it, and if anything the least suspicious is observed about the fire, it will be their duty to report it to an officer authorised to make inquiry; second, this officer shall conduct the second stage of the inquiry by examining witnesses on oath, and, if he think proper, empanelling a jury so as to discover whether the fire is suspicious or not, and if suspicious, on whom the suspicion can be fixed; if the evidence is not strong enough to implicate any one in particular, the inquiry will terminate; but if there are strong grounds for suspecting anyone he will be prosecuted before the ordinary criminal courts, to be dealt with in the same way as any person accused of crime; this will constitute the third stage of the inquiry. The question to consider, then, is who shall be the officer to whom the police shall report the case for the second stage of the inquiry. Several suggestions have been made to your committee by the witnesses; some suggest the coroner, others the police magistrate, and a third party the appointment of an officer similar to the fire marshals in America. Your committee, after giving due consideration to this subject, would prefer the police magistrate or coroner to the fire marshal, mainly because in the courts of these two officers they have a ready-made machinery, and they, such being the case, are a verse to the recommendation of the creation of any new offices; and they would recommend the coroner to carry out the second stage of the inquiry in pre ference to the police magistrates, because the coroner's court is a movable one, and he can constitute his court and conduct the inquiry in the immediate vicinity of the fire, and because till of late he was generally considered to have the power of inquiry into fires, and such power was exercised by some coroners. Your committee would recommend that he should be paid for conducting the inquiry partly by fees and partly by salary out of the rates. They do not think that the insurance companies should be called upon to pay any part of the expense, as it is not the duty of any private commercial company to prosecute for a public crime, and, besides, the fire may take place on property not insured. The enough to work but the work is not an essential, and as the life is pleasant, and the mess dinners good, that will serve to wile away the time till the attainment of the seven years' standing. would suffer if absurd fines were not inflicted. bag into court. He must not buy a red bag. A red bag must be given him by a Q. C., and he must pay a great deal more than its value liberal, and to which no gentleman need be ashamed to belong. The circle of such professions is indeed constantly extending, and fathers are ready to make their sons what they would Men who have reached that point, whether never have been made by their own fathers. "Going to make his son an artist!" says Major they have business or not, are apt to be ultraPendennis. "By gad! in my time a fellow conservative in all that regards their own profession. They are accustomed to the rules, which would as soon have thought of making his son a hairdresser." But though we have not yet at first were irksome, and they do not expect any come to that, we have seen business viewed very gain to themselves by a change. The wine fund differently, and civil engineering far more highly When the voice of the singer is hushed there is esteemed. In many Continental States the army is still the only calling of a gentleman, and the. amusement in the proceedings of the Circuit consequences are titled beggary and dependence Court. But younger men do feel the rules irkon heiresses. This is not the English view of some. The pitfalls of law are constantly gaping respectability, and it is well that gentlemen before their unwary footsteps. They see the should not feel too proud to work. Yet when folly of many regulations more clearly, or avow once they condescend to work they are sure to their opinion more openly, than is done by their come into competition with others who are not seniors. But they are absolutely powerless. A gentlemen, and who are gradually raising them- junior who was not a member of the mess might selves by their exertions. It is against these as well stay away from the circuit. On this we men that the restrictions of the liberal profes- quite agree with Mr. Dicey. It is true that the man who has the largest practice on one of the sions are aimed, and etiquette does its best to second those restrictions. Certain regiments greater circuits is not a member of his mess, but keep out poor men by sheer expense. In others his position is not comfortable, either to himself a dead set is made at one whose father was in or his fellows, and both sides would probably be trade. With the purchase system of course the glad if such an annoyance could be got over. army is necessarily given up to men of some Whether a man is old or young, fully employed means, and the disproportion of pay to purchase or idle, a Philistine or a Bohemian, he does not like to feel that he is the only one out of a money would deter others from choosing such a career. At the Bar, on the other hand, the hundred who may not dine at a certain table. To be in court all day with other barristers, to danger does not proceed from wealth. profession is expensive, but success cannot be talk of them as his friends, to hold briefs with bought. The old theory was, that unless them, to confer with them, and yet to be exbarristers were deterred by severe penalties they cluded from their society, would be no slight would toady and fawn on attorneys, while the at- penalty for an offence against professional torneys were supposed to look up to barristers with honour. But even if such grave penalties such reverence that slight condescension would are rare, the minor yokes of etiquette are lead to goiden rewards. It is thought even now sufficiently galling. A barrister must wear a that if a barrister was allowed to go into the coffee-black waistcoat. He must not bring a blue room of an hotel while he was on circuit, he would be sure to embrace the first attorney whom he saw at a breakfast-table. It is not every to the wine fund of the mess. We do not dwell circuit that allows its members to go inside a hotel. On the Western Circuit, we believe, baron these as inconveniences, but as follies, yet risters are still compelled to take lodgings. How they are typical of many of the more serious far this rule is the result of the bad arrangekinds of restrictions. Mr. Dicey quotes the ment of English hotels, and their systematic grand rule that a barrister may not solicit briefs, attempt to force all guests into the expense of but he does not notice the infinite ramifications private sitting-rooms, may be a fit inquiry for the into which it develops. Some say a barrister papers which are now counselling English travel. may not tell an attorney that he is coming on We do not object to the custom, though of course the circuit where the attorney lives; others add it is attended with expense. But we think it is that he may not ask a friend or relation to tell foolish to make a point of it, and to decree an attorney that he is coming that circuit, or solemnly that barristers who go to hotels shall ask a friend to ask an attorney to give him take sitting-rooms. This prudish fear of attor- business. If a friend chooses to do this of his neys, and of the contamination of their society, own accord there is no harm in it. But you may is like the feeling of an old maid in a railway not jog your friend's memory. If you want a carriage with one gentleman. As for a barrister place under Government there is no harm in dining with an attorney, that is a high crime asking for it, in getting others to ask for it, in and misdemeanor, which in one instance was asking others to get others to ask for it. A visited with a fine of five guineas. Yet it might barrister may move all his friends and acquainsurely be left to a man's own taste whether he tances to procure him an assistant-commissionerwill dine with an attorney or not. There are ship at the rate of five guineas a day. But a some attorneys of very good standing, university guinea brief is far more valuable and more consi-men, men of intellect and culture, who are far sacred, and must be adored in silence. The superior to some barristers by whose side you sit impiety of those who would take less than a Yet barristers are expected to imitate guinea is a fit subject for legal excommunication. Dr. Johnson, who when dining with some book-Yet if instead of paying 80l. to be called to the sellers remained in an uncomfortable place close to bar a man pays a fee for a yearly certificate the fire, because it was the head of the table, and under the bar, he may take any number of halfhe would not let any of them sit above him. They guineas. Some of our best judges have been are not even to emulate Brummell, who agreed pleaders, and were called to the bar late in life, to dine with a City man on condition of the host after making their name and connection in a never saying anything about it, and who came lower capacity. We believe that now some barthree-quarters of an hour late to show his sense risters accept pleaders' fees, though their conof the favour he was conferring. And this law duct is irregular. But what attorney will give is the more singular, as it is thought quite right a man a guinea to join and take issue? for a barrister to marry an attorney's daughter. We do not know if after that he is allowed to dine with his father-in-law, but if not, that would merely be the reductio ad absurdum of a system which is very near that already. We can quite understand that a man would be looked down upon if he dined with a thieves' attorney. Yet surely the instinct of a gentleman is sufficient to keep him from such a fall. Nor is it certain that any number of dinners would procure a man business, for even thieves' attorneys are apt to look to a man's verdicts as the index of his ability. If all men had equal talents, there might be some fear of competition being carried on in an underhand way. But talents are not equal, and the best are sometimes unaccompanied by the perseverance which is indispensable to legal success. One man has had his chance, and has lost it. Another man only waits for his chance, in order to make use of it. A countless string of others would be ready Your committee are of opinion that in Ireland the inquiry might be conducted before the stipendiary magistrate of the district in which the fire occurs. They would further recommend that, as regards Scotland, the police should be directed to report every fire to the procurator fiscal, who would then make the preliminary inquiry, and report thereon according to the existing system in the cases of suspected crime, and of such fires as, from suspicious circumstances, are at present inquired into. If the circumstances are considered by the Crown counsel to be at all suspicious an inquiry should then be directed to be made by the sheriff in open court. The result of this inquiry should be again reported to the Crown counsel, who would determine whether criminal proceedings should follow. Any additional expense occasioned by this inquiry may be defrayed by the Treasury, as is done in the ordinary criminal expenses of the country, or it may be defrayed from the county or burgh rates. And they would specially recommend that no claim should be settled by any insurance company without a certificate from the police, or fire-brigade, or officer appointed to conduct the investigation into the origin of the fire, but this certificate should not debar the insurance offices from opposing the claim if they think proper. We commend these suggestions to the deration of our experienced readers. LEGAL ETIQUETTES. (From the Spectator.) A QUESTION which was originally started by a journeyman engineer in the Pall-Mall Gazette, and was briefly argued in the same columns by two barristers, has now been more fully discussed by Mr. Albert V. Dicey in the last number of the Fortnightly Review,-How far does the Bar answer to the definition of a trades' union? One barrister said the profession was as free as air, which is not a bad comparison, for in our great towns air is a very expensive commodity. The other barrister alluded to Circuit Courts, and the responsible power of the Benchers, and maintained that the unwritten law of the profession was as elastic in its comprehension, and as rigid in its infliction of punishment, as parts of the unwritten law of England. Mr. A. V. Dicey does not follow either disputant, but seeks to refer the rules that are known to exist to a wider principle, and to find the answer to the question in the nature of the Bar, and in the protection of which it is the subject. We shall take the liberty of diverging alike from Mr. Dicey and his precursors, and shall attempt to show that the etiquette of the Bar is by no means necessary to its position, and no increase of its strength or its lustre. We may fairly place the legal profession on the same level as the others which claim to be at mess. The etiquette of the Bar might do some good if it overlooked these small matters, and aimed at raising the tone of the Profession. But anything that is done in this direction is done slowly, and against the existing regulations rather than by means of them. The professional tone of the Bar, says Mr. Dicey, rather encourages than discourages the idea that men are not bound to do the work for which they are paid. This, no doubt, is partly owing to the strange old theory that the counsel's fee is an honorarium, and, therefore, not recoverable by law. Strict reciprocity relieves the counsel from being answerable to his clients if he neglects their cases, or hands over his briefs to a junior. Now, in the absence of a statute to assimilate the state of the Bar to that of the Faculty, and to relegate the ancient theory to the dead black letter, this would surely be a good field for the exercise of etiquette. If Sir George Bowyer does not reform the Benchers, and if the recent attack on the powers of the Circuit Court by the very same barrister that threw doubt on their reality is not repeated with success, we must either have some change from within, or the youth of the English bar will be ripe for revolution. JUDICIAL STATISTICS. No. V. THE COURT OF CHANCERY. Number of appointments (by sum monses, adjournment, or otherwise) disposed of Number of orders under which accounts and inquiries were pending at date of return Certificates for investment of cash already in court belonging to lunatics........ 53,012 Certificates for payment of money, transfer of stock into court, investment of cash in court, &c. 171 3,145 Amount of cash included in such certificates £109,488 Number of orders for winding-up com- These statistics are HERE is a complete statement of the business of curious, and establish in a remarkable manner the Equity Courts: the results of the late speculative mania and its collapse: 260 7123 to be invested Certificates other than above Accounts and affidavits of committees and receivers of lunatics' estates taken and passed by the masters 4,956 87 322 Leases and other deeds settled and approved Summonses for proceedings before the masters....... 116 ...... 4,786 tributories 348 Debts claimed and adjudicated upon 8,933 Orders made 789 ........ Pleas Demurrers Exceptions to pleadings Motions for decree...... 260 1139 257 184 Amount of receipts in the accounts and affidavits of committees and receivers in lunacy passed during the year Amount of disbursements and allowances 482,209 therein 409,146 7 creditors 3,205,173 7 4 300 Amount ordered to be refunded to 112 14 contributories 10,286 17 0 Causes, claims, and Realised by sales.... 271,528 4 0 causes and matters The receipts for the year were: Assets realised The disbursements, including salaries or allowances, clerks' travelling expenses, &c., law expenses, auctioneers' and accountants' charges, and sundries, were... Dividends paid to creditors Amount refunded to contributories 83 On calls or by way of compromise 1,451,994 12 8 7,302,343 15 2 2 74 4 16 1 6 Other payments 1,027,384 13 0 A balance remained available for Amount of stock directed to be sold and transferred out 444,382 161 The following were the suits instituted: Suits instituted: Amount of stock directed by orders in lunacy to be transferred otherwise than into court...................... 179,088 6913 487 ....... And this of the judicial business : Petitions presented for hearing Orders made for inquiries in lieu of commissions of lunacy Other orders, including fiats confirming masters' reports Number of orders made in pursuance of the Lunacy Regulation Act 1862 for the application of properties of small amount for the maintenance of lunatics Certificates of costs filed Certificates of the masters in lunacy filed... 165 78 316. Orders on motions or petitions of course Certificates for sale or transfer or delivery of stock or other securities........ The numbers of days on which each of the judges sat in court were: the L. C., 74; the L.C. and L.JJ., 14; the L.JJ., 127; the M.R., 164; the three V.C.'s, each 168. The number of causes transferred was 90. Two causes were tried with a jury, and 3 without. So much for the alleged anxiety of suitors to obtain the benefit of trial by jury. 374 cases were referred to the Council of the Courts. 12,789 orders were drawn up at the Registrars' office, and the total fees paid by stamps thereon 14,2067. The proceedings in Chambers are thus enumerated: Claims filed under general order of 1850 Special cases filed under Act 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35 Administration summonses filed Other originating summonses filed The Accountant-General's return is astounding. The total amount paid into court was 19,733,378, and out of court 19,229,7267. No less than 46,920 cheques were signed; the accounts were 27,231 in number. The income of the Suitors' Fee Fund was 147,4167., its payments only 68,521, and 25,4667. was applied to the building of the Courts of was added to the capital. The sum of 232,7801. Justice. 591 2,911 4 5 573 Under the Trustee Acts of 1850 and 1852 Under the Trustee Relief Acts 1847 and 1849... Under the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act 205 Expenses of copying in the offices Purchase of compensation allowances Miscellaneous payments......... 11,680 8 8 202 tenance of infants 114 740 Under the Infants Settlement Act 1855 22,552 In other general matters Amount of debts proved £9,613,909 Accounts passed (other than receivers' The following were the petitions in the Rolls: In causes.... In the Acts relating to Public Charities In the Trustee Acts 278 6 57 accounts): Number of accounts Receipts therein Disbursements and allowances therein £5,569,754 Public Works.... Receivers' accounts passed: 232 Number of accounts 175 16 25 Number of sales 613 In the Winding-up and Joint-Stock Companies 590 Act 992 The bills taxed by the taxing masters were 6842, and the amount taxed 788,7897., being an increase of 8 per cent. The amount of fees was 7,735 23,9137. 112 The following was the office business in lunacy: Included in list of contributories Excluded from list of contributories 354 Number of certificates filed 2,355 Some distinctions are made at common law, which have no substantial foundation in reason. Thus an instrument under seal, signed by an agent in his own name, does not bind his principal (Townsend v. Hubbard, 4 Hill, 351; Townsend v. Corning, 23 Wend.. 435; Berkley v. Hardy, 5 B. & C. 355), though a contract not under seal, signed in this. manner, would bind him: (Stanton v. Camp, 4 Barb. 274; see Evans v. Wells, 22 Wend. 324; Townsend v. Hubbard, 4 Hill, 351.) In Connecticut, this technical distinction does not exist: (Magill v. Hinsdale, 6 Conn. 464.) § 801. A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual (a) intention of the parties, (b) as it existed at the time of contracting, (c) so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful. (a) The intention of both parties must be considered: (Briggs v. Vanderbilt, 19 Barb. 222, 240.) (b) Belmont v. Coman, 22 N. Y. 439; Platt v. Lott, 17 Id. 478. (c) Story Cont. § 656; Liddle v. Market Fire Ins. Co., 4 Bosw. 179. 394 § 802. For the purpose of ascertaining the sintention of the parties to a contract, if otherwise doubtful, the rules given in this chapter are to be applied. All rules give way if the intention of the parties § 803. The language of a contract is to govern § 804. When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible; subject, however, to the other provisions of this Title. Westcott v. Thompson, 18 N. Y. 367. § 805. When through fraud, (a) mistake, or accident, (b) a written contract fails to express the real intention of the parties, such intention is to be regarded, and the erroneous parts of the writing disregarded. (c) (a) De Peyster v. Hasbrouck, 11 N. Y. 582. not necessary to be stated here. § 806. The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, (a) if reasonably practicable, (b) each clause helping to interpret the others. (c) (a) Code La. 1940; Code Napoleon, 1161; Ward v. Whitney, 8 N. Y. 446; Decker v. Furnies, 14 Id. 615, 622; Hamilton v. Taylor, 18 Id. 358; Richards v. Warring, 39 Barb. 42; James v. Tallent, 5 B. & Ald. 889; Barton v. Fitzgerald, 15 East, 541; see Simonds v. Hodgson, 3 B. & Ad. 50. The recitals of a deed may restrict general words in its operative part: (Simons v. Johnson, 3 B. & Ad. 175; Solly v. Forbes, 2 Brod. & B. 38; Payler v. Homersham, 4 M. & Selw. 423; Lampon v. Corke 5 B. & Ald. 606; Bell v. Bruen, 1 How. (U. S.) 184; Lawrence v. M'Calmont, 2 Id. 449.) (b) Westcott v. Thompson, 18 N. Y. 363. (c) Miller v. Travers, 8 Bing. 244; Story Cont., § 657; see Aikin v. Western R. R. Co, 20 N. Y. 370; Heywood v. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228; Gray v. Clark, 11 Verm. 583; Merrill v. Gore, 29 Me. 346; Sicklemore v. Thistleton, 6 M. & Selw. 9. § 807. Several contracts relating to the same matters, between the same parties, and made as parts of substantially one transaction, are to be taken together. Hamilton v. Taylor, 18 N. Y. 358; Church v. Brown, 21 N. Y. 319, 330; Pepper v. Haight, 20 Barb. 429. The same rule applies to deeds: (Huttemeier v. Albro, 18 N. Y. 48; Wright v. Douglass, 7 Id. 574.) Contracts between different parties (Craig v. Wells, 11 N. Y. 315), or relating to different matters (Cornell v. Todd, 2 Denio, 130), or not forming part of one transaction (Mann v. Whitbeck, 17 Barb. 388), cannot be taken together. § 808. A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, (a) operative, (b) definite, (c) reasonable, (d) and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties. (e) (a) Co. Litt. 42; 2 Blacks. Com. 380; Chit. Cont. 4th edit. 80; Sterry v. Clifton, 9 C. B. 110; Harrington v. Kloprogge, 4 Doug. 5; see Clark v. Pinney, 7 Cow. 681; Shore v. Wilson, 9 Clark & F. 397. (b) Richards v. Warring, 39 Barb. 42; Archibald v. Thomas, 3 Cow. 284; Boyd v. Moyle, 2 C. B. 644; Russell v. Phillips, 14 Q. B. 891; | Pollock v. Stacy, 9 Id. 1033; Brown v. Slater, 16 Conn. 192; Broom v. Batchelor, 1 Hurlst. & N. 255; Mare v. Charles, 5 El. & Bl. 978; Code Napoleon, 1157. (c) See Casler v. Conn. Mut. Ins. Co. 22 N. Y. 427. (d) Buck v. Burk, 18 N. Y. 337; Braunstein v. Accidental Death Ins. Co. 1 Best & Smith, 782; Jones v. Gibbons, 8 Exch. 922; Dallman v. King, 4 Bing. N. C. 105. See Thomas v. Fleury, 26 N. Y. 26, in which it was held that a condition requiring a certain architect's certificate, before payment could be demanded, was waived by an unreasonable refusal of such certificate. (e) The language of a contract cannot be per- § 809. The words of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense, (a) rather than according to their strict legal meaning, (b) unless used by the parties in a technical sense, or unless a special meaning is given to them by usage, (c) in which case the latter must be followed. (a) Story Cont. § 647; Code La. 1941; see " to mean simple inability to pay debts, and not (c) Smith v. Wilson, 3 B. & Ad. 728; see Hinton § 810. Technical words are to be interpreted as usually understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate, unless clearly used in a different sense. § Code La. 1942; Dana v. Fiedler, 12 N. Y. 40. This is another, and, it is thought, a better form of the maxim, that "technical words are to be taken in their technical sense" (see Worthington v. Gimson, 2 El. & El. 618; 6 Jur. N. S. 1053.) A contrary intention will however prevail (Taylor v. Caldwell, 3 Best & Sm. 832; James v. Plant. 4 Ad. & El. 749; see Doe d. Hickman v. Haslewood, 6 Id. 167). 811. A contract is to be interpreted according to the law and usage of the place where it is to be performed; (a) or, if it does not indicate a place of performance, according to the law and usage of the place where it is made. (b) (a) Story Confl. Laws. §§ 270, 280; Everett v. Vendryes, 19 N. Y. 436; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 Id. 9; Bowen v. Newell, 13 Id. 290; Jacks v. Nichols, 5 Id. 178; Cutler v. Wright, 22 Id. 480. (b) Story Conf. Laws, § 282; Thompson v. Ketcham, 8 Johns. 189; Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, 22 Barb. 118, 130; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9; Gibbs v. Fremont, 9 Exch. 25. § 812. A contract may be explained by reference to the circumstances under which it is made, (a) and the matter to which it relates. (b) (a) Westcott v. Thompson, 18 N. Y. 363; Blossom v. Griffin, 13 Id. 569; Moore v. Meacham, 10 Id. 207; Doolittle v. Southworth, 3 Barb. 79; Hasbrook v. Paddock, Id. 635; Turner v. Evans, 2 El. & Bl. 512; see Schenck v. Campbell, 11 Abb. Pr. 292. (b) Peacock v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co. 20 N. Y. 293, 296; French v. Carhart, 1 Id. 96; Rex v. Mashiter, 6 Ad. & El. 153; 1 Nev. & P. 326. § 813. However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those things concerning which it appears that the parties intended to contract. Code La. 1954; Code Napoleon, 1163; see Platt v. Lott, 17 N. Y. 478; Lyall v. Edwards, 6 H. & N. 337; Jackson v. Stackhouse, 1 Cow. 122; Rich v. Lord, 18 Pick. 325; Simons v. Johnson, 3 B. & Ad. 175; Payler v. Homersham, 4 M. & Selw. 423. § 814. If the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or uncertain, it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promiser believed, at the time of making it, that the pro misee understood it. Barlow v. Scott, 24 N. Y. 40; see Mowatt v. Decker v. Furniss, 14 N. Y. 615; Kelly v. Upton, § 816. Where a contract is partly written and partly printed, or where part of it is written or printed under the special directions of the parties, and with a special view to their intention, and the remainder is copied from a form originally prepared without special reference to the particular parties and the particular contract in question, the written parts control the printed parts, (a) and the parts which are purely original control those which are copied from a form. (¿) And if the two are absolutely repugnant, the latter must be so far disregarded. (a) Harper v. N. Y. City Ins. Co. 22 N. Y. 444; (b) This is the real principle of the foregoing de- § 817. Repugnancy in a contract must be reconciled, if possible, by such an interpretation as will give some effect to the repugnant clauses, (a) subordinate to the general intent and purpose of the whole contract. (b) (a) Code La. 1940; Ward v. Whitney, 8 N. Y. (b) Casler v. Conn. Ins. Co. 22 N. Y. 425; see § 818. Words in a contract which are wholly inconsistent with its nature, (a) or with the main intention of the parties, (b) are to be rejected. (a) Mills v. Wright, 1 Freem. 247; Simpson v. Vaughan, 2 Atk. 32; Vernon v. Alsop, T. Raym (b) Dallman v. King, 4 Bing. N. C. 105; see Rex § 819. In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules, (a) the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. (b) The promiser is presumed to be such party; (c) except in a contract between a public officer or body, as such, and a private party, in which it is presumed that all uncertainty was caused by the private party. (d) (a) This rule is to be resorted to only when all (b) Code La. 1952, 1953. See Harper v. N. Y. See Rindge v. Judson, 24 N. Y. 64; Braunstein v. ESTATE AND INVESTMENT STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS. Thursday Evening. THE funds have again fallen, in the face of an unl increasing supply of unused money. Dis unexpectedly good return of the Revenue, and a quieting reports from Paris are the alleged causes; but that will not account for the reluctance of capitalists to enter into any specu lation, and their preference to allow their money PUBLIC COMPANIES. Marseilles Extension Railway and Land Company Commercial Banking of Sydney.-A dividend and annum. bonus, together at the rate of 17 per cent. per annum. National of India.—Dividend at the rate of 8 per MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES. annum. trator. DUNN (Ann), 140, Whitechapel-road, spinster. 1107, 5s. New SIMMS (James), Greville-street, by curiosity, recently answered an advertisement in the Times proffering degrees for sale, and received the following reply: DEGREES FOR SALE-A correspondent, prompted Bush-lane, Cannon-street. of D.D., B.D., M.A., Ph. D., LL.D., and M.D Dear Sir,-The degrees I am able to procure are those Please to inform me which of these you desire, and I will obtain it for you. I remain, dear sir, yours truly, --- M. A. CHANCERY REFORMS.-On Tuesday last a very useful provision in the New Chancery Act took effect, which will save trouble and delay in the receipt of the October dividends to a large class of persons. Hitherto, the practice has been to require one of the registrars of the Court of Chancery to countersign the cheques after the accountant-general for the dividends; but now the counter signature of the clerk of the accountant-general paying the money is to be Devonshire Great Consolidated Copper.-The divi- sufficient, and the new mode will facilitate the paydend at two-monthly meeting 71. per share. This is in reality a Clerks' Dining Company (Limited).—The prospectus has appeared. Capital, 20,000/. in 17. shares. It is intended to commence with four establishments in the City; and a resolution is recorded that no one shareholder shall hold more than four shares. MINING COMPANIES. REPORTS OF SALES. [NOTE. The reports of the Estate Exchange are officially Tuesday, Sept. 24. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER. ment of numerous sums. LAWYERS.-The Allgemeine Zeitung publishes some curious statistics respecting the number of lawyers in various European countries. It says that in England there is one lawyer for every 1240 of the population; in France one for every 1970; in Belgium one for every 2700; and in Prussia one for every 12,000 only. Another curious fact is that in Freehold plot of building land, situate fronting Wandsworth- England the number of persons belonging to each common-sold for 3651. Wednesday, Sept. 25. By Messrs. BLAKE, of the different professions is nearly the same. Thus there are 34,970 lawyers, 35,483 clergymen, and 35,995 physicians. In Prussia, on the other Freehold, 12a. 3r. 28p. of arable land, situate in the Mitcham- hand, there are 4809 physicians to only 1362 lawyers. SOLICITORS AND THEIR DUTIES.-During the hearing before Mr. Smith, Q. C., at the Wellington County Court, of the case Jeffries v. Miles, which road-sold for 20007. Thursday, Sept. 26. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart. sold for 11407. Leasehold, five houses and premises, Nos 72, 74, 76, 78, and SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. BLAKSTON (John), Havelock-villa, High-road. Lee, Kent, BUSH (John), Nottingham, coachmaker. Dec. 25; Hawk- HERBERT (William), Nottingham, and 5, Canterbury-villas, MASON (John), Guildford, Surrey, ironfounder. Nov. 11; T. VANT (F. W.), Plumstead-common, Kent, gentleman. Nov. Judge took occasion to observe that certain of the professional gentlemen appearing before bim were in the habit of wasting the time of the court by putting unnecessary questions to witnesses; but, if he did permit them to ask questions irrelevant to the matter at issue, still there must be a limit to the indulgence. The duty of a solicitor in conducting his case was not to examine or cross-examine witnesses, but to address the court upon the particular question in dispute. These remarks seemed to take the solicitors by surprise. MAGISTRATE AND PARISH [NOTE. The current Law under this Department is noted by T. W. SAUNDERS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Author of The Practice of Magistrates' Courts," &c.] BOW STREET POLICE COURT. Mr. Charles Wray Lewis and the Debt Recovery Mr. C. Wray Lewis, secretary to the Debt Recovery Association, waited on Mr. Flowers to offer replies to the observations made with reference to him by Mr. Frederick H. Lewis, the barrister, and Mr. Willis, solicitor, which we published last week. With respect to the former, he observed that a counsel had no special privilege to make such statements. to. Mr. FLOWERS said he could hardly refuse to hear a barrister, or, indeed, any other person, who desired to offer a statement in vindication of his own character. Sometimes he might afterwards think it would have been better left alone, but he could not know what the statement would be till he heard it. Mr. C. W. Lewis thought he could show that the application was libellous, and made from motives of malice, and that Mr. F. H. Lewis was in conspiracy with others of his family to injure him. One of them lately called at his office, threatened him, and attempted to damage him with his landlord by throwing out imputations, which were not listened As to the description of him that he was twelve years a barrister and special pleader, of the Home Circuit, Central Criminal Court, and Middlesex. Sessions, Mr. F. H. Lewis knew perfectly well that he had been so described in the Law List for twelve years, from 1854 to 1866, his chambers being at No. 9, and those of M. F. H. Lewis at No. 11, King's Bench-walk. He was called to the bar two years before Mr. F. H. Lewis, who, though he spoke as if he had no knowledge of him, knew him perfectly well. Indeed, there had even been come domestic intimacy between their families, though they were not related. The Debt Recovery association did not originate with him, nor was the circular drawn by Three per Cent. Consols. Claimant, Josepha Gale, adminis- him; but the association, no doubt, were anxious to 26; Jackaman and Sons, 37, Silent-street, Ipswich. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE being any intention to pass him off for Mr. F. H. Lewis, the object was that it should be precisely known who he was, as his connection was very large and would be advantageous to the business. There was no pretence for saying that he was acting in any way as a barrister or solicitor, all business of that kind being done by the solicitor. Mr. FLOWERS said he was certainly under the impression that the names were the same. Mr. Lewis said they were not. His initials are C. W., and those of the other are F. H., and he had no reason to suppose that he could be mistaken for him. The circular, however, had been withdrawn long before Mr. F. H. Lewis made that application. Here Mr. Lewis was about to go into some family matters with a view of explaining for what cause he was disbarred, but Mr. Flowers said he could not permit that, as it would in effect be reviewing the decision of the benchers. Mr. Lewis said he wished it to go forth that he was disbarred for having in a certain letter used the word "blackguard." He had no doubt he could have been reinstated by this time if he had taken steps with that view, but, considering the profits of the profession, he would rather not be a barrister. Mr. FLOWERS asked why he issued a circular which might be interpreted as meaning that he was. Mr. Lewis said the fact of his having been so for twelve years being mentioned would have informed any one that he was not so now. Mr. FLOWERS said it might be so construed, but it was not felicitously expressed. Mr. Lewis said that was not his fault, as he did not write it. He then observed that it was unfair of Mr. Willis to say he had nothing to do with the association. He had issued writs at their suit in his own handwriting, and his name certainly appeared on the circular with his knowledge and approval, for when he found one of the clerks erasing it he stopped him, asking who authorised him to do that, and appeared much annoyed. Mr. FLOWERS said he had heard this statement as he had heard the other, but now, as before, he abstained from offering any opinion. He only hoped that Mr. C. W. Lewis had said nothing of which he was not prepared to take the responsibility. Mr. Lewis said he had not, and he was obliged to the magistrate for his attention. SOUTHWARK POLICE COURT. SHEPHERD AND ANOTHER v. VILLIERS. Copyright-What is a drawing? A burlesque of an original drawing is not a copy of it within the protection given by 25 & 26 Vict. c. 58, s. 6. The complainants, who were lessees of the Surrey Theatre, had summoned the defendant, who was the proprietor of the South London Music-hall, for an alleged invasion of his copyright in a drawing entitled "Nobody's Child.' The information was laid under sect. 6 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 58. Besley appeared for the prosecution. Besley stated that the complainants were fortunate enough upon the re-opening of their theatre to pur, chase a successful drama entitled "Nobody's Child," and as part of the introduction an original design was made for the purpose of advertising it in the metropolis and all over the country, and to protect themselves from the piracy they had it entered at Stationers'-hall, according to the Act of Parliament. After that was done, and the illustrated placards were issued without mentioning the Surrey Theatre, the defendant issued similar bills, headed "South London Musichall," and substituted a black man leaning over a drum of the complainants' placard, and had printed at the bottom Japanese Tommy." He quoted several cases and judgments given by Lord Cranworth. 66 He received Mr. Richard Shepherd said that he was in partnership with Mr. Creswick as lessees of the Surrey Theatre, and the drawing produced was sketched for the purpose of advertising their piece and attracting the public to the theatre. large sums of money for the copyright placards when the drama went into the country. After the drawing was entered at Stationer's-hall cuts were engraved and placards printed and distributed all over London without the theatre being mentioned. That was left purposely out. Soon after that the defendant issued a placard of a similar kind, with "South London Music-hall" at the head, and Japanese Tommy' at the bottom of "Nobody's Child." He proceeded to Mr. Villiers about it, and he promised to withdraw it. Seven or eight days after that he saw a second bill posted by the defendant exactly like the first, with the exception of "No boy's Child" substituted for "Nobody's Child." Mr. William Creswick said that he concurred with all Mr. Shepherd had stated. Mr. James, the treasurer of the Surrey Theatre, said that when Mr. Villiers issued his bills with the "d" omitted he called on him by direction of Mr. Shepherd, when he said he would withdraw it entirely, provided he was paid the expenses he had been at for the blocks, printing, &c. Mr. William Eldon Earl, engraver, said that he cut blocks for Mr. Villiers of "No boy's Child" and "Japanese Tommy" at the South London Musichall. Japanese Tommy was leaning over a drum, in the centre of which was "No boy's Child." He considered it a burlesque on Mr. Shepherd's placard. Mr. Vincent Gardener, printer, said he printed placards for Mr. Villiers. They were unlike Mr. Shepherd's. In answer to Mr. Lewis, he said he had printed bills for Mr. Shepherd of "Colleen Drawn." It was a burlesque on the water scene in "Colleen Bawn." Lewis, for the defendant, called an Mr. John Hollingshead, who said he was author, and eleven years ago he wrote the book entitled "Rough Diamonds," published by Messrs. A portion of the work alluded to Sampson Low. drama performed at the Surrey Theatre. There "Nobody's Child," but it was not at all like the was not the slightest resemblance in it. Besley replied to the whole case. Mr. PARTRIDGE said the question before him was whether it came within the meaning of the Act. The learned counsel had cited several cases from the law books, and a decision given by Lord Cranworth in 1866, but he did not think either of them had any similarity to the case before him. He had carefully looked at all the evidence before him, and he did not think that he could decide in favour of the complainants. Before he did that he must first see whether it was a drawing coming within the meaning of that Act of Parliament. He thought not. It appeared to him to be a mere burlesque of the original drawing. It was shown from the evidence that burlesques had been played at the complainants' theatre, and illustrated placards posted adopting the style of the placards of the original plays. The practice seemed to be general for the amusement of the public. All the evidence given by the respective witnesses showed that any one capable of reading would be able to say that the bills were quite different. There was some similarity in the bend of the head and arms, but the general drawing was distinct. He was, therefore, of opinion that the case did not come within the meaning of the Act of Parliament; therefore he dismissed the summons. If the complainants were dissatisfied with his judgment, he was willing to grant a case for the superior courts. Besley gave notice that he should submit a case for his worship's approval on the question of law "whether the drawing did not come within the meaning of the Act." EMPLOYMENT OF VOLUNTEERS IN CASE OF RIOTS. A new memorandum, upon the employment of volunteers in case of riot, has just been issued from the War-office. It is to be substituted for that published on the 13th June last, which it cancels, and is to bear the same date. The following is the memorandum: I. Questions having arisen as to the power of the civil authority to call upon the volunter force to act in aid of the civil power in suppression of riot or public commotion, and as to the duty of the members of the volunteer force if so called upon, the following circular is issued for the general information of that force, in accordance with the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. 2. Her Majesty's subjects are bound, in case of the existence of riots, to use all reasonable endeavours, according to the necessity of the occasion, to suppress and quell such riots; and members of the volunteer force are not exempted from this general her Majesty's subjects, be required by the civil obligation, and they may, in common with all other authority to act as special constables for such purposes, but they must not when so acting appear in their military dress. to call upon or order volunteers to act as a military 3. The civil authority is not in any case entitled body in the preservation of the peace. 4. In case of riots and disturbances not amountthe commission of felonious acts or the subversion ing to insurrection, and not having for their object of the civil government, special constables, whether members of the volunteer force or others, should be armed with the ordinary constables' staff. 5. In cases of serious and dangerous riots and disturbances the civil authority may require her Majesty's subjects generally, including members of other weapons suitable to the occasion; and such other weapons may be used accordingly by members of the volunteer force, according to the necessity of the volunteer force, to arm themselves with and use the occasion. houses or armouries, members of the volunteer force 6. In the event of an attack upon their storemay combine and avail themselves of their organisation to repel such attack, and to defend such storehouses and armouries, and for such purposes may, if the necessity of the occasion require it, use arms. War-office. LONGFORD. THE NEW LAW ON DOGS.-On the first day of next month the provision in the Metropolitan Traffic Act will take effect; and, coupled with the new Act on the dog duty, the law will assume a new phase. The police, under the Traffic Act, may take possession of any dog in the street not under control, and detain the same until the expenses are paid. The police may require dogs to be muzzled. Where a dog is "apprehended" by the police, wearing a collar, a letter is to be sent according to the address. When a dog has been in the possession of the police for three days, it may be sold or destroyed. An important addition has been made to the effect that, on complaint to a magistrate that a dog has bitten, or attempted to bite, any person, he may order it to be destroyed. By virtue of the new Act on the dog duty, a person not taking out a licence, and having a dog in possession, is liable to a penalty of 51., and a like penalty for not producing, when required, within a reasonable time, a licence taken out, to an excise officer or police constable. the Staines petty sessions, held before Sir J. Gibbons, General Wood, Major Read, and Mr. W. A. Mitchinson, George Prickett, a labourer, was charged, under the new Act for Masters and Servants, which has just come into operation, with unlawfully failing to carry through his contract to do certain labour for Mr. Gomm, a farmer and baker, of Bedfont. The prosecutor said he agreed with the prisoner to twice hoe a quantity of turnips, and on the 16th inst. he completed the first hoeing. About three o'clock on the same day, as he was passing with his bread cart, he saw prisoner wandering about with his clothes on, making a chop here and there, about fifteen or twenty yards apart. On the following morning, seeing he was doing the same thing, he went into the field, when the prisoner came up and said, "I'm glad you are come, as I've nearly completed the work." Prosecutor said, "I see you have the first time; but you must now go over it again properly, according to agreement." He refused to go on further with the work, and at once left the field. Defendant said there was nothing mentioned about hoeing twice. He simply agreed to do the work properly, and maintained that he had done that. The bench inflicted a fine of 2s. 6d. for compensation, and directed payment of the costs 9s. 6d, or in default fourteen days' imprisonment. THE NEW ACT FOR MASTERS AND SERVANTS.-At CONVICTIONS For False WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. -A return has lately been printed by order of the House of Commons, giving the number of convictions in the first six months of the present year in divisions; but it appears that returns from Highthe metropolitan parishes. It includes twenty-six gate, and from the Court of Burgess, Westminster, have not been received. In ten of the divisionsviz., Blackheath, Bromley, Beacon tree, Dartford, Cheshunt Gore, Hampstead, Hanover-square, Paddington, South Mimms, and the Strand; the return is nil. In the divisions of Brentford, Croydon, Edmonton, Holborn, Kensington, Spelthorn, the Liberty of London, and Uxbridge the return includes the names of 170 persons who were fined, stating their business, and the amount of the fines incurred. In most of the returns where the denomination nil appears, there is no explanation given as to that circumstance, and we cannot precisely infer whether the absence of convictions is the result of the superior honesty of these districts, or whether it arises from the inactivity of the inspectors; but in the Blackheath district there is appended the following curious explanation:"Owing to the time occupied in making new arrangements for appointing additional inspectors for this division involving the obtaining from the proper authorities three additional copies of the imperial standards, the usual visitation of shops has been suspended, but the same being now comday." In the nominal lists which are given there is plete, the inspection of shops is resumed from this no explanation of the nature of the offence so far as distinguishing between short weight with intent to defraud, and defective weights arising from aceident inspectors, to porcelain or other materials which or from capricions objections on the part of the have been used in good faith by honest tradesmen. Among the 170 persons named in the return, only of the number, are licensed victuallers or beersellers. twenty are grocers, while fifty-two, or nearly a third In the absence of any discrimination in the return as to the nature of their offences, it would be invidious to record the names of the persons fined. We would suggest to Mr. Goldsmid, upon whose motion the return was made, that in a future return he should obtain not only the names of the parties, but also whether they were fined for having balances in favour of the purchaser, or for having just weights made of porcelain or china, or for a balance which deviated in the "thousandth part of one poor scruple." In short, the return should distinguish friends of fair dealing will gladly aid the authorities between victims and victimisers, and then all the by stigmatising the fraudulent. In the absence of such a discrimination, which is called for by a sense of justice, we protest against a nominal list being given; and we are entitled to make this protest for the same reason that we asked for the names (and we were the first to do so), viz, that the fraudulent and dishonest tradesmen may be exposed for the protection of the fair dealer.-The Grocer. |