Page images
PDF
EPUB

over all things concerning his office to some churchwarden or other overseer of the same place, and shall pay, out of the assets left by such overseer, all sums of money remaining due which he received by virtue of his said office, before any other of his debts are paid and satisfied.

By the 12th section of the 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 40 (the Friendly Societies Act), it is enacted, "That if any person already appointed, or who may hereafter be appointed, to any office in a society established under the said recited Act (10 Geo. 4, c. 56), or this Act, and being intrusted with the keeping of the accounts, or having in his hands or possession, by virtue of his said office or employment, any moneys or effects belonging to such society, or any deeds or securities relating to the same, shall die, or become a bankrupt or insolvent, or have any execution or attachment, or other process issued, or action or diligence raised against his lands, goods, chattels, or effects, or property or estate, heritable or moveable, or make any assignment, disposition, assignation, or other conveyance thereof, for the benefit of his creditors, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assignees, or other persons having legal right, or the sheriff, or other officer executing such process, or the party using such action or diligence, shall, within forty days after demand made in writing, by the order of any such society, or committee thereof, or the major part of them, assembled at any meeting thereof, deliver and pay over all moneys and other things belonging to such society, to such person as such society or committee shall appoint; and shall pay out of the estates, assets, or effects, heritable or moveable, of such person, all sums of money remaining due, which such person received by virtue of his said office or employment, before any other of his debts are paid or satisfied, or before the money directed to be levied by such process as aforesaid, or which may be recovered or recoverable under such diligence, is paid over to the party issuing such process, or using such diligence; and all such assets, lands, goods, chattels, property, estates, and effects shall be bound to the payment and discharge thereof accordingly."

In Ex parte Whipham, Re Wise (3 Mont. Dea. & De Gex, 564), it was held by the Court of Review that the bankers of a friendly society were not officers within the meaning of this Act. Upon similar clauses in former Acts several cases arose, when the provisions were not viewed with any favour by the Court. (See Ex parte Lancaster Society, 6 Ves. 98; Ex parte Ashley, 6 Ves. 441; Ex parte Ross, 6 Ves. 802; and Ex parte Stamford Society, 15 Ves. 280.)

In Ex parte Lancaster Society (6 Ves. 99), Lord Alvanley said, upon the 33 Geo. 3, c. 54, s. 10, "The words of the Act are very large; sufficient, as it seems, to give this preference against debts due to the Crown, though perhaps it would not be so construed."

Money collected by a treasurer, collector, or other officer under the Metropolis Act, 57 Geo. 3, c. 29, and due to the commissioners, is to be paid by the executors or administrators in preference to any other debt or debts, except debts due to the Crown.

In Barton v. Tattersall (1 Russ. & Myl. 237), a person who had taken the benefit of the Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, first in 1814, and a second time in 1820, died in 1826, leaving assets 'more than sufficient for the payment of all the debts which he had contracted subsequently to his second insolvency; and it was held that the assets ought to be applied in payment, first, of these subsequent debts; secondly, of the debts scheduled under the second insolvency; and thirdly, of the debts scheduled under the first insolvency.

Judgments.-Judgments in courts of record, whether in the superior courts or in courts in cities or towns corporate, having power by charter to hold plea of debt above forty shillings, are the debts next entitled to precedence.

A judgment entered up under 17 Ch. 2, c. 8, s. 1, after the death of the testator or intestate, when that happens between verdict and judgment, is entitled to priority of payment by his executors or administrators (Burnet v. Holden, 1 Lev. 277; Colbeck v. Peck, 2 Raym. 1280); but the case is different where the death happens after interlocutory and before final judgment, and the final judgment is entered up pursuant to the 8 & 9 Wm. 3, c. 11, s. 6, for by that statute it is enacted that the final judgment is to be entered up against the executors or administrators.

A judgment obtained in a foreign country is considered here as a debt by simple contract. (Duplein v. De Roven, 2 Vern. 540.)

By the 4 & 5 Wm. & M. c. 20, s. 3, and the 7 & 8 Wm. 3, c. 36, it was enacted that judgments not docketed and entered in the books kept for that purpose, should not affect any lands or tenements as to purchasers or mortgagees, or have any preference against heirs, executors, or administrators, in their administration of their ancestors', testators', or intestates' effects.

By the 19th section of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, it is enacted, that no judgment, decree, &c. shall affect any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, as to purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors, until registered in the form therein prescribed.

The 2 Vict. c. 11, enacts that no judgment shall be hereafter docketed under the provisions of the 4 & 5 Wm. & M. c. 20; and then, by the 2nd section of the same Act, it is enacted, that no judgment already docketed and entered under the said Act of William and Mary shall, after the 1st of August, 1841, affect any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, as to purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors, until registered pursuant to the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110.

It will be seen that, by these recent Acts, there is no provision made as to the effect of judgments in the administration of estates, but the 4 & 5 Wm. & M. c. 20, is in this respect repealed.

Before execution is sued out, the executors or administrators may pay the judgment debts in what order they think proper; but, after execution has been sued out by any judgment creditor, he must be preferred.

Execution cannot now be stayed or delayed by writ of error, without the special order of the Court or some judge thereof, unless the person in whose name the writ of error is brought is bound with two sureties in a recognizance to prosecute with effect and satisfy the debt, damages, and costs, if the judgment be affirmed. (6 Geo. 4, c. 96.) Decrees in equity.-A debt by decree in equity is equal to a judgment at law, and stands in the same order of payment. (Searle v. Lane, 2 Vern. 88; Astley v. Powis, 1 Ves. sen. 496.)

A decree to account, however, is like an interlocutory judgment at law, and is not entitled to priority. (Smith v. Eyles, 2 Atk. 385.)

in a deed, for it must stand on its own force. (Lacam v. Mertins, 1 Ves. sen. 312.)

Joint and several bond.-An executor or administrator of one of the obligors in a joint and several bond, may pay the debt out of the deceased's estate, and plead the payment to other actions on debts of equal degree. (Rogers v. Danvers, 1 Freem. 128.) In that case also the Court said that it was very common, when a man was bound as surety for another, to make the surety executor, that he might have the power to pay the debt and indemnify himself.

Joint bond.-An executor or administrator of one of the obligors in a joint bond will not be liable at law for the debt, as the survivor must pay it. (1 Freem. 128.)

In equity, however, there are cases in which, where a joint obligor dies, his representative will be charged pari passu with the surviving obligor. (Primrose v. Bramley, 1 Atk. 89; Bishop v. Church, 2 Ves. sen. 100, 371; Hoare v. Contencin, 1 Bro. Ch. Ca. 27 ; and Ex parte Kendall, 17 Ves. 525.) But this is not universally the rule, for where the representative of a deceased partner, the account between him and the partnership being at the time unsettled, agreed with the surviving partners to assign to them all his interest in the concern, upon being paid a certain sum of money, and having an indemnity against all claims upon the partnership, and the assignment was executed, the money paid, and a joint covenant of indemnity given by the surviving partners, it was held that the covenant was not to be considered in equity as a joint and several covenant. (Sumner v. Powell, 2 Mer. 30; Turn. & Russ. 423; see also Rawstone v. Parr, 3 Russ. 539.)

Where two persons execute a bond, the one as principal and the other as surety, and no other assurance is executed at the time, the surety paying the bond debt is a simple-contract creditor only of the principal. (Capis v. Middleton, Turn. & Russ. 224; see also Jones v. Davids, 4 Russ. 277; Gammon v. Stone, 1 Ves. sen. 339; Woffington v. Sparks, 2 Ves. sen. 569; and Dowbiggen v. Bourne, 2 Y. & C. Exch. Ca. 462.)

In Hodgson v. Shaw, (Turn. & Russ. 183), A. and B. executed a joint and several bond to secure a sum of money with interest to W.; subsequently to the deaths of A. & W. the executors of W. obtained Recognizances and statutes.—A recognizance is from B. as principal and from C. as surety, another an obligation of record which a man enters into bond to secure a part of the money then due on the before some court of record, or magistrate duly original bond with interest. No payments were authorised, with condition to do some particular ever made in respect of the first bond, but after act; as to appear at the assizes, to keep the peace, C.'s death the second bond was paid off out of C.'s to pay a debt, or the like. It is in most respects estate, and his representatives thereupon procured like another bond, the difference being chiefly this, the original bond to be assigned to them: it was held, that the bond is the creation of a fresh debt or ob- on a suit to administer the estate of A. that C.'s religation de novo, the recognizance is an acknowledg-presentatives were entitled by virtue of the assignment of a former debt upon record, the form ment to rank as specialty creditors of A.'s estate, whereof is, "That A. B. doth acknowledge to owe in respect of the payments made by C. or his estate to our lord the king, to the plaintiff, to C. D. or on the second bond, to the extent of the penalty in the like, the sum of ten pounds," with condition the assigned bond. (But see Warwick v. Richardto be void on performance of the thing stipulated, son, 14 Sim. 281.) in which case the king, the plaintiff, C. D. &c. is called the cognizee, “is qui cognoscitur;" as he that enters into the recognizance is called the cognizor, "is qui cognoscit." This being either certified to or taken by the officer of some court, is witnessed only by the record of that court, and not by the party's seal, so that it is not in strict propriety a deed, though the effects of it are greater than a common obligation; being allowed a priority in point of payment, and binding the lands of the cognizor from the time of enrolment on record. (2 Black. Comm. 341.)

The securities by statute are statutes merchant, statutes staple, and recognizances in the nature of statutes staple. These stand in the same order as recognizances, but as the securities are not now in use, it is unnecessary to give any account of them.

Specialty debts.-Debts due on bonds, covenants, and other instruments under seal, must be paid before debts due on simple contract.

Rent, also, whether reserved by lease in writing or by parol, is in the same degree as a debt due on an instrument under seal. If the lease be determined, the nature of the debt is not changed. (Newport v. Godfrey, 3 Lev. 267; Thompson v. Thompson, 9 Price, 476.)

Rent due for the half-year commencing before and ending after the death of the tenant, is a debt of the same degree as rent in arrear before his death. (Thompson v. Thompson, 9 Price, 476.)

The recital of a debt under hand and seal has been held to be no specialty debt, although recited

Voluntary bonds. - Voluntary bonds or covenants must be postponed to simple-contract debts for valuable consideration. (Jones v. Powell, 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 84, pl. 2; Lomas v. Wright, 2 Myl. & K. 769.)

Bond debt of feme covert.-A bond debt of a married woman is not entitled to priority in the distribution of her assets. (Anon. 18 Ves. 258.)

Breach of trust.-Breaches of trust are generally considered but as simple-contract debts (Vernon v. Vawdry, 2 Atk. 119); but in some cases they will be regarded as specialty debts. (See Gifford v. Manley, Cas. temp. Talb. 109; and Turner v. Wardle, 7 Sim. 80.)

Mortgage debt.-A mortgage debt will rank as a simple-contract debt unless there be a bond or covenant for payment. (Coote on Mortgages, 509.)

Future debts.-Debts on bond due at a future day are payable before simple-contract debts. (Woodshaw v. Fulmerstone, 1 Leon. 187; Buckland v. Brook, Cro. Eliz. 315; but see Norman v. Baldry, 6 Sim. 622.)

Contingent debts.-Contingent specialty debts will not stand in the way of simple-contract debts, unless the contingency has happened, and then the debt must be considered as an ordinary specialty debt. (Harrison's case, 5 Co. 28 b; Read v. Blunt, 5 Sim. 567; Cox v. Joseph, 5 T. R. 307; and Musson v. May, 3 V. & B. 194.)

Simple-contract debts.-Of these, which are the last in order of payment, debts due to the Crown are first payable. (3 Bac. Abr. 80.)

solve the injunction was refused, the Court holding
that the directors had no power by their Act, or
otherwise, to pledge the funds of the company as
they proposed.

Servants' wages are by some preferred to any other; and so stood the ancient law, according to Bracton and Fleta, who reckon among the first debts to be paid, servitia servientium et stipendia famulorum. (2 Black. Com. 511.) Prospective injury-Gas-works.-On the other In actions brought against executors or adminis-hand an injunction was refused in Haines v. Taytrators for an injury to property, real or personal, lor, 9 Law T. 193, in which the ground of the by the testator, committed six months before his application to the Court was prospective injury death, the damages to be recovered rank as simple- expected to arise to the plaintiff's health and contract debts. (3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 42.) property from the nuisance occasioned by the in(To be continued.) tended manufacture of gas, but which the defendants alleged they could remove by some undisclosed process; but the Court would do nothing till actual injury should arise. But the Court nevertheless will, if it sees its way clearly, interfere before the act itself is carried into effect, that is, if the Court sees that an act is contemplated which will be a nuisance when completed, or which is capable of being tried at law whether it will or will not be a nuisance, it will interfere; but if the case is doubtful, and cannot be immediately tried at law, it will not. In the latter case, the motion for an injunction will not be kept hanging over the head of the defendant, but will be dismissed, because dismissing it is not so prejudicial to the plaintiff as retaining it would be to the defendant.

REVIEW OF CASES

IN THE

LEGACY.

tute of Charitable Uses.

and it was held that such a gift naturally imports a
gift to such person, and that the Court will not,
without very clear indication of intention, construe
such a gift to be a gift for the benefit of the next of

kin.

EQUITY, BANKRUPTCY, ECCLESIASTICAL,
AND ADMIRALTY COURTS,
For the Half-year ending July 1, 1847.
Infringement-Animus of the Act.-The case of
Heath v. Unwin, 9 Law T. 19, was one of so sin-
gular a nature, that the Vice-Chancellor said he had
no recollection of a similar one ever coming before
him. The defendant, it appeared, had prepared
cast steel by the use of black oxide of manganese
and carbon, with blistered steel,-the two former
substances, when fused, producing carburet of man-
ganese, without the aid of the steel; but of this the
defendant was ignorant. The plaintiff had a patent
Charitable purpose.-A case of some difficulty
for making cast steel by using carburet of manga- of construction arose in Nightengale v. Goulburn,
nese, and, conceiving it to be infringed, brought his 9 Law T. 99, as to how far a bequest for charita-
action at law, and was non-suited. In a subse- ble purposes could be held to come within the Sta-
quent action he obtained a verdict, leave being re-
A gift for general or
served for the defendant to move for a new trial on
public use, comprehending rich as well as poor, has
the ground that the use of the simple elements, always been considered within the statute of Eliza-
instead of the equivalent compound, was not an in-beth as a good charitable bequest; but in the above
fringement of the patent; and a rule nisi being ob- case the bequest of a residue consisting of moneys
tained, it was held, on argument thereof, that there and securities for money was made "to the Queen's
was no infringement of the patent. Now, that de- Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being,
cision is entirely at variance with Stevens v. Keat- and to be appropriated to the benefit and advantage
ing, 8 Law T. 405 (the borax case), in which the of my beloved country, Great Britain ;" and the
plaintiff's process for making cement was by the use question was whether that was a valid charitable
of the simple uncombined ingredients of which borax, bequest; and it was held, though with some hesi-
which is a natural substance, is composed, and the tation, that it was.
defendant used the borax as found in nature; and
Executors and administrators of living person.
the Chancellor was of opinion that the cements
-A question of some importance, as bearing on
were substantially the same, and confirmed the the payment of single or double legacy-duty, arose
decision of the Court below granting the injunction. in Attorney-General v. Malkin, 9 Law T. 69,
The learned judge there observed that he could not upon the construction of an ultimate gift to the
follow the Court of Exchequer in this case. Whether executors and administrators of a living person;
the defendant in this case was ignorant or not of
the infringement, could in no way affect the civil
rights of the parties, whatever it might do in cri-
minal cases; and so the Vice-Chancellor held. But
the question was, whether, after the plaintiff's rights
had been determined at law, he had a right to con-
Set-off-On the question of set-off of a legacy
tinue his suit in equity; and the Court was of against a supposed debt, it was held in Macmahon
opinion he might, though the defendant had suc-
v. Burchell, 8 Law T. 289, that the executor of
ceeded in law on the question of the infringement, one tenant in common cannot set off a claim for the
because, if the Court dismissed the bill, as the de- proportion of rent due to his testator, in respect of
fendant suggested, the plaintiff might still bring his the common tenement which had been occupied by
action in the Queen's Bench or Common Pleas. the legatee, another of the tenants in common,
Pledging funds of company-Guarantee.-A
very important question arose in the case of Colman
v. The Eastern Counties Railway Company, as to
the power of the directors of a joint-stock company
to pledge its funds to the support, or to the making
good of the losses of a projected company, from the
establishment of which benefit to the joint-stock
company was expected to arise; and the observa-
tions of the learned judge in that case shew, that
though directors have the power to do all things
necessary to carry out the intention of the Act of
Parliament, they cannot go beyond it, and, in fact,
that there are many things commonly done, which,
though advantageous, and such as the shareholders
would approve, are nevertheless not at all authorised.
With a view to increase the traffic, and thereby
benefit the shareholders, the directors of the Eastern
Counties Railway Company proposed that the shares
of a projected steam-packet company, intended to Maintenance after lunacy found.-It is a very
open a communication between Harwich, with which mistaken course of proceeding to lay out money
the railway was to be connected, and the northern without authority in the hope of being afterwards
ports of Europe, should be taken by the proprietors reimbursed out of the lunatic's estate; and the
of shares in the railway company; and that the rail-case of Re Hardy, 9 Law T. 241, is a distressing
way company should guarantee to the steam com-
pany a dividend of 51. per cent. on the subscribed
capital; and in case of failure and dissolution of the
company, should make good to them the subscribed
capital itself. A deed was prepared to carry out
the arrangement, and was ready to be signed as
soon as sanctioned by a meeting of the shareholders,
intended to be convened for that purpose. The
plaintiff, a shareholder, filed his bill to restrain them,
and obtained an injunction; and a motion to dis-

against a legacy bequeathed by the deceased tenant
in common, there having been no formal
sion by the legatee of liability to rent.

LUNACY.

but the Chancellor said that it appeared that the credit was given to the executor, and he was the person to look to, and after the finding of the lunacy no allowance or arrangement could be made for the lunatic without the sanction of the Court.

MARRIED WOMAN.

Clause against anticipation.—It is not necessary that there be a clause in a gift to a married woman expressly providing against anticipation, if the intention of the donor to tie it up can be made to appear; and accordingly where in a bequest of property to a married woman to her separate use for life, the testator directed that the property should "not be sold or mortgaged," those words were held to amount to a clause against anticipation. And the married woman having joined her husband in granting a lease for valuable consideration for a term dependent upon her life, the Court set it aside on her application. A married woman joining her husband in a lease is notice of the title of the wife to sub-lessees, and they are bound by any defect in their lessor's title in consequence of her want of power to make the demise. (Stedman v. Poole, 9 Law T. 218.)

MORTMAIN.

Dock shares.-The leaning of the Courts appears in modern times to be to exempt from the operation of the Mortmain Acts shares in companies in which the shareholders are interested in the profits, and in which there is a provision that they are to be considered personal estate, and not to be considered as an estate in lands or hereditaments. In Hilton v. Giraud, 9 Law T. 72, it has been held that shares in the London Dock Company and the West-India Dock Company are not real estate within the meaning of the Mortmain Act.

PLEADING.

Parties-Railway company.-The leaning of the Courts is to extend rather than to contract the exception (introduced to meet the exigences of particular cases in modern times) to the general rule that all parties interested in the subject-matter of the suit must be parties to it; and several cases have lately occurred in which the relaxation of the rule has been adopted, in one of which (Apperley v. Page) the Lord Chancellor said, that if the results of the objection, which was in effect the want of parties, would be to leave the plaintiffs without a remedy, and to allow the defendants to keep the money in their pockets, he would struggle against coming to a conclusion producing such a result, and would be disposed to extend the ordinary rule of the Court, unless it should appear more mischief would be done than by adhering to it. But the relaxation is still, as when first introduced, confined to cases in which the grievance complained of appears to be common to all the persons in whose behalf the suit was instituted, there being in such cases a common object and purpose. Such were the cases of Taylor v. Salmon, and Wallworth v. Holt, both reported in Myl. & Cr. which have been followed in all the subsequent cases. Accord. admis-ingly, in Apperley v. Page, 9 Law T. 117, the bill was filed by five persons, on behalf of themselves and all others the subscribers to an abandoned railway project, except the defendants, who were the directors, and prayed an account of the funds in the hands of the defendants, the payment of the debts of the concern, and the distribution of the surplus amongst the subscribers rateably in proportion to the amount of their shares. So far the case was in substance the same as that of Wallworth v. Holt. But then the bill alleged that the scheme had failed through the defendants' misconduct; that the defendants had, by means of persons who were only nominal shareholders, obtained at a certain meeting a majority of votes to sanction an application to Parliament, and that the plaintiffs were ignorant who those parties were. A general demurrer was put in for want of equity and want of parties, it being objected that the nominal shareholders ought to be made parties as well as the majority of the persons who voted at the meeting. The demurrer was overruled, it being alleged that the nominal holders were not known, and also, that though there was a majority for proceeding with the bill, yet it was a majority produced by the alleged misrepresentations of the defendants; and therefore the case was reduced to one to which the principle laid down in Wallworth v. Holt was strictly applicable.

Supersedeas of commission-Inspection.-In Re Lady Stair, 8 Law T. 405, the petition prayed a supersedeas of the commission, Lady Stair being recovered, but counsel now asked only that it might be suspended for a certain period and then superseded; but the Lord Chancellor said he had no authority to grant a partial supersedeas, or to make a decision in futuro. Besides, he stated it was not usual to supersede the commission at all without the inspection of the party; and in a case which happened some time ago, the party on being brought before him was found to be incompetent, though the medical men and others had reported that sanity had been completely restored.

instance of the evil consequences of so doing. The
executor of the testator's father had squandered a
very large personal estate, and the medical gentle-
man with whom he placed the lunatic had not re-
ceived a farthing for his maintenance during a long
series of years. In an administration-suit insti-
tuted against the executor (an insolvent), some re-
mains of the testator's property being recovered, a
petition was presented to carry into effect an ar-
rangement proposed for the liquidation of the claim;

But in Mozley v. Alston, 9 Law T. 97, the bill was filed by four shareholders in a railway company, which was incorporated, individually and

not on behalf of themselves and others, against twelve of the directors elected at the first general meeting, and six other directors afterwards chosen, alleging that four of the twelve ought to have been balloted out of the direction on a particular day, but that the directors refused to make such ballot, and that in consequence some four of the directors were not legally directors; but, by reason of the refusal to ballot, the plaintiffs were unable to ascertain which of them should have gone out; that in consequence none of the twelve could legally act; and the bill prayed that the twelve directors might be restrained from acting, and might be decreed to deliver the common seal and the funds and books of the company to the six after-chosen directors. It was held, pursuant to the principles laid down in Wallworth v. Holt, and the other like cases, that the plaintiffs, seeking by their bill relief which involved the interest of all the other shareholders in the company, could not be allowed to sue in their individual character; in the same manner as an individual creditor, though he might file a bill for payment of his own debt, could not institute a suit for general administration of the estate of his debtor, because the other creditors, though they had no interest in his debt, were interested in the administration of the debtor's estate; and a general demurrer to the bill was allowed on that ground.

stance of the increase of expense occasioned by an
attempt to reach justice by a short road, and with-
out observing the known practice of the Court,
occurred in the case of Traill v. Ball, 8 Law T. 289,
where the Lord Chancellor says, the design of the
order (which his Lordship discharged) was doubt-
less to save expense; but it afforded another proof
that we ought not, in the hope of saving expense,
to commit irregularities, as nothing was so expen-
sive as irregularity, by which the proceedings are
thrown back and difficulties arise which could not
have happened in the ordinary course. The bill in
that case was filed by the person entitled to a share
of a leasehold estate directed by the testator to be
sold after the death of his wife, also his executrix,
for payment of that share and for the administra-
tion of the testator's estate. The surviving execu-
tor claimed to hold the fund as an indemnity against
liabilities of the testator's estate: the main question
was, whether the executrix, or the executor, after
her death, had assented to the legacy. It was held
that an order directing the Master to report sepa-
rately as to the assent, without first prosecuting and
reporting on the inquiry as to liabilities, was erro-
neous and irregular; and an order made on a peti-
tion founded on that report, directing the executor
to pay the money, and trust for an indemnity to a
judgment against the party, was wrong.

Orders, general-"Last of the answers."There were two other objections in this case suf- After much discussion as to the meaning of the ficient to render the bill one that could not be sus- words "last of the answers, as used in the New tained. The first was that on the face of the bill Orders of May 1845, it was at last decided in the itself, there existed in the company the means case of Dalton v. Hayter, 7 Beav. 586; 6 Law T. of correcting the evils complained of, through a 234, that the words in question in the 114th Order, general meeting; and this case was identical with as applicable to motions to dismiss, meant the last that of Foss v. Harbottle, 2 Hare, 461. Secondly, of the answers of the same defendant in a case the plaintiffs sought by bill in equity not relief for where the same defendant files several answers; but a personal injury, but for an injury which affected that, in the 16th and 66th Orders, referring to mothe corporation at large, and it was based on the tions to amend, the same words meant the answer assumption that the directors had no legal title to of the last of several defendants where there are their offices; but as the court of equity had never several defendants to the same suit. Such was the exercised the jurisdiction of deciding the legality of construction put upon the words at the Rolls, whetitles to corporate offices, nor could it regulate cor- ther in accordance with what was intended to be porations, it would not assume the jurisdiction of expressed rather than with the actual expressions granting an injunction in such a case. The case of used in those Orders, it was thought needless to Mozley v. Alston is well worth perusual; it was an inquire, inasmuch as the decision at the Rolls in appeal from the Vice-Chancellor of England, who Dalton v. Hayter was affirmed on appeal; but a overruled the demurrer. And again in Cooper v. lurking doubt of the soundness of the decision Webb, 9 Law T. 261, the bill was filed for the dis- lately manifested itself in the Profession in consesolution of a railway company which had in fact at quence of some observations made by the Lord the time ceased to be a continuing company or Chancellor in the case of Arnold v. Arnold (a case undertaking; and moreover the bill, besides a dis-on appeal from the Rolls Court; see suprà, p. 70), solution, sought the general winding-up of its affairs and the distribution of the effects. It was contended that the prayer for a dissolution, &c. was an attempt to carry the case beyond the decided cases; but the Vice-Chancellor of England overruled a demurrer for want of parties on the ground that the case was identical in principle with that of Apperley . Page; and the Lord Chancellor affirmed his decision.

where his lordship was supposed to impugn the correctness of the conclusion arrived at in Dalton v. Hayter, and the feeling of the Profession seemed to be unfavourable to it. All doubt, however, on the subject was almost immediately after set at rest by the Master of the Rolls in the case of Sprye v. Reynell, 9 Law T. 215, in which the case of Arnold v. Arnold being mentioned to his lordship, he stated that he had had occasion to meet Parties-Public officer.-In Butchart v. Dresser, the Lord Chancellor immediately after that case 9 Law T. 214, a point of some importance arose as was before him, and he (the Chancellor) told him to the construction of the stat. 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, what he had been doing, and that he had discharged ss. 4 & 5 (The Joint-Stock Banking Companies the order of course to amend, on the merits, the Act); and it was decided, after much discussion, parties having consented to strike out the word that where the public officer of a joint-stock bank-" irregularity" altogether, so that the question of ing company, duly registered according to the above irregularity was not touched at all, and Dalton v. statute, is changed after the commencement of a Hayter was in no way affected by the case of Arsuit in equity against such company, the plaintiff, nold v. Arnold. The construction of the words in all subsequent proceedings in the cause, should "last of the answers,' therefore, now stands untreat the new public officer as the officer under the shaken as laid down in the case of Dalton v. statute; and no order of the Court or supplemental Hayter. bill is required to bring such new officer before the Court.

PRACTICE.

[ocr errors]

Orders-General-Master in rotation.-A case of some importance as regards the construction of the 17th General Order of the 21st of December, 1833, Answer in bankruptcy—Attachment.-The case deserves to be remarked. We mean the case of of Robertson v. Southgate, 8 Law T. 314, estab- Lord Suffield v. Bond, in which the Master's cerlishes an important point of practice in the event tificate of the insufficiency of defendant's answer was of the parties, or, at least, the defendant, becoming ordered to be taken off the file for irregularity, bankrupt after the institution of the suit. It is the irregularity consisting in this: that the Master there decided that the bankruptcy of a defendant who made the certificate was not the Master apbefore answer does not relieve him from the neces-pointed in rotation in that cause. The defendant sity of answering. But where a defendant before requiring additional time to answer, applied for it answer becomes bankrupt, and the plaintiff files a in the vacation in the usual way, having first ascersupplemental bill against the assignees of the defendant, and puts the fact of the bankruptcy on the record, and seeks to carry out the objects of the original suit in the supplemental suit, the bankrupt defendant need not put in any answer in the original suit, and the Court will stay any proceedings taken to enforce such answer. The notice of motion to stay any such irregular proceedings must be entitled in the original and supplemental suits. Assent of executors-Inquiries.-A signal in

tained the Master in rotation; but the Master in
rotation being absent, he applied to the vacation
Master for the required time, and did not return
the certificate of bill filed to the clerk of records
and writs, because, as he alleged, it could not, as
required by the 17th Order of December, 1833, be
produced to the Master in rotation, but it was filed
in the public office. But the Court held, that as the
certificate is directed by the Order (after being pro-
duced to the Master in rotation) to be returned on

the day it is filed in the public office, to the office
of the clerk of records and writs, to be there filed,
though that is very often neglected, yet it is very
irregular not so to return it; and that the circum-
stance of its being required to be produced to the
Master in rotation is no excuse for the irregularity
in vacation, when the Master in rotation is absent;
for it may be produced to the vacation Master,
who acts in that as well as other matters for the
Master in rotation, according to the practice both
of the Masters and the clerks of records and writs.
Orders-General-Reference to Master.-In
the case of Christ's Hospital v. Grainger, 1 Phill.
634, it was decided that the New Orders of May
1845 having repealed the Orders of 1828, as
to applications to amend, the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 94,
s. 13, is now restored again to full operation; and
accordingly the time for making an application to
the Master in such cases is no longer limited. This
was followed in Coombes v. Ramsay, 2 Phill. 168;
8 Law T. 269; and in Potts v. Whitmore, 8 Law
T. 491, those authorities are followed, and an order
to amend, obtained on special application to the
Court in the first instance, was, on motion, dis-
charged for irregularity.
(To be continued.)

COUNTY COURTS.

THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY
ACT.

THE Act just passed, transferring to the County Courts the jurisdiction in insolvency, is appointed to come into operation on the 15th of September next. We will give it entire next week. Its substance may be briefly stated thus:

It transfers the jurisdiction of Courts of Bankruptcy, under the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 116, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, and 8 & 9 Vict. c. 127, to the County Courts; the Clerk to be the Provisional Assignee and Registrar, and the High Bailiff, with his assistants, to be the Messengers.

The jurisdiction for twenty miles from the General Post-office is given to the Insolvent Debtors' Court in London. Beyond that distance it is given to the County Court of the district in which the insolvent has lived for the six months previous to presenting his petition. And if he have not lived for six months in one district, he must petition the Insolvent Court in London, who may direct it to be heard by any County Court.

Pending petitions are to be disposed of as at present, notwithstanding the passing of this Act. The Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, is to fix the fees of the officers of the County Courts under this Act, and, until such fees are settled, the Clerks and Bailiffs are to receive the same as were formerly paid to the officers whose duties they are executing.

The 18th section prohibits the Judges of the County Courts from being elected or sitting as Members of the House of Commons. This clause was occasioned by Mr. CLIVE, one of the County Courts Judges, offering himself for the city of Hereford.

A great quantity of reports and correspondence, received during the week, have been transferred to the COUNTY COURTS CHRONICLE, in consequence of the pressure of other claims upon our space.

A third edition of Mr. HOMES'S Law and Practice of Insolvency, under the statutes whose jurisdiction has been transferred to the County Courts, bringing down the cases decided upon them to the present time, and with the Orders and Forms altered as required by the new statute, has been prepared by Mr. PATERSON, is in the press, and will be published in about a fortnight. It will comprise all the practical information required for the new duties imposed upon the County Courts by the new statute.

WESTMORELAND. Appleby, Friday, July 2. (Before T. H. INGHAM. Esq.) The third court was held here on the 2nd instant. Twenty-seven plaints were set down for hearing, in most of which attorneys were engaged. The following are the only points which arose worthy of notice :

TAYLOR v. COWPERTHWAITE. Withdrawal-Claim under 40s.—Defendant's costs. Action of tort. Damages laid at 9s. At the last court, on the 4th of June, defendant (having previously given notice thereof to the plaintiff) applied for an adjournment, on the ground of absence of a

material witness, which was granted with the consent of the plaintiff's attorney. Plaintiff, about a week before this court, withdrew the plaint, and gave the defendant notice of the withdrawal.

Bell, for defendant, now applied for the costs which his client had been put to in defending the action, and contended that the 91st section of the Act did not apply to actions of tort, but had only reference to action on contract.

His HONOUR.-I do not agree with you in that; the words of the section are, "debt or damage claimed." I shall allow the costs paid for the adjournment, and also the costs of this application. Order accordingly.

BOUSFIELD v. WHITEHEAD.

New trial.

The plaintiff not appearing at the last court, in consequence of some misapprehension that his appearance was unnecessary, was nonsuited, and now applied in person for a new trial, of which application he had given the requisite notice.

His HONOUR, after referring to the last court's cause list, said-I find the plaint has been struck out, and I have, therefore, no power to reinstate it and grant a new trial. You can issue a fresh summons, without paying the fee to the general fund.

Application refused.

DENT v. BIRKBECK.
New trial-Set-off.
Defendant had left the court for a few minutes,

and in his absence the case was heard, and judgment
given against him. He now made application for a
new trial, on the ground that the plaintiff stood in-
debted to him in a larger amount.

His HONOUR.-That is no reason for the granting of a new trial. You ought to have pleaded a set-off, as instructed by the notice on the back of the summons; but as you have not done so, your only remedy now is to sue the plaintiff for the amount of your claim. The application must be Refused.

THE NEW COUNTY COURTS ACT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES.

SIR,-As a constant reader of your journal, my attention could not but be arrested by the article in that paper of the 24th, entitled "Attorneys' Advertisements," which refers to me, bearing my signature, relating to the New County Courts Act.

Having, during a practice of fifteen years past, been upon terms of intimacy with many of the most distinguished members of the Profession, and invariably stood well with the body at large, I cannot permit your observations to pass unnoticed.

affairs, adapt themselves to the new order of things,
and mould themselves to the changes they cannot
avert;" and the individual who may attempt the
latter, and to aid in rendering those changes less
objectionable to his professional brethren, and most
beneficial to the public, may claim some indulgence
should he inadvertently outstep the bounds of pro-
fessional etiquette.
I am, Sir, yours,
16, Great Marlborough-street,
July 26, 1847.

causes and matters as stand referred to him; his Lordship doth order that all causes and matters which stand referred to the said Andrew Henry Lynch be transferred to John Edmund Dowdeswell, esq. William Wingfield, esq. James William Farrer, esq. Sir Giffin Wilson, knight, William Brougham, esq. Nassau William Senior, esq. Samuel Duckworth, esq. Sir William Horne, knight, Sir George Rose, knight, &c. and Richard Richards, esq. some or one of them to be CHARLES DOD. taken by them respectively, in such order as the senior Master of the said Court shall direct. And his Lordship doth further order, that the said Masters to whom such causes and matters shall respectively be assigned do proceed and act therein as the said Andrew Henry Lynch was to have done, and for that purpose all books, papers, deeds, writings, and accounts that concern the causes and other matters which formerly stood referred to the said Andrew Henry Lynch shall be transferred to the said Masters respectively, to whom the said causes and matters shall be so assigned as aforesaid; and this order is to be drawn up and entered with the Registrar of the said Court. COTTENHAM, C.

GREENWICH COUNTY COURT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES.

SIR,-I read with some interest the report of the conduct of the learned Judge of the above court, and have no doubt but your remarks thereon will be productive of the intended effect. I have been in consultation with Mr. Chilton, who was the leader on the South Wales circuit, and both then and in court I always found him, and he was generally considered to be, a pains. taking and efficient advocate, although somewhat nervous. Upon the face of the report the Judge had upon this, his first sitting, presented to his view a formidable array of attorneys and briefs, a sight which would have struck a Tenterden with horror. May not his anxiety or curiosity to investigate such a state of things in a court established for the more easy recovery of small demands, have carried him a little further than prudence demanded?

The increasing number of attorneys in small matters which come before the Small Debts Courts (sham ones and self-styled agents being now excluded) is beginning to attract attention, and it is considered to argue unsoundness at bottom. The subject may, however, receive a little further investigation. W.

PROMOTIONS, APPOINTMENTS,

LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

THE SUMMER ASSIZES.
MIDLAND CIRCUIT.
DERBY, July 26.-The commission of assize for

business commenced in both courts. Lord Denman

this county was opened on Saturday, and to-day presides at Nisi Prius, and Mr. Baron Rolfe in the Crown Court. There were only four causes for trial, one of which was undefended, and another, a question relating to a right of road, is fixed to be tried before a special jury to-morrow morning. The other ther destitute of interest. On the Crown side there two cases tried on the civil side to-day were altoge were only thirteen prisoners. Two of them are Anthony Lant and Robert Statham, charged with aiding and abetting in the murder of George Collis, at Chesterfield, on the 7th of December, 1845. It will be The Queen has been pleased to appoint Wm. Dar-recolleeted that a man named Platts was convicted as nell Davis, esq. to be Chief Justice, and Wm. Snagg, one of the principals in the commission of the offence esq. to be her Majesty's Attorney-General, for the at the last spring assizes, and subsequently executed. Island of Grenada. The trial excites great interest in Chesterfield, and is expected to occupy the Court for at least a day, if not for a greater length of time.

ETC.

[Clerks of the Peace for Counties, Cities, and Boroughs will
oblige by regularly forwarding the names and addresses of
all new Magistrates who may qualify.]

C. W. Spurgeon, esq. of Lynn, principal Clerk of No. 34, or the Fen District, has succeeded to the clerkship at Holbeach, vacant by the death of Thomas Ayliff, esq. who, holding office under the Local Act previously, succeeded as First Clerk under the recent Act. Mr. Spurgeon has appointed Edward Key, esq. (of the firm of Messrs. Johnson, Sturton, and Key, of Holbeach), Assistant. Clerk at that place. COMMISSIONS SIGNED BY LORDS-LIEUTENANTS.

I will, first, readily admit that the advertisement in question would, by itself, appear to have the tendency-Southampton.-William Oliver Colt, esq. to be Deyou have suggested, but which had not before occurred to me or the friends I had consulted.

puty Lieutenant, July 20. Mid-Lothian.-George
Mitchell Innes, gent. to be Cornet of the Royal Mid-
Lothian Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry, vice Au-
gustus Maitland, resigned, June 30.

COURT PAPERS.
ORDERS IN CHANCERY.

AMENDING BILLS.

April 13, 1847.

The Right Honourable Charles Christopher Lord
Cottenham, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain,
Honourable Henry Lord Langdale, Master of the
by and with the advice and assistance of the Right
Rolls, and the Right Honourable Lancelot Shadwell,

The fact is alone sufficient to prevent its repetition in the same objectionable form. It was originally drawn at much greater length, and then sufficiently explained the intention of the words complained of, but it was reduced for economy and conciseness' sake. It occurred to me, from conversations with clients and professional friends, the former urging me not to reject the conduct of their cases under the Act, and the latter expressing their determination altogether to decline such business, from the impossibility of obtaining any reasonable compensation for their time and trouble in undertaking their clients' occasional cases before the various and very distant metropolitan County Courts, that it would well repay any experienced and well-known practitioner, to confine his Vice-Chancellor of England, doth hereby in pursu attention to the practice of one particular court, and that by making such business the more especial, if not the exclusive object of his attention, great facilities would be secured, and a great saving of expense, time, trouble, and risk of loss through mismanagement, and much benefit otherwise would result, both to the Profession and public, more especially as it would aid in promoting the exclusion of non-professional practitioners, and all undue interference between solicitors and clients, since the latter might be otherwise driven to employ parties whose only motive in undertaking such occasional matters would be to obtain their

other business.

The idea meeting with the cordial approbation of the heads of some of the largest offices, instead of any jealous feeling being excited, the experiment was attempted, and its success had led me to believe the plan to be a most legitimate one.

Those reasons which would induce any professional man to avoid seeking publicity by advertisement deterred me from adopting that course, until I found there was no alternative; that the private communication of my intentions would prove interminable; that nothing but quantity could make such business sufficiently remunerative, and that under the peculiar circumstances that course was not only excusable but unavoidable.

My best apology is, however, found in the concluding words of your article referred to, and in the preceding one wherein you justly observe, "That the lawyers must change with the altered condition of

ance of an Act of Parliament passed in the fourth
year of the reign of her present Majesty, intituled,
tice in the Court of Chancery" (3 & 4 Vict. c. 94),
"An Act for facilitating the Administration of Jus-
and of an Act passed in the fourth and fifth years of
to amend an Act of the Fourth Year of the Reign of
the reign of her present Majesty, intituled, "An Act
her present Majesty, intituled 'An Act for facilitating
the Administration of Justice in the Court of Chan-
cery" (4 & 5 Vict. c. 52), and in pursuance and
execution of all other powers enabling him in that
behalf, order and direct, that the rule and order
all purposes be deemed and taken to be, a general
hereinafter set forth shall henceforth be, and for
rule and order of the High Court of Chancery, viz.:

leave to amend his bill after a defendant (being en-
The plaintiff is not to obtain an order of course for
miss the bill for want of prosecution.
titled to move) has served a notice of motion to dis-

COTTENHAM, C.
LANGDALE, M. R.

LANCELOT SHADWELL, V. C. E.

TRANSFER OF MASTER LYNCH'S CAUSES. April 21, 1847. Whereas Andrew Henry Lynch, esq. one of the Masters of the High Court of Chancery, did, on the 25th day of March last, resign his office as one of the Masters; and whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for the due dispatch of such

NORTHERN CIRCUIT. DURHAM, July 26.-Lord Chief Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Wightman arrived in this city on Saturday last at three o'clock, and opened the commission. On Sunday they attended the cathedral, and this morning the business of the court commenced at ten o'clock. There are forty-one prisoners for trial, amongst which are two for bigamy, one for manslaughter, one for burglary, six for rape, and one for forgery. In the Nisi Prius Court there are fifteen cases entered, two of which are special jury

cases.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.

SHREWSBURY, July 26.-The commission was opened here late on Saturday evening by Mr. Justice Coleridge. Business commenced at ten this morning. There were three causes for trial. Since the last assizes there have been 2,000 cases disposed of in the County Courts of this shire; and there are 200 already entered for trial for the next County Court for the names of thirty prisoners, of whom twelve were Shrewsbury district. The calendar contained the marked as unable to read or write, and none as able to read and write well. There were only six cases that could not, and ought not, to have been disposed of at sessions, the gravest of these being a charge of rest were the most paltry petty larcenies we ever reassaulting a gamekeeper with intent to kill him. The collect to have seen on an assize calendar. Of the jury, and was fixed for to-morrow. The other two three causes entered for trial, one was for a special were disposed of before three o'clock, and then Mr. Justice Erle assisted in trying prisoners. All the criminal business is expected to be over this evening, and so probably might all the civil, too, if the special jury had been summoned for to-day.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.

IPSWICH, July 28.-The commission for the county the learned judges of assize, who, having attended of Suffolk was opened yesterday afternoon by both divine service this morning, opened their respective Courts at twelve o'clock. The civil business is heavier than usual, there being fourteen causes entered for trial, of which two were for trial by special juries. The calendar contains the names of twenty-one prisoners; but there are only two cases of more than ordinary character: of these the one is a case in which the prisoner is charged with the murder of a German girl, and the other is a case of burglary.

PRESENTMENT OF THE GRAND JURY.

In the course of the day the grand jury, having disposed of all the bills submitted to them, made a special presentment, to the effect that murders and accidents arising from the administration of poison

having become frequent, they thought it proper that cers of justice, and the executioner and his assistants,
steps should be taken to check the incautious sale of the latter carrying an axe. A strong detachment of
poisonous drugs. They therefore suggested that soldiers accompanied the cart, and another sur-
the Legislature should interpose to check such sales, rounded the scaffold. Gepkens ascended to his ap-
unless they should be made to persons known to the pointed place with a tottering step. His eyes were
vendor, or where they were introduced by parties then bandaged, and his head placed on the block.
known to him; and that in all cases there should be One of the assistant executioners seized him by the
a register kept of the vendors, and of the drugs sold. hair, to keep his head in the right position, and two
Mr. Baron Alderson said that there were two diffi- other assistants held him by the shoulders. The
culties in carrying into effect the recommendation of chief executioner then took the axe, flourished it in
the grand jury, though he approved of their desire to the air, and let it descend on the prisoner's neck, so
check the sale of poisonous drugs. The one difficulty as to make him feel the cold steel. The man who
was, that a catalogue of poisons would be furnished held his head afterwards released it; and, for about
to parties who were, perhaps, ignorant on the sub- five minutes, the executioner continued to brandish
-ject; and the second was, that it was difficult to say the axe around the prisoner's head, so close that he
what really were 66 poison." Sir B. Brodie had in- could distinctly hear the whizzing. The emotion of
formed him (Mr. Baron Alderson) that many medi- Gepkens was so great that he fainted. When the ce-
cines which were commonly administered by phy-remony was completed, his hands were untied, and
sicians were poisons, and the use of them would he was reconveyed to prison in the cart. About
be absolutely prohibited.
30,000 persons waited from daylight to witness this
singular proceeding, the like of which had not oc-
curred within the memory of man. Previous to the
prisoner's arrival the crowd were very merry and
boisterous, and roared forth several songs; but, on
the conclusion of the mock execution, it dispersed in
silence, and apparently feeling strong emotion.—
Galignani's Messenger.

Sir W. Middleton, the foreman of the grand jury, having listened to this exposition of his Lordship's views on the subject of the presentment, bowed and retired with "the thanks of the Court for his services."

SHERIFFS' COURT.

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff Burchell.) PROCLAMATION OF OUTLAWRY.-The following were called upon to surrender into the custody of the Sheriff of Middlesex, or be severally outlawed :Andrew H. Lynch, Arthur Houge, Philip B. Lucas, James Luffs, George Fitch, Henry Welchman, John Wm. Montague, Herbert Cornewall, Stephen Bradley, John Hunter, Henry J. Hunter, Richard Norman, and Sir Howard Elphinstone, bart.

PAUCITY OF BUSINESS IN THE SHERIFFS' COURT.-There were only three causes for trial on Thursday in the Sheriffs' Court, in consequence of the operation of the County Courts Act, and in the Secondaries' Court on the previous day there was only one cause. Actions in the supreme courts for

sums under 201. have been discontinued.

IRELAND.

DUBLIN.-The Benchers are contemplating a course of legal education of a more searching and comprehensive character than prevails among your Inns of Court. They have been sitting in secret council on the subject since the appearance of Mr. Joy's stimulative pamphlet ; but nothing definitive, or indeed any thing approaching thereto, has been settled. It is, however, understood that the curriculum will be full and adequate. A noble wing has lately been added to the splendid pile in Henriettastreet, containing lecture-rooms; and the society is in a pecuniary condition to carry out any scheme of instruction without the aid of the State, the funded and annual income being very considerable. COMMISSIONERS OF BANKRUPTS.-The folBANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY.-The Act lowing provision in an Act of Parliament which will passed on Thursday on the law of bankruptcy and insolvency will take effect from the 15th of September, tional powers to the Court of Bankruptcy in England come in force on the 1st of next month gives addion which day the Court of Review will cease to exist. and Ireland:-The 11th section of the 10 & 11 Vict. By this Act the insolvency business now transacted c. 85, provides, "That it shall be lawful for any in the Court of Bankruptcy will be transferred to the Commissioner of Bankrupts, or any Court of BankInsolvent Debtors' Court, which last-mentioned court from the day named will possess two systems of in-ruptcy acting under any fiat or commission of banksolvency. The Act contains twenty-one provisions. On the abolition of the Court of Review its jurisdiction will be given to one of the Vice-Chancellors, as the Lord Chancellor shall appoint, with the officers now acting in the Court. In addition to the Act (1 & 2 Vict. c. 110) now possessed by the Insolvent Debtors' Court, the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 116, "An Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors;" the Act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, " An Act to amend the Laws of Insolvency, Bankruptcy, and Execution;" and the Act 8&9 Vict. c. 127,"An Act for better securing the Payment of Small Debts," with all rules and orders, will be transferred to that court, which court will, from the 15th of September, possess a jurisdiction of twenty miles under the three Acts, and in districts beyond that distance the Judges of the County Courts are to exercise jurisdiction under the recited Acts. The circuits of the Insolvent Debtors' Court are abolished. By the 12th section the fees to be received in the Insolvent Debtors' Court are to go in reduction of compensation allowances now paid to the

ruptcy in England or Ireland, to order that for a
period not exceeding three calendar months from the
date of any such order all post letters directed or ad-
dressed to any bankrupt at the place at which he
shall be described in the fiat or commission awarded
addressed, sent, or delivered by the Postmaster-
or issued against him shall be re-directed, re-
General, or the officers acting under him, to the offi-
cial or other assignee, or other person named in such
order; and that upon notice of any such order to be
given to the Postmaster-General, or the officers act-
ing under him, by the official or other assignee, or
other person named in such order, of the making of
such order, it shall be lawful for the Postmaster.
General or other officers, as aforesaid, in England
and Ireland, to re-address, re-direct, send, or deliver
all such post letters to the official or other assignee,
or other person named in such order accordingly, and
such Commissioner or Court of Bankruptcy may,
upon any application to be made for that purpose,
renew any such order for a like or any other less
period as often as may be necessary."

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.

pected from a consideration of their increasing consumption in this country. The total quantity of spirits retained for home consumption last year amounted to 4,254,237 gallons, out of 6,827,043 gallons imported, including 2,362,784 gallons of British colonial rum, 192,331 gallons of East-India rum, 128,478 of mixed, 108 gallons of foreign rum (in all 2,683,701 gallons of rum), 1,504,465 gallons of brandy, 39,883 gallons of Geneva, 7,281 gallons of other foreign and colonial spirits, and 8,907 gallons of Channel Island spirits; 5,310,148 gallons of all sorts of spirit remained in bond on the 5th of January, 1847, including 2,997,149 gallons of rum, 1,854,962 of brandy, and 89,302 of Geneva.

THE DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCAS

TER.-The income of the Duchy of Cornwall during
the year 1846 amounted to 50,3951. and the expendi-
ture to 44,9217. leaving a balance of 5,4741. The in-
come of the sister duchy of Lancaster for the same
34,5271. leaving a balance of 6,3881.
year amounted to 40,9151. and the expenditure to

PROCEEDINGS OF LAW

SOCIETIES.

YORKSHIRE LAW SOCIETY.

At a general meeting of the Yorkshire Law Society, held at Lockwood's Hotel, Pavement, York, on Friday, July 16, 1847, William Richardson, esq. the president, in the chair, it was resolved,

"That this meeting approves of the objects of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, set forth in the address of the committee of management, and is of opinion that the time has arrived when a general union of all the members of the Profession is imperatively required for the purpose of resisting further aggressions upon them.

"That the members of this Society, in their various localities throughout the county, be requested to submit the address to such gentlemen as may offer themselves as candidates at the next general election, to ascertain their views respecting the matters therein being brought before Parliament. referred to, preparatory to the state of the Profession

"That the new Association be recommended to the cordial support of the Profession in this county, and that a donation of 251. in aid of its funds be made by this Society."

At a meeting of the committee of management, held the same day, it was determined to reprint the address of the committee of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, and send a copy thereof to every member of the Profession in the Yorkshire boroughs, such gentlemen as may offer themselves as candidates with a request that the same may be submitted to at the next general election, and a deputation was appointed to submit the address to the candidates for the city of York and the three Ridings of Yorkshire.

LAW ASSOCIATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF

THE WIDOWS AND FAMILIES OF PRO-
FESSIONAL MEN.

The following is the 30th Annual Report of the
Directors of this Society, read to the Annual General
Court held on the 11th of May, at the Hall of the
Incorporated Law Society. T. J Burgoyne, esq. in
the Chair.

"This Association has now been established thirty years, during which period a sum amounting to nearly 16,000l. has been appropriated to the families of members of the Profession.

officers of that court on account of the diminution of the business. There is a provision in this Act autho rising the Lord Chancellor to give directions for the "But while this large amount of relief has been Court of Bankruptcy to sit elsewhere than in London, THE CONSUMPTION OF WINES AND SPIRITS IN afforded, the directors have been enabled to accuthe object of which provision is to allow the court to ENGLAND.-A return, shewing the annual consump-mulate a fund of upwards of 20,000l. thus placing. sit in the country when cases at some distance (its tion of wines and spirits in this country, has been the society upon such a footing of security, as to enJurisdiction extending to 100 miles) should occur. procured by Mr. Alderman William Thompson, M.P. sure the continuance of its benefits to those families With the exception of a provision, added on the third It appears that, last year (1846), 7,711,309 gallons of of deceased members who may hereafter require reading, to prevent Judges of the County Courts foreign wine were imported, of which 6,740,316 gal. assistance. from being members of Parliament, the others are of lons were retained for home consumption. The quan"In addition to the income arising from stock, a somewhat formal character to carry the Act into tities remaining under bond on the 5th of January, the annual subscriptions form an important item operation. The Insolvent Debtors' Court, by sitting 1847, amounted to 9,386,262 gallons. It will be in- in the account. These have amounted in the past daily, will be able to dispose of the cases, and thereby teresting to ascertain the relative qualities of different year to 5891. 1s.; and it is satisfactory to know prevent the necessity of holding two separate courts foreign wines which are consumed in this country. that in every year since the first establishment of for public examinations. By one court, uniformity The 6,740,316 gallons of wine retained for home con- the Association, the receipts have exceeded the exof practice would be preserved, and public justice pro-sumption last year included 365,867 gallons of Cape; penditure. perly administered. (this inferior compound, it is to be feared, is almost "Within the last few days, the directors have reexclusively bought up for the purpose of adulteratingceived information of a bequest of 100. to the funds other wines ;) 409,506 gallons of French wines of all of the Association, by the late William Tidd, esq. the sorts; 2,669,798 gallons of Portuguese; 2,602,490 of eminent author of the Book on Practice. Spanish; 94,580 gallons of Madeira; 64,478 gallons of Rhenish; 25,312 gallons of Canary; 283 gallons of Fayal, and 508,002 gallons of Sicilian and other sorts. It hence appears that the only three kinds of wine consumed to any great extent in England consist of Port, Sherry, and Marsala (this last is Sicilian wine, grown on the Bronté estate of the late Lord Nelson), the large consumption of which is to be accounted for from the fact that it strikingly resembles Sherry. The small demand for Madeira will excite some surprise on the part of all who are acquainted with its exquisite flavour; nor do the quantities of Rhenish and French wines appear so large as might be ex

A MOCK EXECUTION.-A strange spectacle was witnessed on the 9th at Arnhem, in Holland. A Catholic priest, named Gepkens, having been condemned to death for assassination, the King commuted the sentence into perpetual imprisonment and the application of the punishment called "brandishing of the axe," which consists in making a prisoner undergo a pretended execution. A scaffold was prepared exactly as for an execution, and a coffin was on it, as if to receive the bloody and mangled remains of the condemned. At twelve o'clock in the day Gepkens was driven in a cart to the scaffold. His head and neck were bare, he wore no coat, his hair was cut very close, and his hands were tied behind his back. Two priests were with him, giving him religious consolation, and two other carriages contained the offi

"Since the last report, one new case has come before the board, of a member of the society dying and leaving his family unprovided for. He had filled an important official situation, and it may be assumed that it had never come within his contemplations that his surviving family would derive any benefit from his subscription to the fund.

Three new cases have, during the year, been added to the list of non-members' families receiving relief.

"The relief to this latter class of applicants has now been divided into two distinct branches-the casual, and the permanent; the first embracing cases. where temporary assistance has appeared to be ne

« PreviousContinue »