: The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute: July 11 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY. G. N. Wardell, Lloyd-square, Pentonville, Middlesex, attorney-at-law.-John Vause Monkton, Norland-cottage, Nottinghill, Middlesex, gentleman.-Henry Maddox, Queen-street, Milton-next-Gravesend, Kent, grocer. July 12 at 10, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Henry M. Arliss, Great Queen-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex, printer.-Joseph Davis, Strand-lane, Strand, Middlesex, lodging-house keeper.—John T. Softley, High-street, Camden-town, Middlesex, plumber. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before a Judge of the County Court, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute: sex, ironmonger in the Queen's Prison.-John Wm. Addy, of Worcester.-John Baildon, Halifax, Yorkshire, bookseller: Bishopsgate-street, London, in no business: in the Queen's in the Gaol of York.-Thomas Morris, Saddleworth, YorkPrison.-Joseph Cartwright, London-street, Fenchurch-street, shire, licensed victualler: in the Gaol of York. — William London, Custom-house agent: in the Debtors Prison for Lon- Dewhirst, Keighley, Yorkshire, tailor: in the Gaol of York. don and Middlesex.-Julius Singer, Watling-street, London, Wm. Pearson, Halifax, Yorkshire, grocer in the Gaol of tailor in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex. York.-G. Midgley, York, out of business: in the Gaol of York. Thomas John Tobin, Cambridge-terrace, Myddleton-road, J. Buckle, Bramley, near Leeds, Yorkshire, tailor: in the Dalston, Middlesex, hairdresser: in the Debtors Prison for Gaol of York.-Daniel Acraman, Hillfarrence, Somersetshire, London and Middlesex.-John S. Perry, Southampton-street, out of business: in the Gaol of Wilton.-Oswald Isherwood, Camberwell, Surrey, out of business: in the Debtors Prison Middleton, Lancashire, engraver to calico printers: in the for London and Middlesex.-Thomas Fletcher, Shaftesbury- Gaol of Lancaster.-Wm. Johnson, Birmingham, die sinker : street, New North-road, Hoxton, Middlesex, out of business: in the Gaol of Coventry.-John Morgan, York-road, Lambeth, in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Ebenezer Surrey, out of business: in the Gaol of Maidstone.-James E. Coleman, Princes-road, Nottinghill, Middlesex, plumber: Kaye, Cumberworth, near Peniston, Yorkshire, joiner: in the in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-George Gaol of York.-Thomas Jones, Carmarthen, grocer in the Furby, Hastings, Sussex, ironmonger in the Debtors Prison Gaol of Carmarthen.-John Moss, Weymouth, Dorsetshire, for London and Middlesex.-William F. Donovan, Queen's shoemaker: in the Gaol of Dorchester.-Samuel Mottram, terrace, Marlborough-road, Chelsea, Middlesex, fishmonger: Tamworth, Staffordshire, builder: in the Gaol of Coventry.— in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Nicholas Duncan Oswald, Birmingham, draper: in the Gaol of CovenWade, Blenheim-place, St. John's Wood, Middlesex, builder: try.-John Best, Ipswich, Suffolk, barrister-at-law: in the in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Anton Gaol of Ipswich. Mayer, King's-row, Pentonville, Middlesex, commission merchant in the Queen's Prison. Alexander Jones, Bevis Marks, St. Mary Axe, London, dealer in cigars: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-William Line, Manchester, hairdresser: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Robert Fletcher, Hulme, Manchester, out of business in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Charles Eastwood, Patricroft, near Manchester, stonemason: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-James Harrison, St. Helens, Lancashire, licensed victualler: in the Gaol of Lancaster. Thomas Hulme, Manchester, butcher: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-John Gregson, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire, draper in the Gaol of Lancaster.-John Mercer, Pimlico, near Clitheroe, Lancashire, licensed victualler: in the Gaol of Lancaster. Thomas Gibson, Manchester, out of business in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Edward Tavo, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Manchester, builder: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Jacob Greenhalch, Shelderslow, near Oldham, Lancashire, cotton spinner: in the Gaol of Lancaster. - Roger Wilkinson, Blackburn, Lancashire, grocer: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Thomas Kidd, Manchester, fish dealer: in the Gaol of Lancaster. -Aldwell C. Taylor, Worcester-street, Gloucestershire, out of business: in the Gaol of Gloucester.Daniel S. Wilkins, West-end-terrace, Gloucestershire, general dealer in the Gaol of Gloucester.-Robert Turnock, Eton, Buckinghamshire, tailor: in the Gaol of Aylesbury Richard Whittington, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, out of business: in the Gaol of Aylesbury.-John Hughes, St. Leonards, Sussex, beerseller: in the Gaol of Dover.-Alexander S. Sloan, Liverpool, master mariner: in the Gaol of Lancaster.- Wm. Whiteley, Colne, Lancashire, shoemaker: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-John Smith, Manchester, commercial traveller: in the Gaol of Manchester.-Thomas Stephens, Bedworth, Warwickshire, ribbon manufacturer: in the Gaol of Coventry. -Joseph L. Jordan, Ross, Herefordshire, cabinet maker: in the Gaol of Hereford.-Wm. Reed, Tormoham, Devonshire, builder in the Gaol of St. Thomas-the-Apostle.-Thomas G. Broughton, Portsea, Southampton, gas engineer in the Gaol of Winchester.-Moses Slater, Stayley, Cheshire, out of business in the Gaol of Chester.-James Howard, Macclesfield, Cheshire, out of business: in the Gaol of Chester.John Taberner, Marchington, Hanbury, Staffordshire, blacksmith in the Gaol of Stafford.-Wm. Parton, Pleck-lane, near Walsall, Staffordshire, miner: in the Gaol of Stafford.James Tanner, East Brent, near Axbridge, Somersetshire, cattle dealer in the Gaol of Wilton.-Thomas Hanesworth, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire, hatter: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Joseph Phillips, Birmingham, provision dealer: in the Gaol of Coventry.-Charles Phillips, Birmingham, brasscock founder: in the Gaol of Coventry.-Thomas Forrest, Bradford, Yorkshire, out of business: in the Gaol of York.Wm. Ward, Bradford, Yorkshire, cab proprietor: in the Gaol of York.-Richard Farrar, Swinnow, Bramley, Yorkshire, cloth manufacturer: in the Gaol of York.-Thomas Mawdsley, Leeds, Yorkshire, cloth dresser: in the Gaol of York.-James Woodhead, Bradford, Yorkshire, out of business: in the Gaol of York. - Robert Smith, York, cattle jobber in the Gaol of York.-Joshua Bramall, Saddleworth, Yorkshire, out of business: in the Gaol of York.— Benjamin Bulmer, York, out of business: in the Gaol of York.-Thos. Hughes, Oldbury, Worcestershire, greengrocer: in the Gaol At the County Court of Cheshire, at CHESTER, July 10. Moses Slater, Stayley, Mottram-in-Longdendale, out of business. At the County Court of Devonshire, at ExETER, July 11 At the County Court of Sussex, at LEWES, July 11. Thomas Barber, Brighton, grocer.--Frederick Page, Brighton, plasterer. At the County Court of Leicestershire, at LEICESTER, Charles Cooper, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, stonemason.-John Daniel Acraman, Hillfarrence, maltster. At the County Court of Worcestershire, at WORCESTER, Thomas Hughes, Worcester, forgeman. At the County Court of Gloucestershire, at GLOUCESTter, Brown the younger, Gloucester, out of business.—H. Henton, At the County Court of Essex, at CHELMSFORD, July 13 at 12. Wm. O. Clark, Stratford, West Ham, hay dealer.-Thomas Newell, Thaxted, out of business.—William Smith, Plaistow, builder. At the County Court of Suffolk, at IPSWICH, July 14 at 9. John Best, Ipswich, prisoner in the County Gaol of Suffolk, at Ipswich. At the County Court of Derbyshire, at DERBY, July 15 at 12. Thomas Leach, Chesterfield, dealer in fruit.-G. Walker, Barlborough, near Chesterfield, beerhouse keeper.-J. Martin, Litchurch, fly driver. At the County Court of Herefordshire, at HEREFORD, At the County Court of Hampshire, at WINCHESTER, Thomas G. Broughton, Portsea, gas engineer. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' DIvidends. Charles M. Gunnell, Piccadilly, Middlesex, clerk in the House of Commons: 4d. (making 10 d.) in the pound.-T. H. Carstairs, Lombard-street, London, professor of writing: 68. Id. (making 78. 64d.) in the pound.-A. M'Donald, Chatham, Kent, conductor of the band of her Majesty's 17th Re Recently published, much enlarged, price 25s., THE NEW CHANCERY PRACTICE; containing all the Decisions on the late Acts and Orders to the present Time, with the Practice at Judges' Chambers, and with Forms of Degrees, Orders, Pleadings, Affidavits, Costs, &c.; being intended as a Supplement to of the Chancery Bar. the Books of Practice already published. By F. S. WILLIAMS, Esq., S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane, Fleet-street. THE NEW LAW OF EVIDENCE. Price 38. boards, MON LAW to compel the Production of Documents for Inspec- giment of Infantry: 10d. in the pound. Thomas Cross, A TREATISE on the POWER of the COURTS of COMAldermanbury, London, shirt manufacturer: 84d. in the pound. -Wm. D. Steevens, Hart-street, Covent-garden, Middlesex, licensed victualler: 18. 7d. in the pound.-Henry Andrews, Haddon-place, Waterloo-road, Surrey, bedstead manufacturer: 18. 7d. in the pound.-B. Bayliss, Goswell-street, St. Luke's, Middlesex, gilder: 18. 1d. in the pound.-William Pywell, LAW FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY.-Offices, Nos. 5 Grange-road, Bermondsey, Surrey, clerk to wholesale trimming manufacturers: 1s. 2d. in the pound.-Richard Gates, Steyning, Sussex, dealer in cattle: 88. 3d. in the pound.-N. Chas. Gelstharp, Shirley, near Ashborn, Derbyshire, miller: 3s. 5d. in the pound. WANTED, by a Gentleman recently admitted, a LAW PARTNERSHIP, or a Situation as a Managing Clerk, with a view to a partnership. Country preferred. Respectable references given and required. Address A., Box 265, Post-office, Bristol. This day is published, in royal 8vo., price 17. 11s. 6d. boards, SETON'S FORMS of DECREES in EQUITY, and of the Orders connected with them. The Second Edition, adapted to the present Practice; with Practical Notes. By W. H. HARRISON, Esq., Barrister at Law, and R. H. LEACH, Esq., one of the Registrars of the Court. Stevens & Norton, Law Publishers, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. Just is published, in 12mo., price 10s. 6d. cloth, A MANUAL of the LAW of MARITIME WARFARE; embodying the Decisions of Lord Stowell and other English Judges, and of the American Courts, and the Opinions of the most eminent Jurists. With an Appendix of the Official Documents and Correspondence in relation to the present War. By WILLIAM HAZLITT and HENRY PHILIP ROCHE, Esqrs., Barristers at Law. Stevens & Norton, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. THRING'S SUCCESSION DUTY ACT. THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT, 1853; with an Intro duction, explanatory and illustrative Notes, and an Index. By HENRY THRING, M. A., Barrister at Law. Stevens & Norton, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. THE BEST LAW DICTIONARY. WHARTON'S LAW LEXICON, or Dictionary of Jurisprudence. Royal 8vo., 700 pages. Recently published at 11. 18s.; now offered for 188. William Henry Bond, 8, Bell-yard, Temple-bar. PULLING'S LAWS OF LONDON. Just published, in 1 vol. 8vo., price 10s., Second Edition, with Notes of the Commissioners' Report on the Corporation, 1854, THE LAWS, CUSTOMS, USAGES, and REGULATIONS of the CITY and PORT of LONDON. With Notes of the Charters, Ordinances, Statutes, and Cases. By ALEXANDER PULLING, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Second Edition. To which is now added, a Summary of the Commissioners' Report on the Corporation of London and the Municipal Government of the Metropolis, 1854, shewing how far the existing Regulations are proposed to be altered. London: William Henry Bond, 8, Bell-yard, Temple-bar; and Wildy & Sons, Lincoln's-inn-archway, Law Booksellers. and 6, Chancery-lane, London. Subscribed Capital, £5,000,000. TRUSTEES. The Right Hon. the Earl of Devon. The Right Hon. Lord Truro. The Right Hon. the Lord Chief Baron. The Right Hon. the Lord Justice Knight Bruce. The Right Hon. Sir John Dodson, Dean of the Arches, &c. Insurances expiring at Midsummer should be renewed within fifteen GUARDIAN FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE COM PANY, No. 11, Lombard-street, London. George Keys, Esq., Secretary.-Griffith Davies, Esq., F. R.S., Actuary. LIFE DEPARTMENT. - Under the provisions of an act of Parliament, this Company now offers to future Insurers FOUR-FIFTHS of the PROFITS, with QUINQUENNIAL DIVISION, or a Low RATE OF PREMIUM without participation of Profits. The next Division of Profits will be declared in June, 1855, when all Participating Policies which shall have subsisted at least one year at Christmas, 1854, will be allowed to share in the Profits. At the several past Divisions of Profits made by this Company, the Reversionary Bonuses added to the Policies from ONE-HALF the Profits amounted, on an average of the different ages, to about One per Cent. per Annum on the sums insured, and the total Bonuses added at the four Septennial Divisions exceeded 770,0007. FOREIGN RISKS.-The Extra Premiums required for the East and West Indies, the British Colonies, and the northern parts of the United States of America, have been materially reduced. INVALID LIVES.-Persons who are not in such sound health as would enable them to Insure their Lives at the Tabular Premiums, may have their Lives Insured at extra Premiums. LOANS granted on Life Policies to the extent of their values, provided such Policies shall have been effected a sufficient time to have attained in each case a value not under 50%. ASSIGNMENTS OF POLICIES-Written Notices of, received and re gistered. Medical fees paid by the Company, and no charge will be made for Policy Stamps. Notice is hereby given,―That Fire Policies which expire at Midsummer must be renewed within fifteen days at this Office, or with Mr. SAMS, No. 1, St. James's-street. (corner of Pall-mall); or with the Company's Agents throughout the Kingdom; otherwise they become void. Orders for THE JURIST given to any Newsman, or letter (postpaid) sent to the Office, No. 3, CHANCERY-LANE, or to STEVENS & NORTON, 26, BELL-YARD, LINCOLN'S-INN, will insure its punctual delivery in London, or its being forwarded on the evening of publication, through the medium of the Post Office, to the Country. Printed by HENRY HANSARD, PRINTER, residing at No. 14, Park Square, Regent's Park, in the Parish of St. Marylebone, in the County of Middlesex, at his Printing Office, situate in Parker Street, in the Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, in the County aforesaid; and Published at No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, in the Parish of St. Dunstan HUGHES CONCISE PRECEDENTS in MODERN in the West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, LAW BOOK CONVEYANCING.-SECOND EDITION, revised, on Saturday. By WILLIAM HUGHES, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Price 2s. 6d. Law Times Office, 29, Essex-street. SELLER and PUBLISHER, residing at No. 41, Great Coram Street, in the Parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, in the County of Middlesex.Saturday, July 1, 1854. NAMES OF THE CASES REPORTED IN THIS NUMBER. Morritt v. Walton.-(Practice-Costs-Appearance- Lowe v. Thomas.-(Will-Construction-Stock in the ROLLS COURT. Smith. Adams.-(Copyholds-Freebench-Surrender-Death before Admittance-Admittance of Heir)...... VICE-CHANCELLOR KINDERSLEY'S COURT. Ramsden v. Smith.-(Covenant-Separate EstateConstruction) Cochrane v. Fearon.-(Security for Costs).. VICE-CHANCELLOR STUART'S COURT. In re The Estate of Poole Bathurst, and in re The South Wales Railway Act and Amendment Act of 1845 and 1846.-(Marriage Settlement-Power to appoint three Trustees, and Appointment of two in their Place-Valid Appointment).... VICE-CHANCELLOR WOOD'S COURT. Walcot v. Botfield.-(Will-Construction-Condition requiring Residence) ADVERTISEMENTS. .... 563 564 566 568 568 570 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. PRICE 18. The Newmarket Railway Company, Apps., v. The Overseers of St. Andrew the Less, Cambridge, Resps. (Railway-Rateable Value-Profits of Occupation-Collateral Guarantie-Agreement to make up Dividend)..... 572 In re Marsden v. Wardle.-(County Court-Want of Jurisdiction-Prohibition after Judyment)...... 578 Dowdell v. The Royal Australian Mail Steam Navigation Company.-(Taxation of Costs-Party Witness in his own Cause Rule for new TrialMaintenance Money-Seafaring Man).. BAIL COURT. ........ 579 580 581 Theobald v. The Railway Passengers Assurance Company. (Railway Accident-Damages-Insurance) 583 extent of the repair in such case is to be measured by the age and class of the buildings: their general condition as to repair at the time of the demise is also to be regarded, so as to measure the amount of damages by reference to that state, although it does not affect the construction of the covenant. Thus, Parke, B., said, in the case in which this rule was laid down, (Payne v. Haine, 16 M. & W. 540), "If at the time of the demise the premises were old and in bad repair, the lessee was bound to put them in good repair as old premises, for he cannot keep' them in good repair without putting them into it. He might have contracted to keep them in the state in which they were at the time of the demise. . . . The cases all shew that the age and class of the premises let, with their general condition as to re On a former occasion (ante, p. 133) we stated several of the rules which seemed to us to be deducible from decisions upon rights and duties connected with the re-pair, may be estimated, in order to measure the extent paration of property, and we now propose to consider somewhat more in detail the extent of a tenant's liability under an express covenant to repair. Agreements of this nature are always construed liberally by the Courts in favour of the landlord; (Harris v. Jones, 1 Moo. & R. 173); at the same time, they receive a reasonable construction; and a general covenant to repair is satisfied by the premises being kept in substantial repair, according to the fair intention of the parties as expressed in their agreement. A literal performance of the covenant is not required. (Ib.) A covenant to keep a house and outbuildings in good repair obliges the tenant to put them in that condition; and the tenant is not justified in keeping them in bad repair because he found them in that condition. The VOL. XVIII. Ꮓ of the repairs to be done. Thus, a house in Spitalfields may be repaired with materials inferior to those requisite for repairing a mansion in Grosvenor-square; but this lessee cannot say he will do no repairs, or leave the premises in bad repair, because they were old and out of repair when he took them." Rolfe, B., sai, "The term 'good repair' is to be construed with reference to the subject-matter, and must differ, as that may be a palace or a cottage; but to 'keep in good repair' pre-supposes the putting into it, and means that during the whole term the premises shall be in good repair." In such cases, though the tenant may shew generally in what state the premises were at the commencement of the term, and whether they were new or old, it is not competent to him to shew it in matters of detail. withstanding these objections, it must be admitted that (Mantz v. Goring, 4 B. & Cr. 451; and see Burdett v. no practical difference exists between a rule of conWithers, 7 Ad. & El. 136, commented upon in 16 M.struction clearly ascertained and recognised by the Courts, and a similar rule enacted by act of Parlia & W. 545). ment. One is as binding and as inflexible as the other; and therefore, where any such rule exists which ope In accordance with this class of cases, it has been held that a covenant to repair contained in an under-rates harshly or unjustly, it must necessarily be release, though in the same language as the covenant in the original lease, may be different in effect, owing to the underlease having been granted subsequent to the original lease, and when the premises had become in a different condition. (Walker v. Hatton, 10 M. & W. 249). There was no question of a covenant to keep in "good" repair premises which were in fact in "bad" repair, as in the former case; and it is consistent with the doctrine laid down in the previous case, that in estimating the amount of damages, the general condition of the premises at the time of the demise is to be regarded. In connexion with the liability of a sub-lessee, we medied by act of Parliament, or remain unremedied; may here refer to the recent case of Smith v. Peat, (9 Exch. 161), in which the liability of an assignee of a lease was considered. Martin, B., there said, "We never can ascertain the exact amount of damage which occurred during the time that each assignee held the lease. In my opinion, the measure of damages is the loss the landlord would undergo if he sold his reversion in the market." And it had been previously held at Nisi Prius, by Coleridge, J., that in covenant for non-repair of premises held under a lease, which had at the time of the action several years to run, the measure of damages was, not the amount that would be required to put the premises in repair, but the amount to which the reversion was injured. (The Worcester School Trustees v. Rowlands, 9 Car. & P. 734). His Lordship said, if the lease had 100 years to run, and the covenant was broken in the first year, the landlord would be entitled to some damages for that breach of covenant, though the lease would not expire for ninety-nine years to come; but in estimating the But the expression "rule of construction" is fredamages where the lease has a long time to run, it was quently misunderstood. Legal rules of construction not fair to take the amount that would be necessary have properly nothing to do with the meaning of words. to put the premises into repair as the measure of the Language, whether technical or popular, is not a subject either for legislation or for judicial precedent. It damages, for in such cases, where the damages were is created and developed by natural causes beyond the awarded to the landlord, he was not bound to expend reach of arbitrary convention, and, like other matters them in repairs, neither could he do so without the of usage, cannot be stereotyped in a formula. The tenant's permission to enter on the premises. It is no laws even of technical language are part of the laws of defence to an action for non-repair during the defend- varies the meaning of words is necessarily a bad rule, nature. A common-law rule of interpretation that ant's tenancy that the plaintiff has no reversion or in- and should be repealed, not by attempting to declare terest in the premises. (Bickford v. Parson, 5 C. B. the true meaning, but simply by depriving the rule of 920). Such proof might be given to reduce the da- its authority, in the manner already pointed out. For mages, and it probably would have the effect of re-example, when a man devises all his land in Kent to ducing them to a merely nominal amount, unless the his eldest son, he means to give him all his estate in the plaintiff shewed, that although his interest in the pre-into question, the judges, from corrupt motives or from land; but when the effect of such a devise first came mises had expired, he was liable over to the superior prejudice, resolved that it should only pass a life estate; landlord or some other person for the repairs. and when the hardship of that rule was felt, and justice was more regarded, the Courts, bound by precedent, strove to evade it by fine-drawn distinctions. Such being the temper of the Bench, the mischief might have been cured by relieving them from the precedents, without stating any rule of construction, as by enacting, that "When a Court of justice has to decide whether a devise without words of limitation has passed more than an estate for the devisee's life, such Court may decide such question without regard to any decision made before this enactment in which a THE STATUTE-LAW COMMISSION. (Continued from p. 229). With reference to the question, whether a rule of construction can be properly enacted, which has been discussed by Mr. Tyrrell and the Real Property Commissioners, Mr. Brickdale, after citing the remarks published in the name of Mr. H. Sugden, says, " Not 66 similar devise has been held to pass a life estate only." We have already shewn that the judicial interpretations of the words "month," "England," &c. may be corrected in the same manner. These are instances of rules arbitrarily interfering with the meaning of words; and there are many such which should be abolished. Besides these rules of misconstruction, there is a class of rules, also called rules of construction, which determine questions arising on mistakes and omissions in the framing of documents when the parties have said what they did not mean, or have omitted to say all that they meant, or when events shew that their meaning was defective or erroneous. There is method even in the errors and shortcomings of the mind. The science of that method is inductive and progressive, has nothing to do with policy, and therefore belongs exclusively to the Courts, subject only to the interference of the Legislature when they call upon it to relieve them from precedents which they would reject. as a specimen of the utmost attainable conciseness," and also as an example of the advantage of dividing the matter of an act into very short paragraphs, for ease of reference and amendment. This is very well, but it should not be put as a matter of discretion and degree. A single enactment is a command or permission to do or to abstain from doing a certain thing, and the number of enactments into which an act of Parliament ought to be divided is precisely the number of different combinations, either of a single case with several commands or authorities, or of several cases with a single command or authority. When the same command or permission applies to more than one case, the several cases must be distinctly stated in the enactment, and this may be conveniently done in distinct subdivisions or paragraphs. So, when several things are commanded or permitted to ensue upon a single case*. "Another object kept in view in preparing the bill has been to reduce the law to propositions as general Mr. Brickdale concludes in favour of enacting rules and abstract as possible;" and then follows a defence of construction in certain cases, though he proposes two against the anticipated charge of consequential obscuconditions which seem to exclude every case. These rity, which we do not understand. The question of the are "First, not to enact any rule which would give generality or abstract nature of an enactment is subto words an effect different from their primary mean- stantial, not formal. An enactment giving a leasing ing; and, secondly, not to attempt to enact a rule ex-power to the trustees of a single settlement is less gecept when the cases in which it would operate could be neral than one giving such a power to the trustees of all foreseen with tolerable certainty." The first condition settlements, and both are less general than one enabling condemns every rule of construction in terms, and the trustees of settlements to deal with the settled estates in second does so in effect; for a rule leaving things as they any way they may think fit for the benefit of the obare independently of the rule is a nullity; and a rule jects of the settlement. But the same draftsman would of construction of which the operation can be foreseen express all three in the same style, and, according to with tolerable certainty is an impossibility. his skill, with the same clearness or obscurity. Whatever his object may be, he can only effect it by stating it, and the generality of the effect will be co-extensive with the generality of the statement. He may fail to say what he means, or his meaning may halt; but that is blundering, not obscurity. The causes of obscurity are to be sought in verbiage, involution, and superfluous statement of particulars. Mr. Anstey would go far beyond his colleague in this matter. By the 2nd section of his bill for the interpretation of enactments, he proposes to enact, that "all enactments regulating, extending, restraining, or taking away rights, duties, or liabilities not originally created by statute, and likewise enactments amending or repealing such first-mentioned enactments, shall," except in certain specified cases, "be deemed and taken to be parcel of and incorporate with the common and unwritten law, and construed and expounded accordingly." This clause carries out a suggestion made by Mr. Ker in his second report" That the objection so frequently urged, that it would be dangerous to limit and fetter the common law by subjecting it to the rules of construction applicable to statute law, might be obviated by enacting that such a code is to be considered as merely declaratory of the law, and providing that the same should be construed as if the same were part of the common law a rule of construction which it would be often convenient to apply to consolidated statutes also." A rule of construction as impossible as the even root of a negative quantity. The interpretation of statutes is the construing of words the interpretation of the common law is what in natural science Bacon calls the interpretation of nature-induction from facts. To speak of construing a statute like the common law is to adopt the vulgar notion that the common law is to be collected mainly from the language used by the judges in explanation of their decisions, and not mainly from the recorded decisions and the facts decided on. By other clauses Mr. Anstey proposes to subject certain penal enactments to a strictly literal interpretation, and all other enactments to a liberal construction. These he admits to be questionable. We think that they are unquestionably wrong. A strictly literal construction of a penal statute means nothing more than escape for the guilty in certain cases. A liberal construction means excess of license to the judge. Returning to Mr. Brickdale's comments, we come to some sensible remarks on conciseness of style, in the course of which he says, very truly, that the remedy lies in every one's hand, and is a matter of practice and not of invention. The bill, we are told, is presented "strictly Mr. Brickdale then proceeds to criticise the clauses of the Wills Act, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 26, seriatim, and incidentally to explain and justify the details of his own bill, to the consideration of which we shall next address ourselves. Sect. 1. "A testator may dispose by will of all the property, estates, and rights of every description and tenure to which he is in any way entitled at the time of his death, to the full extent of his interest therein." 66 The language is inaccurate, and hence probably a material oversight. The words "property," " estates and rights," are here used to represent ideas of different kinds, which cannot be classed together, the two last expressing relations of which the former is the subject. The clause in terms speaks of an interest in a right. "Of every description and tenure" should be "of every description or tenure," otherwise personal chattels, and other property to which tenure is not incident, would be impliedly excluded, which is not intended, though it ought to be. "All" and "every" should be "any." But the substantive defect in the clause is, that it does not except heriots and estates tail. A fee tail is wholly in the tenant for the time being, and this enactment would enable him to devise the entailed land for a base fee. And the clause purports to enable a estator to bequeath his personalty away from his executors or administrators and creditors-an error which occurs in the existing Wills Act. But this would be corrected by the Courts. The mistake lay in extending the enactment to personalty, the disposition of which was already provided for in a way not intended to be disturbed; and it shews the value of the rule-never to attempt a re-enactment of what is already parcel either of the common law or of the unrepealed statute law. * See Coode on Legislative Expression. |