185

Events of the Quarter, &c.

LAW AMENDMENT SOCIETY.

Ar the meeting of the Society, held on February 14th, a paper by Mr. Joseph Brown, Q.C., was read "On the Evils of Unlimited Liability of Masters and Railway Companies in case of Accidents, with an Argument for Limited Liability." Mr. Brown took objection to the operation of the law that the penalty fell upon persons who were not morally to blame. A man who had saved 10,000l. might set up a brougham and might be mulcted of his whole fortune by the carelessness of his servant in driving over a merchant making 20007. a year. Under the criminal law the master was only liable either for his own acts or for those done by his orders. He held that the principle of the civil law in the matter was unjust, and therefore impolitic. Even on the ground of policy the liability should at any rate be limited. In the case of employers, it might be enacted that no action should be brought against a master without joining the servant as a co-defendant. Passing on to the question of railway accidents, Mr. Brown thought the companies ought to be entitled to charge on their tickets an insurance for a certain amount, and to promote insurances for larger amounts, and that the damages in cases of injury should be limited to 2007., or perhaps 500 times the amount of the fare paid. This would be a fine sufficiently substantial to insure as much care as the present system called for. He further recommended that the amount of the damages should be assessed by some properly constituted and responsible tribunal, and should have power, if need be, to adjourn a case in order to ascertain if the injury were likely to be permanent. In the discussion which followed several speakers commented on the fact that there was a class who preyed on railway companies through the facilities offered by the law as it stands. An interesting discussion followed the reading of the paper.

At a meeting of the Society, on the 14th March, Baron Pigott in the chair, Mr. Joshua Williams, Q.C., read a paper "On the Real Estates Intestacy Bill." On the conclusion of the paper a discussion of some length took place. Baron Pigott said Mr. Williams's remarks were very comprehensive. He thought Mr. Williams was right in not desiring to interfere with the power of settlement and entail, except in the way of limiting them to two or three lives. With regard to intestacy, the question was, "Is the law at present just?" Public policy was not the consideration, but did the law act justly? He thought it would be more just to subdivide the property. It was well known that many men made nɔ wills; some could not bring themselves to do so; some delayed from day to day, and died at last without having made one; while others were legally or, in fact,

incompetent to sign one. estate, brothers and sisters being left to want. The eldest son was, like many of us, fond of himself. He often fell into bad hands. It was impossible to say that a law providing for an equitable division of the property would be injurious. One of the protective clauses of such a measure should act in preventing too great a subdivision of land. It would not be desirable to have a tenant under a half dozen landlords. There was a provision in Mr. Locke King's Bill giving power to demand an apportionment of the land. If this power were to be unlimited, we might have an embarrassing number of small proprietors who would not be able to work the land properly. He thought that the system of allowing property to descend with a title was very well, but he could not see the advisability of parties_not looking for distant heirs. In such a case what would have been done with the earldom estates in the Shrewsbury case? It would not do to encumber any measure with such provisions, for people would not give up their chances of a succession, however remote. He quite agreed with the paper so far as the alterations in the law of intestacy were concerned, but he thought care should be taken, and that land should not be indefinitely subdivided. He concluded by moving a vote of thanks to Mr. Williams, which was passed, and after a similar vote to the Chairman, the meeting adjourned.

In all such cases the eldest son took the

CONFERENCE ON THE GAME LAWS.

A CONFERENCE of Farmers and Landowners of Warwickshire, Staffordshire, and other districts was held recently at Coventry in connection with the Warwickshire Chamber of Agriculture, and was attended by a large assembly of gentlemen. Mr. G. F. Muntz contended for an abrogation of the more stringent provisions of the present laws, and proposed to provide by legislation for an annual valuation by an independent officer and compensation to the tenant. Mr. Richards advocated the entire sweeping away of the game laws, and moved a resolution to that effect. Mr. P. Wykeham Martin, M.P., gave an outline of a Bill which he intended to introduce in the present session of Parliament for the reform of the game laws. He believed the time was come when rabbits should be dealt with differently from any other game. However bonâ fide the landlords acted, there was always a great soreness about this unfortunate animal. It was possible for landlords to return the tenant the whole of his rent, and yet the latter was not satisfied. Rabbits were a great nuisance to farmers, and they were the great inducement for poachers. He proposed—and he had the support of the leading Conservative members in so doing-to bring in a Bill by which the right to rabbits should be vested in the tenants absolutely, and by which the reservation of rights in favour of the landlord should be illegal. He also proposed that the duty on keeping rabbits should be abolished. He should be happy to have the name of Mr. Hardy to go first on the Bill. He did not propose to interfere with hares, pheasants, or partridges, because the evil in their case was not felt. Partridges were of great use to the farmer in destroy

ing insects. Mr. Newdegate, M.P., sent a telegram regretting inability to attend the meeting. He had considered the proposal of Mr. Muntz for an annual valuation. It would be an arbitrary measure, and would lead to great inconvenience both to tenants and landlords. It would be simpler to declare that the game belonged to the tenant, all agreements to the contrary notwithstanding, but that would be unjust without power to alter the rent. The remedy that seemed possible to him was a specific contract between the landlord and the tenant without the intervention of a third party except by agreement. Mr. Bromley Davenport, M.P., said the great evil seemed to be the excessive preservation of game. But it would be a greater evil if a more stringent trespass law were passed and the game laws abolished. He would oppose legislation to prevent by compulsion special agreements between landlord and tenant. Let something be done by legislation that should have the effect of diminishing ground game, rabbits, and hares. A resolution was ultimately carried urging the exclusion of rabbits and hares from the game laws.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE MAURITIUS.

A SELECT Committee of the Legislative Council on the Constitution of the Supreme Court of this island has just reported. The necessity of reforms in the organisation of the Supreme Court has arisen from causes inherent to the system adopted, and not from a want of integrity in the judges. Having reported at length on the whole subject, the Committee concluded with the following recommendations:

"(1.) That every judge who shall be appointed hereafter be bound to retire on the completion of his sixty-fifth year.

“(2.) That the number of the judges of the Supreme Court be increased from three to four, and that the sittings now held by two judges be held hereafter by three judges.

"(3.) That every judge of the Supreme Court be bound to abstain from sitting when the attorney or advocate retained by either of the parties shall be his relative by blood or marriage in the direct line to all degrees, and in the collateral line to the third degree inclusively.

"(4.) That the master, or a district magistrate, or an advocate chosen by the Governor, be called to complete the Court when, for any cause, the titular judges shall not be able to form a quorum among themselves.

"The Committee are convinced that the reforms which will have for effect to strengthen the organisation of the Court, to protect the judges against unjust suspicions, and to place the members of the Bar on a more regular and equal footing with regard to litigants, will be new guarantees for justice, and will increase its prestige."

One of the Committee dissented from the Report, and a memorial was presented against it by the Bar, and another is proposed to be presented against it to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

THE LATE CHAIRMAN OF THE SURREY SESSIONS.

A FULL attendance of the Surrey Sessions Bar at the Sessions House, Newington, attended on the 7th March, for the purpose of presenting an address to the late chairman, Sir Thomas Tilson, on his retirement from that office.

Mr. Lilley, the leader of the Bar, addressed Sir Thomas in eulogistic terms on his retirement as chairman, and read the resolution which had been passed by the Bar, which was as follows:-"That the members of the Surrey Sessions' Bar desire to express their deep regret at the retirement of Sir Thomas Tilson from the chairmanship of the Sessions, and at the same time to record their high estimation of his public character and private worth, and to assure him that he carries into his honourable retirement the hearty good wishes of all their number."

Sir Thomas Tilson, in reply, stated that this resolution of the Bar was only a continuance of the kindness which, since his first connection with the Sessions, he had always received from the Bar. It was true that he had had a professional experience of thirty-five years before he came there; but that experience having been exclusively confined to civil matters, he had felt a difficulty in accepting the offer of the chairmanship when made to him, but he was assured by his brother magistrates that the Bar of the Sessions was so kind and considerate that in all matters he might rely on their assistance. He had found that to be true to the very letter in the case of every member of it. It was impossible for any magistrate sitting in that place to receive greater kindness than he had experienced from the Bar. They had always acted towards him with the greatest consideration and courtesy; they had always respected the office, if not the man, though they had been good enough to say that the man, too, had earned their respect. Their expression of respect he greatly esteemed, for he believed there was nothing in this country superior to an enlightened and intelligent Bar; he therefore felt this compliment very much indeed. He feared that he had been eulogised far more than he deserved. In addition to the expression of their good opinion he had another source of consolation in his retirement, and that was that he left behind him as chairman one whose ability and courtesy so well fitted him to fill that position.

THE RIGHT HON. EDWARD LITTON, M.C.

"THE death of the Right Hon. Edward Litton," says the Irish Law Times, "is felt by the legal profession as the loss of a personal friend, not merely of an eminent Judge. The remarkable demonstration of respect and affection at his funeral could have been called forth by no judicial ability, however distinguished, without those personal qualities by which Edward Litton was endeared to all who came in contact with him. His unfailing courtesy to all, and the kind encouragement which he used to hold out to the young and hesitating practitioner, will be long and gratefully remembered.

"Edward Litton was born in the year 1788, and had, therefore,

attained the ripe age of eighty-two years. He graduated in Trinity College, Dublin, where he was a distinguished member of the old Historical Society, in which he obtained several medals, and of which he was elected auditor in 1808. In 1811 he was called to the Bar, and rapidly acquired practice. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1830, and was for many years the leader of the Northwest Circuit, from which he retired in 1833, confining himself thenceforward to his Chancery practice. On his retirement from the circuit his brethren presented him with an address and a gold snuffbox, and the attorneys who practised in the circuit, with an address and a handsome piece of plate. Thus early do we find traces of that remarkable and well-deserved personal popularity which followed him to the grave, after a long and active life. His Chancery practice was very extensive, and he is said to have realised the largest income of any Irish lawyer of modern times. His learning was extensive and profound, and his grasp of the principles of the law unerring. In 1837 he was returned to Parliament by the borough of Coleraine, which he continued to represent until, in 1842, he accepted the office of Master in Chancery. This office was so manifestly disproportionate to his professional position, that it was generally supposed to have been offered and accepted merely as a step to higher promotion. Edward Litton, however, remained Master in Chancery until his death. A tardy and inadequate recognition of his professional and political claims was his recent elevation to the rank of Privy Councillor. The gratitude of political parties is generally excited by a sense of favours yet to come, and more noisy and pressing claims had from time to time to be satisfied. Of the manner in which Master Litton discharged the important duties of his office we need not speak at present. A learned, painstaking, and upright judge; an honourable and courteous gentleman, and a warm friend, he has left a name behind him which will not soon be forgotten."

The Incorporated Law Society has passed a resolution, recommending that a subscription be set on foot for the purpose of raising a suitable memorial to his memory.

THE LATE JUDGE PAYNE.

The death of this much respected Judge took place at his house suddenly, on the 29th of March. He was preparing to leave home on his judicial duties, and, feeling ill, was seized with an attack which terminated fatally in a couple of hours. Sir William Bodkin and Mr. Serjeant Cox, each on the event becoming known, spoke from the Bench their regret at the loss the Court and the public had sustained.

Mr. Payne was a gentleman commoner of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford. He was called to the Bar at Lincoln's-inn, in June, 1825, and afterwards migrated to the Middle Temple. He practised as a barrister for a long period, and was subsequently appointed DeputyAssistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions, which position he has held for several years past. He was in his seventy-third year.