« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
to the difficulty of ascertaining what the law is on any subject, it will not unfrequently be found that the laws are out of print. A different system of law and procedure prevails in each island, and writs of the Supreme Court of one island do not run in any of the others. This affords extraordinary facilities for fraud. A dishonest debtor, once he leaves the island where his liabilities were contracted, can set his creditors at defiance, although he may not be thirty miles distant from them. The trouble and expense of pursuing him through the other islands deter them from attempting to obtain redress. In none of the Windward Islands, except Barbadoes, is there any bankruptcy law. It is a common occurrence for men to be imprisoned" for years for paltry debts. All legal proceedings are attended with extravagant expense and protracted delay. To take the simplest case. If the holder of an overdue bill of exchange for any sum over £20 sues the acceptor of it, he cannot obtain judgment under the most favourable circumstances in less than four months, even if the action be undefended, and then not without the intervention of a jury to assess the amount of interest accrued on the bill since it became overdue. In such a case the costs will amount at least to £15. The present complicated and cumbrous procedure, and the great expense attendant on it, practically close the Courts of Law to all but the wealthy. In St. Vincent it is two years since any civil case was tried before a jury. Although the Courts are seldom open, and there is little work for the ChiefJustices to do, they are not allowed to do it. In each island there are a number of assistant justices. These officials are peculiar to the islands of St. Vincent, Grenada, and Tobago. They are unknown in any other part of the West Indies. They are unprofessional men, and as a rule are local shopkeepers. Without any preliminary training or legal qualifications, they are invested with all the powers enjoyed by the Judges of the superior Courts of law in England. They grant injunctions and hear motions for leave to plead special defences, and issue orders to hold to bail. The position is much sought after, because it has some small emoluments attached to it, and still more because the holder of it is entitled to be called “The Honourable Mr. Justice.” In the West Indies, where honourables are as plentiful as colonels in the United States, a man without a handle to his name is altogether out of the running. A member of the bench of the Supreme Court will one moment be selling a pound of tea or a yard of riband, and the next hearing across his counter some technical motion, the merits of which he is utterly unable to understand.
It was in Omaha. A lawyer was addressing the Judge, and the Judge was eating pea-nuts and reading a novel. The lawyer bore it some time, and then angrily remarked: I suppose I am entitled VOL. XX, NO. CCXXXVI. - AUGUST 1876.
to claim the attention of the Court ?"_"Well, sir," retorted the Judge, “ the Court has long suspected you, and will do its duty the first chance it gets."-Chicago News.
Autumn Vacation Arrangements—The Circuits.—The following are the arrangements for the autumn circuits :
North.-Lords Justice-Clerk and Young, Inverness—Friday, 29th September, at 11 o'clock. Aberdeen-Monday, 2d October, at 11 o'clock. Perth—Friday, 6th October, at 11 o'clock. DundeeTuesday, 10th October, at 11 o'clock. John Burnet, Esq., AdvocateDepute; Æneas Macbean, Clerk.
West. - Lord Deas and Mure. Stirling-Friday, 1st September. Glasgow—Tuesday, 5th September. Inveraray—Tuesday, 12th September. Roger Montgomerie, Esq., Advocate-Depute; William Hamilton Bell, Clerk.
South.—Lords Ardmillan and Craighill. Jedburgh—Thursday, 7th September. Ayr-Tuesday, 12th September. DumfriesFriday, 15th September, James Muirhead, Esq., Advocate-Depute; J. M. M'Cosh, Clerk.
The following is the rotation of Judges in the Bill Chamber in the ensuing vacation :-From Friday, July 21, to Saturday, August 5-Lord Shand; from Monday, August 7, to Saturday, August 19 -Lord Rutherfurd Clark; from Monday, August 21, to Saturday, September 2-Lord Neaves; from Monday, September 4, to Saturday, September 16—Lord Curriehill; from Monday, September 18, to Saturday, September 30--Lord Ormidale; and from Monday, October 2, to Saturday, October 14-Lord Gifford.
Box Days.—Thursday, August 24; Thursday, September 21.
Court Days in Vacation. A Judge will sit on Wednesday, August 30, and Wednesday, September 27, to dispose of motion, etc., under the Court of Session Act (1868).
Other Vacation Arrangements. With the incoming of hot weather the lawyers and Judges, especially those located in large towns, anticipate the beginning of their annual season of rest. In the course of a few weeks their judicial and forensic labours will be exchanged for the pleasure of travel, or the excitement of the hunting ground, or the comfort of the old homestead, where they may so recuperate the exhausted body and overworked brain as to be able to perform the duties of their callings in a proper manner another year. With those members of the Bar whose reputation has brought to them an overflow of business, this yearly vacation is a matter of necessity, and he who neglects to take it does so at the risk of the loss of his bodily and mental vigour. Even to the younger ones among the profession who are still waiting for clients, a two or three weeks' run into the country will pay, even if the office has to be closed, and a job or two lost. One of the most prominent lawyers in the State will do no business whatever during the month of August, and this has been his rule for
many years. As a result, his physical and intellectual powers remain in full vigour, despite his advanced years. It is not so much by brilliant intellect and profound acquirements that success at the Bar is secured, as it is by a sound body and industrious habits. Brilliant men sometimes succeed, healthy, hard-working men always do. No professional man can long possess health, or the power to be industrious, unless he sometimes relaxes his labours, and gives his mind its needed rest.-Albany Law Journal.
Appointments.—Mr. Adam Gib Ellis, Advocate (1866), who was appointed Substitute-Procureur and Advocate-General, Mauritius, in 1871, has been promoted to the bench of the Supreme Court in that island, in room of Mr. Justice Gorrie, now Chief Justice of Fiji.
Mr. Gemmel, formerly Procurator-Fiscal, has been appointed Stipendiary Magistrate for Glasgow.
Mr. Francis Fleming, a son of the well-known peerage lawyer, has been appointed a District Judge in Jamaica. He will sail on August 17th. Mr. O'Mally, the new Attorney-General of that colony, will sail next week.
Calls to the Bar.—Mr. Charles C. Maconochie, M.A., Edinburgh; Mr. John L. Baxter, M.A., Edinburgh ; Mr. Thomas J. Martin, M.A., Edinburgh.
Obituary. Mr. THOMAS FRASER, Sheriff-Substitute for the Island of Skye, died at his residence near Portree, on the 4th of last month. Mr. Fraser was much respected by all classes of the community in the island.
WILLIAM BENNET CLARK, Advocate (1843), Sheriff-Substitute at Alloa, died at Alloa on the 24th of last month.
Notes of English, American, and Colonial Cases
MERCHANT SHIPPING COMPANY.--Ship about to arrive at her place of destination-Actual arrival in dock-Actual arrival at place of her discharge.—The Merchant Shipping Act imposes a penalty on unauthorized persons coming "on board any ship about to arrive at the place of destination before her actual arrival in dock or at the place of her discharge.” A ship, whose port of destination was B., arrived within the limits of the port, and passed, about 7 P.M., through the dock gates into a basin, from which she purposed to pass through other gates and so into inner docks, to discharge her cargo at a quay in one of the inner docks. On her arrival in the basin, while she was being moored there for the night, the respondent, an unauthorized person, came on board of her :-Held, that although the ship was still about to arrive at the place of her destination, and had not actually arrived at the place of her discharge, yet that she had actually arrived in dock within the meaning of the Act, and that the
respondent was therefore not liable to the penalties imposed by the section. “Actual arrival in dock," in section 237 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, is not to be limited by reading the words as if equivalent to tinal arrival in the dock where the ship is to discharge her cargo. - Attwood v. Case, 45 L. J. Rep. M. C. 20.
STATUTE.— Bye-laws imposing penalties on persons selling provisions unfit for human food-Nuisance.- The council of a borough, under section 90 of the Municipal Corporations Act, empowering them to make bye-laws for the suppression of all such nuisances as are not already punishable in a summary manner, made a bye-law imposing a penalty on any butcher, etc., or other person who should have in his possession, with intent to sell or expose for sale, any unsuund, putrid, or mwholesone meat, etc., or other victuals or provisions unfit for the food of man, or which would be deleterious to the health of persons who might feed thereon. The appellant was charged under this byelaw with having in his possession, with intent to sell, some cheese unfit for the food of man :--Held, that the bye-law was properly made, was still in force, and that the having in possession with intent to sell
, or exposing for sale, cheese which was in fact untit for human food, was a nuisance at common law, and so within the scope of the 90th section of the Municipal Corporations Act, and that the appellant was within the bye-law.-Shillito v. Thompson, 45 L. J. Rep. M. C. 18.
NEGLIGENCE.- Railway company-Cattle frightened and escaping from control Remoteness of damage.--Cattle belonging to plaintiff were driven at night along an occupation road, which crossed a branch line of defendants' railway on a level. As they were passing over the crossing they became frightened, owing to a number of trucks being shunted in a negligent manner, and part of thein escaped from the control of their drivers, and were found dead on the main line of defendants' railway, which they reached owing to defects in the fence of an orchard and garden adjoining the railway :-Ħeld (affirming the judgment of the Queen's Bench, 43 Law J. Rep. Q. B. 69), that there was suflicient evidence that the death of the cattle was the natural result of defendants' negligence. -Sneesby v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co., 45 L. J. Rep. App. Q. B. 1.
NEGLIGENCE.-Surreyor of highways—Repair of highway-Liability to action. Defendant had been appointed by a vestry surveyor of highways. The vestry resolved that part of a highway should be raised, and ordered defendant to employ men to do it. Defendant contracted with G. to do the work. G. employed and paid his own men, and proceeded with the work. Defendant, as surveyor, employed men to cart materials to the ground, and determined the levels'; but beyond exercising a general superintendence on behalf of the vestry did not personally interfere with the work. G. left the road in such a state that plajiitiff in driving along the road by night was overturned and injurel. Defemnant did not give any direction that the road should be left in slich it st: te :--Hetu (reversing the judgment of the Queen's Bench, 43 Law J. Rep. Q. B. 168), that defendant was liable.—Pendlebury v. Greenhalgh, 45 L. J. Rep. All. Q. b. 3.
Partners. -Dissolution— Agreement by partners with one another whether joint or joint and sereral—\lorils, * out of the business.”-An agreement between four jartnu's recited that they had considerable sums employed in the business, which it might be impracticable or highly detrimental to repay from the business immerliately alter the retirement or decease of either of them, and proviiled that in case of the retirement or death of either, the balance due to such retiring or deceased partner should be “ repaid out of the business by the continuing or surviving partners," by annual instalments of £2000. One partner died, and his share in the business was ascertained, in suits instituted for that purpose, and for the administration of his estate, to be £64,000, and the instalments were directed to be paid by the surviving partners, and the survivors and survivor of them, until further order. After some years two of the surviving partners died, and then the third became insolvent:-Held, affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls, that the estates of the two were liable for the unpaid balance of the £64,000.-Beresford v. Browning, 45 L. J. Rep. App. Ch. 36.
PowER OF APPOINTMENT.—In excess of fund—Lapsed share-Determinable life interest.— Testator having power to appoint £10,000 among his children, and having exercised the power by appointing £3000 to one child, appointed by will £10,000 among all his children nominatim, being £3000 in excess of the power. One of the children, to whom £4000 was thus appointed, having died in testator's lifetime, so that his appointed share lapsed :-Held, that the deficiency of the other shares should be made up out of the lapsed share.Eales v. Drake, 45 L. J. Rep. Ch. 51.
MANSLAUGHTER. Infant child—Neglect to supply medical aid-Peculiar People.-By 31 and 32 Vict. c. 122, s. 37, when any parent shall wilfully neglect to provide medical aid for his child, being in his custody and under the age of fourteen years, whereby the health of such child shall be seriously injured, he is guilty of an offence punishable summarily before justices. Since that statute, if from a conscientious religious conviction that in answer to prayer God would heal the sick, and in obedience to the tenets of a sect called the Peculiar People, and not from any intention to avoid the performance of his duty to his child or to break the law, the parent of a sick child, being one of such sect, while furnishing it with all necessary food and nourishment, refuse to call in medical aid, though well able to do so, and the child, in the opinion of the jury, die, from not having such medical aid, it is manslaughter. - Reg. v. Downes, 45 L. J. Rep. C. C. R. M. C. 8.
The Scottish Law Magazine and Sheriff Court Reporter.
ABERDEEN SHERIFF COURT.
W. MʻLAREN, SONS, AND CO. V. JOHN DUNCAN. Liability Under Written Guarantee. - This is an action at the instance of a firm of warehousemen in Glasgow against the defender, a farmer in Countesswells, for payment of £25, 5s. ld., the price of goods furnished by the pursuers to the defender's son, a draper in Arbroath, and for which the defender is liable under a guarantee to the pursuers, dated 1st May 1870, in the following terms:-“I hereby guarantee due payment of the prices of all goods which may be furnished by you from time to time from this date, to or on account of William Duncan, draper, Arbroath.” The defender averred that the letter of guarantee was not signed on the date it bears, nor was the date on it when it was signed. He further alleged that the guarantee was signed on the condition that all payments to be thereafter made by William Duncan should be, in the first place, imputed in payment of goods furnished thereafter -which condition, he says, has not been complied with. The case is more fully explained in the subjoined interlocutor :
“ Aberdeen, 10th April 1876.—Having resumed consideration of the cause-Finds as matter of fact that the son of the defender, during the years 1870 and 1871, carried on business in Arbroath : That during the former year he purchased certain quantities of goods from the pursuers, for the price, or for part of the price, of which he became indebted to the pursuers : That in the beginning of 1871 the pursuers declined to furnish the defender's son with more goods unless he found security : That accordingly the defender's son