Page images
PDF
EPUB

too vague, but still his lordship could not differ from the CASES OF THE WEEK.

judge of first instance. The third head was the most im. portant, and in his lordship's opinion this was not allowable

at all. All that the law gave to & successful litigant wae SOLICITOR-BREACH OF DUTY-MORTGAGE FROM CLIENT

bis costs of the action as between party and party, and he UNUSUAL CLAUSE-OMISSION TO LIMIT RIGHT TO EXERCISE

could not in the same action be said to have sustained any POWER OF SALE-MEASURE OF DAMAGES/DEFAULT IN

damage in this respect, for his costs were paid when they PAYMENT OF INTEREST-RENTS RECEIVED BY MORTGAGEE

were paid as between party and party. BRETT, L.J., said IN Pose ESSION-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-3 & 4 WILL,

that wbenever the court could see that a particular prac 4. c. 27. 8. 40.-In a case of Cockburn v. Edwards, before

tice in business was likely to lead to oppression or fraud, it the Court of Appeal on the 2nd inst., a question arose as to ought to endeavour to check it as much as possible. A the duty of a solicitor, who takes a second mortgage from

practice seemed to have grown up where a solicitor had bis client to himself, to limit the right to exercise the

some clients who had money and other clients who had power of sale of the mortgaged property, by providing, as is none, and wanted to obtain advances of money, usual in the case of first mortgages, that it shall only be

for the solicitor to advise the former class of exercised after six months' notice to pay off the principal, clients to lend money to the latter on mortor in case the interest sball be in arrear for more than gage, but only to advise them to lend part three wonths; and there was a further question as to of the money which was wanted, the solicitor lending the measure of the solicitor's liability in damages for his

the rest himself on the second mortgage. This gave the omission to insert such a limitation. The question also solicitor very great power, for he really became the mortga incidentally arose whether the receipt of the repts of mortgaged

gee himself, and he obtained the benefit of the costs of preproperty by a mortgagee in possession amounts to a pay

paring two mortgage deeds. It would be much better for & ment of interest on the mortgage debt. The plaintiff had

solicitor not to lend money to his own clients at all. But, if he employed ibe defendant, who was his solicitor, to procure him

did so, he ought not to conduct the conveyancing in his own an advance of money on the security of property of which he

office; he ought to hand it over to some other solicitor. was seised in fee. The defendant accordingly negotiated a first Still, if he did conduct it himself, and could show that the client mortgage of the property for £450 to a third person, and

had bad the same advantage as he would have had from an took a second mortgage to himself for £50. The defendant independent soli

independent solicitor, the law could not touch the transhimself prepared the second mortgage, which contained a

action, however much it was to be regretted. But the onse power of sale without any limitation on the mortgagee's

was on the solicitor to show this. right to exercise it, and the defendant, without any notice Upon the appeal it was argued that, when the property to the plaintiff, sold the property for £630. The plaintiff was sold, the interest had in fact been in arrear for more than alleged that the sale was at an undervalue, but on the evid

three months, and therefore that no injury had been done to ence, Fry, J., held that the price was not an inadequate one. the plaintiff by the omission to qualify the power of gale. Ho held, however (L. R. 16 Ch.D. 393, ante, p. 117), that

The defendant had been in receipt of the repts of the propthe defendant had acted improperly, in not fully explain.

erty as mortgagee in possession, and in some of the accounts ing the effect of the deed to the plaintiff, and that, con

which he had rendered to the plaintiff he had treated the sequently, the defendant was liable in damages. And his

rents which he bad received as appropriated to the payment lordship gave damages (inter alia) under the following

of interest, but this appropriation had not been made in the heads:-(1) The costs wbich the plaintiff would be put to in last account rendered before the sale. It was, however, conre-investing the £630 in property of a similar nature ; (2) tended on behalf of the plaintiff that, whether an appropriathe probable prospective increase in the value of the property

tion of the rents to the payment of interest was or was not sold (there being some evidence tbat property in the made, it could not be said that the interest was in arrear if Deighbourhood had considerably increased in value); and

the rents received by the mortgagee had in fact covered the (3) the extra costs of the action, above tbe party and party

interest. Reliance was placed on the dictum of Vice-Chan. costs, wbich were given to the plaintiff in the ordinary way. cellor Shadwell in Brocklehurst v. Jessop (7 Sim. 438), that The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON,

the receipt of rent by & mortgagee in possession would L.JJ.) affirmed the decision as to the liability of the defend.

operate as a payment on behalf of the mortgagee to prevent ant, though they differed from it as to the measure of

the Statute of Limitations from running as against the damages. JESBEL, M.R., said that a solicitor ought to be

mortgagee. JESSEL, M.R., said that the receipt of rents by doub's careful when he was acting in a double capacity in

a mortgages in possession was not a payment by contract of bis own interest, and as the adviser of his client, and the either the principal or the interest of the mortgage debt. obligation was on him to show that he bad fully informed When the account came to be taken between the mortgagor his client o the nature of the deed. In such a case, a and the mortgagee, the mortgagee must of course account solicitor would act wisely in insisting on the intervention of for wbat he had received in that way, but till the apother solicitor on behalf of the client. The defendant, account was taken there was no set-off or appropristherefore, did wrong in inserting such a power of tion of the rents against principal or interest. His sale, if it was unusual. On this point his lordship lordship thought that the dictum in Brooklehad some doubt. He was not prepared to say hurst 1. Jessop was wrong, and it was inconsistent that the right to exercise the power of sale in a second or with the principle of the decision of the House of Lords in subsequent mortgage ought necessarily to be limited in the

Chinnery v. Evans (11 H. L. C. 115). The receipt of rents same way as was usual in a first mortgage. No evidence had

| by a mortgageo in possession was not a payment which

beam been adduced as to the practice, and his lordship had not

could prevent the Statute of Limitations from running, for sufficient judicial or professional knowledge to enable him

it was not a payment, by the mortgagor or by an agent to say wbat it was. In several cases wbich had come be

on his beball. The rents were the mortgagee's own fore bim judicially more stringent provisions had been in

property, he bad a complete ownersbip of them, sabject serted in second mortgages than are usual in first mortgages.

to the mortgagee's right of redemption. He received the But be could not say that there was any such established

rents as the legal proprietor of them. Of course, by agree. practice of conveyancers, and he could not hold that the

ment between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, the recto power in the present case was a usual clause. If, there.

received by the latter could be appropriated to the payment fore, no notice of the sale was given to the plaintiff, and the

of interest. In the present case his lordship was of opinion interest was not in arrear, the sale was wrongful, and the

that the earlier accounts which had been rendered by the defendant was liable for some damages. Moreover, it was

defendant were evidence of such an agreement, and he was said on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant had not in.

of opinion that a solicitor who had for some time gone on formed him that his estate was liable to be sold if the interest was in arrear, and that the plaintiff bad a right to know this

setting off the rents which he received as mortgagee in 80 that he might pay the interest in time. His lordebip

possession against the interest doe on the mortgage could could not see any answer to this argument. Therefore,

not, without any notice to his client, pat an end to the assuming that the interest was not in arrear, the defendant

arrangement. The olient was entitled to consider that this was liable in damages. What then were the damages ?

appropriation would still continne to be made, and conAs to the first head, the plaintiff would never have had

sequently it could not in the present case be said that the anything like £630 to re-invest; for the amount due on the

interest was in arrear at the time when the sale wag mortgages must be deducted from that sum. On the second

made. BRETT, L.J., was of opinion that the accounts head, the evidence of increase in valuo of the property was

was rendered by the defendant amounted to an admission by

tendered by

him that he had appropriated the rents to the payment of and which the plaintiffs did not seek to interfere witb, bat

they ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal. in the absence of any such appropriation, it could be said | The order as varied restrained the defendant from printthat interest was not in arrear because the rents which ing or publishing any newspaper or other publication in had been received equalled or exceeded the amount of the the form of a newspaper with or under the name or title interest for the same period. COTTON, L.J., agreed with of the Times, and from doing any other act or invasion or what the Master of the Rolls had said as to Brocklehurst v. infringement of the plaintiffs' right or interest in the name Jessop. The receipt of rents by & mortgagee in possession or title of the Times. --SOLICITORS, A. W. Hodgkinson ; would not provent the Statute of Limitations from Soames. running. It was not a payment by the mortgagor or his agent, it was a taking of the rents by the mortgagee

PRACTICE-APPLICATION TO CHANGE CONDUCT OF ACTION in the most forcible way under bis own legal title.

- PERSONS TO BE SERVED-ORD. 58, R. 3.-In & case of (It sbould be noted that these observations of Jessel, M.R.

Sephton v. Quillian, before the Court of Appeal on the 2nd and Cotton, L.J., appear to be entirely inconsistent with

inst., an appeal was brought from the refusal of Hall, V.C., the recent decision of Fry, J., in the case of Harlock v.

to take away the conduct of the action from the plaintiff, on the Ashbury (ante, p. 640), that a receipt' of rent by a mort

ground that he had improperly snapped a judgment. On gagee in possession will keep alive his right to foreclose

the opening of the appeal it was objected by the respondent's the mortgagor.)-SOLICITORS, Van Sandar & Cumming ; counsel that notice of the appeal ought to have been served F. Venn & Son.

on the other parties to the action, as well as on the plain

tiff. The court (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, COMPANY - WINDING UP - JURISDICTION — STANNARIES

L.JJ.) allowed the objection, saying that all the parties to COURT-COMPANIES Act, 1862, 8. 81.-In a case of In re

the action had an interest in the question who was to have The Silver Valley Mining Company, before the Court of

the conduct of the proceedings. And the hearing of the Appeal on the 2nd inst., a question arose upon the con.

appeal was ordered to stand over, with liberty to serve tho struction of section 81 of the Companies Act, 1862, wbich

other parties to the action.-SOLICITORS, Sharpe, Parkers, ģ provides that, “The expression the court'... sball

Co.; Hargreaves. mean the following authorities (that is to say):- In the case of a company engaged in working any mine within and sub APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER-MORTGAGED PROPERTY IN ject to the jurisdiction of the Standaries, the court of the OCCUPATION OF MORTGAGOR-FORM OF ORDER.-In a case Vice-Warden of the Stannaries, unless the Vice-Warden of Hawkes v. Holland, before the Court of Appeal on the certifies that, in his opinion, the company would be 3rd inst., & question arose as to the proper form of an order more advantageously wound up in the High Court of Chan appointing a receiver of mortgaged property when the prope: cery, in which case the court' shall mean the High Court erty is in the occupation of the mortgagor. The court of Chancery." An order for the appointment of a provisional (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, L.JJ.) held that the liquidator of the company had been made by Bacon, V.C., order ought to direct that possession of the property be given on a winding-up petition presented to the High Court, and it to the receiver. Hall, V.O., had refused to insert such a Was objected that under section 81 the jurisdiction was in direction. JESSEL, M.R., said that, without such a direction, the Stannaries Court. The company was formed to work the appointment of a receiver would be ageless when the mines (generally) in Cornwall or elsewhere, and the appel mortgagor was in the occupation of tbe property, unless the lants had not shown that it had in fact worked any mine in order, as was sometimes done, fixed an occupation rent to be Cornwall. The court (JESSEL, M. R., and BRETT and COTTON, paid by the mortgagor.-SOLICITORS, Wright, Bonner, & L.JJ.) held that it was necessary to show that the company Wright ; Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Co. was, at the time when the petition was presented, or had previously been, engaged in working & mine within the juris. diction of the Stannaries Court, and their lordships expressed ACTION-DEBT-STATUTE OP LIMITATIONS. In a casa their disapproval of the decision of Lord Romilly, M.R.,

of Re Greaves, deceased ; Bray v. Tofield, before the io In re The East Botallack Mining Company (34 Beav. 82), Master of tbe Rolls on the 28th ult., a question arose on the effect of wbich was that a company which had been

a summons to vary the chief clerk's certificate, whether formed for the purpose of working a mine within the Stan.

the claim of certain creditors against the testator on naries jurisdiction, but had never worked any mine, was,

a promissory note dated the 11th of November, 1873, was witbin the meaning of section 81, a company “engaged in

barred by the Statute of Limitations. The writ was issued working " a mine within the jurisdiction. — SOLICITORS, for administration of the testator's estate on the 30th of DecemF. W. Snell f Greenip; Beale & Co.'; James Davis.

ber, 1878, and a decree for administration was made on the8th of December, 1879, and the point argued was whether the

pendency of the action before the decree prevented the statute NEWSPAPER — NAME — PIRACY - INJUNCTION.-On the from running. JESgEL, M.R., was of opinion that the 29th ult. the Court of Appeal (Lord SELBORNE, C., and grounds of the decision in Sterndale v. Hankinson (1 Sim. BRETT and COTTON, LJJ.) affirmed in substance the deci. 393), no longer applied, and that the debt was barred. -SOLE-sion of Jesgel, M.R., in the case of Walter v. Head (ante, CITORS, Ridsdaleg Co.Pilgrim f Phillips; Ashurst, Morris, p. 742). The action was brought by the proprietors of Crisp, & Co. the Times newspaper to restrain the defendant from selling any newspaper under the name or title of the Times. The

COMPANY-ALLOTMENT OF SHARES-MISREPRESENTATION defendant had been isgning reprints of old copies of the

IN PROSPECTUS-REMOVAL FROM REGISTER.-In a case of Times, wbioh were exact facsimiles of the original 188ues, Re Great Wheal Poloooth Com

Re Great Wheal Polgooth Company (Limited), before the Master except the last sheets, upon which the defendant had of tbe Rolls on the 29th ult., a motion was made by an allottee ideeried advertisements for his own profit. He had also of shares in the company for the removal of his name from. issued some 80-called “skits," which were supposed to be the register of shareholders, on the ground that he had been copies of numbers of the Times, published in the years induced to apply for the shares on the faith of untrue and 1962 and 1980, but containing actual advertisements

misleadiog statements in the prospectus, and for the return of the present year. The prices of the defendant's issues

of the moneys paid on application and allotment. The apapd of those of the plaintiffs were dissimilar, but the name plicant received the prospectus by post, and applied for the and the device and arts at the commencement were the shares on the faith of the statements therein contained, same as tbose of the plaintiffs. Jessel, M.R., granted an which were, among others, that the mine purchased by the injonction, on the ground that the plaintiffs bad a right

company had already returned, it was estimated, over of property, in their name and heading which the defend £200,000 in profits, while the £5 shares had risen to £195 ant had infrioged, and that he had attempted to appro. each, and this too with the disadvantage of inferior machi. priate the plaintiffs' advertisements, which was one of the nery, and, further, that tbe reports showed there was most profitable branches of their business. The Court of £2,000,000 worth of ore in the mine. The applicant had APPEAL varied the order of the Master of tbe Rolls by given the company notice to produce the “reports" in omitciog some words which they thought would bave the question, but they would not do so. There was no proof as effect of preventing the defendant from publishing a volame l' to the truth of the other statements. JESSEL, M.R., was of of reprints of old oopies of the Time and other newspapers, i opinion that the above statements were absolutely without

foundation in fact, and he ordered the applicant's name to be removed from the list of shareholders, and ordered the com.

SOLICITORS' CASES. pany to repay the sums paid by the applicant, with £5 per cent.

QUEEN's BENCH Division. interest from the time of payment, and the costs of the motion.-SOLICITORS, Snell & Greenip; G. Turner.

(Sitting in Banc before Grove and LINDLEY, JJ.)

Aug. 1.—Re H. E. Fildes, a Solicitor, COMPANIES Acts, 1862-1880–GENERAL ORDERS, NOVEM This was a rule calling upon the solicitor to answer the BER, 1862 - WINDING-UP PETITION — ADVERTISEMENT — matters contained in certain affidavits, or, in default, to shor “SEVEN CLEAR Days"-NEWSPAPER-FRENCH BUSINESS. — cause why he should not be struck off the rolls. A petition of In re The Anglo-French Union Bank The case having been referred to a master, he now read his (Limited) was mentioned to Hall, v.O., on the 29th ult., report, from which it appeared that with respect to two technical objections advanced by the (1) Henry Edward Fildes did fraudulently attempt to registrar on proceeding to draw up the order which bis obtain the sum of £1 3s. 6d. as & fee paid to counsel for lordship had made upon the petition on the 22nd ult., settling a statement of claim in the case of Allen v. Lucas, whereby the voluntary liquidation of the company was knowing at the time of the taxation of the costs of the sait directed to be continued under the supervision of the court. before the taxing officer of the Court of Passage at Liverpool The registrar objected that the petitioner could not obtain that the statement of claim had not been settled by counsel. his order, inasmuch as (1) the petition was presented on L (2) Henry Edward Fildes attempted to make use of a copy July 15, and heard on July 22, and conld not therefore of a supposed affidavit of increase, purporting to be made by have been advertised “seven clear days” before the hear. his clerk, Jobn Rooney, in which the following paesage ing, as prescribed by the General Orders, November, 1862, occurred :-" That I caused to be paid to the plain. rule 2 ; (2) that the advertisement of the petition in the tiff's counsel, besides the usual fee for settling statement Daily News as a “ London daily morning newspaper" was

of claim and reply, and drawing interrogatories, and case insufficient, inasmuch as the business of the company was to advise, the sum of £5_158. with brief, and the sum of carried on in Paris, and the Times was, as the learned regis. £1 6s. on consultation." Whereas, in fact, no fees whatever trar considered, the only London paper having any exten. for settling statement of claim in the cause had ever been paid sive circulation there. His lordship, however, dispensed to the counsel. with advertisement for any further time, and overruled the | (3) In the bill of costs of H. E. Fildes, presented to the second objection.-SOLICITORS, Paddison, Son, & Co.

taxing officer for taxation, the following costs were cbarged

and presented, and the officer taxed them after making a PRACTICE – TRUSTEE Act, 1850 – New TRUSTEE - disallowance on certain items of 2s. 6d., viz. :-“Drawing HUSBAND OF CESTUI QUE TRUST.-In a petition of In re affidavit of increase, fos. 6. 6s. ; paid oath, 18. 6d. ; copy Parrott's Trusts, before Hall, V.C., on the 29th ult., for the defendant's solicitor, 2s.; and paid filing 1s.." being an application under the Trustee Act, 1850, for Whereas, in fact, H. E. Fildes knew that no such affidavit the appointment of a new trustee of a will, to act jointly existed. with a surviving trustee, his lordship was asked to appointl (4) H. E. Fildes did obtain from counsel, on the 21st the husband of one of the cestuis que trust under the will, of October, 1880, his brief, with a list of the whole of who was entitled to the interest for her separate use. The counsel's fees indorsed on the back, by misrepresentation, by existing trustee consented to the application, but his lord. stating that he would send up a cheque at once, and for the ship, in the exercise of his discretion, refused to accede to it. purpose of satisfying the taxing officer at Liverpool that the fee -SOLICITORS, Walters, Deverell, & Walters.

had been paid, whereas on the 22nd of October, 1880, when

the bill was taxed, the fees had not been paid, but a cheque SETTLED ESTATES ACT, 1877, ss. 20, 21-JURISDICTION for the same was sent to counsel by H. E. Fildes on the -DRAINAGE SCHEME-8 & 9 Vict. 0. 56.-In a case of | 25th of October, dated on the 26th of October. Dickson-Poynder . Cook, before Fry, J., on the 29th McConnell showed cause.--I ask the court to allow me to ult., a petition was presented under the Settled Estates Act re-open the question of fraud found against the solicitor in the of 1877, asking the sanction of the court to a scheme for first paragraph of the master's report, as from the evidence the drainage in the ordinary way of some agricultural land given before the master I submit that no fraud was proved. forming part of a settled estate. Section 20 of the Act (GROVE, J.-Yes, you can do so, As the master's report is not provides that “it shall be lawful for the court, if it shall in the nature of a judgment; if it were final there could be deem it proper and consistent with a due regard for the interests | no use in our discussing the matter in court.) If any fraud of all parties entitled under the settlement, and subject to was committed, and there is little doubt that it was, it was the provisions and restrictions in this Act contained, from by Rooney, the clerk, and not by Mr. Fildes. The clerk had time to time to direct that any part of any settled estates charge of the case, and Mr. Fildes thought that the clerk be laid out for streets, roads, paths, squares, gardens, or would have attended the taxation, but in consequence of the other open spaces, sewers, drains, or water-courses, either unavoidable absence of the clerk, Mr. Fildes had to attend to be dedicated to the public or not; and the court may it himself, and he knew nothing of the details of the case. direct that the parts so laid out shall remain vested in the The solicitor on the other side had, by some means, dis. trustees of the settlement, or be conveyed to or vested in covered that counsel bad not been instructed to draw up the any other trustees upon such trusts for securing the con. statement of claim, and, on taxation, objected that the tinved appropriation thereof to the persons aforesaid, in amount should be charged against his client. Then the all respects, and with such provisions for the appoint taxing officer said that he should require a voucher for it, ment of new trustees when required, as by the whereupon Mr. Fildes said, If you have my clerk's affidavit court shall be deemed advisable." And section 21 that the amount was paid to counsel, I suppose it was; and empowers the court to direct that the works authorized when the clerk returned, Mr. Fildes reprimanded him for under section 20, and other works incidental thereto, be inserting the item of £1 3s. 6d. Rooney was examined made and executed, and to order the cost thereof to be before the master and said that he put it in inadvertently, raised and paid by means of a sale or mortgage of a charge and in cross-examination it was elicited that he had been disupon all or any part of the settled estates. Fry, J., held charged from a former situation with an aspersion on his that he had no jarisdiction under these sections to do what character, and that circumstance was perhaps looked upon as was asked. L'nder the scheme proposed there should be no showing that he might perhaps have done this intentionally, dedication of any part of the land to drains : the land but even so it could not criminate Mr. Fildes. In making would remain in the occupation of the tenants just as it did his report the master was no doubt influenced by the fact before. It would be no more dedicated to drains than land that there was no system of book-keeping in the office, and under which there was a mine was dedicated to the mine. But there were no entries at all in relation to the action in his lordship held that there was jurisdiction to sanction the question, but the solicitor was working short-handed to save scheme under the Act 8 & 9 Vict. 0. 56.-SOLICITORS, money, and a book-keeping clerk was dispensed with. Burne, Hunt, & Burne.

Then, as to the affidavit of increase, dealt with in the second paragraph of the report, the explanation was that Rooney bad drafted it and left it on his desk, and that while he was away the copying clerk bad seen it, and thought it was

[ocr errors]

• Reported by W. BLEW, E817., Barrister-at-Law.

SOCIETIES.

his duty to copy it and send it to the solicitor on the other side. It was not pretended that it was a proper affidavit; it was not filled in with a commissioner's name, and the signature was in the writing of the copying clerk, who had copied the whole thing as it stood. Counsel's fees were paid eventually. The solicitor bad been twenty years in the

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. profession, and nothing had hitherto been said against him. The adjourned annual general meeting of the IncorporIt must be admitted that he had acted negligently, but he porated Law Society was held at their hall, Chancery-lane, had been guilty of no fraud.

on Thursday, Mr. CHARLES CLARIDGE DRUCE, president, Hollams, for the Incorporated Law Society.

in the chair. The meeting was simply for the purpose of GROVB, J.-This is a case of great gravity, although the

receiving the scrutineers' report of the election by ballot to the

he ten vacancies on the council, and there was only & quoruin sum involved is very small, because anyone conversant with the taxation of a bill of costs must know how serious a matter

of members present..

| The PRESIDENT having stated the object of the meeting, a mistake of this sort is, and how greatly it may affect other

Mr. EUGENE WASON, chairman of the scrutineers, read the people. A client is quite in the hands of his solicitor, and that gives the latter opportunity for the commission of

report of the scrutineers, as follows :

Pursuant to the appointment made by the president at the offences of a serious description. Most counsel have known of bills of costs, or affidavits of increase, in which certain

meeting of the society held on the 8th day of July, 1881, in items bave never been paid at all, and they know too that

compliance with the 5th section of bye-law 15, we, the

unders gned, the scrutineers so appointed, beg to present to there is sometimes great carelessness in these matters, and

the members of the society our report certifying the result money is often got which never should be got. Io some

of the election, which has been conducted in accordance with matters, like this one for instance, the solicitor must be

the charter and bye-laws of the society. taken to have known his duty; he should have gone through

The secretary handed to us on Tuesday, the 2nd of August, the bill of costs carefully, and satisfied himself that the several charges bad been paid. In this case I think there is

instant, & box containing the voting papers, which had been

placed in it as soon as they were delivered. considerable evidence to justify the master's report, and were I a juryman I should have little hesitation in saying that the

The first schedule hereto annexed contains the total solicitor knew quite well what he was about ; but the evidence

number of voting papers received, amounting in all to

| 1,482 is not very demonstrative, and it is just possible that the

The same schedule sets forth the number of voting papers solicitor was careless enough to have left the matter to a

rejected, and the grounds of rejection. Six have been rejected clerk, and to have presented the bill of costs without having looked through it. Among the items are fee to counsel, for the 30th of July, and six because the voting papers were not

on the ground that they were not received by midnight on statement of claim, and attending him. Now there was

signed. Deither fee nor attendance here, on that point at least, but

The total number of votes in favour of each candidate is the only attendance was on the question of misjoinder of

| set forth in the second schedule hereto annexed. plaintiffs. I do not like saying anything behind the back

The third schedule contains the names of those candidates of a man who is not here to defend himself, but I must

whom we find and certify to be duly elected. say that counsel made a great mistake in signing for

The voting papers have been duly closed op under our fees be had not received. This signing a brief for fees is

seals, and will be retained in our care for the period of one & most important matter, and I never know anyone month, which will expire on the 5th of September next, initial a brief unless he had received the fee. As regards

when we sball destroy them as provided by section 2 of byeMr. Fildes I cannot help thinking that he knew the fee law 18. was never paid. His one exonse is that he left these

EUGENE WASON, Chairman. things to his olerk-that is to say, that he left to others

ALBERT TURNER. matters that be should have taken care to have within his

L. FLETCHER. own knowledge. He was guilty of gross carelessness, to

PHILIP RICKMAN. 280 & mild term, but my own impression is that it was August 2.

ARTHUR I. FINCH. more than carelessness, for considering that Mr. Fildes bas been in the profession for twenty years, this was not The first schedule referred to in the report angexed the first bill of costs he had drawn. The only doubt I hereto :entertain is whether we should not strike him off the rolls, Total number of voting papers received . 1,482 bat as it is just possible that he might not have absolutely

(a) Received after the prescribed date 6 known all tbe ciroumstances, we will take a lenient view

() Unsigned . . . . . 6 and look upon the case as one of calpable neglect only. Under these circumstances we have come to the conclusion that Mr. Fildes be suspended for three years.

1,470 Solicitor for the Incorporated Law Society, Williamson.

The second schedule referred to in the annexed report :COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

Alfred Bell

1,241 (Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, sitting as Chief Judge). Barnard Platts Broomhead

. 1,301 July 31.-In re W. R. Preston.

John Wreford Budd . .

867

John Moxon Clabon . The debtor was a solicitor having offices in Mark-lane.

.

1,351 A Thomas Marshall . .

1,206 petition for adjudication having been presented against him,

Arnold Summers Manns.

738 Mr. Shirreff, on behalf of the petitioning creditor, applied

Richard Nicholson ..

1,314 for the appointment of Mr. Southcott, accountant, as receiver. In support of the application he read an affidavit of

1,326 Henry Watson Parker Henry Roscoe . .

1,351 the petitioning creditor, from which it appeared that the bankrupt was in difficulties and that he had absconded. An

Cornelius Thomas Saunders

1,317 application to strike him off he rolls was also pending.

244 George Augustus Schultz. Matthew Bateson Wood .

1,278 There were bills of costs to be collected, and it was therefore necessary for a receiver to be appointed.

The third schedule referred to in the annexed report :His HONOUR made the desired appointment.

Names of candidates duly elected.
In re John Grove.

John Moxon Clabon . . . . . 1,351 The bankrupt was a solicitor and scrivener, carrying on business in Queen-street, Cheapside, under the firm of Alfred Henry Watson Parker .

1,326 .Jones & Grove. Ho now failed to attend the meeting Cornelius Thomas Saunders

1,317 appointed for his public examination, and it was stated that Richard Nicholson . . he had absconded.

Barnard Platts Broomhead .
baru riatts broomhead

. . 1,301 The learned REGISTRAR directed the usual memorandum Matthew Bateson Wood . . .

1,278 to be entered.-Times.

Alfrod Bell

1,241

12

.......

.:.:.:.:.:

Henry Roscoe Bwin

[ocr errors]

1.314

Thomas Marshall

. . 1,206 | to the Vacation Judges are to be left with, or addressed John Wreford Budd .

. 867 (ander cover marked outside Ohancery Vacation Papers) EUGENE WASON, Obairman. to the officer in attendanoo, Chancery Registrars' Chambers ALBERT TURNER,

(room 186), Royal Courts of Justice, before one o'clook on L. FLETCHER.

the Monday previous to the day on whioh the application PHILIP RICKMAN.

is intended to be made. August 2, 1881. ARTHUR I. FINCH.

In any case of great orgenoy the brief of counsel is to The PRESIDENT moved a vote of thanks to the scrutineers,

be sent to the judge by book post, or paroel, prepaid, which was seconded by Mr. THOMAS PAINE, vice-president,

2000mpanied by offioe copies of the affidavits in support and carried unanimously, which terminated the proceed

of the application, and also by a minute, on a separate iogs.

sheet of paper, signed by counsel, of the order he may It will be observed that the whole of the retiring members

consider the applioant entitled to, and an envelope capable of the council who came forward as candidates were

of receiving the papers, and addressed as follows: re-elected, and that Mr. Budd takes the seat vacated

« Chapoery Official Letter : To the Registrar in Vacation, by Mr. Thomas Plews, who did not offer himself for re-elec

Chancery Registrars' Chambers, Royal Courts of Justice, tion.

London, W.0."

On applications for injunctions or writs of ne exeat regno,

in addition to the above, & copy of the writ, and a ASSOCIATION FOR THE REFORM AND CODI.

certificate of writ issued, must also be sent. FICATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS.

The papers sent to the judge will be returned to the The following is the programme of the Cologne Con- registrar. ference, to be held 16th to 19th August, 1881 :-The The address of the judge for the time being acting as conference will hold its sittings in the great hall of the Vacation Judge in the Chancery Division can be obtained Hanga, at Cologne; and the inangaral meeting will take on application at the Chancery Registrars' Obamberg. place on Tuesday, the 16th of Aagast, at twelve o'clook. Tbe chambers of the Master of the Rolls will be open Members attending the conference are required to sign a on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, in every list, setting forth their names and their addresses in week, from eleven to one o'olook. Cologne. Members are requested to procure their tickets | Obapoery Registrars' Chambers, July 31. of admission immediately on arrival in Cologne. Recep

Notice to Solicitors. tion of the mombarg by the Cologne Committee; opening

On and after the 20th of August, the registrar in attendof the conference by the president; annual report of the council ; communication of letters, &o. ; reports by the

ance will, for the purpose of facilitatiog vacation business,

sign certificates for sale and transfer on Tuesday and Friday in georetaries. Subjects for discussion, recommended by the Exeoative

every week, but the certificates should be left for examination

at least one clear day previously, and on Tuesday in every Council : 1. Public International Law.-Consnlar jurisdiction in

week the registrar will make alterations necessary in orders China and Japan ; domicile as a test of national charaoter;

to be acted on by the Chancery Paymaster. the neutralization of telegraphic sea cables in time of war;

The registrar will not attend on Saturdays and Mondays

unless on notice of any intended application to the judge for the operation of the mixed tribunals of Egypt.

an order of an urgent nature. 2. International Commercial Law.-Bills of exchange ;

L. J. MERIVALE, Vsetinn Ragistrare law of negotiable securities (sbares, bonds, and coupong,

P. J. KING, nominative or to bearer); international copyright ; conflict Chancery Registrars' Chambers, Royal Courts of Justice, between the law of joint stook companies.

July 31. 3. International Maritime Law.-The law of affreightment.

Sabjects proposed by the International Code Committe AMENDING ORDER AS TO THE FEES AND of the Usited States :

PERCENTAGES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO Longitude and time; international coinage, weights, and

BE TAKEN IN THE SUPREME COURT OF measures ; sed signals, collisions at sea.

JUDICATURE BY MEANS OF STAMPS. Subjects proposed by members :

Whereas by section 26 of the Supreme Court of JudicaThe early charters granted by tbe kings of England to ture Act, 1875, it is provided that the fees and percentages the merchants of Cologne, by Sir Travers Twiss, Q.O., appointed to be taken in the High Court of Justice and in D.C.L., F.R.S. ; oustoms of the early trading companies of the Court of Appeal, and in any court to be created by any Europe, by Cornelius Walford, F.S.A., F.S.S., F.R.H.S.; commission, and in any office which is connected with any on a common form of bill of lading as a basis for an | of those courts, or which any business connected with any international law of affreightment, by Richard Lowndes ; | of those courts is conducted in, shall, except so far as they the Scandinavian coinage laws, by Alfred Kirsebom, vice be otherwise directed, be taken by means of stamps; and consnl in London for Sweden and Norway.

further that such stamps shall be impressed or adhesive, asthe Treasury may from time to time direct; and that the Treasury, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, may from time to time make such rules as may seem fit for

publishing the amount of the fees, and regulating the use of NEW ORDERS.

such stamps, and particularly for prescribing the application

thereof to documents from time to time in use or required HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

to be used for the purposes of such stamps and for ensuring

the proper cancellation of such stamps, and for keeping CHANCERY DIVISION.

accounts of such stamps. LONG VACATION, 1881.

And whereas, by an order made under the same section Notice.

of the said Act on the 22nd April, 1876, it was provided Daring the vacation, until farther notice, all applica.

troe, all applica. | that the stamps to be used in the collection of certain of the tions which may require to be immediately or promptly. I fees therein mentioned should be either impressed or adhesive. heard are to be made to the judges who for the time being And whereas it is expedient to extend the use of imshall act as Vacation Jodges.

pressed stamps and to make the use of them obligatory in One of the Vacation Jadges will sit in the court of the the collection of certain fees. Master of the Rolls, Rolls-yard, Chancery-lane, at eleven Now, we, the undersigned, being two of the Lords of her a.m. on Wednesday in every week, commenoing on Wed. Majesty's Treasury, do with the concurrence of the Lord Desday, the 17th of August, until further notioe, for the Chancellor hereby give notice and order and direct :porpose of hearing snob applications.

1. That from and after the 1st day of August, 1881, the No case will be placed in the court paper unless leave stamps used for denoting the fees as described in the has been previously obtained, or a certificate of oondgel that schedule hereto subjoined, shall, in so far as they are pay: the case requires to be immediately or promptly heard, able at the Royal Courts of Justice, be of the character, and and stating concisely the reasons, is left with the papers. | be applied and otherwise dealt with as prescribed by suche

The neonssary papers relating to every applioation made schedule.

« PreviousContinue »