Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]
[blocks in formation]

NAMES OF THE CASES REPORTED IN THIS NUMBER.
COURT OF CHANCERY.

In re The Clerks of Records and Writs.-(Administra-
tion of Oaths in Chancery Act, Construction of).. 499
COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY.

Hindson. Wetherill.-(Solicitor and Client-Soli-
citor may take a Benefit under his Client's Will
prepared by the Solicitor himself-Evidence-Oral
Examination of Parties as Witnesses on Appeal).. 499
ROLLS COURT.

Harryman v. Collins.-(Mortgage of adjoining Closes
- Mistake Acquiescence Apportionment of
Rent)

[ocr errors]

501

[blocks in formation]

LONDON, JUNE 17, 1854.

506

508

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

PRICE 18.

Giles v. The Taff Vale Railway Company.-(Railway
Company-Goods in Custody of Company as Car-
riers-Implied Authority of Servants-General
Superintendent - Conversion)

M'Kinnon v. Penson.-(County Bridges-County Sur-
veyor, Liability of).

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Couch v. Steel.-(Shipping-Contract of Seaman-
Unseaworthiness-Right of Action-Supply of
Medicines-7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, ss. 18, 62-Breach
of Duty-Special and private Injury)
Wilmot v. Rose.-(Construction of Statute-Farming
Stock-Sale by Tenant-Removal by Purchaser-
56 Geo. 3, c. 50, s. 11) ....

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Stokes v. Grissell.-(County Court-Affidavit-9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 128-Twenty Miles in a direct Line -15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, s. 4-Jurisdiction of Court to review Judge's Order under).......

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

....

Ex parte Summers, in re M'Killar v. Summers.
(County Court-Certiorari-Prohibition-Inter-
pleader)..

66

510

513

515

518

519

......

522

attached to the forms of actions as influencing the amount of damages. We hear a wrongdoer" spoken THE important subject of the measure of damages is of as if any amount of damages might properly be daily receiving new illustrations in our courts of jus- awarded against him; this expression is confined to tice. It is only in comparatively recent times that defendants in actions ex delicto; and then further disquestions of this nature have been brought within the tinctions are sought to be made, sometimes without domain of legal science, inasmuch as formerly it was sufficient grounds, in the different species of actions the custom to leave them at large to the jury, whose ex delicto. Now, the fact is, that a man who wilfully discretion in such matters was very seldom interfered breaks a contract is often as much a "wrongdoer" as with by the Court. The jury were said to be "chan-one who commits an injury remediable only by an cellors," who might give such damages as "the case required in equity." (2 Roll. Ab., "Trial," 703, pl. 9). It is now, however, admitted that there are certain fixed principles by which, in a majority of cases, the jury should be regulated in their assessment of damages; that it is the duty of the judge to direct the jury upon these principles; and that if they are manifestly disregarded, the Court will interfere in order to see that right is done between the parties. The line is, doubtless, to be drawn with care, in order to prevent a usurpation by the judges of the true functions of a jury; but yet, in the greater number of instances, it can and ought to be drawn so as to be productive of advantage to the suitors and to the cause of justice. We propose briefly to consider the leading principles which may now be said to be established upon this subject. But let us first endeavour to remove one of the many erroneous impressions produced by the use of certain words, which either never had, or have ceased to have, a definite meaning. Too much weight, it appears to us, is sometimes VOL. XVIII. W

action of tort; sometimes he is more of a wrongdoer
than the other, as, for instance, where confidence has
been reposed in him. Again: the forms of actions do
not of themselves afford any certain criteria; some-
times they are convertible in practice. Thus, where a
wrong has been done, the party injured may often
waive the tort, and treat the matter as one of contract:
he has also frequently a choice of several actions of
tort; as, for instance, if his goods are taken from him,
he may, in general, sue either in trover or in trespass
de bonis asportatis. In one respect, a substantial dif-
ference has been recognised between actions of trespass
and trover, viz. where the article taken or converted is
of a fluctuating value, and there has been a demand
and refusal to deliver it at a period when it was of a
higher value than it possessed when first taken, Here,
if the action be trespass, the taking alone is the wrong,
and only the value at the time of the taking can be
awarded; but if it be trover, as the conversion is the
gist of the action, and the plaintiff is entitled to the
value of the article at the time of the conversion, he
ET MON DES
ENN

[graphic][subsumed]

may recover the value either at the time of the first gether intolerable-and that easy to be known which is conversion, or at the time of the subsequent conversion, now almost beyond comprehension." This is a great viz. when it was demanded and refused. (See Martin and important work, and the opinions of those who v. Porter, 5 M. & W. 351). It is difficult, however, announced it in these clear and forcible expressions are on principle, to see why a trespasser should be better entitled to all respect. But in proportion to the vast treated than a converter of goods: in the former case, importance of the work proposed should be the care the defendant has been a wrongdoer ab initio; in the that its nature is thoroughly understood before it is latter, he is supposed to have obtained the goods right- entered upon. It is easy to say, "Begin immediately fully in the first instance, and then to have wrongfully-codification, like any other work, is only to be done appropriated them. It might be proper to give the by working at it." But then suppose we begin at the same effect to the demand and refusal in both cases. wrong end, or begin and work altogether on a false The true principle to be adopted in the assessment principle; and suppose, which is possible, we find some of damages is to place the party injured as near as little difficulty in discovering the "men among us who may be in the same position as if the wrong had never can marshal disordered ideas." It is much easier to been inflicted. This rule is, however, limited, on the find men who can confuse and disorder ideas, both in one hand, by subordinate rules relating to the remote- speaking and writing, than men who can snuff and ness of damages; and, on the other hand, it is enlarged, marshal them. in some instances, by reason of the presence of aggravating circumstances. A very clear rule has been recently laid down for the purpose of regulating the amount of damages upon a breach of contract, namely, that it should be such as naturally flows from the breach, or such as the parties may be reasonably supposed to have contemplated upon the making of the contract. (Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341; see 18 Jur., part 1, p. 358). If there has been fraud, the jury might perhaps be justified in giving damages by way of punishment on the fraudulent party. (See Code Civil, liv. 3, tit. 3, s. 1150). Wrongs inflicted independently of contract are either to property, to the person, or to personal feelings. In the first instance, the injury can be calculated with tolerable accuracy, and the amount should represent the actual pecuniary loss sustained by the party. The damages are to be compensatory, not exemplary or vindictive. If, however, there have been circumstances of fraud, malice, or oppression, the jury may, it appears, award a larger amount as punitory damages. In the two latter cases, where the injury is to the person or the feelings, the principle of compensation should still be kept in view, as far as it can be; but the standard must vary so much, according to all the circumstances, that no fixed rule can be laid down; the jury have a large discretion, which will not be interfered with by the Courts, unless the amount awarded is so excessive as to amount to a manifest injustice.

WE have received an abusive letter from Mr. Wharton, attributing our review of his "Articled Clerks' Manual" to interested motives. As it does not contain a word in defence of the book, we cannot insert any part of it.

CODIFICATION*.

THOSE who contend for what they call "codification, or the conversion of all law into a written and systematically arranged code-not like the Code Napoleon, a code without a single definition, requiring a constant reference to precedent for the meaning of all its technical terms, but a code containing within itself all that is necessary for its own interpretation, together with a perpetual provision for its own emendation and improvement"-protest against what they term the stupid blunder, that to make a code is to make new laws-that the existing laws are to be swept away, and a new set put in their place. "When we speak of expressing the law better" they say, "we mean nothing else. We mean not to alter the law in a tittle. We mean to improve the expression-to make that clear

which is non obscure that distinct which is now am

biguous hat onderly which is now a mass of disorder that succinct which is now prolix to a degree alto

In a former number of THE JURIST (No. 880, vol. 17, part 2, p. 459) the reasons were stated why a code of the entire statute and common law is an impossible operation. The common law codified would no longer be common law. Doubtless many of those who call for codification would say, "So much the better;" for the common law is a vast and not very easy branch of knowledge, which Bentham, the great apostle of codification, who saw, or at least looked at, only the abuses and corruptions of the common law, (such as were exhibited in the law of evidence and the rules of pleading, which Bentham's exertions mainly tended to reform), omitted no opportunity of attacking and ridiculing; and the far greater number of the advocates of complete codification are quite content with Bentham's authority against the common law, without going further. But there is no man so learned, and what is more, so wise, who would not do well not to place implicit confidence in the infallibility of his own know. ledge and his own wisdom. One of the most able and distinguished friends of Bentham, a man of an unusually powerful and clear understanding, in advocating on one occasion his views, which were, like Bentham's, in favour of a complete code, cited in support of his position the authority of Bacon. The passage he quoted was the 59th Aphorism of Bacon's Exemplum Tractatus de Justitia Universali, sive de Fontibus Juris, in the De Augm. Scient., lib. 8:-" Quod si leges aliæ super alias accumulate in tam vasta excreverint volumina, aut tantâ confusione laboraverint, ut eas de integro retractare, et in corpus sanum et habile redigere, ex usu sit; id ante omnia agito, atque opus ejusmodi opus heroicum esto; atque auctores talis operis, inter legislatores, et instauratores, rite et merito nume

rantur."

Upon which he subjoined this remark:"We have had a Legislature sitting during a space of 200 years from the time when Bacon announced the greatness and importance of the work of codification in those magnificent terms, and all this time the work is

undone."

Now, the inference from this is, that Bacon's views on codification, as he expresses it, "De novis digestis legum," or "a digest of laws," corresponded in all points with those of the writer; whereas the aphorisms the De Augmentis, are little, or rather are nothing in that section of Bacon's Tractatus, in the 8th book of more than a translation into Latin of what he has said

in his "Proposition" to King James, "touching the compiling and amendment of the laws of England, though his meaning is much more obscurely brought out in the Latin version; which, indeed, its being very concise abridgment of the English work may sufficiently account for.

In the 60th Aphorism, Bacon merely puts in a condensed form what he has said, in his Proposal for ducing or perfecting of the course or corps of the comamending the Laws of England, respecting" the re But in the 61st Aphorism he has very

[graphic]

mon laws.

distinctly expressed his opinion that a totally different mode of treatment must be adopted in the business of digesting the common law and the statute law. To place this beyond dispute, we shall here quote the 61st Aphorism :-"Omnino vero ex usu fuerit, in novo digestó legum, leges pro jure communi receptas, quæ tanquam immemoriales sunt in origine sua, atque ex altera parte statuta de tempore in tempus superaddita, scorsum digerere et componere: cum in plurimis rebus, non eadem sit in jure dicendo, juris communis et statutorum interpretatio et administratio. Id quod fecit Tribonianus in digesto et codice."

It is to be observed that he does not mean here by the words "digerere et componere" what Bentham and his party mean by codification. It is clear from the whole of the context in this Tractatus, as well as in his Proposal, that he means to do no more with the common law than what was described in this journal as practicable and most desirable, namely, to expunge precedents which have been overruled or have become obsolete, and to express in clear and concise language all that is material of circumstance, decision, or dictum in those which remain.

Augm., lib. 8, c. 3, aph. 73), is shewn by the passage we have cited from the "Proposition." The following extract from the same tract will shew how he proposed to amend the records of the common law.

"This work is to be done, to use some few words, which is the language of action and effect, in this manner. "It consisteth of two parts, the digest or recompiling of the common laws, and that of the statutes.

"In the first of these, three things are to be done— "1. The compiling of a book 'De Antiquitatibus Juris.'

"2. The reducing or perfecting of the course or corps of the common laws.

"3. The composing of certain introductive and auxiliary books touching the study of the laws."

After stating what is to be done in the first of these divisions, he proceeds:

"For the second, which is the main, there is to be made a perfect course of the law in serie temporis, or year books, as we call them, from Edward I to this day. In the compiling of this course of law or year books, the points following are to be observed.

"First, all cases which are at this day clearly no In his English work referred to, his Proposal for law, but constantly ruled to the contrary, are to be left amending the Laws of England, Bacon answers an ob-out; they do but fill the volume, and season the wits jection on this very point, of the essential distinction of students in a contrary sense of law." &c. between common law and statute law, in terms which "Secondly, 'Homonymiæ,' as Justinian calleth them should leave no doubt as to his opinion on the subject:--that is, cases merely of iteration and repetition--are "Obj. IV. Labour were better bestowed in bringing to be purged away, and the cases of identity which the common laws of England to a text law, as the sta- are best reported and argued to be retained instead of tutes are, and setting both of them down in method the rest; the judgments, nevertheless, to be set down and by titles. every one in time as they are, but with a quotation or reference to the case when the point is argued at large; but if the case consist part of repetition, part of new matter, the repetition is only to be omitted.

66

Resp. It is too long a business to debate whether lex scripta, aut non scripta,' a text law, or customs well registered, with received and approved grounds and maxims, and acts and resolutions judicial, from time to time duly entered and reported, be the better form of declaring and authorising laws. It was the principal reason or oracle of Lycurgus that none of his law should be written. Customs are laws written in living tables, and some traditions the Church doth not disauthorise. In all sciences they are the soundest that keep close to particulars; and sure I am there are more doubts that rise upon our statutes, which are a text law, than upon the common law, which is no text law. But, howsoever that question be determined, I dare not advise to cast the law into a new mould. The work which I propound tendeth to pruning and grafting the law, and not to ploughing up and planting it again; for such a remove I should hold indeed for a perilous innovation." In the number of THE JURIST above referred to have been stated the reasons against attempting to codify the common law. The process has also been pointed out which would reduce the existing thousand volumes of precedents to twenty, and would thereby "tend, more than any other measure, to facilitate and improve the practice and administration of the law." But then, in such a question, authority must go for something; and it may be objected, that the reasoning of an obscure scribe, at the best a mere lawyer, can hardly outweigh the authority of Bentham, a philosopher as well as a lawyer, and of some other celebrated names, lawyers too, and philosophers, and even statesmen besides.

Now, our answer to this objection is, that if Bentham was a lawyer and a philosopher, Bacon also was a lawyer and a philosopher; that he was at least equal to Bentham as a lawyer, and he was very much superior to him as a philosopher. And with regard to the other eminent persons who are for the codification of the entire common as well as statute law, we answer, that if they were statesmen, in addition to being philosophers and lawyers, Bacon also was a statesman, besides being a philosopher and lawyer. That Bacon's opinion was in favour of preserving the common law in the form of reports of decisions "judicia anchoræ legum❞—(De

"Thirdly, as to the 'Antinomiæ,' cases judged to the contrary, it were too great a trust to refer to the judgment of the composers of this work to decide the law either way, except there be a current stream of judgments of later times, and then I reckon the contrary cases among cases obsolete, of which I have spoken before; nevertheless this diligence would be used, that such cases of contradiction be specially noted and collected, to the end those doubts that have been so long militant may, either by assembling all the judges in the Exchequer Chamber, or by Parliament, be put into certainty. For to do it by bringing them in question under feigned parties is to be disliked. 'Nihil habeat forum ex scena.'

66

Fourthly, all idle queries, which are but seminaries of doubt and uncertainties, are to be left out and omitted, and no queries set down but of great doubts well debated, and left undecided for difficulty; but no doubting or upstarting queries, which, though they be touched in argument for explanation, yet were better die than to be put into the books.

"Lastly, cases reported with too great prolixity would be drawn into a more compendious report; not in the nature of an abridgment, but tautologies and impertinences to be cut off. The course being thus compiled, then it resteth but for your Majesty to appoint some grave and sound lawyers, with some honourable stipend, to be reporters for the time to come, and then this is settled for all times."

Bacon adds, in a note, "This constitution of reporters I obtained of the King after I was Chancellor; and there are two appointed with 100l. a year a piece stipend."

On authority, then, as well as on principle, the course is clear that ought to be followed respecting the great work of digesting our law; and to have it done at once, and without sacrificing another 200 years, we have but to set about it in such a manner that the result of the labour may be a work at once concise, perspicuous, and complete.

GENTLEMEN CALLED TO THE BAR.

The following gentlemen have been called to the degree of Barrister at Law:

MEETINGS.

Thomas Harris, West Wycomb, Buckinghamshire, chair manufacturer, June 21 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex. and aud. ac.-James Green, Northampton, carpenter, LINCOLN'S INN.-J. G. N. Darby, Esq., B. A.; W. W. June 19 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.Ladell, Esq.; E. G. A. II. Moore, Esq., B.A.; A. Nicholas Kennedy, Shudehill, Manchester, ivory turner, June Bailey, Esq., M. A.; W. A. Dobie, Esq., B. A.; A. C. 21 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, last ex. Elliott, Esq.; E. Fry, Esq., B. A., S. C. L.; R. J. Biron, June 20 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.; June -John Stapp, Snow-hill, London, wholesale cheesemonger, Esq., B. A., S. C. L.; J. G. O. Dwyer, Esq.; S. Perce-30 at 11, div.-George Lambourn, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, val, jun., Esq., B.A.; R. V. Doyne, Esq., M. A.; timber merchant, June 21 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, LonW. H. Perfect, Esq., LL. B.

INNER TEMPLE.-A. B. Purcell, Esq., B. A.; H. Rowcliffe, Esq., M. A.; B. B. Swan, Esq., B. A.; John Fell, Esq.; John Walker, Esq.; C. G. Price, Esq., M. A.; A. H. Ross, Esq., B. A.; R. J. Baker, Esq., B. A.; William Mayd, Esq.; The Hon. T. C. Bruce, M. A.; E. W. Heywood, Esq., S. C. L.; T. Oliver, Esq.; T. Baker, Esq.; W. F. Kemp, Esq.; G. C. Leech, Esq., B. A.; G. H. Cary, Esq.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-William Brownrigg Elliot, Esq.; Henry Cary Dangar, Esq., B. A., Trin. Coll., Cam.; William Henry Griffiths, Esq., B. A., Worcester Coll., Oxford; Henry Arkley Eglinton, Esq.; Charles Leeming, Esq.; John Francis Kellett Dillon, Esq., B. A., Corpus Christi Coll., Cam.; James Henry James, Esq.; James Charles Mander, Esq.

GRAY'S INN.-Kenneth Leith Sutherland, Esq.; John Hoiker, Esq.

London Gazettes.

FRIDAY, JUNE 9.

BANKRUPTS. WILLIAM BENNETT, Tilney St. Lawrence, Norfolk, miller, dealer and chapman, June 15 and July 20 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Bell; Sol. Wilkin, 3, Furnival's-inn.-Petition filed June 5. EDWIN PRITCHARD, Southampton, brick, lime, and cement manufacturer, dealer and chapman, June 17 at 2, and July 29 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Nicholson; Sols. Coxwell & Bassett, Southampton; J. & J. H. Linklater, 17, Sise-lane.-Petition dated June 8. EDMUND HENINGHEM, Caversham, Oxfordshire, and High Wycomb, Buckinghamshire, fellmonger and dealer in wool, June 19 at 2, and July 19 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Graham; Sols. Clarke, Reading, Berkshire; Holmes, 25, Great James-street, Bedford-row. -Petition filed June 6.

don, aud. ac.-Charles E. Reinhard, Rochester, Kent, coal merchant, June 22 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-William Cobb, Maidstone, Kent, builder, June 21 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Thomas Walters, Goswell-road, Middlesex, grocer, June 21 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac. George Coode, Victoria-street, Westminster, Middlesex, patent irrigator and hose manufacturer, June 21 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Wm. H. Dean, Fleet-st., London, auctioneer, June 19 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-F.

Hellyer, New Brompton, near Chatham, Kent, wood carver, June 22 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.George Hartshorne and George Hartshorne the younger, Great Dover-street, Southwark, Surrey, ironmonger, June 30 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-John_Tipple, Norwich, tailor, June 30 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.; July 4 at 12, div.-George Battcock, Brighton, Sussex, apothecary, June 30 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Frederick W. Wright, Brighton, Sussex, chemist, June 30 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Alfred Guy, Upper Rosomon-street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, lamp manufacturer, June 30 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Thomas Wilkinson, Openshaw, Lancashire, builder, June 21 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.; July 5 at 12, div.-H. Hilliar the younger, Birkenhead, Cheshire, innkeeper, June 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.-Thomas Occleshead and Charles Cummins, Liverpool, general mer. chants, June 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.-James Hughes, Birkenhead, Cheshire, coal merchant, June 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.-Richard Jackson and Richard Yale, Leeds, Yorkshire, engineers, June 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac.-John Whitaker Rowbottom, Halifax, Yorkshire, boiler maker and millwright, June 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac.William Crawshaw, Wakefield, Yorkshire, draper, July 11 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac. and div. -Wm. Clarkson, Redcross-street, London, boot manufac turer, July 4 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, fin. div.L. Worms and M. Worms, Queen-street, Cheapside, London, merchants, July 3 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. sep. ests.-H. Shead, Witham, Essex, miller, July 3 at halfpast 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-G. F. Jones, East Ilsley, Berkshire, surgeon, July 4 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-C. J. D. Campbell, College-street, Camdentown, and John-street, Adelphi, Middlesex, and Bolton-terrace, Edward-street, Walworth, Surrey, builder, July 4 at 1, DANIEL WARNER, Birmingham, baker, June 19 and July Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-F. Vines, Greenwich, 13 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham: Kent, and Thos. Kitelee, Chesham, Buckinghamshire, millers, Off. Ass. Bittleston; Sols. Kirby, Coventry; Motteram & July 3 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. sep. est. Knight, Birmingham.-Petition dated May 29. of Thomas Kitelee.-R. Williams, Mold, Flintshire, draper, THOMAS LANGRIDGE, Bristol, cook and confectioner, June 30 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, div. dealer and chapman, June 20 and July 17 at 11, District-Henry Hudson, Heaton Fold, Marsh, Huddersfield, YorkCourt of Bankruptcy, Bristol: Off. Ass. Hutton; Sol. shire, cattle dealer, June 30 at 11, District Court of BankBrittan, Bristol.-Petition filed June 3. ruptcy, Leeds, div.-George Havelock and Matthew BenjaJOSEPH COOPER, Liverpool, and Birkenhead, Cheshire, min Robson, Monkwearmouth, Durham, ship builders, July 3 ironmonger, June 22 and July 13 at 11, District Court of at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Bankruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Bird; Sols. Lowndes & div. joint est.; at half-past 12, div. sep. est. of George HaveCo., Liverpool.-Petition filed June 6. lock; at 1, div. sep. est. of Matthew Benjamin Robson. SAMUEL WALTON, Macclesfield, Cheshire, silk manufacCERTIFICATES. turer and publican, dealer and chapman, June 21 and July 12 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Pott; Sols. Parrott & Co., Macclesfield.-Petition Joseph Vince, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, boot maker, July filed May 31. 5 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Michael B. Lee, SAMUEL BARNES, Werneth Iron Works, Oldham, Lan- Brighton, Sussex, jeweller, July 5 at half-past 11, Court of cashire, machine maker, dealer and chapman, June 20 and Bankruptcy, London.-George Jarrett, Wickham Welford, July 13 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Berkshire, builder, July 5 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, LonOff. Ass. Hernaman; Sols. Brown & Litler, Oldham.-don.-George Lawrance, Abingdon, Berkshire, saddler, June Petition filed May 31. 30 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Richard Keily,

GEORGE BOWLEY MEDLEY, Highbury-park North, Islington, Middlesex, and Great Tower-street, and Lloyd's Coffee-house, London, underwriter, trader, dealer and chap. man, (in partnership with William Adam, of Great Towerstreet and Lloyd's Coffee-house), June 23 and July 28 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sols. J. & J. H. Linklater, 17, Sise-lane, Bucklersbury. Petition filed June 8.

To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting.

Ladbrooke-terrace, Notting-hill, Middlesex, merchant, July 5 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Henry G. Mortimer, Elm-place, Maidstone-road, Lee, Kent, builder, July 3 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-P. Leicester, Birchin-lane, Cornhill, London, iron merchant, July 3 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Mary Long, Clifton, Bristol, hotel keeper, July 4 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.

To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. Edward Brock, Sackville-st., Piccadilly, Middlesex, tailor. -Henry H. King, Bristol, bookseller.-Wm. Birkett, Manningham, Bradford, Yorkshire, soap manufacturer.-William Crawshaw, Wakefield, Yorkshire, draper.-Joseph Flint, Sheffield, Yorkshire, shoemaker.-E. Shaw, Birmingham, pocketbook maker. John Hunter, Fazeley, Staffordshire, tape manufacturer.-Edwin Cottrill, Redditch, Worcestershire, draper. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

James Jenkyn and Osborn Augustus Jenkyn, John-street and Buckingham-street, Adelphi, Middlesex, and Sherbornelane, City, solicitors, attornies, and conveyancers.-H. Wordsworth and Thomas Dunn, lately of Threadneedle-street, and since at the South Sea House, Threadneedle-street, London, attornies-at-law, solicitors, and conveyancers, (under the firm of Wordsworth & Dunn, and formerly carried on in partnership with Ralph Dunn, since deceased, under the firm of Dunn, Wordsworth, & Dunn).-Edward Barret and J. M. Barret, Otley and Leeds, Yorkshire, attornies and solicitors, (under the style or firm of E. & J. M. Barret).

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.

Millar, Blair, & Co., Paisley, calico printers.-Wood, Taylor, & Co., Glasgow, merchants.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS

Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process.

Jonathan Beckett, Liverpool, beerseller, June 12 at 10, County Court of Lancashire, at Liverpool.-Isaac Whiteley, Oldham, Lancashire, machine maker, June 16 at 11, County Court of Lancashire, at Oldham.-Charles Stott, Moorhey, near Oldham, Lancashire, dealer in cotton waste, June 16 at 10, County Court of Lancashire, at Oldham.-C. J. Gunn, Birmingham, baker, June 17 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Birmingham.-Rebecca Green, Bitton, Gloucestershire, retailer of beer, June 15 at half-past 10, County Court of Gloucestershire, at Bristol.-William H. Moxhay, Bristol, driver of an omnibus, June 15 at half-past 10, County Court of Gloucestershire, at Bristol.-Edmund Cooper, Mileham, Norfolk, beer-house keeper, June 22 at half-past 10, County Court of Norfolk, at East Dereham.-James Graham, Blackburn, Lancashire, grocer, June 26 at 11, County Court of Lancashire, at Blackburn.-Theodosia Bailey, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, provision dealer, June 20 at 9, County Court of Staffordshire, at Wolverhampton.-The Rev. T. Dixon, Tibenham, Norfolk, clerk, June 21 at 12, County Court of Norfolk, at Wymondham.-Robert Davey, Crediton, Devonshire, innkeeper, July 3 at 10, County Court of Devonshire, at Crediton.

The following Persons, who, on their several Petitions filed in the Court, have obtained Interim Orders for Protection from Process, are required to appear in Court as hereinafter mentioned, at the Court-house, in Portugal-street, Lincoln's Inn, as follows, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:

June 23 at 10, before the CHIEF COMMISSIOner. Wm. F. B. Shed, High Holborn, Middlesex, manager of an exhibition.-John Lever, Newland-street, Kensington, Middlesex, out of business.

June 26 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

George Tuxworth, Great Grimsby, Lincolnshire, machine sawyer.-Matthew Downton, High-street, Poplar, Middlesex,

boot maker.

The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:

June 23 at 10, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. William Arton, Upper Park-street, Islington, Middlesex, general commission merchant.-Yaxley Wilking, Bridge-row, Pimlico, Middlesex, smith.-John P. Somers, Cambridge-st., Eccleston-square, Pimlico, Middlesex, in no profession.

June 23 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY. Charles William Simpson, High-street, Peckham, Surrey, assistant to a newsvender.-Christopher Musgrave, Upper Eaton-street, Pimlico, Middlesex, clerk in the Irish office.

June 24 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner Phillips. George Bristow, Bedfordbury, Covent-garden, Middlesex, builder.—John Swindell, Upper Berkeley-street, Portmansquare, Middlesex, baker.-Thomas Robert Cooper the elder, Park-row, Knightsbridge, Middlesex, mechanical modeller.Jas. Izod, Penton-place, Walworth, Surrey, out of business. June 26 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Geo. Jones, Queen's-place, New North-road, Lower-road, Islington, Middlesex, surgeon.-Jas. W. Howell, Southampton-street, Fitzroy-square, Middlesex, manager to the Realm Insurance Company.-Joseph Russell, Stangate-street, Westminster-bridge-road, Surrey, out of business.

June 26 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. Henry John Hirst, Conduit-street West, Westbourne-terrace, Hyde Park, Middlesex, gentleman.-Henry Hopetown Sadler, Red Lion-passage, Red Lion-square, Middlesex, attorney's clerk.-John Tyler, High-street, New Hampton, Middlesex, licensed hawker.-Matthias Hytch Jacobs, Hush. court, Water-lane, Blackfriars, London, out of business.-H. James Story, Piccadilly, Middlesex, in no trade. Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional Assignee Saturday, June 3. the Estates and Effects of the following Persons:— (On their own Petitions).

Thomas Taylor, Southampton, out of business: in the Gaol of Southampton.-Thomas Taylor the younger, Southampton, out of business in the Gaol of Southampton.-Joseph E. Cheetham, Salford, Lancashire, painter: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Thomas Dixon, Swindon, Wiltshire, baker: in the Gaol of Bristol.-J. H. Packer, Bristol, licensed victualler: in the Gaol of Bristol.-John Barnes, Walmer, Kent, sutler: in the Gaol of Maidstone.-Richard Boyell, Nottingham, plumber : in the Gaol of Nottingham.-Wm. O. Clark, Stratford, West Ham, Essex, corn dealer: in the Gaol of Springfield.-Thomas Newell, Thaxted, Essex, out of business: in the Gaol of Springfield.-M. Ratcliffe, Manchester, out of business: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Edward Barrow, Manchester, out of business: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Joseph H. Goddard, Southport, Lancashire, out of business in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Enoch Hough, Manchester, wheelwright: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-H. Monks, Liverpool, out of business: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Edward Potter, Manchester, yarn dealer: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Ralph Unsworth, Wigan, Lancashire, out of business: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Elizabeth Wrigley, Eccles, near Manchester, out of business: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-J. R. Simpson, Sheffield, Yorkshire, out of business in the Gaol of York.-Joseph Green, Sheffield, Yorkshire, butter factor: in the Gaol of York.—Benjamin Atkinson, Leeds, Yorkshire, builder: in the Gaol of York.Wm. Smith, Plaistow, Essex, builder: in the Gaol of Springfield.-E. Millard, Southampton, out of business in the Gaol of Southampton.-George Barker, Toxteth-park, Liverpool, out of business in the Gaol of Lancaster.-J. Spencer, Manchester, manager of a cotton mill: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Robert Tinker, Manchester, out of business: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-James Whitworth, Heywood, near Bury, Lancashire, tailor: in the Gaol of Lancaster.

(On Creditor's Petition). Mary Meakin, Winterley, near Sandbach, Cheshire, farmer: in the Gaol of Chester. County Court of Lancashire, at Lancaster. Assignees have been appointed in the following Cases:— Benjamin Brown, Bolton-le-Moors, licensed victualler, No. 78,011; Richard Walwork, assignee.-Joseph M'Knight, Salford, out of business, No. 78,031; Edward Handford, assignee.-Edw. Turton, Sheffield, Yorkshire, out of business, No. 77,965; Jas. Hampson Gartside, assignee.-Christopher Bibby, Over Darwen, shoemaker, No. 78,013; William Jardine, assignee.-John Speakman, Bolton-le-Moors, sausage manufacturer, No. 78,012; William Peat, assignee.-William Radcliffe, Oldham, assistant to a woollen rag dealer, No. 77,946; Edwin Barlow, assignee.-John M'Carthy, Manchester, grocer, No. 78,014; Ebenezer Turnbull, assignee.— John Hurst, Bolton-le-Moors, joiner, No. 78,028; Robert Beswick, assignee.-John Heath, Gorton Brook, near Manchester, retail beerseller, No. 78,035; William M'Kenzie,

« ZurückWeiter »