fectly aware that if it be the wish of the House we shall be quite ready to place before it measures of law reform which would occupy it for several sessions. The only difficulty in the way is that the attention of hon. members is turned to other pressing subjects which have attracted public notice, and that these dry details and changes in the law do not command the attention of the House so much as measures relating to the public health, police, and local government, which directly interest every man in the country, whether he be a litigant or not. This being the case, the only other question to consider is whether the hon. member for Brighton has made out a case for rescinding the Treasury minute which saves the country £12,000 a year, and for putting that sum back into the pockets of the law officers of the Crown. Now, he has adduced no argument in favour of the change, and as assume the law officers are satisfied with it, and as the public gain by it £12,000 a year, why should we revert to the old system in order that there may follow from it the appointment of a very inferior person to assist the Government in advocating their cases in the courts of law. (Hear, hear.) -Mr. VERNON HARCOURT had noticed that morning a remark in the leading journal that the prospects of legal reform in this country were desperate. He might borrow the words from the epitaph in the Abbey, and say sources was a remarkably strong position. The general question was too large to be treated with the levity with which it had been treated to-night. The time would come when the Government of this country would not laugh and jeer at law reform. When the country came to understand its magnitude and importance, its bearing upon the social relations of all classes, and especially of those classes who could not afford expensive litigation, who could not afford justice delayed and denied, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Government in office would treat law reform in a spirit very different from that in which it had been treated to-night. He would vote with the hon. member for Brighton as a protest against the treatment of law reform in this House. After what they had just heard, it was clearly of no use hoping for anything in the shape of law reform from the present Government. He did not hope much before this session; but the experience of this session had taught something. The hon. and learned member for Richmond came forward with a well-considered scheme for the reform of legal education; the law officers of the Crown successively cold-shouldered it, and shoved it out of the House of Commons. Then in the other House was brought forward a measure for the reform of the appellate jurisdiction, with reference to which it was stated that the Lord Chancellor had not consulted the law officers of I thought so once, and now I know it. the Crown. This was another proof of what the (A laugh.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that adused all his wit and rhetoric to ridicule law re-vising the Government upon law reform was a form. The right hon. gentleman had said we very secondary part of their duty, and, with the might have a great deal too much of it, and added fact that they were not consulted with that the House did not wish to occupy itself reference to the Treaty of Washington, the with dry details of that character, being impatient, proposition might be regarded as amply proved. no doubt, for the moist details of the Licensing The second measure of law reform attempted Bill. In what spirit had the right hon. gentleman this session had gone to a select committee approached this great subject, and treated the of the House of Lords, from which it would weighty and forcible remarks of his hon. friend the probably never emerge, certainly not in a member for Brighton? He had treated them with form in which it was likely to be accepted by banter, of which no one could complain, but also with the House of Commons. Then, in this House, the an unfairness of which every hon. member had a Public Prosecutors Bill was brought forward by right to complain. (Hear.) A more complete misap- the hon. member for Cambridge University and the prehension-he would not say misrepresentation- Recorder of London, who were certainly comof a speech he had never known in his life. The right petent to conduct it through its stages. The hon. gentleman said the object of the motion was to little straw nest had been built with great care, restore the system of the remuneration to the law when the Government, like a cuckoo, came and officers which existed before the Treasury minute laid the egg of local taxation in the nest, and excame into force. Now, anything more incorrect pected to have it hatched. (Laughter.) They than that statement of the right hon. gentleman got into difficulty on the subject of local taxation it was impossible to conceive. It had been insisted with an hon. member opposite, they seized upon that a very great part of the duties of the law the unhappy Public Prosecutors Bill in order to officers was in no way connected with their posi- get them out of the difficulty; and that Bill had tion in this House, and if that were so it would be disappeard. This was the end of the chapter of obvious that it would be far better they should not law reform for the present session, and it had be in this House at all. If their business lay been closed to-night by a funeral oration from the chiefly in the courts it would be better to have Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. member men who were principally occupied in the courts. for Southwark had said to him, "Why don't you But this was not the main part of the business try to do something ?" but everybody would see and duty of the law officers. He had always why nobody should try to do anything in the preunderstood they were responsible to the House sent state of affairs. Was it not obvious that, if and the country for the adyice they gave the any practicable proposal were made, an effort Government upon great legal and international would be made to laugh it out of the house; and questions. He was, therefore, surprised to hear that with the success which attended a process the Attorney-General say, in answer to a question that delivered us from the trouble of considering put by the hon. member for Chatham, that in a difficult subject? It was idle to say that these reference to that extremely important transaction, were speculative opinions. We had got the report the Treaty of Washington, the opinion of the law of the Judicature Commission, formed of the most officers had never been taken at all. If that were eminent lawyers and of members of both branches so, no doubt it went a long way towards estab- of the profession, solicitors as well as barristers, lishing the position of the Chancellor of the who had unanimously condemned our system of Exchequer that advising the Crown upon great legal administration, showing that we had the matters of public policy was really a secondary ablest administrators hampered by the worst and almost a non-existent function of the law system that ever cursed a country, and the officers of the Crown. That extraordinary state- greatest expenditure for the most inefficient ment placed the situation of the law officers results. Yet nothing had been done, and altogether upon a new footing. The Chancellor nothing would be done. He could hardly speak of the Exchequer said it would not do to take a of what had been done in the other House as an person who was not a member of the Government effort, for nobody could have expected such a Bill to do the business of the Crown in the courts, to succeed. If the Government would approach the because it was necessary that persons who did subject in a spirit different from that manifested that business should stand in confidential relation to-night, bring in a Bill and stake their reputato the Government; but in point of fact, a very tion upon it, they would stand as much chance of great part of the business of the Crown in the carrying it as they did of carrying some of the courts was not done by the law officers. When measures likely to be brought forward this they happened to be members of the Common Law session. It was quite plain, as the Chancellor of Bar, Chancery business was done upon the system the Exchequer had said, that the question could recommended by the hon. member for Brighton; not be dealt with apart from the political and and, conversely, when they both happened to be judicial situation of the Lord Chancellor; and he members of the Equity Bar they did not go into felt that was an objection to the motion, which the Central Criminal Court to conduct prosecu- was partial and dealt only with a portion of a tions, and common law business was handed over great subject. He knew quite well that all efforts to those practically conversant with it. But when of private members had failed and must fail; and we had a great transaction of a most confidential all the hon. member for Brighton hoped to do was character to conduct, one on which the credit and to stimulate the House to protest against the reputation of the country depended, upon whom existing system. He knew the question of a did the Government rely? Why, upon a most Minister of Justice could not be settled except by eminent member of the Bar, who was not a dealing with the position of the Lord Chancellor, member of the Government because conscientious which, like many things which had come down to convictions stood in the way of his taking a posi- us from antiquity, was wholly indefensible. That tion which he might otherwise have occupied. the head of the judicial bench should go in and (Hear, hear.) In the face of the fact that the out of office with the Government, that there were hon. and learned member for Richmond was at men whom we would choose for the office who were Geneva representing the Government in the most excluded by its conditions, and that it involved a confidential relations, for the Chancellor of the mixture of incongruous functions, were matters Exchequer to get up and say that advice of that the reform of which no amount of ridicule could character could not be obtained from independent long postpone; and it was only by attracting He public attention to them that any pressure could be put upon the Government to deal with them in a practical way. He felt that any scheme dealing with the present question, to be at all satisfactory to the country, must be far larger in its scope than that embraced in the motion of his hon. friend the member for Brighton. It must comprehend not only the reconstruction of the duties of the law officers of the Crown but those of the Lord Chancellor, and probably of the judges themselves. He looked upon it as a matter highly deserving of consideration, when there were acknowledged delays, causing infinite mischief and expense, the cause of infinite injustice, and he thought that he and those who took a similar view should protest, as far as in them lay, against the continuance of such a state of things. The question of the appointment of a minister of justice, so far from being a subject fit for ridicule, was one, he thought, which was of a very serious and practical character. More ought, he believed, to be done to separate judicial from political action in that House. The present state of legislation was, he could not help thinking, a scandal to any civilised assembly. Statutes were passed session after session of a character so conflicting as to astonish, he would not say lawyers, but men of common sense. There was a commission employed in repealing the statutes; but, like Penelope's web, as the commission was trying to unravel the web at one end it was woven at the other, so that the commission panted after Parliament in vain. He was not prepared himself to deal with the question with the thoroughness which he should desire, but he could not sit down without entering his earnest protest against matters of such consequence being treated by a responsible Government in the tone in which they had been treated that evening. (Hear, hear.)-After some observations from Mr. Serjeant SHERLOCK, Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Mr. HINDE PALMER, Mr. STRAIGHT, and Mr. DENMAN Mr. RAIKES said he would give the motion his cordial support. There had existed some confusion in the minds of some gentlemen as to what the functions of a Minister of Justice ought to be. supposed that one of his duties would be to prepare measures of law reform, and to advocate them in Parliament; that he would also appoint the magistracy and be responsible for its proceedings; and that he would likewise advise the Crown as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. At present the distribution of those various duties was very anomalous. The Lord Chancellor was supposed to have charge of law reform; the Home Secretary advised the Crown as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy; and the Attorney and Solicitor General were required in that House to advocate law reforms, in the preparation of which they might not have been consulted, and to which they were sometimes strongly adverse. The present Government had been distinguished by a spirit of perverse parsimony in relation to the administration of the law. What had been their conduct in regard to the office of Queen's Advocate? The ground on which the Government of the day defended their course in respect to the escape of the Alabama, which had caused all these recent troubles, was that the then Queen's Advocate was not in a position to advise them on that occasion. Now, however, the Government saved the entire salary of the Queen's Advocate, and had also cut down the salaries of the Attorney and Solicitor General; and now they had to go into the walks of the profession for an eminent lawyer to represent them at Geneva. The fees they would have to pay, and very properly, to so distinguished a counsel, would, he ventured to say, more than coun terbalance the economy effected by the reductions to which he had referred. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the saving of £12,000 a year was to debar the House from considering that resolution, the recitals contained in which were accepted, not only by many in that House, but by the almost unanimous feeling of people out of doors.- -Mr. GLADSTONE said :-What is the exact purport of the motion on which we are called to vote? The practical and operative part of it is "that it is inexpedient that the Treasury minute should continue in operation beyond the time when the present Law Officers of the Crown remain in office." The hon. and learned member for Oxford says it is not a fair representation of the motion to quote these words, but that it is really a motion that the Treasury minute should be cancelled in order that the whole subject may be reconsidered. If these words, "in order that the whole subject may be reconsidered" be part of the motion, they are written in invisible ink. But even if these words were there, would they mend the matter? Is it really true that plans of the large description which the hon. and learned member desires, and which as regards some important plans I think he is right in desiringwould it be true to say that this Minute ought to be abolished in order that the Government may produce those plans? What is the real difficulty in the way of the introduction of measures of law reform? It is not the want of ability or of readiness to prepare them; it is the crippled position of this House-crippled, I mean, relatively to the enormous other demands on its time and attention. What measure of law reform is there that we could have introduced to the House with a fair prospect of doing justice to it by carrying it into law. The hon. member for Brighton does not adopt the enlargement of the terms of his motion as suggested by the hon. and learned member for Oxford. His complaint against the Government is that we have too much legislation-that we submit to the House measures greater in number and magnitude than can possibly be passed. If that be so, why does the hon. and learned member for Oxford think it worthy of him to enter into these complaints unjust towards the Government and futile as regards the Housethat we have no measures of law reform passed in this House? He knows that it is the duty of the Government to prepare from year to year, and to introduce into the House, those measures which are the subjects of the liveliest and most pressing public interest, and which, in the view of the public opinion of the country, are most urgently demanded. The motion suggests that "it would be inexpedient for the Treasury minute to continue in operation beyond the time when the present law officers of the Crown should remain in office." Now, that as it stands would land us in a difficulty if it were carried. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General do not necessarily quit office at the same time, but the hon. member appears to regard them as analogous to the Siamese Twins, coming into being and going out together. If this motion be carried, and the Government are unfortunate enough to lose the Attorney-General before the Solicitor-General, the latter, besides having achieved the distinction of being the first law officer appointed at the reduced scale, would find that on being promoted to the office of Attorney-General his successor would be appointed on the old scale of remuneration, while he would succeed to the higher position under the existing Minute He would, therefore, have had the honour of being Solicitor-General on the low scale under an Attorney-General at the high scale, and of being a low-paid Attorney-General with a high-paid Solicitor-General. That would be the practical effect of the motion. ("No!") But I am anxious to call attention to a matter which is very imperfectly understood, but which should be made plain in justice to all law officers. An im pression has gone abroad that it is only a limited portion of the time of the Attorney and Solicitor General that the Government secures. I am not surprised that the impression should exist, seeing how distinguished a part the law officers usually bear in conducting the business of the courts; but, after a very long experience in many Governments, and in association with many sets of law officers, I find it difficult to conceive of a misconception more complete. Enormous as are the powers of labour generally displayed by our distinguished lawyers, there is no question as to the relative nature of the claims upon their time. There is a limit to their powers of exertion and to their time; but upon that limited quantity the Government is authorised and entitled to draw, and does draw habitually without any stint whatever, except what is dictated by a regard for human strength. The Government pays no regard whatever to the demands of the private practice of the Attorney or Solicitor General, and no Attorney or Solicitor Genaral has power to obtain from the Government the slightest allow ance on that account. My hon. friend says we have not had the advice of the Attorney and Solicitor General in the matter of the Alabama negociations. That is not a very good argument in support of his case because treaties cannot be dealt with as a matter in which legal advice is required at every turn; but we have had no difficulty in obtaining the advice of my learned friends whenever we required it in connexion with the negotiations between this country and the United States. I do not believe that the whole of our administrative history affords a single example of the Government being in a real difficulty from the want of legal assistance owing to the demands made upon the time of the law officers by their private practice. My hon. friend thinks we have only the leavings of the time at the disposal of the law officers, but the fact that the officers continue in private practice is a direct gain to the Government, because it is the means of preserving the freshness of their knowledge, and assuring that when we want their assistance it shall be not only complete as regards learning and ability, but in accord with the thought and feeling which prevails at the moment when their opinion is given. (Hear, hear.) It is easy to criticise the distribution of the duties appertaining more or less to the law among the various members of the Government. Let it, however, be remembered that the administrative system of this country and the construction of the Executive Government is just as much a peculiar and characteristic part of our institutions, al though not as vital and fundamental a part as the legislative system itself. And it is utterly impossible that any good can be done by mere piecemeal attempts to amend that which, if it is con. sidered at all, must be considered as a whole. The hon. and learned member for Oxford, indeed, has been careful to state that a motion dealing with a portion only of this great question does not command his approval; he votes for the motion as a protest against the existing state of things,and justifies himself by attaching a meaning to the motion which it does not really convey. Many changes are required in our system of judicature which I hope will be seriously considered before attempts are made to alter the position of our law officers. The position of the law officers of this country has been decided by their character from generation to generation, and the fame which they have earned has been no scandal, but an honour and credit to the country. Who are the distinguished men that, as lawyers, have earned a name and place in the history of their country, and have lived to us through fame as a portion of our national patrimony? I don't know whether nine-tenths of them, but certainly very nearly the whole of them, have been law officers of the Crown. I do not wish at all to enter into the particulars of this question. My hon. friend has given notice that he will invite the House to deliver judgment upon the terms of his motion. It is not merely in our interest as a Government, not merely in the interest of all those who will vote with us on this occasion, but it is in the interest of law reform that I feel bound to utter an emphatic protest against the assumption that those who are unwilling to adopt this crude, most impolitic, and most mischievous proposition are therefore hostile, or indifferent, or lukewarm in the matter of an amendment of the law. The House then divided, when there appeared for Mr. Fawcett's amendment, 24; against, 101; majority against, 77. Leave was given to Mr. Whitwell to bring in a Bill for the establishment of Tribunals of Commerce. The Bill was read a first time. Wednesday, June 26. REAL ESTATES (TITLES) BILL. Mr. W. GREGORY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that it was founded on two principles-first, that the present system of the transfer of land was cumbrous, and in the second place, that it was extremely expensive. He regretted very much that the question of law reform had been to a great extent abandoned by the Government, and left entirely in the hands of private members. This question of land transfer was the subject of inquiry by a Royal commission in 1857, which reported that the cost of the transfer of land was 2 per cent. for large and 10 per cent. for small properties. He described the present laborious mode of investigating title by solicitors, who were obliged to make an abstract of all deeds, and describe every change that had taken place in owership for sixty years, which of course could not be done without great expense to the parties. But that was not all. One would have thought that if this had been all properly done and the title established, any further inquiry would be endered unnecessary so far as the possessor himself was concerned; but so far from that if a man wished to mortgage his property or any portion of it, the work had all to be done over again, and fresh expense incurred. He could not help thinking that this was a most barbarous mode of providing for the transfer of land. In 1859 Lord Cairns introduced Bills for the establishment of a court for the declaration of title and for its registry, but, unfortunately, they did not pass. Subsequently, in 1862, Lord Cranworth carried a Bill by which the Court of Chancery was empowered to make a declaration of title, but inasmuch as it was impossible to make it a declaration of an absolute indefeasible marketable title, that Act wholly failed, and became a dead letter. Afterwards Lord Westbury proposed to deal with the question by the construction of a court for the examination and registration of title, giving certain powers to appeal to the Court of Chancery; but that Act was crowded with requisitions; it was requisite that the founders of the title should be defined with mathematical accuracy, and notice was to be served on every tenant and occupier, and to every party to whom any rent was paid. In fact, it was a cumbrous application of the existing powers of the Court of Chancery, and it would be impossible for any one to procure registration of title without long, expensive, and often fruitless litigation. At the same time, under the Bill he proposed there would still be an appeal to the court, and a certificate of title would not be granted until all questions affecting the title had been settled. Of course no alteration could be made in the present mode of land transfer without touching the emoluments of the Profession, but they felt on the whole that their interests were mixed up with those of their clients, and that probably the greater frequency of the transfer of small properties would prove as remunerative to them as the present tedious process of investigating title. What he proposed was to give a thirty or forty years' title, which, being declared and registered, would give a mar ketable title. If an intending purchaser required a copy of the declaration upon which the title was founded, he would be entitled to it, at his own expense. The declaration of title by this Bill was to be binding on all future purchasers and vendors, so that they would be able to buy and sell land with the same ease as they could buy shares in a public company, merely by a short deed of transfer. He admitted that there were some intricate questions necessary to be settled before complete title could be given, such title being sometimes dependent upon contingent events; but those causes would be reserved, and no declaration of title would be given until the contingencies necessary to complete the title had occurred. In regard to boundaries, he proposed that the registrar should have power to dispense with the extreme precision which was now necessary in describing the boundaries of a property, but that the question should be settled by ordinary simple verbal and documentary evidence. He believed that if a greater freedom were allowed in such cases the purchasers would gladly avail themselves of it, and that no more disputes would arise in respect to boundary ques tions than arose now. With respect to encum bered estates, he proposed that second and subse quent mortgagees might apply to the Court of Chancery to have the estate valued and realised, under the settled Landed Estates Act, notwith standing the existence of a first mortgage. When estates were so heavily encumbered that they were really of little or no use to the life tenant, it would be to the advantage of all parties that a portion of them should be sold to relieve the rest. He thought that the plan contained in his scheme was plain and simple, and, looking to the urgent necessity that existed, he hoped that the House would give it a favourable consideration. (Hear, hear.) -After some discussion the motion for the second reading was withdrawn. Thursday, June 27. LAW REFORM. Mr. VERNON HARCOURT gave notice of his in tention, on an early day, to call attention to the reports of the Judicature Commission, and to existing system is costly, dilatory, and inefficient; move that the administration of the law under the that a competent commission having reported that the judicial organization is defective in all its branches, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Go vernment should, in the next Session of Parlia reform and reconstruction, which, without inment, present to this House a measure for its creasing the public charge, shall provide for the more effectual, speedy, and economical adminis tration of justice. 66 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. INJUNCTION-SECRET PREPARATION-USE OF NAME OF INVENTOR ADVERTISEMENT AS ONLY GENUINE."-Any person who, in the absence of breach of trust or fraud, has discovered the mode of making a secret nnpatented prepara tion, may, after the death of the discoverer, make and sell such preparation, and indicate that it is the discoverer's preparation, but not so as to suggest to the public that it is made by the successors in business of the original discoverer; but he is not entitled to use the signature of the original discoverer, and he must not advertise it as the only genuine article, nor suggest that the article manufactured and sold by the successors of the original discoverer is spurious: (James v. James, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 568. M.R.) MORTGAGE OF POLICY OF ASSURANCE-BANK RUPTCY OF MORTGAGOR-LIEN ON POLICY.-The mortgagor of a policy of assurance became bank rupt, but continued to pay the premiums until his death. Held, that the mortgagee was entitled to the policy-moneys subject to the payment to the representatives of the mortgagor of the preminus paid by him subsequently to his bankruptey, together with interest thereon: (Shearman r British Mutual Life Assurance Company, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 570. M.R.) CONTRACT-COVENANT NOT TO CARRY ON TRADE-BREACH OF COVENANT-LORD TENTER DEN'S ACT (GEO. 4, c. 14, s. 5)-INJUNCTION. In April 1870, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff (a milk seller), to serve him at weekly wages for a certain time, and not to carry on the same business on his own account within two miles of the plaintiff's house for two years after quitting his service. At the time of the execution of the agreement, the defendant was a minor, but he represented himself to be of full age, and ho attained his majority eighteen months before leaving the plaintiff's service. He left it in Apr. 1872, and immediately afterwards set up in business within the prescribed limits, and obtained many of the plaintiff's customers. Held, on motion, that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to restrain him: (Cornwall v. Hawkins, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 607. V.C. W.) WALLIS (Edwd.), Knaresborough Lodge, Garratt-lane, Wandsworth, Surrey, horse slaughterer. July 26; H. M. Pike, solicitor, 26, Old Burlington-street, Middlesex. Aug. 7; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. WHITAKER (Jane), Beverley. July 25; Wm. Julian solicitor, Kingston-upon-Hull. Aug. 1; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ADDERLEY (John W.), Borough High-street, Southwark, bootmaker. July 24; Sturiny and Diggles, solicitors, Hibernia-chambers, London-bridge, Southwark. BENNET (Richard), Lower Norwood, Lambeth, Surrey, brewer. July 31; G. S. Warmington, 1, Gresham-buildings, E.C. BIRCH Robert), Esq., Inns of Court Hotel, Holborn, W.C., and Cawte's Hotel, Portsmouth. Aug. 10; T. J. White, solicitor, 20, Usher's Quay, Dublin. BULLER, (Margaret), 22, Highgate-street, Edge-hill, Liverpool. Sept. 1.; Hore and Lynch, solicitors, 5, Commercechambers, 15, Lord-street, Liverpool. STAMP ACT 1870-INDENTURE CONFERRING A LICENCE TO USE CERTAIN MATERIALS CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF STAMP DUTY PAYABLE.-By an indenture made between the Limner Asphalte Company and H., in consideration of £7500, of which £1500 was then paid by H., and the remaining £6000 covenanted to be paid by him to them by monthly instalments of £1000 each, they, the said company, granted to H. the sole right to carry on, with the asphalte to be supplied by the company, the business of asphalte paving, &c., within the counties of Lancaster and Chester. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue claimed to stamp this indenture with an ad valorem duty of £37 10s. in respect of the sum of £7500., and also with a duty of £7 10s. in respect of the sum of £6000, as a covenant for securing the payment of money: FARR Held, that the indenture was not chargeable with such duties, but was subject only to a deed stamp of 10s., and an ad valorem duty of 2s. 6d. per cent. upon £6000: (The Limner Asphalte Company (Limited) (app.) v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue (resps.), 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 633. Ex.) 66 PRACTICE-COSTS-BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1855 (18 & 19 VICT. c. 67)-SEPARATE ACTIONS AGAINST SAME DEFENDANT ON DIFFERENT BILLS. -Where a holder of two separate bills of exchange, each drawn and accepted by the same parties, brings an action upon the bills against each party, he is bound, under the Bills of Exchange Act 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 67), to include both of such bills in one writ; and if he issues a separate writ on each bill, the court will uphold the master in refusing, on taxation, to allow the costs of the second writ and the proceedings thereunder. So held by the Court of Exchequer (Kelly, C.B., and Martin, Bramwell, and Cleasby, BB.): (Jackson v. Fleeman, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 584. Ex.) UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. ITransferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] COOPER (Edward Peter), Bradford, Wilts, gentleman, and MITCHELL (Harriet), Orchard-street, Sturminster, Dorset, widow 263 78. 2d. Three per Cent Annuities. Claimants said Edward Peter CooPER and Harriet LAVINGTON, wife of James LAVINGTON, formerley Harriet MITCHELL. HAMILTON (Major Edward Ford), Greville-honse, Cheltenham, one dividend on the sum of £3214 1s. 10d., Three per Cent Annuities. Claimant Charles HAMILTON one of the executors of Major Edward Ford HAMILTON, deceased. HARVEY (Jas. Berry), Weymouth, comedian, two dividends on the sum of £700 Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimants Edward Wm. Cross and Alexander Cammins Harvey," executors of Jas. Berry Harvey. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. ALBION TRADING COMPANY (LIMITED): Creditors to send in by Oct 19 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to E. Barnett, 131, Minories, E.C., the liquidator of the said company, Nov. 5, at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of V.C. M., is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon each claim. LONDON, WORCESTER, AND SOUTH WALES RAILWAY COMPANY. Petition for winding-up to be heard July 5, before V.C. M. PATENT FUEL COMPANY (WARLICK'S) (LIMITED). Creditors to send in by July 26 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to A. Cooper, 11, George-street, Mansion House, E.C., one of the official liquidators of the said company. Aug. 5, at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of V.C. M., is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. THAMES IRON WORKS AND SHIP BUILDING COMPANY (LIMITED.) Creditors to send in by July 22, their names and addresses, and the particulars of the claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to F. J. Divers, Orchard-yard, Blackwall, Middlesex, the official liquidator of the said company. Aug. 5, at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of the M. R., is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. UNITED AUCTION ADVANCE AND INVESTMENT. winding-up to be heard June 29, before the M. R. Petition for CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. ALDERSON (Wm.), Hereford, wool merchant. July 4; S. Farmer, solicitor, Hereford. July 15; V.C.W., at one o'clock. BUTLER (Chas.), Sussex-place, Old Kent-road, Surrey, undertaker. July 1; Saffery and Huntley, solicitors, 191, Tooleystreet, Surrey. July 10; V.C.W., at one o'clock, CLARKE (Robert E., East Halton, Lincoln, miller. July 11; T. Massey, solicitor, 5, Gray's-inn-square, W.C. FORRESTER (Emanuel), Bucknall, Stafford, yeoman. July 13: Paddock and Son, solicitors, Hanley-in-the-Potteries, Staffs, July 27; M. R., at eleven o'clock. HEELING (Wm), 12, Woodstock-street, Oxford-street, W., pewterer. July 12; Bailey and Co., solicitors, 5, Berner'sstreet, Middlesex. July 26; W.C. W., at twelve o'clock. INSTONE (Samuel), Hampton Court Villa, Acton-vale, Middlesex, gentleman. July 6; Hayter and Co., solicitors, 6, Raymond-buildings, Gray's-inn, W.C. July 12; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. JOHNSTON (John H.), Belsize-square, Belsize-park, Hampstead, Middlesex, gentleman. July 17; S. B. Robertson, solicitor, 6, Crown Office-row, Temple, E.C. July 24; V.C. B.. at twelve o'clock POWELL (Chas.), 133, Wells-street, Camberwell, Surrey, gentleman. July 1; J. Frost, solicitor, 188, Leadenhall-street, E.C. July 8: V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. STENHOUSE (Thos.), 7, East India-avenue, Leadenhallstreet, E.C., and 58, Belsize-park-gardens, Middlesex, July 25; T. Paine, solicitor, 47, Gresham merchant. House, Old Broad-street, E.C. Aug. 6; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. COCKSON (Thos.), Coniston, York, farmer. Aug. 10; Weatherhead and Burr, solicitors, Keighley, Yorkshire. COOKE (Thos, C. W), 76, Upper Berkeley-street, Portmansquare, Middlesex, surgeon. Aug. 1; A. R. Steele, solicitor, 41, Bloomsbury-square, W.C. DARBYSHIRE (Ralph), Esq., 12, Queen Elizabeth's-row, Greenwich, Kent. July 26; Laurie and Co., solicitors, 2, Dean's court, Doctors'-commons, E.C. (Jane) Dunnington, Salford Priors, Warwick, July 31; Hobbes and Co., solicitors, Stratford-upon-Avon. FOSTER (John), Walingate, York, innkeeper and brewer. Aug. 1; W. P. Parkinson, solicitor, 31, High Petergate York. FLETCHER (Jas.), Douglas-street, Litchurch, Derby, engineer. July 20; S. Leech, solicitor, is, Full-street, Derby. GOULDSMITH (Woolley S., 35, Markham-square, Chelsea, Middlesex, dyer, upholsterer, and undertaker. July 31; E. W. Crosse, solicitor, 4, Bell-yard, Doctor's-commons, E.C. GREGORY (Rev. Thomas), B.D., 16, Grove End-road, St. John's-wood, N.W. July 1; J. C. Jeaffreson, 24, Carltonroad, Maida-vale, N.W. HALL (General John), Six Mile Bottom, Cambridge. Aug. 18; Carlisle and Ordell, solicitors, 8, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. HARRIS (Henry), Esq., Longwood, Bingley, York. Aug, 20; Busfield and Atkinson, solicitors, Bradford. HOARE (Jos.), Hayling, North Hayling Island, Southampton, farmer. July 17; Edgecombe and Cole, solicitors, 6, Northstreet, Portsea. HOLLAND (David G.), 36, Jewin-street, E.C., printer. July 20; A. Fleming, solicitor, 40, New Kont-road, E.C. HOLME (Edward), Great Crosby, Lancaster, gentleman. Aug. 5; Horne and Lynch, solicitors, 5, Cominerce Chambers, 15, Lord-street, Liverpool. ter. HUMPHREYS (Sarah A.), Bridge Wharf, Deptford, Kent. Aug. 15; T. D. Francis, solicitor, 4, Monument yard, E.C. KAY (Robert), jun., Dawlish, chemist and druggist. Ang. 17; Pearson and Whidhorn, solicitors, Dawlish. KENDRICK (David), Bilston and Wolverhampton, maltster, grocer, and provision merchant." Aug. 15; Gough and Colebourn, solicitors, 13, King-street, Wolverhampton. KNIPE George F.), M.D., Instones Leigh, Sniton, WorcesAug. 1; F. Knipe, solicitor, Avenue-chambers, Cross, Worcester. LESLIE (Chas. P., Esq., M.P., Glasslough, Monaghan, and 81, Hill-street, Berkeley-square, Middlesex, Aug. 1; R. Murdock, solicitor, 31, College-green, Dublin. LISTOWELL (Dowager Countess), 58. Rutland-gate, Hydepark, Middlesex, and Convamore, Cork. Au. 26; Wynne and Son, solicitors, 46, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. LLEWELLIN (Peter), Clevedon, Somerset gentleman. Sept. I; Whittington and Co., solicitors, 11, Small-street, Bristol. LONGSHAW (John), Beach Priory, Southport, Lancaster, gentleman. Aug. 21; S. Simpson, solicitor, 33, South King-street, Manchester. MOIR (Wm.), Esq., Liverpool, merchant. Aug. 1; Lyne MOUNTJOY (Ruth), 10, Bystock-terrace, Exeter. July 10; PENFOLD (Wm. B., Island of Madeira, merchant. Aug. POTTER (Chas.), Esq., Beech Lawn, Whalley Range, Lancaster. July 20; Cunliffe and Leaf, solicitors, 56, Brownstreet, Manchester. PROTHEROE Samuel R.), Downe-road, Gloucester, captain in H. M. Navy. Sept. 1; Whittington and Co., solicitors, 14, Small-street, Bristol. RUDDACH (Alexander, Esq,6, Magdalen-road, St. Leonardson-Sea. July 2; H. Norris, solicitor, 25, Chancery-lane, W.C. SALTER (John E.), Woodhall Farm, Pinner and Notting SMITH (Miles), Middleham, York, gentleman. July 31; SMITH (Robert), Selby, York, cattle dealer. Aug. 1; A. Bantoft, solicitor, Selby. SNOW (Wm. C., Grinsby. Aug. 1; Miller and Smith, solicitors, 3, Salters' Hall-court, Cannon-street, E.C. STAMP (Wm.), Holloway-street, Exeter, builder. July 10; W. Huggings, solicitor, Paul-street, Exeter, SYMONS (Moses), Esq., 3A. Upper Westbourne-terrace, Middlesex. Aug. 8; Tamplin and Co., solicitors, 159, Fenchurchstreet, E.C. TRACY (Dowdeswell J. E., Esq., Cranford Lodge, Dartford. Kent, and the Stock Exchange, E.C. Aug. 14; T. J. Pitts Tucker, solicitor, Barnstaple, Devon. VIALL (King), Baythorne-park, Birdbrook, Essex. gentleman. Sept. 29; Harris and Morton, solicitors, Halstead, Essex. WALKER (Mary A.), Southsea. July 17; Edgcombe and WARING (Caroline), 66, Queen's-road, Bayswater, Middle- REPORTS OF SALES. Wednesday, June 19. By Messrs. FULLER, HORSEY, SON and Co., at the Mart. A plot of copyhold land, containing la. 2r.-sold for £150. Thursday, June 20. By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING, at the Mart. Islington.-Nos. 39 and 10, Oxford-road, term 81 years-sold for £610. No. 10, Boxworth-grove, term 64 years-sold for £320. Aldersgate-street, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, Albion-place, term 77 years-sold for £285. Old Kent-road, No. 61, Peckham-park-road, term 42 yea -sold for £220. Friday, June 21. By Messrs. FAREBROTHER CLARK and Co. at Newbury. By Messrs. BUTCHER and BOWLER, at the Royal Hotel, Tuesday, June 25. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER. Bayswater.-No. 10, Colville-terrace, term 89 years-sold for £1000. Thornton Heath.-A plot of building land-sold for £600. Woodford.-A freehold ground-rent of £35 4s. per annumsold for £070. By Messrs. JONES and RAGGETT. Southgate.-High-street, three cottages, copyhold-sold for £300. Islington.-No. 21, Gifford-street, term 72 years-sold for £220. Kensington.-No. 10. Addison-road, term 22 years-sold for Wednesday, June 26. $200. By Messrs. HARMAN and KERR, at the Mart. Stoke Newington.-No. 50, Furleigh-road, term 91 yearssold for £320, By Messrs. EDWIN Fox and BOUSTIELD. Kent.-Hawkhurst, Prospect-place, with a cottage and 7a. Ir. 23p.-sold for 1010. The George and Dragon Inn, and la. Or. 29., freehold -sold For £50. Four Inclosures, containing 11a. Or. 20p.-sold for £1020. Inclosures of land, containing 85a. Br. 36p.-sold for £1710. Lydd, Two Cottages, freehold-sold for £57. COMPANY LAW. applicable to a partial cargo was an open policy NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. GAS COMPANY'S PRIVATE ACT-INCORPORATION OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS.-The plaintiffs were one of the gas companies included in the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, and under sect. 36 they had elected to adopt its provisions. In 1868 The City of London Gas Act and the Gaslight and Coke Company's Act, two local Acts, received the Royal assent on the same day. By the former of these two Acts certain provisions in the Act of 1860, concerning the purity and illuminating power of gas, were repealed, and others were enacted in their stead. (Before JAMES STEPHENS, Esq., L.L.D., Judge.) in the Greenwich County Court. By the latter of these two Acts, which was an Act promoted by the plaintiffs, it was enacted that the plaintiffs' company should be and continue subject to the powers and provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, as if this Act were not passed, so far as the same were not varied by this Act; and that nothing in this Act contained should exempt the plaintiff's company or their gasworks from the provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860. It was also enacted that the former of these two local Acts should pass into a law in that session, then the plaintiffs' company and their undertaking should be subject to the provisions of the City of London Gas Act. Held, in an action to recover the price of gas supplied to the defendants, the amount of which depended upon whether the plaintiffs were bound by the provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, repealed by the City of London Gas Act 1868, that the plaintiffs were, by the terms of their Act of 1868, subject to all restrictions imposed upon them for the benefit of the public, by both the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, and the City of London Gas Act 1868: (Gaslight and Coke Company v. The Vestry of St. George's Hanover-square, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 624. Q. B.) MARITIME LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. SALVAGE PUTTING HANDS ON BOARD AGREEEMENT TO PAY EXPENSES.-Putting additional hands on board a vessel in distress, which has been driven out to sea by stress of weather shorthanded, to assist in bringing her into port is a salvage service. The men so placed on board the distressed vessel are the principal salvors, but the owners, master, and crew of the salving vessel are entitled to share in the reward; the owners, however, are entitled only to a small proportion, as their vessel itself does not under such circum. stances render assistance, and the only risk they run is, that she may be shorthanded in bad weather. An agreement entered into between the master of the salving ship and the officer commanding the distressed vessel, by which the latter acknowledges the receipt of the men, and undertakes "to pay all expenses attached thereby, as my vessel is in distress for want of men, and I cannot bring her in without help" is not such an agreement as will oust the right of the salvors to reward, but is an agreement to pay expenses in all events. Semble, even if the agreement did oust the right of the others, it would not affect the right of the men placed on board the distressed vessel. A brig was driven out to sea shorthanded, and after she had been eighty days at sea and much damaged, with only four men on board, two of them disabled, a ship placed on board of her two hands, who assisted in working her till she was brought, after twelve days, into port. The brig and her cargo were of the value of £8174: Held, that this was a salvage service. An award was made of £100., and it was apportioned-to the owners £50; to the master £50; to the crew £100; to the men placed on board the brig £200 (The Charles, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 594. Adm.) INSURANCE- - FREIGHT-PASSAGE MONEY OF COOLIES-PARTIAL LOSS.-Action on a policy of insurance upon freight on a voyage from Calcutta to the Mauritius. The policy was upon "chartered freight valued at £7000 at and from Sydney to Calcutta and London." Defendant underwrote the policy for £1000. On arrival of the ship at Calcutta the charterers stopped payment, and the ship conveyed a cargo consisting of coolies and rice to the Mauritius. Plaintiff got the policy altered, and the interest in freight to be valued at £2000, the sum insured by the underwriter being the same. Plaintiff did not inform the underwriters of his intention to convey the coolies. The ship took coolies and rice to the Mauritius; the freight of the rice being valued at £1412. The vessel was wrecked near the Mauritius and several coolies drowned, the rice being totally lost. The plaintiff claimed as on a total loss, the passage money of the coolies not being "freight" within the policy. The defendants insisted that the passage of the coolies was "freight" insured by the policy, and that they were liable to a proportionate part of the sum assured against. Held, that the passage money of the coolies was not freight within the policy. Held also, that the policy as COUNTY COURTS. SLEAFORD COUNTY COURT. COOPER v. CASSWELL. Jurisdiction-District in which to sue. : having jurisdiction in bankruptcy means the London Court; and in other cases it means the County Court of the district in which the debtor resides or carries on business. The 87th section provides that when the goods of a trader have been sold for more than £50, the sheriff is to retain the proceeds for fourteen days, and on notice, within that time, of a petition in bankruptcy to hold them for the trustee. The sheriff having levied execution on the goods of one M., four days afterwards sold them. The day following he received notice that a petition would be presented against M., in accordance with which a petition was presented, and M. was adjudicated a bankrupt M. was de. scribed as of "The Glen, Sydenham, in the county of Kent," and a]." gentleman," whether a trader or non-trader was not stated; the petition also stated that he did not reside or carry on busi ness in the London Bankruptcy District. It in fact carrying on business in the City of London, was subsequently discovered that M. had been and the plaintiff forthwith, within the time prescribed by the Act, served the sheriff with notice to retain the proceeds of the sale. The sheriff refused to deliver the proceeds to the plaintiff, and upon the trial of the interpleader, a copy of the gect. 10. Held (per Bovill, C.J., Byles and Grove, London Gazette was put in in accordance with J.J.), that on the question of jurisdiction it must be assumed that the County Court Judge had satisfied himself that he had jurisdiction before the adjudication; and, that being so, the court ruptcy Act from questioning his jurisdiction, but were precluded by the 10th section of the Bankthat, as the fact was that the debtor did carry on business in the London district, the plaintiff could claim the proceeds of the sale under the 87th section. Held (per Brett, J., dissentiente), that as the validity of the adjudication required the negative statement of the fact that the debtor did not carry on business in the London district, the trustee, whose title was solely under the adjudica tion, could not say that the bankrupt was a trader in the London district for the purpose of claiming the proceeds of the sale. Semble, the Act dces not provide that a person should be adjudicated a bankrupt in the character of a trader or nontrader, but solely as a bankrupt: (Revell v. Blake, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 578. C. P.) COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. HIS HONOUR delivered the following judgment. : BANKRUPTCY LAW. A NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869 (32 & 33 VICT. c. 71, ss. 10, 59, AND 87)-JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT EXECUTION AGAINST GOODS OF TRADER-TRADER IN LONDON DISTRICT ADJU DICATED IN THE COUNTY COURT.-The 10th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869 provides that a copy of the London Gazette shall be conclusive evidence in all legal proceedings of the debtor having been duly adjudged a bankrupt, and of the date of the adjudication. The 59th section of the same Act provides that if a debtor reside or carry on business in the London district, the court Chief Judge.) Ex parte RHODES; Re JACKSON. Debts provable in bankruptcy. Winslow appeared for the creditor. The proof tendered by Rhodes was for the sum of £1080, being the value of an annuity of £120 for the term of his life, secured by a deed made between the creditor and the debtor, under which the partnership formerly existing between them was dissolved. In the deed by which the annuity was secured, was a covenant framed in very strin gent terms, that should the creditor carry on business within a radius of one hundred miles of the debtor's place of business, or solicit the customers of the late firm, then that the annuity should thereafter cease and determine, and the covenant for securing it become null and void. It was argued on behalf of the debtor that this was a liability depending on a contingency which rendered it incapable of being fairly estimated, and, further, that even supposing it to be capable of valuation, there was no sufficient evidence upon which the amount could be arrived at. His HONOUR held, however, that it was the clear and express intention of the Act to make every sort of obligation or possibility of an obligation to which a bankrupt either was subject at the time of the bankruptcy, or might become subject before the close of the bankruptcy, debts provable in bankruptcy; and that the claim in this case constituted a debt or liability provable and subject to a contingency which did not bear a certain value. His Honour, having regard to the provisions of the Act of Parliament, considered that Mr. Registrar Keene had a discretion in putting an estimate on the proof, and stated that the estimate varied very little from that actually made by the debtor himself. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed. HAY FEVER.-Anthoxanthum, administered as spray, is the most successful remedy, 2s. 6d. per ounce; free by post, 2s. 9d.; or with glass spray producer, 10s. 6d. plated ditto, 14s. 6d.; superior vulcanite ditte, with extra supply of anthoxanthum, 25s. and 29s. 6d.; carmists, 170, Piccadilly, and 48, Threadneedle-street.riage paid.-JAMES EPPS and Co., Homoeopathic Che[ADVT.] LEGAL NEWS. NEW CHANCERY ORDER.-The Lord Chancellor has issued an order that the offices of the Accountant-General be closed from the 20th of August to the 28th of October, except on the 7th, 8th, and 9th of October, when they will be opened for the payment of dividends. THE RUMOURED RETIREMENT OF JUDGE evidences of the unscrupulous nature of the KEOGH.-Among the unhappily too numerous ecclesiastical persecution of Mr. Justice Keogh, is an assiduous propagation of reports that he is about to retire from the bench, and that he will not go on circuit at the approaching assizes. We have authority for stating that both these reports are false.-Dublin Evening Mail. ON Wednesday, at the Mansion House, there was not a single case for investigation. The Lord Mayor, and Mr. Oke, the chief clerk, received each a pair of white kid gloves. The occurrence is extremely rare. Addison, Albert. Angove, J. C. St. Aubyn. Anson, Wm. C. C. Arnold, H. L. Ashworth, George. Barough, A. R. Barwick, John M., B.A. Batters, G. J. Bevan, F. N. Billson, H. Bishton, T. H. H. W. B. Bottomley, Wm. Bray, G. S. Brown, C. B. Brown, P. B. Browne, G. E. Bruff, E. T. Brunnell, Geo., jun. Bush, H. A. Bush, H. G. Bush, J. E. Calkin, J. W. Carter, C. A. Chalmers, J. H. Clark, G. Clegg, John Chas. Cooke, Samuel Corbett, Joseph. Corbin, Josh. J. Copham, S. G. C. Cotton, R. Crawford, H. H. Darlington, L. J. de V. Davies, C. E. Davis, C. T. C. Davis, Mark. Dawson, P. W. Day, Wm. Deacon, C. F. Dixon, Thos. Donague, John. Donague, Wm. Downes, J. S. Martin, James. Merriman, T. M. Neale, C. V. W., B.A. Pook, H. W. J. Proctor, Wm. Rees-Mogg, Wm. W. Reynolds, F. W. Risdon, W. Downing, G. C. Rooker, S. L. Drew, G. B. H. Dyson, Herbert. Eage, H. T. Edwards, Martin. Evans, Ivor. Fellows, Samuel Thos. Foss, F. Francis, Wm. R. Fraser, Edwd. Hy. Freeman, John J. Fretson, F. J. Roscoe, Hy. Rudland, Wm. Jones. Thropp, Fredk. CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. NOTE.-This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. CONDITIONS OF SALE.-The recent equity case caution on the part of purchasers or bidders at a of Torrance v. Bolton shows the necessity for that the conditions of sale should be published public auction. In that case Malins, V.C., decided before the auction, so that intending purchasers should have notice sufficient to prevent them from buying under a mistaken impression. I hope that this judgment will cause more care in the preparation of these documents, although, even then, a vendor may damage the sale by interference, as the following case, which occurred within my experience, testified. Conditions of sale had been prepared carefully by counsel and the vendor's solicitor, especially with reference to a pump and right of way belonging to several cottages offered for sale, and these printed conditions had been widely circulated. Shortly before the sale the vendor and his wife visited the premises, and, believing that a certain alteration would improve the sale, it was made accordingly, and pen and ink variations were made in the conditions in the auction room. All the cottages were sold, but through some blunder or mistake the pump was sold to the wrong purchaser, who refused to rescind the contract. Consequently another purchaser refused to complete, not having the use of the pump, which he had intended to have; and legal proceedings ensued. Subsequently a compromise was effected, the auctioneer and vendor's solicitor paying the vendor's costs, for the sake of peace, although, I believe, not liable, legally or equitably, to do so. It was a case where the loss was caused by the vendor's own act, as is often the case where a solicitor is blamed by his client. In the case of Freme v. Wright (4 Madd. 364), referred to in Bythewood's Conv. by Jarman, vol. 9, Sir J. Leach offered a purchaser an inquiry as to the opportunity afforded to him to inspect the abstract of title before the sale, where it had been advertised as ready for inspection. Conditions of sale should invariably be part and parcel of the document which describes the property offered for sale, in town or country. CHR. COOKE. NOTES AND QUERIES ON POINTS OF PRACTICE. Answers. (Q. 19.) WILL.-By statute 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, for feiture for treason or felony was abolished after July 4th, 1870: see Archbold, Pleading, &c., 17th edit. p. 177. But by sect. 6 of this statute, the convict cannot deal with his property during the continuance of his punishment, and provisions are made for its return to him, or to his representatives, subsequently, subject to all just The corporation of the City of London claims, &c. claims, or did claim, the right to the goods of all felons £100 share of the deceased intestate felon should be Subject to all convicted within their jurisdiction. such claims, it seems that, in the case mentioned, the equally divided between his four co-legatees. The statute does not affect the law of forfeiture consequent upon outlawry, and only applies to cases, from and after and chattels occurred on a conviction of felony and 18 & 19 Vict. c. 126: see Stephen's Comm. vol. iv. larceny, under 10 & 11 Vict. c. 82; 13 & 14 Vict. c. 37; or pp. 419-20. July 4th, 1870. Before that time, forfeiture of goods verdict of self-murder, but not on a conviction for C. C. (Q 24.) DOWER.-I can find no case in Cruise's Digest English tenant of her dower, but by this custom, or elsewhere, which deprives the wife of a boroughaccording to Coke Litt. 33, 111, cited in Bacon's Abridg ment, vol. 1, p. 782-3, the widow shall have "the whole of her husband's lands in dower, which is her freebench, and this is given to provide for the younger children, with the care of whom she is entrusted." This tenure still prevails extensively in England and Wales: see Robinson's Gavelkind, 3rd edit., Watkins on Copyholds, Notes and Queries, S. 1, vols. 4 and 5-S. 2, vol, 5, also Jacob's and Tomlins's Law Dictionary. In the latter work, vol. 1 (Dower), it is stated, that dower by custom may be one-third, or a moiety, or even a fourth part, Co. Litt. 33. By custom, a boroughEnglish tenant might be entitled to similar shares in the husband's realty, it seems, as the statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 105, did not alter dower by custom. C. C. be misled by the incorrect answers given in your last (Q.31.) INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION.-C.W. must not week's issue. In the month of July in every year the text books are selected for the next year, and their names may be obtained from Mr. E. W. Wiliamson, the secretary to the Incorporated Law Society. This year they are Williams Real Property, Smith's Manual of Equity, and in Chitty on Contracts, the first and third chapters, omitting section 1 of chapter three, also Mercantile Book-keeping, in which no book is selected. The books for next year will be selected as usual in July next, but will probably be the same as this year. W. S. C. is incorrect in thinking that the first chapter whole work was selected. Of course, the answer of only of Chitty is to be read; and C. in writing as if the H. L. is utterly absurd. M. A. R. (Q. 36.) FINAL EXAMINATION.-Undoubtedly an Articled Clerk can be examined in Michaelmas term. My articles expired in August, and I passed my examin ation in Trinity term. S. B. S. NOTICE.-We must remind our correspondents that this PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS column is not open to questions involving points of law such as a solicitor should be consulted upon. Queries will be excluded which go beyond our limits. N.B.-None are inserted unless the name and address of the writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona fides. Queries. 39. COUNTY COURT PROCEEDINGS.-I should like to take the opinion of yourself and the subscribers to the the Law Times as to the following point in practice. It must be well known to them and you, that in the County Court, when a defendant resides out of the district, on, making his claim to the registrar that the cause of attion, or some material part of it, arose within the district, he can give leave for a summons to issue. Now a client of mine receives a bill of exchange for £20, from a person in the north of England, in payment of certain goods. This bill is made payable (by the party who was the acceptor and who sent it) at a Loudon banker's. The drawer pays it into his county bankers; they present it in London, and it is dishonoured, and returned into the County bank back to my client. He wishes to sue the acceptor on the bill itself, for the money due, in the County Court, alleging that the bill itself was the cause of action as against the acceptor, but the registrar declines to grant leave. Is the registrar right or wrong in so doing? SUBSCRIBER TO THE "LAW TIMES." 40. LAW TERMS.-I shall feel greatly obliged to any of your readers who will tell me what is the best work on Definitions of Law Terms. [Wharton's Law Lexicon.-ED.] ALPHA. 41. DEED OF GIFT.-A., an old widow lady, by deed of gift, conveys to B. (her grandson) both household furniture and real estate. Please say (1) whether the deed should be acknowledged, (2) whether the deed should be registered under the Bills of Sale Act, and A. B. C. (3) what should be the stamp. 42. ARTICLED CLERK.-I should be glad to hear if some of your readers know of a case where an articled clerk has been enrolled with an additional christian name to that which is stated in his articles, for instance, suppose I am articled as John Brown, can I be enrolled as John Smith Brown, and if I can, what is the course to adopt? Reference to cases will oblige. N.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature of advertisemetts, are charged 2s. 6d. each, for which postage stamps should be inclosed.] MR. CHARLES FORD, of Howard-chambers, Howard-street, Strand, has been appointed Honorary Solicitor to the Royal Junior Naval Professional Association, lately established at Portsmouth. Mr. C. Ford, is the son of Mr. R. W. Ford of Portsmouth. THE GAZETTES. Bankrupts. Gazette, June 21. Pet. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. BURNAND, EDWARD, pianoforte dealer, Mile End-rd. June 19. Reg. Hazlitt. Sols. Dalton and Co., St. Clement'shouse. Sur. July 5 DE VRIES, PETER KLAGES, provision merchant, Great Tower-stbldgs, Beer-la. Pet. June 17. Reg. Brougham. Sol. Plunkett, Gutter-la. Sur. July 5 READER, WILLIAM, fire-proof safe manufacturer, Cullum-st. To surrender in the Country. |