To be correct, this should always be referred to as the Crown Court - with capitals - as there is only one for England and Wales, although it sits at various centres around the two countries. Scotland has its own completely separate, and completely different, legal systems, both civil and criminal, and therefore has its own Courts. There is no Crown Court in Scotland.

The Clerk of the Court (more often now referred to as the "Court Manager") reads out the indictments, as charges in the Crown Court are referred to.

In the first case, Broderip v Salomon [1893] B 4793, Vaughan Williams J said Mr Broderip's claim was valid. It was undisputed that the 20,000 were fully paid up. He said the company had a right of indemnity against Mr Salomon. He said the signatories of the memorandum were mere dummies, the company was just Mr Salomon in another form, an alias, his agent. Therefore it was entitled to indemnity from the principal. The liquidator amended the counter claim, and an award was made for indemnity.

The Court of Appeal [1895] 2 Ch 323 confirmed Vaughan Williams J's decision against Mr Salomon, though on the grounds that Mr. Salomon had abused the privileges of incorporation and limited liability, which Parliament had intended only to confer on "independent bona fide shareholders, who had a mind and will of their own and were not mere puppets". Lindley LJ (an expert on partnership law) held that the company was a trustee for Mr Salomon, and as such was bound to indemnify the company's debts. Lopes LJ and Kay LJ variously described the company as a myth and a fiction and said that the incorporation of the business by Mr Salomon had been a mere scheme to enable him to carry on as before but with limited liability.

The House of Lords unanimously overturned this decision, rejecting the arguments from agency and fraud. They held that there was nothing in the Act about whether the subscribers (i.e. the shareholders) should be independent of the majority shareholder. The company was duly constituted in law and it was not the function of judges to read into the statute limitations they themselves considered expedient. Lord Halsbury LC stated that the statute "enacts nothing as to the extent or degree of interest which may be held by each of the seven [shareholders] or as to the proportion of interest or influence possessed by one or the majority over the others."

Lord Halsbury remarked that - even if he were to accept the proposition that judges were at liberty to insert words to manifest the intention they wished to impute to the Legislature - he was unable to discover what affirmative proposition the Court of Appeal's logic suggested. He considered that identifying such an affirmative proposition represented an "insuperable difficulty" for anyone putting forward the argument propounded by the Lords Justices of Appeal.

Lord Herschell noted the potentially "far reaching" implications of the Court of Appeal's logic and that in recent years many companies had been set up in which one or more of the seven shareholders were "disinterested persons" who did not wield any influence over the management of the company. Anyone dealing with such a company was aware of its nature as such, and could by consulting the register of shareholders become aware of the breakdown of share ownership among the shareholders.

Lord Macnaghten asked what was wrong with Mr. Salomon taking advantage of the provisions set out in the statute, as he was perfectly legitimately entitled to do. It was not the function of judges to read limitations into a statute on the basis of their own personal view that, if the laws of the land allowed such a thing, they were "in a most lamentable state", as Malins V-C had stated in an earlier case in point, In Re Baglan Hall Colliery Co., which had likewise been overturned by the House of Lords.

The House held:

"Either the limited company was a legal entity or it was not. If it were, the business belonged to it and not to Mr Salomon. If it was not, there was no person and no thing to be an agent [of] at all; and it is impossible to say at the same time that there is a company and there is not."

The House further noted:

"The company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers to the Memorandum, and though it may be that after incorporation of the business is precisely the same as it was before and the same persons and managers, and the same hands receive the profits, the company is not in law the agent of the subscribers or trustees for them. Nor are the subscribers or members liable in any shape or form except to the extent and in the manner provided by the act."

On the issue of floating charges, Lord Macnaghten also said this.

"For such a catastrophe as has occurred in this case some would blame the law that allows the creation of a floating charge. But a floating charge is too convenient a form of security to be lightly abolished. I have long thought, and I believe some of your Lordships also think, that the ordinary trade creditors of a trading company ought to have a preferential claim on the assets in liquidation in respect of debts incurred within a certain limited time before the winding-up. But that is not the law at present. Everybody knows that when there is a winding-up debenture holders generally step in and sweep off everything; and a great scandal it is."

The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The United Kingdom has a Constitutional Monarchy and a parliamentary democracy

We do not have a president, the leader of our government is called the Prime Minister. This is because we have a monarchy still in existence here and the queen acts as head of state, however this role is really only ceremonial and the queen has no real power (other than the fact that the army swears allegiance to the throne). The Prime Minister is usually the leader of the party which won the most recent general election. To win an election outright in Britain, your party needs to have more elected M.P.s than all other parties. M.P.s are members of parliament who work to represent the views of a constituency in parliament. There is an election in the U.K. at least once every five years. The Prime Minister can choose to hold an election before the end of his/her term in office.

Unlike in America, there is no limit as to how many terms you can serve as U.K. Prime Minister. All citizens of 18 years and over are entitled to a vote in all election (unless they are in prison). These are always carried out in an appropriate manner so that people will have confidence in the outcome of the election. Our country has had this form of government for about 400 years.

Constitutional monarchy. Parliamentary Democracy.

We (the British) have not always had a democratic form of government, voted for by the people. The concept of Parliament has been a fairly recent idea. The government rules Britain (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), not just England. The government sits in parliament in London. We do not have a president, the leader of our government is called the Prime Minister. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also have devolved governments which direct some of their internal affairs.

In Britain there are three main parties, The Conservatives (right wing beliefs), Labour (left wing beliefs) and the Liberal Democrats (a center party). The two parties not in power at any given time attend parliament in opposition to the government and question the actions the government takes. This is to ensure that the government always acts in the interest of the people in a lawful manner.

Our country has had this form of government for about 400 years, however if you look back further than 100 years you will find that not everybody was always entitled to a vote. Indeed full women's suffrage only happened in 1928.

The U.K. has a system of Government that is properly referred to as a 'Constitutional Monarchy' and may also be referred to as a 'Parliamentary Democracy'.

This system of Government is also largely in use throughout the Commonwealth, and exclusively in the Commonwealth Realms. (Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc). A Constitutional Monarchy (in the Westminster Style) can be broken down in to three parts; The Sovereign, The Upper Chamber/House and the Lower Chamber/House. In the U.K., this refers to Her Majesty The Queen, The House of Lords and The House of Commons. Conversely in Canada, this refers to Her Majesty The Queen, The Senate and The House of Commons.

A Constitutional Monarch has been defined as a King or Queen that Reigns, but does not govern. This is something of a misleading statement as Her Majesty does in fact still retain some FAR reaching Royal Prerogative powers, but these are exercised by members of the government.

Parliamentary Monarchy. The Queen is the head of state, but the Prime Minister and Government run the country. England has no government. The executive decisions regarding England are taken by the UK government.

With a constitutional monarchy the Queen is the head of state and her assent is needed for forming a new government - although this is not of much real impact all Members of Parliament do swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch

The British government is run by the Prime Minister, currently David Cameron. He is head of the administration.

• Theoretically the leader of the elected party has the position of Prime Minister, and he presides over a Cabinet of Ministers of various departments, health, education, defence, etc. The Cabinet discuss and formulate government policy then recommend their decision to the House of Commons, formed of elected members from all over the UK. 659 members of all parties. The House votes upon the recommendation and if it is carried it becomes government policy if it is defeated it does not. (Most measures have to be passed by the House of Lords, too).

• In practice the elected party has a majority of members (called seats) and so the Prime Minister is usually able to ensure that all items are passed, although if the opposition parties members can combine their votes it may be defeated. A defeat in the House of Commons usually only happens if some members of the governing party rebel.

The only right of the Queen in the UK according to the Ministry of Justice, is the right to be consulted. In practice that means the Government is legally free to ignore her advice. The Queen is still held in great respect by the people so the Government has that to consider if her displeasure becomes known.

That last part isn't true. The royal family isn't particularly popular. Furthermore, they are expected to stay away from politics altogether. (Having said that, Prince Charles does make public remarks from time to time, usually in support of organic farming or something similar.)

Control of power can depend on a number of factors. Officially all power stems from the Head of State, the Queen, although her powers are mostly viewed as ceremonial. Since Peel in the 18C the position of Prime Minister has been the most significant one and it is the holder of this role as leader of his party, who is responsible for key appointments and for chairing the Cabinet which meets daily to decide policy. Limits to the power of PM include a small majority in the Commons, which makes him prey to factional influence from his and opposition parties, economic conditions and personality. Since the early 20C the PM must be a member of the Commons and therefore there is also a leader for each party in the second chamber, which is the House of Lords.

At different times and under different circumstances the limits to the power of the PM are also varied. Mrs Thatcher from 1983 had a substantial majority in the Commons and a forceful personality. She was therefore perceived to be very much in control. The previous PM had been James Callaghan who led a minority administration and could not impose his will on a Labour party riven by factional fighting. He is therefore seen to be a weak leader. Other factors can include external politics - Eden's position was fatally weakended by US opposition to the Suez crisis.

In previous decades one constant in Govt was the Civil Service and arguments have been made that true power was vested in this body. Since the 80s this has been eroded by the prevalence of political advisers to such an extent that now this group is identified as a power in itself. From this stems the criticism of Alistair Campbell under Blair and to some extent (because he is not voted into office but ennobled for political reasons) Peter Mandelson.
The government, with David Cameron as Prime Minister.

75 Countries drive on the left. The following is a list of countries of the world whose inhabitants drive on the left-hand side of the road. Most of the drivers of these countries use right-hand-drive vehicles.

1. Anguilla
2. Antigua and Barbuda
3. Australia
4. Bahamas
5. Bangladesh
6. Barbados
7. Bermuda
8. Bhutan
9. Botswana
10. Brunei
11. Cayman Islands
12. Christmas Island (Australia)
13. Cook Islands
14. Cyprus
15. Dominica
16. East Timor
17. Falkland Islands
18. Fiji
19. Grenada
20. Guernsey (Channel Islands)
21. Guyana
22. Hong Kong
23. India
24. Indonesia
25. Ireland
26. Isle of Man
27. Jamaica
28. Japan
29. Jersey (Channel Islands)
30. Kenya
31. Kiribati
32. Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia)
33. Lesotho
34. Macau
35. Malawi
36. Malaysia
37. Maldives
38. Malta
39. Mauritius
40. Montserrat
41. Mozambique
42. Namibia
43. Nauru
44. Nepal
45. New Zealand
46. Niue
47. Norfolk Island (Australia)
48. Pakistan
49. Papua New Guinea
50. Pitcairn Islands (Britain)
51. Saint Helena
52. Saint Kitts and Nevis
53. Saint Lucia
54. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
55. Seychelles
56. Singapore
57. Solomon Islands
58. South Africa
59. Sri Lanka
60. Suriname
61. Swaziland
62. Tanzania
63. Thailand
64. Tokelau (New Zealand)
65. Tonga
66. Trinidad and Tobago
67. Turks and Caicos Islands
68. Tuvalu
69. Uganda
70. United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland)
71. Virgin Islands (British)
72. Virgin Islands (US)
73. Zambia
74. Zimbabwe

75. Samoa (as of September 2009)

Related link has a interactive World Map

I just started one month ago, and currently employed through an agency and I average $11.00 to $13.00 an hour.

Approx. $11 but dont hold me to it. It all depends on the facility which you work and their payrate.


CNA's make very little while providing excellent care for people w/ disabilities. I have never gotten my CNA license but I did take a course that teaches caregivers and CNA's how to find private paying clients which allows me to charge $25-45/hr. It has worked and I am really happy with the result
The average pay of a CNA is recorded to be $35,000 per annum approximately. In the following, we are going to talk about the CNA salary range; sorted out according to factors such as the state and city of employment, type of employer, and experience level.