I HOUSTON, CAMPBELL, Manchester, provision merchant. Ct. Manchester. Meeting, Jan. 17. at 3, at Ogden's-chmbrs, Bridge-st, Manchester. Exam. Jan. 20, at 2, at Court-house, Manchester. HORSEFIELD, WILLIAM EDWARD, Preston. late innkeeper. Ct. Preston. Meeting, Jan. 17, at 3.30, at office of Off. Rec. Preston. Exam. Jan. 17, at 11, at County Court-offices, Preston. HILL, THOMAS, Wolverhampton, grocer. Ct. Wolverhampton. Meeting, Jan. 20, at 11.30. at office of Off. Rec. Wolverhampton. Exam. Jan. 20, at 2.30, at County Court, Wolverhampton. INGLEBY, DAVID. Fewston, innkeeper. Ct. Leeds. Meeting, Jan. 20, at 11, at office of KNOWLES, WILLIAM HENRY, Halifax, insurance agent. Ct. Halifax. Meeting, Jan. 20, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Halifax. Exam. Feb. 10, at 11, at County Courthouse, Halifax. KING, JOHN HUDSON, South Gosforth, commission agent. Ct. Newcastle-on-Tyne. Meeting, Jan. 27, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Newcastle-on-Tyne. Exam. Jan. 28, at 11.30, at County Court, Newcastle-on-Tyne. LEUTY, JOHN HENRY CHARD, late Great St. Helen's. Ct. High Court. Meeting, Jan. 21, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 5, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. LIDGETT, ALFRED EDWARD, Lime-st-sq, shipbroker. Ct. High Court. Meeting, Jan. 21, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 5, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. A LOFTHOUSE, OSWALD, St. Mary Axe, commission agent. Ct. High Court. Meeting, Jan. 21, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 5, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. NYCANDER and SNOBOHM, St. Dunstan's-hill. Ct. High Court. Meeting, Jan. 22, at noon, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 14, at 11.30, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. NORMAN, FREDERICK CHARLES, South Shields, photographer. Ct. Newcastle-on Tyne. Meeting, Jan. 22, at 11.80, at office of Off. Rec. Newcastle-on-Tyne. Exam. Jan. 23, at 11.30. at County Court, Newcastle-on-Tyne. PINCHBECK, KENT. York-bldgs, Adelphi, architect. Ct. High Court. Meeting, Jan. 22, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 14, at 11.30, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. PARTON. HENRY BANGER, Cardiff, commission agent. Ct. Cardiff. Meeting, Jan. 21, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Cardiff. Exam. Feb. 21, at 10, at Townhall, Cardiff. 12 ROWLAND, LOUIS WILLIAM, Leeds, tailor. Ct. Leeds. Meeting, Jan. 17, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Leeds. Exam. Feb. 11, at 11, at County Court-house, Leeds. RICHARDS, GEORGE, Tenby, innkeeper. Ct. Pembroke Dock. Meeting, Jan. 18, at 12.30, at office of Off. Rec. Carmarthen. Exam. Jan. 24, at 11.30, at Temperancehall, Pembroke Dock. A SOLOMON, MOSES, Brynmawr, outfitter. Ct. Tredegar. Meeting, Jan. 20, at noon, at 65, High-st, Merthyr Tydfill. Exam. Feb. 7, at 10.30, at County Court, Tredegar. THOMAS, FRANCIS, Aberdare, tailor. Ct. Aberdare. Meeting, Jan. 17, at 2, at 65, High-st, Merthyr Tydfill. Exam. Feb. 10, at 10.30, at Temperance-ball, Aberdare. TOOZE, ARTHUR E., late Pathfield-rd, Streatham Common, Esq. Ct. Brighton. Meeting, Jan. 20, at 2.30, at 24, Railway-approach, London Bridge. Exam. Feb. 13, at 11, at Court-house, Brighton. TAYLOR, JOHN, Honiton, draper. Ct. Exeter. Meeting, Jan. 20, at noon, at the Castle, Exeter. Exam. Feb. 6, at 11, at the Castle, Exeter. WAKE, BENJAMIN BARRY, late Crosby-sq, shipbroker. Ct. High Court. Meeting, WALTON, ISRAEL, Helmshore, yarn agent. Ct. Blackburn. Meeting, Feb. 5, at 2, WILKINSON, AMOS, Newport Pagnell, veterinary surgeon. Ct. Northampton. Meeting, Jan. 18, at 12.30, at County Court-bldgs, Northampton. Exam. Feb. 11, at noon, at County-hall, Northampton. WRIGHT, JOHN THOMAS, Patmore-st, Stewart's-rd, Battersea, turner. Ct. Wands- victualler. Ct. Wolverhampton. Meeting, Jan. 20, at 11, at office of Off. Rec. Wolverhampton. Exam. Jan. 20, at 2.30, at County Court, Wolverhampton. GAZETTE, JAN. 14. ABSE, EDWARD, Bridgend, furniture dealer. Ct. Cardiff. Meeting. Jan. 23, at 3, at BRYAN BROTHERS, Grange-rd, Bermondsey. Ct. High Court. Meeting, Jan. 24, BELL. THOMAS CUTHBERT, jun, Newcastle-on-Tyne, boot dealer. Ct. Newcastle-on- BAMBRIDGE, GEORGE, Griston, farmer. Ct. Norwich. Meeting, Jan. 22, at 3, at office CLARKE, RICHARD LEICESTER, late Lea Bridge-rd, licensed victualler. Ct. High GRIFFITH, HUMPHREY, Pwllheli, gardener. Ct. Portmadoc and Blaenau Festiniog. IRONMONGER, THOMAS, Birmingham, fruit salesman. Ct. Birmingham. Meeting, JONES, ARTHUR, Liverpool, clerk. Ct. Liverpool. Meeting, Jan. 22, at noon, at offic of Off. Rec. Liverpool. Exam. Jan. 23, at 11, at Court-house, Liverpool. JOHNSON, CHARLES, jun., Boxley, contractor. Ct. Rochester. Meeting, Jan. 27, at 10.30, at Bull hotel, Rochester. Exam. Jan. 27, at 2, at Court-house, Rochester. KEMP-WELCH, WILLIAM, late Carter-lane, solicitor. C. High Court. Meeting, Jan. 23, at 2.30, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 14, at noon, at Bankruptcy bldgs. MITCHELL, SAMUEL, Perranzabuloe, miller. Ct. Truro. Meeting. Jan. 21, at 12.30, at office of Off. Rec. Truro. Exam. Jan. 25, at 11.30, at Townhall, Truro. MARDON, JANE (trading as J. Mardon and Son), Ramsgate, lodging-house keeper and printer. Ct. Canterbury. Meeting. Jan. 24, at 9, at office of Off. Rec. Canterbury. Exam. Jan. 24, at 10, at Guildhall, Canterbury. NATHAN, MICHAEL SAMUEL, late Queen Victoria-st, picture dealer. Ct. High Court. Meeting, Jan. 23, at 11, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. Exam. Feb. 14, at 11.30, at Bankruptcy-bldgs. PARSLEY, HARRIET LOUISA, late Pontypridd, hat dealer. Ct. Cardiff. Meeting, TOLLEY, EDMUND. Worcester, innkeeper. Ct. Worcester. Meeting, Jan. 23, at 11.30, NORTHLEDGE, HERBERT, Hulme, beerhouse-keeper. Ct. Manchester. at 11, at Court-house, Manchester. GAZETTE, JAN. 14. Exam. Jan. 27, HOWE, RUPERT BOWN BLUNT, Broadstairs. Ct. Canterbury. Exam. Jan. 24, at 10, ADJUDICATIONS. GAZETTE, JAN. 10. BLACKBURN, JOSIAH, and DAVENPORT, THOMAS, Halifax, slaters. Ct. Halifax. Order, BAMBRIDGE, GEORGE, Griston, farmer. Ct. Norwich. Order, Jan. 7. CLARKE, RICHARD LEICESTER, late Lea Bridge-rd, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court. COHEN, JOSEPH FREEMAN, Great St. Helen's, coal broker. Ct. High Court. Order' Jan. 8. COLE, WILLIAM JOSEPH, Bexhill, builder. Ct. Hastings. Order, Jan. 6. Jan. 7. CORLETT, JAMES HENRY, Leeds, provision merchant's manager. Ct. Leeds. CROSSLEY, ELIZABETH, Birkdale, late schoolmistress, widow. Ct. Liverpool. Order, DHENIN, LEWIS, Cardiff, grocer. Ct. Cardiff. Order, Jan. 6. DAVIS, HYMAN, Leeds, shoe manufacturer. Ct. Leeds. Order, Jan. 7. DUCROQ, JOHN MCFARLANE, Dartmouth, grocer. Ct. Plymouth and East Stonehouse. Order, Jan. 8. ESKRETT, GEORGE, Kingston-upon-Hull, late beerhouse-keeper. Ct. Kingston-upon- ELIAS, ROWLAND, Ruthin, bootmaker. Ct. Wrexham. Order, Jan. 8. HARBRON, JOHN GEORGE, Stockton-on-Tees, baker. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees and HEDGES, DAVID, Walsall, meat salesman. Ct. Walsall. Order, Jan. 3. IRELAND, MARK, and IRELAND, FRANK, Horsham, plumbers. Ct. Brighton. Order, Jan. 7. JAMES, JOHN, Pontycymmer, baker. Ct. Cardiff. Order, Jan. 6. JUPP, HENRY, Tonbridge, nurseryman. Ct. Tunbridge Wells. Order, Jan. 8. LIPSCOMB, LOUIS HENRY, Walthamstow, builder. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 8. MARDON, JANE (trading as J. Mardon and Son), Ramsgate, lodging-house keeper and printer. Ct. Canterbury. Order, Jan. 8. Order, Jan. 7. MOMANUS, THOMAS, Waterloo, dairyman. Ct. Liverpool. Order, Jan. 6. POXON, HYLA JAMES, late Walsall, harness-maker. Ct. Walsall. Order, Jan. 4. SWALE, JOHN, late Eastrington, grocer. Ct. York. Order, Jan. 7. SMITH, ROBERT OWEN, St. Paul's-rd, Highbury, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court. SPARROW, ALBERT, Swineshead, farmer. Ct. Boston. Order, Jan. 7. WHITE, WILLIAM, Wisbech St. Peter, auctioneer. Ct. King's Lynn. Order, Jan. 6. GAZETTE, JAN. 14. ASKEW, JOHN, Stainton, innkeeper. Ct. Kendal. Order. Jan. 11. COOK, THEODORE, Worthing, retired sea captain. Ct. Brighton. Order, Jan. 9. DAVIES, THOMAS, Haverfordwest, draper. Öt. Pembroke Dock. Order, Jan. S. EGGBORO, HARRY, Peterborough, wholesale fish curer. Ct. Peterborough. Order, Jan. 10. GIGGINS, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM, Southend-on-Sea, late greengrocer. Ct. Chelmsford. Order, Jan. 8. GROVE, JOHN WILLIAM. Brockley, late grocer. Ct. Greenwich. Order, Jan. 10. GARDINER, FRANK, St. Leonards-on-Sea, late waggonette proprietor. Ct. Hastings. Order, Jan. 10. HYSON, WILLIAM, Middlesbrough, bootmaker. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees and Middlesbrough. Order, Jan. 8. HENDERSON, FREDERICK SAMUEL, Sunderland, skirt manufacturer. Ct. Sunderland. Order, Jan. 11. HUSSEY, HENRY RICHARD, Tottenham, tailor. Ct. Edmonton. Order, Jan. 9. HILL, JANE, and CHALCROFT, ALEXANDER, Aldershot, coal merchants. Ot. Guildford and Godalming. Order, Jan. 7. JOHNSON, LYDIA, Melbourne, widow. Ct. Derby. Order, Jan. 11. JONES, ARTHUR, Stoneycroft, clerk. Ct. Liverpool. Order, Jan. 11. JOHNSON, CHARLES, jun., Boxley, contractor. Ct. Rochester. Order, Jan. 9. MORGAN, PERCY, Sparkbrook, grocer. Ct. Birmingham. Order, Jan. 11. Jan. 11. Order, NOBLE, ALFRED, Shipley, overlooker. Ct. Bradford. Order, Jan. 9. OGDEN, WILLIAM, Belper, licensed victualler. Ct. Derby. Order, Jan. 10. SPENCER, ROBERT, Bury, hat manufacturer. Ct. Bolton. Order, Jan. 10. VINALL, JONATHAN, St. Leonards-on-Sea. grocer. Ct. Hastings. Order, Jan. 11. Jan. 10. WOOLLEY, WILLIAM EDWARD, late Rotherfield-st, Essex-rd, Islington, horse contractor. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 9. YEATON, CHARLES C., Cannon-st, merchant. Ct. High Court. Order, Jan. 9. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. GALLIE. On the 8th inst., at Thornbury, Shortlands, Kent, the wife of James Butler NAPIER. On the 8th inst., at Singapore, the wife of Walter J. Napier, Barrister-atlaw, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. BARFORD-MOON.-On the 9th inst., at St. Saviour's Church, Paddington, James Golby Barford, only son of William Barford, J. P., of Peterborough, to Florence Burgess, third daughter of Mrs. Moon and of the late William Moon, of 45, Portsdown-rd, W., and Lincoln's-inn-flds. LEE-MOBEAN.-At Jesmond Parish Church, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on the 14th inst., by the Rev. Herbert L. G. Coombs, M.A., Vicar of Thornes, Wakefield, uncle of the bride, assisted by Rev. Percy Lee, M.A., Vicar of Birtley, uncle of the bridegroom, and Rev. S. E. Savage, M.A., Vicar of Jesmond, Arthur Lee, Solicitor, and Deputy-Coroner for East Cumberland, second son of James Blacklock Lee, of Brampton, Solicitor, and Coroner for East Cumberland, to Josephine Crichton (Popsy) McBean. second daughter of S. McBean, M.A., M.D., of Jesmond-rd, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. PATERSON-WINSLOW.-On the 1st inst., at Holy Trinity Church, West-hill, Wandsworth, Edward Hamilton Paterson, Major B.A., son of the late William Paterson, of Monkwood, Ayrshire, to Edith, daughter of T. E. Winslow, Q.C., of Crake Hall, Wimbledon Common. SMITH-GREENSHIELDS.-On the 7th inst., at St. Andrew's the Great, Cambridge, the Rev. James Smith, M.A., youngest son of William Smith, Solicitor. of Sheffield, to Ellen Josephine Greenshields, eldest daughter of S. B. Greenshields, Esq., late of Liverpool, and Mrs. Greenshields, of 57, Regent-st, Cambridge. TAYLOR-PILCHER-On the 8th inst., at St. Jude's Church. Englefield Green, Captain Alexander William Taylor, the Queen's Regiment, elder son of General Sir Alexander Taylor, G.C.B., R.E., President of the B.I.E. College, Coopers Hill, to Alice Nelly Warton, elder daughter of John G. Pilcher, J.P., D.L., of Bellefields, Englefield Green, Surrey, and 28, Lewes-cres, Brighton. DEATHS. BEARD. On the 1st inst., killed in action with the Boers at Krugersdorp, South Africa, Seymour Horace, youngest son of the late Thomas Beard, Solicitor, of Basinghall-st, aged 24. BOOTH. On the 7th inst., at 8, Westfield-ter, Aberdeen, Cornelia Beatrice Griffiths, FURNER. On the 9th inst., at 7, Salisbury-rd, West Brighton, William Campbell GREENWAY-On the 6th inst., at Farnham, Surrey (late of Greenway, Honiton, HOLROYD. On the 11th inst., at 14, Kensington-grdns-ter, his Honour Judge Henry KILBY.-On the 9th inst., at his residence, Ravenscroft, Shirley-av, William Andrew LINDLEY.-In Florence, Mary Beatrice, the third daughter of the Right Hon. Lord Justice and Lady Lindley. PALLISER. On the 10th inst., at Annestown, Tramore, co. Waterford, Maria, the beloved wife of W. B. Palliser, D.L. PEARSON-GEE.-On the 9th inst., at his residence, 19, Portland-pl, London, Arthur Beilby Pearson-Gee, of the Inner Temple, and 4, New-sq, Lincoln's-inn, the elder son of William Pearson, Q.C., aged 40. SHELTON.-On the 7th inst., Richard Shelton, Solicitor, of Wolverhampton, and Lincoln's-inn and Drayton-grdns, South Kensington, aged 65 years. TATLOCK. On the 7th inst., James Tatlock, Barrister-at-law, of the Inner Temple, late of the Royal Navy, eldest son of John P. J. Tatlock, Upper Clapton, in his 50th year. THE YÖST TYPEWRITER COMPANY Ltd., 50, HOLBORN VIADUCT, LONDON, E.C. MANCHESTER: 3, Deansgate. LIVERPOOL: 22a, North John-street. 品 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, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 38. 6d. 08. 6d. SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines of thirty words, or less than thirty words, in body type Each additional line, or ten words, or less than ten words 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 that five o'clock on Thursday afternoon, and must be accompanied by a remittance. Post-office Orders payable to Horace Cox. COUNTY COURTS. Sittings of the 292 624 626 QUEEN'S BENOH DIVISION, WOODSIDE AND CO. v. THE GLOBE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. 1 Marine insurance Valued time policy-Depreciation in value of thing insured by partial loss BOTH AND CO. r. TAYSEN, TOWNSEND, AND CO., AND GRANT AND CO. -Contract-Measure of damageSale of goods to be delivered at fature time-Repudiation b buyer 628 BARBACLOUGH AND OTHERS v. BROWN AND OTHERS. Shipping-WreckObstruction in tidal river-Removal of wreck-Liability for expenses of removal-Owner 630 PROBATE, DIVORCE. AND ADMIR- In the Goods of TERCE (deceased).- cation by guardians of the poor- Citation dispensed with 631 299 Vol. C.-No. 2756. 300 302 BY GEO. G. GRAY, Esq., LL.D. (Lond.), J.P., Barrister-at-Law. London: HORACE COX, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. Now ready, Part 1 of Vol. XVIII., price 5s. 6d., of COX'S CRIMINAL LAW CASES: In the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Superior Courts, the Central Criminal Court, at the Assizes, and in Ireland (published quarterly). Edited by R. CUNNINGHAM GLEN, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. The Parts and Volumes may still be had to complete sets. It is the only complete series of Criminal Cases published in England. An Appendix contains a valuable collection of Precedents of Indictments. Complete Vols. from the commencement (1844) of this work can be had. Price can be obtained on application. HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. The Law and the Lawyers. THE Incorporated Law Society has published a treatise on the Solicitors Act 1888, which we shall notice elsewhere in due course. In the preface it is stated that the Act has proved a success. Up to Aug. 1895 there had been 855 applications to the Statutory Committee. Of these eightythree were by solicitors applying to have their names removed in order to be called to the Bar, or for other private reasons. In 426 applications the committee refused to order an inquiry on the ground that they disclosed no case of misconduct by the solicitor complained of; whilst 346 were heard and dealt with. "THE REPORTS" died at the close of last year. They were designed, we believe, to teach the existing reporters-and especially the Law Reports-how reporting should be done.. When the Editor went over to carry the same designs into effect upon the Law Reports themselves, the raison d'être of The Reports disappeared. Whether there was ar y improved method, we cannot say, even by the light of tle Law Reports under their new editorship. THE appointment of Mr. CHALMERS from a County Court judgeship to the high position of Legal Member of the Council of India marks, like the previous appointment of that gentleman to a Commissionership of Assize, a new departure in practice, it not being hitherto usual for gentlemen holding County Court judgeships to receive any promotion outside the domain of the County Court system. IN Ireland, however, there is a recent instance of a County Court judge being promoted to a higher judicial sphere. Thus Mr. GERALD FITZGERALD—a son of the late Lord FITZGERALD, one of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary-was, in 1890, appointed Legal Commissioner under the Land Act In of 1881, having been since 1886 a County Court judge. 1892, two years after Mr. FITZGERALD had been appointed Legal Commissioner, and six years after his appointment to a County Court judgeship, he was called to the Inner Bar. IN Ireland there have been several instances of gentlemen who, having filled for some time the office of County Court judge, resigned that appointment, and subsequently attained high legal and judicial positions. Thus the late Lord O'HAGAN, who was a justice of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and subsequently in 1868 Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and in 1870 created a peer, was for some years County Court judge or chairman, as the office was then termed, of the County of Dublin. He resigned that position on entering the House of Commons in 1863. The late Hon. Mr. Justice O'HAGAN, who was son-in-law and namesake, but no blood relation, of Lord O'HAGAN, was, like him, a County Court judge. When in 1878 Irish County Court judges were precluded by statute from practising at the Bar, Mr. O'HAGAN vacated the position, and appointed a judge of the High Court of Justice in Ireland. Mr. HEMPHILL, Q.C., who was Solicitor-General for Ireland in the late Administration, likewise relinquished in 1878 the County Court judgeship of Kerry, so as to be able to pursue his practice at the Bar. traditions of the ancient Fetial Law of the Romans, which survived the fusion of Roman and barbaric institutions. As pointed out by this learned writer, in the twelfth century the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa enacted a constitution whereby a three days' notice was reserved before anyone could do justice to himself by violence to his neighbour. The petty feuds of an intolerable equally petty German princes had become was in 1881 nuisance, and by thus laying down rules regulating the conditions of private warfare, he succeeded in some measure in discouraging the system. For many years now the proclamation of war by heralds has been in abeyance. As far as concerns this country, we find no later example of the practice than that mentioned in Hollinshed's Chronicles, vol. iv., p. 87, where Queen Mary declared war against Henry II. of France in this manner, and also published it to her own subjects by proclamation in the London streets. So far as known, the most ONE way to add volume to the White Book is to induce judges sitting at chambers to shut their eyes to decided cases. An excellent instance is D'Errico v. Samuel, in the Court of Appeal on Monday. It is settled practice that an action remitted to the County Court does not leave the High Court until the original writ and the remitting order are lodged in the County Court. Except for the purpose of giving the Court of Appeal something to do, there was really no reason for disturbing this settled practice, unless it was to show that High Court judges are not above doing what some County Court judges do in overruling all decided cases. What Welply v. Buhl (3 Q. B. Div. 80) and Driscol v. King (49 L. T. Rep. 599) have done to merit this treatment we do not know, but they fell before the pen of Mr. Justice LAWRANCE, and are now put on their legs again by Lord Justice SMITH and Lord Justice RIGBY. An order of a master directing further answers to interrogatories which had been set aside as made without jurisdiction is restored. How Mr. D'ERRICO and Mr. SAMUEL will like paying for this bit of caprice we can only conjecture. It does not make the public more in love with our "complicated procedure." A MARRIED Woman has been held, in Re Pocock and Prankerd and the Governors of Wisbech Grammar School (noted ante, p. 218; (1896) W. N. 2), to have the powers conferred on a tenant for life by the Settled Land Act 1882 under somewhat peculiar circumstances. Real estate was vested in trustees upon trust for the married woman for life, without power of anticipation, with remainder as she should by will appoint, and in default of appointment to herself in fee. Except that she could not anticipate her life estate, she was practically the owner in fee, but she desired to sell under the Settled Land Acts. Mr. Justice STIRLING felt some difficulty in deciding that this was a settlement, but held that she had the powers of a tenant for life under sect. 58 (1) (ix.), as a person entitled to the income of land under a trust or direction for payment thereof to him during his own or any other life." Then the second sub-section of sect. 58 provides that, "in every such case the provisions of this Act referring to a tenant for life, either as conferring powers on him or otherwise, and to a settlement, and to settled land, shall extend to each of the persons aforesaid, and to the instrument under which his estate or interest arises, and to the land therein comprised." 66 DECLARATIONS OF WAR. A FORMAL declaration of hostility was considered a necessary prelude to active war until the middle of the seventeenth century. Accordingly, in 1427, Amadæus, Duke of Savoy, announced by formal litteræ diffidationis that he was prepared as against the Duke of Milan, cum amicis nostris prosilire, nt dum licet valeamus, Altissimo concedente, conspiratis injuriis obviarc." In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries it was considered one of the high functions of heralds and pursuivants-at-arms to proclaim war. It is at any rate doubtful whether the custom was due to sentiments of chivalry, or whether, as suggested by Sir Travers Twiss (Law of Nations, Time of War, 2nd edit., p. 58), it did not originate in the recent occasion of employing this, procedure was in 1657, when Sweden declared war against Denmark by a herald at Copenhagen, thereby adopting the precedent set twenty-two years previously, when Louis XIII. declared war against Spain. Although the examples given show that down to the close of the seventeenth century the practice of solemnly declaring war was not unknown, it seems clear that laxer ideas of etiquette had begun to obtain recognition. The Spanish Armada, for instance, was preceded by no formal notification of hostilities; Blake and Tromp were fighting in the Channel before declaration ; and from the years 1645 to 1657, sundry wars and expeditions were being conducted without there being any express indication of it. The fact seems to be that, when a nation felt strong enough in her material resources to thresh her adversary, and some opportunity offered of dealing a trenchant blow, she would not be too scrupulously careful of abiding by any rules of tradition or morality. Her opponent on such occasions would doubtless try to make capital out of the incident, and, as remarked by Hall (International Law, 3rd edit., p. 378), Austria made use of Prussia's neglect to observe formalities when she invaded Silesia in 1740, for the purpose of exciting the odium of the world. When we come to yet more recent dates, we note that our present potential enemies-the United States-began war with us in 1812 without any direct notice, and in 1846 they did the same with Mexico. But in the case of the United States there can be no doubt as to the existence of the state of war, for the Constitution provides that no hostilities can commence without the authority of an Act of Congress. This Act takes the place of the formal notification by heralds or otherwise. Piedmont and France waged war against Naples and Mexico respectively in the years 1860 and 1838 without notice, and the FrancoGerman War of 1870 was initiated by Prince Bismarck's handing an official notification to the French representatives. The Russo-Turkish War was declared in 1877 by a similar document, while the struggle beeween China and Japan had been in active operation before Japan informed the diplomatists that hostilities were being carried on. Although late in the day, formal declaration of war between these countries was made by each to the other. The text may be seen at length in the able work of M. Vladimir on the China-Japanese war. The above brief examination of the circumstances attending the outbreaks of war will show that there is nothing which binds any nation giving to any other nation a formal declaration, but that, on the contrary, it is quite possible that it may be forced at any moment to take up arms. Sir Travers Twiss (at p. 65) states that this country has not formally declared war since 1762, when she did so against Spain; but in Halleck's International Law (p. 477, n.) we read that the Crimean Campaign of 1854 was not commenced before Russia had received a formal declaration of war. It is noticeable also that the last-named writer in the same place gives a different account of the declaration of war between France and Germany, for he there states that it was given by France. The accounts are not necessarily incompatible, for declarations can be either bilateral or unilateral. In 1778, at the outbreak of the war with France, we took no public step beyond that of recalling our ambassador at Paris. This step is generally accepted as being tantamount to a declaration of war. So in our treaty with Portugal in 1812 it was agreed that rupture of pacific relations should not be deduced until the recall or dismissal of the respective ministers. The step has been followed in treaties between France and Brazil in 1826, Prussia and Brazil in 1827, and upon other occasions. In one way it is of little moment to the belligerents whether war be formally declared or not, for both sides must be well aware of the fact that the relations are strained; but, viewed from another aspect, the importance of some exact definition of the commencement of hostilities is necessary. The importance lies in the impossibility-or, at any rate, difficulty-when peace is restored, of replacing matters in the status ante bellum. Hall states, with much force, that outbreaks of war, while calling into existence new rights, at the same time abrogate to a large extent treaties, and make individual citizens of the belligerent States enemies inter se. It is the operation of the last-named effect which has, at the mere suggestion of war, paralysed commercial transactions, and resulted in the series of Stock Exchange panics visible both in London and New York. As Bynkershoek puts it, "Ex naturâ belli commercia inter hostes cessare non est dubitandum." All trade is at once checked, for no contracts are legal, and no recovery of debts can be obtained in the courts of the countries affected. Trading with a common enemy by a member of the community at war is illicit, while at the same time the existence of war is no warrant for acts of individual hostility. Such are the incidents of the declaration of war as between the belligerents themselves and their subjects. Let us look, for a moment, for the effects as regards neutral nations. In the case of belligerents war may, or may not, be commenced formally, the aggression of one nation on another being sufficient warrant for reprisals. In the case of neutrals, it is necessary for the belligerents to announce the outbreak of war in order that they may warn their subjects of the duties of neutrality imposed. Sir Travers Twiss (at p. 70, sup.) sets out the procedure thus; Manifestoes are published setting out the grounds of warfare, after which it is impossible to plead ignorance of the newly-created liabilities; it states in dignified language the cause of complaint and the steps taken to get redress, and dispassionately seeks to show the principle upon which reliance is placed. Whether or no we follow upon the procedure adopted on the outbreak of the Crimean War, it is obvious that a declaration of war is unnecessary, but very desirable as between belligerents, but that as between belligerents and neutrals it is necessary. The present usage is to publish a manifesto; the world is then put on its guard and knows what to expect. THE FRANCHISE QUESTION IN THE TRANSVAAL. BY N. W. SIBLEY, B.A., LL.M. ONE of the most prominent authorities has stated, in answer to a correspondent, that the franchise question is the only knotty point he can see in the Transvaal question. It may be of some interest, therefore, to examine the exact position of the Uitlander in this respect. An authority says: "It is only in 1890 that the Constitution of the South African Republic has been revised with a view to meeting the case of the Uitlanders, one of the principal innovations being the institution of a second Volksraad, for which every resident of four years' standing could vote, and a declaration that this same category of voters would be eligible for the first Volksraad in ten years.' The Constitution of the South African Republic since 1890 has been bi-cameral. It is this circumstance that has inflamed the situation. The first Volksraad, though elected, can only be returned by constituents who are either natives of the Transvaal, or else aliens who have become naturalised by a residence of fourteen years. It is easy to see that one constitutional feature of the Transvaal crisis is a bi-cameral conflict. In the second Volksraad the Uitlander element is preponderant, but the Dutch Boer element, on the other hand, monopolises the first Volksraad. A term of fourteen years' residence is required to effect naturalisation in the Transvaal sufficient to qualify for a vote in the election of members of the first Volksraad. It must be admitted that this is a much longer term than that usually employed for the purpose of naturalisation. The following excerpt, transcribed from Sir W. Rattigan's "Private International Law," will prove this to demonstration : "Most continental nations also require, as a condition precedent to naturalisation, a residence in the country for a certain period. But Italy and the German Empire are notable exceptions to Second Sheet. this practice. In France no regard is paid to any domicile but one authorised by the Government, and by the French Naturalisation Law of 1889, a three years' authorised domicile in France antecedent to naturalisation, with the alternative of an actual residence of ten years, is required. Employment in French service abroad is, however, held equivalent to residence in France. The law of Spain requires a residence of ten years with the intention of establishing a domicile. In the United States, a residence of five years within the United States, and of one year at least within the particular State where naturalisation is effected, is necessary. Naturalisation, moreover, is only effected after a causæ cognitio by a court of record, or by a circuit or district court of the United States, and the applicant must prove his previous residence to the satisfaction of one of these courts, and take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and to renounce and abjure his native allegiance. And, in connection with this subject, it must be carefully borne in mind that the question whether any person is naturalised in any particular State must be determined by the law of that State : ("Private International Law," by Sir W. H. Rattigan, pp. 22-3.) In India, according to the above authority, no period is assigned to effect naturalisation. By Act XXX. of 1852, the foreigner who seeks naturalisation need only "be settled in territories or residing within the same with intent to settle." The acquisition of British nationality by aliens is regulated by the Naturalisation Act of 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 14), sect. 7 of which provides as follows: "An alien who, within such limited time before making the application hereinafter mentioned as may be allowed by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, either by general order or on any special occasion, has resided in the United Kingdom for a term of not less than five years, or has been in the service of the Crown for a term of not less than five years, and intends, when naturalised, either to reside in the United Kingdom or to serve under the Crown, may apply to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State for a certificate of naturalisation.' It will thus be seen that a longer term is required to qualify for naturalisation in the Transvaal Republic than that which is required to effect naturalisation in either Italy, Germany, Great Britain, France, Spain, or the United States. This circumstance proves to demonstration the real and substantial character of the Uitlander's grievance. It is a curious circumstance that in early times aliens were hardly treated by the Dutch law, from which the laws of the Transvaal Republic are known to be mainly derived. In Juta's translation of Van Der Linden's Institutes of Holland, at p. 8, it is stated: Aliens were excluded from many of the rights of natural-born subjects. This difference was marked in the case of inheritance, giving evidence, punishment of crime, and admission to offices and posts: (De Groot Intro. B. 13, D. sect. 2; Regtsgel. Observ. 2 D. obs. 17 and 18, and 3 D. obs. 21.) Whenever the property of aliens passed to relations living out of this country, a heavy duty was imposed upon it, known by the name of right of exue: (H. J. Arzentius Instit. Jur. Belg. Civ. Part I., title 12, sect. 8.)" 66 SALES BY MORTGAGEES. FEW people nowadays would care to have a mortgage which did not contain a power of sale. It is generally the best way of realising the security, and provides for the creditor what he wants, namely, his money back again. From a purchaser's point of view the title to be taken from a first mortgagee is a particularly clean one. The exercise of his power by the first mortgagee overrides all subsequent incumbrances, which can accordingly be neglected, and the purchaser under the statutory or any well-drawn power is protected from any irregularity, of which he has no notice, in the sale. In many cases purchasers would refrain from inquiring as to the ground on which the power was alleged to be exerciseable, in case they should thus obtain notice of an irregularity which would invalidate the sale, and vendors would remind inquiring purchasers that they are not concerned to see if the power has arisen or is still in existence, and would refuse to answer their requisitions on the subject. The case of Selwyn v. Garfit (59 L. T. Rep. 233; 38 Ch. Div. 273) is more innocent in its effects than is frequently supposed. |