specified portions of the estate were to be con- | Uniformity of Process Act, directs that the veyed. The agreement states, that in default in payment the agreement is to be void, and A. is not to be compelled to perform it in law or equity; that it shall not be necessary for A. to tender any conveyance to C., the time appointed for payment being considered the essence of the agreement, and in default the agreement is to be void, and any loss or damage sustained by C. in consequence is not to be recoverable in law or equity. The first 1000l. was not paid until after the second was due, C. not being able to pay it before. The times appointed for payment of the balance have gone by, and A., in consequence of not being able to pay B's balance, through C.'s default, has been threatened by B. with a foreclosure. What remedy writs for the commencement of actions issued in pursuance of that act, are to be executed within four calendar months from the date thereof, and not afterwards, but nothing is stated in the 3 & 4 W. 4. c. 67. Writs of execution issued under the old practice were held not to be good if they were not made returnable in the next term after the issuing thereof. REMEDY AFTER ASSIGNMENT. J. S. there remains privity of estate between the lessor and lessee, and debt where the privity of estate is gone and privity of contract only remains, and that the privity of estate is destroyed has A. against C. for the interest on the pur- by assignment by the lessee. Doug. 736; chase money, and the loss which he will sustain by B.'s foreclosure? Practice. Z. ISSUES UNDER LAW AMENDMENT ACT. In the form of the writ of issue to the sheriff, under the late act of 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, in the number for 12th October, p. 452, I observe two blanks, with no explanation given as to the dates to be inserted therein. Probably some of your correspondents can inform me the correct mode of supplying those dates. In the first, whether to insert the date of the issuing of the writ, or of filing the declaration; in the second, whether it should be the date of the appearance or the day of filing the plea. A diversity of opinion appears to exist among practitioners upon these points. EXECUTION. SCI. FA. A. L. Writ of inquiry executed on the 14th, final judgment signed on the 22d, and ca sa. issued on the 27th of June 1832, returnable on the 2d of November; defendant not being taken, an alias ca. sa. was issued on the of December, returnable on the 11th of January 1833; this writ expired without a caption, and no writ has been issued since, neither has the 3 Wils. 25. But in Noy's Max. 91; Cro. Car. 418, it is stated that if a lessor receive rent of an assignee, knowing of the assignment, he has made his election, and shall not afterwards have debt against the lessee, but he may have covenant, which being a personal engagement is not waived by the assignment. Will debt or covenant, and if either, which, lie under these circumstances, or is the lessee discharged ? J. L. UNIFORMITY OF PROCESS AMENDMENT ACT. Referring to the first section of the act for sheriff been required to return the ca. sa. or the county of Middlesex from the Court of King's alias. Can the plaintiff, on procuring at the present time a return to the ca. ea., issue a pluries without a sci. Ja.? EXECUTION, 3 & 4 W. 4. c. 67. S. When will a writ of execution, issued under the authority of 3 & 4 W. 4. c. 67. § 2, be considered out of force? The section cited authorizes the testing of writs of execution on the day they are issued, and to be made returnable immediately after execution thereof; but the act is quite silent as to when they are to be out of force, or considered to have run their length, so as to require the issuing of a fresh writ of execution. The act of 2 W. 4. c. 39, called the the uniformity of process (2 W. 4. c. 39), and the first section of 3 & 4 W. 4. c. 67, can any writ of summons be now legally issued out of either of the superior courts, other than into the Bench? and are not all such writs bad which have been issued since the date of the latter act (28th August last) into other counties than that from the King's Bench, and into all the coun ties from the two other superior courts? and are they not liable to be set aside upon summons before a Judge ? Common Law. INFANT.-LIABILITY. S. T. 16 Miscellanea.- Editor's Letter Box. MISCELLANEA. TRYING TITLES IN HINDOSTAN. According to the Asiatic Researches, a very curious mode of trying titles to land is practised in Hindostan: two holes are dug in the disputed spot, in each of which the plaintiff's gratified that we are the means of communicating to that capital "all that passes in the English Law world." We shall esteem it a favour to receive the proposed contribution, whenever convenient. The Paper on the Customs Laws shall have our early attention. The valuable Summary of the former "Plans and defendant's lawyers put one of their legs, of Registering Deeds," which have always and remain there until one of them is tired, or complains of being stung by the insects, in which case his client is defeated. Mr. Crisp, from whom we extract this, says, " in this country it is the client, and not the lawyer, who puts his foot into it." The learned "Conveyancer's Guide" does not say whether the lawyer was of the class attorney or barrister, nor whether the duty might be done by deputy. Quære, also, whether the insects were of the order of legal sinecurists, which in other places, as well as Hindostan, tire both lawyer and client. A STAMP EQUIVALENT TO A SEAL. A power was given to appoint by writing "under seal." The party made a will, or codicil, on stamped paper, and according to the report of the case (Sprange v. Barnard, 2 Β. С. С. 585) it was held, at the Rolls, to have been a good execution of the power : "the stamp being equivalent to a seal." Mr. Watkins observes (Princ. Conv.), "if the stamp can be considered as a seal, it must be that of the commissioners for managing the stamp duties, or at least of government, and not of the person writing on the paper stamped. If I sign a receipt for fifty shillings upon stamped paper, will the receipt be an instru ment under seal?" THE EDITOR'S LETTER BOX. The suggestion of the Secretary of a Provincial Law Society is important; but we question the propriety or expediency of publishing the list he mentions. For the present we think he should address his communication to the Incorporated Law Society. The acts of the last session of 3 & 4 W. 4., the time of passing which we did not give in our general list of the public statutes, viz. cap. 88 to 93, received the royal assent on the 28th August. We are obliged by a communication from an eminent law authority at Paris, and are failed, we hope to insert next week. The Observations relating to the Character of the Profession, by a Correspondent at Bath, shall be immediately considered. The Queries and Answers of J. C.; J. S.; The Third Part of the Commentaries The whole volume of Commentaries, shewTHIRTEEN Acts of the Session relating to the ing the Alterations effected by the important Law and Practice of the Courts, with the Acts verbatim, and Practical Forms rendered necessary by the alterations, may now be had of the Publisher, price 7s. 6d. The following Reports of Commissioners are printed verbatim, and may be had either singly or together: The Third Report of the Common Law Commissioners, on Pleading and Practice, price 2s. 6d. The Fourth Report of the Common Law missioners, on Local Courts, price 18. The First Report of the Real Property Com- The Third Report of the Real Property Commissioners, on Tenures, Rights of the Church, &c., price 2s. The Fourth Report of the Real Property Commissioners, on Wills, price 28. Also, the Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, &c. &c. The Legal Observer. Vol. VII. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1833. No. CLXXII. -"Quod magis ad nos Pertinet, et nescire malum est, agitamus." HORAT.. ON THE CHARACTER AND MERITS, technical information of the one, mixed up with the pungency and inveterate feeling of the other. We give way to neither extreme, and are prepared, we hope, to deal impartially with both. We shall first give an extract from the Ministerial manifesto. THE character, inclination, and opinions of the Lord Chancellor for the time being, are of no slight importance to the Profession of which he is the head. They are not mere idle matters of curiosity, but demand attentive consideration. He is the legitimate guardian of our rights as lawyers; the appointed defender of our privileges; the foun-tration of the other branches of the law. The tain of legal honours; and the source to which we look for guidance and direction. Although we have never shrunk from opposing the present Lord Chancellor when we thought he was wrong, we have always endeavoured to give his Lordship his fair meed of praise; and we may say that the latter duty was far more pleasant than the former. We intend in the present article to state and consider the current opinion as to his merits in one important point-as a Law Reformer, and we intend to bring under our readers' notice, for this purpose, the sentiments of two partizans: the one in favour of the present ministry, and in particular of Lord Brougham; the other, opposed to both: the first being the author (or authors) of the pamphlet entitled "A Reformed Parliament and a Reformed Ministry;" the other, the Quarterly Reviewer of October last. The former, at least the author of the part of the pamphlet to which we shall refer, is understood to be one of his Lordship's Secretaries; and his opinions have therefore a semi-official character, and are worthy of attention: the latter is probably a cross of the Lawyer and the Tory Placeman; the article having the NO. CLXXII, "The spirit of reform has also intruded into the Court of Chancery, and shaken the prescriptive right which that Court seemed to possess, to an immunity from the improvement which time had introduced into the adminis Lord Chancellor brought a bill for the reform of his Court into the House of Lords, early in the session. Such a bill could not fail to call forth the opposition, not only of all the officers, whose interests were to be affected, but also of former Lord Chancellors, who having themselves suffered the existence of the evils, without an attempt to correct them, could not look without jealousy on a proceeding of their successor, calculated to afford to the suitors that benefit, which under the auspices of his predecessors had been so long withheld from them. "The bill was accordingly referred to a select committee, when the examination of the witnesses lasted several weeks, and would probably have been continued to the end of the session, as the only means of defeating the measure, had not the Lord Chancellor, to avoid this evil, entered into a compromise with his opponents, by postponing part of his plan to the next session. Thus mutilated, the bill descended to the Commons; and after it had undergone the ordeal of another committee there, was passed amidst the cheers of the whole House. This approbation had been well earned; for the measure, shorn as it is of its due proportions, is still most important. It strikes a heavy blow at the root of two of the worst evils in the proceedings of the Court-the delay and the expense. These are necessarily to be found B 18 On the Character of the present Lord Chancellor, as a Law Reformer. with offices where the details of the business of the Court are carried on. The Six Clerks' office, the Registrar's office, and the Masters' office, all were comprised in the Bill as it was brought forward by the Chancellor; but the Six Clerks were wrenched from his grasp by their friends in the House of Lords, and the Bill was confined to the Registrar and the Master." 57-59. The changes in these offices are then recapitulated; the shortening decrees and orders in the Registrar's Office; the abolition of copy-money and gratuities in the Masters' Offices; the abolition of the Chancery Sinecures, and the reduction of Costs to the Suitor. On this the Quarterly Reviewer says: Chancellor carried "This last statement is far from being true; and as we happen to observe, it is tardily cor rected in the (nominally) sixth edition of the pamphlet. As to the rest of the matter, the Government know that the attack which Lord Brougham made on his predecessor is unjust. Lord Lyndhurst, when Chancellor, through the House of Lords a well-weighed measure, preparatory to the general reform of the Court, which was defeated in the House of Commons mainly by the Whigs, with Mr. Brougham at their head. The Duke of Wellington's government had undertaken to revise the whole system. Sir Edward Sugden, the then solicitor-general, after Easter 1830, gave notice in the House of Commons that he e should should, early next session, introduce a bill to amend the administration of justice in the Court of gives the Lord Chancellor the credit he deserves for having done them away,-relieving the suitors, according to his calculation, to the extent of 63,6701. per annum, in addition to the reduction of 28,000l. by the Bankruptcy Court Act. The Reviewer, however, enters into the merits of this statement with great eager ness. "Lord Brougham," he says, "had, when in the House of Commons, for years pointed out these offices as proper to be abolished. He again did so on his mountebank examination (we shall be understood by those who were present a) in the committee of salaries, after he had become Lord Chancellor, and the recommendation of the committee in favour of his large salary was grounded upon the giving up of these offices, and an excellent bargain, as things stood, he made: so that in good truth he sold his right to the offices, and sold it well. There was a general consent of the ministers to accept of reduced salaries; but the Chancellor contrived to escape present reduction, and to have his retiring salary increased, because he relinquished offices which, as matters stood, neither he nor any other man could have retained. His friend Lord Plunkett was cut down from 10,000l. to 80001. a-year, and his other friend, Sir Thomas Denman, was also fain to be content with 8000l., instead of his predecessors' 10,000l. a year. In the result, Lord Brougham gets, not what his friends-of course as they failed he disowned them-asked for him, but only 14,0001. a year clear, payable by the public, and not collected as heretofore, Chancery. When the duke's government ceased in driblets, and 50001. a year retiring pension. to exist, Sir Edward took occasion to state the His predecessor, who had only a twentieth part improvements which had been contemplated. We have a copy of his speech before us, published in January 1831; it was delivered on the 16th of December 1830. Now we there find all the boasted devices since made by Lord Brougham: the shortening of decrees-the placing the masters' offices on a better footing -the lowering of their salaries-the abolishing of copy money and gratuities to the clerks aye, even the abolition of sinecure or overpaid offices of the Court, and regulation of the six clerks, besides many other improvements not yet adopted." The Reviewer might also have said, that nearly all the improvements were recommended by the Chancery Commission appointed in the time of Lord Eldon, as appears by our "Commentaries" on the Chancery Regulation Act; so that a great share of the merit is due neither to Lord Brougham's nor Lord Lyndhurst's administration, but to Lord Eldon's. The praise of having carried the measure through the Commons is due to the present Chancellor. The author of the pamphlet then enumerates at length the offices abolished, and of his patronage, got hardly, after paying the Vice Chancellor, more salary, and his retiring pension was only 4000%. Lord Brougham had besides the benefit of daily taking credit with the public for his great pecuniary sacrifices." The alterations in the Privy Council are next alluded to; but as the Lord Chancellor is not responsible either for the good or the evil of the measure, we need not here dis cuss it. The Reviewer then goes into the Bankruptcy Bill, and restates some of the objections to it which were urged by our contributor " A Barrister," at the time it passed, and of which, certainly, quite enough has been said. He glances at the Masters who have been appointed by Lord Brougham, and then goes to the Local Courts and the Registry Bills. a Subsequently, it is said, "Lord Brougham talked over the salaries' committee delight fully. He told them of his additional housemaids, expensive liveries, two carriages and drunken coachmen, the embroidery of his bag, and such small deer, and not unavailingly." On the Character of the present Lord Chancellor as a Law Reformer. "This," he says, "is not the time and place to examine these measures in detail; they will both, if established, lead to great expense and patronage; the latter measure, indeed, to an extent of patronage far beyond any thing ever vested in any individual. The Chancellor may well struggle for it. Invest him with the patronage to be created by that bill, in addition to the partizans whom he daily secures by his appointments under the commissions constantly issuing, and he would be unconstitutionally powerful. His colleagues appear to us scarcely to be aware of the power he evidently grasps at, and is daily centering in his own person. The Local Courts Bill is an attempt to throw us back from where we started. Local Courts were abandoned because they were found not to answer. Welsh-Judgeships, though open to some only of the objections which apply to resident local judges, were abolished with Mr. Brougham's warm approbation, as a great evil, and provision was made for administering the law to the Welsh in like manner as to the rest of the empire. The pamphleteer impudently says, that the measure was recommended by the united voices of the common law commissioners. Now this is not true. They recommended a very different measure, and do not, we understand, support the Lord Chancellor's bill.b If patronage is not the object, why not introduce into the existing Courts the proposed amendment for shortening the process? Mr. Cobbett, who has seen the drift of the measure, has truly described it as a curse to the poor Indeed, it places him directly in the power of the rich; for the appeal which is given would, wherever the rich were defeated below, lead to a new litigation before the Judges in town, and thus the alleged boon to the poor man would be destroyed. We are inclined to believe that there never was a greater curse to a country than cheap law brought to every man's door-litigation made easy. It would plunge the lower classes into endless wretchedness and misery. The country would swarm with political barristers without principle and without law, and needy attorneys; and every trifling dispute would be fomented into a regular suit, for otherwise the barristers and attorneys must starve, and the judges become man. sinecurists." Thus far the Reviewer. We shall possibly next week give our answer to the parts of the pamphlet which advocate the Local Courts Bill and the Registry Bill, which we shall then quote verbatim. We have nowonly room for the summing up which the Reviewer gives of the noble Lord's character as a Law Reformer, and of his presumed intentions. Far be it from us to agree to it. If it were true, we know what would be the duty of every man in the country; nevertheless we give it, because the bare probability of its being correct should put us all on our guard. 19 "Sad is the prospect of the law of England! The head is no longer to be amongst the nobles of the land, and the nobles of the land are doomed to have torn from them the shining ornaments of both the church and the law. Lord Brougham never ranked as an accomplished lawyer. Of equity-now his proper province-he knows scarcely anything, and he has not a judicial mind. His real arrière pensée is, we do not doubt, to be Prime Minister; but at all events, he is to become altogether a political Chancellor; an office new in England, but well known as one of the most monstrous abuses of the old regime of France is to be created, the passport to which will be politics, and not legal knowledge. The law will be at the feet of the political judge; not presiding daily over the bar, and fearing neither its power nor its censures, he will in his judicial patronage forward his own views, which will be purely political. The law in every stage will be overrun with political adventurers. The Lord Chancellor will no longer be at the head of the great legal family upon whose honour, courage, and ability, our lives and fortunes, even our liberties, must always in some measure depend. The Court of Appeal, with such a political officer at its head, will lose its legitimate influence, for the Judge will never be a sound first-rate lawyer. It is easy to predict that we shall not be long without a violent convulsion, when the law ceases to be duly administered. Some time will, no doubt, elapse before this is discovered; for although an incompetent Judge is sure to expose his ignorance in deciding original causes, yet an appellant Judge may easily disguise his want of knowledge in the individual case, until it is discovered in the result that every rule has been destroyed, and the practical lawyer has no compass by which he can steer." Much of this is certainly overcharged, and written with the pen of a political opponent. That, however, there may be some foundation for the idea, is shewn by the two following passages in the pamphlet, written by semi-official authority, if not, as it is said by the Reviewer, by the very person who should best know the future intentions of the Lord Chancellor. "The last of the Lord Chancellor's legal reforms this session, was a bill for the separation of the judicial from the political function of the Great Seal, for the appointment of a Chief Judge, and the establishment of a Court of Appeal in Chancery. The salary of the Lord Chancellor was proposed to be reduced from 14,000l. to 8000/. a year. The great pressure of business caused the bill to be postponed to next year. p. 63. "But there is another and a far more important question concerned with this subject; viz. the promise which the reform (the Privy Council Act) holds out, that ere long, the conB2 b See the difference pointed out, 6 L. O. stitution of the highest Court of Appeal will p. 129.-ED. |