In the year 1889 Mrs. Muzeen executed a mortgage of her interest under the will in favour of J. M. Richardson to secure £400. This summons was taken out by the sole surviving trustee of the will to have it determined whether, in the events that had happened, Mary Elizabeth Muzeeu's interest under the will had determined. The defendants were Mary Elizabeth Muzeeu, G. E. B. Muzeen, and Richardson, the mortgagee. W. J, Hood for the plaintiff. Arnold White for the defendant Mary Elizabeth Muzeen. Dunham for the other defendants. NORTH, J., said that the words "on her anticipating" did not meau "ou her attempting to anticipate." As the divesting clause in the will did not contain the words "on her atttmpting to anticipate," Mrs. Muzeen's interest had not, in the events that happened, deter. mined, since, she being a married woman, it was impossible for her to anticipate the income. Feb. 7.- Will-Construction-Marriage with consent. A testator by his will gave his residuary estate to three trustees upon trust for sale and conversion, and directed them to stand possessed of one moiety upon trust to pay the income to his son during his life or until his marriage, and after the marriage of the said son "with the consent of at least two of the trustees for the time being," in trust for his son absolutely. chary of taking upon himself duties which may be arduous, for the performance of which he will certainly not be paid, and for which he will very probably receive no thanks. In many cases the relation of trustee aud cestui que trust leads to estrangement. The latter wishes his income increased, and with that object tries to persuade his trustees to travel outside the investment clause by which they are bound. If they refuse, as they are in duty bound to do, the cestui que trust thinks himself extremely badly used, and does not feel so well disposed towards his trustees as he did before. Iu every way the office of trustee is burdensome to all who undertake it, and is, moreover, as we have pointed out, augrateful. That trustees one and all would be glad to shift their duties from their own shoulders to those of a public official is hardly open to doubt. But there is another side to the matter. The amount of the income arising from the trust funds is, in the majority of cases, a matter of concern to the cestuis que trust. Their much. abused trustees at present do their work for nothing, but the introducers of the Public Trustee Bill do not propose that the public trustee should work on the same terms. Clause 31 says: "The public trustee shall be entitled to retain out of all properties transferred to or received by him uuder this Act as trustee, executor, administrator, or committee, a commission for the credit of the Consolidated Fund, and to meet the expenses of his office, the rate of which shall be fixed from time to time by rules to be issued by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury." This commission, it is anticipated, will be a heavy one, or else a great volume of business is expected, for the memorandum declares: "The Public Trust Office will therefore be not only self. supporting, but a profitable source of public revenue." The Bill bas much to recommend it, and it seems to us to be well drawD. Do In particular it avoids the difficulty which has hitherto beset the Trustees, Execu tors, and Securities Company in the business connected with trusts and the administration of estates, The public trustee may be appointed trustee in any trust, whether such an appointment is permitted by the original trust deed or not, aud any power to appoint new trustees is made effectual for the appointment of the public trustee as sole trustee. The Bill constitutes the public trustee as a corporation sole with perpetual succession. The public would thus be able to appoint a trustee or executor who would never die, never leave the country, and never become incapacitated, The expense attending the appointment of new trustees of a settlement or of a will would thus be dispensed with. In spite of all these advantages we doubt whether the public would make much use of a public trustee, if such an official were created. It is difficult to find persons who are willing to act as trustees, but for all that trastves are found; and so long as cestuis que trust can get the administration of a trust estate performed without paying anything to those who do the work for them, they will avoid the employment of a public trustee who will take a slice out of their yearly income, The Trustees, Executors, and Securities Company, we believe, have not been successful in obtaining business, and have not been appointed trustees in many of the newly created trusts to which they can legally be appointed. From the failure of a large public company like this, it is hardly possible to argue the success of a public trustee. In 1884 the son asked the consent of his trustees to his proposed marriage, but although they had objection to the lady they were of opinion that it was not advisable that the marriage should take place at that time or that the son should come into his property immediately, and they suggested that the son should make a formal application to them in writing. On January 5, 1885, a formal letter was written by the son, to which an answer was sent on January 13, 1885, to the effect that as the trustees understood that the lady did not intend to marry him it was not necessary for them to give any consent. In March, 1885, the marriage took place without any further consent. A summons was taken out by the trustees to determine the question whether there was any consent by the trustees to the marriage. J. H. Gregson, for the summons. Graham Hastings, Q.C., and Eastwick for the son, Buckley, Q.C., aud F. H. Colt for parties entitled in the event of the son's marriage without consent. STIRLING, J., held, upon the principle of Daley v. Desbouverie, 2 Atk. 271, that the consent of the trustees to the marriage had substantially been given, and that the son was entitled, A PUBLIC TRUSTEE. From time to time we have opened our columns to a discussion of this importaut eubject. Bill after Bill is introduced with the object of creating an official trustee, or enabling public companies to act as trustees, but the pressure of public business continues, and the Bills, which are backed only by private members, are shelved, This year a Bill has been again brought in by Mr. Howard Vincent, Mr. Warmington, and Sir Albert Rollit under the title of "A Bill to provide for the appointment of public trustee and executor." The memorandum at the beginning of the Bill states that the object of the Bill is to meet the difficulty which public bodies and private individuals experience in finding suitable trustees. That this difficulty is widespread and general everybody with any knowledge of the matter must at once agree, Everybody is naturally The public trustee would, however, be most useful for trusts of a public and quasi-charitable nature. We refer to such trusts as the endowment of a school or of a church. Trusts of this kind are permanent in their nature, and the appointment of new trustees from time to time constitutes a serious expense. Moreover, it is no one's duty to act as a trustee in this way, and the claims of friendship and relationship play no part in such trusts. We wish the Bill success, for it is a good Bill, and will serve a useful end. At the same time we venture to doubt whether the business placed in the hands of the public trustee will be sufficient, for a long time at least, to pay the expenses of a public office.-Law Times. Holloway's Ointment and Pills are beyond all doubt the most valuable and most convenient medicines that travellers can take across the seas to distant climes, for change of climate and the new conditions and surroundings of life to which they will be exposed will assuredly give rise to great disturbances of the system and to such especial morbid states of the blood and constitution generally as will render the use of these effectual remedies highly necessary, for they will find in them a ready and safe means of relief in most of the diseases which afflict the human race, and with them at hand they may be said to have a physician always at their call. CORRESPONDENCE. Letters and communications intended for publication, and addressed to THE EDITOR, 53 Upper Sackville-street, Dublin, must be authenticated by the name of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. ... Letters intended for publication in the same week should reach te Office not later than Thursday morning. ADMISSION OF IRISH SOLICITORS TO TO THE EDITOR OF THE IRISH LAW TIMES. SIR,-In your issue of the 1st of February, ultimo, you gave the new regulations of the Inns of Court for call to the English Bar. Will you please say would an Irish solicitor proceeding to the Euglish Bar be entitled to the benefit of the 14th of those regulations, or is that regulation extended only to English solicitors? If the point has not been decided, can you say the authority in England to whom inquiries on the subject should be addressed? Yours truly, ASPIRANT. [The Regulations are anything but lucid. However, it is apprehended that Rule 14 would cover the case of an Irish solicitor applying, but the point appears to be undecided, and inquiries may be addressed to the Treasurer of the Four Inns of Court.-ED.] COURT PAPERS. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. ADJUDICATIONS IN BANKRUPTCY. [The dates of Adjudications are first given, the Sillings follow in italics.] DUBLIN. Murphy, Patrick, of 6 Henrietta-street, Waterford, boot upper manufacturer. February 17; Tuesday, March 11, and Friday, March 28. J. G. Wheatley, solr. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. List of Petitions presented to the Land Judges in the month of February, 1890. 3 p c Local Loans Stock 2 per cent Con. Stock Re-deemable 1963 10 London and Wminster, lit 70 70 69 3 Munster and Leinster (Ltd [49 10 National Bank (Limited) 4 20% 25 Provincial Bank 10 Royal Bank, Limited 25 Standard of B. S. A., lit'd to Dublin & Liverno Steam so Peninsular and Oriental Miscellaneous. to Alliance & Dub. Cons.'G 18 4 Arnoll & Co..limited Boland's, Limited Do., 5 pc Debenture Stock Distilleries Co., lim. Do., 6 p c Pref. Dublin Artisan Dwellings 7 Dub. & Wick. Man. Co. Tid Eastmans, Limited Freeman's Journal, lim., Nos. 8,334 to 15,000 100 Grand Canal 10 Guinness, Nos. 80,001 Son, & Co. to 250,000 100 Do., 5 p c Debenture Stock Do..6 pc Preference Shares Hotchkiss Ordnance, Lim., Nos 1,501 to 45,000 10 10 25 fr. C S. Building Society. John., M'ney & O'Brien, ltd Do., 5 p c Deb., red. after 1900 Do., 6pc Cum Pref. 78 Mrchts W'housing Co., ltd 25 National Assurance 9-1-7 Patriotic Assurance Pim Brothers, Limited 5 Thom & Co., Nos. 4,304 10 Belfast Trams 10 Dublin United Tramways Do., 4 p c Debenture to N'th Metr. Tramway, Lond Railways. 50 Belfast and Northern Co. 100 Dublin, W'klow, & W'ford) 100 Great Northern(Ireland). 100 Gt.Southernand Wester 100 Midland Gt. Western 50 Waterford and Limerick Railway Preference 100 Belfast & Nth'n Cos, 4 pe 100 100 100 Do. do. 10 161 5 1111 181 1 | | | 1 118 118 1151 1 Dub. Cor. Stock, redeem. 1944..100 • Shares not fully paid up are given in Italics. Bank Rate-Of Discount-3 per cent. Of Deposit-1 per cent. Name Days-March 12th and 27th, 1890. Business commences at 1 30 p.m. Ballast Office Deb.,£92 68 2d, 4 pc BIRTHS. PLUNKETT-March 6, at Upper Fitzwilliam-street, Dublin, the wife of Count Plunkett, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. HOLT and HENCHY-March 1, at St. Matthew's Church, Irishtown, RANCIS ASHENHURST BETTS and WHEREAS application has been made to the Court by the said Owners for an Order, [pursuant to Section 14, Subsection 1, of the "Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887." that the amount of the advances sanctioned in this Matter, in respect of Sales to the tenants of the lands set forth in the schedule hereto (or part thereof), less the amount of such of the guarantee deposits, as are not being lodged in cash, be paid into the Bank of Ireland to the account of the Irish Land Commission and credit of this Matter, and that the claims of all persons (except the tenants or persons claiming under them) who are interested in the lands sold, whether as incumbrancers or other wise, shall attach to the purchase-money of such lands in like manner as immediately before the sales they attached to the lands, and shall cease to be of any validity against the lands. And whereas the said Owners elaim to be seized of said lands in fee, under grant dated the 23rd day of May, 1853. subject only as is mentioned in the Originating Statement in this Matter, filed the 11th day of January, 1889. Let all parties Take Notice that the said application will come before me to report upon on Monday, the 24th day of March, 1890, at my Chamber, 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, at Twelve o'clock, and will come on for hearing before Mr. Commissioner LYNCH, at his Court, Upper Merrion-street, aforesaid, on Monday, the 31st day of March, 1890, at Eleven o'clock in the forenoon, when a Final Order will be made, and all persons are at liberty to inspect the said Originating Statement at my Office, and any person for any valid reason objecting to such Order being made, may enter an appearance in the Matter, and file an Affidavit of Cause against the said Order being made, and appear upon the hearing of such application. And Further Take Notice, that immediately on the making of such Order the Court will proceed to vest the several holdings in the purchasing tenan's thereof, and to charge the said holdings with the annuities in respect of the said advances. Dated this 28th day of February, 1890. G. O. FARRELL, Assistant Chief Clerk. CROOKSHANK & LEECH, Solicitors for Owners, 55 Upper Sackville-street, Dublin. N.B.-No application to the Court by letter or memorial can be entertained. WHEREAS application has been made to the Court by the said Owner for an Order, pursuant to Section 14th, Subsection 1, of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," that the amount of the advances sanctioned in this Matter in respect of Sales to the Tenants of the feesimple of the Lands of Knockdromaclogh (Parishes of Clondulane and Castlelyons), situate in the Barony of Condons and Clongibbons, and County of Cork, or part thereof, less the amount of such of the guarantee deposits as are not being lodged in cash, be paid into the Bank of Ireland to the account of the Irish Land Commission, and credit of this Ma ter, and that the claims of all persons (except the tenants or persons claiming under them) who are interested in the lands sold, whether as incumbrancers or otherwise, shall attach to the purchase-money of such lands in like manner as immediately before the sales they attached to the lands, and shall cease to be of any validity against the lands. And whereas the said Owner claims to be seized of the said lands for the term of his natural life, subject only as is mentioned in the Originating Statement in this Matter, filed the 9th day of July, 1889. Let all parties Take Notice that the said Application will come before me to report upon on Tuesday, the 25th day of March, 1890, at my Chamber, 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, at Eleven o'clock, and will come on for hearing before Mr. Commissioner MACCARTHY, at his Court, Upper Merrion-street, aforesaid, on Tuesday, the 1st day of April, 1890, at Eleven o'clock in the forenoon, when a Final Order will be made, and all persons are at liberty to inspect the said Originating Statement at my Office, and any person, for any valid to such Order being made enter an appearance in made, and appear on the hearing of such application. Tis an excellent piece of furniture, finished in the natural the Matter, and file an A fidavit of Cause against the said Order being wood, made l well-seasoned walnut; the shelves revolve, even when loaded with a hundredweight of books, as easily almost as a dinner castor. And Further Take Notice, that immediately on the making of such Order the Court will proceed to vest the several holdings in the purchasing tenants thereof, and to charge the said holdings with the annuities in respect of the said advances. Dated this 3rd day of March, 1890. DEAR SIRS, 47 RUTLAND-SQUARE, DUBLIN, 24th August, 1888. I enclose cheque for your account for Revolving Book-case. It is a real boon to Solicitors, and I congratulate you in conferring it on our profession. To Country Solicitors who require books of reference constantly at hand it is simply invaluable.-Yours truly, M. PURCELL Messrs. Thos. R. Scott & Co., 32 Upper Abbey-street, Dublin. Printed and Published by the Proprietor, JOHN FALCONER, every Saturday, at 53 Upper Sackville-street, in the Parish of St. Thomas, and City of Dublin.-Saturday, March 8 1890. AND VOL. XXIV. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. SATURDAY, MARCH 15, 1890. IRISH COUNTY COURT PRACTICE.-XI. PARTIES. In this article we purpose to treat principally of amendment, change, and death of parties. Change of parties in Equity suits is regulated by the rules under Or. XII., which are identical in terms with Or. XIV. of the new County Court Orders, 1890, save that the new rules apply to "any equity suit or matter." Under Or. XVI., r. 6, 1890 (r. 85, 1877), the judge can amend as to parties at the trial, so long as such amendment is not calculated to mislead and injuriously prejudice the opposite party in the merits of his case, or make an entirely new case: New Brewery Co. v. Hammah, W. N. 1877, p. 35. Thus he may at all times, where there is a bona fide mistake (Clowes v. Hilliard, 4 Ch. D. 413; Duckett v. Gover, 6 Ch. D. 82), amend as to parties, under this rule and sec. 106 of 14 & 15 Vic., c. 57, and sec. 48 of 27 & 28 Vic., c. 99. But an improper choice of parties, though not fatal to the action, may occasion costs to the persons making the choice: Hancocks v. Lablache, 3 C. P. D. 197; 47 L. J. 514. Although there is a large power given to add or strike out or to amend the names or descriptions of parties (La Banca Nazionale v. Hamburger, 2 H. & C. 330: Mills v. Scott, L. R. 8 Q. B. 496; Bolinbroke v. Townsend, L. R. 8 C. P. 645), it would appear that there is no power, where the action is brought in the name of one person, to substitute another; as, for instance, an executor for his testator, who was dead: Clay v. Oxford, L. R. 2 Ex. 54. If the plaintiff recklessly brings his action in the name of or against the wrong person, the Court will not help him. As regards lunatics, paupers (see Chinn v. Bullen, 8 C. B. 447, 19 L. J. C. P. 42, where it was held that the Judges of the County Courts may exercise the same discretionary power as to allowing parties to sue in forma pauperis as the Judges of the Superior Courts), and married women, the rules of the High Court apply. The new County Court Rules, 1890, Or. XXXVIII., embody the rules made under the County Courts Jurisdiction in Lunacy (Ir.) Act, 1880, and enact that, subject to them, the rules and practice in lunacy for the time being shall be applicable to the County Courts. New Or. XXXII. deals with married women. Where an action was brought in the name of husband and wife for the balance of the amount of a promissory note passed to the wife after her marriage, the husband, at the time of the passing of the note and bringing the action, being out of the country, and not having been heard of for 13 years previously, the Court would not presume an authority from the husband to the wife to sue, nor would the Court, from the husband's long absence, presume him to be dead, and amend by striking out his name and giving a decree in the wife's name: No. 1,207 Ashe v. Hallisy, 12 Ir. L. T. R. 109 (Ferguson, C.C.J.). In an action against a husband for goods sold to the wife dum sola it is not competent for a judge to amend by making the wife a co-defendant: Gerrard v. Guibilei, 13 C. B. N. S. 832. Where an action has been remitted to the County Court, the County Court Judge has no power to add a defendant without his consent: Mulleneisen v. Coulson, 20 Q. B. D. 667, 57 L. J. Q. B. 334, 36 W. R. 524; and, under the High Court Rules, a person cannot be added as a plaintiff without his consent in writing, even although he be indemnified against costs: Tryon v. National Provident Institution, 16 Q. B. D. 678, 55 L. J. Q. B. 236, 54 L. T. 167; Jackson v. Kruger, 54 L. J. Q. B. 446, 52 L. T. 962. In a Civil Bill ejectment for non-payment of rent, although it is only necessary to serve the person in actual occupation of the lands, still the process must name as defendant the person between whom and the plaintiff the contract of tenancy is alleged to exist. The case of Campion v. Campion, 8 Ir. L. T. R. 147, Lr. R. 8 C. L. 313, was decided on the wording of the 194th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1853, which does not apply to the County Court, which is solely guided by Deasy's Act. Section 53 lays down that a contract between the parties must be shown to exist. The Judge in such a case has no power to amend by adding a new defendant: Bagwell v. Kennedy. The Court will not, on a motion of a defendant, compel a plaintiff to add parties as codefendants: Donegan v. Lyons, C. P. C. L. 323. It is not necessary for a puisne mortgagee to join a prior incumbrancer as a defendant in an Equity Civil Bill to raise his charge by sale. A creditor who has registered his judgment as a mortgage against the lands of two joint debtors is entitled to bring an Equity Civil Bill to raise the charge out of the lands of one without joining the other as a party to the suit. The practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court, regulating the joinder of parties in actions to raise charges on lands, applies to the County Courts in such suits: Hunter v. M'Connell, 17 L. R. Ir. 56 (V.-Ch.). Under section 136 of 14 & 15 Vic., c. 57, the death of parties pending appeal does not abate the suit where there are several plaintiffs and defendants, one of whom dies; the survivor may prosecute the suit: and, under new Or. XIV., r. 4 (r. 77, of 1877), where in any equity suit one or more of several plaintiffs or defendants dies before the final decree, the suit shall not abate if the cause of action survive or continue. The test of survival appears to be, could the executors or administrators of the deceased have sued or been sued? They could not in the case of mere personal wrongs, such as assault, libel, false imprisonment, deceit, &c.: Re Pinchon, 9 Co. Rep. 89 a; Phillips v. Homfray, 24 Ch. D. 489. They |