« AnteriorContinuar »
JAMES BOOTHMAN, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, GAZETTES.-FRIDAY, July 20.
painter, Aug. 2 and 31 at 12, Manchester : Off. Ass. Here
Pet. f. July 7.
Charles Kelly, High-street, Kensington, and Baker-street, ford-street, picture dealer, Aug. 3 at half-past 11, Aug. Portman-square, auctioneer, July 31 at 11, London, last es. 31 at 11, London: Off. Ass. Cannan ; Sol. Fallows, 198, -John Christie, Accrington, Lancashire, ironfounder, Aug. 2 Piccadilly.-Pet. f. July 18.
at 12, Manchester, last ex.- - Benjamin Misell, Manchester, JOHN WILLIAMS, Gravesend, dealer and chapman, Aug. picture dealer, Aug. 2 at 12, Manchester, last ex.-R. Robson 2 at half-past 12, and Aug. 31 at half-past 11, London : and John Thos. Robson, Derby, silk manufacturers, July 31 Of. Ass. Cannan ; Sols. J. & J. H. Linklater, 17, Sise-lane, at half-past 10, Nottingham, last ex. of John T. Robson. Bucklersbury.- Pet. f. July 17.
Charles J. Parlour, Strand, lithographer, Aug. 1 at 11, LonJOHN MIERS, Nelson-square, Blackfriars-road, dealer and don, aud. ac.-Wm. Farrell, West Derby, Lancashire, cattle
chapman, Aug. 2 and 31 at 1, London: Off, Ass. Whit- salesman, Aug. 7 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.-David Little, more; Sols. Reece & Co., 31, St. Swithin's-lane ; Francis, Liverpool, merchant, Aug. 9 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.-B. Birmingham.-Pet. f. July 16.
R. Waite, Wormwood-street, London, butcher, Aug. 11 at RICHARD THOMAS, New Windsor, Berkshire, dealer 11, London, div.- Joshua Monckton, King-street, Baker.
and chapman, July 30 and Sept. 8 at 11, London: Of. street, licensed victualler, Aug. 11 at 11, London, div.-John Ass. Nicholson ; Sols. Phillips, Windsor ; Trinder & Eyre, Fittes and Robert Fittes, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Gates1, John-street, Bedford-row.- Pet. f. July 17.
head, tea dealers, Aug. 10 at 12, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, fin. JOHN DAWSON, High-street, Shadwell, tobacconist, July div.-George Booth, Bishopwearmouth, Sunderland, ship
30 at half-past 12, and Sept. 8 at 11, London: Off. Ass. owner, Aug. 10 at half-past il, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, div. Pennell; Sols. Peile & Son, 4, Mansion-house-place.
CERTIFICATES. Pet. f. July 14. MICHAEL HORNER, Black Swan-yard, Bermondsey. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary or or street, Bermondsey, dealer and chapman, Aug. 1 and Sept.
before the Day of Meeting. 1 at balf.past 11, London: Of. Ass. Pennell; Sol. Chidley, George Nock and John Williams, Frith-street, Soho, gold19, Gresham-street, City.-Pet. f. July 7.
smiths, Aug. 10 at 2, London.- Patrick Fenn, Brecknock. JAMES WELLER the younger, Cbolsey, Berkshire, wheel. place, Camden-town, linendraper, Aug: 10 at half-past 12, wright, Aug. 1 and Sept. 1 at 11, London: Off. Ass. London.-George C. Long, Dartford, draper, Ang. Il at 1, Nicholson; Sols. J. K. & C. Hedges, Wallingford; White London.—James Martyr, Union-street, Southwark, iron& Sons, 11, Bedford-row.- Pet. f. July 18.
monger, Aug. 11 at 11, London.-Charles Richards, WresFRANCIS BLACKWELL, Peterborough, Northampton- ham, Denbighshire, draper, Aug. 10 at 11, Liverpool.-WR. shire, dealer and chapman, July 31 at 1, and Sept. 1 at 12, Beardsall, Manchester, plumber, Aug. 10 at 12, Manchester. London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sol. Randall, 5, Laurance -Samuel Clay, Wakefield, Yorkshire, millowner, Aug. 13 at Pountney-lane.-Pet. f. July 17.
12, Leeds.- John M.Carthy, Aston, near Birmingham, pub. WILLIAÁ A. EDWARDS and THOMAS WHITLOCK, lican, Aug. 13 at 12, Birmingham.-John Parkinson the elder
Upper Thames-street, bottle merchants, Aug. 1 at 2, and and John Parkinson the younger, Leicester, hosiers, Aug. 14 Sept. 8 at half-past 11, London : Off. Ass. Nicholson ; at 12, Birmingham.-Thomas E. Partridge and Samuel Par.
Sols. Tucker & Co., St. Swithin's-lane.-Pet, f. July 13. tridge, Darlaston, Staffordshire, screw bolt manufacturers, THOMAS GEORGE SHAW and JOSEPH LANE, Old | Aug. 13 at 12, Birmingham.--Samuel Lowe, Derby, silk ma
Broad-street, London, and Manchester, dealers and chap- nufacturer, Aug. 14 at 10, Birmingham. men, (trading under the style or firm of T. G. Shaw & Co.),
To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. Aag. 1 at half-past 1, and Sept. 8 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sol, Bird, 58, Lincoln's-inn-fields. - Pet. f.
Edward Biven, King William-street, London, watchmaker, July 19.
A. P. Shaw, Devonshire-street, Bishopsgate-street, printer. THOMAS SLOPER, White Horse-terrace, Stepney, dealer
- Francis Norbury, Ardwick, Manchester, builder.- James and chapman, July 31 at half-past 12, and Aug. 27 at 1, Woolley, Manchester, coach builder.-L. Tatley, Ince, near London: Off. Ass. Edwards ; Sol. Stopher, 52, Cheapside! Wigan, Lancashire, cotton spinner --James Aldred, Man. - Pet. f. July 19.
chester, innkeeper. EDWARD GREEN, Bristol, dealer and chapman, July 31
PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED. and Aug. 30 at 11, Bristol : Off. Ass. Miller; Sol. King, Thomas Charles Cornish and Thomas Saunders Parnell, Bristol. - Pet. f. July 12.
Bristol, attornies and solicitors. PETER SHARLAND, Penzance, tailor, Aug. 2 and Sept. 6
at 1, Exeter : Off. Ass. Hirtzel; Sols. Geare & Co., Exeter ; Stogdon, Exeter.-Pet. f. July 9.
TUESDAY, July 24. JAMES WESTLAKE CHINN, Wellington, Somersetshire,
BANKRUPTS. wine merchant, Aug. 2 at 11, and Sept. 6 at 1, Exeter: Of WILLIAM BUXTON, JOHN BUXTON, and SAMUEL Ass. Hirtzel; Sols. Rodham, Wellington ; Stogdon, Exeter. SEPTIMUS BUXTON, Carlisle and Bradford, woolsta- Pet. f. July 18.
plers, (trading under the style or firm of Buxton, Brothers), GEORGE NELSON, Leeds, dealer and chapman, Aug. 13 Aug. 2 at half-past 1, and Sept. 1 at 1, London: Of. Ass.
at 1, and Sept. 3 at 11, Leeds : Off. Ass. Hope ; Sols. Cannan ; Sols. Young & Vallings, 2, St. Mildred's-court, Robinson & Greene, Leeds. - Pet. f. July 17.
Poultry.-Pet. f. July 7. GEORGE BEAUMONT, Manchester, general warehouse- THOMAS BARNES, Southampton, dealer and chapman,
man, Aug. 1 and 29 at 12, Manchester : Off. Ass. Pott; July 31 at 2, and Sept. 8 at half-past 12, London: Off. Sols. Sale & Co., Manchester.- Pet. f. July 13.
Ass. Pennell; Sols. Mackay, Southampton ; Paterson, 7, JOHN STEELE, Manchester, dealer and chapman, Aug. 3 Bouverie-street, Fleet-street.- Pet. f. July 23.
and 31 at 12, Manchester : Off. Ass. Hernaman; Sol. SAMUEL HOW, Liverpool, dealer and chapman, (lately Potter, Manchester.---Pet. f. July 17.
carrying on business with James Greene Hatton Greene, SAMUEL MOSES LOTINGA and NOAH SAMUEL under the firm of How, Hatton Greene, & Co.), Aug. 3 and
LOTINGA, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and North Shields, 30 at 11, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Turner; Sols. J. & E.
Christie ; Sols. Bridges, Birmingham; Slaney, BirmingWILLIAM GRAHAM, Wingate Grange and Low Spenney ham.-Pet. d. July 18.
Moore, Durbam, dealer and chapman, July 27 at 11, and JAMES BEARDSMORE, Audley, Staffordshire, dealer and Aug. 30 at 12, Newcastle-upon-Tyne : Off. Ass. Baker; chapman, Aug. 3 and 25 at 11, Birmingham : Off. Ass. Sols. Harle & Co., 20, Southampton-buildings, Chancery- Whitmore; Sols. Keary & Sheppard, Stoke-upon-Trent,lane, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. -Pet, f. July 9.
Pet. d. July 10.
CONTENTS London Gazettes..
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. Leading Article
By G. J. P. Smith, Barrister at Law. Notes of the Week ....
306 Reg. o. The Registrar of the Pharmaceutical Society.Correspondence
308 (Pharmaceutical chemists—15.& 16 Vict. c. 56).. 698 First Report of the County Courts Commission. 308
COURT OF Queex's Bench.
By G.J. P. Smito and W. B. BRETT, Barristers at Law.
Reg. o. Frere.—(Railway company -- Bye-law-ConBy T. EDWARDS, Barrister at Law.
viction- Jurisdiction of justices— Ticket from C. Tench o. Cheese.-(Accumulations-Thellusson Act
to N.-Leaving train at intermediate station).... 700 -Will, construction of).......
689 Moss, App., The Commissioners of Sewers of the City COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY,
of London, Resps.-(Sewers rate-City of London By F. FISHER, Barrister at Law.
Sewers Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. clxiii-Serjeant:'-inn Minet o. Leman.-(Construction of Inclosure Act, 8 &
- Place within city not part of a ward-Warrant) 701 9 Vict. c. 118, s. 147-Power of exchange under) 692
Race o. Ward.-(Right of inhabitants to take water
Spring of water-Custom-Easement-Profit à VICE-CEANCELLOR KINDERSLEY'S COURT.
704 By C. MARETT, Barrister at Law.
Viscount Wellesley v. Withers.-(Copyhold-Devise Bothomley v. Squires. (Pleading-Fraud - Costs of
to trustees and executors-Release and disclaimer demurrer)..
694 by one-Admittance of the other-Single fine) .. 706 VICE-CHANCELLOR STUART's Court.
The Mayor of Harwich o. Gaunt.-(Money had and By T. F. MORSE, Barrister at Law.
received-Qui-tam informer-Moiety of penaltyStanley o. Wrigley.- (Practice-Partition of an estate
708 made at the hearing)
BAIL COURT. In re Skidmore's Trusts.-(Practice- Affidavit, unne
By G. FRANCIS, Barrister at Law. cessary length of-122nd Order of the 8th May, Ex parte Buller.-(Mandamus–Visitor of college1845 - Costs) 696 Appeal-Provost and fellows)
709 Vice-CHANCELLOR Wood's COURT.
Reg. 0. The Inhabitants of Claxby.-(Non-repair of By MATTHEW B. BEGBIE, Barrister at Law.
highway--Fine-Mode of repair).
710 Webb o. Byng. - (Will - Construction — " All my
COURT OF COMvox Pleas. Quendon Hall estates"').
696 By W. PATERSON and W. Mills, Barristers at Law. Hepworth o. Scale.-(Vested interest-Gift to A. and Clarke o. Arden.-(Lease by copyholder with lord's his heirs at twenty-one, and if A. shall not attain
license - Forfeiture - Ejectment - Defending as twenty-one, then oder -Costs)
698 landlord-Effect of leaving an immaterial question Phippen o. Brown.-(Revivor)... 698 to the jury-Misdirection).
and possession as owner by the plaintiff and his ances
tors for twenty-one years last past. The ground of LONDON, JULY 28, 1855.
the judgment is contained in the following words of
Jervis, C. J.:-“ The rule to be collected from all the By the stat. 8 & 9 Vict, c. 106, s. 3, it is enacted, cases is, that the intention of the parties, as declared that a lease of any tenements or hereditaments re- by the words of the instrument, must govern the conquired by law to be in writing shall be void at law struction; and the Court will, if possible, put such a unless made by deed. The Courts have had to con- construction upon it as will effectuate the intention of sider the effect of these words on several occasions, but the parties, rather than defeat it. The question, then, it was only in a very recent case that the most important is, what was the intention of the parties when the inquestion involved in them was judicially decided. It strument was made? Doubtless they intended to make had been plausibly argued, that as the statute renders an instrument which should have some operation; but void such a lease unless it be under seal, therefore the did they intend to make a lease or an agreement? If Courts would construe the instrument as amounting the former, they have not done what they intended, merely to an agreement for a leasemut res magis valeat, because the lease is void by the statute. The intenquàm pereat and as carrying out the intention of the tion of the parties must be collected from the instruparties, who meant that their contract should have ment itself; and the rule is well explained by Lawsome operation. The Court of Common Pleas, how- rence, J., in the case of Morgan v. Bissell, (3 Taunt. ever, have negatived this view, and decided, that if the 65)— When there is an instrument by which it language would have been held to constitute a present appears that one party is to give possession and the demise before the statute, it shall be so construed now, other to take it, that is a lease, unless it can be coland therefore shall be held void if it want the solemnity lected from the instrument itself that it is an agreement of the seal. (Stratton v. Petrit, 1 Jur., N. S., pårt 1, only for a lease to be afterwards made. . . . It is adp. 662).
mitted that before the statute this instrument would In that case “ articles of agreement” were executed, have been held to be a lease; and if the true rule be, whereby the plaintiff agreed to let, and the defendant that the intention of the parties, as declared by the to take, certain premises, to hold to the defendant for words of the instrument, must govern the construction, the term of five years, the fee-simple to be purchased it is clear that the parties intended this instrument to by the defendant at the end of the five years, the operate as a lease.” defendant rendering to the plaintiff, as well for the It had been previously held, that if a tenant enter rent as the purchase, 701., by seventy shares of 11. each and occupy the premises and pay rent under such an in an assurance company. No abstract or investigation instrument, he becomes tenant from year to year upon of title was to be required beyond evidence of seisin' the terms contained in the instrument, and is bound to quit at the expiration of the period therein mentioned, not find that either in that or the other House of Parwithout any notice to quit. (Tress v. Savage, 18 Jur., liament any attempt had been made to redeem that part 1, p. 680; Lee v. Smith, 23 L. J., Ex., 198). So pledge. His noble and learned friend had not even inunder the repealed statute, the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 76. troduced a bill of divorce, or any bill relating to matri(Arden v. Sullivan, 19 L.J., Q. B., 268; Doe v. Moffatt, monial cases. The Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill had 15 Q. B. 257). Analogous cases had been decided gone down at an early period of the previous session to under the Statute of Frauds. Thus, although by that the House of Commons. It was, therefore, perfected; statute leases by parol for more than three years have but notwithstanding this circumstance, and that Parthe effect of estates at will merely, occupation and pay- liament met in December, the law officers of the Crown ment of rent under such leases create tenancies from did not think proper to bring it forward until the end year to year, (Clayton v. Blakey, 8 T. R. 3), and the of May, and this bill had consequently again fallen instrument regulates the terms of the holding. (Rich- through and been withdrawn. These circumstances ardson v. Gifford, 1 Ad. & El. 52; Beale v. Sanders, required some explanation. His noble and learned 5 Scott, 58; Doe v. Bell, 5 T. R. 471; De Medina v. friend might mention the war as the cause of the abanPolson, 1 Holt, 47).
donment of this bill, but he did not see that either his We may
here refer to a late case, in which it was noble and learned friend or the law officers of the Crown held that the 3rd section of the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, de- in the other House of Parliament had troubled themclaring that a lease required by law to be in writing, of selves much about the complications of the Eastern any “ tenements or hereditaments,” shall be void unless question. From circumstances that had come to his by deed, does not apply to agreements for letting, or knowledge, he believed that this mode of proceeding to leases of tolls under the 3 Geo. 4, c. 126. (Shepherd might be explained by some want of understanding or v. Hodsman, 21 L.J., Q. B., 263).
co-operation between the Lord Chancellor and the law officers of the Crown. His noble and learned friend
had introduced a bill for the registry of deeds, and for NOTES OF THE WEEK.
the purpose of shortening conveyances and simplifying
titles. That bill was fully considered and discussed, It will hardly be credited that in a bill supported by was referred to a select committee, and went down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and intituled “Stage the other House of Parliament with the approbation Carriage Duties, &c. Bill,” was a clause (clause 6) pro- and sanction of his noble and learned friend and of that viding that exemptions from stamp duty on behalf of House. But what happened in the other House ? The building societies should not extend to conveyances, bill was immediately opposed by the law officers of the &c. for sums exceeding 2401.! The clause was aban. Crown. The Solicitor-General said, that what was doned, not on account of its incongruity with the scope, wanted was a bill, not for the registry of deeds, but of object, and title of the bill, although that was pointed titles. The consequence was, that the bill was referred out by Mr. Bright and others, but because the prin- to a select committee, and nothing more was heard of it ciple involved in the clause was objected to. When from that time to this. But that was not the only fact shall we have bills drawn with something like a logical that shewed the want of cordial co-operation between the conformity between the title and the contents ? Would Lord Chancellor and the law officers of the Crown in the it not be as well to look to this simple matter in these other House. His noble and learned friend had issued days of purification and codification of the statute law? a commission for the consolidation of the statutelaw. His
The committee appointed to inquire into Baron noble and learned friend was the president of that comRothschild's case (after hearing counsel on his behalf) mission; he sanctioned all its proceedings, and the law have reported, that in their opinion, by undertaking officers of the Crown also attended its meetings. The the loan required by Government, he did not enter into report of that commission was laid on the table. On a contract within the meaning of stat. 22 Geo. 3, c. 45, looking at that report he found it signed by all the so as to be disqualified from sitting in Parliament. commissioners except the law officers of the Crown.
The Assizes and Sessions Bill has been withdrawn He therefore took it for granted that they differed from for the present.
the Lord Chancellor upon that report. He relied upon
this for substantiating what he stated—that there was HOUSE OF LORDS.-July 20.
a want of co-operation and good understanding with
respect to law reform between the Lord Chancellor and GOVERNMENT MEASURES OF LAW REFORM.
the law officers of the Crown. This had led to the Lord Lyndhurst begged to take this opportunity of greatest possible inconvenience, and it shewed that asking his noble and learned friend upon the woolsack without a good understanding between the legal authofor some explanation upon the subject of law reform. rities of the Government it was in vain to expect an His noble and learned friend had introduced a bill for amendment of the law. The result was, that up to the altering the law of divorce, and also for the purpose of present time, when they were going to adjourn for the transferring the jurisdiction from the Ecclesiastical holidays, not one single Government bill for reforming Court to the Court of Chancery. After that bill had the laws of England had been passed. This was a most proceeded a certain length, part of the bill was with unsatisfactory state of things, and required explanation; drawn by the voluntary act of his noble and learned and he had made these observations to enable his noble friend, and the other part in consequence of some oppo- and learned friend to make such explanations as he sition to the bill on the part of a right reverend prelate. might think proper to offer to their Lordships. He stated as his reason, that the Testamentary Bill The Lord Chancellor said that the first complaint of had been thrown out in the other House; and his noble his noble and learned friend referred to the Testamenand learned friend, in answer to the Chief Justice of tary Bill, and he truly stated that last session he (the the Queen's Bench, said that the Government would Lord Chancellor) had introduced that bill. It was use their utmost endeavour to pass a bill on that sub- much considered by a select committee, and that bill ject. It was a singular circumstance that that bill went down to the Commons, where certainly it did not went down last year from that
House on the 7th April, receive approbation, and did not become law. The but not a single attempt was made by the law officers course that he thought it best to take in the present of the Crown to proceed with it. He had also stated session was, that the bill should originate in the House that the Government would
be prepared to introduce of Commons, and, a great many objections in detail in the present session a large measure of reform, em- having been made to the bill of last year, he consulted bracing the whole of the ecclesiastical courts. He did with
the Solicitor-General, who was to take charge of it, and adopted some amendments likely to smooth the after measure, which he called measures of reform; but passage of the bill in the other House of Parliament. if he found that anything was going wrong, it was his He was not prepared to state the day on which that duty to provide a remedy. The statement that no meabill was introduced, but he was certain his noble and sure of reform had become law during this session was learned friend was mistaken in supposing that it was certainly near the truth. [Lord Lyndhurst. It is the not brought in until the latter part of May. He be- exact truth.) But early in the session he had introlieved it was brought in in March, but to this he duced a measure giving extended summary jurisdiction could not pledge himself. At all events, it was pre- in cases of petty offences. That bill had passed this pared quite early enough, and it was introduced as House, and had been referred to a select committee of soon as the state of public business made it possible to the House of Commons; and his right hon, friend the proceed with it; and although he should not fall back Home Secretary had assured him on Saturday last that upon the war as a justification for doing nothing, he he had not the least doubt of its becoming law. It thought that the state of business arising out of the must, however, he remembered, that at the present discussions about the war, which had taken up four moment the House of Commons were more anxious to fifths of the session, would explain why so dull a sub- forward the bills which they had originated than to ject had been so little able to obtain a hearing. His proceed with those which had been sent down from this noble and learned friend ought to be the last person to House. Another measure which would be of essential express great surprise, and to complain that this bill benefit to the mass of the community, although it had not received the sanction of the Legislature, be- might not excite a great deal of popular approbation, cause the same thing had happened to him also when had been sent down to the other House. It was the he was Lord Chancellor. In 1843 a similar measure bill for getting rid of the necessity for private acts was introduced into the House of Commons, and failed; of Parliament in dealing with settled estates, and the in 1844 it was introduced into this House, but did not Solicitor-General, who had taken charge of it, had aspass; and it was again introduced in the following ses- sured him that he did not doubt that it would eventually sion. He hoped that the same course would be again be passed. It had been referred to a select committee, adopted, and that the measure would be introduced because there was a notion in the other House that it next session, and then the matter would be placed in would have the effect of permitting the inclosure of the same position that it occupied during the chan- Hampstead-heath. It had not the slightest reference to cellorship of his noble and learned friend. It was said that subject; but the insertion of a clause had been prothat he had promised a comprehensive plan of testa- posed which would obviate all difficulty of the kind. mentary reform. Now, the fact was this - he had They had been told that the Charity Commission had been taunted with doing only half his duty in intro- done nothing since its appointment. He protested against ducing a measure for the reform of testamentary juris- the truth of that assertion, for the commissioners had diction; he had been told that he ought to deal with done a great deal of good in an unobtrusive manner, the whole subject, viz. testamentary jurisdiction, ma- and he was satisfied that they would do more good if trimonial jurisdiction, and church discipline jurisdic- their powers were further extended. He had consetion, and he accordingly, undertook to get measures quently introduced a measure extending their powers. prepared which would embrace all these matters. The it had been sent down to the other House, and he Matrimonial Bill had been prepared, but the subject should be much disappointed if it did not become law was so connected with the Testamentary Bill that it this session. He had also introduced a bill for rewas impossible for him to introduce it until he could forming the University of Cambridge. He, therefore, see how the Testamentary Court was to be constituted. felt not guilty of the charge made by his noble and A bill had been framed with great care upon the sub- learned friend, having introduced many important ject of church discipline, and had been submitted to the measures which promised to become law before the end bishops; but there were great differences of opinion with of the session; and he thought his noble and learned respect to it, and the subject was attended with many friend would have done better to wait until the sesdifficulties, and the measure had not therefore been presion drew nearer to a close before making his comsented to the House. He had been assured by the Soli- plaint. He much regretted that the Attorney and citor-General that the Testamentary Bill was read a Solicitor General had not thought fit to sign the resecond time with every prospect of success, but the atten- port of the Statute-law Commission, but he had no tion of the other House had been so absorbed by subjects authority to call upon them to sign it if they did not of overwhelming interest that it was found impracticable think proper to do so. He should be glad to be the to pass it. With regard to the suggestion that there was means of introducing next session measures which had not a cordial co-operation between the law officers of the failed in the present; but he thought that his noble and Crown and himself, and the example adduced by his noble learned friend attributing blame to him because the and learned friend of the Registration Bill, which the So- House of Commons did not pass the Testamentary licitor-General did not support in the other House, he Jurisdiction Bill was really attributing blame to him must say that his noble and learned friend was labouring to which he was not obnoxious. In the course of the under a mistake. The Solicitor-General thought the present session he had received two reports, which bill did not go far enough, and it was referred to a select he had anxiously considered. One of these reports committee, of which Mr. Walpole and other gentlemen had reference to the county courts, and would necesbesides the law officers were members, which recom- sarily give rise to legislation, and, indeed, a bill had mended the appointment of a royal commission to been partly prepared, but he could not with any proinquire into the whole subject. He felt bound to issue priety have introduced it during the present session, for such a commission; and the Solicitor-General had as it was impossible that it could have passed into law. sured him that the labours of the commission were so The other report was as to the state of the Incumbered far advanced, that in the course of the ensuing recess Estates Court, Ireland. He was in hopes that he might they would not only produce a report recommending a have introduced a bill on this subject this session, but better system of registration, but would also frame a the changes recommended by the report were so immeasure which would be introduced next session. His portant, and on the whole so useful, that they would poble and learned friend further complained of the slug. require considerable consideration. He might have gishness of the Government in not having introduced obtained some credit for introducing this bill, but he any measures of law reform during the present session. felt that it would have been obtaining credit under He denied that accusation. A chancellor or a minister false pretences, for the bill could not have passed this was not doing good by simply introducing measure session. He had also, at the suggestion of his noble and learned friend Lord Brougham, introduced a bill, when passed? On reference to the other sections, it will which had passed their Lordships' House, for additional be seen that any director may become liable to a very sessions and assizes; the bill, however, was objected to considerable amount of penalties, which, it is presumed
, by the other House, and required more consideration will charge his lands as against a purchaser for valuable than could be given to it this session. He had been in consideration without notice.
W, communication with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and was informed that though this bill would not pass into law. this session, yet the royal FIRST REPORT OF THE COUNTY COURTS prerogative would be brought to bear on the subject,
COMMISSION. and additional commissions would be issued for several
(Continued from p. 300). . counties. Lord Lyndhurst said that his noble and learned friend
OBSERVATIONS BY MR. TAYLOR-(Continued). had replied to him by a tu quoque; but this did not
The second objection urged against the plan is, that apply to his case, for when he held the office now held it would operate prejudicially to the interests of the by his noble and learned friend he did his utmost to legal profession. I do not think that it would have pass the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. His com- that effect to any great extent, as the causes which plaint was, not that they had failed in passing bills, would find their way into the county courts, were the but that they had let the last two sessions pass without plan adopted, would probably for the most part be of a making any attempt to pass any bills. His statement simple nature. But assuming that the result suggested was, that not a single bill for the improvement of the would follow, it seems to me to afford no valid answer law which had been proposed by her Majesty's Go to the proposed change. The real interests of no body vernment had received the royal assent, His noble of men can be advanced or protected by laws which are and learned friend had met this statement, not by con- oppressive on other classes, and it does seem to me to tradicting it, for that was impossible, but by stating savour of oppression when parties are forced, unless that a considerable number of bills had passed their they, consent to an amicable arrangement, which is too Lordships, and had been sent to the other House; and much to expect from them, to incur heavy costs in litithough they had not passed a single bill during the gation in Westminster Hall, though the plaintiff is six months, yet his noble and learned friend Aattered willing, and the defendant is not unwilling, to have himself that during the four or five remaining weeks of the dispute settled at a far cheaper rate by an inferior the session they would pass these bills. His noble and tribunal, learned friend was much more sanguine on this point Distinction between Contracts and Torts with respect than he was; for he took what had been done as a to Costs in the Superior Courts.] The Report contains good picture of what was likely to take place, and had the following passage, (ante, p. 264):no hope that the bills would be passed this session. “ The present law as to costs in the superior courts,
Lord Brougham trusted that his noble and learned so far as it affects jurisdiction, should, we think, remain friend (Lord Lyndhurst) would early next session unaltered," with an exception not material to my apply himself to one of the subjects to which he had purpose. directed his observations, viz. to that of the ecclesias- I dissent from this proposition, At present a wide tical courts jurisdiction, particularly with regard to the distinction exists between actions founded on contract matter of divorce, for the state of the law with regard to and actions founded on tort. If any suin not exceeding this subject was in a most shameful and disgraceful state. 201. be recovered in the former class of actions in a His noble and learned friend, among the many great superior court, the plaintiff is deprived of costs, unless and invaluable services which he had rendered to his the judge certifies that the cause was fit to be tried country, could not render it a greater service than by before him. The same law prevails in actions on top taking up, with all the weight which was justly due to only when a sum not exceeding 51. is recovered. This his authority in that House, the country, and the Pro- distinction should, in my opinion, be abolished; and fession, the subject which had been referred to. no plaintiff should be allowed to recover costs in a su
Lord Lyndhurst said that he could not understand perior court, whether the action be founded on contract why there should be a difference between the law of or tort, unless he recovers a sum exceeding 201., or divorce in the northern and southern parts of the unless the judge certifies in his favour. island. He believed that in Scotland the law of divorce The main object of the Legislature in establishworked exceedingly well, and he saw no reason why it ing the county courts was to protect litigants from should not be extended to Engiand.
the ruinous expenses of the superior courts in all cases Lord Brougham was convinced that if his noble and where the matter in dispute was, comparatively speak. learned friend would peruse the evidence and the re- ing, of small amount.' To effect this object it was port of the conmittee over which he (Lord Brougham) necessary not only to create tribunals in which justice presided a few yeats ago, he would find abundant rea- might be administered at a trifling cost, but to hold sons for holding more firmly the opinion which he had out a strong inducement to plaintiffs to have recourse now expressed.
to them when created. Hence the provisions respectThe subject then dropped.
ing the deprivation of costs were introduced into the
original County Court Act, the effect of these proviCorrespondence.
sions being, not strictly to confer exclusive jurisdiction
on the county courts, and to make it absolutely comTHE LIMITED LIABILITY ACT.
pulsory on plaintiffs to sue in them, but simply to induce plaintiffs to do so in the great majority of in
; “THE JURIST.”
stances, by exposing them to the risk of being deprived SIR,-By the 12th section of the Limited Liability of costs should they needlessly invoke the aid of the Bill now before Parliament it is provided that every more costly tribunals. pecuniary penalty under the act shall be deemed a The wisdom of dealing with the subject in this mode debt due to the Crown, and shall be recoverable aco is not questioned ; and the
commissioners are all agreed cordingly.
that the county courts should possess a quasi esclusive Will not the effect of this section be seriously to jurisdiction over “ small claims and sınall disputes." impede any dealings with the real estate of any person and that they shall be made complete courts for that who may be a director of any of the numerous com- purpose.” panies which are expected to take advantage of the act
(To be continued).
TO THE EDITOR OP