Page images



For the Belief 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 b on the Morning of Wedneaday next, the 12th of October, in the PAVILION, at BRIGHTON, when the Board of Di will presi-nt their Half-yearly Report, Directors and Auditors will be elected for the ensuing year, and other general L


The Cbair will be taken at Ten o'olook a-m. THOMAS EIFFE,

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




I about to appoint two Assistants in tho Solicitor's Department 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 increment* of £10 to £150. The age of candidates for tho first pltico must be between 25 and 33 Tears, and the ago of candidates for the second place must be between 21 and 2M years. Candidates must bo thoroughly acquainted with the ordinary duties of a Solicitor's office, their handwriting must he good, and they must have some experience in the conduct of formal proceedings in tho High Court of Justice.

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

Applications for these appointments must bo by letter, and every applicant must state distinctly which of them ho desires to obtain. He must givo 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 tho Metropolitan Board of Works, Spring-gardens, London, S.W.," and mast be delivered at this office not later ihan two o'clock on Saturday, the 16th of the present month. Any application not in strict conformity with the terms of this advertisement will not, l>e laid before the Board.

J. E. WAKEFIELD, Clerk of the Board.

Spring-gardens, S.W., October G, 1881.

KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON.—A Lecture on the recent alteration of tho law relating to the FORFEITURE of LEASES for BRKACU of COVENANT, will bo delivered by Joinr Cutler, Esq., Barristor-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 Secbftabt, at the College.

Established 1836.
This Society will recommence its weekly meetings on Tuesday
Evenings, at the Law Institution, on the 26th October next.

The objects of tho 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 l>een articled, and Students of the Inns of Court or any of the Universities, are qualified for election. All meml>crs of the Incorporated Law Society are Honorary Members. The Society is a eorporato member of the Social Science Association.

Gentlemen desirous of becoming member! should communicate with tho Hon. Secretary, T. B. Napier, 1, Mitre-court-buildings, Temple.

Demy Svo, cloth, price 14s.

SELECT TITLES from the DIGEST of JusTtntan. By T. E. HOLLAND, D.C.L., Chichclo Professor of International Law and Diplomacy, and Fellow of All Souls'College, Oxford; and C. L. SHADWELL, B.C.L, Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.

Also in Parts :— Part I. INTRODUCTORY TITLES, Svo, sewed, 2s. 6d. Part II. FAMILY LAW. 8vo, sewed. Is. Part III. PROPERTY LAW. bvo, sewed, 2s. Od. Part IV. LAW of ORLIGATIONS (No. 1). 8vo, sewed, as. (Id. 9 Tart IV. LAW of OBLIGATIONS (No. 2). 8vo, sewed, 4s. Od. London: Hkxrx Frowui, Clarendon Press Warehouse, 7, Paternoster-row.

Just out. Fifth Edition, price 6s., nott.

HINTS on ADVOCACY, including Examples of Eighteen Types of Witnesses, and tho mode of Cross-examining them. By RICHARD HARRIS, Barrister-at-Law, of the Middle Temple and Midland Circuit.

London: Watbklow Bbob. A Lattox, 24, Birchin-lane.

T~HB CHURCH PREFERMENT GAZETTE (issued Monthly), containing full particulars of Advowsons, Presentations. Ac, for Sale, together with useful advice to purChafers, should l>e referred to by every purcliascr. Edited by Mr. W. EMERY STARK (Associate Institute of Actuaries, F.R.G.8., Ac).—Address (enclosing six stumps), Messrs. W. Emery biAjtx3, Bedford-street, Strand.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]


Advances, by way of Mortgago, upon good Freehold Securities.—J. M., 84, Fiosbury-park-road, Finsbury.


I? per annum (in one collection) secured upon property u be* part of City, recently rebuilt. Short Lease. Rack rental valn.9 about x! 1,300 per annum. Prico £15,526, paying nearly !• per ctm, —Apply to Thomas Obb & Co., 123, Newgate-street.

LAW.—Conveyancing or Managing Clerkship in town or country wanted by a Solicitor, aire 9ft fPrueman Incorporated Law Society), experienced in most branches. Coud undertake advocacy. Highest references. Salary moderate.—Ail dress, Alpha, '17, Baker-street, Loudon, W.

LAW.—Wanted by a Gentleman (admitted), of sight years* experience, an appointment as Managing Clerk it: a

Solicitor's office, either in Town or Country. A smtiil Partr-m**'. i would be negotiated for.—Address, E. G.'iW, Messrs. Deacons', 15* Leadcnhall-street, E.C.

LAW.—Re-engagement Wanted, in City Offies, as Conveyancing, or Conveyancing and Shorthand, Or*:. Conveyancing under slight supervision. Shorthand, ltw wunk I*t minute. Excellent references. Salary moderate.—Lax, 1, Tae Terrace, St. George's-square, Upton, £.

CHANCERY.-WANTED, by a LinoolnVian firm, whose Chancery business is chief!v administrative, a

MANAGING CHANCERY CLERK, able to conduct each 1
under supervision.—Address, stating age, previous
salary expected, to V. R., cure of Messrs. Street fix
street, Lincoln's-inn-fields.

ASOLICITOR, admitted January, 1880, who was articled to a City firm of good standing, desires a PartnMWi.a, or Clerkship with viow thereto. Advertiser has command of •r*ot capital.—Address, H. H.t at C. H. May A Co.'a General Adrertuog Olhccs, 7", Grucechureh-street.

TO SOLICITORS and Others.—No. 2, Bed square, Holborn, W.C. (once the residence of Justice Blacktone), to Ih> Lot on Lease. Those splendid Premises, just uaear

?;one thorough structural and decorative repair, eminently adu «*d or Professional and Residential l*urpoaea, or would be let <tf — floors for Professional Purposes.—Apply, Messrs. Surra A Gals, U. Milton-street, Cripplegate, City.

TO SOLICITORS, BARRISTERS, and Other. Chancery-lane, 57 and 58 (New Courts Chambers), Office*" Residential Chambers in convenient suites of Rooms tn it-"*' u-* and commanding atono-built premises.—Apply Esqcist O/tih Li.

the premises.

OFFICES or CHAMBERS.—THREE quiet »*) convenient ground • floor ROOMS, suitable for a firm 1' Solicitors, to be LET, at once.—Apply on the premise* of a. Hodgklnsox A Son, 161, New llond-strcet, VY.



Current Topics • 803

"the Procedure Committee's Rbpobt 801

The Practical Effect Op The Conveyancing Act 896

Correspondence » 896

Cases Op The Webb

In re The Working: Men's Mutual Society (Limited) 897

In re A Solicitor 697

Societies 1 * 897

'the Lbgal Procedure Committee's Rbpobt • 911

Legal Appointments • 916

'companies •« 916

Creditors' Claims 016

Legal News 917

•london Gazettes, &c.,&c 917


"notwithstanding TitE Arrangements which were com-pleted long; ago for the transfer of the chief clerks of the Master of the Rolls (now of Mr. Juatice Chitty) to the Royal Courts of Justice, no further steps have yet been taken. The rooms are ready for their occupant*, but the 2nd of November is likely to arrive before the transfer is effected.

Expressions Of Opinion reach us on all hands as to the torilliant success of the Brighton meeting of the Incorporated Law Society. The arrangements made by the ■Sussex solicitors for the comfort and enjoyment of their guests were admirable, and in every respect the meeting -deserves to rank among the best of the provincial meetings of the society.

The Pault 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 a sworn information to be laid before them by

■ the chief constable, showing grounds why, in his judgment, 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 one. But where are the cautions with which wc should have expected to see such recommendations guarded P Prima facie, a breach of the peace calls for repression and punishment of those who guilty of it, and protection of those who are assaulted or threiitened, not an interruption of the liberty of those against whom violence is practised. That acts in themselves perfectly lawful may

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, nnd 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 proteuted 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 bo 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 1G 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 rulesi 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 Aot, or in the first sohednle hereto, or in any rules of court to be made under this Act, save as far as relates to the power of the oonrt 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 juries."

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 1S62, 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, howover, 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 ultra 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 P There is, of course, the implied restriction that the rules may not conflict with ths 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 sitiled 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 courso was taken with Heating'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—

"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 mate in this Act, or otherwise relating to the administration of justice, and what other propitious {if any) which cannot be carried into effect without the authority of Parliament, it would be expedient to make for the better administration ofjuitice."

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 iu the abolition of the Common Fleas 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 ultra vires, and what would not. To the greater number no objection could be taken. Pleading, discovery, notice to admit—all these and many morn 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 Kesolbtiox 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 bo that, iu 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 trauscribiug his notes. Irr 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 guiuea 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 ussume, 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 judgment, 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 iu the manner here sketched out, it appears that the result of such employment will be to impose au additional burden on litigant-.



When the Judicature Act was passed in 1873, and when it was amended iu 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 a* possible, uuiform. 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 wsre intended to be, and to a great exteut have been, ambulatory between its branches. Had the intention been more fully carried out, we can have no doubt that the end would have beeu moro perfectly attained. But even a* 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 au action bef oro a siugle j udge, and. though the multitudinous sittings Ia Banc were not abolished, it was anticipated that they would be to a great exteut rendered unnecessary, aud their functions 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 caunot be doubted that the effect produced by this course has been most beneficial.

Difficulties of various kiuds, however, have arisen its the working of this scheme, and, as our readers know, a committee has been appointed by the Lord Chancellor to report, and has siuce 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-matt-jr of inquiry beiug limited to that Division. The occasion, as well as the limitation, furnish an judication that the assimilation of practice has been less complete thau might have been, and was, anticipated.

In examining this report it will be at least natural toinquire how far it proceeds upon the Hues of the original design of the Judicature Acts, aud 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 aud common sense to forsake without the greatest reasooa system and method of reform which has been deliberately accepted by the Legislature and adopted ia practice. It will be necessary, therefore, to cou»id*r the recommendations and proposals of the committsc, 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 iu 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 doae in such a way as still to remain consistent with itself.

It may be convenient to commence with the recommendations which stand last in the report. We are told, and it is no doubt true, that the different methods of taxation practically followed iu the Divisions of the High Court have done much to divert business into tost channel where solicitors obtain the best remuneration; and as this can be no satisfactory ground for appropriating business to one court rather than another, we an netsurprised to Hud the committee desire that all such distinction should be not only theoretically but practically abolished. But the odd thing about this matte* 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 nnd system of costs in contentious business in all the divisions of the High Court" in fact expresses only what is contained in tho existing rales upon the subject, whilst the following limitation, which restricts the recommendation to "buainess 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 tho 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.


IV.—Conditions Op Sale (continued).

Thb 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 Ilia 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, the illtended 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), wliich 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 (i.e., the term upon which the reversion is froehold) 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 P We shall presently have occasion to notice some other examples of the same pepper-box distribution. And we 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."

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 titl.\ except at his own expense; aud that sub-section (6), though capable of improvement, may perhaps serve to

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 theee 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 Wokds.

Section 6, which applies only to conveyances made after the commencement of the Act and in the absence 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 mauor." 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.

If the reader looks through the lists of "general words " in common use, he will find that the expressions there used are divisiblo into three olasses—(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 nif.y 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.Ralliday, 5 W. E. 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 appurtenant; but the insertion of them does no aotual 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 tenemont to a purchaser, the latter would not obtain with the tenement the benefit of the formerly existing easement, unless that benefit should be oxpressly 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, provision is always made for the possibility in well-drawn drafts. The following remarks of Baron Bayley in Barlow v. Rhode* (1 C. & M. at p. 448), lay down an excellent rule for the guidance in such cases of the draftsman. "It has been decided over and over again, that where an easement has become extinct by unity of ownership," which ownership, be it observed, must amount to a common seisin in fee simple, "and the owner wishes to grant the easement with the premises to which it was formerly appurtenant, he must use language to show that he intended to grant the easement de novo. ... If, in the case of an easement extinguished by unity of ownership, a man grants the land to which before the extinguishment the right of common was attached, and uses only the words 'appertaining' and ' belonging,' the right will not pass, these words not being sufficient to revive the right. There are, however, apt words for the purpose of passing such an easement; and if you will only insert the words ' or therewith used and enjoyed,' the right would pass."

TheBe things being so, and this being, we believe, the only part of the "general words" which cannot be omitted without danger, let us see how our anthors have dealt with it. The forms given by them, as respectively applicable (1) to "land," (2) to "land having houses or other buildings thereou," and (8) to "a manor," are as follows:—

(1.) All . . . easements, rights, and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, or any part thereof, or at the time of conveyance

. . . enjoyed with, or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to the land or any part thereof.

(2.) All . . . easements, rights, and advautages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to ths land, houses, or other buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof, or at the time of conveyance

. . . enjoyed with, or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to, the land, houses, or other buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof.

(3.) All . . . easements, profits, advantages, rights, emoluments, and hereditaments whatsoever, to the manor appertaining or reputed to appertain, or at the time of conveyance . . . enjoyed witli tl e same, or reputed or known as part, parcel, or member thereof.

Would it not almost seem as if the words in italics had been expressly inserted to deprive these forms of all possibility of serving their most useful purpose P Nothing is more certain than that, at the time of conveyance, the easement, in the case above supposed by us, has been utterly extinguished by the unity of seisin; and it would be difficult to devise any form of words less "apt," than one which should describe an owner in fee simple as enjoying an easement over one part of his own laud in respect of another part. And this blemish occurs in a part of the Act which might, with comparative ease, have been made perfect; and in which anything short of the perfection which gives the absolute certainty of safety is useless.

Lord Justice Lu-h has appointed the following dates for holding the autumn auice* on the North and South Wales Circuits—viz, for the combined counties of Chester, Montgomery, Merioneth, Carnmvon, Anglesea, Denbigh, and Flint, at Chester, Saturday. October 22; and for Glamorgan, Carmarthen, Pembroke, Haverfordwest, Cardigan, Brecknock, and Kadnor, at Swansea, Monday, October 31. Lord Chief Jogtiee Coleridge bis appointed the following days for holding the autumn assizes on the South-Eastcrn Circuit:— viz., Norwich, Monday, October 24; Cambridge, Thursday, October 27; Maidstone, Monday, October 31; Chelmsford, Monday, November 7. Mr. Juiiice Cave ba« fixed the following dates for holding the autumn assizes on the NorthEastern Circuit—viz., Newcastle, Monday, October 24; Durham, Thursday, October 26; York, Wednesday, November X


[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir,—Having given notice of my intention to move at the next meeting of the Court of Common Council, "That it be referred to the Law and City Courts Committee to inquire and report to this court as soon as practicable as to the vexation, delay, and costly proceedings to which citizens and others, who may be judgment creditors, are subjected in obtaining from sheriffs' officers and county court bailiffs moneys received by them in respect of executions levied at the rait of such creditors, and the best means to be adopted for insuring the speedy payment of all such moneys to the parties entitled thereto, with power to confer with the Right Hon. the Lord High Chancellor, Citizen and Mercer, thereon," I shall be glad to receive information (which, if so required, shall be regarded as private) respecting the difficulties which any of your readers may have experienced in obtaining payment of moneys received by sheriffs' officers from executions levied by them. W. J. Fbask*.

2, Soho-square, W., October 10.

[To the Editor of the Solicilori Journal.]

Sir,—The enclosed cutting is from to-day's CUg Prttt. I have heard that something of the kind was being done. Either the rule should be abolished requiring personal identification or the practice mentioned should be put a stop to. Y.

[The following is the cutting referred to:—"A gentle, man has a sum of money in Chancery to receive from the Paymaster's office, and something like the following takes place when lie gets to the New Law Courts. He asks for the office, and a minor official, whom I will call A., inquires his business, and then says, 'Oh, yon will have to be identified.' Gentleman says, 'Shall I? But 1 have nil my papers. What further identification is needed F' A.: 'Ob, you must be identified.' He then gets to a clerk, B., who tells the same tale, and the gentleman is informed that there is Mr. C. across the way, who will do the identification business. C. is sought out, and requires a fee of half-a-gnineo, which the gentlemen objects to, and C. then says, " Well, rix-andeightpence, then.' The above is a fact; and I ask is this sort of thing right and proper, or it it only for the benefit of A., B., and C. ?"]

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir,—There is a singular oversight in your article of the 8th inst.; you have overlooked the 13th section, which negatives the right to call for the title to the leasehold reversion on a contract to grant an underlease.

Permit me to take this opportunity to aak whether, expedient as it doubtless is that the measure should be searchingly tested, some of your criticisms are quite consistent with the loyal reception which should, I venture to think, be accorded to this well-meant endeavour to curtail what a learned divine of the last century oalled "the villainous tautology of the lawyers." I might instance your inquiry, " When is a sale made—when the contract is entered into, or when it is completed i" in discussing the provisions as to conditions of "sales male after the commencement of the Act" (section 3, subsection 10). Cau there be any real doubt: Four previous sub-sections use the term "sale" or "sold" in a connection which shows pluinly thut it is the contract of aale that constitutes a tale. Or again, as to the exoneration of a solicitor from

« PreviousContinue »