520 Dec. 22. THE JURIST. GAZETTES.-FRIDAY, Dec. 28. BANKRUPTS. JOSEPH FARMAN, Portobello-terrace, Notting-hill, builder, 1856. tioner, Jan. 21 at 1, London.-James Howarth, Ashtonunder-Lyne, Lancashire, linendraper, Jan. 18 at 12, Manchester.-Thomas Deans, Blackburn, Lancashire, draper, Feb. 1 at 12, Manchester.-Francis Robinson, Masbrough, Yorkshire, contractor, Jan. 19 at 10, Sheffield.-William Thomas Staniforth, Sheffield, cutlery manufacturer, Jan. 19 at 10, Sheffield.-George Milnes, Sheffield, brickmaker, Jan. 19 at 10, Sheffield.-James Davies, Cradley-heath, Staffordshire, plumber, Jan. 24 at half-past 12, Birmingham. To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. Henry William Brown, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, innkeeper.-Henry Hill, High-street, Hampstead, builder.Elizabeth Mary Muller, Castle-street East, Oxford-street, picture dealer. William Hackett, Oxford, gas engineer.John Minter, Orchard-crescent, Caledonian-road, Islington, ship owner.-Israel Cowan and Mark Braham, High-street, Aldgate, waterproof clothing manufacturers. -John Field, Burnham, Westgate, Norfolk, draper.—Wm. Henry Goodburn Mason, Brighton, printseller.-John Fairbrother, Hertford, brewer. - Wm. Canute Bodley, Exeter, iron founder.Wm. Clarke, Altrincham, Cheshire, joiner.-Thomas Allen and Thomas Cuthbert Cockson, Manchester, Italian ware WILLIAM EDMONDS, Kidderminster, hosier, Jan. 11 THOMAS JOHNS, Dowlais, Merthyr Tydvil, Glamorgan shire, shopkeeper, Jan. 14 and Feb. 12 at 11, Bristol: Off. Ass. Acraman; Sols. Henderson & Co., Bristol; Pet. f. Dec. 15. MEETINGS. Thomas Spence, Maryland Point, Stratford, Essex, market gardener, Jan. 2 at half-past 2, London, pr. d.-John Turner, Uckfield, Sussex, grocer, Jan. 16 at 2, London, pr. d.-John Bake, Cambridge-terrace, Barnsbury-park, and Caledonianroad, Islington, contractor, Jan. 9 at 12, London, last ex.W. Taylor, Gloucester, hardware dealer, Jan. 24 at 11, Bristol, aud. ac.-J. Rushton, Carlisle, plasterer, Jan. 15 at half-past 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac.-Thomas Lumsden, South Shields, shipbuilder, Jan. 18 at 1, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac.; Jan. 22 at 11, div.-Joseph Grave, Manchester, warehouseman, Jan. 8 at 12, Manchester, aud. ac.-Thos. Hunter, Liverpool, joiner, Jan. 9 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.-John Batters, Tokenhouse-yard, shipowner, Jan. 22 at 12, London, div.-Wm. Grant, Brighton, newsvender, Jan. 18 at half-past | 1, London, div.-Richard Wm. Glode Douglass, Woodcote, stage-coach proprietor, Jan. 18 at half-past 11, London, div. -Charles Kelly, High-street, Kensington, and Baker-street, Portman-square, auctioneer, Jan. 18 at half-past 12, London, div.-Wm. Batley, Northampton, engineer, Jan. 18 at 1, London, div.-Israel Cowan and Mark Braham, Aldgate Highstreet, waterproof clothing manufacturers, Jan. 18 at half-past 11, London, div.-Jas. Purdy and W. Thos. Purdy, King's Lynn, Norfolk, builders, Jan. 18 at 11, London, div.-Henry Wm. Brown, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, innkeeper, Jan. 18 at half-past 11, London, div.-J. Willox, Broadway, Westminster, cheesemonger, Jan. 18 at 11, London, div.—Arthur Cooling and H. Marcham, London-wall, soap makers, Jan. 18 at 12, London, div.-Wm. Hackett, Oxford, gas engineer, Jan. 18 at 12, London, div.-Wm. Osler, Earl-st., Finsburysquare, cab proprietor, Jan. 18 at 1, London, div.-John Bronson, Liverpool, hosier, Jan. 18 at 11, Liverpool, div.Wm. Wilkinson Rawling, Samuel Rawling, and J. Rawling, Manchester, curriers, Jan. 25 at 12, Manchester, div.-Thos. Deans, Blackburn, Lancashire, draper, Feb. 1 at 12, Manchester, div.-Thomas Younger the elder, Sunderland, builder, Jan. 24 at half-past 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, div.-Stephen Carlton, Darlington, Durham, coach manufacturer, Jan. 25 at half-past 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, div.-John Augutus Noel, South Shields, wine merchant, Jan. 24 at 12, Newcastleupon-Tyne, fin. div.-Sampson Langdale, John Eyton, and Masta Joscelin Cooke, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, merchants, Jan. 24 at half-past 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, fin. div.-John Mills, New Bank, near Halifax, Yorkshire, ironfounder, Jan. 18 at 11, Leeds, div.-Jonas Smith, Low Moor, York. shire, worsted spinner, Jan. 18 at 11, Leeds, div.-J. Allan and John Sinclair Couzens, Huddersfield, woollen-cloth mer. chants, Jan. 18 at 11, Leeds, div: CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. Benjamin French, St. Mary's-terrace, Walworth-road, sta TUESDAY, Jan. 1. WILLIAM ELSAM, Heyford and Rugbrook, Northampton- LEONARD LAIDMAN, Chancery-lane, and Wentworth- WILLIAM WIGGINS, Hawley Mills, near Dartford, Kent, and St. Paul's Churchyard, London, paper manufacturer, Jan. 11 at 2, and Feb. 15 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sol. Spicer, 5, Staple-inn, Holborn.-Pet. f. Dec. 27. JAMES HARRISON, London, commission agent, Jan. 9 at 2, and Feb. 12 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Graham; Sols. Parrott & Co., Macclesfield; Parkinson, 9, Argyll-street, Regent-street.-Pet. f. Dec. 26. GEORGE WAGNER, late of North Audley-street, and now of Bernard-street, Russell-square, auctioneer, Jan. 8 at half-past 1, and Feb. 12 at half-past 12, London: Off. Ass. Stansfeld; Sol. Tucker, 25, Clement's-lane, City.-Pet. f. Dec. 31. WILLIAM SEAGER WHITE, Handsworth, Staffordshire, chemist, Jan. 14 and Feb. 6 at half-past 10, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Christie; Sol. Robinson, Birmingham.-Pet. d. Dec. 29. JOSEPH NOKES, Birmingham, glass cutter, Jan. 14 and BAXTER BARKER, York, innkeeper, Jan. 17 and Feb. 15 ISAAC FIRTH, Manchester, victualler, Jan. 11 and Feb. 1 at 12, Manchester: Off. Ass. Hernaman; Sols. Potter & Wood, Manchester.-Pet. f. Dec. 21. [For continuation of Gazette, see p. 545]. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. By G. J. P. SMITH and W. B. BRETT, Barristers at Law. Tanner v. The South Wales Railway Company.(Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, sect. 53-Interference with road-Conversion of road into railway-Action for special damage).. 1215 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. By W. PATERSON and W. MILLS, Barristers at Law. Grant v. Guinness.-(Bribery Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, ss. 16, 31-Agent to receive election bills -Agent for election expenses-Personal expenses of candidate-Subscriptions to charities) PREROGATIVe Court. By A. WADDILOVE, D. C. L. ...... In the Goods of Thomas Osborne.-(Foreign will— The law of the country in which the will was made followed). 1217 1220 1214 Ewens v. Franklin.-(Will-Attestation of signature of testator) 1220 THE tendency of modern times to free capital devoted to trade from the restraints imposed by the law upon land has been most frequently exemplified in that peculiar property in trading corporations and joint-stock companies known by the name of "shares." The question has arisen in this form-whether shares in such corporation or company, when land forms a portion of its stock, are impressed with the charac. ter of realty, and subject to its incidents, or are to be regarded as mere rights to a certain proportion of personalty in the shape of profits accruing from the joint stock, of whatever it may consist? those statutes; but it has been said to be otherwise if the company is unincorporated, or the land not vested in trustees. (See Bligh v. Brent, 2 Y. & C. 268—Chelsea waterworks-Statute of Frauds; Watson v. Spratley, 10 Exch. 222-Shares in a mine-Statute of Frauds; March v. The Attorney-General, 5 Beav. 433; 6 Jur., part 1, p. 829, S. C.-Policies of insurance; Sparling v. Parker, 9 Beav. 450; 10 Jur., part 1, p. 448, S. C.— Gas-light and Dock Companies-Mortmain; Hilton v. Giraud, Id. 459, note; 1 De G. & S. 183; 13 Jur., part 1, p. 323, S. C.-The London Dock and West India Dock Companies-Mortmain; Walker v. Milne, 11 Beav. 507; 13 Jur., part 1, p. 933, S. C.-Dock and Canal Company-Mortmain; Myers v. Perigal, 11 C. B. 90; 16 Jur., part 1, p. 21; S. C., in Chancery, 2 De G., Mac., & G. 599; 17 Jur., part 1, p. 145-Joint-stock bank-Mortmain; and Ashton v. Lord Langdale, 15 Jur., part 1, p. 868-Banking company-Railway scrip In some instances the act of Parliament incorporating the company, or otherwise providing for its operations, expressly declares that the shares shall be deemed per--Debentures-Mortmain). sonal estate, and then no further question arises upon the point. (Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3 M. & W. 422; Thompson v. Thompson, 1 Coll. 381). But, in the absence of such legislative declaration, it becomes a matter of some nicety to determine the exact position of the property in question. In equity, realty held for the purposes of trade has uniformly been treated as personalty, with reference to matters of title, of account, and the like, arising among the partners themselves, or those who have agreed to become partners in the undertaking. (Phillips v. Phillips, 1 My. & K. 649; Townsend v. Devaynes, Id. 662, note (b); Fereday v. Wightwick, 1 Russ. & M. 45; Story v. Lord Windsor, 2 Atk. 630; Jefferys v. Smith, 1 J. & W. 298; Crawshay v. Maule, 1 Swanst. 495; Curling v. Flight, 6 Hare, 41; S. C., 2 Ph. 613). But with regard to the Statutes of Frauds and of Mortmain, when it has become necessary to decide whether shares in a trading co-partnership holding land as a part of its stock-in-trade are an "interest in land" within their enactments, this distinction has been drawn in many cases, both at law and in equity—that if the company be incorporated, or if the land be vested in trustees for the purpose of making profit therefrom, and of dividing the profit among the shareholders, the shares of the individual members in such company do not represent an interest in land so as to come within This distinction, however, was denied by the Master of the Rolls in the recent case of Ware v. Cumberlege, (1 Jur., N. S., part 1, p.745), in which that learned judge held, that shares in the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, incorporated by statute, were within the Mortmain Act. In delivering judgment his Honor said, "I think that the distinction cannot be supported which has been attempted to be drawn between the cases of land held by an association of individuals and an incorporated company-namely, that the fact of the incorporation alters the nature of the interest of the shareholders, and makes the holding no longer obnoxious to the provisions of the Mortmain Act. This seems to me so fine and delicate a distinction as to be likely to lead to serious difficulties. It is one of thre greatest evils to create distinctions of this kind, while the best exposition of the law will be always found in laying down broad and general principles. also whether such a distinction as this can be supported by reason. The distinction is of a very singular character; it is, that the members do not hold the land in their individual character, but among them in their corporate character; and thus, under the shadow of a name, it is attempted to be made out that what they really possess in their corporate name is something different from what they would possess in their individual character. The view which I have always taken I doubt of this class of cases is, that where the substance of an undertaking is dealing with land, then, whether incorporated or not, the company falls within the provision of the statute. In the case of a banking company a distinction is fairly drawn, as its business does not necessarily involve a dealing with land. I express no opinion as to Myers v. Perigal, which does not govern the present case. In the present state of the authorities, I am very much disposed to decide according to my own view of the law. . . . In many cases, where testators have given their property to charities to the exclusion of their families, I have been disposed to think that no public advantage would be gained by relaxing the provisions of the Mortmain Act; and accordingly, where there has been no clause in the acts of Parliament incorporating canal and water companies, providing that the shares shall be personal estate, which altogether varies the case, I have held that the shares in such companies are obnoxious to the provisions of the statute, and ought to be treated as such." The case, however, of Ware v. Cumberlege must be taken to be overruled, and the distinction between corporate and unincorporated companies to be again set up by the Lord Chancellor in Edwards v. Hall, (1 Jur., N. S., part 1, p. 1189), affirming the decision of Sir W. P. Wood, V. C., that shares in canal, waterworks, and gas companies (as well as Bank stock and arrears of rent) are not within the Statute of Mortmain if the companies be incorporated, although they hold land for the purposes of their business. "It has long been settled," said the Lord Chancellor on this occasion, "that money secured by a mortgage of land is land within the meaning of the statute; and on very intelligible grounds. . . . . So as to money charged on land. . . . . But the question now for decision is, as to the shares in incorporated companies. In these cases there is always of necessity some land vested in the company, in the concerns of which the shareholder is interested; and what I have to say is, whether a share in such a company is an estate or interest in land. These words, 'estate or interest in land,' are words of a very extensive import, and it is not a matter of surprise that from their vague generality they have given rise to some contrariety of decision. Now, I cannot disguise from myself, that if the point were now to be decided for the first time, there are (so, at least, it seems to me) forcible arguments in favour of the proposition that shares of this description are interests in land. The share derives, in many cases, its original, if not its only, value from the use of land. In the case of incorporated companies, if all the shares should become concentrated in one shareholder, (I put an extreme case certainly, though not an impossible one), that shareholder would at once become absolute owner of the whole property of the company, including the land. Why, then, it may be asked, while he is the owner of some only of the shares, is he not the owner of a proportional part of it? On the other hand, every one must feel, that in contending that such shares are interests in land, he is attributing to them a quality which no kind of authority ever understands them to possess. Such a conclusion must be arrived at, if at all, by refined reasoning on the legal qualities of such pro perty, not obvious to the ordinary apprehension of the shareholders themselves; and therefore, whatever doubt there might be if the question were res integra, and to be now decided for the first time, I am glad to think it is, as it appears to me, settled by decision. The case of Myers v. Perigal had the sanction first of the Court of Common Pleas, and afterwards of Lord St. Leonards in this court. That authority seems to me to decide the question of the shares now in dispute. In Myers v. Perigal there was no charter or act of Parliament*. The company in that case was a mere self-constituted joint-stock company. By the terms of the deed of partnership they were to be at liberty to purchase land; and it was found as a fact that their property consisted of (amongst other things) certain freehold and copy hold hereditaments, and money due on mortgage of freehold, copyhold, and leasehold hereditaments. There it was held, after long and able arguments in both courts, that the shares were not interests in land, and therefore not within the 9 Geo. 2, c. 26. By that authority I feel bound, according as it does with a great number of previous cases, and with, as I believe, the general understanding of the community. If that be the law as to the shares in a company not incorporated by charter or act of Parliament, it must be so as to the shares in companies which are so incorporated, and where the lands are held by the corporation itself, being a body, in theory at least, distinct from the shareholders of which it is composed. I do not feel called on to review or discuss been settled by Myers v. Perigal, from which I have the previous cases. I consider the question to have neither the right nor the inclination to depart." There is still a very important question remaining, which cannot be said to have been expressly decided, namely, whether shares in a trading company holding land for the purposes of its trade, the company not being incorporated, and the land not being vested in trustees, constitute an interest in land within the Statutes of Mortmain or the Statute of Frauds? We propose to discuss this branch of the subject upon a future occasion. MR. BARON PARKE.-The Profession will be gratified to learn that this eminent judge has been elevated to the Peerage. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Thomas Wrake Ratcliff, Gent., of Dean Colet House, Stepney, Middlesex, to be a London Commissioner to administer oaths in the High Court of Chancery. COMMISSIONER TO ADMINISTER OATHS IN CHANCERY. The Commissioners in Lunacy have (with the approbation of the Lord Chancellor) appointed John Forster, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, to be their Esq., appointed a Commissioner. Secretary, on the resignation of R. W. S. Lutwidge, DEATH OF THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE FOR LeicesterSHIRE.-We have to announce the death of J. D. Burnaby, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Judge of the Leices tershire County Court. He died at Torquay on the 29th ult., after a few days' illness. * "Shares in a banking company, where the shareholders were entitled to the profits only, and the real estate was vested in trustees, were held not to be within the Mortmain Acts, first by the Court of Common Pleas in Myers v. Perigal, and confirmed by Lord St. Leonards." (Per Parke, B., in Watson v. Spratley, 10 Exch. 245). The learned baron distinguished this case from ordinary partnerships upon the fact of the land being vested in trustees." 5 COPYRIGHT. It has been decided in Scotland, in the case of The Rev. H. Daries v. The Proprietors of The Witness, that letters sent to the editor of a paper for insertion do not become, even for the time, his property, but that the writer may, if he alter his intention, claim them back again before publication. Another flaw, it is believed, has been found in the Copyright Act. If our Courts of law shall rule according to the letter of the international convention-and we do not see how they can avoid such ruling-a mode of evasion has been discovered which will enable Americans, as well as all other aliens, to secure a copyright for their works in this country. An experiment, having for its object to unsettle the law once more, is being made in the case of an Italian, Signor Ruffini, author of "Lorenzo Benoni" and "Doctor Antonio," two tales written in English, and intended chiefly for circulation in England. Anticipating for " Doctor Antonio," which has just appeared, a popularity equal to that which. attended "Lorenzo Benoni," Signor Ruffini's publishers, Messrs. Constable & Co., of Edinburgh, were led to look into the state of the law. They found that though the English law alone offered no security, the French law of copyright, taken in connexion with the international copyright convention between France and England, seemed to furnish it. Mr. Burke, in his "Analysis of the Copyright Laws," says " According to the law of France, a French subject does not injure his copyright by publishing his work first in a foreign country. It matters not where that publication has taken place, the copyright forthwith accrues in France, and on the necessary deposit being effected, its infringement may be proceeded against in the French courts. Moreover, a foreigner publishing in France will enjoy the same copyright as a native, and this whether he has preciously published in his own or any other country or not." Then comes the pleasantry. By the first article of the International Convention of 1852 it is provided that the "authors of works of literature and art, to whom the laws of either of the two countries do now or may hereafter give the right of property or copyright, shall be entitled to exercise that right in the territories of the other of such countries, for the same term and to the same extent as the authors of works of the same nature, if published in such other country, would therein be entitled to exercise such right; so that the republication or piracy in either country of any work of literature or art published in the other shall be dealt with in the same manner as the republication or piracy of a work of the same nature first published in such 1856. Court of Queen's Bench. NEW TRIALS REMAINING UNDETERMINED AT THE END OF THE SIT- Sterriker v. Fariell Durham-Hawkins v. Turzill Northumberland-Duxfield v. other country." Here the text is clear. Publication COMMON-LAW CAUSE LISTS, HILARY TERM, in France confers copyright in that country, and the holder of such copyright in France becomes, in virtue of the convention of 1852, entitled to copyright in England! Let Signor Ruffini or Mr. Prescott first publish in Paris; he may then come to London, and offer Mr. Murray or Mr. Bentley a legal monopoly of his works. Such, at least, is the new reading of the law which has been acted on in Signor Ruffini's case. His "Doctor Antonio" was published first in Paris (in English) by Galignani, all the formalities required by the French law being complied with; and thus, it is supposed, no copies of the work can be published in Great Britain except those issued by the Edinburgh publishers. Of course, the convention with France never contemplated the admission of Americans to its benefits; still, an American holding a French copyright (which he can easily hold) becomes, quoad copyright, a Frenchman, and is entitled, on the above terpretation, to the protection of the convention. Here is another and most powerful argument in favour of a revision of the law of copyright, as well as of the conventions to which it has given rise,-Athenæum. Fray v. Potter Crowther v. Appleby Bell De Oleaga v. De Clarke Leake v. Young Tried during Term. Midd.-Mare v. Charles Lond.-Pittman v. Verity. v. '524 SPECIAL CASES AND DEMURRERS FOR HILARY TERM, 1856. Those marked thus * are Special Cases, and thus † Demurrers. FOR JUDGMENT. *Clayton v. Fenwick *Anderson & an. v. Baigent †Thompson v. Hopper *Parker v. Great Western Railway Co. *Spanish & Portuguese Screw Steam-shipping Co. v. Bell *Wood v. Same FOR ARGUMENT. +Burgoyne v. Cottrell +Sturgis v. Caster (Stands over till case of Billiter v. Young, in error, is disposed of) +Easdown v. South-eastern Railway Co. (Stands for arrangement) *Weekman v. Meek +Caswell v. Worth & an. †Doel v. Sheppard & ors. †Fenton & an. v. Mayor, &c. of the Borough of Preston *Traherne & ors. v. Gardner Bayly & an. v. Avery (Sp. V.) *Nicholson & an. v. Gooch +Davies v. Morland & an. *Denton v. Great Northern Railway Co. +Leedham v. Baxter & an. +Leedham v. Baxter & an. *Chamberlayne v. Chamberlayne *Waters v. Monarch Fire and Life Assurance Co. +Scott & an. v. Reynell *Branston & an. v. Mayor, &c. of Colchester +Gabriel & an. v. Langton +Rowbotham v. Wilson *Gillespie & ors. v. Thompson Monday.. 28 †Clutterbuck v. Marling & Staines, Wokingham, and Tuesday. 29 ors. *Fawcus v. Sarsfield Woking Railway Co. v. Cook. Wednesday 30 Thursday 31 Monday Jan. 14 Days in Term. .... Nisi Prius. Middlesex, first Sitting. 18 21 London, first Sitting. 25 London, second Sitting. .... .... 28 FOR HILARY TERM, 1856. Jacobs & an. v. Lawrence Harrison v. Bush Tyrrell & ors. v. Connemera Same v. Same Same v. Same Same v. Same Andrews v. Elliott Reg. v. Local Board of Health of Halifax NEW TRIALS. FOR JUDGMENT. Lond.-Bovill v. Pimm FOR ARGUMENT. Moved Hilary Term, 1855. Lond.-Bovill v. Pimm (To be taken 1st day of T.) v. Moved Easter Term, 1855. Lond.-Central London District Schools Wythes Crouch v. The Great Northern Railway Co. Mann v. General Steam Naviga-. tion Co. Strachan v. Barton Midd.-Morgans v. Clinton PAPER. |