Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Re BATT'S TRADE-MARKS. Romer, J. 21st April.
TRADE-MARK-REGISTRATION-BONA FIDE INTENTION OF USER, NECESSITY

FOR-NON-USER-RECTIFICATION OF REGISTER.

CASES OF LAST SITTINGS,

Court of Appeal.

BARTLETT v. MAYFAIR
PROPERTY CO. (LIM.). No. 2. 24th March, 1st April.
LIMITED COMPANY MORTGAGE OF UNCALLED CAPITAL - DEBENTURE—
-COMPANIES ACT,
PRIORITY -WINDING-UP - UNSECURED CREDITORS -
1879 (42 & 43 VICT. c. 76), s. 5.

Motion. This was an application to rectify the Register of Trade- Re MAYFAIR PROPERTY CO. (LIM.). Marks by removing therefrom the trade-marks above referred to. The trade-marks consisted of a butterfly with open wings, and the dates of their registration were March, 1882, and March, 1896, respectively. This mark was registered in several classes, including class 42. The applicants had been refused registration of a mark of theirs by the Comptroller, on the ground of its similarity to the respondent's mark, and the foundation of their present application was that the mark had never been used, or intended to be used, by the respondents for any goods coming within class 42. It was contended for the respondents that there was no jurisdiction to alter a registration that had been properly made. The conclusions of fact arrived at by the court were that there had been no real user of the mark at any time before or since registration in respect of class 42, and that, at the date of registration, there was no bond fide intention of the respondents to use the mark for goods in that class. The following enactments were referred to-viz., the Patents, Designs, and TradeMarks Act, 1875, 88. 2 and 5, and rule 34 of the Rules of September, 1876, for that Act; the Act of 1883, ss. 65, 70, 72, 75, 76, 90; and the Act

of 1888.

ROMER, J., said that it was clear that persons registering new trademarks which they said that they intended to use must have a bona fide intention to use them: see Edwards v. Dennis (30 Ch. D. 454, at P. 474, 34 W. R. Dig. 197, per Cotton, L.J.). His lordship therefore held as the result of the above conclusions of fact that the registration was wrong and ought to be expunged, and ordered accordingly.-COUNSEL, Neville, Q.C., and Austen-Cartmell; Levett, Q.C., and Sebastian; Ingle Joyce. SOLICITORS, Mann & Taylor; Shepheards; Solicitor to Board of Trade.

[Reported by J. F. WALEY, Barrister-at-Law.]

High Court-Queen's Bench Division.

BAXTER v. LECHE AND OTHERS. Div. Court. 20th April. LICENSING ACTS-NOTICE OF OBJECTION SERVED AFTER DATE OF ORIGINAL LICENSING MEETING, BUT IN DUE TIME BEFORE ADJOURNED MEETINGJURISDICTION OF JUSTICES TO REFUSE SUCH LICENCE-LICENSING ACT, 1872 (35 & 36 VICT. c. 94), s. 42.

This was a special case stated by the quarter sessions for the county of Chester on an appeal against the refusal of the justices sitting at the adjourned general annual licensing meeting at Broxton to renew the licence, held by the appellant, Jane Baxter, in respect of the Brown Cow | public-house at Waverton. A notice of objection to the renewal of this licence had been served after the date of the original annual licensing meeting, but in due time before the adjourned meeting, and the substantial question was whether the justices at quarter sessions could refuse the licence, it being contended by the appellant that the respondents, the objectors, had no locus standi, as no notice of objection to the renewal of the licence had been served seven days prior to the commencement of the general annual licensing meeting, and also that no notice of objection purporting to be served by the direction of the justices had been served on the appellant. After hearing evidence at the adjourned annual meeting, they being equally divided, the renewal was refused. The appellant appealed to quarter sessions. The notice served by the clerk to the justices was in the following form: "On behalf of the licensing justices I hereby give you notice to attend at the adjourned annual licensing meeting for the said division when the renewal of the licence now held by you will be taken into consideration." THE COURT, without calling on the counsel for the objectors, decided that the refusal of the justices of quarter sessions must be upheld.

WILLS, J., said the proviso in section 42 of the Licensing Act, 1872, was in very wide terms. Under it the justices, notwithstanding that no notice had been given, might require the attendance of the licence-holder at the adjourned meeting, when the objection could be considered as if the notice had been given. In this case, he thought, the appellant had had sufficient notice of the objection given by persons other than the justices, though in that notice appeared the objection taken by the justices. The appellant knew perfectly well that the conviction indorsed on the licence was the ground upon which the objection would be based.

KENNEDY, J., concurred. He considered the justices had not done anything contrary to the Act. The notice given to the appellant by the clerk to the justices was a proper notice, on the face of it purporting to come from the justices, of the date of the adjournment and that the applicant was to attend. The appellant in fact attended, and although objection was taken that the notice was bad, her solicitor called and examined his witnesses. He believed that no injustice had been done the appellant, and therefore the only question before the court was whether there was any jurisdiction in the justices in such a state of facts to refuse. No good grounds had been established for impugning their jurisdiction, and their decision ought to be upheld. Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted.-COUNSEL, Clement Higgins, Q.U., and Trevor Lloyd; E. H. Lloyd; S. Moss. SOLICITORS, Cunliffes & Davenport, for W. H. Churton, Chester; Bower, Cotton, & Bower, for R. H. Jackson, Chester; George Boydell, clerk to the justices.

[Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.]

Appeal by a debenture-holder in the above-named company from a decision of Wright, J. The appeal raised a question of great importance in company law on the construction of section 5 of the Companies Act, 1879, which provides as follows: "An unlimited company may, by the resolution passed by the members when assenting to registration as a limited company under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1879, and for the purpose of such registration or otherwise, increase the nominal amount of its capital by increasing the nominal amount of each of its shares. Provided always that no part of such increased capital shall be capable of being called up, except in the event of, and for the purposes of, the company being wound up. And, in cases where no such increase of nominal capital may be resolved upon, an unlimited company may, by such resolution as aforesaid, provide that a portion of its uncalled capital shall not be capable of being called up, except in the event of and for the purposes of the company being wound up. A limited company may, by a special resolution, declare that any portion of its capital which has not already been called 'up shall not be capable of being called up, except in the event of and for the purposes of the company being wound up; and thereupon such portion of capital shall not be capable of being called up, except in the event of and for the purposes of the company being wound up. The company was formed and registered as a limited company on the 16th of August, 1892, with a nominal capital of £50,000 divided into 5,000 shares of £10 each. The memorandum of association stated that one of its objects was to borrow money and issue debentures charged on "the property and rights of the company, both present and future, including its uncalled capital." By the articles of association full power was given to the directors to issue debentures charging all the assets of the company, including its uncalled capital. Before this power was exercised -viz., on the 12th of October, 1892-a special resolution was passed, and it was thereby declared "that such portion of the company's capital as consists of £5 per share remaining uncalled upon all the ordinary shares of the company shall not be capable of being called up, except in the event of and for the purpose of the company being wound up in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1879." In June, 1894, it was resolved by the directors to create and issue debentures for £50,000 bearing interest at 6 per cent, and 160 debentures for £100 each bearing interest at 6 per cent. were created and issued accordingly under the seal By these debentures the company bound itself to pay of the company. the principal moneys and interest secured by them, and the company as beneficial owner charged with such payments "its undertaking and all its property whatsoever and wheresoever, both present and future, At the time these including its uncalled capital for the time being." debentures were issued £4 5s. per share had been called up. There remained to be called up £5 15s. per share, of which, however, £5 could only be called up on the winding up of the company. August, 1896, an action was brought against the company by a debentureholder suing on behalf of himself and all other debenture-holders, and on the 12th of August he obtained judgment in the form usual in such actions and a receiver was appointed. On the same date the company was By this time ordered to be wound up and a liquidator was appointed. 158. of the £5 15s. before referred to as uncalled up when the debentures were issued had been called up by the directors; so that on the 12th of August, 1896, when the winding-up order was made, £5 per share had been called up by the directors and £5 more-i.e., the reserve capitalonly remained to be called up for the purposes of the company being wound up. The liquidator had called on the contributories for payment of this £5 per share. The assets of the company, including the reserve capital called up by the liquidator, would not be sufficient to pay the costs of the winding up and the creditors of the company. The question therefore arose whether the debentures created a valid first charge on the reserve capital so as to entitle the holders of them to payment out of that fund in priority to the other creditors and to the costs of the winding up. In November, 1897, the plaintiff in the debenture-holders' action applied by summons that this question might be determined, and Wright, J., determined it against the plaintiff, holding that the company had no power to create any charge on that portion of its capital which by the Companies Act, 1879, could only be called up "in the event of and for the purposes of the company being wound up.' plaintiff appealed.

On the 8th of

The

THE COURT (LINDLEY, M.R., and RIGBY and VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.JJ.) dismissed the appeal.

April 1.-LINDLEY, M.R., stated the facts as above set out, and continued: The contention on the part of the appellant is that a limited company can validly charge its uncalled capital if authorized so to do by its memorandum of association or by its articles; and that the capital or money which under the Act of 1879 can only be called up in the event of and for the purposes of the company being wound up, is part of the capital of the company in the full and proper sense of that word; and that, there being no prohibition against creating charges upon it, the power to create such charges necessarily follows. This argument is based on In re Pyle Works (38 W. R. 674, 44 Ch. D. 534), which finally settled that uncalled capital of a limited company governed by the Companies Act, 1862, could be validly charged in favour of particular persons. It is

High Court-Chancery Division.
NORTH v. PERCIVAL. Kekewich, J. 5th April.

DEFAULT-INTEREST.

An action was brought by a purchaser for the specific performance of an agreement for the sale of certain freehold land. The vendors by their defence alleged that there was no complete and binding contract for the purchase or sale of any land, and that if there was it was only made subject to certain approvals which had not been given. The vendors further alleged that there had been a common mistake as to the quantity of the land agreed to be sold, and asked, if the agreement were held to constitute a binding contract, for rescission of the contract on the ground of mistake. It was provided by a clause in the agreement that if the purchase was not completed by the 6th of July, 1897, the purchase-money was to bear interest at the rate of 4 per cent. from that day until actual completion. The minutes of the judgment of the court as drawn up by the registrar contained, inter alia, the following provisions: This court doth declare that the agreement constituted a binding contract between the purchaser and the vendors for the sale by the vendors to the purchaser of the vendor's freehold land situate, &c, and that the same ought to be specifically performed and carried into effect, and doth order and adjudge the same accordingly. And it is ordered that interest be computed at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum on the purchase-money for the land contained in the agreement from the 6th of July, 1897, when the same ought to bave been paid according to the terms of the agreement. This was a motion by the purchaser to vary the minutes, inter alia, by striking out the order for the payment of interest on the purchase-money by the purchaser, it being contended on his behalf that the resistance of the vendors to specific performance and their repudiation of the contract amounted to wilful default on their part, which disentitled them to receive the interest.

KEKEWICH, J.-The question here is, Does the repudiation of this con. tract by the vendors amount to wilful default on their part within the authorities so that they cannot claim interest, notwithstanding the stipulation in the contract giving them interest? There are no authorities precisely in point. I am of opinion, however, that the vendors in this case did not obstruct the purchaser so as to be guilty of wilful default, and I think that the registrar was right in providing that that interest should be paid by the purchaser until completion.-COUNSEL, Warrington, Q.C., and R. Rowlands; Renshaw, QC and Christopher James. SOLICITORS, Morley, Shirreff, & Co.; Clarke, Rawlins, & Co., for Percival & Son, Peterborough. [Reported by C. C. HENSLEY, Barrister-at-Law.]

further contended that the payment of the secured debts of a company is as much a purpose of the company as the payment of its other debts; that there is no necessary implication requiring the court to hold reserve capital to be incapable of being charged with the payment of particular debts; and that it may be ruinous to a company to prevent it from VENDOR AND PURCHASER-REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT BY VENDORS WILFUL obtaining relief from perhaps temporary pressure by raising money on the security of its most valuable asset. Cogent as this argument is, I am convinced that it is unsound, and that to yield to it would defeat and not carry out the purpose with which the Act of 1879 was passed. When In re Pyle Works (ubi supra) was decided I foresaw that the decision might be pressed further than I was prepared to go, and I pointed out that, in my opinion, it did not authorize mortgages of reserve capital formed under the Act of 1879. I adhere to that view now that I have carefully re-considered it. In order properly to interpret any statute it is as necessary now as it was when Lord Coke reported Heydon's case (3 Co. 7) to consider how the law stood when the statute to be construed was passed; what the mischief was for which the old law did not provide; and the remedy provided by the statute to cure that mischief. The Companies Act, 1879, was passed in order to remedy some defects in the law relating to unlimited companies, which defects, although long known to lawyers, startled the public when the City of Glasgow Bank stopped payment in 1878. The members of unlimited companies were in this position. First, they were liable to calls on their shares to their nominal amounts. This was the only liability which could be enforced by the company or by its directors whilst the company was carrying on business. This liability, but no liability beyond, was an asset of the company with which the company could deal. But, secondly, in addition to this limited liability the members were under an unlimited liability to the creditors of the company; and this unlimited liability could be enforced by creditors, although it was not an asset of the company which the company or its directors could charge, alien, or dispose of in any way whatever to the prejudice of any creditor. What was wanted was power to form a company with a reserve capital which should be limited in amount, which should be available for creditors in the event of a winding-up, and which should not be under the control of the directors any more than the funds were which the creditors could obtain, but the directors could not under the old law. This amendment in the law was made by the Act of 1879. It appears to me plain that section 5 was framed with a double object-viz., first, to preserve for the general creditors of the company the funds which the members were liable to pay, but which the directors could not call up; and, secondly, to enable the members to limit the amount of their liability on a winding-up to pay the creditors more than the amount preserved for them. Now, if the appellant's contention is right the first of these objects will be entirely defeated, although there is not a sign of any intention on the part of the Legislature to effect so great a change in the law, and although such a change would or might be ruinous to the great body of a company's creditors and be destructive of the credit which the preservation intact of reserve capital gives to those companies which avail themselves of the Act of 1879. Το effect such a change in the law applicable to unlimited companies which avail themselves of the Act of 1879 some provision is wanted to confer on companies carrying on business power to deal with what the members are only liable to pay when the winding up takes place. Such a power would be a complete novelty, and cannot be inferred from the absence of any words prohibiting it. I have dwelt on the effect of the Act of 1879 on unlimited companies, which take the benefit of it because the effect on them and the effect on limited companies are to be gathered from the use of exactly similar language. It was obviously desirable to enable companies originally formed and registered as limited companies to have reserve capitals and not to confine that advantage to unlimited companies registering themselves as limited companies. The object of the last part of the section is exactly the same as the object of the first part. Both classes of companies are put on the same footing so far as reserve capital is concerned. The prohibition against calling up the reserve capital in the case of limited companies is inserted for precisely the same purpose as in the case of unlimited companies-viz., to preserve such capital for the general purposes of the company when wound up. To interpret the section so as to enable a company to defeat this object by pledging or otherwise disposing of its reserve capital is, in my opinion, entirely to miss the real meaning of the Legislature as expressed in the language it has used. Neither the Act of 1879 nor the other Companies Acts give a company power to dispose of assets which cannot come into existence until it is wound up. To hand over the reserve capital or any part of it when called up to a prior assignee, or to a mortgagee who has no claim against the assets until he has realized or given up his security, is not to apply the reserve capital for the purposes of the company being wound up within the true meaning of that expression as used in section 5, but to prevent such application. This was the view of Wright, J., and it is mine also. With respect to the case of Newton v. Debenture-holders, &c., of AngloAustralian Investment Co. (43 W. R. 401; 1895, A. C. 244), on which counsel for the appellant so much relied, I need only observe that it was not a decision on the Act of 1879, but a decision on an article of associa-perty. Then can she, as mortgagee, notwithstanding Re Harkness and tion, so worded as not to preserve, nor indeed to shew any intention to preserve, the reserve capital for the benefit of the general creditors in the event of liquidation. I cannot regard that case as an authority against the view which I take of the Act of 1879. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

RIGBY, L.J., concurred. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.J., gave judgment to the same effect. dismissed.-COUNSEL, Swinfen Eady, Q.C., and R. F. Norton; Q.C., and George Henderson. SOLICITORS, Munns & Longden; Maton, Godlee, & Quincey. [Reported by W. SHALLOROSS GODDARD, Barrister-at-Law.]

Appeal
Farwell,
Mackrell,

Re BROOKE AND FREMLIN'S CONTRACT. Kekewich, J. 26th March. VENDOR AND PURCHASER-MORTGAGEE-MARRIED WOMAN-CONVEYANCE TO PURCHASER-CONCURRENCE OF HUSBAND-ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, by the vendor of freehold property, asking for a declaration that the concurrence of the husband of the mortgagee, who was a married woman, in the deed of conveyance to the purchaser was not necessary, and that such deed did not require acknowledgment by her. The facts were as follows: In 1895 the vendor, E. C. Brooke, had mortgaged the property in fee to a Mrs. Theobald, a married woman, to secure the sum of £150 and interest advanced by her and forming part of her separate estate. Subsequently E. C. Brooke contracted to sell the property to the purchaser, Mr. Fremlin. In his requisitions on title, the purchaser, relying upon the case of Re Harkness and Allsopp's Contract (44 W. R. 683; 1896, 2 Ch. 358), required that Mrs. Theobald's husband should concur in the conveyance and that the deed should be acknowledged by her. The vendor consequently took out the present summons, and it was contended on his behalf that the case relied on by the purchaser only applied tɔ a married woman as trustee, and not as mortgagee.

KEKEWICH, J.-The point raised is a new one, and counsel have not been able to refer to any case nearer to the point than that of Re Harkness and Allsopp's Contract before North, J. That was a case of a married woman trustee, and the decision seems to go entirely on the fact that the property which she had was property of which she was a trustee-not a bare trustee-and therefore on that ground, and on that ground only, she was not a married woman entitled to separate property to whom the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, apply. That is how I understand the decision. It seems only to go to that state of things, and to apply it to any other case one has to consider whether the married woman is a trustee. If once you get a married woman who is merely a bare trustee, then under section 16 of the Trustee Act, 1893, she can convey and surrender as if she were a feme sole. But here she is not a bare trustee, for the principal, interest, and costs have not been paid, and therefore she has not been denuded of her beneficial interest in the proAllsopp's Contract, re-convey without the concurrence of her husband? Is she a trustee within the meaning of that decision? Now, in order to create a trust you must have three things-namely, the person who is a trustee, the person or class of persons who form the cestuis que trustent, and the property which the trustee holds on behalf of the cestui que trust. There is no difficulty in a case of this kind in finding a possible trustee and cestui que trust-namely, the mortgagee and mortgagor, but what does the mortgagee hold in trust for the mortgagor? That question does not seem to me to be capable of an answer in favour of the purchaser's view. The mortgagee is not a trustee for the mortgagor-that is, not until the principal, interest, and costs due under the mortgage have been satisfied,

when that has been done he holds it to some extent in a fiduciary character. Until payment he is not a trustee of the property for the mortgagor; the relation between them is that of mortgagor and mortgagee, not that of trustee and cestui que trust. The money advanced belongs to the mortgagee, who holds the security for his own benefit, and in this respect the fiduciary character does not come in for a moment. It seems me, therefore, that it is not right to say that the mortgagee is a trustee, and that is what I have to conclude in order to distinguish this case from Re Harkness and Allsopp's Contract. The result is that this lady can deal with the security, including the legal estate in the land, as if she were a feme sole, and the purchaser will get a complete title without the concurrence of her husband or the acknowledgment of the deed.-COUNSEL, Warrington, Q.C., and Greenwood; Ashton Cross. SOLICITORS, E. C. Rawlings & Butt; William Webb & C..

[Reported by R. J. A. MORRISON, Barrister-at-Law.]

LAW SOCIETIES.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

In pursuance of the resolution passed at the adjourned annual general meeting, held July 15th, 1881, to the effect that meetings of the society should be held in January and April, a special general meeting of the members of the society will be held in the hall of the society on Friday, the 29th inst., at two o'clock precisely, to consider the subjects hereinafter mentioned.

offices."

Mr. Harvey Clifton will move: "That the Council of the Incorporated Law Society (U.K.) should take steps to obtain a repeal of Section 47 of the Solicitors Act of 1843, which provides that this Act shall not extend or be construed to extend to the examination, admission, rights, or privileges of any persons appointed to be Solicitors to the Treasury and other Government Mr. William Melmoth Walters will move that the following resolution, ir reference to the Law Society's Club, passed at the Special General Meeting on the 28th of January last, be confirmed-viz. :-"(1) That the following addition be made at the end of Rule 3: 'but the Committee shall have power at their discretion to suspend or reduce the entrance fee for any period or for any class of Members, and also to reduce the annual subscription payable by Members or any class of Members.' (2) That the following addition be made at the end of Rule 4: but such subscription may be reduced by the Committee as before mentioned.' (3) That the words if any' be inserted in Rule 6 after the words Entrance Fee,' and in Rule 7 after the words 'Entrance Fees.""

[ocr errors]

Mr. Charles Ford will ask the President what steps, if any, the Council have taken to give effect to the resolution of the society with regard to shortening the Long Vacation, and also whether the Council are taking any steps to secure the transaction of legal business during the Long Vacation other than that which is at present allowed to be transacted during the Vacation. Mr. Charles Ford will move :-"That a copy of the record of attendances (for the current year) of members of the Council, at council and committee meetings, be sent annually to every member of the Society, such copy to accompany the notice calling the annual general meeting." Mr. Charles Ford will move: That the interests of suitors and the due administration of justice require that motions in the Courts of the Chancery Division ought to be set down in a list, and taken in the order in which they appear in such list, no precedence being given to leaders of the Bar." Mr. Charles Ford will move: "This meeting is of opinion that the members of the Council going out of office every year shall decide between themselves as to which three of them shall not be eligible for re-election for a period of one year; and in the event of non-compliance of such condition, the selection shall be made by the Council, and the result in either case shall be communicated to the members of the society, and the Council is hereby directed to amend the Bye-laws accordingly."

THE ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL LAW SOCIETIES. The annual meeting of the above societies was held at the Law Institution, Chancery Lane, London, on Friday, the 1st April, 1898, Mr. R. Ellett, of C'rencester, in the chair.

There were present the undermentioned societies, represented as follows:The Liverpool Incorporated Law Society, Mr. C. H. Morton; the Manchester Incorporated Law Association, Mr. W. H. Norton; the Newcastle-uponTyne Incorporated Law Society, Mr. R. Pybus; the Yorkshire Law Society, Mr. J. T. Atkinson; the Somerset Law Society, Mr. J. E. W. Wakefield the Berks, Bucks, and Oxfordshire Incorporated Law Society, Mr. D. H. Witherington and Mr. P. J. Rutland; the Bristol Incorporated Law Society, Mr. W. C. H. Cross; the Hampshire Law Society, Mr. G. W. Edmonds; the Nottingham Incorporated Law Society, Mr. J. Kentish Wright; the Chester and North Wales Incorporated Law Society, Mr. R. Farmer; the Sheffield Law Society, Mr. E. Bramley; the Blackburn Law Society, Mr. George Porter and Mr. J. Travis-Cook; the Shropshire Law Society, Mr. Rowland T. Hughes; the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Incorporated Law Society, Mr. R. Ellett and Mr. E. C. Sewell.

The Hon. Sec. reported that the Bradford Law Society had joined the association during the year, and that the Leeds and Wakefield Law Societies

had retired. The number of the members of the assoctation was 49.

The subscriptions for the year was fixed at the same rate as in the previous

[blocks in formation]

|

Mr. Thomas Marshall and Mr. C. H. Morton were re-elected Honorary Secretary and Assistant Honorary Secretary respectively. County Court Rules.-The Hon. Sec. reported that as directed by the resolutions of the meetings of the 12th March and 13th July last he had communicated to the Lord Chancellor and to the President of the Incorporated Law Society, as a member of the Rule Committee, the objections raised by members of the association to the rules of March and May, 1897, so far as they related to obtaining leave under Section 74 of the County Courts Act, 1888 (Order V. Rule 9a1) and to the procedure under Order VII.a Rule 4, and that he had also pointed out that the proposed new Forms of Affidavits were unnecessarily complex, and would be found in practice inconvenient and misleading. He stated the specific points in the rules to which objection was taken and the nature of the objection. The following Resolution was moved by Mr. Fybus, seconded by Mr. Witherington, and adopted:-"That this Association approves of the action of the Hon. Sec. and authorises him to continue to act in the sense of the Resolutions of March and July, 1897, and to report if necessary or desirable."

Stamps on Sales or Transfers of Mortgages.-The Assistant Honorary Secretary reported that a joint deputation from this association, and from the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom, had conferred with Mr. Gore, the Solicitor for the Board of Commissioners of Inland Revenue, with a view to an indemnity being given in respect of such transfers of mortgage, conveyances subject to chief rents, and grants reserving rents to a mortgagee as substituted security, as were not stamped in accordance with the interpretation now put by the commissioners upon some sections of the introduction into the next Finance Act of a clause to effect this object, and Stamp Acts; that negotiations were still proceeding with a view to the that Mr. Wolstenholme was now engaged in settling the draft clause.

[ocr errors]

District Probate Registries.-The Hon. Sec. reported that he had called the attention of members of the association to the resolution of the 13th July, 1897 (Minutes, p. 596), and had by circular dated 22nd July last requested them to communicate to him any information which they might Hampshire Law Society disapproving of Probate Registrars acting in their think desirable, and that he had received two replies only, one from the own Courts either properly or as agents, and one from the Liverpool Law Society to the effect that the practice complained of was not adopted to any extent in their own Registry, and that under these circumstances he had not taken any further steps in the matter. County Courts: Default Summons. Mr. Edmonds, on behalf of the Hampshire Law Society, moved the following resolution :--"That with a view of expediting the obtaining of judgment in undefended cases in County Courts it is expedient that in the case of default summonses or a sum of £5 and upwards, defendants, as a condition precedent to being allowed to defend, should be required to satisfy the Registrar ex parte on oath or by affidavit that they have a prima facie defence, and that failing their so doing the plaintiff's in such cases shall be at liberty to enter judgment." After considerable discussion this resolution was carried by a large majority. Presiding Officers' Fees at School Board Elections. Mr. Porter of Blackburn, on behalf of the Bradford Law Society, moved the following resolution:-"That the reduced remuneration of £2 now offered to solicitors for presiding at School Board Elections is quite inadequate compensation for the work done, having regard to the long hours attendant on and the responsibilities of the office, and that the fee of £3 38. should be maintained. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Incorporated Law Society, with a request that the council will make a representation to the Education Department with a view to a revision of the scale. This resolution gave rise to considerable difference of opinion. A majority dissuaded any action being taken, on the ground that in the country competent persons not being solicitors can without difficulty be got to do the work, and that this being so i would be useless and therefore inexpedient to address the Education Department with the view of attempting to induce them to revise the scale. Advertisements by Solicitors At the request of the President of the Incorporated Law Society the Hon. Sec. mentioned that questions had arisen as to the propriety of solicitors inserting advertisements in the newspapers in their own names for loans and securities, and that the opinion of the members of the association was requested. The matter was directed to stand over until the next meeting in order that notice of it might be given. A vote of thanks to the Chairman concluded the business of the meeting.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association inst., Mr. Henry Morten Cotton in the chair. The other directors present was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Wednesday, the 20th being: Messrs. W. F. Blandy (Reading), Grantham R. Dodd, Samuel Harris (Leicester), John Hunter, R. W. Merriman (Marlborough), F. Rowley Parker, Richard Pennington, J.P., Henry Roscoe, Sidney Smith, Frank W. Stone (Tunbridge Wells), F. T. Woolbert, and J. T. Scott (secretary).

A sum of £400 was distributed in grants of relief, eight new members were admitted to the association, and other general business transacted.

[blocks in formation]

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION.

The awards upon the Easter Pass Examination held at the Inner Temple on March 29, 30, and 31 are as follows:

PASS CERTIFICATES.

LINCOLN'S INN.-Noshirvan B. Behramje, Krishnaji W. Bhat, Brij B. L.
Bisya, Arthur P. Braybrooke, William J. H. Brodrick, Henry I. C. Brown,
Devi Dayal, Anthony De Freitas, Charles Dixon, Everard W. Fichardt,
Bolton C. Jones, Sam S. Kay, Abdul Karim Khan, Rahimkhan Karim Khan,
Surendra Lal Khastgir, Beni Parshad Khosla, Jayavant Dinanath Madgavkar,
Harcourt Gladstone Malcolm, Alexander Manson, Behari Lal Merh,
Richard C. Pearman, William G. Randles, Charles K. Rayson, Syed
Mohamed Shere, Moses A. Williams, and William V. G. Willoughby.
Inner Temple.-Arthur J. Alison, Robert W. Allen, James F. Anderson,
Stanley B. Atkinson, William E. C. Baynes, Percy B. Brooks, Charoon,
Isaac R. Davies, Francis J. Dessain, Warwick H. Draper, John S. Gibbs,
Samuel F. Goch, Edward Higinbotham, Alfred A. Hildesheimer, Cecil A.
Hunt, Henry W. Jephson, Edward B. Joy, Arthur M. Labouchere, John
H. Layton, Charles B. Martin, George T. Martin, Reginald T. H. Milton,
Richard S. C. Nolan, Pestonjee Sorabjee Patuck, Frank Perrott, Charles J.
M. Russell, the Hon. Victor A. F. V. Russell, Henry H. Stebbing,
Thorold A. Stewart-Jones, Ernald R. Warre, and Mark Waterlow.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Henry L. H. Andrews, Frank Brough, William A. F.
Balfour-Browne, Herbert Burr, Alfred P. Carryer, James D. Chorlton,
Stephen O. Henn Collins, George G. Coulter, Herbert E. Crook, Walter P.
Dodge, Ignatius S. Ferreira, Carlton Hackney, John Hall, jun., William G.
Hannah, Percy A. Harris, FitzRoy Hemphill, Hendrik J. Hugo, Vyvyan A.
Lyons, Georges E. Nairac, Vasudeo Ramkrishna Pandit, Erasmus D. Parker,
Abdul Rasul, Frank L. Riseley, Alexander E. Rogers, Arthur H. Walsh,
Michael P. Walsh, Edward T. Č. Werner, and William M'K. Young.
GRAY'S INN.-Edward J. S. Athawes, William E. Barber, Madhu Sudan
Bhagat, Charles M.. Brousson, Laurence J. Byrne, Mohammad Said Hakim,
Gaston Johnston, Charles H. Leach, Noel Middleton, Pagadala Rungiah
Naidu, Des Raj Sahni, Shadi-Lal, Subharama Swaminadhan, Rastamji
Kharshedji Tarachand, and Walter M. Thorburn.

The number examined was 133. Of the 33 candidates who failed, seven

were postponed until the Michaelmas examination, 1898, and four until the Hilary examination, 1899.

The following passed in Constitutional Law and Legal History only:LINCOLN'S INN.-Merwanji Rustomji Boyce, Richard C. Brown, William M. Carter, Robert S. Clease, Hamilton H. M. Dent, Ivan Chen, Fitzherbert G. Knight, and Rowland Williams.

INNER TEMPLE.-Kington Baker, Frederick Belfield, John E. Clauson, William G. H. Gritten, Herbert F. Guinness, Jijaba Bajaram Patil Mohite, Hugh G. Newton, Harold T. Perkins, and Arthur L. B. Thesiger.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Kanji Premji Dodia, Ernest A. Ebblewhite, James Fairbairn, Joseph E. Lilley, Francis O. Lindley, John A. Moore, Owen Moses, Julius E. Pitcher, Maurice I. V. M. J. Théry, Frederick J. Willis, and Hugo Worthington.

GRAY'S INN.-George W. Clarke, Edward H. Coumbe, Raghubar Dayal, Anandarai Bapubhai Majmundar, Charles F. Rorke, Laxmidass Rowji Sapat, Harichund Nathubhoy Shah, Carleton S. Smith, Cullyanji Murarji Thacker,

and Manilal Umedram Thakore.

Of 63 who were examined, 38 passed. Six candidates were ordered not to be admitted for examination again until the Michaelmas examination, 1898, and one not until the Hilary examination, 1899.

The following passed in Roman Law and Constitutional Law and Legal
History :-
LINCOLN'S INN.-Harold F. Bidder, George L. Craik, Arthur C. Curti,

and Herbert G. Smith.

INNER TEMPLE.-Aubrey T. Lawrence, William Sanger, Alexander N. Tayler, Ernest J. Welfare, and Thomas A. White.

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

He

Many of our readers will hear with great regret of the death of Mr. ALFRED COCK, Q. C., on Wednesday last, at the residence of his brother. travelled to Shrewsbury to spend his Easter holidays, and on Monday week Mr. Cock was the second son caught a chill, which resulted in pneumonia. of Mr. James Cock, of Shrewsbury. He was called to the Bar in 1871, and became a Queen's Counsel in 1886, and was well known as an able and vigorous advocate. He was a man of cool judgment and great resource in the conduct of cases, in spite of his somewhat breezy style of advocacy. His geniality and good nature made him very popular with his brethren at the Bar, and he will be greatly missed. He was under 50 years of age.

The death is announced of Mr. JAMES HENRY NELSON, barrister. He served in the Madras Civil Service from 1861 to 1887, and was successively assistant collector and magistrate, Acting Registrar of the High Court and Small Court Cause Judge, and subsequently from 1872 Civil and Sessions Judge. In 1871 he was called to the Bar. He was mainly known by his books entitled "A View of the Hindu Law as Administered by the High Court of Madras" and "The Scientific Study of the Hindu Law." After his retirement from the Civil Service he practised for some years in Hyderabad, and conducted the Indian Jurist.

[blocks in formation]

"A Magistrate" writes to the Times on the Criminal Evidence Bill, pointing out that some dozens of charges are daily made by the police in the metropolitan police-courts in which no solicitor or counsel appears on either side. In almost all these cases the defendants make some statement in the nature of an accusation against the police. Under the proposed Act these defendants will make these accusations upon oath. Is it proposed that the policeman shall cross-examine or not? Either alternative seems to be equally monstrous. On Monday, at most of the metropolitan police-courts, take till about 3 or 4 o'clock, sometimes later. Applications and summonses there are usually about fifty charges to be disposed of, and these generally double the length of most cases, and will necessitate some very great have also, as far as possible, to be heard. The proposed Act will at least change in the arrangement of the business of metropolitan police

courts.

Sir John Scott, who is about to resign his post as Judicial Adviser to the Egyptian Government, is, says the St. James's Gazette, one of the Englishmen who will undoubtedly be entitled to rank with such men as Colonel Moncrieff and Lord Cromer as one of the makers of modern Egypt. At the time of the British occupation, early in the eighties, the administration of Two candidates were ordered not to be justice was corrupt and disorganised, and the task which confronted Mr.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Charles R. Brigstocke, Archibald C. Connell, Allen C.
Edwards, and Ernest Lesser.

GRAY'S INN.-Philip J. Macdonell and Herbert W. Prichard.
Of 33 examined 15 passed.

admitted for examination again until the Hilary examination, 1899.
The following passed in Roman Law:-

LINCOLN'S INN.-Donald F. Alderson, Alfred L. Cohn, George S. Cowie, John B. Dyne, Francis A. Hazeland, Arthur W. Howe, Indrajit Kalabhai, Wiliam M. Muir Mackenzie, William N. Marcy, John R. Prior, Goolam Fazulbhoy Visram, and Robert B. Wilkinson.

INNER TEMPLE.-Alfred B. Cairnes, Edward H. Chapman, Bernard N. Fraser, Edward S. Hart, Francis W. Hirst, Sydney Philips, Bernard V. C. Ransome, John H. Stamp, and Charles H. Wise.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.- Henry A. G. Bohn, Peter J. Boland, Charles Bray, Milkhi Ram Choudry, James K. Hay, David S. Hodge, S. John E. B. Macglashan, Laurence L. Rostron, John Sanderson, William Sellers, Bakhshi Sain Das Sethy, and Leonard E. Smith.

GRAY'S INN.-Johndra Nath Bonnerjee, Fielding Gill, Seth P. LewisJones, Guru Das Nanda, Jaishi Ram, Sirdir Foujdar Singh, Edward J. Steegmann, Arthur B. Sully, and Henry S. Williams.

Of 57 examined 42 passed. Six candidates were ordered not to be admitted for examination until the Michaelmas examination, 1898, and one candidate not until the Hilary examination, 1899.

Among those who have accepted the invitation of the Treasurer and Benchers of the Middle Temple to dine with them on "Grand Day" of Easter Term, on Thursday, May 5th, are the American Ambassador, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Fife, and Mr. A. J. Balfour, M.P.

Scott, as he then was, presented what to any but a level-headed, clearsighted English lawyer would have seemed insuperable difficulties. With undaunted courage, however, Mr. Scott set to work, and his reforms, though drastic and wide-sweeping, have nevertheless been such as to secure the whole-hearted appreciation and approval of native as well as foreign litigants. He was the son of a Wigan solicitor, was called to the Bar in 1865, and "went" the Northern Circuit. In 1874 he was appointed a Judge of Appeal in the International Court of Appeal in Egypt, and was VicePresident of the court from 1880 to 1882. From the latter year until 1890 Mr. Scott was a Judge of the Supreme Court of Bombay. In 1890 he returned to Egypt as Judicial Adviser to the Khedive, which office he is now resigning, as his long residence in hot climates renders necessary more leave of absence in the summer than the rules of the Egyptian service allow.

The seventy-second annual general meeting of the Standard Life Assurance Co. was held at Edinburgh on Tuesday, the 19th of April, 1898. The following results for the year ended 15th of November, 1897, were reported: 4,738 policies were issued, assuring £1,844,087; the total existing assurances in force at 15th of November, 1897, amounted to £23,919,754; the claims by death during the year amounted, including bonus additions, to £575,168; the revenue for the year ended 15th of November, 1897, amounted to £1,123,013; and the accumulated funds at same date amounted to £8,804,722, being an increase during the year of £356,419.

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

Tuesday .....24

Wednesday 25 General paper
Thursday...26,

Friday ..27...Mots and adj sums

Any cause intended to be heard as a short cause must be so marked in the cause book at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard. Two copies of minutes of the proposed judgment or order must be left in court with the judge's clerk the day before the cause is to be put in the paper. When witness actions can be taken on any days other than those appointed, due notice will be given.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

paper

MR. JUSTICE STIRLING.
Tues., Apr. 19...Mots, adj sums, and gen pa
Wednesday 20
General
Thursday...21 (
Friday ..22. Mots, adj sums, and gen pa
Sht caus, pets, adj sums, &
Saturday ...23
gen pa
Tuesday ...26 (
Wednesday 27

Bkey apps and new trial Monday......25 Sitting in chambers

App motns ex pte-org1 Monday...... 9 made on interlocutory mots

mots -apps from ords made

Wednesday 4 on interlocutory mots (sep list) and Chan final apps if required

[merged small][ocr errors]

and QB final appeals if
required

Tuesday ...10)
Wednesday 11Q B final apps
Thursday...12
Friday

Bkcy apps and Q B final ......13 apps Saturday...14...Q B final apps App motns ex pte-orgl mots apps from ords made on interlocutory mots and new trial paper if required New trial paper

County Palatine apps and (Chan final apps

[blocks in formation]

Chan final apps

Tuesday ...10

App motns ex pte-orgl mots-apps from ords made

Monday...

.16

Tuesday Wednesday 18 ...17 Thursday...19 Friday Saturday

Wednesday 11 on interlocutory mots (sep list) and Chan final apps if required

'Thursday...12 Friday

....13

[blocks in formation]

General

paper

Thursday...28 Mots for Kekewich, J, and 29...Mots, adj sums, and gen pa

Friday

[blocks in formation]

gen pa

Sht caus, pets (including unopposed pets for Kekewich, J), adj sums, and gen pa Mon., May 2...Sitting in chambers Tuesday 3 General paper Wednesday 4) Mots for Kekewich, J, and Thursday 5 gen pa Friday

.....

[ocr errors]

6... Mots, adj sums, and gen pa Sht caus, pets (including unopposed pets for Kekewich, J), adj sums, and

Saturday 7

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

......20 paper
.21... New trial paper

App motns ex pte-org!
mots apps from ords

mots-apps from ords made Monday..... 23 made on interlocutory mots

App motns ex pte-orgl

[blocks in formation]

on interlocutory mots (sep list) and Chan final apps if required

.20

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

Thursday...191

Friday

Saturday 21 Chan final apps

Monday....23

Tuesday ...24)

[blocks in formation]

and QB final appeals if
required
QB final apps
Bkey apps and Q B final
apps

N.B. Admiralty Appeals (with Assessors) will be taken on days to be appointed by the court.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

10 .11

Friday .13

[blocks in formation]

The following will be the Order of Business .22...Mots and adj sums according to the days of the week :(Sht caus, pets, fur cons, & Monday-Sitting in chambers adj sums Monday......25...Sitting in chambers Tuesday ...26 Wed. Thursday .28 Acts with wits Friday .29 Saturday ...30

.27

Friday (except April 29 and May 6)-
Motions and Adjourned Summonses.
The first day of the Sittings, Tuesday,
April 19, will also be a Motion day, and

Friday, May 27, will be the last day of which Notice of Motion can be given without special leave.

Saturday-Short Causes and Petitions will be taken on Saturdays, April 23 and May 14.

The Business for the other Saturdays will be from time to time announced in the Daily Cause List.

Actions for Trial with Witnesses will be taken on Tuesday, April 25, and continued until the end of the following week. Motions and Uaopposed Petitions will be heard during that period by Mr. Justice Stirling.

Actions for Trial with Witnesses will also be taken at other times. Notice will be given in the Daily Cause List.

Mr. Justice Stirling's Motions and Unopposed Petitions will be taken in this Court while he is hearing Witness Actions-viz., on Thursdays, May 12 and

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

Mots for North, J, and wit list

...... 6...Mots and non wit list Pets, sht caus, procedure sums, opposed pets, and non wit list, including unopposed pets for North, J 9...Sitting in chambers

Saturday 7

Monday..

Tuesday ...10. Wed.

.11

Thursday...12 Witness list Friday .....13

Saturday...14

Monday......16...Sitting in chambers Tuesday ...17

Wednesday 18

Thursday...19 Witness list
Friday .20
Saturday...21

Monday.. .23...Sitting in chambers
Tuesday 24

Wednesday 25 Witness List
Thursday...23)
Friday

..27...Mots and non wit list

Any cause intended to be heard as a short cause must be so marked in the cause book at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so Two copies of minutes of the proposed judgment or order must be left in court with the judge's clerk one clear day before the cause is to be put in the

heard.

paper.

N.B.-The following Papers on Further Consideration are required for the use of the Judge, viz. :-Two Copies of Minutes of the proposed Judgment or Order, 1 Copy Pleadings, and I Copy Chief Clerk's Certificate, which must be left in Court with the Judge's Clerk one clear day before the Further Consideration is ready to come into the paper.

« PreviousContinue »