Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

To each commissioner, where the distance required shall exceed three miles, besides his reasonable travelling expenses

To the clerk of the peace, or his deputy, for every search

To the same, for every copy of a list of commissioners, provided such list shall not exceed the number of 100 names

To the same, for every further complete number of 50 names, an additional

To the officer, for every search

To the same for every official copy of the certificate

To the same, for every official copy of a list of commissioners, provided
such list shall not exceed the number of 100 names
To the same,
for every further complete number of 50 names additional
To the same, for preparing every special commission, including a fee of
5s. to the clerk of the Chief Justice or other Judge for the fiat
To the same, for examining the certificate and affidavit, and filing and
indexing the same, as required by the said act of the 3d and 4th Wil-
liam 4, cap. 74

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

And it is hereby further ordered, that the fees and charges to be paid for the entries of deeds required by the said act to be entered on the court rolls of manors, and for the indorsements thereon, and for taking the consents of the protectors of settlements of land held by copy of court roll, where such consents shall not be given by deed, and for taking surrenders, by which dispositions shall be made under the said act, by tenants in tail of lands held by copy of court roll, and for entries of such surrenders, or the memorandums thereof, on the court rolls, shall be as follows:

£ s. d.

For the indorsements on the deed of the memorandum of production, and memorandum of entry on court rolls, to be signed by the lord steward or deputy steward, each indorsement of memorandum 5s., together.. 0 10 0 For the entries on the court rolls of deeds, and the indorsements thereon, at per folio of 72 words

[ocr errors]

For taking the consent of each protector of settlement of lands..

For taking the surrender by each tenant in tail of lands

For entries of such surrenders, or the memorandums thereof, on the court rolls, at per folio of 72 words

006

0 13 4 0 13 4

006

Form of Affidavit verifying the Certificate of Acknowledgment taken in pursuance of the Act of Parliament, to be made by some practising Attorney or Solicitor, and to be sworn before a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, or a Commissioner appointed for taking Affidavits in the said Court,

A. B. of

in the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In the Common Pleas.
of

gentleman, one of the attornies [or solicitors] maketh oath and saith, that he knows the wife of

of the Court of in the certificate hereunto annexed mentioned, and that the acknowledgment therein mentioned was made by the said- and the certificate signed by the Judge [or Master, or by A. B. of &c. and C. D. of &c., the commissioners in the said certificate mentioned] on the day and year therein mentioned, at, in the - of in the presence of this deponent, and that at the time of making such acknowledgment the said was of full age and competent understanding, and that the said knew the said acknowledgment was intended to pass her estate in the premises, respecting which such acknowledgment was made. [And this deponent further saith, that to the best of this deponent's knowledge and belief, neither of the said commissioners is (or the said A. B. or the said C. D). one of the said commissioners is not) in any manner interested in the transaction giving occasion for such acknowledgment, or concerned therein as attorney, solicitor, or agent, or as clerk to any attorney, solicitor, or agent, so interested or concerned].' And this deponent

1

1 The lines within brackets to be omitted, when acknowledgment taken by a Judge or Master.

ཎྞཾ

further saith, that previous to the said (the married woman) making the said acknowledgment, he this deponent inquired of the said (the married woman) or if more than one, of each of them the said and (the married women) whether she intended to give up her interest in the estates, in respect of which such acknowledgment was taken, without having any provision made for her in lieu of, or in return for, or in consequence of her so giving up her interest in such estates, and that in answer to such inquiry the said (the married woman) declared that she did intend to give up her interest in the said estates, without having any provision made for her in lieu of, or in return for, or in consequence of her so giving up such her interest; of which declaration of the said (the married woman) this deponent has no reason to doubt the truth, and verily believes the same to be true, or declared that a provision was to be made for her in consequence of her giving up such her interest in the said estates. And this deponent lastly saith, that, before her acknowledgment was so taken, he was satisfied, and does now verily believe that such provision has been made by deed or writing, or that the terms thereof have been reduced into writing, and that such deed or writing has been produced to the said Judge, Master, or Commissioners. And lastly, this deponent saith, that it appears by the deed acknowledged by the said (the married woman) that the premises wherein she is stated to be interested are described to be in the parish or place of - -, or parishes or places of and - in the county of [or counties of -, as the case may be.] Sworn, &c.

N. B. When the whole of the facts cannot be spoken to by one deponent, variations may be made to enable more than one deponent to state their respective parts of the affidavit.

1

TRINITY TERM, 4 WILL. IV.

Ir is ordered, that from and after the last day of this term, where such parts of the affidavit, verifying the certificate of acknowledgment, taken in pursuance of the late act of parliament, respecting fines and recoveries, as state “the deponent's knowledge of the party making the acknowledgment, and her being of full age ;" cannot be deposed to by a commissioner, or by an attorney or solicitor, the same may be deposed to by some other person, whom the person before whom the affidavit shall be made shall consider competent so to do.

And it is further ordered, that where more than one married woman shall at the same time acknowledge the same deed, respecting the same property, the fees directed by the said rules to be taken shall be taken for the first acknowledgment only.

And the fees to be taken for the other acknowledgment or acknowledgments, how many soever the same may be, shall be one-half of the original fees, and so also, where the same married woman shall at the same time acknowledge more than one deed respecting the same property.

And where, in either of the above cases, there shall be more than one acknowledgment, all such acknowledgments may be included in one certificate and affidavit.

"In every case the acknowledgment of a lease and release shall be considered and paid for as one acknowledgment only.

pleasure; for it is not because it is competent to a party to appeal --for in every case it was competent for them to do so; it is not because a certificate of counsel can be obtained in support of an appeal--for this, in the hurry of business, may inadvertently be given-that parties are justified in coming here, exhausting the suitors' money and the time of your Lordships; and if your Lordships do not visit the parties with your displeasure in something more than an affirmance of the judgment of the court below, it might be well and truly said, that this court of appeal, which was intended for the benefit of suitors, was not a court of redress, but a court of vexation. I consider that no counsel of common law ought to have certified that this was a case for appeal. Every counsel, before putting his hand to such a certificate, ought to have known the case of Hartley and Case, in the last edition, and not the fourth, or it might be the first, of that learned judge's [Mr. Baron Bayley's] work referred to. My Lords, I hold this case to be one in which there is not a shadow of pretence for appealing; and I will venture to express a hope that if there be any other cases of appeal of a similar description set down, that the parties who have brought them will withdraw them in time, otherwise they may repent of their pertinacity. I move, my Lords, that the judgment of the court below be affirmed, with costs not exceeding £350.".

:

There is no department of knowledge in which (with some few modifications) the maxim that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread," is more applicable than in law. Ignorance proceeds rashly and recklessly, where learning stands hesitating amid doubts. It is now admitted-nay, proved to demonstration-that the point in question was the very opposite of clear: that Lord Tenterden, on the trial of the cause, expressly invited the appellant to take the steps necessary for carrying the question before the highest tribunal, because the highest tribunal alone could properly reconsider the case,' which he felt to be imperative on himself: that Sir James Scarlett, Mr. F. Pollock, and Lord (then Mr.) Brougham, united in advising the appeal to the Exchequer Chamber, through which alone the case could be brought before the House of Lords. Sir James Scarlett and Mr. Pollock have both declared subsequently, that, if applied to, they should have considered themselves fully justified in recommending the ultimate appeal and Lord Denman candidly avowed that even subsequently to the argument before their Lordships, he had, entertained considerable doubts upon the point. It is therefore clear that, in his eagerness to curry popular favour by declaiming against the supposed abuses of the law, Lord Brougham was guilty of a gross act of injustice to the plaintiff and his solicitors,—to say nothing of the discredit brought upon the House of Lords by this new exhibition of the intemperance of its head. Unfortunately, the Morning Post was equally intemperate in its exposure of him; and he has thus been enabled to come off with the semblance of victory, where, in reality, he richly merited, and would otherwise have been encountered by, defeat. The judgment of the House of Lords was affirmed with heavy costs, but by a (not well-known) practice of that House, it was entered on the printed journals as "postponed sine die." The discrepancy attracted attention, and was a frequent subject of discussion on the evening preceding the appearance of the article in the Morning Post; which at once brought the question to an issue, by boldly imputing the variation between the judgment and the entry to Lord Brougham, who, it was supposed, might have 1 adopted this mode of securing himself a locus pœnitentiæ, in case he should sub

1 Hardy v. Case. The stress laid upon it by Lord Brougham is irresistibly ridi-, culous; no one can fail to see that it was quite new to him, though familiar in all its bearings to every one else.

sequently find it advisable to mitigate the penalty which he had caused to be inflicted upon the appellant as costs.

Amongst certain passages assuming to be extracts from the evidence given by Lord Brougham before the committee appointed to inquire into the present state of the Law of Libel, was the following: "Lord Brougham had much rather be libelled in the specific direct way, which it has been suggested should be punished, than in the vague general way of comment which some would make allowable." In the present instance, he was certainly libelled according to his heart's desire; and there can be no doubt the writer was thoroughly convinced of the propriety of the accusation. Its utter groundlessness, however, placed him entirely at the mercy of the Chancellor, who, to do him justice, manifested little wish to make an ungenerous use of his advantage, so far as related to the punishment. But, with his usual lack of judgment, he contrived to keep on talking until he had nearly turned the tables on himself; and altogether the adventure strikes us to be one which the warmest admirers of Lord Brougham would be not sorry to erase from his history. The proceedings are fresh in the recollection of our readers. We shall therefore only refer to two points to justify this opinion: 1. When Lord Brougham first brought the matter before the House of Lords, he denied seriatim every item of the charge, particularly the assertion that Lord Denman had suggested a doubt: Lord Denman expressly stated in the subsequent debate that he had done so. 2. The Chancellor, in reply to the assertion, that he had himself recommended the appeal, contented himself with a simple reference to dates, which certainly made it appear that he had left the bar at the time the appeal to the Lords was instituted; thus most disingenuously leaving the public to infer (and the inference was very general) that he had never recommended any appeal at all. We also think that the terms of excessive contumely, heaped by himself and others on the supposed writer, might have been spared without any disparagement of dignity. Mr. Whittle Harvey's case has been referred to a Select Committee. One of his principal grounds of complaint against the course adopted by the Benchers was, that the reporters for the public press were prevented from publishing the proceedings from day to day; the public, he urged, would read the evidence piece-meal in the newspapers, but could hardly be expected to undergo the labour of reading it in the lump. One of the first acts of the Select Committee was to forbid the publication of their proceedings until the termination of the inquiry; so that we are compelled to postpone any further commentary that we may have to offer upon the case. Whatever the Report may be, it can make very little change in the general estimate of his character. A Committee of the House of Commons is the very worst sort of tribunal that can be imagined for the conduct of a delicate investigation; and the materials of which this Committee is composed will hardly make it an exception to the rule. The original list (framed by Mr. O'Connell, most probably under the Member for Colchester's instructions and advice) consisted, by a singular coincidence, almost exclusively of members who had declared in Mr. Harvey's favour, and members notoriously unable to attend; and the appointment of Mr. O'Connell as Chairman was a sufficient proof of the leaning of the acting majority. The public will also feel that it is absurd to attempt reversing the solemn decisions of juries and judges upon any ex parte statement, after the death of the adverse parties and witnesses. If this is to be allowed, what convict, we ask again, might not claim a rehearing, if, on his return from transportation, he found the prosecutor dead, and the evidence scattered or destroyed? If nothing more were necessary than to get a former

[blocks in formation]

pleasure; for it is not because it is competent to a party to appeal --for in every case it was competent for them to do so; it is not because a certificate of counsel can be obtained in support of an appeal--for this, in the hurry of business, may inadvertently be given-that parties are justified in coming here, exhausting the suitors' money and the time of your Lordships; and if your Lordships do not visit the parties with your displeasure in something more than an affirmance of the judgment of the court below, it might be well and truly said, that this court of appeal, which was intended for the benefit of suitors, was not a court of redress, but a court of vexation. I consider that no counsel of common law ought to have certified that this was a case for appeal. Every counsel, before putting his hand to such a certificate, ought to have known the case of Hartley and Case, in the last edition, and not the fourth, or it might be the first, of that learned judge's [Mr. Baron Bayley's] work referred to. My Lords, I hold this case to be one in which there is not a shadow of pretence for appealing; and I will venture to express a hope that if there be any other cases of appeal of a similar description set down, that the parties who have brought them will withdraw them in time, otherwise they may repent of their pertinacity. I move, my Lords, that the judgment of the court below be affirmed, with costs not exceeding £350.",

There is no department of knowledge in which (with some few modifications) the maxim that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread," is more applicable than in law. Ignorance proceeds rashly and recklessly, where learning stands hesitating amid doubts. It is now admitted-nay, proved to demonstration-that the point in question was the very opposite of clear: that Lord Tenterden, on the trial of the cause, expressly invited the appellant to take the steps necessary for carrying the question before the highest tribunal, because the highest tribunal alone could properly reconsider the case,' which he felt to be imperative on himself: that Sir James Scarlett, Mr. F. Pollock, and Lord (then Mr.) Brougham, united in advising the appeal to the Exchequer Chamber, through which alone the case could be brought before the House of Lords. Sir James Scarlett and Mr. Pollock have both declared subsequently, that, if applied to, they should have considered themselves fully justified in recommending the ultimate appeal: and Lord Denman candidly avowed that even subsequently to the argument before their Lordships, he had entertained considerable doubts upon the point. It is therefore clear that, in his eagerness to curry popular favour by declaiming against the supposed abuses of the law, Lord Brougham was guilty of a gross act of injustice to the plaintiff and his solicitors, to say nothing of the discredit brought upon the House of Lords by this new exhibition of the intemperance of its head. Unfortunately, the Morning Post was equally intemperate in its exposure of him; and he has thus been enabled to come off with the semblance of victory, where, in reality, he richly merited, and would otherwise have been encountered by, defeat. The judgment of the House of Lords was affirmed with heavy costs, but by a (not well-known) practice of that House, it was entered on the printed journals as "postponed sine die." The discrepancy attracted attention, and was a frequent subject of discussion on the evening preceding the appearance of the article in the Morning Post; which at once brought the question to an issue, by boldly imputing the variation between the judgment and the entry to Lord Brougham, who, it was supposed, might have adopted this mode of securing himself a locus pœnitentiæ, in case he should sub

1 Hardy v. Case. The stress laid upon it by Lord Brougham is irresistibly ridi→ culous; no one can fail to see that it was quite new to him, though familiar in all its bearings to every one else.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »