follows:—"That the poliey of the present Government with regard to Ireland has been eminently unsatisfactory." The openers on the affirmative and negative sides respectively were Messrs. A. M. Wilson and J. Barber, solicitors. The followers were, for the allirmative, Mr. Briggs, and for the negative, Mr. W. F. Smith. Most of the other members present took part iu the debate, and upon the question being put to the vote it was decided in the affirmative by a majority of three, one gentleman remaining neutral and declining to vote. A hearty vote of thanks to the chairman and to Messrs. Wilson and Barber brought this, one of the most enjoyable meetings which has been held in connection, with the society, to a close.

LAW CRICKET CLUB. From the second annual report of this club it appears that the olub is in a very prosperous condition, there is a good balance in hand, and the number of members has increased during the last year, the total number being now 164. At the annual meeting of members held at the Law Institution last week, Mr. G. E. Lake took the ohair, and informed the members that steps were being taken by the committee to improve the ground at Willesden-green and to make new lawn tennis courts, after which it was hoped that the ground wonld be fonnd in good order next season. Mr. "W. Hayes was re-elected hon. sec; Mr. E. V. LoBgstaffe, hon. treasurer; and Messrs. H. E. Gribble and G. E. Waller, hon. auditors. A. ballot for the 00mmittee then took plaoe, and the following gentlemen were elected as the committee for tbe year, viz :—Messrs. W. Baker, E. T. Gnrdon, G. E. Lake, J. C. Patteson, R. 0. Ponsonby, J. E. Shaw, J. A. C. Tanner, H. T. Twynam, and G. E. Waller. A Tote of thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting.


Is tbe Irish Queen's Bench Division on the 5th inst., says the Amms'i Journal, before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice O'Brien, and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, the case of Jtoiertun T. Macdonogh came on for argument. The action is by Mr. Robertson, who was convicted of conspiracy at the Commission Court, against Mr. Macdonogh, Q.C., who was engaged to defend him, and he seeks to recover £10,000 for breach of contract on Mr. Macdonogh's part. To the statement of claim Mr. Macdonogh demurred, and the case now came on foT argument.

A. M. Porter, Q.C., and P. Keogh, appeared for the plaintiff.

S. Walter, Q.C., and E. T. Bewley, appeared for the defendant.

Bewlty said the case came before the court on demurrer by the defendant to portion of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The first paragraph stated that the plaintiff was a carrier, that he was at present a prisoner, having been conTicted on a charge of conspiracy at the last commission. The said paragraph stated the defendant was one of her Majesty's counsel. The next material paragraph was the sixth, by which the plaintiff claimed damages for breach of contract under the following circumstances :—It stated the plaintiff was returned for trial by certain magistrates on a criminal charge to be tried at the Commission of Oyer an d Terminer, at Green-street, on June 8, and that that trial ctme on on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of June, and ended in a Terdict against the plaintiff. It then stated in the seventh paragraph that the plaintiff, by a special express contract with the defendant, agreed that if the defendant would promise and agree to attend and assist with the aid of two other counsel in the defence of the plaintiff upon and dnring the continuance of the trial be would pay to the defendant instead of the hono rarium or fee, a special fee, to be named by the defendant, and that the defendant thereupon agreed with the plaintiff tbat if he should be paid as a special fee, instead of an honorarium or ordinary fee, a sum of fifty guineas with his brief and twenty-five guineas for each day after tbe first day of the trial by way of refresher, instead of the usual or accustomed honorarium or fee of two guineas; and if he should pay the asm of five guineas instead of the usual or accustomed honorarium or fee of two guineas for his attendance and advice at such consultations, prior to or during tbe trial, with the other counsel, as the defendant should direct, the defendant would attend throughout the said trial with all doe and reasonable diligence, and without wilful or unreasonable absence, to defend the plaintiff. It stated the payment of the fee, and the oourse of the trial, tbe performance of conditions precedent, and a tender of a refresher on tbe second day of the trial, and alleged the defendant refused to attend on the second or any subsequent day. The eighth paragraph gave the cause of action in somewhat different terms, but alleged the defendant by a special contract agreed with the plaintiff, in consideration of a. fee of fifty guineas and a refresher of twenty-five guineas a day, to attend throughout the trial and defend the plaintiff. It then stated the plaintiff paid fifty guineas on the brief; and althoagh the defendant attended and defended the plaintiff on the first day of the trial, and although the trial lasted several days afterwards, and although on the Homing of the second day the plaintiff tendered a refresher

of twenty-five guineas to the defendant for his attendance, and although all the conditions were performed, the defendant refused to fulfil his agreement, whereby the plaintiff was greatly injured, and was convicted on the charge to tbe plaintiff's damage of £10,000. The question was whether it was possible for any counsel to enter into a binding agreement at all with a client. Counsel submitted that unless their lordships were prepared to overrule a case of the highest weight it was now firmly established that the position of counsel was this, that counsel was absolutely incapacitated from entering into any oontraot with his client as to hiring for advocacy in litigation. Any such contract was absolutely null and void. Upon the one hand a oouusel could not maintain any action for his fees, nor, on the other hand, had, a client any remedy against the counsel either for breach of contract. Counsel quoted the cases of Kennedy v. Browne, Stcinfen v. Thesiger, Meaty n v. Mottyn, and Bobart v. Sutler in support of his argument. Counsels' fee was not in. the nature of wages or salary, but au honorarium.

The Lord Chief Justice.—As a testimony of gratitude.

Bewley said the same doctrine was stated in Blackstone and all the books of authority on the subject. Under these circumstances he contended the demurrer must be allowed.

Keogh, in support of the statement of claim, said Mr. Bewley had quoted almost every case that had been decided on the subject, except that of Mulligan v. Macdonogh, in which tbe same defendant bad been in court before. One marked circumstance in every well-considered authority wae» that the cases bad been by counsel endeavouring to sue a client for fees, and every judge and court, in defence of the honour of the bar, had endeavoured to stamp out e.ny attempt of the kind. It would be a serious matter for the bar if the court decided here tbat a counsel would be at liberty to statohis own terms—large terms, far outside the case of an ho»or~ arium—to state these terms, to put the money in his pocket, to put on bis hat, and walk away to Belfast or elsewhere. The seventh paragraph of the statement of claim brought thiscase outside the case of Kennedy v. Browne, for this was a. special agreement made before the brief had been received.. Mulligan v. Macdonogh, Q.C., was the case of an ordinary fee given, and the defendant in that particular instance not being able to come in and attend on the oase,. Mr. Mulligan thought to get back his money and £2,000> damages for losing the suit. That was an ordinary case. Here there was a special contract; and defending a prisoner was very different from cases of litigation.

Porter, Q.C., followed on the same side. He said on the: present demurrer they started with a case, not of an ordinary retainer at all, but with a case in which, before the relation of counsel and client was commenced, a contract was entered into that for a certain stipulated sum of money personal attendance would be given to the case. In an ordinary case of counsel there was nojsuch thing as trafficking in fees; but if it were done, and if counsel did undertake in consideration of a certain stipulated fee to give his attendance to a particular case, he was entirely abandoning the protection which he would have if he had treated the case as ore of a mere honorarium. There was no traverse of the statement that the abandonment of the case was without any reasonable excuse whatever. His learned friends were driven to argue that at the time counsel made a special agreement to attend to a particular case in consideration of a fee of ten times or a hundred times the usual amount, he might receive the fee with the intention of remaining away, and might remain away, and never look near the case at all.

The Lobd Chief Justice.—All they rely upon is his honour to go, and on the otber hand, if he does go and is not. paid, he cannot recover the fee.

Porter pointed out that in the reign of Henry VI., Serjeant Yaxley was retained by Sir Robert Plumpton for forty marks to attend the assizes at York, and bound, himself by deed to attend, whioh showed that counsel could bind himself by contract. It had been said there was nc precedent for a client's successfully suing a counsel; the reason probably was that such a thing had never occurred before, as was admitted in this case, that counsel having made a special agreement for a special sum, broke that agreement without reason.

Mr. Justice Fitzgerald asked if the defendant had:

Serformed all be promised and had not been paid, could he> ave sued for it?

Porter said he was bound to say tbe case of Kenned;, vBrowne would then have been against him. A muchstrongoxauthority than he thought it was.

Mr. Justice O'brien said, supposing the defendant attended, and his client said he did not conduct the case with sufficient skill, could the plaintiff maintain an action against him?

Porter said he did not think so. If Serjeant Ballantine did not go to India, according to agreement, to defend the Gaikwar of Baroda, there was no reason why he could not be sued for his fees. If a contract like this could be broken without reasonable cause and without impunity, it opened a field for very disgraceful and scandalous immorality.

Walker, Q.C., contended that no Buch action could lie as was now brought by the plaintiff. If a counsel neglected to perform his duty there was always a Nemesis which would attend him, first, in the shape of pecuniary loss, and, secondly, in the censure of bis own profession; and these had always beep considered safeguards for a gentleman discharging professional duties which never had their origin in contract.

The Coukt reserved judgment.


*„• [In last week's appointments, for Mr. Henry A. Harben, barrister, read Mr. Henry Harben, Fellows-road, Hampstead.]

Mr. Edward Robert Batnes, solicitor, of Aylesbury, has teen appointed by the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, to the office of Clerk of the Peace for that county, in succession to his partner, the late Mr. Acton Tindal. Mr. Baynes was admitted a solicitor in 1838, and is also clerk to the Commissioners of Taxes for the three hundreds of Ashendon, and to the Commitsioners of Lieutenancy for the county.

Mr. John Nicholas Bennett, solicitor, of Plymouth, has been elected an Alderman for that borough. Mr. Bennett was admitted a solicitor in 1824.

Mr. John Beavis Brinhley, barrister, has been appointed Recorder of the Borough of Hanley. Mr. Brindley was oalled to the bar at Gray's-inn in Trinity Term, 1860, and practises on the Oxford Circuit, and at the Middlesex, Staffordshire, and Wolverhampton Sessions.

Mr. Justice Grove, Mr. Baron Huddleston, and Mr. Justice Bowen have been appointed Election Judges for the ensuing year.

Mr. Richard Mason, solicitor, of Farnham, has been appointed Registrar of the Farnham and Aldershot County Courts (Cirouit No. 45), on tbe resignation of his partner, Mr. William Jacob Holiest, who is also olerk to the Commissioners of Taxes. Mr. Mason was admitted a aolioitor in 1854, and is also olerk to the Farnham Board and to the county magistrates.

Mr. J. Vernon Musorave, of Albert-buildings, Queen Victoria-street, E.O., has been appointed Commissioner to take Affidavits for the Supreme Courts of South Australia, the Colony of Victoria and New Zealand, Commissioner to take Affidavits and Acknowledgments of Married Women for the Superior Courts of Western Australia, and Commissioner to take Affidavits and to examine Witnesses for the Supreme Court of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope.

Mr. Francis William Rowsell, barrister, C.B., has been created a Companion of the Order of St. Miohael and St. George, in recognition of his public servioes in the Island of Malta. Mr. Rowsell was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1862. He was formerly a member of the Home Circuit, and he was for several years Registrar of Contracts at the Admiralty. He was appointed British Commissioner of tbe Daira Lands in Egypt in 1878, and he was shortly afterwards created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. Samuel Gooding, and Garrod Bennett, solicitors, Ipswich (Garrod, Bennett, & Gooding). Sept. 8.

William Savery, and Crompton Chambers, solicitors, Trinity-street, Hastings (Savery & Chambers). Oct. 14.

(Gazette, Oct. 29, 1880.)


WINDING-UP NOTICES. Joint Stock Companies. Limited nr Chancery. Esioir Odd Fellows' Building Compant, Limited.—Creditors are required, on or before Doc 3, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims to John Readman, Lackenby, nr Eston, York. Dec 17 at 11 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims Fieth House Paper Mills Company, Limited.—Creditors are required, on or before Dec 3, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Jo Shoesmith, Halifax. Dec 17 at 11 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims


an order dated July 9, appointed Trayton Pagden Child, 42 Poul

try, to be official liquidator Steam Tramways Company Of Ibeland, Limited.—Petition for

winding up, presented Nov 1, directed to be heard beforo the M.R.

on Nov 13. Wilson, Cornhill, solicitor for the petitioner

[Gazette, Nov. 5.J Sydenham Stobes, Limited.—Tho M.R. has, by an order dated

Aug 4, appointed Frederick Maynard, Queen Victoria st, to be

official liquidator Yarmouth Aquarium Society, Limited.—Petition for winding np,

presented Nov 8, directed to be heard before the M.R., on Nov

27. Duncan and Co, Bloomsbury sq, apents for Worship and

Rising, Gt Yarmouth, solicitors for the petitioners

[Gatette, Nov. 0.1

Unlimited In Chancery. Bristol Provident Permanent Bbnefit Building Society.'—The M.R. has fixed Nov 15 at 11 at his chambers for the appointment of an official liquidator

[Gazette, Nov. 6.1 London Wood Pavement Company.—V.C Bacon has fixed Nov 18 at 12, at 11, New sq, Lincoln's inn, for the appointment of an official liquidator

r Gazette, Nov. 9.J County Palatine Of Lancaster. Liverpool And Continental Steamship Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Nov 3, directed to be heard before the Vice-Chancellor at 0 Stone buildings, Lincoln's inn, on Nov 15. Etty, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioner

[Gazette, Nov 5.]



Rota Of Reoistrars In Attendance On

Tw. Court Of Master Of Tas

Date- Appeal. Rolls. V.C. Malins.

Monday, Nov. 15Mr. Latham Mr. Kins; Mr. Koe

Tuesday 16 Leach Merivale Clowes

Wednesday.,.. 17 Latham King Koe

Thursday .... 18 Leach Merivale Clowes

Friday 19 Latham King Koe

Saturday .... 20 Loach Merivale Clowes

V. C. Bacon. V. C. Hall. Mr- Justice


Monday, Nov. ISMr. Farrer Mr. Cobby Mr. Pemberton

Tuesday 16 Teesdalo Jackson Ward

Wednesday.,.. 17 Farrer Cobby Pemberton

Thursday .... 18 Teosdale Jackson Ward

Friday 19 Farrer Cobby Pemberton

Saturday .... 20 Teesdale Jackson Ward

SALES OF ENSUING WEEK. Nov. 16.—Messrs. Dehbsham, Tewson, Farmer, & EkidgeWater, at 2 p.m., Freehold Property (see advertisement, Nov. 6, p. 14.)

Nov. 16.—Mr. C. E. Norton, at Upper Norwood, Freehold and Leasehold Propeities (see advertisement, No. 6, p. 15.)

Nov. 17.—Messrs. Bbal & Son, at York Town, Surrey, Freehold Building Land, &c. (eee advertisement, Nov. 6, p. 14.)

Nov. 17.—Mr. Walter Knight, at the Masons' Hall Tavern, Baeinghall-street, Hotel Property (see advertisement, this week, p. 4.)


Ban trap t».

Friday, Nov. 6, 1830. Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.

To Surrender in London.

Butler, F W , Cornwall rd, yswator. Pet Nov 2. Murray, Nov 19 at 11

« PreviousContinue »