At a meeting of the Flintshire Standing Joint Committee on the 14th inst. there were seventeen candidates for the office of Clerk of the Peace and clerk of the county council. Mr. Henry A. Tilby, of Rhyl, a member of the county council, and formerly Unionist candidate for Flint Boroughs, was appointed by a majority of two votes over Mr. Kelly, solicitor, of Mold, son of a former clerk of the peace for Flintshire. M. Perrier, the French Minister of Justice, narrowly escaped a serious accident on the 9th inst. M. Perrier was motoring with his private secretary, M. Ruffis, in the Avenue du Bois de Boulogne, near the Avenue Malakoff, when his machine was run into by another car. No one was injured, but M. Perrier and M. Raffis were slightly cut by fragments of glass. They declined proffered assistance, and drove to the Minister's residence, where their injuries received attention. Lord Salisbury, who has been chairman of the Hertford Quarter Sessions for the last fifteen years, announced to his brother justices on Monday his intention to resign his position at once. He said that he regretted very much taking this step, but in view of his many public duties he felt that the pressure of modern life was so great that it was necessary for him to diminish some of the burdens. Mr. Delmé Radcliffe and Sir George Fordham expressed the regret of the court at losing the services of Lord Salisbury, and Mr. Forrest Fulton also expressed the regret of the Bar. Mr. James Bell, solicitor, after fifty-five years' service, has resigned his appointment as clerk to the Surbiton District Council. For upwards of thirty years he was registrar of the Kingston County Court, and was the clerk to the Kingston county magistrates for fifty-three years. He was also the clerk for many years to the Old Kingston Highway Board, and to the Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage Board. Mr. Bell is in his eighty-sixth year, and was admitted in the Michaelmas Term 1847. It is hoped he will enjoy his well-earned rest. Mr. Patrick Rose-Innes, the Recorder of Sandwich, was leaving London recently with his wife, and on arrival at St. Pancras Station his valise, containing a quantity of jewellery, and his great coat were placed in the corner of a compartment. Having a few moments to spare before the departure of the train, he walked up the platform with his wife to buy some papers, and on his return to the carriage found that the valise and great coat had disappeared. He values the jewellery at over £60. Information has been given to Scotland Yard, but no trace of the missing property has yet been discovered. A large attendance of the public witnessed in the Cour des comptes in Paris on Saturday last the quaint ceremonial of the official installation of two conseillers référendaires, MM. de la Beausserie and Chotard. The full court-one of the most ancient of the French judicature sat en robe, and the ceremony was according to the usage prescribed by Francis I. in 1522. The investiture was made by MM. Henri, the first President, and Payelle, the Procurator-General, after the presidential decree had been read by M. Laurent, the clerk of the court. MM. de la Beausserie and Chotard then took the prescribed oath by which they promised to guard "religieusement le secret de leurs opérations et à se conduire dans toutes les occurrences en nobles et dignes magistrats." are or The French Academy of Sciences has awarded the François-Joseph Audiffred prize of the value of 15,000 francs (£600) to M. l'Abbé Rousset, of the Asylum of Saint Leonard, at Couzon, near Lyons. The abbé has spent his life in rescue work among discharged prisoners. All who are anxious to retrieve their character received into the asylum without any distinction as to race creed. Within the walls are to be found Catholics, Protestants, and Israelites. Since the home was started Father Rousset has received at St. Leonard's 3300 ex-convicts, and by precept, example, and instruction has succeeded in thoroughly reclaiming over two-thirds of those who have entered. The discipline in the home is said to be severe, but not vexatious. The proceedings in the committee of the Academy are private, but the Gaulois has good reason for saying that the prize, in this instance, was awarded unanimously. The funeral of His Honour Judge Bacon took place on Wednesday at Paddington Cemetery, Willesden lane. The body was taken from 1. Lancaster-gate-terrace, to St. James' Church, Paddington, where the first part of the service was held by the Rev. A. W. Bedford, vicar of St. John the Evangelist, Upper Norwood, who also read the words of committal at the graveside. The lesson was read by Canon Beeching, preacher at Lincoln's inn. The chief mourners were Mrs. Lawrence (sister), Mr. J. Lawrence (nephew), Miss Lawrence and Mrs. Bedford (nieces), Mr. Harry Gordon Clark and Mrs. Gordon Clark (niece), Mr. James Bacon (nephew) and Mrs. James Bacon, Miss Bacon and Miss Isabel Bacon (nieces), Mr. Walter Bacon (nephew), Mr. Campbell Giffard and Mrs. Campbell Giffard (niece), Mrs. Wells (niece), Miss Wells and Miss Honour Wells (grand-nieces), Mr. Walter Giffard (grand-nephew), and the Misses Giffard (great-nieces), and Miss Norton and Miss Charlotte Norton (great-nieces). There were also present the Rev. G. F. Eyre (rector of Compton Beauchamp, Shrivenham) and Dr. Macnamara, of Shrivenham, members of the staffs of the Bloomsbury and Whitechapel County Courts, Viscount Barrington, Lady Mersey, Lady Mathew, Sir Cameron Gull, Sir William Selfe, Sir Thomas Snagge, Judge Roberts and Mrs. Roberts, Sir Trevor and Lady Lawrence, Sir Arthur Birch, Mr. S. Bucknill, Mr. P. Harris, M.P., Mr. Horton-Smith, K.C., Mr. W. D. Rawlins, K.C., the Rev. E. H. Pearce, and the Rev, John Harrington (Lincoln's-inn). His Honour Judge Bacon, whose wise and witty sayings on the Bench gave him a reputation scarcely second to the late Mr. Commissioner Kerr, of the City of London Court, on one occasion, by a mistake of the reporters, was the subject of severe strictures in the Press. The judge was examining a document which the reporters stated His Honour described as "cursed Hebrew." This apparent indignity to the sacred language was visited by indignant reprobation, until His Honour explained that what he did say was that the document was written in cursive Hebrew." The late Mr. Baron Dowse, of the Irish Court of Exchequer, who, like Judge Baron, was a renowned humorist, once stated in court that country justices might as well be asked to write a Greek ode as to state a case without assistance. It was stated in the Prese, and repeated in the House of Commons, that the learned Baron had said that country justices might as well be asked to ride a Greek goat as to state a case without assistance, Mr. Baron Dowse took an early opportunity of correcting the error. The career of the late Judge Bacon and of his father, the celebrated Vice-Chancellor Bacon, present a curious parity in circumstance to the career of the late Judge Lefroy and of his father, Thomas Lefroy. Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. Judge Bacon was, like Judge Lefroy, the County Court judge of the county Down, who died when in the advanced eighties, in 1891, the doyen of the County Court Bench. He was, moreover, the son of a judicial personage who had been advanced from one position on the Bench to a post of higher grade, who sat for years on the Bench after his son's promotion to the County Court Bench, and who lived till he had entered on his ninetysixth year. So, too, His Honour Judge Lefroy was for years a County Court judge, while his father, the Right Hon. Thomas Lefroy, who had been a Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland, was holding the position of Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, from which he retired in 1866 in his ninety-second year, living till he had entered on his ninety-fourth year. Lord Alverstone presided over the dinner given on Wednesday at the Hotel Cecil by the Concert Goers' Club (in connection with the Playgoers' Club) to Mr. J. A. Fuller-Maitland on the occasion of his retirement from the post of musical critic of the Times. In proposing the health of the guest of the evening, Lord Alverstone said that perhaps his only qualification for giving it was that for many years now he himself had been criticising other people. In that instance, however, he was in no fear of his judgment being taken to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords. Mr. Fuller-Maitland had done splendid work for the art of music, and his works on Schumann and in Grove's Dictionary were as well known as his criticisms. He criticised freely, and mostly well, but, like judges, critics occasionally made mistakes, and no man was fi.ted for much in this world who did not sometimes make a mistake. The Whitechapel County Court sat on the 13th inst. for the first time since the death of His Honour Judge Bacoa. Mr. Alan Macpherson, who is acting as deputy judge, addressing those present, said they had to mourn the loss of a conscientious man. Their judge was not a man who cared for high-sounding phrases or extravagant language. He deprecated such a thing; but they could speak about him without being afraid of using superlatives when they said that he brought to his work the very highest ability and sympathetic knowledge. He was filled with a tireless determination that no suitor who came to the court should go away until his case had been dealt with satisfactorily, and, however great the task was, to ensure that his duty had been faithfully done. He had many personal friends, and it was because of his faithful discharge of his work that they were all moved with sorrow that day by his death. The Treasurer, Mr. Justice Bray, and the Masters of the Bench entertained at dinner on Wednesday, the Grand Day of Trinity Term, the following guests: The Earl of Harrowby, Lord Mersey, the Master of the Temple, Sir John Thursby, Sir W. H. Hyndman Jones, Chief Justice of the Straits Settlemente, Sir A. R. Stenning, Mr. Justice Davidson, Mr. Justice Chadwick, Canon Edgar Sheppard, Judge Bray, Mr. H. J. Johnson, President of the Law Society, Mr. George Macmillan, the Rev. the Reader, and the sub-Ti8urer. The following Masters of the Bench were also present: The Earl of Halsbury, Mr. Justice Grantham, Mr. Justice Channell, Mr. R. A. Bayford, K.C., Mr. J. M. Moorsom, K.C., Sir Francis Maclean, K.C., Mr. E. M. Underdown, K.C., Mr. A. J. Ram, K.C., Mr. G. Boydell Houghton, Sir Joseph Leese, K.C., Lord Robson, Mr. Justice Bankes, Mr. J. H. Etherington Smith, Sir Edward Davidson, K.C., Mr. Atherley-Jones, K.C., M.P., Mr. S. A. T. Rowlatt, Mr. A. D. O. Wedderburn, K.C., Mr. Ernest Page, K.C., Mr. A. G. Rickards, K.C., and Mr. E. MarshallHall, K.C., M.P. The Court of Common Council at its meeting at the Guildhall on the 8th inst. adopted a motion expressing to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis its high appreciation of the services rendered by the Metropolitan Police in connection with the murder of City constables in Houndsditch. A report was brought up from the Police Committee with reference to claims, amounting in the aggregate to £2193 68., in connection with the attempt to arrest armed aliens in Sidney-street, Stepney. The report recommended, as the result of investigations by the board appointed by the Home Secretary, that the total amount awarded be £533 0s. 2d., the payments to be made by the Receiver of the Metropolitan District, a moiety being afterwards repaid out of the City Police Fund, the sum of £87 103., onehalf of the amount awarded to the owner of 100, Sidney-street, being retained until the rebuilding of the house was completed. It was distinctly stated in all cases the amounts agreed upon were given as an act of grace and without any admission of liability. The report was carried, the At the opening of the Shoreditch County Court on the 13th inst., His Honour Judge Bray made reference to the lamentable loss the Bench had sustained by the death of His Honour Judge Bacon. "I have known him," he said, "a good many years, and have practised before him. For five years I have had the honour to be his colleague on the Bench, besides enjoying his personal friendship. He was always a delightful companion, with kindest of hearts, a keen sense of humour, and a man of great culture. As a judge he had the qualities which go to make the good judge-in particular, he possessed a faculty, for which I have always envied him, of being able to gauge the truthfulness or untruthfulnes of a witness, and this is, after all, the most important quality in judge; if we go wrong in our law we can be corrected, but our decision on the facts, if wrong, cannot be remedied. His death is a great loss to the Bench, to those who practised before him, to suitors, and to all his personal friends." Mr. Justice Bankes held the Flintshire Assizes in the town of Mold on the 10th inst., this being his first appearance as judge in his native county. In charging the grand jury he said his association with that building was very close and very peculiar. He had no doubt his grandfather, both as Justice of Common Pleas and as Chief Justice, must have presided in that court as judge of assize, and probably occupied that very chair. It was a curious fact that since his death no member of the North Wales Circuit had been appointed a judge till he was appointed last year Certain it was that for very near half a century the offices of chairman and deputy chairman of quarter sessions in that county had been held by members of his family-by his late father, by his late uncle, by himself, and now, also, by his brother-in-law. He himself had occupied almost every position that man could occupy in that court. He had attended there as a spectator when he was a small boy; he practised there as a barrister when he first began his professional career; he had sat there as a magistrate; he had presided over that court both as deputy chairman of quarter sessions and chairman of quarter sessions and chairman of the licensing authority. From a decision given recently by the Tribunal at Havre, it would scem that a train may be stopped with greater impunity than in this country. M. Chouzet, a merchant of Havre, was cited for stopping & train without lawful excuse. On the 18th Jan. last M. Chouzet, who had a bad cold, was making the journey from Paris to Havre by the night train. The compartment in which he had taken his place, he discovered after the train had started, was not heated. The neighbouring carriages were in the same condition. When the train stopped at Vernon, he lodged a complaint with the guard in a polite manner. The guard's answer was to slam the door in M. Chouzet's face, and to restart the train. The passenger was angry, and he determined to pull the sonnette d'alarme, Wonderful to relate, says the contemporary from which we take the report of the case, the apparatus was in working order." The train pulled up, and M. Chouzet repeated his complaint. That he was cold, and had a cold, was not in the opinion of the guard a motif valable which justified his using 'he alarm signal. The railway authorities took the same view, hence M Chouzet's appearance in court. The Tribunal, however, has decided differently and has acquitted M. Chouzet, holding that intense cold might justify the use of the alarm. The second and third rounds of the Bar Golf Tournament were decided in glorious weather on the Prince's Club's links at Sandwich on the 8th inst., leaving sixteen players to take part in the fourth round. In the second round, the Hon. Mr. Justice Scrutton, after starting indifferently, beat Mr. H. Previté by 4 and 3. The latter was in receipt of 4 strokes. Mr. N. Micklem and Mr. H. Terrell were K.C.e who won their matches, Mr. Micklem (handicap 8) beat Mr. E. G. Rand (plus 3) by 4 and 3. Mr. H. W. Beveridge (plus 4), after standing 3 down at the turn, beat Mr. H. Brandon (7) by 2 holes. Delightful weather again prevailed on the 10th, when the semi-final and final rounds were decided. The result was a win for Mr. H. W. Beveridge, whose handicap of plus 4 constituted him the heaviest penalty carrier in the competition. He defeated Mr. G. P. Langton, handicap 6, by 2 holes, in the deciding round. Some of the best golf of the day, however, was witnessed in the match between Mr. Beveridge and Mr. D. M. Smith (plus 1), last year's winner, in the semi-final. The other match in the semi-final was between Mr. Sylvain Mayer (8) and Mr. Langton, the last named winning by 4 and 3. Results: Semi-Final: Mr. H. W. Beveridge (plus 4) beat Mr. D M. Smith (plus 1) by 2 and 1. Mr. G. P. Langton (6) beat Mr. Sylvain Mayer (8) by 4 and 3. Final: Mr. Beveridge beat Mr. Langton by 2 holes. A writer in the lay Press mentions the fact that Lord Lindley is the last of the serjeants-at-law, from whom at one time judges were chosen. In days gone by, the practice was rigidly observed of the appointment of judges from the practising serjeants-at-law. Gradually, however, there was a departure from this practice. Judges were selected from others than those belonging to the Order of the Coif, the selected judge being first called by writ ad statum et gradum servientis ad legem and soon afterwards appointed to the judgeship by letters describing him as servientem ad legem. The system of making the apprentice of the law to be serjeant and judge uno saltu originated in 1572, when Robert Monson was to appointed by Queen Elizabeth. The innovation was supported by several Acts of Parlia ment. Thus an Act we required to enable the selected judges to go through the formality of being called to the Coif in vacation (59 Gro. 3, c. 113). Another special Act of Parliament to authorise the names of Queen's Counsel as well as those of serjeants-at-law to be inserted in the commissions of assize (13 & 14 Vict. c. 25). Lord Lindley, who was appointed to the Bench before the Judicature Act, became a member of the Order of the Coif to qualify for the Bench. Under the provisions of the Judicature Act, no person appointed' a judge of either of the said courts shall henceforth be required to take or to have taken the degree of serjeant-at-law": (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 88; see also Pulling's Order of the Coif, pp. 39-41 and p. 278). The Order of the Coif is not abolished. In answer to a question put to the Lord Chancellor in the Parliamentary session of 1877, he replied that there was nothing to prevent the Crown if it were thought expedient to confer the honour and if there were members of the Bar who desired that rank": (Pulling's Order of the Coif, p. 285). In Ireland, the Order of the Coif, the number of whose members is confined to three, is still in active existence. The serjeants-at-law are appointed by letters patent, and have precedence at the Bar immediately after the law officers of the Crown. The serjeants-at-law in Ireland are deemed to hold office under the Crown, but in the letters patent the person appointed is called merely serjeant-at-law. At the annual meeting of the London Court of Arbitration, held recently at the offices of the London Chamber of Commerce, Sir Albert K. Rollit was re-elected chairman, Mr. William Gillespie deputy chairman, and Mr. W. J. Eales acting registrar. It was announced that the City Corporation had decided to continue its support of the court. As showing the influence of the example set by the Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce in constituting and carrying on the arbitration work the chairman mentioned that he had received communications from the New York Chamber of Commerce stating that the New York Arbitration Committee had re-established ite Arbitration Tribunal, and in so doing had closely followed the methods adopted by the London Chamber and the Court of Arbitration. It was also stated that the arbitration clause recommended for insertion in contracts is now being widely used, and there is no doubt that the importance of the questions submitted to arbitration under the court is increasing each year. In addition to the administrative work of dealing with cases submitted, the Arbitration Committee had done much to support International Commercial Arbitration, and in this connection the Foreign Office (through the Board of Trade) lent valuable assistance by obtaining information as to the state of the law regarding arbitration in leading foreign countries and the British Dominions and Protectorates. His Honour Judge Smyly gave his reserved judgment at Bow County Court on the 14th inst. in the oase of Sully v. O'Connor, which raised a question in connection with the compulsory liquidation of the Twentieth Century Equitable Friendly Society, the decision of which was stated to involve 40,000 similar cases. The plaintiff, Mr. Harold Sully, is the liquidator of the society, and he sued J. R. O'Connor, of Canning Town, a lapsed member of Pride of Canning Town Lodge, for 68. 2d. in respect of the balance of a levy, fine, and proportion of costs of goods supplied to the society before it was woundup. His Honour said that sect. 23 of the Friendly Societies Act provided that the subscriptions of any person being, or having been, a member of a friendly society should not be recoverable by law except in cases in which the Treasury made certain exceptions. It would be a peculiar thing if, though subscriptions were not recoverable, levies could be, because levies were a more special charge than. subscriptions. That was fatal to the claim. On all points the defendant had made good his defence and there would be judgment in his favour with costs. He would give leave to appeal, subject to the condition that no costs in the court above were to be asked for or obtained, as he did not like the idea of a labourer being dragged from court to court. Lady Finlay, wife of Sir Robert Bannatyne Finlay, K.C., died on the 11th inst., at Nairn, from heart failure. Lady Finlay was, before her marriage, Mary Innes, the youngest daughter of the late Mr. Cosmo Innes, a well-known advocate, of Inverleith House, Edinburgh. She was married to Mr. Robert Finlay, as he then was, in 1874. He had at that time forsaken the practice of medicine-for which he was educated, and in which he graduated at Edinburgh -for that of the law, and had seven years earlier been called by the Middle Temple, of which he is a Bencher. He represented in the House of Commons the Inverness Burghs from 1885 to 1892, and from 1895 to 1906, and in Jan. 1910 was elected for the two universities. Sir Robert was Solicitor-General to the Conservative Government from 1895 to 1900, becoming in the latter year Attorney-General, through the elevation of Sir Richard Webster (now Lord Alverstone) to the Lord Chief Justiceship. Lady Finlay's father was an historian, as well as an advocate. Her mother was a daughter of the late Colonel Hugh Rose, of Kilravock. She was thus a descendant of two of the oldest Scottish families, the Innes family having settled in Morayshire in the twelfth century, and the Roses of Kilravook and Geddes in Nairnshire, in the middle of the following century. Lady Finlay's devotion to her husband, Sir Robert Finlay, in his distinguished career was conspicuous, and she took an active part in his Parliamentary contests, particularly in the Inverness Burghe, which Sir Robert represented for nearly twenty years. The funeral took place at Nairn on Thursday. The War Office has issued a'report on the Discipline and Management of Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons in 1910. It states that in consequence of the continued decrease in the number of admissions into military detention barracks and prisons, the following establishments were closed during the year: Curragh Military Prison and Chatham Branch Detention Barrack. The daily average population of Regular soldiers in military detention barracks and prisons in 1910 was 379 at home and nirety-six abroad (exclud ing India), a total of 475, being in the proportion of 27 per 1000 of the average strength of the army, as compared with 33 in 1909. The number of soldiers received into military detention barracks and prisons under sentence of detention and imprisonment by commanding officers and courts-martial was 174,985 at home and abroad (excluding India), as against 175,810 in 1909, the percentage being 4.11 in 1910, compared with 58 in the preceding year. In addition there were 508 Special Reservists, sixteen Territorials, 385 seamen and marines, and nineteen soldiers of local units abroad received under various sentences. The number of soldiers received into civil prisons in the United Kingdom (including those from the Colonies and India) during the year was 794, and of that total 115 remained on the 31st Dec. last, including twenty-three under sentence of penal servitude. A further reduction in the establishment of milltary detention barracks and prisons had been made, resulting in a decrease of £1000 in Vote 1 of the annual Army Estimates. NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT YET REPORTED. BY OUR REPORTERS IN THE SEVEBal Courts. HOUSE OF LORDS. Employer and Workman-Compensation-Dependant-Partial Dependency-Principle on which Compensation assessed-Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58).—A boy living at home was killed by an accident. His wages were paid to his father, and helped to support the family, but they were not more than sufficient to pay for his maintenance. The father drove an engine at a colliery, and supplemented his earnings by carrying on the trade of a barber in which the deceased boy assisted him. Held, that the father was partially dependent on the boy's earnings, and that in estimating the loss to the father, and the amount of com. pensation payable by the employers, the cost of his maintenance and the value of his services at home ought, to be taken into consideration. Judgment of the Court of Appeal (103 L. T. Rep. 782; (1911) 1 K. B. 341) affirmed with a variation. [Tamworth Colliery Company v. Hall. H. of L. June 13.-Counsel: C. A. Russell K.C. and E. W. Cave; Hugo Young, K.C. and H. Joy. Solicitors: Ullithorne, Currey, and Co, for C. F. Elliot Smith, Mansfield; Sharpe, Pritchard, and Co., for Hughes and Masser, Coventry.] Practice-Costs-Taxation-Non-contentious Business - District Regis trar of Manchester-Jurisdiction-Solicitors Act 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73), 8. 37.-The registrar of the Manchester District Registry is not the proper officer of the court to whom a bill of costs relating to non-contentious business can be referred for taxation under Isect. 37 of the Solicitors Act 1843; but the taxation ought to take place in the taxing office of the Supreme Court. Judgment of the Court of Appeal (103 L. T. Rep. 12; (1910) 2 K. B. 713) affirmed. [Stead v. Smith. H. of L. June 13.-Appellant in person; counsel for the respondent, Peterson, K.C. and A. St. John Clerke. Solicitors: C. P. Fielder, Le Riche, and Co., for A. J. Stead, Manchester; Francis M. Jeboult.] COURT OF APPEAD. Bankruptcy Bankruptcy Notice-Validity-Notice directing Payment of Judgment Debt either to the Creditors or their Solicitor-Payment not required in Accordance with _Terms of_the_Judgment—Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 8. 4 (g).—In Aug. 1910 a firm of stock jobbers of the name of Kitchin, Aylard, and Craddock, who were members of the Stock Exchange, obtained final judgment against a debtor in respect of certain Stock Exchange transactions. Shortly afterwards the firm dissolved partnership. In Feb. 1911 a bankruptcy notice was issued to the debtor by the solicitors of the late firm in the following terms: "Take notice that within seven days after service of this notice on you, excluding the day of such service, you must pay to Kitchin, Aylard, and Craddock, late of 5, Copthall court, in the City of London, stock jobbers, George William Kitobin and Martin Aylard, two of the members of the late firm of Kitchin, Aylard, and Craddock, now carrying on business in co partnership at 4, Copthall-chambers, in the said city, and Leopold Radcliffe Craddock, one of the members. of the said late firm, carrying on business in cc-partnership, under the style of J. B. Kennedy and Co., at Pinners' Hall, in the said city, or to their solicitore, Spyer and Sons, of 65, London-wall, in the said city, the sum of £611 133. 1d. claimed by them as being the balance due on a final judgment obtained by them against you in the King's Bench Division of this court, dated the 26th Aug. 1910, whereon execution has not been stayed; or you must exouse or compound for the said sum to their satisfaction or the satisfaction of the court. Spyer and Sone, of 65, London. wall, in the City of London, solicitors suing out this notice, certify that they have full authority to receive payment of the balance of the above-mentioned judgment, and to act for the said Kitchin, Aylard, and Craddock in respect of all matters specified in the above notice." The debtor not having complied with this notice, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against him in March 1911. The petition was opposed on the ground that the bankruptcy notice did not direct payment in accordance with the terms of the judgment. It was . decided by Mr. Registrar Giffard that the objection must be overruled, and he made a receiving order against the debtor. The debtor appealed. Held, that a notice directing payment of a judgment debt either to the creditors or to their solicitor was not a notice requiring payment in accordance with the terms of the judgment as prescribed by sect. 4 (g) of the Bankruptoy Act 1883. Appeal allowed. [Re A Debtor; Ex parte the Debtor (No. 305 of 1911). Ct. of App.: Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. May 19 and 26. -Counsel: for the appellant, Clayton, K.C. and Frank Mellor; for the respondents, Hansell. Solicitors: for the appellant, Linklaters, Addison, and Brown; for the respondents, Spyer and Sons.] Bankruptcy-Receiving Order-Bankruptcy Notice-Validity-Judgment Debt-Income Tax-Deduction-Income Tax Act 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 102-Income Tax Act 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 34), s. 40.-A bankruptcy notice required the debtor to pay the amount of a judgment debt recovered in the King's Bench Division with interest thereon at the rate of 4 per cent., no deduction being made from the interest for income tax. Held, that interest on a judgment debt is not "yearly interest," and the bankruptcy notice was valid. [Re Thomas Cooper. Ct. of App.: Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. May 29.-Counsel: Clayton, K.C., and A. Cairns; Rowlatt. Solicitors: Farmans; Crosley and Burn.] Employer and Workman - Accident-Compensation-Recovery—Ter· mination of Agreement-Subsequent Death of Workman-Right of Dependants to claim Compensation-Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), 8. 1, sub.s. 2 (b).-The fact that the judge terminated the employer's agreement with an injured workman on the ground that the latter had recovered from the effect of the accident does not prevent the workman's dependants after his death from claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, for the dependants have a right of their own which arises under the Act, separate and independent of that of the workman in the event of his death, though the employer is entitled to credit for certain sums paid to the workman. Williams v. Vauxhall Colliery Company (97 L. T. Rep. 559; (1907) 2 K. B. 433) and Howell v. Bradford and Co. (104 L. T. Rep. 433) followed. [Jobson v. W. Cory and Sons Limited. Ct. of App.: CozensHardy, M.R.. Buckley and Kennedy, LJJ. May 31.-Counsel: Tobin, K.C. and 8. W. M. Knight; McCall, KC. and Levera Solicitors: W. Daybell; Haynes, Robinson, and Co.] Employer and Workman-Death caused by Accident-CompensationClaim by Dependant-" Accident arising out of and in the Course of the Employment "— -"Serious and wilful Misconduct "-Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1, sub s. 2 (c).-An arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 was requested between the widow of a deceased workman and his employers as to the liability of the latter to pay compensation under that Act to the applicant as a dependant of the former in respect of the injury caused to her by his death through an "accident arising out of and in the course of the employment" of the deceased. The deceased was a collier, and his ordinary work was to hew coal. The seam of coal upon which he was engaged was on a somewhat steep slope. It was worked upwards. There was a good deal of gas collected in what was called the "top hole." In order to get rid of this gas, and to enable the coal to be safely worked, the deceased, with another man, H., were taken away from their ordinary work and employed at so much an hour to work in a" bogey," which was a passage cut through the seam above the "top hole" in order to drill a hole into the "top hole" so as to let out the gas. This was a difficult task, because of the uncertainty whether the hole which was being drilled was in the right direction; otherwise it would be quite useless. The "top hole" itself was notified as dangerous, and two pieces of wood in the shape of a cross were placed at the entrance to warn colliers. The overman was asked by the deceased whether he might safely go into the "top hole" to ascertain the direction of the drill. The overman replied in the negative. Not long after the deceased went to the top hole," not for the purpose of getting coal there, but simply for the purpose of ascertaining the direction of the drill hole when H. knocked the drill from the "bogey." While thus in the "top hole" the deceased was affected by the gas and died. The case came on to be heard at the County Court of Glamorganshire holden at Bridgend, when it was decided by the learned County Court judge that although the deceased was guilty of "serious and wilful misconduct" in going into the "top hole," his dependant was nevertheless entitled to an award under the Act. The employers appealed. Held (dissentiente Buckley, LJ.), that although the deceased was guilty of "serious and wilful misconduct" in entering the "top hole." he did so, not with the object of working there, but with the view of assisting the drilling operation, and therefore his employers were liable to pay compensation to his dependant. Appeal dismissed. [Harding v. Brynddu Colliery Company Limited. Ct. of App.: Cozens-Hardy, M.R, Buckley and Kennedy, LJJ. May 29, 30, and June 2-Counsel: for the appellants, C. A. Russell, K.C. and Harold Morris ; for the respondent, Atkin, K.C. and W. Shakespeare. Solicitors for the appellants, Barlow, Barlow, and Lyde agents for Randall and Co., Bridgend; for the respondent, Smith, Rundell, and Dods, agents for Morgan, Bruce, Nicholas, and James, Pontypridd.] Employer and Workman-Death caused by Accident-Compensation— Claim by Dependants-" Accident arising out of and in the Course of the Employment"-Risk not necessary or reasonably incident to the Employment-Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 6 Edw. 7, c. 58). 8. 1.-An arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 was requested between the widow of a deceased workman and his employers as to the liability of the latter to pay compensation under that Act to the dependants of the former in respect of the injury caused to them by his death through an "accident arising out of and in the course of the employment" of the deceased. The deceased was a labourer employed in the construction of a dock, and, being a member of the night gang, was ordered to go from one part of the dock to another. At about eleven o'clock p.m. the party were proceeding in single file along a path when at a certain point the deceased, who was the last man in the file, exclaimed that he wanted to stop to discharge a natural function. The others went on. The next man to the deceased called out to him, asking him why he was not coming on, and, receiving no answer, went back. and found the deceased's body inside a portion of the structure of a hoist. The deceased could not have got into it by accident, because there was ample light, there being an electric lamp casting a brilliant illumination on each side. Moreover, the place in which the deceased's body was found was a structure of a peculiar nature. He had to stoop down to get into it. The hoist was being worked, and the deceased was crushed between the upper and the lower boards. The case came on to be heard before the County Court of Hampshire holden at Portsmouth before His Honour Judge Gye, K.C., when the learned County Court judge decided that the accident arose "in the course of " the employment of the deceased, because he was going from one part of the dock to another by his employers' directions; but that it did not arise "out of" his employment. The applicant appealed. Held, that the deceased had no right to expose himself to the extreme danger of going into the hoist, which he could only have done intentionally, and, by doing so, exposed himself to a wholly unnecessary and improper risk; and that the learned County Court judge was justified in drawing the inference that the accident did not arise " because the risk was not one which was necessary or reasonably out of "the employment, incident to the employment. Appeal dismissed. [Rose v. Morrison and Mason Limited. Ct. of App.: Cozens . Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, LL.J. May 30.-Counsel: for the appellant, John O'Connor; for the respondents, Walter Frampton. Solicitors for the appellant, Pattinson and Brewer; for the respondents, Wadeson and Day, Portsmouth.] Employer and Workman—Injury by Accident-Compensation—“Accident arising out of and in the Course of the Employment"-Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), 8. 1.—An arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 was requested between a workman and his employers as to the amount of compensation payable to the former under that Act in respect of the personal injury caused to him by "accident arising out of and in the course of" his employment. The workman was employed as a watchman at his employers' steel works. In March 1909 he was proceeding to the works between five and six in the morning. He took a route, which he had been in the habit of using for many years, along a footpath which ran across a vacant piece of land and then on to a railway line, the property of the North-Eastern Railway Company, and so on to the works. The property in the vacant piece of land was vested in the employers. While on this footpath, at a distance of little short of a quarter of a mile from the place where he was to go, he slipped on some ice and injured his ankle. The case came on to be heard at the County Court of Yorkshire holden at Middlesbrough, when the learned County Court judge was of opinion that the workman had reached his employers' premises at the time when he met with the accident complained of, and was walking along a footpath through their premises in order to get to his work, and that he was constructively in their employ at the time. The employers appealed. Held, that the circumstance that the property in the vacant piece of land was vested in the employers was irrelevant, as the workman was not employed on that part of their property; that the workman had no right to go, and his employers could not confer upon him any right to go, alung the North-Eastern Railway line; that another route existed by which he had ready access to his work; that the case was no different from the case where a workman slipped on the ice on a public road at a distance of a quarter of a mile from his employer's works; and that an accident which occurred in a field some quarter of a mile distant, and separated from the premises where the workman was to work by land over which he had no right to go, could not be deemed to have arisen "in the course of" his employment. Appeal allowed. [Gilmour v. Dorman, Long, and Co. Limited. Ct. of App.: Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, L.JJ. May 30 and June 2.-Counsel: for the appellants, C. A. Russell, K.C. and Dorman; for the respondent, Douglas Hogg. Solicitors: for the appellants, Williamson, Hill, and Co., agents for H. J. Parrington, Middlesbrough; for the respondent, Tarry, Sherlock, and Co., agents for Reuben Cohen, Stockton-on-Teee.] Will-Construction-Gift of Residue-Intention-Equality of PortionInterest-Advanced Children-Period of Distribution.-Per CozensHardy, M.R.: No interest is charged against an advanced child prior to the testator's death; and where the period of distribution of the testator's property is at the testator's death, interest is charged against an advanced child from the death and not from the subsequent date at which in fact the distribution takes place ; and if the period of distribution is at the expiration of a period of accumulation, or of a prior life estate, interest is charged, not from the death, but from the period of distribution; and a charge upon the residue, such as a life annuity secured by a fund set apart to meet it, does not alter the period of distribution. Held (Buckley, L.J. dissenting), that the testator in this case had given special and peculiar directions as to the division of his estate, and the advanced children were not to be charged with interest on the sums advanced to them. Decision of Parker, J. (ante, p. 130; 104 L. T. Rep. 536) affirmed. [Re Willoughby (deceased); Willoughby v. Decies. Ct. of App. : Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Buckley and Kennedy, LJJ. June 2. Counsel: Romer, K.C. and G. R. Northcote; Martelli, K.C. and W. Richards; Gatey, K.C. and F. Thompson. Solicitors: Dawson, Bennet, and Co.; Currey and Co.; George Reader and Co.] HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Limitation of Action-Trespass-Discontinuance and Acquisition of Possession-Acts of Ownership-Injunction—Real Property Limitation Acts 1833 and 1874 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 3; 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, 8. 1).—In 1895 K. built a wall within 18in. of the boundary (which was the middle line of the dry bed of an ancient watercourse) between his own land and that of R., and thereafter he made no use of the strip of land outside his wall, except occasionally in repairing or altering his wall. There was some evidence that after 1895 R., or his tenants, grazed cows on the strip. In 1909 R. began to tip rubbish on his own land and on the strip and against K.'s wall, and K. brought an action for an injunction and damages for trespass. R. contended that K. had discontinued possession of the strip, and that the title to the strip had, under the Real Property Limitation Acts 1833 and 1874, passed to R., who was therefore entitled to tip at any rate on the strip in question. Held, that neither the building of the wall inside the boundary nor the grazing of the strip by the cows of R. or his tenants was sufficient evidence of discontinuance of possession of the strip by K. 1 [Kynoch Limited v. Rowlands. Ch. Div.: Joyce, J. May 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 30.-Counsel: Younger, K.C. and D. D. Robertson, Hughes, K.C. and Sargant; Mulligan. Solicitors: Morris and Bristow, for William Morris, Birmingham; H. Percy Becher, for Rowlands and Co., Birmingham; Cridland and Nell.] و, Power of Appointment-Special Power-Appointment equally by Will among all the Objects-Subsequent Appointments by Deed to some of the Objects-Ademption-Rule against double Portions-"Portion.' -A. P. was life tenant of a fund with a power of appointment over it among his issue either by way of portion or annuity. By his will dated in 1869 he directed and appointed that the fund should at his decease be equally divided among the children of his second marriage then living. By a deed-poll and an indenture of settlement, both dated in 1897, one seventh part of the fund was appointed to one of the seven children of the second marriage and settled upon trustees; and in 1901 a similar appointment and a similar settlement were made in favour of another child. In 1908 A. P. made a codicil by which he appointed the share of a deceased child to the widow of that child for the benefit of their son. On the death, in Aug. 1910, of A. P. a question arose 88 to whether the five-sevenths of the fund remaining after the two appointments by deed should be divided among all the six children and the grandchild, or among the four children not yet benefited and the grandchild; and a summons was taken out by the trustees. Held, that the sums appointed, whether by deed or by will, were "portions' to which the rule against double portions applied, and that the shares appointed by deed to the two children were in ademption of their shares under the will. [Re Peel's Settlements; Biddulph v. Peel. Ch. Div.: Joyce, J. April 6 and June 2.-Counsel: P. F. Wheeler; C. G. Church; Pakenham Law; N. C. Armitage; W. A. Peck. Solicitors: Evans, Wadham, and Co.; Eardley Holt, Lightly, and Co.] Restraint of Trade Agreement · Validity-Reasonableness-United Kingdom-Public Policy-Protection of Covenantee-Master and Servant-Injunction.-The_plaintiffs were a firm of advertisement agents and contractors of London, with branches all over the United Kingdom-that is, they enter into agreements with manufacturere to develop their trade in a particular centre by means of canvassers under the superintendence of a manageress. In the latter part of 1909 the defendant, who was a business woman, entered the employment of the plaintiffs, and soon afterwards she was promoted to the position of manageress at the salary of £2 a week, subject to a week's notice. On the 1st Sept. 1910 the defendant entered into the following agreement with the plaintiffs: 66 In consideration of your engaging me to act as manageress in your employ, I hereby undertake and agree with you that I will not for a period of twelve calendar months from the date of the termination of my engagement with you commence, carry on, or be engaged directly or indirectly in any business similar to that now carried on by you in which I act as manageress as aforesaid in any part of the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." On the 24th April 1911 the defendant gave the plaintiffs a week's notice, and left their employment on the 6th May. She entered the service of a firm of advertisement agents of London carrying on a business similar to and ia direct competition with the plaintiffs' business as saleswoman. The plaintiffs moved for an injunction until judgment or further order restraining the defendant from acting in breach of the terms of her agreement. On behalf of the defendant it was said that the restriction was void as being unreasonably wide, and that she was not employed in the same capacity as thet in which she had been employed by the plaintiffs. Held, that if the agreement was otherwise enforceable the defendant had acted in breach of it; but, while accepting what was said by Lindley, M.R. in E. Underwood and Son Limited v. Barker (80 L. T. Rep. 306; (1899) 1 Ch. 300) as to the inviolability of trade contracts deliberately entered into, and although a restraint extending over the whole of Great Britain and Ireland is primâ facie void, yet the special circumstances alleged, that the plaintiffs would send their canvassers into any locality and that the defendant might impart knowledge of the plaintiffs' methods of business to persons in competition with them, were not such as to justify the court in imposing so wide a restriction as that asked by the plaintiffs, and the injunction ought not to be granted. Costs of the motion to be costs of the action. [Stuart and Simpson v. Halstead. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. June 13.Counsel: Patrick Hastings; Ward Coldridge. Solicitors: Maddison, Stirling, Humm, and Davies; W. H. Martin and Co.] Will-Construction-Devise of freehold House and Premises-Specific Description-Subsequent Purchase of Plots of Land-Trustees' Powers of Investment-Preference Stock-Contrary Intention within Meaning of Wills Act 1837, 8. 24-H. E. W., who died on the 30th July 1901, made his will, dated the 1st Dec. 1885, and, after appointing executors and trustees, devised to his wife, H. W, All that my freehold house and premises situate at Oakleigh Park, Whetstone, in the county of Middlesex, and known as Ankerwyke, and in which I now reside to hold unto my said wife, her heirs, and assigns for ever,' and devised and bequeathed the residue of his estate to his trustees upon the trusts therein mentioned, with power to invest any part of the trust estate in (inter alia) preference stock of any railway or other company in the United Kingdom. The testator had erected the house called Anker. wyke on a piece of leasehold land (referred to as A) situate on the east side of a road, known as Oakleigh Park, in 1881, which piece of land was conveyed to him in fee simple on the 5th Feb. 1884, and lived in the house from the time of its erection until his death. On the 31st July 1885 a piece of land (D) on the opposite side of Oakleigh Park, but facing Ankerwyke, was conveyed to the testator in fee simple, and he converted it into a garden and tennis lawn, using it in conjunction with Ankerwyke. On the 3rd June 1898 a piece of freehold land and house known as Woodlands was conveyed to the testator, who fenced off a portion (B) of this land and used it as a garden in connection with that of Ankerwyke. On the 2nd Nov. 1898 a piece of freehold land adjoining D and directly opposite B (referred to as E) was conveyed to the testator, who erected partly upon it and the land D a stable which he used in conjunction with his occupation of Ankerwyke. A summons was taken out by the trustees to determine (1) whether the devise to H. W. included, in addition to the land A, the pieces of land referred to as B, D, and E; and (2) whether the power to invest in preference stock authorised the purchase of preference shares in companies registered under the Companies Acts. On the first question it was contended on behalf of the residuary devisee that the gift to H. W. was limited to the property occupied by the testator at the date of his will, and that the specific description of the subject-matter of the devise showed a contrary intention within the meaning of sect. 24 of the Wills Act 1837. Held, that the words "in which I now reside" were merely an additional description, and not of vital importance, and that H. W. took under the devise the lands A, B, D, and E. On the second question, reference was made to the Trustee Act 1893, es. 1 (o) and 150, and the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908, s. 41, sub-s. 1 (c). Held, that the trustees had no power to invest in preference shares. [Re Willis; Spencer v. Willis. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. June 14.Counsel: Beaumont; Cozens Hardy; Luxmoore. Solicitors: Tippetts; Woodcock, Ryland, and Co.] Grimsby, Tuesday, July 4 BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. Leeds, Tuesday, July 4 Bournemouth, Tuesday. July 11 Bradford, Yorks, Monday, July 3 Bridgnorth, Wednesday, July 12 Bury St. Edmunds, Monday, July 3 Chester, Tuesday, June 27, at 10.30 Croydon, Monday, July 10, at 10 Derby, Tuesday, June 27, at 10.30 Devizes, Monday, July 17 Devonport, Saturday, July 1 Doncaster, Tuesday, June 27 Dover, Monday, June 26 Guildford Monday, July 3, at 10.15 Leicester, Tuesday, July 18 Portsmouth, Thursday, July 13 Sheffield, Monday, June 19 Shrewsbury, Tuesday, June 27. at 10.30 THE interpretation to be placed on such terms as "armorial bearings ' may differ according to the context. The phrase as used in connection with local taxation was the subject of Mr. Curtis Bennett's careful consideration in a recent summons issued by the London County Council. The defendant, a veterinary surgeon, used note paper bearing the arms of the Royal Veterinary College, and in so doing seems to have merely followed the custom adopted by the vast majority of those in his calling. The summons was taken out with the object of extracting a sum of money as a licence for the use of "armorial bearings." The dictionary meaning of the phrase seeme to narrow it to the escutcheon of a family, and in that sense it would not apply to such arms as those of the body in question. The summons was accordingly dismissed with costs. The view adopted by the learned magistrate is not surprising, for it has been that entertained for many years by the Inland Revenue and is now contested merely for the sake of squeezing further revenue for local purposes. A decision the other way would have curious results, for those holiday makers who purchase the ld. pots and ornaments bearing the arms of seaside resorts would then be in danger of official demands for licences, and the same risk would be run by those who wear “blazers” with school or college arms. Those who care nothing for the display of "armorial bearings" (whether they are or are not entitled to such) may well object to being called upon to pay under such circumstances. Those who find in their display any pleasure can well be left to pay for the same. crown or coronet THE policy of persecution adopted by local bodies in respect of taxation is further exemplified by another case heard by Mr. Curtis Bennett at Bow-street on the 2nd inst. The facts there proved that a London County Council taxation collector called upon a doctor and charged him with failing to pay a carriage licence. After some time the collector was forced to accept the doctor's statement that he had paid it. In so doing, the doctor exposed to the collector's notice a ring upon his finger, and thereupon the collector demanded and was refused payment for a licence for the use of "armorial bearings." The ring in question had been presented by a grateful patient some twenty years before and bore no heraldic device, but was merely marked by a fancy design on a Scotch pebble. The collector asserted the existence of a garter inclosing a hand grasping a spear head, and stated that in his view these were armorial bearings. The learned magistrate dismissed the summons. The question whether some fancy design comes within the ambit of armorial bearings is one not by any means easy to determine. It came up in the year 1896 before the Court of Exchequer, Scotland, in Milligan v. Cowan, and a convenient report for English practitioners may be mentioned in 60 J. P. 378. There the dispute raged round ring on which lion rampant, surmounted by a or other ensign. At the base there was a bar, but no wreath. The question was whether such a device was an armorial bearing" within the definition of sect. 19 (13) of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14, the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1869. The Lord President held that the device was an armorial bearing, and the defendant was deemed to be liable, but no reasons are stated. Lord Adam agreed, and his view seemed to turn on the fact that the device included a heraldic lion on a shield. Lord M Laren's judgment contains observations of great importance, for he lays it down that to render the user liable it is not essential that an armorial bearing should be in regular form approved by the Heralds' College, still lesa is it necessary that it should be authentic. This impiied, in the learned judge's view, that, even if the person using the design or device is not entitled to use it, though it may be the arms of another family, or a device of such a kind as would not usually be recognised in heraldry, still, if it is in fact used, that is sufficient to render the user liable. From this it is not hard to argue that a legatee of half a dozen spoors bearing some sort of engraved device may well be liable through his testator's bounty to the annoyance of proceedings, unless he adopt the precautionary measure of erasing them before exposing them to the view of a vigilant local taxation collector. Surely a little more reasonableness would not be amiss in the construction nowadays being put on the many regulations under which claims are made on the purse of the unfortunate taxpayer. SOME weeks ago we referred to the probability that certain county justices would, in regard to applications for occasional licences, not exercise any discrimination in respect of the circumstances attending individual areas, but would give to each and every such application an unqualified refusal. Our information turns out to be correct, and the result is that, where there should be confidence and good will in arranging the Coronation festivities, there is to be found a very considerable friction. It may well be that in urban centres it is desirable to act on a system, but in country districts the circumstances are entirely different, and the police will in many cases find it easier to fulfil their duties if inducement is offered to keep people together on the field to which the occasional licence applies rather than to tempt them to wander about in search of refreshment. Hence it is not quite obvious why the applications for occasional licences, although unopposed by the police, should have been met with such a universal |