« AnteriorContinuar »
Parliamentary Report on Legal Education.
401 still real, held out not merely in the course, education shown by skill in routine formalities but in the profession itself. As admission to instead of substantial knowledge and habitual the bar is the reward of passing through the industry. As they contemplate in the estaordinary course, so eligibility to certain higher blishment of a legal institution, the means not situations at the bar should be the prize for only of providing legal instruction, but also passing through the extraordinary. In this the arrangements by which it may effectually suggestion there is no deviation from principles be enforced, they necessarily look not to those to a certain degree at present recognised; eligi- portions of the academical system which have bility to certain offices is at this moment re- failed, but to those which have been successful. stricted to certain classes, and to certain con- Much, therefore, as they approve of the insti. ditions. There are many posts to which none tution of a series of lectureships on the prinare eligible but barristers of a certain number ciple and regulations already noticed, they canof years standing. Some of the most compe- not think they will have the efficiency which tent witnesses have already shown that such they ought to have unless preceded by a first test of qualification, though'obviously meant to examination to qualify for admission to the be proof of competency, is often futile. It ad. Inns of Court, and a second on the termination mits, however, the principle : your committee of the period and courses prescribed, to qualify contend only for its efficient application. for admission to the bar. These examinations These suggestions, it is right however to be voluntary: the extent and conditions of each
should be obligatory, those for honours might observe, do not appear to be supported by should be determined by the highest authorisome of the more eminent witnesses. lies in the institution." “ Lord Brougham, for instance, whilst he
“From the evidence before your committee, strongly insists on the importance of lectures, and the proceedings which have already taken (but provided only they be accompanied by existed some apprehension that this measure
place on the subject, it would appear that there class instruction and frequent examination,) is not prepared to go to the length above stated. would, if attempted, be either opposed by the He would make attendance on lectures, but not profession, or fail. If it were a question of examination to prove whether they had been temporary only or local circumstance, it might profitably attended or not, the condition for
be no more than prudence would dictate to headmission to the bar. He would insist on at
sitate and delay ; but if this apprehension arises tendance on lectures on the part of the mem
from a permanent conviction of its inutility or bers of the Inns of Court, but not take any requires to be at once considered in reference
injury, it then affects the whole subject, and precaution to assure the lecturer or the society to the nature and object of the institution ihat the students, by sufficient amount of
itself.” viously acquired knowledge, were in a position to take advantage of those lectures. He ob- The committee add, that there seems jects to an entrance examination still more than to be no reason why a Law College (for to a final examination; he considers it unne- it is in that light that the union of the Inns cessary, as not within the competence of the of Courts must be considered, or otherwise society. But the society at present imposes it will be necessary to look elsewhere for conditions for admission; and it is a question only of how many or how few, of what or such a body) should be conducted on other of when. There is no reason for preferring principles than a College of Theology or a the condition of paying certain fees pre- College of Medicine ; and so far from liminary to admission, to the condition of pass- deeming that such arrangements as those ing through certain examinations. This is the above noticed, would have the effect of imview which Lord Campbell takes. He holds that the Inns of Court have a right to impose the contrary consider it desirable that this
posing unnecessary restrictions, many on infringement of inchoate or any other rights ; discipline should be extended from the inand that when conditions are in question, intellectual to the moral regulation of the tellectual, in reference to an intellectual profes- institution, by the maintenance of a certain sion, ought to be preferred to any other. Nor surveillance over character and conduct, so are the attendants on these lectures of an age far as might be consistent with the reto exempt them from all necessary regulations ligious and civil liberty of the individual to ensure attention. The value of the institu
and the public. tion depends on the certainty that such attention has been paid, and that benefit has been “ The judges naturally stand as the protecderived from it. It is what every institution tors, guides, and controllers of the profession ; of education (be it what it may) should ever and the bench would thus appear to be pointed aim at; it is what the public, who desire to se- out by every circumstance as the proper aucure themselves from ill-qualified practitioners, thority to govern such an institution. It may naturally look for. Now all the evideuce be be a matter of discussion how such authority fore your committee goes to show the ineffi- should be exercised, whether as governors or ciency of lectures merely voluntary, of courses as visitors, leaving to the benchers of the unless tested by examination, of admission to several inns, or a deputation or delegation from classes or honours unless fairly won, of an each, like the heads of houses in the universities,
Legal Education.- Lawyers in Parliament.--Analytical Digest. the usual adroinistrative rights and duties. The adopted by the colleges and the university on judges in England cease on arriving at the ser- one side, and by the Inns of Court in England jeantcy to be benchers, and are thus in a po- on the other.” sition to execute with impartiality the supreme controlling and directing power. The statutes
LAWYERS IN PARLIAMENT. or bye-laws proposed by the benchers, and stamped with the fiat of the judges, could not but be received by the public and the profes- Of lawyers we may mention John Twezell sion with that respect so essential to the en
Wawn, M. P., for South Shields, who was eduforcement of all regulations, but especially of those which regard educational establishments. cated for the bar, though not actually called,
"It does not appear, from the witnesses ex- he has interested bimself with the important amined on the question, that such arrange- and neglected subject of Mercantile Shipping ments can be carried out with the same facility and the Navigation Act, and the means in in Ireland ; at the same time there is nothing these times of expediency) to keep it in due which is likely to interpose serious difficulty. There, as here, it is admitted, that mere volun- vigour. tary associations for such purposes will not do; There are several M. P. lawyers at the Irish and without in any degree derogating from Bar, a list of which we shall be able to give in the credit due to the projector and principal of the Law Institute, it is too obvious that it an early number. laboured from its birth under the defects inci- Mr. Austey, of the English Equity Bar, has dental to such associations, arising from pre- for the first time been returned for Youghal. cariousness, uncertainty, and want of efficient
We much regret to lose for the present the authority and control. An institution intended valuable services in parliament of Sir Fitzroy for the education of the profession ought to have its roots as deeply fixed, its regulations as Kelly, Q. C., and Mr. W. H. Watson, Q.C. universally recognised, its powers as unequivo. The representation of the Scottish Bar shall cal and effective, as those of the profession also be duly regarded. itself. There, as here, as long as no insurmountable obstacle intervenes, the Inn of Court, which comprises the eminence and authority,
ANALYTICAL DIGEST OF CASES, and may be considered to represent the interests of bench and bar, ought to be adopted both by the profession and public, in preference to any
Common Law Courts. new, certainly to any voluntary society. The King's Inn also has, in certain respects, an ad
LAIV OF RAILWAYS. vantage over the English inns. It form a single
ACTION BY PROMOTER.' body, and has not to consult the wishes of any other. But the King's Inn is likewise, it must B. were the registered promoters, under the
Against provisional committee-man.-A. and be remembered, in an anomalous position; it stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, of a railway company. enforces rules and regulations, raises fees, and A provisional committee was afterwards formed, prescribes conditions, not in reference to one at a meeting of which A. was appointed secre, branch of the profession only, but to both. tary, and B. solicitor, to the company, and Now under what warranty this has been and is other persons a managing committee : Held, still done, is subject to controversy, and at- that A. could not, merely upon these facts, retempts have been made and resisted to define cover against an acting member of the managand to assure it. It can hardly be expected, ing committee for services afterwards perunder such circumstances, that many difficulties formed by him as secretary. Wilson v. Viscount should not arise to the formation and adminis- Curzon, 15 M. & W. 532. tration of any system, however in itself unexceptionable.' The judges, too, by continuing benchers, are involved in all the real or sup
See Partnership. posed partialities of such a body, and cannot exercise in the same unquestioned and efficient 1. Committee-man.-- Recovery of deposit.manner, their authority in directing and con. An allottee of shares in a railway scheme which trolling as they are enabled to do in England. has proved abortive, may recover back, in an But these objections are not irremovable. The action for money had and received, the whole proposition made and carried into effect at one amount paid by way of deposit. Walstabb v. period, by a royal charter incorporating the Spottiswoode, 32 L.O. 180. society, or an act of parliament determining
2. Recovering back deposit.-A railway comand regulating the organization, powers, rights, pany was provisionally registered, and a proand functions of the King's Inn, in reference to spectus was issued, which stated the proposed both branches of the profession, would go far capital to be 2,000,0001., in 80,000 shares of to remedy these defects, and at the same time 251. each. The plaintiff applied to the proafford a favourable opportunity of combining visional committee for 70 shares, in a letter, with the new arrangements an effective system whereby she undertook to accept the same or of legal education, in harmony with that any less number that they might allot to her,
REPORTED IN ALL THE COURTS.
Analytical Digest of Cases : Common Law Courts.
to pay the deposit of 21. 12s. 6d. per share plicants for more than the 120,000 shares. At thereupon, and to sign the parliamentary con- that meeting the plaintiff opposed the resotract and subscribers' agreement when re- lutions to continue the concern, and moved as quired. To this letter she received an answer, an amendment that the deposits should be resigned by the secretary, stating that the com- turned; but the chairman declined to put the mittee of management had allotted to her 30 amendment to the meeting. Subsequently the shares, and requesting her to pay the deposit scheme was abandoned, and the plaintiff of 21. 12s. 6d., announting to 781. 15s., into one brought his action against a member of the of certain banks on or before a day mentioned. managing committee to recover back the The plaintiff accordingly paid into one of those amount of his deposits. banks, in due time, the deposit of 781. 15s., and Held, First, that the application for shares received the banker's receipt for the same. She and the letter of allotment constituted no bind. afterwards presented the receipt to the company, ing contract. Secondly, that the advertisement and made several fruitless applications to the amounted to a fraudulent misrepresentation, committee for scrip, and at length was in- and having been so found by the jury, as also formed that the directors had come to the re- that it was a material inducement to the plainsolution not to issue any scrip, and that the tiff to sign the subscribers' deed, as well as to greater part of the deposits had been expended, pay his money, formed a good ground of action, and the balance would be rateably divided. It to which the terms of the deed were no answer. appeared that the directors, finding it impos- Thirdly, that the plaintiff's conduct at the subsible to go to parliament in the ensuing session, sequent meeting did not amount to any waiver had determined not to issue any scrip; and of his right to recover. And fourthly, that the that, of the entire number of 80,000 shares, omission to direct the jury as to whether or not 70,000 were allotted, but deposits were paid on there was a binding contract was no ground 4,000 only, producing altogether the sum of for a new trial. Wontner v. Shairp, 34 L. O. 10,500l. In an action by the plaintiff to re
156. cover back from a member of the managing 4. Action for deposits. — A. applied to the committee the sum of 781. 15s., so paid by her provisional directors of a railway company for as deposits on the shares allotted to her: Held, an allotment of shares, and 40 were afterwards
1st, That there was sufficient evidence of the allotted to him. Between the time of the applifinal abandonment of the project.
cation for shares and the letter of allotment 2ndly, That, on its abandonment, under the several names had been withdrawn from the circumstances above stated, the plaintiff was provisional committee and additional names had entitled to recover back, as money had and re
been added. A managing committee was apceived to her use, the whole sum so paid by pointed from among the provisional directors, her.
and by them an action was commenced to reAn association of this nature does not cover from A. the amount of the deposits to be amount to a partnership. Walstabb v. Spottis- paid on the shares allotted to bim. woode, 15 M. & W. 501.
Held, that inasmuch as the shares were not
allotted to A. by the persons to whom the ap Cases cited in the judgment: Pitchford v. Davis, 5 M. & W.2
; Nockells v. Crosby, 3 B. & c. plication for shares was made, the evidence 814 ; 5 D. & R. 751.
failed to support the contract alleged in the de
claration, and the plaintiffs were nonsuited. 3. Invalid_contract. — Fraudulent misrepre- Woolmer and others v. Toby, 34 L. O. 302. sentation.— Recovery of deposits.— The pro- 5. Inspection of documents.-In an action by spectus of a railway company stated the capital an allottee of railway shares against a member to be 3,000,000l., in 120,000 shares. On the of the provisional committee, to recover back plaintiff's application by letter, sixty shares his deposit, the court ordered that the plaintiff were allotted to him, and the letter of allot- should have an inspection and copy of the subment was headed in the same manner as the scribers’ agreement and parliamentary contract, prospectus, and stated further what was not to which both the plaintiff and the defendant had be found in the letter of application, namely, signed, and which were in the hands of the sothat the allotment was upon condition that the licitors of the company; the plaintiff's affidavit deposit be paid on or before a given day on stating that an inspection of them was necespain of forfeiture, and the shares being dis- sary to him for the purpose of framing his case, posed of to others. Eleven days before the and the defendant not showing that they were given day the managing committee advertised not within his power or control. Steadman v. that they had completed the allotment of shares, Arden, 15 M. & W.587. and there was some evidence of the plaintiff's Case cited in the judgment: Morrow v. Sanders, having seen the advertisement. On the third (3 Moore, 671. day after the given one he paid his deposits, and in a fortnight afterwards executed the usual parliamentary contract and subscribers'
See Shareholder. agreement. In the following month a meeting was holden, the plaintiff being present, and it was then made known that at the date of the
See Bye Law. advertisement the committee had in fact only
ATTORNEY'S LIABILITY. allotted 58,000 shares, although there were ap- 1. Appearance. — Joint-stock Company.
ALTERATION OF LINE,
Analytical Digest of Cases : Common Law Courts.
Judgment.--Irregularity.-In an action against
DEPOSIT. the members of a joint-stock company the See Allotlee, 1, 2, 3, 4. managing director authorised an attorney to accept service of process for all the defendants. The case proceeded, and after notice of trial, Service of declaration, in ejectment against a the same attorney, by the authority of the railway company, upon the secretary of the managing director, consented to a judge's order company, is good, by stat. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, s. for payment of debt and costs. The money not 135. Doe d. Bayes v. Roe, 16 M. & W.98. having been paid, final judgment was signed, and execution levied on the goods of a defend
See Provisional Committee, 4. ant who had no notice of the proceedings. The court set aside the judgment as irregular. In such case, if a defendant has had notice
See Provisional Committee, 1, 2, 4. of the proceedings, the court will not interfere, unless the attorney be insolvent, when they will relieve the defendant on equitable terms. Provisional committee.-Contract.-Agent.If the attorney be solvent, the court will leave The mere fact of a party having agreed to be a him to his remedy against the attorney: provisional committee.man, is no evidence of Bayley v. Buckland and others, 34 L. O. 279. an authority to make contracts on bis bebalf.
2. Costs.- In a hostile suit between the di- The association of persons as provisional rectors of a railway company : Held, that the committee-men for the purpose of carrying out solicitor of a company would be liable for the a scheme, is not in law a partnership, nor is costs of an interlocutory application, in case it there any implied agency on the part of one or should appear that he had acted without the more of the provisional committee to bind the authority of the company. Exeter and Credi. others by his or their contracts. ton Railway v. Buller, 34 L. O. 180.
Where a party has authorised his name to be
inserted as a provisional committee-man in a BROKER.
prospectus, in which certain persons are dePurchase of Railway scrip:—The defendant, scribed as the acting committee, and the proa shareholder, bought for the plaintiff scrip spectus has been publicly circulated, it is a certificates, which were sold in the share-mar- question for the jury as to the inference to be ket, at a premium, as “Kentish Coast Railway drawn from the paper, and must depend upon Scrip," and were signed by the secretary of the the terms of each particular prospectus. Reyrailway company. The genuineness of this nell v. Lewis, Wyld v. Hopkins, 33 L. 0. 115. scrip was afterwards denied by the directors, who alleged that it was issued by the secretary without authority: In an action to recover See Action, back from the defendant the price paid to him
PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE. by the plaintiff for this scrip, and for his commission, on the ground of its not being genuine:
1. Liability. — The defendant, in answer to Held, that the proper question for the jury was, an application from the secretary of a railway whether what the defendant intended to buy company to allow his name to be placed on the was that which was sold in the market as Kent- provisional committee, wrote to him consenting ish Coast Railway scrip. Lamert v. Heath, 15 to do so, and, stated that "he concluded his M. & W. 436.
liability would be limited to the amount of his shares." His name was accordingly published
in the newspapers as one of the provisional Arrest.—A railway company made a bye-law committee, and on one occasion he attended that every passenger who should not deliver up and acted as chairman at a meeting of the comhis ticket when required should pay the fare mittee : Held, that he was liable for the price of from the place where the train originally started: stationery supplied by the plaintiff, on the order Held, that, assuming the bye-law to be reason of the secretary, and used by the committee, able, the company had no power to arrest a after the date of his letter to the secretary. passenger who, having lost his ticket, refused Barnett v. Lambert, 15 M. & W. 489. to pay the full fare. Chilton v. The London
2. Liability. — The mere fact of a person and Croydon Railway Company, 33 L. O. 479. agreeing to become a member of the pro
visional committee of an intended railway comSee Shareholder,
pany amounts to no more than a promise that
he will act with other persons, appointed or to COMMITTEE.
be appointed, for the purpose of carrying the See Provisional Committee.
scheme into effect. Therefore, in an action against a provisional committee-man for goods
supplied on the order of the solicitor of the See Allottee, 3; Partnership.
company, it was held, that the law could not
imply, from the mere fact of his agreeing to be • This and a few other recent cases in Equity a member of such committee, an authority from are added to this section of the Digest. The him to the other members of it to make conother decisions are from the Common Law tracts by himself or by the solicitor, nor an Reports.
authority to the solicitor to make them on be
PURCHASE OF LAND.
REINVESTMENT OF RAILWAY MONEY.
and if so,
Analytical Digest of Cases : Courts of Common Law.
405 half of the committee. If the party not only cumstance of the defendant's being a member consents to be a provisional committee-man, of a railway provisional committee, it was proved but authorises his name to be inserted and that the published prospectus stated, that until published in a prospectus which merely states an act of parliament should be obtained the the names of the members of the provisional committee of management was to have the concommittee, and nothing more, that fact does trol of the company's affairs, and to apply the not alter the liability. If it state the names of funds, &c. : Held, that no authority, either exan acting or managing committee also, it is a press or implied, was given to the managing question for the jury to say, whether it means committee to contract on the credit of the prothat the latter are to take upon themselves the visional committee. whole management of the concern, or that the Semble, that any authority given by the terms former have constituted the latter their agents to of a prospectus is not to be considered as demanage it on their behalf, in which case the rived solely from the provisional committee. former would he liable for the contracts of the Dawson and others v. Morrison, 34 L. 0. 230. latter. Or, if the solicitor's name were mentioned in it, the question for the jury would be, whether it meant that he was to be employed
Expiration of powers giren by a railway act. by those of the committee who acted, or that – Injunction.-- Where a power for the compulhe was already appointed by all whose names sory purchase of land is given by act of parlia. were mentioned, as their solicitor, to do all so- ment for the space of three years, and before licitor's work on their behalf; and further, the expiration of the three years a jury meet to what was the business then usually transacted assess the value of certain land, but do not find by solicitors in such undertakings on behalf of a verdict until after the expiration of the three the company
And the same as to the se- years : Held, that such verdict went for nothing, cretary.
and an injunction granted to restrain the comWhere there is also evidence that the defend- pany from proceeding to take possession of the ant has acted with relation to the proposed
land. Brocklebank v. Whitehaven Railway scheme, it is a question for the jury, whether Company, 34 L. O. 381. by his consent and acts, he has authorised the solicitor, or secretary, or any member of the committee, to pledge his credit for the neces
98 10 Vict. c. 20.-Application to allow the dinary expenses to be incurred in under an order of the court to be changed, re
security on which money had been invested forming such a company;
whether the work was done, and the credit given, on the act 9 & 10 Vict. c. 20.
fused, there being no authority for doing so in
In re Harwich the faith of his being liable. Such an intended association does not con
Railway, 34 L. O. 104. stitute a partnership, inasmuch as it constitutes no agreement to share in profit or loss. See Broker. Reynell v. Levis; Wyld v. Hopkins, 15 M. & W.517. 3. Decision of a co-ordinate court. — The
Assumpsit.-A. and B. were provisional di. Court of Exchequer having decided the same rectors of a projected railway scheme, and A. point as that sought to be raised on showing
was afterwards, with the consent of B. and the cause against a rule nisi to enter a nonsuit, this other directors, appointed secretary to the comcourt refused to hear the arguments, holding pany, and B. attended meetings of the comthat the Exchequer decision was to be con- pany whilst A. acted as secretary. The scheme sidered as binding until reversed by a court of was afterwards abandoned. error. Barker v. Stead, 33 L. 0. 155.
Held, that A. could maintain an action 4. Attendance at Meeting.- Evidence of iden- against B. for services rendered, and that B. tity:-In order to establish the identity of the by his own conduct was estopped from taking defendant as having been present at a meeting the objection that A, having been once jointly of a railway provisional committee of which he interested in the undertaking with him, could was a member, for the purpose of making a re- not divest himself of that liability so as to supsolution passed at such' meeting admissible in port the action. Day v. Sharpe, 32 L. 0. 543. evidence against him, it is not enough to produce the minute book of the proceedings copied from a previous rough draft, and containing, shares in a proposed railway from "Dublin to
Calls.- Alteration of line -A. applied for amongst those present, a similar name to the Mullingar and Athlone,” and signed the subdefendant's, and to show that the defendant was the only person bearing that name on the pro- the scrip.
scription contract, and shortly afterwards sold visional committee, and that he had been sum- tained an act of parliament enabling the com
The directors subsequently obmoned to attend it. Giles and another v. Cornfoot, 33 L. 0. 13.
pany to make a railway from “Dublin to MulSee Action by Promoter ; Partnership: Pro. Lingar and Longford,” and there was a clause spectus, Construction of.
requiring the company to purchase a canal. In
an action against A. for calls, held, first, that PROSPECTUS, CONSTRUCTION OF. he was the shareholder and not the vendee of Provisional committee.--Authority of manag- the scrip; secondly, that he was not discharged ing committee.-- Where, in addition to the cir- from liability by reason of the alteration in the