Imágenes de páginas




[ocr errors]



Walker v. Bartlett

| Anelay o. Lewis

Shepherd v. Conquest. Those marked thus * are Special Cases, and thus t Demurrers.

For JUDGMENT. +Fenton & an, o. Mayor, &c. *Clayton v. Fenwick of the Borough of Preston

Court of Erchequer. *Anderson & an. v. Baigent *Traherne & ors. v. Gardner

SITTINGS-HILARY TERM, 1856. +Thompson v. Hopper Bayly & an. v. Avery (Sp. V.)

Days in Term.

Banc. *Parker 0. Great Western *Nicholson & an. v. Gooch

Friday.. + Davies v. Morland & an.

Jan. 11 Motions and Peremptory Paper. Railway Co.

Saturday. 12 Errors, Peremptory Paper, & Motions. *Spanish & Portuguese Screw *Denton v. Great Northern

Monday. Steam-shipping Co. o. Bell Railway Co.


15 *Wood v. Same +Leedham v. Baxter & an.

Wednesday. 16 Special Paper. FOR ARGUMENT. +Leedham u. Baxter & an.

Thursday 17 Circuits chosen. +Burgoyne v. Cottrell *Chamberlayne v. Chamber


18 +Sturgis v. Caster(Stands over layne


19 Crown Cases. till case of Billiter v. Young, *Waters v. Monarch Fire and

Life Assurance Co.

21 Special Paper. in error, is disposed of)


22 + Easdown v. South-eastern +Scott & an. v. Reynell

Wednesday. 23 Special Paper. Railway Co. (Stands for *Branston & an. v. Mayor, &c.


24 arrangement)

of Colchester


25 *Weekman v. Meek +Gabriel & an. o. Langton

26 +Caswell v. Worth & an. tRowbotham v.


28 + Doel v. Sheppard & ors. *Gillespie & ors. v. Thompson


29 +Clutterbuck v. Marling & Staines, Wokingham, and

Wednesday 30
Woking Railway Co. o.

31 *Fawcus v. Sarsfield


Days in Term.

Nisi Prius.

Monday .. Jan. 14 Middlesex, first Sitting.


18 London, first Sitting. For HILARY Term, 1856.


21 Middlesex, second Sitting. First Day. Andrews o. Elliott


25 London, second Sitting. Jacobs & an. v. Lawrence Reg. v. Local Board of Health Monday

28 Middlesex, third Sitting.
In re Bourne v. South-eastern of Halifax
Railway Co.
Same v. Lister & an.

Harrison o. Bush
Same v. Same & ors.


Newcastle-Thew v. Pybus In re Collins

Second Day.
Lond.-Bovill v. Pimm

Liverpool-Bell v. Buckley
Raworth v. Bird
Same v. Boardman & ors.

Whittell v. Craw.

For ARGUMENT. Tyrrell & ors. 0. Connemera Same v. Uttermare & an.

ford Mining Co. of Ireland Same v. Churchwardens of St. Moved Hilary Term, 1855.

Graves v. Legg Same o. Same

Mary, Lambeth
Lond.-Bovill v. Pimm (To be

Hernamant. Bow. Same v. Same

Fifth Day.
taken Ist day of T.)

Same v. Same
Same v. Lees.

Moved Easier Term, 1855. Carmarthen-Jones v. Powell
Lond.-Central London Dis. Chester-Davies v. Roper

trict Schools

Warwick-Austen v. Torre Wythes

Brownr.Overbury Staffordshire .. Reg. v. Heaton.

Crouch v. The Great Herts.-Lee v. Cardigan Anglesey...... Inhabitants of Llechylched.

Northern Railway Maidst.-Cooke v. Hopewell

Croydon-Ogle v. Tummons
Moved Mich. Term, 1855.

Mann 0. General Court of Common Pleas.

Midd.-Lee v. Bissett

Stcam NavigaLond.- Oxford, Worcester,

tion Co. NEW TRIALS.

& Wolverhampton

Strachan v. Barton Moved Mich. Term, 1855. Surrey-Johnson o. Warwick

Railway Co. 0.

Wiggetto. Fox Surrey-Douglas v. Watson Lond.-Holt v. Gamble


Winchester-Watling & an. Sussex-Simpson v. Lamb Midd.— Tomkinson o. Staight

Fenwick v. Nevill v. Ekless Stafford-Hulse v. Hulse Lond.- Everitt v. Tipping

Mackenzie o. Pooley Wells-Collins r. Bristol and Lincoln-. Rodgers v. Parker

Melville v. Titch

Wallace o. Blackwell Exeter Railway Co. Liverpool - Davies o. Jones


Glo'ster-Hingley o. Oxford, Bristol-Sympson v. Lloyd

&c. Railway Co.

Moved after the 4th Day of
Newcastle-Leidman o. Gray
Guardians of the

Mich. Term, 1855.
Second Day.
Wood v. Governor and Co. of

Bedford Union Midd.-Morgans o. Clinton
Harvey o. Nicolay
Copper Mines in England

v. Patteson

Watson v. Lane. (Until after issue at law disSixth Day.

posed of) Browne v. Emerson Dawson v. Williams (Until

SPECIAL PAPER. Wood v. Governor and Co. of after action tried in Queen's FOR JUDGMENT. Wilson v. Martin (Sp. C., Copper Mines in England


The Earl of Lonsdale v. Rigg Same v. Rathbone part hd.
(Sp. C.)

Firnie v. Songe (D.)

Broadbent V. Ramsbotham Petrie v. Nuttall (D.)
(Sp. C.)

Phillips v. Briard (D.)
IVednesday, Jan. 16. Michael v. Tredivin

Marcom d. Bloxam (D.) Cawley v. North Staffordshire British Industry Life Assu. Same v. Bird

Same o. Same (Sp. C.)

Railway Co. (Ap.) rance Co. v. Ward (Ordered Baker v. Gray

Doe d. Hughes v. Probert Henderson v. Wawn (Ap.) to be amended)

Midland Railw.Co.o. Bromley Jervis v. Tomkinson (Sp. C.) Oakley v. Portsmouth and Morgan o. Parry (Ordered to Innes v. East India Co.


Ryde Steam Packet Co. be amended)

Friday, Jan. 18. Guardians of the Poor of Wy- (Part heard) Ribble Navigation Co. v. Har Tattersall v. Feamley

combe Union v. Guardians Koeber v. England (D.) greaves Kendall v. King.

of the Poor of Eton Union Nixon v. Green (D.)
(Sp.-C., part heard) Robinson v. Symes (D.)

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

Tollemache 0. London and | Kelsall 0. Tyler (Sp. C.). that it would give such prodigious patronage to the

South-western Railway Co. Wood v. Dwarris (D.) Crown; does your Lordship think that that is—I will (D.) Weld v. Baxter (D.)

not say a serious objection-an objection it certainly

is; but does your Lordship think it an insuperable obPEREMPTORY PAPER.

jection ?-I should say that it is an objection which To be called on the first Day of Term after the Motions, one might overcome. For example, I had a great oband to be proceeded with the next Day, if necessary, before jection formerly to county courts, for fear of the great the Motions.

increase of patronage of the Crown; but feeling the abCarr o. Acraman

| Tindall v. Stanbridge solute necessity of having some local judicature, I must Haynes v. Blunt.

say I got over that objection as early as 1830. These

deputies ought to be irremoveable. PUBLIC PROSECUTORS.


propose that the two Chief Justices and the Lord Chancellor shall have the power of removing them, in

case of negligence or misconduct ?-I consider that it (Lord Brougham's Evidence continued from p. 516).

should be so, decidedly. Dum bene se gesserint includes Mr. Philipps.-Do you think that the chances of not merely corruption, but inefficiency, or other defects acquittal generally increase or diminish with the in- -a very bad temper, for instance. feriority of the Bar: for instance, there are a few ses- Then I understand your Lordship to be clearly of sions left where no persons but attornies practise; in opinion that the appointment of attornies to digest and others there are barristers of not much experience; in methodise the evidence for the prosecution in certain others barristers of very considerable experience: how districts is clearly desirable ?-Clearly desirable, even do you think the bearing is generally as regards the if it stops there for the present. I look forward to its superiority of the court; is it in favour of convictions being possible by degrees to extend it, even to making or of acquittals?—I apprehend that it is in favour of it a complete system; but I have no hope of that convictions where there is a Bar attending, because the being done at present. prosecutions are better conducted.

Then your Lordship has no particular suggestion Therefore, in estimating the number of acquittals, further to make with regard to the machinery by which the inferiority of a particular Bar may have an effect this system shonld be carried into effect ?-Ñone whatin producing that result ?-It may, no doubt; but that ever. I think it ought to be done experimentally, want of a Bar is one of the great evils of local judica- tentatively, and that you should begin upon a moderate ture which one is feeling at every turn. All the pre- scale if you can. According to the scale which I sugsent system of county courts is exceedingly affected by gested, it would be the Central Criminal Court, which the want of a local Bar: that is the great difficulty. is as large as all Scotland in point of jurisdiction.

Mr. Phillimore.—May I take it that your Lordship Mr. Watson.-- Is your Lordship aware of the mode agrees with this answer of my Lord Denman with re- in which the prosecutions are conducted in Liverpool gard to the general state of the question—“Our pro- and Manchester by a person in the nature of a public cedure for the purpose of preliminary inquiry is open prosecutor?-In my time, on the circuit, the clerk of to great objection. The injured party may be helpless, the peace generally employed the same counsel to proignorant, interested, corrupt; he is altogether irre- secute and to draw the indictment. sponsible, yet his dealing with the criminal may effec- I believe in Liverpool there is a person in the nature tually defeat justice. On general principles, it would of a public prosecutor, who gets up all the prosecutions, evidently be desirable to appoint a public prosecutor ?" receiving a stated salary?-Just so; and in the West -Yes.

Riding, and in Durham and Northumberland, the same Has your Lordship any plan to suggest with regard counsel are always employed. to the machinery by which the evil may be remedied? There they are not paid by salary, I believe ?-No. -That is very difficult indeed; for the very crude The Lord Advocate of Scotland gave the following Acsketch of a plan which we had in 1834 amounted really to little more than this—let us begin and try ; let us

count of the Scotch System. proceed tentatively, and then see whether, wise by ex- The system proceeds upon the principle, that it is perience, we are not able to hit upon some mode which the duty of the State to detect crime, apprehend offenshall effect at least some of the good we want, and may ders, and punish them, and that independently of the not be liable to the objections; and then, after that, we interest of a private party. The Scotch system acshall be able to put it into shape. But at present the knowledges the right of a private party to prosecute; difficulty is very great of having in every county or but the duty of the public prosecutor is altogether irretwo counties in England a local public prosecntor. spective of that. The staff, if I may so call it, of the Would your Lordship think this system objection- public prosecutor is as follows:

The Lord Advocate is able, namely, not to have anybody resident except a the head of the criminal department; under him he district agent, for the purpose of collecting and me- has four advocates-depute, and these do the business thodising the evidence, to whom, in case of injury, the that a barrister properly does in criminal cases; their injured party might go; but to have chosen from the duty is to advise in the proceedings while they are going members of each circuit two or more gentlemen to fill on, in the collection of evidence in the country, and, the office of public prosecutor, and to undertake the when the evidence is completed, to draw the indictmanagement of prosecutions, not obliging those two or ment, and to attend the trial, and take the ordinary more barristers to reside always upon the spot, to which part in procuring a conviction. The Solicitor-General I think there would be many objections ?-I think there is also, in his criminal capacity, a depute of the Lord would be a very great advantage gained by even one Advocate; he holds a deputation from the Lord Advopart of your proposition being adopted, by having a cate as such. There is a Crown agent, who is the local agent to superintend the preparation of the evi. Crown attorney of the Lord Advocate, appointed by dence and the getting up of the case, as it were, which him, and subject to his orders, and removeable with the should be brought before the grand jury, even if it Lord Advocate; he is a political officer, and he goes went no further than that, the agent having the benefit out of office with the Lord Advocate; but the Crown of a locally resident counsel.

Office is permanent, and consists of a considerable numThe objection with which I have been most fre- ber of clerks, who are not changed in practice with the quently encountered, with regard to tlie appointment Government. The advocates-depute do go out with which is suggested to your Lordship, has been this, the Government; so that the political staff substan

[ocr errors]

tially consists of the Solicitor-General, appointed by very great advantage, because they methodise the law; the Crown; the advocates-depute, who are appointed and I think the whole criminal procedure is now reby the Lord Advocate; and the Crown agent. The duced into a very uniform and good system. . . means of detecting and punishing crime in the country Generally a leading attorney in the county town is the consist in the first place of the procurator fiscal; there procurator fiscal. .... There are four advocates-deis a procurator fiscal for each county, and a procurator ute. : : .. They are practising barristers, and reside fiscal for some of the larger boroughs. In the counties in Edinburgh. They are paid about 5001. a year. he is appointed by the sheriff; in the boroughs he is I think that in England it would be impossible to appointed by the town council; but he is directly under make the system work as it does in Scotland, without the orders of the Lord Advocate and his deputes. The having a special department for the purpose of supermode in which the system operates is this. The pro- intending the administration of criminal justice. At curator fiscal receives information that a crime has the same time, I think that a staff of advocates-depute, been committed; his duty is to make immediate in- as we call them that is to say, a staff of barristers in quiry; if any person is suspected, he applies to the London, but considerably larger --would be able to sheriff for a warrant to apprehend him; he does appre- overtake the work. . . . . There is no allowance, prohend him, and the party is taken before the sheriff for perly speaking, for witnesses of prisoners; it depends examination, and upon that occasion the declaration is very much upon the particular case whether assistance taken; the party is cautioned that he need not speak is given or not. I have it in my power either to direct unless he likes, and then he is asked by the procurator the procurator fiscal to include particular witnesses in fiscal, in the presence of the sheriff, any questions the Crown list; or if a representation is made of a very which seem to be material; and his answers are taken important witness or a very poor person, we make an down, and may be used against him in evidence. Then, arrangement with those acting for the prisoner, that in if there appears to be ground for an immediate warrant the event of its appearing to be a reasonable case after to commit, he may be committed at once; the usual trial, an allowance shall be made. .... I think it course is to commit him for further examination, and right to say, that while the Scotch system is remarkthen the procurator fiscal takes what is called a precog- ably well adapted, in my opinion, for the detection of pition—that is to say, he examines the witnesses whom crime, (much more so than a system of great publi. he can discover, not publicly, but privately; they are city), it seems to me essential, in order to make that not properly depositions, but they are statements taken system safe in a free country, that there should be a down by the fiscal, and signed by the witnesses; and if very direct responsibility. the case is at all of importance to warrant it, he sends ilr. W. Ewart.-Is it your opinion that it is of great this precognition to the Crown agent. The witnesses advantage to the administration of criminal justice in may be examined on oath; but this is not usually done Scotland that the Lord Advocate is a member of the unless the witness is reluctant. The precognition is | House of Commons ?-I think the system would be sent by the Crown agent to the advocate-depute of the quite intolerable without it, because it would put in district in which the crime has been committed; it is his power that which should not be in the power of his business to read it over, and if he is satisfied, may any man who is not responsible to Parliament. order no further proceedings; or he sends down to the Therefore you suggest, supposing there were such an fiscal to have the party committed until liberated in officer as a Minister of Justice, that he should be a due course of law, if that has not been already done, member of the Legislature?-My idea is that he should and proceeds to indict; but if the advocate-depute is sit in Parliament like any Secretary of State. not satisfied, he either sends it back to the fiscal for Mr. Phillimore.-In Scotland the tremendous power further investigation, or he comes to consultation with which exists arises from the fact, that practically the the Lord Advocate. We meet twice a week, and where Lord Advocate has the power of saying that a man the advocate-depute has any difficulty, he brings it shall or shall not be prosecuted ?-Not merely proseto consultation, and in that way, great uniformity is cution, but the power of restraining liberty. obtained, both in prosecuting and in the preliminary Supposing it is still practically left open to the agproceeding. Then the question is, where the party is grieved person to carry on his prosecution, though the to be tried. He may be tried before the sheriff, or public prosecutor refuses to assent to it, that reason before the circuit, or before the High Court of Justi- would not be so strong ?-No; and probably in Eng; ciary. If it is a small offence, such as an ordinary land it might operate as a check; in Scotland it would theft, the general course is to send the party to be tried not, because the system is so settled. by the sheriff, either with or without a jury, and then Mr. Watson.-Has any complaint ever been made the procurator fiscal attends and prosecutes. 'If, on the in times of political commotion of this power of the other hand, the party is an old offender, and he is Lord Advocate to prosecute ?-No doubt, in the poliindicted at the circuit, the advocate-depute attends. tical prosecutions at the end of the last century and If it is a serious offence, or committed within the home the beginning of this, there was a great deal of comcircuit, he is tried before the High Court of Justiciary; plaint about it. and in that way it appears to me that the machinery Mr. Walpole.-That might arise again in the event works remarkably well. How it would do upon a of political excitement running high ?-It might, and larger scale I can hardly say; but from Scotland being very probably would; but, at the same time, the strinlimited in extent, so far as my experience goes, I think gency of the Crown law has been a good deal relaxed it answers all the objects of such an institution very since then. At that time the judges chose the jury, well indeed. I can say, from my own experience, that the list was that of the judges, instead of balloting as it operates fully as much in the protection of innocent they do now; and there are various other improvepersons against unfounded accusations as it does in the ments. detection of crime; and for my own part I think that The juries have much greater power than they had ? the want of publicity in the first examinations, if you - Much more real power. have, as we have, a sufficient check in the superinten- Mr. Watson.- What is the number of the jury ?dence such as I have described, tends very much indeed Fifteen; and the majority decide. to the detection of the guilty; and I do not believe Mr. Phillimore.- I understand you to say that the that our procurators fiscal would think it any advan- Scotch system gives satisfaction to the people? - I tage to have the witnesses examined in public. That should say very great satisfaction, and the results neis the system which we follow. These consultations, cessarily lead to it. which we hold twice a week, have been found to be of

(To be continued).






WITHIN THE 3 & 4 WILL. 4, c. 27, s. 28. Case principle on which the rule as to, is founded, not clearly of Stansfeld v. Hobson as to, 68

defined, 164 practical consequences of, ib.

how this may be accounted for, ib. facts of that case, ib.

opinion of Dr. Story as to, ib. questions raised in, 69

observations on, ib. argument for defendant in, ib.

dictum of Gibbs, C. J., in Ogle v. Alkinson, 165 observations in, ib.

meaning of, ib. principle of enactments, ib.

observations on, ib. how they ought to be construed, ib.

judgment of Littledale, J., in T'ilson F. Anderton, ib. construction adopted in the above case, ib.

remarks upon, ib. not warranted by the words of the act, ib.

cases cited by Story, 166, 167 or by its spirit, ib.

observations on, ib. illustrations of this, ib.

rule deducible from the cases, 168 difficulties suggested by, ib.


LIC, AND TO BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED, of decisions as to, 128 PASSED IN THE SESSION 18 & 19 VICT., practical importance of, ib. 1854-55. List of, 61

difficulty of reconciling, ib. ADDRESS TO THE PROFESSION ON COMMENCING general principle, ib. THE NEW SERIES OF THE JURIST, 3

cases by which it is established, ib. proposed changes in the plan of conducting, ib.

difficulty of applying it in cases where both agent and as to advertisements and temporary matter, ib.

principal are named in the contract, ib. as to abstracts of statutes, ib.

case of Harper v. Williams, ib. increased facilities of reference, ib.

mode in which such contracts will be construed, ib. improvements in the reports, ib.

tests of liability, ib. as to the miscellaneous matter, ib.

case of Tanner v. Christian, ib. ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, EX- judgment in, ib. PENSE AND DELAY OF, THE ACT 18 & 19

cases in which it has been held that the agent was liable, VICT. c. 126, FOR DIMINISHING. Remarks


case of Norton v. Herron, ib. main object of, ib.

case of Healey v. Storey, ib. review of its provisions, 367, 368

case of Kennedy v. Gouveia, ib. no appeal given by, 368

other cases decided on the same principle, ib. certiorari will lie, ib.

case of Watson v. Murrell, ib. observations on sect. 22; 373

observations on, ib. AGENT, PERSON DESCRIBED AS, IN A CON.

cases in which the agent was held not to be personally

liable, 130 TRACT, WHEN HE MAY SUE AS PRINCIPAL. Review of cases as to, 140

case of Downman v. Williams, ib. two classes of cases, ib.

case of Lewis v. Nicholson, ib.

observations on, ib. distinction between, ib. rule by which the Courts have decided these cases, ib.

AGREEMENT TO TAKE A LEASE, LIABILITY OF case of Schmalz v. Avery, ib.

EXECUTORS UNDER. Review of recent cases as facts of, ib.

to, 499 judgment of the Court in, ib.

remarks upon, ib: case of Rayner v. Grote, 141

conflict of, 500 facts of, ib.

APPOINTMENTS IN 1855:judgment in, ib.

Anstey, C., Esq., Attorney-General for Hong-Kong, 408 grounds of, ib.

Baines, M. T., Esq., Q. C., Chancellor of the Duchy of Bickerton v. Burrell, ib.

Lancaster, 463 proposition laid down in, ib.

Bell, S. S., Esq., Puisne Judge, Cape of Good Hope, 40 facts by which it is supported, ib.

Bigge, A., Esq., Police Magistrate, Brighton, ib. examination of decision in, ib.

Campbell, J., Esq., Q. C., Charity Commissioner, 447 does not conflict with Schmalz v. Avery, ib.

Cloete, H., Esq., Puisne Judge, Cape of Good Hope, 517 observations on Rayner v. Grote, ib.

Colville, Sir J., Chief Justice at Calcutta, 441 doubt expressed in, as to the ground on which Bickerton Ebden, J. W., Esq., Puisne Judge, Cape of Good v. Burrell was decided, ib.

Hope, 40 it seems to be in accordance with the above cases, 142 Emerson, G. H., Esq., Solicitor-General, Newfound. case of Humble v. Hunter, ib.

land, 393 result of the cases, ib.

Fleming, V., Esq., Chief Justice, Van Diemen's Land, 40 on the right of, to set up the jus tertii against his prin- Forster, J., Esq., Secretary to the Commissioners in Lu

-cipal, 164

upon, 367

[ocr errors]

APPOINTMENTS IN 1855–(continued).

BANKERS, FRAUDS BY. Act of the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29,
Heslop, A., Esq., Attorney-General for Jamaica, 492

as to, 439
Jackson, Sir C., Puisne Judge at Calcutta, 441

origin of, ib.
Jefcott, Sir W., Puisne Judge at Bombay, ib.

Little, P. E., Esq., Attorney-General, Newfoundland, 393 OF, AS TO ARRANGEMENTS BY DEED BE-
Lutwidge, R. W. S., Esq., Commissioner in Lunacy, 516 TWEEN A TRADER ND HIS CREDITORS.
Mackenzie, T., Esq., one of the Lords of Session in Scot. Points as to, decided by the case of Larpent v. Bibby,
land, 40

M'Causland, R., Esq., Recorder for Prince of Wales BANKRUPTCY, COSTS IN. New Order of 19th May,
Island, 441

1855, as to, 222
Ritchie, W. J., Esq., Puisne Judge, New Brunswick, 398

schedule, 222-237
Sterling, P. J., Esq., Puisne Judge, Ceylon, 376


remarks upon,

Influence of patronage upon, 75

history of, 461, 462
grounds of success in the practising lawyer, ib.

injury inflicted on him, 463
not much affected by private interests, ib.

evil of there being no remedy for, ib.
general fitness of the judges of the superior courts, ib.
other appointments which are now open to private in. BATES, MR., THE CASE OF. Remarks upon, 485
fluence, ib.

evils of re-opening judicial inquiry on extra-judicial
mode in which they are made, ib.

statements, ib.
gross jobbing by which they are characterised, ib.

allowance to be made in some cases, ib.
disastrous effects of, ib.

instance of this in the above case, ib.
influence of politics in the appointments, 76

facts affecting him, 486
culpability of the perversion of the power of appoint.

summing up of Alderson, B., ib.
ment, ib.

memorial to the Queen on behalf of, ib.

substance of, ib.

position of Mr. Bates as shewn by, ib.

if the allegations are true, he ought to be pardoned, ib.
Points as to, recently decided, 321

BEAMISH v. BEAMISH. Case of, as to the marriage of
case of Larpent v. Bibby, ib.

a clergyman by himself, 455
object of the act, ib.

review of clauses as to, ib.

principal questions which have arisen under, 322

PROVING. Rule of law as to, 437
deed must provide for distribution of the whole property,

exceptions to, ib.

review of cases as to, 437, 438
review of cases on this question, ib.

principles established by, 438
case of deed completed before act came into operation, ib. BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES,
decision in Waugh v. Middleton, ib.

grounds of, ib.

remarks upon, ib.

Proposed changes in, 59
case of deed making the estate distributable only among existing law, ib.
those who should execute it, ib.

delay and expenses occasioned by, ib.
opinions of the judges upon, ib.

consequences of this, ib.
observations on, ib.

measures proposed to remedy them, ib.

scheme proposed by Lord Brougham, ib.

plan suggested by Mr. Keating, ib.

mode of proceeding where parties are not within the
OF THE ASSIZES. Remarks upon, 177

jurisdiction, ib.

advantages peculiar to these plans respectively, 60
not required by law, ib.

reasons for preferring Mr. Keating's plan, ib.
probable origin of, ib.

illustrations of this, ib.
different state of things at the present day, ib.

objections as to the necessity of a change, ib.

statement of them, ib.
EIGHT TIMES A YEAR. Remarks upon, 221

nature of the contract, ib.
object of, ib.

no injustice can accrue to indorsers, ib.
need of the change, ib.

nor to acceptors, ib.
evils of the present system, ib.

unjust claims may still be resisted, ib.
injury to innocent persons, ib.

meeting of bankers and others for the discussion of this
arguments arising from, ib.

subject; observations on, 67
is capable of being abused, ib.

main objections urged at, against the proposed measure,
advantage of the proposed change to the public, ib.

and to prisoners, ib.

leading arguments in support of, ib.
inconvenience of, to juries, ib.

reasons urged by the Debtor and Creditor Law Amend.
not sufficient to outweigh advantages, ib.

ment Society against the proposed Bills of Ex-
increase of labour to judges, ib.

change Bill, 97
number of, may be increased if necessary, ib.

members of the Select Committee of the Commons ap-
nor is it likely to affect the Bar, ib.

pointed on, 178
it will not be without advantage to them, ib.

the act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 67, to facilitate the remedies in,
plan might be modified so as to be more advantageous, ib.

by the prevention of frivolous and vexatious de-
suggestion as to this, ib.

fences to actions thereon, 389
terms would require to be re-adjusted, 222

general effect of, ib.
proposed changes would render the provisions of the procedure under, simple, ib.
Criminal Justice Bill needless, ib.

writ of summons, ib.
AUCTIONEER, HIS RIGHT TO SPECULATE WITH memorandum as to service of, ib.
DEPOSITS. Observations on, 3

indorsement of claim, ib.
supposed opinion as to their practice, ib.

expenses of noting may be recovered under, ib.
mistake as to, ib.

time for payment in order to stay proceedings, ib.
how deposits ought to be applied, 4

notice as to final judgment, ib.
statement of the law on this subject, ib.

leave to appear, how obtained, ib.

« AnteriorContinuar »