Page images

Walker, Nicholas, High st, Shoreditch, Licensed Victualler. Mar 14 at 1 at offices of Lidiani and Co. Gt James at, Bedford row

Walker, Walter, Bradford, Wholesale Potatoe Salesman. Mar 25 at 10.30 at Victoria chrnbrg, Bink st, Bradford. Darlington

Weston, Alfred, Greenwich, Boot and Shoe Manufactnrer. Mar 20 at 12 at office of Moss, Gracechurch st

Whitaker, Charles, Lincoln, Grocer. Mar 15 at 2 at Cannon st Hotel, Williams, Lincoln

White, Martin Luther, and William Batting, the Grove, Stratford, Corn Factors. Mar 15 at 4 at office of Franklin, Strand

Willacy, Robert, Penwortham, Lancaster, Land Agent. Mar 16 at 2 at office of Blockhurst, Foi st, Preston

Williams, James, Pontypool, Boot Manufacturer. Mar 17 at 12 at Grand Hotel, Brood st, Bristol. Douncey

Wood, William, Cheltenham, Grocer's Assistant. Mar 15 at 3 at office of Stroud and Ryland, Clarence parade, Cheltenham

Tuesday, March 7, 1882.

Agger, Joseph Edward, Watton, Norfolk, Chemist. Mar 21 at 2 at office of Gregson and Robinson, Watton

Aikman, Robert, Manchester, Printer, Mar 17 at 4 at office of Addleshaw and Warburton, Norfolk st, Manchester

Armor, John, Denbigh, Licensed Victualler. Mar 20 at 12 at office of Parry and Co, Vale st, Denbigh

Ash worth, Henry, Stacksteals, nr Bacup, Grocer. Mnr 21 at 3 at Dog and Partridge Inn,

Fennel st, Manchester. March, Rochdale Audsley, John, Gawthorpe, York, Spinner. Mar 23 at 10.15 at office of Soholes and Son

Wakefield rd, Dewsbury Banister, Albert, Newgate st. Butcher. Mar 20 at 3 at 145, Cheapside. Whittington and

Son, Bishopsgate st Without Berry, Charles, Eastbourne, Fishmonger. Mar 23 at 3 at office of Champion and Co,

Terminus rd, Eastbourne Bolton, George, Manningham, York, Timber Merchant. Mar 21 at 3 at office of Watson and Dickons, Cheapside, Bradford

■ Nathaniel, Aahby, Lincoln, Chemist. Mor 20 at 2 at offices of Summers, Manor

st, Kingston upon Hull Bottle, Henry Alexander, Pertenball, Bedford, Farmer. Mar 10 at 11 ot offices of WadeGery, St Neots

Bull, Frederick, Harrow rd, Ctoeed Upper Manufocturer. Mar 10 at 3 at Crown Tavern,

Clerkenwell gn. Goatly, Long acre Batterneld, Isaac, Bury, Draper. Mar 22 at S at offices of Grundy, Union st. Bury Cad man, Arthur, Nottingham, Commission Agent. Mar 20 at 3 at offices of Norman,


Calderwood. George, Pockham, Draper. Mar 21 at 2 at offices of Soppet, Newgate st.

Webb and Son, Barbican Carr, William, Blackburn, Mineral Water Manufacturer. Mar 23 at 11 at offices of

Wheeler and Fletcher, Blackburn Case, Robert, Hilgay, Norfolk, Farmer. Mar 22 at 12 at County Court House, Downham

Market. Reed and Waymau, Downham Market Cash, Joseph Harper, Wilson st, Finsbury, Insurance Broker. Mar 27 at 2 at offices of

Henry, Holborn

Chad well, Sarah Jane, Oxford, Cutler. Mar 23 at 12 at offices of Galpin, New Inn Hall st, Oxford

Craner, Frederick, Welford-on-Avon, Gloucester, Oil Salesman. Mar 20 at 12 at offices of Sanderson, Church st, Warwick

Day, Eira, Wakefield, York, Shoe Dealer. Mar 20 at 3 at the George Hotel, Wakefield. Dryden, Wakefield

Deaxsley, Emma, Sloane st, Milliner, Mar 17 at 2 at the Guildhall Tavern, Grcsham st. Marrable

Dickinson, Joseph John, Ipswich, Boot Maker. Mar 18 at 11 at offices of Mills, Elm st, Ipswich

Dixon, William, Knottingley, York, Grocer. Mar 20 at 3 at offloes of Foster and Raper,

Ropergate, Pontofract Down, William, Stoke Newington rd, Builder. Mar 20 at 3 at offices of Stewart, Fore st Edge, Mary Ann, Birkenhead, Butcher. Mar 21 at 3 at offices of Hannan and Pugh,

Duncan st, Birkenhead Fisher, Thomas, Barrow in Furnese, Dealer in Iron Ore. Mar 21 at 2 at the Victoria

Hotel, Church st, Barrow in Furneas. Barrow, Barrow in Furness Foden, William, Salford, Lancaster, Grocer. Mar 23 at 3 at the Mitre Hotel, Cathedral

yd, Manchester. Creek and Co, Manchester Grey, Thomas, Bristol, Baker. Mar 21 at 12 at offices of Atchley, Clare st, Bristol Griffiths, David, Bridgend, Glamorgan, Licensed Victualler. Mar 21 at 12.30 at offices

of Randall, Nolton st, Bridgend Hartrreaves, Thomas, Lancaster, Game Dealer. Mar 20 at 11 at

WhelGB, Churoh st, Lauoaster Harper, Kda

of Holden and

. . [twin, Prince Teck bldgs, Earl's ort rd. Greengrocer. Mar 24 at 3 at offices of Stokes, Chancery lane Harris, Charles, Birmingham, General Dealer. Mar 17 at 11 at office s of Parry, Colmore row, Birmingham vey, David, Chesterton, Cambridge, Cook. Mar 20 at 11 at offices of Wayman,

st, Cambridge

Alfred, Canterbury Theatre of Varieties, Manager. Mar 20 at 3 at offices of


. leremiah, Wakefield, Provision Dealer. Mar 18 at 11 at offices of Kemp, Baratow so, Wakefield Henderson, Thomas. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Poultorer. Mar 22 at 11 at offices of Scott,

White House bldgs, Pilgrim st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Henrich, Johann George, Rodosdale st, Chelsea, out of business. Mar 10 at 11 at offioes of Dobson, Mlnories

Hepper, Arthur, Launcoston, Cornwall, Seedsman. Mar 17 at 12 at King's Arms Hotel, Cowlard and Cowlard, Launcoston

Hillier, Henry, and Henry Hallett, Rochdale, Provision Dealers. Mar 21 at 3 at Dor

and Partridge Inn, Fennel st, M anchester. Brierley, Rochdale Holt, Alfred, Gorton, Lancaster, Soap Manufacturer. Mar 20 at 3 at offices of Simpson. Manchester

Hewlett, James, Hedon, York, Boot Maker. Mar 20 at 3 at offices of Summers, Kingston upon Hull

Humphreys, Edward, Aberystwith, Cardigan, Ship Ownor. Mar 23 at 11 at offices of Hughes, Aberystwith

Hurst, William Jeffrey, Bermondsey, Registrar of Births and Deaths. Mar 20 at 2 at

offices of Simpson and Palmer, Southwark Hyslop, James, Blackburn, Travelling Draper. Mar 20 at 11 at offices of Wheeler and

Fletcher, Blackburn

Irvine, William, Sunderland, Tailor. Mar 21 at 3 at offices of Lawson, Villiers st, Sunderland

Knight, George, Bloomsbury st, Auctioneer. Mar 23 at 3 at offices of Godfrey, Chancery lane. Hooper

Knight, Henry, Kingsclere, Southampton, Carpenter. Mar 20 at 11 at offices of Lucas, Newbury

Lawton, Frederick Alfred, Stoke upon Trent, Coal Merchant, Mar 18 at 11 at offices

of Ashwell, Stoke upon Trent Ljiyhton, Francis Henry, Oldbury, Worcester, Factors' Clerk. Mar 20 at 11 at offices

of Peel, Birmingham

Ltfnax, Benjamin Howarth, Manchester, Publisher. March 17 at 3 at officos of Nadin, King at, Manchester

Lmgmaii, A1 Licit Thurston, Brsnt st, Hondon, Builder. March 20 at 3 at the Jamaica Coffee house, St Michael's alley, Oornhill. Warburton and De Paula, West at. Fins.

M allet, John, jun., Groat Torrington, Devon, Dairyman. Maroh 21 at 3.3*1 at offices.

of Thome, Castle st, Barnstaple Marshall, Nathaniel, Lutton, Northampton, Farmer. March 18 at 12 at officos of Den

con and Wilkins, Cross st, Peterborough Mathew, Thomas Charles, Early mews, Camden Town, Load Morchant. March 23 at 12

at offices of Ellen, Chancery lane Merrick, Robert, Berrington, Salop, Licensed Victualler. Mar 21 at 11 at offices nf

Morris, Swan Hill, Shrewsbury Millard, William Carey, Faroham, Surrey, Glass Dealer. Mar 20 at 2 at offices of

Vandercom and Co, Bush lune Miller, Joseph, Blackburn, Shirt Maker. Mar 21 at 11 at the White Bull Hotel, Church

st, Blackburn. Needham, Blackburn Miller, William Eaton, Howdon, York, Draper. Mar 20 at 12 at offices of Englaud and

Son, Howden

Uonk, Albert James, Lower Edmonton, Builder. Mar 22 at 11 at offices of Wolferstan and Co, Ironmonger lane

Moor, James Maitland Hoar, Birmingham, out of employment. Mar 17 at 3 at office of Fallows, Cherry st, Birmingham

Ormorod, Edward, Atherton, Lancaster, Engineer. Mar 20 at 11 at office of Holmes and Johnson, Victoria bldgs, King st, Wigan. Part and Co, Wigan

Parker, James, Ansley, Warwick, Farmer. Mar 20 at 12 at Newdegate Hotel, Nuneaton. Close, Derby

Parnell, Richard, Westminster Bridge rd, Manager to a Loan Offlco. Mar 16 at 11 at

office of Chapman, Pancras lane Parr, Thomas, Greetland, Halifax, York. Stone Merchant. Mar 20 at 11 at the Crown

Hotel, Horton st, Halifax. Rhodes, Halifax Pennicartl, John, Brighton, Boot and Shoo Maker. Mar 22 at 3 at office of Goodman,

North st, Brighton

Pevorley, William, Old Kent rd, Leather Dresser's Manager. Mar 16 at 10 at Finsbury sq bldgs, Chiswell st. Whitwell and Co

Pierce, Sidney, Farington Gurney, Somerset, Blacksmith. Mar 22 at 2 at office of Thatcher, Midsomer Norton

Poulson, Andrew, Samuel Drought, and John William Coxon, Cuerdley, Lancaster, Ironfounders. Mar 27 at 3 at office of Davis and Co, Market placo, Warrington

Pollington, Edward, Hastings, Builder. Mar 16 at 12 at 37, Southampton bldgs, Chancery lano. Meadows and Elliott, Hastings Price. John, Kingswinford, Stafford, Liccused Victualler. Mar 18 at 10.30 at offices of

Clulow, High st, Brierly hill Price, Robert, Willenhall, Stafford, Stamper and Piercer. Mar 17 at 11 at officos of

Clark, New rd, Willenhall Pridham, Albert Edward, Llanelly, Carmarthen, Chemist. Mar 21 at 11 at offices of

Howoll, Stopney st, Llanelly Reddan, Jomos Henry, Birmingham, Gas Engineer. Mar 21 at 3 at offices of Johnson

and Co, Waterloo st, Birmingham Rowland, William, Old Kent rd, Boot and Shoo Maker. Mar 23 at 3 at the offices of

Kilvington and Stock, Walbrook Rumball, William Lewis, Richmond Surrey, Fine Art Dealer. Mar 20 at 3 at the offices

of Durrant, Guildhall ohmbrs, Baslnghall st' Skaifo, Smith William, West Gorton, Manchester, Provision Dealer. Ma* 20 at 3 at

Blackfriars Hotel, Blackfriars st, Manchester. Hill, Manchester Smith, John Edward, Paternoster row, Solicitor. Mar 17 at 3 at offices of Butcher,

Bouvoris at, Fleet st

Sommerville, Elisabeth Ann, Montague st, Rnssel sq, Lodging House Keeper. Mar 31

at 2 at Law Institution, Chancery lane. Thompson and Ward, Bedford row Spencer John, jun, Netherbury, Dorset, Carpenter. Mar 20 at 10.30 at Greyhound Hotel,

Bridport. Howard, Moleombe Regis Stringer, Edwin Harper, Stourbridge, Boot Doaler. Mar 17 at U at Talbot Hotel, High

st, Stourbridge. Collis, Stourbridge Thaine, John, sen, Sea Palling, Norfolk, Farmer. Mar 20 at 3 at office of Sadd and

Linay, Theatre st, Norwich Thompson, James, and Samuel Thompson, Forcet, Huntingdon, Farmers. Mar 21 at

11.30 at Angel Hotel, Peterborough. Cranfleld, St Ivos Thursfleld, William, Mincing lano, Coffee Broker. Mar 27 at 2 at office of Plows and Co,

Mark lano

Town, Albert. Bennington rd. Fishmonger. Mar 17 at 3 at 214, Konnington pk rd.

Brunskill. *it .iamos st, Bedford row Twamley, George William, Leeds, Gro:er. Mar 20 at 3 at office of Craven, East parade,


Walkor, Tom, Cockormouth, Cumberland, Ironmonger. Mar 18 at 12.30 at Court house,

Cockermouth. Jennings, Cockermouth Warwick, William Guy, Bishopstoke, Hants, Farmer. Mar 17 at 2 ot offloe ot Guy,

Albion ter, Southampton Weaver, Honry Charles, Bath, Baker. Mar 20 at 12 at office of Simmons and Co, Edgar

bldgs, Hath

Wherrett, Henry, Croydon, Baker. Mar 17 at 11 at Green Dragon Hotel, High st, Croydon. Dennis, Croydon

Whittingham, John, Nantwich, Miller. Mar 20 at 2 at offices of Lisle, Nantwioh

Wholey, Robert Jarvis, Kingston upon Hull, Licensed Victualler. Mar 20 at 11 at offlco of Summers, Kingston upon Hull

Wood, James, Llandudno, Dealer in Fancy Goods. Mar 17 at 1 at Ersklne Arms Hotel, Conway. Reeca and Co, Birmingham

Woodhead, George, Manchester, Printers. Mar 17 at 4.90 at offices of Addleshaw and Warburton, Manchester

Wright, George, Sheffield, Plumber. Mar 17 at 3 at offices of Clegg and Bona, Victoria chmbrs, Sheffield


Curreht Topics 291 In re Smith's Charity 208

Hi., II I TO IlfSVSUTCl M..\' V OF Pre- C'OUBT OF Am u. 21)8

Mises Contracted To Se Sold .... 202 Solicitors' Cases 208

Participated Policy-holdres 201 Coi-srv Courts 299

Rrvisws 295 Societies 299

Cases or Thb Weei— Obituary 301

Hemery v Worssora 290 Leoal Appointments 301

In re Marseilles Extension Railway Companies 301

and Land Company 298 Legislation or Tn« Week 302

Tho London and South Western Rail- Crrditors' Claims 3H2

way Company v. Gcmin ... 296 Court Papers 303

In re The General Financial Bank .. 297 London Gazrttbs, to., tc 3o3

In re Ryder 298 \

Notices To Correspondents.All communication! intended for publication in the Solicitors' Journal must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer.

The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the return of rejected communications.

*,* The Tubltsher requests that early application should be made by per to n desirous of obtaining back numbers of the buncrro as' Journal, as only a sm tll umber of copies remain on hand.


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

^The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children." Highly commended by tho entire Medical Press.

Being without t near, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas Thickened yet Wi ^i Nkd with starch, &c, and lir Bbality Cheaper than such Mixtures.

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

Cocoatina A La Vanillb is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tin packets at Is. 6d„ 3s.f 6s. 6d., &c, by Chemists and Grocers.

Charities on Special Torms by tho Sole Proprietors, H. SCHWEITZER & CO 10, Adam-street, London, W.O.



CITY BRANCH: Mansion House Buildings, E.C. Chairman—

Rt. Hon. Sir John Robert Mowbray, Bart., M.P., D.C.L

ELEVENTH BONUS MEETING, 1882. The Report presented at a Meeting, held on tho 6th January last, showed that on the rigorous basis of the Institute of Actuaries' H« Table of Mortality, with 3 per cent, interest and net premiums,

The calculated liability was £1,970.010

To which further Reserves were added of 116.6&1

Making the Total Reserves 2,086,703

And tho Assurance Fund being ... 2,433,397

The Net Surplus was £346,694

Of this sum, £346,000 was divided—an amount larger by £45,000 than any previously distributed, a- d producing the highest ratio of profit over declared by tho Society—


on the Premiums of the Five Years.

Claims Paid Immediately On Proof Of Death And Title.

The Next Division Of Profits will be in January, 1887. New Policies Effected Before The End Of June Next will then rank for Five full Years' Bonus, and so obtain one year's additional share of Profits.

The Report above-mentioned, a detailed account of the proceedings of the Bonus meeting, the returns made to the Board of Trade, and every information can be obtained at either of the Society s Offices, or from any of its Agents.

GEO CUTCLIFFE, Actuary and Secretary.

B. NEWBATT, Assistant Actuary.

LAW UNION FIER and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. Chief Office—126, Chancery, ane, London, W.C.

The Funds in hand and Capital subscribed amount to upwards of £1,600,000 sterling. Chairman—James Ccddon, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Goldsmith-building, Temple Deputy-Chairman—0. Pbmbbhton, Esq. (Lee 4 Pembertons). Solicitor, 44, Lincoln's-inn-ficlds. Every description of Fire and Life Insurance business transacted.

Whole World and Unconditional Life Policies granted at a slightly increased rate of Premium.

Policies of Insurance granted against the contingency of Issue at moderate rates of Premium.

Advances made on Mortgage of Life Interest and Reversions, whether absolute or contingent.

Prospectus, Copies of the Accounts as deposited with the Board of Trade, and every information sent on application to

FRANK McGEDY, Actuary and Secretary.


Capital fully subscribed £2,500,000

Capital paid-up 250,000

Lite Funds in Special Trust for Life Policyholders exceed 733,000

Total Annual Premium Income exceeds .. 1,050,000 Chief Offices: 19 And 20, CORN HILL, LONDON, E.C. West End Offices: 8, PALL MALL, LONDON, S.W.


BIRKBEOK BANK.Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane. Current Accounts opened according to the usual practice of other Bankers, and Interest allowed on the minimum monthly balances when not drawn below £25. No commission charged for keeping Accounts. The Bank also receives money on Deposit at Three per Cent. Interest, repayable on demand. The Bank undertakes for its Customers, free of charge, the custody of Deeds. Writings, and other Securities and Valuables; the collection of Bills of Exchange, Dividends, and Coupons: and the purchase and sale of Stocks and Shares. Letters of Credit and Circular Notes issued. A Pamphlet, with full particulars, on application.

, „ L FRANCIS RAVENSCBOFT, Manager. 31st March, 1880.


Hewetson, Thexton, & Peart,


200, 203, and 2M, TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD, W.

Estimates and Designs submitted free for entirely Furnishing Residences, Chambers, Offices, &c. —PAINTING, DECORATING, & HOUSE REPAIRS.—

Carved Oak Furniture, Reproductions from Ancient Designs, &c. Bedroom Furniture, including Bedstead and Bedding, from £7 10s. per set.


Hewetson, Thexton, & Peaet,

200, 203, and 20-1, Tottenham Court-rood, London, W.

N.B.—Household Furniture Warehoused or Removed on reasonable terms.



To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of tho

Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, Jto. SOLICITORS' AND REGISTRARS' GOWNS

Barristers' And Oueen'b Counbbl'o Ditto. CORPORATION ROBES, UNIVERSITY I CLER8V BOA**, ESTABLISHED 1989.




This new Ink supplies the demand continually made but never before met, for a Red Ink which is uninjured by Steel or other Metallic Pens, Steel Pens left in this ink for months do not impair the beauty of its colour, nor are the Pens in the least corroded by it. The existing Red Inks rapidly destroy Steel Pens, and lose their red colour if used with other than Gold or Quill Pens. This new colour is a very rich scarlet red of great beauty. The colour of this ink is not affected by uae upon parchment and is consequently of great value to Solicitors and Draughtsmen.

Sold in stone bottles, retail at Is., 2s., 3s.; and imperial quarts of 40 ounces at Oe. each. Also in glass bottles at 6d. and Is. each.



M ENRY OERRN, Advertisement Agent,

I I begs to direct the attention of the Legal Profession to the advantages of his long experience of upwards of thirty years, in the special insertion of all pro forma notices, &c, and hereby solicits their continued support.— N.B. One copy of advertisement only required, and the strictest care and promptitude assured. Official stamped forms for advertisement and file of 41 London Gazette" kept. By appointment.



%Ria Cogging anir (fanQxasmg.

Deed* and Writings engrossed and copied on the Premises, with punctuality and dispatch, at the lowest scale of charges. A good. Discount allowed on agreed account**.


DAVITS, and other PLEADING, Printed at Is. per folio.
in form for Registration.
Discount allowed for cash on agreed accounts.




Samples and Catalogues sent post-free.



Supersede in one Instrument Pencil,
Pen, and ink.
Prices, Is. to 7s. 6d.

Send For List And Particulars To


[merged small][graphic][table][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]



KINAHAN'S LL "WHISKY. Pure, Mild and Mellow, Delicious and very Wholesome. Universally recommended by the Profession.

The Cream of Old Irish Whiskies.

Paris Exhibition, 1878; Dublin Exhibition, I88S,

the Gold Medal.

20, Great Titchfleld-street, London, W.


The Medical Profession for over Forty Years have ap.

proved of this pure solution as the best remedy for ACIDITY of the STOMACH, HEARTBURN, HSADACH8 , GOUT and INDIGESTION,

And as the safest Aperient for Delicate Constitutions, Ladies, Children, and Infants.


LONDON, MARCH 18. 1882.

The Opening Ceremony of the Royal Courts of Justice has been fixed provisionally for the first clay of next Trinity Sittings.

Mr. Francis Savage Reilly has been appointed Counsel to the Speaker of the House of Commons, in succession to Mr. O. K. Rickabds, resigned. Mr. Reilly was called to the bar at Lincoln's.inn in Easter Term, 1851. He acted as arbitrator under the European Assurance Company's Arbitration Act.

Great Pressure is being applied to urge on the completion of the Royal Courts of Justice by the date suggested by Mr. Shaw Lefbvrb lust week in the House of Commons. Large numbers of workmen have been employed in completing the details of the central hall and other unfinished portions of the building, and the linings of the courts will shortly be placed in position.

Tnr. House Of Commons has called for a return "showing the number of registrars, masters, and chief clerks attached to the Supreme Court of Judicature, and the silaries or fec3 received by, and the number and length of the days of actual attendance of, each registrar, master, and chief clerk during the year ending the 31st of October, 1881."

In Reference to the convict Lamson, it may be well to point out that, by the present law, property does not the less devolve upon a person because it has been procured by the murder of a person through whom the right to it accrues. Before 1870 the law was otherwise, as the whole of a felon's property was, by his conviction, ipso facto forfeited to the Crown. But the Act 33 6c 3-1 Vict. c. 2.3 abolishes forfeiture for felony, and provides that the Crown may commit the custody and management of the property of a convict to an administrator, who, besides having power to pay the debts of the convict, and the costs of his prosecution and defence, "may (section 16) cause such payments and allowances for the support or maintenance of any wife or child, or reputed child of such convict, or of any other relative, or reputed relative, of such convict dependent upon him for support, as to such administrator shall seem fit." The provision of section 15, that the administrator may cause to be paid out of the property of the convict "such sum of money by way of satisfaction or compensation for any loss of property or other injury alleged to have been suffered by any person through, or by means of, any alleged criminal or fraudulent act of such convict as to him shall seem just, although no proof of such alleged criminal or fraudulent act may have been made in any court of law or equity," are very wide, and might, perhaps, include the case of compensation to the dependent relatives of a murdered person; but the case of devolution of property procured by murder is unprovided for, and is, perhaps, too rare to require providing for by law.

Tite Complaint of a correspondent in a recent number of this journal that deeds or documents cannot be stamped at the Royal Courts of Justice for cither 2s. Cd. or 6d., although they can be stamped for various other amounts between Is. and £5, deserves the attention of the authorities. The tell-tale stamping machines are somewhat expensive, but it would be worth while to incur the cost of two new machines to obviate the inconvenience caused to practitioners who have to go to Somerset House.

The Difficulties which have from time to time arisen in the Court of Appeal with respect to the cos'.s of shorthand notes of what took place in the court below have as to notes of the evidence, been settled by several cases, but as to shorthand notes of the judgment there appears to remain some uncertainty. In the case of The London and South-Western Bailway Company v. (lomm (ante, p. 29G), the Muster of the Rolls is reported to have siid that the court had read the report of the judgment of Kay, J., in a current series of reports, which had only been recently published, "but if the printed report had been published some time before the hearing of the appeal, the costs of the written copies of the judgment would not have been allowed." It is hard to understand the precise drift of this ruling if it extends to the costs of the transcript. Some reports are published weekly, others monthly, but no reports, whenever published, invariably contain all the cases reportable which have been decided since the last previous date of publication. It is impossible for solicitors to know whether a case which is going to the Court of Appeal will be reported at any given time. It will be asked, after what the Master of the Rolls has said, how long a a appellant is to wait after his appeal is set down before he takes ii transcript of the shorthand notC3 of the judgment? Some explanation of the rule laid down by the Muster of the Rolls appears to be necessary.

It Has Been Suggested by the jury in the Lamson case that the sale of poisons ought to be more restricted than it is at present, and the suggestion appears to have sprung from the prevalent opinion that medical men can procure poisons more easily than other people. The Pharmacy Act provides (section 17) that certain poisons may not be sold "to any person unknown to the seller, unless introduced by some person known to the seller"; but that such provision shall not apply to " sales by wholesale to retail dealers in the ordinary course of wholesale dealing," nor to "any medicine supplied by a legally qualified apothecary to his patient," nor to "any article when forming part of the ingredients of any medicine dispensed by a person registered " under the Act. There is nothing in the Act authorizing the supply ad libitum of poison by chemists to medical practitioners as such. The case of Berry v. Henderson (L. R. 5 Q. B. 290), however, shows that a certain amount of laxity is allowed in the application of the law. There a person unknown, and not introduced, brought a prescription to be made up, which was signed by the initials of a medical man; and it was held that the dispensing chemist could not be convicted, although there was no evidence that the person for whom the prescription purported to be intended was an existing person. It would seem to be re isonable to require that the name and address of the pre ■ scribing medical practitioner should be furnished to the dispeasing chemist. With respect to the sale of arsenic, it may be noticed that the exception in the Arsenic Act (14 & 15 Vict. c. 13) applies only to sale by prescription, or by wholesale to retail dealers, "upon orders in writing in the ordinary course of wholesale dealing," and the exception in the Pharmacy Act provides that where medicine containing poison is sold, it is to be "labelled with the name and address of the seller," and that the ingredients are to be entered " with the name of the person to whom it is sold or delivered, in a book to be kept by the seller for that purpose."

Both The Criminal Law Amendment Bill, "to preseribs the procedure in England and Ireland relative to indictment or information for the p'inishment of offenders, and to provide appeal in criminal cases," which is brought in by Mr. Hopwood and other members, and the Criminal Procedure Bill, "to prescribe the procedure by indictment for the punishment of offences against the criminal law," which is brought in by Mr. Gorst and Mr. Artiivr Balfour, reproduce, to a very great extent, and often word for word, the provisions of part 7 of the well-known Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill. The Amendment Bill contains 133 clauses, the Procedure Bill 110. Following in the main the order of their model, they deal with committal by justices and bail, with the whole of criminal pleading, with the mode of trial and challenges of the jury, and with appeal, new trial, and costs. In neither of the Bills is there any schedule of repealed Acts, though it is obvious that there is an implied repeal of some score of them, the so-called "Indictable Offences Act, 1818" (Jervis's Act, No. 1, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42), being the most important of them. There arc many new provisions, however, of more or less interest, the principal novelty being a very stringent clause as to the power of search. The clause which gives power to examine defendants is to be found in the Amendment Bill only, which provides, in quite different phraseology from that of the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, that " everyone proceeded against by iudictnient for any offence shall be a competent witness for himself or herself [why this provision for a female defendant, looking to 13 & 1-1 Vict. c. 21 ?] upon his or her trial for such offence, and the wife or husband, as the case may be, of every such accused person shall be a competent witness for him or her, or with his or her consent for any other [sic] jointly indicted with him oilier upon such trial; provided that no such person shall be liable to be called as a witness by the prosecutor, but every such witness called and giving evidence on behalf of the accused shall be liable to be cross-examined, like any other witness on any other matter, though not arising out of his examination in chief. Provided that so far as the cross-examination relates to the credit of the accused, the court may limit such cross-examination to such extent as it thinks proper, though the proposed cross-examination might be permissible in the case of any other witness." The wording is clumsy, but the intention is good.

If The Pressure of business should prevent any large alteration of the criminal law in the present session, we would express an earnest hope that that small portion of the two Criminal Law Amendment Bills, or of the Criminal Code, which deals with pleading only, may be passed. As the law at present stands, it is still necessary, when a person is indicted for publishing a libellous book, to copy out in the indictment all the passages alleged to be libellous. The amending Bills propose (sec Criminal Code, Form Q. Q.) to allege in the indictment that the defendant published a libellous book, and to annex a marked copy of the book to the indictment Other, but not quite so obvious, amendments of the present ridiculous system of pleading will occur to everybody versed in the subject. As for the Criminal Code itself, the reason why it has made so slow a progress in the House of Commons is plain. Since the brilliant opening speech of Lord Justice Holker in introducing the measure about three years ago, the House of Commons has never had the slightest opportunity of considering it. The view that the House of Commons can no more make a code than paint a picture has been pressed too far, and the Bill was referred prematurely to the Royal Commission. We hope that it may be introduced and discussed early, and be referred to a joint select committee of the two Houses of Parliament.

Mr. EmvABD Cooper Wilms, has been appointed one of her Majesty's Counsel. Mr. E. C. Willis was called to the bar in 1865.

On the 10 h mst., in the Hou-e of Commons, Mr. Hicks o-ked the Attorney-General wlnther he had now come to a decision as to the way in which he would deal with the present waste of judicial power, and the great in convenience caused to j urors aud others by the present sys'em < f holding four assizes. The Attorney-General faid Unit he saw no re«snn for departing from the system that no one should remain in custody without trial fur a long.r period than three month;:. But it was under the consideration of the Gorercment how far the inconvenience mulling to the judicial bemh and to jurors might be mitigated. J


TULK v. MOXHAY. From a very early period in the history of English law, covenants of certain kinds relating to land have possessed the peculiar property that the obligation created by them was not merely personal to the covenantor, but might also, under appropriate circumstances, bind the rejiresentative in title of the covenantor to whom the land had passed by assignment. The doctrine of the common law upon this subject is exceedingly obscure, and the highest authorities are much divided in opinion with regard to it. But, so far as concerns the most numerous and important class of these cases, the common law has, for three and a half centuries, been superseded by the statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 34; and this in turn, though not repealed, has, at least to a great extent, been superseded by sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881.

These covenants are said to run with the land at law, and the cases which involve their consideration may be divided into two principal classes, according as there is, or is not, privity of estate between the covenantor and the covenantee. The former class embraces those cases in which the covenant is between the lessee and his lessor. The latter division embraces those much more obscure and difficult cases, of which The Prior's case, cited by Lord Coke in Spencer's case, is the prototype, where no privity of estate, in respect of the lands affected by the covenant, subsists between the covenantor and the covenantee. These last covenants are still s\ibject to the common law, so fur as regards their capacity to run with the land to which they relate. The rules by which they are governed are exceedingly obscure and of very limited application; and we do not propose to enter upon the investigation of them.

The statute of Hen. 8, c. 34, which largely extended the benefit of these covenants, as between lessor and lessee, by largely extending the circumstances under which they could be sued upon, did not at all extend the scope of the covenants in the sense of causing any covenants to run with the land which would not equally have run with the land before the statute. Though the words of the statute are very wide, they were reasonably restricted by the courts to this meaning; see Spencer's case, ad Jin.

The definition of these covenants remained drawn upon the narrow lines of the common law. The same need which had originally operated to obtain from the common law a limited recognition of the principle of running with the land, became much more pressing with the progress of time in consequence of the increasing number of ways in which land could be, and frequently was, employed. In particular, the common law rules were very inadequate to meet the requirements of owners and hirers of building lands, when these became the subject of extensive operations. It was probably a sense of this need, much more than the somewhat doubtful considerations of equity urged by Lord Cottenham in his judgment, which both gave rise to the decision of Talk v. Moxhaij (2 Phill. 774), and also procured for that decision the almost unparalleled run of success which it afterwards met with. The principle there laid down has been continually pushing its ramifications in all directions. This principle, it its most general shape, may be expressed by saying that :i covenant relating to land, but not by the rules of law running with the land, shall in equity bind the terre-tenant if he took the land with notice of the covenant. The doctrine was not only laid down in very wide terms by Lord Justice Knight Bruce in Be ALaitos v. Gibson (4 He G. k J. 276), but its application was apparently extended to all property whatever. "Reason and justice," he observed, "seem to prescribe that, at least as a general rule, where a man, by gift or purchase, acquires property from another, with knowledge of a previous contract, lawfully and for valuable consideration made by him with a third person, to use and employ the property for a particular purpose in a specified manner, the acquirer shall not, to the material damage of the third person, in opposition to the contract and inconsistently with it, use and employ the property in a manner not allowable to the giver or seller." In that case the property in question was a ship; and it was laid down that a legal mortgagee having t:iken his charge with notice of a contract of charter-party previously made by the mortgagor, might ba restrained from using the ship inconsistently with the contract j and an interim injunction to thnt effect was actually granted, though it afterwards happened, owing to peculiar circumstances, that the Bill was dismissed. The above cited passage, which obviously includes all chattels in its scope, was quoted with approval by Lord Justice Selwyn in Catt v. Tourle (L. R. 4 Ch. 654, at p. 657). The earlier case of Wilson v. Hart (L. R. 1 Ch. 463), had decided that constructive notice is sufficient to bring a purchaser within the meaning of the principle. It is evident that the two last-mentioned cases contain within them the germs of a very wide development; and the courts for a good many years showed no signs of intending to restrict their growth.

But a remarkable step has recently been taken in this direction by the case of Hat/woody. Brunswick Permanent benefit Building Society (30 W. R. 299). The facts of this case, so far as they are material, were as follows:—In 1866 Charles Jackson granted certain lands in fee simple to Edward Jackson, partly in consideration of a rent-charge limited in fee simple to Charles Jackson by way of use, and partly in consideration of the covenants on the part of Edward Jackson contained in the deed. Among these covenants was a covenant to pay the rent-charge, and another, expressed to be entered into by Edward Jackson "for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators," that he would, within two years, erect and keep in repair buildings of the annual letting value of double the rent-charge. The rent-charge, with all the remedies in respect of it, was afterwards assigned to the plaintiff, and the lands were legally mortgaged to the defendant society, who subsequently entered into possession. The society having in 1880 failed to pay the rentcharge and to keep the buildings in repair, an action was brought, among other things, for an injunction to restrain the defendants from committing further breaches of the covenant to repair, and to compel specific performance of that covenant. Mr. Justice Stephen gave judgment for the plaintiff, holding that, though the covenant did not at law run with the land, yet the defendants, being mortgagees in possession, and having had notice of the covenant, were bound to perform it. This judgment was unanimously reversed by the Court of Appeal, consisting of Brett, Cotton, and Lindley, L.JJ., upon the ground that the covenant did not at law run with the land, and that the doctrine of Talk v. Moxhay is applicable only to restrictive covenants forbidding the user of the land in certain prescribed ways—possibly (according to Lord Justice Brett) with the addition of such covenants as, when enforced, would constitute a burden upon the land. This decision has very recently been referred to with approval by the Court of Appeal in the case of The London and Uouth Western Railway Company v. Qomm {ante, p. 29G).

It is certainly a remarkable thing that in cases where, as in Tulh v. Moxhay itself, the covenant was partly of an affirmative character, binding the covenantor positively to do something, including, inter alia, an obligation to keep a piece of ground in good repair as a pleasure-garden, the injunction of the court seems to have dealt only with that part of it which was of a negative character. The injunction in that ease did not attempt to compel the defendant to keep the garden in repair, but only restrained him from building upon it or using it otherwise than as a pleasure-garden. This distinction seems to have been present to the mind of Lord Chancellor Cranworth when, in Be Mattos v. Gibson, he said :—" Although a court of equity cannot compel a specific performance of the contract" (which was in that case a positive contract of charter-party), "yet it will restrain the employment of the vessel in a different manner."

It must be borne in mind that the doctrine of Tulh v. Moxhay and its attendant cases has never yet come for review before the House of Lords. Probably this fact may be taken as a fresh evidence that on the whole the doctrine is salutary and consonant with public convenience. But some of its later extensions, notably the two to which we have above adverted, look as though they might perhaps not pass unscathed through the ordeal of the supreme tribunal. Meanwhile we may remind the reader of the opinion formerly expressed by us, that section 05 of the Conveyancing Act has, though evidently without intending it, supplied a convenient machinery for binding lands in perpetuity by such covenants as are commonly used by owners of building land.

The incandescent electric light is to be tried in the new courts at the Royal Courts of Jostice.


The somewhat crude Bill introduced in the House of Commons in 1881 to amend the Bills of Sale Act was, as our readers are aware, referred to a Select Committee, who, after hearing a great mass of evidence and considering the replies to the circular sent by the Lord Chancellor to the county court judges and registrars, amended the Bill and reported it to the House. The Bill made no further progress, but this session it has been re-introduced by Mr. Monk, and in its present form it deserves the careful attention of our readers.

One of the most important proposals is that of clauses 4, 5, and 6, the effect of which, if passed into law, will be to do away with the practice of including after-acquired proj)erty in bills of sale. It is proposed to provide that:—

"(■4.) Every bill of sale shall have annexed thereto, or written thereon, a schedule containing an inventory cf ihe personal chattels comprised in the bill of sale; and such bill of sale, save as hereinafter mentioned, shall have effeot only in respect of the personal chattels enumerated in the said schedule; and shall be void in respect of any porsonal chattels not so enumerated.

"(5.) Save as hereinafter mentioned, a bill of tale shall be void in respect of any personal chattels enumerated in the schedule thereto of which tha grantor was not the true owner at the time of the execution of the bill of sale.

"(6.) Nothing contained in the foregoing sections of this Act shall render a bill of sale void in respect of any of the following things; (that is to say),

"(1) Any growing crops separately assigned or charged where such crops were actually growing at the time when the hill of sale was executed.

"(2) Any fixtures separately assigned or charged, and any plant or trado machinery where such fixtures, plant, cr trade machinery are used in, attached to, or brought upon any land, farm, factory, workshop, shop, house, warehouse, or other place in substitution for any of the like fixtures, plant, or trade machinery enumerated in the schedule to such bill of sale."

As to the policy of this proposal, opinions differ widely, but we think that many who are favourable to it will admit that, as at present framed, the clauses are too sweeping. The effect will probably be to abolish altogether bills of sale of stock-in-trade, for, since the scheduled articles will be disposed of in the way of trade, of course, the security of the creditor will be constantly diminishing. We do not, however, object to this. There is a great deal to be urged in favour of abolishing altogether bills of sale of stock-in-trade, whether present or future. As has been several times pointed out in these columns, it is tolerably certain that a trader who gives such a bill of sale is involved in serious embarrassment, and the bill of sale very seldom enables him to tide over his difficulties. Wholesale dealers generally rely on the stock-in-trade of their customers as a test of the amount of credit they will give. The result is that bills of sale of stock-in-trade do little good to the trader, and occasion great loss to his trade creditors. If, therefore, the proposal of the Bill were confined to the stockin-trade of traders, as defined in the Bankruptcy Act, we should be disposed to give it our support. But is there any solid reason for preventing a man who is not a trader from dealing with his present or future property as he may think fit? There is a large class of persons who make a livelihood by letting furnished lodgings (without supplying provisions to their lodgers) who would probably be seriously inconvenienced if the provision as it now stands is passed into law. They can usually only obtain credit upon their furniture, and cannot pay off the debt rapidly, and the value of the security will probably be greatly diminished if it is only to extend to the furniture and effects scheduled in the bill of sale which are constantly wearing out. There ought, at all events, to be inserted a provision excepting from the operation of the clauses we have referred to effects brought upon the premises in substitution for articles enumerated in the schedule.

Clause 7 is intended to convert into law the decision of the Common Pleas Division in Davis v. Goodman (28 W. B. 150), afterwards reversed by the Court of Appeal. It is proposed to repeal section 8 of the Act of 1878, which avoids an unattested and unregistered bill of sale in certain cases only, and to provide that " every bill of sale shall be duly attested, and shall be registered under the principal Act within seven days after the execution thereof, . . . and shall truly set forth the consideration for which it was given, otherwise such bill of salt shall be void in respect of the personal chattels comprised therein."

« PreviousContinue »