WYNNE, DANIEL, innkeeper, provision dealer, and water, wright, Colwyn, Camarvonshire, Feb. 6 and 27, at twelve, Liverpool, Com. Phillips; Morgan, off. ass.; Cox, Lincoln'sinn fields, and Oldfield, Holywell, and Jones, Liverpool, sols. Dat of fiat, Jan. 13. Bankrupt's own petition. Meetings at Basinghall-street. Alderton, C. tailor, North-at. Brighton, Feb. 10, at eleven, MEETINGS FOR ALLOWANCE OF CERTIFICATES. Ags in the Country. Gazette, Jan. 16. Bristol, and, and March, 3, at one, div. Hughes, J.hester, D. grocers, Weymoutining partners.--Penny, S. and Ziel -- Partnerships Bissolved. Gazelle, Jan. 13. Insolvents Petitioning the Courts of Bankruptcy. PETITIONS TO BE HEARD AT BASINGHALL COUNTRY. Baker, J. and D. drapers, Thirsk, Jan. 7.-Baker, John and Jas. woollen drapers, York, Jan. 7-Boycot, W. jun. and Lucy, H. attorneys, Kidderminster, Jan. 1. Debts paid by Boycot-Branscomb, W. and Benson, R. M. attorneys, Aylesbury and Tring, Dec. 31.-Catterall, P. and Vallett, T. S. cotton manufacturers, Preston or elsewhere, Dec. 28, at twelve.-Cannon, W. baker, Ippolitts, near Hitchin, Bourne, J. boot maker, Roebuck-place, Dover-mad, Jan. 31.-Clare, W. and Wardle, W. chemists, Stalybridge, Jan. Jan. 28, at twelve.-Cooper, J. W. clerk, Park-road, Not9-Clayton, R. and Shuttleworth, R. commission agents, ting-hill, Jan. 28, at twelve.-Dude, S. plasterer, Harrison Debts paid by Clayton.-Cook, A. B. and Hayward. E. che- Gaetan, J. S. chemist, Upper Berkeley-st. Jan. 22, at twelve. Manchester, and cotton manufacturers, Preston, Dec. 31. mists, Ipswich, Dec. 31.-Cope, F. C. and Eales, C. archi--Dodd, W. S. plumber, Ventnor, Jan. 28, at twelvest. Gray's-inn-road, Jan. 22, at half-past eleven-Detects, Cork-street Jan. 13.-Cragg, J. and Musgrove, T. Hart, T. coachman, Finchinfield, Jan. 22, at twelve.Barker, A. wine merchant, Knightsbride, Feb. 13, at half- stock-brokers, Settle, Dec. 23.-Cross, T. and Powell, T. Hughes, J. M. fish salesman, Lea Bridge-read, Jan. 22, at past one, aud.-Cook; E. grocer, Little Newport-st. Feb. 13, W. stock brokers, Jan. 7. Debts paid by Powell.-Denne, at half-past twelve, aud.-Haywood, G. bricklayer and plas. H. and W. and Hicks, J. cabinet makers, Sandwich, Jan. 6. half-past eleven-Kebble, W. omnibus driver, Orchardterer, Luton, Bedfordshire, Feb. 10, at twelve, div.-Ling, Evans, W. and Lillyman, A. plumbers, Liverpool, Jan. 1. cottages, Hackney, Jan. 19, at two.-Moul, A. private in B. timber dealer, Fore-st. Limehouse, Feb. 13, at half-past-Fulford, R. sen. and jun. corn dealers and coal merchants, Phillipson, E. milliner, Alms-houses, Devonshire-st. Cat the 14th Light Dragoons, Maidstone, Jan. 22, at oneeleven, div.-Mackenzie, R. commission agent, Hunter-st. Aston, Nov. 14.-George, C. Williams, J. and Die, J. and R. bridge-rd. Jan. 15, at one-Savage; J. tea dealer, Old and Bond-court, Feb. 13, at eleven, aud.-Noel, G. and W. R. lead merchants, Bristol, Dec. 31. Debts paid by George. Chapel-row, Kentish-town, Jan. 99, at one.-Turner, J. boot and shoemakers, 56, Jermyn-st. St. James's, Feb. 10, Debts paid by H. M. Harris.-Hattersley, G. and Ratcliffe, -Harris, J. and H. M. house painters, Plymouth. Jan. 1. butcher, Frimley, Jan. 21, at twelve. at eleven, final sep. and joint_divs.-Norman, C. coach builder, 3, Cumberland-mews, Edgware-road, Feb. 18, at G. spoon manufacturers, Sheffield, May 20.-Hill, T. and two, div. Payne, G. tailor and draper, King-st. Covent- W. and Baird, A. merchants, Liverpool. so far as regards Alsop, W. agent, Walton, Lancashire, Jan. 30, at eleven, garden, Feb. 12, at eleven, div.-Sawyer, G. tailor and T. Hill, Dec. 31.-Hitchcock, W., Maunder, R. and Hitch- Liverpool.-Backhouse, C. sawyer, Twerton, Jan. 29, at halfdraper, Lewes, Sussex, Feb. 17, at eleven, div.-White, R. cock, F. M. woollen manufacturers, South Molton and Ex- past twelve, Bristol.-Brearley, W. beer seller, Bradford, surgeon and apothecary, 13, High-st. Portsmouth, Feb. 13, wick, near Exeter, June 30, 1844.-Hodgson, L. J. and Ben- Jan. 28, at eleven, Leeds.-Coles, E. widow, Leigh-on-Menat twelve, div. son. W. W. plumbers, Preston, Jan. 10. Debts paid by dip, Jan. 27, at twelve, Bristol.-Cruse, J. green groet, Old Fish-street-hill, so far as regards H. Imray, Jan. 10.- pool, Jan. 27, at eleven, Liverpool.-Lascelles, J. H. green Hodgson.-Imray, J. Fitch, W. and Imray, H. stationers, Bath, Jan. 29, at eleven, Bristol.-Fowler, J. attorney, Livet Kimberley, W. and Baker, R. L. surgeons, Birmingham, grocer, Newcastle, Jan. 27, at twelve, Newcastle-Morgan, Jan. 8.-Lea, S. and Merrick, H. A. glass and lead mer-T. wine merchant, Carmarthen, Jan. 29, at twelve, Bristal chants, Bristol, Jan. 1. Debts paid by Merrick.-Mallin- Nokes, W. baker, Birmingham, Feb. 2, at tea, Birmingham son, G., T. and W. woollen manufacturers, Huddersfield, Smith, J. B. watchmaker, Shepton Mallet, Jan. 21, at Dec. 31. Debts paid by T. and W. Mallinson.-Mayne, C. half-past eleven, Bristol.-Walker, D. L. tailor, Rochdale, W. and Laycock, R, tobacco manufacturers, Leeds, Jan. Jan. 29, at twelve, Manchester.-Wardle, W. haker, North 8. Debts paid by Mayne.-Morris, T. and M'Rae, J. Jan. Shields, Jan. 29, at half-past one, Newcastle.-Webster, T 10-Murley, S. H. and Coles, H. surgeons, Cheltenham, plumber, Leeds, Jan. 28, at eleven, Leeds, Bayley, E. apothecary, Cheswardine, Feb. 12, at eleven, Dec. 31.-Norton, W., E. and F. W. fancy cloth manuBirmingham, aud.-Beards and Beards maltsters Bilston, facturers, Kirkheaton, Jan.-. Feb. 11, at eleven, Birmingham, and.-Bird, J. fringe ma--Pace, I and Rudolphi, L. chipbrokers, fundasland, Das. Debts paid by W. Norton. PETITIONS TO BE HEARD AT BASINGĦALLSTREET. nufacturer, Coventry, Feb. 14, at eleven, Birmingham, aud. 31. Debts paid by Rudolphi.-Rigg, R. and J. and Grice, Gazette, Jan. 16. Burdett, J. P. grocer, Uttoxeter, Feb. 12, at eleven, Bir- T. grain dealers, Whitehaven, Oct. 31. mingham, aud.-Carrington, J. bobbin turner, Leicester, Rigg. Rimmell, H. M. and E. perfumers, Gerrard-st. Debts paid by Jan. 21, at one.-Dyer, J. assistant, Gillingham, Jan. 28, Attkins, W. assistant to a farmer, Well-st. Cripplegate, Febi 11, at eleven, Birmingham, and.-Chatterton, J. H. Nov. 29.-Roffey, W. and G. corn merchants, Old Barge-East-st. Greenwich, Jan. 30, at eleven-Colline, W. vic milliner, Nottingham, Feb. 14, at eleven, Birmingham, aud. wharf and Corn Exchange, Jan. 1. Debts paid by G. Roffey.tualler, Grace's-alley, Wellclose-sq. Jan. 22, at one--Ford, at half-past twelve.-Collins, T. B. bookkeeper, Heg-lane, -Driver, J. victualler, Slawston, Feb. 14, at eleven, Bir-Rounding, W. and T. innkeepers, Woodford, Dec. 23.mingham, aud.-Elliott, T. tallow chandler, Earl Shilton, Standish, J. and Blackett, L. F. stock brokers, Leeds, Jan. 8. W. C. professor of music, Beaumont-sq. Mile-end-road, Jan. Feb. 14, at eleven, Birmingham, aud.-Fowkes, J. hosier, Debts paid by Blackett.-Taylor, M. A. and R. and Hol. 21, at half-past one.-Giles, H. jun. butcher, HolywellLeicester, Feb. 11, at eleven, Birmingham, final div.-Henland, H. B. umbrella frame makers, Manchester, so far as Jan. 28, at twelve.-Hutchin, J. brush manufacturer, No derson, W.ironmaster, West Bromwich, Feb. 11, at eleven, regards Holland, Jan. 3. Debts paid by the remaining wich, Jan. 30, at eleven.-Wifen, W. plumber, Ingatestone, Birmingham, aud.-Jacques and Co. hosiers, Nottingham, partners.-Temperley, N. and J. coal merchants, Ratcliff, Jan. 30, at eleven. Feb. 14, at eleven, Birmingham, aud.-Knight, J. M. iron- Jan. 8. Debts paid by J. Temperley-Waldfogel, J. and monger. Rugby, Feb. 11, at eleven, Birmingham, aud. G., Herrman, S. and Hummel, J.watchmakers, King's Lynn, PETITIONS TO BE HEARD IN THE COUNTRY, Lowe. R. jeweller, Preston and Blackpool, Feb. 10, at twelve, Jan. 10.-Wardrop, J. and Ewart, P. wine merchants, Cle- Birmingham.-Busch, E. bookbinder, Manchester, Jan. 2 Adamson, T. baker, Nottingham, Jan. 23, at half-past t Manchester, aud.-Marsh, J. grocer, Brewood, Feb. 12, at ment's-lane, Dec. 31. Debts paid by Wardrop.-Wilkins, at twelve, Manchester.-Dobbs, A. eating housekeeper, Ma eleven, Birmingham, aud.-Maybury, Joseph, John, and C. and Daniell, J. C. cloth manufacturers, Twerton-mills, chester, Jan. 24, at twelve, Manchester.-Jones, Wheel Joseph, jun. iron and tin plate manufacturers, Bilston, Staf- near Bath, Dec. 31. Debts paid by G. Wilkins.Wilson, wright, Chester, Jan. 20, at eleven, Liverpool-G fordshire, Feb. 11, at eleven, Birmingham, final sep. div. of H. and Roberts, P. scum boilers, Old Montague-st. mason, Winchcombe, Feb. 13, at eleven, Bristol-Pay C.. John Maybury.-Murphy, M. haberdasher, Shrewsbury, Whitechapel, Jan. 12. Feb. 12, at eleven, Birmingham, aud.-Ockleston, W. hide esq. Uphill, near Bridgewater, Feb, 5, at eleven, **** merchant, Liverpool, Feb. 10, at twelve, Liverpool, aud.Pearson, H. livery stablekeeper, Scarboro', Jan. 2, at eleves, Phillips, P. steel pen maker, Birmingham, Jan. 20, at eleven, proprietors, Liverpool, so far as regards A. Petrie, Jan. 13.-out of business, late of London, now of Berth, Denbigh Anderson, J. Petrie, A. and M'Nicoll, J. steam saw mill at half-past eleven, Newcastle.-Shaw, S. H. Leeds. Russell, F. publican and porter, Newcastle, Feb. 3, Birmingham (adj. Jan. 13), to choose assignees. Anderson, J. and Petrie, A. merchants, Liverpool, Jan. 12.-shire, Jan. 20, at eleven, Liverpool. Simpson, J. MEETINGS FOR ALLOWANCE OF CERTIFICATES. Armstrong, W. Phillips, T. and Darwell, J. merchants, Scarborough, Jan. 28, at eleven, Leeds-The Ashworth and Keyworth, brewers, Manchester, Feb. 9, at Manchester, Jan. 1. Debts paid by Armstrong and G. Dar- labourer, Cheddleton, Jan. 22, at half-past ten, twelve, Manchester-Atkins, G. brewer, Liverpool, Feb. 6, well.-Barrett, G. and Horsefall, J. plumbers, Halifax, Jan. at twelve, Liverpool.-Bentley, R. hosier, Liverpool, Feb. 12. Debts paid by Horsefall.-Crompton, A. Taylor, J. ham.-Waller, G. butcher, Liverpool, Jan. 20, at half-past 10, at eleven, Liverpool.-Charity, W. builder and victualler, Kenworthy, W. Mills, A. and Ogden, J. cotton doublers, Alford, Feb. 9, at eleven, Leeds.-Cooke, M. joiner, Man-Oldham, Jan. 10.-Dervin, S. F. and Dillon, T. wine merchester, Feb. 3, at twelve, Manchester-Gainer, J. dyer, chants, Liverpool, Jan. 8. Debts paid by Dillon.-Dodd, C. Stonehouse, Feb. 9, at twelve, Bristol.-Ockleston, W. hide Rowsell, J. T. Grufber, T. and Dodd, C. A. solicitors, so far merchant, Liverpool, Feb. 10, at eleven, Liverpool-Oxton, R. L. drapers, Bristol, Jan. 13. Debts paid by Foxwell. as regards C. A. Dodd, Oct. 1.-Foxwell, T. D. and Morris, Giles, F. and Hopkins, J. coal masters, Tipton, June 30. Atkin, W. grocer and draper, Stockton-upon-Tees, Feb. limestone masters. Tipton, June 20. Debts paid by Giles.-Giles, F. Hopkins, J. and Bradley, S. 10, at half-past eleven, Newcastle, aud.-Bishton, T. iron-Green, W. Cave, S. and Williams, J. engineers, Manchester, Debts paid by Gillesmaster, Kilsall and Dawley, Feb. 10, at eleven, Birmingham, so far as regards J. Williams, Jan 14. Debts paid by the proofs of debt.-Blackett, J.flax spinner, Stokesley, Feb. 10, remaining partners.-Greenwood, J. and W. cotton twisters, at half-past twelve. Newcastle, and Braddick, J. W. tan- Halifax, Dec. 31.-Hague, W. and Winstanley, R. cotton ner, Baptist-mills, Bristol, and Sodbury, Gloucestersh. Feb.12, manufacturers, Stockport, Jan. 13. Debts paid by Hague.at twelve, Bristol, aud. and Feb. 17, at half-past one, final div. Hayward, R. and Chapple, W. G. victuallers, Belvidere-st. -Browne, J. silversmith, Kidderminster, Feb. 14, at twelve, Islington, Nov. 29.-Hinchliff Mill Co-operative Trading SoBirmingham, aud.-Bunn, C. gilt toy maker, Birmingham, ciety, grocers, corn dealers, and general shopkeepers, HinchFeb. 14, at twelve, Birmingham, aud.-Cooper, W. J. and liff-mill, near Holmfirth, so far as regards J. Crosland and J. Beattie, J. drapers, North Shields, Feb. 10, at one, Newceas- Booth, Jan. 7: Debts paid by the remaining partners.-Huttle, aud. and Feb. 12, at one, joint div.-Dowle, J. wine and cheson, A. and Bell, W. cart owners, Liverpool, Jan. 1. Debts spirit merchant and brewer, Chepstow, Monmouthshire, Feb. paid by Bell.-Kilpatrick, R. and Smith, J. merchants, 12, at at div.-Driver, T. (deceased) and 3. victualler, Slawston, Leicestershire, Feb. 16, at eleven, facturing chemists, Liverpool, Dec. 51. Debte paid by H. Birmingham. div.-Elliott, J. coal merchant, Bristol, Feb. Lutwyche-Maskelyne, J. N. and Alcock, B. ale and porter 3, at twelve, Bristol, to choose assignees.-Gainer, J. dyer, dealers, Cheltenham, Jan. 8.-Milligan, J., H., and W. stuff Bridgend, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, Feb. 24, at twelve, merchants, Bradford, so far as regards W. Milligan, Dec. 31. T. cartowner, Liverpool, Feb. 10, at twelve, Liverpool. Gazette, Jan. 20. Gazette, Jan. 16. eleven, Liverpool. MEETINGS IN THE COUNTRY. French, T. H. Feb. 10, at twelve, Liverpool, Com Lud low, audit.-Smith, J. miller, Audlem Ja eleven, Liverpool, audit, and at twelve, dir. Co Liverpool, Com. Phillips, audit-Wer From the Gazette of Friday, January 23. Bankrupts. Cleary, J. builder, Church-road, De Beaur Tuddenham, J. builder, Pickering-place, dlesex.-Baker, R. stone mason, Southa J. commission agent, Little Love-lane, goldsmith, Argyll-place, Regent-street. merchant, Cornhill-Hutson, D. agent, way, B. draper, Tooley-st. Southwark broker, Brooke-st. Holborn Coker, J. Norfolk. Buchanan, W. merchant, Oud S. B. merchant, City Roberts, J. Hodgeon, booksteller, Liverpoo Manchester. Freeman, J. M. T. upholsterers, Bath.-Cros Fenay-bridge, Yorkshire.-Middlet Nottingham.-Arnold, J. woollen draper, COURT PAPERS LEGAL INTELLIGENCE... PROCEEDINGS OF LAW SOCIETIES 341 Page Needham, who is still unmarried, dying without 343 352 354 355 years after this remand (Needham v. Needham (6 Jurist, 379, and 8 Jurist, 326.) On the fifth point, that the defendant could not be brought up in the vacation, they referred to the old practice, and commented on the construction of the 5th rule. 344 On the 19th of January, 1842, an attachment for The LORD CHANCELLOR.-If the attachment be 346 want of an answer was issued against the defendant twenty-eight days before the long vacation, must a 349 Needham, under which the defendant was attached. defendant remain in prison during the long vacation? 350 On the 8th of February, an order for a writ of habeas Cooper. If he has funds he can answer, and if a corpus was made, upon which such writ was issued on pauper he can obtain an order for putting in his anthe 15th of February, returnable on the 21st of Fe-swer at the expense of the suitor's fund. On the 6th 354 bruary. On that day the defendant was brought into point, they read the affidavit of the defendant, court, and remanded into custody for twenty-eight alleging that he considered that he had not been 355 days by a distinct order, which directed him to be brought up according to the Act, and relied upon that 355 brought up again on another habeas corpus, which objection, and that otherwise he would have put in 355 was to issue at the expiration of the twenty-eight his answer; that this was a surprise on the defen355 days. The last of the twenty-eight days expired on dant. (Taylor v. Salmon, 3 Myl. & Cr. 109.) They the 21st of March, when the offices being closed for contended that the defendant could not waive the the Easter vacation, the writ of habeas under the irregularity, it being a matter relating to personal order of the 21st of February could not be issued liberty. They also cited Hawkins v. Hall (1 Beavan, until the first day of Easter Term. On the first mo- 73, S. C. 2 Myl. & Cr. 280); Lewis v. Evans (1 Cr. & tion-day afterwards, being the 19th of April, the de- Phil. 264); Greening v. Greening (1 Beavan, 121); Gompertz v. Best (1 Younge & Coll. 619.) 355 356 357 Solicitors' and General Life Assurance Office....... 357 fendant was brought to the bar of the court. This LEADING ARTICLES Middle Temple-Legal Education.. Principals and Clerks Solicitors' Insurance Office... Professor Taylor's Lecture on Medical Jurisprudence 357 358 359 -No. XIX.. 91 Accountant-General's Office 91 Nov. 13, 1845, and Jan. 12, 13, and 20, 1846. NEEDHAM v. NEEDHAM. Practice-Marking the cause-General Orders 11th -November, 1841-Altachment-Order for writ of habeas corpus-Decree pro confesso-Production of record where two defendants-Seal day-5th_rule 15th sect. 1 Wm. 4, c. 36—Surprise. The issuing an attachment is not a proceeding within the terms of the 4th Order of 11th November, 1841, which forbids any proceeding to be taken before the notice given of the court to which the cause has been There the defendant had been brought up by writ of A defendant can be brought up and remanded on any was thirty-three days after the attachment had been Third. That when the decree pro confesso was made by Vice-Chancellor Wigram on the 2nd of July, the clerk in court did not attend with the record, and therefore that decree was irregular. Calvert, for the plaintiff, opposed the motion. On the first point he contended, that "proceeding" in the fourth order meant proceeding in Court, and that an attachment was not a proceeding within the terms of the order; that it was only from the bill of costs that the attachment appears to have been served before the cause was marked, and there was no evidence as to the exact day on which it was so marked. (1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 578.) On the 2nd objection, the order on which the first habeas corpus had been issued, was not satisfied, the Vice-Chancellor's order made on that occasion having been discharged, until the second writ issued. That was the construction of the Vice-Chancellor, who said he had made a mistake, and that there could not be a new order for a writ of habeas until the former order was satisfied. On the 3rd point, it was not necessary to have the record in Court, on taking the bill pro confesso against one defendant, where the cause. set down. On the 4th point, Lord Harborough v. Wartnaby decided that the practice had not been to confine such proceedings to a seal day. On the 5th point, Clarke v. Clarke (1 Phil. 116.) As to surprise the defendant had been assisted on all the proceedings by able counsel. Cooper in reply. JUDGMENT. The. Tuesday, Jan. 20.-The LORD CHANCELLOR.-In Cooper and Teed, for the defendant, made six this case of Needham v. Needham, part of the oripoints:ginal application was, that Colonel Needham might First. That the attachment of the 19th of January, be let in upon the merits and upon terms to answer 1842, was lodged two days before the cause was the bill, but upon the reply of Mr. Cooper, that part marked for the Vice-Chancellor of England's Court, of the case was abandoned, and very properly abanand notice given under 4th order of 11th of Novem-doned, and really on the merits no case was made ber, 1841; and that such order especially directed out; on the contrary, a very strong case was made that no party or person shall move, petition, or out against Colonel Needham, as it appeared to me, take any proceedings until such notice has been if the facts were correctly stated, which, as they were given." not controverted, I presume to be the case. Second. That the habeas corpus of the 7th of May, question therefore resolves itself entirely into a queson which the defendant, Needham, was brought tion of form, whether or not the proceeding was before the Vice-Chancellor of England, to have the regular; and five objections to the regularity of the bill taken pro confesso, was issued without any pre-proceedings have been made by the counsel for Colo. vious order. nel Needham. The first of those objections relates to the writ of attachment. The writ of attachment was sued out on the 19th of January, in the year 1842. By the Orders of the 11th of Nov. 1841, by the fourth of those orders, it was declared that until notice is Fourth. That the recommittal of the defendant, served of the cause being attached to the courts of the Needham, on the 21st of February, 1842, was irre-particular Vice-Chancellors, two of whom had been Where the 30 days within which, by the 5th rule of the gular, because not made on a seal day. recently appointed, no petition, motion, or other 15th section of 1 Wm. 4, c. 36, the plaintiff must Fifth. That by the 5th rule of the 15th s. 1 Wm. 4, proceeding should take place in the cause. Now, it bring up the defendant to the bar of the court, expire c. 36, the plaintiff is bound to bring up the defendant is said in this case no notice of the cause being atin vacation, the defendant is properly brought to the to the bar of the Court within thirty days after attached to the court of the Vice-Chancellor of Enbar of the court in vacation; and the bar of the court tachment, and where the last of such days shall gland was served until the 21st of January, whereas is the place in which the judge is sitting, as, for in-happen out of Term, then within the first four days of the attachment issued on the 19th of January; and stance, in his private house. if that is to be considered as a proceeding in the cause, that proceeding took place before service of the notice of the cause being attached to the court of the Vice-Chancellor of England. That is the irregularity insisted upon. I think it at best very doubtful whether the word "proceeding" would, under the meaning of this order, include an attachment. It is proper to consider what the object of the order was. Two new Vice-Chancellors have been appointed; the causes that were set down before the Lord Chancellor and before the Vice-Chancellor of England were to be distributed among all the ViceChancellors, and it was directed, that no petition, motion, or other proceeding, should take place in the cause, until the causes were attached to the particular courts. It appears to me, therefore, that the object of the order related to motions and applications to the Court, and not to a proceeding like an attachment, which is not a proceeding in the court, but which issues under the great seal, and has no reference to any motion in the Court. I have to consider, therefore, that a proceeding of this kind, if it is necessary to decide it, did not fairly come within the meaning of the fourth order; and if you look at the fifth order, where the term proceeding is made use of, it is obvious that it must be a proceeding in the court, a motion, petition, or notice of motion, or some proceeding in which the Court itself then sitting Where a defendant suffers four years to elapse without The object of the suit was to compel the defendant, Needham, and Bristow the surviving trustee under a settlement, to replace 25,0001. of the trust funds which the defendant Needham had misapplied with the trustee's consent. The trusts of the settlement were for the benefit of the defendant Needham and bis children, with remainder over in the event of VOL. VI. No. 148. the ensuing Term, and that the plaintiff had no right Sixth. That the taking the bill pro confesso was a Upon the first point they referred to the 4th order of 11th of November 1841. On the second point, that a previous order was necessary to authorize the issue of a writ of habeas corpus they referred to Lord Bacon's case; Lord Macclesfield's case; Hind's Pract. Ed. 1785, p. 111; Wyatt's Practical Register, Ed. 1800, p. 215; Hand's Solicitor's Assistant, 1809, p. 37. The form is given in Newland's Prac. by Harrison, Ed. 1808. The order is obtained on motion or petition (1 Smith's Ch. Prac. 112, 1st ed.; 1 Danl. Ch. Prac. 596.) On the third point, that the clerk in court did not attend with record on taking decree pro confesso, they contended that the Court had no means of knowing the contents of the bill, and that therefore the decree was irregular. They cited 1 Dan. Ch. Prac. 693; Segrave v. Edwards (3 Ves. 372); Lewis v. Marsh (2 Sim. & Stu. 220); Turner v. Turner (+ Sim. 497); Baker v. Keen (4 Sim. 498); Collins v. Collins (3 Beavan, 600); Woollams v. Baker (6 Sim. 316.) On the fourth point, that the order remanding was not made on a seal day, and that the practice in that respect was not altered until the case of Lord Harborough v. Wartnaby (1 Phil. 364), two is engaged. However, it appears to me to be unnecessary to decide that point, because there is not sufficient evidence, as it strikes me, of the fact of the attachment having issued before the cause was attached to the particular court. The only evidence that is relied upon is the date in the solicitor's bill of costs. Now every body knows, as far as relates to an attorney's bill of costs, general dates are put down, comprehending a great variety of items; a date, perhaps the 1st of January, and then perhaps the 10th of January; between those two dates particular items are set down, set down frequently from recollection, set down frequently, not from a recollection of the particular act, but from a recollection that such a course of proceeding was necessary, and must have been pursued; and therefore I think that no fair or conclusive inference can be drawn from the mere circumstance of this item being annexed to that particular date, that the transaction took place precisely at the period mentioned in the bill of costs. It is true that Col. Needham swears he believes the transaction took place at the time mentioned in the bill of costs, but it is quite obvious he believes it merely from the circumstance of seeing it in the bill of costs; and it does not appear to me that his belief carries the case further. In opposition, however, to the inference drawn from the bill of costs, there is the inference to be drawn from the conduct of the Clerk in Court, which I think greatly outweighs the inference to be derived from the date in the bill of costs. The inference is that the Clerk in Court must have known of the attachment at the time the attachment issued. The Clerk in Court of the defendant was served with notice of the attachment, and of course it was his duty, and no doubt he would have performed his duty in that respect where the liberty of his client was concerned, to move to set aside the attachment for irregularity if any existed; he made no such application, and I infer, therefore, that there was no ground for any such application, I think the inference, after the lapse of four years, to be drawn from the conduct of the parties is much stronger in favour of the plaintiff than it is in favour of the defendant, the inference to be drawn from the date against which this item is stated in the bill of costs. But independently of these considerations, it appears to me that if the irregularity did exist, that irregularity cannot be taken advantage of after the lapse of three or four years; nearly four years have expired since the transaction took place. That must be considered as too late to move to discharge an order of that kind for irregularity after such a period of time. Col. Needham says, "I was not aware of this until I saw the bill of costs," but his Clerk in Court, his agent, must have been aware of it at the time, and if he, being aware of it, suffers four years to elapse before he seeks to set aside the attachment, I think it is too late to come to the Court to set aside an attachment and all the proceedings that are founded on the attachment. Mr. Teed said, in answer to that, there could be no waiver of irregularity in the attachment, because the liberty of the subject was concerned; and he referred to a decision of the Master of the Rolls with reference to that; but the decision of the Master of the Rolls proceeds on quite a different principle, that where a party is in custody under an attachment, acts which will amount to a waiver under other circumstances shall not be an answer to his application to be discharged from custody. But where the party is no longer in custody, and where that attachment is made the foundation of the whole course of proceeding, it would be monstrous to say it shall not be a waiver of any irregularity in the attachment which is the foundation of all the subsequent proceedings. I am of opinion, therefore, that there is no ground for that first objection, and that is an objection that was principally relied on by Mr. Teed, who stated that he was so confident of the strength of the objection he had made, from the nature of the irregularity, that he did not think it necessary to do more than to observe cursorily with respect to the other grounds of objection to appear in court with the record at the time when the those thirty days should happen out of Term, then be Now that is the general rule. What is the object of the fifth rule? The sole object of the fifth rule is to take care that the party shall not be confined for any unnecessary length of time, and it is to be construed with reference to the second rule. It says he must be brought if not sooner, he must be brought up within thirty days, and if the last of those thirty days is out of Term, then he must be brought up within the four first days of the following Term. There is nothing to shew that he may not be brought up according to the second rule; if he is not brought up within the period mentioned in the fifth rule be is entitled to be discharged. But in the fifth rule there is nothing to restrict the operation of the second rule, and in point of construction it is directly in conformity with it. The words are, "if he is not sooner brought up to the bar of the court, he must then be brought up within thirty days, and if the last of those thirty days be out of Term, then within the first four days of the following Term." Now the words, "if he is not sooner brought up to the bar of the court," apply, in point of construction, to the whole of the succeeding part of the clause, as well to the thirty days as to the four first days in the following Term in point of con struction, but in point of effect it cannot apply to the first part, it can only apply to the last part and therefore the proper construction of the clause is the same as if the words had run thus-"be shall be The fourth objection was, that there was no order brought up to the bar of the court within thirty days, to warrant the habeas which was issued for the pur-and if the last of the thirty days shall be out of Term, pose of bringing up Col. Needham, in order that the then, if he is not sooner brought up, he shall be bill might be taken pro confesso; that was the fourth brought up within the four first days of the following objection. Now, the circumstances of the case are Term," evidently having relation to the second rule, these: On the 21st of February, when Col. Needham by which he might be brought up at any time during was brought up, he was remanded, and on his being the vacation; and it is absolutely necessary, as it remanded, an order issued for a habeas to bring him appears to me, that this construction should be put up in order that the bill might be taken pro confesso. on the order. The order is a little equivocal on ac He was brought up accordingly, I think, on the 19th count of the situation of those words " if not sooner of April. The case came on before the Vice-Chan- brought up to the bar of the court." Those words cellor of England; and he was discharged; that order might have been better placed, so as to express what of the Vice-Chancellor of England was afterwards the meaning of the party was who drew the rules set aside, on appeal to this Court, and nothing fur- but the consequence of the construction contended ther was done on it. He was then brought up under for would be this, the last of the thirty days might be the same order on which he had originally been the first or second day after Trinity Term; now it is brought up; he was brought up under another habeas said he could not be brought up again till within the to take the bill pro confesso. Now the question is, first four days of Michaelmas Term. What is the whether the original order was sufficient to sustain consequence? The two months and the six weeks, that second habeas? The Vice-Chancellor was of within which alone he could be brought up opinion that it was, and he was brought up, in order order that the bill might be taken pro confesso would that the bill might be taken pro confesso. The order expire before the four first days arrived, and the party! had not been satisfied in that respect, in consequence therefore, without any default on his part, code. of a mistake, which I must assume for the purpose of ing entirely to the words of the rule, would be dethe present argument, of the Vice-Chancellor of prived of the opportunity of taking the bill pro cart England not being satisfied, in consequence of the Jesse. I see no reason, therefore, whatever, to depart act of the Court itself. The officer to whom appli- from the opinion which I expressed on the argument cation had been made, who had been consulted on of the case, but which I expressed more generally the occasion, and to whom all the facts were dis- and shortly than I do now; and it appears to read closed, was of opinion that, under the circumstances, be a case within the rule. And the case in the sepe he was justified in issuing the second writ. I am of volume of Hare, which was cited at the bar by as opinion that the order was sufficient to warrant the Teed, was precisely like the present. The order issuing of the second habeas, under the circumstances true, the Master of the Rolls made the original order stated. The Vice-Chancellor was of that opinion. in the vacation, and after the thirty days had expired The four points to which I have referred I have dis- for the remand of the defendant; he was then brought posed of. up before Vice-Chancellor Wigram, to have the bill The fifth appears to me to be the most important taken pro confesso in the vacation. The order having ber the 13th, which clearly was not a seal day, and of all, and with reference to which I was inclined to proceeded on the original remand, the case came ordered to the before the Court, and was argued with considerable in point of fact, a rehearing of my decision pronounced to be taken pro confesso. It is true that th and the activity, no such objection was ever raised, or sought in this cause of Needham v. Needham, on a former to be taken made, one by one vice-chanceler and the to be raised, by the counsel. I am of opinion, there- occasion, and it arises out of the fifth rule of Sir other by another, but that makes no difference. The third objection related to the Clerk of the By that rule it is necessary that the party should applicacion was made to this Court, the only tribunal cords not appearing in court, not having been ordered | days after he was in actual custody, and if the last of proceedings for irregularity, and they were acquiesed that were raised by Mr. Cooper. The second ground of irregularity was this, that the party, Col. Needham, was brought up on a habeas corpus, and remanded in the vacation, not on a seal. I am clearly of opinion that there is no ground what ever for such an objection; that for the purpose of being brought up and remanded, a seal day is wholly immaterial, and this consequence would follow; whereas the fifth rule of Sir Edward Sugden's Act gives a period of thirty days, within which he must be brought up, it follows that if the principle con tended for is to be maintained, that period is to be extended to twenty-three or twenty-four days; but in the case of Clarke v. Clarke, which was so frequently cited at the bar, the defendant was brought up before the Master of the Rolls in vacation time, Octo fore, that there is no foundation for that second Edward Sugden's Act. objection. course of proceeding is precisely like the present; n in. The party therefore, I presume, considered that the proceeding was entirely regular. An intimation was thrown out, I think, by Vice Chancellor Wigram, that an application might be made, but that intimation was not adopted, and nothing was done. I am of opinion, therefore, under these circumstances, that the fifth objection is also untenable. Under such circumstances I must refuse the defendant's application, and refuse it of course with costs. I be lieve I have gone through every one of your objections, Mr. Cooper; I took a full note of them. You abandoned the point of surprise-you abandoned the sixth point. T VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND'S the time of such pretended purchase, Nancy Ashton COURT. Saturday, Dec. 13, 1845. JEFFERSON U. TYLER. Pleading-Multifariousness-Demurrer. Where the prayer of the bill is in the alternative, one open to demurrer for multifariousness, and the other not, the demurrer will be overruled. An estate was conveyed to a trustee in fee, to be held in trust for E. A. for life, to her separate use; and after her decease to such uses as she should appoint; and in default of appointment, the trustee was to convey and assure the same to the right heirs of E. A. By the same instrument it was agreed that the said trustee should make sale of the lands, &c. without the consent of the cestui que trust. E. A. died without having made any appointment, and after her decease the trustee conveyed the estate to another trustee who sold the premises. The heir has a prima facie right to set aside the sale. By indentures of lease and release, dated 27th and 28th August, 1839, and made upon the marriage of William Hughes and Elizabeth Antrobus, certain lands to which the said Elizabeth Antrobus was en titled in fee simple, were vested in E. R. Kenney, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever, upon trust for Elizabeth Antrobus for life, to her separate use; and after her decease to such uses, upon such trusts, and in such manner, as she should by deed or will appoint, and in default of such appointment, then, upon trust, that the said E. R. Kenney, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns should stand seised of the said hereditaments and premises, to the use and behoof of, and convey and assure the same unto the right heirs of the said Elizabeth Antrobus for ever. By the same indenture of release it was agreed and provided that the said E. R. Kenney, his heirs, executors, or administrators, should or might at any time thereafter, if he or they should think proper and expedient, make sale and dispose of the said lands, messuages, hereditaments, and premises thereby released, or any part thereof, without the consent or concurrence of the said Elizabeth Antrobus and Wm. Hughes, or either of them, their or either of their heirs or assigns, or any other person or persons whomsoever, and lay out and invest the proceeds arising therefrom or any part thereof in the purchase of any other lands, messuages, tenements, or hereditaments, in England or Wales, of an estate of inheritance in fee simple, or to invest the same upon mortgage or in the public funds; and the receipts of the said E. R. Kenney, his heirs, executors, or administrators, or any trustee or trustees acting thereunder, were declared to be sufficient discharges for all moneys payable to him or them under the trust aforesaid. And it was provided, that on the death, refusal, neglect, or incapacity to act of the said E. R. Kenney, or of any trustee to be appointed as therein mentioned, it should be lawful for the said acting trustee or trustees for the time being, or the executors or administrators of the last acting trustee, with the consent of the said Elizabeth Antrobus during her life, and afterwards of their own authority, to appoint a new trustee or trustees in the place of such trustee so dying, &c.; and that every such new trustee should have and might exercise the same powers and authorities as if he had been appointed a trustee by the now stating indenture. The bill stated that the marriage took place, and the said Elizabeth, then Hughes, died in March 1841, without in any manner exercising her power of appointment, leaving one child only, Wm. Hughes, her heir-at-law, and her said husband her surviving. That the said Wm. Hughes died shortly after his mother, an infant and unmarried; and that thereupon the plaintiff, Robert Jefferson, the nephew of the said Elizabeth Hughes became the right heir-at-law of the said William Hughes, the son, and entitled to the said premises, and to have them reconveyed to him. The bill then stated the death of the said E. R. Kenney, in the year 1840, having by his will devised all estates vested in him as trustee, to Wm. Newman and H. Newman, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, subject to the trusts; and appointed them executors of his will. That by an indenture dated the 7th August, 1841, the said Wm. Newman and H. Newman conveyed the said trust premises to the defendant David Tyrer, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, as a trustee in the room of the said E. R. Kenney. That the said David Tyrer, immediately after the date and execution of the said last stated indenture, put up the The bill was filed against the said David Tyrer, Nancy Ashton, and John Follett, praying that it might be declared that the plaintiff became, on the death of the said Wm. Hughes, the son of the said Elizabeth Hughes, and now is entitled to the said hereditaments; that David Tyrer and Nancy Ashton might be decreed to convey the same to him; and that they might account for the rents and profits. And it was prayed, in the alternative, that if the Court should be of opinion that the sale of the said premises was valid and binding on the plaintiff, an account might be taken of the purchase-money for the same, and how much thereof is still due from the said Nancy Ashton; and that, if necessary, the said decree might be reversed, or declared not to bind or affect, and to be void as to the plaintiff. To this bill Nancy Ashton demurred, for want of equity and for multifariousness. Jas. Parker and Dickenson, in support of the demurrer, contended that the trust for sale was good in its creation, and not void on the ground of its tending to a perpetuity. Secondly, the power did not cease upon the death of Elizabeth Hughes; but leaving this point, the will was bad for multifariousness, since Nancy Ashton had nothing to do with the decree in Follett v. Tyer, she not having been a party thereto. (Salvage v. Hyde, Jac. 151.) ROLLS COURT. Tuesday, Nov. 18, and Friday, Dec. 5, 1845. Solicitor's bill-Taxation-Disallowance of items. solicitor who, without consulting his client, undertakes a journey for the purpose of procuring a transfer of a security of importance to his client, though he has had an intimation, which ultimately turns out to be correct, that his journey would be fruitless, is not entitled to his expenses of the journey. When by the taxation of an item it is simply reduced, the question being one of amount only, the taxation will not be disturbed. Mr. Nattel had mortgaged certain property in Cornwall to a Mr. Jope, and subsequently gave a charge thereon to a Mr. Bate for money lent to him. Having occasion for a further sum, he applied to the Messrs. Twining, and was assisted in the negotiation for a loan by his solicitor, Mr. Scales. The sum of 2,500l. was accordingly advanced by Messrs. Twining, to be repaid in a given time, Scales and another, together with Mr. Price, joining in a promissory note to them by way of security; but Mr. Price was to be indemnified by the other two makers of the note. In this state of things, when the time for payment of the money to the Messrs. Twining came round, Nattel failed to make good his agreement, and an action was accordingly brought to recover the money, and judgment was obtained in October 1843, and execution was to be taken out in January following. Meantime Jope, the mortgagee of Nattel's property, had levied an execution on Nattel's stock, &c. and had realized part of his debt; and a correspondence was entered into between Glubb, his solicitor, and Price, the solicitor of Scales (though the latter was himself a solicitor), as to the transfer to Messrs. Twining of his mortgage security upon payment of what was due. When this was proposed to the Twinings, they at first refused; but upon their afterwards consenting, this was intimated to Glubb, and he on the 6th of December, 1844, sent an abstract of title to Price, and he forwarded, on the 20th of the same month, to Glubb a draft transfer of the mortgage. Nothing further was done till the 29th, when Price had an interview with a Mr. Gadsden, the then solicitor of Nattel, when the latter informed the former that Bate had got a transfer of the mortgage from Jope, and there was no use in his going to the country about it, and he had better have the deed sent up. There had been no binding contract, it should be mentioned, to make the transfer. Price, however, on the 30th of December, did go, without consulting his client, Mr. Scales, and found the information given substantially correct, and that his journey was useless. Many communications had passed between Price and Scales, while the Messrs. Twining hesitated about accepting the transfer, in reference to raising the money to pay them off. Negotiations were broken off with one party, because of differences between themselves as to their shares of the profits on the transaction; and Mr. Price having obtained a loan from his sister, all of which was not afterwards received, charged a commission, nevertheless, upon the whole. On taxation, the Taxing Master struck off the expenses of the journey altogether, and only allowed the commission on the sum actually advanced. To be allowed these two sums the present petition was presented. Kindersley contended that Price was called upon to take every step he thought necessary to satisfy Messrs. Twining's debt, as execution would be sued out on the judgment in January, and there was no time to lose. The object was to get rid of Scales's liability to the Messrs. Twining, and there was an arrangement that the journey should be taken. As to the commission, Mr. Price was entitled to the whole of it, Turner (with him Baily), contrà, contended, that as Price had taken it on himself to go to the country, though informed that his journey would be fruitless, without ever consulting his client, he was not entitled to his expenses. The Court, moreover, would not disturb the taxing-master's decision, except upon a question of principle. (Allsop v. Lord Oxford, 1 My. & K. 564.) The arrangement spoken of now was only mentioned in the petition, but not before the taxing-master. Kindersley, in reply. Bethell and Bazelgette, for the bill, were not heard. The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-The circumstance of the prayer being in the alternative does not affect the case, for if there be sufficient upon the face of the bill to protect the first part of the prayer, that will be sufficient. Now it certainly appears to me that, upon the face of the pleadings, there is enough to enable the Court to grant relief. Here a lady conveys a fee-simple estate so as to invest it in a trustee in fee for herself for life, &c. so that she has a trust estate for life, with a power by deed or will to The MASTER of the ROLLS.-I cannot help think. It is appoint. This is followed by a power of sale. ing Mr. Price has been ungratefully treated, for he has indeed a very extraordinary thing, that after the taken great pains to do his duty. But where the quesdeath of the lady leaving an heir, that then the trustion comes to the strict rights of the parties, that only tees should appoint a new one, which was a perfectly can be considered. Mr. Price went a journey, of useless step; the duty of the trustee refusing to act which the expenses were 321. and which turns out to was to convey the estate to the parties equitably en- be wholly fruitless; and the question is, was he, in the titled. I remember a case that came before Sir Wil-performance of his duty to his client justified in inliam Grant in which I was counsel, where a sale was curring that expense? I pass over all that in respect an unnecessary interference with the property of the of the division of profits, and the consequent disinfant. Sir William Grant held that, prima facie, the infant had a right to have it set aside. I think that the bill is properly constructed, and, according to the case as made out by the bill, relief ought to be given. Demurrer overruled. putes. Price used a great deal of activity and pains in the business; he went a long way even in getting his sister to advance money. The security of Jope being allowed to be transferred to Twining, on the 20th of December a draft assignment was sent to Glubb, the solicitor of Jope, into the country, and after that nothing more was done till the 29th, Prima facie, then, it was the duty of [JAN. 31. pre. Price to get the security, and if he could do so by when a resolution, approving of the formation of the made, that some necessary steps were not taken going to the country he ought to have gone. But on company, was passed, and a provisional committee which their acts became illegal, at the same time the 29th he is told by Gadsden, the solicitor of Nattel, formed, and the plaintiff was requested to continue mitting they had acted as a company, were actua that there was no use in his going, for the mortgage his services in aid of the committee. At this meet- such, and intended to go to Parliament or cold had been transferred to Bate, the second mortgagee. ing, immediately on the formation of the committee, the Court, upon a general demurrer, assume that the That was not quite correct, but it was an intimation the chairman presented a document, signed by him- general allegations were untrue when the defend of a fact which afterwards turned out to be correct. self on behalf of the committee, to the plaintiff, admitted all the specific allegations in the Bill and The question is, whether, after the intimation of this whereby he required the plaintiff to enter into a that they founded all their proceedings upon the st doubt, it was proper for Price to take the journey contract to exonerate the committee from all liability taken by the plaintiff in their behalf; these without first communicating with his client. The of a personal nature, on account of his costs and cumstances freed the case from much difictits as s Taxing Master says no, for the journey turned out disbursements in carrying out the objects of the com- the legality of the acts of the provisional committee wholly fruitless. I am very much inclined to think pany, to which the plaintiff agreed, and had a con- The next point to consider is, the contract unde the expenses ought not to be allowed, though I am tract drawn up, and a copy signed by the plaintiff, which the plaintiff makes his claim. The provisional sorry for it. The other item is only a question of served upon each of the members of the committee, committee had been appointed, and the plaintifre. amount, and therefore must remain as the Master in the following form, viz. :-"The Southampton, ceived a requisition signed by the chairman, calling has left it. The petition is against the Master's re- Manchester, and Oxford Junction Railway Company. upon him to give the indemnity stated in the contract port, and in dismissing it, therefore, I must do so with I, the undersigned, being solicitor to the above pro- to every member of the committee; the plaintif costs, but I do it with regret. ject, or company, do hereby declare and agree that so, and, on the faith of these transactions, all farther do not hold any patron or member of the provisional proceedings are taken to carry out the objects of the Friday, Jan. 23. or managing committee thereof in any way liable or company; the whole was one continued transaction, MANN v. RICKETTS. responsible to me for the payment of any money I to effect the original intention of the projectors, and Cooper moved to stay the proceedings in this cause may have expended, or shall expend, in the project- the acts of the provisional directors must be consi. pending an appeal to the House of Lords on the ing, promoting, or prosecuting this project, or in the dered as carrying out and confirming the acts of the ground that he could shew that a wrong decree had payment of any charges for professional or other provisional committee, with whom the original contract been made. Several judgments of Lord Eldon were services rendered by me in relation thereto, or in any was entered into, there being no interruption in the cited to shew that under such circumstances proceed-way connected therewith; and I declare and agree course of the proceedings, and if the original contract ings might be stayed. The cause was heard in that I look to the deposit, or joint-stock, of the said was legal, they are bound to pay ali expenses properly February 1844 (a), and a decree made by the Master company alone as the fund or means of repayment incurred, in the preparation and completion of the of the Rolls against Mr. Ricketts. His counsel of such disbursements and payments of professional scheme which has been acted upon down to the argued it upon what they supposed to be the merits, and other services, and I undertake to pay and dis. sent time; the contract, however is sought to be de but Mr. Ricketts was unaware that they were charge all expenses incidental to the said project and clared illegal, on the ground that the provisional to argue it upon the merits, as the will, which was the presecuting thereof, and the formation of the said committee must be considered in the light of trus the subject of the suit, had not been proved against company up to the time of payment of the deposit tees for the shareholders, and any contract with the him in the usual way as heir-at-law when the cause upon shares sufficient in amount to repay, satisfy, plaintiff to have the effect of removing the liability was brought to a hearing; and as he had not admitted and discharge all payments, disbursements, and lia- from the committee personally to the property of the that the will was duly executed and attested to pass bilities made or incurred in respect to the matter shareholders could not be supported, for such a con. real estates, as alleged in the plaintiff's bill, he thought aforesaid, or any of them, up to that time, the said tract would tend to deprive the cestui que trust from its validity could then only be determined (whether deposit or joint fund being held liable for such pur- due diligence on the part of the trustee in the per it was proved by the witnesses or by itself) by a jury, pose by the directors or trustees of the said company.formance of the trust reposed in him; viewing the and that the Court would either dismiss the plaintiff's Dated the day of 1845. contract even in that relation, nothing appeared from bill because the will was not proved before the hear(Signed) "WM. PARSONS." the facts disclosed in this suit which would make this ing, or retain the cause until its validity was so de- The plaintiff was afterwards duly registered as the contract illegal. A trustee had a right to be indem termined by a jury. Mr. Ricketts, therefore, gave solicitor of the company. On the 30th of September nified from any liability he incurred on behalf of his no instructions whatever to his counsel in respect of letters of allotment were issued; and on the 9th of cestui que trust; generally he had funds in his hands the merits of the cause, as he considered it unneces- Oct. the last day for the receipt of deposits, the sum to do so, and the Court never deprived him of that sary to do so, and he now made it appear that if the of 50,000l. had been paid on account of the shares security, without making him every allowance for will had been proved, he would have given them ma- allotted. The parliamentary contract and subscribers' expenses properly incurred; his conduct was always terial instructions, which would have given the case a agreement was afterwards signed by the defendants liable to investigation, at the instance of his ces different aspect. In August 1845, the Vice-Chan- and other shareholders; and in the subscribers' agree- tui que trust; the contract in this case effected cellor refused a motion on the subject with costs. ment the defendants were formed into a committee of nothing beyond that; there was, therefore, nothing The motion was made to him as the vacation Equity directors, and power was given them to dismiss the upon the pleadings that could make it legal. Judge, with a view to prevent the sale of an estate solicitor and officers of the company, and to appoint Another ground taken to shew that the contract under the decree in the long vacation. The objections others in their place, and to pay all past and subse- was illegal, was that it was made by a solicitor with to the decree were not fully put before him, but the quent costs of bringing the railway into operation. his clients for securing the payment of future costs, motion rested mainly on the fact of the irreparable On the 30th of Oct. the plaintiff applied for an ad- which was said to be clearly illegal. Assuming that injury of the sale, and that the appeal to the House vance of money on account of the disbursements and to be the rule of the court, it would be impossible of Lords was actually depending, and the further fact costs he had incurred in the formation of the com- where a client, being a trustee, stipulated with a s that by the decree Lord Langdale had made a prece-pany, which was refused until he had delivered his licitor that he should not make a demand apon dent which his lordship considered might properly be bill of costs; and on the 7th of November fol- personally, and agreed with him that when the funds the subject of such appeal; but the present motion lowing the plaintiff was dismissed from his office were in hand he should be paid out of them, to take was founded upon an affidavit of Mr. Ricketts, shew- of solicitor to the company. The plaintiff then such a case out of the operation of that rule. The ing the grounds of the decree being a wrong one. received the sum of 2501, on account of his bill of present case, however, did not go to that extent, for, Kindersley (with whom was Hallett) took a preli- costs, and on the 12th of November he delivered his looking to the contract out of which this suit arose, minary objection to the present motion. bill of costs, claiming a balance of 8971. 93. 1d. on one signed by the chairman and the other by the plainthat account. Plaintiff made frequent applications tiff, and the facts stated on the bill, it was clear there for payment of the balance due to him from the com- were some expenses incurred by the plaintiff in propany, without receiving any satisfactory answer, and moting the scheme prior to the appointment of the on the 17th Dec. 1845 he filed the present bill against committee, which he was entitled to be paid, and the committee of directors, to have his claim paid out which took this case out of the rule now sought to of the deposits in the hands of the committee, and for be pressed upon the Court, and entitled him to some an injunction to restrain the committee from dispos- of the relief he asked; this demurrer must, therefore, ing of that fund until his claim was paid. The defen- be overruled. With regard to the other ground of dants filed a general demurrer for want of equity, and demurrer for want of parties, the bill charged that all a demurrer for want of parties, which now came on the persons on the record were provisional directors, and alleged that the number of shareholders was too great to bring before the Court; it was useless to contend that they were not represented, and if those named on the record, and who were all prod visional directors, opposed the claim in toto, it could not be required of the plaintiff to have the share. must therefore be overruled on both points, but the holders more completely represented. The demurret plaintiff will do well to consider whether he mast not amend his bill before he brings it to a bearing. Lord LANGDALE said, that the whole matter having been before the Vice-Chancellor, and the ViceChancellor having made an Order on it, he (Lord Langdale) could not entertain the motion." VICE-CHANCELLOR WIGRAM'S COURT. Jan. 16, 19, and 21. -Pleadings. Upon demurrer, general allegations shewing that a railway company have done all acts required to make them a legal body, under a general Act of Parliament, for the purpose of executing the objects of the company, are sufficient to support a bill to enforce a contract made with the provisional committee, when the subsequent proceedings are shewn to have followed continuously under the same powers as the provisional committee acted when they entered into the contract sought to be enforced. Where it appears upon a bill that costs are due to a solicitor at the time he takes a security from his client for past and future costs, a demurrer will not for argument. Teed, Romilly and Shapter argued in support of the Kenyon Parker and Hetherington, for the bill, cited VICE-CHANCELLOR WIGRAM. The first and Kenyon Parker then moved for an injunction to restrain the committee from parting with the deposits to the prejudice of the plaintiff's claim. allegation on the bill that the committe intended to VICE-CHANCELLOR WIGRAM.-There being no dissipate the deposits, the defendants were entitetin have time to answer the affidavits before the injuaciou was applied for. Common Law Courts. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. lie to a suit filed to enforce the security. and defendants was illegal and void, and could not be The plaintiff in this suit projected a line of railway enforced. It was not intended to give any judgment to connect the North, South, and West of England, upon that question, but it must be assumed, for the under the name of the Southampton, Manchester, purpose of argument, that this case was within the and Oxford Junction Railway, and on the 19th of provisions of that Act. The bill alleged, in general August, 1845, lodged the documents necessary to terms, that certain steps were duly taken with effect a provisional registration of the undertaking, a view to registration of the proceedings of the Jan. 19 and 23. and inserted the usual advertisements in the news- company, and the bill alleged all the various steps papers, inviting the public to apply for shares in the which had been taken-the appointment of the Churches and overseers-59 Geo. 3, c. 12, fit RUMBALL and ANOTHER T. MUNT. proposed company; the advertisement was answered provisional directors, the compliance with the Stand-Chercheurden, an 12, er 17, is not merely an en by respectable and solvent parties, who applied ing Orders, and their intention to apply to Parfor shares, and on the 27th of August, 1845, the liament-the defendants admitted they were actfirst meeting of the applicants for shares was held, ing as a company, and that their right to do so was entirely founded upon the steps taken, and ask the Court to assume, from the general allegations (a) See the case reported in Law Times, March 9, 1844. statute, but compulsory in its operation, and apps to all lands which are in trust for general parish par poses which by the statute become rested in the churchwardens and overseers, and they alone can sue. |