the usual arrangement, it should be presented to | to the Government scheme of education, no less than Poor Removal, and the Juvenile Offenders our readers. 4,230 petitions bearing 559,977 signatures against it, Acts. Upon these we propose to comment as and 919 petitions bearing 141,717 signatures in favour

of it, having been presented. About 200 petitions soon as the claims of more urgent matter will
were also presented in favour of various amendments
The latter is especially important.

the additional remuneration which the said Accountant. with 15,884 signatures, and many others bearing purpose, so as to submit at once to the Government,

cannot, without an apparent absurdity, commence
a suit against himself as representative of the de-
ceased, to recover that which is due to him in his
own private capacity; but having the whole per-
sonal estate in his hands, so much as is sufficient
to answer his own demand is by operation of law
applied to that particular purpose. Else, by being
made executor, he would be put in a worse condi-
tion than all the rest of the world besides. For
though a rateable payment of all the debts of the
deceased, in equal degree, is clearly the most equit-
able method, yet as every scheme for a proportion-
able distribution of the assets among all the credi-
tors hath been hitherto found to be impracticable,
and productive of more mischiefs than it would
remedy; so that the creditor who first commences
his suit is entitled to a preference in payment; it
follows that, as the executor can commence no suit,
he must be paid the last of any, and of course must
lose his debt, in case the estate of his testator should
prove insolvent, unless he be allowed to retain it.
The doctrine of retainer is therefore the necessary
consequence of that other doctrine of the law, the
priority of such creditor who first commences his
action. But the executor shall not retain his own
debt in prejudice to those of a higher degree; for
the law only puts him in the same situation as if he
had sued himself as executor, and recovered his debt;
which he never could be supposed to have done
while debts of a higher nature subsisted; neither
shall one executor be allowed to retain his own debt
in prejudice to that of his co-executor of equal
degree; but both shall be discharged in proportion:
nor shall an executor of his own wrong be in any
case permitted to retain. (3 Black. Com. 18.)

POOR-LAW REMOVAL.-On the 23rd ult. an Act received the royal assent (on which day it came into force), to amend the laws relating to the removal of the poor, until the 1st of October next. By an Act of last year (9 & 10 Vict. c. 66), certain persons were exempted from removal, which exemption has, it appears, had the effect of unduly increasing the expenditure of particular parishes; and the object of the present statute is to charge the expenses on unions, and not on parishes. By the recited Act it was; amongst other things, provided, "That from and after the passing of this Act (9 & 10 Vict.) no person shall be removed, nor shall any warrant be granted for the removal of any person from any parish in which such person shall have resided for five years next before the application for the warrant; provided always that the time during which such person shall be a prisoner in a prison, or shall be serving her Majesty as a soldier, marine, or sailor, or reside as an in-pensioner in Greenwich or Chelsea Hospitals, or shall be confined in a lunatic asylum, or house duly licensed, or hospital registered, for the reception of lunatics, or as a patient in a hospital, or during which any such person shall receive relief from any parish, or shall be wholly maintained by any rate or subscription raised in a parish in which such person does not reside not being a bona fide charitable gift, shall for all purposes be excluded in the computation of time hereinbefore mentioned, and that the removal of a pauper lunatic to a lunatic asylum under the provisions of any Act relating to the maintenance and care of pauper lunatics, shall not be deemed a removal within the meaning of Where assets are merely equitable.-This right this Act; provided always, that whenever any person of retainer, it would appear, does not exist where shall have a wife or children having no other settle- the assets are merely equitable, as the executor or ment than his or her own, such wife and children administrator must then take only a proportionable shall be removable when he or she is removable, and part with the other creditors. (Anon. 2 Cas. Chan. 54; Hopton v. Dryden, Prec. Chan. 181; Bailey Ploughman, Mosely, 95; and Hall v. Kendall, Mosely, 328.)

shall not be removable when he or she is not removable;" and whereas the effect of the above re

Where a decree to account has been made.-In Nunn v. Barlow (1 Sim. & Stu. 588), it was held that the personal representative may retain for his own debt, notwithstanding a decree has been made in a suit by the other creditors for the administration of the assets, and notwithstanding the assets out of which he seeks to retain his debt came to his hands after the decree.

cited enactment has been to increase unduly the.
amount of expenditure for the relief of the poor in
particular parishes; be it therefore enacted by the
Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the ad-
vice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal
and Commons in this present Parliament assembled,
and by the authority of the same, that all the expen-
diture which shall be incurred by any parish, township,
or place forming part of a union, for the maintenance,
relief, or burial of any person or persons who shall
have been at any time within one year before the
passing of the above enactment in the receipt of relief
from some other parish, township, or place, by right
of settlement, or reputed settlement therein, and who,
from the liability to be removed from the parish,
township, or place in which such person or persons
shall be residing, shall, from and after the passing of

this Act, so long as such person or persons shall con-
tinue to be so exempted, be charged to the common
or general fund of such union, in the same manner as
the cost of building or providing workhouses in union,
and other union expenses, are directed to be charged
by an Act passed in the fifth year of the reign of his
late Majesty King William IV. entitled "An Act for
the Amendment and better Administration of the
Laws relating to the Poor in England and Wales."

THE LAWYER.

Summary.

is not entitled to go into the consideration of transactions between the administrator and the other creditors which might affect the administrator's right of retainer for a debt due to himself. (Spicer v. James, 2 Myl. & K. 387; Thompson v. Cooper, 1 Coll. 81.)

Where administration is granted to creditor.Where administration is granted to a creditor, the Ecclesiastical Court will, on the petition of the other creditors, compel him to enter into articles to pay debts of equal degree in equal proportions, without any preference of his own; and in this way administration to creditors is generally granted. (Toller, 106.)

If administration be granted to a creditor, and is afterwards repealed at the suit of the next of kin, the creditor is entitled to retain against the subsequent administrator. (Blackborough v. Davis, 1 Salk. 38.)

Executor of executor.-The right of retainer also exists in favour of the executor of a sole or surviving executor as to debts due from the testator, either in his own right or as executor of the deceased executor. (Hopton v. Dryden, Prec. Ch. 180; Thompson v. Grant, 1 Russ. 540.) In Weeks v. Gore (3 P. Wms. 184, n.), A. lent money on bond to B. who, dying intestate, C. took out administration to him; after which, C. dying, A. took out administration de bonis non to B. and it was determined that A. might, out of the assets of B. retain for such bond debt contracted before he took out administration; and though A. happened to die before he had made any election in what particular effects he would have the property altered by retainer, yet the Court said it must be presumed he would elect to have his own debt paid first; and, this being presumed, there would remain no difficulty as to altering the property; for as the execu tors of A. were to account for the assets of B. they must, on the account, deduct to the amount of the money lent by A. to B.

Husband's or wife's debt.-The husband of a feme covert executrix may retain his debt. An executor also may retain a debt due to his wife dum sola. (Prince v. Rowson, 1 Mod. 208.)

a

Where the personal representative of debtor and creditor is the same person. The personal representative of A. has a right of retainer in respect of sum due to him from A.'s estate as personal representative of B. (Thompson v. Cooper, 1 Coll. 85; see also Burnet v. Dixe, 1 Roll. Abr. 922; 2 Brownl. 50; Plumer v. Marchant, 2 Burr. 1380.) Joint and several obligation.—Where there are

An executor or administrator does not lose his right of retainer by paying the assets into court; and where the fund in court is insufficient to dis-joint and several obligors, and one makes the oblicharge the executor's or administrator's debt, his gee his executor, he may either retain his debt out right of retainer will prevail against the right of the of the assets of the deceased obligor, or sue the plaintiff in a creditors' suit to have the costs of the survivor. (Crosse v. Cocke, 3 Kebl. 116; Wanksuit satisfied. (Chissum v. Dawes, 5 Russ. 29; ford v. Wankford, 1 Salk. 304.) see also Hall v. Macdonald, 14 Sim. 1.)

The Court will not order an executor to pay into court money which he states by his answer to have retained in satisfaction of a debt due to him from the testator. (Middleton v. Poole, 2 Coll. 246.)

Assets in hands of both executors.-The reasons on which the right of one executor to retain his own debt out of the assets of the testator in his hands is founded, are applicable to the case in which the assets are in the hands of both, and the debt is due only to one; and therefore it was held in Kent v. Pickering (2 Keen, 1), that one of two executors has a right to retain his own debt out of balance due from both to the testator's estate.

a

THE elections continue to engage all thoughts,
and the near approach of the vacation has
otherwise produced an unusual dulness in the
Claim of trustee.-An executor or administrator
legal world. We had hoped to have inserted may retain for a debt which is due to him as
the commencement of the Common Law Re-trustee. (Plumer v. Marchant, 3 Burr. 1380.)

Debt barred by Statute of Limitations.—As an executor may pay a debt to another, though he might have pleaded the Statute of Limitations, it appears that an executor may retain for a debt though due for more than six years. In Hopkinson v. Leach (1 Madd. Ch. Pract. 728, 3rd edit.), Sir John Leach, V. C. was of opinion he might retain ; but he directed the opinion of a court of law to be taken.

CHAP. XI.-ON ASSETS.

Assets are either real or personal, legal or equitable.

Real assets. Real assets are either those which descend to the heir, to the extent of which by the common law the heir was liable for the specialty

debts of his ancestor; or those which pass to the devisee of the testator; but in respect of which the

view of Cases this week. It will, however, Claim of cestui que trust.-An executor or ad-devisee was not so liable at Common Law. appear in the next number. The absence of ministrator may also retain for a debt due to anothe author from town has necessarily de- ther as a trustee for him. (Loane v. Casey, 2 W. layed it. Black. 965; and Franks v. Cooper, 4 Ves. 763; see also Loomes v. Stotherd, 1 Sim. & Stu. 458.) Where, however, the debt is due to another as trustee for the executors, but is one of which an account could not be taken by a jury, a court of common law will not allow the retainer. (De Tastet v. Shaw, 1 B. & A. 664.)

THE PRACTICE OF WILLS.
By G. S. ALLNUTT, Esq. Barrister-at-Law.

BOOK IV.

ON WINDING UP THE ESTATE. CHAP. X.-ON THE RIGHT OF RETAINER. (Continued from page 380.) Ir a person indebted to another makes his creditor or debtor his executor, or if such creditor obtains letters of administration to his debtor; in these cases the law gives him a remedy for his debt, by allowing him to retain so much as will pay himself before any other creditors whose debts are of equal degree. This is a remedy by the mere act of law, and grounded upon this reason,-that the executor

To remedy this evil with regard to real assets in the hands of devisees, the 3 Wm. & M. c. 14, was passed, and afterwards the 1 Wm. 4, c. 47. By the 2nd section of the latter statute it is enacted, that "all wills and testamentary limitations, dispositions, or appointments, already made by persons now in being, or hereafter to be made by any person or persons whomsoever, of or concerning any manors, messuages, lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any rent, profit, term, or charge out of the same, whereof any person or persons at the time of his, her, or their decease, shall be seised in fee-simple in possession, reversion, or remainder, or have power to dispose of the same by his, her, or their last wills or testaments, Master not to go into inquiries affecting the shall be deemed or taken (only as against such right.-Under the common decree against an ad-person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, ministrator directing his intestate's assets to be ap- and his and their heirs, successors, executors, admiplied in a due course of administration, the Master nistrators, and assigns, and every of them, with

Where administration is for the use of another. -The right of retainer is not prejudiced by the circumstance that the administration is granted to another for the use of the creditor, as in the case of a lunatic or an infant. (Franks v. Cooper, 4 Ves. 763.)

The effects of the testator are assets wherever situated, whether at home or abroad; and such effects as are in a foreign country at the time of the testator's death, although they remain and are wholly administered there by the executor, are equally assets. (The Attorney-General v. Dimond, Order of course to dismiss bill after proceedings. 1 Cr. & Jerv. 370; S. C. 1 Tyrwh. 258; see also-It is not a matter of course that a plaintiff shall Dowdale's case, 6 Co. 47, b.) be at liberty to dismiss his bill after proceedings have been had; and accordingly, in Lewis v. Cooper, 8 Law T. 291, an order of course to dismiss the bill, after a demurrer thereto had been overruled, was discharged for irregularity, because the fact of the demurrer was not mentioned to the officer when the order was obtained; and on appeal this decision was upheld (8 Law T. 461), and the Chancellor decided that where there have been any orders or proceedings in a cause, which gave the defendant a right to appeal, the plaintiff will not be at liberty to dismiss his own bill by an order of course, and without notice to the other parties.

the order to confirm absolutely, being a common order, ought not to be moved for specially, and the motion was dismissed with costs.

Perpetuating testimony-Publication.-The case of Morris v. Morris, 8 Law T. 509, is an authority for a very important point as regards the intercourse between this country and Ireland. The suit in that case was instituted to perpetuate testimony in relation to a claim of title to an estate in Ireland; and the Lord Chancellor held that it was right, and that publication might pass. How far the depositions could be used in the suit in the Irish Court of Chancery, or how far that Court could be asked to pay attention to the evidence thus obtained, was, his lordship observed, rather for the consideration of the Court in Ireland than for this Court.

between the defendants in the cross suit and their
solicitor, and between that solicitor, his clients, and
his town agents in both suits. (Tugwell v. Hooper,
8 Law T. 549.)

TITHES.

Stephens, 8 Law T. 271, which, though professing not to be affected by the decree in Shaw v. Lawless, does nevertheless appear to be within its principle. The testator having devised to trustees in fee proceeded:-" And inasmuch as my estate Assessment.-By the 37 Hen. 8, c. 12, the and property will require more management than tithes payable in London are 2s. 9d. in the pound I can expect of my trustees personally to bestow, on the rent payable; but by the London and Black- it is my wish and desire that the hereinbeforewall Railway Act, the assessment of the value of named Thomas Finden, in whose judgment and the tithes of houses taken down for the formation | integrity I place great confidence, be appointed of the railway was directed to be made according to for all purposes in which they, my trustees, may the last assessment thereof to the 25th of March have occasion for an agent, &c. of all or any part then last, and paid out of the property of the com- of my estates, &c. ;" and if he should die, some pany to the rectors of the several parishes as an in- other person was to be appointed. The trustees demnity; and it was held that the amount agreed having refused to appoint, he filed his bill, alleging upon between the rector and occupier as the value that they intend to appoint some other person, and upon which the 2s. 9d. should be charged, is the a general demurrer was overruled. How that case last assessment for the purposes of the Act, though differs from Shaw v. Lawless, in which the testator the rector, for the sake of peace, may have actually expressed his particular desire that his executors, taken less than 2s. 9d.; but if no value be proved, whilst acting in the management of his affairs, then the sum actually collected represents the pro- would continue B. E. Lawless in the receipt and per assessment. management thereof, as he had acted theretofore to the satisfaction of the testator, it would be difficult to discover. It is understood that the decision has

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

pro

Taking bill pro confesso.-By the 81st of the General Orders of the 8th of May, 1845, the practice as to taking bills pro confesso is now the same, whether there be one defendant only, or more than one. In the case of Browne v. Home, 8 Law T. 291, and more fully in same case, 9 Law T. 214, the mode of proceeding, both in obtaining the order Reserved biddings.-It being necessary to sell to take the bill pro confesso, and in asking the de-perty under the provisions of the Insolvent Debtors cree afterwards, is clearly stated. The order re- Act, the assignees agreed with L. M. to sell it to him fered to in the General Order in question is the at 35,000l. and he agreed to bid that sum at the sale preliminary order, commonly called the order to by auction; and if he should bid that sum, and there take the bill pro confesso; and after that is ob- should be no higher bidding, the property was to be tained, the cause is to be heard on a subsequent knocked down to him; but if there should be a day against the defendants not in default, the clerk higher bidding, and L. M. should not think fit to of records and writs attending with the bill, and go further, then it should not be knocked down to then a decree is made against the defaulting de- him. The sale took place, and it was stated in the fendant. In case of no defendant but one, the particulars to be without reserve. L. M. bid the practice crept in of having the order and decree 35,0001. but ultimately the estate was knocked both on the same day; that is now corrected. down to W. at 50,0001. In a suit for specific performance, held that though in one sense there was no reserve, inasmuch as the estate was to be sold, at all events, yet that the agreement with L. M. amounted to a reserved bidding, and that in the sense of securing a certain price at least, there was a reserve and consequently the purchaser was not bound to complete his contract. (Robinson v. Wall, 8 Law T. 463.) This decision has been since affirmed by the Chancellor, on appeal.

Staying proceedings-Creditors' suit.-In Smith v. Guy, 8 Law T. 289, the Lord Chancellor refused, at the instance of the plaintiff, in the first of two creditors' suits, of which the second sought more extensive relief than the first, to stay the proceedings in the second suit. The utmost that could be ordered would be, that the plaintiff in the first cause should have liberty to attend the Master in taking the accounts in the second cause, and that liberty should be given to the Master to adopt in one cause accounts which had been taken in the other.

An order made to stay the proceedings in a suit, upon the ground that the plaintiff's solicitor on the record had not taken out his certificate, without notice to the plaintiff, cannot be sustained. Quære, whether the Court has any jurisdiction to refer a question of fact to the registrar and one of the clerks of records and writs. (Richardson v. Moore, 8 Law T. 309.)

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

WASTE.

Ornamental timber.-Where a mansion had been accordance with the intentions of the settlor, he pulled down by the tenant for life, apparently in having commenced to build another mansion, such tenant for life was restrained from cutting the timber which had been ornamental to the late mansion, upon the principle of this Court in respect to equitable waste. (Morris v.Morris, 8 Law T. 511.)

WILL.

nesses, but the attestation clause being imperfect,
the usual affidavit of the attesting witnesses was re-
quired as to the circumstances of the execution of
the will, but the witnesses could neither of them be
found. The question was, what was to be done.
Sir H.J. Fust decided that the case must be treated
as if the witnesses were dead, and there being no
reason to doubt the genuineness of the signatures,
the will must be considered duly executed.

Attestation.-A curious state of things occurred in the case of In the goods of M. E. Luffman, 8 Solicitor and client.-Documents and corre-Law T. 478. The will was attested by two witspondence between a solicitor and his client were ordered to be produced under the following circumstances: A. having discovered that B. was entitled to certain reversionary property, proposed, at his own expense, to recover it for him, on the terms of having one moiety for his trouble. B. agreed to this, and A. accordingly instituted a suit in B.'s name, against the tenant for life of the property after whose death B. was entitled in fee. Pending the proceedings A. procured his solicitor to write a Deed, will in form of.-The well-known rule is, letter to him (A.) (of which he himself (A.) had that the form of the instrument is of no importance prepared a draft), which the solicitor was to shew if only it be intended to take effect after the death, to B. the object of which was, by magnifying the it is testamentary. Accordingly In the goods of difficulties of the suit, to prevail upon B. to sell M. S. M. Montgomery, 8 Law T. 294, an instruhim the other moiety of the estate at a fixed price. B. accordingly sold it for the sum proposed, and on the death of the tenant for life, suspecting something wrong, he filed his bill to set aside the conveyance. On motion to produce documents, held that B. was entitled to production of all correspondence, &c. in the suit instituted by A. and also of the particular letter written for the purpose of being shewn to him to induce him to part with the estate, on the ground that though the suit was instituted by A. yet it was so in B.'s name, and for the benefit of both. (Reynell v. Syrye, 8 Law T. 311.)

ment purposely drawn up as a deed not under seal,
from which the word "will" was carefully ex-
cluded, but duly executed and attested according to
the provisions of the late Wills Act, and giving all
the personal estate and effects of deceased upon
trusts to be carried out after her death, with an ex-
press direction to pay her debts, &c. was held enti-
tled to probate as a will.

|

been reversed on appeal.
Signature-Printed forms.-The mischief occa-
sioned by the use of printed forms of wills is clearly
exemplified in the late case of In the goods of W.
J. Parslow. The blanks in the three pages of the
form being filled up, there was no room left for the
name or attestation clause, and the drawer of the
will went back to a blank at the bottom of the first
page, in which he inserted the name in the publica-
tion clause, and then followed the attestation clause:
Held that it was not signed at the foot or end of
been written on a printed form, no mistake would
the will, the judge observing that had the will not

have arisen.

Signature.-In Ayres v. Ayres, 9 Law T. 132, a will ending on one side of a sheet of paper, the attestation clause and the signature of the deceased and the names of the attesting witnesses being in the middle of the second side, was held not entitled to probate as not signed at the foot or end.

COUNTY COURTS.

hibits the practical operation of the County Courts A PARLIAMENTARY paper, recently issued, exin an authentic shape, and more than establishes the assertion upon which we ventured, on a rough calculation, as to the vast amount of litigation disposed of by the new Courts. The return in question was moved by Lord SANDON, and relates only to the Liverpool and Manchester districts. It extends from the 15th of March, the day on which the new Courts were opened, to the 18th of June, being just one-fourth of a year. During this short period, were issued from the Liverpool Court alone the enormous number of 3,375 summonses, being an average of 259 weekly, or at the rate of 13,500 in a year!

During the same period, in the Manchester district, there had been issued 2,746 summonses, being at the rate of 10,984 per annum !

Of these, in the Liverpool district, no less than 1,532 causes had been actually heard and disposed of by the Court; and in the Manchester district, 1,189 cases had been decided.

And this vast amount of dispute has been disposed of, generally, to the satisfaction of the suitors; at least, the complaints that have come to us from the Profession, who jealously watch the proceedings, and are competent at once to detect any failure in justice, have been so few, and the expressions of their approval have been so numerous, that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion, that, upon the whole, the new tribunal has answered the purposes for which it was established-namely, a speedy and inexpensive remedy for small wrongs.

Domicil. It became necessary in the suit of Cochrane v. Cochrane, 9 Law T. 167, to determine One of the most remarkable facts revealed by the domicil of a person born in Scotland, because, these returns is the little favour in which trial by certain limitations in his will having failed, the next jury is held by those whose opinion is not merely of kin entitled to the undisposed-of property, ac-speculative, but who shew their convictions by their In another case, a solicitor, being the trustee of a cording to the English and Scotch laws, were not conduct-namely, the Suitors. Out of the 1,532 settlement, acted professionally for one of the cestui co-extensive. The testator was born in Scotland, causes heard in the Liverpool Court, a jury had que trusts against another, in negotiations as to resided in India forty-three years, returned and been demanded in six only. Not in a single certain matters in dispute between them; but the settled in Scotland, and then went abroad to several instance had it been required out of the 1189 causes former cestui que trust having instituted a suit places, and died on his return to England. It was heard at Manchester. Nor can this be attributed against the latter, the solicitor refused to act for him. held that the domicil was Scotch. to the debts or demands claimed being below the The defendant in the first suit then instituted a cross Precatory words-Agent.-The discussion which sum for which a jury can be had, for only 436 of suit against the plaintiff and the solicitor: Held, took place in Shaw v. Lawless, 5 Cl. & Finn. ap- the causes in the Liverpool Court were for claims that no communications were privileged except those pears to have been revived in the case of Finden v. I below 51. The conclusion is inevitable, that in dis

putes in civil matters suitors are sensible enough to prefer the opinion of one impartial and intelligent man to the chances of a ballot among a crowd of persons selected as judges, not on account of their capacity for the office, but the accident of their

rentals.

Early in the next Session a friend has promised to move for a complete return of all the Courts, which we have no doubt will exhibit the same results.

only question with them was, whether the Treasury | Mr. Williams said he was "one of the firm," and would sanction the expenditure of the 6s. or 7s. per as able as Mr. Ross to explain the matter. Where month, with which it would charge the fee fund of could be the false pretence? A sum of 21. 4s. had each Court. Mr. FILLITER, the Clerk of the been taken to obtain counsel's opinion. The case Wareham Court, bethought himself that the safe had been drawn for nothing, and the opinion of Mr. Boyle twice taken, and the original forwarded to the course would be to make an application to the complainant. Then 51. was taken as a contribution Treasury for advice. Accordingly he forwarded to towards preparing a bill in Chancery. It had been "My Lords" a copy of the COUNTY COURTS drawn, and 57. paid for the drawing of it by Mr. CHRONICLE, with a letter, pointing out the conve- Watson. The work had actually been done, and if nience to all engaged in the Courts to find in that the parties pursued their present course, the society A few words, now, suggested by a valued corre-journal a monthly announcement of the days for would sue them for the surplus costs incurred. spondent, who remonstrates with us for giving any- holding the various Courts throughout the country, thing in the shape of countenance or approval to and inquiring whether such a charge upon the fee the County Courts. fund would be sanctioned. His letter and reply are subjoined. It is plain that "My Lords of the Treasury" approve the proposition, and will sanction such an item in the accounts of the Courts, but they will not pronounce an opinion by anticipation. This is Mr. FILLITER'S communication:

His objection is founded upon the principle against which we have incessantly protested as the source of the greater portion of the mischiefs that have come upon the Profession-the principle of mere dogged hostility to changes that have become inevitable, instead of recognising the necessity, taking the initiative, and moulding and modifying those changes so that they may work as little injury as possible to themselves. That would be the truest wisdom, and that is the course of action for the future, in favour of which we are so anxious to engage the assistance of the Profession. If that had been their conduct in the case of the County Courts, for instance, how different would have been their position now! Readers will remember that when the establishment of Local Courts was first seriously agitated, we strenuously urged upon them the certainty that some tribunal for cheaper law was required by the country, and would not long be successfully resisted. We then submitted a plan by which the object could be attained by means of the reconstruction of the Courts of Quarter Sessions, without any serious inroad being made upon the fair emoluments of the lawyers. There can be no doubt that if they had then urged some such scheme of their own, instead of contenting themselves with mere opposition to the plans of the unprofessional law reformers, it would have been successful, and we should have seen the public contented and the Profession unharmed. But this prudent policy they would not pursue. The consequence was, that the measure they had no hand in making was carried by their opponents, and in their effort to yield nothing, everything was lost.

So now do we entreat them to shun the same

ruinous policy. Were we to act upon the recommendation of our correspondent, and appear simply as an uncompromising opponent of the County Courts, we should not procure the undoing of what has been done, nor prevent further changes in the same direction. But, acting on behalf of the Profession, and representing, as we hope, their opinions, we believe we shall best consult their interests by receiving the County Courts, as a "fait accompli," as for good or evil,-an institution established, and to use our best endeavours to procure such amendments and improvements as may make them still more beneficial to the public, and yet securing that which they do not now afford-a due consideration for the reasonable claims of the Profession.

Such a course will, we believe, find, upon reflection, the approval of our readers; at least, we shall be glad to hear the reasons of any who may object to it.

NOTICES OF THE COUNTY COURTS. A SUGGESTION has been made by many of the Judges and Clerks, that it would greatly conduce to the convenience of the officers as well as of the practitioners of the County Courts if the plan were adopted of regularly announcing, by advertisement in the COUNTY COURTS CHRONICLE, the days appointed for holding the Courts in each court town or circuit during the ensuing month-the object being to enable the Clerks and Bailiffs who have processes to serve or to return, and distant suitors and practitioners who have plaints to enter (which must be done a certain number of days before the holding of the Court), to ascertain readily, by reference to a central medium which they have always at hand, the information necessary to the proper conduct of the business of the Courts, and which can now only be procured by search in the local newspapers, or by writing to the Clerks, who have enough to do besides answering such inquiries.

As the necessity for the proposed announcement has become urgent, and business is delayed by reason of the want of such monthly notices, a desire has been expressed by many of the Clerks that the plan should be adopted without further delay. The

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES.

SIR,-The plan of advertising the days for holding
COURTS CHRONICLE of the 1st of June, 1847, would
the several monthly Courts observed in the COUNTY
be found extremely serviceable to all public function-
aries connected therewith, as well as suitors, if gene-
rally adopted; and the trouble of each Clerk sending
to you every month the necessary particulars, men
tioning also the last day on which plaints are to be
entered, would be very small. I send you underneath
the copy of a letter received from the Lords of the
Treasury in reply to a question put to them upon the
subject of charging the expenses on the general fee
fund. A number of the COUNTY COURTS CHRO-
before them.
NICLE, dated 1st of June, shewing the plan, was also
I am, Sir, yours, &c.
FREELAND FILLITER,
Clerk of the County Court, Wareham, Dorset.

(Copy.)

"Treasury Chambers, 31st July, 1847.
"SIR,-The Lords Commissioners of Her Ma-
jesty's Treasury having had before them your letter
of the 15th instant, I am commanded to acquaint
you, that with reference to the charge for advertising
the Court-days in the several Circuits, my Lords will
be ready to consider the same when brought under
their notice by the Treasurers or Judges of the
Courts.
"I am, Sir, &c.

"Mr. F. Filliter,
"ALEX. TREVILYAN.
"Clerk of the County Court, Wareham.
"There can hardly be a doubt that the Judges and
Treasurers would recommend such a charge to be

allowed."

There can be no question that the item will be admitted in the accounts, and therefore the Clerks may venture, without further delay, to carry into effect the arrangement of which they are so desirous. But lest there should remain a doubt on any mind whether a demur might hereafter be raised by the Treasury, we are requested by the Publisher of the COUNTY COURTS CHRONICLE to state that he will insert the notices at his own risk, and that no charge shall be made to the Clerks who forward them, if in their accounts the items for such advertisements should be disallowed by the Treasury. This arrangement will remove all difficulty, and with these conditions there is no reason why the September number of the COUNTY COURTS CHRONICLE should not give to them the information of which they are daily experiencing the want.

LEGAL INTELLIGENCE..

HEIR-AT-LAW SOCIETY.
liams, assistant-secretary to the Heir-at-Law Society,
GUILDHALL, Saturday, July 31.-Mr. Hugh Wil-
in Chatham-place, attended before Mr. Alderman
HUGHES HUGHES to answer the complaint of Wil-
liam Duffin and others, for obtaining from them the
sums of 21. 4s. and 51. under false pretences.

Mr. Williams put in a letter from Mr. Ross, the
manager, stating that he had received the summons,
and that the bearer would produce the papers in the
case, and shew there was no foundation for the com-
plaint, for that two opinions of counsel had been taken
for the first fee, and that a bill in Chancery had been
drawn by counsel for the second fee, of which bill the
complainant would have the benefit by going before
the Master, though he must now find another soli-
citor to prosecute his claim, and that it would be op-
posed by Mr. Ross before the Master, on the ground

that he was not entitled.

Mr. Alderman HUGHES HUGHES said this was a

comical way of giving him the benefit of the bill he
had contributed 57. to prepare. He did not see how
he could proceed with the case in the absence of Mr.
Ross, as, if the charge was made out, it might be ne-
cessary to commit him.

A solicitor's clerk said he appeared for the complainant, and the charge was not that he had taken that he had advertised for persons of kin to Charles fees for which no service had been performed, but Barber, who had died in Calcutta many years since, leaving property to the amount of 220,000l. which would be divided amongst those who could establish their affinity, and thus inducing a number of persons to pay moneys to the society, when, in fact, the suit Barber v. Cockerill had been decided many years ago, and the funds divided. The executors were dead, and further proceedings were fruitless. The representation about the 220,000l. was a false pretence. A person said the advertisement had brought in hundreds of claimants to some relationship with the wealthy Barber.

Mr. Alderman HUGHES HUGHES asked if they had been closely shaven by the society?—The party said they had.

Mr. Williams said it was not true.

A person observed that they had been put to great. needless trouble and expense in hunting from place to place for registers of births and marriages. Mr. Williams begged to explain that Charles BarThere was a decision ber died at Calcutta in 1799. in Chancery in 1811, upon a friendly suit, and 83,000l. were distributed amongst those who established thei consanguinity on the male side, but a sum of 220,0001. remained to be divided.

Mr. Alderman HUGHES HUGHES inquired what authority there was for saying the existence of this fund was a fiction?

The solicitor's clerk said the authority was that of

Mr. Hall, of Boswell-court, solicitor to Cockerill in the Chancery suit.

Mr. Williams declared the fund was no fiction. It was hard that imputations should be cast on the society. There was a prejudice against it at this office The clerk was a lawyer, and the society, by taking up claims, damaged the lawyers.

The chief clerk said he could not help having some prejudice against the society, when it circulated a parcel of lies about him. He asked if the Mr. Boyle who had given the opinions was the same who attended before Mr. Alderman Copeland, and repudiated having any connection with the society? Mr. Williams said that he merely denied that he was the standing counsel of the society. Barristers would only take cases from solicitors. The society employed four solicitors, and Mr. Boyle knew nothing directly of the

society.

The chief clerk looked at the cases, and found the name of H. W. Williams, Chatham-place, as solicitor. He observed this was Mr. Williams himself, and he was not an attorney.

Mr. Williams said it was not. It was the name of a country solicitor.

Mr. Alderman HUGHES HUGHES said the first

step was to prove the advertisement for the heirs to
come in and take their share of 220,000l.
tion, and the alderman adjourned the complaint till
The applicant was not prepared with this informa-
Tuesday last, when

Mr. George Ross, the manager of the Heir-at-Law Society, attended before Sir Peter Laurie, to answer the charge of obtaining money from certain individuals by pretending that there was a sum of 220,000l. divisible amongst those who could shew their affinity to Charles Barber, who died in Calcutta, in August, 1799, there being in fact, it was alleged, no such fund for division.

Horry, the barrister, appeared for Mr. Ross. Champ, clerk to Mr. Savory, appeared for the complainant. On the 25th of January, 1846, an advertisement appeared in the Dispatch, requiring persons of kin to Charles Barber to come forward and claim to participate in 220,000l. His client in consequence called at the society's office, and was assured that there was not only 220,000l. waiting to be claimed and distributed, but the accumulation of interest for forty-five years, which must have swelled that sum to 400,000l.

Sir PETER LAURIE asked who Mr. Barber was? Champ replied that there was a great East India agency house, known as Cockerell, Palmer, and Co. and Mr. Barber was the head of it.

Sir PETER LAURIE said it would save time to hear the story from Parkin himself.

Parkin proceeded to state that after two or three calls, having in the meantime consulted various members of his family in different parts of England, he asked Mr. Ross what the expense of employing the society to recover the money would be. He replied "Our charge is twenty per cent." He said they