might not be bound, and he has rights of initiation under the section. A decree of standardisation of terce or courtesy, obtained, say, at the instance of the heir-at-law, has not the effect of making him a debtor for the fixed annual sum, though he may become personally liable as intromitter. What, then, happens if in any year the fixed sum shall exceed the whole net rents of the property? There is no suggestion that the fixed annual sum becomes a charge on the fee or even on next year's rents. On the contrary, a widow is to have only "the same rights and remedies " as at present. It is scarcely likely that a deficiency will arise in a terce case, but it might very easily happen in a case of courtesy. We have seen it stated that there can be no standardisation of courtesy apart from capital redemption of the right; and no doubt that was the intention, but it is not clear that it is the result, having regard to the facts that the Court is in the first place to fix an annual sum for the courtesy, and that, though that has been done, it is still in the option of the pursuer whether he will or will not carry through the redemption. If in the case of a deficiency the tercer or courtesytenant is to lose part of the fixed annual sum, the whole arrangement just comes to this, that these legal liferenters are limited by, but have not the full benefit of, the judicial taxation of the right, whereas the fiars have the full benefit of it but are not bound by it. This appears to shew that, apart altogether from subsection (7) referred to later, there may require to be several annual and capital sums fixed under the statutory scheme, based upon as many separate enquiries and computations, in the course of which it is easy to see that much trouble may be caused by the existence of catholic charges for bond interest and annuities. But even if all the properties belong to one fiar, it appears that he may standardise or redeem the terce (or redeem the courtesy) of one or more without being bound to do so for all. designed to abolish, and equally troublesome. Sect. 22 abolishes the anachronism by which Scottish personal bonds, being in certain situations treated as heritable between husband and wife, have been excluded from both sides of the account in ascertaining jus relicti and jus relicta. It should be noted that this very musty rule is still retained when those rights arise, not on death, but on divorce. The whole position is a little obscure, but what is clear is that if, say, £100 a year is fixed as the terce of two separate properties, which are, or which come to be, held by different owners, there will be much difficulty in apportioning it between them. One way would be to look up the computations in the judicial process and to go on these, but for that there seems no warrant, and the whole situation may be changed by building. Another way would be to vary the apportionment from year to year according to fluctuA similar question is that of whole or part, ating net rentals, but that would be a curious catholic or separate. At present, as we under-revival of something very like what the Act is stand, there is no catholic charge for either terce or courtesy; subject to kenning in the case of terce, one property cannot be made liable for the terce or courtesy of another property; and we fancy that, on the question of what is a separate property, it is necessary to adhere throughout to the non-catholic rule, no matter what amount of subdivision of the property may take place after the death of the spouse, which originates the right. The Act seems to make no provision for, and not to allow, a partial claim of terce. A widow claiming terce shall specify the items of the estate out of which she claims terce," which we take it means all the items, and it would not be fair to harass the husband's representatives by piecemeal applications. But, when it comes to standarisation and redemption, the position under the Act is not so clear. It is to be remembered that these steps may be taken at any time, that they apply to deaths before the Act, and that when action is taken the different properties may have been sold to different people, or they may have passed, on the death, to different successors under the destinations in the titles or by will. Now each fiar can deal only with, and can be made to answer only for, his own property. 66 Sect. 23. It is not apparent why, in assignations and discharges of ground-annuals, it should still be necessary to refer to the property, These rights are only heritable securities (section 2), and in all other classes of heritable securities the property has been simplified out of existence in such deeds. Sect. 28 provides that an assignation of a heritable bond shall, impliedly and without any express mention, carry also all corroborative and substitutional obligations in whatever form created. But note three things: (1) this is not retrospective; (2) it applies apparently only to assignations in the new statutory form; and (3) the assigner can assign only what is vested in him. The first of these rules does not prevent a future assignation carrying pre-1925 corroborative and substitutional obligations. It might perhaps be too strict an application of the second rule to say that the benefit of the implied assignation is lost if the express assignation purports to refer to the property, which the statutory form does not do. The third is the important rule; it may be that the new enactment is only declaratory of the existing law; but, at least so far as the enact ment goes, it would not be safe to hold it as applying to any pre-1925 obligations unless either they were granted to the assigner or had been transmitted to him by a title, the steps in which, so far as pre-1925, were express. În inventories of personal estate with a view to confirmation it will still be the better practice to make express reference to all such corroborative and substitutional obligations; the new enactment has obviously no reference to confirmations. Sect. 32.-If a notice for redemption of a bond is delivered to the creditor it apparently must be to him personally. If the notice is signed by an agent, his designation ought to include his office address. The notice may be given by the debtor's agent, but not to the creditor's agent, and the creditor's agent cannot acknowledge receipt of it, although in the converse case he may sign the notice calling up the bond. It appears that delivery or posting is competent though the creditor is out of Scotland and beyond the seas, though in the latter case it is incongruous to read that the notice is to date from the day after posting; on the other hand, there is no provision for edictal notice in these cases, but it ought to be given. There may be some inconsistency between the references to "last-known address," and not knowing" the address." Sect. 33. Calling up Bonds.-The last preceding paragraph applies here also. When the debtor and the granter of the security are different, it seems curious that the latter is the only party to whom notice is essential. The form states that payment is required, not "is now required," as in the 1868 Act form. Possibly, therefore, this new form would not (as the 1868 form does) create default at once, and without waiting for the expiry of the three months. This section, taken along with section 38 (4), seems to provide that, if not more than five years elapses between exposures, the second and all subsequent exposures are re-exposures, requiring only three weeks' advertisement. Sect. 34 to some extent supersedes the provisions of the 1894 Act for obtaining the directions of the Sheriff regarding the giving of notice, but such an application is still necessary if it is not known whether the proprietor is dead or alive. Sect. 35 authorises waiver or shortening of the three months' notice, but there is no similar provision regarding the period of advertisement. Sect. 37 requires an upset price, thus barring the modern practice of an undisclosed reserve. Sect. 38. Advertisements.-We do not think that the introduction of a new phrase " the period of advertisement"-is happy. One would naturally think that the dates of the first and of the last advertisements must be the limits of the period of advertisement, but on that view the section cannot be worked. Taking the case of a first exposure, and the price exceeding £1000: (1) the advertisement period must be six weeks, and (2) the exposure must be fortytwo days after the first advertisement. Fortytwo days are six weeks, especially as a week is defined to mean seven consecutive days. Assume the first advertisement on Wednesday, 1st November; then advertisements follow on consecutive Wednesdays, 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th November, and 6th December. That gives six advertisements, and these are enough. But what is "the period of advertisement, consisting of six weeks, each of seven consecutive days? If the limits of the period of advertisement are taken as 1st November and 6th December, that is only thirty-six days, even including both extremes. The advertisement period of six weeks is to be prior to the date of exposure," which must mean forty-two days counting back from the exposure, including the day of the first advertisement but not including the exposure day. If the exposure Wednesday were included in this calculation, a last advertisement on the preceding Wednesday would not comply with the Act, for there would then be a week (seven consecutive days -Thursday to Wednesday both inclusive) without an advertisement. Then the other period is forty-two days, in the sense that the exposure cannot be earlier than forty-two days after the first advertisement. In this second calculation the exposure day is included, but the day of the first advertisement is not. So the sale may be on the Wednesday a week after the last advertisement, namely, Wednesday, 13th December. It is not said, and it is not law, that there must be forty-two clear days, or that forty-two days must intervene between the first advertisement and the exposure. There must be no interval of seven days without an advertisement; it is a matter of days, not calendar weeks. When advertisements have to appear in two papers, the rules must be satisfied as regards both papers; thus it will not do to have the first advertisement in one paper on the forty-second day before the exposure and the first advertisement in another paper on the forty-first day before the exposure, and then to say that the first exposure is not less than fortytwo days after the date of "the first insertion." So much for legal rules, but as matter of business an interval of six clear days between the last advertisement and the exposure is not satisfactory; yet it is only in that way that six advertisements can be made to comply with the Act; most people will add a seventh advertisement, in the calendar week of the sale. THE LONDON COUNTY COURTS. There is a generally shabby air about the English County Courts which is wholly lacking in the Sheriff Courts, but which is in keeping with the inferior status of the County Courts in fact and in professional opinion. The English lawyer does not care for the County Court. He prefers to bask in the dignity and splendour of the High Court, whether in London or at the Assizes, and he is not averse from receipt of the higher fees paid in the course of an action in these Courts. Cases are habitually brought | in the High Court which involve sums well within the meagre County Court limit, and in many cases the practice is allowed to pass. There seems almost to be a conspiracy to disregard and depreciate the County Court. In London there are about twenty districts. The Court is housed, as a rule, in a dingy inconspicuous building, whether it be in West London or in Bow. The interior is no less dingy and sordid, and the court-room is usually distinguished by absence of ventilation. Sometimes a small set of the Royal Arms, looking as if they had been detached some years ago from a biscuit box, are displayed over the judge's seat. On these debased miniatures the leopards of England bear the aspect of "rabbits emaciés passant regardant." There are usually no seats for the public, which is numerous and unwashed. A long table for counsel and solicitors extends in front of the low bench. On a Court day the Court precincts are thronged with a crowd whose dinginess rivals that of the Court. Before the judge sits the Registrar holds his Court, and all cases coming into the list for the first time are called on before him. If there is no appearance for the defendant the plaintiff may prove his case and have judgment from the Registrar. Other cases go to the judge. At 10.30 the judge sits. Most London County Court judges do so with reluctance, if their demeanour be any guide. Some are patient, some very emphatically not so, but all have a worn and blasé air. They wear, if they please, a black gown with purple facings; if they don't please they wear a black gown. This is typical of the apathy felt towards these Courts. The Englishman loves his forms and pomp, and where you find slackness about such things it argues the greatest indifference. ment summonses," when the judge sits to decide whether a person against whom judgment has been entered, and who has not satisfied the judgment, can or cannot pay what he has been found liable to pay. No immediate order for imprisonment is made as a rule. Heated altercations are usual at this stage as appearance is usually by "party." The antagonists take up their places in the witness-stands labelled "Plaintiff" and "Defendant." The temper of the judge is, as a rule, seriously impaired by the hearing of these summonses. Possession cases ensue. They may be long or short. If there are many-sometimes forty will be put in the list-they may last over the day. If they do not, the ordinary list is embarked upon, and that may consist of anything from six cases up to twelve or fifteen. With an air of resignation the judge begins the hearing of these causes.. In the London Courts appearance by counsel is usual. This, of course, detracts from their value, regarded as fora in which justice is done cheaply, but the Bar has not, so far, made any protest. Counsel range in age from the very youngest to those in a lamentable stage of decrepitude, and be it said, ineptitude. The proceedings are usually hustled through without much ceremony. Some counsel make a point of treating County Court judges with contempt, and breezes are very frequent. Now and again someone is reported to his benchers, who take no steps in the matter. By lunch time there is much murmuring amongst the members of the Bar at the scandalous length of the list, and applications to be released are hurled at the judge, who is confronted with the task of saying how long each case is going to last and deciding whether to release for the day, for an hour, or not at all. By 3 P.M. tempers are on edge. Surely you don't want to re-examine," snaps the judge. "Re-examining in a County Court," murmur the waiting and weary advocates. "I will not have this perpetual buzz of conversation. I insist on silence," appeals the judge. There are one or two of the County Court judges whose vagaries are as well known, in a smaller professional world, as those of Lord Darling himself. One has an antipathy to Jews. "I shouldn't trouble about that," the exclaimed, as a Jewish witness was putting on his hat to be sworn. 'You're not going to tell the truth anyway.' 22 Or, again, when the plaintiff was a Jew and the defendants a steamship company. May the witnesses be out of Court," asks The day's work usually begins with "judg-counsel for the defendants. Counsel asked another judge for leave to appeal. 66 No, I can't do it,' was the response. "Your client's a clergyman, isn't he? Very well, no clergyman has any money. I can't have you running him into expense. My father was a clergyman.' Undoubtedly the County Courts serve a useful purpose, but nobody in his senses would choose to litigate, to practise, or to preside in one of them. With the inevitable increase in the pecuniary limits of their jurisdiction will come, doubtless, an enhancement in dignity and in the amenities. A. D. G. Dear Sir, Letter to the Editor. A Clamant Injustice. A long lease of heritable subjects recently became renewable, and was renewed by a fresh lease at Martinmas 1924. I sent it to the Register of Sasines for recording immediately after that term. Some weeks after that the Keeper of the Register returned the deed to me, as the Inland Revenue officials considered that it required a trifling sum of extra stamp duty, in respect of a grassum. I had previously thrashed out that very point with the landlord's agents, and they with the Inland Revenue, and the latter at that time considered (rightly in effect, but on a wrong ground as I maintain) that no duty was required for the grassum. Ultimately, and purely to save time, the extra shilling was agreed to, in accordance with the Inland Revenue's new con tention. The result of all this is that some weeks have To say that a Keeper of a Register for publication, of all things, or, for that matter, for preservation, or for preservation and execution as well as publication, should be obliged to reject any writ simply because it is either unstamped or insufficiently stamped, is a stupid denial to the public of the benefits of the Register, and such a state of affairs may entail very grave injustice. The fair and business-like plan is that the keeper should reject no writ so long as it does not appear to confuse the register or make wrong use of it. If a writ (other than an exempt one) is presented for registration unstamped, then the sum of one guinea should be added, as a fine, to the registration fee, the agent, if there is one, to suffer, and not the client. In the case of understamped deeds, an expeditious care could also easily be arranged, with a more nominal penalty. On the other side of the argument, the client or agent could (say within three years after the return of the deed from the Sasines Office) appeal against fines and extra duties. The relative section of the Stamp Act would, of course, have to be mended or ended. The penalty on the Keeper of the Register should not be for registering an insufficiently stamped deed, but for failing to call attention, and that to all concerned, to the alleged shortage of stamp duty. I would fain hope that this note will aid in ensuring a remedy for a ridiculous injustice. NEWBURGH, FIFE, GEORGE L. ANDERSON. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, GLASGOW.- HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, STIRLING. been lost by me and my clients, thus delaying the far-off happy time when I can again actually handle my lease. A sale of the property is urgently wanted, and offers may readily be lost through my being prevented shewing my title. I haven't even a INSTALLATION OF NEW DEPUTY KEEPER OF draft to shew, as that is in the landlord's agents' THE SIGNET.-On the afternoon of the last day the new Deputy Keeper of the Signet, was of the year Mr William Campbell Johnston, inducted to office with the accustomed formalities. In the first place, the Commissioners of the Signet (being the senior members of the Society appointed as Commissioners) met in hands. Now I strongly hold, and I think the uniformly obliging officials of the Record Office and the very long-suffering profession in general will agree, that the application of the Stamp Act to the Register of Sasines is quite wrong, and apt to cause serious loss, inconvenience, and injustice to the lieges. Why the Society's upper hall; Mr John Cowan, W.S., the treasurer of the Society and senior Commissioner, occupied the chair. To him the new Deputy Keeper produced his Commission under the hand of the Duke of Montrose, Hereditary Keeper of the Signet. The Commission having been read, the Commissioners ordered it to be recorded in their books. The chairman then administered the oath de fideli administratione officii to Mr Johnston, and thereupon installed him in the chair as Deputy Keeper of the Signet. A meeting of the whole Society immediately followed, when again the Commission was presented, read, and ordered to be recorded. In the course of the proceedings, both by formal resolutions and by speeches of members, warm expression was given of the Society's sense of its obligations to Sir George M. Paul, who for many years filled the post of Deputy Keeper with conspicuous ability, zeal, and thoughtfulness. No less warm a welcome was given to Mr Campbell Johnston in assuming the duties of his new office-the Society feeling that in the selection of Mr Johnston for the office, the Duke of Montrose had again shewn an accurate perception of the public interest as well as that of the Society. Among those taking part in the proceedings were (in addition to Mr Cowan) Sir Henry Cook and Mr H. E. Richardson-old friends of the retiring Deputy Keeper and of his successor. In the course of the ordinary business of the meeting, Mr Richardson was reappointed the Society's representative on the Board of the Royal Infirmary, and Mr James Watt was appointed one of the Society's representatives on the joint committee of legal societies. DORNOCH TOWN COUNCIL have appointed Mr John Sutherland, accountant and estate agent, to the office of Town-Clerk of the burgh in succession to the late Mr Hector M. Mackay. The new Town-Clerk holds various local appointments, including those of clerk to the Parish Council, collector of rates for both Town and Parish Councils, and registrar. Mr Sutherland is well known as secretary of the Royal Dornoch Golf Club, a position he has held for almost forty-two years, and he has been prominently identified with the work of the Scottish Golf Union. In offering his congratulations to the new Town-Clerk, Provost Murray referred to the conspicuous part Mr Sutherland has played in making Dornoch one of the favourite golfing resorts of the country. THE degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Law has been conferred by the University of Edinburgh upon Charles Bell Porter, B.L., an assistant to Messrs Fyfe, Ireland & Co., W.S., Edinburgh, for his thesis "The Legal Conception of Criminal Responsibility in View of Modern Theories of Criminology." THE death took place suddenly on 18th December last of Mr William Rattray Bruce, S.S.C., senior partner of the firm of Messrs Bruce & Black, W.S., 36 Castle Street, Edinburgh. Born at Perth in 1862, Mr Bruce qualified as a law agent in 1891, and was admitted a member of the S.S.C. Society in 1893. He is survived by his wife, a son, and a daughter. DECISIONS IN THE ENGLISH REVENUE Back v. Daniels. INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT OCCUPATION OF LAND USE OF ASSOCIATION OF PROCURATORS-FISCAL.-At a meeting on 6th inst. the opportunity was taken to present Mr W. D. Smart with a gold watch, wallet, and sum of money contributed by the members. The president (Mr J. Drummond Strathern, Glasgow) made the PROFITS presentation in cordial and felicitous terms, FARMER'S LAND UNDER SPECIAL AGREEMENT— and Mr Smart made a very grateful acknow-INCOME TAX ACT, 1918 (8 & 9 GEO. v. CAP. 40), ledgment, and at the same time referred to the SCHEDULE A, NO. VII. RULE 2; SCHEDULE B.; importance of the service and the efficiency SCHEDULE D.-A firm of potato merchants, who with which the work is performed. A vote of also grew potatoes, held farm land for the thanks to the chairman was moved by Mr purpose of growing potatoes under yearly Somerville, Edinburgh (City). The watch bears agreements with the farmers, according to the following inscription: "Presented by the which, as soon as the crop was lifted and taken Procurators-Fiscal in Scotland to William away, the land was given up to the farmers. Douglas Smart, Esq., I.S.O., on his retirement The agreements contained provisions as to the from the Crown Office, in recognition of the division of the labour, etc., in connection with readiness with which at all times he placed his growing the potatoes, between the firm and the knowledge and ability at the service of the farmers. In some cases the land was held for Association or individual members, and as a less than a year, and in other cases for more token of their good wishes and personal regard. than a year, but there was no repeating of 30th September 1924." crops in successive years. The farmers were |