Page images

againat a capricious change of mind on the part of some few creditors upsetting the determination come to by the necessary majority at the first meeting. And, by analogy, I contend it was never intended that the court should overrule the deliberate resolutions of the creditors unless some facts were shown which would be sufficient under section 126 to induce the court to withhold registration.

The Master of the Rolls, quoting the words of section 28, " subject nevertheless to the approval of the court," further remarks, "There are no words to limit the discretion thus given; " and upon this he decides that the court has a full judicial discretion to approve or withhold its approval. On this, too, I venture to submit that the decision of the Chief Judge is more in accordance with the intention and provisions of the Act. The concluding paragraph of section 126 provides that, "if it appear to the court on satisfactory evidence that a composition cannot, in consequence of legal difficulties or for any sufficient cause, proceed without injustice or undue delay to the creditors or to the debtor, the court may adjudge the debtor a bankrupt, and proceedings may be had accordingly." Surely the powers thus expressly given to the court are as wide as the words in section 28 can be held to be; and yet, as was admitted by the Master of the Rolls, under that section resolutions duly passed are bound to be registered unless fraud be shown. And surely in exercising a judicial discretion the court is bound to consider and act upon the scope of the whole Act of Parliament, and if express provisions are found for regulating the carrying out of compositions in another part of the Act, or in the rules made in pursuance of the Act, it ought to take cognizance thereof and exercise its discretion in accordance therewith. To do otherwise would be to make the Act inconsistent in itself; whilst, if my contention be correct, then rule 280 and other provisions (ignored apparently by the Court of Appeal) would be applicable to the case.

Having laid down the rule that the court has an absolute judicial discretion to withhold its approval to the composition, notwithstanding that the statutory majority of creditors have resolved to accept it, the Master of the Rolls proceeded to comment upon the facts of the case, but into these I do not propose to follow him. It may be that the conduct of the debtors on various points was open to censure. But have any of your readers ever known of a failure where the debtors have been entirely free from blame? My contention is that the creditors were the parties intended by the Act to decide upon the conduct of their debtors, and that it was not in the province of the court to undo what the creditors had resolved upon in this respect. The same principle was held by the Chief Judge to apply to the discharge of a bankrupt under section 48 in Ex parte Hamilton (26 W. R. 679), but possibly the Court of Appeal might now overrule that decision also.

I have only one more observation to make, relative to the following remarks of Lord Justice James. He says: —" One has heard of 'a new way to pay old debts.' One has heard of persons living on the interest of their debts, and in old comedies it was not uncommon to represent a citizen of London making a fortune out of three successive bankruptcies. But until now I did not know bow penniless beggars could openly, legally, make a considerable fortune oat of their failure. It appears that by reckless trading and expenditure Durham was reduced to assets £99,724, liabilities £153,740. The debtor then says to his creditors, ' Sell me my assets for ten shillings in the pound on my liabilities; that is, let me have my £99,724 for £75,000. The assets are £99,000 if left in my hands. They will never in bankruptcy or liquidation produce anything like £99,000. If you get two-thirds you may think yourselves lucky. Let us avoid these expensive proceedings.' And so he turns into profit all the losses he has sustained, puts the money into his pocket, and all expenditure is saved." Now, if there is

any value at all in the remarks of the Lord Justice, they simply come to this, that in no case whatever of failure ought the creditors to be allowed to take a composition unless it be to the full extent of the amount of the assets as shown upon paper; in other words, in bona fide coses compositions would become impossible. I can only say that this is certainly not the view heretofore taken by commercial men and lawyers of experience in commercial matters. They have been in the habit of considering that in all cases of composition, where it is intended to give the debtor an opportunity of continuing his business, a sufficient margin of assets should be allowed to him to enable him to work such business successfully; unless such a margin be allowed, it is clear that it would be simply impossible for anyone to continue a business successfully, as his credit would be entirely gone. The acceptance of a composition which would allow sach a margin does not prejudice the creditors, as in all cases the composition stipulated for is at least as much as, if not more than, the estate would pay if wound up. And unless fraud, or something as reprehensible, be shown, (as to which the creditors are the parties intended by the Act to decide), the general body of creditors are interested in keeping a business firm going, not on their own account merely, but in the interest of the trading community at large, and even on the grounds of public policy. March 5, 1881. A Solicitor.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir,—"Will you allow me to ask your readers what is the law on the following point:—

A. lets to B., and B. takes, a furnished house for nime or twelve months. During the tenancy a frost sets in, and one of the piped bursts, causing damage to A.'s property, and resulting in B. getting no water by that pipe. He gets water through another pipe. Whose duty is it to repair the pipe and restore the service of water? If B. does so, can he recover the cost against A. or retain it out of the rent? A. pays all rates and taxes except gas and water rates, which B. pays. There is no written agreement between the parties.

I shall esteem it a favour if any of your correspondents will give the law. Clericus.

[See Anderson v. Oppenheimer, noticed 24 Solicitors' Journal, 479; so far as we remember, however, this was the case of an unfurnished house.—Ed. S.J.]


HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Queen's Bench Division. Notice.—The following will be the arrangements in this division during the rest of the Hilary Sittings at Westminster and Guildhall—i.e., up to the 13th of April—subject to any necessary alterations in consequence of the Old Bailey Sessions or ot election petitions. There will be six courts sitting daily at Nisi Prius for the trial of special and common jury actions. Cases for further consideration will be taken on Saturdays. At Westminster Nisi Prius cases will be taken in the following courts: —The Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Exchequer, the Bail Court, the Lords Justices' Court, and the First and Second ViceChancellors' Courts. Three judges will sit in the Court of Common Pleas for the despatch of the new trial paper and parliamentary and municipal business. On Mondays and Tuesdays, motions of all kinds, opposed and unopposed, will be taken before the new trial paper. Two judges will sit in the Court of Exchequer Chamber for the despatch of appeals from the inferior courts and for the Crown and Revenue paper, and cases atated under 37 & 38 Vict. o. 16. On Wednesdays and Thursdays, motions of all kinds, opposed and DDopposed, will be taken in this court before the ordinary paper. Two judges will sit separately in two courts for the despatch of the special paper and demurrers. On Fridays and Saturdays these two judges will sit together for the hearing of motions of all kinds, opposed and unopposed, after which they will take business to be specially fixed. This arrangement of the two judges sitting together on Fridays and Saturdays cannot come into operation until the number of the judges in this division is complete—one judge sitting at chamtat.

THE EXTRADITION ACT. The Gszette for Friday, 4th March, contains the text of a treaty for the mutual extradition of fugitive criminals concluded on the 24th of November last between Her Majesty's Government and the KiDg of the Netherlands and Grand Dole of Luxemburg, the ratifications of which were exchanged at Binsaels on the 5th of January. The treaty comes into force on the 15th inst. It may be terminated ataoy lime by either of the high contracting parties, but is it remain in force for six months after notice has been given for iti termination.


"landlord A.nd TenantFixturesSignboard Of Ttiblic-housb.—In a case of Ex parte The Baronets WillaugMy D'Eresiy, before the Court of Appeal on the 3rd in»t., a question arose as to the ownership of the signhoard of a pnblic-hoase. The signboard had a peculiar value, arising from the fact that it had been painted by a celebrated artist. In the year 1847 it was fastened by iron holdfasts to the outside wall of the house, over the entrance. It was then rc-painted by the artist, who stood on a ladder for the purpose. At this time the house was occupied by one Edward Roberts, as tenant from year to year. Afterwards, his son, Robert Roberts, occupied the house as yearly tenant, but it did not appear that he was his father's legal personal representative. In 1861, the owner of the freehold granted a lease of the house to Robert Roberts for twenty-one years. In 1863 he died, and his widow afterwards married again, first, one Rae, and afterwards, one Richards. On her marriage with Richards, the lease was assigned to the trustees of her marriage settlement. In 1871, the trustees, with the concurrence of Richards and his wife, surrendered the lease to the freeholder, and a newleaae wus granted to Richards for fifty-eight years. In 18*6, after his death, his widow assigned the lease to a Miss Thomas. The signboard was expressly excepted from the assignment. It had remained fixed outside the house, as it was in 1847, until 1866, when some alterations were made in the house, that part of it to which the signboard was affixed being pulled down. The signboard was then taken inside the honse, and was fixed up in the entrance-hall, being fastened by a screw to a wooden plug let into the wall, and there it remained until 18S0. In 1878, Mrs. Bichards made a claim to it as her pioperty, and attempted to remove it, but the agent of the freeholder interfered, and cliimed it as the property of the freeholder, and Mrs. Richards withdrew her claim. In 1879, Miss Thomas filed a liquidation petition, and the trustee in the liquidation claimed the signboard as having been in her order and disposition with the consent of the true owner. There was evidence of the existence of a custom in Wales (in which the poblic-honse was situate) by virtue of which the signboards of public-hooses are always treated as teoant's fixtures. Bacon, C.J., held (29 W. R. 248) that the trustee was entitled to the signboard. This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal (james, Cotton, and Ldsh, L.JJ.), who said that, assuming that the signboard was a tenant's fixture io 1847—that is, a fixture which the then tenant was entitled to remove during his tenancy, or within a reasonable tune after its determination—yet he had never exercised his right to do so, and, consequently, the signboard, whatever "light have been the original right of the tenant, became, in

the absence of any agreement, the property of the landlord, as being affixed to and forming part of the house. It was demised by the landlord as part of the house in 1861 and again in 1871, and the removal of it inside the house in 1866 by the then tenant conld not, as against the landlord, convert it into a chattel. But, in faot, the true inference from the evidence was that it was fixed up in the entrance-hall, not as a chattel, but as the sign of the house. Cotton, L. J., intimated an opinion (though it was not necessary to deoide the point) that, if the tenant of a hoase surrenders an existing lease, and aeoepts a new one, he thereby, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, loses the right to remove any fixtures which he might have removed, but did not remove, during his original term. However, on the 7thinst., James, L.J., mentioned the case again, and said that, on consideration, their lordships thought that, in giving their judgments, they might, perhaps, have stated some propositions more widely than it was necessary or desirable to state them. If and when the simple case should arise of a tenant having removable fixtures continuing his possession under a new or extended term, whether he would retain his right of removal during such continued and continuous possession, their lordships desired to hold themselves perfectly free to decide that case, unfettered by anything whioh had been said in the present case. All that must be considered as judicially decided in the present case was that Miss Thomas had no right of property in the signboard ; that it was not a chattel of which reputed ownership could be predicated; and that, as against her and her trustee the freeholder was clearly entitled to prevent the removal of the fixture.—Solicitors, Trovers Smith, & Brailhwaite; W. W. Wynne S Son.

Railway CompanySi-ecial ActDividends On Calls InjunctionCompanies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 24.—In a case of Fisher v. Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Company, before the Master of the Rolls on the 4th inst., a motion was made to restrain the defendants, the directors of the company, and the company, from paying any money by way of dividend upon the paid-up capital during the construction of the works. By their special Act, passed in 1880, the company were authorized to construct a railway and dock. The 157th section of the Act was as follows :—" The company shall not, out of any money by this Act authorized to be raised, pay interest or dividend to any shareholder on the amount of the calls made in respect of tlid shares held by him, but nothing in this Act shall prevent the company from paying to any shareholder such interest on money advanced by him beyond the amount of calls actually made as is in conformity with the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845." By section 24 of the latter Act, it is provided that the company, if they think fit, may receive from their shareholders all or any part of the moneys due upon their respective shares beyond the sums actually called for, and upon the principal sums so paid in advance or in excess of the calls the company maj pay interest at such rate as may be agreed upoo. By the contracts for the construction of the works, the contractors, in consideration of an increase in the contract prices, agreed to pay interest during the construction of the works upon all calls paid up. A prospectus of the issue of the share capital of the company was published in December, 1880, by which 300,000 shares of £10 each were offered for subscription, on the terms of ten shillings per share being paid on application, and ten shillings on allotment, £1 on the 1st of July, 1981, and the remainder by instalments when required. The prospectus stated that interest at the rate of £5 per cent, would be paid half-yearly until the 31st of December, 1884, upon all amounts for the time being paid up, the interest having been covenanted to be paid by the contractors, and the prospectus allowed the shareholders to pay up in advance by consent of the directors. The share capital was fully subscribed for, and under the power in the prospectus a sum of £824,095, in addition to the sums payable on application and allotment, was paid up. The plaintiff waa the holder of scrip certificates for 300 shares which he purchased from the allottee, and he now brought this action on behalf of himself and all other shareholders, claiming, in addition to the injunction asked by his motion, declarations that the defendants were not entitled to pay any dividends out of capital, and that the contracts entered into with the contractors were . illegal, as containing provisions for the payment of dividends , out of capital. The next payment of interest on the capital paid up was intended to be made in July, 1881. Jesseli M.R., said it was clear from the prospectus, and the covenant entered into by the contractors, that the company threatened and intended to pay interest at £5 per cent, on all sums paid up on the shares, and the defendants bad not denied that the interest was to he paid out of tbe "moneys authorized to be raised " by their special Act. That being so, they intended to do that which was illegal, and there must be an injunction. In his opinion the " oalls" upon which the directors could legally pay interest under the Compnnies Clauses Act, s. 24, were sums actually called and paid in advance, as distinguished from those sums which were paid in advance, although not required to be paid, and therefore that the sums payable on application and allotment, and on the 1st of July, 1881, would be within the definition. He should grant an injunction in the words of the 157th section of the special Act, omitting, however, the words "out of moneys authorized by this Act to he raised."—Solicitors, Fowler <fc Perks ; Brookeshank $ Gallant!; Cope <£• Co.

WillAppointment Op Share Op FundPostponeMent Of EnjoymentInterest In The Meantime.—In a case of Long v. Ovenden, before the Master of the Rolls on the 8th inst., a question was raised whether the donee of a share of an appointed fund, where tbe enjoyment was postponed nntil twenty-one, was entitled to the income upon the fund in the meantime. Jessel, M.R., said he had no doubt the income went with the capital. The thiDg given was a part of an ascertained trnst fund, and he must treat it as a well-settled doctrine that where a trust fund was given to a legatee, although the enjoyment was postponed, it carried with it the intermediate income. If a specific legacy was given to anyone this was clear, as it was, in fact, a severance of the legacy from the general estate, and when there was a complete severance, tbe legacy would carry interest from the death instead of from a later period. In the same way, if any accretion occurred to a specific legacy, the legatee was entitled to the benefit of it. Then what difference did it make that, instead of the subject-matter belonging absolutely to the appoir.tor, it was only a share of a fund as to which the appointor had a power of appointment? In his opinion a share of a fund carried with it the interest upon the fund, and also any other accretions, and be should make a declaration giving the donee tbe income prior to his attaining twentyone.—Solicitors, Sole, Turner, $ Knight, Collycr-Rristow, Withers, <fc Russell.

Injunction—Trade-nameUse Of Words " And Co."Partnership Dissolved.—In a case of Day v. Finch, before Vice-Chancellor Hall on the 4th inst., a point arose as to the use of the words " and Co." alter a proper name, which is not without interest. The decision was given upon the construction of a contract between the parties, but tbe circumstances were such as are not unlikely to recur in other cases of dissolution of partnership. In April, 1879, Mr. Benjamin Finch, who had previously carried on business as a sanatory engineer in bis own proper name only, took into partnership in his business a Mr. Day, and tbe business was thenceforward carried on at the old premises under tbe Dame of " Benjamin Finch and Co." and those words were used on the circulars and stationery of the firm, as well as upon their brands and manufactured articles. In June, 18S0, Mr. Day, who had never taken an active part in the business, desired to retire, and tbe partnership was dissolved by deed, and the dissolution advertised in the Gazette. In the deed, whereby Mr. Day took a security for moneys he lent Mr. Finch for the business, there was contained a recital of an agreement that Mr. Finch should thenceforward carry on the business "in his own name alone," and that intention was also advertised in the Gazette notice. The stock-in-trade, stationery, &c, were assigned by aeed to Mr. Finch. Mr. Day bad recently discovered that Mr. Finch was continuing to carry on the business in every respect under the style of " Benjamin Finch and Co.," and now applied by motion for an injunction to restrain Mr. Finch from carrying on the business under that name or otherwise than in his own name. By way of defence it was argu-d that, in modern usage, the words " and Co." could not be taken to imply any actual partnership, nor to convey any Bpecial meaning ; that no actual contract could be Bhown, and that the plaintiff could not show any probable damage to himself. Hall, V.(.'., held that there was a proper case for an interlocutory injunction, and accordingly made

an order restraining the use by the defendant of the wor is "and Co." until the trial, the order not to extend to stock, &c, assigned by the deed, except that the words were to be struck through upon the circulars. His lordship considered there was a clear bargain between tbe parties, although tbe contract was only contained in recitals, and that it was not necessary to deal with questions as to whether it was void as being in restraint of trade, or as to the right of a continuing partner to tbe firm name.—Solicitors, Wood, Latham, JBigg; B. llontayu.

DamagesRemoteness.—In a cose of McMahon v. Fieldr before Fry, J., on the 7th inst., a question arose as to the remoteness of damages. The defendant had agreed to 1st some stables to the plaintiff, and he had afterwards turned the plaintiff's horses out of the stables. The plaintiff claimed damages for breach of contract, and he alleged that tho health of his horses had been injured by their being turned out. Fry, J., held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the breach of contract only, but that the damige arising from the injury to the horses was too remote. He came to this conclusion on the authority of Hobbs v. The London and South- Western Railway Company (23 W. B. 520, L. R. 10 Q. B. Ill), though the inclination of his own opinion was the other way. — Solicitors, Eaiiilin t Giammer; Paterson, Son, § Bloxam.

Service Op WritOmission To Make Indorsement Op Date Of ServiceExtension Of TimeObd. 9, s. 13—Ord. 67, R. 6.—In a case of Hastings v. Hurley, before Fry, J., on the 8th inst., the question arose whether under the power given to the court by rule 6 of order 57, the time prescribed by rule 13 of order 9, within which the person who serves a writ is to make an indorsement on it of tho date of service, could be extended. Rule 13 says that the indorsement must be made "within three days at most after such service." An order had been made giving the plaintiff liberty to serve the writ on one of the defendants out of the jurisdiction, at Galveston, in Texas, and the writ had been > erved on the defendant by the British Consul there, bat the consul had omitted to make the indorsement of the date or service. Fry, J., held that he had power to extend the time, and he extended it for a month from the date of bis order, but said that the consul must make a fresh affidavit of service.—Solicitors, Peacock % Goddard.

Action For AccovntAssignment Op Share Of Psoras Of A PatentRight Of Assignee To Account Fsom Assignor's Agent.—In a case of Bergmann v. Macmillan, before Fry, J., on the 8th inst., a question arose as to the liability of an agent to account. '1 he defendant Macmillan was the grantee of a patent. He had assigned to the plaintiff a moiety of the patent and of his interest resulting therefrom, and a moiety of all or any of the licences, powers, and privileges resulting therefrom, and a moiety of all right?, powers, or benefits to the patent appertaining. Macmillan had Bhortly before appointed two other persons (who were also made defendants to the action) his sole licensees in Great Britain for the sale of the patented article for seven years, and the agreement with them provided that they were to render monthly accounts to Macmillan of the sales. Notice of the assignment was given by the plaintiff to the agentsThe action was brought against Macmillan and the agents, claiming an account against the former of the profits derived from the patent, and against the agents an account of all sums of money due from them in respect of profits under the agreement appointing them agents. It appeared that Macmillan bad made other assignments of shares of tbe profits, but these assignees were not made parties to tbe action. Fur, J., refused to grant the account, because the evidence showed that no profits had been in fact derived from the working of the patent. Bnt he added that, without raying that an assignee of a share of profits was not entitled to an account from the agent of the assignor, in his judgment, to avoid multiplicity of actions, the account must be taken once for all in the presence of all the persons interested, and, moreover, the plaintiff ought by his statement of claim to submit to pay to the agent any moneys that might be due to him from the assignor. The assignee must put himself exactly in the position of the assignor. This the plaintiff had not done.— Solicitors, T. W. Goldring; Goldberg <0 Langdon.

Bill Op SaleSetting Out Consideration For Deduction Of Commission Tor Sum Advanced Bills Op Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. C. 31), 8. 8.—In a case of Hamilton v. Chains, Morgan, Claimant, which came before the Queen's Bench Division on March 4, on appeal from the decision of a county court judge, the question was whether a bill of sale dnlj set out tbe consideration for which the bill of sale was given. The claimant agreed to lend the defendant £700 upon having the same secured by a bill of sale upon her furniture, and this was done. The £700 was paid in two cheques, bat, when the second cheque was oashed, the claimant deducted £7 10s. "for commission on the said loan" (the solicitor's charges having been previously paid), and took the defendant's promissory note for £10, also in respect of commisaon. The court (grovb and Lindley, JJ.) held, affirming the decision of the county court judge, that the consideration was not set out as required by the Bills of Sale Act, 1878; that the bill of sale set out the consideration as £700, whereas the true consideration was that sum, less £17 10s. partly deducted, and partly secured by a promissory note, for the payment of commission, and not for expenses in connection with the advance, in which case the consideration might have been truly set out.—Solicitors, Nash it Field, far Stiickey «fc Son, Brighton; Venn §• Woodcock, for Godman, Brighton.

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS. (Before Mr. Registrar Mcrrat, acting as Chief Judge.) March 2.—Se Stanley Harris.

The London court has no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver and grant a restraining order under a petition for liquidation filed in a county court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy, although the petitioner is a solicitor and the registrar of the county court in question.

H. H. Wells (solicitor), on behalf of Mr. Stanley Harris, solicitor, and also the registrar of the Barnet County Court, applied for the appointment of a receiver, and for an injunction to restrain proceedings in several actions. He stated that Mr. Harris had presented a petition for liquidation to the Barnet County Court, and, unless the case was carried on in this court, the petitioner would be in this anomalous position, thit he would, as registrar, have to issue orders restraining proceedings against himself, and, perhaps, to register his own resolution.

Mr. Registrar Murray.—Why should not the county court judge deal with the case? Yon must show me that, under some Act of Parliament or rule, I hav.e jurisdiction to transfer the matter.

Welh.—Tbe judge has signed a certificate under section 80, sab-section 5, that, in bis opinion, the bankruptcy will be more advantageously conducted in the London court. The petition was filed yesterday at Barnet, and there are seven creditors suing, one of whom threatens an execution.

Mr. Registrar Murray.—If a registrar of a county court is placed in this unfortunate position, that he becomes a liquidating debtor, I cannot conceive what difficulty there can be in the judge dealing with the case.

Welle.—The judge has twelve courts to attend, and he is hsrd.y ever in London; his next sitting at Barnet will not be until the 23rd. He gave the certificate upon application being; made at his private residence.

Mr. Registrar Murray.—I think the section you refer to applies to bankruptcy proper, and not to liquidation, and at present I do not see how to make an order. No doubt, under rule 288, the creditors may, at the first meeting, transfer tbe proceedings, but then is no leave necessary in that cue. I will, however, consider the matter, bat, at the present moment, it seems that I am utterly without jurisdiction to appoint a receiver or grant an injunction, and that the mere fact of the debtor being a registrar of the county court does not place any obstacle in the way of the judge dealing with the matter.

Later in tbe day Mr. Registrar Murray said: I have consulted my colleagues upon the subject, and they quite agree with me that I have no power to appoint a receiver or to grant an injunction in this case. In the first place the proceedings have not yet been tiled here. The papers have been brought up from Barnet by a strange hand, but they are not yet filed. Secondly, although the judge certifies that, in his opioion, the matter may be more advantageously

conducted in the London court, it is for him to lay that opinion before the creditors, and then if they do not object the proceedings may be transferred. In the meantime I cannot interfere, for the simple reason that everyoneknows where the learned judge is to be found, and there really is not the slightest difficulty in getting an injunction, which. I feel quite certain ho will give you. You have not shown me that I have a scintilla of jurisdiction to deal with this question. Application refused.



At the sixth annual general meeting nf the society, held at the rooms, Aldine-court, High-street, Sheffield, ou Friday, the 25th of February, 1881, Mr. William Smith (the vicepresident) in the chair, the report, as printed, having bees; taken as read, it was resolved :—

1. That the report presented by the committee be received, confirmed, and adopted.

2. That the accounts of Mr. Broomhean1, the treasurer, for the past year, as printed, be approved and passed, and that the thanks of the society be given to him for his services.

8. That the cordial thanks of the society be given to Mr. Herbert Bramley for the able manner in which he has discharged tbe office of honorary secretary from the commencement of this society.

The chairman then, in the name of the society, presented to Mr. Charles Thwaites, of Doncaster, who obtained the Clement's-inn Prize in the Trinity Sittings Examination in 1880, being the first among 75 candidates for honours, the prize of tbe society of the value of ten guineas. The books chosen were " Hallam's Constitutional Historv of England," 3 vols.; "Hallam's Middle Ages," 3 vols.; " Hallam's Literature of Europe," 3 vols.;" Macaulay's Essays," 3 vols.; and "May's Constitutional History of England." Mr. Thwaites had also taken the whole of the open prizes in the year—namely, the Daniel Reardon Prize of £100 ; the Joan Scott Scholarship of £50 ; and the Broderip gold medal.

4. That Mr. William Smith be elected the president; Mr. Bernard Wake be elected the vice-president; Mr. Broomhead be re-elected the treasurer; and Mr. Bramley be re-elected the secretary of the society.

5. That the following gentlemen be hereby appointed ta act with the officers mentioned in last resolution as the cam. mittee for the ensuing year, namely: Messrs. Astiingtnn, Bagshawe, Josh. Binney, C. G. Busby (Chesterfield), Burdekin, W. J. Clegg, Esano, F. L. Harrop (Rotherham), Moore, Parker-Rhodes (Rotherham), Colin M. Smith, C. K. Tickers, Webster, A. Wightman, and Yeomans.

6. That Messrs. H. O. Maxfield and Hughes be appointed the auditors of the society for the ensuing year, and that the. best thanks of the society be given to Messrs. Watson and, Fretsou for their kindness in auditing the accounts for the last year.

7. That tbe thanks of the society be given to the Right Hon. A. J. Mundella, M.P., for his attention to the nutters laid before him by the committee, and for prints of the public Bills brought into Parliament during the last session, which he forwarded to the committee.

8. That the thanks of the society be given to C. B. S. Wortley, Esq., M.P., for his attention to the matters laid before him by the committee, and for prints of the publie Bills brought into Parliament during the present session, which he has forwarded to the committee.

9. That the thanks of the meeting be given to the ehau> man for prosiding.

The following are extraots from the report of the committee :—

Members.—The committee have to announce that Che number of members is 130.

Piatt to Site/field of the Incorporated, Law Societf.— The visit to Sheffield, in October last, of the Incorporated Law Society of England was to some extent marred by bad weather, but it was the largest provincial meeting yetknowo, the visitors numbering about 181, and members of your society to tbe number of 90 were also present. The committee feel sure they are expressing the feeling of every member when they refer with pleasure to this visit, which gave tbe society the opportunity of showing their appreciation of the honour paid them by the Incorporated Law Society of tbe United Kingdom in coming to Sheffield. The details of the visit will be fresh in the minds of members, and need not, therefore, be set out here. You will be gratified to know that the counoil, at their next meeting, passed the following resolution, which was forwarded to your committee by their president:—

"That the best thanks of the council be given to the Sheffield District Incorporated Law Society for its magnificent hospitality to tbe members of this society on the occasion of their visit to Sheffield, for the purpose of holding the seventh annual provincial meeting of the society, on the 6th-and 7th of October, 1880."

The expenses of the visit (with the exception of Jeioo taken from the society's funds for purposes other than the entertxinment and amusement of the visitors) were defrayed by subscriptions from members. It would not be doing justice to your honorary secretary (Mr. Bramley) were your committee not to record here their appreciation of his arduous, gratuitous, and valuable services, to which tbe success of the visit is to no small extent attributable. They are gratified to know, from many sources, that such services were duly appreciated by those of the visitors best qualified to form an opinion of their value, and a resolution acknowledging them will, with the unanimous and cordial approval of your committee, be proposed for your adoption.

Saffron Walden Building Society v. Rayner.—The attention of the members was, in consequence of a valuable paper read at the Sheffield meeting by Mr. R. S. Cleaver, drawn to the case of Soffren Walden Building Society v. Rayner (2*8 W. R. 681, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 406), which decided that the acceptance of service of notices to trustees and mortgagees i by the solicitors usually acting for tbem is not a service of notice on the trustees or mortgagees, unless it can be shown that such service has actually come to their knowledge or been made in pursuance of the client's direct authority. The committee, in consequence, decided that the old system of acceptance of service should cease, and that in future the service should be an aotual one on the client, suoh service being effected through his solicitor, and the charge being for the first name, 10s., and each succeeding one, os. A circular to this effect was sent to the members on the 10th of December, 1880.

Sheffield Corporation's Conditions of Sale.—The conditions of sale used by the town council, on the disposal of the surplus properties belonging to the town, have been on several occasions considered by your committee.

Those conditions (as originally framed) provided that the title should begin with the conveyance to the corporation, that no deeds should be covenanted to be produced, and that the covenants for title should be absolute ones. Subsequently tbe town council contemplated altering the conditions as to tbe covenants for title, by substituting tbe usual qualified covenants for title for the absolute covenants originally proposed, retaining the other conditions in the original form. By some of your committee these absolute •covenants were thought to be ultrd vires, and the other conditions objectionable. A snb-committee was appointed to inport on the matter, and your committee eventually adopted ithe following resolution, which had been passed by the subcommittee, viz.:—

"That, inasmuch as the town clerk declines to allow the usual investigation of title, tbe least that the corporation can do is to give purchasers absolute covenants amounting to a warranty of title. That such warranty of title, whether in the shape of covenants in the conveyance, or a collateral bond of indemnity, would not be, in the judgment of the majority of the sub-committee ultra vires or otherwise objectionable, and that purchasers would be praotioally safe if suoh warranty were given."

Miscellaneous.—1,934 copies of the society's conditions of sale have been Bold during the year ending December 31, 1880. 1,142 actions were commenced in the year 1880 in Che Sheffield District Registry, and 147 petitions for liquidation, 4 declarations of inability to pay, and 25 bankruptcy petitions were filed. Tbe amount of new business in the registry was considerably lees than in 1879. Of the 1,142 actions only 8 judgments were entered on the certificate of associate, 4 lor the plaintiff and 4 for tbe defendant.


LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. Tuesday, March 8.—Mr. Kirk in the chair.—The following was the question appointed for the evening's debate: "Was thecase of Angus v. Dalton (L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 162) rightly decided?" Mr. F. J. Green opened the discussion on the affirmative side of tbe question, and was lollowed on the same side by Mr. W. F. Barry. The negative view was supported by Mr. W. Van Sommer and Mr. Mossop. The question, on being put to the meeting, was carried in the affirmative by the casting vote of the chairman. The subject for debate for Tuesday, March IS, will be, "Is it desirable that tbe British troops should be withdrawn from Candahar?"


A meeting of the Liverpool Law Students' Society was held at the Law Library on Monday, February 21, whea the following subject was discussed:—"When a ship, ia order to escape the danger of sinking in deep water, is voluntarily Btranded, whereby the whole adventure is saved, ought the damage done by the stranding to the ship to be allowed in general average?" Mr. W. F. Wilson and Mr. A. Wilson were the opening speakers on the affirmative and negative sides. Tbe question, when put to the vote, was decided in the affirmative by a majority of two.

A meeting of the society was also held on Monday, the 7th of March, Mr. S. Style, solicitor, in the chair. Tbe Buhject for discussion was the following :—"A railway company has acquired land for the purposes of itsline ; an adjacent proprietor puts up a building on his land. Is the company entitled to set up a hoarding on its own land opposite the building, so as to prevent the owner thereof acquiring a continuous right to light and air across the line of the company?" Mr. H. C. Crossfield and Mr. Barkle having opened on the affirmative and negative sides, an interesting discussion ensued, and the question, when put to the vote, was decided in the negative by a majority of five.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A meeting of this society was held on Tuesday last, at tbe Law Library, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham, A. Canning, Esq., in the chair. After the special business a discussion took j.lace on moot point No. 641:—"A. is a policy-holder in a mutual life assurance office, in which there are no proprietors or members, but the policy-holders themselves receive by way of bonus all profits made. Ia the event of the office proving insolvent, would A. have to contribtue to the debts owing by the office?" Ec The Great Britain Mutual Life Assurance Society (29 W. R. 202); In re Albion Assurance Society (L. R. 16 Ch. D. 83); lie The English and Irish, &c, Assurance Society (1 H. & M. 85). The speakers on the affirmative were Messrs. Barrows, Steere, Rogers, and Barber, and on the negative, Messrs. Cochrane, Smith, and Crockford. After a few remarks from the chairman, the question was put to the meeting, and carried in the affirmative. A vote of thanks to tbe chairman concluded the meeting.

In tbe House of Commons on the 8th inst., Mr. Bart asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether hia attention had been called to the raport of a case which appeared in the Norwich News of February 26, in which the trustees of the Long Stratton District Amalgamated League Sick Benefit Society applied to tbe county court judge for an order to compel the treasurer of the society to give np tbe banking-book. In the coarse of the proceedings, the judge was reported to have asked "if the society had anything to do with tbe movement with whioh Mr. Arch was connected?" A reply having been given in the affirmative, he said "he should show no mercy to Arch and his lot, as they were a pes: to society " ; and whether he could state if the words quoted were used by the judge; and, if so, whether he would deem it right to ask him to refrain from remarks of this character. Sir W. Haicourt said that h« was in communication with the Lord Cbaneellor on the subject

« PreviousContinue »