119. Receipt by legatee for share of residuary estate.
Received the
day of
18, from the
executors of A. B., late of, &c. [testator] deceased,
the sum of £
being a share of the
residue of his estate, to which I am entitled as
one of the
of the said A. B., and I hereby
discharge the said executors from all claims and
demands so far as I am personally concerned in
respect of their trust and executorship, and I un-
dertake upon request to execute to them a full
and complete release and discharge.
C. D. [legatee].
120. Receipt for moneys secured upon mortgage and
undertaking to transfer,

Received from Messrs. A. B. & C. D., of, &c., intended transferees] by payment of Mr. Y. Z., their attorney, £ being the full principal money (all interest having been paid) due by E. F., on mortgage, dated, &c., of property in street,

to our client, Mr. G. H [mortgagee], which sum we are duly authorised to receive on his behalf, and we deliver up the deeds to the abovenamed Mr. Y. Z., and undertake that the said G. H. shall, at the request and expense of the said mortgagor, transfer the said debt and premises to day of

the said A. B. and C. D. Dated the

18

M. & N. [mortgagee's solicitors].

tances from thence. He was to pay up at once
21. per share on fifty shares of 1004. each, and the
company agreed to place 87. per share to his
debit on account of calls to be made on the
shares. The agent arrived in the colony in Dec.
1865. The company was ordered to be wound-
up under supervision in Jan. 1868, and the ser-
vices of the agent were put an end to by a power
of attorney of the company, and the liquidators
upon certain terms of compromise. The liqui-
dators having, in the course of their continued
employment of the agent, become indebted to
him, and having entered into the compromise,
were not allowed to enforce against him the
payment of a call made under the winding-up
without bringing the debt due to him into
account. Yelland's case, L. Rep. 4 Eq. 350, con-
sidered and followed: (Clarke's case, 20 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 774. V.C. J.)

POWER TO OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO COM-
PROMISE.-A company having been formed for
the construction of a railway in Portugal, the
government of that country seized the property
of the company and the railway while it was in
course of construction, alleging that it was
entitled to do so in consequence of the company
not having fulfilled its engagements. The
Portuguese Government subsequently entered
into negotiations for a compromise, and a liqui-
dator having been appointed under a compulsory
winding-up, power was given to him by the
court, under sect. 96 of the Companies Act 1862,
to act without the sanction of the court, on the
ground that, under the special circumstances of
the case, it was desirable that the liquidator
should be armed with summary powers. It was
subsequently moved on behalf of certain cre-
ditors that this order should be varied so far as

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW it conferred upon the official liquidator power to

JOURNAL.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
WINDING-UP-SUIT BY LIQUIDATOR-LIABI-

LITY OF DIRECTORS.-Suit by official liquidator
of a banking company against certain living
directors, and the representatives of deceased
directors of the company, seeking to make them
liable for the following breaches of trust:-1.
That the directors had, contrary to the provi-
sions of the deed of settlement of the company
(which was established in 1836 under the pro-
visions of the Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 46), continued to
carry on business after a certain fund called
"the surplus fund," and one-fourth of the
capital of the company had been lost. 2. That
they had paid dividends out of capital. 3. That
they had also, contrary to the provisions of the
deed of settlement, allowed certain of the
directors unduly to overdraw their accounts. 4.
That they had issued false balance-sheets, and
otherwise misrepresented the affairs of the
company. As to
the publication of false
balance-sheets, and including in them debts
which were hopelessly bad, it was difficult to
say where a debt was hopeless; and, besides,
if any shareholder was deceived into buying
shares he might have his separate remedy, but
each would have a different case, and the whole
body could not sue. As to the dividends, the
court could not order the directors to pay
dividends over again to the shareholders. As
to the not stopping of the bank, it appeared that
much more than one-fourth of the capital was
lost in 1842, when the shareholders resolved to
go on, and the directors could not, therefore, be
held liable for not calling a meeting and stop-
ping the bank immediately after the share-
holders had resolved to go on. As to the loan
to one of the directors, no case was made on the
bill, the only statement on that subject being
that the directors had improperly included that
debt among the assets. If the money had been
improperly advanced the directors might be
charged with it in the winding-up. Bill dis-
missed, but without costs: (Turquand v. Marshall, |
20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 766. L. C.)

LANDS CLAUSES ACT, S. 92-PART OF PREMISES TAKEN. -Where a railway company has been decreed to take the whole of certain premises instead of part only, the court will compel the company to take the necessary steps for ascertaining the value of the part not taken: (Marson v. The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 773. V.C. J.)

compromise claims without the sanction of the
court, on the ground that such a power was
beyond the terms of the Act, and also that the
compromise which the liquidator was about to
effect was unsatisfactory: Motion refused with
costs: (Re South-Eastern Railway, 20 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 800. V.C. M.)

MARITIME LAW

vessel sued the insurers for a contribution to

general average for the above jettison: Held, that he could not recover (Chapman and Foster, JJ., dissenting): (Dabney v. New England Mutual Ins. Co., 14 All. 300.)

INSURANCE.-Denial of all liability on a policy on the ground that the loss was not from a peril insured against, is a waiver of proof of loss required in the policy, as also of an allowance therein to the insurers of sixty days in which to pay. A steamer insured against loss by fire was run into by another vessel, which caused her to fill with water, which forced the fire from her furnaces and the fire burned so much of the woodwork that she sank, which she would not have done but for the fire. Held, that the insurers were liable for the loss, except the immediate results of the collision. (U. S. Circuit Court); (Norwich & N. Y. T. Co. v. Western Mass. Ins. Co., 34 Conn. 561),

Furniture was insured "free of particular average" (which was taken to mean "against total loss only "). During the voyage the vessel was wrecked and condemned, and said goods were transshipped, parts of sets into one vessel, and parts into another. One of the said vessels was lost with its cargo, the other arrived safely. Held, that the insurers were liable for the goods lost: (Pierce v. Columbian Ins. Co. 14 All. 320).

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

JULY EXAMINATION

On the Subjects of the Lectures and Classes of the Readers of the Inns of Court. held at Lincoln'sinn Hall, on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd July 1869.

The Council of Legal Education have awarded the following exhibitions to the under-mentioned students, of the value of thirty guineas each, to endure for two years.

Constitutional Law and Legal History.-Thomas Prout Webb, Esq., Student of Lincoln's-inn.

Jurisprudence, Civil and International Law.-Archibald Brown, Esq., student of the Middle Temple.

Equity.-Charles Henry Turner, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn.

The Common Law.-Henry Hodgson Bremner, Esq., student of the Inner Temple.

The Law of Real Property, &c.-Charles Henry Turner, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn.

The Council of Legal Education have also awarded the following exhibitions, of the value of twenty guineas each, to endure for two years, but to merge on the acquisition of a superior exhibition:

Equity.-Henry Charles Deane, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. MASTER'S WAGES-MASTER OWNER OF HALF VESSEL AND CARGO.-F. and S., both residing at Halifax, N.S., were the owners each of a moiety of the cargo and ship Joseph Dexter. F. (as it was alleged) mortgaged his moiety to S. The ship sailed in Nov. 1868, from that port, F. being The Common Law.-George Welby King, Esq., the master thereof. After so sailing, S. assigned his own moiety and the other moiety, of which student of Gray's-inn. The Law of Real Property, &c.-Henry Charles he was, as he alleged, mortgagee, to B., of Liver-Deane, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn. pool, who, on the arrival of the ship at Cork, By Order of the Council, ordered F. to take her round to Liverpool. F. (Signed) EDWARD RYAN, declined to obey that order, on the ground that Chairman pro tem. he, F., was the owner of a moiety of cargo and Council Chamber, Lincoln's-inn, 15th July 1869. letter to B. that he had mortgaged his moiety to ship, and he denied in strong language in a S. The ship and cargo were arrested by order of the Admiralty Court, and sold, at a price insufficient to cover the expenses. Held, that F. was entitled to his wages as master earned on board the ship, even though he were part owner thereof, and that the owner of the other moiety must pay him a moiety of such wages. Held, also, that the conduct of F., and the strong language used by him towards B., if even B. were the owner of the entire of the ship and cargo, were not such as to cause F. to forfeit his wages under the circumstances: (The Joseph Dexter, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 820, Adm. (Ireland).

RECENT AMERICAN DECISIONS.

FREIGHT.—The abandonment of goods sunk in transitu to underwriters, and a receipt of the sum insured as for a total loss, followed by the underwriters taking possession of the goods, the carriers being ready and willing to complete the transportation, may be found by the jury to be an acceptance of the goods by the owner at the place of loss, entitling the carriers to freight pro rata: (McKibbin v. Peck, 39 N. Y. 262.)

GENERAL AVERAGE.-A vessel fell in with a ship in a sinking condition. To save the lives of the ship's passengers and crew, the master of the vessel consented to receive them; but as it WINDING-UP-SUB-AGENT-SALARY-CALLS. was necessary to throw overboard part of his -An agent in a colony was appointed by a cargo to make room for them, he began to do so limited liability company for five years, at a so before any of them came on board, and consalary of 7501. per annum, for business to be tinued it while they were coming on board until done in the colony, with commissions on remit-room enough was made. The owner of the

COUNTY COURTS.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.
COSTS-ACTION OF TORT-SLANDER.-Sect. 5

of the County Court Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict.
c. 142), which provides "that the plaintiff in an
action of tort who recovers a sum not exceeding
ten pounds shall not be entitled to any costs of
suit, unless the judge certify on the record that
there was sufficient reason for bringing the
action in the Superior Court, or unless the court
or a judge at chambers shall, by rule or order,
allow such costs," applies to all actions of tort,
whether they are such as can be commenced in a
County Court or not: (Sampson v. Mackay, 20 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 807. Q. B.)

TOWCESTER COUNTY COURT.
Monday July 5.
(Before FRANCIS MCTAGGART, Esq., Judge.)
AYRES V. ARNOLD.
Executor-Liability for funeral expenses.
This was a case heard at the last court, on which
His Honour reserved judgment.

His HONOUR now delivered judgment as follows: In this case the plaintiff had been housekeeper to Joseph Arnold. He made his will, dated 7th and leaving all his property to the plaintiff. The May, 1869, appointing one Joseph Gaybell executor, will was not executed in the presence of witnesses, as required by 1 Vict., c. 26; but was sent, after execution, to two persons residing at a distance from the testator, who then attested the will. The result of this strange irregularity was, of course,

in the present year, the bankrupt, who was then considerably embarrassed and pressed by his creditors, as appears from the evidence before me, as well as his own admission, departed from his house at Oxton for London, under circumstances to which I shall presently allude. About the same time Mr. Campbell packed up the bankrupt's books and papers at the office in Liverpool, and took his departure with them, and has not been seen since either at Oxton or Liverpool. The house at Oxton was closed, the furniture removed by the Great Western Railway, and subsequently discovered in a warehouse belonging to that company at Paddington, deposited in the name of Mr. Roderick Campbell. A boy was left in the office, who stated, in answer to inquiries, that he could not tell where Mr. Best was, but that letters would be forwarded through Mr. Martin Browne, an attorney, of this town. We next find Mr. Best in London, where he resided, according to his own account, in three different sets of lodgings, with the exception of a short time when he was at Southampton. Although some correspondence took place between two of his creditors and himself, yet he did not divulge his real address on any occasion, but either called at a hotel for his letters or received them through his London agents, Messrs. Doyle and Edwards. Mr. Macfie who was subsequently chosen creditors' assignee, went up to London for the purpose of discovering the bankrupt, but was unable to do so. So far he eluded his creditors, but at length his own agents, Messrs. Doyle and Edwards, arrested him. He came up before the court in London, where his application for release was dismissed, and the proceedings were, by order of Mr. Commissioner Bacon transferred to this court. Mr. Nordon, who has argued in support of his client with great energy and ability, has very properly drawn my attention to the authorities which show that the Court of Bankruptcy will, in the exercise of the discretion given to it by sect. 112, Bankruptcy Act 1849, ordinarily release a bankrupt, unless he be found to have done certain things which expressly disentitle him to his discharge. It is contended by Mr. Etty, on the other hand, not only that the conduct of the bankrupt has been such as to disentitle him to release, inasmuch as the evidence leads to the inevitable conclusion that he would, if released, elude his crediters, abscond, and not attend the sittings of the court, but Mr. Commissioner Bacon, has already determined the question, and that no new facts have arisen since which should induce this court to come to a different conclusion. It may well be that the removal of the proceedings to this court alone might render it desirable that the bankrupt should be released in the interest of his Liverpool creditors, besides which it is alleged by the bankrupt, in an affidavit filed since the dismissal of the former application, that it will be impossible for him to prepare the accounts ordered by the court whilst he is in custody. The primary object of a bankrupt's discharge from prison is to enable him to assist the assignees in discovering and getting in the estate, but I am at the same time not unmindful that the law of England is ever jealous of the liberty of the subject. I shall confine myself in considering this application as much as possible to those points which have not been brought under the notice of Mr. Commissioner Bacon, as I should not for a moment think of reviewing any decision of so experienced and distinguished a judge. The Lord Chancellor (Westbury) has most distinctly laid it down in Ex parte Stuart, re Waugh, 33 L. J. 6, Bank., that" The commissioner is authorised to exercise the power of ordering the release of the bankrupt only for the benefit of the creditors under the bankrupty. If he is perfectly satisfied that it will conduce to the benefit of the creditors the power may be exercised." Now, let us look at the circumstances under which the bankrupt left Liverpool, and what he has since done to advance the interests of his creditors. The bankrupt alleges that he left this town solely with the intention of continuing practice either in London or the South of England, that this departure was no secret, that he was not pressed by his creditors, had ample means to pay his debts, bills of costs due to him to the amount of nearly 1000., and that at the time of his departure he deputed Messrs. Martin Browne and Roderick Campbell to make certain arrangements for him. On this it must be remarked that it is somewhat singular that a professional man should leave a large practice in Liverpool with the view of founding a new business without any connection elsewhere, and the allegations of the bankrupt are entirely unsupported by any affidavit from Messrs. Browne and Campbell, or any former clerk, or any other person whatever; whilst his release is opposed by the creditors' assignee, and several other creditors, to all of whom the bankrupt ascribes vindictive motives. But there are certain suggestive facts, apart from the statement of the bankrupt and the Right of a surety to oppose the insolvent's dis

opinions of the creditors, from which the motives and intentions of the bankrupt may be strongly inferred. Early in January there were writs and

Where 25 per cent is charged upon money advanced
on bills, the court will not deal with the case as
that of an ordinary trade creditor.
Where a person, with others, is joined as security
with the insolvent to a third party, for the debt
of that third party, such person is not a creditor
and will not be allowed to oppose.

opposed by Keatinge Clay, solicitor, on the part of
Byrne was a dairyman, and his discharge was
the ground of having made away with property,
a Mr. Sullivan and of a person named Phillips, on
and of having entered into collusion with his
father-in-law, M'Guirk, and the son of M'Guirk,
for the purpose of defrauding his creditors.

Kernan, Q. C., appeared for the insolvent, and contended that Phillips was not a creditor at all, and of course had no right to oppose.

MILLER, J., in delivering judgment, said that Phillips, the person seeking to oppose the discharge of the insolvent, had joined in a bill of exchange along with the M'Guirks, the father-inlaw and the brother-in-law of the insolvent, to a person named Sullivan, for the sole accommodation of M'Guirk, who received the entire proceeds of the bill. Shortly afterwards, and while that bill of exchange was current, M'Guirk assigned, or purported to assign, his cows and all his other property to his son-in-law the insolvent. But it appeared that a man named King, who was a relative of M'Guirk's, so far overreached that assignment as to recoup himself for a claim he had against M'Guirk the elder, by a seizure and sale of some of his cows, which had belonged to M'Guirk the elder; and it further appeared that the insolvent very soon afterwards not only sold the remainder of the cows that belonged to his father-in-law, but also converted his whole property into cash, and applied that cash in payment of the debts of his own, and some of those for which his father-in-law, with the insolvent, were liable; excluding, however, the bill upon which the insolvent and his father-in-law were liable to Sullivan. The insolvent had been arrested under a fiat at the suit of Sullivan, as the holder of the bill having on it the names of Phillips, of the insolvent, and of the two M'Guirks', and an opposition had been entered on the part of Sullivan and of Phillips in respect of that bill. Now, it is not to be lost sight of that I am sitting in a criminal court administering a very penal code. Sullivan, who is a pawnbroker, has very frankly admitted that the rate of interest which he charges is 25 per cent., but that in taking the bill in question, which was a renewal of other bills, he struck off several pounds which he would be entitled to charge on all the transactions.

judgments out against him, and within a fortnight
of his departure he obtained silver plate from
Messrs. Elkington to the amount of 105., and
jewellery from a Mr. Wood to the amount of 481.,
on credit, as well as the very portmanteau to carry
off his wearing apparel, which was sold for cash
on delivery, yet the bankrupt denied himself to
the shopwoman who called for the money, and
when she went again to his house a few days
afterwards he was gone. His furniture was at
the same time removed and warehoused in the
name of Mr. Roderick Campbell, at Paddington
station. Has any of this property been given
up? The hiding place of the furniture was
detected by Mr. Macfie and sold under his execu-
tion. The bankrupt on his arrest declared that he
had no papers or property of any kind, except his
wearing apparel, though he subsequently stated
that the plate obtained from Messrs. Elkington
was temporarily deposited to enable him to
obtain money to pay off an execution; yet he
has given no name, or clue to the place of
deposit. What was his course of conduct when
he reached London? Why, he was lurking about
without any fixed residence, playing hide-and-
seek with his creditors, never allowing his
real address to be known, and carrying on
all communications through third parties, and
this too for several months, until he is at last
arrested in May. Does such a course afford any
guarantee to the creditors that he will, if re-
leased, attend the sittings of the court and give
them the benefit of his assistance? In his last
affidavit the bankrupt insists that he cannot pre-
pare his accounts in prison, because all his papers
have been removed by Mr. Roderick Campbell,
and are still in his custody and control, without
the will and consent of the bankrupt; yet he
believes that if released he could obtain these
papers. Now, there is no presumption to be in-
ferred more clearly from all the circumstances of
the case independently of the admissions of the
bankrupt, than that Mr. Roderick Campbell was
his intimate friend and confidential agent, and has
throughout acted in concert with him. Mr. Camp-
bell assisted in his practice, Mr. Campbell was
expressly instructed by the bankrupt to arrange
all matters connected with his office, Mr. Campbell
leaves Liverpool shortly after the bankrupt, the
furniture is deposited in the name of Mr. Camp-
bell; but Mr. Campbell is not forthcoming now,
and, though the bankrupt knows that his papers
are still in the custody or control of Mr. Campbell,
yet he has never furnished the assignee with the
address of Mr. Campbell, or given him the oppor-
tunity of endeavouring to recover the documents
so necessary to the bankrupt that he states that
it will be impossible for him to prepare his do not mean to say one word in disparagement
accounts or comply with the orders of the court of those gentlemen who are authorised by law to
without access to them. I have gone most care- make those charges (and the law now permits a
fully through the voluminous papers which have man to take any interest he can get); but I am
been filed in this case, in order to ascertain entitled to conclude that where a party charges
whether there were any new facts or change of cir- interest at the rate of 25 per cent., and requires
cumstances sufficient to sanction a course different two or more names on his security, he is prepared
from that directed by Mr. Commissioner Bacon for events such as have happened in the present
when the bankrupt was before him; but I am un- case; therefore an opposition coming from such
able to find anything in the history of this bank- parties cannot meet with the same favour as
ruptcy, or in the conduct of the bankrupt through- ordinary creditors should receive. And when I
out-when I look at his uniform practice of con- see no reason to question the application of the
cealment, his enforced departure from Liverpool, property by the insolvent in discharge of his
and his fugitive life in London--which can lead liabilities, as stated in his schedule, and that no
me to the conclusion that he has, if released, any debt was actually due to Sullivan at the time the
real intention to promote the interests of his insolvent disposed of his property, I see no ground
creditors. He has not given up his books, though for remanding him at the suit of Sullivan. As
they are in the custody of his agent; he has not regards the opposition of Phillips, the impression
given up his plate, although it is deposited in produced on my mind by the evidence, and in
some place known to him but undisclosed to his particular by the evidence of M'Guirk, the younger,
assignee. He has hitherto attempted to elude, was that Phillips was entitled to protection against
never to meet, his creditors. Under these circum- these dealings by the insolvent with his father-in-
stances no material benefit can be expected by the law and brother-in-law, if it were in the power of
creditors from his release. I must also bear in the court to extend it to him. But the difficulty
mind that many creditors have opposed whilst which I felt was whether Phillips was, in respect
none have supported the prisoner's application, of his liability jointly with the insolvent for the
and I cannot but think that the creditors were debt of M Guirk to a third party, a creditor under
fully justified in resolving at their first meeting to the meaning of the Act of Parliament entitled to
oppose the release of the bankrupt, unless he oppose. Under the 207th section of the Irish
should find sufficient bail to ensure his due attend- Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, the persons declared
ance at the sittings of the court. The application entitled to oppose the discharge of the insolvent are
will therefore be refused. I have considered the his creditors. Then, is Phillips a creditor of the in-
question of bail in reference to the statements solvent at present? I think not. The 212th section
of the bankrupt's debts and liabilities, and shall gives the court power "to discharge the insolvent
be ready to grant his release on his entering into as to the several debts or sums of money due,
recognisances to the amount of £400 to attend all or claimed to be due, at the time of filing the peti-
the sittings of the court in the bankruptcy, and tion, from the insolvent to the several persons
finding two sufficient sureties, who shall each be named in his schedule as creditors, or claiming to
bound over to the amount of £200 as security for be creditors, for the sums respectively for which
such attendance as aforesaid.
they are returned, or for which such persons shall
have given credit to such insolvent before the
time of filing his petition, and which were not
then payable, and to future claims of every surety
or bail for such insolvent named in his or her
schedule as a contingent creditor, and as to the
claims of all other persons not known to the in-
solvent at the time of such adjudication, and who
may be indorsees and holders of any negotiable
security set forth in his schedule." Phillips, who
was joined with the insolvent to a third party for
the debt of that third party, and who had not paid
that debt, could not be said to be a creditor of the

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY AND INSOL-
VENCY (IRELAND).
(Before MILLER, J.)
June 18, 1869.

Re THOMAS BYRNE (an insolvent). (a)
charge-Large interest charged on discounting

bills.

(a) From the Irish Law Times.

insolvent under the 212th section. The 253rd section provided that sureties and persons liable for the debts of the insolvent may prove after having paid such debts. Then, under that section, I think, Phillips is not a creditor, and, if he is not a creditor, he cannot be allowed to oppose. A case has been supplied to me by the Chief Clerk in Insolvency, Re Cann, reported in 1 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Reports, 217, in which, under the Protection Act in England, Mr. Commissioner Murphy held that where he found three or four persons returned as sureties on a bill of exchange, the creditor alone who was holder of the bill had the legal right of action in respect to the debt; he alone was entitled to oppose. Looking at that decision, his Lordship said, that although he felt that Phillips had not been fairly dealt with, he did not think that under the circumstances he could remand the insolvent at his suit.

The insolvent was discharged.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PRIVATE CHAPEL, FORMING PART OF PARISH CHURCH-REPAIRS.-The freehold of a lesser chancel or private chapel annexed to, and apparently forming part of, a parish church, may be in a private person. It is not necessarily annexed to the possession of a messuage or manor house, but may form the subject of conveyance separately from other property, like any other freehold land. In an action by a person claiming the freehold of inheritance in a private chapel, apparently forming part of the parish church, against the vicar for trespass in breaking the lock of such chapel: Held, that the facts that plaintiff's predecessors in title had always repaired the chape!, that their tenants had always occupied the sittings within it, and that they had always had a lock upon the door of it, were sufficient evidence to show that the freehold in the soil of the chapel belonged to the plaintiff, and that the action was, therefore, maintainable: Chapman v. Jones, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 811. Ex.)

COURT OF ARCHES.

(Before the Right Hon. Sir R. PHILLIMORE.) EDNEY AND ANOTHER v. SMALLBONES.

Novel church rate case.

This was a suit to enforce payment of a church rate to repair and enlarge the church of Whitchurch, Hampshire, in the diocese of Winchester. The promoters were the churchwardens, and the defendant one of the parishioners, who objected to pay the rate. The present application was on the part of the defendant for the production of documents in the possession of the churchwardens.

Dr. Swabey said the case was a peculiar one. The rate was for the repairs of the church, and the objection was that it had been applied to repair the chancel as well, and therefore could not be enforced, as the holder of the rentcharge had not been assessed. He asked for a monition to issue for the documents to be produced.

Dr. Tristram, for the churchwardens, opposed a monition. The documents would be produced for inspection.

His LORDSHIP made an order for the production and inspection of the documents, and expressed his intention to hear the case before the vacation. Order accordingly.

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE

PROFESSION.

[NOTE. This department of the LAW TIMEs being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.]

houses forming part of the estate, the tenants in
common not unnaturally assumed that each held
his own dwelling house in severalty; consequently,
the will of each contemplated that state of things;
and, indeed, in one case succession duty was paid
accordingly. Now, inasmuch as the tenants in
common were related, and had a common interest
in their family, you may fancy what trouble
attended the preparation and rendering of the suc-
cession-duty accounts, the rather as the only
chance of effecting a sale of the scattered fractions
arose during the continuance of two successive life
interests; the duty on these had to be anticipated.
Imagine, Mr. Editor, the future leader of the Con-
servative party replying to the taunt, "Where
are the freeholders of Bucks?" by saying that
"much learning had made them mad. Decimal
fractions on the brain had proved too much for
the Mercian franklins."
EAST SURREY.

THE FINAL EXAMINATION.-Can you or any
of your correspondents suggest any book to read
for the final examination on Chancery practice?
I am aware that Ayckbourn and Kimber's Suits
in Equity are usually recommended, but I am
under the impression that there is some better book
published than either of the above. ARTICULUS.
[Snell's Principles of Equity is a most useful
work: Smith's Equity and Haynes's Outlines
are also read for this examination.-ED.]

"THE WINE AND BEERHOUSE ACT 1869.”—I
shall be glad of the opinion of your correspondents
(or that of counsel, if such is by and bye taken by
any of them) whether the 15th section of this Act
makes the keeper of the house liable to the penalty
of 40s. who suffers travellers or lodgers to drink
beer or cider in the house at any time during
which it ought by law to be closed. And whether
the 16th section, which exempts servants or in-
mates of such a house, and the other houses
referred to in the section, includes "travellers"
under the term "inmates" or not.

A CLERK TO MAGISTRATES.

NOTES AND QUERIES ON
POINTS OF PRACTICE.

[N.B. None are inserted unless the name and address of the
writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a
guarantee for bona fides.]

Queries.

56. WILL-PERPETUITY.-A. devised a copyhold estate to his niece B., a spinster, for life. After her decease unto each and every the lawful sons and daughters of B. for life, severally and successively in order and course as they should be in seniority of age and priority of birth; and from and after the decease of all and every the said children or issue of the said B., the testator devised the said estate unto his godchild C., the daughter of his nephew D., and her children or issue, severally and successively in like manner in every respect as is thereinbefore limited and expressed concerning the devise to the said B. and her children of all and every the said children or issue of the or issue as aforesaid; and from and after the decease said C., the testator devised the said estate unto the said D., his heirs and assigns for ever. The testator died in 1822, leaving his niece B., his godchild C., and his nephew D., him surviving. B. after. wards married, and died eight years ago without having had any children. The nephew D. died in 1830, leaving C., his only child and heiress-at-law him surviving. On the death of B. C. entered into possession, and has ever since received the rents of the estate, but has not yet been admitted; she is married, and has a large family. Now, as the testator does not devise the estate over to C. until after the decease of all and every the said children or issue of B., the first question that arises is whether he intended the estate to go to the issue of the

ance of premises to an Industrial and Provident Society duly registered under the above Act requires a stamp, such Act, and the 16th and 37th sections of the Friendly or is not same exempt by virtue of the 15th section of Societies Act 1855? The 16th section of the latter Act mentions the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1852, but this Act was repealed by the Act of 1862, and no saving clause enacted,-ALPHA.

59. LENDING A HORSE-LICENCE.-Will the owner of a horse, being without a licence to let, subject himself to a penalty (1) by lending him habitually to his neighbours without any recompense; (2) by so lending him, and receiving similar loans in return, as is customary with farmers; (3) by lending him occasionally or fre quently to one neigbour only, and receiving (a) once after many loans, or (b) on each occasion a gratuity, without any previous promise or agreement; (4) by let ting him occasionally or frequently to one neighbour ouly at a stipulated hire? Perhaps you could refer me to some book or cases which would be an answer to these. D. Q.

(Q. 41.) MARRIED WOMEN-REAL PROPERTY.—I am much obliged by "E. H. B.'s" remarks on my answer points raised, and to search for authorities thereon. It to this query, as they caused me to reconsider the

D. J." will have the goodness to refer to Macpherson's Law of Infants, he will find under the title "Writ de ventre inspiciando," a full answer to his inquiry, with the law and authorities upon the subject, whereby it appears that the child in question would be held the child of the former husband, and as such entitled to share as coparcener with the sister.

W. H. F.

(Q. 50.) COPYHOLDS-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.-In the case stated by A. B. C., an uninterrupted possession for twenty years of the allotments in question, without any acknowledgment will, I apprehend, bar any claim on the part of the lord of the manor, provided he was not under any of the disabilities mentioned in the 16th section of the Statute of Limitations, and forty years' pos session is a bar under any circumstance (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, ss. 1, 2, 17, 34; Shelford's Law of Copyholds, p. 136.) The devisees should convey by a common conveyance, reciting that the testator being seised in fee, &c., their title being a statutory declaration of uninterrupted possession by the testator.

LAW SOCIETIES.

C. N.

THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. Proceedings and Resolutions at the Annual General Meeting, held the 16th July, 1869. At the annual meeting of the members of the society, held in the hall of the society on July 16, 1869, John Henry Bolton, Esq., President, in the chair.

1. Read the circular convening the meeting as follows:

child or children of B., which would be illegal; the giving estates for life to unborn children and the issue of such children tending to a perpetuity. The particular intention thus failing, the next question is, whether the rule will apply which gives such a construction to the will, as will nearest approach to the general intention of the testator, by enlarging the estate for life in the first taker to an estate tail, which would preserve it in the line MR. LOCKE KING'S REAL ESTATE INTESTACY of such first taker so long as there was issue. But ACT.-It has often struck me that the most bene-issue, and without having barred the estate tail (if such the first taker, B., having died without children or volent legislators incur failure and disappointment from insufficient knowledge of remote consequences of their reforms-the power of things which, in Yorkshire phrase, belong to all things. As a constituent of Mr. Locke King may I, through your columns, point out one feature of the working of another piece of his legislation, with the policy of which I find no fault. The only moral I would point out is, that if small holdings are to wax fine by degrees and beautifully less, a small proprietor had better throw his all into the Treasury than incur the vexation, mortification, puzzledom, and madness which must attend the working out of his quota of succession duty. Note the real complication of the present case, which results from dispositions not inconsistent with primogeniture. Two devisees hold some houses and land in common; each creates a mortgage, and each subdivides his moiety, one moiety of the original moiety being divided among nine children, some of whom are private soldiers serving in the colonies. Three

21st June 1869. Sir, I am directed to inform you that, pursuant to the charter, the annual general meeting of the members of the society will be held in the hall of the society, in Chancery-lane, on Friday, the 16th July next, at two o'clock precisely in the afternoon, for the election of a it was), would it revert to the donor, the testator, and president and vice-president of the society; of ten go under his will to the heir of the nephew D., who is members of the council, in lieu of ten members who will C., who would thus become possessed of the fee? On go out of office in rotation; of two members of the the other hand, if the word "issue" is merely intended council, in lieu of Ralph Barnes, deceased, and Edward as a synonym for children, or sons or daughters, then the Leigh Pemberton, resigned; of three auditors, and for life estates would be legal, and C. will hold for life, and other purposes of the society. The following are the her children will take life estates in succession after names of the members who will go out of office in rotaher death. It should be stated that the testator gave tion, and are immediately re-eligible, viz.:-E F. Burton, the residue of his real estate to his nephew D. in fee, J. M. Clabon, J. Leman, P. Nelson, A. Ryland, R. B. so that if there was any estate not specifically disposed Upton, A. W. White, W. Williams, R. Wilson, J. Young. of, it would now vest in his heiress, C. Will any of The name of every person intended to be proposed as your correspondents say what estate C. now takes in president or vice-president, or as a member of the the property devised to B. for life? (Stuart v. Cockerell, council, or as an auditor, must be transmitted in writing 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 513.) Q. to the secretary, seven days at least before the day of

57. FACULTY--Whether before a clock is erected in
the tower of a church a faculty is required; and if
answered in the affirmative, then, supposing the work
be commenced without first obtaining such faculty,
what steps can be taken, and by whom and against
whom should those proceedings be instituted? CANTAB.

58. INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES ACT 1862.
Can any of your readers inform me whether a convey-

election.

A list containing the names of members whose sub scriptions remain unpaid has been put up in the hall, under the 55th bye-law of the society. Such members are under that bye-law liable, by the order and reso lution of a general meeting, to be excluded from the society, and they will cease to be members thereof.-I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

E. W. WILLIAMSON, Secretary. 2. The minutes of the last annual general and