« PreviousContinue »
General Correspondence. STALE DEMANDS. (In re Rutherford, Brown v. Rutherford, C.A., 28
CALL OF SOLICITORS TO TAE BAR. W. R. 802.)
[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Independently of the Statute of Limitations, the courts, from a very early period, held that after the
Sir,—Your readers have, doubtless, perused with much
interest the report contained in the columns of your lapse of twenty years a bond must be presumed to have been paid; and in Duffield v. Creed (5 Esp. 52), Lord
issue of the 24th inst. of the proceedings at the last Ellenborough extended the same presumption to a
annual meeting of the Incorporated Law Society. The promissory note. In the present case the plaintiff claimed subject of the call of solicitors to the bar was, apparently, to be allowed to prove in an administration action for when gentlemen of probably a more prosaic mental
the one topic of abiding attraction, and I notice that principal and interest on a promissory note indorsed with a note of payment of interest in 1858, since which constitution, and with, perhaps, a keener eye to the time there was no evidence of any interest having been main chance, sought to divert the discussion towards the paid. The note was made payable three months after question of solicitors' remuneration, their efforts were demand, and it was contended that there was
invariably futile. Amongst the gentlemen whose minds evidence of demand having been made, and the Statute
were agitated on the score of remuneration was Mr. of Limitations only ran after demand made. But
Proudfoot, and he had, also, something to say on the call the court met this contention with a two-fold answer :
of solicitors to the bar. Now, with Mr. Proudfoot's views first, the demand was a stale one; and next (following I cannot say that the subject has, at any time, any great
on remuneration I am not, at present, concerned ; indeed, Bamfield v. Tupper, 7 Ex. 27, where Parke, B., said that payment of interest was an acknowledgment that the attraction for me, convinced as I am that a good debt was due, and an act from which a promise might lawyer, worthy of his hire, will get it. But I have read, be implied to pay the debt), they held that the indorse
with much regret, Mr. Proudfoot's views on the question ment of payment of interest was evidence of demand
of the call of solicitors to the bar; and, with your permade for payment of the note.
mission, I desire to make a comment or two thereon.
“The rules,” Mr. Proudfoot is reported to have said?
“at the present moment, were as good as rules could be, A correspondent writes :-"It appears from the report and if a gentleman desired to go from that branch of of proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works that the profession to the other, it was quite right that he communications have passed between them and the Com-should take a little time in order that he might prepare missioners of Sewers of the City of London with reference himself for the different sphere which he was desirous to to a proposed improvement in Breams’-buildings, the enter; and if he was a young man it was quite proper effect of which would be to continue Carey-street across he should have three years, if necessary, in order to preChancery-lane, and immediately north of the Record pare himself and make himself perfect for the position Office, into Fetter-lane. Without doubt such an im.
he was going to take." provement would be a relief to the extensive heavy traffic which now passes along Carey.street and down Chancery envy Mr. Proudfoot that complacent satisfaction with
A contented mind is a continual feast, and all must lane into Fleet.street; but unless Carey-street is continued across Fetter-lane so as to lead the traffic down
the things that be which enables him to delare the rules into Farringdon-street, it will not be likely to induce rules can be.
which fetter the able and ambitious solicitor as good as carmen to abstain from turning their horses' heads down Chancery-lane instead of proceeding to Fetter-lane. I
If Mr. Proudfoot will go one step further and declarerecognize this proposed improvement as part of a scheme
that a solicitor has no right to be either able or am. more than thirty years old which, in addition to pro- bitious, I might feel constrained to admit the excellence longation of Carey-street in an easterly direction, of the rules in question; but my observation having comprised the opening of Great Turnstile as a roadway taught me that, even among solicitors, ability and amfor vehicles, and a continuation of Carey-street towards
bition are to be found, I must dissent from Mr. the west, and joining Drury-lane opposite the end of
Proudfoot's conclusion. In enunciating the propositions Long Acre. It may be questioned whether it would be
contained in the latter portion of the part of his speech advisable to invite extra heavy traffic past the Royal I have quoted, Mr. Proudfoot appears to have lost sight Courts of Justice, as it would probably come in such
of what the advocates for a removal of the present quantities as to create noise and confusion where quiet restrictions on solicitors are entitled to lay down as a is essentially necessary. What portions of this ancient postulate. I mean that it may be taken for granted scheme it is intended to carry out I am not informed ;
That only the more able and accomplished of the its incubation took place about the time the site for the
solicitors will, at any time, seek to be called to the bar ; New Law Courts was originally proposed to be where it and the supposition that they require any time “to prenow is, and evidently with a view to facilitate aceess to
pare for the different sphere they are desirous to enter," the new buildings. If the new streets are brought into
is based upon a most amazing ignorance of the relativa existence, they will inevitably attract the vehicular acquirements of the good solicitor and the averago traffic, and may perhaps cause great inconvenience; if barrister. I could introduce to Mr. Proudfoot solicitors they are not formed complaints will be made of the diffi.
who are accomplished lawyers, ready and eloquent advoculty of access from the north to the Royal Courts of cates, and perfect gentlemen-men who have the pick Justice; and this little nut is one which it must be left
of all worth having in both contentious and non-conten. to the Metropolitan Board of Works to crack.”
tious business—but whom the jealous benchers would Attorney-General Ward, says the Albany Law Journal,
declare not fit to take professional rank with those immabas given an opinion that telegraph poles are to be assessed
culate youths whose tenure of a junior brief at quarter as real estate. He says: “It is entirely clear to my mind
sessions is a period of agony to the unfortunate solicitors that these telegraph struotures are 'articles erected upon
suffering silently in the well in front. As for Mr. Proud. and affixed to the land,' so as to create an interest therein,
foot's assertion, that “not one solicitor out of a hundred and are, to the extent of the value thereof, land of the
wished to avail himself of the admission to the bar," I telegraph company erecting them, and as such liable to am not prepared to contradict it, having as little knop. taxation. And it is the duty of the assessors of the several ledge of the percentage in question on which to base a towns and wards of this State to assess the same as land
contradiction to such statement as, in all probability, to the value thereof, so far as any of their lines extend Mr. Proudfoot had on which to make it. But when Mr. through their respective assessment districts."
Proudfoot asserts that when that solitary one did get to
the bar, “he would do no good," Mr. Proudfoot Costs TAXATION APPORTIONMENT CLAIM gratuitously insults his own order.
COUNTER-CLAIM DISMISSED WITH Costs—ORD. 19, R. 3.-In Huddersfield, July 26. D. F. E. SYKES, LL.B.
a case of Mason v. Brentim, before the Court of Appeal on the 21st inst., the question arose how the costs of a claim and counter-claim ought to be taxed, both having been
dismissed with costs. The taxing master taxed the costs ARTICLED CLERKS.
of the olaim at £350, and the extra costs occasioned by [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]
the counter-claim at £10 103. The plaintiff objected to Sir, I have read with some interest your report of fendants' bill of cost which did not relate exclusively to
the taxation, on the ground that those items in the dethe discussion at the annual meeting of the Incorporated the claim or to the counter-claim, but were common to Law Society, which I was unable to attend, upon Mr.
both, ought to have been apportioned between the two. The G. R. Dodd's proposal to establish scholarships, and I taxing master held that the principle of taxation was regret that his resolutions were not carried. In my settled by the decision of Fry, J., in Saner v. Bilton (27 opinion his arguments were not satisfactorily answered W. R. 472, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 416, 23 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, by the president and others, and, in fact, were unanswer 426), and he overruled the objection. Malins, V.C., able. I trust that Mr. Dodd will not allow the subject affirmed the taxing master's decision, and the Court of to drop, and that, should he again bring it forward, he Appeal (Jessel, M.R., and James and BRETT, L.JJ.) took will be better supported than he was on this occasion. the same view. JESSEL, M.R., said that he entirely
J. W. s. agreed with tbe decision of Fry, J., in Saner v. Bilton, and 11, Queen Victoria-street, London, July 28.
the reasons which he had given for it. And James, L.J., said that it must be understood that the role there laid down was the established role of the coart.
Cases of the UN eek.
LEASE OF BANKRUPT-ASSIGNMENT BY TRUSTEE TO EQUIT. CHAMPIRTY-TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY-SALE OF BANK
ABLE MORTGAGEE—INDEMNITY-DISCLAIMER-BANKRUPTCY RUPT's Right OF ACTION-BANKRUPTCY Act, 1869, ss. 4,
Act, 1869, s. 23.-In a case of Ex parle Buxton, before the 17, 25.-In a case of Secar v. Lawson, before the Court of
Court of Appeal on the 22nd inst., the question arose Appeal on the 21st inst., the question arose whether a
whether an equitable mortgagee by deposit of a lease from a trustee in bankruptcy is empowered by section 25 of the from the trustee in the bankruptcy, to indemnify the trustee
bankrupt is bound, on taking an assignment of the lease Bankruptcy Act, 1869, to sell, as part of the bankropt's against liability on the covenants of the lease. The bank. property, a right of action to recover property wbich had
rupt had deposited the lease of his shop with the appellant been vested in the bankrupt. The plaintiff, who was the
to secure the repayment of an advance. There was a memotrustee in bankruptcy of one Webster, claimed by the
randum accompanying the deposit, but, at the commencewrit in the action to have it declared that a deed, which
ment of the bankruptcy, no assignment of the lease had been purported to be an absolute conveyance of certain property
executed to the mortgagee. The trustee in the bankruptcy by the bankrupt to the defendant, ought to stand only as applied to the court for leave to disclaim the lease, and a security for money advanced by the defendant to the
served notice of his application on the lessor and on the bankrupt, and that the plaintiff might redeem the property
mortgagee. The mortgagee desired to have the lease assigned on that footing. After the issue of the writ the plaintiff to him, and the lessor was willing to accept him as a tenant. executed a deed by which, in consideration of £2,000 paid The trustee was willing to assign to the mortgages, but in. to him by one Chatterton, he assigned to Chatterton his sisted that the mortgagee ought to indemnity him against right to the property, the subject of the action. Chatterton liability under the lease, and'in particular that he ought to tben obtained an order of course, under ord. 50, r. 3, that pay a quarter's rent for the property which was actually he should be at liberty to carry on and prosecute the i due. The mortgagee objected to do this. The registrar action and the proceedings therein in like manner as the made a simple order giving the trustee leave to disclaim the same might have been carried on and prosecuted by the lease. The mortgagee appealed, and at his instance the
plaintiff if he had not assigned his interest. The defend. Court of Appeal granted an injunction restraining the trustee apt applied to Bacon, V.C., to discharge the order, on the from executing a disclaimer pending the appeal. Before the ground that the assignment to Chatterton was really an Court of Appeal it was contended that the trustee of a assignment of nothing but a right of action, and that bankrupt who assigns property of which the bankrupt is a it was void on the ground of champerty. Bacon, lessee is not entitled to any indemnity from the assignee, V.C., held that the right to bring the action had vested because he takes the lease only by operation of law; and in the trustee as part of the bankrapt's property, by his liability on the covenants ceases when he assigns the virtue of sections 4 and 17 of the Bankruptcy Act, and lease, reliance being placed on Wilkins v. Fry (1 Mer. 244), that consequently the traster was empowered to sell it and a statement in Davidson's Conveyancing, 2nd ed., vol. 1, by section 25, which empowers the trustee " to sell all p. 477. The court (JAMES, BRETT, and COTTON, L.JJ.) the property of the bankrupt." His lordship, therefore, held that the trustee was entitled to an indemnity. JAMES, refused to discharge the order. This decision was affirmed L.J., said that if the equitable mortgagee intercepts the by the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and James and trustee's statutory right of disclaimer, he must take BRETT, L.JJ.). JESSEL, M.R., said that, assuming what the property, like any other person, on the usual be did not mean to decide, that the baukrapt himself could terms-i.e., he must covenant to indemnify the trustee pot bave lawfully made the assignment, it was clear that against liability under the lease. The trustee would not get the right to bring the action passed to the trustee by virtue
the benefit of a disclaimer ; he would assign the lease as a of sections 4 and 17. It was impossible that the right continuing lessee. And as he would have to retain a liability conld remain in the bankropt. And then section 25 gave
which he would otherwise bave got rid of, the assignee the trustee power to sell all the property of the bankrupt.
must indemnify him against the consequences of his retainThe word “property” must have the same meaning in ing the lease up to the date of the assignment. He must, both sections. If the trustee got the right of action, why therefore, pay the quarter's rent.-SOLICITORS, Winter d: Co.; shoald he not realize it for the benefit of the creditors of Goldberg & Langdon ; Deane, Chubb, d: Co. the bankrapt ? He might not have sufficient funds to carry on the action himself. The words of section 25 were plain. JAMES, L.J., said it was intended that the trustee ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY APPLICATION should be able to sell wbatever vested in him as property
ANNUL-PERSONS TO BE SERVED-TIME FOR APPEALINGof the bankrupt, and his lordship thought that the trustee EXTENSION OF TIME-ORD. 58, RR. 9, 15.-In a case of could even sell a right of action in relation to property of Ex parte Ward, before the Court of Appeal on the 22nd the bankrupt which the bankrupt bimself would not bave inst., the question arose whether it was sufficient to serve bad.-SOLICITORS, G. S. & H. Brandon ; Minet, Smith, $ notice of an appeal from the refusal of an application by a Harvie.
debtor to annul an adjudication of bankruptoy wbich had been made against him, upon the petitioning creditor oply. When the appeal was opened the objection was taken that
the trustee ought to have been served, and the court this decision, holding that by section 62, the charge was in. (JAMES, BRETT, and COTTON, L.JJ.) held tbat the objection posed on the land as soon as the expenses were incurred by was well founded, inasmuch as the adjadication, when the board, and there was no limitation in the Act of the time made, inured to the benefit of all the bankrupt's creditors. | within which it could be enforced. The charge was not And the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to enable | subsidiary to the summary remedy, but was a distinct the appellant to serve the trustee. The trustee was then remedy.-SOLICITORS, Heath & Parker ; Peckham, Maitland, served. He appeared by counsel on the adjourned bearing, 4 Peckham. and the objection was raised on his bebalf that the notice of appeal bad been served upon him more than twenty-one days after the refusal of the application to annul. It was
ADMIRALTY ACTION_TRIAL BY JUDGE WITH NAUTICAL urged on behalf of the appellant that the petitioning
ASSESSORS-FYIDENCE OF EXPERTS-ADMISSIBILITY.-Io a creditor was really the essential person to be served, and
case of The Sir Robert Peel, before the Court of Appeal on it was asked that, at any rate, the court would extend the
the 26th inst., the question arose whether, on the trial of time for appealing. But the court beld tbat the objection
an admiralty action before the judge of the Admiralty was a fatal one, and they refused to extend the time, and
Division, assisted by nautical assessors, the evidence of dismissed the appeal altogether.-SOLICITORS, H, Aird;
nautical experts is admissible on the question of the proper Lumley & Lumley; Gush f. Phillips.
management of a ship ander given circumstances. Sir R. Phillimore had rejected such evidence, and the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BRETT, and Cotton, L.JJ.) held that he
was right in so doing, and that the decision of Dr. LushEXTRADITION — ARREST — DISCHARGE — RE-ARREST ON
ington in the case of The Ann and Mary (2 W. Rob. 196) PROCESS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT-EXTRADITION ACT, 1870
ought to be followed. BRETT, L.J., said that in this (33 & 34 Vict. c. 52), s. 19.-In a case of Pooley v. Whetham,
respect the practice of the Admiralty Division was differ. before the Court of Appeal on the 23rd inst., a question
ent from that of the other courts. In other courts qaesarose upon the construction of section 19 of the Extradition
tions of nautical skill and science as to the management Act, 1870, which provides that when a person accused or
and movement of ships might be proved by the evidence convicted of any crime, which, if committed in England,
of experts, but the Admiralty Court was instructed in would be one of the crimes described in the first schedule to
such matters by nautical assessors, upon whose opinion the Act, is surrendered by a foreign State, “such person shall
and advice the judge acted. It might be a different thing pot, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of re.
if the judge was sitting without assessors, and the role turning to such foreign State, be triable or tried for any
only applied to evidence as to the management of ships, offence committed prior to the surrender, in any part of her
| for the court had always received skilled evidence as to Majesty's dominions, other than such of the said crimes as
| the loading of ships, which was a matter before the commay be proved by the facts on which ihe surrender is grounded.” On the 3rd of September, 1879, an order was
mencement of the navigation.-SOLICITORS, W. A. Crup
& Son ; Lowless & Co. made in the action directing the plaintiff to give up possession of a certain railway to a receiver who had been ap- i pointed by the court. This order was served on the plain. 1
POWER OF APPOINTMENT-COVENANT TO EXERCISS IN A tiff personally, but he did not obey it, and on the 20th of
| PARTICULAR WAY_VALIDITY OF EXERCISE,- In a case of
Pa September a writ of attachment was issued against him for Palmer v. Locke, before the Court of Appeal, on the 27th his contempt. On the 22nd of October he was adjudicated
inst., a question arose as to the validity of the exercise of a a bankrupt, and he soon afterwards left England. On the
power of appointment among children. A testator by his 1st of June, 1880, he was arrested in Paris, and was brought
will gave the residue of his property to trustees upon trust over to England under the Extradition Act, under a warrant
as to one-third part thereof, after the decease of the survivor issued upon the application of the trustee in the bankruptcy,
of his son and his son's wife, for such of the son's children as on the allegation that be bad committed a crime against the
the son should by will appoint. The son entered into a bankruptcy law (one of the crimes mentioned in the first
bond with one of his own sons by which he bound himself to schedule to the Extradition Act) in not having delivered over
appoint to that son the sum of £5,000 at the least, and to the trustee the books and papers in his custody or control
by his will he appointed £5,000 to him. It was contended relating to his estate. The plaintiff was then lodged in gaol.
that this exercise of the power was invalid, because the The magistrate by whom the charge was heard dismissed it,
donee's discretion was fettered by the bond which he has and the plaintiff was released. He was then arrested again
entered into. Jessel, M.R., contrary to his own opinion, but under the attachment, and lodged in Holloway Gaol. He
following a decision of Kindersley, V.C., in Cofin v. applied to be discharged, on the ground that by section 19
Cooper (2 Dr. & S. 365), held that there bad been a good he was privileged from arrest for an offence committed before
execution of the power. Kindersley, V.C., had himself his surrender under the Extradition Act, until he had had
decided contrary to the inclination of his own opinion in an opportunity of returning to France. Bacon, V.C., re
deference to prior authorities. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, fused to discharge bim, and this decision was affirmed by the
BRETT, and COTTON, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision. JAYES, Court of Appeal (JAMES, BRETT, and COTTON, L.JJ.), on the
L.J., and BRETT, L.J., thought that a bond or covenant by ground tbat the section applies only to criminal offences
a donee of such a power to exercise it in a particular way against the State for which a man could be tried, and that it
would be void, and that the exercise of the power would be does not apply to a mere civil process to enforce obedience to
good. COTTON, LJ., would express no opinion whether the order of the court on bebalf of a private person.-SOLICI
I the bond or covenant would be void, but was of opinion that, TORS, Harper, Broad, g Battcock; Newman, Stretlon, d if it were not, still the exercise of the power would be good. Hilliard.
-SOLICITORS, Burne & Hunt ; Last of Sons.
LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH--EXPENSES OF SEWERING AND PAVING–CHARGE ON LAND-LIMITATION OF TIME FOR
PRACTICE-NOTICE OF TRIAL BEFORE OFFICIAL REFERER RECOVERING-11 & 12 Vict. C. 43, s. 11-11 & 12 Vict. c.
-JURISDICTION-JUDICATURE ACT, 1873, ss. 56, 57-RULES 63, ss. 69, 129-21 & 22 VICT, c. 98, s. 62.-In a case of
OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 36, RR. 2, 3,-In a case of Braginton The Tottenham Local Board y. Rouell, before the Court of
v. Yates, before the Master of the Rolls on the 23rd inst., Appeal on the 24tb jpst., the question arose whether the
the plaintiff bad given notice of trial of the action charge on land, which is created by section 62 of the Act | under ord. 36, rr. 2, 3, before an official referee, and the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 98. in favour of a local board, for tbe expenses ) defendants now moved that notwithstanding the notice tbe of sewering and paving which the owner of the land is liable action might be heard before the judge, and that the notice to pay under section 69 of the Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, can | might be set aside as irregular. For the motion it was be enforced after the expiration of the period of six months, contended, on the authority of Longman v. Eust ($ which is limited for the recovery of the expenses by summary W. R. 183), that as the court had no power under secproceedings by section 11 of tho Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, | tions 56 and 57 of the Judicatare Act to direct the trial of Malips, V.C., held (28 W. R. 409) that the charge could an action before an official referee, a fortiori po notice of not be enforced when the board had not taken summary pro- | trial could be given in that way. The plaintiff relied on ceedings to recover the expenses within the six months. The the express provisions of ord. 36, rr. 2, 3, which were Court of Appeal (JAMES, BRETT, and COTTON, L.JJ.) reversed | to be taken as part of the Aot. JESSEL, M.R., said he was
bound by the decision of the Appeal Court in Longman v. East. The court had there plainly decided that an action Law Students' Journal. could not be referred to an official referee and that no official referee could direot judgment to be entered for the parties. Inferentially therefore the caso also decided that UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. there was no power to give notice of trial before an official
On Wednesday, the 21st iost., a meeting of this society referee. That case had been decided more than two years was held at Clement's-ion Hall, Mr. C. Kains-Jackson in ago, and could not have escaped the attention of practitioners, the chair. The subject of debate was, “That the Governand therefore he must allow the motion with costs.
ment Bill rendering employers liable for injaries to their SOLICITORS, Church, Sons, & Clarke ; Dubois & Reid.
workmen should be supported.” Mr. Beaumont-Morice opened the debate, and was supported by Messrs. Motte
Whitehouse, Phillips, Robinson, Harvey, Piokersgill, and PRACTICE-COUNTER-CLAIM REFERRING TO ALLEGATIONS
Maclaren ; and opposed by Messrs. Rinner-Maxwell and IN DEFENCE-MOTION TO EXCLUDE AS EMBARRASSING.-In D'A. B. Collier. Mr. Beaumont-Morice replied, and upon a case of Williams v. Daniel, before the Master of the
a division, the motion was carried by a majority of seven Rolls on the 23rd inst., & motion was made to exclude a
votes. counter-claim, on the ground that it was embarrassing.
On Monday, the 26th ingt., a meeting of this society The action was one to set aside an agreement on the was held at the Law Institution, The following ground of fraud. The defence denied the fraud, and
moot was then discussed :-"Is the principle of waralleged the validity of the agreement, and by way of ranty of fitness as laid down in Smith v. Marrable (11 M. counter-claim the defendant claimed a sum due for com & W. 5), and Wilson v. Pinch-Hatton (25 W. R. 537), mission under the agreement. The counter-claim, however,
capable of being extended to ordinary leases of bonges ? referred to the whole of the defence, and it was this Manchester Bonding Warehouses Company v. Carr (42 L. T. reference that was considered embarrassing by the plain- | N. S. 211).” Mr. Collyer opened the diecussion in the tiff, as it was argued that it would necessitate bis going affirmative; Messrs. Shera and Tillotson argued in favoor through the whole of the allegations in the defence, of, and Messrs. Whitehouse, Owen, and Pickersgill argued whether material or not, and denying or dealing with them against, the opinion of the opener. Mr. Collyer replied, in some other way. It was contended that the only and the chairman having summed up, the moot was decided allegations that were material to the counter-claim were in the affirmative. that there was the agreement, and that the commission On Wednesday, the 28th inst., the usual weekly meeting was due. JESSEL, M.R., took this view, and considered of this society was held in Clement's-inn Hall, Mr. Dowson the counter-claim as drawn to be embarrassing, and there in the chair. The motion on the paper was, “That fore ordered it to be amended by stating specifically the museums and picture galleries should be open on Sundays." allegations on which the defendants relied.-SOLICITORS, Mr. Kains-Jackson opened the debate, and was supported Williams, James, & Wason; Jones, Blaæland, & Co.
by Messrs. Spence, Foy, Owen, Warburton, Phillimore, Harvey, Maclaren, Donner, and Randle-Levey, and op
posed by Messrs. Collyer, Pickersgill, and Edlin. Upon & WILL – CHARITABLE BEQUEST — REPAIR OF TOMB
division the motion was oarried by a majority of five votes. WHOLE FUND GIVEN TO VALID CHARITY.-In a case of Re Rowe, Clifton v. Wilson, before the Master of the Rolls on the 26th inst., a testator had given a sum of money upon trost out of the income to maintain and keep in
BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. repair a grave, and subject thereto upon trust for certain A meeting of this society was held in the Law Library, charitable purposes. The residuary legatees contended that on Tuesday evening week, Mr. J. A. Vardy in the chair. the whole gift was void and fell into the residue, and that After the election of Messrs. Smith and Luglow as memhis lordsbip should not follow his decision in Re Birkett bers of the committee, a debate took place on the following (L. R. 9 Ch. D. 576), because certain of the earlier cases, moot point :-“Is it desirable that the Married Women's wbere such gifts had been held wholly bad, were not Property Act Consolidation Bill, now before Parliament, referred to in the arguments, although they were com should become law?" The speakers on the affirmative mented opon in Fisk v. Attorney-General (L, R. 4 Eq. 521), side were Messrs. Vince, Barrows, and Rogers, and on the and other cases which were cited. JESSEL, M.R., said that negative, Messrs. Barber, Blose, Smith, Cochrane, and he was bound by authority to hold that the first part of O'Connor. Upon the question being put to the meeting it the gift was bad, and that the whole went to the charities was decided in the negative. A vote of thanks to the mentioned by the testator. In Re Birkett, although con chairman concluded the business of the meeting. trary to his own opinion, he had followed four decisions of This was the last meeting of the session. The autumn courts of first instance within ten years all one way, and session will commence on Tuesday, September 7. he could not pow differ from his earlier opinion. The point should not have been argued before him.-SOLICITORS, Tippetts & Co. ; Carritt f. Son ; Layton of Jaques ; Giraud; Freshfields &: Williams ; Norris, Allens, & Carter ; Lydall.
In State v. Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company, it
appears to have been beld by the West Virgioia Court of MARRIED WOMAN-AGREEMENT TO CHARGE SEPARATE
Appeal that a corporation may be indicted for Sabbath ESTATE-EXPECTANCY ON Death OF LIVING PERSON.- breaking In a case of Flower v. Buller, before Denman, J. (sitting for Fry, J.), on the 27th inst., che question arose whether an
During service on Sunday week in the Irvine parish agreement by a married woman to give a charge on her church, says the Scotsman, an elderly man rose and taking interest under the will of a living person, or as one of bis
from his pocket a paper, addressed the minister by name, next of kin in the event of his death intestate, was valid and
and commenced to read a long statement purporting to be enforceable against an interest which she afterwards acquired
an interdict forbidding certain lawyers and others in Irvine on the death of the person in question by a gift in his will to
from proceeding with the sale of certain property. The
document occupied about five minutes in reading, and her separate use. DENMAN, J., held that the agreement was valid and that it could be enforced against the interest minutely described the situation of the property down to
the square yards it measured ; bat as he apparently did not acquired under the will. He was of opinion that the decision of Malins, V.C., io Pike v. Fitzgibbon (28 W. R. 667, ante, p.
consider the statement sufficiently explanatory, he took out 523), was an authority for so holding, and that the principle
an extremely long handkerchief from his pocket and began
a practical demonstration of the measurement. When the of the decision of Turner, L.J., in Johnson v. Gallagher
man had finished, the minister quietly asked some of the W. R. 506, 3 De G. F. & J. 494) was to the same effect.SOLICITORS, W. & J. Flower & Nussey; G. S. & A. Brandon.
office-bearers to remove him, which was accordingly done without any disturbance taking place. He stated that what he had done was in pursuance of an old ecclesiastical law entitling people to claim publicly in church any property of which they were threatened to be dispossessed by legal action.
bridge, where he graduated as a senior optime and in the Obituary.
second class of the classical tripos in 1860. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1864, and has
practised as an equity draftsman and conveyancer. Sir G. MR. GEORGE NELSON EMMETT.
Young was secretary to the Factory Inquiry Commission, Mr. George Nelson Emmett, solicitor (of the firm of and be recently cortested the representation of Plymouth in Emmett & Son), of 14, Bloomsbury-square, died at bis the Liberal interest. residence, Springfield, Kensington Park-road, on the 22nd inst. Mr. Emmett was born in 1805. He was admitted a solicitor in 1828, and had practised for more than fifty years in London. For a few years be had an office at 8, New-inn, but afterwards removed to 14, Bloomsbury-square, where
Companies. he carried on business until his death. For several years he had also an office at Birmingham, where he was in partner.
WINDING-UP NOTICES. ship with Messrs. John Philip Motteram & Finlay Knight.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. Ele was afterwards associated with Mr. John Watson, and
LIMITED IN CHANCERY. with his son Mr. Charles Alexander Emmett, but latterly he DUDGEOX AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required on or was in partnership only with his younger son, Mr. George
before Aug 31 to send their names and addresses, and the partici
lars of their debts or claims, to John Holman, St Mary Axe. Oct Nelson Emmett, junior. Mr. Emmett was an American
25 at 11 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts agent, and bad been for several years a commissioner for and claims taking the acknowledgments of deeds for the State of New FIRTI HOUSE PAPER MILLS COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has York. He had an extensive agency business, and a good
appointed Aug 3 at 11 at his chambers for the appointment of an
official liquidator general practice. Mr. Emmett had been twice married and NEW Victoria SALT COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, Teaves seven children.
presented July 22, directed to be heard before the M.R. on July
31. Denton and Co, Gray's inn sq, solicitors for the petitioner SHIPOWNERS' AND MARINERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.-The
M.R. has fixed Aug 4 at 12 at his chambers for the appointment of MR. HENRY NICHOLLS KNOTT.
an official liquidator
SYDENIAY STORES, LIMITED.-The M.R. has fixed Aug 4 at 12 81 Mr. Henry Nicholls Knott, solicitor, of Worcester and
his chambers for the appointment of an official liquidator Bromyard, died on the 10th inst. Mr. Knott was born in
[Gazette, July 23.1 1843, and was admitted a solicitor in 1865, haying. been articled to his elder brother, Mr. Ambrose William Knott,
COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C.
Hall, dated July 19, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up who is clerk to the Worcester Board of Guardians and to
of the company be continued. Gresham and Davies, Basinghall the Martley Highway Board. Mr. H. N. Koott was st, solicitors for the petitioners formerly in partnership with his brother, the firm having
JOHN WEBSTER AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on
or before Oct 1, to send their names and addresses, and the parti. offices at Worcester, Malvern, and Martley, but more recently
culars of their debts or claims, to Mr Richard Hurst Sadler, High he had carried on business alone at Worcester and at Brom st, Sutton Coldfield, nr Birmingham, Oct 28 at 12 is appointed yard. Mr. Knott was for some time clerk to the Bromyard
for hearing and adjudicating upon the said claims Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural
PONTYBEREM COLLIERIES COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding
up, presented July 27, directed to be heard before V.C. Hall on Authority. His early death has caused a general feeling of Aug 5. Clarke and Co, Gresham House, Old Broad st, solicitors regret in the district.
for the petitioner SOUTI YORKSHIRE AERATED WATER COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an
made by the M.R., dated July 17. it was ordered that the company be wound up. Peace and Co, Grocers' Hall ct, for Lel royd and Co, Huddersfield, solicitors for the petitioner
(Gazette, July 27.] Appointments, Etc.
UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.
Rooms.--By an order made by the M.R., dated July 17, it was Mr. WILLIAM STEPHEN FRANCE, solicitor and notary, of
ordered that the company be wound up. Red path and HoldsWigan, has been appointed a Magistrate for that borough. worth, Bush lane, Cannon st, for Shackles and Son, KingstonMr. France is a member of the Wigan Town Council. He
upon-Hull, solicitors for the petitioner was admitted a solicitor in 1858, and is clerk to the Com
[Gazette, July 2.] missioners of Taxes, and secretary to the Ashton Gas Com.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. pany.
JUVENILE BRANCH OF THE LABOURERS' FRIEND BENEVOLENT 80
CIETY, Free School, Kingsthorpe, Northampton. June 19 Mr. ARCHIBALD HANBURY, solicitor (of the firm of Han
WESLEYAN FEMALE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Barnacle, Warwick, July bury, Hutton, & Whitting), of 34, New Broad-street, has been 21 appointed by Alderman Fowler, M.P., sheriff-elect, to be
[Gazette, July 23.] one of the Under-Sheriffs of London and Middlesex for the ensuing year. Mr. Hanbury was admitted a solicitor in 1856. Mr. FRANK STATHAM JACKSON, solicitor, of 8, Jobn-street
On the 23rà inst., the eight prisoners who could not be Beaford.row, has been appointed Deputy-Registrar of the tried at the Surrey Assizes were placed before Mr. Jastice Mayor's Court, in succession to Mr. Frederick Charles Syd
Lopes, and informed by him that, “The judges of assize ney, resigned. Mr. Jackson was admitted a solicitor in 1875. found you here in gaol, awaiting your trial, but through
Mr. EDWARD JOHN LAYTON, solicitor (of the firm of some strange mistake, the witnesses against you were all Layton, Son, & Lendon), of 29, Budge-row, and Bexley, bound over to appear at the Surrey Sessions in September, has been appointed by Mr. Herbert Waterlow, sheriff-elect: the gaol delivery after this, and also after the next sessions to be one of the Under-Sheriffs of London and Middlesex for of the Central Criminal Court. In the absence of evidence the ensuing year. Mr. Layton was admitted a solicitor in | against you no bills of indictment could be preferred before 1865.
the grand jury at these assizes, and you could not be tried; Mr. HENRY Deyny Warr, barrister, has been appointed
but the judges of assize, under their commissions, are 'to
deliver the gaols' of the prisoners, and you could not be Secretary to the Royal Commission on the City of London
detained until September untried. You cannot be tried now, Livery Companies. Mr. Warr is a fellow of Trinity Hall,
because the witnesses are bound over to appear in SeptemCambridge. He obtained the Bell University Scholarship in 1863, and graduated in the first class of the classical tripos
ber, and you must, therefore, be discharged. But
you are all liable to in 1867. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in
be again apprehended ;
indictments may be preferred against you in Septes. Hilary Term, 1871, and is a member of the Northern Cir
ber at the Surrey Sessions, and if true bills are found and cuit.
you do not surrender yourselves, you may be apprehtaded Sir GEORGE YOUNG, baronet, has been appointed Secretary and kept in prison until the next gaol delivery after the to the Royal Commission on the Irish Land Act. Sir G. September Sessions. You will therefore find it probably for Young is the son of the late Sir George Young. He was your advantage to surrender yourselves in time for trial : born in 1837, and succeeded his father in the baronetcy in the next sessions in September, for by so doing you will avoid 1848. He was formerly fellow of Trinity College, Cam- | any imprisonment previous to your trial."