HAWKINS V. BENTON and another. 2 Dowl. & Lowndes, 465.

Practice at Common Law.

Personal Service of Rule directing Payment of
Money awarded.

The statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. s. 18. enacts, that "all rules of Courts of Common Law, whereby any sum of money, or any costs, charges, or expenses shall be payable, &c. shall have the effect of judgments." To enable parties to issue execution on a rule of Court for payment of money due on an award, and avoid the inconvenient procedure by attachment, the Courts under this statute, have established the practice of calling upon the party liable to pay, to show cause why he should not pay the sum awarded and specified in the rule. The occasional difficulty of effecting personal service of the award and master's allocatur, before applying for the rule, has, however, suggested a consideration of the question, whether personal service might not in some cases be dispensed with? In the above case, Pattison J. stated the practice to be, that in cases of this kind the same formalities should in general be observed as in cases of motions for attachments, but that, under special circumstances, such strictness might be dispensed with; and where it clearly appeared from the admission of the party, that he was aware of the award and its contents, the learned judge granted a rule to shew cause why he should not pay the sum awarded, although there had not been a personal service.

LIST OF CASES.

Alexander v. Anderdon, 233,
Anderdon v. Alexander, 233.
Armani v. Castrique, 231.
Attenborough v. Penell, 220.
Attorney-General v. Fitzgerald, 216.
Attorney-General v. Gladstone, 216.
Attorney-General v. Thompson, 212.
Benton and Another v. Hawkins, 235.
Boorman v. Brown, 223.

Breeze v. Jerdein, Beaumont, and
Bradley, 234.

Brooks v. Fitzball, 221.
Brown v. Boorman, 223.
Castrique v. Armani, 231.
Clay v. Pritt, 208.

Commissioners of Charitable Donations

and Bequests in Ireland v. Devereux, 212.

Cooke v. Crawford, 217.

Courtenay v. Williams, 221.

Coward v. Sanders, 232.

Craig v. Miller, 208.

Devereux v. Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland, 212.

Dibdin v. Winter, 227.

Doe v. Steele, 217.

Dunford and Others v. Trattles, 230.
Fitzball v. Brooks, 221.

Fitzgerald v. Attorney-General, 216.
Gibbins v. Torrence, 230.

Gladstone v. Attorney-General, 216.
The Grand Junction Railway Com-
pany v. Regina, 224.

Hall v. Palmer, 207.

In Re Henry Lloyd Harris, 229.
Hawkins v. Benton and Another, 235.
Henniker v. Wigg, 219.
Hodgson v. Warden, 232.
Holgate v. Nelthorpe, 210.

Jerdein, Beaumont, and Bradley, v.
Breeze, 234.

The London and South Western Rail-
way Company v. Regina, 224.

LIST OF CASES

Note, Promissory. Notice of dishonour Relief, summary, in Equity, 228. 233.

of dishonour of promissory Royal Marriage Act, 204.

excuse for want of profert, Trust Estate. Devise, 217.

238

POSTSCRIPT.

Since our last number, a commission has been appointed for inquiring into the expediency of altering the circuits of the Judges in England and Wales. It appoints Sir James Parke, Sir Edward Hall Alderson, Sir John Taylor Coleridge, James Stuart Wortley, Fitzroy Kelly, William Whateley, John Greenwood, Sir William Heathcote, Edmund Denison, and Thomas Grimston Bucknall Estcourt, or any five or more of them, to be "commissioners for inquiring and considering whether it would be expedient, with a view to the more convenient and better administration of justice, that any and what alterations should be made in the division of England and Wales into circuits for judicial business, and in the periods for holding such circuits, and whether it would be necessary or proper that any change should be made in the law terms for the purpose of such alterations, and also for considering in what manner such alterations may be best effected."

A commission has also passed the Great Seal, revoking the former Criminal Law Commission, and appointing the Right Honourable Sir Edward Ryan, Kt., Thomas Starkie, Robert Vaughan Richards, Henry Bellenden Ker, and Andrew Amos, Esquires, to be Her Majesty's Commissioners on Criminal Law; and appointing James John Lonsdale, Esq., Barrister-at-law, to be Secretary to the Commission.

We understand the objects of the commission are the completion by Messrs. Starkie and Ker of the report on procedure upon which they were engaged at the time of revoking the former commission the revision by all the Commissioners of the Digest of Crimes and Punishments, prepared by the old commissioners; and the reporting respecting such statutes relating to criminal matters, as in the opinion of the Commissioners ought to be repealed.

The Society for Promoting the Amendment of the Law is proceeding very satisfactorily. We anticipate great advantages from its labours. It affords the means of applying to the science of the law that mode of investigation which has been found so useful in every other science, and to which, it appears to us, the law should form no exception. The examination of subjects connected with law amendment, first by a committee which makes a report to the general body; the discussion of that subject first by the committee, and then by the general body; the printing these reports,

and their diffusion in the shape of the Transactions of the Society, must be attended with benefit. In some respects the Society is better than any commission, and it is certainly better than any parliamentary committee, where witness after witness is called in and examined separately, no attempt being made to bring these witnesses together, and in this way arrive at the truth. These two modes which have hitherto formed the sole basis of legislation, are, in our opinion, both inferior to the plan proposed by the Society of having subjects discussed by all branches of the profession, assisted by other persons not in the profession. We are glad, therefore, to find that many competent persons are taking an interest in the Society, and that it has already made much progress in many subjects which have engaged its attention. It is right, while we say this, and express our hearty wishes for the welfare of the Society, and belief in its usefulness, to mention that this Review is not its organ, and has in fact no connection with it, other than having on many points common objects in view.

The Transfer of Property Act of last session is in abeyance. It remains a dead letter. The first day of the present session, as we anticipated in our last number, brought the promise of an Amendment Act. This we understand will amend it altogether by the repeal of the whole: some portion from the date of the repealing Act; and the rest of it from the time when it came into operation (the 1st January last). It is no easy subject to legislate on, but many and significant symptoms from various quarters, convince us that no small measure of amendment on this subject will do. Public and professional expectation is beginning to be roused, the common assurances of the country must not be the subject of a series of small (although perhaps useful) experiments; the whole question should be committed to proper persons, the task left unfinished on the termination of the Real Property Commission must be performed, the various plans of reform now before the profession should be investigated, and it should either be pronounced from authority that no alteration is ne cessary or possible, or a complete and thorough reform should be made. Nothing less than this will or should satisfy the pro

1 We hope this may extend to the second section, which has certainly puzzled the conveyancers most effectually; and if it is allowed to stand, will puzzle them while parchment endures. No one can tell what the deed is to be called which takes operation under it. A familiar passage in Macbeth has been thus applied : - How now, you secret, black, and midnight hags! What

"Lord Chancellor.

is it you do?

"All (conveyancers). A deed without a NAME."

The second clause, coupled with the inexplicable thirteenth, sealed the fate