of various sums which had been applied towards the advancement, maintenance, and education of the infant. Upon a petition by the grandson, who had since attained twenty-one, held, that he was absolutely entitled to the legacy of £5000, and

was also entitled to have the sums advanced thereout for his maintenance and education recouped out of his share of the interest of the residuary estate: (Furley v. Hyder, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 864. V.C. B.)

-

sold for £300.

By Messrs. C. C. and T. MOORE. Bow,-No. 3, Clarendon-terrace, term 58 years-sold for £850. Commercial-road.-No. 45, Bromley-street, term 36 years— Mile-end-road-A fourth share of houses yielding £23 8s. 5d. per annum, freehold-sold for £100, Rotherhithe.-Nos. 1 to 6, Cow-lane, freehold-sold for £100. By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at Guildhall. King's-cross.-A ground rent of £15, term 35 years-sold for

£200.

Somersetshire, Dulverton.-A freehold mill, with dwelling

house-sold for £120.

By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, CLARK, and Co. at the Mart. near Egham.-An enclosure, containing 4a. Ir. 35p. High-street.-A freehold house, with garden-sold for £350. Three plots of land, containing 3a. Or. 24p.-sold for £675. A farmhouse, with cottages, &c., and 32a. 2r. 32p.-sold for £3800. Two cottages, and la. Or. 28p., freehold-sold for £340. St. Ann's Heath.-A freehold cottage, and la. Or. 28p.-sold for £300. Two plots of land, containing 2a. Ir. 24p.-sold for £330. Callow-hill.-Enclosures of land, containing 68a. 3r. 1p.-sold A cottage, and 3a, Sr. 25p., freehold-sold for £300. for £5250.

Tuesday, Aug, 13.

Notting-hill.-A freehold ground rent of £21 10s. per annum By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER.

WILL-ANNUITIES-GIFT OVER OF CAPITAL TENANT FOR LIFE OF RESIDUE-CESSER OF ANNUITIES CONVERSION OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST MOURNING. - Testator gave the residue of his personalty to trustees upon trust for conversion, with power to postpone Surrey, near Egl such conversion, and directed that a sum of £10,000 should be lent to W. at interest, and various life annuities paid out of such interest, and when all the annuitants should have died, that certain charitable legacies should be paid out of the £10,000. The residue of his estate to be invested, and the income paid to his wife for life. The £10,000 was lent to W., and subsequently paid off by him and invested by the trustees, and the dividends applied in paying the annuities. Some of the annuitants having died, Held, that the tenant for life was entitled absolutely to such part of the income of the £10,000 as had been and during her life would become released by the deaths of any of the annuitants. Part of the testator's estate consisted of a contingent reversionary interest in £3000, which was sold by the trustees seven years after the testator's death. Held, that the reversion must be valued as at the time of the testator's death, and interest on the valuation at four per cent. from testator's death paid to the tenant for life. A considerble outlay had been made in providing mourning and mourning and mourning jewellery for some of the lega tees. Held, that the amount paid for mourning should be allowed, but not for the mourning jewellery. (Gibbs v. Gibbs, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 865. V.C. B.)

-

JURISDICTION - SUIT AGAINST AGENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-POWER OF COURT TO PROTECT FUND IN THIS COUNTRY-EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT-CONTRACT-CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO RELIEF.-The plaintiff contracted with the French Government for the supply of certaiu goods, and a firm of bankers, acting as the agents of the French Government in this country, informed the plaintiff by a letter, that "a special credit" for £40,000 had been opened by them in his favour, to be paid rateably as the goods were delivered, upon receipt of certificates by the officers of the French Government. Eventually, and before the completion of the contract, the French Government withdrew the credit, without the plaintiff's consent. Upon bill filed by the plaintiff against the bankers to restrain them from parting with the fund on the ground that the fund had been in fact assigned to him, and specifically appropriated for the payment of the contract moneys: Held (affirming the decision of Malins, V.C.) that the bankers were liable as stakeholders, and that, although the fund had been deposited by a foreign government, which was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, yet the fund itself had become subject to the jurisdiction of the court, yet the fund itself had become subject to the jurisdiction, and that the court had power to prevent its being withdrawn. Although no certificates of reception had been given, the plaintiff could not be deprived of his right to receive payment for all cartridges delivered under the contract; but as the cartridges had not all been delivered within the time stipulated, and there was no satisfactory evidence that the time had been extended, an inquiry must be directed on this point. The argument that the bankers might be held liable in France for any money which they might pay in pursuance of the order of the Court of Chancery could not be regarded, as the comity of nations would no doubt cause any French court to respect the orders of this court: (Lariviere v. Morgan, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 859. Ch.)

REPORTS OF SALES.

Tuesday, Aug. 6.

By Messrs. DRIVER, at Newcastle-on-Tyne. Northumberland, on the borders of Durham.-The Whittonstall Estate of 8750 acres, freehold, with manors of Newlands and Whittonstall-sold for £116,000.

Near Bamburgh Castle.-The Spindleston Estate of 1055 acres, freehold-sold for £80,000.

By Messrs. CHINNOCK, GALSWORTHY, and CHINNOCK, at Horsham. Sussex, near West Grinstead.-The Woldringfold Estate of 271a. 3r. 2p.-sold for £12,200.

Billingshurst, near.-A plot of land, containing 5 acres-sold for £200.

Two plots, containing 44 acres-sold for £25.

Midhurst, near.-The advowson to the Rectory of Heyshot and Stadham-sold for £1500.

West Grinstead, near.-The advowson to the Vicarage of Shipley-sold for £1570.

Tithe rentcharges amounting to £531 1s. 5d. per annumsold for £7505.

Wednesday, Aug. 7.

By Messrs. EDWIN Fox and BOUSFIELD, at the Mart. Notting-hill.-No. 250, Portobello-road, term 93 years-sold for £100.

-sold for £125.

No. 15, Durham-place, freehold-sold for £110.
No. 25, Upper Uxbridge-street, freehold-sold for £300.
Freehold ground rent of £33 168.-sold for £70.
Lambeth.-No. 58, Bird-street, freehold-sold for £250.
Hoxton.-No. 6, Holt's-place, freehold-sold for £20.
Limehouse.-Nos. 29 and 30, Ropemakers'-fields, freehold-
sold for £245.

for £300.

St. Giles's.-No. 5, Little White Lion-street, freehold-sold
By Messrs. DRIVERS, at the Mart.
Piccadilly.-No. 6, in the Albany, freehold chambers-sold
for £900.
Kent, near Tonbridge.-The manors of East Farleigh and
East Peckham with their rights-sold for £120.
South Norwood.-Nos. 1 and 2, High-street, freehold-sold
for £3000.
Selhurst-road.-The freehold villa, Shannon Lodge-sold

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE
BANK OF ENGLAND.

Transferred 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.]
BERNERS (Capt. Hugh), Royal Navy, CAPPER (Rev. Geo.),
Wherstead, Suffolk, and THOMPSON (Edward), Salter's
Hall, London, gentleman. £198 28. 8d. Three Per Cent.
Annuities. Claimants, said Capt. Hugh Berners and
STOREY Mary Ann), Walham.
Edward Thompson, the survivors.

£1000 Three Per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said Mary Ann Storey.

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN.

RUSHTON (Ann), Edgbaston, Warwick, spinster. Next of kin, to come in by Oct. 30, at the chambers of the M. R. Nov. 6, at the said chambers at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. WAUDBY (Arthur John), 58, Kentish Town-road, Middlesex, artist, next-of-kin and heir-at-law, to come in by Nov. 1, at the chambers of V.C. M. Nov. 11, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims."

WAUDBY (Geo.), late a chaplain on board H.M.S. Exmouth. Heir-at-law and next of kin, to come in by Nov. 1, at the chambers of V.C. M. Nov. 11, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims."

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY,
LAST DAY OF PROOF.
ANDREW (Philip), Swansea, Glamorgan, brewer. Oct, 8;
R. Ward, solicitor, Leominster. Nov. 1; M. R., at eleven
o'clock.
BLACKWELL (John K.), Esq. 78, Gloucester-terrace, Hyde-
park, Middlesex, Oct. 21; Emmett and Son, solicitors, 14,
BOWER (Joseph), Peterborough, corn merchant. Oct. 1;
Bloomsbury-sq., W. C., Nov. 2; N. C. W., at 12 o'clock.

George Burton, solicitor, Huntingdon. Nov. 4; V.C. W., at three o'clock.

CARTER (Thos.), Netheravon, Wilts, grocer, Sept. 30; Samuel Wittey, solicitor, Devizes. Nov, 2; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

DAVIES (Thos.), Cwrtherbert, Llanddewibrefi, Cardigan, sheep dealer. Sept. 16: David Lloyd, solicitor, Lampeter, Candigan. Nov. 8; V.C. B. at twelve o'clock. DAVIS (Samuel), Sevenhampton, near Highworth, Wilts, Wilts, yeoman. Oct. 1; Jas. Broad, solicitor, Bristol. DIXON (William S.), Lea-gate, Lea, Lancaster, a retired Nov. 6; V.C. W., at one o'clock. innkeeper. Sept. 29; Maxted and Gibson, solicitors, Lancaster. Nov. 7; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. GAMBLE (Geo.), 25, Spencer-street, Everton-road, Liverpool, engineer; Oct. 1; A. Kerrison, solicitor, Norwich, Nov. 6; M. R., at twelve o'clock.

HALL (John), Bury, Lancaster, cotton spinner. Oct. 25; J. H. Bullock, solicitor, Manchester. Nov. 6; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

HARPER (Jos.), Harper's-place, Vauxhall-bridge-road, Westminster, builder. Oct. 1; Graham and March, soli. citors, 26, Charles-street, St. James's-square, MiddlesexNov. 1; M. R., at eleven o'clock. HARRINGTON (Right Hon. Leicester F. C. Earl of), Elvaston Castle, Derby; and Harrington House, Kensington Palace-gardens, Middlesex. Sept. 30; M. K. Braund, solicitor, 3, Furnival's-inn, Middlesex. Nov. 4; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

HEWARD (Jos. E.), Esq., 28, St. George's-place, Hyde-park, Middlesex. Sept. 30; R. Skeet, solicitor, 7, South-square, Gray's-inn, Middlesex. Nov. 12; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

HOLBROOK (Thos. H.), Medmenham, Bucks., hotel keeper, Oct. 5, H. M. Cotton, solicitor, 46, Chancery-lane, Middlesex. Oct. 31, V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. HOLDICH (Wm.), Ludgate-hill, E.C. Oct. 1; T. H. Bolton, solicitor. 11, Gray's-inn-square, Middlesex. Nov. 5; V.C. W., at one o'clock.

JONES (Elizabeth), 9, Waterford-terrace, Fulham, Middlesex. Oct. 10: Chapman and Co., solicitors, 21, Lincoln'sinn-fields, W.C. Nov. 9; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

JONES (Geo, Esq., Rosherville, Kent, Oct. 1; T. Southgate, solicitor. 7, King's Bench-walk, Temple, E.C. Nov. 5; V.C. B, at twelve o'clock.

LAMBERT (Jos. A.), formerly of Hobart Town, Van Diemen's Land, innkeeper, and late of Farncombe, Godalming, Surrey, gentleman. Oct. 1; H. Potter, soicitor, Farn ham. Nov. 1; M. R., at eleven o'clock. LAMPLUGH (Samuel), Kilham, York, farmer. Oct. 10: Fos ter and Co., solicitors, Great Driffield. Nov. 8; V.C. W. at twelve o'clock.

LONG Edwin S.), Southsea, Hants, brewer. Oct. 10; Thos. Rawlins, solicitor, Wimborne. Nov. 6; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

MACNICOL (Nicol), 54, Norfolk-square, Paddington, Middlesex, and Calcutta, and Howran, Calcutta, shipbuilder and dock proprietor. Creditors resident elsewhere than in the East Indies on or before Oct. 9, in the East Indies Dec. 9. Oct. 30; at the chambers of V.C, M., at twelve o'clock. Dec. 20; at the said chambers at twelve o'clock. MEACHAM (Thomas), 1, The Circus, Greenwich, Kent, and 2, New London-street. Fenchurch-street, E.C., engineer. Oct. 1; R. Miller, solicitor, 6, Copthall-court, E.C. Oct. 31 M. R., at twelve o'clock.

MORRIS (Jos.), St. John's Hill, Shrewsbury, Oct. 10; H. Morris, solicitor, Shrewsbury, Nov. 8; V. C. W., at twelve o'clock.

MORRIS (Thomas), Witney, Oxford, superviser of excise Oct. 10; H. H. Field, solicitor, Swansea. Nov. 7; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

PARSONS (John), Pylle, Somerset, gentleman. Oct. 21; John T. Nicholetts, solicitor, South Petherton, Somerset. Nov. 4; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

ROBINSON (Mary A., 21, Roya-crescent, Bath. Oct. 7: Western and Sons, solicitors, 7, Great James-street, Bedford-row, Middlesex. Nov. 2; M. R.. at eleven o'clock. ROBINSON (Wm.), Clifton, Westmoreland, farmer. Oct. 1; Arnison and Co., solicitors, Penrith; Nov. 1, M. R. at eleven o'clock.

SCHOLEY (Wm.), 5, Billiter-square, E.C., and 1, Cunninghamplace, St. John's Wood, Middlesex, tobacco broker, Oct. 19: C. R. Rivington, solicitor, 1, Fenchurch-buildings, Fenchurch-st, E.C., Nov. 4; V. C. B., at twelve oclock. SMITH (Elizabeth), Perry-rise, Sydenham, Kent. Sept. 2: Prior and Co., solicitors, 61, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex. Nov. 9; M. R., at eleven o'clock.

STUART (Major Robert R.), Kampstall, Madras, India, Jan. 11; Wm. Hill Booty, solicitor, 1, Raymond-buildings. Gray's-inn, W.C.; Jan. 29, W. C. M., at twelve o'clock. THOMAS (Jenkin J.) Cliffe Villa, Ferryside, Carmarthen, gentleman, Nov. 1; at the chambers of V. C. W., Nov. 6; at the said chambers at 12 o'clock.

VYSE (Richard, Luton, merchant and straw hat manufac turer, Sept. 19; Gregory and Co., solicitors, 1, Bedtordrow, W.C.; Nov. 1, V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. WALLER Maria), 1, Windsor terrace, Buckland, near Dover. Oct. 1; R. H. Dawe, solicitor, Plymouth. Nov. 4; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

WANDLEY (John), 58. Kentish Town road, Middlesex, artist. Oct. 1; Capes and Chadwick, solicitors, 39, Carterlane, Doctors'-commons, E.C. Nov. 11; V.C. M., at

twelve o'clock.

WAYLETT (Win.), North Weald Bassett, near Harlow, Essex, gentleman. Oct. 1; M. K. Brand, solicitor, 3, Furnival'sinn, E.C. Nov. 5; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. WHEELDON (William), Berriew, Manafon, Montgomery, farmer. Sept. 10; E. W. Hollingshead, solicitor, Tunstall. Oct. 30; M. R., at eleven o'clock. WOODHOUSE (Wm. H.), Liverpool and Irnham-hall, Lincolnshire, wine merchant. Oct. 1; Collyer-Bristow and Co., solicitors, Nov. 1: 4. Bedford-row, Middlesex. V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. WOODHOUSE (Wm.), Toxteth Park, near Liverpool, wine merchant. Oct. 1; Collyer-Bris tow and Co., solicitors. 4, Bedford-row, Middlesex. Nov. 4; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

WOOD (Thos.), Colley-gate, Cradley, Halesowen, Worcester. gentleman. Sept. 30; Jos. Walker, solicitor, Stourbridge. Nov. 6; V.C. W., at two o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. BEARDMORE (Geo. A.), Old Bastord, Notts, bleacher. Sept. 2; Hunt and Son, solicitors, Weekday-cross, Notts. BERNABEN (Maria), Zinzan terrace, Reading, Berks. Sept. 1; W. W. Gabriel, solicitor, 43, Lincoln's-inu-fields, W.C.

BIGGENDEN (John), 42, Milner-square, Islington, Middlesex. and of Sheddet Farm, East Peckham, Kent, solicitor. Sept. 12; J. P. Biggenden, solicitor, 5, Walbrook, E.C. BLACKBURN (Henry), Esq., The Hollands, Speldhurst, Kent. Sept. 14; F. Ayerst, solicitor, 2, Great College-street. Westminster, S. W.

BLYTH (Matthew), East Dereham, Norfolk, farmer, Dec. 7; A. Day, solicitor, Upper Surrey-street, Norwich. CRADDOCK (Elizabeth S., Love-lane, Mitcham, Surrey. Sept. 9; G. H. Hogan, solicitor, 23, Martin's-lane, Cannon street, E.C.

DEANE (Ralph,), Esq., Eastcote House, Middlesex. Oct. 1;
Walters and Co., solicitors, 9, New-square, Lincoln's-inn
DELME (Frances A.), Cams Hall, Fareham, Southampton.
Sept. 2; Edgar Goble, solicitor, Fareham.

DE THIERRY, (Adolphe Baron), Wiesbaden, Prassi, Aug. 24;
Lawrence and Co., solicitors, 14, Old Jewry, E. C.
DICKENS (Sydney S. H. M.'s Ship Topaze, a lieutenant,
Dec. 31; Richardson and Sadler, solicitors, 28, Golden-
square, W,
DILLON (Garrett), M.D., 6, Bryanston-street, Hyde-park.
Middlesex. Sept. 30; Evans and Co., solicitors, 2, Gray's-
inn-square, W.C.

FLEMING (John B. W., Esq., Stoneham Park, and Chilworth Manor House, Southampton, High Sheriff of the said county. Oct. 1; J. Burgin, solicitor, 8, John-street, Bedford-row, Middlesex.

FISHWICK (John), Liverpool, tobacco manufacturer. Oct.
1; T. Houghton, solicitor, 32, Lord-street, Liverpool.
GALE (Rev. m. W.), Ilchester, Somerset. Sept. 20; Geo.
Tuson, solicitor, Ichester.

GODDARD (Richard), Templeton, near Hungerford, farmer.
Sept. 1; Peacock and Goddard, solicitors, 3, South-square.
Gray's-inn, Middlesex.
GRIFFITHS (Edward P.), formerly of Calcutta, late of North
Lodge, Teddington, Middlesex, merchant and broker.
Sept. 12; Ellis and Crossfield, solicitors, 16, Mark-lane,
E.C.
HARFORD (Louisa), Blaise Castle, Henbury, Gloucester.
Sept. 16; Cooke and Sons, solicitors, Shannon-court,
Bristol.
HARPIN (John), Holmforth, West Riding, York, stone mer-
chant. Sept. 14; Brook and Co., solicitors, New-street,
Huddersfield.
HEDGER Rosetta), formerly of Young-street, Kensington-
square, Middlesex, late of Allen-terrace, Kensington.
Oct. 10; H. M. Sparham, solicitor, 104, Ironmonger-lane,
E.C.
KEEBLE (Henry), 61, Tavistock-crescent, Westbourne-park,
Middlesex, gentleman. Sept. 28; J. L. Dale, solicitor, 8
Furnival's-inn, E.C.

HODGSON (Richard), Hawkwood, Chingford, Essex, gentle . man. Sept. 1: Kingsford and Dorman, solicitors, 23. Essex-street, Strand, Middlesex.

HOLMES (James) Market Weighton, York, gentleman. Sept. 28; Lambert and Co., solicitors, 8, John-street, Bedfordrow, Middlesex.

HORLOCK (Thos.), West Creech, Steeple, Dorset, yeoman.
Sept. 6; R. D. Marshfield, solicitor, Wareham.
HORROCKS (Eliza), Merlewood, Cartmeal, Lancaster. Sept.
10; Shuttleworth and Son, solicitors, Preston.

HUGHES (Richard), Esq., Morden Lodge, Morden and
Mitcham, Surrey. Sept. 15; Price and Co., solicitors, 1,
New-square, Lincoln's-inn, Middlesex.
HUSSEY (Thos.), Waybrook, Exminster, Devon, auctioneer.
Oct. 1; W. Huggins, solicitor, 29, Pane-street, Exeter.
JACKSON (Wm.), Esq., Lancaster. Sept. 2; Maxted and

street, E.C.

Gibson, solicitors, Lancaster. JAMES (Ann F.), late of 26. Pulteney-street, Bath, and formerly of 4, Chesterfield-place, Weymouth. Hargrove and Co., solicitors, 44, Coleman-street, E.C. Sent: 0; JENNINGS (Reginald). Bishops Stortford, Herts, gentleman, Oct. 25; Thos. Unwin, solicitor, Sawbridge, Northants. JERDON (Thos. C.), 2. St. Aubyn's-road, Upper Norwood, Upper Norwood, Surrey, surgeon. Nov. 1; 0. Leefe, solicitor, 60, Lincoln's-in-fields, W.C. KENDALL (Edward), Esq., 6, Lansdowne-terrace, Cheitenham. Sept. 21; Dawes and Sons, solicitors, 3, Angelcourt, Throgmorton-street, E C. LANCASTER (Henry), 109, Old Town, Croydon, formerly of High-street, Croydon, chemist. Sept. 7: G. H. Hogan, solicitor, 23, Martin's-lane, Cannor street, E.C. Levi (George), 93, Vyse-street, Birmingham, jeweller. Sept. 30; C. Davies, solicitor, 23, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham. MADDEN Henry N.), He-vitree, and of Torquay, gentleman. Sept. 26; Hill and Son, solicitors, 23, ThrogmortonMARCON (Lonisa A.), East Dereham, Norfolk. Nov. 1; Cooper and Norgate, solicitors, East Dereham. MENTEATH (Lieut.-Col. William S.), formerly of 113, Chepstow-place, Bayswater, Middlesex, and late of the Rookery, Simlah, East Indies. Sept. 30; E. W. Crosse, solicitor, 4. Bell-yard, Doctor's-commons, E.C. MILLS Henry), formerly of Egham, Surrey, builder, and late of Feltham, Middlesex, out of business. Oct. 10; Barnard and Co., solicitors, 8, Lancaster-place, Strand. OGILVIE (Adam), Esq., 116, Gloucester-terrace, Hyde-park, Middlesex. Sept. 10; Oldershaw and Son, solicitors, 18, King's Arms-yard, Moorgate-street, E.C. PEGG (Jas.), 32, Great St. Helen's, Bishopsgate-streetwithin, E.C.; and Tudor House, Lee, Kent, shipowner. Sept. 16; Tyas and Huntington, solicitors, 15, King-street, Cheapside, E.C. PHILIP (Robert), Bellevue-terrace, Pembroke Dock, Pem. broke, formerly of Hill-street, Pembroke Dock, dockyard pensioner. Oct. 7: Miller and Miller, solicitors, 5, Sherborne-lane, E.C. RAYMOND (Dudley), Hastings, Sussex, a Lieutenant in Her Majesty's 14th Regiment of Foot. Sept. 1C; Ellman, Raper, and Ellman solicitors, Battle, Sussex. SEWELL (Dame Georgina H.), 2, Blenheim-villas, Richmond, Surrey. Ang. 28; Lambert and Co., solicitors, 8, John street, Bedford-row, Middlesex. SHAW Geo. A.), Carlton-terrace, Heaton Norris, and 50, Fountain-street. Manchester, commission agent. Oct. 7; Sutton and Elliott, solicitors, 17, Brown-street, Man: chester. STENNING Wm.), Godstone-court, Godstone, Surrey, gentleman. Sept, 16; Head and Son, solicitors, East Grinstead TYRRELL (George), Esq., Fordhook, Acton, Middlesex. Oct. 7: W. A. Greatorex, solicitor, 59, Chancery-lane W.C. UPTON (Edwd.), formerly of Baschurch, Salop, confectioner,. and late of Bideford, out of business. Sept. 3; W. Cottrell, solicitor, 104, Newhall-street, Birmingham. WINCKWORTH (Jas.), formerly of Horsham, Sussex, and late of 11. Old Steine, Brighton, surgeon. Sept. 16; Ellman, Roper, and Ellman, solicitors, Battle, Sussex. WYNDHAM (Anna E.), 18, Park-lane, Middlesex. Sept. 24; Roy and Cartwright, solicitors, 4, Lothbury, E.C.

MAGISTRATES' LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. MUSIC AND DANCING LICENCE-PENALTY.— By 25 Geo. 2, c. 36, s. 2, quarter sessions in London or Middlesex are authorised and empowered to grant such licences as they in their discretion shall think proper to any house, room, garden, or other place kept for public dancing, music, or other public entertainment of a like kind. Sect. 3 twice refers to a house or other place "kept for any of the said purposes." Held, by the Exchequer Chamber (affirming the Queen's Bench), that the sessions were justified in granting a licence "for public music;" and that the holder of such a licence was liable to the penalty provided for keeping such house without a licence, if he allowed public dancing in his house: (Brown v. Nugent, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 880. Ex. Ch.)

----

MUNICIPAL ELECTION VOTING PAPERS.Voting papers used at municipal elections are not charged with duty by 33 & 34 Vict. c. 97, and need no stamp: (Reg. v. Strachan, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. $35. Q.B.)

DEBTORS' ACT-INDICTMENT - PLEADING.Quare-Whether the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved can entertain a question as to quashing an indictment, reserved at the trial. The Debtors Act (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 19, enacts: That in indictments for offences under that Act it shall be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged in the words of the Act, specifying the offence, "without setting out any debt, act of bankruptcy, trading, adjudication, or any proceedings in, or order, warrant, or document of any court acting under the Bankruptcy Act 1860." Held, that an indictment for misdemeanour framed upon sect. 11, sub-sect. 13 of the Act, which enacts, "that if within four months next before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition, the trader by any false representation, or other fraud, has obtained any property on credit and has not paid for the same,' which merely charged "that a bankruptcy petition was presented against the defendant to the County Court, &c., upon which the defendant was adjudged bank. rupt, and that the defendant within four months before the presentation of the said petition did by certain false representations obtain from B. on credit, certain property, and has not paid for the same," was sufficient in arrest of judgment under the above statute, and also under Peel's Act (7 Geo. 4, c. 64), sect. 20: (Reg. v. Watkinson, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 853. Cr. Cas. Res.)

POOR RATE--ASSESSMENT OF DOCKS-ACREAGE SYSTEM-The Mersey Docks comprise a

range of docks at Liverpool, and another range at | davit, notwithstanding that no counsel appear on Birkenhead. The two sets of docks are separated behalf of the said justices." The great defect by the river Mersey, and are situate in different then to which the preamble refers of there being parishes, but have been amalgamated by Act of no fund at the disposal of justices to defray the Parliament for the purposes of general manage-expense of their appearing by counsel to support ment, and formed into one estate, which is vested their own decisions, is to be remedied, not by supin the appellants. Vessels may enter the docks plying or pointing out some fund out of which to on both sides of the river on payment of one toll. defray the expense of appearing by counsel to respect of the Liverpool docks on a sum ascer- file an affidavit without paying any fee for the The parish of Liverpool rated the appellants in support their decisions, but by permitting them to tained by calculating the gross earnings of the same, and directing the court before making the rule docks in that parish, and deducting the amount of absolute against the justices to take into consider. the necessary expenditure within the same. To ation the matters set forth in such affidavit! There this mode of rating the appellants objected, is no provision whatever whereby the justices can, insisting that the acreage system of assessment except at their own personal cost, appear by should have been applied to the whole dock estate, counsel in court, and so enforce by argument the as in Reg.v. The Hull Dock Company (18 Q. B. 325): cogency and pertinency of the facts stated in the Held, that there being no insuperable difficulty affidavit. Why should the Legislature have in finding the earnings and outgoings from each stopped short, when purporting to remedy an system, which must only be resorted to ex necessi- remedy? Why should it not at once have enacted range of docks within each parish, the acreage acknowledged defect, of applying a complete tate rei, must not be applied, and that the mode that in such cases the justices should have a of rating adopted was correct: (Mersey Dock and certificate from the court enabling them within a Harbour Board v. Overseers of Liverpool, 26 L. T. certain limited amount to have their costs out of Rep. N. S. 868. Q. B.) the county rate or borough fund, unless the court for special reasons should think fit otherwise to order? Why, if the justices are to be permitted to lay their case before the court at all, free of by professional advocacy?

NOTES UPON NEW STATUTES.

THE REVIEW OF JUSTICES' DECISIONS ACT 1872 cost, should they not be permitted to enforce it

(35 & 36 VICT. c. 26).

WE desire to draw attention to an Act of Parliament which has just become law, and is to be cited as "The Review of Justices' Decisions Act 1872" (An Act to amend the practice of the courts of law with respect to the review of the decisions of justices. (35 & 36 Vict. c. 26). The object of this statute is a very meritorious one, and is intended to remove a defect in the adminisbeen felt and often denounced. The justices of tration and practice of the law which has long the peace of this country have, as all know,-no funds out of which to recoup themselves the costs and expenses of appearing and supporting their decisions in the Superior Courts when those decisions are called in question; and it happens that from the absence of the appearance of these functionaries in such courts to support the judgments they have pronounced in their own courts below, those judgments, though perfectly legal and righteous in themselves, have, through the influence of false, inaccurate, or garbled statements on the part of those who have sought to set them aside, such judgments have been often overruled. To remedy this defect, and to enable the Superior Courts to have the facts on both sides before them ere they decide, the above enactment has been brought into existence. Unfortunately, whoever drew the Act appears to have had little practical knowledge of the subject with which he was dealing, and hence the enactment has been placed upon the statute book in a very clumsy and unsatisfactory condition.

The preamble purports to explain the defects which the statute is intended to remedy, and it very truly recites that "ex parte proceedings are frequently taken in the Superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster, to bring under review the decisions of justices of the peace acting both in and out of sessions; and there is no fund at the disposal of such justices to defray the expense of appearing by counsel to support their decisions, and that it is expedient that such justices should, without expense to themselves, have an opportunity in such cases of informing the court of the grounds of their decision, and of all material facts bearing apon the same.' Now, nothing can be wiser or more reasonable than the object contemplated by this preamble; but unfortunately such object is attempted to be carried out in a most incomplete and unsatisfactory manner. As the grievance is that the justices have no funds at their disposal to defray the expense of appearing by counsel to support their decisions, we naturally expect to find some provision to meet it, but nothing is enacted which in any sense can be called a remedy. The 2nd section enacts that:

"

If we examine the details of the enactment, we find abundant evidence of the crude way in which it has been drawn. The section speaks of a rule or other process issued upon an ex parte application. What is here meant by an ex parte application? What application for a rule to show cause or other process is other than ex parte? Does it mean that where previous notice is given to the for writs of certiorari, the clause is not to apply? justices, as in the case of intended applications If so, why not? We know of ex parte hearings, when a defendant does not attend upon being summoned; but we are really at a loss to comprehend the meaning and application of the term ex parte as applicable to the subject of the present section.

Again, although no fee is to be paid or stamp dut yimposed upon filing the affidavit, the justices will still have to pay the accustomed fee to the commissioner who administers the oath; and inasmuch as the section speaks only of an affidavit filed by any such justice, it may well be doubted whether the exemption will extend to more than one affidavit. But again, the affidavit is to be forwarded by post to one of the masters of the court for the purpose of being filed. Now the great majority of applications of this kind are made to the Court of Queen's Bench and on the Crown side of that court. Now there is no provision that in such case the affidavit is to be filed in the Crown office, so that the affidavit may, with perfect regularity, be filed (according to the wording of the section) on the plea side with one of the masters of the court, to the great confusion and embarrassment of the litigants.

Again, although the justices are thus enabled to file affidavits in answer to the rule, there is no provision whatever whereby the applicant for the rule can obtain any knowledge of the contents of the affidavits. There is no right conferred upon the party moving for the rule to obtain an office copy of such affidavits; nor, indeed, is there any direction that the affidavits are to be read in open court. We all know that the practice of the Profession, where affidavits are used by the party showing cause against a rule, is to hand them for perusal to the opposite counsel before the rule comes on for argument; and that if this has not been done, the court will, upon a statement of the fact, allow the motion to stand over for a time; and moreover if new matter be stated will fre quently permit affidavits in reply to be filed. Under the present enactment, however, the applicant will have no power to see the affidavits before they are used, nor probably will he ever know their contents, all the section requiring being, that the court shall before making the rule absolute take into consideration the matters set forth in such affidavit!

One glaring and all-important consideration connected with this absence of the right of the applicant for the rule either to obtain a copy of or see the affidavit of the justices is, that no action can conveniently be taken in the event of the commission of perjury-a consideration which ought always to govern provisions enabling parties to pledge their oaths to facts.

We regret having felt ourselves compelled to present this unfavourable criticism to our readers; but, as the Act in question deals with a very interesting and important subject, and is moreover one introduced and carried by the Government, we had a right to expect a measure free at least from such glaring blemishes as those to which we have adverted.

THE NEW LICENSING ACT. The statute for regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), which received the Royal assent on

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. ADVOWSON-MORTGAGE-SEQUESTRATIONFORECLOSURE-SALE.-J. G. S. mortgaged the advowson of the vicarage of St. Giles's, Camberwell, to the plaintiff, as a security for the repayment of two sums of £7500 and £5000, advanced by the plaintiff to him, and afterwards conveyed the said advowson, subject to the payment of the said two several sums to the defendant, who, as a security for the payment of the same, executed a warrant of attorney, whereby he confessed judg. ment at the suit of the plaintiff for the sum of £25,000. The said vicarage having become vacant, the defendant was presented thereto, and default having been made in payment of the interest on the said several sums, the plaintiff caused a writ of sequestration to issue against the said vicarage. The plaintiff subsequently died, and his representatives afterwards obtained a decree of foreclosure of the equity of redemption and sold the said advowson for £11,000. On a motion for a rule to set aside the said writ of sequestration, it was Held by the Court of Exchequer (Kelly, C.B., and Bramwell and Channell, BB.), that the said sale was not a satisfaction of the said judgment, and that the sequestration remained in full force and unaffected: (Long v. Williams, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. $78. Ex.)

REAL PROPERTY AND

CONVEYANCING.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES OUT OF THE JURISDICTION.-A testator bequeathed a share of a fund in trust for his daughter and her children, power being given to the trustees to invest the same in the public funds of any colony or dependency of the United Kingdom. The daughter married a domiciled citizen of the Canadian dominion, and was permanently resident in Canada. It was proposed to appoint two persons, citizens of Canada, trustees, and to transfer the share of the trust fund to them for the purpose of investment in securities in Canada. On a petition under the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 30, the court was of opinion that such proposed appointment and transfer might be made: (Re Smith's Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 820. M. R.)

GIFT TO ISSUE AS B. SHOULD APPOINT-GIFT OVER IN DEFAULT.-A testator gave his residuary personal estate to trustees upon trust for his daughter for life, and after her decease upon trust for her issue as she should appoint, and in default of appointment upon trust for such persons as she should appoint, and in default of appointment in trust for the persons who should be her nearest of kin under the statutes for the distribution of intestates' estates. The daughter married and made her will, reciting (as the fact then was) that she had no children, and appointing the property to her husband. She afterwards had seven children, and died without having altered her will. Held, that the children were entitled to the property, either by virtue of a gift by implication to the objects of the first power, or else as nearest of kin, &c., of their mother: (Re Jefferys' Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 821. V.C. M.)

LANDLORD AND TENANT-SUB-LESSEE-DETERMINATION OF INTEREST-TRESPASS. - In 1852, M. having a Crown lease of certain premises, let them to the plaintiff for three years from the 24th June by an agreement wherein it was stipu. lated that the plaintiff should do nothing contrary to the covenants and provisions in the lease from the Crown. After the three years had passed, the plaintiff continued to occupy the premises as tenant from year to year, paying an annual rent from every 24th June. In Sept. 1869, M. assigned his interest in the Crown lease to C., and subsequently gave notice to the plaintiff to pay his rent to C., from Michaelmas 1869. This the plaintiff accordingly did, not receiving any notice to quit. In June 1870, he was informed by the solicitors of C., that, as the interest of the latter under M.'s assignment expired in the following October, C. could not after that time treat the plaintiff as his tenant. The Crown lease to M. expired on the 10th Oct. 1870, and it appeared that in 1866 C. had agreed with the Crown for a new lease of the premises at the expiration of the old one. Both these facts were known to the plaintiff. A new lease was granted to C. by the Crown when the former lease lapsed, and he, having sub-let the premises to the defendants, they evicted the plaintiff in 1870. In an action of trespass, held, that the plaintiff's tenancy terminated when the Crown lease to M. ran out, and that the defendants were entitled to possession of the premises: (Weller v. Spiers, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 866. Q. B.) COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT COMPEN SATION CAPACITY FOR IMPROVEMENT.-Defendant, lord of the manor of H., had given notice under the Copyhold Acts to plaintiffs of his desire that the copyhold lands, of which they were legal

tenants in fee according to the custom of the manor, should be enfranchised. The valuers appointed by the respective parties accordingly, having differed as to the amount of compensation payable, the question was referred to the Copyhold Commissioners. The land in question was composed of two plots, one being meadow land, and let as such on a yearly tenancy, the other was used and occupied as a gentleman's residence, with the usual adjuncts. The latter had been let on lease to E., and at the time notice was given to enfranchise, twelve years of the term were unexpired. The former plot of land had no frontage to a public highway, and could not be got at except by going through the latter plot, which was let as a gentleman's residence. The whole land was held by plaintiffs as trustees under a settlement which gave them power to grant leases for twenty-one years, but no longer. It was admitted that but for the restriction imposed by the settlement, and the obstacle presented by the lease, the whole land might advantageously be turned into building land. The commissioners held, as to both plots of land, that they were not for the purposes of the enfranchisement to be valued only as land used and occupied as they then were, but that they should be valued as calculated for building purposes; that the unexpired lease should not be taken into consideration as standing in the way of or preventing facilities for improvement; and that the restrictions in the deed of settlement should not be taken into consideration in reduction of the

compensation payable. On appeal, under sect. S of the Copyhold Act 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 51), Held, that in considering the amount of compensation to be given to the lord, the commissioners ought to take into consideration the capacities for improvement which the land possessed, at the same time remembering that those facilities were in this case diminished by the difficulties de facto existing in respect of the unexpired lease and the state of the title: (Arden v. Wilson, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 887. C. P.)

WASTE OF TENANT FOR LIFE-CUTTING TURF. Tenant for life of farming lands let parts thereof at low rentals, with liberty for the tenants to get turf, but under the obligation to level and prepare the surface for agricultural purposes. Large quantities of the turf, to the value of over £1000, were taken away, but the value of the land was thereby increased for agricultural purposes: Held, that the tenant for life was not liable to any proceed. ings for waste: (Harris v. Ekins, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 827. V.C. B.)

MERCANTILE LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL BONA FIDE PAYMENT TO AGENT BY UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL-LACHES-PRIVITY. Plaintiff, on the 5th June, contracted to sell a number of pieces of unbleached shirtings to R. and Co., commission merchants, who sometimes acted for themselves and sometimes as agents for others. Payment was to be made in thirty days after delivery. The shirtings were delivered on the 24th July, and payment should have been made on the 25th Aug., but on the 24th Aug. R. and Co. asked for delay till the 1st Sept., and, whilst plaintiff was still considering what to do, R. and Co. stopped payment on the 30th Aug. Plaintiff had had previous dealings with R. and Co., in the course of which he had never inquired whether R. and Co. acted as principals or agents, and he had always settled with them, and in the present transaction he had credited them alone. Finding afterwards that they had bought the shirtings as agents for the defendants (who ordered of R. and Co. bleached shirtings), R. and Co. charging them the price of the unbleached shirtings, the cost of bleaching, and a per centage for commission, he sought to recover the price from the defendants, as undisclosed principals. In all previous transactions between the defendants and R. and Co., the defendants had dealt with R. and Co. alone and paid them, never having been brought into communication with the persons from whom R. and Co. purchased the shirtings in their unbleached condition; and in perfect good faith they paid R. and Co. on the 11th Aug. for the shirtings. Held, first, assuming that R. and Co., could establish privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, that the defendants having, after the contract was made, and in consequence of it, bona fide and without moral blame, paid to R. and Co. at a time when the plaintiffs still gave sole credit to R. and Co. and knew of no one else as principals, it was too late for the plaintiffs to come upon the defendants; secondly, that the plaintiffs not taking any steps between the 25th and the 30th Aug. was not such laches as Would have precluded him, if otherwise entitled, from recovering payment from the defendants. Although in the absence of evidence of an express authority a commission agent cannot pledge the credit of a foreign constituent, where the con

stituent is resident in England such an authority is prima facie given, unless there is enough to show that it was not, in fact, given: (Armstrong v .Stokes and others, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 872, Q. B.)

COUNTY COURTS.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. COUNTY COURTS-ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION CLAIM FOR NECESSARIES SUPPLIED TO A SHIPDOMICILED IN ENGLAND OR WALESOWNER TIME FOR TAKING OBJECTION-PROHIBITION.Where a suit is instituted in a County Court under 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, s. 3, for necessaries supplied to a ship, the objection that the owner or part owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales (24 Vict. c. 10, s. 5) must be taken before judgment is pronounced. Where the objection is taken for the first time after judgment has been pronounced, a prohibition will not be granted: (Ex parte Michael, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 871. Q. B.)

PROCEEDINGS IN COUNTY COURTS. A COMPENDIOUS statistical account of the proceedings of County Courts in England and Wales for the quarter of a century ending with 1871 cannot fail of presenting some features of interest. That they meet a popular want is proved by the facts as shown by the return. To commence with grand totals, we observe that the number of plaints entered during the twenty-five years was, using round figures, 17,300.000, or a yearly average of 692,000; the number of causes tried, or in which judgment was entered, was 9,758,000, or an average of 390,000; hence it seems proceedings do not go beyond the original plaint in much more than half the cases. The aggregate of the moneys in respect of which plaints were entered was £16,204,000; this gives an annual average of £1,848,000. The average sum per plaint would be £2 13s. 5d. Judgment was obtained for just one half the amount for which plaints-i. e. those that proceeded no further as well as those tried-were entered; the moneys exclusive of costs for which judgment had been obtained amounting to £23,419,000, or £938,000 annually. Cheap as the County Courts were meant to be to the suitors, the fees are, perhaps necessarily, a very heavy per centage on the sums sought to be recovered. The total fees were £6,852,000, or £274,000 a year, nearly 15 per cent on the claims. If we divide the amount of the fees among the whole number of plaints it will be found that they are slightly under 83. a plaint, but then nearly half the plaints do not get beyond the initial stage. What we should like to know is the average cost per case adjudicated. Moneys paid into court in satisfaction of claims without proceeding to judgment are shown only for the earlier years of the series. In 1847 the sum total claims was £89,000 out of of £1,352,000; in 1851 it was £100,000 out of £1,625,000; and in 1857, the last year returned, it was £146,000 out of £1,938,000. From these instances it seems that nearly 7 per cent. of the gross claims are paid into court to stay proceedings. We are informed how much money was received in court to the credit of suitors, and of the amount paid out to them during seven of the years-1851 to 1857. The total to the credit of the suitors was £4,440,000; the sum paid to them, £4,418,000. The £22,000 difference was, we presume, unclaimed. During the twenty-five years juries were empannelled in 22,000 cases. Not the least curious part of these statistics is the statement of the number of causes in which the party requiring a jury obtained a verdict. This part of the official paper is limited to the eleven years 1847-1857, and it shows, upon summarising the particulars, that there were 9002 trials by jury in that period, and that the parties demanding a jury obtained verdicts in 4554 instances, or in one-half the causes. There has been a very decided diminution of jury cases latterly. In the five years 1847-1851 the proportion of jury cases to number of causes tried was 1 in 291; but in the five years 1867-1871 it was only 1 in 566 causes.

What we have written above does not bring out so sharply the progressive increase of business in these courts as a comparison of years will. Abstract of certain of the transactions in the County Courts of England and Wales :

COUNTY COURT JUDGES AND TREASURY ALLOWANCES.

:

judges (or with the present judges, if any revision were justifiable, and were made), would be to treat every judge as if he were living out of his own circuit, and then (except where on the one hand the circuit is very large, and the posting very great, or where, on the other hand, the area is very small) to allow him so much a day for his travelling expenses for every day he sits, and for every day he is obliged to be travelling within his own circuit to or from a court.

WE print the following extracts from a letter addressed by a Queen's Counsel and judge of County Courts to the Lords of the Treasury: My Lords, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordships' most surprising and perplexing communication as to the Treasury Minute of the 22nd June; and, in justice to myself and those dependent on me, as well as to my learned brethren and those who may succeed us, I am bound to say that I consider the principles in-rcial traveller has a larger allowance of so much volved in it most erroneous, and the conclusions from them very unjust; and I therefore respectfully, but strenuously, object to and protest against them.

The question involves manifold considerations. The time at my command would not allow me fully to illustrate this: it could not be done, except at very great length. And, indeed, I confidently anticipate and trust that a minute which has excited the greatest astonishment and indig. nation amongst the judges, will be withdrawn. Without going into details (for want of time to do justice to the subject), I feel it my duty respectfully to submit the following considerations to your Lordships, as having a general application to the cases of others, as well as a particular application to my own case:

1. The judges of County Courts are fully equal, in their antecedents of birth and education, and

many are equal, in learning and reputation, to the judges of the Superior Courts. Ten of them are Queen's counsel, and four of them are serjeants. And if some of them had received their due, they would have been on the bench of the Superior Courts.

Lord Penzance remarked that, but for the labours of the text writers, the case law would be utterly unapproachable; and in this point of view some of the judges of County Courts have done good service for the law, and were, in fact, created

judges on that account.

2. I have seen it stated that these courts recover about two millions of money, that is, nearly three times what the Superior Courts of common law

recover.

3. The judges of County Courts, as a body, have commanded the general respect of the nation. And if in any case the office has been degraded by an improper appointment, that is not the fault, but the misfortune, of the general body.

4. As I have shown in another paper, their office is one of considerable risk, and one of great fatigue, discomfort, difficulty, delicacy, and importance; and therefore their comfort and respectability as regards locomotion ought to be studied.

5. It is important to induce men of high professional position to seek the office, by treating them accordingly; particularly men of position as able advocates or as lawyers who have tested and evidenced their powers of keen and accurate discrimination (the highest judicial qualification) by their writings.

6. It is important that the judges of County Courts should be housed in some degree suitably to their position, instead of being obliged to thrust themselves into dwellings inferior to those of many of the solicitors who practise before them, merely for the purpose of bringing themselves within a certain allowance for travelling

10. If I am rightly informed, a first-class com

a day for travelling expenses than that which the proposed allowance to the judges will amount to. 11. It is highly objectionable that the judge's attendance at a court (perhaps at a distance of fifty miles) should be imperilled by the uncertainty whether a flyman will recollect that he has to take the judge to the station from his house (perhaps, as in my case, two miles off, or it might be very much more); or whether the flyman or his horse will be ill or lame; and that for an hour or so the judge should be in a state of anxiety lest the fly. man should fail to make his appearance. This most important consideration, indeed, led me to keep not only one horse or man for my judicial office, but two, in order to guard against such casualties, the actual occurrence of which would be productive of great public inconvenience, loss, and disappointment.

would be only decent that provision should be 12. Instead of the allowance being cut down, it made for the travelling expenses of an attendant. For want of one, I was once obliged to wheel a truck, with all my luggage, through the rain at a

first-class station.

13. It is desirable that there should be a margin to allow for special or additional sittings. Feeling that I had an ample allowance, I increased the number of my sittings to the great convenience of the public.

entail on the judges intolerable discomfort and 14. The rotation prescribed would not only inconvenience, but would completely set at nought the convenience of the public, as regards fairs, market days, magistrates' meetings, &c.

15. Many of the judges have insured their lives, or given their children an expensive education, or afforded large assistance to necessitous relations, or given largely to charities, out of their income, on the faith of the previous continuance of a fixed allowance for many years. I have done so myself. 16. The judges of County Courts now take a very large proportion of the cases which, until recently, used to be tried by the judges of the Superior Courts. And yet this time of increased judicial work and high prices is chosen as a tically and virtually, and not unreasonably, reseasonable time for a reduction in what was pracgarded as a part of their income.

If these considerations, or even a few of them, confidently and strenuously urge that it will be are candidly weighed, I respectfully, but most seen to be plainly contrary to true expediency, out, in my case and in that of many others, the contrary to justice, contrary to good faith, to carry Treasury Minute, and, by a sudden and unex. pected withdrawal of a substantial part of that which in effect constituted a portion of a very inadequate official income, to embarrass or to lower the position of those who are the judicial representatives of the Crown within their respective jurisdictions, and upon whom higher and just whenever and wherever they are required, last seven years, without any manner or compenmore difficult work has been imposed within the the difficulty of finding them is very great; and it is far from desirable that the judge should be thrown amongst the multitude of those whose cases he will inevitably be called upon to decide. Indeed, it would be better if he were not resident in his own circuit at all. But certainly, if resi

expenses.

7. Instead of suitable houses being obtained

dent there, he cannot be in too high a posi

tion.

8. It is not desirable to enforce upon the judges of County Courts, a duration of absence from their own homes and beds, and an existence, for a very large proportion of the year, at hotels and common inns, severed from their wives and families, their libraries and their papers; and, indeed, such a life would scare away men of good position at the Bar from taking the office.

9. It is perfectly obvious that proximity to the largest court may be the most inconvenient locality; and that the most convenient locality is that which is practically most accessible to the largest number of courts. Some principle of calculation must, of course, be adopted. That of your Lordships is palpably wrong, as having no relation either to optimism or to the actual state of things. That a judge should reside within his own circuit, may be convenient to himself, but is the reverse of expedient (a). Probably the true principle in dealing with any newly-appointed

(a) As regards the place of actual residence, the cor flicting public and private considerations might be in the main reconciled by providing that a judge should not act in the cases of parties resident or carrying on business within about six miles from his residence, but

at the nearest other judge should act in such cases.

sation.

LEGAL NEWS.

mistake of M. Thiers' Secretary, which led to the treasonable document, and the conveyance of the polite official acknowledgment of an almost lic" to a committee of Communists, has been "thanks of the President of the French Repubduly explained by M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire, who, it appears, sent the usual formal acknow. ledgment upon the receipt of the document without having observed the precaution of perusing the document itself. This confession will be cheering for the large body of persons who are in the habit of sending communications to M. Thiers, and nourishing the hope that a study of them is likely to be attended with considerable influence upon the direction of State affairs. But the inpying positions which, like that of the President of the French Republic, draw upon them a daily shower of correspondence, which they are, as a matter of etiquette, bound to deal with in some manner, however formal. The temptation to take much as read is exceedingly strong, and is occasionally attended by consequences more serious even than those which followed upon M. SaintHilaire's hasty act. The Troy Times reports a case which will strengthen the warning. It appears that a legal student at Troy was preparing to make application for admission to the Bar of

THE BARRISTER BITTEN.-The unfortunate

cident is not without its value for persons occu

Shenectady, and in accordance with the rules of that court it was necessary that he should present with his application certificates as to his cha. racter, and the period of his study from gentlemen in whose offices he had studied. A friend undertook to obtain for him from a member of the justices' court a certificate bearing on these points, and in due course sent to the barrister in question a document, accompanied by a note explaining on whose account it was drawn up and requesting his signature. The barrister, well remembering his old pupil, at once signed the document without reading it, and subsequently had the satisfaction of seeing handed about the court the following declaration, signed in his own handwriting: "I hereby certify that the bearer,

was a student in my office for ten months; that during the whole of that time his character for piety, chastity, and honesty was above reproach; and his example was such that from my daily contact with him I have now become a pious and consistent member of the church, and a useful member of society."

LAW REFORM IN IRELAND.-Mr. Vernon Har. court has succeeded in eliciting from the Govern ment some information which is of considerable interest to Irish lawyers. This information was not very definite or explicit, but we collect from the observations of the Attorney-General for England that the Government will certainly not Judicature Commission in the ensuing session of attempt to carry out the recommendation of the Parliament; and, further, that it is extremely probable that these reforms may not be initiated for a very considerable period of time. So much for England. As to Ireland, the prospects of any change are very much more remote. The new system will of course be introduced into the sister island, and the length of time which must elapse before it is extended to Ireland will depend on a variety of circumstances, such, for example, as the and its consequent attractions in the eyes of Irish amount of patronage attached to the measure, politicians. On the whole, it is highly probable that ten years, or even a much longer time, may elapse, before there is any radical change in our Irish judicial system. The question then suggests itself is all reform of practice and procedure to be postponed until this extremely indefinite period? The procedure of all our courts, superior and inferior, Chancery, and Common Law, in a most unsatisfactory condition, and it would be simply intolerable if it were to be allowed to remain in its present condition for five, eight, or perhaps ten years. As to the Bill amending our system of common law procedure, we think that it may very fairly be consigned to the limbo of abortive measures; and this for two reasons. In the first place the introduction of the proposed reforms would completely revolutionise our exist ing practice; and the revolution thus effected must be succeeded by another revolution when. ever the fusion of common law and equity becomes an accomplished fact. As Lord Justice Christian bert, the fusion of law into equity need not cause remarked in the recent case of Lamprey v. Lamany great change in the practice of courts of equity, while it must alter the practice of courts of law. The existing system does not work badly on the whole; not so badly, at all events, to render it worth while to adopt an entirely new system for a very few years. The case of our Chancery practice is altogether different. The changes merely a consolidation and arrangement of the which are required are not a revolution, but existing orders, and even if the High Court of Justice Bill became law, it is by no means certain that any change in the practice of the Court of Chancery would be necessary. There is, moreover, in existence, and in print, a digest the registrars of the court, which only awaits of the existing Chancery practice prepared by task has been postponed lon account of the the perusal and approval of the judges. This there is no longer, at all events, any reason why it pendency of the High Court of Justice Bill; but should not be immediately consummated, and the Profession presented with a digested code of orders before the first day of next Term. Then the prac tice of the Landed Estates' Court requires amend ment in many particulars. The rough and ready procedure which was suitable for the temporary expedient of the Incumbered Estates' Court is altogether unfit for a court which has become a recognised part of our judicial system. Whatever changes are introduced in consequence of the

measure to which we have referred are not at all

likely to affect the practice of our Court of Conveyancing. Again, the constitution of our civil bill courts will probably be affected by the same causes, but not to such an extent as to render use

less any reforms which may be now effected. The reform of these tribunals must, however, be left to the Legislature; but the judges of the Landed Estates' Court, and of the Court of Chancery, have the power of conferring a great boon on the Profession and the public by methodising and digesting the practice of their respective courts.-Irish Law Times.