Page images

to any relief at all, and they ordered them to pay the costs a formal defendagt as his wife was suing. The property the of the defendants, and left the third and fourth parties to subject matter of the action had been given to the wife for bear their own costs. The court also expressed an opinion life for ber separate use, with remainder to the infants mov. that there was no jurisdiction to make the plaintiffs pay the ing. JESSEL, M.R., in overruling the objection said that, as costs of the third and fourth parties.--SOLICITORS, Markby, a rule, no doubt, a next friend should not be a defendant, but Wilde, & Burra ; Parkin, Pagden, ¢ Woodhouse ; Rogerson where, as in the present case, he might be said to be a formal & Ford; Horns & Murray; Benn. Davis.

or what had been called an ornamental defendant, there was no real objection to his acting as next friend. The real ob

jection to a person acting as next friend was where he had BANKRUPTCY-REPUTED OWNERSHIP-Custom-Noto.

an adverse interest and could not serve two masters. ThereRIETY-HIRING FURNITURB.—Ip a case of Crawcour v. Salter, fore, without laying down any absolute rule, but relying before the Court of Appeal on the 9th inst., a question upon what Lord Cranworth said'in Elliot v. Ince (7 D. M. & arose as to the effect of the custom of letting furniture on

G. 475), and upon Lewis v. Nobbs (L. R. 8 Ch. Ď, 591), he hire in excluding the operation of the doctrine of reputed

should, in the present case, hold that the defendant might ownership. Furniture had been sold to a hotel-keeper

act as next friend. On the merits his lordship gave the upon an agreement that it should be paid for by monthly in conduct to the infants, and made costs costs in the action. stalments, and that, until all the instalments had been paid -SOLICITORS, J. Burn; H. G. Gedney ; Johnson f in full, it sbould remain the property of the vendor. The

Weatheralls. purchaser became bankrupt before all the instalments had been paid, and the trustee in the bankruptcy claimed the fur. niture under the reputed ownership clause. The Court of COMPANIES Acts-RECTIFICATION OF REGISTER_CAv. Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and Lush, L.JJ.), affirming CELLING AND RE-ISSUE OF ALL SHARES--FORM OF ORDER,— the decision of Malins, V.C., held that the custom of In a motion before Vice-Chancellor Hall on the 12th inst., letting furniture on hire is now so notorious that the in Re The Nassau Tea Company (Limited), a short point of court is bound to take judicial notice of it, and that no one, practice arose to the form of order for the rectification of the especially an hotel-keeper, can now gain false credit from | register of shareholders. The application was made under the fact that he is in possession of furniture. In coming to the Companies Act, 1862, s. 35, on behalf of all the sbarethis conclusion the court went further in favour of the ex- | bolders, for an order to direct the rectification of the istence of the custom than they did in Ex parte Powell (24 | register by striking out the names of all of them, and W. R. 378, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 501, 20 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, the re-issue of the shares after due registration of a contract 137), and they were to a great extent influenced by the fact under the Companies Act, 1867, s. 25. The facts were that in tbat case the trustee in the bankruptcy declined to | briefly as follows:-Eight persons, formerly trading as parthave an issue tried as to the existence and notoriety of the ners in India, had formed themselves into a limited comthe custom.-SOLICITORS, Dizon, Ward, f Co.; C. F. Yorke; | pany under the above name, to carry on their former Kynaston & Gasquet.

business, and they were the signatories of the memorandum

of association to the full extent of all the shares in the comANCIENT LIGHTS — ALTERATION - ERECTION OF NEW

pany, which were expressed to be issued as fully paid up.

No contract, however, had been registered, as required by BUILDING-OBSTRUCTION-EVIDENCE.-In a case of Fowlers

section 25 of the Act of 1867, and, the omission having now v. Walkers, before the Court of Appeal on the 6th inst., a question arose as to the evidence of obstruction to ancient

been discovered, it was, with the consent of the company, lights. The plaintiffs had erected some warehouses on the

sought to set the matter right. As, however, by the order

asked there would be created an interval during which there site of some old cottages which they had pulled down. The defendants were erecting new buildings so as to obstract the

would remain no members of the company on the register,

his lordship ordered that the register should now be altered access of light to the plaintiffs' warehouses, and the action

by striking out the shares of every shareholder except one was brought to restrain the interference. Bacon, V.C., held

share in each case, and that the shares should then be rethat, as the plaintiffs had not proved in what part of the old

issued to the same members after registration of a proper cottages the windows, which were tbe foundation of their

contract. claim to ancient lights, were situated, they were not entitled

The order would be expressed to be without pre

judice to a subsequent application to strike out and re-issue to any relief. He said that, when ancient lights bad been

the one share remaining against the name of each sbarealtered, it was essential for the person who claimed in re

holder.-SOLICITORS, Wade f. Lyall. spect of them to prove exactly the position and extent of the ancient lights. The Court of Appeal (JAHES, BAGGALLAY, and Lush, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision, on the PRACTICE-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT-CONSENT BRIEF:ground that the plaintiffs were bound to show that some

RECTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT.– A short point of formal part at least of their new wiodows was coincident with some

practice was raised by the registrar of the day on the 7th inst. part of the old ones, and that they had failed to do this. in an action of Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald before Hall, V.C. The SOLICITORS, J. H. Lydall; Field, Roscoe, f: Co.

action was for the rectification of a marriage settlement, and was brought on as a short cause apon motion for judg.

ment. The husband, who was made a defendant to the APPEAL-LOCUS STANDI— APPEAL BY ONE OF Two Co

| action, appeared to give consent, being represented by PLAINTIFFS.-In a case of Beckett v. Attwood, before the

separate solicitors, who, bowever, bad briefed the plainCourt of Appeal on the 10th inst., an appeal was brought

tiff's counsel to give formal consent. The registrar drew by one of two trustees who were co-plaintiffs. The other

the attention of the court to this, saying that the judge co-plaintiff had not appealed. It was objected that one co

ment could not be drawn op upon the briefs so held, and plaintiff could not appeal without the other. The court (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and LUSH, L.JJ.) overruled the ob

HALL, V.C., accordingly directed that the brief for the jection. JAMES, L.J., said it was no answer to a person who

hasband should be withdrawn, and judgment should go

against him as in default of pleading. His lordship also complained that he was injured by a judgment to say that there was someone else who was also injured by it who did

directedth at the judgment should be taken in the form of not choose to appeal. The defendants were in no worse

the declaration given in Seton on Decreer, p. 1232 (Broun v. position than if one of the co-plaintiffs had died.--SOLICI

Hull, Dec. 16, 1876).-SOLICITORS, Fresh fields & Williams; TORS, E. Letchworth ; Lamb; E, H. Barlee ; Dixon, Ward,

Humphreys & Son ; Bowlings, Foyer, & Co. & Co.

ADMINISTRATION ACTION-INSOLVENT ESTATE-RULES IN PRACTICE-CONDUCT OF ACTION-INFANT NEXT FRIEND BANKRUPTCY-JUDICATURE Act, 1875, s. 10.-In a case of A DEFENDANT-FORMAL Party.-In a case of Re Taylor, Hipkins v. Hildick, before Fry, J., on the 6th inst., the Taylor v. Taylor, before the Master of the Rolls on the 6th action was brought by a creditor for the administration of inst., a motion was made on behalf of certain infants who the real and personal estates of a testator, whose personal had liberty to attend the proceedings that they might have estate was insufficient for the payment of his debts. FRY, the conduct of the action. An objection was taken on J., said that, having regard to the possibility that the whole behalf of the defendants that the next friend of the infants estate might prove insufficient to pay the debts, it would be was a defendant, and was, on that ground, an improper advisable to insert in the judgment for administration a person to be go appointed. The next friend had been made direction that, ia case the estate should prove insufficient for the payment in full of the testator's debts and liabilities, the plead. It was impossible for him to assume jurisdiction is bankruptcy rules, with regard to the administration of the such a case, and he must refuse the motion, with costs. estates of persons adjudicated bankrupt, should be applied. | Solicitors for the trustee, Marson & Dadley. This would call attention to the provisions of the Act, and Solicitors for the Eastern Agency (Limited), Murray, might save trouble in working out the judgment.--Solici Hutchins, & Stirling. TORS, Indermaur f. Co.; Emmet, Son, f. Stubbs ; S, White

Styer. head.



(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before DENMAN, J., and a special REGISTRARS.

jury.) (Before Mr. REGISTRAR Murray, acting as Chief Judge.)

May 9–11.—Mason v. Aird. May 7.-Ex parte Spain, re Barclay, Gray, 8: Co.

Melsheimer, with whom was M'Intyre, Q.C., appeared for

the plaintiff. The Court of Bankruptcy has no jurisdiction to try the question

Sir H. S. Giffard, Q.C., C. H. Anderson, and Frankau, of the trustee's right to money deposited by debtors in liquidation with their solicitor previou«ly to the presentation of the liquida.

were counsel for the defendant. tion petition, the money being also claimed by a third person

This action was brought by a late articled clerk to a who ohjects to the jurisdiction.

solicitor against his master to recover damages for a breach

of covenant that the defendant would use all his endeavours This was an application on bebalf of Henry Spain, the

to promote the admission of the plaintiff as a solicitor of the trustee of the estate of Barclay, Gray, & Co., debtors in

Supreme Court. The plaintiff had been some years in the liquidation, for an order that Mr. W. B. Styer, solicitor,

defendant's employ before the articles were signed, on May should, within four days after the hearing of the application,

24, 1876, for three years, and under these the plaintiff duly pay to the applicant the sum of £917 Og. 7d., cash in his

served the defendant. But when the plaintiff presented hands.

himself to the Law Institution for examination certain quesIn the month of February, 1880, the Eastern Agency tions were put to the defendant as to whether the plaintiff (Limited) commenced an action against the debtors to re

had faithfully, honestly, and diligently served him, and the cover damages for the non-acceptance of a cargo of rice, pur

defendant refused to certify to that effect, whereby the chased by them under a contract in writing. The action was

plaintiff alleges he has been debarred and delayed from referred to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the contract,

being admitted and practising in his profession. The de. and on the 22nd of December, 1880, the arbitrator made his

fence set up is that the defendant honestly and bona fide award, whereby he awarded the sum of £919 0s, 7d., to be

believed certain statements as to the character and honesty paid by the debtors to tbe Eastern Agency (Limited).

of the plaintiff made to him by a Mrs. Stanley, since dead, On the 26th of January, 1881, the award was made a role

with whom the plaintiff was at one time living. These of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, and, on related to a fee of £2 4s. 6d. for professional work due to the 16th of February, an order was obtained for payment of Mr. D. Straight (now a judge in India), which the plainthe amount to the Eastern Agency (Limited).

tiff alleges that barrister's clerk returned to him as a present The debtors, on the 1st of March, obtained an order to for extra trouble taken in the case. Mr. Straight, however, stay execution under the order pending an appeal by

denied ever having given this autbority, and has written Tamvaco & Co. (who had been brought in as third parties

saying he would come over from India, if necessary, to prove pursuant to the provisions of the Judicature Act) on payment

it, and this denial is now admitted. This transaction, bow. of the sum of £919 08, 7d. into court to abide the result of

ever, took place some fourteen months before the articles

were signed, in March, 1875. Farther, there was a charge of On the 2nd of March the debtors handed the sum of

tampering with the stamps on certain bnnkruptcy proceed£919 Os. 70. in cash to Mr. Styer, their solicitor, and on the

ings, and with making away with the papers connected 3rd, and before the money could be paid into court, they pre

therewith in 1874-5. These papers were put in the plaio. sented a petition for liquidation.

tiff's room in the defendant's office in January, 1875, and On the same dny (the plaintiffs' solicitors being unaware

Mrs. Stanley's story was that the plaintiff had taken the that the debtors had paid the money) Mr. Styer was served papers home and removed the stamps over the steam of a with a summons to set aside the order of the 1st of March,

kettle. She further said the plaintiff admitted to her having and, on the 4th of March, an order was made setting it

taken £1 from his employer, on suspicion of which another aside.

clerk had been dismissed. The defendant, in January, The trustee claimed to have the £919 in the hands of Mr.

1879, addressed a long memorandum to the Law Institution Styer paid to him as part of the estate of the debtors, and the

at their request, setting out all these misdoings, and Mrs. Eastern Agency (Limited) also claimed the money.

Stanley's letters as his reason for refusing to certify, and Finlay Knight, in support of the application.

on this the plaintiff has commenced a further action of R. T. Reid, and J. Linklater, for the Eastern Agency Con.

libel against the defendant. In the present action, the plain.

tiff also claimed damages for a slander for the defendant's pany.--The court has no jurisdiction to try this question,

having said of the plaintiff to a Mr. Crump, about March, It has no jurisdiction against a third party unless by consent:

1874, when he was investigating the plaintiff's accounts, “I Ex parte Dicken, Re Pollard (27 W. R. 731, L. R. 8 Ch. D. 884); Ex parte Brown, Re Yates (L. R. 11 Ch.D. 148). The

bave some suspicion he is robbing me; I may want you to

overhaul his accounts." trustee can bave no higher right to the money than the

At the conclusion of the evidence the learned JUDGE summed debtor bas, and he ought to be left to his action.

up and pointed out that this was not an action of libel, but, in C. Hall, for Styer.-I am a stakeholder merely, and de accordance with the ruling of the Court of Appeal, the sire to get rid of the money.

question was whether the defendant used his honest endeavours Knight, in reply.--The company is a creditor claiming to

to promote the plaintiff's admission. They were not to try hold security, and is not a stranger to the proceedings. This

the guilt or innocence of the plaintiff, or the truth or false is not a mere money demand by the trustee, it is a question

hood of the accusations, but (1) whether the defendant whether the fund claimed by the company bas been specific

honestly and bond fide believed them. It was to be observed ally appropriated to the payment of the company's debt.

that the defendant in June, 1879, after the expiration of

the articles, entered into some negotiations with the plaintiff Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY said that, having regard to the as to re-engaging him. This the defendant explained as case of Ex parte Dicken, Re Pollard, and the principles there owing to a desire that the plaintiff should finish up two or three laid down by the Master of the Rolle, he did not consider | cases of which he was cognizant and the defendant ignorant, that he had jurisdiction to deal with this matter under the and to save a journey to the Maidstone Assizes. As to the 72nd section. The remarks made by Lord Justice James iu slander, did the defendant (2) mean to impate a felony to the that case applied here, and he did not think it expedient that plaintiff in what he said to Crump? Thirdly, was he actuated he should exercise jurisdiction. He did not see that the therein by actual malice? If they found a verdict for the trustee bad any higher right than the debtors had, and if plaintiff, they would award him damages on both beads. they had brought an action against the solicitor to recover Sir H. Giffard said he had not touched on the question. the money paid to him, it would have been bis duty to inter- of slander, as the Lord Cbief Justice, on a former trial,

the appeal.

had ruled the occasion as privileged, and, even if not, be the attention of the council very largely. They prepared a should submit that the clain as to that was barred by the Bill with regard to it, and had an interview with the Lord Statute of Limitations.

Chancellor early in January, when certain suggestions were DENMAN, J., said he should not consider that point to made by them, but up to then his lordship had not received night (as to entering judgment) in case the jury should find any communication from the benchers, and the matter was

or the plaintiff on that part of the case. It was not the main postponed. They afterwards saw several of the members of part of the case.

the bar, more particularly the treasurers of the four Inns of The jury retired, and, after an absence of an hour, returned Court, who, at the suggestion of the council, considered the into court, saying they were unable to agree unanimously subject separately and together, and eventually passed a on the third question, but found “ Yes" to the first, and resolution that the perioa of probation might be reduced from “No” to the second question. After some discussion with his three years to one year-in otber words, that solicitors might lordship they retired again, to consider the question of actual become barristers on only one instead of three years' terms. malice, though his lordship intimated that he thought it This was not considered to be all that was wanted, because was immaterial, being disposed of in the former answer. there was still the preliminary examination for the bar, and the After a brief absence the jury again returned, and said council requested that the society's preliininary examination “No” in answer to the third.

should be held to be an equivalent for it. Answers had been DENMAN, J.—That is a verdict for the defendant, and I received from Lincoln's-inn and the Middle Temple, stating give judgment for him.

that the matter should receive consideration, and they exMelsheimer asked for & stay of execution to move, and pected that a similar reply would be received from Gray's.

DENMAN, J., granted it, observing that his verdict would inn. He believed the council would consider this a satis. have been the same as that now given.-Times.

factory solution of the difficulty. The council knew nothing whatever with respect to the subject of the third question. As regarded the fourth, the council had taken immense trouble with reference to the Bankruptcy Bill, and had

appointed a strong committee previous to the commencement SOCIETIES.

of the session. They drew up observations which were sent to the Bankers' Institute, the wholesale dealers, and the

provincial law societies, and when their replies were received INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

they were forwarded in a tabular form to the AttorneyA special meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, for the

General and the Board of Trade. The council also saw Mr. purpose of taking into consideration the present position of

Chamberlain, and had received communications from bim. legal procedure, the impending changes in the profession, and

They afterwards considered the Bill, and communicated with other incidental matters, was held at the society's hall on

the provincial societies. As soon as answers had been Friday, the 16th inst. The meeting had been convened on the

received from the societies, the council intended to again requisition of a large number of the members of the society.

communicate with Mr. Chamberlain, and, in the meantime, About 250 gentlemen attended, and Mr. J. M. CLABON,

Mr. Ford's questions would be referred to a committee of the President, occupied the chair.

council in order that the subject of the audience of solicitors The PRESIDENT stated the object of the meeting.

in the Bankruptcy Court might be carefully considered. Mr. C. FORD asked whether he might be permitted to put Mr. E. KIMBER remarked that it was not his intention some questions to the president ?

to make an attack upon the council, or to say whether The PRESIDENT replied that he was in entire ignorance as what they had done was right or wrong. The meeting to what would be done. Until he came into the room he had to consider what was to be done at the present time, had not seen the resolutions that were to be submitted to the and he felt that it was incumbent upon every member of meeting. He wished to give every possible information in the solicitors' branch of the profession to make a strong answer to any questions that might be put to him,

stand against a matter which was, in his opinion, unconMr. FORD then put the following questions :-(1) stitutional and illegal. He thought that when he attacked Whether the circumstances under which the council sent to the Judicature Act every one present would be in accord and received back from the Legal Procedure Committee with him. Great authorities disagreed with respect to it, so certain recommendations, as announced at the time in the it was, at least, not surprising if solicitors did so, and that Times newspaper, are open to any satisfactory explanation, the public took an erroneous view of their conduct. He or whether this society must regard the action of the Legal drew the attention of the meeting more particularly to the Procedure Committee in the light of an affront on tbis 75th section of the Act, which related to the Council of society? (2) Whether any arrangement has been come to Judges who were to consider the procedure and admini. between the council and the benchers with regard to the regu. stration of justice. The section laid it down that they lations of the Inns of Court affecting the call of solicitors to should assemble once a year to consider the operation of the bar ? (3) Whether, with reference to the communication the Act and the Rules of Court, together with the working of the Attorney-General to the council in regard to certain | of the offices and the arrangements relative to the duties solicitors, whose names had been scheduled by the Parlia. of the officers of the courts, and to inquire into any mentary Commissioners, the council are aware of any steps defects which existed in the system of procedure or the in contemplation by the first law officer of the Crown to administration of the law in the High Court of Justice and put a stop to the reckless expenditure of money by barristers the Court of Appeal. They were also to report annually and other candidates for parliamentary honours at election to one of the Secretaries of State as so what amendments times? (4) Whether the council have taken any steps to it was desirable should be made for the better administra. safeguard the right of solicitors to audience in the Bank. tion of justice. What was there in existence at the preruptcy Court when, as provided in the present Government sent moment? A Legal Procedure Committee had been Bankruptcy Bill, such court becomes a branch of the High appointed, of the object of which the president himself Court of Justice ?

was in doubt, but thought it to be a committee to consider The PRESIDENT replied that (1), with reference to the the costs of litigation. This was the first instance in the suggestions made by the council to the Legal Procedure or country's history of the appointment of a committee upon Costs of Litigation Committee, the matter had been referred by the mere authority of one Minister of State-a depart. them to the particular committee which they had appointed ! mental committee to govern Legislation and prescribe wbat for the purpose of considering the suggestions, and the result i should be done with regard to the great profession of the of their deliberations had been forwarded to the Costs of law. Personally, he admired the Lord Chancellor greatly, Litigation Committee. This resulted in communications but in the present instance he had acted, not as a Minister, between bimself and the Attorney-General, the council, he but as a creature. It was most extraordinary that the believed, coming well out of the matter. The suggestions judges had never met in council, in accordance with the were not accepted by the committee at first, but were sent requirements of the Act, until after the death of the Lord back to the council, and having been reconsidered, and some Chief Justice. If those who were appointed to administer of them to which objection had been taken having been the law had not upheld one of the principal sections of struck out, they were returned to and reconsidered by the the Judicature Act, was it surprising that the general committee. In his opinion, nothing in the nature of an public looked unfavourably on the whole practice and affront bad been intended to the council or the society. profession of the law? They had done so, as was proved The second question concerned a subject which had occupied by the calumnies that had been uttered in the Times, and


[ocr errors][ocr errors]

many other newspapers, with regard to the costs of the the House of Commons and outside of it, and it became legal profession, their practice, and their social position. necessary to throw cold water on all that they did. The The judges had never met, except for the purpose of Legal Procedure Committee itself originated from an abolishing two ancient offices. Why were not the defects article which appeared in the Times, followed by letters of the Act discussed by the judges themselves? It could signed “ Lex" and one from a member of the Judicature not be from the want of knowledge as to its requirements, Commission. It was not at all difficult to define who that for he had heard one of the judges in the Court of Appeal gentleman was, from the views to which he had given remark that he knew what a particular rule meant, as he expression when on the benob. Artioles and correspondence had drawn it himself. Again, a Queen's Counsel, who was followed, the whole press took the matter op, and evento. a member of Parliament, had told the court that he knew ally the Government, after consulting the Lord Chancellor, the meaning of the Act, for he was the author of it. Sir appointed a departmental committee. The Times never William Charley had said in a work he had written that after made any allusion to the cost of litigation, but advised the judges were accustomed to meet together for the pur

the committee to get rid of the many steps necessary to pose of consultation, but such a meeting was unknown in be taken in some of the courts before a cage could be the present day. These meetings were, however, calcu- | decided. The Times, at any rate, bad at length taken the lated to break down the barrier of prejudice which

burden from the shoulders of the solicitors, and he hoped existed, but which, he was glad to be able to say, was slowly disappearing. That the Lord Chancellor entirely

tbe action of the meeting would result in its being sympathized with the Act a letter which he held in his

put on the right ones. He would move, “ That no Com. hand would prove.

mittee on Legal Procedure can have the confidence of It was addressed to a solicitor by the secretary to the Lord Chancellor, and stated that his lord

the public, or of this branch of the profession, unlegs ship was glad he had no complaint to make against the

both be properly and adequately represented; and this officers of the Court of Chancery, and that the subject of

society recommends to ber Majesty's Government the expense in the Chancery Division of the Supreme Court

appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into had for a considerable time occupied his earnest attention,

the whole question of economizing, simplifying, and with a view that such changes might be made as would

accelerating the process and practice of the law.'' meet the difficulties which arose out of a defective system.

If th:y passed this resolution, the public and the press could It was sad that the profession, who were the instruments

no longer say the solicitors were opposed to simplification, by which the Act was to be carried out, should be liable

economy, and swiftness in the practice of the law, or to say to be attacked because of its defects, whilst the judges,

that solicitors desired to protract litigation that they might and not they, were liable for them. He was of opinion

put money in their pockets. The statistics of the High Court that it might safely be concluded that the Lord Chancellor

of Justice proved that the applications for immediate judg. thought that, although the Council of Judges had not been

meats were extremely numerous, and that this had been the annually called, yet that it ought to have been, and that

case to a much greater extent tban had ever been contem. there was some difficulty in calling it; also, that when it

plated by the Judicature Commissioners themselves, which, was called it would be a machine awkward and difficult

of itself, would prove that solicitors were in the habit of adto set in motion—too heavy and cumbrous for its objects.

vising their clients at the earliest possible moment so as to Therefore it had been thought best to appoint a Committee

put an end to litigation. It would be said, in opposition to of Legal Procedure, or a Costs of Litigation Committee. It

the appointment of the Royal Commission, that one had was, however, a departmental committee, consisting of

already been appointed—the Judicature Commission-which judges, barristers, and only two solicitors. Neither the

had sat several times and had been the cause of the passsng solicitor branch of the profession nor the public were

of two Acts of Parliament. In reply to that it could be said properly represented upon it. How was the committee

that grievances were still complained of by the public and composed ? Lord Coleridge was the chairman, Lord Justice

that the costs of litigation had not been reduced. Emphatic James, Mr. Justice Bowen, Mr. J. C. Mathew, Mr. R. T.

action must be taken, pending the report of the Legal ProReid, all of them either barristers or past-barristers ; Mr.

cedure Committee, in order to influence the House of Commons Hollams and Mr, C. Harrison, solicitors. Lord Shand,

and with a view to getting rid of the opprobrium which at Sir James Hannen, and the Attorney-General, all from the

present attached to them in the exercise of their profession. barrister branch, had, in consequence of representations

Many members of the House of Commons on both sides, to which had been made to the Government, been added to

his personal knowledge, were in favour of the solicitor branch the committee. What could these gentlemen know about

as against the bar, and felt the want of the solicitor in the matters which most affected solicitors in their prac

framing Acts of Parliament, of the interpretation of eighty tice? He held in his hand a number of letters of com

per cent, of which they would bave the responsibility. The plaints which he had received, and one of them showed

members of the society who occupied seats in the House had that the particular work which could be effected by two

made their mark upon the Statute Book on many occasions. attendances when the matter was in the Common Law

He urged the society to put aside antiquated notions of Division required no less than thirteen attendances if it

| dignity. The reforms of the law must come from the humble, was in the Chancery Division. The construction of the

working members of the profession. The members who Rules of Court was in most cases determined from the

signed the requisition upon which the meeting had been condrafteman's point of view, and from the reading of some

vened were of the rank and file, and experienced the respon. of them opposite conclusions might be arrived at from

sibility of interpreting laws which were not to be adminis those which would be derived from others. Some of them

tered in London only, but in the provinces, where the flower had required the decision of the Court of Appeal, and of

of the profession practised in the minor courts. If the the very judges who had drawn them, which would not

solicitors were properly represented the public would soon have been the case if the practical men of the solicitor

understand that, although the costs of litigation were heavy, branch had been taken into the confidence of the gentlemen

they were desirous of diminishing them and also of diminishwho drew them. He could not understand how it was that

ing litigation, notwithstanding that their costs would neceslaw and legislation were concluded without consulting the

sarily be reduced at the outset. The law could be m de very men who were beat able to define the practice affected

more costly, more expeditious, and yet more profitable to the

lawyer. by tbe rules to be made. The Council of the Incorporated

Let them carry the motion and prove to the Law Society were consulted now and then, it was true,

Government that they were not in the rear in public opinion, and it really was a fact that quite recently they had got

but were prepared to lead it, and to do so to the entire satisno less than thirteen of her Majesty's judges to dine with

faction of the nation. them, when, no doubt, they had ample opportunities of

Mr. J. MOTE geconded the motion, and objected to the consultation. But the benchers also dined together on the

committee as he bad a dislike to anytbing of a secret obavery same night, and they invited several influential

| racter, and to being bound to trust implicity in any persons, members of Parliament. How were the two entertain

however high their station. He thought that neither the ments spoken of in the newspapers ? That of the benchers

solicitors nor the pablio were sufficiently represented upon was referred to in much bigber terms than that of the it, ang tao

it, and thought it would give great confidepoe to the society. The members of the bar were an important I general public if the name of gooh a person as Samuel

the background in the management of the | Morley bad been placed upon it. ivfluential newspapers. Their intentions were evident! Mr. l'ORD moved an amendument, “That this society, by the articles which appeared in the Times. The whilst appreciating the courtesy of the Lord Chancellor 1 solicitors were gaining in the esteem of the public, both in ) appointing a Legal Procedure Committee, regrets that so few


solicitors were appointed to serve thereon, and especially fewer false defences made, and enormous expense in litigation that neither the president nor vioe-president of this society would be saved. He thought that the simplification of the prowere so appointed." He thought the meeting was muoh cedure of the Mayor's Court should engage the attention of indebted to Mr. Kimber. He was opposed, however, to | any committee now sitting. The time had arrived for the resolotion, as they had not the report of the com- energetic action on the part of the solicitor branch, in mittee before them and they could not say whether it order that the public might generally know that they had would be satisfactory or otherwise. The position of the | their interests at heart as well as their own. president for the time being had been duly recognizad in Mr. A. BEYFUS hoped the motion would be carried for a the recent Bill for altering the remuneration of golioitors Royal Commission. He regretted to have to say that it was in conveyancing matters. He saggested that Mr. Kimber to the interest of the barristers that solicitors should not be should withdraw his proposition for the appointment of permitted to do the work that they ought to do. The a Royal Commission, at any rate, for the moment. If they scale of fees for drafts of length and difficulty was so low adopted the motion, they might be told that they were that they were obliged to send them to counsel to settle, aoting prematurely and unwisely.

and whilst they were not properly represented on the legal Mr. J. INDERMAUR seconded the amendment. He asserted committees, this must continue to be the case. The public that far too much attention was paid to the bar and far too had no idea where the costs went to. The costs of an ordilittle to the solicitors in these matters. There was no need | nary appeal would amount to £70 or £80, and only some for the public to be represented on a committee of this £15, perhaps, would go to the solicitor ; but the public did character. The bar knew very little upon these inatters as not know this, and would not until the solicit 13 wrre more a rule. It was really the solicitors who were acquainted largely represented, and a commission appointed to consider with the practical working of the law who were best fitted the whole position of solicitors and barristers. The publio to give an opinion. The motion was far too extensive in its would get substantial justice when the solicitors had it, but character, but the amendment was a very reasonable one. | pot before. What did the bar koow as to the details of the profession?| Mr. Edwin HUGHES moved the adjournment of the meeting They knew literally nothing as far as the simplification of in order that the council might have an opportunity of the practice was concerned. In ordinary matters, in his considering the amendment. opinion, the costs allowed to solicitors were quite inadequate, | Mr. Low seconded tbe motion. and the whole system of the conduct of an action might bé! Mr. C. A. Betts thought the appointment of a Royal very much amended. The solicitor branch ought to be so Commission would only shelve the matter for two or three represented that the public might be made to know that years, and the motion for the adjournment would delay a they did not desire the increase of expense or the continua- question which solicitors had at their very hearts-the tion of litigation, because the continuation of litigation opprobrium which had been cast upon them for years pastwas not to their interest. They trusted that they were whilst the amendment expressed regret and did nothing honest men, and would not continue litigation to the detri. | more. The question had been burked again and again, and ment of their clients, but that would work more to the this meeting proved the interest taken in it by solicitors. interest of the barrister than of the solicitor, to whose The council bad not protected them in this or any other interest it was to simplify litigation and make it as cheap matter. (Question.) The taxing masters treated their costs and expeditious as possible. The amendment would prove as something to be reduced under any circumstances, and that the council were not always go active as they might be. the delays in payment were infinite, whilst no consideration

Mr. F. K. MUNTON thought that the amendment would { whatever was paid to the interests of the working branch more adequately meet the circumstances of the case than the of the profession. motion. He quite agreed that it was very undesirable that Mr. L. EMANUEL spoke in the highest terms of the wisdom, the members of the society should do or say anything that sagacity, and high-mindedness of the council, but there must was likely to affect the conduct of the society as a whole, be something in the traditions of the place which had the and although it might be said that the council had not so unfortunate effect of enervating them, and these gentleactively looked into the matter as some members might bave men for whom individually they had the highest respect, did liked, yet having appointed their representatives, if they com not do collectively what they would do individually in conplaided of them, it should be done rather by way of a recom ducting their own affairs. He felt sure the obnoxious certimendation to them to consider it. He was strongly opposed ficate tax would be repealed if Parliament were properly to a motion being passed that looked anything like an attack approached, and the question of their relation with the other upon the council. Mr. Justice Bowen had complained, branch of the profession .certainly required amendment. He acording to a report in the Times of that morning, that his wished they could meet as they were doing more frequently, time was taken up for several hours in trying a case of tort, and that the council would do more to advance the interests respecting a very small natter, and the report seemed to of the solicitors, and with the object of removing the allude to the folly of the solicitor in bringing such an mediæval prejudice which was felt against them. action in a superior court. But it was next to impossible | Mr. MORGAN suggested that thé first half of the motion after the writ bad been issued to take an action for tort which should be combined with the amendment, and that the had been commenced in the superior court into a county second balf of the motion, on which there would be probably court. He mentioned a case where the verdict was for £20, some difference of opinion, should be moved separately. He and the costs amounted to £96, but it was the Judicature did not concur in the observations which had been made Act that was in fault and not the solicitor.

wbich were detrimental to the council. Mr. W. ROBERTS (Debenham, Suffolk) was quite sure Mr. MELVILLE Green (Worthing) thought the mode and that everybody wished to pass a resolution that would be time of proceeding was just one of those questions which satisfactory to the general body of the profession, but could had better be left to the council. Mr. Chamberlain bad not help thinking that the amendmentin its present form would brought in a Bill dealing with bankruptcy reform, opon be construed by many of them and of the public as a mere which he prided himself that he did not care for the advice wail. Many of the opinions expressed by Mr. Kimber had of solicitors. At the present time the opinion of solicitors long been felt by country practitioners. He suggested that was at a lower point than usual with those in power ; there Mr. Kimber and Mr. Ford should combine to produce a

was, therefore, no use in carrying the proposition which resolution, and the meeting which had been called for a

was before the meeting. But it would come to pass that specific purpose would be productive of great good.

any legal reforms which had not the assistance of their Mr. N. HANHART could see nothing in the resolution knowledge and experience must fail, and it was not for attacking the council, and thought they should express an them to take an inopportune moment for protesting when opinion as to the constitution of the committee before the

they would be simply supposed to be grumbling. report came out, because, if the committee happened to

Mr. T. H. DEVONSHIRE was desirous the meeting shouid make some good suggestions, their opportunity would be

not make a serious mistake. If the council would tell lost. It was time that the public should be made to under

them that they really would give the subject their earoest stand that their interests were the interests of the solicitors.

and prompt consideration, and call them together again, He held that litigation must always be expensive, as it was

without unreasonable delay, it was their duty and to their the application of expensively trained intellects to the dis

to the dise interest to adjourn. He was quite sure no one in the room section of very small affairs. There ought to be more

desired to make any serious complaint against the council. opportunity by a summary process of getting security for Mr. KIMBER entirely agreed with the amendment : but costs. Fewer false claims would then be advanced, and after what had been said, thought it better to adjourn. He

« PreviousContinue »