COTTERRELL (Joseph). Chessetts Wood, near Knowle, Warwickshire, farmer. Aug. 23; King and Ludlow, solicitors, Solihull.. COALBANK (Fletcher), Netherwasdale, Cumberland, farmer. Aug.1; J. L. Paitson, solicitor, 13, Irish-street, Whitehaven. CARTWRIGHT (Elizabeth), Well-street, Tunstall, Staffordshire, spinster. Creditors to send in forthwith the particulars of their claims to Llewellyn and Ackrill, solicitors, Tunstall, Staffordshire. COLLINS (Rev. John Ferdinando), Betterton, Berkshire, clerk in holy orders. Aug. 12; H. and C. Collins, solicitors, Blagrave-street, Reading. CHAPMAN (George), 23, Durham-road, Sheffield, gentleman. Sept. 22; Bromhead, Wightman, and Moore, solicitors, Bank-chambers, George-street, Sheffield. CALNAN (Michael), the elder, formerly of 278, Commercial-road East, late of 9, Lushington-road, DAVIDSON (Francis Cecil), formerly of Austin Friars, London, late of Brisbane, Queensland. ELLIS (Thomas), Sorrento, Wake Green-road, Moseley, Worcestershire, gentleman. Aug. 29; FRANKS (John), Rippingale, Lincolnshire, farmer. Aug. 22; B. Smith and Co., solicitors, Horbling, Lincolnshire. Fox (Caroline Elizabeth Lane), Leicester, spinster. Aug. 8; Darley and Cumberland, solicitors, 36, John-street, Bedford-row. GRIFFIN (Irene), formerly of Whitehall-road, Rugby, Warwickshire, and 23, Ash Church-terrace, GLOVER (Richard), Dook Arms, Dock Office-row, Kingston-upon-Hull, licensed victualler. Aug. 4; GREENWOOD (John), Glen View, Todmorden, Lancashire, gentleman, J.P. Sept. 12; Sutcliffes, solicitors, Hebden Bridge. HODGE (Henry), Kingston-upon-Hull, gentleman, seed crusher. Aug. 1; T. and A. Priestman, solicitors, Temple-buildings, Hull. HALL (John), 15, High-street, Kensington, fishmonger. Aug. 7; Tatton and Son, solicitors, 11, Lower Phillimore-place, Kensington. HENDERSON (George William), 6, Mansell-terrace, Green Lanes, Wood Green, gentleman. Aug.11: Taylor and Taylor, solicitors, 10, New Broad-street. HARPER (Sarah), formerly of 13, Hampton-park, Redland, Bristol, late of Arley Villa, Ravenswood-road, Bristol, widow. Aug. 30; Brittans, Livett, and Miller, solicitors, Albion-chambers, Bristol. HUNTER (Harriet), wife of Thomas Wilson Hunter, Dock hotel, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire. JEFFERY (Hannah), Staverton, Northampton, spinster. Aug. 30; Burton and Willoughby, solicitors, Daventry. JENKINS (Benjamin), Crumlin-street, Pontypool, Monmouthshire, contractor. Sept. 15; JORDAN (Charlotte), St. James' End, Northampton. Aug. 14; G. and G. W. Rands, solicitors, 43, Newland, Northampton. KINGSBURY (Edward White), Somerset Lodge, Streatham Hill, Surrey, and of George-yard, LENG (Richard), Beverley, Yorkshire, engineer. Aug. 14; G. Whiteing, solicitor, Ladygate, MORGAN (Frederick Henry), Morgan's Vaults, Mardol, Shrewsbury, wine and spirit merchant. MORRIS (Thomas), Thames-street, New Windsor, cook and confectioner. Aug. 30; Phillips and MOORE (Thomas), 11, Oxford-road, Erdington, near Birmingham, brassfounder. Aug. 29; Reece, Harris, and Harris, solicitors, 63, New-street, Birmingham. NUTHALL (Ellen), 10, Edith-terrace, Fulham, wife of William Frost Nuthall. Aug. 23; Chapple, OLIPHANT (Elizabeth Mary), 62, Brunswick-place. Brighton, Sussex, widow. Sept. 1; White, Aug. 10; J. and J. C. Hayward, solicitors PATON (Mary Lestock), 4, Onslow-square, South Kensington, widow. Aug. 5; Guscotte, Wadham, and Daw, solicitors, 19, Essex-street, Strand. PARSONS (William), 5, New-road, Three Bridges, Worth, Sussex, proprietor of threshing machines. Sept. 1; W. A. Head and Sons, solicitors, 6, High-street, East Grinstead. PALAIRET (Rev. Richard Thomas), Norton St. Philip, and of 16, Bennett-street, Bath, both in Somersetshire, clerk in holy orders. Sept. 5; Booty and Bayliffe, solicitors, 1, Raymondbuildings, Gray's-inn. PRITCHARD (Richard), Cernioge bach Pentrefoelas, Denbighshire, farmer. Aug. 25; D. Jones, solicitor, Llanrwst. PATTINSON (Ellen), 5, Brighton-road, Birkdale, Lancashire, widow. Aug. 9; A. Unsworth, solicitor, 18, Acresfield, Bolton. RYMER (Ann), Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, widow. Aug. 16; J. E. Alcock, solicitor, Mansfield. RICHARDSON (Joseph), Brookfoot House, near Brighouse, Halifax, Yorkshire, dyer. Aug. 7; T. England, solicitor, Townhall-chambers, Halifax. STOTHERT (James), Wooler, Northumberland, butcher. Aug. 31; P. S. Maclagan, solicitor, West-street, Wooler. SIMM (George), Wooler, Northumberland, joiner. Aug. 31; P. S. Maclagan, solicitor, West- SIMCOCK (Richard Roberts), 57, Newport-street, Bolton, Lancashire, brick and tile merchant. STREETER (Thomas), 76, London-road, Brighton, Sussex. Aug. 15; J. Potter, solicitor, 10, Black TAYLOR (Edward), 28, University-street, Bedford-square, accountant. Aug. 8; W. Dawes, solicitor, High-street, Rye, Sussex. TEASDALE (James), Egerton Villa, Eaton-road, West Kirby, Cheshire, gentleman. Aug. 31; J. P. McKenna. solicitor, 7, Cook-street, Liverpool VERNEY (Dame Frances Parthenope), wife of the Right Hon. Sir H. Verney, Bart., Claydon House, Buckinghamshire, and of 4, South-street, Park-lane. Aug. 15; Farrer and Co., solicitors, 66, Lincoln's-inn-fields. VENN (Rev. John), Aylestone Hill, Hereford, clerk in holy orders. Sept. 1; W. J. Humfreys, solicitor. Hereford. VENTRIS (Nicholas), Rochford, Essex, July 31; Yellding, Barlow, and Piper, solicitors, 13, Vincent-square, Westminster. WILSON (Thomas), Balby-road, Doncaster, Yorkshire, gentleman. Aug. 25; C. E. Palmer, solicitor, 6, St. George-gate, Doncaster. WAKEFIELD (Henry), Salem-street, Jarrow, Durham, forgeman. Aug. 19; Newlands and New. lands, solicitors, Ellison-street, Jarrow. WAKEFIELD (Mary Ann), Salem-street, Jarrow, Durham, widow. Aug. 19; Newlands and Newlands, solicitors, Ellison-street, Jarrow. WRIGHT (Henry Richard), Royal Oak public-house, Church-street, Lee, Kent, licensed victualler and nurseryman. July 31; Newton and Newton, solicitors, 180, High-street, Lewisham. WRIGHT (George), Royal Oak public-house, Church-street, Lee, Kent, licensed victualler and nurseryman. July 31; Newton and Newton, solicitors, 180, High-street, Lewisham. WATTS (Rev. Thomas William), The Vicarage, Bucklebury, Berkshire, olerk. Aug. 12; C. Law, solicitor, 25, Cross-street, Manchester. WILLIS (William), 84, Bath-road, Exeter, gentleman. Sept. 1; J. Jerman, solicitor, 7, Bedfordcircus, Exeter. WHITE (Andrew), Kingston-upon-Hull, and of 21, Gloucester-gardens, Bayswater, master COMMERCIAL FAILURES.-According to Kemp's Mercantile Gazette the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending July 12 was 80. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 77, showing an increase of 3, being a net decrease in 1890, to date, of 268. BILLS OF SALE.-The number of bills of sale in England and Wales, registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending July 12 was 168. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 161, and the corresponding weeks for the three previous years 224, 222, and 213.Stubbs' Weekly Gazette. says: BUSINESS AT THE CITY COURT.-In the City Press "Dogberry The increase of business at the City of London Court still continues slowly but surely. For a good many years past it has been becoming more extensive, and now from the returns just issued I see that the fees received in the first half of this year have been £8285, as against £7610 in the corresponding period last year. The amount sued for in the first six months of this year was £75,783, as against £72,171 in the same period last year; while the plaints issued were 14,582, as against 14,569. It is curious that while the number of actions entered in this half year have only been 13 more than in the same time last year, the fees received have been £674 greater, showing that the work has been of a more important class. Mention may also be made that the Law and City Courts Committee have recently improved considerably the convenience of the suitors, by which the public can immediately procure the information they require respecting the regulations of the building. REGISTRATION OF DEEDS IN IRELAND.-There has been established in Ireland since 1708 a general registry of deeds, in its main features similar to the systems which exist in Scotland, Yorkshire, and Middlesex. It is not proposed to disturb this system, but to develop, simplify, and improve it in accordance with recommendations made by Royal Com missions and Parliamentary and Treasury Committees on different occa sions during the last half century. Leaving to the Local Registration of Title Bill the work of providing for the smaller proprietors in Ireland a system of local registration of title, the present Bill deals with the existing general Registry of Deeds, in regard to which its main objects are stated to be: 1. To consolidate the numerous statutes relating to the registration of deeds, judgments, and judgment-mortgages in Ireland, which have been passed from the reign of Queen Anne to the present time. 2. To simplify and cheapen the practice as regards registration by dispensing with certain useless and expensive processes which have been retained from the earlier statutes, and by adopting the Ordnance Survey as the basis of registration. 3. To afford complete safety to purchasers by bringing within the range of the registry certain classes of dealings with land, against which no protection is now afforded; by excluding the equitable doctrines of notice as regards registered instruments; and by affording protection to contracts by means of caveats. 4. To consolidate with the registry of deeds the existing registry of judgments; providing for the re-registration in the registry of deeds of the class of judgments which now operate by way of general charge on the land of the judgment debtor, such re-registration to be effected as against specified lands. 5. To afford protection to the public and to solicitors against the consequences of possible technical errors, by providing that the certificate of the registrar shall be conclusive evidence of registration. The cases in which registration has been held invalid are generally cases of extreme hardship, and the error has seldom been of a kind likely to mislead. 6. To provide for the regulation of office details by general rules. For this purpose it is proposed to place the office under the management of the Master of the Rolls, who fills the position of Keeper of the Public Records of Ireland. Many clauses of this Bill are borrowed from an Act, the commencement of which was deferred until the issuing of a Treasury minute (13 and 14 Vict. c. 72). Most of the provisions of the Bill are in general accordance with the recommendations of a Royal Commission appointed in 1878 to inquire into the registration of deeds and judgments. The main points on which the Bill departs from the report of the commission are: 1. In retaining the system of registration by memorial, which has been in use since the establishment of the office (while simplifying the memorial, and dispensing with certain useless formalities), instead of the system recommended by the commission, of depositing a copy of the instrument registered, with an abstract for the purpose of registration. The memorial will be so framed as to form the foundation of the indexes and books kept in the office, but the responsibility for its accuracy in such matters as the distinction between grantors and grantees for purposes of registration will rest with the office, on which is cast the duty of comparison (and if necessary) of amendment. 2. In providing for the deposit of certified copies of assurances, at the option of the persons tendering them for registration. 3. In retaining the existing system of judgment, mortgages, instead of providing for the immediate realisation of judgments by sale of the debtor's land; a proposal which was recommended by the commission, but which is rejected as being unsuitable to the existing condition of the country. 4. In adopting a still further simplification of proof for pur poses of registration. 5. In some matters relating to the registration of wills. 6. In adopting from 13 & 14 Vict. c. 72, the system of registra tion of intestacies, with additional provisions for the protection of persons claiming under wills which may have been mislaid or suppressed. LAW SOCIETIES. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.-ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING. THE Incorporated Law Society held its annual general meeting on Friday, the 11th inst., Mr. Grinham Keen, the president, taking the chair. There was a good attendance of the members. PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT. Mr. R. Cunliffe was elected president, and Mr. W. M. Walters vicepresident for the ensuing year. COUNCIL. The CHAIRMAN said there were eleven vacancies on the council, ten of which were caused by the retirement of the members of the council who went out of office in rotation, and one by the resignation of Mr. J. M. Clabon. The following gentlemen had been nominated to fill the vacancies: Sir Albert K. Rollit, M.P., Mr. Bartle John Laurie Frere, Mr. Nathaniel Tertius Lawrence, Mr. William Melmoth Walters, Mr. Barnard Platts Broomhead, Mr. Grinham Keen, Sir Thomas Paine, Mr. George Burrow Gregory, Mr. John Hollams, Mr. Richard Mills, Mr. Theodore Waterhouse, Mr. Arthur Hepburn Hastie, and Mr. Alfred Kipling Common. The last-named gentleman had, however, written withdrawing his candidature, as he did not wish to put himself in opposition to Sir A. K. Rollit. Mr. A. H. HASTIE objected to Mr. G. B. Gregory's name appearing as a candidate, as he was not qualified, having retired from practice. Under the charter it was necessary that all members of the council should be practising solicitors. The CHAIRMAN observed that Mr. Gregory still took out his certificate. Mr. HASTIE wished it to be noted that he made the objection. As none of the names of the candidates were withdrawn, a ballot became necessary, and the following gentlemen were appointed as scrutineers: Mr. S. Day, Mr. R. W. Dibdin, Mr. G. R. Dodd, Mr. C. L. Smiles, and Mr. E. Todd. AUDITORS. Mr. J. S. Chapelow, Mr. G. L. Whately, and Mr. J. E. C. Leslie were elected as auditors. THE BALANCE-SHEET. T Mr. W. P. W. PHILLIMORE (London) drew attention to several items in the accounts which had very greatly increased of late years. Thus the items"Law and parliamentary expenses" had increased from something over £2000 in 1884 to £5215 in 1889, and it was due to the members that some explanation should be given. Then the item of "Postage, expenses at the annual provincial meeting, council luncheons for the year, and sundries" had increased from something over £500 in 1884 to £1216 in 1889. The item of £1000 paid off the mortgage did not appear in the entry of expenditure, though it appeared in another part of the account. Others had felt a difficulty on this latter point beside himself. Mr. R. PENNINGTON, as chairman of the finance committee, said that the increase in the law expenses was accounted for by the fact that there had been a great deal more business done by the society of late years. More cases had been brought before the courts, and questions had been appealed under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act at a very considerable expense sometimes. The carrying into effect of the provisions of the Solicitors Act 1888 had also caused a large addition to the expenses. With regard to the ". postages item, he was glad that there was & considerable increase, the explanation being that there were now about 2000 more members than there were in 1884. He hoped that in the next five years another 2000 would join the society, and that the postages would therefore increase also. With regard to the £1000 paid off the mortgage, he would point out that the account was not one of receipts and payments, but of income and expenditure, and that it had been so altered after mature consideration and consultation with the society's professional auditor. Under his advice the account had been converted from a receipt and payment account into an income and expenditure account, which accountants consider the correct mode of rendering accounts of this description. The £1000 was not expenditure of the society; it was a payment on account of a debt, and was therefore charged to capital and not to revenue. Of course the money came out of the balance at the bankers, but as a matter of account it appeared in the balancesheet as a deduction from the debt of the society of £20,000, now reduced to £19,000. The CHAIRMAN answered a question, of which Mr. Phillimore had given notice to the secretary, with regard to the item "Entertainments after each examination, £505 6s." Of course, as president he was responsible for this, and he was glad to be able to gather together distinguished guests and representative men, because he thought it was for the good of the society and of the Profession. He had acted upon this principle during his year of office, and he hoped the members would not disapprove of it. Mr. CHARLES FORD (London) wished to know what permanent interest the students were acquiring in the society's premises. From the accounts it appeared that the whole of the amount received as subscriptions from the town members had been expended in law and parliamentary expenses. It was clear, too, that since 1877 large amounts had been paid off the mortgage. In that year the Solicitors Act was passed, sect. 8 of which provided that the students' fees were to be used exclusively for the benefit of the students. But they all knew this had not been the case, and some of the fees had gone to the mortgage. Mr. PENNINGTON confessed that he hardly understood the point. He assumed Mr. Ford was referring to the question so frequently discussed at these meetings, as to the proportion of expenses which ought to be charged to the articled clerks' fund. He had endeavoured on several occasions to explain the principle on which they had been apportioned. But there was better authority than that of the council, for the question had been brought before the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, who had carefully considered the accounts, and had come to the conclusion that they were in all respects what they ought to be. The point was whether any part of the current expenses, including, of course, a proper sum for rent, ought to be charged against the receipts from articled clerks, and the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls had said definitely that it was not right that the articled clerks should use the building and receive instruction and other benefits therein without making a proper contribution towards the expenses. The council had therefore continued to charge what they considered to be a fair proportion of the expenses, including rent, against the articled clerks' fund. Mr. FORD asked if the judges had decided that the amounts charged were justifiable. Mr. PENNINGTON replied that of course the judges had not made an arithmetical calculation, but an account had been shown them giving the proportion of expenses charged against the articled clerks' fund of which they had approved. Mr. Lowe (London) asked why an imaginary rent was inserted in the account. Mr. PENNINGTON replied that it was necessary to put on one side of the account the nominal rent of the premises. It was necessarily a nominal rent because no rent was actually paid; but it must appear on one side of the account in order that on the other side might be shown the proportions in which the rent was charged to the different funds. Mr. Lowe asked why the actual rent could not be inserted, taking the interest on the mortgage debt for that purpose. Mr. PENNINGTON said that of course the interest on the mortgage did not represent the rent. The rent was based on the property tax assessment, and represented the annual value of the premises. The motion that the accounts be adopted was then agreed to. The annual report of the council was laid before the meeting. Mr. F. S. EAST (London) called attention to the following paragraph under the head of "Trusts and Trusts Companies": "These Bills provide for the Public Trustee and trust companies being paid for their services as trustee. A leading provincial law society has recently expressed the opinion that trustees should, as a rule, be at liberty to charge for their services, and the council have this question under their consideration. The recent decisions in Re Roberts and Re Wallis, that a mortgagee cannot charge his mortgagor for professional services rendered by himself in preparing the security or in realising it, render the consideration of this question more necessary." He would like to see the council acting more boldly. He also thought they might consider the question of the remuneration of executors and administrators. If similar legislation were obtained to that which ruled in America and Australia, where the remuneration was based on ad valorem scales, there would be a great deal less difficulty in getting trustees and executors. This would have the effect of destroying officialism, and the more commercial men were freed from officialism, the more fully would solicitors participate in their affairs. Mr. W. M. WALTERS (London) said there were two sides to the question, and he was not prepared to introduce the system that all trustees and executors should be remunerated. Trusteeship should be primarily voluntary and unpaid, and a man should surely be entitled to look to the members of his family to assist him in his business without expecting remuneration. He quite agreed that arrangements should be facilitated by which trustees might be paid; but it was quite another thing to say that a trustee should be paid whether he liked it or not, or whether the cestuis que trust liked it or not. Mr. EAST remarked that he did not say there should be legislation to that effect; but he hoped the council would consider the matter, taking a more extended view of the subject. Mr. HOWLETT (Brighton) said the subject was brought forward on the assumption that the council had not considered it. It had been thoroughly considered by them. Mr. HASTIE said that the rules on the subject of retainers appearing in the report were likely to be of the greatest service. Under the head of" Special Retainers " was, however, the following: A special retainer cannot be given until after the commencement of an action or proceeding. He did not think this would be found to be the general practice. The CHAIRMAN said this was the rule as laid down by the AttorneyGeneral on behalf of the Bar. " Several members said that a retainer given under such circumstances was bad. The report was adopted. THE CLUB. Mr. JOHN HUNTER (London) had given notice to move the confirmation of the resolution passed at the general meeting in April, altering the subscription for town members from £6 6s. to £5 5s. ; but as three months had not elapsed since the date of that meeting, as was required under the bye-laws, he would withdraw it. The CHAIRMAN said the resolution was not in order, and he would not have permitted it to be put. Mr. HUNTER, in reply to Mr. Phillimore, said that the resolution would not be in force until it should have been confirmed. CONVERSAZIONE.-APRIL MEETING. Mr. MUNTON moved: "That, having regard to the large accession of members during the last three years, and to the desirability of promoting professional amity, it would be expedient that the council should organise a subscription conversazione or other entertainment in lieu of the meeting to be held in April next." He spoke of the advantages he had himself derived from attending the meetings of the society, and said that twenty-five years ago, when he joined it, the number of members was but 2000, whereas there were now over 6000 members, and a comparison of the report would show how the council, as the executive of the society, had risen to the occasion, and represented the true feelings of the Profession in general. But the council ought to do something now and again which would give every member an opportunity of making the acquaintance of the other members of the society. The general meetings did not do this. They were held at a busy time of the day, and there was little opportunity for considering the subject of professional amity. The membership of the society had increased between 1887 and 1890 by nearly 1500, and some means should be adopted by which these 1500 should be brought into friendly conference. It made little personal difference to him (Mr. Munton), as his constant attendance and activity for so long a period had secured him the acquaintance of all the leading men in the Profession. Such acquaintances were beneficial both to solicitors and their clients. The success of the society of late years was greatly due to the autumn provincial meetings. These meetings, however, did not go so far as meetings in London would, for it was much easier to get to the metropolis than to make journeys to various parts of the country. A conversazione in town would go a long way towards uniting the Profession, whilst the papers and discussions in the provinces would continue to bring the society before the public as had never been done before. With reference to the April general meeting, he said that ten or eleven years ago, upon his motion, the question of additional meetings had first been discussed, but for the last three or four years it had been frequently suggested that the April and January meetings should be discontinued. was opposed to giving up the January meeting, and the question with regard to the April meeting might be separated from the other part of the motion if it were thought desirable. He had originally wished that the present idea should be tried for two years; but, after consultation with He many members, he had determined to propose a single experiment so that the council might organise a subscription conversazione in lieu of the next April meeting. He had been in favour of an evening meeting some years ago, but a number of members thought it undesirable, and he had not said anything about it since. Now, however, that the council more thoroughly represented the Profession, fewer meetings were needed than was the case when members were under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the council did not go entirely with them in their sugges tions. He thought they could do very well with the January and July meetings, and the provincial meeting in October. Mr. H. MARKBY (London) seconded the resolution. Mr. FORD moved as an amendment to leave out the words "in lieu of the meeting to be held in April." He reminded them that Mr. Munton was renewing a motion to get rid of the April meeting which had been brought forward at a previous meeting, when by the vote of the chairman they who opposed the abolition of the April meeting had succeeded in defeating it. He did not object to conversaziones, but he did object to the thin edge of the wedge being brought to bear with the purpose of stopping their discussions. He quite agreed with Mr. Munton that there should be evening meetings, when many hundreds of members would attend who could not do so at any other period of the day. They were drifting into a state of things where the society would find itself in the position of the Inns of Court, where the Benchers had full control over everything. Already any resolution passed at a general meeting was nothing more than a recommendation to the council, which went no further, unless the council chose. If the April meeting were done away with, the January meeting would soon follow. Mr. HASTIE seconded the amendment, objecting to a motion of this kind being carried by a side wind. Mr. TODD (London) spoke of the advantages he had derived from membership of the society, and of the Law Students' Debating Society. He said there was no esprit de corps in the solicitor branch of the Profession. The feeling of a solicitor when he entered an action was to distress the other side. If solicitors met together and became more personally acquainted, that feeling would disappear. The feeling of members of the Bar towards each other was very different. He referred to the April meeting as a meeting of faddists, where the same questions were brought up again and again. Mr. PHILLIMORE was strongly opposed to any attempt to get rid of the April meeting. Although it had been spoken of as a meeting of faddists, several very important measures had been passed at the April meetings. Mr. Munton had stated that since they had been instituted the council had got into touch with the members, and so it was to be done away with, the inference being that the council by being brought into contact with the members at this meeting had thus got into touch with them. If the meeting were abolished, he feared the time was not far distant when on Mr. Munton's theory the council would get out of touch again, and the members would have to agitate for the meeting to be restored. Mr. WALTERS strongly objected to the abolition of the April meeting. Mr. ELLETT (Cirencester), as a country member, said it was a great tax upon their time to have to attend these general meetings. They came because they thought it to be their duty; for if they were not present resolutions might go forth as the opinions of the society with respect to which the country members were at variance. He had formed a strong opinion, having attended every meeting for many years past, that it was unnecessary to hold so many. Mr. Munton, however, did not propose that they should give up the April meeting, but that next April there should be a conversazione substituted for it. He could not conceive any objection to the experiment, and if it should be found that there was a necessity for an April meeting, as one of those who would vote for Mr. Munton's motion, he would pledge himself to vote for its restoration. Mr. GRAY HILL (Liverpool) agreed, as a country member, with the views of the last speaker. He said that some of the members attending these meetings spoke always on the same subjects, against the same strong feeling. But they might have a conversazione, and continue the April meeting also upon the understanding that those members who had spoken more than three times at the January meeting should not address the April meeting, or perhaps it might be arranged that those gentlemen who spoke so often should on the occasion of the conversazione adjourn to a room devoted to the purpose with their followers, and there deliver the orations they were burning to bring forth; but until then the sooner they did away with one of the meetings in which time was wasted, the better. Mr. Lowe urged the desirability of continuing the April meeting, pointing out that, but for that held last April, the agenda before them would have been crowded with business, and they would not have got away until after six o'clock. He enumerated some of the useful resolutions which had been passed at the April meeting. Mr. EAST supported the amendment, expressing his belief that there were many questions which might well be considered at the general meetings. The meetings, it was true, had been taken up to a great extent, by the faddists, but there was no reason why this should always be so. The charter required altering so that they might discuss matters and have standing committees on certain subjects; but it seemed to be very difficult to impress upon the council the needs of the Profession upon many points which they might with great profit take up and consider. The country members did not attend these meetings in anything like representative numbers. There were only a few present. They were held at two o'clock, and the question was, whether it would not be much better to hold it at four, five, or six. Upon the amendment being put, twenty-one votes were given in its favour and fifty-four against. It was therefore lost, and the motion of Mr. Munton was then adopted. Mr. FORD asked if the motion would be brought on again for confirmation. Mr. WALTERS replied that it depended upon whether the council approved of it. Mr. FORD observed that they had voted for it. Mr. WALTERS said they had only done so as individuals. The CHAIRMAN did not think the matter need be gone into at this meeting. Mr. MUNTON moved a resolution to the effect that, if the council approved of the motion, a special committee of sixteen members be appointed, composed of seven ordinary members and seven members of the council, with the president and vice-president ex officio, with a view to inquiry, and report at the general meeting in January. Under the bye-laws the resolution must either be brought up at a general meeting or the council must assent to it; and, as the council had in their private capacity practically voted for his motion, he might take it that they assented to it. He suggested that he should propose the committee at once, but if there was any difficulty he would suggest that the council should appoint it. Mr. FORD, on a point of order, submitted that Mr. Munton was assuming that the council would accept the resolution, and on that bare assumption he was proposing a further resolution. The CHAIRMAN said that if Mr. Ford objected, he must rule Mr. Munton out of order. Mr. MUNTON withdrew the resolution, but moved that the council be requested to nominate the committee if and when they formally adopted the resolution. Mr. FORD, as a point of order, said this proceeding was entirely at variance with the rules of debate, and The CHAIRMAN so ruled. Mr. MUNTON thereupon withdrew the resolution, remarking that he understood there were sufficient powers without it. BUSINESS IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION.. Mr. MUNTON moved: "That, referring to the appointment in January last of a committee of the society to confer with the Bar Committee upon the best mode of facilitating the despatch of business in the Chancery Division, the council be empowered to forward to the proper authorities any report made by the committee so appointed." He said that at the time of the appointment of the committee nothing was said as to what was to be done in the event of a report being arrived at, and the motion now before the meeting was with the object of preventing delay, having regard to the Long Vacation. Mr. MASON having seconded the resolution, it was adopted nem. con. SOLICITORS IN COUNTY COURTS. Mr. FORD moved: "That the interests of the public require the repeal of so much of sect. 72 of the County Court Act 1888 as prohibits the solicitor of a suitor from retaining another solicitor to appear in a County Court as an advocate for the suitor." He said the regulation which prevented the solicitor so instructing another had emanated from barristers for the benefit of the Bar. It was a most unfair thing that a professional man should be required to arrange that some other solicitor in a country town should appear for a solicitor acting for a client, and he (Mr. Ford) had brought the matter forward purely on public grounds. It was a most mysterious thing that a solicitor could not instruct a professional brother to appear in a County Court. The Bar, of course, would be dead against the alteration to a man. Quite recently, in fact, the Bar Committee had got hold of the matter, and had expressed an opinion in their report that it was a most irregular and improper practice. It was for the society to declare that such a state of things should come to an end. Mr. C. T. SAUNDERS (Birmingham), in seconding the motion, observed that the subject had been thoroughly discussed at the meetings of the council, and also by the committee, which had been formed partly of members of the council and partly of members outside the council, appointed some time ago to consider as to the reforms required in County Court procedure. The committee had decided in favour of the recom mendation, and in favour also of a recommendation to the effect that a solicitor appearing in a County Court case should have the right to follow it into the Court of Appeal. That recommendation had not been adopted by the council, but the recommendation embodied in Mr. Ford's resolution had been adopted by them, and it had been pressed upon the committee before whom the Bill went, The Attorney-General, in the interest of the Bar, had moved its rejection, and it had been rejected, but the subject was one of considerable interest and importance in the country. It was not always that a practitioner felt himself competent to conduct a case. Of course if he had a junior partner who was so qualified, no difficulty arose; but that was not always so, and very often there was not a barrister in the locality, and a barrister had to be brought from a considerable distance. Apart from that, the case might be of a very trifling amount, and it might not stand a brief to counsel. The object of the County Courts was to minimise the expense in small transactions to the client, and that made any briefing of a barrister a very serious thing to the client. The County Court judges often went to the extent of preventing the articled clerk of the solicitor from appearing, and there could be no question as a matter of public policy, apart from the interest of country solicitors, chat such an alteration as that sug. gested should be made. The motion was agreed to, with two votes against it. The meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the chairman for presiding, and for the manner in which he had conducted the business of the society during his year of office as president. Mr. MUNTON, the mover, said that for cordiality and real attention to the interests of every member this had been a red-letter year for the society. ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FROM APRIL 17, 1889, TO APRIL 14, 1890. PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS. Information intended for publication under the above heading should reach us not later than Thursday morning in each week, as publication is otherwise delayed. Mr. EDWARD G. P. LITTLETON has been appointed an Honorary Commissioner in Lunacy, without salary, in the room of Edward Nugent, Earl of Milltown, deceased. Mr. EDWARD BLACKBURN (of the firm of Blackburn and Main, solicitors, Carlisle and Haltwhistle) has been appointed Registrar of the Haltwhistle County Court, in succession to Mr. J. B. Lee. Mr. DAVID BOYLE HOPE, advocate, has been appointed Sheriff of Dumfries and Galloway, in the room of Norman Macpherson, resigned. Mr. J. PERCY GORDON, of No. 2, Bedford-row, has been appointed a Commisioner to administer Oaths. Mr. W. YORATH, of Cardiff, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths. CORRESPONDENCE. This Department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. TRUST AND MORTGAGE ESTATES.-I should like to call the attention of the Profession to the 30th section of the Conveyancing Act 1881, with a view of obtaining an opinion on that section. The section provides, as is well known, that where any trust or mortgage estate is vested in any person dying after the 31st Dec. 1881, the same shall on his death, notwithstanding any testamentary disposition, devolve upon his personal representative. The object of the section was to remove the difficulty, where no devise was made of trust or mortgage estates, of preventing such estates vesting in an infant heir incapable of dealing with or conveying such estates as occasion might require. The section is, of course, confined to realty, and I think was intended to apply only to a general devise of mortgage estates where the money secured would form part of the general or residuary estate, and not to where a specific devise of the mortgage property and moneys secured is made to a person for his own benefit; but, from the language of the section, the contrary appears to be the case. The words, "notwithstanding any testamentary disposition," seem to preclude a specific bequest of mortgage estates, for the section Bays they shall vest in the personal representatives of the testator as if they were chattels real. The analogy to chattels real is not very clear, as, though chattels real vest primarily in the executor, they go to the specific legatee after assent. It is frequent in practice for testators to give a mortgage debt and the securities to a person for his own use, and in regard to a mortgage of leaseholds there is no difficulty, as the section in question has no application to personalty; but if the mortgage is in fee, the difficulty of specifically devising the property under this section arises. No doubt the executors would be trustees for the person to whom the mortgage debt was specifically given, and it has been suggested that where it is wished for trust or mortgage estates to go to a particular person, that person should be appointed executor for the purpose, so as to comply with the terms of the enactment. It would, in my opinion, have been far better if a proviso had been introduced into this section limiting its effect to a general devise, and excepting from its operation mortgage estates specifically devised to any person or persons beneficially. I should be pleased to have the views of yourself and some of your correspondents upon this point. J. EDWIN. TRUST INVESTMENTS.-The co-existence of an order of court with a statutory authority for investment of trust funds is more or less inconvenient at the best, but when they stultify each other it becomes serious. On several occasions recently I have had a colloquy with members of the Stock Exchange as to the selection of railway debenture stock. The last Order of Court (1888) prescribes that trustees not otherwise prohibited may accept debenture stock where a dividend has been paid on the ordinary stock for the last ten years, whereas the Act of 1889 limits such debentures to those railway companies who have for that period paid a minimum 3 per cent. dividend on the ordinary stock. The statute not only does not supersede, but confirms the order. Probably some of your readers have had to consider this difference, it being well known that the prices of several debenture stocks within the scope of the order are much less than those limited by the Act. I understand from the author of one of the best-known guides to trustees that he is unaware of any case in which these variances have been judicially considered. One may, perhaps, just remark that the words "ordinary stock" as used in the Act is a somewhat vague and relative term. Many railways pay dividends on their preference stocks, though unable to do BO on the ordinary stock; for example, the Chatham and Dover never has paid, and probably never will for a long period pay anything on its overweighted ordinary stock, though it pays nearly its full dividend on what is called its Four-and-a-Half per Cent. Preference Stock, which is practically the ordinary stock of the company limited to 4 per cent., the real ordinary stock being, so to speak, deferred. This point, however, is strictly beyond the scope of the present letter, though it is proposed to discuss it elsewhere when occasion offers. FRANCIS K. MUNTON. 19. MORTGAGE-COSTS-LOAN NOT CARRIED OUT.-A mortgage security is introduced to solicitors by a firm of mortgage brokers. The solicitors instruct their surveyor to prepare a valuation, and arrange to lend the money subject to his report, the surveyor arranging his fees personally with the intending borrowers, i.e., a small sum down as a preliminary fee, and the balance to be paid on completion of the loan. The preliminary fee is paid, and the surveyor reports the security to be good for a certain sum, and makes out his account (charging the full fee and crediting the preliminary fee) against the mortgagees' solicitors, and renders it to them. The solicitors negotiate a loan with clients, which is accepted by the borrowers. The title proves defective on investigation, and the mortgage falls through. What, if any, are the respective remedies at law of the mortgage brokers, the solicitors, and the surveyor, for their costs and charges as against the intending mortgagees? Cases will oblige. H. C. Answers. (Q. 16). PARTITION.-If R. is satisfied, say, by a valuation of the property that the present saleable value does not exceed £500, he ought to bring his action in the County Court of the district where the property is situate. If by the sale ordered in the action the property realises more than £500, R.'s course will be at once (without going to the expense of obtaining an order of transfer from the County Court judge) to take out an originating summons in the chambers of a judge of the Chancery Division for an order that the action be carried on in and prosecuted in the County Court, notwithstanding the subject-matter thereof exceeds the limit in point of amount to which the jurisdiction of the County Court is limited: (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43, s. 68.) The summons must be supported by an affidavit made by the solicitor, showing the nature of the action and the progress of the proceedings therein, and also the grounds of the solicitor's belief that the subject-matter did not exceed £500. In an ordinary case there is no difficulty in obtaining the order sought for by the summons. If R. at any time requires it, I will be glad to lend him an affidavit made on an application of the kind, which was successful. A. B. C. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. INNER TEMPLE. As the result of the July examination on the subjects in which instruction has been given by the tutors of the Inn, the Masters of the Bench have awarded pupil scholarships of 100 guineas each to the undermentioned students: Common law, E. Acton; equity, W. H. B. Hope; real property law, C. F. Lloyd. LEGAL OBITUARY. This department is contributed by EDWARD WALFORD, M.A., formerly Scholar of Balliol Coll., Oxford, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society of Great Britain; and as it is desired to make it as perfect a record as possible, the families and friends of deceased members of the Profession will oblige us by forwarding to the LAW TIMES Office any dates and materials required for a biographical notice. SIR A. S. HART.-Sir Andrew Searle Hart, barrister-at-law, of Dublin, whose death occurred on Saturday, the 12th April, at his brother's residence, Kilderry, co. Donegal, in the eightieth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late George Vaughan Hart, Esq., of Glenalla, in the same county, by his marriage with Maria Murray, daughter of the late Very Rev. John Hume, sometime Dean of Londonderry. He was born at Limerick, in March 1811, and was educated at Foyle College, Londonderry, whence he passed in due course to Trinity College, Dublin. Here he took the usual degrees, with honours in more than one branch, in 1833, and shortly afterwards he was elected to a Fellowship. He was called to the Irish bar at King's Inns, Dublin, in 1838, but, possessing an ample income from his fellowship, he never very actively followed his profession, contenting himself by placing the services of his legal knowledge at the disposal of his colleagues in Trinity College. In due course he rose to be a senior Fellow, and was appointed Vice-provost of Trinity in 1876. He received the honour of knighthood from Lord Carnarvon, at that time Lord Lieutenant, in 1886. Sir Andrew Hart married, in 1840, Frances, daughter of the late Henry MacDougall, Esq., King's Counsel, of Dublin, but was left a widower by her death in 1876. J. C. WALL, Esq.-The late James Cresswell Wall, Esq., barrister-atlaw, of the Inner Temple, who died at The Lawn, Christchurch-road, Bournemouth, on the 9th April, in the thirty-seventh year of his age, was the eldest son of James Cresswell Wall, Esq., of Bristol, and was born in the year 1854. He was entered as a student at the Inner Temple in May 1875, and was called to the bar there in Jan. 1878, when he joined the Western Circuit, and attended the Bristol, Bath, and Somersetshire Sessions. His life, however, was uneventful, and his career was prematurely cut off. He married, in 1883, Ida Marian, eldest daughter of the late Alexander Ashby, Esq., of the island of Barbados. JUDGE KERFERD.-The late Hon. George B. Kerferd, Judge of Victoria, who died at Sorrento, Melbourne, on the 31st Dec. last, in the fifty-ninth year of his age, was the eldest surviving son of the late Joseph Kerferd, Esq., merchant, of Liverpool, by his marriage with Rachel Blundell, daughter of William Blundell, Esq., of Cheshire. He was born at Liverpool in the year 1831, educated at the Collegiate Institution of that city; he graduated at Melbourne College University in 1860, and was called to the Victorian bar at Melbourne in 1864. He was appointed, in 1886, to a judgeship in the Supreme Court of Melbourne, in the colony of Victoria, after having been a representative of the Ovens district in Parliament for twenty-one years, during which time he sat uninterruptedly for the district, this district having first returned him to Parliament. He was a magistrate for the colony, and was much respected both in his public and his private capacity. He married, in 1853, Miss Ann Martindale, daughter of William Martindale, Esq., of Liverpool, by whom he has left five daughters and three sons. His remains were interred at the St. Kilda Cemetery, Melbourne, on the 2nd Jan. W. R. FAWCETT, Esq.-The late William Rhodes Fawcett, Esq., solicitor, of Stainton-in-Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees, who died suddenly near his residence in that town on the 6th May, in the fiftieth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late William Fawcett, Esq., solicitor, of Yarm, in the county of York, where he was born at Yarm in the year 1841, and educated at St. Peter's Grammar School, York. Having been articled in his father's office, and subsequently with Messrs. Bell, Brodrick, and Gray, of London, he was admitted a solicitor in 1862, being the Law Society's second prizeman. At first he acted as managing clerk to Messrs. Dees, of Newcastle, and Mr. Topham, of Middleham, and then entered into partnership with Mr. Garbutt, of Yarm, and afterwards with Messrs. H. G. and T. H. Faber. Clerk to the magistrates for the Stockton Ward of the county of Durham, also to the justices for the Petty Sessional Division of Yarm in Yorkshire, he was also a clerk to the Yarm Burial Board, steward of the manor of Yarm, and a member of the Stainton School Board. His was a familiar presence in the courts of South Durham and the Cleveland district. He was a strong Churchman and one of the most active secretaries of the Stockton Conservative Association; and he was by the confession of those on the opposite side in politics a very good and effective speaker. He married, in 1867, Rosalie Mary, daughter of Claude de Queiros, of Calcutta, by whom he has left five children. His remains were interred at Stainton-in-Cleveland on the 10th May, in the presence of a very large assemblage of personal and public friends, including nearly all the best known residents of the district; and his death was made the subject of sympathising remarks by the magistrates and the members of the Legal Profession at the meeting of the Petty Sessions at Stockton just after his death. P. S. SPARLING, ESQ.-The late Philip Smith Sparling, Esq., solicitor, of Colchester, who died at 29, Culver-street, in that city, on the 4th May, in the eighty-sixth year of his age, was the only surviving son of the late William Sparling, Esq., solicitor, of Colchester, and a member of a family of good standing in the county of Essex; and he was one of the very oldest members of the Profession in the eastern counties. He was born at Colchester in the year 1804, and was educated at the Royal Grammar School, Colchester, and partly by a private tutor. He was admitted a solicitor in 1825. He was appointed, in 1854, to the clerkship of the Colchester Joint Burial Board on its formation, and held that appointment up to the time of his death. He was a strong Churchman, and a Tory in politics, and took an active part in promoting the elections of Sir H. Smyth and Mr. R. Sanderson for the borough of Colchester. He also represented for many years the parish of Trinity, on the Colchester Board of Guardians, and at one time acted as churchwarden of St. Martin's parish. He actively maintained against the Eastern Counties Railway the rights of the inhabitants of Colchester to their ancient footpaths, which the company wished to abolish or circumscribe. He married, in 1842, Elizabeth Charlotte, eldest daughter of Daniel Owthwaite Blyth, Esq., J. P., of Hythe, Colchester, by whom he has left four sons, one of whom, Mr. A. S. B. Sparling, has succeeded him in his business. His remains were interred at the Colchester Cemetery on the 7th May. H. B. MILLER, Esq.-The late Henry Blake Miller, Esq., solicitor, and town clerk of Norwich, who died at Cromer, Norfolk, after a long illness, on the 26th April, in the sixty-sixth year of his age, was a son of the late Henry Miller, Esq., solicitor, of the Town Close, Norwich. He was born in the year 1824, and was admitted a solicitor in 1846. He was appointed, in 1853, clerk to the Norwich Board of Health, and for some years was associated in this work with Mr. W. L. Mendham, his predecessor in the town clerkship, and whom he succeeded in that office in 1876. As town clerk it fell to his lot to carry out in all its details the Act passed in 1867 for the better sewerage and drainage of Norwich, and also the various portions of the Norwich Improvement Act and of the Norwich Corporation Act of 1889, under which the old Norman Castle of Norwich was converted from a prison into a museum, and sundry improvements were introduced into London and Castle streets, and the Carrow Bridge was freed from toll. It was mostly through his instrumentality that Mousehold Heath was secured as a recreation ground for the inhabitants. He was for some years President of the Norwich Solicitors' Amicable Society, and treasurer to the Norfolk Auxiliary Branch of the Church Missionary Society. He has left a widow and a family. His remains were interred at the Rosary Cemetery, Norwich, on the 30th April, his funeral being attended by the mayor, the ex-mayor, the sheriff, and several of the aldermen of Norwich, and a large number of public, official, and private friends. F. PARKER, ESQ.-The late Francis Parker, Esq., solicitor, of Red Hill, Worcester, who died at Great Malvern on the 1st May, in the fifty-ninth year of his age, was the second surviving son of the late John Parker, J.P., of Worcester, by his marriage with Miss Harriett Paget, daughter of William Paget, Esq., of Southfield, Loughborough. He was born at Worcester in the year 1831, and was educated at King's College, London. He was admitted a solicitor in the year 1854. He was a strong Conservative in politics, and a member of the local school board and of other public bodies. His remains were interred at Little Comberton, Worcestershire, on the 6th May. H. DYNE, ESQ.-The late Henry Dyne, Esq., solicitor, of Bruton, who died after a very short illness on Thursday, the 6th Feb., was one of the oldest legal practitioners in Somersetshire, having held the posts of clerk to the justices of the division and clerk to the highway board for a period of nearly sixty years. He was some years his father's assistant in the clerkship, and was appointed clerk upon his resignation. He held that office till about three years ago, when he resigned it in favour of his nephew and partner, Mr. William Muller. He was buried at Bruton on the Tuesday following his decease, the shops in the town being all closed, and his remains being attended to the grave by the mayor and aldermen of the town, and by a large concourse of public and private friends. C. E. FREEMAN, ESQ.-The late Charles Edwards Freeman, Esq., solicitor, of 20, Gutter-lane, City, who died at 6, Camden-square, N.W., on the 27th Nov. last, in the sixtieth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Charles Mason Freeman, of College Green, Bristol, by his marriage with Maria, daughter of Richard and Catherine Brinsdon, of Newbury, Berkshire. He was born at 7, St. Augustine's Parade, Bristol, in the year 1830, and was educated at Dr. Everard's school, Bishops Hull, Somersetshire. He was admitted a solicitor in 1853. He held none of the ordinary public appointments, but he was clerk to the Broderers Company, and honorary solicitor to the English Church Union. He married, in 1855, Caroline Sarah, daughter of William Redford, Esq., of Plymouth, J.P., by whom he has left five children surviving. His remains were interred at Elmers End Cemetery on the 30th Nov. C. SIMPSON, ESQ. The late Charles Simpson, Esq., solicitor, of Lichfield, who died at his residence in that city on the 22nd April last, in the ninety-first year of his age, was the only son of the late Stephen Simpson, of Lichfield, solicitor, by his marriage with Sarah Sophia Hartin. He was born at Lichfield on the 9th April 1800, and was educated at Shrewsbury School. He was admitted a solicitor in the year 1822. He was appointed, in 1825, on the death of his father (who had preceded him in his offices, and as he had himself been preceded by his father), clerk of the peace, coroner, town clerk, and clerk to the justices of the city of Lichfield. He held the clerkship of the peace until his death, attending the quarter sessions held on the 10th April. The coronership passed away from him last year by the Local Government Act, which conferred the jurisdiction on the coroner for Staffordshire. He continued town clerk until 1844, was re-appointed in 1849, and held the office for the second time until 1887. He married, in 1828, Miss Catherine Burrows Adams, of Aldridge, Staffordshire, by whom he has left four daughters and four sons; two daughters died in his lifetime. His remains were interred at Saint Michaels, Lichfield, on the 26th April last. In 1874, at the earnest request of the Liberal party, he was a candidate for the representation in Parliament of the city of Lichfield; his opponent was elected, and in the following year the citizens, as a mark of the esteem in which they held Mr. Simpson, presented him with a gold watch and silver tea tray. He was solicitor for the plaintiff in the great will case of Swinfen v. Swinfen, but refused to bring the action which the plaintiff commenced against his leading counsel at the first trial. A. C. ALLINSON, ESQ.-The late Anthony Coulton Allinson, Esq., who died at 18, Cardigan-road, Richmond Hill, on the 12th April last, in the forty-seventh year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Anthony Allinson, M.R.C.S., of King's Lynn, Norfolk, by his marriage with Priscilla, eldest daughter of the late John James Coulton, solicitor, of Kings's Lynn, and grandson of the late Rev. Anthony Allinson, of Long Benton. He was born at Lynn on the 2nd July 1842, and was educated at the Lynn Grammar School, and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. He entered the army as ensign in the late 1st West India Regiment on 24th April 1862, and for many years held the adjutancy of the regiment. He took part in the suppression of the Jamaica rebellion, and in the Ashantee wars of 1863 and 1873, and was present at the taking of Coomassie, for which he received the medal and clasp. He was a magistrate and member of the Council of Cape Coast Castle for some time, and was much employed by the authorities in surveying on the West Coast of Africa. He was also more than once thanked for his services by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He received his commission as Major in January 1879, and retired from the army in October 1881. After his retirement he was engaged in preparing militia subaltern officers for the competitive examination for commission in the line. In 1887 he entered as a student at the Middle Temple, and was called to the bar by that society in Michaelmas Term 1889. He was twice married: first, to Annie A. Barbe Bell, daughter of the late Attorney-General of Jamaica, and secondly, to Sarah Cole, widow of the late Charles Douglas Monteath Bell, Esq., and daughter of the late Thomas Witter Jackson, Esq., stipendiary magistrate of Jamaica. There was no issue of either marriage. THE COURTS AND COURT PAPERS. CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES. SUMMER ASSIZES, 1890. NORTH WALES, CHESTER, AND GLAMORGAN.-Beaumaris, Saturday, July 19; Ruthin, Tuesday, July 22; Mold, Thursday, July 24; Chester, Saturday, July 26, Swansea, Saturday, Aug. 2. SOUTH WALES.-Presteign, Thursday, July 24. WESTERN.-Exeter, Tuesday, July 22; Winchester, Saturday, July 26; Bristol, Tuesday, Aug. 5. MIDLAND. Derby, Friday, July 25; Warwick, Tuesday, July 29; Birmingham, Saturday, Aug. 2. OXFORD.-Hereford, Saturday, July 19; Shrewsbury, Wednesday, July 23; Stafford, Monday, July 28. SOUTH-EASTERN.-Chelmsford, Saturday, July 26; Hertford, Thursday, July 31; Lewes, Tuesday, Aug. 5. NORTHERN.-Liverpool, Saturday, July 26. NORTH-EASTERN. July 30. York, Thursday, July 24; Leeds, Wednesday, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. — PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND PROBATE ACTIONS TO BE HEARD AND TRIED AT TRINITY SITTINGS Gush, Phillips, Walters, and Williams- W. M. Willcocks-3 Stanton v. Stanton H. C. Nisbet and Daw-4 Hall v. Hawkins -Seeley and Son Gard, Hall, and Rook-5 Tyler and Tyler . The Merchant Taylors' Company others v. Sanderson and others-Hensman and Marshall Ley, Lake, and Ley-8 Wilson v. Lloyd and Davies-Thos. Durant Steavenson and Couldwell -9 Fox . Priestman and Horsfall-Phelps, Sidgwick, and Biddle White, Borrett, and Co.-10 Addey (Neal cited) v. Glew and others-Pilgrim and Phillips E. S. Courroux-11 Forster v. Wyllie and others-Horns and Birkett Toller and Sons-12 Martin v. HawesF. A. and A. C. Doyle Chas. W. Stevens-6 Marsh v. Smith-Collyer-Bristow and Co.-18 Plummer. Bordman and Co. O'Connor and Billamy (Plummer cited) Gray, Mounsey, and Fuller-7 Burnet and -F. B. Moss. A. G. Parson PET.'S SOL.-No.-PET.-RESP.-RESP.'S SOL Pritchard, Englefield, and Co.-1 Hull v. W. T. Ricketts-10 Pittet r. Pettit and Hull-Chester and Co. Robinson, Preston, and Co.-3 Laycock v. Laycock (J.S.)-Holland and Co. Deacon and Co.-5 Creighton v. Creighton Ranger and Co.-7 Harrison v. Harrison (J.S.)-Tayler and Son H. Pearse-8 Adam v. Adam and Millard Russell (stay secy.)-A. Wade Field, Roscoe, and Co.-11 Sheppard (in camera) (N.) v. Sheppard (otherwise Wilkinson)-S. T. Warner Timbrell and Deighton-12 Thorowgood v. Thorowgood and Turner-Ayrton and Biscoe Chester and Co.-13 Eastham v. Eastham and Dean-Grundy, Izod, and Co. for resp. and co-resp. L. W. Byrne-14 Tribe v. Tribe (J.S.)— W. W. Isaacson J. B. Pittman-15 Wood v. Wood-J. Pearce Ayrton and Biscoe-16 Carver v. CarverCrosse and Sons for resp. and co- Long and Gardiner-17 Baddeley and resp. Sidney Chapman-9 Wilkins v. Wilkins and Williams (stay secy.)-Thomas and Stewart Chester and Co. Baddeley v. Her Majesty's AttorneyGeneral (Phillips and others cited) Henry Smith for parties cited. |