Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

A PHYSIOGNOMIST ON THE BENCH.-It has long been an axiom of English law, that the judge is the prisoner's counsel. No such notion, however, would prevail among those who may ever chance to

[ocr errors]

be witnesses of the mode in which the business of ❝ summing up to a jury is conducted by the gentleman who presides in the "second court" at the sessions in this town. On Thursday last, Mr. Marshall wound up his summary with the remark, "You cannot have any doubt as to the prisoner's_guilt; his very countenance would hang him!"-Preston Chronicle. "It is to be hoped," says the Liverpool Mercury, in quoting this paragraph, "that this very remark will be sufficient with the Home Secretary to justify Mr. Marshall's removal from the bench."

The Secretary for the Home Department has notified to the Court of Aldermen, that he has instructed the magistrates of the metropolitan police district not to allow certificates to policemen for their attendance, and to take care that in no matter whatever they shall directly or indirectly receive any personal benefit. This will effect a considerable saving of the county rate, besides making the policemen less anxious to get every culprit committed to the sessions, by exaggerated representations of his ingenuity, his general character, desperate associates, &c.

THE LAWYER.

Summary.

As it was received only at the last moment, we can but direct attention to the very important case of Humberstone v. Jones, relating to the stamp on transfer of mortgage, in which judgment was given by the Exchequer on Wednesday. This Court has been entirely occupied by motions for new trials, of which notice of no less than fifty-six has been given, and they will probably engross the remainder of the Term. Why do not the Judges of this court avail themselves of the power given them by the statute, and open a separate Practice Court in the Exchequer Chamber before a single Judge, as the Queen's Bench has done with the Bail Court? It would much forward the business of the Court, and be a great accommodation to the Profession. The temporary interest of the decisions on points of practice in the County Courts has induced us to give more space to them than we can usually afford. To keep pace with the business at Westminster, there will be a double number next week.

COUNTY COURTS.

The following, for the use of Practitioners in the County Courts, are published at the LAW TIMES Office.

I. The Forms, Nos. 1 to 38, some having Four Forms on a Sheet, others
only two Forms, all being for convenience of filing, printed on folio
foolscap, per quire, 28.
II. The Books kept by the Clerk, bound in calf, each containing four
quires, or 200 leaves. No. 1. Book for Plaint, 28s.; No. 2. Minute-
Book, 35s.; No. 3. Execution-Book, 28s.; No. 4, Cash-Book, 28s. ;
No. 5. Ledger, 42s.; No. 6. Fee-Book, 38s.

N.B. The name of the County, &c. printed in the Forms
and Books without additional charge.

III. The SECOND EDITION of PATERSON'S COUNTY COURTS
ACT, with the RULES, FORMS, and SCHEDULES, an Explanatory
Introduction, Notes, and a very copious INDEX of more than thirty-
four pages. Price 6s. boards; 8s. bound; 9s. interleaved.
IV. BITTLESTONE and WISE'S NEW PRACTICE CASES-Cases
torneys, issued at the close of each Term, in Parts, price 5s.; in

in all the Courts, including Evidence, Stamps, and the Law of AtNumbers, stamped to pass free by post, 1s. 6d, each. V. The LAW DIGEST, a general half-yearly Index to all the Cases reported and Statutes passed, alphabetically arranged, so that the Practitioner is enabled to ascertain in a moment all that

has been decided or enacted on any subject during the half-year. In Numbers, stamped for post, 1s. 1d. each, or in Parts. Part I. 5s. 6d.; Part II. 68. 6d. ; Part III. (nearly ready), 6s. To be conti nued regularly.

In the Press, THE PRACTICE of the COUNTY COURTS; a Treatise. By Edward

Use.

W. Cox, Esq. Barrister-at-Law. Intended as a Manual for Practical N.B. Members of the Verulam Society are entitled to the reduction

of Twenty per Cent.

NOTICE TO CLERKS AND PRACTITIONERS.

[ocr errors][merged small]

titioners. A very elaborate list of precedents of statements of causes of action for the summons, and of particulars of demand to be annexed thereto; forms for opening and closing the courts; some rules for ascertaining whether a cause of action is tract" or "tort," which is required to be stated in the summons; a variety of forms not provided by the rules and notes, suggested by points that have arisen in practice, have been added, so that it will contain all the information on the subject at present attain

able.

In addition to the Books and Forms prescribed by the Rules of Practice, and settled by the Judges, the following, required by the statute, and by the rules, have been drawn by counsel, and may be had in any quantity. It will be observed, that many of these are forms requisite to be used by parties, and not by the Court, and therefore must be kept by every attorney. Orders for them should be sent immediately.

TO BE USED BY THE CLERKS.

Order of Bailiff to give Possession of Tenement.
Execution against an Executor on a Devastavit.

TO BE USED BY PARTIES.

Particulars of Demand.
Notice of Set-off.
Particulars of Set-off.
Notice of Special Defence.
Particulars of Special Defence.
Notice to the Clerk of Demand of Jury.
Notice to the Clerk of Application for a New Trial.
Notice to the Party of Application for a New Trial.
Consent Paper.

FOR USE OF ATTORNEYS.

A Cause-book, shewing at a glance the state of every

cause.

other process which, &c. shall be required to be served out of the district of the Court from which the same shall have issued, may be served by the bailiff of any court holden under the Act in any part of England, and such service shall be as valid as if the same had been made by the bailiff of the court out of which such summons or other process shall have issued within the jurisdiction of the Court for which he acts." And the 62nd section provides for the manner of proving service of process out of the jurisdiction.

The 85th section enacts that parties" may obtain at the office of the Clerk of the Court, summonses to witnesses to be served by one of the bailiffs of the court, &c.”

that none but the bailiff of the court whence it Read alone, this section would certainly imply,

issued can serve a summons on a witness. But I when taken in connection with the previous sections, permitting all summonses and processes of the court to be served out of the district, and prescribing the manner and proof of service, we must confess ourselves at a loss to discover where the diffiBut culty lies, or how the doubt could have arisen. it has been raised in no less a court than that of Westminster, in the minds both of the Judge and of the Clerk, and therefore we notice it.

A sensible decision of Mr. GALE is worth noticing. Where a plaintiff and defendant were the only witnesses and swore positively in direct contradiction one of the other, he held that as the onus of proof lay upon the plaintiff, he had failed to make out his

case.

Suggestions of any other forms or books which may Many correspondents have inquired by what title
appear necessary or useful will much oblige.
the Judges should be addressed. "His Honour "
The first part of the second volume of the New Prac-is, perhaps, the most appropriate.
tice Cases is now published.

WE resume the commentary upon the current questions in these Courts.

It will be seen that in the Hants Court a question of great importance has arisen with respect to the payment of the fees in the first instance by the plaintiff, particularly the fee to be devoted to the fund for It will be seen that already many points of prac-erecting courts; and the Judge refused to decide it, tice of great perplexity have arisen, and that among waiting for the opinion of other Judges. Let us see the Judges there are conflicting opinions. We pro- how the question stands. ceed to notice a few of those of most immediate importance.

First, there is the decision of Mr. KoE, at Hertford, and the counter decisions of others of the Judges upon the question whether a plaintiff can claim to be heard as a witness on his own behalf. Mr. KOE says "No." Mr. GALE and other Judges "Yes." say Both are good authorities, and we may be assured that the question is in itself invested with some doubts.

The 83rd section enacts that "the parties thereto, their wives and all other persons, may be examined, either on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant," &c.

Mr. KoE says that the words "may be examined," are to be read in their strict literal sense, and that, inasmuch as a man cannot examine himself, the meaning is, that he can only be heard when called upon by another. And in this Mr. KoE had probably in view the very similar case of arbitrations, in which it has been decided that the usual clause in the submission, enabling the parties to be examined, does not extend to give a right to the party to be heard as a witness for himself, but only that the arbitrator or the other party might examine him, if he please.

[ocr errors]

By the 37th section it is enacted that there shall be "payable on every proceeding to the Judges' Clerks and High Bailiffs, &c. such fees as are set down in the schedule marked D. &c. and none other," &c. and that "the fees on every proceeding shall be paid in the first instance by the plaintiff," &c.

Schedule D. sets forth the Judges', the Clerks', and the Bailiffs' fees, and no other.

Sect. 51 provides for raising a fund for paying off money borrowed to erect court-houses, and for this purpose the clerk is "to demand and receive from the plaintiff in any suit" a certain percentage there named ; "which sum, if not paid by the plaintiff upon suit brought in the court, may be deducted from the sum recovered by the plaintiff, and shall be considered as costs in the cause.'

[ocr errors]

The question upon this is, whether it is compulsory upon, or only optional with, the plaintiff to pay this per-centage when he enters his plaint; for, if optional, none would pay at first, for this obvious reason-that he may not recover his demand, and, in such case, he would lose the fee so paid; whereas, if deducted from the sum recovered, he would, at least, be secure against such a loss.

May the Clerk refuse to grant a summons unless this fee be first paid?

And we should have been inclined to agree with Mr. KOE's reading of the section but for this, as It will be observed that, in the case of the officers' it seems to us, decisive answer to it. The terms fees, it is expressly enacted that they shall be paid may be examined," apply not alone to parties"in the first instance." But of this fee it is and their wives, but to "all other persons.' If, enacted only that the Clerk shall demand and receive therefore, Mr. KOE's view be adopted, this absurdity follows-that not only cannot the party tender himself, but he can tender no other person as a witness on his behalf!-a complete reductio ad absurdum. Therefore do we hold with Mr. GALE upon this point.

In another Court a question has been raised as to the costs of an attorney appearing for a successful defendant, and it was most properly decided that the words of the statute, giving his costs to such defendant, extended to those of the attorney by whom he was represented.

Another dubious question, not formally before the Courts, but upon which, we understand, both The difficulty of obtaining the list of the officers of the Judges and Clerks feel much difficulty, is, as to the various courts has been so great, that it has delayed the publication of the Third Edition of Mr. PATER-jurisdiction of the Courts in the issue of summonses SON'S County Courts Act to the middle of next to witnesses; whether, in brief, a summons to a week; and even as it is, the list will be far from com-witness can issue out of the district of the Court in plete. But an advantage has arisen from the delay. which the action is pending. It is a question of In accordance with suggestions of numerous corre- great importance, for if ruled in the negative the spondents, divers improvements have been introduced Courts will be rendered almost worthless.

it "in any suit brought in that court;" and so far from directing that it shall, like the others, be paid in the first instance, it expressly provides that, "if not paid in the first instance by the plaintiff, upon suit brought in the court, it may be deducted from the sum recovered."

It appears, therefore, to us, that it may be fairly argued that, taking together the difference of language used in relation to the two classes of fees-the sort of alternative provided, and the words demand or receive "in any suit," which imply a suit begun and existing, and differ essentially from the words "on any proceeding," used in the 37th section, that prepayment of this fee is not compulsory, and that the Clerk cannot refuse to issue the summons because it is not paid.

But, on the other hand, there is no doubt that the intent of the statute is, that the fee shall be paid at all events, whether the plaintiff do or do not recover. What remedy the Court may have to enfore payment is another question, which we will consider

to meet the immediate wants of the Clerks and Prac- | The 61st section enacts, "that any summons or when it arises.

E. W. C.

[blocks in formation]

Field, for the defendant (Stening, contrà), applied to the Court for an order for the defendant's costs under sect. 79 of the recent Act, stating that the no

[blocks in formation]

These two decisions are at variance with the cases of Cheek v. Park, and Baines v. Taylor, decided at number of the LAW TIMES.

[blocks in formation]

tice of the special defence had been prepared by him- Hertford on the 13th instant, and reported in the last judgment having been obtained in the Borough Court, self, as his client was unable to prepare it.

By the COURT.-It may sometimes be necessary for a defendant to employ a professional adviser to prepare such a notice, but the Act seems to contemplate his preparing it himself. I can discover nothing in it which authorises me to allow costs for professional assistance, except it is rendered at the hearing, which in this case, the debt claimed being under 51. I cannot allow at all. The defendant, however, may have an order for 4s. for his loss of time and trouble, including the fee paid with the notice of defence.

Payment to the fee fund-Fees-Is the plaintiff to pay in the first instance?

SWANSEA COUNTY COURT.
Thursday, April 15.

(Before JOHN WILSON, Esq. Judge.) Attorney-Signing the roll of the court essential to the right of practising therein.

Tripp applied to the Judge to direct the clerk to provide a roll for the signature of attorneys desirous of practising in the court. He contended that under the 2nd and 27th sections of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, no attorney is entitled to practise in any inferior court, except on production of his admission in one of the superior courts, together with an official certificate that such admission is still in force, and upon signing the roll of such inferior court. He cited the recent case of Reg. v. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, 8 L. T. 536, where the Court of Queen's Bench declared the intention of the Legislature to have been, that all admissions to practise in any court, superior or inferior, should be on the signing of the roll of such court, and that in courts where there is not at present any roll for the attorneys to sign, a roll must be procured.!

At the rising of the Court, Low applied to the Court to decide a question arising on the 52nd sect. of the Act, as to whether a plaintiff could be compelled to pay the contribution to the general fee fund at the time the summons was taken out, or whether he was not entitled to contend that it should be deducted from the amount of his claim, if and when recovered. He observed that the point was one of great practical importance, as in many places where a plaintiff's claims were numerous, and his means but scanty, it might amount to an absolute denial of justice if he were required to pay in the first instance. In addition to which he might obtain nothing from the defendant, or the summons might be served by the officer too late to enforce a defendant's appearance, and in some cases not at all; and on plaintiff applyHis HONOUR subsequently announced his detering for a fresh summons he might again be required mination not to permit any unprofessional agents to to contribute to the fund in question, which would be appear in the court on behalf of suitors, as he conevidently unjust; whereas, on the other hand, to de-sidered the introduction of such a system would be duct the fee from the amount recovered would be equitable, and could never give any ground for complaint.

The JUDGE stated that the inclination of his opinion was, that, although the contribution might be. come costs in the cause, yet as the plaintiff was by the Act made a debtor to the Court, the fee should be paid in the first instance: but he would reserve his decision for the present, as the point was an important one; and in the meantime he should like to ascertain the construction that might be put upon the clause in question by the judges of other Courts.

Southampton, April 16.

(Before C. J. GALE, Esq.) (a) Two points of interest only occurred. Costs.

The JUDGE, after some discussion, granted the application, and desired the clerk to provide a roll for the signature of such attorneys only as shall duce the proper evidence of being duly qualified to practise.

pro

productive of the most pernicious consequences, and he should therefore do all in his power to discounte

nance it.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COURT. Macclesfield, April 22. (Before J. ST. JOHN YATES, Esq.) MANLEY. SHARPLEY. Evidence by plaintiff. The plaintiff appeared to be sworn to give evidence to prove his own case.

Parrott for the defendant, objected to the evidence, and said it had been decided that the plaintiff could not be heard in his own behalf, and was about to cite Cheek v. Park, and Baines v. Taylor, reported in the LAW TIMES of the 17th inst. when the Judge stop

ping him, said, "I suppose you are alluding to the

It was held, that under the 79th section, giving cases in the LAW TIMES. I cannot think those to the judge power in a certain event "to award to the defendant by way of costs and satisfaction for his Parliament very clear that the plaintiff may be excases are correctly reported. I think the Act of trouble and attendance," such sum, &c. the at-amined in his own behalf. I have no doubt about it. tendance of defendant's attorney would be allowed, I shall admit the evidence." his attendance being that of the defendant.

Service of summons.

In another case it was held, that if at the time of service no objection be made to short notice, defendant cannot at the hearing raise such objection.

At this Court an incident may be worth noting. Plaintiff and defendant swore distinctly in direct contradiction of the statements of each other. In such case the judge said, that it being the duty of the plaintiff to establish bis demand, he must suffer for his neglect in not producing corroborative testimony.

NORWICH COUNTY COURT.
Thursday, April 22.

(Before BIRCH, Esq. Judge.) This Court sat for the first time this morning. The Judge at once proceeded to hear cases.

Upon an application to the Judge as to what parties he would allow to appear before him to conduct cases, he stated that at present he could not draw a line; he would, however, endeavour to prevent im

BRECONSHIRE COUNTY COURT. Crickhowell, April 22. JOHN WILSON, Esq. (Judge of Circuit No. 30), took his seat at 10 o'clock this morning, and proceeded at once to the dispatch of business. PENNY U. GARDNER.

PENNY U. MORGAN. Adjournment-Costs-Witnesses-Expenses. Application was made for adjournment of hearing under the powers contained in s. 81, in consequence of the illness of the plaintiff's principal witness, of which a medical certificate was produced. Granted on payment of costs (if any) occasioned by the attendance of witnesses.

The two defendants' wives claimed to be regarded in the light of witnesses and to be paid their expenses.

Claim disallowed.

BARTON v. TUDOR.

proper persons appearing in his Court, and in all Action of debt for 10l. 18s. 11d.-Evidence of plaintiff

[blocks in formation]

The JUDGE held the objection bad, inasmuch as no the subject-matter was within the jurisdiction of this Court.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, April 19.

(Before GEO. H. WILKINSON, Esq. Judge.)
DUNN v. HARDY.
Evidence-Plaintiff.

This was the first cause on the list, and the plaintiff proposed to prove the sale and delivery of goods by her own oath, and entries in her books made by herself.

A Solicitor in court called the judge's attention to the decision in Cheek v. Park, by Mr. Koe, at Hertford, reported in the last number of the Law

Times.

The JUDGE.-With all deference to the gentleman who gave that decision, I shall allow the plaintiff to be sworn and give evidence; and if I see no reason to doubt the truth of it, I shall admit it as I would the testimony of any other witness.

LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COURT.
Market-Harborough, April 20.

(Before J. HILDYARD, Esq. Barrister.) The first Court for hearing plaints was held here this day. There were twenty cases, but the only

ones of interest are the following :Re ABBOTT.

Jurisdiction-Cause of action. Application was made under the 60th section of the Act for summons against the acceptor of a bill of exchange living at Higham Ferrers. The bill purported to be drawn at Harborough, but was accepted at Higham, which is out of the district. Application refused, on the ground that the cause of action did not arise in this district, and that this clause should be sparingly enforced.

[blocks in formation]

ESSEX COUNTY COURTS.
Worthing, April 18.
AYLING V. MARTIN.

(Before W. GURDON, Esq. Judge.)
Witness-Plaintiff.

Edmunds appeared for the plaintiff; Read for the defendant.

The plaintiff was tendered by the former as a witness. Read, for the defendant, objected. He wished to call the attention of the judge to a case in the Hertford Court, reported in the LAW TIMES, where it was decided that a plaintiff in a case cannot be examined on his own account, but only on that of the defendant. therefore felt it necessary to call attention to it. This was rather an important circumstance, and he

The JUDGE. I have seen the case to which you allude; but I must beg to differ from the judge of that court.

Dunmow, April 21.

(Before R. GURDON, Esq. Judge.)
POINTS OF PRACTICE.
Service of summons.

A summons was served at defendant's residence on Saturday, April 10th, he being from home. Evidence evening, the 11th, and then knew of the summons: was given to shew that he returned late on Sunday

Service held insufficient, not being ten clear days' knowledge.

Fee fund-Fees, payment of. whether the poundage towards the general fund was E. Copeland (Solicitor) inquired of the Court to be taken in all cases, the 52nd section stating it to be only "while necessary."

The JUDGE said it was to be taken in all; as,; if not necessary in one district it might be wanted in another.

The same solicitor inquired whether it was always to be paid in the first instance, or might not be left until the money was recovered, and then deducted?

The JUDGE said it must be taken first; as, if cases were settled out of court, it would be lost altogether. Examination of parties.

The attention of the judge was also called to the decision of Mr. Koe, rejecting the plaintiff's evidence

Attorneys' fees.

E. Copeland also alluded to the 91st section, and asked whether the judge considered the amount there mentioned as allowance to an attorney, was to include all his charges, or only for attendance in court? The JUDGE, on referring to the section, said he considered the former.

on his own behalf. He said he did not agree with called by the other side. In cases of appeals he knew him, and repeatedly admitted it as proof. that Acts had been passed allowing parties who were rate-payers of the parish to be witnesses for themselves, but they claimed the privilege of not being called for the other parties; he contended, though the statute enabled them to be witnesses for themselves, it did not enable other parties to call on them and enforce them to disclose their own case. In the same way a great mistake was often made with respect to gentlemen of the Profession, that it was the privilege of the solicitor not to disclose his client's case, but it was the privilege of the client that he should not. He never for a moment doubted on the 83rd section that it was the intention that parties should be examined for themselves.

Romford, Monday, April 19.

HUGHES V. MARTIN. Appearance of agents. On this the first case, being called on, Mr. Leah, an auctioneer and appraiser, was about to appear for the defendant.

Rawlings, for the plaintiff, said he objected to this party appearing as the agent of the defendant, as he was not an attorney, but an auctioneer or valuer, or something of that sort, not in any way connected with the court. He believed that in these courts already a positive rule had been laid down that a person not an attorney should not appear as agent.

Mr. Leah said he appeared for the defendant be. cause he was obliged to go to London.

The JUDGE.-Are you an attorney of either of the superior courts?

Mr. Leah. I am not; I act as clerk to Mr. Wells, of London.

Durrant said the judge would permit him to observe that this system of gentlemen in London having clerks in the country had been carried to a consider able extent, and the other courts had discountenanced it. It led to great frauds.

The JUDGE said, he did not know that he could hear Mr. Durrant on the point-he must see what locus standi he had. He had to state that when they met to elect the high bailiff, the question was put to him whether he would allow other than professional men to appear for parties in the court; he then said, certainly not. He did not mean by that to prevent any relative or friend of the parties in a small case appearing in a friendly way. Suppose, for instance, the party were an infirm person, he might appear by a friend; but he should not allow a person to come there and make a livelihood of it as an agent.

Mr. Leah said it was not his intention to appear in that court to make a trade of it: he had a good business and enough to live on; but it was on account of this person being from home that he now attended.

The JUDGE said, he thought a party could have no interest in appearing as an agent, as he would not be entitled to have any remuneration for it: he thought that would be sufficient.-The subject was mooted at a meeting of the judges of the new courts on Wednesday last, when there were fifteen of them present, and it was then the opinion that it was wrong to allow a person not in the legal profession to obtain a livelihood by assuming to practise as an agent, and superseding the gentlemen of the Profession.

Mr. Leah asked of Mr. Wells had his certificate in this Court, if he could appear for him as his clerk? The JUDGE.-Those who appear before me must be attorneys of one of the superior courts. Any poor person may come to conduct his own case, or, a father or a son, or any relative of that sort may appear, and there will be no necessity to employ an attorney, but in other cases the party appearing for another must be a professional man.

Mr. Leah. I don't find that in the 72nd section. The JUDGE. I leave you to study the Act-you will find it clearly laid down.

Rawlings.-That was my impression, but I came prepared with other witnesses to prove the plaintiff's case.

The JUDGE noticed the case of a hearing before an arbitrator, where the parties could be examined either for the plaintiff or defendant.

Rawlings.-Then we may take it that you rule at present that parties may be witnesses for themselves. The JUDGE.-I do not lay it down as a rule that a plaintiff is the best witness in his own case-by no means; but his being a witness saves expense, which is the great object of the Act; and if he cannot be examined, the benefit of the Act will be lost. A person standing in a shop and delivering goods, how could he get his debt but by being a witness himself? Little shopkeepers serve the things themselves, or their wives serve them, and if they are not allowed to be witnesses, it would be saying to them "you shall have no witnesses to prove your debt, if you do not choose to take ready money."

Durrant, as amicus curia, suggested that Mr. Koe might have been led into the view he took by the old Act for the Recovery of Small Debts, the first Act that authorised the examination of parties in the suit, and the phraseology of which was very different from this. He (Mr. D.) had come to the conclusion that Mr. Rawlings had arrived at, that the plaintiff could be examined for himself.

The JUDGE. I will make a note of it; but it never

which it was seen that parties would act as attorneys when they were not so. The JUDGE.-Then you have your remedy. I have no power to enforce a roll of this court; and I have no intention to enforce what the Act of Parliament does not provide. There is an Act that gives an attorney of one of the superior courts power to appear in any one of the courts if he pleases to assume that function. I shall be glad to protect the professional gentlemen so far; and if a person should appear, and it should escape me at the time, you have only to ask whether he is an attorney, and if he should appear, he will lay himself open for acting as an attorney when he is not so.

Rawlings. We know there are often frauds on the public by these means.

The JUDGE.-There is the law-list, and you have only to look into it.

Durrant.-You will allow a gentleman to appear robed or not. The JUDGE.-Certainly.

ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE.-The first court under the new Act was held in the Town-hall, Ashton, on the 15th instant, before Joseph St. John Yates, esq. the judge of the court. Sixty-six causes were set down for trial, which were all disposed of in the course of the day. The following was the only case of legal interest :

WOOD V. KERSHAW. New trial.

The defendant not being in court when the case was called, judgment went by default.

Brooks, in the course of the day, moved for a new trial, grounded on an affidavit of defendant, that he believed he had a good defence to the action, and that he had been informed by one of the plaintiff's witnesses that the Court would not open until half-past ten o'clock, before which time the cause had been called and disposed of.

The judge granted a new trial, on payment of costs.

HULL CIRCUITS.-Wm. Raines, esq. the judge of

struck me there would be this interpretation put on it. this circuit, has held Courts throughout his district for the appointment of high bailiffs. The following is a list of the clerks and high bailiffs appointed, and the days fixed for the next Courts for the dispatch of busi

Clerks of the Court practising.

ness:

Rawlings said, with respect to the clerk of the court, he wished to ask whether the Judge thought it would be consistent with his office to apply profes-Barton-on-Humber sionally for debts under this Act of Parliament. Beverley... The JUDGE.-Is there not a clause under the Act Bridlington that involves a penalty for it? Rawlings.-There is.

The JUDGE.-Would it not be unadvisable for me to give an extra-judicial opinion on a question that might be made the subject of an action under it? Rawlings. My object is to prevent its taking place by an officer of the court, and perhaps an expression of opinion from you would prevent it.

The JUDGE. I do not wish to enter into it. If you will point out to me any clause by which I am bound to take notice of any irregularity of officers of the court, I will pay attention to it; but the question whether an officer of this court has incurred a penalty of 501. I shall not inquire into.

Rawlings said a notice of the matter by the Judge might prevent it in this court.

The JUDGE. I should hope there is no chance of any gentleman selected by Mr. Almack placing himself in that way.

Rawlings said he believed it was considered that the application for a debt in this way was not a proceeding before the Court, and it was thought if the Judge placed a restriction on it, it would prevent it. The JUDGE. I cannot place an additional restriction on an officer of this court when a restriction is placed by the Act with a severe penalty. If it comes under the statute, the party has rendered himself liable to the penalty, and it would be wrong in me to give an opinion on it; if it does not, it does not come within my notice.

Rawlings.-Assuming for a moment that the clerk should write a letter for a debt under 201. and say, If you do not pay, a summons will issue; and then, if it is not paid, turns it over to another attorney, as he could not act himself.

Examination of the plaintiff. Rawlings said he wished to call the attention of the Court to a point of practice, because he found from the course taken to-day, that it somewhat differed from that of Mr. Koe, the judge at Hertford; and as it was necessary to the practitioner to know how to provide witnesses who would sustain his case, he thought it necessary to ask the judge what he would require. In a case at Hertford, the attorney for the plaintiff proposed to call the plaintiff to establish his own case, but Mr. Koe decided that the 83rd section did not give him power to do so, and that it only intended that the other party might call and examine him. In another case the attorney proposed to call the wife of his client, but that was overruled. In consequence of this, he (Mr. R.) had come prepared with other witnesses, considering that the plain-afterwards come before him on which he had advised. tiff would not be able to prove his own case. Perhaps the judge would excuse him if he asked for his decision on that point.

The JUDGE said he would take a note of the point, because the judges of the courts, he had no doubt, would have the means of meeting to consider amongst themselves these points of law, and collect the general opinion of the judges on them. As to himself, he entertained no doubt on the section-it meant that the plaintiff should be examined for himself, and he could not understand why Mr. Koe should take this view of the case, because it was a direct violation of the principle of law; for, according to this, he could not be a witness for himself, but he could be

The JUDGE. You do not mean to say that it would be an infringement of the Act for an attorney

who is a clerk to apply for payment of a debt. Rawlings argued that, as clerk, the case would

The JUDGE. I cannot express any opinion on it, because it is really travelling beyond the Act of Parliament. You would go not only to any matter in this court, but any matter that might hereafter be brought into this court-would it not amount to that?

Roll of the Court-Attorneys' gowns. Rawlings called the attention of the Court to the fact that the Judge in Berks had laid it down as a rule that all the attorneys practising in the court should appear robed, and sign the roll of the court. He was not asking that such should be the case here, but he thought it would be well if they made a distinction, especially after what had occurred here to-day, from

Great Driffield Hedon Helmsley Howden.

.....

Hull.............. New Malton Pocklington Scarborough

Treasurer

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

Wm.Barker Coulson Charles Caley
George Croft, esq. of Richmond.

The days for holding the next Courts are the follow

ing:

:

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

Act for the more easy recovery of debts under 201. was held at Rotherham on Friday, the 16th inst. before William Walker, esq. judge. Previous to the commencement of the business of the day, an appli cation was made by a person, representing himself to be an accountant and debt collector, to conduct cases in the court on the part of his employers, suing for debts in the court; but the judge distinctly laid down, as a rule of his Court, that in no case would he consent to hear any but barristers, attorneys, or plaintiffs in person. In a case which afterwards came before the Court, the same person attempted to address the Court on the plaintiff's behalf, when he was immediately stopped by the judge, and informed that he would not be heard unless he appeared as a witness, and not then to prove verbal admission of debts incurred. We presume that this decision, which is in accordance with the decisions of other judges, will prove "a heavy blow and great discouragement" to the class of individuals represented by the person in question. (From a Correspondent.)

ROTHERHAM.-The first Court under the recent

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, APRIL 19, 1847.Before G. H. Wilkinson, esq.-The learned Judge, in opening the court, stated that he should take the causes in numerical rotation, and that he should not allow parties to be represented by sham lawyers, or any other agents than barristers, or attorneys, who were not expected to address the Court, but to state points, and examine witnesses. On the first cause being called, the plaintiff appeared in person to give evidence on her own behalf, when the attention of the Court was directed to the decisions of Mr. Koe, at

Hertford, on the 13th instant, in Cheek v. Park, and Baines v. Taylor, reported in last week's LAW TIMES, p. 63; after consideration, the Judge decided that he should receive the evidence of parties and their wives on their own behalf, for what he might

deem it to be worth, as, with great respect for Mr. Koe's opinion, he considered the construction put on the 83rd section would deprive the Act of much of its usefulness; but he should require more strict proof of the facts from such interested witnesses. Several applications were made for leave to issue summonses into distant districts, and such applications were granted where the defendant had removed from the district of this court, or for any other like reason; and some were refused, when no other cause was shewn than that the cause of action had arisen in this district; but a good general rule of practice on the 60th section appeared so important, that the Judge declared his intention to give the matter further consideration, and the parties whose applications had not been granted should have the benefit, if he made any change.

SMALL DEBTS COURTS, DISTRICT 29.-E. L. Richards, , esq. the judge of this district, has opened all the preliminary courts. He has intimated that he will expect his clerks and the officers of the court to appear in proper costume, but that he will make no rule with reference to the costume of the practitioners. He has expressed an intention of hearing no agent on the behalf of any suitor, unless he is duly qualified as a barrister or certificated attorney; and with the view of preventing improper persons from practising under the pretence of being members of the Profession, he has directed that attorneys intending to act as advocates or agents in the courts, should enter their names in a book, to be kept for the purpose by the chief clerks.

SOUTHWARK COUNTY COURT.-This court was opened yesterday morning for public business. Mr. G. Clive, the judge, presided. There was a vast number of complaints to be heard, which are likely to Occupy the attention of the Court for some time. The judge has determined not to hear any attorney's clerk, or any agent on behalf of the parties, except a barrister or attorney.-Globe.

late of Mountjoy-square, in the city of Dublin, esq. de- give larger powers than are conjectured; but it apceased. Those marked thus (*) are Roman Catholics.

THE MAGISTRACY.

The Lord Chancellor has appointed John Eyre, esq. of Maydown, to the commission of the peace for the county lieutenant for the county. Armagh, on the recommendation of the Earl of Gosford,

James K. Aylward, esq. of Shankill Castle, has been appointed a deputy lieutenant of the county of Kilkenny, vice Wm. Morris Reade, esq. deceased.

His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has been pleased to appoint Charles O'Connell, esq. resident magistrate under Castlerea, in the county of Roscommon. the Act 6 Wm. 4, c. 13, and to take charge of the district of

LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

go.

EXTRAORDINARY TRIAL.-A case which excited considerable interest came on on Friday last before the Civil Tribunal of the Seine. The plaintiff was a M. Solon, an avocat, and the defendant no less a personage than Mehemet Ali, Viceroy of Egypt. It appeared from the pleadings that the Viceroy, being desirous of establishing a school at Cairo for the education of young Egyptians destined to become employés of the government in different branches of the administration, and M. Solon having been strongly recommended to him as a fit person to be placed at the head of this school, the Viceroy induced him to leave France for Egypt, on an agreement for six years, at a salary of 15,000f. a year, with a house free of rent, and other advantages. M. Solon opened his school, but differences arose between him and the Viceroy, which resulted in the abrupt termination of his relations with the government, and his departure for France in 1845. According to the statement of M. Solon, who pleaded his own cause, the dispute between him and the Pacha arose out of impediments placed in his way by the ministers of the Pacha, and the refusal to provide for the pupils whom he had instructed in the art of vernment, and at length he was ordered to quit his residence, and for not complying with this arbitrary other hand, M. Odillon Barrot, who appeared as mandate was ordered to quit the country. On the counsel for Mehemet Ali, declared that M. Solon had been himself the cause of his dismissal. The sheriff of Mecca being expected at Cairo, and the vast building occupied by M. Solon being wanted for the resi dence of this high personage, M. Solon was requested to give it up, and to remove to the palace partly occupied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. M. Solon having refused to comply with this request, the Viceroy insisted, and, on his still persisting in his refusal, informed him that unless he gave it up he would have to consider his relations with the government at an end. M. Solon chose the latter alternative, and therefore took his departure for France, having first made a claim upon the Viceroy of 100,000 f. for the salary for the whole period of his agreement, and the expense of his voyage home, &c. GRAY'S-INN, April 21.-Mr. Edward Crispe El- his arrival at Marseilles, laid an attachment upon This demand not being complied with, M. Solon, on lery was this day called to the degree of barrister-atlaw by the Hon. Society of Gray's-inn. some merchandise in that port belonging to the Viceroy, and obtained a legal sanction to this step by application to the Tribunal, there being at the time no defence. The Viceroy, however, now appeared by counsel to oppose the judgment, and pleaded the incompetency of the French tribunals to enforce payment against a foreign prince upon an agreement, which could only be entertained by the tribunals of the country in which it had its source. M. Solon, in reply to this defence, contended that the Viceroy of Egypt was not to be regarded as a sovereign and inonly the vassal of the Sultan, and cited several cases dependent prince, but as a private individual, being in support of this view of the case; but the Tribunal declared the opposition to be good on the ground of its incompetency to entertain the suit, and condemned M. Solon to pay the costs.-Galignani.

PRESTEIGN, RADNORSHIRE.-On Tuesday, the 20th instant, John Maurice Herbert, esq. the judge of the Circuit No. 24, held a court at the Shire-hall for this district. No cases were set down for trial; and after the judge's appointment, and the appointment by him of Thomas Watkin Maddy, as clerk of the Court, had been severally read, the only business transacted was the appointment, by the judge, of Robert Phillips, the younger, of Presteign, gent. to be high bailiff.

PROMOTIONS, APPOINTMENTS,

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.]

CALLS TO THE BAR, IRELAND.
EASTER TERM.

Thursday week being the first day of Term, the usual formalities were gone through, when the following gentlemen were called to the bar ;*Edward Osborne Hilliard, esq. fourth son of Michael Hil. liard, of Glentworth, in the county of Limerick, esq. deceased. George Ribton Crampton, esq. second son of the Rev. Cecil Crampton, of Killucan, in the county of Westmeath,

clerk.

clerk.

Wm. Henry Hartigan, esq. eldest son of the Rev. Edward Hartigan, of Castletown Rectory, in the county of Tipperary, Thomas Robert Deane, esq. second son of Patrick Deane, late of Rohan, in the county of Tipperary, esq.

Thomas Sadlier Stoney, esq. eldest son of the Rev. Ralph Stoney, of Terryglass, in the county of Tipperary, clerk. Alexander Stewart Mehan, esq. second son of James Mehan, of Waterside, in the county of Londonderry, esq. John Hickson, esq. second son of John James Hickson, of Tralee, in the county of Kerry, esq.

Alfred M'Farland, esq. fourth son of John M'Farland, late of Greenfield, in the county of Londonderry, esq. deceased. Martin Napoleon Wall, eldest son of Christopher Edward Wall, of Fortescue-terrace, in the county of Dublin, esq. Arthur Stanley Jackson, esq. second son of James Jackson, of Armagh, in the county of Armagh, esq. John Battier Carden, esq. eldest son of Richard Carden, of Fishmoyne, in the county of Tipperary, esq. John Hussey Walsh, jun. esq. eldest son of John Hussey Walsh, of Kilduff, in the King's County, esq.

David Daly, jun. esq. eldest son of David Daly, of Fitzwilliam-street, in the city of Dublin, esq. Samuel Richard Eitzgerald, esq. second son of Gerald Fitzgerald, of Ballinasloe, in the county of Galway, esq. Hon. John Prendergast Vereker, second son of the Right Hon. John Prendergast, Viscount Gort, of Lough Cooter, in the county of Galway.

William Westby Moore, esq. second son of the Right Hon. Richard Moore, of Upper Fitzwilliam-street, in the city of Dublin, her Majesty's attorney-general.

Henry Wm. Prendergast Garde, esq. third son of Henry Prendergast Garde, of Garryduff, in the county of Waterford, esq.

Richard Horner Mills, esq. eldest son of Francis Mills,

pears to me, that though the members of the first clause of the Act 6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 32, are somewhat involved and clumsily constructed, the Act, as expressed, does authorise the advance of money to a sharepossession at the time he became a member of the holder on the security of property which was in his society. I think that the passage "to erect or purchase one or more dwelling-house or dwelling-houses, or other real or leasehold estate," should be read parenthetically. The value of his shares is to be received by way of mortgage, but the Act does not specify the subject on which the security is to be made, and in that respect is quite general. If a share was wanted for the purpose of building, the mere site of an intended dwelling house would not afford an adequate security for the share; and if a security in such case could not be taken on other property, one of the purposes of the Act might be defeated. I am of opinion the society can safely advance money on the security in question. A first mortgage transferred, though not an original mortgage to the transferees, is a security by way of mortgage; and therefore the society is, in my opinion, authorised to take a transfer of it.

Any further comment would be superfluous from your obedient servant. E. J. S. Stepney.

MASTERSHIP IN CHANCERY.-The Mastership in Chancery, vacant by the retirement of Mr. Lynch, will, it is said, be conferred on Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.

amination of persons applying to be admitted attor EXAMINATION OF ARTICLED CLERKS.-The exneys is fixed for the 27th inst. at half-past 9 a.m. with answers to the questions as to due service ac and the articles of clerkship and assignment, if any, cording to the regulations approved by the judges, should be left at the usual place before the 23rd inst. The number of attorneys applying to be admitted in the present Term is 131.

CRIMINAL LAW REFORM.-A second edition of Lord Brougham's Letter to Lord Lyndhurst on the above important subject is about to be published. We extract the following postscript, which will be read with great interest by all classes :-" Since the first edition of this letter was published the Criminal Law Committee has been appointed by the House of Lords; and having had the honour of proposing it, I was chosen chairman by their lordships. We have been sitting daily ever since we were commissioned; and we have made very great progress in this impor tant inquiry. We have examined many witnesses, all of great experience either in the administration or in the execution of the criminal law. We have also received answers from many of the learned judges of the United Kingdom, to whom we directed our questions. The substance of this body of evidence I have no right to state; but it will soon be laid before Parliament. I may in the meantime say, that it confirms, in a very remarkable manner, by far the greater part of the opinions stated in my letter. Upon one point only have I seen reason to reconsider my former liance upon she efficacy of transportation as a penal statements. I think I had either placed too little reinfliction, or had too much regarded the difficulties of reforming the system established in our penal settlements. On the great subject of reformatory treat. ment and preventive measures, there is a singular uniformity in the evidence."-Globe.

The valuable law library of the late Mr. William Blackburn, of Lincoln's-Inn, has been presented to University College, London, by his sister, Miss Eleonora Blackburn, of Bloomsbury. square.

Bills in Progress.

A BILL TO ENCOURAGE PERSONS TO EFFECT INSURANCES ON LIVES.

Whereas insurances on lives have proved very advantageous as the means of providing for the families MORTGAGES TO BUILDING SOCIETIES.-Sir: of persons effecting the same, and for other purposes; Being the manager of several building societies, my and it is desirable to encourage persons to effect such attention has been particularly drawn to the report of insurances, and, with that object in view, to secure ciety, which appeared in the Daily News lately, at whose benefit such insurances have been effected a meeting of the St. Luke's Equitable Building So- as much as possible that the claims of the persons for which meeting the chairman read a case and also the shall not be defeated by objections on the part of opinion of Mr. J. T. Pratt, to the effect that "in the insurance companies, or other insurers, with strictness, under the provisions of the Benefit Build-whom such insurances have been or shall be ing Societies Act, the money borrowed from the effected: That by law at present in all cases where society should be to erect or purchase property; and, an insurance is so defeated, and the insurance comconsequently, that a member cannot assign as se- pany or other insurers refuse to pay the sum incurity property which he already possesses." The sured, they nevertheless retain and claim to retain the above subject is one of great importance to building several sums which have been paid to them from time societies generally, as cases are continually occurring to time as premiums on the policies by which such where property already in the possession of the share-insurances have been or shall be effected: And such holder, is mortgaged to secure his future payments to practice is a great discouragement to persons who the society. Without, however, for one moment would otherwise effect such insurances : wishing to detract from the importance of so high an Be it therefore enacted, authority as Mr. J. Tidd Pratt, still I have thought it advisable to lay before your readers the opinion of Messrs. Madox and Wyatt, in 1843. His opinion was Mr. Revell Phillips, taken on a similar point by

as follows:

Possibly the intention of the legislature was not to

after be brought upon any policy of insurance upon 1. That in every case where an action shall hereplaintiffs (whether he, she, or they be the party any life or lives, it shall be lawful for the plaintiff or effecting the insurance, or a person or persons to whom it has been assigned), besides a count on such

policy, to insert in his declaration a count for money had and received; and if the defendant or defendants shall succeed in shewing that the said policy was void or voidable, when the same was effected or afterwards, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the amount of all sums of money which have been paid as premiums on such policy from the time the same was or became void or voidable, and he shall be entitled to recover the same under the said count for money had and received, in the same manner to all intents and purposes as if the plaintiff in every such case had himself paid the same premiums out of his own moneys, and the defendant shall not plead any plea under the Statute of Limitations to any such count or counts: Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall render the defendants liable to refund the said premiums where the policy shall have ceased to be of effect by reason of the premium on the same not having been paid within the time limited for that purpose by such policy, unless such default shall have been waived by the receipt of some premium subsequently accruing or becoming due.

2. That it shall not be lawful for any insurance company or other insurers to object to the validity of any such policy on the ground of any defect, misrepresentation, or other objection, if it shall appear that they have received any more than one premium on such policy after they became acquainted with such defect, misrepresentation, or other objection, unless notice in writing has been given by or on behalf of the company or other insurers, of such defect or misrepresentation, and of the intention of the company or insurers to avail themselves of it.

3. That no such defect, misrepresentation, or other objection shall be any defence to such action, if the ground of such defect, misrepresentation, or other objection occurred more than six years before the commencement of such action.

4. That it shall be lawful for any person or persons effecting such insurance, or the person or persons for whom or for whose benefit the same shall be effected, to assign the said policy; and it shall be lawful for the person or persons to whom such policy shall be assigned, and every person or persons with whom any such policy has been deposited by way of security for any loan or advance of money made to him, her, or them, or to any other person or persons, at his, her, or their request, and who shall have given notice of such assignment to the company or insurers who have granted such policy, to sue upon the same in his own name, and to recover the sum thereby insured, in as full a manner to all intents and purposes as the per-. son or persons who assigned or deposited the same, or his, her, or their personal representative, might have done if the same had not been assigned or deposited as aforesaid.

sewers may be granted to town councils, or existing
commission forced to construct or enlarge sewers.
24. Town Improvement Act of 1847 is incorporated
with the present. 25. Orders appointment of health
officers. 26. Local surveyors. 36. Takes away power
of local Commissioner. 39. Transfers property in
such Commissioner. 44. Empowers the levying of
sewer rates and improvement rates. 45. Gives power
to light the town. 46. To supply water. 47. Pro-
vides for town Commissioners purchasing shares of
water companies at seven years' purchase of dividend.
Such are the principal provisions of the Act.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPER.

SOAP.-The usual annual soap returns have been laid before Parliament. It appears that the gross total quantity of all soap made in Great Britain during the year 1846 amounted to 1,831,955 lb. of silicated soap; 167,750,990 lb. of other hard soap; and 15,807,902 lb. of soft soap. The total quantity of soap exported during the same period amounted to 10,087,579 lb. of hard, and 8,448 lb. of soft soap; and the amount of drawback to 66,2341. The quantity of soap exported to Ireland, in 1846, was 11,451,780 lb. of licenses granted to soapmakers, in the same year, of hard, and 186,232 lb. of soft soap. The number amounted to 347; namely, 154 in England, 22 in Scotland, and 171 in Ireland.

Heirs-at-Law, Next of Kin, &c. Manted.

[This is part of a complete list now being extracted for the
LAW TIMES from the advertisements that have appeared
in the newspapers during the present century. The re-
ference, with the date and place of each advertisement,
cannot be stated here without subjecting the paragraph
to duty. But the figures refer to a corresponding entry
in a book kept at the LAW TIMES OFFICE, where these
particulars are preserved, and which will be communicated
to any applicant. To prevent impertinent curiosity, a
fee of half-a-crown for each inquiry must be paid to the
publisher, or if by letter, postage stamps to that amount
inclosed.]

767.

768.

769.

770.

771.

772.

773.

5. That if the party entitled to receive the sum insured by any such policy shall produce the same to the company of assurers mentioned therein, together with the assignment or assignments, or deposit paper or papers thereof, if any, and the probate of the will or letters of administration of the effects of the party whose life shall have been so insured, or of the party who shall have been the legal owner of such policy at the time the sum mentioned therein shall have become 774. payable, the said company shall be obliged to pay the sum thereby insured to the party so entitled as aforesaid, whether the said probate or letters of adminis-775. tration so produced as aforesaid shall have been granted by a metropolitan or prerogative Court, or by a diocesan or other Court having jurisdiction to grant probates and letters of administration.

LORD MORPETH'S BILL FOR IMPROVING THE

HEALTH OF TOWNS.

776.

777.

778.

779.

3 and 4. Ena-780.

This Bill has just been distributed. It consists of fiifty-two clauses. Clause 1 empowers her Majesty to appoint four Commissioners (the head of the Woods and Forests being the first Commissioner) of Health and Works. 2. Entitles two to act. bles them to have a seal, and to appoint inspectors and officers. The following clauses empower Commissioners to inquire into state of towns, inspectors to report, giving to towns fourteen days' notice of their intention to visit, previous to report. Inspectors to have power to summon witnesses, there being a penalty for their refusing. 11. Obliges inspectors' report to be published in the towns one month before it is presented to her Majesty. 12 and 13. Provide for order in council to be issued to enforce the Act. 15. Makes mayor and aldermen town Commissioners under the Act in corporate towns. 16. Provides for extension of boroughs. 17. Orders council to be enlarged, where a ward is added. 18. Regulates town Commissioners in non-corporate towns. They are to be not more than twenty-seven in number, each possessed of 1,000l., or rated to the poor on a property

of 301. annually, two-thirds of them to be elected by the ratepayers, one-third appointed by the Crown. 19. Relates to the metropolis (exclusive of the city of London), divides it into districts, and the same mode of forming the council observed, except that the elected must have 5,000l. property, or be rated upon an annual value of 501. 20. Commissioners' Clauses Act incorporated with the present. 21. Boundaries of towns may be extended. 22, 23. Commission of

RELATIONS OF NEXT OF KIN of ARTHUR FRANKLIN, of Paradise-street, Rotherhithe, Surrey, basket-maker, deceased. Something to their advantage. RELATIONS OF NEXT OF KIN of BRIDGET LAWLER, late of 27, Exmouth-street, Hampstead-road, Middlesex, widow, who died on the 5th of October, 1838.

Something to their advantage.

NEXT OF KIN of EDWARD GOODE, of Cambridge, gent. who died on the 5th of February, 1815, or their personal representatives. NEXT OF KIN and HEIR-AT-LAW of WILLIAM KENDALL, of Exeter, gentleman, who died on the 24th of March, 1832, or their personal representatives. NEXT OF KIN to WILLIAM HENRY GINGELL, of Hillstreet, Finsbury-square, St. Luke's, Old-street, MidNEXT OF KIN of FREDERICK SEWELL STEVENS, late of Greetham, Rutland, gentleman, whe died on the 13th of March, 1833, or their personal representaNEXT OF KIN of EDWARD REECE, formerly of Holy Acton-place, Kingsland-road, Middlesex, who died in NEXT OF KIN of THOMAS PETERS, late of Mortlake, Surrey, tailor, who died on the 1st of March, 1837, or

dlesex, who died on the 13th of December, 1837.

tives.

well-street, Shoreditch, baker, and afterwards of

July 1820, or their representatives.

their representatives. NEXT OF KIN of SAMUEL EVANS, late of 9, Little Portland-street, St. Marylebone, Middlesex, builder, who died in May, 1835, or their personal representatives. NEXT OF KIN of THOMAS FLUIN, late a seaman belonging to the East India merchant ship Clyde, deceased. Something to their advantage. HEIR-AT-LAW of WILLIAM TAYLOR, Esq. of Ealing, CHILDREN of the BROTHERS and SISTERS of WILLIAM TAYLOR, Esq of Ealing, Middlesex, who died on the 25th of January, 1837. MARY DAVIS, niece of -TINHAM, formerly of Bishop's Hatfield, Herts, deceased, entitled to a legacy under NEPHEWS OF NIECES of SARAH ARMAN, late of Hod. son Chiseldon, Wilts. widow, deceased, formerly Sarah

Middlesex, who died on the 25th of January, 1837.

his will.

Collier.

(To be continued weeky.)

To Readers and Correspondents.

We cannot insert, or notice in any way, any communication
that is sent to us anonymously; but those who choose to
spected. NEITHER CAN WE UNDERTAKE TO

address us in confidence will find their confidence re

RETURN ANY MANUSCRIPTS WHATEVER.

Thanks for the reports from the County Courts. Many are

not used only because our friends have reported general
legal questions, and not merely points of County Court

Practice, which alone can be reported here.

Many communications have been postponed to give place to
the proceedings at Westminster.
"Civis" will find an answer in the reports.

"W. T. T." (Chipping Camden).-The subject is not within
the province of a public journal. It is purely a private
difference, with which we have no right to meddle.
"AN OLD CLERK," and "T. H. F." will see that their
arguments have been anticipated.
"R. E." (Manchester) also is excluded by the rule that
forbids a public journalist to notice any but the public
misdeeds of persons. Of private quarrels we can take no
note, and therefore must decline to insert the complaint
of our correspondent.

[blocks in formation]

ARREST ON MESNE PROCESS. FROM many and from influential quarters have come to us the most urgent remonstrances against the views we have expressed on this subject. As we have no interest to serve save that of truth, and above all things desire full and fair discussion on every topic, we readily accede to their requests, and repeat for our correspondents their arguments, accompanied with such comments as they may suggest.

Two things, say the advocates of the restoration of Arrest on Mesne Process, are essential to any improvement of the Law of Debtor and Creditor.

First-A better provision for honest debtors. Second-Arrest, to control dishonest ones. The first proposition has our hearty assent. The law has been very insufficient in this particular. At present the law deals too harshly with the honest man,-too leniently with the rogue. No distinction is recognized between insolvency by misfortune and insolvency of malice prepense. All the care of the Legislature appears to have been bestowed upon keeping up, by the most fanciful devices, the absurd distinction it had established between trader debtors and other debtors. The origin of the distinction was explained in a previous article, and we need not repeat it. But the reasons having ceased, the law should cease also. So long as it is preserved, any effectual reform is hopeless. It is manifest that more facilities should be given to honest men, when they find themselves in difficulties, to take the course that justice prescribes, and come to a settlement with their creditors while yet there is something to divide. But it is not in human nature that a man should do this when the consequence of a declaration of insolvency is irretrievable ruin, the stoppage of his trade or profession, the breaking up of his household, the publication of his name to the whole world as a bankrupt. Moralists may preach for ever of the duty in a man, when he knows himself insolvent, at once to declare it; but when such are its consequences, while men are men, the terrible moment will be postponed as long as possible, in desperate hope of some turn of fortune or the chances of death to avert the terrors awaiting that act of duty. A wise law, instead of deterring men from their duties, should encourage the ready performance of them by removing obstacles. Inducements should be offered to the honest debtor to make the earliest avowal of insolvency, by permitting him to reap advantages from it in protection against the vindictiveness of some creditors, and the contention for the first spoil among others. He should neither be arrested nor be removed from his trade, nor should his property be seized, nor should he be gazetted. He should be taken under the protection of the Court, whose business it should be to settle his affairs for him, by equal division among all creditors alike, securing payment in such manner as, under the circumstances, may appear desirable. And after the process of Insolvency, the Court should be empowered to give a release from all past debts, if satisfied that in every respect the insolvent has acted with honour and honesty.

« PreviousContinue »