Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

EXPARTE BENTHALL, 7 Scott, N. R. 407.

Attorney who changed his Name entered by his new Name.

There had been contradictory determinations by the Courts of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas respecting the right of an attorney who had changed his name to be entered upon the roll by his new name. In Exparte Hayward, 5 Scott, 712., the Court of Common Pleas refused to allow such an alteration, holding it to be mere matter of fancy. But the Court of Queen's Bench, in Exparte Ware, 6 Dowl. 311., made a different decision.

In the present case the Court of Common Pleas, notwithstanding the case of Exparte Hayward in the same Court, granted a rule for entering on the roll of attornies the name of Francis "Benthall," in lieu of his former name of "Bentall."

INDEX TO CASES.

Acton v. Blundell, 226.
Appleby v. Duke, 210.
Attorney-General v. Foord, 221.
Attorney-General v. Pargeter, 221.
Bariatinski, Princess, 196.
Bateman v. Pennington, 201.
Bateman v. Pinder, 211.
Benthal, ex parte, 241.

Bonsor v. Cox, 216.

Brooke v. Kent, 201.

Broward v. Dumaresque, 240.
Brown v. Clarke, 240.
Brydes v. Branfill, 215.
Bullock v. Wheatley, 208.

Calvert v. Godfrey, 206.

Cape v. Bent, 208.

Chapple v. Cooper, 232.

Cholmondeley v. Lord Ashburton,

202.

Clark v. Mullick, 217.

Coats v. Chaplin, 226.
Cooper v. Emery, 204. 206.
Dodd v. Acklom, 231.
Doe v. Coombs, 233.
Duncroft v. Albrecht, 209.
Dyce Sombre, 196.
England v. Downes, 212.
Fisher v. Waltham, 240.
Griffiths v. Gale, 200.

Harborough, Lord, v. Wartnaby, 239.

Harman v. Jones, 223.

Harrison v. Elwin, 200.

Harrison, in re, 241.
Harrison v. Dixon, 241.
Hart v. Windsor, 228.
Headley v. Bainbridge, 215.
Henderson v. Henderson, 239.
Hewitt v. Foster, 207.

Hilton v. Lord Granville, 222.

Hocking v. Acraman, 216.

Hood & Sanders v. Phillipps, 234.
Humphries v. Horne, 205.
Johnstone v. Beattie, 195.
Jones v. Smith, 218.

King v. Wilson, 206.
Lancaster v. Evors, 236.

Lane v. Barton, 239.
Lindsell v. Thacker, 200.

Mathews v. Brise, 207.

Micklethwaite v. Atkinson, 236. Midland Counties Railway Company v. Oswyn, 199.

Nicholson v. Haynes, 239.

Palsgrave v. Atkinson, 220.

Peach, in re, 241.

Perry v. Truefitt, 223.

Parker v. Marchant, 198.

Pasley, ex parte, 235.

Ramsden v. Fraser, 202.

Sadler v. Lee, 213.

Salkeld v. Johnstone, 211.

Salters' Company v. Jay, 212.
Sandon v. Hooper, 210.
Selby v. Jackson, 219.
Smith v. Marrable, 228.
Stanley v. Hayes, 232.
Startup v. Macdonald, 224.
Stewart v. Lord Bute, 238.

St. Katherine's Dock Company v.
Mantzgu, 237.

Sutton v. Temple, 228.
Taylor. Rundall, 237.
Thorold, in re, 217.

Vesey v. Elwood, 204.

Walsingham, Lord, v. Goodricke, 203.
Wentworth v. Tubb, 197.
Westcott v. Cullyford, 238.

Wire v. Beresford, 234.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

Surety, exoneration of, by deviation
from conditions of the guarantee,
216.

Term, motions of course out of as
well as in, 239.

Tithes, exemption from, must be
founded on a title deducible from a
great monastery, notwithstanding
Lord Tenterden's Act, J. C. R., 211.
Trade Marks, property in, 223.
Traverse of an inquisition, when un-

successful; whether costs of, are de-
mandable out of the lunatic's estate,
197.

Trust settlement of stock in trade, 212.
Trustees, responsibility of; for a broker;
for a co-trustee, 207.; obligation to
proceed with trust management not-
withstanding a suit against them,

[blocks in formation]

POSTSCRIPT.

SEVERAL events connected with the profession have very recently occurred which should not in a professional journal remain entirely without notice. Mr. Justice Erskine has retired from the Bench, from the state of his health. He was created Chief Judge of the Court of Review in 1832, when that Court was established, and was promoted to the Common Pleas in 1839. It would be impertinent for us to say more on the present occasion; than that he was an able, careful, and learned judge. He has been succeeded by Mr. Erle, whose appointment has given general satisfaction. It is highly to the credit of the Lord Chancellor, that in the distribution of his judicial patronage, so far at any rate as the superior courts are concerned, he has overlooked all other considerations than fitness for the office. No one can say that during his chancellorship he has not selected the best men he could find; and his last appointment has not discredited his former impartiality and penetration. We know not any one thing for which the country should be more grateful than this. In selecting the judges of the superior courts (as indeed in all judicial situations) party feeling should be laid aside; and it is to be observed that this can be done the more safely, as men peculiarly fitted for judges are very rarely strong partisans.

Mr. Holt, who was appointed by Lord Bexley Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster, has died. He was the author of a work on the Law of Libel, somewhat noticed in its day, and some other works. Mr. Horace Twiss has succeeded him, with the general approbation of the profession. The equity jurisdiction of this court has been recently extended.

Some sensation has been created by the public notice taken at the Central Criminal Court of certain irregular practices among the regular practitioners of that court. All that we can say in this matter, if the practices alleged be true, which they seem to be, is that they show that this court, and the corresponding sessions, are governed by rules different from those recognized by all other courts and all other sessions in this country; and this, perhaps, has been long the professional understanding as to them. The only defence made has been, "Oh! it is true I did so and so; but then I am no worse than Mr. A., and Mr. B., and Mr. C., who are doing the like every day :" to which Messrs. A. and B. and C. make no

reply. We do not know that these offences can be otherwise reached than by the general reprobation and contempt of all who really have any respect either for themselves or their profession; but we have reason to think that the matter is under the consideration of the benchers. We have heard of a case perhaps even more gross than these occurring in another court; but as this is certainly sub judice, we cannot enter into it. The good that we anticipate from these disclosures is, that they may call attention to the present state of legal education, and lead on to the proper steps being taken to reform it.

It is said that the Local Court Bill is certainly to be passed in the next session; it is said that Mr. Watson will renew his motion for a Committee as to the Chancery Compensations: and we think both these rumours may turn out to be true, although we have no other authority for them. There is more certainty in a Bill to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act (7 & 8 Vict. c. 96.), which we have reason to believe will be introduced either by the Government or Lord Brougham. How often is it to be regretted that the only mode of legislation in this country is to carry a principle by one act, and then to work it out by amendment acts. For this no one is to blame: it is the system; and to that attention has been directed in the present Number.

While on this subject we may also remark on the manner in which the Transfer of Property Act was carried. It was brought in at the commencement of the session, and read a first time; it was then allowed to slumber until the end of July, no step being taken in it—the general opinion of the profession being that it was not to be proceeded with. It was, however, then rapidly moved through the remaining stages in both Houses without a word being said, and was passed certainly without due notice or consultation. Indeed we have heard that it was sent to one learned Judge for his opinion and report, who set aside a day for looking at it, but on happening to take up a newspaper on the appointed day, found that it had already become law!

A meeting of the equity bar has taken place at Westminster, to consider the insufficiency of the present rooms allotted to the two new Vice-Chancellors, and a deputation was appointed to wait on the Lord Chancellor on the subject, to represent that proper courts should be given to them; a representation which surely it should never have been necessary to have made.

A further reduction of fees in office copies in Chancery has been made in the present term.

Michaelmas Term, 1844.

« AnteriorContinuar »