The Gazette 1949-1952

cutting. In the present case, the amount which the member of the union would have had, as purchaser, to pay under the scale was £24, whereas Mr. Evill only charged him £4 15 s. Mr. Evill, it should be said, had been perfectly frank throughout. The evidence on which the Disciplinary Committee had acted was in substance contained in his own letter written in reply to the complaint. In his (his Lordship’s) opinion, in acting as he had, Mr. Evill, had undoubtedly infringed Rules x and 2 of the Rules o f 1936, and the appeal should be dismissed. Mr. Justice Oliver and Mr. Justice Sellors agreed. —(The Times Newspaper, xst May, 1951). presented a petition in the Windsor County Court against the debtor and a receiving order in bankruptcy was made. On November 13th, 1950, an appeal td the Court by the debtor was allowed (1950, 2 All E. R. 1129), and the receiving order was set aside on account o f defects in the bankruptcy proceedings. The applicants were thereupon ordered to pay to the debtor the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the Windsor County Court amounting to £72. The applicants were, however, judgment creditors o f the debtor for a balance of £409 Is- 4d., remaining out of a larger sum for which they originally obtained judgments. The debtor’s solicitors notified the creditors, Messrs. Bowmaker, o f an intention to issue execution against them to recover the said sum of £72 for costs. In these circumstances the creditors applied to a Divisional Court of the Chancery Division for a stay of execution of the order for payment of the costs and intimated that they proposed to bring a fresh bankruptcy petition against the debtor. This application for a stay o f execution was resisted by the debtor on the ground that to grant such a stay would be equivalent to allowing a set-off to be made and ( a ) a set-off would interfere with the lien of the debtor’s solicitors for costs on the sum of £72, and {b) that the judgment creditors would be obtaining payment in full in priority to other possible creditors. Harman and Danckwerts, J .J ., held that the Court had a discretion to allow a set-off when reasonable, notwithstanding a solicitor’s lien : Reid v. Cupper (1915, 2 K .B . 147), applied. There being at the time no bankruptcy no question of undue preference arose, and, in any event, money set-off under an Order of the Court could not constitute an undue preference^ and on the facts o f the case, it was Solicitor’s lien defeated by set-off between parties Petitioning creditors—Bowmaker Limited,

just that the creditors should have a stay o f execution. Per Harman, J. : “ The old decisions about the practice in bankruptcy were based apparently, on the view that the practice in Chancery was being followed. Now, whatever the practice in Chancery was at one time, it has, at any rate since 1916, allowed a set-off in all proper cases, notwith­ standing the solicitor’s lien, and I see no reason why bankruptcy practice should not follow the same rule. I agree that we have a discretion to allow this set-off, or a stay, which amounts to much the same thing, if it be just. In my opinion, it would be right to allow it. I cannot see that as between the parties themselves there cannot be any justice in allowing the debtor to levy execution against the goods of his creditors, nor do I think that this ought to be allowed for the sake of the debtor’s solicitor. I cannot see any reason why the creditors should pay the costs of the debtor’s solicitor if the debtor is unable to do so, nor do I believe that a solicitor accepting the retainer of a person against whom bankruptcy proceedings are pending, does so in reliance on the view that the petitioner’s solicitor may blunder and thus give him the advantage of an order for costs against the petitioner.” (Re. A Debtor (1951) L All E. R. 600). LEGAL LITERATURE OF THE MONTH A selection of articles from periodicals. Taw Times, May 4th.—“ False Imprisonment.” “ Insertion of a Nominal Considera­ tion in Deeds.”

May n th .—“ Solicitor acting for both Parties—Fees.” ; “ Fatal Accidents— Damages in Court.” May 18 th.—'“ Order of Application of Assets—Lapsed Shares.”

May 25 th.—-“ The Tucker Report and Partnerships.” ; “ Power to appoint Additional Trustee.” The Solicitor, May— Liens of Sub-Agents.” “ The Assignability of Leases.” The Solicitors’ Journal, May 5th.— “ Investment

Clauses.” “ How to revoke an appointment as executor.” “ Boundary Adjustment.” May 1 2th.— “ Postponement of Order for Possession.” May 19th.—-“ Trusts for the relief of Old Age,”