life, but only during the pleasure of the sheriff, and it ceased with the sheriff's tenure of office. If all private business had to be given up the office must be placed upon a permanent footing, and there must be such a salary and retiring allowance as would induce the best men to accept it. He should think that the character of the men would be deteriorated if all private business were taken from them. Further, there were very few districts in Scotland where the public business would be sufficient to occupy anything like the whole of a man's time. The third point was as to the secret system of the preliminary investigation into crime in Scotland, but he must inform the House that this was no part of the system of public prosecution, for it applied equally to private prosecutions. It was a part of the criminal law of Scotland which he himself could not approve of. (Hear, hear.) He did not think that it was right that an investigation which involved so important an issue as whether an individual should be set at liberty or committed for trial should be made behind the man's back, or that the evidence so taken should be kept concealed from him. It had been allowed to continue only because the system of public prosecution had worked so admirably that no personal injustice had been suffered, but he should not object to consider how the system could be amended in this respect. (Hear, hear.) Observations had been made in reference to particular cases (all connected with one town), in which the public prosecutor had restricted the charge of murder to that of culpable homicide, contrary to the prevailing opinion of the community. Individual errors of judgment would occur under any system that could possibly be devised, but he must say that the power of the prosecutor to restrict his libel, or to depart from the charge in whole or in part, applied to private as well as public prosecutors. It was part of the general law of Scotland, but the ends of justiee were better regarded by public than by private prosecutors. He could only say that if any public prosecutor failed in his duty by not adhering to a charge he should feel himself compelled at once to investigate the matter. No such complaint, however, had ever been made to him. A case had been referred to by the hon. member for Greenock (Mr. Grieve) which had occurred shortly before he (the Lord Advocate) took office. He, however, knew something of the matter, for soon afterwards the presiding judge informed him that he thought it due to the gentleman who had been unjustly assailed in the newspapers for the course he had taken to say that that course had been taken with his (the judge's) entire approbation, and also with that of his brother judge. (Hear, hear.) Upon the whole matter it appeared to him that no case had been made out for the appointment of a Select Committtee to take evidence upon this subject. With reference to what had been said by the hon. member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) he begged to remind him that only last week a Bill was brought into the House for introducing the system of having a public prosecutor in England, and that it had been referred to a Select Committee. which would have power to take evidence.-Sir D. WEDDERBURN having replied, the motion was negatived without a division. THE PROSECUTION OF SIR HENRY EDWARDS. Mr. HORSMAN wished to ask the AttorneyGeneral a question relative to the statement made by him in the discussion on the Disfranchisement Bill the other evening, that the prosecution of Sir H. Edwards had been made on the recommendation of the Beverley commissioners. He desired to put the question in consequence of a letter which had that day appeared in a morning newspaper from a son of Sir H. Edwards, in which he said that the statement of the Attorney-General was so incorrect that he ought to be called upon to give a public explanation. He would read a passage from the letter, which was as follows:The Attorney-General, in the course of the debate, said that the Beverley commissioners had recommended that prosecutions should be instituted against Sir H, Edwards. No such recommendation exists in the report of the commissioners. It must have been made privately, and independent of the report; but a member of the Beverley commission has most distinctly asserted, on more than one occasion, not only that he deplored the institution of the proceedings against Sir H. Edwards, but that the commission had never recommended such proceedings, and were quite ignorant of their institution until the fact was made public. As I am prepared to prove that these words were uttered by one of the Beverley commissioners, I think you will allow that the quotation I have made from the speech of the Attorney-General requires some explanation." He (Mr. Horsman) thought the House would agree with him that it was not only an act of justice to Sir H. Edwards as well as the Beverley commissioners, but also to the Attorney General himself that the hon. and learned gentle man should be afforded the opportunity of explaining the statement which he had made the other evening, and of stating the circumstances under which the prosecutions had been instituted. (Hear, hear.)-The ATTORNEY GENERAL was sure the House would do him the justice to recollect that he had cautiously abstained from saying anything which would prejudice this case. In answer to the question of his right hon. friend it would be necessary to make a short explanation. The House was aware that the Corrupt Practices Act of 1863 contained a provision that the report of the commissioners, and the evidence of any persons who had not received a certificate of indemnity, should be laid before the Attorney General with a view to his instituting a prosecution if he thought there was sufficient evidence to sustain it. Now he would have been extremely glad if, before instituting proceedings against Sir Henry Edwards, he could have had an opportunity of taking the opinion of the House upon them, so that he might have been directly prosecuted by the House. But a statute, which he ventured to think an unfortunate one, prevented this from being done. It was a statute which limited the institution of prosecutions to twelve months after the offence had been committed. The last election took place, as the House was aware, in Nov. 1868, and consequently the time for instituting prosecutions expired in Nov. 1530, some tim before the House met, and, therefore, for hi to have deferred the prosecution until meeting of the House would have been in et for him to have declined prosecution altog The commissioners being aware of this st the law had made preliminary or interim to him, calling to his notice the cases certain persons, with a view to prosecuti Norwich commissioners reported to Office; but the Beverley commission ported directly to himself, and n persons. It was in that sense, L: alone, that he had used the expre had recommended that he shou secutions. Of course they did dictate to him whom he shoul had received a report from the sioners on the 19th Oct. 1869. an interim report, and which he w upon the table of the House. (Cheers). read one or two extracts from that report, w would sufficiently answer the question of the right hon. gentleman. The first was to this effect: Beverley, 19th Oct. 1869. Sir, we have the honour to submit for your consideration the following brief statement of facts affecting some witnesses examined before us to whom we have resolved not to afford the protection of our certificate. The first person is William Norfolk, now a town councillor of the borough. He was examined in the early part of the inquiry, and gave his answers in a way not at all satifactory to us. It came out in evidence, and was subsequently admitted, that on Friday, the 30th Oct. about the time of the municipal election, Mr. Wreghitt had a consultation with Lowther, who applied to him and obtained the sum of 150l., he (Norfolk) believing that the money had been placed in Wreghitt's hands by Sir Henry Edwards." The commissioners went on to report against another person, named Burridge, and they proceeded to say, with respect to Sir Henry Edwards that the facts were these :-" From an early date of his connection with the borough in 1857 or 1858, he had been in the habit of supplying money to Wreghitt for the purpose, among others, of fighting the local contests, and Sir Henry Edwards's colleague in 1857 acted in the same way. In October, 1868, Capt. Kennard, who was then the colleague of Sir H. Edwards, had forwarded to Wreghitt, on his application, 700., through a London banker, to fight the approaching municipal contest. After that application to Capt. Kennard, he applied to Sir Henry Edwards, and received 150l. in half-notes in Oct. 1868. He subsequently received from Sir Henry Edwards 100l. That was about the 9th Oct 1868. He had been in the habit of receiving from 51. to upwards of 50l. a year from each of the candidates; but the 1507. which he advanced to Norfolk on the 30th Oct., was part of the money that he had received from Sir Henry Edwards and Capt. Kennard. Until after the inquiry was concluded he gave no account of his application of it to either of them, nor did either of them ask him for such an account." To this there was attached the following postcript:-" We did not deem it our duty to examine Sir Henry Edwards, and the facts with respect to him rest upon the evidence of Wreghitt and a man named Donnell, who is infirm, and 74 years of age. Donnell had been for a long period Sir Henry Edwards's confidential managing clerk." Upon the receipt of this report he (the Attorney General) with the assistance of the Solicitor General and Mr. Archibald, permanent counsel to the Treasury, examined the evidence which the commissioners had sent in, and came to the conclusion that he had no choice but to submit it to a jury. Accordingly, an informa tion was filed, but he ascer afterwards that Norfolk had of indemnity and the prose discontinued. In answer hon. member's question received a letter from sioner referred to, on t thus:-"Dear Mr. A to withdraw my si report as relates time when I sig that Sir Henry witness on the Martin, and v of indemnity the parlian the subje ing the that the right vi grante answ whe his B The Clauses 1, 2, . -Sir H. SELWIN His attention had been which would arise under it and upon the report he would b... On the motion of Mr. G GREGORY, a proviso was inserted to the effec that nothing contained in the Act should varya alter the provisions of the 19th section of th principal Act relating to any house or shop licensed on the 1st May 1869.--The clause, a also agreed to, with amendments.--An addi amended, was agreed to. Clauses 7 and 8 were tion was made to clause 9 on the motion of Sir H SELWIN-IBBETSON providing that nothing co tained in the clause should authorise the remission of any penalty, whether of excise or police, to s mitigated under the provisions of any other Acts less sum than the minimum to which it might be Mr. G. GREGORY moved the omission of the 9th clause altogether, on the ground that it would cast a sort of slur upon the magistrates, who had already sufficient discretion in the matter of the mitigation of fines.Sir H. SELWIN-IBBETSON opposed the omission of the clause.After some discussion the motion for the omission of the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 was was negatived, and the clause as amended was agreed to, an amendment by Mr. PELL being post poned till the report. The remaining clauses were then ordered to stand part of the Bill, and the committee proceeded to the consideration of certain new clauses. -On the motion of Mr. HEADLAM for dealing with certain new offences.--Clauses a clause was added to the Bill containing provisions were also added giving power to the justices to postpone applications, and defining the grounds shall be granted. The preamble was then agreed which beer dealers' additional retail licences to, and the Bill as amended was reported to the upon House. ILLEGAL LOTTERIES. Mr. CHARLEY called the attention of the House to the question of illegal lotteries. The existing law on the subject of lotteries was determined, he said, by the Act passed in 1845. It was enforced in Scotland; or, at all events, to wh and ha Wit to ex Ca he m th It to fo W rtain cases, when the chief ote some religious object, the ome Office had not been equally severe. t of the some ·lient Society clearly illustrates some of their principal CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY discordances: LAW. 1. "By the common law the wife has no property of her own; her personal estate absolutely, and her real estate during coverture, are her husband's."Per Lord Mansfield. 2. " By the common law the wife has no separate power of contracting. She can neither sue nor be sued."- Per Lord MansHeld. riage is an abso- COMMO e. Ins a EQUITY. 1. "Every kind of property, including estates in fee simple and chattels personal, may be subject to a trust for the wife's separate use, which will be supported in equity." "She may dispose of such property as if she were a feme sole.' "She may dispose of her savings, as of the principal." 2. Equity allows a married woman to sue wherever she has a clear right. She may even sue her husband, when "there is no other way of asserting her right against him."-Per Lord Loughborough. Being considered a feme sole in respect of her property, she may be sued on her own contract with respect to such property. 3. "If land or personalty is left to a married woman, for her separate use, even without the intervention of trustees, equity secures such property for her sepa rate use." 4. If it is necessary to to have recourse to equity, n- equity will compel him to secure a provision for his wife out of the fund. Friday, A 5. Equity will compel a In the matter of the TIPPERALL he may in equity. rives the pro- may be LAST DAY OF PROOF. ATKINSON (John), Mosside, Preston Patrick, Burton, Westmoreland. June 15; G. B. Lefroy, solicitor, 5, Robertstreet, Adelphi, W.C. June 30; V.C. S., in the afternoon. BESLY (Rev. John), Long Benton, Northumberland. June 6; J. H. Bolton, solicitor, 1, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. June 20; M.R., in the forenoon. BOOTH (Ferdinand A. T.), 6, Chepstow Villas, Kensington, Middlesex, professor of music. May 30; Rooks and Co.. solicitors, 16, King-street, Cheapside, E.C. June 6; V.C. S.. in the afternoon. BROUGHTON (Georgiana S.), Great Malvern, Worcester June 6; R. J. P. Broughton, solicitor, 12, Great Marl borough-street, W. June 10; V.C. M., at noon. CAMA (Bomangee Framjee), Gresham-house, Old Broad street, E.C. Sept. 17; Wm. Dawes Freshfield, solicitors, 15, Bank-buildings, E.C. Nov. 10; V.C. M., at noon. CARTWRIGHT (John), New Bond-street, Birmingham, Warwick, ironfounder. May 3; Jos. Rowlands, solicitor, Birmingham. June 8; M. R., in the forenoon. CORNER (John), Seaton Carew, Durham, gentleman. June 2; J. B. Stroven, solicitor, West Hartlepool. June 11; V.C. M., at noon. FERGUSSON (Wm.), Hedon-in-Holderness, York. May 28; GLEGG (John B.), Esq., Withington Hall, Chester. June 18; GODDARD (Chas E.), Blue Posts public house, Tottenham- JAMES (Arthur T.), Mornington-court, Hereford, gentleman, KENDALL (Wm.), High Barnes, Hawkshead, Lancaster, RUSHTON (Wm.), Chester, yeoman. June 6; J. Latham, TAYLOR (Robert C.), 2, Campbell-terrace, Bow-road, gentleman. May 28; James Burn, solicitor, 16, Gresham-street, E.C. June 8; V.C. S., at noon. THOMPSON (JOS.), 5, St. Stephen's-square, Bayswater, Middlesex. June 10; J. Jordan, solicitor, 3. Westminsterchambers, Victoria-street, Westminster. June 21; V.C. S., at noon. and at a single exception, when the attention of atholic lotteries were conducted in such a maner as to promote a spirit of gambling, and it was ne duty of the executive to look very closely into hem, and take steps for their suppression when was necessary. That was the spirit in which e executive had acted up to the present time, nd he thought the House would approve of the ourse they had taken. In Scotland the Lord dvocate had been called upon by the Scottish eformation Society to interfere with respect to rish lotteries, but had declined on the ground hat they originated in Ireland, and must be dealt ith there; and for the same reason the execuve of this country had no power to interfere in ose cases.- -Mr. GREEN said he would not raise is voice against these lotteries if all were treated ith equal justice; but in January 1868, an inmbent of a Protestant church was proceeded gainst and convicted for distributing by lottery a umber of articles that had remained unsold at a azaar.-Mr. AYTOUN asked whether he was ght in understanding the Home Secretary to say at he possessed a discretionary power with reard to the enforcement of this Act.- -Mr. BRUCE aid that that was quite an accurate representaon of what he said. The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868-Objer hone Murphy, Q.C. (with him Gerald Fitzgibbon), for the respondent. John O'Brien was examined by Purcell, Q.C.- for the land; he had a horse worth 301., and a cow Cross-examined by Murphy, Q.C.-Since the Daniel Conway deposed that O'Brien's lands (a) From the Irish Law Times. Purcell,There is nothing to suggest any such conclusion as is intimated. CHELT W T Bracks-Bork DAXT WALL-Y-Des-Panaf de juny exer hat teen of sound most bought a pace of a bonded in the soura by a mad, from a vender, who wemanded to the conveyance that as buldings swellinghouses of a defuse buning ciet KOLIE D# erected on the land on the outer wide of the fund. Saca ar Caran-PURCHASER AT SOLEINS. Intentant afterwards contracted to purchase PART STRESTA-It a fireclosures from the same vendor the land on the scher de trier was made ite the sale of the propers of the road, which he also agreed as face by The property was purchased by & reling or wang from four fees to seven feet whose name appeared at the foot of the high Defendass also agreed to aser 30 a jars of sale as one of the persons from win covenant with the vendor similar to that which coques of the particulars and other informatio the plaintiff had entered in Infendant after might be socamed, and who had acted as seen: wards turned the land which he had agreed to for one of the persons interested in the sale. Tr purchase into part of his pleasure ground, and she was confirmed by the chief clerk: He built a boundary wall resting along the road, mas newstanding the confirmation, the pr tight feet x inches high except as one spot perty must be restud, being put up at the pro where he raised it for a few feet in length to ist auch the sosur purchased, who, i eleven feet high, in order to support against it should be no advance, most be held to his pothe roof of the vinery, which he also but ce chase: T. Sugie, L. T. Rep. X. SE the land agreed to be purchased by him: Heid MR, that the building of the garden wall to the height of eight feet six inches was not a breach of the covenant: Hed, further, that the raising of the wall to the height of eleven feet, and the bunding of the vinery, were breaches of the covenant The court refused to order the defendant to pal down the wall and vinery, and gave the plaintiff 44. damages. The plaintiff having mad; the vendor a defendant, was ordered to pay his costs, be being an unnecessary party: (es v. Low, 22 L. T. Rep. N. 8. 267. V.C. J.) MORRIS, J-I am giving judgment. It is not nual to interrupt the court, and it is very unusual with me. The case of Johnstons (his Lordship went on to say) appeared to be a more difficult one. He had no property. He held land under the Earl of Vermont, but being a yearly tenant it was of no practical value, The earl might be an excellent Landlord, and Mr. Johnston might be an excellent tenant, but if the tenant gave the land up it would be hard to put any practical value upon it. Johnston also had a house which he occupied as an COSTS OF TRUSTEES-TRUSTEE RELIEF ACT. hotel, and about twelve years ago he put 4001-Where a fund has been paid into court by worth of furniture into it. The owner was not the person who would put the lowest value upon his own property, and he calculated this furniture as worth 2001. Mr. Dillon, a respectable auctioneer of this city, went down to Kanturk to value the furniture, and Johnstone would not let him examine it. There was, therefore, no valuation of it EQUITY PRACTICE-REVIVOR Where a suit had become abated by the deaths of certain parties, and subsequent proceedings proved interests by substitution for those who had defective in consequence of persons taking died, not having been brought before the court A supplemental order was made, directing that the suit should be carried on against the substituting parties, who were adults, and that they should be bound by the previous proceedings: (Pillar v. French, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 293. | V.C. M.) trustees under the Trustee Relief Act, and a ARTICLED CLERK-BINDING FOR A LESS CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP-Assiever FATUCE OF SOLICITOR-In order to bring case within the rule that a solicitor can recen no gift or reward from his client, there most a clear and uneqrocal evidence of the relatio ship between the parties, that advantage vi taken of that relationship, and that what wo given was a reward to the solicitor for his se vices Where, therefore, a bill was filed by th legal personal representative of a lady to E aside certain deeds executed by her in favour her brother-in-law (a solicitor), and it appeared that he had never done or charged for anything in the course of the transactions as her solicitur. professional advice on her behalf, and that b that he had, when necessary, resorted to other had exercised no undue influence over be Held, that the relationship between the partic was not sufficient to invalidate the deeds, and that the bill must be dismissed with costs: (Richards v. French, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 37. V. C. S.) PRACTICE INTERROGATORIES - LIBELNEWSPAPER.-The 19th section of 6 & 7 WIL c. 76, which was re-enacted by 32 & 33 Vict. c.2 sched. 2, does not compel an answer to interrogatories which the person interrogated swean would tend to criminate him: (Bowden v. Allo, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 342. C. P.) EQUITY PRACTICE-EXCEPTIONS TO ANSWER -FICTITIOUS ALLEGATIONS.-It is not neces except his own. He stood upon his dignity then, PERIOD THAN FIVE YEARS-VOID ARTICLES. sary to state imaginary facts to found an interand said he would lodge the money. He should now have an opportunity of doing so. The securities were insufficient. Conts of the motions should be costs in the cause, Agent for the petitioners, W. B. Magrath. THE BRISTOL ELECTION PETITION, Mr. Baron Bramwell has appointed Monday, the 23rd inst., for the trial of the petition Britt and others v. Robinson, at Bristol. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine will appear for the petitioners. The expenses of Mr. Odger and Sir S. H. Waterlow, the two defeated candidates at the last Southwark election, are published. Mr. Odger's amount to 6077, 48, while Bir Sydney's are 47791. 188. Mr. Labouchere, who retired affor a short canvass, expended Bool, Colonel Beresford's expenses are said to be considerably below Sir Sidney Water. low'. By sect. 3 of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, no person is to be capable of being admitted an attorney unless he shall have been bound by contract, in writing, to serve as clerk for and during the term of five years; and by sect. 5 of the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, certain of the judges may, by regulations, direct that the person having successfully passed any examination, now or hereafter to be established in any of the universities, and to be specified in such regulations, may be admitted after having been subsequently bound and served under articles for four years. S. L. J. had successfully passed the middle-class examinations of Oxford and Cambridge, which, however, were not included in the regulations of the judges, and he was thereupon articled for a term of four years, which term he duly served: Held, that the articles were bad; and the court refused to permit him upon entering into fresh -articles to have the advantage of his four years previous service under such former articles: (Ex parte S. Lloyd, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 300. Q.B.) CRUELTY UNDUE EXERCISE OF MARITAL AUTHORITY, — Held, the Judge Ordinary), that mere moral coercion, by the full court (confirming the judgment of if systematically exercised for a sufficient time and to a sufficient degree to injure the health of the wife, and to bring her to the brink of a serious malady, amounts to legal cruelty, and [ADVERTISEMENT;] A NEW VENTILATED HAT. "Mr. Howler, of 15, Ht. Hwithin's-lane, has, by a very simple contrivance, invented a hat that is completely ventilated, whilst at the same time the head is relieved of the pressure experienced in wearing hata of the ordi lining that a space is left between it and the hat through nary description. It consists in so adjusting the leather which the air passos, afterwards escaping through a ventilator fixed in the crown The cool draught thus created conduces, it need ! be said, to the great Public Opinion, post punctually comfort and relief of Hogiatored Nov. 1 attended to. JUDICIAL SEPARATION rogatory; therefore where a bill alleged that an advance had been made by the directors of on company to another, but did not allege that such advance had been made with the sanction of the shareholders, the fact being unknown to the plaintiff, an interrogatory whether such advance was sanctioned by the shareholders" was allowed: (M'Garel v. Moon, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 355. V.C. M.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. (Before KEATING, M. SMITH, and BRETT, JJ.) Saturday, May 7. Re AN ATTORNEY. Withdrawing plea-Subsequent repudation. F. O. Crump moved upon affidavits for a rule calling upon an attorney to show cause why he should not pay the debt and costs in an action at der the following circumstances: In June 1869, A. B. received instructions to commence proceed. ings to recover a debt, writ was issued, the defendant's attorney gave an undertaking to appear, and wrote to say that plea would be withdrawn upon the cause was prepared for the assizes. Two days before commission day defendant's attorney terms. No terms having been agreed upon, he wrote again on commission day to A. B., stating that he had instructed his London agents to withdraw ples unconditionally. The cause was therefore not MAY 14, 1870.] entered for trial. On A. B. proceeding to tax costs, the defendant's attorney denied that plea had been withdrawn. After some correspondence the cause was entered for the next assizes, but in the mean time the defendant had left the country. At the hearing defendant's counsel gave up the case, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff. By an affidavit of the plaintiff it appeared that he had inspected defendant's books in June, and found that the defendant had debited his attorney with the amount of the debt. Counsel observed upon this, that it would appear that the amount of the debt had been paid to the attorney, but that some dispute having arisen between him and his client as to costs, he had refused to pay it over to the plaintiff, and had defended the action. The affidavit of A. B. further stated that as he had relied upon the letter of the defendant's attorney with drawing plea unconditionally, he had felt bound to pay his client the amount of the debt, and thus had lost out of his own pocket both debt and costs. The COURT granted a Thursday, May 12. Rule nisi. Actions by an attorney for penalties. Giffard, Q. C. moved for a rule calling upon an attorney to show cause why he should not answer the matters in the affidavit. The circumstances were that the attorney had brought actions against the Daily Telegraph to recover penalties, upon the ground that they had inserted advertisements which offered rewards for the recovery of stolen property, contrary to the provisions of a statute, and it was alleged that he brought these actions 1 for his own personal benefit, but in the names of Charles Russell, his clerk, and of Susan Varley, so that if he succeeded he would get the penalties, whilst if he failed he would have to pay no costs. In obedience to an order of Keating, J. it was stated that Susan Varley was a single woman, a dressmaker, and resided on the second-floor at 43, Theobald's-road, Lamb's Conduit-street. It was stated on affidavit that inquiries had been made of the landlord and landlady of this house, who resided on the premises, and they know nothing of Susan Varley. It was said that she was the sister or sister-in-law of Charles Russell, the clerk, who did live at 43. A person who had levied a distress for 21. 6s. for rent, upon Charles Russell, and was in possession for two days, said that there was no such person as Susan Varley living there during that time. The value of all the property in the apartments did not in his opinion exceed 31. There were three actions against the Daily Telegraph, and the amounts of penalties claimed were The first action was tried 4507., 100l., and 550l. before Keating, J., at Guildhall, when the verdict was for the defendants, and the others were pending. The COURT, after some discussion, granted the rule. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. (Before Mr. Serjeant Cox.) THE LAW TIMES. Society clearly illustrates some of their principal CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY discordances: LAW. 1. "By the common law the wife has no property estate absolutely, and her of her own; her personal real estate during coverture, are her husband's."Per Lord Mansfield. 2. "By the common law the wife has no separate can neither sue nor be power of contracting. She sued."-Per Lord Mansfield. 3. "Marriage is an absolute gift to the husband of the goods, &c., of which the wife was actually possessed at the time of marriage, and of such other goods and personal chattels as come to her during the marriage."-Lord Coke. judgment for a debt due to his wife at law, he is entitled to the whole fund. 4. If a husband obtains a 5. So with respect to a appropriate the whole, if legacy, the husband may the executor pays it him. 6. A woman, by law, cannot dispose of her property, nor make a will, without the concurrence of her husband. 7. "If a wife carries on a separate trade, even with her husband's consent, he is entitled to all the profits."-4 B. & Ad. 514. 8. "Deeds of separation are not valid at law.' Marshall v. Rutton, 8 T. R. EQUITY. 1. "Every kind of property, including estates in personal, may be subject to a trust for the wife's fee simple and chattels separate use, which will be supported in equity." She may dispose of such property as if she were a feme sole." "She may dispose of her savings, as of the principal." 2. Equity allows a married woman to sue wherShe may even sue her hus ever she has a clear right. other way of asserting her band, when "there is no right against him."-Per Lord Loughborough. Being considered a feme sole in respect of her property, she may be sued on her own contract with respect to such property. 3. "If land or personalty is left to a married woman, for her separate use, even without the intervention of trustees, equity secures such property for her sepa rate use." 4. If it is necessary to have recourse to equity, 5. Equity will compel a 6. She may in equity. 7. Equity gives the profits to the wife, if the trade is carried on out of her separate estate. 8. In equity "it may be considered as at present settled that such deeds are valid."-Bright's Husband and Wife, ii. 307, 317. 9. "Although gifts of and the wife to each other void in law, yet property by the husband are... they will be supported in equity."-Ibid. As the Select Committee on the Married Woman's Property Bill reported in 1868, "the judicial legislation of the courts of equity" has created "a wholly different relation between husband and wife from that contemplated by the common law." The same thing would be done by the Lord Chancellor's High Court of Justice Bill, whether intentionally or not remains to be seen. BANK OF ENGLAND. At the sitting of the court, the wife of a prisoner named Clark made a representation to the pre--Pall Mall Gazette. siding judge that last session she paid a sum of money to a solicitor for the purpose of engaging Mr. Montague Williams to defend her husbanda sum not large in amount, but sufficient to retain the services of that gentleman, and it was urged that as the charge was but imperfectly supported by the evidence, an acquittal would be the certain result of the trial. Instead, however, of employ. ing Mr. Williams at the trial, another counsel appeared, to whom the solicitor paid only one guinea, he retaining the rest of the money for himself. The prisoner was convicted, and as the learned counsel who it was said would be retained never heard anything about it, this representation to the judge was made. As the matter remains sub judice, we refrain from giving the name of the solicitor at present; but the presiding judge (Mr. Serjt. Cox) said, as the case then stood, it appeared to him to be one of the most disgraceful transactions he had ever heard of, and that it might become his duty to make representations elsewhere. PROPERTIED WOMEN. If the High Court of Justice Bill should become a statute in its present form, it will have a curious and, we apprehend, generally unforeseen effect upon the law relating to the property of married women. It is provided by the 1st section of the 13th clause of the Bill that Any jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the Court of Chancery or by the Court of Admiralty otherwise than under the authority of an Act of Parliament, is declared to be part of the common law of England, and to modify such common law to the extent in which it differs therefrom. The conflict between law and equity is nowhere more marked and distinct than it is in their several theories with respect to the status and proprietary rights of wives. The following summary from a publication of the Law Amendment CROCKFORD (Geo. Marshall), CLOTH (Richard), Esq., Newmarket. 247. 158. 3d. New Three LAST DAY OF PROOF. ATKINSON (John), Mosside, Preston Patrick, Burton, West. moreland. June 15; G. B. Lefroy, solicitor, 5, Robertstreet, Adelphi, W.C. June 30; V.C. S., in the afternoon. BESLY (Rev. John), Long Benton, Northumberland. June 6; J. H. Bolton, solicitor, 1, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. June 20; M.R., in the forenoon. BOOTH (Ferdinand A. T.), 6, Chepstow Villas, Kensington, Middlesex, professor of music. May 30; Rooks and Co.. solicitors, 16, King-street, Cheapside, E.C. June 6; V.C. S., in the afternoon. BROUGHTON (Georgiana S.), Great Malvern, Worcester June 6; R. J. P. Broughton, solicitor, 12, Great Marl borough-street, W. June 10; V.C. M., at noon. CAMA (Bomangee Framjee), Gresham-house, Old Broad street, E.C. Sept. 17; Wm. Dawes Freshfield, solicitors. 15, Bank-buildings, E.C. Nov. 10; V.C. M., at noon. CARTWRIGHT (John), New Bond-street, Birmingham, Warwick, ironfounder. May 30; Jos. Rowlands, solicitor, Birmingham. June 8; M. R., in the forenoon. CORNER (John), Seaton Carew, Durham, gentleman. June 2; J. B. Stroven, solicitor, West Hartlepool. June 11; V.C. M., at noon. FERGUSSON (Wm.), Hedon-in-Holderness, York. May 28; G.R. Park, solicitor, Hedon-in-Holderness, near Kingstonupon-Hull. June 6; V.C. S., at noon. GLEGG (John B.), Esq., Withington Hall, Chester. June 18; R. and S. Mullens, solicitors, 68, Cheapside, E.C. June 25; M.R., at noon. GODDARD (Chas E.), Blue Posts public house, Tottenham. court-road, N.W., licensed victualler. May 20; J. A. Rose, solicitor, 11, Salisbury-street, Strand, W.C. June 3; M.R., in the forenoon. June 20; JAMES (Arthur T.), Mornington-court, Hereford, gentleman, June 8; H. C. Beddoe, solicitor, Hereford. V.C. S., at noon. KENDALL (Wm.), High Barnes, Hawkshead, Lancaster, yeoman. June 6; Wm. Relph, solicitor, Barrow-in-Furness, Lancaster. June 15; V.C. J., at noon. MIREHOUSE (Rev. Wm.), Hambrook-grove, Winterbourne, Gloucester, clerk. June 4; L. Fry, of the firm of Fry and Otter, solicitors. June 10; V.C. J., at noon. MONTAGUE (John), Horseferry-row, Westminster, Middlesex, oilman. June 7; J. Pilgrim, of the firm of Jay and Pilgrim, solicitors, Norwich. June 14; V.C. J., at noon. PICKERING (Mary) 42, Prince's-gate, Middlesex. June 15: Wm. and H. P. Sharp, solicitors, 92, Gresham-house, Old Broad street, E.C. June 25; V.C. S., at noon. ROBINS (Wm. L.T.), St. Peter's-square, Hammersmith, Middlesex, gentleman. June 18; Baxter and Co., solicitors, 6, Victoria-street, Westminster. June 18; V.C. S., at noon. RUSSELL (Right Hon. Francis J.), Boyne-hill villa, Maidenhead, Berks, Commander in Her Majesty's Navy. May 26: Fladgate and Co., solicitors, 40, Craven-street, Stand, W.C. June 9; M.R., in the forenoon. RUSHTON (Wm.), Chester, yeoman. June 6; J. Latham, solicitor, Congleton, Chester. June 16; V.C. J., at noon. SPILLER (Abraham), Honiton Saint George, Somerset. gentleman. May 23; Tucker and Forward, solicitors, Chard, Somerset. June 1; V.C. M., at noon. TAYLOR (Robert C.), 2, Campbell-terrace, Bow-road, gentle- at noon. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ARROWSMITH (Chas. Wm.), 2. Southgate-villas, Colney Hatch. Middlesex, gentleman. March 1; Wm. Fisher, solicitor. 19, Doughty-street. BARKER (John), Esq., Broughton Lodge, Cartmel, Lancaster. June 24; Cunliffe and Leaf, solicitors, 56, Brownstreet, Manchester. Middlesex. Aug. 31; Few and Co., solicitors, 2, Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, W.C. BOETEFEUR (Alexander), Esq., 45, Moscow-road, Bayswater, June 25; B. W. Knight, 217, Regent-street, W. BULT Thos. S.), Beckington-villas, Plaistow, Bromley, Kent. BURTON (Maria), Wreningham, Norfolk. Sept. 20; W. H. Tillett and Co., solicitors, St. Andrew's-street, Norwich. el; William Norris, solicitor, 22, Acton-street, Gray's-innCAPES (Robert), Gainsborough, Lincoln, gentleman. June road, W.C. COULTHARD (Margaret), 22, Basby-place, Torriano-avenne, Camden Town, N.W. June 13; Sharpe and Co., solicitors, 41, Bedford-row, W.C. COURTENAY (Rev. Anthony L.), D.D., 27, Regency-square, Brighton, Sussex, clerk and vicar of St. James's, Pentonville, Middlesex. June 20; White and Co., solicitors, 6, Whitehall-place, Westminster. CRAWLEY (Elizabeth), 8, St. James's-square, Bath. July 15; Wm. Daubeny, solicitor, 9, Fountain-buildings, Bath. CROFTS (Henry), Bloomfield, Tipton, Stafford, furnace builder. July 5; J. Round, solicitor, High-street, Tipton. DALE (Robert), Thorpe next Norwich, timber merchant. June 24; F. Fox, solicitor, Surrey-court, Surrey-street, Norwich. DAVIS (Edward T.), Butcher's Arms public-house, York- DUNLOP (John R.), Esq., Tweed-street, Berwick-upon- FRITZ (Johann L.), 20, Gloucester-street, Camden-town, WATSON (Barclay Farquharson), 36, Lincoln's-inn said FURZE (Thomas), Richmond, Surrey, gentleman. June 20; JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES WINDING-UP ACTS. BRON HEULOG LEAD MINING COMPANY (LIMITED).-Petition HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. Smith and Son, solicitors, Richmond, Surrey. GATEHOUSE, (John S.), Emsworth, Southampton, brewer. June 1; W. J. Sowton, solicitor, Chichester. HODGSON (John), 67, Oldham-street, Manchester, dealer in sewing machines. June 7; J. and W. Norris and Wood, solicitors, 7, St. James's-square, Manchester. HOLT (Henry), Headingley, Leeds, land agent. July 30; Holt and Sons, solicitors, Horbury, near Wakefield. HOPKINSON (Job), Whitehouses, Ordsall, Notts., farmer. June 4; Messrs. Barnaby and Denman, solicitors, East Retford. IRONSIDE (Chas. C.), St. Briavel's, Gloucester, and Newnham Cottage, Ealing, Middlesex, gentleman. July 4; Ruston and Clark, solicitors, Brentford, Middlesex. JORDAN (Wm. L.), Esq., Launceston, in the colony of Tas mania. June 7; H. C. Nisbet and Co., solicitors, 35, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. JORDAN (Robert), Beccles, Suffolk, butcher. June 18; J. PARSONS (John W.), Esq., 45, Russ 32 PAYN (Mary M.) Whittington College, Highgate, N.W. June PELLERRIER (Charlotte F.) 3. Albion grove-west, Islington, RADCLIFFE (Rear Admiral Wm.) Surbiton-hill, Kingston upon Thames, Hurray, July 1; Paul J. Gordon, solicitor, ReyNoLim (Charlotte HM, Now Cross road, Kent. June 6 SHAW (Charlotte H.) 22, York street, Portman-square, Mid Nhip street, Brighton, tleman May 31 Baker and Co., solicitors, 3, Crosby square, Bishopsate, E.C. Unity (W) Louth, Lincoln, wheelwright. July 1; R. H. Daubney, solicitor, Market Rasen, Lincoln. THE NEW STAMP DUTIES BILL.-The Inland Revenue Department, in a comprehensive report just laid before Parliament, giving a history of the duties under their management, state that the proposed Bill showing the stamp duties payable on deeds and other instruments professes to be a consolidation, and, indeed, had its origin in the demand of the Statute Law Revision Commis appointed Minister of Public Works he had to In 1849 M. Marie was election of the president. MAGISTRATE AND PARISH LAWYER. CO-DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES -HOW FAR COMPETENT TO TESTIFY. sioners for assistance in their work. The Bill has Ir is, we believe, a very common practice in probeen prepared with great caro by Mr. Melvill, the ceedings before magistrates when persons are solicitor of the department, with as little altera- jointly charged with the commission of indicttion of the former law as possible. Some altera-able offences, or offences punishable on summary tion was quite unavoidable. So numerous have conviction, not to permit either of the co-defenboon the patchings of the original Acts, and so many hands have been busy with the work when- dants to offer evidence for or against the other THE BENCH AND THE BAR. PRACTICAL JOKING UPON LORD ST.LEONARDS, or others. | The injustice of a contrary rule is obvious. Any rule which excludes testimony, if it is to be supported at all, must be supported by the most cogent reasons of necessity or policy. If a tribunal is worthy of any confidence, it may be trusted to weigh the credibility of witnesses as affected by their interests in the result of the We have inquiry, although such interests may vary in every degree from zero to infinity. heard that it is not uncommon for a complainas: to obtain from a magistrate a summons directed against defendants jointly, instead of a separate summons against each individual, for the very purpose of rendering them incompetent as witnesses, and of his succeeding in doing so by reason of the erroneous notion commonly prevalent. The supposition that a magistrate, by granting a joint summons on an ex parte statement, can exclude testimony which would be admissible if separate summonses were taken out. is so complete a reductio ad absurdum that it is perhaps the best refutation of the practice in question. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PUBLIC HEALTH ACT-LIABILITY OF LOCAL BOARD.-An action for damage to an individua! B. was by reason of non-repairs of a highway will not lie against a local board under this Act. injured by the non-repair of a road within the jurisdiction of a board of health. It was held that such an action would not lie: (Gibson 1. The Mayor, &c. of Preston, 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 293. Q. B.) NUISANCE-LOCAL ACT AND PUBLIC ACT INJUNCTION.-A corporation under the powers conferred upon them by a local Act, constructed sewers having their outfall into a river, whereby ever any stamp duties have been before the We consider this exclusion of testimony not a nuisance was created, and the persons living House of Commons, that when the various clauses relating to one subject are brought to- merely as operating with great harshness on in the neighbourhood of the river below the gether from the several Acts in which they are accused persons, but as being altogether errodispersed, it frequently happens that mere juxta-neous and illegal. Whatever may have been the town thereby injured: Held, that the general position is suflicient to demonstrate their incon rule of the common law, it seems unquestionable sections of the Towns Improvement Act relating gruity. In such instances amendment is a matter that since Lord Brougham's Act (14 & 15 Vict. to nuisances must be considered as incorporated of necessity. In a few cases, in addition, a very c. 99) came into operation, the defendants in such with the local Act, and that therefore an injunc obvious and long-called-for reform has been introa case are competent and compellable witnesses tion must be granted to restrain the corporation duood. But the main object is to bring into one for or against each other; the exception in the from exercising their powers in such a manner as Act the existing law, and the temptation to re3rd section of the Act which disqualifies a defen- to create a nuisance. Where it is shown that the pranting of an injunction would be injurious model the stamp duties has been steadily rodant in such a case from giving evidence for or xisted. against himself or herself, conclusively proving the to a greater number of persons than the refusing extent and application of the general enabling it: Held, that the court will not interfere with language contained in the 2nd section. We the discretion of the Attorney-General as to fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by Mr. the convenience or inconvenience of the parties: Pitt Taylor, in his work on Evidence, p. 1179, (Attorney-General v. The Mayor of Leeds, 22 L. T. "MEDICINE"SALE OF POISONS ACT 5th edit., where he says, "If, therefore, several Rep. N. S. 330. V. C. J.) persons be jointly indicted, any of them may, under sect. 2, be called as a witness either for or PERSON TO WHOM DELIVERED.-Sect. 17 of the against his co-defendant, excepting only in Pharmacy Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 121), enacts that "it shall be unlawful to sell any poison those few case where the indictment is so framed unless the box, vessel, &c., in which it is conas to give him a direct interest in obtaining their tained be distinctly labelled with the name of discharge. For instance, if a man were indicted for a conspiracy or a riot with other defendants, the article and the word 'poison,' and with the or as an accessory to their guilt, or for unlaw- name and address of the seller of the poison: fully entering land with them by night being and it shall be unlawful to sell any poison menarmed for the purpose of taking game, or for tioned in the first part of schedule A to the Act assembling with them whether armed or not to.... to any person unknown to the seller, assist in the illegal landing of goods; it would unless introduced by some person known to the seem that he could not be a competent witness seller;" but none of the provisions of the secfor them or compellable to give evidence against tion are to apply to "any medicine supplied by them, because in each of these cases--and several a legally qualified apothecary to his patient, nor others of a similar kind might be cited-as the apply to any article when forming part of the crime can only be effected by the guilty con- ingredients of any medicine dispensed by a currence of two or more individuals, the acquittal person registered under this Act; provided such of the other defendants would inevitably lead to medicine be labelled in manner aforesaid, with be entered, with the his own, while their conviction might, at least, the name and address of the seller, and the be a material step in establishing his guilt." ingredients thereof With the probable exception of the "few "ex- name of the person to whom it is sold or and the section imposes cepted cases to which Mr. Taylor thus alludes, delivered, in a book to be kept by the seller his statement of the general rule seems perfectly for that purpose; unimpeachable. We are sorry to hear that no clue has yet been obtained to the perpetrators of the series of dastardly and cruel tricks which have for some time been played on Lord St. Leonards. It was suggested that some of his servants were implicated in the affair, but their master, at least, has faith in their innocence. The transmission of forged orders to tradesmen in his Lordship's name, which, after the publication of his former letter ceased for a time, is now renowed. Only on Tuesday he received telegram from Fowler, of Bushey, Glagow, to Sugden,' announcing that a hoifor and bull would be sent on Friday. The malignant spirit of these hoaxes is shown not only in the persistence with which One they are kept up, but the form they assume, of Lord St. Leonards' daughters was on a visit at Torquay, and just as she was preparing for dinner she received a telegram in the name of his lordship's butler, stating how seriously immediately. This she did, travelling all night, and reaching her father's bedroom at half-past sovon in the morning with the expectation of finding him dying. The other forgery was an. immediate order for fine marblos describing the quality and the length and breadth of the proposed slabs, and the inscription, copied from the present tombstone which were to replace the present erection over his wife's tomb, It is an abuse of language to call such abominable outrages "practical jokes," and the police ought certainly to exert themselves to discover by whom they are perpetrated. Pall Mall Gazelle, ill he was, and that he wished her to come home The MS. case of R. v. Stevenson and Coulter, tried before Mr. Justice Ball at Armagh, on the 4th March 1851, and cited by Mr. Taylor, in which on an indictment for an aggravated assault, Coulter was examined as a witness for Stevenson, goes to show that in this respect Lord M. Alexandro Marie, a French deputy and one of the ministers of 1848, died on Thursday week at Brougham's Act (which did not come into operaParis, at the advanced ago of seventy-three. A tion until November in that year) merely connative of Auxerre (Yenie), he studied law in firmed the common law rule. The recent case Paris, entered the Bar in 1819, but remained of Rog, v. Ci vrlotte Winsor, 10 Cox Crim, Cas. almost unknown till after the July Revolution, 276; 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 367, in which the eviHe was one of the advocates of the accused of dence of Harris, who had been indicted with Jure 182, he defended Cabet when prosecuted for Winsor on a charge of murder, was admitted his book on the Revolution, and did his best to defend Pepin, the accomplice of Pesch. These were his oENSES O of Cricans to be illegal, and asked for the esta against Winsor, although the witness had neither a penalty on offenders against its provisions. |