Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE LATE JOHN WILLIAM CHESSER, ESQ., markets for some years before they were opened assiduously engaged in connection with the new

S.S.C., LORD PROVOST OF EDINBURGH.

We record in these columns with much regret the death of Lord Provost Chesser, which took place with tragic suddenness on 29th June last at his residence, 14 North Park Terrace, Edinburgh.

!

:

in September 1910 by Lord Rosebery, who on that occasion spoke in terms of the warmest praise of Mr Chesser's successful handling of the many difficult questions raised by the conflicting interests involved. He was elected a magistrate in 1911, and in November 1916 was appointed to the important position of Treasurer of the city, an office in which his undoubted capacity and experience contributed

Lord Provost Chesser was a son of the late Mr John Chesser, architect in Edinburgh, and superintendent of works for George Heriot's Trust. He was educated at Edinburgh Col- to his considerable success. legiate School, at George Watson's College (in which he was one of the first enrolments), at Craigmount House School, and at Edinburgh University. Like many well-known members of the legal profession, he served his apprenticeship with Messrs Millar, Robson & Innes, S.S.C. He was afterwards Parliament House clerk with Messrs Tods, Murray & Jamieson, W.S., and in 1889 he started business on his own account. His business, which was largely of a family nature, was also a

His appointment as Lord Provost of Edinburgh took place in November 1919.

[graphic]

other

Among appoint

ments he held were those of Bailie of Holyrood, to which ancient office he was appointed in 1901 by the Duke of Hamilton, the Hereditary Keeper of the Palace; clerk to the Incorporation of the Guildry of Edinburgh (having previously acted as treasurer for some ten years); convener of the Finance, Law, and Property Com

mittee of George

Heriot's Trust, a

member of the Edinburgh Terri

most successful one. He was admitted a torial Force Association, of the Edinburgh and member of the S.S.C. Society in 1892.

For many years Lord Provost Chesser has been widely known in connection with municipal affairs in Edinburgh, as well as personally to a very large number of the citizens. He entered the Town Council in 1901 as one of the representatives of the Haymarket Ward, and had continuously represented that Ward up to the date of his death. One of the most important features of his career in the Town Council was probably in connection with the new Cattle and Corn Markets and Slaughter-houses at Gorgie. In July 1904 he was appointed Convener of the Market Committee of the Council, and he was

Leith Corporations Gas Commission, and of the
Water of Leith Purification and Sewerage
Commission.

From his youth Lord Provost Chesser was fond of various kinds of sport and in his younger days was a keen cricketer and footballer, in later life relying mainly on the golf links for relaxation. He was a member of several clubs and has been most closely associated with the Edinburgh Burgess Golfing Society, in which he has held all the important official positions.

The late Lord Provost is survived by Mrs. Chesser and his son, who is a qualified W.S.,.

and who for some time has been assisting his father in his law business. Sincere sympathy will be extended to them in their sudden bereavement.

S.S.C. SOCIETY.-At a special general meeting of the S.S.C. Society held on 6th July-Mr W. J. Lewis, Vice-President, in the chair-Mr David Campbell Buchan, M.A., 37 Great King Street, Edinburgh, was admitted a member of the Society. The Society resolved to record an expression of its sense of regret at the death of Lord Provost Chesser, who had since 1892 been a member of the Society. By the assiduous application of his business and legal qualifications to the affairs of the city, and his selfsacrificing devotion to duty, Mr Chesser shed lustre upon the Society. His sudden removal from the highest civic position is deplored by his fellow-members as a loss to the profession and to the community. The Society also resolved to convey to Mr Chesser's widow and to his son its deep sympathy with them in their bereavement.

WE understand that Mr John Scouler Steven has been appointed solicitor to the Caledonian Railway Co. in succession to the late Mr D. L. Forgan. Mr Steven became a member of the solicitor's department of the company in 1889, and was appointed assistant solicitor in 1909. In April of this year he took over the office jointly with Mr Forgan. Mr Steven is a native of Rutherglen. He is a member of the Glasgow Faculty of Procurators.

WE announce with much regret the death on 9th July of Mr William John Dundas, LL.D., W.S., at 11 Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh. We hope to publish a portrait biography in our

next issue.

WE regret to record that Mr Alexander Lyell, solicitor and bank agent, Montrose, was found dead in bed on 9th July, having passed away in his sleep. He was one of the most, active public men in the county of Forfar. He was sixty-eight years of age. Mr Lyell was twice married, and is survived by a widow, eight sons, and three daughters. Six of his sons held commissions in the Army during the war.

to Port Glasgow as partner to Mr Lade, there was formed, nearly forty years ago, the firm of Lade & Hood. Mr Lade's death, a few days after the partnership commenced, devolved the whole responsibility on Mr Hood. It thus came about that at an age when most men are thinking of bats and golf clubs, Mr Hood was finding his pleasures in devotion to the practice and literature of his profession. The consequence was that he obtained, and to the last retained, a rare and enviable reputation as a sound and zealous lawyer. Particularly in the realms of commercial law and of educational administration he was consulted on, and entrusted with, most important business. Clients came from afar for the benefit of the professional assistance to be had from Mr Hood. They were never disappointed. Mr Hood is survived by a widow, son, and daughter. The business is continued by Mr Calder and Mr Hood Ross, long Mr Hood's leading assistants, and latterly his associates in the firm.

TO

ACT OF SEDERUNT

REGULATE PROCEEDINGS BY A PATENTEE FOR LEAVE TO AMEND HIS SPECIFICATIONS PENDENTE LITE UNDER THE PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACTS 1907 AND 1919.

EDINBURGH, 7th July 1921. The Lords of Council and Session do hereby enact and ordain as follows:

1. The application shall be made by motion. in the proceedings before the Court, and notice of such motion, together with a King's Printer's copy of the specification shewing in red ink the amendment proposed to be made, shall be served on the parties to such proceedings, and in the first instance upon such parties only.

2. On the hearing of such motion the Court shall decide whether, and on what terms as to expenses or otherwise, the application shall be allowed to proceed.

3. If the application be allowed to proceed, the applicant shall forthwith serve the Comptroller with a copy of the notice of motion together with such copy specification as aforesaid, and also a copy of the order allowing the application to proceed, and also with the name and address of the applicant's solicitor, and the proposed amendment shall be advertised in the

DEATH OF MR JOHN HOOD.-By the somewhat sudden death on 9th inst. of Mr John Hood, solicitor and bank agent, Port Glasgow,Illustrated Official Journal (Patents)," such adthe legal profession in the West of Scotland has lost one of its most prominent members. Apprenticed to the profession at an early age, Mr Hood shewed remarkable aptitude for legal learning and legal practice. After the usual apprenticeship with the late Mr Alexander Lade, solicitor, Port Glasgow, Mr Hood spent a few instructive years in Edinburgh. Returning

vertisement stating that any person desiring to oppose the amendment must within fourteen days of the issue of the advertisement give notice in writing of such desire to the applicant's solicitor, whose name and address for that purpose shall be also stated in the advertisement. Any person giving such notice shall be entitled to be heard upon the hearing of the motion.

4. Within seven days after the receipt of any such notice the applicant shall, if the person giving such notice shall have stated therein an address for service within the United Kingdom, serve on such a person a copy of the notice of motion together with such copy of the specification as aforesaid, and also a copy of the order allowing the application to proceed. Such service may be made by prepaid registered letter sent to such person through the post at his address for service.

5. The Court shall then, not later than seven days after such service, appoint a day to hear the applicant and all parties desiring and entitled to be heard, and shall, after such hearing, if the application can be disposed of without evidence, dispose thereof, or if evidence is necessary, appoint a date for hearing evidence, and shall take the evidence, hear parties, and dispose of the application.

6. Where the Court allows a specification to be amended, the applicant shall forthwith lodge with the Comptroller an office copy of the order allowing such amendment, and the Comptroller shall advertise the same once at least in the "Illustrated Official Journal (Patents)." He shall also, if required so to do by the Court or by the Comptroller, leave at the Patent Office a new specification and drawings as amended, the same being prepared as far as may be in accordance with the rules of the Patent Office for the time being in force.

7. In this Act the Court shall mean the Lord Ordinary or the Division before which the action is pending when the application is made.

And the Lords appoint this Act to be entered in the Books of Sederunt, and to be printed and published in common form.

J. A. CLYDE, I.P.D.

ACT OF SEDERUNT

fees in said Schedule B), are still inadequate and should be further increased, having considered said application and finding a further increase justified, do hereby further amend said C.A.S., Book M, Chapter v., section 2, and Schedule B, by authorising a further increase of 30 per cent. (in addition to the 20 per cent. increase authorised by said two amending Acts of Sederunt) upon the fees prescribed by said Schedule B, excepting always from such further increase such fees as are prescribed in the following subheads of said Schedule B, namely:

2. Proceedings under the Small Debt Acts; 3. Proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction and Process Acts;

4. Proceedings in Appeals;

5. Proceedings under the Army Act; 6. Miscellaneous.

And declaring that this Act of Sederunt shall come into force on the 1st November next, and have full force and effect down to and including 31st October 1922.

And the Lords direct this Act to be entered in the Books of Sederunt, and to be printed and published in common form.

J. A. CLYDE, I.P.D.

ACT OF SEDERUNT

EXTENDING

CERTAIN TEMPORARY ACTS OF SEDERUNT INCREASING FEES.

EDINBURGH, 9th July 1921.

The Lords of Council and Session, considering that the causes which called for the increases of fees granted temporarily in the Acts of Sederunt set forth in the Schedule hereto annexed still hold good, and it is therefore expedient that the increased fees therein allowed be still continued, therefore enact and declare that the said Acts of Sederunt shall be extended, and have full force

FURTHER AMENDING C.A.S., BOOK M. and effect down to and including 31st October

CHAPTER V., SECTION 2, AND SCHEDULE B, ANENT FEES PAYABLE TO CLERKS OF THE PEACE UNDER THE LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1903 OR OTHERWISE.

EDINBURGH, 8th July 1921.

The Lords of Council and Session, in respect that an application under and in terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1903 (3 Edw. VII. cap. 25, section 27 (3)) has been presented by the Lord Advocate representing that the fees payable to Clerks of the Peace for certain classes of work done by them as prescribed by C.A.S., Book M, Chapter v., section 2, and Schedule B, as amended by the Acts of Sederunt of dates 19th November 1919 and 9th July 1920 (allowing a temporary increase of 20 per cent. on the

1922.

[blocks in formation]

Schedule B, anent Fees payable to
Clerks of the Peace under the Licensing
(Scotland) Act 1903 or otherwise, dated
19th November 1919.

(4) Act of Sederunt amending C.A.S.,

Book M, Chapter v., section 1, and
Schedule A, anent Fees payable to
Town-Clerks under the Licensing (Scot-
land) Act 1903 or otherwise, dated
25th February 1920.

(5) Act of Sederunt amending C.A.S.,
Book A, Chapter ix., section 4, anent
Fees payable to Messengers-at-Arms,
dated 1st June 1920.

(6) Act of Sederunt authorising a further temporary increase in Fees under C.A.S., Book K, Chapter iv., and C.A.S., Book M, Chapter ii., dated 26th July 1920.

ACT 1900 (63 & 64 VICT. CAP. 32), SECTION 1.-A tug while acting as a stern tug under a contract to assist a steamship from one dock to another, cast off the tow-rope and transferred it to another tug, with the result that the steamship came into collision with a dock and sustained damage. The tug was found entirely to blame and its owners raised an action for limitation of liability. The owners of the steamship maintained the accident was caused by a breach of the towage contract and not by "improper navigation" so as to come under the statute first-cited above. Held that the accident was due to an improper act of navigation and that the right to limitation of liability for the damage caused thereby was not ousted by the fact that there had also been a breach of contract.-Prob., Div., and Adm. Div. (Sir Henry Duke P.).-9th May 1921.

[blocks in formation]

CHARTERERS

[ocr errors]

NEGLIGENCE

was

CHARTERERS' SERVANTS CONDITION TO REDELIVER SHIP "UNLESS LOST"-MUTUAL EXCEPTION OF DAMAGE BY FIRE-TOTAL LOSS BY FIRE THROUGH NEGLIGENCE OF SERVANTS OF LIABILITY. A steamer chartered with a full complement of men whose wages were to be paid by the owners. The charter provided that the ship was to be redelivered in good condition, "unless lost," loss or damage by fire being mutually excepted. The falling of a board, through the negligence of men employed on unloading by the charterers, produced a spark by which the cargo of benzine was set alight and the ship totally destroyed. Held that the damages were not too remote, that the words "unless lost" and the exception as to destruction by fire did not refer to destruction caused by the negligence of the charterers' servants and that therefore the charterers were liable to the owners in damages.-K.B.D. (Sankey J.).—5th May 1921.

The "Vigilant."

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES IN SCOTLAND.

The following have been registered for week ending 8th July:

11764-Clyde Gears, Ltd., Johnstone (private company), to acquire the patent rights of "Clyde" Reverse Gears for marine motors, and to carry on business as manufacturers and repairers of and dealers in gears and all kinds of machinery, engineers' furnishings, etc. Capital-£2000 in

£1 shares.

11776 George Milne & Co. Ltd., 21 M'Lennan St., Glasgow (private company), to take over the business of George Milne & Co., and to carry on business as bakers. Capital-£10,000 in £1 shares.

11777-W. B. Robertson & Co. Ltd., 6 King Street, City, Glasgow (private company), to acquire and carry on the business of drapers and corset specialists carried on by W. B. Robertson & Co., at above address, and at 71 St George's Road, Glasgow, and 84 High Street, Paisley. Capital-£3000 in £1 shares.

Regent Street, Glasgow (private company), to carry on the 11778-The Scottish Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 127 West business of patentees, engineers, manufacturers, and merchants. Capital-£6000 in £1 shares.

11779-Gray, Drennan & Co. Ltd., 1 Fishmarket, Newhaven, Edinburgh (private company), to carry on the businesses of wholesale and retail fish salesmen, general auctioneers, managers and owners of fishing vessels, etc. Capital £2000 in £1 shares.

11780-Henry Burton & Co. Ltd. (private company), to acquire and carry on the business of hosiers and outfitters carried on under the firm name of Henry Burton & Co., and the business of laundrymen carried on under the firm name of Burton & Co., at Temple Laundry, Anniesland, Glasgow. Capital-£30,000 in £1 shares.

11781-Henry Dickson Ltd., 196 St Vincent Street, Glasgow (private company), to carry on the business of general merchants and of financial agents, drapers, clothiers, moneylenders, etc. Capital-£200 in 100 shares of £1 and 200 shares of 10s.

11782-Falkirk Hardware Co. Ltd. (private company), to acquire the business of the Falkirk Hardware Co., wholeSHIP-COLLISION-LIMITATION OF LIABILITY sale manufacturers, merchants, and importers, Falkirk.

Capital-£7000 in £1 shares.

11783-Johns (Glasgow) Ltd., 4 Howard Street, Glasgow (private company), to carry on the business of general warehousemen, wholesale and retail, silken mercers, cotton spinners, cloth manufacturers, tailors, etc. Capital-£3000 in £1 shares.

-SHIP IN TOW OF TUG COLLIDING WITH DOCK
OWING TO NEGLIGENT NAVIGATION OF TUG—
TOWAGE CONTRACT WHETHER RIGHT ΤΟ
LIMITATION OUSTED BY BREACH OF CONTRACT
-MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1894 (57 & 58 11784-The Capital Counties and Colonial Corporation
VICT. CAP. 60), SECTION 503-MERCHANT SHIP-Ltd., 42 Melville Street, Edinburgh (private company), to
lend money and negotiate loans, and to deal in shares,
stocks, bonds, etc. Capital-£1000 in £1 shares.

PING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS)

THE REVISED TRUSTS BILL.

If it were only for the fundamental recasting of clause 8 (fiduciary fees) we should welcome the revised Bill as now re-introduced in the House of Lords as a vastly improved successor of the Bill of December last. But in many other respects also benefit has been obtained from the friendly and enlightened counsel of the various law societies, though we confess to a feeling of disappointment that the opportunity has not been taken to adopt those suggestions more liberally. No one can maintain that the measure is urgent, and it will in our opinion be a mistake if there is any attempt to rush it through both Houses at the end of this session. The other Bills are apparently not yet ready in their second forms, and even if they were we should say the same of all three, but only with greater emphasis. Let them all be introduced, and then take another rest until next session, whether of the coming autumn or next year. Certainly the Trusts Bill, even in its new shape, affords matter for sufficient comment on various lines and of sufficient importance to point to this policy of festina lente as the way of the greatest wisdom. The Bill is an important consolidating and amending measure; it relates to vast interests; it has been long waited for; once passed it will likely have a lifetime of about a generation. For those numerous and weighty reasons, and in view of the criticisms and suggestions which follow, we venture respectfully but earnestly to deprecate any rushing tactics. There is nothing thereby to gain, and much to lose.

In dealing with a Bill of this nature it is not a little difficult to distinguish principles from details, but at least it may, we think, be said that the two outstanding differences between the Bill in its first and second forms are (1) the fiduciary fee clause and (2) the introduction of section 17 of the Entail Act 1868 dealing with the restriction of the creation of liferents of personal estate, and the consequential repeal of that section as such; this had no place at all in the first Bill.

THE FIDUCIARY FEE CLAUSE.

It would be an abuse of language to describe as "revisal" the operation which has been performed on what was, and still is, clause 8 of the Bill. How that original clause came to be given forth as the considered handiwork of the Conveyancing Committee we are totally at a loss to understand. No one has a good word to say for it, and its authors have made no attempt to defend it or even to rescue any salvage from its wreck. It is allowed to become an actual total loss, and the new clause has been laid down on exactly the contrary lines. Thus

1. The first Bill preserved the rule in Frog's Creditors, and continued for the future the

iniquitous impolicy of violating testators' (mostly home-expressed) intentions by making liferenters into fiars. This is exactly negatived in the new Bill.

2. Gifts to unborn or unascertainable persons were in the first Bill absolutely destroyed. This was an instance of almost wanton destructive tendencies, again designed to frustrate perfectly clear and quite legal testamentary intentions. In the second Bill such gifts become special favourites of the law, and machinery is devised for their protection.

3. Under the first Bill the clause was not to affect the will of any testator who died before the passing of the Act, but under the new Bill if a testator died, say, last year, creating a (nonallenarly) liferent in A, with fee to his children (not born), but the liferent is conditioned not to come into operation until, say, two years after the testator's death, the clause will apply, assuming the Bill to be passed before the liferent commences. We are no champions of the rule in Frog's Creditors, but this is a very strong order, and we venture to wonder whether it is not stronger than has been realised. In such a case, immediately on the testator's death, we take it that A, the nominal liferenter with postponed entry, acquired a constructive beneficial fee with the like postponed entry but nevertheless absolutely and immediately vested, and there is strong savour of a confiscatory doing of evil in order that good may come, in the proposal for an ex post facto statutory divesting of A's beneficial fee. We gravely doubt whether this is really intended. But even assuming this defect to be rectified, other weighty objections remain.

1. Unless we have forgotten the lessons of the conveyancing class the rule in Frog's Creditors (as applied or extended) is not confined to cases where, after a (non-allenarly) liferent, the fee is given to unborn or unascertainable persons. The rule is applied to a destination "to A in liferent and to his children in fee," even though children are in existence, the defect being that they are not named. Now it is certain that, as sub-clause (1) stands in the new Bill, in all such cases the rule in Frog's Creditors would continue to hold sway. Can it really be intended to slay the rule in part only, and to preserve it in life in the cruellest cases? In our opinion the rule and its extension are altogether bad and should be abolished in toto, without prejudice only to vested rights. We refuse to listen to the suggestion of any half-and-half treatment, and again we question whether the Bill expresses the true intention.

2. Sub-clause (2) confers power on the Court (a) to authorise the fiduciary fiar to exercise powers competent to a trustee or (b) to appoint trustees or a judicial factor. It is expressly stated that those things may be done though the liferenter would not, under the present law,

y

« PreviousContinue »