10 Fees for Extracts from Parish Register-The Fusion of Law and Equity. ` solicitor, acts for himself and his co-trustees in A SOLICITOR had instructed his clerk to search the register book of burials and baptisms in the parish of St. Mary, Newington, and the clerk accordingly applied to the parish clerk for liberty to search them, but stating he he only required to make extracts, and not to have certificates. The parish clerk then stated the charge would be the same in either case, viz., 3s. 6d., and charged 47. 7s. 6d. for the 12 burials and 13 baptisms, extracted during a search through four years. On the same day, the solicitor wrote demanding re-payment of such fees, less the charge for the four years' search, and on its refusal, brought an action for money had and received to his use. The observations of the Court, in reference, to the payment of fees were as follow: Parke, B.-The clerk had a perfect right, at all events, to search, and during that time to make himself master, as he best could, of the contents of the books; and the defendant, in whose custody hey were, could not, because the clerk wanted to make extracts, insist on his having certificates with the signature of the minister. For one shilling, he would be entitled to look at all the names in a particular year. He could have no right to remain an unreasonable time looking at the book, nor probably to require the parish clerk to put it in his hands, for it is the duty of the latter to superintend the search, and keep a control over the book. But if a person insists upon himself taking a copy, that is a different matter; the Statute only provides for a certificate with the name of the minister, and for that he must pay the additional fee. It was, therefore, an illegal act on the part of the defendant to insist that the plaintiff should pay 38. 6d. for each entry of which he might choose to make an are all the fees demandable in respect of a THE FUSION OF LAW AND EQUITY. To the Editor of the Legal Observer. SIR,-Quotations from old authors are entitled to respect, but they are neither to be taken as facts proved nor the perfection of human reason: as witness the quotations of your correspondent A Barrister" (p. 434, ante),-" Equity, as distinguished from Lawpositive mechanical Law-is a shallow conceit, the offspring of prejudice and ignorance." This quotation should be read thus,-"The offspring of" Bentham's "prejudice and igno"makes "Equity a shallow conceit, as distinguished from Law-positive mechanical Law." Your correspondent, trying to put a common sense interpretation on this passage the GRAND rampart of of Bentham, finds himself in a similar position chicane"-although how long chaos has assumed the form of a rampart, Bentham and his disciples can doubtless best explain to the unenlightened lawyers. rance with that author on 66 Your correspondent then asks for an intelligible definition of Equity. Will he, or can he, explain the meaning of "the positive mechanical Law" of Bentham in the above-mentioned quotation? If he shall be so ingenious, his right to a definition of Equity will indeed be well earned, and he will, if I am not mistaken, obtain one. The sophistry of the North British reviewer is the sophistry of a grumbler, which is the worst of sophistry. The division," says he, "of Common Law and Equity, administered in different Courts, harmonizes neither with our ideal of a good system, nor with our practical instincts." The only attempt to give this paragraph a correct appellation, as far as I am able, is,-that it is the base of "the baseless fabric of a vision." The sophisms derived from it are exceedingly appropriate. 66 Your correspondent, as a grand climax of authority, gives the unanimous resolution of the Barebones Parliament-" that the Court of Chancery" (i. e., their Court of Chancery) was a mystery of iniquity and a standing cheat." Can we be surprised that one who deems such authorities as these of any weight should suggest that Parliament should take the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, 1st Boz's Reports, as a sufficient authority for a sweeping censure of those laws, which, whatever may be Platt, B.-Under the 6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 86, s. their defects, have raised this empire above 35, there are only two things in respect Allow me to give your correspondent a little which the incumbent is entitled to fees, namely, every other in the world. for a search and for a certified copy of the re-advice,-he dubs himself "a Barrister"-he For once gister. A fee of 1s. is allowed for a search throughout the whole period of the first year, and 1s. 6d. for every additional year. Those extract. 1 Cradock v. Piper, 1 M'N. & G. 664. of may be entitled to style himself so. from all such absurd epistles as the one you show him I do not desire "to feed contention have been kind enough to amuse your readers in a lingering act," I will conclude with a quowith. Your correspondent is probably a young tation in replyman, if we may judge by the rashness of his indiscretion. I therefore bid him farewell with more of sorrow than of anger, and to "Hæ tibi erunt artes; pacisque imponere morem Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos." NUMA. ATTORNEYS TO BE ADMITTED. On the last Day of Michaelmas Term, 1853. Persons who have given Notice of Admission pursuant to the Rule of Court of Hilary Term, 1853 Jennins, Charles, 26, Bryanston Street Lavender, George Henry, 15, Argyle Square; Minor, William, Oxford Street; and Store Nash, Alfred Dormier, 14, Great Coram St., Owen, Sackville Herbert, 19, George St., Eus- Parker, Henry Watson, 84, Westbourne Park Pedley, Joshua, jun., 10, Billiter Square; and Rudge, Edmund, jun., Baker St.; Chepstow To whom Articled, Assigned, &c. H. J. Barker, Wem; C. G. Jones, Gray's Inn R. Bathurst, Faversham W. R. Bishop, Exeter J. T. Rymer, Whitehall Place J. Newbold, deceased, Bedford Row R. J. Shafto, Durham A. S. Field, Leamington; H. Bury, Manches ter; J. Bury, ditto G. Harris, Rugby J. Holt, Coventry P. H. Watts, Bath W. Tatham, Throgmorton Street A. Sharman, deceased, Bedford; J. W. Turnley, ditto J. Lane, Chancery Lane J. I. Wathan, Bedford Square; H. Crocker, W. H. Owen, Narberth W. Ostler, Grantham R. Few, Henrietta Street J. Druce, Billiter Square PL.; Lower Calthorp St.; and Tewkesbury J. Thomas, Tewkesbury Smith Alfred, 5, Featherstone Buildings, Hol 12 Attorneys to be Admitted.-Taking Out and Renewal of Certificates.-Notes of the Week. Michaelmas Term, 1853. TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST PURSUANT TO JUDGE'S ORDERS. Clerks' Names and Addresses. Bellas, Thomas, 12, Compton Street East, Coates, John, Wesbury-on-Trym Newman, Edwin, jun., 28, John St., Bedford . To whom Articled, Assigned, &c. J. Coverdale, Bedford Row J. Leman, Lincoln's Inn Fields F. Boydell, Chester C. S. Todd, Kingston-upon-Hull R. H. Hellings, Bath E. Newman, Yeovil; H. S. Westmacott, John H. W. Ravenscroft, Gray's Inn Square; W. TAKING OUT AND RENEWAL OF CER- Temple. This would truly be a great public TIFICATES. Queen's Bench. Last day of Michaelmas Term, 1853. Ainger, Arthur Robert, 26, Bedford Place; and Congleton. Beatniffe, Robert Gray, Great Grimsby. Hinde, John, 52, Skinner Street, London. Twiss, Richard, 37, Hamilton Terrace, St. John's Wood. Wilson, Thomas, 7, Maida Hill West; and Warwick Crescent. NOTES OF THE WEEK. improvement. The mere removal of the present Bar would be at best a small affair. CLERK OF ENROLMENTS IN CHANCERY. We have to express our regret at the death of Mr. David Drew, who for many years ably and carefully discharged the duties of the Office of Chancery Enrolments. The Master of the Rolls to whom the patronage belongs, has just appointed Mr. William Wright, of the Chancery Bar, to fill the vacancy. This selection is, we believe, very satisfactory to the Profession. It will be recollected that Mr. Wright commenced his career as a solicitor, and attained considerable eminence. He was afterwards called to the Bar, and Messrs. Clowes, Orme, and Wedlake succeeded to his practice as a solicitor. We need not add that, with his large experience, and habits of business, Mr. REMOVAL OF THE COURTS. SITTINGS IN Wright is well qualified for the office. LINCOLN'S INN. AFTER the ancient ceremonies of receiving the Judges and Leaders of the Bar at breakfast on the first day of Term, opening the Courts in Westminster Hall, and sitting on that day,the Lord Chancellor, the Lords Justices, and the Vice-Chancellors, adjourned to Lincoln's Inn, and the Master of the Rolls to his own Court in Chancery Lane. During the present Term, the Sittings after, and in Hilary Term, Parliament not being sitting, the Equity Courts will, no doubt, continue in their present convenient locality. But we must not lose sight of the necessity of removing the whole of the Courts permanently to the proposed new building between the Strand and Carey Street, -thus uniting the two Temples with Lincoln's Inn. The clamour about Temple Bar should be postponed, and when the new Courts are erected, and the Strand and Fleet Street widened from St. Clement's to St. Dunstan's Churches, a magnificent Arch may be constructed on the site of the old Bar, and a footway formed over it from the Courts to the ARTICLED CLERKS' EXAMINATION AND A meeting is about to take place of the Articled Clerks from various parts of the country, to consider of the establishment of a Society for the Annual Voluntary Examination of Clerks during their clerkship, by way of preparation for the General Examination which they will undergo before admission; and to institute prizes for those who pass the best in voluntary examination. The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have been requested to allow the meeting to take place in one of their rooms (ordinarily used for arbitrations), and they have granted permission for this purpose for the 6th and 7th inst. at 6 o'clock. Another Society has been projected at Norwich, to be called the Articled Clerks' Corresponding Society, for the purpose of encouraging the members to write legal Essays, to be transmitted to each other, and when apapproved to be published. Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.-Lords Justices.-Rolls. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING SPECIFI CATIONS. The Lord Chancellor has intimated, that in applications for extension of the time for filing specifications, &c., under the Patent Law Amendment Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 83), indulgence will only be granted where there has been no neglect or default on the part of the applicant or of his agent. Patent agents ought to be practising attor neys or solicitors. NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL. 13 RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, On this appeal from a decree made under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 15, on motion for a decree, being called on, The Lords Justices said, that in future such appeals would not be considered as appeal motions, but be placed in the general paper of appeals. diction under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 61, to determine a question of law, which was not required to the decision of the equity in the case, but for the purpose of a declaratory decree. licitor-General and Kinglake for the defendants. Follett and Goldsmid for the plaintiffs; So able doubt on the point, and an arrangement The Lords Justices said, there was considerwas entered into, to avoid the difficulty suggested. Master of the Rolls. Joddrell v. Joddrell. Nov. 2, 1853. ARBITRATION.-POWER TO UMPIRE TO EXAMINE ON OATH. Where the original order of reference to the trustees of the marriage settlement of the differences between a husband and wife, provided for the appointment of an umpire in the event of their not agreeing, but granted no power to such umpire to examine witnesses on oath, the Court refused to grant such power to an umpire who had been subsequently appointed. Roupell appeared in support of this application for power to be given to examine witnesses on oath to the umpire, who had been appointed on the non-agreement of the trustees of a marriage settlement, to whom certain differences between a husband and wife had been referred. Rolt, contrà, was not called on. The Master of the Rolls said, that as the original order of reference gave no such power Trustees of the Birkenhead Docks v. Laird and in the event of the appointment of an umpire, the application must be refused. others. Nov. 3, 1853. EQUITY JURISDICTION IMPROVEMENT ACT. -DETERMINATION OF QUESTION OF LAW. Quære, whether this Court has jurisdiction under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 61, to determine a question of law which is not required to the decision of the equity in the case, but for the purpose of a declaratory decree. On this appeal from the Master of the Rolls, a question arose whether this Court had juris Hughes v. Hughes. Nov. 2, 1853. SPECIAL CLAIM FOR PARTITION OF REAL ESTATE.-LEAVE TO FILE.-COMMISSION. Leave granted to file a special claim for the partition of real estate between two gavelkind heirs. Quære, whether the commission of partition can be made on claim, or whether a bill is required? 14 Superior Courts: V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Stuart.—Queen's Bench. THIS was a motion for leave to file a special claim for the partition of real estate between two gavelkind heirs. S. F. Bilton, in support, asked whether the commission of partition could issue on the claim, or whether it was necessary to proceed by bill. The Master of the Rolls said, that leave might be taken to file the claim, but refused to decide on the other question. Held, that the decision of the Chief Clerk during Vacation, in reference to amendments in a bill, should be brought before the Vacation Judge, if objected to, or, at all events, before the Court on the first day of Term. But in a pauper cause, an application to dismiss for want of proceeding to amend pursuant to leave, was directed to stand over until the next seal, where the delay was stated to be occasioned by the searching for and arrangement of documentary evidence. Boyle appeared in support of this application to dismiss the bill of the plaintiff, who sued in forma pauperis, for want of prosecution in not proceeding to amend the bill pursuant to leave obtained. Green, contrà, on the ground the delay was occasioned by the time occupied in searching for and arranging the documentary evidence, and that the question of the amendments had been before the Chief Clerk to the Vacation Judge, and it was proposed to bring his de cision before the Court. The Vice-Chancellor said, the Chief Clerk's decision should have been brought before the Vacation Judge, or, at all events, on the first day of the Term; but, under the circumstances, the matter might be postponed to the next seal day, when a peremptory order would be made, if required. Vice-Chancellor Stuart. Pleston v. Johnston. Nov. 2, 1853. SECURITY FOR COSTS. -BOND FROM GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION. He, that a bond from the British Guarantee Association given to the Clerk of Records and Writs, is a sufficient security for costs, although the order required that of some sufficient person. THIS was an application for a reference to Chambers, as to the sufficiency of a bond from the British Guarantee Association, which had been given by the plaintiff on being ordered to find security for costs by the bond of some sufficient person. Jessel in support: Chandless and Hoare for the plaintiff. Vice-Chancellor held, that the bond was sufficient, and refused the application. Shaw v. Thackray and another. Nov. 3, 1853. FOR SALE OF PROPERTY.- SPECIFIC The defendant contracted to sell the equity of redemption in certain property to the plain tiff, but afterwards assigned the same to M. for an advanced price. The sum contracted by the plaintiff was reasonable, and it appeared that the defence set up of the defendant's incapacity by reason of intoxication was not sustained, and M. was aware of the previous agreement with the plaintiff. A decree for specific performance was made against the defendant and M., with costs. Malins and H. Stevens appeared for the specific performance of a contract entered into by the defendant, Thackray, to sell the equity of redemption of a public-house at Sheffield to the plaintiff for 7351. It appeared that in the first instance the contract was a verbal one, and that the next day the memorandum of agreement was executed, providing for the completion by a day named, and for the deposit of 157., which was done. The defendant afterwards assigned the property to the defendant, Moore, for 7601. Russell, Speed, and Villiers for the defend Court of Queen's Bench. Stamp v. York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Company. Nov. 2, 1853. RAILWAY COMPANY.—WHAT ARE NECES SARY AND SUFFICIENT GATES. A railway company were required by their act to provide necessary and sufficient gates on the sides of their railway, and it appeared that in consequence of a gate which did not close of itself, being left open, two of the plaintiff's horses escaped on the line and were killed. The Court refused to grant a rule nisi to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff, on the question of sufficiency of the gate. THIS was a motion for a rule nisi to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff, and for a new trial, in this action, which was brought to recover damages for the death of two of the plaintiff's horses through their neglect. It appeared on the trial, before Wightman, J., at the last Northumberland Assizes, that the defendants' act required them to construct necessary and sufficient gates on the sides of their railway, |