Page images

NewspaperCopyright In ArticlesRegistraTionCopyright Act, 1812, ss. 18, 19, 24.—In a case of Waiter v. Howe, before the Master of the Rolls on the 29th alt., a motion was made by the proprietors of a daily newspaper, not registered under the Aot, to restrain a reprint in a cheap form, and without the consent of the proprietors, of a biographical memoir published in the newspaper. The author of the memoir was not made a party to the action, but it was stated in an affidavit filed by the plaintiffs that the author had been paid for his literary services by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs relied npon a decision of Malins, V.C., of Cox v. Land and Water Journal Company (L. R. 9 Eq. 324), where it was held that a newspaper -was not within the Copyright Aot, 1842, and required no registration' under the Act, and that the proprietor had ■aliunde, and without registration, such a property in the contents of a newspaper as would entitle him to sue in respect of a piracy. Jessel, M.R, said he did not agree with the decision of Vice-Chancellor Malins, and refused to fellow it. He was of opinion that a newspaper was a "periodical work " within the meaning of section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1842, and, therefore, that it required to be registered under the 19ih section to entitle the proprietors to sue in respect of any piracy of the articles produced in the newBpnper. If there was any other copyright iu the memoir, that woold be in the au'.hor of the article, and as the plaintiffs, in his opinion, aid not sufficiently show they had purchased the whole copyright, and as the author was not s party to the action, no injunction could be granted on that ground. The motion must, therefore, be refused, with oosts.—Solicitors, Soames; O. L. Cluxton.

PracticeInfant Defendant—Judgment By Consent —evidenceTrial Of ActionOrd. 19, R. 17—Ord. 40, a. 11.—In an action of Ellis v. Robbins, before Hall, V.C., on the 28th ult., a new point of practice was raised as to the form in which judgment should be taken by consent in an action so as to bind an infant defendant. The action was for the rectification of a marriage settlement, and the wife and an infant child of the marriage were made defendants. It was agreed to t*ke a judgment upon the ad•nufsions of the facts stated in the statement of claim, no defence being put in, but, as by ord. 19, r. 17, the allegations offset in a pleading cannot, although not denied, be taken "to be admitted as against an infant, the statement of claim had been verified by affidavit. Formal consents had been given to the evidence in the action being taken by affidavit, as required by ord. 37, r, I, but a difficulty now -arose from the fact that the action had not been set down for trial, but merely on motion for judgment, on admissions in the pleadings, under ord. 40, r. 11. There is no provision in the Rules of Court as to evidenoe being received upon motion for judgment, and, upon the point being now brought to the notice of the court, Hall, V.C., directed that, in order te put the matter in proper form, the action should be set down for trial, notice of trial being given to the wife and infant. The action would then be again placed in the paper, and upon being called on pro formd, their consents would be given by counsel.—Solicitors, Roopers <£- Co.

Company In LiquidationProof For Damages By ContributoryContract To Give Paid-op SharesCompanies Act, 1867, s. 25.—O.i the 2nd inst. ViceChancellor Hill delivered a written judgment in Re The Great Australian Mining Company, upon an important question bearing upon the 25:h section of the Companies Act, 1867, which provides that, in the absence of a re^isterel contract to the contrary effect, every share in a company shall be deemed to be issued and held subject to the payment of the whole amount thereof in cash. Mr. Appleyard had under that section been placed upon the list of contributories in the winding up of the company for the amount of £1,000, and the application on which judgment was now given was to be allowed to claim in the liquidation for damages to the same amount. Briefly stated, the facts were that the original promoter of the company gave Appleyard, partly in payment tor legal services in starting the undertaking, and partly for money lent, certain debentures of the company which bad keen issued to himself. By an arrangement with the directors, of whom Appleyard was himself one, fully paid shares were agreed to be issued to Appleyard In exchange for the debentures, which were delivered up to be cancelled. He was

credited with the shares in the books of the company, but no contract in writing was registered, and when the company afterwards was in liquidation Appleyard was placed upon the list of contributories. His claim was for damages for breach of contract in not completing the arrangement. Appleyard had been the solicitor of the company, but no fraud whatever was suggested. Hall, V.C., held that the contract was proved by the minutes and documents of the company, the consideration was valid, and the arrangement made was not ultrd. vires. He considered the case governed by Mudford's Claim, Re Government Security, etc., Company (28 W. R. 670), where the judgment had been founded upon the remarks of the Court of Appeal in White's case (27 W. R. 895.) The judgment of the House of Lords in City of Glasgow Bank v. Houldsworth (28 W. R. 667) was not repugnant to such a decision, and the claim for damages must be allowed with costs.—Solicitors, Appleyard; West, King, Adams, <£• Co.

ExecutorPower To Pledge Testator's Asset*Leasehold PropertyPurchaser For Value Without NoticeTitle Deeds.—In a oase of Pillgrem v, Pillgtem, before Fry, J., on the 2nd inst, a question arose as to the power of an executor to pledge his testator's assets, and the right of the exeoutor's own private creditor to be paid out of assets of the testator, when he has dealt with the executor in the belief that the assets were his own property. A testator, who was a trader, devised and bequeathed all his property, real and personal, to his executor, upon trust to sell his business and stock in-trade, and some leasehold houses in whioh the business was carried on, and, after payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, to retain out of the prooeeds of Bale a legacy of £200 to himself, and to invest the residue and bold the investments upon certain trusts; and, until a sale could be effeoted at a fair price of the business and leasehold houses, the testator desired the exeoutor to continue the business, and to hold the profits, after maintaining himself and his family, upon trusts corresponding to those of the inoome of the invested prooeeds of sale. After the death of the testator, the execntor took possession of his property, and oarried on the busin9ss for some years at the same place in his own name. He borrowed various sums of money from a person who knew nothing of the executorship, but believed that the business belonged to the exeoutor himself. Six years after the testator's death, the exeoutor surrendered the lease of the houses, and obtained from the lessor a renewed lease in his own name. He deposited the renewed lease with the same oreditor as security for an advance made to him for his own purposes, the creditor believing the lease to be the exeoutor's own property. A part of the nnseoured advance was employed for the purposes of the business; the remainder was employed by the executor for his own private purposes. Nine years after the death of the teBtator, the oreditor recovered judgment against the executor for the amount of the unseoured advauoes, and issned execution, under whioh the sheriff seized chattels and stook-in-trade belonging to the testator's estate. An action having been brought for the administration of the testator's estate, the oreditor olaimed in the action to be entitled to the benefit of his execution. Relianoe was placed on the oase of Ray v. Ray (Q. Cooper, 264). In that oase a testator died in 1809, and his executors took possession of his personal estate, and paid his debts and legacies, with the exception of a promissory note for £1,000 due to the plaintiff, payment of whioh was nob demanded. They also took possession of a leasehold farm whioh the testator had oooupied, and procured a renewal of the lease to be granted to them in their own names. One of the executors having died, in 1815 a bond creditor of the surviving exeoutor (not a creditor of the testator) seized the leasehold premises in execution for his debt. The plaintiff had not demanded payment of his promissory note until about the time when the seizure was made. The plaintiff obtained an ex parte injunction to restrain the sale of the leasehold property under the execution, and this injunction was afterwards dissolved by Sir Thomas Plumer, on the ground of the lapse of time and the laches of the plaintiff. "If," his Honour said, " the plaintiff had any right to consider the renewed lease as made for the benefit of the testator's estate, is it not fair to say that he had waived that right at this distance of time? The defendant has tbe law on Lis Bide, and, at least, an equal equity with the plaintiff, arising from tbe credit which be has been induced by the plaintiff to give, from being led by tbe plaintiff to consider the lease to be the executor's own property. I say be has, at least, an equal equity, and I ask if he bas not even a superior equity? I cannot, therefore, see any ground for this court interfering with those rights of the defendant after a lapse of six or seven years. It would be injurious to credit to do so, especially in tbe case of trades." Fry, J., said that the law on tbe point was clear. When an executor carried on the business of his testator under the directions of his will, and in that character contracted a debt, an action for the debt must be brought against the execntor personally, and the judgment would be de bonis propriis of the executor. No action could be brought against the estate of the testator, and there could be no judgment de bonis testatorii, because the debt was not the testator's debt. The creditor might have a right to be subrogated to any claim which tbe executor had against the estate. It could make no difference that tbe chattels seized by tbe sheriff were ostensibly those of the executor. In some cases, no doubt, if there had been a great lapse of time, and tbe possession of the executor was not in acoordanoe with the trusts of the will, there might be an inference that there had been an absolute gift by tbe benefioiaries to tbe exeoutor. But, when the possession of the exeoutor was in acoordanoe with the trusts of the will, and the time which bad elapsed was also, so to say, in accordance with tbe trusts, there conld be no suoh inference. In the present oase, the mere ostensible possession nf the execntor and the lapse of time conld make no difference; but, the moment it was fonnd that the property was trust property, no judgment could go against it for the executor's own debt. In Ray v. Bay the point was not finally decided; but the court thought the oironmstancea were snch as to raise an inferenoe of gift to the executor. With regard to tbe deposit of tbe renewed lease, the case stood in this way. The execution creditor claimed an equity by virtue of the deposit; the testator's estate claimed an equity by virtue of tbe renewal. But tbe eqnity of tbe estate attached as soon as the renewed lease was granted; the equity cf the creditor did not attach until the deposit was made. There was no superiority in the one equity over the other, and, therefore, as between the two equities, the ordinary rule must apply, qui prior est in tempore potior injure. It was argued on behalf of the oreditor that at any rate the actual lease itself could not be taken away from him, he being a purchaser for value without notice, reliance being placed for this purpose on Heath v. Crealock (23 W. K. 95, L. B. 10 Cb. 22). Fry, J., said that, in order to avail himself of tbe defenoe that be was a purchaser for value without notice, the depositee must show that he had made every reasonable inquiry as to tbe title to the lease. He had not shown that he bad made any inquiry at all, and there was nothing to show that if he had inquired he wonld not have been furnished with an honest abstract of title, disclosing the surrender. A person who thus wilfully shut bis eyes oould not say that he was a purchaser without notice. Tbe order would, however, tie made without prejudice to tbe right (if any) of tbe oreditor to stand in tbe plaoe of the exeoctor in any claim he might have have againBt the testator's estate in respect of the legaoy of £200 or otherwise.—Solicitors, P. Murrough; Allen <fc Edwards.

PracticeDefendant or Unsound MindAppointMent Of GuardianOrd. 13, B. 1.—In a case of Taylor v. Tede, on the 2nd inst., Fry, J., held, nnder the provision of rule 1 of order 13, that when no appearance has been entered to a writ for a defendant who is a person of ensound mind, not so found by inquisition, the plaintiff may apply to the court for the appointment of a gnardian by whom the defendant may appear and defend the action, it is cot obligatory on tbe plaintiff iu every such oase to apply for the appointment of a guardian; but that the provision only applies when tbe plaintiff for his own purposes desires that tbe defendant shonld appear and defend. It is not necessary to make the application when no relief is asked against tbe defendant.—Solicitors, W. it J. Flower <!• Aussey.

DivorceAdultery Cruelty Condonation—ReVivalMisconduct Falling Short Of Adultebt.—In the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, on Saturday, April 30, the suit of Ridgway v. Ridtjway was tried before the President of the division without a jury. The petition was by a wife for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery and cruelty. The petitioner admitted that she had oondoned her husband's misconduct, bat there was evidence that, after the condonation, tbe respondent hid attempted to take liberties with a maid-servant living in the house,and this was relied upon as showing that the acts which had been condoned had been revived. Uannen, P., observed that the question whether condoned adultery or cruelty could be revived by misconduct falling short of actual adultery had never been expressly decided. Condonation was only conditional forgiveness, and the respondent's be. haviour must be taken to be a breach of the condition upon which his wife's forgiveness had been accorded to him. He therefore held that the adultery and cruelty had been revived by the subsequent misconduct, and that the peti. tioner was entitled to a decree nisi.Solicitor, Qremjula\

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS. (Before Mr. Registrar Murray acting as Chief Judge).

April 4.—Re Bear § Beaj: The court refused to grant au injunction restraining the wife of a bankrupt from dealing with goods alleged to nave bean purchased with trust moneys belonging t> her.

This was an application by the trustee under the bankruptcy of Messrs. G. & J. Bear, cigar manufacturers, for an injunction to restrain Mrs. Emily Baar from dealing with a quantity of tobacco, alleged to form part of the property of the bankrupts.

The facts are stated in the j udgment of the registrar.

E. C. Willie, in support of the application.—The tobacco in question belongs to tho bankrupts. The case of tbe respondent is that it was purchased with trust moneys belonging to her, but these moneys have been so mixed up with others as to have lost their identity. The tobaoco was also in the reputed ownership of the bankrupts. He cited Clayton's case (1 Mer. 572).

Colt, for the respondent.—Before any act of bankruptcy was committed, the respondent was in possession of the tobacco as the absolute legal owner, and no question of reputed ownership can arise. All that it is necessary to show, in order to substantiate the claim cf the respondent, is that tobaoco to the extent of £2,50C has been bought with trust money. The evidence shows that in 1871 £2,000, drawn out of the bank upon the security of tbe respondent's deeds, was applied in payment of tobacco purchased from Messrs. Bremner, and the rights of the respondent extend to the tobacco so purchased. What afterwards took place between George Bear and his bankers is immaterial, as the tobacco was impressed with a trust in favour of the respondent: iw Ballelts' Estate (28 W. R. 732, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 696).

Mr. Regi6tbar Murray said the hearing had occupied » considerable time, but when the case was divested of a certain amount of fringe, he did not think that it presented any serious difficulty. The facts lay within a narrow compass. The application was by the trustee for an injunction restraining Mrs. Emily Bear from dealing with certain tobacco, with respect to which she had a legal and beneficial interest. The circumstances under which the delivery order was given to her a few days before the bankruptcy, and the circumstances under which the property was transferred to her, were no doubt open to the greatest suspicion, and fully entitled the trustee to avail himself of his right to have a private examination of the parties under section 9t>, But it so happened that before a private sitting was held the trustee took upon himself to launch the present motion for an injunction, and the circumstances being so suspicious he (the registrar) felt that he could not withhold an injunction until after the investigition at the private sitting had taken place. The facts as elicited from the examination of the parties, appeared to be these : Mr. Benson, by his will, had left the residue of his property to George Bear and Enury Bear (under her name of Emily Benson) as executor and executrix. The trusts of the residuary estate were declared by the testator, and Mrs. Bear was to have the income of the property during her life, with a power of appointment; a» » the residue. At any moment Mrs. Bear, by a stroke of the pen and by exercising her power of appointment, might hare made herself the absolute legal and beneficial owner of the property. The trust estate was realized by George Bear and Mrs. Bear did not interfere. George Bear acted in the administration of the estate, and it appeared that he realized it to the extent of £5,000 or £6,000, and invested it in the purchase of houses. He had sworn that the bulk, if not the whole, of the moneys paid into his banking account were trust moneys forming part of the residuary estate. Although some question had been raised about it, he thought it was sufficiently established that the trust money was invested in the purchase of houses. He did not lose sight of the fact that the houses were purchased by George Bear in his own name; but there might be no particular harm in that, although it would have been better if the purchase had been made in the joint names of himself and Mrs. Emily Bear. There was no doubt that, in dealing with this trust property, he had acted throughout as if it were his own—a course that could not but be deprecated—and the best explanation that could be given was that he probably thought be was doing the best both for Mrs. Bear and himself, having regard to their relationship of husband and wife. They appeared to have trusted each other, but from beginning to end it must be admitted that there was a breach of trust on the part of George Bear. That being the state of things, and hearing of some tobacco that was for sale, George Bear waa willing to become a purchaser, but not having sufficient money of his own, he applied to his bankers for an advance. He required £2,500, but the bankers would only make the advance upon the deposit of security, and he bethought himself of depositing the deeds of the houses which had been bought with trust money and were trust property. Thereupon the £2,500 was advanced solely upon the security of the deposit of the title deeds. This waB questioned, but at least one thing was certain, that the £2,500 would not have been advanced but for the deposit of the deeds. George Bear stated that, in the first instanoe, he drew a cheque for £2,000 upon the bank on February 28, 1871, whioh was paid in two notes of £1,000 each. Those notes were handed by him on the same day to Messrs. Bremner on account of moneys due to them for tobacoo which had been purchased by him to the extent of £3,600. It was, therefore, clear that these two bank notes were earmarked as ha7ing gone to Messrs. Bremner in payment of a portion of that tobacco. Assuming that Mrs. Bear had then appeared upon the scene and stated to George Bear, "I understand you have been purchasing tobacco with money belonging to the trust estate, or that you have been depositing title deeds as seonrity for an advanoe whioh you have invested in tobacco," oould it have been denied that she would have been entitled to be recouped out of the tobacco purchased partly with trust moneys and partly ont of the moneys of George Bear? The tobacco was undoubtedly impressed with a trust to the extent of the trust moneys that were used in its purobaae. This view was supported by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hallett's ccue, the Master of the Bolls remarking that the doctrines of equity were progressive, and had been enlarged in modern times. Upon the evidence it must be taken that the £2,000 bad been sufficiently traced as having been paid out of the trust funds, and that a oharge upon the tobacco waa oreated in favour of Mrs. Bear. The tobacco being impressed with a trust, it was unnecessary to take into consideration the subsequent dealings between George Bear and the bankers. It did not make any difference whether the original advance of £2,500 had been paid off or not, if the title deeds were not redeemed and handed over to Mrs. Bear. The trust estate not having been recouped, the charge upon the tobacco remained in force. It was true that some of the tobacco had been dissipated, but the charge was oreated the moment the £2,000 was paid to Messrs. Bremner, in February, 1871. Mrs. Emily Bear had a cb. irge upon the whole of it, and if some of the bales had been taken by George Bear o.;t of the bulk, that would not prevent the charge continuing as to the residue. Mrs. Bear was the absolute owner at the present tirae of the tobacco, and it would not therefore be right to prevent her from dealing with it because seme difficulty existed in earmarking a cheque for £509, as well as for the £2,000. Allegations of fraud were made, but his Honour did not con

sider that they had been proved. It appeared that George Bear was very much pressed for money, and his wife noticed that he was worried. When he informed his solicitor, Mr. Turner, that he proposed handing over the tobacco to Messrs. Bremner, Mr. Turner said, " You must not do it, because it is Mrs. Bear's property." That was proper advioe under the circumstances, and a delivery order being given to Mrs. Bear, she became absolutely entitled to the tobacco. His Honour then held that, except as to three bales which had not been purchased out of the trust money, the titl* of Mrs. Bear prevailed, aad the motion for au injunction must be refused, with costs.

Solicitor for the trustee, Marsh.

Solicitor for the respondent, Turner.

April 13.—Ex parte Cape, Be Bridge.

Order confirming scheme of settlement of the bankrupt's affairs set aside upon proof that property of considerable value has been concealed from the creditors.

A creditor holding a charge upon such concealed property has no locus standi upon the trustee's application to set a«ide the scheme, and the court will not make any order by which his rights are protected.

This was an application by the trustee for an order to rescind an order made in April, 1877, confirming a sohemo of arrangement of the bankrupt's affaire.

The bankrupt, William Bridge, an accountant, was adjudicated in Marob, 1875, and John Slater was appointed trustee of his property, and so continued until August, 1880, when he was removed from his offioe, and G. A. Cape waa appointed trustee in his place. The bankrupt's debts amounted to about £1,200.

On the 20th of January, 1S77, a meeting of creditors was held, at which resolutions were passed to the followi ing effect:—

(1) To accept a composition of four shillings in the pound upon the debts proved and admitted in the bankruptcy, payable within fourteen days from the confirmation of the scheme by the court.

(2) That the composition be paid free from all coats, oharges, and expenses.

(3) That the proper costs, oharges, and expenses be paid by or on behalf of the bankrupt.

(4) That on payment of the composition of four shillings in the pound to the trustee, and upon the order of the oourt eonfirming the resolutions being made, the bankrupt or the trustee be authorized to make an application to annul the adjudication.

On the 14th of April, 1877, an application was made to the court to approve and confirm the resolutions, and suoh order was then granted upon affidavits of the bankrupt and Mr. Slater, in whioh no mention waa made of any property recently acquired by the bankrupt under the will of S. A. Turner; and upon the report of the official assignee based thereon. The bankruptcy had never been anulled.

The trustee had since ascertained from the bankrupt, and it appeared from his deposition, that at the time of the confirmation of the resolution, the bankrupt and his then trustee were fully aware that the former had become entitled under the said will to property of considerable value, and that he was well able to pay more than 4s. in the pound. The aoting trustee believed that the report of the official assignee was obtained by a concealment of the property belonging to the bankrupt, and that the consent of creditors was obtained in consequence of undue payments to the members of the committee of inspection and others, and by withholding the true value of the property, and by the total ooncealment of the bankrupt's interests under the willaof J. S. Bridge and J. H. Gibson. The aggregate value of the property not disolosed in the accounts was about £2,000.

5. Woolj, in support of the application, asked for an order similar to that granted in Ex parte Jarvis, Re Spanton (h. B. 10 Ch. D. 179). In that oase the power of the oourt to make the order was assumed, and the only question whioh arose was as to the position of the creditors—whether or not they were remitted to their original rights.

Body, for Mr. Tatham, a creditor who had advanced a sum of money upon a oharge on the concealed property on the faith of the confirmation of resolutions by the court, asked that, if the oourt made any order, it shonld be with'out prejudioe to his rights.

77W/°objeoted that Eady had Do locus standi upon this application.

The Bankrupt.—The creditors assembled at the meeting were perfeotly aware of the existence of the property and of its value.

Mr. Registrar Mtjkray said he thought the trustee was entitled to an order in the form granted in Ex parte Jarvis. The foot of the existence of the property was not brought to the notioe of the creditors. The report of the official assignee had been made upon an affidavit by Slater, the late trustee, in which he swore by the card that there was no other property of the bankrupt appearing upon his statement of affairs, and that such property was so and so. Then the official assignee calculated the amount necessary for payment of the composition upon that statement, and he (the learned registrar) was perfeotly oonvinoed, npon the evidence, that unless the creditors were friends of the bankrupt, or creditors for Bmall amounts only, they would not, if aware of the facte, so disregard their own interests as to take a composition of 4a. in the pound when the estate showed very muoh more. He had no hesitation, therefore, in saying that the resolution ought to be rescinded. In reference to Mr. Tatbam's claim, he could not adjudioate upon it. Mr. Eady asked that an order might be made by whioh his interests would be proteoted, but he had obtained a charge upon the property, and he might enforce his seourity in the proper tribunal. His Honour thought it would give rise to great inconvenience and difficulty if orders -^ere made "without prejudice"; that Mr. Eady had no locus standi npon this application; and that he must settle his rights as best he might.

Application granted.

Solicitors for the trustee, Ashurst, Morris, Crispe, <£- Co. Solicitor for Mr. Tatham, Blair.

Queen's Bench Division.

(Sittings in Bane, before Lord Coleridge, C. J., and
Field, J.)

April 28.—In the Matter of Mr. W. Talhy.

This was an application by Mr. William Talley to be restored to the rolls. Ha was admitted as a solicitor in 1852, and was in practice notil 1875, when he was struck off the rolls, after having been convicted at the Old Bailey of having endeavoured to persuade one Lancaster not to give evidence against two soldiers, then committed for trial on a charge of felony.

The applicant appeared in person, and

Wills, Q.C. (with whom was Murray), was for the Incorporated Law Society.

Mr. Talley addressed the oourt at some length in support of his, petition and read several affidavits, in one of whioh be stated that his oonviotion had been procured by a misconstruction of the evidenoe and a misrepresentation of the law, and the use of other corrnpt and unlawful means.

Wills, in answer to a question of the court, said that the view that was taken by the Incorporated Law Society was that the applicant had been properly convicted of tampering with a witness. It was wholly immaterial that the persons who had been charged with the felony had at the trial been acquitted, or that there had beeo, if suoh had been the oase, any irregularity in the proceedings against Mr. Talley.

Lord Coleridge, without calling upon the learned counsel to address the court, said that he was olearly of opinion that the petition most be dismissed. In 1878 a person had charged two soldiers with having committed an outrage upon him, and Mr. Talley had been retained to defend one of them. The applicant when so acting had oSered the prosecutor a sum of money if he would withdraw from the prosecution. He had taken him to a publichouse and induced him to sign a paper to the effect that he would so withdraw. Mr. Talley had then asked a solioitor to lend his name for a nominal prosecution, so that there might be an arrangement nnder whioh at the trial the case might be withdrawn. The solioitor to whom Mr. Talley had made his proposal had refused to be concerned in any way in any suoh transaction. In the

result, the applioant had been convioted, after a full trial, of attempting to tamper with the proseoation. He had, therefore, been found guilty of conduct utterly disgraceful to s professional man, and he olearly ought not to be restored to the rolls, as ho had committed the offence in his character of an officer of the oourt, and had thereby disentitled himself to be any longer olothed with the exceptional privileges whioh the oourt gave to its officer?. The oourt had arrived at that conclusion with deep regret, as it seemed hard to say that there should be offences for whioh no repentanoe oould avail. Field, J., ooncnrred.—Times.


LAW ASSOCIATION. At the usual monthly meeting of the directors, held at the Hall of the Inoorporated Law Society, on Thursday, the 5th inst., the following being present—viz.: Mr. Boodle (chairman), and Mossrs. Burges, Collison, Cronin, Lucas, Styan, Sidney Smith, Sawtell, and A. B. Carpenter Secretary)—a grant of £40 was made to two members' families, one new member was elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted.


The forty-sixth half-yearly general meeting of the members of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chanoery-lane, London, on Wednesday, May 4, to receive from the board their report and balance-sheet for the paBt half-year, and to transact other general business.

Mr. Philip Rickhax, the deputy-ohairman of the board (in the nnavoidable absence of Mr. John Lewis, of Wrexham, the chairman), presided.

Among other members present were the following :— Messrs. Walters, Pennington, Giraud, Hunter, Brook, Yeomans (Sheffield), Rosooe, Hedger, Smith, Pidoock (Woolwich), Kays, Wilkin (Wakefield), Morgan (Birmingham), Woolbert, Prondfoot, Kennedy, &c, Ac.

The secretary having read the notice convening the meeting and the minutes of the previous half-yearly meeting, the report which follows, as printed and in the hands of the members present, was agreed to be taken as read :—" In conformity with the 16th rule of the association, the board of direotors have the pleasure of reporting as to the progress and work of the association during the past halfyear.

"Since their report was presented at Sheffield in October last eighty new members have been added to the association ; and the aggregate number of solicitors in England and Wales now enrolled as members of the association it 2,645, of whom 985 are life, and 1,660 annnal members. Forty-five life members are contributors also of annual subscriptions ranging from one to five guineas each.

"During the half-year the receipts of the aasociation have amounted to £1,665 18s.

"The board have distributed during the same period in grants of assistance a sum of £923, of which £528 were applied in relief of members and their families, and £395 in relief of non-members and their families. In one case the large grant of £128 was made to enable a member to accomplish his wish of emigrating to Canada with his four children.

"A sum of £739 2s. 6d. has been invested during the half, year in the purchase of £300 Consols and £500 Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities, and the total funded capital of the association now consists of £9,000 Consols, £5,500 Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities, £19,000 India Fonr per Cents., £4,207 London and North-Western Railway Four per Cent. Perpetual Debenture Stock, and £250 London and St. Kathenne Docks Four per Cent Debenture Stock in all £37,957 stock, producing annual dividends amounting to £1,338.

"A balance of £238 Is. 6d. remained to the credit of the association with the Union Bank of London at the date of the closing of the half-yearly account (February 28 last), and a sum of £15 was in the hands of the secretary.

"An abstract of the accounts as audited is appended to this report.

"The board regret having to record the decease of a colleague, Mr. Frederick Barbw, ef Cambridge, in whose stead as a director they have elected Mr. Thomas Musgrave Francis, of Cambridge.

The annual festival of the association will be held this year under the presidency of her Majesty's AttorneyGeneral, Sir Henry James, Q-C, M. P., at the Albion Tavern, Aldersgate-street, London, on Wednesday, the 22ad of June next, at seven o'clock p.m. The objects of this association being so useful and meritorious, the board venture to hope, not only that the president will be well supported -at the festival, but that, through the kind and generous cooperation of their professional brethren throughout the kingdom, the result of the festival will be made beneficial to tbe interests of the association."

The Depoty-chairman, in moving the adoption of the report, said he considered it satisfactory. It would be seen that the board had been enabled to give increased assistance where needed, during tbe past half-year, to members as well as non-members, and their families; and in one case of a member bad given him so large a grant as £128, to assist him in emigrating to Canada with his family, where ■he hoped to do better.

Mr. William Melmoth Walters seconded the resolution, which was put, and carried unanimously.

Mr. B. H. Gieaod moved, and Mr. J. W. Proddfoot seconded, a vote of thanks to the directors and auditors for their valuable services, which was unanimously agreed to; after which, a vote of thanks, moved by Sfr. E. PennijioTox, and seconded by Mr. F. T. Woolbert, was passed to tbe deputy-chairman, Mr. P. Rickman, for his kindness in presiding, which terminated the proceedings.



Tuesday, April 26, 1881.—Mr. C. E. Barry in the chair.—Tbe following question was appointed for the debate :—"Can a defendant who delivers a ootinter-olaim for damages for breaoh of a oontract reoover damages accruing between the date of the writ and the delivery of the counter-claim?" Mr. F. J. Green opened the debate in he taffirmative, and was followed by Mr. Spiers in the negative- The following members also Bpoke on the question:—Messrs. Bartletf, Kirk, Sargeant, Fox, and <jarr. The president having summed up, the question was pat to the meeting and decided in the affirmative by a majority of six votes.

Tuesday, May 3.—Mr. F. J. Green in the chair.—Mr. J. J. Hancock was elected a member. Mr. C. B. Grant opened in the affirmative the question for discussion, " Are the Government proposals as to Irish land reform satisfactory ?"— and was followed on the negative side by Mr. J. A. Neale, B.A. The following members also spoke on the question :—Messrs. Bilney, Payne, Hurst, Bower, and Eisdell. The debate was ultimately, on the motion of Mi. Lloyd Jones, adjourned until next Tuesday, the 10th instant.

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A meeting of this society was held on Monday, the 25th u.:.. at the Law Institution, Mr. A. D. Maclaren in the chair, when the following question was discussed:—"The promoters of a company make the usual arrangements with ;tbe vendors of the business which the company is to carry on, that a large proportion of the money represented in the prospectus as being paid for the purchase of the business shall in reality be given to the promoters. Of course, no mention of this is made in tbe proapectns. Is the prospectns in consequence fraudulent ?—Sullivan v. Mitcalfe." The debate was opened by Mr. E. H. Quicke, and continued by Messrs. Gatey, Dale, Hart, Parker, Jenks, Brown, and Wade. The question was then put to the meetiug and determined in the affirmative by a majority of eight votes.

The nsnal weekly meeting of the society was held on Wrednesday, the 27th ult., at Clemont's-inn, Mr. C. K. Jackson in the chair. The motion on the paper, " That the

advantages of party government outweigh its disadvantages," was brought forward by Mr. C. Parsons, who was supported by Messrs. Le Breton, Newman, Robinson, and Maclaren, and opposed by Mr. Spenoe and Mr. Jackson (who vacated the chair pro tent., being replaced by another member of the committee). The opener then replied, and upon a division the motion was carried by a majority of five votes.

A meeting of this society was held on Wednesday, the 4th inst., at Clement's-inn, Mr. Aclandin the chair. The motion on the paper, "That the Government Land Bill satisfies the just demands of the Irish people," was brought forward by Mr. A. Trotter, who was supported by Messrs. Davies, Maclaren, Bateman Napier, and Robinson, and opposed by Messrs. Spence, Brown, King, and Derry. The opener being absent, Mr. Symes replied on his behalf, and upon a division the motion was carried by one vote.

The examiners for tho Cookson Prize have awarded it to Mr. E. Jenks, and specially commended the essays bearing the mottoes "Gradatim" and "Fecimus et nos Hsso Juvenes."

Mr. Kains-Jackson will, at the meeting to bo held on Wednesday, the 11th inst., read a paper entitled "Lord Beaconsfield," to be followed by a discussion.


The 684th ordinary meeting of the Birmingham Law Students' Sooiety was held in the Law Library, Bennetts'-hill, Birmingham, on Friday, the 22nd ult., T. A. Garland, Esq., in the ohair. Tbe minutes of the previous meeting having been read and confirmed, a debate took pi ice on moot point No. 614:—" Would the judgment of the Court of Appeal in He Withernsea Brickworkt which decided that section 87 of the Bankruptoy Act, 1S69 (which deprives exeoution creditors of the fruits of tbe exeoution where the sheriff has notice of a bankruptoy within fourteen days after sale) is not made applicable to the winding up of companies by the Judicature Aot, 1875, s. 10, be sustained on appeal in the House of Lords ?" The speakers on the affirmative were Messrs. Ludlow, Steere, and Hinds, and on the negative Messrs. Barber and Cochrane. After the opening speakers on either side had replied, the chairman summed up, and on the question being put to the meeting it was decided in the negative by a majority of two.

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, the 28th of April, when the following question was argued before Mr. F. A. Philbrick, Q.C. :—John Erichson, a natural-born Danish subject living at Copenhagen, married Mary Bitzau, and had issue one child Charlotte. Mary Erichson died, and John cohabited with her sister Jane, by whom he had a son Carl, and a daughter Blanche. In 1842, as he lawfully might by Danish law, he married Jane, and thereby legitimated Carl and Blanche. After the second marriage a son and daughter, Frederick and Christine, were born, and Jane, the mother, died. Erichson with the five children subsequently migrated to England, where he resided till his death. He had been naturalized as a British subject, and was domiciled at the time of his death in England. He left a will duly executed here, by which he devised his estate called Blackacre, in Surrey, to "his elder son" and his heirs, not specifying him by name. He also directed other English real estate to be sold, and the proceeds, with certain personalty, to be equally divided among all his " children." He died intestate as to other real estate situate in England, and left personalty undisposed of by will. (1) Does Carl take the real estate devised to the "elder son "? (2) Do Carl, Blanche, Frederick, and Christine or either of them, and which, take shares or a share in the fund to be divided among the "children " under the will? (3) Do they share in the personalty which their fEther left undisposed of? (4) Does Carl, Frederick, or Mary take the undevised realty ?—Mr. S. H. Leonard, barrister, of Lincoln's-inn, and Mr. C. J. Rubie, of the Inner Temple, appeared for the children of Jane, the case for Charlotte being argued by Mr. E. Bundle Levey, barrister, of Gray's-inn, and Mr. Phillips, of the Middle Temple. At the close of the hearing the learned president in giving judgment decided the firsfe

« PreviousContinue »