« PreviousContinue »
inconsistent alternative defences of fact, and that the defence was em it was not enrolled, it did not take effect in possession, and there was a barrassing, but he gave the defendant leave to amend.
reservation in favour of the grantor. It was not saved by the provisions THE COURT OF APPEAL (LINDLEY and Bowen, L.JJ.) reversed the de- of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 73, which only cured the want of enrolment. The cision. LINDLEY, L.J., said that North, J., had construed rule 4 too Poor Law Act, 1722, s. 4, did not affect the Mortmain Act, except that it strictly, and as meaning that a defendant could never plead inconsistent avoided the necessity of guardians of the poor obtaining a licence to hold alternative defences. The rule only meant that the defendant must state land in mortmain. The grant to them must be in the form prescribed by clearly the facts on which he intended to rely. He might intend to rely the Mortmain Act. The lease was, therefore, void, ab initio, and the on different sets of facts as leading to different conclusions. An executor action must be dismissed, with costs.-Counsel, Sir H. Davey, Q.C.; would very probably not know any of the facts, but he could not safely Elton, Q.C., and Jemmett; Rigby, Q.C., Renshaw, Q.O., and F. Thompson. simply put the plaintiff to proof of his case, for he might then be pre- Solicitors, Hasties & Crawford, R. C. Adams Beck. vented from relying on some defence at the trial because he had not pleaded it. An executor could hardly plead in any other way than this BIRMINGHAM AND DISTRICT LAND CO. v. LONDON AND defendant had done-viz., by raising all the defences which were likely to
NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY CO.—Chi"), J., 14th May. arise, and then at the trial he would rely on the defence which he could prove. Nothing was more common in an action of debt in the Queen's
R. S. C., 1883, XVI., 48, 50-PRACTICE-THIRD Party Notice. Bench Division than for a defendant to plead “never indebted," "payment,” and “set off." Bowen, L.J., concurred. The order of North, J., In this case an application was made by the defendants under R. S. C., was discharged, and it was ordered that the defendant should, within 1883, XVI., 48, for leave to issue a third party notice. A similar applicafourteen days after discovery of documents by the plaintiffs, either amend tion had already been refused on the ground that the party sought to be his defence, or give particulars of those defences which the plaintiffs joined was not a party against whom any right of indemnity was made asked to have struck out. The costs of this application in both courts to out. Chitty, J.'s refusal was affirmed by the Appeal Court (35 W. R. 173, be costs in the action.—Counsel, Aspland, Q C., and Upjohn ; Cozens 34 Ch. D. 261). The defendants now alleged the execution, on the 1st of Hardy, Q.C., and B. Byre. SOLICITORS, Morgan, Son, & Upjohn ; Croncy, March, 1887, of a conveyance which altered the circumstances, and, Spencer, $ Edwards.
accordingly, again applied for an order.
CHITTY, J., said that it was not necessary to decide whether the con. Re HOBSON AND HOWES-C. A. No. 2, 13th May.
veyance gave the right of indemnity alleged. The application was, in
his judgment, made too late, and therefore failed. Such applications MORTGAGEE-Power of SALE EQUITABLE MORTGAGE CONVEYANCE OF should, as a general rule, be made before the time limited for delivery of LEGAL ESTATE-CONVEYANCING Act, 1881, 8. 21.
defence, and at the latest before the close of the pleadings.- Counsel,
Romer, Q.C., and Woodroffe; Ince, Q.C., and 0. L. Clare. SOLICITORS, This was an appeal from the decision of North, J. (ante, p. 254) the ques. Robinson, Preston, $ Stow; C. N. Mason, tion being whether an equitable mortgagee by deed of freehold land, selling the mortgaged property under the power conferred by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, can convey the legal estate to the purchaser. Re H. T. RICHARDSON (DECEASED), SHULDHAM v. THE ROYAL Section 19 of the Act gives to & mortgagee, when the mortgage
NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION-Chitty, J., 17th May. is made by deed, a power, when the mortgage-money has become due, to
CHARITY-CONDITIONAL BEQUEST-ABSOLUTE TRANSFER. sell the mortgaged property, the power being given to the like extent as if it had been in terms conferred by the mortgage deed, but not In this case the question arose as to whether the Royal National further." Section imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of the Lifeboat Institution was absolutely entitled to a transfer of a legacy of power, and section 21 provides that “a mortgagee exercising the power of £10,000, bequeathed to it on condition of constructing and maintaining salo conferred by this Act shall have power by deed to convey the prop two lifeboats according to directions contained in the testator's will, and erty sold, for such estate and interest therein as is the subject of the mort.. coupled with a gift over on non-compliance. Attorney-General v. Christ's gage, freed from all estates, &c., to which the mortgage has priority, but sub. Hospital (1 Russ. & M. 626) and Re Conington's Will (8 W. R. 444) were ject to all estates, &c., which have priority to the mortgage, except that, referred to, and it was admitted, on behalf of the institution, that as it in the case of copyhold or customary land, the legal right to admittance accepted the gift it had also accepted an obligation in the nature of a sball not pass by a deed under this section, unless the deed is sufficient trust. otherwise by law, or is sufficient by custom, in that behalf." The cor CHITTY, J., said that there were cases in which such conditions had responding section (section 15) of Lord Cranworth's Act (23 & 24 Vict. c. been held to be trusts. He was of opinion that that was so in the present 145) empowered the person exercising the sale, by deed "to convey or case. He made an order as asked.--COUNSEL, Romer, Q.C., and L. Field ; assign to and vest in the purchaser the property sold, for all the estate Vaughan Hawkins. SOLICITORS, Peacock f. Goddard, for Capron & Sparkes, and interest therein which the person who created the charge had power Guildford; Clayton, Sons, 4 Farg‘s. to dispose of, except that in the case of copyhold hereditaments the beneficial interests only shall be conveyed to and vested in the purchaser by such deed.”' North, J., held that the mortgagee could only convey
Re J. H. BIEGEL'S TRADE-MARK-Chitty, J., 6th May. the estate which he himself had.
TRADE-Mark-RectifiCATION or Register—SIMILARITY OF MARKThe Court of APPEAL (COTTON, LINDLEY, and Bowen, L.JJ.) affirmed
COLOUR-PATENTS, &c., Acr, 1883, s. 67. the decision. Cotton, L.J., said that section 21 gave the mortgagee power to convey that which was sold, and section 19 gave no power to sell
This was a motion by Messis. Younger & Co., brewers, of Edinburgh, the legal estate when the mortgagee had only an equitable estate. The
to strike out from the register of trade-marks a mark registered by J. H. language of section 21 differed from that of section 15 of the Act of 1860, Marke so closely resembled the applicants' mark as to be calculated to
Biegel, of Amsterdam, a shipper of Pilsen beer, on the ground that such and the difference was no doubt intentional. LINDLEY and Bowen, L.JJ., concurred.-COUNSEL, J. B. Purter; Ingpen. SOLICITORS, 0. G. Harman,
deceive. The applicants had used their mark for ale and stout for twenty R. Parker,
years, and registered it in March, 1886, in class 43 for fermented liquors.
The respondent had also registered in class 43 in September, 1886, for Re BUCKNALL'S GOLD ESTATE (LIM.)-Kay, J., 14th May.
bottled beer, the mark complained of. Both marks consisted of fanciul PRACTICE-COMPANY-RectifiCATION OF Register--MOTION.
arrangements of triangles, but such arrangements differed, the applicants'
triangles bemg two placed on a third, and the respondent's being three This was a motion by a shareholder that his name might be removed triangles interlaced, and in the centre of the applicants' mark was a blank from the list of shareholders of the company.
space, but the space in the centre of the respondent's mark contained & Kay, J., said that the application must go into the general list and be stag's head. It was submitted by the respondent that there was nomet heard as an action, and that the same course must be followed in future with respect to similar applications.-Counsel, Butcher.
time for interference by the court was when a case of imitation was made Harper & Battcock.
Solicitors, out against the respondent of colouring, &c., his mark so as to resemble
the applicants' mark. The applicants, however, relied on Re Worthington's WEBSTER v. SOUTHEY-Kay, J., 3rd, 4th, and 16th May.
Trade-Mark (28 W. R. 749, 14 Ch. D. 8).
CHITTY, J., said that, in respect of the triangular arrangements, he MORTMAIN-LEASE-WORKHOUSE-CHARITABLE Use-CHURCHWARDENS AND
held that there was such a resemblance as was calculated to deceive when Overseers of the Poor-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-9 Geo. 1, c. 7, 8. 4
the nature of the marks was considered and the way they were used, by -9 Geo. 2, c 36, s. 1–7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 73.
being affixed to bottles, and especially because neither the applicants' By a deed of the 10th of March, 1747, Sir T. Webster granted a lease of particular colours.
nor the respondent's mark was registered so as to be confined to any one acre of land for 150 years from the 25th of March then next, at a
Under the provisions of the Patents, &c., Act of 1883, rent of one shilling a year, if demanded, to several persons, including the
the respondent was not bound to use his mark in any particular colour, Vicar of East Griustead, as a site for a workhouse for that parish. The
but he could retain the outline of his mark, and could colour it in any way
he thought fit, provided that he did not entirely obliterate it. wanted, on his paying for the building. This deed was not enrolled under northington's Trade-Mark, the resemblance between the two casesciple 1776, and in 1862 the lessees sold the site and conveyed it, in fee simple, to enunciated in the case cited, that when the use the mark might he putter the defendants. The plaintiff, who was admitted to be the successor in by beinge coloured, was considered, it would be calculated to deceive in the ing one year's rent-viz., a shilling. The question was whether the sense the register by expunging therefrom so much of the respondent’s mand is was valid, so as to avoid the operation of the Statute of Licitations. consisted of a triangular arrangement.--Counsel, Romer, Q.C., and charitable uses, and it failed to comply with the Mortmain Act in that later & Co.
provision ment. The
Re JACOB'S SETTLEMENT TRUSTS—North, J., 14th May.
August, 1885, the defendant obtained from the justices a renewal of the
licence. A petition was presented by some of the neighbours complaining Trustee Act, 1850, s. 25-Death OF SURVIVING TRUSTEE WITHOUT Personal of the breach, and on the 23rd of August, 1885, proceedings were ordered REPRESENTATIVE---APPOINTMENT OF SOLE BENEFICIARY AS TRUSTEE.
to be taken to restrain the defendant. This was a petition under the Trustee Act. A sum of stock stood in this, whether there had been acquiescence on the plaintiff's part such as
KEKEWICH, J., said there was in this case no question of fact except the names of the two trustees of a settlement. Both the trustees were dead, and there was no personal representative of the survivor. The
would prevent him from claiming an injunction. It was common ground that petitioner had, under the trusts of the settlement, become absolutely defendant took the property with actual notice of the covenant. The
there was a restrictive covenant which had been broken, and that the beneficially entitled to the fund. Section 25 of the Trustee Act, 1850, principles guiding the court in cases where acquiescence is set up were laid provides that “when any stock shall be standing in the sole name of a deceased person, and his or her personal representative shall be out of the
down in the old authority of the Duke of Leeds v. Amherst (2 Ph. 123). jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, or cannot be found,
“Acquiescence is not the term which ought to be used. If a party, having
it shall be lawful for he Court of Chancery to make an order vesting the
a right, stands by and sees another dealing with the property in a manner right to transfer such .tock, or to receive the dividends or income there
inconsistent with that right, and makes no objection while the act is in of, in any person or persons whom the said court may appoint,"
progress, he cannot afterwards complain. That is the proper sense of the IVORTH, J., following Re Dixon's Trusts (21 W. R. 220), held that he
word acquiescence. The defence, therefore, which is really intended to could pot, under that section, vest the right to transfer the stock in
be set up is not acquiescence, but release or abandonment of the party's
anyone but a trustee of the settlement.
right This was indorsed in the cases of Hogg v. Scott (18 Eq. 444), and He accordingly appointed the
De Bussche v. Alt (8 Ch. D.286). The Vice-Chancellor in the former case petitioner to be sole trustee, and vested the right to transfer in him.
said: “The omission to take any proceedings at law or in equity for a COUNSEL, J. F. Waggett. SOLICITORS, Guscotte, Wadham, f Day.
time does not in itself appear to me an encouragement to the defendant SMYTH v. ADAMS—North, J., 14th May.
amounting to an equitable bar in this court.”. There was also a passage to
the same effect in the second of the above cited cases. Sayers v. Collyer (28 R. S. C., 1883, XXVII., 11-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN Default OF Ch. D. 103) was clearly distinguishable. The defendant knew of the first
PLEADING-DELIVERY OF DEFENCE AFTER Service or NOTICE OF Motion. breach of the covenant and had herself endeavoured to prevent it, but
In this case, the defendant not having delivered a statement of defence then bought up the property without again communicating in any way within the time limited for the purpose, the plaintiff set down the action
with the Duke. The delay from August, 1884, to October, 1885, when upon motion for judgment. After this had been done, but before the
notice had been given complaining of the defendant's acts, was not such motion came on for hearing, the defendant delivered a defence and Duke "had never, according to the requirements of Lord Cottenham's
as to prevent the plaintiff from now insisting on an injunction, since the counter-claim, and on the hearing of the motion (as a short cause) the definition, stood by so as to assent to what was done.--Counsel, Barber, defendant appeared by counsel.
SOLICITORS, Bell, authority of Gill . Woodfin (32 W. R. 393, 25 Ch. D. 707) that, though Q.C., and Fate Lee; Seward Brice and 4. 4. Baker. the statement of defence had been delivered after the proper time, it Stewards, & May; T. Cray for Dix & Warlow, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. could not be treated as a nullity, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment for default of pleading, but he asked that the notice of motion might be amended, and that judgment might be given for the plaintiff on
BANKRUPTCY CASES. admissions in the defence.
Ex parte THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, Re GOULD-C. A. No. 1, NORTH, J., having looked at the defence, said that he could not treat it as
6th May. sufficient admission of the plaintiff's case, especially as there was a counter-claim. The plaintiff must proceed'in the ordinary way, but the BANKRUPTCY-ADMINISTRATION OF Estate or Deceased Insolvent-Jurisdefendant must pay ihe costs of the motion in any event.--Counsel,
DICTION TO Avoid VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT – BANKRUPTCY Act, 1883, Maroy; F. W. Heather. SOLICITORS, Blyth; W. & W. Rees Davies g. Co.
ss. 47, 125.
This was an appeal from a decision of Cave, J. (35 W. R. 458), the THE SHORTHORN DAIRY CO. (LIM.) v. HALL-Stirling, J.,
question being whether section 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which 15th and 16th May.
makes void under certain circumstances, as againt the trustee in a bank. RESTRAINT OF TRADE--CONSTRUCTION
ruptcy, voluntary settlements executed by the bankrupt, applies in the OF COVENANT-“CARRYING
administration of the estate of a deceased insolvent under section 125 of BUSINESS "-COMPANY IN LIQUIDATION.
the Act. A debtor died insolvent, and an action to administer his estate was By, a purchase agreement, dated the 17th of February, 1881, under commenced in the Chancery Division. On the application of a creditor, which the plaintiff company purchased their business from the defendant, an order was made transferring the proceedings to the Court of Bankthe defendant covenanted that he would not, so long as the company ruptcy, and that court made an order for the administration of the estete. should, carry on within 100 miles of London the business of a dairy The official receiver applied to the court for an order declaring void as farmer or assist as principal or servant in any such business. The defend agaivst him a post-nuptial settlement which the debtor had executed. ant, who was formerly the managing director of the defendant company, Cave, J., dismissed the application, on the ground that section 47 did not had lately become chairman of a rival company-namely, the Home apply to an administration under section 125. Counties Dairy Supply Association (Lim.). T'he plaintiff company had
THE COURT OF APPEAL (Lord Esher, M.R., and Fry and Lopes, L.JJ.), recently been ordered to be wound up under the direction of the court, and affirmed the decision. Lord ESHER, M.R., said that he agreed with every a liquidator had been appointed. The plaintiff company now moved to reason given by Cave, J., for his conclusion. What was the estate with restrain the defendant from holding the office of chairman, director, or
which section 125 was dealing? Was it merely the estate of the deceased any other office in or under the Home Counties Dairy Supply Association debtor, or did it include also property of other persons? In a bankruptcy (Lim.). The motion was resisted by the defendant upon the ground that which passed to the trustee was the property of the bankrupt. (among others) that, under the circumstances, the company had ceased to The law of bankruptcy, under certain circumstances, dealt with the carry on its business, and consequently that the covenan: was not now property of other persons as well as that of the bankrupt, but the power operative.
to do so was conferred in plain terms. It had been pointed out to the STIRLING, J, said that the question was one of fact whether Legislature by the decisions upon section 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, the company were now carrying on their business. The business was being that, if at any time they intended in such statutes as these that the estates carried on by an officer of the court with a view to its sale as a going con of other persons should be dealt with, besides the estate which was the cern. That was not a carrying on of the business by the company. main subject of the legislation, they should say so in plain terms, other, There had, therefore, been no breach of the covenant, and the motion
wise the legal effect would be that their legislation would not extend must be refused. - Counsel, Hastings, Q.C., and Daniel Jones ; Buckley, beyond the estate which was being administered. In the bankruptcy part Q.C., and Dunhom. Solicitors, Allen & Edwards ; Crowdy, Son, $ Tarry.
of this Act the Legislature, when they wished to deal with the property of
third persons, had said so distinctly ; but when they came to deal with TAE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND v. BOWMAN-Kekewich, J., the estates of deceased debtors they deliberately left out the words 6th May.
necessary for that purpose, and in every clause of section 125 confined the COVENANT-BEBRHOUSE-ACQUIESCENCE.
subject-matter carefuily to the estate of the deceased debtor. Under sub
section 6 of section 125, the provisions of Part III. of the Act, relating to This was an action to restrain the breach of a covenant that the houses the administration of the property of a bankrupt, were to apply to an aderected on a certain piece of land "should not be used or occupied, either ministration order under section 125, “So far as the same are applicable." in whole or in part, as public-houses or beershops, nor as shops for the
Section 47 would apply, not to the property of the deceased debtor, but to dale, whether by wholesale or retail, of wine, ale," or spirituous liquors, the property of the trustees of the settlement–i.c., to the property of third
persons. Therefore the provisions of section 47 were not applicable. Fer The breach was not denied ; the sole question being whether there had and Lopes, L JJ., concurred.
The counsel for the official receiver asked for leave to appeal to the
CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.
Re T. C. & J. F. KELLOCK (SOLICITORS)-Stirling, J., 17th May. informing the duke's agent about her intention, purchased the house and
SOLICITORTAXATION-WITHDRAWAL OP BILL of Costs REFUSED. the off licence, and took a conveyance which disclosed the covenant. In This was a petition, on behalf of the trustees for sale of the Bulford
Estate, praying a reference to the taxing master to tax a bill of costs. not being barristers, practising in the courts of law and equity of the The Bulford Estate was subject to a mortgage for £18,500 and interest. United Kingdom (commonly known as “The Incorporated Law Society”), Messrs. Pickett & Mytton, the solicitors to the trustees for sale of the except eight of such members who were defendants, for an interim in. Bulford Estate, inquired of Messrs. Kellock, the solicitors of the mort- junction to restrain the defendants (being the society and such eight memgagees, whether, upon a contemplated sale, their clients would allow the bers who were eight out of the thirty-nine members of the council) from above sum to remain, ard allow the purchasers to inspect the title-deeds confirming a resolution passed at a meeting of the society on the 28th of of the estate. Messrs. Kellock, after communicating with their clients, January, 1887, or, in the alternative, from permitting the Law Society assented to the money remaining, and offered facilities for the inspection Club, or the committee thereof, to elect as a member, honorary or other. required. The Bulford Estate was subsequently sold, as proposed, and the wise, of the club any person not being a member of the society. The title-deeds duly inspected, and Messrs. Řellock, before and after the sale, material facts were as follows:-By the charter of the Incorporated Law rendered other services for which they were entitled to be paid. Messrs. Society in 1845, the capital, possessions, and income of the society appliPickett & Mytton undertook to pay these charges. The evidence was that, cable for its general purposes, were directed to be applied in “promoting when the purchase was about to be completed, the purchasers required professional improvement and facilitating the acquisition of legal knowthat the law charges due to the mortgagees should be paid by the vendors, ledge," and the society was (among other things) empowered to make the trustees for sale; whereupon, on the 17th of March, 1887, Messrs. bye-laws, fixing the conditions and the manner upon and in which persons Pickett & Mytton sent Messrs. Kellock this telegram:-"Please send us being eligible for membership, but not residing in England, should any costs you have against us in Bulford's Estate." Correspondence be admitted to the
of the society and to alter such ensued to the following effect:
bye-laws. And the council might, by their bye-laws, appropriate “Kellocks to Pickett & Mytton.-17th March, 1887.-Letter. such part of the society's buildings as they should think fit as club“Having received your telegram this evening we presume you wish to rooms, subject to such regulations as the council slould approve. have our costs at once. They are not draited yet, so we write to know if During the whole time of the society's existence there had been a club in you require details, or whether you will be satisfied with a general state connection with it, which had occupied part of its premises. Down to 1884 ment and lump sum. If the latter is acceptable we are prepared to pame this club consisted exclusively of members of the defendant society. In a figure. Having regard to the amount of mortgage, the work done, and 1884 the club was dissolved, and a new one, which is the present Law our client's accession to your proposal to allow the money to remain on Society Club, was formed. Resolutions were passed at that time by the the security to facilitate a sale of the estate, we consider that we are defendant society that the council should take possession of the premises entitled to at least 100 guineas. Let us have your views by return." to be vacated by the old club, and permit them to be used by the members “Pickett & Mytton to Kellocks.- Telegram.
of the new club; and regulations were made providing that the new “ Acting for trustees we must have details. Please send same as soon club should be confined to members of the society, and that no alteraas possible.”
tion should be made in such last mentioned rule except in pursuance Kellocks to Pickett & Mytton.-22nd March, 1887.
of a resolution passed by and confirmed at the general meeting of “ We now send you our costs, which, considering the importance of the society. Since then the club had consisted entirely of members the matter, there ought not to be any demur about paying.* If further of the society, and they had been permitted to use certain rooms on details are required we must furnish them, but as you are aware of all that the society's premises. On January 28 last a resolution was passed has passed, we do not expect you will have occasion to ask for them.” that “the committee” of the Law Society's Club “shall have power, “Pickett Mytton to Kellocks.—March 23rd, 1887.
subject to the approbation of a majority of the members voting at a "We have received your letter and the bill of custs which accompanies general meeting specially called for the purpose, to elect as honorary it. We feel that (our views] as to what you are entitled to charge vary members any person not being a member of the Incorporated Law so hopelessly from yours, that discussion upon the subject would be fruit- Society, bnt that the number of such honorary members shall not at any less.,, We will, therefore, carry your costs in for taxation in the usual time exceed twenty." This was the resolution against which the present way."
motion was directed. By the writ in the action the plaintiff claimed a “Kellocks to Pickett & Mytton.—24th March, 1887.
declaration that the proposed permission to the club to elect members “ If it is your intention to carry our costs in for taxation without any who were not members of the society was ultrà vires. attempt on your part to settle the amount, we must, of course, instruct STIRLING, J., said that the plaintiff did not by his notice of motion seek some solicitor in London to attend on our behalf to produce the papers, to prevent the Law Society Olub from using the rooms of the society in and explain the nature of the case. We must admit we did not anticipate pursuance of the resolution in that behalf, which, inasmuch as it would the course you bave indicated."
have been equivalent to an order for ejectment, the court would not Morse, Hewitt, & Farman (on behalf of Kellocks) to Pickett & Mytton. have done on an interlocutory application, but the relief which he asked —29th March, 1887.
was confined to the resolution of January 28. Interference by the court “We are instructed by Messrs. Kellock herein. On their behalf we with the enjoyment of the rooms by the club being out of the question, must intimate that, unless your firm is personally liable to pay the costs could it be said that the admission of a certain number of additional (upon which point we are not instructed), we contend that no bill has members as proposed was such an infringement of the constitution of been delivered to the persons liable to pay, and give you notice that a the society as to call for the interference of the court ? His lordship proper bill shall be prepared and sent in. Our clients think you are not though tit was not. If the existing members of the club were "promoting dealing fairly with them in the matter, and, considering the large amount professional improvement and facilitating the acquisition of legal known of work done by them, their charges are, in our view, very reasonable. ledge,” which it must be assumed that they were doing, his lordship We understand, further, you decline to specify your objections to any did not see why a few additional members could not contribute to the part of the rough bill, which was completed in a great hurry in order to
Nor was it possible to say that they could not do so help you as much as possible, and in compliance with your telegram of because the new members were not members of, or eligible for memberthe 17th and 18th inst. The bill of costs above mentioned was headed ship of, the Law Bociety, for it was not suggested that legal knowledge
The Trustees of Mr. and Mrs. H. H. Lee's Settlement,” [the mortgagees ) was confined to persons who satisfied that condition. The motion was Account of costs and expenses of Messrs. Kellock in connection refused.—COUNSEL, Gazdar; Hastings, Q.C., and Joyce.
SOLICITORS, with the mortgage for £18,500 upon, and the sale of, the Bulford Estate.” Coldicott of Son; E. W. Williamson. It was objected, on the part of the respordents, Messrs. Kellock :-(1) that the delivery to the solicitors of the mortgagors, instead of to the mortgagors themselves, was improper, and that, therefore, the bill could
Re W. M. PYBUS (A SOLICITOR)-Chitty, J., 16th May. be withdrawn; (2) that no bill had been delivered to the mortgagees, and Solicitor and Client-Costs—The SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION ACT, 1881, that the petitioners, who were only third parties, could only tax a bill
GENERAL Order, Sched. I., Part I.-PROCURATION Fes- TAXATION or copy of a bill so delivered; (3) that the alleged bill of costs was not
AFTER Twelve MONTHS UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES-ATTORNEYS AND intended as a bill of costs; (4) that the application should have been by
SOLICITORS Act, 1843, s. 37. summons and not by petition. Stirling, J., helá (1) that Messrs. Pickett & Mytton were acting, under employed by his client to raise certain moneys for him upon mortgages
On the 9th of July, 1885, Mr. W. M. Pybus, a solicitor, who had been costs to be sent, and a bill delivered to them could not be withdrawn ; also an account shewing how such balance was arrived at, and also his (2) that this objection failed—first, because Messrs. Pickett & Mytton had bill of costs, the amount of which he had deducted. The client conti become persous liable to pay the bill under their undertaking, and, plained of the amount of the bill, and some correspondence ensued, whitis (3) that the bill delivered was a bill of costs, and as to further details they client a cheque for that amount, which the client, however, refused to 1883, LV. 2 (15), the special application, which was here necessary, ought client instructed Mr. Pybus to have the bill taxed, but be took no steps to have been by summons and not by petition ; but, acting under ord. 90, for doing so, though still acting as his solicitor in other matters. On the adjourned into court. - Consseley Harris Lea; Saranam ti astings, d.o., and taxed, who in the 21st cofenjuly, 1886, issued a summons for ta xating Eustace Smith. Solicitors, Pickett & Mytton ; Morse, Hewitt, $ Farman. The main objections to the bill were that the solicitor, though acting FORD v. THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY_Stirling, J., 13th to the scale alloween Or he mortgage c's solicitor, though he had bingeli May.
paid such fees to the mortgagee's solicitors, and tłat he had charged such LAW SOCIETY CLUB-MOTION TO FROM ALLOWING Persons, not Members of the Society, To Become mortgage, although no abstract was in fact delivered.
Restrain INCORPORATED Law Society ile sociale dh agar ses made riber dedecing title, perusing and completing the members of the society bilatöfmeyra, behicitors, hippocelfio, manalo there whether in the sociale establishe hits the treated, and he also thought that
This was a motion by the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others charging cadere tarde, the hicih into face asta not exist, was covere
the fact that the solicitor had not taken steps to have the bill taxed when
It is stated that the Archbishop of York has submitted to Mr. Arthur COUNSEL, R. F. Norton ; F. H. Colt. Solicitors, Pattison, Wigg, f Co.; Nash,
Charles, Q.C., a case on the pew question at St. Mary's Church, Beverley,
and that Mr. Charles has furnished a written opinion, in which he says: Pield, f Withers.
“The churchwardens have no legal right to maintain that they are parish officers only. There is abundant authority that they are the officers of the ordinary, authority from a very early period until the present time,
especially with regard to the ordering of seats in church.” On the second LEGAL NEWS.
point Mr. Charles says :-“In the event of a different direction being OBITUARY.
given by the vestry and the ordinary as to the arrangement of seats, I
think the churchwardens must obey the direction of the ordinary. If Sir WILLIAM YOUNG, late Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, died about a they were to disobey it they would be guilty of an ecclesiastical offence. week ago at the age of eighty-eight. Sir W. Young was the son of Mr. It is to be noticed that there seems to be no direct authority that the John Young, of Falkirk, and was born in 1799. He was educated at the bishop, acting himself and not through the medium of his court, has the University of Glasgow. He was called to the bar in Nova Scotia in 1826, power to issue general orders to the churchwardens; but it appears to and he became a Queen's Counsel for that colony in 1843. He was for follow from the various cases above referred to that he may do so." Mr. many years a member of the Nova Scotian Parliament, of which body he Charles adds on a third point:-"Churchwardens ought all to act to. was Speaker from 1843 till 1854. He was Attorney-General of Nova gether, but I think the majority can act in opposition to the minority in Scotia from 1854 till 1859, and he became Chief Justice in 1860, and judge doing an act in itself lawful." of the Court of Admiralty in 1864. He received the honour of knighthood At the Liverpool Assizes on the 13th inst. a case of Snow v. Etty came in 1869, and he retired from the bench in 1881. Sir W. Young was before the court. Mr. French, for the plaintiff, said the action was married to the daughter of Mr. Michael Tobin, of Halifax.
brought by Mr. Thomas Snow, a chancery barrister, of Liverpool, for Mr. John ARTHUR DEANE, solicitor, Town Clerk of Batley, died at Jibel, against Mr. Thomas Etty, a solicitor practising in the same town. Bournemouth on the 8th inst., after a somewhat long illness. Mr. Deane
The libel was contained in the statement that Ir. Snow or his clerk had was admitted a solicitor in 1871, having served his articl es with his father, altered a brief after the hearing of a case before the Vice-Chancellor. whom he succeeded as Town Clerk of Batley. He was also clerk
Mr. Snow was bound to meet the charge as a man of honour and a to the borough magistrates, and after the passing of the Bankruptcy Act, barrister, and though unwilling, as a professional man, to go into court in 1883, he was appointed official receiver in bankruptcy for the Dewsbury
a case of this kind, he had no alternative but to bring the action. He District. Mr. Deane was a perpetual conimissioner for the West Riding (Mr. French) was glad to say that, upon referring to the registrar of the of Yorkshire. He was, at the time of his death, associated in partnership
Court of Chancery, and upon his producing the official bill of costs, with his younger brother, Mr. Edgar Ernest Deane.
Mr. Etty found he was absolutely mistaken in the charge he
made, and he now unreservedly withdrew it, expressing regret for Sir John Peter De Gex, Q.C., died suddenly at his residence, 20, Hyde- having made it under a misapprehension. Mr. Addison was prepared to park-square, on the 14th inst., at the age of seventy-eight. Sir J. De
go further and say that Mr. Etty never intended at any time to make any Gex was the eldest son of Mr. John De Gex, and was born in 1809. He imputation against Mr. Snow, and upon that Mr. Snow would not, was formerly fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, where he graduated as under the circumstances, have taken money from Mr. Etty in such a a wrangler in 1831. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Hilary
case, He was content to take judgment for the plaintiff with costs. Term, 1835, and he practised for many years in the Court of Chancery / Mr. Addison said Mr. Etty would desire not merely to apologize if what and in the urt of Bankruptcy. He vill be remembered as one of the
he said had been misconceived, but to say that he never intended to cast old school of authorized reporters, his name extending through a long the smallest reflection on the personal conduct of Mr. Snow, or to sug. series of equity reports. In 1865 he received a silk gown from Lord gest anything more than an excess of zeal on the part of Mr. Snow's Westbury, and after his promotion he appeared chiefly in bankruptcy clerk. Mr. Justice Wills said the imputation was a most serious one. appeals, but he relinquished his practice a few years ago.
He was a
What was suggested was that Mr. Snow had received a brief marked ten bencher of Lincoln's-inn, of which society he was treasurer in 1882, and guineas, and that in his chambers it was altered to fifteen guineas. Such in that capacity he received the honour of Knighthood on the opening by the Queen of the Royal Courts of Justice.
an imputation could not be allowed to pass. He was glad that the result
Sir J. De Gex was an honorary fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. He was married to the eldest
was not one of compromise, because the circumstances would not warrant daughter of Sir John Henry Briggs.
Mr. Snow accepting any result which did not carry costs. He trusted the
Snow's character had been completely set right by his action.
On the 18th inst., at Nottingham, Anthony Bush was summoned for
having falsely and wilıully pretended to be a solicitor in Nottingham on Mr. Peter De Lande Long, solicitor (of the firm of Monckton, Long, the 31st of March and the 1st of April, 1887, not being qualified to do so. & Gardiner), of 17, Lincoln's inn-fields, has been appointed Solicitor to Mr. Williams (Hunt & Williams) appearedoto prosecute on behalf of the the Foundling Hospital. Mr. Long was admitted a solicitor in 1858. Incorporated Law Society, and Mr. J. F. Ward was for the defendant, on
Mr. Arthur WILLIAM PEARCE, solicitor, of Southampton, has been whose behalf he pleaded guilty. Mr. Williams remarked that the defend. appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of ant was charged with a breach of section 12 of the Solicitors Act, the Judicature.
penalty for an offence under that section being £8. The defendant was Mr. James Henry Kemm, solicitor (of the firm of Robins, Cameron, &
an accountant, and, in connection with his work, had dealings with Kemm), of Gresham House, old Broad-street, has been appointed a
medical men in Nottingham, being employed in collecting their debts. Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.
On the 31st of March defendant wrote the following letter to a gentle
whose name he need not mention : " 43, Portland-road, Mr. FRANK HOLYOAKE, solicitor, of Droit wich and Bromsgrove, has
Nottingbam.- Dr. F. Howett v. Yourself.-Sir,-I am under the necesbeen appointed Clerk to the Stoke Prior School Board. Mr. Holyoake was sity of informing you that, unless the above account be attended admitted a solicitor in 1878.
I shall be compelled to take legal proceedings Mr. JOSIAH Sadler Empson, solicitor, of North Walsham, has been against you without further notice.-Yours respectfully, A. Bush." appointed Clerk to the Preston United District School Board. Mr. Emp. That was clearly a lawyer's letter, and was written in a straightforward son is clerk to the North Walsham Local Board, and clerk to the county way. Such letters had from time to time been held to be lawyer's letters. magistrates and the Commissioners of Taxes at that place. He was admitted a solicitor in 1869.
The practice of sending such letters had become very prevalent in
Nottingham, but defendant had promised to hand over the circulars in Mr. Edmund Talbot Palmer, solicitor, of Portsmouth, Portsea, South question to Mr. Ward for the purpose of having them destroyed. Under Sea, and Gosport, has been appointed Clerk to the 'Alverstoke Local those circumstances he asked the magistrates not to inflict the maximum Board. Mr. Palmer was admitted a solicitor in 1879.
penalty. On behalf of the defendant Mr. Ward said his client felt comDette Turner Collin, solicitor, of Saffron Walden, has been appointea pelled after some consideration to plead guilty to a technical breach of the for the Linton Division of Cambridgeshire on the resignation of his father, fraud or misrepresentation whatever, and he was sure he might safely say Saffron County Court, and clerk to the magistrates for the Walden Cambridge. He was admitted a solicitor in 1827. He is a registracelet e pretend," no offence had been committed. "Alderman Barber said that
the defendant must have known that he had no right to send out such a
Mr. Ward asked that Division and to the iinton Board of Guardians.
circular as he bad done, and he would be fined £5. Mr. Arthur Cook Coole, solicitor, of Horsham and Crawley, has been
the fine might be reduced, but Alderman Barber said that the sending out appointed Clerk to the Horsham Board of Guardians, Assessment Com
of such circulars often put people to a great deal of unnecessary expense mittee, School Attendance Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority. Mr.
and trouble, and the fine they had imposed was quite as low as they Coole was admitted a solicitor in 1872.
WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing
Mr. Jones was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in July, 1878.
or renting a house have the Sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an
He has been for expert from The Sanitary Engineering & Ventilation Co., 115, Victoria-st., Westsome time Stipendary Magistrate for the Island of Lucia.
mirster (Estab. 1875), who also undertake the Ventilation of Offices, &c.-(ADVT.)
FURNISH ON NORMAN & STACEY'S SYSTEM; No Deposit; 1. 2, or 3 years credit; 60 wholesale firms. Offices, 79, Queen Victoria-st., E.O. Branches at 121, Palí
Mall. S.W., & 9, Liverpool-st. E.C. Goods delivered free.- ADVT
STAMMERERS and STUTTERERS should read a little book by Mr. B. BEASLEY,
[Gazette, May 17]. (ADVT.)
solicitors. May 12.
BIRT, MARY, Wickham Market, Suffolk. June 21. Welton, Woodbridge, Suffolk
BIDDEN, JOHN EDWARD. Loats id, Clapham pk, Gent. June 15. Roopers & COURT PAPERS.
Whately, Lincoln's in fields
BOOTH, JOHN BAINBRIDGE, Catterick, York, Esq. June 11. Wray, Leyburn, SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
BURKE, HARRIET, Avenue rd. June 4. Guscotte & Co, Essex st
Mr. Justice BURROWS, FREDERIC THOMAS, New ct, Lincoln's inn. June 11. Russel, Cole-
CARTHEW, JAMES HENRY, Blythe lane, Hammersmith, Licensed Victuallor. Mon., May 28 Mr. Ward Mr. Clowes Mr. Carrington Mr. Jackson
June 14. Sawbridge & Son, Aldermanbury
CHICK. WILLIAM, South Petherton, Somerset, Farmer. May 31. Batten, Wednesday 25 Pemberton Clowes Carrington Jackson
CRESSWELL, WILLIAM, Southsea, Esq. June 11. Davidson & Co, Spring gdns Friday ...... 27 Koe
DUGMORE, HENRY JOHN DENNIS, King's Lynn, Esq. June 20. Meredith & Co,
EVISON, SAMUEL, Liverpool, Draper. June 24. Price, John st, Bedford row Monday, May 23 Mr. Leash
FITZGIBBON, VICTOR BEARE, Woodchurch rd, West Hampstead. June 4. Gus. Tuesday
cotte & Co, Essex st, Strand
FORDHAM, HARRIET GURNEY, Melbourn Bury, Cambridge. June 14. Ware &
Co, Gt Winchester st
FOSTER, JOSEPH, Heeley, York, Manager. May 28. Vickers & Co, Sheffield The Whitsun Vacation will commence on Saturday, the 28th day of May, and terminate on Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 1887, both days inclusive.
FREEBOUT, ANN JANE, Deptford. June 11. Lockyer Deptford
Bury St Edmunds
HART, BARNETT, Bow. July 11. Clark, Walbrook
HAWKER, JAMES WILLIAM, Poland st, Printer. June 24. Dod & Co, Berners st
HYDE, SAMUEL WILLIAM, Pall Mall, Gent. June 24. Duffield & Bruty, TokenLondon Gazette.-FRIDAY, May 13.
JOHNSON, ANN, Kensington. June 21. Kinsey & Co, Bloomsbury pl
JOHNSON, GEORGE HENRY, Kensington, Esq. June 21. Kinsey & Co, BloomsBENJAMIN EVANS & CO. LIMITED.-Stirling, J., has fixed Monday, May 23 at 12, bury pl at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator
JOHNSON, THOMAS, Adlington, Lancaster, Gent. June 18. Flegg & Son, Hill's CAMBRIAN CHEMICAL CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented May 11, place directed to be heard before Kay, J., on Saturday, May 21. Gedge & Co, Old KENWORTHY, CHARLES JAMES Fox, Ealing. May 31. A. W. Kenworthy, lronPalace yard, Westminster, solors for petners
monger lane NORTH ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., LAZENBY. WILLIAM HENRY, Kingston upon Hull, Cooper. May 31, Johnson, dated May 4, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be
Hull continued. Abrahams & Co, Old Jewry, solors for petners
LOCKE, HENRY. King's Hill, Somerset, Shoemaker. June 4. Benson & CarPROTECTOR CARRIAGE AND HORSE INSURANCE CO, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has, by penter, Bristol
an order dated March 12, appointed Charles Fletcher Richardson, 4, Tokenhouse McBAIN, HEPHZIBAL, Islington. July 30. Ashley & Co, Frederick's place bldgs, to be official liquidator WYCLIFFI: STEAMSHIP UO, LIMITED.-Creditors are require i, on or before June
MITCHELL, THOMAS GIBBINS, Leamington, Esq. June 20. Mitchell, Leamington 10, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or MERSON, FRANCIS, Bickham, Somerset. May 21. Ponsford & Co, Bardon claims. to Frederick Bertram Smart, 22, Queen st. Cheapside, Friday, June 24, MURDOCH, HARRIET, ROTHERHITHE. June 14. Ashbridge, Whitechapel rd at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.
POPPLEWELL. ROBERT JAMES, Holloway, Traveller. June 1. Wild & Co, IronCHURCH OF ENGLAND CLUB, Bell Inn, High st, Dudley, Worcester. May 10
monger lane ECONOMIC £10 BURIAL SOCIETY, 8. Union st, Canterbury, Kent. May 10
SEYMOUR, MARY, Tonbridge. June 4. Guscotte & Co, Essex st, Strand UNION PRIDE LODGE, United Odd Fellows, Bolton Unity, Brown Cow Inn, SHEPPARD, EDWARD REVETT, Bramber, Sussex, Gent. June 2. Riley, MoorRochdale, Lancaster. May 5
gate st London Gazette.-TUESDAY, May 17.
SMITH, FARRER, Sunderland, Cabinet Maker. June 1. Walker, Sunderland JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
SOLOMON, ROSE, Maida Vale. June 17. Harvey-Samuel, Whittington avenue,
TEMPLEMAN, SIMEON, York, Gent. July 11. Cobb, York
voluntary winding up, presented April 29, directed by Chitty, J., to stand over until Saturday, May 21. Brandon, Essex st, Strand, solors for petners
TUTILL, GEORGE, Upton, Essex, Regalia Manufacturer. E. L. PARR & CO, LIMITED.-Petn to continue the voluntary winding up, pre
Salters' Hall ct sented May 14. directed to be heard before Kay, J., at the Royal Courts, on WAITE, JOHN DEANE, Manby, Lincoln, Clerk. June 1. Allisons & Allisons, Thursday, May 26. Wooler, John st, Bedford row, agent for Morgan & Scott, Louth Cardiff, solors for petner
WALL, EMMA, Moseley, Worcester. June 6. Lane & Clutterbuck, Birmingham FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.
WATSON, MAY, Bath. June 8. Tucker, Bath
Wharfingers. June 28. Clarke & Co, Old Broad st
WINGFIELD, JOHN, Sheffield, Gent. May 31. Gould & Coombe, Sheffield Ingleton, York. May 11 KIDDERMINSTER BOAT OWNERS' AND GENERAL DEALERS' SOCIETY, LIMITED, 22M,
Lorne st, Kiddrminster, Worcester. May 13
ALLCOCK, CHARLES. Bewdley, Worcester, without employment. Kidderminster.
Pet May 7. Ord May 7
ARMSTRONG, HENRY, Lowestoft, Smack Owner. Gt Yarmouth. Pet May 9.
Ord May 9
ARMSTRONG, RALPH. Rochdale, Lancs, Licensed Victualler. Oldham. Pet BETT, WILLIAM, Fosdyke, Lincolo. June 6. Bett v Bett, North, J. Staniland,
May 10. Ord May 10 Boston
BARBER, GEORGE, Liverpool, Tailor. Liverpool. Pet May 10. Ord May 10 RICHMOND, ARTHUR GUINNESS, Cromwell pl, Highgate. Insurance Broker. June BARRINGTON, CALEB, Manchester, China Dealer. Manchester. Pet May 10. JONE, FITZHENRY PRICE CARR, Kilileigh, Ireland: “June 6. Routh v Lawrence, BROADGATE, JOSEPH PALFREMAN, Brigg, Lines, Auctioneer. Gt Grimsby. Pet Chitty, J.
May 11. Ord May 11
BROWN, ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, Bristol, Cabinet Manufacturer. Bristol. Pet BUTLER, Hon CHARLES LENNOX, Belgrave sq. Jnne 8. Williams v Butler, Kay,
May 9. Ord May 9
COLE, ROBERT DAVID, Gunard, I W, Builder. Newport and Ryde. Pet April HARRIES, SUSANNE CAROLINE. Weston super Mare, Somerset. June 10. Harries
23. Ord May 4 v Harries, North, J. Hulbert, New sq, Lincoln's inn HOMES, WILLIAM, Munsley, Hereford, Gent. June 4. Homes y Homes, Chitty
CROYDEN, RATCLIFF HENRY, Weymouth, Auctioneer. Dorchester. Pet May 10. J. Prior & Co, Lincoln's inn fields
DENNIE, WILLIAM HENRY, Sheffield, Tobacco Manufacturer. Sheffield. Pet
Chitty, J. Kendall, Bourton on the Water
FIELD, JAMES THOMAS, Hastings, Eating house Keeper. Hastings. Pet May 5.
GARRATT, CHARLES, Ridgmount, Bedford, Butcher. Bedford. Pet May 9. Ord UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35.
GOODWIDY, WILLIAM SLATER, Shottle, Derby, Farmer. Derby. Pet May 9. Ord LAST DAY OF CLAIM.
GROVE, WILLIAM, Hereford, Nurseryman. Hereford. Pet May 11. Ord May 11 London Gazette.--FRIDAY, May 6. BANCROFT, JOSEPH, Weaverham, Cheshire, Gent. May 30. Danger & Neville,
HOLLIS, John, Birmingham, Wheelwright. Birmingham. Pet May 6. Ord Liverpool BENTON, SAMUEL, Wylde Green, Warwick, Metal Caster. June 18. King & Lud
KELSEY, WILLIAM, Bisley, Gloucester, L.R.C.P. and L.R.O.S. Gloucester. Pet low, Birmingham
LEWIS, MORGAN LLEWELLYN, Cardiff, Grocer. Cardiff. Pet May 6. Ord May 6