Page images

hearing into court. The hearing took place before Kay, J., and he held that this rule, his lordship thonght that, though tbe application for leave to he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, it being in effect appeal from the order of Bacon, V.C., was not granted, the costs of it an appeal from the decision of Bacon, V.C., and his lordship ought to be provided for out of the company's assets. BRETT, L.J., refused the application with costs, and declined to allow the liquidator said that if à liquidator had been advised to do something which was his costs out of the company's estate. His lordship said that if a liquidator clearly a gross blunder, the judge was not obliged to allow him his costs chose to institute proceedings which were entirely wrong, he did that at his out of the assets, and thus make other people pay for the gross blunder of the own peril, and it would be quite wrong for the court, unless there were some liquidator's solicitor. In such a case the liquidator had a remedy against bis extraordinary circumstances, to allow a liquidator the costs of an application solicitor. His lordship doubted whether Kay, J., really intended to lay down which was entirely wrong from beginning to end. It was the bounden duty as a general rule tbat a liquidator must conduct litigation in all cases at bis of a liquidator, before be instituted litigant proceedings, to take care that he own risk as to costs if it failed. The result would be that is every proceeding bad at least a reasonable chance of success. The liquidator then applied to in which a liquidator failed, however reasonable his application might have been, Kay, J., in chambers, asking that he might be at liberty to appeal from his he must pay the costs personally. Such a rule would be a great deal too rigid. lordship's previous order, and also from the order of Bacon, V.O., of August, Cotton, L.J., said that in his opinion a liquidator was as a rule entitled to his 1881; and that he might be at liberty to pay the costs of the summons on costs, but that he was not a trustee. He was an agent appointed by the court, which the order of the 24th of June was made out of the company's assets, and to some extent he had the rights and was subject to the liabilities of a and that the liquidator might be allowed out of the assets his costs of that trustee. But he was not simply a trustee. Being appointed as an agent, he summons and order. Kay, J., refused this application, with costs, and said was bound to have reasonable skill and knowledge, and his costs were liable (as was stated in the Court of Appeal) that in all liquidations under his con. to be cut down, not only, as in the case of an ordinary trustee, for his mis. trol he wished it to be distinctly understood that official liquidators must con conduct, but for want of reasonable skill and knowledge. His lordship duct litigation entirely at their own risk as to costs in the event of failure. I thought that Kay, J., bad laid down an erroneous rule as to appeals by & The liquidator moved ex parte in the Court of Appeal (Jessel, M.R., and Brett liquidator. He thought that as a rule, under section 95, a liquidator was not and Cotton, L.JJ.) to vary the last order of Kay, J., so far as it refused to wrong in going to the judge for directions whetber he should appeal. His allow costs to the liquidator, and also for leave to appeal from the order of Bacon, lordship did not wish to encourage litigation by liquidators, and if the judge V.C. It was urged that the liquidator was in the position of a trustee and was saw that the application was frivolous he would be quite right in refusiug therefore entitled to his costs, unless he had been guilty of misconduct. leave to appeal, and in refusing to allow the liquidator costs. But it was JESSEL, M.R., said that he would give no opinion whether the order of Bacon, reasonable that a liquidator should be entitled to apply to the court for V.C., ought to have been made. He would only say that it was a serious directions whether he should appeal or not. No doubt, if leave to appeal was question, and one fit to be argued. He thought, however, that Kay, J., was given, the judge to a certain extent lost his control over the costs. Bot all right in holding that, so long as that order stood, he had no jurisdiction to his control was not lost, for the costs were subject to taxation. The judge reject the claim of the shareholders to prove. But he refused the liquidator however, ought to be cautious not to encourage uonecessary costs.-SOLICITORS, his costs of the application to reject that claim. The Master of the Rolls Beall & Co.; Snell & Greenip. thought that the refusal was subject to an appeal. He thought that an offieial liquidator must be treated as a person who, as a general rule, was entitled to his costs properly incurred. But the question was whether the

EXECUTED TRUST - VOLUNTEER - POWER OF SETTLOR TO REVOKE Court of Appeal ought to interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT OF WIFE'S PROPERTY-TRUST FOR Wife's Next judge. Kay, J., thought that the liquidator's application was a blunder. He of Kin_FAILURE OF POSSIBILITY OF ISSUE.-On the 15th inst. the Court of said it was utterly improper and wrong, and, therefore, deprived the

Appeal affirmed the decision of Fry, J., in Paul v. Paul (L. R. 19 Ch. D. liquidator of costs. The Master of the Rolls thought that the judge had an | 47), upon which we commented ante, p. 18, thus in effect overruling the prior undoubted discretion to deprive the liquidator of costs, even if he had only decision of Malins, V.C. in Paul v. Paul (29 W. R. 281, L. R. 15 Ch. D. made a mistake; a fortiori if he had made a blunder, and still more if big

580). By a marriage settlement property of the wife was settled on the oonduct had been improper and wrong. It required a very strong case to

husband for life, then upon the wife for life, with remainder to the deprive a gratuitous trustee of costs. He could only be made to pay costs on

children of the marriage. In default of children the capital was to account of his misconduct. He might be deprived of costs for neglect, and,

go to the wife absolutely, if she survived her husband, but, if she no doubt, the Court of Chancery did sometimes deprive a trustee of costs

pre-deceased him, she had a general power of appointment by will, because he had committed an innocent mistake. But his lordebip was by no

and in default of appointment the capital was to go to her next of kin, means satisfied that a paid agent like an official liquidator stood in the same

excluding the husband. The husband and wife afterwards separated by position as a gratuitous trustee. He thought the cases in which he ought to

mutual consent, and a separation deed was executed which provided that, be deprived of costs on the ground of mistake were much more numerous.

during the husband's life, half of the income should be paid to the wife for her Like other paid agents he was liable for his mistakes. The question was separate use. The action was brougbt by the wife, against the husband and whether there had beeu such a miscarriage in the decision of the judge that

the trustees, for the administration of the trusts of the settlement and the the Court of Appeal ought to interfere with the exercise of bis discretion.

separation deed. There had been no children of the marriage, and the wife His lordship thought that there had not. The next point was an entirely

was past the age of child-bearing. On the motion of the plaintiff, with the different one-the costs of the application for leave to appeal. As his lord.

consent of the husband, Malias, V.O., ordered that part of the capital should ship understood the practice, a liquidator might appeal without the leave of be applied in payment of debts incurred by the wife. Malins, V.C., made this the judge ; section 95 of the Companies Act did not apply to proceedings in order on the ground that the wife's next of kin were mere volunteers, and the winding up. But if he appealed withont leave he did so at his own risk | not within the marriage consideration. Afterwards & petition was presented as to costs. The general practice of the Court of Appeal was to leave a by the wife, with the husband's con sent, asking that the remainder of the Jignidator who was unsuccessful in an appeal to apply for his costs of it to the trust fund, which was in court, might be divided in certain proportions judge who had the conduct of the winding up. No doubt a liquidator did between herself and her husband. The petition came on for bearing before incur considerable risk of losing his costs of an appeal if he did not, before Fry, J., and he, after taking time to consider, declined to follow the decision appealing, apply to the judge for leave to do so, though, of course, bé might of his predecessor, and refused to accede to the application (except by giving apply to the parties interested for an indemnity. Could the judge refuse such the trustees their costs out of the fund), on the ground that the law is clear an application with costs ? His lordship had no doubt that he could, thcugh that a settlor cannot revoke an executed trust, even though it be in favour of he must do so on good grounds. After such a strong expression of' opinion a volunteer. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, by the judge as to the conduct of the liquidator, of course it would be L.JJ.), affirmed the decision on the same ground, observing that, the trust abgard to apply to him for leave to appeal. Bat the application was also being completely executed, it would be a breach of trust for the trustees to for leave to appeal from the order of Bacon, V.C. There was a serious pay the fund in the way proposed, and that the court would not sanction a question as to the corraotness of that order. But the application was breach of trust. -SOLICITORS, Meynell & Pemberton ; Godden S. Hare; made after the lapse of so long a time that his lordship was not prepared to Munns & Longaen. differ from the view of Kay, J. The liquidator could still appeal if he could get the parties interested to indemnify him. Bat ought Kay, J., to have PRACTICE–INTERROGATORIES - LIMITED COMPANY-MEMBER OR OFFICER made the liquidator pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal ? OF COMPANY-ADVERSE INTEREST -RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 31, R. 4.His lordship differed from his view. The liquidator had done nothing In the case of The Manchester Val de Travers Paving Company v. Slagg and wrong. He was not a party to the order of Bacon, V.C., and bis lordabip The Val de Travers Asphalte Paving Company, a motion was made by the thought that he onght not to have been deprived of his costs. The role plaintiff company that an order made in chambers directing the secretary of the oaght not to have been laid down so rigidly that a liquidator must always defendant company to answer interrogatories might be discharged, and that in appeal at his own risk as to costs. There were oases in which leave to appeal lieu thereof, one Marriott, who was a director of the defendant company, or ought to be given. His lordship's praotice when he was at the Rolls some other officer of the company, or other person who had cognizance of the Court was always to give a liquidator leave to appeal when he thought it business matters of the company, might be ordered to answer the interrogatories. was an important case and that the decision of the Court of Appeal was It appeared that the plaintiff company in their action claimed to recover from Decessary as a guide to the jadge in the liquidation. In another class of Slagg, and especially the defendant company, a sum of £50,000, and that there cases, in wbiob, before the Judicature Act, when the Court of Appeal in | was another action by one McClure against Marriott and two others, claiming Chancery had an original jurisdiction, the opinion of the Court of Appeal £400 interest and costs, and that both actions covered the same transactions. could be obtained without a formal appeal, his lordship always, after the Marriott was a bolder of fifteen shares in the defendant company, and also Jadicature Act, when the Court of Appeal bad only an appellate jurisdio. held in the plaintiff company three hundred shares of an equivalent value. tion, direoted the liqaidator to appeal when he desired to have the opinion CHITTY, J., said that the proper officer of the company to give the informa. of the Court of Appeal for his guidance. In other cases, when he thought tion was the secretary of the company, but there was no doubt but that a the case a clear one, if he gave leave to appeal he expressly stated that director could be called on to give it. Marriott, however, although a director the liquidator was nos to be entitled to bis costs as a matter of course. of the defendant company, was shown to have an interest clearly adverse to a His reason for doing so was this, that, if the judge once gave simple result in its favour of the action. It was also said that if the company should leave to appeal, he lost all control over the costs, whereas if he regerved succeed in the present action, the result would be that Marriott would be rethe question of costs he retained bis control over them, Applying lieved from his liability to McClure, The object of the application seemed to be, not for the purpose of obtaining discovery, but of obtaining informa. on his behalf within section 2 of the Act.-SOLICITORS, Crowdy, Son, $ tion which would bind the defendant company. The defendant company | Tarry; Hatton & Westcott. had also offered to namo other persons equally cognizant of the company's affairs as proper persons to answer the interrogatories, but this offer bad been

BANKRUPTOY PETITION-ACT OF BANKRUPTCY_" TRADER"-ONUS OF declined." Under the circumstances his lordship was of opinion that the

| PROOF-DISCONTINUANCE OF TRADE-INTENTION-BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1869, application was within the principle of the decision of the Master of the Rolls in Berkeley v. Standard Discount Company (28 W. R. 125, L. R. 13 Ob. D.

ss. 6, 8.--In a case of Ex parte Sataman, before the Court of Appeal on the

13th inst., the question arose whether, when a bankruptcy petition alleges 97), and that Marriott was not a proper person to give the information,

the commission of an act of bankruptcy which can be committed only by a and the order in chambers being right the motion would be dismissed,

trader, the onus of proving that the debtor was a trader at the time when the with costs.-SOLICITORS, Bolton, Robbins, d Busk ; Drake, Son, d: Parton.

Act in question was committed lies on the petitioning creditor. It was urged that, if the debtor bad once been a trader, the onus was on him to show that


COTTON, L.JJ.) beld that the onus was on the petitioner. Another question SUB-AGENT–SOLICITORỢCosts—CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT,

was whether, when a debtor, who has carried on trade, is not actually carrying 1863, 8. 2.-In a case of In re Parker, before the Court of Appeal on the 14th

it on at the time when the act is committed, he can, under the present law, inst., a question arose as to the right of a local sub-agent employed in a par. be said to be a trader. The court held that it is a question of intention, to be liamentary election to recover from the candidate money disbursed on his

decided on the evidence, whether the debtor has discontinued bis trade perbehalf. Section 2 of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1863 (26 Vict. c.

manently, or whether he has only temporarily ceased to carry it on with the 29), enacts that:-“No payment (except in respect of the personal expenses intention of resuming it. In the latter case he is still a trader within the of a candidate) and no advance, loan, or deposit shall be made by, or on behalf

meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. JESSEL, M.R., said that the law on of, any candidate at an election, before, or during, or after such election, this point is still as it was laid down by Lord Eldon in Ex parte Paterson (1 on account of or in respect of such election, otherwise than through an agent Ro. 402), and Ex parte Cundy (2 Ro. 357). In Ex parte Paterson Lord or agents whose name and address, or names and addresses, have been Eldon said (1 Ro. 405), “That the bankrupt has ceased to be a trader does not declared to the returning officer on or before the day of nomination, or tbrough depend on the fact whetber or not you can find any specifio acts of trading; an agent or agents to be appointed in his or their place as herein provided ;

but whether or not, in point of intention, he had ceased to be a trader. It is a and any person making any such payment, advance, loan, or deposit, otherwise question for a jury, whetber there was an entire cessation of trading, or merely thau through such agent or agents, sball be guilty of a misdemeanor, or, in an interruption, with an intention of resuming it when an opportunity should Scotland, of an offence punisbable with fine and imprisonment.” At the offer."-SOLICITORS, Joel Emanuel, & Co. ; Tippetts & Son. general election of 1880, Colonel Surtees, who was a candidate for South Durham, appointed as his central agent Mr. W. Watson. Messrs. Trotter, Bruce, & Troiter were employed by Watson as sub-agents for certain districts, WILL-CONSTRUCTION-CLASS OF CHILDREN_PORTIONS_V'ESTING-SUR. and Mr. Parker, a solicitor, was retained by them to take obarge of and other VIVORSHIP.-In a case of Notlage v. Buxton, before Kay, J., on the 17th inst., wise concern himself with the voters in some of the sub-districts. In this a question arose as to the term of vesting of portions given to a class of capacity, Parker employed several persons as runners and canvassing agents, children by will. A testatrix gave real estate to trustees on trust that the whom he paid for their services. An account of his charges and disburse- rents thereof should be divided equally among her three daughters, as tenants ments baving been sent in to Colonel Surtees' expenses agent, who disallowed in common, for respectively their own sole and separate use. And at the certain of the items and sent bim a cheque for the balance, Parker returned decease of either of ber daughters the testatrix directed her trustees to apply the cheque and brought an action in the distriot registry to recover the whole the deceased's portion or share of the rents to the education and support of amount claimed by him. An order to refer the account to taxation under the the cbild or children of the deceased parent who might be living at their common order to tax was obtained by Colonel Surtees, and an order was mother's death, until they became twenty-one, “then they will be entitled to thereupon made by the district registrar to stay proceedings in the action their mother's portion; and if the children or child die (if but one) before they pending the taxation. The taxing master allowed the items wbich had been beoome of that age, then I bequeath their mother's portion of the rents to my disallowed by the expenses agent, and an application was made to Chitty, J., other daughters. One of the daughters had only one child, a son, who at. on behalf of Colonel Surtees, for a review of the taxation in this respect tained twenty-one, but died before his mother. The question arose whether Chitty, J., beld that, having regard to section 2 of the Act, Parker bad uo his mother's share of the real estate vested in him at twenty-one so that it authority to make these payments except through the expenses agent, and pagsed to his heir-at-law. KAY, J., held that the son took a vested interest that in the face of that section such an authority could not be implied, or at twenty-one. He held, following Jackson v, Dover (12 W. R. 855, 2 H. & M. assumed to have been given by Colonel Surtees. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, 209), that the role laid down with relation to settlements in Swallow v. Binns M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision. JESSEL, M.R., (1 K. & J. 417) and similar cases, that the court will lean to a construction said that it was admitted that Parker had no express authority from Surtees which gives the portions to all of a class of children who may live to require to make these payments. But then it was said that, as agent, he had the them, is not confined to settlements, but extends also to wills.-SOLICITORS, ordinary authority of an agent, and, therefore, an implied autbority to pledge Bower, Cotton, & Bower. his employer's credit by making these payments. The answer to tbat was, that, in the absence of the Act of 1863, such an authority might be implied, but the Act was clear and express, that no payments could be made on behalf of a candidate otherwise than through his expenses

SOLICITORS' CASES. agent. Parker was not Colonel Surtees' expenses agent, and, therefore,

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-Queen's BENCH DIVISION. these payments by Parker out of his own moneys on behalf of

(Before FIELD and STEPHEN, JJ.) Colonel Surtees were illegal, and no authority to make them could

July 6.-In re a Solicitor, be implied. If they were not made on bebalf of Colonel Surtees, then Colonel Surtees was not liable, and in any case an authority to do that which

In this case a rule had been granted calling on a solicitor, of Sheffield, to was an illegal act could not be implied.

answer matters in affidavits which, in effect, charged him with not having

It was said that if no moneys for legitimate and necessary expenses could be disbursed by a sub-agent, it would

handed over moneys due to a lady, towards whom he acted in the capacity of be impossible to conduct an election. But, however inconvenient the result

trastee. might be, it was not for the court to say that the Act did not mean what it

Wilberforce showed cause against the role, which was supported by Stuart. olearly and distinctly said. It was said that the result of a literal construction

Wortley. was so absurd tbat this could not have been the intention of the Legislatore, FIELD, J., in giving his judgment, said :- This is one of the most painful duties but the court was not told how it could read the section in any other way. The | we have to discharge, and we should be glad enough if we could avoid it; yet only remaining point was remarkable for its ingenuity. It was said that these we cannot but feel that the power is put into our hands of protecting the payments were made by Parker on his own behalf, and that after the payments members of an honourable profession from being discredited by the conduct had been made, then for the first time Parker bad the right to recover the of men like this solicitor. It is clear that, he being a solicitor, his position amount from Colonel Surtees on the principle of fair remuneration for the recommended him to the office of trastee, and so he was intrusted with it by performance of his duties as agent. There might, no doubt, be such a bargain the parties, and in that character he had to receive the rents to which the by express contract, but that was a special agreement which must be made out family were entitled. It has been urged on his behalf that his misconduct by expressed terms and could not be implied from the mere fact of the exist was not as solicitor but only as trustee, but we cannot proceed on any such ence of an agency. BRETT, L.J., said that the real question was whether distinction. We have to deal with his character as a solicitor, one of the Parker had authority from Colonel Surtees to pay these canvassers and parts of whose duties is that of honesty; and whether he has violated that duty runners. It was not contested that be had no express authority, and the as trustee or as solicitor, criminally or morally, can make, in that view, no question was whether be bad an implied authority to do so. The Act was ex- difference. He was trustee for this family, and as such trustee he receised press upon the point, and made it a misdemeanor for any person to make any this sum of £240, which belonged to them, and which had been received by payment on behalf of any candidate on account of, or in respect of, the election him for them, they placing confidence in him and relying on his honesty. But otherwise than through the expenses agent. Was, tben, the court entitled to he, instead of paying the money to them, kept it in his own hands and applied assume that Colonel Burtees employed Parker to do that which was directly it to his own use. It has been urged by his counsel that there had been no contrary to the Act, and would expose Parker to the penalties of a misde. application to him for payment (prior to this application) and that some rule meanor ? No such assumption could be made, and it must be held that Par. should be laid down as to that. But it is to be hoped that no other members ker bad no authority, express or implied, to make these payments on behalf of of the profession would require a rule to be laid down as to the duty of sny Colonel Surtees, and that they ought not to be allowed in taxation. COTTON, man who receives money for others to pay it over to them. It was not L.J., said that if a thing was ordinarily done by an agent, but was prohibited necessary to lay down any such rule, for honesty is to be observed by everyone. by statute in the case of election agents, then the mere appointment of a man Then it was urged that there had since been restitution of the money, but to be an election agent did not give him implied authority to do that which that was under pressure of these proceedings. There were cases of this class the Act said should not be done if done on behalf of the candidate. In his in which the court considered that the solicitor ought not to remain any longer lordship's opinion any payment made on behalf of a candidate was a payment on the roll, wbich ought to be stainless and free from the reproach and discredit of criminality or misconduct. But that is an extreme punishment, and there are to declare that certain resolutions of the 20th of October, 1880, in which the circumstances which enable the court to abstain from inflicting it. But the creditors audited and passed the trustees' accounts and charges, are not binding offence is very serious, and under the circumstances the solioitor must be on the company, and that the accounts, charges, and disbursements, so passed, suspended for a considerable period-five years—and pay all the costs of these be re-opened and inquired into by the court, in order to their being referred to proceedings.

the proper officer for taxation. On the hearing of the motion on the 5th of STEPHEN, J., concurred. He entirely agreed, he said, in every word which

June, Mr. Sidney Woolf, of counsel for the trustees, objected that the court had fallen from his learned brother, and thought that a sentence of suspension

had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, on the ground that the for five years was the least tbat could meet the justice of the case. No doubt

trustees, having had their accounts audited and passed by the committee of there were some circumscances which enabled the court to stop short of the

inspection, the proceedings in the liquidation being closed, and the trustees extreme sentence of striking the solicitor off the rolls. There had been

released, the court had no power to order such an inquiry, and the remedy, if restitution, though under pressure, and there had apparently been a hope that

the company had any, must be sought elsewhere. The facts not in dispute, restitution would be made. But it could not be too impressively or

sufficient to raise the question to be decided between the parties, are, that the emphatically stated that the honour of a solicitor (especially as to the payment

debtor, William Henry Matthews, had for some time up to the 22nd of July, of money intrusted to him) is what courage is to a soldier or what chastity is

i 1880, carried on at Salisbury the business of an hotel proprietor. His affairs to a woman, and that if a solicitor acts dishonestly towards those who trust;

having become embarrassed, he, on that date, filed a petition in this court for him, he must expect when he comes before this court to meet with severe

liquidation by arrangement. The usual steps were taken, the creditors met censure and severe punishment. In this case there had been dishonesty, and

and passed resolutions, and appointed a committee of inspection and two I can see nothing, said the learned judge, to distinguish it from cases which

trustees. On the 13th of September following the whole of the debtor's interest come before us from day to day in the criminal courts. I can call to mind

in the Red Lion Inn was purchased from the trustees by Mr. Edward Waters cases of poor criminals who have not had the advantage of education and the

for several persons who subsequently became incorporated under the title of credit of belonging to & bonourable profession-of men who have said they

the Red Lion Hotel Company Limited). The parchase-money was agreed to stole to satisfy their necessities or that they had embezzled the money of their

be for an amount sufficient to pay the creditors à sum of 3s. in the pound, and employers in the hope of being able to pay it back, and these cases differ from

also all wages, taxes, interests on mortgages, and the costs of the the present in pothing, except in this, that here the delinquent was a solicitor,

| liquidation, including solicitors and trustees. Payments were from time to which ought to bave made him more strictly honest, and that be became

time made by the purchasers, amounting in the whole to £1,516, and the trustee, thus adding to the obligations of common honesty the special obligations

company were placed in possession of the properly. On the 20th of October, imposed upon a trustee. It cannot be too clearly understood what is the duty of

1880, the trustees presented the accounts of their charges and disbursements a trustee who comes into possession of trust money-which is, to keep the fand

in the liquidation to the committee of inspection, who passed them without safely for the shortest possible time and to pay it over intact on the very first

reduction or having them taxed, declaring at the same time a dividend of opportunity to the persons who are entitled to it. And a man who uses trust

38. in the pound, which dividend 'the creditors have received, and the trustees' money which comes into his possession for purposes of his own, even in the

costs so submitted and passed have been defrayed out of the moneys advanced hope of paying it back again, stands morally (and I am not sure he does not

by the company. The proceedings in the liquidation were closed on the 30th legally) very much in the position of the man who embezzles money in the

of October, and on the 30th of the following November the trustees were duly bope of being able to repay it. It was urged that the rule bad not been yet

released. Upon tbese facts the question to be determined is, has the court laid down, but it is comprehended, according to common sense, in a rule laid

jurisdiction, the proceedings being closed, and the trustees released, to re-open down a very long time ago—"Thou sbalt not steal.” - Times.

these accounts and send them to the 'taxing officer in order to be taxed, and also in the event of any overcharge being found, order such overcharge to be

refunded by the trustees? Mr. Powoing, the solicitor for the company, in support July 6.-In re A Solicitor.

of the motion, relied upon the extensive powers given to the court for this purpose In this case the solicitor had failed to pay a sum of about £60, part of a sum of

by the 72nd section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, under which every bank£350 he had received for his client, but the balance bad been paid, and there

ruptcy court has full power to decide all questions, whether of law or of fact, were circumstances which tended to excuse bim.

° arising in any case of bankruptcy coming within its cognizance, or which it Edward Pollock appeared on his behalf and earnestly urged these topios in

may deem expedient or necessary to deoide for the purpose of doing complete mitigation.

justice, and he urged that unless jurisdiction was exercised in this case bis Stuart-Wortley appeared for the parties complaining.

clients would be without remedy. In support of this view he relied upon FIELD, J., said, upon the whole, the court would abstain from punishment,

Ec parte Ranby, In re Ranby (14 Ch. D. 467); in that case, during the probut tbe solicitor must pay the costs.

ceedings in liquidation, an offer was made by the debtor to pay a composition, STEPHEN, J., observed that he had had the benefit of a doubt.--- T'imes,

he paying also the costs, obarges, and expenses of the solicitors, receiver, and trustee in relation to his affairs, and of the scheme of arrangement to be

approved of by the court. The Court of Appeal held that after the confirma. July 6.-In re Francis Hewitt.

tion of the scheme the court had jurisdiction to tax the trustees' costs and Keith Frith showed cause against a role for an attachment wbich had been

charges, notwithstanding his account had been audited and passed by the granted against Dr. Francis Hewitt, at the instance of the Law Society, for

committee of inspection, after the confirmation of the composition arrangement having personated Mr. James Grayston, a solicitor, by issuing & writ in the

by the court, on the ground that after the composition had been accepted action of Roberts v. Smith. The learned counsel said that Dr. Hewitt was an

under the provisions of the 28th section of the Bankruptcy Act and approved intimate friend of Mr. Grayston, and when the latter had to leave his offices in

by the court, the committee of inspection had no power to interfere. In Bow-street, allowed bim to make use of his premises at 101, Drury-lane, where

Ex parte Cockrill, In re Prager" (3 Ch. D. 115), it was held that, he carried on his practice as surgeon to the St. John's Medical Aid Society

notwithstanding the release of the trustee, that, when after the release has been and saw patients. Mr. Grayston bad his name as solicitor on a plate on the

granted, there romains a duty to be performed by the trustee, the release does door, and asked Dr. Hewitt to see persons for him in his absence, so that he

not discharge him, and that the court has jurisdiction to call apon him to migbt not lose tbeir cases. On the occasion complained of Dr. Hewitt had

perform such duty, the trustee in that case having undistributed money of the signed & writ as Grayston & Co., which was taken out by Roberts, the

estate in his hands. In Ex parte Lyons, In re Lyons (L. R. 7 Ch. 494), the plaintiff in an action, but he had done this without any payment or reward,

motion was to set aside a bill of sale given by the debtor to secure the costs of and it was his only offence. The learned coupsel moved on the affidavits of

the receiver, the late Lord Jastice James in his judgment saying, “ I should be Dr. Hewitt, Mr. Grayston, and another independent person, stated to be a

sorry to limit the jurisdiction of the court as to anything relating to the cbemist.

distribution of the estate or otherwise arising in, or really conneoted with, or

incident to, bankruptcy proceedings; and I do not say that the court ought to Murray appeared for the Incorporated Law Society, but was not called on.

bave jurisdiction to tax the costs if the receiver were holding the property FIELD, J., in giving judgment, said that this case had been most properly until they were paid," and so in the case before me, if the trustees had refused taken up by the Law Society. It was quite clear that when Mr. Grayston, to convey unless the Red Lion Company paid their untaxed costs, the court, for causes not referred to, had to leave his promises io Bow-street, be put up on the principle of the cases cited, would have sent the accounts to the taxing bis name on premises where bis friend, Hewitt, was constantly in contact officer." The case of E.« parte Carter, In re Ware (8 Cb. D. 731), with poor persons who had suffered injuries from railways and other causes, approaches very closely to the present one in its facts. There the debtor filed and thus an easy modo for conducting such cases was afforded to Grayston, a petition in liquidation, and the creditors resolved that the trustee should sell whose name was merely put up as a blind. The court felt it their duty to the estate for a sum sufficient to pay a dividend of 48. in the pound, together make absolute the rule for an attachment, and then Hewitt could come before with the costs of the liquidation, and that the release of the trustee should take & judge and parge himself of contempt, for contempt it wag.

place on the 28th of January, 1878. The debtor was tenant of some business STEPHEN, J., concurred, observing that Hewitt was in contempt, and of that promises for a torm which expired on the 25th of December following. The he would have to purge himself and pay the costs.

trustee took possession of the premises and remained in possession until the Rule absolute for an attachment.--Morning Post,

expiration of the term, but did not pay the landlord the rent due on the 25th of December. On the 26th of February, after the release of the trustee had

been granted, the landlord applied to the Court of Bankruptcy for an order COUNTY COURTS.

directing the trustee to pay to him the quarter's rent. It was there held that

either the landlord's remedy was a personal one against the trustee, in which SALISBURY.

case the Court of Bankruptcy had no jurisdiction in the matter, or if there (Before Mr. SERJEANT TINDAL ATKINSON, Judge.)

were a remedy in the Court of Bankruptcy, then that the trustee bad done July 3.-Ex parte The Red Lion Hotel Company (Limited), In re Edmonds

nothing more than commit a default in the administration of the assets from and another, Trustees.

a liability for which he was protected by his release, the Court of Appeal

deciding that, in the absence of fraud, the 53rd section of the Bankruptcy Act, Application by purch asers of debtor's estate in liquidation to tax trustees'

1869, applied to a release given by the creditors to a trustee ia proceedings in costs after release-Jurisdiction of court to order.

liquidation by arrangement, and that such release discharges him from all His HONOUR, who had reserved judgment in this case, said :-This is a motion liability in respect of any act done or default made by him in the administramade on bebalf of the Red Lion Hotel Company (Limited), asking the court | tion of the affairs of the debtor, or otherwise in relation to his conduct aş trustee of such debtor. Here it is not alleged or contended that there has the debit note for the goods in November, 1880, the goods -the sobject of the been any fraud on the part of the trustees, or any undue means used to pro. present action-being furniture, were still in existence, and, therefore, tbere was core the passing of their accounts at the hands of the committee of inspection. & possibility of avoiding the contract on the ground of mutual mistake. This The utmost, as it appears to me, that can be said is, that, seeing they were was not done ; and I am of opinion that, by the retention and use of the dealing with the money of others, the committee of inspection should have forniture from that time, a right of action on an implied assumpsit has been just before they were generous, and have dealt with these accounts, in arisen, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover from tbe defendant the amount the manner they probably would have done, had the creditors had an interest sued for, leaving the defendant in the position of recovering from Sheppard's in their being taxed. But be this as it may, after the best consideration I estate the debt due from it. Looking at the peculiar character of the facts in have been able to give to the facts of this case, the arguments, and the this case-namely, that the purchase was made under a mistake, that the authorities cited, I can see no duty which the trustees owe to the “Red defendant thought be was dealing with the executor of Sheppard, that there Lion Company," for the non-performance of which their release is not an was an absence of publicity of the change in the business, and that the goods answer, and the motion must, therefore, be dismissed. The question of costs would not bave been purchased had the real facts been knownI do not to be adjourned until Thursday, when, if the registrar is informed that the think that this is a case in which I should give the costs against the defend. caso goes no further, each party pay their own costs ; if otherwise, the trustees ant. to have their costs.

Solicitor for the plaintiff, Druitt. Powning, for the applipants.

Solicitor for the defendant, Lacey. Sidney Woolf, barrister, for the trustees.


June 21.-Hassan v. Lacey.

Set-off-Absence of mutuality-Parties contracting-Mistake.

Mr. Henry Croft Chambers, solicitor, of Lincoln and Market Ragen, died In this case his HONOUR delivered judgment as follows :-The fant in this suddenly at Sutton, Lincolnshire, on the 10th inst., aged forty. Mr. Chambers action have, by the consent of the parties, been turned into a spenil case was the eldest son of Mr. Henry Thomas Chambers, of West Kensington-garDamely, tbat one C. H. Sheppard, who carried on the business of a cabinet dens, and was born in 1842. He was admitted a solicitor in 1866, and had maker, in Bournemouth, died in the early part of January, 1877, leaving, by

for several years resided and practised at Market Rasen, having also an office will, to his widow, his stock and trade debts. She carried on the business for

at Lincoln. He took an active part in all local business, and he had been for some time, but, ultimately, in June, 1878, she sold to the present plaintiff the several years a member of the Market Rasen Local Board. Mr. Chambers remainder of the stock she had on hand, for which he paid ber £400, partly in was also a leading member of the local Masonic body. He was highly money and the balance by cheques of various amounts, given at various times, esteemed by all classes at Market Rasen, and bis premature death (which under her direction, to different creditors of her late husband. In September, appears to have been the result of a blow from a cricket ball a few years ago) 1878, a marriage took place between the plaintiff and Mrs. Sheppard; but has occasioned a feeling of general sorrow. beyond this being advertised in the local papers, no special notice was given to the creditors, who remained unpaid till the business had changed hands. In October, 1878, the defendant, Mr. C. J. Lacey (the surviving partner of the firm of Lacey & Son, solicitors), bad an updischarged partnership claim against

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS. the estate of Sheppard, and went to the place of business of the plaintiff and purchased the goods, the subject of the present action. The plaintiff was then

Mr. WALTER JAMES WESTCOTT BEARD, solioitor (of the firm of Beard & in possession, carrying on the business on his own account. The goods 80

Sons), of 10, Basinghall-street, has been appointed a Commissioner to purchased had never formed any part of the testator's stock, but had, in fact, been bought by the plaintiff from manufacturers and various other persons.

administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Jadicatore, Sheppard's name remained still painted over the door. The defendant, when

Mr. WILLIAM BRISTOW, solicitor, of 13, Jobn-street, Adelphi, and Green. he gave the order for the goods, had no personal knowledge of the plaintiff, nor

wioh, has been elected President of the Kent Law Society for the ensuing was be aware that the marriage had taken place, or that any change had

year. Mr. Bristow was admitted a solicitor in 1855. He is solioitor to the occurred in the parties carrying on the business. His intention was, in making

Greenwich Hospital Department of the Admiralty, vestry clerk of Greenthe purchase, to set-off the debt due to him from Sheppard's estate against the

wioh Parish, and clerk to the Commissioners of Land and Assessed Taxes for amount of the goods. There being a mistake on both sides as to the parties really

Black beatb. contracting, the question is raised whether the plaintiff can claim the amount

Mr. BENJAMIN THOMAS WILLIAMS, Q.O., jadge of county coarts, has been of the goods sued for as against the defendant, and, if so, can the defendant

appointed a Magistrate for Glamorganshire. in law support bis claiun of set-off, and I am of opinion that, upon the

Mr. JAMES RAPER, solioitor, of Poncefract and Methley, bas been elected authorities, a set-off uoder the above facts cannot be pleaded. Even had Mrs.

Coroner for the Borough of Pontefract, in encoession to his partner, the late Sheppard sued as executrix for a debt due to the estate of the testator, a plea

Mr. John Foster. Mr. Raper was admitted a solicitor in 1879. of set-off would not be available to the defendant. It was held in Shipman

MR. HORATIO BREVITT, solicitor, of Wolverhampton, has been elected V. Thompson (Willes Reports, 103) that is an action by an executor in his

Town Clerk of that borongb, in sacoession to Mr. Henry Underbill, own name to recover money due to the testator in his lifetime, and received

deceased. Mr. Brevitt is olork to the county magistrates at Wolverhampby the defendant after his death, the defendant cannot set off a debt due to

ton, and deputy-coroner for the Wolverhampton Division of Staffordshire. him by the testator; and the same rule bolds when the plaintiff declares as

He was admitted a solicitor in 1870. executor for a debt due after the death of the testator : Schofield v. Corbett

Mr. GEORGE MACKENZIE MACKAY, solicitor, of Shepton Mallet, has been (11 Q. B. 779), Rees v. Watts (in error, 11 Ex. 410); and. what is strongly appointed Chief Conservative Registration Agent for Mid-Somersetshire. in point, where a creditor had purchased part of an istestate's goods from the Mr. Maokay was admitted a solicitor in 1850. administrator, the creditor could not set off the price against the debt due to

| Mr. WILLIAN THOMAS HINDMARSH, solicitor, of Alnwick, has been ap. him from the intestate at his decease : Lumbarde v. Holder (17 Beav. 369) : pointed Clerk to the Councillors of that borough. Mr. Hind marsh was the ratio decidendi in all the cases being the absence of mutuality, which the admitted a solicitor in 1870. Statute of Set-off declares to be essential. The remaining question to be Mr. JOHN ARTHUR GODLEY, barrister, has been appointed a Commissioner answered is-do the facts of the case before me raise an implied promise on of Inland Revenue. Mr. Godley was formerly scholar of Balliol College, the part of the defendant to pay the plaintiff for the goods supplied ? It is Oxford, where he graduated first class in classico in 1870. He obtained the settled law that where a purchaser buys from one whom he supposes to be Chancellor's Prize for Latin veree in 1867, the

| Chancellor's Prize for Latin verse in 1867, the Hertford Sobolarship in his debtor, and against whom he would have the right to set off the price, a | 1868, the Gaisford Prize for Greek verse 10 1868, toe

1868, the Gaisford Prize for Greek verse in 1869, the Ireland Scholarabip mistake as to the person dealt with prevents the contract from coming into and the Gaisford Prize for Greek proso in 1870, and the Eldon Law existence for want of assent. The authority for this is found in the case Scholarship in 1874, and he was afterwards eleoted a fellow of Hertford of Boulton v. Jones (2 H. & N. 564). There the plaintiff had bought the College. Mr. Godley was oalled to the bar at Lincoln's-ind in January, stock-in-trade and business of one Brocklekurst; the defendant, ignorant | 1876, and he has been for several years private secretary to Mr. Gladof the fact, sent to the plaintiff a written order for goods, addressed to stone. Brocklehurst, on the very day of the transfer to the plaintiff. The goods

Mr. ALFRED BENJAMIN CARPENTER, of Devereux court, Temple, has been were oongamed by tbe defendant, he not knowing that they were supplied by appointed a Commissioner for taking Affidavits and Acknowledgments of the defendaut instead of Brocklehurst. When payment of the price was | Married Women for the Colony of Western Australia. afterwards demanded the defendant refused to pay, on the ground that he had a set-off against Brockleburst, and had not contracted with the plaintiff. The court was unanimously of opinion that the action was not maintainable,

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. Pollock, C.B., observing that the rule of law is clear that, if you propose a EDWARD BANNISTER, FRANCIS BANNISTER, and CHARLES JAMES FACHE contrast with A., then B. cannot substitute himself for A.' without (E. and F. Baopister & Faobe), solicitors, 13, Joha-street, Bedford-row, 80 your consent and to your disadvantage, securing to himself all the so far as regards the said Charles James Fache. June 30. advantage. In commenting upon this case, the learned author of Ben. JOHN TURNER BILLING and ALDWIN PELHAM KENT, solicitors, 3, Church. jamin on Sales observes : “ It can hardly be doubted that, if the court, Old Jewry, London. Joly 11, goods had not been consumed before the discovery of the mistake, the defend. FREDERIC THOMAS HALL and HENRY Fox, solicitors, 15, Gray's-inn-square, ant would have been bound upon demand, if he did not choose to pay for Middlesex. June 30. tbem, to return them. The basis of the decision was tbat there had been no JOSEPH PRIOR, EDWARD FRANCIS BIGG, EDMUND FRANCIS BLAKE CAURCE, contrart between the parties, and if so, on no conceivable groand could the and FRANCIS CADWALLADER ADAMS (Prior, Bigg, Church, & Adams), solici. defendant have kep., without payment, another man's goods sent to his house tors, 61, Lincoln's-inn-fields, as regards the said Edward Francis Bigg. y mistake." Applying this test here, when the plaintiff sent to the defendant April 1,

[Gazette, July 14.]

Subject to the control of the president, each gentleman attending the meet

ing will be at liberty to speak and to vote upon any matter under discussion, NEW ORDERS, &c.

but all resolutions expressive of the sentiments of the meeting will be framed

in the form of recommeudations or requests to the council to tako the subjects (We are requested to reprint the following order, with the schedule of such resolutions into their consideration.-I am, dear sir. yours faithfulio

E. W. WILLIAMSON, Secretary. annexed :-)


In view of the proposed transfer to the Queen's Bench Division of such

The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was actions brought in the Chancery Division as are not specially assigned to

held on Wednesday, July 12, at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, the Chancery Division by section 34 of the Judicature Act, 1873, the

Mr. Rickman in the chair; the other directors present being Messrs. Asker Senior Registrar has, by the direction of the Lord Chancellor, to give

(Norwicb), Brook, Hedger, Kays, Pennington, Roscoe, Sankey (Canterbury), notice that the solicitor entering for trial or setting down on motion for and Smith (Mr. Eiffe, secretary). A sum of £325 was distributed in relief of judgment any action commenced in the Chancery Division, will, from and necessitous solicitors and their widows and families; an apnuity of £50, after this day, be required to certify shortly on the back of the præcipe named the “ Daniel Reardon Anouity, No. 2," was granted to a necessitous what is the cause of action : using in actions, for the purposes mentioned member of the association; six gentlemen were admitted members; a further in the 3rd sub-section of the 34th section of the Act of 1873, the donation of £50 to the funds of the association from Mr. John Clayton, of language of that section. The orders of course clerks will mark such Newcastle-upon-Tyne, was reported, and & resolution of thanks for same last-mentioned actions “ C.,' and all others “ Q. B."

unanimously passed to that gentleman ; and other general business was transNote. This regulation does not apply to a motion for judgment set acted. down with a special case.

H. LATHAM. July 11,

WORCESTER AND WORCESTERSHIRE INCORPORATED The administration of the estate of Administration.

LAW SOCIETY. deceased persons : :..i thi

The first general meeting of the above society after its recent incorporaThe dissolution of partnerships, or the )

tion was held at the Law Library, Pierpoint-street, on Monday, the 10th taking of partnership or other ac- > Partnership (or) account. inst., at twelve o'clook at noon. Present : Mr. T. G. Hyde, president (in the counts

chair), Messrs. W. Price Hughes, vice-president, O. Pidoook, T. Sootball, The redemption or foreclosure of mort.

M. Cartler, H. G. Goldingbam, S. M. Beale, F. Corbett, E. A. Davis, H. Ito Mortgage. gages .

Goldingham, jun., W. Allen, hon. treasurer, and F. Ronald Jeffrey, hoo, sec, The raising of portions or charges on Charoe

Before proceeding to the eleotion of officers, the obairman congratulated the land . .

society on its recent incorporation. The following officers of the society The sale and distribution of the proceeds

were elected to serve until the first annual meeting in Jaduary next :

President, Mr. T. G. Hyde; vice-president, Mr. W. Price Hughes; hon. of property subject to any lien or Enforcing lien or charge.

treasurer, Mr. W. Allen ; hon, secretary, Mr. F. Ronald Jeffery ; oomcharge . . The execution of trusts charitable or Execution of trusts.

mittee, the president, vioe-president, treasarer, and secretary, Messrs. S.

M. Beale, E. A. Davis, H. Goldingham, jan., F. Parker, and Thomas Southall. private . . The rectification, or setting aside, or

A report of the committee as to the best method of atilizing the library Rectification or setting aside

building, which the society is about to acquire, and of raising the necessary cancellation of deeds or other written

of written instruments.

funds for its purchase, was received, and certain resolations thereon were instruments . . . . .)

agreed to. On the motion of Mr. C. Pidoook, seconded by Mr. H. G. Specific performance of contracts be. )

| Specific performance real

Goldingham, & vote of thanks was onanimously accorded to the president tween vendors and purchasers of real }

for the active part he had taken in bringing about the incorporation of the estates, including contracts for leases . )

* or leasehold estate.

society, and in promoting the purchase of the library building, and on the The partition or sale of real estates . Partition or sale-real estate. motion of Mr. M. Cartler, seconded by Mr. Southall, a vote of thanks was The wardship of infants and the care of ) Wardship of infants' persons also given to the secretary for the special services rendered by him in infants' estates . . . . S (or) estates.

relation to the same matters. At this meeting Messrs. Thom 18 Roberts and
Samuel Soutball, of Worcester, solicitors, were elected members of the
society. Later in the day the members dined together at the Abbey Hotel,

Great Malvern, where a very pleasant evening was spent.


The following circular relatiog to the annual provincial meeting has been
issued to the members :-
Dear Sir,- I have the pleasure to inform you that the council have accepted

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. an invitation to hold the annual provincial meeting of this society for the At a meeting of this society, held at Clement's-inn Hall, on Wedaesday, present year at Hull. It will accordingly be held in the Royal Institution, July 5. Mr. C. Kaios.Jackson in the chair, Mr. Collyer moved, Albion-street, Hull, on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 17th and 18th of October "That the Arrears Bill (Ireland) is unsound in pripoiple and is likely to next. The proceedings will be as follows:

prove a dangeroja precedent." He was supported by Mr. Kains-Jackson, Tuesday, October 17: The president, Mr. Thomas Paine, will take the

aod opposed by Messrs. Parsons, Eiloart, and Harvey. The opener replied, chair at eleven a.m., and address the meeting. After the address of the

and on the motion being put to the meeting it was carried by a majority of president, papers contributed by members of the society will be read and dis

one. cussed. The meeting will adjourn at 1.30 for luncheon. It will be resomed

The fortnightly meeting was held at the Law Institution, on Mooday, At 2.30, and be closed at 4.30 o'clock. In the evening, the members of the Incorporated Law Society attending tbe meeting will be entertained at

July 10, Mr. H. J. Broun in the obair. Mr. Shirley opened the following

moot:-“ A. promises to marry B. as soon as C. (A.'s father) dies. Daring dinner by the president and members of the Holl Incorporated Law Society. Wednesday, October 18: The meeting will be resumed at eleven a.m.,

O.'s lifetime A. marries another woman; she dies before C. B., on the

death of A.'s wife, sves him for breach of his promise to marry her, his when the reading of papers and the discussion thereon will be continued until 4.30 p.m., with the exception of an interval of adjournment for luncheon

absolate refusal being implied in his first marriage. A. pleads chat before between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m.

action he was ready and willing to marry B. and that he still ie, Can she The forty-ninth half-yearly general meeting of the Solicitors’ Benevolent

recover damages ?” Mr. Shirley, following the decision in Frost v. Knight, Association will be held in the Royal Institution on this day, the 18th of

said she could recover. He was supported in this 'view by Mr. Nelham, October, at ten a.m.

and opposed by Messrs. Williams, Waddington, and Raadle-Levey. The On the evening of Wednesday, October 18, there will be a conversazione

opeper then replied, and on the question being pat to the meeting it was aur ball at the public rooms, Jarratt-street, at nine o'clock.

decided in the affirmative by a majority of tbree votes. Excursions will be arranged for on Thursday, the 19th.

At a meeting of this society beld at Clement's-inn Hall on Wednesday, Jaly The Hull Committee will be happy to give any further information to

12, Mr. F. 0. Edlin in the chair, Mr. Spence moved, " That seduction ought

He was supported in the affirmative by Mr. members proposing to attend the meeting on application addressed to Mr. | to be made a criminal offence.” J. T. Woodhouse, Hull, the hon, secretary of the Hull Law Society, who will,

ho will: Wood, and opposed by Megers. Newman, Williams, Shirley, Ramsdale, and if early application be made, be glad to arrange hotel accommodation for those

Goodall. Mr. Speace replied, and, notwithstanding the great opposition made desiring it.

to the motion, it was carried by a majority of one. Should you wish to attend the meeting, I shall feel obliged if you will communicate with me not later than the 22nd of August next. If you are good enough to prepare a paper, I shall be obliged if you will

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. ioform me the title and purport of it by the 15th of September, and the July 4.-In their report for the last session the committee mentioned that paper itself should be placed in my hands on or before the 29th of September, the society had held thirty-one meetings. The average attendance of members in order that it may be printed for ciroulation at the earliest possible moment at the debates had been the highest during any session for the last seventeen after the close of the proceedings.

years. Fifty-two new members had been elected, being the largest number in

« PreviousContinue »