« PreviousContinue »
tarily it would seem the mortgagee may be liable to must submit to its terms. It gave the court a discretion to have the rent which he has not exacted debited against do that which was just, though not to act upon mere caprice. his principal.
The trustee had, very properly no doubt, kept the property Or, if he agrees to diminish the rate of interest, he is
since the adjudication, in order to see if he could get any at all events liable to be debited with the difference
benefit from it for the bankrupt's estate, and had deprived between interest and rent should a subsequent incum.
the lessor of the possession of it during that period, and the brancer take his accounts.
court had simply said that he should have leave to disclaim On the whole, it seems questionable whether strict
oply upon the terms that he should not get a benefit for the legal logic has not had a rather troublesome triumph,
bankrupt's estate at the expense of the lessor. The order
was not only right, but was required by justice. If, bow. and unquestionable that a mortgagee had better dispense
ever, rule 28 was ultrd vires, the trustee should not have with an attornment clause.
come to ask the leave of the court. James, L.J., thought Lincoln's-inn, May 27.
A CONVEYANCER. tbat rule 28 was intended to mitigate the injustice which
might be caused by section 23. The court had power to impose terms, and it ought to impose such terms as would
secure justice. Whatever might be the effect of a disclaimer CASES OF THE WEEK.
without the leave of the court, his lordship would recommend any trustee in bankruptcy to think once, twice, and thrice
before he ventured to disclaim a lease without leave.PRACTICE-BANKRUPTCY PETITION—ALLEGATION OF ACT | SOLICITORS, E. W. Owles ; John Fraser. OF BANKRUPTCY-TRADER-DEPARTING FROM DWELLINGHOCSE WITH INTENT TO DEFEAT OR DELAY CREDITORSBANKRUPTCY Act, 1869, S. 6, SUB-SECTION 3 - BANKRUPTCY RULES, 1870, R. 65.- In a case of Ex parte Palmer, be
Trustee IN BANKRUPTCY – DISCLAIMER OF ONEROUS fore the Court of Appeal on the 26th ult., the question arose
PROPERTY OF BANKRUPT-EFFECT ON RIGHTS AND whether the act of bankruptcy alleged in a bankruptcy peti
LIABILITIES OF THIRD PARTIES-LEASE-UNDERLEASEtion bad been sufficiently alleged. The petition alleged that
| STATUTE-CONSTRUCTION -- BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1869, s. 23 --the debtor “carries on business" at a place specified, “ as a
| BANKRUPTCY Rules, 1871, R. 28.—The important question licensed victualler." It then alleged, in the ordinary way,
of the construction of section 23 of the Bankruptcy Act, that the debtor bad committed an act of bankruptcy within
| 1869, and the effect of the disclaimer by a trustee in banksix months before the presentation of the petition, tbe act of
ruptcy of a leage of the bankrupt upon the rights of the bankruptcy being “that he has, with intent to defeat or
lessor against an underlessee of the bankrupt, was at last delay his creditors, departed from his dwelling-house and
decided by the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and JAMES place of business, or otherwise absented himself.” The
and LUSH, LJJ.), on the 26tb ult., in a case of Ex parte petition was, un der rule 65 of 1870, heard at once, and an
Walton. Section 23 provides that, “ when any property of adjudication was made against the debtor in his absence. He
the bankrupt acquired by the trustee under this Act consists afterwards applied to have the adjudication annulled, on the
of land of any tenore burdened with onerous covenants, of ground (inter alia) that, the particular act of bankruptcy
unmarketable shares in companies, of unprofitable contracts, being one which can only be committed by a trader, the
or of any other property that is unsaleable, or not readily petition ought to have shown on its face that the debtor was
saleable, by reason of its binding the possessor thereof to the a trader at the time when the act was said to have been com
performance of any onerous act or to the payment of any sum mitted, and that the allegation should have been in the pre
of money, the trustee, notwithstanding he has endeavoured cise words of sub-section 3 of section 6 of the Act, “that be,
to sell, or has taken possession of such property, or exercised being a trader, has, with intent, &c.” In the present case, it
any act of ownersbip in relation thereto, may, by writing was said it was quite consistent with the allegations that the act
under his hand, disclaim such property, and upon the alleged had been committed before the debtor bad commenced
execution of such disclaimer the property disclaimed shall, trading, for it might have been committed at any time within
if the same is a contract, be deemed to be determined from six months before the presentation of the petition, and there
the date of the order of adjudication, and if the same is a lease was nothing to show that he was at that time a trader. The
| be deemed to have been surrendered on the same date, and court (JESSEL, M.R., and James and LUSH, L.JJ.) overruled
if the same be shares in any company be deemed to be the objection. JESSEL, M.R., said that the act alleged would
foríeited from ibat date, and if any other species of property not have been an act of bankruptcy at all unless the debtor
it shall revert to the person entitled on the determination of was a trader, and the petition did allege that he was a trader.
the estate or interest of the bankrupt; but if there shall be It would be a straining of form to get rid of substance if such
no person in existence so entitled, then in no oase shall any an objection was allowed to prevail.--SOLICITORS, Maples,
estate or interest therein remain in the bankrupt. Any Teesdale, & Co.; Munton f Morris,
person interested in any disclaimed property may apply to the court, and the court may, upon such application, order
possession of the disclaimed property to be delivered up to him, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY-DISCLAIMER OF LEASE-LEAVE or make such other order as to the possession thereof as may OF COURT-POWER TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS-BANKRUPTCY be just. Any person injured by the operation of this section Act, 1869, s. 23-BANKRUPTCY Rules, 1870, R. 28.-In a shall be deemed a creditor of the bankrupt to the extent of case of Ex parte Ladbury, before the Court of Appeal on the such injury, and may accordingly prove the same as a debt 26th olt., a question arose as to the power of the Court of | under the bankruptcy.” And role 28, of 1871, provides Bankruptcy to impose terms upon a trustee in bankruptcy in tbat " where any property of a bankrupt acquired by a giving him leave to di-claim a lease of the bankrupt, in a trustee under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, shall consist of a case where no third party has acquired from the bankrapt leasebold interest, the trustee shall not execute a disclaimer any interest in the lease or in the demised property. Role of the same without the leave of the court being first obtained 28 of 1871 says that, upon any application to the court for for that purpose, and upon any application to the court leave to disclaim a leasehold interest of a bankrupt,“ such for such leave, notice of the desire of the trustee to order sball be made as the court shall tbipk fic.” The disclaim such interest shall be given to such person registrar, in giving leave to the trustee in a bankruptcy to or persons as the court shall direct, and such order disclaim a lease of the bankrupt, had imposed the condition shall be made thereon as the court shall think fit." that he should pay to the lessor tbe rent of the demised A lease of a house had been made at a rent of £70 for a term property up to the date of the disclaimer. The trustee of ten years. The lessee made an anderlease for the residue appealed from this order, and it was urged on bis behalf that of the term (less seven days) at a rept of £55, the underlessee the object of rule 28 was only to protect the rights of third paying & premium of £100. The lessee entered into no covenpersons who bad acquired an in'erest in the lease from the lant with the underlessee, except the ordinary Covenant for bankrupt, and that the court had no power. as between the 1 quiet enjoyment, limited to the acts of the lessee and persons trustee and the legsor, to impose any fetter on the absolute | claiming through him. The lessee afterwards filed a I quida. power of disclaimer given to the trustee by section 23 of the
tion petition, the trustee in the liquidation applied to the Act. The rule, it was said, could not repeal the Act. The court for leave to disclaim the lease, and the registrar gave court (JESSEL, M.R., and JAMES and Lush, L.JJ.) beld | leave without imposing any condition. The lessor ap. that the registrar was right in imposing the condition. ( pealed, and it was urged that some condition ought to be JESSEL, M.R., said that, if the rule was valid, the applicant , imposed, because, the disclaimer having the effect of a sur
ronder of the lease, the lessor would have no remedy against Constroing the section in this way, the result would be tbe underlı ssee by distress or re-entry for breach of cove. that the disclaimer of the lease would not affect Dant, and, as was held by the Court of Appeal in Smalley v. the right of the lessor to distrain on the under. Hardinge (29 W. R. 554), the lessor could not after the dis- lessee for tbe rent reserved by the original lease, claimer +ject the underlessee, and, consequer.tly, the under. | and to re-enter on the property for breach of the lessee would be able to bold the property free from the pay covenants in that lease. JAMES, L.J., said tbat whea a ment of any rent to the lessor. And the 1 ssor offered to sub-demise is made, the sub-tenant took the property undertake not to sue the trustee on the covenants in tbe lease, subject to all the original leseor'rights in rem, though he and not to prove against the dub'or's estate, thus giving the was not liable upon tbe personal covenants of the original truster and the estate every ben fit wbich they would get by 1ssee with the lessor. It would be a violation of every a disclaimer. Tbe court belt that t.is was not necessary, principle of law and justice, and against all common sense, for that the ansonditional disclaimer would not affect the to permit two med, by bargaining with each other, to affect rights of the lesscr as against the underlersee. JESSEL, M.R., any right of property of another man, particularly any referred to the role for the construction of statuies, as ex right of the owner from whom they both derived title. And pressed by Lrrd Selborde in the recent care of The it would sem to be equally against principle and against Caledcnian Railway Company v. The North British Railway | common hopesty that a lessee, by becoming bankrupt, Company (L. R. 6 App. Cas. 104), “that the more literal | shoult deprive the lessor of bis remedies in rem, or release Cinstruction ought pot to prevail, if it is opposed to the in a sub-lessee from the legal liabilities and obligations to ten'ion of the Legislature is apparent by the statute, and if which the property was liable in bis hands before the the words are sufficiently flexible to admit of some other bankruptry. If the lessee were insolvent, but not made a construction by wbich that intention will be better bankrupt; if the lessee had died insolvent, the lessor's eff-ctuated,' ard as bus laid down by Lord Wensleydale in remedies as ag-inst the estate itself, and the sub-lessee's Grey v. Peorson (6 H. L. Cas. 106), “i bat in construing wills, liability to distress and forfeiture would remain. Was it and, indeed, statutes, and all wristen instruments, the possible to conceive that the insolvency resulting in bank. grammatic 1 and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered ruptcy should confiscate the lessor's right, and give the subt, unless that would lead to 8 me absurdity, or some repug lessee an absolute immunity from such distress and Dance or inci psirt-ncy wi h the rest of the instrument, in forfeiture? The object of the bankrupt law was merely which cose the grammatical and ordinary s4nse of the words to regulate the distribution of the bankrupt's assets among m*y be modified, so as to avoid tbat absurdity and inconsis- | bis creditors, and to relieve the bankrupt and bis estate from tency, but no furiber." JessEL, M.R., said ibat the objects future liability to his creditors. Bat it was never intended of section 23 were plain-viz., 10 set the bankrupt free from to affect rights and liabilities as between the creditor and a personal obligations attaching to his property, and that the third party. The consideration of the hardsbips which trustee should not be compelled to acquire the bankrupt's would result from a literal construction of the word property subject to the hai ilities wbich affected it, and to “surrender" in section 23 might perhaps lead to the which he would become personally liable, but that, if i he prop conclusion that, when it said tbat the disclaimer should erty was not worth more than the lialilities attaching to it, operate as # surrender, there must be an implied conthe trustee should be able to disclaim it and the liabili. dition that the trustee had full right to surrender, not ties. He was not to keep the property and get rid of the only the lease, but the property itself, freed and disliabilities. His lordship tbought tbat these were the only churged from all estates and interests; that rule 28 was oljects of tbe Legislature. It could not be supposed that! obligatory on the trastee ; and the court ought not to tbey intended to confiscate any man's property without any give its assent, unless satisfied that it could do 80 withreason whatever. A construction of the sicrion which would out injustice to the lessor or to anyone else, and without lead to such a result might well be described as an ab. prejudice to any rights or remedies of or against any third surdity. But that would be the result of a literal con- person. But as that con truction would not give the trustee struction. Suspose that a building contract between a the immunity which it was intended that he should have, the landowner and a builder was pledged by the builder as more complete and satisfactory solution of the riddle might security for a debt of bimself or of some other person, and be found in the principle that when a statute enacts that the contract was pot worth more than the money advanced something should be deemed to have been done, wbich in upon it, could the Legislature bave intended that the lender truth was not done, the court was entitled and bound to of the money sbould lose bis security because he trustee in ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the the bankruptcy of the builder chose to disclaim the con statutory fi-tion was to be resorted to. Having regard, tract ? Could anytbing be more absurd tban that, and yet therefore, to the object of the bankruptcy law, wben the that would be the result of a literal construction of the Act said that a lease wbich was never surrendered in fact section. And, in the case of a contract, there was was to be deemed to have been surrendered, the words must no provi-ion made, as there was in the case of a be read with this qualification (whiob was absolutely neceslease, that tbe trustee should not disclaim without the sary to prevent the most grievous injustice, and the most leave of the court. If the section was to be construed revolting absurdity), “shall, as between the lessor on the literally, the disclaimer of a lease by the tru-tre would de- one hand, and the baokrupt, his trustee, and estate on prive an equitable mortgagee of the lease of bis security ; | the other hand," be deemed to have been surrendered. it would, it the lessee had made a legal mortgage by way of Lush, L.J., said that he had felt very great difficulty in underlease, deprive the lessor of his property for the benefit coming to a satisfactory conclusion ; but, after much con. of the mortgagee; and it valuable sbares in a c mpany bad sideration, be bad come to the conclusion that the words of been pledged as security for a debt, the disclaimer by the the section must be qualified in order to carry out its trustee of the sharebolder would work a forleiture of the sbares object. It seemed impossible to construe the section for the benefit of the company. The results of a literal | literally witbout defeating its object and creating a man. construction of tbe section would be so u oostrous that it | fest absurdity. The word “gurrender" must be read 1 must be considered absurd. It might be said that the a qualified sense, the object being merely to put the trustee provision that the court might order possession of the in the same position as if the lease had never become disclaimed property to be delivered up to any person vested in him. Any qualifying words that might be neces. interested in it, or night make such other order as to the
sary so to restrict the literal meaning of the section might possession as mixbt be just, shows that the Legislature was
be inserted. The point was not present to the minds of dealing only with property over which the Court of Bank.
the court which decided Smalley 8. Hardinge ; but it did ruptcy had power, and of which it could dispose. But, if
pot affect the decision. His lordsbip said that be thought tbe 8 ction were resıricted to case- of that kind, the full relief
the object of role 28 of 1871 was to secure that the intended would not be given. The section murt, therefore,
trustee should not waste valuable property of the bankrupt. be read as meaning that the oblivation of the bankrupt was
JESSEL, M.R., added that the onder-lessee was entitled to to be put an end to by the disclaimer so far only as it created rights and liabilii ies as between the trustee and the
prove in the liquidation for the difference between the rent
referved by the upder-leage and that reserved by the bankrupt and bis estate and the other party to the contract -80 far, that is, as was necessary to relieve the bankrupt and
original lease, whioh be would now have to pay.-SOLICITORS,
| Henderson & Buckle; 1. Montagu. his estate and the trustee from liability, the persons who were injured by this having a right given to tbem to prove against the bankrupt's estate ia respect of the injury.
RAILWAY COMPANY –ABANDONMENT-Judgment CREDI | them by the order.—SOLICITORS, Holder ; Hyde, di Co;
MARRIED WOMAN – ELECTION – SEPARATE USE — before th- Master of the Rolls on the 28th ult., a question
RESTRAINT ON ANTICIPATION.-In a case of Smith v. Lucas, arose as to the meaning of the term "undertaking" in
also before the Master of the Rolls on the 30th ult., a section 4 of the Ruilway Companies Act, 1867, and whether
question aroga whether a married woman could be put to it applied to a company which had given no notices
ber election as between two instruments, under one of to treat and had never commenc-d their railway. The com
which she took for ber separate use simply, and goder the pany was incorporated in 1872, und, by an Act of 1874, Was authorized to make certain deviations and other rail
other for her separate use with a restraint against anticipa
tion. Jessel, M.R., held that the restraint on anticipaWays. A sum of £1,780 was deposited in cbancery in pursuance of standing orders in respect of the last-mentioned
tion prevented her giving up the property, and so from Act. The company had given no notices to treat, and bad
being put to her election.-SOLICITORS, T. White & Sons : purchased no lands under the powers in the two Acts,
Jones, Blaxland, & Sons. and never commenced the railways authorized, and had not paid up one-half of their capital nor expended one-half of LANDLORD AND TENANT-LICENCE TO EJECT--FORCIBLE their capital. A petition was now presented by a judgment ENTRY-STATUTE 5 Rich. 2, STATUTE 1, c. 8- LEASE OF creditor for $1,274, for a receiver of the undertaking, PUBLIC-HOUSE-COVENANT TO TAKE BEER FROM LESSOR and for an inquiry what compensation was due to any ONLY-IMPLIED COVENANT ON Pagt OF LEssor.-In a case of landowners, and that the parliamentary deposit might be | Edwick v. Hawkes, before Fry, J., on the 25th ult., a applied in payment of the compensation and of the amount | question arose as to the validity of a licence by a tepant to due to the petitioner on his judgm -nt, and to the other | his landlord to eject him without any process of law, and creditors of the company. JESSEL, M.R., held that, as the there was a further question as to the construction of a railways authorized by the Ac's had not been commenced, covenant by the tenant of a public-house with his landlord the company was not an “undertaking” within the (a brewer) to buy from the landlori, during the term, all the meaning of section 4 of the Railway Companies Act, beer consumed on the premises. The lease of a public-house 1867, and, therefore, that a receiver could not be appointed. granted by some brewers to a publican in June, 1880, contained He therefore dismissed the petition, but without cosi8.-50- a covenant by the lessee that he would purchase of the lessors LICITORS, H, R. T. Alexander ; Tilleard, Goaden, & Holme; during the continuunce of the demise all beer, ale, &c., that Kendall, Price, f Francis ; Hare & Co.
should be sold or consumed in, or upon, the demised premises. The lessors entered into no covenant with the lessee as to the
supply of beer, they covenanting only for the quiet enjoyment ADMINISTRATION-LEGACY FOR LIFE WITH REMAINDER of the premises by him. There was a proviso for re-entry by OVER-INTEREST FROM DEATH OF TESTATOR OR FROM A the lessors in the event of a breach of any of the covenants YEAR AFTERWARDS-PRACTICE – SOLICITOR AND CLIENT of the lessee. In September, 1880, the lessors discovered Costs-WHEX GIVEN TO PLAINTIFFS NOT TRUSTEES-Costs tbat the lussee had been purchasing through an agent, un. OF ATTENDING ACCOUNTS AND INQUIRIES.-In a case of | known to them, a species of beer brewed by them for the use
known to tbem, a species or de Re Ruddock, deceased, Ruddock v. Redgrave, before the Mas- of private families, but which they never supplied and ter of the Rolls on the 30th ult., a question arose on always refused to supply to publicans. The lessee had further consideration whether interest was payable from the previously complained that the beer supplied to him by the death of the testator or only from a year after his death, lessors was bad and unfit for consumption. On making this where a legacy was given to the testator's widow for life, discovery the lessors charged the lessee with a breach of and then to other persons for their lives, with remainders | covenant, and told him that he had forfeited his lease, and over. JESSEL, M.R., held that it was settled, since the case they induced him to sign a document whereby, in consideraof Gibson v. Bott (7 Ves. 89), that a legacy under the above tion of the lessors not taking immediate steps to eject him, he circumstances only bore interest from a year from the teg. undertook to give them quiet possession on the 29th of tator's death. In the case of an annuity, or where a legacy September, and authorized tuem to use the document as was given to infants, the role was otherwise, but he con- leave and licence to eject him without any process of law on sidered there was no sound reason wby interest should not that date. He afterwards, on the advice of his solicitor, be payable immediately where a sun was given to one for repudiated this document, and refused to quit the premises, life, with remainders over. In his opinion the law required and a few days after the 29th of September the lessors sent a alteration which prevented, as here, the widow of a testator number of men who ejected the lessee and his wife by force from receiving interest until two years from the death. AC from the house, inflicting injuries on the wife in so doing. cording to the minutes in the same case solicitor and client | The action was brought by the les ee against the lessors, costs were allowed to the plaintiffs who were not trustees. claiming to have the document which he bad signed cancelled, The parties appearing were willing to consent to such an and damages for the assaults on bimself and his wife. Fry, order being made, but it appear-d there were infants in- | J., held that the licence to eject was void, on the gronnd that terested in the re idue. JESSEL, M.R., said he could not it was contrary to public policy, inası uch as i allow the plaintiffs to have solicitor and client costs under authorize a forcible entry, an act that is made illegal by the the above circumstances, and the minutes should not have Siatute of Ricb. 2. He held also that if a landlord forcibly teen drawn on that footing. He never allowed such costs | ejectsa tenant who is wrongfully holding over, this is an illegal (except to executors and trustees) unless some special cir act under that statute, even though the landlord does not cumstances were mentioned, or where all parties being effect an entry through the outer door of the premises by competent consented, and in fact he should direct the force, but is allowed to enter peaceably. FRY, J., also held registrars not to draw up in future orders giving solicitor and | that there had been no breach of the covenant in buying client costs except to trustees unless the matter were
| beer made by the lessors indirectly through an agent, specially brought to his notice. Uoder an order certain instead of direcily from them, and that when such a covenant of the residuary legatees had liberty to attend tbe taking
is entered into by a tenunt, there is, in the absence of any of ibe accounts 80 far as concerned the claims of one of express covenani, an implied covenant by the landlord that the plaintiffs and one of the defendante, an executor, but as he will supply the tenant with any kind of beer which he to all the other accounts and inquiries the plaintiffs'
makes and which the tenant may require, and that the beer solicitor was directed to represent them. The result of
supplied shall be fit for consumption, and that if the landlord the parties attending was that the above claims were
does not fulfil this implied covenant, the tenant is at liberty disallowed. They had in consequence attended the taking
to purchase the beer wbich he requires wherever he pleases. of the rest of the accounte, and now asked tbat they
And his lordship awarded the plaintiff damages and costs.might be allowed their costs of so doing out of tbe estate,
SOLICITORS, H, T. Hardcastle ; Walker, Son, & Field. seeing that their attendance bad been so beneficial. JESBEL, M.R., said tbat no persons except parties to tbe action could get tbeir costs out of the estate except they attended by leave. No doubt their attending under the The Stolen Goods Bill, on wbich we recently commented, order bad been bepeficial, but he could not deviate from was on Monday last, on the motion of the Lord Chancellor, bis general role, and they could only have the costs given refered to a select committee.
different position held by solicitors in the eyes of the public SOCIETIES.
of the pre-ent day compared with what it was in the past.
Mr. LAKE proposed the toast of the evening, “Success
and prosperity to The Associated Provincial Law SoINCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
cieties," and drew a parallel between the work of the On Thursday evening a dinner, at which upwards of 120
guilds of the Middle Ages-wbich were instituted for guests sat down, was given by the metropolitan members
the purpose of educating the various professions and of the Incorporated Law Society to the Provincial Law
trades with which they were connected — and the law Societies in acknowledgment of the hospitality they had
societies of the present day. He paid a high tribute to the received on their annual visits to the provinces.
hospitality wbich had been shown by the country societies
to the members of the London society. Mr. J. Moxon CLABON, president of the society, occupied
Mr. SMITH (presid-nt of the Sheffield Law Society), in the chair, and amongst those present and invited were,
acknowledging the compliment, observed that the opion of Mr. C. C. Druce (vice-president), Mr. J. Dodds, M.P.,
sympathy which brought the solicitors together at the Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Press, Mr. F. H. Janson, Mr. Harper, Mr. B. G. Lake, Mr. J. Yates, Mr. H. Markby, Mr.
annual meetings was not only of utility to the profes.
sion, but also to the public. Darvill, Mr. Foster, Mr. R. Cunliffe, Mr. W. Cox, Mr.
The remaining toasts were “The President," proposed W. Melmoth Walters, Mr. C. Lamb, Mr. W. H. Clarke, Mr. G. F. Crowdy, Mr. R. Pennington, Mr. W. A.
by Mr. Smith, and responded to by Mr. CLABON, and "The Stickey, Mr. Bagshawe, Mr. Rider, Mr. Duncan, Mr.
Entertainment Committee," given by Mr. J. A, Rose, and Follett, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Holden, Mr. Furniss, Mr.
acknowledged by Mr. Janson. Heelis, Mr. Sydney Gedge, Mr. Fitch, Mr. Arnold, Mr.
Daring tbe evening a selection of mosio was performed J. Anderson Rose, Mr. A. E. Finch, Mr. Tweedale, Mr.
by Miss Annie Williams, Mr. Stedman's choir.boye, Mr. Burne, Mr. A. Jevons, Mr. Kay, Mr. J. Yates, Mr.
H. Guy, Mr. R. Hilton, and Mr. T. Harper (solo trumpet), Turner, Mr. H. Manisty, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Burch, Mr.
urder the direction of Mr. J. Davis, who presided at the Clarke, Mr. Jones, Mr. W. Pepper:orn, Mr. Freeman, Mr.
piano. Messrs. King & Brymer served the dinner. Mr. J. Alsop, Mr. Attlee, Mr. C. Harrison, Mr. Holben, Mr.
Hayles was toastmaster.
The annual general court of this society was held on Scatcherd, Mr. Percy Woolley, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. J. G.
the 26th ult., Robert Few, Esq., in the chair. The following Bristow, Mr. Western, Mr. E. E. Lake, Mr. Ridsdale, jun.,
report was presented and adopted :Mr. Isaacson, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Sawbridge, Mr. Owles,
1 1. Your directors have the pleasure of submitting to the Mr. Charles Ford, Mr. J. Indermaur, Mr. S. Chapman, Mr.
members of the Law Association a report of their proceedings Tillyard, Mr. Peacock, Mr. A. R. Ford, Mr. Baker, Mr.
| and the accounts for the last twelve months. Cronin, Mr. Woollacott, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Hedger, Mr. James
2. Your directors bave considered twenty-eight cases of Crowdy, Mr. J. Batchelor, Mr. T. D. Bolton, Mr. E. Kim
the primary class, and have distributed amongst them the ber, Mr. Crossfield, Mr. George Gregory, Mr. F. W. Om
aggregate sum of £1,410. maney, Mr. W. A. Smith, Mr. Farlow, Mr. Shapland, Mr.
3. They have also considered numerous applications of the Sidney Smith, Mr. Eggar, Mr. E. Hughes, Mr. G. B. Bat
secondary or non-inembers' class which have come before chelor, Mr. Tørry, Mr. Dodd, Mr. W. H. Hazard, Mr. Spiers,
| them, and they have distributed the sum of £200 placed at Mr. E. W. Williamson (secretary), Mr. S. P. B. Bucknill
their disposal amongst twenty-two cases. (assistant secretary), and Mr. Frederick Boase (librarian).
4. Your directors recommend to the general court that a
sum of £150 be placed at their disposal for the cases of nonThe Toasts of “The Queen,” and “The Prince and Princess
members for the ensuing year. of Wales and the rest of the Royal Family" having been
5. Your directors have the pleasure to report that they given by the PRESIDENT, and honoured with the customary have received towards the funds of the association donations enthusiasm,
of £5 58, from the Principal and Ancients of Staple Inn, £3 Mr. FOLLETT proposed “ The Houses of Parliament,” and from the late Treasurer of the Middle Temple, and £2 28. said that in such an assembly it was impossible to avoid from Horatio Brandon, Esq. They hare also much alluding to what had been done for the improvement of legal pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of $18 183. 10d. from procedure, and he thought they ought to be candid enough Sir William Charley, the treasurer of the late “Legal Prac. to admit that what had been done had been done in a right titioners' Society." direction, and that there had been a fair disposition on the 6. The several investments now belonging to the associapart of the Legislature to recognize what was the good of tion are as follows, viz. :the public in the way of legal procedure, and to some extent
· New 3 per Cents. - • - £22,480 119 what was due to the solicitor branch of the profession.
3 per Cent. Consols
£1,600 0 0 Whether any improvement could be made in that respect
3 per Cent. Reduced
£2,000 0 0 during the present session was exceedingly doubtful. As far
India 4 per Cents. ..
£465 13 2 as he could see at present, the only Act relating to England Great Indian Peninsular Rail. / which was likely to find its way on the Statute-book of 1881
way Stock was that called the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, with East Indian Railway Company which he had a little to do, and in which the member for
£6.837 10 0
(Annuity Class B) Stockton-on-Tees took a deep interest.
The dividends received last year amounted to Mr. Donds, M.P., in respɔnding, said that there was one £1,239 ls. 2d. fact of great interest in the present Parliament as concerned 7. There are now 380 members of the association, 144 are the solicitor branch of the profession, and that was that there
nat was that there | life members and 236 are annual subscribers, the amount was a greater number of solicitors in the House than in any received from whom for the past year has been £468 68., previous Parliament. When he first went there, there were
which som, added to the dividends received from the above only three or four members ; there were now something like
investments, makes the income for the year £1,727 75. 24. a dozen; and he was sure they were all animated by a
8. The names of above 4,000 solicitors appear in the Lax sincere desire that the interests of the profession, and the in
List for 1880, as practising witbin the metropolitan district terests committed to the profession, should not suffer either in (where the operations of the society are carried on), but there the House of Commons or elsewhere.
are only 400 members of the association. Your directors feel The PRESIDENT, in submitting “ The Incorporated Law that it only needs a little personal effort on the part of inSociety," spoke of the endeavours that had been made by dividual members in explaining the objects of the association, the society to improve the education of the members of the and in inviting professional friends and neighbours to become profession, and to raise the general tone of the solicitor subscribers, to obtain a large addition to the list of members, branch of the law; and even in performing their most painful | and thus enable the directors to comply with more of the duty, that of removing from the roll the names of solicitors | numerous applications made to them for assistance. who had misconducted themselves, they were actuated by | 3. By the regulations of the association, the president, the sime idea.
vice-president, treasurers, directors, and auditors for the Nr. Gedge, in acknowledging the toast, referred to the ensuing year are to be elected at the present meeting.
| William Frederick Gish, of the firm of Messrs. Gush & LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
Phillips, of London.
[In Alphabetical Order.]
Francis Jacob Peregrine Birch, who served his clerkship April, 1881.
to Mr. Frank William Stone, of the firm of Messre, Stone & At the examination for honours of candidates for admis. Simpson, of Tunbridge Wells; and Messrs. Collyer-Bristow, sion on the roll of solicitors of the Supreme Court, the ex.
Withers, & Russell, of London. amination committee recommended the following gentlemen
Georgé Lawrence Bulleid, who served his clerksbip to Mr. as being entitled to honorary distinction:
J. G. L. Bulleid, of Glastonbury ; and Messrs.. Crowder, FIRST Class.
Anstie, & Vizard, of London.
Arthur Constantine, who served his clerkship to Mr. [In order of Merit.]
Thomas Jas. Backhouse, of the firm of Messrs. T. J. & H. Henry James Brown, B.A., who served his clerkship to Backhouse, of Blackburn. Messrs. Cottrell & Son, of Birmingham; and Messrs. Robert Dowse, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Welsh Gamlen & Son, of London.
& Son, of Manchester; and Messrs. Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Arthur Chichester Borlase, who served his clerkship to Rawle, of London. Mr. Jubn Penn Milton, of Penzance.
William Frederick Oscar Edmonds, who served his clerkAlfred Steele Sheldon, who served his clerkship to Mr. | sbip to Mr. Edmund Edmonds, of Newent. Robert Bygott, of Sandbach; and Mr. John Warwick
John Estill, who served his clerkship to Mr. Edward Hickin, of London.
Peters, of the firm of Messrs. E. & J. Peters, of York. Angus Scott Lewis, who served his clerkship to Mr. Joseph Henry Farmer, who served his clerkship to Mr. Charles William Rees Stokes, of Tenby.
Samuel George Johnson, of Nottingham. James Turoer Jackson, who served his clerkship to Mr. Alfred Robert Orton Gery, who served his clerkship to Mr. William Robert Clark, of Oldham.
Robert Orton Gery, of Aberdare ; and Mr. William Maude, James Moxon, who served his clerkship to Mr. John Foster, of the firm of Messrs. Rickards, Maude, & Maude, of London. of the firm of Messrs. Foster & Raper, of Pontefract.
Thomas Risley Hearn, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Vallance Edgar Leonard, who served his clerksbip to Mr. Gepp & Son, of 'Chelmsford ; and Messrs. Paterson, Snow, & H. N. Abbott, of the firm of Messrs. Fry, Abbott, Pope, & Bloxam, of London. Brown, of Bristol; and Mr. H. S. Leonard, of London. George Courtenay Henderson, who served his clerkship to
William Swinburne, who served bis clerkship to Mr. | Messrs. Weston, Grover, & Lees, of Manchester; Mr. John Joseph Willis Swinburne, of Gateshead-on-Tyne.
Herbert Slater, of the firm of Messrs. Kearsley, Slater, & Henry Hollier Hood Barrs, LL.B., who served his clerk. Watts, of Manchester; and Messrs. Field, Roscoe, & Co., of ship to Mr. James Bouskell, of the firm of Messrs. Miles, London. Bouskell, & Place, of Leicester ; and Mr. Charles John Edward Frederick Knott, who served his clerkship to Mander, of London.
Mr. John Hammett Knott, of the firm of Messrs. Pownall, George Walker Luis Fernandes, who served his clerkship
Son, Cross, & Knott, of London. to Mr. Charles Bathurst Luis Fernandez, of Wakefield.
Alexander Ward Lamond, who served his clerkship to Mr. SECOND CLASS.
Robert Hart, of the firm of Messrs. Burton, Yeates, Hart, &
Borton, of London. [In Alphabetical Order.]
Frederick William Martin, who served his clerkship to Mr. Francis Barber, who served his clerkship to Mr. Andrew | George Edward Sharland, of the firm of Messrs. Sharland & Malcolm Bateson, of Harrogate ; and Messrs. Ullithorne, Hatten, of Gravesend. Currey, & Villiers, of London.
George Hugh Morgan, who served his clerkship to Mr. Joon James Capstack Calvert, who served his clerkship to | Arthur Talbot, and to Mr. Richard Burgass Woosnam, both Messrs. Coppock, Marsh, & Coppock, of Stockport.
of Newtown, Montgomery. George Dickinson, who served his clerkship to Mr. Arthur James O'Connor, who served his clerkship to Mr. Augustus Helder, of the firm of Messrs. Brockbank, Helder, Crowther Davies, of Birmingham. & Brock bank, of Whitehaven.
1. Frank Samuel Preston, who served his clerkship to Mr. Templer Lethbridge Down, who served bis clerkship to Samuel Preston, of Hinckley. Mr. George Alfred Daniel, of the firm of Messrs. Uruttwell, Samuel Raby, who served bis clerkship to Mr. Henry Daniel, & Cruttwells, of Frome ; and Messrs. Prior, Bigg, Brearey, of York. Church, & Adams, of Londor.
William Ensley Raley, who served his clerkship to Mr. Jobo Eagleton, who served his clerksbip to Mr. 0. C. T. | C. J. Dibb, of the firm of Messrs. Dibb, Raley, & Clegg, of Eagleton, of London.
Barnsley. James Edwin Hodson, who served his clerkship to Mr. Albert Sargeant, who served his clerkship to Mr. John John Smallsbaw, of Southport.
Howard Russell ; and to Mr. Howard Carlile Morris, both of Patrick William Mayo, who served his clerkship to Mr. London. William Marsh, of the firm of Messrs. Mayo & Marsh, of Gay Shute, jun., who served his clerkship to Mr. H. W. Yeovil ; and Messrs. Bower & Cotton, of London.
Trinder, of the firm of Messrs. Trinders & Curtis-Hayward, Herbert Rooke Oldfield, LL.B., wbo served his clerkship of London. to Mr. Arthur William Rooke, of the firm of Messrs. Rooke George Edward Wade, who served his clerksbip to Mr. & Sons, of London.
A. C. Curtis-Hayward, of the firm of Messrs. Trinders & Atkinson Pickering, jun., who served his clerkship to Mr. Curtis. Hayward, of London. William Hodgson, of the firm of Messrs. Holden, Sons, & Arthur William Weldon, who served his clerkship to Hodgson, of Hull; and Messrs. Chester, Maybew, & Co., Mr. Henry Druit Phillips, of the firm of Messrs. Phillips & of London.
Sop, of London. Richard Procter, who served his clerkship to Mr. Thomas George Lawrence Welford, who served his clerkship to James Backhouse, of the firm of Messrs. T. J. & H. Baok. | Mr. Robert Frederick Kidd, of North Shields. house, of Blackburn and Burnley.
Samuel Yearsley, jun., who served his clerkship to Mr. John Davies Pryce, who served bis clerkship to Mr. Richard John Henry Cooke, of the firm of Messrs. J. & J. H. Cooke, Williams, of Newtown, Montgomery.
of Over, near Winsford, Cheshire. William Showell Rogers, M.A., LL.M., who served his The Council of the Incorporat d Law Society have acclerkship to Mr. John Henry Barclay, of the firm of Messrs.cordingly given class certificates and awarded the following Johnson, Barclay, & Johnson, of Birmingham; and Messrs. prizes of books :Burton, Yeates, Hart, & Burton, of London.
To Mr. Brown, the prize of the Honourable Society of Frank James Sykes, who served his clerkship to Mr. James | Clement's Inn. Value ten guineas. Edward Hawksford, of the firm of Messrs. Saunders, Hawks. To Mr. Borlase, the prize of the Honourable Society of ford, & Bennett, of London.
Clifford's Ion. Value five guineas, Edward Woodhouse Veale, LL.B., who served his clerk. To Mr. Sheldon, the prize of the Honourable Society of ship to Mr. Edgar Everard Salmon, of Bristol.
New Ino. Value five guineas. Edwin Williams, B.A., who served his clerkship to Mr. To Mr. Lewis, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Moxon, Mr. Leonard,