NEW BILLS IN PARLIAMENT. RATING TENEMENTS. This is "A Bill to render the Owners of small Tenements liable to the Payment of the Rates assessed thereon." It recites that the collection of the rates assessed on the occupiers of small tenements, and of tenements let for short terins, is difficult, and the payment of such rates is greatly evaded: And it is therefore proposed to be enacted. officer of every such parish, whose duty it may be to make and levy the rates therein, shall and they are hereby empowered and required to carry into effect all such resolutions and directions of the said guardians of the poor, and in pursuance and execution thereof to collect and levy the suns which shall be assessed in such rates, for or in respect of such last-mentioned tenements, in such and the like manner, and as fully to all intents and purposes, as is herein provided with respect to tenements let at rents not exceedings six pounds by the year. 3. That every occupier who shall pay any and chattels the same, and the costs incurred by the non-payment thereof or any part thereof, shall be levied, shall and may deduct the amount of the sum which shall be so paid or levied out of the rent which is or shall become payable by him to the owner in respect of such tenements, and shall be and is hereby acquit ted and discharged of and from an equivalent portion of such rent as fully and effectually as if the same had been paid to and received by such owner for or towards the rent of such occupier. 1. That it shall be lawful for the churchwardens and overseers of every parish in Eng-such rate as aforesaid, or upon whose goods land and Wales, and all other officers whose duty it may be to make and levy any rate thereon, to demand and collect the sums which shall be assessed in any such rate for or in respect of tenements which shall be let to the occupiers thereof at any rent or rate not exceed ing six pounds yearly, either from year to year or any less term, or on any agreement by which the rent (not exceeding the amount aforesaid) shall be reserved and made payable at any shorter period than three months, of and from the actual occupiers of such tenements; and in case of refusal or neglect on the part of such Occupiers to pay any such rates, it shall be lawful for the said officers either to enforce the payment of such rates by such occupiers, and to levy the amount thereof, with the costs incurred by the non-payment thereof, on their goods and chattels, in like manner as the same may now be enforced and levied, or to demand of and collect from the owners of such tene-privileges of being present at any vestry or ments the payment of such rates, and upon non-payment thereof to enforce the sum against such owners, and levy the amount thereof, with costs as aforesaid, on their goods and chattels, in like manner as the same might have been enforced and levied, if such owners had been the actual occupiers of such tene ments. 4. That the owners of such tenements who shall pay the sums assessed in the rates for the relief of the poor in respect thereof as aforesaid, shall be entitled to have and enjoy, instead of the actual occupiers thereof, such right to take copies of or extracts from such poor rates, and such remedy by objecting to or appealing against such poor rates, and such porochial meetings of the parishes in which such tenements are situate, as such occupiers would have had and enjoyed, if they had paid such poor rates on their own account; and that on all questions relating to the execution of the laws for the relief of the poor, such owners shall be entitled to have, in respect of the aggregate amount of the rateable value of such tenements belonging to them respectively, the number or proportion of votes which is in and by the said act passed in the fourth and fifth years of the reign of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, for the amendment and better administration of the laws for the relief of the poor, given to rate-payers in respect of their occupation on the election of guardians as therein mentioned. 2. That it shall be lawful for the guardians of the poor of every union of parishes which is or shall be declared, and of every single parish for which a board of guardians is or shall be established under the powers of the act passed in the fourth and fifth years of the reign of his late Majesty, intituled, "an Act for the Amendment and better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England aud Wales," to resolve and direct that the 5. That nothing in this act contained shall sums which shall be assessed in all rates in any prevent the occupier of any tenement, who, in parish comprised in such union, or in such right of his occupation or of paying to the poor single parish, for or in respect of all tenements rate, would be entitled to the elective franchise which shall be let to the occupiers thereof at for members of parliament, or for the purposes any rent or rate exceeding six pounds, but not of any municipal corporation, from claiming to exceeding twenty pounds yearly, either from be subjected to the payment of the poor rate year to year or any less term, or on any agree-in manner provided by 2 W. 4, c. 43, or 5 & 6 ment by which the rent, not exceeding the amount aforesaid, shall be reserved or made payable at any shorter period than three months, shall be borne by the owners of such last-mentioned tenements instead of the actual occupiers thereof; and that it shall be lawful for the said guardians of the poor from time to time to rescind, renew, vary and amend every such resolution or direction; and that the W. 4, c. 76, or any act to amend or extend the said last mentioned acts, or either of them: Provided that in case any such occupier claim. ing as aforesaid shall make default in the payment of such poor rate, such owner shall become and remain liable for the payment thereof. 6. That so much of 54 G. 3, c. 110 & 111, and 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 50, s. 32, as empowers justices of the peace to order and direct that per New Bills in Parliament.-Correspondence.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor. 121 RATES OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS. quired, in order to entitle him to have his name inserted in any list of such voters to have paid any poor rates or assessed taxes, except such as shall have become payable from him previously to the 11th October in the preceding year. The bill also proposes to abolish the stamp duty on the admission of freemen. SELECTIONS FROM CORRESPONDENCE. sons shall be excused from the payment of But this is not to affect the 6 G. 4, c. 50, repoor rates or highway rates, shall be repealed. lating to jurors and juries. 7. That nothing in this act contained shall affect the powers given by any general or local act of parliament to make compositions for any This bill proposes to enact that no person, rate with the landlords of certain tenements, whose name is or shall be on the register for or any powers auxiliary thereto. 8. That in the construction of this act, un-tion of a member in parliament, shall be rethe time being as entitled to vote in the elecless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction, the word "tenement" shall be construed to include any land, house, dwelling, apartment, or other hereditament, together with the garden, yard, curtilages, and other appurtenances or easements held and let therewith; the word "owner" shall mean and include any person being the immediate lessor of the actual occupier of a tenement, and claiming or receiving the rents of such tenement either for his own use or as mortgagee or other encumbrancer in possession, and any person receiving such rent for the use of any corporation aggregate, or of any landlord or lessor who shall not be usually resident within twenty miles of the parish in which such tenement shall be situate; the word "occupier" shall mean any tenant at rack rent, and any person beneficially occupy ing any tenement, not being a lodger or under tenant of a tenant at rack-rent; the word "rate" shall extend to and include any rate or rates in aid, mulct, cess, assessment, collection, levy, subscription or contribution raised, assessed, imposed, levied, collected or disbursed for the relief of the poor, the amendment and reparation of the highways, and the reparation and support of the church; words "rack-rent," " person,' """rules, orders and regulations," "vestry," and "parish," and all words importing the singular number or masculine gender only, shall be construed to have the same signification as the same and the words are declared to have in the said act of the fourth and fifth years of the reign of his late Majesty for the amendment and better administration of the laws relating to the poor. 9. Act only to extend to England and Wales. SUMMONING JURIES. COMMON LAW FEES. To the Editor of the Legal Observer. Sir, I READ in one of the Numbers of your useful publication a list of fees in the Common Law Courts proposed to be abolished, and was much surprised at it after what has been said on the subject for some time past. The fees proposed to be abolished (with one or two exceptions) are all of the smallest amount, and must be perfectly unimportant either to the attorney or his client, whether abolished or not. But why not, Mr. Editor, abolish court fees-entries of pleadingspassing records—searching for judgments, &c. and fees for which no duty (beyond entering the name of the cause) is performed. When this is done, I (with many others in the profession) shall believe something is really intended; at present it is but a mockery. AN OLD PRACTITIONER. [We understand that no fees will be charged for entering pleadings or passing records, except a fee of 78., applicable to all cases, without reference to the extent of the pleadings. We believe also that an alteration will be made in the charge on searching for judg SUPERIOR COURTS. This is a bill to remove doubts as to Sum-ments, &c. ED.] moning Juries at Adjourned Quarter Sessions of the Peace. It recites that doubts have existed as to the legality of summoning juries for the trial of prisoners at adjourned quarter sessions, and to remove such doubts it is proposed to be enacted, That it is and shall be lawful for the justices of the peace for any county, riding, division, or place in England and Wales, in quarter sessions assembled, when to them it shall seem meet, to direct the summoning of juries in the accustomed manner to attend such adjourned court of quarter sessions for the despatch of business of such adjourned quarter sessions, in the same manner as they may be now summoned to attend any general quarter sessions; and the juries so summoned to attend any adjourned quarter sessions shall have the same duties and powers as if they had been summoned to attend any general quarter sessions. Lord Chancellor's Court. PORTION BY SETTLEMENT.-SATISFACTION OF A LEGACY. EVIDENCE. Sir J. B., being seised of a reversion in fee, (expectant on events which happened) devised the same to trustees for a term, lo raise therefrom and from his personal estate the sum of 50,000l., and to hold 10,000l. of that sum for each of his five nieces, for her life, and, after her death, for any husband who might survive her, for his life, and after the death of the survivor, for all the children of each niece respectively. Upon the marriage of one niece afterwards, Sir J. B. by the settlement charged his said reversion with pay 122 Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor. ment of the interest of 10,000l. to her Honor's decree. The appeal was argued in Dec. 1836, by Sir C. Wetherell, Mr. Wigram, Mr. Wray, and Mr. Bethell, for the appellants; and by Mr. Knight, Mr. Jacob, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Chandless, for the respondent and other parties. A vast number of cases referred to in Mr. Simeon's report were again cited in the argument on the appeal. The Lord Chancellor now gave his judgment.-The will and settlement in the case having been set forth in the sixth volume of Mr. Simon's reports, it was not necessary to state them. The question was, whether Sir Sir John Barrington was tenant for life, with John Barrington intended to give to his the ultimate remainder to himself in fee, of an niece a double portion of 10,000l.: one by his estate in the Isle of Wight. He was not mar-will, the other by the settlement on her married. He had one brother, Fitzwilliam Bar-riage. The case was of great importance, not rington, who had six daughters and no son. only on account of the amount of the sum in Upon the marriage of the eldest of these dispute, but also of the principle involved in ladies with Sir Richard Simeon in 1813, Sir the question, and of the difficulty of deducing J. B., by deed, charged his reversionary estate it from the decided cases and applying it to with payment of 10,000l. to trustees for that this. As he could not concur with the Viceniece and her husband and their children; and Chancellor's decision, he carefully examined in 1817, he, by his will, devised his said rever-all the cases and authorities. It was clear sion, subject to certain charges, to trustees for that if Julia Barrington (Mrs. Powys) had been 1,000 years, to raise out of the same by sale the daughter, instead of being the niece, of Sir or mortgage, and out of certain personal pro- John B., the provision made for her by the perty which he gave the same trustees, the settlement would be an ademption of that made sum of 50,000., which he directed to be held by the will. The Vice-Chancellor did not upon trust for the benefit of his five unmarried doubt that proposition; but his Honor rested nieces, one-fifth thereof to each for her life, his judgement on this ground, that Sir J. B. and after her decease, in trust to pay the divi- could not be considered to be in loco parentis dends to any husband she might leave surviving to the niece. It therefore becomes necessary her, for his life, the capital of each 10,000l. to consider what acts of a person will put him to be divided equally among all the children of in the relation and give him the character of each niece after the death of her and her hus being in loco parentis to any one. Lord Eldon band, &c. Subject to the term and other in Ex parte Pye a and other cases, laid down charges, he devised his said reversion to his those observations, which would carry out the eldest niece, Lady Simeon, remainder to her meaning and definition of the terms. Sir first and other sons, &c. Previous to the mar- William Grant in the case of Wetherby v. riage of his third niece to Mr. Powys, soon Dixon b defines the relation of a person in loco after the date of the will, Sir J. B., for the love parentis to be "a person assuming the parental he bore her, and for her advancement in life, character, or discharging parental duties." The and to provide maintenance for her, charged his Vice-Chancellor in his judgment gave this said reversion in fee with payment of the definition-" that he must be a person that has interest of 10,000l. to the intended husband for so acted towards the children as that he has life, and after his decease to the intended wife, thereby imposed upon himself a moral obligaSir J. B.'s said niece, for her life, and after tion to provide for them." This definition the decease of the survivor of them, with pay-implies that the person who is to stand in loco ment of 10,000l. to trustees for the younger children of the marriage. The marriage of the third niece with Mr. Powys was duly solemnized in 1817. Sir J. B. in 1818, made a codicil to his will, confirming the same, and died the same year, Mrs. Powys died in 1821, leaving her husband and issue, one son, surviving. The husband filed his bill in 1833 against the trustees of the will and of his marriage settlement, Sir Richard and Lady Simeon and others, claiming the interest of the two sums of 10,000l. and 10,000l., to be paid to him for his life, according to the trusts of the will and settlement. The Vice-Chancellor made a decree according to the prayer of the bill. The case before his Honor was reported, first in 12 Leg. Obs. 137, and subsequently in 6 Sim. 528, where the will and settlements are fully stated. Sir Richard and Lady Simeon appealed from his parentis takes in fact the place of the parent ; and Lord Eldon's observations would come up to that view of the character. The rule, as applied, is of presumed intention; a father is presumed to do what he assumed by his acts; so also is he who takes on himself the office of a parent. The Court would require proof of the assumption of the character in one who was not the parent. If the Vice-Chancellor's definition were to be adopted, the proof required would be whether Sir John Barrington had not taken on himself the duty of a parent whether he had not by his acts put himself in loco parentis to his nieces. If it appeared from on examination of the evidence that Sir John Barrington gave his brother, who had a 18 Ves. 140. See 151. Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor ; Queen's Bench. 123 The observations of Lord Eldon in Trimmer v. Bayne, and of Lord Manners in Monck v. Monck, were strictly applicable to the circumstances of this case to shew that Sir J. B. placed himself in loco parentis to his nieces. In the latter also, parol evidence was admitted to shew the intention and acts which would give a person this character. On these authorities his Lordship held the evidence in this case admissible. The result was, that Sir J. B. so much, therefore, of the decree as gave the plaintiff the interest of the additional 10,000. is to be reversed, without costs; and so much of the bill as prayed for that is to be dismissed. Powys v. Mansfield and others, at Lincoln's Inn, 14, 16, 17, 19 & 20, Dec. 1836, and at Westminter, Nov. 17, 1837. L. C. cate. Queen's Bench. only a trifling income, the means of supporting his family, and that his assistance was systematic, it would follow that he took upon himself the duty of providing for the brother and his family, and his Lordship would therefore come to the conclusion that Sir John did so place himself in loco parentis with the brother's children, so far as related to a future provision for them. There was evidence given and objected on that point, but he thought it was admissible in order to see whether it sup-intended his niece to have but one provision; ports the proposition that Sir John Barrington put himself in the situation of a parent to his nieces. It was in evidence that for a great number of years he bound himself to pay 4001. to his brother, and his bankers and solicitors proved payment of large sums, beyond that, to the brother's family; that he was always ready to supply them with money, as much as if he were their father. On the marriage of the eldest niece with Sir R. Simeon in 1813, and of the third with Mr. Powys in 1817, Sir John made arrangements of his reversion of the estate in the Isle of Wight, which, as well as the letter to his brother,d were of the greatest importance to shew that he took upon himself the duty of parent towards his nieces. He was a party to the negotiations on both marriages, and principal party to the deeds of settlement, the brother (their father) being not a party thereto. His Lordship read the settlement made in contemplation of Mrs. Powys's marriage, and asked if Sir J. B. did not thereby discharge the duty of a parent, and if the provision made for her was not a portion? If so, that evidence proved the two points in the case; first, that Sir J. B. put himself in loco parentis, and secondly, that he had no intention to give his niece a double portion. He gave by the settlements of 1813 and 1817, portions of 10,000l. to each niece: what grounds were there for supposing that he altered his intention in making his will?-None. The declarations of parties were admissible to shew This was a rule to shew cause why certain intention; and the evidence here shewed Sir judgments on various securities, held by the J. B.'s intention to be to make equal provision plaintiff to secure payment to him for business of 10,000l. to each of his nieces. It was ar- done by him for the defendant, should not be gued that the trusts of the will and of the set aside, on the grounds that such business settlement being different, prevented the had been done when the plaintiff was off the ademption of the former by the latter. But roll of attorneys of this court; that his pracafter the late decision of the House of Lords, tising therefore at that time was illegal; and in Earl Durham v. Whartone, such slight that the court would not enforce in his favour differences can no longer be relied on. Al- securities thus obtained. It appeared by the though he had not taken any part in that de-affidavits that many years ago Mr. Wilton had cision-having been counsel in the cause in the Court below-he fully concurred in it. It was also argued that the codicil confirming the will, after the date of the settlement, made the will speak from its date, and restored the legacy of 10,000., if it had been adeemed by the intermediate settlement. But there were several cases opposed to that view: Drinkwater v. Falconer, Monck v. Monck, and Booker v. Allen. d See letter, 6 Sim. p. 539. [Before the Four Judges.] ATTORNEY'S READMISSION. An attorney, after practising for some years, discontinued his practice, and ceased to take out a certificate. He was subsequently readmitted, but did not then resume his practice, and did not take out his certifiAt the expiration of three years from his readmission, without applying for a second readmission, he took out a certificate, and began practising: Held, that by not taking out a certificate for more than a year after his readmission, he had ceased to be upon the rolls of the Court; that he was not entitled to practise without being a second time readmitted; and that his prac tice, without such second readmission, was illegal and the Court ordered certain judgments on securities, received by him in payment for business then done, to be set aside. been admitted as an attorney, but in the year 1820, he omitted to take out his certifieate,and ceased to practise. In Trinity term, 1823, he desired to resume his practice, and was, upon his application, readmitted as an attorney, but did not take out any certificate. Between that time and January 1826, he did not in fact carry on any business as an attorney and solicitor; and, before he did undertake any such business, he in Jan. 1826, duly took out his certificate. In that year he performed for the defendant the work and labour as an attorney and solicitor, in respect of which he held the securities, the judgments upon which it was the object of this motion to set aside. 124 cate. Superior Courts: Queen's Bench. no matter how long the party had been out of practice. The securities here have been obtained in respect of illegal practice, and the Court will not allow the party to enforce them. Cur. adv. vult. Mr. Erle, Mr. Cresswell, Mr. W. H. Wat-because the question there did not relate to son, and Mr. Addison, shewed cause against the the privileges of an attorney in carrying on rule. The plaintiff here was in 1826 upon the suits for other persons, but merely to his rolls of the court, and was therefore entitled to claim to be sued by a bill of privilege, as practise as soon as he had taken out a certifi- an attorney of the Court. If the argument on The case of Ex parte Matson a shews the other side is good, it goes to this extent, that the neglect to take out a certificate, that the re-adinission was unnecessary in 1823, against which the statute intended to pro-and would be unnecessary at any time whatever, vide, is that of which a party is guilty when he practises his profession, but is at the time practising without a certificate, not when he ceases to do so. There Lord Ellenborough said, that the word "neglect" in the statute meant culpable neglect, and the Court Lord Denman, C. J., on the last day of term held that that word with that meaning did not delivered judgment in this case. This was a moapply to a person who had omitted to take out tion to set aside a judginent on certain securities his certificate during the interval of his ceasing given by the defendant to the plaintiff for busito practise. Here the plaintiff did cease to ness done as an attorney by the latter for the practise while he was without his certificate, former. The ground of the motion was, that and on his again taking out a certificate he was at the time the business was done, the plaintiff entitled to practise. His re-admission had was not lawfully entitled to practise as an attorgiven him that right. That re-admission placed ney. This question depends upon the 31st sec. him on the footing of a person who had been of the 37 Geo. 3, c. 90. It appears that Mr. admitted, and had not taken out his cer- Wilton had been admitted many years ago to tificate, nor practised for a year afterwards. be an attorney of this Court, and that for some Such person may take out his certificate with-years he regularly took out his certificate. He out applying for re-admission. Ex parte Jones. That case is the most recent on this subject, and it is one of great authority; for Mr. Justice J. Parke, who decided it, inquired of the master as to the practice, and had the statute fully brought to his notice. As the plaintiff had the right to practise, the securities he took in payment for business done are available, and the Court will not set aside the judgments obtained upon them, but will allow him to put them in suit against the defendant. The Attorney General and Sir W. Follett, in support of the rule.-Where an attorney has for twelve months discontinued to practise, he is considered completely off the rolls, and therefore, in Ex parte Bartlett, the Court would not dispense with the necessity of a term's notice, though the party applying had ceased to practise on account of illness and of pecuniary embarrassments. In Ex parte Matson, the Court did not mean to say that re-admission was not necessary, but merely decided that, under such circumstances as existed in that case, the arrears of duty need not be imposed; and the party there was in fact re-admitted. The same rule was adopted in Ex parte Clarke and Ex parte Calland; but in both cases the parties applied for re-admission. In Prior v. Moore, the old rule is mentioned, that "the privileges of attorneys are confined to those who have practised within a year; for it is a rule that such as have not been attending their employment in the King's Bench for the space of a year, unless hindered by sickness, be not allowed their privileges." And though that rule was not acted on in that case, it was a 2 Dowl. & Ryl. 238. b 2 Dowl. Prac. Cas. 451. d 2 Dowl. and Ryl. 238. f Id. 315, n. g2 Maule & Sel. then ceased to do so for three years. At the end of that time he obtained a rule for his readmission to the rolls of the Court. Again he ceased to practise, and he took out no certificate. The question under these circumstances is, whether he could again practise upon merely taking out his certificate, and without in the first instance being re-admitted. It has been said on the one hand that the statute only required the party to take out his certificate when he actually practised, and though the omission to take it out prevented him from practising during the year in which he had no certificate, it would not prevent him from practising, if, in the following year, he again took out his certificate. In other words, that having been once re-admitted, he might practise whenever he chose to take out a certificate. The argument in support of this proposition was ingenious, and if the statute had been perfectly new, we might have felt inclined to give some weight to it, though I cannot say that we should have adopted it; but the statute is not a new statute, and decisions have previously taken place upon its construction, from which we are not now at liberty to depart. There is no express decision in the books, that where an attorney merely ceases to take out a certificate for one year, he must be re-admitted before he can be allowed to resume his practice, yet such has been the usual course; and the necessity on which the application for re-admission has been required exists in such a case, and the inquiry usually made by the Court into his conduct during the time he has been out of practice, is just as proper as under any other circumstances; and the Court will in that, as in any other case, take upon itself to regulate the terms of his re-admission. This inquiry, is in fact, intended for the benefit of the public, by enabling the Court to ascertain what has been the conduct of its officer during his absence from the |