v. Rylands the act of the defendant which was complained of was the collecting in a reservoir a large quantity of water which burst its bounds and flowed into the plaintiff's mine; but though the degree of caution required may vary in each particular case, the principle upon which the duty depends must be the same, and it has been applied under many and varied circumstances of a more ordinary kind." Cases in which the liability of the de fendants was based upon the liability to fence were obviously not of much service. That the above decision is governed by the principle which runs through the decision in Fletcher v. Rylands and a multitude of other cases, some of which are noticed above, appears pretty obvious. A careful examination, indeed, shows that it is undistinguishable in principle. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. THE queries of what we will call a practical an that there was no defence to the action, and he then appeared as solicitor on the other side, and consented to judgment being entered. He subsequently presented a document purporting to be a taxed bill of the plaintiff's costs in the action, amounting to £6 14s. 4d., which sum prosecutrix paid, believing them to have been incurred by the holder of the bill. Some months afterwards she received a claim for £9 17s. 8d. for defending the action, and, demurring to the payment of this, an amended bill for £4 10s. 10d. was sent in, this sum, and the amount paid, constituting the two counts in the indictment. Lady Cardross was called by the prisoner to give evidence as to his character, and a letter from the Lord-Lieutenant of the county, who was too unwell to attend, was put in. temptible description, if a classification of fraud is, for such purposes, to be admitted at all. We report the proceedings at the trial elsewhere. The other case is that of a London solicitor, who has been in practice about forty-five years; but, if any comparison may be drawn between the two cases, the offence is perhaps not so black as that of his brother convict. This solicitor was convicted on the 3rd inst. before the learned deputy-assistant judge of Middlesex (Mr. Serjeant Cox) of having conspired with a client to commit certain fraudulent acts, as appears from the report which we to-day publish. The accused had prepared legal documents, the use of which were necessary Evidence in confirmation of the learned gentleto the accomplishment of the fraud, and the jury man's statement having been given, the prisoner were satisfied that the solicitor in preparing them addressed the court at length, denying that his was the accomplice of his client in a scheme to de-offence was anything more than negligence. fraud a third person. Mr. Serjeant Cox seems to have had some misgivings as to the propriety of the verdict-misgivings of a nature such as would be likely to arise in the mind of an experienced lawyer and judge having a knowledge of the duties of solicitors-namely, as to at what point a solicitor is called upon to inform a third person of solicitor should decline to act for a client in a case in the character of his client, and at what point a which any reasonable person must see that the client was not acting bona fide towards such third person. Points of this character are often of much difficulty (because of what a solicitor at all times owes to his client), unless it can be shown beyond all doubt that the solicitor well knew of the fraudulent intentions of his client, and essayed to assist his client in their accomplishment. It was not suggested that the solicitor shared the moneys plained to the borrower by the solicitor before its which his client (through the use of the deeds execution by such borrower? It appears desira-prepared by the solicitor) obtained by fraud ble, though not actually necessary to do so. It seems that an unregistered bill of sale will not be invalid as between the parties although its execution is not attested by a solicitor, and its provisions could, notwithstanding such omission, be enforced against the mortgagor. can the solicitor who attests the execution of the bill of sale (if he be a commissioner) also take the necessary affidavit? Suppose the case of a moneylender who keeps printed forms by him, and prepares his own securities: we take it that in such a case such a solicitor could at once attest the execution of the deed, and also administer the necessary oath. He might perhaps even if concerned as solicitor for the borrower, but could not properly do so if solicitor for the lender. On the other hand, the solicitor will, in many cases, be asked to make the necessary statutory affidavit, when such questions will not arise. A rule (if any are to be issued, as authorised by the Act) should perhaps provide that the solicitor attesting the execution of the deed shall not administer the oath to the deponent making the necessary affidavit, although this would necessitate the parties going to two solicitors. Again, must the affidavit as well as the form of attestation state that the effect of the deed was ex defraud; but such an offence would certainly call from the third person, and for which the client has been convicted, nor was it shown that the solicitor was not paid, or was not to be paid, his proper professional charges-not that this fact, standing alone, would have availed him anything. If a solicitor prepares documents which he has good reason to believe are to be used by a client for some fraudulent purpose, it may be that he cannot AMONG the many candidates for the office of Comp-necessarily be properly convicted of conspiring to troller of the Chamber of the City of London and of the Bridge House Estates is Mr. Edwin Andrew, who was admitted on the roll of solicitors in Trinity Term 1864. Mr. Andrew has at various times filled the offices of town clerk of Preston and of Salford, and that of one of the solicitors of the corporation of Liverpool. The learned gentleman is now solicitor to the Associa tion of Municipal Corporations. If testimonials go for anything at all Mr. Andrew stands, we should think, a very good chance of securing the appointment. We hope that those members of the Corporation of London who are solicitors will feel themselves at liberty, and indeed called upon to support the candidature of a solicitor to fill the vacant office. WE are sorry to record that, since we last went to press, two solicitors have been convicted of fraud. A Brighton solicitor of long standing, who is also a Doctor of Laws, a commissioner for oaths, and a captain in the auxiliary forces, has been convicted at the Brighton Quarter Sessions of obtaining money from a widow lady client by false and fraudulent pretences, and with attempting to obtain a further sum of money from the same client. There seems no reason whatever for questioning the decision of the jury. The learned doctor's defence was of a singular character, to the effect that he pointed out to the jury that he was liable to be arraigned before "that most terrible of all tribunals to solicitors-the Law Institution.' One would really suppose from this that the chief law society was an institution founded by Government as a perpetual menace to solicitors, rather than an association of solicitors established and maintained by themselves, one of the duties of the society being to watch over the interests of the Profession, and to exclude from membership, and indeed-or as far as it is able-from the Profession itself, all men guilty of dishonourable conduct. The solicitor in question appears to us to have lent himself to a fraud of a miserably con FRAUD BY A SOLICITOR. AT the Epiphany quarter sessions for the borough Gore prosecuted, the defendant conducting his The learned counsel, in opening the case, stated that the prosecutrix was a widow, residing at 42, Hova-villas, Brighton, who, in Jan. 1875, had occasion to obtain a loan of £30, for which she gave an acceptance for £35, payable at three months. Every three months, however, she paid £5 for the bill to be renewed till April 1877, when she received a letter from the defendant stating that the owner of the bill had commenced an action against her. That was the first time she ever heard that the defendant was not the holder of it, she having always paid him the sums for the renewals. The fact was, there had been sham set of proceedings in the district court of the High Court of Justice, defendant having brought the action in the name of his clerk, as holder of the bill, who had never paid a shilling consideration for it, and who was under age. At that time defendant not only issued the writ in the clerk's name, but drew an affidavit whereby he got the young man to swear a The Deputy-Recorder having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The prosecu tion recommended the defendant to the merciful six months' hard labour. consideration of the court. He was sentenced to CONVICTION OF A LONDON SOLICITOR. THOMAS WILLIAM PARKES, a solicitor, who has been in practice for over forty years, and is well known at the Middlesex Sessions court and several police-courts of the metropolis, and who was convicted last sessions, with a man named Amey (sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment), was brought up for judgment. J. P. Grain, who conducted the prosecution, briefly detailed the facts, and said that he should leave the case entirely in the judge's hand. Mr. Serjeant Cox, addressing the prisoner, said: You have been found guilty, after a protracted in the frands of which he was properly convicted. trial, of having conspired with your client Amey and for which he has been properly punished. If I had any reason to believe that you had shared the spoil with him, I should certainly have sentenced you to the same punishment. I agree with the jury, who have found your offence to be that, acting as the solicitor to Amey, you prepared documents required for the accomplishment of his frauds, knowing the purport of them, and that instead of warning his victim you led him to believe by your assurances that he was dealing with a safe and responsible person. I am quite aware that the duties of a solicitor in affairs of his client are very delicate and difficult. I should be reluctant to offer an opinion as to how far he could be called upon to disclose to the persons dealing with his client the state of his client's affairs. But this much is clear, that if he knows that his client is a rogue, and that the transactions on which he is advising are dishonest, his plain duty is to decline to proceed with them. In your case there were circumstances that appeared to show bona fides. You proposed to the prosecutor that he should have his own solicitor, and you supplied him with a draft of the partnership deed that he might be advised upon it, and you suggested the opening of a banking account. I put these facts strongly to the jury in your favour; but in the exercise of their discretion they nevertheless came to the conclusion that you conspired with Amey to aid him in his frauds. The verdict is theirs, and it is not my province to review it. I have but one duty -to pass such a sentence as the offence appears to me to require. Any further dealings with it must be left to the higher courts; but this I may say, that if the law were as I hope ere long it will be that a new trial may be granted in some cases this is one in which I should certainly have desired it. To you, as a solicitor, there are more formidable consequences than the punishment that I shall inflict. As I have said, if I had any reason to believe that you shared the spoil, I should have treated you alike in the sentence. But there is no such imputation, and therefore I make a very marked difference in the sentence as in the verdict, and that is that you be imprisoned as a first-class misdemeanant for three calendar months. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK ANGLESEA (PENMON) MARBLE QUARRIES COMPANY CREDIT FONCIER COMPANY (LIMITED).-Petition for wind- CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BIDDER (Samuel P.), formerly of Hillfield House, Mitcham, Sussex. Feb. 1; H. Woodward, solicitor, 15, John-street, Bedford-row, London. Feb. 14; V.C. H., at one o'clock. LORIMER (Robt. S.), Cheltenham, Gloucester. Jan. 81; C. H. Jessop, solicitor, Cheltenham. Feb. 13; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. Creditors abroad, April 30, to C. H. Jessop, solicitor. May 21; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. PURSER Caroline C.), 2 and 4, Pimlico-road, Pimlico, and 5 and 6, West India Dock-road, Limehouse, Middlesex, pawnbroker. Jan. 25; C. Cheese, solicitor, 2, Warwickstreet, Charing-cross, Middlesex. Feb. 1; V.C. M., at one o'clock. SPANTON (Samuel), 10. Buckingham-cottages, Rochesterrow, Westminster, Middlesex, cab proprietor. Jan. 22: T. B. Girling, solicitor, 3, Guildhall-chambers, Basinghallstreet, London. Jan. 29; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. BELL (Jno.), Queen-street, Ulverston, sharebroker. Jan. BING (Robt. H.), Duke-street, Derby, cement merchant, BIRCH (Walter), Leeds, shoe manufacturer. March 1; J. Dover-street, Southwark, Surrey. BUSH Wm. G), Woodford, Northampton, manager of the CLARKE (Chas.), Connygree Farm, Newent, Gloucester, PRANCE Chas. H.), Hampstead, Middlesex, barrister-at- had the reference therein to the debate in conlaw. Feb. 20; Surr and Co., solicitors, 12, Abchurch-junction with the United Law Students' Society lane, London. RAWLINGS (Benjamin), 41 to 43, Dover-street, Piccadilly, REEVES (Rev. Jonathan), Beeding, Hurstpierpoint, Sus-, ROWLANDS (Frances), Harrow-on-the-Hill, Middlesex widow. Feb. 6; Myers and Co., solicitors, 16, Finsbury pavement, London." been referred to more fully and in such terms of approval as these joint debates appear to us to call. We observe that, while the society now consists of 224 members, the average attendance at meetings is only twenty-one, and the average of speakers at such meetings only eight. This appears to be an unfortunate feature in the SADGEBEAR (Sarah), Baring-street, South Shields, Dur-. working of the society. We are glad that members SEDGLEY (Jno.), Oddington, Gloucester, saddle and har- SEED (Robt.), Oak Bank, Skelsmergh, Kendall, Westmor- TERRY (Richd), late of Gloucester Cottage, Preston, Brighton. THOMAS (Matthew W.), late of 34, Lordship-road, Stoke YOUNG (Jno. J.), North End, Portsea, brewer. Feb. 28, WE appear to be drawing near to the time when Law Students' Societies will exist for purposes other than mere debate. A series of four law lectures are about to be delivered to the law students of Leeds. And a paper upon "the new Bills of Sale Act" is also to be read to the students of the same place. The necessary arrangements have, in each case, been made by the committee of the Leeds Law Students' Society. The fact is, country law students are actually GEEVALL (Frederick H., late or Chicago, U.S.A., formerly attempting to do for themselves what the Pro FROGGARTT (Geo.), 45, Victoria-street, Bordesley-green, March Feb. 8; of Prestatyn, near Rhyl. Feb. 15; Robert Davies and Co., solicitors, Market-place, Warrington. HAXSETT (Susannah), Market Drayton, Shropshire, widow. Feb. 15; T. Bythway, 5, Lloyd-street, Albert-square, Man chester. fession or the Government ought to do for them, have in view. HORLEY (Catherine C.), Lewes, Sussex, widow. Feb. 1; of country societies can now obtain admission to this society without the payment of any entrance fee. WE publish the fourteenth annual report of the committee of the United Law Students' Society, from which we gather that the society was never in a more prosperous condition, and this is due to the unceasing efforts of the officers and members of the committee to secure the accomplishment by the society of the special objects for which it was established. Eighty-two members have been barristers and eight solicitors. The proportion elected since the last report, including eleven of articled students to bar students who have joined the society during the past year is 3 to 1; the average attendance at the meetings is small. We entirely concur in the remarks of the committee as to the great advantage derived from joint meetings with the other London law students' societies. It is beyond all doubt that, when the same men continually meet together, they are very apt to pursue a particular and settled mode of thought, which in the end has an injurious effect in debate. The efforts of this society to form a good law library for the use of law students appear to us to call for greater support from members of both branches of the Profession than they have hitherto received. AN Equity class will be held in the Lecture Hall, at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, from 4.30 to 6 o'clock p.m., and an Equity lecture will be delivered on Thursday, from 6 to 7 o'clock p.m. ARTICLES of clerkship (whether original or supplemental) dated on any day during January must be enrolled at the Petty Bag Office, Chancery-lane, on or before the same day in the month of July next, and when articles are enrolled and registered on any day during the month of January they must be entered at the Law Institution on or before the same day in the month of and 23 & 24 Viet. c. 127, s. 7. Failure to comply April next. See 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, ss. 8 and 9, with these statutory requirements often entails a loss of time upon articled students. WHERE articles expire between 10th Jan. and 15th April, candidates may be examined in January; if between 14th April and 22nd May, candidates may be examined in April; if between 21st May and 2nd Nov., in June; and if between 1st Nov. and 11th Jan., in November; or, of course, at any subsequent examination. Fortytwo days' notice at least is necessary for these examinations, the same to be calculated up to the first day of the examination. See No. 23 of the new regulations under the Solicitors Act 1877. ARTICLED students are required to present themselves for the Intermediate Examination within the six months next succeeding the day on which they shall have completed half of the term of service. Candidates are required to give to the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society thirty days' notice before the date of the examination at which they propose to be examined within the limit above mentioned, and at the same time to leave their articles of clerkship and any assignment thereof, tered, together with a certificate of their having or supplemental articles, duly stamped and regispassed the preliminary examination (unless they We understand that Mr. J. R. Ford has given a shall have been exempted therefrom), and answers to the questions as to due service and conduct up prize for competition by the law students of Leeds. to that time. Prints of these questions can be obA second prize has been offered in the same comtained on application at the office of the Incorporated Law Society. Candidates who apply to be The subject of the essay is to be "The law as to commons and waste lands and the scope of the examined under the 4th section of the Solicitors Inclosure Acts." The question is one perhaps Act 1860, may, on application, obtain copies of the rather too abstruse for young students; on the further questions relating to the ten years 'service other hand, it is of advantage that they should antecedent to the articles of clerkship; and such thus be tempted to deviate from the more ordi-questions, duly answered, must be left at the time of giving notice. A renewed notice must be given nary and commonplace courses of study. It is thoroughly gratifying to notice the extent to which fourteen days at least before the date of the exMach 31; Watson and Dickons, the practice of offering prizes for competition by amination. The fee payable on giving notice of hotel keeper, late residing at Belle Vue, Marlow-road, Alfred), formerly of York Town, Frimley, Surrey, law students, and which we ventured to inangu examination is £3, and for a renewed notice £1 Maidenhead. April 1; Thos. Cooke, solicitor, Wokingham. rate some few years ago, is being adopted in most MARCHMONT (Caroline M.), 171, Maida-vale, Middlesex, of our large towns. In the absence of a system of Besford Feb, Collyer-Bristow and Co., solicitors, 4, legal education, these competitions are especially MIRE Capt. Jno.), Lishda, Whalley Range, Manchester, useful, and should be encouraged by solicitors. Feb 10: Hopgood and Co., solicitors, 174, Whitehall-place, MYALL (Wm.), Felstead, Essex, machinist. Jan. 22; Wade and Knocker, solicitors, Great Dunmow, Essex. ERN Juo P., Tregoney, Cornwall, gentleman. Feb. 8; Carlyon and Son, solicitors, 7, Princes-street, Turo. LAXE (Carl, Jesmond House, St. Mary's Mount, Jesmond, Bedford-row, Middlesex. London. ELSEWHERE we report the proceedings at the 10s. THE days appointed for the final examinations of the Incorporated Law Society in 1879 are: Tuesday 14th, and Wednesday 15th Jan., at 10, Tuesday 22nd, and Wednesday 23rd April, at 10; Tuesday 17th, and Wednesday 18th June, at 10: Tuesday 4th, and Wednesday 5th Nov., at 10. Candidates are required, by the regulations of the 27th Nov. and 5th Dec. 1877, to give notice in writing forty-two days at least before the date of the examination to the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, London. Candidates are also required at the same time to leave with the secretary of the society their articles of clerkship and any assignment thereof, or supplemental articles, and the certificates of their having passed the preliminary examination, or evidence of their exemption therefrom, and certificates of having passed the intermediate examination, together with answers to the questions as to due service and conduct. Prints of these questions can be obtained on application at the office of the Incorporated Law Society. A renewed notice must be given fourteen days at least before the date of the examination. The fee payable on giving notice of examination is £5, and for a renewed notice £2 10s. HULL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. THE first ordinary meeting after the Christmas vacation was held on Tuesday evening, the 7th inst., in the Law Library. In the absence of the appointed chairman, Mr. F. J. Gardam was elected to the chair. There were nine other members present. The secretary pro tem., Mr. T. B. Redfearn, then read the minutes of several previous meetings, which were passed. The meeting then proceeded to elect honorary secretary in the place of Mr. Shepherd, resigned, and the following were the results of the voting: Mr. Redfearn, seven votes; Mr. Booth, one vote; Mr. Adamson, one vote. Mr. Redfearn was therefore elected. Mr. West then opened the following debate in the affirmative, That the compulsory powers given to school boards under the Elementary Education Acts are too extensive." Mr. Redfearn followed in the negative. Mr. Whitehead supported the affirmative, and Messrs. Locking and Ward the negative. A very interesting discussion took place, and the Chairman, after very ably summing, up, put the question to the meeting, when the negative was declared carried by a majority of two, three gentlemen having voted for the affirmative and five for the negative. Mr. West refrained from voting. The proceedings were brought to a close by a vote of thanks to the chairman. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. THIS Society held their quarterly meeting on the 7th inst., at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, Mr. C. Swinfen Eady, LL.D., in the chair. The treasurer laid before the meeting a list of unpaid fines and subscriptions, and the secretary read a statement of the proceedings of the society during the past quarter. The remainder of the evening was taken up with the discussion of motions. Much interest was taken in a resolution brought forward by Mr. MacColla, in regard to the present system of granting "dispencing orders," but on which no vote was taken owing to the want of time. The following was the report of the secretary for the past quarter, which commenced on the 29th Oct. last, and terminated on the 17th Dec.The quarter comprised eight meetings, at which three legal and four general subjects were discussed, and on the 10th Dec. a joint debate was held with the United Law Students' Society, at Clement's Inn Hall. Thirteen new members had been elected, two of whom allowed their election to become void under rule 4. One member had died, and four had resigned, leaving the number on the rolls of the society at 224. The average attendance at the meetings had been twenty-one; the highest number was twenty-eight and the lowest seventeen. The average number of speakers was eight, and of votes thirteen. The average length of the debates was two hours fifteen minutes. On the first meeting in December a resolution was passed to admit members of country law students' societies without the payment of the entrance fee on their elections. In regard to the above statistics the secretary called the attention of the society to the following facts, namely, that in the number of new members elected there was a decrease of nine to the corresponding term last session. And taking into account the increasing number of candidates at the preliminary examination, it would seem that a slight though general effort on the part of the present members, which he called upon them, to make would, before the end of this quarter, proportionally increase the numbers. The average of the attendance, speakers, votes, and time occupied by the debates remained nearly the same as stated in the report of last January. This showed the society to be maintaining its former position, yet, by the advantages it possessed by holding the meeting at the Law Institution, affording every purpose required for the discussions on legal and general questions, still further progress, both in the debates and in an increase in the number of members who take part at the meetings, should be looked forward to and tried for during the present quarter. LIVERPOOL LAW STUDENTS' ASSOCIA TION. A MEETING of this association was held at the Law Library on Monday, Dec. 30, F. M. Hull, Esq., B.A., solicitor, in the chair. The secretary Thompson, B.A., on his having been placed fourth moved a vote of congratulation to Mr. J. W. in honours at the recent final examination, and to Mr. W. F. Wilson on his having been awarded the Union prize given by the United Law Students' Society. The motion was seconded by Mr. Collins, and carried by acclamation. Mr. G. L. Collins then opened the debate in the affirmative on the following subject set down for discussion, "Is a freeholder, who, in order to get possession of his land, assaults a person wrongfully holding possession of it against his will, liable to such person for such assault?" Mr. H. B. Priest supported the negative view. Messrs. Broadbridge, Leslie, and McMaster continued the discussion. On the question being put to the meeting it was decided in the negative by a majority of four. The next meeting will be the annual meeting, at which T. H. Baylis, Esq., Q.C., has kindly consented to preside. afforded to them of cultivating those qualities which constant practice can alone develope, and which are so necessary for the practice of their profession in court; in addition to the advantage derived of testing by argument the results of their law reading. Your committee would also remind you that, unless they are misinformed, your society is, with the exception of the Law Students' Debating Society, and the moots held from time to time in Gray's-inn, the only one where purely legal questions are discussed. Among the more important topics discussed at the ordinary meetings the following may be perhaps selected as most entitled to notice: The present system of education adopted in Universities and Public Schools: the Extension of the Franchise; the policy of legislative restriction upon Trade and Amuse ment on Sunday; the separation of Church and State; the desirability of the absorption of large States by small ones; the Bankruptcy Act of for crimes against person and property; while the 1869; and the respective severity of punishment foreign policy of the Government and the Eastern Question have been dealt with on several occasions. Your committee would also note in passing that the holding of fortnightly meetings during August and September, introduced last year, was this year continued, which they cannot but consider a favourable sign of the vitality of the society, inasmuch as you are, they believe, the only law society which continues its meetings throughout the vacation. Your society has also held three joint meetings with other societies, viz., two with the Law Students' Debating Society, and one with the Westminster Debating Society. The attendance was on each occasion good, and your committee is of opinion that it is impossible to over-estimate the good effect of these meetings in introducing members to new modes of thought and expression, and thus counteracting that tendency which exists in every body of men meeting constantly together of falling into a particular groove. The society 21st Jan., when the chair was taken by Sir Henry James, Q.C., M.P., supported by a large number of eminent members of the two Professions. Your committee think that much gratitude is due to the gentlemen who most kindly came forward on that occasion to make it the great success it was. Shortly after the inaugural meeting Sir Henry James notified to your secretary his willingness to offer a price of £10 per annum, for three years, for the best essay on some subject of law reform; and it has accordingly been established under the title of The James Prize." Your committee may here mention that the Solicitor-General has promised to preside at the next inaugural meeting. The legal correspondence department, the general correspondence department, and the department of MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING celebrated its annual inaugural meeting on the SOCIETY. THE sixth meeting of the session was held on Thursday, the 2nd Jan., at the Law Library, Cross-street Chambers, when the chair was taken by J. Collingham, Esq., barrister-at-law. The following is the subject for discussion: "Can a married woman recover any arrears of income belonging to her for her separate estate, such income having been received by her husband?" (Howard v. Digby, 2 C. & F. 634; Haynes, 4th edit. p. 239.) Mr. Flower opened the debate on behalf of the affirmative, and was supported by Mr. Stocks and Mr. Walley; Mr. Hardman took the opposite view, and was supported by Mr. Rycroft. Several other gentlemen took part in the discussion, and Mr. Flower having replied, the Chairman summed up. The question having been put to the meeting, was decided in favour of the affirmative by a majority of fifteen votes. The hon. sec. (Mr. W. Slater) proposed a vote of thanks to the chairman for presiding, which was seconded by Mr. Sternberg. The chairman having replied, the proceedings ended. UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. ANNUAL REPORT. the societies in union are in good working order, as appears more in detail in their separate reports. The law library which is of comparatively recent formation, has, as will be seen by the librarian's report, con siderably augmented in size, owing in a very great degree to the generosity with which members of the Legal Profession have come forward to its assistance; and, without wishing in any way unduly to tax members of the society, your committee would submit that, considering the support which has been afforded you by those outside your society, and the extent to which the library has during the past year been made use of by members, its claims to support from those who take advantage of it may not unreasonably be urged upon you. Your committee notice with much pleasure the unprecedented number of honours gained by members of the society during the past year, and they cannot but think that these successes may be, in some degree at least, attributed to the aids which your society offers to legal education. The subject of legal education YOUR Committee, in presenting their fourteenth annual report, feel great pleasure in being able to inform you that the society was probably never in a more prosperous condition. The success of the law library, and of the meetings for the discussion of purely legal questions, to which your committee referred in their last report as new work, inaugurated by the society under favourable circumstances, may now be considered fully assured, whilst the older departments maintain their vigour and efficiency. The treasurer's report shows that the financial position of the society is highly satisfactory, notwithstanding certain heavy exhas been under the careful consideration of a ceptional expenses which have been this year special committee appointed by you in July last. incurred, while an unusually large number of new Numerous meetings have been held, and a report members have been added to your roll. Of this has been drawn which will shortly be published number seventy-six were elected as ordinary with the society's annual report. The rules of members, and six were admitted without election the society have been this year reprinted with as being members of societies in union with you. various alterations; the chief of which, relating to The Sheffield Law Students' Society has also been the election of officers, will be brought into use for admitted into union. Of the seventy-six new the first time to-night. Before bringing the report to members elected this year eleven were barristers, a close it is necessary to allude to the loss which your eight solicitors, fifteen bar students, and forty-society has recently sustained by the death of its two articled clerks. Your committee observe with president Lord Chelmsford. The post was offered satisfaction that a fair proportion is maintained to and accepted by the present Lord Chancellor. between the two branches of the Profession, for Your committee, in conclusion, have only to express they believe that the society will thus be able more their fervent wish that the present efficiency of efficiently to fulfil the chief object for which it the society may during the ensuing year be fully was founded, viz., to promote the interests of the Legal Profession generally. The society has held forty ordinary meetings at Clement's-inn Hall, the average attendance at which was twenty-three, and fifteen fortnightly meetings at the Law Institution, the average attendance at which was thirteen. Your committee regret that the legal moots, although conducted with considerable ability and animation, are not so well attended as the ordinary meetings, and they would urge upon members the great value of the opportunity thus maintained. Students' Queries. INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION.-My articles are dated the 23rd June 1877; may I go in for my intermediate examination in Nov. 1879, or must I wait until Jan. ST. FELIX. 1880 ? DEPT.] [If articled for five years, in Jan. 1880.-ED. STUD.'S 1877, and I might therefore, I presume, present myself I was articled for five years on the 10th April MAGISTRATES' LAW. for my intermediate examination in Nov. 1879. It has, 2. taries would be sufficient to secure a pass at the Jan. 1880 examination. L. S. [You can, of course, present yourself at either of the times you name. If you have not already entered upon your studies you would perhaps do well not to go up until Jan. 1880. The examiners do not require the use of any particular edition of Stephen's Commentaries, but the latest edition is to be preferred.-ED. STUD.'S DEPT.] I was articled 24th Aug. 1878. Will you inform me of the earliest dates I can present myself for the intermediate and final, and, if I must go up for my intermediate in 1881, what books to read for it? If you do not know what books are to be read for 1881, can you tell me when and where I can get the information? SERVICE UNDER ARTICLES.-I was articled in April 1876 for five years, passed intermediate Nov. 1878. If I matriculate at London in June next in the first divi. sion, can I be admitted after four (instead of five) years' service under articles (having, of course, ob. tained my principal's consent)? ARTICLED CLERK. In the 5th section of the Solicitors Act 1860 the words "after having been subsequently bound by " articles, &c., occur; but in sect. 13 of the Solicitors Act 1877 no such words are inserted, and it is therefore considered that in a case like yours you are entitled to the benefit of the regulation framed under the authority of the latter section.-ED. STUD.'S DEPT.] I am articled to a solicitor and notary public; can I serve my last year in London with our agents there, who are not notaries?" ARTICLED CLerk. poses of the Act;" otherwise he does not want any authority, for he could always buy for his own pleasure. And (2) "if he suspect the same to have been sold to him contrary to any provision of this Act, ," he is bound to submit: "shall sub OFF THE PREMISES.-An applicant to licensing he must assuredly be the purchaser. The Act to be of no avail, but in order to carry out the 66 Act. Sect. 20 authorises the expenditure. The words contrary to any provision of this Act are important. There is no provision to which The animus of the seller was to sell to the prejusuch sale can apply other than the 6th section. dice of the purchaser; and the intent of the offender is uniformly regarded in treating of offences. The term prejudice should be treated the same as the word "malicious" in indictments as arising from the act of the offender. justices for a certificate under the Wine and Beer-expressly recognises this sale to him, not as a step PAUPER CRIMINAL LUNATIC ORDER OF MAINTENANCE-SETTLEMENT AT TIME OF MAKING ORDER.-In 1862 a female criminal lunatic, after living with her husband, without pauper relief, for more than three years in the appellants' union, was acquitted on the ground of insanity on a charge of attempting to murder her child. Her husband's last legal settlement was then elsewhere, but he continued to live in the appellants' union; and in 1877 an order for her maintenance, under the authority of Reg. v. Stepney Union (L. Rep. 9 Q. B. 383), was made upon the appellants. Held, upon a case stated, that the order was rightly made, not on the husband's last legal settlement at the time of her detention, but upon the appellants' union, in which was the husband's then settlement under 39 & 40 Vict. c. 61, s. 34: (Barton Regis Union v. Clerk of the Peace for Berkshire, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 445. Q. B.) QUARTER Recorder. W. W. Ravenhill, Esq. FOOD AND DRUGS ADULTERATION THE following correspondence has taken place : Town Hall Office, Bradford, 13th Nov. 1878. Sir, I have to ask for your kind assistance in reference to a difficulty which has arisen in connection with the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875. What notice of appeal to be given. 10 days 10 days 10 days 14 days Statutory. 7 days 10 days Clerk of the Peace. Thomas Lamb. John Torkington. in the Standard newspaper of the 5th Nov. 1878, is erroneous and bad in law, are as follows: 1. That the expression "to the prejudice of the purchaser" in sect. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 does not mean that evidence is required of the buyer suffering any personal injury or inconvenience from the adulteration, but is merely to be read as excluding from the operaOn Friday last three summonses stood for hear- tion of the Act articles which are not of the ing before the Bradford borough justices for nature, substance, or quality demanded, by being adulteration of butter. Attention was called to a better; the difference consisting in some supereport in the Standard newspaper of the 5th Nov.riority of the article, favourable on the side of 1878, sent herewith, in which it was stated that the buyer, that the intention of the Act is to deal Sir James Ingham had, after taking time to con- with adulterations where the difference consists in sider, dismissed a summons of a similar nature some inferiority, prejudicial on the side of the laid under the Act, on the ground that the article buyer. In other words, that the terms used apply in question, having been bought by a sanitary to the character of the article sold, as being in inspector with official funds, for analysis, there its constituents adulterated depreciatively, and was no sale "to the prejudice of the purchaser not to any bodily injury or inconvenience of the within the meaning of the 6th section. The town buyer. clerk appeared for the prosecution, and stated that, though he disagreed with the view taken by the London stipendiary, and believed that the latter had not had the subject fully argued before him, he (the town clerk) felt embarrassed in ask ing the Bench, consisting of laymen, to convict, and thus have conflicting decisions upon the ques tion, until an opportunity had been had of communicating with you, and if deemed necessary, of obtaining the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the true construction of the Act. This was acceded to by the defendants and the Bench, and I have now the honour of forwarding a statement by the town clerk of the grounds upon which he ventures to differ with Sir James Ingham. As the matter is one which effects the whole country, and as it is desirable to have some authoritative guide as to what should be done, I shall feel greatly obliged by hearing from you fully thereon.I have the honour to be, your obedient servant, ANGUS HOLDEN, Mayor. The Rt. Hon. R. A. Cross, M.P. Secretary of State, Home Department, Whitehall, London. Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. The grounds upon which it is submitted that the view taken by Sir James Ingham in dismissing a summons for adulteration of milk, as reported 2. That the term "purchaser" should be taken in its ordinary popular meaning, and not as involving some occult mystification-that is a buyer a vendee. Suppose a lady to do some shopping for a friend in articles of food, and the transaction were to lead to a summons under this Act, by any adulteration, for the articles would not be the purchaser would not be personally prejudiced used by her. The seller might quote the whisky case referred to by Sir James, and say, "I do not see how the lady is prejudiced, for she did not eat the food;" yet Sir James Ingham could not properly refuse to convict if a depreciative adulteration were proved. There is no reason why the word " purchaser" should have any refinement placed upon it to turn it from its accepted signification. If so the inspector who buys and pays is, as between himself and the vendor, a the meaning of the Act; and if the article be depurchaser "for all intents and purposes within preciatively adulterated he is legally prejudiced. 3. An Act of Parliament must be construed 4. One of the canons for construing statutes is to presume that the Legislature intended some reasonable object. The only possible object of the 13th section is to ground proceedings for information. If the operation is to stop with the analysis, and nothing is to come of the analysis, then there is no reasonable object for the enactment; but there is on the other view. 5. Sir James Ingham, according to the report, does not say what is his own opinion on the Act; what he does say rather favours the inference that he is for upholding it; but he hesitates to differ with such high authority as he refers to, and halts between two opinions. The Standard newspaper of the 12th Nov. 1878, sent herewith, reports that Mr. De Rutzen, another metropolitan stipendiary, has no such misgivings, and convicts. He relied on Sandys v. Markham (reported in 41 Justice of the Peace, p. 52), where the Queen's Bench recognised the purchase by an inspector as being within the Act. But it is remarkable that Sir James should have quoted some casual remark of Chief Justice Cockburn on the case of Sandys v. Small, reported in the Analyst, an unprofessional serial, when he might have seen, in 8 L. Rep. Q. B. Div. p. 449, the case stated in full, without a syllable of what is attributed to his Lordship in the Analyst, and, moreover, should have disregarded Sandys v. Markham. W. T. M'GOWEN, Town Clerk. Town Hall, Bradford, 13th Nov. 1878. The above letter and statement had been handed over by the Home-office to the Local Government Board, and the following reply has just been received: Local Government Board, Whitehall S. W. 3rd Dec. 1878. Sir, I am directed by the Local Government Board to advert to the letter which you addressed on the 13th ult. to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, forwarding a statement prepared by the town clerk of the borough of Bradford, with reference to a question which has been raised as to the power of justices to convict, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, in cases where, under the 13th section of the Act, samples are obtained by officers of the local authority for the purpose of submission for analysis. With respect to the case of Sandys v. Small, the board observe that the town clerk has drawn attention to the fact that the expressions attributed by some of the newspapers to the Lord Chief Justice, to the effect that an officer appointed by a local authority could not be considered as prejudiced by the purchase of adulterated articles, procured under the orders of the local authority, are absent from the authorised report of the case, viz., L. Rep. 3 Q. B. Div. 449. Indeed, the case was decided upon quite different grounds. In the other case to which the town clerk refers, viz., Sandys v. Markham, where adulterated mustard had been purchased by an inspector for analysis, Mr. Justice Lush, in relation to the precise point, distinctly said that "if the purchaser did not get pure mustard, as he was entitled to, prejudice must be presumed.' It should be further stated that several of the police magistrates in the metropolis, adopting the opinion of Mr. Justice Lush, have not hesitated to convict in cases where the purchase has been made, not for consumption, but for analysis; and the board themselves entertain no doubt that this is the correct view. according to all that appears within the four 66 JUSTICES' clerks' salaries for Cambridgeshire amounted to £267 10s. for the past quarter, and the fees received from them to £381 178. 5d., thus leaving a balance of £114 78. 5d. in favour of the ELECTION LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BOROUGHS-NOTICE OF OBJECTION-SERVICE -COLLECTOR OF RATES-OFFICE OF OVERSEER. -The collector of rates for the parishes constituting the borough of B. discharged all the ordinary duties of the overseers, including the duty of making out the lists for revision purposes and of attending at the registration court. It was the uniform practice that all notices of claim and objection should be sent to the collector's office, which was attached to his residence, whether such notices were first delivered to an overseer or not. The parish books were all kept at this office, and there was no other place in the borough where any parish business was transacted. A notice of objection to the appellant's name was left at this office. Held, that this was a good service on the overseers, on the ground that this office was an overseer's officer or other place for transacting parochial business." Semble, the collector was an overseer within 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 101 (Green v. Mepham, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 450. C. P.) REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WILL CHARITABLE LEGACY PARTLY VOIDCOSTS-EXECUTOR.-A testatrix left a legacy of £500 upon trust for the repair of a tomb and for the poor of the parish. The former purpose being void: Held, that the whole sum must be devoted to the charity. Freek v. Attorney-General (17 L. T. Rep. N. S. 27; L. Rep. 4 Eq. 521) followed. Chapman v. Brown (6 Bank. 404) is not overruled by Magistrates of Dundee v. Morris (3 Macq. 134). When there is a doubt to whom a legacy is payable, the executor should reserve a portion of the residue to meet the costs of proceedings in in court. In such a case the better conrse is to take out an administration summons, waiving inquiries, and adjourn the case into court, or to agree upon a statement of facts in the nature of a special case: (Re Birkett's Trusts, L. T. Rep. N. S. 418. Jessel, M.R.) ADMINISTRATION-PARTIAL DISTRIBUTIONNEGLECT BY TRUSTEES TO FURNISH ACCOUNTS -COSTS.-Where executors and trustees had, prior to an administration action, distributed three-fourths of their testator's residuary property, but had been irregular in paying the income of the other one-fourth (which was held by them in trust for a person during her life, and afterwards for her children), and had persistently neglected to furnish accounts in respect of this share, on an administration action being brought by the person entitled to the one-fourth share: Held, that the costs of the action, including those of the hearing, but excepting those of the accounts and inquiries, must be paid by the trustees personally, and that the remainder of the costs must in the first instance be thrown on the whole of the testator's residuary property, the proportion of them which would have been payable out of the three-fourths, if such parts had not been distributed, being borne by the trustees personally, and the remainder being paid out of the one-fourth share actually administered in the action: (Re Bell's Estate, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 422. Fry, J.) TRUSTEE RELIEF ACT-PETITION FOR PAYMENT OUT-SERVICE-CHANCERY FUNDS ACT —PRACTICE.—Where money has been paid into court under the Trustee Relief Ace, and the court, in an action brought for the fund, has declared the rights of the persons interested; on an application made by the trustee and the person so interested for payment out, it is unnecessary to serve notice of the application on persons who, although stated in the trustee's affidavit as being interested in the fund, have not been declared to be so by the court: (Re Fosbury's Trusts, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 422. Fry, J.) RIVER RIPARIAN PROPRIETOR NEGLIGENCE-OVERFLOW-DAMAGE-ACT OF GOD EXTRAORDINARY FLOOD. A dock company which was empowered by Act of Parliament to make and maintain a dock and works according to the levels defined on the deposited sections, constructed its dock communicating with the Thames by an artificial channel, the height of the retaining bank of which and of the dock was shown on the sections to be 4ft. above Trinity high-water mark. The natural level of the land surrounding the dock was some 8ft. below Trinity high-water mark, and the river was kept from overflowing it by means of a river wall 4ft. 2in. above Trinity high-water mark. The company allowed part of its retaining bank to be some inches below the height of 4ft. above Trinity high-water mark. An extraordinary high tide took place, the water rising to 4ft. 5in. above high-water mark, and the water in the dock overflowed the bank and damaged the property of an adjoining landowner. In an action for damages by the latter: Held, that the company was liable to damages, because it had broken its statutory obligation to maintain its retaining bank at the height of 4ft. above high-water mark: that, independently of the Act, the company was bound, as a riparian proprietor, to keep the bank up to the level of the rest of the river wall, and was liable to damages for negligence in not doing so; and that, although the extraordinarily high tide was an act of God, that fact did not free the company from its liability, though, if it could show that some of the damage which actually happened was exclusively attributable to a cause beyond its control, it would be entitled to a proper deduction in that respect. Decision of Fry, J. affirmed with a variation: (The Nitro-phosphate, &c. Company The London and St. Katharine's Dock Company, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 433. Ct. of App.) COMPANY LAW. Eldridge (Messrs. Eldridge and Stephenson, Hull) appeared in support of the motion. Bowey (Messrs. Bowey and Brewis, Sunderland) appeared for the respondents. The Eldridge stated that for some time Mr. John B. Watson was the tenant of a farm at Youlthorpe, near Stamford Bridge, and three or four years ago he took another farm at South Wold, Kirby Underdale. On the 3rd March he gave a bill of sale to the respondent Preston to cover £1200 and interest at 6 per cent. The debtor remained in possession till the 19th Aug. last, when Preston made a demand for the money, which, with interest, amounted to £1413 6s. 3d. In addition to this sum the respondent had lent Watson various sums of money, making a total of, inVcluding the bill of sale, £2821 18s. 2d. debtor not being able to meet the demand for payment, Preston on the 20th Aug. gave an authority to Burdes to enter into possession on his behalf. He did so, and on the 30th Sept. Preston instructed Mr. A. T. Crow, auctioneer, of Sunderland, to sell by auction the property at Youlthorpe. The bill announcing the sale stated that the farm was then in the tenancy of Watson. debtor filed his petition, and Mr. W. N. LewenThe sale took place, and on the 11th Nov. the don, of Hull, was appointed receiver. He left a three days later they were forcibly ejected by man in charge at each of the farms, but two or This was the Burdes and a number of men. cause of the present motion. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. VOLUNTARY WINDING-UP-CALLS-CONTRIBU TORIES-SET-OFF.-In the winding-up of a limited company, whether compulsory or under the supervision of the court, or voluntary, there is no right of set-off by a contributory against calls made by the liquidator in respect of a debt due by the company to the contributory. Brighton Arcade Com. pany v. Dowling (17 L. T. Rep. N. S. 541; L. Rep. 3 C. P. 175) disapproved and not followed: (Re Whitehouse and Co., 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 415. Jessel, M.R.) WINDING-UP-PAYMENT OF INTEREST OUT OF CAPITAL-ULTRA VIRES. The articles of association of a limited company empowered the directors, with the sanction of a general meeting, to pay a dividend of 5 per cent. on the paid-up capital. No profits were made, but the directors paid sums by way of interest to the shareholders ont of the capital. The company was ordered to be wound-up. Held, that the directors acted ultra vires, and must pay to the liquidator the sums so paid by them to the shareholders: (Re National Funds Assurance Company, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 420. Jessel, M.R.) MARITIME LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. SALE OF SHIP-COMMISSION-EVIDENCE FOR For the respondents, Bowey read an affidavit made by Preston, in which, after speaking of the various sums he had advanced to the debtor, he stated that he received a letter from Mrs. Watson, informing him that they had received from Lord Halifax, the landlord, notice to quit at the expiration of six months. Preston had several conver sations with the debtor about the matter, and by arrangement with the agent of Lord Halifax became the tenant in succession to the debtor. In January last, the six months' notice having expired, Preston took Burdes with him to the farm, and was about to put him in as his agent, but, on the earnest entreaty of the debtor, he permitted him to remain to manage it, on condition that he did so properly. Becoming, however, dissatisfied with his management of it, he instructed Burdes to give him and his family notice to quit, and Crow to sell the property. Burdes accordingly entered as steward and manager, and on the 15th Nov. he put Mrs. Watson and family out from the Youlthorpe Farm. Alluding to the ejectment of the two men placed in the farms by the receiver. Bowey maintained that they had acted within their legal rights, and that therefore no contempt of court had been committed. an unjustifiable act had been done. If they had an objection to a receiver, the proper course was to have gone to the court and applied that he might be discharged. JURY.-The appellants were auctioneers. The respondent put a ship into their hands for sale, and it was agreed that if it was not sold by auction, but if a subsequent sale were effected to any the appellants' mention or publication for auc-pointed, and he thought that in turning him out His HONOUR replied that he had nothing to person led to make an offer "in consequence of do with their rights. A receiver had been ap tion purposes," they were to be entitled to a commission. The ship was not sold by auction, but afterwards P., having been present at a conversation which led him to believe that S. would purchase the ship, wrote to the appellants, to inquire the price, &c.; P. then communicated noting that they had the ship in their hands,' with S., who ultimately became the purchaser, but not through the agency of P. Held (reversing evidence to go to the jury that the sale was the judgment of the court below), that there was effected in consequence of the appellants' mention or publication, within the meaning of the agreement, and that they were entitled to their commission: (Bayley v. Chadwick, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 429. H. of L.) INSURANCE BROKER-SUB-AGENT-POLICYLIEN.-The lien which an insurance broker has by him extends to a sub-agent. In a case in on a policy for the amount of the premium paid which the course of business was to make out monthly accounts, and to settle the amount due for each month at the commencement of the following month, the broker meanwhile retaining the policy: Held (affirming the judgment of the court below), that this course of business was not inconsistent with the retention of his lien by the sub-agent, even though the intermediary had been paid by the principal. Crawshay v. Homfray (4 Barn. & Ald. 50) distinguished: (Fisher v. Smith, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 430. H. of L.) BANKRUPTCY LAW. YORK COUNTY COURT. (Before E. R. TURNER, Esq., Judge.) Receiver-Right to possession of property-Interference by third party. AN application was made to commit to prison Mr. Robert Preston, slate merchant, Sunderland, and Mr. Edward Burdes, his agent, for contempt of court in having forcibly turned out of possession a duly appointed receiver. entitled to enter the farm at all, as it belonged Bowey contended that the receiver was not to Mr. Preston, or at any rate he was then the tenant. His HONOUR.-The receiver was sent there by the court, and was in possession. Bowey.-But surely a receiver has no right to commit an illegal act? commits an illegal act you must come to the His HONOUR.-In one sense he has. If he court. Bowey. But if a receiver abuses his authority protected. surely he has no right to come here and ask to be His HONOUR.-I am not going to consider whether you had a right. The receiver is appointed by the court, and his authority is not permitted to be questioned except by coming to the court. After some further argument, Bowey contended that, looking at all the facts of the case, it was an application which ought not to be granted. If they had erred, it was because they thought they had a right to do what they did. Eldridge, on the other side, said that they were prepared to prove they were the real tenants, and maintained that it was an aggravated case of ejectment. He, however, did not ask for any heavy punishment, but left it to the learned judge to act as he thought fit. His HONOUR, in giving his decision, quoted the case of Russell v. East Anglian Railway Com pany (3 M'N. & G. 104) in support of the principle that a receiver being appointed by the court must not be interfered with in the discharge of his duty. This principle clearly applied to a receiver in bankruptcy (Ex parte Cochrane, L. Rep. 2 Eq. Ca. 282). The present case, he said, was perfectly clear, and the only question he had to consider was as to the punishment he should |