Page images
[ocr errors]

tion as possible, and to permit the court in its after time to grow in discipline and strength, and in the perfection Ti OCCUPATION FRANCHISE of its arrangements." But even in its rudimentary con. dition there are signs that the bantling is not of the right

IN BOROUGHS. breed. One great object was to hatch a scheme which A POINT to which we some time ago called attention should free the commercial public from the solicitors. appears likely to become the subject of much discussion As the president remarked at the meeting in February | at the approaching revision of the lists of borough voters. last, the object was to avoid another Charybdis—that,

A circular was recently sent out to the overseers of was they might fall into the hands of solicitors.” How is parishes reminding them of their duties with regard to it then that the very first act of the promoters of the the insertion in the lists of persons who occupy parts of scheme is to appoint a solicitor registrar of the court ? houses separately as dwellings. The history of the legisThis solicitor is to prepare, and attest the execution of, lation on this subject is somewhat curious. The Reform the prescribed “form of submission or agreement," Act gave the borough franchise to persons who occupied which is to be the first step in any proceedirg before houses of the value of £10. The question arose what the tribunal. Here is Charybdis No. 1: a document pre. constituted a house for this purpose. The courts came pared by a solicitor and presumably costing as much as, to the conclusion that something in the nature of a house or more than, a writ. Charybdis No. 2 is the “concise structurally severed from the rest of the building was statement in writing of the dispute” which is to be sub. necessary to constitute part of a building or house, as in mitted to the arbitrator or arbitrators by each of the par. the case of flats and sets of chambers, but that the occa. ties. No prudent man, and certainly no busy man, will pation of a part or parts of a house not structurally prepare for himself the statement which is to define his severed, as where a person occupied one floor or one room claim and to marshal the facts on which it rests. He

on one floor, and one on another, would not qualify. It will go to his solicitor, and the document will, in all

seems to us that this conclusion was a reasonable one. probability, cost as much as an ordinary statement of These questions of degree no doubt are capable of being claim in an action. As to the subsequent trial before the put in an absurd light. It might be urged that a build. arbitrators, it is not very likely that a Manchester | ing standing quite alone, consisting of one room capable merchant or manufacturer will devote his valuable time of being used as a dwelling, must be a house; that the to the task of preparing evidence, or examining or particular mode of severance cannot be material ; therecross-examining his witnesses, or arguing his case beforefore, it might be said, why should a room which, if it the arbitrators. Here is a further large Charybdis : the stood alone, would be a house, because it is associated merchant or manufacturer will “ fall into the hands" of with other rooms under the same roof, be the less & a solicitor to an indefinite extent. Then the arbi- |

house? The answer seems to us to be that these things trators are also to fall into the hands of solicitors, for are not a matter of logic, and cannot be solved after by rule 6 it is provided that, “having taken all necessary this fashion ; it is a question of the ordinary practical evidence, the arbitrator or arbitrators shall proceed with meaning of language. No one would in ordinary conall convenient despatch to consider his or their decision, versation call a room in a house a honse. It may be and shall thereafter give full instructions to some soli that you must, in construing a statute, so far extend the citor to draw up his or their award, which shall be pub. meaning of the word "house" as to include things so lishe

a by notice from the registrar to the respective nearly analogous in their nature and purposes as flats disputants." We presume that the solicitor who draws and sets of chambers structurally severed; but it does not up the award is to be paid by the litigants for this seem to us therefore to follow that you are to go the troublesome and responsible duty, and that the registrar length of saying that one garret is a house because & solicitor will also have to be paid for publishing the person might live in it. We believe that the original notices. It appears probable that before the suitor has decision of the Court of Common Pleas was, on the whole, completed his career before the new tribunal he will better sense than the subsequent legislation on the subdiscover that decisions according to the light of nature ject. In the Representation of the People Act, the word cost as much to obtain, and are far less satisfactory house" was interpreted as including a part of a house when obtained, than the much-decried process of the occupied as a separate dwelling and separately rated courts of law.

to the poor. Much discussion took place with regard to this definition. Some of the judges held that it was not

intended in any way to modify the old law as to the THE RECENT NEWSPAPER DISCUSSION as to the propriety necessity for structural severance, while others again held of Sunday harvesting will have drawn attention to the that it was intended under this new definition that any state of the law on the subject of Sunday labour. By part of a house, as, for iastance, one room, should, it the Lord's Day Observance Act (29 Car, 2, c. 7), s. 1,“No occupied as a separate dwelling and separately tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer or other rated, constitute a house for the purposes of the person whatever, shall do or exercise any worldly labour, franchise. By the Parliamentary and Municipal business, or work of their ordinary callings upon the Registration Act, 1878, the definition was again altered, Lord's-day, or any part thereof (works of necessity and and now apparently the necessity for separate rating is charity only excepted), and every person being of fourteen altogether done away with, and any part of a house years or upwards, offending in the premises shall for separately occupied as a dwelling is to qualify. every such offenee forfeit the sum of five shillings.” In We expressed our opinion at the time that this modinCleworth v. Justices of Leigh (12 W. R. 375), the cation of the franchise in an Act dealing with the mere Court of Queen's Bench quashed a conviction under this machinery of revision was most improper. Whether Act in a case where the defendant, who was a farmer, intentionally or not, the effect of this kind of legislation had assisted his labourers in getting in his hay on a is, or may be, as it were, to smuggle provisions through Sunday. The decision proceeded on the ground that a the Houses of a far more essential character than those farmer is not within the Act. COCKBURN, C.J., said that who pass them suppose. The result of this alteration of a farmer was not ejusdem generis with the persons named the definition, it is stated, will be in some of the metroin the statute; and CROMPTON, J., said “a farmer cannot politan constituencies to add thousands of electors to be said to be a labourer'; he may work or not, as he the register, some of them being of the most unsatisfactory pleases." The Lord Chief Justice, however, admitted the class. Moreover, & great anomaly, as we have before force of the argument which had been principally relied pointed out, is created. By the Representation of the upon by the counsel for the respondents, and described | People Act the lodger franchise was established, and for it as an “inconvenience and scandal" that the labourers that franchise a yearly value of £10 was required. bat should be subject to a fine while their employer was if a room is a house, as there need be no particular value exempt.

in the case of the inhabitant householder, the occupier

of any room as a dwelling is qualified. But the distinc- tion. Here, again, great confusion and anomaly arises. tion between the occupier of a room as a dwelling and a The definition of dwelling-house pointedly omits the lodger is in many cases almost impossible to draw. At words of the former definition, which required separate the same time it is clear that the Parliamentary and rating, and it is expressed to be in substitution for Municipal Registration Act did not mean to merge or abolish the former definition, “but not so as to affect any the lodger franchise, for the Act contains many provisions of the other provisions of the said Act with regard to concerning that franchise. Even the definition section rating.” Nice questions, as it seems to us, might arise refers to it, for it says that "the term 'dwelling-house' on the effect of this legislation. It is practically imposshall include any part of a house when that part is sepa- | sible for the overseers to rate separate rooms. Great rately occupied as a dwelling, and the term 'lodgings' | troubles arose under the Representation of the People shall include any apartments or place of residence, Act by reason of the abolition of the compound house. whether furnished or unfurnished, in a dwelling-house." holder, and the provisions as to separate rating of parts Could any legislation be more slipshod and unsatisfac of house. But the rating of the whole house, and the tory? It would have occurred to any person, one would payment of the rates up to the 5th of January, would have thought, bowever ignorant of the subject, or care seem to be sufficient, in the case of the part of the house less, that on the face of this definition there was a con separately occupied, to satisfy the “other provisions of fusion of the “dwelling-house" and the “lodgings" to the Representation of the People Act," referred to in the gether, inasmuch as the first part of the definition includes interpretation clauses of the Parliamentary and Municipal the same thing as the last. But what the Legislature | Registration Act, though it is very difficult properly to have not done we take it the revising barrister must do apply the language that was really applicable to entire On the true construction of the Acts, taken as a whole, houses in the case of the occupation of parts of a house. we apprehend a distinction must be presumed to exist It might perhaps be argued that separate rating of the between a lodger and a householder. We believe that part of a house is still necessary, notwithstanding the there is practically a distinction between the lodger and abolition of the definition which expressly made it so. The the occupier of a room or rooms as a householder, though | natural construction of the original provisions with rethe limits of the two classes are very hard to define. We gard to rating certainly pointed to the rating of the think that there will probably be decisions on the sub- occupier of the subject-matter of the qualification in ject before long. In the meanwhile it is impossible to respect of such subject-matter, and to the payment of lay down anything like an absolute rule, for the combi the rate by such occupier. Can the rating of the landnation of circumstances in different cases will be mani lord with respect to the whole house be considered as fold.

the rating of the occupier of part with respect to such Three points of considerable importance in deter

part? The provisions of the Poor Rate Assessment and mining the relation of the parties in each case will

Collection Act (32 & 33 Vict. c. 41), s. 19, seem to get be-first, whether the landlord resides in the house ;

over this difficulty, for it would seem to be the overseer's secondly, to whom does the furniture belong; thirdly,

duty to enter the names of the occupiers of parts of the does the landlord provide attendance of any sort ?

house in the rate-book, and if so, their failure to do so We should be strongly disposed to think that when

does not affect the qualification; and in Wright v. Town the landlord resides in the house, and provides

Clerk of Stockport (5 M. & G. 35), it was held that where the furniture and attendance, the lodger qualification

the names of the landlord and of the several occupiers of is generally the only one available. The distinction,

parts of a factory were all inserted in the occupiers' roughly put, is between one who is an inmate of another's

column of the rate-book, and the rate was paid by the household, and one who, though living under the same

landlord, each occupier must be deemed to have been roof, must be considered as having a separate household.

rated for the whole, and therefore for his part, and each When the furniture is the landlord's, and he provides

must be taken to have paid the rate for the whole, and attendance and lives in the house, it will generally be

consequently for his part. found that practically the landlord reserves a general

The effect of carrying out the provisions of the right of control and supervision over the room or rooms,

Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act in respect so as to negative the supposition that they constitute

to the occupiers of parts of houses, as the overseers are another's house within his house. On the other hand,

now called upon to do, will, at any rate in London, be if the occupier of the room or rooms brings his own

to throw greatly increased labour and expense on the furniture and provides his own cooking and attend

parochial authorities. ance or attends on himself, even though the land. lord lives in the house, it would seem such occupier would be not a lodger but a householder. It must

Before the Scarborough Court of Summary Jurisdiction be remembered that the Act expressly provides that

on Monday, September 5, Sarah Hatfield was charged the joint use of some part of the house, such as

under the Licensing Act, 1872, with selling champagne kitchen or staircase, shall not prevent the part that is

without a license. Shirley (barrister) appeared for the

defendant. On the chief constable for the borough com. separately occupied from qualifying, so that the occu

mencing to examine the first witness for the prosecution, pier of a room or rooms as a dwelling will not be dis

Shirley said, “ May I ask if the obief constable proposes to qualified because he has the use for some purposes of conduct the case for the prosecution ?"-The Chief Consome other part of the house. So if a man rented stable : “Yes, I do."-Shirley objected, and submitted that rooms or a room unfurnished, and retained the entire the case ought to be conducted by a legal practitioner.control over the rooms or room, attending on himself The Chief Constable : “ As the prosecutor in the case, I or providing his own attendance, so far as the care bave a right to conduct it."-Shirley quoted Jervis's Actof the rooms was concerned, the fact that, by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 12-which stated that a case of this arrangement, the landlord might supply him with

kind should be conducted by “counsel or attorney." He nieals cooked in the landlord's kitchen, would not

did not know whether the chief constable came within in anywise interfere with the qualification. It is

either of those descriptions. If he did, of course he had a impossible to discuss all the possible combinations ;

| right to conduct the case. After a short consultation, the but we have endeavoured to indicate roughly, according

magistrates thought that the chief constable was oom. to our notion, the lines upon which the distinction

petent to conduot the case. After two witnesses had been between the lodger and the householder in respect of

examined for the prosecution, the chief constable offered

himself as a third witness. Shirley : “ The chief oonstable part of a house must be drawn.

has laid the information, and conducted the case for the A question may arise as to the effect of this

prosecution, I submit that he cannot also give evidence for alteration of the definition of a dwelling house with the prosecution. Perhaps he would like to dooide the case regard to the provisions which make the being rated, too." The magistrate, however, overruled the objeotion, and having paid the rates, essential to the qualifica. | and the obief constable was sworn.

being about to remove from such inns as they, the said THE LAW OF LICENSING.

justices, shall, in the execution of the powers herein con

tained, and in the exercise of their discretion, deem fit and III.

proper persons, under the provisions hereinafter en acted, PROTECTION ORDERS AND TRANSFERS.

to be licensed. . . ." A PROTECTION order is perhaps best known to the legal The 14th section (we fear we must trouble our readers profession as that form of order under which a married with almost the whole of it) is on this wise :woman, who has been badly treated by her husband, "Ifany person duly licensed under this Act shall (before the obtains protection for the earnings of her industry. For expiration of such license) die, or shall by sickness or other the licensed victualling world the term has a peculiar infirmity be rendered incapable of keeping an inn, or shall meaning of its own. For cases where a license drops become bankrupt, ... or if any person so licensed, or the during its currency by the removal, &c., of its holder, the | heirs, &c., of any person so licensed shall remove from or yield Licensing Acts provide eight "special sessions” in the year up the possession of the house specified in such license; or if to which application may be made for transferring the the occupier of any such house, being about to quit the same, license to a new holder. As any sale under the license

sball have wilfully omitted or shall have neglected to apply of another person would be (except in the case of a sale

at the general annual licensing meeting ... for a by executors, or trustees in bankruptcy, which is specially

license, ... or if any house, being kept as an inn by

any person duly licensed as aforesaid, shall be or be abont to protected from the general penalties for sale without

be pulled down,... or shall be, by fire, tempest, or license by section 3 of the Licensing Act, 1872) a sale other unforeseen and unavoidable calamity, rendered unfit without license (for a license is always both personal and for the reception of travellers, and for the other legal pare local), provision is made for an immediate resumption of poses of an inn ; it shall be lawful for the justices assembled sale pending the recurrence of the next special sessions. as aforesaid, at a special session holden under the authority of This provision is to be found in 5 & 6 Vict. c. 44. The this Act, ... in any one of the above-mentioned cases, first section (which is an exceedingly long one) of this and in such cases only, to grant to the person's heirs, &c., of Act enacts as follows:

the person so dying, or to the assigos of such person

becoming incapable of keeping an inn, or to the assignee or At any petty sessions of justices of the peace, ... assignees of such bankrupt, or to any new tenant or occupier at any time when no special session shall be holden, ...

of any house having so become unoccupied, or to any person it shall be lawful in those cases where justices of the peace

to whom such heirs, &c., shall by sale or otherwise have made assembled at a special session are empowered," by 9 Geo. 4 over his or their interest in the occupation and keeping of c. 61, “ to transfer or grant licenses before the expiration

such house, a license, , .. or to grant to the person thereof to sell exciseable liquors by retail jin the same house whose house shall as aforesaid have been pulled down, or premises, in respect of which any person had been thereto

... or have become upfit for the reception of travellers, foro duly licensed, for the mojority of the justices then or for the other legal purposes of an ion, and who shall open present,... by indorsement of any license, ... and keep as an ion some other fit and convenient house, a to authorize (if they shall deem it proper so to do, after ex.

license : ... Provided also—" amining upon oath all necessary parties) any person not disqualified by the said Act, to whom it shall be proposed But we will spare our readers the proviso. It is nearly ... to transfer or grant any such license, to use the as long as the sectioa itself, its object being to prescribe business of a licensed victualler at the same house, ... a preliminary notice in case the application be " for a and the authority so granted shall continue and be in force license to sell exciseable liquors by retail to be drunk or until the then next ensuing special session which shall be

consumed [what is the difference between drinking and holden, ... and no longer ; at which special session

consuming liquors ?] in a house or premises thereunto the justices then and there assembled, upon application made to them pursuant to the said Act, touching any transfer or

belonging in which exciseable liquors shall not have been grant of license to the party or parties to whom such authority

sold by retail to be drunk or consumed on the premises, shall have been so given at detty sessiong as aforesaid shail by virtue of a license granted at the general annual hear and dispose of such application according to the provi.

licensing meeting next before such special session." sions of the said Act."

Returning to the section itself, upon which there have

been many decisions, we think we may say that so special Upon this enactment it is to be observed (1) that no are the facts of each case, and so brief is each judgment, notices of any kind are necessary ; (2) that the holder of that no useful purpose would be served by examining the protection order must be the future holder of the

are holder of the them. Two points, however, of very great importance license proposed to be transferred; (3) that the justices

stand out as decided by authority. First, that the two have absolute discretion to grant or refuse the protection

sections can only operate upon current licenses, and if a order; and (4) that the granting or refusing the pro- license has been suffered to drop, the jurisdiction of the tection order in no way concludes the case or limits the

justices to transfer is gone, was decided in Simpkin v. discretion of justices at special sessions.

Justices of Birmingham (L. R. 6 Q. B. 781). And it The cases in which transfers may be applied for are

seems to have been held in Reg. v. Rowell (L. R. 7 Q. B. defined by the 4th and 14th sections of 9 Geo. 4, c. 61,

490) that, in all cases arising under the 4th and 14th the latter of which is the most involved and cumbrous sections. 'the discretion of instices to grant or refuse a enactment ever placed on the Statute-book. Strictly transfer is absolute. We should be disposed to question speaking the 4th section applies to transfers properly

the correctness of the latter decision, and, at any rate, to 80 called--i.e., to transfers inter vivos; while the 14th hold the opinion that, upon applications for transfers, section applies to transmissions in case of the death, the grounds of refusal must be confined to grounds bankruptcy, &c., of the original holder. Attempts have affecting the character of the applicant. And, as the been frequently made to separate the two sections, and to

point was decided in the days before an appeal lay, we these attempts some colour is given by the interpretation

should not be surprised to see it come up for review of “transfer of a license" in section 72 of the Act of

before our present Court of Appeal. 1872, as meaning a “transfer made.. in exercise

The difficulties under the transfer section which have of the power granted by the fourth section" of 9 Geo. 4, noti

Geo. 4, not been touched by legal decision are many and various. c. 61. Apd separable no doubt the sections are to some

For instance, there appears to be distinct power to extent. Yet neither of them can be read into sense

transfer to more than one person in the case of executors. without the other. The 4th section directs the appoint

If three executors hold a license, are they equally liable ment of not less than four, nor more than eight special

for penalties? What is the status of a female holder of sessions in each year

a license who marries during its currency ? Ought she, "At which special sessions it shall be lawful for the justices or ought she not, to apply for a transfer to her husband ? then and there assembled in the cases, and in the manner, And if she should apply, have the justices jurisdiction to and for the time hereinafter directed, to license such persons make the transfer ? The case is a casus omissus, and intending to keep inns theretofore kept by other persons) it must be remembered that a transfer is authorized only

in the cases enumerated. What are the legal purposes of an inn beyond its being ready for the reception of

A NOVELTY. travellers ? How near the old premises must the “ other [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] fit and convenient house” be? These and many other | Sir,-I send you the enclosed cutting from the Mornquestions might be asked, but it is more easy to ask than ing Post of the 27th of August, as a novelty. Would answer them. Instead of attempting an answer, we | not a barrister negotiating for business in the way will state and endeavour to solve a difficulty which is suggested be liable to be disbarred ? more likely to arise in practice than any of them. We

INQUIRER. allude to the question how far notices are required. The 40th section of the Licensing Act, 1872, is as fol

[The following is the cutting referred to by our correlows:


LAW.--To Barristers commencing Practice. The nucleus of a “Every person intending to ... apply for the transfer Sound Business can be secured by the advance of about £500 for an of a license shall publish notice of such application as fol. agreed term.-Address, in confidence, low3 :

" In the case of a transfer of a license he shall, fourteen days prior to one of the special sessions appointed by the justices for granting transfers of such licenses, serve a notice

CASES OF THE WEEK. of his intention to transfer the same upon one of the overseers, &c. This notice shall be signed by the applicant or

WATER COMPANY-DISPUTE AS TO MEASUREMENT his authorized agent, and shall set forth the name of the

CUTTING OFF SUPPLY-INJUNCTION.-In the case of Bingham person to whom it is intended that such license shall be v. Sheffield Waterworks, before Kay, J., Vacation Judge, on transferred, together with the place of his residence, &c."

the 9th inst., a motion was made to restrain the defendants

from cutting off or interlering with the supply of water The difficulty we have in view is whether this re to the plaintiff's house until the trial of the action. The quirement of preliminary notice applies only to trans plaintiff was an inhabitant of Sheffield, and the dispute fers inter vivos by way of sale-that is, to transfers between him and the company was as to the mode of properly so called-or whether it applies to cases of measurement for the water supplied for use in the baths in transmissions also. Transmissions are included in the the plaintiff's house, and also at whose cost the apparatus for words “ every person intending to apply for the transfer measuring the supply should be furnished. On the 11th of a license," but the words “his intention to transfer

of November, 1880, Jessel, M.R. (his decision being the same " seem to point to a living transferor. On the

subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal), hold that other hand, the necessity for public knowledge of the

the company were entitled to charge by measurement for antecedents of a proposed new holder seems to be

water sapplied to baths in addition to their water rate for as great in the case of a transmission as in the case

ordinary domestio purposes. The question in the present

action was not however then determined. The company of a transfer, and it would be no great straining

now insist that consumers must either pay for water of words to read “his intention to transfer the sanje"

supplied to baths by a rate fixed by them, or by measure. as if they had been “his intention to cause the same to

ment to be ascertained by meter fixed at the cost of the be transferred.” The practice is, we believe, to dispense consumer. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that with notices in the case of transmissions, and to require the company have no power to force bim to pay the cost them only in the case of transfers properly so called. of a meter. As the company had threatened to cut off the On the whole, however, we incline to the opinion that plaintiff's supply unless he paid them the rate demanded transmissions are included. The words “ every person,” | this motion was brought. Kay, J., eventually directed &c., are affirmative and comprehensive, and do not the motion to stand to the trial, the plaintiff undertaking, seem to us to be deprived of their natural meaning by without prejudice to any question, to pay until the trial the words “his intention to transfer the same," which

the rate demanded by the company, and the company grammatically will just include "his intention to cause a

undertaking to repay the excess (if any) if the decision transfer."

should be against them, and not to interfere with the plain. tiff's supply in the meantime.-SOLICITORS, Pitman & Sons.



Remington, also before Kay, J., on the 9th inst,, a motion THE COURT OF APPEAL.

was made to restrain the defendant from infringing the [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

plaintiff's copyright, and from publishing certain articles

written by the plaintiff. The action was one for penalties Sir,-A learned judge of first instance, in his first

and damages under the Copyright Acts, the plaintiff being letter, speaks of miscarriage of justice in the Court of

the author of a series of articles called " The Convict Prisons Appeal. In his second letter he says he did not mean in 1880." The defendants were the publishers of a periodi. by such an expression to exclude the House of Lords, cal called “The Burlington," and they had published one though the latter, notwithstanding the fact of it being of the plaintiff's articles in their August number. It an appellate court, is not known by the name of “The appeared that the plaintiff had forwarded the articles to the Court of Appeal,” and he adds that his intention was to defendants for approval by them, but they had not returned question the expediency of the proposed change of the

them, and had not made any arrangement as to payment. Court of Appeal. The learned judge recommends that,

A proof of the article which appeared in the August number at any rate, some of the Lords Justices should go on

was, however, sent to the plaintiff for correction, and was circuit, and speaks of the success of the existing Court

returned by him revised to the defendants. The defendants of Appeal as a ground for no alteration taking place.

now contended that that the arrangement with the plaintiff

was one usual with magazines-namely, to pay him accordAs he draws a distinction between the common law and

ing to the regular scale of the magazine, and that by his equity courts, I would ask, Does he think it wise that returning the proof he had assented to such terms, and had judges selected from the common law bar should preside |

disentitled himself to an interim injunction. KAY, J., on to reverse the decisions of Vice-Chancellors, and does the whole considered that the plaintiff was not entitled to an he think that all the judicial members of the House of injunction, and he directed the motion to stand to the trial, Lords should have acquired practical experience by the plaintiff undertaking to keep an account.--SOLICITORS, having been accustomed to courts of assize ?

W. H. B. Pain ; H. M, Pike. London.




PROPERTY-INTERIM RECEIVER-DAMAGES.-In a case of Payne v. Jacobs, before Kay, J., Vacation Judge, on the 14th inst., the action was one to redeem the property comprised in a bill of sale, and an interim receiver was appointed. After the writ all matters in dispute were

MR. HENRY LATHAM, JUN, referred, and the arbitrator by his award found a large Mr. Henry Latham, jun., solieitor (of the firm o 80m due to the defendant, and he ordered, upon payment, Wood, Latham, & Bigg), of 6, Raymond-buildings, & re-oonvoyance and re-888ignment of the property oom- Gray's.inn, was killed near Grindelwald, Switzerland, on prised in the mortgage, and in default, on the 22nd of the 4th inst. Mr. Latham was the son of Mr. Henry August, that the action should be dismissed. The plaintiff Latham, one of the registrars of the Chancery Divi. had failed to pay the money found due, and the defendant sion, and was born in 1849. He was admitted 4 now moved for an injanotion to restrain the plaintiff from solicitor in 1874, and he had been for the last few years in using or dealing with the property comprised in the bill of partnership with Mr. Charles Oliver Bigg, the firm having a Bale, and for a receiver. The defendant alleging that the very extensive egency connection. About a month ago Mr. whole of the plaintiff's stook-in-trade was comprised in the Latham started for a vacation tour to Switzerland, and be bill of sale, and that he was dealing with the same im- had made several successful ascents. On Sunday, the 4th properly, had obtained the appointment of an interim inst., he started alone from Grindelwald, with tbe intention receiver. The motion now came on to be beard. The of ascending the Bourg. As he did not return to the hotel plaintiff alleged that the bill of sale did not comprise any | in the evening, a search was made, and, early the next after-soquired property, that the defendant could have morning, bis dead body was found buried in the snow. It is taken possession of the mortgaged property without any supposed that his fall was caused by a slip on the ice or loose necessity for the motion, and asked that it might be dis- stones near the summit of the mountain. missed. He also contended that the appointment of the interim receiver of the whole of the plaintiff's stock-in. trade, bad injured the plaintiff's business, and asked for

MR. FREDERICK CURREY, F.R.S. an inquiry as to any damages sustained by him. KAY, J.,

Mr. Frederick Currey, barrister, F.R.S., died on the 8th as the plaintiff was willing to give up possession of the

inst. Mr. Currey was the son of Mr. Benjamin Currey, property comprised in the bill of sale, made an order for

many years Clerk of the Parliaments, and was born in 1819. to do so.. He also discharged the receiver, and gave He was educated at Eton and at Trinity College, Cambridge, the parties liberty to apply as to the costs of the motion, as where he graduated as a senior optime in 1846. He was to damages ipflicted on the plaintiff, and generally. called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1814, and SOLICITORS, Bower & Cotton; W.R. Steele.

had practised for many years as an equity draftsman and conveyancer. Mr. Carrey was, however, best known as

an eminent botanist. He was a fellow of the Linnean AGREEMENT NOT TO PRACTISE AS AUCTIONEEK—Col

Society, to which body he was secretary from 1860 till 1880, LECTING REKTS — BREACH-INJUNCTION.-In a case of

when he became vice-president and treasurer. He was also Newdick v. Gibbons, also before Kay, J., on the 14th in st., a

A fellow, and a member of the Council, of the Royal Society. motion was made to restrain the defendant from carrying on

He had formed a celebrated and valuable collection of fungi, the business of an auctioneer within ten miles from Staines

which he is understood to have bequeathed to Kew Gardens in breach of an agreement with the plaintiff. It appeared that the defendant had for some time been collecting rents within the above radius, and it was submitted that he was thereby committing a breach of the agreement, an auctioneer's business being partly the collection of rents. For

COMPANIES. the defendant it was contended the rent collecting was pot part of an auctioneer's business any more than it would be

WINDING-UP NOTICES. of an accountant or a solicitor, and that no injunction should

Joint STOCK COMPANIES. be granted. Kay, J., was rather in favour of the de.

LIITED IN CHANCKRY. fendant on the construction of the agreement, but in order

LLAY HALL COAL, IRON, AND FIRE BRICK COMPANY, LIMITED. not to prejudice the question he would allow the motion to

Petition for winding up, presented Sept 7, directed to be heard

before the Vacation Judge on Sept 21. Davidson and Morriss, stand to the trial.- SOLICITORS, Terrell; Deane, Chubb, & Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner Co.


COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Cave, J, dated Aug 31, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Layton

and Jaques, Ely pl, agents for Neill, Bradford, petitioner's solicitor INJUNCTION-BREACH OF AGREEMENT TO GRANT RIGHT OF ST. MICHAEL'S GAS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, Wax-RECTIFICATION-In a case of Vargues v. Royal London presented Aug 30, directed to be heard before the M.R. on Nor 5. Panorama, also before Kay, J., on the i4th inst., the action

Webb and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

[Gazette, Sept 9.1 was for the specific performance of an agreement inter alia) to give the plaintiff a right of passage from the defendants' pre

BELGRAVIAN ICE COMPANY, LIMITED.--Petition for winding up,

presented Sept 6, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge, mises to a restaurant kept by him. The defendants' premises at Rolls yd, Chancery lane, on Sept 21. Rogers and Chave, Queen were completed in July, but they had not given the plaintiff, Victoria st. solicitors for the petitioner as he alleged, his right of way, and only permitted the public


quired, on or before Oct 14, to send their names and addresses and to pass on payment of one shilling each, the price of entry particulars of their debts or claims to John Howard, s, Old Jewry. to their panorama. The plaintiff now moved for an Oct 27 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjadicating upon the injunction to restrain the defendants preventing him having

debts and claims access until the trial.


-The M.R. has, by an order dated Aug 4, appointed Edwand raising a case of mistake as to the agreement and circum Lewellyn Ernest, Queen st pl, to be official liquidator stances showing that they would bave a right to have it recti. SILVER VALLEY MIXES, LIMITED.-By an order, dated Aug 28, fied. KAY, J., on these grounds, and having referred to the

made by Cave, J, it was ordered that the above company be

wound up. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the uncertain character of the agreement, said he could not petitioner grant any injunction, and directed the motion to stand to the SOCIETY OF AFRICAN TRADERS, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, trial.-SOLICITORS, Carr, Pulton, & Carr.

presented Aug 30, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judze on Sept 21. Miller and Vernon, Moorgate st, solicitors for the petitioner TURNBULL PATENT POXTOOX Dock AND SLIPWAY COXPASY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Sept 6, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge, at Rolls yd, Chancery lane,

on Sept 21. Hickin, Serjeants' inn, Fleet st, agent for Wmy, We are requested again to state that at the Inter

Bridlington Quay, solicitor for the petitioner e tt stort se mediate Examination, to be held in November next, and

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY, at future examinations, candidates will be examined, as

MIDDLESBROUGH, REDCAR, SALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA, AND CLEVELAND heretofore, on Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of DISTRICT PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIRTY.-Kay, J, has England, but omitting book 4 on Public Rights, forming

fixed Sept 16 at 1.15, at the chambers, Rolls yd, Chancery lane,

for the appointment of an official liquidator portions of volumes 2 and 3.

[Gazette, Sept. 9.]

« PreviousContinue »