NADDERMIER, H. 84 Philpot, H. 340
Neal, M. 536

Richardson, J. 32, 48, Skedge, E. 388

Skidmore, T. R. sen. 104 Thomas, J. 388, 455

Thomas, W. 180, 388, 536 Webster, J. W. 436

Smith, W, 280, 388, 476, Todd, T. 496

LONDON:-Printed by HENRY MORRELL Cox, of 74, Great Queen-street, in the Parish of St. Giles in the Fields, in the County of Middlesex, Printer, at his Printing Office,
74 & 75. Great Queen-street aforesaid, and published by JOHN CROCKFORD, of 29, Essex-street, Strand, in the Parish of St. Clement Danes, in the City of Westminster,
at the Office of the LAW TIMES, No. 29, Essex-street aforesaid, on Saturday, the 22nd day of April, 1848,

Page

7 years later than the time stated, and that the defend.

7 ant had therefore obtained what was worth 500l. for

7 3001. The bill prayed that the defendant's repre-

7 sentatives might be compelled to pay the difference of

the value, on the ground that the sale had taken place

8

8

9

in ignorance on the part of the vendors. The Vice-

10 Chancellor held that the purchase was of the residue
10 of the term granted by the lease. It was not a term
10 of eight years that was sold, but a specific existing
lease; and there was nothing shewn to satisfy the

11 Court of the manner in which the mistake occurred.

11

12

12

The bill was therefore dismissed with costs.

Anderdon and Hall, for the appellant, contended

12 that the defendant had not been aware of what he
purchased, and the plaintiffs were ignorant of what
they sold; and that, on every principle of equity, the
Court was bound to place the parties in the condition
they would have occupied if the mistake had not

13 occurred.

15

13

13

Russell and Chandless, on the other side, were not

15 called on.

2

In a case where a cause comes to a hearing, and the
Court is of opinion that before equitable relief, if
any, can be given, the plaintiff must establish his right
at all, and for that purpose retains the bill for a
time, with liberty to the plaintiff to bring such action
as he may be advised, the Court takes no notice of the
proceedings at law, but only of the result of them,
and is bound by that absolutely; and upon the facts
as proved at the hearing, together with the result of
the trial at law, founds its decision.

It may happen, however, that from the nature of the
proceedings at law adopted by the plaintiff, the real
question cannot be tried; and in such case, the plain.
tiff ought to come to the Court for assistance to have
the question properly tried, either by a direction
founded on the decree, or after a re-hearing; and
If a plaintiff, whose action at law has substantially
such application must be by petition, or motion.

failed, neglects or omits to take that course, he will

not be permitted, when the case comes on upon the

equity reserved, to strengthen it by the introduction

into it of new matter occurring after the original

hearing; but he will be confined, and strictly, to the

facts as there proved, together with the result of the

action at law.

In a case where an action at law had substantially

failed, it became afterwards necessary to revive the

suit, one of the plaintiffs having died; and the oppor-

tunity was taken of filing a bill of revivor and sup-

plement, in which new matter was introduced, and a

new case made out, by way of taking out the equity

of the case as it originally stood; but the Court re-

fused to take it into consideration.

annuity granted to Mr. Dudgeon, and assigned by

This suit was instituted to obtain the benefit of an

him to Mr. Smith. The annuity was granted in 1817,

ment was entered up against the grantor in 1822.

and secured warrant of attorney, on which judg-

effect, there being outstanding terms. In March, 1839,

and a writ of elegit issued, but was not carried into

the annuitant, instituted the present suit to obtain

Smith, the assignee of the annuitant, together with

payment of the annuity and all arrears thereon since

1820, when the last payment was made; and at the

hearing of the cause in March 1844, the Master of

the Rolls (see 7 Beav. 537), decided to retain the bill

for a year, with leave to the plaintiff to bring such

with the matter, because by reason of the terms there was no right of entry; 2 Stark. Evid. 210; 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 27, ss. 2, 34; 2 Duke's Ch. Pract. 766, 1st ed.; Adam's Ej. 32; and, if there was any misconduct of the parties, there was a remedy by motion or petition. Bayley v. Morris, 4 Ves. 788.

Kindersley, Parry, Turner, Lovatt, Kennion, and Corry, for other parties. The case of Hodson v. Ball, 1 Phill. 177, was cited to shew that the leave of the Court must be obtained before filing a bill of revivor and supplement, that had not been done here.

brings forward all the circumstances. My present
impression is, that this course is not regular; but if I
see any cause to change my mind, I shall mention
it: if I do not, it will be for the plaintiff meanwhile
to consider in what other shape he may more properly
bring the matter before the Court.

Saturday, July 17.

Re TAYLOR.

Practice-Delivery up of papers-Committal for dis

obedience-Process.

In cases where it is necessary to have recourse to com-
pulsory process to enforce an order for the delivery
up of papers, &c. by a solicitor, the order for de-
livery must be first obtained generally, without any
limitation of time; then, if that is not attended to,
application must be made for an order to deliver in
a given time; if that is not attended to, the next
step is to obtain the four-day order, as it is called;
and if that fail, the last step is an order of commit-
ment for disobedience.

In this case, which is mentioned suprà pp. 70 and
262,

Rogers now applied for an order to commit Mr. Thomas David Taylor, a solicitor, who had been ordered to deliver up papers, &c. to his clients, the executors of a deceased testator, but had not complied with the order. On the 23rd of March, 1847, the order to deliver was made, which was merely the common order for taxation, and delivery of books, &c. without limiting any time. This order not being attended to, application was made on the 22nd of April for an order for delivery within a week, which was granted, but was not obeyed. The present motion was therefore made for an order of committal for disobedience.

The MASTER of the ROLLS.--One step is wanting in the process. The first thing is the general order; then comes the order for delivery in a given time; thirdly, the four-day order; and lastly, the order to commit. You want, therefore, the four-day order, which, however, you may take now. Besides, there must be an affidavit of non-delivery.

GARDLER V. GARDLER.

the note a bill at seven days was drawn by a country bank on a bank in town in favour of the outgoing trustees, and it was sent to one of them to indorse, who, having indorsed it, sent it for the same purpose to C. D. the other trustee, a solicitor, who had been instructed to invest the proceeds of it, when paid, in stock, in the names of the new trustees. C. D. delivered the bill to the registered officer of a bank with which he had dealings, desiring him "to take charge of it," and saying that he "should want to purchase some stock." The officer noticing that the bill was payable seven days after sight, C. D. desired him to place it to a private account which he kept with the bank, in addition to several others connected with trust matters. The bill was paid and the money was, as the bill had been, passed to the credit of C. D.'s private account. The same day C. D. drew for the amount to invest in the trusts of this settlement, but the bank refused to part with it unless C. D. made good certain liabilities in respect of bills discounted for him, but not due at the time the bill in question was delivered, but some of which had become due since and were dishonoured. In a suit by the trustees and cestui que trusts of the settlement against C. D. and the officer of the bank to recover the trust-fund, C. D. by his answer, stated that he told the officer that the bill was in payment of trust-money, and that it was to be invested in certain names which he should send him; but the officer denied he heard anything about a trust, or had received special directions; he had only been told to take charge of the bill, and C. D. said he should want some stock. There was no other evidence. The bank was held not liable to make good the trust-fund.

This was a suit to recover trust-money under these circumstances. On the 15th of June, 1838, George Hawks made a promissory note for 4,000l. in favour of his brother Edward Hawks, payable in four years after the 1st of July then next; and on the 17th of August, 1838, this note was made the subject of a settlement, entered into in contemplation of marriage for the benefit of E. Hawks, his then intended wife, and the children of the marriage. About the time the note was to become due, it was arranged that the then trustees of the settlement (who were the Rev.

Practice-Taking the bill pro confesso-Service of Henry Charles Knightley and John Henry Howard,

notice, superseding of New Orders.
The plaintiff having served notice, at the defendant's
place of abode, of a motion for an order to take the
bill pro confesso, afterwards served him personally
with notice without any reference to, or mention of,
the former service; the first service was in sufficient
time before the day on which the motion was to be
made, but the second was not :

The MASTER of the ROLLS.-I am very much surprised in this case, as I was before in that of Hope v. Hope (Rolls, 12th March, 1847), at the misconception which prevails as to the nature of proceedings of this kind. In that case I was told over and over again, that an action at law in such cases was brought for the purpose of informing and satisfying the conscience of the Court, but the Court has nothing to do with the proceedings at law, except to take the re. sult of the action as it appears. When a cause comes on for hearing, and it turns out that the plaintiff, before he can obtain equitable relief, if he be entitled to any at all, establishes his legal right, the practice is for this Court to retain the bill for a certain specified time, commonly a year, to give the plaintiff an opportunity of establishing his legal right if he can; and sometimes it may happen that, though the Court does not think the claimant entitled to the equity claimed by the bill, yet it may give directions at the hearing to facilitate the proceedings at law, and may prevent obstructions being set up to defeat the fair trial of the legal right, but subject to that extent of interference or relief. The plaintiff is in such cases, as in an ordinary case at law, bound to establish his right at law. This Court has nothing to do with the proceedings at law, which must be conducted according to the rules of law till they result in judgment, also pronounced according to the rules of law; and if there be anything wrong in the conclusion arrived at, the judges alone can set it right. This Court never gives directions for a new trial in such a case; but yet it does not abandon all notice of the proceedings as they go on. It may happen that proceedings of such a nature may be adopted, that the real question at issue between the parties cannot be tried; but in such a case application ought to be made to this Court immediately on such a difficulty occurring, either to take a direction to meet it, founded on the decree already made, or to have a re-hearing with a view to obtain a decree to affect the same object. In such a case, and under such circumstances, the Court might give some directions for the purpose of having a fair trial; so far it might perhaps go. Now let us advert to the case where every thing has been regularly conducted. The Court retains the bill, giving leave to take proceedings at law in a given time, and directing that if they be not so taken, the bill shall be dismissed with costs. Well, suppose the proceedings cannot be concluded within the time, and that there may, for instance, be a motion for a new trial pending at the end of the time, all that the plaintiff has to do in that case is to come here and move to extend the time. But suppose the proceedings to have been taken at law, and to have been concluded in the time, this Court is bound by the result, and what it does is to take the facts as they are proved at the hearing, and the result of the trial together, and upon the merits thereby disclosed, to determine what, if any, relief the plaintiffis entitled to, -for it is by no means of course to grant relief. Well, a decree was made here, which indeed is not now mine but the Lord Chancellor's, and it gave liberty to the plaintiff to take such proceedings at law as he should be advised, with a direction that the outstanding terms and the statute were not to be set up against him; and having in a certain time had a trial at law he was to be at liberty to come before the Court again, and, upon the result of the action and the equity reserved, as it is called, to ask such relief, if any, as the Court might think him entitled to. Now this comes on, not in that shape at all, nothing was said as to the equity reserved, indeed it was hardly contended that the plaintiff had a right to any relief on the equity reserved, it was rather insisted that as there was one united right and a judgment against one, it should be considered a judgment against the others. But it is a supplemental bill, stating matters which happened since the decree, with the view of eking out an equity to support the plaintiff in asking relief, to which he is not otherwise entitled. I have pointed out the analogy of a demurrer before the decision, in which a supplemental bill is filed, and it is not denied that in such case a supplemental bill is improper. Now what is the rule in this case? Simply that the facts proved at the hearing, together with the result of the trial, are to guide the Court in determining the question of relief. What right, then, is there to add more without the leave of the Court? Here the complaint is, that the trial was not so conducted as to enable the question which the Court in- Trust, breach of Notice-Appropriation of fund to

tended to be tried at all. Well, then, if there is any regular practice at all in this Court, the plaintiff ought to have come here at the earliest moment, and stated the difficulty; but instead of that, he files a supplemental bill, which is partly a bill of revivor, and

Held, that, as the defendant might be led to believe the
second service was made because of some defect in
the first, or because of some dissatisfaction with it on
the part of the plaintiff, he might very well consider
the second as that intended to be relied on, and that
therefore it must be taken to be a waiver of the
first; but if the communication had been made only
by way of reminding the defendant that the motion
would be made in pursuance of the former service,
the case would be different.

a solicitor) should retire, and the said G. Hawks and
Ralph Walters should be the new trustees. The
note having become due, a bill for 4,000l. in payment
thereof was drawn by Lambton and Co. of Newcastle,
on Barclay and Co. of London, payable seven days
after sight, in favour of Knightley and Howard; and
on the 6th of August, 1842, Walters, who was the
solicitor of G. Hawks, sent the bill to Knightley,
directing him by letter to indorse and send it to
Howard, whom be also instructed by letter of the
same date to indorse it, and to invest the proceeds
when paid in stock in the names of G. Hawks and
Walters himself. The bill came into Howard's
hands on the 16th of August, and the same day he
delivered it to Mr. Riddler, the registered public
officer of the Cheltenham and Gloucestershire bank
(with which he had previously had dealings, and had
opened a private account and four other accounts
respecting matters of trust), and said to him, "You
may as well take charge of this for me, I shall want
to purchase some stock." Riddler seeing the bill
drawn at seven days, and remarking the fact, Howard
said, "Place it to my account," and, at Riddler's
suggestion, indorsed it. The same day it was passed
through the bank books, and credited to Howard as
cash. On the 27th of August Barclay and Co. paid
the bill; and the 28th being a Sunday, the payment

Winstanley applied for an order to take the bill pro
confesso against defendant, who had not answered.
The attachment, for want of an answer, was issued
on the 7th and executed on the 10th of June last, and
notice of motion to take the bill pro confesso was left
for him on the 23rd of June, more than three weeks
before the day on which the motion was to be made.
For some reason or other, however, the plaintiff
thought fit to serve the defendant personally with
notice of motion for the same day as before, but with-of the money was duly noted by the Cheltenham bank

out any reference to the former service; and as the
second notice was served on the 26th of June, and the
motion was to be made on this day (the 17th of July),
the time was too short by one day, under the 76th
Order. The question whether the second was a waiver
of the first, however hard it might be on the plaintiff.
The MASTER of the ROLLS.-The question is,
whether you have not waived the first service by the
personal service. Service by leaving notice at a place
is good service; and if you thought fit to serve a
fresh notice, the point is, does not that supersede the
former? If you had merely informed the defendant
of your intention to move on the day stated in your
first notice, and in pursuance thereof, you would have
been safe; but you substituted personal service for the
former service: and as therefore you did not rely on
the first service, though good enough if you had, the
defendant might very naturally suppose you were dis-
satisfied with it, and so thought fit to serve him again,
and being too late, he was not bound to notice it, for
in such cases strict practice must prevail. Besides,
it is not safe to take an order in such circumstances.
It must be refused.

on the 29th of August. On the same 29th of August the deed appointing G. Hawks and R. Walters new trustees of the settlement was executed, and on the same day also Howard sent his clerk to the bank to inform Riddler of the names of the trustees, and to desire him to invest the 4,000l. less 3l. expenses, in their names. Riddler refused, unless certain bills, which the bank had discounted, and which were not due on the 16th of August, but some of which became due, and were dishonoured between the 16th and 29th. This requisition was not complied with, and the bank retained the money. Subsequently other bills of Howard's became due, and were dishonoured; and in September 1842 his liabilities amounted to several thousands. In this state of things, the trustees and cestui que trusts filed their bill for recovery of the trust-fund, not merely against Howard, from whom they had little or no hope of getting any thing, but also against Riddler, in the hope of fixing him with notice of the trust or otherwise following the money into his hands. Howard, by his answer, stated that he had told Riddler the money was trust-money, and that he wished it to be invested in the names of gentlemen which he would send to him afterwards; and that, in answer to Riddler's inquiry as to who Knightley, the joint payee of the bill, was, he said, he was his co-trustee; whereupon Riddler replied, he only inA promissory note, payable four years after date, was quired if he was the gentleman who formerly resided made the subject of a marriage settlement. About in Cheltenham, and that he used to see him at the the time the note became due, it was arranged to Club, but did not know he was a reverend. Riddler, change the trustees of the settlement. In payment of by his answer, on the other hand, denied that Howard

July 20 and 21.
HAWKS v. HOWARD.

particular purpose-Consideration.

said anything about a trust, or gave him any special Reform, framed, proposed, and supported by possession, forfeit such goods and incur the penalties

directions as to the appropriation of the fund; but he bill, by which he understood he was to get it cashed in the usual way; and he also admitted that Howard said he should want some stock, but did not mention any names. In that state of things the cause came on to be heard.

admitted that Howard told him to take charge of the

Turner and Goodeve, for the plaintiffs, endeavoured to make out that Riddler took the bill with full no

tice of the trust, or at least of some trust; or, if that could not be maintained, that he took it with special directions as to its appropriation: and lastly, that, as nothing was actually due to the bank by Howard at the time, the time for payment of the bills not having arrived, there was no consideration given for

the Profession, would redound greatly to their of the 16th class.
honour, and, we believe, no less to their profit,
for every day's experience assures us more and
more that the interests of the public and of the
lawyers are identical, and that whatever benefits
the former will in the long run be found ad-
vantageous to the latter. This should be the
mission of the Metropolitan and Provincial
Legal Association.

THIRD REPORT OF HER MAJESTY'S
COMMISSIONERS

5. Whosoever, not being a contractor, nor ployed nor authorised as in Article 3 of this section is mentioned, shall conceal such goods or stores as in the said Article are specified, marked as therein mentioned, or any timber, thick stuff, or plank marked as in the last preceding Article is described, shall, unless he shall upon his trial produce such certificate or certificates as in the said last preceding Article is or are mentioned, forfeit such goods and incur the penalties of the 16th class.

6. Whosoever, not being a contractor nor employed as in Article 3 of this section is mentioned, shall willingly or knowingly sell or deliver, or cause or procure to be sold or delivered to any person or

the bill by the bank, and their retention of it, there- FOR REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING THE CRIMI- persons whomsoever, or shall willingly or knowingly

fore, was not sustainable.

Kindersley and Smythe, for Howard, admitted his

liability.

Roupell, Campbell, and Jackson, for the bank, insisted that there was not a tittle of evidence to support the plaintiffs' case, since Howard's answer could not be read against his co-defendant.

The MASTER of the ROLLS.-This is a most lamentable case, and one in which the plaintiffs have been more scandalously used could scarcely be found; but the question was, by whom were they so used-whether by Howard, or by him and Riddler together? [Here his Lordship stated the facts. Howard, it is admitted, is answerable; and the question is, whether Riddler is so too. It is alleged that Riddler took the bill with full notice of the trust, or of some trust, or that it was intended to be invested in some trust; and it is further alleged by the plaintiffs, that Riddler, having notice of a trust, must have the knowledge imputed to him that it was a trust for them; or, if he cannot be fixed with knowledge of a trust, they next allege that the bill was given to him with specific directions for appropriation to a particular purpose, and they insist, therefore, that Howard would be entitled to relief, and to have the money so appropriated as intended, and, consequently, that they are entitled to the same relief. And lastly, as no consideration passed from the bank on receipt of the bill, they are answerable for the amount of it. The plaintiffs undoubtedly are placed in great difficulty in establishing their case, if true, and they have drawn my attention to Howard's answer in support of it. They are clearly entitled to read everything in that against Howard himself, but not against Riddler his co-defendant. Not that the answer of one defendant may not sometimes be used against another so as to produce some influence on a judge's mind, but as evidence on which to found a decree it certainly cannot. The plaintiffs being reduced to the necessity of resorting to Riddler's answer as the only evidence they could get, could not, on that answer merely sustain their claim, or get a decree against him; but they insisted that that, together with the other circumstances of the case, raised a presumption in their favour sufficient to lead me to grant them an opportunity of an inquiry elsewhere. Now, is there a semblance of a case against Riddler? I have had quite a dramatic representation made to me, but nothing-not even a conjecture-implicating Riddler. Several allegations indeed are made, but what are they? Riddler was a banker, and Howard his cus. tomer, and he had five different accounts, and therefore the direction to place the bill to his private account pointed to something special. Then Howard, having met Riddler, gave him the bill, and told him he should want to purchase some stock, but gave no names, nor mentioned when or how he should want it. I can find no evidence that Howard told Riddler it was trust-money. My opinion is, that the state of things on the 16th of August determined the matter, and there is no ground for allowing a trial. Howard, of course, must be charged, but the bill must be dismissed with costs as against the bank.

THE LEGISLATOR.

Summary.

OFFENCES RELATING TO VESSELS OF WAR, PUBLIC STORES,

AND THEIR PLACES OF DEPOSIT.

Art. 1. Whosoever, either within this realm, or in any of the islands, countries, forts, or places thereunto belonging, shall maliciously set on fire, or burn, or otherwise destroy any of her Majesty's ships or vessels of war, whether the said ships or vessels of war be on float or building or begun to be built in any of her Majesty's dock yards, or building or repairing by contract in any private yards, for the use of her Majesty, or any of her Majesty's arsenals, magazines, dock-yards, rope-yards, victualling offices or any of the buildings erected therein or belonging thereto, or any timber or materials there placed for building, repairing, or fitting out of ships or vessels, or any of her Majesty's military, naval, or victualling stores, or other ammunition of war, or any place or places where any such military, naval, or victualling stores, or other ammunition of war, is, are, or shall be kept, placed, or deposited, shall suffer

death.

2. Whosoever shall steal or embezzle any of her Majesty's ammunition, sails, cordage, or naval or military stores, shall incur the penalties of the 5th class.

3. Whosoever shall make any stores of war, or naval stores, with the marks usually used to, and marked upon, her Majesty's warlike and naval or ordnance stores, that is to say, any cordage of three inches and upwards, wrought with a white thread laid the contrary way, or any smaller cordage, to wit, from three inches downwards, with a twine in lieu of a white thread laid to the contrary way as aforesaid, or any cordage wrought with one or more worsted threads, or any canvas, wrought or unwrought, with a blue streak in the middle, or any other stores, with the broad arrow by stamp, brand or otherwise (not being a contractor with her Majesty's principal officers or commissioners of the navy, ordnance, or victualling, for her Majesty's use, or employed by such contractor for that purpose as aforesaid), or shall make any public stores whatsoever under the care, superintendance, or control of any officer or person in the service of her Majesty, or employed in any public department or office, either marked with the marks, or any of them before specified, or with the broad arrow and the letters B. O., or with the crown and the broad arrow, or with her Majesty's arms, or with the letters G. R., W. R., or V. R. to denote the property of her Majesty therein, or shall use any such marks (not being authorised by the proper officer or officers, person or persons in her Majesty's service in that behalf so to do), shall forfeit such goods, and shall incur the penalties of the

16th class.

4. Whosoever, not being a contractor, nor employed nor authorised as in the last preceding Article is mentioned, in whose custody, possession, or keep ing such goods or stores, marked as in the said Article is mentioned, or any timber, thick stuff, or plank, marked with the broad arrow by stamp, brand, or otherwise, or any canvas marked with a blue streak in a serpentine form, or bewper, other wise called buntin, wrought with one or more streaks

receive or have in his custody, possession, or keeping, any stores of war, or naval, ordnance, or victualling stores, or any goods whatsoever, marked as in the said article, is mentioned with respect to the warlike, naval, or ordnance stores therein 'specified, or any canvas marked either with a blue streak in the middle or with a blue streak in a serpentine form, or any bewper otherwise called buntin, wrought with one or more streaks of raised tape, or any cordage wrought with one or more worsted threads (the said stores of war, or naval, ordnance, or victualling stores or goods above mentioned, or any of them, being in a raw or unconverted state, or being new, or not more than one-third worn), or shall conceal such stores or goods, or any of them marked as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a receiver of stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, and shall, unless he shall upon his trial produce a certificate under the hands of three or more of her Majesty's principal officers or commissioners of the navy, ordnance, or victualling, expressing the numbers, quantities, or weights of such stores or goods as he shall then be indicted for, and the occasion and reason of such stores or goods coming to his hands or possession, incur the penalties of the 9th class.

7. Whosoever, not being authorised as in Article 3 of this section is mentioned, shall willingly or knowingly receive or have in his custody, possession, or keeping, or shall conceal any public stores, under the care, superintendence, or control of any officer, orperson in her Majesty's service, or employed in any public department or office, as in the said Article is mentioned, so marked as therein specified (the said stores, or any of them being in a raw or unconverted state, or being new or not more than one-third worn), shall be deemed to be a receiver of stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, and shall, unless he shall upon his trial produce a certificate or certificates under the hand or hands of the proper officer or officers, person or persons, in her Majesty's service, authorised to grant the same, of such and the like nature as the certificate in the last preceding Article mentioned, incur the penalties of the 9th class.

8. Nothing in Articles 3, 4, 5, or 6, of this section contained, shall extend or be construed to extend, to exempt from the operation of any of those Articles any person being a contractor, or employed as in the said Article 3 is mentioned, except only so far as concerns stores or goods marked as in the said Articles is mentioned with respect to the warlike, naval, ordnance or victualling-stores therein specified, which shall be bona fide provided, made up, or manufactured by such person, or by his order, and which shall not have been before delivered into her Majesty's store, unless, having been so delivered, they shall have been sold or returned to such persons by the commissioners of her Majesty's Navy, ordnance, or victualling, respectively.

9. The penalties of Articles 4, 5, and 6 of this section, so far as relates to the warlike, naval, ordnance or victualling stores therein specified or referred to, shall not be incurred by any person who shall have bought any such stores of her Majesty's commissioners of the navy, ordnance or victualling who shall produce a certificate or certificates, under the hand and seal of three or more of the said com. missioners, that he bought such goods or stores from them at any time before he sold or delivered the same, or before the same were found in his custody, Not a rumour of contemplated legislation has or a certificate from such person or persons as shall been stirring during the week. Mr. CHARLES appear to have bought the said stores from them the BULLER has delivered a long and interesting of raised tape (such canvas or bewper not being said commissioners, that the stores so sold or delispeech to his constituents, in which he touched charged to be new, or not more than one-third worn), vered by him, or so found in his custody, were the upon the subject of Law Reform, and observed shall be found, shall, unless he shall upon his trial stores or part of the stores so bought of the said produce, with respect to such of the goods or commissioners as aforesaid, in which certificate or that the County Courts were but the beginning stores as are warlike, naval or ordnance stores, a of a long series of measures required to adapt certificate under the hand of three or more of her the law to the wants and intelligence of the Majesty's principal officers or commissioners of the time; but he gave no promise that the Govern- navy, ordnance, or victualling, and, with respect to ment contemplated doing anything in this di- such of the said goods or stores as are public stores under the care, superintendence, or control of any rection. Should it so prove, an opportunity officer or person in her Majesty's service, or employed will be afforded to the lawyers of taking the in any public department or office, a certificate or initiative in Law Reform, and thus preventing certificates under the hand or hands of the proper the confusion and mischief that have resulted officer or officers, person or persons in her Majesty's

from the labour of unprofessional, and therefore inexperienced amateurs, in this branch of legislation. A series of measures of real Law

service, authorised to grant the same, expressing the
numbers, quantities, or weight of such goods respec-
tively as he shall then be indicted for, and the occa-
sion and reason of such goods coming to his hands or

certificates the quantity of such stores shall be expressed, and the time when and where bought of the said commissioners.

10. Neither shall any thing within this section contained be construed to hinder any the principal officers and commissioners of the navy, or any chief commander of any of her Majesty's ships at sea, to lend any of her Majesty's stores to any merchantship or vessel in distress or otherwise, as might heretofore lawfully be done, in case such goods so lent be restored with all possible conveniency; and provided such person or persons so borrowing the said stores from time to time, have such certificate as aforesaid, which the said principal officers and com

missioners of the navy, or commander-in-chief are hereby required to give to the party or parties that shall so borrow the same.

11. Neither shall the penalties of Articles 4, 5, and 7 of this section, so far as relates to any public stores under the care, superintendence, or control of any officer or person in her Majesty's service, or employed in any public department or office, as in Article 3 of this section is mentioned, so marked as therein specified, be incurred by any person who upon his trial shall produce a certificate or certificates under the hand or hands of the proper officer or officers, person or persons in ber Majesty's service authorised to grant the same, of such and the like nature as the certificates mentioned in Article 9 of this section.

12. Whosoever shall make, sign, or give any false certificate, bill of parcels or other instrument purporting the identity or the sale, loan or disposal of any goods or stores, as goods or stores so purchased or borrowed of the said commissioners or other officer or

person in her Majesty's service respectively, as in the last three preceding Articles is mentioned, or shall utter or publish any such false certificate, bill of parcels, or other instrument purporting as aforesaid, knowing the same to be false, shall incur the penal

ties of the 16th class.

13. Whoever shall wilfully and fraudulently destroy, beat out, take out, cut out, deface, obliterate or erase, wholly or in part, any of the marks in Articles 3, 4, or 6 of this section mentioned with respect to the warlike, naval, ordnance or victualling stores therein specified, or any other mark denoting the property of her Majesty in or to any warlike or naval, ordnance or victualling stores, or any of the marks in the said Article 3 mentioned with respect to any public stores under the care, superintendence, or control of any officer or person in her Majesty's service, or employed in any public department or office, or shall cause, procure, employ or direct any other person or persons so to do, for the purpose of concealing the property of her Majesty in such stores respectively, shall incur the penalties of the 9th class.

14. Whosoever, having been convicted of any of fence contrary to any of the Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 13 of this section, for which he shall not have been transported beyond the seas, shall be guilty of a second offence contrary to any of those Articles, which would not otherwise, as the first offence, subject him to transportation, shall incur the penalties of the 9th class.

15. Whosoever shall forge any certificate to be given under the authority of an Act passed in the second year of the reign of King William IV. inti. tuled, An Act to Amend the Laws relating to the Business of the Civil Departments of the Navy, and to make other Regulations for more Effectually Carrying on the Du ies of the said Departments," by the commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, or any of them, or by any superintendent, of the purchase or sale of any naval or victualling stores, shall incur the penalties of the 13th

class.

SECTION III.

OFFENCES BY OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS OR

EXCISE.

person who shall have received or retained such goods which the Barrister is exposed, are chiefly to be

or commodities, or any of them, under or by virtue or
pretext of any false, untrue, forged, or fraudulent
permit, or shall knowingly or willingly give any false
credit in the stock of any person beyond the credit to
which such stock is justly and truly entitled, so as to
enable such person falsely and fraudulently to obtain
a permit or permits, or shall knowingly or willingly
suffer the same to be done directly or indirectly, shall
incur the penalties of the 16th class.

(To be continued.)

REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE

ON LEGAL EDUCATION.

(Continued from page 539.)

checked by the tests to which Mr. Creasy has adverted-an effective legal education, both moral and intellectual.

If the lawyer suffers under these disadvantages, how much more the Solicitor. Sir G. Stephen, throughout the whole of his evidence, insists with energy on the inferior state of morals, capacity, and attainment, which, under the existing system, prevails in his branch of the Profession. Many of these defects are not solely to be ascribed to erroneous or deficient instruction, but are attributable to the external circumstances in which the Profession at large may be said to be engaged; such as the classes from which, in general, their numbers are supplied; the motives which usually guide the selection of the profession, on the part of candidates and parents; the conduct of the public in their behalf, both in reference to employment and remuneration; all of which may sensibly influence the character and conduct of both body and individuals. "The tradesman," says he, "with a very extensive business, arising from book-debts; merchants for the same reason, but with a higher class of business; gentlemen of small but independent fortunes, contribute; but perhaps the largest class are those who come from a much lower stock, introduced at the age of ten, twelve, or thirteen, as soon as they can write, into an attorney's office, and employed as copying clerks. You may say with respect to a man of that sort that he is suckled and cradled as an attorney. The candidates sent forward so overstock the Profes. sion, more perhaps from the difficulty of advancing in others than predilection for this, that the bulk of the Law List for this year is nearly double of what it was fifteen or twenty years ago. Not more than one-third of these, when admitted, are earning such an income by their profession as will enable them to maintain their families in respectability, and according to their station in life." The result of this is natural. There is the probability, or, at least the possibility of a number of individuals becoming members of the Profession who are not qualified to reflect honour on it. It creates direct inducement to propagate and encourage litigation; it tends to introduce

Such are the effects of the present system; such its influence on the judicial office and character. It may naturally be concluded it is not without analogous effects on those from whom the judge is selected-on the barrister. Mr. Starkie and Mr. Empson both ascribe to the preference of the solicitor the success in the outset of their course for many young lawyers. But solicitors themselves, from the want already noticed, of education of a high order, are little competent to judge of the education and intellectual qualifications of others. "There is a great deal of very useful knowledge," says Mr. Empsom, "in the Profession, of which the attorneys are not the best judges, and of which the mere fact of a person being a successful Nisi Prius Advocate is not the best criterion. There have been many distinguished Nisi Prius Advocates, who would have been infinitely better lawyers, and have made much better judges, if they had had a more comprehensive study of the law from the beginning, and not merely have picked up what was necessary for them in practice; for every body acquainted with the Profession knows that the little instruments necessary for the daily practice and warfare of the Courts is a very different thing from the substantial knowledge of the law." This encouragement, almost exclusively given to the practical and mechanical, has had the effect of discouraging, as profitless, the higher and doctrinal departments of the Profession, and produced two striking evils: it has deprived the study of law of its scientific courses and practice by no means creditable; the

character, and gradually thrown out of the race, by
the experience of how little such attainments are ap-
preciated, those very intelligences who were most
capable of bringing back the Profession to its original
purposes and character. The consequence has been,
that in this country we have, generally speaking, but
few examples of that important class of thinkers and
writers who, in other countries, standing on the
summits of the profession, and disengaged from the
turmoil and labour of its daily technical duties, have,
with disposition and capacity, leisure also, and op-
portunity to keep the profession up to the intellectual
height to which it should be its proudest boast to
aspire. Abroad publicists and professors form a
class apart, occupying the most honourable posts in
their profession, and in the service of the State.
Here such a class is comparatively unknown, and in-
dividual examples are rare; and yet few countries

habit of discounting doubtful bills, buying up bad debts; "making terms with tradesmen, for instance, that they will take all their bad and doubtful debts at the end of the year, and allow them either ten, or fifteen, or twenty per cent. for them, and make the most of them; concocting public companies and speculations of a very doubtful and uncertain character; urging their clients over whom they may have influence to try a disputed question of law, in preference to arbitration, with the offer that they will undertake to carry them through for nothing, and look for their costs to their opponents, -a fertile source of litigation; besides many others, and still less legitimate modes of creating business even than those." These are among a portion of the evils which necessarily grow out of the immense number on one side, and of the very inferior moral and intellectual education on the other, of the candidates who

have, from the principles and forms of its govern- from time to time are admitted into the Profession. ART. 1. If any embezzlement, waste, spoil, or de-ment and constitution, graater need of such a body And when we take further into considesation the very

struction shall be made of or in any goods or merchandise which shall be warehoused in warehouses, under the authority of an Act passed in the session of Parliament holden in the eighth and ninth years of her present Majesty's reign, intituled "An Act for the Warehousing of Goods," by or through any wilful misconduct of any officer or officers of customs or excise, every such officer shall incur the penalties

of the 16th class.

2. Whosoever, being a collector, receiver, or other -person intrusted with the collection, receipt, custody, or management of any part of the revenue of excise, shall neglect or omit to keep and render such separate and distinct accounts, and in such manner and form as shall from time to time be directed by the Commissioners of Excise, or shall knowingly render or furnish false accounts of or relating to any duty, or penalty, or sum of money collected, had, or received, or to be collected, had, or received by him, or in trusted to his care or custody, or of any balance of money in his hands, or under his control and management, shall, upon conviction, be incapable of holding or enjoying any office under the Crown, and shall incur the penalties of the 16th class.

than ours. Were such a body in existence, it is delicate and important, and complicated relations in
scarcely possible that our legislation would have pre- which solicitors must stand in reference to the
sented the many offences against the first principles public and their clients, these evils become greatly
of logical and legal arrangement, nor been exposed enhanced. "It is hardly possible to mention any
to the numerous incongruities of manner and matter topic," we again quote Sir George Stephen, " or any
with which so many of our Acts of Parliament abound. subject upon which, sooner or later, a solicitor in
Nor is its absence the only defficiency which the large practice may not find himself deeply engaged.
public has to regret. From the concentration of all It is quite impossible to define, within a narrow com-
intellectual effort within the narrow limits of our pass, the nature of a solicitor's business; it extends
ordinary Courts, there are few who devote themselves to any thing, it extends to every thing; the fact is,
to studies which, though possibly of less profit to the
individual, are of serious import to the public. In-
ternational Law, Commercial Law, are only touched
on incidentally, in the course of other studies, or just
as much of the leading forms of procedure (with little
or no reference to principle) is caught up in the pro-
gress of a controverted question as will be sufficient
to bear a man of average courage and capacity
through; and whilst in other countries the passage
from one department to another of the profession is
comparatively easy, from the circumstance of the
lawyer having mastered the great scientific principles
on which all equally rest, amongst us, where such
application to first principles, that is, to law, as a
science, is comparatively unknown, the transition
from one to another is a matter of empiricism, and
the success with which it is accomplished almost ex-
clusively ascribable to mere dexterity or chance.
The lawyer is thus restricted in his utility and
comprehensiveness, and even in the very walks where
he is most successful, he is far below the standard to
which, under a better system of early legal study,
he would probably have attained. It may be doubted,
too, whether his moral as well as intellectual powers
are not injuriously affected by this narrowing, and in
however high a position the Bar may now stand
in many particulars, whether it might not stand his own experience, may, without exaggeration, be
under an improved educational system in a much considered as common to most of the more eminent
higher. The abuses in cross-examination, in ad- members, at least, of his Profession. It can scarcely

that we are, as professional men, entrusted to a very great extent with the confidence of gentlemen; we are entrusted to a very great extent with the most sacred matters connected with the families of gentlemen. It often happens that the protection of their honour and their character, and of course, of their property, is left to our zeal and our integrity; and where we are brought into this confidential and habitual intercourse with men of every class in society, the highest as well as the lowest, I think that it is most important that the Profession should be so educated as to be qualified for carrying on that intercourse as gentlemen themselves; but I apprehend that that qualification cannot be attained except by educating them as gentlemen, with much greater attention to their general endowments and information than is at present the case." The variety and extent of information, as well as perfect propriety of conduct and character necessary for such duties are obvious, but both require very considerable additions when the solicitor comes in contact, in a country like this, with the public generally. The diversity of subjects to which any respectable solicitor must in the course even of a single day attend to, many, too, demanding much more than a superficial knowledge, needs not to be insisted on. The example furnished by Sir George Stephen, from

3. Whosoever, being an officer of excise, shall deliver out, or suffer to be delivered out, any paper prepared or provided or appointed by the Commissioners of Excise to be used for permits, in blank or before such permit shall be filled up and issued agreeably to, and in conformity with, a request note; or shall knowingly give or grant any permit to any person not entitled to receive the same, or shall knowingly give or grant any false or untrue permit, or shall make any false or untrue entry in the counterpart of any permit given or granted by him, or shall knowingly or willingly receive or take any goods or commodities into the stock of any person brought in with any false, or untrue, or fraudulent permit, or shall knowingly or willingly grant any permit for the removal of any goods or commodities out of or from the stock of any dresses to juries, in the drawing up of affidavits, to be doubted, under present circumstances, and from