페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

jtffl permitted, and parties could como under the krth section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, as before. The 19th role was merely permissive, and gavo an euier manner of procedure by calling on tho reupondents to prodaoe their witnesses. The Vicechancellor, having called on tho other side, considered that the summons to tax was improper, inasmuch as the bills, except one, had been paid for

> lengthened period; and that the proper remedy washy petition. The order of 1862 was then referred to, which provided that every application to tn most be by summons. The Vice-Chancellor na of opinion that that was so, but considered still that the summons was erroneous because it did not state the ground on which the applicant relied. This, however, it was insisted was not before the court, on the technical question, it not being possible or proper to go into the merits. An application has since been made which may have the effect of a reconsideration of the whole subject.

The next case was The General Provident Assuraa Company, Cross's case, the question on which was whether the name of a former shareholder in this company, named Cross, described as an outfitter at Plymouth, was liable to bo placed ra the list of con tributaries in the winding-up of this company. Cross was originally a holder of 3X1101. shares in the company, and it was now admitted that as to fifty he was still liable, the only question being as to the other 150. These, in Aug. 1867, had been transferred by him—fifty to Thomas Haywood, the manager; fifty to Clif t, and fifty to Thomas Brodigan; and Brodigan having jnteqnently refused to take his shares, Haywood had agreed to take them. The official liquidator's case was that these shares, although regularly transferred and the names of the transferees entered on the register, were, in fact, so transferred without consideration, and that, Haywood and Clift being officers of the company, it was » mere jnggle to escape liability. The Vicechancellor held that there was no doubt that Mr. Crass, in consideration of assisting the company in it? difficulties, was to be relieved of his liability in respect of 150 of his shares, and that he received no consideration for the transfers. The evidence showed that, failing to induco the directors to become individually responsible, Mr. Cross only succeeded in getting the company to take the shares of lis hands. That was a transaction beyond the powers of the company, and therefore Mr. Cross's ■09 must be placed upon the list in respect of SOehares. His Honour regretted to be obliged to come to that conclusion, for he considered that Hr. Cross had been very unfairly treated by the company.

fkTfce Imperial Land Company of Marseilles Itmifed) was an application, on behalf ol the official liquidators of tho company, for leave to "sne a special summons under sect. 115 of the Art, and also to serve notice of motion for the wmmittal of Mr. Albert Grant for disobedience to

> former summons of the court. He had evidence to the effect that Mr. Grant was largely indebted to the company, of which he was formerly a Sector, and that he had disregarded a summons by the chief clerk, requiring his attendance as a witness. The summons was served upon him per"dally in Paris on the third of the present month, ad the only notice taken of it was an intimation pom his solicitors that he would probably attend

■ August. This was the first application of the j»d. but it was believed that the court had perN jurisdiction to make the order, and that under

■ Commercial Convention the French courts •nM giTe effect to it. The Vioe-Chancellor gave *"e to serve the summons upon Mr. Albert 'iratt and his solicitors, but said it must be taken w what it was worth.

ELECTION LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. 1'*dce InfluenceMasters And Men— FtiLow WorkmenAgency.—The wrongful ■joiitil by an employer of a voter or voters nm his employment shortly before a general •Won, upon the ground of his political Wobs, is evidence of intimidation, within ** 5 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, upon which the JW is round to act, if it believes that evidence. "otkmen may be intimidated directly by dis■*!> or the fear of dismissal themselves; and Jwctly by the dismissal or the ill-treatment

* there, upon the ground of their political

• auras. A circular was issued by a Tory meetH before the municipal contest, which stated jj'fitwas decided that all millowners and ■* managers and overlookers, and all master "teinen and others possessing influence should •strongly urged to exert that influence so as to !•$ in the municipal election as well as in ^Parliamentary, the success of" the Tory "^tes: Held, that the effect of that circular

was to make an agent of every person having authority down to the last grade, that of overlookers over the hands, and to request, and therefore authorise, each such to influence the hands who were under him, for the purpose of inducing them to vote for the candidates upon whose behalf that document was issued; and that any overlooker, and consequently anybody in that or any higher grade, who bond fide took up the Tory side, and who acted upon that circular, and did canvass for the sitting members, became their agent, for the purpose of unduly influencing voters under his control: Held, further, that the terms of the circular, taken with the fact that the municipal and Parliamentary elections formed part of the same contest, proved that for both elections there was the same system and plan of action. If fellow workmen, for political purposes, ill-treat one another, and expel one another from the common place of employment, they are guilty of the offence against which the undue influence clause of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act is specially directed. And if masters stand by whilst persons of subordinate position and workmen in their employ exercise undue influence over other persons in their employ, there is a strong inference against the masters that they aided and abetted the conduct of those exercising undue influence, but not an inference sufficiently strong to affect the election. The question whether what was done at a municipal election had any effect upon the Parliamentary election is one of fact, and it is for the court to say whether the parties engaged in the municipal election had not the Parliamentary election in their minds. If the municipal election occurred three months before the Parliamentary election, and the interests involved in the former were purely local or personal, that would divide the one from the other, and no notice ought to be taken in reference to the Parliamentary election of what was done with respect to the municipal election. U before a general election a master has reasons for getting rid of a person who is in his employ, apart from the reason that they do not agree in politics, the master is not bound to abstain from dismissing him because the election is coming on. But, semble, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that there »t.s a clear ground for discharging the servant apart from his politics, it is inevitable that the discharge may be imputed to dislike of his politics, and not dislike of his person: (Blackburn Election Petition, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 823. Willcs, J.)

The Nottingham Election Petition.—At the Judges' Chambers, before Baron Bramwell, the Nottingham Election Petition, "Torr and others v. Seely, the younger," came on for hearing in reference to an application for particulars on tho part of the sitting member. Mr. Hoskins asked his Lordship for particulars as to the allegations in tho petition. Bribery and intimidation were alleged, and he wished the names of the voters said to be bribed, as also the names of those who had bribed them, to bo given. Mr. Gates, as counsol for the petitioners, objected to the names of the persons who had bribed the voters being given. It was not usual, and both Mr. Justice Willcs and Baron Martin were against such an application. Mr. Hoskins said he had had a good many election petitions in the present year, and his experience was that without such information the particulars were of little or no value. Besides, Mr. Justice Blackburn always required the names to be given of those who it was alleged had bribed the voters. Baron Bramwoll said he could only act in the best way he could in the absence of the election petition Judges. He, however, thought that such names should be given. A discussion arose as to the parties who had intimidated or organised a mob at the election. His Lordship made an order as to some particulars, but said he would write to Baron Martin, who was try the Nottingham petition, and ascertain his view as to the names of the persons who hod bribed, and who hod got up the mob on the election, being stated. Mr. Hoskins reminded his Lordship that the trial of the petition was appointed for the 29th inst. Baron Brainwell made an order as mentioned. On Thursday,

Mr. Kickanls, on the part of Mr. Seely, tho sitting member, waited on Mr. Baron Bramwell at chambers, to ascertain the opinion of Mr. Baron Martin, who was to hoar tho petition on the 29th inst., as to the "particulars" to be given by the petitioner. Mr. Baron Bramwell said he had heard from Mr. Baron Martin, who recommended the rule of Mr. Justice Blackburn to be followed as to the names of the persons who had bribed, as well as the parties bribed. He therefore granted the full order as prayed.

[merged small][table]

PUBLIC COMPANIES.

Tho report of the English, Scottish, and Australian Chartered Bank, to be presented on the 26th inst., states the amount available for distribution is 23,0512., and a dividend is recommended at the rato of 7 per cent, per annum, and the appropriation of 10002. to the reduction of bank premises and furniture accounts, leaving 10511. to be carried forward.

The report of the Provincial Banking Corporation (Limited), to be presented on the 2nd Aug.. shows an available total of 83482., and recommends a dividend at the rate of 71 per cent, per annum, and the appropriation of 10002. to reserve (increasing it to 15,0001.), leaving 14412. to be carried forward.

The report of the Midland Banking Company (Limited) to be presented at Sheffield on the 30tli inst., shows an available total of 86392., and tho usual dividend at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum is recommended, which, after an appropriation of 1500 in further reduction of the purchase of business account, will leave 23732. to be carried forward.

The report of the Merchant Shipping Company (Limited), to be presented on the 28th inst., states that this year there has been no loss of any of the ships of the company and that the result of tho completed voyages has been very satisfactory; also that a fair amount of business has been done at the dockyard. A dividend at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum is recommended, and tho appropriation of 158342. to reserve, insurance, and depreciation account, leaving 20742. to be carried forward.

The report of the Land Securities Company (Limited), to bo presented on tho 29th inst., shows an available total of 33482. A dividend at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum is recommended, and an appropriation of 5002. to the reserve fund, which will thus stand at 25002., leaving 8062. to be carried forward.

LEGISLATION AND JURIS-
PRUDENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

THE MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE BILL.

On the order of the day for considering the report of amendments to this Bill, Lord Redesd Ale objected to the Bill on the ground that it imposed obligations on women which could not but be objectionable to the sex. It was said that women had been appointed overseers; this was, no doubt, the case in default of any more eligible person, and there was also no doubt the duties were properly discharged in such cases; but it was one> thing to appoint a woman under exceptional circumstances and another to make an objectionable rnle. The Earl of Kikbeblky thought it desirable the House should understand precisely what his noble friend objected to. This was not a proposition giving to women the municipal franchise for the first time. Previous to the passing of the Municipal Act in 1835 women did vote at municipal elections, but that Act took away their right to do so. Subsequently local government Acts gave them the franchise in the places in which those Acts were in force ; and hence arose the anomaly that, whilst they could vote in the numerous towns in which the local government Acts were in operation, when a town obtained a charter of incorporation they were excluded. Therefore this Bill merely restored to women a franchise which they formerly enjoyed, and their Lordships were not discussing the wider and more doubtful quostion of extending to women the right to vote at Parliamentary elections. Lord Cairns said that, as an unmarried

woman could dispose of her property, and deal with it in any way in which she thought proper, he did not know why she should not have a voice in saying how it should be lighted and watched, and generally in controlling the municipal expenditure to which that property contributed.

The report of amendments was then received.

BANKRUPTCY AND IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILLS.

On the motion of the Lord Chancellor, the following noble lords were appointed the select committee on these Bills:—Lord Chancellor, Lord Privy Seal, Viscount Halifax, Lord Overstone, Lord Belper, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Westbury, Lord Colonsay, Lord Cairns, Lord Iiomilly, and Lord PenKance.

The Stipendiary Magistrates (Deputies), the Prisons (Scotland) Administration Act (1860) Amendmont, the Court of Sessions Act (1868) Amendment, and the Local Government Supplemental Bills went through committee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

LAW OF HYPOTHEC (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.

Mr. C. Ewinq urged the second reading of this

Bill. The Lord-advocatk said that, looking

at the matter a3 a practical quostion, the landlord was noither more nor less than a creditor holding a security. In point of principle, it might be better that the law did not exist, as those engaged in agriculture wonld thrive fully as well without it. But, on the other hand, unless there were a real standing grievance, he hesitated to incur the rinks which would be produced by a change In well-cultivated districts the law of hypothec was probably of little avail, but in those not well cultivated it was of more importance. He was not opposed to a modification of the law, and he was willing to assent to the second reading with the view of bringing about such a modification. It appeared to him that the real result of the abolition of the law would be to better the existing relations between landlord and t"nant. Would tho landlord give tho same terms to the tenant without this security as he did with it r" Evidently tho taking away of the security would have a tendency to raise the landlord's terms. When a landlord after-rented his farm —that was, took the rent after the first year's crop had been gathored and sold—he gave substantially a year and a half's credit. If he exacted rent at starting, the capital of the tenant would bo immediately swallowed np, and ho must go to other sources to get credit if he meant to continue the cultivation of the form. The existence of hypothec, therefore, lowered rent, and beyond all doubt the tendency of the abolition of the law would be what he had Btated. Tho small tenants would thus be driven to eke out the additional rent by their own manual labour, and the status of both large and small tenants would be lowered. The great improvement in the land of Scotland had been owing to the exertions of the small farmers, and by the abolition of this law the current of improvement might be checked. Looking at the way in which matters were managed, especially in the north, between landlords and tenants, he feared that its abolition might bo prejudicial, as at present, owing to the security it afforded, the landlord often allowed the tenant to tide over a bad season which he might otherwise be unwilling to do. He was prepared to consent to the seoond reading, on the understanding that the Bill would not be further pressed this session. This was accordingly done.

SPECIAL AND COMMON JURIES BILL. Lord Enfield moved the seoond reading of this Bill, the object is to make a change in the qualification of jurors, and which embodied the recommendations of the judicature commission. It was proposed that the qualification of householders as common jurors should bo a rental of 501. in places having more than 20,000 inhabitants, and 301. in places with smaller populations. The qualification for special jurors was proposed to be a ratal of 1001. in places with populations above

20,000, and a ratal of 601. in places with smaller populations. It was also proposed to provide a better mode of making out the jury lists, and that no juror should be summoned a second time until the whole list was exhausted. It was intended to give special jurymen a guinea per day, and common jurymen half a guinea. It was also proposed that jurymen should be allowed to have fire and refreshment at their own expense when considering

their verdict. Mr. Graves thought that more

care ought to be taken in the drafting of any future Bill, particularly with regard to exemptions now enjoyed by town councillors.

Mr. A. W. Young approved of many of the enactments of the BUI, but though it required careful revision. He wan of opinion that in some cases the jury might consist of a less number than twelve, and that if a verdict of three-fourths of the number might be taken, after a certain period of deliberation, the result would

be more satisfactory. Mr. G. Gregory objected

to suitors being callod upon to pay common jurors, considering that suitors were entitled to juries without being put to any expense Mr. Alderman Lusk thought that common jurymen were hardly dealt with, and hoped that the Bill would

bo proceeded with during the next session. Mr.

Wheelhotjse thought that the services of jurors attending in criminal cases oupht not to be overlooked. The Solicitor-general hoped the

House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. He believed it to be well drawn, and that it was well entitled to consideration. He thought the suggestion of the hon. member for Leeds deserving of notice, and that nothing was more unfair than tie working of the jury system with regard to criminal trials. According to the letter of tho present law, every man properly qualified ought to be on the common jury list, and special jurors ought to bo liable to serve on both juries. It was unfair that common jurors should be paid only at the rate of SVi. a cause, whilst grand jurors were allowed a guinea. The intention of the law was fair enough. It meant that special jurors were to do double work, and therefore to recoivo double pay; but in practice special jurors were not taken out of tho common jury list, but were placed in a special list, and did not serve on common juries. In Lancashire the law was properly carried into effect, and the jurors were generally of a very good

class. Mr. Henley thought it impossible that

a Bill of this kind could bo properly dealt with by a private member, and that the matter ought to be taken up by the Government. It was questionable whether the figure at which jurymen were taken should be increased. A great number of the pooplo tried in the criminal courts were in a very humble class of life, and ho did not think it fair that they should be tried by persons far above them in condition. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent a man being on both the Bpocial and the petty jury, which would enable him to try tho

same caso twice over. The Bill was then read a

second time.

Marriage With A Deceased Wife's Sister. Tho debate on this Bill, adjourned from June 8, was resumed by Mr. Talbot, who begged Mr. T. Chambers to withdraw it, alleging the time of tho year, and the absorbing question which was likely

to oocupy the House for the rest of the Session.

Mr. Beresford Hope added his entreaties to the same effect; and Lord Bury, a zealous supporter of the Bill, gave similar advice on the ground that the debate hod fallen into doubles entendres and arguments to which on improper signification was attached. It was impossible too, at this time of the Session, to carry the Bill in the face of the not altogether justifiable means usod against it by

tho Opposition. Mr. T. Chambers declared his

determination to go on with the Bill, and Mr. Gladstone dissented from the argument that a Bill supported by a majority should be withdrawn because the opposition to it had passed the ordinary Parliamentary limits. Referring to Mr. Talbot's argument, he added, significantly, that he was entirely ignorant of the grounds on which it was assumed that the rest of the session would be occupied with one question, and on the merits of the Bill he was of opinion that these marriages ought to be legalised, and that it should be left to each religious denomination to determine their religious character. Mr. Chambers ought, therefore, to be encouraged by the House to resist a

mere policy of obstruction. After some further

conversation, a motion by Mr. Talbot that the order be discharged was defeated by 86—143 to 57.

Adulteration Of Food Or Drink Act (1860)

Amendment Bill. On the motion of Mr. Dixon, the order for the second reading was discharged, and tho Bill was withdrawn.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.

The adjourned debate on the motion for third reading was resumed by Mr. Raikes, who suggested that tho object of the Bill might be attained in a more satisfactory way than that indicated in it. It would be better to enact that any married

woman earning tho livelihood of the family aboild be enabled to go before a Comity Court judge. and make a declaration to that effect, and that then the judge should order that such woman shoold be able to hold property as if she were iimarried. It was said that this Bill would be a step towards the enfranchisement of women, and many hon. gentlemen opposite thought this end one desirable to be attained. Hi did not acknowledge this ; but admitting its troth for the sake of argument, it ought not to be brought about as a collateral result of a Bill brought in by a private member, bnt should be undertaken by the Government. The time had not, in his opinion, arrived at which women shotud be placed on a perfect equality with men, and he should therefore move that the Bill be read a third

time on that day three months. Mr. Jessil

said he should support the Bill, on the ground that a woman entering tho married state ought not to bo deprived of the property she possessed, or of the right of contracting in the future. He denied that the object of the Bill was to give the pu-lhv mentary suffrage to women, and hoped that such u impression would not cause hon. members to vote

against the Bill. Mr. B. Hope said on the

face of it the Bill went in for altering the whole conjugal relations in regard to property. By refusing to read the Bill a third time, they would leave it as a document before the country, instead of sending it to another place, where it would, perhaps, not escape accidents. (Hear, hear.) — Tho House divided on the question that the Bill be now read a third time, and the numbers were: For the third reading, 131; against it, 32; majority in favour, 99. The Bill was then read a third time.

THE IRISH MAGISTRACY.

Sir P. O'brien asked the Chief Secretary far Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Government had been called to the imperfect oonstitatioi of tho 1 rish magistracy; and whether any sVps had been taken by the Lord Chancellor for Ireland to revise the list with a view of increasing the confidence of the Irish people in that body. Mr. C

Fortescue said the question referred to the exercise of those duties which, as the head of the Irish magistracy, devolved on the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in whom, he was bound to say. the Irish people reposed a large amount of confidence. The Government knew from him that he had been for a long time engaged, as a matter of public convenience, in examining and revising the list* of tho magistrates of Ireland. Beyond this he (Mr. C. Fortescue) was unable to give any informatiaB.

SOLICITORS' JOURNAL

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Suit To Execute TrustsPractice.—In I suit to execute the trusts of a settlement ai inquiry was directed as to letting some of tn property, and ultimately the proposal of th» plaintiff, who was also receiver in the cause,»» approved by the judge. He failed to perfora his contract, and the suit was brought on fa further consideration, when it was held (on if peal by the plaintiff), that an inquiry which wal directed by the Master of the Rolls as to thi damages sustained by the trust estate by reajot of his default, ought not to have been inserted but their Lordships gave leave to the oth« cestui* que trust to bring before them upon notia an original motion for such an inquiry, an ordered that the appeal should be brought o with that motion. The order of the Master c the Rolls was then affirmed, but without costs t any party: (Brancker v. Curat, 20 L. T. Be| N. S. 797. Ch.)

LeaseCovenants.—In an indenture of 4 mise of a public-house the lessor covenanted f« himself and bis assigns that he or they »osl not build, erect, or keep, or be interested i building, erecting, or keeping a public-bo* within half a mile of the demised premise! Held, that the covenant did not run with tl land, and could not therefore be sued upon \ an assignee of the lease: (Thomas v. llai/vim 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 814. Ex.)

Chose In Action—Reduction Into Posse Sion.—The defendant, having received mon( from a third person for the use of a marri* woman, wrote to her acknowledging that I held it at her disposal. She died, and her bu band, who survived her about a year and a hil in no way interfered as to the money, tin h death, held, that the administratrix of the wi was the proper person to sue for the money, tl facts showing a chose in action of the wife, »'hn her husband had not reduced into possessio (Fleet v. Ferritin, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 814. Ex. CI AdministrationReceiver.—Where t t (tirer hid been appointed by the Court of Ctuucery in a suit relating to the administration of the estate of an intestate, this court declined to appoint an administrator pendente ... until the Court of Chancery had signified its ipioion that for some real or technical reason inch an appointment was desirable: (Tichborne T. Morae, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 820. Prob.) whose eipenws were subsequently directed to be paid. The orders for payment were not made at special sessions as required by 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41,113, and in form, they were mere directions to the county treasurer to pay specified sums, payment was made by him, and his account wu afterwards allowed at the quarter sessions. Held, that the order not having been made at a "special sessions held for the purpose " was inTiud; but. the court being of opinion that there ns no objection to the order in point of form, aid that the treasurer was therefore justified in (paring it, and taking into consideration the fact that the money had been paid, and the account allowed, discharged a rule which had been obStained for a writ of certiorari to bring the order ip to be quashed: ( Req. v. Justices of ('arnarvoniKrt, 20 L. T. Rep. X."S. 818. Bail.)

UNPROFESSIONAL ADVISEES. We hare received the following :—

10 THE EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES.

Meeting-house-lane, Sheffield, July 16, 1869. Sir,—A person against whom a client, of mine lad recovered a judgment called on me lately ami handed me the inclosed. I sent it to the Law Society, but they tell me they have no power to protect the Profession in matters of this kind, the writer of the inclosed not being a member of their body. I certainly thought they were more powerful for the good of the Profession than they declare themselves to be; but, however, as they an not. perhaps it may be as well to make this benevolent individual (albeit he cannot spell his on name correctly) more widely known, lor the benefit and comfort of the thousands under presare to whom he so feelingly refers.—Yours truly, W. E. Tiwbmihi,i.. (EMclomtre.)

Fhrateasd confidential.

173, B&lls-pond-road, Islington, London, June 17, 1866. "Sir,—I trust you will excuse tlio liberty taken by se in addressing you, but, having Been your name in a Est which t am in the habit of perusing, and seeing tbat you hare judgment against you, I naturally condude that you are suffering from a pressure which thousands are doing at this critical period.

If yon will allow me to offer you the benefit of my MEf experience I feel convinced that I should be able to afford roa immediate relief to your mind, as well as protection to your person and property.

I ithall be most happy to give you my advice upon ail subjects connected with bankruptcy, deeds of compositioD, private arrangements with creditors, and all mitters connected h rewith, either by letter, or by a pmocal interview at my office as above, free of charge.

1 farther beg to state, should you favour me by reqttirjw my services, I will endeavour to fulfil those du-« that devolve upon me both faithfully and elhOfltly.—I am, yours respectfully,

FUSDBJCK HOLLOWAT.

Incorporated Law Society, TJ. K.

Chancery-lano, London, W.C., 12th July 18G9. Dear Sir,—I submitted your letter of the 18th tit to the council at as early a period as the presnre of other important business would permit.

The council, having considered the matter, desire me to inform you that as Mr. Frederick Holloway is not a member of this society, they lave no power whatever to interfere in the matter. 1 return the circular in accordance with your Kqnett—I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully.

E. W. Williamson, Secretory. W. E. Tattershall, Esq., Meeting-honse-lanc, Sheffield."

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE BENCH _AND THE BAR.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. Norfolk Circuit. Aylesbury, July 20.—The commission for the county of Bucks was opened yosterday afternoon by Mr. Justice Bylos. The business is excessively light. On the civil side there are only two causes, one of them to be tried by a special jury. On the Crown side there are 11 prisoners for trial. Tho offences charged against thorn are,—shooting with intent to murder, outting and wounding, rape, burglary, and larceny.

Midland Circuit.

Derby, Jahj 15.—The commission was opened here yesterday by Mr. Boden, Q.C., their Lordships being detained at Warwick. The calendar contains 16 oases. There is one charge of murder against a woman named Annie Ingham. The prisoner cut the throat of her infant son, a child of nine months of age. The defence is understood to be that she was insane at the time of the commission of the act. Tho rest of the cases do not appear to be of an nnusual character. The canse list is exceedingly light, there being only throe common and two special jury cases. The court sat at ten o'clock this morning.

Nottingham, July 20. — The commission was opened here yesterday. The cause list contains only 3 cases, two common juries and one special jury, '['lie county calendar contains 8 casos of a very ordinary character, that for tho town only 4. One of these latter is a charge against William Fowell, and 5 others for stealing silk to the value of 2501., the property of William Elliot Baker. The case hag caused considerable uteres! in Nottingham.

Oxford Circuit

Worcester, July 16.—Mr. Baron Pigott opened the commission here yesterday, and attonded Divine service. The causo list this morning contained 7 entrieSjOf which 1 only was marked for a special jury. The ealondar for the county contains the names of 21 prisoners, and the city calendar tho names of 5 prisoners. In tho county there is a charge of murder and 2 of manslaughter, and in the city 1 of manslaughter; but in other respocts tho offences are of an ordinary nature.

Stafford, July 21.—Mr. Justice Montague Smith opened the commissions and attended Divine service horo yesterday. There are 23 causes for trial, of which 6 are marked for special juries. The calendar contains the names of 51 prisoners. There is 1 charge of murder, 1 of manslaughter, 1 of attempt to murder, 1 of attempting to commit suicide, and several serious offences against the person. Tho grand jury ignored the bill for murder.

Home Circuit.

Cltelmsford, July 17.—The business of these assizes, which commenced yesterday, terminated to-day. Tho calendar of criminal cases was light in point of number and character. It contained the names of 24 prisoners, and tho most serious cases that can be mentioned were one or two of violent assaults, except a case of rapo, which broke down. Mr. Hawkins, Q. C, gave his assistance in trying prisoners, and they wero all disposed of yesterday. The Lord Chief Baron, in charging the grand jury, observed that out of 24 prisoners only two oould read or write.

Lewes, July 21.—The commission for the county of Sussex was opened and business was prooeeded with yesterday morning at ten o'clock in both courts, the Lord Chief Baron presiding in the Crown Court, and Mr. Justice Mellor at Nisi Prius. There are 15 causes entered, 4 of which are marked to be tried by special juries, One of these, however, the great foreshore case, a question of boundary, Lloyd v. Ingrain, will not bo tried, as arrangements have been made, it is said, to dispose of it in some other manner. This is a new trial, tho cause having at a former assizo for this county occupied several days. The wholo of the common jury causes wero disposed of yesterday, and they wero of the most uninteresting character.

NEW LAW COURTS.

The following has been addressed to the editor of the 'i'wnss :—

"Sir,—As a statement has appeared in your columns to the effect that tho Council of the Incorporated Law Society are not acting in harmony with the wishes of the members of the society in their advocacy of the Carey-streot site for the erection of the courts, I am directed to request tho favour of your inserting tho accom

panying copy of a resolution, which was passed unanimously at the annual general meeting of this society on the 16th inst.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

"E. W. Williamson, Secretary.

"Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, July 17."

"At the annual general meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, July 16, 1869, proposed by Mr. T. Burgoyne, of 160, Oxford-street, seconded by Mr. W. C. Milne, of Harcourt-buildings, Temple, and resolved unanimously—' That this meeting hereby expresses its entire and cordial approval of the steps which have been taken by the council in opposition to the removal (as threatened by the Bill lately brought into Parliament) of the site for tho new law courts and offices from Carey -street to the Thames Embankment, or elsewhere; and this meeting earnestly deprecates Buch removal as injurious to the interests ouually of the suitors, the public, and the member* of the legal profession.'"

At the Mansion-house on Monday Mr. Horace Lloyd, Q. C, and Mr. Edmund Alfred Pontifex, civil engineer, appeared before Alderman Sir Robert Carden to answer a ohnxgo of assault pre ferred at the instance of the Groat Eastern Rail • way Company. The defendants had entered into their own recognisances to answer tho charge, and Mr. Pontifex had taken out a cross summons against the person complaining. Mr. Lloyd was accused of assaulting Daniel Everett, an inspoctor at the Fenchurch-street railway-station, by seizing him by the throat and forcing his head against a railway carriage : and Mr. Pontifex of assaulting the complainant, at the samo time, at the door of tho station, by striking him on the hand with his walking-stick. On the case being called, Mr. Straight, barrister, who appeared for the Great Eastern Railway Company, said he was happy to state that, by the good sense of tho defendants, the Bonch would bo spared a very painful investigation. Tho company felt themselves bound to protect their servants in the performance of their duty, and it was of importance that gentlemen, such as the defendants were, should have an equal claim to protection while travelling on the oompany'a line. The defendants had handed to him a document which, he understood, they wished to be read in public. It was in these terms:—" Messrs. Lloyd and Pontifex oontend that thoy are not to blame. A scull!,- took place in which it is difficult to say for certain what the facts are, but as they are assured by the company that their servants wero acting in tho discharge of their duty, the defendants are prepared to adopt this view, and, while not adm iting that any assault was committed which cannot be justified, yet express their regret for any interference with the officers of tho company. They are induced to take this course by tho assurance they have received from tho company that Inspector Everett has for many years borne an irreproachable character in thoir employ, and without any complaint of any kind being made against him." Mr. George Lewis, jun., solicitor, who appeared for the defendants, in the unavoidable absence of Mr. Serjt. Parry, expressed his assent to the terms contained in tho document in reference to a matter which would othorwiBe have involvod a long investigation. The company having withdrawn from the charge, the defendant, Mr. Pontifex, who had taken out a cross-summons against Inspector Everett, would also withdraw his complaint. Sir Robert Carden joined in the general satisfaction that an nnpleosant inquiry had been avoided, and all parties concerned left tho court.

MAGISTRATE AND PARISH
LAWYER-

READINGS OF NEW STATUTES.

The Wine And Beerhouse Act 1869. (a) (Continued from paqc 226.)

The unusually short time which is afforded for the purpose of mastering the contents of this Act, which received the Koyal assent on the 12th inst., and practically came into operation on the 15th inst., renders it necessary tbat we should resume the subject without delay.

It is most essential to remember that the keepers of alt beerhouses, whether for consumption on the premises or not, should give certain notices, and comply with certain formalities prior to applying to justices at the general annual licensing meeting for a certificate, upon production and in pursuance of the authority of which alone the Excise have power to grant a licence.

The Act does not prescribe any form of notice; but we have given at foot a form which has been carefully drawn. It is prepared to meet the case of a house holding an excise

(a) By T. Consuls, Solicitor, Fortsea.

licence prior to the 1st May I860, and situated in a borough. It may. however, be easily altered where the application is in respect of a house not licensed prior to that date, or situated in a county. In consequence of the peculiar phraseol )gy of the 8til section, it has been thought desirable that the notice should be somewhat aimilar to the notice necessary to be given of an application for a new spirit licence, the form of which is prescribed in the schedule to the Alehouse Act (9 Geo. 4, c. 61).

It will be desirable that all applications for a certificate under the new Act should be supported by a memorial to the justices certifying the good character and respectability of the applicant, and as to the conduct of the house. Applications for certificates in respect of houses not licensed prior to the 1st May 1869 should also be supported by evidence as to the requirements of the neighbourhood, and of any other circumstances rendering the grant of a certificate desirable. At the foot is the form of a memorial to the justices, which can be altered to meet the different cases which arias. It should be signed i>y persons of repute. The general practice is to admit such documents as evidence, without any proof of the genuineness of the signatures thereto. By the 8th section applications for certificates in respect of licences to sell by retail beer, &c, not to be consumed on the premises, and by the 19th aection applications for certificates for retail beer licences to be consumed on the premises in respect to houses holding licences on the 1st May 1869 may only be refused on the four grounds *et forth in the 8th section, and which are as follows:

(1.) That the applicant ban failed to produce satisfactory evidence of good oharacter.

(2.) That the house or nhop in respect of which a licence is sought, or any adjacent house or shop owned or occupied by the person applying for a liconoo is of a disorderly character, or frequented fcy thieves, prostitutes, or persons of bad character.

(3.) That the applicant having previously held a licence for the sale of wine, spirits, beer, or cider, tho same has been forfeited lor his misconduct, or that ho has through misconduct been at any timo previously adjudged disqualified from receiving any such licence, or from gelling any of tho aaid artioles.

(1.) That the applicant, or the house in respect of which he applies, is not duly qualified as by law is required. Where an application for any such lait-montionod certificate is refused on the ground that the house in respoct of which he applies is not duly qualified as by law is required, the justices shall specify in writing to tho applicant tho grounds of their decision.

It is clearly contemplated here that all applicants for certificates shall " produce satisfactory evidence of good character," and hence the necessity of the application being supported as above suggested.

A certificate under the Act may be transferred to a new tenant or occupant of any house in respect of which an excise licence is in ex istence, or in respect of which a certificate shall bo granted under the Act by the justices (or a majority of them) in petty sessions for any borough, &c, within which the house is situated, which transferred certificate shall be in force till the then next general annual licensing meeting, or special sessions for transferring licences, as the case may be; and a new tenant or occupant of any such house may, without a certificate, sell beer, &c, until the then next petty sessions (sect. 9).

No notices seem necessary for a transfer of a certificate under this section, although certain notices are required prior to transferring an alehouse license (9 Geo. 4, c. 61, s. 11).

S.ct. 10 provides that a licence in force for premises situate in Middlesex and Surrey may bo renewed without a certificate at any time prior to the first general annual licensing meetlug held for such counties after the passing of tins Act This clause is rendered necessary in consequence of the general annual licensing meetings for Middlesex and Surrey not being held until the first ten days in March.

By sect. 11 penalties are imposed for the forgery of a certificate.

The powers of constables and officers of police of entering and examining houses holding licences to sell beer to be consumed on the premises, are extended to entering and examining houses holding licences to sell beer, &c. not to be consumed on the premises, and licences under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 21, s. 3, and 26 & 27 Vict. c. 33, a. 1. which statutes are referred to in our previous article. la case the holder of any such licence,

or any servant or other person in his employ, or by his direction, shall refuse to admit, or shall not admit, any constable or officer demanding admittance, the same penalties shall attach as in the case of a retailer of beer, &c., to be consumed on the premises (sect 12). These last mentioned penalties are imposed by 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 7, and are—not exceeding HI. and costs, to be recovered within twenty days, and for a second offence two justices may disqualify. But they cannot impose a penalty (sec H. T. Tott, 25 J. P. 327).

The 13th section is a very extraordinary one, and it is difficult to imagine why it was thought necessary. It provides that, "In any legal proceeding under any of the said recited Acts it shall not be necessary in order to prove the sale of beer, cider, or wine, in or upon any house or premises, to prove the receipt or payment of any money in respect of such sale; but proof that any beer, cider, or wine was drunk or consumed in or upon such premises by any person other than the keeper of such house or premises, or some servant or inmate residing therein, shall he prima Jade evidence of the sale of such beer, cider, or wine, in or upon such house or premises."

In the first place it is to be observed that it was clear before the passing of the Act, that it was not necessary to prove the receipt or payment of money in order to substantiate a charge of unlawful selling. A sale might be presumed from strong circumstances: (see Finch v. Blundcll, 2G J. P. 71; Smith v. Vaux, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 46.) The section therefore is unnecessary.

But it is worse than unnecessary; it will render a conviction infinitely more difficult than it was before, for it provides that proof that any beer, &c, was drunk or consumed on the premises shall be prima facie evidence of a sale. Now prior to the present Act it was not necessary to prove the drinking or consumption of any beer, &c, in order to convict of an unlawful sale. As before observed, a sale might be presumed from strong circumstances; but a serious question arises under this section, whether thy Legislature have not now pointed out the mode in which a sale must be proved—namely, by proving a consumption. If this is so, convictions will be very rare, as persons using houses during prohibited hours will rarely drink in the presence of the police officers, any more than they will pay for the liquor in his presence. It may, however, be contended that this section merely points out one mode in which a sale may be prima facie proved.

But whatever construction is put upon the section, it is a most unnecessary and bungling clause, and must cause a very great deal of difference of opinion. It affords another proof that those who frame our statutes have frequently no practical knowledge of the subjects with which they deal. It is also a strong argument for appointing some competent lawyer to draw our new statutes.

The 14th clause is directed against persons holding licenses to sell not to be consumed on the premises. It provides that where any such person, with intent to evade the provisions of any Act of Parliament, permits beer, &c, to be taken off his premises for the purpose of being for his benefit or profit consumed in any other house, or in any tent, shed, or other building, premises, or place, it shall not be necessary to prove that such last mentioned house, tent, &c, belonged to the licensed person, or was hired, used, or occupied by him, if proof be given to the satisfaction of the justices that such beer, &c., was consumed therein, with such intent to evade. On such proof being given, such beer, &c, shall be deemed to have been consumed on the premises of the licensed person, and he shall be subject to penalties accordingly.

Section 15 enacts that "if any person shall suffer beer or cider to be drunk in his house at any time during which the house ought by law to be closed, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding 40s. for each offence." This is a very important section, and is novel. The marginal note in the statute is " Penalty for selling beer or cider to be drunk at illegal times." This is clearly incorrect, and calculated to mislead. The section does not relate to selling, but to "suffering beer or cider to be drunk." Before the present Act, a beer retailer had a right to entertain his friends gratuitously during the prohibited hours, provided he did not keep his house open and did not sell: (Overton r. Hunter, 23 J. P. 803;

1 L. T. Bep. N. S. 366.) He had alio a right to supply beer, &c~, in exchange for other goods to be delivered to him subsequently : (fVaviei • Sargeant, 6 L. T. Bep. N. S. 68.) The section under consideration renders it an offence to suffer beer to be drunk during prohibited how. and the words used would seem literally to extend to a case where the beer retailer was entertaining his friends gratuitously. It would also, in strictness, extend to his own family and the inmates of his bouse; but it is presumed this construction could not be supported. It would probably extend to drinking by lodger) I during the various times at which beer retailers might supply lodgers under former Acta of Parliament. It is open to doubt what operation1 this section will have as to "travellers." At any' rate it is clear that the loose and indefinite wording of the clause will create much litigation. In the face of previous legislation, the section in question ought to have defined more clearly how far it was intended to go, and what its! operation was to be in the cases above roea-T tioned. The clause does not extend to wine,l but only to beer (which includes ale and porter)] and to cider (which includes perry). Why thiij distinction is made it is impossible to compre-J hend, unless it be intended to create a dutino-r tion in favour of those who can afford to drmn wine.

We shall conclude the consideration of toil very extraordinary statute next week.

Form Of Nonci.

To the Overseers of the Poor of the parish oj I in thejtatotitghof , in the county of

and to the Constables thereof aaifti Ike wJ vfcomwrfc, and to all whom it may concern. I, , of , in the parish of , in

tWrrnijrh and county aforesaid, and being a K

I

of beer, ale, porter, cider, and perry [and triw required], by retail to be consumed on the hoi and premises, by virtue of an excise licence, wa was in force on and prior to the 1st Hay li do hereby give notice that it is my intention apply to the justices assembled at the i» general annual licensing meeting for the sal borough, to be holden in pursuance of the Act the ninth year of the reign of King Georgt Fourth, chapter sixty-one, intitulod " An Art ft regulate the granting of Licences to keepers I Inns, Ale Houses, and Victualling Houses I England," or at Borne adjournment of safl meeting, at , in the said borough, on the

day of August next ensuing, at the hour of of the cluck noon of the same day, or

on such other place, day, and time as shall appointed for that purpose on some day bet the 20th day of August and the 14th day September inclusive, next ensuing the date hirsl for a certificate or authority under " The Wine a! Beerhouse Act 1869," for a lieenoe to sell beer, si porter, cider, and perry [and itnne if reonirpljl retail to be consumed on the house and premSI called the , and situate , in the pan

of .in the hnwiwph md county aforesaid, M

which said house and premises are duly rated I the relief of the poor as by law required, si whioh I rent of , and tie same are the afl

porty of , and of which said house SB

premises I am now the

Given under my hand the day of July, fl

thousand eight hundred and rriitj riiiin

[Signature of applicant^

Form Of Memorial.

To tlte Worshipful the Justices of the Pi
acting in and for the borough of
county of

We the undersigned inhabitants of the bo: of , do hereby certify that Mr. , afl

beerhouse, situate , in the boral

and county aforesaid (beer retailer), is. to the flj of our knowledge and belief, a person of goodfl respectable character, and that the is a afl

conducted and orderly house, [/n ease the hem was not licensed prior to the 1st May 186P. ifl And that in our opinion the situation, size. Oal struction, and general character of the said htxa will adapt and qualify it for a licence to sell ha [and vine, if so J by retail, to be consumed on fl premises, and that a house with such a licence t required in the neighbourhood of the house, an would be a convenience to persons residing in th vicinity.

[blocks in formation]

CAMBRIDGE BOROUGH MAGISTRATES. Friday, July 16. (Before J. Wentwobth, R. M. Fawcktt, Dennis Adams, and Moses Browne, Esqrg.) Howlett v. Lord Wh. Osbokne. Keeping a ferocious dogEvidence of ferocity. Vpjnan information for allowing a ferocious dog to he at large in a public place unmuzzled, evidence that when chained up it vas in the kvbit of biting people was admitted, to show the nature of the animal, although there was no evidence to prove that when at large it was in the habit of attacking people: RtO, also, that when in a public street in company with its master, but two hundred yards mm him, although under his control, was suffiI eimt to satisfy the meaning of the expression "at large."

This was an information laid by Thomas Ho wlett, iispector of nuisance* of the borough of Cam, bridge, against Lord William Osborne, for that he ts the 9th July, in a certain street within the hcreogn, to wit Parker's-piece, did unlawfully await a certain ferocious dog to go about unraiiled. contrary to the bye-laws of the borough of Cambridge, whereby he rendered himself liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s. ;htch for the complainant. Whitehead for the defence.

- horn the evidence of several witnesses it apseated that the dog, a black retriever, wag usually

- kept chained up in the defendant's garden for the, purpose of protecting the premises, and that upon

'nnoos occasions, when so chained up, it had' bitten numerous persons. One witness also proved that it had strayed in his master's garden, and

,. had bitten him. Upon the day named m the inf oraation. it was shown that the dog was loose in Parkers-piece unmuzzled, in company with the defendant, but about two hundred yards from

-jiun. It was also shown that it was the habit of

tic defendant to let the dog loose in the evening

« to exercise it upon Parker's-piece, but there was

j ao eridence that upon any of these occasions it

had displayed its ferocity. w Whitehead, for the defendant, submitted, in the

;fct place, that Parker's-piece was not a public atrcet within the meaning of the bye-law.

St. Knowles, clerk to tho magistrates, pointed wt that by the interpretation clause of tho Police

■•Causes Consolidation Act, Parker's-pieco would k ineinded.

Whitehead did not press the objection, but farther contended that there was no evidence to «how the ferocious nature of the animal, except of those witnesses who had spoken to injuries inffeted while chained up for the protection of his •aster's property, and that although a dog might, •hen so engaged, be termed ferocious, yet it was art evidence of his general disposition when lot loo«e. Again, it was not shewn that it was "at ■rge," for when in company and under control of lis master, it could not be said to be "at largo"

i within the meaning of the bye-law.

The Magistrates overruled all these objections, aid. after evidence had been called to rebut the representations of the informant, convicted the defendant, and fined him 10s. and expenses.

KOBWICH CITY JUSTICES, GUILDHALL.

Monday, July 5. (Before the Right Worshipful the Mayor and other Justices.)

Reg. V. Gray. r«« declaration to obtain Supcriutendent-Regis(r»r'» licence of marriageParty making same «w»ie to the same penalties as perjury—19 Ji- 20 Ref.e.U9,». 18.

v"Ji •/justices do not consider evidence adduced "feient for committal, can prosecutor require l> enter into recognisances to prefer an indict**»*trader sect. 2 of 22 4/23 Vict. c. 17? «ta* Gray, a labourer, was charged under

"""Wd with having on the 13th March last signed

[table]

a declaration, as required by tho 22 & 23 Vict, to obtain a licence of marriage, containing statements as to length of residence of himself and the other person, and other particulars requisite, which were alleged to bo untrue; and particularly having stated that he and his intended wife were cousins, whereas he was her undo, and thereby by law unable to bo married.

Linay (managing clerk to Sadd, Norwich) supported the information.

Atkinsoi). solicitor, appeared for the defendant.

After hearing tho evidence in support of the charge, and Atkinson having addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant, the information was dismissed.

Linay then applied to the Bench to allow a person to bo bound over to prefer an indictment againct the accused at the next assizes under sect. 2 of 22 & 23 Vict. c. 17, contending that, as by the 18th section of 19 & 20 Vict. c. 119, a person guilty of signing a false declaration was liable to the penalties of perjury, that sect. 2 of 22 & 23 Vict. c. 17 applied.

Tho Bench allowed a prosecutor to enter into the requisite recognisances accordingly.

Friday, July 10.
GREAT EA8TEBN RAILWAY COMPANY

r. Williams. Williams was charged with sending lucifer matches

by railway, without distinctly marking the box

as containing the same, contrary to sect. 105 of

the 8 Vict. c. 20, subjecting him to a penalty of

201: Held, ilmt the onus probandi tluit the offence liad

been committed was on the complainant.

A gentleman from the office of Mr. W. H. Shaw, of London, solicitor, represented the company.

Linay, of Norwich, appeared on behalf of tho defendant.

Thomas Plow, a carman in the employ of the company, proved receiving a box from the defendant on the 17th June, which he delivered to Erasmus Walker, the scaleman at the company's goods station.

Walker, the scaleman, proved that he received the box of the last witness, and that it bore a direction, "Thurston, Cambridge," and in consequence of the smell of the same he opened it, and found tho box contained a quantity of mixed grocery goods and also several dozen boxes of lucifer matches. Cross-examined by Linay -.—Did not observe anything else marked on the box except tho address.

After the formal evidence as to publication of the list of offences at the company's stations,

Linay addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant, and contended that it had not been positively shown that the box was not marked as required by the section of the Act of Parliament under which the information was laid, and tho onus of proof that the offence had been committed rested on the complainants.

The Justices, after a short deliberation, dismissed the summons.

Crime In France.—In spite of the far more careful supervision exercised over the dangerous classes of Paris than over their brothers in London, and notwithstanding the actual existence for some years of provisions in their French criminal code similar to those we have just introduced into our Habitual Criminals Bill, tho registers of tho Paris prefecture tell much the same tale as tho gaolers of our own prisons. Here are a few cases which have been recently cited:— Joseph Guyot, between 1854 and 1868, was sentenced twenty-four times; Antonin Crozat, between 1833 and 1868, seventy-one times; Jean Hebrar, since Dec. 4, 1833, has been condemned to twenty-seven years and five months' imprisonment, twenty-nvo years of solitary confinement, and to 235 years of penal servitude—287 years in all. He was transported to Cayenne and escaped.

Irish Convicts.—The directors of convict prisons in Ireland report that in the year 1868 246 convicts were sentenced to penal servitude, 50 less than in 1867; 172 were males, and 74 females; 245 convicts were discharged in the year —163 on orders of licence, and 82 unconditionally, on completion of sentence, etc. The number in custody on the 1st Jan. 1869, was 1325—viz., 922 males and 403 females, the total being 10 less than on the 1st Jan. 1868,106 less than in 1867, 312 less than in 1866, 248 less than the average on the 1st Jan. of the ten years 1859-68. The total number of convict prisoners in 1868 was 1333; the

deaths were 14, or rather over 1 per cont., and tho average daily number of sick 42, or three times the deaths. Tho year's expenditure of these prisons —Mountjoy, Spike Island (public works), and Smithfield and Lusk (intermediate) was 38.090f., the estimated value of prisoners' work, 17,6041. It is proposed to close Smithfield Prison, as not needed. Tho report states that the Irish system of convict management continues to work satisfactorily. There were but sixteen revocations of licences in the year 1868. Tho Presbyterian chaplain at Spike Island gives a characteristic story of his nock; somo of them "from the furthest north" waited upon him in the course of the year to state their objections to having hymns sung in Divine service, and to request that only the Psalms of David should be used, "hymns not being inspired." Mr. Organ lecturer at Lusk, one of the intermediate prisons to which well-conducted men are in due time transferred, reports that "immorality is completely and entirely absent from that colony, and a sound vigorous tone shows itself throughout." He describes the released convicts in the Dublin district as obtaining from 10s. to 30s. wages per week, and says that some are foremen, and many are employers themselves; the conduct of the great majority is most satisfactory, and the relapses into crime are very few. The slightest violation of the conditions of a licence is visited with punishment. It appears that there were in Mountjoy Prison in 1868 140 prisoners, received under the HabeaB Corpus Suspension Act; 107 of them were discharged conditionally in the year, five unconditionally, and the rest were removed to county and city gaols. The aocount of this class of prisoners describes 148 as Roman Catholics and 37 as Protestants; 122 as single men, and 63 married. Crime In Ireland.—The judges, in their addresses to the grand juries, continue to comment in complimentary terms upon tho general diminution of crime. In opening the commission in Wexford, Mr. Justioe George "had nothing but unfeigned gratification to express." Mr. Justice Morris, who presided in the Crown Court at Belfast congratulated the grand jury upon the evidences of tranquillity and. order which he had observed throughout the'whole North-East Circuit. He expressed his gratification that, considering tho immense population of the county of Antrim, thero was perfect safety so far as humanly can be expected for life and property. He rejoiced in being able in the commercial capital of Ireland to use the same language of congratulation which ho had used in the first term on the circuit.-. The satisfactory state of the calendar and the police reports proved that "there is under ordinary cironmstances a feeling in favour of law and order in that part of the country, and that tho people arc what may be described as a law abiding people." His Lordship alluded to temporary and exceptional causes which might lead to breaches of the peace, and said he thought the effect of those causes had been very much exaggerated. He hoped these " small and trivial, temporary and exceptional causes" would cease, whether they arose from persons being too fond of giving offenco to then- neighbours, or from there being an over anxiety on the part of other persons to take offence. Baron Deasy made similar observations in his charge to the grand jury in the town of Carrickfergus. On all the circuits, so far as they have yet proceeded, there are favourable reports of the state of the country. In the county of Cork there are indications of a lawless spirit, whioh did not come under the observation of the Judges, in the number of incendiary fires, for which the grand jury passed presentments to the extent of 4541. This sum represents the value of a number of hayricks burnt and other injuries inflicted upon property.

REAL PROPERTY LAWYER ANO CONVEYANCER.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. Will Construction.—By a deed landed estates at Ealing were conveyed to trustees upon trust to sell, exchange, and make partition thereof, and in case of sale to pay one-half of the purchase money to L. and the other to B.. for her separate use. and until the sale to hold the rent (as to B.'s moiety) for such person or persons as B. should by deed or will appoint, and in default for her absolutely. B. by her will devised all her " landed property" at Ealing to her husband {an alien) for life. B. died before

« 이전계속 »