Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the meaning of this expression was considered,

SHERIFF CAMPION RETIRES. and it was pointed out by the Court that what was aimed at by the above provision was “the RECORD OF THIRTY-FIVE YEARS' WORK. notional coming into possession during the interval between the end of an old tenancy

Mr George Campion, B.A., who retired on and the beginning of a new one.”

29th September from the office of SheriffFinally, as regards the term “landlord,” Substitute of Dumfriesshire and Galloway at

» reference should be made to Read v. Overy Dumfries,

which he has held for the long period (88 J.P. 185) and Jenkinson v. Wright (Times, of thirty-five years, took farewell of the Court 29th July 1924). According to these decisions officials and members of the Bar at the close of it would appear that by the term “ landlord” the sitting of the Sheriff Court. Eloquent is meant “the person who is the landlord vis

tributes to the personal worth and the adminisa-vis the person who, as against him, seeks to trative capacity of the learned Sheriff in carryinvoke the protection of the Act.” It is clear, ing out the duties of his high office were paid further, that the landlord need not be the free by Mr James Hyslop, Dean of Faculty, on behalf holder, since in Jenkinson v. Wright a lessee of of the Faculty of Procurators ; Mr H. Cavan a term of ninety-nine years with thirty-one Irving, C.B.E., Convener of Dumfriesshire, on years' unexpired residue, who had not demised behalf of the county; Mr R. A. Grierson, Townthe premises by way of mortgage and had Clerk of Dumfries, on behalf of the citizens of attorned tenant to the mortgagee, was held to the burgh; and by Mr John M'Burnie, Sheriffbe the “ landlord” for the purposes of section 2 Clerk, on behalf of the Court officials. At a later (1) of the Act.

stage Sheriff Campion was presented with two The right of the landlord to decontrol the handsome easy chairs by the members of premises by obtaining possession is subject to Faculty as a token of their respect and esteem further qualifications. Thus, where possession and in appreciation of the harmonious relationis obtained on the ground of non-payment of ships which have always existed between Bench rent (section 2 (1), 2nd proviso) or on the and Bar. Sheriff Campion was accompanied ground of misrepresentation or concealment of on the Bench by Mr H. Cavan Irving and material facts (section 4“ 5” (7)) the premises, Honorary Sheriffs-Substitute H. Sharpe Gordon will not, in the first case, and may not, in the and R. A. Grierson, and a large number of second case, be decontrolled.

members of the Faculty were present. Provision is further made for the cases where, Sheriffdom has been granted to Mr Campion by

A commission as Honorary Sheriff of the at the time when the landlord might have come the Sheriff-Principal, Mr. C. H. Brown, K.C. into possession of the whole of the premises, à portion thereof is lawfully sublet. In such a case the portion that is sublet, provided of High COURT OF JUSTICIARY, JEDBURGH.course that it comes itself within the Acts, (Special Sitting.) Jedburgh-Tuesday, 27th will nevertheless be controlled (see proviso i October 1925, at half-past ten o'clock foreto section 2 (1)).

noon. Pleading Diet-Saturday, 17th October. Finally, the above proviso deals with yet Service-Saturday, 10th October. The Hon. another case, viz. where the landlord has let Lord Constable. J. M. Hunter, Esq., Advocatethe whole of the premises and the lessee has Depute; V. S. M. Marshall, Esq., Clerk. sublet a part. If the lessee (the sublessor) comes into possession of the part so sublet, such part THE annual meeting of the Stirling Society of is not to be deemed to have become decontrolled. Solicitors and Procurators was held on 1st

At any rate, it is submitted that the above October. Mr T. J. Y. Brown was appointed is the meaning to be attached to the first proviso Dean, and Mr Joseph Jardine, Sub-Dean. The to section 2 (1) of the 1923 Act. It appears Dean's Council will consist of Messrs J. M. to be exceedingly difficult to construe, and the Mailer, R. M. Yellowlees, John Brown Robb, only case which appears to shed any light on A. C. Buchanan, and Andrew Dewar. The its meaning is the County Court decision of other officials are-Secretary and Treasurer, Dunbar v. Smith (60 L.J. 607), the connection Mr Alexander Paterson; Board of Examiners, of which, however, appears open to doubt. Messrs A. C. Buchanan, Robert Whyte, and the

secretary; Fiscal, Mr James C. Muirhead; HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, PERTH.-Curator of Library, Mr Henry D. MʻLellan; (Special Sitting.) Perth-Monday, 2nd Novem- Officer, Mr James Johnstone. At a meeting of ber 1925, at eleven o'clock. Pleading Diet- the enrolled law agents the following gentlemen Friday, 23rd October. Service-Friday, 16th were appointed agents for the poor for the October. The Hon. Lord Anderson. Lord ensuing year-Messrs G. A. Agnew, George Kinross, Advocate-Depute; V. S. M. Marshall, Cairns, and R. M. Yellowlees, Stirling, and Mr Esq., Clerk.

W. M. Lennox, Kilsyth.

SALE

OF MOVEABLES

THE death has occurred suddenly from

Benton v. Campbell, Parker & Co. Ltd. cerebral hæmorrhage at his residence of Mr John N. Anderson, ex-Provost of Stornoway,

SALE BY AUCTIONin his eighty-first year. Mr Anderson, who had WARRANTY BY AUCTIONEER OF SELLER'S TITLE. been in retirement in Portobello for five or six A firm who had possession of a motor car on years, took an active interest in municipal and hire-purchase sent it to an auctioneer with political work. He was well known as Provost instructions to sell. It was sold, and the buyer of Stornoway, in which position be wielded a resold. The true owner then discovered the car wide influence. He was a Liberal in politics' in the second buyer's possession and recovered and an active temperance worker. He is sur- it. The second buyer having obtained damages vived by his wife and a grown-up family. against the first buyer, the latter claimed an

indemnity from the auctioneer. Held that the The death of Mr James Hutchison Edmis- auctioneer impliedly warranted his authority ton, writer, Glasgow, took place on 28th to sell and that he knew of no defect in his September. Mr Edmiston was the youngest principal's title, but did not impliedly warrant son of the late Mr Richard Edmiston, sen., that his principal's title was good.-K.B. Div. auctioneer, and a partner of the firm of Messrs (Salter and Swift JJ.).—31st July 1924. Edmiston & Love. He served his apprenticeship to the legal profession with Messrs J. & J. Boyd, Glasgow (now Boyds, Miller

LAW LIBRARY. & Thompson), and afterwards went into business on his own account in association

BOOK NOTICES. with Mr Robert Love. Mr Edmiston was well known as a sportsman. He was at one time Mew's Digest of English Case Law, containing a member of the Clydesdale Cricket Club, and the Reported Decisions of the Superior Courts for some years secretary of the Western Union. and a Selection of those of the Scottish and He was also devoted to tennis and bowling, Irish Courts to the end of 1924. Vols. III. and was a past-president of the Bellahouston and IV. 1925. London: Sweet & Maxwell Bowling Club.

Ltd.; Stevens & Sons Ltd.; Solicitors' Law
Stationery Society Ltd. Price 35s.

per

volume. DECISIONS IN THE ENGLISH COURTS.

The third and fourth volumes of this great

Digest of case law bring the work down to the Bunge y Born Ltd. v. Brightman. end of “Company,” which title occupies the

whole of the fourth volume. There is no doubt AFFREIGHTMENT CHARTER-PARTY

of the utility, indeed of the necessity, of these CHARTERER'S DUTY TO PROVIDE CARGO-EXCEPTIONS.—A charter-party provided that the great Digests of case law; more and more they

— steamer should load a full and complete cargo library.

become an essential of every lawyer's office of wheat and/or maize and/or rye. It further growing tendency of the Courts to regard as of

To the Scots lawyer who notes the provided, “ If the cargo cannot be loaded

almost equal authority the decisions of his own by reason of obstructions or stoppages : the railways or in the docks or other loading matters as commercial and company law, the

and of the English Courts, especially in such places the time for loading

shall not count during the continuance of such advantages of possessing this valuable work will

be apparent. causes. The ship was delayed and the owners claimed demurrage. The charterers, who had

Ву arranged to load a cargo of wheat,"contended Complete Practical Income Tax Guide.

A. G. M'Bain, C.A. 1925. London: that no demurrage was due because (1) the

Gee & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. Price 7s, 6d. delay was due to a ca’-canny movement by the men on one of the railways on which the As a handy manual for practising accountants wheat was brought to the port; and (2) the and business men this little volume may be Argentine Government had prohibited the export commended as a valuable summary of the of wheat. The Court of Appeal held that the complex provisions of the Income Tax Acts. charterers were entitled to six days to find a For those readers to whom the book is specially cargo of maize or rye in place of the wheat, and addressed the absence of discussion of legal this was not appealed against. Held that the difficulties and of citation of case law is an ca’-canny movement did not prevent actual advantage. Within the limits which the author loading, and therefore that the charterers were has set for himself, and for the readers for liable. Judgment of Court of Appeal affirmed. whom the work is intended, we have nothing -House of Lords.-24th July 1925.

but commendation for the book.

SHIP

on

as a con

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ask or

.

or

as

or

.

[ocr errors]

SOME ASPECTS OF RENT RESTRICTION speak of a person requiring a payment “in

addition to the rent LAW.

as meaning a person who

is in a position to control the rent, than as By Theo. SOPHIAN, of the Inner Temple, including a person who is a stranger to the Barrister-at-Law.

agreement under which the rent is created." X. PREMIUMS.

It is to be doubted, however, whether the

Legislature had any such fine distinctions in Any attempt on the part of a landlord to mind when the above provision was framed. circumvent the provisions in the Acts with The position of the statutory tenant, in this regard to increase of rent, by extracting from respect, is somewhat peculiar. According to the tenant a fine or premium or some other section 15 (2) he is not permitted, form of consideration, must necessarily be de- dition of giving up possession,” to feated by the stringent clauses in the Acts which receive the payment of any sum, or the giving forbid the taking of any such fine, premium, of any other consideration, by any person other or other consideration. The phraseology, how-than the landlord.It will be immediately ever, of the sections in the Act which deal with observed that the phraseology of section 15 (2) these matters appears to have produced curious differs from that of section 8 (1); but that is only results. The sections in question are section 8 natural, since it would be inappropriate in the and section 15 (2) of the Act of 1920, the latter case of a statutory tenant, who is no tenant at affecting merely the position of a statutory all, to use such phrases as “in consideration tenant.

of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a Section 8 (1) provides that “a person shall tenancy,

such terms

fine" not, as a condition of the grant, renewal, or "premium.” By the above section, therefore, continuance of a tenancy or subtenancy the statutory tenant may strike a bargain require the payment of any fine, premium, or with his own landlord to give up possession other like sum, or the giving of any pecuniary for a consideration, whatever the form such consideration in addition to the rent.” The consideration might take; but he may take important phrases to which attention should be such consideration from his landlord alone and drawn are (1) as a condition of the grant, no one else. renewal, or continuance," and (2) "in addition Prior to the Act of 1923 attempts were often to the rent."

made to evade the above provision by requiring It has been judicially held in Mason, Herring tenants to purchase such articles as furniture & Brooks v. Harris ([1921] 1 K.B. 653) that or fixtures for sums greatly in excess of their the word

grant in the above-mentioned real value. Whether such acts are or are not provision “refers to the creation of a tenancy in contravention of the above provisions would between the grantor and the grantee," and now appear to be immaterial in view of secaccordingly that an assignment does not come tion 9 (1) of the 1923 Act, which provides that within the purview of section 8 (1). On a if, in such circumstances, the price exceeds the somewhat similar principle the Court of Appeal reasonable price of the article in question, the have held in Remmington v. Larchin ([1921] excess is to be regarded as a fine or premium 3 K.B. 404) that that section does not equally (see also Turner v. Ives, L.J., 10 C.C.R. 3). apply to a surrender of a tenancy. On an

In this connection reference may usefully assignment, therefore, as well as on a surrender be made to Brakspear v. Barton (40 T.L.R. 611), of a tenancy, the assignor or the surrenderor, and to Streathern v. Beaton (1923 S.C. (J.) 59). as the case may be, might lawfully demand and In Brakspear v. Barton Macardie J. held that receive a premium.

the cessation of the benefit of a discount on In arriving at the above-mentioned con- liquor supplied by the landlord to the tenant clusion the Courts were guided to a great of a public house did not amount to a fine or extent by the rules of construction to be premium within the meaning of section (8 (1); applied to a section of a penal nature, as this and in Streathern v. Beaton it was likewise provision undoubtedly is, and adopted a more held that a "premium " exacted by a landlord lenient construction in favour of freedom of from his tenant in return for the landlord's concontract. Furthermore, as Bankes L.J. pointed sent to the tenant's subletting the premises, did out ([1921] 3 K.B. at p. 408), “ the more not come within the operation of section 8 (1). natural construction of the section is to read it Where, in fact, a fine or premium " has as applying to a person who, as a condition of in effect been charged, it would appear that the his granting, renewing, or continuing a tenancy, landlord will be unable to evade the provisions requires the payment of a fine, premium, or of the Act in this respect by spreading the other like sum ; and this construction is payment over the whole period of the letting, assisted by the use of the words “ in addition even though the total rent payable by the to the rent,” because it is more appropriate to tenant happened to be below the maximum

a

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

limits permitted by the Acts. The landlord, was merely nominal, the rent having been it is submitted, would in such a case be in purposely fixed at a low figure in consideration effect attempting to increase the rent, and this of the premium. Whether the Courts would he might legitimately do only by observing make similar orders at the present time is to the provision of section 3 of the Act of 1920 be doubted, inasmuch as the point could only with regard to the determination of the tenancy arise in the case of leases for terms of less than and the service of a requisite notice of intention fourteen years; but even in such cases there to increase the rent.

appears to be no reason why the Court should In the case of long terms an exception is refuse to make an order for specific performmade by section 8 (3), whereby subsections (1) ance, if to make such an order would be harsh and (2) of section 8 are not to apply to terms and unconscionable. of fourteen years and upwards. This provision was inserted by reason of the decision in Rees v. Marquis of Bute ([1916] 2 Ch. 64),

ROTA. given under the previous Acts, according to which it was held that the landlord was not Edinburgh, 15th October 1925.—The Lords this entitled to take a premium, however long the day selected Lords Skerrington, Ormidale, term might happen to be.

Blackburn, and Constable to be placed on the Rees v. Marquis of Bute (supra), however, Rota for the Trial of Election Petitions during would appear to be still of importance as the ensuing year in terms of the 58th section affecting agreements made for a lease for a of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and term of less than fourteen years, in respect of the 2nd section of the Parliamentary Elections which a fine or premium is payable, and in and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879. respect of which specific performance is sought.

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

. In Rees v.

Marquis of Bute the Court refused to make an order for specific performance, and CHRISTMAS RECESS.-Edinburgh, 16th October decreed rescission of the agreements on the 1925.—The Lords of Council and Session, terms that the landlord should repay all the under authority of the 4th section of the Court moneys which he had received in respect of the of Session Act, 1868, resolve to adjourn the purchase of the leases in question. În making Court from Saturday, 19th December next, to such an order the Court was influenced by the and including Saturday, 2nd January 1926 ; hardship in which the landlord would otherwise and appoint Thursday, 31st December, to be be involved, inasmuch as the leases were for the Box-Day in the Recess. terms of great length and the rent payable

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

ACT OF SEDERUNT AMENDING THE ACT OF SEDERUNT FOR REGULATING

PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY
AND ENDOWMENTS) ACT, 1925, AND THE FOURTH SCHEDULE TO THE SAID ACT,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, DATED 17TH JULY 1925.

[Edinburgh, 20th October 1925.]
THE Lords of Council and Session, considering it is necessary to amend the Schedule A
annexed to the Act of Sederunt for Regulating Procedure under Section 10 of the
Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925, and the Fourth Schedule
to the said Act, and for other purposes, dated 17th July 1925, do hereby, in pursuance
of the powers vested in them by the Act of Parliament 15 & 16 Geo. V., c. 33, enact
and declare as follows, viz. :
1. That the said Schedule A is hereby amended as follows :
(a) The words " last-mentioned Act" occurring in the 15th line thereof are

deleted, and the words “ Act, 15 & 16 Geo. V., c. 33,” are inserted in

place thereof.
b) The word foresaid ” occurring in the 51st line thereof is deleted, and

the word thereanent is inserted after the words “ Acts of Parlia

ment in the same line.
2. That the said Schedule A shall hereafter be printed and interpreted as if it had
been enacted as herein amended.

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

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

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

DAMAGES-BREACH OF CONTRACT- REMOTENESS-CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BY THIRD PARTY

to pay

The King has been pleased, on the recom

Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co. Ltd. v. John mendation of the Secretary for Scotland, to

1. Thornycroft & Co. Ltd. approve the appointment of Mr James Gordon Brand, advocate, to be Sheriff-Substitute of Dumfries and Galloway at Dumfries, in place of Mr George Campion, resigned. Mr Brand was born in 1872. He was educated sent a motor lorry to a motor repairer for repair.

EXPENSES OF RESISTING CLAIM.—A company at Stoneyhurst College, and was called to the Two days after it was returned a wheel came Bar in 1908. During the war he was a Civil off and damaged a van belonging to a third * Liabilities Commissioner, and also served with party. The third party sued the company, but the Ministry of National Service. Subsequently ultimately failed in his action and was unable

.

, he acted as interim Sheriff-Substitute in Glas

the expenses.

Held that the company gow, Kilmarnock, and Duns.

were entitled to recover these expenses and

their extrajudicial expenses against the motor MR GEORGE BROWN, M.B.E., advocate, Edin- repairer. K.B. Div. (McCardie J.).—30th July burgh, on Tuesday occupied the Bench in the 1925. Airdrie Sheriff Court, having been appointed as interim Sheriff-Substitute in place of Sheriff

Jones v. Tarr. Marcus Dods, who is on sick leave till 12th December, and as Sheriff J. Gordon Brand, the WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1906 (6 acting Sheriff-Substitute, has now been ap- EDW. VII. CAP. 58), SECTION 1-SCOPE OF EMpointed to Dumfries and Galloway.

PLOYMENT—WORKMEN'S

ACT,

1923 (13 & 14 GEO. V. CAP. 42)—ACT DONE FOR Ar a meeting of the Society of Advocates in PURPOSES OF EMPLOYER'S TRADE.-A workman Aberdeen, held on 19th October 1925, Mr Norman employed in a mine, finding he had forgotten a James Wilson, M.A., LL.B., solicitor in Aber- tool, sent a boy to get one from another mine deen, was admitted a member.

not belonging to his own employer. The boy was overcome by afterdamp in the second mine and the workman in trying to rescue him was also overcome and died. Held that no compensation was payable.—Court of Appeal (Pollock

M.R., and Warrington and Scrutton L.JJ.). DECISIONS IN THE ENGLISH

15th July 1925. COURTS.

COMPENSATION

[ocr errors]

Elliott v. Bax-Ironside.

LAW LIBRARY.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE-CAPACITY OF PARTIES-
SIGNATURE IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY

BOOK NOTICES.
DIRECTORS OF COMPANY-BILLS OF EXCHANGE
ACT, 1882 (45 & 46 VICT. CAP. 61), SECTION 26.- Manual of the Law of Evidence in Scotland.
A bill of exchange was accepted by two directors By W. J. Lewis, B.L., S.S.C. 1925.
on behalf of

company. At the request of the Edinburgh and Glasgow : Wm. Hodge & Co. drawer the same two directors also indorsed the Ltd. Price 258. net. bill, adding the word " directors” after their signatures. Held that the signature as indorsees It is a pleasure to welcome Mr Lewis's new was not sufficiently qualified by the word book on the Law of Evidence. The need for “ directors ” to indicate clearly that the signa- such a revised treatment of the subject has tures were merely in a representative capacity; been growing more urgent for many years, and that, therefore, under section 26, the construction it is satisfactory to find the want supplied at most favourable to the validity of the bill must be last by one who, as a university teacher, has put upon it; that indorsement by the company acquired a specialised knowledge of the subject. added nothing to the validity of the bill; and It is nearly forty years since the publication that, therefore, the indorsees were personally of the last edition of Mr Dickson's work on liable. Held further (per Bankes and Scrutton Evidence, and the law in that time has underL.JJ.) that it was permissible to look at the gone extensive development. Mr Lewis's work correspondence between parties at the time of is, indeed, on a less pretentious scale than that the signing of the bill in order to ascertain the of Mr Dickson, but it contains a carefully meaning of the instrument. Decision of Greer arranged and systematic statement of the law, , J.affirmed.-Court of Appeal (Bankes, Scrutton, with an adequate citation of selected authorities, and Sargant L.JJ.).-19th June 1925.

which seem to make it sufficient for the needs

« PreviousContinue »