such default or refusal, to be recovered, with the amount, if any, of penalties or other sums unaccounted for, in a summary manner before two justices as directed by the 14th section of this Act.

Miscellaneous Provisions.

13. Clerk not to be engaged in any proceeding before justices. From and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any clerk to justices by himself, partner, or agent, or for any person or persons in his or their service or employ, to be directly or indirectly engaged in any proceeding in petty or special sessions or elsewhere, before any of the justices acting for the borough or the sessional division or part thereof in which such clerk holds his office, or in or about or in any way relating to the prosecution or defence of any person or persons committed for trial by any of such justices. And every such clerk or other such person who shall after the passing of this Act be so engaged, directly or indirectly, in manner aforesaid, shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of £100, together with costs of suit, to any person who shall sue for the same within six calendar months next after the commission of any such offence in any of Her Majesty's courts of record at Westminster.

14. Fees and penalties how recovered.-Fees, allowances, penalties, and expenses under this Act directed to be recovered in a summary manner may be recovered before two justices in manner directed by an Act passed in the session holden in the eleventh and twelfth years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, chapter forty-three. 15. Repeal.-On and after the 1st Jan. 1874, so much of the following Acts or parts of Acts as is not consistent with the provisions of this Act shail be repealed; that is to say, (1.) The Act of the eleventh and twelfth Victoria, chapter forty-three, section thirty, containing regulations as to the making of tables of the fees to be paid to clerks to justices;

(2.) The Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter fifty-five, sections nine, ten, eleven, and twelve, relating to the payment of clerks to justices by salaries in lieu of fees. 16. Extent of Act.-his Act shall not extend to Scotland or to Ireland.

SOLICITORS' JOURNAL.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT - CONSTRUCTION COVENANT TO SETTLE AFTER ACQUIRED PROPERTY DEMURRER.-By a marriage settlement it, was provided that all such further or other portion or personal estate (if any) as should during the life of the wife, become vested in or accrue due to her, or as should or might be assignable in law or equity, either for a vested or contingent interest, should be assigned to the trustees of the settlement upon certain trusts, and it was declared that this proviso should not extend to any specific chattel or bequest, nor to any pecuniary legacy or interest, which the said wife might from time to time become entitled to, either in possession or reversion, unless every such legacy or interest should at each time amount in value to the sum of £500. The wife and her sister became entitled under the will of their mother each to a sum of £1000; the sister s portion being bequeathed to her for life, with remainder to her next of kin. The sister died, and the wife as one of her next of kin, became entitled to the sum of £350. Held, that the sum was not subject to the Covenant in the settlement: (Buller v. Hornby, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 901. V.C. W.)

HUSBAND AND WIFE-DEED OF SEPARATION -PROCEEDINGS IN DIVORCE COURT-INJUNC

TION.

- By a deed of separation, a husband covenanted with the trustee of the deed to make an allowance to his wife, and the trustee covenanted on behalf of the wife, neither to sue for restitution of conjugal rights, alimony, nor to "molest, trouble, or disturb" the husband. Shortly after the execution of the deed the wife, who had duly received her allowance, commenced proceedings in the Divorce Court for a jedicial separation and for alimony. Thereupon the husband filed a bill against his wife, praying that she might be restrained from continuing the proceedings, and from doing any act to molest, trouble, or disturb him: Held, that he was entitled to a perpetual injunction to the extent (only) of restraining the proceedings in the Divorce Court: (Flower v. Flower, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 902. V.C. W.)

SOLICITOR AND CLIENT-LIEN FOR COSTSSOLICITOR DISCHARGED BY HIMSELF-PRODUCTION OF PAPERS RELATING TO PENDING LITIGATION. During the progress of a suit, the solicitor for the plaintiffs, being unable to obtain from his clients funds in respect of costs incurred, declined to proceed further, and wrote a letter, suggesting that his name should be at once removed from the record as the responsible solicitor. He subsequently delivered his bill of costs, and brought an action for the amount against one

of the plaintiffs, who disputed his liability. | absconded. An order was made that service of Meanwhile new solicitors had been appointed in notice of motion for decree on the administratrix the suit, who applied to the former solicitor for should be deemed good service on the heir-at-law: the papers. He refused to deliver them up, on (Deanes v. Kitchen, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 939. the ground that his retainer was disputed, and V.C. M.) that the papers would be required for the action at law. An order was made that the former soli. citors should deliver up the papers to the new solicitors, upon the undertaking of the latter to hold them subject to the former's lien, and to return them to him within twelve days after prosecuting the suit to a conclusion; with a further undertaking that the former should have access to them for the purposes of the action: (Robins v. Goldingham; Re Suckling, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 900. V.C. M.)

AFFIDAVIT OMISSION OF "ADDITION" OF IRREGULARITY DEPONENT WAIVER. The omission in an affidavit of the addition of a deponent does not render it void, but creates an irregularity merely, which may be waived. Where a rule was granted against P. & W., on an affidavit with such omission, and on cause being shown, P. took objection to the rule, on the ground of the irregularity of the affidavit, but W. desired to waive the irregularity, and be allowed to show cause Held, that such a course was allowable, although, as against P., the rule would be quashed: (Ex parte King and wife; re P. and W. (Attor neys), 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 935. C. P.)

PRACTICE PARTITION ACT 1868 (31 & 32 VICT. c. 40, ss. 3, 4)-MARRIED WOMAN PLAINTIFF INFANT DEFENDANT-SALE.-In a partition suit where the plaintiff was a married woman and the defendant an infant, the court, at the request of the plaintiff, ordered a sale of the property, but directed the purchase money to be paid into court: (Higgs v. Dorkis, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 903. V.C. W.) Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the

SETTLEMENT-COVENANT TO PAY A SUM NOT EXCEEDING £300 - TRUSTEE'S DISCRETIONLIMITED TO TIME OF PAYMENT.-A deed, after reciting that A. was desirous of securing the payment after his decease of the several annuities and the gross

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND.

National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.]

DRYBOROUGH (Mary Banting), 1, College-place west, Maidenstone-mill, Greenwich, Kent. spinster. Next of kin to send in by March 27, at the chainbers of the M. R. April 11, at eleven o'clock, at the said chambers, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS.

sum thereinafter respectively specified, to the several persons hereinafter named. contained a covenant by A. with trustees that if B. should attain the age of twenty-one years, either in the lifetime or after the decease of A., then the heirs, executors, or administrators of A. should at such time after his death, or after the day on which B. should attain the age of twentytrustees or the survivors or survivor of them should one years, whichever should last happen, as the in their or his uncontrolled discretion think fit, and either in one sum or from time to time in various sums, pay to B., or for his use or benefit, any sum not exceeding £300, without any deduc- TowNS DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE UTILISATION COMPANY.

tion or abatement whatever. The covenant, as originally drawn, was an absolute covenant for the payment of £300, but was altered by the direction of the covenantor at the time when he executed the deed. The sum of £300 was the

only gross sum mentioned. The trustees proposed to exercise their discretion by paying B. £5, and expressed their intention of not exercising it further for his benefit. Held, that the discretion of the trustees was confined to the time at which the sum or sums were to be paid to B., and that he was entitled to the full sun of £300:

EUROPEAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY.-Creditors to send in by April, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their cuins, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to Pattison and Son, solicitors, 17, Waterloo-piace, Pali Mall, Middlesex, the official liquidators of the said society. March 21, at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of V.C. M., is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such clans.

GEORGE HOTEL, BANGOR, COMPANY (LIMITED).-Creditors to set d in by April, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims to Gregory and Co., solicitors, 1, Bedford-row, W.C.

Petition for winding-up. to be heard March 9, before the M.R. UXBRIDGE AND RICKMANSWORTH RAILWAY COMPANY.Petition for winding-up, to be heard March 8, before V.C. M.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF.

AGERS (Robert), Tavistock Hotel, Covent-garden, and Coniston ilouse, Mortimer-road, Kilburn, Middlesex, gentleman. March 21; J. Attenborough, solicitor, 63, St. Paul'schurchyard, E.C. April 9; M. R., at eleven o'clock. BROWNE Frederick), Brighton, a retired colonel in the Madras army. March 15; Waller and Handson, solicitors, 27, King-street, Cheapside, E.C. March 26; V.C. W., at ten o'clock.

(Palmer v. Newell, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 892. M.R.) CARR Mary, Carr-lodge, Horbury, York. March 19; Carr

INTESTACY-NEXT OF KIN MINORS-GRANT

TO A STRANGER IN BLOOD AS GUARDIAN

and Cadman, solicitors, Gomersali, near Leeds. March 25; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

DARTON (THOS. H., Esq., Temple Dinsley, Herts. March 7; Geo. Debenham, Salter's-hall-court, Cannon-street, E.C. March 14; V.C. W., at ten o'clock.

DEACON (Richard), Bedford House, Bognor, Sussex, and Percy-wharf, Great Scotland-yard, Middlesex, wine cooper and bottle inerchant. March 22; A. H. Crowther, solicitor, 4, Gray's-inn-square, Middlesex. April 9; V.Ć. W., at three o'clock.

WITHOUT ALL THE NEXT OF KIN BEING CITED.An intestate left two next of kin, both minors. There were no next of kin of the father surviving, and on the mother's side two uncles and two aunts. Three of these had been cited, and had renounced their right to the guardianship; and the fourth had been for some years abroad, and his whereabouts was not known. Under the cir- FREEMAN (John), Esq., Hollanden House, near Tonbridge,

cumstances the court allowed the minors to elect a stranger in blood their guardian for the purpose of taking the grant without citing the fourth next of kin: (In the Goods of Langham, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 951. Prob.)

FROM

WILL-SOLE SURVIVING EXECUTOR ABSENT THE COUNTRY- - ADMINISTRATION TO RESIDUARY LIMITED LEGATEE.-A testator by her will nominated three executors. One renounced; and of the two who proved one died, and the other had left this country under circumstances which made it improbable that he would ever return. Representation of the testator being required for the purposes of a Chancery suit, a grant of administration limited to appearance in the suit, was made to one of the residuary legatees under the 38 Geo. 3, c. 87, and 21 & 22 Vict. c. 95, s. 18. The court will only exercise the powers conferred by these statutes, where there is a Chancery suit or where there is a distinct sum set aside applicable to the claim: (In the Goods of Ruddy, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 950. Prob.) WILL-NO ATTESTATION CLAUSE-ATTESTING WITNESSES REFUSED TO MAKE THE USUAL AFFIDAVIT SUBPOENA - PRACTICE-20 & 21 VICT. c. 77, s. 24.-A testator left a will without an attestation clause, and the attesting witnesses refused to make the usual affidavit. Whereupon the court directed a subpoena to issue under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, s. 24, to compel their attendance to give evidence as to the execution: (In the | Goods of Mary Anne Hamer, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 951. Prob.)

PRACTICE-SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR DECREE.-A suit was instituted to administer the estate of an intestate, whose realty had all been sold by a mortgagee, the surplus purchase money remaining in his hands. The defendants were the heir-at-law and the administratrix. The heir-at-law had been served with a copy of the bill, and an appearance had been entered for him, but he had subsequently

FELTHOUSE (John), Grendon, Warwick, farmer. March 18; John Shaw, solicitor, Tamworth. March 26; V.C, W., at twelve o'clock.

Kent. March 25; Murray and Co., soncitors, 20, Austinfriars, E.C. March 27; M. R., at eleven o'clock. HARGRAVES (Geo.), Watton, Norfolk, surgeon. March 7; William Barton, solicitor, East Dereham, Norfolk. March 14; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

LONEY (Thos. U.), Maiesinore-square. Peckham, Surrey,

gentleman. March 20; G. Brown, solicitor, 21. Finsburyplace, E.C. April 10; V.C. W., at twelve o clock. MARTIN (Win. C.), Shirley, Solihull, Warwick, iron and brass bedstead manufacturer. March 23; J. H. Baker, solicitor, 61, New-street, Birmingham. April 10; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. WALKER (Wm.), M.D., 253, Essex-road, Islington, MiddleBeX. March 15: Waller and Co., solicitors, 5, Southampton-street. Bloomsbury, W.C. March 21; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. WATSON Sophia), 9, Devonshire terrace, Hyde-park, W. March 30; H. W. Lee, solicitor, 2, Broad Sanctuary, Westminster. April 8; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ALFIERI (Mary), Stretford, Lancaster. April 20; G. Richard son, 12, Lever-street, Piccadilly, Manchester. ASHLIN Geo.), Esq., Arundel-terrace, Brighton. April 1; Prideaux and Son, solicitors, Goldsmith's-hall, Fetter-lane, E.C. BAGNALL (Jes.), Meyrick House, Hill-top, West Bromwich, Statis, iron and coal master. Apru 30; Duignan and Co., solicitors, Goldshill, Staffs.

BARBER Kev. John H., 15, Montague-square, Middlesex. May 1; Hollingsworth and Co., solicitors, 4, East Indiaavenue, E.C.

BAWDEN (Win.), 35, Clarence-gardens, Regent's-park, N.W., gentleman. March 25; J. Wyatt, solicitor, 14, Beafordrow, W.C.

CLOWES (John E.). Esq., The Elms, Iver, Bucks, and Inner Temple, E.C., and Brunswick-square. W.C. March 39; Clowes and Co., solicitors, 10, King s Bench-walk, Temple, E.C.

EDWARDS (Benjamin), Elizabeth-cottages, Shooter's-hill, Kent, gentleman. March 25: Jenkinson and Co., solici tors, 1, Corbet-court, Gracechurch-street, E.C. ELLIS (Rev. Wm. W.), 15, Grafton-street, Bond-street, W. March 33; Gamler and Son, solicitors, 3, Gray's-inn-square, W.C. FOSTER (Christopher B.), Antoine-villa, Paul, Cornwall, gentleman. March 23; Wm. Trythall, solicitor, Penzance. GOURLAY (David A.), Esq., Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. May 1; Wm. Worship, solicitor, Great Yarmouth. HALL (John, Peterborough, merchant. March 25; Rutland and Graves, solicitors, Priestgate, Peterborough. HARMAN (Benjamin), Esq., the Brewery, Chiswell-street, E.C., and Purfleet, Essex. April 1; Lemon and Co., solicitors, 51, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.2.

HAWKINS (Theresa), 52, George-street, Portman-square, and 19, Chapel-street, Grosvenor-square, Middlesex, lodging house keeper. March 25; J. Wyatt, solicitor, 14, Bedfordrow, W.C.

HENDLEY (Geo.), Bidford, Warwick, farmer. March 30; John L. Jones, solicitor, Alcester.

JESSON (Thomas), Esq., 3, Clarendon terrace, Brighton. March 25; Bridges and Co., solicitora, 23, Red Lionsquaye, W.C.

KENDRICK (Josephia Jane M.), 88, Albany-street, Regent'spark, N.W. March 15. W. A. Smith, solicitor, 90, Denbigh-street, Warwick-square, Pimlico.

MUCKALT (John R.). Bank House, Priest Halton, Lan-. caster, yeoman. April 2); H. J. J. Thompson, solicitor Lancaster.

MUSTELL (Sarah) 3, Strathmore-gardens, Palace Gardenterrace, Bayswater, Middi-sex, April 5; Fraucis and Co., solicitors, 17, Emmanuel-street, Cambridge. MUSTELL (Wm.), Granchester, Cambridge, April 5; Francis and Co., solicitors, 17, Emmanuel-street, Cambridge. NORCUTT Taos. G.), 11, Gray's-inn, W.C., and 3. Monmouth-road, Bayswater, attorney-at-law, and solicitor, March 25; Duignan and Co., solicitors, 15, Bedford-row, W.C. PARKES (Mary), Stoke Prior, Worcester. April 5; Hawks and Co., solicitors, 101, High-street, Southwark, Surrey, S.E.

PHIPPEN (Ann D.), Church-house, Bedminster, Bristol.
April 15; Fry and Otter, solicitors, Shannon-court, Bristol.
POPE (Col. Jas.), 15, Park-place, Upper Baker-street. Mui-
dlesex. April 8; E. Pope, solicitor, 12, Gray's-inn square,
W.C.

RUGG (Thos. A.), 28, Pigot-street, Limehouse. March 25; J.
W. Marsh, solicitor, 1, Bil iter-street, E.C.
SANDERSON (Geo. S), Liverpool aud Birkenhead, civil en-
gineer. April 19; Waitley and Maddock, sol.citors, 6,
Water-street, Liverpool.

SCOTT (Alexander), Valley Mills, Morley, Batley, and Leeds, cloth manufacturer. April 20; H. Saowlon, sclicitor, 13, East Parade, Leeds.

SMITH (Mary A. St. Ives, Hants. and 60, Tollington-road, Holloway, Middlesex. April 30; F. Shaltz, solicitor, 4, Dyer's Buildings. Holborn, W.C.

Hampstead-rad.-Nos 6 and 7, Little Charles-street, term 91 years-sold for £310,

him by the company, or unless the company were authorised by statute, or bye law, to give an offender into custody for the specific offence for which he was charged: (Moore v. The Metropolitan Railway Company, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 951, Lush, J.)

REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. MORTGAGE PRIORITY PURCHASER FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE-FRAUD.-A purchaser for value, who ac

By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at the Guildhall Tavern. City-No. 42, Bishopsgate-street Witnout, freenold-sold for £220, Wednesday, Feb. 28.

By Messrs. EDWIN Fox and BOUSFIELD, at the Mart. Wimbledon, near the Raynes park Station.-Building land, containing tbout 3 acres freehold-sold for £1000.

By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER. Berks, near Hungerford.-The freehold manorial estate, known as Maiden Court, comprising 756 acres-sold for By Messrs. HARMAN and KERR. Whitechapel.-Nos. 11 and 12, John-street, freehold-sold

£21,500

for £700.

Friday, April 5 Friday, April 5 Thursday, March 21. Wednesday, April 3. Wednesday, April 10 Tuesday, April 9 Friday, April 12. Monday, March 11 Thursday, April 4 Friday, March 1 Monday, March 18 Wednesday, March 20.. | Wednesday, April 24

COMPANY LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WINDING-UP-LOAN TO ONE COMPANY BY ANOTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RIGGING ITMARKET-LIABILITY.-The C. Company lent a large sum of money to the M. Company. The money was nominally required to pay for land bought by, and work done under a contract for, the M. Company; but it really was intended to be applied, and was applied, in paying for shares in the M. Company, bought by an agent of its own, in order to give the shares a colourable value. This was ultrà vires, as the directors were by the articles of association of the M. Company expressly forbidden to purchase any of the shares of the company out of the moneys of the company. The M. Company was an emanation from the C. Company, and at the time of the loan it was for the advantage of the latter that the shares of the former should bear a high value. Two of the directors of the M. Company were also directors of the C. Company, and the same solicitors acted for both companies. Held (reversing the decision of Malins, V.C.) that the mere fact that the two companies had two common directors and a common solicitor, did not affect the C. Company with notice of the illegal object for which the money was borrowed from it, and that it was therefore entitled to prove in the winding-up of the M. Company for the amount of the loan. A director of a company is a person appointed to act as one of a board, with power to bind the company when acting as one of the board, but having otherwise no power to bind the company: (Re The Marseilles, &c. Land Company, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 858. L. JJ.)

RAILWAY-SPECIAL ACT-POWER TO BLOCK UP STREETS.—A railway company were by the general powers contained in their special Act authorised to stop up any streets required for their works. According to the deposited plans S. street was to be crossed by an arch 16ft. high, and the level of the street was to remain unaltered. By a subsequent Act, in which the previous Act was incorporated, the company were empowered to make their railway on a level, according to which it would pass 18ft. below the level of S. street. Under their general powers the company threatened to stop up S. street. Upon a motion for an injunction, the court granted an injunction restraining the company from permanently stopping up S. street until the hearing of the cause. In matters of great importance, which can only be properly determined at the hearing,

G. Potts. T. Heald.

the court is in favour of restraining destructive operations until the hearing: (Attorney-General v. The Great Eastern Railway Company, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 867. V.C.B.)

LIABILITY OF RAILWAY-ICE ON THE PLATFORM-NEGLIGENCE.-At a railway station some this was unexplained, but from the ice being water had frozen upon the platform. The cause of nearly an inch thick, and extending nearly half way across the platform, it had the appearance of having been there some time. A passenger, who train to be conveyed on his journey, not observing was waiting upon the platform the arrival of a the ice, stepped upon it and fell, sustaining serious injury. Held, that the defendants were guilty of actionable negligence in allowing the ice to remain Railway Company, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 879. Ex.) upon the platform: (Shepherd v. The Midland

RAILWAY-UNPAID LANDOWNER.-Defendant was left executor and residuary legatee of Mrs. A., who died in 1869, leaving a balance of £600 in the hands of H. and H., a banking firm, which balance was at once transferred to an account headed with the name of the defendant, as "executor of the late Mrs. A." The defendant drew several cheques on this account, and also paid in several sums of money to the same account, before the banking firm became bankrupt in July 1870, at which time there was a balance in the defendant's favour of over £500. At the date of the bankruptcy, the defendant had paid several legacies, but had not specifically provided for all, nor for an annuity charged on the real and personal estate of Mrs. A. After all bequests had been provided for, there would have remained in the hands of defendant a surplus of £1900, to which he was entitled as residuary legatee. The defendant having overdrawn his own private account at the time of the bankruptcy, an action was brought against him by the trustee of the bankrupt's estate to recover the amount so overdrawn: (Held, that the defendant was entitled to set-off against this claim the balance standing in his favour on the executorship account at the date of the bankruptcy: (Lycett v. The Stafford, &c., Railway Company, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 870. V.C. B.) LIABILITY OF RAILWAY COMPANY FOR wrongFUL ACTS OF A SERVANT.-A passenger on the defendants' line having proceeded to a station beyond that to which he had booked, was arrested by the inspector, and charged before a magistrate and acquitted. In an action brought by the passenger against the company for false imprisonment: Held, that the company were not liable for the wrongful act of their servant, unless he had

a

settlement advanced the trust funds upon the security of a mortgage of real estate, the mortgage deed disclosing the fact that the sum advanced was trust money. Afterwards the mortgagor induced the sole surviving trustee. to reconvey the mortgaged property to him by a deed which recited that the mortgage debt had been paid off (which was not the fact), and he ther mortgaged the property to the trustees of a different settlement, concealing from them the first mortgage and also the reconveyance, and furnishing them with only his original title to the property. They had no actual notice of the prior mortgage. Part of the money advanced on the second mortgage was given to the surviving trustee of the first settlement and kept by him for his own purposes. The fraud having after. wards been discovered, a bill was filled by the cestuis que trustent under the first settlement, claiming priority for the first mortgage. Held (reversing a decision of Lord Romilly, M.R., 23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 756), that the second mortgage was entitled to priority over the first. Per the Lord Chancellor.-Carter v. Carter (3 K. & J. 617), distinguished. Per James, L.J.-Carter v. Carter disapproved: (Pilcher v. Rawlins, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 921. L. C. & L. JJ.)

CULATED TO MISLEAD.-The court having directed VENDOR AND PURCHASER-CONDITIONS CALthe testator in the cause, it was put up for sale, a sale of certain property which had belonged to under conditions of sale, which provided that the title should commence with a conveyance on sale in 1838, and that the purchaser should accept such and not make any objection or requisition in recommencement as a good substantial root of title, spect of any prior title, or evidence of prior title, notwithstanding any recital or other disclosure of such prior title. The title of the vendor of 1838 the purchaser was not precluded by the condition being, in the opinion of the court, bad: Held, that from taking the objection, and the contract for the purchase was annulled: (Else v. Else, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 927. M. R)

MARITIME LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. INSURANCE-INDEMNITY AGAINST Loss As CARRIERS.-Plaintiffs, lightermen on the river Thames, caused a policy of insurance, in the ordinary form of a Lloyd's policy, to be effected on their behalf upon craft of every description, on "all goods and produce as interest may appear." At the foot of the policy was written, to cover and include all losses, damages, and accidents, amounting to 201. or upwards, on each craft, to goods carried by the plaintiffs as lightermen, or delivered to them to be waterborne either in their own or other craft, and for which losses, damages, and accidents the plaintiffs may be liable or responsible to the owners thereof, or others interested. It is agreed that the amount of each underwriter's liability shall not exceed the amount of his subscription." The policy was subscribed by various underwriters for different sums amounting altogether to £2000, the defendant underwriting it for £100; and during the continuance of the risk a loss happened to goods carried by the plaintiffs as lightermen, for which they had to pay the owners £1100. At this time the total value of the goods carried in the barges of the plaintiffs which were covered by the policy amounted to £20,000, and upwards. An action having been brought against the defendant to recover the sum of £55, as his proportion of the loss sustained, it was held, that the defendant was liable for that sum, and not merely for such a proportion of the loss sustained as the sum for which he subscribed the policy bore to the total value of the goods on board ali the plaintiff's

the plaintiff seeks to establish a charge by way of equitable mortgage against both properties by deposit of deeds, under an express agreement that they should be retained by him as security for his costs as sued for in Oct. 1869, and his subsequent payments out of pocket. And he also seeks as against both properties the aid of this court to give effect by means of a receiver to the title acquired under the inquisition and extent. The plaintiff and both defendants have been examined viva voce before us, and there is a direct conflict of evidence. This conflict relates chiefly to the fact whether the deeds handed to the plaintiff for the purposes of the defence, and upon which originally he would only have the passive lien of a solicitor-that is, the right to retain them till his costs were paid-and afterwards by express agreement with the defendant, John Murgatroyd, made a security by way of pledge for payment of the costs; such pledge, if made, could of course only extend to the interest of the defendant. The fact is positively deposed to by the plaintiff and as positively denied by the defendant, and there is no confirmatory evidence. If this question arose between parties between whom no fiduciary relation existed, and the decision rested upon the credit to be given to the one or the other, I should have no hesitation in deciding that credit was due to the plaintiff's statement; but as this is a case between attorney and client, in which the attorney is claiming against the client a right which does not grow out of that relationship, but rests upon express contract, it is not enough that the plaintiff should satisfy me that he honestly and truly intended the contract, and that believing the defendant also intended the contract the plaintiff gave him the benefit of it as he says, and I believe he did, by resuming the defence of the suit, and advancing moneys for the purpose. The plaintiff must go further and satisfy me that the defendant understood the contract and intended it in the sense in which the plaintiff understood and intended it. This he has failed to do, the continuance of the suit, and the advance of further moneys for the purpose of the suit, were consistent with the original retainer, and of themselves would not create any distinct right or liability. When an attorney makes a contract with his client for his own benefit, if a contest arises about it he must be prepared to establish by clear and

unmistakable evidence that the client understood and intended the contract. Here the plaintiff has failed to do so, and although I place no confidence whatever in the rude and abrupt denials of the defendant on his examination before me, yet I am not satisfied that he understood the difference between the deeds being placed in the hands of the plaintiff for the purposes of the suit, and their being allowed to remain in his hands as a specific pledge for costs. The difference between an active and passive lien was, I have no doubt, perfectly well understood and assented to as between the plaintiff and Mr. Robinson, the defendant's attorney, but I do not think the defendant understood it, or ever had it explained to him; and the onus lies on the plaintiff to satisfy me that he did. This he has not done, and therefore, for that reason only, I dismiss the bill, so far as it seeks to establish a lien by way of equitable mortgage by deposit of deeds. The bill, however, seeks relief in respect of the defendant John Murgatroyd's interest in the lands extended by the elegit as described in the inquisition. The case made by the defendants is, that, prior to the holding of the inquisition, the defendant John Murgatroyd had sold, and the defendant H. A. Murgatroyd had purchased, the interest of the defendant John Murgatroyd in all the properties comprised in the inquisition, and that interest had been duly conveyed to him and he then held the same as a bona fide purchaser for value, by a title acquired and duly completed prior to that of the plaintiff under the inquisition. The bill charges that the alleged conveyances were not for valuable consideration bona fide paid by the defendant H. A. Murgatroyd to the defendant John Murga. troyd. The defendant H. A. Murgatroyd, by his statement filed in answer to the bill on the 17th Nov. 1871, alleges that by a deed dated the 15th Feb. 1871, he purchased the life interest of the said John and Nancy Murgatroyd for the sum of £100, which he duly paid to them. By a deed dated the 9th Aug. 1870 he purchased of the said John Murgatroyd his equitable interest in the property referred to in the second paragraph of the bill, for the sum of £170, this property being then and now subject to a mortgage for £200. The deeds of the 9th Aug. 1870 and the 15th Feb. 1871, were both produced in evidence on behalf of the defendant, H. A. M. They were not in his possession, but in that of a soliciter, Mr. Oliver Scatcherd, of Morley, near Leeds, who prepared them. He was examined, and stated that he prepared both deeds upon the instruction of the defendant, Jno. M.; that the deed of 9th Aug. 1870 was executed by both defendants in his presence, and attested by him; that the £170 mentioned in that deed was, in his presence, handed over by the said defendant H. A. M., to the defendant Jno. M.,

in gold, and the receipt indorsed on the deed was signed by the defendant, Jno. M., and attested by him (Scatcherd); that the property was subject to a prior mortgage for £200; he held the deeds for the mortgagee. The deed of 15th Feb. 1871 was also prepared by Scatcherd upon the instruction of the defendant, Jno. M., who, as instructions for that deed, handed him an abstract of the two deeds of the 27th Oct. 1864, and the 20th April 1865, and told him they were in the possession of the plaintiff; but Scatcherd was not instructed to make, and did not make, any inquiry of the plaintiff on the subject. This deed, as prepared by Scatcherd, was, on the 15th Feb. 1871, executed by both defendants in the presence of Mr. Wm. Whittell (Mr. Scatcherd's clerk), and attested by him, and as he deposed the £100 the consideration mentioned in it was handed over by the said H. A. M. to the defendant Jno. M. in gold, and then the receipt indorsed on the deed was signed by the defendant Jno. M., and attested by hin (Whittell). Both deeds were retained by Scatcherd, and have ever since remained in his possession, and he produced them under subpoena and took them away with him, claiming a right to do so. On the part of the plaintiff the defendant was cross-examined for the purpose of showing that there was no bona fide payment of any money by the one defendant to the other, and that both transactions were merely collusive, and contrived for the purpose of placing the property of the defendant John M. out of the reach of his creditors. The defendant H. A. M. in his crossexamination stated that he had been bankrupt in the year 1867, and obtained his certificate in June of that year, that he then became an insurance agent for about two years, and, not finding that answer, he became a grocer for about a year, and then became an auctioneer, which was his present occupation; that he never made an income sufficient for a return of incometax; that he had a wife and one child to keephis wife was entitled to an income of between £80 and £90 a year, which was settled to her separate use, and she let him have the use of that income. He said that on the 9th Aug. 1870, he paid to his father, the defendant John Murgatroyd, £170 for the purchase of his equity of redemption-all in gold. On being questioned about this sum, he said he had the money by him, he had saved it, he kept no books or accounts, he had no banker, he had no memorandum or writing of any sort relating to this money, and could give no other account how he came by it. The agreement for the purchase from his father was not in writing: it was of the house he lived in. He could give no further account of how he got the £170. He knew of the Chancery suit, and the claim made by it, and of the plaintiff's claim or costs, and that he had the deeds; he stated also that on the 15th Feb. 1871, he paid to his father the further sum of £100-all in gold This was for the purchase of the life interest of himself and his mother in the seven cottages mentioned in the deeds in the plaintiff's possession. Of this £100 he could give no other account of how he came by it than that he had saved it, and had it by him, he had no book or memorandum relating to this sum or to this purchase. The other defendant on his examination said, as to each sum he had paid away some part, how much, or to whom or for what, he could not tell, and had lived on the rest. Considering that the father was, if not insolvent, yet in needy circumstances, and that the son had never had the means of recovering from the insolvency the effect of his bankruptcy, I am unable to believe, and do not believe, that these transactions between them were bond fide sales and purchases; but I believe them to have been collusive contrivances concerted between them for the purpose of placing the property of the defendant John out of the reach of his creditors, and particularly so as to defeat any liability which might be established against him in respect of the shares in the Leeds Banking Company, and I cannot but express surprise that transactions 80 plainly questionable should have found an attorney's office a convenient place for their completion. The paying over the two sums in gold in the presence of the attorney and his clerk in order that each might be able to depose truly to that fact and nothing more, was, I believe, a mere piece of acting which I cannot allow to impose upon me. don't breed like insects, nor grow like weeds, nor accumulate like dust, nor are they the offspring of spontaneous generation. A sum of such amount, in such a form, must have come from some known and describable source, and have been applied in some known and describable manner. The evidence of both defendants is equally unworthy of credit, as well in its sub. stance as in the reckless manner in which each defendant gave it before me a manner which mpressed me with the conviction that each was regardless of the obligation of an oath, and that hard swearing by the one of the fact of paying, and by the other of the fact of receiving, the money, was sufficient. It is not; the defendant, H. A. M., has to satisfy the conscience of the

Sovereigns

court-and my conscience is not satisfied-that he is a bona fide purchaser for value of the property. I do not, however, think I could in any way deal with the property comprised in the deed of the 9th Aug. 1870. The plaintiff's right to relief as I view the case, must rest entirely upon the inquisition and extent. I have no power to alter or amend, but must take it as I find it, and I think the property comprised in the deed last referred to is not properly described in the inquisition, but that the description is only properly applicacle to the seven cottages which are the subject of the two deeds in the plaintiff's possession, and the relief will be confined to that property. Upon this branch of the case the specific relief proper to be given has required careful considera. tion. I have not been able to find any precedent in point. This is not the case of a judgment creditor who seeks the assistance of a court of equity by redemption or foreclosure of interests not extendable under an elegit; but this is the case of a judgment creditor, whose title has been com pleted at law by extent, but whose legal right to possession under the extent is sought to be defeated by a fraudulent alienation of the legal interest of the debtor. This fraudulent alienation is as void at law as in equity. And the jurisdiction of this court is exercised only on the ground that fraud is as cognisable here as at law. And it occurred to me whether the relief to be given here should go further than declaring the deed void and restraining the defendant from interfer. ing with the receipt of the rents by the plaintiff. But that decree would not give the plaintiff complete relief against the tenants, as they might refuse to attend and pay their rents to him, and there would then be a series of distresses and replevins, and it is desirable to avoid circuity and multiplicity of actions. And this may, as it seems to me, be properly done by putting the plaintiff into possession by means of a receiver. The decree will therefore be as follows: Dismiss the bill so far as it seeks to establish a lien by way of equitable mortgage upon the hereditaments mentioned, pars. 1 and 2 of the bill. Declare that the deed dated the 15th Feb. 1871, in the defen. dant H. A. M.'s statement alleged, was not founded upon valuable consideration bona fide paid by the defendant H. A. M. to the defendant J. M., and is fraudulent and void as against the plaintiff. Refer to the registrar what is due from the defendant J. M. to the plaintiff upon the footing of the judgment mentioned in par. 7 of the bill, deducting therefrom the sum of £16admitted by the plaintiff to have been received and not credited. and tax the plaintiff his costs of this suit (except so far as they have been increasedby the claim for an equitable charge) and including in such costs the cost of the inquisition in that judgment, and let the registrar certify the amount of such judgment and costs, and declare that the amount so to be certified, with interest thereon at the rate of £4 per cent. per annum on the principal of the said judgment debt, ought to be satisfied out of the rents and profits of the cottages described in the said inqui sition (other than the cottage therein described as in the occupation of the defendant H. A. M.), to accrue due during the life of the defendant J. M. Take an account of such of the said rents as have been received by the said defendant H. A. M., or by any person by his order, or for his use since the 6th Oct. 1871 (the date of the said inquisition), and order him to pay the amount thereof into court. Appoint the high bailiff of this court receiver of the rents and profits of the said cottages during the life of the said J. M., or until further order, And orcer the tenants of the said cottages to attorn and pay their rents due and to become due to the id receiver until further order, and let such re ceiver pass his accounts half yearly and pay his balances to the plaintiff towards satisfaction of his debt until further orders; and let the defendants, J. M. and H. A. M., be severally re strained from receiving or in any manner interfer ing with the said rents and profits, or the pos session of the said cottages during the lifetime of the said J. M., or until further order, with general liberty for any of the parties to apply.

BANKRUPTCY LAW.
BRISTOL COUNTY COURT.
(Before E. J. LLOYD, Q.C., Esq., Judge.)
Re STEWART.

Restoration of property. Clifton appeared for the trustee, Mr. Hancock. who made an application for the restoration of property under the following circumstances: Stewart absconded with a large sum of money, and was arrested in London with between £100 and £500 upon him. He had been in the habit of going about Somersetshire with a horse and dogcart, which, when he absconded, he left at the house of Mr. Ingram, innkeeper, Tannton. Mr. Ingram subsequently received notice from a Mr. Palmer, the last person with whom the bankrupt

was hiding before he was apprehended by the officer of the court. Notice of the present application had been sent to Mr. Palmer, but he was not in attendance, and he asked his Honour to make an order on Mr. Ingram to give up the property to the trustee for the benefit of the creditors. There was no opposition, and the order was granted.

Re ROBERT OXLEY. Accounts-Effect of old and new law.

Press appeared for the bankrupt.

Budd said this was a notice of motion that the bankrupt might be ordered to file an account of all moneys received and disbursed by him and on his behalf between the 1st Jan. and the 28th Nov. 1871; also an account of all goods purchased or received by him or on his behalf between those dates. Mr. Oxley was a wine and spirit merchant, and the petition was filed on the 28th Nov. 1871. The first meeting of creditors took place on the 18th Dec.; a resolution to wind-up by liquidation, and not in bankruptcy, was passed on the same day, and Mr. James John Parsons was appointed trustee, and Messrs. Brooke, Rowley, and Sellick a commitee of inspection. He thought this was the fourth time Mr. Oxley had failed, and on each occasion he had had large liabilities and small assets. On the present occasion his liabilities amounted to £4981, the assets to £545 or thereabout. When the trustee came to look at the books and papers delivered to him by Mr. Oxley, he found that during the last eleven months he had received large quantities of gocds from wine and spirit merchants which were not entered in his books at all, and of which he gave no satisfactory account as to what had become of them. They found that from time to time large quantities of goods were by his order conveyed to Messrs. Alexander and Daniels for sale, and those gentlemen sent the trustee an account, showing the transactions between them and Mr. Oxley, and that Mr. Oxley had received from Messrs. Alexander and Daniel, by sales and loans made to him, £1793; and from Messrs. Fargus 2522. His HONOUR.-Within the eleven months ? Yes. They also found that he had received a large sum in respect to business advances. They traced to his hands goods and money to the extent of £3000 or £4000, and of these transactions they could get no satisfaction whatever. Mr. Oxley had been examined on one or two occasions; and nothing could be more unsatisfactory than his answers with regard to these goods. Not a single word was said about them in his ledger. The learned counsel then read an examination taken before Mr. Registrar Harley, on the 10th Jan. last, which was as follows:-" Question: I see on the 7th Oct. that 23 cases of wine were taken to Clare-street, to whom were they taken? Answer: I suppose that must have been to Fargus, the auctioneer. I don't know anyone else there. C. Did Fargus advance you any money on those 28 cases? A. No.Q. Did he sell them by auction? A. He either sold them or brought them back.-Q. On the 12th and 13th Oct., I see thirteen cases went on the 12th and seven cases on the 13th to Clare-street. Did they go to Fargus? A. I suppose so.-Q. On the 31st Oct. I find in this account of Wall's, twenty-five cases of spirits carried to Broad-street. To whom where they carried? No answer.-Q. I observe that on the 27th Dec. twenty-five cases were carried to Clare-street. To whom were they carried? A. I have no idea.-Q. Have you any customers in Clare-street? A. Yes, Mr. Parsley was a customer. 9. Was it likely you sent these twenty-five cases to him? A. No.-Q. Will you swear that those twenty-five cases of wine did not go to Fargus for sale by auction? A. I have told you I do not know where they went." The learned counsel read other extracts from the bankrupt's examination, and submitted that under the 19th section of the Act his Honour had the fullest possible jurisdiction, and that he was empowered to make what order he thought proper. He read the affidavit of Mr. Parsons, accountant, who said he believed the bankrupt received between the dates named goods and money amounting in the whole to several thousand pounds in value. The books and papers handed to him did not show what had become of the said money and goods.

His HONOUR.-That the necessity has not arisen, may be an answer to that.

Press remarked that out of the number of cases that had taken place, the necessity had probably arisen, and had the power existed it would have been applied long ago. There had never been such an order made in London, or in any other court. Whatever the result was, as he had already told his friend, the case would go further.

His HONOUR: It is thoroughly immaterial. Press said he agreed with his Honour that under the old Bankruptcy Acts a bankrupt was bound to make a full disclosure, even if the effect of that disclosure were to render him liable, but he had between a bankrupt and an arranging debtor. A bankrupt had a last public examination to pass; he was bound to pass it, and in order to pass it the court had power to order accounts. But an arranging creditor had no last public examination to pass, and the rules and orders of the court expressly provided how he should give information to the trustee. He submitted that having once resolved on liquidation, the creditors must be bound by the rule, and the statement produced before the matter was taken out of bankruptcy was to be considered as the statement the Act required, and the arranging debtor was not to be called upon to furnish any other statements under the Act. He submitted that the court had no power to order the information asked for. Budd, in reply, contended that the section under which the application was made applied to liquidation.

to draw attention in this case to the distinction

His HONOUR, in giving judgment, said he had no doubt whatever that the rule was never intended to limit the power of the creditors in having a full disclosure of the estate. He read a section of the Act which stated that in certain cases liquidation should mean bankruptcy, and said he had no doubt that the court had the power to make the order. As to the question of crimination, he did not see how he could determine that until the question came before him. He ordered the accounts asked for to be supplied in a month, the bankrupt to have leave to apply for an extension of time.

CAMBRIDGE COUNTY COURT.
Wednesday, Feb. 14.

(Before E. BEALES, Esq., Judge.)
Re JOHN COLE.

Application for rehearing-When granted. IN the matter of an application by Mr. Page Wallis, the bankrupt's landlord, for rent, the trustce under the bankruptcy (Mr. Glasscock) gave notice of his intention to move the court for a rehearing of the case, and for a case.

Poland Adcock, in support of the landlord, objected to the notice in the first place on the ground that the judge had no power to grant a case; and as regards rehearing, the case had been fully argued before his Honour and a decision given in favour of the claimant. The proper course for the trustee in the bankruptcy to have adopted would have been to give notice of appeal in the usual way, and made a deposit of £20 in the Court of Appeal, in the bankruptcy, in London. Inasmuch as he had failed to give such notice and paid such money into court pursuant to the rules and practice of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, he was out of court. Further, that the notice of motion given was of an informal character, and that the trustee had no locus standi; but for the purpose of arguing the case before the Judge, Adcock was willing to withdraw the opposition.

His HONOUR.-But the bankrupt exposes himself to an application of that kind. The learned counsel then read the affidavit of the bankrupt himself, who said he thoroughly believed these accounts were not required for the administration of his estate, but they were only wanted for the purpose of getting evidence to bring him within some one or other of the provisions of the Act of 1869. It was for that reason that he had declined, on the advice of his solicitor, to answer

Adcock (to his Honour).-They cannot appeal even if you do review your decision and decide as

you did before, which I have no doubt you would do; but if you decided against the claimant he would have power to appeal, upon the ground that you had no right to hear the case and give the trustee an opportunity of going to the court above, which was not intended by the Legislature when the Bankruptcy Act was passed.

His HONOUR.-I am satisfied that the decision I gave was a correct one. I have considered the case very carefully since, and am quite confident that no case you could bring before me would alter my opinion. If you had a case I have no doubt you would bring it, but as you do not do so, I assume you have none; and I should be only wasting the time of the suitors of the court by allowing a rehearing. Therefore I must decline to rehear the case; and the order previously given will stand for payment to the claimant.

Adcock applied for costs, but under the suggestion of his Honour, withdrew the same.

Upon the application of Henry French, the bankrupt passed his public examination, pro forma, the trustee offering no further opposition.

LEGAL NEWS.

IT is announced in the Gazette that the Queen has conferred the honour of knighthood on William Robert Grove, Esq., one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas; George Jessel, Esq., SolicitorGeneral; and Oliver Nugent, Esq., President of the Legislative Council of Antigua.

ing that Mr. Montagu Williams, of the Oxford Circuit, will offer himself as a candidate for the borough of Wallingford. The Liberal candidate is said to be Mr. Moffatt.

IT was rumoured at the Berks Assizes at Read

A report of the argument of a point of law in the Tichborne case appearing in the Pall Mall Gazette is a curiosity in its way. Mr. Giffard is reported to have cited Spenceley v. Shootinburgh (Schulenburg); Lestrange (Desborough) v. Rawins; and Milne v. Crane (Mylne and Craig's Reports).

LONG SPEECHES.-The Attorney-General has spoken in the Tichborne case for twenty-five days. This is the longest speech in any legal case on record, but the Attorney-General only narrowly escaped Sisera's fate of being beaten by a woman, for Miss Shedden spoke for twenty-four days in the celebrated declaration of legitimacy case. Serjeant Wilde (afterwards Lord Truro) spoke twelve days (three House of Lords' weeks) in "Small v. Attwood."

WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.-Mr. Jacob Bright's Bill proposes to enact that in all Acts relating to the qualification and registration of voters in the election of members of Parliament, wherever words occur which import the masculine gender," the same shall be held to include females for all purposes connected with and having reference to the right to be registered as voters.

ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE.-At the conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, at the Westminster Palace Hotel, Mr. Sampson S. Lloyd presiding, a resolution of the Newcastle Chamber, stating that the stamp duty on bills of lading should not exceed 1d. on each bill of lading, was adopted with an addition directing the presentation of a memorial to the Treasury. On the motion of Mr. Monk, M.P., a resolution of the executive council was agreed to, expressing the opinion that the provisions of the Act 30 Vict. c. 29, requiring all contracts in bank shares or stock to set forth and designate in writing the respective members by which the same are distinguished on the register or books of the banking company, should be extended to the shares and stocks of all other joint-stock companies.

the

CHANCERY FUNDS BILL.-Of the possibility of an improvement in the management of the Chancery suitors' money there can be no doubt, and Mr. Lowe proposes the best of all improvements. He proposes to take it out of the hands of the Court of Chancery altogether; he will not let the lawyers have anything to do with it; Executive Government is to take it, and to pay a moderate rate of interest on it, just as it does with the savings bank money. That rate is to be 2 per cent., and this will be paid upon all the sums which are in the custody of the court, so that there will be no suitor who does not gain something. There will be no buying into the funds perhaps when they are dear, and selling out at a loss perhaps when they are cheap, by which the suitor loses, and there will be no costly brokerages to be paid; so that the suitor will be a great gainer. He will not be, as now, a speculator in the value of the funds-and a speculator of the most unlucky kind, for he cannot choose when he will buy in or when he will sell out. The actual dates are settled for him by judicial authority, and therefore in comparison with all optional dealers he is at a certain disadvantage. But hereafter he will be sure of his principal, and will receive a fixed income on which he can certainly rely.