advertisements under the Bankruptcy Act, it makes no difference whether the bankrupt's estate is large or small, the same heavy and constantly recurring fees have to be paid for advertisements in the London Gazette in all cases of bankruptcy, liquidation, or composition with creditors. Take again advertisements for creditors under Estates in Chancery, the scale is the same, whether an estate is large or small, and after all few persons outside a small portion of the profession ever see the London Gazette, so that the costs of most of the compulsory advertisements inserted therein are rather in the nature of a tax which solicitors are usually required to collect and pay over, with the result, as stated by Sir H. SelwynIbbetson in the recent discussion in Parliament, "that the profits from the London Gazette are considerable." We will take two other cases of the charges for advertisements in the Gazette: those of dissolution of partnerships, in which the costs for such advertisements are especially heavy; and so with advertisements for creditors under the Trustee Relief Acts. We are decidedly of opinion that not only ought the price of the London Gazette to be reduced, but the costs of advertisements therein should be materially reduced, especially those of a compulsory character, and which, in many cases, might be charged upon the basis of a graduated scale. This very simple matter deserves the attention of some professional man in the House of Commons.

IN our last issue, when discussing the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Bill, we made it appear that the clause in the Bill which makes the practising as a solicitor for five years a qualification for the office of master of the Supreme Court of Judicature, is in fact a reduction of the period of practice formerly necessary to qualify for the office of taxing master; but the same qualification (five years' practice as a barrister or solicitor), now obtains, so that the proposed Act will make no difference in this particular respect. As a matter of fact we believe that only two solicitors have been, however, appointed to the office of common law taxing-master, namely, the late Mr. Johnson and the late Mr. Bunce.

The dislike of a the expression "knowing full well the hatred the trade has to bills of costs." solicitor's bill of costs is not limited to "the trade;" there is no class of the community but dislikes these documents, the preparation of which is still exacted from solicitors by the Legislature. There is hardly a solicitor in the country who would not readily adopt a scale of commission in conveyancing business, or who would not eagerly adopt almost any substitute for the proverbial bill of costs, the preparation and delivery of such bills being the bane of the existence of many a lawyer; while it is a notorious fact that among certain classes the dread of a lawyer's bill is so great that persons prefer to employ unauthorised and unqualified persons as far as the latter are ready to take the responsibility of acting in the place of a lawyer. We need hardly say that, no matter how great the dislike of the public to lawyer's bill of costs, it cannot, in any way, justify or excuse any departure from professional etiquette.


MUDIE (Susan), formerly of Dundee, late of 261, New Northroad, Islington, Middlesex, widow.-Next of kin to come in by June 30, at the chambers of V.C. H. July 15, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.


DRONFIELD SILKSTONE COAL (LIMITED)-Creditors to send in, by June 30, their names and addresses, and the par ticulars of their claims and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to T. B. Jones, 1, Finsbury-cirrus, London, the official liquidator of the said company. July 14, at the chambers of the M,R., at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

GENERAL BANKING COMPANY (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in by June 24, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to F. Maynard, 14, Queen Victoria-street, London, the official liquidator of the said company, July 3, at the chambers of V.C. B., at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

NDEMNITY FIRE OFFICE (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in. by June 23, their names and addresses, and the partículars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to J. Waddell, 11, Queen Victoria-street, London, the official liquidator of the said company. July 3, at the chambers of the M. R.. at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

LIMERICK AND NORTH KERRY JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 14, before the M. R.

SLATE COMPANY (LIMITED).-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 14, before the M. R.

SUN COAL COMPANY.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 14, before the M. R.

IN a publication called "Keates's Gazetteer and Directory, Hanley Trade List," the names of tradesmen and others are arranged in alphabetical order, according to the trade and occupation of the persons named. On page 242 we find the following: Solicitors," and then follows a list of names of local solicitors. Accompanying some names are set out the different legal offices held by a given solicitor. Among the names is the CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. following:


Bateman Charles Tallent, solicitor, conveyancing and advocacy manager for John Lovell Hamshaw, Albion House, Cheapside.

The probability is that the gentleman whose name is thus advertised knows nothing of this announcement, but we should really like the publisher of the book to let us know what he means by the expression "advocacy manager?" It cannot, of course, mean an infringement of sect. 10 of the County Court Act 1852, and if it did barristers would, as the law stands, have a right to complain of such an announcement. But we take it, it has no such meaning.

TAYLOR'S PATENT SEWING MACHINE COMPANY (LIMITED).Petitions for winding-up to be heard, Jan. 14, before the M.R.


CLAPHAM (Jno.), Knaresboro', yeoman. June 30; Hirst and Capes, solicitors, Harrogate, York. July 14; M.R., at eleven o'clock. ELLIOTT (Geo.). Walworth, Surrey, corn chandler. June 30; W. C. Greenop, solicitor, 7, St. Peter's-alley, Cornhill, London. July 14; M. R., at eleven o'clock. GOMM (Thos.), High-street, Brentford, Middlesex, provision merchant. July 2; Wm. Ruston, jun., solicitor, Brentford July 16; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. gentleman. June 30; Jno. Haigh, soucitor, Huddersfield. HAIGH (Thos.), Luther-place, Edgerton, Huddersfield, July 14; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. POLLARD' (Thos.), Newcastle-upon-Tyne, merchant and corn factor. June 24; Wm. Harle, solicitor, 109, Pilgrim-street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. June 30; V.C. H.. at twelve

WE have received from a solicitor a circular letter, SHARPE (Percy E. N.), North-street, Oundle, Northampton. of which the following is a reproduction :

Miller and Sons, solicitors, Luton, Beds.

To manufacturers and others. - Special notice.County Court Act 1875.-No bills of costs.

Sir,-We beg to inform you that we have opened a branch office at John-street, next door to Mrs. Lines's Temperance Hotel, and have thought it advisable to lay ourselves out to do business for the above exclusively on the undermentioned terms, knowing full well the hatred the trade has to bills of costs, and believing the public prefer the services of a qualified lawyer to accountants and trade societies, who are not responsible for their acts. We shall be glad of your patronage, and to wait upon you, should you have any debts for collection.MILLER and SON. Yours obediently,

DEBT COLLECTING DEPARTMENT.-On all debts collected 5 per cent. will be charged. On process being issued, the actual court fees will be charged, which fees will be returned to the client when the debt and costs are received. The said commission of 5 per cent. will entitle the client to the personal attendance of our Mr. Miller, jun., on the hearing of any process, and almost in every instance your attendance and that of your servants will not be required in court.

CHARGES ON LOANS AND MORTGAGES.-For every £100 £2 per cent., exclusive of stamps. For every £100, £3 per SALES AND PURCHASES. cent., exclusive of stamp duty.

LEASES, WILLS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.-Percentage to be agreed upon.

LIQUIDATIONS AND COMPOSITIONS CARRIED.-£10 108., exclusive of stamps, payable by instalments. We shall not wait to inquire why this document (which we understand has been circulated in conjunction with a card) has been addressed to facturers and others," and as to the impropriety of issuing it we need say nothing as to that; our chief purpose in printing it is to consider the truth of



July 10: B. J. Van Tromp, solicitor, 16, Essex-street, Strand, Middlesex. July 14; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. Wells-street, South THISELTON (Thos.), formerly of Hackney, late of 2 and 4, Cassland-road, South Hackney, Middlesex, linendraper. June 24; W. G. Brighton, solicitor, 4, Bishopsgate-street Without. July 8; M.R., at eleven o'clock.

WILSON (Arthur M.), 91, Long-acre. Middlesex, licensed victualler. June 24; A. B. Abbot, solicitor, 2, Paul's Bakehouse-court, Doctors' Commons, London. June 30; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. BARKER (Wm.), Alsager, Chester, retired farmer. June 30; F. C. Mayer, solicitor, 47, Waterloo-road, Burslem. BERRY (JOS.), 37, Clifton-street, and 23, Earl-street, Finsbury, Middlesex, and 65, King Edward's-road, South Hackney, Middlesex, rag merchant. June 30; J. and R. Gole, solicitore, 4, Lime-street, London. BROMLEY (Louisa C. D.), 56, Marine, St. Leonards, spinster. July 1; Leman and Co., solicitors, 51, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex.

BLACKMORE (Edwd.), New Alresford, Southampton, gentleman. July 28; Blackmore and Shield, Alresford. BROWN (Rev. Jno.), formerly of Batcombe, Somerset, late of Cheltenham. July 1; Dyne and Muller, solicitors, Bruton, Somerset.

CUTHBERT (Wm.), Beaufront Castle, Northumberland. July 1; Clayton and Gibson, solicitors, Guildhall, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

CONEY (Major Bicknell), United Service Club. and 13, Norris-street, Regent-street, Middlesex. July 10; W. H. Bennett, solicitor, 14, Red Lion-square, London. DIXON (Maria), Abberton, Essex, widow. July 1; A. Prior, solicitor, 31, Head-street, Colchester. DRAKE (Michael), 20, Thornton-street, Miles Platting, near Manchester, glass manufacturer, trading in co-partnership under the style of H. Hargreave and Co. July 1; H. J. Leach, solicitor, 7A, St. Ann's-square, Manchester. DYE (Charlotte), formerly of Prince Saxe Coburg, Old Kent road, victualler, late of 83, Naylor-road, Peckham, Surrey, widow. July 8; Flavell and Bowman, solicitors, 21, Bedford-row, Middlesex. FRENCH (Saml.), Longstock, Southampton, yeoman. July 12; C. Wooldridge ani Son, solicitors, Winchester.

July 12; W. Buckingham, solicitor, 12, Southernhay,. Exeter. GIFFORD (Rsv. the Hon. Geo. R.), Rackenford, Devon, GARDNER, Lieut. (Alan F.), R.N., 2, Wolsey-villas, Hampton Wick, Middlesex. June 26; J. A. Hallett, 7, St. Martin's place, Trafalgar-square, Middlesex. ster. July 17; E. Boxall, 63, Ship-street, Brighton. HARRIS (Sarah), 67, Lansdowne-place, Hove, Sussex, spin1; T. M. Bleakley, solicitor, 51, Hamilton-square, Birkenhead. HOPE (Thos.), Glasgow House, Birkenhead, draper. July square, Middlesex, spinster. July 12: Geare and Son,. HUTCHINSON (Harriet J.), 45, Bryanstone-street, Bryanstonesolicitors, 57, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex. Currey, and Nicholson, solicitors, Lewes. HELE (Rev. Geo. S.), Norwood, Torquay. Sept. 1; Hunt, JACKSON Richd.), Ash Villa, Bowsdon, Chester, gentleman.

July 31; J. Booth, solicitor, 2. Cooper-street, Manchester. JAMES (Jno.). 1, Glebe-place, Paradise-row, Stoke Newington, Middlesex, and 58A, Aldersgate-street, London, manufacturer. July 10; Reed and Lovell, solicitors, 1, Guildhall-chambers, London.

LANE (Mary Ann), 36, Loughboro'-park, Brixton, Surrey, widow. June 14; Pawle and Co., solicitors, 11, New-inn, Strand, Middlesex. LAMBREGTSE (Jean P.), 52, Cawley-road, South Hackney, Middlesex, gentleman. July 9; J. Murray, solicitor, 7, Whitehall-place, London MURRAY (Wm.), 41, Church-road, St. Leonard's-on-Sea, gentleman. June 30; C. W. Hird, solicitor, 93, Great Titchfield-street, London. MACSOARLEY (Elizabeth), 40, Nicholas-street, Chester, widow. Jure 30; Bridgman, Weaver, and Jones, solici tors, Westminster-buildings, Chester.

MICHELL (Jas.), Redruth, miner. June 30; Coode, Shilson and Co., solicitors, St. Austell, Cornwall.

MORLEY (Hannah), Holland Cottage, Lower Cliff-road, Gorleston, Suffolk, widow. July 1; V. J. Chamberlain, solicitor, 48, Finsbury-square, London. MGAVAGAIN (Lydia),S,Vincent-street, Leamington, widow. July 15; Overell and Son, solicitors, Leamington. OLDHAM (Jno.), Leamington Priors, Warwick, miller. Ang. 23; Field and Son, solicitors, Leamington Priors. ORD (Wm.), 4, The Esplanade, Sunderland, banker. July 20; Kidson and Co., solicitors, 66, John-street, Sunderland. PATCHETT (Wm.), Topcliffe, York, innkeeper. July 1; A. W. Cass, solicitor, 13, Grainger-street, Newcastle-onTyne. PROCTER (Jas.), Clare House, Giggleswick, York, Esq. June 30; S. Hart Jackson, solicitor, Brook-street, Ulverston. RUSSELL (Richd.), 10, Leicester-square, and 1 and 2, Leices ter-place, Middlesex and Rosenbank, Reigate, Surrey, upholsterer. July 1; Lumley and Lumley, solicitors, 57, Conduit-street, Regent-street, Middlesex.

RAYMOND (Henry), formerly of 29, Mark-lane, London, and of Sunnyside, Beulah Hill, Upper Norwood, Surrey, corn factor. July 1; Drake and Co., solicitors, 3, Cloak-lane, Cannon-street, London.

SINGLETON (Jane), formerly of 4, Clementhorpe-terrace. afterwards of Belle Vue Cottage, Stockton-lane, both in York, late of Barber Nook Cottage, Crookes, Sheffield, widow. Aug. 1; Singleton and Martinson, solicitors, Exchange-buildings, Bowlalley-lane, Hull.

SPRAGUE (Jno. C.), Shepton Mallet, Somerset, innkeeper. July 12; Geo. M. Mackay, solicitor, Shepton Mallet. STEWART (Elizabeth), Ballachan-cottage. Rathbury, Northumberland, widow. July 15; Kidson and Co., solicitors, 66, John-street, Sunderland.

SYKES (Wm. H, Hawkeshead, Glossop, Derby, cotton
spinner and doubler. June 16; H. Smith, solicitor, Hyde-
lane, Hyde.

SMITH (Jno.), South Molton, Devon, retired gardener.
June 12; J. T. Shapland and Son, solicitors, South

SMITHIES (Sarah), formerly of Thirkleby, late of Sowerby,
both in York, widow. June 13; W. H. Cobb. solicitor,
19, Blake-street, York.

TABOR (Catherine), Brightlingsea, Essex, widow. July 12;
Smythies, Goody, and Son, solicitors, North Hill, Col-

THOMSON (Jno.), 38, Brook-street, Birkenhead. July 1: T.M.
Bleakley, solicitor, 51, Hamilton-square, Birkenhead.
VIZARD Caroline M.), formerly of Trotsworth House,
Virginia Water, Surrey, late of 83, Onslow-square,
Brompton, Middlesex, spinster. July 1: Leman and Co..
solicitors, 51, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex.
July 2; Jno.
WARD (Jno.), Mansfield, Notts, yeoman.
Maltby, schoolmaster, Mansfield.
WINNETT (Jas.). 39, Elderfield-road, Lower Clapton,
Middlesex, gentleman. July 9; Digby and Liddle, solici
tors, 1, Circus-place, Finsbury-circus, London.
WILKINSON (Matthew), 340, Westgate-road, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, gentleman. July 19; Chartress and Co., solicitors,
13, Grainger-street west, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
WINTHROP (Stephen), Woodville, Painswick, near Stroud,
Gloucester, gentleman. June 25 Freeman and Win-
throp, solicitors, 44, Bedford-row, Middlesex.



Thursday, May 29.

By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart.
Highbury-17, Highbury-crescent, freehold-sold for £3700.
Hampstead-22, Thurlow road, term 72 years-sold for £1600
By Messrs. HUMBERT and Sox, at the Mart.
The reversion to £3300 Canada Bonds, life aged 74-sold for
By Messrs. HARDS, VAUGHAN, and JENKINSON, at Bognor.
Sussex, Bognor-4 and 5, Rock-buildings, freehold-sold
for £790.

By Mr. D. HOLLOWAY, at Birmingham. Warwick, Marston-green-Small farm, containing 26a. 2r. 5p. freehold-sold for £2000. Two plots of building land, la. 2r. 9p.-sold for £200. Copyhold residence, two cottages, and la. Or. 14p.-sold for £600.

By Messrs. GLASIER and SONS, at the Mart. Piccadilly-No. 98, term 4 years-sold for £200. Brixton-Improved ground rents of £1513 108. per annum. term 87 years-sold for £28,943.

Saturday, May 31.

By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, ELLIS, CLARK, and Co., at Monmouth. Monmouth-Freehold residence in St. Mary-street-sold for Two houses and a malt house in Glendower-street-sold


for £895.

Gloucestershire-Coleford, freehold cottage with grounds, la. Or. 35p.-sold for £310.

Tuesday, June S.

By Messrs. HARMAN and MATTHEWS, at the Mart. City of London-The lease of 36, Seething-lane, term 7 years-sold for £375. Hoxton-9, Worgate-street, term 56 years-sold for £130. No. 19, Northport-street, term 57 years-sold for £360. Hackney-18 and 20, Norfolk-terrace, term 60 years-sold Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, Paradise-terrace, term 60 years-sold

for £835.

for £1205.

[blocks in formation]

Bloomsbury-48, Great Russell-street, term 63 years-sold for £1920.

No.6, Southampton-mews, term 20 years-sold for £255.

was rejected. At the meeting at the Law Institution on Monday next a moot upon Lamb v. Eaves (L. Rep. 6 Ch. App. 597) will be opened by Mr. T. Bateman Napier. At the meeting at Clement'sinn Hall, on Wednesday next, the subject for discussion will be: "That the claims of Greece to an extension of territory should be supported man Napier.

St. John's-wood, 86, Hamilton-terrace, term 44 years sold by this country." To be opened by Mr. T. Bate

for £840.

Paddington-No. 12, Shelden-street, term 58 years-sold for £700.

By Mr. F. STATHAM HOBSON, at the Mart. Canonbury-182 and 184, St. Paul's-road, term 73 year3-sold for £965.

Islington-76, Oxford-road, term 75 years-sold for £150. Nos. 38 to 68, even, Queen's Head-street, term 57 years-sold for £2230.

Nos. 47 and 51, Bride-street, term 80 years-sold for £730. Dalston-Nos. 78, 82, and 84, Greenwood-road, term 71 years -sold for £1435. Commercial road-20 and 21, Gloucester-street. term 10 years-sold for £275.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. Inquiries, as to Students' Societies, as to Service under Articles, as to the several Examinations, as to admission on the Roll of the Supreme Court, as to being called to the Bar, and as to taking out and renewal of solicitors' annual Certificates, should be addressed to the Editor (Law Students' Department).

THE prize given by Sir Henry James, Q.C., M.P., is again offered for competition among members of the United Law Students' Society. The subject of the essay for this year is "The effect of the existing laws as to the settlement and descent of landed estates on the value and producing power of the land in this country, and whether any and what changes are required in the law in relation thereto." The question, as well as involving legal considerations, opens up political ground of wide importance, and it will need all the ability and power of research of the foremost law students to grapple with these questions.

A CONVEYANCING lecture will be delivered at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Thursday next, from 6 to 7 o'clock p.m.

ARTICLES of clerkship (whether original or supplemental) dated on any day during June must be enrolled at the Petty Bag Office, Chancery-lane, on or before the same day in the month of December next, and when articles are enrolled and registered on any day during the month of June they must be entered at the Law Institu tion on or before the same day in the month of September next. See 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, ss. 8 and 9, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 7. Failure to comply with these statutory requirements often entails a loss of time upon articled students.

THE days appointed for the final examinations of the Incorporated Law Society in 1879 are: Tuesday 17th, and Wednesday 18th June, at 10: Tuesday 4th, and Wednesday 5th Nov., at 10. Candidates are required, by the regulations of the 27th Nov. and 5th Dec. 1877, to give notice in writing forty-two days at least before the date of the examination to the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, London.

Candidates are also required at the same time to leave with the secretary of the society their articles of clerkship and any assignment thereof, or supplemental articles, and the certificates of their having passed the preliminary examination, or evidence of their exemption therefrom, and certificates of having passed the intermediate examination, together with answers to the questions as to due service and conduct. Prints of these questions can be obtained on application at the office of the Incorporated Law Society.

A renewed notice must be given fourteen days at least before the date of the examination. The fee payable on giving notice of examination is £5, and for a renewed notice £2 10s.

WHERE articles expire between 10th Jan. and 15th April, candidates may be examined in January; if between 14th April and 22nd May, candidates may be examined in April; if between 21st May and 2nd Nov., in June; and if between 1st Nov. and 11th Jan., in November; or, o course, at any subsequent examination. Fortytwo days' notice at least is necessary for these examinations, the same to be calculated up to the first day of the examination. See No. 23 of the new regulations under the Solicitors Act 1877.



[merged small][ocr errors]

young persons," and "adults," and the mode of dealing with each is different in many essential particulars. The definitions of the three classes of persons are contained in the 37th section of the Bill, and are as follows:

1. A "child" means a person who, in the opinion of the court before whom he is brought, is under the age of twelve years.

[ocr errors]

2. A young person means a person who, in such opinion, is of the age of twelve years and under the age of sixteen years.

Ar an ordinary meeting of this society, held in the Law Library, on Thursday evenig, the 29th May, E. T. Cresswell, Esq., in the chair, the following question was discussed: "Does a house owner, after twenty years uninterrupted enjoyment of lateral support from his neighbour's house, acquire, in the absence of any grant, an absolute right to such support? (Angus v. Dalton, L. Rep. 3 Q. B. Div. 85; 47 L. J. Rep. 163; 38 L. T. Rep. Ñ. S. 510; LAW TIMES, vol. 64, p. 463.) Mr. A. J. Cheadle opened the debate in the 3. An "adult" means a person who, in such affirmative, and was supported by Mr. H. S. opinion, is of the age of sixteen years or upwards. Pratt. Mr. T. N. Whitehouse replied in the Before proceeding further, it will be necessary negative, and was followed by Messrs. H. S. to refer particularly to the first schedule, which Coldicott and R. Tildesley. The chairman having specifies the indictable offences which may be ably summed up the arguments pro and con, put dealt with summarily. It is divided into two the question to the meeting, when it was nega-columns, and is in substance as follows: tived by a majority of two. A vote of thanks to Mr. Creswell for presiding terminated the proceedings.

Students' Queries.

FINAL EXAMINATION BEFORE EXPIRATION OF ARTICLES.-I was articled for five years. Can I present myself for my final at any time before the expiration of my term of service, and if so, what steps are necessary in order to enable me to do so? DEVONIENSIS.

[You can present yourself for the final examination before the expiration of your articles of clerkship, subject to your term of service expiring between certain periods of the year. The same course is pursued as if your articles had expired. You simply give the usual notice of your intention of presenting yourself for examination.-ED. STUD.'S DEPT.]

FINAL EXAMINATION.-I was articled for four years on the 10th Jan. 1877. Can I present myself for examiG. O. N. nation in Nov. 1880.

[Yes.-ED. STUD.'S DEPT.]

EMPLOYMENT DURING ARTICLES.-I am requested to take the collection of a few rents on behalf of a near relative and some other persons, and to charge a small commission amounting to £2 per annum. (1) Do you think it safe for me, as an articled clerk, to do this without a judge's order, which is, of course, out of the question? if not, (2) would it be safe if the amount of commission, after being charged, is on each occasion returned by me to my relative privately, as a purpose will be served by merely letting the commission appear in the accounts.-DORA.

[We should say that a small matter of this kind would not affect your service, if undertaken with the knowledge and approval of your principal.-ED. STUD.'s DEPT.]


NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. HIGHWAY-BICYCLE - FURIOUS DRIVING.A bicycle is within the meaning of the words " any sort of carriage" in the 78th section of 5 & 6 Will, 4, c. 50. The appellant was convicted of driving a bicycle furiously on a certain highway, so as to endanger the lives and limbs of passengers there on. Held (upon appeal), that the conviction was right, as the words any sort of carriage were wide enough to include a bicycle, although that machine had not been invented at the time the Act was passed: (Taylor v. Goodwin, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 458. Q. B.)

[ocr errors]

STATUTE-COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS -BASTARDY ACT.-An Act of Parliament which comes into operation upon a given day becomes law as soon as the day commences, and any event which occurs during that day is, in contemplation of law, an event which takes place after the pas sing of the Act: (Tomlinson v. Bullock, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 458. Q. B.)

PROPERTY TAX-QUARRIES AND MINESRULES UNDER SCHEDULE A.-Where a slate quarry, originally worked in the open, had for some years been worked by means of levels driven straight into the mountain to a distance of from 250 to 300 yards, and the whole process of quarrying was carried on underground, the commissioners held that the concern was a mine, and came within the 2nd rule of schedule (A.), No. 3. Held, on case stated for the opinion of the court (reversing the decision of the commissioners), that the concern was a quarry, and therefore within the 1st rule of schedule (A.), No. 3: (Jones v. Cwmmorthin Slate Company, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 461.)

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. Ar the meeting at Clement's-inn Hall, on Wednesday last, the society was occupied with the consideration of a motion brought forward by Mr. Owen, for the establishment of two prizes of the values of £5 5s. and £3 38. respectively, for the two members who had spoken most success- MR. JOHN LOCKE, Q.C., M.P., has resigned fully at the debates of the society during each the Recordership of Brighton, to which he was year. After considerable discussion the motion appointed in April, 1861.

[blocks in formation]


6. Receiving goods, &c, as specified in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, ss. 91 and 95.

7. Aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of simple larceny, &c.

8. Attempt to commit simple larceny, &c., or larceny from the person.

9. The offences relating to railways mentioned in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, ss. 32 and 33.

10. The offences relating to railways mentioned in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 35.

SECOND COLUMN. Adult consenting.

The same offences as those enumerated in the first column, where the whole of the property does not in the opinion of the court exceed 40s.

7. Aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of simple larceny, &c.

8. Attempt to commit simple larceny, &c., or larceny from the person.

The schedule is to apply to a post letter within the 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36 (Post Office Act), and the Acts amending the same, in like manner as it applies to any other property or goods.

The above is necessarily an abbreviation of the schedule. On perusing it fully, as set out in the Bill, numerous verbal inaccuracies will be discovered, but an enumeration of them would scarcely be of interest here. It is to be hoped that these, and the other numerous clerical errors which occur in the Bill, may be corrected' before it becomes law.

It will be seen that the measure very materially increases the jurisdiction of justices in summarily deal summarily with receivers of stolen property disposing of indictable offences. The power to is entirely novel, and as it is to be conferred, there seems no reason why justices should not be empowered to deal summarily with cases of obtaining, and attempting to obtain, money and goods by false pretences, and forging orders, requests, &c., for the payment of money, or the delivery of goods, or receipts for money, &c., limiting such offences to the amount or value of 40s. in the second column of the schedule. The note at the foot of the schedule, extending the summary provisions of the Bill to post letters, is perhaps the most startling item. The punishment for stealing or embezzling letters now extends to penal servitude for seven years, whilst the offences of stealing or embezzling letters containing money, and receiving letters, are punishable with penal servitude for life. A considerable change of opinion must have taken place with reference to the heinous character of these offences, if the Legislature consents to reduce the maximum punishment for them to three and six months' imprisonment, according to the value of the letter, and that, perhaps, without hard labour. Moreover, the proposed alteration will create great anomalies. The offences mentioned in the Post Office Acts, except those of stealing, embezzling, and receiving letters, will still be punishable as before. The crime of stealing from a letter (which is not now simple larceny or punishable as such) will, if the schedule remains as drawn, be punishable with penal servitude for life. If, however, the dishonest postman, instead of stealing from the

(a) By Thomas Cousins, Clerk to the Justices of the Borough of Portsmouth.

letter, is so bold as to purloin the letter itself, as well as its contents, a short imprisonment (regulated by value) will be the result. Stopping a mail, too, will still be open to penal servitude for life. These innovations cannot have been duly considered, and it is extraordinary that they have not have been objected to by the Post-office authorities.

The summary powers conferred by the Bill apply where a "child" is charged with committing any indictable offence other than homicide. The child itself has no voice as to jurisdiction, but the parent or guardian is to be informed of his right to have the child tried by a jury, and may object to the child being dealt with summarily. In case the parent or guardian be absent the child may be remanded in order that the parent or guardian may receive notice to attend. If the parent or guardian do not object, the court may Summarily inflict the same description of punishment as may now be inflicted after trial upon indictment, provided that penal servitude shall not be given; and the sentence shall not exceed one month's imprisonment or a fine of 40s. In the case of a boy he may, instead of any other punishment, be privately whipped with not more than six strokes of a birch rod by a constable, in the presence of an inspector, or other officer of police," and also of the parent or guardian if he wishes to be present. No child is to be punishable who is not, in the opinion of the court, of sufficient age and capacity to commit crime (sect. 9).


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

words of caution directed by Jervis's Act No. 1 to
be addressed to an accused person before com-
mitted for trial have in some way got jumbled up in
the 12th section of the Bill. It is perfectly clear
that such words ought not to be used where the
adult is to be dealt with summarily on a plea of
guilty. They are only applicable where he is to be
committed for trial. The section should be altered

Under the Criminal Justices Act justices had
no power to deal summarily with an offence,
which, owing to a previous conviction of the
person charged, was punishable with penal servi-
tude. In such a case they were bound to commit
for trial. It is true that many justices dealt with
persons under the above Acts after a previous
conviction. But they did so illegally. Under the
present Bill the power to deal summarily in such
cases is discretionary. The wisdom of this is
very much doubted. Where the principle laid
down by the Criminal Justice Acts has been
strictly adhered to, it has had a beneficial and
deterrent effect, and has proved economical in the
long run. Nothing is more calculated to prevent
a repetition of crime than a certain knowledge
that for a second offence the offender must be sent
for trial, and will be liable to a severe punishment,
and perhaps police supervision. The "habitual
criminal is invariably anxious that he may be
dealt with summarily, because he knows that at
the worst he can only receive a few months' im-

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Although the Bill does not touch the law relating to juries, it may well be provided at the end of the 3rd clause of the 12th section, that where a person is committed for trial a copy of his statement' taken down in writing before the committing justice should be annexed to the bill of indictment, and handed to the grand jury. Under the present practice grand juries have been known to ignore bills in cases where the statement has been a full confession.


By sect. 13, a person charged summarily with an offence (not being an assault), punishable with imprisonment for more than three months without the option of a fine, may be tried by a jury, provided he claim such right before the charge is gone into. The section is not to extend to a child unless the parent or guardian is present and claim the right.

The summary jurisdiction of justices as regards young person is not so extensive as it is respecting a child." It is limited to the offences specified in the first column of the above schedule, and it is to be exercised only when the court think expedient, and the young person consents to be dealt with summarily." The punishment is to be a fine not exceeding £3, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months. If a male, and in the opinion of the court under the age of fourteen years, he may, either in substitution for, or in addition to, any other punishment, be privately whipped with not more than twelve strokes of a birch rod by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police " (sect 10). The words "tried summarily" should be substituted for the words "dealt with summarily" in this section. The Bill contains clauses relating to-sums reIt is presumed that the framer of the Bill in- coverable on complaint; the constitution and tends that whipping shall be inflicted in the pre-powers of courts of summary jurisdiction; the sence of an inspector, or other officer of police mode of taking securities; remands in cases to be superior to an ordinary constable. If so, the dealt with summarily; the reduction of amounts phraseology will have to be altered, as the term in which sureties have been bound; the mode of officer of police" includes all constables. procedure on dealing summarily with indictable The Bill is not to prejudice the right of the offences; and the costs of summary prosecutions. court to send children and young persons to re- The 17th section contains special provisions respectformatory or industrial schools. ing warrants of commitment for nonpayment of sums of money under convictions and orders, and warrants of distress. It provides that the wearing apparel and bedding of a person and his family, and, to the value of £5, the tools and implements of his trade, shall not be distrained under such warrants. Clause 18 provides that a new form of register of the proceedings of courts of summary jurisdiction shall be kept by clerks to justices.

[ocr errors]

If the court think it inexpedient to inflict any punishment, the child or young person may be discharged either unconditionally, or conditionally on finding a surety or sureties for good behaviour. Formula of procedure in cases of children and young persons respectively are prescribed.

Under the 2nd section of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 37

(one of the Juvenile Offenders Acts now in operation, but proposed to be repealed by the Bill), a parent has a right to object to a juvenile offender (a person not exceeding sixteen years of age) being dealt with summarily. The Bill continues the same right to the parent of a child, and extends it to a guardian of a child, whilst as regards a young person neither the parent nor guardian will have a right to object. Therefore an accused person between twelve and sixteen years of age will have to decide for himself whether he will be tried by a jury or dealt with summarily. Surely this is not intended!

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

THE object of this Bill is to remedy the admitted
defects of the Act of 1869, especially those arising
out of the operation of the liquidation clauses
sects. 125 and 126.

The 11th and 12th sections relate to "adults." Where an adult is charged with an indictable offence specified in the second column of the above schedule, the court, if they think expedient, and if the accused consents, may deal sumThe advantages of the clauses have in practice marily with ' (i. e., try.) the case, and adjudge been found to be all on the side of the debtor, the person, if found guilty, to be imprisoned with because creditors are generally apathetic and disor without hard labour, for not exceeding three united, and therefore do not avail themselves of months, or pay a fine not exceeding £5. Or, if the powers given to them, and so the debtor is they think it inexpedient to inflict any punish-enabled to file his petition when and where it suits ment, they may discharge the person, either unconditionally or conditionally on finding a surety (who afterwards in the great majority of cases or sureties for good behaviour. Where an adult becomes trustee) and to carry his own terms at is charged with an offence specified in the first the meeting by means of proxies. The trustee so column, but not in the second column of the sche-appointed is subject to no sufficient control, either as to his charges or the disposition of the moneys in his hands.

dule, and on the conclusion of the case for the prosecution it appears to the court that the evidence is sufficient to put the accused on his trial, and, further, that the case is one which, having regard to the character and antecedents of the person charged, the nature of the offence, and all the circumstances of the case, may properly be dealt with summarily, and may be adequately punished by virtue of the Act, then the court may accept a plea of guilty, and adjudge imprisonment with or without hard labour for not exceeding six months.

A form of procedure is prescribed, the first part of which is intelligible. But some of the

him best; to appoint his own nominee receiver

The remedies provided by the Bill are that an officer of the court shall be the receiver in all cases where the assets do not exceed £2000, and may be in every case unless the creditors decide the contrary. The trustee is not to be appointed by the creditors, but by the committee of inspection, and the evils of proxies are sought to be mitigated by requiring that special resolutions are to be signed by a given majority of all the creditors who have proved, and not, as now, by those present at the meeting only. The trus tee's remuneration is to be according to the scale

fixed by the Bill, and he is to be bound in all cases to render his accounts to the comptroller, as now in bankruptcy, and to pay all moneys remaining in his hands after three years into court (sect. 159).

These are undoubted improvements, but we cannot but express our regret that they are accompanied by what we consider an unnecessary number of forms and meetings. A debtor unable to pay his debts has still a choice of the modes in which he will allow his creditors to share among them what is really their property, and not his. He can either try to carry a deed of arrangement under part 2 of the Bill, or, before or after that, he can present a petition, under which there is first a provisional order, and then one meeting to decide whether there shall be an adjudication in bankruptcy, and if not, then there is another meeting to decide on an arrangement. If the first or second meeting results in bankruptcy, there is a meeting for final examination. We are of opinion that no arrangement between a debtor and his creditors should be allowed, unless and until the debtor has first submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. We contend that the true idea of a Bankruptcy Court is that it is a domestic forum with chiefly administrative functions, in order to supply such official assistance to creditors as is necessary to protect and administer what is really their own property, but unfortunately under the control of their debtor. This idea has been partially realised by the separation in 1869 of the clauses relating to offences from the Bankruptcy Act, and the relegation of them to the ordinary criminal tribunals.

If we are correct in this view, it seems to us that the procedure under such a system ought to be reduced to the following, as the only necessary formalities:

1. A petition to the court giving it jurisdiction, which may be called by any name, but the conse quences of which should be, when presented by the debtor, (a) To transfer all the debtor's property and right of disposition to the official trustee, and therefore, (b) To restrain, by notice merely, all proceedings by individual creditors. [The furnishing a complete list of assets and liabilities should be made a condition of allowing a debtor to seek the protection of the court. If the petition is presented by a creditor, the same consequences should follow on proof of the creditor's debt and some act of bankruptcy.]

[ocr errors]

2. There should then be a meeting of creditors called, and that meeting should decide in what way the debtor and his property are to be dealt with, and any arrangement should be required to be completed by the assent of a majority in number representing three-fourths in value the whole of the creditors.

3. If no such arrangement is made, the debtor is then to be in bankruptcy, and so styled, and must apply to the court for his discharge, with the consent of a given proportion of his creditors.

Some such scheme as this would continue to creditors the powers of arrangement and adminis tration given to them by the Act of 1869, and would at the same time bring official control to bear on what are the two weak points of the present system. The one point is the withdrawal of the control which the debtor now has over his property through a friendly receiver or trustee, by vesting it in the official trustee. The successful working of the measure very much depends on the manner in which these officers perform their duties. A proper person, having constant access to and con trolled by an able and experienced judge, such as we have in the Birmingham County Court, will in a little time, command the entire confidence of however, require to be exercised with great judg creditors. His powers of taking possession will, ment and discretion, or otherwise there will be a renewal of the well-founded complaints of the


messengers' bills" under the Act 1849. The true remedy, we think, will be found in making and enforcing very stringent provisions against a debtor dealing with his property. In France & debtor is required to file a correct inventory of his property, and any unauthorised disposition of it is a criminal offence. Provision should be made, either in the Act or by rules and orders, for the cases where it is necessary to appoint a "manager" of a business, who must necessarily be a specially qualified person. The other point is the control given to the creditors over the debtor's discharge. In these two particulars the official control provided for by the Bill will, we think, prove most beneficial.


We feel bound to add that the other additional forms and meetings provided by the Bill, whilst they will add nothing to the real powers either of the court or the creditors, will make bankruptcy administration more complex and costly than it now is, and in less than seven years' time will provoke the complaint that, if the measure has decreased the charges of accountants (which it is by no means certain that it will), it has increased those of the solicitors.

We therefore desire, before suggesting amend ments in particular clauses, to reiterate strongly our opinion that the more elaborate scheme of the

Bill ought to be cut down to the three steps we have before detailed, and that, unless this be done, the number of meetings and applications to the court, which the Bill now provides for, will greatly add to the necessary legal costs of bankruptcy proceedings.

After these preliminary remarks we now confine ourselves to the clauses of the Bill. Clause 3, page 1.-The commencement of the Act should be 1st Jan. 1880, in order that the rules and orders may be carefully prepared and published. Although the Bankruptcy Act 1869 did not come into operation until 1st Jan. 1870, the rules and orders were not published when it came into operation.

Clause 4, line 23.-As traders are sometimes entitled to real estate in foreign countries, why should real property in the United Kingdom only be included?

Clause 4, page 2, line 38.-"Trader." We are of opinion that the present distinction between traders and non-traders is productive of more mischief than benefit, and should be abolished. Clause 5, line 7.-To obviate a difficulty which has arisen under this clause in the present Act, the first words of the section should be altered so as to read "A creditor, or two or more several creditors, if the debt owing to such creditor or creditors, &c." This (coupled with the interpretation clause, page 2, line 34) would make it clear that a firm might be one of several creditors whose united debts made up £50.

Clause 5, sect. 5.-Subject to our observations on clauses 108 and 111, we entirely approve of a sale under an execution of whatever amount, being an act of bankruptcy, and of the abolition of the distinction between executions under and above £50. We are also of opinion that it would be politic to extend this provision to non-traders.

Clause 5, sect. 6 and 7.-We think that every useful purpose of section 6 would be better attained by adding in sub-section 7, after the word "his" in line 23, the words "concurrently with or subsequent to the time of service of the writ or summons in the same action." We also submit that the words in the 24th line "by leave of the London Bankruptcy Court," should be altered to "by leave of the court.'

In line 43, page 4, the words "growing due are not to be found in section 6 of the Act of 1869 noted in the margin, and are no doubt inserted to overrule the case of Ex parte Sturt (L. Rep. 13 Eq. 399), and to restore the former practice. We suggest it would be better to alter the words "growing due "into" due whether presently payable or not.' Clause 10.-Our opinion on the probable operation of this section has already been stated in our preliminary remarks. The section requires supplementing in two points, (1) a provision in the Act itself making it unlawful for the debtor to dispose of any part of his property after the provisional order, and (2) carefully drawn rules for the prevention of what was felt to be a serious evil under the Act of 1849, viz., messengers' bills, and providing for the business of a trader being carried on where it is shown to be advisable.

simply certified and sent ont by the court. In line 20 of this section, after "registrar," the words "or person "should be added. Clause 17, sect. 4.-This section is not in the terms of the Scotch Act referred to in the margin, and the phrase "under discount," would appear to exclude the case of a merchant or manufacturer taking a bill bearing several endorsements in payment for goods. It is submitted he would still be able to prove for the whole amount on the estate of the drawer, or any of the indorsees. If so, they would be in a better position, because he has given money's worth for the bill, than a banker or bill broker, who gives the money itself. It is suggested that the words "under discount" should be omitted.

Clauses 19 and 21.-There is good reason to fear that all the evils of the present system of liquidation by arrangement will re-appear in the working of these provisions. Under section 19, a resolution of a bare majority of the creditors present at the first meeting may stay the bankruptcy proceedings, and approve of a deed of arrangement then executed or thereafter to be executed; and, although section 24 provides that such a deed must be consented to by a majority in number representing three-fourths in value, practical men know the great advantage it will be to a debtor asking for these consents, if he is able to state that a meeting of creditors has approved of the deed. If he can only secure a friendly meeting his object is attained, and the deed will of course provide for the release of the debtor, and there is no restriction as to the amount of the composition (because it is outside the operation of section 27), nor any provision for security. If the debtor does not succeed at the first meeting, he has another chance at the second meeting, under section 21, of getting the deed agreed; to for, although he has nominally to get a majority in number represent ing three-fourths in value to assent to the resolution, he will have no more difficulty than under section 19, if he gets the votes of the meeting. We note with satisfaction the additions which the Lords Committee have made to this clause (lines 14 to 34), giving the court a judicial power as to the discharge, instead of the merely ministerial function of issuing it as originally provided. The clause should be further strengthened by the same addition to the words "on proof being furnished to the court," as we have suggested in sect. 21. Clause 24, sect. 7.-It should be provided by rules and orders that every form of assent should state shortly the nature and effect of the deed, so that each creditor may know to what he is assenting. Clause 28.-A few words are wanted to be added to the first sentence of this section, such as, for instance, after the word "deed the words "when not preceded by a provisional order," in order that where a deed follows a provisional order the act of bankruptcy shall relate back to the order, and not merely to the date of the deed.

Clause 30.-The court should have power to restrain proceedings independently of the power of appointing receiver and manager; if not, a practice will grow up of appointing accountants to be receivers and managers under deeds, as they now are under petitions for liquidation.

time be extended, and at latest at the expiration of one year."

Clause 76.-This clause does not adequately provide for the frequently recurring difficulty of a trader having his principal place of business in one country district, and branches in other country districts and in London.

Clause 80.-We are strongly of opinion that, for the purposes of securing uniformity of administration in bankruptcy proceedings, the Chief Judge in bankruptcy should be able to devote all his time and attention to bankruptcy.

Clause 86.-Much delay and inconvenience will arise in country districts if contested applications for a provisional order cannot be heard before the Registrar. Orders will be often coutested to gain time.

Clause 108.-This clause is no doubt logically consistent with the 5th clause; but the inconvenience which would result to plaintiffs in County Court actions for small amounts, of being obliged to wait four weeks before they could obtain the proceeds of an execution, render it necessary to restrict this clause to executions where the amount to be levied for debt and costs exceed £20. For this class of cases would not practically affect clause 5, because such small debtors seldom owe enough to any one, two, or even three creditors to make up the requisite petitioning creditor's debt. As so amended, we think the clause should not be restricted to traders.

Clause 111.-To make this clause consistent with clause 108, as proposed to be amended, £20 should be substituted for £50.

Clause 113.-For the purpose of this section it should be provided that the books of account and papers of the debtor, which would be admissible against him in any civil action against him, shall in like manner be admissible in evidence in any proceeding against the preferred creditor.

Clause 132.-It is presumed it is not the intention of this section to come into operation where the registrar presides in his own court; and if this be so, after the words "at any place" in the fourth line, the words "other than his own court" should be inserted.

Clause 152.-A summary power should be given to the official assignee or registrar to recover the undistributed property in the hands of the trustee. This section should be extended to apply to unclosed estates, or section 153 should be made to apply.

Clause 159.-The persons to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor under this section to get in undistributed estates should be authorised to require payment of any balances of closed estates, and to require an account of the payment of any balance appearing on any such account of unclosed estates.

With respect to the scale of remuneration of trustees, a firm of accountants in Birmingham, much engaged in liquidation business, has courteously furnished us with the following comparative statement of a trustee's costs under the present system, as compared with the proposed scale. For this purpose they have taken twentysix cases, all under £2000, just as they occurred in a particular year, without any selection.



Clause 11.-As a matter of practice it will be
found impossible in any but the smallest class of
cases for a debtor to file such list as is prescribed
by this section in any very short time. The
original limit of four days has been altered to a
time to be prescribed by rules and orders. For
the same reason, unless a debtor has begun to pre-
pare it for some time before he files his petition,
he will, as a matter of course, have to apply for
further time beyond the three days provided by
the latter part of the section. In the majority of
cases where the debts exceed £2000, where a
debtor is forced by pressure to file his petition, it
takes three days to get a complete list of creditors,
and the additional particulars which the section Clause 39.-" On proof being furnished to the
requires can seldom be prepared in less than four-court by any creditor," should be supplemented
een days. The first list should be a list of the by some words enabling the court to take official
creditors as at present, and the full particulars notice of the "facts mentioned in sub-sections
required by the section should be furnished at a and b, if and when they appear in the bankrupt's
least two days before the meeting.
accounts or examination.

Clause 36.-The proviso at the end of this sec-
tion will operate as a powerful inducement to
fraudulent debtors to resort to a deed of arrange-
ment, because they thereby obtain a protection 8598*8*===~~¤~I~~~~
which they do not get under bankruptcy.

Clause 12.-For the reasons given in the last preceding paragraph, this section, unless confined to a mere list of creditors, will be found to be unworkable.

Clause 14.-We think the excellent intention of this clause would be better carried into effect by the adoption of the words of sect. 163 of the Companies Act 1862. What is wanted to save cost is that, as soon as the debtor's property is placed under the control of the court, no creditor shall be permitted to pursue his individual remedy without the sanction of the court, and that a mere notice of the provisional order (or of the appointment of a receiver without any restraining order) shall render it unlawful on his part to do so.

Clause 17.-The provision that the court shall, within four days from the making of the provisional order, call a meeting by advertisement in the Gazette, seems inconsistent with the provision in sect. 7 giving the debtor seven days to appeal against it. The section should be amended so as to allow the notices to creditors (as at present) to be prepared by the debtor or his solicitor, and

Clause 39.-Why should there be an interval of three months between the last examination and application for discharge? As the clause stands, the application, if made within two years, must be concurred in by a certain proportion of the creditors, and therefore the creditors cannot be taken by surprise.

Clause 40.-Why should not the discharge free the bankrupt from crown debts?

Clause 42, sect. 5.-The corresponding clause (15) of the Act of 1869 comprised only debts due to the bankrupt in the course of his trade or busi


This clause extends it to all debts due or growing due, on which phrase we have already commented; so that debentures and other similar securities would be now made liable to the doctrine of reputed ownership. Qu.: also as to policies of



00 98...




Half Debts

Stock, £200

Stock, £1,760
Stock, £380
Furniture. £525
Stock, £100
Stock, £245

Stock, £100

Property, £33



present Scale.

45 0 0 £57 0 0

No remuneration received

45 0 0

[ocr errors][merged small]

...... No remuneration received

61 0 0 .........

34 0 0 ......

No estate .........

14 0 0 ....

2000 say No estate, say...

...... 21 0 0

No estate.........

15 15 0 £854 17 9

Average....... £32 0 0


£15 00 ........£392 16 6



[blocks in formation]


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


Stock, £0.. Stock, £142

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

Property, £150. Debts, £70 45 0 0


It is, however, necessary to notice that


the calculations of the amounts receivable on the proClause 60 and following clauses of Part V.-posed scale are made on the following basis, as From the language of some of these clauses, they applied to an estate, say of £1000, supposing the would seem applicable to deeds of arrangement, estate consisted in equal portions of stock and and others not. It should be made clear which of debts:them do, and which do not.

[blocks in formation]

Union Bank, denied that accusation, as also did Mr. Fletcher, the manager, but it was a matter of regret that Mr. Wilton should have been appointed trustee while he held the position he did in the bank. It was very important, no doubt, for the bankrupts that the resolution in question should be sanctioned, as the bankruptcy proceed0ings would be thereby annulled, and the criminal charges would fall to the ground.

Here, however, an important question occurs: whether, in case of the sale of debtor's stock by tour, the trustee is entitled to the further allowance at line 15 of p. 63 of the Bill. On the literal construction of the section it would seem that he is; and, therefore, in case of a sale by tender of the debtor's stock, there would have to be added to the before-stated amount of £57 10 Commission at £4 per cent on £400, and £3 10s. on £100.. 19 10 0

[blocks in formation]

The unsatisfactory point in the scale is the trustee's remuneration for the sale of that part of the debtor's property which does not consist of debts. The collection of debts he will do himself, but all the work incident to the sale of the debtor's real or personal property will be done by the solicitor or auctioneer. If there is a sale of real property, the solicitor will prepare the agree ment if sold privately, or the conditions if sold by auction, and all the business connected with the transfer. If the property be stock-in-trade, and sold by tender, the solicitor will prepare the conditions and advertisements. Where an auctioneer is employed, he will of course receive his remuneration according to the present bankruptcy scale for doing the very work for which the trustee also receives his commission.

In almost every case some ground will be found for application for allowance for special work, which then, as now, will greatly increase the statutory allowances.

MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT. (Before J. A. RUSSELL, Esq., Q.C., Judge). Re HIGSON, WEST, AND CO. Bankruptcy Act 1869, ect. 28-Bankrupts in contempt-Discretion.

Taylor, as counsel for a large number of creditors of the above-named bankrupts, whose petition was filed in 1871, made an application before Mr. Registrar Lister for the registration of a resolution under the 28th section of the Bankruptcy Act. A meeting of the creditors had passed a resolution accepting a composition of 1s. in the pound; but Jordan, who appeared for two creditors of over £2000 each, contended that the registration was unnecessary, and the registrar declined to register the resolution until the parties had been before the judge. Taylor accordingly applied to the judge for the registration of the resolution, stating that his object was that there should be no point raised with respect to registration hereafter.

His HONOUR ordered the resolution to be regis


Taylor then applied to the judge for the sanction of the court to the arrangement under which the creditors were to receive a composition of 1s. in the pound. He said the two bankrupts were very young men, and, being well connected, they

were enabled to obtain credit to a considerable amount. By injudicious trading they became seriously involved, and at the time of their adjudication they were indebted to unsecured creditors to the extent of nearly £80,000. The assets available for dividend amounted to only about £1000, and this had been reduced by expenses to £500. When they failed the bankrupts absconded, and their friends were now willing to subscribe about £3000 in order to pay the composition of 1s. in the pound. The application was made, not on behalf of the bankrupts, but the trustee of the creditors. Jordan, in opposing the application, said the bankrupts absconded nine years ago, owing £30,000, and the creditors had not received a farthing of dividend from the estate. A warrant was issued by the court for the apprehension of the bankrupts, and another warrant was afterwards granted by the magistrates; but, although considerable trouble and expense had been incurred, they had not yet been arrested. He contended that the court had not the power to approve of any scheme that might have been adopted by the creditors unless the bankrupts surrendered and submitted themselves to examination. The crimes alleged to have been committed were of a grave character, such as sending property out of the country and following it, and it was alleged further that they had obtained goods, not for the purpose of using them in their trade, but for the purpose of their being handed over to the Union Bank of Manchester in reduction of their debt. Mr. Wilton, the trustee, who was cashier at the

Taylor, in reply, said that these proceedings were not taken in the interests of the bankrupts. He characterised the allegation against the Union Bank as monstrous, and unsupported by the evidence. It was not a question as to whether or not the bankrupts had committed a fraud, but whether the resolution which the court was asked to confirm had been legally passed by the creditors, and he contended that it had been legally passed under the 28th section of the Act. If a criminal offence had been committed the creditors would have full power to deal with the bankrupts hereafter, though the court might confirm the resolu


His HONOUR said he should have been very glad if there had been any authority to guide him in deciding this case, but it did not appear that an application had ever before been made, for the sanction of the court to a resolution passed at a meeting of creditors under the 28th section, where the bankrupt had not surrendered. Now, it appeared to him that the very object of a resolution of this kind being declared not to have full force until it had received the sanction of the court, was to enable the court to judge of all the circumstances of the case. The court had to see, not merely whether or not the resolution would be for the benefit of the creditors, but whether, under all the circumstances, it was a resolution that ought to be sanctioned by the court. In other words, the court had to consider whether, assuming it would be for the benefit of the creditors to receive 1s. in the pound, the amount that was offered in this case, instead of perhaps getting nothing at all, the resolution accepting that composition could be enforced, with a proper regard to the due administration of the bankruptcy law in general. Now, here the bankrupts were in contempt by reason of their non-surrender, and the court was unable to judge, from the examination to which they ought to have submitted themselves, whether the resolution really was or was not best for the creditors. For that reason alone he thought the court ought to hold its hand. At all events he would not be the one to establish a precedent in such a case as this. But then there was this further difficulty: if the court sanctioned the resolution, the second clause of sect. 28 made it imperative that the adjudication should be annulled. But the cases referred to by Mr. Jordan showed that the adjudication could not be annulled, even with the consent of all the creditors, unless the bankrupts surrendered. And, therefore, to sanction the resolution would be to place the court in the position of being obliged to do that which, upon the authorities, the court had no power to do. For these reasons the court, as at present advised, must refuse its sanction to the resolution, and the application must be dismissed with


In reply to a question put by Mr. Taylor as to whether the court would sanction the resolution in case the bankrupts surrendered, his Honour said, if any fresh facts came forth another application might be made.

(Before T. E. P. LEFROY, Esq., Judge.)

The Verdict of a Jury overruled. CLAIM £10 11s. 6d. for hauling done by plaintiff's horses and men.

Gundry for the plaintiff.
Nantes for the defendant.

A jury, composed of the following, was em panelled: Messrs. Richard Best, E. Clent, J. Guppy, H. Matthews, and E. Holley.

Gundry, having laid the facts of his case before the jury, called the plaintiff, who deposed that the defendant and Mr. J. F. Perry came to Netherbury during the month of August last, and sent for him to see them at the New Inn. He met them there, and agreed to lend them men and horses to haul a thrashing machine from Yondover to Loscombe, to thresh some wheat which they had bought as partners at a sale, held by the defendant for Mr. Douch, at Loscombe Farm. The wheat also was hauled to where the threshing machine stood upon the farm, and some coal was carted from the Bridport railway station to supply the engine. The distance from Yondover to Loscombe was three miles. It was agreed that the

work should be done by the day, and he (plaintiff) was left to make a fair charge. The hauling was done by two men, a boy, and four horses, and for their labour he had charged 7s. 6d. a day for the whole time they were employed. Had he only hauled the engine, which was the heaviest and most dangerous part of the work, he should have claimed much more than 7s. 6d. for the day's hire. After he had sent in his bill, he met Mr. Perry and the defendant at the Royal Oak Inn, Bridport. They complained that his bill was too high; but one of them offered to settle it if he (witness) would deduct £2 10s. Mr. Perry had gone into liquidation since the work was done.

Frank Davey, of Yondover, stated that the hire of the threshing machine was paid for by the defendant. Plaintiff's charge of 7s. 6d. a day, taking into account the bad road over which he had to haul the machine, was a fair one. Cross-examined: The machine was hired by Mr. Perry.

Thomas Marsh, haulier, of Bradpole, also considered that the plaintiff's charge was just, considering the hilly nature of the district, and the increased value of horse labour in the month of


Mr. J. T. Perry deposed that he and the defendant bought the corn, at the sale at Loscombe They went to Netherbury to see the plaintiff The work was done satisfactorily, but they thought they were overcharged. The plaintiff first sent in a bill to "Morey and Perry," charging 8s. a day for the hire of his horses and men, but he afterwards reduced the charge to 7s. 6d. a day. He applied for payment of his account at the Royal Oak Inn, to the defendant and witness, and if, as they pressed him to do, he had made a deduction of £2 10s., they would have paid him. Defendant afterwards said that, as plaintiff would not reduce the amount, he (defendant) would fight it out. Cross-examined: Plaintiff had paid him (witness) a bill of £3 10s. which he owed him, holding the defendant liable for the present claim.

By his HONOUR.-When the defendant said plaintiff might sue him, after the interview at the Royal Oak, he added that he would be responsible for the money.

Edward Morris, landlord of the New Inn, Netherbury, deposed that the parties had interviews at his house.

client, said the defence was that defendant had Nantes, in addressing the jury on behalf of his nothing to do with the order that was given to Mr. Collins. defendant and Mr. Perry, as partners. The latter The wheat was bought by the had the whole management of matters in his hands, and he employed the plaintiff to do the hauling, because he owed him an account, which he (Perry) thought might thus be settled.

Defendant stated that he sold the wheat referred to by auction, Perry being the purchaser; but there was an understanding that he (witness) was to share in any profits arising out the transaction. He wanted his cousin to haul the wheat, but Mr.

Perry particularly wished the plaintiff to be engaged, because he owed him a bill. He was to do the hauling, but took no part in the matter, with Mr. Perry when the plaintiff was employed nor was his name mentioned. Mr. Perry took the money for the wheat, and witness had had none of it. When the plaintiff applied for payment of his bill, at the Royal Oak, Perry objected to the charges, and wanted to refer the matter to Mr. that he did not express his willingness to settle Jesse Snook, who was present. Witness swore the account if plaintiff deducted £2 10s. Crossexamined: He expected to bear part of the expenses of hauling. He did not disavow his liability at the Royal Oak; he said the charges were too high.

John Zeally, of Walditch, was present at the Greyhound Hotel when Mr Perry and the plaintiff were discussing the account. Mr. Perry said he was willing to leave the question of the fairness or unfairness of the charges to witness and Mr. Ash. Cross-examined: Witness did not consider

7s. 6d. a day on an average too much for the work


This concluded the evidence.

His HONOUR, in summing up, said the jury must pay attention to him whilst he briefly laid down the law upon which they would give their decision. The law was, that if one of two persons in a contract entered into an arrangement for work to be done, as in this case, each was individually liable, and the plaintiff might recover from either partner. He had no hesitation in saying that, un less they disbelieved the evidence of the defendant himself, they could not do otherwise than find for the plaintiff, for the defendant's own evidence showed that he was lawfully responsible.

The jury then retired for consultation, and after an interval of about a quarter of an hour, returned into court. Upon his Honour putting the usual questions to them, the foreman (Mr. R. Best) said their verdict was for the defendant, and asked permission to read their written decision. This being granted, Mr. Best read the following:

The jury are of opinion that Mr. Morey is not

« ElőzőTovább »