Visits to the Old Lawyers.-Attorneys' Admissions. VISITS TO THE OLD LAWYERS. LORD KENYON. 7 posed upon the sheriff, to provide for the payment of the rent before selling the goods, and the consequent necessity of his ascertaining whether the claim for rent is well founded. Instead of that duty by the 118th section, he is MR. KENYON served a diligent clerkship entitled to call upon the court to adjudicate as with Mr. Tomkinson, a solicitor of good practo the validity of the claim made (inter alia) tice at Nantwich, in Cheshire. His services by any landlord for rent upon goods seized in were much approved of, and his master wished execution, or their proceeds. It, therefore, to engage him as a partner, but they could not appears to me that this is the proper course for him to take in all cases where there is not sufficient property to satisfy both demands; and that this provision is expressly intended to give the landlord an opportunity of establishing the claim on which he founds his right to priority, and would be perfectly nugatory if, upon establishing it, he had no such priority. If he had none, the execution creditor's right could not be affected by the validity of a claim for rent which would only be a debt of an inferior grade to his own; as I think it could hardly be intended that the landlord should have this opportunity of proving that the goods were the property of a third person, and not the tenant, and, therefore, not liable to be taken in execu tion for the tenant's debts. "An argument in favour of the prior right of the execution creditor was founded on the latter part of the 107th section, which directs, in case of replevin being made, that so much only of the goods shall be sold as shall satisfy the execution and costs of sale. But it must be remembered that in replevin the landlord has security for his rent in the sureties to the bond, and therefore has no object in retarding unnecessarily the sale of the goods until after the determination of the suit in replevin. For these reasons, therefore, my judgment will be in favour of the claim of the landlord, but, in consideration of the difference of opinion upon the subject, the costs will be divided be tween him and the execution creditor.” [From the Sherborne, Doncaster, and Taunton Journal.] agree on the terms. The clerks of that day did not select what is now called the better part of practice, leaving all drudgery to others; but one of their accomplishments was, to write a and they were not allowed to leave the engross good hand and engross papers, wills, and deeds, ing as being wholly unworthy of an articled the engrossing of a well-drawn will or deed would amply repay them with the information it contained, and the manner in which the facts are stated and in which the object of the deed is expressed. clerk's attention. Clerks do not know that Time rolled on,-Mr. Tomkinson's clerk beCounsel, Master of the Rolls, and Chief Justice came successively and deservedly, Queen's of England. While Lord Kenyon, as Chief Justice, was sitting at Nisi Prius, engaged in the bustle and hurry of a cause, Mr. Tomkinson, then an old man, was called as a witness to prove a deed. Lord Kenyon did not know it was his old master. The deed was proved, and Lord Kenyon requested the old gentleman to read read the deed with some hesitation. the deed; he was confused and flurried, and Lord Kenyon told the witness that if he could not read it for him, which he did in a very fluent read the deed, he, the Chief Justice, would way. The old master was ruffled, sat down, and whispered to a friend who sat next him, HE may well read it, for he engrossed it himself, while he was in my office!" 66 Templeman, John Marsh, jun., Crewkerne To whom Articled, Assigned, &c. James Sparke, Bury Saint Edmund's Richard John Bridges, Bristol Robert Henry Baines, Verulam Buildings Hen. A. de Medina, Thavies' Inn John Birks, Hemingfield John M. Templeman, sen., Crewkerne Square; Norwich; and Beyton Lodge. Jonas Walpole, Northwold. 8 Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor. RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, Lord Chancellor. Service of notice of an order for rehearing the the docquet for inrolment had been signed, and that the plaintiff had received notice of it. Nov. 3. The Lord Chancellor, after referring to the case of Robinson v. New dick, and dis tinguishing it from the present, remarked, that the cases and practice had been reviewed by him in Dearman v. Wych, (suprà,) where he had laid down a principle from which he was not now inclined to depart. He thought there was no foundation for the present motion, and that it must be dismissed with costs. Fisher v. Fisher. May 22, 1847. EVIDENCE OF INSOLVENT PLAINTIFF. A plaintiff who has become insolvent during the suit cannot be examined by his assignees as a witness in their bill of revivor and supplement in the cause. THIS was an appeal from Vice-Chanceller Wigram, and the case is reported in the last volume of the Leg. Ob., p. 597, where his Honoar's judgment will be found at length. Mr. J. Russell and Mr. Sidney Smith ap of the motion. In addition to the cases mentioned in the above report, (suprà,) they referred to Goss v. Tracy, 1 P. Wms. 287, and Haws v. Hand. 2 Atk. 615. Mr. Rolt, with whom was Mr. Terrell, made the present motion, which was in the nature of an original application, for vacating, under the following circumstances, the inrolment of the decree pronounced in this cause by the ViceChancellor of England. On the 7th of July last, the decree was left with the Chancellor's secretary, for his lordship's fiat for its inrolment. A caveat having been previously entered, the fiat was suspended for 28 days, viz., until the 5th of August following. Notice of the defendant's intention to appeal had also been given to the plaintiff's solicitor. On the 2nd of August, a petition of appeal was presented by the defendant, and the fiat for rehear-peared for the plaintiffs, and argued in support ing affixed on the same day. The petition was answered by his lordship's secretary on the 3rd, and the order to set down the appeal for rehearing was left with the registrar on the 4th, the common undertaking given for payment of the costs, and the usual sum of 201. deposited. As this order could not be passed and entered before the next day, the defendant, between 9 and 10 o'clock on the following morning, gave notice to the plaintiff, that the order for rehearing had been obtained, and that it would be duly served as soon as it could be passed and entered. About 11 o'clock on the same morning, his lordship affixed his signature to the docquet of inrolment, and between 12 and 1 o'clock on the same day, the order for rehearing having been duly passed and entered, was served upon the plaintiff's solicitor. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the inrolment would be vacated; and they referred to Robinson v. Newdick, 3 Mer. 13. Mr. James Parker opposed the motion, and urged that not only must the petition for rehearing be presented and answered, but the order for rehearing must also be passed, entered and served, and that service of notice that such order had been obtained was not sufficient. Dearman v. Wych, 4 Myl. & Cr. 550; Stevens v. Guppy, there referred to; Barnes v. Wilson, 1 Russ. & Myl. 486. Mr. Amphlett, on the same side, cited Wardle v. Carter, 1 Myl. & Cr. 283. Mr. Rolt, in reply, contended that the order for rehearing had been actually made before The Lord Chancellor, without hearing Mr. Bagshawe, who opposed the motion, said, that the only point for consideration was the practice of the court, which was founded upon the plaintiff being still a party to the record, and not because he was objectionable on the ground of interest. No cases had been produced in which a co-plaintiff had been permitted to be examined by and for a co-plaintiff. There were several cases against it. Lord Denman's Act, (6 & 7 Vict. c. 85,) had nothing whatever to do with it. The practice that no party to the record could give evidence had been settled ever since 1785, when it was held to be so in a case of bankruptcy which would be more favourable than in the present case of insolvency. In the case alluded to, (Hewatson v. Tookey, 2 Dick, 799,) Lord Kenyon, when Master of the Rolls, had, in the first instance, allowed a motion for such an examination, upon the authority of a case of Troughton v. Getley; but from the report of the case by Mr. Dickens before Lord Thurlow, it appeared that his lordship reprobated the decision, as all rule and principle were against it. Many cases in Dickens were open to objection, but in many he investigated the practice, and reported it to the court, and these cases have always been considered very valuable. This was one of them. In Ewer v. Atkinson, 2 Cox, 293, and which occurred nine years afterwards, Lord Review: Morris's Practice Digest.-Vacancy in the Taxing Master of Chancery's Office. 5 the commissioner. According to this con- adopted, when generally understood by the struction, as we comprehend it, the costs profession, will be duly appreciated, and incurred by a plaintiff between final judg-that future digests will be compiled on a ment and default in payment under an similar footing. order, which, of course, include the costs We are gratified that the arrangement of the application for an order for payment, adopted in the Legal Observer has thus cannot be enforced against the debtor in far been approved by the learned compiler any event. By the defective state of the of the present work, which comprehends law, these costs are thrown, not upon the the Practice of the Common Law Courts, contumacious debtor, but upon the diligent and takes in sufficient of the decisions past creditor, a result the injustice of which on that subject to form a very useful book does not require to be enlarged upon. of reference in the office of the practitioner. The subjects comprehended in the volume. are arranged in alphabetical order as follow : NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. dation of Actions. Costs. Declaration. Demurrer. Discontinuance. Distringas. Ejectment. Error. Execution. Inferior Courts. Inspection of Documents. Interpleader. IrTrial. Nisi Prius. Nolle Prosequi. Non Pros. regularity. Judgment. Jury. Motions. New Nonsuit. Notice of Action, of Trial, and to Produce. Nul tiel Record. Office Copies. An Analytical Digest of Selected Practice Abatement of Suit. Admission of DocuCases, decided in the Common Lawments. Affidavit. Amendment. Appearance. Courts, to Trinity Term, 1847; arranged Arbitration. Arrest. Attachment. Attorney. under the several Heads of Practice, for Award. Bail. Bill of Exceptions. Certificate. the Facility of Reference. By RICHARD Cognovit. Computation of Time. ConsoliMORRIS, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. London: Stevens and Norton. 1847. Pp. 381, lxxxiii. OUR readers are aware that "The Analytical Digest of Cases Reported in all the Courts," which had been for many years published separately, was two years ago in- Order of Judge. Outlawry. Oyer. Particu corporated into the Legal Observer, upon lars of Demand. Pauper. Pleading. Prisoner. a plan which appeared to be not only de- Prochein Amy. Recognizance. Record. Rules. sirable for the purpose of convenient sub- Sheriff. Setting aside or Staying Proceedings. division, but affording to the reader the Venue. Verdict. Warrant of Attorney. WitSpecial Case. Taxation. Term's Notice. means of easy reference; each section ness. Writ. Writ of Trial. comprising one entire subject, viz.,-1. Principles. 2. Pleading. 3. Practice. 4. Evidence, &c. This plan appears to have struck Mr. Morris, the present author, as a useful one, for he states that VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF TAXING MASTER IN CHANCERY. GEORGE GATTY, Esq., one of the Taxing Masters in the Court of Chancery, hav"The design of the present Digest has been, ing resigned his office, a vacancy has octo furnish a selection of cases connected with curred, which it is in the gift of the Lord the practice of the common law courts, with Chancellor to fill up by the appointment of a special view to an immediate and easy re- a solicitor of 12 years standing. The salary, ference; and, in that particular, to obviate an inconvenience incidental to the arrangement of it will be recollected, is 2,000l. a year. the several existing Digests, which embrace The Suitors' Fee Fund, which is charged with practice legal details generally. With with Mr. Gatty's compensation, will suffer respect to the classified arrangement of the by this resignation to the extent of about subject-matter, coupled with the Analytical 2001. a year only. It was erroneously Index, the compiler is led to hope the work supposed by some persons that the whole will be found to answer the purpose contemplated." We have no doubt the arrangement here salary was deducted from the compensation, but the difference will be of small amount to the fund, though large to the late Master. He will receive 5,424/. 14s. 4d. a year, instead of 7,2327. 19s. 1d., accord • We are thus enabled to place before the practitioner all the cases, within a certain period, upon any topic of his investigation, ing to the Order of 6th Dec. 1843.d with references to the authorities cited in the This is one of the the few appointments, judgments. The student, also, instead of a both honourable and lucrative, to which miscellaneous collection of decisions on all solicitors are eligible. sorts of subjects, is presented with a consecutive and readable article. d See 27 L. O. 134. 6 Rumoured Resignation of Ld. Denman.—Court of Review.-Yeovil Small Debt Court. RUMOURED RESIGNATION OF LORD DENMAN. that the rent was due, but it was contended that the 107th section of the act has deprived landlords of all the privileges conferred upon them by the 8th of Anne, c. 14, s. 1, and several decisions of other County Courts were cited, in which the rulings of the learned Judges appear to be directly at variance. I "In deference to these conflicting opinions, thought it right to take time to consider this case, and the result of my consideration is to confirm my opinion that the landlord is not by the latter act deprived of his priority over the execution creditor. IT was currently reported in Westminster Hall, on the first day of Term, that the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, having presided in that court for a period of fifteen years, had intimated some disposition to retire, and that his successor would probably be Lord Campbell. We have been unable to trace the rumour to any sufficient authority, and believe that its confirmation would be received with regret by the pro-for the more easy and effectual recovery of fession as well as the public. BUSINESS OF THE COURT OF 66 The statute of Anne, entitled 'An Act for the better Security of Rents, and to prevent Frauds committed by Tenants,' in providing rents,' enacts, that no goods or chattels whatsoever shall be liable to be taken by virtue of any execution, or any pretence whatsoever, unless the party at whose suit the execution is sued out, shall, before the removal of such goods from off the premises by virtue of such We understand that the appointment rent due at the time of taking the goods and execution, pay the landlord of the premises the of Vice-Chancellor Wigram as judge in mat-chattels by virtue of such execution-not exters of Bankruptcy, as stated in a late num-ceeding one year's rent. ber, (34 L. O. 579,) was made in reference "The 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 107, enacts, that to his position as Vacation Judge in Equity, so much of the statute of Anne as relates to the as a temporary arrangement, to prevent liabilities of goods taken by virtue of any exeinconvenience, and not with any intention cution, shall not be deemed to apply to goods of transferring to him the business formerly court holden under this act. taken in execution under the process of any transacted in the Court of Review. That "The question, therefore, to be considered is, Court, as our readers are aware, was what was the liability created by that statute; abolished by the recent statute, 10 & 11 and it appears to me that the difficulty in these Vict. c. 102, but the jurisdiction will con- cases has arisen from the use of the word tinue to be exercised, as before the pass-liability; and that non-liability' or 'exemping of the act, by Vice-Chancellor Knight tion from liability,' would have more clearly Bruce. The misapprehension which ex-intention of the legislature in the County expressed what I apprehend to have been the isted in the profession on this matter was adverted to by Vice-Chancellor Wigram, on the first day of Term, and its origin explained. YEOVIL SMALL DEBTS COURT. Courts' Act, viz., that the liability of such goods was an exemption from liability to be taken in execution until after the execution creditor should have paid a year's rent to the landlord; and as it was probably considered that the continuation of such an enactment would be unjust to creditors, and productive of great fraud in cases of small debtors, whose [Before E. M. Carrow, Esq., Judge.] rents could often be received monthly or even weekly, the section goes on to enact under what Andrews v. Hammond. Oct. 23, 1847. limitations the landlord's rights, conferred by THIS was a case under the Interpleader Act, the statute of Anne, shall be protected—not, as in which the landlord of a house claimed it appears to me, with a view of taking away priority over the goods of his tenant, (William Nettleton, of Marston,) which goods had been seized under an execution issued by this court. In this case his Honour delivered judgment in the following terms :— "This was an application made by the high bailiff, under the 118 sec. of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, in consequence of a claim for a year's rent, made by the landlord of the house occupied by the defendant, in respect of certain goods therein taken in execution, under a judgment of this court, for 201. and costs. "At the hearing of the interpleader summons it was not disputed by the execution creditor the priority given by that statute, or repealing the statute, but only of removing the obstacles in the way of an early sale of the goods. "For this purpose it enacts that the landlord shall deliver to the bailiff a claim for the rent in arrear, not exceeding four weeks in weekly lettings, or two terms in other cases, so as not to exceed in any case one year's rent; and if such claim be made, the bailiff is to distrain both for the amount of the execution and for the rent, and, after five days, may sell the goods. "It will be observed that this act takes away from the bailiff the obligation, previously im === Practice at the Old Bailey Bar. made by him to the police constable who would have discharged himself from the took him into custody, and the confirmatory imputation of being concerned in the fact, that upon going to the prisoner's robbery, and at the same time demolished house, some small gravel stones were found the alleged defence. The counsel for the on the window sill, as if they had been prosecution advisedly declines putting a thrown at the window. It was also stated, witness into the box under such circumthat Roadnight had previously been an ob- stances. Is not this a legitimate topic for ject of some suspicion, and that he was in observation on the part of the prisoner's the court or its vicinity during the trial. counsel? But the observation would have Under these circumstances, Mr. Ballantine, lost half its force if the witness had not in his address to the jury, commented been present. The prisoner's advisers had strongly on the fact, that although Road- taken the precaution of enforcing the atnight was in court, and might have been tendance of Roadnight, before his counsel called to contradict the prisoner's state- challenged those who conducted the prosement, the counsel for the prosecution did cution to place him in the box. Had this not think fit to put him in the box, from been formally announced, we cannot conwhich the jury were asked to infer that the ceive that it would have told unfavourably prisoner's statement was well founded, and for the prisoner. It would have demonthat he acted as the servant of Roadnight, strated that the prisoner was not afraid of and without any guilty knowledge that the production of a witness whose testithe lambs were not his property. The mony, if credible, might falsify the stateRecorder, who presided, adopted the ment on which his defence rested. To enlearned counsel's suggestion, that Road- title his counsel, however, to announce the night ought to have been examined for the fact that the prisoner's solicitor had subprosecution, and the jury, probably in- poenaed Roadnight, he must be prepared fluenced very much by this circumstance, with evidence to support the assertion, and acquitted the prisoner. It afterwards the production of such evidence would have turned out that Roadnight attended the laid his client open to the disadvantage of trial in pursuance of a subpoena served on a reply from the prosecuting counsel. Mr. him by the solicitor for the prisoner, and Ballantine, judiciously, as we conceive, when this fact was disclosed, the Recorder omitted to state by whom Roadnight was appears to have felt that in summing up subpoenaed. For this he is charged with he had attached undue weight to the fact something unworthy-with a trick and a that Roadnight was not called for the prosecution, and he complained that an advantage had been taken of the jury, and that the court was deceived by the prisoner's counsel. 3 deception. We are at a loss to see in what the deception consisted. He mis-stated nothing. He referred to the corporal presence of Roadnight, and asked why is he not called for the prosecution? Whether Now, with every inclination to defer to the Crown Office subpoena was put into the learned Recorder, we must be per- Roadnight's hand by the solicitor for the mitted to express our doubts whether the prisoner, or the solicitor for the crown, was judicial rebuke which he administered, immaterial, and afforded no reply to the and which has been made a text for question put by the prisoner's counsel. many severe remarks, was justly merited. The head and front of Mr. Ballantine's Whether Roadnight was subpoenaed at the offending appears to be, that he omitted instance of the prosecutor, or by the dili- formally to state an unimportant fact, gence of the prisoner's solicitor, can make which, if it had any effect, tended favourno material difference in the merits of the ably to his client. Surely he was not He was in attendance, and might bound to do so. Let us add, that whilst it have been called upon by either party. is most desirable that the members of the The question was, which party ought fairly bar should conduct themselves with unito have been expected to examine Road- form deference and respect to those placed. night as a witness? The prisoner made a in judicial authority, and scrupulously adstatement, which, if correct, was consistent here in all their statements to the truth, it with innocence, and Roadnight might have behoves the bench to be most guarded and affirmed or contradicted the prisoner's cautious in reflecting on the motives and statement. To have affirmed the prisoner's conduct of those practising before them. statement, however, Roadnight must have A censure pronounced under such circumadmitted that he had committed a felony, stances carries with it the weight of the whilst in contradicting the statement he judge's station superadded to the opinion case. |