Abbildungen der Seite


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



Attorneys to be Admitted.--Attorneys' Benevolent Institution.

205 Omitted in last. List. Handsley, Robert, Burnley.

R. Artindale, Burnley 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, 1863. Alder, William, Herbert Street, Hoxton; and Andover

H. Footner, Andover Atchison, John Simons, Walthamstow

· F. M. Selwyn, Temple; E. Clowes, Temple Barber, George Henley, 64, Gloucester Terr.; and Gray's Inn Square

H. Mason, Basinghall Street Beynon, Thomas, Carmarthen

R. Rees, Carmarthen ; S. B. Edwards, Car

marthen Burdekin, Benjamin, jun., 8, Store Street, Bedford Square

A. Smith, Sheffield Chambers, Robert Phillips, 7, Clement's Inn,

South Square ; and Swinton Street E. Mullins, and R. Paddison, Tokenhouse Yd. Clegg, Alfred, B, A., Manchester

W. B. Parker, Tan-yr-Alt, Llandulas; I. Hall,

Manchester Coode, Frederick, 20, Chadwell Street, Myddleton Square

G. G. White, Launceston Cowburn, William Brett, Sydenham W. Cowburn, and M. Tatham, Lincoln's Inn

Fields Griffith, William, Much Wenlock

A. Phillips, Shiffnal Grimmer, William Henry, 129, Tachbrook

Street, Pimlico; Holloway; and Bradford . M. Foster, Bradford ; J. Swithinbank, Leeds Haines, William Tertius, 14, Manchester

Buildings, Westminster; and Harbone W. Haines, and F.J. Welch, jun., Birmingham
Julius, Edric Adolphus, 12, Warwick Court,
Gray's Inn ; and Camden Town

J. Marsden, Wakefield
King, Robert, 10, Frederick Place, Mile End

. L. Hicks, Gray's Inn Square Mayers, H. Stewart, Warwick

T. Nicks, Warwick
Newsham, H., jun., 59, Albany Street,
Regent's Park; and Manchester

T. P. Cunliffe, Manchester
Palmer, Gillies Charles, Grantham

W. Ostler, Grantham Parker, Thomas, jun., 37, Baker Street, Port- T. Parker, Lincoln's Inn Fields; T. Burgoyne, man Square; and St. John's Wood

Oxford Street Pattison, H. John, 74, Oxford Street

H. B. Wedlake, Temple
Paull, Henry, Guildford

F. A. Trenchard, Taunton
Perkins, Frederick, 16, Regent's Square; and

R. Perkins, York
Smith, Joseph, 25A, Dalby Terrace, Islington;
Alfred Street; and Cockermouth

J. Steel, Cockermouth
Smith, William, Cambridge Street; Hurst Gr.;

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

J. Earnshaw, Kingston-upon-Hull
Tucker, Edward, 2, Glengall Terrace, Peck-
ham; and Bath

W. C. Gill, Bath Voules, Henry Edmund, 12, Alfred Place, A. J. Lane, Surbiton; T. Clark, Doctors ' Brompton

Commons Walter, Alfred, Birmingham

G. Edmonds, Birmingham Whitgreave, Thomas John, Walsall

S. Wilkinson, jun., Walsall

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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

scribe to the annual fund, but also largely to

a permanent fund, either for investment, or for We are glad to hear that the proposition the erection of a college or otherise, as may be which we announced some weeks ago, for deemed expedient, establishing an institution for the benefit of Numerous suggestions have been received aged and infirm members of the Profession, on various parts of the general plan. Several has been most cordially supported by a large of its supporters are in favour of extending the proportion of the London Solicitors, who are institution to the country. Some recommend willing to contribute liberally towards effect-the postponement, at all events for the present, ing the objects in view, and many of them of the proposed ng, whilst others are


Notes of Week.-Superior Courts : Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley. strongly in favour of “a local habitation.” NOTES OF THE WEEK. All appear to be agreed in the general necessity of an establishment for the relief of de- INCREASED SALARIES OF THE COUNTY

COURT JUDGES. serving, but unfortunate, Attorneys and Solicitors, and the sentiment is very generally ex- Judges will in future receive a salary of 1,500l.

Ir appears that 15 of the 60 County Court pressed that it is the duty of their branch of each, instead of 1,2001. The Judges of the the Profession to commence the good work Metropolitan County Courts have been see without delay; and that its success will reflect lected, we understand, for this increase of emocredit on the general body.

lument, with others whose labours are sup

posed to be greater than the remaining 45 Many influential names have been received Judges. Some dissatisfaction, it may be exwhich will probably be added to the Prori- pected, will be felt at the selection, and some sional Committee already announced; and we

additional grants may perhaps hereafter be

made. understand that an early meeting will be con

VACANCY IN THE RECORD OFFICE. vened to consider the several suggestions which

The decease of Mr. Berry has occasioned a have been made, and to settle the details of the vacancy to be filled up by the Master of the plan.

Rolls. The salary is 1,2001. a year.



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

Hanson for the Crown. 1854.

The Master of the Rolls said, that although PURCHASE OF SETTLED LANDS UNDER BU- the Lands' Clauses' Consolidation Act extend

ed to the tenant in tail, it did not bind the Certain lands settled with an ultimate rever. Crown, and that the order must therefore be sion in the Crown, were taken under the made without prejudice to the rights of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, with which the 8 & 9 Crown. Vict. c. 18, is incorporated. On petition for interim investment, held that the order must be made without prejudice to the rights

Wice-Chancellor Kinderslep. of the Crown, who was not affected by s. Martin v. Forster. Dec. 15, 1854. 7 of the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, although the section authorised a sale by a tenant in tail MARRIAGE OF WARD OP COURT WITHOUT disabled by Statute from barring the entail.

LEAVE._SETTLEMENT. This was a petition for the interim invest- A ward of Court, entitled to 2,5191. odd, had ment of the purchase-money of certain lands

married with the consent of her mother and which had been taken under the 16 & 17 Vict. the trustees of her father's will, but withc. 134, for a burying ground. It appeared

out the leade of the Court being obtained, that the lands were settled with an ultimate and it was proposed to settle 1,0001. only. reversion in the Crown under an Act passed On petition, upon her becoming of age, the in the 2 & 3 Phil. & M., and which provided sum of 2,5001. was directed to be settled, that no feoffment, fine, or recovery should bind and the remainder to be paid to the kuzthe Crown or the heir in tail.

band. 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 resi. all 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 Speed in support. to sell and convey or release as aforesaid may The Vice-Chancellor, after an interview with lawfully be exercised by all such parties," &c., the petitioner, said, that although the parties

not only on behalf of themselves and their had not so intended, they had committed a respective heirs, executors, administrators, and contempt of Court. The husband had coasuccessors, but also for and on behalf of every tributed nothing and there was no reason why person entitled in reversion, remainder, or ex. he should have the large sum proposed. There pectancy after them.”

would be a sum of 2,500l. settled, with proper

of money




Superior Courts : Vice-Chancellor Wood.

207 provision for the children of a second marriage By the 102nd section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. of the petitioner, and the remainder be paid to 35, it is enacted, that, "upon all yearly interest the husband.

or other annual payments either as

“a charge on any property of the person paying Vice-Chancellor Mood.

the same by virtue of any deed, will, or other

wise, or as a reservation thereout, or as a perHilman v. Westwood. Nov. 14, 1854. sonal debt or obligation by virtue of any con, CONSTRUCTION OF

To tract or whether the same shall be received APPOINT NEW TRUSTEES.

and payable half-yearly, or at any shorter or Upon a special case under the 12 f. 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

for every 20s. of the annual amount thereof appointing new trustees contained in a will, held that a trustee who had been ap. payable out of gains and

profits charged by

Sched. D.; “and where such interest shall be point as if originally appointed in the wilt. the Act, the party liable to such annual pay

ment 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 By the 2nd sec. of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34, whether Mr. Westwood had power to appoint Schedule D., the duty granted by that Act is two new trustees.

directed to be charged “ for and in respect of Chandless, Wilcox, and Surrage for the se- all interest of moneys, annuities, and other veral parties.

annual profits and gains not charged by virtue The Master of the Rolls said, that in ac- of any of the other Schedules contained in the cordance with the case of Meineitzhagen v. Act, and to be charged for every 20s. of the Davis, 1 Coll. 435, the surviving trustee was annual amount thereof.". And, by sec. 40 of entitled to appoint such two new trustees. that Act, it is enacted, “ that every person who

shall be liable to the payment of any rent, or (Sitting in Chambers.)

any yearly interest of money, or any annuity, Bunny. Dec. 22, 1854.

or other annual payment, either as a charge RIGHT OF PURCHASER TO DEDUCT INCOME obligation, by virtue of any contract, whether

upon any property, or as a personal debt or TAX ON INTEREST ON PURCHASE-MONEY.

the same shall be received or payable halfA purchaser is entitled to deduct the income yearly, or at any shorter or more distant pe

tar on interest on his purchase-money paid riods, shall be entitled, and is hereby authoto the plaintiff as vendor.

rised, on making such payment, to deduct and The interest reserved at a given rate per retain thereout the amount of the rate of duty

annum, though accruing de die in diem, is which at the time when such payment bewithin the 40th section of the 16 & 17 Vict. comes due, shall be payable under the Act.”, C.34 , and there is no distinction between The duties granted by this latter Act are by interest on mortgage-money and interest on sec. 5, directed to be assessed, raised, levied, purchase-money.

and collected under the rules, regulations, and On the sale of an estate, the purchase was provisions of the former Acts, so far as the to bave been completed, as from Christmas, same are not superseded by, or inconsistent 1852, on the 1st of March, 1853, but was not, with, the express provisions of the latter Act. 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 y. 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

Bebb v.


Superior Courts: W. C. Woodiliceen's Bench. Beav. 43; and Flight v. Camac, Weekly Re- any distinction between interest on mortgage portor; 1854, p. 437 (Vice-Chancellor "Kin- money and interest on purchase moneys. The dersley) under the Act of 16 & 17 Vict. case has been very well argued, and it was

Vice-Chancellor Wood-The question in this more particularly in reference to the point case- depends upon sec. 40 of the 16 & 17 made on the part of the vendor, as regards Victi ci 34 & sec. 2, Schedule D., the lan- Schedule D., that I referred to the authorities guage of which sections, from their vagueness, of the Inland Revenue Office, who say that creates some difficultym-with the view to re- that schedule was framed more particularly in solve my own doubts I have, in addition to the reference to the case of public bodies, such assistance to be derived from the cases cited, as parochial boards, who have no income out endeavoured to ascertain what has been the of which interest is payable and are not aspractice of the authorities at the Inland Re- sessed to the duty, and having to pay interest venue Office. It appears never to have been on bonds or the like, not, therefore, parties endoubted, that under sec. 40 the tax upon in titled to deduct the tax under section 40, so terest on mortgages should be deducted; and that the tax becomes payable by the receiver of that in practice, the mortgagor in all cases de- the interest under Schedule D. I consider the duets the tax, and I have been told by the Act very singularly worded, yearly interest being authority above referred to, that prosecutions used apparently in the same sense as annual have been instituted against mortgagees to re- payments; but I am clearly of opinion that it cover the penalty for refusing to allow such means at least all interest at a yearly rate, and deduction, and that such penalty has been which may have to be paid de anno in annum, paid' without proceeding to trial. Now a such as, in fact, is interest on purchase money, mortgage deed rarely (if ever) reserves a yearly as well as mortgage interest, and that, there interest. Most' mortgage deeds contain only a fore, the purchaser is entitled to deduct the cavenant to pay the principal with interest at tax in this case. In fact, if this interest be a certain rate per annum, on a day certain ; not subject to such deduction, I do not well after that it accrues de die in diem, and the in- see how it can be charged with the tax at all. terest, without any particular reservation, ordinarily is received half-yearly from year to year. It is difficult to see the distinction between in.

Court of Queen's Bench. terest so reserved and paid, and that which by Alcenius y. Nigren. Nov. 14, 1854. special agreement accrues on purchase money, Action BY ALIEN ENEMY.PLEA NOT NEwhich also goes on from day to day, and may

UNDER ALIEN run on for a year or stop at any time on payment of the purchase money, and which, in some shape or other, forms a lien on the pro

To an action for work done before the car perty. There are two classes of cases which with Russia, the defendant pleaded that the have occurred in practice bearing on the

plaintiff was an alien born in Russia, and question-1st. In the Masters' Offices I find was now an enemy of our Sovereign Lady that the tax has always been deducted in all the Queen, and was residing in the kingcases of debts bearing interest, including even

dom without the licence, safe conduct, or bills of exchange. Lord Justice Knight Bruce

permission of our Lady the Queen. On (in Dinning v. Henderson) having found that

demurrer, held it was not necessary in the practice to be settled in respect of interest on

plea to negative the fact of the plaintiff's bills of exchange, declined to disturb it, and

having obtained a certificate frow the Se allowed the deduction, although doubting the

cretary of State under the 78.8 Vict. c. principle. 2nd. In payment of purchase

66, and that the action must abate during money into Court, the deduction has not been

the war. allowed, and for the

very obvious reason stated This was a demurrer to the plea on this by Lord Langdale in Duval v. Mount, that action, which was brought by a Russian subpayment into Court is not payment to the ject to recover for work done before the breakparty entitled to deduct the tax (who must ing out of war with that country, alleging that apply for the deduction when the money is the plaintiff was an alien born in Russia, and paid out of Court), and of course the Court was now an enemy of our Sovereign Lady the cannot be subject to the penalty mentioned in Queen, and was residing in this kingdom sec. 40 for not allowing the deduction. In that without the licence, safe conduct, or permiscase, Lord Langdale expressly gave leave to sion of our Lady the Queen. apply when the money should be paid out, Unthank in support of the demurrer, on the though it does not appear whether the pur- ground that it did not negative the faet of the chaser availed himself of such liberty. plaintiff's having obtained a certificate from

The whole difficulty is in the expression the Secretary of State under the 7 & 8 Vict. “ yearly” interest of money, but I think it c. 66. susceptible of this view, that it is interest re- The Court said, that the allegation of the served at a given rate per cent. per annum, or plaintiff being here without the permission of at least in the construction of the Act, I must the Queen negatived: any permissioa of the hold that any interest which may be payable Secretary of State to reside here, and that the de anno in annum, though accruing de die in plaintiff could not recover pending the war, diem is within the 40th section. I cannot make and the demurrer must be allowed.



The Legal Observer,



"Still attorneyed at your service."--Shakespeare.


INNS OF CHANCERY. hend the Inns of Chancery, the income of

which seems to be vested as clearly in the

Ancients of those societies, as the income of REVENUE IN TRUST FOR ATTORNEYS.

the Inns of Court in the Benchers; but, Some months ago, we were induced to in both instances, in trust for the benefit of request the attention of our readers to the their respective members, being students or subjects which would probably come under practitioners in the law ? the consideration of her Majesty's Commis- W eunderstand, indeed, that the Ancients, sioners appointed “to inquire into the ar- or principal officers of the Inns of Chancery, rangements of the Inns of Court and Inns have been called before the Commissioners of Chancery for promoting the study of the and asked about their “rents and comings Law and Jurisprudence and securing a sound in,” and whether there is any surplus after legal education.” It is remarkable that paying the expenses of the management of this inquiry extends as well to the Inns of the property and the repairs or renewal of Chancery as the Inns of Court, although in buildings, most of which are 200 years old those minor societies there is no power or or more? There being no surplus, the privilege analogous to the other, as there Commissioners, of course, can have nothing used to be in former times.

practically to deal with at the present time, We do not distinctly understand the prin- though possibly they may express an ciple on which an inquiry was directed into opinion in regard to the future manageboth classes of these ancient and honour- ment of the property. However, supposing able societies," unless the contemplated im- there were now, or should hereafter be, a provement was to be extended to both. The surplus, on what ground could any part of Commission was the result of a resolution it be applied for the education of students of the House of Commons (speaking in ge for the Bar, or to advance the interests of neral terms) for the improvement of legal that branch of the Profession? education.” If by this was intended the The Attorneys and Solicitors have been education of the Bar only, why should the from time to time gradually excluded from inquiry have gone beyond the Inns of Court, the Inns of Court. Formerly students at where alone the students for the Bar con law kept part of their Terms at the Inns of gregate, where they dine (in order that Chancery in their progress to the Bar, and their social character and gentlemanly man- Attorneys might be called to the Bar withners may be ascertained), and where, without ceasing to practice, as now required, for in the last few years, they are required to several years. These rights or privileges attend divers courses of learned lectures, ceased long ago; and the members of the and where (if they please) they may be Inns of Chancery, whether Ancients or examined before they take the degree of Juniors, are almost universally Attorneys or Barrister-at-Law.

Solicitors. The two branches of the ProUnless the further improvement of Stu- fession have, for many years, ceased to asdents, or Articled Clerks, of the other sociate in the Halls which were formerly branch of the Profession be contemplated, common to both of them. There are still, why should the Royal Inquisition compre- however, some of the second branch of the

VOL. XLIX. No. 1,402.


« ZurückWeiter »