Page images

Railway CompanyAbandonsNt—Judgment CrediTorPaklmmextaiiy Deposit—Receiver—'• UndertakIng"Railway Companies Act, 1867.—In a petition ol hi rt The Birmingham and Lichjield Junction Railway Company, before th-< Master of the Rolls on the 28th ult., a question arose as to the meaning of the term " undertaking" in section 4 of the Railway Companies Act, 1367, and whether it applied ti a company which had given no notices to treat and had never commencni their railway. The company Whs incorporated in 1872, and, by an Act of 1874, «as authoriz-d Io make crura deviations and other railways. A sum ol £1,780 was deposited in chancery in pursuance of standing oniers in respect of the last-mentioned Act. The company had given no notices to treat, and had parcha'ed no lands under the powers in the two Acts, and never commenced the railways authorized, and had not paid up one-half of their capital nor expended one-half of their capital. A petiti n was now presented by a judgment creditor for £1,274, for a rtceiver of the undertaking, acd for an inquiry what compensation was due to any lindnwner-, and that the parliamentary deposit might be applied in payment of the compensation and of the amount due to the petitioner on his j idgm nt, and to the other creditors of the company. J Ess El, M.R., held that, as the railwa\ s authorized by the Ac s had not been commenced, the company was not an "undertaking" within the moaning of section 4 of the Railway Companies Act, 1867, and, therefore, that a leeaivtr could not be appointed. He therefore dismissed the petition, but without oosis.—SoLicitors, H. It. T. Alexander; Tilleard, Golden, & Holme; Kendall, Price, $■ Francis; Mare Co.

AdministrationLegacy For Life With Remainder OverInterest From Death Of Testator Or From A Teak Afterwards—PracticeSolicitor And Client CostsWhen Given To Plaintiffs Not TrusteesCosts Of Attending Accounts And Inquiries.—In a, case of Re Haddock, deceased, Ruddock v. Rrdgruve, bufore the Master of the Rolls on the 30th ult., a question arose on further consideration whether interest was payable from the death of the testator or only from a year after his death, where a legacy wa» given to the testator's widow for life, and then to other persons for their lives, with remainders over. Jessel, M.R , held that it was settled, since the case of Gibson v. Boft (7 Ves. 89), that a legacy under the above circumstances only bore interest from a year from the testator's death. In the case of an annuity, or where a legacy was given to infants-, the role was otherwise, but he considered there was no sound reason why interest should not re payable immediately where a sum was given to one for life, with remainders over. In bis opinion the law required alteration which prevented, as here, the widow of a testator from receiving interest until two years from the death. According to the minutes in the o»me case solicitor and client costs were allowed to the plaintiffs who were not trustees. The parties appearing were willing to consent to such an order being made, but it appeared there were infants interested in the reiiue. Jessel, M.R., said he could not allow the plaintiffs to bave solicitor and client costs under the above circumstances, and the minutes should not have teen drawn on Hint footing. He never allowed such costs (except to executors and trustees) unless Bome special circumstances were mentioned, or where all parties being competent consented, and in fact he should direct the registrars not to draw up in future orders giving solicitor and client costs except to trustees unless the matter were specially brought to bis notice. TJoder an order certain of the reBiduaiy legatees had liberty to attend the taking of tbe accounts so far as concerned the claims of one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants, an executor, but as to all the other accounts and inquiries the plaintiffs' solicitor was directed to represent them. The result of the parties attending was that the above claims were disallowed. They had in consequence attended the taking of the reBt of the accounts, and now asked tbat they might be allowed their costs of so doing ont of the estate, seeing that their attendance bad been so beneficial. Jesbel, M.R., said tbat no persons except parties to the action could get their costs out of the estate exoept they attended by leave. No doubt their attending nnder the order bad been beneficial, but be could not deviate from his general rule, and they could only have the coats giveu

them by the order.—Solicitors, Solder; Syde, <b Co; Al. B. King.

Married Woman Election Separate Use Restraint On Anticipation.—In a case ol Smith v. Lucas, also before the Master of the Rolls on the 30th ult., a question arose whether a married wnuian oonld be put to her election as between two instruments, under one of which she tO)k for her separate use simply, and under the other for her separate use with a restraint against anticipation. Jesbel, M.R,, held that tne restraint on anticipation prevented her giving np the property, nnd so from being put to her election.—Solicitors, T. White $ Sons; Jones, Blaxland, # Sons.

Landlord And Tenant—Licence To EjectForcible EntryStatute 5 Rich. 2, Statute 1, c 8—Lease Of Public-houseCovenant To Take Beer From Lbssor OnlyImplied Covenant On Pact Of Lessor.—In aotseof Edwick v. Hawkes. before Fry, J., ou the 25th ult., a question arose as to the validity of a licence by a tenant to his landlord to ejejt bam without any process of law, and there Whs a further question as to tne construction of a covenant by the tenant of a public-house with his landlord (a brewer) to buy from the land lor I, during the term, H11 the beer consumed on the premises. The lease of a public-housa granted bysome brewers to a publican in June, 1880, contained a covenant by the lessee that he would purchase of the lessors during the continuance of the demise all beer, ale, &c, that 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 fur the quiet enjoyment of the premises by him. There Whs a pro»iso for re-entry by the lessors in the event of a breach of any of the covenants of the lessee. In September, 1880, the lessors discovered tbat the Lssee had been purchasing through an agent, unknown to tbem, a species of beer brewed by them for the use of private families, but which they never supplied and always refused to supply to publicans. The lessee had previously complained that the beer supplied to him by the lessors was bad and unfit for consumption. On making this discovery the lessors charged the lessee with a breach of covenant, and told him that he had forfeited his lease, and they induced him to sign a dooument whereby, in consideration of the lessors not taking immediate steps to eject him, he undertook to give them quiet pussession on the 29th of September, and authsiized tuem to use the document aa leave and licence to eject him without auy piocess of law on that da:e. He afterwards, on the advice of his solicitor, repudiated this document, and refu-ed to quit the premises, and a few days after the 29tb of September the lessors sent a number of men who ejected the lessee and his wife by force from the house, indicting injuries on the wife in so doing. The aotion was brought by the lea-ee against the lessors, claiming to have the document which h ■ bad signed cancelled, and damages (or the assaults on himself and his wife. Fry, J., held that the licence to eject was void, on the ground that it was contrary to public policy, iuasmuoh as it purported to authorize a forcible entry, an act that is made illegal by the Statute of Rich. 2. He held also that if a landlord forcibly ejectsa tenant who is wrongfully holding over, thisis an illegal act under that statute, even though tiie landlord does not effect an entry through the outer door of the premises by force, but is allowed to enter peaceably. Fry, J., also held that there had been no breach of the covenant in buying beer made by the lessors indirecily through an agent, instead of directly from them, and that when such a covenant is entered into by a tenant, there is, in *,he absence of any expiess covenant, an implied covenant by the landlord that he will supply the tenant with auy kind of beer winch he makes and which the tenant may require, and that the beer supplied shall be fit fcr consumption, aud tbat if the landlord does not fulfil tins implied covenant, the tenant is at liberty to purchase the beer which he requires wherever he pleases. And his lordship awarded the plaintiff damages and costs.— Solicitors, H. T. Matdcastle; Walker, Son, & Field.

The Stolen Goods Bill, on which we recently commented, was on Monday lasr, on the motion of the Lord Chancellor, lefered to a select committee.



On Thursday evening a dinner, at which upwards of 120 guests sat down, was given by the metropolitan members of the Incorporated Law Sooiety to the Provincial Law Societies in acknowledgment of the hospitality they had received on their annual visits to the provinces.

Mr. J. Moxon Clabon, president of the society, occupied the chair, and amongst those present and invited were, Mr. C. C. Druce (vice-president), Mr. J. Dodds, M.P., Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Press, Mr. F. H. Janson, Mr. Harper, Mr. B. G. Lake, Mr. J. Yates, Mr. H. Markby, Mr. Darvill, Mr. FoBter, Mr. K. Cunliffe, Mr. W. Cox, Mr. W. Melmoth Walters, Mr. C. Lamb, Mr. W. H. Clarke, Mr. G. F. Crowdy, Mr. R. Pennington, Mr. W. A. Stickey, Mr. Bagshawe, Mr. Rider, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Follett, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Holden, Mr. Furniss, Mr. Heelis, Mr. Sydney Gedge, Mr. Fitch. Mr. Arnold, Mr. J. Anderson Rose, Mr. A. E. Finch, Mr. Tweedale, Mr. Burne, Mr. A. Jevons, Mr. Kay, Mr. J. Yates, Mr. Turnt-r, Mr. H. ManiBty, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Burch, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Jones, Mr. W. Pepperoorn, Mr. Freeman, Mr. Alsop, Mr. Attlee, Mr. C. Harrison, Mr. Hnlben, Mr. Yeates, Mr. Theodore Waterhouse, Mr. Wilmer, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Morland, Mr. Crisp, Mr. Eyre, Mr. Aldridge, Mr. E. Bedfcd, Mr. Moni<r Williams, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Sidney Harrison, Mr. Trinder, Mr. L. Desloorough, Mr. Soitcherd, Mr. Percy Woolley, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. J. G. Bristow, Mr. Western, Mr. E. E. Lake, Mr. Ridsdale. jon., Mr. Isaacson, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Sawbridge, Mr. Owles, Mr. Charles Ford, Mr. J. Indermaur, Mr. S. Chapman, Mr. Tillyard, Mr. Peacock, Mr. A. R. Ford, Mr. Baker, Mr. Cronin, Mr. Woollacott, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Hedger, Mr. James Crowriy, Mr. J. Batchelor, Mr. T. D. Bolton, Mr. E. Kimher, Mr. Crossfield, Mr. George Gregory, Sir. F. W. Ommsney, Mr. W. A. Smith, Mr. Farlow, Mr. Shaplaml, Mr. Sidney Smith, Mr. Eggar, Mr. E. Hughes, Mr. G. B. Bachelor, Mr. Tarry, Mr. Dodd, Mr. W. H. Hazard, Mr. Spiers, Mr. E. W. Williamson (pecrctary), Mr. S. P. B. Buckuill (assistant secretary), and Mr. Frederick Boase (librarian).

The I oasts of "The Queen, "tnd "The Prince and Princess of Wales and the re3t of the Royal Family" having been given by the Pkesident, and honoured with the customary enthusiasm,

Mr. Follett proposed "The Houses of Parliament," and said that in such an assembly it was impossible to avoid alluding to what had been done for the improvement of legal procedure, and he thought they ought to be candid enough to admit that what had bten done had been done in a right direction, and that there had been a fair disposition on the part of the Legislature to recognize what was the good of the public in the way of legal procedure, and to some extent what was due to the solicitor branch of the profession. Whether any improverm-nt could be made in that respect during the present session was exceedingly doubtful. As far as he could see at present, the only Act relating to England which was likely to fird its way on the Statute-book of 1881 was that called the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, with which he had a little to do, and in which the member fur Stockton-on-Tees took a deep interest.

Mr. Dodds, M.P., in responding, said that there was one fact of great interest in the present Parliament as concerned the solicitor branch ol the profession, and that was that there was a greater number of solicitors in the House than in any previous Parliament. When he first went there, there were only three or four members; there were now something like a dozen; and he was sure they were all animated by a sincere desire that the interests of the profession, and the interests committed to the profession, should not suffer either in the House of Commons or elsewhere.

The Preside.\t, in submitting " The Incorporated Law Society," spoke of the endeavours that had been made by the society to improve the education of the menol ors of the profession, and to raise the general tone of the solicitor branch of the law; and even in performing their most painful duty, that of removing from the roll the names of solicitors who had misconducted themselves, they were actuated by the s urn idea.

Mr. Hedge, in acknowledging the toast, referred to the

different position held by solicitors in the eyes of the public of the pre-ent day compared with what it wasiu the past.

Mr. Lake proposed the toast of the evening, "Success and prosperity to the Associated Provincial Law Societies," and drew a parallel between the work of the guilds of the Middle Ages—which were instituted fnr the purpose of educating the various professions and trades with which they were oonnected — and the law societies of the present day. He paid a high tribute to the hospitality which had been shown by the country societies to the members of the London society.

Mr. Smith (presid-nt of the Sheffield Law Society), in acknowledging the compliment, observed that the union of sympathy which brought the solicitors together at the annnal meetings was not only of utility to the profession, but also to the public.

The remaining toasts were "The President," proposed by Mr. Smith, and responded to by Mr. Clabon, and "The Entertainment Committee," given by Mr. J. A. Rose, and acknowledged by Mr. Janson.

Daring the evening a selection of masio was performed by Miss Annie Williams, Mr. Stedman's choir-boys, Mr. H. Gny, Mr. R.Hilton,and Mr. T. Harper (solo trumpet), under the direction of Mr. J. Davis, who presided at the piano. Messrs. King & Brymer served the dinner. Mr. J. Hayles was toastmaster.

LAW ASSOCIATION. The annual general court of this society was held on the 26th ult., Robert Few, Esq.,in the chair. The following report was presented and adopted :—

1. Your directors have the pleasure of submitting to the members of the Law Association a report of their proceedings and the accounts for the last twelve months.

2. Your directors have considered twenty-eight cases of the primary class, and have distributcl amongst them the aggregate sum of £1,410.

3. They have also considered numerous applications of the secondary or noD-members' class which have come before them, and they have distributed the sum of £200 placed at their disposal amongst twenty-two cases.

4. Your directors recommend to the general court that a snm of £150 be placed at their disposal for the cases of nonmembers for the ensuing year.

5. Your directors have the pleasure to report that they have received towards the funds of the association donations of £5 5s. from the Principal and Ancients of Staple Inn, ~t from the late Treasurer of the Middle Temple, and £2 2s. from Horatio Brandon, Esq. They have also much pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of £18 18s. 10.1. from Sir William Charley, the treasurer of the late " Legal Practitioners' Society."

6. The several investments now belonging to the association are as follows, viz.:—

-New 3 per Cents. - - - £22,480 11 9

8 per Cent. Consols - - - £1,600 0 0

3 per Cent. Reduced - £2,000 0 0

India 4 per Cents. - - . £465 13 2

Great Indian Peninsular Rail-) rnAn

way Siock - - ) £2'500 0 0

East Indian Railway Company 1 „. .„. ,„ n

(Annuity Class B) - - / £6'83' 10 U

The dividends recsived lost year amounted to £1,259 Is. 2d.

7. There are now 380 members of the association, 144 tre lifo members and 236 are annual subscribers, the amount received from whom for the past year has been £468 6s., whicli sum, added to the dividends received from the above investments, makes the incoine for the year £1,727 7s. 21.

8. The names ot above 4,000 solicitors appear in the Lair List for 1880, as practising within the metropolitan district (where the operations of the society are carried on), but there are only 400 members of the association. Your directors M that it only needs a little personal effort on the part of individual members in explaining the objectsof the association, and in inviting professional friends and neighbours to become subscribers, to obtain a large addition to the list of members and thus enable the directors to comply with more of the numerous applications made to them for assistance.

3. By the regulations of the association, the president, vice-president, treasurers, directors, and auditors for the ensuing year are to be elected at the present meeting.


Honours Examination.
April, 1881.

At the examination for honours of candidates for admission on the roll of solicitors of the Supreme Court, the examination committee recommended the following gentlemen as being entitled to honorary distinction:—

First Class.
[In order of Merit.]

Henry James Brown, B.A., who served his clerkship to Messrs. Cottrell & Son, of Birmingham; and Messrs. Gaml>>n 4 Sod, of London.

Arthur Chichester Borlase, who served his clerkship to Mr. Jnhn Penn Milton, of Penzance.

Alfred Sieele Sheldon, who served his clerkship to Mr. Robert Bygott, of Sandbacb; and Mr. John Warwick Hickin, of London. )

Angus Scott Lewi?, who served his clerkship to Mr. Charles William Bees Stokes, of Tenby.

Jimes Turner Jackson, who served his clerkship to Mr. William Robert Clark, ol Oldham.

James Moxon, who served his clerkship to Mr. John Foster, cf the firm of Messrs. Foster 4 Raper, or Pontefract.

Vallance Edgar Leonard, who served his clerkship to Mr. H. N. Abbott, of the firm of Messrs. Fry, Abbott, Pope, & Brown, of Bristol; and Mr. H. S. Leonard, of London.

Wi'liam Swinburne, who served his clerkship to Mr. Joseph Willis Swinburne, of Gateshead-on-Tyne.

Henry Hollier Hood Barn, LL.B., who served his clerkship to Mr. James Bousktll, of the firm of Messrs. Miles, Bonskell, 4 Place, of Leicester; and Mr. Charles John Mander, of London.

George Walker Luis Fernaodes, who served his clerkship to Mr. Charles Batharst Lais Fernandez, of Wakefield.

Second Class.
[In Alphabetical Order.]

Francis Barber, who served his clerkship to Mr. Andrew Malcolm Bateson, of Harrogate; and Messrs. Ullithorne, Correy, 4 Villiers, of London.

•lames Capstack Calvert, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Coppock, Marsh, 4 Coppock, of Stockport.

George Dickinson, who served his clerkship to Mr. Augustus Helder, of the firm of Messrs. Brockbank, Helder, & Brockbank, of Whitehaven.

Templer Lethbridge Down, who served his clerkship to Mr. George Alfred Daniel, of the firm of Messrs. Oruttwell, Daniel, 4 Cruttwells, of Frome ; and Messrs. Prior, Bigg, Church, & Adams, of London.

John Eagleton, who served his clerkship to Mr. O. C. T. Esgleton, of London.

James Edwin Hodson, who served his clerkship to Mr. John Smallsbaw, of Southport.

Patrick William Mayo, who served his clerkship to Mr. William Marsh, of the firm of Messrs. Mayo & Marsh, of Yeovil ; and Messrs. Bower & Cotton, of London.

Herbert Rooke Oldfield, LL.B., who served his clerkship lo llr. Arthur William Rooke, of the firm of Messrs. Rooke 4 Sons, of London.

Atkinson Pickering, jun., who served his clerkship to Mr. William Hodgson, of the firm of Messrs. Holden, Sons, & Hodgson, of Hull; and Messrs. Chester, Mayhew, & Co., of London.

Richard Procter, who served his clerkship to Mr. Thomas James Backhouse, of the firm of Messrs. T. J. & H. Backhouse, of Blackburn and Burnley.

John Davies Pryce, who served his clerkship to Mr. Richard Williams, of Newtown, Montgomery.

William Showell Rogers, M.A., LL.M., who served his clerkship to Mr. John Henry Barclay, of the firm of Messrs. Johnson, Barclay, 4 Johnson, of Birmingham; and Messrs. Burton, Yeates, Hart, & Burton, of London.

Frank James Sykes, who served his clerkship to Mr. James Edward Hawksford, of the firm of MesBrs. Saunders, Hawksford, & Bennett, of London.

Edward Woodhouse Veale, LL.B., who served his clerkship to Mr. Edgar Everard Salmon, of Bristol.

Edwin Williams, B.A., who served his clerkship to Mr.

William Frederick Gash, of the firm of Messrs. Gush &
Phillips, of London.

Third Class.
[In Alphabetical Order.]

Francis Jacob Peregrine Birch, who served his clerkship to Mr. Frank William Stone, of the firm of Messrs. Stone & Simpson, of Tunbridge Wells; and Messrs. Collyer-Bristow, Withers, & Russell, of Lnndon.

George Lawrence Bullt-id, who served his clerkship to Mr. J. G. L. Bulleid, of Glastonbury; and Messrs. Crowdcr, An9tie, & Vizard, of London.

Arthur Constantino, who served his clerkship to Sir. Thomas Jas. Bnekhouse, of the firm of Messrs. T. J. 4 H. Backhou-e, of Blackburn.

Robert Dowse, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Welsh 4 Son, of Manchester; and Messrs. Gregory, Rowclifies, & Rawle, of Lnndon.

William Frederick Oscar Edmonds, who served his clerkship to Mr. Edmund Edmonds, of Newent.

John Estill, who served his clerkship to Mr. Edward Peters, of tbo firm of Messrs. E. 4 J. Peters, of York.

Joseph Henry Farmer, who served his clerkship to Mr. Samuel George Johnson, of Nottingham.

Allred Robert Orton Gery, who Berved his clerkship to Mr. Robert Orton Gery, of Aberdare ; end Mr. William Maude, of the firm of Messrs. Ricksrds, Maude, & Maude, of London.

Thomas Risley Hearn, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Gepp 4 Son, of Chelmsford; and Messrs. Paterson, Snow, & Bloxani, of London.

George Courtenay Henderson, who served his clerkship lo Messrs. Weston, Grover, & Lees, of Manchester; Mr. Johu Herbert Slater, of the firm of Messrs. Kearsley, Slater, 4 Watts, of Manchester; and Messrs. Field, Roscoe, 4 Co., of London.

Edward Frederick Knott, who served his clerkship to Mr. John Hammett Knott, of the firm of Messrs. Pownall, Son, Cross, 4 Knott, of London.

Alexander Ward Lamond, who served his clerkship to Mr. Robert Hart, of the firm of Messrs. Burton, Yeates, Hart, 4 Barton, of London.

Frederick William Martin, who served his clerkship to Mr. George Edward Sharland, of the firm of Messrs. Sharland 4 Hatten, of Gravesend.

George Hugh Morgan, who served his clerkship to Mr. John Arthur Talbot, and to Mr. Richard Burgass Woosnam, both of Newtown, Montgomery.

Arthur James O'Connor, who served his clerkship to Mr. Crowther Davies, of Birmingham.

Frank Samuel Pre3ton, who served his clerkship to Mr. Samuel Preston, of Hinckley.

Samuel Ruby, who served his clerkship to Mr. Henry Brearey, of York.

William Emsley Raley, who served his clerkship to Mr. C. J. Dibb, of the firm of Messrs. Dibb, Raley, & Clegg, of Barnsley.

Albert Sargeant, who served his clerkship to Mr. John Howard Russell; aud to Mr. Howard Carlile Morris, both of London.

Gay Shnte, jun., who served his clerkship to Mr. H. W. Trinder, of the firm of Messrs. Trinders & Curtis-Hayward, of London.

George Edward Wade, who served his clerkship to Mr. A. C. Curtis-Hayward, of the firm of Messrs. Trinders & Curtis-Hayward, of London.

Arthur William Weldon, who served his clerkship to Mr. Henry Druit Pnillips, of the firm of Messrs. Phillips & Sod, of Loudon.

George Lawrence Welford, who served his clerkship to Mr. Robert Frederick Kidd, of North Shiolds.

Samuel Yeareley, jun., who served his clerkship to Mr. John Henry Cooke, of the firm of Messrs. J. 4 J. H. Cooke, of Over, near Win»ford, Cheshire.

The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have accordingly given class certificates and awarded the following prizes of books :—

To Mr. Brown, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clement's Inn. Value ten guineas.

To Mr. Borlase, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clifford's Ion. Value five guineas.

To Mr. Sheldon, the priz* of the Honourable Society of New Inn. Value five guineas.

To Mr. Lewis, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Moxon, Mr. Leonard,

Mr. Swinbnrne, Mr. Birrs, and Mr. Feroandes, prizes of the Incorporated Law Society. Value five guineas each.

The council have Riven class certificates to the candidates m the second and tb rd classes.

The number of CHndidates who attended the examination was seventy.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. Tuesday, May 31.—Mr. E. G. Spiers in the obair.—Mr. J. W. Ellis was elected a member. Mr. F. K. Munton opened ihe debate on the subject appointed for discus-ion in the affirmative, the question beinn, 44 Is the Government Bankruptcy Bill satisfactory?" In the discussion which followed, Me srs. Saxelby, Brown, and Kox opposed, and Messrs. F. J. Gr^en, W. F. Barry, and Bower supported the Biil. Mr. Munton having replied, the question was put to the m eting, and decided in the affirmative by a large majority.


Mr. Alfred Edmund Bateman, barrister, has been appointed one of the Secretaries to the Royal ComTiisiion on the Treaty of Commerce with France. Mr. Bateman was educated at St. John's College, Cambridge, where he graduated second class in the classical tripis in 1862. He was called to the bur at Lim:olii's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1872, and he has been for several years a clerk at the Board of Trade.

Mr. John Alexander Boyd, Q.C., of th-i Ontario bar, has been appointed Chancellor of ihe Province of Ontario, in succession to Mr. John Godfrey Spragge, who has been appointed Chief Justice of the province.

Mr. William Athelstan Blaxland, solicitor, of 32, Lincoln' (-ion-fields, has been appointed an Assistant in the Solicitors' Department in the Metropolitan Board of Works. Mr. Blaxland was admitted a solicitor in 1867.

Mr. Thomas Brassey, barrister, M.P., has been created a Civil Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. Sir T. Brassey is the eldest son of the late Mr. Thomas Brassey, and wa^bora in 18S6. Hewaseducated atKugbyand atUniversity College, Oxford, where he graduated third class in law and mod<rn history in 1859, and he was ctlled to the bar at Lincolc's-inn in Hilary Term, 1866. He has been M.P., for Hastings in the Liberal interest since 1863, and he was appointed Civil Lord of the Admiralty in April, 18S0.

Mr. Gkokge John Braikf.nhidge, solicitor, of 16, Bartlett's-bui dings, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women fur the Cnunty of Middlesex and the Cities of London aud Westminster.

Mr. Arthur Brett, solicitor, of Market Harborougb, has been appointed a Commissioner t i administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. Henry Shekell Haynes, solicitor (of the firm of Haynes & Clifton), of 4, Tokenbuuse-yard, and of Romford and Stratford, has been elected Cbairman of the Justices' Clerks' Society for the eusuing year. Mr. Haynes was admitted a solicitor in 1864, aud is registrar of the Romford County Court, clerk to the magistiaies for the Beacootreo Division of Essex, and clerk of the peace, coroner, and clerk to the magistrates for the Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower.

Mr. James Bishop Hocombe, solicitor, of Rugbychambers, Great James-street, Bedford-row, has been appointed a Commi-sioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. Edwin William John, solicitor, of Harerfordwest, has been appointed a Perpetual Commi-sioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for Pembrokeshire and the Town of Haverfordwest,

Mr. Henry Bishop Rowsell, solicitor, of 36, Great James-street, and ot Hastings, has beeu appointed a Comwiis'ioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Conit of Judicature.

Mr. Francis Shelton, solicitor, of 39, Threadnesdle■treel, has been elected Clerk to the Edmonton Board of Guardians and Rural S mitsry Authority. Mr. Shelton was admitted a solicitor in 1880.

Sir. Theodore John Smith, solicitor (of ths firm of Smith & Atkinson), of Hastings and Rye, hasb-en appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the County of Sussex!

Mr. John Godfrey Spbaqok, chancellor of the proving of Ontario, ha< been appointed Chief Justice of tbat province, in succession to Mr. Thomas Moss, deeeieed.

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. Albert West, William Muskerky Tilkon, anl William Byrne-jones (Went, Tism, & Byrne Jone«), solicit irs, Buckhrsbure, London. May 19. So far as regard* ihe said Albert Wen. The practice wiil be carried on at 20, Bueklersbury, by the sail William Musketry Tiii-on tnd William Byrne-Jones, under the style of Til-on & ByrneJones. [Gazelle, May 27, 1841.]


WINDING-UP NOTICES. Joint Stock Companies. Limited In Chaxcbby. SonoPOBT Axd West Laxcaskibe Banking Company, Limited By an order made by the M.R., dated May 16, it was ordered thai the voluntary winding up of the above company be continued. Gregory and' Co, Bedford row, solicitors for the petitioner

iirazette, May 27.]

Clivigeb Cotton Sited Company, Limited.—By an order made by tho M.R., dated May 21, it was ordered that the above comaanr bo wound up. Milne and Co, Hurcourt bldgs, Temple, agents for Crecke and Sandy, Burnley, solicitors for the petitioners

Teamway Stabttxg And Stopping Company, Limited.—By as order made by the M.R.; dated May 21, it was ordered that tbe above company be wound up. Randall aud Angler, Gray's inn pi, petitioners in person

Whitehead And Company, Limited.—Creditors arc required, on or before Oct 25, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims to William Theobald, St Swrithin'8 lane. Nov 3 at 12 is appointed for hoaxing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

[ Gazette. May Sl.J

Unlimited In Chanceby. Madbas Ibbtgatiox And Canal Company.—The M.R. has, by an order dated Mar 23, appointed Samuel Lowell Price, Gresham it, to bo official liquidator


Frikudly Societies Dissolved. Pbidk or Sydenham Lodge, Kent United District, Ancient Order

of Britons, Golden Lion, Sydenham. May 24 Saixt Asaph Fbiendly Societi-, Saint Asaph, Flint. May 21

{Gazette, May2i.]

Imperial Thbipt Fribndly Bubial Society, South st, Kingston

npon-Hull. May 28 RnYMNEY Firkmex'b Feiexdly Society, Duke of Wellington Inn,

Rhvmnev, Monmouth. May 23

{Gazette, May 31.1


Feb. 28; March 1, 2, 5. 23, 1831. — The T/iarsu Sulphur and Copper Company (Limited) and others v. The Loudon **i IVorlli- Western Railway Company.

Supply of wagons—Sueci J A t -Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. a. 2.

The Railway and C-n.l Traffic Ac', 1854 (17 & IS Vict, c. 31), a. 2, requires facilities to be given according- to ihe povei* of railway companies, and as epeeial Kailoay A'ti make tbe powers ot eome companies larger than tnn»e of others, so they also extend or limit the facilities they giva to tbe public, ml thus the general enactment as to affurrtina facilities has to t» Pad and considered with reference to the language of any special clauaea regarding them.

A railw-y waa transferred to a railway compsny under • special Act, section 15 of which provided that the railway pany, whei manufaoto railway I

diligence to provide wagons proper and sufficient for the conveyance of all traffic passing exclusively on tbe lime of railway tran*f.rred.

* Reported by W. H. Macnamara, Esq., Banisier-al-Law.

[ocr errors]

Upon complaint by perrons occupying works or manufactories adjacent to the railway that the railway company did not supply sufficient wagons for the traffic cn the railway,

Held, that, although the duty cast upon the railway company by that Act was limited to ca?es where there Was a request for wagons by memberB of a particular class, and where also any particular lines of railway were required to be uted, vet where the duty did arise, it determined wbat was a reasonable facility within the meaning of section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, as effectively as if it were a duty of a more general kind or one which applied under any ciroumt-tanog; and i he railway company were enjoined to afford all rea-cnable facilities for the receiving, forwarding, and delivery of the applicants' orepaBstng exclusively over the lines transferred, having tegard to the above ■ectioo.

Thin was an application under section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1851, for tn order enjoining the London and North-Western Railway Company to afford reasonable facilities to the applicants for the unloading and receipt of pyrites at Garston Docks, and for forwarding it to St. Helens and Widnes, by supplying an adequate number of wagens fi r the traffic.

The applicants were either importers or consumers of the ore, or owners of the vessels in which it was imported. They complained that the respondents, to whom the Garston Docks belonged, did not give due faiilities for vessels laden with ore to berth and unload in the dock", and did not supply in reasonable time wagons for the carriage of such ore from the docks to St. Helens and Widnes.

lVeitter, Q-C. and French, appeared for the applicants. The Solicitor-General (Sir F. HertcheU, Q.C.), Littler, Q.C., and E. R. Moon, fcr the respondents. The Commissioners delivered the following judgment :— This is an application under section 2 of the Traffic A't, 1854, complaining of the London and Noith-Wesrern Railway Con panv for not affording, according to its powers, reasonable facilities for the rairiage of traffic from Gxrston Docks to St. Helens and Widnes. The traffic is pyrites, and the applicants are either importers or consumers of the ore, or owners of the vessels in which it is imported. It is the doty of the respondents to transship the ore into the { wagrns in which it is sent forward, and a supply of wagons on hand is daily required at the docks to prevent the detention of ships, and demurrage claims, and to keep the factories at work where the ore is consumed. For several months previously to the application being made there was a great scarcity of wagons at the docks, and we are asked to decide that one of those facilities which a railway company is compellable to afford was in this case, uoder the circumstances, to provide sufficient wagons for the ore, and to take care that the unloading or receiving of the ore was not delayed for want of wagons.

By the Act for transferring the undertaking of the St. Helens Company to the London and North-Western Company, the St. Helens Canal and Railway Transfer Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 290),«. 15, the London and North-Western Company, when requested so to do by any person occupying works or manufactories adjacent to, and having sidings connected with, the railways hereby t'antferred, is at all reasonable times and with all due diligence to prjvidi wagons proper and sufficient for the conveyance of all traffic passing exclusively on the lines of railway hereby transferred, except coal slack and refuse material. The duty cast upon the respondents by this section is limited to cases where there is a request for wagons by members of a particular claa«, and where also only particular lines of railway are required to be used, but where the duly does arise, it determines what is a reasonable facility within the meaning of the Traffic Act as effectively as it it were a duty of a more general kind or one which applied under any circumstances. That Act requires lacilities to be given sccording to the powers of railway companies, and as spei ial Railway ActB make the powers of some companies lirg*r than those of others, St they also extend or limit the facilities they give to the public, and thus the general enactment as to affording facilities has to be read and considered with reference to the Isngnage of any special clauses regarding them. Jn this case the ipecial obligation is the more incumbent to be performed, because it is one of the terms on which the St Helens railways were transferred to their present owners, and being an obligation to find wsgons, it makes a oompany neglecting it aDstverable under the Tr-ffic Act. This was the principle of our decision in Walkimon ani others v. Wrexham, Mold, and Coimeh Quay Railway Company.

The wnrks of some of the applicants are connected by sidings with the railways referred to in section 15 of the St. Helens Act, 1864. and requests for wagons for their traffic were frequently addressed to the respondents ; but it is said that the ore from Garston Docks does not pass exclusively over those railways, and, therefore, that the liabilities of the respondents are to be measured solely by the Traffic Act, 1854, considered independently of the special Act. The St. Helens Canal and Railway Act, 1846, authorized a dock to be made at Garston, on the Mersey, and there is no doubt that section 15 of thn Act of 1864 applies to any traffic conveyed from the dock so made, now called the old dock, to Widnes, St. Helens, or any other place on the railways formerly belonging to the 8t. Helens Company. But under an Act passed in 1867, a second dock was made ft Garston in a space enclosed by a continuation of the sea wall of the old dock, and this new dock, like the old one, has sittings and approaches branching off from the railway. Traffic: from the new dock uses these siding', and hence such traffic, it is said, does not pats exclusively over railways that belonged to the St. Helens Company. But the docks and railways of the St. Helens Company were distinct parts of their undertaking, and the works since executed at Garston have been an extension, not of the railway at that place, but of its dock accommodation. The charges the respondents are authorized to make by the St. Helens Transfer Act, 1864, a. 13, for ore cr merchaudiza conveyed between Garston Dock (the old one that ial and St. Helens, or sidings directly communicating with the lines of the St. H lens Railway, or between the same Garston Dock and the sidings of any works or manufactories in the townBhip of Widnes, direcily communicating with the St. Helens lines of railway, include dock dues, receiving from the ship and loading on the wagons, and also the use of wagons, and by the London and Nerth-Western Railway (New Works and Additional Powers) Acl, 186", this section of the Act of 1864 is made applicable to the new dock, as are also the two other sections of that Act which make mention of the old dock. But the railway has remained since 1867 the same as it was before, for the Act of that year authorized no new line, but only such approaches and sidings as might be required for the purposes of the new dock. It is immaterial as to traffic being deemed to use the same railway that it is not all loaded in the same sidingr, or on the same portion of the terminus communicating with the docks, and we think that traffic conveyed between either dock and Widnes, St. Helens, or other placeB on the same railway system, passes exclusively on the lines of railways transferred from the St. Helens Company ia the meaning of that expression in section 15 of the St. Helens Transfer Aot, 1864.

The application refers chiefly to traffic for which wngons are requested in the terms of the section just cited, and it alleges as to such traffic tint the respondents have not, at all reasonable times and with all due diligence, provided wagonB proper and sufficient for its conveyance. But it refers also generally to the local traffic in ore of the St. Helens Railway from Garston inwarda, as to which the importers and ship owners contend that it, as well, has not been afforded (he reasonable facilities as to unloading and wagons whioh a company is liable for under the Traffic Aot, irrespectively of any special Act. It appears that ships with ore in dock are berthed and discharged by the railway company, and it is said that as to many of the ships more than a reasonable time elapses between their coming into dock and their unloading being finished. This might be, because there were more ships in dock than there were berths for, but it is attributed for the most part to the work of unloading being retarded for want of wagons. That ships had frequently to cease working from this cause, and that the applicants were continually complaining to the company's superintendents and managers, were facts clearly proved by the evidence. The ships are unloaded by the company's steam cranes, and their dock master keeps a daily account tor each crane of the ship on which it is at work, and of any time and for what cause that it is unemployed. This account for 1878, 1879, and part of 1880 was produced at the hearing, and from the words "no wagons" occurringrepcatedly,especially in theentriesfor October, 1879, and following months, it appears evident that the complaints that for want of wagons ore could not be got from the ships nor deliveries of ore to the manufactories sent forward, were well founded. The delays, and consequent questions as to time to be allowed after a ship was in dock or in berth before demurrage, made ship owners reluctant to charter their ships for voyages to Garston. A ship in this trade ia generally

« PreviousContinue »