could be desired, and there are few more puzzling questions awaiting solution than that involved in the proper ventilation of a building of limited dimensions, which is open to all comers, and is generally crowded by that class of humanity least remarkable for cleanliness. It is a well-known fact that the dirtier a man is the greater the interest he appears to take in watching the administration of justice, which, if tempered with mercy, would certainly accommodate him with a shower bath before he left its hall. Perhaps of all dirty audiences the dirtiest may be found in the police courts of London, standing packed together, a steaming mass in a small compass, listening with delighted attention to the dreary details of the drunken quarrels of their friends, which form the subject of investigation by the worthy magistrate. Yet in many of the police courts the difficulties of ventilation have, we believe, been successfully contended with. It is almost time that steps should be taken to purify the atmosphere of the law courts, which is at times pestilential enough to satisfy even the miasmatic cravings of St. Pancras guardians.-Pall-Mall Gazette. THE BENCH AND THE BAR. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. WESTERN CIRCUIT. Salisbury, Dec. 11.-Mr. Baron Pigott opened the commission for holding the winter assizes for the county of Wilts in this city yesterday afternoon. There are only 15 prisoners, but no fewer than 6 are charged with the offence of arson. Exeter, Dec. 15.-The commission for holding a winter assize for the county of Devon and the city of Exeter was opened here yesterday afternoon by Mr. Baron Pigott. At 10 o'clock this morning the learned judge went to the Guildhall, but there not being a single prisoner for trial in the city of Exeter, his Lordship was presented with a pair of white gloves. At half-past 10 the Court at the Castle was opened for the county business. There are the names of 22 prisoners in the calendar, but, with few exceptions, the offences with which they are charged are not of a serious character. NORFOLK CIRCUIT. Cambridge, Dec. 14.-The commission for this county was opened yesterday afternoon by Mr. Justice Blackburn. The business co.nmenced this morning at 10. There are 14 prisoners for trial, and the offences charged against them are in number as follows:-Arson, 4; assault and robbery, 2; highway robbery, 1; murder, 1; shooting with intent to murder, 1; larceny, 3. MR. MAINE. Mr. Maine is returning to England from India, and is to be the new Professor of Jurisprudence in the University of Oxford. So far as legal education was concerned it was a mistake to lose Mr. Maine, which the Benchers probably have never ceased to regret. His own career, however, has presumably been more brilliant than it would have been if he had remained at home. The Legislative Council met specially to record their cordial thanks to him for his long, faithful, and valuable services, its deep regret at his departure, and its hearty wishes for his future welfare and happiness. In moving the resolution Lord Mayo reviewed Mr. Maine's career, and dwelt on his eminence as a jurist and statesman. He deplored his departure at the present time, when the country is emerging from the system of discretionary government, and when, under the rapidly altering conditions of society throughout India, written law must take the place of the earlier and patriarchal system of personal law a time when the old order is changing and giving place to new. Mr. Strachey, in supporting the motion, drew attention to one feature of Mr. Maine's services, the usefulness of which has hardly been suffi. ciently appreciated-namely, the lucidity and intelligibility of his enactments. He said, and very truly, that recent Indian legislation has been the expression of common sense, divested to the utmost possible extent of those worthless technicalities which for so long usurped the place of rational law. It would be hard to exaggerate the benefit which Mr. Maine conferred on India by these acts which those who run can read. Since their introduction, although litigation may not have decreased, its character has been simplified. There are fewer disputes regarding the interpretation to be put upon the law, fewer costly references to counsel and attorneys, fewer lawsuits wasting the time and labour of the judges, the money and the patience of the litigants. No one who ever heard Mr. Maine's able and brilliant addresses as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta could dissent from Mr. Strachey's estimate of his late colleague's services in that capacity, or fail to share in the conviction that his scholastic experience, his learning, and his broad The new Professorship of Jurisprudence a t Oxford, in connection with Corpus Christi College, has been conferred on Mr. H. J. Sumner Maine, late member of the Legislati ve Council of India. In the late poor-law inquiry held by Mr. Bere, Q.C., respecting the sick poor in St. Pancras workhouse, the guardians had the assistance of for their defence, and that of Mr. Hurley, the Mr. Nasmith, barrister, and Mr. Newton, solicitor, temporary medical officer of the infirmary. They afterwards received a bill of costs, amounting to 2051, which on taxation was reduced to 1341. This bill the board resolved to pay, but the chairman, Mr. Ross, declined to sign the cheque, on the ground that not being one of the party forming the majority of the board, he would in case of a surcharge, probably "be left in the lurch," and have to pay the amount out of his own pocket. At the next meeting of the board, Mr. Ross did not attend, and the chair was taken by Mr. Watkins, who was placed in it in order that he and his friends might have an opportunity of signing the cheque, but not one of the guardians had the courage to sign it. A writ has since been served upon the board, and they have resolved to gentlemen to obtain the amount of their claim in let judgment go by default, and allow the legal the best manner they can. MAGISTRATE AND PARISH NOTES ON NEW DECISIONS. NUISANCES REMOVAL-PRACTICE.-An inhabitant taking proceedings under sect. 13 of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 77, s. 19, for abatement of a nuisance, is not required by sect. 21 of the Sanitary. Act 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 20), before taking such proceedings, to serve a notice on the person by whose act the nuisance arises, requiring them to abate it: (Cocker v. Cardwell, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 457. Q.B.) WAY-LIMITED DEDICATION-PLOUGHING up FOOTPATH.-The public had, as far back as THE NEW SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.-living memory went, used a footpath across a Mr. Ralph Robert Wheeler Lingen, who has just field. During the same period the owner or been appointed as the successor to the Right Hon. occupier of the field had, at the proper season of the only son of the late Mr. Thomas Lingen, of the footpath. Upon this evidence the occupier G. A. Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, is the year, ploughed up the field and the soil of Birmingham, in which town he was born in 1819. had been convicted before the justices of unlawHe received his early education at Bridgnorth fully destroying the highway. On a case stated, Grammar School, from which he was elected in the court quashed the conviction, holding, first, 1837 to an open scholarship at Trinity College, that the proper inference from these facts was Oxford. In the following year he gained the "Ire- that the occupier had dedicated the path to the land," and in 1839 the "Hertford" University Scholarships, and in 1840 obtained a first class in public, subject to his right of ploughing up the Literis Humanoribus. In the following year he same at the proper seasons of the year; secondly, was elected, together with Mr. Edward K. Kars- that such a limited dedication by the owner of lake, Q.C., to a fellowship at Balliol College, and the soil of a way to the public was good: in 1843 obtained the Chancellor's Prize for a Latin (Mercer v. Woodgate, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 449. essay on the subject of The Effect and Influence Q. B.) of the Public Games on the Grecian and Roman Character. In 1846 he was elected to the Eldon Law Scholarship, and was shortly afterwards called to the bar, having studied in the chambers of Mr. Peter Brodie and Mr. Heathfield. Between taking his degree and proceeding to London to read for the Bar, he acted for a year as "composition master at Rugby under Dr. Tait. He was first employed by the Education Department in 1846 to conduct an inquiry in South Wales; after which he was appointed to the office of examiner in the same department, and in 1849 succeeded Sir J. P. Kay-Shuttleworth as secretary. INNS OF COURT VOLUNTERRS.-On Monday afternoon the Inns of Court Volunteers were paraded in Lincoln's-inn Gardens, in order to receive the prizes won during the past year. Lieut. Colonel Cunningham was in command and the corps mustered strong. They were then marched to the banqueting hall, where a platform had been erected, and a great number of ladies and several judges and leading members of the Bar were present. The Lord Chancellor, who presided, said that before proceeding to the business of the day, he wished to pay a tribute to the late Lord Justice Selwyn, who had always been such a staunch friend of the corps, and oae of the principal pro. moters of the movement amongst the members of the Inns of Court. His lordship believed that it was the late Lord Justice who suggested the motto "Defence, not defiance," for the volunteers. Referring to the special objects of the meeting, he said he was proud to hear the Inns of Court corps was still flourishing. As to the movement generally, he had recently had the opportunity of seeing the King of the Belgians, and was delighted to hear his majesty speak in such high terms of the volunteers. The Lord Chancellor then presented, in the name of the corps, a timepiece to Captain Roupell on his retirement, and the prizes to the following winners :-Benchers' Challenge Cup, Acting Corporal Horne; Battalion Challenge Cup, Serjeant Norsworthy; Brewster Challenge Cup (won by D Company), best score, Private Bidder; the Efficiency Prize Challenge Cup, Private Wilkie; the "Wimbledon Cup" (challenge), Private Cope. Company Prizes:-A company, Acting Corporal Horne; B company, Serjeant Tomlinson; C company, Serjeant-Major Ewen; D company, Private Bidder; E company, Serjeant Smart; F company Serjeant Norsworthy; Company Challenge Cup for D company, Private Wilkin. Chief Justice Bovill's prize for the best shot amongst the recruits was awarded to Serjeant Tomlinson. Lord Justice Giffard proposed a vote of thanks to the Lord Chancellor, which was carried by acclamation, and the proceedings terminated. COINING-POSSESSION OF COUNTERFEIT COIN dicted for having in his possession counterfeit coin AFTER FORMER CONVICTION.-Prisoner was inafter a previous conviction. The proper course of proceeding is first to try that part of the offence which related to the possession, and then, if the prisoner is found guilty of that, to try the previous conviction: (Reg. v. Martin, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 169. Cr. Cas. Res.) Answer. offence THE BEERHOUSE ACT 1869.-My inattention in answering the query of " A Clerk to Justices," in your publication of Nov. 27, has been caused by confinement to bed. I see, on referring to the rough copy of my letter to you, printed Nov. 20, that I have not there written as the printed letter has it; but these are the words, "Where a person licensed is convicted after the passing of this Act of more than one offence against the tenor of his licence, or of more than one for which any penalty is imposed by previous statutes (selling beer within prohibited hours being one), the justices so convicting, &c." So either in my fair copy I have carelessly transposed the parenthetical sentence, or it has been transposed by the type setters. But either would have been right. The Act 11 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 13, states one condition of a licence to be that beer shall not be sold within certain hours. By the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61, s. 15, certain provisions are made for closing houses during certain hours. Nothing in this latter Act, or in any since passed, has absolved licensed persons from that condition of the licence, though penalties have been imposed for breach of it. The "Clerk to Justices" quotes Oke's Synopsis as to keeping open at unathorised hours being an offence against the licence. Now, though a landlord may not be selling beer in contravention of the Act 11 Geo. 4, yet if he kept open his house during prohibited hours, the only object would be for his customers to consume the drink which had been drawn up to the last minute, in other words, a stock would have been drawn, for consumption after the time for drawing had passed. Surely it cannot fairly be argued that Mr. Oke, by his wording, intended it to be inferred that the keeping open a house during unauthorised hours was, and that selling beer during such hours was not, an offence against the licence. Your other correspondent in the same paper, "A Magistrate and a Barrister," seems argue from the wrong end, by trying to prove that because the executive is bad, therefore the Act of the Legislature is equally bad. It would have been more honest on his part to have finished to the quotation from my previous letter, but it would have spoilt his argument. I will repeat it "The effect" of the Act, "has been to give local magistrates a considerable increase of power' (and there he stops his quotation, but I went on to say) to prevent disorderly and ill-regulated houses from being continued as houses for the sale of strong drink;" and I afterwards say, "that though their jurisdiction is considerably extended it is at the same time under proper curbs and restrictions." Anyone carefully reading the Act will see that this power extends in the direction of repressing vice and drunkenness, and that justices cannot arbitrarily and whimsically refuse certificates for licences. No one can regret more than I do that what your correspondent says about the incompetence and waywardness of local benches of magistrates is true; but surely his mode of escaping the difficulty of allowing the justices to grant licences, or rather certificates, is as bad as the cause of his complaint, and the benefit (?) to be derived would be nil; as the justices, or worse still, overseers or guardians (who would be swayed by local influence, perhaps, more than justices), would have the power of representing (?) the wants of a neighbourhood to the Board of Excise. Yet his idea, that the power of licensing ought to be removed from justices, deserves great attention. Without having weighed it deeply, I should offer a crude suggestion, that a paid chairman of quarter sessions, whose life had been passed in the study and practice of law, a part of whose duty it should be to act the part of licensing committee, would remove the difficulty, as, not being likely to be biassed by the feeling and prejudices of locality, he would more nearly duly administer justice. A BARRISTER. The punishment of the lash was on Saturday carried out upon eight garotters, who had been sentenced by Mr. Justice Lush at the Leeds Assizes. From a description of the scene it is obvious that the convicts dread the lash to a degree which illustrates the wisdom of the Legislature in giving judges the power of ordering its infliction. 66 A point in etymology was raised at the South Lancashire Assizes yesterday. A policeman, who was examined as a witness, said that one term by which members of the force were known was that of copper." Sometimes (he said) we hear a person at the street corner use the expression," the copper is coming." Mr. Justice Willes asked what the word meant, and, after sundry attempts to settle its derivation, his lordship decided that it came from capio, I take. A novel point was raised before the Recorder at the Liverpool Sessions last week. A publican appealed against a conviction for selling liquor after twelve o'clock on Saturday night. The police, it appeared, found persons drinking in the house at ten minutes after twelve o'clock, according to Greenwich time, but it was pointed out that the natural time at Liverpool was twelve minutes later than Greenwich time. The Recorder was of opinion that the natural time of a place should be taken, and quashed the conviction. A MAGISTRATE ON EDUCATION.-Mr. Kynnersley, the Birmingham stipendiary magistrate, was one of the principal speakers at a great meeting held in Birmingham yesterday to oppose the Education League in particlar, and compulsory education as a principle. "You will tell me,' " said Mr. Kynnersley," that ignorance is a moral evil-that it leads to vicious habits, and vicious habits to robbery and murder, to insecurity of life and property. But I answer that ignorance is not necessarily an evil to any one but the person himself. Ignorance is not by any means incompatible with honesty and truthfulness and industry, the kindest nature and the warmest affections, nor is learning incompatible with idleness and profligacy and brutality and habitual fraud and dishonesty. Look at the revelations of our bankruptcy courts, where every one is more or less educated. Look at the men who are at every assizes and sessions convicted of forgery and embezzlement-fraudulent bankers, fraudulent trustees. Nineteen out of twenty of these men had received a superior education." In another portion of his address Mr. Kynnersley said "I do not deny the moral obligation on every parent to do the best he can for the education of his child, and I have not a word to say against any sort of pressure being put on the drunken, idle, profligate brute, who not only systematically neglects all the duties of a parent to his children, but who, by his example, does everything he can to make them as bad as himself-pests and nuisances to the whole community, leaving them to go where they please and do what they please, lodge where they can and live how they can, utterly indifferent whether they work, or beg, or steal. For the education of children of this description, however, we want no fresh legislation. It is already provided for by the Industrial Schools Act, of which we have already so largely, but so ostentatiously, availed ourselves in Birmingham." NEW MAGISTRATES FOR WINDSOR.-Three new magistrates have just been appointed for the borough of New Windsor,-namely, Mr. G. Pooley, Mr. G. Weller, and Mr. F. K. Copeland. Additional magistrates have been rendered necessary in consequence of two of the present magistrates being unable to act from age and infirmity. Mr. Pooley and Mr. Copeland are members of the corporation, and Mr. Weller is an old and much respected inhabitant. A judgment of importance relative to Excise licenses was given on Wednesday by Mr. Bruce, the stipendiary magistrate for Leeds. The chief constable preferred a charge against a person of selling beer without a licence, and, on the case coming on for hearing before Mr. Bruce, it was Excise. Mr. Bruce decided that the Excise had shown that the defendant had a licence from the brewed by himself, to be consumed off the prepower to grant to a brewer a licence to sell ale mises, without the certificate required in other cases, and the summons was therefore dismissed. The learned stipendiary, however, added that the defendant would not be protected by the licence from the Excise in retailing elsewhere than on the premises specially named, or in selling beer not brewed by himself. THE NEW CAB REGULATIONS.-A meeting of hackney-carriage proprietors was held on Tuesday in Cambridge Hall, Newman-street, Oxford-street, to consider the new rules and regulations as submitted by Colonel Henderson, the Chief Commissioner of Police. The meeting was called by the Amalgamated Association of Cab Proprietors, and was requested to express an opinion upon a number of points. It was unanimously agreed that a metal flag be displayed from the top of the cab as an indication that it was for hire, and the meeting should be adopted, with the following modificaagreed that for the present cabs the present fares 2s. 6d. an hour when engaged by time; children tions-No fare under 1s.; Hansoms to charge to be paid for as adults; and luggage outside always to be paid for. The four-mile radius to be reckoned along the roads, and 1s. a mile to be charged under all circumstances beyond it. The lamp not to be insisted on. inspection of the cabs to be in September, and the MONEY-LENDING FRAUDS. The public are likely to be entertained with more money-lending exposures. At Marlborough-street Police Court, on Saturday, Mr. Cooper applied to Mr. Knox for two summonses, one against a money-lender in Craig's-court, the other against a money-lender's agent in Piccadilly, for fraud. Mr. Cooper said he applied on behalf of a young gentleman entitled to a reversionary property, in Hants, of 14,000l., who had borrowed money before he became of age, for which he had given a deed covering the amount borrowed and the large interest. After coming of age, in 1866, more money was borrowed, and a deed was put before his client purporting to include all the amounts for which he was liable, and, as supposed, rendering all other previous deeds void. His client signed this last deed without hearing it read over, and it was only in consequence of proceedings in equity that he became aware that both deeds were in existence and in force. The summonses were granted. PAYMENT OF THE ASSESSED TAXES IN ADVANCE--On Monday a well-attended meeting of tradesmen and working-men electors of Southwark was held at the Dover Castle, Little Surrey-street, Blackfriars-road, in reference to the forthcoming collection of the assessed taxes twelve months in advance. Mr. G. M. Shee, who occupied the chair, said the meeting had been convened for the purpose of protesting against the scheme of the Chan E. Nicholson. S. G. Johnson. F. W. Jones. G. Meadows. W.W.M. Hayward. F. Hodding. W. Winterbotham. G. Potts. cellor of the Exchequer, for collecting the assessed taxes in advance for twelve months on the 1st Jan. He denounced the scheme as unjust and oppressive in the present depressed state of trade. He had been an elector of Southwark for fourteen years, and had always voted on the Liberal side, but he felt so disgusted with the conduct of the Government in reference to the proposed collection of the assessed taxes, and to their treatment of dockyard workmen, that he should vote for the Conservative candidate at the present election. Mr. Myers moved the following resolution: Chancellor of the Exchequer for collecting the That this meeting considers the scheme of the assessed taxes twelve months in advance in Jan. next arbitrary and unjust in the present state of hereby enters its strong protest against such trade, and oppressive to the working classes, and scheme." At Westminster, Mr. Selfe heard a statement from the widow of the deceased policeman Techan, of the B division, whom he had sent for, having previously had an interview with Col. Pearson, the district superintendent. It will be recollected that at the February Sessions 1865, of the county of Middlesex, Frederick Cox was indicted for indecent assault. The witnesses for the prosecution were the constable Teehan, a man named Connor, and Andrews, 48 B. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, in consequence of which Teehan, who had been fifteen years in the army, was dismissed the police, and Connor, on his trial for perjury, was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. Teehan at the time protested his innocence, but allowed the thing to prey on his mind, and died in last September. Cox was charged on a similar offence at this court a fortnight ago and committed for trial, and on Thursday he was tried Saturday last Mr. Draper, a solicitor, applied for and sentenced to a year's imprisonment. On a summons against the Echo for libel with reference to a paragraph which appeared in that paper commenting on the facts, and Mr. Selfe requested him to renew his application when the trial of Cox was over. In answer to Mr. Selfe, Mrs. Teehan said her husband had been in the 11th and 18th Hussars, and had served fifteen years altogether. The 18th was about being formed, and he was then sergeant; Col. Douglas, of the 11th, recommended him for the 18th on account of his good character, and both colonels gave him excellent testimonials, which she now produced. He had served in the Crimea, had an English medal with four bars, the Turkish medal, and the French medal. Mr. Selfe said he was heartily sorry that her late husband had not lived long enough to have his character vindicated, as it had been most completely, in the public estimation. Mrs. Teehan said he felt his dismissal very much, and it preyed on his mind. Mr. Selfe said that those who were his superiors in the police, and the magistrates at this court, who had opportunities of noticing his conduct, had as high an opinion of him as his commanding officers in the 11th and 18th Hussars. The magistrate continued; I do not want to say much about the past, except that I would wish you to understand what I am sure your own senses must have told you, that, though he was the victim of an unfortunate mistake-in fact, of the falsehood and villainy of some persons his retirement from the police was a step forced on his superior officers; they could not retain him any longer after the verdict. I have no hesitation in saying in the strongest terms that the verdict must have been obtained by perjury and want of discrimination on the part of those who had the conduct of the trial. You have, at least, the satisfaction of knowing that, though he is not here to be assured of it, you, at all events, remain to be told that I am glad to have an opportunity and release of a man who had been actually a REAL PROPERTY LAWYER AND carriage is limited to a certain sum per mile: CONVEYANCER NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. MARRIAGE Settlement-VOLUNTARY TRUSTS -POWER OF REVOCATION.- By a marriage settlement made in 1858, certain property belonging to the lady was invested in trustees upon certain trusts for the benefit of the wife and husband during their respective lives, and the children of the wife by the then intended or any future marriage, and in default of such WINDING-UP-The strong observations which children upon trust for the wife's nephews and Vice-Chancellor Stuart has just made in his court nieces absolutely. The settlement contained no upon the unnecessary and vexatious delays attendpower of revocation, and gave the wife no powering the winding-up of companies in liquidation of appointment amongst her nephews and nieces, represent a feeling which is very prevalent, and and no power to lease, to appoint new trustees, which, unless we are mistaken, is destined to find or to change investments. The husband died in still stronger expression both in court and out of 1865, leaving no issue. On a bill by the wife to doors. Liquidators appear greatly to need the set aside the settlement: Held (on the ground Vice-Chancellor's reminder, that their duty under that the plaintiff had executed the deed in igno- the law is "to settle the affairs entrusted to them rance of its effect, which had not been sufficiently as speedily and with as little expense to all parties as possible." Instead of this, we too often see explained to her, and that the nephews and nieces every conceivable excuse, together with some were mere volunteers, and not within the con- almost inconceivable, made for keeping the affairs sideration of the marriage), that the trusts of of unfortunate companies in hand. At one time the deed must be declared void, and the trustees legal difficulties, at another time somebody's conbe ordered to retransfer to the plaintiff the pro- venience, are pleaded; but most frequently property comprised in the settlement: (Wollaston v. ceedings are lengthened out by sheer dilatoriness, Tribe, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 449. M. R) to the annoyance of the parties who ought to be first considered, and the impoverishment of the estate. The evil has now reached such a pitch that protests are heard on all sides, and the inconever, will prove of no avail where personal interests are bound up with the injurious practice complained of. The Vice-Chancellors must use their powers, and come to the rescue of a public which is otherwise helpless.-Daily News. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW venience is declared intolerable. Protests, how JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WINDING-UP-CONTRIBUTORY APPLICATION FOR SHARES.-WITHDRAWAL.-B. applied for twenty shares, subscribed the memorandum of association, paid the deposit money, and agreed to act as a director. Changing his intention, before allotment, he wrote to withdraw his application, and requested the return of his deposit. The directors did so, and his name was not entered in the register of shareholders. He was held not to be a contributory: (Snell's cuse, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 445. Giffard, L. J.) MARITIME LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. the usual mode and appliances of lighterage at the place, and to have had in contemplation such an accident as happened, when taking the risk: (Antony v. The Etna Insurance Company, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 173. U. S. Ct.) MERCANTILE LAW. LIABILITIES OF BANKERS.-What damage is done to a business man by the accidental dishonour of his cheque at a bank, though the mistake is at once remedied, and the particular creditor who had the cheque is satisfied that the affair was accidental? An occurence of this sort is likely to be most annoying, but the damage is one which those who suffer by it are very likely to over-estimate. The National Bank were therefore clearly in the right in resisting such a claim as that put forward by the plaintiff in Wright v. Parker, tried at the Guildhall this week. The facts were that when the plaintiff drew the dishonoured cheque for 4161. 18s. 8d. he had a balance at his credit of 5301. 12s. 4d., part of this sum being a cheque for 420l. which he had just paid in; but the bank on the following day took up the cheque and expressed regret for the occurrence, which had arisen through the error of a clerk; and plaintiff exhibited the letter to the receiver of his cheque wards continuing to deal with the bank. The plaintiff alleged that the effect on his credit had been such that his business fell off, and he was subsequently obliged to make an arrangement with his creditors. The bank were surely right in not at once accepting this story. They did all in their power to repair the mistake, asserted that the plaintiff had not satisfied them of the damage which they were willing to compensate reasonably, The jury returned a and paid 101. into court. verdict for the plaintiff for 40s. over the amount paid into court.-Economist. COUNTY COURTS. after NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. COUNTY COURT EQUITABLE JURISDICTON— REDEMPTION.-The County Courts have jurisdiction, under 28 & 29 Vict. c. 99, in suits for redemption, notwithstanding the right to redeem is resisted. Where, therefore, the defendant, a first mortgagee, with a power of sale, upon giving six months' notice, sold the property before the six months had expired, and the plaintiff, a second mortgagee of the same property, objecting to the sale, filed a plaint in the County Court to redeem. Held, on appeal (affirming the decision of the court below), that the County Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a redemption decree (Powell v. Roberts, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 481. V.C. S.) : GUILDFORD COUNTY COURT. Judgment-sum mon for obtaining Geach applied in this case for commitment obtained the goods under false pretences. under a judgment-summons, the plaintiff having CONTRIBUTORY-BONA FIDE DISPUTE-COMPROMISE-CANCELLATION OF SHARES.--In 1846, W., an officer of the Agriculturist Cattle Insurance Company, took ten shares in the company in the name of D., in order to qualify him to become a director, D. having given his consent plaintiff insured with the defendants a shiponly on an oral undertaking by W. that until load of cattle, the adventure to begin from an Act of Parliament limiting the liability of the loading and continue until the cattle His HONOUR said that the Act of Parliament the shareholders should have been obtained, he should arrive and be safely landed at the should not be asked to sign any contract, or be port of destination. The risks covered by the which would come into operation on the 1st Jan. considered as an ordinary shareholder. The policy were "perils of the lakes, seas, rivers, 1870 would take away the power to take out a shares were allotted to D., and registered in his canals, railroads, fires, jettisons, and all other judgment-summons or to commit under similar name, but the deposit money was paid by W. perils and misfortunes that have or shall come circumstances to the present; and he was inclined D., however, acted so far as a shareholder, and to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the said to think that any order he might make would only so far only, that he appointed a proxy to vote property or any part thereof;" and also "the be available until the 1st Jan.; and that, if not The executed before, it could never be executed; and for him at a meeting of the company, and re-usual risk of lighterage at Ontonagon.' that, if executed before, the defendant would be ceived, and gave a receipt for, a dividend on the ten shares. The company failed to obtain the Act referred to, and D. soon after, on receiving a circular containing an application for a call, wrote to W., reminding him of the terms on which the shares were allotted, and representing that he was not fairly a shareholder; and in consequence of this, upon an explanation by W. of the circumstances, the directors agreed upon payment of the calls made to allow the shares to be cancelled, and a resolution to that effect was passed, and D.'s name was removed from the list. This was never confirmed by the company; the calls were paid by W., not by D., who was unaware of the arrangement, but from 1849 to the winding-up order in 1861, D. was never treated as a share holder: Held, under these circumstances (reversing the decision of the Master of the Rolls), that the case was one of cancellation of shares propeller on which the cattle were shipped 6. entitled to be discharged, under the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, ss. 4, 5, and 7. Mr. Baker, the plaintiff, who is a farmer at Tyting, near Guildford, stated that the defendant called on him at Tyting, and purchased some sheep for 271. 10s. He (plaintiff) expected that Cousins was going to pay for the sheep before he took He, however, said that his grandthem away. father had lately died, and left him 3001., which he had in the bank, but he had left his cheque book at home. He then made an appointment to meet the defendant next day at Jesse Boxall's, Cousins had called half an hour before, and left at Guildford (the Star Inn), and found that word that he would pay him the following week. He had heard that Cousins had sold the sheep at a profit. He had also heard that he was made a bankrupt a fortnight before he made the purchase from him. By His HONOUR.-I believed he had 3001. at his banker's, or I should never have let him have the sheep. His HONOUR.-In this case the plaintiff has clearly proved that the defendant contracted the debt under false pretences. Under the present Act, which continues in force until the 1st Jan. 1870, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to an order for committal. It is one of those cases in which I think the present Act has acted most beneficially, but the Legislature has thought it right, considering all the questions involved, to repeal the provision now in question, and no further order can be made under it after the 1st Jan, ; and I am inclined to think that the defendant will be entitled to be released on that day. I will, however, in the mean time make the order to which the plaintiff is entitled, and commit for forty days. Geach asked for attorney's fee, which was allowed. Re JOHN WATERMAN. Bankruptcy Repeal Acts (32 & 33 Vict. c. 83). Waterman was adjudged bankrupt in Horsemonger-lane gaol in formâ pauperis, and came up for discharge. Geach supported, and Wilkinson opposed, asking the case to be adjournel until an assignee was appointed. His HONOUR granted the bankrupt his dis. charge as from the 18th inst. conditionally, namely, after he had come up before the registrar on the appointment of assignee, and answered all questions put to him to the registrar's satisfaction. In the course of the argument it was contended that by the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 83, the Bankruptcy Acts 1849 and 1861 are wholly repealed from the 1st Jan. 1870, and some doubts were expressed whether, if his Honour did not discharge the bankrupt, he would have the power after the 1st Jan. 1870. These doubts, however, in the present case were obviated by the above judgment. EPSOM COUNTY COURT. (Before H. J. STONOR, Esq., Judge.) Measure of damages-Penalties, costs, and expenses of a conviction for selling false measures allowed on breach of warranty. His Honour delivered the following judgment In this case the plaintiff, a beerseller, on the recommendation and personal introduction of a respectable person, a brewer's man in the employment of Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton, who was called as a witness, went to the defendant's shop and purchased a considerable quantity of earthenware jugs and mugs, which he informed the shopman of the defendant, and also the defendant himself, were intended to be used for the sale of beer at the Epsom races, and which were to be sent direct to Epsom. The plaintiff and the brewer's man both deposed that the plaintiff asked both the shopman and the defendant whether the jugs and mugs were all right, as he did not want to get into trouble about them. The shopman said he believed they were all right, but the plaintiff was not satisfied with this answer, and spoke to the defendant himself, who said they were all quite correct, and the same that they supplied to other beersellers. The defendant's shop. man, on the other hand, deposed that he further said that he would guarantee them if he was allowed threepence a dozen for measuring them, but this was directly contradicted by the plaintiff and the brewer's man. The defendant had no very distinct recollection of the transaction; but he said he believed that he gave a receipt, and that the plaintiff asked him if he should have the goods in time, and he said Oh yes, all right." The plaintiff duly received the jugs and mugs at Epsom, and used them during the races. At the end of the races the inspector of weights and measures visited the beerhouse, and found eighteen earthenware measures deficient, seized them, and lodged an information, upon which the plaintiff was fined in penalties amounting to 31. and 11s. 6d. costs, and the deficient jugs and mugs were forfeited. Upon the evidence before me I was of opinion that the defendant had warranted the mugs and jugs to contain good and lawful measure, and that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover 17. for the jugs and mugs forfeited; but, at the request of counsel, I reserved the point whether he was entitled to receive further damages for the penalties, costs, and other expenses incurred by him with reference to the conviction. On consideration, I think that the case, although the circumstances are very different, falls within the rule laid down by Alderson, B. in the well-known case of Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341, where he says, "That the damages in respect of a breach of contract should be either such as may fairly and reasonably be considered arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT. (Before Serjeant WHEELER, Judge. RAILWAY COMPANY. Railway companies-Carriage of passengers- trains at the advertised times. the whole tract to convey by a particular train, or series of trains, leaving and arriving at specified times, the issue of the ticket must be connected with the representations in the company's time tables, and therefore the production of those tables is necessary to the plaintiff's case. That being so, he is, I conceive, bound by their contents, and consequently by any notices or conditions by which the company can lawfully limit their responsibility. The notice on which the company rely, looking at its terms, and taking them in their widest sense, amounts to a claim of entire impunity for the consequences of delays, however caused, and whether occurring upon their own line or upon the lines of other companies connected with them for which they issue tickets. This claim, if pushed to its limits, could not, I think, be sustained, because, although a company may by a proper notice make special contracts, the conditions they attach in order to be binding upon the public must be reasonable. Upon referring, however, to a later page of the company's time tables it will be seen that they do not in fact claim the extensive immunity which the notice already referred to im plies, for amongst their general regulations I find this further provision-"Every attention will be paid to ensure punctuality so far as practicable, but the directors give notice that they do not undertake that the trains shall start or arrive at the time specified in the bills, nor will they be accountable for any loss, inconvenience, or injury which may arise from delay or detention." Taking these notices together, and giving effect to their plain terms and import, they really come to thisthat the company will use all reasonable care and His HONOUR said :-This action was brought to diligence to insure punctuality, and that if, notrecover expenses incurred by the plaintiff in con- withstanding, delays occur, they will not be resequence of the failure of the company to take him sponsible. This I take to be contract which the and his wife and child from Liverpool to Perth, on law itself would imply, without any special notice Saturday, the 11th Sept. last, as they had con- by the company, and the contract and its tracted to do. Mr. John Forshaw appeared for co-relative obligations apply to the plaintiff: Mr. Bellringer for the defendants. journey for which the ticket is issued, though It was agreed that no question should be raised as the company's own line extends only part of the to the plaintiff's right to sue in the form adopted way. Now the question in issue is whether with respect to the three passengers. The facts there has been a breach by the company of their are these-On the day in question the plaintiff contract duty to the plaintiff. The time tables took three tourist return tickets at the station in must be regarded as the basis of the contract, or, Liverpool for Perth. According to the company's as was said by Lord Chief Justice Erle, in a case time tables the train was timed to leave Liver-before him, "they must be taken to be in the pool at 3.15, was due at Preston at 3.35, was mind of the carrier when he receives a passenger to leave Preston at 3.43, and to arrive at Perth for conveyance." Acting upon these arrange at 11.20. The line of the defendants ends at ments in the present case, it was the duty of Preston, and at that place passengers for Scot- the company to use every attention (adopting and have to cross from the arrival to the de- their own phrase), firstly, to start punctually, parture side of the station, and to change to the and secondly, to avoid delays on the way to carriages of the London and North-western Preston, so as to reach that place in time to enable Company. The train was seven minutes late in passengers for the North to cross from one side of leaving Liverpool, was delayed at Ormskirk five the station to the other, and to take their seats minutes, was again delayed three minutes before in the North-western on-train. What happened? reaching the Preston station, and was further There was a series of delays already mentioned delayed five minutes between the entrance to between Liverpool and Preston, four in number, the station and the alighting platform. On reach-resulting in the loss of 20 minutes in time and of ing the platform it was twenty minutes beyond the onward train to Scotland. Delay No. 1 its appointed time, and thirteen minutes beyond was not explained, but perhaps these facts may the time of departure thence of the Scotch train. account for it. The guard of the train had only That train had been sent off, and there was no arrived at the station by an in-train at 2.19, four other train that day to Perth, or any train on minutes after the out-train should have left, but the following day, because in Scotland there is no whether that was the proper time for the in-train, railway travelling on Sunday, and the earliest or if it were late, why it was so, the court was not available train for Perth left Preston on Monday informed. The guard, however, as soon as he had morning. Under these circumstances the plaintiff disposed of the parcels in his charge with the inand his wife and child repaired to an hotel at train, which, he says, he did in three minutes, Preston, and there remained until the Monday. made the best of his way to the out-train, which For the expenses thus incurred this action is was then in motion, with another man in his place. brought, no claim beyond actual delay being made Upon the accustomed guard reaching the train his by the plaintiff. Since the decision in 1856 of the intended deputy left it, and the train proceeded. case of Denton v. Great Northern Railway Com- The company, therefore, in their substitution of pany-reported in 5 E. & B. 861, in which the another for the accustomed guard, did that at court held that the representations in their time last which one would have expected them to have tables amount to a contract on the part of the done at first, so as to prevent delay at the outcompany with those who shall come to the station set of the journey. Delay No. 2, at Ormskirk, to forward them as stated-the companies have was due to affixing a horsebox to a passenger protected themselves by inserting a notice in train. Delay No. 3 was not explained. Delay the tables that they do not guarantee the No. 4 was due to the occupation of the rails bearrival or departure of their trains at the times tween the entrance to the Preston station and the named. In this instance the company rely platform by intervening trains, but there was no upon such a notice as an answer to the evidence to show how that obstruction happened, action. The notice, it seems, is published or that the course was not quite clear for the train monthly in their time tables, and appears upon in question to pass into the station if it had been their large posting bills, and further, as they say, in time. It seems to me that all these were avoidupon all their tickets. Upon this last point, how able delays, but in truth the two at Liverpool and ever, their witness was mistaken, for, on reference Ormskirk (which were clearly so) were more than to one of the tourist tickets, it turned out there enough to account for the loss of the onward train, was no such notice upon it. The plaintiff, more- and to render necessary the stay at Preston of the over, stated that he had never read or seen the plaintiff and his family from Saturday to Monday. notice in the time tables or posting bills, and that Under all these circumstances, and for these he had no knowledge, and therefore it was conreasons, I am of opinion that the company did not tended that he was not bound by it; but the plain- use the care and diligence which it was their duty tiff is in this difficulty as to this part of the case, to use to enable the plaintiff to reach his destinathat the ticket only does not amount to a con- tion that night, and that, therefore, he is entitled tract on the part of the company, nor is any duty to a verdict for the amount claimed. thereby imposed upon them to have a train ready to start at the time at which the passenger was led to expect it (see the case of Hurst v. The Great Western Railway Company, 19 C. B. 310.) the mere issuing of the ticket in question the contract, as there decided, would be a contract to carry the passenger from Liverpool to Perth within a reasonable time. To make out the con By Wednesday, Dec. 15. (Before J. K. BLAIR, Esq., Judge.) The Consolidation of Admiralty Suits. HIS HONOUR, on taking his seat on the bench, said: This being the day appointed for hearing service. Some little discussion took place, in BANKRUPTCY LAW. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Upon an application by a solicitor presenting a system of legislation, to be left to the individual inquirer to grub out isolated bits of law from the depths of irrelevant matter thrown together in a hodge podge of confusion. Even without greatly altering our present system, one would think it possible to avoid such difficulties. Where a provision intended to be made, affects two different subject-matters, why not either pass two Acts producing the intended effect as to the respective subject-matters, or, if more convenient, call attention in the title of the Act to the various titles or heads of the law which it will affect. As for instance, with respect to these declarations in the first instance, the Act providing for the duties on newspapers, might have provided for the making of the declarations, and what they should contain. Another short Act under the same title relating to evidence might in a very few words have said His HONOUR remarked that to refuse the appli- what effect the declaration should have as cation he must repeal the rule of court, and dis-evidence. And, again, in repealing the provision regard the constant course of practice in such both these Acts might have been repealed by one cases. The costs of the solicitor presenting the Act, the title of which might call attention to the petition were to be paid out of the first moneys alteration effected in two heads of the law. Under received, subject to the payment of the official such a system enactments relating to evidence in assignee and messenger. A person who took upon actions for libel would not be found in Acts himself the duty of assignee was not bound to relating to the revenue, and be repealed so as to bring actions, and, if he did do so, he might make it quite a chance whether such repeal attracts obtain the indemnity of creditors; but that was no reason why he should deprive the solicitor of that to which he was fairly entitled; and as the assignee had caused trouble and expense to the solicitor by bringing him to the court for the purpose of enforcing a demand which ought to have been satisfied without any trouble and expense, he must pay the costs. Bagley appeared for the solicitor. CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. [NOTE.-This department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not causes on the Admiralty side of the court, I think reason to believe will not be long withheld. WEYMOUTH COUNTY COURTS. A little squabble took place a few days ago between the County Court judge and the magistrates of Weymouth. The County Court business has occupied all three of the rooms on the floor of the hall, and great dissatisfaction has been felt by the magistrates. At the commencement of the last sitting of the court the borough magistrates sat in the council chamber, and whilst engaged in business the County Court judge entered, accompanied by the high bailiff and other persons. Having taken his seat he urged on Mr. Raggett to vacate his chair for the high bailiff. A refusal followed the request, and Mr. Raggett was then fined 51. He then consented to give up his seat, and the fine was withdrawn. The magistrates then left the room, and later on in the business sent to inform his Honour that they objected to the room being used for the accommodation of witnesses, &c., and intimating that the Guildhall was at his Honour's observation. A BARRISTER. WOMAN.-The formalities and consequent expense ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEEDS BY MARRIED of these transactions are, under the ordinary prac tice burdensome enough, generally doubling the cost of a small conveyance. If there are to be two disinterested commissioners in future, the inconvenience and cost in rural districts, will be very seriously increased. It is already oftentimes a troublesome matter to make the needful appointments and journeys. What will it be if arrangements have to be made for bringing three lawyers together, to say nothing of commissioners' fees ? These are not times wantonly to increase the costs law may still be complied with if one disinterested of conveyancing. I submit that the letter of the and one interested commissioner meet and jointly examine the married woman, and then the disinterested commissioner re-examine her alone. this purpose I. T. B. TERM FEE.-Your correspondent "Finem" inquires in your last number "at what stage the proceedings in an action is the attorney entitled to charge a term fee, and what charges is such term fee intended to cover ?" There is very little authority to guide us in answering this query, it is a matter depending almost entirely on the prac tice of the masters' offices. In ordinary actions a term fee is not allowed till after declaration or judgment, but after declaration one term fee, and only one, is chargeable for every term in which there is a proceeding in the action, or in which any matter before the court is in the paper, and for the vacation is considered part of the term which precedes it. A rule for costs of the day will carry a term fee, if there be no other proceeding of the term in which the motion is made. So also a defendant who succeeds in discharging a rule nisi obtained by a plaintiff for a new trial is entitled to a term fee from the term in which the rule nisi was moved down to final judgment. (See Bourne v. Alcock, 4 Q. B. Rep. 621.) In Scott's Costs it is stated that in ejcctment or feigned issues, a term fee is allowed only after issue delivered. This rule, however, is certainly not invariable with reference to ejectment; within the last fortnight we attended the taxation of some ejectment costs, and the master allowed a term fee, although no issue had been delivered, but merely an appearance entered, and proceedings stayed by judge's order. The term fee covers, as between party and party, all correspondence (except such as results in a settlement of the action or saving of expense), all ordinary postages and carriage of parcels, and all other miscelbeyond the usual items specifically allowed by the laneous work done in connection with the action masters, foreign postages, and the carriage of foreign parcels are generally allowed in addition. KAIN, SPARROW, WITT, and Co. Law Accountants and Costs Draftsmen. 69, Chancery-lane, Dec. 13. SOLICITORS MAGISTRATES.-You very properly suggest that, as newspaper proprietors have by deputation represented to the Lord Chancellor their claims to be upon the commission of the peace, solicitors should follow in like course. It certainly does appear strange that in these days solicitors should be excluded. Having leisure, I have frequently made application to be placed on the commission; but I have hitherto met with a direct refusal, simply because I happen to be a solicitor. I am quite willing to act as a magistrate; but at the same time I desire also to continue in practice as a solicitor, being an occupation to which I have been accustomed, and I daresay this may be the case with others like myself. A SOLICITOR. |