THE TEMPLE NEWSPAPER LAW

REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL.

LISTER v. WOOD.-Appeal from Decision of Divisional Court. -Refusing Prohibition to County Court Judge.-No Leave of Divisional Court to Appeal required.-County Courts Act, 1888.Power of County Court Judge to Grant Motion for New Trial, where he dismissed Action without hearing Merits, on Ground of Want of Jurisdiction.-Action was brought for trespass on a moor; defence, right of common. County Court judge at trial held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case, the lands over which, and in respect of which common was claimed, being above annual value of £20. In January last, however, he granted a motion for a new trial, the annual value being in controversy. Defendant applied to Divisional Court (consisting of Manisty, J., and Huddleston, B.) for a prohibition, which they refused to grant. Held (by Fry and Lopes, L.JJ.), that section 128 of the County Courts Act, 1888, had not taken away the general right of appeal from decisions of the Divisional Court, and that leave of the Divisional Court to appeal from its decision as to refusing a prohibition to the County Court judge, was not required, but that the decision of the Divisional Court, refusing a prohibition, was right, for that the County Court judge had jurisdiction to grant the motion for a new trial, notwithstanding he had struck out the case in the first instance without trying it or the ground of want of jurisdiction.

CARDIGAN v. CURZON-HOWE.-Settled Land Act, 1882.-Sale by Tenant for Life.-Costs of Mortgagees of Life Tenant's Interest. Whether to be Paid by Life Tenant or Allowed out of Proceeds. -Incidental to Exercise of Statutory Power.-Discretion of Court. -Tenant for life of certain estates had mortgaged her life interest, and, subsequently, under the Settled Land Act, 1882, sold the estates wherein she had a life interest. Chitty, J., held that the costs of the tenant for life's mortgagees were not "costs, charges, and expenses of, or incidental to, the exercise of any of the powers, or the execution of any of the provisions of that act, and also that if he had a discretion to allow such costs, he should disallow them. Held (by Lord Halsbury, L.C., Cotton and Lindley, L.JJ.), reversing Chitty, J., that the costs of the mortgagees of the tenant for life were incidental to the exercise of the statutory power of sale, but, affirming Chitty, J., that the tenant for life who had encumbered the estate, for her own benefit merely, was not entitled as of right to have such costs paid out of the estate, and that the discretion had been rightly exercised.

IN re BATTEN, ex parte MILNE.-Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887.-Registration of Decd thereunder.-Subsequent Execution of Deed by other Creditors.-Effect of. Whether to Invalidate Registration and so avoid Deed or no.-June 25, 1888, Batten, by deed, conveyed to Milne all his property in trust for his creditors. Batten, Milne, and one creditor, executed it, and on July 2, it was registered pursuant to Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887. Subsequently, other creditors executed it. September 24, petition was presented against Batten. October 13, a receiving order was made against him. Milne appealed againstt his receiving order, but the court (consisting of Cave and Charles, J.J.) held that the provisions as to registration of the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, had not been complied with, inasmuch as the copy registered gave only the signatures of those who had then executed, whereas, subsequently, other creditors executed the deed, that the deed was therefore void, and that Milne had no locus standi. It was admitted that if Milne had a locus standi, the receiving order was bad, for he could then bring to the notice of the Court the fact that the debts due to the petition

ing creditors did not reach the required amount. Held (by Lord Esher, M.R., Fry and Lopes, L.JJ., reversing the decision of Cave and Charles, J.J.), that the deed was rightly registered, and registration not invalidated by reason of the subsequent execution of the dead by other creditors, and that Milne, the trustee, as a party aggrieved, had a locus standi, and the receiving order must therefore be set aside.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

RUDDEMAN & Co. r. SMITH, et al.-Master and Servant.Liability of Master to third Party for Negligent Act of Servant.Act incidental to his Employment.-Omission to turn off water tap in lavatory whereby water overflowed to plaintiffs' damage.-Plaintiffs had offices in same house as defendants but a storey lower. Defendants had a lavatory, key being kept by their foreman. After business ended for the day, shortly after 7 p.m., a clerk went to lavatory and turned on tap but water did not come, and he omitted to turn it off again. When, next morning early, the water was turned on again it overflowed, percolated through the floor into chambers occupied by plaintiffs, and did considerable damage, and plaintiffs brought action against the clerk's employers in the Mayor's Court. The Recorder gave judgment for plaintiffs. Held (by Lord Coleridge, L.C.J., and Hawkins, J.) that the defendants were liable for the consequence of their clerk's negligence, for that the use of the lavatory which was

provided for the use of the clerks was incidental to his employment.

.EDER & Co. v. ATTENBOROUGH & SONS.-Rules Supreme Court.-Practice.—Administering interrogatories.-Liability where several defendants appearing by one solicitor and delivering a joint defence to pay one sum of £5 for all or £5 for each of defendants.Action brought for conversion of jewellery belonging to plaintiffs. Defendants were pawnbrokers by whom the articles in question were said to have been sold or retained, it being alleged the pledgers had no title. Defendants were five in number appearing by the same solicitor and having delivered a joint defence. Plaintiffs administered one set of interrogatories, some of which one and some of which others of the defendants were required to answer. Application was made on behalf of defendants to a Master in Chambers to order the interrogatories to be struck out on the ground that plaintiffs were bound to pay into court not only £5 but £5 for each of the defendants. The Master made the order. Mathew, J., set it aside. Held (by Pollock, B., and Field, J.) that there was no power to order the interrogatories to be struck out, even if the rule required a separate payment of £5 to be made in respect of each defendant, and also that in such a case as the present at any rate the rule did not require separate payment to be made.

BERESFORD HOPE v. LADY SANDHURST.-Local Government Act, 1888, sect. 2.-Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.-Capacity of Woman to be Elected a County Councillor.-Votes Given to her thrown away. Notorious Disqualification. In a recent contested election it was known that the candidate (Lady Sandhurst) was a woman and also that her sex might prove to be a legal disqualification, it being a subject of common public discussion at the time. Held (by Huddleston, B., and Stephen, J.) that a woman cannot be elected as a County Councillor, and also that votes given to her must, in the circumstances, be treated as thrown away, on the ground that the disqualifying fact was notorious, so that the candidate, if otherwise qualified, obtaining next highest number of votes was entitled to the seat.

GUYER v. REGINA.-Having Possession of Game after Ten Days from Expiration of 1 ime for Killing.-Birds Imported from Abroad. -(1 and 2 Wm. IV., c. 32, sect. 4).-Application of.-G., a licensed dealer in game, was summoned before a Metropolitan Police Magistrate for unlawfully having two (Russian) partridges in his pos session after the expiration of ten days from the day after which it became unlawful to take or kill game in England. The birds had been purchased from a dealer in game, who had imported them in a frozen state from Russia. The magistrate convicted G. under sect. 4 of 1 and 2 Wm. IV. c. 32. Held (by Lord Coleridge, L.C.J., and Hawkins, J.; dissentiente, Manisty, J.) that the conviction must be quashed, for that sect. 4 of 1 and 2 Wm. IV., c. 32, must be interpreted by the light of sect. 3, and so read referred only to birds killed in England.

THE BAR MEETING.

AT the meeting of the Bar referred to in our last issue, the ATTORNEY GENERAL, who presided, congratulated the members on attending in such large numbers, because that would ensure that important alterations to be proposed in the rules of the Bar Committee would be well considered. He hoped that the result might be that they might get a larger support in coming years than they had had in the past for the Bar Committee. After acknowleding their indebtedness to the honorary secretary, Mr. S. H. Lofthouse, he referred to matters mentioned in the annual report. Those members of the Bar, he said, who were in the House of Commons would, he was sure, be very glad to know that the Land Transfer Bill had been considered by a Committeo

consisting of Sir Horace Davey, Messrs. Rigby, Channell, Byrne, Kenelm Digby, Dunning, and Wolstenholme, and he was certain that if any further deliberations took place with reference to it, that Committee would be of the greatest assistance to those who desired to get a thoroughly good Land Transfer Bill. He congratulated the Bar Committee upon the alteration to a certain extent in the Circuits. By the desire of the Judges to meet the difficulties of the Circuit question, and by the co-operation of members of the sub-Committee in the past, considerable good had already been done, but it was a subject in respect of which they must not consider that their labours were at an end. He trusted that members of the Common Law Bar who were members of Committee would, as far as they could, keep this matter before their minds, in order that they might get as effective a Circuit system as they possibly could, convenient both to the suitors and to the practitioners. In conclusion, he appealed to members of the Barto subscribe in large numbers, so as to give the Committee the assistance of a salaried officer, and thus enable them properly to dispose of the increasing work which fell on them.

SIR HENRY JAMES, M.P., Q.C., as chairman of the Committee, proposed a number of resolutions for the purpose of effecting alterations in the rules. Mr. Oswald moved several amendments, but, after discussion, the resolutions were agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL proposed a vote of thanks to Messrs.

Yarborough, Anderson, and R. B. Haldane for their services as auditors, and moved their re-election, with the addition of Mr. Kenyon Parker, which was agreed to.

MR. S. Pope, Q.C., rose amid cheers, for it was generally known what was coming, and said: Mr. Attorney-General and gentlemen, I ask leave to propose a vote of thanks to the Attorney-General for presiding over this meeting. It has always ppeared to me to be one of the finest characteristics of the English Bar that, widely differing as we do in opinion, and frequently inevitably brought into personal conflict, we are yet able to preserve the respect and admiration-I may almost say the affectionate regard-we entertain for the leaders of the profession. Of course they are subject to criticism. As an old member of the Northern Circuit, I should be very reluctant to relinquish the right of the junior to criticise the performance of his senior. I daresay everyone of us in times past, and even vet occasionally, feels that if he had the opportunity he could conduct a particular case with much greater dignity and ability than those who are in charge of it. But, at least, we generally are able to dis tinguish in our criticisms between errors of judgment and personal or professional misconduct. Those of us who enjoy the honour of the personal friendship of Sir Richard Webster, know what a good, true, and loyal comrade he is, absolutely incapable of intentional cruelty or of professional disgrace or dishonour. And those to whom he is only the Attorney-General, the acknowledged head of our great profession, may rest well assured that the high traditions and integrity and honour of that profession will never be tarnished in his hands. I am of those who intensely disagree with the Attorney-General's opinions, but I move that we, as members of the Bar, thank him for coming among us to-day as our official and recognised head.

SIR JAMES PARKER DEANE, Q.C., Vicar-General of the Province of Canterbury, said: Gentlemen, I have the greatest pleasure in seconding this motion of a vote of thanks to the Attorney-General. There is probably not a man in this room, or very few in this room, who have known the Attorney-General so long as I have professionally, and to that I may add, with his permission, there are not very many of you who have enjoyed his personal friendship-I say enjoyed his personal friendship-more than I have. From almost his first admission to the Bar I have known him. I believe that the very last brief which it was my good or ill fortune to hold I held under his leadership. In private and in public I have unceasingly and without a murmur of doubt, admired him.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Gentlemen, it has been moved and seconded that a vote of thanks should be given by this meeting to the Attorney-General for having attended and presided on this occasion; those of you who are in favour of the resolution will say "Aye." In reply, there was enthusiastic shout of "Aye," the audience rising and cheering and waving their hats.

an

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said: Mr. Pope, Sir James Deane, and my friends, it would be impossible for me to reply to such a proposition by any discussion of the kind things that have been said of me by my old friends who have proposed and seconded this resolution. I can assure you that among many incidents of my career nothing has ever been so gratifying to me as the reception you have given me to-day. I can at any rate saythis-that not wittingly or with knowledge has the keeping of the reputation of our great profession suffered in my hands. It may be it certainly must be-that I have made mistakes in this and every other position of importance that I have held, but I cannot help repeating that aphorism, which has almost become of world-wide celebrity, quoted by a great man at a great representative meeting a few weeks ago, when he said that the man who did not make mistakes very seldom made anything. My friends, I can only again thank you, and I can assure you from the bottom of my heart that the greatest pleasure I have as long as I am allowed to fulfil this position is-first, to follow the example of the great men who have preceded me; and secondly, or, I will not say secondly, but in addition, to place my services heartily at the disposal of the brethren of my profession.

INSURANCE.

THE Life Assurance Fund of this Scottish Widows Society has nearly attained to the Fund Life Assur- magnificent sum of ten million pounds ance Society. sterling, and the yearly additions thereto are, in themselves, sums that would make no mean fund for a Life Office. The amount added last year was £326,206 or more than £1,000 a day for each working day of the year. The premium income for the year was £804,885, whilst the original amounts assured, that fell in by death, were £417,865, or barely more than one-half of the amount received in premiums alone. Interests and rents amounted to £408,524 or

nearly enough in themselves to pay the pure death claims. The bonus additions, however, to policies entitled to participate amounted to £186,839. The history of the Scottish Widows' Fund for the past 19 years, as comprised in its returns to the Board of Trade in the forms prescribed by the Life Assurance Companies Act of 1870, reveals the facts that the net sum, received in premiums alone, has been sufficient to pay all death claims that have accrued, with bonus additions thereto, and also all endowments that have matured, and yet leave the enormous sum of £1,558,808, which would give for a margin of expense over £82,000 a year. During the whole of this period it has been unnecessary to use the Life Fund, or the accumulations thereon, for the purposes specified, which are the objects for which the Society does business. If the sums paid included only the original amounts assured, there would be an additional margin of from £3,500,000 to £4,000,000 in the 19 years only, out of premium income.

Such a history as this will cause even the thoughtless to think. This Society is now 75 years old, and should be feeling the predicted strain, to which mortality is said to subject an office in after years, yet we find the rate of mortality experience last year is 31 per cent. less than the tabular rate expected, the number of deaths which might have been looked for being 684, while the actual number was only 472, and of these 142 were over 70 years of age.

In the light of such figures and experience as the foregoing, the most pertinent question that presents itself is-To what amount is this enormous sum of £10,000,000 destined to grow, when we find that it has been practically undisturbed for 19 years at least, and between the 56th and 75th years of the life of the company years when one would imagine it would be needed, at least to an extent ? And again :-Who will become the ultimate possessors of this vast and fast accumulating fund?

The Scottish Widows' Fund is an office that all may look up to as an example, for it has been able to do all this without having any peculiar advantages over other offices in the matter of premiums, or, in fact, many other details. True it is mutual in its principles, and vast sums have been saved policy holders that would have been deflected into other channels had it been proprietary; but it stands as a model among British offices in the fact, that though now some years past its three score years and ten, it is as vigorous as it was fifty years ago, in fact much more so. For years

its average new business has fluctuated between a million and a quarter and a million and a half yearly, and its death-rate has, as a rule, been much below expectancy. These facts, taken all in all, are a proof that enormous accumulations are not a necessity to an office that is at all progressive and is honestly managed; and suggest the question that per force will crop up, viz-Could not the premium charge for Life Assurance be materially lessened without invalidating its security?

Assurance

THE Falconer defalcation has stamped Economic Life the Economic with a reputation for looseSociety. ness of management and carelessness in regard to trust funds that it will wear for many a long year, to its sorrow and loss of business. All attempts on the part of the management to "lock the stable after the steed has been stolen" will not restore the confidence of the public in the office. The reputation of a Life Assurance Society is something like a woman's good name. The directors may call in the assistance of chartered accountants, and the auditors may endeavour to whitewash the stain that rests upon the executive of the office, but they will find their task like the task of Sysiphus. In a matter of this sort the public are right to avoid an office where a scandal of this nature has been perpetrated. What guarantee is there given that the evidently blind and confiding management may not be hoodwinked again? Can implicit confidence be placed where such negligence

has existed? Common sense supplies the true answer to these queries. The year 1888 was the closing one of the 13th quinquennial period of this society, and the new business secured should have been greater than that of any previous year. Instead of this we find the directors report the comparatively insignificant sum of £262,890 as the result of the year's work in this particular, yielding a new annual premium income of £7,195. The total new premium income is placed at £11,394. In 1885 the new business amounted to £406,419. Since then it has gradually declined, and the tide is still ebbing. The amount paid out for surrender of policies was within £48 of £12,000, whilst the claims under policies were nearly £20,000 greater than the new business received, in amount. These are not roseate figures by any means, and they are not im proved by the fact that, after allowing 7 per cent. on renewal premiums for management expenses, including income tax, the new business cost within a fractional part of 130 per cent. of the new premium income, notwithstanding that it included nearly £4,000, out of £11,394, of "single premiums and new additional premiums." When this latter fact is considered, this is anything but an economical showing, and will not certainly prove an attractive feature for future proposers. In the Revenue account appears the ugly item, "Defalcations 1884-1887, £3,050, and defalcation 1888, £300." We understand that Mr. Falconer's merry little game was commenced long prior to the earliest of these dates. How much did the gentleman assist himself to altogether, we should like to learn? and where do the other purloined amounts appear? The almost imperative necessity of Governmental audit and supervision is here again shown, and until a system similar to that in vogue in the United States of America since 1859, is adopted here, the great insuring public cannot feel confidence in assurance organisations.

THE 5th annual report of this comThe Straits Infrom the East is before us, and we pany surance Company, Limited. are compelled to say that it does not disclose any features that would lead the insuring public to fly to it for protection. Out of a total income of £70,952, the losses and claims paid amounted to £21,479, charges and expenses were nearly £14,000, a dividend of 5 per cent. used up £4,594, and the balance of £31,084 remained. Out of this the directors recommended the following declarations :

Dols. Second dividend to shareholders of 5 per cent........ 30,000 Addition to reserve........... 30,000 30,000 113,000

A bonus of 10 per cent. to contributors of business......
Leaving for further losses and claims......

203,000

(The dollar currency is stated in sterling at 3s. Od. exchange.) As we have only the directors' report, which does not disclose the nature of the business transacted, we are more or less at a loss how to deal with a showing of this sort, but, under any circumstances, it would appear that the office was as yet in its swaddling clothes, and its backbone, as far as paid up capital and funds are concerned, is rather willowy. It is pretentious, for there is a London office to the concern; but in the hurly-burly of competition that exists in these stirring days, we are afraid it will have to "stay in Jericho till its beard grows," before its piping voice will be heard among the Titans.

THE test case, recently brought by the General Items. Briton Medical and General Life Assurance Association, against Mr. George Howell Jones, of Leicester, for the recovery of a sum of £25, representing the first instalment of a call in respect of certain shares held by the defendant in the plaintiff company, has been decided by Mr. Baron Pollock in favour of the plaintiffs. The decision in this case, being a test one, will be binding upon others, and decides that, notwithstanding certain irregularities

in the appointments or qualifications of the directors, managers, or liquidators, the shareholders will be compelled to pay the amounts for which they are liable in respect of these shares.

That Accident Assurance Companies are not liable for death by poisoning has recently been decided in the case of the action of Cole v. The Accident Assurance Company, Limited, brought by the administratrix of the estate of a deceased policy-holder against the office. Death had been caused by the mistake on the part of the deceased, shortly before his death, in drinking from a bottle containing corrosive sublimate used for horse liniment, he thinking it was a medicine which he was using under treatment. The defence was, that the word "accidental" as within the meaning of the policy did not apply to the death in question, which was brought about through carelessness rather than accident. Judgment was given for the company, on the ground that the clauses of the policy did not contain assurance against death from poison.

The annual meeting of the shareholders of the Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company was held at York, on Tuesday, the 16th inst., when the directors' report and the accounts for the year were presented.

Mr. E. R. Speirs, late London secretary of the Provincial Life, has been appointed to the sub-managership of the chief office for Great Britain of the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, of New York, in the place of Mr. J. Birkmyre Robertson. The latter gentleman retains his connection with the office in a more active capacity in the field, where his great energy and many engaging qualities will no doubt secure much benefit both for the Association and himself.

The Whittington Life has appointed Mr. H. Davis to the district superintendency of its agents, at Newport, Monmouth.

Mr. Lawrence Fulton, who for some years past has been the agency superintendent for the North of England, of the National Provident Institution, has been transferred to a similar position for the same office, in connection with its London district.

Mr. George Will, jun., has been appointed to the position vacated by him, embracing York, Durham, and Northumberland in his district.

Mr. Thomas J. Davidson has been promoted from the position of resident secretary of the London Office of the Queen Insurance Company to the important post of sub-manager of its head office at Liverpool.

The Marine and General Mutual Life Assurance Society has appointed Mr. Charles Withey to the position of district inspector of the Edinburgh Branch.

The district superintendency at Leeds, of the General Accident and Employers' Liability Assurance Association, of Perth, has been filled by the appointment of Mr. W. E. Collinge to the berth.

The Edinburgh Life Assurance Company has appointed Mr. Chas. F. Wood to be its inspector of the Birmingham Branch. He lately filled a similar position at the head office of the Lancashire Insurance Company, Manchester.

ONE of the most interesting matinées of the season will be given by Mr. George Alexander on Wednesday, 15th May, at Terry's Theatre. The play is an English version of Le Filibugtier, one of those delightful little idylls which only Frenchmen like Jean Richepin and Théodore de Bauville know how to write. It is a story of humble life, told with humour, tenderness, and dramatic force-just the kind of story which will enlist the domestic sympathies of an English audience, and at the same time appeal to the most fastidious literary sense. The chief success of the original production at the Théatre Français was M. Got's impersonation of an old man-a type of simple, dignified, and pathetic character unfortunately not common on our stage. For this part Mr. Alexander has engaged Mr. Fernandez. The heroine will be played by Miss Calhoun, who has a great opportunity for her very fresh and truthful method; and the other characters by Mr. Fred Terry, Miss Carlotta Leclercq, and Mr. Alexander. Mr. Jacomb Hood has designed the dresses for this performance. There will be new scenery, and everything will be done to give a complete representation to a charming play.

"To few men under the age of fifty has it been given to attain the success of Mr. Charles Russell, who now stands by general consent at the head of the unofficial Bar. In the full vigour of life, with a large and lucrative practice, it is not to be wondered at that he has refused a judgeship, reserving himself for yet higher honours, or at all events deferring his acceptance of the otium cum dignitate of the Bench. The record of his contests and triumphs is familiar to everyone who reads the reports; and in every case it may fairly be said, whatever an advocate could honourably do for his clients Mr. Russell has done." So spoke PUMP COURT in its first issue-now many years ago. Since that time we have seen him add triumph to triumph, until he has achieved the crowning glory of his career in the masterly conduct of the case for the Parnellite members before the Commission, and in the brilliant address he has just delivered, wherein indeed we saw learning Since that time he made lovely with eloquence. became Attorney-General in Mr. Gladstone's last administration, and during the short time he held that office was universally acknowledged to have borne his honours well. Sir Charles commenced life as an articled clerk to a Dundalk solicitor, but speedily found that the lower branch of the profession of the law would not give him the scope he required for the exercise of his powers and the aims of his ambition. He therefore boldly abandoned the path on which he had entered when his prospects of success were already assured, and commenced, de novo, as a student of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn. In 1859 he was called to the Bar, and connecting himself with the Northern Circuit, soon established his reputation as a sound lawyer, an acute crossexaminer, and a persuasive and eloquent advocate. In Liverpool, especially, his abilities were promply recognised; and in the Court of Passage, as well as at Sessions and Assizes, his briefs were numerous and important. The late Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Justice Brett, and Lord Justice Holker were amongst the men with whom he had to compete, and his reputation steadily grew, both among his professional brethren and with clients, so that his succession to Sir John Holker as leader of the Northern Circuit was acquiesced in by universal consent.

માં.

As a Member of Parliament, since his election for Dundalk, in 1880, up to now, when he represents South Hackney, Sir Charles has won the ear of the House of Commons to a remarkable degree for a lawyer, and, as an Irish Liberal, even when he declined altogether the leadership of Mr. Parnell, he exercised an important influence in the course of Mr. Gladstone's measures of conciliation for Ireland. He has always advocated with earnestness and moderation the cause of his countrymen, and his tact has often gained what the obstructive system of some of his colleagues had almost lost. It must now be written of him that, with his political chief Mr. Gladstone, he has at length unreservedly accepted the leadership of Mr. Parnell. Sir Charles, like all really great men, is always kindly and generous in his treatment of promising juniors, and and is highly popularon his circuit. No man could be found more thoroughly representative of his profession. It is now some fifteen years ago since Sir Charles took silk, but he seems as sprightly now as the first day he was called within the Bar, and, like Mr. Gladstone, age seems only to ripen his intellect without impairing his vigour.

ROYAL PRINCESS'S THEATRE.-The revival of the "Silver King," has drawn immense houses at this theatre the last fortnight, and we are informed that the advance booking for "Claudian" has exceeded the expectations of the management. "Claudian" will be produced on Monday next, April the 29th, with Mr. Wilson Barrett in the title-rôle, supported by most of the members of the original caste. The elaborate scenery painted for the first production will again be used, and an exceptionally large choir specially trained will be a feature of this revival. "Claudian can only be played for a fortnight, including matinées on Wednesday and Saturday afternoons. "Claudian" will close Mr. Wilson Barrett's present engagement at the Princess's Theatre, and be positively his last performance in London prior to his departure for America. We are re

ஜர்

quested to state that no exception whatever can be made to the decision of the management to entirely suspend the free list during these farewell performances of Mr. Wilson Barrett. Mr. Byatt's new melodrama "True Heart" is now in rehearsal, and the production will be worthy of the best traditions of this popular house. Miss Grace Hawthorne will play the heroine, and be supported by a powerful caste, including Messrs. Leonard Boyne, Yorke Stephens, E. W. Garden, Bassett Roe, H. H. Morell, torace Hodges, Mrs. Frank Huntley, Miss Lucy Sibley, and Miss Helen Leyton. Mr. Richard C. Durant is making rapid progress with the scenery, which includes two great sensational effects. The play will be ready for production about the end of May. "Theodora " will probably follow "True Heart" at the Royal Princess's Theatre.

IS THE TAXING MASTER A FAILURE?

FOR all the information that it affords to the average lay mind, a modern bill of costs might as well be written in the language of the ancient Hittites. The miserable recipient finds himself charged for instructions which he has never given, for advice which he does not know that he has received, and for "copies to keep" which have not been kept. The one part of the document which he finds perfectly to be understanded by him is the total, and the amount of this, in most cases, so far exceeds his wildest fears that he flings aside all philosophic suspense of judgment, and hastily pronounces the whole thing to be "a d-d swindle." If he is a wise man, he will then hasten to abase himself before the man of law, who will generally (for solicitors are seldom unreasonable in this respect) let him off with a much smaller payment than that for which he was at first asked.

If, however, he is one of those who let the sun go down upon their wrath, he will probably insist upon having the bill taxed. If he does, woe to his father's son! He will have great difficulty in appearing by champion, for solicitors (for very obvious reasons) dislike taxing each others' bills, and he will of course have to pay his champion's charges in any event. As few people care to throw the helve after the hatchet in this fashion, we assume that the wrathful one decides to tax in person. After months of waiting, when his recollection of the facts has naturally become somewhat misty, he is admitted into the presence of the taxing master. If the matter is a Chancery one, this official is a successful solicitor, who has managed to amass a sufficient fortune by the very system on which he is now expected to act as a check. If the cause of dispute arose out of Common Law proceedings, he turns out to be a barrister whose practice while at the bar certainly did not include the preparation or investigation of bills of costs. By whichever side of the profession he has climbed to eminence, he has generally about 20 minutes to devote to a case, the thorough understanding of which would demand at least a week's patient study. He is, therefore, but little disposed to listen to the client's confused, though impassioned statement of his wrongs. The solicitor on the other hand has, from his youth, been trained to speak with taxing masters in the gate. He knows their foibles, their mode of working, and their hatred of interruption and argument. He knows, too, that the bill through which the taxing master is now wading, striking out an item here, and marking for verification a payment there, has been prepared with an eye to this very process, and that he must have been either very careless or very inexperienced if anything like the fatal sixth can be subtracted from what are facetiously called his "profit charges." Hence at the end of the audience, when the litigant is pushed out of the room to make way for those engaged in the new case, he generally finds that he has succeeded in recapturing from his former ally, but present foe, a very small part of the spoil. And then, when he believes that fate has exhausted her quiver, she pierces him with her sharpest arrow! He learns that as the law has not adjudged his late adviser to disgorge as much as a sixth of the booty, he, the already plundered and tormented client, must pay not only for the copy of the bill on which the taxing master has just operated, not only for the tax that a wise legislature has laid upon taxations (breaking the bruised reed with a vengeance), but also for the time that the persecutor has expended in defending his ill-gotten gains! Can we wonder that he goes down to his house breathing vows of impotent vengeance, and declaring that in future he will submit meekly to any injustice rather than again trust himself to the mercies of the law.

If now we dissect the bill of costs that has caused all this pother, we shall notice that there are some charges which the taxing master has passed as a matter of course,

or the amount of which he has rectified without protest from the solicitor whose bill is under taxation. Such are (in the case of an action or other "contentious" proceeding) the instructions to sue and defend, the charges for issuing writs and summonses, the service of notices and other documents, and the invariable" sittings fee" which is supposed to cover the cost of postage and the like. The amount to be charged for each of these items has long ago been decided by Rules of Court, and if any overcharge has been made in any of them, it has certainly been by mistake. These formal charges, however, form but a very small part of any bill of costs, and probably would not afford a decent living to the clerks employed in the conduct of the action out of which they arise. Of the remaining items in the bill, some consist of the numerous payments made out of pocket in the course of the action to counsel and others, and also for court and witnesses' fees. On some, though not on all of these payments, is charged a commission so extraordinary as to afford some ground for the old slander that, when a lawyer puts his hand into his own pocket instead of his client's, he expects to be paid handsomely for his trouble. Thus in London almost invariably, and in the country pretty generally, all the longer documents required to be copied for the use of the court and of counsel are sent to a law stationer. For this the stationer receives 1d. or 13d. for each folio of 72 words. Yet the solicitor is allowed by the taxing master to receive 4d. a folio, or a commission of 300 per cent for paying the stationer's bill, and the same practice is followed with regard to the printing of documents. Again, to draw a cheque for a large amount would seem to demand no greater expenditure of time on the solicitor's part than is required for a small one; yet we find that there is in existence a regular sliding scale by which a solicitor who "attends counsel with papers" on which 5 guineas is marked gets only 6s. 8d. from his client, while his luckier professional brother, who is charged with the delivery of a brief on which 40 guineas appear, receives 2 guineas for exactly similiar services. In all these cases the taxing master has really no judicial function at all. If the folios are correctly counted, and the fees to counsel have been really paid, he is bound to allow the items without further question. There then remain to be dealt with the costs of drawing the different documents required for the purposes of the action, such as briefs and affidavits. These are paid for strictly according to their length, 1s. a folio being charged in all cases, with a further sum under the head of "instructions" if they are very important or intricate. With regard to these last, the taxing master has a discretion, although from the pressure on his time it can seldom be exercised with much judgment. If, however, he thinks that any of the documents so drawn are unnecessarily prolix, he can (and sometimes does), in addition to docking the amount allowed for "instructions," insist on a smaller number of folios being reckoned than that actually earned. Under these circumstances a brief of 100 folios is sometimes reduced to 50, but as, in order to determine what is and what is not unnecessary prolixity, a prolonged study of the whole case would have to be made, it cannot be said that exact justice is always done in this particular to the client or even to the solicitor. Finally, there remain to be dealt with the communications between the solicitors on both sides, and also between the client and the solicitor, whose bill is in dispute. In all these items the taxing master's discretion is absolute, but as he can neither, in the time at his disposal, read all the letters that have passed, nor consider in detail the necessity of the interviews that have taken place between the several parties, he generally compounds for them by allowing letters and attendances to an amount which, in the phraseology of the taxing-office, the case will "stand.”

We have hitherto considered the case of a bill in an action where the costs are paid by a client to his own solicitor. When an unsuccessful litigant has to pay that of his successful rival, a further anomaly appears. In this latter case, certain of the costs, such as those attending the employment of extra counsel and the