Answers. (Q. 85.) SOLICITOR'S COSTS-ADMINISTRATION.-" Prophets "will have to make out his costs in accordance with the minute at the end of the Table of Fees allowed to Solicitors in respect of non-contentious business (seo "Coote on Probate," 10th edit., p. 618), as the scale charges do not apply. The folios will be calculated on the matter actually drawn. W. A. NODDer. 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. S. H. BECKLES, Esq.-The late Samuel Husband Beckles, Esq., barrister-at-law, of the Middle Temple, and of Harlesden, Middlesex, who died at 9, Grand Parade, St. Leonards-on-Sea, on the 4th Sept., in the seventy-seventh year of his age, was the third son of the late John Alleyne Beckles, Esq., barrister-at-law, of the Middle Temple, and was born in the year 1814. He was entered as a student of the Middle Temple in May 1835, and called by that society to the bar in Michaelmas Term 1838. He was for many years in practice as a conveyancer and equity draftsman, having chambers in Elm-court, Temple, but his career was quite uneventful, and he held no public appointments. He was a man of considerable scientific and literary attainments, and also a Fellow of the Royal Society and of the Geographical Society. He married, firstly, in 1838, Susannah Beckles, daughter of the late William Henry, Esq., of Barbadoes; and secondly, after her decease, in 1882, Jane Gordon, only surviving daughter of the late John Spooner, Esq. SIR W. HARDMAN.-The late Sir William Hardman, Knight, barristerat-law, of the Inner Temple, who died at St. Leonards, Sussex, on the 11th Sept., in the sixty-third year of his age, was the only son of the late William Bridge Hardman, Esq., and grandson of William Hardman, Esq., of Chamber Hall, near Bury, in the county of Lancashire. He was born at Bury in the year 1828, educated at the Bary Grammar School, and afterwards at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as Bachelor of Arts in 1850 and Master of Arts in 1854. He was entered as a student of the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term 1848, and called to the bar by that society in Easter Term 1852. He practised for a few years as an equity draftsman and conveyancer, and was chairman of the Surrey Sessions from 1871 down to his decease. From the date of his call to the bar he devoted himself mainly to public and political work in London and in the county of Surrey, where he settled at Norbiton Hall, near Kingston-on-Thames, of which town he was appointed Recorder in 1875. He was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Surrey, for Middlesex, and for London, and deputy-chairman of the county of London Sessions; also inspector of Woking convict prison. For the last eighteen years he had held the editorship of the Morning Post. He was an unsuccessful candidate for East Surrey in the Conservative interest at the General Election of 1868. He was elected last year an alderman and member of the county council for Surrey. In 1885 he received the honour of knighthood in recognition of his long services as an unpaid judge at the Surrey Sessions. He married, in 1855, Mary Anne, only daughter of the late James Radley, Esq., of Liverpool. The merits of his public services were made the subject of appreciative resolutions at meetings of magistrates in several places in Surrey, and his remains were interred on Tuesday, the 16th inst., at the cemetery between Norbiton and Kingstonupon-Thames, in the presence of a very large circle of public, professional, and private friends. D. HOWELL, Esq.-The late Daniel Howell, Esq., solicitor, of Machynlleth, Montgomeryshire, whose death occurred at Llandudno, North Wales, on the 15th Aug., in the seventy-fifth year of his age, was born on the 31st March 1816. In 1845 he was admitted as a solicitor, and began to practise at Machynlleth, where he was highly respected for his straightforward conduct and unostentatious bearing. He married, in 1857, Miss Isabella Jane Lewis, daughter of the late Matthew Lewis, Esq., of Brynglas, Llanfair Caereinton. The life of the late Mr. Howell was a singularly active one. He held the offices of coroner, clerk to the Poor Law Union, clerk to the justices of the hundreds of Machynlleth in Montgomeryshire, and Estimaner in Merionethshire, and superintendent registrar and also registrar of the local County Court, having been appointed the first registrar by the late Judge Arthur James Johns, in or about the year 1847. He was a devoted antiquary, and one of the original council of the Powys-land Club. In Aug. 1857 he was appointed secretary of the Newtown and Machynlleth Railway Company, for which the Act was obtained in that year, and the line was opened on the 3rd Jan. 1863. On the completion of the work Mr. Howell was presented with a testimonial by his colleagues and the inhabitants of the district. Mr. Howell leaves a widow and four sons and three daughters. He was possessed of landed property in Merionethshire and Montgomeryshire, and was also a proprietor in the Ocean Collieries and Barry Dock and Railway Company in Glamorganshire. He had retired some years back from active work, and had taken up his residence at Craig-y-don, near Aberdovey. His body was interred on Thursday, Aug. 21, at Penegoes (of which parish he was formerly an inhabitant), in the presence of a very large gathering of private and professional friends. The deceased gentleman is succeeded in the firm by his son Mr. Joseph M. Howell. H. MARTINEAU, ESQ.-The late Hubert Martineau, Esq., solicitor, of 2, Raymond-buildings, Gray's-inn, who died at 13, Cumberland-terrace, Regent's Park, on the 25th Aug., in the sixty-ninth year of his age, was the second son of the late Philip Martineau, Esq., of Cumberland-place, Regent's Park, and of Fairlight, Sussex, who was for many years one of the taxing masters of the Court of Chancery, and a member of an old French Huguenot family, of which the late Miss H. Martineau was a member also. He was born in the year 1821, and was educated at University College, London, where he took the usual degrees, and was admitted a solicitor in 1845, and was for many years senior partner of the firm of Martineau and Reid. He enjoyed a good private practice, but held no public appointments, and his professional career was devoid of incident. Mr. Martineau married, in 1861, Miss Elizabeth Mary Alston, eldest daughter of the late Captain Henry Frederick Alston, formerly of the 78th Highlanders. HON. G. PEPYS.-The late Hon. George Pepys, barrister-at-law, of Lincoln's-inn, whose death occurred at Middlecot, Hampshire, on the 6th Sept., in the fifty-ninth year of his age, was the fourth son of Charles, first Earl of Cottenham (for several years Lord High Chancellor of England), by his marriage with Caroline Elizabeth, daughter of William Wingfield Baker, Esq., and grandniece of the second Earl Digby. He was born in July 1832, and was educated at Harrow School under Dr. Vaughan, and afterwards at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he took the usual degrees in 1854. He entered as a student at Lincoln's-inn in Michaelmas Term 1854, and was called to the bar there in June 1857, when he chose the side of Equity. He was for some time a lieutenant in the Inns of Court Rifle Volunteers. Mr. Pepys married, in July 1861, Anna Eliza, second daughter of John Foster, Esq., of Malverley House, East Woodhay, Hampshire, by whom he has left a youthful family. F. PRENDERGAST, ESQ.-The late Francis Prendergast, Esq., barristerat-law, of 127, Strand-road, Sandymount, Dublin, who died at his residence on the 27th Aug., in the eighty-second year of his age, was the second son of the late Francis Prendergast, for many years registrar of the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, by his marriage with Esther, daughter of John Patrick, Esq., of Palace-row, Rutland-square, Dublin. He was born in Dawson-street, Dublin, in the year 1809, and received his early education at Reading Grammar School under the Rev. Dr. Richard Valpy; he graduated at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1828, and was called to the bar at Dublin in 1831. He did not actively follow his profession, but acted as correspondent for the Morning Chronicle with the army of Marshal Radetski in North Italy in 1848, being commissioned for that purpose by the Peelite party, then consisting of the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Gladstone, the Right Hon. Sidney Herbert and others, with whom his reputation always stood high. He lived and died unmarried; and his remains were interred at Dean's Grange Cemetery, Blackrock, co. Dublin, on the 30th Aug. W. VREDENBURGH, ESQ.-The late Watson Vredenburgh, Esq., barrister-at-law, of the Middle Temple, whose death occurred on the 22nd Aug., in the eighty-fourth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late William Vredenburgh, Esq., of Kingston, Jamaica, the West Indies. He was born in the year 1807. He was entered as a student of the Middle Temple in 1835, and called to the bar by that society in Hilary Term of 1839. He was appointed a Commissioner for suppression of the slave trade in 1863, and served in that position till 1870. Mr. Vreden. burgh was also employed in the Consular Service from 1852 down to 1070, as Her Majesty's Consul and Commissioner at St. Paul de Loanda. He retired from active employ about twenty years ago. WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house have the sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an expert from the Sanitary Engineering and Ventilation Company, 65, Victoria-street, Westminster opposite Town Hall [Estab lished 1875], who also undertake the Ventilation of Offices, &c.—[ADVT.] THE GAZETTES. Professional Partnerships Dissolved. Gazette, Sept. 12. STOTT, CHARLES HOLLAND, and WALLIS, ALFRED, solicitors, Rochdale and Heywood. Sept. 1. at Rochdale, debts by C. H. Stott, who will continue the practice there. At Heywood, debts by A. Wallis, who will continue the practice there. WRIGHT, JOHN KYME, and PILLEY, SAMUEL, solicitors, 29, Bedford-row, W.C., and Ealing, W. Sept. 9. The business will be continued by S. Pilley, under style of Wright and Pilley. Bankrupts. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1883. RECEIVING ORDERS. Gazette, Sept. 12. To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Pet. BERKELEY, HUMPHREY GEORGE HARDTEMAN, late Old Quebec-st, barrister-at-law. Pet. Sept. 9. KELLAWAY, WILLIAM LEMON, White Lion-st, Pentonvlile, builder. Pet. Sept. 10. Order, MINTER, WALTER JOHN, late Leytonstone-rd, Stratford,music seller. Pet. Sept. 9. Order, Sept. 10. To surrender at their respective District Courts. ARNUP, CHARLES, Cringleford, farmer. Ct. Norwich. Pet. Sept. 5. Order, Sept. 9. BRADBURY, JOSEPH CLAYTON, Stone, tent proprietor. Ct. Stafford. Pet. Sept. 8. Order, COHEN, SAMUEL (trading as the Devon and Cornwall Furnishing Club), Plymouth. Ct. East CLARIDGE, JAMES, New Swindon, fish merchant. Ct. Swindon. Pet. Sept. 8. Order, Sept. 8. EAGLE, ARTHUR GEORGE, Leicester, vaults manager. Ct. Leicester. Pet. Sept. 8. Order, HODGE, THOMAS, Broadstairs, butcher. Ct. Canterbury. Pet. Sept. 9. Order, Sept. 9. LEY, GEORGE, Swansea, fruit merchant. Ct. Swansea. Pet. Sept. 9. Order, Sept. 8. MURRAY, WILLIAM, Belgrave, baker. Ct. Leicester. Pet. Sept. 9. Order, Sept. 9. To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. To surrender at their respective District Courts. GLASS. CHARLES, Cardiff, builder. Ct. Cardiff. Pet. Sept. 10. Order, Sept. 10. MASSON, THOMAS, Brighton, gentleman. Ct. Brighton. Pet. June 23. Order, Sept. 11. PLAYER, NORMAN, Lenham, blacksmith. Ct. Maidstone. Pet. Sept. 12. Order, Sept. 12. TOPPLE, WILLIAM, St Leonards-on-Sea, house decorator. Ct. Hastings. Pet. Aug. 27. Order, Ct. Southampton. VALLANCE, SAMUEL LIDDGET, late Bishops Waltham, licensed victualler. FIRST MEETINGS AND PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS. ALEXANDER, J. L.. The Scottish Club, Pall Mall. Ct. High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. BINNS, WILLIAM PAGE, and BINNS, WILLIAM HERBERT, Leeds, agents. Ct. Leeds. Meeting, Sept. 22, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Leeds. Exam. Oct. 7, at 11, at the County Court-house, Leeds. Order sum. adm. Sept. 10. BRADBURY, JOSEPH CLAYTON, Stone, tent proprietor. Ct. Stafford. Meeting, Sept. 23, at 11.30, at office of Off. Rec. Stafford. Exam. Sept. 23, at noon, at the County Court-office, Stafford. BIRCH, GEORGE, late Wolverhampton, clothier. Ct. Wolverhampton. Meeting, Sept. 23, at 11.30, at office of Off. Rec. Wolverhampton. Exam. Sept. 23, at 2, at the County Court, Wolverhampton. Order sum. adm. Sept. 9. COYLE, WILLIAM GEORGE, Bath, stationer. Ct. Bath. Meeting, Sept. 24, at noon, at office of Off. Rec. Bristol. Exam. Sept. 25, at 11.30, at the Guildhall, Bath. CLAYPOLE, CHARLES SAMUEL, Nottingham, publican. Ct. Nottingham. Meeting, Sept. 19, at DICKER, JOHN CAMPBELL, Birkenhead. gentleman. Ci. Birkenhead. Meeting, Oct. 1, at 2.30, at MILLYARD, HEDLEY (trading as the London and County Printing and Publishing Company), PAUL, CHARLES (trading as M. Armstrong and Co.), Warrington, jeweller. Ct. Warrington. Meeting, Oct. 3, at 11.30, at the Court-house, Warrington. Exam. Oct. 3, at 11.15, at the Courthouse. Warrington. Order sum. adm. Aug. 16. TRODD, JAMES RICHARD, Odiham, brickmaker's foreman. Ct. Winchester. Meeting, Sept. 23, at noon, at office of Off. Rec. Southampton. Exam. Oct. 22, at 10, at the Castle of Winchester. Order sum. adm. Sept. 10. WILKINSON, HUGH, Bradford, wholesale draper. Ct. Bradford. Meeting, Sept. 22, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Bradford. Exam. Oct. 17, at 10, at the County Court, Bradford. WENMAN, FRANCIS HEATHCOTE, Anerley, general contractor. Ct. Croydon. Meeting, Sept. 22. at 11, at 24, Railway-approach, London Bridge. Exam. Oct. 23, at 11, at the Townhall, Croydon. Ct. Newport, Mon. Meeting, Sept. 22, at noon, WINTER, HARRY HAYLAND, Newport, grocer. at office of Off. Rec. Newport. Exam. Sept. 25, at 11, at the Townhall, Newport. Order sum. adm. Sept. 9. WOODFORD, WALTER JAMES, Gosport, dairyman. Ct. Portsmouth. Meeting, Sept. 22, at 4, at 166. Queen-st Portsea. Exam. Sept. 22, at noon, at the Court-house, Portsmouth. Order sum. adm. Sept. 10. Gazette, Sept. 16. ASHWORTH, ROBERT, late Wardle, cloth fuller. Ct. Bradford. Meeting, Sept. 25, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Bradford. Exam. Nov. 7, at 10, at the County Court, Bradford. Order sum. adm. Sept. 13. BALL, WILLIAM, jun., Dover, butcher. Ct. Canterbury. Meeting, Sept. 26, at 11.30, at offices of Mowll and Mowll, Dover. Exam. Oct. 3, at 10.30, at the Guildhall, Canterbury. Order sum. adm. Sept. 9. COOKE, FREDERIC, late Upper-st, Islington, manufacturer's agent. Ct. High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Meeting, Sept. 23, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldngs, Portugal-st, Lincoln's-inn. Exam. Oct. 22, at 11.30, at 34, Lincoln's-inn-flds. CLARKE, JOHN, Tipton, grocer. Ct. Dudley. Meeting, Sept. 23, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Dudley. Exam. Sept. 23, at 2, at the Court-house, Dudley. Order sum, adm. Sept. 8. COHEN, SAMUEL (trading as the Devon and Cornwall Furnishing Company), Plymouth. Ct. East Stonehouse. Meeting, Sept. 25, at 11, at 10, Athenaeum-ter, Plymouth. Exam. Oct. 3, at 11, at the County Court, East Stonehouse. Order sum. adm. Sept. 12. CHAMBERLAIN, LIONEL PERCY, Leicester, solicitor. Ct. Leicester. Meeting, Sept. 24, at 3, at office of Off. Rec. Leicester. Exam. Oct. 29, at 10, at the Castle, Leicester. COOPER, THOMAS, Gillingham, blacksmith. Ct. Rochester. Mesting, Sept. 29, at noon, at office of Off. Rec. Rochester. Exam. Sept. 29, at 2, at the Court-house, Rochester. Order sum, adm. Sept.13. DUNCAN, LESLIE FRASER, late Wilton-st, Grosvenor-pl, journalist. Ct. High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Meeting, Sept. 24, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldngs, Portugal-st, Lincoln's-inn. Exam. Oct. 7, at 11.30, at 34, Lincoln's-inn-flds. EAGLE, ARTHUR GEORGE, Leicester, vaults manager. Ct. Leicester. Meeting, Sept. 23, at noon, at office of Off. Rec. Leicester. Exam. Oct. 29, at 10, at the Castle, Leicester. FRAKES, ARTHUR T., Castle Donington, basketmaker. Ct. Leicester. Meeting, Sept. 26, at 12.30, at office of Off. Rec. Leicester. Exam. Oct. 29, at 10, at the Castle, Leicester. GOSS, HENRY CHARLES, Well-ct, Queen-st. manufacturer's agent. Ct. High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Meeting, Sept. 24, at noon, at Bankruptcy-bldngs, Portugal-st, Lincoln'sinn. Exam. Oct. 16, at noon at 34, Lincoln's-inn-fids. Order sum. adm. Sept. 3. GRAY, HENRY, Leeds, tobacconist. Ct. Leeds. Meeting, Sept. 24, at noon, at office of Off. Rec. Leeds. Exam. Oct. 7, at 11, at the County Court-house, Leeds. Order sum. adm. Sept. 8. HURST, STEPHEN (trading as A. H. Hirst), late Rostrevor-rd, Fulham, builder. Ct. High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Meeting, Sept. 24, at 1, at 33, Carey-st, Lincoln's-inn. Exam. Oct. 16, at noon, at 34, Lincoln's-inn-fids. Order sum. adm. Aug. 27. HYAM, DAVID, Milton-st, wholesale fancy warehouseman. Ct. High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Meeting, Oct. 1, at noon, at Bankruptcy-bldgs, Portugal-st, Lincoln's-inn. Exam, Oct. 10, at noon, at 34, Lincoln's-inn-fids. HARRIS, WILLIAM HENRY, Hayward's Heath, grocer. Ct. Brighton. Meeting, Sept. 24, at 3, at office of Off. Rec. Brighton. Exam. Sept. 25, at 11, at the Court-house, Brighton. Order sum. adm. Sept. 10. " HODGE, THOMAS, Broadstairs, butcher. Ct. Canterbury. Meeting, Sept. 26, at 3.30, at 53, RICHMOND, WILLIAM MILES, Chester, smallware dealer. Ct. Chester. Meeting, Sept. 25, SWANN, THOMAS HENRY, late Wike, builder. Ct. Leeds. Meeting, Sept. 24, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Leeds. Exam. Oct. 7, at 11, at the County Court-house, Leeds. Order sum. adm. Sept. 11. STONE, WILLIAM THOMAS, Margate, baker. Ct. Canterbury. Meeting, Sept. 26, at 3, at 53, High-st, Margate. Exam. Oct. 3, at 10.30, at the Guildhall, Canterbury. Order sum, adm. Sept. 9. WILLIS, WILLIAM HENRY, Long-acre, card board manufacturer. Ct. High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Meeting, Sept. 24, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldngs, Portugal-st, Lincoln's-inn. Exam. Oct. 7, at noon, at 34, Lincoln's-inn-fids. YOUNG, NATHAM BOWMAN, late Carnforth, tinplate worker. Ct. Preston. Meeting. Oct. 10, at 3, at office of Off. Rec. Preston. Exam. Oct. 10, at 11, at the County Court-offices, Preston. Order sum. adm. Sept. 9. ADJUDICATIONS. Gazette, Sept. 12. ARNUP, CHARLES, Cringleford, farmer. Ct. Norwich. Order, Sept. 9. Pet. Sept. 5. BUSHBY, BENJAMIN GEORGE, Wolverton, butcher. Ct. Northampton. Order, Sept. & Pet. CLARIDGE, JAMES, New Swindon, fish merchant. Ct. Swindon. Order, Sept. 8. Pet. Aug. 30. DUNCAN, LESLIE FRASER, late Wilton-st, Grosvenor-pl, journalist. Ct. High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Order, Sept. 10. Pet. Aug. 28. DADSON, ASTOR, late West Brighton, no occupation. Ct. Brighton. Order, Sept. 9. Pet. June 2. EAGLE, ARTHUR GEORGE, Leicester, vaults manager. Ct. Leicester. Order, Sept. 9. Pet. GOODERHAM, ALFRED, Offton, farmer. Ct. Ipswich. Order, Sept. 8. Pet. Sept. 8. HARRIS, WILLIAM HENRY, Hayward's Heath, grocer. Ct. Brighton. Order, Sept. 10. Pet. HODGE, THOMAS, Broadstairs, butcher. Ct. Canterbury. Order, Sept. 9. Pet. Sept. 8. MOXEY, EDWIN FRANCIS, St. Thomas the Apostle, builder. Ct. Exeter. Order, Sept. 9. Pet. MILLYARD, HEDLEY (trading as the London and County Printing and Publishing Company), SPRAGG, EDWIN FINCH, Saltoun-rd, Brixton, surveyor.. Ct. High Court of Justice, in TRODD, JAMES RICHARD, Odiham, brickmaker's foreman. Ct. Winchester. Order, Sept. 9. WILLIS, WILLIAM HENRY, Long-acre, cardboard manufacturer. Ct. High Court of Justice, Gazette, Sept. 16. ASHWORTH, ROBERT, late Wardle, cloth fuller. Ct. Bradford. Order, Sept. 11. Pet. Sept. 10. COLLARD, THOMAS WHITE, Herne Bay, clerk to the Herne Bay Local Board. Ct. Canterbury. COOPER, THOMAS, Gillingham, blacksmith. Ct. Rochester. Order, Sept. 12. Pet. Aug. 21. EDWARDS, WILLIAM PANTON, Isledon-rd, Holloway, financial agent. Ct. High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Order, Sept. 12. Pet. Sept. 8. GLASS, CHARLES, Cardiff, builder. Ct. Cardiff. Order, Sept. 10. Pet. Sept. 10. LEY, GEORGE, Swansea, fruit merchant. Ct. Swansea. Order, Sept. 12. Pet. Sept. 9. Ct. Hanley, Burslem, and Tunstall. Order. Sept. 9. Pet. Aug. 21. PETTY, ADOLPHUS GRAY, and LODER, FRANCIS WILLIAM, Silvertown, oil refiners. Ct. High PLAYER, NORMAN, Lenham, blacksmith. Ct. Maidstone. Order, Sept. 12. Pet. Sept. 12. TOWNSHEND, CAROLINE, late Marylebone-la, licensed victualler, widow. Ct. High Court of VALLANCE, SAMUEL LIDDGET, Bishops Waltham, late licensed victualler. Ct. Southampton. Order, Sept. 13. Pet. Sept. 13. WALDOCK, ERNEST EDWIN, late Roundhay, tailor. Ct. Leeds. Order, Sept. 13. Pet. Aug. 12. BARRS.-On the 9th inst., at 1,Bramshill-gardens, Dartmouth Park-hill, N.W., the wife of H. H. GLYN. On the 9th inst., at Broom Hills, near Bexley, the wife of Lewis Edmund Glyn, of the MUIR.-On the 20th ult., at 46, Stookwell Park-road, Brixton, the wife of R. D. Muir, Barrister-atlaw, of a son. PRIOR. On the 8th inst., at Harrow, the wife of H. Templer Prior, of 25, Abingdon-street, son. MARRIAGES. EDWARDS-TWEEDALE. On the 11th inst., at the parish church, Dewsbury, Trevor Caswell Edwards, of Wakefield, Solicitor, to Jane, third daughter of John Tweedale, The Moorlands, Dewsbury. PAGE-HENDERSON-EVANS.-On the 11th inst.. at Christ Church, Lancaster-gate, Capt. PageHenderson, Inniskilling Dragoons, of Oswaldkirk, Yorkshire, to Millicent, third daughter of J. Carbery Evans, J.P., D.L., of Hatley Park, Cambridgeshire, and 109, Lancaster-gate. DEATHS. COOPER.-On the 6th inst., at Fulham, George Henry Cooper, Barrister-at-law, of the Inner Temple and Western Circuit, aged 68. GENN.-Un the 7th inst., at 13, Woodland-terrace, Falmouth, William James Genn, Solicitor, in his 79th year. GREEN. On the 6th inst., William Green, aged 55, for over twenty years the faithful servant (as SEARE.-On the 10th inst., at Fairlight, Hastings, Thomas Seare, of the Honourable Society of To Readers and Correspondents. All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected. All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent delay, be addressed to the "EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES." Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., should be kept distinct, and addressed to the Publisher, Mr. HORACE Cox, 10, Wellington-street Strand, W.O. TO SUBSCRIBERS. The volumes of the LAW TIMES, and of the LAW TIMES RERORTS, are strongly and uniformly bound at the office, as completed, for 5s. 6d. for the Journal and 4s. 6d. for the Reports. Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 5s. 6d LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 88. 6d. TO ADVERTISERS. ......... SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines of thirty words, or less than thirty words, in body type 3s. 6d. Each additional line, or ten words, or less than ten words........................ Os. 6d. For three insertions a reduction of 10 per cent; for six insertions a reduction of 20 per cent. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office should remit 6d. additional to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Advertisements. Advertisements must reach the Office not later than five o'clock on Thursday afternoon, and must be accompanied by a remittance. Post-office Orders payable to Horace Cox. 2 90 THE ASSYRIAN Damage to cargo-Screw alley-Matters of nautical skill-Trinity MastersEvidence-Practice Collision-Stern light-Overtaking ship -Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, arts. 2 and 11 THE GENERAL GORDON 91 Practice-Service-Company-Motion for rectification of register-Service on solicitors of company... Re AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN GREEN AND CO. AND BALFOUR, WILLIAMSON, AND CO. Re 92 Collision-Fishing smacks-Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, arts. 14, 22-Both ships to blame-Costs THE ACCOMAC Charter party Carriage of goods 114 115 ...... 117 94 96 Arbitration - Award-Contract to buy goods-Deficiency in quality of goods -Dispute-Submission to arbitration 97 WILSON; ATTORNEY GENERAL V. WOODALL Practice-Third-party notice-Originating summons-R. 8. C., Order XVI., r. 48-Order LV., rr. 3, 4, 5, 6............ 100 BERRIDGE v. BERRIDGE Principal and surety-Indemnity given BIDWELL v. HOLDEN Mandatory injunction-Restoration of fence wrongfully broken down-Uneducated defendant-Form of order... 104 Re DENTON; BANNERMAN v. TOOSEYWill-Power o, appointment-Exercise -Intention 118 119 351 351 353 The New Settled Land Act Should Appeals be Limited by Amount? 354 The LAW TIMES Table of the Distribution of the Personal Estate of Intestates OCCASIONAL NOTES LAW LIBRARY COUNTY COURTS Sittings of the Courts CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES 354 354 355 355 356 356 105 Re International Stock and Share Agency Limited.... QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. SERRAINO AND SONS v. CAMPBELLShip-Charter-party- Bull of ladingIncorporation of conditions of charterparty in bill of lading Re The Bowersfield Iron Company Limited 107 Robinson v. The Trust and Investment Corporation of South Africa Limited 356 The Revision Courts 356 Unclaimed Stock and Dividends in the Bank of England Heirs-at-Law and Next of Kin 357 357 DIVISION. Creditors under 22 & 23 Vict. o. 85... Quarter Sessions 357 358 PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRATLY PROBATE BUSINESS. In the Goods of DINAH LEACH (deceased).Will Cutting by testatrix - Partial revocation-Probate granted in mutilated state..... DIVORCE BUSINESS. NUNNELEY v. NUNNELEY AND MARRIANDivorce-English decree-Variation of marriage settlements-Scotch deed of settlement-Jurisdiction..................... 113 358 PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS ... 358 CORRESPONDENCE 350 359 G. Thomas, Esq................................................................................ 350 E. Walker, Esq. THE GAZETTES BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS The Law and the Lawyers. 360 It is difficult to read with seriousness the report of a case reported in the Australian Law Times, which involved the question whether the word "tiddley-wink" is libellous! A chief justice and two puisne judges deliberated upon this delicate matter, and decided in the negative. An "expert in slang" was called as a witness at the trial, who defined "tiddley-winking to mean 66 using little dodges to obtain his own ends." The jury declined to find this libellous, and the Court refused to disturb their decision. writer. This invention may therefore work a revolution in all systems of reporting. The effect upon the records of legal proceedings would doubtless be very important-and extremely unpleasant to the intelligent and able body of men who make shorthand writing the business of their lives. A NOVEL ex parte application was on Friday last week made to Mr. Justice LAWRANCE, in court, which he granted "for what it was worth," saying that it was a curious order to apply for. Leave was asked to serve a summons for an injunction upon the defendant with the writ of summons in the action, which presumably had not been issued; the summons to be made returnable on the following Tuesday. There would appear to have been some mixing up of several distinct rules of the court to have necessitated such an application. No leave to issue or deliver the writ, of course, was required, as it is not pleading within Order LXIV., r. 4, unless indeed it was a writ specially indorsed (about which there is a conflict of opinion in the cases reported), and the two clear days before the return under Order LIV., r. 4, was complete. All that the applicant had to do was to issue his writ, and then take out a summons in the action, and, if he chose, serve them (it is submitted) both together. There is nothing expressed in the rules to prohibit him doing this. It is rather an anomaly in the rules, though, that a plaintiff can apply for an injunction without leave, and before the time limited for appearance by summons at chambers, whereas, if he proceeds by motion (as is the practice in the Chancery Division), he must obtain the leave of the court or judge to serve notice with the writ. By Order LII., r. 8, the plaintiff shall, without any special leave, be at liberty to serve any notice of motion or other notice, or any petition or summons, upon any defendant who, having been duly served with a writ of summons to appear, But has not appeared within the time limited for that purpose. if the eight days have not elapsed, the following rule provides that the plaintiff may, by leave of the court or judge to be obtained ex parte, serve any notice of motion upon any defendant along with the writ of summons. This rule, it will be observed, is not applicable to an interlocutory summons at chambers. Therefore, by applying by summons instead of by motion, the plaintiff can do so, before appearance, without leave; unless indeed it should be held that rule 8, by expressly providing that a summons may be served without leave after the time for appearance, by implication prevents the summons being otherwise served. In which case the plaintiff would be obliged to disregard the usual practice of the Queen's Bench Division, viz., to apply for injunctions in chambers, and he would have to move the court obtaining leave to serve the notice of motion with the writ under Order LII., r. 9. MR. JUSTICE LAWRANCE, sitting as Vacation Judge, has not been called upon to deal with many questions presenting features of marked interest to the Profession or the public. Possibly, however, the case of Bottomley v. Smith (reported ante, p. 346) had it been fully discussed, would have drawn attention to a subject which is of considerable general importance, viz., the power of HER MAJESTY's judges to restrain by interim injunction the publication of a libel. The possible consequences of the exercise of this power were referred to in an article which appeared in the LAW TIMES under the heading of "The Judges and the Press," on the 24th May last, and they are sufficiently suggestive to induce a discreet judge to restrain from granting such an injunction in a hurry. In Bottomley v. Smith the articles complained of appeared in a journal devoted to financial topics, and reflected on the position of the Hansard Publishing Union, of which the plaintiff is the managing director. In such a case the dicta of the learned members of the Court of Appeal in Liverpool Household Stores Association v. Smith (57 L. T. Rep N. S. 770; 58 Ib. 204; 37 Ch. Div. 170) must needs possess especial relevance. In that instance certain adverse comments concerning a new company had been published in a local newspaper, and the directors underof the criticised taking thereupon sought to obtain an interlocutory injunction restraining the further publication of libellous matter pending the trial of the action. The defendant resisted the application, alleging that the court, notwithstanding certain authorities of earlier date, had no power to grant an interim injunction in such a case, or that if there were such power, it ought only to be exercised on "the rarest occasion." Dealing with the application in the first instance, Mr. Justice KEKEWICH refused to grant the injunction, chiefly because it would have been difficult to frame the order so as to avoid prejudging the case at the trial, although, at the same time, his Lordship entertained no doubt that it is quite competent for the court to grant an interlocutory injunction in a case of libel or slander. This general proposition was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal, but the Lords Justices pointed out that, if the court granted such an injunction, it must thereby pronounce the publication to be libellous before it has been so found by a jury, and that therefore such jurisdiction should be exercised only in the clearest cases. Moreover, some incidental consideration was devoted to the question of the justice or expediency of restraining the publication in a newspaper of reports and correspondence containing unfavourable statements as to the position and solvency of a joint-stock company. Lord Justice COTTON intimated that some consideration" would be required before granting an interim injunction to prevent press criticism of new projects. Perhaps it was unfortunate that the special circumstances of the case enabled their Lordships to put aside the question "whether a company issuing a prospectus asking shareholders to join it does not to a certain extent invite public comment on its constitution, its capital, and its prospects." No doubt the day will come when this issue will have to be distinctly raised and decided. Meanwhile Mr. Justice LAWRANCE seems to have adopted a prudent course in refusing to grant an injunction in Bottomley v. Smith. THE new Allotments Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 65) is brief, but will, we trust, be of some use to such of the agricultural labourers as are desirous of allotments and cannot persuade the local sanitary authority to take the necessary steps to procure them. The Act provides an appeal to the county council, where a representation has been duly made to the sanitary authority with reference to any district or parish not being within the limits of a borough as defined by the Municipal Corporations Act 1882. Thus the Act authorises an appeal from a board of guardians, but not from a town council. The appeal must be made by six persons who are ratepayers or electors, who will "petition" the county council. Then, if the council is satisfied, after holding an "inquiry," that land for allotments ought to be acquired, they shall pass a resolution to that effect, and thereupon the powers and duties of the sanitary authority of the district or parish will be transferred to the county council (sect. 2). Every county council is to appoint a standing committee for the purposes of the Allotments Acts (sect. 3). Borrowing powers are given to the county council. Separate accounts are to be kept, and the expenses will be charged to the district or parish for which the allotments are provided (sects. 4, 6). Any room in a school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament, may, except during ordinary school hours, be used free of charge for an inquiry under this Act, or for the purposes of this Act, by the county council or committee; or, with consent of two managers, for holding public meetings to discuss questions as to allotments under the Allotments Acts. Damage is to be paid for and expenses defrayed. Notices have to be given; and if use of the school is refused, there is an appeal to the standing committee (sect. 5). Provisions are contained in the Act to meet the difficulty of the county council having to perform the duties of sanitary authority under the Allotments Act 1887, and also being the county authority under that Act. PROCEEDINGS to rectify the register of members of a company may, under sect. 35 of the Companies Act 1862, be commenced either by motion in court or by summons in chambers, the former being the course usually adopted. A reminder to practitioners that the notice of such a motion must be served on the company at its registered office, pursuant to sect. 62 of that Act, was given by Mr. Justice KAY in the case of Re The Denver United Breweries Limited, reported by us this week (63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 96). Service on the solicitors of the company will not suffice, even where the solicitors purport to accept service on behalf of the company, since the rule which permits such a substitution does not apply to a notice of motion under sect. 35. It is, however, by no means an uncommon practice, after correspondence has passed between the solicitors of the person or member aggrieved and the solicitors of the company, for the latter to accept service of the subsequent notice of motion for rectification of the register of members, and if the company appears at the bearing, as generally happens, all goes well. But where the company, as in the case we refer to, does not appear, then, as Mr. Justice KAY has pointed out, no order can be made until the company has itself been served at its registered office. Attention to this little point of practice may, therefore, sometimes save delay. THE question whether a will was intended by the testator to operate as an exercise of a limited or special power of appointment vested in him is one that frequently arises; and the tendency of modern decisions seems to be to regard the testamentary power as well exercised even where there is but slight indication on the face of the will that the exercise of the power was contemplated, and where its limits have been exceeded. An illustration of this is afforded by the case of Re Boyd; Nield v. Boyd (63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 92). In that case Mr. Justice STIRLING was asked to determine whether the appointment contained in the will of a testatrix of all the real and personal estate not thereinbefore otherwise disposed of upon the trusts therein mentioned, was a valid exercise to any and what extent of the power of appointment contained in her marriage settlement of the residuary trust funds subject thereto. The settlement gave her power to appoint the settled funds solely amongst the children and issue of the marriage. The only reference made by the testatrix in her will to the power of appointment was to be gathered from the gift of all her residuary real and personal estate which by virtue of any power or authority or of any separate right of property she was competent to dispose of" to trustees upon certain trusts. The trusts included a life interest to her husband, and she had also settled the shares of her daughters, thus altogether exceeding the limits of the power. It seemed to Mr. Justice STIRLING-as it did to Mr. Justice PEARSON in Re Swinburne; Swinburne v. Pitt (27 Ch. Div. 696)—that, if he did not hold that this will was an exercise of the power, he would be striking out of the will several significant words. His Lordship thought that the will showed a clear intention on the part of the testatrix to exercise any testamentary power of appointment which she was entitled to, and that the words above stated must receive their due effect. The gift of the life interest to the testatrix's husband of course failed, he not being an object of the power; and Mr. Justice STIRLING, applying the doctrine of Lassence v. Tierney (1 Mac. & G. 551), decided that the daughters took their shares of the trust funds free from the fetters attempted to be imposed by the ineffectual directions that such shares should be settled. In support of the argument that the will did not operate as an exercise of the power, the decision of Mr. Justice NORTH, in Re Cotton; Wood v. Colton (40 Ch. Div. 41), was relied upon. But Mr. Justice STIRLING referred to the later case of Re Blackburn; Smiles v. Blackburn (43 Ch. Div. 75), before the same learned judge, where his Lordship had explained his previous decision in Re Cotton; Wood v. Cotton. That case could not, therefore, be treated as an authority which governed the present one; and Mr. Justice STIRLING was, we think, right in disregarding it. THE position of justices in regard to the enforcement of rates is somewhat peculiar. Speaking generally, they act for such purposes in a ministerial, and not in a judicial, capacity: (Sweetman v. Guest, 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 52.) The question of the defendant's rateability, of his liability, or even of the validity of the rate, is not for the justices, such matters being grounds for an appeal to quarter sessions. They may inquire why the rate has not been paid, and that is all: (Reg. v. Justices of Gloucestershire, 1 L. T. Rep. N. S. 294; Luton Board of Health v. Davis, 2 L. T. Rep. N. S. 172.) To this rule of limitation there are, however, two admitted exceptions, viz., where the person summoned has no assessable property in the parish; and secondly, where the prescribed formalities connected with the making of a rate have not been duly complied with. But justices are indemnified by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44, s. 4: Where any poor rate shall be made, allowed, and published, and a warrant of distress shall issue against any person named and rated therein," it being enacted that "no action shall be brought against the justice or justices who shall have granted such warrant by reason of any irregu larity or defect in the said rate, or by reason of such person not being liable to be rated therein." It is considered, nevertheless, that the protection conferred by the statute would not avail the justices where the premises rated in fact are not in the parish. Apart from the foregoing considerations, cases sometimes occur in which justices may fairly turn a deaf ear to authority, and refuse to be made instruments of palpable injustice. Such a case recently came under magisterial notice in respect of a claim against the London and St. Katharine Docks Company. It transpired that so far back as 1888 the company objected to the assessment of their property to the poor rate, and, notice of appeal having been given, the matter was by consent of both parties and of the assessment committee placed in the hands of an experienced valuer. This gentleman reduced the assessment from £22,063 to £13,683; but, while these figures were being arrived at, the dock company paid under protest the sum of £1047 10s. in excess of what turned out to be the proper rate. In April last another rate became payable, and the overseers of East Ham sought to obtain from the magistrates a warrant to enforce payment of the sum of £1026 4s. 6d., regardless of the excess which had already been paid to them. The statement as to the facts and the figures was not disputed by the overseers ; nevertheless, they pressed the justices as ministerial officers to enforce payment of the new rate. The justices declined to do so. Nor is it likely that a Superior Court would compel the Bench to issue the distress-warrant in a case which, in the words of the chairman, would involve a manifest injustice. In the case of Re Tunno's Estate; Raikes v. Raikes, recently reported by us (63 L. T. Rep. N. S. 23), two interesting questions were raised before Mr. Justice CHITTY. The first was, whether a bequest fell into residue, repairs to a church upon which the money was to be expended not having been commenced within the period specified in a will. The testatrix had bequeathed all her diamonds upon trust for sale, and upon trust, in the events which happened, out of the proceeds to expend such a sum, not exceeding £600, in repairing a certain church, as the trustees should in their discretion think proper, such repairs to be com menced within twelve months from the death of the testatrix; and she directed that so much of the £600 as should not be expended in the repairs should fall into her residuary personal estate. She also directed that out of the proceeds of sale £700 should be laid out in a certain manner. The latter gift had been held by the court to be void. The diamonds only realised £900. The argument on behalf of the residuary legatee was, that the trustees were bound to exercise their discretion as to the repairs within twelve months from the death of the testatrix; that it was not a mere direction, but a clear condition, which must be satisfied before the legacy was payable. Mr. Justice CHITTY was, however, clearly of opinion, on the construction of the will, that the words were merely directory; and that consequently the gift took effect. His Lordship thought that, if the testatrix really meant to make the commencement of the repairs within twelve months a condition, she would have said so in precise and definite terms, as she had done in another part of the will. Then came the question whether, inasmuch as the proceeds of sale of the diamonds were insufficient to provide both the £600 and the £700, the £600 ought to abate in favour of the residuary legatee. The £700 legacy having failed by lapse, the contention of the residuary legatee was that it lapsed for her benefit; and that the £600 legacy must abate in the proportion of sixthirteenths of the £900 produced by the sale of the diamonds. The lapse of one gift, it was argued, could not increase another, but must fall into the residue; and Page v. Leapingwell (18 Ves. 463) was relied upon. That case, however, Mr. Justice CHITTY found no difficulty in distinguishing, as there the gift was of an aliquot share of a certain sum. Here, on the contrary, the £600 was, the learned judge thought, in effect a first charge on the proceeds of sale of the diamonds which must be satisfied in full before the residuary legatee could take anything. As Mr. Justice CHITTY observed, the two cases of Green v. Scott (1 Ves. jun. 282) and Pearce v. Gardner (10 Hare, 292) are good illnstrations of the manner in which the court will act in construing wills similar to the one before his Lordship. The remarks of Mr. Justice NORTH, in his considered judgment in Re Saunders-Davies; Saunders-Davies v. Saunders-Davies (56 L. T. Rep. N. S. 153; 34 Ch. Div. 482) on the case of Page v. Leapingwell afford much assistance in comprehending that decision. THE NEW SETTLED LAND ACT. THE Settled Land Bill has become law exactly in the form in which it was brought from the House of Lords to the House of Commons. The new Act (53 & 54 Vict. c. 69) received the Royal Assent on the 18th Aug. and is now law. It is well worth while to examine the addition to, and the alterations in, the previously existing law which the new Act effects. We may premise that the Act is largely due to the exertions of the Incorporated Law Society, at whose instance the Bill was originally prepared. It was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Herschell, and in the House of Commons by Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Q.C. It will now be read and construed with the Settled Land Acts 1882 to 1889, and we have the sheaf of Settled Land Acts from 1882 to 1890. The first matter with which the new Act deals (sect. 4) is a comparatively unimportant one. By sect. 50 of the Act of 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 38) the statutory powers of a tenant for life are not capable of assignment or release, and remain exercisable by the tenant for life notwithstanding any assignment of the estate or interest of the tenant for life under the settlement. In this section the term "assignment" includes an assignment by way of mortgage, and any partial or qualified assignment, and any charge or incumbrance. It will not in future include any marriage settlement or deed of family arrangement. For, by sect. 4 of the new Act, (1.) Every instrument whereby a tenant for life, in consideration of marriage or as part or by way of any family arrangement, not being a security for payment of money advanced, makes an assignment of or creates a charge upon his estate or interest under the settlement is to be deemed one of the instruments creating the settlement, and not an instrument vesting in any person any right as assignee for value within the meaning or operation of section fifty of the Act of 1882. (2.) This section is to apply and have effect with respect to every disposition before as well as after the passing of this Act, unless inconsistent with the nature or terms of the disposition. The next section (5) gives power for the creation of easements upon the exchange or partition of settled lands. On an exchange or partition any easement, right, or privilege of any kind may be reserved or may be granted over or in relation to the settled land or any part thereof, or other land or an easement, right, or privilege of any kind may be given or taken in exchange or on partition for land or for any other easement, right, or privilege of any kind. As the law has hitherto stood, there has, except in the case of contracts for leases or other contracts made under the Act, been no express power for a successor to execute the conveyance necessary to give effect to a contract entered into by a predecessor in title. When the successor could not himself make the contract, a vesting order has been necessary. This will no longer be needed, as by sect. 6 of the new Act power is given to complete a predecessor's contract. A tenant for life may make any conveyance which is necessary or proper for giving effect to a contract entered into by a predecessor in title, and which if made by such predecessor would have been valid as against his successors in title. A more important part of the Act is that concerned with leases. Power is now given to grant leases for terms not exceeding twenty-one years without notice to the trustees, and to make the rent reserved in mining leases vary according to the price of minerals. By sect. 7: A lease for a term not exceeding twenty-one years at the best rent that can be reasonably obtained without fine, and whereby the lessee is not exempted from pun ishment for waste, may be made by a tenant for life (i.) Without any notice of an intention to make the same having been given under section forty-five of the Act of 1882; and (ii.) Notwithstanding that there are no trustees of the settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts 1882 to 1890; and (ill.) By any writing under hand only containing an agreement instead of a covenant by the lessee for payment of rent in cases where the term does not extend beyond three years from the date of the writing. And by sect. 8: In a mining lease (i.) The rent may be made to vary according to the price of the minerals or substances gotten, or any of them; (ii.) Such price may be the saleable value, or the price or value appearing in any trade or market or other price list or return from time to time, or may be the marketable value as ascertained in any manner prescribed by the lease (including a reference to arbitration), or may be an average of any such prices or values taken during a specified period. Power is also given by sect. 9 to reserve a rentcharge on a grant in fee simple. Where on a grant for building purposes by a tenant for life the land is expressed to be conveyed in fee simple, with or subject to a reservation thereout of a perpetual rent or rentcharge, the reservation shall operate to create a rentcharge in fee simple issuing out of the land conveyed, and having incidental thereto all powers and remedies for recovery thereof conferred by section forty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881, and the rentcharge so created shall go and remain to the uses, on the trusts, and subject to the powers and provisions which, immediately before the conveyance, were subsisting with respect to the land out of which it is reserved. One of the rocks upon which the Bill nearly foundered was that of the mansion-house and park. By the well-known sect. 15 of the Act of 1882, the principal mansion-house on any settled land, with the demesnes thereof and the other lands usually occupied therewith, cannot be sold or leased by the tenant for life without the consent of the trustees of the settlement or an order of the court. This provision has given rise to much difficulty, and has been construed to include farmhouses and town houses. It has therefore been repealed by sect. 10 of the new Act, and in future no farmhouse and no house with park and pleasure grounds less than twenty-five acres in extent (the original proposal fixed the limit at a hundred acres) will be deemed a principal mansion-house for the purposes of sale, exchange, or lease. The law on this subject is now comprised in two sentences: (2.) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1882, the principal mansionhouse (if any) on any settled land, and the pleasure grounds and park and lands (if any) usually occupied therewith, shall not be sold, exchanged, or leased by the tenant for life without the consent of the trustees of the settlement or an order of the court. (3.) Where a house is usually occupied as a farmhouse, or where the site of any house and the pleasure grounds and park and lands (if any) usually occupied therewith do not together exceed twenty-five acres in extent, the house is not to be deemed a principal mansion-house within the meaning of this section. The raising of money is perhaps the most important subject with which the new Act is concerned. The Incorporated Law Society pointed out that in many counties land is unsaleable, and improvements urgently needed, which could be effected if the trustees happened to have capital money in hand, but not otherwise. Until yesterday there was no authority to raise funds by way of mortgage, except for the purposes of sale or partition. Power is now given to tenants for life to raise money by mortgage for any of the purposes to which capital money arising under the Settled Land Acts is authorised to be applied. By sect. 11: (1.) Where money is required for the purpose of discharging an incumbrance on the settled land or part thereof, the tenant for life may raise the money so required, and also the amount properly required for payment of the costs of the transaction on mortgage of the settled land, or of any part thereof, by conveyance of the fee simple or other estate or interest the subject of the settlement, or by creation of a term of years in the settled land, or any part thereof, or otherwise, and the money so raised shall be capital money for that purpose, and may be paid or applied accordingly. (2.) Incumbrance in this section does not include any annual sum payable only during a life or lives or during a term of years absolute or determinable. This should prove a very useful power. The list of twenty improve. ments authorised out of capital trust money by the Act of 1882, which has been extended by the Acts 48 & 49 Vict. c. 72 and 50 & 51 Vict. c. 30, is now further extended to include (i.) Bridges; (ii) Making any additions to or alterations in buildings reasonably necessary or proper to enable the sanie to be let; (ill.) Erection of buildings in substitution for buildings within an urban sanitary district taken by a local or other public authority, or for buildings taken under compulsory powers, but so that no more money be expended than the amount received for the building taken and the site thereof: (iv.) The rebuilding of the principal mansion-house on the settled land: Provided that the sum to be applied under this sub-section shall not exceed one-half of the annual rental of the settled land. With the experience of the seven years which have run since Lord Cairns' Act became law, it is difficult to conceive that there can be any other form of improvement in at all general use which it is desirable to effect with capital trust money. The power to put the settled land and buildings in such condition as to enable them to be let to the best advantage is unquestionably valuable. Capital money, in court, may now, by sect. 14 of the new Act, be paid out to the trustees of the settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts 1882 to 1890; and power is given to the court by sect. 15 to authorise in proper cases the application of capital money towards payment for improvements, notwithstanding that a scheme was not, before the execution of the improvement, submitted for approval, as required by the Act of 1882, to the trustees of the settlement or to the court. This new rule will obviate the difficulty which was found in Re Hotchkin's Settled Estales (56 L. T. Rep. N. S. 244; 35 Ch. Div. 41), where the work was done without any scheme being submitted either to the trustees or to the court. See also Re Bulwer Lytton's Will; Knebworth Settled Estates (59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 12; 38 Ch. Div. 20). A large discretion will be given to the court to sanction improvements ex post facto, and it is rarely found that a judge's discretion is unwisely exercised. Lastly, as to dealings as between the tenant for life and the estate, the rule is now to be (sect. 12): Where a sale of settled land is to be made to the tenant for life, or a purchase is to be made from him of landto be made subject to the limitations of the settlement, or an exchange is to be made with him of settled land for other land, or a partition is to be made with him of land an undivided share whereof is subject to the limitations |