網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

BILL (LORDS). POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL (LORDS). STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (LORDS). Mr. BARNES and Mr. GRAHAM-HARRISON.

22 July, 1908.]

Chairman-continued.

in which any question of law may be raised "? -That matter is now dealt with by Rules of Court.

Mr. Cave.

380. Which Rules deal with that?-Rules 33 and 34.

(After some discussion.)

[Chairman.] We will omit the words "provided that the Court may direct an issue to be tried in which any question of law may be raised."

Amendment accepted.

Chairman.

381. The next amendment is on Clause 32, page 15, line 29, to leave out "of all the costs of the application and." This is the same point again. Could you order costs under the general powers?-Yes, I think so.

381A. There is clearly general power to do that? Yes, I believe so.

Chairman.] Then we will leave out those

words.

Amendment accepted.

Chairman.

382. The next amendment is on Clause 39, page 20, line 3, to leave out "either in discharge of the amount of a call payable in respect of any other share or shares held by him or without any call having been made," and to insert although no part of that amount has been called

up.'

[ocr errors]

What is the reason for this amendment ?The words proposed to be omitted occur in the Act of 1867, but there is a general consensus of opinion that they are unintelligible as they stand, and the words proposed to be substituted give what is believed to be the intended meaning. 383. Has the clause ever been put to use for practical purposes since it was enacted? (Mr. Barnes.) Lord Justice Buckley told me the other day he had known of no instance in which. this clause had been used.

(After some discussion.)

[Chairman.] We will accept the amendment.

Amendment accepted.

Chairman.

384. The next amendment is in Clause 41, Fage 22, lines 6 to 10, to leave out the words and the statement of the number and amount of the shares into which the share capital of the company is divided contained in every copy of the Memorandum issued after the confirmation of any such special Resolution shall be in accordance with the Resolution." (To Mr. Graham-Harrison.) Will you explain the object of that amendment? -Under Clause 41, there is power to alter the capital in various ways. Under Subsection (2) of the clause every copy of the Memorandum which is issued after an alteration is required to be in accordance with the Resolution for the

[blocks in formation]

386. The next amendment is in Clause 45, page 23, line 31, to leave out "within seven days after the making of the order" ?-As the subclause at present stands the time for filing the office copy is limited to seven days, and there is no power on the part of the Court to extend the time. 387. Might you not say: 'Within seven days after the making of the order, or such further time as the Judge may allow "; would not that really meet it? Yes.

388. All you want is an intimation that it must be done promptly within seven days or such further time as the Judge may allow; is not that the best way of dealing with it ?-(Mr. Barnes.) That will meet the case altogether, I think.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

22 July, 1908.]

Mr. BARNES and Mr. GRAHAM-HARRISON.

Chairman-continued.

to insert "execution." The words at present are "After the first issue of any debentures." I take it that the point is that it is not always very easy to fix what is the date of the issue of debentures, and you think that the date of execution of the debentures is the more suitable date (Mr. Barnes.) Debentures under the section of the Act from which this is reproduced cannot be issued until after the Registrar's certificate has been endorsed upon them, and consequently the date for endorsing the Registrar's certificate cannot be counted, as it is here, from the date of issue. It must be from some prior date, which has always been taken in practice by the Registrar to be the date of sealing or the date of execution.

[Chairman.] It seems very good sense. I think we may accept that.

Amendment accepted.

Chairman.

393. (To Mr. Graham-Harrison.) The next amendment is on Clause 100, page 58, line 26, to leave out "subject as aforesaid." Why do you propose to leave out those words: "subject

as aforesaid " ?-I believe Mr. Barnes thinks that this might stand as it is, and I think so, too. We do not want to press that amendment at all; we think it will do very well as it is.

394. Then do not let us make the better the enemy of the good; we will not accept that amendment. Then the next amendment is in the next line, after the word "the," to insert the word "other"?-Yes, those two amendments stand and fall together.

Chairman.

[Continued.

399. The next amendinent is on Clause 141, page 78, line 25, to leave out "or division," and in line 32 to leave out the same words ?--It has been suggested by Mr. Justice Warrington, among others, that it would be desirable to omit those words. The effect of the words is that it is possible to apply for a stay of proceedings in the case of an action in the King's Bench Division in that Division.

400. I think that is an improvement. It enables you to do it all at one blow, so to speak? --Yes.

(After some discussion.)
Chairman.

401. We will accept the amendment to leave out the words "or division"?-May I remind you that this clause, Clause 141, stood over at the last meeting of the Committee. I was to look up a point upon it, because in the note which I had on that clause there was a reference to certain cases. We have inserted in this clause no gloss taken from those cases, but the cases to which I referred were construing the effect of the two Judicature Acts upon the pre-existing law. The law as we have reproduced it in Clause 141 is what

was taken to be the law in those two cases.

402. That is as the clause is passed ?-Yes. 403. Therefore, we may be reassured that it represents the law as it is now ?—Yes. I only mentioned it because the clause stood over.

404. The next amendment is on Clause 166, page 91, line 22, after "unlimited" to insert or to his estate." I think it is quite fair to put in the words or to his estate "-is not that included in the Act?-The Act of 1867 legislates [Chairman.] Then we do not accept either of by reference to Section 101 of the Act of 1862,

those amendments.

Amendments not accepted.

Chairman.

395. Then the next amendment is on Clause 121, on page 68, line 36, after "way," to insert "of the company or " ?-Yes, that is an amendment suggested by Mr. Stewart Smith.

[Mr. Stewart Smith.] It seems to be an omitted case. It seems absurd to give the power to a company in liquidation and not to give it to a company when it is not in liquidation.

Chairman. 396. Yes, I think that is so. It is only carrying out the law as it is now. (To Mr. GrahamHarrison.) Do you see any reason against accepting that amendment ?--No, it seems quite right.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

66

and it is not quite plain.

405. You think this makes it clear?-Yes. [Chairman.] I think that is quite right.

Amendment accepted.

Chairman.

406. The next amendment is on Clause 178, page 95, line 39, after "contributory" to insert τσ or debtor "?-As it is stated in the Note, Section 119 of the Act of 1862, from which this clause is reproduced, applies to proceedings against a contributory or the estate of a contributory or a debtor of the Company, but by what is apparently an accidental omission, does not apply to the estate of a debtor. amendment is accepted. [Chairman.] That seems quite clear. That

[blocks in formation]

BILL (LORDS). POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL (LORDS). STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (LORDS). Mr. BARNES and Mr. GRAHAM-HARRISON.

22 July, 1908.]

27

[Continued.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

priority of wages. Has the word next been used before?-The word " next is not in the present section.

412. Has it ever been used ?-No, but there has been a decision on a section in exactly the same language in the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, in which it was held that it meant the four months next before.

413. It may be that that decision is right, or it may be that it is not right. If you say that it must be the two months next before, that limits the priority of the wages, does it not?— Yes.

414. It is open to a fair contention under the Act as it stands that the two months may mean any two months before, is not that so?—Yes.

(After some discussion.)

[Chairman.] I do not like inserting the word "next"; I think we had better leave it as it is;

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

416. The next amendment is on Clause 241, Subsection 3, page 123, line 15, after "except " to insert "in the case of a winding up by the Court." What are those words wanted for?This provision is reproduced from Section 9 of the Stannaries Act of 1887, and it is quite clear from that section that it applies to every kind of winding up, because it begins in this way: "If at the commencement of the winding up of any Company, whether by the Court or otherwise." words in this particular place, and it is suggested In consolidation it is not possible to get in those that as there is a reference here in this provision to a winding up order, some one might argue that the whole of this Paragraph (3) is limited to a compulsory winding up; and I think I did not defend these words as I ought to have done at the last meeting of the Committee, because I think they are quite necessary to reproduce the existing law.

[Chairman.] Then, if that is so, we had better recommend the insertion of these words.

66

Amendment accepted.

Chairman.

417. The next amendment is on Clause 284, at page 148, line 32, after "licence" to insert or revocation of licence"?-Those words were struck out in the Bill, and we propose now to put them back.

418. I think that is quite right ?—It is only a very small matter of convenience really to Mr. Barnes.

419. Then we will accept that amendment. The next amendment is in the next line, after “ "given," to insert "or made"; that is only consequential? -Yes.

[Chairman.) That is quite right.

Amendments accepted.

420. The

BILL (LORDS). POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL (LORDS). STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (LORDS).

22 July, 1908.]

Mr. BARNES and Mr. GRAHAM-HARRISON.

[Continued.

[ocr errors]

Chairman.

[ocr errors]

420. The next amendment is on Clause 285, page 150, line 25, to leave out from the beginning of the line to director in line 2 of page 151, and in the fourth line to leave out the words "the expression." I do not quite understand how it would run then?-The proposal is to strike out the words "in the provisions of Part III. of this Act relating to," and the rest of that page, and the first line on page 151, and also the words "the expression," so that it will go on with the definition of "director" at the top of page 151.

Mr. Cave.

421. It is applying the definition to the whole of the Act instead of only Part III. ?--Yes.

[ocr errors]

Chairman.

422. It is really tidying up?-Yes. [Chairman.] I think that is quite right.

Amendments accepted.

Chairman.

423. The next amendment is on Clause 296, page 153, line 20, to leave out " July " and insert January," and in the same line to leave out eight" and insert "nine "?-Yes, the first day of July having gone by, we propose to make the Act come into operation on the first day of January, 1909. A little time is wanted to get rules printed, and so forth.

[Chairman.] We accept those amendments, and they will be introduced into the Bill, and not merely put among the list of amendments recommended, so that the Act will come into operation on the first day of January, 1909.

Amendments accepted.

Chairman.

424. Then the next amendment is on the Third Schedule?—The amendment on the Third Schedule does not arise now, because it depended upon an amendment that has been rejected.

425. Then the next amendment is on page 186, to leave out the Fourth Schedule-what is the reason of that?-As explained in the Note, this Schedule is reproduced from the Act of 1890. It deals with meetings of creditors and contributories in England, and rules have been made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, which, among other things, deal with the same subject.

426. The Lord Chancellor and the Board of

Chairman-continued.

Trade have power to do all that is necessary ?Yes, they have power to do all that is necessary. [Chairman.] That seems quite right. Then we will leave out the Fourth Schedule.

Mr. Cave.

427. That being so, should you not leave out all reference to the Fourth Schedule in Subclause (3) of Clause 153 ?

Chairman.

428. But after all is said and done, if it can be always changed ought you not to have some model?-(Mr. Barnes.) Part of this has been incorporated into rules which have been made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, and part of it has not been so put in. The suggestion was that it should be taken out from the Schedule here and all incorporated with the rules.

429. What I mean is this: Under the other Acts there was a schedule put in with what I may call a model, was there not ?—Yes.

430. And there was a provision that it might be altered. If what is suggested here is carried out there would be no model, as I understand? There will be the model in the rules which have

been made, which exist at the present time.

431. They would have to be re-enacted, would they not? They will have to be now.

432. Does not that point to the propriety of leaving the model as it is now, as the last exemplar of what has been done under the previous rules, with power to modify it ?—I think, with respect, it is not exactly a model. The other cases which your Lordship refers to are skeleton models, and there model would be the right word; but these are definite rules applying to meetings of creditors and contributors.

433. Very well, there is a general power to make rules? Yes.

[Chairman.] Then we must alter Section 153 by striking out Subsection (3). We will recommend that amendment. Those conclude the points which were reserved for further consideration and the suggested amendments?—Yes.

435. We will deal with these amendments which we recommend for adoption separately. Taking the Bill as we have amended it, apart from these recommendations which we have been considering to-day, that represents simply the present law; I understand that to be your opinion, is it not?—Yes.

(The Witnesses are directed to withdraw.)

REPORT

FROM

STANDING COMMITTEE A

ON THE

CORONERS' INQUESTS BILL.

WITH THE

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE.

157

Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,

28 May, 1908.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE,
By J. B. NICHOLS AND SONS, PARLIAMENT MANSIONS, VICTORIA STREET, S.W.

And to be purchased, either directly or through any Bookseller, from
WYMAN AND SONS, LIMITED, 109, FETTER LANE, FLEET STREET, E.C.; and
32, ABINGDON STREET, WESTMINSTER, S.W.; or
OLIVER AND BOYD, EDINBURGH; or

E. PONSONBY, 116, GRAFTON STREET, DUBlin.

1908.

[Price 1d.]

« 上一頁繼續 »