To Readers and Correspondents.

"A SUBSCRIBER."-Will our correspondent state in what court the case occurred? and we will apply to the reporter. If the solicitor who made inquiry about the case of Campbell v. "Allgood will send the brief and papers to the LAW TIMES Ofice, our reporter will give a short report of it. He did not do so at the time, conceiving it to be a case involving no question of bue, but only of fact. A. G. H.-We are not aware of the existence of any such society; but it would be a very desirable one. "INQUIRER."-Yes. It is now in the press. "T.C." (Wigan.)-According to the late decision of the House

of Lords, the majority of the parishioners in vestry may refuse to grant a church-rate. "A SUBSCRIBER."—Yes.

late in the week.

"B. V."-We are not aware of their being omitted. If so, it has been through an oversight, and not intentionally.

We cannot undertake to return rejected communications

Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer; not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of his good faith. No notice can be taken of anonymous communications.

THE LAW TIMES.

SATURDAY, APRIL 1, 1854.

THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS. Friday, March 31. WE are glad to see that the LORD CHANCELLOR does not doggedly adhere to his own curtailments of the measure proposed by the Common Law Commissioners. On the second reading of the Procedure Bill, he declared his readiness to submit the matter to the select committee, and to bow to their decision. The most important of his Lordship's alterations was in the matter of Juries, and in this we regret to find him supported by Lord CAMPBELL. Subscribing fully to the justice of the sarcasm contained in the admirable name of Pessimists, affixed by the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE to the class of Law Reformers who are for destroying the entire system of our law in order to substitute some crotchets of their own, and repudiating all sympathy with their visionary and wild schemes, we are yet compelled reluctantly to declare our dissent from the views upon this matter of Juries entertained by Lord CAMPBELL. We admit frankly the many uses of this institution; we acknowledge that it is the basis of our liberties, the safeguard of the citizen; we should lament as much as he were it to be brought into disrepute, or if there were the slightest prospect of its general abandonment. But it appears to us that some fallacy lurks in the minds of the LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord CAMPBELL, either as to the proposition of the Commissioners, or as to the special uses of the jury-box.

In criminal trials a Jury is of immense value, and we should lament to see anything done that would have the remotest tendency to weaken so useful an institution. But the reason for maintaining it here is not its superior capacity for determining the truth, but for its independence of influences, and its sympathies with the liberty of the subject, should it be menaced by any of the authorities of the realm. The parties who come before a Criminal Court are very differently situate from those who appear in the Civil Courts. One is always unwillingly dragged thither is usually poor and powerless; while the other is backed by the authority of the Crown, and commands the aid of the public purse.

be sent to England purposely to shift the burden from their own country to ours. Yet, without such a provision, the measure is manifestly imperfect. In this dilemma the matter stands; and we fear it will prove fatal to the Bill.

Mr. CRAUFORD's excellent proposition for enabling writs of execution to run over all the three kingdoms has been referred to a select committee. Objections were taken to a provision for enabling writs of summons to be served in any part of the United Kingdom, so as to bring defendants within the jurisdiction in which the cause of action arose; but upon no substantial grounds. It is extremely unjust that an Irishman should be able to contract a debt in England, and then that the creditor should be compelled to go to Ireland to sue him. Mr CRAUFORD proposes that the debtor should be brought to the creditor; and it is a measure of justice which surely will not be refused by the House of Commons.

The South Sea Company's Trust Bill has been read a third time in the House of Commons, after a spirited opposition from Mr. FOLLETT; but his efforts were vain. Mr. CARDWELL, on the part of the Government, gave it their cordial support, and the House did not divide. This question may, therefore, be looked upon as settled. How it will affect the Profession remains to be seen; but all will depend upon the liberality with which the South Sea Company may extend the business to the Attorneys generally, instead of monopolising it to themselves. It is in their power to render it innocuous. clearly the interest of the Lawyers is now to support a society of their own, having the same objects as regards the public, but carefully protecting the interests of the Profession. As it will be in the power of the Lawyers to send the vast proportion of this business where they please, they should take it to themselves, and thus anticipate the threatened monopoly of speculators, who have no regard for the interest of the Profession.

But

We have been asked why we have not submitted to our readers an outline of the provisions of the new Common Law Procedure Bill. For this reason. It will be subjected to considerable alterations in committee, and, if read before it has been submitted to that ordeal, the reader's mind is liable to be greatly perplexed between the Bill as it was and as it appears in its amended shape. When it comes out of committee will be the proper season for describing its provisions, and then it shall be done.

Poor-Law Board, in consequence of a slight shown to him, we believe unintentionally, by Lord PALMERSTON. Mr. BAINES objected to link the fate of his Bill for abolishing Poor Removals in England with a measure of such doubtful propriety as the extension of the same privilege to the paupers of Ireland. But, without first consulting Mr. BAINES, it seems that Lord PALMERSTON gave a sort of promise to the Irish members that the Government should introduce such a provision. This, of course, was an interference with his department which Mr. BAINES could not brook, and he threatened retirement; but, like a true patriot, being unwilling to obstruct public business at a time of public difficulty, he placed the matter in the hands of friends, and they have brought about a reconciliation. So Mr. BAINES remains at his post; but we fear that his Bill is doomed.

The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill (we prefer this title to that which has been given to it in Parliament-"The Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill ") has come out of the committee of the Lords with some mangling. The LORD CHANCELLOR has yielded to objections raised by a majority of the committee, and to remonstrances received from other quarters, against the clauses relating to real estate. Lord St. LEONARDS is about to propose a clause confining the jurisdiction to one branch of the Court of Chancery, and to empower the Judge of the Prerogative Court to sit as a Judge of such branch. He will also propose to give precedence to the present Advocates, even before Queen's Counsel. Very general approval was expressed of the first suggestion; but it was objected by Lord CAMPBELL, with his usual practical good sense, that the second might possibly prove a profitless honour, for that it might prevent the advocates being employed at all. Lord ST. LEONARDS assented to this, and suggested that those to whom precedency might be inconvenient should be allowed to waive it, and keep their places as juniors. The salaries of registrar, sealer, and recordkeeper are to be fixed as nearly as possible at their present amount, to be ascertained by their income-tax returns.

A brief but interesting conversation occurred on Thursday night, in the House of Lords, upon a matter of considerable importance, the prosecution of petty larcenies. Lord CAMPBELL stated that he had frequent occasion to remark on his circuit the great expense to counties, as well as injustice to prisoners, produced by bringing to the assizes the entire array of prosecutor and witnesses, counsel and attorney, against a small thief, whose offence was stealing something worth a few pence-who pleaded guilty, and always intended to so; while the prisoner had been kept in a gaol waiting for his trial for, perhaps, three times the period over which his punishment would have extended, had he been tried immediately. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE expressed his desire that justices should have power in such petty offences to exercise a summary jurisdiction, at least with the consent of the prisoner. The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his sense of the defect described by Lord CAMPBELL, and his willingness to concur in any well-devised remedy; Lord BROUGHAM agreed with Lord CAMPBELL; and the upshot of the matter was, that the LORD CHANCELLOR promised to bring the subject before the Government, if a satisfactory scheme were devised. That will not be difficult. We will take the liberty of suggesting one next week.

The Assizes have been singularly barren of interest. We remember none in which so few curious or important cases have been tried. Of the former class, however, was the case of Reid v. Gardiner, tried at Cambridge, which, though in form an action for libel, was in fact to try whether a criminal intercourse had existed between certain parties. The entire story was a romance, stranger than any fiction, and the evi- The LORD CHANCELLOR has kindly acceded to dence so contradictory, that we defy the soundest the request of the Profession, and has consented judgment to come to a decided opinion as to to hold his sittings at Lincoln's-inn instead of at where the truth lay. On one side or the other Westminster during the Summer terms. Westthere must have been the most audacious per-minster was preferred because it was convenient to a few Counsel who are in Parliament, and who It will be seen by the weekly list gazetted that have business before the Farliamentary Comthe LORD CHANCELLOR continues to appoint Committees, or in the House of Lords. It was a grievous missioners for taking affidavits, with a large libe- inconvenience to all the rest of the Profession; so rality that has given the utmost satisfaction to the LORD CHANCELLOR has preferred the conthe Profession. The appointment is readily made venience of the many to that of the few, and the of any Attorney who produces satisfactory testi- Profession will thank him for it. monials of respectability. This is as it should be. Indeed, we can see no reason why every Solicitor should not be a Commissioner virtute officii.

A superabundance of topics of legal interest compels us this week to be brief. Next week a gratis double number will enable us to bring up a portion at least of the accumulated arrears.

The public has been upon the point of losing the services of Mr. BAINES, the President of the

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS. WE gladly give place to the first instalment of facts upon this subject, of so great practical importance to the Profession. We trust that our correspondent's example will be extensively followed.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES.

SIR,-Obedient to your urgent summons, I beg to send you the elements and facts of an enfranchise

ment of a small copyhold estate which I have
lately effected. The last admission was previous to
July last, so that the lord and tenant were precluded
from putting the Compulsory Act into operation, but
agreed to enfranchise, taking that Act and the sug-
gestions of the Copyhold Commissioners as their
guide. The estate, of 76 acres, was held in fee acording
to the custom. All the manorial rights were com-
muted into fixed money payments, still called a heriot
and relief, of 77. 188. 8d. and 17., and payable on death
and alienation respectively. There was an annual
quit-rent of 9s. 8d., and the terms of enfranchisement
were as follows:-
£ s. d.
14 10 0
19 16 8

30 years' purchase of quit-rent...
24 heriots

2 reliefs

...

One year's improved value One set of steward's fees...

...

2 10 0

140 O 0 32 0 0

£208 16 8

The last item included all the cost of the purchasedeeds (which consisted of an enfranchisement-deed and a separate covenant for the production of the lord's title), excepting stamps and parchments. I am, Sir, yours, &c. Lincoln's-inn, March 28, 1854.

SHAM LAWYERS.

HERE is another effusion :

T. P. K.

M.

(Copy.) 19, Albert-street, Haggerstone, Shoreditch, London, March 10, 1854. SIR,-I am directed by Mr. J.of to apply to you for the sum of 107. balance due for money lent, of which I send you an account. And hope you will send the whole or part to him or me by post-office order, or otherwise, on or before the 22nd of March instant, and save any expence of law proceedings that may ensue. Yours obediently,

J. T. FOSTER, Debt Agent.

The 158th section of the Common Law Procedure Act requires the party alleging error in fact, to deliver to one of the Masters of the Court a memorandum of the error, intituled in in the Court and cause, and signed by the party matter of fact in which the alleged error consists. or his attorney, together with an affidavit of the The Master thereupon files the memorandum and affidavit, and delivers to the party lodging the same a note of the receipt thereof. The following is a form of receipt given by the Master :

In the Q. B., C. P., or Exch.

A. B., plaintiff,

and

A copy of this note, and of the affidavit filed, is then served upon the opposite party or his attorney, the effect of which will be similar to the service of the rule for the allowance of a writ of error in fact, under the former practice, when a writ of error was in use which, although it was not per se a supersedeas of execution in the action, yet the party obtaining judgment, after notice of the writ having been sued out, could not issue execution without the leave of the Court or a Judge: (Semple v. Turner, 6 M. & W. 152; S. C. 8, D. P. C. 246.) To prevent a plaintiff, however, from being unnecessarily or indefinitely delayed in realising the fruits of his judgment, the Rule of Court requires the party bringing error to assign error within eight days after filing the memorandum of error, or, in default, the defendant in error or his legal representatives may nonsuit him. The rule is an adaptation of r. 11 of Reg. Gen. H. T. 4 Will. 4 to the new practice. The formal assignment of error in fact will be a repetition or an amplification of the matter contained in the affidavit filed with the memorandum. This assignment should be intituled in HERE is an outrageous specimen printed in red the Court and cause, corresponding in these par

HERE is another:

8, Princess-street, Manchester, March 22, 1854. MADAM,-I am instructed by J. W. to apply to you for payment of the sum of 5l. 6s. owing by you to him; and unless the same be paid at my office on or before 10 o'clock to-morrow next, proceedings will be commenced against you for the recovery thereof, without further notice. I am, yours obediently,

and black letters:

Debt Case No. 10,383.

H. BALL.

tion of the Common Law Procedure Act, when the defendant relies upon such proceeding in error being barred by lapse of time, or by release of error, or other like matter of fact; for that section contemplates a suggestion of error in law matter of fact to plead in bar of such proceedings to which the defendant has some independent in error, and not simpliciter an original assignment of error in fact.

Trial of Errors in Fact and subsequent Proceedings. R. 66. Notice of trial and all other proceedings thereon shall be the same as in issues joined in an ordinary action.

The object of this rule is to simplify and assimi late the whole practical procedure of the trial of an issue joined on an error in fact to trials in ordinary actions. The issue will be a copy of the judgment upon which the error is brought, an entry of the memorandum or note of error with the date of lodging the same with the Master, the assignment of error, and subsequent pleadings. The Nisi Prius record will be in the usual form, notice of trial given and the cause set down for trial as in ordinary cases. After verdict, no rule for judgment will be necessary by virtue of r. 55, and, consequently, there will now be no necessity for moving to put the cause in the paper for argument or for a reversal of judgment for production of the postea on the expiration of four days after the trial, as formerly was the practice: (Ogburn v. Berrington, 1 Str. 827; Sexton v. Astrop, 1 D. N. S. 14.) The taxation of costs and issuing execution will, in all respects, be similar to such proceedings in ordinary actions.

Setting down for Argument Suggestions of Error is Law.

R. 67. After the suggestion of error in law, alleged and denied as prescribed by the Common Law Proce dure Act 1852, is entered, either party may set down the case for argument, and forthwith give notice in writing to the opposite party, and proceed to the argument thereof as on a demurrer, without any rule or motion for a concilium.

for argument a suggestion of error. Either party This rule regulates the practice for entering may, upon setting down the case, give notice of that step to his opponent or attorney. The points intended to be argued should be mutually inter-exchanged between the parties and inserted in the paper books delivered to the judges, No motion or rule for fixing a day for hearing the argument is required. In this respect the special case, or appeals from the Co. Courts in practice resembles setting down a demurrer, the special paper for argument under r. 15. The rule is similar to r. 14 of Reg. Gen. H. T. 4 Will. 4. A case under the new rule may be set down for argument either in term or vacation, provided it be four clear days before the first day appointed for hearing the argument (S.-E. Rail. C. v.

To Mr.

ter 42, section 28, in accordance with the requirements of which Act this Notice is given, and accruing costs, without further Notice. J. BRADLEY, Agent and Collector to and for Mr. March 23, 1854. Present claim, 13s. Errors (if any) excepted. For all moneys take printed receipts.

Orders (per post) punctually attended to.-All Postoffice Money-orders to be made payable to "John Bradley," of 19, Arlington-street, London, at the Post-office, Islington. Debts collected in all parts of town, the country, and abroad, with expedition.

And this precious document is thus indorsed.
No. 10,383. See within.
Amount of debt at date of notice
Interest on ditto

vacation after last Trinity Term, where the error in fact was obviously frivolous, Williams, J. made an order setting aside all the proceedings in error, although it was objected on the behalf of the plaintiff in error, on the authority of Bore

no power thus to deal with proceedings in error in fact, inasmuch as the provisions of the 158th sect. of the Common Law Procedure Act, regulating the proceedings in error in fact, did not correspond with the particular provisions of the 150th sect. in regard to proceedings in error in law, expressly conferring upon the Court or a Judge a summary exercise of jurisdiction, when the grounds of error appear to be frivolous. Notice instead of Rule to plead to Assignment of Error

R. 65. No rule to plead to assignment of error in fact, or any other pleadings in error, shall be neces sary; but either party may give to the opposite party a notice to answer such pleading within four days, otherwise judgment; which notice may be delivered separately, or indorsed on the pleading.

This rule abolishes the necessity for serving a side-bar rule upon the defendant in error to plead to an assignment of error in fact. When the plaintiff assigns error in fact-usually his appearance by attorney instead of by guardian, as being an infant at the time of action brought, or that judgment of outlawry has been obtained against him while he was abroad at the time the exigent issued-he will give the defendant in error notice to plead thereto within four days, which notice may be delivered separately, or, which is more usually done, indorsed on the assignment; and this course will be observed in the subsequent stages of the proceedings until the The pleadings parties have arrived at issue. will not require to be signed by counsel.

It would seem that this rule is not intended to alter or limit the time allowed for pleading to a suggestion of error in law under the 152nd sec

many days allowed by the Court.

Delivery of Paper Books in Error.

R. 68. Four clear days before the day appointed for argument, the plaintiff in error shall deliver copies of the judgment roll of the Court below, to the Judge of the Q. B. on error from the C. P. or Ex., and to the Judges of the C. P. on error from the Q. B.; and the other Judges of the Court of Ex. Ch. before whom the defendant in error shall deliver copies thereof to the other party may on the following day deliver such case is to be heard, and in default by either party, the books as ought to have been delivered by the party making default, and the party making default shall not be heard until he shall have paid for such copies. or deposited with the master a sufficient sum to pay for such copies.

The time within which the copies of the pro ceedings in error are to be delivered, is defined by this rule to be four clear days before the day for the assignment. But if the Court of Error do not, in appointing its sittings, give these number of days, viz., four clear days before the day of hearing, the rule is not obligatory. Therefore, where on the 24th of May, the Ex. Ch. appointed the 28th of the same month for hearing errors, se that it was impossible for the defendant in err to deliver his paper books four clear days, according to the literal requirements of the rule, it was held that the plaintiff in error, having delivered paper books on the behalf of the defendant, could not object to the defendant in error being heard until he had paid for them: (Kent v Pittis, 17 Jur. 932.)

Registration of Bills of Sale

Ministers' Money, &c., I.

Monday, March 27.

Thursday, March 30.

Piers and Harbours, S., No. 2

Bribery, &c.

BILLS READ A SECOND TIME.

Monday, March 27.

Valuation of Lands, S. Bribery Prevention

Tuesday, March 28.

Judgment, Execution, &c.

BILLS READ A THIRD TIME, AND PASSED.
Thursday, March 30,
Income Tax

PRIVATE BUSINESS TRANSACTED.
BILLS READ A THIRD TIME, AND PASSED.

Friday, March 24.

Nottingham Waterworks

Rossindale Waterworks

Monday, March 27.

Kingston-upon-Hull Docks Bill

Liverpool Sanitary and other Local Acts Tuesday, March 28.

Hull Cemetery

Thursday, March 30.

Burry Port Bill

Ramsbottom Gas Bill

Southport Waterworks Bill

South Sea Company Bill

SESSIONAL PRINTED PAPERS.

106. Railway and Canal Bills Committee-Third Report

Church Estates Commissioners-Third General Report
Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England - Sixth

General Report
Natal-Further Correspondence

Registration of Bills of Sale

HOUSE OF LORDS.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Lord ST. LEONARDS moved for certain returns in

connection with the Court of Chancery, and in doing
so vindicated that court against some complaints
which had been made with reference to it. It had
been said that great and unnecessary delays had
taken place; and his object in moving for the returns
was to show the actual state of matters which had
been pending in the Court of Chancery for some
time. If it should appear that there were causes
there now which ought to have been determined, he
should move for a committee to inquire into the
working of the courts. -Lord BROUGHAM was glad
that his noble and learned friend had moved for these
returns, and that he intended to go further, and move
for the appointment of a committee, if necessary.
He thought, however, that the returns would show
that there was no ground whatever for the com-
plaints that had recently been made; and the utmost
they would be called upon to do would be to see how
much further they could carry their improvements.
He could not allow that opportunity to pass without
saying that the reforms which had recently taken
place in the Courts of Chancery were not first sug-
gested in 1850, or '51, or '52, but as long back as
1842, by Master Brougham; and he did not feel any
delicacy in stating this because of his connection
with him; for he held it to be due to him as a matter
of justice to state the fact. Ten years before the
measure was enacted, the whole of it, in every par-
ticular, almost to the very details of the measure,
was suggested by Master Brougham in a letter
to the late Lord Langdale, when Master of the Rolls.
He then stated, as the result of his eleven years' ex-
perience, that the Masters' offices should be abolished,
and suggested that the judges should not sit in the
courts alone, but also in chambers. Lord Langdale
medy was thought too powerful to be applied to the
admitted evils.Lord CAMPBELL thought great
praise was due to Mr. Brougham for his suggestion,
and there could be no doubt that the abolition of the
Masters' offices was the most striking and useful
feature in the recent Chancery reforms. He consi-
dered that his noble and learned friend had done well
to move for the returns; but he felt confident that
they would prove that the grievances complained of
did not exist.The LORD CHANCELLOR was anxious
to have every evil corrected which was capable of
being remedied. He had no doubt that the returns
which had been moved for would show that some old
causes were still in hand, and so it would be until the
end of time. When accounts had to be taken of pro-
perty in England, Ireland, Scotland, India, Australia,
and all parts of the world, which was often the case,
it must take years before such matters were cleared
up. Cases of that kind were improperly called suits,
for they were, in fact, nothing less than the adminis-
tration of the affairs of people in all parts of the globe.
The delay in suits often arose, too, not from the courts

70. Savings Banks (Number of Depositors, &c.) approved of the suggestion at the time; but the reAccounts

Importation of Guano-Correspondence with the themselves, but because parties would sleep over them,

would fall into the hands of the company to an incalculable amount; and the only guarantee would be a sum of 300,000l. The managers would be perfectly irresponsible, and they would be able with the property in their possession to deal in the public securities, or embark in all kinds of speculations in trade or commerce. If these should prove failures, the debts of the company would be paid out of the guarantee fund, and the parties interested in the trust would thus have no practical security whatever.

-Mr. GREENE protested against an amendment which would take away the whole pith and marrow of the Bill being proposed at so late a stage. It could not for a moment be contended that sufficient opportunity had not been given to the opponents of the Bill to bring forward their objections in a more regular form, because the measure was no new one, but one that had been brought before Parliament last session. The truth was, the only persons interested in opposing it were the attorneys. The Bill simply proposed that the South Sea Company, at the express desire of any party creating a trust, or, with the consent of the cestui que trust, or, in case the latter should be under disability, with the approbation of the Court of Chancery, should be enabled to transfer to itself the administration of such trust. -Mr. CARDWELL thought there was no objection to the Bill, for the same reasons as he had stated last year, when an objection had also been raised against the measure at a similar stage. Succession in trusteeship was a very difficult matter to arrange; and a permanent corporation, having a perpetual existence, did not seem to him to be an unsuitable body to undertake the task. Nor did he see any objection to such a corporation receiving a moderate remuneration for the performance of the duty, With regard to the question of responsibility, it seemed to him that there would be in this case unusual security. In addition to the guarantee fund of 300,000., which would be subject to the surveillance of inspectors appointed by the Treasury, the company would be liable to the interference of the Court of Chancery. The Bill had undergone the investigation of a committee, and he believed that the opposition had been raised solely by the gentlemen of the legal profession, who were the only parties whose interests would be injuriously affected. He thought such a corporation was a fitting body to undertake the discharge of trusts, and that its administration of them would be found economical.Mr. FOLLETT withdrew his amendment.

THE MAGISTRATE,

AND PAROCHIAL AND MUNICIPAL LAWYER.

Summary.

A CURIOUS question was raised in a case reported from Circuit. A man, in a fit of drunkenness, attempted to commit suicide. He was indicted for the misdemeanor. Drunkenness is in law no excuse for crime, but the essence of the offence in this case was the intention; and Wightman, J. told the jury, properly, that with a view to the question of intent they might consider the drunken state of the prisoner. The sapient jury, however, pronounced him guilty. (Reg. v. Doody, 23 L. T. Rep. 12.)

Answers to Queries.

PROPERTY-TAX-The reply given by the Board of Inland Revenue is correct, and the course there suggested is the from the mortgage 7d. in the pound on the 181. interest, and proper legal one. The agent of the emigrant should deduct

does not amount to 100%. per annum. By the Property-tax Acts, all real property in England is chargeable to the duty, and the onus lies on the person claiming an exemption or abatement from the tax to show that he is entitled to such exemption or abatement, and that he comes within the clauses granting the same namely, s. 163 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35; and sect. 28 of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34. C.

SOUTH SEA COMPANY BILL.

On the consideration of this Bill, Mr. S. FOLLETT observed that it had two objects. It was intended, in the first place, as a Bill for winding up the affairs of the old South Sea Company; and, in the second place, as a Bill for reconstituting the company as a company for the administration of trusts. He begged to move the omission of all the words in the preamble, and all the clauses having reference to this latter object; for the effect of the Bill would otherwise be entirely to set aside a fundamental principle of law, which had been recognised in the country for the last 200 years. In the first place, it proposed that a number of gentlemen should be allowed to make a profit from dealing with trusts; and in the next, it proposed to give to the shareholder a privilege of unlimited liability of a most objectionable character. If the Bill should pass, property both in lands and money

INCOME-TAX.-In reply to your correspondent "A Solicitor," I beg to refer him to the LAW TIMES of 18th Feb. last, page 203, where he will find the information he seeks. R. W.

A rent-collector has been convicted at a London police-court for giving a receipt for the sum of 61. without affixing the required penny stamp.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL. - Mr. Ewart has brought in a new Bill, to be substituted for the Public Libraries Act of 1850. The Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, and purports to give the same facilities for establishing free public libraries and museums as have been enacted in respect to the establishing of baths and washhouses and lodginghouses. The rate to be levied for the expense of a public library or museum, or both, is not to exceed 1d. in the pound in any one year; but money may be borrowed on the security of the rates for better carrying the Act into execution. The Act may be adopted by (1) the council of any municipal borough with above 8000 inhabitants; (2) the board of any district being a place within the limits of any Improvement Act, and having such a population, pro

REAL PROPERTY LAWYER AND CONVEYANCER.

Summary.

THE validity of an agreement for the purchase of land was questioned in the case of Cox v. Middleton, 23 L. T. Rep. 6. It ran thus: "A. agrees to pay 6251. for the cottage and stables, B. pay ing the expenses of the lease held by C." Signed by A. On a bill for specific performance it was held that this agreement did not satisfy the Stat. of Frauds, because, said Kindersley, V. C. "There is not enough in it to show what is the plaintiff's interest in the property contracted to be sold." The words were confused and contradictory. "Here is a purchaser dealing with a person professing to sell a fee-simple, while those other words indicate that a lease is to be granted." But what lease, or for what term? In the same case it had been proved that the seller had made false representations as to the state of the property. On this it was remarked that "It is no set-off to the false representations of the plaintiff to say that defendant might have known them to be such. If plaintiff volunteers representations, calculated to mislead the purchaser, telling him he may send his surveyor to look at the premises, and such like statements, surely they are calculated, not to make the purchaser send a surveyor, but to make him not send oneto render it more probable that he would rely on the representations of the vendor."

It seems, that where a party has a power of appointment by "any deed or deeds, writing or writings," under "his hand and seal," it is not well executed by a will made according to sect. 10 of the Wills Act. Wood, V. C. observed that "settlors often hamper and encumber themselves and defeat their own intentions, by using such words as are in this instrument, instead of simply saying, that the power shall be exercised by "deed or will," which would obviate all difficulty. (West v. Ray, 23 L. T. Rep. 9.)

A., having made his will, became insane, and in that state destroyed it. Afterwards he recovered his reason, and directed another will to be prepared; but before that could be done, he destroyed himself. The Court granted probate of the unexecuted draft of the destroyed will, (In the goods of Downer, 23 L. T. Rep. 11.)

Answers to Queries.

a piece of land purchased for enlarging the churchyard of MORTMAIN ACTS.-I am about to prepare a conveyance of this place, that we may avoid the inconvenience of Government interference. At a public meeting, duly convened, we made a rate to defray the expenses of the enlargement, and I and some others were appointed a committee to manage the business. The meeting strongly urged the landowners to pay, and, generally speaking, they have done so. We have purchased the land, and I intend to convey it to the gentle men of the committee, upon proper trusts; but a question I wish first to determine is, whether such a conveyance will be at all against, or in anywise affected by, the statutes of Mortmain. All the statutes, from Magna Charta downwards, are ntended to prevent persons from being induced by weakness, or improper influence, to dispose of their lands or money to be laid out in the purchase of lands, &c., for charitable or superstitious uses, unless executed and enrolled according to 9 Geo. 2, c. 36. It is my intention to recite how the purchase-money has been raised; but I fear that would at once bring my deed under the statute, and, if I do not so recite the facts, yet that the limitation to charitable uses will do so, though neither grantor nor grantees will be donors in the matter. I should be glad of the opinion of some of your legal readers, whether the conveyance, reciting the facts (which I had rather), or not reciting the facts, will be within or without the Statutes of Mortmain? If it is to be inrolled, then I

presume the stamp duty will be 5, besides the expense of nrolment; whilst, were it a simple conveyance, the duty

would not exceed 10s.

AD. ECCLES,

RECESSION OF SEA-PROPERTY IN RECLAIMED LAND.-In answering the first query of "G. S.." I assume (though it is not expressed), that the additional land was formed by small and imperceptible degrees-in that case the land would unquestionably belong to the corporation, for de minimis non curat ler; but if, on the contrary, the dereliction was sudden and considerable, it would belong to the Crown. In answering the second query, I have no doubt the grant to the high sea would not give the corporation the right to the beach, &c., because the soil between the high and low water mark belongs to the Crown: (Vide 1 Steph. Com. 2nd edit. 427.) J. B.

MORTGAGE SALE JOINDER OF WIFE-The wife's joining in the new deed, whether the sale be made by the mort

J. H. On this subject there have only appeared two sensible letters. That by "D." in your last handles the point most ably. How can a wife, married before the Dower Act, claim dower, when her husband has, with her consent, parted with the whole legal fee simple, as such a wife is not dowable of an equitable estate? And as to a wife

ONE, &C.

married after the Dower Act, her husband can under that Act mortgage and sell without her. However, it seems with cantious men the practice is to guard against all question, by introducing words for the purpose in the mortgage. See Hayes' Conveyancing, p. 523, and note (178). But does not this render the deed liable to 35s. additional duty, as not being the question, therefore, sufficiently doubtful to incur such incident to or within the scope of the mortgage security? Is risk? Perhaps your able correspondents will give us their opinions hereon. With great submission to your numerous correspondents upon this subject, it appears to me that they have all missed the mark, and that the necessity for the joinder of the wife will arise or not, according to the form which the transaction takes. If the sale is by the mortgagee, under of the mortgagor and his wife are unnecessary; if the sale the power contained in his mortgage deed, the concurrence is by the mortgagor, and the mortgagee concurs merely to receive his money and convey the estate vested in him, the mortgagor's wife must join, to extinguish her dower.

J. W. R

ABOLITION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL
COURTS.

THE Lord Chancellor's bill to transfer to the Court of Chancery the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and to alter and amend the laws in relation to matters of testacy and intestacy, has been printed as amended by the select committee of the House of Lords.

The Bill contains ninety-one clauses and two schedules, the provisions of which it is proposed should come into operation on a day which is to be fixed notice, but not to be earlier than the 1st of January, upon by an order in council, with three months' 1855. The short title of the Act is "The Testamentary Jurisdiction Act, 1854."

The principal provisions are as follows:-Jurisdiction in matters relating to probate of will or administration of effects of deceased persons is to be taken away from all ecclesiastical courts, lords of a manor, bodies politic and corporate, or any persons now entitled to all questions relating to recovery of legacies and exercise such jurisdiction. In these matters, and in analogous points, testamentary jurisdiction is in future to be vested in the High Court of Chancery, to which an additional office, entitled the "Testamentary Office," is to be added for this purpose, having a proper seal of its own. The officers of this court are to be, one principal registrar, three registrars, three keepers of records, nineteen principal clerks to the registrars, one sealer, with so many other clerks as may be necessary. In the country there are schedules), each with a registrar, clerk, and mesto be twenty-eight districts (appointed by one of these senger. Powers are given to the Lord Chancellor to appoint additional officials; but it is provided in the Bill that the officers of the Prerogative Court who are mentioned by name shall be the first officers attached to district registrars, and principal clerks, must be advothe Testamentary-office. Registrars, keepers of records, cates of the Court of Arches, barristers-at-law, proctors at Doctors' Commons or in some ecclesiastical court, or solicitors of the Court of Chancery, exception being made for certain officials of the ecclesiastical courts. above-mentioned officials, with the exception of the The principal registrar and the principal clerks, hold office during good behaviour, the rest of the officers during pleasure. The principal registrar is required to be, or to have been, an advocate of the Court of Arches or a barrister-at-law, and in both cases of ten years' standing. Proctors, solicitors, &c, appointed to any office under this Act, will cease to be proctors in the courts at Doctors' Commons, and will be struck off the rolls of the courts to which they belong.

The registry of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury is to be vested in the principal registrar of the Testamentary-office, subject to rights, interest, and claims existing at the present time of the Rev. Robert Moore, clerk, to whom compensation in lieu is to be awarded by two competent persons, one appointed by himself, the other by the Treasury, who, in case of disagreement, will appoint a third, whose award will be final.

With respect to persons practising as advocates of the Court of Arches, proctors, and solicitors, the former are to be entitled to practise in any court of law or equity as if they had been barristers-at-law on the day they are admitted as advocates; and proctors may in like manner be admitted as solicitors, and the same privilege is reserved to them as clerks under articles at the present time. The exclusive right to transact common form business, other than that transacted through the country district-offices, shall, for a period of ten years, belong to solicitors of the court having been proctors in the eccle

siastical courts, powers being reserved, if the numbers fall below 100, to authorise other persons, being solici tors of the court, to transact common form business, so that the whole numbers do not exceed 120. In the country districts, where there are resident proctors on the 1st Jan. 1854, they, with so many others as may be necessary, being solicitors of the court, shall have similar privileges for ten years in common form business. In other cases, however, it is to be immediately thrown open in the country districts, 80 that, after ten years, the common form business will be thrown open to all solicitors of the court.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in testacy and intestacy will comprise:-1. The determination of all questions as to validity of wills as to personalties. 2. The grant and recall or revocation of probates of wills and letters of administration as to personal estate. In cases of intestacy the court will have a discretionary power to appoint any person administrator, and not necessarily the person entitled under the present law, and to appoint an adminis trator pendente lite, entitled to reasonable remuneration out of the estate. The court is to have the same power as the Prerogative Court now has over wills, and may also cancel a forged will, or restore one that has been tampered with.

obtained in a similar manner to that in use in the With respect to procedure, probates, &c. will be Prerogative Court. Affidavits must be made by the persons applying for probates, &c., and suits for establishing wills, revoking probates, &c. may be instituted either by bill or claim. No demurrer is to be made for want of parties, but the suit is to proceed if the judge think fit. Practice as to caveats is to correspond to the present practice of the Prerogative purporting to be testamentary, the court will have Court. With respect to the production of instruments summary powers to have the person shown to be in possession of such documents examined upon interrogatories, and order him to produce them under pain of being held in contempt. Validity of wills may be tried by jury. The course of proceeding will be similar to that of the Prerogative Court, except when otherwise provided by this Act. The jurisdietion of the district office in granting probates, &c. is in the district and the estate is under 1500l. It is not, limited to cases in which the testator had a fixed abode however, obligatory to apply to the district office.

Wills, &c. are to be kept in the Testamentaryoffice to be attached to the court. The Lord Chancellor is directed to draw up a scale of fees, and the provisions of the Suitors in Chancery Relief Act where applicable, will be applied to the business of this office.

THE LAWYER.

Summary.

L. C. permitted a married woman to sue in form EQUITY PRACTICE.-In Ex parte Lancaster, the pauperis, without a next friend, on an affidavit that she could find nobody to undertake the office.

MR. JUSTICE TALFOURD.-Having observed that you attribute to Stafford the honour of being the birth-place of my lamented cousin the late Mr. Jus tice Talfourd, permit me to claim for Reading that sister of the mother of the judge, with whom also 1 distinction. My own mother having been the only was on terms of close friendship, I am able to speak to the fact that the latter was born at Reading, where his mother was also born, and that neither he nor any of his relations ever resided at Stafford. SAM. B. LAMB, late of Reading. 7, South-square, Gray's-inn, 28th March, 1854.

THE PROFESSION IN THE MAYOR'S
COURT.

AT a Court of Common Council, held at Guildhall, Chairman of the Secondaries Committee, brought up on Friday, the 24th of March, Mr. Deputy LorT, the the following report :

To the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldernes and Commons of the City of London in Comes Council assembled.

We whose names are hereunto subscribed, your committee in relation to the Secondaries and City Courts, to whom, on the 29th day of June 1848 it was referred to examine the allegations is the petition of Messrs. George Thomas Robert Reynal John Carter, and George Ashley, three of the attorney of the Mayor's Court, holding their appointments by purchase, with the right of alienation in relation ti their said places or appointments;-and to whom it was also referred, on the 16th day of December 1852, to carry into execution the recommendations contained in our report agreed to on that day, for throwing open the Mayor's Court by admitting al solicitors practising in the courts of law and equity at Westminster, do certify that since our report pre sented to this honourable court on the 5th day of October 1848, on the arrangements made in eensequence of the death of Mr. John Carter, one of th