Page images

would destroy the railway. Whether the word “minerals," when used in conjunction with mines,” should or should not be con- “ LANDS, TENEMENTS, AND HEREDITA. fined to such minerals as are found in mines, or can be got by underground workings, is by no means clear. In Darvill

MENTS." v. Roper (3 W. R. 467, 3 Drew. 294), Kindersley, V.C., WE printed last week a letter from a distinguished correspondent, restricted the word “minerals " to such substances as are containing some remarks upon the subject which stands at the worked by means of mines. In that case a distinction was head of this article, and having reference to a former article, which drawn between the scientific meaning of the word, which it was will probably be in the remembrance of our readers, upon section said would include every portion of the soil except vegetable 18 of the Conveyancing Act of 1881. Before offering any matter; another meaning-namely, any metalliferous substance; observations upon the matter of the letter, we wish to draw our and a third meaning, including all such substances as are dug out correspondent's attention to a distinction which seems, in a great of the earth by means of a mine; and it was held that the third measure, to have escaped his notice. sense expressed the intention of the parties in the deeds in ques- He speaks of us as having “maintained that the interpretation tion. In Bell y. Wilson (14 W. R. -493. L. R. 1 Ch. 303), the given by the Act to the word 'land' is insufficient to embrace same judge had refused to include freestone in the word | leaseholds for years.” There are two senses in which the word “ minerals.” The Lords Justices held that freestone was a “ insufficient” might here be understood. It might mean that mineral, but that a reservation in a grant of all “ mines or seams the words of the interpretation in question are, in propriety of of coal, and other mines, metals, or minerals," would not give the speech, insufficient for the purpose mentioned; and, therefore, grantor liberty to get the freestone by open quarrying or otherwise that they cannot, with any propriety, be used to express the meanthan by an underground mine. In Hext v. Gill a reservation of ing sought to be put upon them. We certainly think that, in this “mines and minerals " was held to include china-clay, but it was sense, the words in question are insufficient; and we do not find also held that the owner could not get it in such a way as to anything in our correspondent's letter to show that he is of a destroy or seriously injure the surface. In Atlorney-General for different opinion. the Isle of Man ý. Mylchreest (L. R. 4 App. 294), the word But if " insufficient" is to be taken to mean, that the courts “ minerals” in a grant from the Crown was held not to include cannot possibly contrive to force the words to bear the proposed clay and sand. On the other hand, in The Midland Railway improper meaning, we beg leave to remind our correspondent that Company v. Checkley (15 W. R. 671, L. R. 4 Eq. 19), the we did not express any such opinion in the article to which he proprietors of a canal were held to be bound to pay compensation alludes. Such strange pranks have been played with legal to the owner of an open quarry, whom they prevented from phraseology by the makers of statutes, and the proper meanings working his quarry so as to injure their canal, under the clause in of technical words have been thereby thrown into such confusion, the Canal Act for the compensation of owners prevented from that it is difficult to say what is absolutely impossible to be done, working their mines and minerals.

in the way of interpretation, by the dexterous citation of words In Midland Railway Company v. The Haunchwood Brick and | improperly used. Tile Company, Kay, J., after observing that the meaning of the

In view of this distinction, our correspondent perhaps acted words " mines and minerals” may be varied largely by the con

prudently in declining to “follow the reasoning" by which he text, proceeded very carefully to arrive at their signification in the says that we arrived at “this result." A great part of this 77th section of the Railways Clauses Act by an examination of the

reasoning was of the simplest possible character. We remarked, surrounding sections. He said that the words, “mines of coal,

in effect, that the authority of all the sages of the law from time ironstone, slate, or other minerals,” might be read as meaning

immemorial is expressly against including terms of years under mines of coal, of ironstone, of slate, or of other minerals. re- the words tenements and hereditaments. We do not think that stricting “minerals " to substances found in mines, or the word

our correspondent, by following this part of our reasoning, would “mines” might be confined to coal. The former construction

have come to a different conclusion. He can hardly think that would seem favoured by the words at the end of the same section. | terms of years (or, if he prefers the phrase, leaseholds for years) where “mines" is used generally to describe all that is mentioned are tenements, and, therefore, we suppose, intailable within the in the former part of the clause, and also by the 78th section, where statute De donis; or that they are hereditaments, and, therefore, the words “mines” and “mines and minerals” are used descend to the ne

descend to the heir. apparently indiscriminately to express the same thing. It is As regards the word “land,” we must draw a further distincLoticeable also that these sections are prefaced with the words, tion. Our doubt was expressly grounded upon the effect of the “ with respect to mines lying under or near the railway"; but words “ of any tenure," which our correspondent omits. We Kay, J., concludes that even if “ mines of” and “minerals" are gave what we think are strong reasons for supposing that it is to be read together, the word “mines” must include open work much more difficult to bring terms of years under a phrase comings by quarrying and otherwise. If that were not so, the railway prising these words, than it would be to bring them under the would have no power to inspect or prevent open workings within | bare word “ land.” forty yards of their railway, which might have the effect of We cannot at all concur with our correspondent in his apparent destroying it. This interpretation is borne out by the Scotch assumption, that these are mere“ words of amplification," case of Jamieson v. The North British Company (6 Sc. L. R. 188), which may be omitted without affecting the sense of the which is almost the converse of The Midland Railway Company v. passage. He seems himself to have thought that, for his The Haunchwood Brick and Tile Company under the Scotch Rail-purpose, their room was more desirable than their company; ways Companies Act, and it was also adopted in Dixon v. The and we are of the same opinion. If the Conveyancing Act, like Caledonian Railway Company (29 W. R. 249, L. R. 6 App. the Statute of Frauds, bad used the word “land ” without 820).

defining it, we should easily, by virtue of colloquial usage, have In the Railways Clauses Act, then, it seems clear that the words admitted terms of years to be within the phrase “a mortgagor of “ mines and minerals” include open workings : but where these land.” But when the word “land” is elaborately defined, and words are used elsewhere, it appears doubtful whether, apart the definition is composed solely of phraseology which, according from anything to show a contrary intention, they would have so to its proper usage, might have been expressly designed to exclude wide a meaning. The word “minerals" may mean as Meilish. | terms of years, we confess to feeling some difficulty. If our corL.J., said-anything which can be got from underneath the sur- respondent's view of the Act's meaning is correct, this elaborate face of the earth for the purpose of profit ; but looking at Darvill definition, instead of serving any useful purpose, is a mere source v. Roper, Bell y. Wilson, and Hext v. Gill, a reservation of min- of confusion and obscurity. The Act would have been more erals will not by itself give a right to disturb the surface of the easily intelligible without it. land. On the whole, where mines and minerals are reserved in a Now we come to our correspondent's remarks upon the Statute grant, if it is probable that there are any minerals which can be of Frauds. He begins by referring to the statute in general got only by surface working, the grantor should not rely on the terms; but he confines his argument to section 7. Had he looked reservation alone, but should see that words are inserted by which at section 6, he would have found in it the express phrase," lands, he will secure for himself the right of breaking the surface. tenements, and hereditaments" ; which, as he is of course very well aware, has precisely the same meaning as the other phrase, 1880, $58,448 138. 11d. ; so that during five years more than half á “ lands and tenements," which occurs in section 5 and also later

million sterling has thus accrued. After payment of the Crown's share, on in section 6 itself. It is too well settled to need reference to

grants to persons having claims on the bounty of the Crown, costs, &c.;

there remained a balance in hand of £177,374 58. 10d. cases that the phrase here does not include “ leaseholds for years."

These estates are only held by the Crown till legitimate claimants The testimony of the statute is, at all events, not unanimously in

appear, and I would venture to suggest that future returns might give a our correspondent's favour.

little fuller information, so that persons interested could without trouble It is true that sections 5 and 6 were repealed by the Wills obtain all necessary particulars to enable them to substantiate their Act, their operation having been made superfluous by the latter claime. Act's provisions. But this fact does not seem to affect the argu

The following notice was given last session :ment. Though the statute was repealed piecemeal, it was passed

“SIR HERBERT MAXWELL.-Intestates' estates reverting to the Crown.

Return showing the total amount received on behalf of the Crown since as a whole; and the repealed parts seem to throw as much light

the passing of “The Treasury Solicitor Act, 1876," with the names and as those still in force upon the meaning of the words which the

addresses of the intestates, also the names and addresses of intestates statute uses.

whose estates are in course of administration, with the amount of each Finally, we arrive at the 7th section itself; but we must beg estate." leave to quote rather more of it than the slight fragment given The return suggested would prove invaluable to the public, and the by our correspondent. The words of the section are :~ All notice will, I hope, be repeated next session. declarations of trusts or confidences of any lands, tenements, or

I may add that an Act just passed transfers to the Exchequer an hereditaments, shall be manifested,” &c. The words of the inter

extraordinary “windfall"-namely, no less a sum than £143,272 118. 2d.

arising from fractions of a penny on dividends on the National Debt, it pretation in the Conveyancing Act are:-“Land . . . in

being customary not to pay fractions of a penny on Government cludes land of any tenure, and tenements, and hereditaments,"


EDWARD PRESTON. &c. We suppose tbat we may leave the tenements and hereditaments out of consideration; for our correspondent is not likely to contend that “ leaseholds for years ” are either tenements or

SHERIFFS' OFFICERS. hereditaments. Then it would seem that, in the opinion of our

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] correspondent, the fact that all trusts of any lands” has been Sir,--Referring to the correspondence at the early part of the year held to include a “ trust of leaseholds." is a strong reason why and to the committee appointed to deal with this question, and to the “ land of any tenure” should be held to include " leaseholds."

action I successfully institated to illustrate that irregularities could not We must humbly confess that, to our apprehension, this argument

be permitted without payment of damages, will you allow me to say that

I intend to incorporate the facts in a paper at the Hull meeting, does not seem to be quite conclusive.

entitled “ Ought the execution of writs to be removed from the office of The Statute of Frauds is notoriously one of the worst drafted

sheriff ?" and that I shall be glad to receive from the profession particuActs in the statute book. It is of evil omen that our corre lars of any authenticated cases of complaint ? FRANCIS K. MUNTON. spondent should have been able to find nothing with which, in 954, Queen Victoria-street, E.O., August 21. this respect, to compare the Conveyancing Act, except the Statute of Frauds. At the conclusion of our previous article we said that it would

“RE.CONVEYANCE.” give us great satisfaction if, contrary to our expectation, some

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] method should be found to put the required construction upon Sir,-We shall be much obliged by the opinion of yourself or any of section 18 of the Conveyancing Act which should be appropriate your correspondents on the following point under the Conveyancing to the interpretation of highly important statutes upon highly and Law of Property Act which has arisen, to our knowledge, in several technical subjects. It is a serious question whether the method cases. proposed by our correspondent comes very obviously within that

A re.conveyance of a mortgage created prior to the Act is drawn on the description.

assumption that the statutory form applies to such a case. Section 29, of course, applies only to a re-conveyance of a recent mortgage; but cannot it be contended that the other sections of the Act make the

statutory form practically apply to a re-conveyance of any mortgage ? For REVIEWS.

instance, section 6 dispenses with the necessity for general words, section

7 (F.) does away with the covenant against incumbrances, and section 51 STONE'S JUSTICES.

substitutes the words “ in fee simple” for “heirs." If all these sections

apply to a re-conveyance, as they appear to do, unless the interpretation Stone's PRACTICE FOR JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, JUSTICES' CLERKS, AND clause as to a “conveyance" is not general enough to include a "re-con

SOLICITORS AT PETTY AND SPECIAL SESSIONS, IN SUMMARY MATTERS, veyance," it would seem that the limitation in section 29 of the appli. AND INDICTABLE OFFENCES, &c. With Forms. NINTH EDITION. By cability of the statutory form of re-conveyance is, in effect, no limitation WALTER HENRY VACNAMARA, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Registrar to the at all.

SUBSCRIBERS. Railway Commissioners. Stevens & Sons ; H. Sweet; W. Maxwell &

Aug 23. The chief interest of the present edition of this well-known work arises from the insertion in it of the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. These have been carefully and succinctly stated by

CASES OF THE WEEK. Mr. Macnamara. The rules made under the Act are placed under the subjects to which they relate, being chiefly grouped in the chapter

BEFORE THE VACATION JUDGE. relating to arrangement of the business at petty sessions and the chapter PRACTICE-NON-PAYMENT OF TAXED Costs—WRIT OF FI. FA.- PERSONAL on civil debto. It may perhaps be suggested that an index showing SERVICE. - In the case of In re Upperton, before North, J., sitting as Vacawhere the differont rules are to be found would be an advantage. In tion Judge, on the 23rd inst., a motion was made ex parte for leave to issue a other respects Mr. Macpamara has brought the book down to date as writ of fi. fa. against one Brailsford, who had failed to pay certain taxed costs. regards cases and legislation.

It appeared that the time mentioned in the order of the taxing master had expired, but on application to the clerk at the writ office, the writ of fi. fa. was refused, on the ground that the order of the taxing master had not been personally served on the respondent. A letter from the respondent, written

during the course of the proceedings in respect of which the costs were in. CORRESPONDENCE.

curred, was read, to the effect that the respondent would accept any service by registered letter addressed to his country residence. It was stated that

the refusal at the writ office was grounded 00 wbat was a rule of practice CROWN WINDFALLS.

only. NORTH, J., after consulting with the registrar, said that as an affidavit [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

had beeu made proving the service of the order in the manner indicated by the

respondent himself, he should give the leave now asked for.-SOLICITORS, Sir,-A return recently presented to Parliament shows that during Baker, Folder, d: Upperton. the year 1881 there was received by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of tho Orowy, in respect of the estates of persons dying without known | LAND SOCIETY-WINDING UP_NON-REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY_COMPANIES next of kin, the sum of £64,227 58. 10d. Since the passing of the Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. C. 89), s. 4.- In the case of In re The Belle Vue Treasury Solicitor Act, 1876, the receipts have been as follows:-1877, Freehold Land Society, also before North, J., on the 23rd inst., a petition $127,875 198, 110.; 1878, $139,769 9g. 3d. ; 1879, $140,879 38. 5d. was presented by a creditor for the wioding up of the society. It appeared


that the society was constituted as a land society by a deed dated October, were paid for by them, but to whom the money was paid did not appear. The 1878, and consisted of more than twenty members, but was not registered plaintiff had served notice on the corporation to produce the contract, if any, under the 4th section of the Companies Act, 1862. Under under which the work was done, but the defendants declined to produce any these circumstarces the petition way, on the 16th inst., ordered by contract. As soon as it appeared that the defendants declined to produce the North, J., to stand over until the next sittings for the production contract, if any, and did not intend to go into evidence, I allowed Mr. Learoyd, of authority showing that such a society was not an association for the who had concluded his case (Mr. Atkinson for the defendants objecting), to purpose of carrying on a business that had for its object the acqui- call the borough surveyor, who gave evidence to the effect stated above. sition of gain within the meaning of the above-mentioned section of the Com. Some correspondence with the town clerk was read, but no contract under the panies Act, and did not require to be registered. The case of Wigfield v. Potter seal of the corporation was produced. The defence of the corporation was (45 L. T. N. S. 612) was cited, where the divisional court held that registra threefold - first, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, tion of a land society was unnecessary. NORTH, J., said that the case cited and could not recover ; secondly, that no civil action could be main seemed to cover the point raised, and made the usual order for a compulsory tained against the surveyors of highways, which office thay held, for an winding up.-SOLICITORS, Hickin & Graham; Cattarns, Jehu, 8 Hughes, for acoident caused by non-repair of the highway; and, thirdly, that the plaintiff Younge, Wilson, & Co., Sbeffield.

had not shows that the men who did this work were servants of the corporation. They were no doubt servants of the contractor, but, if so, the corporation

were not liable. With regard to the first defence, I confess I am PRACTICE-RECEIVER-APPLICATION BY PERSON NOT PARTY-CLAIM FOR

unable to see how either in fact or law it could be maintained. Dr. Scott and his RENT-PETITION—Costs.-Ia the case of O'Hagan v. The North Wingfield

coachman, were, no doubt, aware that these repairs had been going oo, but Colliery Company, also before North, J., on the 23rd ins., a receiver

when they found tbe barriers and surplus stones removed without any intibaving been appointed in the action, a petition was presented by the lessor of

mation to the contrary, they assumed, as they had a right to assume that the company, who was not a party to the action, that the receiver might be

the street was fit for public traffio. Probably the plaintiff's coachman ordered to pay a sum due for rent, or that leave might be given to distraio.

assumed that he ought to drive carefully over the newly.finished street, and It appeared that the receiver bad, since the presentation of the petition, tendered payment of tbe amount claimed without costs.

be appears to have done so, going round the corner at a walking pace, and It was argued by

I fail to see what more be could do, being obliged to go round the corner to the petitioner tbat, although the application might be made by summons or by

get to bis destination. On the facts, therefore, this contention cannot be motion or by petition, yet where the person applying was not a party to the

sustained. Nor are the defendants, I think, more fortunate on the point of cause, and the property over which the receiver had been appointed was landed

law. It was held by the House of Lords in the case of Radley P. property, the proper mode of proceeding was by petition (Kerron Receivers, 1 26.7; Richards v. Richards, John. 255). NORTH, J., said that the method

London and North-Western Railway Company (L. R. 1 App. 755),

that though a plaintiff may bave been goilty of negligence, and though of procedure depended wholly on the nature of the case. There was no doubt

that negligence may in fact have contributed to the accident, yet if the that the applicant here was entitled to the order asked for, and he should tbere. fore make it, but without costs, for the applicant's proper course was to have

defendant could in the result, by the exercise of ordinary care and diligenoe, proceeded in chambers by summons.-SOLICITORS, Chester, Mayhew, Broome,

bave avoided the mincbief which happened, the plaintiff's negligence will & Griffithes, for Black, Chesterfield; W. H. Roberts; Goldring.

not exouse bim. Can there be a doubt that if the defendants had taken ordinary care in removing the pitob, or in making it safe by putting on

ashes, the accident would not have bappened? On the second point, which COMPANY_WINDING UP PETITION-ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD-MOTION was argued witb very great ability and learniog by Mr. Learoyd for the TO STRIKE OUT ON GROUND OF SCANDAL.-In the case of in re The

of the plaintiff, and also by Mr. E. T. atkinson on behalf of the defendants, tbe Indian Kingston and Sandhurst Gold Mining Company (Limited), also before

defence also faile. It is quite true, and established by a long series of North, J., on the 23rd inst., & motion was made to have certain paragrapbs

authorities, among wbich one of the latest is Gibson v. The Mayor of Preston struck out of a petition presented by contributories for the winding up of the

(L. R. 5 Q. B. 218), that the surveyors of high ways are not in tbat company on the ground that it was a bubble company. The applicant had |

oharaoter liable in a oivil action for the non-repair of the highway. This not been served with the petition, and the paragraphs complained of contained | principle was laid down at a time when corporate bodies were maob less charges against the promoters of the company, and included amongst the names

common than at present; otherwise I tbiok it very doubtful whether the of the promoters the name of the applicant. It was on his beball submitted role would ever bave obtained at all. Indeed, in one of the earliest cages, that it could readily be proved that he never had been a promoter. It was, on

I believe the earliest-Russell v. The Men of Devon (2 T. R. 667)-one of the other hand, contended by the petitioners that the paragraphs were material, the grounds on which Lord Kopyon principally relied, in allowing the and that if applications of the present nature were entertained the merits of the demurrer, was that the defendants were not a corporation bavlog funds out wbolo petition would be entered into before the petition itself could actually of wbioh the damages might be paid. Bat beyond doubt, in the present state be beard, and that this might occur upon the same petition, not once, but re of the law, neither surveyors under the Highway Aots, nor lo al boards peatedly. NORTH, J., said that the applicant's case might be a bard one, and olothed with tbat office, are liable in a civil action for injaries sustained by The allegations contained in the paragraphs objected to might, in fact, be un. reason of the non-repair of the highways. To this extent they are pro. true, but they nevertheless appeared to be relevant. This being so, the motion teoted, but this protection is oopfined to cases of non feagance, such as nonmust be dismissed with costs.-SOLICITORS, Linklater & Co; Walter B. repair. A great pomber of cases have been cited on both sides in reference Styer.

to this point, but I do not intend to refer to them partionlarly, because I think in all of them, with perhaps a single exception-piz., The Borough of

Bathurst V. Macpherson (L. R. 4 App. 268)—the distinction is uniformly COUNTY COURTS.

maintained betwood damage arising from nonfeasance and damage from misHUDDERSFIELD.

feagance. In cases of nonfeasanoo surveyors of highways, 48 suob,

whether clothed with a corporate character or not, are in a civil action (Before J. W. DE LONGUEVILLE GIFFARD, Esq., Judge.)

anassailable ; but, on the other hand, for damages arising from acts of mig. Aug. 17.-Scott v. The Corporation of Huddersfield.

foasapoo they have been held liable; and though clad in the impenetrable

armour of the 117th section of 11 & 12 Viot. 0. 68, in Poreman v. The Mayor Highway-Negligence-Corporation Employment of contractor. of Canterbury (L. R. 6 Q. B. 214), a heap of stones used in the His HONOUR delivered judgment in the above case as follows:--The plaintiff repair of the road was left projecting into the road some fire feet in this action claims £50 damages for injury to a horse, cansed by the acts without light or proteotion, and, an accident having been thus ocoa. of the defendants or their servants, in placing pitch upon the surface of sioned, the question arose whether the local board, who were the the public streets, 80 as to render it dangerous and unfit for public surveyors of high ways, were liable. This was clearly a case of misfeasance, traffic. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses, who were and the defendants were accordingly held liable. On the other hand, in uncontradicted (as the defendants called none), showed that for some weeks Gibson V. The Mayor of Preston, the local board were held not prior to the 19th of October the corporation were engaged in laying down tram liable quc surveyors of the highways for misseasance. The case was strongly roads upon some of the principal streets in Huddersfield, and in course of this relied on by the defendants, but is really no more than a late edition of the work bad taken up a considerable portion of the pavement and the setts. In old law. White v. The Hindley Local Board (L. R. 10 Q. B. 219), appears refixing the setts the interstices were filled up with pitch, in which operation an instance of the rule, and, perhaps, to some extent, the exception. The and in melting and carryiog the pitcb, patches were left in several places on plaintiff, while riding on the highway, trod upon a grating to drain off the the surface of the highway. Prior to and on the 18th of October, which was surface water, and the grating being faulty, gaye way, and injured the horse's Tuesday, several parts of Westgate and New.street, where the workmen were log. In an action by the owner for damages against the local board, it was engaged, were partially stopped for traffic by wooden barriers, placed so as to held that though the defendants might not be liable as surveyors for non-reprevent carriages and oarts from passing over until the road was finished. On pair of the highway, yet as owners of the grating tbey were liable. I bave the 18th Dr. Scott drove in his carriage down Westgate into New-street, at been unable to find a single case where local boirds guilty of misfeasance have which time the barriers were up. On the next day, Wednesday, the 19th, not been held liable ; and with perbaps the exception to which I bave before having occasion to call at Mr. King's, the chemist, whose shop is next but one referred, I have not found a single case where the surveyors of highways, to the corner formed by Westgate falling into New-street at right angles, Dr. whether corporate bodies or not, bave been beld liable for mere non. Scott's coachman drove at a walking pace round the corner, when the horse's feasance. In the case to which I have referred-piz., The Borough of near hind leg slipped on the surface of the street, and in attempting to recover Bathurst V. Macpherson-the damage arose from non-repair of a road, himself the horse slipped again, and could with great difficulty be got on his the defect being caused by neglecting to repair an artificial draia which the foet by the coachman, who ultimately got him up and led him home. By the defendants had constructed in the road.' The defendants were, however, medical evidence wbich was adduced, it was proved that the horse had sug. held liable. Sir Barnes Peacock, in delivering tbe judgment of the tained an incurable injury, and was worth sometbing between £5 and £15. Privy Council said that the court was of opinion that the defendants, The horse, a short time before, had been purchased unbroken for £50, and at by constructing the drain and neglecting to repair it, bad caused a dangerous the time of the accident was worth $75. The plaintiff proved that the setts hole to be left in the road, which bad been upfenced, and constituted a nuisance, were fixed, in which operation the pitch was principally required, by men for which they might be indicted, and in respect of which they were liable for working under the superintendence of the sarveyor of the corporation, and damages at the suit of anyone injured thereby. Mr. Atkinson endeavoured to dis. tinguish this case on the ground that the defendants were not surveyors of high. his successful eff rts for the abolition of domestic slavery. In 1874 be receivid ways, but, as they had the charge of the roads, and the rights and immunities of the honour of koi_hthool, an I in 1881 he retired on a pension, Sir J. Smale surveyors, the name seems to me of small account. The question then arises, bad beeu twice married. Did this injury proceed from non feasance or misfeasance ? I confess I do not entertain much doubt on this point. The rot complained of is the spreading of a quantity of pitch on the surface of the street, whereby it was rendered slippery

MR. GEORGE BUZZARD. and dangerous, and to describe such an act as non-repair of the road seems a contradiction in terms. Suppose, in this work, one of the barriers had been

Mr. George Buzzard, solicitor, of the St. James's Vestry Ha!), Piccadilly,

dient at this, tbrown down and left there during the night, and a horse Lad tripped over in

died at his residence, 12, Waverley-place, St. Jobn's Wood, on the 12th inst., the darkness and broken bis leg, would that be nonfeasance or misfeasance ?

in his eightieth year. Mr. Buzzard was born in 1803. He was admitt:d a I think no one would be hardy enongh to call such an act nonfe is ince, but, if

solic. tor in 1827, and duriog his long professional career he had held several 80, how does that case differ in privciple from the present one? With regard

important appointments in the metropolis. He was formerly clerk to the to the last point, by whom was this work done? I think the corporation,

St. James's Board of Guardians, and he was until his death superintendente in their defence, have been more ingenious than candid. They called no wit.

registrar for the di-trict of Westminster. He was also clerk to the Licensing

Magistrates for the St. James's Division, Mr. George Allen beiog associated nesses, they produced no contract from which the facts could be elicite 1, and

with him in that office. Hy was appointed vestry clerk of the parish of St. compelled the plaintiff's advocate to call a hostile witness the corporation's surveyor- to prove the facts. That gentleman, on being examined, gave bis

James, Piccadilly, in 1832, and in April last, on completing his fiftieth evidence in a very fair and creditable way; and from bis testimony two facts

year of office, he was presented by the parishioners with a silver salver and a are clearly proved, that the fixing the setts was done under the superintend.

purse of sovereigns. At a special vestry held on the 15th inst., the following ence of the witness, who is the borough surveyor, and tbat tte corporation

resolution was passed :-"That this vestry, in offering its expressions of coosupplied the stones, and paid for the labour. In my opinion, this evidence

dolence to the family and friends of the late Mr. Buzzard on their sudden

bereavement, desire to place on record its high appreciation of his potable casts the burden of proving that the work was done by a contractor on the

career for more than fifty years as vestry clerk of this parish, bis great ap:itude corporation, if tbey rely on any such defence. One thing, at all events, is clear, tbat the corporation exercised dominion over the work by their own sur.

and knowledge, bis unswerving hon-sty and great zeal, and his able performveyor, and by supplying the stones, and, if so, though part of the work may have

ance of his duties through that lengtbened period to the day of his death in

this and other offices held by him in the parish of St. James," Nearly all been done by a contractor, still i hey are liable. A similar point arose in

the members of the vestry were present at Mr. Bazzard's faneral at the Hamp. tbe case of Pendlebury v. Greenhalgh (L. R. 1 Q. B. 40), which in its

stead Cemetery on the 16th ir st. circomstanoes very moob resembles the present case, and there the court held that the defendants were liable. The same principle was laid down in Burgess v, Gray (1 C. B. 578). If the corporation rely on any contract, they

MR. THOMAS GEORGE DISMORE. are bound to produce it, and show a valid contract under the seal of the corporation, which is the only way they could enter into a contract of this kind :

Mr. Thomas George Dismore, solicitor and potary (of the firm of Thornly Hunt v. Wimbledon Local Board (L. R. 40. P. D. 46). Bat, in truth, even if & Dismore), of Liverpool, was killed by a fall from a precipice on the 20th there bad been a valid contract poder the seal of the corporation, of whiob. inst., while on a tour in Norih Wales. He had made the ascent of Snowdoi in the present case, there is no trace, the corporation would still be liable.

in company with Mr. George Norton, another Liverpool solicitor, but on their By their private Act all the streets, &c., are vested in them, and, by the

return to Llanberis, Mr. Dismore missed his fonting and fell. His body was 20th section, every person distorbing the pavements, &o., witboat their

found the next morning very much mutilated, and death appears to have been consent in writing, is made liable to a penalty, and by the 16th section, the

instantaneous. Mr. Dismore was born in 1848. He was admitted a solicitor corporation sball be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor for negleoting to

in 1871, and he had been for several years in partnership with Mr. James keep the highways in repair. Where there is this statutory obligation

Thornly. He was & notary public, and he bad a good private practice. He imposed on any public body, they cannot divest themselves of their liability

was secretary to the Liverpool Juoior Liberal Association, but he was very by contracting themselves out of it: Hole v. Siltingbourne and Sheerness

popular with all parties in the city.
Railway Company (R. C. 6 H. & N. 488); Ellis v. Sheffield Gas Consumers'
Company (2 E. & B. 267). On these grounds I am of opinion that the
plaintiff is entitled to a verdiot with costs.

Solicitors for the plaintiff, Learoyd f. Piercy.
Solicitors for the defendants, Brook, Freeman, d Batley.


Mr. DUNCAN Robert MALCOLM, solicitor, of Leeds and Wakefield, bai been appointed Clerk to the Rawdon Local Board. Mr. Malcolm was

admitted a solicitor in 1876. OBITUARY.

Mr. ROBERT WELCH MACKRETH, barrister, bas been appointed Clerk to

the Willesden Sobool Board. Mr. Maokreth was called to the bar at Lincoln'sMR. JAMES CROUME.

inn in Trinity Term, 1874.

Mr. RICHARD HOLMES, solicitor (of the firm of Holmsa, Son, & Lear), of Mr. James Croome, barrister, died at Middleton Cheney, Northamptonshire,

Arundel and Littlebampton, has been appointed Clerk to the newly-inrmed on the 23rd of June, at the age of filty.six. The deceased was the second

Arundel Burial Board. Mr. Holmes was admitted a solicitor in 1846. He son of the late Mr. Robert Croome, of Middleton Cheney, and was born in

is town clerk of Arande', registrar of the Arundel County Court, and clerk 1826. He was educated at the Charterhouse and at Brase nose College, Oxford, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple io Hilary Term,

to the county magistrates and the Commissioners of Taxes. 1857. He practised on the South-Eastern Circuit, and also at the Middlesex, Mr. SYDENHAM Payn, solicitor, of Dover, has been elected Coroner for Essex, Hertford, St. Albans, and Colchester Sessions, and at the Central that borough. Mr. Payn was admitted a solicitor in 1867. Criminal Court. He bad a good share of criminal and appeal business, and Mr. CHARLES JAMES GRIMWADE, solicitor, of Hadleigb, has been elected also at the various county courts and licensing sessions in the metropolitan Clerk to the Hadleigh Local Board. Mr. Grimwade was admitted a solici. district. Mr. Croome was a man of most courteous manners and generous tor in 1866. and amiable disposition, and his death is mourned by a very large circle of professional friends. He was unmarried.

Mr. ALEXANDER Craig-SELLAR, ad rooute, who has been elected M.P. for the Haddington Burghs in the Liberal interest, is the son of Mr. Patrick

Sellar, of Westfield, Morayshire, and was born in 1835. He was educated MR. JOHN LATIMER.

at Ragby and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he gradnated first class ia Mr. John 'Latimer, solicitor, died at Leeds on the 18th ult. Mr. Latimer

classics in 1858. He was called to tbe bar in Scotland in 1862, and he was was the eldest son of Mr. David Latimer, of Kirklington Hall, Cumberland,

private secretary to the present Lord Young wben Lord-Advocate. and was born in 1827. He was admitted a solicitor in 1854, and he had Mr. GEORGE WHITE, solicitor, of Gaildford, has been elected Clerk to the practised for over twenty-five years at Leeds. He had an extensive private Worplesdon Sobool Board. Mr. White is registrar of tte Gaildford County practice, and he was solicitor to the Leeds Coinmercial Building Society, the Skyrack and Morley Savings Bank, and other important bodies. Mr. Latimer

Sir GEORGE Young, baronet, who has been appointed a Commissioner of was buried on the 23rd ult. He leaves a widow and five children,

Charities, is the eldest surviving son of the late Sir George Young, Bart.,

his mother basing been a dangbter of the late Mr. Serjeant Praed, and was SIR JOHN SMALE.

born in 1837. He was educated at Eton, and he was formerly fellow of

Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as a senior optime, and Sir John Smale, knight, many years Chief Justice of Hong Kong, died at

also in the second class of the classical tripos in 1860. He was called to 21, Sussex-place, Regent's park, on the 13th inst., at tbe age of seventy

the bar at Lincolu's-ion in Easter Term, 1864, and be bas praotised in the seven. Sir J. Smale was the son of Mr. John Smale. He was born in 1805,

Chancery Division. Sie G. Yogog proceeded in 1870 to British Guiana ag and he was educated at Manchester College, York. He was for a few years

a Commissioner to inquire into the Condition of the Coolies in that colony, in practice as a solicitor, but he afterwards entered at the Inner Temple, where he was called to the bar in Easter Term, 1842. He practised for

and he was secretary to the Factory Acts Commission in 1875, and to the eighteen years at the Chancery Bar, and was the author of a series of reports in

Irish Land Commission in 1880. the court of Vice-Chancellors Parker and Hall, compiled in conjunction Mr. ADEL JOnn Ram, barrister, bag been appointed Chairman of the with Mr. De Gex, and afterwards with Mr. De Longueville Giffard. He was Board of Conciliation for tbe Carpet Trade. Mr. Ram is the son of the Rev. Attorney-General of Hong Kong from 1860 till 1866, when he was appointed Abel John Ram, rootor of Rolleston, Staffordshire. He is a graduate of Chief Justice of that colony. He will be long remembered at Hong Kong for Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and he was called to the bar at the Ioner

[ocr errors]

Temple in Trinity Term, 1872. He practised on the Oxford Circuit and at ibe Staffordsbire Sessions, and he has been for several years a revising barrister,





GEORGE Lewis PHIPPS EYRE and James Masox ALLEN, golioitors, 1,

LIMITED IN CHANCERY. Jobn-street, Bedford-row, Aug. 18. The basiness will be carried on as bere. BRUNSWICK LAGER BEER BREWERY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug. tofore at the same place under the present style of G. L. P. Eyre & Co., by 16, directed to be heard before North, J., on Aug. 30, at 11. Chapman, London wall,

solicitor for the petitioner the said Goorgo Lewis Phipps Eyre.

[Gazette, Aug. 22.]

Cwm Avon ESTATE AND WORKS COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J.,

dated Aug. 5, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Vant, Leadenhall st,

solicitor for the petitioner WILLIAM SLACK AND Sox, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Aug. O, it

was ordered that the above company be wound up. Field and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, solicitors for the petitioner




Aug. 28, at 11, at the Municipal bldgs, Dale st, Liverpool, as the time and place for

the appointment of an official liquidator Aug. 17.Bills Read a Second Time.

[Gazette, Aug. 18.] Appropriation ; National Gallery Loan.

GOOLB ALUX AND SMELTING COMPANY, LIMITED.--Creditors are required, on or before

Sept 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or

claims, to Ebenezer Adamson, 25, Booth st, Manchester. Thursday, Oct. 12, at 11, is Bills in Committee. appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

"[Gazette, Aug. 22.) Appropriation ; Fishery Board (Scotland).

Bills Read a Third Time.

MILNTHORPE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Cross Keys Inn, Centre st, Milnthorpe, Westmorland

Aug. 14 Appropriation ; Revenue ; Friendly Societies ; National Dabt ; Fishery

[Gazette, Aug. 18.) Board (Scotland).

ST. JAMBI’S PROVIDENT SOCIETY, Longton, Stafford. Aug. 18

(Gazette, Aug. 22.) Aug. 18.-Royal Assent, · The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the following Bills :

Appropriation ; Civil Imprisonment (Scotland); Somersbam Rectory ; Bills of Sale Amendment; Arrears of Rent (Ireland); Eotail (Scotland); Annual Turnpike Acts Continuance ; Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland); Bombay Civil Fund; Isle of Man (Officers); Pensions Commutation ; County Courts (Costs and Salaries) ; Lunacy Regulation Amendment; Municipal Corpora

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. lions ; Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment; Labourers' Cottages and

LAST DAY OF PROOF. Allotment (Ireland); Bills of Exchange ; Electrio Lightiog; Reserve Forces ;

ATKINS, RICHARD, Albion rd, South Hampstead, Gent. Sept 30. Mott v Allen and

Atkins, Fry, J, Kingsford and Co, Essex st, Strand Militia ; Artisans' Dwellings; Merchant Shipping (Expenses); Government

BAGLEY, GEORGE, West Drayton, Middlesex. Oct 1. Bagley v Bagley, Kay, J. Annuities; Educational Endowments (Scotland); Iniermediate Education Beswick, Bedford row (Ireland) South Wales Turnpike Roads (Amendment); Corrupt Practices SMALLPAGE, ISAIAH, Burnloy, Lancaster. Sept 30. Phillips v Smallpago, Hall, V.C.

Artindale, Burnley (Suspension of Elections); Passenger Vessels; Licenses Amendment (Scotland); Expiring Laws Continuance; Public Works Loans ; Constabulary (Ireland)

SMITH, Aaron, Catford Bridge, Kent, Captain. Sept 21. Day v Bonaini, Kay, J.

Ward, Walbrook Amendment; Pricon Charities ; Married Women's Property; Allotments UMPHALBY, JANR, Portland House, Camberwell. Oct 2. Nash v Ward, Hall, V.C. Extension ; India (Home Oharges Arrears); Revenue ; Friendly Societies ;

Mander, New 89, Lincoln's inn National D-bt; Ancient Monuments Protection ; Citation Amendment (Scot.

WRAY, WILLIAM, March, Cambridge, Surgeon. Sept 15. Marshall v Wray, Bacon, V.O.

Dawbarn, March laod); Merchant Shipping (Colonial Inquiry); Post-office Parcels ; Fishery

Gazette, Aug. 18.] Board (Scotland) ; Wellesley-bridge (Limerick); Metropolitan Street Improve. BAKER, CHARLES, Northwood's Asylum, Frampton Cotterell, Gloucester, Gent. Oct 2. ments Amendment; Church Fenton, Cawood, and Wistow Railway ; Chad.

Gadd y Baker, Kay, J. Harwood, Bristol

[Gazette, Aug. 22.7 derton Improvement; Ballymeoa and Portylenone Railway; Peckban, Lewis. ham, and Catford Bridge road ; Eastern and Midland Railway (Amalgamation); Devon and Cornwall Central Railway ; Gowan and Portpatrick Junction Rail.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35. way (Arrangement); East Warwickshire Waterworks ; Rocs District Water ;

LAST DAY OF CLAIM. Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway ; Essex County (Loans);

ANSTIS, Rev MATTAIW, Bishton Hall, Stafford, Clerk. Sept 23. Morgan, Stafford Halifax Corporation ; Newcastle-upon-Type Corporation (Loans) ; Hudders.

ASHBURNER, WILLIAM, Barrow in Furness, Shipbuilder. Sept 11. Hudson, Barrow in

Furness field Corporation ; Rotherham Cirporation ; Swansea Corporation (Loans) ; BEE, WILLIAM, North Kelsey, Lincoln, Farmer. Sept 23. Sowter, Brigg Tynemouth Corporation (Loans) ; Wolverbampton Corporation (Loans) ; BERBY, RICHARD, Great Rollright, Oxford, Farmer. Oct 1. Saunders, Chipping Ionian Bank; Bute Docks; Blackburn Improvement; Bolton Improvement;


Casson, SARAH, Oakfield, Manningham, nr Bradford. Sept 21. Dunn and French, Derby Corporation ; Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Leeds Dock (New Works); Latimer Road and Ac'on Railway; London and South FIELD, WILLIAM, Blackfriars rd, Printer. Sept 29. Tilling, Devonshire chambers, Western and Metropolitan District Rail way (Kingston and London Railway);

Bishopsgate Macclesfield Corporation ; Wimbledon and West Metropolitan Juaction

FLETCHER, GBORGB, Shipton Sollars, Gloucester, Farmer. Sept 1. Brydges and Mel.

lersh, Cheltenham Railway; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway ; Baw FRANKLIN, WILLIAM, Great Dunmow, Essex, Carpenter, Sept 1. Wade and Co, try and Trent Railway and Dock; Bridgewater Railway; North Cornwall Dunmow Railway; Charing-oross and Waterloo Electric Railway; Dover Hurbour ;

GOULD, GEORGE MASTERS, Maidstone, Clerk in Holy Orders. Sept 20. Helmore,

Bishopsgate st. Within London Soutbern Tramways; Mersey Railway; Metropolitan District Rail. GREGORY, WILLIAM, Bristol, Solicitor. Sept 29. Gregory and Son, Bristol way; Rhymney, Soutbport, and Cheshire Lines Extension Railway; Regent's GURNEY, ELIZA Paul, West Hill, near Burlington, New Jersey, North America. Sept Cabal, City, and Docks Railway ; South-Eastern Railway (New Lines and

15. Cooper and Co, Norwich

HENSHALL, Thomas, Chester, Timber Merchant. Sept 4. Walker and Co. Chester Wideniogs); Metropolitan Outer Circle Railway ; Radstock, Wrington, and

HOWORTH, EDWARD, Farington Lodge, nr Preston, Esq. Sept 23. Taylor, Preston Congresbury Junction Railway; Beaconsfield, Uxbridge, and Harrow Rail. Hunt, Thomas, Garaley, Worcester, Maltster. Sept 1. Saunders and Bradbury, way ; Stourhead Settled Estates.

JOHNSON, JOIN, Balsall Heath, Worcester, Coal Dealer. Sept 1. Saunders and Brad

bury, Birmingham

KISBY, JOHN, Withington, nr Manchester, Gentleman. Aug 30. Brooke, Hyde HOUSE OF COMMONS.

KNOWLES, THOMAS, Scarborough, Gentleman. Oct 2. Tate and Cook, Scarborough

LEES, Asa, Ashton under Lyne, Lancaster, Esq. Oct 31. Ponsonby and Carlile, Oldham Aug, 17.-Bill Read a Second Time.

LILLY, BENJAMIN, Birmingham, Ships' Brassfoundor. Sept. 7. Parr and Hayes,

Birmingham Payment of Wages io Public-houses Prohibition.

LLOYD, Rev HENRY WILLIAM, Aston Tirrold, Berks, Clerk. Oct 24. Mackeson and Co,

Lincoln's inn fields
MAILE, CHARLES RAIKES, Huntingdon, Retired Builder. Sept 12. Jennings and Co,

Burton on Trent
MARK, JOAN, Carlisle, Iron Merchant. Sept 30. Wright and Brown, Carlisle
MOORE, CHARLES WILSOX, Cheltenham, Major-General Indian Army. Sept 22. Allisons

and Allison, Louth DRINKING FOUNTAIN IN LINCOLN'S-INN-FIELDS.-00 Monday morning a

OGLESBY, WILLIAM, Lincoln, Furniture Broker. Sept 23, Sowter, Brigg new founiain was unveiled in Lincoln's-inn-fields, under the auspices of the

OSBORN, ROBERT ARTHUR, Fulham, Nurseryman. Oct 6. Walker and Co, Southampton

st, Bloomsbury Metropolitan District Fountain and Catile Trough Aesociation, in memory of Proctor, GEORGE JAMES, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Glass Manufacturer. Sept 12. Bird. the late Mr. Philip Twells, barrister-at-law, formerly M.P. for the City of

Newcastle-upon-Tyne London. Several members of the family were present, and the ceremony was

SPOONER, WILLIAM, Clare ct, St Clement Danes. Sept 8. Letts Brothers, Bartlett's

bldgs performed by Mrs. Twells, who, in a few appropriate words, declared the foun- TIBBITS, Henry, Everton, Liverpool, Master Mariner. Sept 4. Simpson and North tain open to the public. It is built of bighly-polished granite, and its cost WEIGHT, EDMUND, Gloucester, Gent. Oct 2. Fryer and Blakeway, Gloucester is estimated at about £1,000. The design is an elegant one. The architect

WODEHOUSE, Rev ALGERNON, Easton Rectory, Southampton. Oct 1. Longbourne and

Co, Lincoln's inn fields was Mr. R. Keirle. -Times,

[Gazette, Aug. 11.)

« PreviousContinue »