« EelmineJätka »
mersmith, Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, Paddington, Rother-
In 1903 the undermentioned London borough councils presented a sealed petition to Parliament with a view to bringing the experiment to an end. The Corporation of the City of London and the Stoke Newington Council took independent steps with the same object. It will be noticed that the above-mentioned bodies marked joined in the petition: Battersea, Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Chelsea, Deptford, Fulham, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith, Hampstead, Holborn, Kensington, Lambeth, Poplar, St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, Wandsworth, Woolwich.
6.-Procedure on Transfer of Property Registered with an "Absolute" Title.
(1) Attendance on client receiving instructions. (2) Obtaining copy of land certificate from vendor's solicitor. (3) Obtaining authority to inspect register. (4) Attendance at Land Registry inspecting register, which disclosed (inter alia) restrictive conditions. (5) Obtaining client's instructions on restrictive conditions. (6) Preparation of usual requisitions. (7) Inquiries of local authorities as
No return has been made since March 1906. A return from that date was in April last ordered by Parliament. No explanation is given in the official returns that in any way explains why the expenses of the Middlesex Registry should have increased from £2030 in 1900 to 10,493 in 1906. It has been suggested that the explanation is that the registry officials who receive and apply the Middlesex Registry fees have debited this department with an undue proportion of the general expenses of the office so as to minimise the loss incurred in the Land Registry Department in connection with the experimental trial of the system of compulsory registration of title. If the expenses of the Middlesex Deed Registry were covered by £2030 in March 1900, it is suggested that this sum would cover the expenses to-day. In that case it is clear that, in view of the annual receipts of the registry as shown above, the estimate made that the profits amount to £15,000 per annum is fully justified. The profits made in the Middlesex Registry justify, it is submitted, the estimate made that the profits of the Deed Registry would amount to £12,000 per annum if deed registry were extended to that portion of the county of London that lies south of the Thames. The area and population that this part of the county embrace suggests, indeed, that the estimate is a conservative one. In considering the profits made by a deed registry it must be borne in mind that the business is purely ministerial and largely automatic, so that the necessity for experts (to whom substantial salaries have to be paid) is non-existent. This is one of the principal distinctions between a registry of deeds and a registry of titles.
THE usual monthly meeting of the directors was held at the Law Society's Hall on the 5th inst., Mr. W. P. Richardson in the chair. The other directors present were Mr. T. H. Gardiner (treasurer), Mr. F. W. Emery, Mr. A. Toovey, Mr. Mark Waters, Mr. W. M. Woodhouse, and Mr. E. E. Barron (secretary). A sum of £50 was voted for the relief of deserving applicants, a new life member and two annual subscribers were elected, and other general business was
This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topica, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.
transacted. to outstanding charges for road making, &c. (8) Inquiry of sanitary inspector if drainage system passed (if premises newly erected). (9) Inquiry of tenant as to terms of tenancy. (10) Preparation of instruments of transfer (the forms as printed are obviously incomplete, containing no receipt for purchase money and requiring other additions). (11) Submitting same to vendor's solicitor for approval. (12) Engrossment thereof on form and forwarding to vendor's solicitor for execution and arranging appointment to complete. (13) Obtaining earlier title deeds (which are not retained at the Land Registry, and which a purchaser should therefore obtain). (14) Making the following usual searches against vendor: Bankruptcy-(a) debtor's declaration, (b) bankruptcy index-book. (c) petitions, (d) receiving orders; Land Registry (all separate searches)-(a) land charges, (b) deeds of arrangement, (c) writs and orders, (d) annuities and rentcharges, (e) lis pendens, (f) map department, (g) final search of register. (15) Checking statement for completion. (16) Copy thereof to client with notice of appointment to complete. (17) Attending completion. (18) Attendance stamping deeds. (19) Attendance at registry registering documents (often occupying a whole afternoon). (20) Authority to tenants for payment of rent. (21) Fire policies to offices for indorsement. (22) Checking entries in documents on their return from registry and making schedule. (23) Acknowledging receipts of deeds to registry and transmitting documents to client.--Numerous other attendances, &c., as shown by requisitions or necessary by reason of special circumstances. Had property been previously mortgaged other inquiries, searches, &c., would be requisite.
11.-Re the Middlesex Registry.—Statement as to Profits. Extract from a report (June 1879) of the Select Committee on Land Transfer appointed in 1878: "From a return recently laid before Parliament it appears that the fees received in the Middlesex Registry Office amounted in the year 1877 to the sum of £14,043 5s. 6d., whilst the necessary expense of such office amounted to a sum of £4372 0s. 5d. only." If in 1877 the profit of the registry was thus £10.000, it is not an unreasonable assumption that, in view of the growth of the population in Middlesex during the subsequent thirty-four years, the profits could now be safely estimated at £15,000. Since the system of compulsory registration of title under the Land Transfer Act 1897 came into operation in the county of London in Jan. 1899 the Land Registry has, in the case of transactions registered under the Land Transfer Act, superseded the Middlesex Registry, and has proportionately reduced the fees and consequently the profits of that registry. The following figures are taken from returns made under the Middlesex Registry Act 1708 and the Land Registry (Middlesex Deeds) Act 1891:
CUSTODY OF PARISH REGISTERS.-May I draw your attention and that of your readers to the important and interesting paper real by Mr. Moser, of Kendal, at the recent meeting of the Law Society at Nottingham dealing with the custody of our parish registers. and the resolution which was adopted to the effect that it is desir able that in the interests of the public the law should be amende l' For many years past it has been common knowledge that the mode of preservation of these valuable records has been not only open to question, but has been a crying scandal, and yet the Legislature has done absolutely nothing to remedy the matter. That these registers are of extreme value to the public few would be found to deny, but this fact does not appear as yet to have penetrated the brains of those whose duty it is to the public to preserve them. The view which antiquaries take with regard to the importance of these records is well exemplified by a footnote on parish registers which appeared in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne published in the year 1889, which is as follows: "The estates in suspense or which were lately so for want of heirs of the family of Stote, of Jesmond, in Northumber land, also that of Barnesley, of Barnesley Hill, in Worcestershire, and several others, are recent instances of the value of registers and of the utility that may arise to the community from them when correct and carefully preserved." Of the dangers and difficulties which may ensue in cases where the registers have not been care fully preserved Mr. Moser's paper forms an unanswerable bill of complaint. Ignorance of these dangers cannot be pleaded by the Legislature, for I find that so recently as the year 1908 Mr. Arthur Meredith Burke, in that excellent work of his entitled A Key t the Ancient Parish Registers of England and Wales, after mentioning the value of such registers to the family historian for the clues they afford, expressed his regret that so little had then been done by the Legislature to secure the safe custody of what he styles "these national records." He refers to an actual case in which the registers had been sold by auction at the highest bid on the death of an incumbent, and he draws attention to the fact that it was stated before a Select Committee of the House of Commons that a certain rector used to direct his pheasants with the parchment of the old registers. Whilst on this subject I would like to draw attention to the want of preservation of what are known as the "bishops' transcripts," which are copies of the registers sent from time to time to the registrar of each diocese. It is well known that the greater portion of these transcripts are kept in no sort of order or arrangement, and are therefore difficu' to consult. Now, Sir, it seems only too likely that the resolution passed at Nottingham will lead to no satisfactory result un ess further action be taken, and my object in writing is to enlist no only your sympathies, but your active co-operation in an agitation in favour of such legislation as will ensure the effective cure of 's evils to which Mr. Moser has alluded. EDGAR F. BRIGGS.
THE OPENING OF THE LAW COURTS.-Having an inquiring mind, may I ask why it is that the solicitor branch of the Profession take no official part in the Abbey service prior to the opening of the courts? A continental lawyer (who is solicitor and barrister as we understand the functions), unfamiliar with our system, might very well be excused if, on reading the usual notice of the Attorney-General, he came to the conclusion that solicitors have no responsibility and take no professional part in litigation in England. Do solicitors think prayers are unnecessary in the case of their branch, or is it extreme modesty that prevents them from taking part officially through the president of the Law Society and several members of the council in an official solemn service before the commencement of each legal year? INQUIRER.
NOTES AND QUERIES:
This column is intended for the use of members of the Legal Profession, and therefore queries from lay correspondents cannot be inserted. Under no circumstances are editorial replies undertaken.
None are inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides.
37. ILLEGITIMATE CHILD OF TESTATRIX-STRANGER IN BLOOD.Can any reader refer to any case or decision in which it has been decided that an illegitimate child of a testatrix is a stranger in blood for the purposes of the payment of the 10 per cent. legacy? There is a case of Anderson v. Atkinson (46 L. T. Rep. 850; 21 Ch. Div. 100), in which an illegitimate child of a testator is decided to be, within the meaning of the Stamp Act 1815 and the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1888, a stranger in blood. There appears to be a considerable distinction in the relationship of a mother of an illegitimate child as compared with the father; in the eye of the law she is the mother and the legal guardian of the child.
X. Y. Z.
(Q. 33.) INCOME TAX DUTY REPAYMENT.-This matter is treated in the fifth edition of our book (p. 378). The sixth edition is now in the press, and gives further information.
THE AUTHORS OF "A GUIDE TO INCOME TAX PRACTICE."
(Q. 34.) ARREARS OF INCOME TAX.-The legal right of the Crown in the case of an erroneous return is to recover £20 and treble duty for each of the three past years: (Finance Act 1907, s. 23, and sce the very recent case of Attorney-General v. Till). The usual practice is for the surveyor to give the defaulter the option of making up the amount in default for some years back in lieu of the above penalties.
THE AUTHORS OF "A GUIDE TO INCOME TAX PRACTICE."
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
To SECRETARIES.-Reports of meetings should reach the office not later than ürst post Thursday morning to ensure insertion in the current number.
THE WHITTUCK SCHOLARSHIP.
THE Whittuck Scholarship in International Law tenable at the London School of Economics and Political Science has been awarded to Albert Cecil Dawes, B.A. (London).
ELDON LAW SCHOLARSHIP.
AN election to an Eldon Law Scholarship worth £200 a year will take place on the 15th Nov. Information as to the terms under which the scholarship is held is given in the Oxford University Calendar.
SOLICITORS' MANAGING CLERKS' ASSOCIATION. THE following is a syllabus of law lectures for the Michaelmas session 1911, to be delivered in the halls of the respective Inns :Friday, Oct. 20.-Lecture: "The Reconstruction and Amalgamation of Companies.' Lecturer, Mr. Alexander Grant, K.C. Chairman, Lord Justice Buckley. (In the Old Hall, Lincoln's-inn.) Tuesday, Nov. 28.-Lecture: Bankruptcy." Lecturer, Mr. Edward Clayton, K.C., Treasurer of Gray's-inn. Chairman, Lord Mersey of Toxteth. (In the Gray's-inn Hall.)
Friday, Dec. 15.-Lecture: "The Interpretation of Statute Law." Lecturer, Mr. W. F. Craies. Chairman, Lord Robson. (In the Inner Temple Hall.)
The chair will be taken at seven o'clock precisely.
The lectures are open to all the members of the association, who will be allowed to introduce friends connected with the Legal Profession. Non-members will be admitted on production of
ticket, or syllabus, which may be obtained at the office of the association, 12, New-court, Lincoln's-inn. Mr. John Verrall, Hon. Sec. of Lectures.
LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.-At a meeting held at the Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, on the 3rd inst. (chairman, Mr. R. W. Handley), the subject for debate was: "That the attitude of the Liberal Party towards national and Imperial affairs renders an immediate change of Government imperatively necessary in the Mr. W. S. Jones interests of the country and of the Empire.' opened in the affirmative, and Mr. C. P. Blackwell in the negative. The following members continued the debate: Messrs. C. S. Krauss, W. M. Pleadwell, F. Burgis, W. S. Meeke, E. D. Shearn, R. H. Willcocks, R. T. Davies, H. G. Meyer, C. F. King, and J. G. Heal. The motion was carried by one vote.
BIRMINGHAM.-The opening meeting of the autumn session was held at the Law Library, Bennett's-hill, on Tuesday, the 3rd inst., Mr. Edward Evershed in the chair and twenty members present. The Moot Point No. 1023 was debated: Can there be an absolute assignment of a definite portion of a debt within sect. 25, sub-sect 6, of the Judicature Act 1873?" Mr. E. C. G. Clarke opened in the affirmative, and was supported by Messrs. W. J. Blackham, H. Cooke, A. J. Adams, and R. W. Frazier. Mr. A. Upton opened in the negative, and was supported by Messrs. A. J. Hatwell, J. D. Evans, W. F. Horden, T. L. Bayley, D. A. Parry, and B. B. Davis. After the openers had replied the chairman summed up, and, on the question being put to the meeting, the voting resulted: For the affirmative, six; for the negative, eleven. A hearty vote of thanks to the chairman concluding the proceedings.
The death has occured at Epsom of Mr. CHARLES BARRETT RUSSELL, who was in his ninetieth year, and was called to the Bar in 1851. He carried out the duties of a revising barrister for forty-five years, and his retirement took place only a few years ago. Mr. STEPHEN PECKOVER, of Leeds, died on the 4th inst., at Bramley, in the fiftieth year of his age. Born in Leeds, of Leeds parents, in Jan. 1862, he was educated at the Leeds Middle Class School, and at fifteen years of age entered the office of the late Mr. Thomas Marshall, the senior registrar of the County Court. He was afterwards articled to Mr. John Bowling, the present official receiver for Leeds, and having served his articles he succeeded in obtaining third class honours at the solicitors' final examination. He commenced practice immediately on his own account about the year 1888, and was wonderfully successful at In 1894 he went into the very outset of his professional career. partnership with Mr. Charles Scriven, and the firm has since been carried on under the well-known names of the two partners, the style not being altered when, subsequently, Mr. Francis Dixon was admitted as a junior partner. He frequently sat as deputy registrar, and for one year occupied the presidential chair of the Leeds Law Society. Mr. Peckover was admitted in 1888.
Sir JAMES SPEARMAN WINTER, formerly Premier of Newfoundland, died in Ottawa on the 7th inst. The son of Mr. James Winter, of the Customs Service at St. Johns, he was born at Lamaline, in Newfoundland, in 1845. He was called to the Bar in 1867 and obtained a large practice, taking "silk in 1880. He became successively a member of the Executive Council, SolicitorGeneral, and Attorney-General. He represented Newfoundland at the Washington Fisheries Conference in 1887, and delegate from the colony to London on the French treaties question. In 1893 he was raised to the Newfoundland Bench, but three years later he resigned and resumed his practice at the Bar. Last year Sir James Winter was one of the counsel for Great Britain in the arbitration case at The Hague on the fisheries and other questions at issue with the United States.
The death took place on the 8th inst., at Winton Castle, East Lothian, of Mr. RALPH DUNDAS, Clerk to the Signet, senior partner of the firm of Dundas and Wilson, C.S., Edinburgh.
Mr. WILLIAM EDMUND BALL, LL.D., died on the 8th inst. at Brasted, aged fifty-seven. He was the second son of the Rev. In 1875 he won the Holt Joseph Lancaster Ball, of Torquay. Scholarship, was called by Gray's-inn in 1878, and joined the Midland Circuit. He was the author of a Student's Guide to the Bar, and Principles of Torts and Contracts
Colonel HENRY CRANSTOUN ADAMS, V.D., died at Exmouth on the 29th Sept. He was the youngest son of General Sir George Adams, K.C.B., by Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of Sir Wm. Elfred, Having been educated at Bart., formerly of Bickham, Devon. Blundell's School, Tiverton, and King's College, London, he was Admitted articled to Messrs. Beadon and Sevett, of Taunton. solicitor in 1849, he went to practise at Exmouth, and in the same year married Matilda Winsloe, a daughter of Commander Thos. Patton, R.N. He became clerk to the Exmouth Local Board of Health on its establishment in 1850, and retained the appointment until the district council came into being; he remained its clerk until his death, although for over a year he had not been in his office. He was also clerk to the justices of the Woodbury Division
HOUSE OF LORDS.-SESSION 1911.-No. 5.
De Peers Consolidated Mines Limited v. British South Africa Company.
Lord Advocate (on behalf of His Majesty) and others v. Walker Trustees. (Scotland) James Nelson and Sons Limited v. Nelson Line (Liverpool) Limited (Second Appeal). (England.)
Morgan v. Wiliam Dixon Limited. (Scotland.)
Mackay (pauper) v. Rosie. (Scotland)
Swifte v. Attorney-General for Ireland and another. (Ireland.)
London and Sonth-Western Railway Company r. British Vacuum Cleaner Company Limited. (England.)
Brown and another Turner, Brightman, and Co. (England.)
Law Accident Insurance Society Limited and another . Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society Limited and others. (England.)
Russell v. Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners and othe:s. (England.) McVittie r. Townend. (England.)
Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company r. Provost, &c., of Burgh of Ayr. (Scotland)
Symington v. Caledonian Railway Company. (Scotland)
Leaver (pauper) v. Urban District Council of Pontypridd._(England.)
Farmer (Surveyor of Taxes) v. Scottish North American Trust Limited. (Scotland.) Kerrison v. Glyn Mills Currie and Co. (England.)
E. Clemens Horst Company v. Biddell Brothers. (England.)
Kilmarnock Theatre Company Limited (in liquidation) and others r. Buchanan ard others. (Scotland.)
Taylor r. London and North-Western Railway Company. (England.)
Scottish Widows Fund Life Assurance Society v. Blennerhassett. (Ireland) Question
Atkinson and another. (England.)
Guardians of the Poor of Hackney Union v. Kingston-upon-Hull Incorporation for
the Poor. (England.)
In the Matter of the Companies Acts
1862 to 1907 and In the Matter of the Premier Underwriting Association Palmer v. Emmerson
Brock r. Pain and others
In the Matter of a Trade Mark. No. 155,036 and No. 161,072, and In the Matter of The Trade Marks Act 1905 In the Matter of the Middlesex Estates: Sir J. M. M. Wilson (deceased) and In the Matter of the Settled Lanas Acts 1882 to 1890
Re The Estate of Rev. J. C. A. Roberts (deceased) and Be The Trustee Act 1893 and Re Judicial Trustee Act 1896 The British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company Limited the Electrical Company Limited GH. Gledhill and Sons Limited r. British Patent Perforated Paper Company, &c.
In the Matter of the Estates of Mary Walford, J. A. H. Walford, and J. H. N. Walford (all deceased); Kenyon v. Walford
Day and another v. Thompson ard
Re the Companies Consolidation Act 1908 and In the Matter of Sly, Spink, and Co. Limited
Mills v. The United Counties Bank Limited Klawansky r. The Premier Petroleum
Company Limited and others (The Prudential Trust Corporation Third Party, Benno Maisel Fourth Party)
Re The Estate of J. W. Cockrell (de ceased); Pinkey v. Cockrell Burghese. Attorney-General
The Tewkesbury Gas Company Limited: Tysoe v. The Company Wilson and others r. Wilson Brothers Bobbin Company Limited Re Roberts (deceased);
Gill and others v. The Lee's Corporation The Vidal Dyes Syndicate Limited v. Levinstein Limited
Same r. Read, Halliday, and Sons Lim. Coleman and Co. Limited v. Stephen Smith and Co. Limited
Kynoch Limited r. Rowlands and Wells Same r. Rowlands and another
Ke Blandon's Estate; Dando r. Porter and others West t. Keeves
Re C. H. Collins (deceased); Collins r.
The Great Central Railway Company v.
Re The Registered Trade Marks, Nos. 305,293, and 306.121, of S. Smith and Co.
Limited and In the Matter of the Trade
Re The Camden Brewery Company
Re John McFee (deceased); McFee r. Toner and others; Edwards and another v. Toner and others.
Divorce Leslie (Marie Josephine) r.
Lunacy In the Matter of the Most Hon. J. J. Dudley Stuart Marquess of Townsend, a person of unsound mind, and In
the Matter of the Lunacy Acts 1890 and 1891
Aktiengesellschaft Mix and Benest r.
Lord Ashburton v. Nocton
Re the Companies (Consolidation) Act
FROM THE PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION (ADMIRALTY),
Seacombe The Owners of the Barge Dolly and her Master and Crew, suing for their los t effects, and Owners of Cargo and Freight. Owners of Steamship Seacombe (damage)
The Devonshire-The Owners of the Barge Leslie v. The Owners of the Steamship Devonshire.
With Nautical Assessors.-Final List.
The Hopper No. 1-The Owners of Ketch Snowden and others v. The Owners of the Steamship Hopper No. 1 of Dublin (damage).
Without Nautical Assessors.
The Umsinga-W. Cory and Sons Limited The Fanny-Thos. Morgan r. J. S. Davies, v. The Owners of the Steamship Umsinga (damage)
Moding-F. Chiesman and Co. v. The Owners of the Steamship Modina (damage to cargo)
Reeder r. Cooper
the Owner of the Vessel Lily Green and all others claiming against Vessel Fanny (limitation of liability) Dupleix-The Anglo-American Oil Company Limited v. The Owners of the Barque Dupleix and freight (damage)
FROM THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION. Interlocutory List.
Clark v. Forster; Same r. Same; Forster
Re The Arbitration Act 1889 and Re An
Hutton v. Gubbins
Flynn v. Todrick and another
Allan v. Clarke and others
Olliff r. Gooling
Edmondson's Limited r. Parker
Jenkins r. The Standard Colliery Com-
Harding . The Express Dairy Company
Braithwaite and Kirk v. James Cox
Johnson v. Charlaw and Sacriston Col-
Moore r. Naval Colliery Company Limited
Calico Printers Association Limited v.
Panagotis . The Owners of the Steam-
Calico Printers Association Limited r.
Wood (widow) v. D. Davis and Sons
Burton v. Walter Scott and Middleton
From the Chancery Division, general list, 38; interlocutory, 8; total, 46. From the County Palatine Court of Lancaster, general list, 1: total. 1. From th King's Bench Division, final and new trial, 122; interlocutory, 21; total, 143 From the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division (Admiralty) with nautica assessors, final and new trial, 1; total, 1. Same without nautical assessors, fina and new trial, 4; total, 4. From the King's Bench Division Sitting in Bankruptcy, final and new trial, 5; total, 5. Re the Workmen's Compensation Act, from County Courts, final and new trial, 70; total. 70. Totals: General list and final and new trial, 241; interlocutory, 29; total, 270.
Lmited. Pers. inj.
1776 Bevan v. Bright and another. Con
1779 Petch . Clergue and another. Wrong dis.
1619 Danzey v. Metropolitan Bank of
1627 Douglas v. Singleton. Breach of 1789 Olden v. London General Omribus promise
1632 Miller r. Temple Press Limited. Account
1659 Frere v. Frere. Libel 1660 Ogle v. Butterfield. Contract 1667 Johnson, Riddle, and Co. Limited v. London Society of Compositors and others. Libel
1682 J. Pollak and Co. v. Duke of Manchester. Stockbroker's account. 1685 Bass v. Hendon Urban District Council. Pers. inj.
Company Limited. Pers. inj. 1797 National Cash Register Company
Limited v. Green. Contract
1807 Port of London Authority v. Dale
1689 Smart and another v. Edwards. 1829 White r. Belverstone. Slander
r. Edinburgh Life
75 Deen v. Whinney and another. Warranty
179 London Trading Bank v. Master and another. Bill
294 Darbishire v. Field. Declaration 1404 Rapaport v. Gethen. Contract. 22 Grover and Grover v. Langford. Negligence
232 Paine r. Countess of Warwick. Bill 633 Atherton v. Paul and Wife. Slander 1875 Dobson v. Cotton and others. Fraud. 838 Mason v. Bathurst Trading Company. Contract
1892 Trumpler v. Johnson. Covenant 1893 Kemp v. Beltrage and Saville. Negligence
992 Elliott v. Broxholme. Notes 1180 Acetylene Corporation, &c., and another v. Heath and Son and 1898 Horne v. John Bull Limited and another. Libel others. Libel
1695 Morier v. Fowler. Breach of 1899 Same r. Mrs. John Bull and others. promise
1699 Rhodesia Goldfields Limited r. Partridge and another. Declara
1711 Burley v. Beddington. Pers. inj. 1716 Wynne-Edwards r. Waud. Libel 1717 Williams r. Jardine. Contract 1724 Edwards r. Beau Sejour Tea, &c., Company Limited. Contract 1725 Same r. Meares and others. Fraud. reps.
1729 Jay r. Day. Contract
1740 Gripper r. Hudson Brothers Limitel and others. Warranty 1741 Diblin r. McCarthy and others. Pers, inj.
19 3 Cousins r. Weil. Breach of promise 1904 Israel and Oppenheimer v. Soeffing. Injunction
1905 Walter and another t. Walter. Money lent
1907 Greenlands Limited v. Wilmhurst London Association Limited and another. Libel
1908 King r. I. Cook and Son. Pers. inj. 1910 Johnson e. Kolckmann. Contract 1914 Bromley r. London and South Western Bank. Contract 1915 West, J. J. v. Wilson. Libel 1916 Same r. Wilson and others. Libel 1917 West, W. H. v. Wilson. Libel
1918 Same r. Wilson and others. Libel 1921 Deane v. Taylor. Contract 1922 Wade r. Macaura. Wrong dis. 1928 W. Judd Limited v. Aflective Celluloid Syndicate Limited. Contract
1935 Booth v. National Cash Register Company. Contract 1946 Burgess, Cosens, and Co. r. Bourne. Solicitor's bill
1958 With ra and Wife v. Mitchell Brothers (London) Limited. Pers. inj. 1959 Iro y Coast Rubber Estates D. Harley. Money received 1968 C. and W. Walker Limited British Coalite Company Limited. Con1973 Savage r. Bank of Montrea'. Pers. inj.
1986 Jones v. Beecham. Contract 1987 Brill and Wife . Anglo-Galician Naptha Syndicate Limited and others. Contract
1992 Capsuloids (1909) Limited r. Duncan, Flockhart, and Co. Contract 1997 O'Byrne v. Hall. Detinue 1999 Vickers, Son, and Maxims Limited v. Clergue. Commission 2000 Arlidge v. Conolly and others. Libel. 2012 Weeks v. Palliser. Libel 2013 Goble and Sothers Limited V. Armour and Co. Limited. Libel 2018 Cox r. Twentieth Century Press Limited and others. Libel 2020 Hughes . L. O. Company Limited. Detinue
2021 Pridgeon v. Mellor and others. Trespass
2023 Woolfe v. Thompson, Fraser Ramsay Proprietary Limited. Bill 2025 Knowles r. Taylor. Work 2026 Reed v. Kempster. Libel 2027 Shervington v. Same. Libel 2028 Reed v. P. I. P. Limited. Libel 2029 Shervington v. Same. Libel 2038 Bloor and others. Ball's Motor Garage. Goods sold.
Middlesex Common Jury Actions.
Actions beyond No. 1920 in this list will not be taken before Monday, the 23rd Oc*. Some of the following Numbers will be in the List for Trial on Friday, the 13th Oct. Nos. 405 to 1758 inclusive.
405 Bennett-Stanford e. Torkington and 1834 Dare v
1749 Securities Exchange Limited T.
1753 Barns v. St. Mary, Islington, Guardians. Trover
1302 Bloss v. Holland. Money ceived
Bognor Urban District Council. Contract
1838 Waterlow v. Shankland and Wife. Trespass
1843 Clarkson r. Bigwood. Commission. 1814 Morris v. London Theatres Varieties Limited. Contract 1851 Choate r. Monk. Contract 1868 Rose v. Knox. Money paid 1869 Millen v. Bunn. Pers. inj. 1870 Gennesson v. Dickman. Contract 1877 Josephson r. Monk. Contract 1895 Sabben v. Bish. Pers. inj. 1902 Marks v. Snarey. Contract 1906 Miller v. Lordon County Council Pers. inj.
1911 Pratton r. Coupé Company and Motor Cab Company Limited. Pers. inj.
1919 Chatelain. Leal, and Co. v. J. C. and W. Lord. Goods sold 1920 Viola v. Pictorial Newspaper Company Limited. Contract
1924 Neusele. Lewis:hn Brothers. Goods sold
1926 O'Kelly v. Cleaver. Trover
1927 Spack and another r. Brown and Co. Libel
1931 Wright r. Harwood. Seduction 1933 M dhurst v. British Motor Boat Company. Warranty
1812 Cox v. London General Omnibus 1937 Fiat Motors Limitel v. Leslie.
Company Limited. Pers. inj.
1817 Midgley r. Mauley. Mal. pros. 1818 Parker r. London Toeatre of Varieties Limited. Covenant
1820 Elliot v. Ingersoll and Brothers. Pers. inj.
1826 Tremeer v. Foster. Contract 1830 Williams v. McCarthy and Co. Go:ds sold
1833 Matthews and another v. Derry and Toms. Pers. inj.
1835 Smith v. Proud Brothers. inj.
78 Ross v. Downey and another. Negli gence
94 Skoien r. Long. Contract
2001 Simmons v. D. Smith and Co. and another. Bill
165 Woodward v. New Zealand Asso- 2006 Joyce v. Goff. Seduction
ciated Press. Issue
2008 Holland . P. I. P. Limited and others. Libel
941 Bisman v. Israel and another. Bill 1573 J. Landau and Sons v. Wingate and 2017 Makua Trading Corporation Limited Johnston Limited Contract
1613 Russell and another v. Chirgwin. Declaration
1653 Dosteel v. King. Libel 1718 Bolotoff v. Goldsmiths' and Silversmiths' Company Limited. Issue Detinue
1720 Lewinson v. Southcombe.
r. Anglo Continental Industries Limited. Calls
2019 Cameron r. Short and Sons Limited. Lord Campbell's Act
2030 Rost . W. R. Taylor, Carr, and Co. and another. Fraud. reps. 2035 Curran v. Meux's Brewery Company Limited and arother. Pers. inj.
Ship A. Wicander
Ship Clumberhall Ship Cordova
Ship Cristoforo Vagliano
Ship British Standard
Ship Daggry Ship Gratia Ship Upcerne
ADMIRALTY. Actions for Trial.
Ship Prins Frederick Hea drik
Ship Queen O ga
Ship Roche Castle
Ship St. Etienne
Ship Swansea Bay
Ship Uriarte No. 14
Ship Weliki Kujas Alex
Ship Whateley Hall
Actions for trial, 129; Appeals to Divisional Court, 8; total, 137. MEMORANDUM.-No complete list of actions to be tried in this division can be given in advance, as the number and order in which they will be tried are necessarily dependent upon the presence in this country of seafaring witnesses whose movements are uncertain. The list will therefore be subject to alterations and additions.
CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES.-AUTUMN ASSIZES. THE following judges will remain in town: Grantham, J., Darling, J. Bucknill, J., Bray, J., Lord Coleridge, J., Hamilton, J., Scrutton, J., and Bankes, J., during the whole of the circuits; the other judges till their respective commission days.