EXTRACTS FROM LORD ST. LEONARDS' HANDY BOOK.

Otago Witness, Issue 342, 19 June 1858, Page 7

EXTRACTS FROM LORD ST. LEONARDS' HANDY BOOK.

Lord St. Leonards has published " a Handy Book on Property Law in a series of Letters," from which we take the following passage : — I " Very few policies against fire are so framed as to render the company legally liable. Generally the property is inaccurately described with reference to the conditions under which you insure. Ascertain that your house falls strictly within the conditions. Even having the surveyor of the company to look over your 1 house before insurance will not save you, unless your policy is correct. To illustrate this, I will j tell you what happened to myself. I have two houses in different parts of the country, both of which open from a drawing-room by a glass door into a conservatory. The one I had insured for a good many years, from the time I built it; the other I had insured for a few years, from the time I bought it, in the same office, when a partial fire broke out in the latter, and I was then told by the office— a highly respectable one — that my policy was void, as (he opening to the conservatory rendered it hazardous, and if so, of course both policies had been void from their commencement. I was prepared to try the question, and ultimately the objection was withdrawn, and my loss was paid for. Upon renewing my policy, with some alterations, I actually had some difficulty with the clerk of the company to induce, or rather to force him, to add to "the description the fact that the drawing-rooms opened through glass doors into conservatories. In treating, at a later period, for n policy with another company, I required them to send their surveyor, to look at the house and the stove 3 j and everything to which objection could be taken was shown to him. The company then prepared the policy, and made it subject to the report made to them by their surveyor, referring to it by date. This report I never saw, and the objectionable stoves, &c, were not noticed. Of course I had the reference to the report struck out, and the policy made correct, but not without some personal trouble."

The essential difference between law and equity, as it affects the subject upon which I am writing, consists in this that equity will give you the thing itself for which you have contracted ; whereas the law can only give you a pecuniary compensation for the dishonesty of the other part, in not fulfilling his contract. Thus, if you were to sell your estate to your neighbour Thomson, and were afterwards disliking the bargain, to refuse to convey it to

him, he would have it in Jhis election to proceed against you either at law, or in equity. If he resolved to proceed at law, he would bring an action against you for breach of contract, and a jury would decide the amount of the damages which you ought to pay j but still you would retain the estate in the same manner as if you had never contracted to sell it. But if he wished to have the estate itself, he would file a bill in equity against you, for what is termed a specific performance, or a performance in specie, and the court would not, like a court of law, in effect let you off the contract on payment of damages, but would compel you to convey the estate itself to the purchaser upon his paying the purchase-money to you. But of course as the court compels you to perform the agreement, there are no damages to pay. This equity if founded upon the principle, that the court considers that as actually performed which is agreed to be done ; so that the instant after you have entered into a contract to sell an estate, the court considers the estate as belonging to the purchaser, and the purchasemoney as belonging to you, and so vice versa.

Real or landed property is either held in fee or for an estate of freehold, or for a term of years. The fee or fee-simple includes all the interest in the land. A legal anecdote has been transmitted to us from a very early peiiod, where a judge, who indulged himself in the euphonical phrases, " I'd have you to know," and "I'd have you to see," asked a learned sergeant why he had been absent wheu the Court required his presence. His excuse was that he had been turning the work of Coke upon Littelton into verse. The judge called for a sample, which the sergeant thus gravely delivered —

" A tenant in fee-smiple is he That need fear neither wind nor weather ; For I'd have you to know and to see, 'Tis to him and his heirs for ever.

How to Execute a Will.-— But not to trouble )'ou with nice distinctions, I advise you to make your will in the following manner j — Take care that, if written on several separate sheets of paper, they are all fastened together, and that the pages are numbered. Sign your name at the bottom of each sheet and state at the end of your will of how many pages your will consists. If there are any erasures or interlineations, put your initials in the margin opposite to them, and notice them in the attestation. The attestation should be already written at the end of the will .... The two persons intended to be the witnesses should be called in, and told that you desire them to witness your will, and then you should sign your name in their presence, and desire them each to look at the signature. Your signature should follow your will, but should precede the signatures of the witnesses, for if you were to sign after they had signed, your will would be void. When, therefore, you have signed, they should sign their names and residences at the foot of the attestation. You will observe, that according to the attestation, neither of the witnesses, although he has signed the attestation, should leave the room until the other witness has signed also. Remember that they must both sign in your presence, and therefore you should not allow them to go into another room to sign, or even into any recess, or any other part of the same room where it is possible that you may not be able to see them sign. If, therefore, you do not choose them to sign after you at the same table or desk, have a table placed close to you before they come into the room, so as to create no confusion, at which they can and ought to sign before leaving the room. If you were to send your servant, who happened to be one of your intended witnesses, out of the room, even for a table, he must leave the room before you sign. If after your death a question were to arise upon the fact of your having signed in the presence of both of the witnesses present at the same time, the man would of course admit that he left the room before you did sign, and then imagine what reliance would be placed upon the fact in cross examination, and in the address to the jury. The precaution which I recommend would prevent this difficulty from arising.

Cutting off the Heir with a Shilling.— The civilians carried the doctrine of presumption so far as to hold every will void in which, the heir was not noticed, on the presumption that his father must have forgotten him. From this, as Blackstone reasonably conjectures, has arisen that groundless vulgar error of the necessity of giving the heir a shilling, or some other nominal sum, to show that he was in the testator's remembrance. The practice is to be deprecated, as it wounds unnecessarily the feelings of a disinherited child. This you may say does not always happen. An assembled family, as the legacy to each was read aloud, sobbed and wished that the father had lived to enjoy his own fortune. At last came the bequest to his heir — " I give my eldest son, Tom, a shilling to buy a rope to hang himself with." " God grant," says Tom, sobbing like the rest, "that my poor father had lived to enjoy it himself."

On the 26th January the Anniversary of the 70th foundation of the Australian Colonies was celebrated by a grand banquet at the Albion Tavern. About 160 influential gentlemen were present. Sir Charles Nicholson of New South Wales in the chair.

" Bob," said a tormenting friend to a bachelor acquaintance, "why don't you get married?" " Well, I don't know ; I came very near it, once. Just missed it." "You did! Lets hear it." " Why, I asked a girl if I should see her homo from a party, one evening; and she said 'No I' If she'd said 'Yes,' I think I should have, courted her and married her. That's the nearest I ever came to getting married." His friend was satisfied.