Page images

METCALFE, FRANCIS HENRY, Gracechurch st, Stationer. Sept 29 at 12. 33, Carey LOWE, WALTER, Irlam, nr Warrington, Chemist. Manchester. Pet Sept 7. st, Lincoln's inn

Ord Sept 15 MORRELL, GEORGE, Leeds, Pork Butcher. Sept 29 at 11. Off Rec, 22, Park row, MCMILLAN, JAMES, Chorlton upon Medlock, Draper. Manchester. Pet Aug 6. Leeds

Ord Sept 15 MUSGRAVE, CHARLES, Wildsworth, Lincolnshire, Farmer. Sept 28 at 12. Off MEADWELL, WILLIAM, Peterborough, Painter. Peterborough. Pet Sept 14. Rec, 2, St Benedict's sq, Lincoln

Ord Sept 16 NYREN, THOMAS BROWN. Lower Broughton, nr Manchester, Manufacturers'

MORRELL, GEORGE, Leeds, Pork Butcher. Leeds. Pet Aug 10. Ord Sept 17 Agent. Sept 29 at 12. Off Rec, Ogden's chmbrs, Bridge st, Manchester

MOUNTFORD, RICHARD, Quarry Bank, nr Brierley bill, Worcestershire, Chain PRIOR. SILAS, Wolverhampton, Rope Manufacturer. Sept 29 at 11. Off Rec, St

Manufacturer. Stourbridge. Pet Aug 10._Ord Sept 15 Peter's close, Wolverhampton

MUSSELL, JOHN THOMAS, Plymouth, Builder. East Stonehouse. Pet Sept 12. REAY, BANNAH, and ROBERT REAY, Kirklinton, Cumberland, Farmers. Sept 29

Ord Sept 16 at 12. Off Rec, 34, Fisher Carlisle ROBERTSON, JOSEPH. Tokenhouse yd, Financial Agent. Sept 28 at 12. Bank- NEWTON, JOÃN, Southsea, Grocer. Portsmouth. Pet Sept 12. Ord Sept 12 ruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's ion fields

NYREN, THOMAS Brown, Lower Broughton, pr Mancheeter, Manufacturers' ROSE, GEORGE, Horncastle, Higgler. Sept 28 at 12. Off Rec, 2, St Benedict's sq, Agent. Manchester. Pet Sept 13. Ord Sept 16 Lincoln

OKEY, CHARLES, Beresford st, Walworth, Tobacconist. High Court. Pet Bept SARSONS, JABEZ, Birmingham, Baker. Sept 29 at 11. 25, Colmore row, Birming

14. Ord Sept 15 ham

PALEY, JOHN, Countersett, nr Hawes, Yorks, Innkeeper. Northallerton. Pet SHARPE, FREDERIC, Baldry gdns, Streatham common, Clerk. Sept 30 at 11. 83, Sept 13. Ord Bept 13 Carey st, Lincoln's inn

PUCKEY JAMES, Plymouth, Butcher. East Stonehouse. Pet Sept 14. Ord SMITH, ALEXANDER, Hunslet, Leeds, Builder. Sept 29 at 12. Off Rec, 22, Park Sept 15 row, Leeds

REES, DAVID, Newport, Mon, Ironfounder. Newport, Mon. Pet Sept 10. Ord BOLLOM, FRANCIS, Wolverhampton, Auctioneer. Sept 28 at 3.30. Off Rec, St Sept 17 Peter's close, Wolverhampton

REVETT, ROBERT PATTLE, Parham, Suffolk, Farmer. Ipswich. Pet Sept 16. Ord STARK, HENRY, James st, Cannon st rd, Licensed Victualler. Sept 28 at 11. Sept 16 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn

RHODES, MARY LOUISA, Heckmonwike, nr Dewsbury, Manufacturer. Dewsbury WILLIAMS. DAVID, Aberdare, Tin Plate Maker. Sept 28 at 2. Off Rec, Merthyr Pet Sept 15. Ord Sept 15 Tydfil

ROBSON, JAMES, Brackenborough, Lincoln, Esq. Gt Grimsby. Pet Sept 15. Ord WILLIAMS, HENRY JOHN, St George, Glouces, Builder. Sept 28 at 12.30, Off Rec, Sept 15 Bank chbrs, Bristol

SIMMONS, DANIELL, New Village, nr Bilston, Baker. Wolverhampton, Pet Sept ADJUDICATIONS.

14. Ord Sept 16 ALLERTON, CHARLES HEDLEY, Lowestoft, Blockmaker. Gt Yarmouth. Pet SMITH, GEORGE HENRY, Bolton, Lancs, Tailor. Bolton. Pet Aug 29. Ord Sept 17. Ord Sept 17

Sept 15 BARRETT, JOHN, Cookham, Berks, no occupation. Windsor. Pet Sept 15. Ord SOLLOM, FRANCIS, Wolverhampton, Auctioneer. Wolverhampton. Pet Sept 2. Sept 15

Ord Sept 16 BARTON, GEORGE, Fatting pk, I W, Yeoman. Newport and Ryde. Pet Sept 13. SPIERS, ALFRED, Kinver, Worcester, Grocer's Assistant. Stourbridge. Pet Ord Sept 14

Sept 8. Ord Sept 15 BASCOMBE, CHARLES, Bere Regis, Dorset, Farmer. Poole. Pet Sept 8. Ord TALLING, WILLIAM, Lostwitbiel, Cornwall, Boot Maker. Truro. Pet Sept 14. Sept 17

Ord Sept 14 BLACKBURN, TOM, Huddersfield, Nurseryman. Huddersfield. Pet Aug 30. Ord THOMAS. WILLIAM, Cardigan, Cabinet Maker. Carmarthen. Pet Sept 15. Ord Sept 15

Sept 15 BOND, JOHN, Cambridge rd, Bethnal Green, Licensed Victualler. High Court. ULLYETT, EDWIN, Folkestone, Carpenter. Canterbury. Pet Sept 15. Ord Pet Sept 2. Ord Sept 15

Sept 15 BRIERLEY, JAMES, Miles Platting, Baker. Manchester. Pet Sept 13. Ord VASSALLI, JOHN, New Brighton, Tallow Chandler. Birkenhead. Pet Aug 20. Sept 15

Ord Sept 16 CHAMBERS, WILLIAM, York, Boot Maker. York. Pet Sept 9. Ord Sept 17 WALTON, WILLIAM, Boston, Lincy, Dealer in China. Boston. Pet Sept 15. Ord CLARKE, WILLIAM THOMAS, Redditch, Worcester, Grocer. Birmingham. Pet

Sept 16 July 12 Ord Sept 15

WHITEHALL, WILLIAM, Leicester, Watchmaker. Leicester. Pet Sept 3. Ord COLBOURN, WILLIAM OSMOND, Upton park, Essex, Publican. High Court. Pet

St pt 16 June 17. Ord dept 15

WILSON, JAMES NASYMTH, Southport, Engineer. Liverpool. Pet Aug 5. Ord COOPER, DANIEL, Compton, nr Wolverhampton, Butcher. Wolverhampton. Pet

Sept 17 Sept 14 Ord Sept 16

WOODHAMS, JOHN NEWMAN, Erdington, Warwick, Traveller. Birmingham. Pet COOPER, WILLIAM THOMAS, Bilderston, Suffolk, Saddler. Ipswich. Pet Sept 13.

Sept 15. Ord Sept 15 Oid Sept 13

WOODLIFFE. ALFRED, Bridlington, Yorks, Chemist. Scarborough. Pet Sept 14. CORKE, WILLIAM, Newhall, Derbyshire, Draper. Burton on Trent. Pet Aug

Ord Sept 16 81. Ord Sept 15

WRIGHT, ROBERT, Newport, Mon, Tobacconist. Newport, Mon. Pet Sept 14. DELAHOY, JAMES, Doncaster, Milk Dealer. Sheffield. Pet Sept 15. Ord Sept 15

Ord Sept 15

DIXON, WILLIAM JOHN, Headingley, nr Leeds, Florist. Leeds. Pet Sept 16.
Ord Sept 16

REES, GEORGE RICHARDS GRAHAM, Beaumaris, Anglesey, Gent. Bangor. Annul EASTON, EDWARD, the younger, Manchester, Joiner. Manchester. Pet Aug 12.

Sept 12. Adjud Sept 28
Ord Sept 15
EMERY, WALTER. Barningham Norwood, Norfolk, Farmer. Norwich. Pet Sept

Ord Sept 17
ENSOR. GEORGE ARTHUR, South place, Kennington park, Clerk. Dorchester.
Pet June 15.

Oid Sept 17
GLAZE, John, Halesowen, Worces, Bootmaker. Stourbridge. Pet Sept 15. Ord

or renting a house have the Sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an

expert from The Sanitary Engineering & Ventilation Co., 115, Victoria-st., WestSept 15 GRAHAM, ELIZABETH, Sheffield, Fruiterer. Sheffield. Pet Sept 17. Ord Sept 17

mirster (Estab. 1875), who also undertake the Ventilation of offices, &c.-(ADVT.) GREEN, JOSEPH, Awsworth, Notte, Collier. Derby. Pet Sept 14. Ord Sept 15 HAYLOCK, WILLIAM DAINTREE, Gt Grimsby, Ironmonger. Gt Grimsby. Pet

Aug 26. Ord Sept 14
HILLIER, WILLIAM HENRY, Marlborough, Upholsterer. Swindon. Pet Sept 14.

Ord Sept 15
HOLE, JOHN, Shepton Mallet, Coach builder. Wells. Pet Sept 9. Ord Sept 15

Sept. 23.-Messrs. BAKER & Sons, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold Estates and

Properties (see advertieement, Sept. 17, p. 750).
HOLLIDAY, JARED, Westlinton, Cumberland, Shoemaker. Carlis'e Pet Sept 17.

Ord Sept 17
HUDSON, CHARLES, Oxford, Licensed Victualler. Oxford. Pet Aug 17. Ord
Sept 14

Where difficulty is experienced in procuring the Journal with regularitz,
HUGHES, JAMES, Lower Broadheath, Worcestershire, Farmer, Worcester. Pet
Sept 16. Ord Sept 16

in the Country, it is requested that application be made direct to the JACKSON, JOHN UPTON, Sheffield, Tailor. Sheffield, Pet Aug 22. Ord Sept 16 Publisher. JOLLY, FRANCIS FREDERICK, Turvey, Beds, Farmer. Bedford. Pet Aug 27.

Ord Sept 17
JONES, JOHN, Egremont, Joiner. Birkenhead. Pet Sept 16. Ord Sept 16
JONES, JOHN, Bristol, Baker. Bristol. Pet Sept 17. Ord Sept 17

KELLEWAY, HORATIO, Totland Bay, I.W., Builder. Newport and Ryde. Pet CURRENT TOPICS

751 CORRESPONDENCE Sept 1. Ord Sept 10


KIMM, HENRY, and THOMAS HENRY GODDARD, St Leonard's on Sea, Auctioneers.
Hastings. Pet Sept 1. Ord Sept 15

OF PAPERS ON THE DETERMINA WINDING-UP NOTICES ........ KING, THOMAS CHARLES, Lamberhurst, Sussex, Grocer, Tunbridge Welis.



756 SHIP

752 Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 16




751 765 755 755

.. 753

[blocks in formation]

.. 762



for the Chancellor of the said Duchy, if he shall think fit, to remove Emmanuel College v. Chichester The Howe Machine Co. (Limited).. 762 for inability or misbehaviour any such judge already appointed or Taunton v. Falla

hereafter to be appointed.” If the memorial should be presented,

there will, we suppose, necessarily follow a semi-judicial inquiry. The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. Chancellor has authority to remove a county court judge only on

In Ex parte Ramshay (18 Q. B. 173) it was laid down that the

the implied condition, prescribed by the principles of justice, that LONDON, OCTOBER 1, 1887.

he hears the party accused; he cannot legally act upon such an

occasion without some evidence being adduced to support the CURRENT TOPICS.

charges; and he has no authority to remove for matters uncon

nected with inability or misbehaviour in the office of county court WE HAVE RECENTLY PUBLISHED several letters on the Land judge. But where the party complained against has had a fair Transfer Bill, which we believe afford a fair index of the views on opportunity of being heard ; where the charges, if true, amount to the scheme of the Bill which are entertained by a large section inability or misbehaviour, and where evidence has been given in of country solicitors. We propose hereafter to consider in some support of them, the courts cannot inquire into the amount of evidetail the objections which have been raised, but in the meantime dence or the balance of evidence, the Chancellor, acting within his we desire to point out that the Bill is likely to be in hand again jurisdiction, being the constituted judge upon this subject. It before the close of the present year, and that it is extremely will be interesting to know, in case this semi-judicial inquiry desirable that there should be an early and general expression of should become necessary, what course Lord JOHN MANNERS will opinion with regard to its provisions on the part of the profession. adopt with regard to it. There are obvious disadvantages in the It is not less desirable that there should be practical unanimity holding of such an inquiry relating to the conduct of a judge before in this expression, and we think it is worthy of consideration a layman unacquainted with legal matters and unaccustomed to whether this would not be best achieved by a conference of repre- dealing with evidence. sentatives of the country law societies and the council of the Incorporated Law Society. If such a conference could be arranged for next month we believe it is possible that the resolutions arrived at might not be without some influence on the form of the hand Congress, strongly urged the necessity for attaching to every

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, in his speech at the dinner of the ShortBill to be introduced next session.

court an official shorthand writer, and he seems to have based his suggestion largely on the expediency of substituting shorthand notes

for the notes at present taken by the judges. Anyone,” he said, IN THE PRESENT CONDITION of landed estates, both as regards would know that, however painstaking the judge, the more painstak

“who was obliged to be much in those courts [i.e., at Nisi Prius] letting and sale, it may be useful to direct the attention of advisers ing he was, the more time he occupied in taking down in great detail of landed proprietors to the success which has attended recent sales points of the evidence. A judge might be a very excellent judge, by auction of outlying portions of estates in small plots. Where any and yet a very bad pepman. He thought he had known some part of the property is situate near a town or large village, it is such. And a judge had not got the gift of foresight. When a surprising with what eagerness the lots are competed for and what case was opened, and when the first vitness was being examined, prices are realized. A paragraph has recently gone the round the judge could not tell intuitively what part of that particular of the papers relating the results of such a sale made at witness's evidence would or would not be important. The result Frome by the Marquis of Bath. Fifty building sites are stated to was that he took down in great detail and in longhand, or with have been sold at prices ranging from £205 to £310 per acre. We such rude abbreviations as his practice had suggested to him, are acquainted with other instances in which the result of similar evidence which, in the result, turned out to be of no earthly value sales has been equally successful, and the transactions connected whatever in deciding the merits and justice of the case ; whereas, with them were completed without any difficulty or delay. It is if there were a professional shorthand writer who was rattling not building sites merely, but small closes of freehold land for along just as the witness was giving his evidence, and who would agricultural or garden purposes which meet with a ready sale. The be able to produce and to read out from his note-book a particular conditions of sale, of course, restrict the title in the case of lots point or part of the evidence which became important at a later below a certain acreage, and even, in some cases, dispense with an

stage of the case, an enormous amount of public time would be abstract, substituting only a statement sufficient for the preparation saved." The suggestion of official shorthand writers of a conveyance; and, where the land is old family property, these propounded by the late Mr. Justice PEARSON when an application conditions are not found at all depreciatory. We think that a was made to fix a day for the hearing of the great case of suggestion on the part of the family solicitor is in many cases only Badische Anilin und Šoda Fabrik v. Levinstein. He took occanecessary to extend this practice, which is often both particularly sion to remark that "he thought it would be very desirable to have convenient to the landed proprietor and also advantageous to the inhabitants of the district.

an official shorthand writer appointed to the court." And the Committee on Legal Procedure in 1881 reported that, “in the interest of suitors it is desirable that an official record of the pro

ceedings should be obtainable”; and they formulated a rule of ACCORDING TO a local paper, the Bolton Incorporated Law Society court providing that "official shorthand writers, one or more, has taken the extreme step of resolving, at a special meeting held shall be appointed to attend in each court ; a note of so on the 22nd ult., to present a memorial to the Chancellor of the much of the evidence and of such proceedings as the court

While Duchy of Lancaster praying for the removal of the county court or a judge shall direct shall be taken in every case. judge of the district. We presume, from the fact of the application we think there is good reason for saying that a shorthand being proposed to be made to the Chancellor of the Duchy, that the note ought to be taken of the proceedings at the trial of an action, removal referred to is removal from the county court bench, not we should hesitate, without much further consideration, to indorse removal to another district, the power for which is, by 21 & 22 Sir Charles RUSSELL's proposal for the abolition of the necessity Vict. c. 74, s. 1, vested in the Lord Chancellor. We cannot pre- for a judge's taking notes of the evidence. And we rather doubt tend to any information with regard to the circumstances which the expediency of appointing an official shorthand writer to each that derived from a very brief report of the meeting, and we should, predecessors in the suggestion of official shorthand writers quite therefore, not be justified in expressing any opinion on these allega- appreciated the practical dificulty which is to be apprehended in tions. It strikes us, however, that the application to the Lord case an official shorthand writer at a fixed salary is appointed. Chancellor under the above-mentioned provision would possibly Would such an official be likely to transcribe with the expedition bench is contained in section 18 of the County Courts Act, 1846, transcript for counsels' "use next morning? He would have a which provides that " it shall be lawful for the said Lord Chancellor, monopoly, and although he would, of course, be paid for his or, where the whole of the district is within the Duchy of Lancaster, I transcript, there would be no competition to keep him up to



the mark as regards time. It is to be observed, however, that Separation deeds have two objects. Primarily they are meant there has long been an official shorthand writer in the Admiralty to effect the separation of husband and wife, but, as subordinate Court, appointed and sworn by the court to take notes of evidence. to this, they usually contain various pecuniary arrangements. In It would be interesting to learn how the system works in that the former respect they came till recently within the cognizance

of the ecclesiastical courts, while the parts relating to property court.

naturally belonged to the temporal courts. This division of juris

dictions, perhaps, gave rise to the difficulties which have beset the THE BILLS OF SALE Act, 1882, among its other brilliant acts

estion, but the influence of the tempora courts certainly and omissions, failed to define what was meant by the term facilitated its present settlement. In the ecclesiastical courts “ debenture” used in section 17, which excludes from the opera- there was no hesitation ; separation deeds were simply and purely tion of the Act “debentures issued by any mortgage, loan, or other illegal. The law is thus laid down by Sir W. Scott in Mortimer incorporated company, and secured on the capital, stock, or goods, v. Mortimer (1820, 2 Hagg. Consist. Rep. 318) :chattels, and effects of such company." The consequence has

“ This court considers a private separation as an illegal contract, imply: been a good deal of uncertainty, not merely in the profession, but ing a renunciation of stipulated duties-a dereliction of those mutual on the bench. The conclusion, which was soon arrived at, that offices which the parties are not at liberty to desert-an assumption of a section 17 does not apply to a debenture trust deed comprising false character in both parties, contrary to the real status per sone, and to chattels, and the practical impossibility of framing such a trust the obligations which both of them have contracted in the sight of God deed in the statutory form, led to the general practice of abandon- and man, to live together till death do them part,' and on which the ing reliance on a covering deed as regards personal chattels, and solemnities both of civil society and of religion have stamped a binding

authority, from which the parties cannot release themselves by any bind. inserting a charge in the debentures. But there remained many ing act of their own, or for causes which the law itself has not pronounced points open to question as to these charging debentures. In Ro88 to be sufficient and sufficiently proved.” V. Army and Navy Hotel Co. (35 W. R. 40) it was held, both by

It may be supposed that the matrimonial law as thus laid down, M:. Justice Kay and the Court of Appeal, that new debentures which had long been in operation, suggested the question of public issued by a company (owing to the discovery of the invalidity of policy to the temporal courts. However, it is stated by Jacobs the covering deed relating to their old debentures, which had in his note to Roper (vol. 2, p. 273) that this view of the nature not been registered as a bill of sale), whereby, the company of separation deeds does not seem to have presented iteelf to the purported to charge on its undertaking and all its property, courts until a very late period, and, indeed, in Hunt v. Hunt real and personal, the amount due on the original debenture, (1861, 4 De G. F. & J. 221) Lord Westbury remarked that such were within section 17. That decision, however, was be- deeds had not been against the policy of the common law since the tween grantor and grantee, and was said by GROVE, J., in

Reformation. Accordingly there were several cases in the last Jenkinson v. Brandley Mining Co. (35 W, R. 834) not to century decided in favour of the deed. Thus in Guth v. Guth "decide any question affecting third parties.” In Edmonds v. (1792, 3 Bro. C. C. 613) the Master of the Rolls felt no difficulty Blaina Furnaces Co. (35 W. R. 798) a company executed an

in decreeing specific performance of articles of separation, at the agreement whereby the company covenanted, in consideration of a suit of the wife, to allow her the separate maintenance agreed loan, to pay each of the lenders the sum advanced, with interest ; upon, although the husband offered by his answer to receive her and, as security, charged all its undertaking, property, estate, and again. Subsequently, however, the courts were troubled by the effects of every kind. The agreement contained certain other technical difficulty of the wife's incapacity to contract. and with clauses of the kind usually found in instruments ordinarily known the doubt thus raised was mingled a general distrust of the as debentures. Here, therefore, the security in favour of the tendency of the whole matter. Thus in Legard v. Johnson (1797, several lenders was comprised in a single document, and there 3 Ves. 352) Lord Loughborough expressed himself against the were no separate instruments issued to each lender. Yet Mr. decision in Guth v. Guth, and, after a fresh review of the cases, he Justice Chitty held that the agreement was a " debenture” within said it was the only one supporting the jurisdiction of the court section 17, basin; his decision on the considerations that the over a contract between husband and wife simply. Inasmuch, agreement was an acknowledgment of a debt; the company was to however, as the temporal courts had only to deal with the suba pay the debt to each of the lenders separately, and the security sidiary pecuniary arrangements, it was possible to overcome this was made to all the lenders pari passu upon all the undertaking, objection by introducing trustees on behalf of the wife, and in property, estate, and effects of every kind,

Rodney v. Chambers (1802, 2 East. 283) it was laid down as decisively settled that a covenant by the husband with trustees to pay the wife a separate maintenance was good. This was referred

to by Lord Eldon in St. John v. St. John (1805, 11 Ves. 532), where SEPARATION DEEDS.

he pointed out that the question had never been put upon the I.

covenant of the husband and wife, but that the court had always Although there is no longer any doubt as to the general validity Stress upon the covenant of the trustee to indemnify the husband

put it upon that between the husband and the trustee. He laid of separation deeds, yet the uncertainty which has for the last against the wife's debts, saying that the existence of this ought to hundred years prevailed on the subject has been by no means have reminded the court that those who framed these instruments entirely removed. This may be seen from the expressions used by had no idea that the wife herself was bound. But, although he the late Master of the Rolls in Besant v. Wood (12 Ch. D. 620) :** The suit raises points of the very greatest importance as regards with the trustees, yet he doubted whether covenants with such

must, in obedience to Rodney v. Chambers, enforce the covenant the general law, upon which I can give my opinion—and I say my objects ought to be the foundation either of an action or of specific opinion advisedly, because I am free to confess that the law is not performance : so clearly settled on the point that the judge can lay down the law; he can only give his opinion of the law." And to the same

"That doubt has long had place in my mind. If this were res integra, effect spoke Lord Blackburn in Cahill v. Cahill (8 App. Cas. covenant to be the foundation of an action, or of a suit in this courte

untouched by dictum or decision, I would not have permitted such & 434).

The origin of this state of things is twofold. Separation deeds extent of settling the law, I cannot, upon any doubt of mine as to what have been objected to altogether as being against public policy, ought originally to have been the decision, shake what is the settled law and if this difficulty can be got over, we are still confronted by the

upon the subject." general incapacity of married women to enter into contracts. The It is clear, then, that the contract with the trustees was originally tendency of public opinion, or of legislation, has been to lessen regarded by the courts as a purely mundane matter to be treated each of these difficulties, and in spite of the above opinions it may like any other contract, though when the question of public policy, be possible to state the law now with some degree of certainty-or, in imitation of the ecclesiastical law, was pressed upon them, they at any rate, to discover the particular points in which uncertainty would have been willing to entertain it, at any rate in Chancery made on the ground of public policy, as this clearly goes to the illustrated by the judgment of Sir W. Grant, M.R., in Worrall v: root of the whole matter.

Jacob (1817, 3 Mer. 256, at p. 268). After stating that the court

would not carry into execution articles of separation between husband and wife, he continues :

LEGISLATION OF THE YEAR. “ It should seem to follow that the court would not acknowledge the validity of any stipulation that is merely accessory to an agreement for

ALLOTMENTS COMPENSATION. separation. The object of the covenants between the husband and the

50 & 51 Vict, C. 26 - AN ACT TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE trustee is to give efficiency to the agreement between the husband and the

OCCUPIERS OF ALLOTMENTS AND COTTAGE GARDENS FOR CROPS wife; and it does seem rather strange that the auxiliary agreement should

LEFT IN THE GROUND AT THE END OF THEIR TENANCIES. be enforced, while the principal agreement is held to be contrary to the spirit and the policy of the law."

This Act must be carefully distinguished from the “ Allotments

Actof the same session (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), for whereas that He could not deny, however, the validity of engagements entered Act may not come into operation at all unless the local authorities so into between the husband and a third party, although originating desire, the present Act, so far as it extends, is of universal operation. out of, and relating to, that unauthorized state of separation in It may be briefly described as a new Agricultural Holdings Act in which the husband and wife had endeavoured to place them- miniature, applying only to parcels of not more than two acres in selves.

extent "held by a tenant under a landlord and cultivated as a garBut while the courts were thus shewing a desire to introduce, tenants of all such holdings are, by section 5, entitled upon the

deu or as a farm, or partly as a garden and partly as a farm." The if possible, the ecclesiastical law under the guise of public policy, determination of their tenancies," notwithstanding any agreement there were not wanting persons of greater enlightenment who saw to the contrary,” to obtain from their landlords compensation for that a true public policy tended in the opposite direction. After Crops, including fruit, growing upon the holding in the ordinary course of reviewing the above and other cases, Jacobs concludes the note cultivation, and for fruit trees and fruit þushes growing thereon which have

been planted by the tenant with the previous consent in writing of the landalready referred to as follows :


Labour expended upon and manure applied to the holding since the taking of “Whatever may be the ultimate decision of this question, it can the last crop therefrom in anticipation of a future crop. scarcely be contended that the rule which allows deeds of separation is in

Drains and any outbuildings, pigsties, fowlhouses, or other structural imall cases productive of upmixed evil. And it may be doubted whether his landlord.

provements made by the tenant upon his holding with the written consent of there is any principle of policy which requires that matrimonial disputes (unlike all others) should never be settled by private adjustment, and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, for anything to which this Act

The 18th section provides that no claim is to be made under the which renders it better to litigate than to compromise them.” But as it had been settled that the auxiliary provisions were gocd, that Act and of this Act conflict the provisions of this Act shall pre

applies, and, further, that" in any case in which the provisions of it was hardly worth while to keep open the question of public vail.” This latter provision will occasion considerable difficulty, as policy, and in subsequent cases, such, for example, as Bateman v. it will often be hard to say whether the two Acts “conflict” or not. Ross (1 Dow. 135), even Lord Eldon was content to admit the Do they conflict, for instance, where one Act cor tains a special provalidity of the agreement. Finally the matter was settled by the vision as to a matter on which the other is silent? The present Act, House of Lords in Wilson v. Wilson (1848, 1 H. L. C. 538). for instance, fixes no basis whereon to assess the amount of comThere the real question was faced, whether the deed of separation pensation. The Act of 1883 fixes the basis of " value to an incoming was in itself bad as to invalidate the arrangements of property the Act of 1883 can be read in to assist the valuers. It is to be ob

tenant." On the whole we think there is no conflict here, and that arising from it. Without examining again into the question of served, too, that the present Act does not, as does the Act of 1883, bar public policy, it was pointed out that in Jones v. Waite (9 Cl. claims under the custom of the country. & F. 101) the execution of the deed by the husband had itself With regard to arbitration, it is provided that if the parties cannot been held to be a good consideration for an agreement by a third agree upon the compensation or concur in the appointment of an person to pay a sum of money towards debts for which the husband arbitrator, they, or either of them, may apply to the district justices was solely liable. If this was so, it could hardly be now held of the peace, who are to appoint “one of their number not being that the deed itself was bad, and it was recognized that a long interested in the hɔlding,” or other competent person not interested, train of authorities at law and in equity had proceeded upon the to act as arbitrator, whose consent, by section 9, is in all cases in same ground. More recently it has been held, in Hart v. Hart His award, by section 16, “shall be final and conclusive in every case ; (18 Ch. D. 670), that specific performance of an executory agree- and neither the submission to arbitration nor the award shall be made ment for the separation deed will be ordered, and no question can a rule of any court, or be removable by any process into any now be raised upon the public policy of such deeds.

court.” The Act of 1883, it will be remembered (see section 22), The case is different, however, with regard to deeds providing contains a similar provision, but section 23 allows an appeal where : for a future separation. As to the invalidity of these there is no claim exceeds £100. It was probably thought that, in the case of the doubt, and so the question was treated both by the Lord Chan

small holdings to which this Act is applicable, the claim could never cellor and by Lord Eldon in Westmeath v. Westmeath (1830, 1 be so large as to justify an appeal. The compensation money is, by Dow. & Cl. 541, 545). Finally, as a succinct account of the whole Act, 1883), to be recoverable by order of a county court judge, and matter, we may quote from the judgment of the late Sir G. Jessel the Act does not provide, as does section 48 of the Act of 1883, that in Besant v. Wood, already referred to (p. 620) :

an order of a county court judge shall not be removable. "For a great number of years both ecclesiastical judges and lay judges

It only remains to observe that the Act is not confined in its thought it was something very horrible, and against public policy, that application to labourers, but applies to all tenancies whatever of land the husband and wife should agree to live separate, and it was supposed not amounting to two acres in extent. that a civilized country could no longer exist if such agreements were enforced by courts of law, whether ecclesiastical or not.

But a change came over judicial opinion as to public policy; other considerations arose, and people began to think that, after all, it might be better and more beneficial for married people to avoid, in many cases, the expense and the

CORRESPONDENCE. scandal of suits of divorce by settling their differences quietly by the aid

THE LAND TRANSFER BILL. of friends out of court, although the consequence might be that they

| To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] would live separately, and that was the view carried out by the courts when it became once decided that separation deeds per se were not against

Sir,-Is it not possible to arouse the profession from their state of public policy."

apathy with regard to this measure? The Council of the Law Society But, though the general question of policy is thus settled, there are doing their duty well, þut anything like a consensus of feeling

seems lacking in the profession generally. are difficulties in the contract itself, both as regards the actual I cannot avoid the conclusion that the Bill as it stands is not a good separation and the pecuniary arrangements arising out of it. With measure as regards the public, and that as regards the profession an these we shall deal in our next article.

unjust and unnecessary sacrifice is proposed to be made of their interests. If so great a sacrifice at our expense were necessary for the public benefit, I should have nothing to say. I am prepared

to admit that, so far as remuneration for ever recurring investigation Mr. Hobhouse, M.P., having represented to the Government the great of title is concerned, some sacrifice is necessary, for I am a believer in inconvenience caused by the delay occurring in the publication of new Acts of Parliament (to which we recently referred) has received the follow

a sensible system of registration of title. There are two leading 13thm inst., I am desired by Mr. W. 8. Smitment to you that there is thin adequately considered the subject must disapprove. They are insekanswer: "Eept. 16, 1887. Dear Sir, e en reply to your detter of the features of this Bill, however, of which surely every solicitor who has communication with the Stationery Office on the subject of printing the these : – Acts, and he hopes to be able to expedite both the examination and the

1. That in order to obtain the "absolute" or "qualified” title, an delivery of the Acts. I remain, yours faithfully, C. T. Maude."

official investigation is rendered necessary.



2. The process of “confirmation" of the possessory title.

On behalf of the plaintiffs reference was made to 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 36, It is perhaps unnecessary to point out that this "absolute” title is as to making the bank a party, and to Temple v. The Bank of England not to be absolute at all, but that the "absolute” title of Lord (6 Ves. 769). The plaintiffs did not know the exact description of the Cairns' Act is, by the Bill in its present form, transformed into a stock, but Orange was not a common name, and he was a clergyman, quasi-guaranteed title—the guarantee being, in several important bank did not object to being made a party, but it was contended on their

and that was sufficient to prevent the bank making a mistake. The respects, unsatisfactory.

behalf that it was the invariable practice to require persons claiming If the nature of the "absolute title” had not been changed, it is stock to give the description and the amount in a notice to the bank difficult to see how an official investigation prior to first registration before the court would restrain a transfer. There were thirty different could have been avoided. But I am convinced that no official kinds of stock, and if the bank made a mistake ard refused to transfer investigation is necessary prior to the registration of a “guaranteed stock not the subject of the injunction they would be liable in damages. title,” even supposing that the guarantee were made in reality, and The proper course was to ascertain what the stock was to which the order not in name only, an indemnity. It is not necessary that the first was to be applied. Reference was made to 5 Vict. c. 5, s. 5, and ord. registered proprietor should himself have the benefit of the guarantee, 46, 1, 2, 3, and 4. Under the Act of Parliament and the Rules the bauk all that is requisite being that a grantee for value from him should should be informed of the particular stock which was sought to be have the benefit of it. Thus there exists no reason why the investigation

restrained. should not be made by the solicitor of the first registered proprietor. A it was not applicable to the present case, where a customer, very

CHARLES, J., said that the practice referred to might be right, but suggestion to this effect is contained in Mr. Brickdale’s extremely clearly identified, wanted to restrain the bank from parting with stock valuable book on registration of title.

for a limited time. The question he had to decide was whether the The investigation by the solicitor of a purchaser would, without stock was sufficiently identified. He thought that the words “in the doubt, be more agreeable to the latter, and also less expensive than

name of Thomas Orange, St. Lawrence, Jersey, clerk in holy orders, investigation by officials. Experience of the present practice of deceased,” did sufficiently describe the stock. He made an order conveyancing proves that it would also be safe. Why, then, sacrifice restraining the Bank of England over the 28th inst. from the transfer the interest of both the public and the profession?

of any stocks or funds standing in the name of Thomas Orange, of St. The scheme for confirming a possessory title has been very generally Lawrence, Jersey, clerk in holy orders, deceased. The plaintiffs being cut condemned. The process could not be cheap because of the of the jurisdiction, some responsible person must sign an undertaking in "prescribed” affidavits, advertisements, &c., to say nothing of the damages, otherwise there would be no order.-- Counsel, Bush, Q..., and for it is easy to see that parties interested in the land would in many COMPANY-RESOLUTION FOR VOLUNTARY WINDING UP Passed--Petitionobjections which might be raised. Neither would the process be just, Seddon ; Latham, Q.O. SOLICITORS, Johnson, Budd, f Johnson ; Freshfields. cases never be directly communicated with, and common

MEETING TO CONFIRM ResoLUTION_COMPANIES Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. suggests that a newspaper advertisement (perhaps hemmed in by

C. 89), s. 145. scores of others) cannot be a precaution worth the name. Would it not in fact be merely a sort of inferior excuse for confiscating the

In the case of The Howe Machine Co. (Limited), before Charles, J., on the rights of innocent parties ?

28th ult., the question arose as to the right of a shareholder to a comI have only dwelt as concisely as possible upon two out of many voluntarily had been passed before the petition was presented, but had

pulsory winding-up order, where a resolution to wind up the company features of the Bill which are objectionable. I would, however, not been confirmed until afterwards. The petitioner was J. E. Hodges, particularly commend the consideration of these to my professional holding 319 ordinary shares of £3 each in the company; The company was brethren on public as well as on professional grounds.

formed in 1873 ; its object was to manufacture and sell sewing and other Sept. 27.

COUNTRY SUBSCRIBER. machines ; it had offices in London and a manufactory at Glasgow. There

were 20,000 ordinary shares issued and taken up of the value of £3 each. On the 29th of August, 1887, a special resolution was passed by fifty-eight shareholders holding 12,176 'shares against four shareholders holding 1,090

skares, to wind up the company volntarily, to appoint J. P. Clark, H. B. CASES BEFORE THE VACATION JUDGE.

Doo, and George Richards, directors, to be provisional liquidators, and to

approve of a proposed agreement to sell the property of the company to LANDLORD AND TENANT-BREACH Of Covenant-INJURY TO Premises - Alfred Woodrow, as trustee for a new company, for £10,000, the new MANDATORY INJUNCTION-INJUNCTION.

company taking over the debts and liabilities of the old company. On In the case of Emmanuel College v. Chichester, before Charles, J., on the 16th of September to confirm the resolution. It stated that a resolution

the 31st of August notice was given that a meeting would be held on the tenant and his sub-lessee from depositing rubbish on a farm. It was a voluntarily, that a company was being formed to buy the property, and

had been passed by persons holding 12,176 shares to wind up the company Chichester, the tenant of Hyde Farm, Clapham, from committing breaches the approval of the meeting was required of an agreement to sell the properti

to the new company for £10,000, the new company to take over the debts and also to restrain Chichester and his sub-lessee, Isaac Haskings, and each of 16th of September this petition was presented, and on the same day the

liabilities; the agreement could be seen at the company's offices. On the carting turf, or permitting turf to be cut or carted, upon or from any part agreement, and shareholders holding 3,363 shares dissenting. For the of the land comprised in the sail lease, and from depositing or spreading, petition reference was made to the West Surrey Tanning Co. (2 E9.737862. gravel, earth, or rubbish upon any portion thereof, or permitting to be it was said that the real purchaser was J. C. Chaplin, the managing done any act or thing whereby the grass on the surface of the said land might be injured. Kekewich, J., had granted an interim injunction. For

director of the company.

This was not known at the first meeting. On the plaintiffs it was said that the farm was chiefly used for tennis, cricket, of the company consisted of £67,221 178. 6d. If the company was wound

the 31st of December, 1886, a report was issued shewing that the assets and football grounds, and the defendants were using the land in such a manner that it could not be let for such purposes. The words in the

up by the court each shareholder would get £3 per share after payment of interim order, "and permitting to remain,” were mandatory, and should

all liabilities, and there would be £7,221" 17s.6d. surplus. If the agree. be struck out, but otherwise the plaintiffs were entitled to an order.

ment was carried out the shareholders would get 2s. 6d. cash per share,

The defendants did not appear.

and perhaps 7s. 6d. per share more. Out of the 12,176 shares, Chaplin Charles, J., continued the injunction until trial or further order, Woodrow was a nominee of Chaplin, and that in effect Chaplin was the

He was an interested person. It was now admitted that striking out the mandatory words and permitting to remain.” —Counsel, new company. The provisional liquidators were not independent persons Waggett. SOLICITORS, Reyroux, Phillips, f. Golding.

there should be a compulsory order, and two independent persons BANK OF ENGLAND--Stocks And Funds—DESCRIPTION--NOTICE–INJUNC appointed liquidators. The order would relate back to the presentation

tion—39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 36–5 Vict. c. 5–R. S. o., 1883, XLVI., 1 en thee ference was made to sections 95, 129, 133, 138, 145, 161, and 1620 2, 3, 4.

In the case of Taunton v. Falla, before Charles, J., on the 23rd_ult., and no better price could have been obtained than that offered by Chaplin; the question arose as to the practice of the court in restraining the Bank of England from transferring stocks or funds. The plaintiffs in the action

the transaction was bond fide, but now Chaplin had withdrawn his offer. were trustees under the sequestration of one Paine ; the defendant was visional liquidators should be retained.

The resolution, however, to wind up voluntarily was good, and the prothe administrator of the estate of the Rev. Thomas Orange, of St. Lawrence, Jersey, deceased. By the law of Jersey, Orange could not sented before the resolution to wind up the company voluntarily, was cone

CHARLES, J., said that in this case the petition of Mr. Hodges was preestate. Orange left no children him surviving, but left two grandchil. Companies Act, 1862, which referred to a petition after a resolution bad thirds of the estate of Thomas Orange. Part of the estate consisted of the West Surrey Tanning Co. (2 Eq. 737): a special resolution to windi mo stocks and funds standing in the name of Thomas Orange in the books of the company oluntarily was passed but not confirmed ; in the meantieel the Bank of England, but the description and amount of the stocks and day, September 28, from transferring any stocks of funds standing in the to a decide was whether he ought to make a compulsory order, or give

that he had to decide any question under section 145. The gestion he had bank. The notico For motion was not served on the defendant falla. ) appointing these gentlemen provisional liquidators. He thought he ought name of Thomas Orange, of St. Lawrence, Jersey, in the books of the effect to the wishes of shareholders as expressed at the two meetings

« PreviousContinue »