Page images

effeot of snb.gection 2 of section 25 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881. wbioh | the practice of the French court in such cases, any questions pat to the provides that, “in any action, whether for foreclosure, or for redemption,

witness would be put only through the judge, and that there would be no or for sale, or for the raising and payment in any manner of mortgage

opportunity of cross-examination. FRY, J., said that the case was a suspicious money, the court, on the request of the mortgagee, of any person interested

one, and the proposed witness ought to be subjected to a most drastic crosseither in the mortgage money or in the right of redemption, and not with

examination. Under the circumstances he declined to delegate to any other standing the dissent of any other person, ... may, if it thinks fit, direct a sale

tribunal the determioation of wbat qnestions ought to be put to the witness. of the mortgaged property on such terms as it thinks fit." The action was

He, therefore, refused the application.-SOLICITORS, M. Abrahams go Co.; brought by one of the co-owners of land against the other co-owners for a

Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Co. partition or sale of the property. The plaintiff bad mortgaged his interest to one of the defendants. The inortgagee contended that the plaintiff should not be allowed to enforce against her will a sale or partition until the

INJUNCTION-SIMILARITY OF NAME-COMPANIES ACT, 1862, 8. 20.-In mortgage debt bad been paid. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff that

the case of The Midland Electric Light and Power Company v. The Brush

Midland Electric Light and Power Company, before Chitty, J., on the 19th the above section of the Conveyancing Aot enabled the court to direot a

inst., the plaintiffs moved for an injunction to rostrain the defendants from sale. FRY, J., said that, as a general rule, & mortgagor could have no

| using the name of the Brush Midland Electric Light and Power Company, or rights against bis mortgegee unless he was prepared to redeem the mort. gage. The character of the property in the mortgageo's hands ooght not

| any other name identical with or so nearly resembling the plaintiffs' name as to

be calculated to deceive or mislead. The plaintiffs' case was that the defend. to be altered against his will while the mortgage was not paid off. Seotion 25 of the Conveyancing Aot did not empower the court to sell property l instance a name identical with tbat already registered by the plaintiffs, and

ants had by accident and without any fraudulent intention adopted in the first wbich was not included in the mortgage, and that would be the effeot of

upon the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies pointing out the identity and ordering the sale asked for. The plaintiff was entitled to a partition only declining to register, the defendants added, by way of prefix, the term “ Brush" on the terms of paying off the mortgage.-SOLICITORS, Hughes, Hooker, g to that attempted to have been registered, and proceeded to registration. The Co.; Trior, Bigg, f: Co.

plaintiffs' office was in Birmingbam, and they had proposed to confine their

business to the strictly Midland counties. The defendants' office was in Lombard. COMPANY-WINDING UP-CONTRIBUTORY-DIRECTOR-COMPANIES ACT,

street, and their prospectus set forth the intention of doing business in South 1862, s. 23.-In a case of In re The Electric and Magnetic Company, before

Wales, &c., and in two counties only strictly describable as Midland-viz., Fry, J., on the 20tb inst, the question arose whether a director of a

Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. CHITTY, J., without calling upon the company, to whom no shares bad been allotted, was liable as a contributory

defendants, said that the whole question was whether there was so near a resemin the winding op of the company in respect of the number of shares wbich,

blance between the two dames as to be a “resemblance calculated to deceive," by the articles of association of the company, were the qualification of a

to use the words of the 20th section of the Companies Act, 1862, which section direotor. The articles of association provided that the qualification

had been decided by the Appeal Court in Hendriks v. Montagu (L. R. 17 Ch. D. of a direotor should be the holding of twenty-five sbares. C. was elected

638), to have embodied what had previously been the received ground in courts & director at a time when he held no abaree, and be acted as such. After

of equity for granting injunctions in cases like the present. In his lord ship's bis election be applied to the company for an allotment of forty sbares, the

opinion no person in his senses could be deceived by the defendants' use of the application stating in the usual way that the applicant agreed to aocept the

name. Their first and leading word was “Brusb," and with respect to their forty shares or any less number which might be allotted to bim. After the

use of the word “ Midland," that word was not either in law or even in application was sent C. contioned to act as director. Before any allotment

geography a term of art. The plaintiffs' case failed altogether. The inotion

must be refused with costs. After his lordship's judgment, it was agroed had been made the directors passed a resolution that the applications for sbares in the company were not sufficient to jastify any allotment being

between the parties that the hearing of the motion should be treated as the

trial of the action.-SOLICITORS, H. Tyrrell, for H. Consett Passman, made, and that the applicants should be allowed to withdraw their applications. C. then withdrew his application. The company was ordered to be

Leamington ; Ingledew f Ince. wound up, and the liquidator songht to place C. on the list of contributories in respeot of twenty-five shares. It was urged that the aident of the company to C.'s acting as director after he had applied for shares amounted

LUNACY_ACTION BY PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND NOT 80 FOUND-NEXT to an agreement to give him twenty-five shares, the qualifying number, in

FRIEND-COMMITTEE - In the case of Powell v. Powell, before Chitty, J., on answer to his application. FRY, J., declined to accede to this argument. He

| the 19th inst., a motion was made by the plaintiff for a receiver, pendente lite, said that the application was for an allotment of shares. An allotment

of rents of real estates in Breconsbire. The action was, in substance, an action meant an assignment to the applicant of a definite number of shares, and

of ejectment, and the plaintiff claimed the estates in question as the alleged the mere permitting C. to act as a director was not an allotment. If he

" eldest surviving son of the tenant for life. At the date of the writ the had applied for a large number of shares and had continued to act as

plaintiff was a lunatic not so found by inquisition, and sued by his next director for one day afterwards, he could not, if the shares had turned out very

friend. The plaintiff having since been made a lunatic by inquisition, but valuable, haye compelled the company to give them to him. He could not,

no committee of his estate having been appointed, objection was taken to therefore, be compelled to take the shares merely because he had acted as

the present proceedings as irregular and void. His lordship held that the director.-SOLICITORS, W. T. Manning; Ashurst, Morris, & Co.

objection was good, and tbat an application must be made in lunaoy for the appointment of a committee of the plaintiff's estate before the action could be

validly proceeded with.-SOLICITORS, R.' Carter, for Eoans, Llandovery; PATENT-ANTICIPATION_PUBLICATION-BOOK IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE. C. St. J. Roche, for Jones, Llandovery, In a case of The United Telephone Company v. Harrison, before Fry, J., on the 19th inst., the question arose whether the plaintiffs' patent for telepbones had been anticipated by a previous invention of a German inventor. PAYMENT OUT OF COURT-DISAPPEARANCE OF PARTY INTERESTED-PREAnd this gave rise to the question whether the German invention bad SUMPTION OF DEATH AND NON.MARRIAGE.- In the case of Re James, been sufficiently published in this country. A desoription of it, written before Chitty, J., on the 20th inst., a petition was presented for payment out in the German language, had been published in Germany, some years before

of a sum paid into court by trustees and executors representing the share to the date of the plaintiffs' patent, in a scientific journal called Zeitschrift des wbicb a son of the testator was entitled under a gift by the testator of residuary Deutsch-Oesterreichischen Telegraphen Vereins. The description was illustrated property to bis children nominatim. The testator died in the year 1874. It by figures, A copy of this journal was in the library of the Patent Office in was staied by the affidavits that the legatee in question went, in the year 1863, London, and another copy was in the library of the Institute of Civil when he was twenty-three years of age, upon an exploring expedition into the Engineers in Westminster, in the catalogue of whicb, however, it was entered interior of Australia, and, notwithstanding advertisements inserted in the only under the bead of " Journals," not under the head of “Telegraphs" or Australian newspapers during the year 1866 containing offers of reward for "Telephones." The institate consisted of over 3,000 members, ull of whom information about him, he had never since been heard of. The court was had access to the library, and they had also the privilege of introducing asked to presume that he had died during his father's lifetime intestate and a friends. FRY, J., held that this amounted to a sufficient publication of the bachelor. His lordship made an order upon this presumption, requiring, how. invention in England. He came to the conclusion on the whole, though not ever, a further affidavit as to the legatee never haviog been married.-SOLI. without some doubt, that the description in the Zeitschrift must be considered | CITORS, F. Richardson 4: Sadler. to have been within the knowledge of persons in this country who were skilled in such matters.-SOLICITORS, Waterhouse & Winterbotham ; Davidson & Morriss.


before Chitty, J., on the 20th inst., a petition was presented by the trusEVIDENCE_WITNESS ABROAD-COMMISSION-ORD. 37, R. 4.- In a case tees and tenant for life, without impeacbment of waste, of a family estate com. of Crofton v. Crofton, before Fry, J., on the 20th inst., the question arose prising a mansion house, for leave to sell the wbole estate together with the whether a commission ought to be issued to take the evidence of a witness mansion bouse. The tenant for life was twenty-three years of age and un. who was a Frenchman, residing in France, and who declined to come to married, and the estate way, after bis death, limited to his issue in tail male, England to be examined, or to make an affidavit. The action was brought with remainder to his younger brother in strict settlement. The trustees posfor the administration of the estate of an English lady who had died & widow sessed the usual powers of leasing and of eale aod exchange with the consent of and intestate in France. The proposed witness was a Frenchman, with whom tbe tenant for life. The petitioners stated that the nominal income from the she had lived as his wife, though she bad not been married to him. The estate was some £2,800 per annum, including £500 a year for minerals, and applicant for the commission was a person who claimed to prove against the £300 in respect of the rental of the mansion house, which was leased, together estate of the intestate for a large sum, to which he said he was entitled, partly with the shootings, to a yearly tenant for the last named sum. The tenant for life for bis own benefit and parıly as a trustee for other persons, one of whom was l had incumbered his life estate, and there were also considerable family charges the proposed witness. It was asked that a commission should issue directed on the property, and the net income derived by the tenant for life was, in fact, to the President of the Civil Tribunal of the Department of the Seino in Paris about £1,050 per annum, which would be liable to be reduced to £250, in and the judges thereof. There was evidence which showed that, according to the event of both the mineral income failing and the mansion house beiog un

tenanted. Under these circumstances it was stated that it was impossible for the tenant for life to live at, or to take any pride or interest in, a property

SOLICITORS' CASES. which, although nominally his own, was utterly useless for any residential

Higx COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY Division. purposes; and that as he was tenant for life without impeachment of waste, it was his fixed determination to exercise his powers in making the most out of

(Before Kay, J.) the estate by cutting timber and opening mines, and, on the other hand, to

May 2, 3.--Bailey v. Barlow.* spend nothing in repairs or re-planting, and that he had asked the trustees to | Purchase of landed property-Tender of purchase-money to stop interest relieve him froin his intolerable position by selling the whole estate, and

-Refusal to give conveyanco-Costs. they, looking as much to the interests of the remaindermen as to those of the tenant for life, considered that family prudence would justify the sale. It | On the day fixed for the completion of the purchase of certain land was proposed, in the event of the court permitting a sale, to pay the purchase the vendor's solicitor refused to complete, unless a collateral agreement money into court for re-investment on the authorized securities. The as to the making of certain roads adjoining the property was settled. younger brother had been served, and made no objection to the proposed sale The solicitor for the purchaser then tendered to the solicitor for the and re-investment. CHITTY, J., giid that, notwithstanding the ruling of Lord vendor the purchase-money “ to stop interest." The money was taken Eldon in Mortlock v. Buller (10 Veg. 291), to the effect that the object of

| by the vendor's solicitor, but he refused to hand over the con veyance of a sale under a power of sale contained in a settlement of a family estate must

the land in question, or to give an acknowledgment for the money, or to be to invest the money in the purchase of another estate, he was of opinion

produce his authority to receive it, the agreement as to the roads being tbat he could make the order as prayed. It would be, no doubt, a beneficial order for the tenant for life, and, what was more important, for his issue if he

still uncertain. should have any ; for the incomo of the estate was all the property which the

Held, that the vendor's solicitor had no right to accept the tender of tenant for life would himself have to spend on them. The law since Lord the purchase-money without at the same time delivering the conveyEldon's time had been, on public grounds, much altered, and if Lord Cairns' ance. present bill should become law, there was no doubt that the tenant for life The vendor's solicitor being made a defendant, and it appearing at the would bave the power he bere asked for. He, therefore, felt no hesitation, trial that the vendor would have been ready to accede to the purchaser's and would make this order.-SOLICITORS, Frere of Co.; Farrer, Ouvry, wishes as to the agreement respecting the roads, the solicitor was ordered Co.

to pay the whole costs of the action.

Trial of aotion. LIMITED COMPANY — WINDING-UP PETITION - EXAMINATION BEFORE This was an aotion brought by Mr. Briley against Mr. Barlow and SPECIAL EXAMINER—LEAVE TO ATTEND BEFORE SPECIAL EXAMINER— against Messrs. Last & Song, who acted as solicitors for Mr. Barlow, to SHAREHOLDERS NOT RESPONDENTS TO PETITION-COMPANIES ACT, 1862, enforce a coptraot for purobase of two pieces of land. Mr. Bailey signed & 88. 85, 86.-In the case of In re The New Callas Company (Limited), before written contract, dated June 10, 1881, to purchase certain land from Mr. Chitty, J., on the 22nd inst., a petition presented by a shareholder for the Barlow. There was also, subsequently, an agreement to buy a further piece winding up of the company was ordered to stand over for the directors of the l of land, and the plaintiff further agreed to pay £100 towards the expenses company, who were respondents, to file affidavits, and, such affidavits having of a road or roads to be constructed by the defendant Barlow on their oombeen filed, the petitioner obtained an order for the cross-examination of the

pletion. There war, however, a misunderstanding betwoon the plaintiff and respondents before a special examiner. Upon the matter again being men

the defendants, Messrs. Last & Sons, who were acting on behalf of Mr. tioned an application was made by shareholders who had not been served for

Barlow, as to whether the £100 was to be paid on the completion of one or leave to attend the cross-examination. CHITTY, J., said tbat the Companies

two roads by Barlow. Acts and tbe orders made thereunder were absolutely silent as to the rigbt of

On November 24, 1881, the day appointed to complete the parohase, the the applicants to attend the proceedings. There were no reasons specially

plaintiff, with his solicitor, attended at the office of Messrs. Last & Sons. mentioned to bim wby be should accede to the application, and, in the absence

Mr. Last refused to complete anlegs the plaintiff would sign a collateral of precedent, he should decline to do 80.-SOLICITORS, Greenfield & Abbott;

agreement for the payment of the £100 on the making of one road only. W. L. J. Ellis ; Beall; Lewis Davis.

The plaintiff's solicitor tbon said to Mr. Last, “I shall make a tender of

the porobase-money to stop interest." He then offered the sum of WILL-RESTRAINT ON ALIENATION -GIFT OVER ON BANKRUPTCY

£3,567 Os. 8d. Mr. Last took the money, but refused to give a conveyance REPUGNANCY-CONDITION_CONDITIONAL LIMITATION.-In the case of In re

until the agreement as to the roads should be settled. He also refused to Machu's Will, before Chitty, J., on the 22nd inst., a petition was presented

give an acknowledgment for the money, or to show bis authority to for the payment out of court of a sum of £6,200 paid in by a railway company

receive it. An action was then commenced by the plaintiff, claiming an in respect of the purohase-money of part of the testator's real estate, and the

injunction to restrain the defendants Barlow and Last & Sons from parting question arose whether a proviso against alienation by bankruptcy appended

with the deed of conveyance or the som of £3,567 Os. 8d. Since the comto a devise in fee could be supported, supposing that the court should construe

mencement of the action the parohase had been oumpleted, and the agreethe proviso as & conditional limitation. In the case before the court the

ment as to the making of the roads settled, and praotically the only matter testator by his will gave his freehold, copybold, and leasehold estates,

now in dispate was as to the costs of the action. comprising the land purchased by the railway company, “unto and to the

Rigby, Q.C., and Sangster Green, appeared for the plaintiff. use of his daughter, her heirs, executors, administrators, and assigas, subject,

Higgins, Q.C., and B. B. Rogers, for the defendant, contended that where nevertheless, to the proviso hereinafter contained." The proviso, which followed, was a proviso containing a gift over in case his daughter is tendered to stop interest, it is always tondered without should at any time be declared a bankrupt or liquidate with her

imposing a necessity of giving a conveyance. A porobaser can at creditors. It was submitted, on the one hand, that the devise

any time after the time fixed for completion of the purchase tender the

money, and so stop the interest. was tantamount to & condition in restraint of alienation, and there. fore void, as being in repugnancy to the absolute interest previously given.

Kay, J., in the course of his judgment, said :-There was a bona fide On the other band, it was contended that the whole must be read together,

misunderstanding and dispute about the roads, and the vendor had a perfect and construed accordingly into a conditional limitation, upon the principle

right to say, "Now, I am not going to convey these two pieces of land to laid down by Lord Cotienbam in Webb v. Grace (2 Pb. 701). The

you until we have this matter about the roads definitely settled.” On the point was stated to be absolutely novel, there being no reported case

24th of November, when the parties went to Messrs. Lasts' office to comwhere a proviso in the nature of a conditional limitation limiting over

plete the purchase, Mr. Last had a right to say, “At any rate, I will see or making to cease an absolute interest on bankroptcy or insolvency

my principal, and ascertain from him whether he will accept the terms had been upheld, notwithstanding the note on Bradley V. Peixoto

offered before he will allow this conveyance to go out of my hands." That (Tudor's Leading Cases on Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 978), which

was a most reasonable request. The other side, however, asked to have names authorities in support of a contrary view. CHITTY, J., said he was of

the matter settled then and there, and to allow the matter as to the roads opinion that the testator had put in a clause which was a condition, but not a

to stand over generally. Mr. Woodward, the solicitor for the purchaser, conditional limitation. There might appear to be some ground for saying that had raised the parobase-money for the plaintiff by borrowing it from Lord Cottenban did not take the same view in Webb v. Grace, where he read

other clients, and it was a matter of considerable importance to bin the proviso as incorporated in the original limitation, because the limitation to have the purobase completed at once, in order that a conveyance might was made “subject to the proviso hereinafter contained.” He acquiesced in be got. He therefore made a tender of the porchase-money. He said, “I Lord Cottenham's view, but the question there was a question of construction shall make a tender of the parobase-money to stop interest." Now, it on a very different instrument. There was no limitation as here to A. and his B2008 to me really, that, under the giroq mstances which I have detailed, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns. The proviso here was a clause the meaning of that was absolutely without question. If Mr. Woodward making altogether void the previous gift, and if it were upheld there was so and his client were right, and if the agreement was an agreement which means of avoiding the absurd and unfair construction that, in the event of they bad power to enforce, then the tender of the parobabe-money might bankruptoy, the gift was void ab initio, and not merely from the date of bare stopped the interest. But why ? For this reason only, that then in bankruptcy. He, therefore, held the condition in question was a condition that state of things, if they had a binding agreement according to their view pure and simple, and as such void for repugnancy.-SOLICITORS, Turner g of it, they would be entitled there and then to complete. The object of Mr. Low; Angeli, Imbert-Terry, d Page.

Woodward and his client was to put the defendants entirely in the wrong, by saying, “We will do everything on our part to complete this transaction, and we will make it clear that it is your fault if we are right on the only question

that is now lest between us." The tender of the purchase-money was, in fact, Tbe Pall Mall Gazette announces tte death, on Wednesday, of Alderman merely doing that which the purchaser considered incumbent on him to do in Henry Ingledew, of Newcastle, said to be the oldest solicitor in the United order to complete his part of the matter, and it is absolutely, to my mind, as Kingdom, aged ninety-six years. Mr. Ingledew had been a solicitor for clear as the sun at noon-day that every body there understood perfectly well upwards of sixty-five years, and, entering the Newcastle Town Council wben he was fifty-three, he was for forty-three years a member of that body.

• Reported by A. J. SPENCER, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

that that purchase-money was only offered as part of the completion, and interest of the employer as the spinner that these assistants should be compe. opon the usual terms that the conveyance should be given in exchange for it, tent, submissive to the control of the spinner, and that all should work in bor. and that everybody there thoroughly understood that, unless the conveyance mony together as efficiently and regularly as the mules themselves. At the was given in exchange for it, it was the duty of the defendant's solicitor to appointed pay-day the practice has been for the spinger to include the wages refuse the tender and not take the money.

of the piecer and creeler as part of his wages for the week; the amount is paid Mr. Last and his firm are rightly made parties to this action, because at to him by the employer, and out of the sum so paid he pays the wages of the this interview he did not even produce his authority to receive the money, piecer and creoler. This practice has been continued so long and become so although he was asked for it, and the plaintiff bad no choice but instantly to general that the plaintiff insists that the piecer and croeler are entirely and place a writ on the file. An arrangement has since been made wbich the exclusively his servants—that their contract of service is with him aloneparties were very wise to come to. Whatever may be the case as to making that he, of bis own independent authority, hired them and fixed the amount of solicitors and others in a like position parties to an action merely for the sake their wages, that he is liable to them for those wages, and that he alone, inde. of praying costs against them, as to which there is very considerable authority, | pendently of his emplover, can determine their contract of service; and as a it is quite clear from Heatley v. Newton (30 W. R. 72, L. R. 19 Ch. D. 326), consequence that the defendants, as his employers, have no control over the and other cases, that if they are made parties for any part of the relief in a assistants he engages, nor are in any way concerned, or have any right to case in which it may be proper at the hearing to make them liable for costs, interfere, with the amount of wages to be paid or their payment. Accordingly in the plaintiff has a right to retain them until the hearing, unless they offer to exercise of this right as claimed by the plaintiff, when he gave the defendants stay the suit by paying all the costs. In this case no such offer has been made. bis week's notice to leave their employment, he at the same time gave a week's From the evidence of Mr. Barlow, it appears that if Mr. Last had postponed notice to the piecer and oreoler to leave their employment with him. This notice the completion, refused the tender, and referred the matter to his client, his the piecer and creeler accepted, and they, on the 22nd of March, left the defend. client would have accepted the view which the plaintiff took, and this action ants' mill together with the plaintiff. No notice whatever was given by either would never bave been brought. I am, therefore, obliged to say that Mr. of these workmen to the defendants. On Saturday, the 25th of March, the Last must pay all the costs of this action.

pay-day, the plaintiff brought in his claim for wages as usual. This amounted Solicitors, Ravenscroft, Hills, & Woodward ; Last & Sons,

to £2 198. 41., and included the wages of the piecer 17s, 6d., and the creeler 10s., together £1 78. 6d. ; tbe difference, £1 11s. 104d., being the amount due to the plaintiff for his work as spinner. This sum the defendants offered to pay him

and be accepted it, but the defendant refused to pay him the $1 78. 6d., on the COUNTY COURTS.

ground that they had not received any notice from either the piecer or creeler;

and, treating them as defendants' servants, they insisted upon their right to Bow.

retain those sums, so that when applied for by the piecer and creeler for their (Before J. B. DASENT, Esq., Judge.)

wages the defendants could set up a cross-demand for damages for breach of May 19.-Franks v. Silver & Co.

contract, on having left their service without giving the notice required by

the rules. After this dispute had thus arisen the plaintiff, in discharge of Employers' Liability Act, 1880--Defective notice of injury-Section 4

what he considered to be his duty as the employer of the piecer and creeler, County Court Rules, 1880, r. 3—Particulars of demand.

paid them their wages and they accepted them from him, as their employer, The plaintiff sned under the Employers' Liability Act to recover from his | thus ignoring any contract of service with the defendants, and this action is employers the sum of £200, as compensation for personal injuries.

now brought by the plaintiff for the amount so paid, £i 73. 6d., treating that Thomas, instructed by Nazer, for the plaintiff ; and

sum as representing work and labour done by him for the defendants. The Ruegg, instructed by Watson, Sons, & Room, for the defendants.

question thus raised between the plaintiff and defendants is represented The notice of injury required to be given by section 4 of the Act was con- as being one of interest and importance as well to the employers of tained in a letter written by the plaintiff's solicitor to the defendants, wbich labour as the employed in the spinning trade, which is extensively carried on merely stated that the plaintiff had been injured “in consequence of being

in Burnley and the adjoining district, and this action is treated as a repre. directed to stand upon a loose board in running water."

sentative action, the decision in which will determine several other actions In the particulars of demand required by the County Court Rules of 1880,

nɔw pending in this court against the defendants. The claim of the plaintiff r. 3, to bo attached to the summons, the plaintiff attributed his injury to “de

involves tbe right to limit the exercise of control by the defendants over fect in the conditions of the ways, works, machinery, or plant connected with

parties employed in their mill; in other words, it seeks to establish an or used in the business of the employer."

imperium in imperio on authority in the mill, enabling labour to control capital His HONOUR held that the requirements of the Act had not been properly

to an extent which interferes with that freedom which is the equal right of complied witb, and non-suited the plaintiff.

capital and labour. It is little short of a claim to a proprietary right, ono which in time might ripen into a right to claim compensation for disturbance, as it is easy to suppose a case in which an employer might desire to alter

the arrangements of his mill in a manner which would involve the determinaBURNLEY.

tion of a contract of service with some particular spinner against whom no (Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Esq., Q.C., Jadge.)

fault could be alleged, and who might say, Why tbrow me out of employMay 18.-Varley v. Birley.

ment merely to put in my place another no better tban I am ? I suffer loss Sutcliffe, for tbe plaintiff; and Nowell, for the defendants.

through your act, give me compensation. Such a claim must be able to stand

the test of close examination, because it interferes with that liberty which is His HONOUR delivered the following judgment :

the equal right of both contracting parties, its necessary effect being to interfere This action is brought to recover the sum of £1 78. 60. for work and

with tbe relation between the parties, arising out of the contract of employ. labour done by the plaintiff for the defendants. The plaintiff was a spinner

ment and service, to the prejudice of one party and agaiost his will. The claim in the employ of the defendants, who are the owners of a spinning mill at

is rested for its foundation upon the generality and long continuance of the Burnley. Up to the 15th of Maroh last the plaintiff had been in their

practice, but these do not appear to me to be the proper test by which to employ for about eighteen months, and had been a spinner employed in

determine the several rights and liabilities of the respective parties, in similar establishments for fourteen or fifteen years. Previous to the 15th

oth a case which originates in a simple contract of employment on of March the plaintiff and the other spinners in the defendants' employ

the one hand, and service on the other, unless expressly provided twenty-two in number-desired to obtain from the defendants an advance of

for by the terms of the contract. It would not arise by implication, wages and acted in concert together for that purpose, as they were entitled

because so long as both parties are acting in harmony together, to do. The defendants were not willing to give the required advance, ard in

the practice is one which promotes and secures the true interests of all consequence the plaintiff and the other spioners on the 15th of Marob gave the

| parties concerned. The dispute which has now occurred has disturbed this defendants a proper notice in writing, in compliance with the rules of the will, harmony and put un end to the peaceful relations which, until it arose, existed that tbey would all leave the defendants' employment in geven days, expiring | between the parties, and the dispute, baving arisen out of a demand by the on the 22nd of Marob, and on that day the plaintiff and the other spinners left, plaintiff wbich, although one he had a right to make, was also one which the and thus the contract of service between the plaintiff and the defendants was defendants bad an equal right to refuse to accede to, it would not be just or doly and absolutely determined on that day. By the practice of tbe mill reasonable that either party should be allowed to obtain any advantage over the wages of the workmen are caloolated and made up to and inclading the I the other as a consequence of arrangements which had been made and acted Wednesday in each week, and are paid on the Saturday following. The upon in good faith for the mutual benefit of both parties. And the respective wages of the spinner are regulated by the quantity of work he can rights and liabilities of both parties under the original contract of employ. produce from the frames under bis management, and it is there ment and service ought in fairness to be unaffected in the future by fore the common interest of the spinner and his employer that any arrangements which have been made by mutual consent for giving the quantity of work thus produced should be as large as possible. effeot to the contract, when those arrangements have been disturbed, The more the spioner can earn the better for the employer under and put an end to by the act of one of the parties. The defendants, a pormal state of things. The plaintiff was employed upon two frames or as owners of the mill, are the principals, and in that character are mule", upon which there were 2,428 spindles, and in order to work these mules responsible to all persons employed in their service in the business of the properly, and so as to produce the largest quantity of good work—a result in mill, subject to the existing rules and regulations, and that responsibility is which he and the defendants were mutually interested - it was necessary that fixed by law upon them whether the contract of service be made direotly with the plaintiff should be provided with the assistance of at least two other work them as principals, or through an agent duly authorized by them for the men, called a piecer and creeler, who, whilst the mules are in motion, must purposes of the mill. It is obvious the defendants as principals must employ be under the plaintiff's exclusive superintendence and control. For the com. agents, to whom certain limited powers and authorities are delegated, and for any mon interest of the spinner and his employer it is obvious that these assistants acts done by such agents within the limits of their authority the defendants, as should be such as the spinner approves, and in whom he can have confidence. principals, are responsible, and the acts so done by their agents are as effectual as And it has thus become the general practice for the spinner to select his assist. | if done by the defendants themselves. Then, when the plaintiff engaged himself ents, and further to agree with them for a fixed amount of weekly wages ; and as spinner, and in order to enable bim properly to perform his engagement, the employer does not, as a rule, interfere either with the seleotion made by the required the services of assistants, it became the duty of the defendants, spinner or the amount of weekly wages to be paid, as it is as much for the l arising out of their contract with the plaintiff, to supply him with each assistants, there not being any express contract between him and the de. If the plaintiff apply for leave to appeal by special case I grant that leave on fendants that it should be his duty to provide them for himself, and at his own his giving the proper and usual security for costs. I decline to give leave to risk, and on his own responsibility. When he is left by the defendants to appeal generally. My reason for giving only this conditional leave to appeal engage them he acts in so doing as the authorized agent of the defe pdants, is principally that there will be no dispute of facts before the Court of Appeal and thereby renders tbem responsible to the persons 80 engaged for the proper a disputo which I believe sometimes leads to a miscarriage of justice. fulfilment of the terms on which be engaged them, if not ohjected to or inter. fered with by the defendants. They supply the plaintiff with the machinery, the power required to keep it in motion, the raw inaterial, and the services of tbe assistants, as incident to the defendants' contract of employment with the plaintiff, and be is entitled as against the defendants to claim


the proper snpply of each and every one of these particulars. And as a consequence he, in the absence of express contract, could no more claim as his own the right to

SIR JOHN HOLKER. supply the services of the assistants than he could the supply of the

The Right Hon. Sir John Holker, late one of the judges of the Court of machinery, the power, or the raw material. The fact that the plaintiff as spinner engages the assistants, agrees with them the amount of their wages,

Appeal, died on the 24th inst., at the age 'of fifty-four. Lord Justice Holker

was the son of Mr. Samuel Holker, of Bury, Lancashire, and was born in receives those wages weekly from the defendants, and pays them directly to

1828. He was educated at the Bury Grammar School. He was articled to the assistants without any actual interference on the part of the defendants, does not, in my opinion, alter the legal character of the original relationship

the late Mr. Eastbam, a solicitor at Kirkby Lonsdale, but at the end of bis between the parties arising out of the contract of employment and servise

period of service he entered at Gray's-inn. He was called to the bar in 1854, These acts of the plaintiff are referable to his position of spinner acting

when he joined the Northern Circuit, and for several years practised locally at properly as the authorized agent of the defendants, for his and their mutual

Manchester with considerable success. He subsequently quitted Manchester intereste, Avd, in my judgment, however long this practice may have existed,

for London, and in 1866 (when of only twelve years' standing) he was created and however general it may have become in similar establishments, the prac

a Queen's Counsel. He rapidly obtained a recognized position as cne of the tice not having originated in any unlawful assumption of authority by the

leaders of his circuit, and in 1872 he was elected M.P. for Preston, in the Con. spinner, or any neglect on the part of the employer in submitting to it, it is

servative interest, and he retained this seat as long as he continued at the bar. not the case of a wrong converted into a right by usage and acquiescence,

In April, 1874, he was appointed Solicitor-General under Lord Beaconsfield's however long or however general, and the defendants are not deprived of any

Government. He shortly afterwards received the honour of knighthood, and of their rights, nor relieved from any of their liabilities as prin.

in November, 1875, he succeeded Sir Richard Baggallay as Attorney-General. cipals. Thus, is the spinner after he has received the wages of the

He retired with his party in April, 1880. Sir J. Holker was an active law assistants should be disbocest and waste the money intrusted to him for

officer, and he carried the Summary Procedure Act, 1879, and the Public the purpose of paying those wages, I am of opinion that the assistants

Prosecutors Act. He also introduced the Criminal Code Bill, wbich was would be entitled by law to look to the defendants for payment-as being

referred to a Royal Commission, but was not passed. Although not a fluent or workinen of the defendants engaged by their authorized agent at wages

attractive speaker, Sir J. Holker was a sound lawyer, and a most able advocate. approved by them-and migbt treat the money paid by the defendants to the

He was a formidable cross-examiner, and he enjoyed the reputation of a most spinner for their wages as money paid by the defendants to their agent to be

successful verdict gainer. He had held briefs in many important cases,

and among the criminal prosecutions which be conducted were the paid by him in that cbaracter to those assistants, and for wbich if not paid by the plaintiff they would be entitled to look to the defendants. Again, if

Wainwright case, the Staunton case, and the great “detective" case. He either of the assistants should, without negligence on his part, sustain a

was a man of most kindly and modest disposition, and was greatly

beloved by all his professional friends. personal injury resulting from obedience to an order given by the spinder,

Since his retirement from office wbich it was ihe assistant's duty to obey, the assistant so injured would pot

he had enjoyed a very extensive private practice, and in January last, on be left by law to obtain compensation from the spinner as his employer, but

the death of Sir Robert Lush, he was appointed by his political opponents would be entitled, under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, to look to the

to a seat in the Court of Appeal, and he was sworn a member of the defendants for compensation, and to treat the spinner as a person intrusted

Privy Council. The appointment was warmly approved by the profession, by the defendants with superintendence, and whose orders the assistant

and he had already given a promise of achieving a high judicial repu. injured, as a workman in the employ of the defendants, was bound to obey.

tation. Sir J. Holker's health had been failing during the last few months, The claim set up by the plaintiff would bave the effect of depriving workmen

but it was hoped that the relief from professional work would have a beneficial of valuable rigbts against their employers wbich the law has secured to them,

effect. Last week he unfortunately caught a cold, which led to inflammation and of involving liabilities from which, as it appears to me, employers if they

of the lungs, and he expired after a few days' illness. The deceased was a yielded to the claim now made by the spinder would not be allowed to escape,

bencher of Gray's-inn, and was treasurer of that society in 1875. He bad thus showing that, rightly considered, the question raised in tbis contention is

been twice married, but be leaves no family. On Wednesday morning, at the quite as much a workman's question as an employer's, if not more. It would

sitting of the Court of Appeal at Lincoln's.ion, the Master of the Rolls not be difficult to suggest analogous cases of employment and service from

referred to the death of Lord Jastice Holker. He said :-"I am very sorry to which, following out the grounds of the present claim, logically, the result

say that we have just received news of the death of our late colleague, Sir John would be a reductio ad absurdum. Take, for instance, the case of the owner

Holker. I wish to express our deep sorrow at the event. His career as a of a large estate residing at a distance, employing an agent, who in his

judge was so short, and his health during that period so bad, tbat we can only

say that the hopes of the successful prosecution of his career have been disapemployer's interest engages workmen under bim as necessary for the proper discharge of his duty, such as clerks in the estate office, labourers on a farm

pointed by the unfortunate break-down of his health so soon after his eleva. in hand, whose wages be arranges and pays out of principal's money. A

tion to the bench." dispute arises between the owner and his agent- the agent wants an increase of salary, which the owner declines to give. The agent gives a proper notice

MR. SAMUEL EDWARDS. to determine the employment, wbich the owner accepts. And at the same Mr. Samuel Edwards, solicitor, of 11, Queen Victoria-street, and Lewisham, tirre the agent, without informing the owner, gives notice to the clerks died at his residence, Sawtry Lodge, College-park, Lewisham on the 14th and labourers to leave their employment, and they leave accordingly. | inst. Mr. Edwards was born in 1821. He was admitted a solicitor in 1850, The owner comes and finds the estate office closed, the clerks and had practised for about thirty years at Lewisham, having also an office in gone, the labourers gone also. As a consequence the arrangements the City of London. He had a large local business at Lewisham, and held as to tenants of the estate are unknown, and can only be ascertained by some important appointments. Shortly after the passing of the Metropolitan inquiry and investigation, which, for want of explanation by the clerks, Local Management Act, 1855, he was appointed clerk to the Lewisham the owner is unable to make. As to the farm, he finds it deserted, the District Board of Works, and he held the office for twenty-five years. He horses unfed, the cows not milked, the sheep without a shepherd, breaking was also clerk to the Lewisham Board of Guardians, superintendent registrar, through fences and trespassing on the neighbours' crops, subjecting the owner and vestry clerk of Lewisham parish. Mr. Edwards was buried at the to action for damages. All these mischiefs, the consequence of the agent's Lewisham Cemetery on the 18th inst., several of the guardians and members unwarrantable assumption of authority, and done to spite his principal, of the vestry and district board being present at the funeral. because he could not increase the agent's salary. Again, take the case of an owner of an extensive garden, who employs a head-gardener,

MR. EDWARD WOODARD. and intrusts him with the engagement of as many under-gardeners as he requires, and leaving to him the arrangement of their work

Mr. Edward Woodard, solicitor, of 2, Ingram-court, Fenchurch-street, and and wages. A dispute arises between the owner and the head

Billericay, died on the 15th inst., from disease of the beart, after a few days' gardener about an increase of wages, and, to gain his ends, he gives notice

illness. Mr. Woodard was born in 1814, and was admitted a solicitor in 1842, to his employer to leave his service, and, at the same time, behind his

| and had an extensive practice both in the City and in Essex. He was clerk to employer's back, gives the under-gardeners notice to leave at the same time,

the Billericay Town Hall Company and to Bayley's Charity Trustees, and for and they leave, and the employer, at the expiration of the head-gardener's

many years rendered valuable service as a guardian of the poor, and a member notice, comes and finds the gardens deserted, the daily and hourly attendance

of the Billericay School Board. He had at one period a considerable county to the fruit and flower houses neglected, the fruit irreparably injured, and the

court practice, being a good speaker and a discreet advocate. He had also acted plants and flowers spoiled. All this mischief is attributable to the unwarrant

in several elections as local agent for the Liberal party. Mr. Woodard was a atle acts of the agent, dopo to compel his employer to submit to his agent's

considerable landowner in Essex, and was well known as a successful agriterms. Similar instances of abuse might be multiplied ad nauseam.


In principle it appears to me that these supposed cases are the same as the claim made in the present action, which is an attempt to convert an agent into a principal by a perverse attempt to vary the terms of the original contract of

In consequence of the death of Sir Jobp Holker, Mr. Justice Chitty has employment and service.

kindly undertaken to preside, in place of the late judge, at the fiftieth Judgment will therefore be entered in the action for the defendants with

anniversary festival of the United Law Clerks' Society, which will take costs.

place at the Freemasons' Tavern, on Wednesday, June 7.


A meeting of this society was beld in the Law Library on Tuesday last,

Samuel Baldep, Esq., in the chair. The subject for debate was, “ Are the LAW ASSOCIATION.

principles laid down in Ex parte Valpy and Chaplin (1872) and In re Native At the annual general court, held at the hall of the Incorporated Law Iron Ore Company (1876) sound? Would those decisions be followed by the Society, Chancery-lane, on Tbursday, the 25th inst., the following being House of Lords ? " The speakers on the affirmative were M 28813. Coley, present-viz., Mr. Desborongb (obairman), and Messrs. Boltor, Boodle, Robinson, W. J. C. Hill, Aldington, Streetley, and Hyde ; and, on the noga. Borges, Collisgon, Proudfoot, Tylee, Williamson, and A. B. Carpenter tive, Messrs. Whitaker, Stevens, F. W, White, and T. A. J. Brown. The (secretary), the report of the directors and the treasurer's accounts for the debate was decided in favour of the affirmative, past year were read and approved, the president and other offioers of the association were elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted.

The following is the report of the board of directors.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS. 1. Your directors bave the pleasure of submitting to the members of the Law Association a report of tbeir proceedings and the accounts for the last twelve Mr. ARTHUR HAILstone, solicitor, of Bradford, has been appointed a Co months.

missioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. 2. Your directors have considered thirty-three cases of the primary class, and bave distributed amongst them the aggregate sum of £1,465.

Mr. David ROBERT LEWIS, solicitor, of Merthyr Tydvil, Dowlais, and 3. They have also considered numerous applications of the secondary or non.

Aberdare, has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at Merthyr members' class which have come before them, and they have distributed the

Tydvil. Mr. Lewis was admitted a solicitor in 1869. sum of £150 placed at their disposal amongst sixteen cases.

Mr. FREDERICK POLLOCK, barrister, has been appointel Professor of 4. Your directors recommend to the general court that a sum of £150 be Jurisprudence at University College, London. Mr. Pollock is the eldest son of placed at their disposal for the cases of non-members for the ensuing year. Sir Frederick Pollock, baropet, tse Queen's Remembrancer, and he is a grand

5. Your directors have the pleasure to report that they have received towards son of the late Lord Chief Baron Sir Frederick Pollock. He was born in the funds of the association donations of £10 10s. from the Honourable Society 1845, and was educated at Eton. He was formerly fellow of Trinity College, of Staple-inn ; and £5 53. from C, R. Rivington, Esq. They have also much Cambridge, where he graduated as second classic in 1867. He was called to pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of a legacy of £500 from the executors the bar at Lincoln's-inu in Easter Term, 1871. of Charles Richard Craddock, Esq., formerly of Gray's-inn-square.

Mr. Thomas Pitt TASWELL LANGMEAD, barrister, bas been appointed Pro6. The several investments now belonging to the association amount to

fessor of Constirutional Law and History at University College, London, £35,883 144, 11d.; on deposit at the London and Westminster Bank, £500. The dividends received last year amounted to £1,221 59. 7d.

Mr. Langmead is a B.C.L. of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford. He was called to the

bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1863. He was for several years tutor in 7. There are now 373 members of the association ; 140 are life members and 239 are annual subscribers, the amount received from whom for the past

constitutional law at the Inps of Court, year has been £471 9s., which sum, added to the dividends received from Mr. William Neilson HANCOCK, LL.D., Q.C., of the Irish bar, has the above investments, makes the income for the year $1,692 14s. 70.

been appointed Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper in Ireland. 8. Your directors report with regret the deaths of five members during Mr. JOAN MARSDEN, solicitor, of Wakefield, has been appointed a Magis. the past year, viz :-Mr. John Murray, Mr. Frederic Ouvry, Mr. Henry trate for the West Riding of Yorkshire. Mr. Marsden was admitted a soliChild, Mr. James Heather, and Mr. Charles Ford. During the same period citor in 1830. eight new members have joined the association, three of whom are life Mr. HENRY White, solicitor, of Winchester, has been elected Coroner for members, and five are annual subscribers.

the Winchester Division of Hampshire, Mr. Wbite is coroner for the city of 9. The names of above 4,000 solicitors appear in the Law List for 1882

Winchester. He was admitted a solicitor in 1873, and is in partnership with as practising within the metropolitan district (where the operations of the

Mr. Walter Bailey, town clerk of Winchester. society are carried on), but there are only 379 members of the association. | Your directors feel that it only needs a little personal effort on the part of

Mr. FRANCIS Law LATHAM, barrister, has been appointed to officiate as a individual members in explaining the objects of the association, and in

Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Mr. Latham was formerly inviting professional friends and neighbours to become subscribers, to obtain

scholar of Bragenose College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in a large addition to the list of members, and thus enable the directors to

classica in 1860. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity entertain more of the numerous applications made to them for assistance.

Term, 1864. 10. By the regulations of the association, the president, vice-president, Mr. Jones QUAIN Pigot, barrister, has been appointed to officiate as treasurers, directors, and auditors for the ensuing year are to be elected at the Advocate-General at Bombay. Mr. Pigot is a graduate of Trinity College, present meeting.

Dublin. He was called to the bar at the Inger Temple in Michaelmas Term, 11. Your directors, and many members of the association, are of opinion 864. that the time has now arrived when it would be better, in every respect, that the offices of president and vice-president should be filled by members of their own branch of the profession. Accordingly, the board of directors have udani.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. mously passed the following resolutions and bye-law-subject to the approval JOHN HERBERT SLATER and ERNEST WATTS (Kearsley, Slater, & Watts), and confirmation of this court :-(a.) “That Laurence Desborough, Esq., be solicitors, Manchester. May 13. The said Eroest Watts will in future conrecommended at the next annual general court to fill up the vacanoy in the tinue to practise under the style or firm of Kearsley, Slater, & Watts, as aforeoffice of president of the association caused by the death of Lord Hatherley." | said.

[Gazette, May 19.] (6.) “That Edward Tylee, Esq., be recommended at the next annual general court as vice-president."

CHARLES JAMES DAINTREY, 75, Park-street, Grosvenor-square, and (c.) • And that John Boodle, Esq., and Harry Smith Styan, Esq., be recommended as treasurers of the association.”

FREDERICK HICKSON, Petworth, solicitors. May l. Proposed bye-law :-(d.) “Tbat the president and vice-president for the I WILLIAM Evans, JAMES RICHARDSON HOLLIDAY, ARTHUR GODLEE, and time being of the association be directors ex-officio." The names of the above | JOSHUA ALFRED VARDY (Wragge, Evans, Holliday, & Co.), solicitors, Birgeotlemen are so well known to every member of the association that the wingham, May 11. So far as relates to the said Joshua Alfred Vardy. directors confidently recommend them to be elected to fill the above offices. SAMUEL HADFIELD and WALTER WILLIAMS (Hadfield & Williams), soli.

citors, Manchester, Altrincham, and Bowdon. December 31, 1881. The said practice will be carried on by the said Walter Williams on his own account

under the said style or firm of Hadfield & Williams. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

GEORGE LEADBETER WINGATE and ERNEST AUGUSTUS JACKSON (Wingate & Jackson), solicitors, Angel.court, Throgmorton-street. May 12. The

business will in future be carried on by George Leadbeter Wingate solely, at UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

the offices aforesaid.

[Gazette, May 23.] At a meeting of this society, held at Clement's-inn Hall on Wednesday, May 17, Mr. F. O. Edlin in the chair, Mr. A. Lloyd moved, “ That the aesthetic movement in art and literature has improved the national taste." The opener was supported by Messrs. Kaing-Jackson and Standen, and opposed by Messrs. Williams, Spence, Broun, and Swepstone. Mr. Lloyd then replied, and the

COMPANIES. chairman put the motion to the meeting, whicb, upon a division, was lost by one vote.


Joint Stock COMPANIES.

Tuesday, May 23.-The society discussed the question, “That the House of ANILINE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 17, directed to
Lords should be reformed by abolisbing the present system of hereditary

be heard before Chitty, J., on June 10, Foss and Legg, Abchurch lane, solicitors for peerages," which Mr. T. B. Napier opened in the affirmative. Messrs. P. T,


AVONDALE PAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 17, Rhys, Sargent, and H. Mossop supported the opener, and Messrs. Hutton, C. directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on June 10. White and sons, Bedford row, E, Barry, G. B. Ellis, Strickland, and Bower spoke in favour of the negative. solicitors for the petitioners After the opener bad replied, a division took place, wbich resulted in the sup.

NINE REEFS GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented

May 18, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on June 10. Greenfield and Abbott, porters of the negative side having a majority of two votes.

Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

« PreviousContinue »