The importance of all legal points relating to the transfer of shares is obvious, when it is remembered that neither on the certificate nor on the register of shareholders would any mention be made, or notice taken of the fact, when it is so, that the holder of the shares is a trustee, or has otherwise oni) a limited property in them.
In a well-known case, a trustee was the registered holder of a sum of stock of a company, which stock was part of the trust fund. He deposited with a bank, as security for an advance, the stock certificate, a loan note undertaking to execute a proper assignment when required, and a blank transfer executed by himself. This transfer was not stamped, and was expressed to be on consideration of 5s. The bank, who had no knowledge of the trust, subsequently inserted its own name in the blank transfer and executed but the deed was not re-delivered or re-executed by the borrower, nor executed in hispresence, nor by his authority under seal. The transfer was duly registered. by the company, of which fact the bank informed the borrower. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the traniev r was not the deed of the borrower, and did not pass the legal title to the stock ; and, therefore, although the bank was not tainted with knowledge of the breach of trust, its title had to be postponed to the prior equitable title of the persons interested under the trust. In this case, the fact that the blank transfer was not stamped and did not state the true consideration, did not in itself invalidate the transfer, as the special Act regulating the particular company had not made those incidents essential to the validity of the transfer. That the transfer was a blank one was the determining fact.
The preceding remarks have had in view a transfer required to be by deed or under seal, the usual form of transfer of shares in a company. Shares, bonds, debentures, and other securities passing merely by delivery, and known as bearer securities, being negotiable, do not conic under the above rules ; nor would a transfer by signature only, and not under seal.
See TRANSFER OF SHARES.
BLASPHEMY.—In 1842, in summing up to the jury at the conclusion of a trial for blasphemy, Mr. Justice Erskine read the following from Archdeacon Paley : " Serious arguments are fair on all sides : Christianity is but ill-defended by refusing audience or toleration to the objections of unbelievers. But whilst we would have freedom of inquiry restrained by no laws but those of decency, we are entitled to demand, on behalf of a religion that holds forth to mankind assurances of immortality, that its credit be assailed by no other weapons than those of sober discussion and legitimate reasoning." The learned judge con tinued : " Our law has adopted that as its rule, and men are not permitted to make use of indecent language in reference to God and the Christian religion without rendering themselves liable to punishment." And subsequently, in sentencing the prisoner, his lordship declared that " the arm of the law is not stretched out to protect the character of the Almighty ; we do not assume to be the protectors of our God, but to protect the people from indecent language." Though other judges have laid it down that blasphemy consists in the character of the matter published, and not in the manner in which it is stated; and that, consequently, to merely say " there is no God" is primafacie blasphemy ; yet the only safe and practical rule is that which depends on the sobriety, reverence, and seriousness with which the teaching or believing, how ever erroneous, are maintained. In fact, to quote the late Lord Coleridge from a judgment which practically settles the law : " If the decencies of con troversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without a person being guilty of blasphemous libel."