Dartford, Friday, at 10 Derby, Tuesday and Wednesday, at 10 Dewsbury, Tuesday and Thursday, at 10 Durham, Monday and Tuesday, at 10 Exeter,* Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday Eye, Tuesday Gainsborough, Saturday, at 10 Greenwich, Friday, at 10.15 Halifax, Tuesday, at 10 Harleston, Monday Haverhill, Friday, at 9.30 High Wycombe, Tuesday, at 11 Hitchin, Monday, at 10 Holbeach, Tuesday, at 9.30 Holmfirth, Wednesday, at 10 Horncastle, Wednesday, at 10 Kingston-on-Thames, Friday Lambeth, Tuesday and Thursday, at 10 and Leeds, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Leicester, Tuesday and Wednesday, at 10 Southampton, Tuesday, at 10 Sleaford, Friday, at 10.30 Southend, Tuesday, at 10 Spalding, Monday, at 10 St. Helens, Wednesday Sunderland, Wednesday, Thursday, and Tunbridge Wells, Thursday, at 9 Uttoxeter, Thursday, at 11 Westminster, Monday, at 12; Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 11 * Other sittings are specially fixed when necessary. A POINT of considerable importance in County Court practice was decided on the 23rd April by Mr. Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice Grantham, in the case of Hubbard and another v. Goodley, as to the meaning of the words "admitted set-off" in the 57th section of the County Courts Act 1888. That section gives jurisdiction to the County Court to try actions where the debt or demand claimed consists of a balance not exceeding fifty pounds, "after an admitted set-off of any debt or demand claimed or recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiff." Up to the case of Percival v. Pedley (18 Q. B. Div. 635) there was no doubt that the words "admitted set-off" were held to mean a set-off admitted before action brought. This was clearly ostablished by the case of Walesby v. Goulston (14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 602; L. Rep. 1 C. P. 567), where the Court of Common Pleas, following the previous cases on the subject, held that, under the 24th section of the Act 19 & 20 Viot. c. 108 (the County Courts Act 1856), an admitted set-off meant a set-off admitted before action brought, and that a County Court had no jurisdiction to try a case unless the set-off were admitted before action. The question there was one of costs, and it turned on the point whether the plaintiff could have issued his plaint in a County Court. The plain. tiff had issued a writ in the Superior Court for a sum above fifty pounds, and the defendant pleaded a set-off, which was afterwards admitted by the plaintiff, and which reduced the plaintiff's claim below fifty pounds, and the Court there held that the plaintiff was entitled to his costs, as no plaint could have been entered in the County Court, the set-off not having been admitted before action. The case of Percival v. Pedley (ubi sup.), however, seems to have thrown some doubt on the matter, as there a divisional court held, under sect. 7 of the County Courts Act 1867, which gave a judge of the High Court power to remit an action for trial to a County Court where the claim is reduced below fifty pounds" by payment, an admitted set-off, or otherwise," that the section applies if the set-off appears on the writ to be admitted by the plaintiff, although not admitted by the defendant. It will be observed that the words of sect. 24, on which Walesby v. Goulston (ubi sup.) was decided were identical with the words of sect. 57 of the present Act, for there the words were "after an admitted set-off of any debt or demand claimed or recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiff," whereas the words of the section under which Percival v. Pedley (ubi sup.) was decided were somewhat different, as the words there were simply "reduced by payment, an admitted set-off, or otherwise;" there was also a further dis. tinction that in Percival v. Pedley the application was to remit an action from the High Court, and the question was therefore not one of the original jurisdiction of the County Court. Notwithstanding these dis. tinctions, it is clear that Percival v. Pedley is greatly shaken by the present decision, which merely restores the decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Walesby v. Goulston (ubi sup.) that a set-off to be an admitted set-off within the meaning of the section must be a set-off admitted before action, and the plaintiff cannot give the court jurisdiction merely by including in his particulars a set-off which reduces his claim below the limit, a set-off neither claimed nor admitted by the defendant before action. LAW SOCIETIES. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. A GENERAL MEETING of the members of the Incorporated Law Society too place at the Law Institution on Friday, the 25th ult., the chair being taken by Mr. Grinham Keen, the President. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES-WAIVER CLAUSE-PROTECTION AGAINST FRAUD. Mr. EDMUND KIMBER (London) moved: "That the general use of what is called the Waiver Clause in prospectuses of joint-stock companies, under the advice of the best men in both branches of the Profession, notwithstanding the declaration of Lord Justice Lindley that it is of doubtful validity, shows that the Legislature has overstepped the requirements of commerce and the common sense of mankind.' He said the total capital of the prospectuses of joint-stock companies issued during the last twenty-five years amounted to £3,400,000,000, and in nearly all of these the names of members of the society were to be found as solicitors. During 1889 £200,000,000 had been invested in joint-stock companies, and during the previous year the amount so invested was £180,000,000. On some of these prospectuses were to be found the names of the most eminent members of the Profession, including some of the members of the council. In nearly all of them the waiver clause had been adopted, and where this was not the case there was the sentence, "No promotion money whatever has been paid or will be paid in respect of this com pany. Even this seemed to be of doubtful validity, for the judges had so enlarged the term "promoter "that it might even include the office boy. The term had not been in any way defined by the courts, nor had the waiver clause. Lord Justice Lindley had said the statute was very badly worded, and that it gave rise to much discussion and to no little difference of opinion, and that the information given was worthless practically. His Lordship appeared to have thrown the Profession and the public into a state of confusion. The waiver clause had been inserted in the Act for the purpose of protecting the directors, and he (Mr. Kimber) did not think there was any doubt that directors in asking solicitors to companies to insert the clause were acting in a manner which was perfectly bona fide. But in times of adversity it was upon the solicitor that the odium would fall. The Act was drawn in a very faulty way, and it was to the interest of the Profession and the public that it should be altered, so that it should not be necessary to go to counsel for his opinion as to the insertion of the waiver clause, or that shareholders should be put to the expense of taking their solicitors' advice when they found the company in difficulties and that no more dividends were likely to come to them. He had been attacked in the press with regard to the resolution, it having been said that it was a retrograde movement, and that any fresh legislation on the subject would result in there being less check to fraud, and that gamblers in the City would be floating scores of prospectuses, but he did not apprehend any such consequences. It was to the interest of the Profession and the public and of commerce and business that prospectuses should be truthful. He would also move the other resolution of which he had given notice as follows: "That for the purpose of checking fraud any future legislation on the subject of jointstock companies ought to proceed upon the lines of compelling the registration of all prospectuses, reports, balance-sheets, and notices, and requiring greater freedom in disclosure of accounts, rather than of making that criminal by statute which is not criminal, or of changing the law in a wholesale and drastic way which may only have the effect of driving business from the country.' Everyone must agree that the decision in Peek v. Derry, in the House of Lords, was no more than good and sound law. It was a definition of what was actual fraud. Lord Bramwell had attacked the phrase "legal fraud," and had said rightly that there could be no such thing. No fraud could be legal, but all fraud must be unlawful, when it was condemned by civil or criminal law. The House of Lords had arrived at a conclusion that, unless a prospectus had plainly set out therein a statement which could be proved to be untrue and fraudulent to the knowledge of the directors, they could not be held to be guilty of fraud-a totally different doctrine to that held by the Lord Chancellor for many years past. The present safeguards were not suffi cient, for there was nothing to prevent a promoter from having a contract drawn up, engrossed, and signed without a date, and dating it after the issue of the prospectus. Millions of prospectuses were destroyed after allotment, when the money was in the coffers of the company, and all traces were thus blotted out. Therefore, prospectuses should be registered. Balance-sheets, too, were often published with the object of putting a fictitious value upon shares, and these ought not only to be registered, but experts ought to have an opportunity of going to the company's office and comparing the balance-sheets with the books to see if they were correct. In the same way all notices should be registered. Mr. J. WALTER (London) having seconded the resolution, Mr. EDWIN SMITH (London) moved the following amendment: "That in consequence of the frequent use of what is called the waiver clause in prospectuses of joint-stock companies, the interests of commerce and the safety of the public require that clause 38 of the Companies Act 1867 should be eliminated by making such waiver clause void, and also by making it compulsory to insert the short purport or effect of all contracts entered into as well as the dates and names of parties.' He said that in some cases company promoters were men without means, ready to enter into contracts for the purchase of patents, businesses, or any undertaking which it was proposed to turn into joint-stock companies, and having entered into contracts to purchase such undertakings at possibly an immoderate sum, they at once issued their prospectus, got out a memorandum of association and registered the company. They then sold it for a sum of money altogether out of proportion to its value, putting the proceeds in their own pockets. They were quite satisfied so long as the capital was subscribed. Nothing more would then be heard of them, and the shareholders would be the sufferers. This produced a want of confidence, and legitimate concerns had to suffer in consequence. He did not see that Mr. Kimber's objection that the short purport of contracts would take up a lot of room and give a good deal of trouble held good, for in looking over prospectuses he found that space was not spared in such respects, and that there was no backwardness in putting in anything which it was thought would have the effect of inducing the public to take up the shares. If the contract was clear and bona fide there could be no objection to state shortly the effect of it, so that the public might be in a position to judge whether they were likely to get the value of what they were purchasing, and so that they might have full knowledge of what they were asked to subscribe for. The amendment was negatived, fourteen votes being given in its favour and twenty-one against. The resolutions were also negatived, the numbers being twelve for and twenty-five against. SUMMONS IN CHAMBERS-SOLICITOR'S FEE. Mr. A. H. HASTIE (London) moved, "That in the opinion of the Incorporated Law Society it is desirable that in all cases where one of the parties to a summons in chambers attends by counsel and the other party by a solicitor, and the summons is marked as fit for counsel, the solicitor shall, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, be allowed a fee of not less than £2 28." Mr. S. SPYER (London) seconded, but regretted that the motion had not gone further. This was a question which affected the public greatly. Cases constantly went before judges in chambers in both divisions in which counsel were employed unnecessarily, and in attending such cases in the Queen's Bench Division he had often succeeded in obtaining the refusal to certify for counsel on the other side. The employment of counsel in these cases was an encouragement to solicitors to increase costs, for when they found counsel employed on the other side they were naturally induced to employ them on their own, and costs were considerably increased because there were also the costs of affidavits and other documents, copies of which had to be supplied to counsel. Solicitors felt that it was undesirable in the interests of their clients to increase costs, and the present generation of solicitors were in many instances quite as competent to appear in these matters as counsel, perhaps even more so, for they were familiar with all the facts of a case, which facts they could not possibly infuse so thoroughly into the minds of counsel. There were many points of law no doubt which could be better argued by counsel, and in such cases counsel should be employed; but, if a solicitor was able to argue these points, what reason could be urged why he should not have an increased fee? The fee allowed the solicitor for appearing before the master, and even a judge in the Queen's Bench Division, was 6s. 8d. He had himself frequently endeavoured to get the fee increased, and he apprehended that the rule which enabled the chief clerks and judges in the Chancery Division to certify for the higher fee would apply equally in the Queen's Bench Division. Mr. Justice Field had said to him on one occasion that he quite agreed with him, and that when he saw a solicitor come before him instead of sending a clerk, sometimes incompetent, as they often did, he ought to be better remunerated, but that he (the judge) hesitated to make a precedent; and he had added, "Bring the subject before the Law Society." He (Mr. Spyer) believed that, unless the society passed a resolution to the effect that two guineas should be the fee, solicitors would never succeed in getting more than the 6s. 8d. Now that the whole of the judges' work in the Queen's Bench Division consisted of appeals from the master, it was incumbent upon solicitors in almost every case to attend personally. The present miserable allowance was the reason why the counsel list was overweighted, and it was to the interest of the public that this should be corrected. He would have preferred to have added to the motion these words: "The society is also of opinion that it should be represented to Her Majesty's judges that the fee for attending before the master in the Queen's Bench Division should be discretionary with the judge, and that he should be asked to exercise his discretion in all cases.' "" Mr. HASTIE said he would accept the addition-that it should apply in all other cases than those specified in his motion. 66 Mr. V. J. CHAMBERLAIN (London) thought that the matter required more consideration than it was likely to receive at a meeting of this nature. He considered the resolution imperfect in form, and not likely to be carried. He would move as an amendment, That the council be requested to consider the question of fees allowed to solicitors in chambers, and take such steps as might appear to them desirable." Mr. F. K. MUNTON (London) seconded the amendment. It was very undesirable that they should fix a hard-and-fast line. Mr. J. HUNTER (London) said it was as well that the meeting should know that the council had passed a resolution several years ago in favour of applying to the judges to fix a fee of two guineas in every case in which a solicitor attended, and counsel was employed on the other side. He thought the resolution was communicated to the judges at the time, but of that he was not sure. The amendment was carried by forty-eight votes to thirty-eight, and it was then adopted as a substantive motion. BARRISTERS' CLERKS' FEES. Mr. PERCY GORDON moved: 66 That the council be requested to appoint a committee to inquire into and report upon the present practice of paying fees to barristers' clerks, with a view to the abolition of such fees. He referred to the extraordinary anomaly that existed in the payment of fees to connsel by which a certain percentage had to be added as the clerk's fee. Of course, the abolition of such payment might indirectly imply a large pecuniary loss upon the members of the Bar, but that would only prove that the present practice was a bad one, and that counsel ought to be remunerated on such a scale that they could properly remunerate their clerks. Solicitors paid large salaries to qualified clerks, and why should not other professional men do the same? The vicious consequences of the present system were obvious, for barristers' clerks not being paid by their masters, but by the public through solicitors, were demoralised by the system, and a great many of them endeavoured to increase their salaries by resorting to most indefensible and unscrupulous tactics. By the present practice they were remunerated by a commission on the fees paid to counsel. Some of these men made £1400 or £1500 a year, not a sixpence of which was contributed by their masters. He believed that few people outside the Profession knew anything of this practice, and he could not see any justification of it. Solicitors had cast upon them the odium of collecting these fees. In the correspondence in the press some time ago, in which the Attorney-General had taken part, nothing was said about the clerks' fees, and he believed that Sir Richard Webster was ashamed to tell the public they would have to pay these clerks' fees. He (Mr. Gordon) trusted that, if the motion was carried, the council would have the assistance of the Bar Committee in the matter. Mr. F. N. PARKER (London) seconded. Whatever was the origin of these fees, they were now in his opinion utterly indefensible in principle and vicious in .practice. As an example, no objection was made by a barrister when a brief was marked with ten guineas, but if it were marked with twelve he would object, because that fee did not carry with it the fee to which the clerk was entitled when the brief was marked fifteen guineas. Mr. SPYER said that in Ireland there was no such thing as clerks' fees to be paid by the solicitor. Mr. HASTIE Could not see any reason why solicitors should take action so long as their clients did not object to pay the clerks' fees. If the public were dissatisfied it was for them to move for their abolition. Mr. RICHARD SMITH (London) moved to proceed to the next business. It was, in his opinion, undesirable that questions between the two branches of the Profession should be debated at a general meeting of the society. Mr. H. E. GRIBBLE (London) seconded the motion, which was adopted by sixty-two votes being given in its favour and fifty-one against. LAW CLUB-SUBSCRIPTIONS. Mr. JOHN HUNTER (London) moved to alter the rules and regulations of the Law Society Club so as to raise the subscription from five guineas to six guineas to be paid by members taking out country certificates, and from five to six guineas to be paid by members who do not take out annual certificates, if they hold any offices in the Supreme Court of Judicature, or reside within ten miles of the General Post-office. He said that, under the rules of the club, which were settled by the society generally, it was necessary to come to a general meeting to obtain their sanction to any alteration in the terms of the subscription payable by club members. The committee were satisfied that the club could not be worked successfully without the proposed increase. A general meeting of the club had unanimously agreed to it, and it had been approved by the council. Mr. E. FRESHFIELD (London) seconded the motion. Mr. WALTER moved as an amendment, "That the annual subscription to the club be henceforth reduced to one guinea." He said the number of members of the club were decreasing instead of increasing, which it was said would be the effect of the alteration in the rules which took place in 1884. Therefore the benefits of the club were shared by a diminishing number to the exclusion of the general members of the society, and he thought this was not only to their injury but to the injury of the society itself in its public capacity as administering a public trust. Was the club to dictate terms to the society as to the use of the society's apartments? The indebtedness of the society had been increased by building premises out of the whole of their funds, and a section of less than 400 out of the 2000 members of the society took possession of a part, and said they meant to keep it to themselves unless the members came up to their figure of a fair contribution. He asked the members not to allow the club to dictate to them in the matter. Mr. H. M. YETTS (London) seconded the amendment. Mr. W. M. WALTERS defended the club, and expressed his doubt as to whether the amendment was in order. The club rules required that the annual subscription should not be altered without the sanction of the society, but there was no provision that the club was to accept a rule imposed upon it from outside. The society might have rent in kind quite as well as in money, and he asserted that the club greatly assisted to keep up the society. It had existed as long as the society had existed, and the society owed its origin to two clubs, the Verulam and the Amicable Law Society. The tenant could not dictate to the landlord as Mr. Walter had assumed, and the tenancy of the club could be put an end to at any time on giving the committee twelve months' notice. Let there be an end to all this bickering. The ballot had been abolished, and any member could enjoy the advantages of the club by simply paying the subscription, and he could leave it at any moment. The club wished to support the society. The amendment was negatived, six votes being given in its favour and a large majority against. Mr. COLDICOTT (London) moved to proceed to the next business, on the ground that the accounts of the club were not placed before them, and therefore they could not form any opinion as to whether it was desirable to raise the subscription or not. The members of the society knew nothing whatever about it. Mr. WALTER seconded the motion, and on its being put to the meeting eight votes were given in its favour and a large majority against. It was therefore negatived, and Mr. Hunter's motion was then agreed to. LIBRARY CATALOGUE. Mr. F. R. PARKER asked, "What progress has been made with the new catalogue of the library, and when will it be available for the members, and on what terms?" The CHAIRMAN replied that the new catalogue was in type as far as the word" Directories." It would be available for members about Midsummer 1891. The entire collection of books was catalogued, but the arranging and editing were not yet completed. Mr. PARKER moved: "That the new catalogue be followed by annual supplements, until such time as, in the opinion of the council, it be desir. able to reissue the whole." He said that new books, as they came into the library, must of necessity be recorded by the librarian, and this record, whether it were called a supplement or a reprint of that list, ought to be distributed and circulated. He also moved" That the catalogue should include, in an appendix, the Mendham Collection." Many of the members probably were not much better acquainted than he himself was with the collection. It was a collection of about 250 very valuable books, which were presented to the society in 1871, and which was formed by Mr. Mendham and placed by him at the disposal of Mr. Collette, who was a student on the subject to which they related, and had assisted in bringing them to the library. They related principally to controversies between the Churches of England and Rome, especially during the year 1688, and intrinsically he believed they were of great value; but to the members they had proved of little or no use; indeed, he had been informed by the librarian that he could not recollect a single instance in which a member had made inquiry for them. The books were partly in the examination hall and partly in the library, and he understood that from time to time experts and clergymen had sought permission to consult them. A catalogue of the collection had been printed by the society, but he believed that very few of the members possessed a copy, and the librarian, who had one, kept it carefully under lock and key. The cases in which the books were were also kept locked. He (Mr Parker) had thought that the collection might very well be replaced by books which would be of much greater service to the members. Very few of them were interested in the subjects of which the books treated, whilst there were many books sadly needed in the library. He had written to the council suggesting that the collection should be disposed of, and that books better suited to a law library should, if considered desirable, be purchased with the proceeds. The council, however, had been unable to accede to his request, and they had decided, he regretted to say, without giving him an opportunity to enlarge upon his argumemt, that, having accepted the gift of the collection on the condition that they should keep it intact as the Mendham Collection, they could not entertain his proposal. He regretted the decision, but he accepted it in loyalty to the society. If, however, the council retained the books they ought to be catalogued. Very valuable missals and breviaries were to be found among them, and if they were catalogued it might be the result of leading others to make similar additions to the library. He reminded the meeting that the 5000 members of the Bar had five libraries at their service, whilst the 15,000 solicitors hud but one, and year by year the number of solicitors was increasing. He was therefore more than ever desirous that the contents of the collection should be made known in order to encourage similar gifts. A great improvement had taken place in the library of recent years, which had borne fruits in the fact that many more members used the library, and he was informed by the librarian that more came there in a single day than was formerly the case in a week. In concluding he spoke in high terms of the courtesy, energy, accuracy, and ability of the librarian and his assistants. Mr. A. E. FINCH (London) seconded the motion, observing that the Mendham Collection was a most remarkable and valuable collection of theological and ecclesiastical works of singular beauty and in splendid condition. He mentioned a number of them, and said that some of the finest editions of the Scriptures were to be found there. He agreed that it might be of advantage to sell or exchange it, but it was most desirable that the catalogue should be printed in an appendix. Mr. R. PENNINGTON (London), as chairman of the Finance Committee, said he always had to consider the question of expense in these matters. He suggested that it would be sufficient if the supplement were printed once in every three years. A copy of the present catalogue which was kept in the library was kept fully posted up, and though the members had not the benefit of it in their offices, that was perhaps not a matter of very great importance, as the number of books entered in the course of a year bore but a small proportion to the number in the library. It was of importance not to spend more money than was absolutely necessary in the present state of the society's finances, as, owing to various innovations the council had undertaken for the benefit of the Profession, their funds required to be carefully husbanded. With regard to the Mendham Collection, as it would not be needed to reprint it so often as the general catalogue, he would suggest that it should be printed in a separate volume. Many of the members he believed had copies, for it had been circulated largely some years since. Mr. PARKER accepted Mr. Pennington's suggestions with pleasure, but without prejudice to his right to endeavour to persuade the council to take another course on another occasion, and without prejudice to his right to bring forward his original suggestion as to the sale or exchange of the books in the Mendham Collection whenever the opportunity arose. The motions in the modified form were then adopted. MR. JUSTICE MANISTY-MR. JUSTICE FIELD. Mr. C. FORD (London) had given the following notice of motion: "The members of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom in general meeting assembled, hereby record their sense of the great loss sustained by the judicial bench owing to the death of Mr. Justice Manisty and the retirement of Mr. Justice Field, whose long career of honourable and distinguished services to the State was in each case commenced in the ranks of the solicitor profession." He was not, however, present at the meeting. The CHAIRMAN informed the meeting that the council in the name of the society had passed resolutions in both these cases and forwarded the resolution of sympathy to Lady Manisty, and that of congratulation to Baron Field. The council had received a very pleasant letter of acknowledgment from Baron Field. COMMISSIONERS TO ADMINISTER OATHS. Mr. FORD had also given notice to move, "That in the opinion of this meeting the remarks of Mr. Justice Kay in Bourke v. Davis, in reference to the practice of commissioners when administering oaths, call for the serious attention of the council of the society, with a view to improving such practice;" but in his absence the motion was not proceeded with. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE PROFESSION. On the 25th ult., in the Court of Appeal, before the Master of the Rolls and Fry and Lopes, L.JJ., the case of Re Spackman; Ex parte May and others was heard. This was an appeal from an order of Cave and Smith, JJ. The debtor, Spackman, who was the registrar of the Swindon County Court, in 1886 was pressed by his creditors, and was threatened with actions. He thereupon consulted the appellants, Messrs. May, Sykes, and Batten, solicitors in London, with a view to a settlement with his creditors so as to keep him out of bankruptcy. Upon Nov. 9, 1886, he wrote to the appellants to sell certain horses and carriages of his in London, and charge the proceeds of the sale with their costs. Upon Nov. 22, 1886, the debtor wrote a letter to Mr. Redway, an auctioneer at Swindon, authorising him to sell certain furniture and effects, and to pay the proceeds of the sale into his own name and the names of the appellants at the Swindon branch of the Wilts and Dorset Bank for the benefit of the creditors. Upon the same day the appellants wrote to Messrs. Eyre and Co., the London agents of Mr. Jones, a solicitor acting for several creditors, a letter in the following terms :- "Dear Sirs,-We have seen Mr. Spackman this morning, and have arranged that all moneys received from the sale of furniture and other effects shall be retained for the benefit of the creditors, and shall not be handed over to Mr. Spackman. We have, moreover, taken his authority to pay any such moneys into the Wilts and Dorset Bank at Swindon, in the names of this firm and Mr. Redway, the auctioneer at Swindon. We shall write to Mr. Jones very fully on the matter in the course of the day, and if there is any further information you require we shall be pleased to give same to you." On Dec. 14, 1886, a receiving order was made against the debtor. The County Court judge held that the transaction of Nov. 22 was an act of bankruptcy, as being an assignment of the whole of the debtor's property within sect. 4, sub-sect. 1 (a), of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, and directed the appellants to pay over to the trustee in bankruptcy the sum of £56 158. 10d., being the difference between the proceeds of the sale of the horses and carriages in London and that portion of the appellants' bill of costs against the debtor incurred up to the date of the act of bankruptcy on Nov. 22. The Divisional Court affirmed this order. Messrs. May, Sykes, and Batten appealed. Henn Collins, Q.C. and F. C. Willis appeared for the appellants; Cooper Willis, Q.C. and Wace (Poole, Q.C. with them) appeared for the trustee. The COURT, having taken time to consider, delivered judgment allowing? the appeal. The MASTER of the ROLLS said that the question was whether the transaction of Nov. 22 was an act of bankruptcy, as it was clear that if it was it was brought to the notice of the appellants. The arrangement come to on that day was that certain persons should take the whole of the debtor's property, have it sold, and pay the proceeds into a bank for the benefit of all the creditors. It was done in reality at the instigation of the creditors, and therefore it could not be said to be an act of bankruptcy within sect. 4, sub-sect. 1 (b), of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, as' there was nothing fraudulent about it. Did it come within sect. 4, sub-sect. 1 (a), as a conveyance or assignment of his property to a trustee or trustees for the benefit of his creditors generally?" Those words must be construed according to their general acceptation in bankruptcy law at the time when the Act was passed. The word "assignment was a well-known term. It did not mean any contract as to or dealing with property. There must be assignment by deed to a trustee, and it must be of all the debtor's property, for the benefit of the creditors generally. A declaration of trust was not an assignment." There was, therefore, no act of bankruptcy within sub-sect. 1 (a), and the appeal must be allowed. FRY and LOPES, L.JJ. concurred. " On the 25th ult., in the Queen's Bench Division, before Wills, J. and a jury, the case of Abraham v. Deakin was heard. The plaintiff in this case was a solicitor of fifteen years' standing, of 25, Bedford-row, and he sued the defendant, a licensed victualler, of 281, High Holborn, for false imprisonment under the following circumstances: On the 26 July 1889 he met a friend in the street, who asked him for the loan of a sovereign. He thereupon handed him, as he thought, two half-sovereigns, one of which, however, ultimately turned out to be a ten-mark piece. They then went into the Robin Hood public-house, of which the defendant was part proprietor, to obtain some refreshment, in payment for which one of the supposed half-sovereigns was offered. This the barman took to the manager, Nanny, who said, "We cannot take this; it is a bad coin, and only worth 9s. 4d.; we have had several brought here; whereupon the plaintiff took it back, saying, "It is as good as our coin," and handed another coin in payment. After finishing their refreshment the plaintiff and his friend left. About half an hour afterwards, when passing along the street, the plaintiff was touched on the shoulder by a policeman, who told him that he was wanted for passing bad coin; and he was thereupon marched off through Bedford-row and Red Lion-square to Hunter-street Police-station, the policeman refusing to convey him to the station in a cab, though he offered to pay the fare. Nanny appeared to charge him, and said that he had given the plaintiff into charge upon his own responsibility; but when the coin had been tested and found to be quite good and equal to half a sovereign, except for the rate of exchange-about 2 d., the inspector refused to take the charge, and advised Nanny to be more careful in future. The plaintiff complained that he had been prejudiced in his profession, and had lost clients and business in consequence of his arrest. On behalf of the defendant it was urged that though the arrest was most regrettable and unjustifiable, still the defendant could not be liable, as, so far from authorising the arrest, he had given special instructions to his servants not to lock up people. Nanny was merely a servant on weekly wages, and in this case he had clearly exceeded his authority. There must be some limit set to a servant's authority. The learned JUDGE, in summing up, said that no doubt there had been an outrageous interference with the plaintiff's liberty, and as there was no attempt at justification, the damages, if any, should be substantial. The arrest was accompanied with every circumstance of aggravation. What possible reason could the policeman have for refusing to take the plaintiff to the station in a cab? As to the defendant's liability, in an extensive business of this sort considerable authority must be delegated to the servant in charge. Did such an act as this come within the authority reasonably delegated to the servant for the protection of his master's property? If this was a necessary part of a manager's duty in endeavouring to protect his master's interest, the defendant would be liable. No doubt Nanny exercised his discretion very badly. Of course, however, if the defendant really gave orders to Nanny never to lock up any one, that would be a complete defence to the action. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £50, for which the learned judge gave judgment, refusing a stay of execution which was applied for on behalf of the defendant. Gully, Q.C. and Salter, were for the plaintiff; Cock, Q.C. and Wallace for the defendant. WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house have the sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an expert from the Sanitary Eng ineering and Ventilat on Company, 65, Victoria-street, Westminster opposite Town Hal [Estab. lished 1875], who also undertake the Ventilation of Offices, &c.—[ADV] 1 THE IDEAL LAWYER. (From an Address by THEODORE W. DWIGHT, delivered before the Graduating Class of the Columbia Law School, June 1889.) WHO is the ideal lawyer? In ascertaining this, we cannot separate him from his functions. He is to study, to think, and to do. He is both a man of the closet and a man of action. He masters principles, and he wins verdicts. He spends his nights with old Lord Coke, who has been dead almost these three hundred years, and is still wonderfully alive; and in the morning he untangles, before an expectant jury, the mysteries of some recent murder, or perhaps unravels the winding threads of some complicated fraud. At one time he is all contemplation; at another, he is all action. He never supplies the contrast imagined by Dante, between Leah and Rachel, daughters of the patriarch Jacob-the one gathering flowers in the garden of Paradise to give pleasure to others, and the other dreamily searching in a mirror the excellencies of the reflection from her own eyes. On the other hand, what the good lawyer thinks, that also he does. Above all, he is honest-honest towards himself, for he never over-estimates his powers; honest towards his client, for he never encourages him with false hopes, knowing that if he does, the sure harvest will be bitter disappointment, bursting out at length into hot indignation; honest towards the judge, whom he never misleads by a false statement or a miscitation or quotation of an authority; honest, emphatically, towards the jury, whose confidence he sincerely strives to win. The result is that he is never short-sighted. He never for a temporary advantage sacrifices a reputation which he has spent toilsome years to win. Ah! it is a noble thing to be a great lawyer who, like a great musician, never utters a false note, or like a great actor, who never makes a false gesture, or like a great dancer, who never makes a false step. It is an easy thing to make a moderate lawyer; it is a simple thing to make constant blunders which disturb the inner gravity of a sound-minded judge, who strives to give no outward sign of his hidden well-spring of mirth. It is an uncanny thing to play tricks with the judge and jury; for by and by will come the avalance, and then where will the trickster be? The ideal lawyer is also a true man. Nothing is of more value to him than a high and honourable character, strengthened and purified by the struggles, trials, and discipline of life. The great inquiry for us all is, How shall we develop ourselves, and use our development best in aiding our fellows? Self-culture is an excellent thing; but its crowning excellence is as an instrument of good. When self-centred it has its enjoyments, but they are fleeting; while those which are derived from service rendered to others are permanent and undying. There is no fiver object of contemplation among men than an aged jurist, full of honours, who having rounded up the measure of his active years, receives the tributes of his fellows for his earnest spirit of work, the breadth and solidity of his judgment, the worth of his transparent character. THE INNER TEMPLE.-Mr. Robert Threshie Reid, Q.C., M.P., has been elected a Bencher of the Honourable Society in the Inner Temple, in succession to the late Mr. Alfred Simpson. A NEW RULE FOR PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL.-The chairman of the Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons has laid down a rule that a counsel who has not heard the examination-in-chief of a witness shall not be allowed to cross-examine. The intention, of course, is to to prevent the loss of time which results from a barrister not being thoroughly acquainted with what has transpired in his absence. The Parliamentary counsel are savage at this rule, and the other day one of them requested that it should be suspended in his case in order to allow him to attend another committee, and support a bill of great public importance. The chairman demurred, and said it was not his fault that counsel could not arrange to attend closely to all their briefs. Nor is it ours, retorted the barrister, that the House of Commons has crowded so many private bills into this period of the session, when they might have taken a few of them in the weeks preceding Easter. The force of this remark seemed to strike the chairman, for he agreed to relax the obnoxious rule. ADHESIVE STAMPS ON CHEQUES.-IN the Queen's Bench Division, before Huddleston, B. and Grantham, J., on Monday, judgment was given in Hobbs v. Cathie, which raised and decided an important question as to the validity of cheques on unstamped paper. Ordinarily the stamps are "impressed," and bankers issue cheques in books so stamped. But the Stamp Act of 1870 allows adhesive stamps to be used in cases in which it is convenient, cheques being drawn on blank paper, but on condition that the drawer shall put on and cancel a penny stamp; and that if a cheque is issued without being so stamped, the person who takes it shall not recover thereon, though the banker on whom it is drawn may put the stamp on and charge the penny to his customer. The court has now decided that in the hands of any intermediate holder the cheque shall be invalid and not available, and that no such holder can put the stamp on so as to make it valid. In this case the defendant had given the cheque to one Bull, who had put the stamp on, and passed it to the plaintiff, and someone had cancelled it before it got to the bankers, the drawer having stopped it. Mr. M. Smith had argued the case for the defendant, the drawer of the cheque; Mr. Kisch for the plaintiff, the holder. The Court had taken time to consider their judgment, and now delivered it in favour of the defendant.-Huddleston, B., in giving judgment, said the real question was whether the cheque was ever duly stamped." The defendant, the drawer, had bought a horse from Bull with a warranty of soundness, and had given him the cheque, it being drawn on blank paper (he not having a cheque-book with him), and he did not put any stamp upon it. Bull put a stamp upon it and passed it to Hobbs, the plaintiff, who took it bona fide, and was the bona fide holder of it for good consideration, and afterwards by someone else-certainly not the bankers-the cheque was cancelled. The defendant stopped the cheque on the ground that the horse sold was unsound. The stamp therefore was not put on either by the drawer or the banker, and the objection was taken that they are the only parties who can do it, and that therefore the cheque was never duly stamped, and so not valid or available in the hands of any holder. By sect. 54 of the Stamp Act 1870, the person taking such a cheque cannot recover thereon. Ordinarily stamps are impressed, but the Act allows adhesive. stamps to be used upon condition that the drawer puts on a stamp and cancels it, and if he does not do so no one else can do it except the banker. It follows that this cheque was not duly stamped, and the plaintiff, the holder, cannot recover upon it. The defendant therefore is entitled to the verdict, and that appears to be in accordance with the substantial justice of the case. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. FRAY (Mary), Deane Village, Rumworth, near Bolton, Lancashire, widow. The children of James Higson, Thomas Higson, Jane Marsh, and Ann Robinson, brothers and sisters of the above, which children are residuary legatees under her will, to send in their claims, by May 28, to Clayton and Horsfield, solicitors, 32, Church-street, Radcliffe, near Manchester. REDMAN (William), Foster Mill-lane, Hebden Bridge. Yorkshire. Sarah Lawton and Simeon Pearson, alleged to be interested in certain cottages and premises belonging to the estate of the above, to come in, by June 20, and establish their claims before the Registrar of the County Court at Todmorden, Yorkshire. REED (Thomas Sleeman), Illogan, Cornwall, M.D. His nephew, James White Craze, if living, or, if dead, his legal personal representatives, to come in, by Oct. 27, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Chitty. Nov. 3, at the said chambers, at eleven o'clock is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. AUTOMATIC TRADING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 21, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. T. Kennedy, 11, Old Jewry-chambers, the official liquidator of the company. June 4, at the chambers of Mr. Justice Chitty, at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudica'ing upon such claims. AUSTRALASIAN MINES INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 31, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. D. Cornfoot, Allhallows-chambers, Ball-alley, Lombard. street, the liquidator of the company. Hughes, Masterman, and Rew, 59, New Broad-street, solicitors for the liquidator. BIRMINGHAM CONCERT HALLS LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice North on April 19. Linklater, Hackwood, Addison, and Brown, 2, Bond-court, E.C., solicitors for the petitioners. BURNLEY INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED. Creditors to send in, by May 30, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. G. Proctor, 6, Grimshawe-street, Burnley, Lancashire, the official liquidator of the society. June 2. at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of the Registrar of the Burnley County Court, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. BALAGHAT MYSORE GOLD MINING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 10, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. William Henry Rowse, 6, Queen-street-place, E.C., the liquidator of the company. J. B. Birkbeck, Lombard House, George-street, E.C., solicitor for the liquidator. CIGARETTE SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice North on April 19. Hatt and Co., 27, Southampton-buildings, solicitors for the petitioner. CITY IMPROVED BREAD COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice Chitty on April 19. F. W. Reynolds, 4 and 5, Wost Smithfield, solicitor for the petitioner.Mr. Justice Chitty has, by an order dated April 19, appointed Theodore Brooke Jones, of 70, Gracechurch-street, to be provisional official liquidator of the company. DUORO GOLD MINES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 9, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to Mr. C. J. Barrett, 11, Queen Victoria-street, the liquidator of the company. Heath, Parker and Brett. 3, New London-street, Mark-lane, solicitors for the liquidator. FINANCIAL WORLD LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard May 3, before Mr. Justice Kay. Chave and Chave, Devonshire-chambers, Bishopsgate-street, solicitors for the petitioner. IRISH FISHERY AND SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED.-His Honour Judge Heaton Cadman has fixed May 15, at eleven o'clock, at the County Court, Queen-street, Huddersfield, for the appointment of an official liquidator. Moss BAY HEMATITE IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice Chitty on April 19. Speechly, Mumford, Landon, and Rodgers, 1, New-inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner. MAYHEW'S PATENT BOILER FEEDER COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 23, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solioltors (if any), to Mr. R. 8. Mayne, 123, Bishopsgate-street, accountant, the official liquidator of the company. June 5, at the chambers of Mr. Justice Kay, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. ONWARD BUILDING SOCIETY.-His Honour Judge Turner has, by an order dated April 12, appointed Mr. W. B. Feat, of Middlesbrough, chartered accountant, to be official liquidator of the society. Creditors to send in, by June 3, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to the said Mr W. B. Peat. July 1, at the chambers of the said Judge, County Court, Darlington, at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. WATERBERG TRANSVAAL GOLD EXPLORATION SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Petition for windingup to be heard May 3, before Mr. Justice Chitty. Hughes, Hooker, and Co., 36, Budge-row, E.C., solicitors for the petitioner. WAREHOUSE OWNERS COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 19, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. William Alexander, 24, North John-street, Liverpool, the liquidator of the company. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BARRETT (Matthew Richard), Rose and Crown public-house, High-street, Bow, licensed victualler. May 22; T. Dyson, solicitor, Devonshire-chambers, Bishopsgate-street Within. June 5 Mr. Justice Chitty, at eleven o'clock. BRITISH PATENT PERFORATED PAPER COMPANY LIMITED.-May 31; Mr. Justice North's chambers. June 6; at the said chambers, at half-past twelve o'clock. EXTON (John), Bradford, Yorkshire. May 14; Berry, Robinson, and Scott, solicitors, Bradford, JONES (Elizabeth), 1 and 3 Silver-street, Bury-street, Oxford-street. May 5: Blair and W. B. SILCOCK (Alice), West Houghton, Lancashire. May 23; R. Stuart, solicitor, 4. King-street, o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VIOT., c. 35. June 6 Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. AINSWORTH (Ralph Fawsett). M.D., The Cliffe, Broughton, Salford, Lancashire. Hinde, Milne, and Bury, solicitors, 7, Mount-street, Manchester. ASHTON (Ellen), 3, Pew Nook, Hollinwood, Lancashire, widow. May 22; T. Hague, 2, Collier-hill, Hollinwood, and J. Wallwork, 189, Manchester-road, Hollinwood, executors. ARMSTRONG (Henry), 11, Hardman-street, Manchester, dairyman. June 30; Gardner and Son, solicitors, 1B, Cooper-street, Manchester. BLOW (Emma Elizabeth), 103, Finchley-road, South Hampstead, widow. May 31; Anderson and Sons, solicitors, 17, Ironmonger-lane, Cheapside. BARHAM (Henry), Portland Villa, Hastings, Sussex, gentleman. June 30; Meadows, Elliott, and Meadows, solicitors, 32, Havelock-road, Hastings. BROOKES (Louisa Elizabeth), Bankside, Lunham-road, Upper Norwood, widow. May 29; BARTER (Henry), 47, Botolph-lane, and 16, Airlie-gardens, Kensington, fruit merchant. June 1; BOOTH (Charles), Kelsall, Cheshire, farmer. June 30; G. F. Oulton Lee, solicitor, 3, York. buildings, Sweeting-street, Liverpool. BLENKIRON (John), Three Tuns inn, Leopold-street, Sheffield, innkeeper. May 31; Alfred CAIRNS (Right Hon. Arthur William, Earl), Queen-street, Mayfair. June 18; Lumley and inn. CURRY (Alfred), formerly of 144, Southwark Bridge-road, late of 67, Westminster Bridge-road, COLEY (Richard), Windsor, New South Wales, Australia, solicitor. July 1: Rowcliffe, Rawle, and Co., 1, Bedford-row, solicitors for the executor, W. H. H. Becke, Esq., Windsor, N.S.W. CHESSHYRE (Charles John), Cheltenham, gentleman. June 24; Winterbothams and Gurney, solicitors, Cheltenham. COOPER (Charlotte), Springfield, near Holywell, Flintshire, widow. June 21; Powell and Goodale, solicitors, 34, Essex-street, Strand. DYSON (Daniel), Newark-upon-Trent, licensed victualler. July 1; Pratt and Hodgkinson, DANSIE (Simon), Swan inn, Orsett, Essex, licensed victualler. June 2; A. H. Hunt and Co., DENNEY (Henry), Thurgarton Lodge, Thurgarton, Norfolk, auctioneer. May 10; Walls, Abbott, EVANS (Sophia Cordelia Louisa), High-street, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, spinster. May 31; EVANS (David), George inn, Pontypool, Monmouthshire, watchmaker and innkeeper. June 24'; FRAY (Mary), Deane Village, Rumworth, near Bolton, Lancashire, widow. May 28; Clayton and FORBES (John Gregory), Ellerslie, Widmore-road, Bromley, Kent, Esq. June 4; Hanbury, FORJETT (Charles), 18, Charleville-circus, West Hill, Sydenham, formerly of Wycombe Court, Lane End, Bucks, Esq. June 1; Hores and Pattisson, solicitors, 52, Lincoln's-inn-fields. GULLIVER (Ellen), Totton, Southampton. June 1; Barlow and James, solicitors, 49, Limestreet, E.C. GREEN (Isabella Walker),' Twyning, near Tewkesbury, widow. June 24; W. Langley-Smith, solicitor, Gloucester. GOUGH (Rev. Frederick Foster), Wolverhampton. May 24; Colebourn, Allen, and Darby, solicitors, Wolverhampton. GRAHAME (Alexander), 30, Great George-street, Westminster, and 51, Avenue-road, Regent's HUTTON (Robert), formerly of South Stockton, late of 26, Boundary-road, Middlesbrough, York- HARRISON (Dorothy), Scale How, Ambleside, Westmoreland, widow. June 9; Dowson, Ainslie, and Martineau, solicitors, 28, Bedford-row. HOOPER (William Henry). Elkstone House, Cheltenham, Esq., M.D. June 24; Winterbothams and Gurney, solicitors, Cheltenham. HOOD (Charles), 10, Leinster-gardens, Hyde Park, and Grangewood, Upper Norwood, formerly of Blackfriars, iron merchant. May 31; Freeman and Bothamley, solicitors, 13, Queen-street, Cheapside. HARTLEY (Gerard Heywood), formerly of Manchester, late of 11, Brunswick-place, Southampton, gentleman. June 4; Taylor, Kirkman, and Colley, solicitors, 8, John Dalton-street, Manghester. JONES. (Edith. Stenhouse), 122, Selborne-street, Liverpool, spinster. May 19; Terrell, Atkinson, and Winstanley, solicitors, 33, Gracechurch-street. JONES (John), 24, Greenfield-road, Stoneycroft. near Liverpool, gentleman. May 26; Payne and LEFROY (Elizabeth), Brighton, Bussex, widow. June 9; Wake and Son, solicitors, 25, Bank-street, LONGWORTH (Rev. Thomas James). Bromfield Vicarage, Shropshire, and Walworth House, LAMPITT (John), Neithrop, Banbury, Oxon, engineer. May 31; Stockton and Son, solicitors, 38, High-street, Banbury. LODGE (Thomas). Whitton Park, Durham, butcher. May 23; G. Emerson, solicitor, 8, Churchstreet, West Hartlepool. LEIGH (George), West-street, Firgrove, Rochdale, gentleman. June 1; Hartley, Son, and Osborne, solicitors, Townhall, Rochdale. LOMAS (Thomas), Thornlea, Woodlands Park, Timperley, Cheshire, corndealer. June 24; Farrar and Hall, solicitors, 79, Fountain-street, Manchester. LEE (James Holwell), formerly of Newcastle-drive, Nottingham, late of Lenton Field, Notting- LAY (Robert). Carlton Colvile, Suffolk. farmer. May 8; Reeve and Mayhew, solicitors, Lowestoft. MALTHUS (Sophia). Oak Lea, Shere, Surrey, widow. June 7; Williams and James, solicitors, Norfolk House, Thames Embankment. MURRAY (Henry), Middlesbrough, Yorkshire, retired beerhouse-keeper. May 31; A. H. Sill, solicitor, 15, Albert-road, Middlesbrough. MASON (William Carrington), 74, Carr-street, Ipswich. May 31; F. J. W. Wood, solicitor, Old Post-office-buildings, Ipswich. MCDONALL (Andrew), 11, George-street, Marylebone. May 22; Wills, Watts, and Luke, solicitors, 53, Carter-lane, E.C. MILES (Jane), Neithrop, Banbury, Oxon, spinster. May 20; G. Bliss, solicitor, Banbury. MALLINSON (James), 13, Queen's-square, Leeds, yeoman. June 7; Harland and Ingham, solicitors, 14, East Parade, Leeds. NAPIER OF MAGDALA (Right Hon. Robert Cornelis, Baron), Caryngton, Cheshire, and of 63, NAPPER (Jacob), 20, St. James's Market, Jermyn-street, fruiterer. June 3; W. G. Price, solicitor, OLIVER (Frederick), 28, Canonbury-grove, Canonbury. May 26; Hack and Morris, solicitors, 8, Pancras-lane, Queen-street. PODIO (Eliza), 44, Queen's-road, Chelsea. May 24; J. F. Collins, solicitor, 4, Furnival's-inn. POTTER (Thomas), Thoverton, Devonshire, yeoman. May 27; Prickman and Risdon, solicitors, Gandy-street, Exeter. PICKLES (Lewis), 18, Brunswick-street, Halifax, Yorkshire, coal merchant. May 31; W. H. Boocock, solicitor, Silver-street, Halifax. PROCTOR (Eliza Ann), wife of Rev. Francis Bartlett, Argyle House, 10, Petherton-road, Canonbury. June 24; Boulton, Sons, and Sandeman, soilcitors, 21A, Northampton-square, E.C. PHILIPP (Frederick Theodore), Belfield Hall, Rochdale, Lancashire. May 28; Slater, Heelis, and Co., solicitors, 71, Princess-street, Manchester. ROBERTS (Frances), 36, Harper-street, Stratford, near Manchester, widow. May 19; E. Shippey and Jordan, solicitors, 17, Cooper-street, Manchester. ROBERTS (George James), 35, Royal-arcade, and 21, Partridge-road, Roath, Cardiff, picture RODGERS (James), 28, Calthorpe-road, Edgbaston, Warwickshire, theatre proprietor. May 20; Row (Richard), High-street and Greenhill Farm, Harrow, Middlesex, saddler. June 1; Cooper and Bake, solicitors, 6, Portman-street, Portman-square. REDSHAW (Hannah), 1, Neptune-square, Margate, lodging-house keeper. June 7; Toke H. Boys, solicitor, Margate. STEPHENSON (Henry), Rising Sun inn, Kirkstall-road, Leeds, beer retailer. May 31; Hopps and Bedford, solicitors, 4, Bank-street, Leeds. SMITH (Isabella), 20, Highbury New-park. May 28; Ridsdale and Son, solicitors, 5, Gray's-Inn square. SWAN (Henry), Astwood-road, St. Swithin-street, and 65, Lowesmoor, all in Worcester, shoe- SMITH (William), formerly of 69, Median-road, late of 8, Dunlace-road, Lower Clapton, gentleman. TRIGG (John Fielder), 33, Craven-road, Paddington, corn dealer. June 3; W. Scott Fox, solicitor, 13, St. Mary's-square, Paddington. THOMAS (Charlotte), Bradley View, Newton Abbot, Devonshire, widow. June 7; Tozer, Whidborne, and Tozer, solicitors, Teignmouth and Dawlish. TURTON (Anna Margaretta), Shipley, Yorkshire, spinster. June 1; J. Moxon, solicitor, Ropergate, Pontefract. VINEY (Maria Louisa), Colchester, Essex, spinster. June 7; Goody and Son, solicitors, WHITEBREAD (Thomas William), Higham, Kent, and of Covent Garden, farmer and market gardener. June 9; R. P. Smyth, solicitor, Strood, Kent. WEBB (William James), the Vicarage, Alrewas, Staffordshire, clerk. May 31; A. G. Hill, solicitor, WILLIAM (Thomas Edward), 2, Outram-terrace, Stoke Damerel, Devonport, gentleman. On the 23rd ult., at the Holborn Restaurant, Mr. G. E. Woods, clerk to Mr. Justice Lawrahce, was entertained at a complimentary dinner given by the barristers' clerks of the Midland Circuit, in celebration of the learned judge's recent elevation to the Bench. Mr. Charles Stocker presided. BILLS OF SALE.-The number of bills of sale in England and Wales registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending the 26th April was 183. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 137, and the corresponding weeks for the three previous years 261, 225, and 173.Stubbs Weekly Gazette. COMMERCIAL FAILURES.-According to Kemp's Mercantile Gazette the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending April 26 was 85. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 37, showing a decrease of 48, being a net decrease in 1890, to date, of 200. Mr. Jeune, Q.C., has accepted the office of Treasurer of the Inns of Court Habitation of the Primrose League. LORD JUSTICE COTTON.-Lord Justice Cotton, having recovered from his recent indisposition, resumed his seat in Appeal Court II. on Monday morning. MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN.-The news received at the Law Courts concerning Mr. Justice Stephen is to the effect that he is making rapid progress towards convalescence, and that he is pretty sure to be able to resume his seat on the bench after the Whitsun holidays. In view of this fact, the arrangements are that his Lordship shall, with Baron Pollock, form a Divisional Court during the Trinity Sittings. THE BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENT BILL.-A meeting was held on Monday of members of the grocery trade at the Commercial Sale Rooms, Mincing-lane, E.C., to consider Sir Albert Rollit's Bankruptcy Amendment Bill now before Parliament. A committee had previously considered the details of the Bill, and had drawn up a report showing that the Bill should be resisted, as it was directed against the right of creditors to have the control over the assets of estates to which they were justly entitled. They further suggested that the new Bill would practically repeal the 1887 Act, which provides for the registration of deeds of arrangement. The report of the committee was adopted. THE RIGHTS OF SOLICITORS' CLERKS.-At the Wandsworth Policecourt, on Monday, Mr. Haynes attended and offered an explanation with reference to a clerk in his employ endeavouring to conduct a prosecution at that court in his absence. He said when the case was called on for hearing he was engaged in a case at the West London Police-court. He need hardly say that he objected strongly to a non-professional man conducting a case, but he sent his clerk over with instructions to secure the assistance of a professional gentleman. It was not his intention to show any disrespect to the court.-Mr. Denman said he did not accept the incident as one of disrespect to the court.-Mr. Hanne, who appeared on the other side, mentioned that the clerk held himself out as being a professional man. He stated that he was engaged with him (Mr. Hanne) in three or four cases that afternoon. When he discovered that the clerk was not a professional man he raised an objection, and it was an objection which he should certainly take again whatever Mr. Haynes might say to the contrary. THE NEW PEER.-Sir William Ventris Field, late a judge of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, took the oath and his seat in the House of Lords on Monday as Baron Field. He was introduced by Lord Coleridge and Lord Bramwell, assisted by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Garter King-at-Arms. The Pall Mall Gazette says: Probably a new member of the House of Lords has never been introduced amid so much noise as attended the appearance of Lord Field last night. Garter King-at-Arms had to give the directions to the new peer in a voice audible all over the Chamber. The orders, too, sounded comical. For instance, when Lord Field and his sponsors went to the Barons' Benches, Sir Albert Woods said, 'Now sit down here.' Then came in succession such directions as these: 'Now put your hats on; now raise them and bow to the Lord Chancellor; now put them on again; now raise them three times.' The late judge seemed glad when the functions were over and he was able to have a chat, in a loud tone, with the occupant of the woolsack, Lord Halsbury pointing out the Government and the Opposition benches. Lord Field seemed unable to make up his mind with which party he should identify himself. He first took a seat on the front Opposition Bench; Lord Thring beckoned him out of that sacred spot and found him a place behind Lord Granville and his colleagues. Subsequently the new-comer associated himself with the Liberal Unionist Lords. Possibly the next time he attends a sitting of the Hereditary Chamber he may have developed into as staunch a supporter of the Government as Lord Brabourne." BARRISTERS AND THEIR CLERKS.-The following has been addressed to the Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette:-"Sir,-The compilation of your contributor anent barristers' clerks and their fees is somewhat ingenious, but the supposed utterances of barristers' clerks must have been the expressions of very junior clerks. I believe it to be a delusion that barristers would pay their clerks anything less than they now do if so-called clerk's fees were abolished. There is much glamour about barristers. The number of barristers who make £5000 per annum does not probably exceed ten. Even the makings of the big-pots among them are quite absurdly exaggerated. It must be remembered that there are but eight working months in the year for barristers, and that there are about 8000 members of the Bar, 5000 of whom probably are seeking practice. It may be that some 1000 of these gentlemen are making £1500 a year. Now, £1500 at 5 per cent. (the percentage is 24 on brief fees, but other matters may bring it up to 5 per cent.) would represent £75 per annum to the clerk. But my experience, at least, is that the average pay of a senior clerk is £3 per week, and then there is the junior clerk to pay. So that you see, Sir, the notion that what are called clerk's fees generally represent the pay of a barrister's clerk or clerks is incorrect, and long before a barrister's fees reach the respectable figure of £1500 per annum he would have to pay a decent man at least £2 per week. Again, I do not think it is correct to call these fees 'clerk's fees;' they are really barrister's fees, and usually pocketed by him, and a sum considerably in excess of them paid by the barrister to his clerk. The clerk's fees according to the scale of the Judicature Rules are paid by the solicitor to the counsel whether the counsel have a clerk or not. I do not think that barristers' clerks are greatly concerned about the maintenance of clerk's fees. It is more the concern of the barrister than the clerk. The clerks know well that character, sobriety of conduct, tact, and discretion will generally command decent pay. If anything were needed to show the kindly appreciation of members of the Bar for their clerks, one might refer to the wills of deceased barristers and judges.Your obedient servant, A BARRISTER'S CLERK.-2, Paper-building, Temple, April 24." LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. Students' Societies. LIVERPOOL.-At a meeting of this association on Monday, the 28th ult., a debate was held on the following subject for discussion: Was the case of Gardner v. Ingram (61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 729) rightly decided?" Mr. Lockwood opened in the affirmative. Mr. W. Brown opened in the negative, which was also supported by Messrs. Magee, Mather, Priest, and Byrne. The question was decided in the negative by a majority of five. |