« ZurückWeiter »
Notices of New Books.—Law of Attorneys, No. VII.
interlocutory matters, which form the third bined with the fact that the Essay is published part; and the fourth contains Tables of at the request of the Students of the Law
Class, and not from any wish of the writer to court publicity will be sufficient to exculpate
him from the charge of presumption, to which An Essay on the Re-publication of Devises | he would otherwise appear to be justly liable,
of Real Estate by Codicil. By John and be deemed a sufficient apology for the Lethbridge Cowlard. London: Rich-errors and omissions which he fears will be ards, 1833.
detected in the following pages.” This Essay obtained for the author the We wish the young author continued Professor's prize in the Law Class, at success in that professional career which he King's College, London, in the first term has thus diligently commenced. of the academical year, 1832-3. It is a creditable performance, indicating industry of research, and a careful examination of LAW OF ATTORNEYS. the rules and principles of the cases considered. Mr. Cowlard has had the good
No. VII. sense to abstain from all attempt to embellish a subject which, although a prize essay
COUNSEL AND ATTORNEY. by a student, necessarily both in stile and in the following case it will be found that the matter should be strictly legal. The only jury decided against the opinion of Mr. J. exception to this last commendation is con: | Taunton, with whose opinion on the subject tained in the following passage, which will shew the plan of the essay.
we fully concur. A rule nisi for a new trial “In considering this subject, in reference
was afterwards granted and made absolute; to which it is required that the modern cases | but we have not heard the result. should be critically examined, and the result of all analytically stated,' the chief aim of the Assumpsit for an attorney's bill of costs for essayist must be to arrange and classify the carrying on a suit in equity. It was proved various consistent decisions in such a manner that the cause in equity was in the paper for as to present a general sketch of the principles hearing in the Vice Chancellor's Court, on the established by them; without at the same time 26th of February, 1930; and that a brief in disregarding such occasional decisions as might that cause had been delivered to an eminent happen to have been erroneous, or, on the counsel at the equity bar on the 11th of that other hand, so noticing them as to throw any month; and a clerk of the plaintiff's town degree of suspicion on the authority of the agent gave evidence as follows:-“ I attended others. To effect this object it seems most the Vice Chancellor's Court on the 26th of expedient to commence the examination of February, 1830. I did not see our counsel. the subject at that source from which the first The cause was five off, and I went to search principles necessarily emanated ; and, by ex- for him at the Rolls' Court. The Vice Chanamining each diverging rivulet, endeavour to cellor was sitting in Lincoln's Inn, and the obtain a correct and accurate opinion of the Master of the Rolls at the Rolls' Court, in causes which were productive of the decisions | Chancery Lane. I could not find our counsel generally, and to mark the precise point at at the Rolls' Court, and I went back to the which the original deviation which led to those Vice Chancellor's Court. I was away less than erroneous decisions, happened ; and which ten minutes ; and on my return I found that erroneous decisions, when thus considered, the cause had been struck out of the paper, will assist in elucidating the established prin- with others that stood before it. In about five ciples.”
minutes after, I heard our counsel address the
M. In the advertisement to the reader, Mr.
Court to restore the cause, but he did not
succeed in his application.” Cowlard says, that
Sir J. Scarlett, for the defendant. - The " The honest desire of emulating the zeal | fault here was in the clerk's going away: if he shewn by the students of the Law Class of had staid and said what counsel was in the King's College, in the advancement of their cause, the counsel would have been sent for. professional studies, induced him, at the close In the King's Bench, if the attorney and counof the Christmas Session, to offer for the ap. sel are both absent the case is lost, and no new probation of the Professor the following paper, trial will be granted; but if the attorney stays, to which he was pleased to award the prize and says that his counsel is at the Rolls', or It was compiled at a time when the writer had any other Court near, he would be sent for, not the most distant thought of its publication ; instead of the cause being struck out. There and the alterations which he has since been has been a tender of all but this part of the enabled to make in it have been confined to bill; and it has been held that if there is no the introduction of a few omitted cases, and beneficial service, nothing is to be paid. Here some verbal and explanatory corrections; and there was no service, by reason of the negligence it is hoped that these circumstances,-com- of the attorney.
Selections from Correspondence, No. XXVII.
Alexander, in reply.--If the attorney's clerk | by stat. 1 W. 4. c. 70, one might reasonably had sat still instead of going to look for his have expected that a new set of rules would, counsel, it would have been said that he ought ere this, have been promulgated for the reguto have gone to fetch his counsel. I submit lation of its practice; this not having been that the clerk did what a prudent man would done, there are, in consequence, no less than do, for he went for his counsel when the cause three different modes of proceeding, viz., one was five off.
regulating causes originating in the King's Mr. Justice Taunton (in summing up).—The Bench; another, those in the Common Pleas; question here is, whether you are satisfied that and a third, those in the Exchequer of Pleas. the plaintiff did not use due diligence; and There can be no reason, now that there is but that, instead of using due diligence, he was one appellate jurisdiction from the three guilty of gross negligence; and that, in con-Courts, why there should be more than one sequence of such negligence, the cause mis- set of rules for the government of its practice. carried. It appears that the plaintiff delivered Surely, Mr. Editor, it needs but to draw the a brief in the equity cause on the llth of attention of those who have the power of February, which was fifteen days before the making these rules to this subject, to have it cause came on. This was certainly no want rectified. of diligence. I do not know the practice of The simplest of the three, in my humble the Court of Chancery, but briefs at law are judgment, appears to be that which guides generally delivered later than that; and it cases originating in the Exchequer of Pleas; further appears, that when the cause was five it is certainly the most expeditious, as in those off, the attorney's clerk went to look for his cases the parties are not confined to one step counsel at the Rolls’ Court; and that, being in each term, but may proceed as fast as the unable to find him, he returned in less than rules expire. ten minutes. Here I must ask you if this was It is from, I suppose, the small number of gross negligence either in the attorney or his writs of error, that the inconvenience has not clerk. The counsel who practise in equity been generally felt; and the Judges have not are in the habit of going from one Court to applied their attention to consolidate or amend the other, and neither the clerk nor the attor- the existing rules.
J. K. ney could go and say to a gentleman at the bar there, “ You must not go to the Rolls' Court, as my cause in the Vice Chancellor's Court is only five off:” he could not do that, and as other causes were struck out which
UNIFORMITY OF PROCESS ACT. stood before this, the probability is, that, if
To the Editor of the Legal Observer. those causes had been heard, this cause would not have met with the fate it did. It is further
Sir, proved, that the counsel asked to have the This Act was passed for the purpose of facicause restored, but was unsuccessful. You | litating the prosecution of actions. That it are therefore to say whether this misfortune has advantages, I do not deny; but I wish which befel the present defendant, as a party | for the sake of its framer, and for that of the in the equity suit, was not the result of an public for whose benefit it was intended, that accident over which the attorney had no the grievance I am about to mention had never controul. The attorney is not answerable for existed. the neglect or want of attention in the counsel. In a cause, in which I am concerned for the He acted for the best in going for his counsel | plaintiff, I issued a writ of summons against to the Rolls' Court, and it was from an anxiety (two defendants. One was served, but the on his part that he did so. He is not, I re other has been kept in the back ground. After peat, answerable for the absence of his counsel; several successive attempts made by my clerk, and his own absence was only caused by his who stated his business, and that he would trying to find the counsel. You will therefore “ call again” at a specified time, (at which say whether the attorney was guilty of gross time a copy of the writ was left,) I made an negligence.
application to the Court for a distringas. Verdict for defendant. — Lowry, gent. v. Patteson, J. said, “ you must wait éight days Guildford, 4 C. & P. 234.
from the last attempt, and then, upon an affidavit of no appearance, move again," or to that effect. This has been done, and a rule
granted. The distringas must be tested on SELECTIONS
the day on which it issues, and made returnFROM CORRESPONDENCE.
able on some day in term, not being less than
| fifteen days after the return thereof, (which No. XXVII.
cannot, in my case, be before the 22d instant) | and eight days after the return are given for
appearance ; when, if default be made, there WRITS OF ERROR.
must be another application to the Court on To the Editor of the Legal Observer.
affidavit. Is not this a premium to defendants
to throw every obstacle in the plaintiff's way? Sir,
And does it not, in some cases, amount to a The Court of Error having been remodeled denial of justice?
Selections from Correspondence, No. XXVII.
The legislature should never countenance sulting the former, before his Lordship introvexatious conduct; much less should it afford | duces his Law Reforms, I feel quite sure that opportunities for its exercise. The reasonable much more practical benefit would arise to the course seems to be, that when three attempts suitors, than from acting upon the judgment have been ineffectually made to serve a de- of those who are themselves compelled to seek fendant, and a copy of the writ left, the plain- information, which they imperfectly commutiff should be at liberty, upon affidavit of the nicate to his Lordship." facts, to enter an appearance after the expira- It has been said that useful Law Reforms tion of the eight days. The distringas is a never originate with the legal profession: sedilatory process, and instead of being of the veral of your recent Numbers triumphantly least service, frustrates much good that the refute this observation. Act would otherwise produce.
If these remarks should prove the means of ameliorating the evil, I shall be most happy;
L. 8. d. and I remain,
275 Biddings - - - 34 7 6 Sir,
For travelling expences to
and back. 258 miles - - 12 18 0 For time, 5 days .
10 10 0 City, May 4, 1833. F. W. G.
For bill at Place of Sale
ili 6 For 27 copies of the particulars,
there being 27 bidders. Folios 32
each, together folios 864 - - 21 12 0 COSTS OF CHANCERY SALES.
£ 80 19 0
To the Editor of the Legal Observer.
From particular and unavoidable circum
SABBATH-BREAKING. stances, I have hitherto been prevented calling your attention to the following modest bill of
To the Editor of the Legal Observer. one of the Master Clerks, for selling an estate Sir, under an order of the Court of Chancery: but Blackstone in his Commentaries (B. I. I think you and your readers will agree with c. 11.) speaking of the duties of churchwarme, after having perused it, that reform in the dens says, that they are to levy a shilling forCourt of Chancery is at least desirable in this feiture on all such as do not repair to church branch of its business. The first item, “ 275 on sundays and holidays. Surely this cannot biddings, 341. 78. 6d.,” is stated to arise from be generally known, otherwise it would not “ the ancient and accustomed fee” of 2s. 6d. fail of bringing in a pretty considerable rebeing payable to the Master's Clerk upon each venue, either to the church or to government. bidding. Why it should be paid (as the Clerk If the former be entitled thereto, it might be charges for loss of time in addition), perhaps beneficially applied by the directors of the some of your readers may explain. The next Queen Ann's bounty for the augmentation of charge, “ For travelling expences to
the smaller livings. If to the latter, we might and back, 258 miles, 121. 188., is double the with safety, under the present state of things, proper amount; the correct charge being ls. anticipate a tolerable reduction of taxes in per mile, including the journey back. I have certain quarters where they are most obno remark to make upon the two next follow- noxious. Should this law be enforced, what ing items.
a vast number of persons at present unocWith regard to the last, “ For 27 copies of cupied, would it not throw into employment the particulars, (there being 27 bidders,) folios as collectors and clerks of the sabbath day 32 each, together folios 364, 211. 12s.” I poll tax! and what a harvest would be proscarcely dare venture to allude to this, lest I duced from the metropolis, together with its may, perhaps, outstep the bounds of prudence environs, on a Sunday alone, leaving out the and moderation. The parties pay for printing holidays! Kensington Gardens, Primrose and distributing the particulars of sale; but I Hill, and the several parks, would by their understand it is thought to be “ an ancient own fertility reduce the national debt to twoand accustomed fee” also for the Master to thirds of its present enormous bulk. Whilst charge the estate with a copy of the particulars the measures brought forward at the present for each bidder. I can only conjecture that day, for the better observance of the sabbath, this must have originated before printing was are warmly defended on the one side, and as introduced into this country; and it is pro- strenuously opposed on the other, we should bable the Master's Clerk might have then made do well to examine the provisions our ancescopies in anticipation of the expected number tors have made for the furtherance of those of bidders.
objects, which we in our eagerness to promote, One word to Lord Brougham If his Lord- have entirely overlooked.
G.G. ship (whose talents I am ready to acknowledge) would do the practitioners of the law the favor, and the public the justice, of con
Attorneys to be admitted in Trinity Term.
ATTORNEYS TO BE ADMITTED,
Trinity Term, 1833.
(Concluded from p. 26.) Clerks' Names.
To whom urticled. Mackintosh, Alexander Brodie, 24, Great Or. George Tennant, Gray's Inn Square, deceased; mond Street.
assigned to Richard Harrison, Gray's Inn. Manly, William, Nelson Square.
Edmund Kent, the younger, Fakenham. Mason, Henry, High Holborn.
Ralph Lindsay, 16, Št. Thomas's Street, South
wark. " Maudsley, H., Birmingham.
John Maudsley, Birmingham. Menlove, William Edward, Ellesmere, Salop. Henry Bloxham, same place. Murrow, James, the younger, Liverpool. James Murrow, the elder, Liverpool. Muskett, John, Halesworth, Suffolk.
Dewdney Stedman, Horsham; assigned to
Robert Crabtree, Halesworth. Myers, William, the younger, Liverpool. Ambrose Lace, Liverpool. Nicholson, Henry William, Bradford, York- Richard Tolson, same place.
Other, Thomas, 11, King's Bench Walk. William Bayley, Stockton-upon-Tees, Durham.
James Robinson, same place.
Nathaniel Griffin, same place.
Joseph Lythgoe, Essex Street.
New North Road, Islington
Benjamin Hopkinson, Red Lion Square.
assigned to John Pyne, Somerton. Radford, Richard, 6, Tokenhouse Yard. Richard Meadowcroft Whittow, Manchester. Randall, Richard, 29, Coleman Street.
James Whitchurch, Southampton ; assigned
to Thomas Tilson, the younger, Coleman
Street. Remnant, Frederick William, Lincoln's Inn William Henry King, Hatton Garden; assignFields.
ed to Henry Peale Bird, Lincoln's Inn
John Bisden, Great Torrington, Devon, de
ceased; assigned to Montague Edward
Thomas Loftus, New Inn.
James Blythe Simpson, Derby,
Samuel Batchellor, Bath. Spiller, John Jubilee, No. 2, Child's Place, George Acworth, Chatham.
Temple Bar. Squarrey, Coard William, New Saruin, Wilt- Robert Tucker, Ashburton, Devonshire ; asshire.
signed to Edward Pain, 5, Great Marlbo
rough Street. Stanley, Charles, 3, Sidmouth Place, Gray's John Stanley, Newport, Salop, now with John Inn Road.
Whitelock, 70, Aldermanbury, agent to Mr.
Attorneys to be admitted in Trinity Term.
To whom articled.
Samuel Foot, New Sarum; assigned to James
Cox, late of Shaftesbury, deceased. Tinsley, Charles, 41, Edgeware Road. Edmund Huntley, 16, Great Cumberland
Street; assigned to William Payne, 10,
Duke Street. Thomas, George, Swansea.
Thomas Thomas, Swansea. Notice dated 15th
April, 1833. • Thomas, Benjamin, 57, Aldersgate Street. Edward Weedon, Gloucester. Thompson, William Knight, 41, Bedford Row. George Orred, Liverpool, deceased; assigned
to Joshua Lace, Liverpool. Twist, John Brown, Coventry.
John Twist, Coventry. Tyas, Richard, 15, Kenton Street, Brunswick James Harris, late of Beaufort Buildings, Square.
Strand; assigned to Christopher Hawdon,
6, New Inn. Venour, Thomas Henry, Blackburn, Towces- William Gilbert Elliott, Towcester, Northampter.
ton. Vickers, Thomas Thwaites, 9, Thanet Place. John Birks, Hemingfield, near Barnsley,
same place.cod. assigned to
Wade, Armigel, Great Dunmow.
George Wade, Dunmow. Warren, S. Hobson, Exeter.
John Warren, same place. Weeks, Henry, 2, Raymond Buildings. John Thomas Lloyd, Shrewsbury, deceased. Welch, David, Derby.
John Ford Hyatt, Newcastle-under-Lyne,
Staffordshire." Welsh, James, Macclesfield, Cheshire. Thomas Grimsditch, Macclesfield. Westmacott, Henry Seymour, 4, Vittoria William Henry Rosser, Gray's Inn Place.
Place, South Lambeth. White, Eustace, Old Dorset Place, Clapham John Curling Osborn, Coleman Street, deRoad.
ceased; assigned to Thomas Hilton Botham.
ley, Coleman Street. Whitehead, Thomas Hutton, Lancashire. Edmund Lodge, Preston. Whitham, James, Wakefield, Yorkshire. William Pickard, same place. Whytehead, William, York.
Anthony Thorpe, York, deceased; assigned to
Jonathan Gray, York. · Williams, Charles Lloyd, 90, Long-acre. Meaburn Tatham, Lincoln's Iun Fields. Wood, Edwin Joseph, Alcester, Warwick. John Snow, Alcester ; assigned to John Cox,
Red Lion Square, and by him re-assigned to
John Snow. Woodcock, Joseph, Newman's Row, Lincoln's Thomas Clark Brettingham, Diss, Norfolk ; Ian Fields.
assigned to Messrs. Kingsbury and Margit
Charles Wells Lovell, South Square, Gray's
Inn. PERSONS APPLYING FOR RE-ADMISSION IN THE KING'S BENCH. Gough, Charles, late of Clement's Inn, New To be re-admitted, Trinity Term. Notice 13th
Chambers, afterwards of Eden, Northamp- April, 1833.
Church Court, Clement's Lane, City
To be re-admitted, Trinity Term.
If any reason is known to exist why any of the abovenamed persons should not be admitted, it is
requested that it may be communicated to the Secretary of the Incorporuled Law Society.