-Unreasonable provisions-Non-assenting creditor not bound.—If, under a composition deed, executed under the provisions of the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, s. 92 (the B. A. 1861), there is any class of creditors who are not bound by the deed, and are therefore entitled to repudiate it, any other creditor may repudiate it, and the deed is invalid. By such a deed it was provided, that all creditors to whom bills, or other negotiable instruments, might have been given by the defendant for the debts due to such creditors, or any of them, or any part thereof, should indemnify the defendant and his estate against all claims and demands by other persons than themselves in respect of such bills or instruments, and all losses, damages, and costs, by reason or in respect thereof, and should, if any such bills had been endorsed or transferred to any other persons, take the same up and retire the same before or when they should become due, and so as to prevent any claim or demand in respect thereof being made upon the defendant or his estate:-Held, that such a provision was unreasonable, and vitiated the deed, and that, notwithstanding the deed was duly executed, &c., the plaintiff, who was a non-assenting creditor, was not bound by it. (Balden v. Pell, 10 Law Tim. Rep. 493.)

MOOT POINTS.

No. 15.-Rent.-Is rent in arrear, whether by deed or parol, debt of the same nature as specialty debts?-JOHN CULLIMORE, 1, Upper Gordon-street, Euston-square, W.C.

No. 16.-Will Construction.—A testator makes his will in these words "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath all and every the messuages or tenements, &c., unto my son, W. S., and E., his wife, their heirs and assigns for and during the term of their natural lives, and for the life of the longer liver of them, their respective heirs and assigns." What estates do the husband and wife take? -JOHN CULLIMORE, 1, Upper Gordon-street, Euston-square, W.C.

No. 17.-Will Stock Dividends.—A testatrix bequeaths "the sum of £3,500, £3 per cent. consolidated Bank Annuities, unto my said trustees, to be held upon the trusts following (that is to say)— Upon trust to pay the annual income thereof unto my daughter, A. M. A., during her life, for her separate use independently of her husband." There is no time mentioned for the transfer of the stock. She dies in September, and dividends become due in January following. The executors subsequently transfer the stock into the names of the trustees. Who is entitled to the January dividend ?-JOHN CULLIMORE, 1, Upper Gordon-street, Eustonsquare, W.C.

RESULTS OF EXAMINATIONS.

Trinity Term, 1864.

FINAL EXAMINATION.

Ar the examination of candidates for admission on the roll of attorneys and solicitors of the Superior Courts, in Trinity Term last, the examiners recommended the following gentlemen, under the age of 26, as being entitled to honorary distinction :—

SMALLPIECE, Frederic Ferdinand, aged 20, who served his clerkship to Messrs. W. H. and M. Smallpiece, of Guildford; and Mr. Edward Brodribb Randall, of London.

MARSHALL, John Mitchell, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Ryland and Martineau, of Birmingham; and Messrs. Sharpe and Parker, of London.

STEWART, William Henry, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Mr. William Steward, of Wakefield; and Messrs. Torr, Janeway, and Tagart, of London.

TAYLOR, Frank, aged 25, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Rhodes, of Market Rasen; and Messrs. James Scott and Co, of London.

BUCHANNAN, George, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Walker and Hunter, of Whitby; Mr. John Buchannan, of Whitby and Messrs. Bell, Brodrick, and Bell, of London.

GOODMAN, Frederick, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Goodman and Morley, of London.

HARRIS, William Bartlett, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Mr. John Stogdon, of Exeter; Mr. Edmund Jonathan Hornblower Watkins Clarke, of Exeter; and Mr. Thomas Baker, jun., of London.

HITCHINS, William, aged 25, who served his clerkship to Mr. George Willcocks Billing, of Devonport; and Messrs. Sole, Turners, and Hardwick, of London.

RAWLE, Thomas, jun., aged 22, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Blandy, of Reading; and Messrs. Gregory and Rowcliffes, of London. The Council of the Incorporated Law Society accordingly awarded. the following prizes of books :-

To Mr. Smallpiece the Prize of the Honourable Society of Clifford's-inn.

To Mr. Marshall, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Buchannan, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Harris, Mr. Hitchins, and Mr. Rawle, each one of the prizes of the Incorporated Law Society.

The examiners also certified that the following candidates, under the age of 26, whose names are placed in alphabetical order, passed examinations which entitle them to commendation :

ADAMS, Francis, aged 24, who served his clerkship to Mr. George

Charles Richards, of Redditch; of Messrs. Thomas White and Sons, of London.

ALLEN, Charles Royle, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Allen and Aston, of Manchester; and Messrs. Bower, Son, and Cotton, of London.

ARUNDELL, Cecil, aged 20, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Bell, Steward, and Lloyd, of London.

BULL, Edward, aged 25, who served his clerkship to Mr. Frederick Blake, of Newport, Isle of Wight; and Messrs. Cunliffe and Beaumont, of London.

BURTON, Frederick Marshall, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Mr. Samuel Pearman Smith, of Walsall.

HARVIE, Edgar Christmas, aged 22, who served his clerkship to Mr. Harry Arthur Harvie, of Bideford; Mr. James Rooker, of Bideford; and Messrs. Kingdon and Cotton, of London.

MYTTON, Thomas, aged 20, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Wallington and Wright, of Leamington Priors; and Messrs. Gregory and Rowcliffes, of London.

OGLE, Horace Montague, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Mr. George Ogle, of London.

TOLLER, William Henry, aged 21, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Bremridge and Toller, of Barnstaple; and Messrs. Cree and Law, of London.

The Council have accordingly awarded them certificates of merit. The examiners further announced to the following candidates, whose names are placed in alphabetical order, that their answers to the questions at the examination were highly satisfactory, and would have entitled them to prizes or certificates of merit if they had not been above the age of 26 :

COOK, James, jun., who served his clerkship to Messrs. Carslake and Barham, of Bridgewater; and Messrs. Torr, Janeway, and Tagart, of London.

MASTERS, Francis Hamilton, who served his clerkship to Mr. Henry Hime, of Liverpool; and Messrs. Francis and Almond, of Liverpool.

ROGERS, George Andrew, who served his clerkship to Mr. Henry Hodgetts Deacon, of London.

WOOD, Edmund Smith, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Williams and Brydges, of Cheltenham.

The number of candidates examined in this term was 154; of these 148 were passed, and six postponed.

INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION.

The examiners have on former occasions thought it right, in making their report to the council, to mention the names of those candidates who had passed the examination with distinction.

In the present term, however, the papers of the majority of the candidates were of such uniform merit, that the examiners feel it would be difficult, and perhaps invidious, to make selections.

The number of candidates examined in this term was 148, the whole of whom were passed.

INCOMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.

THE case of Parker, app. v. Green, resp. (2 Best & Sm. 299,, deserves attention, as involving some points in the law of evidence. The subject of the incompetency of witnesses, which made so great a figure in the old treatises on the Law of Evidence (in Phillips and Amos on Evidence, published in 1838, no less than 170 pages are devoted to it), has in modern times shrunk into a smail compass, and in all probability will be still further restricted. The 6 & 7 Vict. c. 5, abolished the incompetency of witnesses on the ground of infamy and of interest in the event of the suit; and the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, did the same with respect to parties to the suit, except in cases of proceedings instituted in consequence of adultery, and actions for breach of promise of marriage; the former of which have since been removed from the jurisdiction of the common law courts by the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85. The 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, contained, however, a me important exception, on the construction of which difficalties have arisen, and on which the chief question in Parker v. Green depended. The 3rd section enacts, "But nothing herein contained shall render any person, who in any criminal proceeding is charged with the commission of any indictable offence, or any offence punishable on summary conviction competent or compellable to give evidence for or against himself or herself, or shall render any person compellable to answer any question tending to criminate himself or herself, or shall, in any criminal proceeding, render any husband competent or compellable to give evidence for or against his wife, or any wife competent or compellable to give evidence for or against her husband." Not very long after the passing of the statute arose the question, what is a "criminal proceeding," within the meaning of this section? In the Attorney-General v. Radloff (10 Exch. 84), the Court of Exchequer were equally divided in opinion as to whether an information for penalties under the revenue laws, was a criminal proceeding within it or not-Pollock, C.B., and Parke, B., holding the affirmative, and Martin and Platt, BB., the negative. To meet this particular class of cases several statutes have since been passed, the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 122, s. 15; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 96, ss. 44 and 36; and the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 62; whether with sufficient words to carry out fully the intention of the Legislature, we need

not at present inquire. But qui tam actions for penalties, although, to a certain extent, they partake of a penal character-and many charges preferred before justices of the peace, although in one sense, they may be looked on as criminal proceedings-such, for instance, as applications for orders of affiliation; do not come within this section. (Tayl. Ev. s. 1224, 3rd ed.) The next case deserving of notice, and which was largely referred to in Parker v. Green, is that of Catell, app., Ireson, resp. (El. Bl. & El. 91), in which it was held that an information under the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32, s. 23, for using an engine for the purpose of taking game, without a certificate, is a criminal proceeding, and consequently that the party charged is an incompetent witness.

6.

The case of Parker v. Green was an information, before justices in petty sessons, under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 61, s. 21, against a person licensed under that Act to sell excisable liquors by retail, for that he did, unlawfully and knowingly permit and suffer persons of notoriously bad character to assemble and meet together in his house and premises;" contrary to the tenor of his license. The defendant was tendered by his attorney as a witness to disprove the charge, but rejected by the bench as incompetent. A case having been stated for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench, under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, the Court, consisting of Wightman and Crompton, JJ., affirmed the conviction. Cattell v. Ireson was cited by the counsel in support of it; and the observations of Martin, B., in the Attorney-General v. Radloff, and those of Erle, C.J., in Legg v. Pardoe, (9 C. B., N.S., 289), where he says, "I do not assent to the doctrine that all offences under the Act (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32) are to be dealt with as criminal offences, because in one case it is provided that imprisonment with hard labour may be inflicted for non-payment of the penalty," were relied on by the opposite side. It was also urged that the offence could not be considered of a criminal nature, as the justices were not empowered to visit the party with imprisonment in the first instance, and could only adjudicate him to pay a fine, which might, if necessary, be enforced by imprisonment, but without hard labour. The Court, as already observed, decided in favour of the respondent; and the reasoning of Wightman, J., seems conclusive on the point. His Lordship said-"Looking at the 9 Geo. 4, c. 61, on which the conviction proceeded, it appears clearly to be treated as a criminal offence; for sect. 21 enacts, Every person licensed under this Act, who shall be convicted before two justices, &c., of any offence against the tenor of the licence to him granted, shall, unless, &c., be adjudged by such justices to be guilty of a first offence against the provisions of this Act relative to the maintenance of good order and rule; and for that the punishment is, not imprisonment it is true, but a fine. And in the latter part of the same section it is provided that, on proof of certain facts, the party shall be adjudged to le