Bankrupts. Timber Dealers and Coal Merchants. Jones, Barrow, Thomas, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancaster, Bonnor, John, Cheltenham, Ironmonger. Dax & Brace, Joseph, Willow Walk, Bermondsey, Sur- Crozier, Matthew, Liverpool, Commission Mer- Cave, Thomas, jun., and John Clarkson Burton, Dorset, Henry, Herstmonceux, Sussex, Grazier, Dails, John, Goole, York, Broker, Commission Agent, and Coal Merchant. Hicks & Co., Gray's Inn Square; Holaen, Hull. Sept. 15. Dows, James, Ham Mills, Thatcham, Berks, Miller and Seedsman. Graham, Mitre Court Chambers, Temple: Graham, Newbury. Sept. 15. Doncaster, Henry, Sheffield, York, Porter Merchant. Haywood, or Ryalls, Sheffield; Moss, Old Jewry. Sept. 12. Esdaile, James, Manchester, Hatter. Swain & Co., Old Jewry: Harding, Manchester. Aug. 29. Field, John, Sheffield, York, Share Broker and General Agent. Rodgers, Devonshire Square, Bishopsgate Street: Vickers, Sheffield. Aug. 25. Franks, Robert Hugh, Redcross Street, Barbican, Harvey, John, Glastonbury, Somerset, Innholder. 423 Cary & Co., Bristol: Adlington & Co., Bed- Hewett, Richard, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Brick Hooton, Walter, Sneinton, Nottingham, Lace Ma- Cloth Manufacturer. Few & Co., Henrietta Howse, Wm. Hanley, Stafford, Victualler. Hard- Jackson, Wm. George. Hartlepool, Durham, Gro cer and General Trader. Gibson, Newcastle- Jackson, Wm. Joseph Postins, Kidderminster, Kier, Wm., Liverpool, Wine Merchant. Dean, Maker. Norris & Co., Bartlett's Buildings, Lowe, Richard, and Richard Lowe, jun., Worcester, Leather Dressers and Glove Manufacturers. Bedford, Calthorpe Street, London: Bedford & Co., Worcester. Sept. 12. Leake, John, Shrewsbury, Salop, Coach Builder. Blackstock & Co., Temple; Watson, Shrewsbury. Sept 19. Molyneux, Henry, Exeter, Draper. Goldsmid, Off. Ass. Tilson & Co., Coleman Street. Aug. 29. Marshall, Thomas, Ilkeston, Derby, Grocer and Nicklin, Samuel Edward Kettle, Leamington Pike, Benjamin Winkfield, New Gloucester Place, ditch. Aug. 25. Peake, John, and Thomas Hall, Litchfield, Iron mongers. Bartrum & Co., Old Broad Street: Preston, Henry Hebb, Derby, Laceman and Hosier. Palmer, John, sen., Stapleford, Nottingham, and 12. Plevin, James, Nantwich, Chester, Timber Merchant. Carven, jun., Nantwich: Johnson & Co., Temple. Sept. 12. Rees, Joseph, Stratford, Essex, Chemist and Drug- Regan, John, Maiden Lane, Covent Garden, Vic- Rocher, Wm. Antonio, late of Clifford's Inn Pas Stocker, Alexander Southwood, Birmingham, Ma- Selfe, William, Frome Selwood, Somerset, Silver- Townsend, Joseph, Liverpool. Plumber and Gla- Taylor, Joseph Robert, and Edwin Taylor, Mas- Veysey, John, Exeter, Hatter. Rhodes and Co., and Merchant. Wilde, James, sen., Sheffield, York, Ivory Dealer West, Wm. Twells, Nottingham, Draper. Parker, Wilson, George, Darlington, Durham, Mer- Williams, John, Manchester, Glass Manufacturer. sage, Fleet Street, London, but now of Broad-Wilson, Wm. Kingston Jones, Sidney Place, Stock- Scott, David, Mary-le-bone Street, Woollen Draper. Edwards, Off. Ass.: Blackmore, Mitre Court Chambers, Temple. Aug. 25. Stevenson, John, Sheffield, York, Furniture Broker. Church, Great James Street, Bedford Row: Burberry, Sheffield. Aug. 25. Senior, John, Hereford, Cabinet Maker and Up- Scott, Edward, Hillborough, Norfolk, Miller and well, Surrey, Master Mariner. Graham, Off. Ass.; Owen & Co., Mark Lane. Sept. 15. PRICES OF STOCKS. Wednesday, September 27, 1837. 921 100 op. 99 14 3 per Cent. Consols. 260 48 50 pm. 211 922 260 47 49 pm THE ACTS OF THE LAST SESSION. | great cause of obscurity which now exists PUBLIC attention is now fixed on the approaching meeting of Parliament; but before we indulge in any speculations as to what will be then proposed, let us look back to the last session and recapitulate its proceedings. It will be found that its acts are not unimportant in a legal point of view, and as our readers have almost all of them before them, they can the better judge for themselves. It is to be remarked, that although most of the acts will bear the title of the first year of Queen Victoria, yet they in reality belong to the last year of King William the Fourth. They were brought in in his reign, and although they could not be passed in his lifetime, they are properly to be ascribed to the Monarch whom we have already proved to be entitled to the name of WILLIAM THE LAW REFORMER. We doubt not that our young Queen will be equally desirous of winning this proud title, and that the long reign which is in all probability to be granted to her, will shine as conspicuously in this respect as that of her royal predecessor. The act first in importance is the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), which comes into operation on the first of January, in the year 1838. This act is not only important as regulating the execution of wills and making other alterations in the law of devising property, but merits attention as being a first step towards a codification of the law of property. Many of its sections are in fact decisions on litigated points in the construction of wills. We have long thought that much might be done in this way towards simplifying the law. The a Printed antè, pp. 186, 204. VOL. XIV. No. 423. is the conflicting decisions-the almost countless number of our reports. We are fully aware of the advantage which arises from this in their applicability to the peculiar circumstances of many particular cases; but this might be retained, if a series of rules, drawn from the decisions, were laid down, and the cases contrà at once overruled. This would indeed thin the shelves of our libraries! The act relating to wills has proceeded on this plan, and we therefore call particular attention to it. The acts next in importance are the Acts for the Mitigation of the Criminal Law. The first of these (1 Vict. c. 84) substitutes the punishment of transportation for that of death in certain cases where the latter punishment might still be inflicted, as in the cases of forging a will or a stockwarrant. The second (1 Vict. c. 85) materially lessens the severity of the punishment of offences against the person. The third (1 Vict. c. 86) enacts that burglary, unaccompanied with violence, shall no longer be punishable with death, and provides that, so far as the offence of burglary is concerned, the night shall be considered to commence at nine in the evening, and conclude at six in the morning. The fourth (1 Vict. c. 87) mitigates the punishment attending the crimes of robbery and stealing. The fifth (1 Vict. c. 88) renders piracy punishable with death only where murder is attempted. The sixth (1 Vict. c. 89) regulates the punishment of the crime of arson. The seventh (1 Vict. c. 90) and the eighth (1 Vict. c. 91) amend the law relating to transportation, and abo b Printed antè, pp. 363-366, 381-384, 398-400. See a particular statement of the alterations effected by them, antè, p. 409. 2 E 426 The Acts of the last Session.-Foreign Potentates." lish the punishment of death in certain the Indemnity Act1 (7 W. 4, c. 12); and other cases. The whole of these acts the Act to vest the Rolls Estate in her (which came into operation on the first of Majesty (1 Vict. c. 46) m the present month, but which were acted on by the Judges on the last Circuit,) are founded on the principle that the punishment of death should only be inflicted for crimes accompanied with violence, and this principle is now carried out in our criminal code. The acts of general interest are the Acts relating to the Post Office and for Regulating the Duty of Postage (caps. 32-36); the Act for appointing Lords Justices in the case of the next successor to the Crown being out of the realm at the demise of her Majesty (c. 72); the Act for enabling the Queen to confer certain powers on Trading and other Companies (c. 73); and the new Franking Act (1 Vict. c. 36)." Our readers have now before them the results of the last session. It will be our duty to be vigilant in the ensuing meeting of Parliament to bring all its measures before the Profession. FOREIGN POTENTATES. The acts next in importance are those for amending the two important acts of the preceding session-the Commutation of Tithes Act, and the Registration Act. These are 1 Vict. c. 69, and 1 Vict. c. 22. The Recorders' Court Act (1 Vict. c. 19)d empowers the recorder, or other person presiding, to form a second Court, and appoint a barrister to preside therein. By the Act to amend the Limitation of Actions Acte (1 Vict. c. 28), it is enacted that mortgagees within the definition in the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, s. 1, may bring actions OUR law is very impartial, and has no reOur own King comes to recover land within twenty years after gard to persons. the last payment of principal or interest. pretty well off in our Courts, and our young The Notices of Vestries Act (1 Vict. c. Queen will certainly he looked on with fa45) alters the law which allows parish But foreign potentates are treated An Emperor notices to be read during Divine service, in rather a scurvy manner! and orders that a notice affixed on the is but little thought of. The sublime Porte church doors shall be substituted instead. is in bad odour, and the Pope is anything It also enacts that the decrees of the Eccle- but infallible in Westminster Hall. Masiastical Courts shall not be read in churches.jesty, if not of home production, is accounted but little. The Bills of Exchange Act (1 Vict. c. 80)5 enacts that bills of exchange and promissory notes payable at or within twelve months are not to be liable to the laws for the prevention of usury. They may therefore be discounted at any rate of interest. This act goes very far to repeal the Usury Acts. The Act to abolish the Punishment of the Pillory (1 Vict. c. 23) is sufficiently explained by the title; as is the Act to provide for the Costs of Prosecutions for Concealing the Birth of Children by secret burying or otherwise disposing of their dead bodies (c. 44). vour. If an action was brought against the Emperor of China, we have no doubt that service of the writ at the Great Wall would be deemed good service! case on this subject is The Emperor of Brazil v. Robinson, 5 Dowl. P. C. 522, and it fully bears out our remarks. The last It Martin shewed cause against a rule nisi, obtained by W. H. Watson, for compelling the plaintiff to find security for costs, on the ground of his being resident abroad. appeared from the affidavits, that the action was on a charterparty, for not delivering certain wood, shipped by the Emperor, from The case of The Brazil to this country. Duke of Montellano v. Christian, 5 Mau. & Sel., which was an application to compel the plaintiff to give security for costs. He There are also several acts of considerable importance, all of which should be known to our readers, and have been already fully considered in this work. These are the Acts relating to Attorneys and So-was the ambassador from the Court of Spain. licitorsh (1 Vict. c. 56); the Act relating Lord Ellenborough said, "considering that to Coroners' Expensesi (1 Vict. c. 68); the an ambassador is the immediate representaAct relating to Common Law Offices (1Vict. tive of the crowned head whose servant he c. 30); the Act relating to Sheriffs' Fees ;k is, it would hardly be respectful in the first instance to exact such a security, unless there was pregnant reason for believing it to be necessary." c Antè, p. 268. d Antè, p. 232. e Antè, p. 347. ↑ Antè, p. 348. g Antè, p. 349. k Antè, p. 299. death of his father, available to supply in effect, the payment of the sum of 5001. a year, during the interval that would occur between his own death, and the death of his father, in the event of his dying before his father." In the principal case, Lord Denman, C. J., effect, a perpetual rent-charge of 5007. a year; said,—“ I think that the case cited in op- for he might have assigned the rent-charge of position to this application is clearly dis-5007. a year which he held during the joint lives of himself and his father, and might have tinguishable from the present. There the made his reversion in fee expectant upon the ambassador was in this country merely in his political capacity, and there was no reason to suppose that he was desirous of leaving the country, or going out of the jurisdiction. Here, however, the Emperor appears to have engaged in a commercial transaction, and to be resident out of the jurisdiction. I see no reason, therefore, for exempting him from the necessity of finding security for costs to which any other person, bringing such an action, would be subjected. The present rule must consequently be made absolute. Littledale, J., Patteson, J., and Coleridge, J., concurred. So that his Imperial Majesty had to find security for costs! THE PROPERTY LAWYER. REVERSIONANY INTEREST. His Honor then stated in detail, the allegations in the bill: that the defendant had taken advantage of the plaintiff's distressed circumstances, and of his being without professional assistance, and the evidence relating to those allegations; and after observing that they were completely disproved, proceeded thus: "So that it appears that the plaintiff had not only the advice and assistance of his own professional advisers, but all the protection that could arise from making the confidential agent and solicitor of his father, privy to the transaction." The Vice Chancellor also delivered his opinion on another point of the case of much importance. "A complaint is made in the bill, on the ground of want of value; and on the part of the plaintiff two gentlemen are examined as to the value of the perpetual rent-charge of A PECULIAR protection is thrown over the 500l. a year; and they both, singularly enough, sale of a reversionary interest by Courts of concur in stating (probably they looked only at the tables) that 12,500l. was the value of the Equity. This is fully established by a long rent-charge in 1827. These gentlemen were series of cases; and where there is a very small cross-examined as to the question of market interest in possession in one thing, and a very value; with respect to that question, however, large interest in reversion in another, the mere they do not depose. But three persons are throwing in of the interest in possession, will examined on the part of the defendant with respect to the same question; one of them not prevent the application of the rules of says that in 1827, the market value of the perEquity. Earl of Portmore v. Taylor, 4 Sim.petual rent-charge was 9000; another states 182; Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 Swanst. it was 8000l. to 85007.; and the third states it was 8111. These two last witnesses add that 154. But where A. was entitled for the joint their estimate is made with reference to the lives of himself and his father to a rent-charge state of the money market (which is a very of 5001. charged on an estate of which his material circumstance) in the spring of 1827, father was tenant for life, with remainder to which they say was a very unfavourable A. in fee, A. having agreed to sell to B. a time for the sale of property, such as the rent-charge in question. Now the price that perpetual rent-charge of 5001. issuing out of was actually given, was 86501., which was more the estate, assigned to B. the rent-charge to than the average price according to the testiwhich he was so entitled, and conveyed his re-mony given by the defendant's witnesses, and version in fee to trustees, in trust to secure a rent-charge of 500l. a year, to commence on the termination of the prior rent-charge; and the Vice Chancellor held that the transaction was not to be considered as a sale of an interest in reversion, as A., when he made the agreement, had it in his power to secure to B. a perpetual rent-charge of 5001. in possession. "It is observable," said the Vice Chancellor, "that although at the time when the agreement was made, the plaintiff had not actually a perpetual rent-charge of 500%. a year, yet he had sub modo, and with a slight degree of qua-value, and not an actuary's estimate, ought to lification, a power to grant to any person in be regarded. more than two-thirds of the price which is deposed to by the plaintiff's witnesses, who speak as to general value only, and not as to market value. It appears too by the evidence that in the year 1826, attempts had been made to sell the perpetual rent-charge for 10,000/. but no person could be found who would purchase at that price. It therefore seems to be perfectly plain that no fault is to be found with the contract in respect of deficiency of value." Wardle v. Carter, 7 Sim. 490. So that according to this case, in the purchase of a reversionary interest, the market |