Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

BOWER (John), 8, Botolph-lane, E.C., wholesale fruiterer,
Nov. 1; Halse and Co., solicitors, 61, Cheapside, E.C.
BUCKNEY (Thos.), sen., 12, Brunswick-square, Camberwell,
Surrey; and 61, Strand, W.C. Nov. 1; Groves and Hum-
phreys, solicitors, 4, King's Bench-walk, Temple, E.C.
COLLIER (Henry T. B.), Esq., 25, Ryder-street, St. James's,
Middlesex. Nov. 1: Lethbridge and Son, soiicitors, 25,
Abingdon-street, Westminster.

COOPER (Win.), Esq., Claremont-buildings, Shrewsbury.
Dec. 4; Wm. Morgan, solicitor, Shrewsbury.
COWEN (Mark), Maidstone-road, Rochester, Kent. Jan. 1.
J. J. Solomon, solicitor, 25. King-street. Cheapside, E.C.
CUBITT (Wm. Q.), Neatishead, Norfolk, farmer. Dec. 1;
F. Fox, solicitor, Surrey Court, Norwich.
DONE (Jas.), 101, Bradford-street, Manchester, surgeon.
Dec. 3; Weston, Grover and Lees, solicitors, 32, St. Ann's-
street, Manchester.
DUGGLEBY (Stephen W.), Cottam, York, farmer. Nov. 10;
G. Hodgson, solicitor, Great Driffield.

GASSON (Wm. B.), Brookend House, Ippolytte, near Hitchir,
Herts, gentleman. Nov. 1; J. C. Cotton, solicitor, 12,
Tavistock-row, Covent-garden, W.C.
GERHOLD (John), formerly of the King's Head Inn, Brent-

wood, Essex, licensed victualler, and late of 132, Jamaicastreet, Mile-end-road, Middlesex, gentleman. Nov. 2; W. Sherman, solicitor, 13, Little Tower-street, E.C.

GIFFORD (John and Elizabeth A.), Lippett's-hill Lodge,
High Beech, Waltham Holy Cross, Essex, gentleman.
Dec. 1; Helder and Roberts, solicitors, 2, Verulam-
buildings, Gray's Inn, W.C.
House, Char-

GRANT (Captain Henry J.), Langmoor

mouth, Dorset, commander in the Royal Navy. Oct. 28; Young and Co., 12, Essex-street, E.C. HAMILTON (Matthew), 59, Chalton-street, Somers-town, Middlesex, gentleman. Oct. 31; Lumley and Lumley, solicitors, 22, Conduit-street, Bond-street, W. HARVEY Catherine E.), formerly of 3, Addison-gardens, South Kensington, Middlesex, afterwards of Hastings and Brighton respectively, but late of Dieppe, France. Nov. 9; Farmer and Robins, solicitors, 11, Pancras-lane, E.C. HICKS (Henry P.), Bellhouse Farm, Eastwood, Essex, farmer. Nov. 14; Swaine and Arthy, solicitors, Rochford, Essex. HOLMES (John, late of Leeds, formerly of Hunslet, near Leeds, banker. Nov. 1; Rooke and Midgley, solicitors, Boar-lane, Leeds. JEFFERSON (Win.), Nafferton, York, farmer. Nov. 30; England, Saxelbyes, and Sharp, solicitors, 2, Quay-street Chambers, Hull. LATEWARD (Harriet), formerly of 65, Eaton-place, Middlesex, but afterwards residing at 72, Via Sistina, Rome, and subsequently residing at 57, Via Sistina, Rome. Nov. 26; Stuart and Bayly, solicitors, 6, Gray's-inn-square, Middle LAXTON (Thos. R., 12, the Mall, Clifton, Bristol, gentleman. Nov. 30; E. M. Harwood, solicitor, Foster's Chambers, Small-street, Bristol.

sex.

Oct

LORD Edmund, Tunstead, near Stacksteads and Thorn, near Bacup, yeoman. Oct. 26; E. M. Wright, solicitor, Bacup. LUNSDELL (Ann), formerly of the Blue Boar, Malden, Essex, but late of the Duke of Wellington, Old Woolwich-road, Greenwich, Kent. Dec. 25; R. Pinnock, 28. Crystal Palace-road, East Dulwich, Surrey. NICHOLLS (Peter), 116, Marylebone-road, Middlesex. Oct. 25; P. Nicholls, 141, Euston-road, Middlesex. OVERTON (Mária), 3, Glenfall-terrace, Cheltenham. 24; Bubb and Co., solicitors, Clarence-street, Cheltenham. PIKE (Frederick), formerly of 3, Berkeley-villas, Loughborough-park, East Brixton, Surrey, but late of 36, Gresham-park-road, Brixton, secretary to the Civil Service Co-operative Society. Nov. 1; Rhodes and Son, solicitors, 63, Chancery-lane, Middlesex. PIKE (Geo. F.), Freetown, Sierra Leone and Lagos, West Coast of Africa, merchant. Dec. 27; T. W. Denby, solicitor, 8, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry, London. SHALIER (Wm., 24, Earl's-court-road, Chelsea, Middlesex,

gentleman. Nov. 16; W. Walter, solicitor, 11, Newgatestreet. E.C. SILVESTER (Sarah), 51, Aldgate High-street, E.C. Nov. 16; Chapham and Fitch, solicitora, 181, Bishopsgate Without, E.C.

SMITH (Edward), High-street, Wrexham, draper. Nov. 5;
E. Smith, 36, High-street, Wrexham.
SMITH (JOS.), formerly of 13, Little Tower-street, E.C., but
late of 107, Holloway-road, Middlesex, wine merchant
Oct. 14; B. F. French, solicitor, 51, Crutched-friars, E.C.
THOMAS (Lewis S.), Thanet Lodge, Tulse-hill, Surrey..
merchant. Dec. 1; Helder and Roberts, solicitors, 2,
Verulam-buildings, Gray's-inn, W.C.

TONGUE (Wm., formerly of Halifax, York, but late of Winthorpe, near Newark-on-Trent. Nov. 16; W. H. Boocock, solicitor, Silver-street, Halifax.

TOYE (Wm. E.), St. Thendrice Mathern, Monmouth, solicitor. Nov. 1; Bevan and Hancock, solicitors, 3, Smallstreet, Bristol. WHISSON (Nathaniel), 220, Camden-road, Camden-town, Middlesex, gentleman. Oct. 25; R. Oldershaw and Son, solicitors, 1s, King's Arms-yard, E.C. WILLMORE (Ann), 39, Harborne-road, Edgbaston, Warwick. shire. Jan. 1; J. H. Stubbs, solicitor, 21, Waterloostreet. Birmingham.

WOOD (Christopher), formerly of Brimscall, near Chorley, calico printer, but subsequently and up to the time of his death, of the Woodlands, within Silverdale, Lancaster. WRAY Geo.). East Knoyle, Wilts. Oct. 31; Lumley and Lumley, solicitors, 22, Conduit-street, Bond-street, Middlesex.

MAGISTRATES' LAW.

THE LICENSING ACT. AT a meeting of the licensing justices, held at Bromley, Kent, it was stated that another defect had been discovered in the new Licensing Act, viz., that clerks of licensing justices could not be paid for any services which they might render, or be reimbursed any money expended in advertising, &c., as the Act directed.

At the adjourned annual licensing meeting of the Gravesend magistrates, Mr. E. A. Hilder, solicitor, in making application for the renewal of the licence for a public house in respect of which two convictions were recorded, incidentally raised the question whether under the new Act licences were affected by convictions under the old Act. The Mayor considered that apart from the mere fact of convictions, if the justices thought that the party applying was not a proper person to keep the house they had the power of refusing. In granting the renewals for beerhouse licences there were several cases in which the Bench intimated that next year they should require proof of such improvement having been made as to raise the value of the house to the regulated standard. The Mayor remarked that this was a matter in the discretion of the Bench,

and they should expect the place to be of the annual value of £20, looked upon as a private house, and not as a beer shop; and it would not be sufficient simply to get the rating raised to £20.

Mr. George Ward Hunt, M.P., presided at the adjourned quarter sessions for Northamptonshire, and moved that they appoint a county licensing have been granted provisionallly up to the passing committee to confirm any new licence that might of the new Act. The Duke of Buckingham said, that in Buckinghamshire a committee of one magistrate for every hundred of the county, together with the chairman and deputy-chairman of the court of quarter sessions, had been appointed. The chairman thought they should select one magistrate from each petty sessional division. This was agreed to. The chairman gave notice that, at the next quarter sessions, regulations would be made, that in case of the conviction of a tenant of any premises, the repetition of which conviction might render the premises liable to be disqualified, notice should be given to the owner of the premises, and also to any other person interested in them, such as mortgagee or otherwise, and that the clerk to the justices should be entitled to receive from such person other than the owner, the sum of 5s. for such notice.

Mr. Thomas Cousins, clerk to the Portsmouth Licensing Justices, writes to the Daily News:"One of the evils of the present licensing system is the immense amount of unnecessary and puzzling detail prescribed for carrying it into execution. This evil is considerably increased by the Act of last session. In the borough of Portsmouth there are nearly 1000 licensed houses. In addition to the ordinary business of the general annual licensing sessions, the present practice involves the collection, sorting, and numbering of all the licences in the borough, or such of them as are in existence; the furnishing of certified copies of those which are lost (!) or defaced; the discovery of the name and address of the owner of each licensed premises; the endorsement of a prescribed form of renewal upon every licence or certified copy, together with the owner's name and address, and any condition respecting the improvement of the premises, and any stipulation that the house is to be closed on Sunday; the sealing and verification by signature of these endorsements; a notice to each licensed person to take up his licence, and an attendance upon him when he does

So.

All this and more has had to be done in this borough in nearly 1000 cases. It has involved considerable extra clerical assistance, and the temporary establishment of a printing press in my office; and, what is of more general importanee, the superfluous formalities I have described must have caused great difficulty and inconvenience to the trade. The remedy is simple. Abolish entirely the form of licence now issued by the justices to the licensed person. Such a document is entirely unnecessary. This can be easily shown. By the new Act a register is directed to be kept in every licensing district by the clerk to the licensing justices. This register will contain the date and particulars of each licence, the sign and situation of the premises, the names and addresses of the holder of the licence and the owner of the property, together with a record of all transfers, convictions, and disqualifications of the licensee and the premises. At the annual general licensing meeting this register could be produced, and all old licences could be renewed or refused by the justices in a very simple way; and any new licences could be added to the register. The clerk to the licensing justices could furnish a properly authenticated statement of the licences thus granted to the Supervisor of Excise, which would enable him to issue the proper Excise licences to the persons entitled to receive them on production of the licensing justices' clerk's receipt for the proper fees. This receipt would be an additional guarantee that the person producing it was entitled to receive the Excise licence for which he applied. No hardship could accrue to purchasers, mortgagees, or other persons dealing with the licensee of the owner, as the register is to be open to inspection; and the information obtainable from it would be more reliable than that derived from an examination of the present form of justices' licence. I beg through your columns to offer these practical suggestions to all who are concerned in the efficient and convenient working of the licensing system, and especially to those members of the Legislature whose duty it will be to frame the inevitable Licensing Amendment Act, 1873.'"

[blocks in formation]

Amendment Act, with wilfully neglecting and refusing relief to Millicent Joslin.

Alsop, instructed by the Marquis Townshend. who attended, conducted the prosecution.

Vallance, clerk to the Board of Guardians for Whitechapel, defended.

In the opening address to the magistrate it was stated that the complainant was the wife of a distime past. She had already been an inmate of the charged soldier who had deserted her for some Whitechapel Union, at that time applied to the Guardians to prosecute her husband and make him maintain her. For answer she was told that she might eat her Christmas pudding there, but that if she stayed 100 years they would institute no prosecution, as it was incurring too much expense. The complainant left the house soon afterwards, and had supported herself by charing. On the 12th ult., however, she had to apply again for relief, and that was the subject matter of this prosecution. By the 215th Article of the Consolidated Orders of the Poor Law Board a relieving officer was bound to give relief in such a case as that of the complainant.

[ocr errors]

Millicent Joslin, being then sworn, deposed to her desertion by her husband, and added that on the 12th Sept. she applied to the defendant at his house for relief. She was then destitute, and without means to buy food. She asked him to give her an order for the house, but he to'd her then to call the next day, when he would see what he could do for her." On going on the 13th he asked her where she had stayed during the time. She told him that she had walked the streets. He said that a police constable should have sent her to the casual ward, and she replied that, although a constable saw her, he did not interfere. The defendant then told her that he could do nothing for her until the board met, and she had to leave without relief.

Vallance, in his address for the defence, pointed out that the burden of directing relief was taken from the overseers of the parish, and placed upon the guardians.

Mr. HANNAY said that there was an exception when, as in this instance, the case was one of urgent necessity. These proceedings were taken under the 98th section of the Act, coupled with the 215th article of the Consolidated Orders.

Vallance said that section imposed a penalty of 51. or less upon the relieving officer upon conviction. He submitted, however, that the present was not a case of " urgent necessity," as the complainant was a strong, able-bodied woman. Quoting from Lumley, Q.C.'s manual (The Relieving Officer), he said that the opinion there given was that the relieving officer was placed in a very embarrassing position when called on to decide what was or was not a case of "urgent necessity," because he was required to determine on the instant, with no one to advise or apply to. If the officer made a mistake and did not give relief, much indulgence ought to be granted to him. He then urged that the presence of the complainant showed that the case was not one of "urgent necessity."

Mr. HANNAY said that involved the question whether being destitute was not "urgent necessity." Persons, he added, ought not to die of starvation in this country, yet the defendant made no inquiry, on telling the complainant to call again, as to how she was to subsist meanwhile. He asked to be informed how she had been living since the refusal to relieve her up to the present time.

Alsop replied that after her second application she had gone to the Marquis Townshend, who inquired into her case and relieved her; otherwise she must have starved.

Mr. HANNAY said that the weakness of the defence was the complainant's having applied elsewhere for relief.

Vallance said that the defendant had informed him that he had no recollection of the woman having applied to him, and his books, in which all applications were entered, contained no mention of the facts or her name.

Mr. HANNAY remarked that it might not have been entered, from a desire on the defendant's part to save himself trouble.

Vallance remarked that he had known the defendant always as a most efficient officer, against whom no complaint had been made. It was not his desire to screen him if he had acted wrongly.

Mr. HANNAY said that the difficulty before his mind had been the construction to be placed on the word " urgency." He thought that the defendant had neglected to fulfil the duty cast upon him by the order-not, perhaps, from criminal neglect, but such as to call for the intervention of justice. Accepting the character the defendant had received, and believing that it was an error of judgment, he mitigated the penalty of £5 to 40s.

Vallance said that the decision would carry great influence, and, considering the questions involved, he asked that a case might be granted for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. HANNAY agreed to state a case. The fine was paid.

[blocks in formation]

Bolton

Bridgnorth

Canterbury

Carmarthen

Chester

Chichester

Colchester

Devonport
Dover
Faversham
Gloucester.

Gravesend

Great Yarmouth.
Hythe

Kingston-on- Hull
Newcast-un-Lyme.
Northampton
Plymouth

Portsmouth

Rochester

Salisbury

Shrewsbury
Wenlock.
Winchester

Thursday, Oct. 17
Friday, Oct. 11
Wednesday, Oct. 16.
Wednesday, Oct. 16...
Thursday, Oct. 17.
Tuesday, Oct. 15
Friday, Oct. 18
Priday, Oct. 18
Monday, Oct. 14
Monday, Oct. 14
Monday, Oct. 14..
Friday, Oct. 11
Monday, Oct. 14
Monday, Oct. 21
Thursday, Oct. 17.
Friday, Oct. 11
Friday, Oct. 18
Saturday, Oct. 19
Friday, Oct. 17
Monday, Oct. 14
Monday, Oct. 14
Monday, Oct. 14
Friday, Oct. 11

Mouday, Oct. 14

COMPANY LAW.

Recorder.

T. W. Saunders, Esq. ...
W. T. Greenhow, Esq...

S. Pope, Esq., Q.C.

W. Cope, Esq.

J. Deedes, Esq..

Clerk of the Peace.

J. Taylor.
S. Sanderson.
J. Gordon.
W. D. Batte.
H. T. Sankey.
J. H. Barker.

G. H. E. Rundle.

What notice of appeal to be given.

14 days

5 days

10 days

14 days

J. Johues, Esq.

10 days

H. Lloyd, Esq.

10 days

J. Walker.

J. J. Johnson, Esq., Q.C.

10 days

E. Titchener.

F. A. Philbrick, Esq.

8 days

J. S. Barnes.

H. T. Cole, Esq., Q.C....

10 days

Sir W. H. Bodkin, Knt.

2 days

G. W. Ledger.

F. F. Giraud.

[blocks in formation]

F. W. Jones.

S. G. Grady, Esq.....

2 days

[blocks in formation]

Simms Reeve, Esq.
R. J. Biron, Esq.

S. Warren, Esq., Q.C....
T. C. S. Kynnersley, Esq.
J. H. Brewer, Esq.

H. T. Cole, Esq, Q.C....

[blocks in formation]

14 days
14 days

[ocr errors][merged small]

G. E. Sharland.
I. Preston, jun.
W. S. Smith.
R. Champney, jun.
J. W. Ward.
C. Hughes.

R. E. Moore.

J. Howard.

W. W. Hayward.

G. Potts.
W. Bailey.

From £400 to £500." I

matter here?" And he said, "That Allen and Co. had sued him for £36 odd." I said, "Have you paid any part ?" He said, "Yes, £7." "What time will they give you to pay the remainder ?" "A day or two," I think he said, showing me a writ FOR BREACH IN NOT ACCEPTING TRANSFER, issued by the London Tea Company, in Exeter, TENDER OF TRANSFER.-In an action for a breach for £69 odd; "If I pay off this one there will be another in in a day or two." I said, "Well, in the of contract in refusing to accept, at the time ap- event of my stopping this gap for you, do you pointed by the contract, and to pay for, certain think you will be able to go on ?" shares in a water, gas, and market company (such "Most de cidedly so." Well, this is only a temporary shares being by the company's Act of Parliament made personal estate, and a form of transfer pressure, is it?", "Just so, only two parties pressing me now." I said, under seal being thereby given), it is sufficient to What is the amount aver that the plaintiff (the vendor)" had always understood this to be the amount of his liabilities of your liabilities ?" been ready and willing to do all things, and that in the aggregate, including what he was then all things had happened, &c., necessary to entitle him to the performance by the defendant of his sued for; but I did not ask him the question after said agreement" and notice to the defendant of such an assurance from him. I said to Mr. Davie, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to trans-him to carry on his business." "I feel disposed to stop this gap for him to enable Mr. Davie said, fer the shares is not necessary, or a condition precedent, to the plaintiff's right to recover, it "Well, you come to my place of business tobeing, on the contrary, the duty of the defendant morrow, and we will put matters straight, which (the purchaser) to prepare and tender a transfer we did accordingly, and I advanced three refor execution by the plaintiff; and a plea of want spective amounts, making in the aggregate £115. of such notice is bad, and no defence to the I think before I left that evening a messenger action. So held, on demurrer, by the Court of came from his landlord saying that if his rent was not paid he should distrain. I said this must be Exchequer, Kelly, C.B., and Martin, Bramwell, and Cleasby, BB., on the authority of Stephens v. paid. I then drew a cheque for £18, I think, and De Medina (4 Q. B. 422; 12 L. J., N. S., 120, Q. B.; gave it him. He is then questioned as to whether 3 G & D. 110); Doogood v. Rose (9 C. B. 132; 19 should be taken for the old debt as well as the he or the nephew first proposed that the security L. J. 246, C. P., distinguished): (Cobbold v. Peto, fresh advance, and he, as well as the nephew, say they think, but are not sure, that the nephew first mentioned it. The uncle says that the matter was discussed, and that he put himself entirely in the hands of his solicitor. I cannot see, however, that it is at all material whether the nephew first suggested it to induce the uncle to advance the fresh amount, or the uncle made it a condition of such advance; indeed under the proviso at the end of sect. 92 of the present Act, it would seem immaterial, even were it shown that the nephew intended a voluntary preHIS HONOUR delivered judgment in this case, ference, provided the uncle became an incumwhich has been before the court on several pre- brancer in good faith and for valuable consideravious occasions. He said :-This was a motion tion. The uncle is then cross-examined at great on the part of the trustee to set aside a bill of length as to his knowledge of the state of the sale as fraudulent and void. The facts of the nephew's affairs, and as to his reason for return case, as culled from about 600 questions and ing so soon after the making of the bill of sale to answers, which constitute the examination of the investigate the nephew's affairs, and states that bankrupt and his uncle, Robert Sully, the elder, he did so in consequence of the remonstrances of are in substance as follows: About the 28th Dec. his partner at his having neglected doing so be1871, the bankrupt had an execution put on his fore; he is also asked why he put the man in premises at the suit of Messrs. Allen and Co., for possession, and states that he did so by the advice £37 10s., and had been served with a writ at the of Mr. Davie, who informed him of certain cheques suit of Messrs. Wilson and Co., for about £69. of his nephew which were dishonoured, and told Being so situated he sent off a message to his him he had better look after his interests, as his uncle, Robert Sully the elder, asking him to come nephew was not going on satisfactorily. He down and assist him with money or advice, and moreover swears most distinctly that at the time that gentleman immediately went down with his of the execution of the bill of sale, he had not the legal adviser, Mr. Davie, to inquire into the cir- slightest suspicion that his nephew was not solcnmstances. As I do not find any material vent the latter having assured him only a week difference between the respective statements of before Christmas that he was doing well, and the uncle and the nephew, I will take that of the could pay 20s. in the pound to everybody. The uncle as lying more compactly in the volumnious advances were made to pay off certain specific examinations than that of the nephew; premising debts, and were all made after the execution of first, however, that do not attach the slightest the bill of sale. The case was argued very elaboimportance whatever to the erroneous notion rately on the part of the trustee by Mr. Sparkes, entertained by the latter, which, he says, he on the ground that the equivalent was insufficient gathered from the schoolmaster, that the bill of in point of amount, and also because of its being sale could not be enforced for six months, and advanced for the purposes of paying off certain that it would enable him to hold other creditors specific debts only, in cheques drawn out for that aloof for that period ; indeed, if he executed it purpose, and also as being, on the part of the principally with that intention, it would not nephew, a fraud upon the general body of crediaffect its validity unless the uncle was party to tors, and that in order to render a bill of sale void the fraud: Pennell v. Reynolds (5 L. T. Rep. on this ground it was not necessary that the donee N. S. 286), and Re Colmere (L. Rep. 1 Ch. 138), of the bill of sale should be cognizant of the cases to which I shall advert more fully hereafter. fraud. Several cases were cited by him in The uncle in his examination says (answer to ques- the course of his argument, which I will first tion 441): When I arrived I said, "What is the examine, and afterwards consider those of

Bankruptcy Act 1869-Bill of Sale-Fraudulent preference.

his opponent, Mr. Floud, I may here state
that in all the cases cited by Mr. Sparkes
it will be found on examination, without one ex-
ception, that the bill of sale has been given for a
past consideration only, without any fresh ad.
vance, or merely a colourable one. Murray v.
Wodehouse (L. Rep. 2 Ex. 634; afterwards affirmed
in error L. Rep. 4 Q. B. 27) was decided on the
73rd section of the Bankruptcy Act 1861. There
a creditor had levied on the goods of a trader for
a debt above £50, and in consideration of with.
drawing the execution, took from the debtor an
assignment of all the trader's effects. It was
contended that the withdrawal of the execution
was a sufficient equivalent. The court, however,
held otherwise, on the ground that the seizure by
the sheriff was, under the 73rd section of the
Bankruptcy Act 1861, an inchoate act of bank.
ruptcy which could not legally be put an end to
by taking the bill of sale, as being contrary to the
policy of that section, and Kelly, C.B. (L. Rep. 4
Q. B. 82) says, "If a transaction of this nature
could be protected against the operation of the
bankruptcy laws, every debtor might at any time,
by suffering a judgment and execution, and then
assigning the property seized to the judgment-
creditor, convey away the whole of his estate to
this one favoured creditor, defrauding every other
creditor of the whole amount of his debt, the very
evil which the 73rd section of the Bankruptcy Act
was enacted to prevent." There was no fresh
advance in that case. In Ex parte Fisher
(reported fully in 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 931; L. Rep.
6 Ch. 636) the facts briefly stated were as
follows:- In Feb. 1871 Wells, a relative of
the bankrupt, had lent the bankrupt £600 to
enable him to take a mill, on consideration
that the latter sent him a balance-sheet once a
quarter, showing the trade done and the state of
his affairs, and that if required at any time he
should assign the mill and all his other effects, as
security for the money so lent. In October of the
him £300 more, which Wells refused to do, the
same year the bankrupt requested Wells to lend
bankrupt having neglected to send in the quarterly
balance sheets, as promised, but was prevailed
upon to advance £100 for one week, and agreed
to let the execution of the deed of assignment
stand over for one week, and if the money was
not repaid in that time the assignment was to be
executed, the money not being paid the assign.
ment was executed. Mellish, L.J., there says, "We
agree that an assignment by a debtor of all his
effects as a security of a past debt, and partly as
a security for a substantial fresh advance, is not
necessarily an act of bankruptcy," for which he
cites Hutton v. Crutwell, Pennell v. Reynolds,
Lomax v. Buxton, Mercer v. Paterson, and Allen v.
Bonnett, cases to which I shall advert hereafter.
differs from all that have been hitherto decided in
He then proceeds-" The present case, however,
some very material particulars; first, the fresh
advance of £100 bears & much smaller proportion
to the past debt and to the value of the property
conveyed, than in any of the previous cases;
secondly, there was no absolute promise at the
time the £100 was advanced that a bill of sale
should be given at all events, but only a con
ditional promise that if the £100 was not repaid
in a week or ten days that then a bill of sale
should be given to secure both the £100 and the
past debt of £624; there is also evidence from
which we infer that it was understood between
the bankrupt and Mr. Wells from the commence-
ment of the advances made, that a bill of sale was
to be given if required, though for the purpose
of protecting the credit of the bankrupt in the
mean time it was purposely postponed until he was
unable to go on. Although we do not dispute
the rule that where a sum of money is ad-
vanced on the faith of a promise, that a bill of
sale should be given, such sum is to be treated as
a present advance, we do not think that this rule
will protect transactions where the giving of the
bill of sale is purposely postponed until the trader
is in a state of insolvency, in order to prevent
the destruction of his credit, which would result
from the registering the bill of sale, we think
such a postponement is evidence of an intention
to commit an actual fraud upon the general body
of the creditors. If we were to hold this bill of
sale to be valid, we should practically abrogate
the rule that the assignment of all a debtor's
effects in consideration of a past debt is an act
of bankruptcy." This, then, is the real ground
of that decision, though the smallness of the fresh
advance made in that case being not more than a
sixth of the old debt, and from a fifty to a sixth
of the property conveyed, was adverted to as
affording evidence of the object of th parties to
secure to Wells the payment of his past advances.
This case, therefore, is certainly no uthority in
favour of the trustee, and the authoriies therein
cited are directly opposite to him. In Cannon.
Smith (22 L. J. 290, Q. B.), all the wankrupt's
effects, with the exception of two stares in a
banking company, were assigned to secure &
past debt. The property assigned
three times the amount of the debt, and

was worth

the shares worth only £17 10s. each. My attention was called to a dictum of Parke, B. in that case-" that the grantor should have notice of the fraud is not a necessary ingredient in an act of bankruptcy," That may be partially true, as where without any fresh consideration, a debtor pays one favoured creditor to the prejudice of others, and it is for this purpose it is cited by Hunt on Bills of Sale, but as a general proposition it is totally inconsistent with Pennell v. Reynolds and Re Colmer mentioned above. In Lacon v. Liffen (32 L. J. 315, Ch.) a transfer was made of all a debtor's property to secure a past debt of £758, and any future advances that might be made thereafter, but no such advances were to be made till the debt was reduced to £300, and none were in fact made. It was therefore said by Lord Chancellor Westbury to have been taken, on the very face of it, for an existing debt only. In Benson v. Moon (15 L. J. 444, Ex.) the bill of sale was given entirely for a past advance of £520, and comprised all the bankrupt's effects except £20, which, as observed by Kelly, C.B., was not more than enough to pay for the drawing of the bill of sale. I think there must be some mistake in the reference to Ex parte Bayley, as on making the reference I found it relate to a very different subJect; Ex parte Colmere (L. Rep. 1 Ch. 128) is rather an authority in favour of the defendant than of the trustee. The cases, Toms v. Wilson and Brighty v. Morton, both in the 33rd vol. of the L. J., only go to show that the grantor of a bill of sale available on demand is entitled to reasonable notice before his goods are seized and sold, but this cannot affect the rights of third parties; it is a personal privilege to himself to enable him to get the money to pay off the debt and prevent loss by the seizure and sale of his goods. I believe I have now reviewed all the authorities

cited on behalf of the trustee. On the part of the defendant was cited Lomax v. Burton (L. Rep. 6 C. P. 107). In that case the advance was £250 to pay off a pre-existing debt to a third party of £750, secured by a previous bill of sale to such third party, and the bill included security also for a pre-existing debt due to the holder of the bill of £161. Willes J. says no extrinsic circumstances were proved at the trial showing actual fraud in the making of the bill, as for instance that the advance was only colourable, and it was a sham deed altogether, intended to stave off creditors, or that a very much larger amount of property was included in it than would suffice to cover the advance in order that it might be made use of as a screen to protect the property from other creditors-in either of which cases it might have been void under the statute of Elizabeth. The only ground, therefore, for attacking it, is that it is a conveyance of substantially all the debtor's effects. He then goes on to say that either a substantial exception out of the property transferred or a substantial advance would prevent a transfer from being void, though part of the consideration consists of a past debt. In Kevan v. Mawson (25 L. J., N. S., 395, Ex.), the deed falsely recited that it was made in consideration of £300 that day paid to the bankrupt, and it was proved that £60 only was advanced at the date of the deed, the rest of the consideration being a past debt; yet the deed was held good, no fraud being shown, although a part only of the property transferred realised £100. In Pennell v. Reynolds (5 L. J., N. S. 286, C. P.), the defendant had become security for some contracts entered into by the bankrupt as scavenger, and he al advanced to the bankrupt £250, for which ta latter made an assignment to him of all his property, which sold for £515. The bankrupt, who was examined as a witness, stated that the deed was executed for the purpose of enabling him to call upon the defendant at any time to stave off the rest of the creditors, and was executed as a security for the advance, and also as a security for the liability the defendant had incurred on his behalf. In another part of his statement he said it was to enable him to go on. At the trial a verdict was taken for the assignees, it being reserved for the court to say whether the verdict ought to stand, and to be at liberty to draw such inferences of fact as a jury might draw on a rule to enter a verdict for the defendant. Willes, J., says, "If there be an assignment of part of the goods with a real and substantial exception, that is not an act of bankruptcy, unless some fraud is proved, and in our judgment the advance of a sum of money prima facie puts the case in the same position as the exception of an equal amount of property from the assignment. It is not such a transaction as is necessarily, or primâ facie, an act of bankruptcy. If that, therefore, were the only point, we should have directed the verdict to be entered for the defendant, but there remains a most important question of fact, namely, whether upon the true construction of the bankrupt's evidence it ought to be decided that the deed was a pretence, and a wrong concocted by the bankrupt and the defendant for the purpose of staving off creditors." Further on he says, "Before you can hold such a deed to be invalid

you must be satisfied that part of the substantial object which the parties had in view was to stave off the creditors. Now that object must not only be the object of the bankrupt, but also the object of the party dealing with him, in order to make the transaction invalid as an act of bankruptcy; as I have already stated, the transaction would not be prima facie an act of bankruptcy. It obviously depends upon the question of fact whether a fraud was contemplated and committed here by the execution of the deed. The court had not been able unanimously to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the point, and they do not think it right to take further time to consider; therefore there must be a new trial, in order that the opinion of a jury may be taken upon it." I have set out this case at some length because I notice that in the report of Ex parte Fisher, Mellish, L.J. is made to say "that all that was decided in the above case was that a conveyance of all a debtor's property partly in security of a past debt, and partly for a fresh advance, was not necessarily an act of bankruptcy." Lord Chancellor Cranworth (L. Rep. 1 Ch. 128, Re Colmere), speaks with approval of the judgment of Willes, J. in the above case. In Mercer v. Paterson (L. Rep. 2 Ex. 204) and again reported in Error (L. Rep. 3 Ex. 105), Cockburn, C.J. says, "The simple question is whether £64 can be considered as an equivalent for the transfer of the trader's property; the effects we take to have been worth £115, and even if the £64 were the sole consideration, I think we should have been justified in holding it to be a substantial consideration." There is nothing in this case to negative the proposition-on the contrary, there is much to affirm it. The trader obtained a fair equivalent for the bill, the past debt secured by it was £107, the fresh advance £64 11s. 8d.; the judgment of the court below went on somewhat different grounds, but was affirmed. Then it is said by Mr. Sparkes that the advance, to be considered as an equivalent, should be paid into the bankrupt's hands, and not appropriated to specific creditors; but that very point was taken in Hutton v. Cruttwell (22 L. J. 78, Q. B.), and overruled by the judgment of the court, and the same point was also so decided in Whitmore v. Claridge (32 L. J. 87, Q. B.). I may mention also the case of Bell v. Simpson (26 L. J. 363, Ex.), as showing the tendency of the late decisions; there, a debtor being pressed by a creditor, went to another creditor to whom he owed £60, and telling him that if he did not sell his stock he must shut up, induced him to advance £70 on receiving a bill of sale of all the debtor's effects, on trover by his assignees. The court said they found no evidence that the transaction was not bona fide. In the present case the advance was £145, nearly twothirds of the value of the goods, and also of the pre-existing debt. I cannot, therefore, in the face of the decisions above referred to, hold that it was not a fair equivalent in respect of amount. It has also been shown that its validity is not impaired by its having been paid direct to creditors, and that it cannot be impeached by reason of fraud existing in the nephew only, of which the uncle was innocent. And here the case might fairly be left, as no suggestion was made by the learned advocate of the existence of actual fraud on the part of the uncle, but merely what he termed legal fraud, his whole argument, so far as the uncle was concerned, being based on matter of law. But I think it will be more satisfactory to all parties if I advert to circumstances which induce me-and I think would induce any jury to believe that the uncle had acted throughout with bona fides, and was not in collusion with his nephew, or had any knowledge of his nephew's insolvent condition. No doubt, where transactions of this nature occur between near relatives they are naturally open to suspicion, and are very properly made the subject of most searching inquiry, and no one who reads through the 600 questions put to uncle and nephew can doubt that such has been the case here. Both uncle and nephew are questioned as to who first proposed including the past debt, and that matter is still left in doubt, but the uncle swears that he had at the time such ccnfidence in his nephew that he would have been quite contented to have taken the security for the fresh advance alone, but that he left the matter entirely in the hands of his legal adviser, Mr. Davie. He is then asked how, if he had such implicit confidence in his nephew, he returned only a few days afterwards to investigate his nephew's affairs, which he had neglected to do on the first occasion? His answer is that his partner remonstrated with him on the imprudence of having advanced so large a sum of money without having done so, and urged him to go down imme. diately and do so, which he did, when he says he found his nephew had completely deceived him, and that he told him so. And I must say the fact of his having so gone down strongly impresses my mind with the sense of his having acted in good faith, because if he had acted fraudulently from the first, it would have been his policy to keep away from his nephew, and to

know, or pretend to know, as little about his affairs as possible. Again he is asked why he took possession in such haste, and he says it was by the advice of Mr. Davie, who informed him of the banking account the nephew had opened, and of his cheques being dishonoured. And lastly he is asked whether he had not at the time any suspicion of the nephew's insolvency, and he says on his oath he had not, or he never would have risked so large a sum of money, and indeed it is difficult to imagine that he would. I am aware that the oath of a holder of a security is not necessarily to be relied upon if he is shown to have had a knowledge of facts which must necessarily have led his mind to a contrary conclusion-Ex parte Snowball (L. Rep. 7 Ch. 534,), but in the present case the facts, especially the large sum advanced, and, I may add, the second visit for the purposeof investigation, are more consistent with the truth of the uncle's statement than its falsehood. The relationship which, in one aspect, tends to suspicion, in another leads in an opposite direction, and helps to account for the implicit confidence which he states he placed in the bankrupt's statements. The motion, therefore, must be dismissed. Floud applied for the costs attendant upon the motion.

His HONOUR said he took it for granted that these would come out of the estate.

Sparkes, however, informed his Honour that there was no estate, and the latter, therefore, declined to grant the application.

LEGAL NEWS,

COURTS OF JUSTICE.-The amount expended in courts of justice (exclusive of courts of equity) was in the year ended the 31st March £649,200 10s. 8d., and the estimated cost of the current year is £655,000.

LEGACIES AND SUCCESSIONS.-The net sum of

£3,360,489 9s. 10 d. was realised in the year ended the 31st March last by the Stamp Duties on legacies and seccessions.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR.-We are glad to be able to say that the infirmity of eyesight which has unfortunately led to Lord Hatherley's resig nation is due, not to any painful attack, but to cataract, which is taking its ordinary course. Although Lord Hatherley's resignation has been accepted, and the Queen has expressed her approval of the appointment of Sir Roundell Palmer, that appointment cannot take place until Her Majesty's next Council.

WE learn from a local source that some excitement has been created in Taunton by the rumour that Mr. Henry James, one of the members for the borough, is about to be promoted to the office of Solicitor-General. It is understood that, should this statement turn out to be true, his re-election will be opposed, as the Conservatives are already taking measures towards that object, and Sir Alfred Slade has been named as their candidate. These proceedings, however, which originated in the expected elevation of the Attorney-General to the Bench, are for the present somewhat prema. ture.

VOTERS IN THE TEMPLE.-In the course of the revision of the electors' lists for the city of London, before Mr. Spencer Perceval, the revising barrister, several cases arose upon objections taken by the conservatives to parties whose names appear upon the rigister as the occupiers of chambers in the Inner Temple. Sir John Duke Coleridge, the Attorney-General, who is on the register in respect of chambers at 3, King's Bench-walk, was objected to on the ground that he did not occupy those chambers. Mr. Sidney Smith opposed the objection, and called the Attorney-General's clerk, who stated that Sir John had rented those chambers for some twenty years, but that some years ago he gave up the occupancy of them to another gentleman, who occupied them at present. Sir John occupied chambers in the Middle Temple, but he still held the tenancy of those in King's Bench-walk, and intended to resume the occupancy of them. At present there was no vestige of anything there belonging to him. The revising barrister held that there was no occupancy, and expunged the Attorney-General's name. Mr. Justice Quain, who is on the register for 3, Harcourt-buildings, was objected to on similar grounds, but in his case occupancy was proved, and the objection failed, the name of the learned judge being retained on the register. A third objection was taken to Mr. Patrick M Mahon, who is on the register in respect of chambers at 3, Doctor Johnson's-buildings; the ground of the objection was that Mr. M'Mahon did not reside within the requisite distance. Mr. Sidney Smith, in opposition to the objection called Mr. M Mahon's clerk, who stated that he was not authorised by his master to tell where his residence was, but he could assure the court that it was within twe miles of London. He did not sleep i chambers, and he did not reside in the

[ocr errors]

Campbell Smith contended that Mr. M'Mahon was bound by the Act of Parliament not only to specify his qualification but to state the place of abode or residence, and if he refused to do so his name must be struck off the register. The revising barrister was of the same opinion, and allowed the objection expunging Mr. M'Mahon's name from the register.

SUICIDE OF MR. JUSTICE WILLES. This morning a rumour was afloat of the sudden death of Mr. Justice Willes. The rumour was, indeed, that the learned gentleman had committed suicide, but we were reluctant to make the announcement until our inquiries had made the matter absolutely certain. We now regret to have to report that the death of the unfortunate gentleman was the result of an act of suicide. It seems that Mr. Justice Willes, who suffered a good deal from gout, had recently returned to Otterspool, near Watford, having been on circuit. The day before yesterday he was twice out rowing on the Colne, which runs through his garden; but yesterday morning, about half-past seven o'clock, he shot himself. The gout, it is thought, had flown to his head, and to that cause the shocking act is attributed. The Right Hon. Sir James Shaw Willes was the son of a physician of Cork, was born in 1814, and was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he took honours and graduated B.A. in 1836, and LL.D. in 1860. He was called to the bar by the Inner Temple in 1840, went the Home Circuit, and had a large business as a leading junior. In 1849 he edited, with Sir H. S. Keating, the well-known legal work, Smith's Leading Cases. In 1850 he was appointed a commissioner of common law procedure, and assisted in drawing the Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852, 1854, and 1860, founded on the report of the commissioners. These Acts were of much use, and they still regulate the practice of the courts. In 1855, when a vacancy occurred among the judges of the Court of Common Pleas, he was raised to the bench, and received the honour of knighthood. He was sworn of the Privy Council Nov. 3, 1871.-Standard, Oct. 3.

LINCOLN'S-INN. The enlargement of the library at Lincoln's-inn, which has for some time been in progress, under the superintendence of Sir Gilbert Scott, the architect, is now nearly completed. The building has been extended a considerable distance eastward, which admits of a largely increased space in the library, as well as the dining room of the hall. In carrying out the extension, the architectural features of the original building have been adhered to, the added portion not only resembling the old in every main feature, but, so far as was possible, the materials, including the brick and stone work of the east end of the building, were carefully preserved, and have again been used in the enlarged structure. This particularly applies to the stonework of the large eastern window, the whole of which, after being removed, has been replaced in the extended building, and now presents precisely the same appearance as it did before its removal. Carved arms, escutcheons, and armorial bearings, in stone, uniform with those in the original building, are displayed outside the structure in the spaces between the lower and upper windows of the added portion. A distinct and additional architectural feature has been imparted to the building by the erection of an octagonal tower at the south-east angle. The materials used in the construction of this tower, up to the eaves and parapet wall of the main building, are uniform with the main building itself, being of red brick, with stone facings. From this point the tower is carried up, entirely in stone, to an additional height of about 15ft., the stonework being carved. The extreme height of the tower is surmounted by a spire from 12ft. to 15ft. high, terminating in a vane. The spire, which has been finished during the present week, completes the external features of the enlarged building. In connection with the enlargement of the library, it may not be out of place to notice the memorial gates which have recently been erected at the south end of the gardens of the hall in memory of the late Col. Brewster, formerly colonel of the Inns of Court Rifle Volunteers. The fabric of these gates, which was designed in Belgium, is exceedingly light and ornamental. They consist of a large central gate and two smaller side gates, and are formed mainly of screen work representing memorial flowers. On the top of the central gate are the deceased colonel's arms, together with his name and date of his death, while on each of the other gates is the monogram of the Inns of Court Volunteers. Considerable alterations and building improvements are about to take place in Lincoln's-inn, immediately opposite to the east end of the library of the hall. It is intended to take down the whole of the buildings on each side of the square, known as the Old Building-square, and erect upon their site new chambers of an architectural character. New chambers of a similar character are also about to be erected on the western portion of the square itself, having its rontage to Lincoln's-inn Hall, and within the last

fortnight these have been commenced. When the new chambers now in course of erection in the square are completed, the old buildings adjoining will be taken down and new chambers erected on their site.-Builder.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR ELECT.-Sir Roundell Palmer to whom it is understood that Her Majesty has resolved to intrust the custody of the Great Seal as Lord High Chancellor, is the second son of the late Rev. William Jocelyn Palmer, many years rector of Mixbury, Oxfordshire; his mother was Dorothea Richardson, daughter of the late Rev. William Roundell, of Gledstone, Yorkshire. He was born at Mixbury on the 27th Nov. 1812, and was educated, first, for a short time at Rugby, under Dr. Wooll, and subsequently at Winchester School, from which he was elected in 1830 or 1831 to an open scholarship at Trinity College, Oxford. Here his undergraduate career was one of more than ordinary brilliancy, as he obtained in 1831 the Chancellor's prize for Latin verse on Numantia, and in 1832 the Newdigate prize for English verse, the subject being Staffa. He also gained the Ireland University Scholarship in 1832, and took his Bachelor's degree in Easter Term 1834, as a first-class man in the School of Literæ Humaniores. He was subsequently elected to the Eldon Law Scholarship, and also to an Oxfordshire Fellowship at Magdalen College, which he held for some years. He was called to the Bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1837. His career since that time as a Chancery barrister is known to all our readers, and of late years there has scarcely been an important appeal case before the House of Lords in which he has not been engaged professionally. He obtained silk in April 1819, was elected M.P. for Plymouth in the "Liberal Conservative" interest along with Lord Ebrington in 1847, but failed to secure his reelection at the General Election of 1852. In June of the following year, however, his old constituency again returned him, and he continued to represent them down to the middle of 1857. After having remained without a seat in Parliament for four years, he again entered the House of Commons in July 1861, as one of the members for Richmond, Yorkshire, which he has represented in the moderate Liberal interest down to the present time. Sir Roundell Palmer, who is one of the honorary Fellows of Magdalen College, was created D.C.L. of Oxford in 1862; he married in 1818 the Lady Laura Waldegrave, eldest surviving daughter of William, eighth earl Waldegrave. Sir Roundell Palmer will have been promoted to the highest judicial office without having ever held a seat on the ordinary judicial bench. Erskine was promoted in like manner, per saltum, in 1806; so was Henry Brougham in 1830; so was Sir Frederick Thesiger in 1858, and Sir Richard Bethell in 1861; in 1852, also, Lord St. Leonards was appointed Lord Chancellor of Great Britain without ever having held a seat on the English judicial bench, though he had sat as Lord Chancellor in Ireland for a few months in 1835, as did Lord Campbell in 1841. We understand that at present nothing definite has been settled as to the "name, style, and title" by which Sir Roundell Palmer will be summoned to the Upper House of Parliament, but it is more probable that he will be gazetted at an early date, as "Lord Selborne, of Selborne, in the county of Hampshire," in which parish he has lately purchased an estate and built a residence called Blackmoor, having previously erected and endowed there a church, the district assigned to which has been cut off from the mother parish of Selborne.

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE

PROFESSION.

NOTE.-This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.

free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not

LAW AGENCY.-With reference to your remarks on this subject, and the advertisement alluded to in your last issue, I would mention, with a view to put the public upon their guard against such cheap and spurious law, that quite lately, in a town in the west of England, some members of the "long firm," calling themselves agents of a debt-collecting society, visited numerous shopkeepers in the town, and for a fee of two guineas promised to collect their debts. They studiously abused the Profession and law charges, and persuaded many of the tradespeople to employ them, alleging that it did not signify if the debts were statute barred, as they could be recovered by their means through the Court of Chancery. This effrontery proved only too successful, and a harvest of guineas was reaped before prudence suggested to the agents a sudden departure. The public who are thus easily taken in when the plea is a saving to their own pockets by persons of whom they know nothing, deserve no sympathy, and may learn a lesson to value more highly than they have previously done the "respectable solicitor."

VIGILANS.

SOLICITORS' CHARGES IN COUNTY COURTS.On Wednesday, the 25th of Sept. last, I appeared for the plaintiff at the County Court at Uxbridge in five cases of upwards of £5 each, commenced by the same plaintiff against different defendants, in each of which I was successful. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when the judge politely in formed me that he would allow me one fee of 15s. to be distributed over the whole five cases. In vain I protested. The judge refused to allow the registrar to mark them, and instead of my fees about covering my travelling expenses, have had the pleasure of making a journey of about 230 miles and being absent three days for the sum of 15s. If the judge disallows four of my fees, why not disallow all? Or suppose the plaintiff had instructed five different solicitors, could the judge then have disallowed a fee on each case? Besides, the Act gives me a fee in each case, and, as far as I can see, no judge has power to disallow it. As the decision really affects us all, I shall be very glad to know what my brothers in law think of it, and also to learn if there is any method of compelling the judge to grant me the proper allowance.

B. B. B.

THE COUNTY AND SUPERIOR COURTS.-In answer to "Patronus," I beg to state that, if his own observation has not convinced him of the immensely greater number of plaints entered in the County Court of any given district, than of writs of summons, then I would refer him to the published returns, which are conclusive on the point. His assertion that the greater cost of the Superior Courts is for the most part occasioned by the present assizes, is not correct; for, inde pendently of the pleadings, the many interlocutory applications to a judge, for further and better par. ticulars of demand, or set-off, for further time to plead, for a plurality of pleas, for changing the venue, for relegating the case to a County Court, and for the many other objects which occur in the course of a suit-a great, or the greater portion of which are attended by counsel swell the costs vastly, besides occasioning much delay. A County Court action can in general be tried within a month of the entry of the plaint, whereas, a case in the Superior Courts can in the country be tried at an assize held twice in the year, or in some counties, three times. The entire cost of the trial of an action in the County Court where the claim does not exceed £20, including the court fees, does not in general amount to £5; and between £20 and £50, to £10; while on the other hand, few actions in the Superior Courts cost less, including a trial, than £100, and in many instances, £200 and upwards. This may not be out of proportion in important actions involving heavy claims or rights to freehold estates of great or considerable value, but is quite unrea sonable in actions for less than £100. That a superior tribunal attended by the present Bar of England, with the right of exclusive audience, is necessary for the trial of actions of the class I have last referred to, may be conceded, and the only desideratum would be to simplify the pleadings and diminish the technicality of procedure in the higher courts, and establish more frequent sittings for the trial of causes. I repeat, that the cost and delay of proceedings in our Superior Courts of equity are vastly greater than those of the Superior Courts of law, and those of equity suits in the County Court sink into insignificance beside them. The cost of the bill is in general more than the whole expense attending a suit in the County Court. "Patronus" forgot that the Judicature Commission recommended contentious jurisdiction being conferred on the registrars of County Courts up to £5 only in case the courts were enlarged, and then the registrars would be prohibited from private practice, and might in future be selected from the Bar. The unnecessary expense and delay of the Superior Courts, both of law and equity, in this country are grievously felt by the suitors, and their reform is loudly demanded by the public.

J. J.

NOTES AND QUERIES ON
POINTS OF PRACTICE.

NOTICE. We must remind our correspondents that this 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.

109. BANKRUPTCY-MOTION - ENFORCING ORDER.-I

have lately obtained an order on motion on a receiver with to pay over all moneys in his hands to the trustee. under Bankruptcy Rule 2 (1871), requiring him forthThe receiver has been duly served with an office copy of this order, but he still neglects to pay over the money in his hands. Can any of your readers inform me what steps should be taken by the trustee to enforce TRUSTEE the order?

110. WEEKLY HIRING-FURNISHED APARTMENTS.—A. hires furnished apartments for a week, and takes pos

session of them at twelve o'clock at noon on Saturday. On what day of the week, and hour of the day, does the tenancy terminate; and would the usual practice of lodgers leaving before noon amount to a custom in a particular place for tenancies to terminate at that hour? A. K.

111. CORPORATION SEAL.-Will any of your readers oblige me by saying, in an early number of the LAW TIMES, if it is requisite for the seal of a municipal corporation to be affixed to a deed at a meeting of the council, and if not, what are the formalities necessary to be observed. ' E. W.

112. CONVEYANCE.-A testatrix, by will dated March 1871, gave all her real estate to trustees, A. and B., upon trust to sell the same in such manner as they or he might think best, and after payment out of the net proceeds of certam legacies, to pay the residue thereof to the said A., one of the trustees. A. is wishful to have the land conveyed to himself and to pay the other legacies. How should this be effected? By a single release from B. to A., or by a conveyance from A. and B. to A., and in such case with or without an intermediate trustee, or how otherwise? A. Y. Z.

113. SUCCESSION DUTY.-In 1849 (before the Succestion Duty Act) a married woman purchased freehold property for a valuable consideration, and it was then conveyed to a trustee to such uses, &c., as the purchaser should appoint, in default to use of her for life, remainder to use of her children at twenty-one in fee simple. The purchaser died since the Succession Duty Act, and I shall be obliged for the opinion of some of your readers whether the children must now pay succession duty? A. SUBSCRIBER.

114. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869-QUORUM.-Will some of your readers, who have had experience on this point, kindly inform me what is a quorum under sect. 93. Must there be three creditors of £10 each or over, or may there be three creditors of under £10 each, or three creditors of over and under £10? I should much like a reply in next week's number.

V.

115. LIQUIDATION-TRUSTEE.-Is the trustee under a liquidation entitled to require from a creditor a certifi cate from the registrar of a County Court of a judgment in respect of which the creditor seeks to prove? Is the registrar bound to give a certificate, and, if so, is any, and what fee payable in respect of it? P. L. R.

116. SUCCESSION DUTY.-A. dies in 1835, and by his will devises (subject to a life interest therein given by him to his widow) certain real estate to his three sisters, C., D., and F., in fee in equal shares, as tenants in common, one of whom (C.) died in 1846 intestate, and a spinster, leaving her two sisters, D. and F., her coheiresses. D. died a spinster in 1853, having by her will devised all her real estate whatsoever and wheresoever, and whether in possession, reversion, remainder, or expectancy, unto trustees upon trust for sale. F. died a spinster in 1870, having by her will devised her real estate in a similar manner to that of her sister D. The testator's widow survived all his three sisters, and died in the present year. The trustees of the wills of D. and F. have recently sold the entirety of the real estate so devised by A. Will any of your correspondents favour me with an opinion (supported by authorities) as to whether the estates of D. and F. are liable to pay succession duty in respect of the said real estate, the same not having fallen into possession during their respective lifetimes, and, if so, is duty payable in respect of the entirety of such real estate, or only in respect of the two third shares devised to D. and F. by the will of A., the contingent interest of C. having devolved to D. and F. on the death of C., which occurred prior to the Succession Duty Act? J. P.

Answers.

(Q. 102.) FINAL EXAMINATION.-In answer to " A. B." I should suggest the following books, being those from which the questions for the Final Examination are, I believe, generally taken, viz., 1, Common Law: Smith's Action at Law, Powell on Evidence, and Watkin Williams on Pleading; 2, Conveyacing: Sugden's Vendors and Purchasers, and vol. 3 of Stephen's Blackstone; 3, Equity: Ayckbourn's Chancery Practice; 4, Bankruptcy: Smith's Bankruptcy Manual, and Bankruptcy Act 1869; and 5, Criminal Law: Russell on Crimes, and vol. 4 of Stephen's Blackstone. J. A. TUCKER.

(Q. 104.) DEVISE-LAPSE JOINTURE.-In reply to "J.I." I should say that in default of appointment by B., F.'s share will undoubtedly go into the testator's residuary bequest, but if A. is still living and has not renounced his appointment, he has a right to appoint to E. and G. in such shares as he likes, to the exclusion of F., even had he been living (it being a discretionary power given to A).

(Q. 107.) STAMP.-It is within the Act, which runs thus: "Agreement or any memorandum of an agreement made in English, or Ireland, under hand only, or made in Scotland without any clause of registration, and not otherwise specifically charged with any duty, whether the same be only evidence of a contract or obligatory upon the parties from its being a written instrument, 6d." "The duty may be denoted by an adhesive stamp, which is to be cancelled by the person by whom the agreement is first executed." I think nothing could be plainer than this. W. W.

PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS N.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature of advertisements, are charged 2s. 6d. each, for which postage stamps should be inclosed.

MR. CHARLES EDWARD HOWELL, solicitor, of Welshpool, has been appointed clerk to the magis. trates acting for the division of Deythur, in this county, upon the resignation of his father, Mr. A. Howell, who has held the office for thirty-three

years.

THE GAZETTES.

Bankrupts.

Gazette, Sept. 27.

To surrender in the Country.

POPE, JOSEPH, builder, Teddington. Pet. Sept. 21. Dep.-Reg. Bell. Sur. Oct. 10

WAUGH, WILLIAM, boot dealer, Jarrow. Pet. Sept. 24. Judge, Bradshaw. Sur. Oct. 15.

WOODCOCK, HENRY, and LERWILL, JOHN, builders, Birmingham Pet. Sept. 23. Reg. Chauntler. Sur. Oct. 14.

Gazette, Oct. 1.

To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. HOWS, JOHN FRANCIS, pawnbroker, Barnsbury-rd. Pet. 27. Reg. Brougham. Sur. Oct. 15

To surrender in the Country. ARMSTRONG, WILLIAM, hairdresser, Boston. Pet. Sept. 27. Reg. Staniland. Sur. Oct. 16 BROWN, JOSEPH, contractor, Hougomont-villas, Croydon. Pet. Sept. 23. Reg. Rowland. Sur. Oct. 21

BUDDEN, ISAAC RANDALL, baker, Ditcheat. Pet. Sept. 26. Reg. Foster. Sur. Oct. 15

CHOULES, JOSEPH, coal merchant, North Hinksey. Pet. Sept. 28.
Reg. Bishop. Sur. Oct. 18

COOPER, DANIEL, jun., grocer, Bradley, near Bilston,
Sept. 27. Reg. Brown. Sur. Oct. 12

Pet.

FRANKLIN, EDWARD, innkeeper, Sheffleld. Pet. Sept. 28. Reg. Wake. Sur. Oct. 11

POWELL, HENRY, farmer, Steeple Langton. Pet. Sept. 26. Dep.Reg. Nodder. Sur. Oct. 16

STAGG, THOMAS MITCHELL, file manufacturer, Sheffield. Pet.
Sept. 26. Reg. Wake. Sur. Oct. 11

THOMAS, BENJAMIN, wine merchant, Calverley.
Reg. Robinson. Sur. Oct. 15

Pet. Sept. 27.

WOOD, HENRY, and STEWART, JAMES, cloth agents, Manchester.
Pet. Sept. 26. Dep. Reg. Lister. Sur. Oct. 17

BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED.
Gazette, Sept. 24.

HEALEY, BENJAMIN, East India broker, East India-avenue,
Leadenhall-st. May 12, 1871.

Fiquidations by Arrangement.

FIRST MEETINGS.
Gazette, Sept. 27.

AKEROYD, ZACCHEUS, mason, Bradford; Oct. 11, at three, at
office of Sol., Neill, Bradford
BLAMPEY, PETER, builder, Torquay: Oct. 11, at two, at the
Queen's hotel, Exeter. Sol., Searle, Crediton

BOSTOCK, ROBERT; ROWBOTHAM, THOMAS; and BRUCKSHAW,
THOMAS, hat manufacturers, Hyde; Oct. 10, at three, at the
Pitt and Nelson inn, Ashton-under-Lyne. Sols., Brooks, Mar-
shall, and Brooks, Ashton-under-Lyne

BROWN, AARON, Tonbridge; Oct. 10, at eleven, at office of Sol., Stenning, Tonbridge

BURROW, ROBERT FOSTER, no occupation, Seaford; Oct. 9, at two, at office of Sol., Smith, Gresham-house

COBB, JOSEPH, stationer, Tonbridge; Oct. 10, at ten, at the Angel inn, Tonbridge. Sol., Palmer, Tonbridge

COLEMAN, NICHOLAS, ironmonger, Queen's-crescent, Kentishtown; Oct. 7, at twelve, at office of Sol., Rodwell, Chancerylane

manufacturer,

COTTERELL, JOSEPH FRANCIS, aerated water
Bath and Bristol; Oct. 15, at one, at office of Sol., Collins,
Bath
COTTERILL, JAMES, potato salesman, Manchester, and cab pro.
prietor, Stretford; Oct. 18, at two, at 1, St. George's-chambers,
Manchester. Sol., Evans

CROSS, GEORGE, grocer, Duxford; Oct 10, at eleven, at offices of
Sol., Ellison, Cambridge

DEVAUX, ALBERT, wine merchant, Commercial-st, Whitechapel; Oct. 7, at two, at office of Cooper Brothers, accountants. George-st, Mansion-house. Sols., Hillyer, Fenwick, and Stibbard, Fenchurch-st

FISHER, FREDERICK, and PICKERDEN, PETER, sawyers, Great Grimsby; Oct. 4, at eleven, at office of Sols., Grange and Wintringham, Great Grimsby

FORWARD, GEORGE, hatter, Manchester: Oct. 8, at half-past three, at office of Sol., Reddish, Manchester FULLWOOD, JOHN, builder, Leamington Priors; Oct. 7, at eleven, at office of Sol., Abbott, Leamington

GILBERT, JONATHAN, dealer in sewing machines, Hanley; Oct. 2, at eleven, at the County Court Offices, Hanley. Sol., Steven

son

GRANT, RICHARD, house decorator, Shepherd's-bush, Hammersmith; Oct. 9, at eleven, at the Richmond hotel, Shepherd'sbush, Hammersmith

GRIFFITHS, EDWIN, scrap iron dealer, West Bromwich; Oct. 14,
at eleven, at office of Sol., Jackson, West Bromwich
HALIVA, JOSEPH, superintendent of the Spanish and Portuguese
Jews' synagogue, Bevis-marks, St. Mary-axe; Oct. 14, at two, at
office of Sols., Tilley and Shenton, Finsbury-pl-south
HARMER, HENRY JAMES, milliner, Alexandra-ter, the Grove,
Stratford; Oct. 2, at three, at office of Sols., Miller and Stubbs,
Eastcheap

HARRISON, DANIEL, gardener, Low Coniscliffe, near Darlington;
Oct. 12, at eleven, at office of Sol., Clayhills, Darlington
HAWKINS, CHARLES, contractor, Newton, near Manchester, and
Levenshulme; Oct. 18, at eleven, at office of Sols., Boote and
Edgar, Manchester

HICKMAN, WILLIAM, butcher, Wolverhampton; Oct. 10, at twelve at office of Sol., Stratton, Wolverhampton HOWARD, WILLIAM, cheesemonger, Little Earl-st, Bloomsbury; Oct. 11, at three, at office of Sol., Ricketts, Frederick-st, Gray's. inn-rd

JENKINS, EDWIN WILLIAMS, wholesale iron merchant, Stamford. st, Blackfriars; Oct. 10, at three, at office of Sols., Saffery and Huntley, Tooley-st, London-bridge

KENNIER, GEORGE JOHNSON, alkali manufacturer, Newcastle, Gateshead, and Jarrow; Oct. 12, at one, at office of Sols, Messrs. Watson, Newcastle

LECKY, ROBERT JOHN, mechanical engineer, Westminster-brdg. rd; Oct. 8, at half-past three, at the Guildhall tavern, Greshamst. Sol., White, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury LLOYD, CHARLES, butcher, Shrewsbury; Oct. 11, at eleven, at office of Sol., Clarke, Shrewsbury

LOCK, FRANCIS WILLIAM, grocer, Bideford; Oct. 9, at eleven, at the Queen's hotel, Exeter. Sol., Bencraft, Barnstaple MARSHALL, HENRY CHARLES, butcher, Regent-st, Westminster; Oct. 6, at eleven, at office of Sol., Willis, St. Martin's-ct, Leicester-8q MILES, HENRY, fishmonger, Holloway-rd, and Highbury.pk; Oct. 14, at twelve, at office of Sols., Messrs. Thomson, Cornhill MILLS, THOMAS, cotton waste dealer, Ratcliffe, Oct. 16, at three, at office of Sols., Richardson and Dowling, Bolton MOORE, SARAH MARIA, upholsterer, Eleanor-rd, Woolwich; Oct. 14, at one, at offices of Sol., Colquhoun, Parson's-hill, Woolwich

OCKMORE, JAMES, refreshment-house keeper, Queen-st, Cheapside; Oct. 17, at two, at office cf Sol., Brown, Basinghall-st PARKER, ALFRED, stationer, Strand; Oct. 10, at three, at office PERKINS, JOHN CRAWFORD, grocer, Portsea; Oct. 8, at three, at office of Wainscot, Portsea. Sol., Blake, Portsea PICKERDEN, PETER, builder, Great Grimsby; Oct. 5, at twelve, at office of Sols., Grange and Wintringham. Great Grimsby PLACE, HENRY AVISON, carver, Halifax: Oct. 10, at eleven, at office of Sols., Norris, Foster, and England, Halifax PRIESTMAN, WILLIAM, and PARISH, JOHN WILLIAM, metal agents, George-yd, Lombard-st; Oct. 11, at two, at office of Sols., Carter and Beli, Leadenhall-st PRINCE, EDWARD, watchmaker, Landport; Oct. 11, at three, at the Chamber of Commerce, 145, Cheapside. Sols., Cousins and Burbidge, Portsmouth

of Sols., Morley and Shirreff, Mark-la

RESTALL, CHARLES, tailor, Farnham; Oct. 16, at two, at office of
Sols., Tilley and Shenton, Finsbury-pl-south
RICKARDS, SUSANNA, milliner, Aldershot; Oct. 9, at one, at office
of Sol., Eve, Aldershot

SADDINGTON, WILLIAM, grocer, Northampton; Oct. 11, at eleven, at the Chamber of Commerce, Northampton. Sol., Jeffery, Newland

SERVICE, JOHN, merchant, Sunderland; Oct. 10, at four, at office of Sol., Bell, Sunderland

STANSFIELD, ROBERT, artificial flower importer, Bradford; Oct. 18, at three, at office of Sol., Neill, Bradford THOMPSON, WILLIAM DANIEL, victualler, Chatham; Oct. 11, at two, at Morden Arms Rochester. Sol., Harrison, Furnival's-inn VASS, JOSEPH, and VASS, GEORGE, builders, St. Alban's; Oct. 7, at eleven, at office of Sol., Hutchinson, Vauxhall-bdge-rd WEATHERBY, DANIEL, draper, Congleton; Oct. 12, at eleven, at office of Sol., Cooper, Congleton

WELSH JAMES, victualler, Liverpool; Oct. 14, at two, at office of Sol., Hughes, Liverpool

WHIELDON, WILLIAM, mechanical engineer, Westminster-bridgerd; Oct. 8, at three, at the Guildhall tavern, Gresham-st. Sol., White, Southampton-st

WHITELY, JEREMIAH, draper, Bradford: Oct. 7, at three, at office of Sol., Gant, Kirkgate

WOLFE, WOLFE GERSON, draper, Salford; Oct. 10, at three, at office of Sol., Sampson, Manchester

Gazette Oct. 1.

BARBER, JOSEPH, accountant, Manchester; Oct. 16, at three, at
office of Sol., Kearsley, Manchester
BEARD, JASPER, miller, Watton; Oct. 15, at two, at 29, Carter-la,
Doctor's commons. Sol., Rashleigh, Gracechurch-st
BETTS, JAMES, upholsterer, Bury Saint Edmonds; Oct. 14, at a
quarter past eleven, at office of Hensman and Nicholson, 25,
College-hill, Cannon-st. Sols., Partridge and Greene, Bury
Saint Edmonds

BIRCH, TOM, and WATERWORTH, JOHN ALBERT, yarn dyers,
Sandbach; Oct. 16, at cleven, at the Clarence hotel, Manchester.
Sol., Bygott, Sandbach

BROCKBANK, JOSEPH, iron turner, Bolton; Oct. 15, at three, at office of Sols., Hall and Rutter, Bolton

BUTTER, EPHRAIM ALFRED, dairyman, Engineer-rd, Woolwichcommon; Oct. 11, at three, at office of Sols., Messrs. Scard, Bishopsgate-st Within CLAPPERTON, ALEXANDER, baker, Little Compton-st, Soho: Oct. 16, at two, at the Corn Exchange tavern, Market-la. Sol., Fraser, Dean-st, Soho COKE, ALEXANDER, draper, Blackburn; Oet. 15, at three, at office of Sols., Messrs. Backhouse, Blackburn COLLINS, WILLIAM, jun., grocer, Devonport; Oct. 14, at eleven, at office of Edmonds and Son, Plymouth CUNLIFFE, JOHN, paper manufacturer, Salford; Oct. 16, at three, at office of Sol., Addleshaw, Manchester DAVIES, DAVID, former, Tyrdref Llandyssil; Oct. 11, at two, at the Shire-hall, Carmarthen. Sol., Lloyd. Haverfordwest DAWKINS, GEORGE, leather seller, Upper North-st, Chelsea, and Richmond-rd, West Brompton; Oct. 17, at three, at office of Sols., Bailey and Child, Sloane-st, Knightsbridge DRYDEN, HENRY, soap manufacturer, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Oct. 0, at two, at office of Sol, Bousfield, Newcastle-upon-Tyne EAGLES, WILLIAM, gun implement maker, Aston; Oct. 14, at twelve, at office of Sol., Hawkes, Birmingham

FENTON, ARTHUR, gentleman, Alby; Oct. 12, at twelve, at offices of Sols., Emerson and Sparrow, Norwich FLETCHER. ISAAC, boiler maker, Hallfields; Oct. 15, at eleven, at office of Sol., Stokes, Dudley

FURZELAND, THOMAS HOSKING, grocer, Devonport,; Oct. 14, at half-past eleven, at office of Edmonds and Son, Plymouth GARDNER, JOSEPH CLARK, draper, Shieldfleld; Oct. 11, at two, at ofice of Sol, Sewell, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

GOODDY, ELISHA, grocer, St. Osyth, Oct. 15, at two at office of Sols., Kent and Smith, Norwich

HATTATT, JOHN FOOTE, brewer, Southampton; Oct. 15, at three,
at office of Sols., Stead, Tylee, and Potter, Romsey
HEATON, WILLIAM, joiner, Gateshead; Oct. 15, at twelve, at
office of Cranston, accountant, Gateshead. Sol., Robson, Gates-
head
HENSMAN, CHARLES, agricultural implement agent, Wollaston;
Oct. 15, at three, at office of Sol., Becke, Northampton
HILDRED, EDWARD ABLITT, draper, Boston; Oct. 10, at half-past
ten, at office of Sol., York, Boston
HUNT, HENRY, hotel-keeper, Landport; Oct. 12, at four, at office
of Paice, accountant, Landport. Sol, Walker, Portsea
JAGGAR, CHARLES, Cooper, in par. St. Thomas, Oxford; Oct. 16,
at twelve, at office of Sol, Berridge, Duke-st, Manchester-sq.
London, and Bicester

JONES, MARY, and JONES, MARGARET, milliners, Shrewsbury;
Oct. 14, at eleven, at office of Sol., Morris, Shrewsbury
JOSEPH, MARK, grocer, Leman st, Whitechapel; Oct. 21, at two,
ut office of Ludbury, Collison, and Viney, Cheapside.
Messrs. Lewis, Ely-pl, Holborn

Sols.,

KEET, GEORGE, innkeeper, Farnham: Oct. 9, at twelve, at the Lion and Lamb inn, Farnham. Sols., Hollest and Mason KINNERSLEY, THOMAS, butcher, Hereford; Oct. 14, at eleven at No. 2, Palace-yard, Hereford. Sol, Garrold LAMPE, JOHANNES LOUIS, and CHRISTIE, MARGARET, school proprietors, George-la, Woodford; Oct. 14. at twelve, at office of Pinwill, Piuner's-hall, Old Broad-st. Sol., Stacpoole, Pinner's-hall, Old Broad-st

LEDIARD, PEREGRINE, draper, Brighton; Oct. 16, at twelve, at offices of Smith, Fawdon, and Low, 12, Bread-st, Cheapside. Sol., Lamb, Brighton

LITTLER, EDWARD, confectioner, Holywell; Oct. 15, at twelve at the Queen's Railway Commercial Hotel, Chester. Sol., Davies Holywell

LLOYD, ALFRED, wholesale tea dealer, Little Tower-st; Oct. 15, at three, at office of Sols., Allen and Edwards, Old Jewry LLOYD, EDWIN, joiner, Holywell; Oct. 16, at eleven, at office of Sol., Davies, Holywell

LLOYD, THOMAS, beerhouse keeper, Ombersley; Oct. 12, at twelve, at office of Sol., Corbet, Kidderminster

MARRIOTT, THOMAS, Corn merchant, London-ter, Nine Elms-la; Oct. 11, at two, at offices of Eyre and Smith, Poultry. Sol., Dunn, Cheapside

MARTLAND, JOSHUA, innkeeper, Latham; Oct. 16, at three, at office of Sols., Parr and Sadier, Ormskirk

MARZIALS, ANTOINE THEOPHILUS, clerk in holy orders, Brunswick-row, Queen-sq; Oct. 11, at twelve, at office of Edward, Beesley, and Co., accountants, Finsbury-pavement. Sol., Darville, Finsbury-pavement

MILNER, WILLIAM, grocer, Selby; Oct. 18, at twelve, at the Great Northern Station hotel, Leeds. Sol.. Bantoft, Selby MURRAY, JAMES, shoe manufacturer, Upper Baker-st, and Limerick; Oct. 21, at three, at office of Sols., Lewis, Munns, and Longden, Old Jewry

NICHOLSON, JOSEPH, and SATTERTHWAITE, JOSEPH, bobbin turners, Ulpha; Oct. 16, at two, at office of Sol., Meakin, Broughton-in-Furness

NISBET, WILLIAM, Indiarubber warehouseman, Watling-st; Oct. 14, at ten, at office of Sol., Haigh, jun., King-st, Cheapside ORGAR, WILLIAM, farmer, Arkesden; Oct. 17, at cleven, at the Lion Hotel, Petty Cury. Sols., Saimon and Son PACKER, WILLIAM, builder, The Grove, St. Ann's-hill, Wandsworth Oct. 15, at three, at office of Sol., Sherrard, Lincoln'sinn-fields

PAGNAM, FREDERICK, butcher, Salford; Oct. 16, at four, at office of Messrs. Homer, Manchester. Sol., Duckworth, Manchester PEARSON, HENRY WILLIAM, and NEWTON, JAMES WHEELER, wine merchants, Liverpool, Oct. 14, at two, at offices of Gibson and Bolland, Liverpool. Sol, Mather, Liverpool PENDLEBURY, THOMAS, plumber, Buxton; Oct. 16, at four, at the White Bear hotel, Manchester. Sol., Taylor PHILLIPS, JAMES AUGUSTUS, soda water manufacturer, Canton : Oct. 10, at eleven, at office of Sol., Morgan, Cardiff PRATT, WILLIAM, stonemason, Birmingham; Oct. 11, at twelve, at office of Sol., Hawkes, Birmingham RANDALL, THOMAS, pair.ter, Norwich; Oct. 14, at three, at office of Sol, Stanley, Norwich

RIGGALL, HENRY, the younger, Boston East; Oct. 11, at one, at the Peacock hotel, Boston. Sol., Hyde, jun., Louth ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERT, surgeon, Handsworth; Oct. 10, at twelve, at office of Sol., Taylor, Birmingham RODGETT, JAMES, licensed victualler, Liverpool; Oct. 16, at three at office of Sol., Nordon, Liverpool

SEARLE, GEORGE CLEMENT, surgeon, Egremont Oct. 12, at two, at office of Brown, solicitor, Tewkesbury. Sol., Jones, Birkenhead

SHEARS, ROBERT, fishmonger, Kew-rd, Richmond; Oct. 15, at three, at 12, Hatton-gdn. Sol., Marshall

SLY, JOHN, baker, Battersea-sq; Oct. 14, at eleven, at office of Sol. Russel, 16, Walbrook

SOMERVILLE, WALLACE COCHRANE, and PIDCOCK, SPENCER. ironfounders, Suffolk-grove, Great Suffolk-st, Southwark; Oct, 15, at one, at office of Sol., Shiers, New-inn, Strand STANSFIELD, JOHN, and AUTY, FRANCIS, contractors, Batley; Oct. 14, at three, at the Royal hotel, Dewsbury. Sol, Ibberson, Dewsbury

TAYLOR, PETER, out of business, Walton-rd, near Liverpool: Oct. 14, at three, at office of Vine, public accountant, Liverpool THOMAS, JOHN. auctioneer, Llanllawddog; Oct. 7, at five minutes past ten, at office of Sol., Evans, Carmarthen WAITE, JOHN, yarn spinner, Huddersfield; Oct. 15, at elever office of Sol., Milnes, Huddersfield

« ZurückWeiter »