II. He discounts one of the bills, and pays the other at maturity. III. He sells part of the goods for prompt payment, part paid for in bills, and part remains in hand. IV. He buys goods for B., pays for them, and transmits them. V. He makes up his books, balances them, ascertains his own profit, and renders an account to B., charging him commission on the sales and purchases, and warehouse rent. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS. PURSUANT to the judges' orders, the Preliminary Examination in General Knowledge will take place on the 25th and 26th of October, 1864, and will comprise 1. Reading aloud a passage from some English author. 2. Writing from dictation. 3. English grammar. 4. Writing a short English composition. 5. Arithmetic. A competent knowledge of the first four rules, simple and compound. 6. Geography of Europe and of the British Isles. 7. History. Questions on English History. 8. Latin. Elementary knowledge of Latin. 9. 1. Latin. 2. Greek, modern or ancient. 3. French. 4. German. 5. Spanish. 6. Italian. With reference to the subjects numbered 9, each candidate will be examined in one language only, according to his selection. The special examiners have selected the following books, in which candidates will be examined in the subjects numbered 9 at the examination on the 25th and 26th of October, 1864 :— In Latin.-Cicero, Pro Milone; or, Virgil, Eneid, book vi. In Modern Greek.-Bekkariou, or Bentotes, as before. In French.-M. de Voltaire, Histoire de Charles XII.; or P. Corneille, Le Cid. In German.-Schiller's Marie Stuart; or, J. V. von Goethe's Aus Meinem Leben, vol. i. books 1, 2, 3, and 4. In Spanish.-Cervantes, Don Quixote, capit. i.-xv. both inclusive; or, Leandro Fernandez de Moratin, El Si de las Ninas. In Italian.-Manzoni's Promessi Sposi, cap. i.-viii. both inclusive; or, Torquato Tasso's La Gerusalemme, 4, 5, and 6 Cantos. Candidates will have the choice of either of the above mentioned works. The examinations will be held at the Incorporated Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, London, and at some of the following towns :Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Carlisle, Carmarthen, Chester, Durham, Exeter, Lancaster, Leeds, Lincoln, Liverpool, Maidstone, Manchester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Oxford, Plymouth, Salisbury, Shrewsbury, Swansea, Worcester, York. Candidates are required by the judges' orders to give one calendar month's notice to the Incorporated Law Society, before the day appointed for the examination, of the language in which they propose to be examined, the place at which they wish to be examined, and their age and place of education. All notices should be addressed to the Secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, ChanceryJane, W.C. STATUTORY REMINDERS. Ir must have occurred to every person who watches the statutes which are passed in each Session of Parliament, how often it happens that a statute, which seems to have been passed because the public interests and necessities required it, becomes, as soon as it is passed, a dead letter, and is never, or but seldom, called into operation, and thus only burthens the statute book. Thus, in the session of 1857, an Act was passed (20 & 21 Vict. c. 57), intituled, "An Act to enable Married Women to dispose of Reversionary Interests in Personal Estate;" which contains the same provisions for enabling married women to convey away such interests without the concurrence of their husbands, as those which are contained in the 91st section of the Fines and Recoveries Act, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74. Our readers are, no doubt, aware that a married woman may, on satisfying the Court of Common Pleas by affidavit, that her husband is lunatic, idiot, &c., obtain an order from that Court to dispense with the concurrence of her husband in the conveyance. Now, it would have seemed probable that this provision, in the more recent statute, would have been acted upon by married women as often as the similar provision in the Fines and Recoveries Act; but it is a matter of experience that an application by a married women to convey her future interest in personalty is hardly, if ever, made to the Court of Common Pleas. Those who suggested the necessity of the statute must be surprised at the little use that has been made of it. Again, in the year 1861, an Act was passed (24 Vict. c. 11), intituled, "An Act to Afford Facilities for the Better Ascertainment of the Law of Foreign Countries when Pleaded in Courts withinher Majesty's Dominions." This would have seemed likely to be a most useful statute, inasmuch as everybody who practices in our Courts knows that foreign lawyers, when put into the witness box, differ from each other in their opinions on a question of foreign law as widely as any other class of scientific witnesses do. As was observed by Sir C. Cresswell, in his judgment in Crispin v. Doglioni (32 L. J., P., M., & A. 109), "The difficulty of arriving at a correct conclusion as to foreign law, at all times great, is much increased when experts are examined, and give conflicting testimony, for the Court has no means of ascertaining the comparative merits and learning of the witnesses." There being, therefore, this difficulty of ascertaining satisfactorily the law of a foreign country on any question arising in our Courts, this provision, enabling parties to seek the law at the fountain head, was sound and sensible, and yet we are not aware of a single instance in which the statute has been called into operation. It may be that, in countries with which we have much intercourse, the provisions of the statute are unnecessary, as their law, on any point, can be found in their codes or text-books; and that in countries with which we have but little intercourse, there would be considerable difficulty, and delay, and expense, in working the Act; and, after all, the judgment of the particular Court whose opinion would be requested, might, from the constitution of the Court, not be very reliable. Whatever the reason may be, we believe that, at all events, it is the fact that this statute, which somebody must have considered was urgently required, is at present a useless addition to the statute book. In the Session of 1862 two Acts were passed which some persons supposed would greatly affect the transfer of, and title to, land-the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 53, "An Act to Facilitate the Proof of Title to, and the Conveyance of, Real Estate," and the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 67, " An Act for Obtaining a Declaration of Title." It may be premature to say that these statutes are useless, as so short a time has elapsed since they were passed; but we understand it to be the fact that, instead of the public rushing to the offices established under their provisions, to avail themselves of the benefits conferred by them, those offices are occupied only by the individuals who receive salaries for a readiness and willingness to do their duty when called upon. Again, we find in other statutes particular provisions which would seem to have been passed because a necessity was felt for them, and which yet are seldom, if ever, applied; for instance, in the 2nd section of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, there is a provision that, in actions brought for breach of contract to deliver specific goods, the Judge shall have power to order the defendant to deliver the goods themselves on payment of such a sum as the jury shall find the plaintiffs liable to pay for them. We are not aware that plaintiffs ever ask for an order under this section, which could always be defeated if it were made, by the defendant putting it out of his power to deliver the goods. Statutes are also passed which are, beyond a doubt, most beneficial, if properly worked, but which become virtually inoperative, by reason of the facilities afforded of defeating their provisions. Thus, the Summary Procedure for Bills of Exchange Act, 1855, "An Act to Facilitate the Remedies on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, by the Prevention of Frivolous or Fictitious Defences," was in principle a most useful statute; but in consequence of the ease with which defendants make affidavits that they have a defence on the merits, the provisions of the statute are rendered nugatory. These affidavits are as much a matter of course as the common affidavits of merit. It may be said that the Judge who gives leave to a defendant to appear upon such an affidavit cannot help himself; that it is not for him to say that the defendant is a perjurer, and that the plaintiff must prosecute him if he thinks he is; but prosecutions for perjury are not a pleasant task, nor are they likely to expedite the recovery of the sum due on the bill or note. There is certainly a difficulty in saying what should be done to make the statute work; but we think that everybody who has had much experience in issuing writs under its provisions will agree with us in saying that virtually it has done no good, and that it has not prevented frivolous or fictitious defences to actions on bills and notes. It may be asked, what harn a statute which is never worked can do to anybody? It lies sleeping quietly in the statute book, and there it may rest for ever; but some lawyers think it right to make themselves acquainted with the legislation of each session, and they have quite labour enough in mastering those Acts which are brought into operation, and which they have to consult in the course of their practice. It is hard upon them to be also compelled to study a composition which they may as well forget as soon as they have read it. It is possible that Acts of Parliament are too hastily suggested and enacted. The Legislature has endeavoured, of late years, to prune and curtail the enormous size of our statute book; and we venture to think that it ought, on the same principle, to abstain from passing any statute the necessity for which is not clear and imperative. The two Acts to which we have referred, the Land Transfer Act and the Declaration of Title Act, are at present a laughing-stock to the profession and the public. They had been talked of for years, were to work wondrous changes, and to destroy conveyancing; and at present we can only apply to them Lord Westbury's quotation in his judgment in the Alexandra case-" Parturiunt montes," &c. The first statute which we have mentioned seemed one likely to be frequently put into practice, and was supplemental to the corresponding provisions in the Fines and Recoveries Act. There is no reason to complain of its being passed. The second, passed for the better ascertainment of the law of foreign countries, is neat and in genuous in its design; but there must have been so many difficulties, and so much delay and expense in working it, and probably also dissatisfaction and doubt felt in any case in which it was put into practice, that we can hardly suppose there was ever much hope of any good resulting from it. RESULTS OF EXAMINATIONS. (Easter Term, 1864.) Ar the Intermediate Examination in Easter Term last, out of 155 candidates 140 were passed, and 15 were postponed. This shows an increasing number of the rejected, and should make future candidates more careful. At the Final Examination in Easter Term last, there were 89 candidates; of these, 73 passed, and 16 were postponed, which, though not a large number in itself, yet is large in proportion to the number of the examinees, being more than one in every five. If every candidate would look at it in this point of view, he would see the folly of going up unprepared, and of relying on "coaches," who, if not otherwise injurious, are certainly so to the extent of deluding the articled clerks unfortunate enough to rely on them, that they will assist them in getting through the examination. The following list will show how few candidates were commended by the examiners:INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION. The following gentlemen, whose names are arranged in alphabetical order, passed the intermediate examination with distinction: BROWN, ROBERT, the younger, aged 19, articled to Mr. Robert Brown, of Barton-upon-Humber. JENNINGS, HENRY, aged 25, articled to Mr. Thomas Wrake Radcliffe, of London. FINAL EXAMINATION. The examiners recommended the following gentlemen, under the age of 26, as being entitled to honorary distinction:- 1. GREGSON, WILLIAM, the younger, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Mr. William Gregson, of Rochford; and Messrs. Austen and De Gex, of London. 2. MILTON, JOHN PENN, aged 23, who served his clerkship to Mr. Christopher Childs, of Liskeard; and Mr. Robert Walker Childs, of London. The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have accordingly awarded the following prizes of books: To Mr. Gregson, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clifford's inn. To Mr. Milton, a prize of the Incorporated Law Society. |