Oct. 29, 1881. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL AND REPORTER. VOLUME XXV. 1880-81. NOVEMBER 6, 1880, TO OCTOBER 29, 1881. LONDON: 52, CAREY STREET, W.C. 1881 Allard, Ex parte, 277 Alma Spinning Company, Re, 49 Ames' Settlement, In re, 875 Anglo-French Union Bank, In re, 758 Anglo-Universal Bank v Eaton, 791 v Tramways and General Works Com. pany, 794 Arkwright v Newbold, 333 Augustinis v Nerinckx, 48 Bennett, Ex parte, 278 Bergmann v Macmillan, 354 Best, Ex parte, 775 Bethlehem and Bridewell Hospitals, Governors of, v Ironmongers' Company, 429 Bingham v Sheffield Waterworks, 819 Birchall, In re, 30 Bird v Harris, 117 Burden, Ex parte, 370 Bywater v Clarke, 471 Cape Breton Company, In re, 779 Carter, In re, 372 v Stubbs, 31 Cartwright, Ex parte, 428 Caruncho v Stephenson, 929 Cavander's Trusts, In re, 239 Cercle Restaurant de Castiglione v Lavery, 777 Challinor, Ex parte, 116 Chambers v Managers of the Metropolitan Charing Cross Advance and Deposit Bank, Charlton v Charlton, 239 Coltman v Coltman, 779 Cooper, In the Goods of, 336 Costa Rica (Republic of) v Strousborg, 29. Couldery v Bartrum, 95 Crawcour v Salter, 525 Crouch v Jay, 885 Fuller, Ex parte, 280 Futcher v Futcher, 778 Gathercole v Smith, 334 General Iron Screw Collier Co., In re, 875 Goodman's Trusts, In re, 470 Gothenburg Commercial Company, In re, 217 Great Australian Mining Company, Re, 507 Great Britain Mutual Life Assurance Society, In re, 30, 94 Great Eastern Railway Company v East London Railway Company, 95, 427 Great Western Railway Company v Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, 217, 297 Great Wheal Polgooth Mining Company, In re, 757, 874 Greaves, Re, Bray v Tofield, 757 Green, In re, 470 Grundy, Kershaw, & Co., Re, 408 Gurrington Slate Quarries, Re, 430 Habeas Corpus, Re, An Application for, 809 Halifax Joint Stock Banking Company v Sowerby Bridge Town Hall Company, 450 Hall, Ex parte, 257 Hamilton v Chaine; Morgan, claimant, 355 Hampshire Co-operative Milk Company Horrex, Re, 297 Hudson v Remington, 849 Hutchinson v Hutchinson, 822 Hutton v Brown, 697 v Pearson, 834 London and Suburban Building Company v Field, 257 Long v Brown, 279 v Ovenden, 354 Lyon v Tweddell, 559 Maclay v Carta Para Gold Mining Company, 886 McMahon v Field, 354 Madras Irrigation and Canal Company, In re, 742 Manning, In re, Pendrey v King, 472 Merchant Banking Company, Ex parte, 295 Metropolitan District Railway Company, In re, 660 (The), and Cotton's Trustees, In re, 157 Middlesborough, Redcar, &c., Permanent Benefit Building Society, Re, 809 Mitchell v Chapman, 450 Molloy v Kilby, 317 Money v Money, 471 Patman v Harland and Bennett, 543 Payne v Jacobs, 834, 850 Pelham Publishing Company, Re, 429 Peters v Lewes and East Grinstead Railway Company, 678 Pike v Fitzgibbon, 407 Pillers, Ex parte, 524 Pillgrem v Pillgrem, 507 Piper, In re, 943 Plating Company v Farquharson, 406 Post v Marsh, 117 Pronger v Freeman, 863 Punuett, Ex parte, 72 Rawson v Patton, 560 Rayner v Preston, 448 Redgrave v Hurd, 372 Rees, Re, Rees v George, 258 Richards v Cullerne, 741 Richardson, Re, Richardson v Pilliner, 489 Ridgway v Ridgway, 508 Robertson v Robertson, 741 Robinson v Pickering, 316 Ross v Baker, 794 Rosser v Pontypridd and Caerphilly Railway Company, 392 Roxburghe (Duke of) v Cox, 542 Royal Exchange Shipping Company v McMillan, 809 Ruddock, Re, Ruddock v Redgrave, 587 Rudow v Great Britain Mutual Life Assur Thorndon v Tell, 679 Thorney's Trusts, In re, 678 Tolmin v Underhay, 660 Underhay v Smith, 199 Union Bank of Kingston-upon-Hull, Re, 371 Universities Co-operative Association, Be, 929 Vale, Ex parte, 776 Vargues v Royal London Panorama, 850 Varney v North Metropolitan Tramways Co., 943 Walter v Head, 742, 757 v Howe, 507 Walters v Walters, 514 v Leamington College (Limited), 30 Webber, Re, 791 Whateley, Milward, and Company, In re, Wheal Elizabeth Company, Re, 791, 809 Wheeler v Le Marchant, 427 White v Jones, 297 Whiting v Loomes, 334 Whitmore v Farley, 512 Wicks, Ex parte, 407 Wigton (Vicar of), Ex parte, 778 Williams, Ex parte, 91, 775 v Briscoe, 603 The Solicitors' Journal. VOL. XXV. ....... 1 THE YEAR'S SOLICITORS' CASES............................................................................... 3 4 5 7 7 9 GENERAL CORESPONDENCE................... CASES OF THE WEEK...................................................................................................... 10 LEGAL APPOINTMENTS ............................................................... 12 COMPANIES ................................. 13 OBITUARY.............................................. 13 THE OFFICIALS of the Chancery Division who undertook the vacation work have not had a very easy time of it, if we may judge from the number of orders made. The Vacation Judges have made about 280 orders in court, and the orders made in the chambers of the chancery judges were as near as possible 590, making a total of about 870. In 1879 the total was 850, and in 1878, 820. The vacation is a very different matter now from what it was ten years ago, when only one chancery vacation judge was available, and all the orders made were two or three score in number at most. THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS just made had been already too much anticipated by public opinion and rumour to cause any sense of novelty. In the case of Lord Justice LUSH, a somewhat advanced age is the only drawback to the high qualifications which all allow him to possess. But, although some circumstances have made the public justly suspicious of the value of too advanced age on the judicial bench, there is no reason to think that the powers of the learned judge are in any serious degree impaired by his having reached a period of life exceeded by that of several of his colleagues who are still vigorous and active. The wide and exact knowledge of the Lord Justice on many branches of law, and his great familiarity with practice-always exercised under the guidance of a clear and vigorous common sense and a steady purpose, not only to further the interests of justice, but to carry out in their spirit the provisions of the new system-will add to the Court of Appeal a member almost too valuable to be spared in the Divisional Court from which he is removed. In the appointment of Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS as his successor, we are glad to recognize one who, by his constant advocacy of law reform, stands pledged to give to the Judicature Act and Rules fair and full operation-a qualification which we think of even greater importance than the familiarity with mercantile law which Mr. WILLIAMS is on all hands allowed to possess. THE FORM OF THE INFORMATION in the forthcoming State prosecution in Ireland has been looked for with some interest. All the counts appear to charge offences which are included in the ordinary definition of a conspiracy, while the last one, which charges a seditious conspiracy, with other persons unknown, to cause and create discontent and disaffection amongst the subjects of the Queen, and to excite and promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, falls distinctly within Mr. Justice STEPHEN'S definitions of a seditious conspiracy (Digest of Criminal Law, art. 93) as an agreement with one or more persons "to do any act for the furtherance of any seditious intention common to both or all of them," and his definition of a seditious intention, as an intention "to raise discontent or disaffection among her Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different classes of such subjects." It will be observed that all the counts in the information are for misdemeanors. The law officers of the Crown have probably framed the information in this manner, partly with the view of obtaining a trial by a special jury, and partly to diminish the trouble likely to arise from challenges to the jury, since the right of peremptory challenge (i.e., challenge without cause) does not exist in cases of misdemeanors, although it is usual to allow any reasonable number of objections of this kind to be made by both the prosecution and the defence. THE CORRESPONDENCE which has appeared in our columns during the last few weeks affords an indication of the extraordinary interest which is felt in the next provincial meeting of the Incorporated Law Society. We ventured some time ago to suggest that more profitable use might be made of these meetings if fewer subjects were introduced; if only questions of immediate practical importance were discussed, and were discussed at greater length; and, above all, if men whose judgment and knowledge command respect could be prevailed on to open their lips more frequently. The |