« PreviousContinue »
Ephraim, Simon, Newcastle upon Tyne, Jeweller. Jan 27 at 2 at office of Joel, New. Poulton, John, Clarendon pl, Clarendon sq, Builder and Decorator. Jan 26 at 2 at offices castle upon Tyne
of Bishop, Serjeant's inn, Chancery lane. Freston and Co, Euston rd Evans, William, Macclesfield, Chester, Bootmaker. Feb 1 at 3 at Queen's Hotel, Water's Price, Arthur Henry, Rochdale, Lancaster, General Draper. "Jan 30 at 3 at offices of Green, Macclesfield. Pattison, Macclesfield
Molesworth, Central chmbrs, the Walk, Rochdale Farwig, Christian Arnold, Union st, Borough, Tin Plate Worker. Jan 28 at 11 at office Pye, George, Barnsley, York, Shoemaker. Jan 30 at 10 at offices of Gray, Eastgate, of Jones andLetcher, Mark lane
Jan 31 at 3 at Lion Render. James, South Bank, York, Grocer. Jan 30 at 11 at offices of Robson, Linthorpe
rd, Middlesborough Ford, William James, and James King, Leicester, Hosiery Manufacturers. Feb 1 at 3 Rogerson, Joseph, Kemingby, Lincoln, Farmer. Jan 30 at 12 at offices of Weller and at office of Owston, Friar lane, Leicester
Sons, Horncastle Gibson, John, Leek, Staffordshire, Grocer. Jan 30 at 11 at office of Challiner, Derby Robinson, Thomas, West Sunderland, Durham, Grocers' Outfitter, Feb 2 at 11 at offices st, Leek
of Alcock and Routledge, Frederick Lodge, St Thomas st, Sunderland Goodman, William Henry, Ramsgate, Kent, Builder. Feb 6 at 3 at Bull and George Rowe, Francis Henry, St Stephen's rd, North Bow, Baker. Jan 24 at 11 at Unicorn Hotel, Ramsgate. Edwards, Ramsgate
Tavern, Vivian rd, Roman rd, Old Ford. Hicks, Grove rd, Victoria park Green, William Henry, Drummond rd, Bermondsey Surrey, Licensed Victualler. Russell, William, Hoddesdon, Hertford, Provision Dealer. Feb 6 at 11 at the Salisbury Feb 8 at 2 at offices of Ladbury, Queen st, Cheapside
Arms Hotel, Forest, Hertford. Gisby and Son Hammond, James, Tunstall, Stafford, Boot and Shoe Dealer. Jan 28 at 11 at offices of Sandy, Thomas, Redfield, Gloucester, Grocer, Jan 30 at 2 at offices of Sibly, Exchange Hollingshead and Moody, Tunstall
West, Bristol Harrison, Owen, Ebury st, 'Eaton sq, Butcher. Jan 27 at 3 at offices of Godfrey, South Sears, Michael Linfold, Manea, Cambridge, Farmer. Jan 30 at 1 at Lion Hotel, Cam. sq, Gray's inn
bridge. Welchman and Carrick, Wisbech Hart, Moses Abraham, Sutherland gardens, Maida Vale, Commission Agent. Jan 26 Scaife, John, Brackenburgh Tower, Plumpton, Cumberland, Farmer. Jan 26 at 2 at at 2 at offices of Leslie and Fenwick, Conduit st, Bond st
offices of Scott, King st, Penrith Hayhoe, Edward, Balham, Streatham, Surrey, Builder. Jan 30 at 3 at offices of Saun. Smith, Thomas, Bath, Oil and Colour Merchant. Jan 31 at 12 at offices of Tucker, ders and Co, King st, Cheapside
Northgate st, Bath Hillary, John, Tottington, Lancaster, Licensed Victualler. Jan 30 at 3 at offices of Spensley. William, West Hartlepool, Durham, Grocer. Jan 27 at 3 at Stein's Crystal Bar • Haslam, Market st, Bury
Hotel, West Hartlepool, Thomas, Stockton-on-Tees Hind, William, Leicester, Boot and Shoe Manufacturer. Feb 1 at 12 at offices of Harvey Stevens, Henry, Lower Tooting, Surrey, Builder. Jan 30 at 11 at offices of Rexworthy Selborne bldgs, Milstone lane
and Co, Cheapside Hodge, George, sen, Luton, Bedford, Builder. Jan 27 at 11 at Park st, West Luton. Thaege, Oscar, and Gustav Schwegler, Jewin cres, Jewin st, Dealer in Fancy Baskets. Ewen and Roberts, West Luton
Feb 3 at 3 at offices of Goldberg and Langdon, Finsbury circus Holland, John Coxon, sen, and John Coxon Holland, jun, Macclesfield, Coal, Salt, and Thomas, Joseph, Venny, Llangennech, Carmarthen, Farmer. Feb 2 at 3 at 3, Dulais Stone Merchants. Jan 30 at 3 at offices of Barclay and Henstick, Exchange chmors,
ter, Pontardulais. Thomas, Swansea Macclesfield
Thompson, Frederick, Gt St Helens, Shipbroker's Clerk. Jan 19 at 2 at Guildhall Holloway, Thomas William, Bridport place. Hoxton, Builder. Jan 30 at 3 at offices of Tavern, King st, Cheapside. Turner and Co, Bedford sq. Warburton and De Paula, West st, Finsbury circus
Vann, Joseph, Leicester, Stone Mason. Jan 31 at 3 at offices of Buckby, Gallowtree Houghton, Thomas Marcus, and George Lawton, Imperial buildings, Ludgate circus, gate, Leicester
Builders. Jan 26 at 3 at offices of Preston and Co, Southampton bldgs, Chancery lane Vann, Mary, Nailsworth, Gloucester, Draper, Jan 31 at 3 at offices of Witchell, LansIsenberg, Jacob, Sussex pl, Leadenhall st, Boot and Shoe Dealer. Jan 30 at 3 at offices down, Stroud of Harte, Moorgate st
Wadham, John Samuel, Dockhead, Surrey, Clothier. Feb 1 at 2 at offices of Smith, James, William, Barnes, Surrey, Bootmaker. Jan 30 at 3 at offices of Farman, Great Walbrook, Norton, Queen st, Cheapside James st, Bedford row
Walsh, Philip Joseph, Wolverhampton, Manager of Tank Works. Feb 1 at 11 at offices Johnson, Henry James, the Elms, Ramsgate, Kent, Schoolmaster. Feb 8 at 2 at offices I of Higgs, Queen st, Wolverhampton of Sparkes, Harbour st, Ramsgate
Wallack, Ernest Townsend, Parliament st, Westminster, Wine Merchant. Jan 31 at 2 Johnson, Joseph, Burscough, Lancaster, Apothecary. Jan 30 at 11 at offices of Brig at offices of Thompson and Co, Cornbill house and Brighouse, Ormskirk
Walton, William Edwin James, Stroud green, Finsbury pk, Islington, Fishmonger. Jones, Alfred, Bootle, Lancaster, Cement Manufacturer. Feb 1 at 3 at offices of Morris Jan 26 at 11 at Crown Tavern, Clerkenwell green. Bassett, East Dulwich and Jones, Dale st, Liverpool
Ward, Thomas, Ulverston, Lancaster, Clogger. Jan 20 at 11 at Temperance Hall, Jones, John, Calne, Wilts, Upholsterer. Feb 2 at 12 at the Lansdowne Arms Hotel, Ulverston, Pearson, Ulverston Cnlne. Henly, Calne
Ward, William, Dawley, Salop, Fitter. Jan 31 at 12 at offices of Knowles, Welilngton, Jackson, Thomas, Eaton, Nottingham, Farmer. Jan 30 at 12 at offices of Newton and
Salop Co, the Square, East Retford
Wardle, John, Derby, Cattle Dealer. Feb 3 at 3 at offices of Wilkins, High st, Utt. Jones, Matthew, New Swindon, Wilts, Auctioneer. Jan 30 at 11 at offices of Boodle, oxeter Albion bldgs, New Swindon
Washington, George, and Isaac Smith Washington, Halifax, Wool and Waste Dealers. Lambert, Richard Mullins, Hastings, Sussex, Builder. Jan 30 at 12 at offlces of Daven. Jan 30 at 2 at offices of Stansfeld, Bull green, Halifax port and Co, Bank bldgs, Hastings
West, James, Leicester, Market Gardener. Jan 31 at 3 at offices of Hollier and Battis. Laycock, Thomas, Bradford, York, Grocer. Jan 30 at 12 at office of Morris, Ivegate, combe, Market pl, Leicester Bradford
Wetherfield, Henry William Manley, Finsbury pavement, solicitor. Jan 24 at 4 at Lee, Thomas, Manchester, Chemist. Feb 2 at 3 at offices of Brett and Craven, Kennedy
Masons' Hall Tavern, Masons' avenue, Coleman st st, Manchester
Wilson, Elizabeth, Ash, Kent, Farmer. Feb 1 at 2 at Lion Inn, Ash. Sparkes, RamsLovegrove, John Way, Wells, Hairdresser. Jan 30 at 12 at office of Collins, Priory gate House, Wells. Woodforde, Clevedon
Woolley, Edward, Hetton le Hole, Durham, Proprietor of & Theatre. Jan 27 at 3 at Lucraft, George Thomas, Almorah rd, Islington, Chair Frame Maker. Jan 23 at 10 at offices of Newlands, King st, South Shields offices of Shakespear, Budge row, Cannon st
Woolnough, Alfred, Watton, Norfolk, Butcher. Jan 31 at 12 at offices of Bailey and Marley, Samuel Hitchin, Manchester, Home Trade Merchant. Jan 31 at 3 at Mitre Hotel, Co, Surrey st, Norwich
Cathedral yd, Manchester Atkinson and Co, Manchester
CURRENT TOPICS .................... 175 Wallace v. Smith
AUTHORITY TO PAY PURCHASE-MONEY 176 CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY Midgley, Joseph, Walkley, Sheffield, Bookkeeper. Jan 27 at 1 at office of Mellor, Queen
EGYPTIAN CONVEYANCING ............ 177 REGISTRARS ........:
BANKRUPTCY LAW REFORM ............ 179 st, Sheffield
SOLICITORS' CASES ....
185 Michael, Joseph Jacob, Portobello rd, Notting hill, Timber Merchant. Jan 31 at 2 at 83,
CASES OF THE WEEK
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. Paternoster row
Ex parte Horrocks.......
LEGAL APPOINTMENTS ...... Moore, George, Crawcrook Mill, Durham, Farmer. Jan 27 at offices of Law Society,
Ex parte Maston
183 I COMPANIES .................... Royal arcade, Newcastle-on-Tyne. Jolliffe, Newcastle-on-Tyne
In re The Haven Gold Mining Com. NEW ORDERS .........
187 Morriss, John, Goole, York, out of business. Jan 30 at 2 at offices of Hind and Everatt,
pany.......... .................. CREDITORS' CLAIMS ..
Harston v. Tenison ....... Goole
.. 183 | LEGAL NEWS ..
188 Mortlock, George Abraham, Kingston-upon-Hull, Oyster Merchant. Jan 27 at 12 at
McGill v. Collingridge .............. 163 | LONDON GAZETTES, &c., &c......
..... 183 offices of Torry, Cogan's chmbrs, Bowlalley lane, Kingston-upon-Hull Oddy. Sam Lodge, Huddersfield, York, Licensed Victualler. Jan 28 at 11 at offices of NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.- All communications intended for publication Barker and Co, Estate bldgs, Huddersfield
in the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL must be authenticated by the name and address of Palmer, Edmund, Westbromwich, Stafford, Carpenter. Jan 30 at 4 at offices of Forrest,
the writer. Church st, Oldbury Papworth, Elijah, Harrogate, York, Milliner. Jan 27 at 3 at offices of Bointon, Old
The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the return of rejected communiBank chmbrs, Leeds
cations, Peat, Robert, Onecoat, near Leek, Stafford, Schoolmaster. Jan 28 at 11 at 59, Stockwell st, Leek. Redfern, Leek
*.* The Publisher requests that early application should be made by persons Peirson, James, Goodramgate, York, Sewing Machine Agent. Feb 1 at 1 at offices of desirous of obtaining back numbers of the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, as only a small Wilkinson, St Helen's sq, York
| number of copies remain on hand.
HEWETSON, THEXTON, & PEART,
EDE AND SON,
MANUFACTURERS AND HOUSE FURNISHERS,
200, 203, and 204, TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD, W. Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."
Estimates and Designs submitted free for entirely FurHighly commended by the entire Medical Press.
nishing Residences, Chambers, Offices, &c. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits
-PAINTING, DECORATING, & HOUSE REPAIRS. all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with
Carved Oak Furniture, Reproductions from Ancient starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.
Designs, &c.Bedroom Furniture, including Bedstead and Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful
Bedding, from £7 10s. per set. to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible,
THIRTY LARGE SHOW ROOMS. cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.
HEWETSON, THEXTON, & PEART, In tin packets at ls. 60., 38., 5s. 6d., &c., by hemists and Grocers,
| 200, 203, and 204, Tottenham Court-road, London, W. Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors, N.B.--Household Furniture Warehoused or Removed H. SCHWEITZER & CO 10, Adam-street, London, W.C. on reasonable terms.
BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT,
Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c.
BARRISTERS' AND QUEEN'S COUNSEL'S DITTO, CORPORATION ROBES, UNIVERSITY & CLERGY GOWNS,
ESTABLISHED 1889. 94 CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.
LONDON, JANUARY 28, 1882.
| on. Of course, if the council are so satisfied with the proCURRENT TOPICS.
visions of the draft order that they feel certain it will be hailed with satisfaction by the profession, they may be right in
keeping their counsel and reserving the intelligence until the THE GENERAL ORDER to be made under the Solicitors' Remu
matter is finally settled. But if what we hear is correct, we doubt neration Act has been drafted, and sent for perusal and suggestion
whether solicitors in general will be very grateful to them for doing to the Council of the Incorporated Law Society and certain officers
so. If the proposed order should afford very inadequate remuneraof the court.
tion to solicitors in small transactions, the council will justly incur very heavy censure for failing to afford to the persons
affected by it an opportunity of protesting before the order is made. MB. R. H. LEACH, the Senior Registrar of the Chancery Division, has resigned his post owing to ill health. Mr. LEACH commenced his official connection with the Court of Chancery THE COURSE taken by the judges on the present circuits with about fifty years ago.
reference to the question of statements by counsel on behalf of prisoners does not tend to show that the consequences of the rule
to which we referred last week had been very carefully considered. WE PRINT elsewhere an order for the transfer of forty-one
At the Worcester Assizes, Mr. Justice LOPES explained the meancauses from the list of Vice-Chancellor HALL to that of Mr.
ing of the rule as being that “ counsel, when defending prisoners, Justice Kay for the purpose only of trial or hearing.
could no longer be permitted to make statements from instructions they had received which were not supported by facts adduced in
evidence. The proper course for them to pursue was that which THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PROBABILITY that the anticipations up to recen
up to recent times had been invariably adopted - namely, to give entertained of the completion of the Royal Courts of Justice by an explanation that might be suggested by way of hypotheEaster will be realized, but it is now hoped that by November 2nd
sis.” If this is all the rule means, then we venture to think, with next, when the new legal year begins, the building will be ready
all deference, that a more absurd doctrine was never devised. for occupation.
Counsel may not say to the jury, “ Gentlemen, this is the prisoner's account of the matter, but he may say, “ Gentlemen, you
know the prisoner's mouth is closed, and I am not allowed to state VICE-CHANCELLOR Hall has issued regulations, which will be directly what is his version of the facts. I can only state it by found elsewhere, for the conduct of business in his chambers, way of hypothesis, and this is the hypothesis I am going to lay particularly with reference to cases in which counsel appear. before you." If this were not the practical result of the deliberaThe provision that the parties in two cases only will be allowed to tions of a score of learned judges, we should call it childish. be in the room at the same time will be an unquestionable Lord COLERIDGE, the chief mover in the matter, appears to have improvement.
been so impressed with the hardship of keeping the prisoner's
statement from the jury that he allowed the prisoner himself Now that the Council of the Incorporated Law Society have
to make his statement after the speech by his counsel. This before them the draft order to be made under the Solicitors'
Solicitorsis in accordance with the practice adopted by Mr. Justice Remuneration Act, the question will, doubtless, have been con
HAWKINS, with the concurrence of Mr. Justice Lush, at the Leeds sidered whether steps should be taken to elicit the general opinion
Assizes in February, 1880, when the learned judge said that of the members of the society on the provisions of the order.
" though there are dicta of individual judges to be found in the There is nothing in section 3 of the Act to prevent this course
books that a prisoner, when defended by counsel, is not at liberty from beiog adopted, for it is merely provided that “ one month at
to make a statement to the jury, I ought not to be bound by any least before any such general order shall be made, the Lord
such dicta because there is no decision of any court of criminal Chancellor shall cause a copy of the regulations and provisions app
appeal on the point.” But if this course is to be adopted, what proposed to be embodied therein to be communicated in writing
becomes of the solemn remarks of Mr. Justice North about to the council, who shall be at liberty to submit such observations
“ statements which could not be proved by competent witand suggestions in writing as they may think fit to offer thereon."
nesses”? Even if the draft has been confidentially communicated, there is no reason why the council should not endeavour to ascertain WHEN TWO MEN, sentenced to penal servitude upon the unthe opinion as to what would be a proper scale of remuneration supported evidence of one man alone, were discovered to be of the great body of persons who will be affected by the innocent merely on the accidental confession of that one man, it important and altogether exceptional duty which they have was to be expected that some demand should be raised for the innow to perform. There are, on the other hand, strong reasons troduction of the rule of plurality of witnesses into English law, why this course should be adopted. The heavy responsi- and Sir GEORGE BOWYER very naturally steps forward as the bility of the council will be lightened, and their suggestions or champion of the civilians. The history of the maxim, “unius remonstrances cannot fail to possess greater weight when it is omnino testis responsio non audiatur" (Cod. lib. 4, tit. 20, l. 9, known that they represent the opinion of solicitors in s. 1), is very curious. It seems to be derived from the supposed general, and not of a few gentlemen who, however able authority of various passages, both in the Old and New Testaand eminent they may be, know little of the smaller ment (see, e.g., Numbers xxxv. 30, Matt. xviii. 15, 16), which no class of conveyancing work. The course pursued with regard doubt require a plurality of witnesses for the support of capital to the recommendations of the Legal Procedure Committee charges, and which were erroneously construed to require the affords a precedent which might well be adopted on the present testimony of more than one witness in all judicial proceedings. occasion. If this is considered undesirable, there ought at least to See, for instance, Decretal Gregor. ix., lib. 2, tit. 20, c. 23, which be sent to each member of the society a circular, stating in general requires such testimony (only, however, in certain specified cases), terms the scale proposed by the council, so as to give solicitors “juxta illud Dominicum, 'In ore duorum vel trium testium stet an opportunity of communicating their observations there- omne verbum,'” and for an attempt to introduce the rule upon similar authority in England, see Sir Walter Ralcigh's requested to show it, he did so, but refused to have it clipped. case (2 Ho. St. Tr. 15); R. v. Vaughan (2 Ho. He was then“ ordered to return outside the barrier," and the St. Tr. 535). It has been shown, moreover, that the train started without him. Mr. Commissioner KERR is reported lawyers of ancient Rome did not establish the rule, but that it to have ruled that the bye-law requiring a passenger to deliver up was the production of the lower empire, “ C'est au Bas Empire his ticket “for any purpose" was “a salutary and not an q'appartient l'introduction de la maxime, 'testis unus testis unreasonable one, and one that all reasonable-thinking men would nullus,'” says Bonnier (Traité des Preuves, s. 201). Even in submit to," and he gave judgment for the defendants, with costs. this country we have adopted the rule, in no less than five cases: in This decision appears to us to go a good deal further than was the case of a trial for perjury or treason; in the case of an action contemplated by the framers of the bye-law. It is one thing to for breach of promise of marriage (in which, however, the old refuse to permit a passenger to pass the barrier unless he allows law was that the plaintiff could not be a witness at all); in the his ticket to be clipped, but when he has once reached the platcase of an application for an affiliation order, and, lastly, in the well- form, having admittedly paid his fare and duly taken his ticket, known case of the attestation of a will. We have also practically most “ reasonable-thinking men". would consider it a strange adopted the rule by rejecting the unsupported evidence of an accom-construction of the bye-law to hold that it justifies expelling him plice, though such evidence is legally admissible. But should from the platform and forbidding him from entering the train. these exceptions (for all of which there are good and obvious reasons) be extended? We answer without hesitation, No. We cannot describe the evils of the “unus nullus” rule better than they are described in Best on Evidence, book 3, pt. 2, ch. 10 A CORRESPONDENT SAYS :-“ Your somewhat destructive criti(from a learned note to which we bave abstracted what we have cism of the Conveyancing Act must have depressed the (apparently) said about the origin of the rule). “It offers a premium to too hopeful spirits of many amongst your readers, but your crime and dishonesty, by telling the murderer and the felon that article on payment of purchase.money is the last straw. The they may exercise their trade, and the knave that he may practise provision on which you there comment seemed to me, and I his fraud, with impunity in the presence of any one person. suppose to others, convenient and useful. But if your two 2. Artificial rules of this kind hold out a temptation to the propositions are sound, the section might (for practical purposes) subornation of perjury, in order to obtain the means of complying as well never have existed. With your first point I do not care to with them. 3. Such rules produce a mischievous effect on the quarrel; but surely, as regards the second, it would be a question tribunal, by their natural tendency to re-act on the human mind, of bona fides. A banker's draft or a genuine cheque is surely and they thus create a species of mechanical decision, dependent money' within the meaning of the Act, the purpose of which in on the number of proofs, and regardless of their weight." We this instance is evidently (I submit) to relieve both parties of an must face the possibility of the recurrence of a case like Brooks's, extra formality, leaving matters in other respects as they were which is of far too infrequent occurrence to justify the alteration before. In small transactions between solicitors known to each of the law.
other-favourably known, of course, I mean—it is as common as it is convenient to pay and receive by cheque, and it is just in
small transactions that formalities are burdensome. I WE LAST WEEK printed a letter upon the effect of section 71
respectfully beg you to reconsider this point.” We have of the Conveyancing Act, which repeals a part of Lord CRAN
reconsidered the point, which we may add for the information WORTH's Act, upon the rights and powers of mortgagees who of our correspondent was not an objection started by have silently relied upon the repealed Act in their mortgage ourselves, but had been some time before mooted among solicitors deeds. The qualifications of our eminent correspondent, Mr.
anxious to avail themselves of the Conveyancing Act—and we A.J. Wood, to speak with authority upon such a question, are
remain of the opinion before expressed. Section 56 gives a cerwell known. We own that we were not convinced by his argu- tain authority on certain conditions. What is the authority ? To ments, and that we could not help having a very low opinion of a pay " consideration money" to a solicitor. If a cheque is money, cause for which such eminent talents and acquirements could, as then cadit quæstio ; but is our correspondent, on reconsideration, it seemed to us, do so very little. The powers given by Lord really clear that a cheque can properly be described as money, or CRANWORTH's Act to the mortgagec are, apart from the Act, no that the courts will hold that the Legislature intended to give the more “a consequence” of the “instrument” than a power to
purchaser authority to pay his consideration by any cheque the create baronets of Nova Scotia is a consequence of the instru- | vendor's solicitor may think fit to accept? If he is not clear ment. On the repeal of the Act, these powers simply cease with
on these points, then he will admit that we were right in advising it, unless they are kept alive by a substantive new enactment in that. until the point is settled by decision, payment under the the shape of a saving clause, and we are constrained to repeat our statutory authority should be made by bank notes. opinion, that section 71 of the Conveyancing Act is, in this respect and for this purpose, the least satisfactory specimen of its kind with which we have any acquaintance. We print this week a letter from Mr. CLERKE, but we are sorry not to be able to discern any great importance in the distinction taken by him, that the powers At the recent Maidstone Assiz?8, Mr. Justion Grove strongly condemned conferred by Lord CRANWORTH's Act are conferred on a person. |
two practices as to the depositions sent to the judges through the clerks
of assize in criminal cases, one being that original documents (19 certificates The question, as we understood it, was about the source from
of marriage, &c.), were unnecessarily gent at the risk of their being lost, which the person derived his powers. This question seemed to and the other being that the dates of matters spoken to by the witnesses were suggest a difficulty in the way of the persons's retaining the not given, otherwise than circuitously and indirectly ("last Tuesday," &c.), powers when the source of them is dried up. Our objection
thus throwing on the judge great additional trouble ang loss of time in was that, in the case under consideration, the powers are conferred
continually referring backwards to see wbat was the date of the conversation
or occurrence spoken to. upon the person by the Act, and not by the instrument, and that
In a case of Reg. v. Taylor, before Lord Justice Baggallay, at Norththey cannot be styled consequences of the instrument except in
| ampton, on the 20th inst., A new point of practice arose. Mr. Etherington some remote sense which we thought too vague for the severely Smith had, at Bedford, applied to his lordship for directions as to the attend. precise purposes of an important statute.
ance of witnesses. The prisoner was committed to these assizes on a charge of burglary in a workhouse. Since the committal, smallpox had brok-n out in the workhouse, and the witnesses, who could perfectly well travel with
out danger to their own health, could not be called without danger to the THE "TICKET-CLIPPING" CONTROVERSY between the railway public. His lordship, after consultation with Sir Henry Hawkins, had inli.
mated that he should be ready, upon a medical certificate that the witnesses companies and their passengers has been shifted from the police
could not attend without endangering the public health, to postpone the courts to the City of London Court. A passenger sued the Great trial, although no bill bad yet been laid before the grand jury.Mr. Arthur Eastern Railway Company for an assault, and for damages caused Denman now renewed the application opon the medical certificate properly by losing his train, under the following circumstances :-The verified. His lordebip ordered the prisoner to be placed in the dock and exe plaintiff passed through the barrier at the
His Liverpool-street ||
plained to him the reasons why he could not be tried at this assize.
Olostreet lordship added that any application the prison :r wished to make for release Station without being asked for his ticket, but being afterwards from custody on bail would be favourably considered.
ants broke their contract by not admitting a ship into their dock, REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES. and the question was whether the ship's being wrecked was the
natural consequence of the breach of contract. The judges of the THE question whether damages are too remote is frequently one
Court of Appeal seem to have thought Hobbs v. The Southof the most difficult questions of law that can arise. It is almost
Western Railway Company only just distinguishable, and they impossible to deduce from the various cases a scientific principle
certainly expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the decision in by which to determine what damages are recoverable and what
that case, so that it is not easy to determine whether it is still to on the other hand, are too remote. The case of Macmahon
be regarded as an authority. It seems to us extremely difficult to v. Field (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 591), recently decided by the Court
treat these questions of the comparative probability of consequences of Appeal, does not contribute much assistance towards the solu
of a breach of contract as questions of law. The general proposition of the problem, inasmuch as the judges who decided the case,
tion can only be laid down in very wide terms; but the question under hardly distinguishable circumstances, came to a directly
is really one of degree, and some cases are obviously on one side contrary conclusion to that arrived at by the judges of the Court
or the other of the line, while there will be other cases extremely of Queen's Bench in the case of Hobbs v. London and South
difficult to determine. Brett, L.J., seems to have thought that Western Railway Company (L. R. 10 Q. B. 111). In the last
these questions are of a character more appropriately to be solved mentioned case, in consequence of the train not stopping at the place to which the company had agreed to carry a passenger, In this we are disposed to agree as a matter of theory, but as in
by a jury as questions of fact than by a judge as questions of law. she was obliged to walk home on a wet night from a distant place,
| the case of negligence, the difficulty is that jaries cannot be trusted there being no accommodation or means of conveyance to be
to determine these questions, especially as between companies or obtained there. The passenger, in consequence, caught cold, and
persons who they think can well afford to pay, and persons of it was held that the damage so incurred was too remote. In smaller means who have suffered injuries. Their decisions Macmahon v. Field, in consequence of the defendant's letting
on the same circumstances as between different parties would be stables which he had contracted to let to the plaintiff to another very uncertain and fluctuating, from the operation of the same person, the plaintiff's horses, after they had been put into the
put into the sort of motive that frequently induces the small retail shopkeeper defendant's stables, were turned out of the defendant's stables
to vary his prices according to the status of the purchaser, without their clothing, and remained in the defendant's yard exposed to the weather until the plaintiff could find suitable stables for them elsewhere. Owing to this exposure several of the horses caught cold, and were deteriorated in value. It was held that the damage so occasioned to the plaintiff was not too
BANKRUPTCY LAW REFORM. remote.
[COMMUNICATED.] There is so strong a resemblance between the facts of these
IX. two cases that it is extremely difficult to reconcile the two deci- Tue clauses of the Government Bankruptcy Bill included under the sions. The decision in Hobbs y. London and South-Western Rail- general heading “Supplemental,” and numbered 57 to 67, contain a way Company seems to have been based upon the ground that it number of proposals upon various subjects, many of which have been could not be considered as the probable result of the company's
debated and advocated in very influential quarters, and it is important
that they should be examined somewhat closely in order that their full breach of contract that the passenger should catch cold. The
effect may be understood, and so that what at first may appear judges in Macmahon v. Field seem to distinguish the case on the to be improvements may not, from defect in wording or absence of ground that the horses were more likely to catch cold on being details, be really worse than the present system which they are designed turned out of the stable than the passenger on being obliged to improve. With this object we criticized in our last paper the first of to walk home a long distance on a wet night. This those clauses (57), relating to the administration of estates of insolvent comparison of probabilities is a very delicate matter. Every- deceased persons, and we will now proceed with the other clauses in thing that happens is, in a scientific sense, the inevitable result of
their numerical order. the antecedent circumstances; but no doubt the consequences are
Clause 58 relates to adjudication in case of an absent or lunatic in some cases antecedently more obviously necessary or probable
member of a firm, and we print it at length :than in others. If a collision occurs it is extremely probable
" Clause 58.-(1.) Where an adjudication of bankruptcy has been made
against a member or members of a firm, and any other member of the same a passenger will be injured. But if a passenger is carried to
firm is out of England or of unsound mind (whether so found by inquithe wrong place it is by no means so obvious that he will probably sition or pot), the High Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction, after giving catch cold. One person may catch cold where another will not. the prescribed notices, and withont adjudging him a bankrupt, and on It depends on a great variety of circumstances-for instance, on
proof to the satisfaction of the court that the firm are [sic] unable to pay the constitution of the person, the distance he has to go, the
their [sic] debts as they become doe, to make an order in bankruptcy for
o the administration according to the law of bankruptcy of the joint property state of the weather, the thickness or thinness of his boots of the members of the firm. or coat, and other circumstances. Again, the results of “(2.) On the order being made, the property of the firm shall vest and a cold differ greatly in different cases: one man may catch his be administered as if a bankruptcy petition had been presented and an death, another may only have the inconvenience of a severe bout order of adjudication made in the first instance against all the members of of sneezing and sniffing. Suppose the passenger gets inflamma
the firm." tion of the lungs and dies in consequence, surely that consequence
We think this proposal in the main very desirable, and that it might would be too remote; it would be a strong thing to say that a
be applied also to cases of members of firms being minors. Upon the probable consequence of the passenger's being carried beyond his
subject of the non-liability of a minor who has contracted debts as a
trader-or rather, to be strictly correct, of a minor carrying on trade proper station is that he will die. Suppose that he was laid up
and who has obtained goods on credit in the way of such trade-to bo for a very long time and his constitution permanently injured, made bankrupt, we shall have something to say in some general how would the case stand then ? Can it be said to be the natural suggestions which we propose to make upon points not dealt with by the consequence of a man being taken to a more distant station than Government Bill after we have concluded our remarks upon the various he bargained for, that he should contract pneumonia and be clauses of that Bill; but, supposing no alteration to be made in the law seriously injured for life? The mischief must depend on other
as to this, then, so far as this clause is concerned, we think it highly concurrent circumstances besides the company's default--yiz.,
desirable that the case of a member of a firm being a minor (and we
have experienced such cases) should be provided for in the same way as the absence of accommodation and means of conveyance at the
the cases of absent or lunatic members. Then it is the High Court of place to which the passenger is taken-of which circumstances
Justice that is to have jurisdiction. Why should not the court having the company would probably not be aware. On the other hand, jurisdiction in the bankruptcy be the court to make such an order ? it cannot be said to be exactly an extraordinary and unprece That would be a much less expensive method than the other, and if the dented result that the passenger should catch cold, and it county courts are deemed important enough to exercise ordinary juris. seems difficult to say that the passenger ought to recover in
diction in bankruptcy, we cannot see why they should be excluded in respect of a slight cold, but not in respect of a severe one.
this one particular. They have to deal with very much more important
matters in bankruptcy than this would be. As to the words “after A somewhat similar point arose in the case of Wilson v. The
giving the prescribed notices," those words may mean comparatively Newport Dock Company (L. R. 1 Ex. 177), in which the defend- little, or they may mean a great deal. It would be much more satisfactory if the Bill were to state generally what notices should be given, and private contract, and the sale shall be publicly advertised by the officer on pot to leave so much to rules. It is certainly one method of saving and during three days next preceding the day of sale. work to the Legislature and throwing it upon the judges or whoever “(6.) It shall not be lawful to proceed against the goods or chattels of may be appointed to frame rules to carry out the Bill.
a debtor under a writ of elegit.” Upon sub-clause (2) we should like to hear the following moot point
The changes which would be made by this clause would, for the most discussed :-A firm consists of two members, one of whom becomes
part, in our opinion, be very beneficial, but there are some of the details lunatic and the other is made bankrupt, and an order is made under this clause for the administration of the joint estate.
to which we decidedly take exception. Section 87 of the present Act is The bankrupt partner
one of the most unsatisfactory in the whole Act. It introduced a has separate creditors. Would those separate creditors be entitled to
number of changes in the law and practice from what they were under vote along with the joint creditors in the appointment of a trustee, or would the joint creditors alone be entitled so to vote, in the same way as
the Act of 1861, every one of which, in our opinion, was for the worse.
This clause proposes to go back to the old law on a number of those if there had been a joint adjudication ?
points, but not upon all, whilst it proposes to make one or two innova" Clause 59.-The identity of a petitioning oreditor or debtor shall be tions. We think it better to state our views upon them under the head deemed to be proved if the signature of the petitioner to the petition is of each sub-clause. attested by an offioial receiver of bankrapte estates, or by a justice of the Sub-clause 1.--This is consistent with the proposal of clause 5, sub. peace.”
clause (d.). At present an execution for not exceeding £50 (including all We have not been able to satisfy ourselves whether this provision is
costs of execution) against a trader, or for any amount against a nonintended to be in place of, or in addition to, rule 28 of the Bankruptcy
trader, constitutes the execution creditor a secured creditor, entitled to Rules, 1870. That rule provides, by implication, for the identity of a
be paid in priority to the other creditors out of the property seized petitioning creditor being proved if the petition be attested by a solicitor,
under the execution. Notwithstanding that we suggested in discussing and we would suggest the addition of the words “ or by a solicitor" to
clause 5, sub-clause (d.), that, to constitute an act of bankruptcy the the clause. At present we do not suppose there is ever a petition
execution should not be for less than £20 (which would be a considerable presented which is not attested by a solicitor, and any alteration in this
extension of the present law), we agree with the proposal of this and practice would be most inconvenient. Can anyone for a moment imagine
the following sub-clause to apply the principle thereof to all executions, that it would be a saving of cost to require a petitioner to wait upon an
whatever the amount. Is it, however, intended by the introduction of official receiver or a justice of the peace in order to sign the petition in
the words “or has made an attachment thereof under any custom or his presence instead of in the presence of his own solicitor ? On the
statute" in line 2 to include a garnishee order? The words in that part
of the sub-clause would appear only to refer to the “goods" of a debtor. contrary, it would be an immense inconvenience and loss of time, and of course the petitioner's solicitor would attend along with him, so that the
| Now, the word “goods” would not include debts, though the word cost would be actually more-in fact, 13s. 4d. or a guinea instead of
" property" would (Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 8. 4), and it is presumed 6s. 8d., as at present. Surely the social status of solicitors is so good
that the latter word would have been used if it had been intended to that they may be continued to be trusted with the attesting of petitions.
have included a garnishee order. And yet the sub-clause speaks of It will be time enough to propose an alteration when the present practice
enforcing "the attachment by possession of the money," which would has been proved to be abused.
rather lead us to infer that a garnishee order was intended to have been Clause 60 provides for the publication in the London Gazette of notice
included. of an order of adjudication instead of a copy of the order, as is now
Sub.clause 2.-How, we would ask, in the event of the petition being required. This will certainly be an improvement on the present practice,
dismissed and no adjudication being subsequently made ? There appears and a convenience for the printers, as the order and notice of appoint
to be no provision in that case for the officer to obtain re-possescion. ment of meeting are unnecessarily long.
We think there ought to be a proviso that in such event the receiver Clause 61 provides that where there is no committee of inspection the
shall re-deliver the goods to the officer. Board of Trade (instead of the court, as in section 83, sub-section 17, of
Sub-clause 3.-We would make this to apply to executions for the Act of 1869) shall have power to authorize acts to be done by the
upwards of £20 only, to make it consistent with our suggestions upon trustee which a committee could authorize. This is one of the cases
clause 5, sub-clause (d.). The amount of £20, we think, ought to be where we think the substitution of some other body than the court will
exclusive of costs of execution, but inclusive of any costs for which be an improvement.
judgment signed, and this ought to be stated to avoid similar litigation Clause 62 is in substitution for section 87 of the Act of 1869, and
to what has taken place under section 87 of the Act of 1869 to settle the must be read bearing in mind clause 5, sub-clause (d.), upon which we
meaning of that section. Our query upon the preceding sub.clause will have already commented. It will be more convenient to print the clause
also apply to this. There ought, we think, to be provision for repay. at length before proceeding to comment upon it, and we accordingly do
ment of the amount to the officer if no adjudication made under the
As applicable to both this and the preceding sub-clause, we wish to "62.-(1.) Wbere a creditor has levied execution on the goods of a debtor, point out that section 73 of the Act of 1861 provided that the costs of or has made an attachment thereof under any custom or statute, and the the action as well as of the execution should be retained out of the debtor is adjudged bankrupt, the creditor sball not be entitled to retain proceeds. We think it hard upon execution creditors that they should the benefit of the execution or attacbment, except so far as he has, before be deprived of any of the fruits of their diligence, but especially with tbe presentation of a bankruptog petition against or by tbe debtor, and respect to their coets. It is enough for them not to get their debts paid, before potice of an act of bankruptoy committed by the debtor, and avail. and to have to take a dividend thereon, without having to take a dividend able for adjudication, enforoed the execution by sale of the property seized, or onforced tho attachment by possession of tbe money, or, as the case may
also upon the costs which they have incurred in obtaining judgment.
With the new practice under order 14 under the Judicature Acts, these be, by sale of tbe property attached. "(2.) Where the goods of a debtor have been taken in execution in
costs in ordinary cases will be less than before, and we certainly think respect of a judgment, and before the sale thereof the officer of the court
the law of 1861 might be re enacted to the full extent in this respect. from which the process issued receives notice of the appointment of a
The provision in that Act was inserted after the fullest discussion, and receiver under a bankraptoy petition presented against or by the debtor,
was, we think, found to work well and satisfactorily. the officer sball forthwith deliver the goods to the receiver, and the costs
Lastly, why should the officer be required to pay the proceeds into court inourred by the officer in respoot of the exeoution shall be paid out of the
in the event of no procecdings in bankruptcy being taken, instead of to property of the debtor.
the execution creditor, as at present ? The change will involve an "(3.) Where the goods of a debtor have been taken in execution in execution creditor in all cases in the additional expense of applying to respeot of a judgment aod sold, the officer of the court from which the the court for payment out to him of the money, which expense he will process issued sball deduct Lis expenges from the proceeds of sale, and, if have to bear himself, as he will not be able to recover it from his debtor he bas potioe of a bankruptoy petition having been presented against or by in any way. the debtor, shall pay the balance of the proceeds to the trustee or receiver Sub-clause 4.-Our concluding remarks upon the last preceding subor other person entitled thereto under the petition, but, if he has not notice | clause apply also to this. of any sucb petition, shall pay the balance iato the court from which tbe
Sub-clause 5.--Secret sales under executions are a means of carrying prooess issued. "(4.) If a bankraptoy petition is presented by or against the debt r
out ingenious frauds, and the omission from the Act of 1869 of a clause witbin fourteen days after the sale onder the execution, the balance so paid
requiring sales under executions for £50 and upwards to be by public into court sball become divisible among the creditors onder tbe petition,
auction (as was required by section 74 of the Act of 1861), was a great and may accordingly be paid out to the trustee or rejeiver under tbe
blunder, aud opened the door to the 87th section being entirely evaded, petition on application by bim in a sommary way by simmons or other.
and that in the worst of cases-viz., where a debtor wished to prefer a wise, but otherwise the execution creditor eball (subject and without particular creditor.
| particular creditor. Several cases have come within our own experience
Seve prejudice to the provisions of this and the priocipal Act) be entitled to the
where a creditor has, by collusion with his debtor (though proof of such balance, and may ip manner : foresaid apply for payment thereof to him. collusion is in almost every case impossible), commenced an action “(5.) Wbere the į oods of a deb:or are sold under an execution on a against his debtor, obtained judgmen
against his debtor, obtained judgment, and issued execution thereunder, judgment 100overed against him for a sum exceeding fifty pounds, they Then the sheriff's officer has sold to the creditor by a secret bill of sale. sball, unless the court from which the process issued otherwise orders, be The debtor has been allowed to remain in possession and carry ou his sold by the officer of that court by public anotion, and not by bill of sale or business as before until the fourteen days have expired, when the