VOL. VIII.

FROM time to time, we have indicated, from the records of the Probate Office, the enormous fortunes amassed by lawyers of both branches of the profession. Anyone that takes the trouble could make a very interesting collection. Here is a hint for Rare Bits. In this connection, we may mention that the probate of the will of the late Richard Bradshaw, of Stanhope Street, Hyde Park, and of Cornhill, solicitor, who died on January 22, aged 57, discloses the personality sworn for the purposes of the stamp duty, as being £156,747.

A FEW weeks ago, MERCATOR, in our Financial columns, expressed the opinion that if the law be powerless to prevent the formation of "rings" in food supplies, it is high time the law were ashamed of itself. For the benefit of MERCATOR and his readers, we quote the obiter dictum of the Master of the Rolls and the remarks of Sir Henry James, in the course of the argument on appeal of The Mogul Steamship Company v. McGregor, Gow and Co. "It does not strike me as clear, if there is a combination to buy all the salt in the kingdom for the purpose of raising the price. 70 per cent. beyond what it would be, I say I do not feel at all clear that that is not an illegal combination" (per Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls).

"According to the common law of America, and our common law, it is illegal. All I can say is, if these syndicates carried on their business in America, they would have very sharp justice shown to them there" (Sir Henry James loquitur).

"ARE not lawyers proverbially careless?" suggested the Master of the Rolls during the argument on appeal of Vagliano v. The Bank of England. The learned judge was prudent enough, however, to make a saving clause, and added, "until they become judges." None of us on the attached staff of PUMP COURT being yet on the Bench, we are unable to say how far the qualification is true; but we can thoroughly endorse the main proposition, understanding it, as undoubtedly his lordship intended it, to refer to the

No. 126.

personal affairs of the lawyer. Not a hundred miles from this office is a lawyer who can, in his own person, verify the truth of this, and was punished for the same by the loss of between three and four thousand pounds, until he thought it was high time for him to begin to look a little after his own affairs, instead of leaving them entirely to other people. There would seem to be some intrinsic weakness in the mental machinery of a man which prevents it performing the same duties for him that it is called upon to perform for others. So time out of mind we have heard that carpenters live in the worst-built houses, and shoemakers' wives are the worst shod. Lawyers' own wills are the most frequent sources of litigation, as examples of which we may cite the case of Lord St. Leonards, admittedly the most eminent and able real property lawyer we have ever had, and the recent litigation in connection with the will of Edward James, Q.C. "I do not examine," said Sir Charles Russell, "cheques or bills, when returned in my pass-book, to see that the indorsement is right. I am generally content to see that I have a balance at my bank." Lord Justice Cotton, however, is one in a hundred, for he says, "I always examine my cheques when they come back in my pass-book."

THE Land Registry Office has been very properly denounced. Two lawyers, one a barrister and the other a solicitor, spoke with no uncertain sound in the House of Commons on the vote for an increase for this office, and they but expressed the general feeling of the public who have ever heard of this office. Mr. Haldane said, "My experience of it has not been such as to place any high value on its work. In one case it had, owing to its system of red tape, charged £600 for the transfer of an estate worth but £3,000." Mr. Fowler said: "The amount asked for might be small, but it involved the question of one of the most useless and worthless offices in the whole range of our administrative system; only about eight titles a year were registered, and the office already cost £2,796 a year." And so say all of us.

WE understand that the paymaster of the Supreme Court has been officially notified that the account for payment of commission claims by the Bank of England, under the Conversion Act of 1888, will be closed on the 31st. instant. Any outstanding claims in connection with the conversion of funds under the control of the Supreme Court should be rendered to the Pay Office by next Tuesday.

THE result of the Prize shooting for 1888, in the Inns of Court Rifles has been announced. The Battalion Challenge Cup was won by Lieutenant Gibbons, with a score of 180 points. The Benchers' Challenge Cup, by Lieutenant Sankey, with a score of 84 points. The Brewster Challenge Cup, awarded to Lieutenant A. Glen for making the highest score in the winning Company (142). The St. Leonard's Cup, by Lieutenant Sankey, with a score of 73 points. The James Cup, Lieutenant Simonds, 89 points. The Cotton The Monthly Cup, Private Cup, Lieutenant Timms. Pixley, 87. The Wimbledon Challenge Cup, decided by the scores made at Wimbledon in the Queen's Prize, was won by that most popular officer, Captain Drinkwater, of F Company. Major Deane's Challenge Badge, by Private Browell, with a score of 188 points. The Aggregate Cross, by Lieutenant Sankey. Lieutenant-General Sargent's Challenge Cup for recruits, won by Corporal Dennis. Captain Edmund James Challenge Cup for A Company, won by

Private Browell, with a score of 183. The Tomlinson Cup for B Company, won by Private Percival, with a total score of 516. The Ford Salver for C Company, Colour-Sergeant Spencer. The Company Brewster Challenge Cup for D Company, by Private Streeten. The Liverpool Challenge Cup for competition in signalling, won by Corporal Lee. Aggregate Prizes, Lieutenant Gibbons, Lieutenant A. Glen, Private Browell. Winners of Company Third Class Handicap Pewters, Private Carey, Sergeant Pollock, Private Roper, Sergeant Macmorran, Private Martin, Lance-Corporal Antrobus. The programme and general conditions. of the prize shooting may be obtained by members at the Headquarters in Lincoln's Inn.

The law of betting has received further elucidation in the case of Cohen v. Kittell (of which we give a short note elsewhere in this number). As the law stands, where a commission agent makes bets on instructions from a principal, and such bets are won and paid to him, the principal may maintain action against the agent for the amounts so paid, as for money had and received to his use. Where the bets made are lost and paid by the agent, such agent can recover the amount paid by him from the principal. It is at this point (in its practical importance at least) that Cohen v. Kittell comes in. What if the agent, though instructed to make certain bets, neither refuses to accept the commission nor makes the bets? It is clear that neither agent nor principal could maintain an action to recover the amount of any bet made and won, against the bookmaker. Accordingly, the Court decided that no action would lie for not making contracts on which, if made, no action could be maintained. In practice, save with a discriminating jury, the two doctrines, (1) that for bets lost and paid the agent is entitled to indemnity from the principal; (2) that if, in disregard of instructions, the agent does not make the bets, which if made would have been won, no action will lie against him, will afford an opportunity to unscrupulous commission agents of "standing on velvet" by treating paid lost bets as made for their clients, and won bets as for themselves. No doubt, however, commission agents will be too wise to risk loss of custom by unreasonable neglect or refusal to make bets, or by setting up such a defence.

An important point was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (on appeal from the Supreme Court for Victoria) in Harding v. Howell. By two indentures the appellant had conveyed certain freehold estates in Victoria to the respondent and his heirs, to hold to the use of M. L. Harding and her heirs. The deeds stated pecuniary considerations, but one in fact, as was admitted, voluntary conveyances. M. L. Harding died in 1882, intestate, leaving her husband (the appellant) surviving, and two brothers, the respondent and Howell, next-of-kin. There was considerable delay in taking out administration, which was caused by the appellant, but at length in October, 1883, he obtained administration to his deceased wife. This was under the Victorian Administration Act of 1872, whereby the administrator took the intestate's real estate from the day of the deceased's death in the fullest possible manner, with statutory powers and duties, whereby he was to realise, inter alia, the real property, and after payment of debts and liabilities, distribute the surplus amongst the next-of-kin. Up to the date of obtaining the grant of administration there had been no bonâ fide sale for value made by the appellant of the property, voluntarily conveyed by him to M. L. Harding. He had, however, made a conveyance purporting to be bonâ fide and for value to one Tangye, but on an issue directed and tried in 1885, the jury found that this conveyance to Tangye was not bona fide or for value. The appellant then swore that he had, since the issue tried, granted bonâ fide and for value to Tangye the lands in question. Now by the construction which has been put on 27 Eliz., c. 4, a voluntary conveyance is treated as fraudulent and void against a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value from the grantor of the lands conveyed. If, however, prior to sale for value by the grantor, the voluntary grantee has aliened for value, the alienee for value of such voluntary grantee has a title which the voluntary grantor cannot defeat by a subsequent bonâ fide sale and

YET another decision on the question of the enjoyment of light, this time by the Court of Appeal, on an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice North. The case was that of Presland v. Bingham, which was an action brought by Presland to restrain the defendant Bingham from building so as to obstruct the access of light to the plaintiff's skylight, and for damages. The defendant did not deny that the plaintiff's light was an ancient light, but the defendant alleged that he had not had uninterrupted enjoyment for twenty years; and the defendant relied on the fact that he had been in the habit of piling up in his yard where he was now building, packing-cases which were from time to time removed, but which sufficiently interrupted the light to prevent the plaintiff from acquiring a right to light. The evidence showed that the packing-cases were sometimes twelve or fourteen feet above the then existing wall, but there was no distinct evidence as to the time during which they remained there before they were taken away. When the case came before Mr. Justice North, that learned

judge held that the packing-cases caused an interruption within Section 4 of the Prescription Act (2 and 3 W. 4, C. 71) and dismissed the action. As might be expected, this decision hardly appeared very satisfactory to the plaintiff, and he accordingly appealed.

IN the Court of Appeal, the case came before Cotton, Lindley, and Lopes (L.JJ.), and they took a different view of the matter. The learned judges of the Appeal Court held that the fluctuating interruption caused by the packingcases was not such an interruption as was contemplated in the 4th section of the Prescription Act. They therefore held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed in his action, and granted an inquiry as to damages. This seems to be clearly a much sounder view of the law; as, if any interruption such as placing packing-cases were allowed to deprive a man of his right to light, there can be little doubt that great inconvenience would arise, and that it would be necessary to watch much more closely than at present the proceedings of one's neighbours which at all interfere with any rights to light.

AN interesting point recently came before Mr. Justice North, in the case of Re Bowes, Earl of Strathmore v. Vane. (By-the-by, we suppose this is the celebrated Bowes who fought the duel, and is the hero of that celebrated case of Strathmore v. Bowes). The action was an administration action. The testator had some assets in France, in which

country his widow was residing. She claimed to prove under the administration judgment, as a credit or of the testator in respect of two sums of £2,400 and £10,000. In respect of both these debts, she had obtained security in France, by means of an attachment or sequestration under French law upon the testator's French assets. The Court held that the claim as regarded the £2,400 was barred in England by the Statute of Limitations, but admitted the claim for the £10,000. It was then contended on behalf of the executor that the widow must bring into hotchpot the proceeds of her security as regarded the £2,400, before she could be admitted to receive any dividend in the English administration in respect of the £10,000. Counsel for the executor relied on dicta of Mr. Justice Pearson in Re Klæbe (28 Ch.D., 177), in support of their contention. Mr. Justice North, however, held that the claimant was entitled to the benefit of whatever she received from her security in France in respect of the £2,400, and that she was under no obligation to bring those proceeds into hotchpot as regarded the £10,000. His lordship ruled that the dicta of Pearson (J.) in the above case did not apply to the case under discussion.

COPYRIGHT IN LAW REPORTS.

JUDGMENT OF BLATCHFORD (J.). CALLAGHAN V. MYERS. UNITED STATES SUPREme Court. (Continued from p. 210.)

The Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for a trial by a jury as to whether there had been a compliance with the above-named requisites of the Act of Congress. In a note by Mr. Peters, at page 618 of the report of the case, he states that he has been informed that the Court did not consider the point whether reports of the decisions of the Court, published by a reporter appointed under the authority of an Act of Congress, were within the provisions of the law for the protection of copyrights. When the suit was brought, Mr. Wheaton had published the twelve volumes of his copyrighted reports. The allegation of the bill was that the volume complained of, published by Mr. Peters, contained all the reports of cases found in the first volume of Wheaton's Reports. It appears from the report of the case, and the record in it, that Mr. Wheaton had published his first volume in 1816, and his twelfth volume in 1827. From March 3, 1817, for three years, the reporter had a salary of 1,000 dollars a year, and the same salary from the May 15, 1820 to March 3, 1826, and for three years from February 22, 1827. The decree of this Court, providing for a trial by a jury (p. 698), covered the entire twelve volumes of Wheaton's Reports. If this Court had been of opinion that there could not have been a lawful copyright in the volumes of Wheaton's Reports, it would have been useless to send the case back to the Circuit Court for an inquiry whether the conditions precedent to the obtaining of a lawful copyright, 'under the Act of Congress, had been complied with, especially in view of the fact that the opinion of the Court concludes (p. 668) with this statement: "It may be proper to remark that the Court are unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court, and that the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right." Therefore the only matter in Wheaton's Reports which could have been the subject of the copyrights in regard to which the jury trial was directed was the matter not embracing the written opinions of the Court, namely, the title-page, table of cases, headnotes, statement of facts, arguments of counsel, and index. Such work of the reporter, which may be a lawful subject of copyright, comprehends also the order of arrangement of the cases, the division of the reports into volumes, the numbering and paging of the volumes, the table of the cases cited in the opinions (where such table is made), and the subdivision of the index into appropriate, condensed titles, involving the distribution of the subjects of the various head-notes, and cross-references, where such exist. publication of the mere opinions of the Court, in a volume, without more, would be comparatively valueless to anyone. The case of Wheaton v. Peters was decided at January Term, 1834. In Gray v. Russell (1 Story, 11), in 1839, Mr. Justice Story, in speaking of the question as to how far a person was at liberty to extract the substance of copyrighted law reports, says (p. 20): "In the case of Wheaton v. Peters (8 Pet., 591) the same subject was considered very much at large. It was not doubted by the Court that Mr. Peters' Condensed Reports would have been an infringement of Mr. Wheaton's copyright, supposing that copyright properly secured under the Act, if the opinions of the Court had been or could be the proper subject of the private copyright by Mr. Wheaton. But it was held that the opinions of the Court, being published under the authority of Congress, were not the proper subject of private copyright. But it was as little doubted by the Court that Mr. Wheaton had a copyright in his own marginal notes, and in the arguments of counsel as prepared and arranged in his work. The cause went back to the Circuit Court for the purpose of further inquiries as to the fact whether the requisites of the Act of Congress had been complied with or not by Mr. Wheaton. This would have been wholly useless and nugatory unless Mr. Wheaton's marginal notes and abstracts of arguments could have been the subject of a copyright (for that was the work which could

A

be the subject of a copyright), so that if Mr. Peters had violated that right, Mr. Wheaton was entitled to redress." This seems to us to be a proper view of the decision in Wheaton v. Peters, and that decision is an application where a reporter receives a compensation for salary from the Government as where he does not, in the absence of any restriction against his obtaining a copyright. The general proposition that the reporter of a volume of law reports can obtain copyright for it as an author, and that such copyright will cover the parts of the book of which he is an author, although he has no exclusive right in the judicial opinions published, is supported by authority: (Curt. Copyr., 131, 132; Butterworth v. Robinson, 5 Ves., 709; Cary v. Congman, 1 East, 358 and note, 362; Mawman v. Tegg, 2 Russ., 385, 398, 399; Hodges v. Welch, 2 Ir. Eq., 266, 287; Lewis v. Fullarton, 2 Beav., 6; Saunders v. Smith, 3 Myl. and C., 711; Sweet v. Benning, 16 C. B., 491; Jarrold v. Houlston, 3 Kay and J., 708, 719, 720).

Star Life Assurance Society.

INSURANCE.

THE Star is in the ascendant. At its 45th annual meeting, which was held at the Cannon Street Hotel, on Wednesday last, the 13th inst., the directors' report, and the result of the 9th quinquennial valuation, were presented to the share and policy-holders, who have every reason to feel satisfied at the information therein contained, and to congratulate themselves upon their connection with this Office. The Star has been steadily progressive since its inception. Each succeeding quinquennium has shown substantial increase in all prominent details, over its predecessor; and it can be safely forecasted, that if, in the next ensuing five years, the amount of new business that has been secured in the past can be sustained upon the same increasing ratio, this Office will be a leader in the front rank of the Home Companies. As it is, it is equal to any in benefits to policyholders; and its ever growing size attests that it is fully appreciated by the assuring public. In these days of keen competition, success is the best indicator of the desirability of a Life Office. The success that has attended this one, has been marked and increasing.

in 1888.

The gross amount of new business secured New Business in 1888, was £1,294,655, covering 3,526 proposals for assurance. Of these, however, 611 were either declined or not carried out at the close of the year, and 2,915 policies were issued for the assurance of £894,330, the premium income on which amounted to £30,790. During the four preceding years of the quinquennium, commencing with 1884, the new business secured in each was respectively, £633,475-£719,015£729,870, and £763,675-thus showing a firm and steady growth. The total new business secured in the first five years of the Company's history was £690,277. Each succeeding similar period has shown steadily increasing membership, both in number of policies and amount, and for the last quinquennial period the aggregate was £3,740,365. The total amount of assurance now in force being £9,973,637. The mortality and claims during the past year have been favourable, and within the average expected and provided for in the Society's Tables. Over £3,046,000 have been paid in claims since its establishment.

Valuation.

The actuarial valuation of assets and liabilities was carried out, as upon the two previous occasions, by Mr. A. H. Bailey, Actuary of the London Assurance Corporation, and formerly President of the Institute of Actuaries. The summary of the transactions for the five years showed the difference between income and expenditure to have increased the funds £633,038. The surplus existing over the estimated liability was £408,918. As the basis upon which the liability was computed assumed the Hm Table of Mortality to represent the mortality of the Company; and the rate of interest assumed to be earned being 3 per cent.; this surplus, in the light of the stringency of the test, is extremely satisfactory. Of this amount £22,702 was recommended to be retained, and £386,216 divided;-£38,622 to the proprietors, and £347,594 to the assured: thus giving nine tenths of the profits to the policy-holders. Mr. Bailey

called attention to the following interesting items, which show that progression is the order of the day. During the five years the assurance fund had increased nearly 29 per cent., the number of policies in force nearly 23 per cent., and the premium income more than 22 per cent. Instead of the expense account showing a concomitant increase, as is usually the case and expected, it is pleasing to note that it had diminished, being 15.7 per cent. upon the premiums during the five years, against 16'5 per. cent. during the preceding five. We should also mention that the bonuses to policy-holders showed an increase of 2s. 6d. per cent. over that declared in 1884.

A report of this nature is calculated to boom the affairs of the Society along at an increasing speed, and on a constantly ascending scale. We are, therefore, well grounded in our expectations to see the magnitude of this bright particular Star grow greater, and its brilliancy become more manifold.

Whittington Life Our notice of the annual meeting of this

Assurance

office, which was held on Monday, 11th inst., Company. was unavoidably held over last week. The thirty-fourth Annual Report which was presented to the shareholders at that time is of a satisfactory nature, and shows that progress is being made in the different items of importance to the Company. The funds at the commencement of the year were £183,157, and were increased £9,299 during that period, being the sum of £192,456, Dec. 31, 1888. This is an increase of over 5 per cent. Death claims were within the average expectation of mortality and amounted to £26,375; whilst the claims arising from the maturing of Endowment Assurances were £4,161. The premium income for the year was £53,054; and that from interest was £7,238.

The directors have been gradually developing a system of Monthly Insurance Premiums, to suit the convenience of many who find annual payments, or even those made at the ordinary subdivisions of the year, too onerous when called for in that way, but who can more easily spare, out of limited incomes, the payments necessary to keep a policy in force, when called for monthly. This is a great boon to a large class, and it is pleasing to note the directors have every reason to be well satisfied with the results so far.

Mr. Carvell Williams, who presided, in his remarks to the shareholders, stated that the revival in business of last year was being perceptibly felt. The two months of the present year showing a marked increase in the new business received, and the future (owing to the improved state of trade in general, and the continual advances being made by the working classes in an educational way, thereby making them more thrifty) gave promise of a material increase in the new business for the coming year.

It was urged that the monthly insurance business might be developed in another direction, in addition to that among the industrial classes, and that was amongst the numerous clerks in London, as well as throughout the country.

There is certainly a large field for this particular class of business. Many men who will not entertain the idea of weekly payments, and who are deterred from taking on the ordinary assurance on account of the payment down being more than can be managed in connection with the ordinary necessary expenses, will welcome this form of providing for their families; and we venture to predict, that when once it has been properly introduced, the Whittington will not only bring great benefit to many who are now without it, but will also materially benefit itself.

The Post Magazine opens its paper with a letter professing to come from a member of the general public who signs himself, Vox populi. Abundant intrinsic evidence is afforded throughout the letter itself that the signature is what might be termed a literary fraud-that is to say, instead of being the voice of the public it is the voice of an insurance man. If the testimony afforded by the contents of the letter is to be relied on, we should say it was an agent or canvasser for an insurance office. Vox populi says, that the position of the British Equitable acts as a check upon the progress of the principle of insurance, and as a result, "I have constantly found insurance is entirely

rejected." How comes it that this private citizen, as by his signature he would have believe he is, is constantly soliciting business for another insurance office, and is "constantly rejected ;" and why does he, a single individual, profess to speak in the name of the whole people? We have seen editors appropriately enough head their correspondence column Vox populi, to indicate that the column is for the general public, and not for the writings of the staff; but on what principle a writer, setting forth his views, should sign himself Vox populi, it passeth all our efforts to determine. I am "constantly rejected." Are we to say hinc illa lachryma? Does this furnish the true reason for the spiteful letter? Another circumstance perplexes us. Why was the letter placed as the first article in the paper? It is not usual to place the letter of a single writer from the outside public before all the articles in a journal. Can any of our readers tell us of any other journal in which this is done? Vox populi speaks "of the various articles that have from time to time appeared in your paper, as well as several other insurance journals." Since when, we should like to know, have the "populus" taken to reading insurance literature so assiduousiy. Oh, Vox Populi! Vox populi! thy hand may be the hand of Esau, but thy voice betrays thee, it is the voice of the scheming Jacob. Next time you would have us believe that you are one of the disinterested general public, and wish to sign Vox populi, you must learn first the highest of all arts, the ars celare artem, and then you must leave the British Equitable in peace for a season, and wing your shafts meantime for some other game.

Did any one mention the name of Mr. Toots? Well, for the benefit of those misguided ones who are not readers of Dickens, we may inform them that Mr. Toots was a gentleman who was constantly writing letters to himself; but what has become of Mr. Toots this deponent saith not.

National Provident

Institution.

The fifty-third annual meeting of the members of this Institution was duly held at the Cannon Street Hotel, on the 26th ult., when the report for the twelve months ending November 20, 1888, was presented. This, on the whole, is satisfactory, though exception might be taken to the fact that the amounts expended in commissions and expenses of management have steadily increased, year by year, for the past six years, being, in 1883, £28,640, and last year amounting to £40,784. Although the new business has shown a yearly increase, it has not corresponded to this outlay. In point of fact, the valuation of 1887 showed the sums assured and bonuses to be £11,050,656. In 1872, the valuation made showed these same items to be £10,119,109. This means that the Society had, in the first thirty-seven years of its existence, attained to over £10,000,000 assured, and had only made a net increase of £931,547 during the subsequent fifteen years. There is no reason that this state of things should exist, as is attested by the history of the great American offices. The increase of the amount at risk, after making all deductions, of one of these alone last year was equal to over £14,000,000. Competition has certainly a checking effect upon large volumes of new business, and the system of agencies at home does not compare favourably with that adopted by the Offices of the great Republic. Again, there are too many of the small-fry Offices that intercept and forestall a certain quantity of business that would reap greater advantages to the assured if accepted by such Offices as this one.

During the past year 1,602 policies were issued, assuring £534,200, the premium income on which was £21,584. In the course of the year 424 members had paid the inevitable debt to nature, on whose lives 556 policies had been effected. Claims, with bonus additions, on this account amounted to £291,072. Endowment claims to the amount of £22,202 also matured during the year and were paid. The amount of funds on November 20, 1887, was £4,321,176. On the same date, 1888, they were £4,337,259. The small increase is explained by the fact that £115,000 had been distributed in bonus. It is a true indication, nevertheless, that the Institution is not progressing at a rapid rate. As it is Mutual and has every inducement to attract proposers, there must be some hidden cause that retards its progress.