CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. ANDREWS (George). Watfield, Suffolk. farmer. March 25; Hayward and Sons, solicitors, Needham-market. ATWOOD John C., 4, Impasse Monlin Joli, Belleville, Paris. March 12; Simon and Cullingford, solicitors, 85, Gracechurch-street. E.C. BAYLIS Win. H. Bilston, Staffs, collier agent and book- Son, solicitors, Nantwich. S. R Davies, solicitor, Ross, BUXTON (Chas.), Esq., M.P., Fox Warren, Cobham, Surrey. CAMPBELL (Lieut.-Gen. John), Lipson-terrace, Plymouth, COOKE (Isaac), Moulton Austendyke, Moulton, Tincoln, solicitors, Holbeach. farmer and grazier. March 31; Caparn and Willders, DAWES (Chas. R.) Esq., Chippen: am. March 1; H. Dyne, solicitor. Bruton, Somerset. DIGNUM (China), Esq., 9. Bridge-road, Hammersmith, Mid. dlesex. March 16; J. S. Ward, solicitor, 52, Lincoln's innfields, W.C. DREW (John P., Milford-house. Llanllwchaiarn, Mont gomery, March 6; Woosnam and Talbot, solicitors, Newtown, Montgomery. DRIVER (Mary A.), 4. Highbury-park, Highbury, Middlesex. April 8; Rixon and Son, solicitors, 52, Gracechurchstreet, E.C. DUGMORE (Jno.), Esq., Swaffham, Norfolk. March 1: H Hansell, solicitor, in the Precincts of the Cathedral, Norwich. EARITH (Henry), 21, Boundary-road, St. John's-wood, Mid THE BENCH AND THE BAR. W. became the purchaser. He, afterwards, upon investigating the title, objected to complete his CALLS TO THE BAR. purchase, upon the ground that L. might marry LINCOLN'S INN.-Alfred Barratt, Esq., B.A., husband survived her, he would, under the will of again, and that if her second or any subsequent Oxford (Eldon scholar): Charles George Danford, the testator, be entitled to the property put up for Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Bertram Savile Ogle, Esq., sale. Thereupon, a bill for specific performance B.A., Oxford; Samuel Winter Cooke, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Frank Challice Constable, Esq., B.A., for want of equity: Held, that, upon the true conwas filed against W.. and he demurred to the bill Cambridge; George Holmes Blakesley, Esq., M.A., struction of the testator's will, the property given Fellow of King's College, Cambridge; Jacob to the trustees upon trust for L. and her husband, Edward Harvey. Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Henry vested in the first busband whom she married, Staffurth, Esq., LL.B., Cambridge; Thomas Allen subject to her life estate, and that this vested Hulme, Esq., B.A., Dublin; Herbert Edward remainder passed under the husband's will to L.: Hull, B.A., Oxford; Charles Lane Sayer, Esq., Held, therefore (reversing the decision of Wickens, Trinity Hall, Cambridge; John Silvester, jun., V.C., 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 574), that the title was Esq., B.A., Oxford; Frank Lockwood, Esq., B.A., one which the court would compel the purchaser Cambridge; Somers Reginald Lewis, Esq., Ferdi nand Mauger Whiteford, Esq.; Philip Henry in the above gift over meant "without ever having to accept: Held, also, that the word "unmarried" B.C.L., Oxford; Samuel Lee, Esq., M.A., Cam-N. S. 720. L.JJ.) Lawrence, Esq.; Andrew Laidlay, Esq., M.A. and been married: (Radford v. Willis, 25 L. T. Rep. bridge; Charles Edward Heley Chadwyck Healey, Esq.; Edmund Richard Gaver, Esq., B.A., Dublin; Walter Bishop Kingsford M.A., Oxford; William Peter Gasper, Esq.; and Thomas Watt Smyth, Henry Bullock, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Arrakiel Esq., M.A., of the Queen's University in Ireland (Bengal Civil Service). dlesex, gentleman. March 1; Boulton and Sons, solicitors, Tremlett, Esq., M.A., Sidney Sussex College, Cam terested in, at the time of his decease, and of 21A, Northampton-square, Clerkenwell, E.C. EVANS (Jno.), Moseley, Worcester, factor. March 1; Saunders and Bradbury, solicitors, 41, Cherry-street, Birmingham. April 1; EWINGS Wm.) Esa.. 29, Russell-square, W.C. tors, 41, Cherry-street, Birmingham. Esq., B.A., Queen's University, Ireland, holder of FEENEY (Jno. F.), Church-road, Edgbaston, near Bir-lege, Oxford; Richard Fletcher Wilme, Esq.; Iningham, newspaper proprietor. March 1; Saunders and FISH (Jas.), Stogumber, Sou erset, and Water-street. St. Paul's, Bristol, maltster. Marcli 8; Parnell and Salt, soli- FRANCIS Wm.), 10, Redman's-row, Mile-end, Middlesex. arent. March 1; F. V. Budge, solicitor, Princes-street, HAIMES (Selina), Edgerton-street, Sheffield. Feb. 20; W. HALI, otherwise Halsey (Caroline), Reading, March 11; Abinet and Co., solicitors. 3, New Broad-street. F.C. 25; Field and Co., solicitors, 36, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. Wm. Luard, solicitor, 37. Castle-street, Holborn, E.C. W. H. Oliver, solicitor, 64, Lincoln's-in-fields, W.C. W.C. T. H. Dixon, solicitor, 35, John-street, Bedford-row, W.C.' pest, solicitor, 10, Albion-street, Leeds. LOVELL (Ann), Jewry-street, Winchester, March 25; Lee and Best, solicitors, Winchester. INNER TEMPLE. Philip Colley, Esq., B.A, WILL-DEVISE OF REALTY AND PERSONALTY TO TRUSTEES AND THEIR HEIRS-APPLICATION ture, plate, linen, china, books, moneys standing OF TRUST.-A testator gave, devised, and be queathed all his stock-in-trade, household furniin his name in the funds, book debts, securities under, and all other the estate and effects of for money, policies of insurance, and all sums of money that might be received or recovered therewhich he should be possessed, entitled to or inwhatever nature or kind, or whosoever the same might be, unto H. L. and R. H., their heirs, execuand quality thereof respectively, upon trusts tors, and administrators, according to the nature which were held applicable only to personalty : Held, that certain freehold and copyhold property of which the testator became possessed subsequent to the date of his will, passed to the trustees, but with a resulting trust in favour of the the heir-atv. Longley, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 736. M. R.) law and customary heir of the testator: (Longley tator by his will bequeathed to each of the per WILL-GIFT ABSOLUTE AS FOR LIFE.-A tes sons thereinafter named, including a married niece, for his or her own absolute use, 10,000l., "except as hereinafter limited." After bequeathdirected that the legacies to his nieces were to be ing certain annuities to three ladies, the testator invested, and the interest therefrom, together separate use, and in case any one of the three anwith the annuities, were to be in trust for their nuitants, or either of his nieces, should become bankrupt or insolvent, or sell, mortgage, or dispose of the annual sum or interest bequeathed to her, then the same should cease and become part of his residuary estate as though she were dead, except in respect of his married niece, whose leappointment, and in default to them equally. gacy was to go to her children according to her Upon the death of the married niece it was held, remainder to her children as she should appoint, that she took the legacy for her life only, with and in default to them equally, and that therefore MARSHALL (Wm.), Solway-view, Whitehaven, Cumberland. Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Henry John Pattison, her husband ought not, in respect of it, to take officer in H.M.'s Custom-house, Whitehaven. March 1; MOODY (Christopher), Cock Mill Farm, Pilton, Somerset, set. OLLIFF (Samuel W.), the Star and Garter, 79, Caledonian- PAYNE Geo. A.), Esq., East End-house, Fairford, Gloucester. Wight, Feb. 20; Blake and Snow, solicitors,, College hill, Cannon-street. E.C. Middlesex, commercial traveller. Feb. 29; Brooks and born, W.C. TAYLOR (Mary M.), 18 West-lodge, Cookham, Berks. March March 2; Lamb and Brooks, solicitors, Odiham, Hants. EPPS'S CHOCOLATE.-"Nous n'avons en France qu'une seule usine où la préparation du Cacao emploie un matériel et un personnel aussi considérables que ceux que nous avons vus dans l'usine de Messieurs Epps C'est une véritable curiosité dans son genre que cette immense fabrique."-La Situation (the Imperialist crgan). The wrapper of each cake of Chocolate is labelled "JAMES EPPS & Co., Homeopathic Chemis's, london." Also, mokers of Epps's Milky Chocolate (Chocolate and Condensed Milk). Esq.; and Thomas Robert Stokoe, Esq. REAL PROPERTY AND NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. VENDOR AND PURCHASER-DOUBTFUL TITLE -WILL-GIFT TO TRUSTEES IN TRUST FOR AN UNMARRIED WOMAN.-A testator devised and bequeathed certain freehold, leasehold, and personal property, and the rents, issues, and profits thereof daughters, A. and L., to receive in equal shares to trustees upon trust to pay to or permit his for their respective lives, for their separate use, and after their respective deaths upon trust to convey and assure, assign, pay, and transfer the whole thereof unto and equally between the respective husbands of them, his said daughters, to hold to them respectively, and their respective ing to the several natures and qualities thereof reheirs, executors, administrators, assigns, accordspectively. Provided always that if either of his said daughters should happen to depart this life unmarried, then and in such case the share of such daughter, in and to his aforesaid trust estate shonld accrue and belong to the survivor of them, his said daughters, and be taken and enjoyed by her for her life in like manner as was thereinbefore directed with respect to her original shar, and on her decease the whole should devolve to, and should be conveyed and assured, assigned, and transferred to the husband of his said surviving daughter, as was therein before directed with respect to her original share. After the testator's death, L. married, and her given to her all his interest under the testator's husband died in her lifetime, having by his will will. Subsequently, a portion of the freehold property devised by the testator on trust for L. and her husband, was put up for sale, and at the sale out administration to her. Where the Crown, being interested in respect of administration duty, consented to appear, the court decided the question between the Crown and subject on petition: (Re Ware's Trusts, 25 L. T. Rep. 737. V.C. B.) COMPANY LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. SCRIP CERTIFICATES-SHAREHOLDER-RECTIFICATION OF REGISTERS.-Suit for the purpose of having the plaintiff's name removed from the pany. The prospectus of a railway company register of shareholders of the defendant comissued after its incorporation, stated the capital to be 255,000l., in 5100 provisional gerip certifi cates to bearer of 50%, cach, 11. to be paid on application and 44. on allotment; and that on registration of the scrip, of which due notice would be given, the certificates for 50l. would be divided the company was incorporated enacted that no into five shares of 101. each. The Act by which share should be issued by the company, or should vest in the person accepting the same, until not less than 20 per cent. on the nominal amount thereof should have been paid thereon. The plaintiff applied for and obtained a number of scrip certificates, on the nominal value of which he paid company to register his certificates, but the direc up only 10 per cent. He never applied to the tors registered them against his will, and put his name on the list of shareholders in respect of a corresponding number of shares. Held (affirming the decision of the Master of the Roils, and fol lowing Eustace v. The Dublin Trunk Connecting Railway Company (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 679; L. the plaintiff from a scripholder into a shareholder Rep. 6 Eq. 182), that the directors could not turn without his application and against his will, and that he was, therefore, entitled to have his name removed from the register of shareholders: (McIl wraith v. The Dublin Trunk Railway Company, himself, by neglecting to take security for costs, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 776. Ld. Chan.) COMMONABLE RIGHTS COMPENSATION. · Where the promoters of an undertaking acquire by in conveyance from the lord of the manor, the right the soil of any lands subject to any rights of common, but no effectual meeting is held for the appointment of a committee by the commoners, to agree with the promoters as to the amount of compensation for the extinguishment of their commonable rights; it is the duty of the promoters, and not of the commoners, to take the initiative in getting a surveyor appointed by justices, to determine the amount of compensation. Where the promoters fail to do so, and enter upon the land without payment or deposit of compensation to the commoners, whose rights of common are disturbed by the promoters, any such commoner may maintain an action against the promoters for the injury thereby sustained: (Stoneham v. The London, &c., South Coast Railway, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 788. Q. B.) MERCANTILE LAW. OF NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT- UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL-CONTRACT BY TELEGRAM-STATUTE OF FRAUDS.-Plaintiff having entered into a contract with one C., the brother of the defendant, for the sale of some hay, brought an action againt defendant for not accepting. The judge at the trial admitted letters and telegrams signed by C. as evidence against the defendant, and the jury found for the plaintiff: Held, that there was sufficient evidence of the authority, and that the two telegrams, of which one was signed in C.'s name, and in the other the name of defendant was not mentioned as buyer, together constituted a sufficient memorandum of the contract to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, on the ground that defendant might be treated as the undisclosed principal of C., who appeared on the telegrams to be liable as principal: (McBlain v. Cross, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 804. C. P.) AUCTIONEERS' IMPLIED AUTHORITY-CLAIM OF LANDLORD PASSING PROPERTY ON SALE. Two partners authorised an auctioneer to sell the effects of the partnership, and to hold the proceeds as stakeholder until they should join in directing him as to the disposition thereof. The sale took place under conditions, one of which was, "Each and all lots shall be taken to be delivered at the fall of the hammer, after which time they shall remain, and be at the exclusive risk of the purchaser, and the auctioneer shall not be called upon for compensation for any injury or loss sustained after that time." When the sale was over, but before the lots had been all removed, the landlord demanded rent from the auctioneer, who mised to pay it out of the proceeds of the sale, in order to avert the distress which the landlord threatened. Held, in an action by the partner, who was entitled, according to the joint direction of both of them, to the whole proceeds, against the stakeholder, that the property in the goods sold had passed to the purchasers at the time of the promise to pay the rent, and therefore the stakeholder was liable to the plaintiff for the amount he had so promised: (Sweeting, app. v. Turner, resp. 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 796. (Q. B.) COUNTY COURTS. CHESTER COUNTY COURT. (Before J. W. HARDEN, Esq., Judge.) HARRISON v. BOOTH. pro THIS was an action of a somewhat singular character. At the Pentice Court held in April, Mr. Booth, who was then residing in Liverpool, sued Mr. Matthew Harrison on an IO U for 15, odd, but a verdiet was given for the defendant, one of the grounds of defence being that there had been a partnership between the two, in connection with which this IO U had been given. Mr. Harrison also pleaded a counter claim on another I O U of 31.10s. He now brought a suit in the County Court to recover the costs incurred in that action, about 11., and also the 3l. 10s. in question. Marshall, who (instructed by Mr. Massey) appeared for the defendant, contended that as to the costs no action would lie in the County Court. It was perfectly true that as a general doctrine of law, an action would lie in one court upon the judgment of another court of competent jurisdiction; but even this would not apply except with many restrictions and limitations. Thus an action would not lie on a decree in equity (Carpenter v. Thornton), nor from an inferior to a superior common law tribunal (Emerson v. Lashley, 2 H. Bl.), nor upon a Country Court judgment (Berkeley v. Elderkin, 1 E. & B.). The Pentice court had its own machinery for carrying its judgments into exe. cation, but of this the; laintiff had omitted to avail under the 41st section of its rules, from Booth, who resided within its jurisdiction. The plaintiff now sought to atone for his own negligence by resorting to the process of another court, and so bringing action upon action, and needlessly increasing the costs against the defendant. If he had properly availed himself of the remedies given him by the Pentice Court, and they had proved defective, it might have been different, as in the case of a foreign court whose judgment it was sought to enforce in England; but he had not done so. If an action would not lie on the judgment of a County Court in a Superior Court, it seemed anomalous if the opposite rule should be good; besides it was extremely doubtful whether the costs alone, as severed from the judgment, would be a good cause of action. That was emphatically denied in Emerson v. Lashley, where it was said that "in actions brought in the Superior Courts, the costs became a duty only by being united with the judgment; but as to the conduct of the interlocutory proceedings, they are fit to be regulated by the authority of the court where they arise." His HONOUR said the point was rather a nice one, and he would reserve it. To the further claim of the plaintiff, on the IO U, the partnership was alleged as a defence. His HONOUR said he was inclined to think that was a private transaction, but he would enter a formal verdict for the plaintiff on both points, with stay of execution until he had delivered judgment. THIS action was in trover for a ferret belonging to the plaintiff, in the possession of the defendant. The facts were these: On the 23rd April 1871 (Sunday), the plaintiff was the owner of a ferret, and he and three companions were in certain inclosed grounds, and used the ferret for the purpose of catching rats, as they alleged, rats being an article in considerable demand in Manchester and Liverpool for sporting purposes. When they were so using the ferret it was put into a hole in a bank, und they could not get it back, and at length left it. A few days afterwards a ferret was found at liberty stray ing about in lands in the occupation of one Hanson, at a considerable distance from the place where the plaintiff had lost his ferret. Hanson took possession of the ferret. There was no mark of ownership upon it, and he did not know, nor had any reason to suppose it belonged to the plaintiff. The defendant was the gamekeeper of a person who had the right of sporting over the land in Hanson's occupation, and it was his duty to preserve the game and destroy vermin. Hanson gave him the ferret, and he took and has kept it ever since. On the 29th April, the plaintiff having been informed that the defendant had in his possession a ferret which had been found by Hanson, asked the defendant to show it to him, which he did. The plaintiff identified it as the one he had lost on the 23rd, and demanded it from the defendant, and he refused to give it up, insisting that Hanson had a right to give it to him, whether it had been the plaintiff's or not, of which he knew nothing. Evidence was given as to the identity of the ferret which satisfied the court. Badwin, for defendant, insisted that a ferret, being an animal feræ naturæ, could not be the subject of larceny (Russ & Ry. C.C. 350.) There was no property in it, at all events after the possion was lost. Deane, for the plaintiff, insisted that ferrets, being saleable and articles of merchandise, were objects of property, and trover would lie for them, and that property was not lost by loss of possession if they could be identified, and here the ferret was identified. His HONOUR, referring to 2 Bl. Com. p. 392, observed, that the property in animals, fera naturæ, is of a base or qualified nature. They are no longer the property of a man than while they are confined in his keeping or actual possession; but if at any time they regain their natural liberty his property instantly ceases, unless they have animum revertendi, which is only to be known by their usual custom of returning, as hawks or pigeons, or deer chased out of a park. But Blackstone adds, "if these stray without my knowledge, and do not return in the usual manner, it is then lawful for any stranger to take them." Applying the law thus laid down to this case, his Honour said, I am of opinion that when the plaintiff, on the 23rd April, lost his ferret and abandoned all pursuit of it, and left to go wherever and do what ever its wild nature would lead it, he lost all property in it. He was not responsible for any injury it might do, and Hanson, when he found it, might lawfully kill, keep, or dispose of it. Thus at large on his land, without any known or visible owner, it was as much vermin as a weasel or polecat; and in giving to the defendant, it became as much his property, while in his possession and kept and fed by him, as it was the property of the plaintiff while in his possession and kept and fed by him. Judgment for the defendant. COLNE COUNTY COURT. LORD. HAIGH AND ANOTHER. Promissory note-Agreement-Stamp-Leeds v. Lancashire (2 Camp. 205), Cholmely v. Darby (14 M. & W. 344), applied. Francis Hartley, Burnley, for plaintiff. Nowell, Burnley, for defendants. THIS action was by payee against four persons as makers of a joint and several promissory note for 521. and interest at 5 per cent., payable on demand. The sum sought to be recovered was 121. 8s. 7d. The plaintiff was the treasurer of a loan society; two of the payees were principals, and two were sureties, though on the face of the note all appeared to be principals. The note was for payment of the 521. and interest on demand, or until the whole principal be repaid. The money had been lent on the terms of repayment being made by certain monthly instalments, extending over a period of forty-eight months from the date of the note, with a penalty or fine, a farthing per pound for each monthly payment that was not duly paid made. These terms were contained in certain rules of the loan society. It was not a registered society, but it was by the application of these rules to the note that the amount sought to be recovered was ascertained. Nowell, on behalf of the sureties, objected, first, that the agreement proposed to be proved raised the contract arising on the note, which was to pay on demand; whereas, according to that agreement, the principal money was not recoverable so long as the monthly instalments were paid, and in effect time was therefore given to the principal in violation of the contract for which the sureties were bound. Hartley, in answer, stated he should prove that the sureties were aware of the terms on which the money was lent, and that the terms of the note, until the whole principal sum be repaid, had reference to the rules and the effect of them. It was then objected on behalf of the sureties that without admitting the fact that they knew of the terms of the loan, the action must be considered as having been brought on the note and the rules together, and that the rules, as embodying an agreement, could not be received unless they were stamped as an agreement; and His HONOUR, after considering the case, held, on the authority of Leeds v. Lancashire (2 Camp. 205), and Cholmeley v. Darby (14 M. & W. 334), that the agreement was a necessary part of the plaintiff's case, and not being stamped the rules could not be received in evidence, and he must be nonsuited. Bescoby, of Retford, applied for a new trial in the case of Duke v. Senior, heard at the last court, when judgment was given against Senior, as president of the Union Sick Gift Society, held at Askern. Palmer here interrupted Mr Bescoby, saying that he objected to the application altogether, on the ground that immediately after the decision the last court day the advocate then appearing for the defendant applied for a new trial on the very ground that was going to be argued to-day (that the rules of the society were not registered), that his Honour refused the application, and that the judge, having once refused to grant a new trial, he had no further power to entertain the case. Here a warm discussion took place between Bescoby and Palmer, the former wishing to make his application and the latter objecting. HIS HONOUR at length said he should like to hear one gentleman at a time. Palmer said he had a right to oppose the application, but Bescoby replied that this must be at the proper time. Bescoby then made his application, quoting the case of Smith v. Pryor, and contending that where the rules of a society have not been enrolled (as in this case), and not certified, then, in the meaning of the Act, it was not a friendly society at all, and his Honour had no jurisdiction. Palmer again opposed the application, quoting the case of the Great Northern Railway Company v. Mossop (25 L. J.) in support of his argument. His HONOUR said that the mistake had all arisen from Mr. Shirley not being in court. Had he been in court, he would have told him that the rules had not been registered. Palmer replied that Mr. Shirley would not know anything about it. Mr. Shirley was not the regis trar referred to in the Act; it was the register under the Friendly Society's Act that was referred to. His HONOUR said that had he have understood at the last court that the rules had not been enrolled, it would have altered the case altogether. Peagam (who defended Senior at the last court) said he took the same objection then that Mr. Bescoby was taking now, and after the decision of the case he applied for a new trial on the very same grounds that Mr. Bescoby was applying now. His HONOUR here said that he was convinced that he had no jurisdiction, and he should grant a new trial. At the request of Mr. Palmer, he made a note of his objection. Palmer then took another objection-that his Honour having no jurisdiction in the case, could not grant any new trial. After a deal of discussion, His HONOUR again decided to grant a new trial, and agreed to stay execution, though, he added, "I may be wrong after all.' BANKRUPTCY LAW. TREASURY NOTICE. THE following notice has been issued: Treasury, Jan. 29, 1872. Dear Sir,-Finding it to be a growing practice for the attorney of a debtor who petitions under sects. 125 & 126 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, Rule 252, to print or write his name or the name of some other person, in the form of proxy attached to Form 109, I would suggest that such a practice should be stopped, and that you should refuse to receive any notices under Rule 256, in which there is any addition made to the form of proxy attached to Form 109 in the Schedule of forms annexed to the Queen's printer's copy of "The Bankruptcy Rules 1870."-I am, dear Sir, yours truly, HENRY NICOL. The Registrar of the County Court BURNLEY COUNTY COURT. (Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Q.C., Judge.) through the accident of their being creditors above creditors of 101. in full made it invalid; that the large estates, and another for small; but being Simpson applied for the costs of the motion, which were granted. LEGAL NEWS. CHIEF JUSTICE MONAHAN.-The Dublin Evening Post states, that Chief Justice Monahan is seriously indisposed. Mr. JAMES STANSFELD, who for thirty years was Judge of the Halifax County Court, a position from which he retired only in September last. died on Monday last. An obituary notice will appear next week. CALLS TO THE BAR.-The undermentioned gentlemen were on Tuesday called to the Bar by the Hon. Society of the Inner Temple, viz. :-Mr. Has ing of creditors under 101.-Conflicting decisions both within the pale of legal protection by pro- sard Hume Dodgson, one of the Masters of the of Mr. Serjt. Wheeler and Mr. Serjt. Tindal Atkinson considered. The decision of Mr. Serjt. Wheeler followed. Backhouse (Backhouse and Whittem, Burnley, solicitors) applied to his Honour to review the decision of the registrar, who had refused to register two sets of resolutions affecting the sepa rate estates of the two debtors, on the ground that they had not been passed by the requisite statutory majority. The debtors, Haigh and Spencer, had carried on business in partnership together as builders, and, being in difficulties, they presented a joint petition for liquidation, and filed lists of their joint and separate creditors. Mectings of the three classes of creditors were duly held, and at each meeting resolutions were passed unanimously for winding-up by liquidation and not in bankruptcy. At the meeting of the joint creditors there were several creditors above 10., and the resolutions of that meeting were regis. tered. At each of the two meetings of the separate creditors of the debtors more than three creditors attended, but all were creditors for less than 10., and the votes were unanimous. The registrar had before him the decision of Mr. Serjt. Wheeler, at Liverpool (Re Franckel, reported in the LAW TIMES, 11th June 1870), and that of Mr. Serjt. Tindal Atkinson (Re Hughes, LAW TIMES, 30th Dec. 1871), and finding those decisions expressly to conflict, declined to register, in order that the matter might be brought before the c:urt. Backhouse relied on Re Franckel, and urged that, having regard to rule 93, if the meeting was unanimous, the question of majorities, and how they should be e mposed, did not arise. To hold otherwise would make it impossible for a debtor whose debts, though numerous, were under 101., to effect either a fair composition or a prudent liqui dation. His HONOUR.-The Act has not prescribed any minimum either of indebtedness or of estate, and the rules don't provide specifically for the vote of the creditors being unanimous; they assume there will be a difference of opinion among the creditors, and provide against the mischief pointed out by Serjt. Tindal Atkinson of large creditors being outvoted by small ones. Backhouse urged the hardship of the case in the particular instance where there was unanimity among all classes of creditors, and the resolutions of the joint creditors was registered LEEDS COUNTY COURT. THE facts of this case are briefly stated in the re- The matter, having been remitted back to the Simpson, solicitor, appearing for the trustees. His HONOUR, in delivering judgment, stated:- Court of Common Pleas; and Mr. William Henry MR. SERJEANT O'BRIEN of the Midland Circuit has been appointed by the Home Secretary to the Recordership of Lincoln in the place of the late Hon. G. C. Vernon. The learned gentleman was called to the Bar by the Hon. Society of Lincoln's inn in 1812, and raised to the rank of Serjeant-atlaw by Lord Westbury in 1862. SALE OF THE GROSVENOR MANSIONS.-The large building known as the Grosvenor Mansions, situate in Victoria-street Westminster, let out in suites of chambers, &c., producing a rental of about 30001. per annum, was sold by auction by Messrs. Chinnock, Galsworthy, and Chinnock, on the 25th inst., and realised the sum of 49.500l. JUDICIAL BREVITY.-In a claim which came before the Lords Justices, on appeal from the Master of the Rolls, arising out of the winding-up of the National Assurance and Investment Asso ciation, James, L.J. delivered the following judg ment:-"Unless I am ordered to do so by the House of Lords, or some other competent tribunal, I shall refuse to hear an appeal for the sum of 35s." Mellish, L.J., who said nothing, was understood to concur in this judgment. NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL.-The following barristers have been raised to the dignity of Queen's Counsel :-T. C. Renshaw, Leofric Temple, Charles W. Wood, Eneas McIntyre, William J. Bovill, S. B. Bristowe, M. P., John Day, J. B. Torr, Nathaniel Lindley, J. Napier Higgins, Thomas H. Fischer, James Kemplay, Theodore Aston, A. E. Miller, Charles Russell, Farrer Herschell, Esqrs. Mr. Serjeant Sargood to have a patent of precedence next after S. Pope, Esq., Q.C. JURIES OF MATRONS.-Mr. Ernest Hart proposed a resolution at a meeting of the Metropolitan Counties Branch of the British Medical Association last night, having for its object the discontinuance of the practice of empanneling au unskilled jury of matrons in certain cases. The motion was adopted. Dr. Gibbons, who second d it, remarked that he felt the country was post tively humiliated by the position in which it had been placed by what occurred at the trial of Christiana Edmunds. A NEW POINT OF PRACTICE.-Vice-Chanceller Malins had before him on Wednesday an applica tion by Mr. P. B. Abraham, in a suit by a crediter for the administration of the estate of an intestate. The heir-at-law was made a defendant, and was duly served with a copy of the bill. Afterwards, however, finding that he was not likely to realise anything out of the estate, he seems to have gone to America. Mr. Abraham now applied for leave to dispense with service of notice of motion for decree, upon the ground that the heir had practically disclaimed all interest in the estate. He admitted that he had found no authority for such a departure from the usual practice of the court, but the Vice-Chancellor, looking at the peculiar circumstances of the case, gave leave for the suit to proceed in the absence of the defendant. a junior, he was in very extensive Common Law LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. TION. HILARY TERM, 1872.-FIRST DAY. I. PRELIMINARY. Questions 1 to 5 inclusive. OF THE COURTS. II. COMMON AND STATUTE LAW AND PRACTICE it, but the will was only attested by two witnesses. Is this a good or defective execution of the power; and why? 26. What powers of leasing, and for what terms of years would you give, to tenants for life on a settlement of real estate, supposing that, besides farms, some of the property is in a mineral district, and some of it near a large town? 27. On treaty for a proposed marriage, it is arranged that the gentleman (who is not in trade or mercantile business) shall settle £20,000, and the lady her fortune of £10,000, both being personal estate. To whom should the first life interests in each fund be given, according to the usual practice? 28. Does a power to trustees to invest trust moneys on railway debentures, warrant an investment on debenture stock? 29. A testator by his will gives to his two executors a direction to dispose of his leasehold both her husband and the executors, and the last surviving executor dies intestate. What must be done to carry out the testator's direction ? SIR ROBERT COLLIER AND THE BAR. A 7. What is an interpleader? 8. State the difference between a nonsuit and a 9. What is the meaning of the venue? and 11. Explain the difference between pleading and 12. What amounts must a plaintiff recover in THE NEW LEGAL APPOINTMENTS IN IRELAND. 13. What are actions of trover and detenue, 14. What are the principal provisions of the Summary Procedure on Bills of Exchange Act? 15. Which of the parties is primarily liable for the payment of a bill of exchange; and what step should be taken on its dishonour to preserve the liability of any other party or parties? 16. Explain the extent of an infant's liability in actions on contract, and actions on tort, respectively. 17. State what simple contracts are required by law to be in writing, and whether so required by the common law, or by virtue of any and what statute. 18. Is oral evidence admissible to alter or explain a written contract under any, and if any, what circumstances? 19. Explain the respective rights and liabilities of husband and wife with reference to debts due to and from the wife before the coverture, as existing before, and since the operation of the Married Women's Property Act 1870. 20. A sole executor of A. B. dies intestate, and letters of administration of his (the executor's) estate are granted. Is anybody then competent to sue for debts due to A. B., and if not, what step must be taken? and would it be otherwise if the deceased executor had left a will appointing an executor who had proved such will? ment." III.-CONVEYANCING. 21. What is the broad general distinction between estates of freehold and estates for years, or other subordinate interests in land? 22. An estate is limited to A. for life, with re pany, and the purchase-money paid into court 25. In 1800 a power was limited so as to be exercisable by will, executed by the donee in the presence of, and attested by three or more credible witnesses. This power became vested in A, who, by his will, dated in 1850, professed to exercise 30. A., the owner of a copyhold property in a manor where the custom of borough English prevails, contracts to sell it, and then dies, without having completed the sale, leaving several sons and a will, which, however, is inoperative as to real estate. What must be done to give a good title to the purchaser? and would any expense caused by this fall upon him, or upon A.'s estate? and to whom should the purchase-money be paid, and who would be proper parties to the ultimate surrender to the purchaser? 31. What is the special provision indispensable in a well-drawn mortgage, where the mortgage money is advanced by trustees, and why is it required ? 32. A client comes to you to carry into effect a sale of an estate for 10,000l,, which he has arranged to sell to a neighbouring landowner. Describe concisely what will be the steps you will have to take, and those which will have to be taken by the purchaser's solicitor, assuming the sale to go on regularly to completion. And who will have to pay the expenses of each solicitor? And what would be the difference in this latter respect between a purchase and a mortgage? 33. Is there any, and what, difference in the form of the covenants for title usually given on a sale and on a mortgage? 34. On sale of a leasehold property, what are the usual provisions to protect the vendor against inquiries as to the performance of his obligation under the lease, and also with reference to the validity of that document ? 35. Čan a married woman dispose of a rever. sionary interest in leasehold or personal property, and if so, how? SECOND DAY. IV. PRELIMINARY. Questions 36 to 40 inclusive. V. EQUITY AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS. 41. How can a mortgagor be exonerated from a covenant to pay the mortgage money, otherwise than by payment or re lease? 42. Does the purchaser of the equity of redemption, without the concurrence of the mortgagee, encounter any and what risk, on the supposition that the principal and interest due on the mortgage is correctly stated by the vendor ? 43. Will a court of equity under any and what circumstances decree specific performance for the sale of a goodwill? 44. If an owner of freeholds has only an equitable, and not the legal estate in them, and enters into a contract for sale, is he liable to a bill for specific performance? 45. If a freehold estate is devised, subject to the payment of debts generally and legacies, what, if any, liability attaches to the purchaser of such estate to see to the application of the purchase-money? State your reasons. legacies payable to adults, what, if any, liability attaches to a purchaser from the executor to see to the application of the purchase-money? State 46. If leaseholds are bequeathed subject to your reasons. 47. If a purchaser of freeholds has notice of an equitable claim, and sells to a person who has not notice, is the latter purchaser affected with the first purchaser's notice? 48. What is the effect of a resale by a purchaser claim, to a person who has notice? Can either party enforce specific performance against the of freeholds who has no notice of an equitable other? 49. If a joint tenant devises or agrees to sell his share, will such devise or agreement prevail against the surviving joint tenant in equity? 50. Will an agreement by a femme covert for the sale of her estate (not settled to her separate use), with or without the concurrence of her husband, be binding on her in equity? 51. If A. die intestate, leaving a wife, mother, two grand-daughters by his eldest son deceased, his youngest son and two daughters, on whom and in what proportions will his real and personal estate devolve? 52. Is notice to the London agent of a solicitor of an infant purchaser binding on the purchaser, if the purchase is made under a decree of the Court of Chancery? 53. What are the rights of a solicitor who has a lien on a client's deeds and papers, with reference to the production as well as delivery of them up to his client ? 54. If a witness who has been served with a subpoena, ad testificandum, neglects to attend, what remedy have the parties to a suit? women 55. Why are infants and married obliged to sue in equity in the name of a next friend? VI. BANKRUPTCY AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS. 56. What is the remedy of an equitable mortgagee on the bankruptcy of the mortgagor; and what is the difference in this respect between an equitable and legal mortgagee? 57. What are the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1869 as regards voluntary settlements; and are different classes of persons differently affected by those provisions? 53. What is the purport of the order and dis. position clause in the Bankruptcy Act; and what is the difference of its operation in the cases of traders and non-traders? 59. Can a proof be made against a bankrupt's estate for unliquidated damages in any, and what cases? 60. By what means can a person in insolvent circumstances obtain a discharge from his liabilities? 61. State shortly the effect of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act in regard to executions under fieri facius. 62. On the bankruptcy of one member of a firm, what consequences ensue? How are the partner 63. What is the position of the lessor, on the bankruptcy of the lessee? 64. What is stoppage in transitu? and when may it be resorted to ? ship assets and liabilities dealt with? 65. What are the requisites to constitute a petitioning creditor's debt? May it be a secured debt? May it be an equitable debt? Must it be due? and may it sound in damages? 66. What is a compulsory act of bankruptcy? 67. If the chattels of the bankrupt are in the possession of a third person, how should the trustee proceed to recover them? 68. What are the rights to, and remedies of, the surety of a bankrupt? 69. State some of the acts of a bankrupt which constitute misdemeanours? 70. What is the position of a creditor who holds a mortgage by the bankrupt of a life policy, with covenant for payment of principal and interest, and to pay the premiums? 66 77. It is frequently enacted in statutes that ma gistrates may" do certain acts in execution of such statutes: it is discretionary with, or incumbent upon them, to perform such acts? 78. Proceedings are brought against a man for unlawfully taking game at night. When does the night in such case begin and end? 79. A. is the owner in fee of a game covert, through which runs a highway. B., in the day time, stands in the highway, and without any authority from A., but in spite of him, shoots the pheasants as they fly from one side of the highway to the other. Does B. commit any, and what, offence? Give reasons for your answer. SO. Where an offender is convicted summarily of an assault, can the person assaulted also maintain an action? 81. In an indictment, or in a summary proceeding for a malicions injury to property, is it essential to prove malice against the owner? 82. Is there any general law of limitation of time for the laying of informations before justices of the peace in summary cases ? 83. State under what circumstances the confessions of a prisoner are admissible in evidence against him, and under what circumstances such confessions are inadmissible. 84. What is a dying declaration, and under what CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. NOTE. This department of the LAW TIMES being open to MR. HARINGTON.-In the biographical and THE TENURE OF LAND IN IRELAND.-Under the above heading you were kind enough to insert my former letter in the LAW TIMES of the 20th ult., and a reply thereto in your paper of the 27th inst. from a subscriber. If "Subscriber" will kindly take the case in hand in the way he mentions, and will write to Miles, care of Messrs. Grindlay and Co., army agents, he will receive every information on the subject, and a handsome douceur, independent of all law expenses. C. ALEXANDER.. ATTORNEYS' COST OF DUTY.-I was admitted an attorney seven or eight years ago, but did not practice or take out my certificate until November last, when I commenced business on my own account in the country, having in the mean time been employed as a managing clerk. On stamping my certificate, the officials at Somerset Honse dethe proper sum payable. On referring to the manded 6. for duty, and insisted that such was schedule to the last Stamp Act, you will find that if the attorney has not been admitted so long as ness,' three years, "or has not so long carried on busi the duty is 31. only. Surely the latter in the schedule to the former Act, and must have words apply to my case; they were not contained been introduced in the present schedule for some purpose, but the view taken by the officials would make them inoperative. Can you or some of your correspondents say whether the officials are correct; and if not what means could be taken (other than legal proceedings) to obtain a return of the duty overpaid? Barrow-in-Furness, 25th Jan. 1872. A. B. BRIGHTON COUNTY COURT AND DEBT COL LECTORS.-My attention has been drawn to an |