Abbildungen der Seite
[graphic][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small]


The Mayor, &c. of Faversham v. Ryder.-(Charity-

Covas v. Bingham.- (County Court Appeal-Sale of Mortmain Act-Gift for the Benefit and Ornament

Cargo afloat - Short Delivery- Construction of of a Town) ..........

..... 587
Contract) .....

.......... 596
The Governors of the Russell Institution, Apps., The

Vestrymen of the Joint Parishes of St. Giles-inReeves o. Baker.-(Trust-Precatory Trust-Will

the-Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury, Resps.Construction- Copyholds, what Words sufficient to

(Poor-rate" Russell Institution- Library and pass)......

.... 588

Reading-room-Lectures - Purposes of Science, VICE-CHANCELLOR KINDERSLEY'S COURT.

Literature, or the Fine Arts exclusively-Annual

voluntary Contributions—6 87 Vict. c. 36, 8. 1). 597 Tracey . Lawrence.-(Mortgage - Power of Sale

Heath v. Smith.-(Patent-Infringement-Prior pub. Notice) ....................................

..... 590

590 lic Use-21 Jac. 1, c. 3, s. 5).................. 601 VICE-CHANCELLOR STUART'S COURT.

Thompson o. Bell.—(Assignment and Re-assignment

of Chose in Action abroadRight to sue in this Grissell 0. Peto.-(Vendor and Purchaser-Specific

Country) .................................. 603 Performance-Mistake in Parcels- Defect, how

Stoessiger 0. The South-eastern Railway Company.ed) .................................... 591

(Blank Acceptance" Security for Payment of The Attorney-General v. Alford.-(Public Charity

Money"-11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 68, . 1).... 605 Trustee, Concealment of Fund byInterest at 51. per Cent. charged on Fund in the Trustee's Hands,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. and on Dividends-Annual Rests- Investment in

The York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Company, 31. 58. per Cent. Annuities not allowed) ........ 592 Apps., Crisp and Another, Resps.-(Appeal from

County Court).-(Liability of Railway Company

as CarriersSpecial Contract-Misdirection).... 606 Perry o. Turpin.-(Pleading-Insufficient Answer

Hopkins v. Tanqueray.-(Sale by Auction-War. Exceptions-Production of Documents) ........ 594 ranty-Representation when not Warranty) .... 608

LONDON, JULY 15, 1854.

tercourse, with the port or place blockaded, unlawful

on the part of neutrals. At the present time naturally much interest is taken 1“. Amongst the rights of belligerents,' says Dr. Philby all educated persons in questions relating to the limore in his able work on Licenses, (p. 49), there is rights and liabilities arising out of the state of war. none more clear and incontrovertible, or more just and In particular the rights of neutral powers, while several necessary as to its application, than that which gives great powers are engaged in a war affecting their par- rise to the law of blockade, as it has been ascertained, ticular interests, and the interests of Europe generally, defined, and administered by the maritime tribunals of are the subject of serious consideration. On this subject this country. The greater the research that shall be we cannot do better, for the information of our readers. made into the principles of natural law, the more the than to quote some passages from a most carefully- details of the diplomatic and conventional history of executed work lately published by Messrs. Hazlitt and Europe shall be studied, the more will it appear that Roche, members of the Bar*, on the Law of Maritime this right has its origin in the purest sources of mariWarfare. At p. 138 occurs the following passage:- | time jurisprudence, that it is sanctioned by the prac

“It has been shewn that while neutral powers are tice of the best times, and above all, that it is so essenpermitted to trade in innocent merchandise with the tially connected with the vital interests of Great Brienemy, and to convey it to him, they may not convey tain, that the renunciation of it, under any circumit to him into places that are blockaded, with which all stances, must be regarded as the renunciation of one of commerce is forbidden. It is expedient, therefore, next the firmest charters of our naval pre-eminence, and as to explain what blockade is, and the manner in which the surrender of one of the surest bulwarks of our it is considered by the law of nations.

national independence.' “Blockade is the carrying into effect, by an armed «•If,' says Vattel, (b.3, c. 7, s. 117), 'I lay siege to a force, of that rule of war which renders commercial in- place, or simply blockade it, I have a right to hinder

any one from entering, and to treat as an enemy whom *" A Manual of the Law of Maritime Warfare; embody

soever attempts to enter the place, or carry anything to 70% ing the Decisions of Lord Stowell and other English Judges, the besieged without my leave; for he opposes my uk and of the American Courts, and the Opinions of the most dertaking, and may contribute to the miscarriage of it eminent Jurists : with an Appendix of the Official Documents

and this involves me in all the misfortunes of an unsaoand Correspondence in relation to the present War. By William Hazlitt and Henry Philip Roche, Esqrs., of the Middle

cessful war.' Temple and Lincoln's-inn, Barristers at Law.”

"! “There are two sorts of blockade,' sayk Gore Vol. XVIII.




Stowell, in The Neptunus, (1 Rob. 171), 'one by the Louis XIV, of 1681, the former rule was again estasimple fact only, the other by a notification accompa- blished. Valin and Pothier (De Proprieté, No. 96) nied with the fact. In the former case, when the fact are able to find no better argument in support of this ceases, (otherwise than by accident or the shifting of the rule, than that those who lade their goods on board an wind), there is immediately an end of the blockade; enemy's vessels thereby favour the commerce of the but where the fact is accompanied by a public notifica- enemy, and by this act are considered in law as subtion from the government of a belligerent country to mitting themselves to abide the fate of the vessel; and neutral governments, the blockade must be supposed Valin asks, (lib. 3, tit. 9, “ Des Prises,” art. 7), “ How to exist till it has been publicly repealed, and notifi- can it be that the goods of friends and allies found in cation of such repeal made, in the same way, by the an enemy's ship should not be liable to confiscation, belligerent country which has notified the blockade. whilst even those of subjects are liable to it?" To which

This notification it is the duty of the belligerent coun- Pothier himself furnishes the proper answer—“that in try to make immediately; as, to suffer the fact to cease, respect to goods, the property of the King's subjects, and to apply the notification again at a distant time, in lading them on board an enemy's vessels they conwould be a fraud on neutral nations.'”

travene the law which interdicts to them all commercial In a subsequent passage the question of free ships intercourse with the enemy, and deserve to lose their free goods is discussed :

goods for this violation of the law.” The fallacy of “ The right to capture enemy's property on board a the argument by which this rule is attempted to be neutral ship has been much contested by particular supported consists in assuming, what requires to be nations, whose interests it strongly opposed. In 1780 proved, that by the act of lading his goods on board an the Empress of Russia proclaimed the principles of the enemy's vessel the neutral submits himself to abide the Baltic code of neutrality, which she declared she would fate of the vessel; for it cannot be pretended that the maintain by force of arms; one of the articles of that goods are subjected to capture and confiscation ex re, code being, that all effects belonging to the subjects of since their character of neutral property exempts them belligerent powers should be looked upon as free on from this liability. Nor can it be shewn that they board of neutral ships, except only such as were con- are liable ex delicto, unless it be first proved that the traband. Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Germany, Hol- act of lading them on board is an offence against the land, France, Spain, Portugal, and Naples, and also law of nations. It is therefore with reason that Bynthe United States, acceded to the Russian principle of kershoeck concludes that this rule, where merely estaneutrality; but, in consequence of the more effective blished by the prize ordinances of a belligerent power, resistance of Great Britain, the conventional term of cannot be defended on sound principles. Where, inneutrality thus attempted to be set up was abandoned deed, it is made by special compact the equivalent for in 1793, as not sanctioned by the law of nations, except the converse maxim, that free ships make free goods, in those cases where a positive compact had been made this relaxation of belligerent pretensions may be fairly by treaty. In 1801 a second attempt was made by coupled with a correspondent concession by the neuthe Baltic powers to enforce the doctrines of armed tral, that enemy ships should make enemy goods. neutrality asserted in 1780, but the attempt was again These two maxims have been, in fact, commonly thus defeated by the undoubted naval superiority of Great coupled in the various treaties on this subject, with a Britain and Russia, by a convention with England, in view to simplify the judicial inquiries into the proprieJune, 1801, expressly agreeing that enemy's property tary interest of the ship and cargo, by resolving them was not to be protected on board of neutral ships. The into the mere question of the national character of the entire question of free ships free goods is thus ably ship. The two maxims are not, however, inseparable, reviewed by Mr. Wheaton, in his Elements of Inter

The primitive law, independently of international com

pact, rests on the simple principle, that war gives a national Law, 162–183:

right to capture the goods of an enemy, but gives no Although, by the general usage of nations, inde- right to capture the goods of a friend. The right to pendently of treaty stipulations, the goods of an enemy capture an enemy's property has no limit but that of found on board the ships of a friend are liable to cap the place where the goods are found, which, if neutral, ture and condemnation, yet the converse rule, which will protect them from capture. We have already seen

that a neutral vessel on the high seas is not such a place. subjects to confiscation the goods of a friend on board

The exemption of neutral property from capture has the vessels of an enemy, is manifestly contrary to rea

no other exceptions than those arising from the carson and justice. It may indeed afford, as Grotius has rying of contraband, breach of blockade, and other stated, a presumption that the goods are enemy's pro- analogous cases, where the conduct of the neutral gives perty, but it is such a presumption as will readily yield to the belligerent a right to treat his property as enemy to contrary proof, and not of that class of presumptions which the civilians call “ presumptiones juris et de

an enemy's property, and the belligerent flag com

municates no hostile character to neutral property. jure," and which are conclusive upon the party.'

States have changed this simple and natural principle « But, however unreasonable and unjust this maxim of the law of nations, by mutual compact, in whole or may be, it has been incorporated into the prize code in part, according as they believed it to be for their of certain nations, and enforced by them at different interest; but the one maxim, that free ships make free periods. Thus, by the French ordinances of 1538, 9000

638. goods, does not necessarily imply the converse proposi1543, and 1684, the goods of a friend laden on boardi

tion, that enemy ships make enemy goods. The stipu

| lation that neutral bottoms shall make neutral goods the ships of an enemy are declared good and lawful is a concession made by the belligerent to the neutral, prize. The contrary was provided by the subsequent and gives to the neutral flag a capacity not given to it declaration in 1650; but by the marine ordinance of by the primitive law of nations. On the other hand, the stipulation subjecting neutral property found in the were glad to see that the intentions of the Government, vessel of an enemy to confiscation, as prize of war, is in favour of a liberal view of the law of nations on this a concession made by the neutral to the belligerent, point, were adopted by the Legislature. and takes from the neutral a privilege he possessed Surely this is not the time when a country placed, as under the pre-existing law of nations; but neither England is, at the head, and as it were in the active reason nor usage renders the two concessions so indisso- lead, of political civilisation, should rely upon rights luble that the one cannot exist without the other. It resting on those principles of policy which obtained in was upon these grounds that the Supreme Court of the periods when war was, not as it now is, the inevitable United States determined that the treaty of 1795, be- mode of settling the differences between the Governtween them and Spain, which stipulated that free ships ments of different countries on certain material subjects should make free goods, did not necessarily imply the of quarrel, but a bitter personal contest between the converse proposition, that enemy ships should make subjects of the respective Governments, in which perenemy goods, the treaty being silent as to the latter; sonal hatred led to the desire of mutual infliction of and that consequently the goods of a Spanish subject personal injuries, and when consequently a reckless found on board the vessel of an enemy of the United indifference to the private interests of the innocent States were not liable to confiscation as prize of war; subjects of belligerent countries, was one of the conseand although it was alleged that the prize law of Spainquences of war, and one of the supposed elements of would subject the property of an American citizen to successful warfare. At this day, with better means of condemnation when found on board the vessels of her information, we see that when two nations are at war enemy, the Court refused to condemn Spanish property to settle some quarrel, on which no intervening power found on board a vessel of their enemy, upon the prin can adjudicate, the great object of each state is to deciple of reciprocity, because the American Government stroy or cripple the resources of the other, quà state, had not manifested its will to retaliate upon Spain; and and no further. But we see also that to destroy the until this will was manifested by some legislative act, trade of either state with other states, not meddling in the Court was bound by the general law of nations, the contest, is not only grossly unjust, but injurious to constituting a part of the law of the land. (The Ne- both belligerent states, inasmuch as it inflicts injury reide, 9 Cranch, 388).'

on those who have nothing to do with the quarrel, and, “The conventional law in respect to the rule now in by reflection back, injures both the belligerent states question has fluctuated at different periods, according long after they shall have settled their quarrel. Hence to the fluctuating policy and interests of the different it is now beginning to be understood that the more the maritime states of Europe. It has been much more pernicious effects of war are confined to the actually flexible than the consuetudinary law; but there is a belligerent states, the better it is for them; and that great preponderance of modern treaties in favour of the more the exigencies of war can be allowed to permit the maxim, free ships free goods, sometimes, but not the perfectly free action of neutral states with each always, connected with the correlative maxim, enemy belligerent state, the less will be the evil sustained by ships enemy goods; so that it may be said that, for two each at the conclusion of the war. We regret that our centuries past, there has been a constant tendency to limited space prevents us from going more into detail establish by compact the principle that the neutrality on this subject, to which, however, we may have occaof the ship should exempt the cargo, even if enemy's sion to return; and we cannot conclude our observaproperty, from capture and confiscation as prize of tions better than by calling the attention of our readers war.

to the work from which we have extracted the passages Consistent with this is the declaration of the Crown above quoted, from which they will derive abundant of this country issued on the declaration of war, (see and accurate information on the law of nations as it p. 404 of Messrs. Hazlitt and Roche's work), which is affects the intercourse of states at war, first, as between as follows:

themselves, and secondly, as between them and neutral “Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of nations. Great Britain and Ireland, having been compelled to take up arms in support of an ally, is desirous of ren

REGULA GENERALIS. dering the war as little onerous as possible to the powers with whom she remains at peace. “To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all

ORDER OF COURT.—July 3, 1854. annecessary obstruction, her Majesty is willing for the I, ROBERT MONSEY Baron CRANWORTH, Lord High present to waive a part of the belligerent rights apper

Chancellor of Great Britain, intrusted, by virtue of taining to her by the law of nations.

her Majesty the Queen's sign-manual, with the care "It is impossible for her Majesty to forego the exer

and commitment of the custody of the persons and cise of her right of seizing articles contraband of war,

estates of persons found idiot, lunatic, or of unsound and of preventing neutrals from bearing the enemy's mind, do, with the advice and assistance of the Right despatches; and she must maintain the right of a

Hon. Sir' JAMES LEWIS KNIGHT BRUCE and the Right belligerent to prevent neutrals from breaking any

Hon. Sir GEORGE JAMES TURNER, the Lords Justices of effective blockade which may be established with an the Court of Appeal in Chancery; also being intrusted adequate force against the enemy's forts, harbours, or

as aforesaid, and by virtue and in exercise of the powers coasts.

or authorities in this behalf vested in me by the Lunacy “But her Majesty will waive the right of seizing Regulation Act, 1853, and of every other power or enemy's property laden on board a neutral vessel, authority in a

| authority in anywise enabling me in this behalf, order unless it be contraband of war.

and direct as follows-that is to say, "It is not her Majesty's intention to claim the con

From and after the 5th July, 1854, all office copies fiscation of neutral property, not being contraband of and other copies of proceedings and documents in war, found on board enemy's ships; and her Majesty

| matters in lunacy shall be counted and charged for further declares, that being anxious as much as possible after the rate of seventy-two words per folio; and to lessen the evils of war, and to restrict its operations

where such copies, or any portion thereof, shall comto the regularly organised forces of the country, it is prise columns containing figures, each figure shall be not her present intention to issue letters of margue for counted and charged for as one word. the commissioning of privateers.”

(Signed) CRANWORTH, C. These questions have been the subject of a very re

J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, L. J. cent debate in the House of Commons, in which we


THE STATUTE-LAW COMMISSION. in writing, signed by the testator, for the purpose of

authentication,” for the word “affix" can be significant

only to the effect of raising a quibble on the distinction (Continued from p. 240).

between affixing and suffixing. Sect. 11 purports to define the cases in which a We dissent from Mr. Brickdale's criticism on Lord married woman may exercise testamentary volition. St. Leonards’ Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 24, that it “ has proThe third case is, that “a married woman may make ceeded in a wrong direction, and is not likely to produce a will in exercise of such powers as she is empowered to beneficial results, and that the enumeration of certain exercise by will notwithstanding coverture." Either particulars will éxclude others. The act is correct in this is a circle, or it implies the necessity of an express substance, though not a model of conciseness. It exdispensation of the disability in the power, and thus pressly provides that the enumeration of particulars alters the law. It should be, “in exercise of a power." shall not restrain the generality of the enactment If the power is limited to discoverture, a will made which it follows; and in extenuation of the superduring coverture is not made in exercise of it.

fluities in the act, it may be urged that it was framed « Fourthly, a married woman who is an executrix for the guidance of the very peculiar intellects of the may make a will appointing an executor or executors Ecclesiastical Courts. as to the personal estate of her testator.” This should! Sects. 17 and 18 contain alterations of the law of ari. run, " who is or becomes a sole executrix."

dence, which we do not propose to discuss. But the • The exceptions in favour of married women are made allowance as attesting witnesses of persons incompetent in the Wills Act by leaving them as they stood before from crime, &c., to give evidence is omitted without the act, which is the safe and proper course, as well as any apparent reason. the easiest. The case of a will inade with the hus Sect. 20.“ Wills in exercise of powers executed as band's consent is omitted from the draft, probably on required by this act are sufficiently executed, and the account of the difficulty of expressing its conditions requisition of any additional or other form of execution accurately-at any rate, no satisfactory reason is given or solemnity is of no effect." “ Solemnity” is not a for abolishing the privilege. It is true that such willsword of art, and it would be impossible to say, before a are not often made, and when made stand on a preca- decision, whether it extended to registration, inrolment rious footing; but the existence of a head of law in re in Chancery or in the court rolls of a manor, &c. lation to them shews that they are occasionally useful. In this, as in many other clauses of the draft, an In cases where the possession of separate estate or of a affected and inaccurate use of the present tense may be testamentary power enables the wife to put the hus noticed. The present tense is only proper where the band to his election, the privilege may be not only con- enactment has an immediate transitory action, as where venient, but important.

it is said that a certain custom is repealed. But to say Mr. Brickdale's proposal to alter the law in respect of future wills that they are sufficiently executed, that of the wives of felons, by confining the exception to a condition to be annexed to a future power is of no the husband's civil death, seems to have arisen from a effect, &c., is to attain singularity at the expense of confusion of conviction of felony with attainder, and of grammar. banishment for life, which is a species of civil death, Sect. 23. “It is to be presumed, in the absence of with banishment for a term, which is not. A convict evidence to the contrary, that all erasures, obliterations, of felony forfeits his goods, and may be banished for and additions in a will were made after the execution a term without suffering civil death, and during the thereof.” Another illustration of the danger of atterm his marital rights are suspended. (Ex parte tempting to fix the common law. An erasure or interFranks, 1 Moo. & Sc. 1). There is no reason for sub- lineation which gives sense to a passage otherwise jecting the wife of such a convict to testamentary insensible is not presumed to be made after execution: disability. In Coombes v. The Queen's Proctor (16 the proposed inflexible rule would defeat the will in Jur., part 1, p. 820) the Prerogative Court came to an such a case; for even if “evidence" could be held to erroneous conclusion, but we are not on that account include what is called “internal evidence," the fact to alter the law for the worse. The bill would also that the will was insensible before the alteration affords deprive the wife of an alien enemy of her power to no evidence of the date of the alteration. make a will. All this is the result of undertaking to Sect. 24. “ All wills are revoked by marriage.” The declare the common law.

saving in the Wills Act of testamentary appointments Sect. 12. “The preceding section applies to all wills of property which would not, in default of appointment, by married women made after this act comes into ope- pass to the testator's heir or personal representatives, is ration, whether such woman (women) were married omitted on account of the “inconvenience of having before or after the passing of the act." If this is ne-a trivial exception to a general rule.” A strange reacessary, then innumerable titles supposed to be taken son! This trivial exception has in & case within our under the Fines and Recoveries Act are bad. Clause 21 knowledge been the means of saving a large family, is similarly superfluous.

brought up in opulence, from utter destitution. The Sect. 13. “ À will must be in writing, and the testa- exception is not trivial, but essential. Inconvenience tor must affix his signature thereto for the purpose of is to be anticipated from a rule which operates in cases authentication."

beyond its principle, but not from an exception that Sect. 14. “ The signature of the testator must be makes the rule harmonise with its principle, affixed or acknowledged by him in the joint presence of Sect. 28.“ A specific gift by will operates as a gift two witnesses."

of all the estate or interest of the testator at the time of Sect. 15. “ Both witnesses must attest that the sig. his death in the thing given." nature of the testator was affixed or acknowledged in Sect. 29. “A general or residuary gift by will opetheir joint presence by severally affixing their signa- rates as a gift of all the property of the testator to tures to the will in the testator's presence,” [signatures which the terms of the gift are applicable at the time as significant as Lord Burleigh's shake of the head.] of his death."

Sect. 16. “The testator may sign by the hand of These sections are intended to replace the 23rd and another person, but the witnesses [a witness) may 24th sections of the Wills Act. The proper substitute

for those sections is a blank. They were suggested by These clauses seem to deal satisfactorily with the dif- an unfounded distrust of the power of the general enficult subject of execution and attestation. But it abling clause. If before the Wills Act a testator bewould be neater to say (sect. 13) that “a will must be queathed his horse “ Trajan" to his nephew, and in the


interval between the making of his will and his death at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac. joint sold and repurchased Trajan, the bequest took effect. est., and aud. ac. sep. est. of Isaac Blackburn.-J. Denbigh, The extension of the devising power to all real estate Bradford, Yorkshire, woolstapler, July 20 at 11, District Court belonging to the testator at his death necessarily sub

of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac.-James Townsend Wigney, jected devises of real estate to a similar construction.

Huddersfield and Wakefield, Yorkshire, wine merchant, July The 24th section of the Wills Act might be better ex

20 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac.-T. pressed, and would be better omitted; but, except for

B. King, York, manufacturer of paper hangings, July 20 at 11,

District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac.-G. Lawrance, superfluousness, it is not objectionable in substance.

Abingdon, Berkshire, saddler, and Sunningwell, Berkshire, Mr. Brickdale's 28th section would alter the law for the

brickmaker, July 28 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. worse, “The thing given," being contrasted with the -F. Quick, Bristol, jeweller, July 31 at 12, Court of Bank. testator's estate or interest in it, must mean the land ruptcy, London, div.- Robert Gillett the elder, Prince's-road, or chattel itself; so that if a testator, having a term of Lambeth, Surrey, flour factor, Aug. I at 12, Court of Bankseven years in a farm, were to devise the farm even by ruptcy, London, div.-George Bender, Bristol, glass dealer, the description of “his leasehold farm at A.," or “all Aug. 4 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, div. his unexpired term in the farm at A.," and afterwards John Roebuck and William Roebuck, Bank End Mill, near acquired the fee, (a case of frequent occurrence), the

Holmfirth, Yorkshire, and Jonathan Roebuck, Austonley, and gift would pass the fee. In terms, indeed, the clause

Eli Roebuck, Mossley Brow, Lancashire, woollen cloth manu. goes much further, for it makes a specific gift for life

facturers, July 28 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, pass the fee, if the testator has the fee. The golden rule

div.-Thomas Broadbent, Halifax, Yorkshire, draper, July 28 in dealing with questions of construction is, to abolish

at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, div.-Wm. Brun.

ton, Bradford, Yorkshire, joiner, July 28 at 11, District Court arbitrary regulations and irrational precedents, and

of Bankruptcy, Leeds, div.-Thos. Hind, Sheffield, Yorkshire, leave the Courts to their own discretion.

joiner, July 29 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield, (To be continued).

div.- Charles Bramer, Sheffield, Yorkshire, wood dealer, July

29 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield, div.
London Gazettes.

To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or

before the Day of Meeting.
FRIDAY, July 7.

Robert Burr, Gosport, Southampton, shoemaker, Aug. 2 at BANKRUPTS.

2, Court of Bankruptcy, London. - Thomas Holland, Milner. JOHN WEBB, Rayleigh, Essex, grocer and general dealer. / square, Islington, Middlesex, tobacco broker, Aug. 2 at 1, dealer and chapman, July 17 and Aug. 24 at 1, Court of

Court of Bankruptcy, London.- Charles Henry May, EdgeBankruptcy, London: Or. Ass. Cannan ; Sol. Goren, 29, ware-road, Marylebone, Middlesex, jeweller, July 31 at half.

South Molton-street, Oxford-street.-Petition filed July 6. past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-James Merchant, CHARLES WHITE, Watford, Hertfordshire, sheep and

Foulmire, Cambridgeshire, grocer, July 31 at half past 11, cattle dealer, dealer and chapman, July 17 and Aug. 24 at Court of Bankruptcy, London.-B. R. Waite, Wormwood.

nast 12 Court of Bankruptcy. London: Of Ass. street, London, butcher, July 31 at half-past 1, Court of Whitmore; Sol. Sanger, 4, Essex.court, Temple.--Petition | Bankruptcy, London.-John Wilson, Barking, Essex, corn filed July 5.

dealer, Aug. 2 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London. -Wm. JAMES JOHN NEWNAM and JAMES LEADBETTER, B. George, Gloucester, scrivener, Aug. 1 at 11, District Court

Charlton. Kent, waterproofers. (trading under the style or of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-James Nuttall, James Yates, and firm of Newnarn & Leadbetter), July 15 at 2, and Aug. 26

Charles Nutlall, Rawtenstall, Lancashire, cotton manufac. at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; turers, July 28 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Man. Sol. Sawbridge, 126, Wood-street, Cheapside, London.

chester.-Wm. Dolton, Sutton St. Mary, Lincolnshire, com. Petition filed July 5.

mon brewer, Aug. 8 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, JOHN ELLIS WATKINSON, Halifax, Yorkshire, grocer, Nottingham.-James Potts, Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire,

dealer and chapman, July 21 and Aug. 9 at 11, District confectioner, July 27 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bir. Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off, Ass. Young; Sols. mingham. - John Bates, West Bromwich, Staffordshire, Warell & Co., Halifax.-Petition dated June 29.

builder, July 27 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, BirSAMUEL YOUDS, Birkenhead, Cheshire, joiner and builder,

mingham.-Thomas Hind, Sheffield, Yorkshire, joiner, July July 21 and Aug. 10 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy,

29 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield.-J. Holmes Liverpool: Off. Ass. Bird ; Sol. Bell, Liverpool. - Petition

and Robert Holmes, Sheffield, Yorkshire, builders, July 29 at filed June 30.

| 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield. JOHN WILLIAM WILLIAMS and WILLIAM FISHER To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. WARBRECK, Liverpool, manufacturing chemists, dealers W. Brown, Portsmouth, licensed victualler.-J. Whitehead, and chapmen, (trading under the style or firm of Williams J.Whitehead the younger, and G.Wyatt, Prince's-street, Lam. & Warbreck). July 21 and Aug. 10 at 11, District Court of beth, Surrey, rectifiers.--Mary Long, Clifton, Bristol, hotel Bankruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Turner; Sols. Evans & keeper.-H. E. Harries, Tredegar, Monmouthshire, draper. Son, Liverpool. - Petition filed July 1.

-Robert Williams, Mold, Flintshire, draper.-J. Howard, JOHN GIBSON, Distington, Cumberland, grocer, dealer Great Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and Manningtree and Mistley,

and chapman, July 14 and Aug. 15 at 11, District Court | Essex, shipowner.-S. Sharp and W. L. Middleton, Leeds,
of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Of. Ass. Baker; Yorkshire, printers.--Thomas Booth, Halifax, Yorkshire, inn.
Sols. Musgrave, Whitehaven; Griffith & Crighton, New- keeper.
castle-upon-Tyne.- Petition filed June 26.


J. G. Taylor & Co., Edinburgh, wholesale jewellers.-T.
Henry Crane, Dudley, Worcestershire, grocer, July 27 at Ross, Glasgow, commission agent.-Paterson, Macdonald, &
10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, last ex.-Jas. / Co., Glasgow, commission agents.
Coupe, Preston, Lancashire, joiner, July 19 at 12, District

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, last ex.-Henry Clayburn, James W.R. Hall and Henry Minett, Ross, Herefordshire, Hulme, Manchester, builder, July 31 at 12, District Court of attornies and solicitors.-Charles Lees and George Humble, Bankruptcy, Manchester, last ex.-Robert Burr, Gosport, Bradford, Yorkshire, attornies and solicitors, (under the firm Southampton, shoemaker, Aug. 2 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, of Lees & Humble). London, aud. ac.Thos. Holland, Milner-square, Islington, Middlesex, tobacco broker, Aug. 2 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy,

INSOLVENT DEBTORS London, aud. ac.-- John Wilson, Barking, Essex, corn dealer. Who have fled their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, Aug. 2 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-8.1 and have oblained an Interim Order for Protection from Clarkson Peters, Southampton, draper, Aug. 1 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.- Isaac Blackburn and Wm. Thomas Ashley, Warboys, Huntingdonshire, labourer, July Sigismund stiebel, Leeds, Yorkshire, ironfounders, July 20122 at 10, County Court of Huntingdonshire, at Huntingdon.


« ZurückWeiter »