Page images
PDF
EPUB

Edwards, John, Canton, Cardiff, Draper. Oct 12 at 11.30 at offices of Ladbury and Co, Cheapside. Cousins, Cardiff

Elledge, Charles, Grove rd, Mile End, Boot Manufacturer. Oct 13 at 10.15 at 42, Sardinia st, Lincoln's inn fields. Archer, Bayard rd, Peckham

England, Frederick, Swansea, Glamorgan, Dealer in Fancy Goods. Oct 12 at 12 at Merchants Association, Broad st, Bristol, Richards, Swansea

Evans, John, Newport, Monmouth, Stationer. Oct 20 at 11 at offices of Parker, Commercial st, Newport

Fieldhouse, Jonathan, Dewsbury, York, Draper.

Oct 22 at 10.15 at offices of Scholes and Son, Wakefield rd, Dewsbury Foster, James, Dalston lane, Grocer. Oct 20 at 3 at offices of Oldacres Dear, Gresham st

Glema, Demetrius, Peterborough, Northampton, Schoolmaster. Oct 19 at 11 at offices of Mellows, Westgate, Peterborouga Goodall, Ralph, Silverdale, Stafford, Surgeon. Oct 20 at 2 at offices of Slaney and Son, Newcastle-under-Lyme Griffith, John, Barmouth, Merioneth, Carpenter. Oct 19 at 11 at offices of Davies, Dolgelley Griffiths, James Marcus, Bristol, Commercial Traveller. Oct 15 at 11 at offices of Beckingham, Albion chmbrs, Broad st, Bristol Haddock, Job, Newton-le-Willows, Lancashire, Watchmaker, Oct 18 at 3 at offices of Davies and Co, Market pl, Warrington Hayes, Jane, Oldham, Lancashire, Watchmaker. Oct 20 at 3 at offices of Watson, Church lane, Oldham

Hendley, William Thomas, Worcester, Licensed Victualler. Oct 18 at 11 at offices of Griffiths, Bridge st, Worcester Herbert, John William, Tipton, Stafford, out of business. Oct 13 at 11 at offices of Foster, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham Herzog, Carl, New Broad st, Watch Manufacturer. Oct 11 at 3 at the Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st. Chidley, Old Jewry Hill, James, Burslem, Stafford, China Decorator. Oct 13 at 3 at offices of Bennett, Piccadilly buildings, Hanley

Hudson, Michael, Clare st, Clare Market, Grocer. Oct 13 at 2 at the Masons' Hall Tavern, Masons' avenue, Coleman st

Hughes, John, Llandudno, Carnarvon, Fish Dealer. Oct 18 at 2 at Davies, Temple Dale st, Liverpool

Hugon, Gabriel, and Edward Howard, Union ct, Old Broad st, Commission Merchants. Oct 20 at 2 at offices of Chapman, Pancras lane

Jeffery, John, Huddersfield, Wine and Spirit Merchant.

Oct 20 at

[blocks in formation]

Salmon, Robert George, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Painter and Decora tor. Oct 17 at 2 at the Law Society, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Emley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Shaw, John Enoch, Longport, Burslem, Stafford, Boat Builder. Oct 17 at 11 at offices of Ellis, Market pl, Burslem

Shaw, Peter, Netherton, nr Dudley, Miner. Oct 12 at 4 at offices of Stokes and Hooper, Priory st, Dudley

Sheldon, Frederick, Eltham, Market Gardener. Oct 19 at 3 at offices of Rickett, High st, Dartford

Simms, John Edward, Copthall chbre, Moorgate st, Stock Broker. Oct 24 at 3 at offices of Neave, Cheapside

Smith, Alfred, Plumstead, Schoolmaster. Oct 14 at 12 at offices of Learoyd and Co, Finsbury puvement

Sparkes, James, Tiverton, Grocer. Oct 15 at 11 at Half Moon Hotel, Exeter. Loosemore, Tiverton

Spencer, Thomas Arthur, Manchester, Fancy Stationer. Oct 19 at 3 at offices of Simpson, Kennedy st, Manchester

Spoor, John, Coxhoe, Durham, Grocer. Oct 18 at 11 at offices of Chambers, Sadler st, Durham

Tempest, Joe Webb, Plumstead, out of business. Oct 15 at 1 at offices of Chapman, Gresham bldgs, Basinghall st

Todd, John, Oldham, Draper. Oct 19 at 3 at offices of Watson, Church lane, Oldham

Tommas, Robert, Birmingham, Coal Merchant. Oct 17 at 3 at office of Fallows, Cherry st, Birmingham

Trodd, William Tunstall, Ipswich, Grocer. Oct 24 at 2 at offices of Morley and Shirreff, Gresham House, Old Broad st. Pollard, Ipswich

Venables, Charles, Bloxwich, Stafford, Brickmaker. Oct 13 at 12 at offices of Baker, Bridge st, Walsall

Watts, Thomas, Wellingborough, Northampton, Boot Manufacturer. Oct 12 at the Hind Hotel, Wellingborough (in lieu of the place originally named).

West, Horace Blair, Chatham, Comm.ission Agent. Oct 17 at 3 at the King's Head Hotel, High st, Rochester. Shakespear, Chatham Wheelwright, Joseph, Aston, Warwick, Jeweller. Oct 19 at 3 at offices of Fallows, Birmingham

Williams, Henry, Birmingham, Jeweller. Oct 17 at 11 at offices of Free, Birmingham

Wood, James, Woolwich, Licensed Victualler. Oct 13 at 12 at 10, Coleman st. Peake, Woolwich

Wragg, Benjamin, Stanton-in-the-Peak, Derby, Farmer. Oct 25 at 12 at the Red Lion Hotel, Bakewell. Stacey, Sheffield Yorwerth, Joseph, Bridgend, Glamorgan, Saddler. Oct 15 at 2 at the Grand Hotel, Broad st, Bristol. Stockwood, jun, Bridgend

Oct 14 at 2 at SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA,

[blocks in formation]

st, College hill

May, William Chaplin, Portland pl North, Lower Clapton, Printer. Oct 14 at 3 at Inns of Court Hotel, High Holborn. Goren, South Molton st, Oxford st

Moss, Frank, Albert rd, Peckham, Tobacco Dealer. Oct 15 at 3 at Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st

Needles, Gomer, Llandisilio, Montgomery, Licensed Victualler. Oct 17 at 12 at Bull Hotel, Welchpool. Woosnam, Newtown Nokes, William, sen, Norwich, Licensed Victualler. Oct 17 at 12 at offices of Sadd and Linay, Theatre st, Norwich

Oliver, Charles, Sunderland, Durham, Metal Broker. Oct 18 at 11 at offices of Newlands, Ellison st, Jarrow-on-Tyne Phillips, John Carey, Cheltenham, Grocer. Oct 17 at 3 at offices of Pruen, Regent st, Cheltenham

Pitney, Matthew Henry, Reading, Berks, out of business. Oct 17 at 3 at offices of Newman, Friar st, Reading

Porter, George, Carlisle, Engineer. Oct 19 at 3 at County Hotel, Carlisle. Clutterbuck and Trevenen, Carlisle

Potter, Thomas Edward, Bowness, Westmorland, Doctor's Assisttant. Oct 20 at 1 at offices of Gatey, Bowness

Powell, Charles Miles, Brighton, Dealer in Firewood. Oct 21 at 3 at offices of Buckwell, New rd, Brighton

Pratt, Middleton, Huddersfield, Engineer. Oct 14 at 3 at offices of
Clough and Brook, Queen st, Huddersfield

Prebble, Edward, Thanington, Kent, Farmer. Oct 22 at 11 at the
Queen's Head Inn, Watling st, Canterbury. Fraser, Ashford
Purchase, William Robert, Taunton, Somerset, out of business. Oct
17 at 11 at offices of Reed and Cook, Paul st, Taunton
Ramsden, James, Bradford, York, Reed Manufacturer. Oct 17 at 11
at offices of Beverley and Freeman, Hustlergate, Bradford
Rands, Sober Otto, Eye, Suffolk, Bookseller. Oct 24 at 2 at the
Three Horse Shoes Inn, Eye. Pollard, Ipswich

Rawson, Samuel, Birmingham, Potato Dealer. Oct 17 at 3 at offices of Free, Temple row, Birmingham

Richardson, Joseph, Newington Butts, Draper. Oct 17 at 12 at offices of Savidge and Steward, Eastcheap

Robins, John, Melcombe Regis, Dorset, Licensed Victualler. Oct 20 at 11 at offices of Aldridge and Aldridge, King st, Poole Robinson, William Hunter, Leadgate, Durham, Grocer. Oct 17 at 11 at the Royal Turf Hotel, Collingwood st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Bell, Sunderland

Rosser, Evan, Cadoxton-juxta-Neath, Glamorgan, Farmer. Oct 20 at 12 at offices of Williams, Great Western chmb rs, Neath

Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."

Highly commended by the entire Medica IPress. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, Jeeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.

Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Breakfast Cup, coating less than a halfpenny.

COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manila Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tin packets at 1s. 6d., 3s., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and Grocers,
Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors,
Я. SCHWEITZER & CO., 10, Adam-street, London, W.C.

[blocks in formation]

To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the Judicial Bench Corporation of London, &c.

SOLICITORS' AND REGISTRARS' GOWNS. BARRISTERS' AND QUEEN'S COUNSEL'S DITTO, CORPORATION ROBES UNIVERSITY & CLERGY GOWNS, ESTABLISHED 1689.

94. CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

HAMPTON & SONS make NO CHARGE for

inserting particulars in their FREE MONTHLY REGISTER of ESTATES, TOWN and COUNTRY HOUSES, Furnished or Unfurnished, or for Sale, to be had GRATIS at their Offices, or post-free for two stamps. Published on the 1st of the month, and particulars for insertion should be sent not later than five days previous to end of preceding month.

Valuations for Probate and Transfer. Surveys.

Estate and Auction Offices, 8, Pall Mall East, S.W.

LONDON GAZETTE (published by authority) and LONDON and COUNTRY ADVERTISEMENT OFFICE.

No. 117, CHANCERY LANE, FLEET STREET.

GREEN, Advertisement Agent, begs to

direct the attention of the Legal Profession to the advantages of his long experience of upwards of thirty years, in the special insertion of all pro forma notices, &c., and hereby solicits their continued support.-N.B. One copy of advertisement only required, and the strictest care and promptitude assured. Official stamped forms for advertisement and file of "London Gazette" kept. By appointment.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

INSTITUTED 1858.

For the Relief of Poor and Necessitous Solicitors and Proctors in England and Wales,
and their Wives, Widows, and Families.

The FORTY-SEVENTH HALF-YEARLY GENERAL MEETING of the Members of this Association will be held on the Morning of Wednesday next, the 12th of October, in the PAVILION, at BRIGHTON, when the Board of Directors will present their Half-yearly Report, Directors and Auditors will be elected for the ensuing year, and other general business transacted.

The Chair will be taken at Ten o'clock a.m.

9, Clifford's-inn, London, E.C., October 8, 1881.

TO SOLICITORS' CLERKS.

THE METROPOLITAN BOARD of WORKS is

of the Board, one at a commencing salary of £120 a year, rising by annual increments of £10 to £150, and the other at a commencing salary of £100 a year, rising by annual increments of £10 to £150. The age of candidates for the first place must be between 25 and 33 years, and the age of candidates for the second place must be between 21 and 28 years. Candidates must be thoroughly acquainted with the ordinary duties of a Solicitor's office, their handwriting must be good, and they must have some experience in the conduct of formal proceedings in the High Court of Justice.

It would also be an advantage if the Candidates had some acquaintance with the practice of the Metropolitan Police Courts.

Applications for these appointments must be by letter, and every applicant must state distinctly which of them he desires to obtain. He must give full particulars of age, qualifications, and experience, and his application must be accompanied by testimonials as to character, business capacity, and other qualifications.

Applications must be addressed to "The Clerk of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Spring-gardens, London, S. W.," and must be delivered at this office not later than two o'clock on Saturday, the 15th of the present month. Any application not in strict conformity with the terms of this advertisement will not be laid before the Board. J. E. WAKEFIELD, Clerk of the Board. Spring-gardens, S.W., October 5, 1881.

KT

ING'S COLLEGE, LONDON.-A Lecure on the recent alteration of the law relating to the FORFEITURE of LEASES for BREACH of COVENANT, will be delivered by JoпN CUTLER, Esq., Barrister-at-Law and Professor of Jurisprudence, on Wednesday, October 12, at 7 p.m. Admission free on presentation of visiting card.

This lecture is introductory to the Evening Class in Law for the ensuing Winter Session, for Syllabus of which, with particulars of Prizes offered by the Lord Chief Justice of England and others, apply to the SECRETARY, at the College.

[blocks in formation]

This Society will recommence its weekly meetings on Tuesday Evenings, at the Law Institution, on the 25th October next.

The objects of the Society are for the discussion of Legal and General Questions, the delivery of an address or lecture or the reading of a paper by any one, whether a member of the Society or not. Solicitors, Barristers, and Law Students who have been articled, and Students of the Inns of Court or any of the Universities, are qualified for election. All members of the Incorporated Law Society are Honorary Members. The Society is a corporate member of the Social Science Association.

Gentlemen desirous of becoming members should communicate with the Hon. Secretary, T. B. NAPIER, 1, Mitre-court-buildings, Temple.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

AW.-Conveyancing or Managing Clerkship in town or country wanted by a Solicitor, age 33 (Fra Tar Incorporated Law Society), experienced in most branekerin undertake advocacy. Highest references. Salary moderate, -Aldress, ALPHA, 27, Baker-street, London, W.

LA

AW.-Wanted by a Gentleman (admitted), of eight years' experience, an appointment as Managing Clerk ra Solicitor's office, either in Town or Country. A sma Partre would be negotiated for.-Address, E. G. ¡10, Messrs. Deacons, lak Leadenhall-street, E.C.

[blocks in formation]

CHA

1

HANCERY.-WANTED, by a Lincoln's-inn firm, whose Chancery business is chiefly administrative, a MANAGING CHANCERY CLERK, able to conduct such brassa under supervision.-Address, stating age, previous experience, ana salary expected, to V. R., care of Messrs. Street Brothers, 5, Suestreet, Lincoln's-inn-fields.

A SOLICITOR, admitted January, 1850, who was

articled to a City firm of good standing, desires a Partnershin, or Clerkship with view thereto. Advertiser has con manife capital.-Address, H. H., at C. H. May & Co.'s General Advertag Offices, 78, Gracechurch-street.

TO SOLICITORS and Others.-No. 2, Red Lion

[ocr errors]

square, Holborn, W.C. (once the residence of Justice settone), to be Let on Lease. These splendid Premises, as tr gone thorough structural and decorative repair, eminently bas for Professional and Residential Purposes, or would be let of “. floors for Professional Purposes.-Apply, Messrs. SMITH & GALA, 12, Milton-street, Cripplegate, City.

[ocr errors]

O SOLICITORS, BARRISTERS, and Others.. Chancery-lane, 57 and 58 (New Courts Chambers), 07 es r Residential Chambers in convenient suites of Rooms i ti and commanding stone-built premises.-Apply Exquiai Orfi, & the premises.

OFFI

FFICES or CHAMBERS.-THREE quiet and convenient ground floor ROOMS, suitable for a Solicitors, to be LET, at once.-Apply on the premises of & HODGKINSON & SON, 161, New Bond-street, W.

[blocks in formation]

THE FAULT of the letter which the Home Secretary has sent to the Stamford magistrates with reference to the Salvation Army processions lies not in what is said but in what is omitted to be said. It is stated that "such processions, not being illegal in themselves, cannot, in the absence of other circumstances, be legally prevented; but where they provoke antagonism and lead to riotous collisions, and where the peace of the town would be endangered if they are allowed to continue, the magistrates should by every means in their power endeavour to prevent them." The magistrates are recommended, in case they have reason to believe that the processions will lead to a breach of the peace, to cause sworn information to be laid before them by the chief constable, showing grounds why, in his judg. ment, if the processions continue, a breach of the peace, and probably a riot, will be the result; the magistrates thereupon issuing notices prohibiting the processions, and using force to prevent them if persisted in. This may be a correct view of the law, and the course suggested may, under some circumstances, be the right

a

[blocks in formation]

provoke so serious a disturbance of the peace as to call for their prevention may be true. But when directions are given with reference to such a contingency, we should have looked for some caution or warning that nothing but clear necessity would warrant such an inversion of the usual order of things, and that magistrates will not discharge their duty by adopting this easy method of saving themselves trouble in any case where, by the exercise of reasonable energy, they could have protected the subjects of the Crown in the enjoyment of their legal rights.

NOW THAT THE REPORT of the Legal Procedure Committee has appeared, the question arises how far their suggestions can be adopted without the authority of Parliament. What is the general power of making rules, and whence is it derived? The power is of a very extensive character, and it is derived from sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1875. Section 16 enacts that the rules of court scheduled to the Act "may be annulled or altered'' by the judges, and section 17 gives power to "alter and annul any rules of court for the time being in force" and to "make any further or additional Rules of Court for carrying the principal Act and this Act" [of 1873] "into effect, and in particular for all or any of the following matters, so far as they are not provided for by the rules n the first schedule i.e.-for regulating (1) sittings, (2) pleading, practice, and procedure, and (3) generally, for regulating any matters relating to the practice and procedure of the courts, or the duties of the officers, or to the costs of proceedings."

This is the general power, and the only section expressly restricting it is the 20th, which is as follows:

"Nothing in this Act, or in the first schedule hereto, or in any rules of court to be made under this Act, save as far as relates to the power of the court for special reasons to allow depositions or affidavits to be read, shall affect the mode of giving evidence by the oral examination of witnesses in trials by jury, or the rules of evidence, or the law relating to jurymen or jaries."

With regard to this last saving, we suppose that the reference is to the law of summoning juries as contained in the County Juries Acts of 1825 and 1862, and the Jurors Act, 1870, and to the law of swearing and unanimity of juries, and also to the right of the party, so far as it exists, to have his action tried by a jury. We observe, however, that in resolution 20 the procedure committee suggest that "neither party shall have the right" to have actions of which the subject-matter does not exceed £200" tried by special jury." Surely a rule carrying out this suggestion would be ultrà vires, looking to the provisions of section 20, above set out, and to section 109 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, which enacts that "in any county, except London and Middlesex, the plaintiff in any action, except replevin, shall be entitled to have the cause tried by a special jury, upon giving notice in writing," &c.

But are there any implied restrictions upon the power to make rules? There is, of course, the implied restriction that the rules may not conflict with the Acts themselves. And in ordinary cases of Acts conferring a rule-making power there would be the further implied restriction that the rules should not conflict with any other Act of Parliament. Does this implied restriction exist in the case of Rules of Court, or does it not? Rules hitherto made have sailed round this difficulty in an ingenious manner. When it was found that Turner's Act was inconvenient, a Rule of Court abstained

from repealing Turner's Act, but directed that no further proceedings should be taken under it; and a similar course was taken with Keating's Act.

It was evidently in contemplation of Parliament itself that legislative aid would have to be invoked, for the 75th section of the Act of 1873 directs that

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"A council of the judges shall assemble once at least in every year for the purpose of considering the operation of this Act and of the Rules of Court for the time being in force, and they shall report annually to one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State what (if any) amendments or alterations it would, in their judgment, be expedient to make in this Act, or otherwise relating to the administration of justice, and what other provisions (if any) which cannot be carried into effect without the authority of Parliament, it would be expedient to make for the better administration of justice."

THE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE'S

REPORT.

I.

WHEN the Judicature Act was passed in 1873, and when it was amended in 1875, it was taken as a fundamental proposition, and as the leading principle of the proposed reform, that the practice and procedure of all branches of the higher courts of justice, as well as the law administered by them, should be made, harmonious, and so far as possible, uniform. With this view a single Court of Appeal was constituted, which was to hear appeals indifferently from all the divisions of the High Court. And although in the conduct of business this Court of Appeal was necessarily divided, the members of it were intended to be, and to a great extent have been, ambulatory between its branches. Had the intention been more fully carried out, we can have no doubt that the end would have been more perfectly attained. But even as it is, much has been done towards the assimilation of the practice.

By the Judicature Acts and the orders made under them facilities were also provided for disposing of the whole proceedings in an action before a single judge, and, though the multitudinous sittings in Banc were not abolished, it was anticipated that they would be to a

We have never heard of any annual meeting under this Act, and the only report made public has been that of the extraordinary meeting which resulted in the abolition of the Common Pleas and Exchequer Divisions. However this may be, there seems to be some prospect that some of the suggestions of the procedure committee may fail for want of power to carry them out. It would, of course, be hard, if not impossible, to frame an exhaustive list showing what suggestions, if not embodied in rules, would be ultrà vires, and what would not. To the greater number no objection could be taken. Plead-great extent rendered unnecessary, and their functions ing, discovery, notice to admit-all these and many more are subjects well within the rule-making power. But the abolition of the right to a special jury we have shown to be clearly outside that power. Debtors' summonses, we should imagine, depend upon the Bankruptcy Act for the time being. The Judicature Act provides for official referees; how can Rules of Court discontinue them?

THE RESOLUTION of the Legal Procedure Committee, which suggests the employment of "official shorthand writers to attend in court and take a note of so much of the evidence and of such proceedings as the court shall direct in every case," will require careful consideration before it is put in practice. It is hardly to be expected that a judge will constantly during a

trial direct the shorthand writer what evidence to take down; the result will probably be that, in every case, the writer would take a full report, not a mere "note," of everything that passes in court. The report, when taken, would remain the property of the court in the hands of the official who would be charged with the duty of transcribing it when required. How are the new officials to be paid? The usual charge now made by a shorthand writer is a guinea for taking each case, and he derives his principal profit from transcribing his notes. In order to insure the exclusive services of these gentlemen it would seem that they must be paid by salary, and that the authorities must collect the payments for their services from the suitors in the shape of fees. It would be necessary then, when a cause is set down, that the party entering it should, in addition to the present fee of £2, pay an additional fee of a guinea or £1 for the official shorthand writer, and he would be liable afterwards to pay the cost of a transcript, if directed by the judge, subject to his getting back a portion from the other side. The employment of official shorthand writers will not, we may assume, obviate the necessity which now exists for the judge himself taking some sort of note of the evidence for the purpose of his summing-up or of his judg. ment, unless, indeed, in addition to his other accomplishments, he adds the ability to read off from another person's shorthand. Although it is more than probable that a very considerable revenue might be derived from the employment of official shorthand writers remunerated in the manner here sketched out, it appears that the result of such employment will be to impose an additional burden on litigants.

to a large extent divided between the single judge and the Court of Appeal. This method of dealing with cases was further enforced by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and subsequent orders, and it cannot be doubted that the effect produced by this course has been most

beneficial.

Difficulties of various kinds, however, have arisen in the working of this scheme, and, as our readers know, a committee has been appointed by the Lord Chancellor to report, and has since reported, upon these matters, the occasion of its appointment being the abolition of the Common Pleas and Exchequer Divisions and their absorption into the Queen's Bench Division; the subject-matter of inquiry being limited to that Division. The occasion, as well as the limitation, furnish an indication that the assimilation of practice has been less complete than might have been, and was, antici, pated.

In examining this report it will be at least natural to inquire how far it proceeds upon the lines of the original design of the Judicature Acts, and how far it departs from or runs counter to them. For although it would be absurd to consider that scheme as a final law from which we could not depart, however injurious it might be shown to be, yet it is entirely contrary to principle and common sense tɔ forsake without the greatest reason a system and method of reform which has been deliberately accepted by the Legislature and adopted in practice. It will be necessary, therefore, to consider the recommendations and proposals of the committee, not merely in an abstract sense, but under the guidance of this consideration. If a variation is proposed it must not be a variation which is modelled upon the antecedent practice in such a way as to be inconsistent with the principles of the new organization. But if the new organization is proposed to be altered it should be done in such a way as still to remain consistent with itself.

It may be convenient to commence with the recom. mendations which stand last in the report. We are told, and it is no doubt true, that the different methods of taxation practically followed in the Divisions of the High Court have done much to divert business into that channel where solicitors obtain the best remuneration; and as this can be no satisfactory ground for appropriat ing business to one court rather than another, we are not surprised to find the committee desire that all such distinction should be not only theoretically but practically abolished. But the odd thing about this matter is that

while the courts between which this motive really operates in disturbing the current of business are the Chancery Division and the Queen's Bench Division, the Committee" do not presume to offer any remarks upon the system of costs in the Chancery Division," though recommending the subject to the Lord Chancellor's attention. And on the other hand, the terms of their recommendation that "there shall be a uniform scale and system of costs in contentious business in all the divisions of the High Court in fact expresses only what is contained in the existing rules upon the subject, whilst the following limitation, which restricts the recommendation to "business not assigned by the Judicature Acts to a Division other than the Queen's Bench Division," excludes from its scope the whole mass of matters referred to in the first and fifth branches of section 34 of the Judicature Act, 1873, although such matters are litigated-as they now may be-in the Queen's Bench Division itself. Putting together these recommendations of the committee, it would appear that their effect will be the very opposite of that which, judging from their preamble, they have designed.

THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE CONVEYANCING ACT.

IV.—CONDITIONS OF SALE (continued).

THE Act seems to have found its first victim in our correspondent whose letter we print in another column. The pitfall into which he has tumbled was hidden with no little craft, and the moral which his letter points is ominous to the unwary who stray amid these mazes. In our last article, speaking with reference to section 3, sub-section (1), we remarked that under a contract to grant an under-lease de novo (as distinguished from a contract to sell and assign an already existing under-lease), the intended under-lessee can still call for the leasehold title. Our correspondent thinks he has detected us in "a singular oversight," and refers us to section 13, sub-section (1), which runs as follows:

"On a contract to grant a lease for a term of years to be derived out of a leasehold interest, with a leasehold reversion, the intended lessee shall not have the right to call for the title to that reversion."

But our correspondent has by a singular oversight himself omitted to notice that this contemplates only the derivation of a sub-sub-lease out of a sub-lease; while the case supposed by our criticism, and apposite to the section which we were then considering, contemplated the derivation of a sub-lease out of a lease. We understand the Act to permit inquiry into the title under which the lease (ie., the term upon which the reversion is freehold) is held in the latter case and to exclude such inquiry in the former case. We think, not only that the Act unquestionably says this, but that it fully meant to say so; and we even approve of the distinction set up between the two cases. But what are we to say to the genius of arrangement which placed such closely connected provisions widely apart under quite diverse headings? We shall presently have occasion to notice some other examples of the same pepper-box distribution. add, to prevent further misapprehension, that we purposely omit to discuss the precise import of "the right to call for the title to that reversion."

And we

We have now to express our opinion upon the practical utility of the sections which have just been discussed. We think that sub-section (1), since it fails to protect the vendor against objections to the leasehold title ascertained aliunde, cannot be relied on; that sub-section (7) will make it in future needless to stipulate that a purchaser of several lots shall not be entitled to more than one abstract of the common title, except at his own expense; and that sub-section (6), though capable of improvement, may perhaps serve to

[ocr errors]

dispense with the usual stipulation about the expense of verifying the title. We are clearly of opinion that subsection (2) cannot be relied upon, inasmuch as it does not provide against objections to the enfranchisement ascertained aliunde, and that the same necessity as now exists will continue to exist when the Act has come into operation, for inserting the usual conditions upon a sale of enfranchised copyholds. Subsections (3), (4), and (5) present considerable difficulty. They are subject to the condition, unless the contrary appears; and to us this appears to be of such ambiguous meaning, that we shall certainly expect its interpretation in no long time to come before the courts, if these sub-sections are at all widely used in practice. In other respects, these sub-sections are stringent against purchasers; and their aid may not improbably be invoked at sales by auction.

V.-GENERAL WORDS.

after the commencement of the Act and in the absence Section 6, which applies only to conveyances made of a contrary intention, consists mainly of three lists of "general words," the first of which is to be deemed to be included in every conveyance of "land," the second in every conveyance of "land having houses or other buildings thereon," and the third, in every conveyance of "a manor." The reader who turns to the interpretation clause, and there finds that "land, unless a contrary intention appears, includes . . . houses and other buildings," will gather fresh evidence of the justice of what we said in a former article about the general tendency of interpretation clauses.

66

If the reader looks through the lists of general words" in common use, he will find that the expressions there used are divisible into three classes-(1) those which denote things which are parcel of the hereditaments expressed to be conveyed; (2) those which refer to easements and rights legally appendant or appurtenant to the hereditaments expressed to be conveyed; and (3) those which refer to easements and rights of a like general character, not legally appendant or appurtenant to the hereditaments expressed to be conveyed, and which therefore would not pass by a mere conveyance of the latter, but which are capable of being granted de novo and made appurtenant to the hereditaments aforesaid by the deed of the conveying party or parties. As regards the first class, their insertion is worse than useless, for it not only can never do any good but it may possibly do harm. Cases have occurred where the mention of some of those things in the general words has been construed, probably against the intention of the parties, to indicate the exclusion of others (see Dennison v. Halliday, 5 W. R. 357). And here we may mention, in passing, that the forms given in the Act seem (at least the first two) to be faulty even in this respect; but we shall not stay to discuss this point. As to the second class, their insertion is superfluous, because things appendant and appurtenant pass, without being mentioned, along with the hereditaments to which they are appendant or appurten ant; but the insertion of them does no actual harm. As to the third class, the insertion of them is often necessary to carry out the intention of the parties. For example, it sometimes happens that an easement, not so indispensable as to be an easement of necessity and yet necessary to the commodious enjoyment of the dominant tenement, becomes legally extinguished by the same owner becoming seised in fee simple of both the tenements. If this owner should afterwards separate them, by conveying what was formerly the dominant tenement to a purchaser, the latter would not obtain with the tenement the benefit of the formerly existing easement, unless that benefit should be expressly granted to him. Such a grant, though express, is not necessarily specific, but may be made in general terms; and these may be contained in the general words; and in all cases where there is any chance that any such extinguished easements may need to be revived, or rather, granted afresh, pro

« PreviousContinue »