Recent Statutes.

of being elected, or of sitting as a member of the House of Commons; and that no justice, receiver, Thames police surveyor, or police constable appointed by virtue of this act shall, during the time that he shall continue in his office respectively, or within six months after [Continued from page 283.] he shall have quitted the same, be capable of Receiver may sue for Money in the Hands of giving his vote for the election of a member to deceased Receivers, and recover from Ex-serve in Parliament for the counties of Middle

on Juries in Middlesex or Surrey, or in the | ravan, waggon, or other place, shall forfeit and City of London. 6 G. 4. c. 50. pay any sum not exceeding five pounds; and XXI. And be it further enacted, that the every person so convicted as having been justices of the said Public Office in Bow therein, and not having quitted the same forthStreet, and the justices appointed to attend at with upon being bidden by a constable or other the said police offices, shall be and are hereby peace officer so to do, shall forfeit and pay absolutely freed and exempted from being re- any sum not exceeding forty shillings; and if turned and from serving on any juries or in- any party so convicted shall not immediately quests whatsoever in the said counties of Mid-pay the penalty, the justice shall commit him dlesex or Surrey, or in the city of London, or her to hard labour in the house of correcand shall not be inserted in any lists of mention for any space of time not exceeding three qualified and liable to serve as jurors, which months, unless the penalty shall be sooner shall be prepared and made out under and by virtue of an act passed in the sixth year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled "An Act for consolidating and amending the Law relative to Juries; any thing in any act contained notwithstanding.

For the Regulation of Fairs within Fifteen Miles of Temple Bar. Penalty on keeping open Houses, &c. within the Hours prohibited, 51. for the Master, and on any Person refusing to quit, 40s. Fairs held without lawful Authority within Ten Miles of Temple Bar may be inquired into. If declared unlawful, Booths, &c. to be removed. Penally not exceeding 101. On entering into Recognizance, Question as to Right of Title to Fair may be tried in the King's Bench.

paid; and if there shall appear to any two justices, within their respective jurisdictions, reason to believe that any fair usually held within the distance of ten miles of Temple Bar has been held without charter, prescription, or other lawful authority, or that any fair lawfully held within the said distance has been usually held for a longer period than is warranted by charter, prescription, or other lawful authority, it shall be competent to them to summon the owner or occupier of the ground upon which such fair is usually held to appear before such justices as may be present at some petty sessions, to be held at the time and place to be specified in the summons, not less than eight days after the service of the summons, to show his right and title to hold such fair, or to hold such fair beyond a given period (as the case may be); and if such owner or occupier shall not attend in pursuance of such summons, XXII. "And whereas divers fairs are held or shall not show to the justices present at within the city and vicinity of London by such petty sessions sufficient cause to believe charter or prescription, and other fairs without that such fair has been held by lawful right and any lawful authority, which lead to scenes of title for the whole period during which the riot, disorder, debauchery, and crime, and it same has been usually held, such justices shall is expedient to regulate such fairs as are le- declare, in writing, such fair to be unlawful, gally held, and to suppress such as have no either altogether or beyond a stated period (as lawful origin;" be it therefore enacted, that the case may be), and shall give notice of such at all fairs held within fifteen miles of Temple their declaration, by affixing copies thereof on Bar, all business and amusements of all kinds the parish church, and on the most public shall cease at the hour of eleven in the evening, places in and near the ground where such fair and not recommence earlier than the hour of has been usually held; and if after such ncsix in the morning; and that if any house, tices shall have been affixed for the space of shop, room, booth, standing, tent, caravan, six days any attempt shall be made to hold waggon, or other place shall, during the con- such fair, if it shall be declared altogether untinuance of any such fair as aforesaid, be open lawful, or to hold it beyond the prescribed pewithin the hours hereinbefore prohibited, for riod, if it shall be declared unlawful beyond a any purpose of business or amusement in the certain period, any justice of the peace within place where such fair shall be held, or within his jurisdiction may, by his warrant, direct any three hundred yards thereof, then it shall be constable or other peace officer to remove lawful for any constable or other peace officer every booth, standing, and tent, and every carwithin his jurisdiction, to take into custody riage, of whatsoever kind, conveyed to or the master or mistress, or other person having being upon such ground for the purpose of the care, government, or management of any holding or continuing such fair, and to take such house, shop, room, booth, standing, tent, into custody every person erecting, pitching, caravan, waggon, or other place, and also every or fixing, or assisting to erect, pitch, or fix, person being therein, and who shall not quit any such booth, standing, or tent, and every the same forthwith upon being bidden by any person driving, accompanying, or conveyed in such constable or other peace officer so to do, every such carriage, and every person resorting and to convey every such person so taken, as to such ground with any exhibitions, shows, soon as conveniently may be, before a justice swings, roundabouts, whirligigs, or other inof the peace, who shall proceed to hear the struments of gambling or amusement, and to complaint in a summary way; and every per- carry every person so taken before the justice son convicted before any such justice, as the granting such warrant, or before some other master, mistress, or person having the care, justice, who shall proceed to hear the comgovernment, or management of any such plaint in a summary way; and every person house, shop, room, booth, standing, tent, ca-convicted before any such justice of any of the

298

Recent Statutes.-Provision for Intestates' Younger Children.

offences last aforesaid shall forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding ten pounds; and if the party so convicted shall not immediately pay the penalty, the justice shall commit him or her to hard labour in the house of correction for any space of time not exceeding three months, unless the penalty shall be sooner paid: Provided nevertheless, that if the owner or occupier of the ground whereon any such fair has been usually held shall, when summoned before the justices at their petty sessions as aforesaid, enter into a recognizance in the penal sum of two hundred pounds (which recognizance such justices are hereby authorized to take), with condition to appear in the Court of King's Bench on the first day of the then next term, and to answer to any information in the nature of a quo warranto which his Majesty's Attorney or Solicitor General may exhibit against such owner or occupier, touching the right and title to such fair, and to abide the judgment of the Court thereon, and to pay such costs as may be awarded by the Court, which costs the said Court is hereby authorized to award, then, notwithstanding the justices shall declare such fair to be unlawful, they shall forbear from giving notice of such their declaration, and from taking any further measures thereon, until judgment shall be given by the said Court against the right and title to such fair; and the justices taking such recognizance shall forthwith transmit the same to one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to the end that the same may be filed in the said Court, and such further directions may be given thereon as to such Secretary of State may seem fit and necessary.

Regulations as to Coffee Shops. Penalty not exceeding 107. Application of Penalty.

Proviso.

XXIII. "And whereas there are many shops, rooms, and places of public resort, where thieves, prostitutes, and other disorderly persons assemble at night;" be it further enacted, that no shop, room, or place of public resort where ready-made coffee, tea, or other liquors are sold or consumed within the city of London or the liberties thereof, or within the limits of the weekly bills of mortality, or within any of the parishes hereinbefore mentioned, shall be kept open after the hour of eleven at night during any part of the year, nor open before the hour of four in the morning between Lady Day and Michaelmas, or before five in the morning between Michaelmas and Lady Day; and that no shop, room, or place of public resort where any refreshments or any liquors not subject to any duties of customs or excise are consumed within the city of London and the liberties thereof, or within the said limits and parishes, shall be kept open after the hour of one in the morning or before the hour of five in the morning; and if any such shop, room, or place shall be open within the hours hereinbefore respectively prohibited, or being shut

up, if any person shall during those hours respectively be found therein, except the person actually dwelling there, or having lawful excuse for being there, or if gaming shall be at any time permitted or suffered therein, then the master, mistress, waiter, or other person having the care, government, or management of such shop, room, or place, whether he or she be the real owner or keeper thereof or not, shall forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding ten pounds upon conviction of any such offence before any justice of the peace, by confession or upon the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses; and if the party so convicted shall not immediately pay the said penalty, the justice shall commit him or her to hard labour in the house of correction for any space of time not exceeding three months unless the said penalty shall be sooner paid; and the said penalty, when paid, shall be distributed, one moiety to the informer, and the other moiety to the chamberlain of the city of London, if the offence be committed in the said city, and if out of the said city, then to the said receiver for the purposes of this act: Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall apply to or affect any house duly licensed for the sale of wines and spirituous liquors; and that no such conviction shall exempt the owner, keeper, or manager of any such shop, room, or place from any penalty or penal consequence whereto he or she may be liable for keeping a disorderly house.

[To be concluded in our next.]

PROVISION OUT OF REAL ESTATE
FOR INTESTATES' YOUNGER CHIL-
DREN.

THE right of inheritance incident to primogeniture amongst males, is one which, in the present state of society, ought to undergo considerable modification. Most persons agree that its abolition would be impolitic, by causing a subdivision of estates injuriously minute. But is it therefore necessary that the rule should undergo no modification? The prac tice of abridging (by charging with portions) the first-born son's common law right of inhe ritance, where he has brothers and sisters, who in justice ought to participate with him, clearly indicates that mankind are desirous to prevent the common law rule taking effect; and that practice likewise points out the sort of modification by which the utility of primogeniture would be unimpaired, but yet greatly divested of its inhuman effects upon younger branches of families.

The modification then which I would suggest, is, that an act should be passed, giving to younger brothers or sisters, whether of the whole or half blood, or their lineal descendants, one half of the real estate descended (by the intestacy of their common parent) to the eldest son; such half, to avoid splitting the estate, to be paid in money within three months from the death of the intestate. Or in

Superior Courts: Equity Exchequer.

case there were but two sons, or a son and a daughter, a preference might be given to the heir, by allowing him two-thirds.

299

sudden death? And can it be proved that it is better, in such cases, that one son should take the whole real estate, rather than he should be obliged to divide the value of one-half amongst his brothers and sisters?

Every body, I should think, will admit that there is a moral obligation upon a parent to provide for the maintenance of his offspring; In conclusion, I would mention a circumand it may be supposed that the public would stance which occurred during my own expedeem it a very virtuous proceeding on the part rience. A father and two sons lived together, of the legislature, if, as nearly as may be, it and the eldest knew that the parent had by secured the fulfilment of that obligation. A his will divided his real estate (to purchase parent might still manifest his displeasure at which he had expended all his money) equally the conduct of an undutiful child, by disinhe- between them. The father having died sudriting him; but intestates may be presumed denly, the eldest son clandestinely obtained not to have intended any such punishment. possession of the will, and destroyed it; knowMany, from a superstitious dread of the so-ing that he should thereby inherit the whole lemnity, defer making their wills until death cannot, in the course of things, be far distant; and it often arrives before the will is made. Others, particularly when young and in the enjoyment of health, are fallaciously inclined to suppose "all men mortal but themselves," and consequently never think of making a will; but being suddenly cut off, leave the younger part of the family chiefly dependent on the bounty of their eldest brother. Unfeeling indeed must he be who would not sympathise with a family so situated!

A provision like that suggested (by diminishing the inducement) would probably prevent such a circumstance ever again happening.

SUPERIOR COURTS.

Court of Equity Exchequer.

EXCEPTIONS.-IMPERTINENCE.

T. P.

Interrogatories in a bill inquiring into par ticular circumstances of the defendant's state and property not material to the main questions in the cause, are ordered to be struck out as impertinent.

Money paid into Court to secure the alleged claim of the defendant, is ordered to be paid out, after a decree declaring the contract on which the claim was founded, to be void for fraud, although an appeal from that decree is lodged, and the suit in the Court below is not finally disposed of.

Two important judgments in this suit have been already reported. A third, equally important to the parties and the profession, was delivered on the last day of the Lord Chief Baron's sittings before the vacation.

It is undoubtedly necessary rigidly to enforce the ceremonies prescribed by the 5th section of the Statute of Frauds, as to the execution of wills; but who can deny that very harsh consequences are frequently thereby induced? One testator clearly expressed an intention to provide for his family, but from ignorance of the law, executed his will in the presence of two instead of three witnesses. Another is in extremis, and is thus prevented from carrying his expressed intention into effect; as in Right v. Price, Doug. 241. The will was prepared and written on five sheets of paper, and a seal affixed to the last, and also the form of attestation written on it. The will was read over to the testator in the presence of witnesses, who afterwards subscribed; and the testator set his mark to the first two sheets in their presence, and attempted to set it to His Lordship said, This case comes before me the third; but being unable, from the weakupon exceptions to the Master's report, and ness of his hand, he said, "I cannot do it, but also upon a motion, which had for its object it is my will." The witnesses then went away, the transfer of a certain stock, and the paybut were desired to come again. The testator ment of money out of Court. A supplemental died without setting his hand to the last three bill was filed by the plaintiffs, stating the prosheets, and it was therefore adjudged that the ceedings that were had in the former suit and will was not duly executed. Surely it would the decree therein, by which the contracts, be a consolation to the Judge, whose duty re- which were the subject of that suit, were dequired him to pronounce such cases intestacies clared to be void. The bill further stated, (whereby the younger branches of a family among other things, that a sum of 200,0007., may be left at the mercy of an eldest son), to being part of the payments made to the deknow that the legislature had in some degree fendant under the said contract, was laid out provided for such events, and that the disap-in the purchase of 192,766. three and a half pointed and innocent offspring would not be per cent. stock; that such stock was purchasleft entirely without resources of their own. ed with the identical bank notes paid by the It may be said by some, that every body is plaintiffs to defendant, and was transferred, aware of the consequence of his dying intes-without consideration, to Mrs. Phoebe Atttate, and that it may therefore be inferred, that wood, the defendant's mother; and it prayed he who dies without a will was content that the for a declaration of the Court that the stock so common law should take its course. Of such purchased with bank notes clearly traced and I would ask, Can it be denied that almost every case of intestacy (where real estate is possessed) occurs by unexpected illness or

a See 5 L. O. 47, 271.

300

Superior Courts: Equity Exchequer.

purchase of the stock. I was equally well satisfied when I granted that injunction, that Mrs. Phœbe Attwood was a trustee for the defendant, and the stock was transferred to her merely to shelter and protect him. Upon these grounds I granted and continued the in

of that stock. Upon these grounds, therefore, I am of opinion that these interrogatories ought to be struck out.

identified as being those notes which were paid inquiries sought by the interrogatories might by the plaintiffs to defendant, under contracts be most injurious, and ought not to be perwhich were declared void, might be considered mitted, unless relevant and necessary. These as belonging to the plaintiffs, and held in trust inquiries were not stated in the bill itself to be for them by the said Mrs. Phoebe Attwood. material, or connected with the object of the The supplemental bill had further for its ob- | suit; but were introduced in the argument at ject, to obtain a declaration as to the remain- the bar, and are evidently an after-thought. der of the money paid to the defendant under Nor do I think them material to the interim those contracts; and after a great variety of injunction, which I granted upon the sole interrogatories on points touching upon that ground that I was satisfied with the evidence part of the case, it prayed for a writ of ne that the identity of the notes was clearly estaexeat regno against the defendant. The ques-blished, and that they had been laid out in the tion which is now before me, arose upon exceptions as to the materiality and relevancy of those interrogatories, and of the allegations and charges to which they referred. Those allegations and charges were to the effect that, with the exception of 100,000/-the value of the iron works, the subject of the contracts,-junction, restraining the transfer or selling out and of the monies paid under those contracts, the defendant had no other property, but was so incumbered with debt as to be in a state of insolvency. The interrogatories in the bill called upon the defendant to answer whether he is in a solvent state? what his property consists of? from whom purchased, or otherwise obtained, and for what consideration? And what was its value at the time the bill was filed? He was further interrogated as to the amount of his debts; to whom they were due; when and for what consideration, &c.? Now this is a most extensive inquiry, and of great importance to the defendant's interests; and the questions raised by his exceptions to the Master's report, to whom the matter was referred, was, whether the inquires were relevant, and whether the answers to such interrogatories were material to the scope and object of the bill, and ought or ought not to be struck out as impertinent. The first object of the bill was to obtain a declaration as to the 192,7667. stock. The grounds upon which the plaintiffs entitle themselves to that stock were, that it was purchased with the very identical notes handed over by them or their agent to the defendant or his agent; that the contracts upon which the notes were so paid over were declared void for fraud; that the notes were therefore improperly and fraudulently obtained, and the stock, the produce of them, still belonged to the plaintiffs, no property in it, or in the bank notes with which it was purchased, having passed to the defendant. With all the attention that I have been able to give this part of the subject—and I have carefully attended to it-I cannot see how an inquiry into the general state of the defendant's property and circumstances-his debts and credits at the time of the bill filed-can be rele-clared void, there would be an end of the vant to this question :-Whether the notes with which the stock was purchased were the notes delivered to the defendant or not. Neither do I think that such an inquiry is material to the discovery sought, as to the remainder of the purchase money paid to the defendant, nor as to the question whether Mrs. Phoebe Attwood is to be considered as a trustee for the plaintiffs, which is a third object of the supplemental bill. The consequences of such

I now come to the motion that was made in this matter, which is very important, the object of it being to obtain an order for payment to the plaintiffs of a sum of 49,000l., 3 per cent. stock, standing in the name of the accountant general, together with certain dividends arising thereupon, amounting altogether to something more than 50,000. The circumstances under which that fund arose were these: an application was made to Chief Baron Alexander for an injunction to stay proceedings in an action at law, brought by the present defendant against the plaintiff, to recover 8125/. one of the instalments due to him under the contracts. The injunction was granted upon this condition-that the money should be paid into the Court to the credit of the cause, and that a similar sum should be paid half yearly to the Accountant General till the hearing of the cause. The sums were accordingly paid, and the aggregate of them, with interest, make up the sun mentioned. The question now is, whether in this stage of the proceedings, I shall order these sums to be repaid to the plaintiffs. Upon the hearing of the cause, I decided that the contract was altogether void; of this decision the solidity is not called in question here at present. I must, therefore, assume it as the basis of my decision with reference to this motion. These sums were paid into Court, on a contract declared to have been invalid. If the cause had come on for hearing immediately after the injunction, a great part of this money would never have been paid into Court, nor would it have been placed under the controul of Mr. Attwood, as the moment the contract was de

payments: unless, therefore, there is some thing to render it necessary to retain those sums in Court to protect the interests of Mr. Attwood, as they were paid into Court on a contract declared to be void, they ought to be paid out of Court to the plaintiffs. Was it then necessary to keep this money in Court to secure Mr. Attwood with reference to the settlement of the accounts, and the ultimate winding up of the suit?. It appeared from