Page images
PDF
EPUB

by no means confined to his numerous professional resident in St. Petersburg but unprovided with passports, friends. Ever since the Court of Admiralty was thrown if their lives are ascertained to be peaceful and inopen to the whole of the bar he had enjoyed the largest offensive, are to be provided with a temporary passport share of the junior business in that court. It was not till enabling them to reside in the capital for not more than March last that he obtained the well-deserved honour of six months. After the receipt of this opinion, Lord a silk gown, but the last five months enabled him to estab- | GRANVILLE addressed a dispatch to our representative at lish a firm position as a leader before the same tribunal, St. Petersburg narrating the circumstances of Mr. and it was hoped that a still higher position was in store LEWISOhx's expulsion from St. Petersburg, and also for him. Mr. JAMES STUART WORTLEY was the oldest stating that in answer to an inquiry addressed by surviving Queen's Counsel, having obtained silk in 1841, himself the Russian Government had declined to allow when he was a barrister of only ten years' standing. He Mr. LEWISOHN to return to Russia on matters of business, probably filled a greater variety of legal posts than any The dispatch then points out that the Treaty of 1859 other member of the bar. After obtaining a leading between England and Russia, providing for the subjects of position on the Northern Circuit, he became successively each of the contracting Powers visiting the dominions of standing counsel to the Bank of England, Attorney the other, applies to all British subjects, without distincGeneral of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Solicitor-General | tion of creed, and that consequently the expulsion of to the late Queen Adelaide. In 1846 he sacrificed his hopes | Mr. LEWISOHN is a violation of the provisions of that of professional advancement to hold the office of Judge Treaty. He therefore requests from the Russian Advocate-General under Sir ROBERT PEEL, but six months Government “ an explanation of what is apparently a later his party were driven from office. He was next violation of the treaty rights accorded to her Majesty." elected to the lucrative office of Recorder of London Mr. LEWISOHN's claims do not, therefore, seem to have (retaining his seat in Parliament), but in 1856 he re made any progress; and it is to be observed that the signed this post to become Lord PALMERSTON's Solicitor present correspondence makes no allusion to the request General, this being the only instance for many years for compensation which was originally made on his of that office being held by a Privy Councillor. Un. behalf by Lord GRANVILLE. The answers given by Sir fortunately his health compelled him, within a few CHARLES DILKE to the inquiries of Baron De WORMS on months, to retire from his post, and thus each occasion Tuesday do not indicate the probability of & speedy of his accepting office proved an injury to his prospects solution of the question. “Pending the result of the of advancement. Mr. CHARLES Stuart Wortley, M.P., friendly communications which are taking place," the has thus far followed in his father's steps by obtaining a | Under-Secretary declined to make any statement as to seat in Parliament within two years of his call to the the intention of the Government to protect Mr. LEWISONS bar.

from a second expulsion upon his re-visiting Russia.

THE RECENTLY ISSUED parliamentary paper containing the correspondence between the Foreign Office and our representative at St. Petersburg, on the subject

THE LATE MR. CLARKSON, O.C. of the expulsion of foreign Jews from Russia, brings down the history of the LEWISOHN case to the 18th of July. It is with extreme regret that we have to announce It will be remembered that Mr. LEWISOHN is a native of the premature decease of this gentleman, which took Hamburgh, of Jewish extraction, but naturalized in Eng. place at Pinner, on the morning of Friday, the 19th land and trading in London, and that, on visiting | inst. Mr. Eugene Comerford Clarkson, who was St. Petersburg on mercantile business last year, he was the third son of the late Mr. Frederic Clarkson, of although the bearer of a passport with the signature of Doctors' Commons, 80 well known as the head of Lord GRANVILLE and the visa of the Russian consul in one of the leading firms of proctors, was born in London, ordered to leave for the frontier within twenty. the year 1831, and was educated at King's College, four hours. The present return contains a long memo London. He was admitted a student of Lincoln's-inn randum from M. CIESZKOWSKI, the legal adviser of her on the 27th of March, 1850, and he was called to Majesty's Embassy at St. Petersburg, on the subject of the bar by that society in Hilary Term, 1854. His the laws and police regulations of Russia affecting original intention was to practise as a conveyancer, and pative and foreign Jews, and this is followed by an he soon acquired a valuable and increasing practice of opinion from the same gentleman on the subject of Mr. | this nature. His drafts were from the first remarkable Lewisohn's case. He states that if Mr. LEWISOHN'S for their anxious elaboration and polish, for the produc. expulsion was based on the mere fact of his being a Jew, tion of which result he thought no amount of labour too the action of the authorities was not in accordance great. He was never tired of repeating the maxim, with the laws of the Empire, since it contravened both “ Nihil simul factum est et perfectum," and it is the 2nd and 16th articles of the “Regulations for probable that, had he continued to practise conveyancing, the Issue of Passports,” the latter of which articles | his drafts would by this time have been celebrated as invests every foreigner who arrives in Russia with models of artistic finish, attained, however, at the cost of a duly legalized passport with an unrestricted an amount of labour and anxiety altogether disproporright of residence in the Empire for six months. tioned to the visible results. But the Act of 1857, which He further expresses his opinion that, even if Mr. threw open to the whole of the bar the practice of the LEWISOHN had reached St. Petersburg with a passport | Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts, theretofore the ex. which the bureau des étrangers did not consider valid clusive" preserve" of the Faculty of Advocates, opened for the purpose of residence in the city, and if the consular to him a new career, and although his characteristic dim officer whose visa appeared upon the passport did not dence caused considerable hesitation at first, before he krow him to be a Jew, and therefore he must be could make up his mind to abandon the known for the looked upon as residing in the city without a legal unknown, he very soon confined his practice entirely to written document, the order for his departure within the Court of Admiralty, where he achieved success wita twenty-four hours was not justifiable. The opinion then a rapidity and completeness which astonished himsel refers to section 5, prolongation of article 614, of the | much more than it did those who knew him. So rapid Code of Laws (Passports) (being temporary rules issued in was his rise in professional position that, so long ago AS 1874 of recall from St. Petersburg of persons not 1868, when a creation of Queen's Counsel was m supplied with passports) by which only persons of im- | pending, it was authoritatively, though unofficially, in moral conduct, of no means of subsistence, suspected of mated to him that the list of nominations would be kep attempts against public peace and order, are liable open for a few days in order to give him an opportunity: to ejection from the capital by administrative process; | if he wished, of applying for the honour. The su while by section 2 of the same rules persons found | diffidence to which we have already referred induced as

THE JUDGES AND THE LONG

however, to let the opportunity pass by, and it was not have been worth while to notice this proposal but for until the autumn of last year that he found himself con- | this assumption, which is an error; because if the court strained at last to apply for a silk gown, in order to were sitting it would follow as of course that there could obtain some relief from the ever-increasing demands of be no vacation in the offices where the detail work of a practice which threatened to become overwhelming. the legal machinery is carried on. The Attorney-General His application was favourably received, and in March appears to have shared the delusion that the offices of the of this year he was called within the bar. Short as the court are altogether closed during the vacation. As a time is which has since elapsed, he had already obtained fact the offices of the courts are open all the year round, ex. a recognized position as one of the leaders of his court cept on Sundays, Christmas-day, Good Friday, and the when the melancholy accident occurred which has cut Monday and Tuesday in Easter and Whitsun weeks. In short a career of so great promise. In May last, as he fact, the very thing is done which the Attorney-General was fondling an old favourite fox-terrier, the animal, undertook should be carefully considered and brought which was in his arms, suddenly caught him by the ear, before the House next session—that is to say, the with force enough to draw a few drops of blood. offices are always open “with shifts of clerks." Nothing seems to have been thought of the affair at the The vacation work has, this week, been again very time, and as precautions were taken against evil results, heavy, and there appears to be quite enough to occupy which indeed were not apprehended, and as no incon. the two Vacation Judges nearly the whole of their time. venience was then experienced, the whole matter was Mr. Justice Kay, on Wednesday last, was unfortunate practically forgotten. On Sunday, the 14th inst., how enough to miss his train, and did not arrive in town until ever, he complained of a pain in the neck and shoulder, three o'clock, the hour of eleven having been fixed for “as if a hot iron was being run down it," and on the the sitting of the two judges as a divisional court. next day he was so ill as to put himself under inedical Perhaps the rumour, after all, is not true which says advice. Symptoms of hydrophobia, at first ambiguous, that one of the Vacation Judges has had a bed-room but soon unmistakeable, began to appear, and the disease fitted up for him in Lincoln's-inn Hall, in order to be developed with startling rapidity, until, after much suffer- | near his work. ing, it terminated, as before stated, in his death on the morning of the 19th inst., after an illness of five days only. The deceased leaves a widow and five sons, the eldest of whom, now at Cambridge, is, we believe, intended for

CHAMPERTY. the bar. Mr. Clarkson was buried at Highgate Cemetery

ALTHOUGH the question of maintenance, as raised by Mr. on Wednesday, many professional friends being present

Bradlaugh against Mr. Newdegate and his solicitor, has at the funeral.

not been elucidated by any very recent cases, there have been two decisions during the present legal year upon the kindred subject of champerty. Ball v. Warwick (29 W. R. 468) came before Mr. Justice Grove on further consideration in an interpleader issue. Georgo

Reynolds, having obtained a verdict for £150 in an VACATION.

action against a railway company, in which an order for The two amendments respecting the Long Vacation pro. a new trial had been made, and not having funds for the posed by Mr. H. Fowler in the House on Wednesday re. second trial, procured from a person named Loe an ad. ceived the support of several lawyers in the House as well vance of £30, and signed an agreement whereby, in as of those members who look upon the question of legal consideration of the loan, he undertook to pay to the vacations from the point of view of the suitor. It is im- | latter one-third of the amount of any damages to be re. possible to deny that there is a great deal to be said covered by him against the railway company, but in case with regard to the inconvenience caused by the stoppage of his not obtaining a verdict, Loe was to have no claim to business resulting from the Long Vacation. For upon him in respect of the advance. Upon the second instance, there is no doubt whatever that if the courts trial Reynolds obtained a verdict for £200, but this sat all the year round there would be work enough amount wag attached by the defendant on account of a to give them full occupation. It cannot, however, be judgment against Loe, one-third of the damages being forgotten that the work of a judge is of a very arduous paid into court by the company to abide the trial of an nature, and that those who occupy that exalted position interplcader issue between Loe and the defendant, who are of necessity men of mature age, who have, relied upon the defence that the agreement to pay to 80 to speak, grown old in gaining the experience which Loe one-third of the damages was void on the ground entitles them to hold that position. As a rule, they are of champerty. This plea was answered, by the counsel not so hungry for work as to be able to go on without for Loe's trustee, by the argument that there could be periodical intervals of rest. It may be fairly sug no champerty when there was no undertaking to carry gested that every judge should not take his on the suit and no indemnity for costs; but Mr. Justice vacation at the same time, but it must be Grove entered judgment for the plaintiff. He observed borne in mind that any arrangement which involved that a collateral undertaking to carry on the suit to its continuous sittings of the High Court and Court of termination might well be implied from the terms of the Appeal would also require that a sufficient number of agreement, but he did not think that such an undertaking judges should be appointed to enable every one to take was a material element in the offence of champerty. a holiday at some time during the year. Such a plan in Moreover, such an undertaking would be of no value to these days of economy appears to be hardly feasible, and the lender, since the borrower might take the money besides this we could hardly treat our judges like the and refuse to proceed, and the plea of champerty would clerks in a Government office, and restrict them to taking justify his refusal. His lordship also pointed out that their “ leave" at such a time as will not cause any court | no such collateral undertaking was given in Hutley v. to be closed by reason of no judge being available. The Hutley (L. R. 8 Q. B. 112), one of the most recent Judicature Act has already curtailed the legal vacations authorities on the subject. He held that the agreement by about a month, and it is evident that the time is fast before him contained all the elements of champerty, approaching when they will be further shortened.

the consideration being contingent and entirely deMr. Fowler's second amendment, which he subsequently pendent upon the chance of recovering a verdict from withdrew, related to the offices of the court, and proposed the railway company. There was clearly a campi par. that, as far as they are concerned, the Long Vacation should titio, an agreement to share the result of a litigation. cease on the 10th of October instead of, as now, on the In Plating Company v. Farquharson (29 W. R. 510, 24th. This proposal was based on the assumption that | L. R. 17 Ch. D. 49) the question of maintenance was the offices are closed during the vacation. It would not raised in a somewhat novel form upon a motion for the committal of certain parties for contempt of court. The so long as they withheld them from all persons equally: plaintiffs had obtained a decree from Vice-Chancellor and this argument was much strengthened by the unBacon establishing the validity of a patent for nickel. doubted fact that, independently of undue preference, no plating, of which they were the owners. The defendants complaint had ever been preferred to the Court of Common served a notice of appeal, and afterwards inserted in the Pleas, which preceded the Railway Commissioners in the Birmingham Daily Post an advertisement asking for sub administration of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of scriptions to aid them in carrying on the appeal, on the 1854. This plausible contention has now received its ground that the case was a test action, and another one deathblow in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and in which a reward of £100 was offered to anyone who will not, we suppose, be heard of again. could produce documentary evidence that the process of | Secondly, and this was of course the main question vickel-plating was carried on before a specified date. decided, it is now settled that the commissioners have The plaintiffs thereupon took out a summons for the | power to order the construction of “works." It had committal of the printers and publishers of the news. been contended for the company that all that the com. paper, their counsel arguing that the latter had been missioners could do was to order particular arrangements guilty of contempt of court and suborpation of perjury, | of traffic, that one train should start at a particular time, and that the soliciting funds for the appeal, and the or from a particular place, and so forth, but that as soon offer of a reward for evidence, amounted to the offence as any buildings became necessary to carry out any proof champerty; but the application was summarily re | posed order of the commissioners, such proposed orders jected by the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice James could not be made-a contention which, carried to its observing that the motion could not have been success logical extent, would enable a company to dispense with fully made against the defendants, and still less could stations and even with platforms altogether. This conthe mere printing of the advertisements be treated as an tention has also been shown to be groundless, and it improper act.

seems to follow from the judgment, though it is not quite precisely expressed, that companies are bound, subject to a limitation which we will consider presently, to in

crease their stational accommodation in proportion as THE JURISDICTION OF THE

their traffic increases.

The third point which we have to notice is in favour RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS of the companies. It is settled that the commissioners, ALL persons interested in those questions between

when they have decided that “works" must necessarily railway companies and the public, in which the Railway

be constructed, cannot prescribe to companies a particu. Commissioners have or have been supposed to have juris

lar mode of constructing them, but must leave the diction, will do well to study volume 3, part 3, of

mode of construction to the companies themselves. This Neville and Macnamara's Railway Cases, just issued. It

is reasonable enough, inasmuch as the statute gives no will be found that out of fourteen cases there published

such precise powers as could support particular orders of in no less than five was the jurisdiction of the commis.

this kind. sioners questioned on prohibition, and that the jurisdic

It is, however, left a little unsettled what particular tion has now been defined by the Court of Appeal, not

works may be ordered, and what may not. The extenexhaustively indeed, but with sufficient precision for most

sion of a platform was beld not to be within the powers of the practical purposes of litigation. We propose to

of the commissioners to order, but this was because the go shortly through the two more important of these cases,

extension of it was dependent upon the enlargement of and to endeavour to show the general result of them.

a particular bridge, which the court held to be not The two cases are South-Eastern Railway Company v.

within the powers of the company. It is left uncertain, Railway Commissioners (L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 586). and i therefore, whether platform accommodation is compreGreat Western Railway Company v. Railway Commis.

hended in the term facilities; but we think it follows sioners (L. R. 7 Q. B. 182.) In the former case it was

from the general scope of the judgment that it is. Reheld that the commissioners have jurisdiction to order

freshment rooms and covered platforms, however, are structural works to be executed at a station ; in the

clearly held not to be within the jurisdiction of the latter case that they have not jurisdiction to restrain

commissioners to order,“ however desirable they may be overcharges.

for the comfort or convenience of the passenger.” The In the South-Eastern case the application was for an

ratio decidendi appears from the following passage in order to compel the company to enlarge the Hastings

the judgment of Lord Selborne :Station, to provide a better booking office, waiting room,

« The result is, that the commissioners had, in my opinion, refreshment room, and general accommodation therein;

jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the complaint, ... to alter the existing platforms and provide new ones;

and had also jurisdiotion to order some, at least, of the and to improve the warehouse and cattle accommodation.

things contemplated by their judgment, provided that they

did so in proper manner and form ; but that, as to other The commissioners were also asked to order the

things which they (apparently) intended to order, they company to enlarge the platform at the St. Leonards'

had no jurisdiction, partly because those things were beyond Station, and to provide a new road of approach. The

the company's powers, partly because they were not facilities commissioners made an order generally in favour of the reasonably necessary for the particular purposes mentioned applicants, explicitly ordering some of the works asked in the Act, and partly because they would have required for, and indirectly ordering others. The Queen's Bench particular structural works to be executed which are not Division (Cockburn, C.J., and Manisty, J.) prohibited the prescribed in the Act, and which cannot be supposed to be the commissioners, but Lush, J., dissented, and there was, as only possible means of affording the facilities which the Act might have been expected, an appeal. The Court of

does require." Appeal reversed this decision (in a judgment from which We cannot but think that in this paragraph the Brett, L.J., partly dissented); but it must not be under court has trespassed to some extent on the jurisdiction stood from this that they decided wholly in favour of the of the commissioners to determine questions of fact, which company. The demurrer was" allowed generally"; Lord has never been disputed. Surely, what is "reasonably Selborne intimating the opinion that neither party had necessary," and “what is the only possible means," been wholly right or wholly wrong. The judgment has are questions for the commissioners to decide upon far more important results in favour of the public than the evidence before them. It is to be regretted, too, might be supposed, for, in the the first place, it had been that the judgment contains no definition of the term, contended for the company that, independently of undue " according to their respective powers," in the enactpreference, the commissioners had no jurisdiction what ment that "every railway and canal company shall, ac* ever ; that is to say, that the companies might withhold | cording to their respective powers, provide all reasonable facilities for traffic and travelling as much as they pleased, facilities, &c.” These words were applied--whether rightay

or wrongly we will not now consider-to the case of an The cause of action arose in reference to the third ship, inability to enlarge a bridge. But their general and which bad not been delivered, and upon which the defendordinary application seems to us to be far different. / ants claimed a lien, and which they had registered in Glasgow. The reference seems to us to be to the specific parlia.

The action was for damages, for an account, for an injuncmentary powers-to the powers of the particular Acts

tion, and to restrain the sale by the defendants McMillan of

the third ship. It was in evidence that there was a local under which a company is governed. We should, there.

court at Dumbarton, but that as the amount in dispute was fore, have twoimportant and precise limitations--the limi.

large, the defendants in any proceedings in that court could tation of land, and the limitation of capital. It would

have removed them to Edinburgh, and they had moreover not be a very strained interpretation of the statute if

brought an action in Greenock to have the ship sold. CATE, the control of the commissioners were to be held to J., was of opinion that the only point he had to consider was extend to all acts which they could do upon their own land, as to the comparative cost and convenience of bearing in out of their own capital not specifically appropriated, Scotland or in England. As the contract was made in Engfor faciliating the conduct of their business.

land, and the defendants McMillan resided in Scotland, the Turning to the Great Western case, said by Manisty, I plaintiffs might go to either place, and he considered on the J., to be “one of the most extraordinary applications

evidence there was sufficient to show that the proceedings that have ever come under the consideration of any

in England would be more convenient and less costly than court,' we think it somewhat fortunate that it should |

proceedings in Scotland, and therefore he dismissed the have been decided before the issue of the Report of the

motion with costs.--SOLICITORS, Waltons, Bubb, g Walton;

McDiarmid & Teather. Select Committee on Rates and Fares; since it had no doubt been considered, prior to the decision of this case, that the effect of the decision of the Scotch Court of COMPANY-WINDING UP-STAY OF ORDER-WISHES OF Session in Aberdeen Commercial Company v. Great SHAREHOLDERS — EXPENSE -DELAY. - In a case of In re North of Scotland Railway Company (3 Nev. & Mac.

Wheal Elizabeth Company, before the Vacation Judge, on 205) was that the Railway Commissioners have jurisdic

the 24th iost., a motion was made to stay the drawing up of tion to order a railway company not to charge beyond

a winding-op order made on the 17th inst. The applicant

was a large shareholder residing in Scotland, and he stated their statutory limits. If the Great Western Railway

that he had not been asked as to his wishes, and did not case had not been decided, as it has been, to the line

know that a liquidator would be appointed on the hearing of contrary effect, express legislation conferring such a the petition. On the 17th inst., the usual compulsory order jurisdiction could not be reasonably recommended. It was made on the application of a small shareholder, on the will now be absolutely necessary for the committee to ground that the company was a bubble, and the provisional make some recommendation on the subject ; for the liquidator was by the order appointed official liquidator. The decision of the English Court of Appeal is not binding company did not oppose the order, but it was now alleged on the Scotch courts, and it would be a very undesirable that the counsel who appeared were not properly instructed by state of things that the jurisdiction should be less exten.

the company, and it was now further alleged that the comsive in England than in Scotland.

pany bad incurred no debts, that the only assets were the With regard to the decision itself-that under the

application and allotment moneys which were virtually intact

in the hands of the company's bankers. The applicant now powers to order reasonable facilities for traffic, the

asked that the winding-up order might be stayed to enable a commissioners have no power to order a company to de

meeting of the shareholders to be called to decide on the steps sist from an overcharge affecting all persons alike-we

to be taken, and as to whether a voluntary or compulsory cannot but think that it is correct. The reason of the winding up should take place. The application was opposed decision is well put by Brett, L.J.:-

by the petitioner and also by the company. CAVE, J., “ There is no statement that the overcharge was made

was of opinion that it was now too late to stay the drawing with the intent to prevent the traffic of a passenger, or the

up of the order. The applicant could if he bad desired have progress of any train, and there is no statement that

appeared on the hearing of the petition, of which he must that overcharge is of such an amount or of such a nature as

be taken to have had notice. The motion must be refused would prevent any traffic of any passenger, or forwarding

with costs.-SOLICITORS, Snell & Greenip; Beall ; Davis. of any train at all, and it is on account of the absence of either of those allegations that . .. this com

COMPANY_WINDING UP_TRANSFER TO COUNTY COURT plaint is not one which the Railway Commissioners had

-SECTION 41, COMPANIES ACT, 1867.-In the case of In re power to entertain, ... It is consistent with this

| Middlesborough, Redcar, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, and Cleveland complaint that precisely the same number of trains would go,

District Permanent Benefit Building Society, also before the at precisely the same time, carrying precisely the same num

Vacation Judge on the 24th inst., a petition was presented ber of passengers as if the alleged overcharge had not been

by sbareholders for the winding up of the society, wbich was

not registered under the Building Societies Act. The But ought the commissioners to have the jurisdiction assets of the company were stated to amount to over in question or not? We are very clearly of opinion that £200,000. By a clause of the rules, members could, on they ought, and hope on a future occasion to be able to

giving notice, cease to be members, and become creditors for show good reasons for the extension of the jurisdiction

the amount of their shares. It was now asked by a member of the commissioners in this and many other parti

who had become a creditor that the winding up might culars.

be transferred to the county court under section 41 of the Companies Act, 1867. CAVE, J., made the usual windingup order, but refused to transfer the winding up to the

county court.-SOLICITORS, Bell, Brodrick, & Gray. CASES OF THE WEEK.

HABEAS CORPUS-EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 AND 1873PRACTICE-SERVICE OF WRIT OUT OF THE JURISDIC-ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT-RECEIVINIG STOLEN Goods TION-BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE. - In the case of -OFFENCE IN ENGLAND.-In a case of In re An ApplicaRoyal Exchange Shipping Company v. McMillan, before tion for Habeas Corpus, before Cave and Kay, JJ., Vacation Cave, J., Vacation Judge, on the 19th inst., in which Judges, sitting as a divisional court on the 24th inst., an the Master of the Rolls bad granted leave to serve the important question arose on an application to make absolute writ on the defendants Macmillan out of the jurisdic- certain writs of habeas corpus, as to the construction of the tion, & motion was now made by these defendants Extradition Acts. The Act of 1870 refers to the surrender to discharge the order. The action was for breach of of “fugitive criminals” and by section 26 the term a contract made in London by the defendants McMillan “ fugitive criminal ” means any person accused or convicted with the defendants Patton & Co., as agents for the of an extradition crime committed within the juris. plaintiff company for the building of three ships. The | diction of any foreign State, who is in, or susplaintiffs are registered in England, and the defendants pected of being in, some part of her Majesty's dominions." Patton carry on business in London. The defendants | It appeared that a barglary and robbery of a quantity of

cMillan carry on business at Dumbarton, on the Clyde. 1 jewellery was committed in Brussels on the 3rd of Jane,

made."

and that one of tbe principal felons had escaped to were generally well defined, exact, and limited questions of England with the stolen property, some of which was found law, raised and reserved with care and elaboration, and in. shortly after the robbery in the hands of five persons who volving sound legal principle, and adopted by both sides as had tried to pawn the same. The five persons had been the questions of law upon which the cause and the rights of 80bsequently arrested under the Extradition Acts, and the parties turned. Now, on the other hand, every appeal is a warrants for their extradition insbed, on the ground that re-hearing of the whole cause on its merits, and points and they were accessories after the faot, and bad received the questions of fact, as well as law, that may have been overstolen goods with a guilty knowledge. Writs of habeas looked or neglected, or even abandoned, and not thoroughly corpus had been obtained wbich it was now songbt to investigated at the trial, are liable to be raised and seriously make absolute. For the Crown and the Belgian Govern. relied upon for the first time in the appellate court, so that, ment it was contended that tbe warrants of extradition without a thorough practical acquaintance on the part of the to Belgium had been duly issued. It was submitted that appellate judges with the course and incidents of trials, the there was evidence of collagion between the principal and grossest miscarriage of justice is liable to take place, and in the present prisoners before and after the crime sufficient fact does take place, even when unexceptionable law and to cause the principal to be in effect the agent of the

admirable legal principles are laid down. The practical prisoners in Belgiam, and so in effect cause a constructive conclusion, therefore, to which I desire to call attention, is receiving by them over there, and thus an offence within

this: that to insure continued success in the Court of Appeal, the Acts. It was contended that the court was not sitting

either the procedure must be so altered as to limit the points on appeal from the magistrate, and that they could not

and questions for review to precise and definite questions release the prisoners unless they were satisfied that the of law, or mere legal principles, or, if you are to retain the magistrate bad absolutely no evidence before him sufficient

great advantages of the present more complete appeal, your to establish a prima facie case against them. CAVE, J.,

appellate judges must be men who continue to have practical was of opinion that the prisoners must be discharged.

experience of the ways and maoners of trying the actions, Tbe question was whether they were “fugitive oriminals”.

and the issues that they have to review.-Your obedient within the words of the Act of 1870. In his opinion they

servant." could not be said to be within the definition of these words

The above letter has been answered by the following, from in the 26th section, and, in bis opinion, there was no evidence

"B."-"Mr, Justice Williams, in the letter you insert this that any of them had committed any crime within a

morning, says that in the Appeal Court 'the grossest misforeign State. There was no evidence that any of them had

carriage of justice is liable to take place, and in fact does been in Belgium, though there was evidence that the prin.

take place. This is serious. Will you allow me to ask cipal had committed a felony in Belgium, of his escape to

him, through you, to name a few instances, say half-a-dozen Englaad, where he had been shown to be in the company of

to begin with, and whether any of those miscarriages have the prisoners. There was strong evidence of their having

been set right by the House of Lords, and if not, why not? received stolen goods in England, but none of their having

Should he favour me with an angwer, would you be so good done so in Belgium. In his opinion there was no primă

as to insert it, if addressed to you?" facie evidence before the magistrate to show an extradition crime had been committed in Belgium, and, therefore, the latter had no jurisdiction to grant the extraditiou. KAY, J., was of the same opinion, and that there was no direct evid.

OBITUARY. ence to show that any crime had been committed in Belgium. He could not see any actual or constructive possession or receiving by the prisoners in Belgium, and no evidence to

THE RIGHT HON. JAMES ARCHIBALD STUART justify their extradition.-SOLICITORS, Solicitor to the

WORTLEY, Q.C. Treasury; El. Lee; W. F. Morris.

The Right Hon, James Archibald Stuart Wortley, Q.C., formerly recorder of the city of London, died at Belton Hall, Lincolnshire, on the 22nd inst. (while on a visit to Earl Brownlow), at the age of seventy-six. The deceased was

the third son of the first Lord Wharncliffe, and was born in 1805. THE COURT OF APPEAL.

He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, where be grada.

ated second class in classics and first class in mathematics in MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS has addressed the following letter to 1826, and he was afterwards elected a fellow of Merton the editor of the Times :-“Your correspondent, W. B.,'in College. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple ia discussing the future constitution and prospects of the Court Hilary Term, 1831, and he was a member of the Northern of Appeal, bas, it seems to m, made a fatal omission when Circuit. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1841, although of enumerating the causes of the unquestioned success of the only ten years' standing, and he enjoyed for many years a existing court. Speaking from practical experience of the good leading business both on circuit and in London. In courts of law, as distinguished from the chancery courts, I 1844 he was appointed standing counsel to the Bank of am satisfied that a most material element in the success of England, and in the following year he became Attorney. the Court of Appeal has been the fact that the Lords Justices General of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Solicitor-General to have been mostly men, not only of great ability and Queen Adelaide. He was M.P. for Halifax in the Conserva. acknowledged legal learning and authority, but also men tive interest from 1835 till 1837, when he was an unsuccess. possessed of great knowledge and present and continued | ful candidate, and in 1842 he was elected M.P. for Botestire. practical experience of the detailed course and procedure of In January, 1846, he accepted the office of Judge Advocate the trials, the results of which come before them for review. General in Sir Robert Peel's Ministry, and was sworn The importance of this is far less than in the chancery pro- member of the Privy Council, but in the following July he cedure. If the Court of Appeal should come to be governed | retired with his party. In 1850, on the death of the Ilon. and guided by men who are relieved from going circuit, and Charles Law, Mr. Wortley was elected recorder of tbe city who bave pot their knowledge freshened and recruited by the of London, and be held that office till 1856, when he accepted actual experience of trying actions, then I venture to predict the office of Solicitor-General in Lord Palmerston's Ministry. a certain failure for a court which has promised so weil at its but he retired in the following year. In 1859 be resigned starting. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the his seat for Buteshire and stood for the West Riding of Yorkdecisions of the Court of Appeal are not open to, and have not sbire as a Conservative, but he was unsuccessful, and he did produced, a good deal of hostile criticism. One of the most not again seek to enter Parliament. It may be remembered learned, cautious, and experienced lawyers lately expressed that Mr. Wortley took an active part in the movement to me his opinion tbat the decisions of the present Court of against the relinqnishment by the House of Lords of its Appeal would not hereafter be cited with the same weight appellate jurisdiction. He was the senior living Queen's and authority as the decisions of the Exchequer Chamber. If Counsel, having held that rank for exactly forty years. He this be well founded, which I do not believe, the cause is one was a bencher of the Inner Temple, and had served the office which your correspondent bas entirely overlooked, and which of treasurer of that society. He was also a magistrate for lies at the root of the necessity for the Lords Justices keeping Surrey, and the West Riding of Yorkshire, & deputyup their knowledge and experience of practice, and it is lieutenant for the West Riding, Buteshire, and Forfarshire, this :-In former times the questions tbat went by way of and a commissioner of lieutenancy for the city of London. appeal to the Exchequer Chamber and House of Lords | The deceased was married to the only daughter of the first

« PreviousContinue »