paratively small outlying Brentford district-trusts imperfectly performed, there had been no the population, as he had learnt from Mr. Ruston, court open for redress. The expenses of suits the registrar, amounted to 56,000. In the other in the higher courts of equity had occasioned two districts, the population within the area of a great privation of justice. No poor man could the court was little short of half a million-and approach them in cases of trifling pecuniary more than this, it comprised inhabitants-all more amount. Thirdly, causes were now remitted from or less highly educated, very many of a very the courts at Westminster, the judges consider. wealthy class-in short it comprised all those ing they could be more cheaply and expefeatures found always so highly favourable to ditiously dealt with in the County Court. This litigation. After two years, therefore, finding his operated as an effectual discouragement to attorstrength quite unequal to a satisfactory dis- neys from involving suitors in heavy and unnecescharge of the various duties cast upon him, and sary expenses. Fourthly, the Bills of Exchange finding it impossible to do justice to the suitors Act and Married Women's Property Act had been themselves, he petitioned the Lord Chancellor as made applicable to the County Court. Fifthly, by far back as 1865, and two or three times subse- a section inserted in the Equity Act of 1866, quently for a division of the courts, and for relief. it was now optional with the County Court judges In these petitions he was supported by memorials to hold sittings in September, whereas before, the from the inhabitants of Marylebone, as Mr. Clarke courts had sat without intermission throughout could testify, to the same effect. These memorials, the year. This improvement, for which they were however, met with no success, and he continued to indebted to Lord Chelmsford, when Lord Chandischarge the duties of his office as well as he cellor, he did not think could be complained of, could till two years ago his health fairly broke and certainly not by those who had an opportunity down, and his temporary absence from the court of testing the great labour undergone by those in under medical advice was necessary. On return- their several capacities who had to sit in local courts. ing to his duties with health somewhat amended, And with regard to the long vacation generally, he had been advised by his physician to have the he would take the opportunity of saying that he assistance of a deputy one day in the week, which did not see how it could possibly be done away he had accordingly done for the last twelve with. Brain work, much more than manual months, having had recourse to the able assist- labour, requires periods of rest and relaxation, ance of his friend Mr. Abbott (who was sitting at and this remark was applicable to men in every 1 his side), and who had discharged the duties of profession, and professional men frequently came deputy judge on the days he had sat, with the there as plaintiffs or defendants; yet, on the great respect of all who had come before him. whole, he thought that the Michaelmas Law Term Some months ago, however, it had been intimated might well commence on 1st Oct.-when their to him that the course adopted by him of not per- own business recommenced-instead of 1st Nov., forming the entire duties of his office did not meet as now. This would give, at least, six weeks the approval either of the authorities, or of the vacation to judges and lawyers, which he conlegal profession, or of his brother judges, it being sidered ample for all purposes of renovation of considered that if a judge could not do his strength of mind and body. Having given them work, he ought not to receive its emoluments. this short summary of what had been done to imHe was not the man to resist such an expression prove local courts, he would shortly run over a of feeling, and he had therefore tendered his re- few of those improvements yet remaining to be signation which had been accepted, and his suc- introduced. First of all, he would strongly urge cessor, Mr. Blaine, who had already had judicial what was called "The Optional Jurisdiction," experience, having sat in Northumberland for namely, that all actions of every description and some time, would take his seat in that court on of every amount should be brought, if the plainthe following day. Having thus explained the tiff so wished it, in the County Court, and then circumstances of his resignation, he would take that the defendant, in cases involving debt or the liberty of laying before them a few of the damages above a certain amount, should have Court statisties which he had prepared, showing power to remove them to a superior court on the vast labours of a judge of those courts. The giving security for costs-thus reversing the figures now submitted to them, were for the twelve present system, under which actions begun in the months ending 31st Dec. 1870. In that year there higher court were removed into the lower. Thus were 18,258 plaints entered, and of these above he would give the plaintiffs free trade in law. 7000 were settled by payment before hearing of Lord Brougham, the founder of these courts, the cases, thus showing the great advantage of always contemplated and desired this improvement. the local tribunal, at once obliging and eliciting Another improvement he would suggest would be settlement of accounts. Of the 18,258 plaints the association of civil and criminal business 10.565 were actually determined in court, and throughout the country in the local courts, the 35 of these with juries, either undefended before criminal business being such as is now dealt with the registrar or defended and tried before the by quarter sessions, and he would have continuous judge. Again, of these 18,258 plaints 254 were for sittings, not occasional, for both civil and criminal sums between 201. and 501. (the highest sum for business. Thirdly, he would recommend a more which County Court actions could now be brought careful and better subdivision of County Court except by consent which was never given), and business than at present, when all cases of these 254 causes were in the aggregate for the most heterogeneous character, the most a sum of 65301. Os. 4d. Then of the 10,565 causes trumpery and trifling actions commingled with tried, 6445 were for plaintiff, while for defen- the most important, so that counsel who dant there were only 328 judgments, and only attended these courts had often to wait there in 177 nonsuits, thus showing the bona fides on the their robes for several hours, and went away at whole of this vast number of actions brought. the end unheard. He would recommend certain During the year ending Dec. 1870, there were 3971 days to be appointed for certain classes of busijudgment summonses taken out, 1992 actually ness, say actions under 51. (the limit for an heard, there were 704 commitments, but only 149 attorney's fee), to be taken on one day, and cases persons went to prison, thus illustrating the sue- above that amount, or with juries, to be taken on cess of the plan of suspending committals, which other days. There was this danger attending the he believed he was among the first, if not the first, present course, viz., that the transition from an to introduce, and which he believed was important case to a very trifling one, might ungenerally adopted in other courts. By the present avoidingly cause the latter to be passed over with plan the original order was very often reduced, less attention, especially when a third case coming sometimes to one-half, but the debtor was obliged on was known to involve matters of interest in it, under impending pressure of a committal, to keep with counsel perhaps on one or on both sides. He up his payments, and to continue to pay what he did not see why this subdivision of the business could well afford. There had been 15 equity suits in could not easily be carried out, though when he 1870 (in 1869, 25) and 56 cases remitted for trial, had proposed it, some objection had always been under various Acts from the Superior Courts. and raised. The last improvement he would refer to disposed of before him in the County Court; there was one which he should not have mentioned, had had been only two appeals, but whether they were he not ceased to have personal interest in it, viz., sustained or dismissed, he could not tell them. the occasional promotion of judges of local courts. If they had been sustained and allowed, he had no He had heard from Lord Brougham that this had doubt it was from some shortcoming of his. This been always a part of his plan, and that he had brought him to the several improvements in the often tried to introduce it, but that he could not County Court system since 1863, when he was persuade the high legal authorities or the profesremoved to Marylebone. First, the undefended sion to favour it. He was of opinion that vast causes were now taken before the registrar, thus advantages would accrue from an occasional proenabling two courts to be held simultaneously, motion of a County Court judge to one of the and thereby materially expediting public business. judgeships in Westminster Hall. First of all, the He took that opportunity of thanking the regis- public would get a better article for their money, trars for their able co-operation in this matter, for when once it became known that a County as the Act of Parliament had not made it com- Court judgeship was not a bar to all advancement, pulsory upon them to discharge these additional the most able men in the legal profession would duties, and there was no additional salary for aspire to the judicial office in the local court, feeling them. Then, secondly, equity had been intro- that by their own exertions and merit they might duced into the local courts, which he considered hope for a higher position. Then secondly, as rean excellent improvement, not so much in the gards the County Court judges themselves, they metropolis (where there were equity courts already would have an additional stimulus to the discharge accessible), but in the provinces, and in remote of their duties, and an inducement to keep themparts of the country, where for the poorer classes selves well posted up in the knowledge and learnbefore, in cases of disputed wills, or legacies, or ing of their profession, with the object of making

now

themselves fit for a higher sphere; and lastly,
they would not be without hope, which, as they
all knew, was so marvellous in its cheering and
encouraging effects to enable a man to bear up
against depression or occasional sickness. He
thought that the legal profession acted wrongly
in not supporting the occasional preferment of
County Court judges, for sixty valuable prizes.
would be a great accession to the scanty and few
judicial honours now within their reach. In addition
to this, by the improvement he proposed, an inroad
would be made upon the present faulty system of
rewarding political merit and services with judi-
cial advancement. But these and all other im-
provements, whether in the County Court system
or generally in various departments of our juris-
prudence could not be effected until an entire
revolution was made in the machinery now exist-
ing for carrying them out. The learned judge
then adverted at considerable length to the neces-
sity existing for a department of justice, showing
that the office of Lord Chancellor in its multi-
farious character altogether debarred him from
being able to attend to legislation or propose
fundamental improvements in our laws. He read
extracts from a very learned Lord Chancellor
(whose name, for obvious reasons, he did not
mention), excusing himself for inability to propose
various improvements suggested by himself (the
learned Judge) on account of the diversity and
number of his avocations, political and judicial.
His Honour went on to say that to expect law
reforms under the present defective system, the
machinery being totally inadequate, was to expect
to draw fifteen railway carriages, heavily laden, up-
a steep incline with a single horse. He drew atten-
tion to the various questions now awaiting solu-
tion, the codification of our laws, upon which he
cited Lord Bacon, the establishment of depart-
mental tribunals, the present system of circuits
being, he said, now obsolete; the difficulties sur-
rounding the structure of our new law courts, and
a variety of other questions; and said that in no
other country in Europe was the Ministry of the
Interior or Home Department joined with the
department of justice. The Treasury naturally,
and no one could blame them for it, took always a
financial view of legal questions; and the subor
dinate law officers of the Government, the
Attorney and Solicitor-General, were not allowed
to initiate law reforms-they only executed what
the Lord Chancellor devised and proposed.
His Honour excused himself for referring to
matters of general rather than County Court
interest, in consequence of his having always
made law reform his particular study and
his having left Bristol for the London Court,
in order not to be debarred from having his small
share in legal improvements. He then thanked
in warm terms the registrars, high bailiffs, counsel,
and attorneys, for their able and valuable assist-
ance always rendered to him, and for the uniform
courtesy and kindness with which he had been
treated by them, and as regards the suitors in that
court, though in giving his judgment he must
have decided against one party, he felt that if it
could be said of him, as of a judge by the Roman
historian, "Quos contra statui æquos placatos-
que dimisi," he would be abundantly rewarded for
all his labours. In conclusion, he wished them all,
collectively and individually, health, prosperity,
and long life, and he would now wish them most
cordially, respectfully, and affectionately, farewell.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT. (Before F. BAYLEY, ESQ., Judge.) Tuesday, Oct. 31.

Re CHIAPINI. Married Women's Property Act 1870, ss. 2 and 9— Money in savings bank. | Held, a feme covert was entitled, in her own right, to money deposited in a savings bank, although the husband's intention was that it should be applied to household expenses.

AN application was made by Mary Chiapini for payment of moneys deposited in a Post Office Savings Bank in her name.

R. Willis, attorney for the applicant. H. C. Templeman, for the husband. It appeared from the facts of the case that the applicant's husband was a waiter, and that he had from to time, since the passing of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 99 (Married Woman's Property Act 1870), handed over to his wife, the plaintiff, his weekly earnings, with the intention that they should be applied towards the expenses of their living. A sum of 151. so handed over had been deposited by her in a savings bank in her own name, and on the 22nd Sept. 1871 she had obtained a protection order, which the magistrate refused to set aside She now applied under ss. 2 and 9 of the recent Act of Parliament, for payment of the sum of 15l. deposited as above. Sect. 2 provides that any deposit thereafter made, &c., in the name of a married woman shall be deemed to be the separate property of such woman, and the same shall be accounted for and paid to her as if she were an unmarried woman, provided that if any such deposit

is made by, or such annuity granted to, a married woman by means of moneys of her husband without his consent, the court may upon an application under sect. 9 order such deposit to be paid to the husband. Sect. 9 gives either husband or wife power to apply by summons to the judge of a County Court as to property declared by the Act to be the separate property of the wife, and thereupon the judge is to make such order as he shall think fit.

His HONOUR said it was a very hard case upon the husband that he should be deprived of his earnings in this way, but that, as the deposit had been made by the wife by means of moneys of her husband, and with his consent, he was obliged, in conformity with sect. 2 of the Act, to make the required order. Order for the applicant.

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, ss. 6 AND 125-LIQUI DATION-VESTING OF DEBTOR'S GOODS IN TRUSTEE. The presentation of a petition for liquidation is an act of bankruptcy, and everything which a trustee would take under a bankruptcy vests in the trustee under the liquidation. A debtor filed a petition for liquidation, but before a trustee was appointed some of the debtor's goods were seized under an execution at the suit of creditors who had notice of the petition: Held (affirming the decision of Bacon, C.J.), that the goods vested in the trustee by relation back to the filing of the petition: (Ex parte Duignan; Re Bissell, 25, L. T. Rep. N. S. 286. Chan.)

BANKRUPTCY - LIQUIDATION BY ARRANGEMENT-EXECUTION CREDITOR-PETITION PRESENTED AFTER SEIZURE, BUT BEFORE SALETITLE OF TRUSTEE.-R. and Co. obtained judgments against H on the 21st Nov. On the 23rd the sheriff seized. H.'s landlord distrained for rent on the same goods. The sale on behalf of both creditors and landlord was advertised for the 28th and 29th. On the 26th H. filed a petition for liquidation, and obtained an injunction restraining the sale by the sheriff, who nevertheless sold. On the 9th Dec. notice of the filing of the petition was served on R. and Co., and a trustee was appointed on the 24th: Held, that the execution creditors were entitled to the proceeds of the sale: (Ex parte Rocke; Re Hall, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 287. Chan.) BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, ss. 11, 95, 125-LIQUIDATION-ACT OF BANKRUPTCY-SEIZURE AND SALE-RELATION BACK.-The goods of a nontrader debtor were seized under an execution. A petition for liquidation was presented, but the sale of the goods seized was completed before the appointment of a trustee. Held, that the execution creditor was entitled to the proceeds. The words "act of bankruptcy," in sect. 95, sub-sect. 3 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, mean an act committed at the time of the seizure. The title of a trustee under a liquidation relates back in the same manner as that of a trustee under a bankruptcy: (Ex parte Todhunter; Re Norton, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 313. Bank.) BANKRUPTCY PROTECT SEPARATE ESTATE-SEPARATE ADJU

INSPECTOR APPOINTED

DICATION AGAINST

ΤΟ

neglect to secure the debt as an act of bank-
ruptcy, must present his petition within six
months after the expiration of the twenty-one
days after service of the summons: (Ex parte
Weir, re Weir, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 369. Chan.)

BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE.

solicitor to the petitioning creditor, who claimed upwards of 301. for prosecuting the petition. From this order the present appeal was brought.

Bagley, who appeared for the appellant, called attention to the fact that one of the orders was without date. He appeared for the executors, and the respondent was a Mr. Busby, who claimed a certain amount of money from the debtors on account of rent.

Reed, on the part of the respondent, took a preliminary objection, to the effect that Mr. Sugg's executors had no locus standi. Mr. Sugg was an attorney, and his executors could only apply to the court below, under sect. 71, to discharge or vary the order, they being argrieved by it. The words of the statute were that anyone aggrieved should apply to the court below, and then, in the event of his not varying, discharging, or rescinding the order, they might have applied to the ceurt. The orders were made by the court on the application of the landlord.

His LORDSHIP said that it did not matter at all if they felt aggrieved, and called upon Mr. Bagley to proceed.

A LOCAL case of some importance was heard by
the Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal in
Chancery. Its history is interesting as an
illustration of the difficulties which may arise
in the liquidation of a small estate. In August,
1870, Mr. Samuel Sparke, of Phythian-street, Low-
hill, coachbuilder, petitioned the court for liquida-
tion of his affairs by arrangement. His liabilities,
including rent, were 1,6841. His assets, which
consisted of stock in trade and furniture, realised
about 4501. Over this property Messrs. Cohen
held bills of sale, which had been several times
renewed, without being registered, as security for
an advance of 50l. made by them to the debtor in
the previous month of May. On the petition being
filed, they entered into possesion of the property,
and were proceeding to sell the same, when on the
motion of Mr. Bolland, who had been appointed
receiver, they were restrained by Mr. Blair, the
learned County Court judge. The ground upon
which the order to restrain was made was that,
the bill of sale creditor was 'not in possession of
the property at the time the petition was pre-
sented, and, therefore, to the outer world, the
property was in the order or disposition of
the debtor with the consent of the true owner.
From that order the bill of sale creditor ap-
pealed to the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, who
held that although the bills of sale were invalid,
being acts of bankruptcy, still upon the issue
before him, namely, as to whether the property
was in the order or disposition of the debtor with
the consent of the true owner, he differed from
the learned County Court judge, as the evidence
that the bill of sale creditor had demanded pos-
session of the premises the night before the peti-
tion was presented was sufficient to show the pro-
perty was not in the possession of the debtor with
the consent of the true owner. The order to re-
strain being therefore reversed, the bill of sale
creditor immediately commenced an action of
trover for the property against Mr. Bolland, who
had been appointed trustee, and had realised the
estate. That action, upon motion by the trustee,
was restrained by Mr. Serjt. Wheeler, on the
ground that the bills of sale were acts of bank-
ruptcy, and void as against the trustee. The bill
of sale creditor again appealed to the chief judge,
who affirmed the decision of the learned County
Court judge, with costs. Not deterred, a still
further appeal was raised by the bill of sale
creditor, and on Wednesday last the case came
before the Lords Justices, and was concluded
yesterday. Mr. De Gex and Mr. Bagley, in-
structed by Mr. Maurice Nordon, of Liverpool,
supported the appeal; and Mr. Reed and Mr.
Wheeler, instructed by Messrs. Duke and Goffey,
appeared for the trustee. The main point of con-
tention on the part of the appellant's counsel was
that the Court of Bankruptcy had no jurisdiction to
restrain an action already commenced in a court of
common law, there being no question of any equity
The CHIEF JUDGE pointed out that the 50th
different from the legal right. The Lords Justices, rule contained a proviso to the effect that in the
without calling upon the counsel for the trustee event of notice not having been given to a third
to reply, said they were clearly of opinion that by
virtue of sect. 72 the County Court had jurisdic-party affected, a rule should issue to show cause
tion to restrain, and that upon the merits of the why such an order should not be made, which ap-
question the injunction to restrain had been pro-peared to have been the precise course adopted
perly granted. The appeal was accordingly dis-
missed with costs.-Liverpool Mercury.

ONE PARTNER BANKRUPTCY ACT 1861.-M., one of three partners, was separately adjudicated a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act 1861. Joint creditors of the firm proved debts amounting to 89,000l., and two of the joint creditors were appointed creditors' assignees. The separate debts amounted to not more than 80001. There was no joint estate, and the separate estate only amounted to 38501. Under these circumstances an application was made on behalf of almost all the separate creditors, that the separate creditors might be at liberty to appoint an inspector of the separate estate to protect their Ex parte SUGG AND OTHERS; Re HARGATE. interests. The registrar having refused the appli- | Liquidation-Rights of third persons-Noticecation: Held, upon appeal, that the application ought to be granted, but upon the condition that the inspector should take no step without the approval of the registrar: (Ex parte Melbourne; Re Melbourne, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 368. Chan.)

THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, ss. 6. 7,9-ACT OF BANKRUPTCY-DEBTOR'S SUMMONS-FAILURE TO SECURE alleged DeBT WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OR THREE WEEKS. A debtor (not a trader), upon whom a debtor's summons is served, commits an act of bankruptcy if he does not pay, or secure, or compound for the debt to which the summons relates within three weeks after the service of the summons upon him, notwithstanding the fact that he has applied to the court to dismiss the summons, and that an order has been made extending beyond the end of the three weeks the time for his giving security for the debt. No adjudication of bankruptcy can, however, be made against him until the question whether the debt demanded is really due has been deter Lined. Consequently, the creditor who issued the debtor's summons in order to obtain an adjudication of bankruptcy against the debtor, founded upon the

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Monday. Nov. 13.
(Before the CHIEF JUDGE.)

Rule 50-Priority.
THIS was an appeal from an order of the Regis-
trar of the County Court of Barnsley, in refer-
ence to the petition for liquidation in Re James
and Richard Hargate, of Darfield near Barnsley.
The appellants are the executors of the late Mr.
Henri Hubert Sugg, who was the solicitor to the
debtors.

The facts of the case are shortly these: The
two debtors filed a petition of inability to pay
their debts on the 22nd March last, and employed
Mr. Henri Hubert Sugg, solicitor, of Figtree
Chambers, Sheffield, to conduct the proceedings
on their behalf. At the first meeting, which took
place on the 14th April, Mr. T.Swaine was appointed
trustee. At that time the landlord was in pos-
session of the premises for arrears of rent to
the amount of 401. for the past year, and previous
arrears to the extent of 16l. 9s., and on the 24th
Aug. and the 17th Oct., Mr. Bury, the Registrar
of the County Court of Yorkshire held at Barnsley,
made two orders ordering the trustee to pay to
the landlord the rent in question, amounting to
561. 9s., in priority to paying the costs of the

till after the appointment of a receiver to the Bagley then stated that Mr. Sugg was solicitor estate, when he ceased to be such solicitor, and presented his bill of costs. Mr. Swaine was appointed trustee, and on the 15th Aug. he received a letter from Mr. Swaine, the trustee, to the effect that an order would be applied for to pay Mr. Busby the amount of his rent. In Mr. Sugg's absence, his clerk replied by putting in a claim for priority of his costs. He also pointed out that the notice for Busby was really sent to Swaine, and not to Sugg, and he therefore claimed a proper notice. The first order was made on or about the 25th Aug., and stated that unless Mr. Sugg showed cause to the contrary, an order for the payment of the amount would be made. Now, by the 50th rule in bankruptcy it was laid down that in the case of any order affecting the rights of a third person, notice of the order should be given to such person, and that had not been done in this case. It was further alleged that the order proceeded upon viva voce evidence only. Mr. Sugg therefore refused to take that, no evidence being adduced before the regis any notice of the order, and the consequence was trar in addition to the evidence of Thos. Swaine, on which the former order proceeded, the second order was made, by which the 161. 9s. arrears was ordered to be paid in priority of the claim of Mr. Sugg. The learned counsel read an affidavit from Mr. Binns, the solicitor acting for the executors, showing that Mr. Sugg had received no notice of the proceedings whatever, such as the statute required. The two orders were made, not by the judge it was true, but from the registrar to whom the judge had delegated his power, and was perfectly clear that the order should not have been made without due notice to Mr. Sugg. It appears, however, that the notice of Busby's intention to apply to the court was only sent to Swaine, who was not only the trustee but as it now turned out was the agent of the landlord. It was a rule of law that a person who took proceedings for the winding-up of the affairs of a debtor was entitled to be paid his costs in priority of all others.

On the 24th Aug. the order was to show cause, and cause not having been shown by the 17th Oct. it was made absolute.

Bagley said that no affidavits had been furnished, but he admitted that the real contention was that there not being enough to pay the claims of both, the appellant claimed priority. He then proceeded to argue that first, it was a clear principle of the law that a landlord could only levy for a year's rent, but in this case there had been previous arrears. He quoted the case of Ex parte Sharman (1 Atk. 103), in which the ruling was that a landlord, having failed to distrain, and the assignce having subsequently seized, had abandoned his right of distress, could not put in a second one, but must rank as a common creditor, and in the case of Bank v. Morgay (Ex. Rep. 641), the landlord having abandoned a distress on a statement that a creditor was about to proceed in bankruptcy, it was held he could not put in a second one. contended that as in this case the landlord had distrained, and had subsequently withdrawn the sheriff to save costs, he was in the position of a landlord who had already abandoned the distress, and therefore was not entitle to the order in question, on the two grounds, first, that no sufcient notice had been given to Mr. Sugg, and in the second place that the distress had been abandoned.

He

The CHIEF JUDGE, without calling on the learned counsel on the other side, dismissed the appeal. Nothing that had been said would induce him to rescind or vary the order of the court below. As it appeared to him the requirements of

the proviso in the 50th rule had been followed, and an order made to show cause why that of the 17th Oct. should not be made. On that day cause was shown. Mr. Smith appeared on the part of Mr. Sugg, and it was open to him to apply for an adjournment for the production of the evidence on which the order of the 24th Aug. was made, and the court would, at all events, have listened to the application. It was admitted that the landlord was properly in possession. His rights were the highest known to the law, and if he, for the sake of saving costs, agreed not to sell until the receivers had investigated the debtor's affairs, he ought not, doing that for the good of the estate, to be placed in a worse position than he was before. It was not the case of the abandonment of a distress. The law was that a landlord should be entitled to restrain for a year's rent, and to prove for the balance of arrears; but in this case there was a previous restrain, and the subsequent presentation of the petition for liquidation would not destroy the landlord's rights. The appeal would be dismissed, but looking to the irregularity of some of the proceedings in the court below, the respondent's costs could not be allowed. The appellant would be allowed to withdraw the costs he had deposited on account of the appeal.

(Before Mr. Registrar ROCHE as Chief Judge.) Wednesday, Nov. 15.

Finlay Knight applied for injunction against a creditor suing in the Common Pleas for a debt included in the statement of debtor's affairs, submitted to a meeting of creditors in February last, at which a composition had been accepted by extraordinary resolution duly registered, payable at twenty-one days and three months afterwards. The composition had not been paid, and on 18th Oct. the action now sought to be restrained was commenced. The grounds relied upon in support of the application were that the whole scope and spirit of the new Act was to give the Bankruptcy Court complete power in all cases, and to oust the jurisdiction at common law; that the resolution to accept a composition was the creditors' own act, and stated that the payments were in satisfaction of the debts due to them; that by clause 9, sect. 126, any creditor not paid at the time stipulated might apply to the court to enforce payment, and that it was the duty of the creditor to have done so.

Wetherfield showed cause, and contended that payment of the composition was a condition precedent to release; that at common law there was no discharge, and that the creditors' optional rights under the Act did not oust the common law jurisdiction, and cited the Lord Chancellor's dictum in Ex parte Brock, contending that "may" did not here mean "shall." He also pointed out the omission of extraordinary resolution or composition from Rule 289, which restrained certain proceedings after liquidation. He also cited Re Burr, before the same registrar, in which a creditor was allowed to prove for the whole of his unpaid debt, notwithstanding a prior composition resolution.

The REGISTRAR, in giving judgment, said the Bankruptcy Court was a court of equity as well as law; but the resolutions had not been carried out during the appointed time. No tender of the composition was proved, and it was not incumbent on the creditor to go after his debtor. The time having elapsed, and the condition precedent not having been complied with, the original right of the creditor revives, and it can be enforced.

The Court ultimately decided that the motion should stand over to abide the result of the action in which the debtor had pleaded the extraordinary resolution, costs being reserved.

OLDHAM COUNTY COURT.
Thursday, Nov. 9.

(Before J. F. TWEEDALE, Esq., Registrar.)
Re LEES WRIGLEY.

assess value

Bankruptcy-Order for alimony by Divorce Court
- Application to
Contingent
liability.
IN this case Jane Wrigley had obtained a decree
from the Divorce Court against her husband Lees
Wrigley for judicial separation and for payment
to her out of his income, and, until further orders
of that court, of permanent alimony at the rate of
521. per annum. Wrigley was attached under this
decree in 1869, and lodged in gaol at Lancaster,
and he was there adjudged bankrupt by Mr.
Macrae, the then registrar of the Bankruptcy
Court at Manchester. The proceedings were re-
ferred to the court at Oldham in consequence of
the bankrupt's residence being within that dis-
trict. The only creditors who proved were the
bankrupt's wife for arrears of alimony, and a
firm of solicitors for a bill of costs. A creditors'
assignee was appointed, who paid these claims in
full, and retained some estate in hand, and the
registrar was now asked to assess the value of
Mrs. Wrigley's future alimony.
Learoyd, of Huddersfield, for Mrs. Wrigley, in
support of the application.

Brooks, of Ashton, for the bankrupt.

The case had been adjourned, and the REGISTRAR, in now delivering judgment, said he had been referred by Mr. Learoyd to sects. 175 to 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1849, also to Ex parte Tindal, referred to in Parker v. Ince (28 L. J. Rep. N. S. Ex. 189). He could not proceed to assess the value of an alimony which was to be paid only by order of a court of law. If it were for a lifetime he could take the Government tables and arrive at what it was worth. But supposing the circumstances of the bankrupt were to change he might apply to the Divorce Court to diminish the annuity, and he (the registrar) would be called on to revalue it. Martin, B., in Parker v. Ince, said, "How can you calculate whether a man and his wife will go together again? Their doing so depends upon a thousand circumstances which it is impossible to estimate." It was impossible for him to assess the value of this alimony, because there is no fixed time during which it has to be paid, and it may be either increased or diminished as circumstances arise. He therefore dismissed Mrs. Wrigley's application with costs.

18. REMAINDERS.-C. B., by his will, devised certain copy hold hereditaments unto his son, R. F. B., for life, and after his decease said testator devised same unto cease said testator devised same unto such of his his grandson (R. F. B, the younger) for life, and after his said grandson's lineal descendant or descendants as at the time of his decease should be his heir or heirs-atlaw, to hold same to him, her, or them, and his, her, or their heirs, but in case his said grandson should have no lineal descendant or descendants him surviving, said testator devised same unto his own right heirs for ever. Can any of your readers inform me what estates R. F. B., the elder, and R. F. B., the younger, respectively take?

AN ARTICLED CLERK.

19. BEQUEST.-A. L. by his will (inter alia) gave and
bequeathed all the residue of his real and personal
estate unto trustees upon trust to pay the annual
income arising therefrom unto C. D., his daughter, for
her life, or to permit her to receive the same; and after
her death testator bequeathed the said income to E. F.
for his life, and he has since died. C. D. is now alive
and in receipt of the income. The will further goes on
to state that after the decease of E. F. the testator
sonal estate unto G. H. and I. J. as tenants in common.
gives one third of the residue of his said real and per-
I. J. subsequently married and begat children. Testa-
tor died in the lifetime of I. J., and E. F. died in the
lifetime of I. J. I. J. and all her children are now dead,
but her husband still survives. Question.-Did the
share of I. J. vest in her upon the death of testator, or
upon the death of E. F. so as to be transmissible to her
representatives upon the death of C. D., or did such
share lapse by reason of the death of I. J. in the life-
time of C. D.? Please quote authorities.
A SUBSCRIBER.

value of the property. Though not an outgoing, the
probable or average loss of rent ought, I think, to be
an element in the calculation in the same way as the
probable loss from insolvent or defaulting tenants.
For the above, Re Beresford's Succession (5 Irish C. L.
Rep. pp. 409, 424), is an authority which remains un-
affected by its reversal on other points by Re_Elmes
(3 Ex. R. N. S. 719.)
Z. Y.

22. ARTICLED Clerks-DEPUTY CLERK OF THE PEACE. -Can a gentleman who is not a solicitor act as deputy clerk of the peace for a borough? If so, can an articled clerk (over twenty-one years of age) act as deputy wise) for the solicitor to whom he is articled, who is a clerk of the peace (at the quarter sessions and otherclerk of the peace, having regard to the affidavit and answers he will have to make that he has not, during his articles, been engaged in any employment, &c., other than as clerk to the attorney to whom he has been articled? Information, or where to obtain it, will D. oblige.

Answers.

(Q. 116.) APPORTIONMENT ACT 1870.-From the 2nd
section and the definition of dividends in the 5th
section, it is clear that there must be an apportionment
against F.
Z. Y.

(Q. 4.) SUCCESSION DUTY.-The statute prescribes no criterion for determining the annual value. The com missioners are to ascertain as they best can the actu

(Q. 10.) CONVEYANCING.-I think C. D. can compel F. to complete. The rule is that a trustee shall not buy from himself. C. D. did not so buy, but from mortgagees under a power, and if the purchase exceeds the mortgage-money the mortgagees would have to account for the surplus to the trustees. Z. Y.

LEGAL NEWS.

INSTITUTION OF SURVEYORS.-The first meeting of the session was held at the rooms of institution, at No. 12, Great George-street, on Monday. The president, Mr. Richard Hall, delivered an opening address, in which, after congratulating the members upon the continued prosperity of the Society, he touched briefly upon prominent subjects of professional interest, and reviewed the measures affecting land and landed property which had received the attention of Parliament during the last session. This institution now numbers 192 members and sixty-four associates resident in various parts of the kingdom, and includes within its ranks a large proportion of the leading surveyors of the country, as well as many barristers and engineers of eminence. Meetings, at which papers are read and discussed, are held on alterAt the next meeting, on Monday, Dec. 4, a paper will be read Mondays throughout the session. by Mr. Clutton, ex-president, on "Disafforestation."

LAW SOCIETIES. ARTICLED CLERKS' SOCIETY. A MEETING of this society was held on Wednesday, Nov. 15 inst., at Clement's-inn Hall., Mr. Bone in the chair. Mr. Whale moved the appointed subject for debate: "That the policy of the present Government is worthy of the nation's support." After the speeches of the appointed speakers the debate was adjourned till next week.

HULL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A MEETING of this society was held at the Church Institute, on Tuesday evening last. Mr. J. Cook in the chair. The members were examined on the third chapter of William's on Personalty, and the following point was discussed: "Was the case of Xenos and another v. Wickham, (36 L. J. 317. H. of L.) rightly decided?" Mr. Woodhouse argued in the affirmative, and Mr. Pearce in the negative, and after a good discussion the question was decided in the affirmative.

MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING
SOCIETY.

AN ordinary meeting of the society was held on
Wednesday evening last. W. C. Smyly, Esq.,
Barrister-at-law, in the chair. The question for
discussion was: "Is accord and satisfaction with
a person injured a defence to an action by his
representatives, under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93, after his
For the affirmative, Mr. Edwards and
decease?
Mr. Whitehead; for the negative, Mr. Worth and
Mr. Doyle. The question was decided in the
affirmative by a majority of three.

THE doubtful convenience of post cards has been rather strongly illustrated by proceedings in the courts, civil and criminal. We recently referred to the law concerning libellous matter disseminated by such means, and we are glad to see that no single judge has followed the decision which we criticised, and questioned whether or not a libel on a post card could be considered in the light of a libel in a letter addressed to the individual libelled. We can hardly expect that the POSTMASTER GENERAL will deem it expedient, because the post card has been abused, to withdraw it from public use. Fortunately, in the cases brought before the courts the handwriting of the writers has been proved, and a conviction resulted. This may do something to check an in69 tolerable nuisance.