« EelmineJätka »
however, traces their actual descent no further profession for having been instrumental in passing Wednesday ..Jan. 14 Appeal motions and appeals ]
15 Appeals back than the interval between A.D. 1276 and 1309, the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 105, which extended to Ireland
16 Bankrupt appeals and appeals when the “chieftainship of the sept vested in most of the provisions of the English Acts, 3 & 4
17 Petitions in lunacy and appeal Donald O'Grady, who fell in battle in the latter Will. 4, c. 42, and 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. And by both
petitions year, leaving a son Hugh O'Grady, who acquired the public and the lawyers he will be remembered Monday 19 Appeals the property of Kilballyowen (which has ever for his eloquence, patience, and unimpeachable Tuesday
20 Appeals from the County Pala.
tine of Lancaster, appeals since been vested in the family) by his marriage character. Men of all parties and creeds deplore
from the Stannaries Court, with the daughter and heiress of a local chief, his loss and recognize his worth while in Parlia
and appeals named O'Kerssick.” The O'Grady married, in ment and on the Bench. As a judge he was
Wednesday 21 Appeal motions and appeals 1841, Anne Grogan, daughter of Thomas De animated by the most earnest desire to do Thursday 22 Appeals Rinzi, Esq., of Clobemon Hall, county Wexford, justice, full and exhaustive, to every suitor. No Friday
23 Bankrupt appeals and appeals by whom he has left, besides other children, a son case, however intricate or perplexing, could Saturday 24 Petitions in lunacy and appeal
petitions Thomas De Courcy, born in 1844, who now exhaust his patience. He searched out every
26 Appeals becomes “ The O'Grady.” detail with unwearied assiduity, and in his charges
27 Ditto and decisions laboured to give every point, how
Wednesday 28 Appeal motions and appeals ever minute, its due weight. This anxiety to be Thursday 29 Appeals J. VEITCH, ESQ.
30 Bankrupt appeals and appeals The late James Veitch, Esq., of Eliock, Dumfries. just led
him of late years to protract the trials at Friday which he presided to what some considered an Saturday
31 Petitions in lunacy and appeal shire, barrister-at-law, who died at Edinburgh, on unreasonable length, but the fault was univer.
petitions the 15th ult., in the seventy-fifth year of his age, sally acknowledged to have its origin in a high be engaged in the Full Court of Appeals or at the
The days (if any) on which the Lords Justices shall was the eldest son of the late Henry Veitch, Esq., conscientiousness; and, though the parties might Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are excepted. of Eliock (who died in 1838). His mother was
chafe for the moment, it was excused on account Zepherina, daughter of Thomas Loughnan, Esq., of Madeira, and he was born in the year 1799. He of the high motives which prompted it. As an
Rolls Court. was educated at Edinburgh, and was called to the equity lawyer he had few equals and no superior, while as a criminal judge-in which capacity it
At Chancery-lane. Scottish Bar in 1821. He had been a magistrate fell to his lot to preside over some of the most Monday Jan. 12 Motions, further consideraand deputy-lieutenant since 1829, and in 1833 he important trials of the present century-he was
tions, and general paper Tuesday
13 General paper Fas appointed sheriff-substitute for the county of
equally excellent. Lanark.
15 Motions and general paper Charlotte, daughter of the late James Hay, Esq.,
H. L. ANDERTON, ESQ. of Hopes, Haddingtonshire.
16 General paper Saturday
17 Petitions, short causes, ad. The late Henry Lyon Anderton, Esq., barrister.
and at-law, who died at Cleckheaton, near Normanton,
general paper RICHARD HARRISON, ESQ.
19 Further considerations and Holywell, Flintshire, who died at his residence at born about the year 1840. He was educated at Tueadas. The late Richard Harrison, Esq., solicitor, of Yorkshire, on the 23rd
ult., was the eldest son of Monday
general paper 20 General
21 Ditto Castlebill, on the 15th ult., in the sixty-ninth Caius College,
Cambridge, where he took his bache- Thursday
22 Motions and general paper year of his age, was born in 1805, and admitted a lor's degree in 1864; he was subsequently made Friday.
23 General paper solicitor in 1829. Upon the establishment of
24 Petitions, short causes,
ad. County Courts he was appointed Treasurer of the LL.B., and
was called to the Bar by the Honour. Saturday
journed able Society of the Inner Temple, in 1871.
and whole of the courts in Circuit No. 29, and a por: I went the Midland
Circuit, and attended the West
general paper tion of Circuit Nos. 7, 27, and 28, in all about Riding of Yorkshire, and Leeds borough sessions,
26 Further considerations and twenty-three courts, which appointment he re. and he also practised as a special pleader and Tuesday
27 General paper tained until the time of his decease.
28 Ditto afterwards appointed a perpetual Commissioner
29 Motions and general paper for taking the acknowledgements of marrieå
30 General paper women, and was also for some time a member of
causes, adPROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS
and the Holywell Local Board. It may be truly said that he was a gentleman, firm of purpose, of unN.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature
general paper of advertisemen are charge 23, 6d. each, for which
At the Rolls, unopposed petitions must be presented, impeachable honour, and strove always to pre- postage stamps should be inclosed.
and copies left with the secretary, on or before the serve the dignity of his profession. The deceased gentleman was universally respected and es- The Lord Chancellor has appointed Mr. William Thursday, preceding the Saturday on which it is in
tended be teemed by all the officials of the courts with Allen, of Leek, Staffordshire, a Commissioner for which he was connected, as well as by all with administering Oaths in Chancery in England, whom he came in contact. and the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas
V.C. Malins' Court.
tions, and general paper The late Mr. Frederick Woodthorpe, barrister. Women, in the several counties of Stafford, Ches
13 General paper at-law, and town clerk of the city of London, who ter, and Derby.
Wednesday died on the 19th ult., at his residence upon The Right Hon. Sir John Duke Coleridge, Kt., Thursday 15 Motions and general paper
Lord Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Friday Haverstock-hill, at the age of fifty-nine, was a
16 Petitions and general paper
............ 17 Short causes, adjourned sum. member of a family whose connection with the Common Pleas,
has appointed Mr. William Gould, Saturday
mopses, and general paper city is as old as the century itself; his grand- Todmorden, Yorkshire, solicitor, to be a Perpetual
and father having held the same office before him from Commissioner for taking Acknowledgments of
general paper 1801 to 1825, and his father from that date down Deeds by Married Women, under the Fines and Tuesday
20 General paper to 1842, Mr. F. Woodthorpe succeeding the late Recoveries Act, for the county of Yorkshire. Wednesday
21 Ditto Mr. Serjeant Merewether in 1859 in the post, after
22 Motions and general paper
23 Petitions and general paper having for some years been deputy town clerk. Lord Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Saturday 24 Short causes, adjourned sum. Mr. F. Woodthorpe was born in the year 1814, Common Pleas, has appointed Mr. William Beriah
monses, and general paper and was educated under Dr. Valpy at the Reading Brook, of No. 1, New-inn, Strand, solicitor, to be Monday 26 County Court appeals, further Grammar School. He was called to the Bar at a Perpetual Commissioner for taking Acknowledg.
considerations, and general the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term 1844; but ments of Deeds of Married Women under tho
27 General paper he never followed the usual business of his pro. Fines and Recoveries Act, for the cities of London
......... 28 Ditto fession, his whole official life having been devoted and Westminster, and the County of Middlesex. Thursday
29 Motions and general paper to the service of the Corporation of London. He
30 Petitions and general paper entered the office of his father as a clerk in 1836,
31 Short causes, adjourned sumand retired from the duties of town clerk in the
monses, and general paper early part of last year, upon a well-earned pension THE COURTS & COURT PAPERS, of £1000 a year. This, however, he did not live
V.C. Bacon's Court. to enjoy for many months. He was buried on the SITTINGS IN AND AFTER HILARY TERM
At Lincoln's-inn. Wednesday succeeling his death at the Highgate
Monday Jan, 12 Motions and adjourned sum.
13 General paper
Wednesday 14 Ditto The late Right Hon. David Richard Pigot, Lord
15 Motions and adjourned sum. Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland,
Court of Appeal in Chancery. who died on Monday, Dec. 22, 1873, at his residence
16 General paper (Before the LORD CHANCELLOR.)
17 Petitions, short causes, and in Merrion-square, Dublin, in the sixty-fourth year
general paper of his age, was the eldest son of the late David Monday .Jan. 18 Appeais
19 In Bankruptcy Pigot, Esq., M.D., of Kilworth, in the county of Tuesday
20 General paper Cork, and was born in the year 1805. He was Wednesday 14 Appeal motions and appeals Wednesday educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he Thursday 15 Appeals
22 Motions and adjourned sumtook his Bachelor's degree in 1825, and proceeded Friday
16 Bankrupt appeals, petitions,
23 General paper M.A. in 1832. He was called to the Irish Bar in
24 Petitions, short causes, and Tuesday 20 Ditto
general paper Bencher of the King's Inn, Dublin, in 1839. He Wednesday 21 Appeal motions and appeals Monday
26 In Bankruptcy Was appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland in Thursday 22 Appeals
27 General paper 1839, and was Attorney-General from 1840 to Friday
23 Bankrupt appeals and appeals Wednesday
28 Ditto 26 Appeals
Thursday Sept. 1841 ; he was sworn a member of the Privy Monday
29 Motions and adjourned sum.
27 Ditto Council on being appointed to this latter office, Wednesday 28 Appeal motions and appeals Friday
30 General paper and he sat in Parliament in the Liberal interest Thursday 29 Appeals
31 Petitions, short causes, and as representative of Clonmel from 1839 until his Friday
30 Bankrupt appeals, petitions,
general paper elevation to the Bench as Lord Chief Baron of the
and appeals Exchequer in Ireland in 1846. The judge was a During Term (except on Saturdays) the Lord Chan
V.C. Hall's Court. member of the Senate of the Queen's University in cellor will usually sit in full Court with the Lords
At Lincoln's-inn. a Visitor of Maynooth College, a Commis. Justices of the Court of Appeal. sioner of National Education, and was created an
Monday Jan. 12 Motions and general paper (Before the LORDS JUSTICES.)
13 General paper Honorary LL.D. of Dublin in 1870. He was married,
Wednesday 14 Ditto bat became a widower in 1869. The Irish Law Times Monday .........Jan. 12 Appeals
Thursday 15 Motions, adjourned summonses, says :-He will long be remembered by the legal 'Tuesday
and general paper
16 Petitions, adjourned
monses, and general paper Saturday
17 Short causes, adjourned sum
monses, and general paper Monday
19 General paper Tuesday
20 Ditto Wednesday
21 Ditto Thursday
22 Motions, adjourned summonses,
and general paper Friday .............. 23 Petitions, adjourned sum
monses, and general paper Saturday
24 Short causes, adjourned sum.
monses and general paper Monday ............. 26 General paper Tuesday
27 Ditto Wednesday 28 Ditto Thursday
29 Motions, adjourned summonses,
and general paper Friday
30 Petitions, adjourned sum
monses, and general paper Saturday
31 Short causes, adjourned sum
monses, and general paper N.B.-In Vice-Chancellor Hall's Court no cause, motion for decree or further consideration, can, except by order of the court, be marked to stand over, if it be within twelve of the last cause or matter in the printed paper of the day for hearing.
Any causes intended to be heard as short causes before the Master of the Rolls or either of the ViceChancellors must be so marked at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard, and the necessary papers left in the court with the judge's officer the day before the cause comes into the paper.
Orders of Discharge.
ELGAR, GZORGE FREDERICK, sanitary inspector, Eastry. Pet. GLAZEBROOK, THOMAS TWAXBROOK, sen., GLAZEBROOK,'EDDec. 23. Jan. 9, at one, at Doyle and Edwards, Carey-st, Lin- WARD, and GLAZEBROOK, THOMAS TWAXBROOK jun, wine mer. coln's.inn. Sol. Delasaux, Canterbury
chants, Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 8, at twelve, at office of FEAR, BENJAMIX, cooper, Berkeley. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 13, at Messrs. Sandeman, St. Swithin's-la, London. Sols. Bartlett and
two, at the Bell hotel, Gloucester. Sols. Ellis and Sheppard, Atkinson, Liverpool Cloucester
GOULD, JOHN WILLIAM, grocer, Radstock. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. FIELD, WILLIAM, fruit salesman, Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 17. 10, at twelve, at the Temperance hotel, Radstock. Sole. Dunn Jan. 2, at twelve, at office of Sol. Fallows, Birmingham
and Payne, Frome FRANKLIN, BERRYMAX, wholesale clothier, Church-st, Spital. GRAU, JOHANN HEINRICH, cabinet maker, Titchfield-st, Oxford.
fields. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 7, at three, at the Chamber of Com- st. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 16, at two, at offices of Sol. Nutt, Bramerce, 145, Cheapside. Sols. Keighley and Gething
bant-ct, Phlipot-la GARRETT, ALFRED, grocer, Brynmawr. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 8, at HARDING, DAVID, bricklayer, Colgate. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 14, at
twelve, at the Queen's hotel, Newport. Sol. Jones, Aber. three, at the King's Head hotel, Horsham. Sols. Medwin, Davis. gavenny
and Sadler, Horsham GELDERT, CHARLES, coachbuilder, Cockermouth. Pet. Dec. 20. HEARON, GEORGE, joiner, Leeds. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 12, at three,
Jan. 8, at twelve, at office of Sols. Hayton and Simpson, At office of Sol. Craven, Leeds
HILLS, EDWIN JOHN, carpenter, Cambridge. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. GERBER, CHARLES, shipping agent, Huddersfield. Pet. Dec. 19. 9, at twelve, at offices of Sol. French, Cambridge
Jan. 15, at three at offices of Sols. Messrs. Barker, Hudders- HUMPHRIES, Evax, coal miner, Aberdare. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 8, fiel1
at one, at offices of Sol. Beddoe, Aberdare HECHT, CHARLES WILLIAM, watch maker, Praed-st, Padding- ILLINGWORTH, THOMAS, beerseller, Batley. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan.
ton. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 12, at two, at office of Sols. Tilley and 9, at quarter past ten, at office of Sols. Messrs. Scholes, Dews. Liggins, Finsbury.pl-south
bury HEDGETHORN, JAMES, oyster merchant, Shoreham, and Brigh- JONES, JOHN, joiner, Llanrwst. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 14, at twelve,
ton. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 17, at twelve, at J. Bertie, 6, Great at office of Sol. James, Llanrwst James-et, Bedford-row, Sol. Goodman, Brighton
JOEL, MARY ANN, and GRIFFITHS, DAVID, manufacturers of HEMMINGS, HENRY, mason, Bristol. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 5, at steel files, Sheffield. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 6, at two, at the Cuteleven, at office of Sol. Essery, Bristol
ler's-hall, Sheffield. Sol. Allen, Shefeld HERCY, CHRISTINA ANNA, lodging-house keeper, Hereford- JUDSON, WILLIAM STAPLETOX, farmer, Rainton. Pet. Deo. 23.
rd, Westbourne-grove. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 12, at three, at offices Jan. 14, at one, at the Royal Oak hotel, Ripon. Sols. Simpson of Sols. Mesers. Paddison, Lincoln's inn-fields
and Burrell HILTON, JAMES, grocer, Lupns-st, Pimlico. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. KNOWLES, THOMAS, chemist, Seymour-st, Euston-sq. Pet. Dec. 20, at one, at office of Sol. Foster, King's-rd, Gray's-inn
20. Jan. 7, at one, at Office of Sol. Harcourt, King's-rd, Bedford. HODGSON, JOHN OSWALD, victualler, Long acre. Pet. Dec. 24. row
Jan. 14, at three, at the Enterprise, 96, Long acre. Sol. Arm- LUME, JAMES grocer, Bradford. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 3, at three, at strong, Old Jewry
office of Sol. Burnley, Bradford HOGGINS, HENRY, merchant's clerk, New Cross-rd. Pet. Deo. NICHOLSON, GEORGE HEXBY, merchant, Manchester. Pet. Dec.
23. Jan. 7, at twelve, at the Clarence hotel, Brighton. Sol. 24. Jan. 17, at three, at offices of Pritchard and Englefield, Smedley, Fleet-st
Little Trinity-la, London. Sols. Hinde, Milne, and Sudlow, HOLMES, CHARLES, baker, Kent-st, Southwark, and Long lane, Manchester
Bermondsey. Pet. Deo. 22. Jan. 8, at one, at office of sol. OGDEN, HETH, engineer, Castleford. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 10, at Reeve, Lilypot-la, Noble-st
one, at office of Sol. Hardwick, Leeds HUMPHREYS, JOSEPH, grocer, Greenfield, near Holywell. Pet. PIKE, SAMUEL, mariner, Ramagate. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 12, at
Dec. 20. Jan. 7, at two, at the Queen's hotel, Chester. Sol. three, at offices of Sol. Walford, Ramsgate
POCOCK, HENRY, clerk, Belitha-vDlla - west, Barnsbury. Pet. JOUXSTONE, GEORGE, linen draper, Sheffield. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. Dec. 24. Jan. 12, at three, at office of Sol. Stokes, Chancery.la 9, at three, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Clegg, Sheffield
PRATT, MATTHEW TAYLOR, shawl dealer, Nottingham. Pet. Dec. JONES, WILLIAM MORRIS, mantle manufacturer, Hamsell-st, 24. Jan. 12, at twelve, at office of Sol. Preston, Nottingham
Falcon-sq. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 12, at one, at office of Sols. RUER, JOSEPH BRADBURY, auctioneer, High & Kingston. Pet. Barnard and Harris, Finsbury-circus
Dec. 23. Jan. 9, at three, at office of Sol. knight, Newgate-st, KEABLE, SAMUEL, cow keeper, Blackhorse-la, Walthamstow. City
Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 7, at twelve, at office of Sol. Chubb, Buck- TAYLOR, JAMES, draper, Blackpool. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 9, at lersbury
three, at the Home Trade Association Rooms, Manchester. Sol. KING, JOHN, baker, Kingston-on-Thames. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 15, Charnley, Blackpool at twelve, at office of Sols. Wilkinson and Howlett, Kingston. TERRY, EDWARD, hop factor, Deal. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 13, at one. on-Thames
at the King's Arms inn, Sandwich. Sol. Emmerson, Sandwich LANGTOX, THOMAS BENXETT, merchant, Newcastle. Pet. Deo. THOMPSON, JOSEPH, out of business, Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 22. 23. Jan. 6, at twelve, at office of Sol. Garbutt, Newcastle
Jan. 6, at two, at offices of Sols. Tyrer, Smith, and Kenion, LAWSON, JOHx, farmer, Minster Acres. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 6, at Liverpool
eleven, at office of Keenlyside and Foster, St. John's.chmbs, TURNER, CHARLES, fish merchant, Bristol. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. Grainger-st west, Newcastle. Sol. Winship, Newcastle
12. at one, at offices of Messrs. Williams and Co., publio MARCHINTON,
JOHN MORETOX, implement manufacturer, Leeds. accountants, Bristol, Sols. Brittan, Press, and Inskip, Bristol Jan. 7, at three, at offices of Sols. Fawcett and Malcolm, Leeds
Gazette, Dec. 23. MAY, EDMUND, brewer, Worle. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 13, at twelve, WILLMOTT, RICHARD, journeyman fancy leather case maker, at offices of sol. Chapman, Weston-super-Mare
Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 2, at three, at offices of Sols. METCALF, JOHN, carver, Middlesborough. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 9, Messrs. Brown, Birmingham at eleven, at office of Sol. Addenbrooke, Middlesborough
WOOLER, WILLIAM, pawnbroker, Leeds. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 3, MILLS, GEORGE THOMAS, viotualler, Bristol. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan, at twelve, at office of Sol. Pullen, Leeds at eleven, at offices of Sols. Essery, Bristol
WYBORN, ALFRED, baker, Eastry. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 5, at one OSBORNE,
THOMAS, tin plate worker, Birmingham. Pet, Dec. 22. at the King's Arms Inn, Sandwich. Sol. Emmerson, SandJan. 8, at twelve, at office of Sol. Hawkes, Birmingham
wich PERKINS, SAMUEL, grocer, Norfolk-ter, Bayswater. Pet. Deo. 22. ZINGLER, HENRY, commission merchant, Basinghall-st. Pet.
Jan. 8, at three, at J. Bath and Co. accountants, 40A, King Deo. 17. Jan. 5. at eleven, at offices of Challis and Co., William-st. Sol. Peckham
accountants, Clement's-la. Sol. Easton, Clifford's-inn ROBINSON, WILLIAM, butcher, Whitehaven. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan.
9, at one, at office of Sol. Atter, Whitehaven RUSHWORTH, THOMAS, plumber. Idle, par. Calverley. Pet. Deo.
23. Jan. 9, at three, at office of Sol. Rennolls, Bradford SARGEANT, CHARLES, baker, Hanley. Pet. Dec. 17. Jan. 7, at eleven, at office of Sol. Stevenson, Stoke-upon-Trent
Gazette, Dec. 12. SEYMOUR, THOMA8, innkeeper, Henley-on-Thames. Pet. Dec. D'ALTEYRAC, JUNIA MARIA, no occupation, Park-st, Grosvenor16. Jan. 5, at eleven, at office of Sol. Gledhili, Reading
square SIMON, ALBERT MARTIN, pawnbroker, Birmingham. Pet. Dec.
Gazette, Dec. 23, 23. Jan. 7, at eleven, at office of Sol. Cottrell, Birmingham SINICO, JOSE, gentleman, Bedford-pl. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan.
OWEN, DAVID LEWIS, colliery agent, Cardiff 12, at twelve, at office of Sols. Messrs. Brandon, Essex-st,
SOUTHCOAT ES, FREDERICK, joiner, Everton, near Liverpoo! Strand SIMPSON, JOSEPH, carter, Altrincham. Pet. Deo. 20. Jan. 8, at three, at offices of Sols. Nicholls, Hinde, and Co., Altrin.
cham SMITH, THOMAS JONES, patent liquid extractor manufacturer,
BANKRUPTS ESTATES. De Beauvoir crescent, Islington. Pet. Dec. 16. Jan. 5. at The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the eleven, at H. S. Hunter, 47, London-wall. Sol Ede, Clemente. la, Lombard-st
Dividends. SQUIER, RICHARD COWLEY, music seller, Manchester. Pet. Dec. Bacon, J. miller, first and final, 4g. 54d. At Trust. J. Eaden, 15
22. Jan. 7, at three" at office of Sols. Sale, Shipman, Seddon, Sidney-st, Cambridge.-Couchar, J. Draper first and final, 1s. 8 d. and Sale, Manchester
At Trust. J. Kerr, 28, Faulkner-st, Manchester.-De Groot, M. A. STENNING, EDWARD, corn factor, Mark-la, and Catherine.ct, general factor, first and final, 28. At Trust. W. N. Fisher, 4, Seething-la. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 13, at three, at offices of Sols. Waterloo-street, Birmingham.-Hillary, J. ironmonger, second. Plews and Irvine, Mark-la
28. 6d. At Trust. J. W. Snelling, 82, High-st, Winchester.- James, WAINWRIGHT, ISAAC, grocer, Nelson. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 6, at E. builder, second, 28. 6d. At Trust. H. W. Banks, 23, Coleman-st, three, at office of Sols. Southern and Nowell,
Jones, T. grocer, first and final, 78, At Trust. J. Collins, jun, 29, WATSON, JAMES, tailor, Coventry. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 14, at two, Broad-st, Bristol-Patterson, T. jeweller, 58. 4wd. At Trust at office of Sol. Homer, Coventry
J. E. E. Dawe, 8, Uniou-ter, Union-st, Plymouth. Shackleton, A. WHITTAKER, RICHARD, watchmaker, Spencer-pl, Blackheath- builder, first and final, 5s. At Trust. T. Kendall, Shipley.-Verney, village, Blackheath. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 21, at three, at offices H. farmer, first, JO9. At Trust. H. K. Thorne, Cross.st, Barnof Sols. Ingle, Cooper, and Holmes, City Bank-ohmbs, Thread. staple.- Warlow, w. H. ironmonger, first, 88. At Trust. W. N. needle-st
Fisher, 5, Waterloo-st, Birmingham
Jan. 3, at twelve, at Hancock, Trigge, and Co. Bristol. Sol. Daw, Exeter
Birch, T. farmer, first, Is. 4d. At Trust. S. Broad, Norfolk-house, WILLIAMSON, THOMAS, victualler. Aston-village, near Birming- Hereford.-Crook, J. manufacturing chemist, first and final, ed.
ham. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 9, at three, at offices of Sols. Messrs. At Trust. T. W. Gilibrand, 56, George-st, Manchester.--Crosalev, J. Brown, Birmingham
jun., woolstapler, first,
4s. At Trust. J. P. Birtwhistle, Crown-st, WOOD, JAMES, builder, Hampton-st, Walworth-rd. Pet. Dec. Halifax.-Dimond, O. E. bootmaker, first and final, 28. 6d. At 22, Jan. 8, at one, at ofices of Sols. Rose and Thomas, Salisbury. Trust. J. Pentony, 5, Commutation-row, Liverpool.--Hari, H. st, Strand
pawnbroker, first, Is. 6d. At Trust. W. w. Hayward, High.st, WRIGHT, FREDERICK BRITTAIX, packer, Manchester. Pet. Deo. Rochester.-Iverson, W. J. leather seller, first and final, 38. 11d. 23. Jan. 12, at three, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Whitworth, At Trust. s. Culley, Guildhall-chmbs, Norwich.-Jones, c. W. Manchester
tailor, first and final, ls. 9d. At Trust. T. W. Gilibrard, 56, Gazette, Dec. 30.
George-et, Manchester.-Mussellwhite, C. of Longfleet, first, 48, 6d.
At Aldridge and Harker, King-st, Poole.-Payne, R. W. corn merALLARD, MAURICE, saddler, Tewkesbury. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 9, chant, first, 68. 8d. At Trust. W. Sharp, 20, Gresham-st. -Robinson,
at eleven, at office of Sols. Moores and Romney, Tewkesbury F. cheesemonger, first and final, 7d. At Trust. B. B. Smith, 45, ANDERSON, MARY, Wellingborough. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 9, at two, Chenpside.-Sann, C. victualler, first, 46. At Trust. H. Tarratt, at the Angel hotel, Wellingborough. Sols. Dolman and Cole 10, Market-st, Leicester.-Thomas, M. wholesale stationer, second, grave
is. At Walker and Litchfield, accountants, Temple-chmbs, 4, St. ATKINSON, WILLIAM HENRY, and ATKINSON, JAMES, general James's-sq, Manchester
merchants, Manchester. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 19, at three, at office of Sol. Sampson, Manchester BARRETT, ARTHUR, woollen draper, Bradford. Pet. Deo. 20. Jan. 7, at twelve, at offices of Messrs. Blackburn, accountants,
BIRTHS MARRIAGES AND DEATHS Bradford. Sol, Mumford, Bradford BARRETT, THOMAS, baker, Aldbourn. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 5, at
BIRTHS. eleven, at the Three Swans hotel, Hungerford. Luons, New
CHAMBERLAIN.-On the 27th ult, at Holyrood House, Llandudno, bury
the wife of Reginald S. Chamberlain, solicitor, of a daughter. BLUNDELL, FREDERICK, miller, Belbroughton, Pet. Dec. 24.
FORD.-On the 29th ult., at Southwick-place, Hyde-park-square, Jan. 8, at half past twelve, at the Golden Cross hotel, Broms
Edmund S. Ford, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter. grove. Sol. Collis, Stourbridge
INGRAM.-On the 3rd uit., at Lucknow, British India, the wife of BOUCHER, MARY, lodging-house keeper, Cambridge. Pet. Dec.
T. Lewis Ingram, of the Middle Temple, barrister-at-law, of 24. Jan. 12, at eleven, at office of Sols. Ellison and Burrows,
KINGSFORD.-On the 27th ult, at Scarr Cottage, Hampstead, the BRAHAM, HENRY JAMES, out of business, Cologne-rd, New
wife of Douglas Kingeford, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. Wandsworth. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 12, at three, at offices of Sols.
THIRLWALL-On the 27th ult., at the Palace, Abergwilli, the Hicklin and Washington, Trinity-sq. Borough
wife of John Thirlwall, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter, BURGOYNE, ROBERT, mariner, Ramegate. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan, 12,
WILLIAMS.--On the 26th ult., at 6, Berkeley-gardens, Campdenat one, at offices of Doyle and Edwards, Carey-st, Lincoln's-inn.
hill, the wife of Roland L. Vaughan Wiliams, barrister-at-law, Sol. Delasaus, Canterbury
of a daughter. CLIFFORD, JOHN HENRY, grocer, Hangerford. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan.
MARRIAGES. 6, at two, at offices of Nichols and Leatherdale, accountants, 14,
Gazette, Dec, 26. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-streec. BOXBERNARD, LOUIS, diamond dealer, St. Benet-pl, Grace
church-st. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg. Pepys. Sur. Jan. 13 ROSS, JAMES, outfitter, Queen's-rd, Peckham. Pet. Dec. 23.
Reg. Spring-Rice. Sur. Jan. 15 TRENCHARD, GEORGE, cheese factor, Little Britain. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg. Pepys. Sur. Jan. 13
To surrender in the Country. FISHER, ALFRED, engineer, Gosport. Pet. Dec. 19. Reg. Howard
Sur. Jan. 31 HUTCHINSON, ROBERT. grocer, Spennymoor. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg.
Marshall. Sur. Jan. 9 MUSK, ROBERT, blacksmith, Ilketshall. Pet. Deo. 22. Reg.
Walker. Sur. Jan. 14 TAYLOR, JOHN, joiner, Facit, near Rochdale. Pet. Dec, 23. Reg.
Tweedale. Sur. Jan. 7 Wilson, JOSEPH, bootmaker, Altrincham. Pet. Dec. 24. Reg. Kay. Sur. Jan. 3
Gazette, Dec. 30.
To surrender in the Country. BUTLER, MATTHEW, framework knitter, Nottingham. Pet. Dec.
27. Reg. Patchitt. Sur. Jan. 14 COCKERTON, ROBERT BLACKBURX, fellmonger, Warrington.
Pet. Dec. 24. Reg. Nicholson. Sur, Jan. 12 CRAWSHAW, JAMES ; CRAWSHAW, WILLIAM; CRAWSHAW, JOHN :
and STEPHENSON, JOHX TAYLOR, drysalters, Elton. Pet. Deo. 24. Reg. Holden. Sur. Jan. 8 PORTCH,
WILLIAM, publican, Wheathampstead. Pet. Dec. 19. Reg. Blagg. Sur. Jan. 14 WOOLF, SOLOMON, jeweller, Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg. Chauntler. Sur. Jan. 12
Gazetto, Dec. 23.
Gazette, Dec, 26.
Liquidations by Arrangement.
STREETER-WALKER.-On the 31st Dec., at the parish church, Old Jewry.chbs. Sol. Harling, Fleet-st, London
Addington, Surrey, by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, COOMBS, ALFRED JOHN, baker, Ryde. Pet. Dec. 15. Jan. 12, at
assisted by the Rev. F. Spooner, John Soper Streeter, solicitor. three, at the Sussex hotel, Southsea
of Croydon, to Marion, youngost daughter of Marmaduke ELLIS, ROBERT JOSEPH, manufacturing chemist, Liverpool. Pet.
Walker, Esq., of Addington Lodge, Addington.
WILSON-PHILLIPS.-On the 27th ult., at Unity Church, Isling
ton, Roland Knyvet Wilson, M.A., late Fellow of King's Coll. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 10. at eleven, at offices of Messrs. Berry,
Camb., barrister-at-law, to Christina Whiting, youngest Greening, and Co., 26, Farringdon st. Sol. Knight, Newgate-st,
daughter of the late Richard Phillips, F.R.S.
Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 14, at three, at office of Sol. Rylance, Man. ham, aged 35, of Exeter College, Oxford, B.A., and of Lin-
Gazette, Dec. 26.
20. Jan. 5, at two, at office of Sols. Hudson, Matthews, and Co.,
eleven, at office of Sol. Hollinshead, Tunstall
20. Jan. 1, at twelve, at the Queen's hotel. Birmingham. Sol.
Sol. Law, Manchester
three, at office of Sol. Stevenson, Hanley
Duncan-ter, Islington. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 5, at eleven, at office
of Sol. Allen, Brunswick-st BROQUET, ADRIAN, watch manufacturer, Torrington-sg, Blooms. bury. Pet. Dec. 10. Jan. 6, atthree, at office of Sols. Bushby
and Winkworth, Oxford-st. Regent circus BUTLER, MATTHEW, frame work knitter, Sutton-in-Ashfield.
Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 13, at twelve, at office of Sol. Cursham,
at office of Bols. Messrs. Watson, Hull
st two, at office Sol. Hand, Macclesfield
22. Jan. 12, at three, at Messrs. Horner, 1, Ridgefield, Manchester. Sol Law, Manchester DELL, CHARLES, manufacturer of fancy goods, Alfred-st, Cole
brook row, Ielington. Pet. Dec. 13. Jan. 5, at twelve, at office of H. T. Thwaites, Hasinghall-et. Sol. Fulcher, Basinghall-et
To Readers and Correspondents.
W.-Ex parte Daglish is reported 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 168.
to do so by her husband, and could make her separate estate liable by her contracts. We have recently pointed out that even at common law a wife having a separate property may affect it by her general engagements, and we cited cases in equity where the doctrine was recognised, and where eminent Judges said that they considered the same rule would prevail at law if the question were raised. The learned County Court Judge did not give his attention to this argument, but considering that by the Married Women's Property Act no liability to be sued was imposed on the wife, he treated her as an ordinary married woman. We should like to see this question thoroughly argued.
CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines or thirty words......... 3s. 6d. | Every additional ten words ...... Os. 60.
Advertisements specially ordered for the first page are charged one-fourth more than the above scale.
Advertisements must reach the Office not later than five o'clock on Thursday afternoon.
TO SUBSCRIBERS. The volumes of the LAW TIMES, and of the LAW TIMES REPORTS, 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. 68., by
post 5d. extra. LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 3s. 6d., by post 3d. extra.
NOTICE. The LAW TIXIS goes to press on Thursday evening, that it muy to received in the remotest
parts of the country on Saturday morning. Coinmunications and Advertisements must be transmitted accordingly. Nono can appear that do not reach the office by Thursday afternoon's post. When payment is made in postage stamps, not more than 5s, may be remitted at one time. All communications intended for the Editor of the Solicitors' Department should be so
We think it is highly desirable, quite irrespective of any proceedings in Reg. v. Castro, that the law of contempt of court should be thrown into a statute. County Court Judges can only comunit
if any person shall wilfully insult the judge or any juror, or any officer of the court. . . . or wilfully interrupt the proceedings in court, or otherwise misbehave in court. '(9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 113, and see R. v. Jolliffe, L. Rep. 8 Q. B. 136). But the powers of the superior courts have never been touched by statute, and are practically unlimited at common law. They may even commit for“ speaking or writing contemptuously of the court or judges acting in their judicial capacity;" and, in short, for anything which demonstrates a gross want of respect for the court. The evidence is on affidavit; there is no jury; the accused party may be called upon to answer on oath (a course, says Blackstone, not agreeable to the genius of the common law in any other instance), and the court may fine and imprison ad infinitum. Large powers, and larger than County Court powers, may well be entrusted to the superior Judges; but we think the very fact that their present powers emanate from the aula regia of immemorial antiquity is the strongest reason why they should be defined by a modern Act of Parliament. Apropos, what are the powers in this respect of a County Court judge sitting in Bankruptcy? By sect. 66 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, he has all the powers of a Judge of the High Court of Chancery, in addition to his ordinary powers as a County Court Judge. It would seem, therefore, that his powers to commit for contempt are not limited by the County Court Act, but are as wide as those of the superior courts; which result was not, we think, intended.
Now ready, price 5s, 6d., VOL. II., Part 1, of ARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series). By J. P. ASPINALL,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law, in the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in all the Superior Courts, with a Selection from the Decisions of the United States Courts, with Notes by the Editor. The First Series of "Maritime Law" may now be had com plete in Three Volumes, half bound, price £5 5s. for the set, or any single volume for 222s. Back numbers may be had to complete sets,
London : HORACE Cox, 10. Wellington-street, Strand, W.C.
CROWN CASES RESERVED.
Agent - Fraudulent conversion of
623 Re THE MATLOCK OLD BATH HYDRO
PATHIC COMPANY (LIMITED) (MAY-
Company-Winding-up - Contributory 630
Practice- Discovery-Redemption suit
against mortgagee in possession......... 632 Es parte NYHOLM; Re CHILDShipping law-Charter-party-Lien for freight
V.O. MALINS' COURT. Re THE LIMEHOUSE WORKS COMPANY (LIMITED) (COATES'S CASE)Limited Company-Subscriber to me. morandum-Payment otherwise than in cash
638 MAYWARD E. EATOX
Stock Exchange-Real purchaser-Iniant transferee.
€37 CLOVER 4. ROYDON
Association-Registry of ships-Certif-
V.C. BACON'S COURT.
641 BAXTER ». CHAPMAN
Bill of exchange-Bills of lading-Accepuance .....
642 MIDDLETON V. BARKERVoluntary settlement-Words of limitation in grant-Life estate
643 COURT OF EXCHEQUER. WHARLTOx v. KIRKWOOD
Bill of sale--Covenant to pay "imme
diately on demand"-Reasonable time
for payment CHARLESWORTH AND ANOTHER W. HOLT
Husband and wife-Deed of separation 647 LAXGTON v. CARLETON
Master and servant-Agreement " for
of-Prospective coats-Duty of trus
LEADING ARTICLES, &c.
173 Baron Martin
174 Contracts by Corporations and their Agents ....
174 Separation Deeds and Divorce
175 Relevancy of Evidence in Criminal Cases 176 The Bench and Bar in Ireland.
177 LAW LIBRARY
177 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL Topics of the Week
178 Notes of New Decisions
179 Uncluined suck and Dividends in the Bank of England
180 Appointments under the Joint-Stock Winding.up Acts
180 Creditors under E-tates in Chancery 180 Creditors under 22 & 33 Vict. c. 35
10 Reports of Sales
132 COMPANY LAW:
European Assurance Arbitration ............ 182
Manchester County Court ................ 183
184 The Irish Bench .........
185 CORRESPONDENCE OY THE PROFESSION 186 NOTES AND QUERIES ON POINTS OF PRAC
186 Hull Law Students' Society
188 Solicitors Benevolent Association
188 Articled Clerks' Society -- ....
188 PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
188 THE G.AZETTES
190 BIRTUS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS........... 190
The secretary of a railway company, ordered by a court of law to produce documents upon a subpoena duces tecum, and ordered by his directors to withhold them, and so disobey the subpona, bus been happily extricated from his dilemma by the Court of Common Pleas, in the late case of Crowther v. Appleby (reported last week) in which the court refused to attach the secretary for disobedience to the subpena. There was, we think, quite sufficient authority for the decision, and we would refer those of our readers who take an interest in the subject to the case of Amery v. Long (9 East, 470) in which the whole history of the writ of subpena will be found reviewed by Lord ELLENBOROUGH, it having been argued in that case that the subpona duces tecum had no compulsory obligation in law. But the practical inconvenience which is exemplified by Crowther v. Appleby, and which was adverted to by Mr. Justice Denman in the course of the argument, is so great that it seems almost to need a Legislative remedy. If a corporation is unwilling to produce documents, how can it be compelled to do so ? The secretary or any other servant in whose custody the required documents may be, if served with the subpæna, may, it appears, be effectually ordered by his masters to disobey it. By sect. 16 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852, every writ of summons issued against a corporation aggregate may be served upon one of its officers, and there would seem to be no reason in principle why a writ of subpana duces tecum should not be served also. With regard to the point left doubtful by the court, viz., whether an action would lie for refusing to produce papers, although an attachment would not be granted, it may be noticed that by stat. 5 Eliz. c. 9, s. 12, which gives the right of action in affirmance of the common law, a "reasonable or lawful impediment” is expressly mentioned as an excuse for not appearing
according to the tenor of the process.”
The Law and the Lawyers.
ONE of the points under the Married Women's Property Act which we referred to last week, namely, the liability of a married woman carrying on separate trade to be sued, has arisen and been decided in the Manchester County Court. The case will be found reported in another column, and the law is laid down as we stated it. Although a married woman is empowered by the Act to hold property altogether freed from the control of her husband, and may sue on contracts made with her, yet when sued by those with whom she has incurred a liability, she may plead her coverture and defeat the action. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff that a liability to be sued was by implication imposed by the Act on married women carrying on separate trade, and that even indepen. dently of the Act a woman trading alone was impliedly authorised
VOL. LVI.-10. 1606.
In more than one of the recent registration appeals in the Common Pleas the respondents were not represented by counsel, and Mr. Justice Denman remarked upon the inconvenience of this practice, which is calculated to act prejudicially on the interpretation of the law. Whilst we cannot go with the learned Judge this length, we agree that it is to be desired that both sides of a question of law should be argued before it is decided. The evil is one, however, for which there is no remedy, and respondents are quite right, if they think a point doubtful, and particularly if they are the objectors and not the voters, to incur no expense in supporting the decision of the revising barrister. In other cases the omission to support decisions obtained below may have serious consequences, and an instance of this comes to us from Margate. The members of a club called the Union Club were convicted, under the Licensing Act, of keeping open during prohibited hours. They appealed to the borough quarter sessions, but no counsel was retained to support the conviction. The Recorder thereupon allowed the appeal with costs. The licensed victuallers of Margate are, not unnaturally, very indignant, and believe that, had the case been that of an ordinary publican, a different measure of justice would have been meted out. It is dangerous to criticise a decision without having seen a full report of it, but we conceive that if the conviction was quashed simply because it was appealed against and not supported, such a course of proceeding is not that usually prevailing with reference to appeals. As pointed out above, it is not only at quarter sessions that decisions are not supported on appeal, but the court considers the grounds of the decision appealed against, and gives judgment after fully considering the case. We certainly think that magistrates ought to take care that their decisions, deliberately arrived at, should be properly supported when appealed against. In the Margate case the borough has to pay the costs of the appeal without the satisfaction of having the question argued, which, we think, justifies the outcry which has been raised.
conditions for the performance of a request which is based entirely upon the comity of nations, and which, if granted, is altogether ex gratia. We therefore request you that, in furtherance of justice, you will, by the proper and usual process of your court, cause such witnesses to appear before you, and there to answer, &c., &c.' This is the formula in which the letters are couched. We cannot dictate the methods to be pursued by the court whose assistance we invoke. The rules and practice of the foreign court must be the law of procedure in such cases. Letters rogatory were unknown to the common law. They came to us from the civil law, though the admiralty courts and the civilians seem to agree that in all that concerns the forms of procedure in such cases, the Judge ought to observe the laws of his own country. We may therefore adopt, in the present case, the language of Judge WASHINGTON, in Nelson v. The United States (1 Peters C. C. Ř. 237): “Where the business is taken out of the hands of persons appointed by this court, the ends of justice seem to require a departure, in some degree, from the ordinary rules of evidence. To what extent this departure would go has never yet been decided in this court, and it is not necessary at present to lay down the limitation. Doubtless, if it should appear that any of the substantial requisites of justice, as we administer it, had been omitted, or any unfair advantage given to either party, we would reject the depositions, no matter what solemnities of form had attended the taking of them. But under the circumstances attending the execution of these letters rogatory by the Royal Circuit Court at Schweinfurt, we cannot regard the attendance of the plaintiffs' attorney as a circumstance of that character. He appears to have attended in pursuance of a notification of the Judge who took the depositions, and was required by him to verify them by his signature. It thus very plainly appears that his attendance was altogether in conformity with the rules of procedure in the foreign tribunal, and the character of the court which executed our request affords ample assurance that bis presence was not permitted in any degree to prejudice the defendants' rights." We think this is a very correct and useful statement of the view to be taken of the proceedings of foreign courts.
The dashing speech of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL at the dinner of the Oxford Druids was probably read by the members of the legal Profession with the attention which it deserved. It will, therefore, have been remarked that in his attitude towards lawyers generally, he presents a striking contrast to his predecessor, the present MASTER of the Rolls. We may briefly mention the two occasions in the course of his speech on which he expresses his opinion about his own profession. Speaking of the manner in which his own college had employed its endowments, he said : “When I think of the foundation of Trinity College and the use she has made of it, and contrast her conduct with that of another foundation of about equal wealth, administered, I am sorry to say by my own Profession, the Inns of Court—when I think how much the one and how little the other has done for those with whose education they are equally charged, I confess it is a subject on which I do not care to dwell
, for it is only an additional example of that, which I have had too often occasion to observe that of all classes of men, lawyers are those who most obstinately cherish abuses and most successfully resist reform." This is a sweeping condemnation which we certainly think recent events do not justify. The obstructiveness of the governing bodies of the Inns of Court everybody acknowledges; but they form a small minority of English “ lawyers,” the great majority of whom are anxious to see the revenues of the Inns of Court properly employed. Again, Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT expresses his belief that any measure for simplifying the transfer of land will find its most energetic opponents among solicitors. “I know," he said, “I am treading on dangerous ground; but still I will venture to affirm that if a reform of this character is opposed, it will not be by the landed interest, but by a class of men far more influential than Solicitors. General -I mean solicitors in particular.” Did Sir WILLIAM observe the demeanour of the “solicitors in particular" when Lord SELBORNE'S Land Title and Transfer Bill was before the House last session ? What evidence was there of the opposition coming mainly or at all from solicitors? We addressed ourselves with care and, we hope, intelligent industry to the details of the measure, and pointed out its defects. But we were surprised at the apparent indifference of solicitors on a subject so closely affecting their interests. No one doubts the learned SOLICITORGENERAL's independence of everybody and everything, but we think that he ought not to indulge in sweeping assertions based on mere speculation, and unsupported by any evidence whatever. We believe the time for organised resistance on the part of any class or profession to reforms calculated to benefit the country is gone by. The great monopolies which support half the members of the House of Commons can alone successfully influence legislation to the prejudice of the public, and lawyers are rapidly becoming a persecuted instead of a persecuting race.
BARON MARTIN. A JUDGE who has been on the Bench for twenty-three years, who during that period has been hard at work administering the law with temper, judgment, and ability, retires into private life carrying with him the gratitude of the public and the respect and esteem of the legal profession. Of no one can this be said more emphatically than of Baron MARTIN. For some period the learned Judge has been suffering from an infirmity of hearing which has seriously inconvenienced him in the discharge of his judicial duties, but up to the last he has manifested that kindness and consideration towards his brother Judges which has always distinguished him, he having within the last week sat at chambers for a member of his own court.
It is not accorded to every Judge to occupy a large amount of public attention; the qualifications which make a useful puisne Judge are not as a rule consistent with brilliant oratorical powers, and other gifts which excite public admiration. We have in our chiefs of the common law courts, specimens of the men more fitted to adorn the Bench than to do the mill-horse routine of a common law Judge; and when the chief seats are occupied by the first orators of our day, the subordinate positions should be filled by Judges who, by experience and learning and industry, are prepared to deal with the ordinary matters of court practice with care, patience, and sagacity. No two men probably were better representatives of this class of Judges than the late Baron CHANNELL and Baron MARTIN, who, with Baron BRAMWELL and the late Chief Baron, formed an exceptionally strong court. They took their rise in the days of special demurrers. There is little doubt that strict pleading is a most useful training for the lawyer; and it is quite plain that the abolition of severe accuracy has tended to produce lawyers accustomed to looser modes of thought and argument. The present year will see the last of the old system to which we are largely indebted for such judges as Baron MARTIN.
We have only to say on the present occasion, in conclusion, that there have been few Judges more generally liked by the Profession, and more thoroughly appreciated, than the learned Judge who now retires from the Bench.
We recently had occasion to refer to a case before Vice-Chancellor Malins, in which an application was made for a commission to issue to a foreign court to examine witnesses. The comity which facilitates such process is of great utility, and a case in the District Court of Philadelphia illustrates the principles upon which the procedure in such cases should rest. Letters rogatory were issued by the Philadelphia Court to the Royal Circuit Court at Schweinfurt, in Bavaria. When they had been executed by thai court, with great solemnity, it was objected to the legality of the execution, among other things, that the attorney and counsellor of the plaintiff was present at the taking of the depositions of witnesses. In delivering judgment on the exceptions, Justice THAYER observed on the broad distinction between the execution of a commission and the procuring of testimony by the instrumentality of letters rogatory or letters requisatory as they are sometimes called. The learned Judge said: “In the former case the rules of procedure are established by the court issuing the commission, and are entirely under its control. In the latter, the methods of procedure must, from the nature of the case, be altogether under the control of the foreign tribunal which is appealed to for assistance in the administration of justice. We cannot execute our own laws in a foreign country, nor can we prescribe
CONTRACTS BY CORPORATIONS AND THEIR
AGENTS. VERY many cases have been decided upon the operation of the seal of a corporate body, in giving validity to its contracts, and the subject is one of considerable importance. In the case of The Mayor and Corporation of Kidderminster v. Hardwick (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 611) the corporation let its market and tolls by auction. The defendant was the highest bidder. The conditions of letting were signed by the defendant and by the town clerk on behalf of the corporation. A month's rent in advance, according to the conditions, was paid by the defendant, and the keys of the markets were handed over to him, but he did not otherwise enter porate seal.
into possession. By a resolution of the corporation under their seal they approved the letting to the defendant. He, however, failed to complete by finding the necessary sureties, and the corporation brought an action against him to recover damages for breach of contract, We may say at once that the case was decided against the corporation on two grounds (1) that there was no such part performance as would entitle the defendant to specific performance and the contract was void for want of mutuality; and (2) that the contract was not enforceable as not having been entered into by the corporation under seal, or by an agent expressly authorised under seal. The resolution was passed after the breach, and thus too late to operate as a ratification.
The point to be considered, and which this case so admirably illustrates, is this. As a bare proposition a corporation must contract by its corporate seal, or by its agent duiy authorised under seal. This being wanting, under what circumstances will a corporation be entitled to the benefit of its contracts and to sue for the breach of them? The case under notice does not give us any new law, for we consider that the principle was fully established by the Court of Common Pleas in the Fishmongers' Company v. Robertson (5 M. & G. 131), where Chief Justice Tindal said that wherever there is a part performance, where the corporation have acted upon the contract and the other party has had the benefit of it, it does not lie in the mouth of either to deny it; the corporation cannot set up the want of a corporate seal, nor can the other side take advantage of it. The case of The Corporation of Kidderminster v. Hardwick is chiefly valuable in showing what is necessary to make a contract binding in the absence of the cor
In deciding the case, however, a dictum of Lord Chief Justice Tindal's was commented upon-a dictum which caused the Chief Baron to hesitate for a while in his decision. That dictum was expressed in the case which we have already cited, and was to the effect that by suing upon a contract made without the corporate seal, a corporation admits that it is binding upon them, and is estopped from disputing it, or setting up the objection in a cross action. We quite agree with the learned Chief Baron that merely suing upon a contract in itself void cannot estop a corporation from disputing its validity in a cross action, and the authority upon which Chief Justice Tindal based his dictum was a case in which the corporation had clearly estopped itself by a return to a mandamus, which was a matter of record. But even supposing Chief Justice Tindal's dictum to be good law, we do not see that it would make a contract void in its inception binding upon the other contracting parties, otherwise most assuredly ratification under seal after breach would have the same effect.
The judgment delivered by Baron Pollock puts the matter as clearly and as distinctly as it can be put. He regards the want of a seal in contracts by corporations (not being trading corporations) as something more than a technical objection, and that the rule by which the seal is required is one which it would not be at all safe to relax-adopting what fell from the court in The Mayor of Ludlow v. Charlton (6 M. & W. 815.) And it is plain from the views expressed in all the cases decided upon this point that where corporations neither use their own corporate seal nor authorise agents under seal to act for them, the law will imply nothing in their favour, but will look strictly to the facts to ascertain whether the party with whom they contract has so far performed his contract as to entitle the corporation to specific performance.
after divorce. The Romans recognised the greatest laxity as regarded marriage; divorce was obtained with the greatest possible ease. The Roman principle was that the consent of the parties was required not only for contracting marriage, but for maintaining it when contracted. Any act of either party by which this consent was explicitly withdrawn was sufficient to terminate the relation. And once the wife was severed from her husband, all his engagements concerning her ceased-her dowry was returned and she became an independent woman. If the divorce was occasioned by the fault of the wife, she forfeited a portion of her dowry and was also punished by the law. Of course, under the Roman system no such covenant as that in Charlesworth v. Holt could have been thought of, and the necessity for deeds of separation, which form, indeed, almost a portion of our divorce jurisprudence, arises from the peculiarities of our common law which, whilst tending more and more to make married women independent of their husbands, carefully holds husbands to their contracts to supply their wives with necessaries. But our divorce law refuses to give any alimony to a wife who has been guilty of misconduct; and when the spiritual courts had jurisdiction, and had decreed divorce à menså et thoro a common law court could not entertain the question of the husband's liability for necessaries. And, of course, it is perfectly plain law now that a husband is not liable for necessaries supplied to a woman who was his wife, but who is divorced from him on his petition.
Consequently everything turns on Charlesworth v. Holt upon the covenant in a deed executed when the wife was innocent, and when neither contracting party could have contemplated the events which happened, and which, but for decided cases, we should have imagined, followed as they were by a decree of. divorce, would have released the husband not only from his common law liability, but also from any liability voluntarily assumed by deed. It must be confessed, however, that the case law is almost uniform in favour of the claim of the plaintiffs. We will briefly consider what the cases are. In Serres v. Serres (1 N. Rep. 121), which was an action brought on the covenants in a deed of separation, the Court of Common Pleas refused to allow the defendant to withdraw the general issue and plead the adultery of the wife, on the ground that it would not be an answer to the action. Then in Jee V. Thurlow (2 B. & C. 547), decree of a spiritual court for divorce à mensä et thoro, on the ground of adultery, was held no answer to an action on a covenant to pay an annuity to the wife. There Chief Justice Abbot used the same words as the court adopted in Charlesworth v. Holt. Had the husband wished, he said, to make the non-commission of adultery a dition of paying the annuity to his wife_he should have covenanted to pay it quamdiu casta vixerit. He added that the judgment in the Ecclesiastical Court, but not alleging the fact of adultery, was not at all more favourable for the defendant. The only point left open by these cases, and made, indeed, by subsequent legislation, is whether the decree of the Divorce Court on the ground of the wife's adultery is to have an effect which the judgment of the Ecclsiastical Court, not alleging adultery, had not. On this point plaintiff's counsel in Charlesworth v. Holt relied upon Goslin v. Clark (6 L.T. Rep. N. S. 824). There, at the time of the execution of the deed, the husband knew that his wife had committed adultery; he covenanted by his deed to allow her an amount annually so long as she conducted herself as a chaste and modest woman. He obtained a divorce, under the Divorce Act, which passed after the execution of the deed, upon the adultery already mentioned. An action was brought upon the deed, and it was held that inasmuch as the defendant knew of the adultery of his wife at the time of executing the deed, and the wife having conducted herself properly subsequently, he could not by his own act of procuring a divorce upset the validity of the deed. That case can hardly be accepted as an authority upon the point under discussion; the facts were altogether different; the wife had been chaste since the execution of the deed, and nothing had occurred since its execution but the proceedings in the Divorce Court, at the instigation of the husband, and on a ground with which he was familiar before the separation.
It is clear, however, as the Lord Chief Baron said, that all the authorities are one way, and all that the defendant's counsel could do was to urge the court to import into the deed the condition upon which alone he could be taken to have agreed to pay the annuity. On the operation of the decree for divorce his Lordship said the argument of expediency was very much weakened by the operation of the Divorce Act, by which power is given to the court to make all such orders relating to settlements between husband and wife as it shall see fit to do. And, undoubtedly Worsley v. Worsley and Wignall (20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 546), shows that the Divorce Court will deal with an ordinary separation deed, but in making the arrangement as to cutting down the allowance, an application was made for an insertion of a dum casta clause in the deed, and it was intimated that this might be done in chambers. On the interpretation of sect. 5, which gives the power in question to the court, Lord Penzance said, " If one looks at the substance of the thing one may say that the Legislature, in giving this power to the court, intended to arm the court with power to make fresh arrangements in the case of a woman committing adultery in respect to the pecuniary
SEPARATION DEEDS AND DIVORCE. The law seems to be pressing with almost extreme severity upon husbands, and with a view to instruct those who may be engaged in preparing deeds of separation between husband and wife, we direct particular attention to a case from the Exchequer which we report to-day, Charlesworth and another v. Holt. The defendant in that case had covenanted by deed to pay to trustees for his wife a certain yearly sum during the joint lives of himself and his wife, and “during so long time as they should live separate and apart.” He also agreed that in case his wife pre-deceased him he would pay so much for her funeral expenses. Forgetful of the frailty of women, or perhaps not wishing to suggest what he thought could not occur, he inserted in the agreement no clause releasing him in the event of her unchastity. As a matter of fact she committed adultery, and the husband obtained a divorce. Nevertheless, he was sued by the trustees for arrears of the annuity, and the Court of Exchequer gave judgment in their favour.
Separation deeds have been frequently called in question by learned judges as being altogether opposed to morality. But they have been on successive occasions solemnly upheld. Whilst they continue to be recognized as lawful contracts, it would occur to the uninformed mind that they should be construed so as to carry out what must be taken to be intention of all parties entering into them, namely that they should be binding so long as the tie of matrimony remains :-Let the beneficiary violate the marriage contract, and thereupon all contracts depending upon it should be dissolved also. Looking at the matter by the light of our great model, the Roman Civil Law, it is perfectly plain that no such covenant by a husband should be held binding upon him