right of a neutral to trade with blockaded territory cannot be cut off unless a blockade exists de facto. The assault made upon "paper blockades" by the First Armed Neutrality of 1780 was embodied in the provision that blockades to be effective must be maintained by vessels stationary and sufficiently near to produce evident danger in entering. After a long interval followed the Declaration of Paris of 1856, providing that "blockades in order to be binding must be effective-that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy." The German blockade thus ridiculed by Mr. Asquith has its analogy in the Berlir and Milan decrees of Napoleon unwarrantably reviving the restrictions of blockade in all their ancient severity. At that time it was that France declared the British Isles to be in a state of blockade, despite the fact that she dared not send a single squadron to sea for fear of capture by the British navy. The step taken by the allies to prevent all commodities from reaching or leaving Germany has been compared with the commercial blockade instituted, after the outbreak of the American Civil War, along the entire coast of the Southern Confederacy, the most extensive commercial blockade the world has ever seen ―a blockade which finally assumed serious military importance in so far as it promoted a scheme of conquest materially advanced by the cutting off of supplies on every side. The measures of the allies create a situation analogous to that of the Southern blockade, but by no means parallel thereto. No blockade, in the strict sense of the word, is designed by the allies, whose views, notwithstanding their adhesion to the definition in the Declaration of Paris in 1856 of an effective blockade, differ materially, Great Britain, like the United States, holding that the efficiency of a blockade should be interpreted in a much wider sense than the very strict construction placed thereon by France or some other continental Powers. Then, too, the penalties for breach or attempted breach of a blockade will not apply to ships bound for enemy ports taken by the British or French fleets. The penalty for a breach or attempted breach of a blockade in the event of capture is the forfeiture of both ship and cargo, provided they belong to the same owner. If their owners are different, the vessel may be condemned and the cargo restored according to circumstances. Mr. Asquith thus explained the position of ships taken under the Government measures whose treatment will be very different from that of blockade runners: "The British and French Governments will hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships carrying goods of a presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin. It is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargo unless they would otherwise be liable to confiscation." THE FRENCH PRIZE COURT. THE thoughts of France and the whole world being centred upon the Dacia, it is proposed to give a short account of the French Prize Court. It may be assumed that the first step in the procedure is to notify the Conseil or Cour des Prises of the fact that the ship has been captured. The Council or Court of Prizes is not a consultative institution. It is a tribunal which decrees, with appeal to the Conseil d'Etat, upon the vali ity of every prize which comes under French jurisdiction. The tribunal is a permanent institution and the last acte organique which concerns it is the decree of the 9th May 1859. According to this decree the Conseil sits in Paris, but while the Government was at Bordeaux the court held its sittings in the latter city, and there rendered its judgments. The court is composed of a Conseiller d'Etat, the president; six members of whom two are selected from among the maitres des requites of the Council of State; and a commissary of the Government, who gives the conclusions in each case, and who is ordinarily selected from the maires des requites of the Council of State. The members of the court are nominated by decree, upon the demand of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Marine. The sittings of the court are not public Its decisions can only be rendered by five members at least, and are subject to appeal to the Conseil d'Etat. The appeal must take place within three months. The avocats of the Conseil d'Etat have alone the privilege of signing bills and requests presented to the court. The crews of ships belonging to the Powers allied to France are represented before the court by the consul of their nation, or by any other agent nominated by their Government. The foreign consular agents can present to the court all observations which they consider essential in the interests of their country, but only through the commissary of the Government. In the case of the Dacia, the owner of the ship and the shippers can be represented by avocats of the Conseil d'Etat, and memorials to sustain their interests may be lodged. The representatives of the United States will be permitted to present such observations as they think necessary, but only by the commissary of the Government. The court is composed of the following: President, M. Mayniel, president of the Section du Contentieux au Conseil d'Etat; members: MM. Mazerat, Inspector General of the Commissariat of the Navy, Conseiller d'Etat en service extraordinaire; ViceAdmiral Lefebvre; René Worms, maître des requêtes au Conseil d'Etat; Gauthier, Consul-General; Péan, Consul-General; and one other to be nominated. The English and French laws as to prizes are not identical, although a decree of the 25th Aug. last ratified the Treaty of London. The jurisprudence of the Court of Prizes is based in effect upon art. 7 of the Reglement of the 26th July 1778 "concerning the navigation of neutral ships in a case of war," a regulation which has never been abrogated. The article is in these terms: Ships enemy built, or which have had an enemy ownership, cannot be considered as neutrals or allies, if there are not found, to begin with, authentic documents, executed before public officers, which will assure the date and which will prove that the sale or transfer (cession) has been made to some person of the allied or neutral Powers before the commencement of hostilities, and if the aid act of transfer of the property of the enemy to the neutral or allied subject has not been registered before the principal officer at the place of departure and signed by the owner or by someone empowered so to do for him. It may be convenient here to notice the law of France and Germany relative to the question of the transfer of the flag and the change of nationality of ships. The French legislation is to be found in the "Instructions upon the application of international law in case of war addressed by the Minister of Marine to MM. the general superior officers and others commanding the naval forces and ships of the Republic." Art. 13, sect. 112, reads: The transfer under neutral flag of an enemy ship effected after the opening of hostilities is null unless it be established that this transfer has not been effected with the object of evading the consequences to which enemy ships are exposed-for example, par suite d'héritage. Sect. 113. Nevertheless there is an absolute presumption of nullity: (i.) If the transfer has been effected while the ship is (ii.) If there be a power to repurchase or to return; observ d. The German legislation (Reichs-Gesetzblatt of the 3rd Aug. 1914, Ordinance relative to prizes of the 30th Sept. 1909) is set out as follows in: Art. 2 sect. 12. Those must be considered as enemy vessels which have been transferred after the opening of hostilities under a neutral flag: (i.) If the commander of the capturing ship have not iii) If there be a power to repurchase or to return; To draw attention to the similarity of the two sets of regulations would be an incursion into the obvious. The similarity, however, points to a common origin-namely, art. 56 of the Declaration of London 1909, which is thus rendered in Professor Higgins' work on The Hague Peace Conferences, p. 560: The transfer of an enemy vessel to a neutral flag, effected after the outbreak of hos ilities, is void unless it is proved that such transfer was not made in order to evade the consequences to which an enemy vessel, as such, is exposed. "There is, however, an absolute presumption that a transfer is void : (i) If the transfer has been made during a voyage, or in a blockaded port; (ii) If a right to repurchase or recover the vessel is reserved to the vendor; (iii.) If the requirements of the municipal law governing the right to fly the flag under which the vessel is sailing have not been fulfilled." A recent enactment of the United States-viz., that of the 18th Aug. last-declares, says a writer in Le Temps, that the nationality of a ship can be changed without any time condition; formerly it was necessary for the transaction to be valid that it should have taken place a long time before the war. The same writer notices briefly the laws of other countries fixing the conditions determining the nationality of ships belonging to them. In Great Britain the construction of the ship may be national or foreign, but the ownership must be exclusively national, and the crew may be composed of British or foreigners. In Austria the same conditions obtain for the construction and ownership of the vessel, but the captain and two-thirds of the crew must be Austrians. France permits the ship to be foreign built, and half the ownership may be in foreign hands, but the headquarters of the owners and three-fourths of the ship's complement (effectif) must be French. According to the law of the United States the construction must be national; the ownership must be exclusively national. The ship must be officered by Americans and two-thirds of the crew must be citizens of the Great Republic. Concluding, it may be observed that one of the points which may prove fatal to the Dacia is whether the requirements of the law in regard to the nationality of the officers and crew have been strictly fulfilled. Amherst, Nova Scotia, Feb. 10, 1915. CANADIANS are taking a deep interest in the status of naturalised aliens. This is caused partly by the great war and partly by the Naturalisation Act 1914, which came into operation the first day of this year. The policy of the Canadian Government for several years with respect to immigration has been to encourage immigrants to come to this country and make it their permanent home, and this policy has been successful, with a result that there are to-day within her borders many citizens of German and Austrian origin. There is little doubt that many of these have been naturalised in Canada under previous naturalisation Acts in force in Canada, but now repealed by the above-mentioned statute. Under the previous statutes relating to naturalisation in Canada, an applicant for Canadian citizenship was required to prove his residence in Canada during a period of three years within the last previous five years, take the oath of allegiance, and procure from certain officials a certificate that he was a person of good character and that there existed to the knowledge of the official no reason why the applicant should not be granted all the rights and capacities of a natural-born British subject. As a result, many foreigners who were able to comply with the law and desired to be naturalised found little or no difficulty in attaining their desires. The certificate to be furnished by the official came almost as a matter of course, regardless of the origin, religious views, or educational attainments of the applicant Previous to this year the status of a naturalised alien was described as follows-that is to say, that the applicant has become naturalised as a British subject and is within Canada entitled to all political and other rights, powers, and privileges and is subject to all the obligations to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject within Canada. With this qualification, that he shall not, when within the limits of the foreign State of which he was a subject previously, be deemed to be a British subject unless he has ceased to be a subject of that State in pursuance of the laws thereof or in pursuance of a treaty or convention to that effect," and such status, with such territorial limitation, could only be conferred by virtue of the Canadian statutes. No other part of the Empire, not England herself, exercised or claimed the right to give a naturalised alien the status of a natural-born British subject throughout the Empire. By virtue, however, of the new Act, which is intended to have a co-operative effect with the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, Canada is now enabled to give the naturalised citizen a status described as follows-that is to say, he shall be entitled to all political and other rights, powers, and privileges and be subject to all obligations, duties, and liabilities to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject, and as from the date of his naturalisation have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject." Canada has therefore, by virtue of this legislation surrendered her exclusive right of determining who shall and who shall not be naturalised in Canada, and, on the other hand, has acquired the right to give to an alien naturalised in Canada a status not territorially limited to Canada, but extending at the present time to the United Kingdom and to such of the British possessions as have adopted or shall hereafter adopt Part 2 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. Ought there to be executive or judicial power to revoke a certificate of naturalisation heretofore granted to an alien who is now a sympathiser with the enemy? This question has often arisen since the outbreak of the present war. It is probable that it will be found more convenient to deal with such citizens under special laws to be passed, which shall not deprive them of their status of citizens, but enable the authorities to make and enforce regulations for effectively preventing them from aiding the enemy. In connection with the present war, it is interesting to note that the United Empire Loyalists of Ontario became incorporated on the 27th May 1914, under cap. 146 of the statutes of the Dominion of Canada for 1914, by the name of "The United Empire Loyalists Association of Canada," and that the purposes of the association are: (a) To unite together, irrespective of creed or political party, the descendants of those families who, during the American revolutionary war of 1775 to 1783, sacrificed their homes in retaining their loyalty to the British Crown, and to perpetuate this spirit of loyalty to the Empire; (b) to preserve the history and traditions of that important epoch in Canadian history by rescuing from oblivion the history and traditions of the loyalist families before it is too late; (c) to co lect together in a suitable place the portraits, documents, books, weapons, flags, monuments, memorials, and all other articles and things relating to the United Empire Loyalists which are now scattered throughout Canada and elsewhere; (d) to publish an historical and genealogical journal or annual transactions; (e) to erect, construct, and repair buildings, monuments, memorials, and also to purchase real estate and other things that may be considered desirable to perpetuate the memory of the United Empire Loyalists. A law of the State of Kansas declared that an employer of labour should not discharge a workman from his employ because the workman joined a labour union. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently declared this law to be unconstitutional and invalid by a majority of six to three. The decision is said in some quarters to be probably the most reactionary decision that has come from the Supreme Court of the United States since Dred Scott was declared to be a slave though a resident of a State where slavery had been abolished. In the majority opinion it is said: “The individual has no inherent right to join the union and still remain in the employ of one who is unwilling to employ a union man, any more than the same individual has a right to join the union without the consent of that organisation. Just as labour organisations have the inherent and constitutional right to deny membership to any man who will not agree that during such membership he will not accept or retain employment in company with non-union men, and just as a union man has the constitutional right to decline proffered employment unless the employer will agree not to employ any non-union man, so the employer has the constitutional right to insist that the employee shall refrain from affiliation with the union during the term of the employment. There cannot be one rule of liberty for the labour organisation or its members and a different and more restrictive rule for employers. The employee's liberty of making contracts does not include a liberty to procure employment from an unwilling employer or without a fair understanding. Nor may the employer be foreclosed by legislation from exercising the same freedom of choice that is accorded to the employee. ask a man to agree in advance to refrain from affiliation with the union while retaining a certain position of employment is not to ask him to give up any part of his constitutional freedom. He is free to decline the employment on those terms just as the employer may decline to offer employment on any other, for 'it takes two to make a bargain. And, having accepted employment on those terms, the man is still free to join the union when the period of employment expires; or, if employed at will, then at any time upon simply quitting the employment. And, if bound by his own agreement to refrain from joining the union during a stated period f employment, he is in no different situation from that which is necessarily incident to contracts in general. Justices Day, Holmes, and Hughes dissented. F. L. MILNER. To THE BUILDERS OF OUR LAW DURING THE REIGN OF QUEEN VICTORIA. By EDWARD MANSON. Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged 10s. 6d., Post Free. Giving a Sketch of the Lives of the Greatest of Modern English Judges in an interesting and anecdotal form.FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE COX) LTD., "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's Buildings, E.C.-[ADV AN ANECDOTAL HISTORY OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, FROM THE EARLIEST PERIODS. With Notices of Eminent Parliamentary Men, and Examples of their Oratory. Compiled from authentic sources by GEORGE HENRY JENNINGS. Fourth Edition, in Demy 8vo., 700 pages. Price 7s. 6d.-FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE COX) LTD., "Law Times Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E. C.[ADVT.] GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. DANIEL (Betsy Ann), Bradford, Devon, who died May 26, 1910. Heir-atlaw or other persons entitled to her real estate to come in, by April 7, and prove their claims before Master Watkin Williams, at chambers of Warrington and Sargant, JJ., and enter their names at Room 254, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing April 14, at 12, at said chambers, Room 252. EGLINTON (Charlotte), Holmwood, Dorking. Next of kin living on May 4, 1914, or their legal personal representatives claiming under inquiries made in an action in the matter of the estate of Charlotte Eglinton, deceased; James Joseph Eglinton v. William Edward Eglinton and others, to come in, by Oct. 20, at chambers of the Judge, Room 710, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing Oct. 27, at 11.30, at said chambers, Room 706. EMBURY (Francis), Winkfield, Berks. Brothers and sisters living at the death of his widow, Eliza Embury (Nov. 9, 1912), or the issue of any who predeceased her, or their respective legal personal representatives claiming under inquiries made in an action in the matter of the estate of Francis Embury, deceased; Page v. Bowyer, to come in, by June 21, and enter their claims with Master C. Hulbert, at chambers of Warrington and Sargant, JJ. Hearing June 29, at 12.30, at said chambers, Room 315. SCATCHERD or SCATCHARD (John), Bridlington. Heir-at-law living on Dec. 28, 1894, also the heir-at-law living on July 13, 1914, of his daughter, Lily May Scatcherd, to come in, by April 9, at chambers of Joyce, J., 186, Deansgate, Manchester. Hearing April 12, at 12, at said chambers. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 P.M. AFRICAN OSTRICH FARM COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by A. ROSEDALE AND SON LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 31, to DANIEL C. COLEY AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors whose claims have not been admitted to send forthwith, or by April 10, to A. J. O. Andrews, 15, Harp-la, E.C. DOBSONS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 29, to W. H. P. Gibson, 26, Portugal-st, W.C., or to E. H. Hawkins, 4, Charterhouse8q, E.C. FERMAN AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 31, to M. O. Beale, 4, London-wall-bldgs, E.C., or to E. H. Hawkins, 4, Charterhouse-sq, E.C. FOSTER, OPPENHEIMER, AND CO LIMITED.-Adjourned petition, also petition for compulsory winding-up, or, in the alternative, for continuing the voluntary winding-up under supervision of the court, to be heard March 16, at Royal Courts of Justice. Reynolds and Miles, 70, Basinghall-st. E.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by March 15. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION LIMITED.-Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up, subject to supervision of the court, made by Astbury. J., dated Feb. 23. Edgar and Co.. 9-10, Fenchurch-st, E.C., sols. to pets. HARRIS BELTING COMPANY LIMITED. - Petition for winding-up to be heard March 16, at Royal Courts of Justice. Cruesemann and Rouse, 85, Gracechurch-st, E.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by March 15. HENSHAW, TRAVIS, AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 22, to H. Sadler, 31, North John-st, Liverpool. HURDLES LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard March 18, at Luton County Court. Malkin and Co., The Rectory House, Martin'sla, E.C., sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by March 17. INTERNATIONAL ROTARY MOTORS LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard March 24, at Cardiff County Court, at 10. Downing and Handcock, Bute Docks, Cardiff, agents for Langford and Redfern, Moorgate Station-chmbrs, Moorfields, E.C., sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by March 23. JOHN MORGAN AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 13, to F. G. Cole, 71, Lord-st. Liverpool. LYCEUM CLUB LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up presented March 6, by James Hayes and Sons, to be heard March 23, at Royal Courts of Justice. J. and C. Dodd, 11, New-sq. Lincoln's-inn, W.C., sols. for pets. Petition for winding-up presented Feb. 11, by Willing and Co. Limited, Gray's-inn-rd, to be heard March 23, at Royal Courts of Justice. Taylor, Rowley, Lewis, and Davis, 34 and 36, Greshamst, E.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by March 22. OILFIELDS FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard March 16, at Royal Courts of Justice. Best and Best, 24, Budge-row, Cannon-st. É.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by March 15. PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINTING AND ETCHING MACHINERY LIMITED.--Petition for winding-up to be heard March 16, at Royal Courts of Justice. C. J. Smith and Hudson, 5, Fenchurch-st, E.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by March 15, POULTONS AND TIMMIS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 20, to J. Eades, 53, Victoria-st, Westminster. Brain and Brain, Reading. sols. for liquidator. QUEENHITHE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard March 16, at Royal Courts of Justice. Phillips, Son, Thompson, and Rollinson, 147, Cannon-st, E.C., sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by March 15. W. H. STONHAM AND CO. LIMITED. - Fetition for winding-up to be heard March 23, at Royal Courts of Justice. Woodcock, Ryland, and Parker 15, Bloomsbury-sq, W.C., agents for G. M. G. Mitchell. Shrewsbury, sol. for pets. Notices of appearance by March 22. WILSONS AND FURNESS LEYLAND LINE LIMITED.- Creditors to send in, by April 10, to G. Goldsworthy, 27, James-st, Liverpool. W. A. Crump and Son, 17, Leadenhall-st, sols, to liquidator. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BLAKE (Maria Elizabeth Baldwin), Westminster. April 12; A. M. King, of Stone, Thomas, and King, sols., Bath. April 27; Astbury, J., at 12. GIBBINGS (Rev. Richard), Llanmerewig. April 8; W. Watkins, sol., Newtown, North Wales. April 22; Joyce, J., at 2.15. IRVINE (James Moran), Prenton and Liverpool, partner in the firm of J. Moran Irvine and Co. His creditors and creditors of the firm at the death of the deceased, Jan. 15, 1913. April 12; C. H. Burton, sol, Liverpool. Aprii 26; Registrar of Liverpool District of Chancery of Lancaster, at 11. LEAGE (Richard William), Carleton-rd, and City-rd, Finsbury-sq. April 12; N. Rawlins, of Lovell, Son, and Pitfield, sols., 3, Gray'sinn-sq, W.C. April 26; Sargant, J., at 12. OWEN (Edward Rice), Walton, Liverpool. March 31; J. H. Jones, of CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. AIME (Catherine), Wandsworth Common. April 30; W. Carpenter and Sons. 5, Laurence Pountney-la E.C. ALLAN (Peter). South Shields. April 5; H. E. Richardson and Elder. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. ARTHUR (Ralph), Newton Abbot. April 21; Bassett, Stanton, and ASKHAM (Thomas), Cambridge. April 5; A. Wright, Cambridge. BARTHOLEMEW (William), Sevenoaks. March 26; T. A. Grose, Sevenoaks. BELTON (Thomas), Sherwood and Nottingham. March 25; Simpson and Lee, Nottingham. BIRT (Richard), Cheltenham. April 20; O. J. Williams, Cheltenham. BLACKMORE (Samuel), Croydon. April 8; Rubinstein, Nash, and Co.. 5 and 6, Raymond-bldgs, Gray's-inn, W.C. BLISSARD (Sarah). Folkestone. April 6; Gibson and Weldon, 27, BROWELL (Henry Herbert) Wimbledon and New-sq, Lincoln's-inn. CHALLENGER (Alfred), Worsborough Bridge. April 6; Rideal and Son, CHANNON (Elizabeth), Heavitree. April 6; W. L. Brown, Exeter. CLARKSON (William), St. Michaels Hamlet, Liverpool. April 20; Ruther fords, Liverpool. COLVIN (James Colquhoun), Sutton Veny. April 12; Ellis, Peirs, and Co., 17, Albemarle-st, W. CRUIKSHANK (Rev. Henry Charles Bleeker), Oldbury-on-Severn. March 20; Crossman and Co., Thornbury. DAVIDSON (Capt. William Thomas Chorley), St. James'-ct. April 10; Russell, Son, and Cumming, 14, Old Jewry-chmbrs, E.C. DAWSON (William), Heaton. March 31; W. I. Crabtree, Bradford, DEMPSTER (Charlotte Louisa Hawkins), Portman-sq. April 3; Hemsley and Co., 13A, Old Burlington-st. DEWDNEY (Thomas Drew), Upper Clapton. April 1; Sparkes, Pope, and Thomas, Exeter. April 7; DOWNING (Agnes), King's Heath. April 5; G. S. Rigbey, Birmingham. EMMERSON (Henry), Solihull. April 3; P. Baker and Co., Birmingham. FAULKNER (Isaac), Sheffield. April 10; Rodgers and Co., Sheffield. April 17; FOWLER (Thomas Frederick). Woolston and Huntingdon. GIBBINS (William), Clapton. April 5; C. J. Stewart, 3 and 4, Clement'sinn, Strand, W.C. GOODWIN (Sarah), Limehouse. March 31; Carter and Bell, 10A, Idol-la, Eastcheap, E.C. GOODWIN (Sarah), Whalley Range, Manchester. March 24; C. E. Smith, Manchester. GOULDING (George), Stirchley. April 21; Hooper, Ryland, and Boddington, Birmingham. GLEGG (Birkenhead), Backford Hall. April 6; Potts, Potts, and Gardner, GRAHAM (James), Birkdale. April 6; the executors, at the office of April 10; Burch. Tadcaster. HAZELWOOD (Ellen), Swindon, April 12; C. W. Dommett and Son, 46, Gresham-st, E.C. HIGGINBOTTOM (John), Bristol, April 5; Danger and Cartwright, Bristol. HINCHCLIFFE (Mary Ann), Barnsley. April 6; Rideal and Son, Barnsley. HODGETTS (Richard George), Knowle. June 4; Lee, Musgrove, and Co., Birmingham. HOLLOWAY (Jane), Acocks Green. April 17; Reynolds and James, Birmingham. HOLT (Mary Ann), Blackburn. April 13; T. Smeddles, Blackburn. LAW SOCIETIES. HULLS (Jonathan), Stechford. April 17; Reynolds and James, Birmingham. HURREN (Isabella), Gateshead. March 24; the executor, at the office of Keenlyside and Forster, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. JONES (Capt. William Philip), Hastings. May 1; Chalinder and Herington, Hastings. KENT (John), Creeting St. Mary. March 31; Hayward and Son, Needham Market. KITTO (Elizabeth), Battersea Park. April 20; Lowndes and Son, 15, George-st, Mansion House, E.C. LAMB (Ralph), Liscard. April 7; Tyrer. Kenion, Tyrer, and Simpson, Liverpool. LLEWELLYN (Peter Howell). Tunbridge Wells. April 9; Cheale and Son, Tunbridge Wells. LEMONS (William), Hepworth. April 3; Kidd, Meller, and Fletcher, Holmfirth. LORD (Major Charles Henry), Harpenden. March 31; Burton, Yeates, and Hart, 23, Surrey-st, Victoria Embankment, W.Ċ. LYNAM (John), Hove. April 5; E. W. Hobbs and Young, Brighton. MAITLAND (John Andrew), Little Friston, Regent's Park, and Old Broadst. April 7; Stephenson, Harwood, and Co., 31, Lombard-st, E.C. MASKALL (Maria Elizabeth). Holloway. April 20; Edwards and Sons. 57, Moorgate-st, E.C. MATTHEWS (Joseph), Hightown. May 1; Pennington and Higson, Liverpool. MATTHEWS (William Henry), St. Pancras. April 12; W. A. Jennings, 152, Kentish Town-rd, N. W MAY (Mary Ann), Watford. April 8; Burton, Yeates, and Hart, 23, Surrey-st, Strand, W.C. MITCHELL (David), Oldham. April 5; S. Holroyd, Oldham. MOORE (Christiana Sophia), Wavertree. April 10; H. Mawson, Southport. MOORE (Major John O'Hara, R.E.), formerly of Roberts Heights, Transvaal South Africa. April 17; Flower and Nussey. Mowbray House, Norfolk-st, Strand, W.C. NEWMAN (Jane), New Southgate. April 28; W. H. Mason, 76, Finsburypave, E.C. April 5; Bazeley, Barnes, and NICHOLLS (John Thomas), Bideford. Bazeleys, Bideford. ORR (Frederick Alfred). St. John's, Lewisham. April 8; C. P. Farlow, Ingram-ct, 167, Fenchurch-st, E.C. ORTIZ DE TARANCO Y PENA (Donna Angela Matilde), Madrid, Spain. April 6; Donald McMillan and Mott, 11 and 12, Clement's-la, Lombard-st, E.C. PAINE (John), Mumbles. April 1; C. H. Newcombe, Swansea. PARR (John), Liscard, Wallasey. April 21; G. H. Hindley, Liverpool. PATCHETT (William). Epping, and Temple, E.C. April 14; Guscotte, Wadham, and Co., 19, Essex-st, Strand, W.C. PLATT (Col. Henry, C.B.), Llanfairfechan. April 17; Carter, Vincent, and Co., Bangor. POTTER (David Alexander), Hove. Forthwith, or by April 9; E. P. Houle. 21, Bedford-row, W.C. POYNTON (Mary), Birkenhead. April 12; W. H. Reinhardt, Birkenhead. ROBINSON (Robert), Bedford. April 13; C. C. Bell and Son, Bedford. SAMPSON (Thomas), Harlesden. April 8; F W. Hughes and Son, 103, SANDERS (Thomas, the elder), Sale. March 27; Farrer-Morgan and Co., Manchester. SCRIMGEOUR (Edith Florence), Folkestone. April 6; Bircham and Co., 46, Parliament-st, Westminster. SHIELDS (Rev. William Henry), Cressage. March 31; Bond, Barwick, and Peake, Leeds. SLATER (Alfred). High Holborn; Finsbury-pave; and West Hampstead. SMITH (Elizabeth, sometimes called Elizabeth Rivers), Tunbridge Wells. SOUTHCOTT (Ebenezer George), Old Jewry, and Walthamstow. April 20; STEPHENS (Roger Brighouse), Higher Crumpsall. April 3; Oswald Stott and Pogmore, Manchester. STOUT (Harold John), Stepney. April 16; Childs. Harling, Reid, and Wilson, 3, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury-sq. W.C. SUTHERS (Ellen), Hornsey Rise. April 6; H. Mossop and Syms, 11, Lincoln's-inn-flds, W.C. SYKES (Alfred), Thongsbridge. March 31; Armitage, Sykes, and Hinchcliffe, Huddersfield. TASKER-EVANS (Dr. John Tasker). Hertford. April 30; Longmore, Sworder, and Longmore. Hertford. TAYLOR (William), Saltburn-by-the-Sea. April 5; J. H. Anderson, Exeter-st, Saltburn-by-the-Sea. Sol., R. Wood, Saltburn-by-the-Sea. TAYLOR (William Henry), Melbourn. April 1; Wortham and Co., TENNANT (Isaac Cooper), Southminster, and Willesden Green. April 7; White and Leonard, Bank-bldgs, Ludgate-cir, E.C. Royston. THEAKER (Ruth), Heeley. April 17; Clegg and Sons, Sheffield. THOMSON (George), Port Victoria and Rye. April 10; Blunt and Co., 95, Gresham-st. E.C. TOFTS (Sarah Ann), Royston. April 1; Wortham and Co., Royston. TOWERS (Clara), Moseley. April 4; Lee, Musgrove, and Co., Birmingham. VASSILOPULO (Emmanuel Nicolas), Whalley Range. May 19; C. Heywood. Son, and Hudson, Manchester. WARD (Emma Paul), Exmouth. April 9; Geare and Mathew, Exeter. WARING (Henry Robert), Calle San Miguel, 127, Palma Majorca. April 5; (Rev. Christopher Stowell), Shere, and South Kensington. March 31; G. F. Hudson, Matthews, and Co., 32, Queen Victoria-st, E.C. WEAR (John), Claylands-rd, Clapham-rd. April 2; Partridge and Cockram. Tiverton. WELLS (Capt. Walter Neave), Epsom. April 15; L. Ley, 61, Carey-st, WILLIAMS (Robert), Moelfre. March 19; R. Pearce, Abergele. WOMBWELL (Lieut.-Gen. Arthur [retired]), Winchester. March 31; Valpy, Peckham, and Chaplin, 19, Lincoln's-inn-flds, W.C. WRIGHT (John Henson), Old Leake April 6; T. Wright, The Grange, Old Leake, Lincoln, or the sols., Walker, Sons, and Rainey, Spilsby. COUNTY COURTS REGISTRARS' ASSOCIATION. ANNUAL MEETING. THE annual meeting of the Association of County Court Registrars was held at the Law Society's Hall on Friday, the 5th inst., Mr. Arthur L. Lowe (Birmingham, president), taking the chair. Among those present were Messrs. W. O. Boyes (Barnet) and E. A. Harley (Bristol), vice-presidents; F. W. Cooke (Norwich), J. Curtis (Marylebone), John E. Daw (Exeter, hon. secretary), L. H. Hornby (Newport, Mon.), A. O. Jennings (Brighton), C. H. Pickstone (Bury), F. F. Smith (Rochester), members of the committee; W. E. Allen (Leek), A. J. M. Ball (Stroud), R. H. Beaumont (Nottingham), F. J. Bell (Kingstonon-Thames), P. N. Binns (Bedford), H. P. Charles (Neath), Henry Deane (Leicester), R. Farmer (Chester), E. S. Hartland (Gloucester), C. Hayles (Rye), J. F. Hodgson (Barrow-in-Furness), P. D. Jones (Basingstoke), W. H. Kinneir (Swindon), C. E. Lamb (Kettering, G. M. Light (Whitechapel), J. C. Parker (High Wycombe), R. Pybus (Gateshead), D. Walter Rees (Bridgend), A. G. S. Robertson (Bath), A. T. Shepherd (Sunderland), Frederick N. Tweedale (Oldham), and W. B. Woodforde (Derby). The annual report stated that nineteen members had died or resigned during the year, but the committee were pleased to report that the number of members had been more than maintained, twenty-two new members having joined the association, making a total membership on the 31st Dec. last of 378 out of 509 registrars. The committee were advised on the appointment of twenty-three registrars during the year; and all but one, the registrar of a small court, issuing under 100 plaints, joined the association. Three sets of County Court rules had been issued during the year. Of those which came into force on the 1st June 1914, rule 11 was inserted in consequence of the attention of the Rule Committee having been called by the committee of the association to a practice of suing labouring men living outside the district for goods sold, when the order for the goods had been given personally at their homes to the plaintiff's traveller, and the affidavit in support of the application for leave to sue stated that the orders for the goods were received in the district of the plaintiff's court, whereas the orders relied on were the orders the plaintiffs had received from their traveller. The committee had considered the subject of costs on agreements for redemption u der the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, and a suggestion of the members of Circuit No. 4 that such costs should be stated in the agreement, with power for the court to order the same to be taxed. The committee were of opinion that cases where costs to a larger amount than could be justified for the work done had been paid were very exceptional. It transpired that the judges on some circuits had given directions that no such agreement was to be registered which did not disclose the amount of costs agreed upon. After full discussion, the committee resolved that it would be desirable, for the sake of uniformity in practice, that some rule should be made providing that all agreements for redemption of weekly payments under the Act by payment of a lump sum should disclose the amount of costs which were to be paid thereunder, and power should be given to the court to order such costs to be taxed if thought necessary. A copy of the resolution was forwarded to the chairman of the Rule Committee, who promised to lay the same before the Rule Committee at their next meeting. The council of the Law Society had directed the attention of the association to the practice of debt collectors sending printed notices to debtors threatening them with proceedings, which notices were colourable imitations of official documents issued by the court, and they invited the association to express their views on the matter. The president had been able to furnish the Law Society with several cases which had come under his notice, and, in the result, the Law Society sent out a memorandum to all the County Court judges, and to the association, in which, after quoting one of the worst cases which had been brought to their notice, the council said that if such notices were issued by any solicitor they would be willing to take action in the matter, but, as these notices were generally issued by debt collectors, the council suggested that the subject was one that should be brought to the attention of the judges of the County Courts, and thought it should be suggested to them that, in such cases as the judges thought proper, action should be taken in the matter. The committee agreed with this expression of the opinion of the council, and would only add that, before calling the judge's attention to the matter, it would be as well for the registrar to first investigate it by notifying the party by whom the notice was sent to call, as it sometimes appeared that these circulars were sent out by the creditors themselves, having been bought from an unknown man selling them at the door. It had been arranged that all modified or additional forms prescribed by the King's Bench Masters should be sent to the committee, who would forward the same to the Lord Chancellor's secretary, and would submit for the Lord Chancellor's approval any of the forms which they would recommend for appreciation to the district registries A number of communications had been sent to the members during the year, several of which dealt with the practice under the Moratorium Proclamations and the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act 1914. The President, in moving the adoption of the report, said he thought it was a very gratifying fact that out of the twenty-three registrars who had been appointed during the year twenty-two had joined the association. He could not but refer to the courtesy which had been extended to the association and the way in which its existence as a representative body had been recognised by the Lord Chancellor's secretary, the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy, the Rule Committee, and others, in submitting to the association new rules for their consideration. He thought he might claim that the observation of the committee on such rules had proved useful, judging from the manner in which their suggestions had been adopted. He was very strongly of opinion that the association ought to be of very great assistance to the powers that be that dealt with the County Courts, because its members, as registrars, really did know something about the courts and their work, and he was happy to believe that the association had now reached a position where the authorities looked to it for suggestions and carefully considered any representations that were made to them. The Law Society also, he was pleased to say, had shown signs of recognising the association, and had consulted the committee on several matters, and he thought they had been of some assistance to the Law Society. With regard to the Notes on Practice, which were issued annually, the number of answers sent to questions which the committee had thought it worth while to print, exclusive of answers to questions on the moratorium and the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act 1914, was seventy-four. Of course, this was nothing like the whole number of questions which had been answered-he might mention that, up to the 2nd March of this year, he had, since he became president, received over 850 questions on points of practice. Mr. E. A. Harley (Bristol, vice-president) seconded the motion, and it was unanimously agreed to. Mr. Arthur L. Lowe was re-elected president, and Mr. Boyes and Mr. Harley vice-presidents. Mr. J. E. Daw (Exeter) and Mr. F. F. Smith (Rochester), who retired from the committee by rotation, were re-elected, and Mr. R. Pybus (Gateshead) was elected to the vacancy caused by the retirement of Mr. J. Curtis (Marylebone), who, under the rules, was not eligible for re-election. The annual dinner which usually follows the meeting was, view of the war, not held on the present occasion. THE LAW SOCIETY. in A SPECIAL general meeting of the members of the Law Society will be held on Friday, the 30th April, at 2 p.m. The council of the Law Society have resolved, in view of the war, that it is not desirable that a provincial meeting of the society should be held in the present year. UNITED LAW SOCIETY. A MEETING was held on Monday, the 8th inst., at 3, King's Benchwalk, Temple, E C., Mr. W. H. Godfrey being in the chair. Mr. T. Hynes moved: "That the cases of Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) Limited v. Daimler and Co. Limited; Same v. Thomas Tilling Limited (138 L. T. Jour. 272) were wrongly decided." Mr. A. M. Countanche opposed. The following also spoke; Messrs. Morden, Jameson, and Tebbutt. The motion was lost. SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. THE directors held their usual monthly meeting at the Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, on the 10th inst., Mr. Alfred Davenport in the chair, the other directors present being Sir Henry J. Johnson and Messrs. J. Field Beale, George H. Bower, T S. Curtis, Thos. Dixon (Chelmsford), Walter Dowson, Hamilton Fulton (Salisbury), W. E. Gillett, Charles Goddard, W. H. Gray, J. R. B. Gregory, L. W. North Hickley, C. G. May, R. S. Taylor, W. A. Sharpe, Maurice A. Tweedie, R. W. Tweedie, and W. Melmoth Walters. Grants to the amount of £530 were made to poor and deserving cases, six new members were admitted, and other general business transacted. LAW ASSOCIATION. THE usual monthly meeting of the directors was held at the Law Society's Hall on Thursday, the 4th inst., Mr. Percy E. Marshall in the chair. The other directors present were Mr. T. H. Gardiner, Mr. A. Toovey, Mr. Mark Waters, Mr. W. M. Woodhouse, and the secretary, Mr. E. E. Barron. A sum of £70 was voted in relief of deserving cases, four new members were elected, and other general business was transacted. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. fo SECRETARIES.-Reports of meetings should reach the office not later than first post Thursday morning to ensure insertion in the current number. THE LAW SOCIETY. THE Council of the Law Society have appointed Mr. W. B. Gordon, of Bradford, chairman of the Yorkshire Board of Legal Studies, to be a member of the Legal Education Committee of the council, in the place of the late Mr. F. J. Munby, of York. STUDENTS' SOCIETIES. UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.-At a meeting held on Tuesday, at University College (Mr. R. F. Levy, president, in the chair), the subject for debate was: "That Cavalier v. Pope (95 L. T. Rep. 65; (1906) A. C. 428) was wrongly decided." Mr. F. Bradbury opened in the affirmative, and Mr. H. P. Wells in the negative. The president and the following members also spoke: Messrs. C. T. Hughes, G. R. Blake, E. M. Duke, and M. T. Ameresekera. The leaders having replied, the chairman summed up, and on the motion being put to the meeting it was lost by seven votes to six. CORRESPONDENCE. This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. SETTLEMENT ESTATE DUTY.-I think that, in the turmoil of recent events, many of your professional readers may have overlooked a concession in respect of the settlement estate duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made, in consequence of my motion, in the Budget of last year. The effect is that, where a number of persons are included in one settlement, any one of them may use an option to stand out and thereby the estate will be relieved at his death. There must be cases in which there are two or more brothers of a certain age who would be only too glad to stand aside in favour of the ultimate living heir and thereby relieve the family estates from a heavy burden, but it is important to remark that, under the Government clause, the option offered must be exercised before the 1st April. The matter is, therefore, of considerable urgency. JAMES F. HOPE. WHARTON'S LEGAL MAXIMS.-With Observations and Cases. Third Edition. Price 5s., post free.-FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE Cox) LTD., "Law Times Office, Windsor House, Bream'sbuildings, E.C.-[ADVT.] HALLILAY'S CONVEYANCING.-A concise Treatise on the Law and Practice of Conveyancing, together with the Solicitors' Remuneration Act 1881, and General Order 1882, and the Land Transfer Acts 1875 and 1897, and the Rules and Orders thereon. Second Edition, price 18s., 750 pages.-FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE COX) LTD., Law Tim" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. [ADVT. SAUNDERS' LAW AND PRACTICE OF ORDERS OF AFFILIATION AND PROCEEDINGS IN BASTARDY. With the Statutes, Forms, and Forms of Agreement, together with the Practice on Appeals to the Quarter Sessions and Special Cases. By R. M. STEPHENSON, LL.B. (Lond.), Barrister-at-Law, of the Inner Temple and North-Eastern Circuit. Tenth Edition. Price 6s. 6d. net, Post Free.-FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE COX) LTD., "Law Times "Office, Windsor House, Bream's Buildings. E. C. [ADVT.] WHERE TO FIND YOUR LAW.-Being a Discursive Bibliographical Essay upon the various Divisions and Subdivisions of the Law of England, and the Statutes, Reports of Cases, and Text Books containing such Law, with Appendixes, for Facilitating Reference to all Statutes and Reports of Cases, and with a Full Index. By ERNEST ARTHUR JELF, M. A., of New College, Oxford, Barrister-at-Law of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, and of the SouthEastern Circuit. Third Edition, greatly Enlarged, price 10s. 6d.. post free.-FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE COX) LTD., Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Dream's-buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.] |