U. S. Rep.]

to contract and be contracted with, to sue and be sued, as if sole. Clark v. Valentino, 41 Ga., 143. See also as supporting the same view, the following cases: Rhea v. Rhermer, 1 Peters, 105; Cornwall v. Hoyt., 7 Conn., 427; Arthur v. Broadnax, 3 Ala., 557; Jones v. Stewart, Ala., 855; Roland v. Logan, 18 Ala., 307; Rose v. Bates, 12 Mo., 47; Starrett v. Wynn, 17 Serg. & Rawle, 130; Bean v. Morgan, 4 McCord, 148; Valentine v. Ford, 2 P. A. Brown, 193.

It would seem to follow, by reasonable analogy, that where a married woman is, for any such reas, liable to be sued as if sole, at least in an action at law, she may, if otherwise amenable to the provisions of the bankrupt act, be proceeded against thereunder. Accordingly it was held in England in ex parte Franks, 7 Bing., 762, that the wife of a convict sentenced to transportation was liable to be made a bankrupt, she having become a trader, although her husband had not been sent out of England. The sentence of transportation against her husband rendered her liable to suit generally; and the fact that she had become a trader brought her within the provisions of the English bankrupt law.-Editor of Central Law Journal.

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

JOHN SCOTT ET AL. V. THE NATIONAL BANK
OF CHESTER VALLEY.
Bank-Bailment-Negligence.

The plaintiffs below, who keep an account with the defendant, made a special deposit of certain bonds for safe keeping, paying nothing for the privilege; the bonds were stolen by the teller, who had always borne a good character.

Held, 1. That the bank was a gratuitous bailee, and as such not liable, except for gross negligence.

2. That neither the fact, that the bank might have discovered that the teller was dishonest, by a more frequent or accurate examination of his accounts, nor that he was allowed to keep the "individual ledger," which was the only book which was a check upon him, nor that he was not dismissed, when it was discovered that he had made a successful speculation in stocks, was such negligence as to render the bank liable.

3. That nothing short of knowledge or reasonable grounds of suspicion by the bank, that the teller was unfit to be appointed or retained, would render it liable: Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass., 478, approved and followed; Lancaster Bank v. Smith, 12 P. F. S. (62 Penna. Stat.), 47, remarked on.

[Feb. 16, 1874.] Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County.

AGNEW, C. J.-As early as the case of Tompkins v. Saltmarsh, 14 S. & R., 275, it was decided that a delivery of a package of money to a gratuitous bailee, to be carried to a distant place and delivered to another for the benefit of the bailor, imposes no liability upon the bailee for its safe keeping, except for gross negligence. In that case, the package was stolen from the valise of the bailee, at an inn in the course of his journey, after it had been carried to his room, in the usual custom of inns in that day (1822).

[U. S. Rep.

The same rule is laid down by Justice Coulter, arguendo, in Lloyd v. West Branch Bank. He says, a mere depository, without any special undertaking, and without reward, is answerable for the loss of the goods only in case of gross negligence, which in its effects on contracts, is equivalent to fraud. He further remarks, that the accommodation here was to the bailor, and to him alone, and he ought to be the loser, unless he in whom he confided, the bank or cashier, had been guilty of bad faith in exposing the goods to hazards to which they would not expose their own. These rules he derives from Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Lord Raymond, 909, (1 Smith's Lead. Ca., Part I., 369, ed. 1872); and Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass., 501. In the latter case, the law of bailment was exhaustively discussed by Parker, C. J., and the conclusions were as above stated. It was further held that the degree of care which is necessary to avoid the imputation of bad faith, is measured by the carefulness which the bailee uses towards his own property of a similar kind. When such care is exercised, the bailee is not answerable for a larceny of the goods, by the theft even of an officer of the bank. It is further said, that from such special bailments, even of money in packages, for safe keeping, no consideration can be implied. The bank cannot use the deposits in its business; and no such profit or credit from the holding of the money can arise as will convert the bank into a bailee for hire or reward of any kind. The bailment in such case is purely gratuitous, and for the benefit of the bailor, and no loss can be cast upon the bank for a larceny, unless there have been gross negligence in taking care of the deposit. These appear to be just conclusions, drawn from the nature of the bailment. The rule in this State is stated by Thompson, C. J., in Lancaster Bank v. Smith, 12 P. F. Smith, 54. He says, "The case on hand was a voluntary bailment, or, more accurately speaking, a bailment without compensation, in which the rule of liability for loss is usually stated to arise on proof of gross negligence.' That case went to the jury on the question of ordinary care, and hence the observation of the Chief Justice, that the same idea was sufficiently expressed by the judge below in using the words, want of ordinary care. It may be proper, however, to say, that want of ordinary care is applicable to bailees with reward, when the loss arises from causes not within the duty imposed by the contract of safe-keeping, as from fire, theft, &c., and hence is not the measure in such a case as that before us, which we have seen is gross negligence.

U.S. Rep.]

[U. S. Rep.

That case was one where the teller of the bank delivered the deposited bonds to a stranger, calling himself by the name of the bailor, without taking sufficient care to be certain that he was delivering the package to the right person, and the bank was held responsible for his negligence. There the teller, in giving out the deposit, was acting in his official capacity, and hence the liability of the bank. The case before us now is different, the bonds being stolen by the teller, who absconded. This teller was both clerk and teller; but the taking of the bonds was not an act pertaining to his business, as either clerk or teller. The bonds were left at the risk of the plaintiff, and never entered into the business of the bank. Being a bailment merely for safe keeping, for the benefit of the bailor, and without compensation, it is evident the dishonest act of the teller was in no way connected with his employment. Under these circumstances, the only ground of liability must arise in a knowledge of the bank that the teller was an unfit person to be appointed, or to be retained in its employment. So long as the bank was ignorant of the dishonesty of the teller, and trusted him with its own funds, confiding in his character for integrity, it would be a harsh rule that would hold it liable for an act not in the course of the business of the bank, or of the employment of the officer. There was no undertaking to the bailor that the officers would not steal. Of course there was a confidence that they would not, but not a promise that they should not. The case does not rest on a warranty or undertaking, but on gross negligence in care taking. Nothing short of a knowledge of the true character of the teller, or of reasonable grounds to suspect his integrity, followed by a neglect to remove him, can be said to be gross negligence, without raising a contract for care higher than a gratuitous bailment can create. The question of the bank's knowledge of the character of the teller was fairly submitted to the jury.

But it turned out that after the teller absconded, his accounts were found to be false, and that he had been abstracting the funds of the bank for about two years, to an amount of about $26,000.

It was contended that the want of discovery of the state of his accounts for such a length of time, especially as he had charge of the individual ledger, was such evidence of negligence as made the bank liable.

The Court negatived this position, and held that the bank was not bound to search his accounts for the benefit of a gratuitous bailor,

whose loss arose not from the account as kept by him, but from a larceny, a transaction outside of his employment.

We perceive no error in this. The negligence constituting the ground of liability, must be such as enters into the cause of loss. But the false entries in the books, and the want of their discovery, were not the cause of the bailor's loss, and not connected with it. True the same person was guilty of both offences, but the acts were unconnected and independent.

Another complaint is, that the teller was suffered to remain in employment after it was known that he had dealt once or twice in stock. Undoubtedly the purchase or sale of stocks is not ipso facto the evidence of dishonesty; but as the judge well said, had he been found at the gaming table, or engaged in some fraudulent or dishonest practice, he should not be continued in a place of trust. So if the president of the bank, when he called on the brokers who acted for the teller in the purchase of stock, had discovered that he was engaged in stock gambling, or in buying and selling beyond his evident means, a different course would have been called for. No officer in a bank, engaged in stock gambling, can be safely trusted; and the evidence of this is found in the numerous defaulters, whose peculations have been discovered to be directly traceable to this species of gambling. A cashier, treasurer, or other officer, having the custody of funds, thinks he sees a desirable speculation, and takes the funds of his institution, hoping to return them instantly, but he fails in his venture, or success tempts him on, and he ventures again to retrieve his loss or increase his gain, and again and again he ventures. Thus the first step, often taken without a criminal intent, is the fatal step which ends in ruin to himself and to those whose confidence he has betrayed. Hence, any evidence of stock gambling, or dangerous outside operations, should be visited with immediate dismissal. In this case, the operations of the teller in stocks, as a gambler in them, were unknown to the officers of the bank until after he had absconded. Upon the whole, the case appears to have been properly tried, and finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.-Legal Intelligencer.

These gentlemen are called in the order in which they entered the Society and not in the order of merit.

Joseph James Gormully, Esq., of the Middle Temple, England, Barrister-at-Law, was admitted into the Society and called to the degree of Barrister-at-Law.

The following gentlemen obtained Certificates of Fitness as Attorneys, namely:

JOSEPH JAMES GORMULLY.
E. GEORGE PATTERSON.
THOMAS HORACE MCGUIRE,
CHARLES EGERTON RYERSON.

DAVID ROBERTSON.

GEORGE LEVACK B. FRASHE.

A. BASIL KLEIN.

ALFRED TREVOS BALL.

JOSIAH R. METCALF.

ARTHUR LYNDHURST COLVILLE.

CLARENCE WIDMER BALL.

D. ELLIS MCMILLAN.

And on Tuesday, the 19th of May, 1874, the following gentlemen were admitted into the Society as Studentsat-Law and Articled Clerks :

Graduates.

GEORGE ROBERT GRASETT.

JOHN MAXWELL.

WILLIAM SETON GORDON.

JAMES CRAIG.

Junior Class.

FRANK FITZGERALD.

DUNCAN DENNIS RIORDAN.

DAVID HALDANE FLETCHER.

ISAAC CAMPBELL.

JAS. W. HOLMES.

NICHOLAS DUBOIS BECK.

ARTHUR BEATTY.

JOHN SANDFIELD MCDONALD.

JOHN ARTHUR PATRICK MCMAHON.

WILLIAM JAMES LAVERY.

JOHN LEWIS.

ANDREW HALLEY HUNTER.

JOHN JACOB WHEELER STONE.

JOHN GIBSON CURELL.

MAXFIELD SHEPPARD.

GEORGE ALBERT FLETCHER ANDREWS. WALTER JAMES READ.

THOMAS WILLIAM PHILLIPS.

NATHANIEL MILLS.

JOHN MALCOLM MUNRO.

JOHN JOSEPH BLAKE.

WM. EDGAR STEVENS.

CHARLES EGERTON MACDONALD.

COLIN SCOTT RANKIN.

CHARLES MICHAEL FOLEY.

JOHN GREELEY KELLY.

JOHN ROSS MCCOLL, and

ERNEST JOSEPH BEAUMONT as an articled clerk.

Ordered, That the division of candidates for admission on the Books of the Society into three classes be abolished. That a graduatein the Faculty of Arts in any University in Her Majesty's Dominion, empowered to grant such degrees, shall be entitled to admission upon giving a Term's notice in accordance with the existing rules, and paying the prescribed fees, and presenting to Convocation his diploma or a proper certificate of his having received his degree.

That all other candidates for admission shall pass a satisfactory examination upon the following subjects, namely, (Latin) Horace, Odes Book 3; Virgil, Eneid, Book 6; Cæsar, Commentaries Books 5 and 6; Cicero, Pro Milone. (Mathematics) Arithmetic, Algebra to the end of Quadratic Equations; Euclid, Books 1, 2, and 8. Outlines of Modern Geography, History of England (W. Douglas Hamilton's) English Grammar and Composition.

That Articled Clerks shall pass a preliminary examination upon the following subjects:-Cæsar, Commentaries Books 5 and 6; Arithmetic; Euclid, Books 1, 2, and 3. Outlines of Modern Geography, History of England (W. Douglas Hamilton's) English Grammar and Composition, Elements of Book-keeping.

That the subjects and books for the first Intermediate Examination shall be:-Real Property, Williams; Equity, Smith's Manual; Common Law, Smith's Manual; Act respecting the Court of Chancery (C. S. U. C. c. 12), (C' S. U. S. caps. 42 and 44).

That the subjects and books for the second Intermediate Examination be as follows:-Real Property, Leith's Blackstone, Greenwood on the Practice of Conveyancing (chapters on Agreements, Sales, Purchases, Leases, Mortgages, and Wills); Equity, Snell's Treatise; Common Law, Broom's Common Law, C. S. U. C. c. 88, Statutes of Canada, 29 Vic. c. 28, Insolvency Act.

That the books for the final examination for studentsat-law shall be as follows:

1. For Call.-Blackstone Vol. i., Leake on Contracts, Watkins on Conveyancing, Story's Equity Jurisprudence, Stephen on Pleading, Lewis' Equity Pleading, Dart on Vendors and Purchasers, Taylor on Evidence, Byles on Bills, the Statute Law, the Pleadings and Practice of the Courts.

2. For Call with Honours, in addition to the preceding, -Russell on Crimes, Broom's Legal Maxims, Lindley on Partnership, Fisher on Mortgages, Benjamin on Sales, Jarman on Wills. Von Savigny's Private International Law (Guthrie's Edition), Maine's Ancient Law.

That the subjects for the final examination of Articled Clerks shall be as follows:-Leith's Blackstone, Watkins on Conveyancing (9th ed.), Smith's Mercantile Law, Story's Equity Jurisprudence, Leake on Contracts, the Statute Law, the Pleadings and Practice of the Courts.

Candidates for the final examinations are subject to reexamination on the subjects of the Intermediate Examinations. All other requisites for obtaining certificates of fitness and for call are continued.

That the Books for the Scholarship Examinations shall be as follows:

1st year.-Stephen's Blackstone, Vol. i., Stephen on Pleading, Williams on Personal Property, Griffith's Institutes of Equity, C. 8. U. 8. c. 12, C. S. U. C. c. 43.

2nd year.-Williams on Real Property, Best on Evidence, Smith on Contracts, Snell's Treatise on Equity, the Registry Acts.

3rd year.-Real Property Statutes relating to Ontario, Stephen's Blackstone, Book V., Byles on Bills, Broom's Legal Maxims, Story's Equity Jurisprudence, Fisher on Mortgages, Vol. 1, and Vol. 2, chaps. 10, 11 and 12.

4th year. Smith's Real and Personal Property, Russell on Crimes, Common Law Pleading and Practice, Benjamin on Sales, Dart on Vendors and Purchasers, Lewis' Equity Pleading, Equity Pleading and Practice in this Province. That no one who has been admitted on the books of the Society as a Student shall be required to pass preliminary examination as an Articled Clerk.

J. HILLYARD CAMERON,
Treasurer.

DIARY FOR JULY.

1 Wed...Dominion Day. Long Vac. beg. Master and Reg. in Chy., Cks. and Dep. Clks. Crown to make fees. Co. Treas. to make ret. to Local ret. of under Clks. [32 V. c. 36, s. 113. Co. Coun. to equalize [assessment rolls (do. s. 71.)

& Fri.....Quebec founded, 1608.

5 SUN... 5th Sunday after Trinity.

6 Mon....Co. Ct. Heard. Term begins in Devisee sits. begin.

9 Thurs..[Clks. Crown to pay over fees to Prov. Dep. 10 Fri.....Last day for Master and Reg. in Chy., Clks. and Treas.

11 Sat..... Last day for notice of primary exams.

12 SUN...6th Sunday after Trinity.

18 Mon....Last d..new div. of Wards in Cities & Towns

(Mun.

THE

Canada Law Journal.

Toronto, July, 1874.

The bill of Mr. Bass to abolish imprisonment for debt in England, has been defeated by a vote of 215 to 72. The measure was not only wrong in principle, but badly and illogically worked out in detail.

The number of capital convictions in the Dominion of Canada since 1st July, 1867, as shown by a return printed dur ing the late session of the Dominion Parliament, were 69, of which 42 were for murder, 20 for rape, 4 for piracy, one for wounding with intent to murder, one for stabbing with intent to murder, and one for levying war against Her Majesty. Of these in 40 cases the sentences were commuted to different terms of imprisonment, one was pardoned, and in 28 instances the sentences were carried into effect.

It is difficult to say, and especially so in a new country, where bad taste in matters professional ends, and where unprofessional conduct begins. We are concerned to discountenance both; the former, if unchecked, soon takes the more aggravated form of the latter. We have heard of exception being taken to the advertising of profressional cards in the columns of newspapers and periodicals, but whilst thinking this is an extreme view to take, we are inclined to doubt whether the Barrister who, in an historic city in this Province, placarded public places with cards, announcing the fact that he gave special attention to marine protests, has thereby developed a purity of taste in matters professional at all worthy of imitation.

THE NEW JUDGES. On the 16th day of last month William Proudfoot, Q. C., was sworn in as one of the Vice-Chancellors of the Court of Chancery, and, on the day following, Hon. Vice-Chancellor Strong, George William Burton, Q. C., and Christopher Salmon Patterson, Q. C., were sworn in as Justices of the Court of Error and Appeal, under the recent Act.

We have already spoken of this Act, and expressed an opinion that it would have been more satisfactory if some arrangement had been made by "the powers that be" which would have resulted in the appointment, as the new Justices of Appeal, of the three chiefs of the Superior Courts of Law and Equity. We fear that for a time at least the new court will not, as a Court of Appeal, owing to the strength of the courts below, secure that confidence which such a court should command. Nor can we be surprised at this, when we see that the new court is partly composed of men taken directly from the Bar; for in a conflict of opinion between a court which from its constitution may be composed principally of new men, and a court the members of which have large judicial experience, and have for years undergone a judicial training, there can, we fancy, be no question but that the profession and the thinking public would accept the decision of the latter in preference to the former.

Whilst we feel bound to say as much as this, and once again to deplore the existence of circumstances, whatever they may be, which have deprived the Province, in its court of highest resort, of the services of sages of the law who have grown grey on the judicial bench, we are far from reflecting upon the appointments that have been made. Of Mr. Justice Strong's thorough fitness for his present position we have already spoken, and as to those taken from the Bar, we believe

MEETING OF COUNTY JUDGES.

There was a large meeting of the County Judges at Osgoode Hall late last month, when various topics of interest were discussed. We are unable now, from want of space, to refer to their proceedings at length, but shall do so next month.

The Board of County Judges also met at the same time. Being aware that the Board was engaged in considering the question of an increase of fees to Division Court officers, under the clauses in the Administration of Justice Act of last session, we were anxious to give officers the earliest intimation of any change made. At the last moment, and at some inconvenience to ourselves, we have procured the table of fees to Clerks and Bailiffs, which will be found substantially correct. It comes into force on the first day of this month. We have not had time to examine the items very carefully but notice that for a great many services no increase whatever has been made, and the Board, it strikes us, has not been very liberal in

any case. No doubt the table will, in the cities, overpay officers, but we presume a discriminating tariff, if within the province of the Board, was not deemed expedient. Probably legislation in that direction will be necessary. The tariff will be found on page 207.

We have received copies of Mr. Walkem's annotated edition of the Married Woman's Property Acts, and Mr. Ewart's Manual of Costs, but too late for review in this issue.