pected by the examiners. In the fourth edition the statutes and cases are brought down to the end of the year 1888. A Summary of the Law of Companies. By T. EUSTACE would be a fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence. Under these circumstances it would not require the astuteness of the first criminal lawyer of the day to secure the acquittal of the prisoner. J. Unreported Cases. NISI PRIUS. BANKERS' LIABILITY-ALTERATION OF FIGURES AND THE publication of a fourth edition shows that this little sketch of company law has proved acceptable. It was originally designed to meet the want of a small book which should give the main principles of the law relating to joint-stock companies. In the subsequent editions the primary idea has not been departed from, ON February 28, before Mr. Justice Mathew and a the author contenting himself with bringing his work special jury, the case of Marcussen v. The Birkbeck Bank up to date. The work of revision, in which the author was tried. This was an action brought to recover the has been assisted by Mr. G. F. Hart, has been carefully sum of 727., which the plaintiff alleged the defendants done. NEVILLE'S LAW ABOUT STRIKES. In this little book, compressed into a very small space, Correspondence. had improperly paid, as his bankers and agents, upon a cheque drawn by him for 81. 58., and upon which the defendants, without any authority from him, paid 801. 5s. This was the second trial of the action. The first trial took place in January, 1889, before Mr. Justice Grantham and a common jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, and a new trial was ordered. The facts of the case are shortly as follows: The plaintiff in February, 1888, was in Debenham's auction-rooms, where he met a person who before was quite unknown to him. This person offered to sell the plaintiff a diamond ring. The price was fixed at 87. 5s., and the plaintiff drew a cheque payable to bearer and uncrossed for that sum, which was taken in payment for the ring. The word 'eight' was altered into 'eighty,' and a '0' added after the 8,' and then the cheque was presented for payment and cashed. It was urged on the part of the plaintiff that the cheque on the face of it showed that the figure was a forgery; that the 'y' was in different ink to the word 'eight'; that there had been a dot after the figure 8 partly concealed by the 0 added; and these facts disclosed negligence on the part of the bank in cashing the cheque. On the part of the defendants it was urged that the cheque was carelessly drawn in the first instance, so as to admit of the possibility of alteration; and that the cheque when presented appeared genuine. In support of these contentions of the defendants reference was made to the cheque to show that it now appeared to be drawn all 'FROM CLOISTER TO ALTAR.' in the same ink; that the cheque when first drawn left SIR, I have read in my time a vast number of novels, too great a space between the figures 8 and 5, so as to but, with the exception of Mr. R. D. Blackmore, I do allow of the insertion of another figure; and that the not call to mind any writer of romances whose law will figures on the cheque as altered appeared at even disstand scrutiny. Tempted by your review of 'Cloister tances. Two cashiers of long standing of two banks to Altar,' and by your averment that the law contained were called, who stated that they would have paid the therein was sound, I read it, and while I entirely agree if the 'y' had been in different ink they would have cheque if presented to them; but they admitted that with you that it is a very clever and very pleasant refused to cash it; and, as a further defence, various book, I must respectfully differ from your judgment other cheques drawn by the plaintiff were put in eviupon the law therein contained. The hero is tried for dence to show that in drawing this particular cheque murder, but the indictment charges that he did the plaintiff had departed from his usual course, and had wilfully and of malice aforethought kill and slay,' an omitted to make lines close after the figures in order to offence unknown to the English law, for this indictment prevent the insertion of other figures. In answer, the charges neither murder nor manslaughter. Again, the plaintiff's counsel called attention to the length of time murder was committed at Bedford, but the information since the cheque was drawn, which would account for the is laid before a justice of the peace for the county ink appearing the same. It was also endeavoured to show where the hero resided, many miles on the other side of that at the first trial the difference in the ink was plainly London, the warrant is issued by the said justice, and discernible, and was in fact admitted by the defendants at the prisoner is charged at a petty sessions holden in the that trial.-Mr. Justice Mathew, in summing up, said the same county, and the prisoner, having been committed jury must look simply to the evidence in the present case, for trial, is actually tried at the assizes in the same sion. The law on the subject was that if a cheque was county. The indictment, if the venue were laid in the so carelessly drawn as to expose a banker, using reasonable county of Bedford, would be bad on its face, being pre- care, to the risk of paying what was not intended, then sented by the grand jurors of a far-off county, and if the banker was not liable. The drawer must take reasonthe venue were laid in the county of the trial, there able care in drawing a cheque. The plaintiff said there without reference to what had been said on a former occa COUNTY COURTS. was no carelessness. The defendants said the cheque was for 1,000.---Mr. Waddy, Q.C., Mr. Lawson Walton, Q.C., so carelessly drawn as to expose the bank to the risk of and Mr. Temperley were the counsel for the plaintiff; paying what was not intended. Then there was another Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Sutton were for the Gatling part of the case. The plaintiff's counsel said, 'Suppose Gun (Lim.); and Mr. T. Willes Chitty for the defendant there was carelessness, still, if money was paid by the Wright. negligence of the bankers' clerk, the bank would be liable.' It was said the bankers' clerk ought to have found it out to be a forgery, and if the jury thought he ought, then the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. After commenting on the facts of the case, continuing, the learned judge said: It was said an 87. cheque was a dangerous document, and the bank clerks ought to take great care. Did not that apply to the plaintiff also? Did the position of the 8 invite an insertion? The distance between the 8 and the 5 was greater than between the 5 and 0. The jury must say whether the 'y' was in different ink, and whether it was carelessly paid by the bank. He would point out to them that if the bank had refused a good cheque they might have had an action brought against them. The jury, after a short deliberation, found a verdict for the defendants.-Judgment accordingly, with costs.-Mr. Willis, Q.C., and Mr. Cannot appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. French, Q.C., and Mr. Avory for the defendants. NEGLIGENCE-SUBSTITUTION OF LIVE FOR DUMMY CARTRIDGES. Before Mr. Justice Day and a special jury the case of Ling v. The Gatling Gun (Lim.) and Wright was heard at Newcastle on March 1, which was an action to recover compensation for very serious personal injuries received by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendants. The plaintiff was a machinist in the employment of Sir W. G. Armstrong, Mitchell & Co. (Lim.), at their Elswick works, Newcastle-on-Tyne. On June 1, 1888, the defendant Wright was testing a Gatling gun at the Elswick works with what he believed to be a dummy' cartridge, but which proved to be a 'live' cartridge. It exploded, very seriously injuring the plaintiff and killing a man near him. The plaintiff alleged that Wright was guilty of negligence, and that he was a servant of the Gatling Gun (Lim.), and consequently they were responsible for his negligence. The Gatling Gun (Lim.) denied that Wright was their servant, and Wright denied that he was negligent in what he did. The Gatling Gun (Lim.) in April, 1888, purchased from the Gatling Gun Company (an American company which had employed Armstrong, Mitchell & Co. to manufacture guns for them) their interests in England. At the time of the accident Wright was in receipt of 31. 10s. per week from the Gatling Gun (Lim.), which they alleged was paid as a retainer for his services when they required them. Wright stated that for the purpose of testing the gun it was necessary to use dummy cartridges of exactly the same size, shape, and weight as live cartridges. Dummies were prepared from live cartridges by extracting the gunpowder and substituting coal dust, and exploding the cap. Consequently it was impossible to distinguish a dummy from a loaded cartridge which had missed fire. He saw Nicholson, whose duty it was to prepare the dummies, put the cartridge through the gun once, and then he passed it through twice himself without accident. On putting it through for the third time it exploded. The system of testing was no doubt a dangerous one, but he contended that he was not responsible for it, and had not been guilty of negligence in using the cartridge supplied to him by the person whose duty it was to prepare them. At a previous trial, at Durham, the jury found that there had been great negligence in the using of these cartridges, but that there was not sufficient evidence to fix the responsibility upon Wright. The plaintiff obtained a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.-The jury now found for the plaintiff WIFE'S AUTHORITY TO PLEDGE HUSBAND'S CREDIT On February 25, the learned judge of the Brompton County Court delivered the following judgment in the case of Valpy v. Dayrell. The circumstances of the present case, as in most cases where the power of the wife to bind her husband by contract is in dispute, are peculiar and require careful consideration. The plaintiff is a tailor carrying on business in Jersey, where the defendant (who is a captain in the royal navy) resided with his wife and family until a recent period. The defendant and his wife had both been twice married, and both had children by their first marriages. During their residence at Jersey the defendant's wife had constantly ordered clothes for the defendant's children and her own, and the defendant had always paid for all such clothes in due course. The defendant in the year 1886 left Jersey, and after temporarily residing at Woking and other places, took a house in Philbeach Gardens, Kensington. Whilst at Woking the defendant's wife, by his authority, wrote to the plaintiff to make some trousers for the defendant's wear, and to send them as soon as possible by parcel post, and, subsequently, the defendant's wife, by his authority, wrote to plaintiff to send some other clothes for defendant's wear to Philbeach Gardens, and the defendant himself also wrote to the plaintiff to send the same or some other clothes for his own wear to the same address, where he stated he had taken a house.' On July 25 the defendant separated from his wife, leaving her and her children in Philbeach Gardens, and on August 3 the defendant, by his solicitor, and the defendant's wife agreed that the defendant should allow his wife 150l. per annum and that she should not pledge his credit for the future. No notice of their separation or of the determination of the wife's authority to pledge the defendant's credit was ever given to the plaintiff, nor was the latter advertised in any manner. Ön August 10, a week after the agreement for separation, the defendant's wife wrote to the plaintiff from Philbeach Gardens, ordering two suits of clothes for her younger son George, and adding that she would write with the address to which they were to be sent; and afterwards she wrote again, saying that they were to be sent to Philbeach Gardens; and on August 23 they were duly sent to that address by parcel post. Subsequently, in October, the defendant's wife wrote from Philbeach Gardens to the plaintiff an undated letter, as follows: 45 Philbeach Gardens, Kensington, S.W.-Mrs. Dayrell requests Mr. Valpy to inform her if he still has the measures for coat, vest, and trousers of the elder [of her sons] Mr. Frank Hope, who went to America in 1884. If so, kindly state price for a black twill morning coat, same stuff as Captain Dayrell's last, and a tweed suit, same pattern as just sent to Master G. Hope;' and on October 25 the defendant's wife, after writing a letter ordering the clothes which is not forthcoming, sent the following post-card to the plaintiff : 12 Powis Square, Brighton. Mrs. Dayrell desires to know if Mr. Valpy has made the clothes ordered for Mr. F. Hope. If so, send both clothes and bill for them to Mrs. Dayrell at the above address as soon as possible;' who made the clothes and sent them on November 3 by parcels post, with the bill, to the address given by this card. At the trial there was no evidence of the actual arrival of any of the parcels sent by post by the plaintiff ; but since the trial a letter from the defendant's wife to 156 the plaintiff, dated August 23, has been found, acknow- Div. 216, have considerable bearing upon this point. In that case the Court held that the posting of the letter of allotment in question was held to amount to delivery by the custom or practice of a particular business; and here the posting of the parcels in question in my humble judgment amounted to delivery by the agreement and practice of the parties. The Post Office Acts referred to at the trial do not appear to me to have any bearing in the present case. In conclusion, I would observe that I regard this case as one of mere agency, irrespective of the marital relation between the parties, which, although an important, is not an essential circumstance in the case; and that my decision would have been the same if the goods had been ordered by a child or servant of the defendant, or any other person under circumstances otherwise substantially the same as the present. I therefore find for the plaintiffs, with costs.-Harper for the plaintiff; Hansell for the defendant. POLICE CASE. TITHES-GARDEN PENNIES.' At Worship Street, on Saturday, March 1, Mr. Voss, vestry clerk of Bethnal Green, attended to support a number of summonses taken out under a local Act passed in the year 1845, by which, he said, the tithes, garden pennies,' and Easter offerings were commuted for a rate to be levied yearly. The persons summoned had not paid the rate, though the amount was singularly small in many instances. The United Radical Club and Institute, Kay Street, Bethnal Green, was summoned for 9s. 8d. only, the trustees being the persons proceeded against. A Mrs. Shepherd was summoned for 1s. 4d., and others for 1s. 9d. and other small amounts.-Mr. Bushby, in making orders in each case, asked if proceedings under this Act were usually taken before a magistrate.-Mr. Voss said they had proceeded before two justices of the county on previous occasions. On one such prosecution the question was contested by counsel and the parish put to a great deal of expense in defending an appeal carried to the House of Lords.-Mr. Bushby said he had satisfied himself that he had power under the local Act. In each instance the parish recovered 2s. costs. THE LOAD LINE BILL. WE understand that the Government have submitted to the representatives of the shipowning interest the following draft of amendments which they are prepared to insert in the Load Line Bill: Clause 2, line 17, after 'officers' insert 'or the committee of Lloyd's Register.' Clause 2, line 19, after approve' insert and certify.' '(2) An application for approval of the position or of the alteration of the position of a disc may at the shipowner's option be made to any surveyor, officer, or committee appointed as aforesaid. '(3) The Board of Trade may make regulations:-- (I.) Determining the lines or marks to be used in connection with the disc in order to indicate the maximum load line under different circumstances and at different seasons, and declaring that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, are to have effect as if any such line were drawn through the centre of the disc. '(II.) As to the mode in which the disc and the lines or marks to be used in connection therewith are to be marked or fixed on the ship, whether by painting, cutting, or otherwise. (III.) As to the mode of application for and the form of certificates under this Act, and (IV.) Requiring the entry of such certificates in the official log-book of the ship or other publication thereof on board the ship. 'All such regulations shall while in force have effect as if enacted by this Act.' Under present conditions an admitted man, who, though not engaged in independent practice, naturally wishes to have the status of a solicitor, and to enjoy the privileges of membership of the Incorporated Law Society, is subjected to conditions which are no less onerous than those which are imposed upon a practising solicitor. The result At a meeting of the Executive Council of the Chamber is that a managing clerk in London is compelled, as a rule, of Shipping of the United Kingdom, held on Friday, to pay the annual sum of 117. 58. as his virtual subscripFebruary 28, at the offices, Whittington Avenue, Leaden- tion to the Incorporated Law Society, though only 21. 58. hall Street, the following resolutions were passed: (1) is actually paid into the coffers of the society. We think, That, whilst not objecting to the principle of compulsory therefore, that the first and most urgent reform is to make load line, the Executive Council is of opinion that the the period of relief to run from the date of the first certifixing of such load line should be in accordance with the ficate, and to extend the membership of the society to all Load Line Committee's tables, and be administered as at admitted men, whether practising independently or not. present by Lloyd's Register Committee; (2) that a clause We do not propose to deal with the more general objecshould be inserted in the bill permitting the double reductions which have been made the basis of a demand for tion in freeboard allowed by Lloyd's Register Committee for the total repeal of the duty. We feel bound to recognise vessels voyaging in the fine season in the Indian seas be- the existence of the view which is largely held, even tween the limits of Suez and Singapore; (3) that the amongst those to whom we look to support our proposals, Executive Council desires again to call public attention that the duty operates as a check upon the admission to to the strong recommendations of the Load Line Com-actual practice of disreputable characters. Whilst this mittee that any compulsory load line should in the view prevails, the demand for total repeal cannot with United Kingdom and British colonies and dependencies be advantage be pressed. enforced upon foreign as well as British vessels. The prize will be called "The John Mackrell Prize," and will consist of a fourth part of the annual dividend on a sum of 1,0007. 5 per cent. perpetual preference stock of the Millwall Dock Company, which will be awarded at each Honours Examination to the candidate who shall be re ported to the council by the examiners to have shown himself best qualified to receive it. Questions will be set at the Honours Examination with special reference to the above prize. E. W. WILLIAMSON, Secretary. UNITED LAW SOCIETY AND THE THE following report has been recently published, and Gentlemen,-We have given our careful consideration to this important subject. We think that it is generally admitted that the existing scale of duties lays an unquestionable burden upon the bulk of the younger members of the profession, and, indeed, upon all solicitors whose income is of a modest character. For this grievance the remission of one-half of the duty during a period of three years (which runs, be it observed, from the date of admission, and not from that of the first certificate) is far from an adequate remedy. Not only is the period of partial relief, in our opinion, too short, and in the case of a man who does not begin to practise from the date of admission more or less illusory; but the duty, falling impartially upon incomes large and small, is a serious impost upon those men, and they are many, the dimensions of whose practice after years of hard work remain inconsiderable. We would recommend, however, that the duty, qua duty, should be abolished, and that in lieu thereof all solicitors should be required, as a condition of the right to practise, to subscribe to and become members of the Incorporated Law Society, from which body they should receive their certificates. The subscriptions so payable should be entirely applied by the society for the benefit the extension of the society's library, and in similar ways. of the profession, in the promotion of legal education, in scale of subscription. The really equitable plan would be to graduate it according to the income of the subscriber; but the difficulties of such an arrangement are so considerable that we are not prepared to advocate it. We can only suggest the continuance of a system of partial relief, but that the period of relief should be extended on the production of a certificate from the payer that his income does not within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts exceed, say, 4007. per annum. The crux of the matter, of course, is how to fix the We recommend our proposals to you and to the profession at large on two additional grounds. They aim at the removal of the grave and growing anomaly which is exhibited by an Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom,' which is not comprehensive of the entire body of solicitors. They would, if adopted, greatly strengthen the prestige and influence of that society, and confer substantial benefits upon the profession. Should any objection be raised on the score of loss of revenue to the Exchequer, it might be provided that a proportion, say one-third, of the amount received in subscriptions should be paid over to the Inland Revenue. But we do not anticipate that any serious opposition would be encountered on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the scheme were pressed upon him with all the authority of the Incorporated Law Society. The support of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, which declared for total repeal, would doubtless be forthcoming; since the scheme, with local modifications, would offer them a judicious compromise. We do not attach much importance to the theory that the certificate duty is to be regarded as a return made by solicitors for certain privileges extended to them by the Legislature in connection with land transfer. The notion of such a bargain made at the expense of the public is not altogether edifying. If these privileges are justifiable, they must be justified on broad grounds of general equity and the public interest. We think that the entire question ought without delay to be submitted to the whole body of the profession, since the utmost uncertainty prevails as to the real drift of opinion on the subject. We advise that copies of females at work, and the engine running six minutes this report be sent to the secretaries of the Incorporated over time. The names of the women were taken Law Societies of the United Kingdom and of Ireland. MATRIMONIAL. BEFORE THE COURT ITSELF Bilbe r. Bilbe, Bilbe and Stoker Yearsley, M. M. M. r. Yearsley, Hackney, A. r. Hackney, W. Kilner, E. v. Kilner, William Baldwin, M. v. Baldwin, H. F. Ewens, Jane r. Ewens Ancott r. Ancott and Manning Dobbs r. Dobbs and Bilton (pauper cause) Henham r. Henham Cohen . Cohen and Robertson UNDEFENDED. Poole r. Poole and Murray Frankland and Young, A. E. v. Young, C. T. Walkden v. Walkden and Cart wright Hervey, A. F. A. v. Hervey, E. (J.S.) Pereira r. Pereira Newman, A. L. v. Newman, D. S. Glassbrook r. Glassbrook and Kennedy v. Kennedy and Schurch Von Svertschkoff v. Von Svertsch- Needs r. Needs Lyon r. Lyon and Churchyard Hickman v. Hickman and Ward Russell r. Russell and Maclaren and as many summonses issued against the firm for violating section 17 of the Factory and Workshop Act of 1878. In the first case, which was proved, the bench inflicted a fine and costs. On commencing to take the second summons, an objection was raised by the advocate for the defendants. The facts in all of the twenty cases were identically the same, and his clients had now been convicted and fined for the offence. The Legislature, it was true, said it was an offence to employ these people during meal hours, and that if they em ployed the twenty they were twenty times as guilty as if they had only employed one. They had, however, only committed one offence, and not twenty; and though the bench had the power to make the penalty twenty times as great, it must be on the one summons and not on the twenty. Having fined his clients for the offence they could not fine them again. The inspector, in reply, remarked it had always been the custom to issue summonses for each person found employed ever since the Factory Act was passed, and this was an entirely new theory. It was absurd to suppose the law would fix the maximum penalty at 37. for employing so many people so many minutes over time. The bench overruled the objections of the advocate, and a conviction was agreed to in four other cases on condition that the bench would grant a case on the point of law for an appeal to the higher Court. Argumenta ignota et obscura ad lucem rationis proferunt et reddunt splendida.' THE EASTER VESTRIES. Very shortly we shall have Easter upon us, a high Howard, H.A. r. Howard, Charles festival in the churches, which have also to appoint the annual officers for their government. The following points are worthy of being remembered. In ancient parishes where prescription has the force of law the warden to be appointed must be simply an inhabitant occupier. In chapelries constituted separate and distinct parishes under 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 38, he must, however, also be a member of the Church of England. In a 'Peel parish' (6 & 7 Vict. c. 37) the membership is required, but not the residence as inhabitant. In district' and 'consolidated' chapelries (8 & 9 Vict. c. 70) residence is required but not membership. In determining fitness' for office, the particular Act whereunder the parish was constituted has to be ascertained, for, if not comprised in those previously mentioned, it must be under some special church building or local Act. A vestry meeting has to be summoned by public notice specifying the hour, place, and purpose of the meeting, which notice requires to be affixed, either during or immediately after Divine service, to the prin cipal door of the church. Three days' notice is necessary, including a Sunday. As to the persons entitled to vote at the meeting, this depends on the provisions of the holders' dwelling in the district, or a select vestry,' respective Acts; the electors may be inhabitant housecomprising so many persons appointed out of the 'substantial inhabitants' of the district, or renters of pews, or simply qualified by habitation. In November last the Court of Queen's Bench ordered the vicar of a district parish of Beckenham, constituted under 59 Geo. III. c. 134, s. 16, to proceed to a new election of a warden on the ground that the gentleman chosen by the Easter vestry previous was ineligible, although a rated inhabitant, but not resident within such district parish. From this case the following hints may be gained: In a consolidated chapelry (8 & 9 Vict. c. 70) the person qualified to be churchwarden must be resident in its limits. This is a sine quâ non, and an occupier for business purposes is not sufficiently qualified. At a meeting called for the appointment of churchwardens the persons entitled to vote are the householders of the chapelry district, but this does LAW AND PROFESSIONAL NOTES. By T. F. UTTLEY, Solicitor, Manchester, Author of 'Hints on Stephen's Commentaries,' 'Hints on Criminal Law,' &c. A NEW THEORY. IN the factory districts prosecutions against firms for breaches of the Factory Acts are exceedingly common. Her Majesty's inspectors are generally the prosecutors, and as a rule they get a conviction in one or more cases. In one of these transactions, however, considerable astuteness has been displayed by the prosecuted firm's legal adviser, which surprised everyone in Court. Though it did not lead to much remission of the fines, the point which was raised may be provocative of very important results in future affairs of a like character. It appeared that at the Bolton County Sessions recently a firm of cotton spinners were summoned for a breach of the Factory Acts. The inspector of factories visited the mill on a certain date, found the machinery in motion, twenty |