Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

THE COURTS & COURT PAPERS.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Wednesday, Oct. 31.

(Before the CHIEF CLERKS.) THE BIRMINGHAM BANKING COMPANY. Mr. CHURCH, the Chief Clerk, gave his decision to-day respecting the application made to him on behalf of Mr. Brinsley (as representing those interested in the bank), for leave to inspect the books. The CHIEF CLERK made an order for the inspection of the books, but refused to appoint a representative of the shareholders.

BARNED'S BANKING COMPANY.

To-day the case of Barned's Banking Company, under the winding-up order, came on before Mr. Church, the Chief Clerk of the Master of the Rolls, on an important question in " 45" summonses raised on as many affidavits, the object being to vary the certificate of the Chief Clerk as to contributories. It was a point of considerable interest to shareholders in public companies.

Emanuel on the part of the forty-five shareholders on the list, applied for a summons to vary the certificate as to the contributories on the ground that evidence had been obtained on which he showed alleged fraud, by which they had been induced to take shares on a false or exaggerated prospectus coined by the directors. There had been a special examiner appointed, and on the evidence given he grounded his application, and that would open the second question, which would first have to be considered, and that was a rule of court, which required all applications to be made within "eight days" of the certificate. He cited two cases in which leave had been given where the eight days had expired.

The CHIEF CLERK thought the first point was, as to this application being made by motion to the

court or at chambers.

Emanuel admitted that it was so. All he could say was, that he had been unable to find any case on the point. He was, however, willing to go to

the court on motion.

The CHIEF CLERK said he would ascertain whether any case had occurred before he decided the matter. No doubt this putting a man on a list of contributories was a very summary proceeding, and if he considered he had a good defence, which he could not know until after the period allowed had expired, it did seem right that he should be able to use it.

Handson, from the office of Messrs. Freshfield and Newman, solicitors to the liquidators, denied that there had been any fraud. The case had been published in the newspapers, and he wished his denial to go forth.

The CHIEF CLERK said Mr. Handson could not suppose that he had given any opinion on the subject. He could not do so.

Handson wished his denial to be public.

decree or decretal order" were inserted there- Friday...... Nov. 16
in respectively;

And rule 13 of the same order shall be read as if
the words "unless a motion for a decree or
decretal order shall have been set down in the
meantime" were expunged therefrom, and in
lieu of those words, the words "unless a
notice of motion for a decree or decretal order
shall have been served in the meantime" were
inserted therein.

motion for a decree or decretal order, shall set
2. The plaintiff, who has served a notice of
down such motion within one week after the ex-
piration of the time allowed to him by rule 7 of
Order 33 to file his affidavits in reply, in case the
one week after the expiration of the time allowed
defendant shall have filed any affidavit, or within
his affidavits in answer, in case the defendant shall
to the defendant, by rule 6 of Order 33, to file
not have filed any affidavit. But in case the time
allowed for either of the purposes aforesaid shall be
enlarged, then within one week after the expiration
of such enlarged time.

motion within the time above limited, the defendant 3. If the plaintiff shall fail to set down the may either move to dismiss the bill with costs, for want of prosecution, or set the motion down at his own request.

4. The Clerk of Records and Writs shall not give a certificate that a motion for a decree or decretal order is in a fit state to be set down until after the expiration of the time allowed to the plaintiff, by rule 7 of Order 33, to file his affidavits in reply, in case the defendant shall have filed any affidavit, or until after the expiration of the time allowed to the defendant, by rule 6 of Order 33, to file his affidavits in answer, in case the defendant shall not have filed any affidavit. But in case the time allowed for either of the purposes aforesaid shall be enlarged, then not until after the expiration of such enlarged

time.

5. In all cases in which the time allowed by rules 6 and 7 of Order 33 for filing affidavits in answer or in reply shall be enlarged, notice thereof shall be given to the Clerk of Records and Writs by production of the order for such enlargement.

CHELMSFORD, C.
ROMILLY, M. R.
RICHD. T. KINDERSLEY, V. C.

COURT OF CHANCERY. WINDING UP CASES.

......... 17

Petitions in lunacy, appeal petitions, and appeals Appeals

Saturday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday 21
Thursday
Friday ............. 23

........ 19 Ditto
20 Ditto
Ditto
......

Saturday Monday

[ocr errors]

.........

22

Appeal motions and appeals

Petitions in lunacy, appeal petitions, and appeals

24

Appeals

26 Appeal motions and appeals

N.B. Such days as the Lords Justices shall be engaged Council, are excepted. in the full court, or at the Judicial Committee of the Privy

[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][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]

All separate applications, whether for cheques, directions, or otherwise, must be put into the chief Friday clerk's list.

The junior clerk will, on request made before twelve o'clock on any day, put any such case (if urgent) in the list for the next day.

All necessary papers must be left with the junior clerk at the time the case is put in the list.

No cheques will be delivered out except to the

7 Ditto

8 Motions, adjourned summonses, and

general paper

Petitions, adjourned summonses, and general paper

9

Short causes, adjourned summonses,

[blocks in formation]

Saturday ......... 10 Monday............ Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

and general paper

14 Ditto

15 Motions, adjourned summonses, and general paper

Emanuel expressed his willingness to go to the official liquidator himself or to some person au tho- Friday 16 Petitions, adjourned summonses, and

[blocks in formation]

The CHIEF CLERK said he would consider the question and give his judgment to-morrow. It was his impression that the application should be made to the Court by motion and not by summons at chambers.

The decision accordingly stood adjourned.

THE DINING HALLS COMPANY (LIMITED). The affairs of this company, under the Windingup Act, came on to-day before Mr. Church, and stood over. Several persons attended to make claims, and it was intimated that an arrangement might be made. The claims were ordered to be entered, and the case stood over.

Re OVEREND, GURNEY, AND CO. (LIMITED). The opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, Sir R. T. Kindersley, on the propriety of the orders to enforce the call which were made by the chief clerk, Mr. Buckley, on the 29th inst., will be taken on Monday, Nov. 5, at half-past three, instead of yesterday, as originally proposed.

REGULA GENERALIS. ORDER OF COURT.-Oct. 6, 1866. The Right Hon. Frederick Baron Chelmsford, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, by and with the advice and assistance of the Right Hon. John Lord Romilly, Master of the Rolls, and the Hon. the Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Torin Kindersley, doth hereby, in pursuance of the stat. 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, and in pursuance and execution of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, order and direct in manner following:

1. Art. 1 of rule 10 of Order 83 of the Consolidated General Orders, and rules 12 and 13 of the same Order shall be respectively varied, and as varied shall be respectively read as follows:

Art. 1 of rule 10 of Order 33, and rule 12 of the same Order, shall be respectively read as if the words "or set down a motion for a decree or decretal order" were expunged therefrom respectively, and in lieu of those words, the words "or serve a notice of motion for a

[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][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][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][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][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][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][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][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]

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee will commence sitting for the dispatch of business on Thursday, the 1st Nov. 1866, at half-past ten a.m.

London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company (apps.) McGilvery and others (resps.) Admiralty Court. Sols, : Jenner for apps.; Clarkson for resps.

Cassanova (app) O. S. L. the Queen (resp.) Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone. Sols.: Rothery and Co. for app.; Her Majesty's Proctor for resp. Solano (app) Bismullah, Begum, and another (resps.) Bengal. Sols.: Chilton and Co. for for resps.

app.;

Henderson

Wallace (app.) Judges of Supreme Court (resps.) Nova Scotia. Sols: Hill and Son for app.

Bufe (app.) Denker and others (resps.) Heligoland. Sols. : Lever and Son for app.

Es.anchunder Sing (app.) Shamachurn Bhutto and others (resps) Bengal. Sols.: T. L Wilson for app.; Oehme for resps.

Cowasjee Nanabhoy and others (apps.) Laullhoy Vullu-
bhoy and others (resps.) Bombay. Sols.: Hawkins
and Co. for apps.; Parke and Pollock for resps.
Guthrie et ur. (apps.) Lister (resp.) Bengal. Sols.: Pater-
son and Longman for apps.; Wilkins for resp.
Oertel (app) Smith and others (resps.) Cape of Good
Hope. Sols.: Roberts and Simpson for app.; Thomas
and Hollams for resps.

Streemuthoo Raghoonadha Perya Oodya Taver (app.)
Kattama Nauchear (resp.) Madras. Sols.: Williamson,
Hill, & Co. for app.; Jones, Blaxland, & Jones for resp.
Chambers (app.) Davidson and others (resps.) West
Indian Incumbered Estates Court. Sols. Boys and
Tweedies for app.; Kingsford and Dorman for resps.
Doyle and others (apps.) Falconer (resp.) Dominica.
Sols. F. E. Mawe for apps.; T. L. Wilson for resp.
Williams (app.) Stevens (resp.) Jersey. Sols: Jones,
Blaxland, and Jones for app.; Woodroffe for resp.
Gugy (app.) Brown (resp.) Canada. Sols.: La Penotière
for app.; Clarke, Son, and Rawlings, for resp.
Murray and others (app.) Burgers (resp.) Cape of Good
Hope. Sols.: Williams and James for apps.; Venning
and Co. for resp.

Nunes (app.) Carter (resp.) Jamaica. Sols.: Purrier for app.: Tuke and Valpy for resp.

Rev. E. Parker (app) Leach (resp.) Chancery Court of
York. Sols.: Bayford for app.; Deacon for resp.
Baboo Ruwun Pershad (app) Jankee Pershad (resp.)
Bengal. Sols.: B. Smith for app.: Oehme for resp.
Sreemunchunder Dey (app.) Gopaulchunder, Chucker-
butty, and another (resps) Bengal. Sols. Graham and
Lyde for app.; Paterson and Longman for resps.

Court of Appeal in Chancery. (Before the LORD CHANCELLOR and the LORDS JUSTICES.)

Appeals.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Belaney . Belaney

Massey v. Massey
Hancock v. Reeves

Ennor r. English and Foreign

Credit Company (Limited) Ennor r. English and Foreign

Credit Company (Limited) Phillips r. Hudson Fielden, Bart., r. Mayor, &c. of Blackburn Attorney-General v. Staffordshire Copper Extract Company (Limited) Simmons . British Nation Life Assurance Association Grady r. Taylor Thornton r. Howe Tilley v. Thomas

Attorney-General. MidKent Railway Company Pilgrim . Auction Mart Company (Limited)

Eyre r. Stilte

Osborn v. Duke of Marl-
borough
Hynam v. Dunn
Austin r. Tawney
Thruston r. Gaussen
Snowball r. Wrightson

Causes.

Baxendale v. West Midland Railway Company Baxendale r. Great Western Railway Company Baily v. Keighly

Stevens r. Harvey Cox . Horsley Cox r. Horsley Ricketts r. Long Cross r. Raveu Cooper r. Jarman England v. Lavers Brancker v. Carne Carne r. Brancker Omerod r. Rostron

Rolls Court. Causes, &c.

Verelst r. Midland Railway
Company

Wood r. Joynson
Kernochan r. Ryland
Jarvis v. Allen
Chadwick. Young
Turquand r. Miller
Miniken v. Mackinlay
Penaluna r. Edwards
Libri r. Sotheby
Grissell r. Money
Bwye v. Ross
Jones v. Badley

Kidd r. Tomlinson
Tomlinson v. Gregg
Champain v. Coghlan
Shaw . Beazley
Lefevre v. Huskisson
Simons v. Bagnall
Hodgson v. Hodgson
Cooper v. Lawes
Wilding v. Lander
Upchurch . Ekins
Parker r. Butcher
Lefroy v. Scott, Bart.
King r. East and West Junc-
tion Railway Company
Walshe r. Dommett
Barnard r. Sayers
Hamilton r. Spottiswoode
Coffin r. Searby
Ferguson v. Watts
Visconti r. Bowen
Davis v. Davis
Dummett v. Symes
Neame v. Moorsom
Webster, Bart. v. Cook
Kirk v. Faulkner
Oldham v. Oldham

Gellatly r. Smith
Philly e. Philby

Phillipson v. Mayor
Crawley v. Carter
Croskill v. Faithwaite
Markwick v. Over
Hodges v. Grant
Hodges r. Deck
Steuart r. Hay

Mackintosh v. Steuart
Franklin e. Hall
Winter r. Wallis

Robinson v. Boycott
Clarke v. Sunderland
Heane v. Evans

Re Hayslem-Royer r. Marshall

Ra Robinson's Estate
Compton Portal
The Canadian Loan and
Investment Company
(Limited) v. Kemp
Harris v. Nunn
Dickinson r. London, Chat-
ham, and Dover Railway
Company

Overmau r. Overman
Leigh r. Birch
Gosling v. Gosling
Fryer v. Ward

Kerby r. Hampson
Morris e. Kenrick
Evans r. Jones

West v. Rowberry

Hodgson r. Churchman
Morrison v. Great Eastern

Railway Company
Goodfellow r. Thirlwall
Read v. Read

London and South-Western

Bank (Limited) v. Maples

Hodder v. Gilbert
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
Lea v. Grime

Robins r. Edwards

Daveron v Barlow
Haines r. Haines
Edmonds r. Millett
Clutton v. Clutton
Warde r. Kane
Bolitho e. Hillyar

[blocks in formation]

Collyer v. Collyer
Pearce v. Smalpage
Curling v. Walters
Slattery r. Axton

The Governor, &c., of the
Poor of Bristol v. Pearce
Harrison v. Lewis

Wakefleld v. Duke of Buc- Smith v. James

cleugh

Dickson v. Wason Morrill v. Withey Taylor v. Pearsall Sullivan v. Ward Lloyd v. Ashford Ashman v. Sperring Binney v. Chattaway Rothery r. Nelson Trickett v. Russell Upton r. Mavor

Mackenna v. Parkes Johnston v. Brunskill Fox v. Dellestable Thomas v. Cresswell Ormandy v. Okell

[blocks in formation]

of Manchester Wyatt Steel

Feaver v. Williams
Dodd r. Holbrook
Paine r. Hutchinson
Caton r. Coles
Beckwith Booth
Hope r. Carnegie
Singleton r. Pitman
Blomfeld v. London, Chat-
ham, and Dover Railway
Company

Brocklesby e. Lyford

Aders r. Hogg

Absolone. Gibbon

Stauiforth r. White

Bailey v. Bailey
Atwood v. Maude
Parsons r. Webb
Heriot r. London, Chatham,
and Dover Railway Com-
pany

Wimsett r. Simpson
Jones v. Wilbraham
Reed v. Wilkins
Hallett r. Garrett
Phillips r. Pullen
Beck v. Davis
Barlow r. Perkins
Rudd r. Aislibie
Craven v. Traill
Moore r. Webster
Lucas r. Boult
Whiting v. George
Mallock v. Still
Donaldson r. Gillot
Walter v. Platt
Yules r. Yules
Philips r. Andrew
King r. Brown

Niblett Bristol and South

Wales Uniou
Company

Railway

Ilderton Dutton

Atkinson v. Swann

Rowley v. Broade

Humphreys v. Humphreys
Philipps v. Crouch
Davies r. Jones
Owen r. Swancott
Beaumont v. Fryer
Battison v. Hobson
Fell r. Fell

London and North-Western
Railway Company v. Earl
of Dartmouth

Turner v. Turner
Foulsham v. Foulsham

Foster v. Jones
Grave r. Turner
Burbey r. Burbey
Ledsam r. Nutt
Rose r. Rowe
Hall v. Waterhouse
Bell r. Foster

Bromilow r. Haddock
Craven Craven
Norbury r. Johnson
Yetts r. Marsh

Gardner r. London, Chatham,
and Dover Railway Com-
pany

Drawbridge r. Same
Campbell v. Bainbridge
Ottley v. Ottley

The British Prudential and
Consolidated Assurance

Company r. Bradburn
Turton v. Barber

The British Prudential and
Consolidated

Assurance

Company v. Chadwick Short r. Roberts Robertson v. Scott

Danelle Hayling Railway Company.

V. C. Wood's Court. Causes, &c.

Horwood r. Bagnall
Davenport . Townsend
Jackson r. Shanks
De la Peyrouse v. Pelly
Jackson v. Bognor Railway
Company

Jackson r. Bognor Railway
Company
Thorn r. Croft
Roger v. Allison

Williams v. Bagnall
Brittlebank r. Goodwin
Rayment v. Boorn

Joint-Stock Discount Com-
pany (Limited) v. Brown
Stewart e. Austin
Same v. Same

Foster r. Gladstone
Wedderburne v. Thomas
Greenhalgh r Rumney
Hinde v. Morton
Farrer v. Mould
Wedderburne v. Thomas
Wickham v. Scaife
Bovill r. Crate
Saunders v. Mackeson
Betts r. Neilson

Hallows r. Fernie

Nicholl r. Jones

Greenhalgh r. Rumney

International Bank (Limi- Morgan r. Fuller

Simon v. Edwards

ted) r. Gladstone

[blocks in formation]

Attorney-General v. Earl of
Lonsdale

Pigou v. The Estate Com- Saunderson v. Fowler

pany (Limited) Loveridge v. Bates

Yeatman r. Read
Hilton r. Hilton
Dolwin r. Ellis
Villars v. Tink
Crawford v. Higgs
White v. Birch
Hancock r. Bateman
Baring v. Harris
Wason v. Metropolitan Dis-
trict Railway Company
Corrock r. Grant
Fox r. Jones

Beecher v. Major
Millard v. Ellyett
Attorney-General v. Lawson
Mayor, &c., of Hythe v. East
Wynniatt. Vaughan
Powell r. Scott

Waterlow r. Bacon
Parish v. Wilkinson
Speight r. Foster

Shoolbred v. Metropolitan

Railway Company Barker v. Barker Evans v. Williams

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Attorney-General r. West
Riding and Grimsby Rail-
way Company
Wilson, Bart. r. Metropoli-
tan and St. John's-wood
Railway Company
Colquhoun r. Ouvry
Clarke r. Bathe
Lord Norbury r. Kitchin
Edmondson r. Jeffryes
Ross v. Estates Investment
Company (Limited)
Newall r. Telegraph Con-
struction and Maintenance
Company (Limited)
Maxwell . Wightwick
Kingston r. Palmer
Stribling r. Lewis
Jackson r. Ivimey
Elgar r. Wilson
Maxwell r. Mieville
Lumb r. Heald
Irvine r. Sullivan
Western r. Western
Firth r. Fowler
Firth r. Fowler
Stepney' r. Chambers

Newall v. Telegraph Con-
struction and Maintenance
Company (Limited)
Wright r. Symonds
Alger v. Parrott

Skey v. Skey

Peek v. Matthews
Hawkins r. Hine

Williams e. Gratrex
Gonne r. Cook

Slee . International Bank Eastwood r. Lockwood

(Limited)

Baines r. Ibbetson

Chamberlaine v. Orred

Brooks v. Ponting
Fleming r. Fleming
Whittaker v. Fox
Hunt v. Sidney
Borman v. Willmett
Pearson v. Dolman
Pearson v. Dolman
Senior v. Pawson
Morgan v. McAdam
Hamilton r. Buckmaster
Sparling v. Brereton
Lamb r. Samuelson
Robinson Lyttleton
Hill r. Rawlinson
Tweed r. Wagstaff

Orred v. Chamberlaine
Pickett v. Longley

Hicks r. Slade
Cox r. Gifford

De Winton r. Evans
Brackenbury v. Gibbons
De la Peyrouse r. Pelly
Lord v. Lord

Hooper . Elliot
Stevens r. Crouch
Armstrong v. Wainwright
Hurry v Morgan
Wolverhampton and Staf-
fordshire Banking Com-
pany r. Hopkins
Blake r. Blake

Smedley v. Smedley

Jackson v. Cartwright
Thomas r. Appleby
Bank of India r. Bell
Richardson v. Richardson
Neate v. Vosper
Todd v. Hutton
Robertson v. Morley
Barff v. Gourley
Cary v. Knowles
Macnee v. Rawdon
Macnee r. Gorst
Dean r. Gibson
Gill v. Bagshaw
Normandy's Patent Marine
Aerated Fresh Water Com-
pany (Limited) v. Green-
fleld
De Colquhoun v. Ferris
Pickett r. Packham
Chester r. Chester
Cherrett v. Keipe

Jackson r. Tyas
Smith v. Rayden

Symmington r. Whitehead
Ashcombe r. Hallett
Emmerson v. Hall
Phelps r. Dyke
Maule r. Eaton
Smith r. Copp
Acomb v. Landed Estates
Company (Limited)
Williamson v. Bates
Ridgway r. Ridgway

[blocks in formation]

LONDON-Reg. r. Lord Mayor of the City of London
WILTSHIRE Churchwardens of Easton v. Churchwardens
of St. Mary, Marlborough
LIVERPOOL-Hodgson v. Liverpool New Market Company
GLOUCESTERSHIRE-Great Western Railway Company r
Overseers of the Parish of Badgworth
LINCOLNSHIRE -Green v. Great Northern Railway Com-
pany

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE-Reg. v. Wycomb Railway Company
METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT-Vestry of the Parish of
St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark v. Pethebridge
BRIGHTON-Brighton Local Board of Health v. Stenning
CUMBERLAND-Dixon r. Steel

SOMERSETSHIRE-Reg. v. Brannan
DURHAM-Hodgson Graveling

BLACKBURN-Kenyon and another v. Wilkinson
ENGLAND-Reg. c. Knowles
LANCASHIRE-Reg. r. Same

YORKSHIRE-Barnsley Local Board of Health r. Sedgwick
METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT-Taylor v. Metropolitan

Board of Works

MIDDLESEX-Reg. r. Whitley
KENT-Commissioners of Faversham Navigation v. Assess-

ment Committee of the Faversham Union
MONMOUTHSHIRE - Rhodes v. Thomas
MIDDLESEX-Reg. v. London and Blackwall Railway Com-
pany

OXFORDSHIRE -Watson v. Coates
HERTFORDSHIRE-Kingsley v. Wilson
YORKSHIRE-Thornton r. Nutter
LANCASHIRE - Paley r. Birch

METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT-Allen v. Baldock
METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT-Mackay v. Marchant
STOCKTON-Harring e. Mayor of Stockton
LANCASHIRE-Watkins r. Surveyors of Lowton
LANCASHIRE-Watkins Surveyors of Burtonwood

LAW SOCIETIES.

SOCIAL SCIENCE CONGRESS.
MANCHESTER, 1866.

[blocks in formation]

discouraging such gifts. No restriction, therefore,
should be imposed on the disposition of property
real or personal to charitable uses, whether by deed
or will. The provisions required by law for proof

bread, clothes, apprenticing loans, and small money doles, upon which the Education Commissioners cast a longing eye. It was now urged that charity might be well spent on the reform of small dwellings, and we might soon hear of bequests in aid of Mr. Peabody's fund.

Mr. W. M. FAWCETT, of the Hill, near Brough, Westmoreland, read a paper on "The Law relating to charitable gifts.”

of the fact that the testament was that of the testa-
tor, and that he was of sound mind, ought to be suffi-
MR. FAWCETT ON CHARITABLE GIFTS.
cient. Our courts of equity in the execution of By the law of England the owners of land are
trusts imposed the only limitation of object which prohibited from giving it by will to charities, and
was necessary-that it should not be contrary to are discouraged from devoting it by deed to those
public policy. The second was-that all land purposes; while, on the other hand, owners of
settled or devised for charitable purposes (with the purely personal property are permitted to give it to
exceptions named in rule three) should within a charities to any amount, and either by deed or will.
definite period, not exceeding say ten years from the The first question which suggests itself is, whether
time of the conveyance or devise, be sold, and the the distinction thus drawn between real and per-
proceeds invested under the direction of the depart-sonal property is sound? Is there any reason why
ment of charities, and all land now held in charitable land should be more especially guarded than money
trust should be sold in a period not exceeding or stock? Cf course, we shall be reminded of the
twenty-five years, and the produce invested under economical evils produced by the "locking up of
the direction of the same department. The sale land from commerse;" but it should be remem-
would be regulated by a department of the State, bered that modern legislation has, to a considerable
viewing the subject as a whole, and prescribing the extent, obviated the objection that lands in the
time and manner in which the sale should take place hands of charities are prevented from coming into
in the various localities, that the full value might the market. Under the provisions of recent statutes,
be obtained. Thirdly, the exceptions to such sale leases, sales, or exchanges of the landed estates of
and conversion should be all land necessary for the charities may be made, with the sanction of the
use of the charitable institution. Thus, if it was a Commissioners of Charities, who may also authorise
school there might be the school playground and improvements to be effected upon lands belonging to
masters' and mistresses' residences. If a hospital, those institutions. It may indeed be said that
the building courts, garden for the exercise and charity lands, at the present day, are quite as likely
recreation of patients, and all that was necessary to come into the market as are the estates of our
around it. Fourthly, whatever the period might be English gentry; and as, under the system of entails,
during which the law of the State should permit a very large proportion of the land of the kingdom
property to be settled inalienably on a particular is already locked up from commerce, without giving
person-for a period equivalent thereto, property rise to any very alarming economical results, I
inight be made inalienable from specific or charitable think we may consider the evil to which I have
objects, but for no longer period. Fifthly, the adverted as very much greater in theory than in
annual produce of all property dedicated to chari-practice. But if it is desirable that land should
table purposes, whether for schools, hospitals, or pass readily from hand to hand, and if it is sup-
eleemosynary distribution, should be applied as far posed that this object is frustrated by devoting it to
as possible for the use of those who were most in charitable uses, how is it that the law only pro-
want of it, without preference of place or class, hibits gifts to such uses if made by will, and permits
and as far as possible in aid of those whose them to be made by deed, under certain restrictions?
privation or necessity was not or was in the least If the object of the law is to prevent land from being
degree owing to any fault or negligence of their made inalienable, why should money secured on
own, or who might be regarded as under any special land, and money produced by the sale of land, be
circumstances requiring or deserving public assist- included within its provisions? Surely the true
ance; and the general rules for the apportionment way to accomplish this object is not to forbid con-
and distribution of the produce of such endowments veyances of land to charities, but to limit the time
should be prepared by the department of charities, for which such lands can be held by the charitable
and laid before Parliament at least for two months institutions, in analogy to the well-known rule which
during its session, before the same should be acted confines the duration of an entail to a life or lives in
upon. The power reserved to the State in this rule, being, and twenty-one years afterwards. Lord
to change and modify the disposition of all endow- Hardwicke, who was, I believe, the earliest judicial
ments at the end of a certain period after their foun- exponent of the Act, has told us that one great
dation, did not necessarily involve a departure from reason for its enactment was to prevent the exercise
the prescribed object of any charitable gift, so long of undue influence on dying persons. And, indeed,
and justly towards the rest of the community. The conclusion, for they are obviously intended to render
as it was beneficial in itself, and operated fairly the provisions of the Act itself would lead us to this
principle enunciated by the rule was, that the State impossible gifts to charitable uses by persons in
assume the power to alter the disposition of all such articulo mortis. But here again the inadequacy of
property when public utility required it.
the existing law to accomplish this purpose is at
once apparent. Gifts to charities by dying persons
of land, and of money connected with land,
are, indeed, prohibited, but stocks, shares, and
cash are left open to the insidious designs
apprehended by the framers of the Act. There
is nothing to prevent a testator from complet-
ing, during his lifetime, the sale of a large
estate, and then bequeathing the purchase-money as
so much cash, to a charity. After the charity has
received the legacy it may, if not incorporated, invest
it in the purchase of land, and so accomplish, by a
circuitous process, the precise result which the Act
asked whether, at the present day, there is any
was intended to prevent. But may it not be fairly
practical danger of the exercise of the undue influence
apprehended by Lord Hardwicke? Out of the
millions of pure personalty on which probate duty
is every year paid how small a proportion finds its
way into the hands of charitable institutions. Nor
is it likely (if we may judge from actual experience)
that a relaxation of the restrictions with respect to
the gifts of lands to charities would be followed by
any great outburst of liberality; for, since the year
1704, testators have actually possessed the power to
devise their lands for the benefit of the Church. By
special legislative provisions real estates may be
given by deed or will to the governors of Queen
Anne's Bounty. The object of that corporation, as
every one knows, is to augment small benefices, and
nearly all the donations it receives are made with a
view to the increase of specified livings. Well, surely,
there is here sufficient motive and ample oppor-
tunity for the exercise of undue influence. What is
there to prevent poverty-stricken incumbents from
persuading their dying parishioners to devote some
stated before the Mortmain Committee that, in the
mark the result. The secretary of the corporation
twenty-two years during which he had held his
office, only two instances had occurred of gifts of
land to the corporation by will, and that in the three
years previous to his examination not one such gift

Mr. PERCY W. BUNTING read a paper on "Perpetual Charitable Trusts." The existing law on these trusts was defaced by glaring anomalies and legal subtleties which ought to be removed. Having reviewed these anomalies, he proceeded to consider some of the suggestions that had been made for the amendment of the law. One of these was that the income arising from property bequeathed for charitable purposes should only be so devised to charity for a certain fixed period and not longer. But there was this difficulty in the way: what was to be come of the corpus at the end of that period? Either the State must seize upon it, or it must pass to the heirs or next of kin, or the testator must have the right to take advantage of both public purposes append a series of family limitations according to the usual rule. The last would perhaps be the best course of the three. The doubtful analogy between public and private bequests ought not to be made a pretext for measures which were really aimed at our whole policy of permitting or encouraging testamentary benevolence. management, nothing but an actual suspension of charities was necessary, and that was necessary to bring the administration of endowment lands to the level of that of private. It was very common to assert that posthumous charity was not true charity, because it did not involve self-denial. It was also often urged that relatives were dis

DEPARTMENT OF JURISPRUDENCE AND periods, and after exhausting his powers for

[blocks in formation]

As to

The subject of charitable trusts had been several times considered by this society and the Law inherited from improper motives, but as a rule portion of their wealth to this desirable object? But Amendment Society before and since their amalgamation. He should endeavour to present a summary of the rules or principles which it appeared to him should govern legislation on charitable endowments. He included in the term every permanent application of property to a public purpose, in relief or aid of

such views were exaggerated. Abuses, however,
had been discovered so glaring that there was
danger of forgetting how large a portion of our
charities required reform in their administration.
The great offenders were the endowments for

had been made! If the object of the law is to discourage the creation of charitable endowments, it is no less inconsistent and ineffectual for accomplishing this purpose. For it is a well-known rule of equity that charitable trusts shall receive a more liberal construction than is allowed in the case of ordinary trusts. A charitable legacy is never allowed to fail for want or default of trustees, nor from lapse of time. All defects in conveyances to charities are supplied, where the vendor is capable of conveying; and however indefinite and uncertain may be the bequest, as if it be made simply for charitable uses eo nomine, the Court of Chancery will treat it as a valid charitable bequest, and will execute it for such charitable purposes as it shall think fit. And even though the donor has specified as the object of his gift a purpose contrary to the policy of the law, or which cannot be accomplished, the court, if a general intention of charity appears in the instrument of gift, will devote the property to some other charitable purpose. Thus, while "impediments are thrown in the way of devoting land to charitable uses, if those impediments are once overcome, the land thus appropriated is never suffered to revert to the donor or his representatives." Let us now pass from this examination of the reasons alleged in favour of the existing law to a very brief consideration of the may be mentioned the litigation occasioned by the evils to which it gives rise. First among these restrictions imposed on charitable gifts. Lord Kingsdown deliberately stated before the Mortmain Committee of 1851 that "if the strict law were always administered, scarcely any property could be safely disposed of, where legacies are given to charities, and the property is at all considerable, without a suit in Chancery." To this high authority nothing need be added; but I commend to the consideration of our legislators a remark made by Mr. Mill in his "Political Economy," and which I believe to be fully borne out by experience: "In England whoever leaves anything beyond trifling legacies for public or beneficent objects, when he has any near relatives living, does so at the risk of being declared insane by a jury after his death, or, at the least, of having his property wasted in a Chancery suit to set aside his will." The complexity of the provisions of the law, and the great number of exceptions which have, from time to time, been introduced in favour of particular institutions, were another source of grievous hardship to charitable

the hands of a fraudulent purchaser. But to every-tion, but it did not seem to go far enough, as it
one who does not on principle object to charitable only referred to lands which might hereafter be
endowments the greatest evil of the present system devoted to-not to those which were at present
will appear to be the failure, which it constantly held upon-charitable uses. He believed that
occasions, of the useful and benevolent designs of extensive sales or enfranchisements, if not the
charitable donors. The failure of gifts such as these
may be said to inflict a double wrong, for not only entire conversion of lands of the latter descrip-
laudable sentiment on the part of the donor, but an policy. In this view he was supported by the
is violence done to the manifestation of a just and tion, were desirable upon grounds of public
the gift is intended. Whether permanent endow- tion derived additional importance from the cir-
injury is inflicted on the persons for whose benefit late Sir J. Graham and Earl Grey. The ques
ments are the best means of providing for the relief cumstance that the charity returns showed that
and education of the poor is a question as to which about the year 1840, the total quantity of land
different opinions may be entertained; but that belonging to charities in England and Wales
such endowments, when properly managed, do con-
tribute to the alleviation of distress and the diffusion in mortmain under the Church. The report of
was 442,915 acres, to say nothing of lands held
of knowledge, cannot for a moment be disputed. the committee of the Law Amendment Society
book a system of restrictions which, while it fully and conveyances of land by way of endowment
Are we, then, justified in retaining in our statute-
contained the following statements: "Purchases
heavy blow and sore discouragement to charitable can at present be made by deed to any extent.
answers no conceivable good end, does operate as a
gifts?
Investments in real property are constantly
and there is little reason to doubt that the quan-
made by trustees of charities, and are even fre-
quently sanctioned by special Acts of Parliament;
tity of land on such trusts has greatly increased,
and is still increasing." Land ought to be a
the commercial community.
mercantile commodity, and available in an easy
way for the daily increasing requirements of

mischievous, inconsistent, and practically inde-
Dr. PANKHURST said the present system was
fensible. The distinction between real and per-
sonal property was not in the interest of the
public to be maintained. Why should a man
restrictions he was not allowed to make upon
who made the State his heir be allowed to make
his natural heir? The analogy of the law of
perpetuity should be applied to cases of donation
for public purposes. If a man made the State
the master of his property, he ought to have
sufficient confidence in the uprightness and
public spirit of the men who would have the
management of that property, that they would
deal with it in the same spirit and have the same
purpose in view as he gave it to them for. It
was on that principle that the limitation of the
intention of the donor of public property ought
to be vested. It had now become manifest to
everybody that such charities were only to be
commended on the broad view of their general
tendency that they were, on the whole, bene-
ficial, and, therefore, we saw now on every hand
a determination that the special limitations of
time and place in the distribution of charities
should be struck off. Donations for public
purposes were not only beneficial, but things to

[ocr errors]

Mr. BUNTING said this was a subject to which he had been compelled to pay much attention, and he had become acquainted with the theoretical and practical considerations which it involved; and as to the question before them, imposed upon the power of disposing in per "What conditions or limitations ought to be petuity of property, real or personal, for charitable or other public purposes ?" his answer was, None at all." all the papers had come to the conclusion that (Hear, hear.) The writers of the distinctions between real and personal property, and between deed and will, ought at once of public policy, and no economical reasons, why to be absolutely abolished. He saw no reasons any of these distinctions should prevail. One thing was perfectly clear to him-that they would have to exclude from the operation of their proposed law of perpetuity, in its new

donors. How is a man to know what kind of pro-he very much encouraged. It was said that application, property which was intended to

perty he may, and what he may not, give to a charity; or which charities are excepted from the Act, and which are still subject to its provisions? I believe it is no exaggeration to say it is next to impossible for an unprofessional testator to frame a perfectly valid bequest to a charity. And even with professional assistance a testator is by no means secured against the failure of his charitable intention. "The largest charitable bequest I have ever known," said Grove, addressing the Manchester Law Association, in 1845, "entirely failed, owing to the solicitor who made the will neglecting to inform the testator that they could not be satisfied out of money on mortgage, of which his personal property wholly consisted." Another evil to which the system of restrictions over charitable gifts has given rise is the multiplication of secret or honorary trusts. It is, of course, impossible to ascertain the extent to which the practice of devising lands on these trusts had been carried; but the evidence Igiven before the Mortmain Committee (1844) leaves no doubt that the system prevails to a much greater extent than is commonly supposed. Among the Roman Catholic community especially, the device would appear to be frequently resorted to -the nominal devisee being usually a priest. Recent decisions of the Court of Chancery have actually established the validity of secret trusts, provided no trust appears on the face of the will, and no communication is made to the devisee during the testator's

lifetime. So that at the present day a testator who wishes to leave lands to charities by will, has only to devise them absolutely to some friend on whose honour he can rely, to abstain from speaking to the devisee on the subject of the devise during his lifetime, but to inclose a note in his will, stating the objects to which he wishes the property to be devoted. A door is thus opened to evasion, which may possibly render unavailing the restrictions

alterations and amendments of the law were
unnecessary, because, by the force of judicial
decisions and force of the sheer inconsistency of
amendment were now in course of construction.
our present system, many of the advantages of
amendment at once than to do that which was
He held that it was better to procure a clear
being obtained indirectly and at great cost. It
was also said that these amendments and altera-
tions of the law would discourage charitable
donations. He denied that such would be the
case. He affirmed whatever donations for public
purposes would thus be discouraged would only
be such as were not for the public advantage;
whilst this advantage would be obtained-that
the enormous amount of evil which now existed
would be cleared away.

also would be cleared away.
Lord BROUGHAM.—A vast amount of litigation

his views as to the selling of lands held by
Mr. FREEDLAND hoped Mr. Hare would press
charitable corporations upon the Chief Commis-
sioner of Charities. At present between 400,000
and 500,000 acres of land were tied up in the

have some religious application; and if they did not include it, the proposed application of their principle would be very partial, and the question application would cause endless litigation. They whether property was or was not of religious could never repress the natural desire of man public objects; and all sorts of contrivances to favour particular objects, especially particular would be resorted to to avoid the new law of perpetuity, which would in many cases succeed.

should be no distinction as to the disposition of Mr. G. R. TENNENT considered that there real or personal estate, and that there should be no check upon the power of the donor, except what might arise from undue influence.

Mr. WEBSTER believed the original views with which the first laws against mortmain were introduced by our ancestors were sound views. It was established by decisions that no purpose of immoral or illegal in its object, or subversive of be rejected or overruled, if it was not positively a testator, however ridiculous or trifling, was to the public good. He conceived it would be wiser to treat such benefactions in the spirit of the Roman law, which declared certain devises to the maintenance of a large number of houses, The Law of that kind to be contrary to nature and law. The person who devoted a large sum of money surely had no better claim to protection than the person who, under the Roman law, devoted his property to the benefit of distant tribes or strangers.

hands of the charitable trustees.
surface of the country is necessarily limited in
Amendment Society, on this subject, said: "The
quantity; and although the facility of sales,
exchanges, and re-investments by administrative
means, greatly moderate the inconveniences of
perpetual uses, yet dispositions which take land
permanently out of the ordinary conditions of
proprietorship are to be defended only by showing
that the particular dedication is of such neces-

applause) said he had listened with very great Lord BROUGHAM (who was received with

imposed by the Act of Geo. 2. But it is obvious that sity or of so much value to the public good that pleasure to the statements which had been made.

a door is also opened to fraud and dishonesty, for if
the devisee chooses to retain the devised property,
instead of handing it over to the charity, he cannot of course, may frequently be the case; churches,
an exception should be made in its favour. This,
be prevented from doing so. By discouraging gifts
of lands to charities, the present system tends to
keep out of the hands of those institutions the most
eligible subject for endowment. For while a legacy

time, land is continually becoming more valuable, of money increases little in worth with the lapse of and the income of the donors may be doubled or trebled in the course of a single century. I need only refer, by way of illustration, to the well-known case of King Edward's school at Birmingham. Thus, while money may be misappropriated by fraudulent trustees, and so completely lost, land is always in sight, cannot be sold by the trustees without public observation; and, if sold, can always be followed into

the state of the law in a very clear position.
The paper read by Mr. Fawcett was a very able
one, characterised by great ability, and placed
He was unwilling to enter upon the subject,
because it would be very difficult to discuss it
without giving some opinion on the present state
Pages, which he desired to be communicated to
of the law. Since he came into the room he
had received a letter from Monsieur Garnier
it to the chairman.
that section, and for that purpose he would hand

chapels, schools, and hospitals are examples in
which the appropriation of proper sites is neces-
sary for the purposes of general utility and per-
manence." He would refer to the city of Lich-
seriously impeded by these charitable bequests of
field as a place the progress of which had been
property. The committee recommended by a
clause contained in their report to fix a period
within which all lands subsequently devoted to
charitable purposes, with certain exceptions, Mr. BUNTING and Mr. HARE briefly replied,
should be sold, the proceeds of the sale to be after which
invested in Government or other securities.
This recommendation was well worthy of adop-

upon having been honoured with the presence of The CHAIRMAN congratulated the meeting

Lord Brougham, because, of the very numerous pages of history in which his lordship's name could appear with distinction, the page which described his first great exposure of the abuses of the charities of England would not be the least important. It was also a pleasing circumstance that they should have received a letter from that distinguished public man, M. Garnier Pages, who in his letter expressed his regret at not being able to be present in the celebrated city of Manchester, and also stated the steps that he had taken for the amelioration of the law in France. He (the chairman) further congratulated them on the complete discussion they had had. He considered it a great evil that charities should tie up such a large quantity of land. In conclusion, he thought that if Mr. Mill had been able to have been present, he would have been extremely pleased, and would have met with a great additional argument in favour of the enfranchisement of women if he had seen the remarkable attention of the large assembly of ladies at that meeting, which might have been supposed to be of no interest to them. (Applause.)

LEGAL OBITUARY.

NOTE. This department of the LAW TIMES is contributed by EDWARD WALFORD, M.A, and late Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, and Fellow of the Genealogical and Historical Society of Great Britain; and, as it is desired to make it as perfect a record as possible, the families and friends of deceased members of the Profession will oblige by forwarding to the LAW TIMES Office any dates and inaterials required for a biographical notice.

THE LATE LORD IVORY. With James Ivory, who from 1840 to 1862 filled under the title of Lord Ivory one of the seats on the Scotish bench, and who died on the 17th ult., has passed away the last survivor of that small but distinguished body of men, who, in the days when Liberalism was something different from the popular highway to place and power which it has been of late, shed so much lustre on the Liberal side of the Scottish Bar. Cranstoun, Fullerton, Jeffrey, Murray, Moncrieff, Cockburn, and Ruther: furd had all predeceased their friend and fellowworker in the Liberal cause, who now too soon has

followed them.

Mr. Ivory was born in 1792 at Dundee, where his father was an engraver, still remembered there for his mechanical skill and literary attainments. His early education was received at the Dundee Academy, where he was distinguished for his natural talent and industry. After passing one or two years in the town clerk's office in Dundee, he went to Edinburgh, and entered the office of Messrs Inglis and Robertson, writers to the signet, where he succeeded to the stool of the late Lord Wood, who had left shortly before to join the Scotch Bar. He served an apprenticeship in this office, acquiring there that intimate knowledge of the details of business which he afterwards showed that he possessed in a marked degree. He at this time also attended the Edinburgh University, and took part in the proceedings of its debating societies, where his literary talent and powers of close reasoning enabled him to occupy a prominent position. He inherited from his uncle, Sir James Ivory, the celebrated mathematician and astronomer (of whom Lord Brougham lately declared in his inaugural address as Chancellor of the Edinburgh University, that he was the most eminent mathematician that has appeared in this country since the days of Sir Isaac Newton"), a love or rather a passion for algebra and the higher mathematics, which never left him through life, and the effect of which could be traced in the subtle analysis which he brought to bear on all questions that came before him in his judicial capacity. In 1816 he was called to the Scotch Bar, and it was not long before his merits began to be recognised and business to flow in upon him. In those days of written pleadings his literary talent proved of great service to him, and there were few men who could with greater clearness or in more exquisite language expound or enforce a legal principle or trace it to its application. His writings, buried as they are in "that vast tomb of acute intellect, the session papers," are models of their kind, and John Clerk, the late Lord Eldin, went the length of declaring him "the best writer he ever knew at the bar."

Before he had been called to the bar he published anonymously a small treatise on the forms of process, which has been often quoted as, in spite of the technical subject, a model of clear and lucid composition; aud in 1827 he published the first volume of his edition of Erskine's Institutes, which still remains undoubtedly the best. The second volume followed several years after.

In 1830 Mr. Ivory was chosen by Lord-Advocate Jeffrey as one of his deputes. He was appointed sheriff of Caithness in 1832, and transferred the following year to the sheriffdom of Bute. In 1839 he was appointed Solicitor-General of Scotland, and

in the following year raised to the bench of the Court of Session. In 1849 he was created one of the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary.

not exceeding seven days' close confinement, in order to maintain discipline." One wonders whether the Australian workhouses are at all like those in the old country. Seven days' close confinement in the casual ward of any one of our metropolitan workhouses would be a terrible penalty.

RED-TAPEISM IN THE EXECUTIONER'S DEPARTcutions in Spain are accompanied has just taken MENT.-The singular formality with which exeplace again at Madrid. In this instance the criminal was a young man, an engraver, named Sanz, who had been arrested for participation in the events of June last. The gendarme who fulfilled that mission appears to have acted with a certain brutality, and Sanz, on being acquitted, resolve to take revenge, and, lying in wait for the other, stabbed him to the heart. Being arrested and tried, he was condemned

The same qualities that characterised his pleadings at the bar distinguished him on the bench. His judgments were remarkable for the patient analysis and minute labour they displayed, and for the elegance of the diction in which they were expressed; and the soundness of the conclusions at which he arrived was generally acknowledged by the Profession, and confirmed by the paucity of the reversals on appeal they sustained. In the celebrated series of cases decided by the Court of Session and House of Lords, which led to the disruption of the Church of Scotland in 1843, he was, indeed, one of the minority of the Court who throughout supported the views of the Non-Intrusion party, and maintained that the Court of Session to die by the garrotte, and the sentence was carried Church courts in spiritual matters; but the minority performed his office in Spain, he is surrounded by had no jurisdiction to interfere with the acts of the out a few days back. After the executioner has included along with his own the names of Jeffrey, Cockburn, Fullerton, and Moncrieff. When and thence before an examining magistrate, when gendarmes, loaded with chains, and taken to prison, he retired from the bench in 1862, feeling the the following dialogue takes place: You are acfirst approach of the illness which eventually cused of having taken the life of a man." carried him off, he was the senior judge in the court, answers the executioner, "it is true." "What was and to his close reasoning, unwearied labour, and your motive for the crime? "To obey the law mastery of legal principle, had been due not a little and fulfil the mission confided to me by justice." An of that prestige which has surrounded the first divi- indictment is then drawn up, and on the following sion of the Court of Session for many years. Lord day the man is taken before the tribunal, which imIvory married in 1817 the daughter of Mr. Alex-mediately pronounces an acquittal, and the prisoner ander Lawrie, Deputy Gazette Writer for Scotland, is liberated, after his confinement of twenty-four by whom he had a numerous family. Two of his

sons are members of the Scottish Bar; his eldest son, Mr. Thomas Ivory, being counsel for the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and his fourth son, Mr. William Ivory, sheriff of Inverness-shire. He was, as we have said, a Liberal in politics, and a Liberal in" the worst of times" when such a profession of faith involved no small professional and even personal sacrifice. His liberalism was not the mere adoption of a political creed, but proceeded from a large and feeling heart. How large and how full of generous and kindly feeling those best know who were privileged to enjoy the friendship of one of the kindest, most genial, and most true-hearted of men.

hours.

[ocr errors]

"Yes,"

BOTTLING A PROSECUTOR-A novel mode of ending a prosecution has been revealed at the Staffordshire quarter sessions, in an application for the discharge of a person named Robson from Stafford gaol. Robson was last year a farmer in Cheshire, and several head of cattle had been stolen from his farm by some cattle dealers, who were apprehended and committed for trial to Knutsford sessions, where, as the prosecutor did not appear, his recognisances were estreated, and the prisoners were discharged. Two months ago, Robson was met in Staffordshire by an officer to whom he was known, and was lodged in Stafford gaol under the order of estreat. It is now known that friends of the cattle-dealers, immediately after the committal of Knutsford, not only The late Thomas Huxley, Esq., solicitor, of 20, tampered with the witnesses, but even offered a Camden-road, and the Middle Temple, London, who large bribe to the attorneys for the prosecution. Not died at his residence in Camden-road on the 18th content with this, they induced Robson to go to Oct., was the eldest son of the late Thomas Huxley, Liverpool, where they plied him with drink, took Esq, of the Grove, Kentish Town, and of Pump-him on board a steamer, accompanied him to Queenscourt, Temple, by Mary, daughter of Henry West, town, and there left the vessel, the result being that Esq., of Long Crendon, Bucks. He was born at Robson, when he came to his senses, found himself Craven-place, Kentish Town, in the year 1801, irretrievably booked for a voyage to America, and solicitor in 1823. educated at the Charter-house, and was admitted a He married in 1828 Mary Anne, daughter of Thomas Greenhill, Esq., of Southgate, by whom he has left issue eight children.

T. HUXLEY, ESQ.

H. H. BROWN, ESQ.

The late Hugh Horatio Brown, Esq., advocate, of New-hall, and Carlops, Midlothian, N.B., who died at New Hall-house on the 17th Oct., in the sixtysixth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Robert Brown, Esq., of New Hall and Carlops (who died in 1834), by Elizabeth, daughter of Alexander Kerr, Esq., and was born in the year 1800. Having been educated at the University of Edinburgh, he was called to the Scottish bar in 1822, and commenced practice as an advocate; he was also a justice of the peace and deputy-lieutenant for Midlothian. Mr. Brown married in 1853 Gulielmina Forbes, daughter of Col. Ronaldson Macdonnell, of Glengarry and Clauranald, N.B., by whom he has left, with other issue, Horatio Robert Forbes, born in 1854.

LEGAL NEWS.

CRIMINAL STATISTICS OF SCOTLAND.-The abstract of returns of prisoners in the criminal department of each prisoner in Scotland for the quarter ended 30th Sept. 1865, which has just been issued, shows that in all the prisons of Scotland on the 30th Sept. there were 2463 prisoners, as against 2523 at the same period last year, being a decrease of 60 prisoners. The average daily number of prisoners throughout the quarter in all the prisons of Scotland was 2483, being a decrease of 22 as compared with the same quarter of 1865. In the general prison for Scotland there were 699 prisoners on the 30th Sept. 1866, being 28 more than at the same date last year; while the average daily number of prisoners in the general prison throughout the quarter had been 704, being an increase of 13 as compared with the same period last year.

PUNISHMENT FOR DRUNKENNESS.-The Legislative Assembly of New South Wales has just devised the following punishment for drunkards:"That any habitual drunkard who has been thrice within the preceding twelve months convicted of being found drunk in the highway, may, if found drunk and disorderly in public, be committed by the magistrate to the workhouse, and there kept until the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, shall order his discharge. The superintendent of the workhouse is to have the power of punishment,

without means to enable him to return. Having secured sufficient for this purpose, he came back to England, and was soon afterwards lodged in prison.

These circumstances being stated to the court, the chairman said that he did not see how he could interfere, and advised that a memorial should be sent to the Lords of the Treasury.

WILLS AND BEQUESTS.-The will of the Right Hon. Henry George, Earl Bathurst, D.C.L., of Oakley-park, Gloucestershire, Langworth-lodge, Northamptonshire, and Wilton-crescent, Knightsbridge, was proved in Her Majesty's Court of Probate on the 13th ult., by the executors-namely, the Right Hon. William Lennox, Earl Bathurst, his lordship's brother, and Allen Alexander Bathurst, Esq., M.P., his lordship's nephew (heir presumptive to the family honours), and only son of his lordship's late brother, the Hon. Thomas Seymour Bathurst. The personalty was sworn under 90,000. The will bears date July 14, 1842, with two codicils-July 21, 1860, and Jan. 15, 1863; and his lordship died on May 25, 1866, at his seat, Oakley-park, at the age of seventy-six, a bachelor. His lordship was the son of the third Earl Bathurst and Georgiana, daughter of Lord George Lennox. His grandfather, the second earl, was Lord High Chancellor 1771-8. His lordship commences his will with a legacy of 3007. to his then valet, George Johnson, and leaves legacies to his other servants, all to be paid free of duty. He leaves to trustees a sum of 15,000l., the interest for his sister Lady Emily Charlotte Ponsonby, and the principal to her three daughters. He bequeaths to his sister Lady Louisa Georgiana Bathurst an annuity of 400l. He devises his real estates to his brother, now Earl Bathurst, which he has entailed on his issue male, and bequeaths to his said brother the residue of his personal estate. His lordship directs that all his diamonds, pearls, and other jewels, and all plate, pictures, statuary, marbles, paintings, and his library, with the furniture and other effects, be held as heirlooms with the title. -The late Mrs. Ann Hutchings, wife of Charles Hutchings, Esq., of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, Dorsetshire, has made the following bequests, payable on the decease of her husband, to the undermentioned institutions:

The Church Missionary Society, for Africa and the East, 10007.; the British and Foreign Bible Society, Church Pastoral Aid Society, Western Asia Missions, Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews, Religious Tract Society, and the London City Mission, each a legacy of 500%Illustrated London News.

« ElőzőTovább »