J Selections from Correspondence.-List of Public General Statutes. person to whom I am articled, having separated from the old firm, has commenced practice here, at a distance of seven or eight miles from the office to which I had, as I thought, attached myself. I intimated that the circumstance would prove a great disappointment to me, for it was one calculated materially to affect the office, and thereby to affect my position, and requested to have an assignment with the premium to another office, where I might obtain those opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of the profession which I thought I had secured. To the reasonableness of this proposition the senior partner-a gentlemen of highly correct mind and feeling-immediately assented; but the one to whom I am articled demurred to the suggestion, and said, "My obligation is to find you employment suitable for an articled clerk to have; and I doubt not, as soon as I shall have got fairly settled down in my new office, I shall be able to do that. At all events, I shall not assign you until I see how my new office will turn out." Here, therefore, am I, deprived of the experience to be acquired in an office of established connexion and respectability, and confined in an as yet obscure concern, where by great luck a third, or at the utmost a moiety, of the professional business may be expected to arise which would have occurred in the old office, conducted under the united influence and exertions of the two partners. I see in your number of the Legal Observer for the first week in July, some suggestions in regard to words proper to be introduced into articles of clerkship. I beg to add to the hints there thrown out, that henceforth it will be a just precaution to have a clause, that in the event of any occurrence such as has befallen me, an assignment should be made to another office, with a repayment of premium proportionate to the time elapsed. If you, or any of your correspondents, can point out to me a cheap and ready means of escape from the difficulty in which I am placed, shall be greatly obliged. J.M. LIST OF PUBLIC GENERAL STATUTES. 3 & 4 WILLIAM IV. [Continued from p. 250.] CAP. 23, An act to reduce the stamp duties on advertisements and on certain sea insurances; to repeal the stamp duties on pamphlets, and on receipts for sums under five pounds; and to exempt insurances on farming stock from stamp duties. [28th June, 1833.] Cap. 24, An act to amend an act of the tenth year of his late Majesty, for regulating the reduction of the national debt. [9th July, 1833.] Cap. 25, An act for raising the sum of fifteen millions seven hundred fifty-two thousand pounds by Exchequer bills, for the service 359 of the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three. [9th July, 1833.] Cap. 26, An act to repeal so much of an act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the thirty-fourth year of his Majesty King George the Third, as imposes fines on the masters of vessels lying in the river Liffey for having fires on board. [28th July, 1833.] Cap. 27, An act for the limitation of actions and suits relating to real property, and for simplifying the remedies for trying the rights thereto. [24th July, 1833.] Cap. 28, An act to repeal an act of the thirteenth year of his Majesty King George the First, for the better regulation of the woollen trade. [24th July, 1833.] Cap. 29, An act to make further provisions with respect to the payment of pensions granted for service in the royal artillery, engineers, and other military corps, under the controul of the Master General and Board of Ordnance, and with respect to deductions hereafter to be made from pensions granted by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital. [24th July, 1833.] Cap. 30, An act to exempt from poor and church rates, all churches, chapels, and other places of religious worship. [24th July, 1833:1 Cap. 31, An act to enable the election of officers of corporations and other public companies, now required to be held on the Lord's day, to be held on the Saturday next preceding, or on the Monday next ensuing. [24th July, 1833.] Cap. 32, An act to amend the several acts authorizing advances for carrying on public works. [24th July, 1833.] Cap. 33, An act to amend three acts passed for maintaining and keeping in repair the military and parliamentary roads and bridges in the Highlands of Scotland, and to improve certain lines of communication in the counties of Inverness and Ross. [24th July, 1833.] Cap. 34, An act to continue until the fifth day Cap. 35, An act to remedy certain defects as Cap. 37, An act to alter and amend the laws a The numerical order of this act is inconsistent with the date. Quare, 24 July?' Attorneys to be admitted.-Usages of the Profession. Clerks Names. Roberts, Philip, 18, Arundel Street, Strand. Roberts, Richard John, Whitehead's Grove, Roberts, William, Burnley, Lancaster. Rooke, Thomas James, 3, Raymond Buildings. Russell, Alfred, Woolwich, Kent. Smith, Henry Connor, Bishop's Waltham, Smith, William, 14, Chatham Place, Camber- Smith, William, 8, Brownlow Street, Bedford Smith, William Castle, No. 10, Kirby Street, Smith, John Shaw, Cumberland Terrace, Re- Speakman, John, Heaton Norris, co. Lancas ter. Spilsbury, George, Stafford. To whom articled. 361 William Hamwood Frampton, Gray's Inn Archibald Cameron, Worcester. Anthony Buck, same place. Hugh Robert Evans, Ely, co. Cambridge. Henry Parker, 3, Raymond Buildings. William Nokes, Rectory Place, Woolwich. ford. John Artheridge, Hambledon, Hants. John Hawkins, Hitchin, co Herts; assigned to Charles Henry Rhodes, Chancery Lane. William Tinmouth Dixon, New Boswell Court. James Rooker, Bideford, Devon. William Gillmore Bolton, Austin Friars. Roger Rowson Lingard, same place. Story, Anthony Browne, 58, Lincoln's Inn John Samuel Story, St. Alban's; assigned to [To be continued.] USAGES OF THE PROFESSION. PROCURATION FEE, OR COMMISSION. COSTS OF LEASES. We have already adverted to the usage reWe understand there is no doubt of the prac-garding the Costs of preparing Leases. See tice with respect to the procuration fee or commission of solicitors for raising money by way of annuity or mortgage. The solicitor may charge either the per-centage on the amount of the loan obtained, or his actual attendances and correspondence in effecting the loan; but he cannot charge both commission and attendances. This commission comprises all matters relating to the negotiation for the loan, but is exclusive of the charges for preparing abstracts, making searches to establish the title, settling the conveyance, and other professional business in completing the securities. pp. 216, 228, ante. The statement there made, was confined to cases in which no agreement existed as to the party liable to pay the expense. But a question frequently arises on the construction of an agreement containing a clause that "the expense of the lease and counterpart shall be borne equally between the lessor and lessee." Does such an agreement include the charges of the solicitor for the lessee for perusing and settling the lease, and attendances incident to the completion of the business? Are such agreements to be construed as including nothing but drawing the lease, and ingrossing the lease and counterpart, with such attendances as strictly belong to the execution of the deeds, and are made by the lessor's solicitor only? Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor's Court.-Exchequer. 362 SUPERIOR COURTS. Court of Chancery. PRACTICE-IMPERFECT DECREE. Exchequer of Pleas. NEW TRIAL-LACHES. In what cases the Court will allow an application to be made for a new trial, after the fourth day of term. It is the duty of the Judge to peruse the affiIn this case, an application was made to the davits read, upon an application to him for Court of King's Bench, on the fourth day of an order, and he is not to rely on the re-term, for a new trial, and a rule nisi granted. port of the Master. The minutes of the On the next day it was discovered that the decrees should contain a statement that the action had been brought in the Exchequer. Judge did peruse the affidavits before making the order. This was an application to discharge an order of the Vice Chancellor, for irregularity. The Attorney General and Mr. Anderdon, in support of the application, stated, that Capt. Peddie became entitled under the settlement of his wife's property, made previous to their marriage, to draw so much of the capital sum of 6,000 as would purchase a company, according to the regulation price, he being at the time a lieutenant. The company was purchased; and a sum, considerably exceeding the regulation price, was drawn. Upon discovering that, the next of kin of the children of the marriage caused a bill to be filed, for the purpose of compelling Captain Peddie to refund the difference between the regulation price, and the sum drawn out from the fund. It was discovered soon after, that the Captain was under orders to join his regiment in India; and a motion was made before the Vice Chancellor for a writ of ne exent regno. The Vice Chancellor referred it to the Master, to ascertain whether it would be for the benefit of the children that, the writ should issue. The Master, upon hearing the statement of the parties, and perusing the affidavits, reported in favour of the issuing of the writ; and the Vice Chancellor confirming that report, ordered the writ to be accordingly issued. The learned counsel submitted that the last proceeding was founded upon an imperfect order, and in violation of the forms and practice of the Court, as to such writs. Sir Edward Sugden, Mr. Knight, Mr. Wi. gram, and Mr. Sharpe appeared for Captain Peddie, and other parties to the suit; but they did not vary the facts stated on the other side. The The Lord Chancellor said he did not entertain any doubt upon the point; it was the bounden duty of the Judge, in making an order for a writ of ne exeat regno, indeed, in making any order, to peruse the affidavits himself, and not to rely on the report of the Master. reference to the Master as to the expediency. of resorting to this writ, under the circumstances, was quite right. The only question was, whether the affidavits were read by his Honour at the first hearing, or afterwards, on confirming the report. The minutes of the decree did not state that they were read. He therefore recommended to the parties to apply again to his Honour to rectify the minutes. Peddie v. Peddie. Sittings in Lincoln's Inn Hall, July 5, 1833. Kelly, who had made the application in the Court of King's Bench, now applied to this Court for a rule nisi for a new trial, on the same grounds as those urged in the Court of King's Bench. He contended, that although the time within which, by the rules of the Court, an application for a new trial ought to be made had elapsed, so far as this Court was concerned, yet as an application had really been made within the restricted time, the rule had been substantially complied with. Per Curiam. Under these particular circumstances, we think that you ought to be allowed to move. As the Court of King's Bench has granted a rule nisi, we think that a similar rule may stand as of this Court. Rule granted. Piggott v. Kemp, E. T. 1833. Exch. DISTRINGAS.-SERVICE OF WRIT. What should be sworn, in order to entitle a Plaintiff to enter an appearance for a Defendant. On application being made for leave to enter an appearance for the defendant, it appeared that a distringas had been obtained, and had been returned nulla bona. The affidavit stated that three attempts had been made to execute the distringas at the defendant's present or late place of abode. Lord Lyndhurst, C. B.-The affidavit is insufficient, in not stating that you have endeavoured to serve the defendant at his present place of abode. You do not negative a knowledge of any other place of abode, nor do you state that you can't find him. You ought to state the grounds for believing he cannot be found. This is an ex parte proceeding, and therefore the affidavit ought to be strictly accurate. Rule refused.-Scarborough v. Evans, E.T. Exch. 1833. PARTICULARS OF DEMAND. If a plaintiff proves a demand not stated in the particulars, but which does not mislead the defendant, the former is not liable to a nonsuit. This was an action to recover 21. 10s., the balance of a demand for goods sold and delivered. The particulars of demand stated the goods to have been delivered at varions times between the 1st of October, 1831, and Septem Superior Courts: Exchequer.-Bankruptcy Court of Review. 863 ber, 1832. There was no proof of any goods | affidavits in support thereof, it appeared that having been sold or delivered during that pe- George Hunter, the bankrupt, lately carrying riod, but there was proof of goods having on business as a wine merchant in Albemarle been sold and delivered in May and June, Street, Piccadilly, was in the year 1816 sent 1831. It was objected, that the plaintiff could by his father, for his education, to France, and not recover for those latter goods, inasmuch recommended to the attentions of Mr. Renanas they were not covered by the particulars. dot, the petitioner's deceased partner. The The defendant, however, called a witness to acquaintance then contracted, was renewed disprove the plaintiff's case, and the plaintiff about nine years after in Paris, at which time ultimately had a verdict. A rule nisi having a written agreement was entered into, constibeen obtained to set aside the verdict for the tuting the bankrupt sole agent in London for plaintiff, and to enter a nonsuit upon the ob- sale of the wines of the firm of Renandot and jection taken at the trial: Maldaut, at a commission of 101. per cent. upon the money received from such sale, with 507. a year for offices and cellars, and without guarantee for debts. The firm in France was also to pay the license of the bankrupt, and remit money to pay the duty on the wines consigned to him. By a subsequent agreeT.ment, the bankrupt was authorised to pur Per Curiam.-There were no other dealings proved than those in May and June, and therefore the particulars must be supposed to have referred to them, It is not pretended there was surprize: and if the defendant was not misled, there was no ground for a nonsuit. Rule discharged. Green v. Clark, E. Exch. 1833. BAIL AFFIDAVIT OF JUSTIFICATION. The form of the affidavit of justification prescribed by the rules of T. T. 1 W. 4, must be strictly pursued. chase other wines on behalf of the firm, for the purpose, as he represented to them, of extending the sale of the French wines; and the firm gave guarantees for the payment of such other wines to the London merchants of whom the bankrupt made the purchases. The accounts rendered to the French firm, from time to time by the bankrupt, bore, on the Addison in this case supported the bail. face of them, distinct evidence of the nature The affidavit of justification was sufficient, of the connection between them, as of principal because it stated that the bail was a house- and agent. Upon a proposition made by the keeper residing at, &c., and was possessed of bankrupt, in the year 1831, to petitioner and certain property, to wit, of, &c., over and his late partner, for a further extension of the above his just debts, and any other sum for business, and a larger allowance on the transwhich he was bail; and that his property actions, they declined it, and determined to consisted of stock in his trade of, &c. Taking close the business and wind up the concern. it altogether, the bail swearing that his pro- The petitioner accordingly came to this country perty consisted of stuck in his trade, it suffi- for that purpose in May 1832; but was called ciently appeared that he was worth that pro-back by the sudden death of his partner, perty, and that the possession was not merely colourable. Gurney, B.-The form must be adhered to: a great deal of time will otherwise be occupied in every case, in discussing whether what is said is equivalent to what ought to \have been said. Time was given to amend.— Okill's bail, E. T. 1833. Exch. Bankruptcy Court of Review. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.-REPUTED OWNER SHIP. without having completed the object of his coming. On his subsequent return, after examining the accounts, he found that the bankrupt owed him 20007., and that he was wholly unable to pay that sum. He urged the bankrupt to get in the accounts, and also to deliver up the wines in the stores and in the cellars; but the bankrupt delayed to do so upon va rious excuses, and at last declined it altogether, upon pretence that his other creditors would be offended if he delivered up the stock. On the 22d of March in the present year, the bankrupt, by an advertisement in the Gazette, declared himself insolvent; he was declared a Upon evidence, tending to shew that a bank-bankrupt on the 10th of May; and on the rupt was the factor or agent of a foreign 18th of the same month, John Day, a wine house, notwithstanding the surmise and re-merchant in Tower Street, the only creditor putation of a partnership, the goods conwho had proved a debt against the bankrupt, signed to the bankrupt are ordered to be chose himself creditors' assignee. The prodelivered up to the party consigning them. perty in Albemarle Street was taken possession This was the petition of the surviving part- of on behalf of the assignees, who also sent an ner of the firm of Renandot and Maldaut, order to the secretary of the St. Catherine's owners of extensive vineyards at Dijon, in Dock Company, forbidding the delivery to France; and it prayed that a quantity of wine, the petitioner, of the wines lodged there by lodged in St. Catherine's Docks, in London, the bankrupt. and wine and other property in the bankrupt's house in Albemarle Street, be delivered up to the petitioner. From the statement of Mr. Swanston and Mr. Bethell, as read from the petition, and the Mr. James Russell, for the assignees, contended that the petitioner had no legal claim to the property in the house, or to the wines in the stores. It was enacted by the act 6 G. 4. c. 16, "that if any bankrupt at the time he |