Page images
PDF
EPUB

the alleged loss or injury might not have arisen after their delivery of the goods. In giving judgment, Bramwell, B. said: "It is difficult to say, as a matter of law, that seven days or three days are a reasonable time. It is enough to say that in this case it did not appear that the conditions were unreasonable or unjust. In the case of Gregory v. West Midland Railway Company (23 L. T. 155, Ex.) the question of the reasonableness of a special condition of carriage was fully discussed. In the course of the argument of the case, Baron Martin said a reasonable condition may be applied to a state of things which makes it unreasonable, and Baron Bramwell-Whether the particular contract is or is not reasonable must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. In the course of the argument, the cases of Thomas v. The Lancashire Railway Company, and Peck v. The North Staffordshire Railway Company, which latter case had been taken to the House of Lords, were referred to as conclusive of the question that the justice or reasonablenes of such a condition was to be determined by the judge, who ought to be guided by the evidence in giving his decision. Guided by these authorities, and in the face of the fact that the plaintiffs preferred their claim as soon as they became aware of the non-delivery of the goods, I can feel nohesitation in saying that the condition in question, under the circumstances of this case, cannot be held to be either just or reasonable. But beyond this I think it admits of serious question whether the railway company were not bound to inform the plaintiffs that they did not deliver goods beyond half a mile from their station at Rhyl. The residence of the consignee was in the town of Rhyl, and within a very reasonable distance of the station, and the plaintiffs might well calculate on the goods being delivered at his premises. It is also open to argument whether merely dropping a notice into the post-office fully meets all that is to be reasonably required of the company when they seek to avail themselves of the condition that delivery shall be considered complete when a notice of the arrival of goods shall have been sent to the consignee. Unquestionably the thing contemplated is the delivery of the notice to the consignee, and however a sending a notice by post may in general be a good service of the notice, and may raise a presumption of its having been delivered, it may be questioned whether, in a case like the present, the presumption of such delivery may not be rebutted, as in point of fact it was in this case, and thus cause so highly penal a condition to fail. As to the third point-I am of opinion the plaintiffs are entitled to substantial damages. For this there is abundant authority, and perhaps none greater than is to be found in the case of Simons v. South Lancashire Railway Company (7 Jur. 849), in which Baron Martin, at Nisi Prius, told the jury (the action being for delay in the delivery of the goods), that with respect to damages they should assess the difference between the price at which the goods had been sold under the alleged contract, and the price at which they might have been sold at a forced sale within a reasonable time after their arrival. He also directed the jury (which is very important) that they might take into account the disappointment to the plaintiff, and might give substantial damages, that being the only mode of compelling people to perform their contracts. The jury found there had been a contract and gave £100 damages, £50 of that&mount being for loss of the contract. Upon the motion for a new trial on the ground of misdirection, the court held that there had been no misdirection by the learned judge, but being of opinion that the contract was not proved within the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, they directed that the damages should be reduced by £60, the amount at which the loss of the contract had been assessed. The reporter of this case fell into an error in his marginal note, which is made to state that no damages could be recovered for the loss of contract. The decision of the court was undoubtedly, as I have stated, as may be seen from the details of the report. This is shown conclusively from the case of Borries and others v. Hutchinson (34 L. J. 169, C. P.), which was subsequently decided, in which a similar question was raised, and in which it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover loss of profit on a subsisting contract of sale, and also costs of increased freight and insurance, because of delay in delivery. The same principle of law is recognised in Hart v. Baxendale (16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 390, Ex.), when Baron Martin lays it down that damages can be recovered for no sale owing to delay in conveying when there has been a contract to buy at a fixed price. A number of cases were cited on behalf of the company on this point, which are all clearly distinguishable from the present case, and to which I need not overload this judgment by referring. The plaintiffs being entitled to substantial damages, it remains for me to determine what shall be their amount.

I have to consider not only that the plaintiff's have lost the sale of their goods, but that they have been thrown upon their hands in a deteriorated condition, arising from the fact that they were a

miscellaneous assortment of drapery goods, a portion of which, to meet the order of the consignee, were cut into various minor lengths, thereby reducing them to the condition of remnants, which, in the hands of the wholesale dealer, would have to be sold at a reduced price. The price of the goods to have been paid by the consignee was, in round numbers, £13. It was stated by one of the plaintiffs, by way of rough estimate, that the loss on the re-sale of the goods would be about one-half the invoice price. I have examined the list of the goods, noticing those which had been reduced to the condition of remnants, and I think the witness (which was caused no doubt by his not having the list before him at the moment), put that difference of value rather high. Taking the whole case into consideration, and in the light of the authorities to which I have referred, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover £4 10s. for the detention, and £1, which was stated was the expense of sending their traveller to Rhyl to make inquiries, and which they are en titled to have refunded to them: (Adams v. Midland Railway Company, 31 L. T. Rep. O. S. 35, Ex.) As to the fourth point urged on behalf of the company, I am of opinion that there was no wrongful conversion of the goods on their part. My judgment, therefore, will be that the plaintiffs recover £5 10s. damages, with costs, and that the defendants redeliver to them the truss of goods in question, free of all charges, at their place of business in Chester.

COLNE COUNTY COURT.
Feb. 29 and April 11.

(Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Q.C., Judge.)

SHACKLETON v. SMITH.

Jurisdiction-Cause of action where arising-Acceptance of an offer accompanied with a new and material term, in law a rejection of the offer, and the proposal a new offer requiring accept. ance by the other party, and the contract is made when and where it is so accepted. Newell (Burnley), for plaintiff.

as

H. D. Robinson (Skipton), for defendants. HIS HONOUR. This action was brought to recover the sum of £16 58. damages for breach of contract. At the hearing an objection was taken on behalf of the defendant, that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court-that the contract and the breach, as alleged by the plaintiff, were made and committed at Skipton, within the jurisdiction of another court on this circuit. I heard the case upon the merits in order to see whether I could properly dispose of it adversely to the plaintiff, without deciding upon the objection to jurisdiction. I find I cannot do 80; and the question of jurisdiction must therefore be disposed of. The facts are these: the plaintiff is a waste dealer residing and carrying on business at Colne; the defendants are cotton manufacturers carrying on business in partnership together at Skipton. On the 24th June 1871, the plaintiff being at Skipton, proposed to one of the defendants to purchase the waste at their mill, and it was arranged that after consulting his other partner, he would write to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants by letter, dated the 25th June, 1871, wrote to the plaintiff as follows:-"We beg to say that you can have our waste and waste ends at 24d. per lb., and the sweeps at 14s. per pack. If you consider to give that price for them you must send off some bags at once. Yours, &c.JOSEPH SMITH & SONS." To this letter the plaintiff sent from Colne the following reply Messrs. Smith and Sons, Skipton. Yours is duly to hand this evening, and in answer I beg to say that I accept of your waste, waste ends, and sweeps, at the price you name, to the end of Dec., namely waste and waste ends, at 24d. per lb.. sweeps 14s. per pack. P.S. Also will send you some bags on in the course of a day or two." The defendants denied the receipt of this letter, but I am satisfied, upon the evidence, that they did receive it. In a day or two the plaintiff sent the defendants as promised some bags for the waste and sweeps. These were filled as the waste was made, and delivered by the defendants at the railway station at Skipton, consigned to the plaintiff at Colne, in two lots, the latter end of Aug. 1871. These consignments were followed by invoices charging the prices named in the letters, and these invoices were duly paid by the plaintiff. He also paid for the carriage and railway charges for delivery. In August the defendants refused to deliver the plaintiff any more waste or sweeps, which had then risen in price, and continued to rise up to the end of December. The defendants denied any contract to sell more than they had delivered; they denied any contract to sell at the prices named up to the end of December, but objected that, if there were such a contract, it was made at Skipton and broken at Skipton, and no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. There is no doubt, if

:

there was a contract, the breach was at Skipton, because it was there that the waste ought to have been delivered, and it was there the defendants refused to deliver it. The question whether there was a contract, and, if so, where it was made, whether at Colne or at Skipton, depends upon the effect of the two letters before set out, and what was done upon them. The first letter, from the defendants to the plaintiff, was merely an offer, and no contract unless accepted. The reply from the plaintiff to the defendants, though in terms professing to be an acceptance, was not so, because it proposed a new and very material term, namely, to pay the same price for all the waste and sweeps from the date 27th June to the end of December. In law that letter was a rejection of the defendant's offer, and the proposal of a new offer, which required the defendant's acceptance to make it a contract, I am of opinion that the defendants did, by their conduct, accept it, but that acceptance was at Skipton, and the contract was to be performed there. I am of opinion, therefore, that the objection must prevail, but I could not find that the merits were with the defendants, and as the effect will merely be to transfer the scene of the litigation from this place to Skipton, I shall dismiss the summons without costs.

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. EXCHANGE-JUDG BANKRUPTCY-BILL OF MENT BY DEFAULT-PROOF.-A creditor had recovered judgment by default in an action upon certain bills of exchange, and, the acceptor hav ing subsequently become bankrupt, he sought to prove for the amount of his judgment against the bankrupt's estate. Held, that the trustee under the bankruptcy could dispute the debt notwithstanding the judgment, and the proof was accor dingly disallowed: (Ex parte Chatteris; Re The Earl of Orkney, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 174. Chan.)

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, s. 6, CL. 5, AND S. 77 -EXECUTION FOR OVER £50 BY SEIZURE ONLY

INJUNCTION ABSOLUTE.-If an execution for over £50 be levied upon the goods of a trader debtor by seizure only before notice of the filing of a petition for liquidation by the debtor, the trustee is entitled, under sect. 87 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, to the goods seized in preference to the execution creditor. An injunction absolute, therefore, which was granted to the trustee to restrain a sale by the sheriff, was sustained on appeal: (Ex parte Rayner and another, ReJ. and T. Johnson, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 205. Bank.)

HALIFAX BANKRUPTCY COURT.
April 11, 1872.

(Before Mr. Registrar RANKIN, sitting for the Judge.)

VERITY V. THOMPSON.

Debtor's summons-Practice-Abuse of process. Jubb for summoned debtor, applied to the court for dismissal of summons on the ground that the debtor was not indebted, or that he was not ir debted to such amount as would justify the credtor in presenting a bankruptcy petition against him. The application was founded on the usual affidavit to that effect.

Leeming for creditor appeared in support of the

summons.

The evidence of both parties was taken, and accounts and letters were put in, from which appeared that the accounts were disputed, and each party claimed a balance due to him. The case on the merits resolved itself into the question whether in the creditor's particulars of demand a payment made by him to the debtor had or had not been entered twice. If so, the debtor's debt would be reduced to nil. The Registrar was of this opinion.

The REGISTRAR.-I have made up my mind ca the evidence before me that the creditor has not succeeded in proving that there is anything de to him from the debtor. On the contrary, it appears to me that there is a small balance the other way. I must be allowed, however, to add a remark that this case ought never to have been tried on a debtor's summons. Where there is a bona fide dispute as to the amount of a debt, and, as in the present instance, there is no imputation of present or prospective insolvency of the debtor, I am of opinion that an action at common law is the proper mode of proceeding. The intention of the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 (sect. 6, sub-sect. 6) was obviously to create a simple method of proving an act of bankruptcy where a man is unable to pay his debts. Sect. 7 evidently looks upon it as a process preliminary to bankruptcy, and I cannot but look upon it as an abuse of the powers given by those sections, in cases where bankruptcy is not contemplated, to issue a debtor's summons instead of an ordinary writ at common law.

Summons dismissed with costs.

LEGAL NEWS.

IN consequence of the death of Mr. Malcolm, second master of the Crown Office, Mr. Winning, who has for a great many years been in the Crown Office, has been appointed to the vacant post by the Lord Chief Justice.

AT Monday's hearing of the Galway election petition, two men were brought up for contempt of court, in abusing or assaulting witnesses. The decision was postponed. The agents of Captain Trench testified that they had served the usual notice for treating and undue influence on the day of the election, on all Captain Nolan's supporters. The notices were thrown away; and, in one case, a priest told the people to light their fires with them.

A NUMEROUSLY attended meeting took place on Monday evening at the rooms of the Law Amendment Society in the Adelphi to discuss a paper read by Mr. Joseph Brown, Q. C., on the Bill to amend the Law of Evidence. The Hon. George Denman, Q. C., M.P., presided Among those present were Mr. Pim, M.P., whose name is on the back of the Bill, Mr. J. Pitt Taylor, Mr. Douglas Brown, Q.C., Mr. Milward, Q.C, Mr. Webster, Q.C., Mr. Charles Clark, Dr. Waddilove, Dr. Ryall. Mr. Finch, Mr. Pitt Taylor (who criticised the drafting of the bill severely), and the chairman, addressed the meeting in favour of its provisions generally. On the motion of Dr. Waddilove the discussion was adjourned for a fortnight.

THE Home Secretary has appointed Mr. Charles S. Whitmore, Q.C., County-court Judge and Recorder of Gloucester, and Mr. John R. Maule, Q.C., Recorder of Leeds, Commissoners to inquire into the charges made against the magistrates of Bolton, as to their conduct at the time of the late riot on the occasion of Sir Charles Dilke's lecture "Registration and Representation." The sittings will commence on the 30th inst.

on

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE

PROFESSION.

it is to be hoped still further advances in the course commenced will be made. There is also a point to which I should like, through your columns, to call the attention of the Profession, and that is, that whilst the different Inns of Court have made arrangements for those who understand nothing of law, they offer no facilities to those who are well versed therein; and as their attention has been called to this repeatedly, I think the time has come when attorneys and solicitors should advocate (although I was strongly opposed to this until lately) an amalgamation of the two branches of the Profession, in order that talent may have equal opportunities, and not find itself in the scale of G. chance.

THE PROFESSION.-A strong argument in favour of the fusion of the two branches of the Profession is to be found in the prevalent practice of appointing counsel to act as departmental solicitors for the Treasury and other Government offices. Both the gentlemen holding the position of solicitors for the Treasury are distinguished members of the Bar, and no one would question the fitness of either. These appointments are, however, objectionable while the line of demarcation from above is jealously guarded by statute, by etiquette, and by the monopoly of admission held by the higher grade. In the Tichborne case six practising members of the Bar are retained by the permanent solicitors of the Treasury, themselves perfectly competent to perform the work which they specially pay others to do for them. In all this phalanx of talent there is not one member of the lower branches of the Profession, and the surprize is that this influential body have so long permitted the infringement of professional boundaries involved in one barrister instructing another. If this practice is permissible and found to be advantageous in Government work, why should not the instruction of one solicitor by another be equally allowable, and turn out to be as useful, in ordinary cases. In fact the line of demarcation is already broken down, and practically no longer exists, except for the benefit of the superior order; and it is high time that it should cease to be a barrier to the legitimate advancement of members of the lower branch. The removal of an artificial fence could not alter the nature of things, as each member of either branch would, by the principle of natural selection gravitate towards, and settle in, that specialité best suited for his disposition or capacity. Its existence does not, as we see, prevent trespass or guard against poaching incursions, and not being effectual, it had better go the way of other exploded fictions. I am one of those who could never see why practical experience in the lower branch should not be as good as any other mode of preparation for the higher. A SOLICITOR.

NOTES AND QUERIES ON

POINTS OF PRACTICE.

NOTICE. We must remind our correspondents that this column is not open to questions involving points of law such as a solicitor should be consulted upon. Queries will be excluded which go beyond our limits.

N.B.-None are inserted unless the name and address of the writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona fides.

NOTE. This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it THE TICHBORNE CASE.-By 22 & 23 Vict. c. 17 (The Vexatious Indictments Act) s. 1, it is enacted that no bill of indictment for (inter alia) perjury shall be presented to or found by any grand jury unless the prosecutor has been bound by recognisance to prosecute, or unless the accused has been committed, &c., to appear to answer to an indictment to be preferred against him for such offence, or unless such indictment (for perjury) be preferred by the direction of any judge, &c., authorised by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, to direct a prosecution for perjury. By the last named statute, sect. 19, a judge may direct any person to be prosecuted for perjury, if such person "shall appear to have been guilty of perjury in any evidence given before him." One of the indictments, as reported in the papers, is in respect of an alleged false affidavit made by the prisoner in the Court of Chancery, and, loooking at the above enactments, I cannot see by what legal authority that bill was presented to the grand jury. If a mistake has been made it ought to be immediately rectified. With regard to the "Attorney-General " influence brought to bear on this case, I cannot understand 127. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869.-By section 29 it is enacted that "A trustee shall not, without the consent why the learned gentleman's colleagues have been of the committee of inspection, employ a solicitor, &c., persuaded to distinguish this from any other case, and by rule 4 of the Rules and Orders of 1871 it is where, by alleged perjury, A. attempts to rob B., required that the taxing officer shall satisfy himself whether of a ten pound note or an estate, parti- that the employment of a solicitor has been duly cularly when it is remembered that cases such as authorised by such section. And by rule 116 of the the Overend Gurney, and many others involving Rules and Orders of 1870 it is directed that "the general commercial credit and greater crimes than &c., in attending court to make application unless he trustee shall not be allowed any charges for a solicitor, the Tichborne case does, were pooh-poohed by the has obtained the sanction in writing of the committee Government as not requiring any extra State inter- of inspection," &c. Query: Whether a solicitor, who ference. As to bail, it must be conceded that the was verbally appointed by the requisite number of the question of forgery entirely depends on the ques-general purposes other than for attending court to committe of inspection, would be duly employed for all tion of perjury. The latter must be tried first, and an acquittal gets rid of the other, and moreover it must be borne in mind that none but legal advisers are allowed to see the claimant in Newgate, and to meet the prosecution fairly many persons ought to have access to him. Altogether, and acting on the maxim that everybody is presumed to be innocent until found guilty, I think the man has been harshly and tyrannically dealt by, and therefore have sent to Mr. Streeten a guinea in aid of the defence.

[blocks in formation]

Queries.

make application, and, if so, what proof should be given to the taxing officer of the employment of the solicitor having been duly authorized. C.

128. GARNISHEE.-Can a garnishee order under Common Law Procedure Act 1854 (s. 61), be made against a bauker of the judgment debtor, who has funds of the latter in his possession, on which he has no lien? The Act gives the power to attach all debts; and Foley v. Hill (2 H. L. Cas. 28) and other cases, have decided that the relation between a banker and his customer is the ordinary relation of debtor and creditor. But on the other hand Seymour v. Corporation of Brecon (29 L. J.

213, Ex.) seems to throw some doubt on the power to attach money in a banker's hands. The latter case is brief and somewhat vague; the head-note being: Queere, whether money in the hands of judgment debtors' bankers merely as such is liable to an attachment ?" Cases settling this point will oblige.

[ocr errors]

GEORGIUS.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

133. REAL ESTATE-CONVERSION.-A. B. C. and D., by indentures of lease and re-lease in 1840, conveyed certain freehold hereditaments and the equity of redemption in certain freehold and copyhold hereditaments to E. upon trust either immediately, or at any time afterwards, and with liberty to wait such length of time as he shall think fit to sell the same, and out of the proceeds to pay off a mortzaze raised on a portion of the premises by a former owner, and also any other debts of the latter, and subject thereto to pay the income to D. during her life, and after her death to divide the corpus between A. B. And in the mean time, and C. as tenants in common. until the premises should be sold, the rents and profits were to be held and applied in the same manner as the Two months income of the money to arise by sale. after the excution of this deed B and C. assigned their shares under it to A., and shortly afterwards D., the life tenant, died, whereupon A. became equitably entitled to the whole property subject as aforesaid. E., the trustee, who never sold or acted under the trustdeed, has since died intestate and unmarried. in 1854 intestate, whereupon his two brothers entered into possession of the property, one as heir-at-law of the freeholds, and the other as customary heir of the copyholds. They are desirous now of raising a further mortgage on the property, in addition to the first mentioned mortgage which is still kept alive. following questions arise: First, did the trust-deed operate as a conversion of the property into personalty? Secondly, on A.'s death in 1854 did the property pass as real estate or as personal estate? Thirdly, is it necessary to obtain a conveyance from the heir-at-law of the trustee? If so, would it be necessary for the customary heir of the trustee (who would not be the same person as his heir-at-law) to join in the conveyance in order to convey the equitable estate in the copyholds ? A SUBSCRIBER'S CLERK.

LEGAL EXTRACTS.

A. died

The

PROSPECTS OF THE BAR AS AFFECTED BY RECENT LEGISLATION. (From The Irish Law Times.) WE regard it as tolerably certain that the position and prospects of the Bar of Ireland will be materially affected by the course of legislation which is now in progress. It is often hastily assumed that the effects of modern legislation are simply injurious to the interests of the Bar, considered as distinct from those of the general public. There is no doubt that the large profits of the lawyers of the last generation were the results of a system which enriched them at the No sensible expense of the general public. member of the community objects to lawyers receiving substantial remuneration for necessary work, actually performed. Under the old system money was often earned (if we may so apply the term) by the performance of unnecessary and unmeaning work, and in the observance of cumbrous It appears to us that the and useless forms. tendency of modern legislation is to substitute for this unreal and mischievous system a more healthy one, under which barristers will work under conditions somewhat different indeed, but not altogether unfavourable.

We are at present in a period of transition from the old system of bloated legal armaments to the new regime, and it is difficult exactly to realise our position. The Chancery Regulation Act of 1850 diminished the expense of Chancery suits, and consequently the profits of lawyers, which have been still further and vastly diminished by the abolition of the Master's Office. The institution of the Incumbered Estates' Court in 1849, and its perpetuation in 1859, under the title of Landed Estates Court, had the double effect of simplifying conveyancing, and diminishing the number of Chancery suits. Incumbrancers' suits for the sale of estates and judicial sales were transferred to a court where it is possible for proceedings to be transacted from the commencement to the close without the assistance of counsel. Thus it has come about that the earnings of the Chancery Bar are probably about one tithe of what they were before 1850, while the number of practising barristers has increased.

As to the Common Law Bar, a vast deal of merely formal business was cut off by the Common

Law Procedure Act of 1853; and the Sham Actions

Act of 1870 has considerably reduced the lists for each after sittings.

In short, whether we regard Common Law business, Chancery business, or conveyancing, it is plain that the Bar cannot maintain its position, unless by some modification of the system, or a great reduction of the numbers of its members. So much for the gloomy side of the question, but side by side with the reforms which despoil the Bar, other reforms have been in progress which tend to create a healthy and necessary class of business, which may, under different conditions, supply to some extent the place of the fictitious and unreal system which enriched the Bar, while it impoverished the country. The County Courts are destined to take a place in the future judicial arrangements of this country, which few realise at present. Business will be there trans acted of a kind requiring the services of counsel The consolidation of Civil Bill Jurisdictions must follow from the removal of the chairmen from the ranks of the practising Bar, which is demanded by public opinion. The reforms which have been suggested by the Judicature Commission must sooner or later be established here as well as in England. The Land Act has scarcely come into operation, and yet it has already given a good deal of employment to counsel, and if local sessions Bars were regularly organised, it is certain that counsel would be employed in almost every case. A more liberal scale of fees, both for counsel and for attorneys, we may remark in passing, is a measure of reform for which we need not wait until the recommendations of the Judicature Commission become law. It has been demanded by the unanimous voice of both branches of the Profession, and we publish this week a communication upon the subject. In addition, the class of cases remitted from the Superior Courts, and (more important still), the proceedings upon bills of

exchange, and contracts of various kinds, which but for the Act of 1870 would have been instituted in the Superior Courts, are all of them likely to afford employment to counsel. The class of cases in which their services will be called into requisition will be largely increased when the Civil Bill Courts are invested with jurisdiction in questions of title. Then the equity jurisdiction which is about to be conferred upon the civil bill courts will give rise to a class of cases in which the services of counsel will be required. We have already observed that the effect of this measure (in our opinion) will be to develop a new class of business, and not to take an appreciable amount of business from the Superior Courts.

All these reforms tend towards the creation of local sessions Bars, which would necessarily follow from the consolidation of County Court jurisdictions, and more frequent sessions. Thus an opening would be afforded for junior barristers which does not exist at present. Large fortunes would not, of course, be made by practice before these tribunals, but many men would be glad to compromise their chances of great wealth for the certainty of an early and sufficient competence.

As to the general prospects of the Profession, they will be largely affected by the proposed transfer of local legislation to Irish tribunals. A most profitable class of business would thus be opened up to the Irish practitioners. It must be remembered that the number of applications for private Bills must be largely increased when the tribunal is made easily accessible, and expenses are thus greatly diminished. For all these reasons we cannot regard the future of the Irish Bar as menaced by recent and impending legislation to the extent which many suppose, although the decentralisation of the institution is probably imminent. Instead of our great central institution in which the avenues to success are difficult of access we shall probably have a number of localised Bars in which merit will be more quickly recognised and rewarded, and will ultimately (through circuit business) lead to a position at the metropolitan Bar.

[blocks in formation]

Jaques opposed. After a spirited discussion it was decided, by a majority of three, that A. has a remedy by action at law.

THE HULL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. THE annual general meeting and dinner of this society was held at the Royal Station Hotel, Hull, on Tuesday evening April 2. In the absence of W. T. Reed, Esq. (the president of the Hull Law Society), who had been announced to take the chair, but was prevented from doing so by indisposition, J. D. Sibree, Esq., solicitor, was called to the chair. The secretary read letters from S. Warren, Esq., Q.C., the Recorder, the patron of the society, the president, and Dr. A. K. Rollit, expressing regret at their unavoidable absence and wishing the society every success.

After the cloth had been withdrawn, the chairman proposed the "Loyal Toasts," which were enthusiastically received.

Mr. A. Wray proposed "The Lord Chancellor, Her Majesty's Judges, and the Legal Profession,' which was responded to by the chairman. The Chairman in proposing "Success to the Hull Law Students' Society said, that for the years he had been in the Profession he felt himself almost an old practitioner, and very much of the success which he had enjoyed during the time he had had the honour to be a member of the Profession, he attributed and was due in no small degree to this society, with which he had been connected so many years. Whilst an ordinary member of the society, he had hardly ever missed a debate, and must say he had never regretted having attended its meetings so assiduously, incentive to study and reading. He would adas he found the result very beneficial, and an vise all present who intended to follow the profession to attend the meetings of the society as punctually as possible. He was glad to see so large a number of gentlemen present, and also to learn that the numbers of the society had been so increased during the past session. He cordially approved of the plan that the committee had adopted of having an experienced member of the Profession to preside over each meeting of the society, and congratulated them on the success that had attended that procedure. In conclusion he heartily wished success and prosperity to the Hull Law Students' Society.

Mr. J. T. Woodhouse (the Hon. Sec.) responded on behalf of the society. After thanking the chairman for the kind wishes he had expressed towards them, he said that they had just brought to a close the most successful session the society had ever witnessed. As the report he was about to read would show the society had had in no preceding session so many members, so many meetings, such an average attendance, or such good and interesting debates, and he trusted the prosperity of the society would continue to increase every year. The committee had been most unremitting in their exertions to make the past session a success, and they had the satisfaction of knowing that their efforts had been fully appreciated. The society held a very proud position and he hoped and believed that its status would amongst the kindred societies in the provinces, be raised still higher. He was glad to avail himself of this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the society to those members of the profession who had so generously come forward with their then read the report of the committee as follows: advice and assistance whenever called upon. He

66

'Pursuant to the rules of the society, the committee have much pleasure in presenting the eleventh annual report, and take this opportunity of congratulating the members on the increasing prosperity and usefulness of the society, and on the unprecedented success which has attended its meetings during the past session. The session has comprised twenty-three ordinary meetings (being an increase of five on the preceding session) at which there has been an average attendance of eleven members and an average of seven speakers on each subject of debate. This, it will be observed, is much larger than in any previous session.

The society now consists of forty-one honorary members and twenty-three ordinary members. Six gentlemen have been admitted honorary and six ordinary members during the past session, whilst four gentlemen have passed into the rank of solicitors, one attaining the third prize at the last Hilary Term Final Examination. The committee, on the recommendation of the secretary, deemed it advisable at the commencement of the session to invite solicitors who were honorary members of the society to occupy the chair at the different meetings of the society, and the committee, whilst congratulating the members on the success which has attended the same, beg, at the same time, to thank those members of the Profession who so kindly and cordially responded to their invitation, and rendered such valuable assistance to the society. The society has during the session entered into union with nine other provincial societies, on the basis of its union with the London Articled

Clerks' Society; the benefits arising from this union will be manifold, especially in producing united action by articled clerks on all subjects affecting their interests. The books admitted into the library during the session are Stephen's Commentaries (4 vols.), Austin's Province of Jurisprudence Determined (2 vols.), Williams on the Law of Personal Property; Hallilay's Digest of Final Examination Questions (2 copies), and the LAW TIMES and Reports weekly. The books have met with a good circula. tion, but the committee would recommend that the members should avail themselves of this branch of the society to a greater extent. Several subjects of importance, such as the question of legal education, law lectures and prizes, and other matters, have engaged the serious attention of the committee during the past session; their further consideration, however, they beg to leave in the hands of their successors. In con clusion, whilst the committee have much satis. faction in presenting to you so favourable a report, and in congratulating the members on the un usually interesting and spirited debates which have characterised the meetings of the past session, they feel bound to urge the members of the society to a more diligent attendance at its meetings, and to provide subjects for the committee's consideration in greater numbers, as it is only by each member using his utmost endeavours that the proceedings of the society can be brought to a successful issue.

On the motion of Mr. J. Cook, seconded by Mr. Spurr, the report was unanimously adopted.

The treasurer then laid before the meeting the balance sheet, which, on the motion of Mr. G. P. Spink, seconded by Mr. Jackson, was agreed to.

Mr. J. O. Jacobs moved, and Mr. Hall seconded that the success of the past session was almost a vote of thanks to the retiring officers, observing entirely due to the unwearied efforts of their secretary and committee. Mr. Woodhouse re sponded as secretary, and Mr. Glover on behalf

of the committee.

Mr. T. Pearce proposed the "Hull Law Society," to which the Chairman responded.

Mr. Spink moved, and Mr. Wray seconded, a vote of thanks to the Chairman of the session. Mr. Jacobs proposed the " President," which was received with musical honours, and responded to by the Vice-Chairman.

The officers for the year ensuing were balloted for, and resulted as follows: President: H. Cook, Esq.; Secretary and Treasurer, Mr. J. T. Woodhouse; Hon. Auditor, J. D. Sibree, Esq.; Com. mittee, Messrs. Wray, Spink, Jacobs, and Pearce.

ASSOCIATION.

THE MANCHESTER INCORPORATED LAW THE annual dinner in connection with the Manchester Incorporated Law Association was held on the 11th inst., at the Albion Hotel. Mr. T. Holden, the president of the Association was in the chair; and the vice chairs were occupied by Mr. T. T. Bellhouse, and Mr. Isaac Hall. About forty other gentlemen were present, including the Mayor of Manchester (W. Booth, Esq.), the Vice-Chancel lor of Lancashire (Mr. G. Little, Q.C.), and a deputation from the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool, consisting of Mr Paget. and Mr.

Kenion.

The Chairman proposed the preliminary toasts, including that of the Army, Navy, and Volun teers, to which

Colonel Hall, of the 3rd Manchester, responded. Remarking upon the way in which the Govern ment treated the volunteer service, he said that the adjutant of his regiment, whilst occupying the position of captain in the army, received an allow ance of 11s. 7d. per day. On retiring from his captaincy he took the post of adjutant of the 3rd Manchester, for which he was paid 8s. per day; but he was immediately told that his pay as cap tain in the regular force would cease. Taking that case as a specimen, he left them to consider how the volunteer force was treated by the Government.

Vice Chancellor Little, in proposing "The Manchester Incorporated Law Association," said he had an audience before him, all of whom, with the exception of the Mayor of Manchester, were sensible of the merits of that institution. The objects of the association were pre-eminently to bring together the members of the legal profession, for the purpose of associating with one another, and sustaining their standard in society in regard to the discharge of the duties of their Profession to the public. He could not imagine any objects more worthy of support than those. Then, there were added the other duties of watching the course which legislation might take in reference to the general interests of the legal profession and the improvement of the law. Those objects were of the highest public importance. They had also to supervise the conduct of those who might not be disposed to conform to the laws and usages of the society, and correction was neces sary in those respects. He congratulated the

society upon having been converted into an Secretary to the Children's Employment Commis-industry, and clear-headedness, enabled him for incorporation. The law said that a corporation sion, which post he resigned in 1870. He married, years to conduct the common law department of never died, and he hoped that that association in 1840, Harriet Elizabeth, daughter of the late what was at one time perhaps the largest "agency" would continue in perpetuity and be an example to Admiral Sir William Proctor-Beauchamp, Bart., business in London, with satisfaction to his clients the practitioners amongst whom the association of Langley-park, Norfolk, by whom he has left and without injury to his own health (as is attested was situated. (Applause.) In explaining the ob-isue nine children. His eldest son, Mr. Beauchamp by the advanced age he reached), while his honour jects of the association he was reminded of a Selby, now of Paston, was born in 1841, and called and fidelity to his clients' interests were not less lamented friend, one of the founders of that insti- to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1868. distinguished than his ability. tution (Mr. Stephen Heelis), who had passed away during the past twelve months. The obligations which he (Mr. Little) was under to that gentleman were probably understood by all whom he was addressing. Mr. Heelis introduced him to the profession of the law. His kind encouragement drew him to the pursuit of a profession from a different walk which he had originally contemplated, and he should never cease to remember Mr. Heelis's kindness to him. Apart from all personal feelings, the society and the Profession had sustained a great loss, and he was glad to hear that they were taking steps for perpetuating Mr. Heelis's memory. (Applause.)

Mr. Cooper, in responding to the toast, said that the success of the project of founding a memorial to Mr. Heelis was certain. He regretted that Mr. Lowndes, one of the members of the Judicature Commission, was not present, because he would have been in a position to speak upon the report of that Commission. Many legal reforms were required; amongst others the remuneration of the profession. He could not see the justice of compelling the profession of the present day to be guided by a scale which was fixed in times immemorial. He rejoiced that a series of lectures had been delivered in connection with Owen's College, which were of the utmost value to the younger members of the profession and the public. (Applause.)

Mr. Bellhouse proposed the toast of "The Mayor and Corporation of Manchester," to which the Mayor of Manchester (W., Booth, Esq.) responded.

66

Mr. Alderman Radford responded to the Mayor and Corporation of Salford," which was proposed by Mr. Hall.

T. P. CLAYFIELD-IRELAND. ESQ. THE late Thomas Priaulx Clayfield-Ireland, Esq., of Dowrich House, Devonshire, formerly a solici tor at Bristol, who died at Brislington, near Bristol, on the 8th inst., in the thirty-sixth year of his age, was the second son of the late James Ireland Clayfield-Ireland, Esq., of Brislington Hall, by Letitia, daughter of the late Thomas Priaulx, Esq., of Guernsey. He was born in the year 1836, and was educated at Merchant Taylors' School, and afterwards at Rugby under Dr. Tait and Hilary Term, 1860, and practised for some time at Dr. Goulburn. He was admitted a solicitor in Bristol. The deceased gentleman inherited the estate of Dowrich House under the will of his aunt, Mrs. Charlotte Louisa Clayfield, in the year He lived and died unmarried.

E. W. HASELL, ESQ. The late Edward Williams Hasell, Esq., of Dalemain, near Penrith, barrister-at-law, chairman of quarter sessions for Cumberland and Westmoreland, who died on the 7th inst., in the seventysixth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Edward Hasell, Esq., of Dalemain, by Elizabeth, daughter of William Carus, Esq., and sister of the late W. W. Carus-Wilson, Esq., of Casterton Hall, Westmoreland. He was born in the year 1795, and was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, where he graduated B.A. in 1818, and pro ceeded M.A. in 1823. He was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Cumberland, and served as High Sheriff of that county in 1830; and he was also a magistrate for Westmoreland, and had been for many years chairman of quarter sessions for the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland. The deceased gentleman was one of the chiefs of the Conservative party in Cumberland and Westmoreland; he was chairman of the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company, and Colonel of the Westmoreland and Cumberland Regiment Yeomanry Cavalry, in which he took a warm and active interest. He will be much missed in the North, where for so many years he has been so highly respected, and where he was so widely PEACOCK, ROGERSON, and COOPER attorneys, solicitors, conveyknown. Mr. Hasell married, in 1826, Dorothea, daughter of the late Edward King, Esq., of Hungerhill, Yorkshire, and has left, with other surviving issue, a son and heir, John Edward, who was born in 1839.

of

W. H. SMITH, ESQ. THE late William Henry Smith, Esq., barristerMr. Alderman Radford gave "The Lord Chan-at-law of the Middle Temple, who died at cellor and the Judges, including the Local Brighton on the 25th March, in the sixty-fourth Judges." year of his age, was the youngest son of the late Richard Smith, Esq., of Hammersmith, Middlesex. He was born in the year 1808, and having received the rudiments of his education at a Dissenting school at Radley, in Berkshire, entered the University of Glasgow, but ill-health prevented his graduating there. Called to the Bar by the hon. Society of the Middle Temple in Nov. 1838, he went the South Wales circuit, and practised for some years at the Gamorganshire Sessions. It is perhaps, however, as an author that Mr. Smith's name will be best remembered; his works being all marked by subtle, etherial, far-reaching thought and beautiful expression, and demonstrating the mind that produced them to be one in which some of the finest powers, both of philosophy and poetry, were combined. In 1839 he published his Discourse on Ethics," which the late Professor Ferrier used to speak of as one the best written. and most ingeniously-reasoned attacks upon Cudworth's doctrine that had ever appeared. Besides this work, which was pub. lished in 1839, Mr. Smith was the author of a drama entitled "Athelwold," and of a species of philosophic tale entitled Gravenhurst;" but his greatest work, which was produced in 1857, is

Vice-Chancellor Little, in responding, said that the Lord Chancellor and the learned and distinguished judges of the Superior Courts were quite equal to the duties which they were called upon to discharge. With respect to the local judges, the citizens of Manchester had had a recent instance of the estimation in which one of them was held from the fact that so formidable an opposition had been offered to Mr. Russell's removal to Liverpool. The office which he (Mr. Little) held was not the creation of modern legis. lation, but an office that had been improved and : extended in its influence by modern legisla tion. It was by the effect of the Act of 1850, passed under the auspices of the present Lord Chancellor, that the improvements began. The effect of that Act was to give power to asssimilate the practice of the county palatine to that of the High Court of Chancery; and, further, gave power to establish in other parts of the county than in Preston the means of transacting the business of the localities. That power was not put in force by the then Lord Chancellor. His immediate successor was Lord Westbury, a man of the greatest ability and the most determined energy, but who remained such a short period in office that scarcely an opportunity was offered him of giving effect to the Act. It was owing to the present Lord Justice James's personal exertions that the courts, with their higher powers, were established in Manchester and Liverpool. He was followed by Wickens, V.C., who also had been successful in discharging the duties of his office. He (Mr. Little) could not but feel how heavy the duty was of treading in the footsteps of his predecessors. He asked for the kind consideration of the gentlemen with whom he had to come into contact, and begged to assure them that there was no position in life which he coveted beyond that which it had been his fortune to attain. (Applause.) Other toasts followed.

LEGAL OBITUARY.

P. SELBY, ESQ.

THE late Prideaux Selby, Esq., barrister-at-law, of Paston, Northumberland, who died at his resi dence, 61, Prince's-gate, on the 5th inst., in the sixty-second year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Prideaux Selby, Esq., of Paston, who died in 1833. He was born in the year 1810, and was educated at St. John's College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1832, and proceeded M.A. in 1837. Mr. Selby, who was called to the Bar by the hon. society of Gray's-inn in June 1843, and for some years went the Northern Circuit, was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for the county of Northumberland. He was appointed in 1861,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1865.

THE GAZETTES.

Professional Partnerships Dissolved.

Gazette, April 5.

LEE and THORNEY, attorneys and solicitors, Hull. March 31.
(M. C. Lee and Jno. Jos. Thorney.) Debts by Thorney.
Gazette, April 9.

ancers, and notaries public, Liverpool.
Russell Rogerson and William Cooper.)

Bankrupts.
Gazette, April 12.

Dec. 31. (George

Pet.

To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street.
BANNISTER, ELISA, builder, Palmerston-id, Kilburn.
April 9. Reg. Pepys. Sur. April 23
CLAYDEN, JAMES, corn chandler, Bingfield-st, Islington. Pe.
April 10, Reg. Murray. Sol. Rashleigh, Greshamn-st. Sur.
April 30
DURRANT, CHARLES THOMAS DEBENHAM, estate agent, Sand.
ringham-rd, Ha kney, and City-rd. Pet. April 9. Reg. Hazaite.
So.. Zimme man, Chancery-la. sur. April 24
GERLACH, JACOB CHRISTOF, horse den er, ttle Queen-st, West-
minster. Pet. Apr. 10. Reg. Hazlitt. Sol. Hand, Coleman-st.
Sur. April 24
To surrender in the Country.

DICKINSON, HENRY, farmer, Bedmond, near St. Albans. Pet.
April 8. Reg. Blagg. Sur. April 25
MOREY, WILLIAM, builder, Widley. Pet. April 2. Reg. How-rd.
Sur. April 23
Pet. April 9

SARGENT, JOHN PENWARDEN, builder, Liskeard.
Dep.-Rex. Shelly. Sur. May 1
SOWRY, WALTER, coal agent, Armley, near Leeds.
Reg. Marshall. Sur. April 24

Gazette, April 16.

Pet. April 4.

South

To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-st.
ARGALL, BOSWARVA, Lank clerk, late Belgrave-rd, St. John's-
wood. Pet. April 12. Keg. Murray. Sur. May 7
CHURCH, WILLIAM, grocer, Homerton, and Wick-rd,
Hackney. Pet. April 11. Reg. Pepys. Sur. April 30
TUCKER, WILLIAM, brewer, Aibion-pi, Hyde-pk-q; Three Colt.
st, Linehouse; and Minories. Pet. April 11. Reg. Spring-Rice.
Sur. May 2
To surrender in the Country.
BELL, JOHN, shopkeeper, Fuimodeston. Pet. April 13.
Paimer. Sur. April 30
EASLEA, WILLIAM, farmer, Stanton. Pet. April 11. Reg. Collins
Sur. April 27

Reg.

GALLOWAY, JOHN, agricultural implement dealer, Stockton-on-
Tees. Pet. April 12. Reg. Cro-by. Sur. April 29
MCINTYRE, DONALD, draper, Penzance. Pet. April 13. Reg.
Chilcott. Sur. April 30

POVEY, THOMAS, plumber, Longton. Pet. April 11. Reg.
Keary. Sur. April 27

ROBERT. LOUIS, boot manufacturer, Birmingham. Pet. April 11.
Reg. Chauntler. Sur. May 1
THOMAS, WILLIAM, jun., inerchant, Exeter. Pet. April 15. Reg.
Daw. Sur. May 1

BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED.
Gazette, April 9.

[blocks in formation]

Thorndale, or the Conflict of Opinions." During the last thirty years, Mr. Smith contributed largely NORMAN, GEORGE LEWIS, solicitor, Sackville-st, Piccadilly. to the pages of Blackwood, and his articles were always of a grave character, but distinguished by eminent grace of style and delicate critical taste. Personally he was very shy, and never mixed in anything like public life; but he was a singularly amiable man, and his loss will be deeply felt by all his friends. Mr. Smith married, in 1861, Lucy Caroline, daughter of George Cumming, Esq., M.D. The remains of the deceased gentleman were interred in the parochial cemetery at Brighton.

Fiquidations by Arrangement.

FIRST MEETINGS.

Gazette, April 12.

ALLSOP, GEORGE WALTER, chemist, Oldbury; April 27, at eleven,
at office of Sol., Shakespeare, Oldbury
ANSTEE, WILLIAM ALEXANDER, out of business, Toddington;
Apri 25, at twelve, at offices of Scargill, Luton. Sol., Shires,
Luton

ARCHER, HUGH, tailor, Darlington; April 24, at eleven at office of
Sol.. Steavenson, Darlington

ATTENBOROUGH, MARK, out of business, Everton; April 29, at
three, at office of Sol., Harris, Liverpool

April 25, at tree, at

BLANN, LAWRENCE, baker, Upper Beeding; April 24, at twelve,
at office of Sol., Lamb, Brighton
BOND, CHARLES, watchmaker, Alford;
63. Chancery-la. Sol., Rhodes
BOULTON, WILLIAM, earthenware dealer, Tillotson-st, Stepney;
April 19, at three, at office of Sol., Peverley, Basinghall-st
BRAMMER, JOHN, builder, Lockwood: April 23, at half-past
twelve, at office of Sols., Hesp, Fenton, and Owen, Hudders-
field
BUTLER, THOMAS, coach builder, Cheltenham; April 29, at
twelve, at office of Sol., Potter, Cheltenham

BYE, JOHN, innkeeper, Bury Saint Edmunds; April 29, at twelve,
at the Half Moon hotel, Bury Saint Edmunds. Sols., Messrs.
Salmon

T. LOFTUS, ESQ. THE late Thomas Loftus, Esq., solicitor, of New Inn, Strand, who died, from the effects of an accident, at his residence, Havelock Villas, Lansdownroad, Croydon, on the 27th March, in the eightyseventh year of his age, was born on 23rd Jan. 1786, and was articled to Messrs. Bleasdale and Alexander. He was admitted a solicitor in Hilary Term, 1818, and in 1822 he became a partner with Mr. Alexander's successors, Messrs. Holme and Frampton. He continued in regular practice down to the death of his late partner, Mr. Young, COLLINS, EDWARD, grocer, Birmingham; April 26, at ten, at offico when he was already in his seventy-eighth year. Mr. Loftus was a Commissioner of Oaths in Chancery, and also a Commissioner for the Administration of Oaths in the Court of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer. He was probably the last surviving practitioner of the good old days' before "Archbold" was known, DUFFIELD, THOMAS HENRY, Schoolmaster, Wolverhampton and was then, we are told, unsurpassed, if not unequalled. as an authority in the intricacies of the practice of the courts. Great physical vigour,

of Sol., Eaden, Birmingham

COLWELL, GEORGE, carpenter, Seaford; April 30, at twelve, at
office of Sol., Hillman, Cliffe, Lewes
CONNOR, JAMES, factory overlooker, Wigan; April 20, at eleven,
at office of Sol., France, Wigan
DAVIES, DAVID, grocer, Ruthin; April 29, at one, at office of

Sol., Adams, Ruthin
DAWSON, ALBERT, stationer, Lewisham; April 25, at two, at office
of Sols., Eagleton and Mason, Newgate-st

April 23, at twelve, at office of Sol., Green, Wolverhampton ELMORE, JOHN, builder, Coxeath Linton; April 23, at ha f-past two, at office of Sol., Goodwin, Maidstone EMBLIN, JOHN, jun, trpe dresser, Leather-la, Holborn: April 20, at ten, at office of Sol, Hope, Serle-st, Lincoln's inn-fields

FORD, ROBERT, coal merchant, Dover; May 1, at two, at office of Sol., Fox, Dover

FOX, CHARLES, silk broker, Manchester; April 30, at three, at office of Sol., Addleshaw, Manchester

GAMBLE, WILLIAM HENRY, miller, Bulwell; April 26, at twelve, at office of Sol., Belk, Nottingham

GREATREX, HUGH MCNEILE, brewer's traveller, Liverpool;
April 22 at two, at office of Vine, accountant, Liverpool.
Grocott and Browne, Liverpool

Sols.,

GRIMSHAW, CHARLES WILLIAM, farmer, Up Lambourn; April 23, at three, at office of Sol., Jotcham, Wantage HAZZEY, JOSHUA, grocer, Pembroke; April 26, at eleven, at the Guildhall, Carmarthen. Sol., Dunn, Pembroke-dock HEALY, STEPHEN, beer retailer, Harper-st. New Kent-rd; April 19, at three, at the Claremont Arms, Upper Grange-rd, Bermondsey. Sol., Bilton, New Bridge-st, Blackfriars HINCKS, JOHN CHARLES HAWKESFORD, attorney, Willenhall; April 26, at twelve, at office of Sol., Griffin, Birmingham HINTON, THOMAS, printer, Uckfield; April 2, at eleven, at the Crown hotel, Lewes. Sol., Barrow, Walbrook

HUSTWICK, THOMAS HOPPER, chemist, Liverpool; April 24, at two, at office of Sol., Williams, Liverpool

JENKINS, HENRIETTA, spinster, milliner, Edgbaston, near Birmingham; April 23, at three, at office of Sol., Fitter, Birmingham

JONES, JOHN JORDAN, auctioneer,

Rhydygof, Llanfihangil

Ystrad, and Lampeter; April 25, at two, at the Black Lion hotel, Lampeter. Sol., Lloyd, Lumpeter

KIPLING, WILLIAM, cheesemonger, James-ter, Hornsey-rd; April, at eleven, at office of Sol., Lind, New inn, Strand KNIGHT, GEORGE, grocer, Cinderford; April 26 at two, at office of Sol., Beckingham, Bristol

LOGSDON, JOSEPH ELLIS, corn dealer, Haggerstone; April 24, at four at office of Sol., Graham, Ely-pl, Holborn

LORD, GEORGE, sizer, Burnley; April 28, at three, at office of Sol., Baldwin, Burnley

MALLINSON, EDWARD; GLEDHILL, RICHARD; and BRAMMER, JOHN, builders, Lockwood; April 23, at eleven,at office of Sols., Hesp, Fenton, and Owen, Huddersfield

MALLINSON, EDWARD, builder, Lockwood, in Huddersfield; April 26, at twelve, at office of Sols., Hesp, Fenton, and Owen, Huddersfield

MARTINS, RICHARD, jun., builder, Penzance; April 25, at eleven, at office of Sol., Trythall, Penzance

MATTHEWS, FREDERICK SAMUEL, watch case maker, Upper
Charles-st, Clerkenwell; April 27, at three, at office of Sols.,
Evans, Laing, and Eagles, John-st, Bedford-row
MINNS, SAMUEL WILLIAM, tailor. Norwich: April 25, at one, at
offices of Sol., Maude, Great Winchester-st-bldgs. Sols., Winter

and Francis

MORGAN, JEREMIAH, grocer, Swansea and Pyle: April 24, at one, at the British and West of England Merchants' Association, Bristol. Sols., Stanley and Wasbrough NEWEY, EDWARD, painter, Birmingham; April 23, at two, at office of Sol., Burton, Birmingham

NORMAN, ALFRED JOHN, painter, Great Yarmouth; May 2, at twelve, at office of Sol., Preston, jun., Great Yarmouth

PARRY, THOMAS, coal merchant, Llangoed; April 24, at two, at office of Sol., Roberts, Bangor

PARSON, JONATHAN, victualler, Hatfield; April 20, at three, at office of Sol., Annesley, St. Alban's PASCOE, JOHN, miller, Plymouth; April 30, at eleven, at the Bridge House hotel, Borough, London. Sol., Campion PEACE, JOSEPH, farmer, Newton-in-Makerfield; April 25, at two, at office of Messrs. Joseph Davies and Co., (public accountants, Warrington

PEACOCK, LEONARD HORNER, tea dealer, Tachbrook-st. Pimlico; April 29, at twelve, at office of Sol., Foster, King's-rd, Gray'sinn PEPLOW, HENRY JAMES, beorhouse keeper, Wolverhampton ; April 23, at ten, at office of Sol., Stratton, Wolverhampton PITCAIRN, HENRY HUNT, wine merchant, Leeds; April 22, at three, at office of Sol., Pullen, Leeds

POTTER, GEORGE, teacher of music, Taunton; April 25, at twelve, at office of Sol., Trenchard, Taunton

PRIVETT, CHARLES, baker, Portsea; April 24, at four, at office of Sol, King, Portsea

west

REES, DAVID HOPKIN, cabinet maker, Carmarthen; April 19, at five minutes past ten, at office of II. Lloyd, High-st, HaverfordRICHARDS, GEORGE MULLINGS, saddler, Winchester; April 29, at two, at the Black Swan hotel, Winchester. Sol., Bailey RILEY, ELLEN, grocer, Burnley; April 30, at three, at office of Sol., Nowell, Burnley

SANDERS, JOHN, builder, Dawlish: April 25, at eleven, at office of Sols., Pearson and Whidborne, Dawlish

SCAIFE, THOMAS, painter, Bradford; April 29, at three, at office of Sol., Neill, Bradford

SCOTT, GEORGE, baker, Chacombe; April 24, at eleven, at office of Sol., Crosby, Banbury

SILCOCK, WILLIAM, tailor, High Holborn; April 21, at three, at office of Sol., Grout, Suffolk-la, Cannon-st

SLATER, PHILIP, grocer, Bristol; April 24, at twelve, at office of Sol., Langworthy, Bristol

SMART, WILLIAM, butcher, Upper Easton; April 22, at two, at office of Sol., Beckingham, Bristol

SMITH, WILLIAM, baker, Hastings; April 24, at two, at office of Sols., Messrs. Langham, Hastings

SOFTLEY, JOHN JAMES, draper, Southsea; April 25, at four, at office of Sol., King, Portsea

STAINES, HENRY GIPSON, grocer, Chipping Ongar: April 22, at twelve, at office of W. W. Brown, Basinghail-st, Sol., Smith STEAD, HENRY, innkeeper, Thirsk: April 3, at eleven, at the Old Three Tuns inn, Thirsk. Sol., Waistell, Northallerton TANNER, FREDERICK SOLOMON, carpenter, Cheltenham; April 15, at twelve, at office of Sol., Potter, Cheltenham THOMPSON, JOHN, cart owner, Liverpool; April 23, at two, at office of Sol., Bellringer, Liverpool

THOMPSON, SAMUEL RICHARD, Woollen draper, Shoreditch; April 29, at eleven, at the Guildhall Tavern, Gresham-st. Sol, Holmes, Threadneedle-st

THORNETT, JABEZ JOHN, upholsterer, Curtain-rd, Shoreditch; April 18, at four, at J. Townsey's, Holywell-la, Shoreditch. Sol, Turner, Copthall-bldgs, Throgmorton-st

TURVEY, EDWARD, tailor's manager, Sheffield; April 25, at twelve at office of Sol., Auty, Sheffield

WESTON, GEORGE, journeyman carpenter, Reading; April 27, at ten, office of Sol, Padmore, Coleman st

WHISKER, BODHAM BUTLER, farrier, Wellington rd, Kensalgreen; April 19, at three, at office of F. Cripps, Kensingtonpark-rd, Notting-hill. Sol., Fenton, Basinghall-st

Gazette, April 16.

ACKROYD, WILLIAM NEWTON, rag merchant, Gildersome; April
24, at two, at office of Sol., Simpson, Leeds
ALLEN, WILLIAM, flour dealer, Wakefield; April 26, at eleven, at
office of Fernandes and Gill, Wakefield

ALLIN, WILLIAM HARDSTAFF, felt dealer, Haslingden; April 29,
at three, at office of Sol., Whitehead, Accrington
ASTRIDGE, WILLIAM, grocer,,Westbourne: April 27, at two, at
offices of Mr. Edmonds, St. James'-st, Portsea. Sol., King,
Portsca
AXAM, SAMUEL. Mansion-st, Camberwell, and AXAM, FREDERICK
Camberwell-rd, builders,; April 29, at two, at offices of Mr.
Birchall, Southampton-bldgs, Chancery-la. Sol., Harrison,
Furnival's-inn, Holborn

AYTON, ABRAHAM JACOB, out of employ, Warminster; May 1, at two, at office of Sol., McCarthy, Frome

BANCROFT, WILLIAM, trimming manufacturer, Derby; May 2, at three, at office of Sol., Leech, Derby

BANNING, STANLEY, merchant, Liverpool; April 29, at two, at office of Sol., Bellringer, Liverpool

BLOXHAM, JOSEPH STEPHEN, tobacconist Birmingham; April 26, at two, at office of Sol, Harrison, Birmingham BONIWELL, RUFUS MARTIN, auctioneer, Richmond: April 24, at three, at office of Sols., Wood and Hare, Basinghall-sc BORGERS, HENRY FRANK, licensed victualler, Panton-st. Hay. market; April 25, at twa, at office of Sols., Messrs. Hillearys and Tunstall, Fenchurch-st

BRADSHAW, JAMES, bootmaker, Tipton; April 26, at ten, at office of Sol, Travis, Tipton

BRAYFORD, THOMAS, baker, Stoke-upon-Trent; April 27, at half-
past eleven, at office of Sol., Turner, Stoke-upon-Trent
BUDD, EDWIN, grocer, Portsmouth; April 29, at four, at office of
Sol., King, Portsea

CANNON, JAMES, cabinet maker, Caroline-st, Eaton-sq; April 25, at two, at 3. Chandos-st, West Strand. Sol., Bartlett CHAMBERS, JOHN, tailor, Nottingham; April 26, at twelve, at office of Sol., Belk, Nottingham

CHURCHWARD, JOHN GILBERT, corn merchant, Paington; April 29, at two, at office of Sol., Carter, Torquay

CLARE, Reverend GEORGE THOMAS, clerk, Bainton; April 26, at two, at office of Sol., Jennings, Great Driffield

CLARKSON, JAMES, commission agent, Bradford; May 1, at three' at office of Sol., Hutchinson, Bradford

COCK, JOHN POPE, grocer, Truro; April 29, at eleven, at office of Sols., Carlyon and Paull, Truro

COE, JAMES, fish dealer, Manchester; April 23, at three, at office of Sol., Murray, Manchester

CRAMBERS, ROBERT, saddler, Fenstanton; May 2, at twelve, at office of Sol., Gaches, Peterborough

CRISP, JAMES, coal merchant, Beccles; April 26, at eleven, at the Star Hotel, Great Yarmouth. Sols., Kent and Smith CROSSLEY, JAMES WILLIAM, dyer, Wakefield; May 1, at halfpast two, at the Royal hotel, Wakefield. Sol., Lancaster, Bradford

CURR. JOHN DAVID, cotton manufacturer. Redcliffe, near Bury; April 29, at three, at office of Sols., Hardings, Wood and Wilson, Manchester

CUTTS, JOSEPH, licensed victualler, Lowgate, in Staveley; April
29, at three, at office of Sol., Parkin, Sheffield
DAVENPORT, JOHN, prevision dealer, Shevington; April 29, at
three, at office of Sols., Leigh and Ellis, Wigan
DAVIES, ELIAS draper, Aberystwith; April 27, at eleven, at office
of Sols., Messrs. Hughes, Aberystwyth

DAVIS, BARNARD, and DAVIS, CHARLES, butchers, both Bedford;
April 27, at four, at office of Sol, Conquest, Bedford
DICKENSON, MARY, fishmonger, Burslem; April 23, at three, at
offices of Sol., Tennant, Hanley

EDUARDS, ALEXANDER, out of business, Llanwonno; April 29, at one, at office of Sol., Beddoe, Aberdare

EVANS, RICHARD BAUGH, draper, Newport; April 29, at one, at office of Barnard, Thomas, Tribe, and Co., public accountants, Bristol. Sols., Press and Inskip, Bristol

FEATHERSTONE, RICHARD MUDON, grocer, Upper North-st, Poplar, and John-st, Cannon-st-rd; April 30, at three, at office of Sol., Pelham, Arbour-sq, Stepney

FITCH, WILLIAM, stationer, Old Fish-st-hill, and Old Fish-st; April 22, at three, at office of Thwaites, accountant, Basinghallst. Sol., Doble, Basinghall-st

GOODALL, JOHN EDWARD, chemist, Myddelton-st, Clerkenwell; April 25, at three, at office of Sol, Lewis, Hatton-garden, Holborn

HADDOCK, JOSEPH, greengrocer, Birmingham; April 24, at three, at office of Sol., East, Birmingham

HANMER, EDWIN, timber merchant, Manchester; April 29, at three, at office of Sol., Hardy, Manchester

HILL, TIMOTHY, auctioneer, Wolverhampton; April 20, at twelve at office of Sol., Dallow, Wolverhampton HODGSON, WILLIAM BOWMAN, bootinaker, May 1, at eleven, at the Queen's hotel, Carnforth. Sol., Pearson, Kirby Lonsdale HOLDWAY, OWEN, confectioner, Woolwich; April 24, at three, at offices of Sol., Maniere, Grays-inn-sq

HOLMES, JANE, widow, provision dealer, Manchester: April 26, at three, at office of Sols., Sutton and Elliott, Manchester HOLMES, JOHN ADAMS, ship chandler, Cardiff; April 27, at one, at office of Messrs. Barnard, Thomas, and Company, Albionchmbs, Bristol. Sols., Ingledew and Ince

HOOPER, WILLIAM, shaft maker, Stamford-bridge; April 30, at ten, at office of Sol., Crumbie, Stonegate

HOPKINS, WILLIAM, miller, Marston Bigott; May 4, at two, at office of Sol., McCarthy, Frome

HYDE, JAMES, tailor, Liverpool; April 30, at two, at office of Sol., Evans and Lockett, Liverpool

JARMAN, EDWARD, stone mason, Bridgwater; April 29, at twelve, at office of Sols., Reed and Cook, Bridgwater JOHNSTONE, WILLIAM, marine store dealer, Brighton; May 2, at one, at office of Sol., Mills, Brighton

KER, JEMIMA, boot dealer, Birmingham; April 26, at elever, at office of Sol., Duke, Birmingham

KIMPTON, GEORGE, bookseller's assistant, Hampden-rd, Holloway; May 2, at three, at office of Sol, Mott, St. Paul's-chmbs, Paternoster-row LANGLEY, WILLIAM, architect, Coventry; May 3, at three, at the Craven Arms hotel, Coventry. Sol., Overell, Leamington Priors

LOCKWOOD, RICHARD, draper, Kirkburton; May 2, at three, at office of Sol., Sykes, Huddersfield

LOWE, JAMES, wire manufacturer, Nechells, near Birmingham; April 30, at twelve, at office of Sols., Beale, Marigold, and Beale, Birmingham

LUNT, JOHN. machinist, Birmingham; April 26, at twelve, at office of Sol., Fallows, Birmingham

[blocks in formation]

The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Dividends.

Cooper, E. F. H. widow, further, 10d. Daw, Exeter.

Balle, W. printer, second, 4d. At office of Trust., G. Wreford, Gandy-st chmbs. Exeter.-Carruthers, J. draper, first, 2. A offices of Trust., A. McDowall, 21A, Watling-st.-Dauson, J. Whitehaven, second, 68. 8d. At the Creditors' Mercantile Association, 18, Coleman-st. Trust. W. C. Harvey.-Fairbank, W. J. corn mer. chant, first and final, 1s. 6d. At offices of Trust., G. Pye, 3, Bankbldgs, Colchester.-James, F. H. tailor, third, 1d. At offices of O. Richards, 16, Warwick-st, Regent-st.-Smith, W. grocer, second and final, 18. 54d. At offices of Barnard, Thonias, Tribe, and Co., Albion-chmbs, Bristol.--Voules, Rev. T. A. clerk in holy orders, first, 3s. 6d. At office of Trust., J. C. Baker, Ilminster.

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

BRUCE. On the 11th inst., at 31, Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, the wife of W. R. Bruce, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter. MEYLER. On the 13th inst., at Piercefield, near Taunton, the wife of Thomas Meyler, Esq., solicitor, of a daughter. WILLIS-On the 7th inst., at Lee, Kent, the wife of William Willis, barrister-at-law, of a son.

MARRIAGES. MARTIN-CAMMELL-On the 10th inst., at Norton Church, Derby shire, Edward Martin, jun., of 4, Queen's gardens, Hyde-park, barrister-at-law, to Alice Maud, only daughter of Charles Cam. mell, of Norton Hall, and Brookfield Manor, Derbyshire, and Ditcham Park, Hants. THOMAS-BANKS. On the 10th inst., at the Church of the Holy Trinity, Brompton, Edwyn Thomas, Esq., barrister-at-law, Middle Temple, to Frances Maria, only surviving child of the late William Houghton Banks, Esq., M.D., R.N., of Vernon House, Ryde, Isle of Wight

TODD WATSON.- On the 11th inst., at St. Augustine's Church
Hedon, Charles James Todd, solicitor, of Hull, to Kate, second
daughter of W. Watson, Holyrood House, Hedon.
WILKINS-GENN. On the 3rd inst., at Falmouth, Charles J.
Wilkins, Esq, of the Middie Temple, to Margaret Hawke, second
daughter of W. J. Genn, Esq., of Falmouth.
DEATHS.

HADDOCK-On the 10th inst., aged 41, Charles Milner Haddock
Esq., of 18, St. Paul's Churchyard, solicitor.
HASELL.-On the 7th inst., at Dolemain, aged 75, Edward Williams
Hasell, Esq., Chairman of Quarter Sessions for Cumberland and
Westmorland.

SLARK. On the 14th inst., at his residence, Herne Bay, aged 74, William Slark, Esq., J.P., and Deputy Lieutenant for the county of Kent.

TIBBITS.-On the 10th inst., at St. John's-gardens, Queen'screscent, Haverstock-hill, aged 50, William Tibbits, solicitor.

LYON, GEORGE, publican, Liverpool: April 29, at eleven, at office PARTRIDGE AND COOPER

of Sols.. Wright, Stockley, and Becket, Liverpool MARK, LEVY, plumber, Portobello-rd, Notting-hill; April 30, at two, at office of Sol., Lewis, Cheapside

MATYEAR, ROBERT, out of business, Simpson-st, Battersea ; April 30, at eleven, at office of Mr. Gomme, accountant, SouthSols., Eldred and Andrew, Great St. ampton-st, Strand. James-st, Bedford-row MEADOWS, THOMAS, carpenter, Bourton-on-the-Water: April 20, Sol., at four, at the Wellington inn, Bourton-on-the-Water. Brookes, Stow-on-the-Wold MORGAN, WILLIAM, bootmaker, Bristol; April 27, at eleven, at office of Sol., E-sery, Bristol

OLIVER, JOSEPH ROBSON, butcher, Sunderland; May 1, at three, at office of Sol., Fairclough, Sunderland

PARTINGTON, JAMES, innkeeper, Sandbach; April 30, at two, at office of Messrs. Latham and Bygott, Crewe. Sol., Bygott, Sandbach

PEARSON. THOMAS, bricklayer, Mileham; April 30, at two, at the King's Head inn, East Dereham. Sols., Emerson and Sparrow, Norwich

PERKINS, GEORGE, wholesale fruiterer, Birmingham; April 30, at twelve, at office of Sol, Fallows, Birmingham PENN, JOHN, licensed victualler, Stoke Prior; April 25, at three, at office of Sol., Crowther, Kidderminster PURDY, THOMAS, warehouseman, Rochdale; April 27, at three, at office of Sol., Standring Rochdale

PUDGE, ELIZABETH, widow, Bishop's Frome; May 2, at eleven, at office of Sol., Garrold, Hereford

RASTRICK, SA 4UEL, grocer, Bradford; April 29, at four, at office of Sol., Berry, Bradford

ROBEY, WILLIAM, hair dresser, Ryde; April 29, at one, at office of Messrs. Sole, Turner, and Turner, solicitors, Aldermanbury. Sol., Hooper, Newport

ROE, ROBERT. corn merchant, Old-st. St. Luke's; April 26, at four, at Mr. Higginbottom's rooms, Corn Exchange, Mark-la. Sol, Stoker

ROTHWELL, JOHN PORRITT, and WHITWORTH, SARAH ANN, widow, woollen manufacturers, both Rochdale; April 29. at three, at the White Swan inn, Rochdalo. Sol., Standring, jun., Rochdale

SATCHELL JOHN, commission agent, Lady Somerset-rd, Kentish Town; May 1, at two, at office of Sol., Stacpoole, Pinner's-hall, Old Broad-st

SCHWEITZER, THEODOR, and SCHWEITZER, HENRY, ship chandlers, Bristol; April 26, at twelve, at office of Sol., Salmon, Bristol

SOLOMON, SOLOMON, tailor. Manchester; May 2, at three, at office of Sols., Messrs. Heath, Manchester

SPINK, JAMES, shoemaker, Burnsall; April 30, at two, at office of Sol., Paget, Skipton

STANDRING, SAMUEL, reed maker, Rochdale; April 27, at three, at office of Sol., Standring, Rochdale

STOTT, JOHN, loom jobber, Rochdale; April 27, at three, at office of Sol., Standring, Rochdale

THOMAS, JOSEPH, draper, Neath; April 27, at eleven, at office of Messrs. Barnard, Thomas, Tribe, and Company, Albion-chmbs, Bristol

THOMAS, THOMAS, collier, Ystradyfodwg; April, 27, at eleven, at office of Sol., Phillips, Aberdare

THOMSON, JOHN, and UPTON, JOHN, engineers, Derby; May 2, at one, at office of Sol., Leech, Derby

UNDERHILL, FREDERICK NICHOLAS, shoemaker, Topsham; May 6. at eleven, at office of Sol., Campion, Exeter WAKEMAN, THOMAS, and WAKEMAN, ENOCH, millers. Oldbury; April 25, at twelve, at office of Sol., Morgan, Birmingham WALLIS, EDWARD, horse slaughterer, Wandsworth; May 7, at two, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sols., Peacock and Goddard, South-sq, Grays-inn

WALLIS, THOMAS, hosier, Manchester; April 30, at three, at office of Sols., Morris and Wood, Manchester WILD. THOMAS, timber merchant, Birmingham; April 26. at twelve, at the Great Western hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Pole, Birmingham

WILSON, JOSEPH GARNETT HARCOURT, draper, Market Rasen; April 29, at eleven, at the George hotel, Stamford. Sol., Stapleton, Stamford

WILLIAMS, JOHN. joiner, Llandegai, and Cefn Cwlyn, near Bethesda, par. Llanllechid; May 1, at two, at the Prince Albert hotel, Bangor. Sol, Williams. Carnarvon WILLIAMSON, GEORGE, carter, Burslem; April 23, at eleven, at office of Sols., T. H. and F. W. Tomkinson, Burslem WINFIELD, ROBERT, farmer, Sinfin Moor; May 3, at three, at office of Sol,, Heath, Derby

WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS, 192, FLEET-STREET, AND 1 & 2, CHANCERY-LANE, LONDON, E.C. Carriage paid to the Country on Orders exceeding 20s. DRAFT PAPER, 48. 6d., 6s., 78., 78. 9d., and 9s. per ream. BRIEF PAPER, 15s. 6d., 178. 6d., and 23s. 6d. per ream. FOOLSCAP PAPER, 10s. 6d., 13s. 6d., and 188. 6d. per ream. CREAM LAID NOTE, 38., 4s., and 58. per ream. LARGE CREAM LAID NOTE, 4s., 6s., and 78. per ream. LARGE BLUE NOTE, 38., 4s., and 6s. per ream. ENVELOPES, CREAM OR BLUE, 48. 6d., and 6s. 6d., per 1000. THE TEMPLE' ENVELOPE, extra secure, 9s. 6d. per 1000. FOOLSCAP OFFICIAL ENVELOPES, 1s. 6d. per 100. THE NEW "VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE" NOTE, 9s. 6d. per

[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »