PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS [N.B.-Announcements of appointments being in the nature of advertisements, are charged 28. 6d. each, for which postage stamps should be inclosed.] Mr. W. C. Ward has been appointed acting Prothonotary of the Court of Pleas at Durham, and Clerk to the Commissioner of Taxes for Easington ward in the same county in the place of his deceased father. judgment and integrity of purpose led him to be often selected as an umpire between contending parties, and it was rare indeed that the faintest question as to the justness of his decision was heard. It was, however, in his career as clerk to THE Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas has the justices that Mr. Barr stood out most promiappointed Mr. Charles Reginald Gibson, of Dart-nently before his fellow-townsmen. Words of the ford, Kent, Solicitor, to be a Commissioner for highest praise were heard on the lips of all who were brought into contact with him. Poor and taking acknowledgments of married women. rich alike felt the influence of his upright dealing, and his kind and sympathising heart. Through out the whole of his thirty-five years' official connection with the Borough Bench he discharged his duties in the most satisfactory manner, and the magistrates, who have often been heard to speak of him as their "right hand man," repeatedly manifested their admiration of his many excellent qualities. In 1860 they testified their regard for their clerk by subscribing for a full-length oil portrait of him, and it now adorns the magistrates' room adjoining the Borough Court in the Town Hall. The artist was William Crabb, and a massive gilt frame bears the inscription "To mark the respect of the Leeds Borough Magistrates for their Clerk, Robert Barr, Esq.," and the names of thirty-three magistrates (fifteen of whom are since dead), headed by Sir Thomas Beckett and Sir Peter Fairbairn. The Right Hon. Sir William Bovill, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, has appointed James Mote, of No. 1, Walbrook, in the City of London, and Eltham, in the County of Kent, gentleman, to be a perpetual Commissioner for taking the acknowledgments of deeds to be executed by married women for the City of London and the County of Kent. LEGAL OBITUARY. ROBERT BARR, ESQ. Born on the 3rd Sept. 1794, in George-street, near the present Kirkgate Market, where his father, Mr. Richard Barr, resided, Mr. Barr had just completed his seventy-seventh year; and many were the changes that he had witnessed in the town in whose affairs he had for half a century taken a prominent and active part. Destined for the legal profession, he was articled to an eminent firm of solicitors in Leeds, Messrs. Upton, Nicholson, and Hemingway, and his life career as a sound and able lawyer tells how thorough was the training that he received from them. Entering the office a youth, he remained in it until the dissolution of the firm, when he became partner with Mr. Nicholson. Mr. Barr's care and judgment as a legal practitioner early brought him under the notice of the local authorities, and on the office of coroner becoming vacant in 1824 he received the appointment. The firm of Nicholson and Barr existed for several years, during which time the offices of town clerk, clerk of the peace, and magistrates' clerk were filled by deceased's partner. After the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act, these three offices were distributed. That of clerk to the magistrates remained with Mr. Nicholson, and it was held by him until his death in 1836. For the responsible post thus rendered vacant there were two candidates-Mr. Barr and Mr. George Rawson, jun. - but the latter eventually withdrew his offer to serve the Bench, and Mr. Barr was, on the 3rd Dec., 1836, unani. mously elected. Of the thirteen justices present at the meeting at which this appointment was made only three-Sir Thomas Beckett, Bart., Mr. Thomas Benyon, and Mr. Darnton Lupton-remain in the commission of the peace. Mr. Barr had previously resigned his coronership, and his successor was Mr. John Lofthouse. With this gentleman he entered into partnership, and on the 1st Jan., 1837, the firm became Barr, Lofthouse, and Nelson. No further change took place until the death of Mr. Lofthouse, when the name of the firm was altered to Barr and Nelson; on the admission of Mr. Frederick Barr, the nephew of the senior partner, a few years ago, it assumed the style by which it is now so widely knownBarr, Nelson, and Barr. In addition to discharging the responsible work falling upon him as clerk to the magistrates, and as the leading member of a firm in large and influential legal practice, Mr. Barr was for many years the professional adviser of the Leeds Improvement Commissioners, and in that capacity he remained until the passing of the Improve ment Act of 1842, by which the powers of the commissioners became vested in the town council. He also acted for a long period in a similar manner on behalf or the overseers for the township of Leeds, his successor, on his resignation in 1840, being the late Mr. Charles Naylor. When the Act of Parliament, authorising in 1837 the construction by a company, of the Leeds Waterworks at Eccup, and elsewhere, was obtained. Mr. Barr was the solicitor to the company, and that position he retained until the waterworks were purchased by the corporation in 1852. He also acted as legal adviser to the patrons of the Leeds parish church, besides holding several other professional appointments. The duties of all these appointments Mr. Barr discharged with great ability, and so extensive was his knowledge of all legal matters that his advice was frequently sought by members of his own profession. His calmness and clearness of Deceased had been thrice married, but he leaves no issue. His third wife, who survives him, was Miss Rogers, of Grantham, sister of Mrs. Scott, widow of the late manager of the Yorkshire Banking Company. On the fact of his death being made known yesterday great regret was expressed by all classes of the inhabitants, and the bells of the town hall and the parish church were tolled out of respect for his memory. time by his medical adviser, Mr. S. H. Evans. He had, however, no serious attack until August last, whe, whilst travelling in Wales on an excessively hot day, he was so utterly prostrated that his life was for some time despaired of. The attack which has proved fatal was of a similar character to the one which occurred in August last, and the immediate cause of death is stated to have been the rupture of a vessel in the brain. Mr. Robotham was one of the oldest legal practitioners in the town, and his skill and knowledge as a real property lawyer were well known to and recognised by the Profession By the painstaking, able, and conscientious discharge of his profes sional duties during the whole of his career, and his consistent and upright character, he had won the esteem and confidence of numerous clients and the general respect of his fellow townsmen. Mr. Vallack, borough coroner, held an inquest on Saturday, when from the evidence of Mr. F. Wright, surgeon, it was inferred that death had resulted from the rupture of a vessel in the brain, consequent upon old standing disease of the heart, and a verdict to that effect was returned. THE COURTS & COURT PAPERS. Equity Courts. Court of Appeal in Chancery. Thursday, Nov. 2 Appeal motions and appeals Friday Thursday Friday Monday Mr. Bruce, the stipendiary magistrate, who pre- 6 Ditto 7 Ditto 22 Petitions and appeals 24 Appeal motions and appeals Thursday, Nov. 2 Appeal motions in Friday trates had the benefit and advice of such a man. I have known in my time three eminent men in left us. Mr. Ald. Oxley, who was also on the bench, expressed his full concurrence in what had been said by Mr. Bruce. W. ROBOTHAM, ESQ. Mr. Robotham had for a number of years suf- Saturday Monday. Monday. Tuesday Wednesday Saturday Monday. Tuesday 4 Petitions in lunacy, appeal petitions, and appeals Such days (if any) as the Lords Justices shall be engaged in the full court or at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are excepted. Peter v. Nicolls Boyd v. Petrie Pilcher v. Rawlins Wright r. Pitt Appeals. Pilcher e. Rawlins Land Credit Company of Mobilier of Euglaud, Radford v. Willis Cowles e. Gale Dixon v. Zamare Oriental Financial Corpo- Dent v. Ottoman Railway Rolls Court. Motions and general paper At Chancery-lane. General paper Petitions, short causes, adjourned summonses, and general paper 6 General paper 9 Motions and general paper 10 General paper Petitions, short causes, adjourned summonses, and general paper At Westminster. 7 Ditto Wednesday 8 Ditto Thursday Friday Saturday 15 Ditto 13 General paper 14 Ditto 16 Motions and general paper 17 General paper Petitions, short causes, adjourned summonses, and general paper 20 General paper 23 Ditto 21 Petitions, short causes, adjourned summonses, and general paper 25 Motions and general paper Saturday At the Rolls, unopposed petitions must be presented and copies left with the secretary on or before the Thursday preceding the Saturday on which it is intended they should be heard, and any causes intended to be heard as short causes must be so marked at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard. Watt v. Muirhead Hill v. Westmorland Last v. Drake Hosford v Sugden Andrews v. Woodward Wilkinson v. Pocock Co. (Limited) v. Smith Peakman v. Harrison Re Moore's Estate-Eland Hose v. Hunt-Hunt v. Hose Owen v. Barton Frostick v. Birdsey Wrigley v. Martin Holmes v. Howse Henry v. Lowman Cockerton v. Langmead Bevan v. Bevan Parker v. Marquis of Anglesey V.C. Malins' Court. At Westminster. At Lincoln's-inn. Birks v. Silverwood Grace v. Dutton Champion . The Conser vators of River Thames Leader v. Pemberton Wray v. Hunter Lowe v. Lowe Stockil v. Booker (Limited) v. Woolloton Robey and Co.'s Perseverance Iron Works (Lim.) v. Ollier Hanrott v. Hulett Willems v. Dimsdale Webster v. The Borough of Halifax Silvester v. Moore Loysel v. Freeth Morley v. Brackenbury Church v. Tamvacó Wilson v. Brown Torrance v. Bolton Atty v. Etough Martin v. Martin The Peninsular, West Harfield v. Bower Hunter v. Bullock Allhusen v. Whittell Viscount Newry v. Earl of Bowyer v. White The Gresham Life Assur- Lacon, Bart. v. The Provincial Banking Corporation (Limited) The Provincial Banking Cobbitt v. Woodward Parry v. Murray The Central Bank of London, Limited v. Quail Matterson v. Baerselman King v. Engleback and Brampton Railway Saturday Company Monday. Wright v. Butlin Wagstaff v. Midland Rail- Bower v. The Chesterfield way Company Harman v. Derby Smallfield v. Smallfield India and China Tea Co. V. Oakley v. Wood Tomkins v. Parker Ward v. The Wolverhamp ton Waterworks Co. Sleeman v. Wilson Ashby v. Bernard Johnson v. The Dudley and West Bromwich Banking Hayward v. Penney Anderson v. Anderson Bigg v. The Corporation of Beattie v. Lord El ury Imray v. Imeson Miller v. Miller Moore v. Harper-Harper v. Harper Gillman v. Bish Bovill v. Frost Brandon v. Coleman Bemish v. Hare 16 Motions and general paper 17 Petitions and general paper 18 Short causes and general paper 20 General paper 24 Petitions, short causes, and 25 paper Motions and general paper Causes. Nesham v. Selby Holmes v. Holmes Packer v. Page Shelley v. Maber Penistan v. Worsley Attorney-General v. John- Sherwin v. Bodill Rigg v. Merrin! Browne v. Radford Thomas v. Richardson Martin v. Saunders Russell v. Martin Griffiths v. Oakley Hampshire Banking Co. v. Parkin v. Parkin Jacubs v. Rylance Walker v. Jersey Water Griesiell v. Jackson Preston v. Mayor, &c., of Barnard v. Clark Great Yarmouth Flower v. Flower Harvey v. Jannings Bennett v. Partridge Rapley v. Walmsley Paine v. Price genera Stafford v. Stafford Marquess of Downshire v. Finnis v, Tuke Morgan v. Seaton Re Brown-Rattey v. Hullah Phillips v. Silvester J. Mitchell and Co. (Limited) v. Great Northern Railway Company Arnold v. Bradbury Shiers v. Haswell N.B.-In Vice-Chancellor Wickens' Court no cause, motion for decree, or further consideration, can, except by order of the court, be marked to stand over, if it be within twelve of the last cause or matter in the printed paper of the day for hearing. Any causes intended to be heard as short causes before either of the Vice-Chancellors must be so marked at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard. THE GAZETTES. Bankrupts. Gazette, Oct. 27. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. PHILLIPS, W. R. of no occupation, Piccadilly. Pet. Oct. 24. Reg. Hazlitt. Sols. Messrs. Lewis, Ely-pl, Holborn. Sur. Nov. 17 TAYLOR, FRANCIS WILLIAM, general agent, Coleman-st. Pet. Oct. 24. Reg. Roche. Sol. Sykes, St. Swithin's-la. Sur. Nov. 16 To surrender in the Country. BINNS, JOSHUA, coach proprietor, Whitefield. Pet. Oct. 25. Reg CHADWICK, JOHN, and TURNER, GEORGE, cotton manufacturers, HINKLEY, ARDEN, brickmaker, Sittingbourne. Reg. Acworth. Sur. Nov, 10 HODDINOTT, FRANCIS, dealer, Frome. Messiter. Sur. Nov. 8 Pet. Oct. 23. Pet. Oct. 24. Reg. MORLEY, JOHN, farmer, Rufford. Pet. Oct. 25. Sur. Nov. 9 PARKER, CHARLES, tea dealer, Huddersfield. Reg. Perkins. Pet. Oct. 25. Reg. ALDERTON, HORATORIO GEORGE, grocer, Wandsworth-rd, Clapham Nov. 13, at three, at 265, Tottenham-court-rd ARMSTRONG, JOSEPH, draper, Seaham Harbour; Nov. 21, at two, at office of Sol., Wright, Sunderland BALY, THOMAS, out of business, King Edward-st, Liverpool-rd, BARCROFT, JOHN, basket maker, Hanley; Nov. 9, at eleven, at 18, BRADLEY, WILLIAM JOHN, and GRUNDY, JAMES, bakers, Liver- BULL, JAMES PORTER, coach builder, Dewsbury; Nov. 13, at three, at the Royal Hotel, Dewsbury. Sol., Ibberson, Dewsbury CLARKE, ROBERT ROBINSON, chemist, Gateshead; Nov. 9, at twelve, at office of Sols., Hoyle, Shipley, and Hoyle; Newcastleupon-Tyne COLLETT, WILLIAM, gentleman, Beaumont-st, Marylebone; Nov. 10, at three, at office of Sol., Montagu. Bucklersbury COVERDALE, WILLIAM, publican, Hartlepool; Nov. 15, at eleven, at West Hartlepool. Sols., Dobing and Simpson, West Hartlepool DAVIES, CHARLES, cotton spinner, Oxford, within Ashton-underLyne; Nov. 11, at eleven, at office of Sol., Clayton, Ashtonunder-Lyne DAVIES, WILLIAM, sculptor, Carmarthen; Nov, 7, at two, at the Townhall, Carmarthen DOBSON, THOMAS, linen draper, Stockton-on-Tees; Nov. 14, at ten, at office of Michael Pattinson Thompson, public accountant Finkle-st, Stockton-on-Tees DOWNER, WILLIAM, tea merchant, Brighton; Nov. 14, at twelve, at office of Mr. Clennell, solicitor, Great Knight Rider-st, Doctors' common Sol., Brandreth, Brighton EARP, JOHN, milliner, Hanley; Nov. 8, at three, at the King's Head Inn, Worcester-st, Birmingham. Sol., Tennant, Hanley EDMONDS, EDMUND, woollen draper, Birmingham; Nov. 10, at eleven, at the George Hotel, Huddersfield. Sol., Griffin, Birmingham FARLEY, WILLIAM, grocer, Ramsgate; Nov. 14, at three, at office of Moon, public accountant, Pavement, Finsbury HAGUE, BENJAMIN, provision 'dealer, Leeds; Nov. 10, at two, at office of Sols., Rooke and Midgley, Leeds HANDCOCK, JANE ELIZABETH, spinster, Rose-cottage, New-rd, Hammesmith, Nov. 22, at two, at offices of Ladbury, Collison, and Viney, Cheapside. Sols., Lewis and Lewis, Ely-pl, Holborn HANDFORD, JAMES, confectioner, Duke-st, Portland-pl; Nov. 15, at three, at offices of Mr. Wagstaff, auctioneer, Upper-st, Isling ton. Sol., Elliott HINCHLIFF, JAMES, and TUNNAFCLIFE, HENRY, woollen cloth merchants, both Huddersfield; Nov. 15, at eleven,'at the Queen hotel, Market-st, Huddersfield. Sols., Messrs. Clough HINCHLIFF, JAMES, and TUNNACLIFFE, HENRY, woollen cloth manufacturers, Huddersfield; Nov. 16, at four, at office of Sols., Messrs. Clough, Huddersfield HODDINOTT, HUGHEORGE, farmer, Marston Rigott; Nov. 9, at three, at office of Sols., Dunn and Payne, Frome HOWELLS, MORGAN, butcher, Llanflar; Nov. 9, at eleven, at office of Sol., Jones, Aberystwith HUNTBATCH, JOHN, tailor, Burslem; Nov. 14, at two, at office of Sol., Hollinshead, Tunstall HUTCHINSON, MARLEY GEORGE, a lieutenant in the 8th hussars, Nov. 6. at two, at office of Mr. Picard, St. James's-st, Piccadilly Sol., Burnand. St. Jamess-st HUTCHINS, EDWARD FRANCIS, builder, Gravesend; Nov. 13, at eleven, at office of Sol., Bewley, Gravesend JONES. EVAN, farmer, Lisworney, near Cowbridge; Nov. 14, at two, at the Bear Inn, Cowbridge. Sol., Thomas, Pontypridd JOYNT, EVAN DUNHAM, out of business, Princes-rd, Notting-hill; Nov. 14, at two at office of Sols., Messrs. Mote, Warwick-ct, Gray's-inn KAY, THOMAS YOUNG, auctioneer, Liverpool; Nov. 8, at two, at office of Sols., Meadows and Crang (and not Craig as erroneously printed in the Gazette of 24th ult.), Liverpool KENDRICK, SAMUEL, fancy warehouseman, Bristol; Nov. 8, at twelve, at office of Sol., Clifton, Bristol MARKS, HENRY, out of business, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Nov. 11, at twelve, at office of Sol., Johnston, Newcastle-upon-Tyne MARTIN, CHARLES, builder, Litchurch; Nov. 14, at three, at office of Sol., Briggs, Derby MASTERS, WILLIAM, auctioneer, Rusholme, near Manchester; Nov. 13, at two, at office of Sol., Addleshaw, Manchester MCNAIRN, JAMES BROWN, draper, Heigham; Nov. 14, at eleven, at office of Sol., Stanley, Norwich MIDDLETON, RICHARD, engineer, Leeds; Nov. 13, at three, at office of Sols., Hick and Jones, Leeds MILLS, HALFORD, grocer, Sandgate; Nov. 10, at twelve, at office of Sols., Carter and Bell, Leadenhall-st MINNIT, WILLIAM, and HARRIS, WILLIAM, grocers, both of King-st, Hammersmith, and High-st. Kensington, and High-st, Wandsworth: Nov. 16, at twelve, at offices of Messrs. Broad, publie accountants, Walbrook-bldgs, City. Sols., Messrs. Watson, Bouverie-st, Flect-st MORGAN, JOHN, chemist, Swansea: Nov. 13, at twelve, at offices of Messrs. Barnard, Thomas, Cawker, and Company, Temple-st, Swansea MOSES, JOHN, surveyor, Machpelah, Hebden-bridge; Nov. 10, at three, at the Crown hotel, Horton-st, Halifax ONLEY, MARY ANN, earthenware dealer, Norwich: Nov. 10, at twelve, at office of Sols., Miller, Son, and Stevens, Norwich OWEN, JAMES, grocer, New Cross-rd, Kent; Nov. 13, at three, at at office of Mr. Moon, public accountant, Pavement, Finsbury. Sol., Parker, Pavement, Finsbury PAGE, THOMAS, civil engineer, Adelphi-ter, Strand; Nov. 9, at twelve at the Caledonian hotel, Robert-st, Adelphi. Sol., Strutt, Adelphi-ter, Strand PARISH, JOHN, builder, Exeter; Nov. 15, at eleven, at office of Sol., Huggins, Exeter PARSONAGE, WILLIAM ROYLANCE, fruiterer. Liverpool; Nov. 16, PLUME, JOHN, coal merchant. St. John-street-rd, Clerkenwell; RUTTER, EBENEZER, draper, Astwood Bank, near Redditch; TAYLOR, JOHN, warehouseman, Dudley; Nov. 13, at eleven, at office of Sol., Forrest, Oldbury TIDSWELL, WILLIAM, ale merchant, Southport; Nov. 16, at halfpast eleven, at the Temperance hotel, Southport. Sol., Walton, Southport WATERS, CORNELIUS, brewer, Cirencester; Nov. 14, at eleven, at offices of Mullings, Ellett, and Co., Cirencester. Sol., Ellett, Cirencester WATTS, HENRY CHARLES, architect. Manchester: Nov. 16, at three, at office of Sol., Richardson, Manchester WEATHERILL, MICHAEL, draper, Westbourne grove, Bayswater: Nov. 13, at twelve, at office of Read and Dangerfield, Milk-st, Cheapside. Sols., Davidson and Co., Basinghall-st WILSON, THOMAS, grocer, Darlington; Nov. 11, at ten, at offices of Mr. George Hudson, public accountant, Stockton-on-Tees WOODS, JOSIAS, grocer, Preston; Nov. 16, at half-past two, at office of Sol., Edelston. Preston WOOD, CHARLES HEATON, beerhouse keeper, Tettenhall Wood; Nov. 13, at three, at office of Sol., Langman, Wolverhampton WRIGHT, CEDRIC, draper, Epping; Nov. 13, at twelve, at offices of Sols., Smith, Fawdon, and Low, Bread-st, Cheapside YOULDON, JOHN KEENE, gentleman, Oakley-rd, Islington; Nov. 23, at three, at 1, George-st, Mansion-house. Sol. Snell Gazette, Oct. 27. ALGER, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS, provision merchant, Portsen Nov. 9, at twelve, at offices of Slattery and Co., Wellingtonchmbs, London-bridge. Sol., Feltham, Portsea ALLEN, FREDERICK, chemist, Holywell; Nov. 10, at three, at office of Sol., Cartwright, Chester ARTHUR, JOHN, weaver, Ferryside; Nov. 7, at two, at the Townhall, Carmarthen. Sol., Lloyd, Haverfordwest ASHTON, FRANCIS WILLIAM, merchant. Manchester and Werneth (under firm of Gibraltar Mill Company); Nov. 14, at three, at the warehouse of F. W. Ashton and Co., Manchester. Sols., Brooks, Marshall, and Brooks, Manchester AYLETT, JAMES, corn dealer. Great Titchfield.st. Saint Mary. lebone; Nov. 4, ut twelve, at office of Sol., Webster, Basinghall-st BARKER, FREDERICK, and SAINSBURY, WALLER LANGFORD, brewers, Tendring; Nov. 20, at eleven, at office of Sol., Smith, Colchester BARTLETT, JAMES, grocer. Margate; Nov. 14, at one, at office of Sol., Moss, Gracechurch st BENSON, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Kirkham; Nov. 9, at one, at offices of Sols., Buck and Dicksons, Preston BRADSHAW, GEORGE, clog maker, Wolverhampton; Nov. 11, at CHARLWOOD. HARRY, baker, Compton-st, Clerkenwell; Nov. 7, CONNORLEY, JAMES, baker, Birmingham; Nov. 8, at twelve, at office of Sol., Joynt, Birmingham BOOKE, THOMAS, grocer, Altrincham; Nov. 8, at four, at office of COWLIN, JANE, milliner, Wigan; Nov. 15, at eleven, at office of CROCKER. JOSEPH, sailmaker, Ramsgate; Nov. 9, at three, at offices of Mercer and Mercer, Copthall-ct, Throgmorton-st. Sol., Edwards CROWCROFT, REUBEN, joiner. Batley Carr, near Dewsbury; Nov DRAKE, FRANCIS EDWIN, architect, Hinkley, and Leicester; Nov EVANS, EVAN JOHN, contractor, Pwllywhiaid, par. Merthyr FOX, ALFRED, builder, Charlton; Nov. 7, at eleven, at office of Sol., Norman, Lancaster-pl, Strand GIRLING, SAMUEL JAMES, builder, Bromley-cottages, High-st, Bromley: Nov. 10, at three, at offices of Bath and Co., accountants, King William-st. Sols., Bridge and Collins, King William-st, London-bridge GOWER, MARY ANN, grocer, Gray's-inn-rd; Nov. 10, at eleven, at office of Sol., Noton, Great Swan-alley, Moorgate-st GRUNDY, THOMAS, out of business, Salford; Nov. 9, at eleven, at cffice of Sol., Ritson, Manchester HARBOROUGH, ALFRED, music seller, Southport; Nov. 10, at three, at office of Sols., Forshaw and Hawkins, Liverpool HAZELL, BENJAMIN, corn chandler, Flood-st, Chelsea: Nov. 10, at one, at office of Sol., Smyth, Rochester-row, Westminster HOYLE, ROBERT, felt manufacturer, Hollinbank and Wood-mills, near Newchurch; Nov. 14, at three, at offices of Sols., Grundy and Coulson. Manchester HURD, FREDERICK, engineer, Wakefield; Nov. 8, at three, at JONES, JOHN GWYNDAF, grocer, Pwllheli: Nov. 9, at two, at the LAWRENCE, JAMES, skirt manufacturer, Cheapside; Nov. 3, at twelve, at office of Sol., Howell, Cheapside LEFORT, EUGENE, upholsterer, King's-rd, Chelsea: Nov. 13, at twelve, at offices of Sols., Kynaston and Gasquet, King's Armsyd, Moorgate-st LEO, LOUIS, professor of music, Aberdeen-pk-rd: Nov. 13, at two, at office of Sol, Barnett, New Broad-st MARTIN, WATSON WOOD, brewer's assistant, Birmingham; Nov. 10, at three, at office of Sol., Rowlands, Birmingham MATTHEWS, HENRY JOHN. jun., hairdresser, Newbury; Nov. 4, at eleven, at the White Hart, Newbury. Sol., Lucas, Newbury MONTGOMERY, DONALD, draper, Swansea; Nov. 13, at two, at offices of J. H. Clifton, Bristol MOORE, FREDERICK, carpenter, Wolverhampton: Nov. 11, at twelve, at office of Sol., Barrow, Wolverhampton MOORE, JOHN, tailor, Birmingham; Nov. 10, at three, at office of Sol., Maher, Birmingham MOORHOUSE, JOSEPH, yarn spinner. Wakefield, and Silcotes, near Wakefield; Nov. 7, at three, at offices of Fernandes and Gill, Wakefield MORGAN, WILLIAM, factory operative, Pendleton; Nov. 9, at two, at office of Sol., Hardy, Manchester NEWSAM, WILLIAM, milliner, Nottingham; Nov. 8, at twelve, at office of Sol., Belk, Nottingham NORTHAN, WILLIAM, builder, Leicester; Nov. 8, at eleven, at office of Sol., Harvey, Leicester PADDOCK, WILLIAM, hotelkeeper, Ellesmere; Nov. 14, at three, at the George hotel, Shrewsbury. Sol., Peele PAGE, THOMAS, civil engineer. Adelphi-ter. Strand; Nov. 9, at twelve, at the Caledonian hotel, Robert-st, Adelphi. Sol. Smith, Adelphi-ter, Strand PARKS, WILLIAM, no occupation, Maidstone; Nov. 8, at half-past twelve, at the Bridge house hotel, London-bridge, Southwark. Sol., Goodwin, Maidstone PEARS, JOHN, tanner, Whitehaven; Nov. 8, at two, at office of Sol., Atter, Whitehaven PENDLEBURY, JOHN, grocer, Bradford; Nov. 13, at three, at office of Sol.. Ellithorne, Manchester RADLEY, WILLIAM, oilman. Bethnal-green-rd: Nov. 13, at three, SCOTT, WILLIAM, greengrocer, Swansea: Nov. 3, at three, at office of Sol., Morris, Swansea SHARP, EDWIN, grocer, Stoke-upon-Trent; Nov. 13, at eleven, at SMITH, DAVID CLARKE, boot dealer, Heath-st, Hampstead; sea TALBOTT, TRAYTON, butcher, St. Leonards-on-Sea; Nov. 10, at twelve, at office of Sol., Langham, Hastings TAYLOR, JAMES, draper, Exeter, Nov. 14, at eleven, at the White THOMAS, DANIEL, builder, Petherton-rd, Highbury New-pk VIPAN, JOSEPH MAYLIN, gentleman, Ashdon; Nov. 9, at eleven, at office of Sol., Ellison, Cambridge WALES, PHILIP, shoe dealer, Crewe; Nov. 13, at two, at the Royal WEEDALL, THOMAS, joiner, Salford; Nov. 6, at three, at office of WEARN, ELIZABETH, grocer, Landport; Nov. 10, at eleven, at office of Sol., Walker, Portsea WEST, EDWARD, farmer, Storrington; Nov. 20, at one, at the WIMSHURST, JOHN BENJAMIN, shipbuilder, Milford; Nov. 6, at YOULE, GEORGE SMITH, builder, Doncaster: Nov 9, at two, at the Elephant Inn, St. Sepulchre-gate-within, Doncaster. Sols., Burdekin, Smith, and Pye-Smith, Sheffield YOUNG, JOHN SHEPHERD, plumber, Wilson.st, Gray's inn-rd Nov. 9, at three, at office of Sol., Marshall, Hatton-garden Orders of Discharge. Gazette, Oct. 20. HENLY, THOMAS LARGE, flax scutcher, Calne HARDING, JAMES WILLIAM, baker, High-st, Stratford Gazette, Oct. 24. KERSLAKE, JOHN, boot dealer, Buckingham Palace-rd, and Highst, Southwark Gazette, Oct. 27. DAGLISH. JAMES, furniture dealer, Providence-row, Finsbury, and Brown'ow-rd, Dalston BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. CAMPBELL.-On the 25th ult., the wife of Bruce Campbell, Esq.. (Barquharrie), of the Inner Lemple, barrister-at-law, of a son. COOPER.-On the 29th ult., at Woodridings. Pinner, the wife of Edward Brodie Cooper, Esq., of Lincoln's-jnn, barrister-at-law, of a son. MUNTON. On the 30th ult., at 21, Montagu-street, Russell-sqnare, the wife of Francis Kerridge Munton, of 3, Old Fish-street-hill, Queen Victoria-street, city, solicitor, of a daughter. DEATHS. BADHAM.-On the 9th Sept.. at Melbourne, aged 33, Mr. Lewis Badham, of Torquay, second son of Mr. Badham, solicitor, Tewkesbury. CHILD.-On Sunday the 22nd ult., at his father's house, Upper Clatford Rectory, aged 23, Charles Morgan Child, Esq., solicitor, of Andover. CRUISE. On the 25th ult., at Rahood, William Cruise, Esq., J.P., barrister-at-law, second son of the late William Piers Cruise, Esq., Q.C. HACKING,-On the 18th Aug.. at Kingsholme Lodge, Brisbane, Edward Hacking, Esq., barrister-at-law. Inner Temple JOHNSON-On the 23rd ult., aged 58, William Johnson, of Great Dunmow, Essex. PODMORE.-On the 9th ult., aged 22, John; and on the 24th ult. aged 21, George, second and youngest sons of William Handsley Podmore, solicitor, of 12, Union-court, Old Broad-street, London. ROBOTHAM. On the 27th ult.. at Derby, suddenly, aged 71, William Robotham, Esq., solicitor. THE appellate business in the Court of Bankruptcy, if all we hear be true, seems to be conducted in a most extraordinary manner. By the Rules under the Act of 1869 power is given to the SENIOR REGISTRAR in attendance to sit for the CHIEF JUDGE (R. 210) during the absence of the latter "from any reasonable cause.' The fact that the CHIEF JUDGE is also a Vice-Chancellor is always a "reasonable cause" for his absence, and hence his place is generally filled by the SENIOR REGISTRAR. But appeals lie from the decisions of the registrars to the CHIEF JUDGE, and the result frequently is, VOL. LII.-No. 1493. we are told, that a suitor finds himself appealing from a registrar to a registrar sitting as Chief Judge, who is sometimes the same person. This, we admit, is hardly credible, but, nevertheless, we believe that it is absolutely true. THE law courts of Chicago are again open, and legal business had recommenced in the middle of October. The Chicago Bar has had a meeting and resolved, "That the Judges of the courts of Cook County, and the Judges of the United, Circuit, and District Courts, be appointed a standing committee to consider of and devise such legislation as may be necessary to restore lost papers and records of all courts, public offices, settle titles to realty, and all kindred subjects." THE disposition to discourage the enforcement of the payment of debts by debtor's summonses is not peculiar to our own courts. A law similar to our bankruptcy law prevails in Australia, and in August last, before Judge NOEL, an attempt was made to obtain payment of a balance of a large sum for building three shops. It was submitted that as there were disputes, the debt was not of the simple character to which a debtor's summons should alone be held applicable. "Where," said the learned Judge, "the amount of the claim was moderate, where the evidence was not complicated, and where there were scarcely any points of law to decide, resort might be had to the Insolvent Act; otherwise the cause should be tried in the ordinary way in a court of law." WE need only mention the changes which have taken place in the law offices of the Government by the elevation of Sir R. COLLIER to the Bench. The promotion of Sir JOHN COLERIDGE and the appointment of Mr. JESSEL are colourless events so far as the Profession is concerned. There was little to choose as regards professional eminence between the various members of the Bar who were considered eligible for the Solicitorship, and it was wholly improbable that the man to become Attorney-General, namely, Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, would be placed over the head of Sir JOHN COLERIDGE. Under the circumstances, therefore, no better appointments could have been made. THE appointment of Sir ROBERT COLLIER to the Privy Council is one which is entirely satisfactory to the Profession, much more so indeed than his appointment as a successor of Lord PENZANCE would have been. When this last-named change was mentioned it occurred to us that Government gives too little attention to the peculiarities of men's experience on elevating them to the bench. The greatest probate and divorce lawyer we have should be naturally selected for the Probate and Divorce Court, wholly regardless of political considerations, and much as we should have been gratified by the well-earned promotion of Lord PENZANCE, we conceive that it was a fortunate escape for his court that his promotion did not take place at this particular juncture. The process by which Sir R. COLLIER has been elevated to the Privy Council is of no moment. WE so fully stated the gist of Mr. MCLEOD's cause of action against the Digest Commission at the commencement of the suit, that it appears to us to be unnecessary to report the proceedings before the Arbitrator (Mr. DENMAN). That learned gentleman is now considering his award, and apparently has but two points to consider: (1) whether the contract was terminable before the completion of the branch of the digest entrusted to Mr. MCLEOD, and, if so, whether it was terminable without notice; and (2) in the event of it being held that the contract was not arbitrarily determinable by the Commissioners, what damages ought to be awarded? As to the question of notice, the arbitrator intimated that he thought that the Commissioners were bound to give fair and reasonable notice of the termination of the work. He also asked the counsel for the Crown whether he considered that damage was sustained by Mr. MCLEOD in not having his name published as the author of a successful digest of the law? Counsel, in reply, said there was nothing about that in the contract, the only questions were whether the contract had been properly terminated, or whether it had been broken, and if it had what was the market value of Mr. MCLEOD's services? For the applicant it was argued that 5001. a year was not a fair remuneration; but that he was entitled to be paid for a ye r and threequarters' work at the rate of 2000l. or 3000l. per annum. He also alleged that he had suffered for the loss of credit, reputation, and honour which he would have gained by having his name published on the specimen digest. A Commission has been appointed in Canada for investigating the state of legal procedure in Ontario, and amongst other things it is proposed to consider the advisability of a fusion of law and equity. The members of the commission are Judge WILSON, Judge GWYNNE, Vice-Chancellor STRONG, Judge GoWAN and Mr. PATTERSON, Q.C. Mr. GWYNNE, it appears, was a pupil of the late Lord Justice ROLT, and the Canada Law Journal speaks in high praise of all the members of this gentleman, that his intimate knowledge of law and equity, practically as well as theoretically, especially fits him for the duty, and that he will enter upon it free from any supposed bias to either system. Of Vice-Chancellor STRONG, that no man is more competent to explain the theory and practice of that court which has been a witness to his intellectual power and great learning. Of Judge GoWAN-that he has long the confidence of, and given assistance to successive administrations in various ways, and has an increasing reputation, and that no one in Canada has a more intimate knowledge of the Division Court system, which is really the nearest approach at present to a fusion of law and equity; and that the reputation of Mr. PATTERSON, at the Bar, is very high, that he is known to be a man with broad views of things, and of much learning and industry, and that he will be a most useful element in the commission. The Canadians are fortunate in having such men in their service. THE prosecution of the attorney's clerk at Worship-street Police Court has terminated in his discharge. The charge, it will be remembered, was one of obtaining money by a false pretence, the pretence being that the defendant was an attorney's clerk. The merits of the case concern us little, but the conduct of the prosecution suggests some observations. We exonerate the solicitor whose clerk the defendant was said to be from desiring to do anything more than prove that he himself had no personal interest in the touting system. If he thought he had dismissed the clerk he can scarcely be considered responsible for the acts of the clerk after such supposed dismissal : and he was justified in instituting the prosecution if he believed that the clerk knew that he was dismissed. But from the line taken by the prosecuting counsel, and from the remarks made by Mr. HANNAY, it would seem that some attempt was made to drag into the inquiry the names of members of the Bar who had not the slightest connection with the subject matter. Such an attempt cannot be too severely condemned, and to bring out indirect charges against absent gentlemen who are unrepresented, even with the laudable view of checking irregular practices, is unfair, and savours of an unpleasant animus. But the attempt, if made, was unsuccessful, thanks to the firmness of the magistrate, and the clerk was discharged with the sanction of a silk gown. We must add, that it is very remarkable that not until one of Her Majesty's counsel was taken into the prosecution was it discovered that there was an ambiguity in the letter of dismissal. It is to be regretted that so important a point in the case was not attentively considered before the matter was brought before the public. A DISCUSSION has been started in the medical press as to the future position of medical witnesses, or, as one journal expresses it, "the relations of hospital surgeons to criminal law, and the moral position of medical witnesses." A question was lately raised in a Crown prosecution in Dublin as to the admissibility of evidence to prove that a registered medical practitioner was not up to the proper educational standard. The CHIEF BARON gave judgment, which was in effect that evidence could not be received to show whether the operation was injudicious or not, but that evidence could be taken as to whether the operation was skilfully or unskilfully performed. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought that evidence could not be taken either as to the judiciousness of the operation or the skilfulness of the modus operandi, but as when two judges differ the law leaned in favour of the prisoner, the LORD CHIEF BARON should rule the case. Consequently the surgeon who conducted the operation in question was put upon his trial, witnesses being called to give their view as to his possession of the needful qualifications, having regard to the way in which he had done his work. As Lord Chief Justice BovILL has said more than once in the Tichborne case "it is better to admit than to exclude evidence," and we are disposed to think that the LORD CHIEF BARON was right. The Medical Press and Circular sees no reason why "a medical man called upon for his opinion, on a given point, should hesitate to give full and faithful expression to it, because it might happen to be adverse to a mem ber of his own profession." It adds, "We are distinctly of opinion that reticence under such circumstances is an honourable quality, and we hope that when such emergencies arise, it will not be open to the public to say that personal pique or professional jealousy, or even political bias, have been served at the expense of our character for good fellowship and esprit de corps." Mr. PITT TAYLOR, sitting at the Woolwich County Court, has had before him an important question relating to Admiralty jurisdiction, and in his judgment he has dealt somewhat roughly, but with no more roughness than was justifiable, with a case decided by the Common Pleas. In the first place he held that there could be no possible mistake as to sect. 5 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), which enacts that so soon as a County Court is appointed to have Admiralty jurisdiction, no County Court other than the County Court so appointed shall have jurisdiction within that district in any admiralty cause." The action before his HONOUR was brought to recover damages for a collision, and it was within the district of his court if triable at common law, but within the district of the City of London Court if triable in Admiralty. And in the first place his HONOUR held that having regard to the above section, County Courts which have and those which have not admiralty jurisdiction, cannot exercise concurrent authority over the same class of cases. Then arose the question whether the cause was an "admiralty cause.' Referring to the opinions of the Judges who decided Everard v. Kendall (22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 408), he observed that they expressed strong opinions-which, though obiter dicta, were entitled to weight -that the word "collision" in the Act of 1868 (sect. 3) means a collision between two ships. Mr. TAYLOR remarks upon the unsatisfactory nature of the arguments in Everard v. Kendall, the Bilboa (3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 338) being the only case cited, and the court being allowed to infer from that case that the Admiralty jurisdiction continued limited, as under the Admiralty Act of 1840, whereas the Malvina (6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 369) (affirmed in the Privy Council) decided that under the Admiralty Court Act of 1861 the Admiralty Court had the utmost extent of jurisdiction in cases of collision, and, as Mr. TAYLOR remarks, there is no reason why the County Court jurisdiction should be less extensive. That was a suit by a barge against a seagoing vessel, and on a plea being put in the jurisdiction, Dr. LUSHINGTON held that it must be struck out. The damage sustained in the case before Mr. TAYLOR having been inflicted by a yacht coming into collision with a row-boat, he held that the County Court had jurisdiction over the cause as an admiralty cause, and consequently that as the Woolwich court had not Admiralty jurisdiction, it should be tried in the City of London Court. On the 3rd inst. an important question was argued at the Kirkdale Quarter Sessions, before Lord DERBY, chairman of the county, Mr. Serjt. WHEELER, and other Justices, on an appeal by Mr. HUGH CULLEN against a conviction of the appellant charging him with "having exposed in the Stanley cattle market, on the 14th Aug. last, certain cattle, the same being then and there affected with a certain contagious and infectious disease, to wit, the foot and mouth disease, contrary to the prohibition of the 57th section of the Contagious Diseases (Animals), Act 1869." At the hearing in the court below, objection was taken by the attorney for the appellant to the jurisdiction of the justices to convict, on the ground that no summary jurisdisdiction to inflict penalties was contained in the Act. Counsel for the appellant urged the same objection. He argued that the 103rd section inflicted a penalty on persons guilty of an offence against the Act, but did not point out the method by which it was to be recovered, and there were no provisions in the Act declaring generally how penalties were recoverable. The 4th section of the Act repealed all former Acts relating to the same subject. The 11 & 12 Vict. c. 107, the first Act, by the 8th section, expressly provided for the recovery of penalties in a summary manner. Three Acts relating to cattle diseases were passed in 1866: 29 & 30 Vict. cc. 2, 15, and 110; and one in 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 125 In these Acts penalties are made recoverable on summary conviction under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43 (Jervis's Act), ss. 30, 5, 10, 3, of the respective Acts. The omission of any such provisions in the present Act, implied it was argued, that the Legislature did not intend that the offence charged should be dealt with summarily, but that offenders should be proceeded against by indictment. "Justices could not acquire summary jurisdiction by implication, express words in a statute could alone confer it; the 57th section, under which the conviction was made, enacted that any person exposing, &c., shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he shows to the satisfaction of the justices before whom he is charged that he did not know, &c. These words showed that it was the intention of the Legislature that the charge should be heard before some justices, but there was nothing to determine what justices were meant, how many were to act, whether they were to act at sessions or in a summary manner. The 108th section gives a power of appeal to quarter sessions against any determination or adjudication of any justices with respect to any penalty, and it might be urged that this power impliedly conferred a jurisdiction on justices at petty sessions to inflict the penalties, but this appeal clause may be applicable to offences mentioned in the 104th section, for which justices have power to punish by imprisonment. Even if the justices had jurisdiction under the Act, they had no power to proceed under Jervis's Act for the penalties, as that Act did not apply to offences created by later statutes unless specially incorporated." Objection was also taken to the form of the particular conviction, as not being authorised by Jervis's Act, and bad on the face of it. For the respondents it was urged, that the Act would be nugatory unless the justices had the jurisdiction claimed, and that the intention of the Legislature to confer it sufficiently appeared from the language of sects. 57 and 108. A case of Reg v. Justices of Norwich was referred to, not to be found in any of the recognised reports, but a short report of it appeared in the Times of Feb. 1, 1870, where, no cause being shown, the court made absolute a rule nisi for a mandamus directing the justices to hear and determine a complaint under the 57th section of this Act. Mr. Justice BLACKBURN had, however, remarked, that the justices might get a short Act of indemnity passed as Parliament was about to open. After a very lengthened |