Renewed Notices of Admission on the last Day of Hilary Term, 1855, of Persons who gave Notice of Admission for Michaelmas Term, 1854, pursuant to the Rule of Court Hilary Term, 1853. Alder, William, Herbert Street, Hoxton; and Coode, Frederick, 20, Chadwell Street, Myddleton Square Cowburn, William Brett, Sydenham Griffith, William, Much Wenlock Mayers, H. Stewart, Warwick Newsham, H., jun., 59, Albany Street, Perkins, Frederick, 16, Regent's Square; and H. Footner, Andover F. M. Selwyn, Temple; E. Clowes, Temple H. Mason, Basinghall Street R. Rees, Carmarthen; S. B. Edwards, Carmarthen A. Smith, Sheffield E. Mullins, and R. Paddison, Tokenhouse Yd. G. G. White, Launceston W. Cowburn, and M. Tatham, Lincoln's Inn A. Phillips, Shiffnal M. Foster, Bradford; J. Swithinbank, Leeds W. Haines, and F. J. Welch, jun., Birmingham L. Hicks, Gray's Inn Square T. P. Cunliffe, Manchester T. Parker, Lincoln's Inn Fields; T. Burgoyne, H. B. Wedlake, Temple F. A. Trenchard, Taunton R. Perkins, York J. Steel, Cockermouth Smith, Joseph, 25A, Dalby Terrace, Islington; Tucker, Edward, 2, Glengall Terrace, Peck- Voules, Henry Edmund, 12, Alfred Place, Walter, Alfred, Birmingham ATTORNEYS' BENEVOLENT INSTI- have signified their intention, not only to sub TUTION. scribe to the annual fund, but also largely to a permanent fund, either for investment, or for the erection of a college or otherise, as may be deemed expedient. We are glad to hear that the proposition which we announced some weeks ago, for establishing an institution for the benefit of Numerous suggestions have been received aged and infirm members of the Profession, on various parts of the general plan. Several has been most cordially supported by a large of its supporters are in favour of extending the proportion of the London Solicitors, who are institution to the country. Some recommend willing to contribute liberally towards effect-the postponement, at all events for the present, ing the objects in view, and many of them of the proposed building, whilst others are 206 Notes of Week.-Superior Courts: Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley. strongly in favour of "a local habitation." All appear to be agreed in the general necessity of an establishment for the relief of deserving, but unfortunate, Attorneys and Solicitors, and the sentiment is very generally expressed that it is the duty of their branch of the Profession to commence the good work without delay; and that its success will reflect credit on the general body. Many influential names have been received which will probably be added to the Provisional Committee already announced; and we understand that an early meeting will be convened to consider the several suggestions which have been made, and to settle the details of the plan. NOTES OF THE WEEK. INCREASED SALARIES OF THE COUNTY It appears that 15 of the 60 County Court Judges will in future receive a salary of 1,5007. each, instead of 1,2001. The Judges of the Metropolitan County Courts have been selected, we understand, for this increase of emolument, with others whose labours are supposed to be greater than the remaining 45 Judges. Some dissatisfaction, it may be expected, will be felt at the selection, and some additional grants may perhaps hereafter be made. VACANCY IN THE RECORD OFFICE. The decease of Mr. Berry has occasioned a vacancy to be filled up by the Master of the Rolls. The salary is 1,2001. a year. RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS. Master of the Rolls. www Waller in support; R. Palmer and Darling In re the Cuckfield Burial Board. Dec. 14, for the burial board; W. M. James and 1854. PURCHASE OF SETTLED LANDS UNDER BU RIALS BEYOND METROPOLIS ACT. Certain lands settled with an ultimate reversion in the Crown, were taken under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, with which the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, is incorporated. On petition for interim investment, held that the order must be made without prejudice to the rights of the Crown, who was not affected by s. 7 of the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, although the section authorised a sale by a tenant in tail disabled by Statute from barring the entail. THIS was a petition for the interim investment of the purchase-money of certain lands which had been taken under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, for a burying ground. It appeared that the lands were settled with an ultimate reversion in the Crown under an Act passed in the 2 & 3 Phil. & M., and which provided that no feoffment, fine, or recovery should bind the Crown or the heir in tail. By the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 7 (which was incorporated in the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134), it is enacted, that "it shall be lawful for all parties being seised, possessed of, or entitled to any such lands, or any estate or interest therein, to sell and convey or release the same to the promoters of the undertaking, and to enter into all necessary agreements for that purpose; and particularly it shall be lawful for all or any of the following parties so seised, possessed, or entitled as aforesaid so to sell, convey, or release; (that is to say) all corporation, tenants in tail, or for life," &c.; "and the power so to sell and convey or release as aforesaid may lawfully be exercised by all such parties," &c., "not only on behalf of themselves and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, but also for and on behalf of every person entitled in reversion, remainder, or expectancy after them." Hanson for the Crown. The Master of the Rolls said, that although the Lands' Clauses' Consolidation Act extended to the tenant in tail, it did not bind the Crown, and that the order must therefore be made without prejudice to the rights of the Crown. Vice-Chancellor Kindersley. LEAVE.-SETTLEMENT. A ward of Court, entitled to 2,5191. odd, had married with the consent of her mother and the trustees of her father's will, but without the leave of the Court being obtained, and it was proposed to settle 1,000l. only. On petition, upon her becoming of age, the sum of 2,500l. was directed to be settled, and the remainder to be paid to the husband. It appeared that a ward of Court had married with the consent of her mother and the trustees of her father's will, but without the leave of the Court being obtained, and it was proposed to settle a sum of 1,000l., part of a fund of 2,5197. odd, to which she was entitled on attaining 21, as one of the four resiShe had duary legatees in the above cause. married a commercial clerk, and having since attained 21, presented this petition for payment out and for the settlement to be carried out under the direction of the Court. Speed in support. The Vice-Chancellor, after an interview with the petitioner, said, that although the parties had not so intended, they had committed a contempt of Court. The husband had contributed nothing and there was no reason why he should have the large sum proposed. There would be a sum of 2,5001. settled, with proper Superior Courts: Vice-Chancellor Wood. provision for the children of a second marriage of the petitioner, and the remainder be paid to the husband. Vice-Chancellor Wood. Hilman v. Westwood. Nov. 14, 1854. CONSTRUCTION OF POWER IN APPOINT NEW TRUSTEES. WILL To 207 By the 102nd section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, it is enacted, that, "upon all yearly interest of money or other annual payments either as 66 a charge on any property of the person paying the same by virtue of any deed, will, or otherwise, or as a reservation thereout, or as a personal debt or obligation by virtue of any contract or whether the same shall be received and payable half-yearly or at any shorter or more distant periods, there shall be charged the sum of 7d." according to the 3rd case of for every 20s. of the annual amount thereof Sched. D.; "and where such interest shall be Upon a special case under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 35, as to the construction of a power of appointing new trustees contained in a will, held that a trustee who had been ap- payable out of gains and profits charged by pointed thereunder was empowered to appoint as if originally appointed in the will. the Act, the party liable to such annual payment shall be authorised to deduct out of such THE testator by his will appointed three annual payment at the rate of 7d. for every 20s. trustees, one of whom was his wife, nomina- of the amount thereof." And in every case tim, and provided that, if any of them, or of "where any such (annual) payment shall be made those to be appointed should die, decline, or from profits or gains not charged by that Act, become incapable to act in the trusts, it should or where the interest of money shall not be rebe lawful for the surviving or continuing trustee served, or charged, or payable for the period for the time being, or the executors of the sur- of one year, then there shall be charged vivor, but with the consent of his wife during upon such interest or other annual payment as her widowhood, to appoint one or more trus- aforesaid, the duty before-mentioned according tees in the room of the trustee or trustees so to Schedule D., case 3." That case applies to dying, declining, or becoming incapable to act," the duty to be charged in respect of profits and such new trustee should have all the same powers and authorities for all intents and purposes, as if originally nominated by the will. It appeared that upon the death of a trustee. the wife and the survivor had appointed a Mr. Barclay, and upon Mr. Barclay's declining further to act, the defendant Mr. Westwood had been appointed. The wife died in 1843, and the surviving original trustee in 1853. This special case was presented on the question whether Mr. Westwood had power to appoint two new trustees. Chandless, Wilcox, and Surrage for the several parties. The Master of the Rolls said, that in accordance with the case of Meineitzhagen v. Davis, 1 Coll. 435, the surviving trustee was entitled to appoint such two new trustees. (Sitting in Chambers.) Bebb v. Bunny. Dec. 22, 1854. RIGHT OF PURCHASER TO DEDUCT INCOME TAX ON INTEREST ON PURCHASE-MONEY. A purchaser is entitled to deduct the income ON the sale of an estate, the purchase was to have been completed, as from Christmas, 1852, on the 1st of March, 1853, but was not, in fact, completed until the 15th of May, 1854, and it was upon the interest on the purchasemoney, from Christmas, 1852, to the 15th of May, 1854, that the purchaser claimed a deduction for income tax. of an uncertain annual value not charged in Schedule A." By the 2nd rule of case 3, Schedule D., " the profits on all interest of money not being annual interest, payable, or paid by any person whatever, shall be charged according to the preceding rule," rule 1, which directs the duty to be computed on the full amount of profits arising within the preceding year. By the 2nd sec. of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34, Schedule D., the duty granted by that Act is directed to be charged "for and in respect of all interest of moneys, annuities, and other annual profits and gains not charged by virtue of any of the other Schedules contained in the Act, and to be charged for every 20s. of the annual amount thereof." And, by sec. 40 of that Act, it is enacted," that every person who shall be liable to the payment of any rent, or any yearly interest of money, or any annuity, or other annual payment, either as a charge upon any property, or as a personal debt or obligation, by virtue of any contract, whether the same shall be received or payable halfyearly, or at any shorter or more distant periods, shall be entitled, and is hereby authorised, on making such payment, to deduct and retain thereout the amount of the rate of duty which at the time when such payment becomes due, shall be payable under the Act.” The duties granted by this latter Act are by sec. 5, directed to be assessed, raised, levied, and collected under the rules, regulations, and provisions of the former Acts, so far as the same are not superseded by, or inconsistent with, the express provisions of the latter Act. The following cases, under the Act of 5 & 6 208 Superior Courts: V. C. Wood.-Queen's Bench. Beav. 43; and Flight v. Camac, Weekly Reporter, 1854, p. 437 (Vice-Chancellor Kindersley) under the Act of 16 & 17 Vict. any distinction between interest on mortgage money and interest on purchase moneys. The case has been very well argued, and it was more particularly in reference to the point made on the part of the vendor, as regards Schedule D., that I referred to the authorities of the Inland Revenue Office, who say that that schedule was framed more particularly in reference to the case of public bodies, such as parochial boards, who have no income out of which interest is payable and are not assessed to the duty, and having to pay interest on bonds or the like, not, therefore, parties en Court of Queen's Bench. Alcenius v. Nigren. Nov. 14, 1854. ACTION BY ALIEN ENEMY.—PLEA NOT ne Vice-Chancellor Wood-The question in this case depends upon sec. 40 of the 16 & 17 Viet. c. 34 & sec. 2, Schedule D., the language of which sections, from their vagueness, creates some difficulty-with the view to resolve my own doubts I have, in addition to the assistance to be derived from the cases cited, endeavoured to ascertain what has been the practice of the authorities at the Inland Revenue Office. It appears never to have been doubted, that under sec. 40 the tax upon in-titled to deduct the tax under section 40, so terest on mortgages should be deducted; and that the tax becomes payable by the receiver of that in practice, the mortgagor in all cases de- the interest under Schedule D. I consider the ducts the tax, and I have been told by the Act very singularly worded, yearly interest being authority above referred to, that prosecutions used apparently in the same sense as annual have been instituted against mortgagees to re- payments; but I am clearly of opinion that it cover the penalty for refusing to allow such means at least all interest at a yearly rate, and deduction, and that such penalty has been which may have to be paid de anno in annum, paid without proceeding to trial. Now a such as, in fact, is interest on purchase money, mortgage deed rarely (if ever) reserves a yearly as well as mortgage interest, and that, thereinterest. Most mortgage deeds contain only a fore, the purchaser is entitled to deduct the covenant to pay the principal with interest at tax in this case. In fact, if this interest be a certain rate per annum, on a day certain; not subject to such deduction, I do not well after that it accrues de die in diem, and the in-see how it can be charged with the tax at all. terest, without any particular reservation, ordinarily is received half-yearly from year to year. It is difficult to see the distinction between interest so reserved and paid, and that which by special agreement accrues on purchase money, which also goes on from day to day, and may run on for a year or stop at any time on payment of the purchase money, and which, in some shape or other, forms a lien on the property. There are two classes of cases which have occurred in practice bearing on the question-1st. In the Masters' Offices I find that the tax has always been deducted in all cases of debts bearing interest, including even bills of exchange. Lord Justice Knight Bruce (in Dinning v. Henderson) having found that practice to be settled in respect of interest on bills of exchange, declined to disturb it, and allowed the deduction, although doubting the principle. 2nd. In payment of purchase money into Court, the deduction has not been allowed, and for the very obvious reason stated by Lord Langdale in Duval v. Mount, that payment into Court is not payment to the party entitled to deduct the tax (who must apply for the deduction when the money is paid out of Court), and of course the Court cannot be subject to the penalty mentioned in sec. 40 for not allowing the deduction. In that case, Lord Langdale expressly gave leave to apply when the money should be paid out, though it does not appear whether the purchaser availed himself of such liberty. The whole difficulty is the expression "yearly" interest of money, but I think it susceptible of this view, that it is interest reserved at a given rate per cent. per annum, or at least in the construction of the Act, I must hold that any interest which may be payable de anno in annum, though accruing de die in diem is within the 40th section. I cannot make GATIVING CERTIFICATE UNDER ALIEN ACT. To an action for work done before the war with Russia, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was an alien born in Russia, and was now an enemy of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, and was residing in the kingdom without the licence, safe conduct, or permission of our Lady the Queen. On demurrer, held it was not necessary in the plea to negative the fact of the plaintiff's having obtained a certificate frow the Secretary of State under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66, and that the action must abate during the war. THIS was a demurrer to the plea on this action, which was brought by a Russian subject to recover for work done before the breaking out of war with that country, alleging that the plaintiff was an alien born in Russia, and was now an enemy of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, and was residing in this kingdom without the licence, safe conduct, or permission of our Lady the Queen. Unthank in support of the demurrer, on the ground that it did not negative the fact of the plaintiff's having obtained a certificate from the Secretary of State under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66. The Court said, that the allegation of the plaintiff being here without the permission of the Queen negatived any permission of the Secretary of State to reside here, and that the plaintiff could not recover pending the war, and the demurrer must be allowed. The Legal Observer, AND SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. -"Still attorneyed at your service."-Shakespeare. SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 1855. INNS OF CHANCERY. REVENUE IN TRUST FOR ATTORNEYS. hend the Inns of Chancery, the income of which seems to be vested as clearly in the Ancients of those societies, as the income of the Inns of Court in the Benchers; but, in both instances, in trust for the benefit of their respective members, being students or practitioners in the law? SOME months ago, we were induced to request the attention of our readers to the subjects which would probably come under the consideration of her Majesty's Commis W eunderstand, indeed, that the Ancients, sioners appointed "to inquire into the ar- or principal officers of the Inns of Chancery, rangements of the Inns of Court and Inns have been called before the Commissioners of Chancery for promoting the study of the and asked about their "rents and comings Law and Jurisprudence and securing a sound in," and whether there is any surplus after legal education." It is remarkable that paying the expenses of the management of this inquiry extends as well to the Inns of the property and the repairs or renewal of Chancery as the Inns of Court, although in buildings, most of which are 200 years old those minor societies there is no power or or more? There being no surplus, the privilege analogous to the other, as there Commissioners, of course, can have nothing used to be in former times. practically to deal with at the present time, We do not distinctly understand the prin- though possibly they may express an ciple on which an inquiry was directed into opinion in regard to the future manageboth classes of these "ancient and honour-ment of the property. However, supposing able societies," unless the contemplated im- there were now, or should hereafter be, a provement was to be extended to both. The surplus, on what ground could any part of Commission was the result of a resolution it be applied for the education of students of the House of Commons (speaking in ge- for the Bar, or to advance the interests of neral terms) for the improvement of "legal that branch of the Profession? education." If by this was intended the The Attorneys and Solicitors have been education of the Bar only, why should the from time to time gradually excluded from inquiry have gone beyond the Inns of Court, the Inns of Court. Formerly students at where alone the students for the Bar con- law kept part of their Terms at the Inns of gregate, where they dine (in order that Chancery in their progress to the Bar, and their social character and gentlemanly man- Attorneys might be called to the Bar withners may be ascertained), and where, without ceasing to practice, as now required, for in the last few years, they are required to several years. These rights or privileges attend divers courses of learned lectures, ceased long ago; and the members of the and where (if they please) they may be Inns of Chancery, whether Ancients or examined before they take the degree of Juniors, are almost universally Attorneys or Barrister-at-Law. Solicitors. The two branches of the ProUnless the further improvement of Stu- fession have, for many years, ceased to asdents, or Articled Clerks, of the other sociate in the Halls which were formerly branch of the Profession be contemplated, common to both of them. There are still, why should the Royal Inquisition compre- however, some of the second branch of the VOL. XLIX. No. 1,402. N |