« PreviousContinue »
PRIEST, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Lordship lane, East Dulwich, Plumber. High | APPLEBY, JAMES, Brough, Yorks, Timber Merchant, March 15 at 2. Law Society,
323 NICHOLLS, SIMEON, Walsall, Licensed Victualler. March 12 at 11.45. Off Rec, THOMAS, JAMES, Newport, Mon, Baker. Newport, Mon. Pet Feb 28. Ord Walsall
March 2 NOBLE, JOHN WALTER, Carlisle, Roper. March 14 at 12. Off Rec, 34, Fisher st, WATSON, ROBERT, Ledsham, Cheshire, Hotel Keeper. Birkenhead. Pet Feb 16. Carlisle
Ord March 1 NORMAN, WILLIAM JOSEPH, Somerton, Somersetshire, Plumber. March 11 at 1. WILLIAMS, DANIEL, Eglwysilan, Glamorganshire, Farmer. Pontypridd. Pet Off Rec, Salisbury
Feb 16. Ord March 1 OWEN, RICHARD EDWARD, Walsall, Grocer. March 12 at 10. Off Rec, Walsall WORSLEY, WILLIAM, Pemberton, Lancashire, Manure Manufacturer. Wigan.
Pet Feb 26. Ord March 1. PARK, SOPHIA, Leeds, Publican. March 11 at 11. St Andrew's chmbrs, 22, Paik row, Leeds
WRIGHT, THOMAS, Scarborough, Innkeeper. Scarborough. Pet Feb 17. Ord
March 2 PEARCE, JOSEPH, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, Licensed Victualler. March 12 at 10.45. Off Rec, Walsall
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, March 8. PEGLER, FREDERICK. URIAH, Newtown Brynhyfrydd, Glamorganshire, Iron
RECEIVING ORDERS. monger. March 14 at 3. Off Rec, 6, Rutland st, Swansea PHILLIPS, ALFRED, Pontlottyn, Glamorganshire, Grocer, March 15 at 12. Off ASHMAN, HENRY JOHN, Glastonbury, Somerset, Auctioneer. Wells. Pet March Rec, Merthyr Tydfil
5. Ord March 5 PINNOCK, WILLIAM, Kencott, Oxfordshire, Farmer. March 31 at 11. Off Rec, BARHAM, THOMAS, Brookthorpe, Gloucester, Farmer. Gloucester. Pet March St Aldates, Oxford
5. Ord March 5 PLAYER, OCTAVIUS R., Bath, Hay Dealer. March 12 at 12. R. H. Moore, County BEER, JOHN, Stokeinteignhead, Devon, Baker. Exeter. Pet March 4. Ord Court, York st, Bath
BONTOFT, WALTER SEYMOUR, Spalding, Lincoln, Veterinary Surgeon. Peter-
borough. Pet Feb 23. Ord March 5 PULMAN, GEORGE, Merthyr Tydfil, Confectioner. March 14 at 12. Off Rec,
BOWES, THOMAS, Bradford, Coal Merchant. Bradford. Pet March 4. Ord Merthyr Tydfil
March 4 RAYNOR, BENJAMIN, Barnsley, Yorks, Builder. March 14 at 10. Off Rec, 3,
CHAMBERS, ARTHUR, Blackburn, Hosier. Blackburn, Pet March 4. Ord Eastgate, Barnsley
March 4 SCOTT, JOHN, Batley, Yorks, Rag Merchant. March 11 at 10. Off Rec, Bank DEAN, ISAIAH, Birmingham, Carpet Factor. Birmingham. Pet March 3. Ord chbrs, Batley
March 8 SIDEBOTTOM, WILLIAM, Rothwell, Yorks, Greengrocer. March 11 at 12. Off Rec, DICKENS, STEPHEN FRANCIS, Peterborough, out of business. Peterborough. 22, Park row, Leeds
Pet March 4. Ord March 4 SIMPSON, JOSEPH, St James's rd, nr Carlisle, Corn Merchant. March 16 at 12.
DRYSDALE, PETER, Newcastle on Tyne, Builder. Newcastle. Pet March 5. Ord Off Rec, 34, Fisher st, Carlisle
March 5 SMITH, JAMES, Stoke upon Trent, Estate Agent. March 14 at 12.30. North
DUNFORD, JAMES, Poole, Dorset, Builder. Poole. Pet March 3. Ord March 3 Stafford Hotel, Stoke upon Trent
EDROP, —, and LANE, Birmingham, Coal Merchants. rmingham. Pet STEVENS. WARWICK ALAN, Southsea, no occupation. March 18 at 3. Off Rec, Feb 22. Ord March 4
35, Victoria st, Liverpool THOMAS, JAMES; Newort, Non, Baker. March 14 at 1. Off Rec, 12, Tredegar Evans, JOIN Abererch, nr Pwllheli, Carnarvon, Mariner. Bangor. Pet March THOMPSON, JOHN, Worcester, Solicitor. March 14 at 11. Off Rec, Worcester
FROUD, JOHN, Owslebury, nr Winchester, Builder. Winchester. Pet March 4.
Ord March 4 TURNPENNY, WALTER DAVID TALBOT, Red Lion ct, Cann'n st, Button Maker.
GRIFFITHS, ELIZABETH MARY, Swar.sea, Colliery Proprietress. Swansea. Pet Mar 11 at 12. Bankruptcy blogs, Portugal st. Lincoln's inn fields
March 4. Ord March 4 WAKEMAN, PHILIP, Taplow, Bucks, Carpenter. Mar 14 at 12 30. Bell Hotel,
HALLIDAY, WILLIAM, Maldon, Essex, Draper. Chelmsford. Pet Feb 14. Ord Maidenhead
March 2 WOESLEY, WILLIAM, Pemberton, Lanos, Manure Maker. Mar 15 at 10. Wigan
JAMES, SARAH ANN, Treharris, Glamorganshire, Grocer. Merthyr Tydfil. Pet
Barch 4. Oid March 4
Ord March 5
JOSEPH, ABRAHAM, Edgbaston, Birmingham, Clothier. Birmingham, Pet
March 4. Ord March 4
KNEESHAW, RICHARD, Pickering, Yorks, Watchmaker. Scarborough. Pet
March 4. Ord March 4 109, Victoria st, Westminster
LEAMON, PHILIP, Whitwell, Norfolk, Farmer. Norwich. Pet March 4. Ord
LOEWENSTEIN, JULES JOSEPH, Nottingham, Lace Manufacturer. Nottingham.
Pet March 4. Ord March 4
Ord MCKAY, ROBERT, Wardour st, Soho, Liceu sed Victualler. High Court. Pet
March 5. Ord March 5
28. Ord March 1
in Furness. Pet March 3. Ord March 4 Workington. Pet Feb 14. Ord March 2
OSBORNE, JOSEPH, Liversedge, Yorks, Fuller. Dewsbury. Pet March 4. Ord BALE, JOHN, Derby, Licensed Victualler. Derby. Pet Feb 24. Ord March 2
OUTON, CHARLES RICHARD SMITH, Newhaven, General Dealer. Lewes and BANYARD, REUBEN, and WALTER BANYARD, Lexden, Colchester, Bakers. Col
Eastbourne. Pet March 5. Ord March 5 chester. Pet Feb 24. Ord March 2
PADGHAM, ROBERT APPLETON, Beastfair, Pontefract, Tailor. Wakefield. Pet
Ord March 4. Ord March 4
PENNINGTON, CHARLES PLUMER residence unknown. High Court. Pet Feb 15. BUNTING, JOSEPH, Nottingham, Commission Agent. Nottingham. Pet Jan 26.
Ord March 4
PETERS, PHEBE, Portslade, Sussex, Baker. Brighton. Pet Feb 21. Ord March 3
PICK, DEMEYER, Aldersgate st, Furrier. High Court. Pet Feb 16. Ord March 4
ROWLANDS, RENRY, Cwmbran, Mon, Milkseller. Newport, Mon. Pet March 4. Ord March 2
Ord March 4 DAVIS, EDMUND FRANCIS, Burlington gdns, Solicitor. High Court. Pet Jan 17.
STOPS, WILLIAM, Hartington rd, Ealing, Builder. Brentford. Pet Feb 3. Ord DONKIN, FAMUEL, jun, Bywell, nr Felton, Northumberland, Farmer. Newcastle STREET, TCAPTAIN, Bradford, Shutter Maker. Bradford. Pet March 5. Ord EVANSLLORGAN, Llanfihangel y Croyddyn, Cardigan, Labourer. Aberystwith. THORN, THOMAS, Broadhemburg, Devon, out of business. Exeter. Pet March GAMLEN, WILLIAN GOULD BURLAND, Cheltenham, Outfitter. Cheltenham. Pet TURNER, CHARLES, Upton, Essex. Provision Dealer. High Court. Pet Jan 27.
Ord March 3 GIBSON, ROBERT, Purston, Yorks, Joiner. Wakefield. Pet Feb 25. Ord Mar 2
WALKER, JAMES, Froxfield, Wilts, Clerk in Holy Orders. Newbury. Pet HARRISS, GEORGE, Weston super Mare, Grocer. Bridgwater. Pet Feb 28. Ord
March 4 Ord March 4
WATTS, EDWARD, St James' pl, St James. High Court. Pet Feb 10. Ord HASHIM, KHALIL, Manchester, Me chant. High Court. Pet Nov 26. Ord Mar 1
WEDGE, GEORGE, Chirton, Wilts, Blacksmith. Bath. Pet March 4. Ord HUGHES, OWEN, Anglesey, General Dealer. Bangor. Pet Feb 28. Ord Mar 2
March 4 JONES, DANIEL, Leadenhall st, Iron Merchant. High Court. Pet Jan 21. Ord
WEST, CHARLES, Leeds, Corn Merchant. Leeds. Pet Feb 22. Ord March 4 JONES, EDWARD, dec, Maenan, Carnarvonshire, Retired Farmer. Bangor. Pet
WHERRY, JAMES, Clee, Lincs, Farm Foreman. Gt Grimsby. Pet March 3. Ord
March 3 LIPSCOMBE, HENRY ROGERS, Fairfax rd, Teddington, Filter Maker. High Court.
WHITING, JOSEPH, West green id, Tottenham, Traveller. Edmonton. Pet
March 4. Ord March 4
WILMSHURST, HENRY, Maidstone, Fruiterer. Maidstone. Pet March 3. Ord
March 3 NEWLAND, STEPHEN, High st, Stepney, Tailor. High Court. Pet Feb 6. Ord
The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of Feb. 15. NOBLE, JOHN WALTER, Carlisle, Roper. Carlisle. Pet Feb 28. Ord Feb 28
HARRISON, THOMAS, South Stockton, Yorks, Pawnbroker. Stockton on Tees and
Middlesborough. Pet Jan 13. Ord Feb 10 OWEN, RICHARD EDWARD, Walsall, Grocer. Walsall. Pet Feb 28. Ord Feb 28
The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of March 1.
FIRST MEETINGS. REES, LEWIS, Aberdulais, ir Neath, Draper. Neath. Pet Feb 14. Ord Feb 28
Lincoln's inn bldgs, Hull SEMPLE, CHARLES EDWARD ARMAND, Goldhawk rd, Shepherd's Bush, Doctor of
ARMITSTEAD, WILLIAM, Leeus, Provision Dealer's Cartman, March 15 at 3. Off
Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford SEVERS, HENRY, Middlesborough, builder. Orstockton on Tees and Middles
BARTON, ALFRED, Carlyle terr, Rosendale rd, West Dulwich, Builder. March 15 borough. Pet March 1. Ord March 1
at 12. Bankruptcy bldgs, Lincoln's inn
st, Lincoln's inn
BLEASDALE, WILLIAM, Blackburn, Farmer. March 15 at 3. Off Rec, 14, Chapel
33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn
PORTAGE MOHIN WILLIAM, Newport, Von, "Tailon. Newport, bizon. Opet feb98. Isaacs, Colxın, Manchester,stati Gazette anchester. Pet Feb 8. Ord Feb 24
Court. Pet Feb 18. Ord Feb 28
March 2. Ord March 2
March 1. Ord March 1
BUTCHER, WILLIAM, Basingstoke, Grocer. March 18 at 2. Off Rec, 4, East st, DAVIS, WALTER, Bristol, China Dealer. Bristol. Pet March 1. Ord March 8
DICKENS, STEPHEN FRANCIS. Peterborough, out of business. Peterborough.
LLOYD, JOHN JAMES, and CHARLES HENRY LLOYD, Pembroke Dock, Ironmongers. PADGHAM, ROBERT APPLETON, Beastfair, Pontefract, Tailor, Wakefield. Pet
Mar 4. Ord Mar 4
STREET, CAPTAIN, Bradford, Shutter Maker. Bradford. Pet March 4.
Off Rec, Week st,
WILSON, JAMES, Sheffield, Licensed Victualler. March 16 at 12. Off Rec, Fig advt. this week, p. 325),
March 18.-Messrs. ELLIS & Son, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Properties
BLACKBURN, GEORGE FREDERICK, and JOHN GEORGE BLATHERWICK, Hanley,
INCUMBRANCES UNDER THE YORK PENDING LEGISLATION
SHIRE REGISTRIES ACTS, 1884, 1885 312 LEGAL NEWS
329 331 331
CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK.
IT WAS NOT AT ALL LIKELY that the Council of the Incorporated In the Solicitors' Journal. In the Weekly Reporter.
Law Society would be overlooked by the indefatigable organizers
of the Imperial Institute, whose scheme is apparently to put Bagley v. Searle......
“Annie,” The Coote v. Ingram..
Berens v. Fellowes ....
356 pressure on every known authority, from the heads of collegiate Davies Bros. & Co. v. Davies
Bourne, In re, Rymer v. Harpley.. 359 institutions to the chairmen of local boards, to induce them to Evans v. The London and NorthWestern and Great Western Rail Clough. In re, Bradford com send round the hat. And, when it was announced that the way Cos.....
mercial Joint-Stock Bank Fawcett v. Urwin .............
Attorney-General (apparently assuming the functions of a “Soli
353 Furber v. Cobb
Eden v. Weardale Iron and Coal citor-General") had undertaken to organize a system of conMacdongall v. Knight
Co. (3) Marshfield, Re, Marshfield
357 tributions from the members of the English bar, it was, no doubt, Hutchings 330 Hilleary & Taylor, In re
365 difficult for the council to refuse to make an appeal to the members Reg. v. Gibson
Mav v. Newton Reg. v. Riley 333 Mytton v. Mytton.
of their society. As we announced some time ago, they have Robinson v. Duke of Buccleuch Parker and Beech, In re
353 acceded to the request of the “organizing secretary,” and they and Queensberry
Pearce, In re, McLean v. Smith Ruddiman's Trusts, Re ........
Richards v. Jenkins...
365 have this week issued a circular to the solicitors of England and Soper v. Arnold Williamson v. Farnell.
Wales asking for subscriptions. In doing so they have acted wisely in enclosing a copy of the missive under which they proceed,
and in restraining the exuberant generosity of contributors to The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. circular appears to us to fail is in evidence in support of the state
The point in which their
ments in the enclosed “brief” as to the claims on solicitors of LONDON, MARCH 19, 1887.
“the admirable scheme prepared by the committee" nominated by
the Prince of Wales. There is probably no class which surpasses CURRENT TOPICS.
the English solicitors in respect and loyalty to the Queen, but
there is also no class the members of which are more likely to decide REFERRING TO OUR OBSERVATIONS last week on the rule of Decem- for themselves as to the mode in which their satisfaction at the ber, 1885, now numbered as R. S. C., 1883, LV. 74, relating to completion of fifty years of her Majesty's reign would be best the drawing of orders in chambers,' we have reason to believe expressed. In the case of most solicitors there are local memorials that the attention of the judges of the Chancery Division is being to which they are bound to contribute ; others will be likely to directed to the subject ; and that some general regulations de think that some of the charitable objects which are promoted as a fining, and in effect restricting, the operation of the rule above remembrance of the occasion are most worthy of their liberality. referred to may be framed, which will save the Rule Committee We confess we regret that the council have yielded to the presof Judges the trouble of considering the subject.
sure put upon them; their appeal is not likely to be successful, and the precedent they have set of travelling out of their proper
functions is not a good one. IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the executive committee appointed to carry out the entertainments at the approaching London meeting of the Incorporated Law Society have already engaged the whether the Government intend to take any steps to give effect to
THE REPLY of the Attorney-General to Mr. MacLean's question, Lyceum Theatre and Mr. Irving's company for one evening; the unanimous recommendation of Lord SELBORNE's Committee Probably also another theatre and company will be retained, and of course a dinner and a dance will form part of the enter and that the same staff of clerks be attributed to each of the
“that an additional judge be appointed in the Chancery Division, tainments.
judges, was not unfavourable. The matter, he said, was en
gaging the attention of the Government, but at present no final IF THE LORD CHANCELLOR and the Government require any no disinclination on the part of the Government to carry out the
decision had been come to. If report is correct, there is not only appointment of another judge of the Chancery Division," they suggestion of the committee, but there is a wish to do so, provided days the four existing judges who have chief clerks have been be remembered, however, that the appointment of an additional able to devote to the bearing of witness actions, and how many of judge is only the first step in the reforms which are necessary for such actions they have been able to dispose of, and what proportion Division. The question of the division of the work among the
procuring the rapid and efficient disposal of business in the Chancery the number of those heard bore to the total number on each list judges is of the greatest importance ; and upon this matter it will list hourly affects the question by raising the presumption that scheme adopted by the committee. There was, however, a comwitness actions would materially assist in reducing the cause lists might, we think, be reconciled by the adoption of the intermediate av bier judge devoting his timo exclusively for the hearing at plete agreement that provision must be made for hearing witness
scheme we ventured to propound (30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, p. 513). But it need hardly be said that the most pressing question is the
disposal of the chamber business; and on this question one portion ABOUT 170 London members of the Incorporated Law Society of the committee's report adopted the strange idea which seems bad, up to a recent date, sent in their names para guaranteeing ten nowadays to have taken possession of so many would-be reformers guineas each towards the costs of the entertainments to be given of administrative departments– viz., that you can get more work in June next to the country members of the society. There are a out of a given number of men it" you group them differently. to the fact that there are about 2,500 London members of the clerks each," and then, we suppose, we are to wait for some bardly be considered satisfactory, or quite fait to those members transacted in chambers. It is hardly necessary to point out that probable, however, that in many cases the matter has been over the Lord Chancellor would ask three experienced London solicitors of guarantors. It should be remembered that an early intimation which are desirable, he would obtain suggestions which we venture bi ve done well to afford a further opportunity for sending in names Chambers and report to him as to the changes in organization of guarantees is particularly desirable, inasmuch as the arrange to say would be of infinitely more practical value than the report extentes made by the Executive committen perustietoa tonsiderable de sally committee whichel ka meste formaticevidence and includes a and those arrangements must necessarily be made at an early date? where the shoe pinches.
on the amount of support which is forthcoming, large proportion of members who have no practical experience of
and in avoiding arrears.
LORD BRAMWELL, in the debate on the second reading of the of a company he will require explanation, presumably with a Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, is reported to have said, “con- view to visiting the second petitioner with costs, or at least disfidently, speaking as a lawyer," that the well-known clause, which allowing his costs. The learned judge considered that the second has been inserted in every railway construction Act passed in and petitioner could not be ignorant of the presentation of the first since 1845, whereby the railway by each such Act authorized is petition, seeing that when he went to the petition clerk to get the declared not to be exempt from any future railway Act, does not name of a judge balloted for, in accordance with R. S. C., V., bear the construction put upon it by Lord STANLEY of Preston, so 9 (d.), he would be made aware of the existence of the previous as to authorize the Parliamentary revision of rates proposed by the petition by reason of his petition being marked with the name of Bill. With the greatest deference, but quite as confidently, we a judge without ballot, in accordance with section (e.) of the maintain that the clause not only bears the construction referred same rule. On ascertaining the existence of the previous petition to, but could bear no other. The words of the clause are: “No- it would presumably be his duty to procure a copy of it, and on thing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to exempt the finding that the hearing of it would effect the object of his own railway by this bct authorized to be made from the provisions of petition, his duty would be to abstain from incurring any further any general Act now in force, or which may hereafter pass during expense. In other cases of second petitions a similar considerathis or any future session of Parliament, or from any future revision tion arises, and has been observed on by the court ; and notably and alteration under the authority of Parliament of the maximum on Saturday last, Mr. Justice STIRLING, in a case of Re Ruddiman's rates and fares authorized by this Act.” The words being “any Trusts, which was under the Trustee Relief Act, refused to allow future revision” under the authority of Parliament, it is clear as any costs of a second petition other than the costs of its preparathe English language can make it that the proposed Parliamentary tion. This course would probably be adopted by Mr. Justice revision is, at any rate, grammatically within them. But if there North in the case of a second petition for winding up prepared in be anything in the subject-matter or the context to exclude the ignorance of the first. grammatical construction, of course the grammatical construction is not the true one. As to the subject-matter, Lord BRAMWELL says no one would have subscribed his money if he had thought that Parliament would revise the rates authorized by the original construc IT HAS BEEN STATED that a coroner recently fined a juryman tion Act. Surely it is an equally strong argument that no rates could forty shillings for appearing in the jury box drunk, and that, when ever be intended by Parliament to be irrevocable and perpetual what- the juryman protested and announced his intention to appeal, the ever might be the changes in the value of money, in the expense of coroner asked the other jurors to decide by a show of hands locomotion, and in the pressure of a railway monopoly. As to the whether their fellow-juryman was drunk or not, and, upon their context, using the word in its widest sense and admitting all deciding in the affirmative, “ confirmed his judgment.” We can railway Acts, general and special, as part of the context of the find no precise authority for the power of a coroner to fine a drunken clause, we are brought face to face with a more specious argument. juryman. The statutory power to fine under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 92, s. In 1844 an Act (7 & 8 Vict. c. 85) authorized revision, by the 17, is clearly confined to cases of refusal to serve after summons, combined action of the Treasury and Parliament, of the rates and and the common law power, which is general and not confined to fares of companies paying dividends of ten per cent. or upwards, jurors, appears to be limited to cases of actual obstruction of the such revision to be on such a scale as would, in the judgment of coroner in the performance of his duty (see Jervis on Coroners, 4th the revising authority, reduce the dividends to ten per cent. It is ed., p. 240). A juror, however, must be probus et legalis homo this revision and no other, says Lord BRAMWELL, that is within the and able to write his name legibly on the inquisition (see Jervis, p. purview of the saving clause, which," he has no doubt, was to 200, citing Lord Raymond, 1305), so that, although jurors upon prevent new companies saying they were not within this Act of coroners' inquests cannot be challenged, it would seem to be almost Parliament (7 & 8 Vict. c. 85) because they came into existence after a matter of necessity to reject a drunken man from the jury, " for it was passed, and that there was nothing in their own Acts to the not swearing of a juryman is of less consequence than the risk limit their right to make more than ten per cent.” We think this and hazard of a plea to the inquisition " (Jervis, p. 201). view wrong for three reasons. First, the saving clause is at least ambiguous, and it is a well-known rule of law (see the cases of which Stockton and Darlington Railway Co. v. Barrett, 11 Cl. & F. 590, is the best known, cited, “among many other authorities,” THE COURT OF APPEAL No. 2, on Wednesday last, had in its in Maxwell on Statutes, 2nd ed., at p. 364) that where a local or list three cases in each of which one side was represented by a personal Act is ambiguous, "the benefit of the doubt is to be suitor in person. It rarely happens that a suitor in person is not given to those who might be prejudiced by the exercise of the obstructive to the business of the court, and Mr. Justice Chirty powers which the enactment grants, and against those who claim recently made some strong remarks about the “ torture, vexation, to exercise them.” Secondly, the Act of 1844 had no retrospective and unnecessary expense” caused by some of these litigants. operation at all, but was prospective only, and railways authorized As a rule, a person in this position, while absolutely convinced of after its passing were essentially and solely the objects compre- the righteousness of his own cause, is abundantly ignorant as to hended in it, so that, if the saving clause is put in for the reason the law, the rules and practice of the court, the rules of advocacy, suggested by Lord BRAMWELL, it is put in for no reason at all. and as to most things connected with the conduct of his case. In Thirdly, the Act of 1844 provided for Government purchase as this state of things the court is in a sense forced to instruct him well as revision, and if the Act of 1844 only, and revision there in order to minimize the waste of time, seeing that he cannot be under, had been intended to be included under the words “ future sent away unheard, and, if allowed to talk on at his own discretion, revision under the authority of Parliament,” purchase as well as he will introduce all kinds of irrelevant matters into his speech. revision would have been specially mentioned. Now that so great Some few of these suitors are worthy of consideration, and, a legal authority as Lord BRANWELL,"speaking as a lawyer,” has indeed, of commiseration, by reason of their want of means.
But publicly put forward the view that Parliament, in passing the the purely litigious suitor in person ought to be suppressed. 24th clause of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, will be acting Cases have occurred of motions being made from time to time by a with, as much injustice as if it took away“ an acre from every suitor in person, each one more idle than the last, and each one ten” held by his brother peers, it is, we think, highly desirable dismissed with costs. It is a difficult matter for the court to that the law oficers of the Crown should give an opinion on the protect such a suitor against the results of his own folly and subject, and that such opinion should be printed and circulated persistent pugnacity, but it would, in the case of the purely with the Bill before it is introduced into the House of Commons. litigious suitor, be highly beneficial to that suitor, as well as to
the court, if he could be put down.
ON MONDAY LAST, in a case of Re The Wholesale Grocery Co. (Limited), on the hearing of two petitions presented for the vinding up of a company, Mr. Justice Nortu intimated to bring in a Bill for the acquisition of property and the provision of new
In the House of Commons on the 15th inst. Mr. Plunket obtained leave that, wherever a second petition is presented for the winding up buildings for the Bankruptcy department.
it is properly applicable. We doubt a little as to its applicability ASSIGNMENT OF AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY to the case in question, because it seems to us that the description WHEN TOO INDEFINITE.
there might reasonably have been construed to include a subjectThe decision of the Court of Appeal in the recent case of The matter which was originally sufficiently defined. We think that a Official Receiver v. Tailby (35 W. R. 91, 18 Q. B. D. 25) affords good deal of confusion is caused in relation to this question by not an illustration, as it seems to us, of the way in which legal distinguishing sufficiently between the subject matter and the decisions with regard to the construction of documents sometimes description of it. There may be a description so indefinite that it diverge from what, to a layman, would probably seem the common is impossible to say for certain whether anything comes within it. sense of the matter. We are not prepared to say, without thorough There may be a description which is definite enough in one sense, consideration of all the authorities, that the Court of Appeal were but the subject matter may be indefinite. If a man assigns all his wrong in the conclusion at which they arrived ; but we cannot future property the description is clear enough, but the subjecthelp thinking that a common sense business layman would most matter is indefinite. In the case in question the description was likely have come to the opposite conclusion. It is quite certain clear enough ; part of the subject matter was definite enough, and that the general principle on which the court acted was perfectly part was altogether indefinite. We can conceive of cases where, correct, the only doubt being as to its application to the language such a description having been used, on applying the description of the document in the particular case.
by the light of the context and the circumstances, it might seem The facts were these :—A bill of sale given to secure an advance doubtful whether the description was intended to include any definite contained an assignment of the stock-in-trade, fixtures, shop and subject-matter. If a man assigned all his future book-debts, it would office furniture, &c., of the grantor upon the premises where he not, perhaps, be enough to shew that there was a class of probable carried on the business of a packing-case maker, and the book- future book-debts which would have been covered by the descripdebts due and owing to him, and also of all book-debts " which, tion, and would have formed a sufficiently definite subject-matter during the continuance of the security, might become due and for assignment, unless the context and circumstances shewed that owing to him.”. It was held, reversing the judgment of the the parties intended to include them. If the description, fairly Queen's Bench Division, that the assignment of future book-debts, construed by the light of the context and the circumstances, Goes not being limited to book-debts to arise in any particular business, not amount to an assignment of the particular class of future bookwas invalid, on the ground that the subject matter was not suffi- debts as well as any other ; if the parties do not appear to have ciently defined, and therefore that it did not operate to pass the intended, by their description, a sufficiently definite subject matter property in a book-debt which came into existence after the as well as more which is not sufficiently defined, then, of course, assignment.
the whole assignment must fail. We feel a difficulty with regard We fully admit that this decision, if it had applied to a book-debt to the decision in Official Receiver v. Tailby, because it seems to arising after the assignment in some other business than that us that, under the circumstances, and having regard to the context, carried on by the grantor at the time of such assignment, would the words of the assignment, fairly construed, may have meant the have been clearly good sense and good law. But the debt future book-debts to arise in the particular business, whatever they question was, it would appear, a book-debt that afterwards became might be intended to include besides. At any rate we cannot help due to the grantor in the course of his business of a packing-case thinking that a business layman would be likely to think that such maker carried on by him at the time of the assignment; and the was the meaning. court seemed to admit that, if the assignment of future debts had been in terms confined to the future debts to arise in that business, it would have been sufficiently definite and good. We cannot help feeling some dificulty as to the application of the principle INCUMBRANCES UNDER THE YORKSHIRE REGISinvolved, looking to the substance of the thing. The parties, as it
TRIES ACTS, 1884, 1885. appears to us, most clearly in fact contemplated future bookdebts to arise in the course of the particular business, whatever
II. else they may have contemplated ; and probably those were the only Elegit. The mere issuing of a writ of elegit has no effect on the future book-debts they did really contemplate. But they no doubt debtor's land, for the writ merely commands the sheriff to do used terms which would cover, not only those, but all possible certain things. When he makes the return to the writ, or, in future book-debts which might arise in the course of any business other words, delivers the land in execution, the rents and profits of carried on by the grantor, at any time and in any place. The the land become charged with the execution creditor's debt, and assignment might well be inoperative so far as regarded such the land itself may be sold after registration of the writ under 27 other book-debts, because the subject-matter was too indefinite ; & 28 Vict. c. 112 (see ante, p. 39). The Yorkshire Registries but why should it be bad quoad a subject-matter clearly included Act, 1884, contains no provision for registering the return to the within the limits of the description, which the parties obviously writ, though the writ itself can be registered. If the land is not contemplated, and which it was competent for them to convey? situated in Yorkshire, every contract or conveyance by a judgment If a man conveys by
a description which is clearly intended to debtor prior to his land being delivered in execution is valid as include A and X, À being a defined matter and X an undefined against the execution creditor; it has even been held that a conmatter, why should not the assignment operate so far as A is con- veyance for value made by a debtor for the express purpose of cerned, though it cannot operate so far as X is concerned? It was defeating an execution, so as to leave nothing in himself which can argued for the grantee of the bill of sale that, assuming the be seized, is not fraudulent within 13 Eliz. 6. 5 : Alton v. Harridescription to cover all future book-debts to arise during the con son (4 Ch. App. 622); Hale v. Saloon Omnibus Co.(4 Drew. 492); ţinuance of the security, it must cover future book-debts to arise Holdird v. Anderson (5 T. R. 235); Darvill v. Terry (6 H. & Ñ. would be sufficiently definite and good, though it might be bad as Pickstock v. Lyster (3 M. & S. 371); secus when the convey ance to any other book-debts." We fail to see that the court gave any is voluntary, Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp (12 Beav. 568, 1 De. G. hry satisfactory answer to this argument. Omne majus continet M. & G. 495). If, therefore, it makes no difference to a purchaser in e minus. This applies, although the limits of the majus are who has contracted or taken a conveyance for value before the land England, although the limits of the Continent towards the North executed before or after the writ is issued, it appears that the Observed, “ surely the effect of saying all book-debts to become or after the writ was registered is immaterial. due cannot be different for this purpose from that of saying all
A purchaser who entered into a contract to purchase, or, in cases del description of the subject-matter is not originally suficiently thereby conferred on the execution creditor, but it may be a l'he Court of Appeal laid great stress on the proposition that, if therand was delivered in execution, makes subject to the rights enters into existence that answers the description. We believe conveyance is registered in Yorkshire before the registration of the that proposition to be perfectly true as appliedrietine cases to behich work, the purchasere might not have priority over the execution