« EelmineJätka »
LIVERPOOL-Brown v. Forward and others
LIVERPOOL-Ross r. Ross HANTS-Jones r. Williams HANTS-Cole v. Hernot
[Martin, B.-Mr R. G. Williams [L. C. B.-Mr Quain [Willes, J.-Mr Lopes [Willes, J.-Mr G. Lewis CARMARTHEN-Davies v. Davies and Owens and wife [Smith, J.-Mr H. G. Allen Tried during Term. MIDDLESEX-Weller v. Spiers and others
[Blackburn, J.—Mr H. James MIDDLESEX-Butt v. Watson [Blackburn, J.-Mr Huddleston MIDDLESEX-Target v. Vincent (the younger) [Blackburn, J.-Mr Day Moved Hilary Term 1872. MIDDLESEX-Earl Spencer v. The Conservators of The River Thames [L. C. J.-Mr Pollock MIDDLESEX-Coleman v. Kennedy [Hannen, J.-Mr Grantham LONDON-Fraser v. The Telegraph Construction Company [Mellor, J.-Sir J. Karslake LONDON-Bryant v. Lay [Mellor, J.-Sir J. Karslake LONDON-Goldney v. Lording [Hannen, J.-Mr Prentice LONDON-Willis v. Sanders
[Bramwell B.-Sir J. Karslake LIVERPOOL-Jones v. The Neptune Marine Insurance Company [Blackburn, J.-Mr Aspinall Tried during Terin. MIDDLESEX-Harris v. Davis [Lush, J.-Mr O'Malley MIDDLESEX-Woolley v. Curling
[Lush, J.-Hon. G. Denmar
The Wardens of Sutton Coldfield v. Maskall. Special case. (Stands for amendment)
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Company v. Guthrie. Special case. (Stands over)
Thompson v. Raine. Special case. (Stands over) Goschen and others v. Demana and others. Special case. (Stands over)
Neill v. The North Eastern Railway Company. Appeal. Everingham v. Ivatt. Special case
Moss v. The Mersey Dock and Harbour Board. Special
LANCASHIRE-Bridgewater v The Mayor of Bootle-cum
YORKSHIRE-Norris and others v Barnes
WARWICKSHIRE-Hooper v Parish of Moreton Morell and others
METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT-Skinner v. Usher and others.
BATH-Cook v. Montagu
LANCASHIRE-Reg. v. Wigan Churchwardens LIVERPOOL-Bridgewater u. The Borough of Liverpool YORKSHIRE, W.-Reg. v. Roberts and others WESTMORLAND-Noble v. Carr
ESSEX-Reg. v. Mussett
ESSEX-Reg. v. Pullen
CARLISLE-Phillips r. Canham
LANCASHIRE-Cullen v. Trimble and others
WAKEFIELD-Shaw v. Wakefield Board of Health
KENT-Reg. v. North Aylesford Union and others
EXETER-Reg. v. The Strand Union
Thursday Friday Saturday.
22 Special paper
23 Motions and new trials
25 Special paper
26 Motions and new trials 27 Ditto
29 Special paper
30 Motions and new trials Ditto
Wednesday May 1
2 Special paper
3 Motions and new trials
The Watermen's Company v. The Overseers of Penge. Special case
Thursday, April 25.
The Strand Printing Company v. Dorington. Special
Cope v. Barber. Appeal
Greenhill . Webster and others. Demurrer
Cox v. Blatherwick. Demurrer
Cory . The Churchwardens of Greenwich. Appeal Royal v. Yaxley. Appeal
Monday, April 29.
Pearman v. Buttner. Demurrer
Law v. Hugh. Demurrer
Straker v. Storey. Demurrer
Roberts v. Crowe. Appeal
Barrett v. Markham. Appeal
SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS-IN TERM.
The Eccleshill Worsted Mill Company v. Ackroyd. Appeal
Mercer v. Graves. Demurrer
Playford v. Page. Special case
Christoffersen . Hansen. Demurrer
Deering v. Holman. Special case
Kirkwood . McDonald. Demurrer
The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police v. Bell.
The Gas Light and Coke Company . The Vestry of
Harrison and others v. Garthorne and others.
Tuesday............... April 16 Tuesday............... ..... April 30 Friday...
No London sittings this Term.
London. May 9 Monday NEW TRIAL PAPER-ENLARGED RULES. Parkinson v. The Great Western Railway Company Perks . The London and North-Western Railway Company
Same . The Midland Railway Company Gripe v. Wilkie
Wilkie v. Gripe
Same v. Same
Scales and another v. The London and South-Western
Stoddart v. Webberley. Appeal.
Thompson v. Cohen. Demurrer
Eynon v. The Birmingham Caual Company. Van Praagh v. Elliott.
Harpwood v. Newton. Demurrer
Same v. Same.
In the matter of Briggs, &c. Special case
Wade v. Jarvis. Demurrer
The North. A. Company v. King. Demurrer
Peninsular Company v. Fleming
Stephens v. The Australasian Insurance Company
Cull v. Austin
Metropolitan Board of Works v. The Imperial Gas
Light Company. Appeal
Stockdale v. The Mayor of Cardiff. Demurrer
Hampden. Walsh. Demurrer
Siddons v. Schmidt. Appeal
Smith v. Darby.
Morris v. Buller and Wife. Demurrer.
Kaye r. The Mayor of Huddersfield.
Joyce v. The Royal Marine Insurance Company. De
Fowler v. Lock
Mulholland v. The Peninsular Company. Demurrer
The City Discount Company . McLean. Special case
The Great Western Railway Company v. Blower.
Lankester v. Trounce. Demurrer
The Parish of Liverpool
Same v. Badart. Demurrer
For Judgment-Moved Michaelmas Term 1868.
Moved Michaelmas Term 1871.
For Argument-Moved Michaelmas Term 1867. LINCOLN-Earl Beauchamp . The Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales (To stand over) [Pigott, B.-Mr Field Moved Michaelmas Term 1870 NORWICH-Betts v. The Great Eastern Railway Company (To stand over) [Channell, B.-Mr Bulwer
Moved Hilary Term 1871. LONDON-Green v. Cook (To stand over) (Martin, B.-Mr Joyce Moved Michaelmas Term 1871. MANCHESTER -Ormerod v. King LIVERPOOL-Holme v. Hammond
[L. C. B.-Mr Quain (Part heard)
[L. C. B.-Mr Holker LIVERPOOL-Golden v. Whitworth (Part heard) [L. C. B.-Mr Holker LIVERPOOL--The Liver Alkali Company r. Johnson
CROYDON-Collis v. The
[Martin, B.--Mr Butt Imperial Royal C. A. A. Com[Bramwell, B.-Mr Hawkins (To stand over) (To stand over) [Hannen, J.-Mr Kemplay
LEEDS--Tebbutt v. Waite MIDDLESEX-Taylor v. Gower
[Martin, B.-Mr Thesiger
Moved Hilary Term 1872.
LONDON-Lane v. Lay
[L. C. B.-Sir J. Karslake
LONDON-Taylor . The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin-
[L. C. B.-Mr Powell [L. C. B.-Mr Milward [L. C. B.-Mr Field
Barrows r. Green and another. Demurrer. (Stand
Spoor . Green Special case
Gazette, April 9.
To surrender in the Country.
BRAGG, ISAAC, and STEPHENS, THOMAS FRY, drapers, Birken head. Pet. April 5. Dep. Reg. Morgan. Sur. April 25 EDWARDS, JAMES, butcher, Swansea. Pet. April 4. Reg. Morris. Sur. April 19
FREEMAN, JOSEPH, coal merchant, Watford. Pet. March 27. Reg. Blagg. Sur. April 17
GOLDEN, JAMES WILLIAM, oil dealer, Huddersfielc. Reg. Jones, jun. Sur. April 27
LOVE, JAMES, draper, King's Lynn. Pet. April 3. Reg. Partridge. Sur. April 22 Reg.
MURRAY, MATTHEW, draper, Wallsend. Mortimer. Sur. April 20
Pet. April 4.
Carson v. Adams. Demurrer.
(To stand over)
NEILSON, CHARLES DUNCAN, provision broker, Liverpool.
WAITES, ARTHUR EDMUND, currier, Pontypool.
Pet. April 5.
Allgood v. Blake. Special case
Roach v. Same. Special case
Clenell v. Same. Special case
Reed v. Same. Special case.
Allgood and others v. F. D. Blake. Special case Taubman v. The Pacific Steam Navigation Company. Demurrer
Cobbett v. Howard and others.
Jackson v. Tatam. Demurrer
Reg. Roberts. Sur. April 20
Gazette, April 5.
GILLESPIE, JOHN, merchant, Great St. Helen's. July 6, 1870
Liquidations by Arrangement.
Gazette, April 5.
BEDBOROUGH, ELEANOR, widow, Slough; April 19, at four, at office of Sol, Long, Windsor
CASRIL, BENNETT, outfitter, Hull; April 17, at eleven, at office of Sol., Ayre, Hull
COLLIS, HENRY, miller, Croydon; April 18, at twelve, at office of Brett, Clarke, and Co., accountants, Leadenhall-st. Sol., Davis, Harp-la, Great Tower-st
CROSS, JOHN, boot manufacturer, Tabernacle-walk, Finsbury; April 22, at two, at office of Sols., Dod and Longstaffe, Bernersst, Oxford-st
CURETON, WILLIAM, grocer, Nantwich; April 20, at twelve, at the Railway hotel, Stoke-upon-Trent. Sol., Litchfield, New
DEAN WILLIAM, baker, Bristol; April 18, at twelve, at office of Sols., Henderson and Salmon, Bristol
EASTWOOD, JOHN, blacksmith. Burnley; April 19, at three, at office of Sol., Baldwin, Burnley
ELLAMS, SAMUEL, builder, Newcastle; April 12, at eleven, at office of Sols., E. and W. Tennant, Hanley GREEN, ALFRED, general smith, Stourbridge; April 19, at ten, at offices of Sol., Prescott, Stourbridge
GROVE, JOHN FITZROY, out of business, Brick-hill-la, Upper Thames-st: April 22, at three, at office of Sol., Brighten, Bishops. gate-st-without
HAPPEY, JOHN WALKER, hosier, Hull; April 17, at eleven, at the Queen's hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Summers, Hull HOPKINSON, JOSEPH, stone merchant, Bramley, in Leeds: April 22, at eleven, at office of Beswick and Co., accountants, Albionst, Leeds
HORTON, CHARLES, farmer, Barston; April 18, at three, at office of Sols.. Ryland and Martineau, Birmingham HOWES, WILLIAM, costume skirt manufacturer, Basinghall-st, London, and Middleton-rd, Dalston; April 18, at three, at office of Sol., Sydney, Leadenhalist
JOHNSON, RICHARD WILLIAM, innkeeper, Bermondsey; April 12, at twelve, at the London Warehousemen's Association, Gutterla, Cheapside. Sol., Marsden, jun. JOHNSON, WILLIAM HENRY, corn merchant, Mark-la; April 19, at three, at the Bridge House hotel, Borough High-st, Southwark. Sol., Simpson, Borough High-st, London-bridge JONES, WILLIAM, fruiterer, Newcastle; April 15, at 57, Queen-st, Wolverhampton, in lieu of place originally named
LAMB, JOHN ATKINSON, tailor, Hunmanby; April 23, at two, at the Beverley Arms hotel, Beverley. Sol., Richardson, Scarborough
LEETE, WILLIAM, builder, Little Cadogan-pl, Chelsea; April 23, at three, at office of Sol., Thomson, New Broad-st
LUKE, JOSIAH, tailor, Carey-st, Lincoln's-inn, and Park-villas, Park-pl, East-end, Finchley; April 22, at two, at office of Sol., Brlant, Old Broad-st
LUMB. JOSEPH DYSON, victualler, Liverpool; April 23, at three, at office of Sol, Nordon, Liverpool
MANSLEY, STEPHEN, contractor, New Pellon; April 19, at three, at office of Sol,, Boocock, Halifax
MILLS, HENRY, silversmith, Oxford-st; May 1, at two, at office of Sols., Harcourt and Macarthur, Moorgate-st PALFREY, THOMAS, bootmaker, Weobley; April 20, at eleven, at the Talbot inn, Leominster. Sol., Cheese, Hay PARKES, ISRAEL, ironmaster, Westbromwich; April 18, at twelve at the Queen's hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Griffin, Birmingham PAYN, EMILY, boot seller, Lymington; April 19, at three, at office of Sol., Killby, Southampton
PRATT, JOHN, sausage skin dealer, Vaughan-rd, Camberwell, and Brixton rd; April 9, at two, at office of Sol., Preston, London-wall
SANDER, JOSEPH BROOK, builder, Fulham; April 13, at one, at office of Sol., Biddles, Southampton-bldgs, Chancery-la SCOTT, WILLIAM, furniture broker, Huddersfield; April 15, at eleven, at office of Sol., Sykes, Huddersfield SHERRATT, THOMAS, family miller, Hampstead-rd; April 13, at eleven, at office of Sol., Daniel, Rolls-chmbs, Chancery-la SOLOMON, FREDERICK, carpenter, Cheltenham; April 15, at twelve, at Northfield house, North-pl, Cheltenham. Sol., Potter
STOOKS, EDWARD, grocer, Queensbury, near Bradford; April 13, at ten, at office of Sol., Gant, Bradford WHITE, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Wykeham; April 23, at twelve, at office of Sols., Moody, Turnbull, and Graham, Scarborough
Gazette, April 9.
ALLEN, JOHN, corn factor, Wakefield; April 22, at eleven, at the Foresters' Hall, Wakefield. Sols., Wainwright, Mander, and Whitham, Wakefield
ANDERSON, CHARLES WALTER, fancy dealer, Birmingham; April 19, at twelve, at office of Sol., Griffin, Birmingham BAILEY, THOMAS SHARPE, baker, Bootle; April 20, at twelve, at office of Sols., Thornley and Heaton, Liverpool BARKER, CHARLES, hosier, Edgware-rd; April 23, at two, at office of Sols., Phelps and Sidgwick, Gresham-st BAYLES, RICHARD, grocer, Bristol; April 22, at twelve, at office of Sols., Messrs. Henderson and Salmon, solicitors, Bristol. Sol; Salmon, Bristol
BEDFORD, THOMAS, sen., farmer, Ampney Saint Mary; April 20, at two, at the Ram hotel, Cirencester. Sol., Jones, Malmesbury BIBBS, JOHN, sen., butcher, Ledbury; April 22, at eleven, at the Feathers hotel, Ledbury. Sol., Piper, Ledbury BRIERLEY, SAMUEL, factory operative, Smailbridge, near Rochdale; April 24, at eleven, at office of Sols., Messrs. Roberts, Rochdale
BROWNE, WALTER, 'dentist, Nottingham; April 19, at four, at office of Sols., Messrs. Browne, Nottingham
CARR, MILTON, innkeeper, Westward, April 21, at one, at office of Sol., McAlpin, Carlisle
CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, printer, North Shields; April 23, at half-past twelve, at office of Sols., Leitch, Kewney, and Dodd, North Shields
COLLINS, EDMUND HATHERELL, Corn merchant, Hawkesbury; April 22, at one, at office of Sols., Press and Inskip, Bristol DALTON, EASUM, clerk to the liquidators of the European Assurance Society, Bloomsbury-st, Beojord-sq; April 20, at halfpast three, at office of Sols., Evans, Laing, and Eagles, John-st, Bedford-row
DAVIES, JANE, grocer, Merthyr Tydfil; April 22, at eleven, at office of Messrs. Smith, Lewis, and Jones, Merthyr Tydfill. Sol., Lewis DYKES, THOMAS, draper, West Monckton; April 19, at twelve, at office of Sols., Reed and Cook, Taunton EDWARDES, GRANT WILLIAM, wine broker, Little Tower-stchmb, and wine merchant Guildhall-climbs, Basinghall-st, under style of Holmes and Co.; April 15, at two, at offices of Sol., Kearsey, Old Jewry
FARRANT, GEORGE, cheesemonger, Clare-st, Clare-market; April 26, at two, at office of Messrs. Berkeley and Calcott, Lincoln'sinn-fields. Sol., Calcott
FENN, WILLIAM, licensed victualler, Ilford: April 17, at eleven, at Chancery-chmbs, Quality-ct, Chancery-la, Sol., Pain FRYER CHARLES, auctioneer, Bristol, and Mangotsfield; April 18, at twelve, at office of Mr. Jackson, accountant, Bristol FRYER, JOHN, draper, Barnton; April 25, at eleven, at office of Sol., Fletcher, Northwich
GUMPRECHT, GUSTAVE, merchant, Wood-st, London, and Rae Magnan, Paris: April 22, at three, at the London Tavern, Bishopsgate-st Within. Sol., Holmes, Eastcheap HAWKSWORTH, THOMAS, chemist, Birmingham; April 19, at three, at office of Sol,, Parry, Birmingham HETHERINGTON, SARAH ANN, corset maker, Leeds; April 23, at three, ut office of Sols,, Fawcett and Malcolm, Leeds HINGLEY, HERBERT, builder, Oldwinsford; April 26, at one, at office of Sol., Homer, Brierley hill
HUGHES, JOHN, licensed victualler, Aberavon; April 22, at three, at office of Sol., Tennant, Aberavon
HUSBAND, JAMES, out of business, Great Ayton; April 15, at eleven, at office of J. Greener and Co., accountants, Station-st Middlesborough
JEPSON, WILLIAM, cotton manufacturer, Chorley; April, at eleven, at office of Sols., Boote and Edgar, Manchester JONES, FREDERICK GEORGE, furnishing fronmonger, Se April 20, at eleven, at offices of Sols., Gardner and Horner, Magchester KEELEY, WILLIAM, oilman, Hornsey rd, Holloway; April 22 at three, at office of Mr. Birchall, Southampton-bldgs, Chancery-a. Sol., Harrison, Furnival's inn, Holborn
LADLEY, CHARLES, cattle salesman, Trowse Newton; April 30, at eleven, at the Angel Inn, Brigg. Sol., Mason, Barton-uponHumber LANGTON, THOMAS, timber merchant, Rotherhithe: April 29, at two, at office of Messrs. Slater and Pannell, Guildhall-chmbs, Basinghall-st. Sol., Hewitt
LANKESTER, EDWIN, doctor of medicine, New West-end, Hampstead; May 1, at three, at offices of Sols., Lewis, Munns, and Longden, Old Jewry
LARNACH, JOHN LOGAN, lithographer, Birmingham; April 13, at three, at office of Sol., Jaques, Birmingham
LAWSON, JOHN, grocer, Alderney-rd, Globe-rd, Mile End; Apl 22, at two, at office of Sol., Layton, jun., Gresham-st LYON, JAMES, waten manufacturer, High-st, Peckham; April 16, at two, at office of Mr. Coker, public accountnt, Cheapside. Sol., Barrett, New-inn, Strand
MANLEY, JOHN, baker, Thorverton; April 19, at eleven, at office of Sol., Huggins, Exeter
MORRIS, JOHN, chemist, Longton; April 25, at two, at office of
MORTON, GEORGE FRANCIS, veterinary surgeon, Guisborough;
OWENS, GEORGE HASSALL, poulterer, Birkenhead; April 19, at
PULLAN, CHARLES, shawl madufacturer, Leeds; April 22, at eleven, at the Wharton hotel, Leeds. Sol., Yewdall READ, JAMES, fish merchant, Bungay; April 19, at twelve, st office of sol., Palmer, Great Yarmouth
RENCH, ALICE, lodging-house keeper, Exeter; April 17, at elever, at office of Sols., Terrell and Petherick, Exeter ROBERTSON, JAMES WILSON, bullion dealer, Ashill-cottage, Pin ner, and Aldersgate-st; April 22, at one, at office of Sol, Re-506, Bedford-row
ROBINSON, THOMAS, manufacturer, Wakefield; April 22, at eleven at office of Sol., Nettleton, Wakefield
ROGERS, ANN, widow, out of business, Motcomb-st, Belgrave-s April 17, at one, at office of Mr. Coker, public accountant, Cheapside. Sol., Barrett, New-inn, Strand
RUSSELL, EDWIN JAMES, builder, Nunney: April 22, at three, t office of Sols,, Cruttwell and Daniel, Frome SMITH, CHARLES, farmer, Church-st, Hampton; April 19, at two, at offices of Sol., Girwood, Verulam-bldgs, Gray's-inn SMITH, FREDERICK, watchmaker, Falmouth; April 25, at twelve, at office of Sols., Genn and Nalder, Falmouth SMITH, JOHN, licensed victualler, Bubbenhall; April 30, at twelve at office of Sols, Messrs. Minster, Coventry SPENCER, WILLIAM, manure agent, Gorleston: April 23, at twelve, at office of Sol., Wiltshire, Great Yarmouth TETLEY, EDWARD THEOPHILUS,stuff manufacturer, Bingley and Baildon; April 20, at ten, at office of Sols., Watson and Dickons, Bradford
THOMAS, JAMES, commission agent, Manchester; April 24,
WARWICK, HENRY, bootmaker, Harrow-rd, Paddington; April
Orders of Discharge.
Gazette, April 5. POINTON, SAMUEL, contractor, Hanley SIMMONS, DAVID, builder, Charlton Kings, near Cheltenham
The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Dividends.
Dary, H. wine merchant, first and final, 5s. At offices of Trust G. Mayor, 20, Carlton-rd, Worksop.-Harmsworth, G. wine mer chant, final, 5d. At office of Sol., Buckland, KingstonThames.-Lubke, C. T. coal merchant, first and final, 1s. At of Trust., Lovewell Blake, Hall-quay, Great Yarmouth.-Nest Mp Telley, jun., Tetley, and Ward, manufacturers, second, Is. Atefice of Trust., C. J. Buckley, 43, Old-market, Bradford.-P, D. grocer, first, 10s. At Trust., C. T. Starkey, 57, Cannon-et, Bi mingham.-Priestly and Roper, worsted stuff manufacturers, and final sep. of Roper, 20s. At Trust., A. B. Kemp, Hall Ings; Bradford.-hinder, J. and S. contractors, first, 10s. At co Trust., T. Kendall, stone merchant, Shipley.
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS.
BIRTHS. KEY.-On the 8th inst., at Brixton, the wife of Richard Wilam Key, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a son.
ABRAHAM-BURNETT.-On the 3rd inst., at Alton, Hants, Phillp Boyle Abraham, barrister-at-law, to Mary, third daughter of the late Charles Mount-ford Burnett, Esq., M.D., Westbrooke House, Alton. CLARKE GRAY.-On the 9th inst., at All Saints, North Kensing ton, Thomas Sinclair Clarke, Esq., of the Inner Temple, ba ter-at-law, to Jane, second daughter of William Gray, Esq., á
In the press, A NEW EDITION (THE SEVENTH OF HALLILAY'S EXAMINATION QUESTIONS.
DIGEST of the EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in Common Law, Conveyancing, and Equity, from the commencement of the Examinations in 1836 to Hilary Term 1872, with ANSWERS; also the Mode of Proceeding, and Directions to be attended to at the Examination. By RICHARD HALLILAY, Esq., Author of The Articled Clerk's Handbook." By GEORGE BADHAM, Esq., Solicitor. [Will be ready in about two months,
London: HORACE Cox, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C.
The Law and the Lawyers.
Ir is understood that the Recorder is to be elevated to the Peerage on his return from his present mission—a fit reward for his many public services. Sir T. CHAMBERS will certainly be elected to the Recordership that will then be vacated, and the Common Serjeantcy will be open to competition. Mr. Serjt. ROBINSON and Mr. BESLEY are the only candidates whose names have yet been mentioned in connection with the probable vacancy.
VOL. LII.-No. 1516
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN COLERIDGE) has consented to take the chair at the forthcoming annual festival of the United Law Clerks' Society, which will take place at the Freemasons' Tavern on Saturday the 8th of June.
ONE of the three Recorderships vacated by the death of Mr. CHARLES SAUNDERS, that of Wells, was merely honorary, without salary and without work; but the Recorderships of Plymouth and Devonport are consolidated offices of some value. Previously to the appointment of Mr. SAUNDERS they were held by two men; but they were united in him on a plea of economy-the union having been accompanied by a considerable diminution of the salaries. From the heavy nature of the business, however, it would be desirable that they should be again separated.
WE understand that it has been resolved by the leading law students' societies of the country to hold a congress in Birmingham in the latter part of next month, for the purpose of taking into consideration various matters affecting the interests of articled clerks. The congress will consist of delegates from the various societies, and will last two days. Papers will be read and speeches delivered on such questions as legal education; law students' societies, and how they can be made most useful; the examinations; law lectures, and on other subjects. Societies which have not received any communication on the question, and are desirous of sending delegates, should communicate at once with Mr. H. W. STANBURY, Birmingham; Mr. J. T. WOODHOUSE, Hull; or Mr. W. T. HOLDEN, Liverpool, the secretaries of the respective societies in these towns.
WHILST the LORD CHANCELLOR is busy about his great court of appeal, Mr. BRUCE is equally diligent in giving to the world convincing evidence of the necessity for a properly constituted court for the hearing of appeals on questions of fact in criminal cases, and, we might add, the recommendations to mercy by juries in capital felonies. The LORD CHANCELLOR drew a telling picture of two high appellate courts giving contrary decisions on the same question, but this is hardly so remarkable as a court of appeal, exercising the prerogative of mercy, reversing its own deliberate judgment in the course of a few hours. The proceedings of Mr. BRUCE with respect to the reprieve of PATRICK LENNARD are extremely curious; and no criminal who has an energetic clergyman amongst his acquaintances need abandon hope until he is absolutely on the drop, whatever intimations of hard-hearted resolves may have been received from the Home Office. If capital punishment is to be abolished, let it be done by Parliament, and not by the vacillating and frequently feminine action of a minister.
THERE seems to be a peculiar craving in the present day for technical information on subjects of ordinary importance. We have had questions of all sorts poured in upon us relative to the Tichborne case, and had we answered them all we should have gone some way towards the production of a treatise on the proceedings in an action at law. The daily papers were not so reticent, and entered into elaborate explanations of the technical points of the great case. The arrest of a Belgian in France, charged with a murder in England, has offered another opportunity for the display of legal learning, and the leading journal devotes a column of large type to the discussion of a point of law which the writer concludes by admitting "has no practical importance for us because the English law is clear-that having, as alleged, committed a crime in this country against a person under the protection of our law, DIXBLANCS is liable to be tried here, and our courts will not inquire into the regularity of her arrest. It seems to us rather a waste of power to rake up principles from the old reports to prove nothing at all; but the process may possibly go some way towards preparing the country for the time when law will be taught in our schools-a period considered by some enthusiasts as by no means remote.
SOME caustic comments have been passed upon the nature of the punishment inflicted upon the ruffians who have been found guilty, at the Old Bailey, of assaults upon women. We do not for a moment suggest that such comments are not perfectly appropriate, but they should be accepted with a qualification. It should be remembered that courts of justice are wholly dependent upon the press for the opinion which the public may form regarding their proceedings, and there are frequently mitigating circumstances, more especially in cases of assaults upon women, which may suggest themselves to the Judge on observing the demeanour of witnesses, which are never brought to the attention of the public. An assault upon a woman is rarely unprovoked, and we are not at all sure that our Judges give too much weight to the plea of provocation. In a case in which Mr. Commissioner KERR is said to have passed too light a sentence, one of the series of assaults was, indeed, said to have been wholly unprovoked. But, doubtless, there was a continuing quarrel. The Judge intimated to the jury that there was no intention on the part of the
prisoner to inflict actual bodily harm. There must have been some good ground for such intimation, for the learned commissioner is by no means a lenient Judge. In all probability were the cases upon which strictures have been passed more thoroughly known, with every little incident of a trial made plain as it is to an impartial Judge, the critics would be less severe. We do not, however, apprehend any serious consequences to Mr. Commissioner KERR, who is remarkable among Judges for his contempt of public opinion.
THE new Licensing Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords. The object of it is not revolutionary or extreme: it is not to disturb existing interests, but to limit the number of licences, and to prevent by stringent police regulations the abuses of the present publichouse and beerhouse system. The granting of licences is not to be taken out of the hands of the magistrates, but no new licence is to be valid until approved by the SECRETARY of STATE. The magistrates are to appoint a moderate number as a committee to grant new licences, and the only duty of the full Bench will be to confirm or disapprove the acts of the committee. As to the renewal of old certificates no change is proposed. All questions of 'renewals will continue to be dealt with at Brewster Sessions subject to an appeal to Quarter Sessions. The Bill does not give to the ratepayers any direct control over the issue of new licences, but any person who objects to the transfer, renewal or grant of a new licence will be entitled to appear before the Brewster Sessions, from which an appeal is to lie to the Quarter Sessions, or to the confirming body in the case of a new licence. Such objectors, however, must give security for costs, and on the objections proving frivolous or vexatious, may be ordered to compensate the publican. A register is to be kept of serious and repeated offences on the part of publicans and beerhouse keepers, and the penalty for drunkenness is to be increased from 5s. to 10s. There are detailed regulations in the Bill for the opening and closing of public houses. There is nothing remarkable in the Bill, and the only doubt raised at the present stage is whether the committee of revision is a good invention. Experience will be the best teacher on the subject, and as an appeal lies to the Quarter Sessions little harm can result.
MR. VERNON HARCOURT Succeeded in defeating a very objectionable clause which it was proposed to insert in the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill. Mr. LEATHAM brought forward a clause providing that no voter shall, after marking his vote on his ballot paper, wilfully display such paper in such manner as to make known to any person the name of the candidate for or against whom he has so marked his vote." This proposition plainly discovers the difficulty of Parliament in attempting to do two things in one measure, to give protection to voters, and to punish offences. To make the ballot optional would obviously be absurd. It is equally absurd to make secresy compulsory. But if ballot papers be shown, intimidation and bribery will still be possible, said the supporters of the proposed clause; to which it was replied that under any conditions corrupt practices will be possible. The only thing to be done is that which Mr. HARCOURT suggested, provide for the punishment of a voter showing his paper with a corrupt intent. We are surprised to see that the Daily News fails to appreciate any distiction between the words "wilful" and "with corrupt intent," for this singular reason, that "the intention must be proved." What intention? In the one case an innocent intention, and in the other a corrupt intention; the first not punishable by any known law, and the second a well recognised element in criminal offences. To say that unless a corrupt intent were proved in the case of a wilful act, no conviction could follow, is to accept Mr. HARCOURT'S argument and to condemn the proposed clause. It is simply and absolutely impossible to render a voter criminally liable for an act perfectly innocent in itself. Secrecy cannot be made compulsory, and no Act could stand the test of actual practice which attempted to make it so. As Mr. HARCOURT says, the criminal intent being absent, no Judge would direct a conviction, and no jury would convict.
THE Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has been discussing the question whether the Statute of Limitations is a bar to an action on a note due by instalments. "If," say the court, "the plaintiff could have maintained a suit for the first instalment immediately after it fell due, his cause of action then accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run. It is unnecessary to inquire what the law would have been if this had been an action of debt and the plea actio non accrevit infra sex annos, for as we have seen an action of debt could not have been maintained on this promissory note until after all the instalments had fallen due. But being assumpsit there would seem to be no question that as to the first instalment the action was barred." Another question discussed in the same case had reference to the effect of an acknowledgment by one of several joint debtors in an action brought against them jointly. Observing that it is no longer open to question that a payment on account or an acknowledgment by one of two or more joint debtors will not take the case out of the statute as to the others, "What,'
the court proceed to inquire, "is the effect of this rule when applied in a joint action against several joint debtors? Certainly not that it shall sever the judgment, which in a joint action ex contractu would be an anomaly. In such a proceeding if evidence is offered of an acknowledgment or payment by one only of the defendants it is strictly inadmissible, unless indeed offered to be followed by a similar acknowledgment or payment by the others, which would be sufficient to take the case out of the statute as to all. It follows that in this case the jury should have been instructed to find for the plaintiff as against all the defendants only the amount of the second instalment and interest. Whether the plaintiff could maintain an action against those not affected by the bar of the statute in consequence of their acknowledgment or payment for the first instalment, need not now be discussed, nor on what principles contribution between the joint debtors is to be regulated. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."
A SUGGESTION is made by a contemporary that County Court Judges should in no case commit a debtor to prison without being clear, in the first place, that he has the means to pay; that is to say, that the principle of the Debtors' Act should be more strictly carried into effect. Both creditor and debtor, in the opinion of the Daily Telegraph, would gain enormously by the abolition of imprisonment for debt. The writer who puts forward these observations is evidently unfamilar with the system of County Court commitments. He calls it "the facile County Court commitment," and is evidently under the impression that a creditor has merely to go to a County Court Judge, and on his own statement obtain an order for commitment. Now, by the Debtors' Act Rules of Jan. 1870, it was provided by the County Court Judges appointed to frame them, that "no order of commitment under the Act shall be made unless a summons to appear and be examined on oath, hereinafter called a judgment summons, shall have been personally served upon the judgment debtor." Further, every judgment summons shall be issued ten clear days and served five clear days before the day on which the judgment debtor is required to appear. And as showing the intention of the Judges to require strict proof of the ability of the debtor to pay, Rule 12 says: Any witness may be summoned to prove the means of the judgment debtor, in the same manner as witnesses are summoned to give evidence upon the hearing of a plaint." This procedure hardly justifies the description of the facile County Court commitment." And as a matter of fact, we know that County Court Judges are very reluctant to commit, and only do so upon proper evidence and in extreme cases. To exempt debtors from imprisonment, is to relieve their future income of all liability for past debts, a principle which is distinctly repudiated in our recent bankruptcy statute, and we cannot agree with our contemporary, that the power of imprisonment exercised as it is by our County Court Judges could be advantageously abolished. Its existence is certainly no argument in favour of Mr. BASS's ridiculous Bill for the abolition of small debts.
WE had recently (LAW TIMES, vol. lii. p. 403) to point out the incon veniences likely to arise from the withdrawal of questions arising under the winding-up of life assurance companies from the ordinary tribunals, and their submission to a special arbitrator appointed by statute. We endeavoured to impress upon our readers that the deci sions of Lord CAIRNS in the Albert arbitration, or of any arbitrator however eminent appointed under similar conditions "are and ought to be treated as valueless as part of our case law, however great the temptation may be to cite them as authorities in our regular courts; whilst on the other hand the arbitration court itself would do well to remember that the judgments of even inferior courts are as such binding upon it and not to be disregarded or departed from." a case in the Rolls Court on the 16th inst., in Re The English Assurance Company, Holdich's Case, Lord ROMILLY had to choose whether he should follow a decision of the present Lord Justice JAMES when Vice-Chancellor in Re The Albert Life Assurance Company; Bell's and other cases (22 L. T. Rep. N. S, 697), or a decision of Lord CAIRNS in the Albert arbitration in Lancaster's case. The question at issue was as to the true method of valuation, or measure of proof, in respect of current policies in the liquidation of a life office. Sir W. M. JAMES, in the case before referred to, held that the true measure of proof is the sum which a substantial and solvent company, with a substantial proprietary, something like [the liquidating company, having exactly, or as nearly as possible, the same rates of assurance, would take to continue the policy at the subsisting premium. Lord CAIRNS, on the other hand, thought the measure of proof was the present value of the sum assured, less the present value of the future premiums payable; and, as we infer from the remarks of Lord ROMILLY, such values were to be ascertained by abstract mathe matical formulæ, and without regarding the state of health of the insured, either at the time of the winding-up or of the claim or proof. We are pleased to see that Lord ROMILLY followed the deci sion of Sir W. M. JAMES in preference to that of Lord CAIRNS, not merely because the decision of Lord CAIRNS, even if it had not been opposed to an authority which was binding upon him as an arbitrator, is in reality no authority at all, but also because we feel
that the loss sustained by persons insured in a life office which fails ought to be estimated by actual and practical, and not by purely mathematical, considerations.
A SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL.
THE history of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords with which Lord HATHERLEY favoured the Peers on Monday was doubtless exhaustive, and gives a very clear idea of the condition of one of our chief appellate courts. We are nevertheless of opinion that the speech might have been advantageously abridged. In all history there is a period anterior to which the modern student does not consider it desirable or necessary to carry his investigations, and the LORD CHANCELLOR might profitably have confined his attention to the precise limits covered by his intended Bill. "The Bill," he said, "which I shall hereafter introduce is confined entirely to the appellate jurisdiction which this House exercises in respect of common law and equity in England and of civil proceedings in Scotland, and also to the appellate jurisdiction exercised by it in respect of cases arising in Ireland." Then he adds, " I have not confined my investigations to those particular objects;" and thereupon he launches into an historical dissertation, which was certainly unnecessary to convince anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the subject, that the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction by a fluctuating and narrow body of law lords must have ridiculous results.
We put on record in another column this dissertation, as we admit it to be, as Lord HATHERLEY says, interesting. To proceed to the actual question, we find it thus stated-"How really to secure a court of appeal which shall sit as a court, which shall be a real and not a sham court, which shall exercise jurisdiction by its members sitting, not as a committee of the House to whom they are supposed to be responsible, but to whom, in fact, they owe no responsibility whatever, which shall take upon itself the whole responsibility and sit, as other courts do, throughout the whole legal year, for the administration of justice."
To put the CHANCELLOR's proposal clearly we will state it in paragraphs.
I. There shall be one Great Court of Appeal.
II. The Great Court shall be formed in two divisions, but the judges of one division not to be incapable of sitting in the other.
(a) In the one division English and Irish Ex-Chancellors of specified standing, and Law Lords, who, as barristers, have practised for a certain number of years, and Privy Councillors who are now capable of being appointed to sit on the Judicial Committee.
(b) In the other division, the members now forming the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and others to be elected.
III. In each division there shall be not less than three nor more than four paid members receiving £6000 a year, and ExLord Chancellors to receive such a sum annually in addition to their pensions, as will raise their allowance to £6000 a year.
IV. The head of the court to be the LORD CHANCELLOR.
V. The three chiefs of the Common Law Courts to be members of the court.
VI. A certain number of years' service to be necessary to entitle members of the court to a pension, but in other respects the offices to be held upon the same footing as judgeships in the Common Law Courts.
The practical effect of this scheme, as sketched by the LORD CHANCELLOR, will be this :
1. To secure continuous sittings from November to February of not less than five days a week, Saturdays being possibly devoted to preparing judgments.
2. To unite in one court the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery and the Exchequer Chamber.
3. Probably to diminish the very heavy fees now payable before a case can be set down for hearing in the House of Lords. The prominent consideration in the mind of the LORD CHANcellor evidently was the effect which a transfer of jurisdiction might have upon the position and the dignity of the House of Lords. Indeed, he would not have proceeded by resolution in the first place had he not desired to pay the utmost deference to the sensitive feelings of the House. Nevertheless he adroitly prepared the way for the inevitable conclusion by informing their Lordships that the original exercise of the appellate jurisdiction met with considerable opposition, and had been frequently opposed during its existence. We do not desire to see any institution hastily abolished, but it is hardly possible to regard with patience any suggestion that a desire on the part of the House of Lords to part with nothing which they now possess which adds to their power and importance in the country should be allowed even to impede so obvious a reform as the amalgamation of the courts of appeal. And it is satisfactory to find that Lord CAIRNS at once disposed of the question of prejudice. He remarked "I am sure I need not say, for myself, and everyone of your Lordships, that the question of appellate jurisdiction is one upon which there should be no per
sonal prejudice on the part of this House." We had not read his Lordship's brief speech when we wrote the opening of this article, and we observe that he concurs with us that it was by no means a proper or necessary course to go into the history of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. "It has been as completely settled as the jurisdiction of any other court in the country, and it has been exercised for better or for worse for a very long period of time." That simple fact was all that it was necessary to state in order to found the proposition of Lord HATHERLEY.
To proceed to the constitution of the proposed court. That it should be presided over by the LORD CHANCELLOR we cannot admit to be essential. Very recently we have had occasion frequently to complain of the loose manner in which much of the business which falls outside the scope of the judicial duties of that learned Judge has been transacted. When we reflect upon the extent of the patronage vested in the LORD CHANCELLOR, and the important and onerous labours which devolve upon him as a minister of the Crown, and Speaker of the House of Lords, it is impossible to say that he could actually and efficiently preside over a court sitting five days a week throughout the legal year. His presence in the court would be occasional, or, if constant, the work must inevitably interfere with the discharge of his other duties. Nor do we see that it is necessary or desirable that the Chiefs of the Common Law Courts should be members of the court. Now that the courts at Westminster can sit in two divisions it is frequently a difficult matter to form the courts so as to grapple with the business, and it is very undesirable that the chiefs should be taken away to sit in a court of appeal. But putting aside these four members what remains ?-English and Irish ex-Lord Chancellors, noble lords who can claim even by the fact of having practised as barristers, to be called "law lords," and Privy Councillors eligible for the Judicial Committee. Here we have an ample field of selection for the first division of the court, the second division, according to the plan of the LORD CHANCELLOR, being filled by the members of the Privy Council now forming the Judicial Committee. As regards the chiefs of the Common Law Courts however, we should be very glad to see them made eligible for election to the Court of Appeal as paid members on retiring from their own courts. At present Judges continue to hold their positions because they are disinclined to lapse into a life of inactivity, upon a pension so very much smaller than their official salaries. We observe that members of the new Court of Appeal are not to be required to serve after attaining seventy years of age, and it might perhaps be difficult to induce Common Law Judges to resign before that period of life. But we consider that it would be a wise provision that chiefs of the Common Law Courts should not hold their appointments after attaining sixty-five, but that on arriving at that age they should become members of the Court of Appeal with £6000 a year. There are many Judges admirably fitted for the more solemn business of an appellate court who are almost incapable of sitting at Nisi Prius. This is not often the case with a Common Law Chief; but there are other reasons which might render it desirable for a Chief to retire, and election to a Court of Appeal would enable him to do so with a gain rather than a loss of dignity.
The one serious difficulty which appears at present to be in the way of LORD CHANCELLOR is connected with the abolition of a fiction, namely, the supposed sanction of the Sovereign to the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The idea of appellants from countries out of Great Britain is that the appeal, not to an English court, but to the QUEEN in Council. There is undoubtedly much in this, as a species of superstition, and absolutely nothing in it as a matter of fact. Lord CAIRNS recognises this as a large and important question. The colonies have undoubtedly very great respect for the decisions of the Privy Council and an appeal to the QUEEN in person, though known to be a mere form, is a link in the chain which binds them to the mother country. The question put by Lord CAIRNS is perfectly justifiable: "Is the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee to be abolished without any consultation with the colonies, and without their having an opportunity of offering an opinion upon it?" If so,it is his Lordship's opinion that it would be one of the strongest measures ever taken in this country.
It would be premature to go more fully into this or any other question arising out of the proposals of the Lord CHANCELLOR until the Bill is before us, but we do not see that there could be any great difficulty in making one division of the court the court to advise the Sovereign on appeals from India and the colonies. The dissatisfaction of Ireland at having her appeals disposed of by a court not being in name the House of Lords, may perhaps be met by the provision making Ex-Lord Chancellors of Ireland eligible for the Court of Appeal. In short the two divisions of the Court might take those portions of the business now transacted by the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee respectively, admiralty appeals being heard by the division not represented by the Judicial Committee. An important question of principle is involved in the proposed consolidation of jurisdiction, and the proposals of the Lord CHANCELLOR require graver consideration than can be bestowed upon them if they are to be treated as matters of detail only. Before details are reached the great principles must be settled with scrupulous care.