and his representatives have the same right* He could not, however, on avoiding it, recover back his deposit.

Solicitor. Though a purchase by a solicitor from his client may in some cases stand, yet, if instead of purchasing openly, he buys in the name of a third person, concealing the fact that he was the real purchaser, this must vitiate the sale, though in other respects the sale is fair. (McPherson v. Wall, 3 Appeal Cases, 254.)

Convict.-Under 33 & 34 Vict, c. 23, his property vests in an administrator, and he cannot sell or purchase, during sentence, but it would appear that he can make a will, as this only operates on his death. (See vol. 2, p. 351.)

Corporations can only hold land by license from crown, or statutory provision. Companies under Companies' Act, 1862, may hold land. Any company formed, not for the purpose of gain, cannot hold more than 2 acres without sanction of Board of Trade.

Recitals in deeds should be simply put; in special cases, they are useful to make matters plain t

Covenants for title.-Now unnecessary, being implied by Conveyancing Act, 1881, sec. 7.

Where sale by trustees, with consent of tenant for life, he joins and covenants for title, but not as respects the reversion, beyond his own acts and acts of persons claiming under him.

Covenant not binding on assignee.-Covenant not to build, &c., entered into by fee simple owner does not run with land, and therefore, a purchaser cannot be bound thereby, unless he purchases with notice, actual or constructive, of the covenant; if, however, he purchases with such notice Equity will restrain him infringing it. (Tulk v. Moxhay, 2 Phil., 774.)

In case of restrictive covenants by purchasers of different lots, to prevent all questions it is desirable, where it is intended that covenants of this kind shall be enforceable, not only by the Vendor, but by all the purchasers inter se, to have a general deed containing such covenants executed by the vendor and by each purchaser as he completes.

(To be continued.)

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 Correspondents must in all cases give their real name and address, though not for publication unless desired.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.]

CONSTRUCTION OF LEGACY.

To the Editor of the " Law Students' Journal." SIR,-In answer to "R. E. S.," assuming that A predeceased E, the latter's interest becomes vested, and he

The idea is that the Infants' Relief Act, 1874, does not apply here. In Seaborne's Vendors and Purchasers (2nd edition, p. 100) the contrary is stated, but probably the statement in "Prideaux" is correct, though it does not appear free from doubt.

Also see further as to advantage of recitals. (Bolton v. London School Board, 7 Ch. D., 766; 47 L. J. Ch., 461; 26 W. R., 549.)

having died during the life of D, the tenant for life, leaving a son G and the issue of a deceased son H, G will take a moiety and the representatives of H will take the other moiety in the right of E. (Barker v. Barker, 16 L. R., Ch. D., 44.) If, however, A died subsequently to E, G will take his share in his own right and the representatives of H, in the right of H.-Yours, &c., THOS. B. SPROSTON. Newcastle-under-Lyme, March 3rd, 1883.

[Answers also received from J. R., A. Robinson, C. E. R. Davy, and R. F.-ED. L. S. J.]

ATTESTING CODICIL.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR, -In reply to Venn, I think there is no doubt that, according to the cases of Gurney v. Gurney, and Tempest v. Tempest, being a witness to a codicil does not affect any legacy, annuity, or residue, which may be left to him under the will. In the case of Gaskin v. Rogers (L. R. Q. Eq., 284), a legatee witnessed the cancellation in the will of a clause "excluding representatives of legatees who might die before the period of distribution." The legatee (and witness to the codicil) died before such period, and it was held that his representatives could not participate. If the legatee had lived, I think there can be no doubt about his taking the legacy.-Yours, &c., LALEON. [Answers also received from R. E. S., T. B. Sproston Valjean, F. M. G., and R. F.- ED. L. S. J.]

SALE OF SEED.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR,-There is no doubt that if the seedsman sold the seed for Swede turnip seed and it afterwards turned out common turnip seed, he is liable to damages, having sold it as being of a particular description, it amounted to a warranty that it answered such description; the case of Allan v. Lake, 18 Q. B., 560, clearly shows this, the damages would be the difference of price in the marketable value of the two crops.-Yours, &c., R. WILKS, Jun.

[Answer also received from T. B. Sproston, who refers to Benjamin's Sale of Property, 523; and Indermaur's Principles of Common Law, 93.-ED. L. S. J.]

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR,-In answer to "Fredk. H. Stapley," I am of opinion that the property being given to the husband and wife jointly with a third party, they would still hold a moiety by entireties, according to the Common Law rule. The presumption that it is so, is, that sec. 8, which refers to deposits, etc., enacts that a married woman may hold them jointly with any person other than her husband.Yours, &c., THOS. B. SPROSTON. Newcastle-under-Lyme, March 5th, 1883. [Answer to contrary effect from L. E. C. The question is, however, we think, open to considerable doubt.-ED. L. S. J.]

SUTTON V. SUTTON.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR,-With reference to the latter part of "Inigo's" letter, in last month's Law Students' Journal, I beg to refer him to the case of Fearnside v. Flint. Weekly Notes, January 27th, 1883, in which Mr. Justice Fry decided, that where a mortgage debt was also secured by a collateral bond of the same date as the mortgage, and no proceedings to enforce the bond were taken until after the expiration of 12 years from the last acknowledgment of the debt, the remedy upon the bond was barred, as well as the remedy against the land, under sec. 8 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874. This decision was in consequence of the

ruling of the Court of Appeal in Sutton v. Sutton.Yours, &c., S. BAGULEY.

Mansfield, 6th March, 1883.

[This is in accordance with our note to Inigo's letter published last month, though the case Mr. Baguley refers to had escaped our notice.-ED. L. S. J.]

SOLICITORS AS ADVOCATES.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR, The proposal to establish a Court of Appeal in Criminal Cases seems to be a step in the right direction, but how are the classes of persons most deeply interested, viz., the poorer classes, likely to be able to find the means of having counsel instructed to "represent them before the successive courts?" The idea of giving the poor wretches the right of appeal, but preventing anyone but counsel from appearing on their behalf, seems to be perfectly absurd. This is putting the hay in a high rack and no mistake. No doubt such persons as fraudulent trustees, bailees, and such individuals, would have no great difficulty in procuring the assistance of eminent counsel at each successive hearing of their cases, but to think that the poorer classes could procure the assistance of counsel at all, seems to me unreasonable, if not worse. The time seems to have arrived when the people ought to have the choice of being represented (at quarter sessions at any rate) by either counsel or solicitors. For what chance of having both have many prisoners? During the time I have been under articles, I have seen (comparatively speaking) a good deal of the practical working of our present system of criminal procedure, especially at quarter sessions and assizes, and I have no manner of doubt that great miscarriages of justice often occur through unfortunate prisoners being unable to be represented by a professional man at the trial. I really believe many prisoners are unfortunate, they are not all bad alike I am sure. It seems to me manifestly unfair that in all cases a counsel should appear for the prosecution, and very often no one at all represents the prisoner, and in very many instances this occurs because the prisoner has not the means of employing both a solicitor and a counsel, but many of them, or their friends, could afford a fee to a solicitor, but cannot afford to pay a solicitor to draw a brief, &c., for counsel, so that the consequences are that as a solicitor is not allowed to appear for the prisoner, he or she is left alone in his hour of need, and often of real undeserved misfortune, to fight for bare justice, and very often does not get it. In my opinion the only real and practical remedy for this is to allow solicitors at any rate to plead at all the quarter sessional courts. Why shouldn't they? Good solicitors would do the work quite as well, and very much cheaper than it is often done, or attempted by so-called counsel. Give the two branches of the profession, " a fair field and no favour," and let the public be the judges of their respective merits. If, as alleged, the counsel are so very much superior to the solicitors in all respects, the public will soon find it out and act accordingly, but at present they, the public, have practically only Hobson's choice.

To come back to the bill for the establishment of courts of appeal in criminal cases, why should not a clause be inserted in the bill, giving solicitors the right to appear before the court as they do now in the county and police Courts, &c.? Surely it would be more satisfactory to the court to have the case argued on the prisoner's behalf by a solicitor than not at all. Do you think, sir, anything can be done in this direction.-Yours, &c.,

Lewes, 14th March, 1883.

FAIR PLAY.

[We are in an age of progress. Matters must come gradually, and in course of time, in our opinion, there will be substantial fusion of the two branches of the profession. In some ways it will, in our opinion, work well, though in others ill. Still, come it must some day. Have patience and wait the gradual development of things.-ED. L. S. J.]

JANUARY HONOURS QUESTIONS.

To the Editor of the "Law Students' Journal." SIR, I beg to call your attention to question 3 of Part I' in the above questions. In the case put, there being no trustees within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, the answer appears to me to omit entirely one important part, viz., that C before he can exercise his power or serve his notice, must apply to the Chancery Division to appoint trustees for the purposes of the Act. (See Wheelwright v. Walker, Weekly Notes, February 24, p. 30.)—Yours, &c. T. W. C.

[This would be so. New trustees would need to be appointed.-ED. L. S. J.]

(1.) WOULD it be advisable for me to procure Stephens' Commentaries, 8th edition, and commence reading now for the Intermediate, it being nearly two years before I can sit? (2.) Are they likely to change books, or issue a later edition?-Yours, &c. LEX.

[By all means procure Stephens' Commentaries and begin to read now.-ED. L. S. J.]

LALEON.-There surely can be no doubt on this point. The purchaser must have the right of preparing the conveyance.-[ED. L. S. J.]

E. W. KENDALL.-If the April Intermediate in the year 1884 is before 29th April, as probably it will be, you cannot go in till June, 1884. If it is on or after 29th April, then you can go in in April. The dates of the 1884 examinations will be issued by the Law Society in July next.[ED. L. 8. J.]

HYLAS.-We always decline to give full advice as to course of reading in these columns. You had better procure "Indermaur's Self Preparation for the Final," 3rd edition, published by Stevens and Haynes, London, where you will find all you require.-[ED. L. S. J.]

ALBERT COOK.-No, we never found opportunity to publish the rules you refer to, and we are afraid they would be rather stale now.-[ED. L. S. J.]

EQUITY.-There seems to be nothing to prevent satisfaction taking place in the case you put. Read carefully the chapter in Snell on Satisfaction, and the cases and notes on the subject in White and Tudor's Leading Equity Cases. -[ED. L. S. J.]

ERIMA. The examination being 21st June, the first half of your articles will have expired, and you will be able to go in.-[ED. L. S. J.]

NOVICE.-There is nothing to prevent an estate being granted to a woman and the heirs male of her body.—[ED. L. S. J.]

R. E. S.-If you are articled for five years you cannot go in for your Intermediate until November, 1884.—[Ed. L. S. J.]

R. E. HULME.-We don't insert your letter because the question is now old, but you appear to be right. Your answer, however, leads to the same conclusion as that of our correspondent given in February.—[ED. L. 8. J.]

J. L. D.-Justices appointed in respect of the occupation qualification cannot act after they have ceased for 12 months to have such qualification within the county. (Stone's Justices' Manual, 20th edition, p. 325.)—[Ed. L. S. J.]

W. B. R.-We don't quite follow your letter. We take it, there is Lothing in the form of bills of sale, prescribed by the Act of 1882, to prevent the parties from making the covenant to pay a certain time after demand. The recent case of Wilson v. Kirkwood (L. J. Notes of Cases, March 3rd, 1883, p. 27), is quite in accordance with this view; that the form need not be strictly followed, but the spirit of it must be.-[Ed. L. S. J.]

FREDERICK T. PEARSON.-The answer to this question is correct. The remainder vests in C as right heir of A, and passes under the general devise in his will. Your answer to the last part of question 3, paper 4, is correct.— [ED. L. S. J.]

HISTORICUS.-The answer to question 5 of the Conveyancing Paper, Honours January, 1883, is correct. Jefferys v. Jeffreys only decides that the court will not enforce specific performance of the covenant to surrender.—[ED. L. S. J.]

J. A. ROBINSON.-Your letter as to Rights of Annuitants is too long and too confusedly put to justify us inserting it.-[ED. L. S. J.]

AN ARTICLED CLERK.-Thanks for your letter which we sent on to Mr. Thwaites for him to consider your suggestion.-[ED. L. S. J.]

RUSTICUS.-We can't invent a reason for you. Tell us your real reasons, and we will see what can be done.--[ED. L. S. J.]

Letters received from the following too late for insertion, and if it is desired that they should appear next month must be repeated.—THOROUGH, Z.A.

VEYHAR.-There are no such rules or restrictions. The Clifford's Inn Prize is given and announced after each examination.-[ED. L.S.J.]

AN ARTICLED CLERK.—(1) Six hours; (2) one hour interval between heads 2 and 3; (3) Probably if you pass well in two heads and are not very bad in the third you would be successful.-[ED. L.S.J.]

F. PARKIN. You can be admitted during vacation (23 & 24 Vict., c. 127, sec. 12).-[ED. L.S.J.]

.

SHIP CANAL.-We must decline to attend to your letter as it infringes the notice at the head of these Correspondence columns, and asks far more than a correspondent has any right to expect to have answered.-[ED. L.S.J.]

A. BUSH.-Thanks for your letter.-[ED. L.S.J.]

ANXIOUS.-No, no restriction, but you must shew what you have been doing since.-[ED. L.S.J.]

X.Y.Z.-You will get back no part of the duty. You will gain no advantage by becoming a solicitor first before going to the bar, as it is only solicitors of five years standing who are allowed to be called to the bar after one year's studentship.-[ED. L.S.J.]

A.Z.; SUBSCRIBER.-We regret we cannot give you satisfactory answers.— -[ED. L.S.J.]

Rquiqws.

Prideaux's Precedents in Conveyancing; with Dissertations on its Law and Practice. 12th edition. By FREDERIC PRIDEAUX (late Professor of the Law of Real and Personal Property to the Inns of Court) and JOHN WHITCOMBE, both of Lincoln's Inn, Barristers-at-Law. London: Stevens & Son, 1883. (Price £3 10s.)

On

WE gave a most favourable review of the 11th edition of this work in February, 1882, and we would heartily reiterate all favourable comments. The student who, in good time before his examination, can peruse these most valuable dissertations and refer to some of the precedents will have an immense advantage over those who have not done so. Again, the book is such an excellent one for the practitioner that no student ought to hesitate to procure it, for he should remember how useful it will be to him afterwards. To endeavour to encourage students in its study we publish this month in another column notes for the use of students on it, and would advise our readers to peruse the work and compare with our notes and add many notes for themselves. But though we thus praise the work, we are not prepared to say that it is done with complete care throughout, and there are several points we would remind the student to beware of, and would suggest to the authors for amendment, or at any rate further consideration. Take Vol. I. first. On page 158, on the subject of equitable execution, no mention is made either of Salt v. Cooper, or Smith v. Cowell. page 164, with regard to judgments, the authors would have done well to refer to re Maggi, Winehouse v. Winehouse, decided last year, so as to avoid confusion in the reader's mind, and to point the distinction between judgment recovered against the deceased and against the personal representatives. The statements of the effect of the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882, on page 185 and other pages, might, we should have thought, have been qualified, as the point cannot be so absolutely clear as to quite justify the definite assertions that are made. On p. 464, on the point of right to require mortgagee, not only to convey the estate, but also to transfer debt, no mention is made of the amending provision in the Conveyancing Act of 1882, sec. 12. On page 478, attention is drawn to the recent case of Sutton v. Sutton, but, bearing this case in mind, how can the authors be correct in stating on page 473, that 20 years' arrear of interest may be recovered. Then, taking Vol. II., the recent case of Walsh v. Lonsdale, on the effect of an agreement for a lease, seems to be omitted altogether-this is a great oversight. Another oversight is the omission of all reference on p. 153, to sec. 11 of the Conveyancing Act, 1882, which to a great extent, nullifies sec. 65 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, referred to there. A comparison of pages 154 and 401, as to liability of trustees and executors, for not investing, shows some carelessness and we would advise, reliance on p. 154. On p. 155, where the old fashioned statement is definitely made that a trustee must always be liable for the fraud of his solicitor, the very recent case of re Speight, Speight v. Gaunt, should come in, a case which, on its principle, we take it, must often limit this rule.

These remarks are made in no carping spirit, but as a result of a careful perusal of this edition, which we cannot think has in every respect been prepared with that care, deliberation and thought, we should have expected in such a standard work. For all this, we, however, repeat that the work is a most valuable one in every respect.

The Principles of Bankruptcy, with Appendix, &c., &c. Second edition. By RICHARD RINGWOOD, M.A., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, &c., &c. London: Stevens & Haynes, 1883. (Price 10s.)

WE were glad to receive a copy of this new edition, for many students were complaining that Baldwin's Bankruptcy has become too bulky for them. Here we have a work which in the text only comprises 123 pages, and

which we think will answer most students' purposes. We are not going to say that it is such a complete work as "Baldwin," but to the great majority of students it is probably more acceptable then that book. The work seems on the whole done carefully and well, though we don't think the author deals sufficiently with some matters, notably bills of sale, on which subject we observe the omission of several important cases, e.g., re Bolland and Ex parte Firth, as to "true consideration." Students generally do not have time to read a separate book on bills of sale, and look to get their knowledge on that subject chiefly from the work they read on bankruptcy. It is hardly out of place to remark here that all students, although they are not reading for Honours, should nevertheless strive to have some knowledge of bankruptcy. The subject often comes in in other papers, and the bankruptcy paper at the Solicitors' Final should be done by all, for it helps a weak common law paper.

Questions on Equity, for Students preparing for Examination, founded on Snell's Principles of Equity. By W. T. WAITE, Barrister-at-Law, &c. London: Stevens

& Haynes, 1883. (Price 2s. 6d.) INDUSTRIOUS readers of Snell's Principles of Equity, may like to have by them a book of questions on that work, to examine themselves on. Here they have such a book, and after each question, the page of the work where the answer is to be found is given. There is but little skill shown in the framing of the questions, very many of which would look absurd in an examination paper. A great many of them also, might be connected together, instead of forming such an utterly unnecessary number of separate questions. It would also have been an improvement to have numbered the questions.

The Intermediate Guide: being a Selection of Leading Questions on Stephens' Commentaries (excepting Books IV. and VI.). Comprising the Principal Questions already set with Answers, and occasional Explanatory Notes. By H. WAKEHAM PURKISS, Solicitor, &c., &c. London Richard Amer, 1883. (Price 4s.) WE are glad to see something fresh from the pen of Mr. Purkiss, even though it be but a slight effort like the present. As far as it goes, it is a very good little book for students, for the examination has been long enough now on Stephens' Commentaries, to have former questions, or the subjects thereof repeated. The answers are well written, and the book will be found useful for students to run through in the last two or three weeks before their examination. While Mr. Purkiss was about it, however, we can't help thinking he might have made the work more comprehensive and complete. To be this, it ought to be about double its present size.

The Incorporated Law Society's Calendar for the year 1883. Published by the authority of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. (Price 2s. 6d. to members, to nonmembers 5s.)

THIS annual work should be found in every solicitor's office. It contains complete lists of country and town solicitors, description of firms, names of solicitors practising abroad, and matter of the like nature too extensive to mention. Then there is all practical information as to solicitors, articled clerks, examinations, &c. We don't know that we can suggest anything by way of improvement, except that for the convenience of solicitors it should contain a list of the judges and the officials in the judges' chambers, and list of counsel. It would then, we think, even more supplant the Law List than it does now.

A Selection of Leading Cases in the Common Law, with Notes. 2nd edition. By W. SHIRLEY SHIRLEY, B.C.L., M.A., Barrister-at-Law, &c., &c. London: Stevens & Sons. 1883. (Price 158.)

THE 1st edition of this work appeared in 1880, under the style of "Leading Cases made Easy." We reviewed it so fully in these columns in July, 1880, that we hardly care to do much more than to refer to this edition in a casual

way. We do not now like the author's style of dealing with law any more than we did originally. In fact, we doubt the real use of the book. This edition is considerably larger than the former one, numbering, with appendix, index, &c., 415 pages. This is too large for most ordinary students who read cases, and truly industrious ones will do better to read Smith's Leading Cases, and make notes themselves, or at any rate do so with the assistance of a much smaller epitome of cases. There is, however, undoubtedly, in the book a quantity of very useful matter. An Exposition of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881. By JOHN HEWITT, Solicitor. London: Stevens and Sons, 1882. (Price 7s. 6d.)

It is rather late in the day now to review this work, and we do not propose to do more than just refer to it. We have seen it before, and always considered it a very useful work on the Act. Some parts of the "Exposition" of the Act are very good, particularly that of sec. 17. The author should issue an appendix containing the Act of 1882.

Examinations.

For general information and particulars as to Examinations throughout the year see last month's number.

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.]

HULL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

The members of this society held a mock trial for an attempted murder in the Sessions Court on Friday evening, March 2nd, presided over by A. Rollit, Esq., as judge. The prisoners (Slogger and Galopé) were indicted for an attempt to murder the prosecutor on the night of the 14th February last. The case was tried before a jury composed of 12 solicitors (members of the society), and the following gentlemen acted as counsel: For the prosecution, Mr. F. W. Spink and Mr. T. W. Holdich; for the prisoner Slogger, Mr. H. T. Birks and Mr. S. W. Clarke, and for the prisoner Galopé, Mr. A. Cook. There were also a number of witnesses on each side who caused no little amusement, P.C. Slowstep (Mr. H. Barter) and the Rev. Nathaniel Rubrics (Mr. C. W. Dunkerly) especially distinguishing themselves. After the judge had summed up and silence had been called by the crier (C. E. Gresham, Esq.), the clerk of arraigns (F. Summers, Esq.) asked the jury whether they found the prisoners guilty or not of the charge laid down in the indictment, and after a short consultation the jury, through their foreman (M. B. Spurr, Esq.) returned a verdict of guilty of common assault. The judge, however, did not pass sentence but ordered the prisoners to be discharged on the rising of the court. The court was crowded, about 800 visitors being present, and the proceedings, which lasted nearly three hours, were listened to with intense interest.

The ordinary weekly meeting of this society was held at the Incorporated Law Society's hall on Tuesday evening, March 13th, R. H. Winter, Esq., occupying the chair. The question was, "Ought Trial by Jury to be abolished? It was carried in the negative by a majority of one. The usual vote of thanks to the chairman for presiding terminated the proceedings.

(Reports also received from Lancaster Law Students' Society, and Preston Law Students' Society, but too late, on account of Easter and having to make our arrangements early.-ED. L. S. J.)

WE

MAY 1, 1883.

SPECIAL NOTICE.

E repeat the announcement we made last month of a PRIZE ESSAY COMPETITION for this year. The subject we have selected is that of "A comparison of the existing system of dealing with insolvent estates in Chancery, in Bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and in Bankruptcy under the Government Bill brought in this session." Competitors must be either Articled Clerks or Bar Students, and the correct address and description of each Competitor is to be given at the head of the Essay, stating with whom and when articled or when entered as a Student at the Bar, and of which Inn. Essays must be not less than 30 or more than 70 folios in length, they must be written on one side of the paper only, and for convenience should have a margin on the left-hand side. Essays must be sent to the Office of this Journal, 16, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane, London, E.C., not later than the 14th of June next. The envelopes are to be marked "Essay" in the corner. We cannot undertake to return any Essays.

If we do not receive more than 20 Essays

we propose to give one prize only of legal books to the value of Three Guineas. If we receive over 20 and not exceeding 40 we shall, in addition, give a second prize of legal books to the value of Two Guineas, and if we receive over 40 we shall also give a third prize of legal books to the value of One Guinea. The books to be chosen by the successful Competitors. The result of the Competition will be announced in these columns in August next. The Essay for which is awarded the first prize will be published in that month's issue.

NOTES OF THE MONTH.

We have no special remarks to make on the recent Solicitors' Final Pass Examination. The papers on the whole are fair. The Conveyancing Pass paper showed the importance of a thorough knowledge of recent legislation. Generally, on the papers, a good many of the questions were what might have been anticipated.

WE regret that we cannot say as much however with regard to the Intermediate, the questions at which we unhesitatingly say are on the whole unfair, and in many instances absurd and out of the way. In Head I. the latter part of Question 1 is very vague as is also part of Question 3. Questions 5 and 8 are far too hard. In Head II. except the 1st question-a very absurd one by-the-bye-the whole of the questions are on 100 pages out of Volume II. What fair general test is this? As to Head III. it is simply astonishing that an examiner can be found to ask such questions as the 22nd and 30th. Question 25 is eminently unfair as the student is only told in a footnote in Stephens' that the statute 6 & 7 Vict., c. 96, is sometimes styled Lord Campbell's Act, and it looks as if the examiner did not know that the Act most usually known as Lord Campbell's Act is 9 & 10 Vict., c. 93. Two more badly framed questions than the 27th and 29th we never saw.

POSSIBLY the examiner deputed some inexperienced gentleman to prepare the papers. Anyhow, we trust he will be reminded by the council that the design of the Intermediate is to test the student's general knowledge of the work, and not to put points he cannot

answer.

THE £1 extra fee for the Honours' Examination produced the result we expected, viz., a great diminution in the number giving notice for honours. Only 38 gave notice, and only 33 presented themselves for examination. The majority of these are probably good men, and we anticipate a result flattering to them.