Page images

stead of reaching London at quarter to 11 o'clock a.m., he did not get to Paddington until 2.45 p.m. By the time he got across to the hop market in Southwark the market was closed, and he could not transact his business. He stopped the night in the metropolis, and went to the market the next day, but the price of hops had risen, and he had to buy at a higher rate than had he been at the market the previous day. The plaintiff sought to recover £41 odd for the loss he had sustained through the company breaking their contract to Convey him to Bristol in time for the 7.50 express. His HONOUR first considered whether any contract had been made between the parties, and observed that on the time-tables issued by the defendants it was stated, "The public time-tables of this company are only in. tended to fix the time at which passengers may be certain to obtain their tickets for any journey from the various stations, it being understood that the trains shall not start from them before the appointed time. Every attention will be paid to ensure punctuality as far as is practicable, but the directors give notice that the company do not undertake that the trains shall start or leave at the time specificed in the bills, nor will they be accountable for any loss, inconvenience, or injury which may arise from delays or detention." What the notice stated as to the company not being responsible was mere moon. shine, because they must be responsible if they entered into a contract, but what they said was that the time-tables issued by them were only intended to fix the time by which passengers would be certain to obtain their tickets for any journey from the various stations, it being understood that the trains should not start from them before the appointed time. He held that the expressions in the notice only applied to the Portishead and intermediate stations, and not to Bristol; and pointing out that it was stated in the body of the time bill that the train "de parted" from Portishead at 6.50 and "arrived" at 7.40, he held these words formed part of the contract in giving notice to the passengers to that effect, and on the notice to that effect the contract arose. If there had been any unavoid. able cause of delay the defendants would not be

Folkard said he wished to know if the registrar had power to review and alter his Honour's judgment.

Pis HONOUR said Mr. Folkard was too pertinacious, if he choose to make an application after the trial it should be heard, although no notice had been given.

Mr. Folkard read from the shorthand writers notes taken at the application, where his Honour said that the costs of the application and the last trial should be paid by the defendant within a fortnight, if not judgment to be given for the plaintiff and possession. Mr. Folkard argued that till the requirements of his Honour's judg. ment had been complied with a new trial could not be had.

His HONOUR (to Folkard)-If you talk till tomorrow, I will have this case tried over again. In answer to his Honour, the Registrar said the costs had been paid into court as taxed. His HONOUR said that they must, therefore, be considered as paid.

Folkard said that the Registrar had cut down the costs of the plaintiff from £43 to about £19, and he had done this contrary to his Honour's judgment. He (Folkard) wanted to know, and many attorneys in that court wanted to know, if the Registrar had power to alter or review his Honour's judgment. He (Folkard) said that they were entitled to the costs of the former trial, and until they were paid he did not propose to proceed

with the new trial.

His HONOUR said he would hear the application against the Registrar after the new trial. Folkard-We have had no costs, and until we are paid your Honour has no power to go on with a new trial. I have well considered this matter, and I do not propose to go on with it till your judgment has been fulfilled strictly to the letter.

His HONOUR-I consider that the conditions

have been complied with. The case will come on in due course, and if the plaintiff does not appear I shall give a verdict for the defendant.

The application was then adjourned, and some cases disposed of, and after a short time, Folkard said. that the Registrar had paid the costs as far as they had been taxed, but of course the amount paid was only on account. He was now prepared to go on with the new trial.

His HONOUR remarked that as Mr. Lascelles had withdrawn his application, Mr. Folkard was entitled to the costs of the first trial irrespective of

the result of the new trial.

Folkard applied for the costs of the application which had been made and withdrawn by Mr. Lascelles.

liable for the breach of their contract, but the picking up of the coal trucks was a voluntary act, and the delay caused by it was not an unavoidable one, and therefore he thought the company had committed a breach of their contract in their train not arriving at 7.40 a.m. as announced. With respect to the question. of damages, he held that Mr. Arthur was entitled to two guineas for the loss of time incurred in waiting for the second express train, but he held he could not recover damages for the loss he sustained in London through the rise in the market because he had not communicated to the company his special purpose in going to London, and they could not have contemplated loss arisingly left the box. from the breach of their contract. He gave a length. The action was for the ejectment of the We have previously reported the case at some

verdict for the plaintiff for £2 2s.

Lascelles said he left the matter in the hands of

his Honour.

His HONOUR granted the costs.
A jury of five was then sworn.
Folkard objected to Mr. John Ellis, who accord-

defendant from a cottage and garden at Haslemere. The case turned upon the ownership of GUILDFORD AND GODALMING COUNTY the house which is in the possession of the defen


Tuesday, Jan. 15.

(Before W. J. STONOR, Esq., Judge.) ALLWYN v. LUFF. Ejectment-Estoppel. Folkard, instructed by Albery and Lucas, of Midhurst, for plaintiff.

Lascelles, instructed by G. Hull, of Godalming, for the defendant.

Lascelles said that he had given notice of an application to have the order for the payment of

rescinded costs at the last hearing for a new trial. He had consulted his client, Mr. Luff, and come to the conclusion that he would withdraw the application, which he thought his Honour had no power to grant.

Folkard said he had something to say before the application was withdrawn. He would read the notice which he had received. The learned counsel accordingly did so. The ground of the application was that the order had been fraudulently procured on the part of the plaintiff. The condition on which the application for a new trial was that the costs should be taxed wtihin a week and paid within a fortnight, otherwise the plaintiff was to have judgment and possession. His Honour said at that time that the costs of the last trial were to be allowed. He now had to complain that only the costs of the day were allowed, and not the costs of the first trial.

His HONOUR said that should be the ground of an application against the registrar to review his taxation.

Folkard.-I apply now.

His HONOUR (after consulting the registrar) said the defendant had paid the taxed costs, and was, therefore, entitled to a new trial. In the course of further conversation his Honour said he had looked with great suspicion on the case from the first.

dant. Both parties claim the ownership of it. A verdict for the plaintiff was given at the first trial. At the next court an application was made on behalf of the defendant for a new trial. This application was granted, and the new trial came on for hearing.

Folkard opened his case at some length.

Lascelles called forth the question from Mr. Folkard, "Do you accuse me of putting in a fraudulent deed ?"

Lascelles.-I do.

the issue would be. Referring to a deed executed Folkard went on to say that they knew what in 1870, Mr. Folkard said a recital contained in it was most extraordinary, and proceeded to read it. The recital set forth that £50 shown by a deed executed in 1862 to have been paid to Mr. Charles John Woods, since deceased, by Mr. J. Hoad, and had never been so paid, and that Mr. Hoad, the grantee in the deed, had always repudiated it.

Lascelles said that at the last hearing he, to save time, accepted the documents of the plaintiff in good faith. He had no idea that the deed in question contained anything like that which had been read.

His HONOUR (to Folkard). I consider you behaved in a most improper manner in not calling attention to this recital at the last trial. It is the first time since I have been on the bench that I have had occasion to say such a thing, and I am very sorry to say it now. I consider that it is a deception and fraud upon the court.

Folkard.-I have never had such a thing saidHis HONOUR.-I am much surprised to find such a recital in this deed, and in acting in the way you have done I consider it was a very improper deception on the court.

Folkard (emphatically).—I have practised before every judge, and never had such a thing said to me before. I have yet to learn that it is the duty of counsel for a plaintiff, in producing the title

deeds of an estate, to point out any flaw in those deeds. I have yet to learn that it is the duty of counsel on the part of the plaintiff, to pick out flaws and state them to the court and jury. I have always understood that it is the duty of the counsel for the defendant to discover any flaw that there may be in the title of his adversary who claims the property. That is the universal rule. I have always understood that that is so, and as long as I wear these robes, shall always adopt that rule, whatever may be the opinions of those who preside or practise in this court.

Folkard then proceeded to put in a large amount of documentary evidence, which was attested by witnesses. A deed executed in 1862, set forth that £50 interest and principal was then paid on a mortgage on the property in question. On this deed he (Folkard) secured a verdict on the first trial, as it proved ownership within twenty years, the term required by law. The recital of the deed of 1870 (which drew forth the strong remarks of his Honour as reported above) set forth that this £50 had not been paid, and accordingly the plaintiff failed to prove ownership within twenty years, this being the only evidence on the point. At the conclusion of Folkard's case,

Lascelles said he should submit to his Honour that there was no case to go to the jury, as the recital of the deed of 1870 destroyed any prima facie case which his learned friend's documentary evidence might have raised, and cited Roscoe and Taylor on Evidence.

the view that the evidence in the recital was not Folkard argued at great length in support of conclusive. It ought not, he said, to operate as an estoppel. He earnestly besought his Honour to let the case go to the jury.

His HONOUR said he should very much like the case to go to the jury; but if Mr. Lascelles pressed his point, he should certainly feel bound to decide it.

After some further argument by Folkard.

His HONOUR, addressing the jury, said,—In this case the plaintiff has to show that he, or the perthe rents and profits of the property within twenty sons under whom he claims, has had the receipt of years; or else that there has been a payment either of interest or principal upon a mortgage within that time. He has not proved the receipt of rents and profits, but he has made out a prima facie case as to the payment of a portion of prin. cipal and interest within twenty years. The deed of 1862 contains an admission by a party, since deceased, against his own interest. It is an admission by Charles John Woods that principal and interest had been paid to him, and that is a sufficient prima facie case to put the defendant to proof that it had not been paid. In the document of 1870 there is, however, as distinct and clear a recital and statement as could be framed that the money was never paid, and that Mr. Wood, the grantee, always repudiated the transaction. That deed was executed by the trustees of Mr. Hoad's will, and under that deed the present plaintiff claims. He is, in my opinion, bound by that deed, and the defendant is entitled to a nonsuit.

[ocr errors]

A nonsuit was then ordered.

Folkard then made his application with regard to the taxation of costs by the registrar. He complained that the registrar had improperly reduced the costs, and had neglected to allow the costs of the first trial.

His HONOUR, after looking into the bill of costs, ordered certain additions to be made.

At the conclusion of the case

His HONOUR said that it was with very great pain and regret that he adverted to a question to which he had previously alluded. When he gave an order for a new trial he considered that the

plaintiff had a perfectly fair title unless evidence to the contrary could be shown by the defendant at the new trial. He now found that this was not so, from the recital in the deed of 1870, which ought to have been laid before the court.

Folkard.-I did not know your Honour was going to open that again.

His HONOUR went on to say that no doubt in these courts the greatest pressure in respect of time existed, and often the judge had to act as counsel and to examine and cross-examine witnesses for hours and then hear cases argued by counsel. The only way in which justice could be done was by counsel dealing fairly with the court. If they did not, mishaps would arise necessitating a new trial, as in this case, which ought to have been settled at the previous court. [At this stage his Honour, addressing Mr. Folkard said, I see you are standing, Mr. Folkard. I desire you to sit. Mr. Folkard accordingly sat down.] If the application of which Mr. Lascelles had given notice, and which he had withdrawn, had been pressed, as he certainly thought it ought to have been pressed, he should have thought it worthy of much consideration. He thought that in this case great injury had been done to the defendant, and great damage would be done to suitors if counsel and solicitors did not act with complete frankness and fairness towards each other. To call a deed

[blocks in formation]


NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PAYMENT OF COSTS OF PROSECUTION OUT OF MONEY FOUND ON PRISONER-PRISONER ADJUDICATED BANKRUPT BEFORE CONVICTION.After the conviction of a prisoner for felony the Central Criminal Court made an order, under sect. 3 of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, for the payment of the costs of the prosecution out of the moneys found on the prisoner at the time of his apprehension. The validity of this order being questioned by the trustee in bankruptcy of the prisoner's estate on the ground that the prisoner had been adjudicated a bankrupt between the dates of his apprehension and conviction, and that on such adjudication all his property vested in the trustee. Held, that the order was rightly made, the trustee on adjudication of bankruptcy, taking the property of the bankrupt prisoner, subject to the possibility of the criminal court making the order in question. Quære, whether such an order would be valid if the prisoner were adjudicated bankrupt in respect of an act of bankruptcy committed before his apprehension. (Reg. v. Roberts, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 674. Q. B.)

[blocks in formation]

The main facts appeared in an affidavit filed by the debtors, admitted to be substantially correct, and were shortly these: Messrs. Ogden (the debtors), had advertised for a managing partner in a brewery, requiring a premium of £200, and Mr. Bowers agreed to join them; but there were no written articles. If the whole premium should not be paid down at once Bowers was not to become " a full partner," until it should be so paid, but was to be allowed interest on any portions of the premium paid by him, and was to have a salary for management. Bowers managed the business on these terms for about six months, and paid about £75 on account of the premium which, the Ogdens say, was put into the business. Disputes then arose, and the partnership was dissolved. The Ogdens complained that Bowers was incompetent, and had damaged the concern by bad brewing. Bowers alleged that the Ogdens had deceived him as to the value of the business. Cross actions at law for damages were commenced by the parties; but Bowers, as a distinct matter, issued the present debtor's summons, claiming about £93, in respect of the part of premium paid and salary. The debtors in their affidavit. denied the debt. In a correspondence the debtors' solicitors had offered to pay £75 to await an award, if Bowers would refer the whole case.

G. Rhodes claimed to proceed on the summons under the authority of Ex parte Ellis Re Kain (24 L. T. Rep. 819).

England reminded the Registrar of his own dictum (reprobating issuing summonses in dis. puted cases instead of proceeding by action at law) in Verity v. Thompson (LAW TIMES, vol. lii., p. 466)

but there the evidence before the registrar showed there was no debt owing-and argued that the debtors were at least entitled to have the case tried by a jury, the debt being disputed and a good defence alleged, and questions as to partnership arising.

The REGISTRAR.-Ex parte Ellis v. Kain, cited by Mr. Rhodes, does not apply. In that case the debt was a judgment debt, not to be set aside on such an occasion, and the question was merely as to some alleged cross claims. In the present instance, it is denied that there is any debt; at the same time the offer of the debtors to pay £75 into a bank to await a reference, though not eqvivalent to an admission by payment into court, savours of a consciousness on the part of the part of the debtors that something might be found to be owing from them. But in my view of the case, as one arising out of partnership disputes, I have grave doubts whether Mr. Bowers can suceeed in a common law action, and on the whole, the evidence to my mind being inconclusive, I consider I have an option either to dismiss the summons or to stay proceedings: Ex parte Rowbotham (25 L. T. Rep. 921). It is true that in Ex parte Ellis v. Kain, Lord Justice James appears to give the preference to letting the summons go on, and deciding the point at a further

[ocr errors]

stage, viz., the hearing of the petition frr adjudi. should fail to do so, they would become amenable cation. I should at all times feel bound implicitly not only to the censure of this court but to the to obey any decision of that learned judge, but as Comptroller of Bankruptcy, as neglecting their I have before observed, there was an established duties. It is not, however, a case for any formal debt in that case but none in this. It appears to order of this court, which would, indeed, be me that the case in point is Ex parte Weir re Weir merely directing them to perform the duties cast (26 L. T. Rep. 333), where questions of partner-upon them by the Legislature on their accepting ship arose, and their lordships not only allowed a the office of trustees. If any person sets up a stay of proceedings on the summons, but con- claim to any property which they may seize, of sidered that security for trying the question course that claim will come before the court in should not have been required. I propose to the usual way, and be dealt with according to its follow that decision, and I therefore order that merits. It is possible that the debtor may have, the procerdings on this summons be stayed given securities to fresh creditors, not having (without security being given), until proceedings sent notice of the liquidation, which might be in a court of law shall have been taken by the valued as against the original creditors, but such summoning creditor against the summoning a case can scarcely arise unless the trustees have debtors for the recovery of the demand men- been remiss, and it will be time enough to deal tioned in the summons, and until such court shall with it when it is brought before the court. have come to a decision thereon. At present I make no order as to costs.


of the trustee.

(Before JAMES STEPHEN, LL.D., Judge.) Liquidation No discharge-Stock-in-trade acquired by debtor after filing petition, the property AT the last court Page, on behalf of the trustees under the liquidation of Charles Lowe, tobacconist, Lincoln (Mr. Jay, of Lincoln, and Mr. Chatterton, of London), applied for directions as to the course they should pursue in reference to the stock-in-trade acquired by the debtor since the liquidation, he not having applied for or obtained his discharge.

His HONOUR was about to deliver his judgment,


Rex interposed, and said he appeared for the debtor, and also for one of the creditors. His HONOUR said he could not see that Mr. Rex had any locus standi.

Rex.-I appear for a creditor.

His HONOUR.-I would rather hear nothing.


THE ATTACK ON MR. HAWKINS, Q.C. AT Westminster police court on Tuesday Robert Booty, a painter, and Joseph Ryan, a general dealer, surrendered to their bail, charged with being riotous and disorderly in Westminster, and John Donovan, a lithographic printer, and Thomas Ennis, a hawker of prints, were similarly charged, with the addition that they used obscene lan


W. Doveton Smyth appeared for the defendant Booty.

The court was much crowded.

Mr. Pinhey, the chief inspector of the A division, was cross-examined by Smyth. He said: Considering the crowd and its size, there was not so much hissing and shouting; the crowd was a large one and ran; the defendant Booty was in the foremost rank of the crowd, others were in front of him; he pushed persons-two or threeand directly witness saw him he "collared" him. It was not the way to get out of the crowd, at least what he was doing, and was quite sure that and hundreds of others.

This was an ex parte application for certain direc- both Ryan and Booty were hooting and hissing,

tions of the court, which I am now prepared to give. There is no special matter before the court. think your best plan will be to listen to my judgment, and then it will be open for you to take any course you may think fit.

Ree said he would rather first call his Honour's attention to a case, which might not have been under his notice. Lord Eldon had decided that where an uncertificated bankrupt

His HONOUR (interposing): I am quite aware of that. You had better hear what I have to say. In this case application was made last court on the part of the trustees for directions to seize the stock-in-trade acquired by the debtor since he filed his petition. He had not obtained or applied for his discharge, but carries on his business as he used to do, it is believed, with money advanced by a bill of sale creditor, who, having established his priority, diverted the whole of the debtor's property from the rest of the creditors. I have no doubt that with regard to future property the status of an undischarged liquidating debtor is the same as that of an undischarged bankrupt. In either case, all the property which he acquires until his discharge is obtained belongs to the estate, and it is the duty of the trustees to collect it for the benefit of the creditors. The only exception to this is the personal labour of the debtor, which does not pass to his creditors, the assignees (or trustees) not being allowed, as it has sometimes been expressed, to let out the bankrupt to hire. But with regard to any stock-in-trade, or profit which he derives from its sale, and the like, the case is different, and anyone who advances him the money for purchasing such stock, or allows him to contract fresh debts, does so at his peril. If, indeed, the trustees should allow him, without interference, to continue his business as if he were a free man, subsequent creditors, if they could show that they were deceived as to his real position, might possibly set up an equitable right to have priority over the original creditors. But this, I apprehend, is not the case here, and in any event would not give the debtor himself any right as against his trustee. I have not found, nor should I expect to find, any express authority to the effect that an undischarged debtor cannot retain future property as against his trustee; but in a very recent case it was held that a creditor who had advanced money to a liquidating debtor on his resuming business under the sanction and superintendence of the trustee after he had obtained his discharge, on the condition of his executing a bond for the payment of a certain sum to the trustees, was not entitled to a lien on the price paid afterwards for the business, on its being sold under a resolution of the creditors. A fortiori, therefore, would no such lien have existed had the debtor not obtained his discharge. On the whole, therefore, I am of opinion that the trustees are bound to follow up Mr. Lowe in his new business, and if they

The roughs in court here began to make a noise, and Mr. ARNOLD said he would have the court cleared if there was a repetition of it.

Mr. Pinhey went on to say he took the defendant Booty in the act of shouting and hissing. He said, "What have I done?" and said he had gone to see something of the people connected with the trial, Sir Roger Tichborne, &c. He did did not say he was going to see his doctor over the water. On this occasion Dr. Kenealy was not there; the crowd went to see him.

Mr. ARNOLD: So they got hold of Mr. Hawkins instead.

Edward Shaw, a detective, who apprehended Donovan, was cross-examined, and said the man Donovan was close to the shaft of the cab; it was a Hansom, and Mr. Hawkins was inside; lots of people were shouting; lots of people shouted out

[ocr errors]

Here's b- Hawkins." A great number of people said that; it was all they could do to get out of the crowd with the prisoners; he was cer tain Donovan used the words "Here's b- old Hawkins, let's turn the cab over." When witness took him he had hold of the shaft of the cab.

Detective Marsh, E Division, cross-examined: Was close to Mr. Pinhey at the time of the rush. First saw Booty after we got hold of Ryan. He was a little bit in advance of the rush. There were some people in front of him and behind him. he was not trying to get out of the crowd. He was hallooing, and hissing, and pushing people.

Smyth, in defence of Booty and Donovan, said: Booty went to see the counsel for the defence, having occasion to go to his medical man in the Westminster-bridge-road. There was a rush, and while he was trying to get out of the crowd he pushed persons. Anybody would do so to get out of a large crowd. He denied that the prisoner had the slightest feeling in the matter, and he would show by evidence that he was a man of good character; he was sure the inspector and Marsh were mistaken in the confusion that en sued; the last witness had either made a gross mistake or had committed gross perjury. Donovan, he said, was an honest, industrious young man; he had no work to do, and he went out of curiosity to see the claimant and Dr. Kenealy. He may have been near the cab, but he totally denied the use of the language, and attributed the charge to a mistake on the part of the police.

After the adjournment to the court, Mr. Arnold asked if this conduct had been repeated, and upon being answered in the negative, said he was very glad to hear it; he characterised the conduct of the crowd as perfectly monstrous; of the merits and demerits of the case they knew about as much as the stones under their feet; that a gentleman should be hooted and hounded by a disorderly rabble was not to be tolerated, and means must be taken to repress it. He was satisfied that all the defendants had taken part in it, and had they been proved to have been acting

in concert he should have committed them for a riot, but as that was not so, he should deal with them under his power as a magistrate. He trusted the view he took of the matter would be a warning to others, for the next time this sort of thing occurred he should deal with the offenders very severely. At present, he ordered Booty to find bail in £50 to keep the peace for three months; Ryan to find bail in £30 for a like term; and the other two, Donovan and Ennis, to find bail in £5 each. Booty's bail was at once tendered and accepted, and the others were removed to the cells.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Mr. Torr, Q.C., and Mr. Lindley, Q.C., have been appointed benchers of the Middle Temple.

THE EXETER ELECTION PETITION. - Baron Bramwell has appointed Tuesday, Feb. 3, for the hearing of the Exeter Election Petition-Carter and another v. Mills, M.P.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-The next session of the Central Criminal Court will be held on Monday, Feb. 2. The judge on the rota is Baron Pigott, appointed to the North Wales Circuit. WE understand that in the event of a vacancy occurring in the office of clerks to the magistrates at Portsmouth, Mr. R. W. Ford, a well known solicitor in the borough, would probably be elected to the office without opposition.

MR. COMMISSIONER KERR has, through his solicitors, threatened the common council of the City of London with proceedings, in reference to the payment of fees levied under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act in his court during the past five years, and which the learned commissioner contends belong to him.

THE IRISH BENCH.-The Lord Lieutenant has stated to a deputation from the corporation of Dublin, with reference to the subject of the vacant judgeship in the Irish Court of Exchequer, that the appointment is deferred until the Government has decided whether the Judicature Act shall extend to Ireland.

THE Times, in an article upon Irish grievances, alleges "that the Irish Bench is overmanned in proportion to the work that is to be done. A very simple sum in the rule of three will show that whether we consider the amount of business or the number of the population, an Irish judge has nothing like the same amount of work to do, nor work by any means so important as that which falls to the share of every English judge."

THE BALLOT ACT.-The Irish Court of Queen's Bench has confirmed the conviction of Mr. Unkles the Cork magistrate, for the offence of violating the Ballot Act, by his disclosure of the nature of a vote given at the late election.

THE post of Registrar to the Railway Commission, vacant by the death of Mr. Gilmore Evans, has been filled up by the appointment of Mr. Balfour Browne, barrister-at-law, of the Middle Temple and Midland Circuit.

show "the right of a mortgagee to sue mortgagor's tenant for rent of premises held under tenancy prior to given such tenant notice to pay the rent to him: (Birch indenture of mertgage," that is, if the mortgagee has v. Wright, 1 T. R. 378; Burrowes v. Gradin, 1 D. & L. 213; 1 Sm. L. C. 315; De Nicholls v. Saunders, L. Rep. 5, C. P. 589.) T. E. H.



free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it

THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY.-Mr. Rupert Kettle will read a paper at a meeting of the Social Science Association, to be held on the 26th inst., NOTE. This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to at their rooms in the Adelphi, on "The Law of Conspiracy as effecting employers and employed." The chair will be taken at eight o'clock by Fitzjames Stephen, Esq., Q.C.

[blocks in formation]

Jones, D. B.
Lubbock, E.

Ball, W. E. B.
Benjamin, H. N.
Glaisyer, H.
Gover, W. H.

Mosely, B. L. Radford, G. H. Sykes, J. G. W.

[blocks in formation]

Private study.
Private tuition.

Private tuition.

Private study. University College.


EXCUTIONS FOR MURDER.-The Standard observes: "The continued interference of the Home Secretary to prevent the carrying out of capital sentences has in times past introduced an unsatisfactory element of change into trials for murder. If the law is that men convicted of murder shall be hanged, the exceptions to this rule ought to be THE Council of Legal Education have awarded to very few. If the laws concerning capital punish--John Alderson Foote, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, ment are unsatisfactory, let them be altered, but and William Ebenezer Grigsby, Esq., of the Inner do not let us have them occasionally suspended, Temple, studentships in jurisprudence and Roman according to the caprice or tenderness of a Home civil law, of 100 guineas, to continue for a period Secretary." of two years.

COUNTY COURTS.-The following circular has been issued to County Court judges: "30, Portland-place, W., Jan. 14, 1874.-Sir,-I am directed by the Lord Chancellor to request that upon a vacancy occurring in the office of registrar of any court of which you are the judge, you will, before filling up such vacancy, acquaint his Lordship with the fact, in order that the circumstances of the court and the propriety of discontinuing it may be considered. When the registrar shall have died without having appointed a deputy, his Lord. ship will be obliged if you will be good enough to provisionally appoint a person to discharge the duties of registrar (19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, ss. 12, 13). Where a registrar is desirous of resigning, I am to request that you will ask him to be good enough not to do so until you shall have communicated his wish to his Lordship, and received his decision as to the propriety of continuing the court.-I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, HENRY NICOL."

A BENCH of country magistrates sitting at Colchester, having committed a parish sexton and clerk for trial on a charge of petty theft, value a penny, which on Tuesday last, by the way, brought down condign judgment upon the worthy justices in the shape of a leader in the Daily Telegraph, condemning them for their severity, the defendant's attorney, Mr. H. Goody, is reported to have offered himself as bail. This is no doubt an unusual proceeding on the part of a professional man, and although perhaps it is to be deprecated as a rule, yet it is certainly evidence that lawyers are not, after all, as hardhearted as they are usually considered to be by the public. We commend the facts of this case to the Somersetshire magistrate whose proposition that magistrates should preside over courts of conciliation in aid of the County Courts we noticed in our last issue. In the case to which we refer, "a few questions by an intelligent, patient, and sympathising magistrate" do not Beem even to have been asked, or, if asked, were productive of no good apparently.

John Henry Martin Weitbrecht, Esq., of the Middle Temple, and John William Gustavus Leo Daugars, Esq., of the Middle Temple, studentship in jurisprudence and Roman civil law, of 100 guineas, for one year.

John Edward Courtenay Bodley, Esq., of the Inner Temple; James Kinder Bradbury, Esq., of the Inner Temple; William James Howard, Esq., of the Middle Temple; Avetick Arratoon Shircore, Esq., of the Inner Temple; and Wiliam Eaton Young, Esq., of the Inner Temple, certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination. By order of the Council, (Signed) S. H. WALPOLE, Chairman,

NOTES AND QUERIES ON POINTS OF PRACTICE. NOTICE.-We must remind our correspondents that this column is not open to questions involving points of law such as a solicitor should be consulted upon. Queries will be excluded which go beyond our limits. N.B.-None are inserted unless the name and address of the writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona fides.


58. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869.-Where, at a first general meeting of creditors duly held under the 125th and 126th sections of the above Act, liquidation by arrangement is resolved upon, the discharge of the debtor to be granted upon the happening of a certain contingency, is it necessary for the trustee, upon the happening of this event, to memorialize the court and under his hand and seal, or is the resolution itself, or a obtain from the registrar a certificate of discharge certified copy thereof, sufficient? If necessary to be by way of memorial, what form must be used, and what (if any) is the stamp duty? Form 123 hardly seems to apply in the above case.



(Q. 57.) MORTGAGEE SUING MORTGAGOR'S TENANT FOR RENT.- In addition to the cases mentioned by "J. McD.," the following will, I think, be sufficient to

A CHRISTMAS APPEAL.-By your kind insertion in your paper of my appeal, headed as above, I hereby thankfully acknowledge the receipt of the subscribed sums bearing the adjoined signatures: C. E. H., £1; Mrs. Reynolds, 5s.; A. G. Joseland, Esq., 2s. 6d. May I ask as a further favour that you will kindly allow me, through the medium of your paper, to thank those who have at once assisted me, and likewise to state that any further donations towards my case will be carefully attended to and acknowledged by the Rev. Thomas Piggott, 16, Belgrave-road, Upper Holloway. 15th Jan., 1874. LOUISA BANKS.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS' SOCIETY.-In consequence of a report which has been circulated and published that the rules of this society have not yet been framed, and that the Lord Chancellor has already been asked to receive a deputation from the society, and that "the members of this new society utterly condemn the Incorporated Law Society" for their inaction on the subject of suppressing unqualified persons who defraud the Profession, will you afford me space to say, as the honorary secretary of the society, that the rules were weeks ago drafted, and are now being considered by a committee composed of barristers and solicitors; that no application has as yet been made to the Lord Chancellor to receive a deputation, and that there is no hostility to the Incorporated Law Society, the council of which I hope and believe will lend us a ready hand in our efforts to protect the public against the depredations of unqualified persons who poach upon the Profession. CHARLES FORD.

[ocr errors]

BEALL V. SMITH.-My attention has been called to an article in the Law TIMES of 27th Dec., which appeared a fortnight before the judgment was published on the 10th inst.; and as there are many errors in that article, perhaps you will permit me, as the Mr. Heather referred to, to correct them. You speak of me as a Mr. Heather." I have been admitted nearly twentyeight years-Mr. Merriman eight; and I believe I am much better known in the Profession than he is. It is not true that Beall became a client of Merriman and Co. in Nov. 1870, or ceased to employ me, as in the first six months of 1871 he consulted me on many fresh businesses, and had about eighty attendances on me. He never consulted Mr. Merriman about undertaking some complicated matters on which I was engaged, and therefore Mr. Merriman could not have declined them. In fact, there was only one complicated matter, and in respect of that I have got his estate £8000. His wife did not consult me about her differences, nor was Mr. Beall advised by Merriman and Powell about them, nor did they effect any reconciliation. On the contrary, Beall consulted me, and I brought about a voluntary separation, and he gave me instructions to prepare a settlement on his wife and children, and handed me a great many policies of insurance on his life to take care of for him. This was in July 1871. Being concerned for him in all matters relative to his property and business (although Mr. Merriman appeared thrice before the magistrates for him), and he having been confined as a lunatic, I applied to defendant Smith, Beall's clerk, for an account of his receipts and payments from June 1871. Merriman, Albert Turner, and White then concocted the suit. The bill was filed on 15th Aug. by a next friend, who had been found by Merriman, had been a bankrupt, and became shortly afterwards insolvent, being a debtor to Merriman. This next friend was totally unknown to Beall or any of his family, and the bill was filed without any communication with me, or Beall, or any member of his family. The Vice-Chancellor stated in writing that the case was a very peculiar one; but he was willing to make the order for the appointment of a receiver in the terms assented to by me. It can scarcely be believed that the decree was obtained, the clerk's and receiver's accounts taken and passed, and the order for further consideration obtained, without the slightest communication with me as representing the family and the committee of the estate or any member of the family. Merriman, White, and A. Turner, all knew of the lunacy and inquisition, and studiously and wilfully concealed all the pro


ceedings in the suit after the appointment of advantage to put forward as trustee the ac-
countant with whom they act. I am sure
receiver, except one summons, which was ad-
dressed to me before the decree. If any solicitor" H. J. L." does not require me to enter more
and accountant can concoct and carry on a suit in into detail. As to the advantage which would
reference to the property of a lunatic, after his accrue to the creditors by the appointment of a
confinement, without having the sanction or the solicitor able and willing to perform the duties of
knowledge of any member of his family, or the a trustee, acting for a fixed remuneration,
lunatic's former solicitor, and pass the accounts, as the creditors might determine, thus saving
showing, after the suit was instituted, payments the remuneration of a lay trustee and the
out of his estate to the defendant's own soli- taxed or untaxed costs of his solicitor in
citors for charges not in the suit (no account addition, there can be no doubt; but I am
having, I believe, been delivered) to the ac- afraid the difficulties are great, although they
countant, and receiver of about £400, and the may yet be surmounted. The remedy, if the
costs of the suit about £300, and to the defendant Profession desire it,'is in their own hands, let them
for salary about £60, months after he was dis- co-operate in an effectual manner, throw off that
charged, and with other improper items amount to apathy where their own interests are concerned,
nearly £1000, out of property which produced which distinguishes them above all professions.
about £3000, it is surely but right that a court Individually there is no remedy-it must be the
of equity should express its disapproval of such work of a society. "The Legal Practitioners'
conduct, and make the principal parties refund to Society" has lately been formed; I have joined it,
the estate what they have most improperly de- and believe it is destined to do good work, if the
prived it of, and pay the costs of making them Profession support it as extensively as they
refund. All these statements can be verified by should do; great changes will take place in the
documents in my own office. JAMES HEATHER. Profession,-mere talking and writing will do no
good. I shall be glad to communicate with
H. J. L.," and show him how the remedy he
seeks can be attained, in the particular instance
he has properly brought before us; the other
matter he refers to is now under the active con-
sideration of the society I have referred to.-

OUR INVADERS-BANKRUPTCY ACCOUNTANTS. -I cordially concur in the remarks made on this important subject by your correspondent "H. J. L." in last week's LAW TIMES. Let me, however, explain why it has come about that the accountants have monopolised the lucrative branch of business referred to, that of the office of trustee in bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings, under the Act of 1869. In the first place, it must be observed that before that Act the bank.



THE second topic to which the Solicitor-General
addressed himself was the law of entail and
generally the reform of the law relating to land.
It is to be hoped that he will be more successful,
to borrow a phrase of his own, than other Soli-
citors-General in dealing with the suspicions and
contradictions of the powerful body of solicitors
in particular, but the knot is a terribly hard one
to untie, and it is practically impossible to cut it.
We believe in the possibility of a reform of the
laws relating to land, if any one were patriotic
and studious enough to devote several years of
unpaid labour to it, but we do not believe that
under the present system of things there is much
real chance of it. It would be necessary for one
thing to recast the whole of the language which
is at present used upon the subject, to sweep
away the whole learning of tenures, to repeal the
Statute of Uses, and to put into a different form
the theory of trusts. It would also be necessary
to translate the rights which are at present
clothed in this worn-out language into simple
modern English, and to apply the new phraseology
to the existing state of things. This would be an
enormous undertaking. It might be done if the
nation understood its importance and would
employ the necessary amount of labour and time,
but hardly any one as yet appears to have any.
thing like an adequate notion of its real nature or

explain how, if this is the case, the laws which produce this state of things can be economically bad? If it is true that lands held under English law are better cultivated than lands held under French law, why assimilate English law to French law with a view to the promotion of agriculture? Another point which must suggest itself to every one is that if the law of entail involves the consequences which he ascribes to it in a majority of cases, or even in any considerable number of cases, it is difficult to understand why entails are SO common. If their common effect is to set fathers against children, and to emancipate children at an unduly early age from their fathers, why do people put their lands into strict settlement? Whatever may be the weight of the Solicitor-General's argument, it is an argument which ought to be addressed to the owners of property rather than to legislators. It shows cause why A. B. should not settle his land, but it hardly shows cause why A. B. should be forbidden by law to settle his land. Thus the argument as to the economical effect of strict settlement is met by the facts which the Solicitor-General extracts from the work of M. Lavergne. The argument as to its social effects is met by the fact that the cus tom prevails amongst a class of people who are certainly not remarkable for want of family affec


One point connected with this subject is that settlements of personal property are now even more common than settlements of real property, which shows their convenience; nor have we ever heard them objected to. No doubt an ordinary settlement of personalty gives the parents the power of dividing the settled funds as they please among the children of the marriage, and so leaves

realty. We do not quite understand why settlements of real estate should not follow the same form if it were more convenient. It is, indeed, common, as every one knows, to insert in settlements of personalty a clause to say that any land in which the settled funds are invested shall be treated as personalty; and perhaps a similar course might be taken in the settlement of real estate. This, however, requires no legislation. It could be done now if such was the wish of the owners of real property.-Pall Mall Gazette.


ruptcy branch of practice was in very few hands, THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL AND THE LAW them more power than an ordinary settlement of and of a limited character. In London it was mostly in two or three offices, who also acted as agents for other solicitors, too important or too lazy to acquire the practice. Before the Act of 1869 assignees were not remunerated, and consequently there was no contest for the office, and in many cases the difficulty was to induce a creditor to undetake the nominal and gratuitous duties. Accountants then sought from solicitors the work, or solicitors employed accountants, to perform the duties properly appertaining to their profession. In the country districts I suppose the same practice maintained. All this was changed by the Act of 1869, and far-seeing people must have known that it would be so. When the Scotch system was introduced, and the office of trustee became a paid office, for which solicitors, accountants, and others, as well as the creditors, became eligible, of course it was natural that the accountants, those who had been accustomed to act in bankruptcy business, and others who determined to make it a portion of their business, saw that a great field was open to them. Indeed, this was foreseen by those who introduced the Bill into the House, and I recollect that the AttorneyGeneral in his opening speech said with reference to the office of trustee, that in all probability, a race of bankruptcy accountants would spring up, who would make this an especial branch of their business, as in Scotland. They have done so, and there is no reason why they should not. I will also say that many of them ably, admirably, and conscientiously perform their duties, performing them in the manner and for the purposes the Legislature intended. acting within the scope of those duties, and not trenching upon those of their legal advisers. Now, what is the reason that solicitors have been apparently content to see accountants take the position for which they are themselves eligible, and when solicitors could perform the work in an equally satisfactory manner, and with a considerable saving of expense? There are many reasons; one reason may be that respectable solicitors have a natural disinclination to canvas, or to do anything which bears the aspect of touting for business. In order to obtain the appointment of trustee in bankruptcy or liquidation, a solicitor who puts himself forward for the office, must, previously to the first meeting, personally see, or send some one to see, or communicate in some way with, the creditors, and propose himself for an office of profit. If being a perfectly capable man in all respects, and knowing that by his appointment a double set of costs, and double remuneration would be saved to the creditors, having got over this natural disinclination to canvas, he would find in all probability he would fail to convince the

In the mean time, Sir William Harcourt proposes, or at least suggests, modifications, the exact nature of which he cannot, of course, state, in the law of entail. After some little snorts at philosophers, which compel us to remark that he has really much more in common with the philosophers whom he despises than with the Oxford tradesmen whom he flatters, he proceeded to a good round denunciation of the evils of entails. He says of a strict settlement: "It destroys parental influence, it subverts filial respect, it makes the son the natural antagonist of the father, it makes the father too often the enemy of the son." It encourages extravagance in reversioners, and above all it discourages tenants for life from improving their land, and it gives them an artificial motive for spending its surplus produce in other ways. A man who has £5000 a year in land settled on his eldest son will not put his surplus income into buildings, drains, and the like, which would go to enrich his heir-at-law, but will save it up for his personal representatives or legatees. Prevent strict settlements, and the motives for improving land will be greatly strengthened. Sir William does not, as we understand him, propose to prevent a man from leaving would restrict him to living' persons, and would not permit him to give an estate tail to unborn children. All this, of course, has often been said, and has a good deal of force, but it ought to be coupled with other matters, to some of which Sir William refers, not, as it appears to us, very consistently, though he is silent as to others. He has learned, he says, from a second reading of M. Lavergne, that the agricultural condition of England is much better than that of France, that English labourers are better off than French peasants, that the equal distribution of land is economically unwise. Be it so; but why not

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS' SOCIETY. THE first meeting of the committee appointed to consider whether Parliamentary action was neces sary in order to deal with the subject of arresting fied persons, met on Monday last. Mr. H. Seymour the encroachments of the Profession by unquali. Salaman having been called to the chair, he reviewed at length the present statutory provi sions dealing with this important subject, directing attention to 23 & 25 Vict. c. 27, s. 26; 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 2; the Stamp Act of 1870, sect. 60; also to the case of Reg. v. Buchanan (16 L. J. 227 Q. B.), referred to in the 1866 edition of Archbold. The right to sue for penalties as at present provided for by statute was discussed and con. sidered. The operation of sect. 26 of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 9 was also considered. After much dis cussion and argument, the following resolution was adopted: after full consideration of the subject, that the That this committee is of opinion existing law is insufficient for the effectual protection of the legal profession and the public against the encroachments of unqualified persons, and be initiated without delay." recommend to the Society that further legislation

UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON. AT a meeting of the Union Society of London, at 1, Adam-street, Adelphi, held on Tuesday evening, the 20th inst., the following subject was submitted to discussion, and negatived, the Established Churches are inconsistent with


Civil Liberty, and irreconcileable with the prin-
ciples already recognised by Parliament."

A MEETING of this society was held at Clement's
Inn Hall, on Wednesday 21st inst., Mr. E. F.

creditors that such a result would follow. Unless his land by will as he pleases; but we suppose he Stanway, solicitor, in the chair. Mr. E. J. Davis

the votes of the creditors were obtained in his favour, does any one acquainted with these matters believe, that a solicitor nominating himself at a meeting, would stand a chance against an accountant who had adopted the usual course, or against a member of his own Profession, in both cases his adversary, being stimulated to fresh exertion by the knowledge that a solicitor was seeking the appointment. We all know the connections and alliances between certain bankruptcy accountants and certain solicitors, who as a rule always act with each other when they can. These solicitors find it to their

opened the subject for the evening's debate, viz.: "That the working of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, assists and induces fraud." The motion was lost by a majority of one.

NORWICH LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. AT a meeting of this society, held at the Law Library, on Tuesday evening, the 20th inst., Mr. G. W. G. Barnard in the chair. Mr. S. Cozens Hardy opened the subject for the evening's debate, viz.: "Ought Copyhold Tenure to be abolished?" The question was decided in the negative by a considerable majority,


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.


THE late Henry Glassford Bell, Esq., advocate, and sheriff of Lanarkshire, who died on the 7th inst., at his residence in Glasgow, at the age of sixty-eight, was the son of the late Mr. Bell, some time town clerk of Greenock. He was born in the year 1805 and being destined from the first for his father's profession, he was, after acquiring the rudiments of education at the Glasgow High School, transferred to the University of Edinburgh, where he passed through the regular curriculum. He was admitted a member of the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland in 1832, and in 1839 he was appointed one of the sheriff's substitute of Glasgow. Having once fairly settled down to legal business, says the Scotsman, Mr. Bell soon approved himself a singularly able and efficient judge. That his merits in this capacity were duly recognised by the profession, was significantly indicated by an incident which occurred in 1852. At that time a rumour got afloat to the effect that Sir A. Alison was about to be promoted to the Bench, and straightway a memorial was addressed to the Lord Advocate, craving that in such case Mr. Bell should be appointed his successor. Another flattering compliment was paid him some years later, when strong inducements were held out to him to remove to Edinburgh and practise as a consulting counsel in regard to questions of mercantile law. On the death of Sir Archibald Alison in 1867, Mr. Bell was appointed to succeed him in the office of sheriff principal. The friend and frequent companion of Professor Wilson, who speaks of him with respect and affection in the "Noctes," where he appears under the name of "Tallboys," Mr. Bell acquired in early life a task for literary pursuits, and in 1828, being as yet only in his twenty-third year, he became editor of the Edinburgh Literary Journal, a weekly periodical devoted to criticism and the belles lettres. With James Hogg, too, he was on terms of intimate friendship, and in 1860 Mr. Bell took part in inaugurating a monument to the memory of the gifted shepherd. Besides editing and largely contributing to the Edinburgh Literary Journal, Mr. Bell published in 1831 a volume of poems, entitled "Summer and Winter Hours," and later in life he published a volume of occasional productions, under the title of "Romances and Ballads." His literary fame will rest, however, on his well-known poem, "Mary, Queen of Scots," written in his early days. Mr. Bell was twice married, first to a daughter of Captain Stuart, of Sheerglass, Glengarry, by whom he had one son and four daughters, one of whom is the wife of Professor Nichol, of Glasgow University. He married secondly in 1872 to Marian, daughter of Mr. Sandeman, of Glasgow, who survives him. The remains of the deceased gentleman, which were honoured with a public funeral, were interred in Glasgow Cathedral.

[ocr errors]

G. C. OKE, ESQ. (ADDENDUM.) THE late George Colwell Oke, Esq., Chief Clerk at the Mansion House, of whom we gave a short biographical notice in our last impression, was the second son of the late William Oke, Esq., of Truro, in the county of Cornwall. He was born at St. Columb, in that county, on the 8th Feb. 1821, and was educated at Truro. Mr. Oke was married, and has left a family to lament his loss. His present widow, to whom he was married very recently, is the step-daughter of G. M. Harvey, Esq., of The Pines, Streatham-hill, Surrey. remains of the deceased gentleman were interred at Nunhead Cemetery, on the 15th inst.


B. J. ARMSTRONG, ESQ. THE late Benjamin John Armstrong, Esq., many years an active magistrate for the county of Middlesex, whose death was recently announced, at the age of seventy-six, was a son of the late Benjamin Armstrong, Esq., of the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, and was born in the year 1796 or 1797. The deceased gentleman, who was one of the oldest magistrates for Middlesex and Westminster, took an active part in the administration of justice at the Clerkenwell Sessions, where he for many years proposed or seconded the re-election of Mr. H. Pownall, as chairman of the Middlesex Bench. He also was constant in his attendance as a visiting justice at the Feltham Reformatory School, and other like public institutions. Mr. Armstrong married in 1818, Ann, daughter of John Bailey, Esq., of Kew, Surrey, by whom, who died in 1869, he has left a family. His only son is the Rev. Benjamin J. Armstrong, vicar of East Dereham, Norfolk, who was born in 1819, and is married to the eldest daughter of

William Duncombe, Esq., of Langley, Great Berk.
hampstead, Herts. The late Mr. Armstrong was
buried at the cemetery, Highgate.

GOODWIN, ALFRED, general merchant, Richmond-rd, Shepherd's
bush. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. Murray. Sols. Flux and Co., Leaden-
hall-st. Sur. Jan. 27
LANGAN, JOHN, builder, Cambridge-ter, Junction-rd, Kentish.
town. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. Hazlitt. Sol. Stapler, Coleman-st.
Sur. Jan. 28
LONSDALE, RICHARD, grocer, Butcher's-row, Ratcliff, Upper
North-st, Poplar, St. Leonard's-rd, Bromley, Cable-st, St.
George's-in-the-east. Pet. Jan. 15. Reg. Spring-Rice. Sols.
Carter and Bell, Leadenhall-st. Sur. Jan. 29
To surrender in the Country.

ARCHER, CHARLES ROPER, saddler, Bloxwich.

Pet. Jan. 12.

Reg. Clarke. Sur. Feb. 4
BROWN, SAUL, jeweller, Sunderland. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. Ellis,
Sur. Jan. 29

12. Reg. Chauntler. Sur. Jan. 27

JACOBS, MAURICE, boot manufacturer, Birmingham. Pet. Jan.
14. Reg. Chauntler. Sur. Feb. 2

LANGLEY, EDMUND, grocer, Canton, near Cardiff. Pet. Jan. 12.
Reg. Langley. Sur. Jan. 30

Bradford. Pet. Jun. 13. Reg. Robinson, Sur. Feb. 3
PHILLIPS, BENJAMIN, draper, Bridgend. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg.
Langley. Sur. Jan. 28

Sur. Jan. 28

PORTER, GEORGE, sculptor, Bath. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. Smith.
STAPLEY, HENRY, watchmaker, Northampton-sq. Pet. Jan. 13.
Reg. Hazlitt. Sols. Reed and Lovell, Guildhall-chmbs. Sur.
Jan. 28

TATE, SUSANNAH, milliner, Halifax. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. Rankin,
TAYLOR, JAMES, tailor, Blackpool. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. Hulton.

Sur. Feb. 2

Sur. Feb. 4

Gazette, Jan. 20.

To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street.
TAYLOR, SAMUEL, parquet cloth manufacturer, High-st, Fulham.
Pet. Jan. 16. Reg. Murray. Sur. Feb. 3
To surrender in the Country.

ARCHER, CHARLES ROPER, saddler, Bloxwich. Pet. Jan. 12.

Reg. Clarke. Sur. Feb. 4
jun., attorneys-at-law, Alton. Pet. Jan. 17. Reg. White. Sur.
Jan. 31
DOWNS, WILLIAM, dealer in agricultural implements, Hailsham
Pet. Jan. 16. Reg. Blaker. Sur. Feb. 4
LEY, JAMES, corn merchant, Stonehouse. Pet. Jan. 16. Reg.
Pearce. Sur. Feb. 4

SAVAGE, JOSEPH, ort of employ, Portsea. Pet. Jan. 17. Reg.
Howard. Sur. Feb. 2

Gazette, Jan. 13.

BOUTCHER, FREDERICK, farmer, Preston-upon-Wye. Aug. 30,

Gazette, Jan. 16.

GARRET, CHARLES, Contractor, Banstead. June 13, 1873
THOMPSON, WILLIAM, joiner, Stranton. Jan. 16, 1861

Liquidations by Arrangement.

THE HON. J. W. JOHNSTONE. THE late Hon. James W. Johnstone, Judge in Equity of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, who death at Cheltenham, at the age of eightyone, was recently announced, was born in Kingston, Jamaica, in the year 1792, his grandfather was a Scotchman of the Annandale line, FLORENSTEIN, ISAAC, furniture dealer, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. who married a Miss Peyton, a lady of French Huguenot descent, he had been Governor of the Province of Georgia while the United States were still a colony of Great Britain. On the breaking out of the revolutionary war, his sons all entered the British army to aid in the suppression of the rebellion, one of them raised and commanded a troop of horse known as Johnstone's Horse, at its head he was killed in a successful skirmish against rebels. On the declaration of the independence of the States of America, Governor Johnstone with his family left the Southern States and returned to Scotland, having in common with all the loyalists lost his whole fortune. The father of the subject of this memoir, who had been a captain in the New York Volunteers during the war, at its close, studied medicine at the Edinburgh University, where he obtained his degree. He afterwards removed to Jamaica, having previously married the only daughter of Captain Leichenstein, of Austrian extraction. His children were all sent to Scotland for their education, the subject of the present sketch being placed with a private tutor, the late Mr. Duncan of Ruthwell, the originator of savings banks in Scotland. His connection with Nova Scotia, where most of his life was passed, arose from the fortuitous circumstance of a temporary visit made to Halifax with his mother, whose health required change to a northern climate. He then studied for the Bar, and was admitted in or about the year 1813. Mr. Johnstone quickly rose to the head of his profession, and at about the age of forty-five he entered the arena of politics. He was elected a member for the county of Annapolis, U. S., Canada, one of the largest constituencies of the province, which he represented without a break, having run nine or ten successful elections, till his elevation to the Bench. During his whole political career he was the leader of the ANDERSON, DAVID BAIRD, bootmaker, Southampton, Pet. Jan. Conservative party, and Attorney-General and leader of the Government whenever that party was in power. He was created honourable by In 1857 he, together the British Government. with Mr. Adams Archibald, was sent on a delega tion to England on behalf of the province of Nova Scotia to adjust the respective claims of the Beverley Mining Association and the Province in regard to from the royalty of the Duke of York. He was opening the mines and minerals and to free them one of the earliest advocates of the confederation of the Canadian provinces, which he warmly sup ported throughout his whole career. In 1863 he was appointed judge in equity of the Supreme Court, an office which he was the first to fill. In 1872, his health being very delicate, he left Canada to seek a more southern climate. In the following year he was offered the governorship of the province of Nova Scotia, which he at first accepted, and the appointment was hailed with acclamation through the length and breadth of the country. The newspapers of the Conservative and Liberal parties vied with each other in welcoming it, and in bearing testimony to the high talent, the chivalrous honour, and the unswerving rectitude of Judge Johnstone. His failing health, however, BOSWELL, THOMAS, furniture dealer, Southport. Pet. Jan. 14, obliged him most reluctantly to renounce all idea of returning to the home of his adoption, where he had left so many warm friends, and he was compelled to decline the appointment.



Gazette, Jan. 16.

ABRAHAMS, ISAAC, furniture dealer, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. 14.
Jan. 26, at three, at offices of Smart, Snell, and Co., accountants,
85 and 86, Cheapside, London. Sol. Nordon, Liverpool
ALLAN, WILLIAM, draper, Chrisp-st, Poplar. Pet. Jan. 12. Feb.
3, at two, at offices of Foreman and Cooper,7, Gresham-st. Sols.
Phelps and Sidgwick, Gresham-st

AMBREY, THOMAS, grocer, Mountain Ash. Pet. Jan. 13. Feb. 2,
at twelve, at office of Sol. Dixon, Newport

14. Jan. 26, at twelve, at office of Guy,
ANDREWS, WILLIAM, engineer, Melksham. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan.
28, at twelve, at the Townhall, Melksham. Sol. Smith, Devizes
ANSLEY, JOHN, ironfounder, Mansfield. Jan. 29, at twelve, at
office of Sol. Mansfield

ARMSTRONG, GEORGE, and RHEAD, THOMAS, tailors, Pendleton.
Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 2, at twelve, at office of Sol. Hankinson, Man.
ARNOTT, JOHN, cabinet maker, Beverley. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 28,
at eleven, at offices of Sols. Seepherd, Crust, Todd, and Mills,
ASHTON, CHARLES, hatter, Royal-hill, Greenwich. Pet. Jan. 14.
Jan. 30, at three, at office of Sol. Montagu, Bucklersbury
ATTWOOD, CHARLES, bootmaker, Brighton. Pet. Jan. 13. Feb.
2, at eleven, at office of Sol. Shaft, Brighton
AYLES, GEORGE, yeoman, Horsington. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 27, at
three, at the Greyhound hotel, Wincanton. Sol. Davies, Sher-

BALDWIN, JOHN, oil refiner, Railway-arch, Blue Anchor-rd,
Bermondsey. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan. 23, at three, at the Albany
Arms, Albany-rd, Old Kent-rd. Sol. Parsons, Fish-st-hill, Lon-
BARLOW, WILLIAM, fruiterer, Spennymoor. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan.
28, at eleven, at office of Sol. Brignal, Durham
BAUMANN, CHARLES HENRY, watchmaker, Nottingham. Pet.

Jan. 13. Jan. 30, at twelve, at the Assembly-rooms, Low-pave-
ment, Nottingham. Sols. Everall and Turner
BEALE, JOHN DAVID, general merchant, Culmore-rd, Peckham.
Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 30, at three, at office of Sol. Aird, Eastcheap
BEECH, EDWARD, butcher, Apeton. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 30, at
twelve, at the Royal Oak inn, Gnosall. Sol. Baddeley, New-
Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 31, at
eleven, at offices of Sols. Toynbee and Larken, Lincoln
bourne-pk. Pet. Jan. 12. Feb. 10, at twelve, at the Masons
Hall tavern, Mason's-avenue, Businghall-st. Sols. Whites,
Renard, and Co., Budge-row, Cannon-st

BEVITT, JOHN, boat builder, Lincoln.

BILLER, GEORGE, Solicitor, the Terrace, Tavistock-rd, West

Jan. 31, at eleven, at office of Sol. Walton, Southport
BROWN, JOSEPH, and BROWN, SAMUEL, builders, Matlock. Pet.
Jan. 14. Jan. 31, at half-past eleven, at office of Sol. Cowdell,

BRYAN, WILLIAM, grocer, Stourbridge, and Belbroughton. Pet.
Jan. 12. Jan. 29, at three, at office of Sol. Collis, Stourbridge
BURFOOT, GEORGE, farmer, Tunbridge. Pet. Jun. 9. Jan. 30, at
eleven, at office of Sol. Stenning, Tunbridge

BUSSELL, HENRY BURT, out of business, Torquay. Pet. Jan. 14.
Feb. 2, at one, at Sols. Hooper and Wollen, Torquay

Jan. 27, at half past twelve, at the Townhall, Melksham.
Smith, Devizes

AND APPOINT-CARPENTER, WILLIAM, carpenter, Melksham. Pet. Jan. 12. MENTS. N.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature of advertisements, are charged 2s. 6d. each, for which postage stamps should be inclosed.

Sol. CARR, WILLIAM HENRY, bootmaker, South Shields. Pet. Jan. 13. Feb. 3, at twelve, at office of Sol. Purvis, South Shields CHANDLER, JAMES, engineer, Cottage-grove, Mile-end-rd. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 4, at twelve, at office of Sol. Moss, Gracechurchstreet

MR. WILLIAM GILBERTSON, solicitor, of Preston, COOK, HENRY FRANCIS, grocer, Eastbourne. Pet. Jan. 15. Jan.
has been unanimously appointed Coroner for the
Hundreds of Amounderness and Leyland, in the
county of Lancaster, in succession to the late COOMBS, GEORGE, publican, Corscombe.
Mr. Miles Myres. Mr. Gilbertson was admitted in

[blocks in formation]

26, at three, at office of Sol. Chamberlain, Basinghall-street,
COOKE, HENRY DOUGLASS, painter, Speldhurst. Pot. Jan. 7.
Jan. 28, at ten, at the Angel hotel, Tunbridge. Sol. Palmer
Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 30,
at a quarter-past twelve, at the Mermaid hotel, Yeovil. Sol.
Budge, Crewkerne
COUPLAND, HENRY CURRIE, commission agent, Albert-bidgs,
Queen Victoria-st, London, also seed crusher, Greenock. Pet.
Jun. 13. Jan. 29, at two, at office of Sol. Holmes, Clement's-la,

Sunderland. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 29, at twelve, at the Home
Trade Association Rooms, York-st, Manchester. Sols. Sale,
Shipman, Seddon, and Sale, Manchester
DAVIS, HENRY, woollen warehouseman, Wood-st-sq, Monkwel-
st. Pet. Jun. 13. Jan. 2, at two, at the Chamber of Commerce,
143, Cheapside. Sol. Walker, Abchurch-la
DEWELL, WILLIAM, builder, Rye-la, Peckham. Pet. Jan. 10.
Jan. 26, at one, at the Guildhall Tavern, Gresham-st.
Townley and Gard, Gresham-bldgs, Basinghall-st
EDGERLEY, THOMAS, farmer, Carden, near Handley. Pet. Jan.
8. Jan. 24, at twelve, at office of Sol. Nordon, Chester
Pet. Jan. 12.
EGERTON, JOHN, livery-stable keeper, Brighton.
Jan. 28, at twelve, at the Old Ship hotel, Brighton. Sol. Mote,


EVANS, ENOCH HUGH, agent for the sale of artificial food, Lam. peter. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 31, at two, at office of Sol. Griffiths Carmarthen

[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »