Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.

COUNTY COURTS AND THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1911. -I venture to send you copy of correspondence which has passed between the Treasury and myself in relation to payment of contrik utions under the above Act for part-time subordinate officers of the County Court. This correspondence speaks sufficiently for itself, and may be of interest to others than high bailiffs, who, like myself, are called upon to provide out of their own pockets the employer's proportion of the Health Insurance tax payable in respect of officers of the court employed solely in the public service. JOSEPH T. JACKSON.

County Court and National Insurance Acts.-County Court Office, Devizes, 23rd July 1912.-Sir,-National Insurance Act 1911.-Referring to your circular letter of the 12th inst., two assistant bailiffs are employed for the business of this court, one at a salary of £60 and the other at a salary of £40, with some small further allowances for service of default summonses and the usual fees for levying executions. Neither of them are whole-time officers, and I believe they both have other sources of livelihood, from rent collecting and other business. I shall be much obliged if you will inform me : () According to what scale they are liable to contribute for the purposes of the above Act, and according to what scale the Treasury, as their employers, is liable to contribute. (2) Shall I be in order in charging the Treasury's contribution, as employers, to my ordinary County Court account, at the same time as I charge their respective salaries? The assistant bailiffs have occasionally to obtain casual assistance to help them at the courts and with occasional process serving, and as man in possession on levying executions. What is the position of the person so employed in relation to the Insurance Acts, and who, if anyone, is responsible for payment of the employer's contribution? The man at present usually employed is ordinarily engaged as a small bootmaker working in partnership with his father.-I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, Sgd) JOSEPH T. JACKSON, Registrar. The Superintendent, County Courts Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W.

County Court Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W., 24th July 1912.-Dear Sir,-National Insurance Act 1911.-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd inst. and to inform you that you should apply to the National Insurance Commissioners, Buckingham Gate, London, S.W., with reference to the last paragraph of your letter and the scale of contribution. The circular only refers to whole-time employees. The Treasury are not their employers.-Yours faithfully, (Sgd) B. J. BRIDGEMAN, Supt.-The Registrar, County Court, Devizes.

County Court Office, Devizes, 25th July 1912.-Gentlemen,National Insurance Act 1911.-Inclosed I send you copy of correspondence which has passed between myself and the superintendent of the County Courts Department of the Treasury. Will you please give me your ruling on the questions contained in my letter to the superintendent ?-I am, Gentlemen, your obedient Servant, (Sgd) JOSEPH T. JACKSON, Registrar. The National Insurance Commissioners, Buckingham Gate, S.W.

National Health Insurance Commission (England), Buckingham-gate, London, S.W., 14th Aug. 1912.-47563/12.-Sir,-In reply to your letter and inclosure of the 25th ult., I am directed by the National Health Insurance Commission (England) to say that if either of the two assistant bailiffs to whom you refer is engaged at a rate of remuneration equivalent to more than £160 per annum for whole-time service, he is not required to be insured under Part 1 of the National Insurance Act in respect of such employment. If they are not so engaged, the authority which employs and pays them will be responsible for the payment of contributions in respect of them. I am to refer you to leaflet 18 for information as to the method of determining the rate of contribution. The assistants working under the assistant bailiffs will be required to be insured, and if, as is presumably the case, they are paid from funds provided by the authority above mentioned and the assistant bailiffs merely act as agents for the authority in engaging them, the authority will be considered to be their employer for the purposes of Part 1 of the National Insurance Act.-I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, (Sgd) L. G. BROCK. —J. T. Jackson, Esq., Registrar, County Court Office, Devizes.

County Court Office, Devizes, 3rd Sept. 1912.-Dear Sir,National Insurance Act 1911.-Referring to my letter to you of the 23rd July last and your reply of the 24th July, I have to inform you that I sent a copy of the two letters to the National Insurance Commissioners, and on the 15th ult. I received a reply from the commissioners of which I inclose a copy herewith. The remuneration of the assistant bailiffs engaged for the work of this court is certainly not equivalent to £160 per annum for wholetime services, and therefore, primâ facie, they would appear to be insurable. The present senior assistant bailiff is over seventy years of age, and is therefore exempt. For the moment, therefore, the junior assistant bailiff alone has to be dealt with. I shall be much obliged if you will kindly instruct me how I am to deal in my accounts with the proportion of the National Health Insurance payable by the employer in respect of such bailiff. With regard to men employed occasionally by the assistant bailiffs, as they are not paid from funds provided by "the authority" (i.e., I presume in this case the Treasury), it appears to me that insurance is not payable in respect of them, at any rate by the authority, or that alternatively the question of liability arises merely as between the assistant bailiffs and the men employed, and neither the Treasury nor the registrar is therefore concerned.-Yours faithfully, (Sgd) JOSEPH T. JACKSON, Registrar.-The Superintendent, County Courts Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W.

County Court Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W., 4th Sept. 1912.-Dear Sir,-National Insurance Act 1911.-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd inst. and to inform you that the circular of the 12th July last applies only to officers giving the whole of their time to the work of the County Court, which does not appear to be the position with respect to your officers. Yours faithfully, (Sgd) FRANK ARTHY, for Supt. -The Registrar, County Court, Devizes.

County Court Office, Devizes, 5th Sept. 1912.-Dear Sir,National Insurance Act 1911.-I am obliged to you for your letter of the 4th inst. I quite appreciate that the circular of the 12th July last applies only to whole-time officers. The question upon which I desire instructions from your department is, how am I to deal in my accounts with the proportion of the National Health Insurance payable by the employer in respect of assistant bailiffs? Clearly, unless the Treasury is under some special exemption by virtue of the Act, the employer's proportion of the contribution will have to be refunded upon the passing): my quarter's accounts, but I desire instructions as to how the entry of the advance should be made in my books.-Yours faithfully, (Sgd) JOSEPH T. JACKSON.-The Superintendent, County Courts Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W.

County Court Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W., 13th Sept. 1912.-Dear Sir,-National Insurance Act 1911.—I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th inst., and in reply beg to state that the course to be adopted in dealing with the employees' contributions in respect of whole-time employees is set out in par. 3 of the circular of the 12th July last; the necessary forms can be requisitioned from your printers in the usual way. The bailiffs are engaged, paid, and dismissed by yourself, and the concessions made by the circular do not relieve you of responsibility as an employer; they are in the nature of pecuniary relief, and the Treasury have gone as far as they feel justified in the relief of registrars and high bailiffs in the matter of

[ocr errors]

insurance. Yours faithfully, (Sgd) FRANK ARTHY, for Supt.The Registrar, County Court, Devizes.

County Court Office, Devizes, 17th Sept. 1912.-Dear Sir,National Insurance Act 1911.-I have received your letter of the 13th inst. May I respectfully point out that you do not answer the question which I asked? Admittedly apparently this court is not one to which the Treasury circular of the 12th July last applies, as the assistant bailiffs are not whole-time employees. So far as I know, no order has as yet been issued by the Treasury as to the manner in which the employer's contribution to the National Insurance tax is to be dealt with. The assistant bailiffs in courts like this being remunerated by salaries fixed, and refunded, by the Treasury, I presume the Treasury will discharge the employer's proportion of the tax, and I desire to know how such proportion is to be dealt with in my books. Or am I to understand the last paragraph of your letter as an intimation that the Treasury seeks to evade liability for payment of the employer's proportion of the tax, and to cast it upon some other official of the court who will have to provide it out of his own private purse?-Yours faithfully, (Sgd) JOSEPH T. JACKSON, Registrar.-The Superintendent, County Court Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W.

County Court Department, Treasury, Whitehall, S.W., 23rd Sept. 1912.-Dear Sir,-National Insurance Act 1911.-In reply to your letter of the 17th inst., I am to state that the employer's contribution is a liability that falls upon you in the capacity of employer, and a refund is only contemplated by the Treasury in cases where the officer gives his whole time to County Court work.-Yours faithfully, (Sgd) FRANK ARTHY, for Supt. The Registrar, County Court, Devizes.

County Court Office, Devizes, 24th Sept. 1912.-Dear Sir,National Insurance Act 1911.--I have received your letter of the 23rd inst., and note that the Treasury intend to cast the employer's proportion of this tax upon the high bailiff personally. I am forwarding a copy of the correspondence to the Association of County Court Registrars, to the Law Society, and to other quarters. Yours faithfully, (Sgd) JOSEPH T. JACKSON.-The Superintendent, County Court Department, Treasury.

CERTIFICATES IN CONVEYANCES-FINANCE (1909-10) ACT 1910-As a good many solicitors have hesitated to accept the opinion of the Law Society as to the insertion of the usual certificate in conveyances from an original vendor to a subpurchaser where the original contract was for over £500 and the sub-contract under £500, we inclose herewith copy of a letter to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and copy of their reply which bears out the opinion of the Law Society and will decide this question. STURTON AND STURTON.

26, Great Tower-street, E.C., 20th Sept. 1912.-Dear Sirs,Finance (1909-10) Act 1910.-With reference to the certificate to be inserted in conveyances where the consideration does not exceed £500 under sect. 73 of the Act, we shall be glad if you will let us have the commissioners' opinion as to whether the vendor is justified in giving the certificate in the following circumstances: The owner in fee simple contracts for the sale of an estate for a sum far exceeding £500. His purchaser enters into various sub-contracts to sub purchasers in which the consideration is under £500. The sub-purchasers are taking their conveyances, so far as their individual lots are concerned, direct from the original vendor, the intermediate vendor joining in to convey his interest. The council of the Law Society give it as their opinion that in such circumstances the transaction does not form part of a larger transaction so far as the purchasers are concerned, as they are responsible for the stamping of the documents. We shall be glad if you will let us have the commissioners' decision upon this.-Yours truly, STURTON AND STURTON.-The Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, Somerset House, W.C.

Inland Revenue, Somerset House, London, W.C., 26th Sept. 1912.-Gentlemen,-I have laid before the Board of Inland Revenue your letter of the 20th inst., relative to the inclusion of the certificate required by sect. 73 of the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910 in certain conveyances, and, in reply, I am directed to acquaint you that, on the facts stated, the board see no objection to the inclusion of the certificate in a conveyance from the original vendor to the sub-purchaser, provided that the total consideration for the property bought by the latter does not exceed £500.- I am. Gentlemen, your obedient Servant, S. MINNIS, for Secretary. Messrs. Sturton and Sturton.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-CONSTRUCTION OF POWER TO DETERMINE LEASE.-Certain dicta of Mr. Justice Neville in Stait v. Fenner; MacNab, Third Party (107 L. T. Rep. 120) appear to be inconsistent with previous authority. The learned judge gave

it as his opinion that where there is in a lease power to the lessee to terminate it at a certain period the termination puts an end to the right to sue for breaches of covenant already existing unless the right is expressly reserved. It is true that the common form proviso makes the lease terminable "subject to the rights of the lessor for or in respect of any antecedent_breach," but, according to the case of Blore v. Guilini (88 L. T. Rep. 235), this express reservation is not necessary in order to preserve the lessor's right. This case was not apparently cited to Mr. Justice Neville. SOLICITOR.

THE ROYAL VETO.-It is very usual to state, and has even been stated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on the 21st Feb. 1911, that no English Sovereign has attempted to exercise the veto since the days of Queen Anne, when she rejected the Scottish Militia Bill of 1707. But a search of the Journals of either House of Parliament does not seem to afford the slightest authority for the above conclusion, which seems further open to impeachment on very conclusive, if indirect, evidence. According to an entry in the sixteenth volume of the Journals of the House of Commons from Nov. 1703-11, a Bill "to regulate the militia in that part of Great Britain called Scotland in the same manner as the militia in England is now regulated" was ordered to be prepared: (Commons Journals vol. 16. 8 Anne, 1708, pp. 150-1). But this measure was dropped in the House of Commons, and was never even read a second time, as ful y appears on a further reference. This Bill, therefore, could never possibly have formed the subject of the Royal veto, since, so far from having been assented to by both Houses. it never even passed the House of Commons. I submit that this measure is the measure referred to in the column on Parliamentary Practice and Constitutional Law in the , LAW TIMES on the 7th Sept. 1912. I have searched the Journals of both Houses from 1705 to 1703, and cannot meet with any mention of any other Scottish Militia Bill except the above. The question is, of course, of great importance, as, if I am right, there is no ground for attributing to Queen Anne the exercise of her Royal veto, and the statement in the Earl of Halsbury's Laws of England (vol. 6, s. 585, p. 390) is incorrect. It appears to reinforce my view, if only indirectly, that in the Encyclopædia Britannica (Art. Veto) a very different conclusion is arrived at-viz., that the Royal prerogative of veto has not been exercised since 1692. There is absolutely conclusive authority that the Royal veto was exercised in the case of two Bills in that year. The reference 18 not given in the Encyclopædia, but on a consultation of the Lords Journals (5 W. & M., vol. 15, p. 289) it appears that the formula of veto Le Roi et la Reyne se aviseront-was returned as regards two Bills one for the frequent calling of Parliaments, and another dealing with a prerogatival right of pre-emption as regards Royal mines. The fact that I have verified and ascertained the reference in the Encyclopædia Britannica, and have failed to do so as regards the reference in the Earl of Halsbury's Laws of England, the precise locus not having been given in either case, may be taken to afford indirect evidence that the latter cannot be substantiated. As I have explained, I did not confine my search to one year of the Journals of the Houses of Parliament, which, in turn, must be accepted as authority on the subject of the exercise of the Royal veto. I have also consulted Lecky's History of England, and no less than four histories of the reign of Queen Anne, and in none of them can I find the slightest authority for the exercise of the veto in that reign. It may be remembered that Bagehot considers that the right of veto merely flows from the monarch being a separate co ordinate authority with the House of Lords and the House of Commons (p. 57), and, at least till the end of the reign of George III., the King of England was a separate co-ordinate authority with the House of Lords and the House of Commons. N. W. SIBLEY, B.A., LL.M.

25, Lord-street, Liverpool.

the final

REGISTRATION OF TITLE.-To those who, like Mr. Rubinstein. were sanguine enough to look to the members of the Legal Pr fession for support in his campaign against the extension of the registration of title to land, the lukewarm reception given to his able paper on "The Land Transfer Problem" at the recent provincial meeting of the Law Society is very disquieting Instead of again shelving the question-for that is what the amendment adopted at the meeting amounts to-surely it would have been wiser to have made it the leading topic for discussion It should, however, be noticed that the opposition to the free discussion of Mr. Rubinstein's motion emanated chiefly from country practitioners who, not being affected by the Land Registry Acts, cannot have the faintest conception of the supreme muddle into which a large number of titles are thrown once they get entangled in the closely woven meshes of the compulsory r

tration net. Mr. Rubinstein-like all his professional brethren in London who have extensive dealings with registered land-is, however, fully aware of the endless difficulties which these Acts introduce into simple everyday conveyancing transactions. Hence his uncompromising and strenuous hostility to the pragmatical officialism set up by this compulsory system. The thirteen years during which the Act of 1897 has been in operation and the adoption of various expedients to make it popular and workable have given London solicitors ample opportunity of judging whether the Act does really cheapen and simplify the transfer of land. They have, however, come to a contrary conclusion, and J think that there is abundant justification for their so doing. Notwithstanding, they have been compelled to submit to and make the best of the clumsy and cast-iron procedure established by the rules, the carrying out of which has obliged them to resort to deeds outside the register, and to adopt other precautions without which they wou'd have been unable to obtain for their clients that complete security of title which the Land Transfer Acts should but do not give. This dual system consequently gives rise to great confusion where simplicity once preprevailed. Indeed, confusion must always be the inevitable outcome of a system that does not provide an exact mirror of the title, the one essential of any perfect system of registration, which, strange to say, the 1897 Act was apparently designed to prevent. Moreover, this expensive compulsory system does not afford the same protection against fraud as an improved system of registration of deeds such as that advocated by Mr. Rubinstein would give. Registration of deeds can, as is well known, be effected with but little trouble and expense, but dealings with registerel titles under the compulsory system is extremely costly and troublesome, as the following instances which recently came under my notice will clearly show. The survivor of three mortgagees wished to transfer a registered charge which was created by a proprietor who had since died, the transferees desiring a variation in the terms of their security. The documentary and other evidence required by the registry was as follows: (1) An elaborate instrument of transfer of charge which had to be submitted to the registrar for approval; (2) a transfer of the equity from the surviving non-proving executor of the deceased proprietor's will to the trustees thereof; (3) a certificate of the death of one of the executors; (4) a certified copy of the act of probate of the will of the other executor who died abroad; (5) a declaration by the non-proving executor accepting the trusts of the will; (6) a statement proving exemption from ad valorem stamp duty; (7) a copy of the instrument of transfer of charge; (8) a certificate as to the value of the land; and (9) evidence of payment of estate duty. The fees and extra costs incurred by reason of the land being on the register are as follows: Registry fees, £10; certificate of death, 3s. 7d.; office copy probate act, 12s.; stamp, 10s.; additional costs, £5; total, £16 5s. 7d. Now let me compare the procedure when the title is not registered. Assuming the solicitor acts for all parties as in the present example, the only document required would be a transfer of the mortgage in which all necessary parties would concur. The only outgoings payable would be: Stamp duty, 15s. ; fees for registry in Middlesex, 7s. 6d.; total, £1 2s. 6d. It will thus be seen that the extra expense to the client entailed by reason of the fact that the land was on the register amounted to upwards of £15 over and above what he would have had to pay had the land been unregistered. This is by no means an isolated case. Similar instances occur daily. Surely it is not a question of extending such a costly system as this, and the amendments proposed by the Royal Commission would only aggravate the evil. Abolition would therefore seem to be the only solution. H. L. EWENS.

[blocks in formation]

GAZETTE, OCT. 1.

BILBROUGH, EDWARD POWER; PLASKITT, WILLIAM LEVERS; and Fcss, EDWARD, solicitors, 5, Fenchurch-st, E.C., under style of Foss, Bilbrough, Plaskitt, and Foss. Sept. 30. E. P. Bilbrough and W. L. Plaskitt will continue to carry on business at above address under style of Foss, Bilbrough, Plaskitt, and Co.; E. Foss at 1, Lombardct, Gracechurch-st, E.C., under style of Frederick Foss and Son. PEET, THOMAS ERNEST, and DAVIS, EDWARD, solicitors, 3, New-zq, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. Sept. 29.

Bankrupts.

THE BANKRUPTCY ACTS 1883 AND 1890. RECEIVING ORDERS.

GAZETTE, SEPT. 27.

To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. BARRATT, EDWIN JOHN, late Westcliff-on-Sea, tailor. Sept. 24. CATON, MRS., Lancaster-gate-ter, Hyde Park, widow. Sept. 23.

To surrender at their respective District Courts. AVERY, HERBERT ERNEST, Tavistock, licensed victualler. Ct. Plymouth. Sept. 23. APPLEYARD, SAMSON COOKE, Leeds, grocer. Ct. Leeds Sept. 21. BRADY, H. E. (male), late Smethwick, builder. Ct. West Bromwich. Sept. 23.

BUSH, HARRY HEDLEY, Tavistock, gentleman. Ct. Plymouth. Sept. 25.
BRENNER, MORRIS, late Lowestoft, cycle agent. Ct. Great Yarmouth.
Sept. 23.

BARNES, JOSEPH, Stoneclough, ropemaker. Ct. Bolton. Sept. 25.
BAILY, ROBERT, late Clophill. Ct. Bedford. Sept. 24.

BEARDSMORE, THOMAS EDWARD, Hockley Heath, silversmith.
mingham. Sept. 25.

Ct. Bir

COOPER, ELLEN, late Longton, beerseller. Ct. Stoke-upon-Trent and Longton. Sept. 23.

CLATWORTHY, JAMES, Bristol, wheelwright. Ct. Bristol. Sept. 24.·
GOODE, ARTHUR WILLIAM, Hunt End, farmer. Ct Birmingham. Sept. 23.
HAWKINS, THOMAS, late Wigan, artificial teeth maker. Ct. Blackburn
and Darwen. Sept. 23.

HARRIS, WILLIAM, Ebbw Vale, journeyman mason.
Sept. 24.

Ct. Tredegar.

HUTCHINSON, FRANK, Sheffield, late grocer. Ct. Sheffield. Sept. 23.
HUMPHRIES, GEORGE, Ryhall, carpenter. Ct Peterborough. Sept. 24.
HENDERSON, JOHN JOSEPH, Middlesbrough, coal merchant. Ct. Middles-
brough. Sept. 24.

JONES, EMMANUEL (trading as E. L. Jones), Llanelly, provision mer-
chant. Ct. Carmarthen. Sept. 20.
JONES, THOMAS TIMOTHY, Llandebie, colliery repairer. Ct. Carmarthen.
Sept. 21.
Ct. Pontypridd, Ystradyfodwg, and

JONES, THOMAS, Treorky, miner. Porth. Sept. 24.

MOUNCHER, EDWIN, Southampton, undertaker. Ct. Southampton. Sept. 24.

MOTLEY, GEORGE (trading as Topliss and Motley), Market Rasen, late fancy dealer. Ct. Lincoln. Sept. 24.

MOORE, WILLIAM, Tottenham, builder. Ct. Edmonton. Sept 23.
PRICE, WILLIAM ARTHUR, late Sutton Coldfield, works manager
Sheffield. Sept. 23,

PIPER, CHARLES, Prittlewell, builder. Ct. Chelmsford. Sept. 25.
RUSSELL, ALFRED, Bethersden, grocer. Ct. Canterbury. Sept. 24.
SAM WAYS, ALBERT WILLIAM, Wandsworth Common, upholsterer.
Wandsworth. Sept. 25.

Ct.

Ct.

SNARE, THOMAS DANIEL JOSIAH (trading as Thomas Snare), Great Stanmore, draper. Ct. St. Albans. Sept. 24.

SHERWOOD, SAMUEL, Swinton, bootmaker. Ct. Sheffield. Sept. 23.
SMITH, HERBERT, Sheffield, late cycle agent. Ct. Sheffield. Sept. 23.
SHEPPARD, ADA, Nottingham, dressmaker, spinster. Ct. Nottingham.
Sept. 23.

SAYER, WILLIAM, Bradfield, wheelwright. Ct. Norwich. Sept. 25.
SHAW, JOHN, Tunstall, grocer. Ct. Hanley. Sept. 23.

SPOONER, EDITH JANE, late Bedford, spinster. Ct. Bedford. Sept. 24. TICHIAZ, THOMAS GEORGE, Kingston-upon-Hull, grain checker. Kingston-upon-Hull. Sept. 24.

Ct.

LEGAL OBITUARY.

Mr. WILLIAM TOMLINSON PAGE, town clerk of Lincoln, died on the 27th ult. He was born in 1847, and after being educated at Lincoln Grammar School he was articled to the late Mr. Thurstan George Dale. Mr. Page began to practise as a solicitor on his own account, and in 1878 he was elected to the city council, with which he has ever since been associated-as councillor, alderman, mayor, deputy town clerk, and town clerk. In 1899 he succeeded the late Mr. H. K. Hebb as deputy town clerk, and on the death of Mr. John Thomas Tweed he was appointed as his successor. Mr. Page was admitted in 1870.

Mr. THOMAS RAMSON WHITTY, solicitor, of Bath, who was for upwards of eight years in partnership with Mr. W. G. Eyres, under the style of Eyres and Whitty, died on the 26th ult. He served his articles at Nottingham, and subsequently came to Swindon, and then to Norwich. Mr. Whitty was admitted in 1867.

THOMSON, EDWARD, Rochford, farmer. Ct. Chelmsford. Sept. 23. WALL, RICHARD RALPH BALDWIN, Bradford, captain in the army. Bradford. Sept. 25.

Ct

WITHERS, FRANK, Bristol, general furnisher. Ct Bristol. Sept. 24.
WATERMAN, FRED, and SLADE, JOSEPH HAROLD (trading as F. Waterman,
and as Waterman and Slade), Tonypandy. Ct. Cardiff. Sept. 23.
WARD, WILLIAM NEWENS, Luton, straw hat manufacturer. Ct. Luton
Sept. 23.
WATSON, HERBERT, Husborne Crawley, butcher. Ct Luton. Sept. 23.
WATKINS. THOMAS, Cwmpark, coal miner. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystradyfodwg,
and Porth. Sept. 24.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS JOHN, Truro, grocer. Ct. Truro. Sept. 23.

GAZETTE, Oct. 1.

To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. COWPER-COLES, COWPER BICKERTON, Broad-st-pl, company promoter Sept. 26.

DONALDSON, HUNTER FREDERICK, late North Audley-st, Grosvenor-sq. Sept. 27.

DONALLON, EDWARD (late trading as Brown, Saville, and Brother), late
New Oxford-st. Sept. 27.

GERRETT, ALFRED, Oxford-rd, Ealing. Sept. 27.
KEMBLE, CHARLES, Orchard-st, solicitor. Sept. 28.
LATIMER, ALEXANDER, Blakesley-av, Ealing. Sept. 26.

MAYILL, TERDAT (trading as Mayill and Co. and the Furnwell Company),
Mansell-st, merchant. Sept. 26.

WARLAND, JOHN ALFRED HENRY, late Lee-on-the-Solent. Sept. 26.
WRIGHT, DUDLEY, late Liverpool, sanitary engineer Sept. 26.

To surrender at their respective District Courts
ARMITAGE, GEORGE TROUGHTON, Farlington, farmer. Ct. York. Sept. 27.
BATCHELOR, WILLIAM HENRY, late Manchester, shop fitter. Ct. Stockport.
Sept. 28.

BLOUNT, HENRY JAMES, Derby, general dealer. Ct. Derby and Long Eaton. Sept. 26.

BOOTH, GEORGE DAVID, Littleborough, grocer, Ct. Rochdale.
BOWLER, ALFRED, Stockport, baker. Ct. Stockport. Sept. 26.
COGGINS, HARRY, Caerphilly, tobacco dealer. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystrady-
fodwg, and Porth. Sept. 28.

Sept. 28.

DAUBNEY, JOHN WILLIAM, late Irby Top, farm labourer Ct. Great Grimsby. Sept. 25.

EMMS, FREDERICK GEORGE, Gorleston-on-Sea, solicitor. Ct. Great Yarmouth. Sept. 23.

FIELD, FREDERICK, Ealing, bank clerk. Ct. Brentford. Sept. 27.
FOULKES, EDWIN, Clacton-on-Sea, greengrocer. Ct. Colchester. Sept. 27.
GOOLD, URIAH JOHN, Bristol, baker. Ct. Bristol. Sept. 27.
HALL, CHARLES, late Mexborough, grocer. Ct. Halifax. Sept. 26.
HEATH, GEORGE HAROLD BODEN, Derby, fishmonger. Ct. Derby and Long
Eaton. Sept. 26.

HOLDEN, FRANK, Manchester, yarn agent. Ct. Manchester. Sept. 26.
KEY, ALICE, Dewsbury, blouse factor. Ct. Dewsbury. Sept. 26.
KINGDON, F. W., Worcester Park. Ct. Croydon. Sept. 25.
LEWIS, THOMAS RICHARD, Bristol, builder. Ct. Bristol. Sept. 28.
NEVILLE, DANIEL INKERMAN, Fewston, innkeeper. Ct Leeds. Sept. 27.
RICHARDSON, FREDERICK WILLIAM, late Burton-on-Trent, solicitor.
Burton-on-Trent. Sept. 28.

Ct.

SAINSBURY, EDWARD GEORGE (late trading as H. Beebe), late Ludgatearcade, printer. Ct. Greenwich. Sept. 24.

SMITH, CHARLES EDWARD, Tewkesbury, general dealer. Ct. Cheltenham.
Sept. 26.

SUDUL, WILLIAM, Reading, hosier. Ct. Reading. Sept. 27.
WILLIS, HARRY BERNARD, late Coleford, grocer. Ct. Hereford. Sept. 28.

[blocks in formation]

Sept. 23. Sept. 24.

HUTCHINSON, FRANK, Sheffield, late grocer. Ct. Sheffield.
HUMPHRIES, GEORGE, Ryhall, carpenter. Ct. Peterborough.
HENDERSON, JOHN JOSEPH, Middlesbrough, coal merchant. Ct. Middles-
brough. Sept. 24.

HAWKINS, THOMAS, late Wigan, artificial teeth maker Ct. Blackburn and Darwen. Sept. 23.

JONES, EMANUEL (trading as E. L. Jones), Llanelly, provision merchant. Ct. Carmarthen. Sept. 20.

JONES, THOMAS TIMOTHY, Llandebie, colliery repairer. Ct. Carmarthen. Sept. 21.

JONES, THOMAS, Treorky, miner. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystradyfodwg, and Porth. Sept. 24.

HAMILTON, ARTHUR FREDERICK (late trading as the Tokenhouse Wine Com-
pany), late Coleman-st, wine merchant. Ct. High Court. Sept. 27.
HIGGS, F. L., Coulsdon. Ct. Croydon. Sept. 25.
HEATH, GEORGE HAROLD BODEN, Derby, fishmonger Ct. Derby and Long
Eaton. Sept. 26.

JOHNSON, CARL (described in the receiving order as Carl Johnson, other-
wise Lemaire), Cheapside. Ct. High Court. Sept. 27.
KEY, ALICE, Dewsbury, blouse factor. Ct. Dewsbury. Sept. 26.
KINGDON, F. W., Worcester Park. Ct. Croydon. Sept. 27.
MILLER, WILLIAM JAMES, Hendon, builder. Ct. Barnet. Sept. 28.
NEVILLE, DANIEL INKERMAN, Fewston, innkeeper. Ct. Leeds. Sept. 28.
OXLEY, HENRY HALLIFIELD (otherwise known as Oliver Huxley), late
Ealing, consulting engineer. Ct. Brentford. Sept. 17.

PAPE, W. B., Old Broad-st. Ct. High Court. Sept. 25.
PIPER, CHARLES, Prittlewell, builder. Ct. Chelmsford. Sept. 28.
SAINSBURY, EDWARD GEORGE (late trading as H. Beebe), late Ludgate-
arcade, printer. Ct. Greenwich. Sept. 24

SAYER, WILLIAM, Bradfield, wheelwright. Ct. Norwich. Sept. 28.
SMITH, CHARLES EDWARD, Tewkesbury, general dealer. Ct Cheltenham.
Sept. 26.
SWIFT, FRANCIS WILLIAM, late Piccadilly, Westminster. Ct. High Court.
Sept. 26.
THOMSON, EDWARD DAVID (described in the receiving order as Edward
Thomson), Rochford, farmer. Ct. Chelmsford. Sept. 27.
WILLIS, HARRY BERNARD, late Coleford, grocer. Ct. Hereford. Sept. 28.
Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, July 19.
EDELSTEIN, WILLIAM (known and described in the receiving order as
William Edelsten), Brixton-rd, Brixton, variety agent. Ct. High
Court. July 16.

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

JONES-On the 23rd ult, at 7, North-view, Wimbledon Common, the wife of G. Edwardes Jones, Barrister-at-law, of a daughter. WALDO. On the 22nd ult., at 40. Lansdowne-rd, Holland-pk, W., the wife of Frederick Joseph Waldo, M.D., Barrister-at-law, of a daughter. MARRIAGE.

KENNEDY ELKINGTON. On the 24th ult., at St. Mary's Church, Chepstow, the Rev. Horace Kennedy, Vicar of Ditton Priors, third son of Lord Justice Kennedy, to Audrey Leigh, daughter of the late Leigh Elkington, of Fladbury, Pershore. DEATHS.

ALDOUS. On Aug. 30, James William Aldous, of Ipswich, Solicitor, aged 46.

PEVERLEY. On July 15, in the city of Montreal, Canada, Robert Peverley, Solicitor.

POWELL. On the 24th ult., George Thompson Powell, of 28 and 29, St. Swithin's-la, E.C., Solicitor, in his seventy-fourth year

ESTABLISHED IN 1890.

THE

[blocks in formation]

Sept. 23.

SHAW, JOHN, Tunstall, grocer. Ct. Hanley. Sept. 23.
TICHIAZ, THOMAS GEORGE, Kingston-upon-Hull, grain checker. Ct.
Kingston-upon-Hull. Sept. 24.

WITHERS, FRANK, Bristol, general furnisher. Ct. Bristol. Sept. 25.
WATERMAN, FRED, and SLADE, JOSEPH HAROLD (trading as F. Waterman
and as Waterman and Slade), Tonypandy. Ct Cardiff. Sept. 23.
WARD, WILLIAM NEWENS, Luton, straw hat manufacturer. Ct. Luton.
Sept. 23.

WATSON, HERBERT, Husborne Crawley, butcher. Ct. Luton. Sept. 23. WATKINS, THOMAS, Cwmpark, coal miner. Ct. Pontypridd, Ystradyfodwg, and Porth. Sept. 24.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS JOHN, Truro, grocer. Ct. Truro. Sept. 23.

[blocks in formation]

Grimsby. Sept. 25.

EMMS, FREDERICK GEORGE, Gorleston-on-Sea, solicitor. Ct. Great Yarmouth. Sept. 28.

EVANS, DAVID OWEN, Old Bond-st, ladies' tailor. Ct. High Court. Sept. 26.

FOULKES, EDWIN, Clacton-on-Sea, greengrocer. Ct. Colchester. Sept. 27. FRANCKE, WILLIAM, Belsize par, Haverstock Hill, provision merchant. Ct. High Court Sept. 27.

GAUD, HENRY HONEY, Tavistock, licensed victualler. Ct. Plymouth. Sept. 27.

GOOLD, URIAH JOHN, Bristol, baker. Ct. Bristol. Sept. 27.

HALL, CHARLES, late Mexborough, grocer. Ct. Halifax. Sept. 26.

[blocks in formation]
[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The place

The House is devoted to the Care of LADIES of the upper classes only, who can be treated either under the Acts or as Voluntary Patients. stands high and the estate is extensive, with bracing air and in good shelter. It is very retired and beautiful, well suited for the treatment of inebriety, narcomante, and other perversions, neurasthenia, hysteria, and minor mental allments. No patients under certificate of insanity can be received. Highest medical and legal references.

Terms and particulars on application to "Superintendent, The Retreat. Newmains, N.B." Nearest station, Hartwood, Cal. Bly

« EelmineJätka »