Page images
PDF
EPUB

328

Bankrupts.-Price of Stocks.

Ironmonger. Scott, Lincoln's Inn Fields:
Plaskitt, Gainsborough. Aug. 11.
Owen, Samuel, Nantwich, Chester, Mercer and
Draper. Milne & Co., Temple: Bent, Man-
chester July 28.

Preston, Henry, Birmingham, Retail Brewer.
Imett, Lyon's Inn, Strand, or Birmingham.
Aug. 22.

Palmer, John, Coleshill Warwick, Scrivener.
Smith, Coleshill: Broughton & Co., Falcon
Square. Aug. 15.

Pope, Henry, East Retford, Nottingham, Wine
and Spirit Merchant. Makinson & Co., Tem-

ple: Sewell & Co., East Retford. Aug. 15. Pickard, James, Wortley, Leeds, York, Clothier. Robinson & Co., Essex Street, Strand: Ward, Leeds. Aug. 4. Postan, Thos. George, Aldersgate Street, London, Auctioneer, Appraiser, and Undertaker. Turquand, Off. Ass.: Broughton & Co., Falcon Square. Aug. 8. Parkes, Isaac, Deritend, Aston, near Birmingham, Warwick, Metallic Pen Manufacturer. Austen & Co., Raymond Buildings, Gray's Inn: Palmer & Co., Birmingham. Aug. 22. Reynolds, Jonathan, jun., Coppice Row, Clerkenwell, Brewer. Edwards, Off. Ass.: Gresham & Co., Castle Street, Holborn. Aug. 11. Roots, James, Cross Keys Mews, Mary-le-bone, Lane, Dealer in Milk and Dealer in Hoggin and Gravel, and Carman. Edwards, Off. Ass. : Willoughby, Clifford's Inn. Aug. 18. Richardson, William, Thornthwaite, Crosthwaite, Cumberland, Woollen Manufacturer. Leadbitter, Staple Inn: Ansell, Keswick. August

18.

Rawlins, John, Curtain Road, Shoreditch, Dealer
in Building Materials. Edwards, Off. Ass. :
Gray, jun., Flemming's Street, Kingsland
Road. Aug. 22.

Richards, Mary Ann, and Eliza Reece, Wolver-
hampton, Stafford, Milliners and Dress Ma-
kers. Rickards & Co., Lincoln's Inn Fields:
Foster, Wolverhampton. Aug. 22.
Ramsbottom, James, Liverpool, Drysalter. Messrs.
Baxter, Lincoln's Inn Fields: Webster, Man-
chester. Aug. 22.
Robson, Robert, and John Prudhoe Robson, New-

castle-Upon-Tyne, Builders and Cartwrights.
Plumtree, Lamb's Buildings, Temple: Cram
Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Aug. 22.
Ryals, Elijah, Sheffield, York, Table Knife Manu-
facturer. Brookfield, Warwick Court, Gray's
Inn Brookfield & Co., or Wake, Sheffield.
Aug. 22.

Reynolds, William, jun., Savage Gardens, London,
Wine Merchant. Belcher, Off. Ass.: Davison,
Bread Street, Cheapside. Aug. 4.
Rushby, James, and William Hewdey, Leeds,
York, Coach-lace and Girth-Webb Manufac-
turers, and Whip Makers. Desborough & Co.,
Size Lane: Scholefield, Leeds. Aug. 4.
Russell, Nathaniel, Northallerton, York, Flax
Dresser and Grocer. Hall & Co., Verulam
Buildings, Gray's Inn: Hirst, Northallerton.
Aug. 1.
Smith, David, Smithy Mills, Addle-Cum-Eccup,
York, Corn Miller. Battye & Co., Chancery
Lane: Naylor, Leeds. July 28.

Standen, James, Grosvenor Street, Victualler.
Pennell, Off. Ass.: Garrard, Suffolk Street,
Pall Mall East. Aug. 8.

Scott, David, Flint, Iron and Coal Master. Cox,
Lincoln's Inn Fields: Oldfield, Pendre, Holy-
well, Flintshire. Aug. 8.

Statters, William, and John Statters; Mellor, Lan-
caster, Cotton Spinners. Adlington & Co.,
Bedford Row: Winstanley & Co., Preston.
Aug. 8.

Savage, John, Circus Street, Mary-le-bone, Vic-
tualler. Abbott, Off. Ass.: Jay, Serjeant's
Inn, Fleet Street. Aug. 18.

Simpson, John, Spalding, Lincoln, Hatter. Forbes
& Co., Sleaford: Lambert, John Street, Bed-
ford Row. Aug. 22.

Southam, John, Tillotson Place, Waterloo Road,
Boarding House Keeper. Rickards & Co.,
Lincoln's Inn Fields: Foster, Wolverhampton,
Staffordshire. Aug. 11.

Turner, Stanhope, and Jonas Pilling, Bolton-le

Moors, Lancaster, Iron Founders. Aug. 15. [No attorney or official assignee gazetted.] Tipping, Richard, Birmingham, Gun and Pistol Manufacturer. Smith, Lyon's Inn, Strand, and Birmingham. Aug. 18.

Timmins, Samuel, Birmingham, Brass Founder.
Bigg, Southampton Buildings, Chancery Lane:
Haywood, Birmingham. July 25.
Williams, John, Cardiff, Glamorgan, Draper.

Whitmore, Off. Ass.: Parker, Saint Paul's
Churchyard. July 25.

Williams, John Bish, Regent Street, Stationer.
Pennell, Off. Ass.: Messrs. Arden, Clifford's

Inn Passage. July 21.

Wood, William, Gravesend, Kent, Carpenter and
Builder. Belcher, Off. Ass.: Newbon, Great
Carter Lane, Doctor's Commons. Aug. 18.
Walker, John, Old Kent Road, Chymist and Drug-
gist. Alsager, Off. Ass.: Clarke & Co., Cra-
ven Street, Strand. Aug. 18.
Worthington, John, and Joseph Coltman, Stock-
port, Chester, Drapers. Bower & Co. Chan-
cery Lane: Lingard & Co., Heaton Norris,
Chester. Aug. 18.

Williams, Thomas, Newport, Monmouth, Rope
Maker. Crosby, Bristol: Bicknell & Co.,
Lincoln's Inn Fields. Aug. 15.
Weston, Warwick, Gracechurch Street, London,
Merchant. Edwards, Off. Ass.: Wood & Co.,
Corbet Court, Gracechurch Street. Aug. 1.
Widnell, Henry, Kidderminster, Worcester, Car-

pet Manufacturer. Michael, Red Lion Square:
Bird & Co., Kidderminster: Dangerfield,
Lincoln's Inn Fields: Brinton, Kidderminster.
July 28.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

REFORM IN CHANCERY.

No. II.

We now resume the subject of Chancery Reform (see ante, p. 281). In our first notice of Mr. Garratt's pamphlet, we have stated his opinions on bills of discovery and injunction bills. He next adverts to suits seeking equitable relief; and he considers first, the pleadings in Equity; secondly, the evidence taken in the cause; and thirdly, the judgment or decree of the Court upon those pleadings and evidence: and he considers that in all these points the present system is defective.

We intend to follow him through each of these heads, and first as to the pleadings. Mr. Garratt notices the well-known rule in Equity that all parties interested must be before the Court, and he states fairly the difficulty of the draftsman as to the application of this rule. In some cases it has been relaxed, and the Chancery Commissioners were of opinion that the relaxation might go further with advantage. "The misfortune however is," says Mr. Garratt, "that the discretion which the Court may, but rarely does exercise, at the hearing of the cause, affords no guide to the counsel who draws the bill and who feels it necessary in the present state of the law, to make all interested persons parties to the suit, plaintiffs or defendants, except in those cases which are expressly excepted by decision. He feels his character as a pleader involved in so framing his bill that his client may not be turned round at the hearing for want of parties."

gests that it might at any rate be qualified in various particulars.

"1st. Where a person sui juris and in the same interest with the plaintiff (i. e. having such an interest in the suit that he might have joined in it as a plaintiff) is made a defendant, the bill should call upon him in the alternative, either to appear and answer the bill, or else to appear and watch the proceedings; and the subpoena should be in a corresponding form. The party served with such a subpoena should have an option either to answer the bill, or (after appearing by a clerk in court) to have an entry made with the plaintiff's clerk in court, that he appeared merely to watch the proceedings. In the latter case, he should be considered as admitting the plaintiff's title and his own to be as stated by the bill; and the cause should be heard against him, as if upon bill and answer. In other respects he should be treated as a party to the cause, and served with notices of all proceedings.

"2dly. Where a class of persons not named as individuals is, or, according to one construction (if there be a question) may be, interested in the fund to be administered, yet, if the executor, administrator, trustee, or other person responsible for the due application of the fund, admits that all individuals of that class are parties to the suit, either plaintiffs or defendants, and if their respective titles, as belonging to that class, are also admitted by all who have an interest to dispute them, the Court should act on that admission; it being understood, that the person responsible for the due application of the fund is not protected by the decree of the Court against the claims of any person excluded by such admission, if If the class should fraudulent or erroneous. comprise some who are, and others who are not, sui juris, and all who are sui juris, as well the person responsible for the administration of the property, admit the titles of all such persons, the Court might proceed on such admission, it being understood that such decree

will not

He then mentions the great expence and protect the person responsible for the delay which this rule brings upon the fund against the parties who are not then sui suitors, more particularly in common suits juris, if their right should be affected by an for the administration of assets, and he sug-improper admission of title in others. VOL, XIV.-No. 417.

Y

[blocks in formation]

"3dly. If, in a similar case, the person responsible for the application of the fund, should not fully and voluntarily admit, that all persons of the class are parties to the suit, but should ask the Court to ascertain who are the individuals comprised in that class, it would then be necessary for the Court to send to the Master such an inquiry as is now sent in every case of a class of persons being interested: but I would suggest, that those persons, who come in and establish their claims before the Master, should (upon obtaining or being served with the order confirming the Master's report) be at liberty to appoint a clerk in court, and should thereupon be treated in all subsequent proceedings as if they had been made parties by supplemental bill. They may, however, not be sufficiently acquainted with the previous proceedings to enable them to protect their interests; and in such a case they will be advised not to appoint a clerk in court. A supplemental bill would then be necessary; but I see no sufficient cause for requiring them to answer it."

"Much expense and delay are now occasioned to the plaintiff, by getting in answers, which are quite unnecessary, from persons whose title is fully stated by the bill. Those persons incur expense themselves in putting in the answers; and the plaintiff incurs expense in taking office copies of the answers, and in the length of the briefs in many of the subsequent proceedings. All this expense and delay (and frequently also those of a supplemental suit) appear to me unnecessary: to obviate which, and at the same time give to all parties, having or claiming to have an interest, sufficient opportunity of asserting their claims, is the object of the plan which I have suggested."

Mr. Garratt makes several other suggestions on this branch of the subject, for which we have no room, and we shall pass on to his second head.-The mode in which Courts of Equity receive evidence and inquire into matters of fact; and he points out its evils with an unshrinking hand, and supports his opinion with a great body of important evi

dence.

"It is admitted on all hands, that this system is very imperfect, though different witnesses speak of its imperfections in very different

terins.

"It is defective in eliciting truth from the witnesses on their examination in chief. When a witness is examined by counsel vivá voce, in open Court (as is the common-law practice), if one question, as frequently happens, does not produce a full and distinct answer, he puts another, and another question, till the deficiency is supplied. The witness though willing, may not have understood the first question; or if a hostile witness, may have evaded it. In the course of the viva voce examination, the meaning of the question, if misapprehended, is explained to the witness; or it is put into a new form and, if the witness seek to evade telling the truth, and the whole truth,

:

he is pressed with question upon question. It is quite otherwise when counsel has to prepare interrogatories for examining a witness in Equity. He is not (in theory at least) allowed to put leading questions: and when in order to avoid this difficulty, he puts them in a general form, they are liable to be misunderstood both by the examiner and the witness. This is particularly the case, where the witness being adverse, or for some other cause, the solicitor does not, before he lays instructions before counsel for drawing interrogatories, ascertain from the witness himself what precise facts he can prove. However wide,' says Mr. Plumer, one of the examiners of the Court of Chancery, the interrogatory is of the real facts, the examiner cannot vary it to meet them sometimes it is so cramped, that the statement of the witness cannot be admitted under it; and sometimes it is so vague, that the point inquired after is not apparent, and an indefinite indistinct answer is the result." "The secrecy too," he adds, of the "examination appears, to say the least of it, of very doubtful policy. It throws an extremely heavy responsibility upon the examiner. If the wit. ness has omitted to mention, or the examiner to take down, a material statement, or if the witness has misconceived a question, or the examiner his answer, the defect is rarely discovered till it is too late to supply or correct it." (Report, Appendix B. p. 543, 544.)

:

[ocr errors]

"This imperfection is sometimes, but not always, corrected by a practice which is attended with another mischief. The solicitor often does not, and sometimes (especially in the case of a hostile witness) cannot know what any witness can, much less foresee what (when merely examined privately on interrogatories) consequently, and the number of interrogahe will depose. The number of witnesses, tories to which they are to be examined, are multiplied. (See Mr. Ralph Barnes' answer to qu. 16, in the Minutes of Evidence, p. 380.) The case is, overloaded with evidence,' (as Mr. Plumer stated to the commissioners) and much of unimportant matter taken down, from the party's not knowing what has been proved as the examination proceeds: in other instances, the case is defectively proved, through the unexpected failure of a witness, whose testimony, had such failure been known in time, might have been corroborated or supplied.' (Minutes of Evidence, p. 544.) Not only is the cause overloaded with evidence, and with much immaterial matter; (see Mr. Wm. Vizard's answer to qu. 163, Minutes of Evidence, p. 46,) but it is often loaded with what is not legal evidence, and neither is nor can in any way be used. The present Vice Chancellor was asked by the commissioners—“ In point of fact, in your experience, have you not found, that a great deal of trash comes out in the shape of evidence from the examiner's office?' His reply was, 'a monstrous quantity; so that it is almost the practice to read a great deal of stuff straight forward, and then leave the Judge to reject a great deal of it as it occurs.' (Minutes of Evidence, p. 200, qu. 183.)

[blocks in formation]

The time of the Court is thus unnecessarily a mere ex parte proceeding, and little better occupied in hearing and dissecting this mon- than evidence by affidavit.' (Minutes of Evid. strous quantity of trash,' this great deal of p. 544.) The present Vice Chancellor said: stuff and the suitor who has to take office "It has often appeared to me, and I believe copies of the whole of the depositions, and to everybody will concur in it, that the cross-exafurnish his counsel in his brief with copies of mination upon written depositions is absolute those copies, is burthened with very heavy stuff.' (Minutes of Evidence, p. 191, qu. 141.) and needless costs. (See the evid. of the pre- Such being the objections to the present mode sent Master of the Rolls, in answer to questions of taking evidence in Chancery, wherein is it 196, 197, 198, in Minutes of Evidence, p. better than evidence by affidavit? It affords no 210.)" effectual check to leading questions, no opportunity of effectual cross-examination. What fails to elicit the facts which the witness ought single advantage does it offer? It sometimes to state; and is almost always attended with enormous expense and delay.

Let us also quote further the opinion of Mr. Plumer. "Shuffle," says he, "and prevaricate as a witness may in the course of his examination, he can correct all the inconsistencies between one part of his evidence and another, and his testimony as finally presented to the Court on the office copy, will read as fluently as that of the most honest plain-spoken witness that ever was examined." Minutes of Evidence, p. 544.

So much for the examination in chief; but still more indefensible, is the present mode of cross-examining a witness in equity; and here again Mr. Garratt backs his own opinion by the very best evidence on the subject.

Let us further hear the evidence of the solicitors as to this:

"All the solicitors who were examined be

fore the commissioners on this point, expressed their opinion of the inefficiency of the present mode of examination for eliciting the truth (Mr. Wm. Vizard, Mr. T. Hamilton, Mr. Jas. Lowe,a Mr. Rowland Winburn, Mr. J. Forster, and Mr. Ralph Barnes, (Min. of Ev. p. 45, 73, 74; p. 167, qu. 79, 80, 81, 83, 86, 87; p. qu. 152-157; p. 93, qu. 89, 90; p. 166, qu. 228, qu. 38; p. 260, qu. 55; p, 380, qu. 15; p. 382, qu. 52,) unless Mr. William Whitton "But what is cross-examination in the pro- no objections to the mode of examination had be considered as an exception. He said, that per sense of the term? An opportunity of occurred to him in the examiner's office; and putting to your opponent's witness, after being that, whilst the principle and practice of the acquainted with his examination in chief, such Court shall remain as it is, he thought a better questions as may extract from him the whole mode could not be adopted than by written truth, may test his veracity, may exhibit his manner, character, and behaviour to the Court Yet even Mr. Whitton cannot properly be condepositions. (Min. of Ev. p. 71, qu. 191.) which has to decide the question of fact at sidered as an exception, for when afterwards issue between the parties. Now in all these asked, whether, within his experience, there points, cross-examination in Chancery wholly had been any evil arising out of sending comfails. Neither party sees even the interroga-missions into the country, either in point of tories proposed by his opponent to his own witness, much less the depositions in chief. He has no means of knowing, though, from a Mr. James Lowe's horror of the mode is circumstances, he may sometimes conjecture, amusing, though he seems principally to disto what points his adversary's witness is to be like the delay and expense. "It is so very examined. He has no opportunity (after objectionable," he says, "that I very seldom putting one question in cross-examination) of trouble them" [the examiner and commisknowing the answer given by the witness, and sioners] "if I can avoid it: it is terrible.” of following up his question effectually. He And, when asked in what respects, he says, is thrusting in the dark. And as to the manner "In the delay." In answer to another interin which the witness has given his examination, rogatory he says, "I seldom go before an exahe has no means whatever of becoming ac-miner; but in the cause of Brown v. De Tusquainted with it, or bringing it to the notice of the Court. So futile is this privilege of crossexamination, that it is very rarely practised in Courts of Equity.

"The most experienced practitioners recommend cross-examination only in cases where the witness is one whom it would have been prudent or necessary to examine in chief; and Mr. Plumer, who had, as examiner better opportunity than most men of observing the effect of cross-examination, says: The result of almost every cross-examination, which I have seen ventured upon, has confirmed the wisdom of that advice. The magnitude of such a defect,' he truly adds, needs no comment. It leaves the examination in Chancery

let, not only delay, but, in my opinion, very great injustice ensued." To another question he replied, "I, however, believe the depositions are shockingly taken :" and when asked, "What ground have you for believing that?" he replied, "I avoid the office if I can; I know the time when it was like making affidavits. I think it is a terrible way of taking them now." He says, indeed, that, "in the practice even as at present administered, injustice seldom prevails in the Court of Chancery; if a solicitor knows what he is about, he makes a defendant at last tell the truth." Mr. Lowe's plan appears to have been to do with as little evidence as possible, except the defendant's answer, (Min. of Ev. p. 165, 166.)

332

[ocr errors]

Practical Points.--Changes in the Law.

expense, or in point of delay, or in point of taking copies or extracts, are and do contain execution, he replied, As to all.' (Min. of Ev. p. 73, qu. 224.)"

Mr. Garratt, it must be admitted, shews sufficiently how grossly deficient the present system is for answering the purposes of justice; but the remedy for this state of things, is certainly by no means easy to discover. Our extracts have already been so large, that we must consider that proposed by Mr. Garratt in a future number.

an account of monies received for and on account of parochial purposes, that is to say, for and on account of the poor-rates, and of the rates made for various other parochial purposes. Applications have been also made by other rated inhabitants, for permission to copy or make extracts from the said rate-books, and in like manner refused. It was argued in support of the rule, that unless the rate-book was open in the manner now claimed, the party dominant in the vestry would be able to prevent the opposite party from making the inquiries connected with elections.

Lord Denman, C. J., said,-The complain

PRACTICAL POINTS OF GENERAL ant says that he cannot obtain the information

INTEREST.

PRODUCTION OF RATE-BOOKS.

THE following case is of interest at the pre

sent moment.

necessary for the purposes relating to elections of members to serve in parliament, unless he be allowed to take copies of or extracts from this book. Upon consideration, we think that we are not authorized by any general principle, or by either of the acts of parliament referred to in the argument, to make the rule absolute. The rule must therefore be discharged, but without costs.

[ocr errors]

Rex v.

Rule discharged, without costs. Vestrymen of St. Marylebone, 6 N. & M. 600.

CHANGES IN THE LAW IN THE LAST SESSION OF PARLIAMENT, 1837.

No. XI.

RECORDERS' COURTS AND ADJOURNED
QUARTER SESSIONS.

1 Vict. c. 19.

Sir W. W. Follett, in Michaelmas term last, obtained a rule, calling upon the defendant to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to permit and suffer Charles Hibble, and all and every person and persons rated to the relief of the poor of the parish of St. Marylebone, and all other persons mentioned or referred to for that purpose by the statute, made 2 W. 4, c. 60, for the better regulation of vestries, and for the appointment of auditors of accounts in certain parishes of England and Wales, to inspect and take copies of, or extracts from, the rate-books of the said parish, and all other books mentioned or referred to, and declared to be at all seasonable times open to such persons, by the said act, and why the vestry clerk should not pay to the prosecutors the costs of and occasioned by this application. This rule was founded upon the This act passed on the 30th June, “to emaffidavit of Charles Hibble, wherein he deposed power the Recorder or other person presiding as follows: The parish of St. Marylebone has adopted the provisions of the Vestry Act (2 in Quarter Sessions in corporate cities and W. 4, c. 60), and the vestrymen are chosen towns, and Justices of the Peace for counties, under that act. On the 4th of July last, the ridings, or divisions, to divide their respective vestrymen so chosen resolved, "That no per- Courts in certain cases." It recites that in son be allowed to copy from the rate-books; and that, agreeably to the 32d section of the large corporate cities and towns the quarter Vestry Act, no person be allowed to inspect sessions of the peace may sometimes last the books of the vestry, unless he or she be a rate payer or creditor of the parish." Mr. beyond three days, and where such is the case Hibble, being a rated inhabitant of the parish, considerable inconvenience and increased exsubsequently made repeated applications, at seasonable times, to the vestry clerk, at the Pense will result from the detention of jurors court-house of the parish, for permission to and witnesses, and the uuavoidable attendance inspect and to take copies of or extracts from of a large portion of the municipal police: the rate-books of the parish, which were then and that for the remedying thereof it is exin the possession of the vestry clerk, at the court house of the parish. These applications pedient that a similar power of forming a Mr. Hibble founded upon the provisions of the second Court to that which is vested in the Vestry Act, and especially on section 32. Inspection of the rate-books was allowed, but justices at the general quarter sessions for permission to take copies of or extracts from counties, by virtue of 59 G. 3, c. 28, intituled the rate-books was, upon the authority of the an act to empower magistrates to divide the above resolution, and after consultation with the vestry, refused by the clerk. The rate- Court of quarter sessions, should be given to books from which Mr. Hibble was desirous of the recorder or other person presiding in the

« PreviousContinue »