that the defendants Grant and Graham were bound by the contract note, dated the 24th May 1895, signed on their behalf by the defendants Taysen and Co. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs, and it was agreed at the trial that the amount of the damages should be postponed in the expectation that the parties would be able to agree. No arrangement was made, and the case now came before the learned judge to fix the amount of the damages. The question, therefore, now argued was, What was the measure of damages the plaintiffs were entitled to recover? The learned judge took time to consider his judgment, which he now delivered in writing. The facts were as follows: The contract note was signed on the 24th May 1895. From the time the contract was made the market began to fall, and the buyers, on the 28th May, sent by telegram an ultimatum that, unless the contract was altered as they desired, they would not accept delivery. After an unsuccessful attempt to induce the buyers to go to arbitration, the plaintiffs, on the 24th July 1895, brought their action. Prices had about that time fallen 13d. a quarter, and if the cargo had at that time been sold, the loss to the plaintiffs would have been £1557. The market was still falling, and there was no reason to expect that prices would recover, but the plaintiffs claimed to do nothing until the 5th Sept., the time about which the ship and cargo were expected to arrive, and by that time the difference between the contract and market prices amounted to £3807, a sum for which the plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to judgment. For the plaintiffs, it was contended that the proper measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the price at which the cargo was actually resold after the cargo arrived on the 5th Sept., when the contract was to have been performed, namely, the above sum of £3807: (Frost v. Knight, 26 L. T. Rep. 77; L. Rep. 7 Ex. 111; Brown v. Muller, 27 L. T. Rep. 272; L. Rep. 7 Ex. 319; Roper v. Johnson, 28 L. T. Rep. 296; L. Rep. 8 C. P. 167.) For the defendants, it was contended that the measure of damages was the sum of £1557, the loss which the plaintiffs would have sustained if they had sold when they brought their action, and that the bringing of the action was an acceptance by them of the repudiation of the contract: (Phillpotts v. Evans, 5 M. & M. 475; Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 E. & B. 678.) Held, that the measure of the damages was the £1557, which was the plaintiffs' loss at the date when, by commencing the action, they had accepted the repudiation of the contract, at which time they ought to have sold. [Roth and Co. v. Taysen, Townsend, and Co., and others. Q. B. Div.: Mathew, J. Dec. 9 and 12.-Counsel: Bigham, Q.C. and H. F. Boyd ; Murphy, Q.C. and Tindal Atkinson. Solicitors: Stibbard, Gibson, and Co.; Murray, Hutchins, Stirling, and Murray.] CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES. QUARTER SESSIONS. Bath, Friday, Jan. 3 Hereford, Thursday, Jan. 9 Leicester, Wednesday, Jan. 1 Lincoln, Saturday, Jan. 4 Maidstone, Saturday, Jan. 4 Newcastle-under-Lyme, Friday, Dec. 27 COUNTY COURTS. SITTINGS OF THE COURTS. FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, DEC. 28. Malvern,* Tuesday, at 10 LAW LIBRARY. MR. EFFINGHAM WILSON's last shilling legal handbook deals with Pawnbrokers. Messrs. Chan Toon and John Bruce, barristers, are the compilers. NEW EDITION. The eleventh edition of Lumley's Union Assessment Acts (Shaw and Sons, Fetter-lane, and Butterworth and Co., 7, Fleet-street) has just been issued. This edition, appearing after an interval of fourteen years has elapsed since the last edition was published, has been edited by Mr. W. C. Ryde, and the work we need hardly say has been carefully and ably performed. Mr. Ryde has departed from the plan of the last editor, in that he has omitted from the eleventh edition the practice as to rating in the metropolis; we think this is a matter to be regretted, as, although the practice in the metropolis is different in many respects from that of the rest of the country, it is greatly to be desired that all the statutes and law and practice should be available in one volume as in the former edition. The editor has written a new introduction, in which a concise account is given of the practice in making out the valuation lists and in appeals against them or against the rate. The notes are clear, and the decisions up to 1895 are incorporated in them. An appendix gives, for the first time, some forms for notices of objections and of appeal. BOOKS RECEIVED. The Medico-Legal Journal for June 1895. Clark Bell, 57, Broadway, New York. Wilson's Digest of Anglo-Muhammadan Law. W. Thacker and Co., 87, Newgate-street. Whittaker's Windsor Peerage, Baronetage, and Knightage, 1896. Whittaker and Co., White Hart-street, Paternoster-row. 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 Co. (Carter Bros.), 65, Victoria-street, Westminster. Fee, for a London house, 2 guineas; Country by arrangement. (Established 1875.)—[Advt.] PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE PROFESSION. IN Bankruptcy, on the 12th inst., before Mr. Registrar Hope, a sitting was held for public examination under the bankruptcy of Thomas Wallace Goldring, formerly carrying on business as a solicitor in Abchurch-lane, and at other addresses. The liabilities were returned in the amended statement of affairs at £115,831, of which £89,610 is unsecured, with available assets £91 only. The Official Receiver (Mr. H. Brougham) states that the unsecured liabilities represent debts and obligations extending over the past ten years, and arise chiefly out of unsuccessful financial speculations in which the debtor was interested jointly with others, including £26,000 relating to the late firm of Goldring and Mitchell. Further, that the liabilities appearing as fully secured (£18,015) are also in respect of similar financial transactions, £17,000 of the amount also relating to the same firm. It appears that the debtor was admitted a solicitor, and commenced to practise in 1869, with about £300 capital. He subsequently became a member of different partnerships, and ultimately one of the firm of Goldring and Philips, which was dissolved at the end of the year 1893. Since that date he has remained in the business as salaried manager. He ascribes his insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in respect of speculative transactions and enterprises in which he was jointly interested with other persons, and to expenses in relation to the same, including the costs of continuous bankruptcy and other legal proceedings extending over the last ten years. Mr. H. Brougham attended as Official Receiver; and Brandon appeared for a creditor. The debtor was examined, and, in the course of his evidence, stated that when a former partner (Mr. W. T. Mitchell) retired in August 1893, he was largely indebted to the firm. He had been in. solvent for the last ten years, and about £30,000 of his present liabilities existed in 1885, and he had since contracted liabilities to the extent of £50,000, this amount being made up in a large degree of interest and costs. During 1890-91 he incurred heavy liabilities in connection with various matters of business which he hoped would have enabled him to clear off his debts. He was interested in the contract for the construction of the Hudson Tunnel Railway, and financed the undertaking to a certain extent. He admitted that this was a speculation. Between 1893 and the present year he had made himself liable on bills, principally in connection with various financial undertakings, such as a Mexican railway and a brewery in Huntingdon. These undertakings were not in the nature of his business of a solicitor, but were speculations. None of his liabilities related to his business of a solicitor. The inducement which led him to enter into the financial schemes was that he should make money to enable him to meet the pressure which was constantly being put upon him by means of the Bankruptcy Court. During the last ten years sixty-nine petitions were presented against him, and in the majority of cases he paid £30 for each petition which had been dismissed, although, in some cases, it cost him about £100 a petition. In one instance he had paid costs amounting to £1500, while the debt now stood at its original amount. His household and personal expenditure amounted to about £1000 a year, and he did not consider that was a large sum, as he had to keep up a certain position.-By Brandon: He had never speculated on the Stock Exchange, nor had he underwritten shares or debentures in any undertaking. His HONOUR ordered the examination to be concluded. On the same date, before Mr. Registrar Giffard, the case of Re Cummings was heard. On the 22nd Jan. 1891 an order of discharge was granted to Henry Cummings, then described as of the Royal Princess's Theatre, Oxford-street, subject to the condition that he should set aside his income in excess of £250 per year until a dividend of 5s. in the pound had been paid to his creditors.-H. Reed, Q.C. and F. C. Willis now applied on his behalf for a modification of the order in question; the trustee (Mr. Hasluck) appeared in person; and Mr. G. Wreford as senior official receiver. The evidence showed that since the date of the order the debtor had obtained an official appointment from which he derived an income of about £440 a year. In consequence, however, of the expenses incidental to the illness of his wife and to the office which he held, he had been unable to set aside any portion of his salary for the benefit of his creditors. It appeared that the debtor formerly practised as a solicitor at Derby, and that his failure was brought about through his being misled by another person, and becoming involved in liabilities in relation to the Royal Princess's Theatre. His HONOUR, after considerable argument, decided to rescind his former order, but directed the debtor to file an affidavit every eighteen months setting out the amount of his income and property, with liberty to the official receiver to apply for an order requiring the debtor to pay to the trustee such an amount as the court might consider right. On Saturday last, at Leeds, before Grantham, J., Fred Willans Farrer, solicitor, was charged under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 3, with threatening to publish a libel upon George Walter Hirst with intent to extort money and certain valuable things from George Wilson Hirst, the father of George Walter Hirst; and further with proposing to abstain from publishing a libel touching George Walter Hirst with the same intent; and further with publishing a libel upon George Walter Hirst at Huddersfield on the 9th Aug.-Bankes prosecuted; and the defendant was represented by C. Mellor and Palmer. The facts stated by Bankes were that George Walter Hirst was convicted at the last assizes at Leeds under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. The defendant, who carried on his practice at Huddersfield under the style of Craven and Farrer, conducted the defence, and instructed counsel on behalf of the prisoner. On the 9th Aug. the defendant wrote a letter in the name of his firm to George Wilson Hirst, the material part of which was in the following terms: "It was distinctly put to him (George Walter Hirst) that we would not undertake his defence for a less sum than £150 for our fees and all costs out of pocket. We have received from you £105 on account of George Walter Hirst's costs, and we have demanded that you should hand over the goods in your possession the property of the said George Walter Hirst, which you have declined to do, notwithstanding the fact that you have no title thereto and that you are thereby causing us loss in the realisation. Your son, W. H. Hirst, was present when the above bargain was made. We have now finally to ask you to allow the effects of the said George Walter Hirst to be handed over to our nominee-viz., Mr. Frank Smith, auctioneer, Huddersfield-before 11 a.m. to-morrow, and, this failing, we have instructed our solicitors to make immediate application to adjudicate George Walter Hirst a bankrupt, and we shall prove for the full amount of our claim and costs out of pocket that we have actually paid and can vouch for. We have in our possession at the present time a confession in G. W. Hirst's handwriting of indecent conduct with thirteen lads other than those for offences against whom he has already been convicted, and your present conduct towards me now is ill-calculated to induce me to keep such information to ourselves. However, if this matter leaves our hands, which it assuredly will if it be not settled by 10.30 to-morrow, you must take the consequences of your own folly, for in that event we shall not deviate one farthing from the price we originally contracted to take the case for." After the trial, an account was delivered to George Wilson Hirst, which purported to show the actual cost of the trial. It was stated to amount to £160 11s. 6d., but as the charges appeared excessive Mr. Hirst declined to pay the balance alleged to be due to the defendant, and returned the account. The payment of fees to counsel was put down at £60 18. In point of fact cheques to the extent of £40 1s. only had been paid to counsel, and out of this sum a cheque for £12 38. 6d. had been dishonoured. Mr. Hirst, the father, denied that he had ever agreed to pay the defendant the sum of £150, and also out-ofpocket expenses. No evidence was given on behalf of the defendant, but Mellor urged that the letter would not bear the construction it was sought to put upon it, and that the defendant wrote in the honest belief that the alleged balance was due. The learned Judge said that the allegation in the letter as to the supposed confession by the son was capable of being construed as a libel, and he had no doubt that the jury would find that it was one. No justification was pleaded as to the libel, and therefore it must be taken to be untrue. His Lordship strongly commented on the fact that the original account had not been produced, although it was proved that it had been seen on the defendant's desk after it had been sent back by Mr. Hirst. 'The jury found the defendant guilty on all the counts of the indictment. The learned Judge said he could not say what might be done in the matter by the Incorporated Law Society, but in his opinion the defendant was unfit to be a member of the honourable profession to which he belonged. His Lordship sentenced the defendant to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour. AT Westminster, on the 11th inst., William Ernest Horseman, clerk, of Fryland-road, East Dulwich, appeared to summonses at the instance of the Incorporated Law Society, charging him with pretending to be a solicitor. The proceedings were taken under sect. 12 of the Solicitors Act 1874, Humphreys, who prosecuted, stating that the defendant wrote letters to a man named Petts, demanding payment of a sovereign which he had borrowed on an IO U from a relative of his wife's. In the first letter the expression was used "I shall institute proceedings," and in the second the phrase "proceedings will be taken in the County Court."-For the defence, the lender of the money deposed that Horseman wrote the letters for him out of kindness, he being an illiterate person. The witness said that he never paid the defendant for his services, and that no money was asked for or expected. Mr. DENMAN said the defendant had sailed very near the wind, and he should advise him not to go so near again. He did not think on the decided cases that he should be right in convicting, and therefore he dismissed the summons. MR. W. S. SMITH, solicitor, of Cheltenham and Winchcombe, underwent his public examination at Cheltenham on Thursday, the 12th inst., before Mr. O. J. Williams, registrar. The liabilities are £854, and the assets about £20. Debtor explained that a large proportion of his indebtedness was brought about by his endeavours to realise the equity of redemption in his late father's estate, which was in the Court of Chancery. The mortgagees had called in their money, and he had visited nearly every town in the country to try and get a new mortgage. But for a little hitch a Manchester firm would have lent £11,000 at 4 per cent., and there would have been sufficient to pay off all the old mortgagees. He had put down £100 as the amount of his losses in an action for slander which he had brought at the Gloucester Assizes against Mr. H. G. Margrett; but that did not represent the injury done to his business by the circumstances leading to the action. A juror was withdrawn, and each side had to pay their own costs. He had gambled to some extent in the hope of recovering his position. Before the action his earnings were considerably over £160 a year, though he had never paid income tax nor sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer any conscience money. He had kept no books of account nor any regular record of legal business done for his clients, and was in this matter acting on the advice given by Sir George Lewis in an article in the Strand Magazine. The bankrupt passed his examination. ON the 16th inst., in the Court of Appeal, before Lindley, Smith, and Rigby, L.JJ., the case of Harbin v. Masterman was heard. This was an appeal against a decision of Stirling, J., which directed the payment out of court of the greater part of the residue of the estate of a testator named John Francis Duncan, who died in 1865, to five charities, to which the residue was in effect bequeathed subject to certain annuities. One of the annuities was of £150 to a Mrs. Venables. The testator by his will directed the accumulation of the surplus income of his estate, and that from and after the decease of the survivor of the annuitants the trust funds and the accumulations should be converted into money, which was to be held on trust for the charities. This suit was instituted for the administration of the testator's estate, and it was decided in 1881 by the late Wickens, V.C., that the five charities were entitled to the residue of the testator's personal estate. Sums of Consols were carried over to separate accounts to provide for the payment of the various annuities, inter alia, a sum of £6000 to provide for the annuity to Mrs. Venables. A question arose afterwards who was entitled to the accumulations of the income made during the period of twenty-one years from the testator's death (the period allowed by the Thellusson Act), the accumulations being claimed by the next of kin of the testator. It was decided by Stirling, J. (and his decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and ultimately by the House of Lords) that the five charities (not the next of kin) were entitled to the accumulations and surplus income. The five charities then petitioned for the payment of the residue in court to them, other than the sums set apart to answer the annuities. This application was not opposed by any of the annuitants, except Mrs. Venables, on whose behalf it was contended that the whole residue ought to remain in court during her life. Stirling, J. ordered that £2000 should remain in court, as an additional security to Mrs. Venables, and that it should not be paid out without notice to her. From this order an appeal was presented on behalf of Mrs. Venables. The appeal was heard last week, when judgment was reserved. Graham Hastings, Q.C. and Johnston Edwards were for the appellant. Fischer, Q.C. and Dickinson; Hadley; H. Fellows; and Buckley, Q.C. and T. B. Napier were for the different charities. In the interval between the hearing of the appeal and the delivery of judgment the Court, not being satisfied that the appeal had really been presented in the interest of Mrs. Venables, directed the official solicitor to inquire into the matter, and in the result the Court intimated to Mr. HoodBarrs, the appellant's solicitor, that they desired to hear him upon the question whether they should not order him, under the power conferred by rule 11 of Order LXV. of the Rules of Court, to indemnify his client against the costs of the appeal. The Court now dismissed the appeal, with costs to be paid by the appellant, giving, however, only one set of costs to the charities. LINDLEY, L.J. said it was obvious that the sum of £8000 set aside was ample to secure Mrs. Venables' annuity. But it was argued that the court had no jurisdiction to order the residuary estate to be distributed, because the annuity was charged upon the residue, that it was after payment of the annuity that the estate was to be divided, and that until the annuitant was dead it could not be said that the annuity had been paid. According to the strict language of the will no doubt that was so. But what was the meaning of a will so expressed? It was a gift of the annuity subject to the payment of the annuity, and under such circumstances, if ample provision was made for the payment of the annuity, it had been the universal practice of the court to allow the residuary legatees to have that which was theirs. This had been done since the LINDLEY, L.J. informed him of the course which had been adopted by the court, and invited him to explain and defend his conduct in the matter. Mr. Hood-Barrs then addressed the court at some length in his own defence, contending that he had not acted from any improper motive in advising his client to appeal, and asserting that one great motive was to put pressure on the charities to induce them to forego the costs of the appeal to the House of Lords, which the next of kin (for whom he had acted) had been ordered to pay to the charities, and for which costs he had made himself personally responsible. In the course of his speech he made reflections upon the conduct of the official solicitor, and characterised his conduct in going to see Mrs. Venables to inquire into the matter as improper. The Court then made an order that Mr Hood Barrs should indemnify his client against the costs of this appeal, which she has been already ordered to pay to the respondents. LINDLEY, L.J. said that the court now knew, from what Mr. Hood-Barrs had himself said, why the appeal had been brought, and it could not be fairly and properly said to have been brought in the interest of his client. The object was to compel the charities to forego certain costs, for which he had made himself responsible. Although Mrs. Venables had so far authorised the appeal as to make herself liable for costs to the respondents, it was clear that she was a puppet in his hands, and that the appeal was brought for his benefit. The court would have failed in their duty if they had not directed the official solicitor to inquire into the matter, and if they did not now apply rule 11 of Order LXV. If ever there was a case in which that rule should be applied, this was the case. It was proved up to the hilt that the appeal was not brought for the benefit of the client, but in order to compel the charities to come to an arrangement with the solicitor, to which they were under no obligation to come. SMITH, L.J. concurred. He said that the official solicitor had only carried out the instructions which the court were bound to give him. It was clear that Mrs. Venables had no interest in the appeal, except as regards costs. It was brought for the purpose of inducing the charities to forego their claim to certain costs. If ever there was a case for making an order under rule 11 this was the one. RIGBY, L.J. also concurred. It would, he said, be absurd to suppose that Mr. Hood-Barrs imagined that Mrs. Venables' interest was in any way concerned in the appeal. It was clear now that he had a direct personal interest in it, or, at any rate, that he believed that his own pocket would be benefited if he could impose on the charities terms which would relieve him from costs for which he had become liable. The suggestion was made by him to his client that she should lend her name for the purpose. It was startling that a solicitor, an officer of the court, should come into court and openly avow this, in apparent unconsciousness of the impropriety. It was no part of the duty of a respectable solicitor to induce his client to lend her name, in a proceeding in which she had no interest, to serve the solicitor's private ends. This was an abuse of the practice. The court would have failed in their duty if they had not instructed the official solicitor to find out facts which they would not otherwise have known. The official solicitor had not exceeded his instructions, and his Lordship protested against the idea that the court was bound by any etiquette between solicitors to shut its eyes to the facts of the case. His Lordship concurred in the proposed order. AT Wrexham Borough Police-court, on the 17th inst., Mr. John Lewis, solicitor, of Wrexham, one of the oldest practising solicitors in North Wales, was charged with appropriating to his own use and contrary to good faith the sum of £450 intrusted to him for an object specified in writing.-Cartwright, Chester, conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and S. Moss, barrister, defended.-For the prosecution, it was alleged that in December last defendant obtained the sum of £450 from the Rev. Thomas Williams, vicar of St. Mark's, Connah's Quay, on the pretence of investing it at 5 per cent. in a mortgage loan on the Royal Oak inn, land, and four houses at Bangor-ysCoed, Flintshire. Instead of the investment being executed it was alleged that defendant applied part of the money to meet a demand upon himself for certain trust moneys amounting to £310 odd, and it was shown that prior to obtaining the amount alleged to have been appropriated his banking credit only amounted to £15. For the defence, it was contended that, although the defendant had acted negligently, his intentions had been perfectly honest and bond fide.-The Bench decided that a primâ facie case had been established, and committed the defendant for trial at the next Flintshire Assizes. STAMMERERS of all ages, and parents of stammering children, should read a book written by a gentleman who cured himself after suffering nearly forty years. Post free, 13 stamps, from Mr. B. BEASLEY, Brampton Park, Huntingdon, or SHERWOOD, Willesden-lane, Brondesbury, London. -[ADVT.] [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months from the date given, unless other claimants sooner appear.] SMITH (Samuel), 17, Stanley-st, Paddington; PEGG (Charles), 31, Great Coram-st, Russell-sq, gentleman; and DAWSON (Florence), a minor (now of age), £20 17s. 10d. £2 15s. per Cent. Consolidated Stock, late Consolidated Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimants, C. Pegg and F. Dawson, the survivors. Dec. 11. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. CRABTREE (William James Lee), Devonshire-st, Keighley, Yorkshire, printer and stationer. His next of kin to send in, by Jan. 16, the particulars of their claims to Messrs. Wright and Waterworth, solicitors, Devonshire-bldgs, Keighley. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. BIRKS PATENT COMPANY LIMITED. Whereas the above-named company is being wound-up voluntarily in consequence of its business having been purchased by Birks Manufacturing Company Limited. All creditors of the company to send in by Dec. 31, particulars of their claims, to Birks Manufacturing Company Limited, King's-pl, Stoney-st, Nottingham. Maples and McCraith, 22, Low-pavement, Nottingham, solicitors to the liquidator. FREDERICK WALTON'S MOSAIC LINOLEUM COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 1, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. Bowley, 114, Holborn, the liquidator of the company. R. Hewlett, 31, Essex-st, Strand, solicitor to the liquidator. HERCULITE AND ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED. Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up made by Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams on Dec. 4. W. H. Dale, 46, Finsbury-circus, solicitor for the petitioners. KENNINGTON CONSERVATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 81, particulars of their claims to Mr. F. P. Baxter, Bartholomew House, Bartholomewla, the liquidator of the company. LIVERPOOL HOTEL AND PUBLIC SUPPLY STORES COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 20, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. Picken, 2 to 8, Church-st, Liverpool, liquidator of the company. Collins, Robinson, and Driffield, 26, Castle-st, Liverpool, solicitors for the liquidator. LIVERPOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 20, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. F. Hilditch, 5, Cook-st, Liverpool, the liquidator of the company. H. Forshaw and Hawkins, 5, Castle-st, Liverpool, solicitors for the liquidator. LOUISIANA RED RIVER LAND AND TIMBER COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 1, full particulars of their claims to Mr. W. Harvie, 115, Palmerstonbldgs, Old Broad-st, the voluntary liquidator of the company. Jan. 8, at twelve o'clock, at the aforesaid offices, is the time appointed for adjudicating upon such claims, when all securities must be produced. MORRISTON COAL AND COKE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 18, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. B. Davies, 58, Wind-st, Swansea, the liquidator of the company. MULTIPLE INNER SELVAGE MACHINE COMPANY.-Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up made by His Honour Judge Parry in the Lancashire County Court holden at Manchester on Nov. 29, and it was ordered that Peter Gregson, of 57, Princess-st, Manchester, chartered accountant, be appointed liquidator. Sampson and Price, 1, Princess-st, Albert-sq, Manchester, solicitors for the petitioner. MERTHYR VULCAN FOUNDRY and EngineERING COMPANY LIMITED. 1 Creditors to send in, by Dec. 31, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. C. E. Dovey, 31, Queen-st, Cardiff, the liquidator of the company. MILLION STORES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 20, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. Picken, 2 to 8, Church-st, Liverpool, the liquidator of the company. Collins, Robinson, and Driffield, 26, Castle-st, Liverpool, solicitors for the liquidator. METROPOLITAN AND PROVINCIAL DIRECT FISH SUPPLY ASSOCIATION LIMITED. SWINDON JUNCTION HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 31, their CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. BUERSIL COTTON SPINNING COMPANY LIMITED.-Holders of mortgage debentures issued by the above company to send in their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims by Jan. 15, to H. D. Eshelby, chartered accountant, 24, North John-st, Liverpool. Claimants to produce their debentures on Jan. 23, at the chambers of the Registrar of the Liverpool District of the County Palatine of Lancaster, 9, Cook st, Liverpool, at eleven o'clock. FOULKES (Peter Everard), formerly of Shebbear, Devonshire, then of Humansdorp, Cape of Good Hope. March 16; Bridges, Sawtell, Heywood, Ram, and Dibdin, solicitors, 23, Red Lion-sq. March 23; Mr. Justice Kekewich, at twelve o'clock. HORTON (David), 13. Edmund-st, Leeds, bus proprietor. Jan. 27 T. Marshall, Registrar of the Yorkshire County Court holden at Leeds. Jan. 27; the Registrar aforesaid, at half-past eleven o'clock. Moss (William Holland), Lees-st, Sandbed, Mossley, Yorkshire, innkeeper. Jan. 11; J. H. Lawton, solicitor, 52, Stamford-rd, Mossley. Jan. 21; the Registrar of the Manchester District of the County Palatine of Lancaster, Duchy-chmbrs, Clarence-st, Manchester, at eleven o'clock. PEAK (James), 272, Moss-la, East Moss Side, Lancashire. Jan. 17: R. Hilditch, solicitor, 10, Kennedy-st, Manchester. Jan. 27: the Registrar of the Manchester District of the County Palatine of Lancaster, Duchy-chmbrs, Olarence-st, Manchester, at eleven o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. APPELBEE (Robert), 12, Alexandra-st, Sherwood Rise, Nottingham, gentleman. Jan. 15; Wells and Hind, solicitors, 20, Fletcher-gate, Nottingham. BRACHI (Peter), Brook House, Southgate. Hertfordshire. Jan. 13; Taylor and Rowley, solicitors, 34 and 36. Gresham-st. BRITTAIN (Richard), Summer Hill, near Newport, Salop, gentleman. Jan. 23; R. N. Heane, solicitor, Newport, Salop. BURTON (Jane), 11, St. Paul's-sq, Southsea, Hampshire, wife of E. F. Burton. Jan. 13; R. W. Sherwin, solicitor, 30, Commercial-rd, Portsmouth. BROWN (Robert), 20 and 21, Williamson-sq. Liverpool, and of the Oaks. Litherland Park, Litherland, Lancashire, fringe manufacturer. Jan. 20; North, Kirk, and Cornett, solicitors. 15, Lord-st, Liverpool. BURTON (Alfred), 4, St. Mary's-ter, Hastings, Sussex. formerly a wine merchant's manager. Jan. 18; F. W. Morgan, solicitor, 9, Wellington-pl, Hastings. BODY (George). Landkey, Devonshire, builder. Jan. 15; Bencraft and Bosson, solicitors, Quay-pl. Barnstaple. BIDDULPH (Anthony John Wright), Burton Park, near Petworth, Sussex, gentleman. Feb. 20; Gordon and Dalbiac, solicitors, 2, Bedford-row. BIRKIN (Sophie Annie). Fernleigh, 32, Oxford-rd, Putney, Surrey, widow. Jan. 28; E. Gardner, 6, New-sq, Lincoln's-inn. CHANDLER (Eliza), 4, St. Helen's-rd, Hastings. Sussex, widow. Jan. 31; Davenport, Jones, and Glenister, solicitors, 8, Bank-bldgs, Hastings. CABLE (John), St. John's Villa, Stoke-next-Guildford, Surrey, gentleman. Jan. 31; Smallpeice and Co., solicitors, Guildford. CHAPMAN (Edwin), Alton Southampton, hootmaker. Jan. 4; J. W. Chapman, one of the executors, Crown Hill, Alton, Hants. A. F. M. Downie, solicitor, Alton, Hants. CROSSMAN (Robert Leonard), formerly of Rockville, Tenby, Pembrokeshire, but lately residing at the Coburg hotel, Tenby, gentleman. Jan. 6; Crossman and Prichard, solicitors. 16, Theobald's-rd, Gray's-inn. CLEGG (John Edward), Staincliffe Bottom, Batley, Yorkshire. Jan. 1; C. E. O. Walker, solicitor, 1, Mitre ct, Temple. DANIELL (Caroline Harriett), Imperial-mansions, 57, Cromwell-rd, widow. Jan. 17; Gedge, Kirby, and Millett, solicitors, 11, Great George-st, Westminster. DORRELL (Charles Frederick). 24, Barry-rd, East Dulwich, Surrey. superintendent registrar of births, marriages, and deaths. Jan. 13; J. C. Button and Co., solicitors. London and County Bank House, Covent Garden. DAVIES (Benjamin), Thorn Tree House, Newport, Monmouthshire, doctor of medicine. DAWKINS (Mary), formerly of Croydon, Surrey, late of Lion Lodge, Old Steine, ELLIS (Walter John). Warwick Lodge, 114, Peckham-rye, and of 3. Bedale-st, Borough EVE (George), Fox Hall, Corbets Tyne, Upminster, Essex, farmer. Jan. 21; A. H. Hunt and Co., solicitors, Romford. FUDGE (Henry James), Prospect House, Fairfield-rd, Montpelier, and of Midland-rd, St. Philip and Jacob, both in Bristol, saddler and licensed victualler. Jan. 24; Sibly and Dickinson, solicitors, 6. Exchange West, Bristol. FOURNY (Jules Auguste), 19, Spring-st, Kingston-upon-Hull, marine surveyor. Feb. 1; Barker and Mayfield, solicitors, Temple-bldgs, Bowlalley-la, Hull. GILES (Mary Ellen), Cherwell Lodge, Oxford, widow. Dec. 31; Beachcroft, Thompson, and Co., solicitors. 9, Theobald's-rd. GILBERT (Benjamin), Radford Fields, Rouselench, Worcestershire, farmer. Jan. 6; S. and S. J. Tombs, solicitors, Townhall, Droitwich. GOODFELLOW (Betty). Stockport-rd, Hyde, Cheshire, widow. Feb. 12; Hibbert and GRIPPPER (Edward). Ivy Bank, Mansfield-rd. Nottingham, brick manufacturer. GOFF (Robert), 9, Islington-rd, Bedminster, Bristol. Jan. 13; J. W. Bolton, solicitor, 2, Queen Anne-bldgs, Baldwin-st, Bristol. HALL (Mary), 15, Cedar-rd. Thorpe, Norwich, spinster. Jan. 14; Leathes Frior, solicitor, St. Giles-st, Norwich. HEWITT (Charles Hardcastle), 22, Cotham-rd, Bristol, gentleman. Jan. 28; Abbot, Pope, Brown, and Abbot, solicitors, Shannon-ct, Bristol. HUBBARD (Thomas), Belton, Suffolk, gentleman. Jan. 31; E. T. Ayers, solicitor, 13, Regent-st, Great Yarmouth. HAWARD (Edward John), Colchester, Essex, and of Windsor, Berkshire. Jan. 12; Wittey and Denton, solicitors, Colchester. HOLMAN (William Robert), 157, Ladbroke-grove, Paddington, London, horsedealer. formerly of 35, Craven-rd, Paddington. Jan. 14; T. Richards, solicitor, 41, Finsbury-sq. HINTON (James), Itchen Abbas, Hampshire, thatcher. Jan. 14; E. Dowling, solicitor, 13, Jewry-st. Winchester. HATHAWAY (Albert Henry), Lower Fold, Highfield, Pemberton, Lancashire, gardener. HOLLYMAN (Charles Henry), formerly of 189, Bute-rd, Cardiff, Glamorganshire, baker JEFFERY (Amelia), Rock House, Woodbury Park-rd, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, widow. Feb. 1; Stileman, Neate, and Toynbee, solicitors, 16, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury-sq. JONES (Samuel), 16, George-st, Oldham, Lancashire, eating-house keeper. Jan. 17; LANSDALE (Robert), Booth Hall, Boothstown, near Manchester, gentleman. Jan. 31; solicitors, 3, South-sq, Gray's-inn. Jan. 6; Peacock and Goddard, LAWS (John), 54, St. James-st, Dover, Kent; Feb. 1; Stilwell and Harvy, solicitors, 4, St. James-st, Dover. LIESCHING (Louis Frederick), 17, Upper Grosvenor-rd, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, formerly of the Ceylon Civil Service. Jan. 9; J. Eldridge and Sons, solicitors, Newport, Isle of Wight. MADELEY (Thomas), 212, Stratford-rd, Birmingham, gentleman. Jan. 1; Foster and Kendrick, solicitors, 13, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham. MATHER (James Chadwick), Beech Mount, Ellesmere Park. Eccles, Lancashire, gentleman. Jan. 31; Sale, Seddon, and Co, solicitors, 29, Booth-st, Manchester. MENENDEZ (Don Ramon Antonia), 52, Calle de la Camera Aviles, Spain. merchant. Jan. 31; Meredith, Roberts, and Mills, solicitors, 8, New-sq, Lincoln's-inn. MERE (Henrietta Ann), formerly of Easterland, Sampford Arundell, Somerset, afterwards of 2, Wood-view, Broomy Hill, Hereford, late of Montrose-villa, Longtongrove-rd, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, widow. Jan. 14; E. Lee Micnell, solicitor, Wellington, Somerset. MARTIN (Sarah), Ormskirk, Lancashire, spinster. Jan. 23; Leo, Kennedy, and Glover. solicitors, Ormskirk. MELVILL (Sir Peter Melvill), 27, Palmeira-sq, Brighton, Sussex, K.C.B., major-general MCMECKAN (James), Camberwell, near Melbourne, Victoria. Sladen, and Wing, solicitors, i, Delahay-st, Westminster. MCCLOSKIE (William John), Star and Garter hotel, Windsor, Berkshire, hotel keeper. Dec. 31; J. Hopkins and W. J. Duley, 10, Sheet-st, New Windsor. MEAD (Rosina), Metropolitan District Asylum, Caterham, Surrey, widow. Feb. 1; Ford, Lloyd, Bartlett, and Michelmore, solicitors, 38, Bloomsbury-sq. NEWELL (Henry), 14, Garway-rd, Bayswater, gentleman, or his widow. NEWELL (Henrietta Edith), late of 47, Ossington-st, Bayswater. Jan. 17; W. Taylor, solicitor, 59, Lincoln's-inn-filds. OWEN (Daniel), New-st, Mold, Flintshire, tailor and draper. Jan. 1; G. H. Simor, solicitor, Church-la, Mold. PARKINS (Ann), wife of John Parkins, of Hunton, near Bedale, Yorkshire. Jan. 15; F. Brown and Co., chartered accountants, Finkle-chmbrs, Stockton-on-Tees. J. Fowler, solicitor, Finkle-chmbrs, Stockton-on-Tees. PERRY (William Walter), Royal-mews, Steine-st, Brighton, Sussex. Jan. 13; E. F. G. Oxley, solicitor, Prince Albert-chmbrs, 17, Prince Albert-st, Brighton. Sussex. PATERSON (James), 120, Camberwell-rd, cigarette-paper manufacturer. Jan. 25; May, Sykes, and Co., solicitors, Suffolk House, Laurence Pountney-hill. PERRIS, formerly COOPER (Elizabeth Helen), formerly of S9, Lyndhurst-rd, Peckham, late of 4, South Eldon-st, South Shields, Durham, widow. Jan. 20; Edmonds and Co., solicitors, 19, Great Winchester-st. PORTER (John Henderson), 22, Waldegrave-rd, Norwood, Surrey, civil engineer. Dec. 31; H. Pumfrey, solicitor, 14, Paternoster-row. PARKE (Jane Dawson), 34, Sandow-st, Liverpool, Lancashire, spinster. Jan. 31; J. Quinn and Sons, solicitors, 22, Lord-st, Liverpool. PACHA (His Excellency Rustem), Turkish Embassy. 1, Bryanston-sq, ambassador of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan of Turkey to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. Jan. 31; Hollams, Sons, Coward, and Hawksley, solicitors, Mincing-la. PHILLIPS (Robert), 7, Bamborough-grdns, Shepherd's Bush, gentleman. Jan. 15; Taylor and Taylor, solicitors, 10, New Broad-st. RITCHIE (David), formerly of 57, Botanic-rd, Liverpool, Lancashire, late of 6, Malta-ter, Edinburgh, retired silk mercer. Jan. 21; Oakshott and Barter, solicitors, 26, Castle-st, Liverpool. SHAW (Thomas), Shanghai, China, formerly of Saltcoats, Ayr, Scotland, master mariner. Dec. 31; Blount, Lynch, and Petre, solicitors, Fitzalan House, Arundel-st, Strand. SCOTT (Septimus Horace), The Limes, Marlborough-rd, St. Alban, stockbroker. SMITH (Mary Elizabeth), Walcot Lodge, Putney, Surrey, widow. Jan. 18; Wells and SINCLAIR (Thomas), 1. Liverpool-st, Dover, Kent, gentleman, or his widow, Sinclair (Grace Maria). Feb. 1: Mowll and Mowll, solicitors, Dover. SANDERS (Thomas), formerly of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, late of Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, gentleman. Feb. 1: B. H. Sanders, solicitor, Bromsgrove. SAINSBURY (Sarah Ann Padwick), formerly of Chichester, Hampshire, late of Duxford, Cambridgeshire, spinster. Feb. 7; Ginn and Matthew, solicitors, 63, St. Andrew's-st, Cambridge. TISO (James), Walton Lodge, 130A, Hatfield-ter, Emscote-rd, Warwick, retired innkeeper. Feb. 15; Handley, Brown, and Ledbrook, solicitors, 10, Northgate-st, Warwick. VANDER BYL (Pieter Gerhard). High Beeches, Farnborough, Surrey, merchant. Dec. 31; Fladgate and Co, solicitors, Craig's-ct, Charing Cross. WINTLE (Charlotte), Abbey Villa, 5, Badminton-rd, Bristol, formerly of Gloucester.rd, Horfield, widow. Jan. 28; Abbot, Pope, Brown, and Abbot, solicitors, Shannon-ct, Bristol. WARING (Walter Thomas), il, Greencroft-grdns, South Hampstead, and of the Athenæum Club, also of Green-st, Green Farm, Orpington, Kent, gentleman. Jan. 20; A. Scott, 72, Avonmore-rd. West Kensington." WESSEL (Caroline), 55, Hohestrasse, Cologne, Germany, widow of Jacob Wessel. Jan. 18; Rehders and Higgs, solicitors, 29, Mincing-la. WOOD (William), Stanley Wood House, Astley-st, Dukinfield, Cheshire, bobbin manufacturer and cotton yarn doubler. Jan. 31; J. Domakin, solicitor, 33, King-st, Manchester. WOLLEY (Thomas Hickman), Abcott, Clungunford, Salop, farmer. Jan. 20; T. J. Wolley, Clungunford, Salop. WASHER (Rev. Rupert Edgar), Walton Vicarage, Ipswich, Suffolk, vicar of Walto... Jan. 15; Payne and Fuller, solicitors, 5 and 6, Old King-st, Bath. WEST (Joseph), Bondhay Farm, Whitwell, Derbyshire, farmer. Feb. 1; Hodding and Co., solicitors, Worksop. WILLIAMS (Catherine), Shipton Gorge, Dorset, wife of James Williams. Jan 17; J. J. Roper, solicitor, Bridport, Dorset. LAW SOCIETIES. SOLICITORS' MANAGING CLERKS' ASSOCIATION. THE third annual dinner of the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association was held on Wednesday at the Holborn Restaurant. The chair was taken by Mr. F. Treharne Davies, a member of the council of the association, and nearly 130 gentlemen sat down, amongst whom were: Mr. Bucknill, Q.C., M.P., Mr. R. Bramwell Davis, Q.C., Mr. J. Wreford Budd (president of the Incorporated Law Society), Mr. C. Binney (chief clerk Mr. Justice Chitty), Mr. W. Binns Smith (chief clerk Mr. Justice Stirling), Mr. W. Melmoth Walters (past-president of the Incorporated Law Society), Mr. Astbury, Q.C., Mr. Macnaghten, Mr. Godfrey (Chancery Registrar), Mr. Abinger, Mr. Rubinstein. The CHAIRMAN gave the health of "The Queen and the other Members of the Royal Family," not forgetting the infant prince who had lately arrived. Mr. T. T. BUCKNILL, Q.C., M.P., proposed the toast of "The Association." He said that, though he had been at the bar for a quarter of a century, he felt some hesitation at addressing such a great assembly, where every word one might say would be either specially demurred to or particularly criticised. The association was in good health and sturdy strength, and, better still, its financial position was excellent. What was more, that was attributable, to a very great extent, to the efforts, the hard work, and the unselfishness in the expenditure of valuable time and of a great deal of trouble on the part of its present president, Mr. Cairns. The association was very sorry that Mr. Cairns had found that it was not competent for him to continue the presidency. Certain he (Mr. Bucknill) was of two things-viz., that the most heartfelt gratitude of the association would go out to him as its first president; and secondly, that the association would choose a good man to succeed him. With regard to the object of the association he wanted to say that, looking at the enormous number of managing clerks who breathe and work and have their daily existence, there ought to be a greater number of members of the association. He was not going to say anything except that which was kindly and favourable and grateful from his own point of view to managing clerks. Who had given him his first brief? A managing clerk. Who had instructed him to draw an affidavit, and when he found he could not do it told him how to do it? A managing clerk. He had been looking for him amongst those present. He could tell them his name he was not present, but he was the managing clerk to a big firm in the city. Who used to tell him (Mr. Bucknill) what to say to the master in chambers in the old days of Serjeants'-inn, and how to mislead him? A managing clerk. And who patted him on the back when he won the summons, especially when it was "costs in any event? A managing clerk. Who averted his unhappy face from him when the summons was dismissed with costs? A managing clerk. He declared upon his word of honour that he believed he had learned more from managing clerks than anybody else. He was informed that in the second annual report of the association reference was made to the fact that, as a result of communicatlons to the then Lord Chancellor as to certain proposed new rules, he was pleased to invite the opinion of the association on matters which might be before him. Certain suggestions were thereupon made by the council, some of which were acted upon at the time, and others were reserved for consideration, and the council had reason to know that one or two at least of the reserved suggestions were given effect to during the past year, and this confirmed what he had said. He had no doubt that, if the Lord Chancellor wanted to get to understand the intricacies, the mysteries, and the unintelligibilities of a Land Transfer Bill, he could not do better than call this association before him. Lawyers were a lot of sinners, everybody told him so; but, when he thought that they met at half-past ten in the morning to hate each other where they were opposed, but yet that after the court had risen they again shook hands, he thought that the life of a lawyer was characteristic, and the life of a managing clerk was equally so. He began his professional life in 1865, and he had a great deal to be thankful for to the gentlemen who formed this association. He said this, unhesitatingly, leaving the city as he did when he was but a city clerk, against his father's will, struggling with adversity for many years as he did. He had a fee book now which showed that at the end of his fourth year he made 12 guineas, of which he was paid six. The Statute of Limitations had run against the remainder. If it had not been for the managing clerk he would never have been present to-night. He should probably have been dead long ago with a broken heart. They would know, reading his speech between the lines, that he meant that this association was not only deserving of the best wishes, but of the highest support which could be given to it by the members of the Profession. He wished it long life and increasing strength. It was but three years old and a very promising baby. Whichever way the association was looked at it was most worthy of consideration, and the toast deserved enthusiastic reception. He would couple with the toast the name of the Chairman. The toast having been drunk upstanding and with three times three, The CHAIRMAN, in humorous terms, acknowledged the compliment, quoting various poets to show the estimation in which lawyers were held in the past. He said he could not sit down without referring in sorrow to the death of one of their old friends-the late Mr. Davidson, a taxing master in Chancery. In concluding, he stated that a friend of the association had promised that, if by the 1st Jan. 1897, another hundred members had been enrolled, he would place £100 to its credit to be used for its benefit. The presence of the President of the Incorporated Law Society and of Mr. Walters, was an answer to those solicitors who had thought the association was formed in antagonism to them and the judges. The members of the association desired to work for solicitors, and that they should be trusted and should prove themselves an honour to the Profession to which they belonged. Mr. WM. BRIGGS gave the toast of "The Legal Profession," referring to a number of eminent lawyers of the past, and asserted that the lawyers of to-day could hold their own with them, and that it was a most honourable Profession.. Mr. R. BRAMWELL DAVIS, Q.C. returned thanks. He said, on behalf of the judges, that everybody knew how well they performed their duties. It had been said recently-letters had appeared in the papers-to the effect that the judges did not get up early enough. They ought to come into court at half-past ten, instead of coming there as some did at a quarter to eleven. He believed the Council of the Bar had been to the Lord Chancellor to tell him that he ought to get the judges out of bed a little earlier. It was to be hoped that this would be brought about. It had also been suggested that none of the judges ought to take a holiday on Saturday. But he thought the state of business at the present time permitted this, for if the whole staff of judges were present every day there would be no business for them to do. The difficulty of the Legal Profession was that they had no work to do. The main difficulty was that they could not tell the public that if they brought an action they would be able to get their costs out of the other side if they gained the action. If they brought an action it would probably be more expensive to them than if they left it alone. If this were altered it would be found, he believed, that the courts would be as full of litigation as could be managed. If the Bar Council and the Incorporated Law Society and this association were to bring the matter to the attention of the judges with success, it would be found that the Profession, instead of being in a difficulty as to finding enough to do, would be fully occupied. Mr. J. WREFORD BUDD (President of the Incorporated Law Society) also returned thanks. They would all agree that those who occupied the Bench would bear comparison with the great ones who had gone before them. He mentioned a number of names to show how strong the Bench is at present. The Bench was recruited from the Bar, and there was no lack of able men to fill any vacancy which might arise. The solicitors were brought into intimate contact with their clients, and in the vast majority of cases they had the confidence of their clients, and that confidence was not misplaced. Of the officers of the courts, one and all, it might be said that they lived up to the high standard of faithfully doing their duty. He could speak on behalf of the solicitor branch of the Profession as to how very much they were indebted to their clerks for the conduct of their business. Solicitors were dependent very much more than the outside public knew on their managing clerks for the great services they rendered. So far from feeling antagonistic to the association, they hailed its formation and success with the greatest satisfaction. Solicitors should endeavour to persuade all their managing clerks to become members of the association, which could be productive of nothing but good. "The Mr. EDWARD CAIRNS (president) proposed the health of Visitors," observing that there had never been so forceful a group of guests at these festivals as upon the present occasion. Mr. W. MELMOTH WALTERS responded, expressing his pleasure at the existence of the association. It was founded on exactly the same principle as was the Incorporated Law Society, which was formed to bring solicitors together, and make the disintegrated atoms, the rope of sand, a solid It was good for the members of the association, and for their employers, and for the clients. There was no feeling of antagonism between the solicitor branch and their coadjutors. mass. Mr. C. BURNEY also returned thanks, observing that the association tended to foster good feeling. It created a honest and hearty rivalry of emulation and the esprit de corps, which was the end of all true comradeship. He could imagine nothing that tended more to encourage that accurate knowledge of practice which assisted greatly the quick discharge of business, and nothing which tended more to discourage that abuse of practice which consisted in attempting to trip up an adversary on mere technical points-a system which, more than any other, tended to confuse issues, and to defeat justice by miserable wrangles about mere trivialities. Mr. CHAS. GOULD gave the health of "The Officers,” Mr. A. TURNER (secretary) and Mr. J. WRIGHT (treasurer) returning thanks. Mr. W. BINNS SMITH proposed the health of "The Chairman," that gentleman replying and giving the health of "The Junior Clerks in Chambers," Mr. JOHN RAVEN acknowledging the compliment, and the proceedings terminated. 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. ROBERT BANNATYNE FINLAY, Q.C., M.P., Mr. HARRY BODKIN POLAND, Q.C., and Mr. HENRY HICKS HOCKING, Attorney-General for Jamaica, are formally announced in the London Gazette as having been knighted. Sir FIELDING CLARKE, Chief Justice of Hong-kong, has been appointed Chief Justice of Jamaica. Mr. JOHN WORELL CARRINGTON, Q. C., C.M.G., has been appointed Chief Justice of Hong-kong, in the room of Sir Feilding Clarke, recently appointed to the Chief Justiceship of Jamaica. Mr. F. A. PHILBRICK, Q.C., has been appointed Judge of County Courts (Circuit 55) in the place of His Honour Judge Hooper, deceased. Mr. A. G. MARTEN, Q.C., has been offered and has accepted the vacancy in County Court Circuit No. 37, which will occur at the end of this month by the retirement of His Honour Judge Holl. Mr. DANIEL EVANS, solicitor, Brecon, has been appointed Solicitor to the Ebbw Vale and Sirhowy Colliery Workmen's Association. |