« AnteriorContinuar »
Lectures at Gray's Inn.--
Advocacy of Attorneys. -Registration of Attorneys. 611 thing of the negative badness of this law, and ADVOCACY OF ATTORNEYS IN THE the difficulty of its interpretation, take an in- INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. stance of its positive injustice. I am cerned” for a party, suffering under the pre- REFERRING to an article in our last numsent very general epidemic,-shortness of cash. Three years since he mortgaged certain ber, p. 577, ante, relating to the recent change copyhold premises to secure £220 ; "the mort- in the law by which the insolvency business gagee died; his executors want to divide the under Lord Brougham's act has been transestate, and my client is now called upon to ferred from the Bankrupty to the Insolvent pay off the incumbrance. To do this, he is compelled to effect a transfer; and, in order
Debtors' Court, we huve to notice the claim to cover the expenses of the new transaction, which we expected would be made on the part and an arrear of interest, to borrow the fur- of the attorneys to be heard in those cases in ther sum of £60, and charge new premises. which they have been accustomed to appear Now just look at the table of fees, under 55 before the bankruptcy commissioners, now Geo. 3, aforesaid,
transferred to the insolvency commissioners. Special deed of covenant to sur
In the matter of Mewburn, an insolvent, Mr. render and for title
1 15 0 Lewis, the solicitor, appeared to oppose the (A follower, with difficulty avoided)
application. Admission of the trustees of the legal estate
1 0 0
Mr. Commissioner Harris declined to hear Surrender by them and execu
him, observing that his learned brethren and tors, and further charge, and
himself had decided that no attorney could be further security (£60), 308.,
allowed to act as an advocate in that court. 358.
0 One follower stamp
Mr. Lewis, without commenting upon the
1 5 0 Admission of the
decision of the court, begged to observe that gagee? .
1 0 0 he had offered a brief to counsel, who declined
accepting it in consequence of the fee which £8 5 0
they had fixed upon as their own rate of reor nearly 15 per cent. on the further amount borrowed ! this £8 58. Od. (to say nothing of muneration not being marked upon it. the sheep-skin) he has paid. Now add the
The Court observed that it had nothing solicitor's costs to the Chancellor of the Ex- whatever to do with the arrangements of chequer's; then tell your client, that when counsel, and refused to listen to Mr. Lewis. his six months' covenant becomes due, the same thing may again occur. I have known
Another question then arose. The amount scores of small transactions like this one, in of the insolvent's debts was £467; but sets-off which the solicitor's fees have been volun- reduced it to below £300. The commissioner .tarily reduced nearly one-half, and that prin-doubted whether the sets-off could be allowed cipally on account of the excessive amount of stamps.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer any assessment in the amount of debt. The may depend upon it that it is a triangular evil, case was therefore adjourned to the 26th and also “ robs him the exchequer;" for if instant, when the matter will be argued by excessive punishments amount to an abroga- counsel, tion of the enactment which inflicts them, so these excessive stamp duties have the like effect, by stifling transactions which would
We understand that the gentlemen of the otherwise bring money into the treasury:
bar, practising in this court, have arranged Walsall, October 19.
that the usual fee of two guineas should in the
cases in question be reduced to one guinea.' LECTURES AT GRAY'S INN.
ANNUAL REGISTRATION OF ATTOR
We have to remind the London agents that
their own. continue the course of lectures, exercises, and
The examination of many thousand examinations on every Monday and Thursday
names will of course require . a .considerable until, and inclusive of, Thursday, the 23rd of period of time. The certificates are, to a cerDecember next, at the same hour.
tain extent, already filled up, but cannot be
012 Examina. of Attorneys. -Statutes of the Last Sessione Superior Courts : Lord Chan.
Chancery Affidavit Office, c. 97 337 The Examiners appointed for the examina
Bankruptcy and Insolvency, c. 102 tion of persons applying to be admitted attorneys, have fixed Tuesday, the 16th day of Nov.
Tithes Amendment, c. 104.
. 366 next, at half-past nine in the forenoon, at the Removal of Poor, c. 110
414 Hall of the Incorporated Law Society, in Chan
Copyhold Commission Continuance, C. cery Lane, to take the esamination.
101 The articles of clerkship and assignment, if
437 any, with answers to the questions as to due
Rating Stock in Trade Exemption Conservice, according to the regulations approved tinuance, c. 77
437 by the judges, must be left with the secretary, Administration of Poor Laws, c. 109. 453 on or before Tuesday the 9th Nov.
Colonial Copyright, c. 95,
456 Where the articles have not expired, but will expire during the term, the candidate may be
City of London Small Debts Court, examined conditionally, but the articles must c. lxxi. (Local)
· 471 be left within the first seven days of term, and Highway Rates, c. 93
. 499 answers up to that time.
Turnpike Acts Continuance, c. 105 . 500 A paper of questions will be delivered to
Canal Carriers, c. 94 .
522 each candidate, containing questions to be answered in writing, classed under the several
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, c. 93. . 540 heads of-1. Preliminary. 2. Common and Commons Inclosure Amendment, c. 111 560 Statute Law, and Practice of the Courts. 3.
Marriages of Quakers and Jews, c. 58. 562 Conveyancing. 4. Equity, and Practice of the Courts.
581 5. Bankruptcy, and Practice of the
Carriage of Passengers by Sea, c. 103 Courts. 6. Criminal Law, and Proceedings
Joint Stock Companies, c. 78
610 before Justices of the Peace.
Each candidate is required to answer all RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPEthe Preliminary Questions (No. 1.); and it is
RIOR COURTS. expected that he should answer in three or
REPORTED BY BARRISTERS OF THE SEVERAL more of the other heads of inquiry,-Common Law and Equity being two thereof.
Lord Chancellar. The number of candidates who have given
Varty v. Duncan. August 3 & 4, 1847. notice of admission for next term, including those who have obtained leave to add their MISTAKE.--TAKING ISSUE PRO CONPESSO. names, is
Where defendant had obtained an order that Of these, 41 have been already examined 41 the plaintiff should proceed to trial of an
issue by a certain time, or that in default The number remaining to be examined 159 the issue should be taken pro confesso as
But this will probably be largely reduced against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff from various causes.
omitted, through mistake, to give notice in
time of the trial, an order to take the issue THE LEGAL OBSERVER EDITION
pro confesso was refused, and an extension of the time for trying the issue was granted
to the plaintiff STATUTES OF THE LAST SESSION. The proceedings on the motion in this be
half before the Vice-Chancellor of England are
reported ante, p. 407. The 26 Statutes effecting Alterations in the Mr. Cooper, with whom were Mr. Walker Law passed during the last Session, which have and Mr. Elmsley, now moved for leave, which been printed verbatim in the present volume of had been refused by his Honour, to make absothe Legal Observer are as follow:
lute an unsuccessful order obtained by the dePage.
fendant on the 9th of February, 1847, to the Drainage of Land, 10 Vict. c. 11
effect that an issue, directed to be tried forth94
with by an order of the 4th of November, Inclosure of Commons, 10 Vict. c. 25 120
1846, might be taken, pro confesso, in favour Removal of Poor, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 33 313 of the defendant if the plaintiffs should not Abolition of Mastership in Chancery, proceed to the trial at the Middlesex sittings
236 after Trinity Term then next. The last-menThreatening Letters, c. 66
tioned order was for a new trial of an issue Custody of Offenders, c. 67
which had been originally directed to be tried 287
by an order of the 13th of December, 1844. House of Commons Costs Taxation, Notice to proceed with such new trial forth
.,339 with having been served by the defendant Jævenile Offenders, c. 82,
392 upon the plaintiff, and the latter not having
Superior Courto: Lord Chancellor.-Rolls. 80 proceeded, the defendant obtained the order ones. For this purpose a bill for £4,000, which he now sought to make absolute. The drawn on Messrs. Barclay and Co. in London, Vice-Chancellor had refused this motion upon and payable seven days after sight, was transthe grounds that the common law clerk of the mitted on the 6th of August, 1842, to Mr. plaintiff's solicitor had made a slip in the Knightly, by whom it was indorsed and forpractice by not giving notice of trial in time, warded to Mr. Howard, with directions also alleging that he was unaware of the order to indorse it and forward it to Messrs. Barlastly obtained by the defendant, and upon the clay and Co. in London. Mr. Howard regrounds that the plaintiff had used every en- ceived the bill on the 16th of August, and on deavour to rectify the mistake by immediately the same day gave it to a Mr. Ridler, the applying to a judge at chambers for leave to managing officer of the Cheltenham and Glouenter the issue nunc pro tunc, which could not cester Banking Company. The bill became be obtained in consequence of the defendant's due on the 23rd, and the proceeds were then refusal to consent, notwithstanding the plain- carried to the private account of Mr. Howard. tiff's offer to defray all expenses. They cited On the 29th Mr. Howard and Mr. Knightly the case of Casborne v. Barsham, 5 Myl. & Cr. sent an order to Mr. Ridler to invest the pro113, the principle of which was recognised by ceeds of the bill in the names of the new the Master of the Rolls in the case of Har- trustees. At the time when the bill was origrave v. Hargrave, 8 Beav. 289. Subsequently ginally given by Howard to Ridler, Howard to the Vice-Chancellor's refusal of the defend had a credit given him by the bank for upant's motion, his Honour had granted liberty wards of £1,500; but this credit rested upon a to the plaintiff to proceed to a new trial of the bill accepted by Howard; in the interval besaid issue at the sittings after Michaelmas tween the 16th and 29th, bills to the amount Term next.
of £700, accepted also by Mr. Howard, were The Lord Chancellor, without hearing Mr. dishonoured, and there were at that time Bethell and Mr. Schomberg, who appeared for known to be bills to a considerable amount the plaintiff, said, that the present case was accepted by Howard and soon to become due. very much opposed to that of Casborne v. Under these circumstances, suspicion as to Barsham (supra), where it was evident the Mr. Howard's solvency was aroused at the plaintiff did not intend to go to trial. Here bank, and Mr. Ridler replied to the order of the plaintiff was anxious to proceed, and the Messrs. Knightly and Howard, that he could defend wished to take advantage of a slip. not allow Mr. Howard to draw out the proNow the court would always relieve where ceeds of the bill until the overdue bills were such slip could be satisfactorily accounted for. paid. Mr. Howard subsequently proved un. Undoubtedly there had been here great igno- able to meet his liabilities to the bank. The rance or negligence, but as soon as the error present bill was filed by the new trustees to was discovered, every step was taken to re-recover the amount against Mr. Howard, and medy it. The motion must be refused with the bank, whom it was sought to make recosts.
sponsible for the proceeds, upon the ground
that Mr. Ridler, at the time when the bill was Kolls Court.
given to him, knew that it was trust property. Hawks v. Howard. July 22 & 23, 1847.
Mr. Ridler positively denied the knowledge
thus imputed to him. He admitted, however, BREACH OF TRUST.-Answer TO DEFEND- the following circumstances, which it was ANT. -INQUIRY.
contended raised a sufficiently suspicious case The answer of a trustee, who had handed against him to justify inquiry. These circum
stances were :- That Howard had asked Rida trust fund to a co-defendant in ler to take charge of the bill for hiin; that he the suit, by whom it had been applied to knew Knightly to be a clergyman, and theredischarge liabilities of the trustee to him-fore that it was unlikely that a bill which reself, is not admissible for the purpose of quired to be indorsed by him and Mr. Howard raising a case for inquiry as to whether should be Mr. Howard's own money, and that the co-defendant had not notice of the he had afterwards said that a great deal of trust.
the money in the hands of attorneys was the This was a suit to recover a trust fund money of other people, not their own. under the following circumstances. The fund Mr. Howard, by his answer, stated that he originally consisted of a promissory note dated had distinctly communicated the fact of the the 16th of August, 1838, and payable four bill being trust property to Mr. Ridler at the years after date. The trustees were Mr. time of giving up the bill to him, and that it Knightly, a clergyman resident in Warwick- was carried to his account at the advice of Mr. shire, and Mr. Howard, a solicitor, practising Ridler, and only to prevent the inconvenience at Cheltenham. Shortly before the time when of having to get Mr. Knightly's order for the the note became payable, an intention was subsequent investment of its proceeds, which formed of changing the trustees ; but as the was so soon to take place. Mr. Howard could change had not been completed at the time not be examined as a witness in the cause, when the note became due, it was determined because the right of the plaintiff against the that the money should be received by the old bank depended upon his remedy over against trustees, and by them paid over to the new Mr. Howard, who was therefore an indispen.
Exchequer.-Bankruptcy. sable party to the suit. But the plaintiffs order of Bosanquet and Co., for £379 10s., urged that the contradiction of the two an- being the price of the bark. The plaintiffs, swers was a sufficient reason for the court to upon the offer of a del credere commission, direct an issue to try the fact of whether or accepted the bill. On the arrival of the bark, not the bank had notice of the trust at the Thompson found that it was inferior to the time when the note was deposited.
sample, and refused to accept it. The plainMr. Turner and Mr. Goodeve for the plain- tiffs having been called on to pay the amount tiffs.
of the bill of exchange, brought the present Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Smyth for Mr. action to recover_from the defendant the Howard.
amount so paid. The learned judge left it to Mr. Roupell and Mr. Heathfield for the the jury to say whether the bark corresponded bank.
with the sample, and they found it did not, Lord Langdale, after stating the facts of the and returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the case, said that the plaintiff was under great amount of the bill. A rule nisi having been difficulty in establishing his case against the obtained to enter a nonsuit on the ground that bank; the answer of Mr. Howard had been the action was not maintainable against the drawn to his notice, but that answer could not defendant, be read against a co-defendant. There were Gurney and Baddeley showed cause. The indeed cases where the answer of one defend- consideration upon which the plaintiffs acant might have an effect against another; but cepted the bill having failed, they are entitled it could not be read as evidence against him. to recover the amount as money paid to the The defendants, therefore, were obliged to re- defendant's use. It is said that there is no sort to the answer of Ridler, and though they privity between the plaintiffs and the de. seemed to admit that they could not succeed fendant, and that the plaintiffs ought to have on Ridler's answer alone, said that Ridler's sued Thompson, but the fact of the bill having answer disclosed such a case, as with the been accepted by the plaintiffs at the request statements on Howard's answer would induce of the defendant is sufficient to enable them the court to direct an inquiry. His lordship to maintain this action. then examined the admissions above stated on Crowder in support of the rule. The action Ridler's answer, and ended by directing the is improperly brought against the defendant. bill to be dismissed as against the bank. Thompson is the person who is liable to re
pay the plaintiff, and he could then reErchequer.
cover the amount so paid as special damage • Hooper v. Treffry. Trinity Term, May 25, in an action against the defendant for his
breach of contract. 1847.
Between the plaintiffs and defendant there is no privity whatever.
Pollock, C. B. The rule must be discharged.
The bill was drawn by the defendant and acThe defendant having some bark to dispose cepted by the plaintiffs at the defendant's reof, applied to the plaintiff's to find him a
quest. That is sufficient to create a privity
between them. The bark turned out to be purchaser. The plaintiff's showed a sample to T., who agreed to purchase the bark inferior to the sample, and Thompson in conat £7 per ton, provided it was equal to sequence repudiated the contract, so that the sample. The defendant shipped the bark, consideration upon which the plaintiffs acsent the plaintiff's the invoice, and request-cepted the bill wholly failed, and as they were ed them to accept a bill of exchange for compelled to pay it when due, they are enthe price of the bark. The plaintiffs at- entitled to recover back the amount as money cepted the bill upon a del credere commis- paid to the defendant's use. sion. The bark was found inferior to
Alderson, Rolfe, and Platt concurred.
Rule discharged. sample, and T. repudiated the contract.
The plaintiff's having paid the bill of ex-
In re Glover. 20th October, 1847. paid for the defendant's use.
TRADER DEBTOR'S SUMMONS UNDER 1 & 2 Assumpsit for money paid.—Plea non as
Vict., c. 110.-PRACTICE.-SUFFICIENCY sumpsit.
AT the trial before the Lord Chief Baron, A notice accompanying affidavits of suffiit appeared that the defendant, having some ciency by sureties need not state that the bark to dispose of, applied to the plaintiffs, sureties are housekeepers or freeholders. who were bark and leather factors, to find him When a bond proposed to be given under a purchaser. The plaintiffs showed a sample the stat. 1 8. 2 Vict., 110, in addition to to one Thompson, a dealer in bark, at Edin- the ordinary condition prescribed by the burgh, who agreed to purchase the bark at £7 statute, contained the words, “or shall be per ton, provided it was equal to sample. The released by the plaintiff in such action." defendant shipped the bark, and sent the Held, that these words were surplusage, plaintiffs the invoice of it, and requested them and did not invalidate the bond. to accept a bill of exchange, payable to the
The trader (Glover) was served with a copy
MONEY PAID. - FAILURE OF CONSIDERA
TION.-BILL OF EXCHANGE.
OF NOTICE.-SUPFICIENCY OF BOND.
REPORTED IN ALL THE COURTS.
Superior Courts : Court of Bankruptcy-Analytical Digest.
615 of affidavit filed in this court, and a notice ANALYTICAL DIGEST OF CASES, requiring immediate payment of a debt, pursuant to the 1 & 2 Víct., c. 110, s. 8, and proposed to enter into a bond with two sure
Common Law Courts. ties. The debtor gave notice of his intention to present such bond to the commissioner for
PRACTICE. his approval this day, which notice was ac- [Concluded from page 603, ante.] companied by office copies of affidavits of
INQUIRY, WRIT OF. sufficiency by the sureties in the usual form. The bond being submitted to Mr. Commis
Upon the execution of a writ of inquiry disioner Evans for his approval,
rected to the sheriff in an action for a malicious The solicitor, on the part of the summoning prosecution, in which the damages are under debtor, objected, that the notice accompany- 40s., a certificate under the stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, ing the affidavits of sufficiency was bad, in- c. 24, ș, 2, to entitle the plaintiff to costs, asmuch as it did not state that the sureties should be signed by the under-sheriff in the were “ housekeepers” or freeholders,” pur
name of the sheriff, and not in his own name. suant to the rule of the common law courts in Stroud v. Watts, 2 C. B. 929. matters of bail. (Reg. Gen. T. T., 1 Will. 4, 1. 2.] In support of this objection, he cited an
Payment of money out of court pending writ anonymous case, 1. Dowling, p. 160, in which of error.- Property taken in execution being it was expressly held, that although a notice of claimed by the assignees of the debtor, who had bail was accompanied by an affidavit
, in which become bankrupt, the sheriff sued out an interit was stated that the bail was a house
pleader rule, and an issue was directed, the askeeper,” the bail might be rejected, as it was signees to be plaintiffs, and the execution crenot stated in the notice also. There was a ditor defendant; the money levied being, in second objection to the form of the bond, the meantime, paid into court. On trial of the The act of parliament provided that the bond issue, the assignees recovered, but, the defendshould be conditioned “ to pay such sum or ant having tendered a bill of exceptions, error sums as shall be recovered in any action or actions which shall have been brought, or court gave judgment, quashing the writ of error.
was brought in the Exchequer Chamber. The shall hereafter be brought, for the recovery of The assignees then moved this court to make such debt, together with such costs as shall be given in the same, or to render himself to 4, c. 58, for payment of money to them; but,
an order under the Interpleader Act, 1 & 2 W. the custody of the gaoler of the court in which before cause shown, the defendant brought such action shall have been or may be brought, error in the House of Lords. according to the practice of such court, or within such time or in such manner as the
There being no proof that the last writ of said court or any judge thereof shall direct, such order, pending the writ. King v. Birch,
error was frivolous, this court refused to make after judgment shall have been recovered in
7 Q. B. 669.
Waiver.-Laches.- Assignees of a bankrupt moning creditor from his debt.
applying to set aside proceedings on the ground Mr. Commissioner Evans, without calling of irregularity, must come to the court within a on the debtor's solicitor, said, I am not dis- reasonable time after notice of the irregularity. posed to give effect to an objection like that * An original writ of fi. fa. and a testatum writ taken to the notice of sureties, unless I felt were issued out on the 23rd of Feb., and on constrained to do so by some authority. The the same day the defendant's goods were seized rules of the common law courts, in matters of under the testatum writ. On the 26th, the bail, are not binding in this court in reference original writ, with the return of nulla bona, was to trader debtors' summonses, and no rules filed in the proper office of this court. On the have been framed by the commissioners of this 25th, a fiat in bankruptcy was issued against court under the statute 1 & 2 Vict., c. 110. I the defendant, and on the 10th of March credo not think the omission of the word “house- ditor's assignees were appointed. The plaintiff keeper" in the notice of sureties material. As having made up the roll, on the face of which to the second objection, the bond contains the the original writ appeared to be regularly recondition required by the act of parliament. turned before the issuing of the testatum writ, Some other words are added which do not the defendant's assignees applied to a judge at abridge the liability of the principal or his chambers, on the 10th of March, to have the sureties, and may be treated as surplusage. roll amended by inserting the true date of the If there is no objection to the sufficiency of return of the testatum fi. fa., and were referred the sureties, I shall approve of the bond. by the judge to the court : Held, that this was
The solicitor for the summoning creditor at most an irregularity, and that a motion made said, he was not prepared to deny that the on the 5th of May for that purpose was too sureties were sufficient.
late. Butterworth v. Williams, 4 D. & L. 82. Mr. Commissioner Evans. Then I approve
See Court Baron. of the bond.
Counsel's signature.- Writ of trial.- Form