The Solicitors' Intermediate Examinations throughout the year 1883 will take place on 18th January, 26th April, 21st June, and 8th November. The work for the examinations is Stephen's Commentaries, 8th or any subsequent edition, omitting Books IV. and VI. Candidates are required to be examined within the six months next succeeding the day on which they have completed half of the term of service, and cannot present themselves before the expiration of their half term of service. Thirty days' notice to the Secretary of the Incorporated Law Society is necessary and the fee is £3; a renewed notice must be given 14 days before the date of the examination, and in this case the fee is £110s. At the time of notice being given, articles and any assignment thereof, or supplemental articles with the preliminary certificate. or evidence of exemption from that examination, and answers to questions as to due service and conduct up to that time, must be left at the office of the Incorporated Law Society.

The Solicitors' Final Examinations throughout the year 1883 will take place on 16th and 17th January, 24th and 25th April, 19th and 20th June, and 6th and 7th November. Candidates may be examined after the expiration of their articles, or, where their articles expire between 10th January and 15th April, at the January examination; when between 14th April and 22nd May, at the April examination; when between 21st May and 2nd November, at the June examination; and when between 1st November and 11th January, at the November examination.

The Final Examination for Honours is held at the Hall of the Incorporated Law Society in the same week as the ordinary examinations, and, as a general rule, on the Friday of those weeks respectively, the subjects being the same as those specified for the ordinary examinations. The marks at the Honours' Examination only will be considered. Notice of the desire of a candidate to compete for Honours (which is now without restriction as to age) must be given when he gives notice for the ordinary examination.

Rquiqws.

Snell's Principles of Equity. 6th edition. By ARCHIBALD BROWN, M.A., B.C.L., of the Middle Temple, Barristerat-Law. London: Stevens & Haynes, 1882. (Price 25s.) WE reviewed the 5th edition of this well-known work in April, 1880, and have now before us a 6th edition. It is an excellent work for students to read some little time before their examination, and we have always recommended it. We are glad to see that the book has not grown, but is, indeed, a little smaller than the 5th edition. We still think the practice part of the work is out of place and would be better omitted. The editor has corrected his prior edition with regard to the point of how far the rules of bankruptcy are introduced into the administration of insolvent estates, but he merely gives a lot of different decisions without attempting a clear elucidation of the subject. We see here and there want of care, e.g., pp. 319, 320, with regard to the remedy of equitable mortgagees, and we would warn the editor that in these days of competition, it is necessary to take extreme pains with any work. The index might be improved by more cross references and less adherence to the lazy habit of classifying a lot of points under one head, a fault becoming too common; and whilst tending to make an index an epitome, yet taking away from its primary and chief object, viz., the quick finding of any particular point.

Common Precedents in Conveyancing, adapted to the Conveyancing Acts 1881, 1882, and the Settled Land Act, 1882, together with the Acts, an Introduction and Notes. 2nd edition. By HUGH M. HUMPHREY, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. London: Stevens & Sons. 1882. (Price 12s. 6d.)

THIS work has the great merit of being essentially practical.

It contains a number of ordinary useful precedents, very well prepared, though, perhaps, here and there may be found a tendency to unnecessary length, showing an evidence of timidity, which, however, is a fault on the right side. In our opinion, the precedents will be found extremely useful, and may be safely relied on. A feature in the work is, that in Part II., after the precedents, are given the Conveyancing Acts, and the Settled Land Act, accompanied by some good practical notes. Referring again to the precedents, we would just say, with regard to bills of sale, that we think the author might have given us something more than the bare form given by the new Bills of Sale Act. The arrangement of the precedents is good, as they are put as far as possible in the order in which the transactions represented might be expected to occur. Thus," says the author in his preface, "a purchase of land is followed by a mortgage, and then by a sale by the mortgagee; a marriage settlement is followed by a deed of separation, and a will by a disclaimer of the trusteeship." There seems a touch of satire in this, though we don't know if the author meant his prefatory remarks to be thus taken.

66

Law Students' Societies.

[Reports of, and information as to Law Students' Societies, throughout the kingdom, will be inserted as far as space will permit, and secretaries are invited to communicate.-One condensed report of the whole month's proceedings should be forwarded.-Communications should reach the office of this Journal, if possible, not later than the 24th of each month.]

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS SOCIETY.

At a meeting of this Society held on Tuesday evening last, the 19th December, in the Law Library, a debate took place on the following moot point :-" Should a fraudulent misrepresentation in the prospectus for the promotion of a company be sufficient in itself to induce the Court to order its being wound up, if the fraud has been waived by a majority of shareholders at a general meeting?" Messrs. E. C. Rogers and Coley spoke for the affirmative, and Messrs. A. L. Jenkyn Brown and Gover for the negative. The meeting decided in favour of the negative by a majority of three votes. This was the last meeting of the autumn session.

NOTTINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

A general meeting of this society was held on Friday the 15th ultimo, when the president (Hy. Wing, Esq.) took the chair. After the treasurer's financial statement and the committee's report had been adopted, the meeting proceeded to the election of officers for the year 1883. S. B. Bristowe, Esq., Q.C., was re-elected honorary president, and G. B. Rothera, Esq., was elected president. Upon a ballot being taken for the vice-presidency, Mr. H. L. Swift was declared to have a majority of votes. Mr. G. H. Haslehurst, was appointed honorary secretary; Mr. W. Wing, honorary treasurer, and Messrs. J. C. Warren and J. A. H. Green, members of the committee. The usual vote of thanks to the retiring officers was passed, and the session then terminated.

PRESTON LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

The first general meeting for the present session was held at the Preston Law Library, on Friday, December 8th, when the president, William Ascroft, Esq., solicitor, took the chair, and a debate took place on the following moot point: "X, a person in Y's employ, receives an injury caused by reason of a defect in certain machinery supplied by A to Y. The accident is due to negligence on the part of A in the construction of the machinery. Can X maintain an action against A for damages?" (Bolch v. Smith, 31, L. J., N. S., Ex.; Langmeid v. Holliday, L. R., 6, Ex., 767; Langridge v. Levy, 2, M. & W., 519; and 4, M. and W., 337. Decided in the affirmative.

NOTES OF THE MONTH.

THE January examinations are over, and we have, as usual, a few remarks to make as to them. We consider the Common Law Pass paper at the Solicitors' Final far too hard; it was quite hard enough for an Honours paper. We should say, if results were to be taken strictly, nearly half the candidates would fail to pass on it, and no doubt the standard will have to be lowered on this occasion. It is the hardest Pass

paper we have ever seen. We have nothing in particular to say about the other papers.

THE Intermediate examination generally, was also we think, a hard one; but taken all in all, as there are now 10 questions on each head, it ought to have been successfully managed without much difficulty by the great majority.

THE results of these examinations will be posted at the Law Institution, on Friday, the 2nd inst. We would call our readers' attention to advertisement on page vii. of this issue, as to telegraphing results to candidates in the country.

THE result of the Honours Examination will be announced a fortnight later. We shall publish the

Students' Cases.

Knight v. Abbott, Page & Co. 10 Q. B. D., 11. A judge has no power to order that an action for unliquidated damages commenced in the superior court shall be tried in the county court, even although the writ is enclosed with a claim for a specified sum. (Note in Indermaur's Manual of Practice, 2nd edition, p. 78; and under sec. 67 of The Judicature Act, 1873.)

Tilbett v. Ward, 10 Q. B. D. 17.

The defendant's ox was being driven through the street of a town, it ran into the Plaintiff's shop, and did damage there. No negligence was proved on the part of the men in charge of the ox, nor was there any evidence to show that it was of a vicious or unruly

nature.

DECIDED. That the damage was caused by an accident, for which the defendant was not responsible.

NOTES. The liability of owners of cattle for damage done by the cattle whilst being driven along a highway, is very clearly laid down by Mr. Justice Stephens, in this case, as follows:

"As I understand the law, when a man has placed his cattle in a field, it is his duty to keep them from trespassing on the land of his neighbours, but while he is driving them upon a highway, he is not responsible, without proof of negligence on his part, for any injury they may do upon the highway, for they cannot then be said to be trespassing. The case of Goodwyn v. Cheveley, 28 . J. Ex., 298; seems to me to establish a further exception, that the owner of the cattle is not responsible without negligence when the injury is done to property adjoining the highway, an exception which is absolutely necessary for the conduct of the common affairs of life. We have been invited to limit this exception to the case ef high roads adjoining fields in the country, but I am very unwilling to multiply exceptions, and I can see no solid distinction between the case of an animal straying into a field which is unfenced or into an open shop in a town. I think, the rule to be gathered from Goodwyn v. Cheveley a very reasonable one, for otherwise I cannot see how we could limit the liability of the owner of cattle for any sort of injury which could be traced to them." (Note in Indermaur's Principles of Common Law, 2nd edition, p. 260; Shirley's Leading Cases, p. 179.)

Alloway v. Steere, 10 Q. B. D., 22.

A was tenant from year to year of a farm upon the terms that he should be paid by the landlord for tillages and cultivation, when his tenancy expired, according to the custom of the country. He became

bankrupt. His trustee did not disclaim the tenancy, but carried on the farm for the benefit of the creditors. The tenancy was determined by notice to quit. The trustee brought an action against the landlord for the value of tillages and cultivation during the tenancy of the trustee. The landlord sought to set-off the amount due to him for rent accrued due prior to the bankruptcy, against the amount due to the trustee.

DECIDED that the landlord had no such right. (Note in Baldwin's Bankruptcy, 3rd edition, p. 117.)

Langrish v. Archer, 10 Q. B. D., 44.

The Vagrant Amendment Act, 1873, makes any person playing or betting in "any street, road, highway, or other open and public place, or in any open place to which the public have, or are permitted to have access," liable to a penalty.

Two men playing cards in a railway carriage whilst it was travelling on its journey, were held liable under the Act, and the railway carriage decided to be "an open or public place to which the public were permitted to have access."

In Re-Chapman, 10 Q. B. D., 54 C. A.

No costs for the attendance of counsel at judges' chambers are to be allowed in taxation, as between solicitor and client, unless the judge certifies that it is a proper case for counsel to attend.

NOTES.-Rule 14 of the additional rules of August, 1875 (costs) is as follows:-" As to counsel attending at judges' chambers no costs thereof shall in any case be allowed, unless the judge certifies it to be a proper case for counsel

to attend."

This case was a particularly hard one on the solicitor concerned, as the taxing master had disallowed the fee and costs, in respect of the attendance of counsel at judges' chambers, on the ground that the judge had not certified for counsel. The client had expressly authorised the employment of counsel, but the taxing master considered that the above rule applied; and first Matthew J., then a Divisional Court, and lastly the Court of Appeal, have supported him in his view. (Note in any edition of the Judicature Act, and rules under rule 14 of the additional rules of August, 1875 (costs).

Blackburn Building Society v. Cunliffe, Brooks & Co., 22 Ch. D., 61 (O. A.)

A building society had no power to borrow money. It was allowed by its bankers to overdraw its account to a large amount. The officers of the society signed a memorandum, which was confirmed by the directors, stating that deeds of borrrowing members, i.e., inortgages to the society, which were deposited with the bankers, were not only deposited for safe custody, but also as a security for the balance of account due to the bankers. An order was made to wind up the society, and the bankers claimed to hold the deeds as security for the balance of the account due to them.

The solicitors for the liquidator agreed that part of the money had been applied for the purposes of the society, but there was no evidence how much of the money had been so applied, or how the rest was applied.

DECIDED that the overdrawing of the bankers' account was ultra vires, as it was unauthorised by the rules, and that the bankers had no lien on the deeds for such balance; but the Court directed an inquiry as to how much of the money had been applied for the purposes of the society, and decided that the bankers had a lien upon the deeds for that amount.

NOTES. By the Building Society's Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict., c. 42, s. 16), the rules of the society must set forth whether the society intends to avail itself of the borrowing powers contained in the Act. The borrowing powers set out in the Act are as follows (sect. 15) :—

1. To receive deposits or borrow money at interest. 2. In a permanent society the total amount borrowed must not exceed two-thirds of the amount for the time being secured to the society by mortgage from its members.

3. In a terminating society the total amount borrowed may be either a sum not exceeding such two-thirds as in No. 2, or a sum not exceeding 12 months' subscriptions on the shares for the time being in force. (Note in Williams on Personal Property, 8th edition, p. 242.)

Popple v. Sylvester, 22 Ch. D., 98.

A mortgagor covenanted by the mortgage deed to pay a debt on a particular day; the deed also contained a separate covenant to pay interest at £7 per cent. so long as any money remained owing. The mortgagee obtained judgment for the principal and interest due at the date of the judgment, and the judgment also provided in the common form for interest on the judgment at the rate of £4 per cent. per annum. Decided that the covenant to pay interest in the mortgage was not merged in the judgment, but that the mortgagee was entitled to sue for the dif ference between the £7 per cent. due under the covenant and the £4 per cent. recoverable under the judgment.

Correspondence, Queries, &c.

[These columns being open for free discussion on all points in any way relating to Law Students, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements expressed. Correspondents must in all cases give their real name and address, though not for publication unless desired. We reserve to ourselves the right of refusing any letters, and where there are several answers to the like effect to the same query we endeavour to select the plainest and best for insertion. Correspondents are specially asked to aim at brevity, and when we receive more correspondence than we can possibly insert we give preference, in the absence of some special reasons, to letters received earliest. Letters on different subjects must be on separate sheets of paper.]

SOLICITORS' INDEMNITY.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR,-Replying to the question of your correspondent on this subject, I am of opinion that A can recover from B the costs incurred by him in defending the action brought by C, and may sue him therefor. In support of my view I find a passage on page 448 of Chitty on Contracts (6th edition), which is as follows:-"The law implies a promise on the part of the principal to indemnify his agent against any liability which he may incur from the execution of his authority.' From a perusal of the following page it may be gathered that the indemnifying party is liable for the costs of defending an action brought against the person indemnified, where such defence is a good and bona fide one. Your correspondent may also find that a perusal of the case of Dugdale v. Lovering, L. R., 10 Com. Pleas, 196, will be of service to him.-Yours, &c., H. N.

[Answers also received from F. Reynolds and F. M. G.ED. L. S. J.]

VESTED INTEREST.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR,-In reply to "Nil Desperandum,” I submit that C, having attained 21 years, his interest as remainderman became vested, and on his death descended to D, his eldest son, who can call upon the trustees to convey to him; but

E, his widow, is not entitled to dower, as no dower can be claimed of a remainder in fee expectant on an estate of freehold. As to which see Stephens' Commentaries, Vol. I., p. 321.-Yours, &c., W. B. R.

[Answers also received from E. R. Forward, H. W. H., H. N. and F. M. G.-ED. L. S. J.]

POLICEMAN EXCEEDING HIS DUTY. To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR,-I would refer "E. A. B." to a question asked in volume 45 of the Justice of the Peace (1881), page 148, "Whether the constable A was justified in going from the public road?" The answer to which was, "The constable was not justified, under the Poaching Prevention Act, in going off the road. His powers under that Act are strictly confined to the highway, street, or public place." The facts of the case are almost identical with the question asked in this Journal.-Yours, &c.,

E. RIDGE FORWARD. [Answers also received from L. E. C. and B. W. R.— EĎ. L. S. J.]

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal.” SIR,-From the fact of this query being inserted in this month's (January's) number, the facts must have occurred prior to the recent Married Woman's Property Act coming into operation.

The only question is, therefore, does the agreement with D, or D paying C interest, amount to a reduction into possession of the wife's chose in action. (As to what does, see Williams on Executors, 8th edition, p. 865, et seq.) I do not think so, as the husband never actually received the money, but allowed D to retain it on certain terms. I think, therefore, the claim of the widow good as against the husband's executors.-Yours, &c., F. M. G.

[Answers also received from E. R. Forward, Francois, and H. N.-ED. L. S. J.]

DAMAGE FEASANT.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR,-In reply to " Lexicon," a farmer whose land is trespassed upon by his neighbour's cattle can impound them, and if the trespass is not excusable by the defective state of his own fences he may distrain them, while they so remain on his grounds till satisfaction be made for the injury. (See Stephen's Commentaries, 8th edition, Vol. III., p. 249). I am of opinion that the farmer would be quite right in constituting any part of his own premises into a

'pound under the circumstances mentioned by "Lexicon,” as a pound (parcus) signifies any inclosure, and by 1 & 2 P. & M., c. 12, no distress of cattle can be driven out of the hundred where it is taken unless to a pound overt within the same shire and within three miles of the place where it is taken. (See also 11 Geo. II., c. 19).-Yours, &c., EDWARD F. GREEN. [Answers also received from L. E. C., H. N., F. Reynolds W. R. R., H. W. H., E. R. Forward, and C. E. B.-ED L. S. J.]

RIGHT OF WAY.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR,-In reply to "Lumen," A cannot claim by prescription, as B can prove when the bridge was built, and, therefore, when A's user began. And with regard to his claiming by agreement, he has got nothing to show, and, therefore, it would be concluded that he, and he alone, had a right to use the bridge. (See Bright v. Walker, 4 Tyr., 509.) The best way to put an end to the user of the bridge by any person other than A (if any were attempted), would be, after requesting that person not to use it and his still doing so, to get an injunction and then take proceedings. Yours, &c., E. RIDGE FORWARD.

[Answers also received from F. M. G. and H. N.-ED. L. S. J.]

VESTING OF LEGAL ESTATE.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal! SIR, I shall feel obliged by an opinion on the following point :-" A is seised of an estate in fee simple, subject to the payment of an annual rent charge. A deposits the title deeds with B as security for money advanced, A is sometime afterwards made bankrupt, and C is appointed trustee; C disclaims the property. A conveyance is afterwards executed by A and C purporting to convey the property to B. Can A and C convey the property? or can C alone? If not, in whom will the legal estate be vested?"— Yours, &c., LOSTWITHIEL.

23rd January, 1883.

POWERS.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal."

SIR, I find it stated in "Indermaur's Epitome of Leading Conveyancing and Equity Cases" that powers collateral are those given to a person taking no interest in the land, and are in the nature of trusts, so that they cannot be extinguished or destroyed; and equity will give assistance in the case of non-execution of such powers. Supposing that the donee of such power, in pursuance of section 52 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, by deed, released or contracted not to exercise it, will equity now give its assistance (as it undoubtedly would before the passing of this statute) in the case of non-execution ?Yours, &c., F. H. B.

9th January, 1883.

LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETIES' CONGRESS.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal.” SIR, I shall feel deeply indebted if you or any of the readers of your valuable journal will kindly enlighten me as to the above congress. From the report of the Law Students' Debating Society of London, for the Session 1880-1881, I see that Mr. Napier represented that society at the congress held in 1879. I have also come across a letter inserted in your issue of January, 1881, from Mr. Francis John Marston, relating to it. This is all I have ever heard or seen of the Law Students' Societies' Congress. I see no mention made of it in the annual report of the United Law Students' Society of London, at which fact I am somewhat surprised, seeing that most of the country

HISTORICUS.-We do not think any one could give a proper answer to your question as framed, so we do not insert it, as it must depend on various points of notice, who has the legal estate, the Statute of Limitations, and other matters not mentioned by you.-[ED. L. S. J.]

JURISPERITUS.-Yes, bills and notes carry interest, so he can do so.-[ED. L. S. J.]

J. J. P.-The heir and next-of-kin will be found amongst the grand-children, that is, the relatives on the father's side. You should think over the simplest principles before writing letters.-[ED. L. S. J.]

FERRET.-As to your first two queries consult Smith's Manual of Equity or Snell's Principles of Equity. As to the third, we think the book but little good for a student, and do not recommend it. Your case is too long.-[ED. L. S. J.]

SCRUTATOR.-You cannot go in for your Final until you are 21 without a judge's order, which you can obtain on showing special reasons by affidavit.-[ED. L. S. J.]

JONQUILLE.-No, there is no limit, but you must show how you have been employed since expiration of your articles.-[ED. L. S. J.]

W. A. J.-We know of no others.-[ED. L. S. J.]

H. NIELD.-Do not borrow books to read at home. Subcribe to the Law Library, for it will be useful in many ways, but procure the essential text books.-[ED. L. S. J.]

ONE WHO WOULD LIKE ONE.-We know of nothing necessary except influence in the right direction. Without this your chance is nil.-[ED. L. S. J.]

ONE INTERESTED.-It is impossible to answer your question without information as to term of the partnership articles, position of the parties, &c.-[ED. L. Š. J.]

F.-Practically there is nothing in the cancellation of your articles requiring a stamp. No judge's order will be necessary, but of course the time elapsing between the old and new articles will not count.-[ED. L. S. J.]

A. Z.-Go up when you like for your Final, but you will have to show you have been properly employed since expiration of your articles. We see nothing to prevent you trying for Honours, but should advise you going up and passing as soon as possible.-[ED. L. S. J.]

AULA REGIS.-Sect. 33 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, will supply you with the information you desire.—[ED. L. S. J.J

MARIUS.-Yes, the day is now divided at the Intermediate examination. Half marks in each head is the standard, but if through in two heads and not too low in the other, a pass is usually secured.-[ED. L. S. J.]

FRANK REYNOLDS.-You will have to be separately articled to a notary. We suggest your applying to some notary for information.-[ED. L. S. J.]

F. H. B. You must wait until April, 1884.-[ED. L. S. J.]

S. BAGULEY.-1. Prideaux is not actually necessary, but is advisable. 2. Try and read Snell first, and then Smith's Manual of Equity. 3. Certainly, you have time to prepare for January, 1884. 4. Third edition of Indermaur's Principles of Common Law will be out in a week. 5. Wait and see what statutes there are next Session.-[ED. L. S. J.]

R. A. CHRISTIAN.-Most certainly the introduction is not omitted. See our Notes of Month in December and January last, where we informed students as to the present arrangement of the subjects.-[ED. L. S. J.]

T. W. C.-There can be no need to send a letter as well as the notice.-[ED. L. S. J.]

G. H. BRADLEY.-The examination you have passed is not the slightest use for getting a year off. If you matriculate in the first class, then, though you are already articled, you can with your principal's consent save a year. (See section 10 of 40 & 41 Vict., c. 25.)—[ED. L. S. J.]

THOS. W. SMITH.-You should read the 8th edition of Stephen's Commentaries. See announcement of the Examination issued by the Law Society. Defer getting Indermaur's Manual of Practice till after you have got through your Intermediate. We don't think your sugges tion would meet with general approval.-[ED. L. S. J.]

J. R. P.-See 6 & 7 Vict., c. 68, which governs the subject.-[ED. L. S. J.]

ION. You had better read Baldwin, of which there is a 3rd edition reviewed in these columns this month.-[ED. L. S. J.]

FRED. W. BECK.-Yes, even after articles you can escape one year by matriculating at London University, in the 1st class. The principal's consent should be given by indorsement on the articles.-[ED. L. S. J.]

Rquiqws.

A Concise Treatise upon the Law of Bankruptcy, with an Appendix containing Acts, Rules, &c., &c. By EDWARD T. BALDWIN, M.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-atLaw. 3rd edition. London: Stevens and Hayes, 1883. (Price 18s.)

THE 2nd edition was reviewed in these columns in January, 1881, and the fact of a 3rd edition being now before us speaks volumes for the merit of the work, of which we have always spoken well. There is one thing, however, we would warn the author against if he wishes the work to continue to be used as a text book by students, and that is its continually increasing size. The 1st edition only numbered 196 pages in actual text, the 2nd edition 306 pages, but now we have 349 pages. Great labour and care has been bestowed on this edition, but we feel it is getting too large for ordinary students and is merging into a work for practitioners. The new Bills of Sale Act has been incorporated into this edition, and almost all, if not all, cases decided in bankruptcy since the publication of the last edition, and we consider it an admirable treatise on bankruptcy.