Public Record Buildings.-Construction of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. 373 judges' chambers, and seven houses on the Rolls' Estate, fronting Chancery-lane. "The plan No. 2, may be divided into three portions, viz., the portion west of Carey-street; -the portion more immediately connected with the proposed Record Office, extending from Carey-street to Fetter-lane ;-and the portion east of Fetter-lane, the whole of which last is within the limits of the city. the attention of your Majesty's Government to the central portion only of that plan,—that portion, for the execution of which the acquirement of property would become necessary in reference to any immediate proceeding connected with the erection of a new Record Office; and, looking to the testimony of Mr. Richard Lambert Jones in favour of executing such portion, even in the event of the more extended line not being adopted;-looking to the approval by the Master of the Rolls of the particular site proposed for the Record Office, and of the approaches thereto;-and looking to the evidence of Mr. l'ennethorne, showing the advantages which would accrue to the public from connecting these important objects with each "The object of the plan No. 1, is to distin- other,-your Majesty's commissioners are of guish by colours the Rolls Estate from other opinion that, if measures be adopted by the property in the immediate vicinity; and to ex- Government for the erection of such a buildhibit the requirements of the proposed Record ing, such portion of Mr. Pennethorne's proOffice in respect to site,-whether by occupa- posed lines of streets as are comprised in plan tion of parts of the Rolls Estate, or by acqui- No. 1, should be at the same time executed. sitions of other property, and for the formation of streets around the building. "The centre portion of this plan, and that to which alone your Majesty's commissioners think it necessary at present to direct their attention, is shown more at large on the plan numbered 1 in the Appendix; and Mr. Pennethorne is to be understood as having hitherto confined his estimates to this portion. "The net ultimate cost of purchasing these properties, of forming the streets in the immediate locality, and of erecting and fitting up the proposed Record Office, according to these plans, would be For the cost of the building £175,000 of the fittings 31,500 £293,500 For purchases Deduct probable return from 50,000 ground-rents. 206,500 Your Majesty's commissioners think it their duty, however, at the same time to add, that the line of communication proposed by plan No. 2, is (irrespectively of the special advantages of erecting an office for the records of the kingdom on the site suggested) the most eligible and the most practicable line for connecting the eastern and western portions of the metropolis, and that it would very advantageously increase the facilities of communication within the same. "Your Majesty's commissioners have the satisfaction of adding that, having submitted 243,500 the preceding pages of this report to the Master of the Rolls, his Lordship has signified his approval both of the plans for the Record Office, and of the site proposed for the building. £450,000 "In the memorandum referred to this Commission, with the plans, Mr. Pennethorne observes, that the cost of the purchases may be apportioned thus: For the Record Office (L. S.) MORPETH. (L. S.) LYTTLETON. (L. S.) HENRY THOMAS HOPE. (L. S.) ALEXANDER MILNE. (L. S.) CHARLES GORE. The gross sum being nearly in accordance with that stated in his evidence before this commission. "Your Majesty's commissioners are not ap- Office of Woods, &c., 15th July, 1847. prized of the funds out of which it would be proposed to defray any portion of this expenditure; nor are the evils to the remedy of which CONSTRUCTION OF THE BANK ORDER OF PROTECTION. PLEA IN BAR.- those funds would be more immediately ap- RUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACTS. plied, a fitting subject for comment on the part of this commission. On the other hand, the necessity for providing vent for the overcrowded traffic of the central portions of the metropolis, by the formation of new thoroughfares in a direction east and west of Temple) THE defendant in this suit presented his peBar, has been so frequently urged in evidence tition to the Court of Bankruptcy, which was before Select Committees of Parliament, that duly filed, and in the schedule to such petition, your Majesty's commissioners have not felt it the defendant included the name of the plaintiff, requisite to hear further evidence on this point and the amount for which this action was on the present occasion. They think it neces-brought, viz., 30l. 3s. 2d. On the 23rd of sary, indeed, at the present moment, to direct April, 1845, the defendant obtained his final 374 Construction of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.-Correspondence. Mr. Baron Platt was of opinion, that the defendant could not have pleaded his protection in bar to this action-that the defendant not having kept up his instalments pursuant to the proposals contained in his final order, was nothing to the plaintiff-that the commissioner had power to imprison the defendant for such default. order for protection from process under 5 & 6 fendant, having filed his petition in the Court Vict. c. 116, and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96. In the pe- of Bankruptcy, and included the name of the tition was contained a proposal that the defend- plaintiff, and the amount for which this action ant should pay into the hands of the official as-was brought in his, the defendant's schedule to signee the sum of 21. monthly, for the gradual such petition, and obtained his final order for liquidation of his debts. The defendant failed protection from process under 5 & 6 Vict. c. in keeping up the instalments pursuant to such 116, and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, previously to the proposal. The plaintiff was appointed the trade commencement of this action. This summons assignee. On the 12th Jan. 1846, the plaintiff was attended by the attorneys of the plaintiff (a butcher) brought his action to recover the and defendant. amount of his debt, 307. 3s. 2d., for meat supplied to the defendant, being for the same debt as was included in the defendant's schedule. The defendant appeared to the action, but did not plead thereto, being advised that he could not plead his protection in bar. Judgment was signed by default. On the 15th April, 1847, a writ of sci. fa. was issued to revive the judgment, and notice thereof, dated 30th April, The plaintiff's attorney then stated, that the 1847, was shortly afterwards served upon the defendant had renewed the debt by entering defendant. The defendant took no notice of into a fresh contract, and had paid money to the sci. fa., whereupon a ca. sa. was issued, him on account. The judge accordingly and he was taken and put in gaol at Worcester. adjourned the summons till 27th July, 1847, On the 20th July, 1847, the defendant's at- for an affidavit of these facts. When the torneys applied to Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, parties again attended, it did not appear from (who was then sitting for Mr. Commissioner the plaintiff's attorney's affidavit, or otherwise, Evans, the commissioner who had signed the that the defendant had renewed the debt. But defendant's protection,) through Mr. Lucas, the judge stated that the defendant having negtheir counsel, who moved the court for an order to discharge the insolvent from the custody of the keeper of the gaol at Worcester. Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, after hearing the arguments of Mr. Lucas, refused to make such order. Mr. Lucas thereupon made the following indorsement upon his brief, which was read over to the commissioner and approved by him, and signed by Mr. Lucas. a lected to take notice of the sci. fa., he wished to consider that point, and took the papers home with him. On the following morning the judge made the order for the defendant's discharge, but no action to be brought. Plaintiff's attorney, Mr. H. D. Draper, Defendant's attorneys, Messrs. Smith, Witham, and Brookfield. SELECTIONS FROM CORRESPON- To the Editor of the Legal Observer. ATTORNEYS' GOWNS. SIR, I have seen with some surprise that you advocate the use of the gown by attorneys attending the County Courts as advocates! Respectable upon what ground I know not. solicitors require no badge of distinction, and why should they choose this time of all has so far thought proper to insult them, as to others to assert their dignity? The legislature make it dependent upon the whim of the judge whether they shall be heard or not-or whether -it may be of only eight years standing "Mr. Commissioner Holroyd says, he is of opinion, the 29th sect. of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, applies to cases where a protecting order has been granted under the 28th sect. of that act, and therefore the prisoner is not entitled to his discharge by virtue of that 29th sect. The commissioner is further of opinion, that the case of Toomer v. Gingel does not sufficiently decide, that the prisoner might not have pleaded in bar to the plaintiff's action, the plea given by the 10th sec., 5 & 6 Vict. c. 116, as in the present case the final order is not merely an order for protecting the person (as in Toomer v. Gingel) but for protection and distribution, and as the 74th sect. of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, enacts, that (except as herein provided) the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 116, is not repealed or in any way altered-and there being nothing in the 7 & 8 Vict., repealing or affecting the plea in they shall receive any fees! The only use of bar given by the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 116, s. 10, the the gown as it appears to me is, that there is a commissioner cannot order the prisoner's dis- little bag attached, in which barristers used of charge under any general jurisdiction the court old to put their fees, and as caps are not worn in court, it may be useful to hold the bag to may possess." the judge when they have to pray that he will "have mercy upon the advocate." I have met with the inclosed letter, which expresses the universal feelings of the Manchester attorneys. Manchester. A CONSTANT READER. The defendant's attorney, therefore, on the 23rd July, 1847, took out a summons to show cause why the defendant should not forthwith be discharged out of the custody of the keeper of the county gaol at Worcester, he, the de The following is extracted from the letter a Law Journal Reports, Dec. 1846, Com. referred to :Pleas, p. 255. "I have received a circular letter from Mal Selections from Correspondence.-Proceedings of Law Societies. WITNESS.-SHAREHOLder. 375 Is a shareholder in a joint-stock bank, and who is not a public registered officer of it, a competent witness on behalf of the bank, in an action by its public registered officer, against a party for recovery of the amount of a bill of exchange. AN OLD SUBSCRIBER. PROCEEDINGS OF LAW SOCIETIES. METROPOLITAN AND PROVINCIAL LAW The Country Law Societies are zealously supporting the association, as will appear from the following resolutions : YORKSHIRE LAW SOCIETY. don, urging me and others of the profession in Manchester, to assert our privilege of wearing a gown before the magistrates in petty sessions, at the quarter sessions, and assizes, and more particularly before the judges at the new County Courts. What my friends propose by bedecking themselves in their peacock's feathers, I know not. If some test of the honour and abilities of those attending the courts could be applied before the gown was put on, I grant it might be a source of ambition to earn such a badge, but it is not proposed to exclude the disreputable practitioner. It is not for a moment supposed that the gown would add either to the abilities of the wearer, or induce the low The Committee of Management have issued a practitioner to leave off their nefarious prac- concise statement of the objects of this Assotices. Indeed, I fear it would tend to raise the ciation, abridged from the former address, with low practitioners upon more of a level with the a list of the members at present enrolled. respectable, in the eyes of the lower orders, and in so much do harm. The time it is proposed to introduce the gown appears to me very extraordinary. Attorneys have lived, and as a body have been highly trusted and highly respected for so many years, that they have hitherto wanted no outward show; but now the legislature has established courts throughout the kingdom expressly excluding attorneys from practising in them, excepting on sufferance, and in nine cases out of ten no fees allowed, they are urged to support their dignity, but at the same time to kiss the rod that is to scourge them to strut about the courts with their gowns, mere shells, the kernels being removed. I sincerely trust the County Courts may prove of service to the public, but unless attorneys are admitted, and small but remunerating fees are allowed them as a matter of right, I doubt it. The wary will at all times overreach the unwary, and I defy the judge to unravel the case. As to Manchester the attorneys are too wise to adopt the gown; if retained by their clients they will attend the court as now constituted, but not unless they are retained, and their clients will not have less confidence in them, or less respect for them if they appear in their black coats. "AN OLD LAWYER." ATTORNEY.-COSTS. A., living within the jurisdiction of the Southwark Court of Requests, prior to the establishment of the New County Courts, was sued for a debt of 41. odd, in the Court of Requests. His attorney advised him to defend the action, and that the Court of Requests had exclusive jurisdiction to debts of 51. A writ of trial was issued, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. It appears that by a subsequent act, the superior courts had a concurrent jurisdiction, and which the defendant's attorney neglected to look at. Is the attorney liable in damages to the defendant in consequence? Can the attorney, considering such neglect, recover his costs from the defendant? AT a General Meeting of the Yorkshire Law Society, held at Rockwood's Hotel, Pavement, York, on Friday the 16th July, 1847. William Richardson, Esq., the president, in the chair. It was resolved, That this meeting approves of the objects of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, set forth, in the address of the committee of management, and is of opinion that the time members of the profession is imperatively rehas arrived when a general union of all the quired, for the purpose of resisting further aggressions upon them. That the members of this society in their various societies throughout the country, be requested to submit the address to such gentlemen as may offer themselves as candidates at the next general election, to ascertain their views respecting the matters therein contained, preparatory to the state of the profession being brought before parliament. That the new association be recommended to the cordial support of the profession in this county, and that a donation of 251. in aid of its funds be made by this society. MANCHESTER LAW ASSOCIATION. Resolved,-That Mr. Crossley, Mr. Makinson, Mr. Heron, (Town Clerk of Manchester,) Mr. Gibson, (Town Clerk of Salford,) Mr. Allen, and the Hon. Secretary, be appointed a deputation for the purpose of submitting to the members for Manchester and Salford, the address issued by the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, and to request their earnest consideration of the same. DENBIGHSHIRE AND FLINTSHIRE LAW AS SOCIATION. At a General Meeting of the Denbighshire L. e We stated the substance of these resolutions on the 24th July, p. 295, ante. 376 Analytical Digest of Cuses: Common Law Courts. and Flintshire Law Association, held at Resolved, (inter alia), That a copy of the address of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association be forwarded to such gentlemen as may offer themselves as candidates for the counties and boroughs of Denbigh and Flint, at the approaching general election, for their serious consideration of the topics therein referred to, preparatory to the state of the profession being brought before parliament; and that the members of this society who may be retained as electioneering agents, be requested to call the earnest attention of the respective candidates to the subject-matter of the said address. J. LEWIS, Hon. Secretary. On the subject of these parliamentary exertions we refer to another part of this number, p. 361, ante. ANALYTICAL DIGEST OF CASES, REPORTED IN ALL THE COURTS. Common Law Courts. See Venue. ARREST OF ATTORNEY. See Privilege. ARTICLES OF CLERKSHIP. Enrolment.-Return of premium.-Where in September, 1843, a party was articled to an attorney, who neglected to have such articles duly enrolled, but at the time of the execution handed them over to the clerk to keep them safely, and never afterwards took any measures to get them enrolled; and it was sworn by the clerk that he was ignorant of the necessity of such enrolment, and thought everything necessary had been done until November last, and had since made ineffectual attempts to induce his master to get the articles enrolled, and was treated with personal violence by him; the court granted the clerk permission to enrol the articles himself, and directed that the service of such clerk (three years and a-half) should be computed from the date of his articles. And also granted a rule calling upon the attorney to show cause why the clerk should not be discharged from his articles, and why it should not be referred to the Master to report what part of the premium should be returned. Exparte John Unwin, 34 L. O. 13. a common law court, it should mention each court in which such business was done. Therefore, where a bill stated that some of the charges were for business done in the Court of the other business was done, except that the Chancery, and it did not appear in what court items showed that it must have been in one of ficient, under the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73. Ivimcy v. the superior common law courts: Held, insufMarks, 34 L. O. 107. 2. Court in which proceedings are taken.—An attorney's bill must show the court and the cause in which the business referred to in it, or ticulars should be expressly stated, (held to be the greater part thereof, was done. These parnecessary by Maule, J.,) or must be capable of being collected by fair and reasonable intendment from the nature of the several items of charge. Martindale v. Falkner, 2 C. B. 706. Cases cited in the judgment: Lewis v. Prim rose, 13 Law J., (N. S.) Q. B., 218; 6 Q. B. 265; Frowd v. Stillard, 4 C. & P. 51. 3. An attorney's bill must give in some part of it substantial information of the court in which the business has been done. Engleheart v. Moore, 4 D. & L. 60. Case cited in the judgment: Lewis v. Primrose, 6 Q. B. 265. CERTIFICATE, RENEWAL of. Where an attorney has neglected to procure a stamped certificate to practise within twelve months from the time of his admission, the court will, under special circumstances, dispense with his giving the requisite notices under the rule of Easter Term, 1846, and allow him to take out his certificate at once, without payment of any arrears. Exparte Weymouth, 34 L. O, 252. CLIENT. In an action brought in the name of the executor of a deceased party by a receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery, to recover a debt due to the estate, a judge's order was made by consent to stay proceedings, on payment by the defendant of a certain sum, together with "costs to be taxed as between attorney and client:" Held, on motion to review the Master's taxation, that the costs of obtaining the requisite permission of the Court of Chancery to bring the present action, were not costs which the defendant was bound to pay under the above order. Lipscombe v. Turner, 4 D. & L. 125, COUNSEL'S SIGNATURE. A verdict having been taken for the plaintiff, subject to a case to be settled by a barrister, and the defendant having refused to procure the signature of a serjeant to the case when so settled, the court made a rule, that the record and postea should be delivered by the associate to the plaintiff, unless the defendant should, within a week, cause the case to be signed. Doe d. Phillips v. Rollings, 2 C. B. 842. LIEN. F. and R., attorneys in partnership, are em Analytical Digest of Cases: Common Law Courts. ployed by J. R. dies, and F. is afterwards employed by J. as his attorney, and in respect of work done after the death of R., certain deeds are given into the custody of F. by J. The bill of costs for work done by F. after the death of R. was paid by J., but the joint account was unpaid. Held, that F. had no lien on those deeds so as to enable him to retain them in respect of the bill of costs due from J. to F. & R. In re Ford, 34 L. O. 277. NEGLIGENCE. Filing return of writ.--Under the 2 W. 4, c. 39, s. 10, which says, that the writs therein mentioned "shall be returned non est inventus, and entered of record," an attorney is bound to make the return of non est inventus, and to bring the writ, with such return, to the proper officer of the court to be by him filed of record. The word "returned" in the statute includes filing so far as an attorney can file a writ. In an action against an attorney for negligence, the declaration alleged "that the defendant did not nor would file the said writs." Held, that if there was any sense of the word "file" in which an attorney could be liable to perform that duty, the declaration would after verdict be good; that in this case there was such a sense of that word, as he was bound to bring the writ to the proper officer in order to be filed of record. The judge having received evidence of what was the practice in this respect, directed the jurors, that the omitting to act in accordance with an established practice was negligence, and he left it to them to say whether that practice had been so well understood that the plaintiff had been guilty of gross negligence. Held, no misdirection. Caldwell, 34 L. O. 11. PRIVILEGE. Hunter v. County Court.-Arrest.-On motion to discharge out of custody an attorney of this court who had been arrested whilst attending in his professional capacity at a County Court: Held, that the affidavit need not show that he had signed the roll of attorneys of the County Court, in pursuance of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 27; or that there was no roll of attorneys kept in the County Court. Clutterbuck v. Hulls, 4 D. & L. 80. TAXATION. UNDERTAKING. 377 Consideration. - Attachment. Final judgment having been signed against G., his attorney wrote to the plaintiff as follows:-" In consideration of your agreeing to suspend execution upon this judgment, I hereby undertake to make an arrangement with you respecting payment of the debt and costs prior to G. being discharged from prison under his present detainers; or in the event of your not agreeing to the terms offered by me, to inform me in sufficient time of G.'s intended discharge, so that you may not be deprived of your power of lodging a detainer against him:" Held, not to amount to such an undertaking to pay debt and costs as the court would enforce. It is no answer to a rule calling upon an attorney to perform an undertaking given in a cause in this court, that he is not an attorney of this court. Thompson v. Gordon, 4 D. & L. 49. After judgment for defendant on demurrer to one of several counts, the plaintiff took out a side-bar rule to discontinue the action generally. (see Reg. Gen. Hil., 2 W. 4, art. 106). The defendant's costs, not of the demurrer only, under 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 34, but of the whole action, were taxed on the rule to discontinue, treating that rule as the termination of the action, and were received by defendant's attorneys as defendant's costs "on discontinuance the record for the defendant on the first count of the action." Judgment was entered up on only: Held, that the discontinuance, being issued after judgment without leave of the court, was irregular, and that the judgment was also irregular. The judgment was set aside without costs. Benton v. Polkinghorne In the year 1840, an attorney in London employed an attorney at Cambridge to prosecute a person for bribery. There was no agreement as to agency charges. In the year 1841, a bill was delivered, and another in the year 1842, both unsigned. In the year 1847, a signed bill was delivered, and a month afterwards an action was commenced. A judge at chambers having made an order to tax the bill: Held, on motion to rescind the order, that the bill was taxable, (overruling In re Simmons, 3 D. & L. 156); and that the delivery of the signed bill was a special circumstance" which authorized the taxation, although the defendant might have taxed the unsigned bills. Billing 16 M. & W. 8. v. Coppock, 34 L. O. 159. |