VOL. VIII.

THE decision of the Court of Appeal in re Batten, ex parte Milne, reversing the ruling of a Divisional Court, consisting of Cave and Charles, J.J., will be welcomed by solicitors. The facts of the case will be seen from the short note of the decision given in our issue of last week. Shortly, however, the question involved was this. A deed of arrangement was registered when registered it was executed by the grantor, grantee (trustee for creditors), and one creditor, and it was not contest ed but that a true copy had been registered, as required by the Deeds of Arrangement Act, of the deed in its then condition. Subsequently to registration other creditors executed the deed. The names of these creditors did not, of course, appear on the copy which had been filed, and it was urged that the copy filed was not a true copy of the deed, because it did not show the names of all the creditors who had-both prior and subsequent to registration-executed it. This argument prevailed with the Divisional Court, but not, we are glad to say, with the Court of Appeal. Lord Esher, M.R., said that the subsequent execution by some of the creditors was not an alteration which invalidated the deed. He then dealt with the question of registration under the Deeds of Arrangement Act, and on referring to sections 5 and 6 of that act, held that the true copy of every schedule or inventory therein referred to must be a copy of the schedule which was in existence at the date of the registration, and in its then state. With regard to the affidavit required to be made by the debtor stating the names and addresses of his creditors, that required the names and addresses of all the debtor's creditors to be given, and not merely of those who had executed or assented to the deed of arrangement. With reference to the contention urged that the schedule filed must

contain the names of all creditors who executed the

deed, his Lordship pointed out that the result of this contention would be that, inasmuch as registration was required to take place within seven days of its first execution, most of such deeds would be rendered. void because the creditors did not all execute within that time.

No. 133.

To revert to the question of subsequent alteration invalidating a document, it is difficult to see how such an argument could be urged on the facts of the present case, apart from the statutory provisions of the Deeds of Arrangement Act. It is, however, interesting to note the law on the point, which played no mean part in the celebrated action of Doe dem. Titmouse v. Aubrey, in Warren's "Ten Thousand a Year." When a person produces a document which upon its face appears to have been altered in a material part, he cannot claim under it the enforcement of any right created by it, unless the alteration (even though made by a stranger whilst the document was in his custody, though without his knowledge or leave) was made before the completion of the document, or with the consent of the party to be charged under it, or his representative in interest. Such is the result of Pigot's case, 11 Rep., 47; Davidson v. Cooper, 11 Meeson and Welsby, 778, 13 M and W., 343; and the later case of Aldous v. Cornwell, L.R., 3 Q.B., 573, which decided that filling in the description of parties, &c., subsequent to execution, that being consistent with the purposes of the deed, did not invalidate it. Of course, where alterations and interlineations appear on the face of the deed, and there is no evidence at all to show when they were made, they are presumed to have been made before completion.

IN Fleetwood v. Hull, Charles, J., recently delivered judgment on a point of considerable importance to publicans, and perhaps we may add, sinners. Defendant was the assignee of a lessee, plaintiff the assignee of a lessor, and the lease contained, amongst other provisions, a covenant" that the lessee will keep the said premises open at all proper and legal hours, and will conduct and manage the business of an inn, tavern, or beerhouse-keeper in such proper and orderly manner as to afford no ground or pretext whatever whereby the license or licenses should or might be suspended, discontinued, or forfeited, or be in any danger of being suspended, discontinued, or forfeited "-and also a proviso for re-entry on breach. In October, 1888, one Webster, who occupied by leave of defendant, was convicted before Justices of selling liquor within prohibited hours on Sunday, and fined £5 and costs. The conviction was not, however, endorsed on the license. The following day plaintiff gave defendant notice, reciting that the conviction was a breach of the covenant above set out, and requiring him, pursuant to the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, section 14, to remedy the breaches mentioned in the notice, so far as they were capable of remedy, and to make compensation therefor. After notice was delivered the license was transferred to another tenant, who was, when action was brought, in the occupation of the public-house. Plaintiff now sought to re-enter under the proviso, and claimed damages. Charles, J., was of opinion, first, that the covenant did not run with the land, so that plaintiff, as assignee of the reversion, could not sue, and secondly, that the conviction, not being endorsed, did not involve a breach of the covenant. It had been urged that the conviction, though unendorsed, would necessarily, when reported to them, prejudice the minds of the Justices at the Annual Licensing Sessions, but Charles, J., said that though the discretion was absolute (Sharpe v. Wakefield, 22 Q.B.D, 239) it was to be exercised judicially, and he therefore could not

assume that the conviction would necessarily influence the minds of the court. The covenant was not, in his opinion, equivalent to one not to commit any offence against the licensing acts; even if a breach of the covenant had been committed, Charles, J., was of opinion that the case was not one for relief under section 14 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881.

A POINT of considerable nicety arose for decision in the case of The North Eastern Railway v. The Queen. An agreement had been entered into between the Postoffice and the Company in 1868, by which, and by the Telegraph Act, 1868, which confirmed it, the Company were to receive from the public and transmit messages by telegraph, the transmission to be at the sole risk and expense of the Postmaster-General. In respect of such receipt and transmission the Company were to act as the agents of the Postmaster-General, and to receive remuneration therefor at a rate provided by the agreement. Payments to the Postmaster-General for transmission of telegraph messages (except for porterage) are required by the Telegraph Act, 1868, to be made by stamps, the Postmaster-General being required to keep a proper supply of stamps for sale to the public at such of the offices under his control as he might think fit to appoint. The Company had a telegraph clerk at their Newcastle station, whose duty it was to discharge the duties as to receipt and transmission of messages undertaken by them under the agreement. Stamps were supplied to him, as the Company knew, by the Postmaster-General; and the Company having declined to receive the percentage allowed or to receive the supply of stamps which would entitle them to the percentage, the clerk received the percentage, gave a receipt to the Post-office for the stamps, and from time to time accounted to the Post-office for the stamps

delivered to him. He received from senders of telegraphic messages sums amounting to £624, but sent the messages without affixing stamps, and appropriated the money to his own use. For this sum it was sought to make the company liable. Chitty, J., however, held that the telegraph clerk, though hired and liable to be dismissed by the company, and their servant for the purpose of performance of the duties to be performed by them under the agreement for the PostmasterGeneral, was in regard to the sale of stamps and the money received therefor, agent for the PostmasterGeneral only, and not for the company, inasmuch as he was liable to account to the Postmaster-General alone

in these respects; and that the money misappropriated was therefore not money paid to the company for the use of the Postmaster-General. His Lordship also considered the question whether the duty of the clerk to affix, or see the proper stamps were affixed, to the form on which the message to be sent was written, was part of his duty as servant of the company in the discharge of their obligations to the PostmasterGeneral, or part of his duty towards the PostmasterGeneral as his agent, and came to the conclusion that his duty in that behalf was owed to the PostmasterGeneral, and that the Revenue and not the company must bear the loss.

YET another decision on the Solicitor's Remuneration Act, 1881, and one which will be deservedly welcome to solicitors. The case re Martin came before the Lords Justices Cotton and Lindley sitting "in Lunacy," by way of petition, that the matter might be referred back to the taxing master to review his taxation. The facts were shortly these :-The committee of the estate of a lunatic employed a solicitor with reference to letting a house belonging to the lunatic. A notice that the premises were to let, and directing applicants to apply to the solicitor for particulars, was placed on the premises by the committee early in December, 1887, between which date and January, 1888, when the offer of a Mr. Parkes was accepted by the committee, several persons in addition to Mr. Parkes had applied

to the solicitor and been shown over the premises by the solicitor or his clerks; letters had been written to the references given by applicants, and reports made of applications and references' replies, by the solicitor to the committee. In March, 1888, an order in Lunacy directed a lease to be granted to Parkes, and taxation of all proper costs, &c., incident to the proceedings. The solicitor's bill included items for negotiations with, and attendances on, Parkes, who subsequently became lessee. These the taxing master disallowed, holding that they were business connected with the lease, and so covered by the scale charges. The solicitor did not contest this, having regard to the case of re Emmanuel and Simmonds, 33 Ch. Div., 40, and the prior decision of re Field, 29 CH. Div., 609, but he had also included in the bill items for negotiations with, and attendances on, persons other than Parkes, and against the disallowance of these items he carried in objections which the taxing master overruled. The Lords Justices, however, upheld the contention of the solicitor that he was entitled to remuneration for this work, in addition to the scale charge for the lease to Parkes, and sent the case back to the taxing master for review.

IN the case of Attorney-General v. Mayor, &c., of Libraries Acts. Ten ratepayers served on the defendCroydon, we have a valuable judgment on the Free opinion of the borough as to the adoption of the Public ants a notice in writing calling on them to ascertain the

Libraries Acts.

Thereupon the defendants issued voting papers to the occupiers of premises rated, the result of the poll being, as declared by the Mayor, that the provisions of the Acts had been adopted. It was now sought to prevent these provisions being carried in 1869 by the Croydon Vestry, directing that owners of all into effect on the ground that an order had been made rateable hereditaments, to which sections 3 and 4 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, extended, and it was contended, therefore, that in all cases in which should be rated to the poor rate instead of the occupiers; the owners were rated instead of the occupiers, the voting papers should have been issued to the owners, and not the occupiers, as they had been that the requirements of the Free Libraries Acts had consequently not been complied with, and that the poll was null and void. Stirling, J., however, pointed out that the right to vote belonged to "every inhabitant, who would have to pay the assessment in the event of the Act being merely "those who would be legally liable to pay" so adopted," and held that those words did not mean as to restrict the right to vote to the owners where they were rated pursuant to the Croydon Vestry order of 1869, but must be construed as referring to "those who in reality would have to bear the burden of the rates," viz., the occupier on whom the burden would fall presumably in the shape of increased rent. The learned judge, therefore, held the voting papers had been properly issued, and the poll valid.

Mr.

THE Gas Light and Coke Company, of Horseferry Road, Westminster, appeared in answer to two summonses for, on the 17th of October and the 5th of November last, at the testing place, 4, Grove Gardens, Regent's Park, supplying gas of less illuminating power than it ought to be under the special Act of 1876, thereby making themselves liable to a forfeiture. Roberts, from the solicitors' department of the London County Council, supported the summonses; and Mr. Besley, barrister, represented the company. Mr. Roberts said that the Act of Parliament required the company to supply gas to the public at an illuminating power equal to the light of 16 sperm candles, and failing in that they were liable to a forfeiture. Testings were made at different hours each day at the testing-house, Grove Gardens, and the report of Mr. Bernard F. Holford, B.Sc., London University, the appointed examiner was that on the 17th of October last the reading was

155, or a deficiency of illuminating power equal to half a candle. On the 5th of November the testings showed a reading of 154, or a deficiency of over half a candle. Professor Williamson had held an inquiry, and his report, which was final, endorsed the returns of the examiner. In defence, Mr. Besley urged that the calculations on the part of the complainants were not correct. The system of testing by candles had been found to be untrustworthy, and a new mode of testing had already been established. Mr. Truby, the chief engineer of the company, would tell the Court that the testings of the same gas at the two city stations and at Spring Gardens on the dates in question registered over 160. But, even if there had been a deficiency, it was so small that had it been a little less the company would not have been liable to any forfeiture. Mr. de Rutzen said the report of the chief gas examiner was conclusive, and he must therefore convict. He imposed a penalty of 20s., with 2s. costs in each case. This is the company that supplies the Temple and the Strand District with gas. We should like some testing to take place for these quarters.

So the attempt to light the chambers and offices of the Inner Temple by electricity has turned out a complete fiasco. A good deal of money has been spent, though, in the abortive effort, and we should like to know who is the treasurer responsible for this leap in the dark. There is a new sub-treasurer; perhaps, he is responsible.

THE diverse criticisms upon General Boulanger and his visit to London would be sufficiently amusing if, in some cases, their insulting and vulgar tone were not distinctly offensive. There seems to be an antiBoulangist mania in some quarters, and if le brav' Géneral were indeed the anti-Christ which his enemies would have us believe he is, their denunciation of him and all his works could not be much more virulent. 'Adventurer' is one of the mildest terms hurled at his head. Well, qui vivra verra.

WAIT until the Universal Exhibition has run its course, and we shall see what we shall see. General Boulanger's government of "wretches" will possibly be able to hold on to office until the Exhibition harvest has been gathered in, and then-well, then we shall see of what stuff General Boulanger is made, and whether he deserves the confidence of the French people. For there are many, well qualified to read the signs of the times, who are convinced that before the end of the year Boulanger will be back in Paris, the idol of the people, carried to the highest position in the State by popular acclaim.

THEN will come the question-Peace or War? And, despite the Cassandra-croakings of the alarmists, we have sufficient faith in the sterling common-sense of the General, as well as in his oft-repeated assurances of pacific instincts, to believe that he will not abuse the position, which is almost assuredly before him, by needlessly or recklessly involving his countrymen in another war with Germany, the only possible outcome of which, in the near future, would be disaster, and a defeat from which la belle France would not recover this century.

THOSE who doubt the future cause of General Boulanger will, no doubt, do well to note that that most astute young diplomatist, Lord Randolph Churchill, has laid himself out to be particularly attentive to our visitor, and although Lord Randolph is not a Parsee, he is by no means indifferent to the legitimate claims of a rising sun to respectful attention.

THE Duke of Edinburgh is better. We are glad to

record it, for there are always plenty to throw stones at the Queen's second son on the ground of his alleged meanness. The Duke is economical; the more to his credit. The fact is, the Duke's income is very much over estimated, and people think that because he married a Czar's daughter his bride came to him laden with a mountain of roubles. Such was not the case. The Duchess of Edinburgh has £100,000 worth of diamonds, but these are not convertible into current coin, and to a Duke of somewhat limited means, for his position, must have been something like the present of lace ruffles sent to a man who had no shirt.

NINE out of ten of the absurd stories of the Duke's parsimony are sheer nonsense, and those who understand what the life of a royal Duke is, and the moral courage which is required to exercise any economy at all, will rather respect than condemn the Duke for his careful habits, and will certainly join us in wishing him a rapid convalescence and complete restoration to health.

IT is not etiquette for royalty to take notice of the comments made upon it in the Press, so that it is not to be wondered at that the shocking stories which have gone the round as to the supposed "hallucinations" of the poor Emperor of Austria, should have called forth a serious protest in the columns of the official organ, the Wien-Abeudpost. The Meyerling tragedy was sad enough in all conscience, without having superadded to it a score of agonising rumours as to the sufferings of the mother of the unhappy victim. No doubt this continued fanning of the flame of sensation is due in some degree to the ill-judged "loyalty" of those who send costly tributes to the tomb of the royal suicide, but under any circumstances common humanity should forbid such cruel comments as have been made upon one who, whatever her position in the eyes of the world, is yet a bereaved mother and a heartbroken woman, and as such should claim the gentlest consideration at the hands of all in whom chivalry is not yet quite dead.

THIS is the truth about the great Evening News question. The Evening Post, owing to a number of causes, has not altogether answered the expectations of its founders. Mr. Harry Marks, the go-ahead editor of the Financial News, has purchased the Evening News with which the Evening Post will be amalgamated in, the course of the next few days, and intends running it on quite original lines. City news will be a leading feature, and politics will be a strong second. The combination of talent which is to be brought to bear upon the new paper, for such it will in effect be, will assuredly establish it in public favour in a very short time.

THE following are the dates for the ensuing Spring Assizes-North Eastern Circuit (Field and Hawkins, J.J.), Leeds, May 18th. Northern Circuit (Stephen, J., and a Commissioner), Manchester, May 11; Liverpool, May 18th. Both civil and criminal business will be taken. Spring assizes are to be held nowhere else.

MR. Edward Terry has now entirely recovered from his recent indisposition, and is again appearing with his usual success as "Dick Phenyl in "Sweet Lavender" at Terry's Theatre.

THE benefit to Mr. Riccardo Gallico at the Avenue Theatre, May 9th, will be under the immediate patronage and presence of General Boulanger, who has promised to attend on this occasion.

MOTIONS in Liverpool and Manchester Business will be heard on Saturday, May 4th, and in every subsequent week on Saturdays. Other Interlocutory Business from the Liverpool and Manchester District Registries will be taken on alternate Saturdays, commencing with Liverpool Business on Saturday, May 4th.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. APPEALS AND MOTIONS IN BANKRUPTCY. Appeals from County Courts for hearing before a Divisional Court sitting in Bankruptcy.

Re Gordon; Ex parte Official Receiver
Re Same; Ex parte Le Barbe
Re Arkell; Ex parte Arkell
Re Lane; Er parte Gaze

Re Same; Ex parte Same

Re Jones; Ex parte Tower Furnishing and Finance Company

Re Stevens; Er parte Stevens

Re Faulconer; Ea parte A. S. Cochraue
Re Jelf and Latham (separate estate of W.
Latham); Er parte T. §. Latham

Re Giles; Ex parte Stone

Re Jenner; Ex parte Jenner
Re J. S. Boyd; Ex parte J. Boyd

Re Hopkins; Er parte Official Receiver

Re Rowe; Er parte Northern Counties Bank Re Lockwood and another; Ex parte Nichol

son

Re Potts; Ex parte Wade

Re W. Shurly; Ex parte J. Shurly
Re Miles; Er parte Turnbull

Re Dixon; Er parte Dixon

Motions in Bankruptcy for hearing before
Mr. Justice Cave.
Motions,

Re Dear; Ex parte Martin r. Collings
Re Same; Er parte Byrne & Ham r. Collings
Re Nicholas and Paine; Er parte Lovatt.
Action transferred by Order.
Ball. French.

Motions.

Re Gadda; Ex parte Davis and Watkins
Re Apelt; Ex parte Byrne v. Seaborne
Re Stocker; Ex parte Gilbert v. Baker
Re Wareham and Secker; Ex parte Viney v.
Hardwicke

Re Ford; Ex parte Musson v. Seago
Re Parkes; Ex parte Campbell v. Fletcher
Re Read; Ex parte Annan r. Read and others
Re Parfitt; Ex parte Board of Trade
Re Sharpe; Ex parte Sharpe v. C. O. R.
Re Wragg; Ex parte Tower Furnishing
Company v. Rooke

Re Youngman; Ex parte C. O. R. Trustee
Re Bradley; Ex parte Parry v. Bradley
Re Turner; Ex parte Brown v. Turner
Summary of Matters in Bankruptcy.-Total
Appeals and motions, 36.

All applications by summons or otherwise in actions assigned to Master Manley Smith are to be made returnable before him in his own Room, No. 114, at 11.30am., on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.

The parties are to meet in the ante-room of masters' chambers, and the summonses will be inserted in the printed list for the day after the summonses to be heard before the master sitting in chambers, and will be called over by the attendant on the respective rooms for a first and second time at 11.30, and will be dealt with by the master in the same manner as if they were returnable at chambers.

Set down 15th January Middlesex Smith v Poolman Mr. Bankes Justce Manisty. Set down 17th January Middlesex Johnson v. Lindsay & Co. Mr. Kemp Justice Grantham.

Set down 19th January Middlesex. Marchussen v Birkbeck Bank. Mr Cook Justice Grantham.

Set down 24th January Middlesex. Rogers and anr v Whiteley. Mr. Candy Baron Pollock.

Set down 25th January Middlesex. Greenfield v Harrison. Mr. Candy Justice Grantham.

Set down 28th January Middlesex. Barnard
v Hobson. Mr, Silvester Justice Manisty
Set down 29th January Middlesex Goddard
Mann Mr Kisch Justice Manisty
Set down 1st February Middlesax Simson &
Mason v New Brunswick Trading Co of
London, ld Mr Finlay Justic Field
Set down 4th February Middlesex Lea v.
Charrington Mr Morten Justice Grantham
Set down 6th February Middlesex Samson
v Bayton, the younger Mr E Vincent
Justice Grantham

Set down 6th February Middlesex. Mee,
Billing & Co v Bently Mr. Murphy
Justice Field

Set down 6th February Middlesex Aldridge v Whitford (Davey 3rd party) Mr Crispe Justice Grantham

Set down 9th February Middlesex Brown v Lane Mr Greene Justice Cave by order Set down 20th February Middlesex Russell v Wells Mr. Waddy Justice Grantham. Set down 20th February Middlesex Laxton v Tully Mr L Glyn Justice Manisty