Abbildungen der Seite

The Irish Jurist.

& cause.


[ocr errors]


their decision for the opinion of this court upon the matter. Mr Adams, plaintiff's attorney in the action, was not her attorney in procuring the afliliation order. The plaintiff also afterwards wholly

repudiated the terms of compromise come to at DUBLIN, DECEMBER 15, 1857.

the trial, whereupon the defendant applied for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had. The plaintiff denied that she had given any such instructions to settle the action, or

that she ever agreed or authorised any person to We have already considered the question, ante, consent for her to forego the obtaining of an affiliap. , Vol. II., as to the effect of an arrangement tion order upon the defendant for the support of her entered into by a counsel as to the compromise of child, and alleged that she had been reccommended The case to which we then referred,

to her first attorney, Mr. Adams (the attorney in the

cause), by the junior counsel whom she first conthat of Swinfen v. Swinfen (18 Scott. 485 ; S. C. sulted ; she stated that she never saw Mr. Adams 1 C. B. N. S. 364, 28 L. T'i. 233), has since come but once, when he was pointed out to her at the before the Court of Equity, where the suit origi- assizes as the gentleman who was conducting her

case; that her communications were with his nated, and the Master of the Rolls has granted a clerks, and that the managing clerk had attended new trial; and, in arriving at this conclusion, he has to the business at the assizes and in court; and held : That "

he stated in his affidavit that he did not at the time an attorney employed to conduct

of the compromise quite understand that he was action has no implied authority to compromise, precluded altogether from obtaining an affiliation without instructions from his client." That order. On the part of the attorney it was contended compromise made by counsel, upon statements made of the cause, notwithstanding he was nominally the

that he could scarcely be said to have the managment by the attorney that a compromise would be very attorney. The plaintiff was sent to him by a junior desirable, and in the presence of the attorney, counsel

, who she had, in fact, consulted in the first but without any authority from the client to com

instance; that counsel had taken upon himself to

act for her, and before any action was brought bad promise upon such terms as were agreed upon, was written a letter for her to the defendant. (The not a binding one upon the client."

letter was here read to the court, being set out in We have already discussed this decision, and the affidavits used by the defendant on his appli

cation for this rule.] This was the part of the atshall merely refer our readers to the ample report torney to perform, and now for the first time had of it in the 30 L. Ti. p. 160; but as we have he seen it discharged by any counsel ; that counsel referred to the question, how far the consent of trial as her junior counsel, and when the terms of

advised her throughout; he was present at the counsel is binding, we cannot refrain from al- arrangement were entered into by the respective luding to a case reported in the same volume of leading counsel in the cause, not a suggestion was reports, p. 155. The facts were as follows:

at any time made by him that it was without her

consent or against her wish, or for anything apThe actions, one for breach of promise of mar- pearing to the contrary, but that it was exactly riage by a Miss Brooks, the other an action by her what she desired. He was acting as her counsel, father against the defendant for seduction, came and if it had not, under the circumstances, been on for trial at Stafford, where terms of arrangement what she required, would he not have said so ? No were come to and indorsed upon the brief of the order of Nisi Prius was drawn up,


but the leading counsel in the cause, as they thought and briefs of counsel were iudorsed with the terms of believed with the entire concurrence of the attor- arrangement come to between the parties in the neys or those sent by them and instructing them, usual way. Mr. Adams, as the plaintiff inferred as well as their respective clients, and the terms in her affidavit, left the business to his clerks. She were, payment of £10 to the female plaintiff her had personally no communication with him, and self with damages in her action with costs to the was in the first instance sent to him by this junior attorney, and also that no affiliation order should counsel. The terms effected were evidently with be applied for or obtained : and in the second the assent of that counsel, who was by far the most action it was agreed that a juror should be with active party in the transaction ; what was done drawn. The costs, £42, were afterwards offered therefore with his assent, was pretended to have by Mr. Jackson, the defendant's attorney, to Mr. been with the approbatiou of the plaintiff

. It Adlams, the attorney for the plaintiffs, but he de- was also sworn by Mr. Adams's managing clerk clined to accept them, without haviog also the £40 that both the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother for damages, and threatened to issue execution if told the managing clerk to try to settle the action not paid. The female plaintiff also obtained an upon the best terms he could. After all this the order of affiliation for her child upon the defendant, plaintiff proceeded for an affiliation order through who appealed to the sessions, whence they adjourned the assistance of another attorney (Mr. Bowen),

[ocr errors]

but the same junior counsel who first wrote the letter for her to the defendant before the action; | THREXOMENT ACT, 1863, with the COMMON LAW PROCES

Just Published, price 16s., free by post, the Second Edition of who sent her to Mr. Adams merely to do that which must be done by an attorney, that same

URE AMENDMENT ACT, 18 56, the General Orders of 1864 and 1856.

Commentary, and copious Ge neral Index. junior counsel who was her counsel in the cause, By WILLIAM DWYER FERGUSON, Esq., LL.D., Barrister-at-Law and who knew of the compromise and arrangement

The first edition of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1853 havin made at the trial in which it was stipulated she unable to embody in it the practice which

has subsequently grown up.

been published immediately after its becoming law, the Author was should not affiliate her child, is the same counsel under its provisions. That practice is now established by a great

variety of decisions of the courts, which are carefully collected, and who advises her in that affiliation proceeding, and by the General Orders contained in the present edition. was her counsel at the sessions court to support thot mentary on its provisions and the general Law of Arbitrations, order. In support of the rule it was contended Injunctions, Mandamus, aud Equitable Defences in Courts of Law, that the defendant at all events should be pro

forming a complete Code of Common Law Procedure.

Dublin: E. J. MILLIKEN, Law Publisher, 15, College-green. tected under the circumstances, That he was threatened with an execution immediately

IRISH GAME LAW. for not paying the £42 costs of the action, and

Just Published, Price 5s, free by ost, also the £40 damages to Mr. Adams, by Adams SMALL PRACTICAL


WORK ON THE himself, whilst his former client (the plaintiff repu- GAME ACTS. BY EDWARD PARKYNS LEVINGE, Esq., Barrister-atdiated the terms the counsel at the trial entered Law. Showing the Laws capaleb of being put in force in Ireland for into, and also has actually proceeded to affiliate her concise exposition of the duties of+Magistrates in and out of Petty

Sessions in relation thereto. child in violation of that argument, putting the Dublin: EDWARD J MILLIKEN, College Green. defendant to much unnecessary cost and great annoyance. Mr. Jackson, defendant's attorney,

INSURANCE COMPANY. refused to pay Mr. Adams 'the £42 and £40, as it ROYAL was contrary to the terms agreed upon.

Capital-£2,000,000, in 100,000 Shares of £20 each. The court were of opinion that the matter should

Trustees : stand over until the second day of next term before

John Shaw Leigh, Esq.; John Naylor, Esq. they gave their opinion upon it; in the hope that

Directors, &c., in Liverpool:

Charles Turner, Esq., Chairman; J. Bramley-Moore, Esq., M.P the parties might come to some arrangement among and Ralph Brocklebank, Esq., Deputy Chairmen. themselves.

FIRE BRANCH We refer to this last case as another illustration

Annual Premiums £130,000, exceeding almost every Office in the

United Kingdom. of the danger of counsel entering into any arrange

Losses Promptly and Liberally Paid.

Security of a Large Capital actually paid up. ment, without the most express instruction for that IMPORTANT TO THE PROPRIETORS OF CORN AND

OATMEAL MILLS. purpose; as to the other considerations arising out Risks of this description accepted on a most liberal scale of rates of the facts, we shall not observe on the conduct

Stamps on Policies not Charged. of the professional adviser of the lady, further than Forfeiture of Policy cannot take place from unintentional mistakes

Medical Fees Paid-Moderate Premiums. to say, that should a member of the profession in

Large Bonus declared 1855,

Amounting to £2 per Cent. per Annum on the sum Assured, being on Ireland adopt such a course, we trust the authorities Ages from Twenty to Forty, Eighty per Cent. on the Premiumn.

Periods of Division : in these matters would announce it, as far as their Every Five Years, from 31st December in each year.

PERCY M. DOVE, Actuary and Manager. jurisdiction can be exercised, to be his last as a

A. M'NEILE, 34 WESTMORELAND-ST., Agent member of the profession.

THE ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE. (Incorporated A.D. 1720, by Charter of George the First.)


Agents and Stock Brokers,

John Corballis, Esq., Q.C., Barrister-at-Law, has Fire, Life, and Marine Assurances on liberal terms.

Life Assurances with, or without, participation in Profits been appointed to the Assistant-Barristership of the

Divisions of Profits every Five Years.
County Kilkenny, vacant by the death of Purcell Any sum up to £15,000 insurable on the same Life.

A liberal participation in Profits, with exemption from the liabilities O'Gorman, Esq.

of partnership James A. Lawson, Esq., Q.C., Barrister-at-Law,

The Reversionary Bonus has averaged nearly two per cent per

annum on the sum assured, or 43 per cent. upon the Premiums paid. has been appointed to the office of Crown Adviser, It is believed that no other old established company, affording to the vacated by the appointment of Mr. Corballis to the Irish public the accommodation of local agencies, has maintained during office of Assistant-Barrister of the County of Kil. The Expenses of Management, being divided between the different

branches, are spread over a larger amount of business than that transkenny.

acted by any other office. The charge upon each Policy is thereby reduced to a sum so small as to account for the magnitude of the Bo which has been declared, and to afford a probability that a similar rate

will be sustained at future divisions. PORTFOLIOS FOR THE IRISH JURIST.

This Corporation affords to the Assured a liberal participation in

Profits, with exemption from the liabilities of partnership;-a rate of the above are now prepared, and will contain the numbers published guarantee of a large invested Capital Stock :--the advantages of modern during the year.

practice, with the security of an Office whose resources have been These Portfolios are recommended for the convenience of preserving tested by the experience of nearly a Century and a half. the Work, and for the facility they will afford for reading and refer Tables of rates and all other information, may be had on application ence previous to binding. Price 2s. each.


No. 5 College-green, Dublin.


[ocr errors]




DIVISION OF PROFITS. A very largo portion of the Profits is allocated periodically to the Assured on the principle of a TONTINE. Divisions have already

taken place at five periods, viz.-1835, 1840, 1845, 1850, and 1855. The following are examples :

[blocks in formation]


The following cases, taken from the Books of the Company

The following cases will further illustrate the benefits of the will tend to illustrate the system :

system with reference more particularly to participation in

the Profits On 21st May, 1856, C. D. died, aged 30, having effected an as

On 26th FEBRUARY, 1856, G. H. died, aged 51. He effected an surance on his life for £200 on 9th July, 1855, when he was in Assurance on his life in 1829 for

£999 0 0 excellent health. His payment to the Company was £5:1:2.

And there was added by the Company from the

924 0 0 On 6th NOVEMBER, 1856, A. G. died, at the age of 26, having

Making the Sum paid £1923 0 effected an Assurance of £1000 on the 15th November, 1855, when in good health. Only one Premium of £23: 4: 2 was

On 6th NOVEMBER, 1856, died T. D., aged 81. He effected an
Assurance on his life in 1826 for

£800 0 0 paid to the Company.

And there was added by the Company from the

876 0 0 These cases show how complete and satisfactory such a provision is from the moment of a Policy being effected.

Making the sum paid £1676 0 0 The Share of Profits attaching to a Policy may be applied to increase the Sam Assured, or the value may be received in Cash, or

be applied to reduce the Annual Premiums.
General Statement of the Company's Business from 1846 to 1856.

Number of Proposals for Assurances made to the Directors. 10,490
Number of Assurance of Policies issued, exclusive of Annuities and

} 8,390
other transactions
Sums proposed for Assurance

£6,001,741 4 8
Sums in Policies issued

4,787,301 18 1
Business for the year ending 15th Nov. 1856.
Number of Proposals for Assurance made to the Directors

Number of Assurance Policies issued, exclusive of Annuity and

other transactions
Sums proposed for Assurance

£669,801 6 7
Sums in Policies issued

516,351 6 7
Premiums on New Policies, exclusive of Single Payments : 16,769 3 4
Annual Revenue at 15th November, 1856

254,484 10 8
The Sixth Division of Profits will be made on 15th November, 1860.

CONDITIONS OF ASSURANCE. UNCHALLENGEABLE POLICIES AND FREE RESIDENCE IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD. Since 1851, when this Company promulgated the system of "Select Assurance," admission to which renders Policies indisputabl and unchallengeable on any ground whatever, the question of " Terms and Conditions" has become a most important point of consideration, and the day is quickly approaching when no one will hold a Policy from an office which does not give similar advantages. What a boon is it to all classes of Assurers to know, that whatever may happen, wherever the Assured may go, the claim will be met at death, subject to one simple condition, that the annual premium originally stipulated be punctually paid?

ADVANCES ON THE SECURITY OF POLICIES--AND SURRENDERS. The Directors have lately adopted rules of the most liberal character with reference to Loans on the Security of their Policies, and to Surrenders, allowing surrender value on Participating Policies from the commencement of the Assurance, while the same sum which would be given for surrender will be given in loan without expense beyond the trifling stamp duty, and at a rate of interest which securities on land alone command. With these facilities, no Policy need be forfeited, except by carelessness, so long as the Assurance is of sufficiont value to authorise an advance equivalent to the Premium.

Resident Secretary in Dublin, SAMUEL SMYLIE,



Orders for the IRISH JURIST left with E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN, or by letter (post-paid), will ensure its punctual delivery n Dublin, or its being forwarded to the Country, by Post, on the day of publication.

All communications for the IRISH JURIST are to be left, addressed to the Editor, with the Publisher, E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGEGREEN. Correspondents will please give the name and Address, as the columns of the Paper cannot be occupied with answers to anonymous communications--nor will the Editor be accountable for the return of manuscripts, &c.

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION (payable in advance) ;--Yearly, £2. Single Number, 28. 6d.

Published by EDWARD JOHNSTON MILLIKEN, 15, College-green, and printed at the Dublin Steam Press Printing Omice, 65 Upper Sackville-street, by ROBERT G. SOUTER, Agent, who is authorized to receive orders for Advertisements.- December 15, 1857.

Irish Turist .

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

clared by the company may make a difference in this The risb urist.

respect ; as where, upon a policy of assurance upon which bonuses had accrued, the question

arose between the personal representatives of the DUBLIN, JANUARY 1, 1858.

insurer, and the persons entitled under a settle

ment, as to the right to these bonuses, it was held, A QUESTION of considerable importance, which has that the question much depended on the confrequently been discussed, and upon which no struction of the settlement, but that, being definite determination has been attained, has, in additions to the capital, were, in the absence of a consequence of a recent decision by Sir W. P. declaration in the settlement to the contrary, to be Wood, V. C., become, if possible, still further considered as being included in the settlement, removed from that certainty which the law should which agrees with the decision on the first point in have. The question adverted to arises as to the Plunkett v. Mansfield, before-mentioned. To return right to the bonus-where a reversionary inte to the decision of the learned Vice-Chancellor, in his rest which has been invested in stock, or in judgment, referring to the case of Plunkett v. any other manner whence a bonus has been de Mansfield, after stating that he could draw no clared to be payable—between the personal repre- snbstantial distinction between them, and pointing sentatives of a person having a life interest in the out the two questions which arose in that case, as fund, and those entitled in remainder. The case to portions of the same fund, the one portion being referred to is, In re Armstrong, reported 3 Jur. settled, the other, as in the case now under conN. S. 612, in which the facts were shortly these :- sideration, being assigned, said: J. A. by his will, dated in 1801, gave £12,000 South Sea Stock to be invested in the joint names dated in 1834, reciting that there was then stand

“This second part was the case of an assignment of three trustees, upon trust for testator's wife for ing in the names of the trustees a sum of £7,500 life, with remainder to the children equally. Bank Stock, to one-fifth part of which the assignor The testator died shortly after making his will. was entitled after the decease of the tenant for life,

and that he had contracted for the absolute sale of There was but one child by the marriage, a son, £750, being one-half of such one-fifth, for £500 who, in the lifetime of his mother, in consideration of cash : in consideration of £500, the said sum of money advances--the first being in 1838-assigned £750, or one-half of one-fifth of the said sum of

£7,500 Bank Stock, and all the estate, &c., of the portions of this fund to a person named Smedley, assignor therein, was assigned, to hold the same, by which £3,000, part of the £12,000, and the and the reversionary interest therein, as fully as dividends thereof, vested in the assignee. No- the assignor could if these presents had not been

executed. And Lord St. Leonards, after complaintice of this, and of the subsequent assignments, ing of the irregularity in which the parties claimwere given to the trustees. The tenant for life ing under that assignment had brought their case died in 1856. The Stock—to which large bonuses forward, and offering them liberty to file a bill, had been added subsequently to the assignments—chaser was not entitled to claim.

(which they declined), proceeded to say that the pur

The case,' had been, with these bonuses, upon the dissolution says his lordship, 'is quite distinguishable from of the South Sea Company, invested in Consols, the former one. My opinion in them was founded and now amounted to £17,466. The question with reference to the instrument (a marriage set

on this, that, considering the question of intention was, whether the assignees were entitled to these tlement), the intention was to settle all that to bonuses, or whether they still belonged to the which the parties were entitled. This is a case of

Here there is a specific assigror. Plunkett v. Mansfield, 2 Jon. and La. a very different nature.

contract, not for the whole, but for a particular 356), was cited as an authority for the latter portion of the fund, described as £750 Bank Stock, proposition against the assignees. It is to be and it is measured, not by a consideration like marobserved that sums payable by way of bonus, are riage, which of itself is sufficient to cover any not generally considered as a portion of the annual paid for a specific article, and I must consider the

amount of property, but there is a specific price profits of the fund settled, but are an accretion to price as measured by that which on the face of the the capital, In re Hodgens (11 Ir. Eq. R. 99), instrument is stated to be assigned. If a bill were which was a case of a bonus paid by the Bank of contract was, perhaps I should be of a very

filed, and the parties were to show what the real

different Ireland ; but the mode or form in which the bonus isde. I opinion, for then the intention of the parties

« ZurückWeiter »