Atlanticum. On the whole, we have but little fault to find with the book. The principle on which it is written is a good one, and it is well carried out. It is nicely got up and printed, and the Index is both full and clear. The Sale of Goods, including the Factors Act 1889. By His Honour Judge CHALMERS. London: Wm. Clowes and Sons. 1890. PROBABLY there are few men who are better qualified to write a text-book on the above subject than the draftsman of the Bills of Sale Act 1882 and the Sale of Goods Bill 1889. The affirmative propositions of the existing law in this book are taken mainly from the Sale of Goods Bill, which is a purely codifying measure, and these are explained by extremely lucid notes. On some points Mr. Chalmers seems to have found a curious dearth of authority. As an instance of this, he says: "The important question of the effect of different parts of a bill of lading getting into different hands seems to have been the subject of a Nisi Prius ruling in 1753; but, though it was a matter of great importance to every shipowner and captain, it did not come before the courts again for 129 years. That the matter of the book is well arranged and clear goes without saying, and the author must be congratulated on his careful contribution to the codification of a difficult branch of law. Urban Rating; being an Inquiry into the Incidence of Local Taxation in Towns. By CHARLES HENRY SARGANT. London : Longmans, Green, and Co. 1890. ON the title-page of this book we are told that it is written with special reference to current proposals for change;" and from the preface we learn that the author was urged to write the book by "certain gentlemen with large interests in urban building land." The book is in effect, as suggested in the preface, a defence of ground landlords. As such, it is an excellent piece of work, ably and carefully written. A chapter is devoted to showing that ground rents already pay rates. This, however, is nothing more than a piece of special pleading, for the owner of ground rents, or, to put it more accurately, the owner of land subject to a building lease, pays no direct rates in respect of land of which he is the owner, and it does not matter to him whether rates go up or go down during the period of the lease. However high the rates are, no deduction can be made from his ground rent in respect of them. It would have been better if Mr. Sargant had devoted himself entirely to trying to show that ground landlords ought not in justice to be rated in respect of their property, instead of arguing that they already pay rates. Mr. Sargant's book on the whole is a good one, and contains a great store of useful information, but the tone throughout has too much of a partisan character. How to be Married in all Ways and Everywhere_throughout the British Empire and in Foreign States. By THOMAS MOORE, M.A. Griffith, Farran, Okeden, and Welsh. London. 1890. THIS little book deals in a useful way with the contract of marriage. Besides marriages in the Church of England, it deals with civil marriages before the registrar, marriages of Quakers, and Jewish marriages. We note from the title-page that Mr. Moore is also the author of "The Englishman's Brief on behalf of his National Church." We do not know whether Mr. Moore considers that he is still holding his brief in writing this book. Whether this is so or not, the statistics which he gives are very striking. Out of a total of two hundred and three thousand marriages in England in 1888, one hundred and forty-two thousand were celebrated according to the rites of the Established Church, twenty-eight thousand were made in district register offices, while marriages of Roman Catholics, Quakers, Jews, and other Nonconformists, altogether only numbered thirty-three thousand. The marriage rate is apparently falling off, both in the re-marriages and in the marriages between bachelors and spinsters; but the proportionate decline has apparently been much greater among the former than among the latter. Marriages between spinsters and bachelors fell between 1876 and 1888 some 12 per cent.; the marriages of widowers in the same period fell 27 per cent., while the marriages of widows fell 31 per cent. In the appendix is an exuberant supply of forms of every possible kind. Essentials of Forensic Medicine, Toxicology, and Hygiene. By ARMAND SEMPLE, B.A., M.B., M.R.C.P. THIS little book seems to be very well put together, and its usefulness is greatly increased by the number of illustrations which it contains. It is primarily intended, apparently, for the use of students "upon the eve of examination." It must not be supposed, however, from these words, which are quoted from the preface, that the book is nothing more than a cram-book. A great deal of knowledge is compressed into a very small space, and we do not doubt that the book will be found useful by barristers practising at the Criminal Bar. It contains an excellent chapter on poisons. The Law and Practice of Letters Patent for Inventions. By LEWIS EDMUNDS, D. Sc. (Lond.), &c., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-atLaw, assisted by A. WOOD RENTON, M.A., LL.B., of Gray's-inn, Barrister-at-Law. Stevens and Sons Limited. THE Patents Acts passed between 1883 and the present time have found a considerable number of commentators, but we do not remember that any of them has dealt with the subject of patents at all in the same way as the author of the book now before us. The Acts are, indeed, to be found in the book, and that more than once, but the bulk of the book is made up of a complete treatise on the subject with which it deals. In stating in his preface that, "since the publication in 1846 of the well-known work of Hindmarch on the Law of Patents, no comprehensive treatise upon the law and practice of patents for inventions has appeared," we think that the author has hardly done justice to Mr. Agnew's book, though as that book, which was rather a slight work, appeared sixteen or seventeen years ago, and long before the passing of the Acts now in force, no apology is needed for the production of a new book on the same subject; still less is any apology needed when the present work is examined. In describing the effect of the different statutes, and of the numerous decisions on the law of letters patent, it appears to be worthy of all confidence, while it abounds in information of all kinds, not easily to be obtained elsewhere, which throws a flood of light on the history and working of the law. Such chapters as those on the Patent Office and on the Outline Procedure to obtain a patent are invaluable to an inventor's adviser, as they place him at once in possession of all the general circumstances which surround an application for a grant, and leave him to concentrate his attention on the special features in the case which he has to conduct to success. The space given to describing obsolete practice under bygone Acts, and to the reproduction of those Acts themselves, is by no means wasted, for apart from the greater accuracy with which the bearing of old decisions is gauged, it adds greatly to the facilities for comprehending the object and effect of the existing law which grew out of and is the development of the older systems. doubt, however, whether it was worth while to print all the forms of official letters in which the comptroller requests a peccant inventor to sign and date his specification or supply some other trivial omission, and there is other matter which might be spared, but we do not make & point of this. The appendix of statutes is so full that the Act of William IV. authorising statutory declarations to be made might have been supplemented by sect. 68 of the Conveyancing Act 1881, which provided a short title for that useful Act. The cases cited are very numerous, though some are, perhaps wisely, omitted, and the number of those quoted from the Patent Office Reports shows the pace at which the case law is growing. By the way, we prefer the abbreviation "P. O. R." employed for these reports by the author to the "R. P. C." used in the reports themselves. But could not some still shorter term be devised? The references are somewhat capriciously given; sometimes all the reports are given, but frequently only one. Again, we must really take exception to such grammar as "The Institute has appointed their secretary registrar." These, however, are small details, and we have no hesitation in saying that the book is a useful and exhaustive one, and one which could not have been produced without much labour and considerable research. It describes the law of letters patent and its history, including proceedings in the Privy Council, international arrangements, and an abridgment of foreign laws on the subject. It would be difficult to make it more complete, and it is printed well on good paper. BOOKS RECEIVED. We Glen's Law relating to County Government. Knight and Co., 90, Fleetstreet. Stephen's New Commentaries on the Laws of England. Four Vols. Eleventh Edition. Butterworths, 7, Fleet-street. Rogers on Elections. Part I. Fifteenth Edition. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane. Neish and Carter's Factors Act 1889. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane. We are glad to state that Mr. Charles Crompton, Q.C., of the Northern Circuit, who has been seriously ill for some time past, has now been pronounced out of danger, and is rapidly progressing towards recovery. On Saturday last in the First Division of the Court of Session, Edinburgh, the Duke of Montrose presented his commission and took the oaths as Lord Clerk Register and Keeper of the Signet, in room of the late Earl of Glasgow. Mr. A. T. Carter has published his paper on the Factors Acts, read before the Liverpool Law Students' Association on the 31st March last. We recommend it to the attention of law students. The convict Hermann Arnemann, who attempted to take Judge Bristowe's life by shooting him in the back last November, has committed suicide in his prison cell. BILLS OF SALE.-The number of bills of sale in England and Wales registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending June 14 was 171. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 125, and the corresponding weeks for the three previous years 224, 229, and 282.Stubbs Weekly Gazette. CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES. QUARTER SESSIONS. When held. Friday, July 4 Plymouth Friday, July 4 Portsmouth Friday, July 4 Richmond Rochester Scarborough Shrewsbury Southampton Warwick. Wenlock Friday, July 4 Monday, July 7 Monday, July 7 Monday, June 30. Thursday, July 3 Friday, July 4 Thursday, July 3 Recorder. W. H. Nash, Esq... H. Coleman Folkard, Esq. ... F. A. Philbrick, Esq., Q.C...... Marston C. Buszard, Q.C. His Honour Judge Howard His Honour Judge Prentice... Clerk of the Peace. B. Challenor. C. M. Elborough. H. V. Hulbert. LOTTERY-SALE OF CHANCE-4_GEO. 4, c. 60, SECT. 41.-At Bowstreet, on Monday last, before Sir John Bridge, who sat specially in the Extradition Court to hear the case, Mr. Gilbert Dalziel, newspaper proprietor, of Shoe-lane, appeared to two summonses charging him (1) with unlawfully publishing in Ally Sloper's Half Holiday a certain proposal and scheme for the sale of chances in a lottery of and for the sum of £1000; and (2) with unlawfully selling a share of a chance in a lottery, contrary to the statute 4 Geo. 4. c. 60, s. 41. Mr. Horace Avory, instructed by Sir A. K. Stephenson, and Mr. Thomas prosecuted on behalf of the Public Prosecutor; Mr. Asquith, Q.C., M.P., instructed by Mr. G. Lewis, defended. The question was whether a scheme advertised in the paper mentioned amounted to a scheme for the sale of tickets for a lottery. The advertisement in question appeared on the 24th May, and with a variation of a form of prize competition appearing in many papers. It directed readers to cut out a certain paragraph in each week's paper and keep the cuttings until Nov. 22, 1890, when they should post them, with names and addresses, to "Sloper's £1000 Competition, The Sloperies, E.C." In the number for Dec. 27, the name and address of the winner would be announced. Sir John Bridge said the two questions raised were whether this was a lottery, and whether the words in sect. 41 of the Act were still in force. He was of opinion that they were still in force. He fined the defendant 1s. on each summons, but said it must be understood that the offence was not a nominal one, although the circumstances of this case and its friendly character justified a nominal penalty. BANKRUPTCY LAW AND PRACTICE. On the 22nd Feb. last (88 L. T. 297) we drew attention to the case of Re Webber; Ex parte Webber (61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 650), in which was laid down by Justices Cave and Charles the general rule of practice that to every application to rescind a receiving order the official receiver was a necessary party. It will be recollected that the case in question was an appeal from a receiving order which was dismissed, and leave to appeal refused, on the ground that either the official receiver had not received notice of the appeal, or in any event (there being some doubt in the matter) if he had notice, it was under the circumstances out of time, and the Court refused further to extend the time, and declined to proceed with the appeal. Since then an application has been made to the Court 'of Appeal for leave to appeal from the refusal of the Divisional Court to hear the appeal. This application will be found reported sub nom. Re Webber; Ex parte Webber (62 L. T. Rep. N. S. 485). The Court of Appeal seem first to have gone into the question whether or not the official receiver was a person "directly affected" by the appeal so as to entitle him to have a notice of appeal served upon him under the provisions of Order LVIII., r. 2. The Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Lindley thought he was not, but Lord Justice Lopes came to the conclusion that, "having regard to the fact that the official receiver represents the general body of creditors, having regard to the duties which he is called upon to discharge, and having regard especially to the fact that upon an appeal from a receiving order the very existence of his office is called in question, he was a party 'directly' affected by the appeal." It was not, however, necessary for the court to decide that question, as the rule above goes on to provide that the Court of Appeal (which is the divi. sional court on appeals in bankruptcy from the County Court) may direct notice of the appeal to be served on all or any parties to the action or other proceeding, or upon any person not a party. The court therefore clearly had power to order the official receiver to be served, and to make it a general rule that he should be served. The question then arises, if such a rule is a good and suitable rule for the Divisional Court of Appeal, ought it also to obtain in the court over which the Lords Justices of Appeal preside? The Master of the Rolls admitted that he personally had been afraid of the expense that might be incurred if an official receiver had to receive notice to attend on the hearing of every appeal. It seems, however, that the actual expense of service of the notice upon the official receiver would in reality be small, while it has also been laid down by various decisions that an official receiver served with notice of an appeal is not bound, and in fact ought not, to appear unless he has something substantial to say with reference to the appeal. Under these circumstances the following rule has now been definitely laid down, that "When there is an appeal to the court (i.e., the Court of Appeal proper) against a receiving order, notice of appeal is not only to be given to the petitioning creditor, but is at the same time' to be given in all cases to the official receiver, whether there has or has not been a stay of proceedings." The rule laid down by the Divisional Court remains unchanged. On the other point, i.e., the refusal by the Divisional Court to extend the time for appealing, the Court of Appeal also agreed with the decision of the court below, and in the result the application was dismissed. BANKRUPTCY ACT 1883, SECT. 4, SUB-SECT. 3-ISSUE OF NOTICE INCLUDING DEMAND FOR INTEREST ON JUDGMENT DEBT.-In the case of Re Lehmann; Ex parte Hasluck, heard before Cave and Smith, JJ., sitting in Bankruptcy, on Tuesday last, a question of very general import ance was raised with reference to whether, under sect. 4, sub-sect. 1 (g), of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, a bankruptcy notice can be issued so as to include a demand for interest on the judgment debt. The case was an appeal from the refusal of the registrar of the County Court at Guildford to issue a bankruptcy notice, on the application of the appellant, by which notice was given that unless within seven days a sum of £14,896, claimed as being the amount due on a final judgment obtained in 1888, was paid by the debtor or secured or compounded for, or unless the court was satisfied that the debtor had a counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand against the appellant which equalled or exceeded the amount claimed by him, and which he could not set up in the action in which the judgment was obtained, such debtor would be considered to have committed an act of bankruptcy, on which bankruptcy proceedings might be taken against him. Of the amount claimed the sum of £13,796 was the amount of the judgment, a sum of £1100 being added for interest at the rate of 4 per cent., but the County Court registrar refused to allow this latter sum to be included, and altered the bankruptcy notice by reducing the claim to £13,796. ex parte appeal was now brought from this decision.-Cautley appeared in support of the appeal. The Court allowed the appeal.-CAVE, J. said that the appellant was entitled to have a bankruptcy notice issued for the amount due on the judgment which included the interest. It might be a question whether the two amounts should not appear separately in the notice namely, whether the amount of the judgment should not be put first and then the amount of interest, or whether the notice should be in the form in which it had been given; but that was a mere matter of detail. The appellant was entitled to have the amount of interest added to the judgment debt, so that the debtor might be informed by the notice that he could not comply with the notice without paying the interest on the debt. -SMITH, J. concurred. An at 10 Bingham. Tuesday, at 11 Birkenhead, Tuesday Birmingham, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30 Bournemouth, Wednesday, at 10 Bradford (Yorks), Tuesday, at 9.45 Brampton, Tuesday, at 9.30 Brighton, Tuesday, at 10; Thursday (judgment summonses), at 11.30; Friday, at 10; Thursday (before Registrar), at 10 Bristol, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, at 10 Brompton, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday Burnley. Thursday, at 10 Burton. Thursday (if necessary), at 9 Derby (if necessary), Tuesday, at 10 Huddersfield, Thursday, at 10 Hyde, Wednesday Kettering, Saturday, at 10 Lambeth, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10 Mansfield, Munday, at 10 at 10 Parish clerk-Fees-District parish-Lord Blandford's Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 104), s. 12. THIS was an action brought for the illegal detention by the defendant of certain fees which accrued due between the 8th Dec. and the 25th Dec. 1889, the property of the plaintiff, as clerk of the parish of St. Peters, Derby. The plaintiff claimed 188. Hextall (instructed by Hadyn Morley, Derby) for plaintiff. On the 4th June His HONOUR delivered the following judgment:The plaintiff in this action is the parish clerk of St. Peter's, Derby, and he claims to recover from the defendant, the Rev. Robert Hey, who is the vicar or incumbent of St. Andrew's, a church with a district formed out of the old parish of St. Peter, the sum of 188., which he alleges properly belongs to him as such parish clerk, and which the defendant as such vicar or incumbent claims as his own. There is no dispute as to the facts, which are as follows: The parish of St. Peter, before its recent dismemberment, was a very extensive one, and comprised within its limits (inter alia) the new district parish of St. Andrew. At the time when this new district parish was formed the Rev. Wm. Hope was the vicar of St. Peter's Church, and Mr. Wm. Drew was the duly-appointed parish elerk. Mr. Drew died in the year 1871, and thereupon the present plaintiff was appointed parish clerk of the parish and parish church of St. Peter, Derby, in his place. Apparently he was not formally admitted to the office until a Consistory Court, held at Lichfield on the 22nd April 1879; but nothing turns on this delay, and for the purposes of this action I treat him as having been the duly-appointed parish clerk of St. Peter as from the date of his appointment in 1871. Mr. Hope died on the 8th Dec. last, and on his death the present question became ripe for decision. The church of St. Andrew was consecrated in the year 1866, and by the sentence of consecration, bearing date the 10th May in that year, there was expressly reserved the right and interest of the parish church of St. Peter, Derby, and the incumbent and officers thereof, in all and singular the rights, fees, privileges, profits, and emoluments whatsoever to the same, and to them by law or custom in any way belonging or appertaining. At the trial an extract was put in evidence of an order of Her Majesty in Council, dated the 23th Dec. 1886, which, after approving the assignment of a district chapelry to the church of St. Andrew, contained the following representation, viz., that it appeared expedient that banns of matrimony should be published, and that marriages, baptisms, and churchings should be solemnised or performed at such church, and that the fees to be received in respect of the publication of such banns and of the solemnisation or performance of the said offices should be paid and belong to the minister of the same church for the time being, but with this proviso, that, so long as the Rev. Wm. Hope should remain vicar or incumbent of the church of St. Peter, all the fees which might be received in respect of such offices in the said church as aforesaid were to be paid by the minister thereof to the said W. Hope. Upon this basis the district chapelry of St. Andrew, Derby, was formed into a district parish. So long as the Rev. W. Hope remained vicar of St. Peter's, the fees commonly known as surplice fees should be paid to him. The defendant is the third vicar or incumbent of St. Andrew, and he was instituted in the year 1878. Since he has held the office he has always paid all fees in respect of the publication of banns and of the solemnisation or performance of marriages, baptisms, and churchings to the Rev. W. Hope until his death; and now the question is whether the plaintiff, having been appointed parish clerk of the mother church five years after the daughter church was consecrated, is now entitled, having survived Mr. Hope, to the parish clerk's fees accruing from St. Andrew's so long as he retain his office, and this question turns entirely on the proper construction of the 12th section of the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104, passed in the year 1856, and commonly known as Lord Blandford's Act. This section, after in effect providing that where in the formation of a new district church the fees payable in respect of marriages, baptisms, churchings, and burials in the new district have been reserved to the incumbent of the original parish or to the clerk thereof, the incumbent of such new church or chapel is to keep an account of such fees and every three months to pay over the same to the incumbent and clerk respectively of the original parish, contains these words, "From and after the next avoidance of such incumbency, or the relinquishment of such fees by such incumbent, and after the situaation of such cerk shall have become vacant, or after a compensation in lien of fees has been awarded to such clerk by the bishop of the diocese, which he is hereby empowered to do, such reservation shall altogether cease and determine, and all such fees and dues shall belong to the incumbent of the district within which the same shall arise, or to the clerk of the church thereof." It was contended by Mr. Hextall that in order to set the latter part of this section in operation there must be (1) an avoidance of the incumbency and relinquishment of the fees, and (2) a vacation of the clerkship or compensation paid to the clerk, and that inasmuch as both these conditions have not yet happened, the plaintiff is still entitled as parish clerk of St. Peter's, so long as he holds the office, to receive the clerk's fees and dues arising within the district parish of St. Andrew. This contention, if a sound one, necessarily produces this result: if the vicar of the mother church a few days before his death appointed a young man to be parish clerk, the clerk's fees and dues arising within the new district parish will belong to him so long as he holds the office, and the rights of the parish clerk of the new district parish will be indefinitely postponed. But I am clearly of opinion that this is not the true meaning and effect of the 12th section. The plain intention of the Act is to provide for the formation, and endowment of separate and district parishes where a large parish has become too populous for the superintendence of one vicar. In carrying out this purpose it carefully preserves all interests which are vested at the time when the new district parish is formed, but it would be defeating its own purpose if it allowed any new interests to be created. This obvious main intention of the Act must be borne in mind in construing its different sections; but even if the 12th section had stood alone I can only read the latter words of it which I have quoted above as used in a distributive sense. In the earlier part of the section it is provided that the incumbent of the new district shall pay over the fees and dues to the incumbent and clerk respectively of the original parish, thus treating their vested interests as wholly distinct; and although the latter part of the section might have been more clearly expressed, I can find nothing which makes the avoidance of one office dependent on the avoidance of the other office in order to bring about a cesser of the reservation. The result is, that on the death of Mr. Drew his vested interest in the clerk's fees and dues arising within St. Andrew's parish came to an end, and the plaintiff never had any interest in them at all. The defendant, following the example of his predecessor, who was possibly misled by the words of the Order in Council, has paid the clerk's fees and dues to Mr. Hope up to his death, and I presume that he paid them over to the plaintiff; but this cannot improve the plaintiff's position in this action, or prejudice the validity of the defendant's defence. Judgment for the defendant, with costs on the scale between £20 and £50. RETURN OF JUDGE BRISTOWE, Q.C.-His Honour Judge Bristowe, who was shot by a disappointed suitor last November, took his seat in the Nottingham County Court on Monday for the first time since his serious illness. After congratulatory addresses by the Registrar (Mr. R. H. Speed), the Official Receiver (Mr. H. R. Thorpe), Mr. Appleton, and Mr. Wing (President of the Incorporated Law Society), his Honour replied as follows: "I do not feel it very easy to reply to the very kind words which have been said of me, for I think you will readily understand there are times when one's feelings rather overcome one's power of expression, and I think I shall have your sympathy when I say such an occasion has occurred to me. It is true I have gone through a period of much pain and much trial, and my family through a period of great anxiety, but we have been much supported by the kind sympathy of our friends and relations in all parts of England almost, and not least has been the entire sympathy and great kindness we have experienced at the hands of the members of my own Profession. To me, I confess, it is a source of great comfort and great satisfaction to recognise and believe, as I do, that the too kind words addressed to me by Mr. Wing on behalf of the Profession are really a true reflex of their feeling towards me, and I am also greatly obliged to Mr. Speed for his kind expressions on behalf of himself and other members of the large staff of this court. I am sure in the future as in the past I shall receive the same sympathy, kindness, and assistance that I have always had rendered to me in the discharge of my duties in this court, and let me assure you in the discharge of the functions of a judge that is no light matter, and I know I can rely with confidence upon the assistance of the advocates who are in the habit of practising in this court. You will excuse me adding any more words. I can only thank you most heartily and sincerely for the warm congratulations you have addressed to me on this occasion, and while I feel thankful for my recovery from the great trial I have undergone I look forward to the future with every confidence and hope.' Later on his Honour received the congratu lations of the Mayor, to which he made a suitable reply. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE PROFESSION. A CASE of some interest to solicitors came before his Honour Judge Chalmers, at the Birmingham County Court on the 10th inst. At the hearing of a garnishee summons, in which Mr. Jones was the judgment creditor, Mr. C. Perry the judgment debtor, and Messrs. Walker and Sons the garnishees, Chris. Brady (solicitor) attended to show cause against the garnishee order being made absolute.-G. B. Lowe opposed on behalf of the judgment creditor.-Brady stated the facts to be as follows: On the 29th April last the judgment debtor, Mr. Perry, recovered a judgment against Messrs. Walker and Sons for a debt of £2 2s., and at the hearing of that case Brady appeared as solicitor for Mr. Perry, and was allowed the usual costs. Immediately after the judgment in that case, and before the debt and costs were paid by Messrs. Walker and Sons, Lowe, the solicitor for Mr. Jones, a judgment creditor of Mr. Perry, issued a garnishee summons against Messrs. Walker and Sons, claiming to be paid the debt and costs for which he, Mr. Perry, had obtained judgment on the 29th April, and the garnishee summons was made returnable to-day. Messrs. Walker and Sons paid the money into court before the return day of the garnishee summons, and the same, including the costs of the judgment, was paid out by the registrars to Mr. Lowe's client without notice to the solicitor acting for Mr. Perry.-Brady now said that the judgment creditor had no right to garnishee the costs in the action, on which he, as the solicitor in the matter, had a lien paramount to any claim of the person taking out the garnishee summons; and in support of his contention he referred to the case of Shippey v. Grey (42 L. T. Rep. N. S. 673; 49 L. J. 524 C. P.), in which it was laid down that a solicitor's lien was paramount, even without a charging order. He further contended that the money had been paid out of court to Mr. Lowe's client irregularly, that the garnishee order served on Messrs. Walker and Sons was only a preliminary or nisi order, and that the money ought not to be paid out until the order was made absolute at the hearing, which was fixed for to-day, so that any person might attend and show cause against it.-Lowe said the money having been paid out to his client his Honour had no further control over it, and his Honour accepting this view, said Mr. Brady's attendance to show cause against the garnishee order was too late and must be refused.-Brady urged that the return day of the gar nishee summons was the proper time to show cause against it, as there was no other opportunity given to him, and the fact of the money being paid out of court ought not to prejudice his claim.-His Honour, however, said he could not help him. AT the North London Police-court, on Tuesday last, William Williams, house agent, of 107, Blackstock-road, Finsbury Park, was summoned for unlawfully pretending to be a solicitor.-Humphreys prosecuted for the Incorporated Law Society. John Higgins, a butcher, of Charteris-road, Finsbury Park, had a tenant named Louch, who went away without paying his reut. Higgins sued him and recovered the amount in the County Court, and Louch, who was a bootmaker, appeared to be under the impression that his business was injured thereby. On May 3 Mr. Higgins received a letter from the defendant, in which he said, "I have been instructed to commence proceedings against you for the loss and injury to business caused to Mr. Louch by your action." Higgins thought that this was a threat from a lawyer, and, feeling that it was not justified by the circumstances, he placed the letter before the Law Society. The defendant admitted writing the letter but said he had no intention of pretending to be a solicitor.-Mr. Haden Corser said the only question for him to decide was whether any reasonable person would suppose that the letter had come from a solicitor. He felt that there could be no doubt about the matter. Although the defendant did not state in so many words that he was a solicitor, the letter he had written was couched in the legal phraseology which a solicitor always employed. He fined the defendant £5 and 10s. costs, or one month's imprisonment in default of distress. On the 16th inst., in the Queer's Bench Division, before Hawkins, J. and a special jury, the case of Gedge v. Simmons and Stanley-Jones was heard. This was an action to recover £150 as money had and received by the defendants, who are solicitors, to the use of the plaintiff, who is another solicitor, under the following curious circumstances:-The plaintiff's case was that he had been asked by the defendant Jones to allow his name to be used in an action as plaintiff's solicitor, as the action was against a friend of his for whom the other defendant (Simmons) was acting. He allowed his name to be used, and the action was subsequently compromised, £150 being paid to the plaintiff in the action by Mr. Simmons, the defendant's solicitor. It was to recover this that the plaintiff brought his action. Evidence was heard at great length on both sides, and his Lordship having summed up, the jury found that the money was not received to Gedge's use. HAWKINS, J.-That is a verdict for the defendants. Upon Walton's application, His Lordship gave judgment for the defendants, but without costs. Walton.-Will your Lordship give us a certificate for a special jury? HAWKINS, J.-Certainly not. It is a case which should never have been brought into court. ON the 18th inst., in the Court of Appeal before Esber, M.R. and Lindley and Lopes, L.JJ., an appeal was heard by Mr. Hopper, a solicitor, against the order of a divisional court, consisting of Grantham and Charles, JJ., suspending him from practice for three years. The Official Receiver in Bankruptcy having made application under the Solicitors Act 1888 against Mr. Hopper, the committee of the Incorporated Law Society reported that three of the five charges of misconduct brought against him were made out. The first of these charges was, that while acting as trustee of the marriage settlement of a Mr. and Mrs. Montgomery he had called in trust investments, and had retained the money thus received as a loan without security, and had used it for his own purposes. The second charge was, that while acting as agent for a Miss Brown he had used for his own purposes money paid to him as her agent. The third charge was of a similar character with regard to money of a Mr. Younger. The Court dismissed the appeal. The MASTER of the ROLLS said that he thought Mr. Hopper might consider himself a lucky man. If he had been sitting in the Divisional Court he should certainly, on the view he took of the facts, have struck him off the rolls. There were many moral offences and misconducts which would not affect the certainty that a man would act honestly, but directly that it was shown that he could not withstand temptation as to money or the giving of truthful advice, then he was no longer fit to hold the high position which he occupied as an officer of the court and to receive the confidence engendered by that high position. For those reasons he thought that the Divisional Court had taken a most lenient view in only suspending the solicitor and not striking him off the rolls. LINDLEY, L.J. thought it a very bad case. He was convinced by the evidence that the solicitor was a person who was unable to resist the temptation of misappropriating other people's money with which he happened to be trusted. He was therefore unfit to be trusted, and he concurred in thinking that the Divisional Court had been very lenient in the course they had taken. LOPES, L.J. said that the fact of a man being admitted as a solicitor was a guarantee to the public that he was fit to be trusted, In all his experience he knew of no case more deserving of condemnation than the present, and he hoped the case would not be cited as a precedent for prssing such light sentences as had been inflicted in this case. ON Wednesday last, in the Court of Appeal, before Cotton, Bowen, and Fry, L.JJ., an appeal was heard against a decision of Mr. Justice North which raised questions of importance to solicitors and their clients upon the construction of the provisions contained in the Solicitors' Remuneration Act of 1881, with regard to agreements between a solicitor and his client fixing the amount of the remuneration of the former. Sect. 8 of the Act provides (vi.) With respect to any business to which the foregoing provisions of this Act relate, whether any general order under this Act is in operation or not, it shall be competent for a solicitor to make an agreement with his client, and for a client to make an agreement with his solicitor, before or after, or in the course of, the transaction of any such business, for the remuneration of the solicitor, for such amount and in such manner as the solicitor and the client think fit, either by a gross sum, or by commission or percentage, or by salary, or otherwise; and it shall be competent for the solicitor to accept from the client, and for the client to give to the solicitor, remuneration accordingly. (2) The agreement shall be in writing, signed by the person to be bound thereby, or by his agent in that behalf. (4) The agreement may be sued and recovered on, or impeached and set aside, in the like manner and on the like grounds as an agreement not relating to the remuneration of a solicitor; and if, under any order for taxation of costs, such agreement being relied on by the solicitor shall be objected to by the client as unfair or unreasonable, the taxing master or officer of the court may inquire into the facts and certify the same to the court; and if, upon such certificate, it shall appear to the court or judge that just cause has been shown either for cancelling the agreement, or for reducing the amount payable under the same, the court or judge shall have power to order such cancellation or reduction, and to give all such directions necessary or proper for the purpose of carrying such order into effect, or otherwise consequential thereon, as to the court or judge may seem fit." Sect. 3 provides that"in this Act'client' includes any person who as aprincipal or on behalf of another, or as trustee or executor, or in any other capacity, has power, express or implied, to retain or employ, and retains or employs, or is about to retain or employ, a solicitor, and any person for the time being liable to pay to a solicitor for his services any costs, remuneration, charges, expenses, or disbursements." The business to which the Act relates is mentioned in sect. 2, and it includes (inter alia) "business connected with mortgages." The facts of the present case were briefly as follows. In Jan. 1884 one Slater was desirous of borrowing £300 on the security of some property belonging to him, and on the 21st Jan. he wrote the following letter to " Palmer, a solicitor:. "I hereby request and instruct you to raise, or endeavour to raise, for me the sum of £300, at 10 per cent. per annum, on the security of all my estate and interest under the will and in the property of the late Thomas Symons, and I hereby undertake to pay your costs (which I agree at £20, exclusive of money out of pocket) incurred and to be incurred in and about doing what is necessary, in your opinion, for the purpose of carrying out these instructions." This letter was signed by Slater. In pursuance of the instructions conveyed by it Palmer procured for Slater an advance of £300 on a mortgage of Slater's interest under the will in question, and out of the money so advanced Palmer retained £20 for costs. Palmer acted in the matter as solicitor for both mortgagor and mortgagee, and the £20 included the costs of both. Slater afterwards took out a summons asking that Palmer might be ordered to deliver to the applicant a bill" of all such his fees, charges, or disbursements as he claims to be due or paid, or as have been deducted by him from the applicant, or out of his moneys," and that the bill might be referred for taxation. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the above letter did not constitute an agreement between a solicitor and his client within the meaning of the Act, at any rate as regarded the mortgagee's costs, because, though a mortgagor is, by reason of the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, liable to pay the mortgagee's costs, he is not the agent of the mortgagee to retain a solicitor for him, and is not the client of the mortgagee's solicitor. On behalf of the solicitor it was argued that, when an agree ment under the Act had been entered into, sect. 8 (4) did not enable the client to obtain an order for taxation merely for the purpose of impeaching and setting aside the agreement. North, J. held that the letter constituted an agreement within the Act. It was a retainer of the solicitor to act for the mortgagor, and an agreement to pay him the amount specified for costs. The sum which was to be paid, no doubt, included the costs of the mortgagee's solicitor, and the mortgagor had no authority to retain a solicitor for the mortgagee. But it was an authority, based on the supposition that the mortgagee would be content that the same solicitor should act for him, to incur the costs for him, and an undertaking to pay them. And, as to sub-sect. 4 of sect. 8, his Lordship held that he could not make an order for taxation for the purpose of impeaching and setting aside the agreement. If an order for the taxation of costs were made, and the solicitor set up the agreement, the taxing master would have power to inquire into the validity, if the client objected that it was unfair or unreasonable. But here there was no order for taxation in existence, and such an order could not be made for the purpose The client appealed. The Court dismissed the appeal. COTTON, L.J. said that two points had been ingeniously raised by Mr. Farwell, but in his opinion neither of them would hold. The first point was that the agreement was not within the Act, because the parties did not stand in the relation of solicitor and client. In his Lordship's opinion the mortgagor had clearly, within the words of the Act, "retained or employed a solicitor," though the remuneration which he agreed to pay the solicitor was in part in respect of business in which he was not employed for the mortgagor. But the solicitor was his solicitor. It was said that, notwithstanding the agreement, there could and ought to be a reference for taxation. But the appellant had not_filed any affidavit impeaching the agreement, and though, in his Lordship's opinion, if the agreement had been impeached, power was given to the court to make a reference for taxation, the very foundation of such an order was wanting in the present case. The appeal must be dismissed. BOWEN and FRY, L.JJ. concurred, the former observing that the appeal ought never to have been brought. ENGLISH MARRIAGE AND FOREIGN DIVORCE. A REMARKABLE case of Harris-Gastrell v. Harris-Gastrell occupied Mathew J. and a special jury for three days last week, involving the question of the validity of a decree of divorce pronounced by the Court of Wiesbaden. The form of the action was by the husband claiming an injunction to restrain his wife, divorced in Germany, from calling herself his wife. The defence raised was, that the plaintiff was not at the time of the decree domiciled in Wiesbaden, and that he had concealed material facts from the court. F. O. Crump, Q.C. and English Harrison (instructed by Roy and Cartwright) were for the plaintiff; the Solicitor-General, C. Dodd, Q.C., and Tindal Atkinson (instructed by H. B. Clark and Son) for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff had sent his wife away from Vienna in 1876; in 1881 they were reconciled and lived together from Nov. 1881 to Feb. 1882, when the wife left him. In March 1881 it had been agreed that if they could not continue to live peaceably there should be a separation. In June 1883 the plaintiff removed all his furniture, books, pictures, wines, &c., to Wiesbaden, where he took and subsequently bought a house; his sons lived there with him when he was not absent, as he frequently was, on diplomatic missions, he being a resident Minister of Great Britain in Central America. He also took a pew in a church, and purchased a vault in Wiesbaden, and declared to his wife his intention to live there permanently. In Sept. 1883 he instituted divorce proceedings in the Provincial Court of Wiesbaden. In April 1884 the Court decided that he had acquired a domicile, and in May decreed a divorce on the ground of his wife's malicious desertion. A German advocate was called by the plaintiff, who stated that if the facts alleged to be material had been disclosed to the German court, the judgment would have been the same, as separation was considered by German law contra bonos mores. MATHEW, J., in summing up to the jury, left them two questions: (1) had the plaintiff acquired a domicile in Wiesbaden; (2) had he concealed from the court material facts. The jury found in the negative as to (1) and in the affirmative as to (2); and judgment was thereupon entered for the defendant. SOLICITORS' PETITION TO THE HOME SECRETARY. Over two hundred solicitors have presented a petition to the Home Secretary asking for a remittance of the sentence of six weeks' imprisonment recently passed on Mr. Arthur Newton, or that in the alternative he may be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. The PRACTICE of INTERPLEADER by SHERIFFS and HIGH BAILIFFS, with Acts, Rules, and Forms.-By Daniel Warde, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law; formerly Solicitor of the Supreme Court, and London Agent for the Officers of the Sheriff of Lancashire. Price 3s. 6d., post free, handy pocket size.-HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, 10, Welling. ton-street, Strand, W.C.-[ADVT.] HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. CHRISTIE (George), who in 1877 was residing at Rose-villas, Cambridge-road, Turnham Green, and his sister Mrs. Jarman, who in the same year was residing at 154, High-street, Eltham, will hear of something to their advantage if they will communicate with Messrs. Bridges Sawtell, Heywood, and Co., solicitors, 23, Red Lion-square. EDIS (Mary), Bachelor's-garden, Harrogate, Yorkshire, spinster. Next of kin to apply to the Solicitor for the Treasury, Whitehall. SHARP (John), 38, Adur-terrace, Southwick, Sussex, shipowner. Persons claiming to be heirsat-law, and his next of kin, living at the time of his death on March 2, 1890, or the real. representatives of such heirs-at-law or any of them then living and now dead, or the legal personal representatives of such of the next of kin then living who are now dead, to send in, by July 7, the particulars of their claims to Mr. W. H. Cockburn, solicitor, 1, Duke-street, Brighton. SANDILANDS (Helen), 182, Lillie-road, Fulham, formerly of Bath-place, Kensington, spinster, Persons claiming to her next of kin, or her heir or heiresses-at-law, to send in, by July 11, the particulars of their claims to Messrs. Tatton and Son, solicitors, 11, Lower Phillimoreplace, Kensington. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOOK WINDING-UP ACTS. ARTHUR ROBERTS COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 28, before Mr. Justice Chitty. Lewis and Churchman, 65 and 66, Chancery-lane, solicitors for the petitioner. B. MORRIS AND SONS LIMITED.-Petition for continuance of voluntary winding-up to be heard June 21, before Mr. Justice Kay. Morley, Shirreff, and Co., 53, Gresham House, Old Broadstreet, solicitors for the petitioners. BUENA VENTURA COMPANY LIMITED.- - Creditors to send in, by July 31, the particulars of their claims to Messrs. R. Donagan and H. Swaffield, 6, Queen-street-place, London, the liquidators of the company. BIRMINGHAM CONCERT HALLS LIMITED.-Mr. Justice North has, by an order dated May 28, appointed Henry Newson Smith, 37, Walbrook, chartered accountant, to be official liqui dator. Creditors to send in, by July 21, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. H. N. Smith. July 31, at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of Mr. Justice North, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. CARDIFF AND NEWCASTLE STEAM COAL COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 21, before Mr. Justice Chitty. Lowless and Co., 26, Martin's-lane, Cannon-street, solicitors for the petitioners. COLONIAL AND FOREIGN MINING SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice Chitty on June 7. Speechley, Mumford, Landon, and Rodgers, 1, New-inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioners. FARTHING LETTER CARD COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice Chitty on June 7. Beall and Co., Tower-chambers, London-wall, solicitors for the petitioner. JOSEPH PAGE AND 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. H. Teague, 38, Barton-arcade, Manchester, the liquidator of the company. JOHN TATHAM AND SONS LIMITED.-The Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster has, by an order dated April 25, appointed Ernest Crewdson, 5, Norfolk-street, Manchester, chartered accountant, to be official liquidator. KILBOURN REFRIGERATING MACHINE COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up made by the Court of Chancery of the Liverpool District of the County. Palatine of Lancaster on June 4. Norris and Sons, 11, Union-court, Castle-street, Liversool, solicitors for the petitioners. LOTHAMMER GAS MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED.-Mr. Justice Chitty has, by an order dated May 23, appointed William Slingsby Ogle, 90, Cannon-street, accountant, to be official liquidator. Creditors to send in, by July 16, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. 8. Ogle. July 81, at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of Mr. Justice Chitty, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. MORTGAGE AND AGENCY COMPANY OF AUSTRALASIA LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 28, before Mr. Justice Stirling. Linklater, Hackwood, Addison, and Brown, 2, Bond-court, Walbrook, solicitors for the petitioners. NEW FLORENCE MINING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 15, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. D. J. C. Bush and J. C. Bull, 1 and 2, Great Winchester-street, the liquidators of the company. Wilkins, Blyth, and Dutton, solicitors for the liquidators. ROSS HILL GOLD COMPANY LIMITED. Creditors to send in, by Oct. 1, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. Renshaw, 2, Suffolk-lane, Cannon-street, the solicitors for the Hiquidators. SYDNEY GODOLPHIN TIN MINE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 30, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. H. Richards, 11, Poultry-chambers, the liquidator of the company. Abbott, Jenkins, Baker, and Co., 134, Fenchurch-street, solicitors for the liquidator. SLEAFORD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by His Honour Judge Martineau at the Lewes County Court on June 10. June 26, at twelve o'clock, at the said court, is the time fixed for the appointment of an official liquidator. Wynne-Baxter and Keeble. 9, Laurence Pountney-hill, E.C., solicitors for the petitioners. SOUTH DURHAM ALKALI COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 15, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. R. MacCurrach, Zetland-buildings, Middlesbrough, Yorkshire, the liquidator of the company. Jackson and Jackson, Middlesbrough, solicitors for the liquidator. STANDARD BANK OF MANCHESTER LIMITED.-Pétition for winding-up to be heard June 26, befor the Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster, at the Assize Courts, Strangeways, Manchester, at half-past ten o'clock. Storer. Taylor, and Co., 89, Fountain-street, Manchester, solicitors for the petitioner. TELPHERAGE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 12, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. M. R. Pryor, 50, Old Broad-street, the liquidator of the company. Bircham and Co., 50, Old Broad-street, solicitors for the liquidator. WEST COUNTRY HOUSE PROPERTY, LAND, AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 23, before Mr. Justice North. Hickin and Fox, 29, Lincoln'sinn-felds, solicitors for the petitioners. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. BECK (William), Worthing, Sussex. July 7; Collett and Minton, solicitors, Worthing. July 22; Mr. Justice Chitty, at eleven o'clock. BRYANT (William Charles), 20, York-buildings, Adelphi, gentleman. July 16: G. 8. Lynch, solicitor, Fitzalan House, Arundel-street, Strand. July 31; Mr. Justice North, at twelve o'clock. DANDO (Robert), Bradley, Sedgley, Staffordshire. June 23; Stokes and Hooper, solicitors, 1, Priory-street, Dudley. June 23; The Registrar of the Worcestershire County Court Dudley, at three o'clock. HEMSWORTH (Rev. Augustus Barker), Bacton, Suffolk, clerk in holy orders. July 10: Ridsdale and Son, solicitors, 5, Gray's-inn-square. July 12; Mr. Justice Chitty, at twelve o'clock. KINGSMAN (William John), Swan tavern, Balaam-street, Plaistow, Essex, beer retailer. July 12; H. Fawssett, solicitor, 20, Cullum-street, Fenchurch-street. July 21; Mr. Justice Kay, at twelve o'clock. NEEDHAM (Joseph), Waterloo inn, Taddington, Derbyshire, innkeeper. July 7; F. S. Goodwin, solicitor, Bakewell, Derbyshire. July 19; Mr. Justice Stirling, at twelve o'clock. SPEAK (James). Colne, Lancashire. July 14; W. 8. Edelston, solicitor, 7, Winckley-street, Preston. July 24; the Registrar of the Preston District of the County Palatine of Lancaster, 10, Winckley-street, Preston, at twelve o'clock. SHIRLEY (Frances), 83, Camden-road, and of Caroline House, Caroline-place, Hastings, Sussex, widow. July 22; A. J. Skipper, solicitor, 98, London-wall. Aug. 1; Mr. Justice Chitty, at eleven o'clock. WINGFIELD (West Albert Allwood), Handley, Cheshire, innkeeper. July 10; E. Brassey, solicitor, Chester. July 24; Mr. Justice North, at half-past twelve o'clock. WOODS (George Francis), 31 and 32, Whitefriargate, Kingston-upon-Hull, hosier. July 4; R. Champney, solicitor, Kingston-upon-Hull. July 11; Mr. Justice Kay, at twelve o'clock. WALKER (Hugh), Middleton-by-Wirksworth, Derbyshirej grocer. July 7; J. James, solicitor, Wirksworth, Derbyshire. July 15; Mr. Justice Stirling, at twelve o'clock. OREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VIOT., c. 85. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. AXTILL (Thomas), Ramsgate, Kent, gentleman. Aug. 16; Edwards and Son, solicitors, Ramsgate. AINSWORTH (Sarah), West Lancashire hotel, Mornington-road, Southport, Lancashire, spinster. Aug. 2: Fariar and Hall, solicitors, 79, Fountain-street, Manchester. ASHWORTH (Rev. John Ashworth), the Rectory, Didcot, Berkshire, clerk in holy orders. July 19; W. H. Walsh, solicitor, 16, Now Inn, Hall-street, Oxford. BATLEY (Joseph Hirst), Huddersfield, Yorkshire. July 12; Brook, Freeman, and Batley, solicitors, 48, New-street, Huddersfield. BULLER (John Frances), Morval, Cornwall, gentleman. July 12; Bewes, Hellard, and Bewes, BURT (Thomas Seymour), F.R.S., 12, Cotmandene, Dorking, Surrey. July 15; F. 8. Carr, solicitor, 325, High Holborn. BLANT (Samuel), Guild-street, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, brewer's manager. July 31; BULL (Charles), 24, Bedford-row, and of 20, Inverness-terrace, solicitor. July 19; Palmer and BEAUCLERK (Penelope), formerly of Ore, near Hastings, Sussex, then of Hill House, Babbicombe, near Torquay, Devonshire, late of Crown House, Great Chesterford, Essex, widow. July 19; Walker, Martineau, and Co., solicitors, 36, Theobald's-road, Gray's-inn. EAMES (Ellen), Malmesbury, Wilts, widow. July 14; Clark and Smith, solicitors, Malmesbury. BARTLETT (Ann Wrench), Teignmouth, Devon, widow. July 1; Tozer, Whidborne, and Tozer, solicitors, Teignmouth. COWIE (Jane Read), Eardisley, Babbicombe, Devonshire, widow. July 15; Kitsons, Mackenzie, COWAN (Henry), 22, Stanley-crescent, Notting Hill, gentleman. Aug. 1; H. Montagu, solicitor, 5 and 6, Bucklersbury. DE BURGH (Alexander Averil Hussey), Carnarvon, solicitor. Aug. 1; Ford, Lloyd, Bartlett, and EMMOTT (George), Wood Bank, near Disley, Stockport, Cheshire, civil engineer. July 12; FARMER (John), Heath Farm, Upper Amaston, Shropshire, farmer. Aug. 2; How and Son, solicitors, 9, Swan-hill, Shrewsbury. FARMER (Thomas), Heath Farm, Upper Amaston, Shropshire, farmer. Aug. 2; How and Son, solicitors, 9, Swan-hill, Shrewsbury. GODDARD (Frederick Thomas), Frimley, Surrey, baker. July 21; Potter and Crundwell, solicitors, Farnham. GARDNER (Thomas Hicks), formerly of the Half Moon hotel, Exeter, hotel keeper, late of 17, Belmont-road, Exeter. Aug. 1; Burch and Son, solicitors, Palace-gate, Exeter. GUEDALLA (Jemima), wife of Haim Guedalla, 18, Gloucester-terrace, Hyde Park. July 26; H. Harris, solicitor, 63, Coleman-street. GURNEY (Rev. Joseph John) Lakenham Old Hall, Norwich, Norfolk, clerk in holy orders. GALL (Benjamin David), Woodbridge, Suffolk, pharmaceutical chemist. July 22; W. W. Welton, HOPLEY (John), Goole, York, fish, game, and poultry dealer. July 19; Laverack and Son, HOWARD (Aaron), the Lymes, 206, York-street, Cheetham, and of the Wholesale Fish Market, and Victoria Market-place, all in Manchester. July 19; E. W. Wright, solicitor, 88, Morley-street, Manchester. HIBBERT (Maria), Southport, Lancashire, widow. Aug. 1; Buck, Dicksons, and Cockshott, solicitors, 3, Tulketh-street, Southport. HIBBERT (Anna Andrews), Southport, Lancashire, spinster. Aug. 1; Dicksons and Cockshott, solicitors, 3, Tulketh-street, Southport. HUNT (Henry), 93, Page-street, Westminster, leather cutter. July 14; H. C. Draper, solicitor, JOHNSON (Hannah), Spring-hill, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, widow. Sept. 30; W. J. LIDDLE (Sarah), formerly of 74, Thorpdale-road, Hornsey-road, then of 54, Torriano-avenue, Kentish Town, late of 100, Pentonville-road, widow. July 25; Wedlake, Letts, and Wedlake, solicitors, 3, Serjeants'-inn, Fleet-street. LONG (Elizabeth), 6, Lancaster-gate, Paddington. July 12; Morse, Hewitt, and Farman, MAY (James), 205, Cemetery-road, Sheffield, gentleman. July 28; Ryalls and Son, solicitors, 19, North Church-street, Sheffield. MORRIS (Rev, George Sculthorpe), Bretforton, Worcestershire, clerk in holy orders. July 28; MILTON (John), 13, Somerset-street, Abertillery, "Monmouthshire, tinplate worker and china MARSHALL (George), 72, Bromfelde-road, Clapham, Surrey, and 27, Gracechurch-street, solicitor. PENNISTON (Edward), 91, Manchester-road, Cubitt Town, Poplar, pawnbroker. July 19; POWELL (George Benjamin), Nottingham, surgeon. July 12; Enfield and Son, solicitors, PLUMB (Jane), wife of William Plumb, Lower Saper, Worcestershire. July 30; T. Dyson, solicitor, 7, Lincoln's-inn, Corporation-street, Birmingham. ROBINSON (Edward), formerly of Colombo, Ceylon, finance and traffic manager of the Ceylon Government Railways, late of Ivy Cottage, Burleydam (near Whitchurch, Salop), Cheshire, gentleman. July 31; J. Tatlock, solicitor, 13, John-street, Chester. BIBTON (John Browne), formerly of Woodbrook, Bray, Wicklow, Ireland, late of Westgate-onSea, Kent, gentleman, formerly an officer in Her Majesty's army. July 16; Ravenscroft, Hills, and Woodward, solicitors, 15, John-street, Bedford-row. STORRY (Ellen), Collman-street, Kingston-upon-Hull, spinster. July 15; R. H. Barker, solicitor, Temple-buildings, Bowlalley-lane, Hull. SELLAR (Frederick), 18, Larkhall-rise, Clapham, Surrey, gentleman. July 13; S. T. Kingston, solicitor, 41, Fitzroy-street, Fitzroy-square. SCALE (Mary Jane), Treglemais, Llanhowell, Pembrokeshire, spinster. July 15; Eaton-Evans and Williams, solicitors, High-street, Haverfordwest. SHARP (Helen), Ivy House, Tenby, Pembrokeshire, widow. July 14; R. Look, solicitor, Tenby, S. Wales. SMITH (Henry Abel), Wilford House, Nottinghamshire, gentleman. July 19; Parr and Butlin, solicitors, Bank-chambers, Nottingham. SANDILANDS (Helen), 182, Lillie-road, Fulham, formerly of Bath-place, Kensington, spinster. July 11; Tatton and Son, solicitors, 11, Lower Phillimore-place, Kensington. SMITH (James Adolphus), Winchcombe, Gloucestershire, a surgeon-major on the Medical Staff of Her Majesty's army. Aug. 16; E. S. Wood, solicitor, Winchcombe, near Cheltenham. SEYMOUR (William Henry), Park-place, Englefield Green, Surrey, gentleman. July 14; Ravenscroft, Hills, and Woodward, solicitors, 15, John-street, Bedford-row. TURNER (John), Athelstane Noctorum, Birkenhead, Cheshire. and of Eagle-chambers, 17, Fenwick-street, Liverpool, stationer. July 18; T. and T. Martin, Webb, and Hime, solicitors, 48, Custle-street, Liverpool. TODD (Edward), Denmark House, Barrington-road, Altrincham, Cheshire, gentleman. July 12; Dendy and Paterson, solicitors, 5, Cross-street, Manchester. TODD (William Richard), 3, Hornsea-parade, Kingston-upon-Hull, gentleman. July 15; R. H. Barker, solicitor, Temple-buildings, Bowlalley-lane, Hull. TURNEY (Ann), Old Chilwell, Nottinghamshire, widow. July 10; E. L. Manning, solicitor, 3, King John's-chambers, Nottingham. TAYLOR (John), formerly of 30, Finkle-street, Kendal, Westmoreland, late of 8, Molesford-road, Poole Park, Fniham, cabinetmaker. Aug. 1; C. G. Thomson and Wilson, solicitors, Finklestreet, Kendal. TURNER (John), High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, surgeon. July 31; T. Marshall, solicitor, High Wycombe, Bucks. TYSON (Joseph), Fell Foot, Langdale, Westmorland, farmer. July 15; G. Gatey, solicitor, Amble side. VAUGHAN (Thomas Henry), 91. Wordsworth-street, Hove, formerly of 34, Bedford-square, Brighton, Sussex, lodging-house keeper. July 14; H. Nye, solicitor, 35, Duke-street, Brighton. WILLIAMSON (Alfred), 3, Park-row, Leeds, Yorkshire, share broker. Aug. 1; Ford and Warren, solicitors, 61, Albion-street, Leeds. WARD (Margaret), Hedon-in-Holderness, Yorkshire, spinster. July 12; Park and Son, solicitors, 25, Bishop-lane, Kingston-upon-Hull. WARNER (Sarah), Muchall Hall, near Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, widow. July 12; Burder and Janion, solicitors, 33, King-street, Manchester. MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Thursday the 11th inst. was Grand Day at the Middle Temple, and, according to custom, the Benchers entertained a distinguished company at dinner in their hall in the evening. The treasurer, Mr. Justice Day, presided. The guests included the Lord Chancellor, Lord Bramwell, Mr. Chamberlain, M.P., Sir Arthur Clay, Sir James Paget, Sir Frederick Bramwell, Sir William Savory, General Sir George Higginson, Captain Andoe, C.B., the Dean of Peterborough, Mr. Hugh Shield, Q.C., Rev. Canon Duckworth, Mr. Dixon-Hartland, M.P., Mr. T. Ashton, Mr. S. H. Day (hon. secretary Barristers' Benevolent Association), Mr. E. L. Rowcliffe, and Mr. J. W. Waldron, the undertreasurer. The Benchers present were Sir T. Chambers, the Recorder; Judge Powell, Mr. Joseph Brown, Q.C., Judge Prentice, Lord Justice Lindley, Mr. Justice Wills, Mr. Morgan Lloyd, Q.C., Judge Bagshawe, Mr. Hopwood, Q.C., Mr. Philbrick, Q.C., Mr. Macrory, Q.C., Mr. Locock Webb, Q.C., Mr. Ambrose, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Littler, C.B., Q.C., Mr. Graham, Q.C., Sir Charles Hall, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Stallard, Mr. Bigham, Q.C., Mr. Finlason, Mr. Will, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Digby, and Mr. French, Q.C. There was a large attendance of barristers and students. |