Page images
PDF
EPUB

Marriott, John, Buckingham, Hay Dealer. Oct 23 at 11 at the White Hart Hotel, Buckingham. Weston and Barnes

Marshall, William, and John Castle, Leicester, Stone Masons. Oct 20 at 3 at offices of Hincks, Bowling Green st, Leicester

Matthews, Albert, Newport, Monmouth, Publican. Oct 18 at 11 at offices of Parker, Commercial st, Newport

McLaughlin, John, Birmingham, Commission Merchant. Oct 15 at 3 at offices of Jaques, Temple row, Birmingham

Moores, David, Manchester, Cigar Dealer. Oct 25 at 3 at offices of Bowden, King st, Manchester

Morgan, Magdalene, Llanguicke, Glamorgan, Grocer. Oct 21 at 12 at offices of Kempthorne and Son, Dyffryn chbrs, Neath Mutteen, Joseph Holten, Moss Side. Lancaster, Auctioneer. Oct 14 at 3 at the Blackfriars Hotel, Blackfriars st, Manchester. Hill, Manchester

Newell, John, Calverley, York, Woollen Draper. Oct 18 at 3 at offices of Singleton, Booth st, Bradford

O'Brien, Michael, Bridgwater, Somerset, Fishmonger. Oct 22 at 11 at offices of Reed and Cook, King's sq, Bridgwater Osborne, Joseph, Hounslow, Master Bootmaker to the 11th Hussars. Oct 25 at 3 at offices of Mirams, New inn, Strand Owen, James, Wigan, Lancaster, Provision Dealer. Oct 19 at 3 at offices of France, Churchgate, Wigan

Palmer, Edmund, Perham rd, West Kensington, Gentleman.

Oct 25 at 3 at offices of Foster and Co, Copthall bldgs. Miller and Vernon, Moorgate st

Pamphilon, John, jun. Whittlesford, Cambridge, Implement Manufacturer. Oct 26 at 2 at offices of Grain, Mill lane, Cambridge Park, Thomas Rees, Llanelly, Carmarthen, Tailor. Oct 19 at 3 a offices of Howell, Stepney st, Llanelly

t

Paxton, Henry, Hanley, Stafford, Builder. Oct 16 at 10 at offices of
Ashmall, Albion st. Hanley

Pilgrim, Edward, Saint Grogory, Norwich, Brush Manufacturer.
Oct 18 at 12 at offices of Daly, Guildhall chambers, Upper Market
Procter, Alfred Brooke, Solihull, Warwick, Veterinary Surgeon.
Oct 19 at 3 at offices of Fallows, Cherry st, Birmingham
Pugh, Thomas, Clungford, Salop, Butcher. Oct 19 at 1 at the Kan-
garoo Inn, Aston-on-Clun, Newill, Bishop's Castle
Scamell, William Henry Tilbury, Wherwell, Southampton, Farmer.
Oct 14 at 3 at the White Hart Hotel, Andover. Lee and Co, Salis-
bury

Shelmerdine, Joseph Hill, Rusholme, Lancaster, Licensed Beer Retailer. Oct 25 at 3 at offices of Withington and Co, Spring gardens, Manchester

Shepherd, Arthur Ernest, Cleckheaton, York, Innkeeper. Oct 13 at 3 at offices of Singleton, New Booth st, Bradford

Simmonds, George, Southampton, Fish Salesman. Oct 18 at 3 at offices of Bell, Portland st, Southampton

Simpson, John, Accrington, Lancaster, Grocer. Oct 27 at 3 at offices of Barlow, Dutton st, Accrington

Smith, Henry, Kirkgate, Wakefield, Tailor. Oct 15 at 11 at offices of Lake and Lake, Southgate, Wakefield

Smith, John, Barrowby, Lincoln, Farmer. Oct 20 at 12 at offices of
Thompson and Sons, Grantham

Smith, Martha, Fenton, Stafford, Grocer.
Welch, Caroline st, Longton

Oct 13 at 11 at offices of

Stevenson, Benjamin, and Trees Stevenson, Leeds, Joiners. Oct 15 at 3 at offices of Craven, East parade, Leeds

Stevenson, Robert Edward, Chippenham terrace, Paddington, Grocer. Oct 12 at 3 at offices of Scott Fox, St Mary's sq, Paddington

Swales, Henry, Pendleton, Lancaster, Brewer. Oct 21 at 3 at offices of Grundy and Co, Booth st, Manchester

Taylor, Henry, Bolton, Lancaster, Frass Founder. offices of Taylor and Sons, Mawdsley st, Bolton

Oct 20 at 3 at

Venner, Edward Charles Morgan, and Frederick James Cecil Venner, Totterdown, Somerset, Grocers. Oct 13 at 12 at offices of Essery Guildhall, Broad st. Bristol

Vine, Samuel, Portsea, Hants, Provision Merchant. Oct 22 at 2.30 at 145, Cheapside. King, Portsea

Ward, Thomas. Huddersfield, Tin Plate Worker. Oct 20 at 11 at offices of Dranfield, Ramsden st, Huddersfield

Watson, Trafford, Scopwick, Lincoln, Saddler. Oct 20 at 11 at offices of Toynbee and Co. Bank st, Lincoln

Wharton, Charles, Westgate, Heckmondwike. Oct 18 at the Royal Hotel, Cleckheaton. Curry, Cleckheaton

Wheeler, Henry, jun, Maidstone, Timber Merchant. Oct 15 at 11 at the Terminus Hotel, London Bridge. Stenning, Maid

stone

Willstrop, Thomas, Bradford, York, Hay Dealer. Oct 15 at 5 at offices of Wright, Darley st, Bradford

Woods, Richard, Longridge, Lancaster, Joiner. Oct 19 at 11 at the County Court Oflices, Winckley street, Preston. Parry, Pres

ton

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

LAW

AW PARTNERSHIP.-Wanted, by a Solicitor, established Conveyancing or General Practice. Will give £1,500,— Address, F., 129, Gower-street, W.C.

LAW-Shorthand Wstituite and Address, sof

AW.-Shorthand Writer Wanted, by a firm of

ing age, references, and salary expected, P. W., care of Messrs. Moulton, Law Stationers, 37, Chancery-lane, W.C.

HANCERY LANE.-Several Excellent Suites of Chancery-lane, suitable for Barristers, Solicitors, and Professional Gentlemen.-Apply to Mr. ROBERT WATSON, 37, Cursitor-street, Chancery-lane, E.C.

PREFERMENT WANTED.—Private

CHURCH, interested in the legitimate sale, by, private trea

of advowsons, presentations, &c., in favour of well-recommended clergymen, should refer to the PRIVATE PATRONS' GAZETTE, edited by Mr. W. EMERY STARK, Associate Institute of Actuaries, F.R.G.S., &c. Post free for six stamps.-Address, Messrs. W. EMERY STARK, 23, Bedford-street, Strand.

[blocks in formation]

GENTLEMAN, who has had the entire charge of several heavy cases in litigation, and who has justreturned from a tour round the world, which he has made on behalf of an eminent firm of Solicitors in Lincoln's-inn, having brought to a successful issue the object of his mission, is prepared to undertake the getting up of evidence and the obtaining of

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA, reliable information in any litigious matter of importance. He has

Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder.

Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."

Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.

Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Breakfast Cup, coating less than a halfpenny.

COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Vanilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tin packets at 1s. 6d., 3s., 5s. 6d, &c., by Chemists and Grocers, Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors,

H. SCHWEITZER & CO., 10, Adam-street, London, W.C.

very exceptionable facilities for obtaining information in London; is personally acquainted with every town of importance in Great Britain and Ireland; and has trustworthy Agents in all parts of America, India, Australia, and New Zealand. He does not solicit work which would fall within the province of, or could be undertaken by, an ordinary clerk, and may be treated in any matter intrusted to him, so far as confidence and secrecy are concerned, as one of the firm; and as he undertakes but one matter at the time, he is prepared, as hitherto, to devote his whole and undivided attention to it. The Advertiser wishes it understood that he acccpts instructions exclusively through the medium of the Legal Profession, and any firm of Solicitors may avail themselves of his services without its ever being known, should such be deemed advisable, in what actual capacity he is acting in the matter.

For obvious reasons the Advertiser does not here give his name and address, but will be happy to furnish (to Solicitors only) all particulars and references to firms of the highest standing on receipt of communication, or he will be happy to wait personally upon any Solicitor in the United Kingdom at his (the Advertiser's) own expense upon receipt of a request so to do.-Solicitors will please address, LEGAL, 117, Chancery-lane, W.C.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

DURING THE PERIOD called in the Rules of Court the "interval" between vacation and sittings, either Lord Coleridge or Mr. Baron Pollock, being the vacation judges, must be applied to in chambers concerning any special or pressing business. Probably by an oversight, although order 61, r. 6, provides that "any other judge of the High Court may sit in vacation for any vacation judge," yet, according to rule 7 of the same order, the permission does not apply to the so-called "interval." The extent of this interval is, of course, from the 25th of October to the 1st of November, both days inclusive.

THE QUESTION has been recently raised, in connection with the Temple Bar Memorial, whether a subway should not be constructed from the Royal Courts of Justice to the Temple. Under the Courts of Justice Concentration (Site) Act, 1865, s. 14, the Commissioners of Works were authorized, for the purpose of providing access to the new law courts by means of "bridges over or tunnels under streets," to acquire by purchase or otherwise, any lands, or interest in lands, or easements. In the instructions which were issued to the architects competing for the design to be selected for the courts, it was expressly stated that "a new bridge is to be provided on the site of the existing Temple Bar arch," and it was also stated that "in addition thereto it is proposed that a tunnel or subway shall be constructed under the Strand between the Temple and the new courts, on the site of the Temple Bar." It would be interesting to know when this scheme was abandoned, and for what reason. It is evident that it must have been abandoned, or the Commissioners of Works would not have stood by and allowed

Messrs. Child to re-erect their bank upon part of the site selected for the bridge and subway. But for this abandonment the public would have escaped the Temple Bar Memorial.

IT IS RECORDED that when a matter touching an election was brought before the Court of King's Bench, in the early part of this century, the eccentric Mr. Justice Powys remarked, “We are not acquainted with the learning of elections, and there is a particular cunning in it not known to us." It would appear that there is also a particular facetiousness about election matters not known to the public outside certain towns where Commissions are now sitting. A glance at the reports of the proceedings of one of the Commissions, which appeared in the daily papers of Thursday last, will show that "laughter" greeted a large proportion of the answers of witnesses who confessed the most shameless bribery. One man said he had received £5 from the Liberals, and £3 from the Conservatives; "laughter" immediately followed, which was repeated when a learned commissioner pleasantly referred to him as "a double-barrelled elector," and described the practice as "electoral luxury." It is not surprising that some of the witnesses, observing the pleasing impression produced on the spectators by their cynical frankness, should declare that they were not at all ashamed of taking money for their votes. The tendency of proceedings conducted in this jocular way is to destroy all sense of shame, and to neutralize the main benefit of these inquiries.

IF IT BE TRUE that the Government have determined to prosecute some of the principal Irish land agitators for conspiracy, several points of law will probably be raised on their behalf. The offence of conspiracy will, of course, cover every case of an agreement between two or more persons to effect a legal purpose (such as a statutory alteration of the laws as to land tenure) by any improper means; but the different counts in an indictment for such a conspiracy must undoubtedly lead to some discussion. O'Connell's case (11 C. & F. 155) is the leading authority as to conspiracy of this kind. In that case a count charging a conspiracy "to cause and procure divers subjects to meet together in large numbers for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and of the exhibition and demonstration of great physical force at such meetings, changes in the Govern ment, laws, and constitution of the realm," was held to be bad, first, on the ground that "intimidation" was not a technical word having necessarily a bad sense; and, secondly, because it was not shown what kind of intimidation was intended, nor on whom it was to operate. Among the parts of the indictment, however, which were held to be good were counts charging a conspiracy "to raise and create discontent among the liege subjects of the Queen, and to excite such subjects to hatred and contempt of the government and constitution of this realm as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious opposition to the said government and constitution, and also to stir up jealousies, hatred, and ill-will between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and to cause and procure divers subjects of her Majesty unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at various times and at different places within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining by means of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstration of great physical force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and alterations in the government, laws, and constitution of this realm as by law established." Lord Campbell, in delivering his judgment, said, "I consider that any person who deliberately attempts to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of her

Majesty's subjects is guilty of a most culpable proceeding, and that if several combine to do so they commit a misdemeanour." Most of the prosecutions in 1848 were for high treason, while in the case of the Fenian prosecutions, about twelve years ago, the proceedings were mostly for "treason-felony," under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12. Apart, however, from any question of conspiracy, most of the agitators would no doubt be punishable on the ground of seditious intention. According to Mr. Justice Stephen ("Digest of Criminal Law," art. 91-93) "every person commits a misdemeanour who publishes verbally or otherwise any words or any documents with a seditious intention." A seditious conspiracy is committed by anyone "who agrees with any other person or persons to do any act for the furtherance of any seditious intention common to both or all of them," while a seditious intention is "an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite dissatisfaction against, the person of her Majesty, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom as by law established,

or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite her Majesty's subjects to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to raise discontent or disaffection among her Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different classes of such subjects." In all such cases the principle that every man is responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts will, of course, apply.

A CORRESPONDENT makes the following suggestion with reference to taxation before the common law masters :"I should like to draw your attention to the great waste of time which constantly occurs on appointments to tax before the common law masters. Having obtained an appointment for, say, eleven o'clock, to tax a weighty bill, the opponent does not arrive punctually; a number of summonses are taken, and when the laggard does appear, the master is by that time besieged by persons who hand in their bills, and as they increase, and other applicants of various descriptions rush in, the unfortunate first comer possibly waits two hours or more, and perhaps then, either owing to his own or opponent's engagements, has to take another appointment. Many of the bills which waste the master's time are merely formal bills, or containing little but routine items. If the plan were adopted of all such bills being taxed by the, clerk much time would be saved, and in case of any dispute a reference could be immediately had to the master. I do not know who has the appointing of masters' clerks, but the latter surely should be capable of this kind of work."

DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS there has been a steady decrease in the numbers of private Bills deposited in

the Private Bill Office. There were in 1878, 278; in 1879, 254; and this year only 217 were deposited. Going further back, we find that 1873. was the most prolific of recent years in this respect; 335 petitions for private Bills being then deposited in the office, and 227 private Bills receiving the Royal assent. This year only 173 private Bills received the Royal assent.

THE REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT in the Royal Courts of Justice, which is situated on the basement floor of that part of the building which faces Carey-street, is expected to be opened on the 26th of this month. It is to be hoped that the authorities will see their way to throwing the room open to the profession. There are only about 200 officials at present located in the building, while the other daily frequenters are numbered by thousands. Amply sufficient accommodation is provided for this purpose.

THE TRUSTEE'S SOLICITOR.

II.

WE last week briefly stated the remedies of the cestui que trust who wishes to question the amount of the bill of the trustee's solicitor. With regard to the second of these remedies-that under section 39 of the Solicitors Act (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73)-we stated that the late Master of the Rolls, in some of his earlier decisions, had inclined to the view that the statute enabled the court to order a bill to be taxed after it had been paid by the trustee, but that Lord Justice Turner had laid it down that in such a case special circumstances must be shown to enable the court to order taxation of the bill. It needs little consideration to show that this latter view must be correct. The bill is the bill of the solicitor against his client, the trustee, and must be taxed as between those parties. If the cestui que trust desires to obtain taxation, he must be considered as standing in the shoes of the trustee, and unless the trustee can tax the bill, the cestui que trust cannot do 80. It follows that if the trustee knowingly, and after having had due time to consider the bill, has thought proper to pay it, then, unless some of the items are fraudulent, the cestui que trust is precluded from taxing the bill. This view was ultimately adopted by the late Master of the Rolls in Re Massey (34 Beav., at p. 470), and will no doubt prevail.

Another consequence of this doctrine is, that the cestui que trust who desires to tax the bill must do so on the condition of paying what is due to the solicitor from the trustees, which possibly may be more than the trustees, if they had paid it, could have recovered from the cestui que trust (In re Fyson, 9 Beav. 117). To this rule, however, the late Master of the Rolls attached an important qualification. If a trustee employs a solicitor to conduct the business of the trust, there is, he said, a distinction, for the purposes of taxation under the Act, between his employing that same solicitor for exactly similar purposes with regard to which he is not a trustee. Suppose, for instance, that he is not a trustee, but simply a client, and that he says to the solicitor, "I wish you would make me, or procure for me, copies of such and such deeds, and I want to have them fully explained to me, and I come to you for that purpose." The solicitor tells him, "You can have them if you wish, but they are not at all wanted, they are of no kind of use." The client says, "Never mind, I require it to be done." The solicitor says, "If you wish it, you shall have it." When the bill is taxed and that fact is stated, the client cannot complain. But take the case where he is a trustee. He makes the same request; the solicitor makes the same answer, on which the client says, "Never mind, I still insist upon that being done." Then it is the duty of the solicitor to tell him, "Very well, if you insist on its being done, it shall be done; but you must understand that, as this is not required for the purpose of the administration of the trust, you cannot charge these costs against your cestui que trust; therefore, if you require it to be done, you must pay for it personally." It is, the learned judge continued, the duty of the solicitor to tell the trustee this, and it is for the taxing master to ascertain whether it is necessary or proper that costs should be incurred, and, if improper, to disallow them (In re Brown, L. R. 4 Eq. 464). It may be doubted whether this decision can be maintained, for the so-called qualification really cuts away the principle ultimately assented to by Lord Romilly. The solicitor who acts for trustees, being, of course, always aware that he is acting in a trust matter, is, according to In re Brown, bound to inform the trustee that he is incurring expenditure which will not be allowed as between the trustee and his cestui que trust, and on the taxation of the solicitor's bill on the application of the cestui que trust, the taxing master is to decide what items are and what are not necessary or proper to be

so allowed. But this is not taxation as between the solicitor and his client, the trustee, but as between the solicitor and the cestui que trust.

It must, however, be admitted that no very clear principle has been kept in view in the decisions on this subject. The rule, to which we referred last week, that a trustee may bind his cestui que trust by having his solicitor's bill taxed, although, as we have seen, such taxation will be made as between the solicitor and the trustee, and items may be allowed which would not be allowed on moderation of the bill as between the trustee and the cestui que trust (In re Fyson), is inconsistent with the distinction which has always been drawn, and has been sanctioned by Lord Eldon and Lord St. Leonards, between the question of what the solicitor may get from his client, the trustee, and what the latter can get allowed as between himself and the cestui que trust. Lord Eldon's observation in Hazard v. Lane (2 Mer. 291), that a solicitor cannot be allowed to interpose the payment, years before, by a trustee of his bill of costs, between himself and the cestui que trust, for whom he was at the time aware that the person who paid him was no more than a trustee, does not accord with the present state of the law; and his decision that under such circumstances the cestui que trust is entitled to the common order for taxation, and to use the name of the trustee in such taxation, cannot at the present day be considered as an authority. The taxation under such circumstances would now be against the trustee by way of moderation of the bill for the purpose of justifying his payments to the solicitor (see Grove v. Sansom, 1 Beav., at p. 299).

A solicitor who has been paid a lump sum for costs by trustees will not be allowed to preclude taxation under the 39th section of the Solicitors Act by refusing to deliver a proper bill of costs. He will be ordered to deliver such a bill to the cestui que trust on his paying the costs of it (In re Blackmore, 13 Beav. 154). Nor will the smallness of the overcharges alleged in a petition by beneficiaries to tax the costs of trustees' solicitors prevent the reference of the bill for taxation. It is not necessary for the petitioners to state all the items objected to. It is usual to point out two or three or more items of overcharge as a sample, and if these items cannot be supported, the bill must be referred to taxation (In re Dawson & Bryant, 28 Beav. 605).

It has been said that interest will not be allowed to a

trustee or executor on money which he has advanced for costs out of his own pocket. Thus in Gordon v. Traill (8 Price, 416) the court refused to allow interest on costs paid by an executor, although at the time he had no money belonging to the estate in his hands; but the ground taken in this case seemed to be that the interest should be calculated from the time of a balance being struck on the general report; for, until that time, it could not be ascertained that the executor had not money in his hands. In Lewis v. Lewis (13 Beav. 82) executors who had paid £1,609 out of their own moneys to meet the costs of an administration suit, were refused interest on this sum. But in Finch v. Pescott (L. R. 17 Eq. 554) Vice-Chancellor Bacon allowed an executor interest, at four per cent., on the balances appearing due to him at the end of each year; but without allowing any interest in the computation of such balances.

The solicitor employed by trustees is always allowed to set off payments which have been properly made by him in the performance of the trusts against his receipts in the same matter (Re Sadd, 34 Beav. 650).

The following are the dates fixed for the winter assizes on the Midland Circuit :-For the combined counties of Northampton, Buckingham, and Bedford, at Northampton, Monday, Oct. 25; for Leicester, Derby, and Rutland, at Leicester, Saturday, Oct. 30; for Nottingham and Lincoln, at Nottingham, Saturday, Nov. 6; and at Warwick, on Thursday, Nov. 11.

Recent Decisions.

ACQUIESCENCE BY LESSOR.

(Wilmott v. Barber, 20 W. R. 911.)

The judgment of Mr. Justice Fry in this case contains some useful observations as to the circumstances under which a lessor may preclude himself from insisting on a covenant by the lessee not to assign without the written license of the lessor. In the recent case a lessee under a lease containing such a covenant agreed to underlet a part of the demised premises, and gave the underlessee an option to purchase the lease of the whole within five years. No licence was obtained, but it was alleged that both before and after the agreement was entered into it had been seen, approved by, and assented to by the original lessor; and the under-lessee had laid out money on the premises sub-let to him and on his own adjoining property, with the lessor's knowledge, assent, and approval, and relying on his right to purchase. It appeared, however, that the expenditure was incurred before the option was exercised. After the option was exercised, the lessor refused his license to the assignment. Mr. Justice Fry held that in order

to preclude the lessor from exercising his strict legal right in such a case, these elements must exist concurrently: (1) the person expending the money (whom we will call the plaintiff) must have been under a mistake as to his own right. (2) The plaintiff must have expended money, or done some other act, in the faith of his mistaken belief being true, for, if he has expended no money, or done nothing else, he is not injured and can have no claim. (3) The lessor must know of the existence of his own right, and that it is inconsistent with the plaintiff's belief, for otherwise he is in the same position, and labouring under the same mistake, as the plaintiff. All acquiescence depends upon conduct coupled with knowledge. (4) The lessor must know of the plaintiff's mistaken belief as to his own right, for otherwise the lessor will not be called upon to assert his rights, and non-assertion of them will not affect his position. And (5) the lessor must have encouraged the plaintiff to lay out money, or adopt a particular course, either by direct encouragement or by abstaining from asserting the legal right which he possessed. In the recent case the ledge of the plaintiff's mistaken belief was wanting, for learned judge held that the proof of the lessor's knoweven supposing the agreement to have been communicated to the lessor, yet there was nothing in the agreement to inform the lessor that the plaintiff was not aware of the covenant in the original lease.

The following judges have been appointed to hold the winter assizes on the under mentioned circuits, viz. :— Midland, Lord Justice Baggallay; Oxford, Lord Justice Thesiger; North and South Wales, Mr. Justice Grove; Western, Mr. Justice Denman; Northern, Mr. Baron Huddleston; North-Eastern, Mr. Justice Field; SouthEastern, Mr. Justice Lindley. There will be no civil business at Manchester or Liverpool this time, prisoners only being tried at all the places.

The Times, referring to the recent Sheffield meeting, says, "We cannot but congratulate the solicitors on the success of their meeting at Sheffield. If it had produced nothing more than the manly and vigorous address of the president it would have served to give the assembled lawyers a new sense of the dignity of their profession and its claims upon public respect and consideration. All professions like to feel a due sense of their corporate existence, and all are entitled to meet together for a discussion of their common interests. But the lawyers assembled at Sheffield at any rate showed that their sense of professional interests is penetrated with a public spirit, and with a high feeling of responsibility in the weighty matters intrusted to them."

General Correspondence.

THE LAW SOCIETY AND PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, The profession is much indebted to Mr. Grinham Keen for the practical suggestions contained in the papers which have been read by him at some of the society's provincial meetings.

It is certainly to be desired that he will not fail to take an early opportunity to bring under the notice of his colleagues on the council the important subject of there being in the House of Commons a member elected by the Law Society, or the profession, to whom on all occasions the council will be able to resort for that parliamentary assistance of which as every year passes they stand more in need, and without which they will find it exceedingly difficult to carry through those reforms to which the president referred in his very admirable address, and which also is so frequently required by the council in dealing with matters in which they are interested in the House of Commons. withstanding that the resolution suggesting to the council the desirability of taking action in the matter was withdrawn at Sheffield, Mr. Keen will, I hope, not cease his efforts until he has secured the co-operation of the council in procuring for the society and the profession a parliamentary representative in any measure that may be introduced for the redistribution of vacant seats or for parliamentary reform.

Not

The meeting was hardly prepared to adopt at once the proposal, which was new to them, contained in Mr. Keen's paper, but the remarks of Mr. Broomhead and Mr. Walters showed the absolute need that exists for the society having a parliamentary representative, besides the important statements contained in Mr. Keen's paper. Mr. Winterbotham, coming from Stroud, was not likely to be ready to agree to the suggestions, since, from the political experience he must have had at Stroud, it would be exceedingly difficult for him to suppose the members of the society or the profession generally to be so free from party feeling as to elect a parliamentary representative without endangering the unanimity and good feeling which have always hitherto characterized the society's proceedings. Hence it was that for the moment the observations made by Mr. Winterbotham seemed to carry weight, but when they were discussed subsequently by individual members a very general feeling seemed to be expressed that Mr. Keen's proposal was, after all, more practicable than from Mr. Winterbotham's point of view it appeared to be. It may no doubt be true that the profession possesses considerable political power, but then that is a power which is purely local, and which the council of the society could never claim in aid of their legislative efforts.

Solicitors now in Parliament have the interests of their own constituents to look after, and their first duty is towards them.

It has been a marvel to many how Mr. Gregory, M.P., has been able to devote the time he has already given to further the efforts of the council in Parliament. At any moment, by failing health or other circumstances, that aid may be withdrawn; besides which, it is essential that a member of Parliament who is to do justice to the vast interests committed to the care of the council, should attend regularly their Friday meetings, that he should be fully aware of all their actions and proceed. ings, and be ready on all occasions to assist the council in forwarding measures promoted or encouraged by them in Parliament. This cannot be done effectually except by a representative distinctly charged with the duty.

It is quite true that the president (Mr. Clabon) was inclined to doubt the wisdom of the proposal, owing principally, I think, to the large number of matters

which had already been referred to the council; but if Mr. Clabon entertains any doubt as to the expediency of the suggestion, he will probably, upon reflection, change his mind upon this point, in the same manner as that upon which he admitted his mind had already changed -namely, the desirability of the registration of mortgages. I think therefore it is quite probable that upon further consideration Mr. Clabon will sooner or later be found supporting Mr. Keen's proposal when he brings it formally before the council, which I shall be glad to hear he will lose no time in doing.

I am fully aware that there are reasons which may be urged against the proposal. If it shall not have been adopted by the next provincial meeting, Mr. Keen will do well to prepare a paper dealing with all these objections and disposing of them, as he will have no difficulty in doing satisfactorily. It is well sometimes to meet the objections which your opponent may be likely to raise. At all events I shall be happy, with your permission, to meet any objections that may be raised by any correspondence in your columns, and I venture to think that you will be doing a real service to the profession if the subject should be thoroughly thrashed out by means of correspondence in your valuable journal.

It is purely a matter of detail as to whether any such representative should be elected by the society or by the profession, though of course the conduct of the election will be placed in the hands of the council. Surely the great influence exercised by the council in many matters, and the vast interest they take in a great deal of the legislation upon which they are often formally consulted, are much greater than any interest represented by the London University, now entitled to a member.

It was playfully remarked by some that Mr. Keen was anxious for parliamentary honours, and hence he was desirous of promoting a measure whereby he might with comparative ease obtain a seat in Parliament; but I am quite sure that Mr. Keen will be the very first to disclaim any such idea, and I am convinced that he is solely actuated in the proposal he has made by a desire to consult what he feels will materially promote the best interests of the profession and the community at large.

Mr. Keen will probably induce the council at an early date to memorialize the Prime Minister, setting forth those reasons which seem to show very conclusively that the proposal is one not only worthy the considera tion of, but the adoption by, Parliament. Mr. Keen requires no encouragement from me to induce him to follow any course which he is persuaded is just and right, but I happen to know there were many present at the Sheffield meeting who felt that his proposal required at least fur. ther consideration, and I trust he will be induced to persevere with it.

I cannot close this letter without expressing my gratitude for the great liberality shown by the Sheffield Law Society, and for the handsome and admirable way in which they treated their visitors, and for the perfect organization which characterized all their arrangements, which so materially promoted the comfort of their guests. Mr. Bramley, the energetic honorary secretary, is entitled to the warmest thanks of all who attended the meeting. ONE WHO WAS PRESENT.

Oct. 14.

FIRE INSURANCE.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir, Referring to your report of the meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, at Sheffield, on Wednesday, the 6th inst., and to the discussion which took place on Mr. T. G. Gibson's admirable paper on the above subject, what I said at the meeting is not quite accurately reported.

The point I referred to is a most important one to solicitors.

The case to which I referred was Rayner v. Preston,

« PreviousContinue »