420

the solicitors without due consideration, and we trust that on a view of all the interests of their brethren at large, and the evil consequence of breaking up the general body of attorneys and solicitors into different grades, the leading members will be induced at all events to suspend any such purpose.

It will be recollected, as we have often heard pointed out, that if the costs for recovering a small sum of money be not brought within a moderate and somewhat proportionate amount, the experiment will doubtless be tried of establishing Local

delayed by the subtleties in the shape of lying pleas, sham demurrers, and fraudulent write of error, which are at present tolerated, the scale of costs stated in your work will be an inadequate, nay, a paltry recompense for his time, skill, and labour. Resistance to an aetion, at the expense of truth and honesty, has been tolerated to too great an extent by the existing practice. Debtors are of three sorts—. needy but honest, needy but dishonest, not needy and yet dishonest. To all these classes a dilatory plea, demurrer, or other subtlety, are welcome resorts when pursued by actions at law. The general issue has lately been the favourite mode of stopping an action. A plaintiff, with the dread of the Insolvent Court be

separable from them. True it is, that the changes which have been already effected, with some others in contemplation, and the extension of the utility of Courts of Request, and the correcting of their defects, would meet every reasonable expectation of the community; but still it is apprehended that the reductions now intended have become necessary, and their supporters consider that the profession in all its branches (for the reduction of the salaries of the Judges is also aimed at) must submit to the spirit of the times, "lest a worse thing befall them." Our opinion is not of this somewhat desponding kind, but we deem it necessary to put before our readers the result of the observations which are afloat in the legal circles, and leave both views open for further consideration.

From the first letter we select the following observations:

" I perceive, in page 376 of your last Number, the new scale of costs at common law for debts under 201., whereby it seems a further and considerable reduction is to be made in the allowance of attorneys' charges for recovery of debts under that amount.

than give the defendant an opportunity of freeing himself by the Insolvent Court, which is a 'sponge that wipes out all, and costs hina nothing.","

The same writer makes several observations on the state of the profession in various particulars, which we do not think applicable to our present purpose.

One of our correspondents, who enters into the detail of items contained in the schedules, points out

"That the copy declaration to file or deliver, and particular to be attached, and the search for plea, are entirely omitted. These are matters absolutely necessary to be done; yet, according to the schedule, no charge is to be allowed for them.a

"The charge for summons for trial, in Schedule 2, is put down at Is. The charge at the Judge's chambers for such summons, in November last, was 2s. This schedule implies that only one summons is necessary in practice. We generally find two requisite, and an affidavit of attendance, before the order can be obtained. Not the slightest notice is taken of this affidavit. The charge for affidavit of increased costs is very low, when it is considered that hardly one in twenty is under six folios; that it has to be drawn from an examination of the whole of the proceedings in the suit, and then copied, and an attendance as frequently of two persons as one, and the fee on administration of the oath paid.

"Schedule 3. does not include any allowance for placita and jurata, and only allows 3s. 4d. for attending taxing, when in four-fifths of the causes taxed after trial, upwards of an hour is spent in attending the taxation, besides the necessity of previously attending to set it down for that purpose.

"And now, to mark the injustice of the whole of these schedules, the fees of the attorney, the working and responsible party in the suit, are lowered, but the fees of those in the several public offices, whose duty is ex

a This is incorrect, except as to the search

Is

it that it would affect any patent officers? In two instances in the schedules they have made reductions, and fixed sums, viz. the charge for summons for trial from 2s. to 1s., and the Master's fee on taxing costs of writs of trial; and if the Judges feel competent to reduce the sum an attorney is entitled to, surely their power will also be sufficient to fix the fees of the other officers of the Court at an equally reduced ratio."

Another correspondent pursues part of the same topics as the last, and adds some others:

"Seeing the schedule of fees about to be imposed on the profession, contained in your last Number, and which you state will take effect from the 15th instant, I am induced to trouble you with a few remarks. It has struck me as most remarkable, that in all the alterations lately made to affect the expense of a suit at law, the Court fees, and all the fees payable at the public offices, remain the same, with some trifling exceptions. Is it not also extraordinary that the fee for issuing a writ into Middlesex should have been raised from

If

6d. or 9d. to 3s. 1d., by Lord Tenterden's Act, and thereby imposing an additional expense on the suitor? I observe in the schedule, that 10s. is to be henceforth charged for a writ instead of 12s.; but nothing is said about reducing the fees paid on issuing the same. several of the useless fees payable at the offices and in Court were got rid of, there would be no necessity for the Judges paring down the attorneys' charge for a letter from 3s. 6d. to 2s., and so on. I cannot conclude without remarking on the apathy with which the profession stand by and see the profits of their

business from time to time taken from them,

without making an effort to get rid of the odious impost of certificate duty, to which they alone, of all other professions, are liable."

We conclude, for the present, with the following letter:

"The mere cursory observer, unaided by a practiced eye, will soon perceive, upon reference to the scale of costs contained in your last Number, that the "besom of destruction" has not been directed against the glaring evils of common law proceedings; the pruning knife of reform has left untouched the excrescences, and instead of aiming at the root of the malady, has contented itself with lopping the branches. The weight which always has been the greatest burden to suitors, is that which arises from the fees of public officers and Court fees: these are left untouched." I beg to submit to you the following scale of payments made by the practitioner.

"The costs of a cause tried before a Judge at nisi prius under the new scale, amount to 181. 10s., and the payments out of pocket as follows, viz.

Signing and sealing writ
Rule to plead
Signing and sealing subpœna
Sealing venire and distringas

Returning venire

Ditto distringas

Fee to counsel
Setting down cause
Court fees

£ 8. d.

031

006

019

016

Oath and filing affidavit of increase 030

Paid taxing Entries Parchment

SELECTIONS

050

FROM CORRESPONDENCE.

No. XLVIII.

DOWER ACT. LIMITATION CLAUSES.

To the Editor of the Legal Observer.
Sir,

My attention having been drawn to the Selections from Correspondence contained in your Journal of the 8th instant, wherein some

observations are made by W. B. on a note to the 6th section of the Dower Act, I beg to state that such note has reference to the commencement of the act, as will be seen from the note on the last section, wherein it is submitted that the modes of barring dower prescribed by the act cannot be resorted to against widows

who had married on or before the 1st of January, 1834. I beg to add, I fully agree with Mr. Hayes, that the dower limitation must be resorted to on purchases by husbands married

previously to the 1st of January, 1834; and struction put upon the last section by the Comanswer W. B.'s inquiry. I remain, Sir,

reason to believe this to be the con

missioners. The above statement will in effect

Your obedient servant,
H. STALMAN.

New Square, Lincoln's Inn,

March 14, 1834.

DOWER ACT.-LIMITATION CLAUSES.

To the Editor of the Legal Observer.
Sir,

In answer to the remarks of your correspondent W. B., upon the subject of the Dower Act, (p. 390,) I think that he will find the plan suggested by Mr. Hayes, is not only the safest, but also the more correct one, not only in those cases where the purchaser was married before the 31st of December, but also where such was not the fact. For even where the purchaser was not then married, the insertion 2D3

entry is given in the bill, and a duplicate thereof is to be made.

14. Proof of the actual residence of parties not to be necessary to the validity of a marriage, whether by banns or by license.

15. The form of Register Book is set forth in the bill.

16. Dissenting minister to have the custody of the Register Book of Marriages, &c.

17. Duplicates of all entries in the Register Book of Marriages to be transmitted by dissenting ministers at the end of every three months to the Registrar of the diocese.

18. The Registrar of the diocese to deposit the transmitted duplicates of entries within the registry of the diocese. Transmitted duplicates to be open for inspection. Fee for inspection and taking copy, one shilling.

19. Inserting any false entry in any register of marriages; forging or altering any such entry; uttering any false or forged entry; destroying, &c. the register; forging any certificate, &c., felony. Punishment-transportation for life, &c.

20. Inserting in any duplicate of entry of marriage transmitted to Registrar any false entry, or forging or verifying any duplicate of entry, &c., knowing it to be false, felony. Punishment-transportation for seven years,

&c.

21. Dissenting minister, &c. not liable to penalty for correcting accidental errors in the mode prescribed. Corrections made in Register Book to be also made in transmitted duplicates of entries.

22. Persons unduly solemnizing marriage in the manner herein mentioned, guilty of felony. Punishment - transportation. Limitation of prosecutions to three years.

23. Marriages solemnized in unlicensed chapels, &c., or without due publication of banns, &c., void.

24. The act not to extend to marriages of the Royal Family.

25. Nor to Quakers, nor persons professing the Jewish religion.

26. The act to extend to England only.

,

423

in a chapel [or, place of religious worship,] within the parish [or, &c., as the case may be], of in the county of frequented by persons dissenting from the United Church of England and Ireland, and which said chapel [or, place of worship,] is licensed according to law for the solemnization of marriages.

(Signed) A. B. of the parish [or, as the case may be,] of [Addition of the party applying, as, Yeoman, &c., as the case may be.]

there is no impediment of kindred or alliance, or of any other lawful cause, nor any suit commenced in any Ecclesiastical Court, to bar or hinder the proceedings of the said matrimony, according to the tenor of such license. And further make oath, that hath had usual place of abode within the said diocese of [or, &c., naming the local jurisdiction of the person granting the license, as the case may be,] for the space of fifteen days last past. Sworn before me,

No. VI.-Application for a License to solemnize Marriages.

,

:

We, the undersigned A. B., C. D., E. F., &c., &c., &c. being resident householders within the parish [or, &c., as the case may be,] of , in the county of [or, within an extra parochial place next adjoining to the parish, or, &c., as the case may be, of in the county of ] do hereby request that the chapel-[or, place of religious worship,] situate, at [in or near using terms of local description,] within the same parish, [or, &c., us the case may be,] [or, the same extra-parochial place, and which is frequented by persons dissenting from the United Church of England and Ireland, and known by the name of the Chapel [or, meeting-house, &c., as the case may be,] may in future be licensed for the solemnization of marriages, and that you will be pleased to grant us a proper license for that purpose.

(Signed) A. B., Yeoman, of
C. D., Grocer, of..
E. F., &c., of

To the Justices of the Peace assembled at the Sessions of the Peace for the county, &c.,

of

424

LAW OF FORFEITURE.

This is entitled, a Bill "to amend the Law of Forfeiture as regards the Goods, Chattels, and Personal Estate and Property of Persons convicted of Felony, and to provide for the disposal of such Property under certain cir

cumstances."

The enactments are as follow; some of which, being of more general importance than the rest, are given fully:

1. A conviction for felony not to cause the immediate forfeiture of the property.

on whose prosecution felon has been con

months from the time of the conviction of the felon, then the goods, &c. or the residue thereof, after such disposal shall have been made and such order of the Court shall have been paid and satisfied, shall become forfeit, and shall pass and thenceforward belong to the person or persons to whom the same would have passed if the convict had died intestate on the day of his conviction, according to the law now in force for that purposé.

9. Act to apply to both male and female convicts.

STATE OF LAW REFORM.

meet; and also order the costs of the main

sentence, for the purposes of all which orders the Court may order the sheriff, bailiff, or other officer of the county, city, borough, or place where the felon shall have been convicted, forthwith to seize the property, or so

much thereof as the Court shall deem necessary; and the sheriff, &c. shall proceed by sale, or otherwise as directed by the Court, to carry the orders into full effect; and all the personal estate and property of the convict which shall not be disposed of by the order of the Court, shall continue the property of the felon, for the purposes after mentioned.

Provided, that in the case of such goods and chattels of convicted felons as have been brought before such Court, on the trial of the felon, the Court, if it shall think fit, may then and there make such order respecting the same for any of the purposes aforesaid, as to the Court shall seem meet.

3. Sheriffs seizing, to make a true return of all property. 4. Felons under sentence may acquire real or personal property.

5. Felons not to dispose of property otherwise than is directed by the act.

6. Felons may be sued.

7. The felon may execute any deed of conveyance, assignment, or other instrument conveying his goods, chattels, or property, to his creditor, which the Court before which such action has been brought shall order; and such deed, &c. shall be binding on all parties thereto, notwithstanding the felon's conviction or attainder.

pass by as beside our purpose, the following review of the measures in contemplation relating to the law.

The Writer sets out in the legal part of his pamphlet with a general notice of the subject. He says

"There can be no hesitation in at once admitting that there were a number of useful important acts passed during the last session for reforms in the law. The only question is, how far we are indebted for them to the "Reform Ministry," or the "Reformed Parliament?" This, then, may at once be answered by the fact, that they were almost all in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Law Commissioners who were appointed by former Governments. Of those Commissioners, the present Solicitor General [Sir John Campbell, now the Attorney General,] was one; and he, in acting upon those recommendations, has proved himself an honest member of the legislature, as well as a useful public officer. They were passed, for the most part, sub silentio, and had long been called for by the profession, as well as by the public. It is very easy for the Ministerialists to take credit to themselves for these measures, but the better informed can only look on their impudence in so doing with disgust. The measures that were not theirs were acceded to, as being deserving of adoption, those that were entirely their own, were as deservedly rejected."

The Pamphleteer next enters on the General Register question. This Bill, he says, was intended