The Press.
London, England, 1858-01-23 00:00:00

THE PRESS, 3 ANUARY 23, 1858.

the old barons of that name, who died 1746. Surtees, in
his " History of Durham," notices this fact, and adds one
touch of the wit of this anonymous fool, who seems to
have borrowed a traditionary joke of his great predecessor,
Archie Armstrong. His master, we are told, on one
occasion of his returning to his northern seat from Lon•
dun, left his carriage at the ferry near the castle, and
proceeded towards that building over a foot-bridge, at the
end of which the fool was awaiting his patron. The latter
was attired in a gaily gold•embroidered dress, according
to the fashion of the times, and made in the south by a
fashionable tailor. The fool gazed on his master with
mingled astonishment and vexation, and, in place of
greeting his return with a welcome, boldly looked him in
the face, and inquired, " Who's the fool now?" This is
the last recorded joke of the last recorded jester; awl the
long line could not have gone out with a milder, though
it might have done so with a less impertinent, jest.
Hilton's fool may, I think, fairly rank as the ultinteu
alullorum (he was remembered by aged Cumberland people,
as late as 181'2).
The following is really curious and in-
teresting :

be acquired in land, and this by a statement
(xi.—xiii.) of the mutual Property-rights of
Husband and Wife, and of the law relating to
the custody of children. The subjects of
Mortgages, Leases, Settlements, Wills, and
Trustees occupy nine more letters, and the
work concludes by a view of the operation of
time on Title, on the charges on land, and on
the privileges essential to its enjoyment.
High as the reputation of Lord St. Leonards
deservedly is for his unrivalled knowledge of
Property Law, his professional works are
more than usually difficult to read, owing to
the style in which they are written. There
are sentences in the " Vendors and Pur-
chasers" which are absolutely ungrammatical,
and others which are so obscure that it is
necessary to reconstruct them in the mind
in order to retain a clear idea of their purport
" Sugden on Powers" from this cause, as well
as from the extreme subtlety of its reasoning,
is proverbially a sort of Pons Asinorum among
young lawyers : and Mr. Warren tells a story
of the late Sir Robert Peel sitting down, or
rather up, to master the chapter on the scin-
tilla juris, because he had been told that it was
the toughest bit of reasoning in the English
language. Under these circumstances it
might have been supposed that nothing was
to be less expected from the learned ex-Chan-
(senor than a popular exposition of the law,
and that if he wished one to be written, he
would do better to delegate the task to some
one with more literary ability though perhaps
with less legal knowledge. The reverse, how-
ever, proves to be the case, and affords one
more instance of what we have frequently
observed, that thorough knowledge of a sub-
ject and complete familiarity with all its details
will force its way out through all obstacles,
and stand in the stead of the smoother quali.
ties usually considered necessary for reaching
the popular ear. The grasp of a master, how-
ever rough, makes itself felt, and gives that
directness and simplicity of treatment which
are essential to real success. Lord St.
Leonards has undertaken to write popularly,
and for the most part not in vain. His larger
works, like most law-books, are to a great extent
made up by extracting the marginal sum-
maries appended to tho reports of decided
cases, classifying them as precedents under
the divisions proper to the subject in hand,
and arguing upon points in which they con-
firm or reverse one another. These summa-
ries are of course extremely condensed—a
sort of legal pemmican—and it is amusing to
see how in the work before us a remnant of
them occasionally crops out, like a bit of hay
once subjected to hydraulic pressure, and
still retaining its concentrated form. But, as
we have said, the general tone of the book is
easy and popular, mid does not belie its pre-
tensions as a railway volume though it may
be doubted whether Chapter X. is not too
brief and too technically expressed for the
entire comprehension of a lay reader. To at-
tempt in any way to abridge a book which
in 192 pages contains the pith of about a dozen
stout octaves, would of course be absurd. We
shall therefore make a few extracts, which may
induce those who are thinking of marrying,
mortgaging, investing, or bequeathing, to lay
out a modest half-crown upon this very useful
volume.

After speaking of the defects in his estate
which a seller is bound to disclose to a pur-
chaser, Lord St. Leonards says, " I shall now
" tell you what falsehoods you may utter in
" regard to your estate." This sounds some-
what alarming; but as we are taught Fallacies
in Logic, not that we may deceive, but that
we may detect, the author comforts us a few
pages further by saying:—

I shall now dismiss you from your character of a seller,
and treat you as a buyer.
In running over, in my last letter, the misstatements
which a seller may with impunity make, I of course was
looking to the situation in which I now consider you to
stand ; fur s hen you know how far an unprincipled vendor
may with safety go, you can guard against fraud by not
trusting to misrepresentations which are made without
fear of retribution.

The old rule of " caveat emptor " is, in fact,
that which underlies most of the cases whore
any kind of misrepresentation or concealment
1:4 made, though of course there is a debate-
able margin where precedent alone is of avail.

On the subject of attorneys, the following is
worth notice:—
If a purchaser neglect to have the title investigated, or
his counsel overlook any defect in it, he has nu remedy
beyond what the seller's covenants may afford
I may remark, by the way, that as counsel, that is, bar-
risters, have no remedy for recovery of their fees, which
are considered purely gratuitous and honorary, they are
not deemed liable to their clients fur any blunders which
they commit, however gross. But it is otherwise as to
attorneys; they may maintain an action for their fees ;
and if a purchaser is damnified by the gross want of skill
in an attorney, or by his neglect to search for encum-
brances, he may recover at law against the attorney for any
loss which he may sustain. But where the attorney has
acted under the advice of counsel, he is safe.
This is rather hard. The client cannot re-
coier from the attorney because the attorney
has had counsel's opinion, and cannot recover
from the counsel because tke transaction with
him is not a " commercial one "—in other
words, he has no remedy at all.
As the new Divorce Bill came into operation
the other day, it is as well to have some in-
formation about it. It will be seen that, at
the end of the second paragraph, Lord St. Leo•
nards supports the view we have always taken
of the subject:—

There are some important remedies applicable to all
cases. As to children, the court may make such interim
or final orders as it may deem just, with respect to their
custody, maintenance, and education, and may direct them
to be made wards of the Court of Chancery. This is
interfering with a strong hand with the parental rights of
the faller. Where the wife is the guilty party, the court
may order a settlement of her property, either in pos-
ses•ion or reversion, for the benefit of the innocent party,
and of the children of the marriage, or any of them. This
is as powerful an interference with the wife's right of

property.
When a decree for dissolving the marriage has become
final, the respective parties may marry again as if the
prior marriage has been dissolved by death. But no
clergyman of the United Church of England and Ireland
is compellable to marry any person whose former marriage
has been dissolved on the ground of his or her adultery.
Bat in case of his refusal, when but for such refusal the
persons wou:d be entitled to have the service performed
in his church or chapel, the minister is to permit the
marriage to be solemnised is his church or chapel by any
other minister in holy orders entitled to officiate within
the diocese. The right to marry again could not in my
opinion have been denied to the parties, although it was
strongly opposed, and is still objected to by a body of the
clergy. The desire not to impose upon the clergy a duty
which might be contrary to their conscientious feelings
induced the Legislature to excuse those who objected
from performing the marriage ceremony, thus making a
law which of course was not deemed inconsistent with the
laws of God or man, and yet excusing the clergy who were
to give effect to it from obeying it—a clingmus precedent,
and the exemption has not given satisfaction to the class
in whose favour it was introduced. The substitute pro-
vided, where a clergyman declines to officiate, is well
calculated to lead to disunion between neighbouring clergy.
men, and ought, as it appears to me, never to have found
its place in our statute law.
Since the commencement of the year we have
already observed several applications by women
to the police-courts for the protection of the
new law. Much more help seems to be ex-
pected from it than it will really give, and some
people, as it would appear from a case which
came before Mr. Combe last week ex-
pect that a magistrate will be able to divorce
them on the spot! The most extensive pub-
licity, therefore, is to be desired for the fol-
lowing statement:—

A remedy has been provided for the heartless cases of
desertion by a husband of his wife, and then returning
only to rob her of her miserable earnings—and this has
been made general, so as to include cases where the
deserted wife has, by her literary talents for example,
acquired considerable property during the desertion. This
protection covers all her earnings and property acquired
since the desertion, as if she were a single woman, and
binds her husband and his creditors, and any person
claiming under him. It is to be granted by a police magis-
trate, if she is resident in a metropolitan district, or, if
she is resident in the country, by justices it, petty ses-
sions, or in either case by the Court of Divorce. It is
required to be shown that the desertion was without
reasonable cause, and that she is maintaining herself by
her own industry. The order may be reviewed or may
be appealed from, but if disobeyed, the wife may recover
the specific property, and also double its value. Whilst
the older for protection continues, the wile is to be con-
sidered as invested with the same rights, and as subject
to the same lial.ilities, as if she had obtained a decree of
judicial separation.
Lord St. Leonards is indignant at the abolition
in words, but retention in fact, of the action
for crim. con.—though if the divorce is to be
on the ground of adultery, and the adultery is
to be proved, we do not see how some such
proceeding is to be altogether avoided. The
permission, however, for a husband to bring
an action before a jury for damages only, with-
out being compelled to go on to a judicial