Proposed Consolid. of the Stamp Laws.-Unqualified Person Acting as Conveyancer.

The subsequent Stamp Acts, six in number, are the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97; the 16 Vict. c. 5; the 16 & 17 Vict. cc. 59, 63, and 71; and the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 83.

203

UNQUALIFIED PERSON ACTING !
AS CONVEYANCER.

ACTION TO RECOVER FEES.

There is no need, on the present occasion to do more than enumerate the recent numerous enactments on the subject of stamps. The Profession is, of course. It may be said, more truly now than familiar enough with the new provisions. ever, that it is almost an act of common It will be sufficient to observe that the justice to consolidate the numerous scatter- whole question appears to be in an almost ed enactments in force upon this most im- inextricable mass of confusion, and also portant subject into one well-digested and that the probate and administration duties methodical Statute. Besides the multifa- are still left to inflict the injustice which rious Acts of Parliament bearing upon this they have been inflicting for the last forty every-day matter of business, sufficiently years. numerous and complicated to puzzle the most sagacious and entrap the most wary practitioner, there are not a few important provisions respecting stamps, scattered about in Statutes not having any direct connexion with them. For instance, while THE defendants to an action brought by the Stamp Duties' Bill of 1850, that is the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, was before the public, drawn by him, pleaded in the terms of the the plaintiff to recover for conveyances it was observed by the Parliamentary Committee of the Incorporated Law Society, 44 Geo. 3, c. 98, s. 14.1 On demurrer to this plea,-Parke, B., said, "I am of which suggested and carried several very useful amendments in that Act, that it opinion that the defendants are entitled to would "be desirable to introduce a clause judgment. The true principle is laid down enabling parties, when an objection is taken in Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149, and to the validity of a deed by reason of its Smith v. Mawhood, 14 M. & W. 452; and being insufficiently stamped, to pay to the the question in all these cases is, whether, officer of the Court before which the ob- looking at the Statute, the object of the jection is taken, the amount of the deficient Legislature in imposing a penalty was to duty and penalty thereon, under proper regulations." But this most valuable suggestion was not acted on either in the Act of 1850 or the subsequent Acts, but in a modified form in the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854; the modification is, that whereas the Committee contemplated an objection by the parties, the Act provides that it shall be the duty of the officer of the Court to point out any deficiency in the stamp; but it may be observed, it does not appear clear whether the officer is to satisfy himself of the sufficiency of the stamp, and object to it if it be deficient, or whether he may pass the document without examination, if no objection be taken by either party to the suit.

was for a different purpose. Therefore, the prohibit the particular act, or whether it simple point which we have now to decide prohibit this Act being done under penalty, is, whether the Legislature intended to

Which enacts, that " every person, who shall, for or in expectation of any fee, gain, or reward, directly or indirectly, draw or prepare any conveyance of a deed relating to any real or personal estate, or any proceedings in law or equity, other than and except serjeants-atlaw, barristers, solicitors, attorneys, notaries, Proctors, agents, or procurators, having obtained regular certificates, and special pleaders, draftsmen in equity, and conveyancers, being members of one of the four Inns of Court, and having taken out the certificates mentioned in the said schedule to this Act annexed," &c., The Succession Duty Act, also, is a "and other than and except persons solely emStatute which, though not literally perhaps ployed to engross any deed, instrument, or a Stamp Act, must be taken to be another other proceeding not drawn or prepared by themselves and for their own account respecto be added to the list. The succession tively, and other than and except public duty as akin and in strict analogy to the officers drawing or preparing official instrulegacy duties, will always be by the Profes- ments applicable to the respective offices, and sion connected with the complicated Law of in the course of their duty, shall forfeit and the Stamps, in addition to which the 9th pay for every such offence the sum of 50%.: section of this Statute expressly provides, provided always, that nothing herein contained that "the duties hereinafter imposed shall shall extend, or be construed to extend, to be considered as Stamp Duties, and be prevent any person or persons drawing or preunder the care and management of the paring any will or other testamentary papers, or any agreement not under seal, or any letter Commissioners of Inland Revenue." of attorney."

204

Hilary Term Examination, 1855.-Attorneys to be Admitted in Hilary Term, 1855.

Where the articles have not expired, but will expire during the Term, the Candidate may be examined conditionally; but the articles must be left within the first seven days of Term, and answers up to that time. If part of the Term has been served with a Barrister, Special Pleader, or London Agent, answers to the questions must be obtained from them, as to the time served with each respectively. A Paper of Questions will be delivered to each Candidate, containing questions to be answered in writing, classed under the several heads of-1. Preliminary. 2: Common and Statute Law, and Practice of the Courts. 3.

and thus render it illegal; for if so the fore Wednesday, the 17th instant, at the Law plaintiff cannot recover. Now, looking at Society's office. the Statute, I am of opinion that the object of the Legislature was to confine the practice of drawing the instruments there in specified to a certain class supposed to have a competent knowledge of the subject, and to protect the public against the mistakes of inexperienced persons in matters of this kind; and with that view, the Legislature has prohibited these acts being done, except by a particular class of persons. The object of the Legislature could not have been merely to secure to the revenue the duty on certificates, because it is only per- Conveyancing. 4. Equity, and Practice of the sons who can by law obtain such certificates. In that respect, the case is different from Smith v. Mawhood, where the object of the Legislature was to compel the obtaining of licences, which any one might obtain, to deal in a particular commodity."quiry, viz.:-Common Law, Conveyancing, and And Platt, B., added,-"The Statute was intended to prevent ignorant persons from The Examiners will continue the practice of drawing conveyances of serious import. The proposing questions in Bankruptcy and in Legislature makes an exception in favour of Criminal Law and Proceedings before Justices of serjeants-at-law and other persons of educa- the Peace, in order that Candidates who may tion. That such is the object of the enact- have given their attention to those subjects, may have the advantage of answering such quesment appears more especially from the tions, and having the correctness of their anlanguage of the proviso, which says, that swers in those departments taken into consithe Act is not to 'prevent' any person deration in summing up the merit of their gefrom drawing a will," &c. Taylor v. Crow-neral examination. land Gas and Coke Company, 10 Exch. R. 293.

HILARY TERM EXAMINATION, 1855.

THE Examiners appointed for the examination of persons applying to be admitted Attorneys, have appointed Tuesday, the 23rd inst., at half-past nine in the forenoon, at the Hall of the Incorporated Law Society, in Chancery Lane, to take the examination.

Courts. 5. Bankruptcy, and Practice of the Courts. 6. Criminal Law, and Proceedings before Justices of the Peace.

Each Candidate is required to answer all the Preliminary Questions (No. 1); and also to answer in three of the other heads of inEquity.

Under the Rules of Hilary Term, 1853, it is provided that every person who shall have given notice of Examination and Admission, and "who shall not have attended to be examined, or not have passed the Examination, or not have been admitted, may within ONE WEEK after the end of the Term for which such notices were given, renew the notices for Examination or Admission for the then west ensuing Term, and so from time to time as he shall think proper;" but shall not be admitted until the last day of the Term, unless otherwise ordered.1

The Articles of Clerkship and Assignment, if any, with answers to the questions as to due service, according to the regulations apThis rule has been made in order to avoid proved by the Judges, must be left on or be- the practice of giving double notices.

ATTORNEYS TO BE ADMITTED IN HILARY TERM, 1855.

Queen's Bench.

Added to List pursuant to Judge's Orders.

Clerks' Names and Residences.

Bishop, Mortimer Samuel, 20, Chancery Lane;

To whom Articled, Assigned, &c.

24, Huntly Street, Tottenhem Court Road. William Richard Bishop, Exeter Harvey, Thomas Hingston, Mecklenburg St., Middlesex

Joseph Roberts, Truro

J. F. Robinson, Hadleigh; Thomas Borrett,
Whitehall Place

George Tamplin, Fenchurch Chambers

Renewed Notices of Admission on the last Day of Hilary Term, 1855, of Persons who gave Notice of Admission for Michaelmas Term, 1854, pursuant to the Rule of Court Hilary Term, 1853. Alder, William, Herbert Street, Hoxton; and

Port- T. Parker, Lincoln's Inn Fields; T. Burgoyne,

Smith, William, Cambridge Street; Hurst Gr.;
Argyle Sq.; Featherstone Bdgs.; Maidstone E. Hoar, Maidstone
Stephenson, William, 8, Lower Brunswick
Terrace; and Kingston-upon-Hull

ATTORNEYS' BENEVOLENT INSTI- have signified their intention, not only to sub

206

Notes of Week.-Superior Courts: Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley.

strongly in favour of "a local habitation." All appear to be agreed in the general necessity of an establishment for the relief of deserving, but unfortunate, Attorneys and Solicitors, and the sentiment is very generally expressed that it is the duty of their branch of the Profession to commence the good work without delay; and that its success will reflect credit on the general body.

Many influential names have been received which will probably be added to the Provisional Committee already announced; and we understand that an early meeting will be convened to consider the several suggestions which have been made, and to settle the details of the plan.

NOTES OF THE WEEK.

INCREASED SALARIES OF THE COUNTY
COURT JUDGES.

Ir appears that 15 of the 60 County Court Judges will in future receive a salary of 1,5001. each, instead of 1,2001. The Judges of the Metropolitan County Courts have been selected, we understand, for this increase of emolument, with others whose labours are supposed to be greater than the remaining 45 Judges. Some dissatisfaction, it may be expected, will be felt at the selection, and some additional grants may perhaps hereafter be made.

VACANCY IN THE RECORD OFFICE.

The decease of Mr. Berry has occasioned a vacancy to be filled up by the Master of the Rolls. The salary is 1,2001. a year.

RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.

Master of the Rolls.

Waller in support; R. Palmer and Darling In re the Cuckfield Burial Board. Dec. 14, for the burial board; W. M. James and

1854.

PURCHASE OF SETTLED LANDS UNDER BU

RIALS BEYOND METROPOLIS ACT.

Certain lands settled with an ultimate reversion in the Crown, were taken under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, with which the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, is incorporated. On petition for interim investment, held that the order must be made without prejudice to the rights of the Crown, who was not affected by s. 7 of the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, although the section authorised a sale by a tenant in tail disabled by Statute from barring the entail. THIS was a petition for the interim investment of the purchase-money of certain lands which had been taken under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, for a burying ground. It appeared that the lands were settled with an ultimate reversion in the Crown under an Act passed in the 2 & 3 Phil. & M., and which provided that no feoffment, fine, or recovery should bind the Crown or the heir in tail.

Hanson for the Crown.

The Master of the Rolls said, that although the Lands' Clauses' Consolidation Act extended to the tenant in tail, it did not bind the Crown, and that the order must therefore be made without prejudice to the rights of the Crown.

Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.

Martin v. Forster. Dec. 15, 1854. MARRIAGE OF WARD OF COURT WITHOUT

LEAVE.-SETTLEMENT.

A ward of Court, entitled to 2,5191. odd, had married with the consent of her mother and the trustees of her father's will, but without the leave of the Court being obtained, and it was proposed to settle 1,000l. only. On petition, upon her becoming of age, the sum of 2,500l. was directed to be settled, and the remainder to be paid to the husband.

By the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 7 (which was IT appeared that a ward of Court had marincorporated in the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134), it is ried with the consent of her mother and the enacted, that "it shall be lawful for all parties trustees of her father's will, but without the being seised, possessed of, or entitled to any leave of the Court being obtained, and it was such lands, or any estate or interest therein, to proposed to settle a sum of 1,000l., part of a sell and convey or release the same to the pro- fund of 2,5191. odd, to which she was enmoters of the undertaking, and to enter into titled on attaining 21, as one of the four resiall necessary agreements for that purpose; duary legatees in the above cause. She had and particularly it shall be lawful for all or any married a commercial clerk, and having since of the following parties so seised, possessed, or attained 21, presented this petition for payment entitled as aforesaid so to sell, convey, or re-out and for the settlement to be carried out lease; (that is to say) all corporation, tenants under the direction of the Court. in tail, or for life," &c.; "and the power so to sell and convey or release as aforesaid may lawfully be exercised by all such parties," &c., "not only on behalf of themselves and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, but also for and on behalf of every person entitled in reversion, remainder, or expectancy after them."

Speed in support.

The Vice-Chancellor, after an interview with the petitioner, said, that although the parties had not so intended, they had committed a contempt of Court. The husband had contributed nothing and there was no reason why he should have the large sum proposed. There would be a sum of 2,500l. settled, with proper

Superior Courts: Vice-Chancellor Wood.

provision for the children of a second marriage of the petitioner, and the remainder be paid to the husband.

Vice-Chancellor Wood.

Hilman v. Westwood. Nov. 14, 1854. CONSTRUCTION OF FOWER IN WILL TO

APPOINT NEW TRUSTEES.

for every

207

20s. of the annual amount thereof

By the 102nd section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, it is enacted, that, "upon all yearly interest of money or other annual payments either as "a charge on any property of the person paying the same by virtue of any deed, will, or otherwise, or as a reservation thereout, or as a personal debt or obligation by virtue of any contract or whether the same shall be received and payable half-yearly or at any shorter or Upon a special case under the 12 & 13 Vict. more distant periods, there shall be charged c. 35, as to the construction of a power of the sum of 7d." according to the 3rd case of appointing new trustees contained in a Sched. D.; 66 and where such interest shall be will, held that a trustee who had been ap- payable out of gains and profits charged by pointed thereunder was empowered to appoint as if originally appointed in the will. the Act, the party liable to such annual payment shall be authorised to deduct out of such THE testator by his will appointed three annual payment at the rate of 7d. for every 20s. trustees, one of whom was his wife, nomina- of the amount thereof." And in every case tim, and provided that, if any of them, or of "where any such (annual) payment shall be made those to be appointed should die, decline, or from profits or gains not charged by that Act, become incapable to act in the trusts, it should or where the interest of money shall not be rebe lawful for the surviving or continuing trustee served, or charged, or payable for the period for the time being, or the executors of the sur- of one year, then there shall be charged vivor, but with the consent of his wife during upon such interest or other annual payment as her widowhood, to appoint one or more trus- aforesaid, the duty before-mentioned according tees in the room of the trustee or trustees so to Schedule D., case 3." That case applies to dying, declining, or becoming incapable to act," the duty to be charged in respect of profits and such new trustee should have all the of an uncertain annual value not charged in same powers and authorities for all intents and Schedule A." By the 2nd rule of case 3, purposes, as if originally nominated by the will. Schedule D., "the profits on all interest of It appeared that upon the death of a trustee. money not being annual interest, payable, or the wife and the survivor had appointed a Mr. paid by any person whatever, shall be charged Barclay, and upon Mr. Barclay's declining according to the preceding rule," rule 1, which further to act, the defendant Mr. Westwood had directs the duty to be computed on the full been appointed. The wife died in 1843, and amount of profits arising within the preceding the surviving original trustee in 1853. This year. special case was presented on the question whether Mr. Westwood had power to appoint two new trustees.

Chandless, Wilcox, and Surrage for the several parties.

The Master of the Rolls said, that in accordance with the case of Meineitzhagen v. Davis, 1 Coll. 435, the surviving trustee was entitled to appoint such two new trustees.

(Sitting in Chambers.)

Bebb v. Bunny. Dec. 22, 1854. RIGHT OF PURCHASER TO DEDUCT INCOME

TAX ON INTEREST ON PURCHASE-MONEY.

A purchaser is entitled to deduct the income
tax on interest on his purchase-money paid
to the plaintiff as vendor.
The interest reserved at a given rate per
annum, though accruing de die in diem, is
within the 40th section of the 16 & 17 Vict.
c. 34, and there is no distinction between
interest on mortgage-money and interest on
purchase-money.

By the 2nd sec. of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34, Schedule D., the duty granted by that Act is directed to be charged "for and in respect of all interest of moneys, annuities, and other annual profits and gains not charged by virtue of any of the other Schedules contained in the Act, and to be charged for every 20s. of the annual amount thereof." And, by sec. 40 of that Act, it is enacted, "that every person who shall be liable to the payment of any rent, or any yearly interest of money, or any annuity, or other annual payment, either as a charge upon any property, or as a personal debt or obligation, by virtue of any contract, whether the same shall be received or payable halfyearly, or at any shorter or more distant periods, shall be entitled, and is hereby authorised, on making such payment, to deduct and retain thereout the amount of the rate of duty which at the time when such payment becomes due, shall be payable under the Act."

The duties granted by this latter Act are by sec. 5, directed to be assessed, raised, levied, and collected under the rules, regulations, and provisions of the former Acts, so far as the same are not superseded by, or inconsistent with, the express provisions of the latter Act.

ON the sale of an estate, the purchase was to have been completed, as from Christmas, 1852, on the 1st of March, 1853, but was not, in fact, completed until the 15th of May, 1854, The following cases, under the Act of 5 & 6 and it was upon the interest on the purchase- Vict. were cited: Duval v. Mount, 35 L. O. money, from Christmas, 1852, to the 15th of 260; Holroyd v. Wyatt, 1 De Gex & S. 125; May, 1854, that the purchaser claimed a de-Dinning v. Henderson, 3 ib. 702; Dawson v. duction for income tax. Dawson, 11 Jur. 984; Humble v. Humble, 12