way affects the rights of the parties, or the legal effect of the instrument, is immaterial: (Stephen on Evidence, art. 89).

Secondly, it has for years been settled that when once an estate has been conveyed by a deed, the deed has done its work, and the subsequent alteration of the deed cannot operate to reconvey the estate; and the deed, even though cancelled, may be given in evidence to show that the estate was conveyed by it while valid: (Lord Ward v. Lumley, 5 H. & N. 87, 656, and cases there cited). It should, however, be observed that it seems to follow from an old case in 1615 that there would be an exception where the estate lies in grant-e.g., a watercourse-and so cannot exist without a deed, for in such case an alteration by a party claiming the estate will avoid the deed as to him, and the estate itself is gone: (More v. Salter, 3 Buls. 79). However that may be, it is firmly settled, on the principle that when an agreement is once embodied in a deed, such deed becomes itself the agreement, and not evidence merely, that if the deed becomes void by alteration, no action can be brought upon a covenant contained in it: (Pigot's case, 11 Rep. 27a; Hall v. Chandless, 4 Bing. 123; Ellesmere Brewery Company v. Cooper, ubi sup.). At the same time, though the deed may be void for the purpose of enforcing it, it may nevertheless be admissible to prove a collateral fact: (Hutchins v. Scott, 2 M. & W. 816).

The possible hardship of the part of this rule that enunciates that every material alteration made by a stranger, even without the privity of any party, avoids a deed to the extent above explained, is readily apparent; and we could wish an opportunity would arise to have the question discussed and tested in the appeal court before modern judges. In the meantime it is interesting to observe that before Queen Victoria's reign commenced it had been held in the Court of Excheuer in Ireland that an alteration of this character so made did not avoid the deed, but that the court was at liberty to look at the deed as it was before it was altered: (Swiney v. Barry, 1 Jones Ex. 109). So apparently English and Irish law on the subject disagree in this detail; indeed, we believe we are right in thinking our law is herein unique.

In passing, it may be mentioned that a material alteration may necessitate restamping. That is to say, if a deed is altered by consent after execution so as to form a new contract between the parties a new stamp is required: (French v. Patten, 9 East, 351; Cole v. Parkin, 12 East, 47; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company v. Banclough, 2 M. & G. 675).

Another interesting topic-one clearly demanding the attention of a commercial lawyer, but one that, we fear, we have no space left to enter into-is the operation and virtue of transfers of shares in blank. The law of the matter is conveniently stated by Mr. Brodhurst in his treatise on the law of the Stock Exchange (p. 223 et seq.); and here it must suffice to remind the reader that where the name of the grantee is introduced into a deed after delivery, the deed, unless redelivered, is void (Hibblewhite v. M'Morine, 6 M. & W. 200); that where a transfer of shares is required to be by deed, one in blank is void at law, and is, in fact, as а deed wholly inoperative; and that when the deed of transfer is void and incomplete, registration will not perfect the transferee's title: (see Powell v. London and Provincial Bank, 69 L. T. Rep. 421; (1893) 2 Ch. 555). Perhaps it is for this reason that the Companies Act, 1862, does not require transfers to be made by deed, but only "in manner provided by the regulations of the company": (25 & 26 Vict., c. 89, s. 22).

Where the contract expressed in a deed is not well understood, but the subject of negotiation, the solicitor sometimes finds that one party at the last minute requires a lengthy new term or stipulation introduced; and with the deed engrossed, he is in a fix

what to do. If circumstances do not admit of delay or re-engrossment, one way, if an inelegant one, out of the difficulty seems to be to make an appropriate reference at the proper place ("see rider A" or "see back A"), to add the new covenant or clause to the foot or back of the deed, and to note the alterations in the attestation clause. For apparently such memorandums made previous to execution are considered, in construction and effect, as part of the instrument, although they add to or change the provisions of the deed: (Griffin v. Stanhope, Cro. Jac. 456; Goodright d. Nicholls v. Mark, 4 M. & S. 30; Frogley v. Earl Lovelace, 1 Johns. 333; Ellesmere Brewery Company v. Cooper, ubi sup.).

Since a deed cannot be altered after execution without fraud or wrong, and fraud or wrong is never assumed without proof, the court will presume, if an alteration or indorsement appear, that it was made prior to execution: (Doe d. Tatum v. Catomore, 16 Q. B. 745). It is useful, however, to remember that it does not follow that it is pedantic to call for evidence to remove the suspicion created by a material alteration which is neither noticed in the attestation clause nor initialled. On the contrary, it is wisdom to do so, because the presumption the court will make in such a case may, like any other presumption, be rebutted. If the vendor desire to be excused supplying such evidence, he should make it a condition of his sale.-Law Times.

DRAIN OR SEWER?

In Hedley v. Webb, decided by Mr. Justice CozensHardy on March 27, some limitation is put on the powers of individuals to turn drains into sewers. From December 31, 1898, until January 17, 1901, R. G. Marchant was the owner in fee of two plots, being 113 and 114 of the Longlands Park Estate, Sidcup, and of one-half of Park Hill Road, running in front of the two plots. On January 17 he conveyed the two plots and one-half of the road to the plaintiff. From November, 1899, the defendant had been the owner of the adjoining plot, numbered 112, together with half the road in front of it, and on this plot he had erected a pair of semi-detached houses. In the same month he laid down two sets of pipes from the water-closets of his two houses, which ultimately joined and ran into one common conduit which was connected with the sewer (vested in the local authority) in Park Hill Road. This connection with the sewer was made under that part of the road which was in front of plot 113 and now belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to drain his premises through the plaintiff's premises, an injunction to restrain him from permitting the connection to remain, and an order for removal of the same. The defendant contended that his two houses were two buildings within the meaning of the Public Health Act, 1875, and therefore that, from the point of junction of the pipes from the houses to the sewer, the conduit was itself a "sewer" within the meaning of the Act, and that, being a sewer, it was now vested in the local authority. The plaintiff, on the contrary, argued that the two houses were only one building, and that the conduit was only a drain, but that, whether it was a sewer or a drain, the defendant could not by what was a trespass and an unlawful act deprive the plaintiff of his rights in his own land.-Law Journal.

A solicitor was instructed to prepare a lease of a farm to the widow of the former tenant. He gave the old lease to his type-writer, and told her to draw the new one from it. He said it would be almost in the same words, the only alterations being in the name of the lessee, and in the gender of the pronouns. After half-an-hour she reported that she was getting on very well, but would like to suggest one additional alteration, namely, in the covenant to cultivate in a good husbandlike manner.

THE TRIAL OF EARL RUSSELL.

It is earnestly to be hoped that the trial of Earl Russell will be the last occasion on which the House of Lords will exercise an antiquated power that violates the elementary principles which are supposed to govern the administration of justice. That Earl Russell should be made the central figure of a State pageant, instead of being tried like a commoner against whom a charge of bigamy is made, is absolutely opposed to the accepted belief that all men are equal before the law. There is not the slightest reason, if a peer is guilty of the felony with which he is charged, why he should be compelled to add to his offence by dislocating, as he would do if the trial lasted for any length of time, the business of the High Court, and putting the country to a considerable amount of useless expense. Nor is the absurdity of the proceeding at all diminished by the fact that, in the present instance, the case lasted for only a few hours, and ended in a sentence on the accused of several months' imprisonment as a first class misdemeanant. This spectacular form of trial is anomalous in the extreme. A peer charged with a misdemeanour is tried in an ordinary Court, though the misdemeanour of which he is accused may be far more serious in its consequences than many a felony. It is a ridiculous survival of old class distinctions, and the sooner it is abolished the better for the dignity of the House of Lords as well as of the law.Law Times.

ADMISSION OF SOLICITORS.

Mr. Patrick J. Moran, son of Mr. Peter Moran, of Blackwater, Ratoath, County Meath, has been admitted a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland. After passing the preliminary examination, at which he secured a distinguished place, Mr. Moran was apprenticed to Messrs. John L. Scallan and Company, Solicitors, of Dublin, with whom he completed his apprenticeship. Mr. Moran intends practising in the City of Dublin.

Mr. William Kelly, youngest son of the late Mr. Charles Kelly and Mrs. Charles Kelly, of Ramelton, Co. Donegal, has been admitted a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland. Mr. William Kelly took third place at the Incorporated Law Society's Final Examination, and was awarded a silver medal and certificate for distinguished answering. He was placed fifth at the Preliminary Examination, and took first place at the Intermediate Law Examination. In the Apprentices' Debating Society, of which he was Registrar, Mr. Kelly was awarded the " Keatinge Clay Gold Medal for Legal Debate, and also the Incorporated Law Society's Special Certificate for oratory. Mr. Kelly served his apprenticeship with Mr. J. J. O'Meara, T.C., Solicitor, of Dublin, and intends practising in Ramelton and Letterkenny, Co. Donegal.

REVIEWS.

A Practical and Concise Manual of the Law Relating to Private Trusts and Trustees. By ARTHUR UNDERHILL, M.A., LL.D., Barrister-at-Law. Fifth Edition. London: Butterworth & Co. 1901. THE last edition of this well-known text-book appeared in 1894; since then a large number of decisions have been pronounced by various Courts on the subject of Trusts and Trustees, and there was therefore an urgent need for a new edition of the work. All these decisions find a place in the present volume, which has altered considerably in outward appearance. It contains some 200 pages less than the fourth edition-this is due partly to the use of a smaller type and a much larger page, and partly to increased brevity in the statement of the illustrations. The plan of the work is somewhat peculiar, it consists of eighty-two propositions or articles of law, appended to each are illustrations of the principles enunciated in the article, also other general notes thereto; in these all the principal decisions bearing on the subject are referred to and discussed, references being appended at foot of the page. The cases cited are necessarily very numerous, and include many Irish decisions; references to all the reports are given in the Table of Cases. The work has hitherto proved highly useful not only to students, but also to practitioners in both branches of the profession, in conducting them safely through "that codeless myriad, that wilderness of single instances," which fill the unending volumes of reports, and we have no doubt its reputation as a practical handbook will be further enhanced by the present edition.

A Century of Law Reform. Twelve Lectures on the Changes in the Law of England during the 19th Century, delivered at the request of the Council of Legal Education at Lincoln's Inn during Michaelmas Term, 1900, and Hilary Term, 1901. London: Macmillan & Co. 1901.

THIS is an interesting book. The introductory chapter, devoted to the Changes in the Common Law and the Law of Persons, in the Legal Profession and in legal education, is written by W. Blake Odgers, M.A., LL.D., K.C., familiar to all lawyers and many students as the author of "Pleading," and the Law of Libel and Slander. This chapter is at once amusing, entertaining, and instructive, and never falls into the "dry" character so much associated with an article upon a legal topic. In Ch. V. the same author deals with Domestic Legislation, comprising amongst other subjects the Poor Law, Public Health, and the Excess of Legislation. In a later chapter he again appears upon the Changes in Procedure, and in the Law of Evidence, in which he points out the drastic changes made by the Judicature Act. In Ch. 11. Sir Harry Poland, K.C., deals with the Changes in Criminal Law and Procedure since 1800, contrasting the severity of the old Criminal

Law, and the improvements made in this respect both by the Legislature and in the conduct of criminal cases by the Judges. He also touches upon the Criminal Evidence Act of 1898, which does not apply to Ireland. International Law, Public and Private, is assigned to John Pawley Bate, M.A., and is the chapter which would at present catch the attention of the lay reader. A. T. Carter deals with the Changes in the Constitution, whilst Changes in the Principles and Procedure in Equity are dealt with by Augustine Birrell, K.C., in which he notes the Money Lenders Act of 1900. Alfred Henry Ruegg, K C., is quite at home on Labour, and Arthur Underhill, on Real Property and Conveyancing, gives a condensed account of many and important improvements in these departments. Montague Leech treats of Married Women, and T. B. Napier writes a very interesting article on Joint Stock and Limited Liability Companies, in which he points out the merits and defects of the very recent legislation upon this important subject. Altogether the book is written in a style well calculated to amuse the young practitioner during the Long Vacation, while, at the same time, furbishing up his legal knowledge, while the Brooks Student would derive much information on the History of Law.

BOOKS RECEIVED.

An Epitome of Rules for Interpretation of Deeds for the Use of Students. By W. H. HASTINGS KELKE, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, Limited. 1901.

THE LAW IN PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

IRISH RATING GRIEVANCES.

for

Mr. Wyndham.-I ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend certain sections of the Local Government Act of 1898. The Bill is of a departmental character. The first clause, and, indeed, all four clauses, have been introduced to meet representations which have reached the Local Government Board from various local bodies in Ireland. Defects have arisen in the deduction of the Consolidated Poor Rate. It is found to present great difficulties to certain poor tenants in Ireland, and the simple plan suggested has been embodied in the first clause of this Bill. It is found that when they fail to make a calculation the result is that they get no deduction at all. The second clause of the Bill provides for considerable defects which have arisen in respect of certain excluded charges, particularly those malicious injuries. A vote is asked for and a sum of money raised often far in excess of the amount needed, and it is found that the balances cannot be applied to any purposes in the localities, and that they remain suspended. The third clause deals with the transitory provisional order affecting urban and other authorities under the Grand Jury Act, and the fourth clause also deals with another similar imperfection discovered in the Act called the Towns Improvement Act. This Bill is of a strictly departmental character, and all I would ask the House is that they would give leave for this Bill to be read a first time. Hon. members from Ireland will have an opportunity of discussing it at a subsequent stage.

or

Mr. J. Redmond said this was a wretched, ridiculously small, and insufficient Bill, dealing with only one two of the many defects of the Act of 1898. It would not do much good, but it could not do much harm, and, therefore, he did not oppose its introduction. The Bill was then brought in, and read a first time.

CROWN COUNSEL AT CORK ASSIZES.

Mr. Delany. I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can explain why he and the Solicitor-General for Ireland were prevented from attending the Cork Assizes, and can he state what will be the total cost of sending Mr. Bushe, K.C., to prosecute for the Crown at those Assizes, and out of what fund such cost will be defrayed?

The Attorney-General for Ireland.--To the first question I cannot at present give a fuller reply than that contained in the answers already given to similar questions on the 12th and 16th instants, and to these replies I beg to refer the hon. member. I have several times stated that Mr. Bushe, K.C., has not been sent to the Cork Assizes by the Crown, but that being on circuit the briefs that would have been held by Mr. Ronan, K.C., have been transferred to him by my direc tions. Mr. Bushe's fees, which are those Mr. Ronan would have obtained, will be paid out of the Law Charges Vote. At the present their amount cannot be ascertained.

Mr. O'Shee.-Would not the Crown briefs for the City of Cork be held in the ordinary course of things by Sir Francis Brady, K.C.? Attorney-General. That has nothing whatever to do

with it.

COURT PAPERS.

LAND JUDGES.

NOTICES.-Tuesday next, 30th July, will be the last day upon which conveyances will be executed. Convey. ances to be executed this Sittings must be lodged in the Examiner's Office by one o'clock on Friday, the 26th July. Dockets for matters movable by way of motions of course for hearing on Monday, 29th, and Tuesday, 30th July, 1901, respectively, must be lodged in the Examiner's Office, together with the documents relied on, before one o'clock on Saturday, 27th July. No motions of course will be heard on Wednesday, 31st July inst.

ADJUDICATIONS IN BANKRUPTCY. [The dates of Adjudications are first given, the Sittings follow in italics.]

DUBLIN.

Brennan, Edward, of Collooney, in the County of Sligo, mason, grocer, and confectioner. July 10; Tuesday, August 6, and Tuesday, August 20. Eugene F. Collins, solr. Colgan, James J., of 70 and 71 Bride-street, in the City of Dublin, barm brewer and chop manufacturer. July 8; Tuesday, August 6, and Tuesday, August 20. F. Croskerry, solr.

Dixon, Janie, of Ballinrobe, in the County of Mayo, spinster, grocer and spirit merchant. July 8; Tuesday, August 6, and Tuesday, August 20. Molloy and Molloy, solrs. Finnegan, Bridget, of Ballyjamesduff, in the County of Cavan,

widow, shopkeeper. July 12; Tuesday, August 6, and Tuesday, August 20. Eugene F. Collins, solr. Gilmore, Fannie, of Ballinasloe, in the County of Galway, widow, draper. July 16; Tuesday, August 6, and Tuesday, August 20. Molloy and Molloy, soirs.

BELFAST.

Hilditch, Charles, of Middle Division, Carrickfergus, in the County of Antrim, farmer July 16; Monday, August 12, and Monday, August 19. J. Gordon Scott, solr. Neill, James H., of 45 High-street, Belfast, in the County of the City of Belfast, merchant tailor. July 15; Monday, July 29, and Monday, August 12. David M'Gonigal,

solr. Nelson, James Gibson, of 17 Lombard-street, Belfast, in the County of the City of Belfast, spirit merchant. July 5; Monday, July 29, and Monday, August 12. David M'Gonigal, solr.

LAND JUDGES' COURT PRACTICE. Last Thursday, in the Land Judges' Court, one of the cases in the list stood adjourned from a previous day, the solicitors having carriage being required to attend. When the case was called the solicitors did not attend, and Mr. Justice Ross directed £5 to be deducted from their costs.

On the same day, in the case of Re M'Grath, Mr. Justice Ross said tenants who came forward with an application to apply the 40th Section would not get any favour from the Court if they had not honestly paid up their rents. The last thing he would do was to assist tenants who deliberately withheld their rents for the purpose of forcing a sale under the section.

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

LAWLOR-July 20, at Haddon-road, Clontarf, the wife of
James Lawlor, solicitor, of a son.
SHEEHAN-July 24, at Wellington-read, Dublin, the wife of
James J. Sheehan, barrister-at-law, of a daughter.
MARRIAGES.

KELLY and KENNY-July 24. at St. Andrew's, Westland-row, by the Rev. R. Kane, S.J., assisted by the Rev. M. Devitt, S.J., Matthew Kelly, J.P., Doolough Lodge, Milltown Malbay, Co. Clare, to May, elder daughter of the late Matthew Kenny, solicitor, Upper Pembroke-street, Dublin.

The Irish Land Commissioners have, in conformity with Rules 142 and 170 of the Rules of the 2nd January, 1897, ordered a Schedule of Agreements and Declarations fixing fair rents, and of Agreements under Section 17 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, to be inserted in the Dublin Gazette of 19th July, 1901.

A copy of this Schedule, in which are entered all Agreements and Declarations, and Agreements under the said Section 17, lodged during the month of June, 1901, will be sent to any person who applies for same to the Secretary, Irish Land Commission, 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin. By Order, JOHN H. FRANKS.

Irish Land Commission,

24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, 22nd July, 1901.

141

62, 64, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, & 79 HAMPSTEAD-ROAD, LONDON, W.

61 Grafton-street, Dublin.

ILLUSTRATED CATALOGUE (754 pages, and nearly 3,000 Illustrations) GRATIS AND POST FREE.

3

208

JOURNAL.

No. 1,801.

340

342 343 311

BARTON, LANDLORD, v. MULDOON, TENANT. II. THE tenant, in Barton v. Muldoon, the case now under review, relied upon section 11 of the Land Law (Ir.) Act, 1896, as altering the existing state of the law. It provides," a contract of tenancy entered into, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by a landlord in violation of an agreement

VOL. XXXV.

Echoes of the Courts

Brief Notes of Recent Irish Decisions

341

345

CRIMINAL INJURY-Local Government (Ir.) Act, 1898, 8. 5-Evidence. Connor v. The County Council of the County of Antrim P. 188 LAND LAWS-Fair rent-Arrears of rent- Improvements-Covenant in lease-Land Law (Ir.) Act, 1896, 88. 1 (4), 18. Talbot . Honeyford P. 185 LANDLORD AND TENANT-Future tenancy-Jurisdicdiction of Sub-Commission-Effect of order fixing rent. O'Rorke . Donnelly P. 187

LANDLORD AND TENANT-Ejectment for non-payment of rent under Deasy's Act-Period at which tenancy determined-Execution-23 & 24 Vict., c. 154, ss. 66, 70, 77. Kennedy v. Gannon P. 188

LANDLORD AND TENANT-Judicial holding under Ulster custom--Service of notice of intention to sellInduced by agent's misrepresentation of law Notice delivered up to be cancelled-Land Law (Ir.) Act, 1881, 8. 1. Mary A. Ballantine . The Earl of Gosford and Henry A. Johnston p. 189

against sub-letting in his lease, shall not as between him and the tenant holding under such contract be or be deemed to have been void or voidable, and a superior landlord shall be deemed to have expressed a sufficient consent in the manner in which the consent is required by law to be expressed to a subletting made in violation of such agreement, unless within a reasonable time after the sub-letting came to the knowledge of himself or his agent, he served on the lessee or sub-tenant notice of his dissent from the sub-letting, or instituted a proceeding against the lessee founded upon the said violation." Under s. 5 (3) of the same Act," where a holding is held by joint tenants or tenants in common, and such tenants have worked and occupied separate portions thereof ... the Court, on the application of any joint tenant or tenant in common, may, if they think that it is just, fix a fair rent upon the portion of the holding so separately occupied . . .” And by s. 50 (2), on an application to fix a fair rent, "where a tenant would, if this Act had been in force at the passing of the Land Law (Ir.) Act, 1881, be now a present tenant and . . . the landlord had not resumed possession of the holding

the tenant shall be deemed a present tenant for the purpose of any such application." It was therefore argued that the effect of s. 11 was to validate as between the parties thereto the until then illegal sub-letting, so as to prevent the sub-letting tenant repudiating his contract, unless the landlord dissented in the manner provided by the section, and that in the event of the landlord having refrained from serving an effective dissent the sub-letting was validated for all purposes against him, and his consent in writing was to be deemed to have been in fact given. This contention involved three stages(1) validation of the sub-letting as between the parties thereto, subject to its being set aside at the instance of the landlord; (2) absolute validation against both the sub-letting tenant and the superior landlord, who had not dissented; (3) constructive consent in writing to be deemed to have been in fact indorsed on the lease. It was also contended that even if the third stage was never reached, when the landlord had refrained from dissenting, the sub-letting had ccased to have been an unlawful transaction, and the sub-tenant, instead of being a mere trespasser, had