MIDDLE TEMPLE. Rupert Edward Cooke Kettle, of St. John's College, Oxford, B.A.: Hugh Hartland Rose, of Trinity College, Cambridge, B.A.; Walter Jameson Waterlow, of Trinity College, Cambridge, LL.B.; Frederick Vincent Budge, of Wadham College, Oxford, B.A.; James Coen; James Erle-Benham, of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, and King's College. London; Ernest Henry Fishbourne, of Trinity College, Cambridge, LL.B., B.A.; Charles Frederick Hancock, M.A., Merton College. Oxford: William Ernest Gordon Leith, B.A., Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Frederick George Docker Lincoln; John Cameron Graham, London University, B.Sc.

LINCOLN'S-INN.-James Pratt (M.A., Aberdeen), University of London and I.C.S.; Edward Greenhill Amphlett, B. A., Oxford; Edmund Frazer Buckley, B.A., Oxford: Arthur Janion Edwards, B.A., Oxford; James William Clark, M.A., Cambridge, Fellow of Trinity Hall; Frederick Warburton Dunston, B.A., Oxford; John Mason Lightwood, M.A., Cambridge, Fellow of Trinity Hall William Lambert, B.A., Oxford; Robert Albert Jones, B.A., Oxford; Horace Francis Lester, B.A., Oxford; Henry Napier Rooper, B.A.. Cambridge; Avary William Holmes, M.A., Dublin; Edward Frederic Knight, B.A., Cambridge; George Denison Faber, B.A., Oxford; George Henry Wallace, B.A., Cambridge; Lawrence Colville Jackson, and Henry Blomfield Burnell, LL.B., Cambridge.

GRAY'S-INN.-Charles Montague Lush, of Trinity Hall, Cambridge.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE, FOR THE SESSION
ENDING APRIL, 1879.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.
THIS Society held its 644th meeting on Tuesday
evening last, in the Library of the Birmingham
Law Society, Mr. W. Johnson in the chair. After
the election of four new members, and of Mr.
A. J. O'Connor as a member of the committee.
A vote of thanks was passed to Mr. Howard W.
Soutter (the retiring secretary) on the motion of
Mr. W. Showell Rogers (hon. secretary), for his
services as treasurer and secretary. Instead of
the usual debate on a legal point Mr. W. S. Rogers
read extracts from his essay on "The Doctrine of
Separate Use," in compliance with a resolution
passed at the last meeting, at which the prize of
the society was presented to him. A vote of SHEFFIELD DISTRICT LAW STUDENTS'
thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. THIS Society met as usual on Tuesday evening last, the 6th inst., at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane: Mr. T. B. Napier in the chair. After some preliminary business had been disposed of, the meeting proceeded to the debate on the paper for the evening: "A, a publisher, agrees to publish at his own expense a book written by B: to pay B. half the net profits (if any). Is there a partnership between A. and B. ?" The cases cited being Venables v. Wood (3 Ross. L. C. on Commercial Law), and Reade v. Bentley (4 K. & I. 656). Mr. S. J. Montagu and Mr. E. Seymour supported the affirmative, and Mr. F. A. Moule, and Mr. F. J. Green the negative. At the conclusion of the discussion that followed, the chairman summed up, and put the question to the meeting, when the majority of votes were given for the negative. NOTTINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. THE usual weekly meeting of this society was held on Friday evening, the 18th ult., Mr. Arthur Browne, in the chair, and a discussion on the new Bankruptcy Bill was introduced by Mr. H. Y. Stanger, B.A., barrister-at-law, in which the following gentlemen took part, Messrs. W. H. Stevenson, S. G. Warner, J. W. Woodward, W. P. W. Phillimore, and J. Marriott. The Chairman likewise criticised the Bill, and the meeting adjourned after a long and interesting discussion.

The last meeting of the session was held on the 25th ult. The vice-president, Mr. Harry Wyles, in the chair. The following gentlemen were elected members of the society: Messrs. G. H. Blackwell and Roby L. Thorpe, solicitors, as honorary members, and Mr. R. W. Miller, articled clerk, as an ordinary member. The half yearly report of the committee, the chief features of which we publish below, was then read by the hon. secretary, and unanimously adopted. Some discussion took place about the suggested law lectures and the proposed student's library, towards the formation of which the vice-president offered two guineas. The meeting then proceeded to elect a new treasurer in place of Mr. W. H. Heater resigned, and a new secretary in place of Mr. W. P. W. Phillimore, B.A., likewise resigned. For the former post Mr. John Marriott was chosen, and for the latter Mr. F. W. Fox. A vote of thanks to the retiring officers was then moved by Mr. J. T. Perry, and carried unanimously. It was then proposed that the usual annual excursion should be held in June, and this was also carried nem. con.

the report of the committee appointed by you to consider the subject of legal education, was conYour committee beg to present the following firmed. The seven meetings at the Law Institureport of the proceedings of the society during tion have been entirely occupied with legal the past session. Eight new members (four soli- questions; two essays have been read, one by Mr. citors and four articled clerks) have been elected; T. Eustace Smith on the new Bills of Sale Act, and there are at present ninety-two members on and the other by Mr. W. Shirley Shirley upon the the roll, exclusive of the hon. president. Of these law of negligence. It is proposed if possible to twenty-one are hon. members, and of the remainder, continue this system, one essay being read a month who are ordinary members, forty-two are solici- followed by a discussion upon a moot arising out of tors and twenty-nine are articled clerks. At the the subject of the essay. Your committee, however, corresponding period of last year there were observes with regret. that while the subjects for seventy-five members, thus showing an increase debate are most carefully selected, and, so far as since that time of seventeen. A list of the names they can learn, give general satisfaction, the atis appended to this report. The usual weekly tendance remains smaller than, from the size and meetings have been held during the past session, general vigour of the society, should be expected. at which the average attendance has been four- Many of the subjects have been keenly discussed, teen. Several of the debates have been of much the unwillingness of members to speak, which was interest, especially the one on the South African alluded to in a former report, being not nearly so policy of the present Government, and also the apparent; but an average of twenty-three at your discussion on the new Bankruptcy Bill, which ordinary, and thirteen at your legal meetings, was introduced by Mr. H. Y. Stanger, barristercannot be regarded as altogether satisfactory. The society, in Jan. last, adopted the report of at-law. Your committee are glad to observe that greater regularity has characterised the atten- the committee appointed to consider the subject dance of members appointed to take part in the of legal education; the report was subsequently debates, and they trust that this will continue to printed, and largely distributed, and has been be the case in the future. The annual dinner, at under the consideration of the different bodies The society has which your president presided, was held on the having control in the matter. 10th Feb., and was a marked success, about forty also printed a short set of rules relating to the gentlemen being present. Your committee refer conduct of the library, and a catalogue of the with pleasure to the success of two of your membooks contained in it. The committee have bers, Messrs. John Harrop White, now of Mans-arranged for a joint debate with the Law Students' field, and Henry Barber, at the final examination, Debating Society on the 27th of next month; it both of whom gained prizes of the Incorporated Law being hoped that it may be found possible to conSociety. Mr. Barber has also lately obtained the tinue these inter-debates at least twice a year. The degree of LL.B. in the University of London, and it funds of the society are in a flourishing condition. will be remembered that during his articles he was Having dealt with the general work of the society, an active member of the society, and at one time I will now refer in detail to the several departheld the office of secretary. A suggestion that a ments which are attached to it. The legal corresstudents' library should be formed in connection pondence department in the hands of Mr. H. J. with the society has been made, and your com- Gidney, maintains its reputation as a most useful mittee hope that it may shortly be acted upon, institution; there are now, I understand, about sixty for they believe that it is a requirement urgently members and seven sections. In the general corres needed by the younger members. It may be pondence department the secretary (Mr. C. Kainsmentioned that several other law students' Jackson) has circulated during the past quarter a societies, of more recent foundation than yours, series of questions of very considerable interest. possess such libraries, which are of much service The library, under Mr. F. B. Moyle's manageto their members. ment, has very considerably increased in size; it now contains 350 volumes. The secretary of the Societies in Union (Mr. E. H. Quicke) informs me that the general condition of the societies is highly satisfactory, though in one or two quarters, as must of necessity always be the case, there has been a falling off. It is impossible, in such a report as this, to do more than refer in the most general terms to that which forms the substance of the separate report of the secretary of this department at the end of each year, but I may notice that the reports of the Birmingham, Bolton, Huddersfield, Liverpool, Norwich, and Nottingham societies, which have appeared in the law newspapers during the past quarter are, without exception, causes for congratulation. Mock trials have been conducted with much success at Bolton and Nottingham, while a joint debate was held last month between the Bradford and Wolver hampton societies. Your committee have been gratified at the receipt of a proposal from one society that there should be an annual congress of the secretaries of the various societies, a proceeding which may, in their opinion, lead to substantially good results. The subject selected this year for the Union Prize is the Law of Contributory Negligence, and I am pleased to hear that the number of essays already received is in excess of those sent in last year. Turning again to the affairs of your own society, it is only neces say to notice very shortly that the annual inaugural meeting on 22nd Jan., went off fairly well under the presidency of the SolicitorGeneral (Sir Hardinge Giffard), supported by Howard, Q.C., Mr. H. Montague Cookson, Q.C. Sir Patrick Colquhoun, Q.C., Mr. J. Morgan, Mr. Grinham Keen, Mr. B. G. Lake, and Mr. Charles Ford. Before concluding this report I may mention that the number of honours and prizes won by your members has been increased by the awarding of the Inner Temple Common Law Studentship of 100 guineas to Mr. E. Foá, of the Inner Temple Conveyancing Studentship of 100 guineas to Mr. A. Tillotson, while the fourth prize was at the last final examination awarded to Mr. H. Barber, Mr. A. J. Antill obtaining a certificate of honour at the same examination. Mr. T. Bateman Napier also obtained a second class in honours at the first LL.B. examination at the London University, Mr. P. F. S. Stokes obtaining a similar distinction at the second LL.B. The Davis prize has been awarded by the committee to your hon. secretary.

SOCIETY.

A MEETING of the above society was held at
Aldine Court, on Tuesday, the 6th inst., at which
there was a fair attendance.
The chair was
occupied by A. M. Wilson, Esq., solicitor. Upon
the proposal of Mr. Bennett, it was unanimously
resolved, that no meetings of the society should
be held during the summer months, viz., from
June to September, both inclusive." After the
incidental business of the society had been trans-
acted, and the minutes of the last meeting read
and adopted, a debate took place on the following
subject: A testator devises his property to his
wife to be at her disposal, in any way she may
think best, for the benefit of herself and family.
Does the widow take absolutely so as to be able to
give the whole of the property from the family?"
The appointed speakers were Messrs. Robinson
and Foster in the affirmative, and Messrs. Sorby
and W. F. Smith in the negative, and after they
had upheld the honour of their respective sides
(the speakers in the negative advancing every
possible argument in favour of their almost
untenantable position, in the face of the decision
of Vice-Chancellor Malins in Lamb v. Eames),
the debate was joined in by many of the other
members present. Numerous other cases were
cited in favour of the affirmative, and one single
case was cited in favour of the other side. The
chairman then summed up in a very able and
pointed out the law on the subject, and explained
interesting manner, in which he very clearly
the same much to the benefit of the law students
present, and showed that the case cited in favour
of the negative side was no authority; the
question was put to the vote, and resolved in the
affirmative, there being only one dissentient. A
hearty vote of thanks to the chairman brought
this very enjoyable meeting to a close.

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. THE following is so much of the report of the hon. secretary of the society (Mr. W. C. Owen) for the quarter ending the 31st March 1879, as is of general interest: Since the commencement of the year thirty-four new members have been added to your lists; the total being composed as follows: Barristers, one solicitors, five; bar students, seven; and articled clerks, twenty-one. Twenty meetings of the society have been held, exclusive of the inaugural meeting; of these twenty, thirteen were held at Clement's Inn, and seven at the Law Institution. Your society recently, upon the Ar an ordinary meeting of the society, held at the motion of one of its members, discussed the Law Library, on Thursday, May 1st, J. W. Stirk, advisability of raising the standard of the solici- Esq., in the chair. The following question was tor's preliminary examination; with the result discussed: "Can an action for specific perthat the opinion against such a step, contained informance be supported on the following agree

WOLVERHAMPTON LAW STUDENTS'
SOCIETY.

magistrates, and that the magistrates having |
found that the gate was not within the town, the
court were not at liberty to go behind that finding,
but must treat it as a question of fact on which
the magistrates had jurisdiction to determine, and
had determined for themselves. But the Court
also expressed their opinion that, having regard
to the facts of the case, the finding of the magis-
trates was right in point of fact. Held, also, that
the omission of the trustees to demand tolls for a

ment? I, A. B. agree to sell, and I, C. D. agree A plaintiff in a salvage action in the Admiralty to buy a piece of land, situate, &c., at the price Division, in which the defendants admit the alleof £1000, the purchase to be completed on Lady gation in the statement of claim, and tender a Day. These terms to be embodied in an approved sum in satisfaction, is nevertheless entitled to formal contract, to be signed within seven days. discovery and inspection of documents, but at his -Signed A. B., C. D.-Witness, John Brown." own risk and cost if such discovery and inspecMr. A Whitehouse opened the debate in the tion should be held at the hearing to have been affirmative, and was followed by Messrs. A. J. unnecessary. Quare, is a reply necessary in a Cheadle, T. G. Barber, and T. H. Evans. Mr. salvage action where the only defence in admission T. H. Bayley replied for the negative, and was of the plaintiffs' facts and tender of a sum in supported by Messrs. E. T. Cresswell, C. F. period of forty years established no right in the satisfaction which is rejected by the plaintiff ? Andrews, and A. M. Manby. After an interest-public to exemption, which nothing but an Act of Leave given to reply, and claim amended before ing discussion, the chairmain ably summed up the Parliament could create or sanction; nor had the reply: (The Maria, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 295. question, and put it to the meeting, and the votes trustees any right or power to exempt any person, Adm. Ct.) for each side being equal, the chairman gave his or class of persons, from payment of the toll TOWAGE-SALVAGE-NEGLIGENCE- DAMAGE casting vote in favour of the negative. A vote except those expressly exempted by the Act. Per-TUG AND TOW.-Where in the performance of of thanks to Mr. Stirk for presiding terminated Hawkins, J.: Had the effect of the building ope- towage services the tow gets into a position of the proceedings. rations been such as to bring the toll gate within danger to extricate her from which would entitle the "town," though it was not so in 1838, the a stranger to salvage reward, the tug is not enappellant, as an inhabitant of the "town," would titled to any reward if the situation in which the have been entitled to exemption from toll, on the tow was placed was the result of negligence in the ground that at the time the exemption was claimed tug, and the tow is entitled to be reimbursed by the gate was within the "town," though it was the tug's owners for loss occasioned to the tow in not at the time of its removal. In my opinion a being extricated from the position of danger. "town" grows with the buildings, and wherever Where the tug is familiar with the navigation and it can be said that the latter have advanced to the tow a foreigner, it is the duty of the tug to tow such an extent as that that which was formerly in a safe direction, without waiting for directions without is now within the town," the exemption from the vessel in tow: (The Robert Dixon, 40 will apply to such newly added part of the L. T. Rep. N.S. 333. Adm. Ct.) "town. The definition of a town," given by Russell Gurney, Q.C., Recorder of London, in Reg. v. Cottle (16 Q. B. 412; 20 L. J. 162, M.C.), and by Alderson and Parke, BB., in Elliott v. The South Devon Railway Company (2 Ex. 725; 17 L. J. 262, Ex.) approved and acted upon : (Deards v. Goldsmith and Wife, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 328. Ex.).

Students' Queries.

FINAL EXAMINATION IN 1880.-When will the subjects for the Final Examinations for April and June 1880 be published? Are they ready now?

C. G. T. [No; they are usually announced in July of each year for the succeeding year, so that you may look for the announcement from the Law Society next July. As an honours examination has been established, the subject for the past examination are not very likely to be altered for the present.-ED. STUD.'S DEPT.]

TIME FOR PASSING EXAMINATIONS.-I was articled for three years last February. (1) When can I go up for the intermediate examination? (2) What books are read as a rule? (3) When can I go up for the final BACHELOR.

examination?

[(1) November, 1880. (2) They are fixed each year by the examiner. That for the year 1880 is announced, 7th edit. of Stephen's Commentaries of the Laws of England. (3) January, 1882.-ED. STUD.'S DEPT.]

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

PLEMENTAL

METROPOLIS, RATING OF-VALUATION LISTINCREASED VALUE OF HEREDITAMENTS-SUPLIST.-The second quinquennial valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolitan) Act 1869, s. 43, come into force in April 1876. During the year following some new houses were built, to which the appellants' mains in existence before the beginning of the year were connected by means of service pipes belonging to the owners of the houses. Held, upon a case stated, that the increased rents thereby receivable by the appellants constituted an alteration which had taken place in the matters stated in the valuation list within sect. 46, so as to increase the valuation list for the following year: (New River Company v. Islington Assessment Committee, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 322. Q. B.)

TURNPIKE ACT-MEANING OF "TOWN TURNPIKE GATE-EXEMPTION OF INHABITANTS -DEFAULT TO COLLECT.-A turnpike Act passed in 1815 provided that "no toll should be demanded or taken of or from any of the inhabitants of the town of S. at any toll gate or toll bar to be erected in the said town." In 1838 the turnpike trustees removed a turnpike gate, which since 1815 had stood in the town, to a site without the town, and 1200 yards distant from its old position. At that time and for several years afterwards there was not any house on either side of the road between the old and the new site of the gate; but within the last few years some fifty or sixty detached, or semi-detached houses had been built, some on one and some on the other side of the road, between the two sites, but the houses were not contiguous or continuous, there being arable and other fields, and a reservoir, &c., intervening. From 1838 until June 1878 the inhabitants of the town of S. had been in the habit of passing through the gate without paying toll, and on the appellant, an inhabitant of the town, driving through the gate in Aug. 1878, toll was demanded from him by the respondents, the toll collectors, and was paid under protest by the appellant, who subsequently laid a complaint before the magistrates against the respondents for unlawfully demanding and taking toll from him as an inhabitant of the town of S. The magistrates, after hearing the evidence on both sides and personally inspecting the locus in quo, found, as a fact, that "there was not any collection of houses at the said toll gate, nor a continuous series of houses from the old to the present site of the gate, and that the gate did not, at the time of its erection or of the complaint, stand within the town of S.," and they accordingly dismissed the complaint; and on appeal therefrom it was held, by the Exchequer Division (Kelly, C.B. and Hawkins, J.), dismissing the appeal, that the question whether within a town or not within a town was a question of fact for the determination of the

66

REAL PROPERTY AND
CONVEYANCING.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. MORTGAGE BY A CLIENT TO HIS SOLICITORMORTGAGE DEED-LIEN.-Plaintiffs, who were solicitors to E., advanced money on his account to certain builders, and E. executed a mortgage to them of some property to secure such advance, subject to a first mortgage previously made to another person. Plaintiffs themselves prepared the mortgage deed. Subsequently the plaintiffs brought an action against the first mortgagee and the third and fourth mortgagees and the mortgagor, to redeem the first mortgage, and to foreclose the third and fourth and the equity of redemption. The usual decree for redemption and foreclosure having been made, the plaintiffs, on drawing up the minutes, claimed, in addition to their mortgage debt and interest, a lien upon the mortgage deed for the costs of its preparation, and also for the general bill of costs of their client, the mortgagor. Held (affirming the decision of Fry, J.), that the plaintiffs had no lien on the mortgage deed for the costs of its preparation, or other costs due to them from the mortgagor. The

A HOUSE

"TAKE FAILURE

deed was never the deed of the client: it was from
the beginning the deed of the plaintiffs, who held
it on their own account as mortgagees, and not
for their client: (Sheffield v. Eden, 40 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 283. Ct. of App.)
WILL-EFFECTS"-DIRECTION TO
GIFT OF RESIDUE
GF PURPOSE FOR WHICH LEGACY WAS
TO BE APPLIED.-A gift by will of my "house-
hold furniture and effects of all kinds," fol-
lowed by a gift for another purpose of "all my other
real and personal estate," Held, to include only
effects ejusdem generis. A direction by a testator
to his executors "to take a suitable house for my
three daughters to reside in with their governess,'
Held to entitle the daughters to the sums which
ought to have been expended in taking a house
for such a purpose during their minorities. A gift
by will of "all my other real and personal estate,"
upon certain trusts, followed by two specific gifts,
Held to include all property not previously or
subsequently specifically given by the same will.
A testator gives his residuary estate to his execu-
tors "upon trust out of the rent or produce of my
said real estate, and other moneys on loan or other
wise to form a fund, the same to be applied in
establishing my three sons in their several pro-
fessions in such proportions as my executors
deem fit."

One of the sons had been entered in a

COLLISION-DAMAGE COMPULSORY PILOTAGE-EXCEPTIONS FROM EXEMPTIONS-PORTOR PLACE TO WHICH SHIP BELONGS.-The provisions of the Pilotage Act 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 125), as to compulsory pilotage and exemptions therefrom are preserved by the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 353. A vessel within the limits of her own port at a place where, previous to the passing of the Pilotage Act 1825, there were provisions in force for the appointment of pilots, is not exempt from compulsory pilotage. The provisions of the Trinity House Charter, granted by James II., and of the Acts of Parliament relating to the pilotage of the rivers Thames and Medway, and the approaches thereto, are particular provisions" relating to the port of London, within the meaning of sect. 59 of the Pilotage Act, so far as that port is contained in the pilotage district. A ship belonging to the port of London, and bound to London from Australia with passengers, is obliged to employ a pilot by compulsion of law, under the provisions of sect. 59 of the Pilotage Act 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 125), when within the limits of the port of London, by reason of there being at that time" particular provisions" for the appointment of pilots for the rivers Thames and Medway below bridge. The Stettin (Br. & Lash. 199; 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 613; 1 Mar. L.C. 229) not followed. The Killarney (Lush, 427; 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 908; 1 Mar. L. C. 238) approved. When defendants rely solely on the defence of compulsory pilotage and are successful, they may not get costs if the court is of opinion that under the circumstances the plaintiffs were justified in bringing the action : (The Hankow, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 335. Adm. Ct.)

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

BRADFORD COUNTY COURT.
Tuesday, March 25.
(Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Esq., Q.C., Judge.)
Re JOHN PEEL; Ex parte THE EXCHANGE AND
DISCOUNT BANK (LIMITED).

Proof-Bills of Exchange-Costs.
THIS matter was argued on the 18th March, when
West (instructed by Mr. W. J. Cousins, of Leeds)
appeared for the bank, and Lawrence Gane (in-
structed by Messrs. Peel and Gaunt) appeared to
oppose the motion on behalf of the trustee.

His HONOUR now gave judgment as follows:This is an application by the Exchange and Discount Bank (Limited), Bradford and Leeds, made in the matter of the liquidation proceedings of John Peel, of Bradford, warp-sizer, for an order directing Thomas Gardner, the trustee in the liquidation, to admit the claim of the applicants against the estate of John Peel, and for the costs of an incident to the motion. Peel filed his petition for liquidation on the 17th April 1877. The first meeting of creditors was held on the 3rd May 1877, at which the usual resolutions to liquidate by arrangement and not in bankruptcy were passed, and the late Mr. Henry Dickin was appointed trustee. On the 3rd July 1877, the Exchange and Discount Bank sent to the trustee (Dickin) a proof of debt for £1530 against the estate of Peel as the acceptor of five several bills of exchange, of which the bank were holders for value. The full particulars of each bill were set forth in the proof. All the bills were drawn by Thomas Clarke, and were discounted by the bank for him for full value. Clarke was a customer of the bank, and the proceeds of the bills as discounted were placed to his credit, and he had the full benefit of them in his transactions with the bank. The five bills were all dishonoured at AND ADMISSION -STATEMENT OF CLAIM.-maturity, and the bank have the bills in their

hands, and produce them in support of their claim
to prove. No notice of the rejection of the proof
was given to the bank by Mr. Dickin in his life-
time. He died in July 1878, and on the 23rd Aug.
following a meeting of the creditors who had
proved under the liquidation was duly called by the
the registrar upon the application of a creditor, and
held, and at that meeting Thomas Gardner, the
present trustee, was appointed trustee in the place
of Dickin, and his appointment duly certified.
Notice of that meeting was duly sent to the credi-
tors who had proved, and whose proofs were on
the file, including the bank, treating them as
creditors, who had proved for £1530. Peel's
separate estate was represented to the bank as
being sufficient to pay 20s. in the pound and leave
a considerable surplus. After Gardner's appoint-
ment the bank applied several times through their
solicitor to him to declare a dividend, but without
effect, and being dissatisfied, they endeavoured to
obtain the removal of Gardner as trustee. In this
they failed, and on the 10th Jan. 1879 Gardner, as
trustee, sent to the bank a notice that he rejected
the proof of debt made by the bank on the 3rd
July 1877, on the ground that the several bills
referred to in their proof, or some of them, had
been fully paid and satisfied by the said Thomas
Clarke, and that if they, or some of them, had not
been paid, such non-payment had arisen through
the laches of the bank, and that they were fully
secured to the amount of such bills. Mr. West,
on behalf of the bank, objected that the trustee,
under the circumstances which had happened, was
not now entitled to reject the proof, and urged
this as a preliminary objection, but I thought it
better to hear the case on the merits, reserving to
him the right to insist on the objection in case of
an appeal, being at the outset unable to under-
stand how the grounds of objection stated by the
trustee could be made applicable to the proof of the
bank. The affidavits filed in support of and against
the motion did not appear to me to disclose any case
for supporting the objections. But witnesses were
examined viva voce on behalf of the trustee for
the purpose of proving that the bills discounted
by the bank, and to which their proof applied,
were, as between Clarke, the drawer, and Peel,
the acceptor, accommodation bills, and that the
bank had knowledge that that was their character
when they discounted the bills for Clarke. The
evidence, however, failed to prove that the bills
were accommodation bills; on the contrary, it
proved that the bills were drawn for value as
between Clarke and Peel, and that Clarke so
represented them to the bank before they were
discounted. Having failed to show that the bills
were not given for value, Mr. Gane, as counsel
for the trustee, adduced evidence by affidavit and
viva voce examination of witnesses for the pur-
pose of proving that, subsequently to the proof by
the bank and the dishonour of the first and
second bills, the bank entered into certain arrange-
ments with Clarke, the drawer, to provide for
retiring the remaining three bills by the bank as
they matured, upon security being given by
Clarke; and that according to the custom of
bankers, these arrangements amounted to pay
ment of the bills by Clarke; and Clarke was
examined to prove these transactions. It appeared
that he had since filed a petition for liquidation of
his affairs, which is still pending. The trustee of
Peel's estate was not in that character a party
to the arrangement between Clarke and the bank,
and Peel's estate has not paid any of the bills.
Upon this motion I am of opinion that the court
is not called upon, nor would it be proper, to pro-
nounce any judgment upon the effect of the
transactions between Clarke and the bank. If
the effect were such as the trustee of Peel's estate
contended, then in the interests of Clarke's estate
the proof ought to be allowed, because if Clarke, as
drawer, had paid the bank the money due upon the
bills, and there be nothing more in the arrange-
ments, his trustee would be entitled to apply to the
court to have it declared that the proof by the bank,
and any dividend declared upon it, should be held
and applied for the benefit of Clarke's estate. It
would be the ordinary case of a surety paying the
debt of the principal debtor after proof by the
creditor. But the case, as attempted to be proved
before me, showed that the arrangements made
between Clarke and the bank with reference to the
bills and the security given by Clarke to the bank,
were of a special character, and their legal effect
could only be properly revised and decided in a
proceeding to be taken by Clarke's trustee against
the bank, and in which the trustee of Peel's
estate would be merely a stakeholder. Treating
the proceeding as one that has been taken by
Peel's trustee indirectly for the benefit of Clarke's
estate, it is misconceived and improper. There is
a committee of inspection, under whose direction
or with whose sanction I presume the trustee of
Peel's estate is acting. It will therefore be suffi-
cient to make an order that the proof filed on the
3rd July 1877, and now on the file, should stand
admitted, with costs. If the trustee has rejected

the proof and resisted this motion without the
direction of the committee of inspection, I think

the proceeding so unfounded and improper that he |
ought to pay the costs personally, and not be
allowed them out of Peel's estate, in order to
protect the creditors of Peel's estate, and
Peel himself, against the payment of costs im-
properly incurred; but if the proceeding of the
trustee has been directed and sanctioned by the
committee of inspection, then the costs of the bank
of this motion will be paid by the trustee, and no
further direction will be given by the court. His
Honour afterwards observed that he presumed the
trustee must be acting under the direction, or
with the sanction of, the committee of inspection.
Cousins said that from what he knew he thought

that had been the case.

COUNTY COURTS.

:

COUNTY COURTS LEGISLATION.
THE Learned Recorder of Birmingham (Mr.
Dugdale), when charging the grand jury there on
Tuesday last, drew attention to certain Bills
brought forward in the present session of Parlia
ment to effect alterations in the administration of
the law. Two Bills had been introduced-one in
the House of Lords and the other in the House of
Commons-which to his mind would unsettle
everything which was settled by the Judicature
Act a short time ago. One Bill, brought in by the
Lord Chancellor, was for extending the jurisdic-
tion of County Courts, and the other was the Bill
introduced by Mr. Cowen, member for Newcastle-
on-Tyne, for establishing district courts of justice.
It seemed to him it was important that they should
have certainty in the administration of the law,
and that it was a pity before a sufficient time had
elapsed to enable the Acts of 1873-75 to be got into
working order, and before they had had time to
find out all the deficiencies which there were in
such a large system of administration, that they
should again be embarked in proposals which, if
carried into effect, would upset to a great extent
the present state of the law. The Lord Chancellor's
County Courts Bill would seriously affect the
number of actions brought at that assizes and in
London. It had been calculated that the Bill
would give County Courts power to try nine-
tenths of the actions now tried at the assizes. It
needed no words of his to show what a wholesale
revulsion that would cause in the procedure of
common law and the result would naturally be
that if the actions were to be tried in the County
Courts, instead of on circuit and in London before
the superior judges, they arrived at once at a
system of district courts which Mr. Cowen was
desirous of establishing by his Bill. The question
of district courts was thoroughly discussed and
rejected at the time of the passing of the Judicature
Acts; therefore he thought they ought to pause
before they created such a system. The Lord
Chancellor's Bill affected to a certain extent equity
cases, and in that sense would probably be an
advantage. With regard to the common law part of
the scheme the whole pleading in County Courts
would probably have to be altered. And then, of
course, it would be impossible for the learned
County Court judges to do the extra work which
the change would involve. They would have to
confine their attention to the heavier work, and he
supposed the registrar would have to try the
cases which the judges were unable to try. Now,
the objects of the County Courts originally was to
afford a cheap and efficient remedy for small and
trifling matters, and avoid the expense of going
to assizes with them. The County Courts dealt
with an enormous number of cases, and did their
work extremely well, but the procedure in the
County Court was hardly suited to cases which
were of more than trifling importance. He
thought they might fairly say that the cases now
tried in the County Court had reached their
utmost limit. With regard to the district court
system, it would be wise not to move too far in
the matter at present, and to see whether they
could not manage to go on with the present system
and give it a fair trial, before it was condemned
and altered, to such an extent. Clause 7 of Lord
Cairns' Bill, which gave jurisdiction to County
Courts to hear important cases which both parties
agreed should be heard by them, would, he
thought, commend itself to everybody's approval.
As to why fresh legislation was proposed, the only
two reasons which suggested themselves to his
mind were that there was some complaint as to
delay in people getting cases tried, and that the
expense was greater than it ought to be. He ex-
pressed the opinion that the complaints which
were made as to the delay in the disposal of the
cases in the London courts were not well founded,
and he had some doubt whether in the heavier
cases the expenses would be materially reduced by
taking the actions in the County Courts. With
the view of facilitating the trial of causes he had
several suggestions to make. If a man brought
an action in London or Middlesex, as soon as the
pleadings were completed he was entitled to go to

the office of the Associate and enter his case for trial. The case then came on in the order in which it was entered. He had always thought there would be a great saving of time if something of that kind could be done on circuit. He saw no reason why the office of the Associate should not always be open, and a similar system carried ont with regard to the circuits; but, of course, the working of such a plan would require the co-operation of the solicitors. He further suggested that there should be a system of grouping of small towns for the trial of civil causes, in the same way as was now done with regard to criminal cases. With reference to expenses, he was in favour of always giving costs against the unsuccessful party in case of an unnecessary summons.

COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.
Thursday, April 24.
(Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J. and DENMAN, J.)
RHODES V. LIVERPOOL INVESTMENT AND
DEPOSIT COMPANY.

County Court Appeal-Motion and special case—
Procedure.

F. O. Crump moved, on behalf of the defen-
dants, for a rule calling upon the plaintiff and the
County Court Judge of Bradford to show cause
why the judge should not settle and sign a special
case. The judge had refused, on the ground that
the defendants had already appealed by motion
under sect. 6 of County Court Act 1875, although
no rule nisi had been granted.

Counsel explained to the court that, on moving under that section, it was intimated by the court that the point of law did not appear upon the judge's note, and thereupon the motion was with drawn, steps to appeal by way of special case having been taken.

The COURT granted a

Rule nisi.

SOUTHWARK COUNTY COURT. (Before H. J. STONOR, Esq.,Judge.) COUNTER-CLAIM

UNDER THE JUDICATURE
Аст 1875.

His

His HONOUR delivered judgment on two very
important points with regard to counter-claims
under the Judicature Act 1875. The first point
was whether matter arising after action brought
The de-
could be pleaded as a counter-claim.
fendant, who was indebted to the plaintiff to
the amount sued for, had since action brought
become the holder of two bills of exchange ac-
cepted by the plaintiff upon which the aggregate
amount of £22 5s. 2d. was due, and which the
defendant pleaded by way of counter-claim.
Honour, after referring to conflicting dicta
of the Master of the Rolls in the case of The
Original Hartlepool Colliery Company v. Gibbs
(5 Ch. Div. 113), and the Lords Justices in the case
of Ellis v. Munson (35 L. T. Rep. N.S. 585), decided
in favour of admitting the counter-claim as being
most consonant with the object and intentions of
the Judicature Act-namely, to terminate, if
possible, in one action all litigation between the
same parties. The second point was as to the
correct form of verdicts and judgments on claims
and counter-claims, as to which there are many
conflicting decisions of the Superior Court, in the
cases of Staples v. Young (L. Rep. 2 Ex. Div. 325)
on the one hand, and Blake v. Appleyard (3 Ex.
Div. 195) and Potter v. Chambers (4 Ex. Div. 69)
on the other hand. Following the latter case, his
Honour held that separate verdicts ought to be
entered with costs, subject to the discretion of
the court, and judgment to be given for the balance
according to the County Court form 293, the
correctness of which had been questioned since
the decision of Staples v. Young. His Honour
took occasion to comment on the necessity of
judges of County Courts, especially in view of
extended jurisdiction, being provided on all the
circuits with libraries and clerical assistance, and
observed that they were now often called upon to
make bricks without straw.
Separate verdicts
were entered entered for the plaintiff and defen-
dant.

Judgment for the balance accordingly, with
liberty to appeal.

LAW SOCIETIES.

THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS' SOCIETY. REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING. (Continued from page 13.) Mr. W. DIGBY SEYMOUR, Q.C., referring to the suggestion made by the learned chairman as to a separate Bar Society, said he thought what fell from the chair had been a little misunderstod. Because he did not understand the Common Serjeant to desire to change the constitution of the society in regard to those objects for which it was established; but simply to suggest that in matters merely affecting the Bar it might be an advantage

should attend alone before the solicitor who is to explain the nature of the document, because in the presence of the person about to advance the money very little can be said or done, the person borrowing being only too anxious to have the money. And with regard to solicitors, the suggestion that they should refuse to attest bills of sale unless prepared by professional men, he feared the less scrupulous solicitors would be extremely glad if such a rule were adopted, because it would have the effect of driving so much more business in the way of attesting bills of sale into their hands. In the country it might be carried out if all the solicitors in a town would agree to it; but not in London. As regards the proposed new County Court Act, he thought that there should be a better allowance of costs; for instance, similar to the charges for work done in the High Court. If a solicitor advocate conducted a case in court without counsel, he was not on taxation allowed anything

citors felt themselves able to speak with equal
freedom in the absence of the Bar. (Laughter.)
Turning to the able address which Mr. Seymour
had favoured them with, he believed there was a
great deal to be said in favour of the plan which
he had elaborated. The recorders of this country
certainly were a body of men of which England
had every reason to be proud. They were always
carefully selected; many of them were members
of the Legislature, and their very appointment
was a guarantee that they had obtained a recog-
nised position in the Profession. He had no doubt
also that a scheme for increasing the jurisdiction
of quarter sessions would be favourably received
in the House of Commons. (Applause.) With
regard.to the remarks of Mr. Osborn Boyes, he
would be sorry to see the jurisdiction of the
County Courts extended so far as he mentioned.
Alluding to Mr. Cover's remarks upon new trials,
he (the Common Serjeant) was one of the greatest
victims of this practice, for in the Lord Mayor's
Court the first thing that seemed to suggest itself
to an unsuccessful suitor was to move for a new
trial-(a laugh)—and he was obliged sometimes to
check the impetuosity of the Bar upon the point.
He entirely agreed with Mr. Seymour that it
would be most undesirable to introduce the

for the written statement of the case, or in other
words, his brief, or proofs, which was a great hard-
ship; and there were various other matters in the
conduct of a case in the County Court for which
no charge was allowed at all. With reference
to the bailiffs, if they could be done away with
altogether it would be a great blessing, for now French system of examining prisoners on oath into
partly by connivance and partly by negligence of this country. He remembered very well at Liver-
the under-bailiffs it was very difficult to get judg-pool, in a trial under the Merchant Shipping Act,
ment summonses served, or to realise the fruits in which the captain or owner of a ship was put
of a judgment.
examined, Lord Justice Brett, who tried the
case, said afterwards, at the judges' dinner, that
it made him shudder; and he believed that learned
judge had used the same expression in addressing
the jury. (Applause.)

Mr. CHARLES FORD, in moving a vote of

thanks to the learned chairman for the manner in which he had presided over the deliberations of the evening, said the society, and indeed the Profession also, were very much indebted to the learned Common Serjeant for his great efforts in connection with the work of the society. Mr. Charley had the courage to express his real convictions upon inter-professional questions; he (Mr. Ford) was sorry to say that there were many lawyers of whom this could not be said, and he desired to take this opportunity also of indorsing the tribute that had been paid to Mr. William Gordon, a member of the Legislature, for his valuable aid as president of the society for the last two years. (Cheers.) The thanks of the meeting were also due to the learned Recorder of Newcastle-on-Tyne for his very valuable address. He might be allowed to add one observation which fully bore out the arguments of Mr. Seymour as to the necessity for some provision for the disposal of the criminal business of the country by judges other than the judges of the High Court. He learned from one of the daily papers of that morning that the Nisi Prius sittings of the present Easter sittings at Westminster were in danger of being suspended to some extent by reason of the scarcity of judges, nearly half the available judicial strength being now absent on circuit delivering the gaols of the country. Were Mr. Seymour's plan carried out, this serious inconvenience would be entirely avoided. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the examination upon oath of prisoners, he would call attention to a letter from the learned chairman of the second court of Middlesex

upon his deliverance, and was examined and cross

The usual annual dinner followed the close of the proceedings, and it was well attended. The Common Serjeant presiding, and the hon. sec. Mr. Charles Ford, in the vice-chair. The usual toasts were given from the chair. Among the professional men who were prevented from being present were Mr. W. Gordon, M.P., Mr. W. Grantham, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Henry Sowton, Mr. Frederick Kent, Mr. C. J. Rawlings, Mr. W. G. Wheatcroft, Mr. Marshall, M.A., of Leeds; Mr. R. W. Ford, of Portsmouth; Mr C. J. Welch, of Longton, Staff.; Mr W. W. A. Tree, LL.B., of Worcester; Mr. George Feltham, of Portsea; Mr William Griffith, M.A., Mr. J. Merrick Head, of Reigate (Hon. Sec. of Justices' Clerks' Society), and Mr. Symonds, of Dorchester.

THE GRAY'S INN MOOT SOCIETY.
A MEETING of this society was held in Gray's Inn
Hall, on Monday, 5th May, under the presidency
of W. H. G. Bagshawe, Esq., Q.C., when the
following question was discussed:

Spray, and W. Stewart, Mr. Wildey in the chair.
The following solicitors' clerks were unanimously
elected members: Messrs. F. E. Andrews, W
Dorrington, A. Green, C. W. Meallin, and A.
Turner. One member from advanced age was
placed upon the superannuation fund at 148. per
week. Thirteen applications for assistance from
the casual fund were considered.
Each case
having been strictly inquired into, twelve out of
the thirteen were considered eligible and deserving,
and were assisted accordingly.

MESSES. EDWIN TRAYFOOT and EDWARD LAW CLERKS' BUILDING SOCIETY. WILDEY, the committee on the rota, assisted by J. A. Songest, the secretary, were engaged for several hours on Tuesday evening, receiving subscriptions and enrolling new members. The society enabling barristers' and solicitors' clerks to purwas formed about a month ago for the purpose of chase houses for their own occupation, and to afford them a secure investment for their savings, and it is much to their credit that in so short a of 400, to which the society is limited. It may be time 323 shares have been taken up out of a tota! mentioned that advances are made to members alternalely by sale and ballot, of sums of £400. The sum realised by sale is first applied in payment of working expenses, and the balance divided take place in the Lecture Room, 3, King's Bench as bonus amongst the members. The meetings Walk, Temple, every Tuesday evening, from 6.30 to eight o'clock, the free use of the same having been granted by the Benchers. The first appropriation has been fixed for Tnesday, the 20th May, and clerks joining before or on that evening will participate in the ballot. A feature of the society is that it is strictly mutual, and the management is absolutely in the control of the members.

LEGAL NEWS.

MR. JUSTICE LUSH has been sworn a member of the Privy Council.

THE members of the Chancery Bar have invited Mr. Dickinson, Q.C., to a complimentary dinner, which will be given at the Albion, Aldersgatestreet, on Saturday, the 17th May, as a mark of their respect and esteem for the learned gentleman on the occasion of his approaching retirement from the bar.

MR. H. MICHELMORE, Clerk of the Peace for Devonshire, has withdrawn from the various committees of the Newton Local Board, of which he is a member, on account of pressure of public business.

on this ground on Saturday last, between solicitors and articled clerks (members of the club), when the younger limbs of the law suffered defeat at the hands of their admitted brethren, who scored ninety-three to the score of twenty-five by the articled clerks. The Law Club will play Wimbledon School to-day (May 10).

THE LAW CRICKET CLUB. This club proDefendant in action for infringement of patent is mises to be a success. We see that there are now ordered to give inspection of his process to an expert upwards of 130 members, and that the committee employed by plaintiff. Inspection is had accordingly. have engaged the use of the Eton and Middlesex Defendant obtains a verdict and judgment, to a material ground, Sonth Hampstead, for practice on Tuesextent on the expert's evidence that defendant's pro-days and Fridays. The opening match was played cess is no infringement. Plaintiff brings new action to set aside the judgment on the ground 1) that the expert at the inspection had been misled as to the nature of defendant's process, by aterial parts of the plant usually employed by defenSessions-Mr. Serjeant Cox-which appeared in dant having been removed and concealed, and by false the Times of the preceding day, in which Mr. answers having been made to questions put by the Serjeant Cox said, speaking of the Attorney-expert as to the process; and (2) that a witness for defendant had given false and perjured evidence-for General's Criminal Code Bill: "Some of the pro- which he was afterwards convicted of perjury-as to posals, such as the examination of prisoners and defendant's process in a material point other than that the establishment of a court of criminal appeal, to which the expert's attention was d rected. will demand grave consideration, and are matters of doubtful expediency." It was impossible not to agree with the learned Serjeant, who was an undoubted authority on such matters. Mr. Ford then moved a vote of thanks to the chairman.

The resolution having been seconded by Mr. W. H. ROWLAND, of Croydon, was unanimously adopted.

The CHAIRMAN, in acknowledging the compliment, said they would all agree with him that this had been a very interesting meeting. (Applause.) With regard to an observation he had made in his opening speech, he had certainly been somewhat disheartened at the difficulty in getting barristers to join the society. While there had been a great influx of solicitors from all parts of the country (for there was hardly a town in the kingdom from which members had not joined its ranks), the same alacrity had not been shown by the Bar. He rejoiced that so distinguished a member of the Bar as Mr. Digby Seymour should have signified his willingness to join and work with the society-(applause) and still more at the prospect he held out of inducing other barristers to follow his example. In the suggestion he had made he certainly had never contemplated putting a stop to conferences taking place between the two branches of the Profession; but he thought it would be better that the Bar should debate certain questions apart in the first instance, and then they could confer with the council of this society at a joint board. It was an unquestionable fact that barristers did express themselves more freely by themselves than in the presence of solicitors (laughter-and he had no doubt soli

At the trial of the second action, it is proved (1) that defendant was personally a party to the removal and concealment of plant, and to the false answers, with the intention, on defend nt spart, of misleading the expert; and (2) that the false and perjured evidence had been given, but that defendant had not procured or tendered it with knowledge that it was false, but that one of his foremen, employed to get up evidence, had procured it with knowledge that it was false.

Is defendant liable to bave the judgment set aside on both, or either, of the grounds proved?

THE TREASURY OFFICIALS IN THE IRISH APPEAL COURT.-On Wednesday an important judgment was delivered in the Chancery Appeal Court by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Deasy, ordering that Mr. Ball, a late solicitor to the Temporalities Commissioners, shall have his costs of sales of land by the Commission in the Landed Estates Court. The appeals were brought from orders of Judge Flanagan in June last, in reference to a question raised by Mr. Ball, whose claim was resisted on the ground that the Treasury had refused to See Flower v. Lloyd (10 Ch. Div. 327). sanction the payment of costs to Mr. Ball for After exhaustive arguments by Mr. M. Connell work done in connection with sales of land, which, and Mr. Upjohn on the part of the plaintiff, and it was alleged, was to be regarded as coming within by Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Richards on behalf of the the discharge of the professional duties for which defendant, the learned president gave judgment in a fixed sum of £1500 per annum was to be paid favour of the plaintiff, on the first point, on the The court unanimously held that Mr. Ball's ground that there was deliberate personal fraud on contract gave him a right to these costs in addithe part of the defendant, whereby the court had tion to the salary, the Lord Chief Justice debeen misled. As regards the second point, how-claring that the Treasury officials must in this ever, it was held that in order to set a judgment aside in the ground of fraud it is in all cases necessary to show a mens rea in the actual litigant, and therefore, as there was express evidence that the defendant was no party to the subornation of the witness, the fact that perjured evidence had been given afforded the plaintiff no ground for setting the judgment aside.

UNITED LAW CLERKS' SOCIETY.
THE committee of management held their usual
monthly meeting on Monday last, at No. 3, Ser-
jeant's-inn. The following members of the com-
mittee were present: Messrs. J. Allberry, J.
Baily, E. Cox, G. J. Cox, R. L. Cripps, J. Free-
man, H. Hall, H. Jepson, G. Lewis, W. May, H.

The

instance have displayed an obtusity of mind with which they were not ordinarily credited. Master of the Rolls added that the peremptory duty of the Treasury was to act fairly and rightly, no matter what the consequence; and even if the language of the correspondence was ambiguous it was their duty to give Mr. Ball the benefit of a liberal interpretation, and not pursue a course of action which neither law nor common sense approved. If they gave ont that they were above the law they would find themselves very much mistaken. Lord Justice Deasy spoke similarly, acquitting the Premier and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any responsibility, and imputing all the blame to the officials. Mr. Ball should have his claim admitted, and the costs both in this court and the Court of Appeal.