« PreviousContinue »
of Wells v. Abrahams (L, R. 7 Q. B. 554), great doubt pleaded by the garnishee in a superior court to an action seems to have been thrown on its soundness, and since by the debtor, and that, after the commencement of the the case of Ex parte Ball (L. R. 10 Oh. D. 667), bankruptcy or liquidation of the debtor, the debt due by it can hardly be considered law. The view expressed the garnishee to the debtor has ceased, by operation of by Baggallay, L.J., in this latter case seems to law, to be due to the debtor and has been transferred to be substantially identical with the third view men the trustee. tioned by Mr. Justice Watkin Williams, but we do The other case decided by the Court of Appeal is E. not krow that that view is very distinctly formulated parte Seear, In re Price (W. N. 16th April, 1881), in anywhere else. Previously to the case of Ex parte Ball, in which the decision of Mr. Registrar Hazlitt, sitting as the case of Wells v. Abrahams, Blackburn, J., had Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, was overruled by the same expressed a doubt as to the soundness of the then pre- Lords Justices who decided Levy v. Lovell. Es parte Seear railing view, and Bramwell, L.J., points out in Ex parte differed from the latter case, inasmuch as the attachment Ball the great difficulties that arise with respect to any was issued out of the Tolzey Court of Bristol. The theory on the subject. He says that there are only four question raised was whether, by an attachment followed possible ways in which the impediment to the action by seizure of goods after, but without notice of, the act could arise :-(1) That no cause of action arises out of the of bankruptcy, and before the adjudication founded felony ; (2) that it does not arise until prosecution ; (3) thereon, a creditor is placed in the position of a secured that it arises on the act, but is suspended until the creditor under section 12 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. prosecution; (4) that there is neither defence to, or It was contended for the respondents tbat the process of suspension of the claim by or at the instance of the foreigu attachmert in the Tolzey Court differed in felon debtor, but that the court, on its own motion, or important particulars from the process of foreign at the instance of the Crowy, may stay proceedings till attachment in the Mayor's Court. It was held, public justice is satisfied. But he proceeds to point out however, upon the evidence, that the processes were that the first alternative is contrary to the later | identical and only for the purpose of compelling authorities; that the second is to suppose that the cause appearance, and consequently that the present ques of action is the debt plus the prosecution, which results tion was already decided by Levy v. Lovell in the in many absurdities, and that the objection both to this negative. and the third alternative is that there are no means by ! The third and most important case is that of The which they can be set up, because the defendant cannot | Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London V. The plend his own felony-nemo allegans suam turpitudinem London Joint Stock Bank (L. R. 1 O. P. D. 1; on est audiendus. Then with regard to the fourth alter. app. 28 W. R. 696, L. R. 5 0. P. D. 494; House of native be points out that practically it too is fraught with Lords, Times of 2nd of April, 1881), which was de. difficulties. He says, “Nobody ever heard of such a cided shortly before Ex parte Seear. In this case the thing; nobody in any case or book ever suggested it till bank sued for a prohibition to restrain proceedings in Mr. Justice Blackburn did as a possibility. Is it left to | foreign attachment against them as garnishees, having the court to find it out on the pleadings? If it appears in their hands moneys of a customer. The mayor and on the trial, is the judge to discharge the jury? How is aldermen pleaded the custom, and also that it had the Crown to know of it?"
been followed. The proceedings to attach the custom. The view that there is no impediment to the action ers' property were carried on without notice to him, mless it is shown that the plaintiff has neglected the according to the course of foreign attachment as prac. duty of prosecution enabled Mr. Justice Watkin Williams tised for the last two centuries, although in making up to dispose of the case before him, on the ground that on the record on the appearance of the garnishee it has. demurrer to the statement of claim because it showed been the practice to insert fictitious statements, such as a felony it could not be assumed that the plaintiff was that certain proceedings had been taken to procure the guilty of neglect in this respect; but it is to be observed defendant's appearance, and that the defendant had that the difficulties suggested by Bramwell, L.J., in made default in appearing. It was held by the Court of Ex parte Ball apply just as much to this third view as Appeal (affirming the Divisional Court, who decided the to the second view alluded to by the learned judge, so question on a different ground) that the allegations that in reality the case of Midland Insurance Company that certain proceedings had been taken to procure the v. Smith leaves the whole subject as much wrapped in defendant's appeararce, and that the defendant had made doubt and difficulty as ever.
default in appearing, were of the substance of the plea and that, as they were untrue, the custom had not been followed, and a prohibition to restrain the proceedings
had rightly been granted. The majority of the court FOREIGN ATTACHMENT.
expressed an opinion (though it was not necessary in
the view they took of the case to decide the point) The value to creditors of the process of foreign attach that proceedings in foreign attachment cannot be ment, as exercised by certain inferior local courts of taken against a corporation as garnishees. In the record, has been materially diminished by the effect of course of his judgment, Lord Justice James said, “ It three recent cases, two of which were decided by the seems impossible for us, without violating our judicial Court of Appeal, and the third by the House of Lords. oaths, to find in point of fact that what has not
The earliest in date of these decisions is Levy v. heen done has been done, and to find that that Lovell (28 W. R. 602, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 230), and the has been followed which has not been followed. question before the court in that case was whether a The' pleas allege a proceeding to compel a man creditor who had served a writ of foreign attachment in to appear, suit, default, and proceedings based an action in the Mayor's Court, but had not obtained on that default. The whole of that is admitted now to judgment in the action before the commencement of be a mere fiction, nothing of the kind having been done, the bankruptcy or liquidation of his debtor, is a creditor therefore in point of fact, not only are the pleadings not holding security on the property of his debtor within proved, but they are essentially disproved." The the meaning of section 12 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. mayor and aldermen appealed, and the House of Lords The Court of Appeal unanimously decided the question affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, deciding in the negative, overruling the decision of the Chief that the custom of foreign attachment was not applicable Judge in Bankruptcy, and also a decision of Vice-Chan- | to a corporation, on the ground that it was only by cellor Hall in Re The London Cotton Mills Company committing the garnishee to prison that he could (25 W. R. 109), on the grounds that foreign attachment be compelled to obey the order of the court, and inasis, in its substance, origin, and intention, a process to much as the cases showed that a corporation could not compel appearance; that such an attachment cannot be l be committed to prison, the only compulsory means of
enforcing the orders of the court. were in their nature
VI. and that nothing that had taken place below, nor any AFTER our last article on this subject was written, though thing that might take place in that House on that occa before it had reached the hands of our readers, the sion, would throw any doubt on the validity of the debate on Sir Stafford Northcote's amendment took place custom, if properly followed, where a case really fell in the House of Commons. The debate furnished inciwithin it.
dentally a striking illustration, if any were needed, of Now as mentioned above, and as our readers are the character of the defect in the Bill which we pointed probably aware—the record of foreign attachment made out last week. We do not by any means concur in the upon the appearance of the garnishee mixes up with the proposed amendment, which seems to us to narrow tie true history of what has been done a number of what are tenant's interest far beyond the necessities of the case, now, at all events, purely fictitious matters, and have for but it is noteworthy that so able a lawyer as Mr. Davey, at least two centuries past ceased to be more than formal, when pressed as to what it was which the tenant was to such as the statements that certain proceedings have be allowed to sell, and therefore the incoming tenant to been taken to procure the appearance of the debtor, and buy, could give no better answer than “whatever he that he has made default in appearing. It would seem, has got;” which is, being interpreted, a law-suit. But therefore, from the Lord Chancellor's judgment that for it would be to soy the least of it, a doubtful boon to the custom to apply in any particular case it will be the tenantry of the futura-whatever it might prove to necessary that the record should be substantially a true
| the existing occupiers-to enact that none of them shoull one, and that for the future all the matters stated upon have any reasonable chance of acquiring the possession its face, in so far as they are substantially part of the of a farm except by paying a competition price for the custom, must be actually carried out. How far this privilege of unlimited litigation. We should have predecision may affect the other matters appearing on the
ferred, as we have already stated, to have commenced by record it is impossible to say ; but should it become defining the nature and extent of the tenant's interest, necessary to observe all these, then the custom will have a term which at present has no tangible meaning over been practically abolished. All that we can at present the greater part of the country, and which, even in the state with certainty, as to the future, is, that there must
North, is of too uncertain a character for the good of the be a bona fide return by the serjeant-at-mace that the
community. defendant is not within the jurisdiction (the very ground
We fear, however, that it would be impracticable to of applicability of the custom being the fact that the attempt so to alter the present Bill, and, though we do not defendant is out of the jurisdiction) and that the pro hesitate to state that we think the Government would be ceedings taken to procure his appearance have failed to well advised in withdrawing it and introducing another, procure it. In addition to this, the defendant must be proceeding on a different plan, we recognize the hopecalled at three subsequent courts and must have made
lessness of pressing such a course at the present stage default.
of the session. And as it is not impossible, however As a matter of fact, we are informed that for some difficult it may be, 80 to mould the present Bill as to time past no writs of attachment have been issued out accomplish somewhat of the desired effect, we think it, of the Mayor's Court. This circumstance may be attri. on the whole, more advisable to follow, in our succeeding buted to the fact that, in most cases, it is practically suggestions, the frame of the measure before us. But impossible for the serjeant-at-mace to certify that the
in so doing we desire our readers always to bear in mind defendant is out of the jurisdiction, and that should be the object which, as we have, we think, conclusively so certify, and the defendant happen to be within the shown. such a Bin ought to have principally in view jurisdiction at the time of the attachment, then an
viz., to confer upon every tenant a status of practical action for damages would lie against the serjeant
immoveability, subject to the payment of a rent to be at-mace. We believe that it has been mooted in
fixed not by competition but by valuation. It will some quarters that an attempt should be made to
| obviously be of little use to limit the amount of that obtain from the Legislature a modification of the portion of his rent which he pays to the landlord if he is custom. As to the desirability of this we do not give still to be exposed to unrestricted competition as regards any opinion. We trust, however, that the custom, in the that portion which he has to pay to the outgoing form in which it was resorted to recently, will not be
| tenant, including (as we showed last week would ved. The three cases we have referred to plainly be the inevitable result of the Bill) the landlord himlimit the application, while they destroy much of the self in the case of lands in hand. Further, the values of injustice, of the custom, and this we do not regret. For the respective interests of landlord and tenant, which it has been a curious anomaly that while in proceed.
must be ascertained in order to arrive at a fair valuation ings in the superior courts creditors have been obliged rent, ought to be ascertainable by the parties themselves, to wait until they had obtained judgments before they
| even in the absence of agreement, without theintervention were able to proceed under the garnishee cláuses of the
of any external authority. The duty of the court should Common Law Procedure Acts and of the Judicature
be, not to determine the amount payable in the case of Act, in proceedings in the Mayor's Court, they have
eviction, but merely to enforce the payment of an been able, by means of a series of fictitious state
amount otherwise ascertained. We have repeated these ments of an officer of that court, to obtain a lien on the conditions from time to time, at the risk of becoming effects of their debtors before proceeding to final judg wearisome, because they lie, as it seems to us, at the root ment, and, in fact, by simply issuing writs of attach.
of the whole question, and because they have been so ment; their debtors all the time having had no notice of
inexplicably disregarded by the framers of the Bill, some what was going on. It is high time that the public of whom, at any rate, were, as we have before stated, by should be made aware of the effect of these decisions
no means ignorant of them. viz., that foreign attachment, as resorted to for a couple Clause 1 then ought to be altered by substituting in of centuries, is an illegal method of enforcing a creditor's | line 2 for the word “ tenancy" the phrase "tenant
right as hereinafter defined,” ard by omitting altogether sub.clause (3), which enables the landlord to buy up the
tenant-right at a price to be fixed by the court, and subUp to Saturday, says the Times, fourteen public Acts
clause (5), which states the grounds on which the landlord and sixty local statutes had received the Royal assent in
may refuse to admit a purchaser; and by substituting
may refuse to adu ust five months from the commencement of the present for sub-clause (4) the following provision:-“ Where the ession.
tenancy is sold to any person other than the landlord,
the landlord may, if he please, refuse to accept the parties and considering all the circumstances of the purchaser as tenant, but in such case he shall be bound holding and district, and, in particular, having regard to to purchase out the tenant at the full price of his tenant- any such claims on the part of the tenant as are menright." The rest of the section appears to be unobjection- tioned in the previous sub-section. able, though, if once tenant-right were placed upon a 3. At the same time the parties may, if they shall satisfactory basis, it would practically be inoperative. I think fit, determine by agreement wbat shall be taken Clause 2 seems to be right.
to be a fair rent for the holding. Clause 3 is a clumsy attempt to introduce by a side. | 4. If they cannot agree upon such rent, either party wind, and as au occasional occurrence, that which ought may apply to the court to fix the same. If neither to be, in a more direct form, the controlling principle of party so applies within [say three] months after the the Bill. It seems to have been inserted by someone value of the tenant's interest has been so ascertained as who had heard of, but never studied, or, at any rate, aforesaid, it shall be taken that the rent then payable is never in the least understood, the proposition which a fair rent, goes by the name of " Judge Longfield's Scheme.” The 5. If either party applies to the court to fix the section is further objectionable as perpetuating the prin. amount of a fair rent, within the time aforesaid, the ciple of " compensation for disturbance.” Such com court shall, after hearing the parties, determine the pensation was, perhaps, necessary under the legislation of same. A fair rent, as determined by the court, shall 1870, which endeavoured to secure the tenant in his
mean such a rent as, under all the circumstances of the holding by fining the landlord for disturbing him, but it case, holding, and district, a solvent tenant would under. is admittedly an anomaly, and with a proper principle take to pay one year with another in addition to the of tenant-right would be useless as well as mischievous. purchase of the tenant's interest at the price previously All that is of any value in the section would be necessarily
ascertained. included in the definition of " tenant-right" to be made
6. The amount of the tenant's interest ascertained 29 subsequently, and the clause itself ought, therefore, to
aforesaid shall be divided by the amount of a fair rent, be wholly omitted.
when fixed, and the quotient or the nearest integer Clause 4 is right save that after the words " statutory
thereto, whether above or below, shall be declared to be term” should be added “ as hereinafter defined,” which
the “statutory tenant-right" of the holding expressed words will have been rendered necessary by the omission
in years' purchase of the farm. of clause 3.
7. If the fair rent ascertained as aforesaid is different Clause 5 is objectionable for the reasons already men
from the rent then payable (whether above or below), tioned. The clause ought to provide for the total repeal
either party may, at any time before the next rent-day, of clause (3) of the Act of 1870,“ save in the case of
give notice that from and after such day the fair any holding the tenant whereof shall not at the time of
rent so ascertained shall be substituted for the then prehis eviction be entitled to any tenant-right under this
sent rent. Act.” It is conceivable that some such tenancies may continue to exist (though we think the supposition highly
8. The effect of such notice shall be the creation of & improbable), and it is therefore well to continue to them
tenancy subject to statutory conditions for a statutory the protection against capricious eviction which they
terni of [say ten] years from such rent-day at the now enjoy, but as the existence of a proper and well.
fair rent so ascertained. secured tenant-right will make such evictions impossible, 9. If neither party gives such notice before such rentit is absurd to provide machinery for punishing the act day they shall be deemed to have agreed to a tenancy which cannot be committed.
subject to statutory conditions for the like term at the Clause 6 is unobjectionable on principle. Its only then existingrent. operation, indeed, seems to be to extend to tenants 10. If the tenant is by any act of the landlord com. who have come in under some informal agreement, pelled to quit the occupation of the holding during the and through the machinery of a surrender and admit- continuance of the statutory term, he shall be entitled to tance, the same rights which they would obviouely have receive the amount of his statutory tenant-right, had had they directly purchased or inherited the reckoned in years' purchase of the rent actually pay. tenancy from the surrenderor.
able. Provided that, if the cause of his dispossession be It is upon clause 7 that the efficiency, or the contrary, non-payment of rent, the landlord may retain the amount of the whole of this part of the Act turns, and that in arrear and costs out of the statutory tenant-right, and clause is, we conceive, so framed as to produce the maxi if the cause be the breach of any statutory condition mum of inefficiency with the maximum of friction. The other than the non-payment of rent, the landlord may present value of the interest of any particular tenant set off against such tenant-right any claim which he may ought to be readily capable of being fixed, if only there have for damages for such breach of condition, notwithwere machinery for doing so, without requiring the standing that the amount is unliquidated; the nount of tenant to quit his holding. At present no such machin- such claim to be settled by the court in case the parties ery exists, nor is any provided in the Bill : and yet it differ. must be obvious that until that has been fixed the
11. If the tenant executes any improvements during question what is “a fair rent" under the circumstances
any statutory term, and is so di spossessed as aforesaid of any particular tenancy must be the merest guess
before the expiration of the term, he shall be entitled to work. The first thing, therefore, that should be done
be paid the then unexhausted value of his improvements, under clause 7 should be to fix the amount of this
in addition to the amount of his statutory tenant-right. interest. For this purpose it should be enacted
These provisions would regulate the creation of the 1. The landlord and tenant of any holding in respect tenant right, and fix its amount for the first term, without of wbich the tenant-right shall not have been previously
more litigation than is inevitable in the absence of ascertained under this Act may, by agreement, fix the
agreement. The provisions for the renewal of statutory then present value of the tenant's interest (including
terms, and the alteration of the rent or tenant-right any claim he may have for improvements, and including
from time to time, without any further intervention of also, in Loldings subject to any of the Ulster customs
the court which are the essence of the schememust or any analogous custom, any sum which he may have
wait for another opportunity. paid to bis predecessor in title for the goodwill of the farm).
2. If the parties are unable to agree upon such value, either party may apply to the court to fix the same, and the court shall determine the same after hearing the 1
• the 34th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, CORRESPONDENCE.
gives the landlord that preference, ... and he is
not the less a real landlord because he is mortgagee. It THE ATTORNMENT CLAUSE IN A MORTGAGE.
was part of the bargain that he should become landlord,
and no doubt the rent he receives is a security in the [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] event of bankruptcy, but so is the rent of the mortgaged Sir,-Your correspondent, “A Conveyancer," in his property in that event whether the rent is to be paid by letter, which appeared in your number of the 4th inst., the mortgagor or by third persons," and immediately does not in terms contest the doctrine he mentions as before the passage quoted by “A Conveyancer” from having been put forward by Lords Justices James and Lord Justice Bramwell's judgment his lordchip eays, Bramwell in In re Stockton Iron Furnace Company, and “The law does not forbid their entering into such an as having been adopted by the Master of the Rolls in arrangement, taking all the beneficial and all the inconEx parte Punnett, yet I understand him to dissent from venient consequences arising from it." The Court of it, and venture to say a few words in its defence. Appeal clearly gave to the attornment clause the most He cites a passage relative to the attornment clause
thorough effect. It appears to me, when looked at in from the treatise on mortgages in Davidson's Precedents,
this view, that it is scarcely a just ground of complaint and italicises a portion of that passage, supposed, I take
that the relationship of landlord and tenant created by it, to be in conflict with the views expressed by the
the attornment clause is, as regards third parties, to be Lords Justices. The portion italicised is in these
considered a real one ; and, if so, the consequences must words—" It is obvious that the right of distress inci
surely be the same whether the mortgagor or someone dental to the tenancy thus created may be exercised
else be tenant to the mortgagee. Had the Court of without increasing the liabilities of a mortgagee in pos
Appeal taken the view advocated by “ A Conveyancer,'' session.” If this passage is in conflict with the views of it seems to me the decision in In re Stockton Iron the Lords Justices, it is, I think, no disrespect to the
Furnace Conipany would have been different. memory of the author of that treatise to suppose that
If the rent reserved be really a fair rent (as to he may not havo foreseen the result, under all circum.
which, see also Ex parte Jackson (29 W. R. 253, L. R. stances, of the working of so artificial a provision as
14 Ch. D. 725), and do not exceed what is intended to be the attornment clause. But I doubt whether the passage
paid, I see no difficulty in working the clause. The above quoted can fairly be taken to be in conflict with
receipt can certainly be so worded as to protect the the Lords Justices' views. May it not have been
A. J. W. intended to point to the claims, not of third parties, but
Temple, June 8. only of the mortgagor against the mortgagee, in which case, I suppose, what is said to be obvious is really so; for I think the Lords Justices were only contemplating the mortgagee's liabilities as regards third parties. This CASES OF LAST WEEK. seems all that is fairly to be attributed to the passages quoted in your correspondent's letter, who, I think, in
PRACTICE-JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT OF PLEADING -Set. quoting from Lord Justice James' judgment, should
TING ASIDE JUDGMENT-LEAVE TO DEFEND -Costshave continued his quotation with the following pag
ORD. 29, R. 14.-In an action of Williams v. Briscoe, before sage :-" They were mortgagees in possession, liable to Vice-Chancellor Hall on the 19th ult., the question arose as account in respect of this £5,000 a year, as against any to what costs should be paid by a defendant against whom second mortgagee or incumbrancer for what they had judgment has been taken in default, and who subsequently received, or but for their wilful default might have re- obtains leave to appear and defend the action. The present ceived." And in the course of the argument Lord application was by motion, under ord. 29, r. 14, to set Justice James said, “ Would not a subsequent incum. aside the judgment, and obtain liberty for the defendant brancer be entitled to treat a first mortgagee under a to appear and defend. The action was for specifio perclause of this nature as a mortgagee in possession as to
formance of a contract, and the plaintiff being unable to effect the rent thereby reserved, and charge him with it as
service upon the defendant, lad obtained judgment in default Tent which, but for his wilful neglect or default, he
of pleading upon his statement of claim, and upon substituted
service. The defendant áverred that he first know of the promiglit bave received ?" and the Master of the Rolls adds,
ceedings by finding a copy of the judgment affixed to his * Probably the fear of this is the reason why the rent
door. This was in issee, and the present application was stren. generally is made only equal to the interest."
uously opposed on the ground that the defendant had parComing then to the merits of the question, it seems posely avoided service. Hall, V.C., however, after hearing desirable to consider what the case was that gave rise to evidence as to the grouuds of defence to the claim, made the expressions of the Lords Justices. The case of In re the order asked for, bat at the same time made it part of Stocklon dron Furnace Company was shortly this: the
the order that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff his mortgagees, under the attornment clause, had distrained
costs of the aotion subsequent to delivery of the statement for two years' rent; three days afterwards a petition for
of claim, and includiog his costs of the motion and con. winding up the company (the mortgagors) was presented,
sequent thereon, and that the defendant should deliver his an official liquidator was appointed, by arrangement the
| defence within fourteen days from the date of the order. men in possession under the distress were withdrawn
SOLICITORS, Barrett, for Griffith Jones, Aberystwyth ; R.
Biale. without prejudice, and the goods distrained were sold, and the proceeds, amounting to less than a year's rent under the attornment clause, paid into the bank of the WILL — CONSTRUCTION - GIFT TO CLASS — FIRST AND mortgagees, they being bankers; they gave notice to Second COUSINS.-In an action of Brookes v. Watson, before the liquidator that they would appropriate the money Vice-Chancellor Hall, upon further consideration, on the 1st towards payment of their claim. Vice-Chancellor Bacon inst., the question was argued whether a gift to “first and decided against the mortgagees, mainly on the authority
second cousins ” could be extended to first cousins once rin of Ex parte Williams. In the Court of Appeal it was
moved. The testator, whose estate was being administered in contended on behalf of the liquidator that section 34 did
| the action, by his will made a bequest “ upon trust to pay
the sum of 18 guineas e-piece unto each and every of my not apply to the quasi-tenancy created by the attorn.
first and second cousins (both on my father's and mother's ment clause, and that there was no authority for saying
side) that shall be living at the time of my sister's decease, that it did ; in short, that there was no bona fide tenancy
to which said first and second cousins I give and bequeath created ; and that the rent reserved was not a fair rent.
ved was not a fair rent. the same accordingly." The cbief clerk had found that there The Court of Appeal decided that there was a bona fide were four first cousins, and forty-nine firs; cousins once retonancy created, and that the rent was a fair rent. The moved, of the testator living at the time specified, but no Master of the Rolls said, “As regards one year's reut, I second cousins had come in to prove their relationship. It
was now sought to establish a claim on behalf of the first be hypocritical enough to maintain that he was a very ardent cousins once removed to receive the legacies. And it was admirer of the present House of Commons; but at the same argued that the principle to be gatbered from the text-books time it would not be appropriate for him to approach and reported cases is ihat, where there is a gift to first and | the toast in anything like a spirit of partizanship. Still he second cousins together, all within the degree of second did not think it possible to avoid a passing allusion to the cousins oan take, and that the decisions of the Master of the somewbat peculiar phenomena which these angust assemRolls and Court of Appeal in Re Parker, Bentham v. Wilson blies presented at the present time. Although they were in (28 W. R. 823, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 528), is not repagnant to such session assembled under their most gracious Sorereigo, yet à rule. Hall, V.C., however, held ibat be must give effect one of then could absolutely find nothing whatever to do, to the natural meaning of tbe words, and could not extend and the other, although it had more than enough work to tbem so as to include the class in question. Their costs were occupy several such assemblies, could not succeed in doing allowed out of the estate.- SOLICITORS, Surr, Gribble, d: anything at all except indulging for a few hours every Bunton, for New, Prance, s Garrard, Evesham.
evening in that interesting sport which one saw chronicled in the papers every day, which was something like the game played by children called “Cross questions and crooked answers." But when the congestion which prevailed had
been overcome, the Houses of Parliament would be found to SOCIETIES.
be returning again to the great work which had done 80 much for the well-being of the country, and to the discharge
of their normal duties. He could not help alluding in the INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
ball of the Incorporated Law Society to what has been in The metropolitan members of this society gave a dinnet
progress with regard to the improvement of legal procedure, at their hall, Chancery-lane, on Thursday, the 2nd inst., to and also with regard to the recognition of the solicitor the Provincial Law Societies, in recognition of the hospitality
branch of the profession. He thougbt those present would wbich bad been extended to them on the occasion of their
be candid enough to admit that what had been done had annual visits to the provinces. A condensed report of the
been done in a right direction, and that there bad been a fair proceedings appeared in our last issue. Mr. J. Moxon
disposition on the part of the Legislature to recogoize what CLABON, president of the society, occupied the cbair, and
was for the good of the public in the way of legal procedare, about 120 gentlemen accepted invitations, most of whom
and to some extent what was due to the solicitor branch of were present. Amongst them were :-Mr. C.C. Druce (vice
the profession. He hoped that there might be further president), Mr. J. Dodda, M.P., Mr. B. Green Lake, Mr.
improvement still as time went on. Whether any Henry Markby, Mr. Richard Peppington, Mr. Robert Can
imj rovement would be made during the present session liffe, Mr. W. Å. Jevons, Mr. R. H. Barne, Mr. A. E. Finch,
| apr cared to be exceedingly doubtful. As far as one Mr. J. Anderson Rose, Mr. C. T. Arnold, Mr. F. G. Fitch,
could see at present, the only Act of Parliament Mr. C. J. Follett, Mr. Sydney Gedge, Mr. C. Goddard, Mr. C.
relating to England which was likely to find a place Sawbridge, Mr. E. W. Owles, Mr. R. H. Peacock, Mr. A.
on the Statute Book of 1881 would be the Castoms and R. Ford, Mr. C. Ford, Mr. Baker, Mr. A. C. Cronin, Mr.
Inland Revenue Act, with which he had had a little to do J. lodermaor, Mr. T. G. Woollacott, Mr. Sidney Chapman,
and in which the member for Stockton-on-Tees had taken Mr. S. R. Póllard, Mr. E. Tillyard, Mr. L. Desborougb,
so deep an interest, and which he successfully carried to an Mr. F. Crisp, Mr. W. W. Aldridge, Mr. V. J. Chamberlain,
issue, to the benefit it was to be hoped of himself, and unMr. G. L. P. Eyre, Mr E. Bedford, Mr. J. G. Bristow, Mr.
doubtedly to the advantage of the community at large. The
Legislature was very much blocked by that colossal produce Monier Williams, Mr. E. Y. Western, Mr. E. Kennedy, Mr.
tion-the Irish Lund Bill, which he would not be considered E. E. Lake, Mr. Sidney Harrison, Mr. F. J. Ridedale, Mr. H. W. Trinder, Mr. J. F. Isaacson, Mr. J. Crordy, Mr. E.
guilty of partisanship if he said they were all rather weary
of. He thought there were many difficulties in its way. It Hedger, Mr. J. Batchelor, Mr. T. D. Bolton, Mr. Edinudd
had, however, a certain amount of interest for the members Kimber, Mr. W. J. Crossfield, Mr. G. Gregory, Mr. F.
of the solicitor branch of the profession, because it had been Ommaney, Mr. W. A. Smith, Mr. Sidney Smith, Mr. E.
said by one of the gentlemen enjoying a retreat in KilmainHughes, Mr. G. B. Batohelor, Mr. J. Tarry, Mr. G. R. Dodd, ham Gaol, that it would tend to make the fortunes of all the Mr. W. H. Hazard, Mr. E. G. Spiers, Mr. C. P. Farlow, lawyers in Ireland. It had been suggested that if the Act Mr. W. H. Manisiy, Mr. T. B. Cartwright, Mr. R. Borob, I became law in Ireland, it might very possibly become the Mr. E. L. Clarke, Mr C. E. Jones, Mr. J. Algop, Mr. . l law of England. and 'then it would' be a very interesting Attlee, Mr. C. Harrison, Mr. F. W. Yeatee, Mr. A. Jopas, thing for the lawyers, especially in the country. He asked Mr. T Waterhouse, and Mr. C. P. Wilmer (Incorporated them to drink the toast most cordially in the hope tbat for Law Society, U.K.); Mr. J. D. Kay, Mr. O. Scatoberd, and many years to come, as had been the case in the past, the Mr. J. Rider (Leeds Law Society); Mr. H. C. Duncan, | Houses of Parliament might maintain the establishments of Mr. J. Yates, Mr. J. J. Yates, and Mr. J. W. Alsop (Liver.
truth and justice, religion and piety, and uphold the peace, pool Law Society); Mr. J. Cooper, Mr. Perry Woolley,
prosperity, bonour, and glory of this great empire. Mr. J. F. Tweedale, Mr. Jas. Heelis, Mr. W. H. Harper,
Mr. J. DODDS, M.P., responded, and was bound to admit and Mr. C. H. Holden (Manchester Law Society); Mr.
that the present was a most critical period in the history of J. T. Moreland, Mr. W. Peppercorp, Mr. H. Darvill, Mr. the House of Commons. That House had for the last two G. T. Crowdy, Mr. Wm Smith, Mr. J. E. Fornigs, and Mr. or three centuries been the great bulwark of the liberties of Bagsbawe (Sheffield Law Society); Mr. W. A. Stockey, the country. It bad done much to promote civil and religious Mr. J. A. Freeman, Mr. Chag. Lamb, Mr. W. Turner, Mr. liberty, and to uphold everything that was dear to the A. T. Sbapland, and Mr. Thos. Eggar (Sussex Law Society); | British nation, regardless of the different parties to which the Mr. J. L. Prese, Mr. F. F. Cartwrigbt, Mr, Alfred Cox, and members might belong. But it bad been subjected during Mr. W. Hurle Clarke (Bristol Law Society); Mr. E. Foster, the present, and for one or two preceding sessions, to a Mr. Sanders Holber, and Mr. G. W. Fitch (Cambridge Law very severe strair, and it had been a source of the deepest Society); Mr. E. W. Williamson (secretary), Mr. S. B. P. regret to the great majority of the members of the House of Backnill (assistant secretary), and Mr. F. Boase (librarian Commons that the liberties they had enjoyed for so long & locorporated Law Society, U.K.).
period bad necessarily been reduced to a very considerable The toasts of "The Queen," and "The Prince and extent. His apprehension was that it would be necessary Princess of Wales and the rest of the Royal Family," having to still fartber restrain these liberties, in order to guard been given by the PRESIDENT, and honoured with the cus. against the legislative machinery being still further blocked. tomary enthusiasm,
The rules of the House of Commons were made under the Mr. W. A. FOLLETT proposed « The Houses of Parlia impression that the members would all be gentlemen, or at ment," and remarked that the toast was one wbich would be any rate, that they would be possessed of sufficiently regarded at the present moment as one of m' re than ordinary gentlemanly feelings to cause them to remember that when importance. He did not think there was any person, how. they came amongst a great body of gentlemen, they should ever waim an adherent he might be of the parliamentary conduct themselves in that gentlemanly manner which had system, who would not admit that that system which had characterized the House of Commons in the past. It was & done so much for the nation in post years, and wbich had matter of regret to everyone anxious for the interests of his teen so long and so justly the admiration of otber countries, couotry that the state of things which had existed in days was passing through rather a critical crdeal. He could not gone by was no longer the rule. The members of the House