Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

JULY 6, 1872.]

THE LAW TIMES.

report thus: "The thrashing machine was placed inside one of the barns (the machinery for the horse being on the outside), and there fixed by screws and bolts to four posts which were let into the earth." Hellawell v. Eastwood was cited in the argument. The court (without, however, noticing that case) decided that the thrashing machine, being so annexed to the land, passed by the conveyance. It seems difficult to point out how the thrashing machine was more for the improvement of the inheritance of the farm than the present looms were for the improvement of the manufactory. And in Mather v. Fraser (2 K. & J. 286) Vice-Chancellor Wood, who was there judge both of the fact and the law, came to the conclusion that machinery affixed not more firmly than the articles of carrypurpose in question by the owner of the fee to land for the ing on a trade there became part of the land. This was decided in 1856. And in Walmsley v. Milne (7 C. B., N. S., 115), the Court of Common Pleas, after having their attention called to a slight misapprehension by Vice-Chancellor Wood, of the effect of Hellawell v. Eastwood, came to the conclusion, as is stated by them at p. 131, That we are of opinion, as a matter of fact, that they were all firmly annexed to the freehold for the purpose of improving the inheritance, and not for any temporary purpose.' The bankrupt was the real owner of the premises, subject only to mortgage which vested the legal title in the mortgagee until the repayment of the money borrowed. The mortgagee first erected baths, stables, and a coachhouse and other buildings, and then supplied them with the fixtures in question for their permanent improvement. As to the steam engine and boiler, they were necessary for the use of the baths. The hay cutter was fixed into a building adjoining the stable as an important adjunct to it, and to improve its usefulness as a stable. The malt mill and grinding stone were also permanent erections, intended by the owner to add to the value of the premises. They therefore resemble in no particular (except being fixed to the building by screws) the mules put up by the tenant in Hellawell v. Eastwood. It is stated in a note to the report of the case that on a subsequent day it was intimated by the court that Mr. Justice Willes, entertained serious doubts as to whether the articles in question were not chattels. The reason of his doubts is not stated, but probably it was from a doubt whether the Exchequer had not, in Hellawell v. Eastwood, shown that they would have thought that the articles were not put up for the purpose of improving the inheritance, and from deference to that authority. The doubt of this learned Judge in one view weakens the authority of Walmsley v. Milne, but in another view it strengthens it, as it shows that the opinion of the majority, that as a matter of fact the hay-cutter, which was not more firmly fixed than the mules in Hellawell v. Eastwood, must be taken to form part of the land, because it was "put up as an adjunct to the stable, and to improve its usefulness as stable," was deliberately adopted as the basis of the judgment; and it is observed that Willes, J., though doubting, did not dissent. Walmsley v. Milne (7 C. B., N. S., 115) was decided in 1859. This case and that of Willshear v. Cottrell seem authorities for this principle, that where an article is affixed by the owner of the fee, though only affixed by bolts and screws, it is to be considered as part of the land-at all events, where the object of setting up the article is to enhance the value of the premises to which it is annexed for the purposes to which those premises are applied. The threshing machine in Willshear v. Cottrell was affixed by the owner of the fee to the barn as an adjunct to the barn, and to improve its usefulness as a barn in much the the same sense as the hay-cutter in Walmsley v. Milne was affixed to stable as an adjunct to it, and to improve its usefulness as a stable. And it seems difficult to say that the machinery in Mather v. Fraser was not as much affixed to the mill as an adjunct to it, and to improve the usefulness of the mill as such, as either the threshing machine or the hay-cutter. If, therefore, the matter were now to be decided on principle, without reference to what has been done on the faith of the decisions, we should be much inclined, notwithstanding the profonnd respect we feel for everything that was decided by Parke, B., to hold that the looms now in question were, as a matter of fact, part of the land. But there is another view of the matter which weighs strongly with us.

a

Hellawell v. - Eastwood was a decision between landlord and tenant, not so likely to influence those who advance money on mortgage as Mather v. Fraser, which was a decision directly between mortgagor and mortgagee. We find that Mather v. Fraser, which was decided in 1856, has been acted upon in Boyd v. Shorrock, by the Court of Queen's Bench, in Longbottom v. Berry, and in Ireland in Re Dawson (Ir. L. Rep. 2 Eq.) These cases are too recent to have been themselves much acted upon, but they show that Mather v. Fraser has been generally adopted as the ruling case. We cannot, therefore, doubt that much money has, during the last sixteen years, been advanced on the faith of the decision in Mather v. Fraser. It is of great importance that the law as to what is the security of a mortgagee should be settled; and without going so far as to say that the decision, only eleven years old, should be upheld, right or wrong, on the principle that communis error facit jus, we feel that it should not be reversed unless we clearly see that it is wrong. As already said, we are rather inclined to think that if it were res integra, we should find the same way."

A DIGEST OF PATENT LAW CASES.
(By CLEMENT HIGGINS, Esq., B.A., F.C.S., Barrister-at-Law.)
SUBJECT-MATTER OF A PATENTABLE INVENTION.
Manufacture.

Wallington v. Dale. 1852.-Previous to the plaintiff's patent being granted gelatine was obtained by submitting large pieces of hides to the action of caustic alkali, or by reducing them to pulp in a paper machine and employing blood to purify the product. The invention claimed consisted in cutting the hides into shavings, thin slices, or films, whereby the use of blood in the process of purification became unnecessary. Held, that the invention was the subject matter of a patent. (7 Exch. Rep. 888; 23 L J., N. S., Ex., 49.)

Booth v. Kennard. 1856.-Patent for "improvements in the manufacture of gas." The patentee, in his specification, said: "Hitherto in manufac turing gas from oils, oily or resinous matter, it has been usual to go through Now, the costly process of obtaining the oils, &c., from seeds and other substances, and to use the same in a fluid or semifluid state.

my invention consists in the direct use of seeds, leaves, flowers, branches,
nuts, fruits, and other substances, and matters containing oil or oily or
resinous matter, or other matter useful in the manufacture of vegetabln
I claim for making gas direct from seeds and matters hereiy
gas.
named, instead of making it from oils, resins, and gums, previouslo
extracted from such substances." Held, that assuming the invention to
be new, it was a good subject-matter for a patent. (1 Hurl. & N. 527, Ex.
Ch.; 26 L. J., N. S., Ex., 23.) The patent was afterwards set aside for
want of novelty. (2 Hurl. & N. 84; 26 L. J., N. S., Ex. 84.)

Bovill v. Keyworth. 1857.-The plaintiff's patent consisted in exhausting the air from the cases of millstones, combined with the application of a blast to the grinding surfaces. The patentee specifically disclaimed the precise details of carrying out his invention as described in his specification. It was proved by the defendants that both the blast and the exhaust had previously been used separately in working mills. The court held, that "the whole of the plaintiff's process, if the combination be new, is certainly the subject of a patent." (7 E. & B. 725; 3 Jur., N. S., 817.)

Lister v. Leather. 1858.-Lord Campbell, C.J., in delivering the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, said: "If the combination, the subject of the patent, was new and useful, though each of the parts which entered into it were old still the combination might be the subject of a valid A patent for a combination is not a claim that each part patent. thereof is new. On the contrary, each part may be old, and yet a new and useful combination of such old parts may be valid, as has been often decided." (8 E. & B. 1004; affirmed in Exchequer Chamber, 8 E. & B. 1004; 28 L. J., N. S., Q. B., 295; 4 Jur., N. S., 947.)

Higgs v. Godwin. 1858.-The invention for which the patent was granted was "treating chemically the collected contents of sewers and drains in cities, towns, and villages, so that the same may be applicable to agriculIn the specification the patentee said: tural and other useful purposes." "for the purpose of precipitating the animal and vegetable matter contained in the sewage water, I prefer to employ hydrate of lime, commonly What I claim of my invention is, the precipi termed slacked lime.' tation of animal and vegetable matter from sewage water by means of the chemical agent hereinbefore described." Lord Campbell, C.J., said: "It seems to me that the invention of the plaintiff is a subject for a patent, as the invention was for producing an article of commercial profit." (El. Bl. & El. 529; 5 Jur., N. S., 97; 27 L. J., N. S., Q. B. 421.)

[ocr errors]

Hills v. London Gas Light Company. 1860.-An invention consisted in the purification of coal gas by employing the hydrated oxides of iron to remove the sulphuretted hydrogen from the gas. On an action for the infringement of a patent for this invention it was contended by the defendants that this was not the subject of a patent. Baron Bramwell, delivering the judgment of the Court said: "If a man were to say 'I claim the use of hydrated oxide of iron for the purification of coal gas,' without saying how it is to be applied, it is possible the objection might be well founded; but here the plaintiff says, 'I claim it in the manufacture of gas in the way I have described,' and he shows how it may be used Therefore this objection fails. (5 Hurl. & N. 312; 29 L. J., N. S., Ex. 409.) Young v. Fernie. 1864.-Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart, said: "What the law looks to is the inventor and discoverer who finds out and introduces a manufacture which supplies the market for useful and economical purposes with an article which was previously little more than the ornaIt has been established to my satisfaction, by the eviment of a museum. dence in this cause, that the plaintiff Young is an inventor of this class, and that his patent is entitled to the protection of the law. I find that he has ascertained, by a course of laborious experiments, a particular class of materials among many, and a particular process among many, which has enabled him to create and introduce to the public a useful manufacture, which amply supplies the market with that which, until the use of the materials and process, and temperature indicated by him, had never been supplied for commercial purposes. At the date of his patent something remained to be ascertained, which was necessary for the useful application of the chemical discovery of paraffine and paraffine oils. This brings it within the principle stated by the Lord Chancellor in the late case of Hills v. Evans. The manufacture, with the materials and process indicated by him, according to the sense in which I understand the word 'manufacture' to be used in the statute, was a new manufacture, not in use at the date of his patent," p. 611. (4 Giff. 577; 10 Jur., N. S., 926; 12 W. R. 901; 10 L. T., N. S., 861; 9 Prac. Mech. Jour., 2nd series, 102.)

Ralston v. Smith. 1865.-Before the date of the plaintiff's patent a roller and a bowl were employed for calendering and for embossing woven goods. In the process of calendering the cloth was passed between a roller and a bowl; the roller was smooth, and the surface velocity of the roller and the bowl was unequal. In embossing the cloth passed between a roller, which had the pattern to be transmitted to the cloth engraved upon it, and a The object of the bowl, the two moving with equal surface velocity. calendering was to produce a gloss upon the cloth. The plaintiff obtained a patent for "Improvements in embossing and finishing woven fabrics, and in the machinery or apparatus employed therein." This title was subsequently amended so as to be in these words, "Improvements in embossing and finishing woven fabrics." The specification enrolled by the plaintiff alleged the invention to consist in the use of rollers having any design grooved, fluted, engraved, milled, or otherwise indented upon them. A disclaimer was afterwards filed, and stated that the effect desired could only be produced by the use of a certain species of roller not particularly described in the specification, namely, a roller having circular grooves round its surface; and the use of all other rollers was disclaimed. The amended claim was for "the employment of grooved, fluted, or indented rollers of hard metal, or other suitable material, driven at a greater speed

an

than the bowl or bowls connected with them, so as to exert a rubbing or friction upon the fabric submitted to their action, and thereby produce indefinite variety of pattern as well as a bright finish or lustre," &c. The Lord Chancellor said: "I should have thought that the patentee might have maintained a patent for a new combination if he had put his invention upon that ground; that he was the first person who discovered that the grooved roller would answer the double purpose of calendering and imprinting the fabric, and that he was the first person who had constructed a machine that was capable, without injury to fabric, of effecting both those operations. If, therefore, the original title had remained, and had not been studiously disclaimed, I myself should have thought it very difficult to resist the conclusion that the patent was capable of being supported as a new manufacture. Under this view, that it really did describe, for the first time, a new combination of machinery, your lordships are well aware that by the large interpretation given to the word 'manufacture,' it not only comprehends productions, but it also comprehends the means of producing them. Therefore, in addition to the thing produced, it will comprehend a new machine or a new combination of machinery; it will comprehend a new process or an improvement of an old process. But if we look at this patent, and inquire whether there be an improvement in embossing or finishing woven fabrics contained in this amended specification, I am bound to say that, having regard to existing knowledge at the time, I think there is no such improvement as amounts to a new manufacture, because this mode of producing a brilliant gloss upon the surface was perfectly well known; the operation of the differential velocity was also perfectly well known; that the same thing had been thought of for the purpose of producing a pattern was also perfectly well known. Therefore that woven fabrics might be finished according to one or the other of those two processes was perfectly well known. I cannot, therefore, having regard to the reduced patent which the patentee has now made to constitute the description of his invention, say, that there is any new process entitling him to the denomination of a 'new manufacture."" Lord Cranworth: "I quite agree with what was said by Mr. Grove, and it could not possibly be disputed by any gentleman at the bar, that it is not every useful discovery that can be made the subject of a patent, but you must show that the discovery can be brought within a fair extension of the words, a new manufacture.' Now how is this possible to be called a new manufacture'? I, as a manufacturer, have my roller which I am in the habit of rolling upon a bowl (if that is the proper expression). The fabric passes between the two at equal velocities. Then I can impress my pattern upon it. I have my roller without any pattern engraved upon it. I can impress that at an unequal velocity and it will calender. But I do not do them both at the same time, because I suppose that in so doing I shall tear my fabric; and I rightly so suppose, until the plaintiff makes the discovery that there is one particular sort of pattern which may be produced without tearing the fabric. Now that is a very useful discovery, but it would be strange to say that that is a new manufacture, and that therefore I am to be deprived of the most useful way of using my roller. There is nothing new in the invention, except that I now know what I did not know before, that by a particular use of it I shall obtain a result which I did not know before that I could obtain." (11 H. L. Cas. 223; 2 C. B., N. S., 28; 13 L. T., N. S., 1; 35 L. J., N. S., C. P. 49.)

[ocr errors]

THE STOCK MARKETS.

6

CITY, THURSDAY, JULY 4. FOLLOWING the conclusion of the last settlement on the Stock Exchange there has been almost a complete lull as regards purchases. With the close of the half-year many operators leave for their holidays, and the extent of business diminishes accordingly. The features in the markets have been the effect produced by a withdrawal of £440,000 in gold from the Bank on the 2nd inst., £350,000 of which was for Germany for coming purposes, which produced some depression upon the stocks which had been elevated by speculation; and the severe decline in all the South American Stocks. The heavy depreciation in Honduras has caused a little panic amongst the holders of other South American descriptions, and, as usual, sales have been forced without any efforts being made to ascertain relative merits. Under such circumstances it is not surprising that the fall has been so severe. The tone generally has recovered yesterday and to-day, and firm

[blocks in formation]

In the American market, apart from a rise of in the United States Funded Loan all the changes for the week are unfavourable. Eries have fallen 3; Atlantic and Great Western Bonds are 14 lower; and the ditto debentures 1; and the 10-40 Bonds 4.

British railway stocks with two exceptions, show a decline where there is any movement. London and South-Western is 1 lower; Metropolitan and Midland, ; Lancashire and Yorkshire, and North-Eastern,; London, Chatham, and Dover, London and North-Western, Manchester and Sheffield, and South-Eastern. On the other hand, Great Western and North British are higher.

In the foreign market for the week the Paraguay loan of 1871 is 13 lower; Honduras 12; Paraguay scrip 3; Brazilian 5 per cents of 1865, and the French National; and Mexican. On the other hand, Egyptian 7 per cents of 1868 are lower.

In Miscellaneous shares, Phosphate Sewage have fallen 6; but Native Guano have risen 2. Telegraph Construction share are higher.

The London and Westminster dividend and bonus will be 10 per cent. for the half year. The Union Bank dividend will be at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum, with a bonus of 2, making with the January payment 20 per cent for the financial year. The National Discount Company will recommend 18 per cent. per annum as their dividend.

The sum of £400,000 has been sent into the Bank this day, and £22,000 withdrawn. There has been only a moderate demand for discount in Threadneedle-street, and no change has been made in the rate. In the open market there has been rather an active business going forward to provide for the bills maturing to day, the 4th.

The latest quotations for British Funds are as follows: Consols for money 92 to 92; ditto account, 92 to 923; Reduced and New Three per Čents., 92 to 921; Exchequer Bills, par to 5s. prem.; India Five per Cent. Stock, 109 to 109; ditto Four per Cent., 106 to 106; ditto Enfaced Paper Four per Cent., 96 to 97; ditto ditto Five and a Half per Cent., 106 to 107; Bank of England Stock, 243 to 245; Metropolitan Three and a Half per Cent., 97 to 973.

In the market for American Securities, the United States 5-20 Bonds of 1882 are marked 90% to 911; ditto 10-40 Bonds, 89 to 89; Atlantic and Great Western Bonds, 38 to 391; ditto Debentures, 47 to 48; Eries, 43 to 43; Illinois, 109 to 110; United States Funded Loan, 90 to 90%.

In the Railway Market the prices are:- -Caledonians, 114 to 114; Great Eastern, 51 to 51; Great Northern, 140 to 141; ditto, A, 164 to 166; Great Western, 115 to 115; Lancashire and Yorkshire, 156 to 157; London and Brighton, 774 to 774; London, Chatham, and Dover, 26 to 261, ditto 4 per cent. preference, 65 to 661; London and North-Western 150 to 151; London, and South-Western, 107 to 108; Manchester and Sheffield, 77 to 77; Metropolitan, 63 to 63; ditto District, 31 to 32; Midland, 148 to 1481; North British, 694 to 70; North Eastern Consols 169 to 170; South-Eastern, 99 to 100; ditto deferred, 79 to 79; Grand Trunk of Canada, 20 to 201; Great Western of Canada, 213 to 221; Antwerp and Rotterdam, 19 to 20; Great Luxembourg, 17 3-16 to 17 5-16; Lombardo Venetian, 18 to 18.

The prices of the principal Foreign Stocks are as follows: Argen tine 1868, 96 to 96; do., 6 per cent., 1871, 95 to 951; Bolivian 6 per cent., 59 to 61; Brazilian, 5 per cent., 1865, 98 to 98; do., 5 per cent., 1871, 98 to 99; Egyptian, 7 per cent., 1868, 911 to 91; do., Viceroy Loan, 92 to 934; do., Khedive Mortgage Loan,79 to 79; French Morgan 6 per cent. Loan, 97 to 98; do. National 5 per cent. Loan, 2 to 2 pm.; Greek 5 per cent. 16 to 17; French Morgan, 97 to 98; do. National, 2 to 24 pm.; Hon. duras, 42 to 46; Italian of 1861, 653 to 661; Mexican, 14 to 15; Paraguay 8 per cent. 1871, 71 to 73 ex. div.; do. 1872, 4 to 3 dis.; Peruvian 6 per cent. 1870, 77 to 77; Spanish 3 per cent. 29 to 291; do. 1871, 29 to 24; Turkish, 5 per cent. 1865, 53 to 543: do. 6 per cent. 1869, 613 to 62; do. 6 per cent. 1871, 72 to 73.

In the Telegraph Market, Anglo-American Stock is quoted at 120 to 122; British Australian, 7 to 7; British Indian Extension, 11 to 12; Chinas, 83 to 8; Cubas, 7 to 8; Great Northern, 11 to 12; Mediterranean Exter sion, 5 to 6; French Cables, 21 to 221; Reuter's, 9 to 10; and West India and Panama, 5 to 5.

In miscellaneous shares the prices are as follows:-General Credits, 3 to 3 pm.; International Finance, to dis.; Hooper's Telegraph Works, 1 to 2 pm.; Hudson's Bay, 12 to 13; India Rubber and Gutts Percha, 41 to 42; National Discount, 13 to 13; Telegraph Construction, 34 to 35; Native Guano, 15 to 17; Phosphate Sewage, 20 to 22; Sombrero Phosphate, 5 to 6; Phospho Guano, 114 to 11

New

NOTES OF THE WEEK.

COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY.
Saturday, June 22.

(Before the LORDS JUSTICES.)
HEASMAN V. PEARSE.

Will Construction

[ocr errors]

third part or share unto and amongst all and every the children of the said Philadelphia Jupp who should be "then living," and the lawful issue of such of her children as should be then dead leaving such issue, equally, share and share alike, but so as such issue should have no greater share thereof than such as their, his, or her deceased "Then parent would have had if living. And the will contained a proviso, by which, to prevent all doubts which might otherwise possibly arise, the testator declared his will to be, that if it should happen that his real estate should ever be sold under the limitations aforesaid, and the money thereby arising should ever become payable to the issue of his sister, Philadelphia Jupp, or any of them, and any one or more of such issue should be then dead having left law. ful issue, then the issue of such issue as should be so dead should have and receive the part or share to which their, his, or her parent would have been entitled if living. The Vice-Chancellor

Vested interest 1 living." THIS was an appeal by the children of Wm. Jupp from a portion of an order made by Malins, V.C., which is reported in 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 864; L. Rep. 11 Eq. 522. By his will, dated the 3rd March 1819, William Gratwicke devised the residue of his real estate to his grandson, for his life, with remainder to his children in tail, and in default of such issue, to trustees, in trust to sell, and as to one-third part of the moneys to arise from the sale, upon trust to pay the income thereof to his sister, Philadelphia Jupp, during her life, and after her decease to transfer, pay, and divide such

having held that each of the two children of Mrs. Jupp who survived took one third, and that the remaining third vested in the children of a child who predeceased her, the children of Wm. Jupp, who died before the period of distribution, appealed from his decision, claiming to be entitled to their parent's share under the proviso at the end

of the will.

Pearson, Q.C. and H. C. Ward, for the appellants. Glasse, Q.C. and Charles Hall, in support of the Vice-Chancellor's decision.

Stallard for other parties. Their LORDSHIPS were of opinion that the prior clause in the will clearly conferred vested interests on the children of Mrs. Jupp living at her death, and that the proviso at the end of the will was not sufficiently clear to divest these vested interests.

Appeal accordingly dismissed, with costs. Solicitors for apps., E. Carleton Holmes and Son. Solicitor for the respondents, A. S. Edmunds.

age,

JULY 6, 1872.]

Tuesday, July 2,
SWARBRICK v. LEAROYD.

Deed-Quasi-parental influence-Suit by grantor's assignee in bankruptcy to set aside. THIS was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the Rolls. The suit was instituted by the assignee in bankruptcy of a young man named Maude to set aside two deeds of mortgage executed by Maude not long after he came of age, for the benefit of Charles Henry Turner, formerly the chairman of the Great Eastern Railway Company. Maude was a nephew of Mrs. Turner, and was brought up by Mr. Turner, who acted as his guardian during his minority. In July 1865, Maude, who was then a lieutenant in the army, came of and in April 1867 he executed the first of the deeds now sought to be set aside. This deed, which was made between Mr. and Mrs. Turner of the first part, Maude of the second part, and Learoyd of the third part, created a charge on certain property, to which Maude was entitled in reversion, expectant on the death of Mrs. Turner, to secure £2000, advanced by Learoyd to Turner. The second deed, which was executed in Aug. 1869, and made between the same parties, was endorsed on the first deed. It created a further charge on the same property to secure a further sum of £2000 then due, or to become due, from Turner to Learoyd. Turner and Maude subsequently both became bankrupt. The £4000 secured by the two deeds was advanced to Turner, and no part of it was for the benefit of Maude. The bill prayed that the deeds might be declared void, the execution of them having been obtained by undue influence, as Turner exercised a quasiparental control over Maude; or that the plaintiff's interest in Maude's estate might be declared to have priority over the deeds, and that they The might be declared void to that extent. Master of the Rolls having dismissed the bill with costs as against Learoyd, the plaintiff appealed.

Southgate, Q. C., Miller, Q. C., and E. Beaumont for the appellant.

Sir Richard Baggallay, Q. C., De Gex, Q. C., and Bagshawe for Learoyd.

Caldecott for Mr. and Mrs. Turner. Joseph Beaumont for Turner's assignees. Lord Justice JAMES, without calling upon counsel for the respondents, said the bill was When he executed the wholly unjustifiable. deeds Maude was forisfamiliated, and able to protect his own interests, and Learoyd knew nothing to raise any suspicion of undue influence. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with

costs.

Lord Justice MELLISH was of the same opinion.

Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant, Lowless and Nelson. Solicitors for the respondents Learoyd and Learoyd.

ROLLS COURT. Friday, June 28. MUNT v. GLYNES.

Bequest to married woman for her separate use without power of anticipation-Judicial separation-Absolute gift.

CHARLES ROBERT COLMAN, by his will dated the 2nd July 1870, gave to the plaintiff, Jane Munt, the sum of £1500 for her sole and separate use, independently of her husband for the time being, and of his debts, control, and engagements, and declared that her receipt alone should be a discharge for the same, and for the purpose of effectually securing to the plaintiff the separate enjoyment without power of anticipation of the said sum of £1500, as against any husband for the time being, he directed his trustees to settle the said sum of £1500 in such manner in their or his absolute discretion as would carry out the said purpose and his wishes in that respect. The testator died in Sept. 1870. The plaintiff, on the 16th May 1862, obtained a decree for judicial separation from her husband William Munt, and since that time had always lived apart from him. The question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment of the legacy absolutely as if she were a feme sole.

tiff.

Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C. and Methold for the plainSouthgate, Q.C. and B. B. Rogers for the trustees of the will.

Lord ROMILLY said the difficulty was occasioned by the anomalous position in which the lady was placed by the decree for judicial separation, by which she was no longer a wife, and yet not an unmarried woman. His lordship however considered she was entitled to the legacy absolutely, to be paid to her on her separate receipt. Solicitors: Kempster; Cree and Last.

[blocks in formation]

THE LAW TIMES.

1841, directed that the share thereby given to his
daughter, Eleanor Hughes, wife of Captain Henry
Philip Hughes, should not be paid to her, but that
a sufficient portion of his Government securities
should be retained, and not sold by his executrix
and executors, as might be equal to her share,
and that it might be allowed to accumulate with
the growing interest continually added thereto
during the lifetime of her husband, and upon the
death of her said husband, should there be any
child or children living, that the property should
be secured for their benefit and for that of their
mother; but should there be no child or children,
then the share of his said daughter might be by
his executrix and executors paid to her for her own
use and benefit. The testator died on the 6th July
1843, and by a decree made in this suit, which was
instituted for the purpose of having the trusts of
the will of the testator, so far as the same related to
the share of Eleanor Hughes, administered by the
court, and dated the 3rd May 1865, it was declared
that, having regard to the 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 98,
Eleanor Hughes was entitled to the income which
had since the expiration of the period of twenty-
one years from the death of the testator accrued,
and which thereafter should during the joint lives
of herself and her husband accrue upon the share
and the accumulations thereof during the said period
of twenty-one years. Henry Philip Hughes died
on the 14th May, 1871, leaving the said Eleanor
Hughes his widow and seven children him sur-
viving. Questions arose upon the construction of
income of the trust funds ought now to be paid to
the will of the testator, whether the whole of the
the said Eleanor Hughes during the remainder of
her life, or whether some, and if any, what portion
of the trust funds or of the income thereof ought
to be paid to her children.

Nalder for the trustees.

Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C., and Kekewich, for Eleanor Hughes.

B. B. Rogers and J. B. Dyne for other parties. Lord ROMILLY held that Mrs. Hughes was entitled to an estate for life with remainder to her children as joint tenants.

Solicitors: Steele; Freshfields; Prior, Bigg,

Church, and Adams.

Re IMPERIAL WINE COMPANY (SHIRREFF'S CLAIM).

Company - Winding-up

Proof of claim by manager under articles of association. By the articles of association of the Imperial Wine Company, Mr. Shirreff was appointed manager, with a stipulation that, if he was dismissed from his situation of manager, the company should repay to him the whole amount paid on shares held by him in the company. On the 17th June 1869 a resolution was passed for voluntarily winding-up the company, and Mr. Shirreff was appointed one of the liquidators, with a remuneration of £400 for the first year, and afterwards a commission of £5 per cent. on the gross receipts. Mr. Shirreff continued to act as liquidator for the period of one year, and now claimed to be entitled to prove against the assets of the company for £2000, being the sum paid by him on two hundred shares in the company.

Roxburgh, Q.C., and Graham Hastings, for Mr. Shirreff, argued that the resolution to wind-up being tantamount to a dismissal, the claim ought to be allowed.

A. E. Miller and Everitt for the official liquidators.

Lord ROMILLY.-The voluntary winding-up of the company put an end to the employment of Mr. Shirreff as manager, and he was then entitled to be repaid the sum of £2000 as provided by the articles of association. The sum of £400 received by him as liquidator must be set-off against that sum, and Mr. Shirreff will prove for the balance. Solicitors: Morley and Shirreff; Courtenay and Croome.

June 24 and 26, and July 1.
MARSHALL v. HALE.

Trustee-Breach of trust-Mortgagee without notice -Cestui que trust. BY an indenture dated the 26th June 1857, after reciting that Peter Charles Marshall had contracted with John Reid for the sale to him of certain property at £4300, and that the said John Reid not being prepared to pay the said purchase money of £4300, William Hale had agreed, at the request of the said John Reid, to advance the sum of £2300 part thereof, upon having such principal sum and interest secured by a mortgage of the said property, it was witnessed that in consideration of the sum of £2300 expressed to be paid by William Hale to Peter Charles Marshall, at the request of the said John Reid, and also in consideration of the further sum of £2000, at the same time paid to the said Peter Charles Marshall, the said Peter Charles Marshall at the like request of the said John Reid, granted to William Hale and his heirs all the said property, subject to a proviso for conveyance to the said John Reid

on payment by him of the said sum of £2300 and interest. Such indenture was executed by the sum of £2300 was indorsed thereon and signed by said Peter Charles Marshall, and a receipt for the him. The sum of £2300 was not actually advanced was in fact part of the purchase-money left unpaid by Wm. Hale and paid to Peter Chas. Marshall, but by the said John Reid, and which it was arranged should be secured with interest, by the premises being conveyed by way of mortgage in the manner stated to William Hale, as trustee for Marshall. The deed remained in the hands of William Hale, who in the month of June 1867 applied to the defendant, Thomas Goldesbrough Stockwell, for the loan of £1000 upon the security of such indenture, who accordingly lent him that amount upon his depositing the indenture with him by way of equitable mortgage. Peter Charles Marshall died on 27th May 1864, having by his will made his widow, the plaintiff, his legatee, and she now filed a bill against the representatives of William Hale and the said Thomas Goldesbrough Marshall, praying that they might be declared trustees of the said indenture, and of the money secured thereby, and the mortgaged hereditaments conprised therein, for the executors and trustees of Thomas Goldesbrough the said Peter Charles Marshall, and that the same might be assigned and conveyed, and the indenture delivered up. Stockwell claimed to be a bona fide holder of the indenture for value, and without notice, and to have a first charge on the property for the Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C. and Humphry for the amount advanced by him. plaintiff.

Fry, Q.C. and B. B. Rogers for the defendant Stockwell.

Roberts and Wiglesworth for other parties. Lord ROMILY said the deed was conclusive against Marshall and his representatives, that there was nothing on the face of it to show that Hale was a trustee for Marshall, who had acknowledged the receipt of the money, and that Stockwell, being a mortgagee for value without notice, was entitled to priority, and directed the usual redemption decree against Stockwell, he adding his costs of the suit to the amount due to

him for principal and interest.

Solicitors: Ridsdale and Co.; Purkis and Perry; J. W. Smith.

June 28 and July 2. WAITE. LITTLEWOOD. strued "other." Will-Construction-"Surviving" not to be conTHIS was a special case for the opinion of the court. John Waite made his will, dated the 23rd May 1818, and, after giving a sum of £23,333 6s. 8d. upon trusts for the benefit of his six daughters and their children respectively, proceeded as follows: "Provided always, and my will and mind further is that in case any of my said daughters shall happen to die without leaving a child who, being a son, shall live to attain the age of twentyone years, or, being a daughter, to attain that age or be married, then and in every such case the daughters as shall so die, and of whom there shall part or share, parts or shares, of such of my said be such failure of children as aforesaid, shall, after her or their decease or respective deceases, be in trust for my surviving daughters in equal and such failure of children as aforesaid, go and shares if more than one during their respective lives for their separate use and benefit respectively, and after their respective deceases for their respective children per stirpes and not per capita” in the same shares and subject to the same trusts and powers as were declared of and concerning the original shares intended for them respectively, and in the event of none of his daughters having a

child who should attain a vested interest, testator gave the fund upon trusts for his sons therein named. Rosanna Derby Radcliffe, one of testator's daughters, died on the 10th Oct. 1866, having had two children, neither of whom lived to attain a vested interest, leaving three sisters her surviving, two of the daughters of the testator having predeceased twenty-one. The question for the opinion of the her, both of them leaving children who attained court was, whether the portion or share in which the said Rosanna Derby Radcliffe was interested, was to be held in trust for the three daughters of the testator who survived her, in equal shares for their respective lives, with remainder to their respective children, to the exclusion of the children of such of the daughters of the testator who died in her lifetime, or whether the children of such deceased daughters were entitled to participate therein, the word "surviving" being con strued to mean "other."

Dauney for the trustees. Southgate, Q. C., and F. C. J. Miller for the children of the deceased daughters.

Sir R. Baggallay, Q. C. and Tyssen for the surviving daughters.

Lord ROMILLY held, that the clause must be cons'rued strictly, the sense requiring that the

word 66 'surviving" should be taken literally. His Lordship added that in a former part of the will the testator had used the word "other" where he so intended it.

21st Oct. 1870, the day of the death of the testator. Fry, Q.C. and Cozens Hardy, for the legal personal representative of the testator, contended Solicitors: Walters, Young and Co.; J. Murray. that under 33 & 34 Vict. c. 35, s. 2, he was entitled to an apportioned part of the dividends. Phear contra.

Tuesday, July 2.

ADDISON v. Cox.

Equitable mortgagees-Priority-Notice. REGINALD PRETOR, a lieutenant in the army, by deed dated the 27th Oct. 1869, charged the moneys to arise from the sale of his commission in favour of the plaintiff, to secure the sum of £400. On the 30th Sept. 1870, Lieutenant Pretor sold his commission, and the ensign promoted to succeed to the lieutenancy paid into the hands of Messrs. Cox and Co. the sum of £250, as the price of his step, which was carried by them to an account called "The Sales of Commissions Account," and which became payable to Lieutenant Pretor on the 1st Oct. 1870, the day after the publication of his retirement in the London Gazette. A further sum of £450, making up the full regulation price of a lieutenancy in the regiment of £700, was payable by Messrs. Cox and Co. out of the reserve fund, under the direction of the military authorities. On the 1st Oct. 1870 the plaintiff gave Messrs. Cox and Co. notice in writing of the deed of assignment of the 27th Oct. 1869, and on the 14th Oct. 1870, and 24th Jan. 1871, like notices of such deed were served upon them. By a letter from the Horse Guards, dated the 6th Oct. 1870, Messrs. Cox and Co. were directed to transfer the sum of £450 from the reserve fund to Lieutenant Pretor, but, under the regulations of the Horse Guards, they were not authorised to issue out of the reserve fund any sum to any officer, or to any persons claiming under hit, except upon a written receipt for the amount, signed by the officer to whom they were directed to make the payment, and a receipt signed by Reginald Pretor was received by them on the 26th Oct. 1870, and then and not before the £450 became payable by them. On the 17th Jan. 1870 notice of an indenture dated the 1st Jan. 1870, by which Reginald Pretor assigned all moneys to arise from the sale of his commission to the defendant Benjamin Mountain, to secure £700, was received by Messrs. Cox and Co., and on the 4th Nov. 1870 a second notice was received by them to the same effect. The plaintiff claimed to have priority over the claim of the defendant Benjamin Mountain in respect of both the sums of £250 and £450. The defendant Benjamin Mountain claimed to have priority as regarded the sum of £450, which did not become payable until the 26th Oct. 1870, he having given notice of his charge after that date, before notice was given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that on receipt of the letter of the 6th Oct. 1870 from the Horse Guards Messrs Cox and Co. held the sum of £450 as trustee for Reginald Pretor, and that his notice of the 14th Oct. 1870 gave him priority. Fry, Q.C. and Bradford for the plaintiff. Chitty for Messrs. Cox and Co. Ince for the defendant Mountain.

Lord ROMILLY held that the plaintiff was entitled to priority as regarded the sum of £250, and that the defendant Mountain was entitled to priority as regarded the sum of £450, which did not become payable until the 26th Oct. 1870, when Messrs Cox and Co. obtained the receipt signed by Pretor.

Solicitors: Peard; Fladgate, Clarke, and Co.; Edwards, Layton, and Jaques.

JONES v. OGLE.
Will-Construction-Apportionment Act (33 & 34
Vict. c. 35), s. 2.

THIS was a special case for the opinion of the
court. Herbert Moss Ogle made his will, dated
the 6th Sept. 1865, which contained the following
bequest:- "And as to the share or interest which
I have in the Lilleshall Iron Company and in the
Ketley Iron Company, I bequeath the dividends
and income thereof to James Taylor Reynolds
Ogle for his life, and after his death, the same share
or interest shall belong to his two daughters in
equal shares, their heirs, executors, administrators,
and assigns as tenants in common.' The tes-
tator died on the 21st Oct. 1870. The Lilleshail
Iron Company is a private company, and a state-
ment of accounts for the preceding year is sub-
mitted by the directors to the shareholders in the
month of January or February in each year, and
a dividend is declared, such as the profits made
will justify, which is paid by four instalments, one
immediately after the declaration of the dividend,
and the others in the months of April, July, und
October following. In Feb. 1871 a dividend was
declared; and the amount received in the year
1871 in respect of the share to which the testator
was entitled amounted to £350 17s. 6d., which was
claimed by James Taylor Reynolds Ogle as specific
legatee under the testator's will. The legal per-
sonal representative of the testator contended that
he was entitled to an apportioned part of the said
sum of £350 17s. 6d., in respect of the period
which elapsed between the 1st Jan. 1870 and the

Lord ROMILLY.-I think the specific legatee is entitled to the whole of the dividends, and that the Act has no application to this case.

Solicitor, Worthington Evans.

V.C. MALINS' COURT.
Friday, June 28.

Re MILLNER'S ESTATE. Practice-Fund in court-Woman past child bearing. SAMUEL MILLNER, by his will dated the 17th Feb. 1825, devised freeholds to trustees in trust for Charlotte Whitmarsh, for life for her separate use, and after her decease the testator devised the same to the children of Charlotte Whitmarsh who should attain twenty-one as tenants in common. Charlotte Whitmarsh had three children who attained twenty-one; in 1846 Eliza Whitmarsh, one of these children, married Frederick Miles, and by the settlement executed on her marriage she conveyed to trustees her share in the testator's freeholds upon trust to pay the rents to herself for life for her separate use, and after her decease to Frederick Miles for life, and after the decease of the survivor the trust estate was to be in trust for the children of the marriage who should attain twenty-one, and in default of children, then in trust for Eliza Whitmarsh, her heirs and assigns. taken by the Westminster Improvement Commissioners under the powers of their Act, and part of the purchase money was paid into court. A petition was presented by Charlotte Whitmarsh and Frederick Miles and his wife, praying that the money might be paid out of court to them upon their joint receipt. There had been no issue of the marriage of Frederick Miles and his wife, and there was no trustee now living of their marriage settlement. Eliza Miles attained twenty

In 1847 some of the above freeholds were

one on the 1st Oct. 1843, and was therefore now aged forty-nine years and nine months. She was married on the 14th May 1846.

Horace Davey in support of the petition.-After the death of Charlotte Whitmarsh and Frederick Miles, Eliza Miles will be absolutely entitled to this money, subject only to the contingent interests of her children by Frederick Miles. She has been married twenty-six years, and has had no children; this contingency may, therefore, be disregarded.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR made the order.
Solicitors, Syms and Son.

charge of the cause of action, &c. At the trial before Quain, J., at the last York spring assizes, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, subject to a special case stated by consent, in order to raise the question how much the plaintiffs were entitled to charge the defendants for water rates. The defendant was the owner of ninety-two dwelling-houses or tenements in Sheffield, let by him to tenants at weekly and monthly rents respectively, the total amounts of such rents respectively varying from £7 to £10 or £11 a year, and the gross estimated rental of the majority of the houses being under £7 a year. By the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847, the landlord is bound to pay the water rate when the yearly value of the dwelling house is under £10. The Local Government Acts have been applied to and are in force in the borough of Sheffield, but not to other parishes or places within the company's limits. The town council of Sheffield, which is the local board for the borough, passed a resolution in Sept. 1865 that the general district rate be laid and levied upon the owners instead of the occupiers, in cases where the rateable value of any premises, liable to assessment under the Local Government Act 1868, did not exceed £7. By the Poor-rate Assessment and Collection Act 1869, tenants holding premises for periods of less than three months are entitled to deduct the poor-rates from the rent. The plaintiff's, by their special Act of 1853, were entitled to charge rates for water supplied by them at sums varying from 7s. 2d. per annum to £3 per annum for each dwelling-house supplied according to the rent of the particular dwellinghouse in question. The occupiers of the defendant's ninety-two dwelling-houses were, at the request of the defendant, supplied with two quarters of a year for which the present water by the plaintiffs' company during the claim is made, and they claimed to charge the water rates in respect of the said dwelling-houses, upon the rents or sums at which the said dwelling. houses were let, without making any deduction therefrom; and they contended that the word "rent" in their special Act meant the sum actually paid by the occupier to the owner for rent, and for which he could distrain. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the water rates ought to be charged upon the annual value of the said dwelling-houses, free of all tenants' rates and taxes, and that, in ascertaining such annual value, a deduction should be made from the rents or sums at which the said dwelling

houses are respectively let as aforesaid, in respect of the amounts allowed or paid by him for poor rate, district rates and water rates in re spect of such dwelling-houses, whether such allowance or payment be made by him by virtue of statutory obligations imposed on him in that behalf, or by reason of voluntary agreements

NOTE.-See Re Widdow's Trusts (24 L. T. Rep. between him and his tenants. In deciding the
N. S. 87).

V.C. BACON'S COURT. Tuesday, July 2.

LONGINOTTO v. MoRSs.

Agreement for lease-Death of lessor intestate before granting lease-Infant heir-Specific performance-Costs.

G. B. MORSS being seised in fee, entered into an agreement with Longinotto, dated in Sept. 1864, to grant him a lease for a term of sixty-three years. G. B. Mores died in Feb. 1865 intestate, leaving an infant son, his heir-at-law. The plaintiff having filed a bill for specific performance against the deduct out of the rent the costs of the suit. infant, prayed that he might be at liberty to W. Dundas Gardner for the plaintiff. Yool for the defendant.

specific performance, but left each party to bear The VICE-CHANCELLOR made the decree for his own costs.

Solicitor for plaintiff, H. Parry.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
June 21 and 26.

(Before BRAMWELL and CLEASBY, BB.) THE SHEFFIELD WATERWORKS COMPANY v. BENNETT.

Water company-Power to charge water rates according to the amount of rent-Water rates paid by owner-Tenements under £10 a yearRent or annual value-What deductions to be allowed from rent-Meaning of word “rent." THIS was an action to recover £31 for water rates claimed from the defendant, for water supplied by the plaintiffs to the occupiers of ninety-two dwelling-houses or tenements in the townships of Sheffield and Brightside-Bierlow in the borough and parish of Sheffield, to which the defendant pleaded: First, except as to £24 10s. parcel, &c., never indebted; secondly, except as to the excepted parcel, payment before action; thirdly, as to the said excepted parcel payment into court. Issue joined as to first and second pleas, and as to the third, acceptance of the money paid in in dis

question, the court were to be at liberty to draw inferences of fact.

June 21.-Field, Q.C. (with him were Kemplay, Q.C. and Barker), argued the case on the part of the plaintiffs.

Manisty, Q.C. (with him was Cave), for the defendant.

[blocks in formation]

May 8, and June 8. ESPLEY v. WILKES. Trespass-Action for-Right of way-Description of parcels in a lease-"Bounded on the north by two newly-made streets"-Operation of as granting right of way.

THIS was an action of trespass for unlawfully entering a piece of land of the plaintiff's, and breaking down a fence, &c., to which the defendant pleaded first, not guilty; secondly, a traverse of the plaintiff's ownership; thirdly, a public highway over the said land; fourthly, a right of way across the said land, created and granted by lease from the owner of the soil to the defendant, and by user for twenty years. The action was brought to try the right of way in question. In the year 1850 Lord Stafford, the owner of the fee, agreed, through his agent, with a Mr. William Smith, to lease to the latter a piece of land at Castletown, Stafford, for the purpose of Smith's building two houses thereon. The lease, which was subsequently executed, bore date 1st Nov. 1851, and the land thereby leased to Smith is therein thus described in the parcels: "All that plot of land situate at Castletown, in the parish of Castle Church, in the county of Stafford, bounded on the east and

north by newly-made streets; on the west by premises demised to Henry Harrod; on the south by land belonging to the said Lord Stafford, containing by admeasurement, &c., in the whole 500 square yards or thereabouts, a plan whereof is indorsed on these presents, together with all buildings, &c., and all ways, easements, and appurtenances to the same premises belonging." The lessee, Smith, built two houses on the land, pursuant to his covenant; one of them being a public-house, and being built in the corner to have the advantage of the two streets indorsed on the lease as "two new streets," one of them being a street called "South-street," and the locus in quo in this action. The entrance to the back part of Smith's premises is in this street. The new streets were never regularly made, but "Southstreet" has always been used as a road by the lessees, and also by the general public. About two years ago the plaintiff took a lease for ninety-nine years from Lord Stafford, of a piece of land at the south-east end of "South-street," on which he built a house and shop, and shortly afterwards he commenced blocking up South-street by putting up a fence across it, opposite the back of defendant's houses and premises, thus preventing ingress and egress therefrom. This fence the defendant, the successor and representative of Smith, the original lessee, removed, and that is the trespass complained of. At the trial before Byles, J., and a special jury, at the last spring assizes at Stafford, on the expression of the learned judge's opinion, the plea setting up a public highway was withdrawn; but his Lordship expressed a strong opinion that the defendant had a right of private way to the back of his premises under the words of his lease, describing the premises as bounded by "two newly made streets," and a verdict was thereupon found for the plaintiff on the first three pleas, and for the defendant on the fourth plea, leave being reserved to the plaintiff to move to set the defendant's verdict aside, if the court should be of opinion that the learned judge was wrong in his construction of the lease in point of law. A rule having been obtained to that effect, on the ground that the lease, under which the defendant claimed, did not grant the way claimed in the plea, J. Staveley Hill, Q.C. and Anstie, for the defendant, now (May 8th) showed cause against it, and contended that the parcels in the lease, describing the land leased to the defendant as "bounded on the north and east by newly made streets," clearly operated to give the lessee a right of way, without which there would be no access to his stable, kitchen, and tap room, or to the back part of any of his premises.

H. Matthews, Q.C. and Clive, for the plaintiff, in support of their rule, argued that the mere description of boundaries could never operate as a grant of a right of way.

Cur. adv. vult. June 8.-The COURT (Kelly, C.B., and Channell and Cleasby, BB.) now delivered judgment in favour of the defendant, establishing his claim to a right of private road across the locus in quo under the lease granted to him by Lord Stafford, and discharging the plaintiff's rule.

Rule discharged. Attorneys for the plaintiff, Burton, Yeates, and Hart, 25, Chancery-lane, W.C.

Attorney for the defendant, Edwin Smith, 2, Cloisters, Temple, E.C., agent for Bowen, Staf

ford.

LEGISLATION AND JURIS-
PRUDENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 1.

EUROPEAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL.

ON the order for the second reading of this Bill, Lord REDESDALE asked the Lord Chancellor whether certain clauses introduced by the Commons in the Joint-Stock Amendment Bill, with any further amendments which Her Majesty's Government might introduce, would be sufficient to meet the case of those who were promoting the Bill.--The LORD CHANCELLOR did not think the amendments introduced in the Bill referred to by the noble lord would effect what this Bill was intended to accomplish. At the same time, this Bill was one of a singular character, and would require to be watched. The Albert Assurance Arbitration Bill had been cited as a precedent for the one now before their Lordships; but the former measure had been introduced after meetings had been held, at which the assent of the shareholders and the policyholders was obtained. The present Bill had been introduced without any such preliminary steps, so that at the present moment their Lordships had not the means of knowing whether the Bill was desired by the policyholders and the shareholders. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be well that the Bill should go to a select committee, before which all parties

interested might appear and state their views.-The Bill was then read a second time, and referred to a select committee.

receive only £2 instead of £3 per cent. on their money, and therefore their gain would not be very great by the transaction.-The Bill was then read a second time. LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL. On the order of the day for the third reading of this Bill, Lord ORANMORE and BROWNE said he had intended to move an amendment which would render the Bill effectual for its object. Under his proposal the Government would advance the whole of the purchase-money to a tenant where the amount did not exceed twenty years' purchase and that would be effected without involving larger advance of public money than could be made by the present principle of the Bill. That would enable tenants in Ireland to arrive at what they most desired-fixity of tenure, without any further loss to the Government, and with a very little additional burden to the Exchequer.-The Marquis of LANSDOWNE doubted whether such an amendment could be made in their Lordships' House; but if it were otherwise he could not accept it on the part of the Government. As he understood its purport, it was that in the case of very small holdings where the tenant purchased under the Land Act of 1870 the State should supply him with the whole of the purchase-money, and not with a portion of it only, whenever the purchase-money did not exceed twenty years' purchase. Such an alteration would be entirely inconsistent with the intention of the Land Act of 1870, which went on the principle that if the tenant by his own thrift was able to contribute towards the purchase of his holding, the State would aid him with a definite proportion of the whole amount. The noble lord's amendment would be a departure from that principle, and would have a very mischievous effect. Another effect of the amendment would be to give to small holders a statutory right to twenty years' purchase; and as he doubted whether, in addition to those objections, the amendment would have the effect contemplated by the noble lord, he trusted it would not be pressed.--The amendment was withdrawn, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.

The reports of amendments to the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Bill and to the Debtors (Ireland) Bill were brought up and agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, June 28.

THE BALLOT BILL.

COURT OF CHANCERY (FUNDS) BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, which had been discussed at considerable length in the House of Commons, stated that it had been introduced in consequence of suggestions made as far back as the year 1864 by a Royal Commission appointed to investigate the whole system of accounts in the Court of Chancery. That committee was presided over by the noble duke at the head of the India Office (the Duke of Argyll), Lord Kingsdown was a member of it, he himself had the honour of serving on it; the other members were Mr. Field and Mr. Cookson, both eminent solicitors; a very active and intelligent registrar of the Court of Chancery, Mr. Rogers; Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Crawford, the last-named gentleman representing the Bank of England. At the present time, if parties having the right to do so asked to have an investment of money in the hands of the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, the money was invested at the risk of such parties, and if there was a loss when the stock was sold out, that loss was charged to them. The result was, that about £2,000,000 annually of Chancery funds remained uninvested, and no interest was paid to the parties. Under the Bill it was proposed that upon all such money remaining as cash in the hands of the Accountant-General the parties ultimately entitled to it should receive 2 per cent. They would be paid this interest and the principal sum would not be liable to any deduction by reason of a fall in stock. There were other advantages to the suitor. One of these was that checks under £25 would be cashed at the office in Chancery-lane, whereas at present suitors had to take them to the Bank of England. This facility would apply to more than half the checks that were drawn. There had hitherto been no mistake except to an insignificant amount-a fact highly creditable to those who had selected the Accountant-General; but suitors had no adequate security, while the Bill would give them the security of the Consolidated Fund. The existing staff would be taken over, and a proper audit, which had not hitherto existed, beyond the check involved in duplicate books, would be provided. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.-Lord CAIRNS thought no just exception could be taken to the principle of the Bill. As regarded suitors, it proposed nothing that was injurious and much that was beneficial. They would receive The first of the Lords' Amendments to the 2 per cent. interest, whereas they now received Ballot Bill prescribes what the Returning Officer nothing unless they undertook the risk of invest- shall do in the event of a candidate dying between ing their money in the Funds, with the liability nomination and polling days; and Mr. FORSTER of having to sell out at a discount. They would assented to it, admitting that it supplied an also have the security of the Consolidated Fund. omission which he had overlooked.--In the next The noble and learned lord, who was very indis- amendment the Lords, by striking out certain tinctly heard, was understood to express an words in Clause 7 and inserting others, had raised opinion that the existing machinery of the Ac- the issue of optional or compulsory secrecy and a countant-General's Office, although well suited scrutiny.—Mr. FORSTER, in moving to disagree for times past, had become very old-fashioned, from it, remarked that the Lords had sent down a and required replacing by that which would work new Bill, which made the Ballot worse than usemore easily and rapidly. He thought that were less. To the omission of the words providing for the funds to be invested in the manner proposed, the complete secrecy of the vote, and preventing not only the suitors, but the public also, would be its identification, the Government never could conbenefited by the change. Under these circum- sent. But to the principle of a scrutiny they would second reading of the Bill. (Hear.) The Duke for instance, that no vote should be examined stances, he had no hesitation in supporting the agree, though reluctantly, and with safeguardsof ARGYLL was glad to hear that the noble and until it had been proved to be invalid; that comlearned lord who had just spoken entirely con- plete secrecy should be maintained by the officials curred in the general principle of this measure, in the polling booth; and that there should be a which was the result of the somewhat laborious mechanical arrangement of the papers, which would inquiry on this subject, in which he had had the prevent the identifying number being seen.honour of being associated with the noble and Mr. DISRAELI regretted the determination of the learned lord upon the woolsack some eight years Government. Without the universal option which ago. It had not been without some astonishment the Lords had wisely put into it, the Bill would that he, an unlearned layman, had ascertained be odious, since it was but an experiment which what had been the practice of the Court of Chan- the general feeling of the country had not called cery with regard to the Suitors' Fund. During the for. On the contrary, it was but a device of a whole time the money remained the subject of Government in difficulties to reorganise its party, litigation the suitors did not receive a single and if the United States had not treated the farthing in the shape of interest, unless they pre- Ministry so scurvily in the matter of the Indirect ferred a special request that it should be invested, Claims, we probably should have heard nothing when they were compelled to take the risk of any of it this year. There was one way, Mr. Disraeli depreciation in the price of stock. That practice said, amid much laughter, in which the Lords had appeared to the commissioners very unjust, might have acted more boldly-by passing the Bill and therefore they had unanimously recommended as a whole, with a clause limiting it to places that some system should be adopted under which where bribery and intimidation prevailed on a suitors might receive interest for their money large scale. They should have viewed the Ballot during the time it formed the subject of litigation. as a penal measure-something like the Riot Act So strong had been the objection at one time to in--only to be applied where the excesses of electerfere with the Suitors' Fund in any way, that it had been scarcely hoped that Parliament would ever attempt to deal with the matter. By successive steps, however, the recommendations of the commission had now obtained the universal assent of both sides of the House. The proposed change would confer a great benefit upon both the public and the suitors.. Lord OVERSTONE objected very strongly to that portion of the Bill which would exempt a particular class of holders of public stock from paying income-tax. The LORD-CHANCELLOR explained that the suitors so exempted from the payment of income-tax would

toral society demanded it. Mr. GLADSTONE said he would not reply to Mr. Disraeli's American allusion, because he wished to take this first opportunity of acknowledging in the fullest manner the signal moderation with which the Leader of the Opposition had acted all through the recent controversy. This expression of gratitude called forth loud cheers, and Mr. Gladstone went on to remark that Mr. Disraeli's mention of the Riot Act betrayed a feeling that the Ballot was the ultimate cure for corruption and intimidation.

On a division the Lords' amendment was nega tived by 302 to 234.-The next amendment was

« AnteriorContinuar »