however, traces their actual descent no further back than the interval between A.D. 1276 and 1309, when the "chieftainship of the sept vested in Donald O'Grady, who fell in battle in the latter year, leaving a son Hugh O'Grady, who acquired the property of Kilballyowen (which has ever since been vested in the family) by his marriage with the daughter and heiress of a local chief, named O'Kerssick." The O'Grady married, in 1841, Anne Grogan, daughter of Thomas De Rinzi, Esq., of Clobemon Hall, county Wexford, by whom he has left, besides other children, a son Thomas De Courcy, born in 1844, who now becomes "The O'Grady." J. VEITCH, ESQ. THE late James Veitch, Esq., of Eliock, Dumfriesshire, barrister-at-law, who died at Edinburgh, on the 15th ult., in the seventy-fifth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Henry Veitch, Esq., of Eliock (who died in 1838). His mother was Zepherina, daughter of Thomas Loughnan, Esq., of Madeira, and he was born in the year 1799. He was educated at Edinburgh, and was called to the Scottish Bar in 1821. He had been a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant since 1829, and in 1833 he was appointed sheriff-substitute for the county of Lanark. Mr. Veitch married in 1831 Hannah Charlotte, daughter of the late James Hay, Esq., of Hopes, Haddingtonshire. RICHARD HARRISON, ESQ. THE late Richard Harrison, Esq., solicitor, of Holywell, Flintshire, who died at his residence at Castlehill, on the 15th ult., in the sixty-ninth year of his age, was born in 1805, and admitted a solicitor in 1829. Upon the establishment of County Courts he was appointed Treasurer of the whole of the courts in Circuit No. 29, and a portion of Circuit Nos. 7, 27, and 28, in all about twenty-three courts, which appointment he retained until the time of his decease. He was afterwards appointed a perpetual Commissioner for taking the acknowledgements of married women, and was also for some time a member of the Holywell Local Board. It may be truly said that he was a gentleman, firm of purpose, of unimpeachable honour, and strove always to preserve the dignity of his profession. The deceased gentleman was universally respected and esteemed by all the officials of the courts with which he was connected, as well as by all with whom he came in contact. profession for having been instrumental in passing Monday Tuesday H. L. ANDERTON, ESQ. conveyancer. He PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS N.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature ter, and Derby. The Right Hon. Sir John Duke Coleridge, Kt., THE Lord Chancellor has appointed Mr. William Allen, of Leek, Staffordshire, a Commissioner for administering Oaths in Chancery in England, and the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas has also appointed him a Commissioner for taking F. WOGDTHORPE, ESQ. the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married THE late Mr. Frederick Woodthorpe, barrister-Women, in the several counties of Stafford, Chesat-law, and town clerk of the city of London, who died on the 19th ult., at his residence upon Haverstock-hill, at the age of fifty-nine, was a member of a family whose connection with the city is as old as the century itself; his grandfather having held the same office before him from 1801 to 1825, and his father from that date down to 1842, Mr. F. Woodthorpe succeeding the late Mr. Serjeant Merewether in 1859 in the post, after having for some years been deputy town clerk. Mr. F. Woodthorpe was born in the year 1814, and was educated under Dr. Valpy at the Reading Grammar School. He was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term 1844; but he never followed the usual business of his profession, his whole official life having been devoted to the service of the Corporation of London. He entered the office of his father as a clerk in 1836, and retired from the duties of town clerk in the early part of last year, upon a well-earned pension of £1000 a year. This, however, he did not live to enjoy for many months. He was buried on the Wednesday succeeling his death at the Highgate Cemetery. The Right Hon. Sir John Duke Coleridge, Kt., Lord Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, has appointed Mr. William Beriah Brook, of No. 1, New-inn, Strand, solicitor, to be a Perpetual Commissioner for taking Acknowledgments of Deeds of Married Women under the Fines and Recoveries Act, for the cities of London and Westminster, and the County of Middlesex. THE COURTS & COURT PAPERS, SITTINGS IN AND AFTER HILARY TERM Monday 1874. Equity Courts. Court of Appeal in Chancery. Tuesday Monday At Lincoln's-inn. ..Jan. 12 Appeals ......... 13 Ditto 14 Appeal motions and appeals 16 Bankrupt appeals, petitions, and appeals 19 Appeals 21 Appeal motions and appeals CHIEF BARON PIGOT. THE late Right Hon. David Richard Pigot, Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, who died on Monday, Dec. 22, 1873, at his residence in Merrion-square, Dublin, in the sixty-fourth year f his age, was the eldest son of the late David Pigot, Esq., M.D., of Kilworth, in the county of Cork, and was born in the year 1805. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he took his Bachelor's degree in 1825, and proceeded M.A. in 1832. He was called to the Irish Bar in Michaelmas Term 1826, and was admitted a Bencher of the King's Inn, Dublin, in 1839. He Wednesday was appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland in 1839, and was Attorney-General from 1840 to Sept. 1841; he was sworn a member of the Privy Council on being appointed to this latter office, and he sat in Parliament in the Liberal interest as representative of Clonmel from 1839 until his elevation to the Bench as Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland in 1846. The judge was a member of the Senate of the Queen's University in Ireland, a Visitor of Maynooth College, a CommisBioner of National Education, and was created an Honorary LL.D. of Dublin in 1870. He was married, but became a widower in 1869. The Irish Law Times Monday.........Jan. 12 Appeals says:-He will long be remembered by the legal Tuesday Tuesday 23 Bankrupt appeals and appeals Thursday Monday ............... 26 29 Motions and general paper 30 General paper 31 Petitions, short causes, ad journed summonses, and general paper At the Rolls, unopposed petitions must be presented, and copies left with the secretary, on or before the Thursday preceding the Saturday on which it is intended they should be heard. 20 Ditto 22 Appeals Monday Wednesday 26 Appeals Thursday 27 Ditto Friday 30 Bankrupt appeals, petitions, During Term (except on Saturdays) the Lord Chancellor will usually sit in full Court with the Lords Justices of the Court of Appeal. (Before the LORDS JUSTICES.) At Lincoln's-inn. ..... 13 Ditto Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday sum monses, and general paper Short causes, adjourned summonses and general paper 26 General paper 27 Ditto 28 Ditto 29 Motions, adjourned summonses, and general paper 30 Petitions, adjourned sum Friday monses, and general paper Saturday .......... 31 Short causes, adjourned summonses, 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. BUTLER, MATTHEW, framework knitter, Nottingham. Pet. Dec. 27. Reg. Patchitt. Sur. Jan. 14 COCKERTON, ROBERT BLACKBURN, fellmonger, Warrington. Pet. Dec. 24. Reg. Nicholson. Sur. Jan. 12 CRAWSHAW, JAMES; CRAWSHAW, WILLIAM; CRAWSHAW, JOHN: and STEPHENSON, JOHN TAYLOR, drysalters, Elton. Pet. Dec. 24. Reg. Holden. Sur. Jan. 8 PORTCH, WILLIAM, publican, Wheathampstead. Pet. Dec. 19. WOOLF, SOLOMON, jeweller, Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg. BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED. Gazette, Dec. 23. ALLAWAY, STEPHEN, gentleman, Woolston. June 9, 1873 INGMAN, GEORGE BLAND, tutor, Millbrook. Nov. 9, 1871 Gazette, Dec, 26. FINCH, JOHN, publican, Ramsgate. Sept. 13, 1873 Liquidations by Arrangement. FIRST MEETINGS. Gazette, Dec. 26. ALDOUS, WILLIAM, builder, Armagh-rd, North Bow. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 5, at two, at office of Sols. Hudson, Matthews, and Co., Bucklersbury ASTBURY, JOHN, coal dealer, Burslem. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 5, at eleven, at office of Sol. Hollinshead, Tunstall BARBER, JOSEPH WILLIAM, irenmonger, Gloucester. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 1, at twelve, at the Queen's hotel. Birmingham. Sol. Cooke, Gloucester BEBBINGTON, WILLIAM, builder, Chorlton-on-Medlock. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 14, at three, at the Falstaff hotel, Manchester. Sol. Law, Manchester BENTLEY, WILLIAM, fruiterer, Hanley. Pet Dec. 16. Jan. 7, at three, at office of Sol. Stevenson, Hanley BRASHOLZ. HENRY, refreshment house keeper, City-rd, and Duncan-ter, Islington. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 5, at eleven, at office of Sol. Allen, Brunswick-st BROQUET, ADRIAN, watch manufacturer, Torrington-sq, Blooms. bury. Pet. Dec. 10. Jan. 3, atthree, at office of Sols. Bushby and Winkworth, Oxford-st, Regent-circus BUTLER, MATTHEW, frame werk knitter, Sutton-in-Ashfield. Pet. Deo. 23. Jan. 13, at twelve, at office of Sol. Cursham, Mansfield CHEESEMAN, ISAAC, grocer, Hull. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 8, at one, at office of Sols, Messrs. Watson, Hull COPE, GEORGE DEAN, painter, Macclesfield. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 7, at two, at office of Sol. Hand, Macclesfield DANIELS, JOHN, window blind maker, Manchester. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 12, at three, at Messrs. Horner, 1, Ridgefield, Manchester. Sol. Law, Manchester DELL, CHARLES, manufacturer of fancy goods, Alfred-st, Colebrook row, Islington. Pet. Dec. 13. Jan. 5, at twelve, at office of H. T. Thwaites, Basinghall-st. Sol. Fulcher, Basinghall-st ELGAR, GEORGE FREDERICK, sanitary inspector, Eastry. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 9, at one, at Doyle and Edwards, Carey-st, Lincoln's-inn. Sol. Delasaux, Canterbury FEAR, BENJAMIN, cooper, Berkeley. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 13, at two, at the Bell hotel, Gloucester. Sols. Ellis and Sheppard, Gloucester FIELD, WILLIAM, fruit salesman, Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 17. Jan. 2, at twelve, at office of Sol. Fallows, Birmingham FRANKLIN, BERRYMAN, wholesale clothier, Church-st, Spitalfields. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 7, at three, at the Chamber of Commerce, 145, Cheapside. Sols. Keighley and Gething GARRETT, ALFRED, grocer, Brynmawr. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 8, at twelve, at the Queen's hotel, Newport. Sol. Jones, Abergavenny GELDERT, CHARLES, coachbuilder, Cockermouth. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 8, at twelve, at office of Sols. Hayton and Simpson, Cockermouth GERBER, CHARLES, shipping agent, Huddersfield. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 15, at three at offices of Sols. Messrs. Barker, Huddersfiel4 HECHT, CHARLES WILLIAM, watch maker, Praed-st, Paddington. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 12, at two, at office of Sols. Tilley and Liggins, Finsbury-pl-south HEDGETHORN, JAMES, oyster merchant, Shoreham, and Brighton. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 17, at twelve, at J. Bertie, 6, Great James-st, Bedford-row. Sol. Goodman, Brighton HEMMINGS, HENRY, mason, Bristol. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 5, at eleven, at office of Sol. Essery, Bristol HERCY, CHRISTINA ANNA, lodging-house keeper, Herefordrd, Westbourne-grove. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 12, at three, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Paddison, Lincoln's inn-fields HILTON, JAMES, grocer, Lupus-st, Pimlico. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 20, at one, at office of Sol. Foster, King's-rd, Gray's-inn HODGSON, JOHN OSWALD, victualler, Long acre. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 14, at three, at the Enterprise, 96, Long acre. Sol. Armstrong, Old Jewry HOGGINS, HENRY, merchant's clerk, New Cross-rd. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 7, at twelve, at the Clarence hotel, Brighton. Sol. Smedley, Fleet-st HOLMES, CHARLES, baker, Kent-st, Southwark, and Long lane, HUMPHREYS, JOSEPH, grocer, Greenfield, near Holywell. Pet. KEABLE, SAMUEL, Cowkeeper, Blackhorse-la, Walthamstow. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 7, at twelve, at office of Sol. Chubb, Bucklersbury KING, JOHN, baker, Kingston-on-Thames. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 15, at twelve, at office of Sols. Wilkinson and Howlett, Kingstonon-Thames LANGTON, THOMAS BENNETT, merchant, Newcastle. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 6, at twelve, at office of Sol. Garbutt, Newcastle LAWSON, JOHN, farmer, Minster Acres. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 6, at eleven, at office of Keenlyside and Foster, St. John's-chmbs, Grainger-st west, Newcastle. Sol. Winship, Newcastle MARCHINTON, JOHN MORETON, implement manufacturer, Leeds. Jan. 7, at three, at offices of Sols. Fawcett and Malcolm, Leeds MAY, EDMUND, brewer, Worle. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 13, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Chapman, Weston-super-Mare METCALF, JOHN, carver, Middlesborough. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 9, at eleven, at office of Sol. Addenbrooke, Middlesborough MILLS, GEORGE THOMAS, victualler, Bristol. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. at eleven, at offices of Sols. Essery, Bristol OSBORNE, THOMAS, tin plate worker, Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 8, at twelve, at office of Sol. Hawkes, Birmingham PERKINS, SAMUEL, grocer, Norfolk-ter, Bayswater. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 8, at three, at J. Bath and Co. accountants, 40A, King William-st. Sol. Peckham Pet. Dec. ROBINSON, WILLIAM, butcher, Whitehaven. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 9, at one, at office of Sol. Atter, Whitehaven RUSHWORTH, THOMAS, plumber. Idle, par. Calverley. Pet. Dec. 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 SEYMOUR, THOMAS, innkeeper, Henley-on-Thames. 16. Jan. 5, at eleven, at office of Sol. Gledhill, Reading SIMON, ALBERT MARTIN, pawnbroker, Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 7, at eleven, at office of Sol. Cottrell, Birmingham SINICO, JOSE, gentleman, Bedford-pl. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 12, at twelve, at office of Sols. Messrs. Brandon, Essex-st, Strand SIMPSON, JOSEPH, carter, Altrincham. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 8, at three, at offices of Sols. Nicholls, Hinde, and Co., Altrincham SMITH, THOMAS JONES, patent liquid extractor manufacturer, De Beauvoir crescent, Islington. Pet. Dec. 16. Jan. 5, at eleven, at H. S. Hunter, 47, London-wall. Sol. Ede, Clementsla, Lombard-st SQUIER, RICHARD COWLEY, music seller, Manchester. Pet. Dec. Jan. 7, at three at office of Sols. Sale, Shipman, Seddon, and Sale, Manchester STENNING, EDWARD, corn factor, Mark-la, and Catherine-ct, Seething-la. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 13, at three, at offices of Sols. Plews and Irvine, Mark-la WAINWRIGHT, ISAAC, grocer, Nelson. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 6, at three, at office of Sols. Southern and Nowell, Burnley WATSON, JAMES, tailor, Coventry. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 14, at two, at office of Sol. Homer, Coventry WHITTAKER, RICHARD, watchmaker, Spencer-pl, Blackheathvillage, Blackheath. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 21, at three, at offices of Sols. Ingle, Cooper, and Holmes, City Bank-chmbs, Threadneedle-st WILLIAMS, HENRY, timber merchant, Bristol. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 3, at twelve, at Hancock, Triggs, and Co. Bristol. Sol. King, Bristol WILLIAMSON, THOMAS, victualler. Aston-village, near Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 9, at three, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Brown, Birmingham WOOD, JAMES, builder, Hampton-st, Walworth-rd. Pet. Dec. 22, Jan. 8, at one, at offices of Sols. Rose and Thomas, Salisburyst, Strand WRIGHT, FREDERICK BRITTAIN, packer, Manchester. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 12, at three, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Whitworth, Manchester Gazette, Dec. 30. ALLARD, MAURICE, saddler, Tewkesbury. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 9, at eleven, at office of Sols. Moores and Romney, Tewkesbury ANDERSON, MARY, Wellingborough. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 9, at two, at the Angel hotel, Wellingborough. Sols. Dolman and Cole grave ATKINSON, WILLIAM HENRY, and ATKINSON, JAMES, general merchants, Manchester. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 19, at three, at office of Sol. Sampson, Manchester BARRETT, ARTHUR, Woollen draper, Bradford. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 7, at twelve, at offices of Messrs. Blackburn, accountants, Bradford. Sol. Mumford, Bradford BARRETT, THOMAS, baker, Aldbourn. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 5, at eleven, at the Three Swans hotel, Hungerford. Sol. Lucas, Newbury BLUNDELL, FREDERICK, miller, Belbroughton. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 8, at half-past twelve, at the Golden Cross hotel, Bromsgrove. Sol. Collis, Stourbridge BOUCHER, MARY, lodging-house keeper, Cambridge. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 12, at eleven, at office of Sols. Ellison and Burrows, Cambridge BRAHAM, HENRY JAMES, out of business, Cologne-rd, New Wandsworth. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 12, at three, at offices of Sols. Hicklin and Washington, Trinity-sq, Borough BURGOYNE, ROBERT, mariner, Ramsgate. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan, 12, at one, at offices of Doyle and Edwards, Carey-st, Lincoln's-inn. Sol. Delasaux, Canterbury CLIFFORD, JOHN HENRY, grocer, Hungerford. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. ELLIS, ROBERT JOSEPH, manufacturing chemist, Liverpool. Pet. GLAZEBROOK, THOMAS TWANBROOK, sen., GLAZEBROOK, EDWARD, and GLAZEBROOK, THOMAS TWANBROOK jun, wine merchants, Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 8, at twelve, at office of Messrs. Sandeman, St. Swithin's-la, London. Sols. Bartlett and Atkinson, Liverpool GOULD, JOHN WILLIAM, grocer, Radstock. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 10, at twelve, at the Temperance hotel, Radstock. Sols. Dunn and Payne, Frome GRAU, JOHANN HEINRICH, cabinet maker, Titchfield-st, Oxford. st. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 16, at two, at offices of Sol. Nutt, Brabant-ct, Phiipot-la HARDING, DAVID, bricklayer, Colgate. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 14, at three, at the King's Head hotel, Horsham. Sols. Medwin, Davis. and Sadler, Horsham HEARON, GEORGE, joiner, Leeds. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 12, at three, at office of Sol. Craven, Leeds HILLS, EDWIN JOHN, carpenter, Cambridge. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 9, at twelve, at offices of Sol. French, Cambridge HUMPHRIES, EVAN, coal miner, Aberdare. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan.8, at one, at offices of Sol. Beddoe, Aberdare ILLINGWORTH, THOMAS, beerseller, Batley. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 9, at quarter-past ten, at office of Sols. Messrrs. Scholes, Dewsbury JONES, JOHN, joiner, Llanrwst. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 14, at twelve, at office of Sol. James, Llanrwst JOEL, MARY ANN, and GRIFFITHS, DAVID, manufacturers of steel files, Sheffield. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 6, at two, at the Cutler's hall, Sheffield. Sol. Allen, Sheffield JUDSON, WILLIAM STAPLETON, farmer, Rainton. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 14, at one, at the Royal Oak hotel, Ripon. Sols. Simpson and Burrell KNOWLES, THOMAS, chemist, Seymour-st, Euston-sq. Pet. Dec. 20. Jan. 7, at one, at office of Sol. Harcourt, King's-rd, BedfordLUMB, JAMES grocer, Bradford. Pet. Dec. 22. Jan. 9, at three, at office of Sol. Burnley, Bradford row NICHOLSON, GEORGE HENRY, merchant, Manchester. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 17, at three, at offices of Pritchard and Englefield, Little Trinity-la, London. Sols. Hinde, Milne, and Sudlow, Manchester OGDEN, HETH, engineer, Castleford. Pet. Dec. 24. Jan. 10, at one, at office of Sol. Hardwick, Lecds PIKE, SAMUEL, mariner, Ramsgate. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 12, at TAYLOR, JAMES, draper, Blackpool. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 9, at three, at the Home Trade Association Rooms, Manchester. Sol. Charnley, Blackpool TERRY, EDWARD, hop factor, Deal. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 13, at one. at the King's Arms inn, Sandwich. Sol. Emmerson, Sandwich THOMPSON, JOSEPII, out of business, Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 2. Jan. 6, at two, at offices of Sols. Tyrer, Smith, and Kenion, Liverpool TURNER, CHARLES, fish merchant, Bristol. Pet. Dec. 23. Jan. 12. at one, at offices of Messrs. Williams and Co., public accountants, Bristol. Sols. Brittan, Press, and Inskip, Bristol Gazette, Dec. 23. WILLMOTT, RICHARD, journeyman fancy leather case maker, Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 2, at three, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Brown, Birmingham WOOLER, WILLIAM, pawnbroker, Leeds. Pet. Dec. 19. Jan. 3, at twelve, at office of Sol. Pullen, Leeds WYBORN, ALFRED, baker, Eastry. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 5, at one at the King's Arms Inn, Sandwich. Sol. Emmerson, Sandwich Pet ZINGLER, HENRY, commission merchant, Basinghall-st. Dec. 17. Jan. 5. at eleven, at offices of Challis and Co., accountants, Clement's-la. Sol. Easton, Clifford's-inn The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Dividends. Bacon, J. miller, first and final, 4s. 51d. At Trust. J. Eaden, 15, Sidney-st, Cambridge.-Couchar, J. Draper first and final, 1s. 8d. At Trust. J. Kerr, 28, Faulkner-st, Manchester.-De Groot, M. A. general factor, first and final, 28. At Trust. W. N. Fisher, 4, Waterloo-street, Birmingham.-Hillary, J. ironmonger, second. 28. 6d. At Trust. J. W. Snelling, 82, High-st, Winchester.-James, E. builder, second, 2s. 6d. At Trust. H. W. Banks, 23, Coleman-st, Jones, T. grocer, first and final, 7s, At Trust. J. Collins, jun, 39, Broad-st, Bristol-Patterson, T. jeweller, 58. 4d. At Trust. J. E. E. Dawe, 8, Uniou-ter, Union-st, Plymouth.-Shackleton, A. builder, first and final, 5s. At Trust. T. Kendall, Shipley.- Verney, H. farmer, first, 10s. At Trust. H. K. Thorne, Cross-st, Barnstaple.-Warlow, W. H. ironmonger, first, 88. At Trust. W. N. Fisher, 5, Waterloo-st, Birmingham Richardson, H. widow, Creech St. Michael, further, 1s. At Reg. Daw, Exeter Birch, T. farmer, first, 1s. 4d. At Trust. S. Broad, Norfolk-house, Hereford.-Crook, J. manufacturing chemist, first and final, ed. At Trust. T. W. Gillibrand, 56, George-st, Manchester.-Crossley, J. jun., woolstapler, first, 4s. At Trust. J. P. Birtwhistle, Crown-st, Halifax.-Dimond, C. E. bootmaker, first and final, 28. 6d. At Trust. J. Pentony, 5, Commutation-row, Liverpool.-Hart, H. pawnbroker, first, 1s. 6d. At Trust. W. W. Hayward, High-st, Rochester.-Iverson, W. J. leather seller, first and final, 38. 11d. At Trust. 8. Culley, Guildhall-chmbs, Norwich.-Jones, C. W. tailor, first and final, 18. 9d. At Trust. T. W. Gillibrand, 56, George-st, Manchester.-Mussellwhite, C. of Longfleet, first, 4s. ed. At Aldridge and Harker, King-st, Poole.-Payne, R. W. corn merchant, first, 6s. 8d. At Trust. W. Sharp, 20, Gresham-st.-Robinson, F. cheesemonger, first and final, 7d. At Trust. B. B. Smith, 45, Cheapside.-Swann, C. victualler, first, 48. At Trust. H. Tarratt, 10, Market-st, Leicester.-Thomas, M. wholesale stationer, second, 1s. At Walker and Litchfield, accountants, Temple-chmbs, 4, St. James's-sq, Manchester BIRTHS. CHAMBERLAIN.-On the 27th ult, at Holyrood House, Llandudno, the wife of Reginald S. Chamberlain, solicitor, of a daughter. FORD.-On the 29th ult., at Southwick-place, Hyde-park-square, Edmund S. Ford, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter. INGRAM. On the 3rd ult., at Lucknow, British India, the wife of T. Lewis Ingram, of the Middle Temple, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. KINGSFORD.-On the 27th ult., at Scarr Cottage, Hampstead, the wife of Douglas Kingsford, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. THIRLWALL.-On the 27th ult., at the Palace, Abergwilli, the wife of John Thirlwall, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter. WILLIAMS.-On the 26th ult., at 6, Berkeley-gardens, Campdenhill, the wife of Roland L. Vaughan Williams, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. STREETER-WALKER.-On the 31st Dec., at the parish church, Addington, Surrey, by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the Rev. F. Spooner, John Soper Streeter, solicitor, of Croydon, to Marion, youngest daughter of Marmaduke Walker, Esq., of Addington Lodge, Addington. WILSON-PHILLIPS.-On the 27th ult., at Unity Church, Islington, Roland Knyvet Wilson, M.A., late Fellow of King's Coll.. Whiting, Camb., barrister-at-law, to Christina youngest daughter of the late Richard Phillips, F.R.S. DEATH. ABRAHAM.-On the 14th ult., at Algiers, Thomas Smyth Abraham, aged 35, of Exeter College, Oxford, B.A., and of Lincoln's-inn, barrister-at-law. To Readers and Correspondents. W.-Ex parte Daglish is reported 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 168. All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines or thirty words............ 3s. 6d. | Every additional ten words...... Os. 6d. 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. 6d., by post 5d. extra. LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 3s. 6d., by post 3d. extra. NOTICE. The LAW TIMEs goes to press on Thursday evening, that it may be received in the remotest parts of the country on Saturday morning. Communications and Advertisements must be transmitted accordingly. None 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 addressed. Now ready, price 5s. 6d., VOL. II., Part 1, of ARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series). By J. P. ASPINALL, 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 58. for the set, or any single volume for £2 28. Back numbers may be had to complete sets. London: HORACE COX, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C. 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 independently of the Act a woman trading alone was impliedly authorised VOL. LVI.-No. 1606. 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. 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 commit or fine "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 Viet. 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. 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, has 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 subporna. 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 subpoena will be found reviewed by Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, it having been argued in that case that the subpoena 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 subpoena, 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 subpona 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." 66 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. 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 SolicitorsGeneral-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. 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 that 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 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. R. 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 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 his presence was not We permitted in any degree to prejudice the defendants' rights.' think this is a very correct and useful statement of the view to be taken of the proceedings of foreign courts. BARON MARTIN. of 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. CONTRACTS BY CORPORATIONS AND THEIR 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 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 corporate seal. 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. 66 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 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 mensâ 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), a 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 condition 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 Legis lature, 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 |