wait for eight days from the filing of the amended statement of claim before moving for judgment, and that the motion must stand over for a week: (Vellacott v. Thompson. Ch. Div.: Stirling, J. July 19.)— Counsel: Kenyon Parker. "Solicitors: Downing, Holman, and Co., for Downing and Handcock, Cardiff. Practice-Service of Writ-Defendants a Partnership Firm-Firm dissolved before issue of Writ-Continuing Partner a Foreign Subject-Order IX., r. 6- Order XVI., r. 14.-In July 1886 the plaintiff, who carried on business as an African merchant at Lagos, entered into an arrangement with the firm of H. P. and Co., which then consisted of two partners (H. and P.), to act as his agents in London, the negotiations for such arrangement being carried on between the plaintiff and P. The plaintiff issued a writ against H. P. and Co. as defendants, claiming a general account, and the writ was served under Order IX., r. 6, on the manager of H. P. and Co., at the firm's place of business in London, the firm also having a place of business in Paris. H. moved to set aside the service of the writ, alleging that he was a naturalised Frenchman domiciled in Paris, and that at the date of the issuing of the writ he was carrying on business alone under the style of H. P. and Co., he having dissolved partnership with P. in Dec. 1887, as the plaintiff knew prior to the commencement of the action. The plaintiff swore that he had no knowledge of the dissolution at the time the action was commenced, and the judge held on the evidence that he was not aware of the dissolution at the date of the writ. It was contended on behalf of H. that, he being a foreigner residing out of the jurisdiction, could not be served under Order IX., r.6; but, if served at all, must be served with notice of a writ issued for service out of the jurisdiction under Order XI. Held, upon the authority of Pollexfen v. Sibson (54 L. T. Rep. N. S. 297; 16 Q. B. Div. 792). that the service of the writ was good as against H., and motion dismissed with costs. Subsequently evidence was produced showing clearly that the plaintiff was aware of the dissolution of the partnership when he commenced the action, and, instead of dismissing the motion with costs, order made setting aside the service of the writ as against H., with costs: (Shepheard v. Hirsch, Pritchard, and Co. Ch. Div.: Chitty, J. July 22.) -Counsel: Levett; Romer, Q.C. and Ribton. Solicitors: Lewis and Lewis; R. Raphael. summer " Vendor and Purchaser-Specific Performance Contract contained in Letters.-This was an action for the specific performance of an agreement by the defendant for the purchase of a house and land. The contract was alleged to be contained in two letters, dated respectively the 17th and 18th April 1889. By the first of these letters, which was written by the defendant to an agent of the plaintiff, the defendant offered "£800 for the freehold of the house, with possession at Midassuming that the title is satisfactory." There had been previous correspondence, in which the defendant had stated that he wanted the house for the purposes of a hospital, for the committee of which he was acting, but in the letter of the 17th he said that he was prepared to offer the £800 himself, and run the risk of inducing the committee to take it off his hands. By the letter of the 18th April the plaintiff's agent accepted the offer "subject to the owner's ratification.' This ratification was afterwards given by the plaintiff, and this fact was communicated to the defendant. After the above letters, further correspondence took place between the parties, and the plaintiff's solicitors sent to the defendant's solicitors a formal agreement, containing terms which were not contained in the two letters, and were inconsistent with them. The defendant's solicitor struck these terms out, and, as the plaintiff insisted on them, the defendant gave notice that he repudiated the contract. This action was then brought to enforce the specific performance of the agreement contained in the two letters. The defendant resisted specific performance on the ground that the letters relied on did not amount to a complete agreement, and it was contended on his behalf that the whole of the correspondence must be looked at, and that, if that were done, it was clear that no complete contract had been made. Held, that the two letters constituted a complete contract, and that the defendant had no right to rescind; but that under the circumstances it would not be fair to enforce specific performance. The action was accordingly dismissed, but without costs: (Bellamy v. Debenham. Ch. Div.: North, J. July 15.)-Counsel: Napier Higgins, Q.C. and Medd; Cozens-Hardy, Q.C. and MacSwinney. Solicitors: R. W. Childs, Batten, and Harling; T. G. Bullen. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Bill of Sale-Validity of—Attesting Witness-Address and DescriptionSecond Attestation Clause-Omission of Address and Description of Witness in second Clause-Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882. -Appeal from Romford County Court in an interpleader issue remitted from the High Court. The plaintiff was an execution creditor, having obtained a judgment against the defendant, the execution debtor, and on his proceeding to levy against the defendant's goods, the claimant put forward a bill of sale, under which he claimed the goods seized under the execution. An interpleader issue was directed, and on the trial of this issue the only objection raised to the validity of the bill of sale was an objection by the execution creditor that the attestation clause was not in the form in the schedule to the Bills of Sale Act. There were three grantors in the bill of sale, and there were two attestation clauses. The first attestation clause was as follows: Signed, sealed, and delivered by the above-named A. B." (one of the grantors) "in the presence of me (the alterations initialled by me having been first made) Geo. Bailey, solicitor, Romford." The second attestation clause was signed, &c., by the above-named C. D. and E. F." (the other grantors) "in the presence of (the alterations initialled by me having been first made) Geo. Bailey." The alterations were both initialled by G. B. The description and address of the attesting witness were thus given in the first attestation clause, but were omitted in the second attestation clause, the name of the witness being the same. It was objected that the bill of sale was bad, as the description and address of the attesting witness did not appear in the second attestation clause, and that it was not sufficient that the address and description should have been given in the first attestation clause, as it could not be inferred that the witnesses were the same: (Blankenstein v. Robertson, 62 L. T. Rep. N. S. 732; 24 Q. B. Div. 543; Parsons v. Brand, 62 L. T. Rep. N. S. 479; 25 Q. B. Div. 110.) The County Court judge upheld the bill of sale, and in his note he drew attention to the fact that this case differed from those cited, as here there were two attestation clauses obviously made at the same time, and it might be inferred that they were made by the same person; and as the first attestation clause 66 66 was in perfect accordance with the form, the second attestation clause might be read as one with the first. Held, on the authority of, and as a necessary consequence of, the cases cited, that each attestation clause must have the address and description of the attesting witness, and that the omission of such in one attestation clause cannot be supplied by a reference to a previous attestation clause, and that the bill of sale was therefore bad: (Bird v. Davey; March, Claimant. Q. B. Div.: Pollock, B. and Day, J. July 17.)-Counsel: for the appellant, Lynden Bell; for the respondent, C. E. Jones. Solicitors: for the appellant, R. H. Ward; for the respondent, A. H. Hunt and Co. Gas-Metropolis-Chief Gas Examiner-Right of Parties to appear before Chief Gas Examiner by Counsel.-Rule for a mandamus calling on Professor Williamson, Chief Gas Examiner," to show cause why he should not "hear counsel" in a case which the Gas Light and Čoke Company had appealed to be heard before him. The Act of Parliament appoints examiners or inspectors of gas, and it provides that in case a report of an examiner should be disputed by either party, there should be an appeal to an officer who is called the "Chief Gas Examiner," who is to be an expert in gas, and his decision, after hearing the parties, shall be final and conclusive." In the case in question the Gas Light Company desired, on their appeal before Professor Williamson, to be heard by counsel, but Professor Williamson refused to allow counsel to be heard in this particular case, and he said that he was not bound to hear counsel in every or in any case, but that he had a discretion in the matter whether to hear counsel or not. The Gas Light Company, on the other hand, contended that they had a right to appear by counsel, as their agents, and that the Chief Gas Examiner was bound to hear their counsel as being their "agents." The present application was for a mandamus to compel Professor Williamson to hear counsel on behalf of the Gas Light Company. Professor Williamson, in his affidavit, after stating the reasons why he did not ordinarily hear counsel, said: "I have laid down no rule that I will not hear counsel in any case, and whenever a particular case appears to require argument by counsel I am ready to consider the application, but I do not admit the claim as of right." In showing cause against the rule, it was contended that the Chief Gas Examiner had a discretion in the matter, and, although he could hear counsel if he chose, yet that it was not compulsory upon him to do so: (Collier v. Hicks, 2 B. & Ad. 663; Ex parte Evans, 9 Q. B. 279; Re Macqueen, 9 C. B. N. S. 793.) In support of the rule it was contended that the Chief Gas Examiner was bound to hear the parties, or "their agents," and that counsel came within the denomination "their agents.' Held, discharging the rule, that counsel did not come within the description "their agents," and that, therefore, the Chief Gas Examiner was not bound to hear counsel in the matter: (Reg. v. Williamson. Q. B. Div.: Pollock, B. and Day, J. July 17.)-Counsel: against the rule, R. S. Wright; in support of the rule, Sir Horace Davey, Q.C. and Danckwerts; for the London County Council, English Harrison. Solicitors: The Solicitor to the Board of Trade; Bedford, Monier-Williams, and Robinson; R. Ward. PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. ADMIRALTY BUSINESS. Collision-River Scheldt-Tide.-The steamships A. and B., one bound up the river Scheldt, the other down, came into collision off a point in the river. The tide was running down the river. The A., which had the tide against her, did not wait below the point till the B. had gone clear: Held, that, although there be no statutory rule to that effect, it is a prudent rule of navigation for a vessel navigating against the tide to wait above or below a point till a vessel coming from the opposite direction has passed clear, and that the A. was to blame for not doing so: (The Talabot. Adm. Div.: Butt, J. July 12.)-Counsel: for the plaintiffs, Barnes, Q.C. and Pyke; for the defendants, Sir Walter Phillimore and J. P. Aspinall. Solicitors: for the plaintiffs, Gellatly, Son, and Warton; for the defendants, Botterill and Roche. Collision Steamship and Barge-Dock. Whilst a barge was lying properly moored astern of the steamship S., the latter moved her propeller, and cut a hole in the barge. It appeared that there was no one on board the barge at the time of the accident: Held, that, although the steamer was to blame, the barge was also to blame for not having anyone on board of her, as, had there been someone, the collision might have been avoided, and in any event the barge might have been beached before she sank, and therefore the plaintiffs could only recover half their damages: (The Scotia. Adm. Div.: Butt, J. July 11.)-Counsel: for the plaintiffs, Sir Charles Hall, Q.C. and J. P. Aspinall; for the defendants, Sir Walter Phillimore and Dr. Raikes. Solicitors: for the plaintiffs, Keene, Marsland, and Bryden; for the defendants, Parker, Garrett, and Parker. LAW LIBRARY. h Græco-Roman Institutions, from Anti-Evolutional Points of View. By Dr. EMIL REICH. Oxford: Parker and Co. THIS charming little volume comprises four lectures delivered before the University of Oxford, and deals with Roman Law, classical slavery, and social conditions, the design being to "disprove the applicableness of the Darwinian concepts to the solution of sociological problems." The learned doctor's view of Roman Law is, that it was the necessary outcome of the political constitution of the Roman Commonwealth-that the bulk of Roman Law owes its existence and character to political forces; and that the main cause of the rise of Roman private law and its high perfection was the Roman institution of Infamia. The historical and philosophical student will find much to interest him in the pages of Dr. Reich. Dr. MUSGRAVE, of the Inner Temple, has compiled a pamphlet, which he calls A Dissertation on the Common Law of Waters, "and its application to natural circumstances other than those of England (London: Stevens and Sons Limited). It is largely composed of extracts from judgments, much space being occupied in support of the proposition that the territory of Great Britain extends three miles from the shore, and that the seashore is that which lies between high and low water mark. We have found it very difficult to put our finger upon any clear-cut principle in the forty-seven pages which make up the pamphlet, and we must content ourselves with giving Dr. Musgrave's own conclusions, which he states thus: "It only remains to consider the conclusions on the whole matter to which we have been led. They may be stated shortly thus: that the common law of England with respect to waters is in itself a complete system; that the system is capable of being applied to any country in any part of the world, be the natural circumstances of that country what they may; and finally, that the results obtained by so applying the system will be found on examination to be as equitable and beneficial to the community at large as the rules of any other system from whatever source derived." BOOKS RECEIVED. The Law relating to Civil Engineers, Architects, and Contractors. By L. L. Macassey and J. A. Strahan, Barristers-at-Law. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane. Handy Book on the Bills of Sale Acts 1878 and 1882. By J. W. Haycroft, Barrister-at-Law. Effingham Wilson and Co., 11, Royal Exchange. Formation and Registration of Joint Stock Companies. By T. T. Paine, Barrister-at-Law. Solicitors' Law Stationery Society Limited, 51 and 52, Carey-street, W.C. Rubenstein's Conveyancing Costs. Fifth Edition. By W. Perks, Solicitor. Waterlow Brothers and Layton Limited, 24, Birchin-lane, E.C. CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES. IN a case of considerable public notoriety which has been engaging the attention of Mr. d'Eyncourt, after the solicitor for one of the defendants had addressed the magistrate, counsel for the prosecution rose to reply. As might have been expected, objection was taken on the part of the defence that, in a magistrate's court, an advocate had no such right as that suggested. Mr. d'Eyncourt, however, inquired whether the evidence of one of the defendants given before the coroner was to be put in, and upon this some discussion ensued, counsel for the Crown stating that he was willing to hand in the deposition subject to comments which he desired to make upon it. In these circumstances, the magistrate decided that it would be better not to tender the deposition, and there the matter dropped. It is well, however, that there should be no misunderstanding as to the proper practice in such circumstances, and it appears to be clear that upon a magisterial inquiry a prosecuting advocate has no absolute right to reply or sum up. It is a matter entirely in the discretion of the magistrate, and now and again there have been cases in which a reply has been allowed. There is, perhaps, something to be said in favour of such a course where voluminous evidence has been given, and after several remands. One case has been mentioned to us in which a reply was allowed, there being in that instance considerable doubt as to whether a prisoner should be committed on a charge of murder or for manslaughter only. Probably no harm arises from leaving the general practice where it is, inasmuch as the undoubted tendency of modern times is to unduly prolong preliminary investigations into what may be called sensational charges. In the great majority of prosecutions the magistrate arrives at a dotermination with respect to dismissing the charge or committing the accused for trial long before the case reaches a stage at which a reply could be made. What has been said applies of course to indictable offences. In respect of summary convictions, the law is to be found in sect. 14 of Jervis's Act (No. 2). That section provides that if the defendant does not admit the truth of the information or complaint, then the justice or justices should proceed to hear the prosecutor or complainant and such witnesses as he may examine, and such other evidence as may be adduced in support of the information or complaint. Then the evidence for the defence is to be heard, but the prosecutor or complainant "shall not be entitled to make any observations in reply upon the evidence given by the defendant, nor shall the defendant be entitled to make any observations in reply upon the evidence given by the prosecutor or complainant." CRIMINAL LIBEL. A question of very considerable importance was raised at the recent Assizes at Carnarvon before the Lord Chief Justice. A prisoner was indicted for having published an indecent libel upon the prosecutor. The prisoner, who was a woman, was placed in the dock, and was on the point of pleading, when counsel on her behalf took certain objections to the indictment. The first objection was based on sects. 17 and 18 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (the Vexatious Indictments Act), and the second objection was taken against the form of the indictment itself, and raised the point recently discussed in Reg. v. Adams (59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 903). With regard to the first objection, it is enacted by sects. 17 and 18 of the above Act: "In all cases where any person shall appear or be brought before any justice, or, &c., charged with any indictable offence such justice, or, &c., before he or they shall commit such accused person for trial, or before he or they shall admit him to bail, shall, in the presence of such accused person, who shall be at liberty to put questions to any witness produced against him, take the statement on oath or affirmation of those who shall know the facts and circumstances of the case, and shall put the same into writing, and such deposi tions shall be read over to and signed respectively by the witnesses and the justice." Sect. 18: "After the examination of the witnesses shall have been completed, the justice shall read or cause to be read to the accused the depositions taken against him, and then caution the accused as to any statement he or she may make." The argument on behalf of the prisoner came to this: By these sections, in all cases the evidence upon which the justices are to be asked to commit the accused for trial must be taken in the presence of the accused, must be put in writing, and the depositions read over by the witnesses and signed and read over to the accused in his or her presence. That in this case these provisions had not been complied with. The facts on this point were shortly as follows: When the accused was before the magistrates, the libel being of a very indecent character, the soli. citor for the prosecution suggested that the prisoner should not be in court; this course seems to have been assented to, and the prisoner withdrew to an adjoining room. The case was then dealt with in her absence; her solicitor cross-examined the witnesses, or, at any rate, had the opportunity of doing so, and the accused was committed for trial. She was then called back into court, cautioned, and she or her solicitor called a witness. The depositions were read over to her, but whether signed in her presence or not was left doubtful. On behalf of the Crown it was contended that there had been a substantial compliance with the Act, as, although the accused was absent when the evidence was given, the depositions were subsequently read over to the witnesses in her presence. The second objection was that, inasmuch as the publication laid in the indictment was a publication to the person libelled and not to a third person, it ought to have been alleged in the indictment that the libel was with intent to cause a breach of the peace. In answer to this objection, the prosecution cited the recent case of Reg. v. Adams (59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 903), in which an indictment from which these words were omitted was upheld. With regard to the first objection, Lord Coleridge came to the conclu. sion that there had been a tacit agreement that the accused should be out of court during the hearing of the case before the justices, and that he should reserve, if it became necessary to do so, for the consideration of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved the question whether or not this was a substantial compliance with the Act of Parliament. With regard to the second point, his Lordship was of opinion that the objection was covered by the case cited. The trial thereupon proceeded. The case for the prosecution rested chiofly on the evidence of experts, who were called to prove that the person who wrote a certain telegram out on a form was the person who wrote the libels. For the defence, the prisoner herself went into the box, and denied positively having written the libels. In the result, the jury acquitted the prisoner, and thus prevented the point which was reserved for the consideration of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved from being discussed. Banbury, Friday, at 10.30; Saturday, at 10 Newport (Salop),* Friday, at 10 Northwich, Wednesday Nottingham, Tuesday, Wednesday (if necessary), Thursday, and Friday, at Bradford (Yorks), Friday (Bankruptcy), at 9.45 Brighton, Tuesday and Friday, at 10 Clerkenwell, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- Halifax, Tuesday and Wednesday, at 10 Liverpool, Monday and Tuesday, at 10 Manchester, Tuesday and Wednesday, at 9.30; Thursday and Friday, at 10 Mansfield, Monday, at 10 9.45 Oldham, Thursday, at 9 St. Helens, Wednesday and Westminster, Mondaj, at 12; Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 11 Wigan, Tuesday, at 10 Williton, Friday, at 12 Woolwich, Wednesday, at 10.45. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE, PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE PROFESSION. ON the 21st inst., in the Probate Division, before Sir James Hannen and a special jury, the case of Grundy v. Bellchambers and Wood was heard. Editha Grundy, as executrix, propounded as the last will of the late Thomas S. Grundy, of Bury, near Manchester, a paper writing bearing date the 27th Dec. 1887. Josiah Bellchambers and the other defendant opposed probate of the paper writing propounded by the plaintiff on the ground that at the time of its execution Thomas S. Grundy was not of sound mind, and they propounded as his last will a paper writing dated the 18th Nov. 1887. The Solicitor-General said he appeared for the plaintiff, the widow of Thomas S. Grundy, who for many years, first in partnership and afterwards solely on his own account, practised as a solicitor at Bury, near Manchester. There were two wills of his before the court, and the questions for the jury to decide might be as to the condition of the testator's mind when he executed each of them. If he were of sound mind when he executed the will of Dec. 1887, the one propounded by his client, then she would have established her case, but if he were not, then the jury would have to inquire whether he was not of unsound mind on the 18th Nov. 1887 also, and if they found that in the affirmative there would be an intestacy, and his property would go to his widow, the plaintiff, and her two children, the interveners. In 1884 the plaintiff went into the service of the deceased man, who was at that time a bachelor, as parlourmaid. After being in that capacity for some time she became his housekeeper, and from the date at which she did so there was no person in his domestic service. From time to time he had suggested that they should marry, but until 1887 she refused him. In that year she consented, and on the 9th Nov. 1887 they were married. At the time of the marriage he was not in good health. He had suffered from neuralgia and gout for a considerable period, and in Sept. 1887 he met with an accident which increased his illness; but at the date of his marriage there was no question as to the soundness of mind. Mr. Bellchambers, the defendant, had long been his confidential clerk, and that gentleman took part in the festivities of the 9th Nov. 1887, the day of the marriage, and he and Mr. and Mrs. Grundy had tea together a few days afterwards. At the time of the marriage there was in existence a will made by Mr. Grundy in which Mr. Bellchambers was a legatee. That will was, of course, revoked by the marriage. Mr. Grundy suggested that it should be destroyed; Mr. Bellchambers said there was no occasion for that as it stood revoked by the marriage; but it must have been destroyed for it was not now in existence. Neither was any draft of it. On the 18th Nov. 1887 Mr. Grundy executed the will now propounded by the defendants, Mr. Bellchambers having engrossed it after Mr. Gundry approved a draft. It appeared, however, that after its execution Mr. Grundy was dissatisfied with it, and said it would not do at all. On the 26th Dec. he had a new will drawn, and he executed it on the following day. This was the will propounded by the plaintiff. It left everything to her. Now, an inspection of the will of the 18th Nov. 1887, and a comparison of it with the draft, showed that there were important variations in it from the provisions in the draft. According to both documents Mr. Bellchambers was to receive a specific legacy of 500 guineas, and was to have the business, the books, and the place where the business was carried on; but by the will as executed he was to have the benefit of any tenancies on the premises. There was no such devise in the draft; but a much more important variation consisted of words in the will giving Mr. Bellchambers the business "free of debts." These words were not in the draft; and as the debts of the concern amounted to £4000, the effect would be to practically deprive Mrs. Grundy of all benefit under the will, and through her to place the two interveners, her children, in the same position. Mr. Grundy was certainly insane early in 1888, and in that year he was for some time in a lunatic asylum. He was discharged from that institution, but it would not be suggested that up to his death, which occurred towards the end of 1890, he was ever of sound mind from the beginning of 1888. As, however, Mr. Bellchambers pleaded that the unsoundness of mind had set in before Dec. 1887, it was worthy of remark that in a letter written by him in March 1888, he spoke of Mr. Grundy's insanity having set in suddenly and unexpectedly, and no one was in a better position to speak on the subject than Mr. Bellchambers, who wrote all Mr. Grundy's business letters. These were the circumstances in which the case came before the jury. An arrangement was come to between the parties, on the terms of which no further opposition would be offered to proof of the will propounded by the plaintiff. On the 23rd inst., in the Court of Appeal, before Cotton, Fry, and Lopes, L.JJ., an application was made by Messrs. Bonner, Wright, and Thompson, a firm of solicitors, in the matter of a person who had been found of unsound mind, to be allowed their costs of acting on her behalf in a lunacy inquiry. The person who had been found lunatic was Miss Mary Ann Jones. She had lived under the name of Mrs. Stirling. She had latterly resided at Canterbury in the house of a person named Badger, a licensed victualler, who had formerly been in the police force. Before Messrs. Bonner acted Mr. Broughton, of Canterbury, and Messrs. Speechly and Co. had acted for Badger, but on his declining a settlement of Miss Jones's property they declined to act for him any further. Certain Chancery proceedings were taken against him, to make him account for property he was alleged to have obtained control over by undue influence over Miss Jones, the said property amounting to some £15,000. In those proceedings the present applicants were solicitors for Badger. An order had been made in the Chancery action against Badger. After the lunacy inquiry was instituted the present applicants obtained from Miss Jones a written retainer to act for her. The lunacy inquiry was held before Sir Alexander Miller, the Master in Lunacy. The solicitors petitioned to have their costs in the inquiry allowed. There was an affidavit on the part of the committee, charging them with having acted in the interest of Badger and not of the alleged lunatic. John Chester appeared for the applicants; Crump, Q.C., for the committee, opposed. COTTON, L.J. said that this application raised an important point. It was important for the public that solicitors should defend persons whom it was sought to declare lunatic, and if they did so fairly and with propriety they ought to be allowed their costs out of the lunatic's estate, whatever might be the result of the inquiry. That was the case when the defence was conducted on account of and in the interest of the lunatic, and not with regard to the interest of someone else. He did not say that anything had been done, in the conduct of the defence, as to the way evidence was produced, or otherwise, that was wrong. But the question was whether the solicitors here had really acted in the interest of someone else. He was satisfied that the solicitors here had acted in the interest of Badger. His Lordship did not suppose that when they first acted for Badger they knew that there was anything wrong. They must very soon have found out that the interest of Badger and the interest of the lunatic were antagonistic. They were placed in an unfortunate position, for they had to make up their minds whether they would act for the one or the other. They ought to have said that they could not act any longer for both. There were many circumstances that satisfied his Lordship that, though they conducted the defence in the lunatic inquiry rightly, they did not do so in her interest; her true interest was that she should be found a lunatic and her person and property protected. There was an affidavit charging the solicitors with having acted in the interest of Badger. The fact that that was not at once denied on oath confirmed his opinion, derived from the other circumstances, that the solicitors had not acted in the interest of the lunatic, and, therefore, though he was unwilling to deprive a solicitor who took up the defence of an alleged lunatic of his costs, yet as, in his opinion, the defence here was not in her interest, the solicitors ought not to have their costs. FRY, L.J. said it was important that solicitors who conducted the defence in an application to make a person a lunatic should be allowed their costs. It was of the greatest importance to the public and to alleged lunatics that solicitors should conduct their defence. Therefore he approached the question with a primâ facie desire to allow the costs. Again, he desired to say little as to the misconduct of Badger, whose solicitors the applicants were, and the fact that the solicitors for Miss Jones were the solicitors for Badger in the Chancery proceedings was only a matter for inquiry in considering whether they acted in her interest. But he could not help thinking that they were in an unfortunate position when they acted for Miss Jones and also for Badger, who had plundered and devoured her estate. He doubted whether a solicitor could act with propriety for persons whose interests were necessarily antagonistic. His Lordship commented on the fact that the defendants when they got the retainer of Badger thought fit to send down a clerk to get the written retainer of Miss Jones, and the fact that there was no affidavit on their part to deny the charge made against them of acting in the interests of Badger. He also was of opinion that the costs of the applicants should not be allowed out of the lunatic's estate. LOPES, L.J. said it was important that it should be understood that if a solicitor fairly and properly conducted the defence of an alleged lunatic in an inquiry as to state of mind, and conducted it in the interest of the alleged lunatic, he should be allowed his costs, whatever the result. But, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he was driven to the conclusion that this defence was conducted in the interest of Badger, and not of the alleged lunatic. He concurred in disallowing the costs of the applicants. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. MCDONALD (Bridget), 3, Chambers-yard, George-street, Leeds, widow, who died on March 22, 1890. Next of kin to apply to the Solicitor for the Treasury, Whitehall. PEOLY (Mary Ann), Ladies' Lodge, Dunstable, Bedfordshire, spinster, who died on Oct. 27, 1887 Next of kin to apply to the Solicitor for the Treasury, Whitehall. POWELL (Mary Ann), Beckbury Villa, London-road, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, at the date of her will the wife of William Powell, of the same place, but at the date of her death, widow, who died Feb. 17, 1889. Her heir-at-law or next of kin living at the time of her death, or the legal personal representatives of such next of kin as are now dead, to come in by Aug. 14, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Kay. Oct. 27, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. Anyone who can give information respecting the children of George Davies, Bushbury Cottage, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, and of Daventry, Northampton, tailor, is requested to communicate with Messrs. Brownlow and Howe, 11, New-court, Lincoln's-inn. SERVICE (Peter), Plymouth, Devonshire, wholesale ironmonger. Next of kin to send in, by Aug. 20, the particulars of their claims to Messrs. Rooker, Matthews, Harrison, and Co., solicitors, Frankfort-chambers, Plymouth. VOWLES (Anna), her nephews and nieces, John Follett Pugsley, Elizabeth Rowsell, Charles Pugsley, Thomas Pugsley, and Elizabeth Pugsley, the sons and daughters of the said A. Vowles' late brothers William Pugsley and Charles Pugsley, or, if dead, then their respective legal personal representatives, and the issue of such nephews and nieces, or the legal personal representatives of such issue as attained twenty-one and are now dead, to come in by Oct. 31 and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice North. Nov. 18, at the said chambers, at half-past twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP AOTS. AURUM COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard July 26, before Mr. Justice Stirling. W. A. Crump and Son, 10, Philpot-lane, solicitors for the petitioners. ALDERSHOT BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice Chitty on July 7. Arnold Williams and Co., the Vestry House, Laurence Pountney-hill, solicitors for the petitioner. BRIGHT PLATINUM PLATING COMPANY LIMITED. — Petition for winding-up to be heard July 26, before Mr. Justice Stirling. Carter and Barber, 64, Austinfriars, solicitors for the petitioner. CLAYTON WIRE MATTRESS COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Oct 26, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. Chadderton, 59, Cross-street, Manchester, the liquidator of the company. Hickin and Fox, 29, Lincoln's-inn-fields, solicitors. FLY CYCLE COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard July 20, before Mr. Justice North. Speechly, Mumford, Landon, and Rodgers, 1, New-inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner. IPSWICH AND SUFFOLK LICENSED VICTUALLERS' CO-OPERATIVE GROCERY AND PROVISION COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Aug. 2, before Mr. Justice Kay. K. Edridge, 11, Gray's-inn-square, agent for J. Mills, 26, Museum-street, Ipswich, solicitor for the liquidator. IRISH FISHERY AND SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in by Sept. 1, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. G. Sykes, Queen-street, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, the official liquidator of the company. Sept. 8, at eleven o'clock, at the Yorkshire County Court, Queen-street, Huddersfield, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. LIFE ASSURANCE AGENTS JOURNAL 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 Mr W. A. Quant, Bolton, Lancashire, the official liquidator of the company. Nov. 5, at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of Mr. Justice Stirling, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. LLANDUDNO ADVERTISER AND PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Sept. 1, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. G. H. Pugh, Llewelyn-chambers, Llandudno, solicitor, the liquidator of the company. LANDED ESTATES AGENCY LIMITED.-Mr. Justice North has fixed July 29, at one o'clock, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator. MONTE CARLO GOLD MINING COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice North on June 14. C. H. Hoare, 10, Moorgate-street, solicitor for the petitioners. NEW BRUNSWICK TRADING COMPANY OF LONDON LIMITED.-Mr. Justice Stirling has, by an order, dated June 28, appointed Caldwell Ashworth, 22, Abchurch-lane, to be official liquidator. Creditors residing in the United Kingdom to send in by Sept. 1, and those residing elsewhere than in the United Kingdom by Nov. 1, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to the said Mr. C. Ashworth. Nov. 25, at twelve o'clock, at the chambers of Mr. Justice Stirling, is the time appoirted for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. SCHOOL PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED.-Mr. Justice Stirling has, by an order dated July 15, appointed Benjamin Jackson, 28, Fenchurch-street, chartered accountant, to be official liquidator. SEAFORD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.-The Judge of the Sussex County Court, Lewes, has, by an order dated June 26, appointed Henry Pumphrey, 4, Paddock-terrace, Lewes, Sussex, to be official liquidator. Creditors to send in, by Aug. 12, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to the said Mr. H. Pumphrey. Oct. 1, at twelve o'clock, at the said County Court Office, Lewes, is the time appointed for a sitting of the court for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. WILLIAM HESELTINE AND SON LIMITED.-Order for winding-up made by Mr. Justice Stirling on July 5. Piesse and Son, 15, Old Jewry-chambers, solicitors for th petitioners. WINALLIE CYCLE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Sept. 1, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. L. Voisey, Warrington, Lancashire, the liquidator of the said company. Creditors holding securities to produce the same within one month from the said Sept. 1, to Messrs. Ridgway and Worsley, 2, Cairo-street, Warrington, the solicitors for the liquidator. WOOD HOUSE PARK AND GARDENS LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard July 26, before Mr. Justice Stirling. J. Wheatley, 23, Leadenhall-street, solicitor, petitioner in person. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. EVANS (William). The Relic, Prima-road, Brixton, Surrey, and of 4, Paradise-street, Margate, OREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VIOT., 0. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. AUBREY (Margaret), wife of Henry Aubrey, Collingwood-terrace, Egham, Surrey, grocer. BURCHNALL (John), Ansley, Leicestershire, gentleman. Sept. 1; Freer, Blunt, Rowlatt, and BROOKFIELD (John), Garreglwyd Farm, N. Mold, Flintshire. Aug. 30; Moss and Sharpe, solici. tors, 12, Abbey-square, Chester. BLAKER (George), Haresdeane, Pyecombe, Sussex, gentleman. Aug. 16; Howlett and Clarke, solicitors, 8, Ship-street, Brighton. BROWNSON (John), Bridge-street, Belper, Derbyshire, saddler. Aug. 16; Hollard and Rigby, solicitors, Ashborne, Derbyshire. BOWDEN (Philippa), Stratton-terrace, Falmouth. Aug. 20; Waltons, Johnson, and Bubb, solicitors, 101, Leadenhall-street. BALLARD (Arthur), Faringdon, Berkshire, chemist. Sept. 29; Crowdy and Son, solicitors, lane. BELLOT (James Pendleton), 12, Alma-road, Birkdale, Southport, Lancashire. and of Chapelstreet, Southport, tailor and draper. Aug. 2; L. R. and G. Entwisle, solicitors, 1, Police. street, Manchester. BETTS (Jane), Torquay, Devonshire, widow. Sept. 9; Hooper and Wollen, solicitors, Carlton BURGESS (George Prince), formerly of Yeadon, Yorkshire, late of 5, Bridge-street, Birkenhead, CLARKE (Thomas Thompson), Chirton Lodge, North Shields. Northumberland, accountant. CHILD (Louisa), formerly of Woodsley Villa, Franklin-road, Harrogate, Yorkshire, late of 1, E. Jaques and Sons, solicitors, 41, Temple-row, Birmingham. Aug. 21; DEWS (Edward). Whinfield House, and Ossett Spa Mill, Ossett, Yorkshire, manufacturer. EVANS (John), Glandon Farm, Holywell, Flintshire, farmer. Aug. 12; H. A. Cope, solicitor, FIRTH (George), Manningham Thorpe, Bradford, merchant. Sept. 1; Taylor, Jeffery, and Little, solicitors, Bradford. FAULKNER (James), 53, Castle-street, Stalybridge, Cheshire, agent. Aug. 25; J. Whitehead, solicitor, 131, Stamford-street, Stalybridge. FENTON (Georgina Wenyeve), 9, Little Queen-street, Marylebone-road, widow. Aug. 20; A. F. and R. W. Tweedie, solicitors, 5, Lincoln's-inn-fields. GRIFFITH (Grace), 12, Kyffin-square, Bangor, Carnarvonshire, widow. Sept. 22; Roberts and Cemlyn Jones, solicitors, Bangor. HAINES (Henry Joseph Rosselloty), formerly of 5, Bessborough-street, St. George's-square, late of 5, Wood-street, both in Westminster, gentleman. Aug. 30; Francis and Giraud, solicitors, Faversham, Kent. HARLAND (Edward), Bishton, Staffordshire, clerk in holy orders, vicar of Colwich, and Prebendary of the Cathedral of Lichfield. Sept. 12; Cunliffes and Davenport, solicitors, 43, Chancerylane. HEBBLETHWAITE (James), Southowram, Halifax, Yorkshire, colliery proprietor. Aug. 25; G. Lawton. solicitor, 5. Horton-street, Halifax. HARRIS (Mary). Portishead, Somersetshire, spinster. Aug. 20; J. C. Glyde, solicitor, Foster'schambers. Small-street, Bristol. HADFIELD (Joseph), 8, Eyre-street, Sheffield, marble mason. Sept. 1; Broomhead, Wightman, and Moore, solicitors, Bank-chambers, George-street, Sheffield. HAYES (Thomas), Stockton Heath, near Warrington, Cheshire, gentleman. Aug. 30; Robert Davies, Sharp, Kirkconnel, and Co., solicitors, Market-place, Warrington. HIGGINS (Jane), 43, Nursery-road, Brixton, Surrey, spinster. Aug. 21; Kingdon and Co., solicitors. 3. Lawrence-lane, Cheapside. HARRISON (Lieut.-Gen. Broadley), Kynaston, Ross, Hereford, and of 20, Beaufort-gardens, and the United Service Club, Pall Mall. Aug. 23; R. Jenkins, solicitor, 3, Raymond-buildings, Gray's-inn. HUGHES (Catherine), 6, The Terrace, Putney, Surrey, widow. Aug. 30; Bowman and CrawleyBoevey, solicitors, 21, Bedford-row. JEANS (Thomas), 15, Cirons, Bath, formerly of 42, Bathwick-street, Bath, gentleman. Sept. 6; J. H. Wilson, solicitor, 1, Belmont, Bath. JUBB (Ann), Stradbroke Lodge. Warley, Halifax, widow. Sept. 1; Jubb, Booth, and Helliwell, solicitors, 7, Harrison-road, Halifax. JUBB (Francis). Stradbroke Lodge, Warley, Halifax, solicitor. Sept. 1; Jubb, Booth, and Helliwell, solicitors, 7, Harrison-road, Halifax. KAY (Nathan), The Gate, Sharples, Lancashire, stone dealer. Aug. 20; W. Russell, solicitor, 11, Wood-street, Bolton. LAWLEY (William), 13. Lower College-street, Bristol, grocer. Aug. 16; Sibly, Dickinson, and Hunt, solicitors, Exchange, Bristol. LOWNDS (Mary Ann). Trinity-street, Southolme, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, spinster. Sept. 30; Hayes and Son. solicitors, Market-place, Gainsborough. LANE (John), Jack Straw's Castle, sometimes called the Castle Tavern, Hampstead, licensed victualler. Sept. 10; W. H. Nicholls, solicitor, 10, Lincoln's-inn-fields. LING (Anne Elizabeth), Stogumber, Somersetshire. Sept. 11; E. Hellard, solicitor, Stogumber, LESTER (Thomas). Dormans Cottage, Dormans, Lingfield, Surrey, gentleman. Aug. 31; Livesay, LE BUTT (Thomas), 12, The Leas, Folkestone. Kent, lodging-house keeper. Aug. 20; H. B. Bradley, solicitor. 52, Sandgate-road, Folkestone. MONEY (Lieut.-Col. Edward), Eardley House, Worthing, Sussex, gentleman. Aug. 11; Fisher, Carter, and Moir, solicitors, 12A. Watling-street. St. Paul's. MEEDS (James), Freshfield House, Burgess Hill, Sussex, formerly a brickmaker. Sept. 29; OLDHAM (Fanny), 3, Granville-terrace, Harrogate, Yorkshire, spinster. Aug. 20; W. H. Ryott, PATTISON (Thomas), 15, South-beach, Blackpool, Lancashire. Oct. 1; W. A. and R. Ascroft, RILEY (Jane). 2. Brunswick-villa, Manchester-road, Southport. Lancashire, widow. Sept. 17; SERVICE (Peter), Plymouth, Devonshire, wholesale ironmonger. Aug. 20; Rooker, Matthews, Harrison, and Co, solicitors, Frankfort-chambers, Plymouth. STRAWSON (Frances). 57. Bedford-road, Rock Ferry, Cheshire. Aug. 30; Madden, James, and Smith, solicitors, 22. Lord-street, Liverpool. SIMPSON (Thomas), Hill Top, near Holmfirth, Yorkshire, retired chimney sweeper. Aug. 31; J. H. Turner, solicitor, Holmfirth. STOCKER (Rev. William Henry Browell), Ovington, Hampshire, clerk in holy orders, rector of Ovington. Sept. 1; F. I. and J. C. Warner, solicitors, Jewry-street, Winchester. SHERATON (Richard), Bishopwearmouth, Durham, gentleman. Sept. 20; J. C. Wilford, solicitor, 17, Fawcett-street, Sunderland. SMART (Caroline), formerly of Fordwich, near Canterbury, Kent, afterwards of Westbere, Kent, late of 63, Broad-street, Canterbury, widow. Sept. 3; Mowll and Mowll, solicitors, 34 and 36, Castle-street, Dover. SIELY (Sarah), Ipswich, Suffolk, widow. Aug. 18; Westhorp, Cobbold, and Ward, solicitors, 32, Museum-street, Ipswich. SCRIVEN (William Clarkson), 149, Briggate, Leeds, and of Chapel Allerton, Leeds, Yorkshire, estate agent. Sept. 2; Ford and Warren, solicitors, 61, Albion-street, Leeds. TORKINGTON (John Connop), Hall-road, Bowdon, Cheshire, gentleman. Aug. 23; T. E. Williams, solicitor, 4, London-street, Southport. TUCK (Sarah), formerly of Spa-road, Melksham, Wiltshire, late of 156, Broadway, Roath, Cardin, Glamorganshire, widow. Sept. 1; W. Bradley, solicitor, 3, High-street, Cardiff. THOMSON (William), formerly of 66, South Audley-street, butler, late of 81, Dover-street, hotel keeper. Aug. 20; Markby, Stewart, and Co., solicitors, 57, Coleman-street. TURTON (Thomas), East-street, Ilkeston, Derbyshire, warp hand. Aug. 9; Hopkins and Byron, solicitors, 18, Market-place, Ilkeston. TAYLOR (James), formerly of 369 and 373, Brixton-road, Surrey, late of 30, Bonham-road, Brixton Hill, builder. Aug. 30; A. Hammond, solicitor, 25, Bedford-row. TOMSON (Mary), Admaston, Salop, spinster. Aug. 30; Wragge, Evans, Holliday, and Godlee, solicitors, 4, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham. TIMMINS (Elizabeth), formerly of Staines, Middlesex, afterwards of Egham Hythe, Surrey, widow, barge and steam-tug owner. Aug. 16; H. C. Coote and Ball, solicitors, 37, Cursitor. street, Chancery-lane. VOSPER (William), Barnham, Lawhilton, Cornwall, butcher. Aug. 18; White, Dingley, and WHITELEY (Nancy), formerly of Calder Side, Hebden Bridge, late of 39, Cemetery-street, Beeston BILLS OF SALE. The number of bills of sale in England and Wales, registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending July 19 was 139. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 153, and the corresponding weeks for the three previous years 218, 252, and 245.— Stubbs' Weekly Gazette. COMMERCIAL FAILURES.-According to Kemp's Mercantile Gazette the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending July 19 was 88. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 111, showing a decrease of 23, being a net decrease in 1890, to date, of 291. THE LICENSING LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA.-The Philadelphia Liquor Licence Court is composed of four judges, who have by law plenary powers over the granting of licences for wholesale and retail trades in that city. This court since the enactment of the High Licence Law two years ago has endeavoured to administer the law so as to restrain and regulate the sale of intoxicating beverages with a view to check drunkenness and the vices and crimes resulting therefrom. This court in its administration & few years ago acted with excessive stringency, so that the Supreme Court overruled some of its decisions and opened the door for a practically unlimited granting of wholesale licences. The result has neutralised materially the beneficial intent of the law, and has done a large amount of mischief in Philadelphia, practically enlarging the scope of purchase and use of intoxicants by the quart, gallon, or cask. The applications for licences arose at once in enormous numbers, and a wholesale-retail system sprung up. This decision held that the lower court must issue "wholesale" licences as a matter of course, unless sufficiently strong remonstrances are filed against them. Hence two one-quart bottles and four half-pint bottles are sold as a wholesale quart to an enormous extent. Another system (according to the report of the British Consul in Philadelphia) has arisen, called "* Speak-easies,' for the illegal traffic in spirits. In the course of time the liquor traffic, either by additional legislation or by prosecutions under the public nuisances law, will be brought to a satisfactory basis, and the "Speak-easies,' ""bottle shops," bucket shops," and other nefarious means of spreading intoxication will be eliminated. The constables are averse to an exacting performance of their duties in respect of suppressing places for the illicit sale of liquor, because when their time comes round for re-election by the residents of their respective wards the chances of continuance in office would be very seriously interfered with. The police department of Philadelphia estimate the number of Speak-easies "at 1200, and it is believed that if a greater number of drinking places were licensed that the tendency towards less intoxication would prevail. Drunkenness in saloons has been almost wholly suppressed. There is an increasing opinion that more public-houses should be licensed and the fees higher, in order to restrict the applicants to a more law-abiding portion of the community. 66 LAW SOCIETIES. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. Mr. Hastie, one of the candidates for the annual election of members of the council of the Law Society, having given a notice by circular alleging that Mr. Gregory, another candidate, is, for a reason therein stated, ineligible, and that all votes given for him will be thrown away, another circular note, bearing at the foot the name of the secretary of the society, and purporting to proceed from him in his official character, has been distributed to members of the society, denying that Mr. Gregory is under any disqualification, whereupon the following letter has been sent to the secretary: "Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of a circular notice from Mr. Hastie, one of the candidates at the pending annual election of members of the council, that Mr. G. B. Gregory, another candidate, is, for a reason therein stated, disqualified, and that all votes given for him will be thrown away. Whether the council have holden a sitting since the promulgation of Mr. Hastie's notice or not, I am, of course, unable to say; but it seems to me in a high degree improbable that a meeting of the council can have been formally and properly called together, and, what is more, can have arrived at any mature conclusion upon the question thereby raised, within the brief space of time from the promulgation of Mr. Hastie's notice to the emission of a circular note by yourself contradicting the same, and asserting that Mr. Gregory is duly qualified. If the council have been duly convened, and the note with your name at foot be indeed a record of an opinion expressed at the meeting, I must say that it is, in my opinion, highly improper for the council to take any side whatever in any question affecting the manner in which its vacancies shall be supplied and its body recruited. To do so is in a high degree undignified, being an abdication of its proper function-the care of the interests of the Profession collectively, for the interests and advancements, real or assumed, of a member of its own body. If your notice be, what I suspect it to be, the hasty emanation of a few members of your council, called together in a casual manner to afford a colour, and it can be but a colour, of regularity to the step taken, the step is equally reprehensible, and does but strengthen my conviction, if it needed strengthening, that a radical change in the constitution of the governing body of the society is a primary and pressing need in the interests of the Profession. 'Redhill, Surrey, 20th July. "CLAIR J. GRECE." 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. F. C. LYMN, solicitor, Matlock Bath, has been appointed Clerk to the Matlock Bath and Scarthin Local Board. Mr. FRANK GEAREY, of No. 5, Verulam-buildings, Gray's-inn, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. ROWLAND F. BADDELEY, of the firm of Bennett and Baddeley, solicitors, Hanley, Staffordshire, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. LEWIS WARD, of the firm of Toulmin, Ward, and Carruthers, of Liverpool, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Ward was admitted in 1883. 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. COUNTY COURT OFFICIALS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS.-I suppose it is too much to expect general civility from County Court officials below the grade of registrar. The gentlemen who fill the latter position are, as a rule, no ted for their urbanity, and recognise and acknowledge a person who has the manners of a gentleman; but when a solicitor of the Supreme Court is greeted with the remark, "You have no business to come pushing in here," as I was greeted on Friday last week, when seeking some legitimate information at the registrar's desk in a perfectly courteous manner (neither the judge nor the registrar being at the time in court), it is high time that some means were taken to remind the officials before named that they are not paid to insult solicitors. The almost severely deferential air which one has to assume to command the smallest consideration, unless you happen to be personally known to the officials, is so disgusting to an educated gentleman, that one only prays that the nature of his practice may take him into the County Courts as little as possible. It is gratifying to add that on the occasion in question the learned registrar to whom I was referred afterwards received me most courteously in his private room, and gave me every assistance. A SOLICITOR OF NEARLY FIFTEEN YEARS' STANDING. NOTES AND QUERIES. None are inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides. Queries. 20. PARTITION.-I am much obliged to A. B. C. for his reply, but he has missed the point of my query (Q. 16). I know I can proceed in the County Court if I like, but the question is whether I have not the option in such a case of proceeding in the High Court, without fear of any penalty. Practising in a town where there is a district registry, I much prefer to proceed in the High Court if I may, for my experience leads me to the conclusion that to do so would be both simpler, more expeditious, and, I think, even less costly than to proceed in the County Court. The district registrar having all the powers of a judge at chambers, it would seem the whole business could be transacted before him, whereas in the County Court the registrar's powers are more limited, and such a matter as that in question would, I believe, have to be dealt with by the judge. B. 21. COMMISSIONER TO ADMINISTER OATHS.-T. C. was admitted an attorney and solicitor in Easter Term 1850, and was on the 21st Aug. 1867 appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in Chancery in England, and in 1869 appointed a Common Law Commissioner to take Oaths in certain counties. T. C. has not practised in any way whatever since May 1880, but has taken out his annual certificate up to November last. Can T. C. act as a commissioner in any part in England though he does not continue to take out a certificate? T. C. Answers. (Q. 18.) WILL-EXECUTION OF.-" Student" should read the case of In the Goods of Callaway, deceased (89 L. T. Rep. N. S. 46). If "Student's" Canadian client was to adopt a similar plan to that of the African testator, probably it would be as satisfactory. T. F. UTTLEY. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY'S EXAMINATIONS FOR 1891. INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION. THE elementary works selected for the Intermediate Examination of persons under articles of clerkship for the year 1891 will be Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of England, with the exception of Books IV. and VI., 10th or 11th edition. Candi dates are required to give to the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society at least thirty days' notice before the date of the examination at which they propose to be examined, and at the same time to leave their articles of clerkship and supplemental articles (if any) duly stamped and registered, and answers to the questions as to due service and conduct up to that time. Prints of these questions can be obtained on application at the office of the Incorporated Law Society. Candidates who apply to be examined under the 4th section of the Solicitors Act 1860 may, on application, obtain copies of the further questions relating to the ten years' service antecedent to the articles of clerkship; and such questions, duly answered, must be left at the time of giving notice. Candidates who fail to pass, or attend at the examination for which they have given A renewed notice must, in that notice, may attend at any subsequent examination. case, be given fourteen days at least before the date of such subsequent examination. THE following are the subjects of examination in the year 1891.-1. Writing from dictation. 2. Writing a short English composition. 3. (a) The first four rules of Arithmetic, simple and compound; the Rule of Three; and Decimal and Vulgar Fractions; (b) Algebra up to and inclusive of Simple Equations, and the first four books of Euclid. 4. Geography of Europe and History of England. 5. LatinElementary. 6. And any two languages to be selected by the candidate out of the following six, namely: (1) Latin, (2) Greek-Ancient, (3) French, (4) German, (5) Spanish, (6) Italian. With reference to the subjects numbered 3 and 6, no candidate is obliged to take up Algebra or Euclid (No. 3b), but if any candidate elects to do so, he may take up these with one only of the languages (No. 6). No books will be previously specified for the language examinations, but passages will be given for translation at sight, with the assistance of a dictionary. The examinations will be held at the Incorporated Law Society's Hall, Chancerylane, London, and at some of the following towns, in the months of February, May, July, and October of each year: Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Carlisle, Carmarthen, Chester, Durham, Exeter, Lancaster, Leeds, Lincoln, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Oxford, Plymouth, Salisbury, Shrewsbury, Swansea, Worcester, York. Candidates are required to give, at least thirty days before the day appointed for the examination, notice to the Secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, of the languages in which they propose to be examined, the town at which they wish to be examined, and their age and residence, and place or mode of education. All notices should be addressed to the Secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, W.C. Candidates who fail to pass, or attend at the examination for which they have given notice, may attend at any subsequent examination. A renewed notice must, in that case, be given fourteen days at least before the date of such subsequent examination. SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES AT THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.-JULY 1890. THE following Candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were successful at the Preliminary Examination held on the 2nd and 3rd July 1890: Atty, Welby Robert Baile, Wynne Jeffreys Bakewell, John Bennett, Charles Oatley Brennan, James Briggs, John James Burgess, Fred Button, Alick James S. Carden, Arthur Schuyler Challis, Arthur Bracebridge Chick, Albert John Chilton, Claude Alan Coke, D'Ewes Leventhorpe Cooke, Joseph Reginald G. Cripps, Henry Rivers Darlow, John James Davey, Herbert Denton, Charles William Dobell, Robert Horace W. Drew, Cecil Launcelot Drewry, Edward Gwyther Drewry, Henry Swayne Dryland, Harold Coster Dyer, Edward Arnold Edmeades. Alfred Feltham, Harold S. K. Fisher, Algernon Fox, Sylvester Arthur R. Gilbert, Edward Basil G. Green, Ewin Linton Hales, Thomas Henry T. Hawkes, Henry George Hawkins, John Francis Heath, Harold Fell Hewlett, Leonard Hilton, Samuel Hopcraft, Alfred Norman Howe, Ernest Ward Hull, Francis John K. Hunter, Herbert Julius Jackson, George William Joseph, Arthur Samuel Leigh, Robert Lyon-Campbell, H. G. J. Marriott, Richard John Montagu, Edward Henry Nee, Michael Edward Orme, Harold William Patey, Samuel Peck, Jasper Owen Penketh, John Edward Peters, Benjamin Bellis Ramsay, Herbert A. H. Ramsden, Harold William Raper, William A. C. Rees, David Rees, William Richardson, Frederick W. Smith, Douglas Edwin Whadcoat, Gordon Cuming OBITUARY.-E. C. MORRIESON, ESQ.-The late Edward Currie Morrieson, Esq., Barrister-at-law, of the Inner Temple, who died at his chambers in Duke-street, St. James's, on the 31st May last, in the thirty-fourth year of his age, was the third son of the late David Brooke Morrieson, Esq., of Brighton, Sussex, a gentleman of Scottish extraction, and was born in Aug. 1855. He was entered as a student of the Inner Temple in May 1875, and called to the bar there in June 1882. He went out to India about 1886, and at his death held the post of an Assistant-Collector and Magistrate at Nasik, in the Bombay Presidency. |