Page images

mainly to the Emperor of Russia, is alleged to have | SINCE THE NIGHT of Sunday next is the time fixed for incited to the assassination of the Emperor of Germany, taking the census of the United Kingdom, we may the Government are only fulfilling the obligations of remind our readers of some of the leading provisions of international law. Although a State has a right to the Census Act of last year (43 & 44 Vict. c. 37). By harbour political refugees, it cannot, consistently with section 1 the forms and instructions issued by the the obligations of friendship with other States, allow Registrar-General are to be such as the Local Governthem to plot against the person of the Sovereign, or the ment Board “shall deem necessary.” By section 4, the institutions, of their native country. Crimes of this kind registrars in England are to "leave or cause to be left do not call for extradition, but should be punished by at every dwelling-house within their respective subthe laws of the country to which the refugees have fled districts" schedules" for the purpose of being filled up (Woolsey, § 79). The rule is clearly laid down by by or on behalf of the several occupiers of dwelling-Bluntschli (Droit International Codifié, $ 396) ;-" The houses" with particulars of the name, sex, age, rank, State should protect the refugees against pursuit; but profession, or occupation, condition as to marriage, it ought not to afford them a basis of operations for relation to head of family, and birthplace of every living continuing their political offences.”

person who abode in every house on the night of Sunday the 3rd of April, 1881, and also whether any were blind,

or deaf and dumb, or imbecile, or lunatic.” Where a WITH REGARD to the form of the charge against the

dwelling-house is let or sub-let in different stories or publisher of the Freiheit-viz., that of publishing a

apartments, and occupied distinctly by different persons libel on a foreign Sovereign-there appears to be no doubt

or families, a schedule is to be filled up by the occupier that libels tending to disturb the amicable relations

of each distinct story or apartment. Every occupier is between this country and other nations, by malicious

to fill up the schedule “to the best of his or her knowreflections on those who are possessed of high rank and

ledge or belief so far as relates to all persons dwelling influence in foreign States, are punishable at common

in the house, story, or apartment," and to sign his or her law. Thus, Lord ELLENBOROUGH laid it down in

name thereunto. A penalty of not more than £5, nor Peltier's case (28 Howell's State Trials, 617), that

less than £1 (recoverable before two justices), is imposei “any publication which tends to degrade, revile,

upon every occupier “who shall wilfully refuse or with. and defame persons in considerable positions of

out lawful cause neglect to fill up the said schedule to power and dignity in foreign countries, may be taken

the best of his or her knowledge or belief, or to sign and to be, and treated as, a libel ; and particularly when it

deliver the same,... or who shall wilfully make, has a tendency to interrupt the pacific relations between

sign, or deliver, or cause to be made, signed, or delivered, the two countries.” Moreover, a precedent curiously

any false return of all or any of the matters specified in. applicable to the present circumstances exists in R. v.

the said schedule." Section 5 gives the enumerators Vint (27 Howell's State Trials, 627). In that case John

extensive powers of revision, for they are to “complete VINT was found guilty upon an information charging

such of the said schedules as upon delivery thereof to him with having published the following libel :-"The

them shall appear to be defective, and correct such as Emperor of Russia is rendering himself obnoxious to his

they shall find to be erroneous." Section 17 also consubjects by various acts of tyranny, and ridiculous in the

fers some inquisitorial powers, for the enumerators and eyes of Europe by his inconsistency; he has lately

other persons employed in the execution of the Act are framed an edict to prohibit the exportation of deals

authorized to ask all questions directed in the instrucand other naval stores. In consequence of this ill-judged

tions of the Local Government Board which are necessary law, a hundred sail of vessels are likely to return to

for obtaining the returns required, and every person this country without their freight.”

“refusing to answer or wilfully give a false answer to " any such question, is subjected to a penalty of from £1 to $5.

THE ILL-DRAFTED Bill to amend the Bills of Sale Act 1878, on which we commented last year, has again made its appearance in the House of Commons. So far as we have observed, none of the errors on which we remarked have been remedied. We do not propose to go over them again, but attention should be drawn to clause 7, which proposes to provide that “from and after the commencement of this Act a solicitor of the Supreme Court attesting a bill of sale shall, before the execution thereof, explain its full meaning and effect to the grantor.” This attempt to carry into effect the doctrine laid down by Vice-Chancellor Malins in Hill v. Kirkwood (24 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 304) should be strenuously re. sisted by the profession. How will it be possible to make sure that the “full meaning and effect” of a bill of sale have been explained so as to satisfy a judge? In Hill v. Kirkwood the Vice-Chancellor said that a solici. tor who explained the meaning of a bill of sale “ in general terms" did not do his duty. “Did you," he asked, " explain that the plaintiffs could not take a sheep or lamb off the farm and sell it at Doncaster Market in the ordinary course of farming business, and that the defendants could, at any moment, enter into possession and sell up the plaintiffs ?" So far as we can gather from the Bill, it does not seem to be intended that the bill of sale shall be void if the solicitor fails to explain its “ full meaning and effect" to the grantor ; but the solicitor would, doubtless, be liable in such a case to be punished under the summary jurisdiction of the court.

WE ARE GLAD to observe that Mr. Justice HAWKINS, has remitted the fine of £10 which he recently imposed on the plaintiff who, on the learned judge depriving him of his costs, inasmuch as he ought to have brought his action in the county court, remarked, “That's a rum thing, too "--whether reflecting upon counsel's application; upon the policy of the Legislature in passing the 5th section of the County Courts Act, 1867; upon the conflicting judicial interpretations of that section ; or upon the application of the section by the judge, does not appear. There is little doubt that a technical contempt of court had been committed, but it seems clear that no disrespect to the court was intended, and that the remark was only that of a man who had been so carried away by his interest in the case as to express his thoughts aloud. It may be observed that the lesser and less usual punishment for contempt, by fine only, is not so easily exacted from the offender as the greater and more usual punishment by fine coupled with imprisonment, which frequently takes the form of imprisonment only until the fine is paid. In this latter case the officer of the court may immediately arrest the offender, who, by apology or payment of the fine, or both, “purges". his contempt. Where a fine only is inflicted, we presume that it becomes a debt to the Crown, recoverable by the tedious process of “English Information” under the Crown Suits Act, 1865.

A CORRESPONDENT sends us the following advertise. ment which appeared in a recent issue of a daily paper,

and which, as he remarks, is certainly a novelty :-
“ Law.-To Barristers Commencing Practice. — The
Nucleus of a sound Business can be secured by the

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR advance of about £500 for an agreed term. Address, in

LIBEL. confidence, - " We hope and believe that this ad

It seems to us a very doubtful question, to judge from vertiser will receive no response. Probably no body of

recent experience, whether, in all cases of libel, it should men has ever preserved and enforced so successfully as the English bar the rule which prohibits tradesmanlike

be open to the party libelled to proceed by way of buying of custom, touting, advertising, and underbid.

criminal prosecution. The theory of the law on the

subject is that a libel is a criminal offence, not on account ding; and the result is to be seen in the class of men who have been attracted to its ranks, and in the honourable

of the wrong done to the individual's reputation, but

because of its tendency to lead to a breach of the peace. and independent position it has maintained in the country. It may be doubted, however, whether in these

Accordingly, as the law originally stood, in criminal days of decentralization, when the members are thrown

prosecutions the truth of the libel was no defence. The far less together than formerly, there exist sufficient

severity of the ancient law in this respect has been modimeans for detecting and discouraging infringements of

fied by the statutory provision which enables the the traditional etiquette ; and it has been suggested

defendant to plead that tbe libel was true, and that it that the benchers of the Inns of Court would do well to

was for the public good that it should be published. It appoint a joint committee to inquire into the matter.

appears to us that the ancient theory which made the criminality of a libel depend on its tendency to produce a breach of the peace cannot, in its integrity, be sup

ported as a reasonable theory of the law. If this be the AS WE POINTED OUT when the question was first raised,

theory of the thing, the fact that the publication of the and for the reasons which we pointed out, the Court of

libel was for the public good is immaterial. That fact Appeal has affirmed the judgment of Mr. Justice MATHEW

does not at all diminish or affect the tendency of the to the effect that Mr. BRADLAUGH was not entitled to affirm

libel to lead to a breach of the peace. Again, what under the Parliamentary Oaths Act. Shortly put, the ratio

would otherwise be libellous may not be so, on the decidendi is that Mr. BRADLAOGH is not “another per

ground that it is a fair comment or criticism on a matter son" ejusdem generis with a Quaker, Separatist, Moravian,

of public interest ; but the irritable author, whose pro. or like persons who from time to time have been allowed

duction has been condemned, is none the more likely on to substitute an affirmation for an oath, not on the ground

that account to abstain from horsewhipping the editor of having no religious belief at all, but having a religious

or the critic, if he would otherwise be disposed so to do. belief very actively developed. Mr. BRADLAUGH appeals

It seems to us that the protection of the public from to the House of Lords, but it can hardly be expected that

attacks upon the reputation is the real ground of the on the main point- upon which every argument was

criminality of libel. It is an analogous case to that of urged-the House will reverse the decision of the Court

an assault, which may be the foundation of an action or of Appeal. Upon the technical question, however

of an indictment at the election of the party assaulted. scarcely raised before Mr. Justice MATHEW-whether a

The attack on the person and on the reputation are common informer or only the Crown can sue for the

similar in this respect. In an action the object is mainly penalty, there is a little room for doubt; and, indeed,

to compensate the individual; in the case of an indictment Lord Justice BRAMWELL expressed some hesitation upon

the object is the protection of the public from similar it. The words of the Parliamentary Oaths Act are to the

attacks. There can be no doubt that it is essential to effect that the member not properly affirming "shall for

the protection of the public that libel should be a crime. every such offence be subject to a penalty of five hun

Private malice and the appetite for scandal, which makes dred pounds, to be recovered by action in one of her

defamation a profitable pursuit, would otherwise, in Majesty's superior courts of Westminster.” It appears to

many cases, be subject to no counteracting influence. An be undoubted law that, where a penalty is not expressly

action can only be effectual where the party sued is a or impliedly given to a subject, only the Crown can sue

substantial person. The ostensible conductors of scurri. for it (see Com. Dig. tit. Forfeiture C). But it is also

lous newspapers are frequently men of straw. Again, if said that such a penalty must be sued for in the Ex

pecuniary danages were the only remedy, a man of chequer (R, v. Malland, Str. 828); and inasmuch as

wealth might be willing to buy, however dearly, the grati. the statute gives three courts wherein to sue, and as the

fication of defaming his enemy. It is, therefore, inevitCrown usually proceeds by information, not action, the

able that libel should be ranked among crimes. court held that the words “by any person who shall sue

But very often it must occur to any impartial person for the same” are to be read into the statute, and that the

that cases which form the subject of a prosecution for right of the subject to the penalty is impliedly given.

| libel would much more appropriately have formed the It is with much diffidence that we throw a doubt upon

subject of a civil action. We do not wish to be regarded reasoning which has convinced so strong a Court of

as speaking with respect to any particular case, but Appeal; but it may be worth while to point out that generally. We cannot help thinking that it is desirable there has been a slight departure from the rule that a

in the interests of the public that there should be some penal statute is to be construed strictly in favour of

limitation upon the power of a person who has been defendants, not of plaintiffs, and to suggest that the

libelled to proceed by way of public prosecution. There words“ by a party grieved ” might be read into the

are cases in which the libel is so malicious and outrageous; statute after the word “recoverable," with perhaps a

the conduct of the libeller shows such an obvious defiance little less violence than the words “ by any person who

of law, and contempt for the rights of the individual, shall sue for the same." It is in conformity with the

that in the interests of the public the libel is obviously a practice under the Parliamentary Elections Act. 1868. proper subject of criminal prosecution, or no one's reand we think also, with general principles of law, that

pution would be safe; on the other hand, there are cases the legal interest in procuring a member to be unseated

| in which the libel is so much more excusable, or even is not vested in all the world, but in his constituents, or

almost justifiable, that it would be obviously inappropriate in his opponents at a particular election.

to place it within the category of crimes; for instance, a mɛn in the course of some private difference may have made unguarded statements which he cannot prove in correspondence with some third party, under

circumstances which do not amount to privilege, but The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Incorporated Law Society which palliate and almost justify his conduct in a court have petitioned the House of Commons in favour of the l of conscience if not of law; a man as a public critic may Solicitors' Remuneration Bill.

have been misled into making comments, the severity of

which he cannot altogether justify; or again, the con- them. Thus, in Mendes v. Guedalla (2 J. & H. 259), a duct of the party libelled may have been so provocative testator directed that, unless bis trustees should see any of the libel that it is obvious that he has no locus standi | very pressing reason to the contrary, so much of the to appear in the name of her Majesty as the vindicator testator's personal estate as should consist of Spanish of the public against defamation. Then, of course, as is) bonds should be retained by his trustees for the time the case with other similar matters, there are cases | being, and should not be sold or converted under the nearer the line, in which it is more difficult to discrimin. general direction thereinbefore contained in that ate and to say whether the particular libel ranges itself behalf, until £50 at the least could be obunder the head of crime or mere civil injury. But we tained for each bond of £100. The Spanish bonds cannot help thinking that the province of discriminating belonging to the testator were payable to bearer and ought not to be left entirely to private and personal passed by delivery. It was assumed by the court that judgment

the trustees were justified in retaining the bonds. So The nced of some judicial mode of discrimination has also where the testator, although not specifying the parbeen intensified by the course of recent decisions. In the ticular bonds, clearly shows an intention that all his case of The Queen v. Carden (28 W. R. 133, L. R. 5 Government bonds shall be retained, the court will hold Q. B. D. 1), it was held that the province of a magistrate that the direction includes bonds payable to bearer and upon a preliminary inquiry upon an information for passing by delivery. Thus in Arnould v. Grinstead publishing a libel was merely to ascertain whether there (Weekly Notes, 1872, 216), a testator directed that all were primâ facie grounds for believing that a libel had his personal property “invested in Government or other been published, and that he could not receive evidence securities, in bonds or shares, of whatever nature or kind, of the truth of the libel under Lord Campbell's Act. We be held in the same or the like investments." The per. do not find fault with this decision, though it appeared sonal property of the testator was invested in securities to us that the point was a very doubtful one. We do most of which were payable to bearer, and it was connot think a magistrate ought to be compelled to sit and tended, for persons interested in remainder, that these inhave the question of the truth of the libel tried out vestments were unauthorized and unsafe. Vice-Chan. before him when he is quite clear that the matter cellor Bacon, however, said that the securities on which ought to go before another tribunal. But it does seem | the trust fund were invested could not be altered withto us that the effect of the decision is to leave the out violating the plain and positive directions of the will, application of the criminal law for the purposes of and accordingly beld that the investments were proper private vengeance still more unfettered than it was investments. We are not aware of any other reported before.

case on this subject, but in an unreported case of Re We feel that there is considerable difficulty in devising the Trusts of Lord Broughton's Will, heard before Vicea remedy, but we do think that it would be well if Chancellor Hall, on 25th of July, 1879,* trustees were some preliminary authorization were necessary to a authorized to retain these investments upon much less plain prosecution for libel, and that it should be open to and positive directions. The testator authorized his trus. the tribunal, charged with the duty of granting or with. tees to appropriate and set apart towards payment of a cer. holding such authorization, to decide whether a prima tain trust legacy bequeathed by his will “ any mortgages facie case was made out for the application of the or other securities of which he might be possessed at criminal law, having regard to the general aspect of the the time of his death. The trustees having set apart, case. In the case of criminal informations for libel, a among other investments, some Canada bonds payable rule for the criminal information has to be obtained, to bearer held by the testator, Vice-Chancellor Hall against which the proposed defendant can show cause, held that the trustees were justified in retainThis might or might not be thought a suitable safeguarding these bonds. On the other hand, in another in the case of ordinary indictments for libel. We do | unreported case of Re Skinner, before the Master not pledge ourselves to the recommendation of any of the Rolls on the 14th of June, 1879,the questparticular mode of effecting the desired object. Possibly ion arose with reference to the usual direction as to it would be desirable to give the magistrate a general investment in a marriage settlement of personalty, that jurisdiction to consider the point whether, even assuming the trustees “should be possessed of the said stocks that there had been a libel, on the whole, the case was a 80 transferred as aforesaid upon trust that they should fit subject for indictment. Some machinery of this either permit the whole or any part of the same to renature, however, we really think there ought to be. main in their then respective actual state of investment,"

or with the consent in writing of the busband and wife, or the survivor, and after the decease of the survivor, at

the discretion of the trustees, should sell the same. TRUST SECURITIES PAYABLE Some of the settled funds were invested in Turkish,

English, and Austrian bonds, payable to bearer, and TO BEARER.

upon a petition by the trustees for the advice of the Most foreign and colonial Government securities are

court as to whether they were justified in retaining these made payable to bearer, and cannot be inscribed in any

investments, the Master of the Rolls answered the books or registers in the names of the holders. The

question in the negative. The trustees, he said, would comparatively high rate of interest which may be obtained

not be justified in retaining the investments already made on many of these investments leads to applications to | in bonds payable to bearer, and transferable by delivery. trustees by their cestuis que trust to invest the trust

Probably in this state of the authorities, the only safe funds upon them, and the question not unfrequently

advice that can be given to trustees is that, in order to arises whether trustees are justified in complying with

| justify trustees in retaining investments of this description these requests. The answer to the question is, in many

made by the testator or creator of the trust, there must cases, not free from difficulty.

be some reference in the will or trust deed, either to the Before, however, we consider the question of invest

particular investments to be retained, or to the general ments made by trustees in bonds payable to bearer and

class of investments of which they form part. passing by delivery, it may be well to clear the ground

With regard to the power of trustees to invest in these by dealing, first, with the question of whether trustees

securities, there has also been some conflict of opinion. are justified in retaining such investments made by the

In Lewis v. Nobbs (L. R. 8 Ch. D. 591), a testator gave testator or creator of the trust. They can, of course,

the residue of his estate to trustees on trust to invest in only do so by virtue of an authority contained in the

Parliamentary stocks or funds, or upon real securities, will or trust deed. Of course, where a testator expressly directs certain specified securities payable to bearer to be * Solicitors, Messrs. Phelps & Woodforde, retained by his trustees, they will be justified in retaining | + Solicitors, Messrs. Johnsons & Co.

and the will contained a proviso that as often as the trustees should think it expedient so to do, they might

REVIEWS. sell out, transfer, and otherwise vary any of the trust moneys, funds, and securities, and invest the same in or on any other funds or securities whatsoever. The

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTS. trustees sold out New Three per Cents., and invested

RAWLINSON'S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTS. SEVENTH the proceeds in Russian railway and Egyptian bonds.

EDITION. By THOMAS GEARY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. The Russian bonds were transferable by delivery. W. Maxwell & Son. Vice-Chancellor Hall held that the truetees were The sixth edition of this work was published in 1874. authorized to invest the trust funds in the bonds. The statutes affecting municipal corporations which And in the above-mentioned case of Re the have been passed since that date are so numerous (Mr. Trusts of Lord Broughton's Will, Vice-Chancellor Geary prints seventeen) and important, that we are not Hall held that under a direction to invest the testator's surprised to learn that the present edition has long been residuary personal estate“ in their or his names or required. The Local Loans Act, 1875, the Municipal name," in or upon (inter alia) “ the loans, notes, deben- | Elections Act, 1875, the New Charters Act, 1877, the tures, stocks, or other securities . . . of any British Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878– colony, or foreign Government or State," the trustees any of these four might have been thought to necessitate might properly invest trust moneys op bonds payable to a new edition of itself. A very sensible reason, howbearer and transferable by delivery. On the other hand, ever, for the delay is given in the preface. It appears in the above-mentioned case of Re Skinner, under a trust that the late Government brought in “a Bill for the con. to invest in the" public funds of .. any colony solidation of all the municipal corporation statutes, but or dependency of Great Britain, or in the public funds took no steps whatever with regard to this Bill beyond of any foreign Government," the Master of the Rolls bringing it in each session, and it seems now to be quietly held that the trustees wonld not be justified in making dropped." any investment in foreign Government bonds payable to Passing to the mode in which the new statutes have bearer.

dealt with, we cannot but think a better mode of As to the duties of trustees where the trust funds arrangement would have been to print the Municipal comprise securities payable to bearer and passing by Acts proper by themselves, and the supplementary Acts delivery, and the interest upon which is payable by | in the appendix, with which the book has always concluded. coupons attached to the bonds, the judgment of Vice- | The Prison Act, 1877, the Justices' Clerks Act, 1877, and Chancellor Wood in the above-mentioned case of Mendes the Adulteration Act, 1879, come rather awkwardly 9. Guedalla contains a clear statement of the doctrine of in the principal part of the book. In connection with the court. The three trustees in that case deposited a box the New Charters Act, 1877, we should have looked for a containing the bonds payable to bearer with their bankers little practical information as to the mode of procuring in trust for all three trustees, and the learned judge said a charter, and a list of municipal boroughs incorporated (p. 277), "I do not see what better course the trustees could since 1835 might surely have been given. We think have adopted for the protection of the property. ... With that the schedule to the Municipal Elections Act, 1875, regard to property of that description (whether it be a ought to have been provided with editorial marginal plate chest, or whatever it may be), I know of no better notes, and that both the 313th section of the Public course to take for protecting it than to deposit it at your | Health Act, 1875, and the rules for meetings of ratebankers. It must be deposited somewhere. It cannot payers, contained in the third schedule of the Public be in three houses at once. The only other course which | Health Act, and substituted by section 313 for sections euggested itself to me was to deposit it in a box with 12 and 13 of the Local Government Act, ought to have three locks, opened by three different keys, one to be kept | been printed at length in the note to 35 & 36 Vict. c. 91, by each of the three trustees ; so that the box could not s. 4, which incorporates the sections of the Local be opened without the permission of all the trustees. Government Act above named. But where the interest of property is payable upon With regard to the cases, we have searched for many, coupons, and twice a year, and the box must be opened and missed none, and the notes are always clearly and twice a year for the purpose of obtaining access to the neatly expressed. The “ condensation ” which the coupons, it is too much to say that a man of ordinary editor speaks of in the preface might have been applied prudence in the management of his affairs would think with greater vigour to the notes in the earlier part of it necessary, for the protection of his property, to adopt the book, which are still sadly redundant, and a course of that kind-knowing, as he would, that it occasionally (see, for ip stance, the note to 32 & 33 Vict. would be the banker's duty to see that the coupons only c. 55, 8. 1) so choke the section annotated as to spread were taken out of the box on each occasion, and that it over eight pages, and render it no easy matter to neither the box itself nor the securities were removed." | read. Similarly, the statutes might have been more It also appears from this case that there will be no abridged. The “ Parliamentary" clauses of the Act of irregularity in one of the trustees being intrusted with 1878 are, perhaps, properly printed, but a very slight the key; for someone must be so intrusted in order to extract from the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868, wonld get access half-yearly to the coupons, and there is no have sufficed. The index is a remarkably good one, person to whom it can be intrusted for that purpose and the book, though rather clumsy in shape, is very with greater propriety than one of the trustees.

well printed.

On Taesday evening the members of the Midland and North-Eastern Circuits entertained Mr. Jastice Cave at dioper in the Inner Temple-hall, in order to celebrate the learned judge's recent elevation to the bench. The chair was occupied by Mr. Alfred Wills, Q.C., and there was a large attendance of leaders and juniors of the

On the 25th ult., Mr. Justice Fry, upon taking his seat, alluded to tbe order recently made by the Lord Chancellor referring to the resignation of Sir Richard Malins, and transferring all causes and matters pending before him to his court (which we printed last week), and said he wished to have the assistance of the leaders of the bar in arranging the course of business in the court. After some discussion, his lordship decided upon taking motions, adjourned som. monses, and non-witness causes on Thursdays ; and short causes, petitions, adjourned summonses, and non-witness causes on Fridays and Saturdays. This would leave the first three days of the week for the regular canse list. Subsequently his lordship stated for the information of the bar that after Easter he would move into the court recently occupied by Vice-Chancellor Malins.


The following are the circuits chosen by the judges for the engging Spring Asgizes :-Midland Circuit, Mr. Justice Lopes ; Western Circuit, Mr. Justice Manjaty; SoutbEastern Circuit, Mr. Justice Hawkins; North-Eastern Circuit, Mr. Justice Stepben; Northern Cirocit, Mr. Justice Watkin Williams and Mr. Justice Mathew; and North and South Wales Circuits, Mr. Justice Cave.

having kindrod objects would probably reduce the exCORRESPONDENCE.

penses to a sum less disproportionate to the income. March 29.


[It is right to point out that our correspondent appears THE “LAW LIST.

to have looked only at the half-yearly balance sheet for

the latter part of the year, which includes the annual [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

dinner and the heavy cost of printing the rules and reSir,-Will you be so good as to insert in your columnsport, and sending a copy to every member of the prothe enclosed letter, which I have, by direction of the fession. If he will refer to the balance-sheet for the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, sent to Mr. previous half-year-i.e., to February 28, 1880, he will John Nicholls in answer to his letter which appeared in find that the expenses are only £204 19s. 60.-En. S.J:1 your issue of the 26th inst., with reference to the omission from the Law List of the asterisk formerly affixed to the name of every solicitor who was a member of this society. March 30. E. W. WILLIAMSON, Secretary.

CASES OF THE WEEK. {The following is the letter referred to :(Copy.)


or NEWSPAPER-ADVERTISEMENT-REWARD OFFERED FOR Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane,

EVIDENCE-COSTS.-In a case of The Plating Company . March 30, 1881.

Farquharson, before the Court of Appeal on the 23rd ult., Dear Sir, I am directed by the council to acknow. an application was made for the committal of the publishers ledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd inst.

of a newspaper for an alleged contempt of court in inserting The council desire me to state that, as far as the in the newspaper an advertisement tending to prejudice the public is concerned, it has already by means of the

plaintiffs in the prosecution of the action, and of an appeal issue of the Law List, a list of practising solicitors to

| which had been brought by the defendants from the judgment refer to, but the official authority given to that work

of Bacon, V.C., at the trial. The action was brought to

restrain the infringement by the defendants of the plaintiff's" does not extend to any mark that may be affixed to the

patent. The defendants denied the validity of the patent, name of a solicitor who happens to be a member of this

and in particular they disputed the novelty of the invention. society.

At the trial of the action Bacon, V.C., overruled the objecIn the instance given in your letter of an inaccuracy | tions, and granted the plaintiffs an injunction. The defend. in the local list, you do not furnish me with such ants gave notice of appeal, and, after the notice bad been information as will enable me to discover how it arose, given, an advertisement appeared in the newspaper in if it exists.

question offering a reward of £100 to anyone who could If, however, I am correct in assuming that it refers to

produce documentary evidence that the process to which the the case of a member who practises at Merthyr Tydfil,

patent related had been performed before the year 1869. I may mention that the information given by that gen

The plaintiffs alleged that the publication of this advertisetleman is now before me, in which no reference is made

ment was a contempt of court, and applied to the Court of to an address at Aberdare. After the proof was struck

Appeal for an order to commit the publishers. It was urged

that the advertisement would tend to induce the forging of off a slip was sent to him, and returned marked “per.

documents, and reliance was placed on the case of Pool V. fectly correct.” The local list was framed from par

Sacheverel (1 P. W. 675), in which Lord Chancellor Maccles. ticulars supplied by the members themselves, after a field committed for contempt a person who bad inserted in a special application made to each of them.

newspaper an advertisement offering a reward to any person That there may be an error here and there is not who should discover and legally prove that a marriage, the improbable on the first publication of a work of this validity of which was in question in the suit, was invalid. character; but, subject to this, it may be fairly stated The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the advertisement that an accurate list of the members of this society is

was a direct inducement to subornation of perjury. The given in the calendar.

court (JESSEL, M.R., and James and COTTON, L.JJ.) reThe fact of previous Law Lists having contained

fused the application, JESSEL, M.R., said that the ad. very numerous inaccuracies has been so far established

vertisement had been inserted' by the publishers in the as to enable the council to state that the previous system

ordinary course of business, and it was clear that they had

no intention of interfering with the administration of justice. did not work satisfactorily. In 1880 the complaints were very numerous as to the

In order to justify an order for committal, it must be shown

tbat the advertisement, on the face of it, would convey to errors and omissions in the issue of that year.-I am, the mind of a person of ordinary intelligence that it would dear Sir, yours faithfully,

tənd to interfere with the administration of jastice. In bis E. W. WILLIAMSON, Secretary.

lordship's opinion the advertisement was a very harmless. J. Nicholls, Esq., 73, Gresham-street, E.C.]

one, £100 was not a very large sum, and documentary evidence was not easily forged. The notion that the advertisement wonld induce the forgery of

documents was a wild one, and was not founded THE SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. on any reasonable construction of it. It was a common [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

practice to offer rewards for the discovery of a lost deed or

a lost marriage certificate, and his lordship bad never heard Sir,—The balance-sheet of this society for the half-lit suggested that this was illegal. He did not profess to year ending ine 3181 Of August, 1880, has lately been | understand the case of Pool v. Sacheverel, as it was reported. distributed. I find the receipts from subscriptions and of course, an attempt to suborn witnesses would be con-donations amount to £1,519 18s. 10d., and that the ex. tempt of court, but on the facts, as they appeared in the repenses (including those of the annual dinner) amount to port, his lordship should not have come to the same con£523 78. 4d., or more than a third of the first-mentioned clusion as Lord Macclesfield did. But that case had no applicasum. A subscriber of twenty-one shillings must, there. tion to the present case, for an advertisement for evidence fore, see that seven shillings of his subscription is spent

of something which was not in the knowledge of the adverin distributing the remainder of it. It is true that I

tiser, but which he believed to be true, could not be treated have taken no account of the income from invested

as a subornation of perjury. But his lordship said that, if neces-funds, but the receipt and distribution of this income

sary, he should feel at liberty to disregard Pool v. Sacheverel. can scarcely be said to be a material item of expense.

He added that the practice of making motions of this kind I

against editors or publishers of newspapers ought to be disdraw attention to these figures, not with a view of in- couraged; they caused great loss of time and great expense. juring the object of the association, but rather to point JAMES, L.J., said that Pool v. Sacheverel appeared to him out that the amalgamation of this society with another 1 to be inconsistent with the practice of the Government to

« PreviousContinue »