Page images

Taylor, Edward, Nottingham, Painter. July 27 at 12 at offices of Kilburn, Abraham Lee, Kingston-upon-Hull, Currier. July 25 at Black, Low pavement, Nottingham

3 at offices of Laverack, Land-of-Green-Ginger, Kingston-uponTeece, James, Wolverhampton, Tailor. July 27 at 11 at offices of Hull Gatis, King st, Wolverhampton

Lawrence, Edward Henry, Bedford, Grocer. July 25 at 12 at George Timson, Joseph, Leicester, Confectioner. July 21 at 12 at offices of

Hotel, Bedford. Conquest and Clare, Bedford Burgess and Williams, Berridge st, Leicester

Lawton, John James, Macclesfield, Chester, Joiner. July 29 at 2 at Water, Adolphe Vande, Church st, Edgware rd, Horse Dealer, July offices of May, Church Side, Macclesfield 20 at 2 at offices of Arnold, Borough High st, Southwark

Lomax, John, Bolton, Lancaster, Blacksmith. July 25 at 11 at offices Waterman, Thomas Lambert, Antill rd, Bow, Builder. July 20 at 2 of Dowling and Urry, Silverwell st, Bolton at offices of Curtis, the Grove, Stratford

Lovegrove, John, Malvern Link, Worcester, House Decorator. Watts, Sydney, Bath, Bootmaker. July 22 at 11 at offices of Parsons, July 25 at 3 at offices of Tarleton, Beauchamp ter, Great MalHigh st, Bristol. Bartrum and Bartlett, Bath

vern Webb, Julia, Calne, Wilts, Grocer. July 19 at 11 at offices of Henley, Manning, Joseph, Galley Wall rd, Rotherhithe. July 23 at 11 at Calne

Inns of Court Hotel, High Holborn. Chappell and Gibbons, LinWhatley, Robert, Sutton Veny, Wilts, Market Gardener. July 20

coln's inn fields at 3 at offices of Dunn and Payne, King st, Frome

Martin, George John, Flask Walk, Hampstead, Pork Butcher. Whittaker, Lewis, Norland, Halifax, Joiner. July 22 at 3 at effices July 19 at 11 at offices of Blunt and Kirby, Queen Vicroria st. of Clay and Son, Union st, Halifax. Crossley

Wolferstan and Co, Ironmonger lane Wicks, Fanny, Algernon rd, Kilburn. July 22 at 2 at offices of Matts, Joseph, Jamaica rd, Bermondsey, Licensed Victualler.

Andrews and Mason, Ironmonger lane, Cheapside. Clutton and July 20 at 3 at offices of Bodman and Co, Victoria House, Trinity Haines, Serjeant's inn, Fleet st

st, Southwark Wood, George Samuel, Old Kent rd, Provision Merchant. July 26 | Mead, George, Curry Mallett, Somerset, Innkeeper. July 28 at 11

at 3 at Creditors' Association, Arthur st East. Piesse and Son, at offices of Paull, Court Barton, Ilminster Old Jewry chmbrs

Moore, Joseph, Manchester, Silk Manufacturer. July 27 at 3 at Wood, William, Epperstone, Nottingham, Paper Manufacturer.

offices of Mann, Cooper st, Manchester July 19 at 12 at offices of Wells and Hind, Fletcher gate, Not Moore, Thomas.' Birmingham, Cabinet Maker. July 20 at 11 tingham

at offices of Huggins and Mallard, Newhall chbrs, Newhall st, Bir TUESDAY, July 12, 1881.

mingham Armstrong, George, Susworth, Scotter, Lincoln, Miller. August 2 Nichols, Henry William, Birkenhead, Chester, Joiner. July 23 at 11 at 3 at the White Hart Hotel, Gainsborough. Newborn

at offices of Leeming, Duncan st, Birkenhead. Thompson, BirkenAsquith, James, and James Hemmingway, Carrg ate, nr Wakefield, head

York, Fruit Dealers. July 25 at 3 at offices of Lodge, Townhali | O'Malley, William, Hanley, Stafford, out of business. July 27 at 12 chmbrs, King st, Wakefield

at offlces of Sword, Cheapside, Hanley Attffield, Henry, High st, Camden Town, General House Furnisher. Pear, Thomas William, Welland, Worcester, Baker. July 26 at 11 at July 29 at 3 at offices of Taylor and Co, South st, Finsbury sq

offices of Powell, Upton-upon-Severn Austin, John, and Peter Austin, Beeston Hill, Leeds, Millwrights. Pontefract, Norman, Bank Bottom, Elland, nr Halifax, Manu. July 25 at 11 at Wharton's Hotel, Park lane, Leeds

facturing Chemist. July 28 at 3 at offices of Ramsden and Co, Berry, Frederick, Upper st, Islington, Tool Manufacturer. July 28

John William st, Huddersfield at 3 at offices of Webb, Austin Friars

Powell, Enoch, West Smethwick, Stafford, Gen eral Dealer. July 23 Beswick, George, Patricroft, nr Manchester, Blacksmith. July 28 at

at 11 at offices of East, Temple st, Birmingham 3 at offices of Philpots, King st, Manchester

Racket, Joseph Ernest Algernon, Nunhead, Surrey, Plumber. Bishop, Frederick George Shenstone, Birmingham, Engraver. July

July 19 at 3 at offices of Terry, King st, Cheapside 26 at 11 at offices of Taylor, Colmore row, Birmingham

Ramsey, George, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Innkeeper. July 20 at 2 Blackburn, Thomas, Over, Chester, Innkeeper. July 28 at 10.30 at

at offices of Taylor, Grainger st West. Newcastle-upon-Tyne offices of Cooke, Church st. Winsford

Rees, Joseph Cook,' Neath, Glamorgan, Builder. July 26 at 3 at Blaikie, Robert, Sonth Shields, Haberdasher. July 27 at 3 at offices

offices of Tennant and Jones, Aberavon of Mabane and Co, Barrington st, South Shields

Riddell, John, Appleton, nr Widnes, Lancaster, Quarry Mana ger. Blomerley, Joseph, Salford, Manchester, Builder. August 3 at 3 at

July 25 at 3 at offices of Gibson and Bolland, South John st, offices of Addleshaw and Co, Norfolk st, Manchester

Liverpool. Lowe, Liverpool Bond, Joseph, Evering rd, Stoke Newington, no occupation, July

Roberts, Robert Price, Newent, Gloucester, Grocer. July 22 at 2 at 25 at 2 at offices of Ellen, Chancery lane

offices of Cooke, Berkeley st, Gloucester Calverley, James, Huddersfield, Joiner. July 27 at 3 at offices of

Roberts, Thomas Hugh, Conway, Carnarvon, Saddler. Aug 6 at 12

at Queen's Hotel, Chester. Jones, Conway Booth, Holmfirth

Roberts, William, Finsbury rd, Wood Green, Bootmaker. July 23 Coggins, James, Birmingham, Baker. July 28 at 3 at office of Cam,

at 10 at offices of Webb, Euston rd Broad st Corner, Birmingham

Robinson, Richard, Ince-in-Mackerfield, Lancaster, out of business. Cookson, Joseph, Mapperley, Nottingham, Nurseryman. July 26 at 3

July 23 at 11 at offices of Wilson, King st, Wigan at offices of Neville, Brougham 'chambers, Wheeler gate, Notting

Row, Robert Carley, Water lane, Brixton, Dealer in Tobacco. ham

July 29 at 3 at ofllces of Sadler and Co, Three Crown sq, Borough Cosadinos. George Demetrius, Harrogate, Fine Art Dealer. July 22

Rumball, Edwin James, Castle st, Oxford st, Hairdresser, July 22 at 11 at offices of Porrett, Bank st, Sheffield

at 3 at offices of Durant, Guildhall chmbrs, Basinghall st Cullimore, Thomas, West Dean, Gloucester, Boot Maker. July 23 at

Sarah, Timothy Thomas, Falmouth, Cornwall, Innkeeper. Ju,y 22 2 at offices of Williams, Monmouth

at 12 at offices of Lane, Grove pl, Falmouth! Daniels, George, and Charles Daniel, Norwich, Seedsmen, July 2 Schmolze, Edward Henry George, Winston rd, Stoke Newington, at 2 at offices of Hardy, Castle chbrs, Opie st, Norwich

out of business. July 25 at 3 at offices of Neave, Cheapside Davis, Owen, and Robert White, Wood st, Cheapside. July 26 at 2

Schafer, John JacobConingham terrace, Shepherd's Bush, at Guildhall Tavern, Guildhall yd. Baylis and Pearce, Church ct Tailor. July 25 at 3 at offices of Stallard and Whitting, South chmbrs, Old Jewry

Molton st Dickinson, Christopher, Stoke-upon-Trent, Corn Miller. July 25 at Schofield, John, and Sidney Smith, Alverthorpe, nr Wakefield,

12 at North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-upon-Trent. Bishop and Topham York, Wool and Cloth Dyers. July 25 at 2 at Queen Hotel, HudHanley

dersfield. Sykes and Son, Huddersfield Dixon, Alfred, Newton Heath, Lancaster, Tobacconist. July 25 at 3 Sellens, Laura, Tonbridge, Kent, Confectioner. July 27 at 12 at at offices of Leigh, Brown st, Manchester

Guildhall terrace, King st. Gorham and Warner, Tonbridge Dixon, John Thomas, Rowley Regis, Stafford, Maltster. July 29 at Skellern, George, Stafford, Grocer. July 26 at 1 at offices of 11 at offices of Shakespeare, Church st, Oldbury

Cooper, John st, Tunstall
Elston, Ralph, Portobello rd, Notting Hill, Butcher. July 21 at 3 at Smith, William, Ashbourne, Derby, Farmer. July 25 at 2 at Green

Masons' Hall Tavern, Masons' avenue. Fowler and C., Borough Man Hotel, Ashbourne. Hextall, Derby
High st

Stephenson, Charles, Liverpool, Tailor. July 26 at 2 at offices of Estabrooke, Richard Parker, Fleet st, Photographic Artist. July 25 * Burton and Coleman, Lord et, Liverpool at 3 at 33, Chancery lane. Abbot

Stoddart, William, Harrington, Cumberland, Draper. July 27 at Farrar, John, Kalifax, Contractor. July 25 at 11 at offices of 3 at offices of Mason, Duke st, Whitehaven Rhodes, 13, Horton st, Halifax

Stone, Arthur, Charlton-by-Newbattle, Northampton, Baker. Fieldhouse, John, Yeadon, York, Joiner. July 25 at 11 at offices of July 26 at 12 at offices of Pellatt, High st, Banbury Tempest and Hewson, Albion st, Leeds. Child, Leeds

Strawson, Henry, Exeter, Insurance Agent. July 25 at 11 at offices Gould, John, Sheffield, Tanner. July 20 at 3 at Law Society's of Hirtzel, Bedford-circus, Exeter

Rooms, Aldine tt, High st, Sheffield. Broomhead and Co, Shef. Tandy, Edward, Bradmore, nr Wolverhampton, Horse Dealer. field

July 22 at 3 at offices of Dallow, Queen st, Wolverbampton Handley, Theophilus, Longport, near Burslem, Stafford, out of busi Taylor, Joseph, Bury, Lancaster, Baker. July 26 at 3 at Wheatness. July 20 at 11 at Piccadilly bldgs, Hanley. Bennett

sheaf Hotel, Fennell st. Standring and Taylor, Rochdale Handley, Henry, Goole, York, Cordwainer. July 25 at 3 at offices of Taylor, William Charles, Caledonian rd, Islington, Draper, July 21 Hind and Everatt, Goole

at 4 at offices of Marshall, Chancery-lane Hawkridge, Edward, Halifax, Grocer. July 25 at 4 at offices of Tundley, John Peake. Hanley, Stafford, Provision Dealer. July 25 Rhodes, 13, Horton st, Halifax

at 10 at offices of Ashmall, Albion st, Hanley Hewlett, William, jun, High rd, Lower Tottenham, Carman. July ) Waller, William Henry, Halifax, York, Tailor. July 25 at 2 at offices

26 at i at Park Hotel, Northumberland park, Tottenham. Wol. of Rhodes, Horton st, Halifax fergtan, Tottenham

Walmsley, John, Chorley, Lancaster, Grocer. July 22 at 3 at offices Heywood, Tom, Hollinwood in Chadderton, Lancaster, Builder.

of Buck and Dicksons, Winckley st, Preston July 25 at 3 at offices of Watson, 11, Church lane, Oldham

Ward, James, Oxford, Builder. July 25 at 11 at offices of Druce, Hinchley, Nicholas, St James's rd, old Ford, Boot Sole Sewer. July | High st, Oxford 19 at 3 at 11 Coleman st. Sydney

Waterhouse, William, Nottingham, Indiarubber Merchant. July 29 Holmes, Henry, Derby, out of business. July 28 at 2 at offices of at 3 at offices of Dowson and Wright, Weekday-cross, NottingBriggs, 2, Amen alley, Derby

ham Holmes, Joseph Henry, Bradford, York, Joiner. July 23 at 10 at White, John Watts, Blakeney, Gloucester, Grocer. July 25 at 12 at offices of Berry and Robinson, 5, Charles st, Bradford

offices of Parker, Newham Howes, Edward, Birkenhead, Butcher. July 22 at 3 at offices of Whitehead, Julius, Halifax, Sanitary Pipe Maker. July 27 at 11 at - Francis, Hamilton sq, birkencan Coach Builder. July 23 at 2 at Wickens, Michael, Hastings, Sussex,

offices of Holroyde and Co, Ward's End, Halifax Jones, Thomas, Lampeter, Cardigan, Coac

Wickens, Michael, Hastings, Sussex, Builder, July 25 at 12 at 37 Black Lion Hotel, Lampeter. Millard, Lampeter

Southampton bldgs, Chancery lane. Meadows and Co, Has t ing Wilkes, George, Shelton, Hanley, Stafford, Grocer. July 26 a at To SOLICITORS, ARCHITECTS, and others

offices of Sword, Cheapside, Hanley Williams, John, Treorky, Ystradyfodwy, Glamorgan, Engineer.

1 (town or country).-Wanted, by an experienced Writer, Legal

or other Documents to Copy. References and specimens if required. July 27 at 3 at the Griffin Inn, St. Mary's st, Cardiff. Williams.

-Apply by letter to N., care of Geo. Jackson & Co., Advertising Pontypridd Wood, Charles, and Alfred Parkinson, Heaton Norris, Lancaster,

Agents, 4, Bishopsgate-street Within, E.C.
Laundry Enginners. Jnly 26 at 11 at offices of Brown and Co, St
Petersgate, Stockport

I AW-Wanted, by a Gentleman, aged 26 (passed), Wright, Thomas Hollis. Gauden rd, Clapham, Gentleman. July 29 L a Conveyancing and General Clerkship in a country office, at 2 at offices of Pollard, Coleman st

with a view to a Partnership; unexceptionable references; salary Youatt, Alfred William, Totteridge rd, Battersea, Wheelwright. £150.-Address, LIONEL H. MORTIMER, Brookfield, Colyton, As. July 29 at 3 at offices of Lloyd, London wall

minster. Youell, George, Birmingham, Tobacconist. July 22 at 11 at offices of Coleman and Co, Colemore row, Birmingham

I AW PRACTICE.-To be SOLD, the Practice of

the late George Belk, Esq., Solicitor, Nottingham Tho above SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA.

presents a good opportunity for a good advocate. --For particulars

apply to Mr. GEORGE T. TRAVELL, Solicitor, Nottingham. Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the

MANADA. - To SOLICITORS, MERCHANTS, excess of fat extracted.

and Others.-A London Solicitor, about proceeding to Canada The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible on business, is prepared to undertake any Legal or Business beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Matters requiring prosecution or arrangement in Canada.--Apply to Irvalids and Children."

CHARLES J. MacCOLLA, Solicitor, 109, Cheapside.
Highly commended by the entire Medica Press.
Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates,
keeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas


TIONS, 1881. than such Mixtures.

MR. ALBERT GIBSON'S Classes for these Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Break. V Examinations commence on Monday, August 15. Fee 13 tast Cup, coating less than a halfpenny.

guineas. Postal preparation from same date; fee 6 guinens. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Students desirous of joining should write at once, and they will be Map:lla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is pro instructed as to the reading to be done in the meantime.-Address, hibited.

35, Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane. In tin packets at 18, 6d., 38., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and Grocere, (N.B.-At the June Final, out of 26 pupils 24 passed, this making Oharities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors,

62 successful out of 67 pupils sent up for the Final this year. . SCHWEITZER & CO., 10, Adam-street, London, W.C. The result in Honours at the June Examination is not yet known,

but at Easter, out of 10 pupils sent up for Honours 9 succeeded.]





OXFORD STREET (Corner of Vere-street), W.


Home and Foreign Insurances Effected,

Sum insured in 1880, £262,745,653.
AS FIVE IN NUMBER-VIZ., ONE TORRID, TWO LIGHTNING LOSSES, whether by Fire or Concussion, admitted.









Capital, £1,000,000. Paid up, £100,000.

Claims promptly settled.

Alderman HENRY E. KNIGHT, Chairman. OROYDON.

L. C. PHILLIPS, General Manager.


Founded 1806.


Existing Assurances exceed ..

£6,500,000 To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the Judicial Bench

Invested Funds ..

.. .. .. .. 2,121,711 Corporation of London, &c. Annual Income ..


Claims Paid exceed


Bonuses Declared..


During the past year (1880) each main item has shown improv ESTABLISHED 1689.

men upon the preceding year. 94. CHANCERY LANE. LONDON.

1879. New Premiums


eis,915 HAMPTON & SONS make NO CHARGE for

Income ..

273,684 279,852 inserting particulars in their FREE MONTHLY REGISTER Invested Funds..

2,077,215 2.124,711 of ESTATES, TOWN and COUNTRY HOUSES, Furnished or

CHARLES STEVENS Secretary. Unfurnished, or for Sale, to be had GRATIS at their Offices, or post-free for two stamps. Published on the 1st of the month, and particulars for insertion should be sent not later than five days LAW UNION FIRE and LIFE INSURANCE previous to end of preceding month.

1) COMPANY. Chief Office-126, Chancery-lane, London, W.C. Valuations for Probate and Transfer. Surveys.

The Funds in hand and Capital subscribed amount to upwards of Estate and Auction Offices, 8, Pall Mall East, S.W.

£1,600,000 sterling.

Chairman-JAMES CUDDON, Ésq., Barrister-at-Law, GoldsmithT22,000 and £80,000 to be Lent on First-class Free

building, Temple. hold Estate of ample value at 37 per cent.. also £180,000 to Deputy-Chairman-C. PEMBERTOX, Esq. (Lee & Pembertons), Solici. lend on Mortgage of Borough, Poor, or County Rates at 4 per cent.

tor, 14, Lincoln's-inn-fields. -Apply to A. WOOLLETT & RAYNER, 7, Red Lion-square, London,

Every description of Fire and Life Insurance business transacted. W.C.

Whole World and Unconditional Life Policies granted at a slights

increased rate of Premium. QIX THOUSAND POUNDS further Required on

Policies of Insurance granted against the contingency of 18&ut

at moderate rates of Premium. A Mortgage for completing the development of one of the finest Advances made on Mortgage of Life Interest and Reversions, Gold Mining Properties in the world, sufficiently to secure large whether absolute or contingent. returns and insure the successful formation of a large company Prospectus, Copies of the Accounts as deposited with the Board afterwards if desired.--Apply to J. W. HICKIX, Esq., Solicitor, 11, of Trade, and every information sent on application Serjeant's-inn, Fleet-street, London, E.C.

FRANK MCGEDY, Actuary and Secretary.



LONDON, JULY 23, 1881.

by the Paymaster in the recently issued notice, and it was hoped that, with increased facilities for the transaction of business, this full time would rarely be required. The pressure on the office during the next four weeks will be exceptional, and much inconvenience will arise to practitioners if the full time is still insisted on.


717 718






... 802



................ 715 COMMENTING LAST Week on the Statute Law Revision SUGGESTED ADDITIONS TO THE JUDICATURE BILL ........ ... 716

and Civil Procedure Bill, we asked why, if the provisions RECENT DECISIONS .....

of ord. 2, r. 6a, are to be retained, Keating's Act (18 & REVIEWS ......... CORRESPONDENCE ..


19 Vict. c. 55) was not to be repealed. We are informed CASES OF THE WEEK

that the reasons for omitting Keating's Act were partly Suffell v. The Bank of England ...........

that section 5 appears to have been construed as giving Ex parte Forder ..... Ex parte Streeten ....................:

a substantive right to recover noting expenses (Rogers v. The St. Petersburg .....


Hunt, L. R. 10 Ex. 474), which it was undesirable to Conybeare v. Lewis.....

...... 721 Cunliffe v. Newton ....

.... 721 appear to question, and partly that suggestions had been Emden v. Carte.......

...... 721

made for reviving the procedure under the Act, and it SOLICITORS' CASES .......

was expedient to avoid any appearance of an expression SOCIETIES ....

..................... 722 LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL....


of opinion on the point. We also suggested that the LEGAL APPOINTMENTS .................

dead matter in the Common Law Procedure Acts ought to COMPANIES .......

be included in the Revision Bill. We believe it has been LONDON CASES AT COUNTRY ASSIZES ...

.. 730 CREDITORS' CLAIMS .....

730 thought better to deal with the Acts as a whole, and it LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK .......



is considered that a few additional rules of court would LONDON GAZETTES, &c., &c.....

.. 732

make a much more thorough repeal possible. It is hoped that next session will see the excision from the

Statute-book of the dead matter which these Acts conCASES REPORTED IN THE WEEKLY REPORTER. Akerblom y. Price (App.) ......

........ 797 Attorney-General v. Birmingham, Tame, and Rea District Drainage Board (App.) ............


THE WITHDRAWAL of the Bankruptcy Bill will deprive Beckett v. Attwood (App.) .........

796 Sir H. Peek of the satisfaction of bringing on his proposed Culley v. Charman (Q.B.Div)


clause:-"38a.--That if a solicitor is adjudicated bankDavies v. Wise. Cramer & Co., Claimants (Q B.Div.).... 804 Dawes v. Tredwell (App)

rupt, he shall at the expiration of one calendar month Fowler y, Fowler (Ch Div. Kay, J) .......

800 from the date of the adjudication be disqualified from Gosman, In (App.) ...........

793 Guardians of the Llanidloes and Newtown Union v. Jones

practising, unless he shall have applied for and ob(Q.B Diy .............

806 tained from the Incorporated Law Society a provisional Hammond, In the Goods of (Prob Div.).....


certificate that the bankruptcy has been caused by mis. Lawrence v. The Accident Insurance Ocmpany (Limited) (Q B.Div.) ...

fortune.” With some modifications we should not be National Provincial Bank of England, Ex parte, In re Rees sorry to see such a provision passed into law. There are

(App.) ..... Saunders v. Richardson (Q.B.Div.) ...........

we believe, not more failures among solicitors than among Usill v. Whelpton (Ch Div. Fry, J.)..

799 other classes, but the occasional dishonest failures of solici. Wormald v. Muzeen (App).....


tors cause widespread distress, and bring discredit on the profession. All we have contended for from the first is that some means should be provided for distinguishing between bankruptcy from misfortune and from dishonesty, and that the matter should be dealt with by the disciplinary action of the Incorporated Law Society. Both

these objects may be secured by an amendment of Sir H. A DEPUTATION from the Incorporated Law Society, | Peek's proposal. headed by the President and the Vice-President, had an interview with Mr. STREET, R A., on Monday, with reference to the subject of the solicitors' “ well” in the

WHAT IS A LODGER within the meaning of the Lodgers' new law courts.

Goods Protection Act, 1871 ? Is this a question for the judge or the jury? And if it be a question for the

jury, ought the judge to give his own opinion in chargNOTWITHSTANDING the paragraph which appeared in the ing the jury ? Such seem to have been the three points daily papers on Thursday, no vacation notice has yet been involved in Morton v. Palmer, in which a divisional issued, and the question of who will be the vacation court (GROVE, J., and HUDDLESTON, B.) refused a new judges will depend upon whether an appointment of a trial on Monday last. The soi-disant lodger" occupied new judge of the Chancery Division, under the Judica. the whole of a house except one or two rooms, and in ture Act Amendment Bill of the present session, is made the rooms not so occupied the mesne landlord did not before the commencement of the Long Vacation.

even sleep, so that the case was slightly distinguishable from Phillips v. Henson (26 W. R. 214, L. R. 3 O. P. D.

26), in which the mesne landlord slept in a bed lent by WE ARE SORRY to hear that the recent additions to the the “lodger." Mr. Baron HUDDLESTON, who tried the staff of the Chancery Paymaster do not enable that recent case, told the jury plainly that the plaintiff, who, official to give certificates of the amount of funds in having complied with the statate in all respects, sued court in less than three days. That, it will be re. the superior landlord for illegal distress, was, in his membered, was the maximum time laid down for himself | opinion, a lodger, but asked the jury to give their owa

...... 796






opinion also, and the jury having found that the plain- | to point out that the penalties alone can be relied on for tiff was a lodger, directed judgment to be entered for procuring compliance with the Act, and that no action him. It was argued strenuously before the divisional | lies for any result of non-compliance. It was held by court that the effect of this was to read “under-tenant" the Court of Appeal in Atkinson V. Newcastle and into the Act in lieu of “lodger," but neither this Gateshead Waterworks Company (25 W. R. 794, L. R. argument, nor the many registration cases cited, nor the ( 2 Ex. D. 441) (reversing the decision of the Court of argument from the supposed submissiveness of the jury, Exchequer), that no action lay upon the Waterworks availed anything. Looking to Phillips v. Henson, we Clauses Act, 1847, in a case where the plaintiff's timber. cannot see how the court could have reversed the ruling yard and saw-mills were burnt down owing to the pressure of the judge at the trial, for so long as there is any in the defendant's pipes being insufficient to extinguish bona fide retention of possession by the mesne landlord, a fire ; and the reasoning of the judgments in that we do not see that it makes any difference whether the case would, we think, apply equally to the penal clauses mesne landlord uses all his possessory rights or not. of the Metropolitan Water Acts. But was Phillips v. Henson correctly decided ? We doubt very strongly whether it was. The question appears to us to be whether the plaintiff was a lodger in the ordinary popular meaning of that term. The

LORD JUSTICE BRAMWELL, it is stated, announced at intention of the Act, as evidenced by the use of the

the Hertford Assizes, his intention not to try London term “ lodger," seems to be to protect the goods of

cases sent down to the country for trial. The assizes persons having a distinctly subordinate occupation of

were held, he said, solely for the purpose of disposing of part of the house only, and we cannot think that it | the business of each particular county, and it was not fair applies where the plaintiff has the principal and sub

that the legitimate work should be interfered with by stantial occupation of the house. We are glad to

cases from London. There is no doubt that & observe that the question will come before the Court

Northumberland juror might think it hard to be detained of Appeal, which has granted a rule nisi for a new

in Newcastle for the purpose of trying a case from trial in Morton v. Palmer.

Cornwall, but there seems to be nothing in the Jury Acts, or the Judicature Acts, or the Rules of Court, to prevent this being done, if the parties to the

cause so desire, unless order 36, r. 1, can be construed THE WATER FAMINE which has arisen in many parts of to give the judge power of his own mere motion to London by reason of the bursting of one of the Grand interfere. That rnie prescribes that. « when the plainJunction Company's main pipes, and other causes, may tiff proposes to have the action tried elsewhere than in possibly give occasion to litigation. The supply of Middlesex, he shall, in his statement of claim, name the water to the metropolis is dealt with by two Acts, and

county or place in which he proposes that the action the special Acts of eight companies enumerated in those shall be tried, and the action shall, unless a judge otherActs. The general Acts are the Metropolis Water Act, wise orders, be tried in the county or place so named." 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 84), and the Metropolis Water

Are the words " unless a judge otherwise orders" conAct, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 113), and although both fined to cases where one of the parties makes application these Acts are sufficiently full of penal clauses, it is

to the judge, or do they bear the interpretation that a not very easy to get at the precise effect of those clauses. I judge may decline of his own mere motion to try a case ? By section 7 of the Act of 1871 the companies must give, I It seems at least doubtful whether the order otherwise and continue to give, “a constant supply of pure and can be made except on the application of the party. wholesome water sufficient for domestic purposes, constantly laid on at such pressure as will make such water reach the top storey of the highest house within the water limits, but not exceeding the level prescribed by L IT APPEARS from the debate upon the Judicature Bill the special Act." By section 16, “any company which when passing through committee that the senior puisne violates, refuses, or neglects to comply with any of the judge of the Queen's Bench Division is to have some of preceding provisions of the Act, shall be liable to a the patronage which has lapsed by the abolition of the penalty pot exceeding two hundred pounds, and to a two chiefships. Upon this proposal, Lord Cairns obfurther penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, for served that “the puisne judges had no natural connecevery month during which such violation, or refusal, or tion with patronage, and he should feel it his duty to ask neglect to comply with the said provisions continues, after them to consider whether that proposal could not be they shall have received notice in writing from the Board altered.” We fail to appreciate the meaning of 8 of Trade to discontinue such violation, refusal, or neglect “natural connection with patronage,” and do not see as aforesaid.” But, by section 15, “notwithstanding / why a puisne judge should not make as good an appointanything in this Act, a company shall not be subject to | ment as a Chief Justice. This question of patronage, any liability for not giving a constant supply, if the which is now stated to involve the appointment to want of such supply arises from frost, unusual drought, about one hundred offices, has never yet received the or other unavoidable cause or accident.” With regard proper attention of Parliament, and we are not without to the penalties, the question at once arises whether hope that it will be duly discussed in the House of Comthey are incurred in respect of each house, or only in | mons when the Judicature Bill comes before that House. respect of each act of default. On one construction, it | The best body we can think of for dispensing patronage seems that the penal clauses would be satisfied by the would be a committee of five, of which the Lord Chancompanies discontinuing the constant supply whenever cellor should be an ex-officio member, and should have a it should be inconvenient to themselves, and sending casting vote. We see no à priori reason why there a cheque to the metropolitan authority (which, by should be any other ex-officio member, nor-although section 44, is the party to sue) for the amount there may be no reason for depriving any judge of existof the penalties incurred. With regard to the excep ing patronage-do we see how any judge, however tions, “unusual drought" is the one most likely to elevated, has “ any natural connection" with patronage. be relied on as a defence to any proceeding for penalties. The only question for Parliament to consider is what We should doubt whether an excessive consumption by i man or body of men would naturally make the best the public, caused by the drought, would come within appointments. the exception, which apparently applies only to the case of an actual deficiency in the reservoirs caused by lack of rain. The exception for“ other unavoidable cause or THE LEASES BILL was withdrawn on Wednesday last accident," throws on the company the burden of showing | The Bill, as we have said before, was by far the best that the bursting of a pipe was unavoidable.. It is well | which has been introduced in the House of Commons,

and the only reason alleged against it was that the of the other third. A contract-breaking purchaser ought Government intend to deal with the matter in their not to be permitted to force him into that position, at Land Bill. The fate of the sixth Government Bank any rate not where the part of the contract broken by ruptcy Bill has also been settled. If it had either been such purchaser is a substantial part of an entirety. introduced in the Commons earlier in the session, or had cases of this sort are not like cases of contracts involving been first introduced in the Lords, it might have had a all manner of different and severable stipulations of better chance of passing into law, but it seems to be greatly varying degrees of importance. To such cases impossible to carry a Bankruptcy Bill, and probably the it may be just to apply the doctrine of Pordage v. Cole, only practicable plan will be to allow the Court of (1 Wms. Saund. 319) - viz., that when an independent Appeal to continue to legislate on the subject (as they stipulation, the breach of which can be well compensated have recently done with regard to the disclaimer clause) in damages, is broken, that is not a failure to perform a until the bankruptcy law attains a satisfactory con condition precedent. It is very obvious, however, that dition.

the thing is a matter of degree, and that the definition of the degree is extremely difficult. In one sense, whenever a

man does not get all the matters performed which conWE ARE INFORMED that a District Registrar of the

stituted the part of the contract to be performed by the Supreme Court in an important centre of commerce has,

other side, and yet is held bound himself, he is forced by up to last week, been in the habit of heading orders

the law to accept a consideration which he did not agree issued from that registry, and made in causes originally

to accept. The common law did this every day, and in marked for Vice-Chancellor Malins, with the words “ Vice-Chancellor MALINS," ignoring the order of trans

most contracts equity made no difference. When a man fer which was made when that learned judge retired

having done his part is refused specific performance,

and only given damages, the same reasoning applies. from the bench. This affectionate refusal to forget an

Lord Justice Bramwell seems to have thought himself ex-judge is pleasing, if not altogether proper.

driven to admit that if the contract has been part performed and cannot be undone, then it must be proceeded with without the power of declaring off ; that is,

if the plaintiff had taken the November delivery, but reTHE DOCTRINE OF CONDITION fused the December, the defendant would have been

bound to make the January delivery. It does seem to us PRECEDENT AS APPLIED TO

that this admission, so far as it goes, is a formidable CONTRACTS FOR SUCCESSIVE blow, though we by no means say a fatal one, to the DELIVERIES.

position of the judges forming the majority..

Lord Justice Brett, in his judgment, dwelt very forcibly In the case of Honck v. Muller (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. on this topic. He says, “It is suggested that if there -92), recently tried in the Court of Appeal, there was, is a failure in the first delivery, then the party against unfortunately, a division of opinion upon a point of whom that failure is committed may throw up the con. very great commercial importance, whicb, until a decision tract. But why ? Supposing at the time of the first of the House of Lord settles the question, will, no doubt, delivery there is no difference between the market price in future cause considerable doubt and difficulty. The and the contract price of the goods, the person against point that arose turned upon the frequently difficult whom the failure is made suffers positively no loss. question what constitutes a condition precedent, and was But at the time of the second delivery, the difference briefly this:-A contract being made for the sale of 2,000 between the market price and the contract price may be tons of iron, to be delivered by equal quantities in the enormous; yet at the time of the third delivery, it is months of November, December, and January, the said, if you have fulfilled the contract as to the first purchaser committed a breach of the contract by re delivery, when it did not signify whether you did so or fusing to accept any iron in November; the question not, but have failed in the second delivery, where it was then arose whether, having so refused, he could insist on of the utmost consequence, nevertheless you can insist on delivery of the remaining two-thirds in December and the third delivery; but if you have failed in the first January.

delivery, where it was of no consequence at all, although There bas been, previously to the decision we are dis- | the question of the delivery of the second and third is cussing, some conflict of authority on this subject. Hoare of the utmost consequence, your right to them is to be 5. Rennie (8 W. R. 80,5 H.&N.19) and Simpson v. Crippin of no avail.” If the general principle upon which the (20 W. R. 141, L. R. 8 Q. B. 14), are not easily reconcileable. opposite view is founded be, that a man who will not And the present decision, in which the majority of the perform his contract in its entirety ought not to be court followed the former decision, is not satisfactory, allowed to enforce performance of it-and a great many owing to the conflict of opinion. The question seems to of the expressions used by the judges forming the us to be a very difficult one, and the difficulty is one i majority really depend on this-it seems to us that which, in various forms and to various degrees, is always these observations of Brett, L.J., as to the distinction cropping up with regard to the application of the doctrine drawn between the first and second delivery, are very of conditions precedent. In the present case Bramwell, trenchant. L.J., and Baggallay, L.J., followed Hoare v. Rennie, and But there is a distinction between the first and subheld that the plaintiff, having refused to accept the first sequent deliveries which may be taken, and which, delivery, could not insist on the second and third de. although not altogether satisfactory, seems to us to livery ; Brett, L.J., being of the opposite opinion, and have some weight, and it does not seem to us to have preferring the conclusion arrived at in Simpson v. Crip. | been fully brought out. Refusal to take the first pin. Bramwell, L.J., takes a very broad and strong delivery is, at the time of such refusal, some evidence of ground. He says that where no part of a contract has intention not to perform the contract at all. It hardly been performed, and one party to it refuses to perform seems to have been sufficiently considered how hard a the entirety to be performed by him, the other party has position is that of the vendor when the purchaser . a right to refuse to perform any part to be performed by refuses to take one delivery, a large number of future him. There seems obviously a great deal to be said in deliveries remaining to be made. He must provide for justice for that view, for otherwise a man who has entered those deliveries, not knowing that the purchaser will into a contract upon one consideration is forced to take take them, and having considerable ground from his another. The vendor may fairly say that he would never conduct to suppose that he will not do so. A similar have contracted to sell the smaller quantity. Instead of question arises in the case of successive deliveries, when getting payment for 2,000 tons he gets payment for two- ! the purchaser accepts, but makes default in payment thirds of that quantity, and a right to damages in respect for one or more of the earlier deliveries. A class of

« PreviousContinue »