Contracts; the so-called Consensual Contracts. History of the Specific Contracts. Completion of the so-called Real Contracts. Completion of the so-called Consensual Contracts. Correality. Suceties. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND LEGAL HISTORY. The Professor of Jurisprudence, in his Private Class in Constitutional Law and Legal History, will treat of the subjects of Allegiance, Citizenship, and Naturalisation; of the Legislative and Executive Functions of the Crown; and of the "Prerogatives" of the Crown. The books referred to (among others) will be Hallam's Works; May's Constitutional History; Broome's Constitutional Law; Forsyth's Cases and Opinions in Constitutional Law; Freeman's Growth of the English Constitution; and Allen's Prerogative of the Crown. EQUITY. The Professor of Equity proposes to deliver, during the ensuing Educational Term, Two Courses (elementary and advanced respectively) of Public Lectures (there being Six Lectures in each course), on the following subjects, including the most important statutory provisions and the principles of pleading and the practice of the Court of Chancery applicable thereto respectively: 1. The Doctrines of the Court of Chancery in relation to the Property of Married Women (so as those Doctrines were not fully treated of during Michaelmas Term, 1873). 2. Conversion, Election, and Reconversion. 3. Election and Satisfaction (if time permit). The Professor hopes that gentlemen attending the Public Lectures on Equity will, in addition to their ordinary reading, pay special attention to the above-mentioned subjects, and that for such purpose they will read the following cases with the notes thereto, respectively, in White and Tudor's Leading Cases in Equity, and in the following order, viz., on the Doctrines of the Court relating to the Property of Married Women, Hulme v. Tenant, vol. 1, p. 481; Lady Elibank v. Montolieu, and Murray v. Lord Elibank, vol. 1, p. 424; on Conversion, Election, and Reconver. sion, Fletcher v. Ashburner. vol. 1, p. 826; on Election, Noys v. Mordaunt, and Streatfield v. Streatfield, vol. 1, p. 331; and on Satisfaction, Ex parte Pye and Chancy's Case, vol. 2, p. 365. The Tutors in Equity propose to take the following Subjects: The Tutor in the Law of Real and Personal Property will, in his Private Classes, treat in detail of some of the Subjects of the Professor's Public Lectures. In the Elementary Class he will discuss the Law relating to Mortgages of Real Estate, including the Doctrine of the Priority of several Incumbrancers, and the usual Form, Construction, and Operation of Mortgages of Freeholds, Copyholds, and Leaseholds. In the Advanced Class he will comment on Settlements of Real and Personal Estate, and the usual Clauses contained in such Settlements. The Text-books to which reference will principally be made are-Williams on the Law of Real Property; Williams on the Law of Personal Property; Smith's Compendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property; the Dissertations, Notes, and Forms in Prideaux and Whitcombe's Precedents in Conveyancing; and the Introductions, Notes, and Forms in Davidson's Precedents. COMMON LAW. The Professor on the Common Law proposes to The Leading Principles of Law relating to- 3. Crimes. Advanced Course. 1. Mercantile Contracts. In connection with the above subjects, the Courts, and yet no delay of this kind is allowed to take place. The Profession are allowed to transact their business-no matter what kind Six-pending the making up of the annual returns in the Superior Courts of law, while in the County Court at any rate the most important branch of the County Court is entirely closed for business for nearly ten days while the officials make out their returns, and it is clear the County Court returns cannot be near so heavy as those of the Superior Courts, yet the suitors are delayed prosecuting their judgments for about ten days. Surely this delay must often be the cause of allow. ing many defendants to escape, and consequently of plaintiffs losing their debts entirely, without having any redress. In the case of a solicitor neglecting his client's business, the client has his remedy for negligence against the solicitor; but apparently in the County Courts delay such as I have mentioned no redress whatever can be obtained against the County Court authorities. I trust, therefore, that you will consider the matter sufficiently important, and be good enough to give this letter publicity, as I hope it may be the means of removing the delay that now exists, and of compelling the County Court officials to make up their returns upon the same principle as the Superior Courts-viz., without any interference in obtaining that redress which every suitor is entitled to. A SOLICITOR'S CLERK. P.S.-I may mention that pending the prepara. 2. The Leading Rules for the Construction and tion of the returns in the County Court not even a Interpretation of the Statute Law. Mr. Houston proposes to take the following The Law of Torts. Advanced Class. with his classes: Elementary Class. 1. The Constituent Elements of the Common Law. 3. The Effect of the Judicature Act of 1874 on 4. The Leading Principles of the Law of Persons 1. The General Principles of the Law of Evi. (as far as time will permit). Mercantile Law. IN FORCE IN BRITISH INDIA. The Professor of Hindu and Mahommedan Law, Hindu Law. COUNTY COURT JUSTICE.-Having occasion to attend at the Bloomsbury County Court on the common search as to payment of money into court can be made, and what influence that can have upon the result of the returns I am at a loss to conceive. OUR INVADERS.-Will you permit me to add ruptcy Act 1869 (see sect. 29), and it would often (Q. 56.) COPYHOLD PRACTICE.-If B., the testatrix, was not admitted or did not surrender to the use of her will, fees and fines must be paid as if she had been admitted and had surrendered. See 1 Vict. c. 26 s. 4. Such fees and fines would prima facie be borne by the vendor. The purchaser will only pay oue fine and one set of fees. The lord of the manor cannot compel the trustee to be admitted: (Glass v. Richardson, 9 Hare 698; Reg. v. Wilson, 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 326). Z. Y. -If B. was admitted, her trustee (as donee of the power of appointment), could appoint the copyholds to the purchaser without being admitted, and therefore without incurring the costs of the fines and fees for admission. The appointee is considered as coming in immediately under the will: (Flack v. Downing College, 17 Jur. 697; Holder v. Preston, 2 Wills 400; Beal v. Shepherd, Cro. Jac. 199; Ree v. Lord of the Manor of Oundle, 1 A. & E. 283; Glass v. Richardson, 2 D. M. & G. 660; Reg. v. Sir T. Wilson, 3 B. & S. 201.) If B. was not admitted, her trustee or donee still does not require to be admitted, but the purchaser is not entitled to be admitted until after payment of the fine and fees due on his admission, as well as of the fine and fees which would have been paid if B. had taken admission, which last will be paid by the vendor in absence of express stipulation: (1 Vict. c. 26, s. 4; also Hayes and Jarman's Forms of Wills, 6th edit., pages 6 and 121.) G. LEGAL OBITUARY. NOTE. This department of the LAW TIMES, is contributed by EDWARD WALFORD, M.A., and late scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, and Fellow of the Genealogical and Historical Society of Great Britain; and, as it is desired to make it as perfect a record as possible, the families and friends of deceased members of the Profession will oblige by forwarding to the Law TIMES Office any dates and materials required for a biographical notice. R. H. RICKARDS, ESQ. THE late Robert Hillier Rickards, Esq., barristerat-law, formerly of Llantrissant, Glamorganshire, who died on the 29th ult., at his residence in Caledonia-place, Clifton, Bristol, in the seventieth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Richard Fowler Rickards, Esq., of Llantrissant (who died in 1848), by Charlotte, daughter of Isaac Hillier, Esq., of Holt, in the county of Wiltshire. He was born in the year 1804, and was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, in Hilary Term, 1835. Mr. Rickards, who was a magistrate and deputylieutenant for the county of Glamorgan, married in 1831 Caroline Octavia, daughter of Andrew Knox, Esq., of Prehen, county Londonderry, Ireland, by whom he has left a family to lament his loss. G. C. OKE, ESQ. THE late George Colwell Oke, Esq., chief clerk to the Lord Mayor, at the Mansion House, who died on the 9th inst., after only three days' illness, at his residence, Rosedale, St. Mary's-road, Peckham, in the fifty-second year of his age, was born in 1822, and for some time acted as clerk to the Newmarket bench of justices. In 1855 he was appointed assistant clerk to the Lord Mayor; and upon the retirement of Mr. Goodman, in 1865, he succeeded that gentleman in the chief clerkship. Mr. Oke had a high reputation for his intimate knowledge of criminal law, and its practical application, and was well known and highly esteemed, not only among members of the corporation and of the legal profession, but throughout the City J. HARGREAVES, ESQ. THE GAZETTES. Professional Partnerships Dissolbed. Gazette, Jan. 2. CLARKE, ROTHERA, and CARTER, attorneys and solicitors, GREEN HALGH and FINNEY, attorneys and solicitors, Acresfield, HILLEARY, KIMBER and ELLIS, attornoys and solicitors, Lombard-st. Dec. solicitors, Hull. Dec. 31. Debts by T. Holden Bankrupts. Gazette, Jan. 9. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. ARTHUR, THOMAS, gentleman, Asylum rd, Old Kent-id. Pet. Jan. 7. Reg. Pepys. Sola. Messrs. Anderson, Ironmonger-la. Sur. Jan. 20 farmer, Hyde, Hendon. Pet. Jan. 7. Reg. Spring-Rice. Sol. BUXTON, JOSEPH HOLMES, surgeon Compton-ter, Upper-street, HARRIS, HENRY LEWIS, parking case maker, Mansell-st, Ald- To surrender in the Country. BENT, JANE, milliner, Choriton-upon-Medlock. Pet. Jan. 6. CRAWFORD, JOHN, sailmaker, Sunderland. Pet. Jan. 5. Reg. JENKINS, JOHN, builder, Swansea. Pet. Jan. 3. Reg. Jones. OWENS, WILLIAM, grocer, Pontprenllwyd. Pet. Jan. 5. Reg. TALL, GEORGE, oil refiner, Hull. Pet. Jan. 7. Reg. Phillips.. Gazette, Jan. 13. BESCOBY, EDWARD, out of business, Ashchurch-ter, New-rd THE late John Hargreaves, Esq., solicitor, and LAW SOCIETIES. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. AT the usual weekly meeting, held at the Law Institution, on Tuesday evening last, the following was the question for debate: "Is the sale of the property the remedy of an equitable mortgagee by deposit of title deeds?' The question was decided in the affirmative. The secretary's adjourned motion was carried. ARTICLED CLERKS' SOCIETY. " SOCIETY. A MEETING of this society was held at Clement's BOULD, THOMAS EDWARD, and BOULD, ALFRED JAMES grocers, EAST, EDWARD, gunmaker, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 9. Reg. GILPIN, THOMAS, tailor, Norton, near Doncaster. Pet. Jan. 10. GREEN, JOSEPH, jun., grocer, Great Yarmouth. Pet. Jan. 8. Reg. KELHAM, GEORGE, builder, Clifton-villas, Herne-hill. Pet. Jan. Sur. Jan. 27 20, at two, at offices of Sol. Burton, Birmingham ASPDEN, JOHN, grocer, Burnley. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan. 23, at three, at office of Gill, accountant, Burnley. Sol. Read, Burnley BACON, JOSEPH, shoe manufacturer, Desford. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan. 23, at three, at Cook's Temperance hotel, Leicester. Sol. Rees, Chancery la BARON, EDWARD HOWARTH, accountant, Manchester. Pet. Jan. BELL, JOHN CAMBRIDGE, brewer, Bathford. Pet. Jan. 2. Jan. BURDETT, WILLIAM, builder, Guildford. Pet. Jan. 5. Jan. 26, at CASTLE, JOHN THOMAS, master mariner, Lovegrove-pl, East COOKE, HENRY, and COMPTON, ROBERT ANDREWS, yarn three, at offices of Sols. Sale, Shipman, Seddon, and Sale, Manchester COPEMAN, WILLIAM, boot manufacturer, Norwich. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan 29, at four, at office of Sol. Sadd, Norwich CREDLAND, WILLIAM, varnish manufacturer, Sheffield. Pet. Jan. 2. Jan. 19, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Porrett, Sheffield DAVISON, JOHN, coach builder, Bradford. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 24, at eleven, at office of Sols. Berry and Robinson, Bradford DEWDNEY, THOMAS WORTHY, and DEWDNEY, WILLIAM RICHARD, paper makers, Stoke Canon. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan. 26, at one, at the Bude Haven hotel, Exeter. Sol. Ford, Exeter DOBSON, WILLIAM, car proprietor, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 26, at two, at office of Gibson and Bolland, accountants, Liverpool. Sols. Woodburn, Pemberton, aud Sampson, Liverpool DODD, JOHN, painter, Manchester. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 31, at three, at the Bird in Hand, Hulme. Sol. Whitlow, Manchester DOWNES, JOHN, out of business, Durham. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 23, at eleven, at office of 801. Salkeld, Durham EAGLE, VINCENT, and FRASER, JOHN HENRY, white lead manufacturers, St. George's Wharf, Grand Surrey Canal, Albany-rd, Camberwell, under firm of Jenkins, Eagle, and Fraser. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan. 28, at one, at office of Sols. Dixon, Ward, and Letchworth, Bedford-row, Holborn EDMUNDS, JOHN, grocer, Hopkinstown, near Pontypridd. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 22, at twelve, at office of Sol. Morgan, Pontypridd EDWARDS, RICHARD BUTCHERS, shopkeeper, Lidford. Pet. ELLIOTT, THOMAS, wheelwright, Deenethorpe. Pet. Jan. 6. Feb. FORD, JOHN POINTON, wine merchant, Manchester. Pet. Jan 5. Jan. 23, at three, at the Clarence hotel, Manchester. Sol Stead, Manchester FRASER, ROBERT, innkeeper, Barrow-in-Furness. Pet. Jan. 6. FRETWELL, JANE, widow, milliner, Huddersfield. Pet. Jan. 2. Pet Jan. 5. Jan. 23, at three, at office of Sol. Sampson, Manchester GREAVES, WALLACE MCGUFFON, general drysalter, Blackburn. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 26, at half-past ten, at offices of Sol. Jones, Manchester HALL, JAMES, cabinet maker, Wellington. Pet. Jan. 5. Jan. 23, at one, at the Squirrel inn, Wellington. Sol. Ransom, Wellington HARRIS, GEORGE ALBERT, lodging-house, keeper, Teignmouth. Pet. Jan. 5. Jun. 23, at three, at the. Royal hotel, Teignmouth. Sols Pearson and Whidborne, Dawlish HENCKEL, CHARLES FREDERICK, merchants, Manchester, also manufacturer, Mechterstedt in Saxe Coburg Gotha, under firm of Carl Benckel. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan. 26, at three, at offices of Sols. Grundy and Kershaw, Manchester HENNINGS, HENRY, ironmonger, Berwick-st, Soho. Pet. Dec. 31. Jan. 17, at eleven, at office of Sol. Willis, St. Martin's-ct, Leicester-sq HILBERT, FREDERICK BRITT, cheesemonger, Pimlico-rd, and Lower Wandsworth-rd. Pet. Jan. 3. Jan. 22, at two, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Russell and Scott, Old Jewry-chmbs HOYLE, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Oldham. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan. 23, at eleven, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Ascroft, Oldham HURST, JOHN, builder, Waldegrave rd, Teddington. Pet. Jan. 5. Jan. 23, at two, at offices of Sols. Wilkinson and Howlett, Bedford-st, Covent-gdn IRVING, GEORGE, out of business, Kirkdale. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan 23, at three, at P. Vine, Imperial-chmbs, 52, Dale-st, Liverpool Sol. Blackhurst, Liverpool ISAACS, ABRAHAM, tailor, Bristol. Pet. Jan. 2. Jan. 26, at three, at office of Sol. Emanuel, Walbrook JAGGER, JOHN, victualler, Hindley, near Wigan. Pet. Jan. 5. Jan. 12, at three, at J. Davies and Co., Bewsey-chmbs, Bewseyst, Warrington. Sols. Davies and Brook, Warrington JEWERS, FREDERICK, riveter, Northampton. Pet. Jan. 2. Jan. 20, at eleven, at office of Sol. Jeffery, Northampton JONES, DAVID, grocer, St. Asaph. Pet. Jan. 3. Jan. 30, at one, at the Queen's hotel, near Railway Station, Chester. Sol. Roberts, St. Asaph JONES, JOHN, general draper, St. Neots. Pet. Jan. 3. Jan. 22, at two, at the Inns of Court hotel, Holborn, London. Stimson, Bedford born Sol. LAMMING, CHARLES JAMES, hosier, High-st, and Gloucester-rdt LING, TOM THEOPHILUS, boot dealer, Scarborough. Pet. Jan. 7. LUCK, JOHN WILLIAM, coal merchant, Ealing Dean and Castle- Pet. Jan. 5. Jan. 29, at three, at office of Challis, accountant, Clement's-la. Sol. Euston MARTIN, ADAM, grocer, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. 5. Jan. 24, at two, at office of Sol. Lowe, Liverpool MESSENGER, JAMES HENRY, artists' colourman, High-st, Hampstead, and Stanhope-st, Euston-rd. Pet. Jan. 2. Jan. 19, at three, at Masons' hall tavern, Masons' avenue, Basinghall-st. Sol. Downing, Basinghall-st MILLS, JOHN, timber merchant, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan. 30, at three, at offices of Sols. Rowlands, Bagnall, and Rowlands, Birmingham NEWTON, ISAAC, clothier, Blackburn. Pet. Jan. 5. Jan. 22, at two, at the White Bear hotel, Manchester. Sols. Hall and Holland, Blackburn NICHOLSON, GEORGE HENRY, commission agent, Manchester. ROSENTHAL, SAMUEL, furniture dealer, Sunderland. Pet. Jan. STEEL, RICHARD GEORGE, carpenter, Marlborough-sq. Pet. Jan. 1. Jan. 19, at three, at office of Sol. Cooper, Charing cross SWALLOW, WILLIAM, manager to a painter, Oldham. Pet. Jan. 5. Jan. 92, at eleven, at office of Sol. Sampson, Manchester TAYLOR, THOMAS, potato dealer, Barrow-in-Furness. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 23, at twelve, at the Ship hotel, Barrow-in-Furness. Sol. Bradshaw, Barrow-in-Furness TEMPEST, JAMES, woolstapler, Bradford. Pet. Jan. 5. Jan. 27, at eleven, at office of Sol. Harris, Bradford UTTON, CHARLES RICHARD, baker, Rye-la, Peckham. Pet. Dec. 31. Jan. 26, at one, at 5, Tavistock-st, Covent-garden. Sol. Jenkins WAKEFIELD, FRANK, fancy goods dealer, Mare-st, Hackney. Pet. Jan. 3. Jan. 20, at twelve, at office of Sol. Sydney, Finsbury-circus WHITAKER, JOHN, bread baker, Halifax. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan. 23, at four, at office of Sol. Storey, Halifax WILLIAMS, JOHN, cheesemonger, Dudley-grove, Paddington. Pet. Jan. 6. Jan. 23, at two, at offices of Sols. Jones and Hall, King's Arms-yd, Moorgate-st WRIGHT, ROBERT HODGSON, commercial traveller, Stretford. Pet. Jan. 5 Jan. 20, at three, at office of Sols. Messrs. Fox, Manchester YOUNG, ROBERT JOHN, carpenter, Redcross-st, and Bridgwater. sq. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 24, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Wells Gazette, Jan. 13. ALCOCK, JANE, spinster, out of business, Stow-on-the-Wold. Pet. Jan. 9. Jan. 24, at eleven, at the Talbot Inn, Stow-on-theWold. Sol. Mace, Chipping Norton ASHWORTH, JAMES, chemist, Accrington. Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 27, at three, at offices of H. Bannister, solicitor, Accrington. Sols. Messrs. Radcliffe, Blackburn AVERY, EDWIN, hair dresser, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 2. Jan. 23, at eleven, at office of Sol. Eaden, Birmingham BANGER, SAMUEL, jun., St. Lawrence. Pet. Jan. 9. Feb. 2, at three, at the Bull and George hotel, Ramsgate. Sol. Edwards, Ramsgate Jan. 23, BAXTER, BENJAMIN, grocer, Colchester. Pet. Jan, 8. BRUSHWOOD, JOHN PEARCE, baker, Landport. Pet. Jan. 8. inn CLEAVER, JAMES, wholesale jeweller, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. 26, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Hodgson, Birmingham CONSTABLE, HENRY, assistant to licensed victualler, Anerley-rd. Pet. Jan. 8. Feb. 7, at eleven, at office of Sol. Wade, Clifford'sCOOPER, ARCHAMBO, and COOPER, CHARLES ION, brewers, Eastbourne, Rye, and Brighton. Pet. Jan. 10. Feb. 6, at eleven, at Spencers Bridge House hotel, London-bridge, Southwark. Sol. Perry, Guildhall-chmbs, Basinghall-st COTT, WILLIAM HENRY, boot manufacturer, Derby. Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 26, at three, at office of Sol. Harvey, Leicester DAY, THOMAS, builder, Landport. Pet. Jan. 9. Jan. 27, at eleven, at office of Sol. Walker, Landport DUGAY, THOMAS, builder, Winchester. Pet. Jan. 9. Jan. 26, at one, at the Eagle hotel, Winchester. Sols. Lee and Best, Winchester 10. EDWARDS, EDWARD, innkeeper, Hereford. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. 27, at eleven, at office of Sol. Bodenham, Hereford ELLIS, DAVID HARBRIDGE, tobacconist, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. Feb. 9, at three, at office of Vine, public accountant, Liverpool. Sol. Ritson, Liverpool FLOYD, HENRY, innkeeper, Goodrich, Pet. Jan. 9. Jan. 27, at twelve, at offices of Innell, auctioneer, Ross. Sol. Williams, Ross FRASER, GEORGE, landscape gardener, Rosher-st, Stratford. Pet. Jan. 9. Jan. 26, at two, at office of Sols. Walker and Battiscom be, Beaufort-bldgs, Strand HALL, HENRY JOHN, and DYER, JAMES, dye wood manufacturers, HOLMES, PETER GEORGE, leatherseller, West-st, Hackney. Pet. KUHN, EMIL, die sinker, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 9. Jan. 26. LAW, WILLIAM, charcoal dealer, Compton, near Wolverhamp ton. Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 23, at three, at offices of Sol. Dallow, Wolverhampton LEWIS, DAVID WILLIAM, chemist, Aberdovey. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 30, at eleven, at 1, Baker-st, Aberystwith. Sol. Atwood, Aberystwith LINCOLN, JOHN ANDREWS, mineral water manufacturer, Parkpl, Caledonian-rd. Pet. Jan. 2. Jan. 22, at eleven, at office of Sol. Butterfield, Ironmonger-la LOCKWOOD, WILLIAM, druggist, Preston. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. 26, at two, at Messrs. Watson's Auction Rooms, Preston. Sols. Cunliffe and Watson, Preston LOFTHOUSE, THOMAS, cotton manufacturer, Lower Darwen, near Blackburn. Pet. Jan. 9. Jan. 27, at three, at the warehouse of Malcolm, Ross, and Co., Manchester. Sols. Wheeler, Deane, and Fletcher, Blackburn LORD, JEREMIAH, boot dealer, Bury. Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 27, at ONIONS, GEORGE, schoolmaster, Wyke, par. Birstal. Pet. Jan. PAYNTER, WILLIAM, wine merchant, Mark-la. Pet. Jan. 6. PEACOCK, ALBERT JOHN, grocer, East Moulsey. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. 30, at two, at the Guildhall Coffee house, Gresham-st. Sols. Merriman, Powell, and Co., Queen-st, London PEARSON, JOSEPH, labourer, Nettleham. Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 31, at eleven, at office of Sol. Harrison, Lincoln PICARD, JOEL, shopman, Dewsbury. Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 26, at two, at offices of Sol. Harle, Leeds PIKE, WILLIAM HENRY, coal merchant, Burbage Wharf, Wilts. POLE, EDWARD, commission agent, Edgbaston. Pet. Dec. 29. SMITH, WILLIAM, licensed victualler, Hayes. SANDERSON, WAY WALFORD, brewer, Beaufort-ter, Nunhead-la, SYKES, FRANCIS WHITWORTH, no occupation, Richmond. Pet. Jan. 2. Jan. 27, at twelve, at office of Sols. Lawrence, Plews, and Boyer, Old Jewry-chmbs WARD, SAMUEL, victualler, Nottingham. Pet, Jan. 8. Jan. 27, YOUNG, WILLIAM, draper, Trevor sq, Knightsbridge. Pet. Dec. Orders of Discharge. Gazette, Jan. 6. WILKINS, GEORGE, butcher, Godstone Dibidends. BANKRUPTS' ESTATES. The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Dividends. Bradley, T. W. merchant, first, 3d. Paget, Basinghall-st.Middleton and For, paper manufacturers, second and final, 5d. At Sutton and Elliott, solicitors, Manchester.--Schade, F. W. merchant, second, 6 1-32d. (and first and second of 18. 1-32d. to new proofs). Paget, Basinghall-st.-Weeks, W. H. B. bookseller, first, 2d. Paget, Basinghall-st Church, Summers, and Davis, stay warehousemen, first and final 18. 24d. At Trust. M. Banes, Weavers-hall, 22. Basinghall-st.Douglas, A. P. draper, first and final, 148. 8d. At Trust. S. Hunt, jun., 54, Portland-st, Manchester.-Graves, W. H. late major in the army, first and final, 2s. 6d. At Trust. W. Edmonds, 46, St. James-st, Portsea.-Kinber, R. H. farmer, second and final, 2d. At Trust. T. Griffits, the Priory, Chipping Wycombe.-Page, E. brewer, first, Is. 6d. At Trust. J. F. Lovering, 35, Gresham-st.Roberts, E. of Taunton, first and final, 3s. 104. At W. H. Williams and Co. accountants, Exchange, Bristol.-Ruddick, J. draper, first, 10s. At 53, Standish-gate, Wigan.-Waites, A. E. currier, 75. 6d. At T. T. Fry and Co. 59, Baldwin-st, Bristol.-Watson, J. draper, first, 6s. 8d. At Douglas, Mitchell, and Co. stuff merchants Bradford BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. BEAUMONT-On the 25th ult., at Riverdale House, Richmond, the wife of Joseph Beaumont, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, of a son. HENDERSON-On the 6th inst., at 24, Lancaster-gate, Hyde-park, the wife of John Henderson, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter. SMITH.-On the 6th inst., the wife of J. George Smith, barristerat-law, 26, Lansdowne-crescent, Notting-hill, of a son. MARRIAGES. HAGGARD-SCHALCH.-On the 15th ult., at the Fort Church, Cal cutta, Alfred Hinuber Haggard, Bengal Civil Service and bar rister-at-law of Lincoln's-inn, to Alice Geraldine, eldest daughter of Vernon Hugh Schalch, Esq., Bengal Civil Service. HUGHES-BRIGHT.-On the 31st ult.. at Bluffside,, Yonkers, United States of America, Reginald Hughes, D.C.L., barrister, of Lincoln's-inn, to Matilda Adeline, eldest daughter of the Rev. Dr. Bright, of New York, NEISON-WALTERS.-On the 30th ult, at St. Pancras Church, Francis G. P. Nelson, Esq., barrister-at-law, Lincoln's-inn, to Annie, youngest daughter of the late Rev. T. D'Oyley Walters, of Bath and Batheaston. STEELE-ROBINSON.-On the 30th ult., at Mirfield, Adam Rivers Steele, of No. 44, Bloomsbury-square, and No. 9, Cook's-court, Lincoln's inn, solicitor, to Eleanor, second daughter of the late Charles Robinson, of Middleham, Yorkshire. STREETER-WALKER.-On the 31st ult., at Addington, Surrey, John Soper Streeter, solicitor, of Croydon, Surrey, to Marion, youngest daughter of Marmaduke Walker, of Addington Lodge, Addington. DEATHS. FINNIS. On the 29th ult.. at his residence, the Terrace, Turn- PARTRIDGE AND COOPER, ream. BRIEF PAPER, 15s. 6d., 178. 6d., and 23s. 6d. per ream. THE NEW" VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE" NOTE, 9s. 6d. per ream. "We should direct particular attention to their New Clubhouse Paper: in our opinion it is the very best paper we ever wrote upon."-London Mirror. INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled, to hold twenty or thirty folios, 2s. 3d. per skin, 268. per dozen, 125s. per roll. SECONDS OF FOLLOWERS, Ruled, 1s. Ild. each, 22s. per dozen, 1058. per roll. RECORDS OF MEMORIALS, 7d. each, 6s. 6d. per dozen. LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER Or MINUTE-BOOKS An immense stock in various bindings. ILLUSTRATED PRICE-LIST of Inkstands, Postage Scales Copying Presses, Writing Cases, Despatch Boxes, Oak and Walnut Stationery Cabinets, and other useful articles adapted to Library or Office, post free. UNERAL REFORM. - The exorbitant items of the undertaker's bill have long operated as an oppressive tax upon all classes of the community. With a view of applying a remedy to this serious evil the LONDON NECROPOLIS COMPANY, when opening their extensive cemetery at Woking, held themselves prepared to undertake the whole duties relating to interments at fixed and moderate scales of charge, from which survivors may choose according to their means and the requirements of the case. The Company also undertakes the conduct of Funerals to other cemeteries, and to all parts of the United Kingdom. A pamphlet containing full particulars may be obtained, or will be forwarded, upon application to the Chief Office, 2, Lancaster-place, Strand, W.c. COMPANY LAW 720 731 FISHER FISHER, FISHER. OAKES- Apportionment-4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 22, s. 1 Canal company-Act of Parliament...... 722 PRESCOTT. BARKER Will-Construction-1 Vict. c. 26, s. 26Leaseholds-Contrary intention........ 727 DORIN . DORIN Will-Gift to illegitimate children-Con- V.C. BACON'S COURT. HATHESING, LAING Broker's lien Mate's receipt V.C. HALL'S COURT. SEMPHILL. THE QUEENSLAND SHEEP LEESE. MARTIN Banker's lien-Deposit of boxes containing securities-Custom of bankers 742 Ez parte SUTCLIFFE Execution of conveyance by a married -En 734 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Lincoln County Court LEGAL NEWS 217 218 219 The Attack on Mr. Hawkins, Q.C............. 222 LAW STUDENTS' JOURNALUniversity of London 223 General Examination of Students of the Inns of Court....... 223 LEGAL EXTRACTS 223 CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION... 223 woman-3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, s. 91 ......... 747 LAW SOCIETIES NIELD. BATTY Legal Practitioners' Society Corrupt Practices Municipal Elections Act 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. ).... THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL . LOMAS Norwich Law Students' Society LEGAL OBITUARY 224 225 SIX hundred guineas have been distributed between four students of the Inns of Court for proficiency in Roman Civil Law and Jurisprudence. By this liberality the study of Roman law is necessarily raised in the estimation of students above the study of other branch of knowledge forming a portion of the education any of an English lawyer. It is not politic, in our opinion, to give special pecuniary advantages to students engaged in one particular study; the large prizes should be given to the candidate who displays an intimate acquaintance with law generally. But it is the characteristic weakness of the government of the Inns of Court to be led into extremes. Either nothing is done or new paths are struck out and pursued with that vigour which novelty is calculated to excite. We do not deprecate high rewards for proficiency in Roman law, but we urge that English law should be placed upon the same footing. AN important case under the Apportionment Act was before Vice Chancellor MALINS in Capron v. Capron on Wednesday. It was this, viz.: whether in all cases where a testator seised in fee devises a particular estate and dies between the half yearly and quarterly days for the payment of his rents, there should be an apportionment of those rents between his own personal estate and his devisee. The testator in the cause had made his will before the passing of the Act of 1870, but he added a codicil afterwards, and his Honour held that he had a discretion to apply the Act to a will thus executed, and made a declaration that there must be an apportionment of the rents, and that such portion of them as accrued before the death of the testator belonged to his general personal estate. This decision is the more important, as Lord SELBORNE in Jones v. Ogle (L. Rep. 8 Ch. 192; 28 L. T. Rep. N.S. 245) doubted whether the Act could affect the construction of a will previously made. WE unwittingly did the LORD CHANCELLOR an injustice in our last impression by suggesting that if Mr. AMPHLETT were appointed to the vacancy in the Exchequer a political supporter would be rewarded. Mr. AMPHLETT, according to DoD, was not a Liberal, but a Liberal-Conservative; but although not a political ally, on all professional matters he was a sincere coadjutor of the LORD CHANCELLOR, and quite as eager and liberal a law reformer. The new Judge was born in the year 1809, and was educated at a grammar school in Staffordshire, and subsequently at St. Peter's College, Cambridge, where he took his Bachelor's degree in 1831, coming out in the mathematical tripos as sixth Wrangler. He was called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn in Trinity Term 1834, and was for some time one of the acknowledged leaders in Lincoln's Inn. He received a silk gown in 1858. He is a magistrate and a deputy-lieutenant for Worcestershire, and has been for several years a deputychairman of the Quarter Sessions for that county. When Sir ROUNDELL PALMER became Lord Chancellor, Mr. AMPHLETT was chosen his successor in the presidency of the Legal Education Association. It is interesting to know what the solicitors think of the appointment, and we have received an expression of opinion which we reproduce. A correspondent writes: "Having in view the jurisdiction in bankruptcy matters which the Judicature Act throws upon the Court of Exchequer, it appears to me that the appointment of an equity counsel was very judicious. I am pleased to know that there is some prospect of law and equity working together in the common law courts, as the trial of a similar working in the courts of equity has proved a success. If the Judicature Act is to be properly worked, common law and equity Judges must sit side by side. The presence of a Judge who has had a training in equity principles, will prove of vast use in duty questions which are practically left solely to the decision of the Court of Exchequer." THE question which has been in a certain sense decided in the Taunton Election Petition with reference to the production of telegrams, is undoubtedly one of considerable importance. Before noticing the strictly legal aspect of the question, we may observe that an objection to the inspection of post office telegrams has been put forward on very broad general grounds. The Times asks, "ought the department to be considered as standing in any different relation to telegraphic messages than that which it holds in respect to letters. . . . The general principle has in great measure been recognised that in respect to telegrams as well as to letters, the post office is in the mere position of a carrier." The position of the Post-office is doubtless that of a carrier, and its duty to the public in the transmission of letters and telegrams is plainly to deliver them to the persons to whom they are addressed, and to no one else. So soon as letters or telegrams are delivered to the Post-office the property in them is vested in the intended receiver, and the sender has no right of stoppage in transitu. But the receiver's rights with reference to letters transmitted to him are distinctly limited--he cannot publish the contents without the permission of the sender. The case of the carrier is certainly à fortiori. But the receiver may be ordered to produce letters, even at the suit of a stranger. Lord Justice CAIRNS said in Hopkinson v, Lord Burghley, “The writer is supposed to intend that the receiver may use it for any lawful purpose, and it has been held that publication is not such a lawful purpose. But if there is a lawful purpose for which a letter can be used, it is the production of it in a court of justice for the furtherance of the ends of justice." Moreover, the sender cannot protect letters from production by marking them "private and confidential." If the Post-office were the ultimate receiver of a letter or telegram, therefore, there could be no doubt about its liability, and if telegrams are to be got at, it must be upon the ground that the Postoffice retains copies in its possession, and to a limited extent is a receiver. Supposing, however, that this were allowed to prevail, we do not see how it is possible to compel the office to produce all telegrams addressed to and from a particular town on a particular day. In Lee v. Angus (14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 324) a subpoena duces tecum was served upon a witness, calling upon him in very wide and general terms to produce all deeds, documents, &c. in his possession relating to the dealings and transactions between two firms for a period of thirty-three years. Vice-Chancellor WooD said the terms of the subpoena were much too vague, and did not sufficiently specify the documents to be produced, and that a witness ought not to be asked to ransack a large collection of papers for such a period of time to ascertain the precise documents wanted by the party. This reasoning applies when the papers are numerous, either on account of the long period over which they extend or the nature of the business to which they relate. Nevertheless, the VICECHANCELLOR held, that having got the documents in court, the witness was bound to produce them. On the whole, Mr. Justice GROVE exercised a wise discretion in not ordering the Post-office to submit the telegrams to the proposed examination, but whether under such circumstances the Post-office should be altogether exempted is a question of the first importance upon which we should not like to express any opinion. ON the 6th inst. judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice FITZGERALD in Re Marshall, which was an application by a prisoner in custody for a writ of habeas corpus, in order that she should be in attendance at an inquest held on the body of a soldier whom it is alleged she murdered by poison. When the prisoner was taken before the magistrate, application to him was made on her behalf that she might be allowed to attend the inquest then being held, but the magistrate decided that he had no power to grant the application. The argument in support of the application for a writ of habeas corpus was that the Court of Queen's Bench had discretionary jurisdiction, and that even though the prisoner might not be required as a witness before the coroner, she was entitled to be present. It was pointed out that a coroner had power to exclude from the inquest both attorney and counsel, and that if the prisoner were not allowed to be present, any irregularities of which she might be entitled to take advantage for the purpose of quashing the inquisition would pass unchallenged; -and further, that the prisoner should be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, some of whom might die between the inquest and the trial, but whose depositions might possibly still be used, and no cross-examination take place at all. Solicitor-General Law, on behalf of the Crown, urged that uniformity should prevail in the English and Irish practice, and that the settled practice in England is that a writ of habeas corpus will not be issued unless it appears to be substantially necessary to the ends of justice. That may be a general principle, but there is no English decided case which goes the length of saying that a prisoner ought not to get his writ for the purpose of attending the coroner's court. It occurs to us that the argument with reference to the admissibility of the depositions in evidence--the doubt whether they would be admissible at the trial if the accused were not present at the inquest-is of itself sufficient ground for allowing the writ to go. ARCHBOLD in his Criminal Evidence says (p. 232), "Although the former statutes relating to the examination of witnesses against a prisoner before justices and coroners (1 & 2 Ph. & Mc. 13; 2 & 3 Ph. & M. c. 10; 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, ss. 2 and 5) did not contain any express enactment like that contained in 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 17, it was yet determined in many cases, and recognised as a rule of law, that, where the examination of witnesses in cases of felony under these statutes was taken in the presence of the accused, and he had the opportunity of cross-examining them, the deposition of any such witness might be read in evidence against the accused on his trial, in case the person who made the deposition were dead." We have not looked at the authorities cited by the counsel for the application in Re Marshall, but it is obvious that any judge would hesitate considerably to admit the depositions of a witness before the coroner on the trial of the accused, if the accused had not been present at the examination. Whereas it is equally clear that there could be no objection to the reception of such evidence the accused having been present. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that the writ ought not to go merely to gratify the desire of the accused to be present, but only where the accused wished to give evidence. In this argument we do not for a moment concur, but we entirely agree with Mr. Justice FITZGERALD, who said that he always considered that the more latitude allowed in preliminary courts the better for the course of justice; and again, "Is the coroner's court to exist? If it is I ought to assist its inquiries in every way." "I know," his Lordship added, " of no case in which the application of an accused person, saying by her attorney that she desires to be present, has been refused.' In delivering his judg ment, Mr. Justice FITZGERALD made some general observations concerning the examination of prisoners on their trial. "I for one," he said, "have long entertained the opinion, and have repeatedly expressed it from the Bench, that, at the final trial before the judge and petty jury, prisoners should be allowed to tender themselves and be received as witnesses, if they so desired it. I believe that there is a great defect in the law as it stands at present, and I think that an alteration in the law to that effect should be made, as it would be most conducive to the due adminis tration of criminal justice. The adviser of the prisoner has sworn that it would be necessary for the prisoner to be present at the inquest before the coroner, in order that she might be tendered as a witness, and I must treat the application with that view, as bonâ fide. That course, if adopted, will be taken at the peril of the party, and if I were sitting as a coroner, although I would not call upon her to be examined, I should be very slow to refuse to receive her evidence, if it were offered," MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE AND REPRESENTATIONS AS AFFECTING CONTRACTS. IT is frequently important that contracting parties should be careful to inform themselves not only of the character of the person with whom they contract, but of all the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract. The law of agency in this country has in course of time assumed rather complicated proportions, and it is now abundantly clear that different principles apply to dealings with factors and with brokers, and with agents generally of disclosed and undisclosed principals, When an action is brought by undisclosed principals for goods sold, a question is very likely to arise whether the defendants have any right to set-off against the claim a debt due to them by the agent. And in considering this claim to a right of set-off, it must be asked as a preliminary question, had the defendant means of knowing that the other contracting party was an agent? If he had not, and the principal enabled his agent to hold himself out as owner of the goods, the agent's debt may be set-off against the principal. If, on the other hand, the defendant, with due diligence, could have ascertained that the vendor was an agent, no set-off of the debt of the agent can be pleaded to an action by the principal. The effect of knowledge upon the defendant's right of set-off was discussed in the case of Borries and others v. The Imperial Ottoman Bank (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 689), where in an action by the real owners of goods for the price of such goods, the defendants pleaded that they had bought them of certain persons whom they believed to be the owners, and that they did not know that the plaintiffs were interested therein or that the vendors were the plaintiffs' agents. On a demurrer to this plea it was held that the plea was good without any allegation negativing the means of knowledge on the part of the defendants that the vendors were agents. The objection to the plea just escapes being a technicality, and appears to us to have been satisfactorily met by Mr. Justice Keating, who said "what are means of knowledge but evidence of knowledge, and evidence must not be pleaded." We are not, however, interested in discussing here whether technically the averment of want of means of knowledge ought to have been inserted in the plea, but the principle involved is one of importance. The law of agency in this country has become somewhat complicated by the existence of agents having different functions, such as factors and brokers; but the law is now, we think, tolerably clear. First, a vendee of goods cannot in an action for the price by the true owner, set-off a debt due by the vendor's agent to the vendee unless he dealt with the agent as a principal and had no knowledge that he was an agent. If he can be affected with knowledge that the seller was an agent, then the rule does not apply, and he cannot set-off the debt of the agent against the claim of the owner of the goods. To enable us to understand this doctrine, it is only necessary to look at one or two of the principal cases, and the best illustration is furnished by Baring v. Corrie (2 B. & A. 137). There Coles and Co., who were brokers, and also merchants, sold to Corrie and Co. in their own names sugars belonging to Baring, Brothers, and Co., who brought an action for the price. The true nature of the contract was entered by Coles and Co. in their brokers' book, which the defendants might, if they pleased, have seen. Coles and Co. had not the possession of the sugars which were lying in the West India Docks where, by the usage of the docks, they could not have been taken without the order of the plaintiffs, whose principal clerk signed the delivery order. Under these circumstances the court held that the defendants had no right to set-off against the demand of the plaintiffs for the price of the goods a debt due to them from Coles and Co. The plaintiffs there had not even given to the selling brokers the muniments of title, and with 'ordinary diligence the vendees might have known that Coles and Co. were acting as agents for Baring Brothers. As Mr. Justice Bayley put |