embers of our Profession in the House who now thoroughly the operation of existing Acts, nd are fully qualified to guide Parliament to right decision.

THE BRIBERS IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH MURMUR of surprise passed through the Court of Queen's Bench on Tuesday when the entence of twelve months' imprisonment and a ine of a 1000l. was passed upon Mr. Fennelly. The representatives of the Profession present could not but feel that the court had defeated ts own object by its severity. There is always certain amount of absurdity about an over zealous functionary, and where over zeal is found n a court of high authority which for its present purpose rouses into activity the most powerful nachinery of the law, the contrast between tolay and yesterday becomes too glaring to be pleasant to logical minds.

น

But the sentence has been pronounced, and he public, as represented by the press, do not seem disposed to quarrel with it. Neither shall we, because there is every prospect that Mr. Fennelly will receive a free pardon. There are, however, some points in these bribery proceedings which cannot fail to strike a lawyer as The conduct of the Bridgewater Commissioners seems to have been particularly ill-judged and unfortunate. Certainly during the proceedings the Chief Commissioner was indisposed, and therefore not in a state either of mind or body to regulate proceedings and control the eccentricities of one of his colleagues. But

anomalous.

the position which the commissioners assumed towards their secretary seems to have been the most extraordinary part of the whole business. A secretary of a bribery commission, be it observed, is appointed by the commissioners by virtue of sect. 3 of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57. They may at their pleasure dismiss him; and, in short, he is their

and unusual than this mode of proceeding, having regard to the subsequent severity and strictness of the court in pronouncing judgment. The matter of intention on the part of Dr. Kinglake, we apprehend, was for the jury, and they ought to have hesitated long before finding if they thought he had no corrupt intention, is corrupt intention. A doubt as to the nature of the offence should have procurred his acquittal. him guilty of an offence, the essence of which For the court subsequently, upon affidavit, as to which there is no power of cross-examination, to take a moral view of the case as opposed to the legal finding is, we repeat, a singular and unusual proceeding, and is in glaring contrast with the demeanour of the court on Tuesday.

deter bribery. We doubt it. In the one case of It is said that these examples will do much to Mr. Fennelly we shall, in all probability, find a criminal lying under a heavy sentence of the taching to the proceedings of the bribery comlaw, solemnly pronounced in the presence of four Judges, pardoned for an irregularity atmission. In the case of Dr. Kinglake we see the finding of a jury practically set aside upon affidavits, and the court taking a view of the offence which justified a nominal punishment. Whether such a result is calculated to deter bribery, or whether it is not rather likely to make bribers a little more wary in future, are questions which we shall not discuss.

THE PEW QUALIFICATION FOR THE
FRANCHISE.

THE two registration appeals recently decided by the Court of Common Pleas, and reported in of the difficulties which revising barristers have our last week's number, have cleared away most felt concerning the matter there discussed. Even now it certainly is not impossible that some church building Act may be found, which servant. In all that he does he is assumed to act with the authority of the commissioners, and that he may have a creates in the pewholder so complete a freehold we cannot conceive how they could come to the meaning of 8 Hen. 6, c. 7; but unless that estate "tenement conclusion that it was their duty to refuse to be expressly, and in so many words, assigned to within the examine a man to whom their secretary had him, it is difficult to imagine a case in which a virtually promised a certificate of indemnity on condition of his making a clean breast of the ing case of recent times is Hinde v. Chorlton, mere pewholder has a right to vote. The leadmatter. If this view is to be upheld, if it is to L. Rep. 2 C. P. 104; 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 472; it be understood throughout the country that the has been discussed and affirmed in all subsesecretaries of commissions are not the servants quent cases, therefore the question must still be, of the commissioners, that they have no power as Chief Justice Erle there said it was, "whether to give any undertaking as to the examination the statute under which the church was rebuilt of witnesses, the difficulty of detecting corrupt (or built, if it be so) was intended to create a practices would be multiplied enormously, and freehold tenement within the meaning of the to send on a secretary to obtain information will statute, 8 Hen. 6, c. 7." In that case, by the become a useless and dangerous proceeding. We private Act, the trustees appointed to rebuild a hold, as at present informed, that the secretary of parish church, at Oldham, in Lancashire, were the Bridgewater commission, being the officer required to allot certain pews and seats, and appointed by the commissioners themselves to assist them in obtaining information, carried with ritance of such of the pews in the body of the were empowered to sell the fee simple and inhekim an implied authority, upon which parties who church as were not otherwise appropriated in communicated with him were justified in rely-pursuance of the Act, to any persons being ining, and when the commissioners found that Mr. Fennelly had, relying upon this authority, rendered himself liable to a criminal prosecution, the commissioners, without hesitation, should have examined him. As it is, Mr. Fennelly

became the victim of the weakness of the com

mission. True, as remarked by the Lord Chief
Justice, this fact does not mitigate the offence-
that is as bad as ever.
in which Mr. Fennelly was caught add little to
But traps such as that
the reputation of our law.

Now as regards Dr. Kinglake's case. This in
a legal point of view is perhaps the most re-
markable. It must be remembered that Dr.
Kinglake was tried at Taunton before Mr. Jus-
tice Hannen and a jury.
retained for him, and they were doubtless in-
Able counsel were
structed by able solicitors, no less a firm we
believe than Messrs. Gregory, Rowcliffe, and
Rawle. By the nature of the offence, which is
criminal, the defendant's mouth was closed, but
all the evidence which could be legally given,
we must assume was adduced.
Kinglake is brought up for sentence, it would
When Dr.
appear that the case was retried upon affidavits.
Dr. Kinglake complained in his affidavit that he
had not been able to make a statement; that is
to say, he complained that the criminal law is
what it is, and that his mouth was closed-that
he might have called Mrs. Kinglake and Mr. A.
W. Kinglake, to explain many things. And
we find the Solicitor-General and the Lord
Chief Justice discussing the affidavit, as if the
case had never been before a jury at all. It is
hard to conceive anything more extraordinary

habitants of the parish; and it was provided
that such pew should be vested in the purchaser,
his heirs and assigns for ever, and might there
after be sold, conveyed, devised, or otherwise
parted with by the proprietor for the time being
parish: in case the pew should descend or go to
to any other person being an inhabitant of the
should cease, the pew was to go the church-
and in case the functions of the trustees
a person not an inhabitant of the parish
parish, who had purchased from the trustees a
wardens. It was held that an inhabitant of the
pew in the body of the church worth is a year,
had not acquired a freehold, but merely a right
in the nature of an easement. Mr. Justice
"If I had to express in a formals the decision
Willes concluded his judgment in these words:
to which the revising barrister has rightly
come, I should say that a statutory right in a
man and his heirs and assigns, being parish-
ioners, to worship according to law in a defined
part of a church, such right being worth 40s a
knights of the shire. Mr. Justice Byles ex-
year, does not carry a vote at an election for
pressed his concurrence with the view of the court,
and added, But at any rate it is clear that the
claimant has not a descendte estate in the pew,
and therefore, under 2 Wil. 4. c. 45, s. 18, as he
does not occupy it himself must be of the
value of 10% in artere entitle him to a vote.
By the express words of the statute it goes not
to the heirs of the purchaser, nor to the heirs of
his body, but this has being parishioners;
and I think than such an interest much more
nearly resembles a life state than a fee simple,

and that therefore the tenement, if it be one, is 23 not of sufficient value."

tended by the last cases; in both of them the That decision may be said to have been exrevising barristers had considered the disand that in Hinde v. Chorlton sufficient to tinction between the statutes before them, by that decision, but in both cases the court rejustify them in holding that they were not bound versed their findings.

In the first of the two, Brumfitt v. The Overseers of Liverpool, it appeared that the church of St. Mark, Liverpool, was built in pursuance of an Act which gave the trustees and purchasers had arisen as to the estate and interest which of pews almost precisely the same powers and by a subsequent Act, after reciting that doubts rights as were created in the Oldham case; but church of St. Mark took in certain pews and the subscribers to and proprietors of the said seats therein, it was enacted that the fee simple and inheritance of and in the said pews or seats proprietors for the time being of the same pews and seats, their heirs and assigns, for ever, and shall be vested in the said subscribers or the they are thereby authorised and empowered to sell, dispose of, and convey all or any of the and inheritance of the same respectively to any same seats or pews, together with the fee simple person or persons willing to become purchasers thereof, anything in the previous Act to the contrary thereof notwithstanding.

barrister considered the Act for rebuilding the
In the second case, Greenway v. Hockin, the
guishable from that in Hinde v. Chorlton, because
chapel of East Stonehouse, Devonshire, distin-
the vicar of the parish of St. Andrew, Plymouth,
curate of the chapelry, was not made a trustee;
who had the nomination and appointment of the
because the money was subscribed for the pur-
pose of building the church, and not for pews
after the church was built; and because there
was no restriction as to parting with the pews
to other than parishioners.

given to the owners of these pews or seats any
freehold interest in the land which was covered
The court held that the Legislature had not
out of such land; and, therefore the owners had
by such pews or seats, or in any profit arising
no right to be registered.

in Hinde v. Chorlton, may therefore now be
amended, and should be read as follows:-" A
statutory right in a man and his heirs and
The formula suggested by Mr. Justice Willes
assigns to worship according to law in a defined
part of a church, whatever its value may be,
does not carry a vote at an election for knights
of the shire."

THE BALLOT.

THE Government has introduced its promised Bill
for establishing vote by ballot, but it appears to
have been received with anything but satisfaction
by the more extreme section of their supporters.
The declared objection to it was not unreason-
able. They assert the object of the ballot to be
absolate secrecy-for this only is it really desired,
whatever other pretences may be put forth. Now
secrecy; on the contrary, the vote of event
the plan proposed by the Bill does not secure
tained how he voted, and the poll at
inquiry, by scrutiny or otherwise, it may be
voter is to be numbered, so that in case of June
and sincere advocates of the ballo •
accordingly. It is not surprising the the
have been demanding it steadily whee
to be hopeless, and who hold it to be e
for all national evil, by enabling ever
to his or her inclinations, are indhenes ?
woman who has a vote to give it fr
cover, under the popular name a
scheme by which everything
that which alone is wanted
consequence is that Mr. Ham
withdraw his Bill, which
unable to repress & S
not a sham ballot; and tha: 3
to institute a shadow feas
Mr. JAMES threatened a
the second reading.
tested that his machine
the vote put into h
inspection, althougt
and placed there fe
fication. But it
that a secrecy conti
at all. No powe
being inspectec des

re

ce

er

WO

nst

ro

The

osts

think always will be, accepted from motives of of trustees ought not to be lightened by ans
duty and friendship, not with any view to, ing or abolishing the classes of exceptionate
reward; and although settlors and testators, to which we have directed attention, 2.
more frequently than they do at present, should exempting a trustee from liability in c
provide a fair remuneration for their trustees stances similar to those in Hopgood v. Pri
in consideration of the trouble and risk they
are imposing, Lo such remuneration can be
deemed a compensation for risks against which
ordinary human foresight and negligence is
powerless to guard.

contents purchased from some bribable servant.
It may be safely asserted that, when the ballot
becomes law, it will be taken by some other
contrivance than that proposed by Lord HAR-
Gros. The more or less efficiency of the
various devices for taking the ballot is a question
of mechanical skill, and very different from the
other larger questions that lie beyond it, such as
the social benefits or evils of secret voting; if it
is likely to encourage dishonesty or hypocrisy,
or otherwise; if it is compatible with the exer-
cise of a trust, which appears always to imply exempts from liability a trustee who is free
We have said that the general rule of equity
responsibility to those for whom the party is from negligence. Thus Lord Cottenham says
acting as trustee if it will not purchase in Clon v. Bond, 3 Myl. & C. 496, that a
privacy by the sacrifice of much open freedom personal representative (and his remark must
of discussion, or else the practical adoption apply equally to any other trustee), "acting
of a system of falsehood, reading the wrong strictly within the line of his duty, and exercis-
paper, shouting with the wrong mob, expressing reasonable care and diligence will not be
ing wrong opinions, and making men's lives responsible for the failure or depreciation in
miserable by a long practice of deceit, and the which any part of the estate may be invested,
ever present fear of being found out. As for a or for the insolvency or misconduct of any
simple method of ballet voting, we may refer to
one which we remember to have seen many years the indemnity clause which, unler sect. 31 of
person who may have possessed it." So also
ago, and which appears to be perfect. It was a the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, every deed, will, or
box with a frame in which balloting cards were other instrument creating a trust, either ex-
placed within a glass, so that the voter could pressly or by implication, is without prejudice
not touch them, on which were printed th
names of the candidates, and the margin c:
to the clauses actually contained therein, deemed
which was pricked through holes in the box does not extend the indemnity afforded by
to contain, and which, as it has been observed,
at the side of the card just sufficient to admit equity in the absence of such a clause, and is
the point of a pricker. A card was dropped indeed, less extensive than the indemnity clause,
into the ledge above the box. The voter lifted now usually inserted. appears, both in the spirit
the little instrument that lay there for the pur- and letter to operate in accordance with the
pose, and putting it into the hole pricked the general rule, when it provides that the trustee
card against the name of the person for whom or trustees shall be answerable and accountable
he voted. Then, pulling a small handle below only for their own acts, receipts, neglects,
the ledge, the card dropped into the box. Then, or defaults, and not for those of each other:
the ledge was supplied with another card for the nor for any banker, broker, or other person
Dext comer, and so it continued until the voting with whom any
was completed. The pricks on the cards indi-
cated the votes, and if any voter had been foolish
enough to vote for more than the proper number
of candidates the sole effect was that thereby
he threw his vote away, for his card would not

count, but be treated as a void vote.

TRUSTEES AND THEIR RESPONSI-
BILITIES.

We do not feel ourselves called on to apologise
for recurring to the subject of the periis of
trustees, which has been so forcibly, and we
might also say, painfully, pressed on our atten-
tion by the case of Hippood v. Parkin, just de-
cided by Lord Romilly, and on which we briefly
commented a fortnight since. The considered
decision of so experienced a judge as Lond
Romilly always calls for respectful considera-
tion, yet we may, without presumption, be per-
mitted to say that it carries the liabilities of
trustees to an extent for which we were unpre
pared, and that we think it doubtful whether
the principle of that case will be adopted. The
case in effect decides that a trustee who, in the
exercise of his duty, invests the trust fund upon
mortgage and in so doing employs a soliciter
who turns out to be fraudulent, or incompetent
to investigate, or careless in investigating, the
title to the security offered, shall be held respon-
sible for any loss which may arise through the
security proving defective, and that although
the solicitor employed was presumably honest,
competent, and careful. Of course, so long as
this decision remains unreversed no one can be
advised to accept a trust which involves the
laying out money in the purchase or on the
security of real estate, and everyone who has
accepted a trust to which a discretionary power
authorising the purchase of real estate, or the
loan of money on real securities is attached.
must be advised to refrain from exercising his

discretion.

In whatever way the law may be eventually settled, there is no doubt as to the principle which ought to prevail. It appears to us not only highly impolitic, but grossly unjust, that a, trustee who has acted bow tie and is free from negligence, should be held responsible. That he is not responsible in such a case is the general rule at present; in fact, no other reasonable or intelligible rule can be suggested. A trustee is n equity, very much in the same position as an unpaid ballee is at law, where the bailment is not for his own benefit. Such a hailee, it has been repeatedly decided, is liable only for gross negligence, and the rule as to trustees ought to be, if it is not, the same in equity. So long as society exists, so long will trustees be necessary. In the vast majority of cases, trusts are, and we

trust moneys or secu

THROUGH TICKETS AND THE L

BILITY OF RAILWAY COMPANE FOR ACCIDENTS TO PASSENGERS portance to the public still awaits a fini A POINT of railway law of great praction

cision.

station to be carried a long journey, in all ~
When a passenger takes a ticket at a rais
bability it never occurs to him to consider
inquire whether in the course of his journe
is to pass over the line, or part of the line, x.
other company: and still more remote fr...
thoughts is any idea of the possible impor.
to him of the nature of the arrangements wi
have made with the other companies over Fa
the company from whom he gets his thesi
lines he may have to travel before his journe
completed. As the law at present start
passenger is safe in his ignorance; but
not yet been finally settled by a court of in
and an important branch of it was recent
approved in a case, which did not overfa
opinion expressed in some previous cases of
Judges were not sitting in a court of err
trary complexion, only because the disapp
therefore felt bound to follow what, never
less, they deemed the unsatisfactory auth
a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.

The point about which a doubt at p exists is this:-When a railway companyy a passenger a ticket to carry him from one rities may be deposited, nor for the insuffi- to another, the journey to be performed ciency or deficiency of any stocks, funds, or on the line of another company, is the com securities, or for any other cas, uess the same skal from whom the passenger gets his ticke happen throw their own a default respectice "swerable under all circumstances for his Anything more comprehensive than this is conveyance to the end of the journey, and almost beyond the compass of language, main- for any injury which he may sustain on the t taining, as it seems to do, the general rule of of the other company, even where the cas indemnity without exception or qualification. the injury is the negligence of that cap When, however, we come to look at deciled and in no way a default on its own part: cases, very large deductions must be made from the answer to be given to this question s feel regret that the tendency of recent deci- into between the two companies-arrange the generality of the rule; and we cannot but depend upon the private arrangements erzi sions, including the case of Stewart v. Sanderson, of which the passenger cannot be expected know anything, is certainly not what one.. expect beforehand; and if this be ultim cases, the lot of the passenger will become held to be the test of railway liability is s harder than some recent decisions have ma Exchequer Chamber, in the Great Westers The unquestioned decision of the Car

L. T. Rep. N. S. 10, on which we offered some remarks (see vol. xlviii., p. 250) and the tion, seems to be towards multiplying exceptions case before Lord Romilly now under considers to the rule instead of maintaining its generality,

The exceptions to the general rule, that is to say, the cases in which a trustee though it would be absolutely impossible to impute to him negligence or default, has nevertheless been held liable, are chiefly these:

First. Where a trustee having taken professional advice as to the true construction and effecs of the trust instrument is held liable if, acting ba such advice it should turn out to be unfounded. Of this a good illustration may be found in the case of Bouton v. Beard, 3 De G. M. & G. 608.

The opinion of any number of the most eminent counsel would be no protection if arrayed against the adverse decision of a Vice-Chancellor.

Secondly. Where a trustee is induced to part with the trust fund in favour of a pretended cestui que trust by fraud or forgery, although such frand or forgery might be such as no cruinary vigilance or diligence could suspect or discover: (See Ashly v. Blackare, 2 Eden, 299; Eares v. Hickson, 30 Bear, 1860

We presume that Lord Romilly's recent decision, which follows his Lordship's own decision in the case of Eares v. Hickson, would have been the same if the solicitor could not have been charged with the negligence of which Lord Romilly thought him guilty, and that the case came within the second cisss of exceptions to the general rule. It is, however, clear that censiderable stress was laid on the real or alleged negligence of the solicitor, and the judgment of the Master of the Rolls seems to assert that a trustee must be held liable for the acts and defaults of his seliciter, according to the maxim is totally inapplicable where the object is to fix “Chi jacit per alan facit pest," which we submit with liability a trustee who properly instructs a presumably competent sclicitor in respect to a purchase or mortgage.

On the whole, we think the Legislature may profitably consider whether the responsibilities

Cam v. Bake, 7 H. & N. 987; 7L) Rep. N. S. 94. may be taken to have fi settled that where the arrangement bet the railway empany from whom the passes two railway companies is for a division of prot gets his ticket for conveyance between f places is responsible to him for his safe carry inary which he sustains has been occasioned to the end of the journey, even though the negligence of the other company and hisw curred on their line. In that case the passeng had obtained his ticket at the Paddington Stat of the Great Western Railway Company for verance to Milford, in Pembrokeshire, the pany's line terminating at Gloucester. carney from Gloucester to Milford was p formed on the line of the South Wales Rail Company, an arrangement having been enter into between the two companies by whe the fares paid by passengers were app tioned between them. The passenger velling in the same carriage in which he ha started was injured by a collision wh occurred on the line of the South Wales Railway Company, owing to the servants of that co pany having negligently left a locomotive enz on the line. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the train. The Excheque Chamber consisting of Chief Justice Cockbur and Justices Wightman, Crompton, Keatin Byles and Mellors were unanimous in holing the Great Western Railway Company respo sicle to the passenger for the injuries sustained by him. I said Chief Justice Cockburn, " passengers, not only over their own line, but als railway company chooses to contract to carr whole or in part, the company so contracting over the line of another company, either in incurs all the liability which would attach them if they had contracted solely to carryoret their own line. Here there was a contract be

MAY 14, 1870.]

een the Great Western Railway Company and South Wales Railway Company, by which the mer are enabled to carry passengers, not only er their own line, but also over the South les line. Under these circumstances the eat Western Railway Company became rensible for the safety of every passenger oughout the distance for which they gave him icket, just as if they had conveyed him on their n line."

se.

If an arrangement for dividing the passenger es between the two companies does not exist, t one company has merely running powers, the payment of certain tolls, over the line an other company, does the same liability tach to the company which gives the ket in case of accidents caused by the neglince of the company over whose line it has runng powers, and happening on the line of that mpany? This is the question which awaits al decision. In the Great Western Railway Comny v. Blake, the arrangement between the two mpanies was not of this nature, and that cision, therefore, does not apply to such a The language of the Lord Chief Justice, ready cited, is, indeed, wide enough to include is case also; and Mr. Justice Byles, after referrg to the arrangement for apportioning the fares, ys expressly, "If necessary, I should go furer, and say that without the arrangement as profits, the Great Western Company, by their ontract with the plaintiff below, were as much ound to take care of the machinery as if the whole ne was their own." Mr. Justice Mellor, however, cautious to confine his judgment to the exact rcumstances of the case before the court, and bserves-"I do not say how it would be if the reat Western Company had run over the line If the South Wales Company on payment of olls. I do not dissent from what my brother yles has said on that point; but I express no pinion upon it, as it is not necessary for the ecision of this case."

to

In Buxton v. The North Eastern Railway Comany (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 795) Mr. Justice Blackburn uses language which seems onvey the same view of the company's liaility as that taken by Mr. Justice Byles n Blake's case. Referring to that case his ordship said "I understand that case to O to this extent, that where a passenger contracts with a railway company to carry him rom one terminus to another, so as to run over he line of the intermediate railway, it is part of che contract that whatever liability the intermediate line would have incurred as to one of ts own passengers shall be incurred by the other. According to that decision, which is an extremely convenient one, the North Eastern Railway Company, when they gave the ticket in the present case, did in effect contract that they would be responsible for everything for which the Midland Company would be responsible to one of their own passengers, and undertook all those duties which that company undertook on its own line." The reports of Buxton v. The North Eastern Railway Company do not, however, show what the nature of the arrangement between the two railway companies was, and the court to the certainly pronounced no opinion as liability of a company which has merely running powers over the line of the company on which - the accident occurs.

A case raising the question distinctly came before the Court of Queen's Bench in the sittings In Thomas v. The = after last Hilary Term. = Rhymney Railway Company, reported in a recent number of the LAW TIMES Reports, the - plaintiff had taken a ticket of the defendants to be carried from Caerphilly to Cardiff, the journey from Llandaff, where the defendant's line joins that of the Taff Vale Railway Company, to Cardiff being performed on the line of the Taff Vale Railway Company, over which the defendants have running powers on the payment of certain tolis, but no control over the traffic arrangements, which by the Special Act are left under the control of the Taff Vale Railway Company alone. Owing to the negligence of the servants of the latter company in sending on a train of their own without the proper tail light, and allowing the defendants' train to after the other train proceed too on the same line of rails, without giving any warning to the driver of the defendants' train, a collision occurred on the line of the Taff Vale Railway Company, and the plaintiff was injured, the defendants' servants not being guilty of any negligence. Under these

soon

THE LAW TIMES.

-The court refused to review taxation of costs in a damage cause whereby the expense of the attendance of a receiver of wreck had been disallowed by of the examination might have been used. The court will not interfere with the discretion exerthe deputy registrar, inasmuch as a certified copy cised by the registrar, unless it is clearly shown that an error has been committed by that officer: (The Oscar, A. C. May 31, 1864; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 42; 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 789.)

4. Inevitable accident.-This defence in a collision case must be pleaded: (The A. Z. C., June 2, 1864; 2 Mar Law Cas. 42.)

4a. Caveat-Bail.-A party delaying the release of any property by the entry of a caveat, shall be condemned in costs and damages arising from the detention of the property, unless he can show to the satisfaction of the judge good and sufficient reason for having done so: (The Corner, A. C., 5. Claim for necessaries-Subsequent proof for Nov. 17, 1864; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 168.) repairs.-The institution of a suit as a cause of respect of repairs; but the title of the cause must necessaries does not estop the plaintiff from pleading and proving subsequently that his claim is in be amended: (The Skipwith, A. C. Feb. 16, 1853; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 20; 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 43; 10 Jur. N. S. 445.)

circumstances were the defendants liable to the
plaintiff for the injuries which he had sustained?
The inclination of the court was strongly in
favour of holding that the defendants were not
liable, but the learned Judges could not get over
the very wide language employed in the cases
already referred to, and reluctantly gave judg-
ment for the plaintiff, at the same time expressing
a hope that the case would be taken to a court of
error in order that the point might receive a
final decision. Mr. Justice Mellor, after referring
to the case of Buxton v. The North Eastern Rail-
way Company, said, "If I were called on to
decide the question on the state of facts now
appearing, my opinion would be that the defen-
dants are not liable for the accident which has
occurred, having no control over the line of
the Taff Vale Railway Company, and that the
defendants are liable only for the negligence of
those persons over whom they have control. I
think it was assumed, in the case of Buxton v.
The North Eastern Railway Company, that the
facts of that case were the same as those in The
Great Western Railway Company v. Blake. This,
however, is only a conjecture, it having been
6. Wages-Master's accounts-Costs.-A master
admitted by counsel that it could not be distin-
guished. For myself personally, I will say that
I consider the case of The Great Western Railway suing for wages and disbursements is bound to
Company v. Blake to be distinguishable on the furnish accounts before bringing his suit. If he
7. Salvage-Appraisement.-By marshal of the
ground that there there was a mutual arrange- do not he will not be entitled to his costs: (The
ment between the two companies as to sharing the Fleur de Lis, Jan. 30, 1866; L. Rep. 1 A. & E. 49.)
profits; there was an agency on the part of each
A. & E. 50.)
of them for the other, and it seems to me that court of value of property salved conclusive:
8. Appeal to Privy Council
the majority of the Exchequer Chamber rested (Cargo ex The Venus, Feb. 6, 1866; L. Rep. 1
their decision on that. I certainly did not con-
cur in the further observation made by my admitting appeal- Vice Admiralty Court Act
brother Byles, but reserved to myself the right (26 & 27 Vict. c. 24, s. 23).-Where six months had
favour of an appeal which had been suspended
of holding that circumstances like the pre- elapsed, the court exercised their discretion in
sent might alter the case; and that is my pre-
sent impression." And Lush, J., added, "The pending a decision in a similar suit before the
distinction which has been pointed out between Privy Council, and where there had been a bona
9. Bottomry-Repayment of wages out of pro-
the present case and that of The Great Western fide intention of appealing: (Cassanova v. The
Railway Company v. Blake, was not suggested in Queen, Feb. 12, 1866; L. Rep. 1 P. C. 115.)
the argument of Burton v. The North Eastern Rail-ceeds of sale of ship.-Repayment was decreed in
way Company; and certainly it was not present this case, but Dr. Lushington said, "I wish most
to my mind when I gave judgment in that case." expressly to declare that this is a practice I
In this somewhat unsatisfactory position the cannot in future sanction, and when a ship is in
distress, if I am desired, as I constantly am, to
important question stands at present. It re-
expense of keeping the men, or for any other pur-
mains to be seen how the court of error will pay certain wages in order to get rid of the
pose, it is only necessary to come to this court,
without the institution of any suit whatever,
finally determine it.
whoever may have instituted the suit, and what-
ever condition it may be in, to have the sanction
of the court for the payment of the wages, and the
court will never refuse in such a case:" (The
Cornelia Henrietta, March 13, 1866; L. Rep. 1
A. &. E. 51.)

DIGEST OF SHIPPING LAW CASES.
FROM 1864 TO 1867.

Edited by F. O. CRUMP, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
(Continued from page 7.)

PRACTICE.

INDEX TO CONTENTS.

Amendment, 1, 2.
Appeal, 8, 11.
Appraisement, 7.
Bail, 4a.
Bottomry, 9, 10.
Caveat, 4a.

Citation in personam, 13.
Collision, 18.
Costs, 3, 6, 14.
Damage, Cause of, 3.
Engrafting suit, 2.

Evidence, fresh, on appeal, 11.
Inevitable accident, 4.

Inspection of documents, 17.
Interpleader in Chancery by master, 12.
Jurisdiction, 19.

Master's accounts, 6.
Misdescription, 1.
Monition, 13.
Mortgage, 14, 16.
Part owners, 13.
Pleading, 16, 18.
Prior charges, 10.
Repairs, 5.

Repayment of wages out of proceeds of sale, 9.
Reviewing taxation, 3.
Sailing rules, 18.

Salvage, 7, 15, 19.
Subsequent proof, 5.
Tender before suit, 15.
Taxation of costs, 3, 14.
Value, 19.

Wages, 9.

Amemdment

1. Amendment-Misdescription.
of the title of a cause may be made where there
is an erroneous description of the cause of action:
(The Skipwith, A. C. Feb. 16, 1864; 2 Mar. Law
Cas. 20; 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 43.)

The

It would
2. Amendment - Engrafting suit.·
seem doubtful whether a personal suit could be
engrafted on a suit in rem for collision.
Admiralty Court has power to enforce a decree
against the owner personally, if the ship is not of
Pracipe was, accordingly, not
sufficient value.
amended: (The Zephyr, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 146; 11
L. T. Rep. N. S. 451. See "Admiralty Court" 3.)
3. Cause of damage-Reviewing taxation-Motion
to review taxation of costs in a cause of damage.

· Discretion in

10. Bottomry-Prior charges - Lien of bondholders for payment of them-Affidavit.-The court granted leave to bondholders to pay prior charges, and to have a lien on the ship, cargo, and freight in respect of such payments, which were small in amount, on an affidavit specifying the charges to be paid: (The Fair Haven, May 8, 1866; L. Rep. 1, A. & E. 67.)

11. Appeal.-Admission of fresh evidence.-Leave to adduce fresh evidence upon appeal was refused where it appeared that the matters to which such evidence referred regarded first the loss of insurance by reason of the deviation of a vessel from her course in effecting the salvage services, which fact was sufficiently before the court below to enable it to apportion the amount of salvage; and secondly, that the further evidence went to meet a charge affecting character, which might have been met by an application to the court below to postpone the case for the production of such evidence. The court will not relieve parties against a miscarriage on their part in the course of the conduct of the cause: (The Scindia, 1866, June, 13, 25, 26; L. Rep. 1 P. Č. 241.)

12. Interpleader by master of ship-Admiralty suit-Bill filed by master.-Proceedings in a suit in the Admiralty Court being directed against the ship, i. e., the owners, a master was held not entitled to file a bill of interpleader in equity. Such a bill would be a bill not to relieve himself, but to relieve the owners at his suggestion. Under the circumstances it was doubted whether a question of interpleader arose at all: (Sablicich v. 13. Suit between part-owners of ship-AdmiRussell, June 28, 29, 1866; L. Rep. 2 Eq. 441.) ralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10, s. 8) Monition.-Where - Citation in personam stop order one of three part-owners had served a notice a dock company, putting a on the freight, the court, at the suit of two other part-owners, directed a monition against the dock company to bring in the freight, and proceedings against the owner in personam: (The 14. Mortgage-Costs of suit by mortgagee-C Meggie, July 3, 1866; L. Rep. 1 A. & E. 77.) and charges-Taxation.-Whether or not

or

have been properly or improperly incurred by a mortgagee must depend upon the facts of each

case.

The exact meaning of the words in a decree, "costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred,' cannot be defined beforehand. Details considered at length, and items allowed stated: (The Kestrel, July 31, 1866; L. Rep. 1 A. & E. 78.)

15. Salvage by ship agents-Tender before suitCosts.-Tender of amount subsequently decreed by court, made in time to have saved litigation, held sufficient, and decree for defendants with costs:

(Cargo ex The Honour, July 31, 1866; L. Rep.

& E. 87.)

1

16. Mortgage-Pleading.-In a cause of necessaries an article of a reply was rejected, which left it open whether the person in possession of the vessel at the time of the supply was the original mortgagee, or the defendant who was the transferee of the mortgage. A plaintiff cannot in such a case call upon the court to supply the defect of his reply by reference to the defendant's answer, the dates mentioned in which might seem to show that if, as alleged in the reply, the person entitled to the mortgage money was in possession, that person was the defendant: (The Troubadour, Nov. 27, 1866; L. Rep. 1 A. & E. 302.)

17. Inspection of documents.-On a motion by the defendants for leave to inspect certain correspondence between the plaintiff and his agent, the judge directed the documents to be produced for his own inspection before granting the application: (The MacGregor Laird, Nov. 20, 1866; L. Rep. 1 A. & E. 307.)

18. Pleading-Collision—Sailing rules. In a ollision cause between a steamer and a brig it was held to lie upon the owners of the steamer to show

A DIGEST OF THE LAW OF
SCOTLAND.

IN a paper read before the Scottish Law
Amendment Society at Edinburgh, on the 14th
March last, by John Dove Wilson, Esq., Advo-
cate, Sheriff-Substitute of Kincardineshire, that
learned gentleman says, after referring to the
proceedings of the English Commissioners:

What I now want to submit to you is, that what
would be good for the law and people of England,
would be good also for the law and people of
Scotland. and that there ought, therefore, to be a
digest of the law of Scotland as well as a digest of
the law of England.

A glance at the materials of which the law of Scotland is at present made up, will show how much it requires setting in order. Our law is at present derived mainly from three sources-the Statute Law, the institutional writers, and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

The statute law is in as confused a condition as anybody could well imagine. We have statutes of which nobody can say whether they are in force or not; we have others which are in force, but which through long years have been so overlaid with decisions that nobody by reading them can tell their meaning; and others, again, that subsequent statutes have affected to unknown extents. Although our statute law is less in point of bulk than that of England' it is in a worse conditionnothing almost having as yet been done for it either by private enterprise or by public authority. We have no collection, such as that of Chitty, which arranges the existing statutes in the order of their subjects, and gives references which, at any rate, enable one to approximate to their meaning; and the statute law commission has not as yet done for us more than make a beginning of the work which has been nearly completed for 19. Sal aje-Value of propert-Jurisdiction-England-that of separating the statutes which can be enforced from those which cannot. Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 43, s. 49).—This statute, in appointing the value of the property saved to be the condition determining the court's jurisdiction, means the value of the property when first brought into safety by the salvors, and not at any subsequent period: (The Stella, L. Rep. 1 A. & E. 340.)

that the brig had violated the sailing rules, and that it was not necessary for the brig to aver the negative in the petition: (The West of England, Nov. 20, 1866; L. Rep. 1 A. & E. 308.)

PRIORITY.

Freight-Assignee-Notice to charterers. On the 25th Sept. 1862, a ship and her freight were assigned to T. for an advance of 2000l., and the mortgage registered. On the 12th July 1864, B. advanced 1000l., and received an assignment of the freight and earnings of the ship on a particular voyage. On the 16th July he gave notice of the assignment to the charterers. T. took no steps to realise his security or take possession of the vessel until 26th Sept. 1864. B. was held to have priority (Brown v. Tanner, June 27, 28, 1866; 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 694, 825; L. Rep. 2 Eq. 806; April 22, 25, May 6, 27, 1868; L. Rep. 3 Ch. 597.)

:

RE-ARREST.

Of cargo or ship-Collision-Practice-Release of vessel on bail.-After property has been released on bail, the plaintiff is not entitled to re-arrest it, although the defendant has consented to have the amount sought to be recovered in the action increased: (The Flora, Feb. 20, 1866; L. Rep. 1 A. & E. 45.)

REGISTER.

Tort on board ship-Proof of relation of master and servant-Register.-In an action for an accident occurring on board ship by reason of the hatches having been negligently left open, the register was held not to be sufficient evidence to fix the defendant with liability, as the master of the person in charge of the ship. A ship being constantly the subject of demise, charter, mort gage, &c., the presumption that the actual possession is in the owner must necessarily be weak. (Per Mellor, J.) In cases of tort it must be shewn that the shipowner in fact employed those guilty of the negligence. The register, being evidence of the title of the ship, is evidence, though not conclusive, that the registered owners are in possession, and employ those having the actual custody of the ship. (Per Blackburn, J.) Rule granted for a new trial: (Hibbs v. Ross, June 13, 1866; L. Rep. 1 Q. B. 534.)

RE-HEARING OF APPEAL BY PRIVY
COUNCIL.

Collision.-There may be a re-hearing for the purpose of making an alteration in the form of an order; and where there is a mistake in the entry, or the expressed intention of the court is likely to be defeated by defect of form, and the court sees clearly that unless a rehearing were granted, its intention declared in the report would be defeated, it is within the competency of the court to grant it. To justify a re-hearing the case must be a very strong one. Cases cited as the authorities within which such a case must be brought: (The Singapore and Hebe, Nov. 22, 23, 1866; L. Rep. 1 P. C. 368.)

The learned treatises of the institutional writers
(such as Stair and Erskine, who are regarded as
something more than text-book writers, and whose
dicta are taken as authorities) are now to a large
extent either obsolete or incomplete. Besides,
their views occasionally conflict; their meaning
is now often obscure to us; and there is often
uncertainty as to whether a particular writer is
to be taken as an authority on a particular point.
A further source of difficulty arises from our
recognising the Roman Law, on which the insti-
tutional writers found so much, as being still in
some degree authoritative.

The judicial decisions are contained in some two
hundred and fifty volumes, of which speaking
roughly, about one hundred and fifty may be said
to contain original reports, and about one hundred
either duplicate or reprinted reports. In point of
number the decisions may be somewhere about
thirty thousand, and they extend over three cen-
turies of time. This mass, formidable as it is, is
in point of size not so bad as the 1300 volumes o
English decisions, estimated to contain nearly
100,000 cases; but in nearly every other respect
the description given by the commissioners of the
state of English judicial law applies exactly
'A large proportion of these cases
in Scotland.
are of no real valuelas sources or expositions of the
law at the present day. Many of them are obso-
lete; many have been made useless by subsequent
statutes, by amendment of the law, repeal of the
statutes on which the cases were decided, or other
wise; some have been reversed on appeal, or
overruled in principle; some are inconsistent with
or contradictory to others; many are limited to
particular facts or special states of circumstances
furnishing no general rule; and many do no more
than put a meaning on mere singularities of
expression in instruments (as wills, agreements,
or local Acts of Parliament), or exhibit the appli-
cation, in particular instances, in established rules
of construction. A considerable number of the
cases are reported many times over in different
publications, and there often exist partial reports
of the same case at different stages, involving much
repetition. But all this matter remains, encum-
bering the books of reports. The cases are not
arranged on any system, and their number receives
large yearly accessions, also necessarily destitute
of order; so that the volumes constitute (to use
the language of one of the commissioners)" what
can hardly be described, but may be denominated
a great chaos of judicial legislation."
Such being the present condition of the sources
of our law, judges and practitioners have great
difficulty in ascertaining what it is; and to the
general public, the task of endeavouring to see
what is the law on any point is usually a matter of
simple impossibility. Reliance has to be placed to
a great extent on text books, and on the sort of
index to the reports afforded by Shaw's Digest.
I am not going to disparage the assistance which
can be got from either of those kinds of works,
but both have many deficiencies. The text-books
have no authority, except what they derive from
the reputation, if any, of their authors, and they

do not cover the whole field of law. Ther
regard to Shaw's Digest, it is admirable fr
purpose for which it is intended—that of b
one to search for a precedent-but as an e
In these
tion of the law, it is useless.
stances, I think it may fairly be said thats
such as the commissioners propose, is nees
for the law.

After citing from the report of the or
sioners, he continues:-"Hitherto we have
regarding this matter from much the same 1...
of view as that from which the commi-s
regarded the case of England, as if Scotlan
an entirely independent country, and I have
borrowing the language of their report to daz
the benefits that a digest would bring to t
benefits are obtained. But when we look a
well as the duty that lies on us to see that
intimate relations which bind Scotland to I
land, and at the great desirableness of
milating the law of the

United King

the benefits of a digest are seen to be z
greater. If the digests of the law of
of Sect
land, and that of the law
were prepared simultaneously, the requisite f
dations for ultimate assimilation could ess
laid. There would be no difficulty in adoptar
same arrangement of the law in both ar
The great divisions of the subjects would
due care) be made to correspond and, in me-
sarily be the same; the sub-divisions could r
tile law, at all events, the parallel arrange
could be carried out almost to the minutes
there is not much appearance of similarity. I be
tails. Even in those branches of the law. *-
it would be of the utmost advantage to carry UL
the Legislator, the judge, or the practitioner, E
far as possible, the same order of treatment,
at once be able to compare the provisions
by the two laws for the constitution or proter
of any particular interest. If this paralle
rangement were carried out, I think it wond
found that the points on which the English
Scotch law agreed were far more numerous
those on which they differed; and that with e
ful adjustment the minor differences, once c
brought out and set face to face, would adr
removal. In this way, when the last steps d
were taken, and the codes evolved from the di
they could be made to embrace the law of
United Kingdom on all matters on which it
really desirable that the law should be the same.

If the value of having such digests, both thr respective laws of the two countries and to future assimilation, be admitted, I cannot see objection to proceeding with the Digest of t Law of Scotland, except either on the ground expense or on the ground of the time being suitable.

As to the expense, I have no doubt that it wa be considerable. A large staff of well qual and duly remunerated professional men we have to be employed; but this expense would ta to be incurred only once, and it should be w while for the public to incur some expense to their laws reduced to something like order, cision, and lucidity. The consideration of expe is not to be allowed to stand in the way of die ing the English law; and if the law of Engla to be put in order at the cost of the Imper Treasury, I do not see why the same should be done for the law of Scotland. It is many demands that Scotland makes on t Imperial Treasury; and though we contri less, a digest of the law of Scotland, from the smaller extent of materials, might probably cost so much as the English digest; and if t digests were done under a joint commission, it just possible that some of the expenditure for th necessary machinery might be made available fr Apart from those benefits to Scotlan both. which it is well entitled to have as England, the could not be a more worthy application of th Imperial funds than in the preparation of pars digests of the laws of the two countries, with view to facilitate their ultimate assimilation, an to ultimately having but one system of law in the empire.

When the Englis

If this project is ever to be carried out, it sho be set in motion now. If we wait till the arrang ments for preparing the English digest are com pleted, the opportunity for framing the two digests in a parallel fashion will be gone, and we shall pr bably be told to wait till it is seen what like the English digest turns out. digest is published, we may be asked whether it might not do for both, and the probability worl be that England would proceed to codificatio irrespective of assimilation. The justice of having the law of Scotland digested, and the propriety having our digest and that of the law of Engla done on the same order and system, are so obvion that I think if we were to make our proposal now, With respect to the way in which this propos in good time, it could not fail to meet with succes should be carried out, it will be found necessary English any event to have a statutory commission. This commission might have two divisions, an and a Scotch, making the whole commission re

MAY 14, 1870.]

one can

Ensible for the order of treatment, and the sion for each country responsible for the uracy and completeness of the statement of substance of its own law. Assistant comsioners would be employed on the different nches, working under rules sanctioned by the mission; and if due provision were made the revisal, exchange, and comparison of various works as they proceeded, I think t even in the first edition of the digest subntial harmony of order, and fulness and accuy of statement, might be attained. But I d not enter into details, as no that there are any insuperable difficulties to counter. A question would arise as to the treatnt of the Irish decisions. Probably as they do profess to form a separate system of law, it ght be sufficient that those of them which are value should be embodied in the form of notes the proper sections of the English Digest. ere may, however, be reasons, of which t aware, for a separate digest of the Irish deions; but at any rate some provision should be de for them, the learning which they doubtis embody should not be lost, and Ireland ould, as much as England or Scotland, have the nefit of a methodical and accessible law. Meanhile, however, our main concern is with Scotnd, and I trust I have done something to show at such a digest as I nave proposed would be of calculable value, and that this is the time for aking the proposal take practical shape.

ESTATE AND INVESTMENT
JOURNAL

am

Bank of England Stock 235
Cent. Red. Ann....
Cent. Cons. Ann..

New 2 Cent. Ann....
Do. 3 do. Jan. 1894.
New 3 Cent. Ann.
New 3 BC. Jan. 1894
3 Cent. Jan. 1873

Ann. 30 years exp.
April 5, 1885
Do. exp. Jan. 5, 1880
Do. exp. July 1880

Red Sea Tele. Ann. 1908
Consols, for Acc...

India 5 Cent. for Acc.

92

94

92 92 928

923 928 92

::::ཚོ ཀྟྲི བྲྀ

::

11 11

Do. 5 Cents. July 1880 113 113 114 113 114 113
India Stock, July 1880.
India Stock, 1874

209

209 209

THE LAW TIMES.

teen houses in Frog-lane and Victoria-place, Essex-road,
Freehold ground rent of 1507. per annum, arising from seven-
Islington-sold for $3007.

Freehold ground rent of 61. per annum, arising from Nos. 3
and 4, Halton-place, Essex-road, Islington-sold for 1257,;
ditto, 307., ditto 11 to 20, Pickering-street, Essex-road,
Islington-sold for 6501.; ditto, 257., ditto 100, 102, 104, and
106, Essex-road, Islington-sold for 5807.; ditto 257., ditto

92, 94, 96, and 98, ditto-sold for 5807.
at 1407. per annum-sold for 30007.
Freehold house and shop, No. 58, Upper-street, Islington, let

to 10, Charles-street, Islington-green-sold for 4407.; ditto
Freehold ground rent of 207. per annum, arising from Nos. 1
107. ditto 11 to 15, ditto-sold for 2201.; ditto 307., ditto 16
to 28, ditto-sold for 6557.; ditto 257, ditto 29 to 36, ditto
sold for 5507.

By Messrs. FULLER, HORSEY, SON, and Co.

Freehold premises, No. 78, Lower Thames-street, City-sold

Freehold, 9a. 3r. 17p. of meadow land, situate as above sold
Freehold, Great Bray's farm, in the parishes of Rochford
and Little Stambridge, Essex, comprising a residence,
with buildings and cottages, and 78a. Sr. lp. of land-sold
for 39007.

Freehold, 12a. 2r. 14p. of arable land, in the parish of Hawk-
well, Essex-sold for 5507.

Freehold, 27a. 1r. 15p. of marsh land, in the parish of Bark-
ing, Essex-sold for 22107.

65002.

Freehold, Fernhill Farm, Barking Side, Essex, comprising a
residence, with buildings, and 83a. Ir. 32p. of land-sold for
Freehold, two cottages, situate in Redbridge-lane, leading to
Woodford-bridge-sold for 1507.
hill, Hoddesdon, Herts, comprising a residence, with
stabling, buildings, and 6a. 3r. 39p. of land-sold for 2502.
Freehold, and small part copyhold property, known as Rose-
Copyhold, two cottages in Lord's-lane, Hoddesdon-sold for
Freehold and copyhold pasture land, situate in Charlton
Mead, Hoddesdon, containing la. Or. 2p.-sold for 501.

1507.

LEGISLATION AND JURIS-
PRUDENCE

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 10.

PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.

India Stock,4 C.1888 101 101 100 100 1011 1013 of England had been read a second time and re

sums. In consequence of this permission there
was a danger that if called upon in his official
capacity to prosecute his own clients, the procura-
tor fiscal might not discharge his duty so fearlessly
as if he occupied a more independent position, while
his office might give him undue weight in under-
taking actions in the course of his private business.
salary there had been an apparent diminution in
Since the majority of these officers had been paid by
the number of crimes. He would not say whether
that improvement was real or not, but with regard
to the relative number of committals and acquit-
tals the system appeared to work well as com-
pared with that pursued in England. In 1868 the
wards of 20,000, the convictions amounting to 75
total number of committals in England was up-
or 10 per cent. more in proportion to the popu
per cent.; and in Scotland the number was 3384,
lation, the convictions forming exactly the same
per centage. But the acquittals in England
amounted to 20 per cent., whereas in Scotland
they were only 9 per cent., the difference being
accounted for by those cases in which prisoners
were discharged without being brought to trial.
Great dissatisfaction had been excited by the
system of extra fees, and an attempt to abolish
the practice had already been made in Aberdeen-
followed in cases of suspected crime differed very
In the first place, the police held a preliminary
shire, and would be repealed next year. The rule
materially from the practice followed in England.
investigation and reported to the procurator fiscal,
who, if he thought fit, conducted another inquiry
into the case, and then reported to the town
council. The preliminary inquiry ought to take
place in the presence of a magistrate, but the
gaged with his other duties to attend, so that the
sheriff substitute was frequently too much en-
investigations in many cases were conducted by
not entitled to be present or to be represented;
and the whole process was of such a nature as to
the procurator alone. The prisoner himself was
destroy the confidence of the public in the adminis
tration of justice. He merely wished to in-
dicate that sufficient proof had arisen that there
was a necessity for alterations in the Scotch
law relating to public prosecutions. He enter-
tained great hopes from what he knew of the
sentiments of the Lord Advocate that he would
entertain a decided conviction of the neces-
sity of a reform of the present system.-
The LORD ADVOCATE had certainly no fault to
find with the hon. baronet the member for Ayr-
shire for bringing this matter under the considera-
tion of the House, for the subject was one of con-
siderable interest. He must, however, resist the
appointment of the committee which was asked
for, not because there was anything in the present
system which he desired to conceal, but because
the system was entirely well known, and anyone
who was interested in the matter could easily
obtain all the information which he required. No
attack had been made upon the procurators fiscal,
but, on the contrary, he understood every speaker
to say that they were universally men of the
highest character and reputation in their pro-
fession. Treating the matter upon its own merits
there were a few particulars to which he thought
it necessary to advert. First, in reference to the
appointment of procurators fiscal it had been said
most correctly that they were appointed by the
courts to which they were attached. Procurators
of the Sheriffs' Court were appointed by the
sheriff; in the Justices of the Peace Court by the
justices of the peace, and in Magistrates of
Boroughs Court by the magistrates. This had
been the system time out of mind. Upwards of
thirty years ago the then Lord Advocate-he
believed it was Lord Murray-brought in a mea-
sure to transfer the appointment of the pro-
curators fiscal of the Sheriffs' Court to the
It was said that the
Crown, but the proposal was very extensively
objected to in Scotland, and the measure was
not proceeded with.
sheriffs had exercised their power in every way
properly; that there was no better judge of the
person fit for the discharge of the particular duty
than the judge himself. Although he had heard
it said that it was a singular course for the judge
to appoint the prosecutor, yet he had never heard it
was that the procurators fiscal were not confined
said that there had been any miscarriage of justice
or inconvenience resulting from it. The next point
to carrying on public business, but were allowed
to take private business also. No doubt upon this
there was some difference of opinion, though his
business was advantageous in every way.
own opinion was that to allow them to take private
object was to get the best local practitioner in
each county to attend to public business in that
county; and it did not often happen that the
ment, for generally such a man was much em-
most proper man was altogether without employ-
ployed by clients. If it were made a condition of
accepting public business that private_busi
should be given up, that would strike off
of those available for the office all the
private business. The appointment
tioners who had any considerable

Sir D. WEDDERBURN proceeded to move for a select committee to inquire into the present system of conducting public prosecutions in Scotland with the view of amending the system, if necessary, and of extending to other parts of the United Kingdom the institution of public prosecutors. He observed that since he gave notice of this motion a great change had taken place in the aspect of this question, for a bill affecting the law ferred to a select committee, and would probably become law during this session. This circumstance would relieve him from the necessity of referring to the law of England or other countries; and he would confine himself to the consideration of certain reforms which appeared to be essential in the Scotch system. If this committee were granted he should wish to limit the inquiry strictly to the investigation of the particular case of prosecutors appointed and paid by the public to investigate cases in respect of the Crown; and he could not doubt that evidence would be obtained which would furnish valuable hints for an improvement in the law. The facts to which he wished to call attention related in a great measure to the method of appointment and payment of these public officers, to the manner in which they conducted their inquiries, and, the irresponsible powers with which they were invested. The office of Lord Advocate dated from the sixteenth century, when such an officer appeared to have been first appointed to protect the pecuniary interests of the Crown. Since that time, however, the Lord Advocate had acquired many other important functions; and his duties as public prosecutor devolved prinwere the Solicitor-General and four advocatescipally upon his subordinates, of whom the chief depute, who were appointed by the Crown, and held office so long as the Government of the day remained in power. Under these officials were the who were appointed by the sheriff or local judge, local public prosecutors, called procurators fiscal, and held their positions during his tenure of office. He objected to the influence which party considerations had in these appointments, and to the very was allowed to exercise his functions or delegate irresponsible manner in which the Lord Advocate them to others. The total expenses for criminal procedure in Scotland amounted to 75,000l. a year, of which one-third was devoted to the salaries of By Messrs. CHINNOCK, GALSWORTHY, and CHINNOCK, at the procurators fiscal, who were entitled not only to tice, by which they not unfrequently made large Freehold business premises, No. 264, High Holborn, produc-receive such payments, but to pursue private pracing 1457. per annum-sold for 31507.

RAILWAY COMPANIES. Great Southern of Buenos Ayres.-Dividend at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum for the second

half of 1869.

West Flanders.-The dividend coupons of 5s. 9d. per ordinary share and 5s. 6d. per preference share are payable on the 16th inst.

BANKS.

London and South African.-A dividend of 7s. per share, in addition to the interim 5s. per share paid in November, declared.

MINING COMPANIES.

Scottish Australian.-A half-year's dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum declared. Vancouver Coal.-A dividend at the rate of 15

per cent. per annum.

The