CAPEL COURT

LAST week I intimated that the fears on Paris account were exaggerated and unreal, and that the most had been made of the financial difficulties on the French Bourse. The settlement which commenced on Monday has so far proceeded satisfactorily, and if present appearances may be trusted, the worst has passed over. This improvement in affairs has materially assisted Home Rails and the English market generally. On Monday business seemed for a moment to flag, but yesterday everything in the Rail market became booming. Great Northern A's rose 13, commencing at 1103, and closing very strong at 111; London and Brighton's were rampant, and though many variations were recorded during the day, they showed a net gain on the day of 13: London and Chatham's participated in a modified degree to a portion of this exultant feeling, and though the rise earlier in the day was scarcely maintained to the close, still the rise marked was only. Considering, however, that Chatham's have been booming whilst other lines have been standing still, this news creates little surprise. In my opinion there is a lot of elasticity about these shares, and they will go still higher. Everything will conspire to assist them. Increased Continental traffic, revival in trale, and the fact that the holidays are approaching, will favourably affect these shares. Great Northern, Midland, and South Eastern's were variably dealt in, but all these marked a perceptible rise. Hull and Barnsley as usual dropped; this unfortunate line seems only to have one chance, and that is when everything else is dropping away, a few folks put up this line, and amuse themselves with an occasional gamble. Taff Vale are also off colour, and marked a declension of 2, whilst the ordinary shares lost, dropping to 17 down to 63. It is strange how this line and Hull and Barnsley jump up and down. Their history is similar, and circumstances seem to conspire to place them in the same boat, when business exigencies require a movement in their favour.

The movement which favours Canadian Canadian Rails, Pacific Rails continues, and in spite of certain bear articles now appearing in the financial columns of the daily papers, there is every prospect of a continuation of this rise. It is well known that the history of this line has been one which has allowed the bears unlimited powers for their operations. The holders of shares have bought from conviction; they have stood loyally by their purchase, and have defied the attempts of their antagonists to show the shares are not worth their current quotations, and if market movements have been opposed to them, they have not rushed in to sell, but have left the market manipulators to use their discretion apart altogether from their holding. This accounts for the fact that Canadians are quoted at the present moment at 51, and will also account for a running and rapid recovery in the prices of these shares. Grand Trunks are once more on the downward line and deservedly so. They have been put up by a market ruse, and really the present quotation much more represents their actual value than those obtaining a week ago. I must continue the advice offered to my readers during the last three weeks that Canadian Pacifics are real good business, and must advance. How these shares have dropped to their present figure is more than most people can understand. There are virtually few shares for actual transfer, and all the business done has been of a speculative character. When the settlement of next week arrives, I shall certainly expect to see Canadian Pacifics fetching much higher prices than are now obtaining.

The business in the market is altogether American favourable for a rise, and those who Railways. bought Pacifics on my suggestion of last week must materially advantage. Unions are looking healthy, as are Philadelphia and Readings. These

shares are always a favourite of mine for a speculative account, and there can be no question that in the near future these shares will be worth more than they are now obtaining. A considerable amount of speculation has taken place in connection with the Baltimore and Potomac, the bonds in this rail having run up 1. Louisville Bonds have improved 1 and are in considerable demand at the improved rate. Louisville and Nashville, Denvers, and New York Centrals are showing stronger, and perhaps when I have to write next week it will be necessary to record an advance in all of them. Wabash are uneasy, and despite the efforts of certain dealers these shares continue to drop away. The relative merits of this line as compared with some other American speculations are unquestionably weak, and Wabash will much more likely fall than rise.

With the markets generally easy there For ign Rails. has been considerable speculation in many Foreign Rails. Buenos Ayres are very strong, and perhaps, owing to the more satisfactory Continental statement, it is probable that all these securities will improve. Mexicans are in strong demand, and there is every appearance of them going still higher, particularly as there are strong orders from America to purchase.

The Mining Market.

In my notes of last week I ventured to refer to an attempt on the part of the financial press to write the public into a state of panic on the copper question, to show that because Paris had lost more or less millions by copper that she must necessarily become bankrupt. I then drew attention to the fact that France was in no way dependent upon the action of individuals in regard to the question of copper, and that her financial position was in any way affected by the action of individuals. The settlement in progress has endorsed the wisdom of my remarks, seeing that up to the present moment everything has gone off smoothly and pleasantly, that any failures have already been discounted, and that consequently the big body of operators will in no sense be affected. It seems strange by contrast how quietly their pessimistic writers write to-day. They all apparently recognise the position in Paris. They recognise that they have unduly exaggerated the financial difficulties of the country, and consequently are particularly silent at the present moment. Copper shares are rising, not rapidly it is true, but I certainly must repeat the advice I offered last week, that copper had touched its lowest price, and was more likely to rise than fall. The general mining market has been quiet, but South Africans are temporarily off colour. Those South Africans, however, that I recommended last week are all firm. Transvaal Gold are decidedly on an upward career, and Moddufonteins have improved. The last named will certainly make a big jump, and from all I can hear there is every prospect of a big output during the next few months. Gympie Great Easterns are steady, but all reports seem to indicate that there is a likelihood of a fall in price. The Indian Market is strong, and my suggestion that all shares must advance, has been realised, seeing that Mysores, Ooryums, and Nine Reefs are all better. My advice for next week must be, continue dealing in Indians, particularly Ooryums, Nine Reefs, and Perseverance. In South Africans I should suggest an immediate purchase of Domkops and Moddufonteins. In diamonds, holders of St. Augustine's should stick to their holding, and at present prices I consider these shares are a cheap purchase. Transvaal Gold are still worth buying; any moment may bring a report to the effect that a continuation of previous satisfactory results is to hand, and if so, then these shares are not unlikely to double themselves. New Guinea report is somewhat neutral; still, if anything, it is favourable, and these shares are more likely to rise than fall. Esmeraldas at 5s. are a really cheap purchase, and my readers cannot take harm if they buy now. MERCATOR,

VOL. VIII.

Morris v. Salberg, a note of which we give in another column, draws attention to a vexed question, presumably now laid at rest. It may be worth while to refer shortly to the earlier cases. In Jarmain v. Hooper, 6 M. & Gr., 827, the solicitor endorsed on the writ what the Court held to be a direction to the sheriff to seize the goods of some one who was not the execution debtor. The direction was as follows: The defendant is an upholsterer and bill-broker, and resides at No. 3, Prospect Place, &c. A person named Joseph Jarmain, residing there, was not the judgment debtor. The sheriff was misled by mis-direction, and seized the goods of the wrong person. The Court held that the direction of the solicitor was in the scope of his authority, and bound the execution creditor; and they so held on the ground that the attorney has the "general conduct of the cause, and is the only person with whom the sheriff has communication, and in taking the step essentially necessary for the benefit of his client, i.e., the obtaining the fruit of his judgment, we think he cannot be held to have acted beyond his authority, though he miscarried in its execution."

Childers v. Wooler, 2 E. & E., 289, is an authority which somewhat conflicts with Jarmain v. Hooper (ubi supra), but in Smith v. Keal, 2 Q.B.D., 340, the Court of Appeal had occasion to consider these and other cases. In Smith v. Keal (ubi supra) an action of trespass had been tried before Pollock, B., and a jury, at Liverpool Summer Assizes. It appeared that defendant had recovered judgment against one Law, who had at one time been in partnership with plaintiff, and had issued execution. After the fi. fa. had been delivered to the sheriff, his officer, doubting as to the goods available for seizure under it, wrote to defendant's solicitors asking for an interview. The sheriff's officer had an interview with their managing clerk, and some conversation about goods at a brewery which was the address entered on the writ. The clerk said he thought Law had a share in the brewery, and that the sheriff had better seize there. On this conversation

No. 129.

the officer seized at the brewery some goods belonging to the plaintiff. An interpleader was tried and the goods found to belong to plaintiff and not to Law. Plaintiff then brought action against defendant for wrongful seizure of goods by the sheriff, and Pollock, B., directed a non-suit. A Divisional Court, consisting of Manisty and Stephen, J.J., and Pollock, B., discharged a rule for a new trial though they differed in their reasons for so doing. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Jessel, M.R., and Lindley, L.J., (for Bowen, L.J., took no part in the judgment, not having heard the whole of the argument) were of opinion that but for the question of law there would have been evidence of a direction to the sheriff, and they were of opinion that Jarmain and Hooper (ubi supra), whether sound in principle or not, ought not, after a lapse of 40 years, to be disturbed. But, they held, they were asked to extend the doctrine of that case and to hold the execution creditor liable for the wrongful act of the sheriff in consequence of some verbal advice or direction given by a solicitor's clerk to the sheriff's officer, and they laid down that it was not within a solicitor's authority to tell a sheriff how to perform his duty.

THE case of in re Henderson, Henderson v. Bird, a short note of which we gave in last week's reports, furnishes a much needed authority. The general principle in cases of bonds given by a man to his paramour is clear. If given in respect of past cohabitation merely, they are equivalent to voluntary bonds, but if given to secure continuance of the illicit relationship, they are founded on an immoral consideration and therefore invalid. The difficulty occurs in those cases where the bond does not show on its face that it has been given to secure the continuance of the cohabitation. In this case the deed recited that the obligee had become acquainted with the obligor, who had cohabited with her; that there had been issue, a boy; that differences had arisen and determinatian to discontinue the cohabitation; and that obligor had agreed to grant obligee a certain annuity as compensation for loss of his protection and to provide her with an income for maintaining herself and child. The judge was of opinion that cohabitation was discontinued at the time of the deed, and resumed some time afterwards. The executors of the obligor, however, contended that one of the motives of the deed was an agreement for future cohabitation which vitiated it. This contention was a somewhat bold one, but the fact of it being urged shows how much such an authority was needed.

IN Gray v. Mathias, 5 Ves., 286, where two bonds had been given, the second disclosed an immoral consideration on its face. The contention was, as to the first bond, and it was urged that inasmuch as conabitation had not been discontinued when the bond was given, the court would presume that it was for an immoral consideration, but this contention was distinctly over-ruled. In the later case of in re Vallance, Vallance v. Blagden, 26 Ch. Div., 353, the testator, six months before his death, gave a bond to a lady with whom he had cohabited for more than thirty years, the condition being for payment to her at the expiration of two years of a sum of money and interest. He continued to cohabit with her until his death. There was nothing on the face of the bond with reference to cohabitation, and there was no

evidence that it was in fact given to secure its continuance, and Kay, J., held that mere continuance of the cohabitation was not enough to raise the presumption that the bond was given in consideration of future cohabitation.

IT will be seen that neither of these cases goes much further than negativing the existence of immoral consideration, or the presumption of it in the particular case. In re Henderson, however, we get something like a general rule, for Stirling, J., laid down the doctrine that the question in all such cases was one of fact, depending upon the provisions of the deed and the extrinsic evidence afforded by surrounding circumstances attendant upon its being given. In the older cases the fluctuation of the current of decision is probably to be ascribed to the conflicting claims of the man, whose temporary infatuation has been, perhaps, heavily paid for, and on the other, of the woman, who has forfeited so much for his sake. "Circumstances," we know of old, "alter cases."

MANY eminent solicitors are getting up a demonstration for the purpose of indicating the confidence and respect entertained for the Attorney-General by their branch of the profession, and to express their sympathy with him in the matter of the recent attack that has been made against his conduct and reputation. It was also being mooted that at the meeting of the Bar on Saturday, the opportunity should be made available for a similar purpose. Sir Edward Clarke, the SolicitorGeneral, has, however, written to the Times deprecating such a proceeding. "I know," says Sir Edward Clarke, "that the Attorney-General is so far from desiring any action of this kind that he will certainly not attend the meeting, unless he is fully assured that no such attempt will be made to pledge the Bar, as a body, to the expression of any opinion with regard to incidents and conduct which cannot as yet be fully and properly discussed."

WHEN a propensity cannot be cured, it is wise to endeavour to control, or at least to guide it, so as to minimise the evil its indulgence might cause. Most men are born speculators. They commence in childhood with buttons and marbles, and they finish up either on the stock market or the racecourse, the former more reputable than the latter. If people then will dabble in stocks and shares, a journal performs a useful task in enquiring and investigating into the character, conduct, and ability of those to whom the public are accustomed to resort for advice. For it is notorious that with the eminent exception of the three gentlemen whose names have appeared prominently in these columns, and two others-it may be three or four others -a great majority of persons who invite the public to trust them as honest guides, are unworthy of credit for honour or skill. Men whose time would seem more legitimately and usefully employed in helping their mothers at home to turn the mangle, or in vending small articles for domestic consumption, hold themselves out as guides and mentors of that gullible portion of the public who think that because a man calls himself a broker he may be trusted. These men, too, by their mode of action, reflect much discredit on the whole calling. In these circumstances we conceive that our interviewer has done good public service in finding out three gentlemen of responsibility and integrity. But we are by no means to be understood as in any wise advocating Stock Exchange speculations. What we only profess to say is, that if you are determined to speculate, and you are about to resort to a dealer, mind you are careful whom you select, and our interviewer has taken some trouble, according to the best of his judgment, to guide you aright.

WE regret to hear of the indisposition of Lord Justice

MORRIS v. SALBERG.-Action against Execution Creditor for Directing Seizure by Sheriff of Plaintiff's Goods, Plaintiff not being Execution Debtor.-Direction Endorsed on Writ by Solicitor.-Scope of Solicitor's Authority.-Respondent Superior.-Whether Endorsement Amounted to Direction in Law.-Defendant recovered judgment against Morris, plaintiff's son, and issued fi. fa. against him. Defendant's solicitor endorsed fi. fa. "The defendant is a gentleman who resides at Same Park, Llandysil, Cardiganshire." That address was in fact that of plaintiff, and not of his son, but the sheriff of Cardiganshire levied at Same Park, and his action was ratified by defendant and his solicitor. Action brought against sheriffs was stayed. Present action being brought against execution creditor, the jury found that the sheriff seized the goods of the plaintiff, instead of those of his son, because he was misled by the direction he received from defendant's solicitor, and assessed damages. Stephen, J., however, entered judgment for defendant, holding the endorsement on the writ was not a direction in law. Held (by Lord Esher, M.R., Fry, and Lopes, L.J.J.), that the decision of Stephen, J., must be reversed, for that the endorsement made by the solicitor might in law be a direction to the sheriff to seize the particular goods taken, that the jury having found the sheriff was misled, thereby the execution creditor was rendered liable by the act of his solicitor.

BAINBRIDGE v. SMITH.-Company.-Articles of Association.— Meaning of Vacation of Office of Director.-Whether Provision Applicable to Directors Appointed by Agreement with Vendors to Company.-Director's Qualifying Shares.-Meaning of Term “holding in his own right."-Amongst the articles of association of a limited company was one providing that the office of director was to be vacated, inter alia, "if he ceases to hold the required amount of shares or stock to qualify him for the office, or do not acquire the same within one month after election or appointment." Held (by Cotton and Lindley, L.J.J.), that this provision had no application to managing directors appointed by an agreement with the vendors to the company adopted by the articles. Another article provided that the qualification of a managing director should be "the holding in his own right of shares or stock of the company of the nominal value of £25,000." Per Cotton, L.J., the words "in his own right" mean a beneficial holder including a mortgagor, the dicta of Jessel, M.R., in Pulbrook. v. Richmond Consolidated Mining Company, 9 Ch. Div., 610, dissented from. Per Lindley, L.J., that those dicta having been acted on so long, exception ought not now to be taken to them, and that "in his own right" has acquired by usage the meaning that the shares shall be held in such a manner that the company can safely deal with the holder as if he held them as his own.

LUMLEY v. BROOKES.-Action by Solicitors for Bill of Costs and Disbursements.-Defendant not Appearing, though Alleging and Counterclaiming for Negligence.-Right of Plaintiffs to Judgment and not merely to Order Directing Taxation.-Action by firm of solicitors against a client to recover amount of bill of costs and disbursements. Defence, no retainer, and negligence and counterclaim for damages for negligence in conducting action in which costs incurred. Defendant did not appear at trial and Kay, J., holding plaintiffs had proved the retainer, made an order referring the bill to the taxing master for taxation, reserving costs of action and adjourning further hearing with liberty to apply, and declined to make any other order. Held (by Cotton, Lindley, and Fry, L.J.J.), that the plaintiffs were entitled to have the counterclaim dismissed with costs, also to judgment for the amount claimed, subject to taxation, with

costs.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

BISHOP et al. v. CONSOLidated CredIT CORPORATION. Bills of Sale Acts.--Bill of Sale in Consideration" of the Sum of £30 now Paid."-Consideration Truly Stated.-Cheque to Order of and Indorsed by Grantor Taken Away by Grantee and £25 15s. applied in Paying out Distress.-Plaintiff, a tenant, owing her landlord £21 for which he had distrained, raised money to pay out the distress by a bill of sale to defendants. The bill of sale was expressed to be granted in consideration of "the sum of £30 now paid." A cheque drawn to plaintiff's order was produced to her and endorsed by her, but the defendants' agent then took it away, cashed it, paid the landlord and the broker £21 and £4 15s., and afterwards handed plaintiff the balance. Held (by Hawkins and Charles, J.J.), affirming the

on the Bench.

were made in good faith the consideration was not truly stated, and the bill of sale was void.

THE BAR COMMITTEE.

SIXTH ANNUAL STATEMENT.

AT the annual general meeting of the Bar, held in the Old Dining Hall, Lincoln's-inn, on the second Saturday in Trinity Sittings, 1888, the following members of the committee retired by rotation: Sir Horace Davey, Q.C., M.P., Messrs. R. B. Finlay, Q.C., M.P., R. A. Baysford, Q.C., G. Pitt-Lewis, Q.C., M.P., H. B. Buckley, Q.C., W. C. Renshaw, Q.C., E. W. Byrne, Q.C., H. F. Boyd, G. Farwell, C. E. H. Chadwyck Healey, Howel Jeffreys, M. Ingle Joyce, W. W. Knok, E. L. Levett, Decimus Sturges, and E. P. Wolstenholme.

To fill the vacancies caused by the retirement of the abovenamed members, twenty-six candidates weré duly nominated, and at a poll held during the week ending the first Saturday in Trinity Sittings, the following received the largest number of votes, and were duly declared elected by the chairman : Sir Horace Davey, Q.C., M.P., Messrs. R. B. Finlay, Q.C., M.P., G Pitt-Lewis, Q.C., M.P., W. C. Renshaw, Q.C., E. Cutler, Q.C., E. W. Byrne, Q.C., S. Hall, Q.C., H. F. Boyd, F. Evans, G. Farwell, Howell Jeffreys, M. Ingle Joyce, W. W. Knox, R. H. Pinhey, Decimus Sturges, and E. P. Wolstenholme. Six hundred and fifty-two voting papers were received, but a large number were delivered after the close of the poll, and were therefore rejected.

The committee appointed Mr. Gilbert G. Kennedy to be a member of the committee in the place of Mr. Horace Smith, who has ceased to practise at the bar.

At the first meeting of the committee after the election, the Right Hon. Sir Henry James was re-appointed chairman, Mr. W. F. Robinson, Q.C., vice-chairman, Mr. E. P. Wolstenholme, treasurer, and Mr. Lofthouse, honorary secretary.

At the last annual general meeting, Messrs. Yarborough Anderson and R. B. Haldane were re-appointed auditors.

During the past year the Bar Committee have had their attention directed to numerous subjects affecting the Profession, and amongst others the following :

LAND TRANSFER BILL.

The Lord Chancellor having forwarded to the committee a copy of the Land Transfer Bill, with an intimation that he would be glad to consider any observations upon the clauses which the Bar Committee might be disposed to make, a report on the Bill was drawn up by a sub-committee, consisting of Sir Horace Davey, Messrs. Rigby, Channell, Byrne, Kenelm Digby, Dunning, and Wolstenholme, and adopted by the committee. This report was necessarily of considerable length, and a large amount of time was devoted to its preparation by the sub-committee. The committee are glad to know that this report and their former report on land transfer were very fully considered by the members of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, by whom the Bill was considered.

SITTINGS OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

A joint committee was nominated by the Bar Committee and the Incorporated Law Society to consider the subject of the sittings of the courts of the Queen's Bench Division. The joint committee consisted of the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Bar Committee, and Messrs. Finlay, Q.C., Channell, Q.C., W. Rann Kennedy, Q.C., Kenelm Digby, W. Graham, R. Vaughan Williams, and R. S. Wright, nominated by the Bar Committee; and the President and the Vice-President of the Incorporated Law Society, Mr. John Hollams, Sir Henry Watson Parker, Mr. Henry Roscoe, Mr. J. W. Budd, Mr. William Walton, Mr. J. M. Johnstone, and Mr. F. K. Munton, nominated by the Incorporated Law Society. A report was drawn up by the joint committee and adopted by the Bar Committee and the Incorporated Law Society, and copies of the same were laid before the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England and the judges. At the request of the Lord Chief Justice, a deputation from the joint committee had an interview with his lordship and three of the judges for the purpose of discussing the suggestions contained in the report. The committee are glad to say that most of these suggestions have been carried out, and it is hoped that the result will prove to be advantageous, both to the profession and the public, by lessening the uncertainty as to the time when actions will come on for trial, and the consequent expense of keeping witnesses in waiting. COUNTY COURTS.-COUNTY COURT CONSOLIDATION BILL, 1888. This Bill was fully considered by the committee, and a report thereon was prepared and placed in the hands of the legal members of the grand committee, and many of the suggestions in the report were adopted. As to clause 72, evidence was received by the committee from members of the Bar, from whom they learnt that instances had occurred in which a county court judge had, in deciding as to the order in which the business of the court should be transacted, felt himself fettered by the words of the clause as it then stood, which gave the barrister a right to appear, "but without any right of exclusive or pre

audience." The committee suggested that the words "or pre-' should be struck out, on the ground that on the evidence before the committee it was detrimental to the public interest, in that suitors were often deprived of the assistance of counsel in those cases in which their assistance was much needed. It constantly happened that counsel were kept waiting in court for a whole day, and sometimes for a longer period, without the case in which they were engaged being heard by the judge. The effect was that counsel declined to attend the court altogether, or required an increased fee. The committee are glad to say that the words were struck out of the Bill as they suggested, and County Court judges will now have full power to make regulations for the orderly transaction of the business of their courts. This alteration is of the more importance in consequence of the increased jurisdiction, and it is hoped that barristers and others will now have better information as to the time when cases in which they are engaged will be called on. With that view, the Bar Committee have prepared blank forms for daily lists of County Court business, and have supplied these with stamped and directed wrappers to the Registrars of all the Metropolitan County Courts. These will be posted in a frame outside the door of the Inner Temple Dining Hall. The notice board has been erected by the Benchers of the Inner Temple, who at once acceded to the request made by the Bar Committee that they would do so.

CIRCUITS.

The Bar Committee regret that it does not appear that it has yet been found practicable to carry out the scheme for the circuits which was understood to have been approved by the judges early in 1888. The serious evils arising from the one judge system still continue on most of the circuits. It would be useless to repeat the arguments that have been frequently urged by the Bar Committee, as they are well-known, both to the profession and the judges. A copy of a report by Mr Justice Cave on "Circuits" has been forwarded to the Bar Committee by his lordship. This almost entirely meets the views of the committee, and they trust that it will have an important influence in remedying evils which are now of long standing. During the year resolutions have been passed by the North-Eastern, South-Eastern, and Midland Circuits, and the members of the Northern Circuit practising in London, and forwarded to the Bar Committee. These have been approved by the committee; they relate principally to the trial of quarter sessions' prisoners at the assizes, and express an opinion that such prisoners should be tried at quarter sessions. Copies of the resolutions, together with the report of the Bar Committee, have been laid before the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and all the judges. It is hoped that the desired object will be effected by the Assizes Relief Bill (which, it is understood, will be re-introduced into Parliament early in the session), and that the result will be that the time now occupied by the assizes will be considerably shortened, and that consequently the courts in London will be able to sit for longer periods to dispose of more important business.

NEW RULES OF COURT.

A joint committee was appointed by the Bar Committee and the Incorporated Law Society to consider the question of the promulgation, from time to time, of new rules of the Supreme Court. The joint committee consisted of Messrs. W. F. Robinson, Q.C., Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., F. A. Bosanquet, Q.C., M. Ingle Joyce, and R. Vaughan Williams, nominated by the Bar Committee; and the President, Vice-President, Messrs. Hollams, Hunter, and Markby, nominated by the Incorporated Law Society. The joint committee considered that it was important in the interest of the public, and for the convenience of the members of the Profession generally, who have charge of those interests, that a sufficient opportunity should be afforded them for the consideration in draft of any proposed rules. Many of the rules involve matters of detail in procedure, in respect of which the practitioners in the Supreme Court, both barristers and solicitors, have necessarily a very large experience, and would be able to render very material assistance. A commu nication was addressed to the Lord Chancellor, signed by the vice-chairman of the Bar Committee and the President of the Incorporated Law Society, requesting his Lordship to give the subject his favourable consideration, with the view of making arrangements so that the Bar Committee and the Incorporated Law Society might have an opportunity of considering new rules of court in time to make any suggestions thereon before the same came into force. In reply, his Lordship stated that he fully recognised the material value of the assistance which members of both sides of the Profession are capable of rendering in the passing of rules of the Supreme Court, and that any suggestions with reference to legal procedure coming from the Law Society and the Bar Committee would be received with interest and considered with the greatest care, and his Lordship invited both those associations to aid the judges with such suggestions from time to time.

FEES CHARGED TO BARRISTERS FOR SEARCHING THE ROLLS.

The Bar Committee having been informed that, under the rules and regulations of the Record Office of the 1st May, 1887