Page images
PDF
EPUB

CASES OF THE WEEK.

MARRIED WOMAN-REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN PERSONALTY-SETTLEMENT OF PERSONAL ESTATE-UNAUTHORIZED INVESTMENT IN LAND-20 & 21 VICT. c. 57.-In a case of Durrant to Stoner, before the Court of Appeal on the 20th inst., a question arose as to the power of a married woman to convey land which represented a reversionary interest in personal estate to which she was entitled under a settlement made before the Act 20 & 21 Vict. c. 57 (known as Malins' Act), which authorized married women to alienate reversionary interests in personalty, the trustees of the settlement having made an authorized investment of part of the trust funds in land. In 1842, a marriage settlement was made of personalty of the wife, on trust for the wife and the husband and the children of the marriage. The settlement contained no power to invest the trust funds in the purchase of land. In 1853, the trustees, at the request of the husband and wife, laid out part of the trust funds in the purchase of land. In 1875 a deed was executed, to which the surviving trustee, the husband and wife, and their two daughters (who were the only children of the marriage) and their husbands were parties, by which the trustee (at the request of the other parties) conveyed the land to such uses as the husband and wife should jointly by deed appoint, and in default of appointment as the survivor should by deed or will appoint, and in default of appointment, after the death of the survivor of the husband and wife, to the use of the two daughters respectively in fee in moieties, for their separate use. This deed was acknowledged by the daughters. The wife died without having had any other children, and the husband then contracted to sell the property. The purchaser objected that he could not make a title, on the ground that the land represented personal estate, and that the daughters had no power to deal with their reversionary interests in personalty under the original settlement. Hall, V.C., held that a good title could not be made. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and LUSH, L.JJ.) held that, whatever right the daughters might have against the trustees in respect of the breach of trust, still they had an interest in the land in which the trust fund bad actually been invested, and that under the Fines and Recoveries Act they could make an effectual conveyance of that interest as they had affected to do by the deed of 1875. Consequently, the father could make a good title to the purchaser under the power of appointment created by that deed. At any rate, if the daughters joined in the conveyance to the purchaser (as they were willing to do), every difficulty would be removed.-SOLICITORS, Sole, Turner, & Knight; Scarlett.

APPEAL FOR COSTS-TRUSTEE DEPRIVED OF COSTS.-In a case of Farrow v. Austin, before the Court of Appeal on the 21st inst., the preliminary objection was raised that the appeal was for costs only, and could not, therefore, be entertained. The action was brought by the tenant for lite of the residue of the testator's estate, who was also the executrix, for the administration of the testator's estate; an administration decree was made; and, on further consideration, Malins, V.C., on the ground that the action was unneces sary, declined to allow the plaintiff any costs, and ordered her to pay the costs of one of the inquiries which had been directed. The Court (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and LUSH, L.JJ.) overruled the objection, and reversed the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, giving the plaintiff her costs out of the estate.-SOLICITORS, F. Jones; Sadgrove.

arose

WILL-CONSTRUCTION-SURVIVOR.-In the case of David. son v. Kimpton, before Fry, J., on the 17th inst., & question as to the meaning of the word "survivor" in a will. A testator gave the dividends of a sum of £10,000 consols to his wife for her life, and after her death he gave the dividends of the consols unto and equally between his four daughters, and from and immediately after their respective deaths he gave the consols to their children, in the proportion of one-fourth part thereof unto and equally between the children of each daughter, and in case any one or more of the daughters should die witbont any issue her or them surviving, he gave the part or parts of the

consols so bequeathed to and intended for the issue (had' there been such) of her or them so dying without issue, unto the survivors or survivor of the four daughters, equally died before the testator; the four daughters s arvived him.. if more than one, and if but one, to such one. The wife Three of them married, and died leaving children. The fourth daughter did not marry, and having attained the age of fifty-four she petitioned for a transfer to her of the one-fourth of the consols to the dividends of which she was entitled for her life, on the ground that, if she died without issue, she would be entitled to that one-fourth absolutely as the survivor of the four daughters, and that she might consequently, it might be assumed that she would die now be treated as past the age of child-bearing, and,. without issue. FRY, J., held that she was entitled to the transfer. He was of opinion, following the decision of Jessel, M.R., in the somewhat similar case of Maden v. Taylor (45 L. J. Ch. 569), that the words "survivors or survivor meant those of the class of daughters who were at the time when the death without issue took place the survivors of the class. The fourth danghter answered this description, and as, by reason of her age, she might be taken to be past child-bearing, she was entitled to the fand absolutely. If this construction was not sound, the original gift to the daughters, being a gift of the income without any limitation, was equivalent to a gift of the capital, and there was a gift over in the event of the death of a daughter leaving children, and also in the event of her death without leaving children, and leaving sisters or a sister surviving her; but there was no gift over in the event of her dying without issue, and leaving no sister surviving her. Consequently, the original gift remained in operation.-SOLICITORS, Letts Brothers.

[ocr errors]

WILL-CONSTRUCTION - GIFT OVER OF LEGACY ON DEATH OF LEGATEE BEFORE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO HIM-VALIDITY.-In a case of Chaston v. Seago, before Fry, J., on the 18th inst., the question arose whether a gift over of a legacy, in case of the death of the legatee before the legacy or any part thereof should have been paid to him, was void for uncertainty. It was contended that it was, upon the authority of Hutchin v. Mannington (1 Ves. jun. 366) and Martin v. Martin (14 W. R. 986, L. R. 2 Eq. 404). FRY, J., was of opinion, upon the language of the particular will, that the testator was referring, not to the time of actual payment of the legacy, but to the time when payment ought to be made according to the directions of the will. That being so, the case of In re Arrowsmith's Trusts (9 W. R. 258, 2 De G. F. & J. 474) was almost exactly in point, and was an authority for holding that the gift over was valid. His lordship was of opinion that that was a sound decision, notwithstanding what was said of it by Malins, V.C., in Bubb v. Padwick (28 W. R. 382, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 517). The words in Hutchin v. Mannington and Martin v. Martin were essentially different. In the latter case it was the time of actual receipt which was referred to.-SOLICITORS, Clarke, Woodcock, & Ryland; Whites, Renard, & Co.; Walker & Battiscombe.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION-3 & 4 WILL. 4, c. 27, ss. 2, 24, 40—7 WILL. 4, AND 1 VICT. c. 28-37 & 38 VICT. c. 57, s. 1.-In a case of Harlock v. Ashberry, before Fry, J., on the 20th inst., the question arose whether a simple foreclosure action is an action to recover land, or an action to recover the money secured by the mortgage, and whether, therefore, it is governed by sections 2 and 24, or by section 40 of the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27). FRY, J., held that such an action is an action to recover land, and is, therefore, not within section 40. Its object, he said, is to put an end the mortgagee's estate had become absolute at law. This was to the mortgagor's right in equity to recover the land, though the view of Lord St. Leonards in Wrixon v. Vize (3 Dr. & W. 104), and it seemed to have been the view of the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Heath v. Pugh (L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 345). Another point arose upon the construction of the Act 7 Will. 4, and i Vict. c. 28, which provides that "it shall be lawful for any person entitled to, or claiming under, any mortgage of land to make an entry, or bring an action at law, twenty years next after the last payment of any part of the or suit in equity, to recover such land at any time within principal money or interest secured by such mortgage,

EXCH

217

[ocr errors]

The

although more than twenty years may have elapsed since the time at which the right to make such entry, or bring such action or suit in equity, shall have first accrued." period of twenty years is now by the Act 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, . 1, reduced to twelve years. The question was, by whom must the " payment there referred to have been made, the words not being limited, as they are in section 40, which relates to actions to recover mortgage money, to payment "by the person by whom the same shall be payable, or his agent." The question arose under these circumstances. A legal mortgage of land was made in 1849. The last payment of interest was made in 1859, and no payment of principal was made. In 1878 one of the tenants of the estate, in consequence of a notice given to him by the mortgagee that he claimed the estate, paid the mortgagee a half-year's rent. This payment was made without the knowledge of the mortgagor. The tenant paid his next half-year's rent to the mortgagor, and afterwards gave up possession of the premises which he occupied to him. The question was whether the payment of the £5 was a payment which, under the Act 7 Will. 4, and 1 Vict. c. 28, would keep alive the mortgagee's right to bring a foreclosure action. The payment was made before the Act 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, came into operation, which was not till the 1st of January, 1879. FRY, J., held that the payment had kept alive the right, though it was not made by the mortgagor or bis agent. He was of opinion that the payment might be made by the mortgagor or his agent, or by any person who, as between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, was liable to make a payment to the mortgagee in respect of the mortgage. A payment by a mere stranger would not do; but the effect of a mortgage of land was that a tenant of the mortgaged property became liable to pay his rent to the mortgagee, who might at any time require him to do so. The tenant was, therefore, a person who, as between the mortgagor and mortgagee, was liable to make a payment to the latter in satisfaction of the mortgage debt, and the payment by him would keep alive the mortgagee's right to foreclose.-SOLICITORS, T. H. Bartlett; Gregory, Rowcliffe, & Co.

EVIDENCE-ADMISSIBILITY-UNSTAMPED DOCUMENTTIME FOR TAKING OBJECTION.-In a case of Thomas v. Hounsell, before Fry, J., on the 21st inst., a document which created a charge on some property was tendered in evidence, and was received without any objection. The next day, on the continued hearing of the case, FRY, J., noticed that the document was not stamped, and expressed a doubt whether it could be received in evidence. Counsel urged that, as the objection had not been taken by the officer of the court, or by anyone, when the document was tendered, it was too late to take it after the document had been admitted in evidence. FRY, J., acceded to this view. -SOLICITORS, R. Davies; T. H. Strangways.

EASEMENT-RIGHT OF WAY-OWNER OF TWO ADJOINING CLOSES-GRANT OF ONE WITH ORDINARY GENERAL WORDS AS TO WAYS.-In a case of Barkshire v. Grubb, before Fry, J., on the 22nd inst., the question arose whether, when the owner of two adjoining closes of land grants one of them, "together with all ways thereto appertaining and now used therewith," and there exists at the date of the grant a defined road over the close which is retained by the grantor, which road is then used for access to the close which is granted, the road having been constructed by the grantor during his unity of possession of the two closes, a right of way over the defined road will pass to the grantee under the general words. It was contended, on the authority of Thomson v. Waterlow (16 W. R. 686, L. R. 6 Eq. 36), and Langley v. Hammond (16 W. R. 937, L. R. 3 Ex. 161), that no right of way would pass to the grantee, unless there had been a right of way before the unity of possession. FRY, J., however, held that it made no difference whether a right of way had existed be Fore the unity of possession, or whether the way had been constructed during the unity of possession; in either case, a right of way over a defined road, actually used at the date of the grant, would pass to the grantee under the general words. This, FRY, J., said, was the effect of the older authorities. No doubt the two cases which had been cited gave some colour to the distinction which had been suggested, but, in his lordship's opinion, this doubt had been

dispelled by the more recent cases of Watts v. Kelson (19 W. R. 338, L. R. 6 Ch. 166), and Kay v. Oxley L. R. 10 Q. B. 360), which had laid down the law in accordance with the old authorities, and showed that, in any case, a defined way actually used at the time would pass under a grant of all ways now used.-SOLICITORS, Ewbank & Partington; Venn & Woodcock.

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS.

-

(Before Mr. REGISTRAR PEPYS, acting as Chief Judge). May 24.-E parte Lindsay, Re Thornton.

Leave given to trustee of bankrupt partner to inspect partnership books, notwithstanding the fact of an action having been brought against one of the continuing partners in which the solicitors for the plaintiffs were also the solicitors for the trustee, but the inspection was limited to the transactions in which the bankrupt had been a partner.

This was an application on behalf of the trustee under the bankruptcy of Wm. W. Thornton for an order for the production and inspection, for the purpose of investigating the bankrupt's affairs, of all books belonging to the bankrapt, either solely or jointly with H. G. Williams and H. Bennett, or containing any entries relating to the business transactions of the firm of Henry Bennett & Co., or of the bankrupt as a partner of such firm, or individually, both prior to the dissolution of the firm and subsequently.

Previously to the 1st of January, 1880, the bankrupt carried on business at 26, Lime-street, as a tea merchant, ia partnership with Messrs. Bennett & Williams, under the style of Henry Bennett & Co.

Notice of the dissolution of the partnership was advertised in the London Gazette of the 2nd of January, 1880, and such notice stated that the firm had been dissolved by mutual consent on the 31st of December, 1879, and that all debts due to or owing by the firm would be received and paid respectively by Williams & Thornton.

The trustee stated his belief that, for several months subsequently to the dissolution, the bankrupt attended regularly at the offices of the firm; that a banking account continued to be kept with Messrs. Barclay & Co, in the name of the firm; and that the bankrupt continued to transact business at the said offices in his own name, or in that of the firm, jointly with H. G. Williams. He had been unable to obtain inspection of any of the books of the firm, or to get from the bankrupt any account or statement of his affairs in connec tion with it, or of his dealings subsequently to the dissolution, or of the state of accounts between him and H. G. Williams, in reference to transactions subsequently to the 1st of January, 1880, or any account of the property of the firm come to the hands of the bankrupt and Williams. An application had been made to the solicitor of Williams for an inspection, and refused.

Mr. Williams in his affidavit stated that after the 1st of January, 1880, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the bankrupt never made use of, or transacted business in, the name of Henry Bennett & Co., and no business was ever transacted by the deponent, either alone or jointly with him, in that or any other name. All that was done was to receive debts due to the original firm of H. Bennett & Co., contracted prior to the 1st of January, 1880, and sell and dispose of the stock belonging to the partnership, and out of the proceeds thereof, and the other moneys of the estate, pay the liabilities of the firm contracted during the period of its existence. The banking account opened in the name of Henry Bennett & Co., with Messrs. Barclay & Co., in 1878, for the purposes of that firm, was kept on foot solely for the liquidation of the business. All the trade liabilities of Henry Bennett & Co. had been paid, and all the assets realized and applied for that purpose. Mr. Williams alleged also that the trustee was endeavouring to obtain inspection in order to assist the plaintiffs in an action brought against him to recover £2,000, the amount of two bills of exchange recently accepted by the bankrupt in the name of the firm of Henry Bennett & Co., and the same solicitors were employed. Mr. Williams stated the bills were accepted by the bankrupt without his authority, and could only bind the bankrupt individually.

Foote, in support of the application.-The trustee is entitled to inspect the partnership books: Robson on Bankruptcy, p. 623, and the cases there cited. He is not bound to accept the mere statement of Williams as to the

assets and liabilities of the partnership. The trustee's right to inspection is in no way affected by the action.

Brough, for Williams.-The trustee does not show that there are partnership liabilities or assets outstanding, and no benefit can accrue to the bankrupt's estate from an inspection. Any right which the trustee has against Williams is a right outside the bankruptcy, and this court cannot make him account: Ex parte Musgrave (27 W. R. 372, L. R. 10 Ch. D. 94). (2) The application is not made for the benefit of the creditors, but really in the interest of a firm who have brought an action against Williams. (3) The application is for the inspection of the books of Williams & Bennett without notice to Bennett, and it is therefore irregular: rule 50.

Foote, in reply.

Mr. REGISTRAR PEPYS said he thought the trustee was entitled to an inspection of the partnership books, and the fact of an action having been brought against Mr. Williams, in which the solicitors for the plaintiffs were also the solicitors for the trustee, was not a sufficient ground for depriving the trustee of his right. The motion was, however, too wide in its terms, and the inspection of the books must be limited to the transactions in which the bankrupt was a partner.

Solicitors for the trustee, Neish & Howell.
Solicitor for Williams, J. Rae.

(Before Mr. REGISTRAR Hazlitt, acting as Chief Judge.) June 3.-Re Ferris.

New first meeting of creditors allowed to be convened in a care where, at the original meeting, the creditors were unanimous in favour of liquidation by arrangement, but two setate resolutions were signed, each of them appointing a differut trustee.

This was an application for leave to convene a fresh first meeti go under a petition for liquidation presented by the

debtor.

The first meeting took place on the 2nd inst., when the creditors were unanimous that there should be a liquidation by arrangement, but a contest ensued as to the truse to be appointed. Votes were taken upon two resolutions, both in favour of liquidation by arrangement, but the meeting separated before the votes were counted. t was subsequently found, upon the figures being investigated, that neither of the resolutions had been carried by the necessary majority of creditors, although all the creditors were in favour of liquidation, and desired to avoid bankruptcy.

Foulkes, who appeared for the applicant, said that if the court allowed a new meeting to be convened, the creditors would, no doubt, agree upon a trustee.

Mr. REGISTRAR HAZLITT.-There seems to have been a squabble between two accountants?

Foulkes.-The trade creditors desired to have an accountant trustee, but the landlord and another trade creditor, whose debt was disputed, preferred someone else, but no one seems to have wanted bankruptcy. Ex parte Gibbs, Re Webb (23 W. R. 529, L. R. 10 Ch. 382), is an authority

n point.

Mr. REGISTRAR HAZLITT said he would make the order, but he hoped the creditors would agree upon a trustee, and that the new meeting would not result in the appointment of two accountants as trustees.

Solicitors, Hadden, Woodward, & McLeod,

(Before Mr. REGISTRAR HAZLITT, acting as Chief Judge.) June 3.-Re Stevens.

Receiver appointed under petition for liquidation continued under proceedings subsequently taken to adjudicate the debtor a bankrupt, default having been made in carrying out the terms of a composition.

This was an application for the confirmation of the appointment of Mr. John Vale as receiver of the debtor's estate, or for leave to serve short notice of motion upon the debtor.

The debtor (a trader) had presented a petition for liquidation, and at the first meeting the creditors agreed to accept a composition, and the resolutions were registered. The debtor failed to carry out the terms of the resolutions, and a day had been appointed for the hearing of an application to udicate him a bankrupt. Under the petition for liquidation Mr. Vale had been appointed receiver, and he had not

been discharged, and the present application was made by two creditors who now sought to obtain an adjudication. There was the usual evidence of fitness of the receiver. F. C. Willis, for the applicants.

Mr. REGISTRAR HAZLITT thought, as Mr. Vale had not been discharged, the more convenient course would be to continue him under the bankruptcy proceedings. Solicitor, G. Bathurst Norman.

SOLICITORS' CASES.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

(Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., MANISTY, J., and POLLOCK, B.)

June 17.-In re A Solicitor.

This was an application at the instance of the Incorporated Law Society. One of the charges in the affidavits was that the solicitor had got a client, an old lady, to transfer to him property to the value of £1,896, which he placed to bis account at his bankers, already overdrawn to the amount of £6,000, and also a sum of £1,139, which be had proceeded to lend, she knowing nothing of what was done with her money until he became insolvent, when she found herself penniless. Another charge stated in the affidavits was that he received for another client, an old lady, a sum of £2,500, which he told her he had invested, but which he retained in his own hands until his insolvency, when she also found herself penniless. Upon affidavits stating these and other matters,

Wills, Q.C. (W. Murray with him), on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, moved for a rule calling on the solicitor to answer the matters thus stated, or to show cause, in the event of his not answering them, why he should not be struck off the rolls. The learned counsel stated the two charges above mentioned, and said that there were others, as to which, however, the parties had declined to give informa tion; for, he said (strange as it might appear), the solicitor implicated was rather popular, and though he had been tried on a criminal charge as a "fraudulent bailee," persons of the best position, including the clergyman of his parish, gave him the highest character, and he was acquitted.

Lord COLERIDGE.-No doubt, he was churchwarden. Wills. My lord, he filled all "the parochial offices." Lord COLERIDGE.-No doubt, and I dare say he was thought to be persecuted; but this court, which only takes a mere worldly view of such matters, regarding them by the light of common honesty, cannot help granting such an application in such a case.

Accordingly, a rule nisi was granted as applied for.

Times.

SOCIETIES.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

The second of the dinners given by the metropolitan members of the Incorporated Law Society to the Provincial Law Societies was held at the society's hall, Chancery. lane, on Thursday evening, Mr. J. MOXON CLABON, president, in the chair. About one hundred and forty gentle men were present, and amongst those who accepted invita tions were:-Mr. C. C. Druce (vice-president), Mr. W. J. Williams, Mr. T. Mallam, Mr. Verrall, Mr. W. Williams, Mr. J. Thornely, Mr. J. Eaden, Mr. J. Miller, Mr. Pennington, Mr. W. H. Guest, Mr. H. Roscoe, Mr. Mullings, Mr. H. Cook, Mr. F. H. Janson, Mr. Jepson, Mr. M. B. Wood, Mr. G. Hadfield, Mr. W. B. Paterson, Mr. White, Mr. Lowndes, Mr. A. P. Bower, Mr. Bright, Mr. Hussey, Mr. Binney, Mr. Blake, Mr. W. Melmoth Walters, Mr. S. Unwin, Mr. Fitz Hugh, Mr. Mills, Mr. W. H. Clarke, Mr. E. Bailey, Mr. J. N. York, Mr. Crossman, Mr. Gill, Mr. D. T. Burges, Mr. Grinham Keen, Mr. H. F. Lawes, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Howlett, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Fielder Watson, Mr. Jourdain, Mr. Greening, Mr. F. Ince, Mr. Thorn, Mr. E. Pope, Mr. M. Pope, Mr. J. J. Freeman, Mr. Farnfield, Mr. E. J. Emanuel, Mr. C. Ford, Mr. Bramley, Mr. Papworth, Mr. Humphry, Mr. Wansey, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Vizard, Mr. Compton Smith, Mr. Lee, Mr. A. Murray, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Parker, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Gribble, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Fraser, C.C., Mr. Pedley, Mr. Ryland, Mr. Crowther, Mr. Cockburn,

Mr. Sbaen, Mr. Morton, Mr. H. Kimber, Mr. Munton, Mr. Morris, Mr. Barnard, Mr. W. Greaves, Mr. J. T. Ince, Mr. J. F. Foster, Mr. Pritohard, Mr. Busby, Mr. Janeway, Mr. W. B. Brook, Mr. Andrew, Mr. Trehearne, Mr. Crossfield, Mr. Ditton, Mr. Bromhead, Mr. Whitehead. Mr. Cheesman, Mr. Turner, Mr. Hazard, Mr. Tippetts, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Moyle, Mr. Thatcher, Mr. G. B. Wheeler, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Chubb, Mr. Wayman, Mr. Eddison, Mr. Richard Smith, Mr. Rance, Mr. W. Ford, Mr. H. J. Francis, Mr. Carpmael, Mr. Murton, Mr. Russell, Mr. Osbaldeston, Mr. Peck, Mr. Evan Hare, Mr. Oldman, Mr. Prideaux, Mr. G. Burges, Mr. Robinson, Mr. E. W. Williamson (secretary), Mr. S. P. B. Bucknill (assistant secretary), and Mr. F. Boase (librarian). The toasts of "The Queen" and "The Prince and Princess of Wales and the rest of the Royal Family having been given from the CHAIR, and honoured with the customary enthusiasm,

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN, in proposing the toast of the evening, "The Provincial Law Societies," referred to the fact that there was a law society in existence in Kent long before one had been instituted in London. If at any time any feeling of jealousy had existed between the country law societies and that of the metropolis, he was happy to say that that feeling had long since died out. It was true that there was at one time a Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, but it was found that they and the Incorporated Law Society were doing very much the same work, and they were in time amalgamated, with a proviso that the Incorporated Law Society should hold annual meetings in the provinces, a stipulation which they had been very happy to carry out.

Mr. VERRALL (Sussex Law Society), in responding, spoke of the labours of the Incorporated Law Society for the benefit of the profession, and, therefore, of the public. He recognized in warm terms the hospitality which had been extended to the Provincial Law Societies in the present gathering, and promised that his society would do their best to welcome the Incorporated Law Society in a fitting manner on their coming visit to Brighton.

Mr. JANSON next gave "The Incorporated Law Society," and traced its origin and growth up to the present time, paying a high complimert to Mr. Williamson, the secretary, for the zeal and earnestness with which he fulfilled the office.

The CHAIRMAN responded, and, referring to the fact that the solicitors' was called the lower branch of the profession, thoroughly repudiated the term. Both they and the barristers were working together for the commen good of the public.

The remaining toasts were "The President," proposed by Mr. MALLAM and acknowledged by that gentleman, and "The Entertainment Committee," submitted by Mr. BRAMLEY, and replied to by Mr. KEEN.

During the evening a selection of music, under the direction of Mr. John Davis, was performed by Miss Agnes Larkom ; Mr. Stedman's Choir Boys, Masters Probert Walenn, Fielder, and Toop; Mr. Harper Kearton, Mr. Frederick Bevan, and Mr. Luigi Carozzi (solo flute). The dinner was served by Messrs. Ring & Brymer. Mr. Harker was the toastmaster.

A full report will appear in our next issue.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The twenty-first anniversary festival of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association was celebrated at the Albion Hotel, Aldersgate-street, on Wednesday evening, Sir Henry James, Q.C., M.P., her Majesty's Attorney-General, presiding. There were present about sixty gentlemen, amongst whom were the following:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. G. B. Gregory, M.P., Mr. J. Dodds, M.P., Mr. Lewis (chairman), and Mr. P. Rickman (deputy-chairman of the society), Mr. H. C. Owen (president of the Wolverhampton Law Society), Mr. G. Hadfield (president of the Manchester Incorporated Law Society), Mr. Montague Cookson, Q.C., Mr. H. C. Beddoe, J.P., Mr. W. Melmoth Walters, Mr. Munton, Mr. H. W. Trinder, Mr. E. Bromley, Mr. J. A. Farnfield, Mr. E. Low, Mr. G. McA. Low, Mr. S. H. Asker, Mr. W. G. Stuart, Mr. W. E. Shirley, Mr. H. Sowton, Mr. J. Tarry, Mr. J. T. Prall, Mr. R. Prall, Mr. G. F. Carnell, Mr. R. Pennington, Mr. S. Castle, Mr. S. Harris, Mr. L. Heritage, Mr. C. S. Routh, Mr. W. Evans, Mr. P. L. Holt, Mr.

R. H. Fryer, Mr. W. O. Hewlett, Mr. T. Skewer-Cox, Mr. G. R. Dodd, Mr. B. Lewis, Mr. C. T. Abbott, Mr. G. C. Filliter, &c., &c.

The association, which was established in 1858, is composed of solicitors (who are required to be practising solicitors at the time of their admission as members) in England and Wales. Its objects are:-"To relieve, either by donations or annuities, necessitous members and their wives and families, and the necessitous widows and families of deceased members, and in special cases the parents or collateral relations of deceased members; and, secondly, such necessitous persons as are or have been attorneys, solicitors, or proctors, and have not been members, and who, in the opinion of the directors, may be deserving objects, and their wives and families; and the necessitous widows and families of deceased attorneys, solicitors, and proctors who were not members of the associati n at the time of their decease." Solicitors throughout England or Wales are eligible to be members (subject to the approval of the board), and are invited to co-operate for the promotion of the association. A single payment of ten guineas (on admission) constitutes a life member, and a subscription of one guinea a year (paid yearly in advance) an annual member.

During the year 1880 £1,105 was expended in the relief of members and their families, and £1,130 in the relief of nonmembers and their families. The total relief granted was £2,235. The society has expended £18,833 15s. in relief since it was founded.

The CHAIRMAN having given the loyal and patriotic toasts, which were received with the usual honours,

Mr. DODDS, in proposing "The Bench and the Bar," remarked that the bench of England had, during every period of the country's history, received the respect and confidence, not only of suitors, but also of the public at large. He thought it would be admitted that at no previous time had there been a greater measure of confidence reposed in it than was the case at the present day. The bench, during the certain extent, be considered as difficulties; he referred to last few years, had been labouring under what might, to a of the Judicature Act, which had brought about that fusion the changes which had taken place by reason of the passing of law and equity which had been witnessed. Naturally enough the changes which had been made had imposed a considerable amount of responsibility and difficulty on the bench, which their predecessors in office had not been called they had all seen, been surmounted, as was expected, by the upon to contend with. These difficulties had, however, as distinguished men who occupied the high judicial offices of the country; and the duties of these offices had been discharged entirely to the satisfaction both of the suitors and of the public in general. In proposing the toast, he could not but refer to the fact that the hand of death had been very busy in the higher ranks of the bench during the last few months; and perhaps at no previous period had three men of equal eminence with the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and Lord Justice James been taken away within so short a time. He (Mr. Dodds) was old enough to recollect the late Lord Chief Baron as occupying a conspicuous position in the political history of the kingdom, and later on he had filled an important office on the bench, and be would be ever remembered in connection with that position. With respect to the Lord Chief Justice he could only say that his distinguished qualities not only as regarded the judicial bench, but also in other respects, would cause them long to revere and to cherish his memory. Everyone must agree in the eulogiums that had been pronounced, not only in the courts of justice, but in the press and elsewhere, upon the late Lord Justice James after his death. Anything more eloquent and touching could scarcely be conceived. In connection with the second part of the toast, there were happily a number of men of giant intellect prepared to step forward and occupy the positions vacated by those who had gone before, and ever ready to keep up the dignity and the high character of the judicial bench in a way that should leave nothing to be desired. During the present session of Parliament he had been particularly impressed with the fact that the present House of Commons contained a greater number of distinguished lawyers than perhaps had ever assembled there at any other period of its history. He had often thought that if it should so happen that every seat upon the judicial bench should become vacant, there were lawyers enough of ability and position in the House of Commons alone to fill every office satisfactorily. With respect to the

attempts that had been made during the last few years to fuse together the two branches of the profession-the bigber and the lower, as they were termed-he might perhaps be permitted to say that these attempts had been unsuccessful, as he would venture to predict would be the case with any similar attempts in the immediate future. There was one matter, however, which interested them, in respect of which the efforts that had been made, he was happy to say, had been more successful-namely, the rendering the passage from one branch of the profession to the other easier than had hitherto been the case. A very much easier way had been opened to the solicitor branch to those gentlemen who, having been called to the bar, found that that they lacked the necessary eloquence, or for some other reason were unsuccessful in their vocation, and had perhaps arrived at the conclusion that they were not likely to attain to any very distinguished position as advocates and members of the bar. An Act of Parliament had been passed on their behalf which greatly facilitated their passage to the solicitor branch of the profession. Regulations had likewise been made by the Inns of Court for the purpose of facilitating the passing of the solicitors from their branch of the profession to that of the bar, and this could now be done, after an interregnum of one year only. This was a great step in advance, and the solicitors might congratulate themselves that they had entered upon a new era. He was glad to couple with the toast the name of a gentleman with whose good qualities the members of the House of Commons were well acquainted. They all rejoiced at his promotion; but, in doing so, they could not but regret that he was no longer among them. They all looked forward to a distinguished career for Mr. Justice Williams. He had pleasure also in connecting the name of a distinguished advocate, Mr. Mont gue Cookson, with the toast. The well deserved reputation of that gentleman was so thoroughly appreciated amidst an assembly of lawyers, that it was unnecessary for him to do more than to mention his name.

The Hon. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, in replying for the bench, referred to the great satisfaction he experienced in being able to support his friend, Sir Henry James, who occupied the chair, and under whose banner, in a different place, and in different circumstances, he had had the great pleasure of serving. He must not, however, indulge in recollections of the pleasure he experienced in those by-gone times, for he now knew nothing more of politics. Still he was sure he would be forgiven if he looked back for a moment, with a sort of hankering, to the time when the chairman and he walked side by side in a different place. The toast for which he was responding had been received with so much kindness and generosity that evening-and he believed the kindness and generosity had been exhibited fairly and honestly-that it ought to make the task of responding an easy one. It was a relief to him that the toast was not a personal one, but one of a general character. The English bench had been solong known, so long respected, so long looked up to, that it had been a sort of shock to many of those who occupied positions on the bench to reflect that, for the past six or seven years, the judicature had been passing through a kind of ordeal, by reason of the great reforms which had taken place in connection with it. The Judicature Act brought with it the most sweeping changes; but he believed it was very generally felt by the public-and, he believed rightly felt-for many years, that these reforms were not being carried into execution with the thoroughness and loyalty for which they had looked. But he did hope, and firmly believed, that, at the present time, and for some months past, an honest and thorough attempt was being made to give effect to these changes; and, so far as he could judge, as a practical lawyer, the progress which had been made had been as extensive as could be fairly expected having regard to the nature of the changes to which he had referred. He did not believe that the public would be so unreasonable as to expect that such sweeping reforms as had been made could be brought into thorough working order all of a moment. At present, he was of opinion there was an accumulation-an unnecessary accumulation-of assizes, which took away a large number of the judges, perhaps unnecessarily. He believed, how ever, that, notwithstanding this, the courts at Westminster were keeping pace with the work that came before them, and that during the present sittings all the business ready from hearing would be dealt with and entirely cleared away. This was a great fact, and one that would be appreciated by

an assembly of lawyers such as he was addressing. This was more especially the case when it was considered that the work performed by the judges was unfortunately much more difficult than that of former times, owing to the great changes which had taken place. In former times an endeavour was made to reduce the responsibility by compelling the suitors to reduce the points in dispute, whether of fact or of law, to as much exactitude and narrowness as was possible, the result of which was that in the great majority of instances a definite and specific question came before the judge, which of course rendered easy the dispatch of business. The Judicature Act did away with all this, and now everything was left, and be thought properly so, at large. The difficulties with which the judges were called upon to contend had, however, been enormously increased. In the great proportion of cases-probably in ninety-nine out of a hundred-the matter was dealt with without the least difficulty, and when in the hundredth case the difficulty arose, the judge had of course to take the responsibility. If there should be an error or dissatisfaction, there was a very simple and inexpensive proceeding in the Court of Appeal which was open to the suitor. Times had changed for the better since it was pos sible for a case to come before a judge such as that which had actually been heard upon the Oxford Circuit, when a man was charged with stealing two ducks. He had been caught in the very act, but his counsel, at the conclusion of the case for the defence, submitted that the judge must direct an acquittal, as the ducks in dispute were proved to have been dead, whilst ducks in law inferred live ducks. The judg asked what answer the counsel for the prosecution could make to this; and the counsel for the prosecution was com pletely floored, and could make no answer. The judge, therefore directed the jury that they must acquit the prisoner, at which the foreman asked, "If they bean't ducks, what be's they?" The judge replied that he was not called upon to say what they were; he could only repeat that they were not ducks in the eyes of the law. This was what had occurred not so very long ago, and within a recent date, upon a great circuit of England. Such a proceeding at the present day would, of course, shock their common sense and their view of justice. He hoped and believed that the changes which had taken place, and which tried the judges seriously, and which doubtless to some extent had produced discomfort, would be the means of doing great good. In the olden times, if a question came before the court, there was a specific method of dealing with it, and everyone understood what the question was. Now, when a decision was given, if the parties were dissatisfied, they took it to the Court of Appeal, the whole thing was heard over again, fresh points were opened, and new evidence introduced, and the judges did not shrink from investigating the matter and giving the case a real rehearing and a new trial. He could say a great deal with respect to the duties of the judge as regarded the criminal branch of their labours, but he would abstain from occupying the time of the assembly. These duties had been the most painful of his office, and he must admit that he had shrunk from them; because he thought that in some parts of the country where he had gone there had been a disposition on the part of the public to look for too great severity in the sentences on offenders, and there had been a feeling that the judges had administered the law more moderately and timorously than had been the habit of the local judges. He doubted whether the inhabitants of these localities preferred the justice and moderation of the judges to the sentences of the local judges. He was horrified by the cry for vengeance which was at times raised by those who wished to revenge themselves on the prisoners, and as an individual he would never shrink from lending as far as he could the weight of his example and of his opinion in the direction of mercy towards the unfortunate criminals who came before him. He would say for the judges that they were cognizant of the bond of sympathy and mutual respect and confidence which existed between all lawyers, whether they were judges, barristers, or solicitors, and he certainly believed that a desire existed amongst the judges to cultivate that mutual good feeling and respect. Speaking for himself, he hoped to cultivate it with success, because he believed that the interests of the public would be maintained by the continuance of the friendly relations which already existed between them. He hoped that nothing would be done by the judges to impair this good feeling.

Mr. MONTAGUE COOKSON responded for "The Bar," and

« PreviousContinue »