THE ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE. ROYAL

(Incorporated A.D. 1720, by Charter of George the First.)
CORBET AND ARMSTRONG,
Agents and Stock Brokers,

No. 5, COLLEGE-GREEN, DUBLIN.

Fire, Life, and Marine Assurances on liberal terms.
Life Assurances with, or without, participation in Profits.
Divisions of Profits every Five Years.

Any sum up to £15.000 insurable on the same Life.

A liberal participation in Profits, with exemption from the liabilities of partnership.

The Reversionary Bonus has averaged nearly two per cent. per annum on the sum assured, or 43 per cent. upon the Premiums paid. It is believed that no other old established company, affording to the Irish public the accommodation of local agencies, has maintained during the same period a rate of Bonus equal to this.

The Expenses of Management, being divided between the different branches, are spread over a larger amount of business than that transacted by any other office. The charge upon each Policy is thereby reduced to a sum so small as to account for the magnitude of the Bonus which has been declared, and to afford a probability that a similar rate will be sustained at future divisions.

This Corporation affords to the Assured a liberal participation in Profits, with exemption from the liabilities of partnership;-a rate of Bonus equal to the average returns of Mutual Societies, with the guarantee of a large invested Capital Stock :-the advantages of modern practice, with the security of an Office whose resources have been tested by the experience of nearly a Century and a half.

Tables of rates and all other information, may be had on application to CORBET AND ARMSTRONG, Agents and Stock Brokers, No. 5, College-green, Dublin.

Capital-£2,000,000, in 100,000 Shares of £20 each.

Trustees:

John Shaw Leigh, Esq.; John Naylor, Esq.

Directors, &c., in Liverpool:

Charles Turner, Esq., Chairman; J. Bramley-Moore, Esq., M.P and Ralph Brocklebank, Esq., Deputy Chairmen.

FIRE BRANCH

Annual Premiums £130,000, exceeding almost every Office in the
United Kingdom.

Losses Promptly and Liberally Paid.

Security of a Large Capital actually paid up.

IMPORTANT TO THE PROPRIETORS OF CORN AND
OATMEAL MILLS.

Risks of this description accepted on a most liberal scale of rates

LIFE BRANCH.

Stamps on Policies not Charged.

Forfeiture of Policy cannot take place from unintentional mistakes.
Medical Fees Paid-Moderate Premiums.
Large BONUS declared 1855,
Amounting to £2 per Cent. per Annum on the sum Assured, being on
Ages from Twenty to Forty, Eighty per Cent. on the Premium.

Periods of Division:

Every Five Years, from 31st December in each year.
PERCY M. DOVE, Actuary and Manager.

A. M'NEILE, 34 WESTMORELAND-ST., Agent.

The Irish Jurist.

'DUBLIN, DECEMBER 1, 1857.

had the property of his debtor bound in the hands of the sheriff before the statute passed, and consequently a right to have them for the purpose of his execution; and we are all of opinion that we ought not to presume an intention in the Legislature to strip him of that right, unless they A QUESTION of considerable importance upon the declare such intention in express terms;" and construction of the "Act to amend the Laws of Baron Martin observed, that the prospective or England and Ireland affecting Trade and Com-retrospective effect of statutes was much consimerce" (19 & 20 Vict. c. 97), to the provisions of dered by this court in Moon v. Durden (2 Exch. which we have already drawn the attention of our readers (2 Ir. Jur. N. S. 134) has been recently under the consideration of three courts of justice in England-two being courts of law, the other of equity—and arose as follows:-By the first section of the statute referred to above, it is enacted "that no writ of fieri facias, or other writ of execution, and no attachment against the goods of any debtor, shall prejudice the title of a purchaser for value before an actual seizure, unless the purchaser has, at the time of his purchase,

unexe

le

22), and the majority of the bench in that case gave it as their opinion that courts ought not to give a retrospective effect to a statute, unless they are compelled by its language to do so."

The case to which we Waithman (2 Jur. N. S. The facts of that case

In these views we entirely concur. The injus tice of passing a law affecting the acts of parties committed under a belief that they would be dealt with according to the existing law, is too manifest to require comment; but another court has, upon a question arising for decision under the fourteenth section, decided differently. refer is that of Thompson v. 1080; S. C. 3 Drew, 628). were these. A and B, as partners, made a joint promissory note; and after the death of A, B, the surviving partner, and also the executor of A, continued for more than six years to pay interest on the note, when the holder of the note required the sum due thereon to be paid out of the estate of A; and upon this state of facts it was held, that the payments were made by B, in his capacity of partner, and, as such, being within the terms of the fourteenth section, the claim against A was bound.

notice that the writ of attachment was cuted in the hands of the sheriff." In the first of these cases, Williams v. Smith (3 Jur. N. S. 1082), it appeared in evidence that after the fieri facias had been lodged with the sheriff, but before it was executed, the plaintiff, with knowledge of the existence of the writ, though not of the sum viable thereby, purchased cattle-the goods of which the right to the property was in question-from the execution debtor. These transactions took place before the passing of the "Mercantile Law Amendment Act." The sheriff having seized, a claim was made by the purchaser; and the sheriff having obtained an interpleader order, an issue was directed, in which the purchaser was the plaintiff; The fourteenth section enacts, that "where there and upon the trial a verdict was found for the pur- shall be two or more joint co-contractors, or cochaser. On a motion to set aside this verdict, the debtors, whether bound or liable jointly, or only questions were— -whether the goods were conclu-jointly and severally, or executors or administrasively bound by the delivery of the writ to the sheriff, as the statute, having subsequently come into operation, had no retrospective effect; and, secondly, that the knowledge in the plaintiff of the writ being in the hands of the sheriff, brought him within the statute, if it were applicable. The court having decided that the statute had not a retrospective effect, did not give any opinion upon the second question. Pollock, C. B., in

tors of any contractor, no such co-contractor or codebtor, executor, or administrator shall lose the benefits of the said enactments (21 Jac. I. c. 16, s, 3; the 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 42, s. 3, and the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 113, s. 20), or any of them, so as to be chargeable in respect or by reason only of payment of any principal, interest, or other money, by any other or others of such co-contractors, or codebtors, executors, or administrators." And upon

The

menced his action within six years after becoming
at large, and that the causes of action accrued,
and the imprisonment occurred, before the passing
of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act."
case of Thompson v. Waithman was referred to in
argument, but not that of Williams v. Smith. In
giving judgment, Lord Campbell, C.J., said,
"With respect to the Statute of Limitations, I am of
opinion that, as this action has been commenced
since the passing of the statute (19 & 20 Vic.,
c. 97), the plaintiff's imprisonment is no answer to
the plea. I think that the natural construction of
section 10 is, that in any action brought after the
passing of the Act, no plaintiff should be able to
rely upon the disabilities there mentioned, by way
of excuse for not having commenced his action
within the limited period. Thus the Act has an
immediate effect upon actions subsequently com-
menced, but not a retrospective effect. The statute
applies to past as well as to future transactions."
The other judges concurred, and Erle, J., said, he
considered the decision in Thompson v. Waithman

that section Sir R. J. Kindersley held, that the pay ment made was as partner, and, in his judgment, said, "It is said the language of this section is future, and this is true with respect to the operation of the Act; but there is nothing future with reference to the payment of principal or interest by the cocontractor. It is simply this, that where there shall exist a case of co-contractors or executors, then the executor or co-contractor shall not lose the benefit of the statute by reason of any payments by the co-executor or co-contractor;" and in answer to the argument that the Legislature would not intend to do so unjust an act as to take away the benefits to which the parties were entitled, by an ex post facto operation, the learned Vice-Chancellor said, "that the decisions (prior to the passing of the above statute) whether the payments by a cocontractor would deprive the other contractors of the benefit of the statute of James, were divided; and, therefore, no injustice could be done in this case." With the greatest respect for the opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor, we cannot help feeling that the foregoing reasoning is not well-precisely analogous to that before the court. This founded. If the statute have a retrospective operation, it should affect all cases within its provisions, whether the decisions affecting such cases be conflicting or otherwise; and whether there be hardship or not in the particular case is not a question for the judge to consider: his opinion is only to be expressed upon the question, whether the provisions of the statute apply to the facts of the case before him. It appears ence previous to binding. Price 2s. each. to us that the decision of the Court of Exchequer, in Williams v. Smith, is in accordance with the true meaning of the statute, and the justice of the case; and we can find no such distinction between the language of the sections referred to, as would By WILLIAM DWYER FERGUSON, Esq., LL.D., Barrister-at-Law. enable us to discover any expressed intention on the part of the Legislature that the fourteenth should have a retrospective operation. We cannot help expressing our opinion that in this case the decision of the law court is more equitable than that of the court of equity.

But in a subsequent case, Comill v. Hudson (30 L. Gi. 130, Q.B.) in which the Statute of Limitations was pleaded, it was replied, under the tenth section of the statute, "That when the cause of action accrued, the plaintiff was imprisoned within the meaning of the statute, and from thence until within six years before the commencement of the suit, was imprisoned; and the plaintiff com

decision is directly opposed to that in Williams v. Smith, and, as far as the balance of authority will effect future decisions, is in favor of the retrospective operation of the statute.

PORTFOLIOS FOR THE IRISH JURIST.

THE Publisher begs to inform Subscribers that

the above are now prepared, and will contain the numbers published during the year.

These Portfolios are recommended for the convenience of preserving the Work, and for the facility they will afford for reading and referEDWARD J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN.

Just Published, price 16s., free by post, the Second Edition of
IE COMMON LAW PROCEDURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1853, with the COMMON LAW PROCE-
DURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1856, the General Orders of 1854 and 1856,
a Commentary, and copious General Index.

The first edition of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1853 having been published immediately after its becoming law, the Author was unable to embody in it the practice which has subsequently grown up

under its provisions. That practice is now established by a great
variety of decisions of the courts, which are carefully collected, and
by the General Orders contained in the present edition.
mentary on its provisions and the general Law of Arbitrations,
Injunctions, Mandamus, aud Equitable Defences in Courts of Law,
forminga complete Code of Common Law Procedure.

It also embodies the New Common Law Procedure Act, with a com

Dublin: E. J. MILLIKEN, Law Publisher, 15, College-green.

Price 7s. 6d.; free by Post;

THE LAW OF

JUDGMENT AND EXECUTIONS, together

with the Duties and Offices of Sheriffs in relation to Writs of Execution and Interpleader, with Forms, Cases, and Cpious Index. By ROBERT W. OSBORNE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

Dublin; EDWARD J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN.

CONSTITUTED BY

THE STANDARD

ACT OF PARLIAMENT. LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

EDINBURGH (Head Office) 3, GEORGE-STREET.

DUBLIN, 66, UPPER SACKVILLE-ST.

ESTABLISHED 1825.

LONDON, 82, KING WILLIAM-ST. GLASGOW, 35, ST. VINCENT-PLACE DIVISION OF PROFITS.

A very large portion of the Profits is allocated periodically to the Assured on the principle of a TONTINE. Divisions have already taken place at five periods, viz.-1835, 1840, 1845, 1850, and 1855. The following are examples :

The Share of Profits attaching to a Policy may be applied to increase the Sum Assured, or the value may be received in Cash, or be applied to reduce the Annual Premiums.

General Statement of the Company's Business from 1846 to 1856.
Number of Proposals for Assurances made to the Directors.
Number of Assurance of Policies issued, exclusive of Annuities and
other transactions

Sums proposed for Assurance
Sums in Policies issued

10,490 8,390 £6,001,741 4 8 4,787,301 18 1

The Sixth Division of Profits will be made on 15th November, 1860.

CONDITIONS OF ASSURANCE.

UNCHALLENGEABLE POLICIES AND FREE RESIDENCE IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD.

Since 1851, when this Company promulgated the system of "Select Assurance," admission to which renders Policies indisputable and unchallengeable on any ground whatever, the question of "Terms and Conditions" has become a most important point of consideration, and the day is quickly approaching when no one will hold a Policy from an office which does not give similar advantages. What a boon is it to all classes of Assurers to know, that whatever may happen, wherever the Assured may go, the claim will be met at death, subject to one simple condition, that the annual premium originally stipulated be punctually paid!

ADVANCES ON THE SECURITY OF POLICIES-AND SURRENDERS.

The Directors have lately adopted rules of the most liberal character with reference to Loans on the Security of their Policies, and to Surrenders, allowing surrender value on Participating Policies from the commencement of the Assurance, while the same sum which would be given for surrender will be given in loan without expense beyond the trifling stamp duty, and at a rate of interest which securities on land alone command. With these facilities, no Policy need be forfeited, except by carelessness, so long as the Assurance is of sufficient value to authorise an advance equivalent to the Premium.

Resident Secretary in Dublin, SAMUEL SMYLIE,

66, UPPER SACKVILLE-STREET.

Orders for the IRISH JURIST left with E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN, or by letter (post-paid), will ensure its punctual delivery n Dublin, or its being forwarded to the Country, by Post, on the day of publication.

All communications for the IRISH JURIST are to be left, addressed to the Editor, with the Publisher, E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGEGREEN. Correspondents will please give the Name and Address, as the columns of the Paper cannot be occupied with answers to anonymous communications--nor will the Editor be accountable for the return of manuscripts, &c.

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION (payable in advance);-Yearly, £2. Single Number, 2s. 6d.

Published by EDWARD JOHNSTON MILLIKEN, 15, College-green, and printed at the Dublin Steam Press Printing Office, 65 Upper Sackville-street, by ROBERT G. SOUTER, Agent, who is authorized to receive orders for Advertisements.- December 1, 1857.