The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-22 00:00:00

LAW AMENDMENT SOCIETY.

A meeting of this society was held on Monday
last, Mr. William Hawes presiding.
Mr. EDGAR stated that he had received from Mr.
Torrens, the Registrar-General for South Australia,
a paper containing returns of applications, total
value of land, fees, and number of transactions, &c.,
connected with the working of the Real Property
Act in that colony. .The Lands Titles Registration-
office in South Australia had only been established
for five months at the date of the returns, but the
result had on the whole been satisfactory. An ex-
planatory statement would also be found of the
mode of registration, together with suggestions for
amending certain defects developed in the working
of the act. The paper would lie on the table for
the convenience of members who might wish to
consult it.
Mr. HASTINGS moved that the Criminal Law
Consolidation Bills brought in by the Attorney-
General be referred to the Criminal Law Com-
mittee, with instructions to report on the same.
These bills had been prepared by the Statute Law
Commission, and were the only fruits of the labours
of that body, after being in existence for five years,
which had been brought before the public. After
the exertions made by this society in the cause of
consolidation, he thought it desirable that it should
pronounce an opinion on what had now been
accomplished by the commission.
Mr. F. BRISTOWE seconded the motion, which
was carried.

The adjourned discussion on the report of the
Bankruptcy Committee was then resumed.
Mr. LAWRANCE moved that the ninth resolu-
tion—" That it is desirable that, in the administra-
tion of estates in bankruptcy, greater uniformity
should prevail in the judgments of the commis-
sioners, and that the present mode of appeal is
unsatisfactory"—be adopted. As the next resolu-
tion in the report was intimately connected with
the present, he would also move that the tenth
resolution—" That there should be a chief judge in
bankruptcy, who, sitting with two commissioners
in London or the country, should form a court for
the decision of all questions of disputed adjudica•
tion, and, when requited by the assignees, the
opposing creditor or the bankrupt, of disputed
certificates or orders of discharge ; and that
such court should be the court of appeal, from
whose decisions there should be no further
appeal, except in case of a difference of opinion
among the members, or by leave of the court "—be
adopted. It could not be denied that there was a
want of uniformity in the decisions of the commis-
sioners on certificates, and various other questions.
This arose in a great degree from their sitting in
separate courts, and each exercising an independent
jurisdiction. The consequence had been that much
dissatisfaction had been caused throughout the
mercantile community; nor had the present mode
of appeal tended to correct the evil complained of.
It was liable to many objections. When a case
went from the Court of Bankruptcy before the
Lords Justices, it became a re-hearing rather than
an appeal; new facts were introduced, and great
injustice was often done. He thought that a chief
judge in bankruptcy—who should take rank with
the judges of the superior courts—sitting with two
commissioners, would be more likely to form a
satisfactory court of appeal ; and in the event of an
appeal to a higher tribunal, a case would be stated
containing the same facts which had already been
adjudicated on. By bringing, however, all disputed
adjudications of bankruptcy, and disputed certifi-
cates before the proposed tribunal, further appeals
would seldom arise. It would afford also a satis-
factory. remedy for the want of uniformity now
complained of.
Mr. PULLING seconded the motion. He thought
the plan proposed would be likely to produce
greater uniformity, and would be much more satis-
factory to the mercantile community than the pre-
sent arrangement.
_ _ _

Mr. H. P. BRISTOWE thought that the present
mode of appeal was better than that proposed. It
appeared to him that it would lead to a duplication
of appeals—first to the new tribunal, and then to
the present. He did not agree with the notion that
commercial matters were not adjudicated on in a
satisfactory manner in the present court of appeal.
Mr. S. MORLEY stated that, as far as his experi-

ence went, there was a feeling throughout the Com-
mercial public that the present mode of appeal was
unsatisfactory. He thought that the proposed
change would be acceptable to the mercantile com-
munity.
Mr. P. JOHNSON thought that, in the great ma-
jority of instances, the present system led not to
re-hearings, but to appeals. He mentioned cases
illustrative of this view.
Mr. LINKLATER stated that he could not com-
plain of any miscarriage of justice in the Court of
Appeal, but the expense was such as to amount to
a denial of justice in many cases. The plan now
under consideration would obviate this evil. The
proposed tribunal would be able to dispose of most
matters in a manner satisfactory to the parties.
Mr. LAWRANCE, in reply, wished it to be under-
stood that he had not intended to speak disrespect-
fully of the court of the Lords Justices, but his ob-
servations applied to the mode of appeal—the letting
in of new evidence. With reference to the status,
salary, &c., of the proposed chief judge, the com-
mittee had carefully avoided entering into particu-
lars on this, as on the other points referred to in
the report.
Mr. HASTINGS was of opinion that, from the
obscurity of the terms of the tenth resolution, it
would be impossible for the society to come to a
satisfactory determination with respect to it. The
nature of the proposed tribunal and its jurisdiction
were only hinted at, and it was impossible, with-
out explanation, to make anything of the resolu-
tion.

The motion, that the ninth resolution be adopted,
was then put and carried.
Mr. SMALE objected to the tenth resolution for
the same reason as Mr. Hastings. He would move,
by way of amendment, that the consideration of
the tenth resolution be deferred till next meeting.
The question raised by it was of the highest im-
portance, and he was not prepared to decide at
once on such a subject. The nice questions arising
in bankruptcy rendered it necessary that the Court
of Appeal should be properly constituted, and that
the chief judge mentioned should occupy a high
position in the profession. Unless this were so the
scheme would not work satisfactorily.
Mr. WINGFIELD seconded the amendment.
Mr. LAWRANCE objected to the adjournment of
the consideration of this resolution. The report had
been in the hands of members for some weeks, and
the resolution was perfectly intelligible and precise.
The CHAIRMAN considered that the adjournment
would be of no use, as matters would be in the same
condition at the next meeting.
The amendment was then put and carried.
Mr. LINKLATER moved that the eleventh resolu-
tion—" That proof of debts should be made either
by a creditor at a public sitting, or by affidavit
made elsewhere, and transmitted to the assignee to
be exhibited at a public sitting "—be adopted. He
considered it of the utmost importance for the pur-
pose of preventing fraud, that proofs should be
made at a public sitting. At the same time he was
not in favour of publishing the losses of creditors
to all the world.

Mr. LAWItANE seconded the motion. There was
no part of bankruptcy procedure which required
more to be watched than the proof of debts. He
thought the expenses to which creditors were put
in making proofs had been greatly exaggerated.
He did not approve of the plan proposed by Mr.
Hastings, which had been introduced into the Lord
Chancellor's Bill.

Mr. S. MORLEY said that it would be a great
boon to the trading community if a change were in-
troduced in the system of proofs. The present for-
malities were quite unnecessary in the great majo-
rity of cases. To say whether a debt was really
owing by the bankrupt ought to be an easy matter
for the assignee; if a doubt arose, then strict proof
might be required. For himself, he would most
willingly be spared the necessity of going to the
court to prove debts—a proceeding which led to a
great waste of time. It was this, along with other
objectionable things, which induced mercantile men
to make arrangements out of court, instead of tak-
ing advantage of the means which the law afforded.
Mr. C. WORDSWORTH, Q.C., did not see the ne-
cessity of proving debts at a public sitting. He
thought a private meeting of creditors was the pro-
per place. False and fraudulent proofs were cer-
tainly the exceptions, and it did not appear to him
necessary that debts, as to which there could be no
doubt, should be proved at a public sitting. There
was the bankrupt to check the proofs by his own
knowledge ; there was the official assignee, who was
in possession of the books ; and, if a proof were dis-
puted, let it then be brought before the commis-
sioner. Even if this did not save expense, it would
save trouble and time.
Mr. JACKSON thought the question was simply
whether the proof of a debt was to be made without
an oath. He thought there would be no security if
au oath were dispensed with.
Mr. HASTINGS referred to a statement of Mr.
Lawrence. that he (Mr. Hastings) had proposed the
plan of admitting debts without the present formal
proof. The plan had been proposed by mercantile

men, and he thought that on such a matter their '
opinion should go for something.
Mr. H. F. BRISTOWE was in favour of the mode
of proving debts as proposed in Lord John Russell's
bill. A simple declaration would be all that was
necessary. Making a false declaration would be
punishable as a misdemeanour. All statements of
account would be examined by the assignees, and
the court would expunge proofs of any debts which,
after investigation, did not appear to be due.
Mr. PULLING thought that in many cases there
was no necessity for the public proof of debts, and
he did not, therefore, see why it should be enjoined
in all cases. The expense to creditors was conside-
rable, and the waste of time was great.
Mr. GILMOUR was not aware that, under any
system of bankruptcy, a claim was allowed with-
out an oath or solemn declaration. He thought
that to dispense with this would be unsafe in the
extreme.
Mr. ELLIOTT was in favour of the resolution.
The books of bankrupts were not in general to be
relied on. The objections that had been urged to
the present system did not seem to him valid. Any
loss of time which arose was one of those sacrifices
to the public good which men are called on to
make.
Mr. LINKLATER was surprised that Mr. Morley
should take the trouble of going to the court to
prove debts, as he might do so more conveniently,
and at small expense, by an affidavit. He thought
the solemnity of an oath was necessary to guard
against fraudulent proofs.
The CHAIRMAN said that both bills proposed the
abolition of publicity, and the abolition of an oath
in the proof of debts. As to publicity, he consi-
dered it essential ; as to the oath, a declaration
before a proper authority might be sufficient.
More time would be wasted under the proposed
system than at present, as attendance would be ne-
cessary to complete proofs that were objected to.
With regard to bringing all insolvents into court,
he could not think it was desirable ; but, for the
purpose of liquidation, he wished for every facility
for bringing estates into the Court of Bankruptcy.
The motion was then put and carried.
The further consideration of the report was ad-
journed to Monday May 9, at eight o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-April 21.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.)
CARDINALL V. MOLYNEUX.

The bill in this case was filed by the plaintiff,
the churchwarden of the parish, for an injunction
to restrain the defendant, the Rev. W. H. Moly-
neux, the perpetual curate of Sudbury, in the
county of Suffolk, from taking away the pews and
making other alterations of an extensive character
in the church at that place, and also to restrain him
from selling a number of the pews and fittings,
which had been already removed and were adver-
tised for sale. An application was made to the
court, and an interim order was made, a telegraphic
notice of which was served on the defendant, Mr.
Rolfe, an auctioneer, during the progress of a sale,
in which the pews and fittings of the church were
included. Mr. Grimwood was the builder engaged
in executing the alterations in the church, and was
present at the sale. The defendant Rolfe having,
as the plaintiff alleged, proceeded with the sale of
the pews, &c., of the church, notwithstanding the
order of the court, the plaintiff now moved that the
defendants Rolfe and George Grimwood might
stand committed to the Queen's Prison for contempt
of the court in so disobeying the interim order.
Numerous affidavits were filed by the plaintiff
supporting the above facts, which were denied by
the defendants' affidavits.
Mr. Bacon, Q.C., Mr. W. D. Lewis, and Mr. J.
N. Higgins, appeared for the, plaintiff; and Mr.
Malins, Q.C., and Mr. Surrage for the defendants.
The case was part heard yesterday,' and was
proceeding to-day, when the counsel for the defen•
dants asked that it might stand over, in order to
enable the defendants to file further affidavits.
The Vice-Chancellor ordered the case to stand
over till next week for that purpose, but said it was
very desirable that the matter should be disposed
of as early
ias possible, to put an end to the excite-
ment and irritation that prevailed in the parish.