Page images

LONDON, MAY 28, 1881.




[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



.............. 559




the Queen's Bench Division would sit on the Queen's birthday. Up to Thursday we understand that no decision had been arrived at on the subject among the judges of

the Chancery Division, but we believe it is probable that CONTENTS.

most of them will sit on Saturday. CURREXT TOPICS ...


IN THE YEAR 1879, the Council of the Incorporated Law CASES OF THE WEEK

Society, after communicating with the Probate Registrars, Knapman v. Wreford..........

sent a circular to the leading firms of law stationers in Lyon v. Teddell....

London with reference to the transaction by them of Rawson v. Patton... Dicks v. Yates .....

non-contentious probate business as agents for solicitors.

The council expressed their opinion that a law stationer Stuckey y. Warton Emden v. Carte......

560 who could be proved to havo acted as the agent of a Healey v. Bates.......

560 solicitor in a proceeding in the Probate Court under rule Fowler v. Murray...........

.... 561 2 of the Rules of 1862 was liable, under the Stamp Act, Bainbrigge v. Browne .................................... 1870 (section 59 and schedula) to a penalty of £50 ; and CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS:

was further (under the Solicitors Act, 1860) guilty of a Ex parte Vale. Re Bannister ............................... 561

contempt of court, and liable to a further penalty of £50. Re W arren ................................................

The council in their circular asked the law stationers, in SOLICITORS' CASES ..... ............................ 562

case they were not disposed to concur in this opinion, to HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ..... .............................. 563 SOCIETIES .................................................... 563

agree with the council on some mode of obtaining a LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL...........

judicial determination of the question. In answer to LEGAL APPOINTMENTS ............

this circular several law stationers expressed their intenCOMPANIES ......................................

tion of abandoning the practice, but some refused to do OBITCARY ..................................

so, and declined to concur with the council in obtaining CREDITORS' CLAIMS .........................


any decision as to its legality. The council subsequently LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK ........


commenced proceedings to recover penalties against some LEGAL NEWS ..................

571 572

leading firms of law stationers, and there will be found COTET PAPERS ........

574 in another part of our issue this week reports of the trial LONDON GAZETTES, &C., &c............

of two of these cases, in which it was arranged that

formal judgment should be given for the plaintiffs for CASES REPORTED IN THE WEEKLY REPORTER.

£50, so as to enable the defendants to go to the Court of Barter & Co. v. Dubeux (App.) .........

............... 622 Corry v. Great Western Railway Company (App.)......

Appeal. There can, we think, be little doubt that it is Guardians of the Hollingbourn Union, äppellants; Guardians an infringement of the letter, as well as of the spirit, of of the West Ham Union, Respondents (Q.B.Div.) .............

the law that a law stationer should transact business in Guardians of the Plomesgate Union, Appellants; Guardians of the West Ham Union, Respondents (Q.1

630 the Probate Registry as agent for a solicitor, and the Kinsman v. Rouse (Ch.Div. M.R.)......


practice has been condemned both by the Incorporated Lister, Ex parte. In re Halberstamm (App.) ..... Metropolitan Asylums District Managers, The, v. Hill and others

Law Society and by the Associated Provincial Law (Second Appeal) (H.L.)............................... .... Societies. But so long as the profession countenance it, Ramsden v. Yeates (Q.B.Div.) ..............

whatever may be the result of the present proceedings, Richardson, Appellant ; Saunders, Respondent (Q.B.Div.) .... 631 Taylor v. Pede (Ch.Div.. Fry, J.) ......

627 means will doubtless be found by the law stationers of Thorpe v. Bestwick (Q.B.Div.) ......


continuing the practice. Wade & Thomas, In re (Ch.Div. M.R.).

625 White nd Co, Ex parte. In re Gearing (1

632 Winkley v. Winkley (Ch.Div. Fry, J.)....

.. 628

THE COPYRIGHT in the Revised Version of the New TestaCURRENT TOPICS.

ment, so far as there is a copyright, has a very different position from that of the copyright in the Authorized Ver.

sion. The copyright in the Authorized Version was origin. LORD JUSTICE BAGGALLAY continues to make good | allyin the Crown, the right being considered either as progress towards recovery, but his medical advisers do depending upon the circumstance of that translation not deem it prudent for him to resume his judicial duties having been made at the Crown's expense, or as until after the Whitsun vacation.

arising out of the duty of the Crown to provide the people with a correct version. The right was denied in Ireland

by Lord Chancellor CLARE (Grierson V. Jackson, Ir. T. R THE CENTRAL HALL of the Royal Courts of Justice is

304); but has never been disputed in England since the making rapid progress towards completion. The groin

case of Universities of Oxford and Cambridge v. ing of the roof or ceiling is about to be commenced, the

Nicholson (6 Ves. 278). The Crown, by letters patent, stone arches between three pairs of battresses being

has, from time to time, vested its exclusive right of already finished. Above the groining there will be a

printing and selling the Scriptures in the Univerelated roof protecting the work from the weather.

sities of Oxford and Cambridge, concurrently with the Queen's Printer. The authors of the Revised

Version have, as the public are informed in the THE UNIFORMITY of practice with reference to sitting preface, assigned the copyright to the Universities. on the Queen's birthday, which was last year established Bnt how long does such copyright last? A private transamong all the courts, both of the Common Law and lator cannot, of course, invest his work with that per. Chancery Divisions, is, we regret to say, this year to be petuity of copyright which the law forbids, merely by an departed from. We are informed that on Thursday last assignment to an undying corporation. Although there has Lord COLERIDGE announced that none of the courts of been such an assignment, the life of the assignor (or in the

8; Guard




... 628

case of a joint translation the life of the longest liver of CONSOLS HAVING REACHED a price considerably above the translators) and seven years afterwards, or not less par, after allowing for accrued interest, it becomes a than forty-two yearsin all-not the life of the corporation matter of some importance to understand exactly the regulates the term of the copyright. There is, however, a terms upon which these and other Government debts may statute passed in 1775 which, at first sight, seems to

be“ paid off.” The very numerous statutes authorizing vest a perpetual copyright in the Universities. The Act the National Debt, mostly repealed by the Statute Law 16 Geo. 3, c. 53, after reciting that "authors ...

Revision Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 69), were recast may give the copies of books composed by them to or in | and, as far as material re-enacted, by The National trust for one of the two. Universities, &c., and may | Debt Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 71), (passed direct that the profits arising from the printing and re- during Mr. Gladstone's tenure of office), which is printing such books shall be applied ... as a fund for | very precise. The 5th section provides that the annuities the advancement of learning and other beneficial purposes described in the first schedule to the Act shall form part of education within the said Universities; and that of the National Debt, and “ shall respectively continue whereas such useful purposes will frequently be frustrated redeemable by Parliament at the periods and in the unless the sole printing and reprinting of such books be manner in the same schedule mentioned, at the rate preserved and secured to the said Universities in per

of one hundred pounds for every one hundred pounds of petuity"; provides that the said Universities shall have the capital sums in respect whereof they are payable." for ever the sole liberty of printing and reprinting all The annuities described in the schedule are 3 per Cent. such books as shall be bequeathed or otherwise given by Consols, 3 per Cent. Reduced, New 3 per Cents, New 31 the author or authors of the same respectively to or in | per Cents., and New 21 per Cents. Of these the New trust for the said Universities.” But this statute can 3 per Cents, are redeemable at any time without previous hardly avail to extend the copyright in the Revised notice, and the 3} and 2) per Cents. (also without notice) Version, for in the first place it appears from the preface at any time after the 5th of January, 1894. In speaking to that work that there was an "arrangement providing of redemption of the “ New Threes” without notice, we for the necessary expenses of the undertaking, and in | merely mean that no notice is provided for by the Act of the next place the statute in terms applies to originals

1870, which follows faithfully in this respect the Act, 7 and not to translations.

Vict.c. 4, by which these annuities were created. Probably however, the precedent of that Act, which allowed the holders of certain 3per Cents. about six months to

declare their option to be paid off or to accept the lower A QUESTION has already arisen whether the Revised rate of interest, would be followed in a greater or less Version of the New Testament may be used in churches degree; but an Act of Parliament would be neceswhen the second lesson comes to be read. It has been sary to provide for notice, to which the creditor said that the Church of England has never tied scarcely appears to be entitled in strict law herself down to a particular translation, although where Those who buy 2 per cents. at their present the Bible forms a part of the Book of Common discount, therefore, may be paid off in fourteen Prayer-as is the case with the Epistles and Gospels- years at a handsome premium. Consols and Reduced t old vereion must, by the very terms of the Act of are redeemable at any time, subject to & peculiar Uniformity, be used to the letter. There is, how- regulation" scheduled to the Act. By this regulation ever, direct authority for the proposition that even | (which follows, almost in terms, section 24 of the Act 25 in the lessons the authorized version must be used. I Geo. 2, c. 28, which created the Consolidated Fund” in In Newbery V. Goodwin (1 Phil. 282), a suit was | 1751) they are redeemable "atanytineon one year's notice, brought against a clergyman for (inter alia), “ irregul. I printed in the London Gazette, and affixed on the Royal arities in reading the Holy Scriptures," and a monition | Exchange in London, and on repayment by Parliament, was decreed against the defendant to refrain for the according to such notice, of the several sums, or any future from offending in the manner charged in the part thereof, for which the said several annuities, or articles. Sir JOHN NICHOLLS said: “The law directs that I either of them, are or is payable, by payments not less a clergyman is not to diminish, in any respect, or to add than £500,000 at one time, in manner directem by any to, the prescribed form of worship. Uniformity in this Act to be passed, and also on full payment of all arrears of respect is one of the leading characteristics of the Church the same annuities. Then, and not till then," proceeds the of England. Nothing is left to the discretion or fancy regulation with solemnity," so much of the annuities as of the individual. If any minister were to alter, omit, or are attending on the principal sums so paid off shall cease, add according to his own taste, this uniformity would and be understood to be redeemed.” It is not very easy soon be destroyed, and though the alteration might

alteration might to speculate upon the manner which would be directed begin with small things, yet it would soon extend “by an Act to be passed ” for the redemption of part of itself to more important changes in the public worship a loan. All public borrowers hitherto have, in redeemof the Established Church, and even in the Scriptures | ing, dealt with all the holders of a particular loan a themselves the most important passages might be once, giving them the option of taking their principal, materially altered under the notion of giving a more

1. Op giving a more or receiving a lower rate of interest. We imagine, howcorrect version, or omitted altogether as unauthorized | ever, that the holders of any £500,000, or larger amount interpolations.” The principle of this case will, of course. which Parliament might be pleased to pay off, could be hold good as regards any version not authorized, although selected at the absolute pleasure of Parliament, 15 produced under the authority of Convocation. The should not be deemed more convenient and equitable to case appears to proceed upon the authority of the Canons.

I proceed by a “drawing" for redemption. It may be The 14th Canon prescribes that “allministers shall observe mentioned that the holders of Consols amounted in the orders ... prescribed in the Book of Com- l to about 126,000 persons, and that the holders of New mon Prayer, as well in reading the Holy Scriptures, and Threes” amounted in the same year to about 80,00 saying of prayers, as in administration of the Sacra- I (See McCulloch's Commercial Dictionary, tit. “ Funds. I ments, without either diminishing, in regard of preaching or in any other respect, or adding anything in the matter or form thereof." Canon 80 also directs that "if any parishes be yet unfurnished with the Bible of the largest THE COMPLAINT of Mr. LEWIS LEWISOHN against the volume, the church wardens shall, within convenient time, Russian Government involves some important questions provide the same at the like charge of the parish.” Both of international law. Mr. LEWISOHN is a native these Canons clearly proceed on the assumption that, Hamburg, of Jewish extraction, but he is a naturalized whether altered or not by authority from time to time, Englishman, and carries on business in Lor one uniform text shall be used at the same time in alí | August last he went to Russia on mercantile business churches,

bearing a passport with the signature of Lord GRANVILLE


[ocr errors]

and the visa of the Russian Consul in London. He constables examined, and the learned judge had occasion visited the fair at Nijni Novgorod, but upon reaching to lecture one of these witnesses for showing bias. In St. Petersburg and presenting his passport, he was the course of his examination one of the policemen was summoned to the bureau des étrangers, and was asked asked whether he had made a report on the matter in whether he was a Jew, and on his answering in the hand, and in reply stated that he had made a report, and affirmative , he was ordered to leave for the frontier that it was under his own control at the present time. within twenty-four hours. Inquiries addressed by Lord The remark of the learned judge may be commended GRANVILLE to Lord DUFFERIN elicited a reply that Mr. to the consideration of the heads of the police. He LEWISOHN's “notice to quit" was in accordance with said, “It is part of the regular duty of police constables Russian law, and that he could not be allowed to go to make reports of every matter in which they are again to St. Petersburg. The 1st article of the Com. engaged, and these reports are always in existence, but mercial Treaty made between Great Britain and Russia in my experience police constables who are witnesses in 1859 provides that “the subjects of each of the two never bring them into court." contracting parties respectively shall have liberty freely and securely to come ... to all places, ports, and rivers in the dominions and possessions of the other, to which other foreigners are or may be permitted to come,” but the article concludes with the following words:

STATEMENT OF THE CONSIDER"It is understood, however, that the preceding stipula. ATION IN BILLS OF SALE. tions in no wise affect the laws, decrees, and special regulations regarding commerce, industry, and police, in force in each of the two countries, and generally applicable to foreigners.” It appears that in the following No section of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. year the Russian Government issued an ukase which c. 31) has given rise to more difficulty than that which declared that foreigners might enter all the merchants' provides for the statement in the deed of the consideraguilds, and enjoy all the rights of natives, but that in tion for which it was given. By section 8 it is enacted the case of Israelites, only those who were “connus par that “every bill of sale to which the Act applies . . . leur position sociale et par la vaste étendue de leurs shall set forth the consideration for which such bill of sale Tevirements commerciaux," might enter into commerce, | was given," otherwise such bill of sale shall be deemed and then only as bankers, manufacturers, or holders of fraudulent and void as against trustees in bankruptcy leasehold property, and upon the special authorization of and execution creditors. - the Ministers of Finance and Foreign Affairs. Lord GRAN. The decisions upon this section are already rather TILLE's application to the Russian Government for redress numerous, and at first sight somewhat conflicting, but to Mr. LEWISOHN for the pecuniary loss sustained by bis we think that, with two or three exceptions, they are -expulsion and continued exclusion from Russia appears capable of being reconciled. We pro

con to have been entirely unsuccessful. Assuming that sider the most recent cases on the subject, and to enthe provisions of the ist article of the Treaty of 1859deavour to deduce from them principles which may be can be affected by subsequent legislation on the part useful for future guidance; but before doing so it may of either of the contracting States, it may be questioned be well briefly to advert to some of the earlier decisions. whether the ukase of 1860 can relate to a Jewish In Ex parte Carter, Re Threappleton (27 W. R. 943, foreigner who merely visits Russia for the purpose of L. R. 12 Ch. D. 908), the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy held trading

that the consideration of a bill of sale was not sufficiently set forth to satisfy the requirements of section 8

under the following circumstances :-The bill of sale re. TAE MOVEMENT in favour of electing ladies to offices of

cited that in June the mortgagor had applied to the Tesponsibility appears to be making progress, since it is

mortgagee for 4 loan of £340. In fact it appeared that stated that in the parish of Beeford, Yorkshire, a female

£240 had been advanced in different sums in the months .church warden has recently been elected. There appears

| of March and April by the mortgagee to a firm conto be no doubt that women are eligible for this office. sisting of the mortgagor and another person, and that In Morgan v. The Archdeacon of Cardigan (1 Salk. | the remaining £100 was advanced in June, after disso166), the Court of King's Bench granted a mandamus lution of the partnership, to the mortgagor alone. The to the archdeacon to swear in a churchwarden duly Chief Judge appears to have thought that the stringent elected, for “ as it is in the peril of the parishioners, so

| language of the section left him no alternative but to they may choose and trust whom they think fit.” The hold the bill of sale void. For reasons, however, which grounds of disqualification are apparently not very

will be presently given, it may be doubted whether this numerous, but a church warden must reside or carry on

decision would now be followed. The question came business within the parish at the time of his election;

before the Court of Appeal soon afterwards and in Anthony v. Seger (1 Hagg. Cons. 9), an alien

in Ex parte National Mercantile Bank, Re Haynes was held to be disqualified. In that case Lord StoWELL

(28 W. R. 848, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 42), where the conobserved : “If a parish had returned a Papist, or a Jew,

sideration was stated to be £2,050 paid by the bank to or a child of ten years of age, or a person convicted of the grantor at or before the execution of the bill of sale. felony, I conceive the Ordinary would be bound to It appeared that the grantor had agrecd to apply £550 reject." The authority of Rex v Stubbs (1 T. R. 395), / in taking up certain acceptances on which he was liable which decided that a woman may be elected overseer of

to the bank, but which were not due at the time the a parish, would doubtless extend to the case of a female

deed was executed. When the £2,050 was paid to him churchwarden; but Mr. PRIDEAUX (“ Churchwarden's

he at once handed back £550 to the bank for that Guide.” 14th ed., p. 5) states that “there can be little purpose. The Chief Judge again held that the doubt that the courts would relieve her from the burden

consideration was insufficiently set forth, and that of serving, unless the necessity of the case required that

the deed was therefore void, but tbe Court of she should do so."

Appeal reversed this decision, on the ground that, although the consideration must be truly stated, it is not necessary that a collateral agreement as to the ap

plication of the consideration should be set forth; and POLICE WITNESSEs have ou various occasions been with respect to Ex parte Carter, Baggallay, L.J., observed called to order by magistrates and judges for exhibit- that he was by no means satisfied that he should have ing partizanship. In a case which was tried before agreed with the decision in that case. A similar point Sir. Justice Fry on Tuesday last there were several police was raised in the case of Hamlyn v. Betteley (28 W. R.

956, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 327), where the court held that
the consideration for a bill of sale was sufficiently stated : THE IRISH LAND BILL.
as “ the sum of $182 38. now paid by the grantee to the
graptor," though in fact, at the request and with the

IV. assent of the latter, the money was paid as follows: THOSE of our readers who have followed our previous £8 3s. 3d., and £103 178. 5d., to discharge two execu articles will not, we think, be at any loss to discover tions against the grantor's goods; £25 Os. 9d. to the the causes of the “ failure" of the Land Act of 1870. attesting solicitor for money lent to the grantor, and for At first sight this Act would seem to have conferred costs as his solicitor, and the balance only of £45 ls. 70. i upon the tenantry throughout Ireland an inestimable to the grantor.

boon: to have raised them from a position of entire It will be seen, therefore, that with the exception of dependence upon the will, even the caprice, of the land. Ex parte Carter, the cases, so far, are perfectly con- owners to one of complete independence, an independ. sistent with the principle laid down by James, L.J., in

ence secured, in the case even of tenants having no Ex parte National Mercantile Bank, that “the Act pecuniary claim of an appreciable nature—& not unrequires the real consideration to be set forth, but does common case in the south and west-by the imposition of not require that any bargain between the parties relating ap arbitrary fine (called compensation for disturbance) to it should be stated." The Lord Justice was, indeed, upon the exercise by the owner of his undoubted right careful to except from this rule cases where it appears that of resuming, at will, the possession of his land. TO the transaction is a sham one, but, subject to this the northern tenant the Act offered complete, though qualification, we believe the principle has ever since been tardy, justice; and in assuring him that the implied term acted upon. The effect of the qualification received an which lay at the foundation of his tenure would hence. instructive illustration from the case of Ex parte Charing forth be observed inviolably, it would appear to have Cross Advance and Deposit Bank, In re Parker (29 given him all he could desire, and did, in fact, W. R. 204, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 35), the facts of which were give him all that he had ever demanded. But he shortly as follows:-A bill of sale stated that it was was not long in discovering that the independgiven in consideration of the sum of £120 paid by the ence thus gained was of little practical importance to mortgagee to the mortgagor at or before its execution. him : the sufferers from any disregard of the customs In fact only £90 was paid to the mortgagor, £30 being had never been numerous, and it was only here retained by the mortgagee for interest and experses. and there--principally upon estates which had lately Under these circumstances the Court of Appeal held that changed hands—that the new legal right was of any the consideration was not truly set forth, and that a greater practical value than the old moral one, while, receipt after the attestation clause, signed by the on the other hand, the immediate result of the Act was mortgagor, being no part of the deed, could not be to put an end to all those indulgences which had grown looked at for the purpose of showing how the £120 was up in the manner already described, and the want of made up. “It is clear," observed James, L.J.," that the which was a serious loss to the smaller tenants. That true consideration is not set forth in the bill of sale. The the Act should put a stop to these indulgences was invery object of the Act was to prevent the setting forth as evitable. In the first place, as the tenant could not, part of the consideration that which was retained by the by any arrangement, forego the privileges given him by grantor in the shape of interest and expenses. ... the Act, there was always the danger of an increase to In the present case there was really an evasion of the the “ tenant-right" arising from any such benefit: provisions of the Act, and it is not at all like Exc parte secondly, the joint operation of this Act and the Ballot National Mercantile Bank.It appears, therefore, that Act of 1872 was to deprive the landowner of that polithe Lord Justice considered that the retention of a sum tical inducement which had operated in this respect 80 for interest and expenses was an evasion of the Act, or, in largely in favour of the tenants, who henceforth could other words, a sham transaction; and both his lordship not, even if they would, assure the landlord of that and Cotton, L.J., seem to have drawn & distinction return which had been one of his principal incentives between the retention of a debt arising out of the loan to stand well with his tenantry: and, thirdly, the Act and one existing independently of it. By the light of was passed in a manner provocative of resistance, and subsequent cases, however, it would appear that the real so as to excite a large number of the landlords to set ground of the decision was the retention by the grantee themselves, and set themselves successfully, to minimize of the interest in advance, and that the retention of a its effects. debt bonâ fide arising out of the loan will not avoid the In the south, the result was even more pernicious to bill of sale.

the tenant: for as he, as a rule, had paid nothing for In Carrard v. Meek (29 W. R. 244) the bill of

goodwill on entering his farm, and had no tangible "imsale was expressed to be made “in consideration of provements ” to rely upon, the sole right given him by the payment of £81 18s. by the said C. Carrard to the the Act was to receive his “compensation" if arbitrarily said W. Blin, and in further consideration of the payment evicted. Such evictions were, however, of very rare of £16 3s. by the said O. Carrard to the sheriff of Surrey, occurrence, even for political causes, before the Act, and ior and at the request of the said W. Blin," and it was | practically unknown on any other ground. Evel held by Lindley and Lopes, JJ., that this was a suf. when a tenant was so hopelessly “broken " that it wasficient statement of the consideration, although all that necessary to get rid of him, it had been usual to give was paid by the grantee was the £16 38., the £81 18s. him “ assistance,” to take him to America," or on being a debt incurred two months previously. This de. some such pretext, the amount of which was ordinarily cision, it is submitted, is quite in accordance with the little, if at all, less than the maximum amount now reauthoritiee already referred to, but the case of Ex parte coverable as compensation for disturbance. On the other Berwick, In re Young (29 W. R. 292), seems incapable hand, very few indeed of the tenants were in a position of being reconciled with them. The consideration was to claim this compensation at all: not one in a thousand there stated to be “the sum of £65 now paid” to the could ever have paid up all his arrears of rent on demand: grantor by the grantee. This sum had really been ad and, except in some rare instance of personal anivanced in instalments some time before the execution mosity, no landowner in Ireland would ever have been 80 of the deed, and, for that reason, the Chief Judge held insane as to part with a tenant who paid his rentregularly that the consideration was not truly set forth.

as it became due if he could by any possibility keep him on. Moreover, in the few cases in which, from any causewhatever, a landlord was so determined to get rid of a particular tenant as to give him an enforceable right to compensation, he never had any difficulty in recouping the sum, if he desired it, in the shape either of increased rents or a payment for possession, from the next incoming claim made by some of the advocates of the tepants to tenant. The practical outcome of the Act, therefore, so the whole of this prospective increase, a claim which far as the south was concerned, was to embarrass the would reduce the owner's interest to a fixed rent-charge, landlord in the management of his property, and to and would, by converting him from a quasi-partner into a embitter the relationship of landlord and tenant, without mere creditor, inflict a very serious injury ou all conferring any tangible pecuniary benefit on the latter, struggling tenants, that is, on nineteen-twentieths of the Above all, it did not even pretend to give him the only | tenantry of Ireland. thing he really wanted, a right to permanent occupation The Act of 1870, as we have said, made no attempt to on equitable terms. But the defect in the Act, which solve this problem, indeed, it is, at least, doubtful which was perhaps of even greater practical importance whether its importance was then recognized. Its exist. than any other, was that it provided no measure of the ence was, however, as we happen to know, brought at tenant's interest-when he had any-other than an the time under the notice of the framers of that Act, and action at law, and no means of raising such an action a scheme for its solution propounded, which had all the until the parties were already in a position from which advantages of being fair in working, not unjust in prinneither of them could recede. In effect, the Act found ciple, and completely self-adjusting: which has since the Irish tenant & petted dependent, and left him a been tried, upon a limited scale and by express contract, soured litigant.

with the most satisfactory results, but which was then If the new legislation, then, is to have any better fate rejected, and is now ignored, for no reason that we can than the old, these are the errors which it has to divine except that fatality which seems to attend all avoid :

proposals for the benefit of Ireland, emanating from (1) It must not interfere with future express con Īrishmen unconnected with political life. It is true that, tracts at all: the sole result of this interference in the in the measure now before Parliament, a provisiou has Act of 1870 was to prevent landowners from giving a been inserted, apparently alio intuitu, which might, if class of temporary accommodation very valuable to the fairly worked, attain the desired end through the tenants "for fear it might grow into a right.”

clumsy machinery of an action at law once in every (2) It must not attempt to secure the occupation of fifteen years, but besides the other formidable objections the tenant merely by fining the landlord for evicting to this proposal, nothing is more to be deprecated in the him: apart from the gross injustice of such a proceeding | relationship of landlord and tenant than an atmosphere it would be utterly futile; the working of the Act of of litigation “ perpetually renewable.” 1870 has shown more than one easy method of shifting Bearing these four points in mind, it will be seen, the burden of any such fine off the shoulders of the without much difficulty, that the present Bill, comlandlord on to those of the incoming tenant, the place plete a departure as it is in some respects from the Act where, of all others, it is most undesirable to put it. of 1870, unfortunately adheres to the lines of that Act

(3) It must provide some machinery, other than an precisely in those very characteristics which have mainly action at law, for determining, at any given time, the

caused its “ failure”; that it, too, offers to the tenants amount of the tenant's interest in a manner by which large boons which are not what they want; that it, too, both parties shall be bound: the failure of the Act of | inflicts upon the landowners disadvantages out of all pro1870 in this respect is well illustrated by the widely portion to the benefits conferred on the tenantry: open. known case of the farm lying in two counties, so as to ing to both an endless vista of interminable litigation : necessitate actions before two different chairmen upon an litigation moreover to be conducted before tribunals of eviction, when one chairman (the facts being necessarily inferior standing and authority, with the aggravation in identical) dismissed the tenant's claim with costs, and the present case (from which the Act of 1870 was free)

the present case (from which the the other awarded him the maximum compensation. of the very most objectionable Court of Appeal ever

(4) It ought to provide, in some reasonable way, for devised by the most perverse ingenuity. We propose, in future fluctuations in the value of the land. As the law our next article, to examine these allegations in detail. stood prior to 1870 these practically inured for the benefit of the landlord, but not for his disadvantage. The rent might, and did, go up from time to time, but it never went down; and though in periods of temporary CASES OF THE WEEK. distress large remissions were made, and much assistance of different kinds habitually given, by almost all land. lords, there does not seem to have been, even in the

SET-OFF-EXECUTOR-LEGATEE---COSTS.-In a case of terrible crisis of 1846-7, anything

Knapman v. Wreford, before the Court of Appeal on the

like a permanent reduction of rent over any extensive area. This was the

19th inst., a question of set-off arose. The action was an

administration one. Some of the legatees had brought an case even in Ulster, where, although it was always action in the Probate Division for the revocation of the the rule that the rent could not be raised “80 as to probate of the testator's will. The executor resisted this interfere with the tenant-right,” the landlord could action successfully, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay his always obtain the benefit of any increase of general costs. The legatees assigned their legacies, and the assignees value, while, on the other hand, he was effectually gave notice of the assignments to the executor. The executor protected against loss from any depreciation 80 long as claimed to set off his costs of defending the action in the the tenant-right remained of any value whatever. For

Probate Division against the legacies. The court (JESSEL, it is obvious, that so long as the right of occupancy at a

M.R., and JAMES and LUSH, L.JJ.), affirming the decision given rent retained a saleable value, there was nothing

of Hall, V.C., held that the assignees could only take the to enable the tenant to effect a reduction of rent, which

legacies subject to the paramount right of the executor to he could only do by throwing up his holding and so

set off against them the costs which he had incurred on

behalf of the testator's estate.-SOLICITORS, E. W. Reeves ; sacrificing whatever tenant-right he still possessed. And

Day & Cather ; Fox & Co. the Act of 1870 does not seem to have interfered with this right directly, though, as it is a right which can only be enforced by means of notices to quit, it has

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP-DIFFERENCES BETWEEN rendered the exercise of it somewhat more difficult.

PARTNERS-DATE OF DISSOLUTION.-In & case of Lyon v. But it is at least doubtful whether the right ought,

Troeddell, before the Court of Appeal on the 19th inst., a

question arose as to the date from wbich a partnership as an abstract proposition, to be maintained in its

ought to be dissolved. The deed of partnership provided integrity : even without adopting Mr. Mill's view of the

that the partnership should continue during the joint lives of “ unearned increment," there is at least as much to be the partners, or until it should be dissolved, but the deed consaid in favour of adınitting the tenant to participate in taiced no provisions for dissolution. The action sought a any future increase of value, as for bestowing upon him dissolution, on the ground of differences between the a present interest in the land. We reject, as absurd, the partners. Bacon, V.C., decreed a dissolution as from the

« PreviousContinue »