sunken ship and the cargo, and charged her owners with the costs of the operation. The owners then claimed a lien upon the wool which had been raised, for a proportionate part of these costs, In support of the claim, it was contended that the effect of the statutory limitation of liability was to relieve the shipowners from any responsibility for the injury other than the £8 per ton, and that when that sum had been paid their liability was purged, and they stood in the same position as if they had never been liable at all for their negligence. Consequently, the owner of the wool ought to bear his share of the cost which had been incurred, for the common benefit of the owners of the ship and the owners of the cargo. The court (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, L.JJ.), however, affirming the decision of Sir R. Phillimore, held that the effect of section 54 was only to limit the liability of the shipowners to answer in damages for the negligence, and that it did not affect their responsibility in any other way. The wool was the property of its original owner, and the shipowner could not charge him with any part of the costs of raising it, which had resulted from the negligence of their agents.-SOLICITORS, Ingledew & Ince; Stokes, Saunders, & Stokes.

ADDITIONAL

PRACTICE-TRUSTEES' REMUNERATION-REPRESENTATIVE ACTION PARTIES ATTENDING INQUIRY PARTIES.-In a case of Conybeare v. Lewis, before the Master of the Rolls on the 15th inst., a question was raised as to whether certain persons should be joined as parties, and the conduct of the action given to them under the following circumstances:-The action was a representative one on behalf of certain bondholders in an American railway company, and the substantial question involved was as to the amount of remuneration to be paid to certain trustees for the bondholders who had succeeded in reconstructing the company and forming a new company. The plaintiff's case was that a sum had been voted to the trustees as their remuneration at a meeting of the bondholders, and that no notice of any such proposition being about to be brought forward had been given. The plaintiff was a dissentient at the meeting, and subsequently brought this action on behalf of himself and all other bondholders, seeking in effect to have the question of the trustees' remuneration determined by the court, and to restrain them from dealing with the funds in their hands alleged to be appropriated towards their remuneration until this had been done. At a subsequent meeting of the bondholders, it was alleged by the defendants, the trustees, that the remuneration voted them at the previous meeting had been confirmed, but the plaintiff refused to be bound by such resolution, and this action proceeded. A judgment was now taken by consent directing an inquiry as to the amount of remuneration due to the trustees on a quantum meruit, and certain persons, members of a committee of the bondholders, now moved that they might be added as parties, and the conduct of the action given to them, on the ground that the plaintiff only represented the interests of a minority of the bondholders, and that the applicants represented the majority. JESSEL, M.R., said that the only question now to be determined in the action was that of the amount to be paid to the trustees, and he did not see why that question could not be determined by the plaintiffs on the one side and the defendants, the trustees, on the other. They were really the proper parties to settle it, as the plaintiff represented the dissentient minority and the trustees the assentients. No doubt there was something behind in the present case, but it had not been disclosed, and he could not but think that the attendance of any other parties would be mischievous on the inquiry, and might very likely prejudice the proper determination of the question. It was a very difficult and delicate task for the judge to settle these questions of remuneration.

There

were not only the services rendered to be considered, but also the success of these services and the position of the persons engaged, and the fact that certain services could only be rendered by persons in a certain position, and there were numerous other circumstances to be taken into consideration. Such cases generally ended in a compromise, and, in his opinion, it was much more likely that such would be the case if there were only two parties to the litigation than if there were more. There was not only no reason why the appellants should be joined as parties, but every reason against it, and therefore he should refuse the motion, but as the plaintiff and defendants did not press for costs the motion would be refused without costs. The plaintiff's and defendants' costs

would be costs in the action.-SOLICITORS, Hores & Pattison; Trinders & Curtis-Hayward; Munns & Longden; F. Romer.

MORTGAGE-FORECLOSURE-ENLARGING TIME FOR PAYMENT-SUFFICIENCY OF SECURITY.-In a foreclosure action of Cunliffe v. Newton, before Hall, V.C., on the 14th inst., an application was made on behalf of the mortgagor for an extension of the time fixed for payment of the mortgage. The amount secured by the mortgage was £3,000 and certain arrears of interest, and the mortgagor produced evidence to show that the property was worth £3,850. The mortgagee submitted that the margin of security over the debt was insufficient, and that the mortgagor should pay into court a further sum before obtaining the indulgence he asked. HALL, V.C., however, held that the case was one in which six months' time should be granted, upon the terms of the costs and interest due up to the present time being paid within one month.-SOLICITORS, W. A. Holcombe; Cunliffe, Beaumont, & Davenport.

SOLICITOR-COSTS-CHARGE ON "PROPERTY RECOVERED OR PRESERVED"-23 & 24 VICT. c. 127, s. 28.-In a case of Emden v. Carte, before Fry, J., on the 15th inst., the question arose whether a solicitor was entitled to a charge for his costs of the action upon "property recovered or preserved" by means of it, under the following circumstances:-The plaintiff was an architect, and he sued the defendant for remuneration for services rendered by him in that character to the defendant in relation to the building of a theatre. The plaintiff also claimed damages for his wrongful dismissal by the defendant, and breach of an alleged agreement by the defendant to employ him as his architect in the building of the theatre. The plaintiff also claimed specific performance of the agreement, and an injunction to restrain the defendant from employing any ration, and £3,000 damages. The defendant denied the other architect. The plaintiff asked for £1,790 remunealleged agreement, and, on delivering his statement of defence, he, without admitting any legal liability to the plaintiff, paid £360 into court, alleging that this was the utmost to which the plaintiff could, on his own showing, be entitled. At the time when the action was commenced the plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt, though this fact was not known to the defendant when he delivered his defence. The action was commenced without the knowledge

of the trustee in the bankruptcy. When it came to his knowledge he took out a summons asking that he might be substituted as plaintiff, on the ground that the bankrupt had no interest in the subject-matter of the action. On this summons Fry, J., ordered (29 W. R. 600, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 169), that the trustee should be joined as a coplaintiff with the bankrupt. His lordship was of opinion that the title to the remuneration and damages claimed had passed to the trustee, though he thought that the bankrupt still retained an interest in some of the relief sought. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. After the decision of Fry, J., the bankrupt's solicitor, who had conducted the proceedings in the action for him, took out a summons, asking a declaration that he was entitled to a charge on the money paid into court for his taxed costs, charges, and expenses of or in reference to the action as the solicitor employed by the plaintiff in the prosecution thereof, and for taxation and payment accordingly. The trustee offered to consent to a charge for the costs up to the time of the payment into court. The plaintiff's solicitor would not accept this, insisting that the order ought to be made in the terms of section 28 of the Act, without any limitation, leaving it to the taxing master to disallow any particular items that ought not to be allowed. The offer not being accepted, FRY, J., dismissed the summons. He was of opinion that the money in court had not been "recovered or preserved" by means of the action for the trustee, it having been brought, not to obtain any money for him, but to obtain it for the bankrupt, who had, indeed, actually applied to take it out of court, but his summons for that purpose was intercepted by the applica tion of the trustee.-SOLICITORS, F. C. Tudor J. J. Winser

SOLICITORS' CASES.

COURT OF APPEAL (LINCOLN'S-INN).

(Before JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, L.JJ.)

July 20.-In the Matter of Edwin Hunt.

This was an appeal from an order made by the Queen's Bench Division on the 4th inst. (reported ante, p. 680), for an attachment against one Edwin Hunt, an accountant, for having acted as a solicitor without being duly qualified to do so. The matter had been referred to one of the masters for inquiry, and from his report it appeared that Hunt was an accountant living in Charlotte-street, Bedford-square. He inserted an advertisement in the Times, addressed to solicitors without practice, offering them business at a good remuneration. A solicitor named Cotton responded to the advertisement, and some arrangement was entered into between him and Hunt that the latter should be allowed to use Cotton's name, and that the profits of business transacted should be shared between them. Hunt had acted as a solicitor in various matters under the style of Cotton & Co.

By section 2 of the Act (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73) it is enacted that no person shall act as a solicitor unless admitted and inrolled and otherwise duly qualified to act, but no penalty is imposed. And section 32 provides that any solicitor who wilfully and knowingly permits his name to be used in any action or other proceeding by any unqualified person upon the account or for the profit of any unqualified person shall be struck off the rolls, and that "in that case," it shall be lawful for the court to commit the unqualified person to prison for any term not exceeding a year. And by section 26 of the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, it is provided that every person who acts as a solicitor contrary to the enactment in section 2 of the first Act shall be deemed guilty of a contempt of court, and may be punished accordingly.

Fillan, for Hunt, contended that the case fell within section 32 of the first Act, and not within section 2, under which, as amended by section 26 of the second Act, the order had been made, and that under section 32 no proceeding could be taken against the unqualified person until after the solicitor, who had permitted him to use his name, had been struck off the rolls, for which purpose no application had been made. The appellant had really only been acting as the managing clerk of Cotton, and had done nothing but that which is always done by a managing clerk, though an unprofessional arrangement might have existed for the division of the profits of the busi

ness.

W. Murray, for the Incorporated Law Society, was not called upon.

JESSEL, M.R., said that section 2 of the first Act was quite general in its terms, and was intended to be so. It simply provided that no one should practise as a solicitor unless he was duly qual fied. Section 32 had a different object. Section 2 was primarily directed against the unqualified person who acted as a solicitor; section 32 was primarily directed against the solicitor who lent his name to an unqualified person for his profit, but it also added a summary remedy against the unqualified person. Under section 2 the only remedy would have been by an indictment for misdemeanor, whereas, if the unqualified person could be brought within section 32, there was a summary remedy against him. By the Act of 1860 the Legislature amended this, and extended the summary remedy. It was said that section 32 would apply to the managing clerk to a solicitor, but a managing clerk did not act as a solicitor, and it was clear that the appellant had acted as a solicitor. Section 2 applied, and the appeal must be dismissed.

BRETT, L.J., was of the same opinion. He said the case was too plain for argument. It was one of those shameful and dangerous cases in which an accountant acted as a solicitor, and, knowing that he was doing wrong, attempted to cover it by inducing a solicitor who had been just admitted to lend him his name, upon terms which had not been disclosed, but could be easily guessed. He was acting as a solicitor under the cover of the name of a solicitor, and there was no room for any argument at all.

COTTON, L.J., said that if section 32 applied, section 2 equally applied to the case. There was none the less an offence against section 2 because the case also came within section 32. The appellant did not pretend to act as a clerk; he was really acting as a solicitor on his own behalf.

SOCIETIES.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

The adjourned annual general meeting of the Incorporated Law Society was held on Friday, the 15th inst., at the society's hall, Chancery-lane, Mr. CHARLES CLARIDGE DRUCE, presi dent, occupying the chair.

Upon the motion "That the annual report be received, approved, and entered on the minutes," which was moved by Mr. J. M. CLABON, the then president, and seconded by Mr. C. C. DRUCE, as vice-president, at the meeting on the 8th inst., an amendment was moved by Mr. J. E. Fox, and seconded by Mr. FRANCIS MILLER, to add to the motion the following words :-"With the exception of that part thereof which relates to the call of solicitors to the bar, this meeting being of opinion that the resolution of the Inns of Court should not be accepted, but that solicitors should have facilities for call to the bar equal to those already given to the members of the bar for admission to the roll of solicitors."

The CHAIRMAN thanked the members of the society for the compliment paid to him in his election to the office of presi dent. He appreciated it all the more, inasmuch as it was not paid to him by his clients, or by the judges of the land, who, perhaps, might not know much about it, but by the best of all judges in the matter, his professional brethren.

Mr. FRANCIS MILLER, as the mover of the adjournment, resumed the discussion. He had not seconded the amendment in any spirit of antagonism to the council, for whom, in common he believed with the great majority, if not all, of bis professional brethren, he entertained the sincerest respect, but he had felt it his duty to do so, because he could not believe for a single moment that any conclusion such as that contained in the report could be considered as a satisfactory settlement of the question. The report said that any solicitor who had passed the society's preliminary examination in its entirety might, on keeping four terms and passing the bar final examination, be called to the bar. He did not understand the word "entirety."

The CHAIRMAN said that occasionally a part of the examination was dispensed with.

Mr. MILLER, in that case, would not wish to deprive any member of the profession of his right to be called to the bar. The report only referred to those who had passed the preliminary examination of the society, but even at the present day there were many solicitors who had passed some other examination in lieu of it, or had obtained a dispensation order. He hoped that these would not be excluded from going to the bar.

The CHAIRMAN observed that the council had every reason to believe the Inns of Court would act favourably to these gentlemen, though he could not pledge himself with respect to it.

Mr. MILLER thought the fact that they did not know the final decision of the Inns of Court was sufficient reason for not adopting the report in its entirety. The society ought not to acquiesce in any arrangement by which solicitors were compelled to wait twelve months before they could go to the bar. The meetings in the hall had several times come to the conclusion by large majorities that solicitors ought to have the right on passing the bar final examination to be called to the bar without any other impediment being placed in their way. Why should solicitors be proscribed class? (A VOICE.-They are not.) There was at one time a regulation of the Inns of Court which affected solicitors and solicitors only, and which said that until they had waited three years after leaving their profession they were not to be called to the bar. Why should solicitors alone be placed under this invidious distinction? And if they were the honourable body of men which he believed they were, why should they still have to wait one year without being permitted to earn their living? The regulation practically excluded those who would be most likely to take advantage of the opportunity of being called to the bar. The junior members of the solicitor branch of the profession would not be those who were desirous of becoming barristers, but those who had been for some time in the profession, and who having made a name in it, felt themselves capable of doing greater things than they could find opportunity for as solicitors. If the meeting.

adopted the report as it stood, it would not be possible even for those whom they reckoned the greatest of the profession to go to the bar. It would not even be possible for the president or any of those who had preceded him to take advantage of the regulation. The Inns of Court would say they had not passed the preliminary examination. No matter that the examination was not instituted when they entered into articles. There was not a single member of the council who would be able to profit by the regulation proposed to be sanctioned. He ventured to say that not above one-fourth, or at any rate one-third, of the profession would be benefited by the regulation. The meeting could not allow it to go forth that the great body of solicitors meeting in their hall had determined that this was a satisfactory settlement of the question, and that as the Inns of Court had permitted them to go to the bar after relinquishing their business for twelve months, they were content. It was placing solicitors under a ban to which no other body of men were subject. Anyone but a solicitor might go to the bar without being compelled to give up his business for three years. He hoped the council would continue to direct their efforts towards the removal of this obnoxious regulation, and he felt certain that as they had year by year gradually induced the Inns of Court to give way, in another year or so they would obtain the removal of this regulation, and the solicitors would be as free to go to the bar as any other of her Majesty's subjects.

The CHAIRMAN read a letter which had been forwarded to him by Mr. Clabon as follows: "I saw, during my year of office, two sets of treasurers of each Inn, and had much communication with them, the result being an absolute conviction in my mind that it is hopeless to get the Inns of Court to agree to more than a reduction of the twelve terms to four, and a dispensation with the preliminary examination for those who have passed our preliminary examination, with a further and very strong belief that Parliament will not interfere to compel the bar to admit us, more particularly after what they have now offered. I look upon it that the passing of the amendment would perpetuate the present state of things." That was the late president's view, and his own was in one sense stronger. The report did not profess to set forth what the council would wish to do, but what they had been able to do, and his own feeling, after close consultation with the council, was that it would be impossible for them to obtain any further concession at present.

Mr. C. FORD was very anxious that it should not go forth to the public that the society considered this resolution as final and satisfactory. He read an extract from the council's report of 1877:-"Previous to the passing of the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1860, an apprenticeship of five years, before any person could be admitted an attorney or solicitor, was in all cases and without exception necessary. This Act shortened (five years to three) the apprenticeship of persons who had been called to the bar, and, by regulation made by the judges under that Act, the same persons are exempted from the preliminary examinations which the Act authorized. Barristers not unfrequently disbar themselves in order to become solicitors, and in the greater proportion of such cases the candidate is of such age as to make an apprenticeship inconvenient, if not distasteful, and of such attainments as to make it unnecessary." "" He would have been glad if the council had followed that more closely, but if they would give some assurance that they were of opinion that the present state of things was not satisfactory, and that sooner or later the same privilege of going to the bar must be given to solicitors as the barristers enjoyed of coming to the solicitor branch, he would be satisfied that the report should be adopted.

Mr. EDWIN BEDFORD thought this a very important question, but was at the same time of opinion that the society bad a great deal to thank the council for in having obtained such a concession. It must be remembered that it was not what they wished to have, but what they were able to obtain, that should satisfy them, and he had read with much pleasure that part of the report which stated that the council had, by their exertions, obtained a resolution from the Inns of Court by which the term, which had originally been three years, had been reduced to one. They might, of course, hope that even that was not a final settlement of the question, but he was afraid that in attempting too much they might lose everything, and that if the bar saw by what

took place at this meeting that they were not even content with what the council had obtained for them, they might say, "Nothing will satisfy them; we will go back to affairs as they originally were." He hoped his fellow-members would feel they had much to be thankful for, and that they would support the council in what they had done, leaving to the future some further amelioration of the regulation. He did not think that solicitors who wished to go to the bar would find that one year such a very great hardship. His experience had been that it was usually the solicitors who had met with a certain amount of success who felt desirous of going to the bar, and these would not object to losing one year's profits in order that this might be brought about.

Mr. DODDS, M.P., happened to know something of the efforts which had been made to get the council's Bill passed through Parliament, and was cognizant of the difficulties

which had beset the labours of the council on behalf of their own branch of the profession. He might say there was no gentleman in the room who was more strongly of opinion than he was that the year which still remained should be swept away, but it was necessary to consider the state of things as they existed and how they could be remedied. The conclusion to which the council had come had been that a very great step in advance had been made in the interests of the solicitor branch of the profession, and that they ought very gladly to accept anything which removed the difficulty which formerly existed, at any rate as far as two years were concerned, of the gap which existed between themselves and the higher branch of the profession as it was called. He did not regard this in any way as a final settlement of the question-(A VOICE.-The words of the report)-it was only a settlement of the question for the present, but neither in this, nor in matters of a similar kind, was there any finality. There was no reason why any future council who should represent the society in times to come should not endeavour, at some future period, to get rid of the one year which still separated the two branches of the profession, or any reason why the present council should not continue their efforts. Mr. Miller had referred to the solicitors as a proscribed class. This had been the case to a certain extent it was true, but they were now so far a privileged class that, instead of its being necessary for them to keep twelve terms before they were called to the bar, they were privileged to go there after keeping four terms. He (Mr. Dodds) was of opinion that those four terms ought to be got rid of, but as half a loaf was better than no bread, they ought well to be pleased when they had got two-thirds of the loaf. His experience in the House of Commons had been that the men who had been most successful in the accomplishment of reforms were those who had shown a readiness to adapt themselves to circumstances and to accept a compromise where a compromise was desirablethose who had been ready to take something on account and in time they got the remainder of what they considered themselves entitled to. If he knew his brother solicitors, he thought they would be of opinion that the council bad adopted a wise course in coming to the conclusion at which they had arrived. He was quite sure that by proceeding with their Bill, the council would not have been able to have accomplished any improvement. By accepting compromises in communication with the Inns of Court and with those in authority the council had gained this great step, and the least that members could do would be to accept this great concession which had been made-not as a final settlement of the question, but as a settlement for the present-and then they might agitate as much as they thought proper for the removal of the year which remained. The council hoped this would be accepted as a great instalment of the measure of justice to which they thought the solicitors were entitled, and which, if they were now content with what had been conceded, he believed they would obtain at no very far distant period.

Mr. E. KIMBER quite agreed that this was a great step in advance, but in a question of this kind it was necessary to take into consideration those who belonged to the law and those who did not. Mr. Dodds was of opinion that it was a great instalment of justice, but in what light would the public regard it? Only the other day one of the newspapers bad had a leading article upon the last discussion in the room, and had said distinctly that if the solicitors could do so little for the public, if the Incorporated Law Society could advance in so little a way towards granting reforms which the public could appreciate, the public would know how to

appreciate the Incorporated Law Society. He (Mr. Kimber) was sure the public would ask, if two years can be dispensed with, why not dispense with the whole three? and what was the use of retaining the four terms? It was quite true that the most successful men in Parliament had been those who, seeing the opportunity for a compromise, had seized it; but this was not the kind of compromise to which they ought to agree. They could not agree with the council in consider. ing this a satisfactory settlement of the question. This report, being placed as it would be in the archives of the society, supposing the members should raise another agitation, it would be thrown in their teeth that they had adopted it and accepted its terms. Was it not more advisable to say in their report that they considered this only as a temporary settlement of the question? In his opinion that was all that the amendment desired-that they did not accept it as a permanent settlement of the question. He was sure the public would not accept it as such.

Mr. G. A. CROWDER said the object of the report was to state what had been done. They had heard from a member of the council, speaking on behalf of the council, that, while they claimed a certain amount of consideration for the concession which had been obtained up to the present time, it was not to be considered as a final settlement of the question. This was a violation of the words of the report. He main. tained that if the meeting adopted this proposition, that this was only a temporary settlement, and that further advances would be made at some future time, they might very well adopt the report.

Mr. GREGORY, M P., thought it was possibly known to the members that he had taken considerable interest in this question, and had for some years done what little he could in the promotion of the interests of the profession by bringing it under the consideration of Parliament. To his mind, the council had made, at all events for the present, what he considered a very good settlement of the question, and when gentlemen pressed upon the council what they were desirous should be done, they ought to consider that the council were not the Houses of Parliament. They were neither the House of Lords nor the House of Commons, much less were they both of them, and they must not only take into consideration what they would like to be done, but what the council were able to do. They must also remember that the bar was a very influential and powerful body in both Houses of Parliament. The society had a Bill in the House of Lords, and he had ventured to give notice in the House of Commons upon the subject, and the question was whether the council should bring on the one or the other. He had always looked upon the Bill in the House of Lords as hopeless, because the greater number of the lords who took part in the discussions were law lords, and every law lord and every connection of a law lord was a bencher of one of the Inns of Court. They could, therefore, look for but little success for a Bill promoted n the Upper House on the subject. With regard to the Lower House they knew that there, too, were many members of the bar, and it was not only the members of the bar who were to be considered but their connections, the law officers of the Crown, and the various ramifications which were all represented there, and which they had to meet. It was of little use discussing this question in the hall of the society unless they were prepared to move the public out of doors, and he ventured to say that the public would never go with them to any greater extent than the concession already granted. The council had to make the best terms possible, and when gentlemen objected to the year being retained, they should know that it was retained for the same reason the three years were originally retained, in order that an interval might exist between the passage from one branch to the other, and that the solicitor might not carry with him to one branch the connection he had made in the other. Speaking for himself, he could not see why the solicitor should not take this connection with him, because it had been legitimately earned, and might be legitimately retained, but, at the same time, that was a reason urged and strongly pressed in the House of Commons, and one with which there had been considerable difficulty in dealing. It was therefore, he thought, wise of the council to come to some compromise by which they would practically attain the object they had in view; and he asserted that they had practically attained it; because it was no very great hardship for a man to have to pause for one year in his progress from the solicitor branch of the profession to the bar.

Three years had been felt to be a great hardship, and, to some extent might, perhaps, reduce a man to the starvation point, but this would not be the case when one year only was in question. He thought a really good arrange. ment had been made, aud one which gave the solicitors a very considerable status and a much better opportunity of availing themselves of the passage to the bar. He thought the arrangement one which ought to be satisfactory to solicitors, and which had raised their status in the eyes of the public.

A MEMBER said the meeting were perfectly satisfied with what the council had done, but they did not wish it to be recorded in the report that they considered the settlement which had been arrived at as a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. Personally, he hoped the time would come when all distinctions which at present existed between the two branches, would be swept away, and he would be one of the first to join in any public movement with this object. If the report were adopted in its entirety, he felt that it would stultify any efforts he might hope to make in the future with the view of arriving at what he considered to be a satisfactory conclusion. In his opinion the costs of litigation would never be diminished until the two branches were united, and he felt certain that the public would be entirely in favour of such a movement. If the two branches were combined, as was the case in America and other places, the public would not be saddled with such heavy costs as was the case at present.

Mr. THOMAS PAINE (vice-president) suggested that there was no question before the meeting. It was clear they all bad one end in view, and if the council had thought fit in the exercise of their discretion to accept the present settlement, he ventured to think it would be very unwise to attempt to go further.

Mr. J. E. Fox asked if there was any return of the number of solicitors who had gone to the bar, and the number of barristers who had become solicitors during the past five years ?

The CHAIRMAN said that he was informed by the secretary that at the most twelve barristers had joined the solicitor branch of the profession. It was impossible to say how many solicitors had left to go elsewhere.

The amendment, on being put to the meeting, was nega tived.

Mr. F. K. MUNTON observed, with respect to the remarks which had been made at the last meeting concerning the library, that although he did not agree with the strictures passed upon its manage nent by Mr. F. W. Parker or with Mr. Indermaur, who considered that the students were entitled to the whole of the library, he thought some improvement ought to be made. Would it not be possible to retain one wing solely for the use of members, or if this were not practicable, at any rate a clear table? He did not think it ought to go forth that there was any suggestions of inattention on the part of the officials in the library. He thought everyone would say that, from Mr. Williamson down to the junior porter, the members received the greatest attention.

The CHAIRMAN remarked that the librarian had informed him that the southern wing of the library was set apart for the members, and that students were only allowed there when there was no room elsewhere. Duplicate practice books were also kept. A few months since the council had formed a committee to consider the accommodation of the entire building, and it might fairly be assumed that they would take the library into consideration.

The motion for the adoption of the report was then

carried.

Mr. JAMES POWELL read the following motion of which be had given notice: "That the Council of the Incorporated Law Society do forthwith take such proceedings in the case Re W- solicitors, submitted to the said society by Harris & Powell in March last, as to this meeting shall seem fit."

The CHAIRMAN considered he ought to ask the meeting whether this was a matter they should consider at all, as the question had been put before the council already for discus sion as a purely conveyancing matter. The council had adjudicated on it to the best of their ability, and it would be excessively inconvenient if it were reopened in such a meeting as the present.

Mr. POWELL said that the chairman having so decided he would not press the subject for one moment. Mr. GREEN rose to order. There were two notices on the

paper by Mr. Ford, relating to pleadings in legal proceedings and the payment of fees to barristers' clerks. These subjects had already been dealt with in the report. It seemed to him that the notices were out of order.

Mr. FORD remarked that the meeting was not in a position

to examine into the merits or demerits of the motions until he had brought them forward.

The CHAIRMAN thought that, as the notices had been before them for some time, Mr. Ford should be allowed to bring them forward.

Mr. FORD moved, "That the use of pleadings in legal proceedings can, with advantage, be discontinued as a general rule of practice." He would like to say at the outset that he had no desire that pleadings should be abolished. He agreed with the report when it said: "It has been suggested that pleadings should be abolished, but the council are of opinion that, although there may be instances in which pleadings could be dispensed with, yet in the majority of contentious cases the result of not ascertaining, by means of pleadings, the issues to be tried would be to increase greatly the expense of preparing for trial." He wished, however, to point out that it had been the intention of the Judicature Act to get rid of pleading, and to substitute something which was much more simple, but unfortunately the result had been that the pleadings with which solicitors had to deal were as technical as any which had existed before the passing of the Act. The terms of the Rules of the Supreme Court were, that the statement of complaint was to be as brief as the case might admit. It was to be a simple, plain statement, not a technical pleading. He suggested that the better plan would be to dispose of the issue at judges' chambers. Under the circumstances he had informed the gentleman who was to have seconded the motion that he wished to be allowed to withdraw the motion.

The motion having been withdrawn,

:

Mr. FORD read the following notice of motion which, at the suggestion of the chairman, he subsequently withdrew:"That the practice which sanctions the payment of barristers' clerks, by suitors, for services rendered by such clerks to barristers as their employers, is objectionable in its operation, and ought to be discontinued."

The CHAIRMAN read the following notice of motion which had been given by Mr. Francis Miller:-"That a general meeting of the society shall be held at such time and place in the month of January or February as the council shall appoint." He observed that this looked like requiring an alteration of the bye-laws, and he would prefer a direct motion with this object.

Mr. MILLER said that he wished to alter the bye-laws by This motion in order that in future there should not only be an annual meeting which was held in the hottest month of the year, but a meeting in addition at an earlier period of the year, when the members would be likely to have a little more time to attend. At present the meeting was held at a time when it was impossible for them to attend in any great numbers, and of those who did attend many were compelled, by reason of other engagements, to leave before the meeting was concluded. No less than 250 gentlemen came into the hall at the last meeting, and how many were able to remain until the end? He thought the council should meet their constituents more frequently, in order that they might hear their opinions on the various subjects of interest to their branch of the profession. Until recently they had only had their annual meeting in July, and he believed that it was in consequence of this, to a very great extent, that the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association was formed. That led to the holding of the annual meetings of the society in the provinces. This was a step in the right direction, but it did not go far enough. The fact that only 250 gentlemen attended their annual meetings was an argument for the holding of additional general meetings at a more convenient period of the year. It would be an advantage to the council to meet their constituents more frequently, and to hear the opinions even of those who were most opposed to their policy. The annual meeting only lasted two hours, and it was impossible for the members to express their opinions on the various subjects in which they were interested. If they were to meet in January they would be meeting at a period of the year when what they did might have some influence on the events of the succeeding six months, whereas, when they met in July, the session of Parliament was practically at an end, and all they had to do was to hear what had been done, and go away contented. They ought to

meet at a time when their opinion could be expressed as to the course which ought to be adopted.

Mr. PAINE referred to the bye-laws, which, he observed, must be varied if the motion were carried. The charter required that an annual meeting should be held in the month of May or as soon after as might be convenient, and that other general meetings should be held as occasion should require and the bye-laws should direct. The bye-laws said that a special general meeting might be called at any time, and that twenty members might require a meeting to be called, in which case the council were compelled to call the meeting. Bye-law 19 said that no motion for the alteration of a bye-law should be considered unless previously approved by the council, or unless twenty-one days' notice should have been given. This was in effect a motion for the alteration of a bye-law, and he ventured to submit that the terms should be altered to a request to the council.

Mr. KIMBER seconded the motion. As he understood the bye-law, it said that meetings should be held as occasion should require, and he apprehended that there were many occasions for holding meetings, as often, perhaps, as once a month; at the most the motion was an expression of opinion that it would be convenient to have two meetings in the year instead of one.

The CHAIRMAN thought Mr. Miller should amend his motion. Mr. MILLER expressed his wish to do so.

Mr. TODD remarked that if the meeting were held in January as suggested, it was very desirable that the subjects should be placed before the meeting as it should direct, and not as the president of the society should think fit. He thought that it was very inconvenient when a member brought a subject forward which he had already brought under the notice of the council, and was dissatisfied with their decision, that the president should say, "This is an improper matter to bring forward; it has already been considered."

Mr. F. K. MUNTON moved the resolution of which he had given notice as an amendment to Mr. Miller's motion. It ran as follows:-" That in addition to the afternoon annual business meeting in July, two meetings be held on the second Fridays in January and April respectively, to be called the January and April Meetings,' and that such meetings take place at seven o'clock p.m." He wished to observe at the outset that Mr. Miller had agreed with him that the amendment should run as follows: "That in the opinion of this meeting it is desirable that in addition," &c., and he thought it might be left to the council to consider the matter further and determine what should be done. He had attended these meetings for seventeen or eighteen years, and had always endeavoured to strengthen the hands of the council, and he did not desire to do anything which was in opposition to the council except so far as was necessary to demonstrate the point he was bringing forward. They must have all noticed how at the meeting last week half the members had left at a quarter to three, and at half-past three the speakers were referring to "the late hour which had been arrived at, and that they felt it impossible to address the meeting" on a subject which they had come some miles to speak upon. A very fair number had been present at the commencement of the meeting, but at least one-third had left before three o'clock, about another third before halfpast three, and at four the adjournment of the meeting was moved. The council very properly took little part in voting on the motion; but when he moved that the adjourned meeting did take place in the evening, nearly the whole of the council held up their hands and so carried the voting. He would be sorry to deprive the members of the council of the opportunity of dining at their usual hour, but he hoped that if the opinion of the meeting was that it was desirable to meet at an hour when they would not feel it necessary to rush off to attend to the business of the day, the council would sacrifice a little convenience in order that the business of the society should be properly conducted. For many years after the establishment of the society the members were content to leave everything to the safe keeping of the council, but in these times the members were of opinion that the council ought not to be content to deal wholly with the important questions which came before them without applying now and again for the vote and sanction of their constituents. It was impossible for the members to consider the question before them dispassionately in the busiest month of the year, at the busiest hours of the day, when they felt that they ought to be attending to other business of their own. There