« EelmineJätka »
PRINCF, CHARLES HENRY, srccer, Chorley. Pet. Jan. 17. Feb.
10, at ino, ut unice- of sols. Chew and Sons, Manchester. REYNOLDS, RICHARD, stone merchant, Weymouth, and Nine
Elms, Vauxhall, London. Pet Jun, 19. Feb: 4, at eleven, at the
Guildhall Cellee-house, London. Sol Howard, Melcomte Rexis ROCH, JAMES, grocer, Nirberth.
Pet. Jan. 17. Feb.?, at one, at the Townhall, Carmarthen. Sol. Lloyd, Haverfordwet ROWCLIFFE, WILLIAM, clerk to a riding mur, Studleyroed,
Stockwell. Pet. Jan. 17. Feb. 4, át two, at office of Sol. Oblein,
Queen Victoria-st, E.C. SARSHOTT, HENRY BARTLET, cooper, Winchester. Pet. Jan.
17. Feb. 2, at one, ut office of Sols. Loe and Best, Lincoln's inn.
fields SIURLEY, WILLIAM, tailor, Brighton. Pet. Jan. 15. Feb. 3, at
three, at office of Sol. Brandreth, Brighton SIMON, ALBERT MARTIN, pawnbroker, Birmingham. Pet. Jan.
16. Feb., at eleven, at offices of Sol. Cottrell, 104, Newhall-st,
Birmingham SMITH ALEXANDER FRANCIS, victualler, Jamaica-level, Bermond.
Bey. Pet. Jan. 19. Feb. 19, at two, ut office or Sols. Nash, Fied,
and Luyton, Suffolk-la, E.C. SPARROW, FRANK JOHN, carrier, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 16.
Jan. 23 ut four, at office of Sol. Pan, Birmingham SPURR, WILLIAM HENRY, estate ment, Mu.chester. Pet. Jan.
17. Feb. 9, at thre, at Office of Sol. Sumpsu, Manchester STANDLEY, HEXIY, hoe manufacturer, Kettering. Pet. Jan, 15.
Jan, 30, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Jeffery, Northampton STENNING, JOHN, shoemaker, West Bromwich. Pet. Jan. 13
Jan. 31, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Topham, West Broin wich TEBBY, ALFRED, provision dealer, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. 17. Feb.
7, at two, at office of Sol. Lowe, Liverpool THOMPSON, THOMAS, house decorator, Turnham-green. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 28, at eleven, at office of Soi. Marshal, King-st,
West Hammersmith TIER, FREDERICK FIGA, innkeeper, Birdham. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb.
4, at three, at the Dolphin hotel, Chichester. Sol. Janman,
Chichester TRANTER, JOSEPH, provision dealer, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 16.
Jan. 31, at ten, at office of Sol, East, Birinchi VAN NIEROP, SOLOMON ISAAC, butcher, Walkmurth-rd. Pet. J. mn.
8 Feb. 4, at three, at office of Sol. Jonas, King's Bench-walk,
Temple VERNALL, GEORGE, out of business, Great Midrern. Pet. Jan. 15.
Feb. 4, at thee, at office of Sol Pict, Worcester WARREN, CHARLES, furniture dealer, Homer-et, Marylebone.
Pet. Jan. 13. Feb. 2, at four, at office or Sol. Pun, Marylebonerd WALKER, HENRY WILLIAM, bootmaker, Crescent-pl, Mathiasri,
Stoke Newinston-sreen. Pt. Jan. 10. Feb. 4, at twelve, at
office of Sol. Nind, St. Benet-pl, Gracechurch-st WARNEN, WILLIAM, miller, Worcester. Pet. Jan. 15. Jan. at
Orice o Sol Troe, Worcester WESTWELL, JOSEPH, joiner, Blackburn. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 28,
at il quarter.putten, at office of Sol. Marriott, Blackburn WHITE, CHARLES, baker, Liverpool. Pet. J. u. 15. Feb. , at
two), At Office of Vine, accountant, 02, Dale-st, Liverpool.
Sol Crozicr, Liverpool WILKINSON, MATTHEW, solicitor, Peterborough. Pet. Jan. 16.
Feb. 3, at twelvis, at offices of Sol Gaches, Peterborouzh WOOD, JOSEPI FREDERICK, shopkeeper, Barnsley. Pet. Jan. 15.
Jan. 31, at three, at offices of Sol, Freeman, Barnsley
ITCH, WILLIAM, butcher, Peasenhal). Pet, Jan, 12. Jan. 30, at one, ut office of Mayhew, solicitor, Saxmundham. Sol. Wiltshire,
Great Yarmouth FLEET, CHARLES, biscuit manufacturer, Manchester. Pet. Jan.
19. Jan. 29, at three, at office of Sols. Messrs. Heath, Manches.
ter FOAKES, EDWARD, grocer, Ballingdon. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 28, at
two, at office of Sol. Mumford, Sudbury Fox, HOWARD BUSBY, bruker, Oxton. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 29, at eleven, at office or Mawson, accountant, Birkenhead. Sol.
Anderson, Birkenhead FRANKM, JOHN, greengrocer, Bootle. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 3, at
two, at office of Sol, Crozier, Liverpool GILBERT, EDWARD, hawker in hardware, Martin-in-Timberland,
Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 30, at eleven, at office of Sol Page, jun., Lin• coln GREENWOOD, JAMES, grocer, Bramley. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. 26, at
three, at office of Sols. Terry and Robinson, Bradford GWINNUTT, GEORGE, and GWINNITT, CORSELIUS, plumbers, • Walsall. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 30, at eleven, at office of Sol. Adams,
Wis all HALL, GEORGE, mill proprietor, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan.
3, at half past ten, üt office of Sol. Duke, Birmingham HANBLETON, DAVID, bobbin manufacturer, Dursley. Pet. Jan.
14. Feb. 12, at eleven, at the Warren Bulkeley Arms hotel, • Stockport. Sol, Sampson, Manchester HASSON,1.SYDENHAM GEORTE, toddler, Little Tower-st. Pet.
Jan. 7. Jan 24, ut une, at the Guildhall coffee-house, Greshum
st. Sols. Edmunds and Mixyhew, Poultry HAZLEHRST, GEORGE, grocer, Sutton-within-Macclesfield. Pet.
Jan. 14. Jun. 23, at two, at office of Sol Hand, Macclesfield HERBERT, WILLIAM, and QUICK, Joix, boot manufacturers,
Webb's-cottwes, Albion-rd, Hamincrumith. Pet. Jan, 10. Jan. 24, at three, at office of Alcock, accountant, Southerton-rd, Ham.
mersmith. Sols. Bartlett and Forbes, Bedford-st, Covent-gdn HIND, WILLIAM, assistant warchouseman, Nottingham. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 2, at three, at office of Sols. Cranch, Rowe, and
Stroud, Nottingham HOWES, THOMAS, fisherman, Grcat Yarmouth. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 3, at twelve, at Hall Quay-chbs, Great Yarmouth. Sol. Palmer,
Great Yarmouth HUNT, GEORGE, tailor, Sheffield, Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 29, at
twelve, at office of Sol. Machen, Sheffield JARMAN, WILLIAM SACKETT, grocer, Runagate. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan.
29, at three, ut office of Sols. Treherne and Wolierstun, Iron
monger-la, Cheapside JEFFERIES, JOSEPH, beer retailer, Ebley. Pet. Jan. 12. Feb. 2, at
eleven, at office of Sol. Witchell, Stroud JOHNSON, EDMUST), tinner, Lachford. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 2, at
three, at office of MORTE. Davies, Warrington. Sols. Davies and
Brook, Warrington KAY, ROBERT, victualler, Ashton-under-Lyne. Pet. Jan. 14.
Jan. 30, at three, at office of Messrs. Royle, Manchester. Sol.
Clayton, Ashton-under-Lyne KIRBY, THOMAS HORTON, draper, Leicester. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 30, at three, at the Inns of Court hotel, Holborn. Sol. Owston,
Leicester LAWRENCE, JOSEPH, butter merchant, Manchester. Pet. Jan. 14.
Jan. 30, at half past three, at office of Sol. Chorlton, Manchester LEATHERS, FREDERICK HENRY, grocer, Cambridge Heath-road.
Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 31, at eleven, at office of Cogswell, 73, Grace
church-st. Sol. Hicks, Annis-rd, South Hackney LEE, MARK PRATTEN, tailor, Back-hill, Hatton gdn. Pet. Jan.
12. Feb. 2, at two, at office of Webster, solicitor, Basinghall-st. Sol. Brown, Goswell-rd LEWIS, MARCUS HERBERT, gentleman, Crescent-pl, Mornington.
cres. Pet. Jin 12 Jan, 27, at three, at office of Sol. Godirey,
South-sq, Gray's-inn LOCK, JOHN JAMEN, coal merchant, High-st, Woolwich, Pet. Jan.
12. Jan. 29, at two, at the Wheatsheaf public house, Henry-st,
Woolwich. Sol. Cooper, Charing cross LYON, FRANK, wholesale perfumer, Knightrider-st. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 31, at eleven, at the Guildhull coffee-house, Greshum-street.
Sol. Pullen MANSER, JAMES, fish monger, Friar-st, Blackfriars-rd. Pet. Jan.
8. Jan. 24, at eleven, at the Claremont Arms coffee-room, Upper Grange-rd, Bermondsey. Sol. Bilton, Renfrew-rd, Kennington
lane MARSHALL, WILLIAM, brewer, Bedford. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. 27, at
twelve, it the Red Lion hotel, Bedford. Sol. Jeffery, Luton MITCHELL, GEORGE, Innkeeper, Bruton. Pet. Jun. 10. Jan. 28,
at eleven, at the Castle inn, Bruton, Sol. Watte, Yeovil MCWILLIAMS, DAVID, furniture dealer, Lower Sloane-st, Chelsea.
Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 29, at three, at office of Sol, Smíth, Rochester.
row, Westminster MUIRIEAD, JAMES, picture dealer, Jermyn-st. Pet. Jan. 9. Jan.
29, at threc, at office of Sol. Davies, Furnival' -inn NORRIS, BENJAMIN, tailor, Rusyute. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 2, at
three, at the Bull and George hotel, Ramsgate. Sol. Walford,
Ramsgate OLIVER, THOMAS, carpenter, Bunhill-row. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 30,
at twelve, at office of Sol. Smedley, Fleet-et ONIONS, JABEZ, provision denler, Rhy). Pet. Jan. 12. Feb. 7, at
twelve, at the Queen's Commercial hotel, Chester. Sol. W11
liams, Rhyl PANKHURST, JAMES, fish dealer, Newcastle-under-Lyne.
Pet. Jan. 10. Jun. 3, at three, at office of Sol. Turner, Hunley PARKER, THOMAS, grocer, Napier-rd, West Kensington. Pet.
Jan. 13. Feb. 2, at two, at 51, Chancery-la. Sols. Nickinson,
Prall, and Nickinson PETERS, SAMUEL, and PETERS, EDWARD, grocers, Bistree, near
Mold. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. X, at twelve, at office of Sols. Boydell,
Powell, and Taylor, Chester PHILLIPS, GEORGE ALFRED, grocer, Aldershot. Pet. Jan. 12.
Feb. 2, at two, at othce of Sol. Geach, Guildford POWELL, THOMAS, labourer, West Smethwick. Pet. Jan. 13.
Jan. 30, at eleven, at office of Sol. Shakespeare, Oldbury RANKIN, WILLIAM, publican, Bolton. Pet. Jan. 9. Ian. 28, at
three, at office of Sol. Dutton, Bolton RAYMOND, WILLIAM JAMES, victualler, Plumstead. Pet. Jan.
13. Jan. 27, at twelve, at office of Sol. Flavell, Bedford-row RICHARDN, SAMUEL DYNON, druper, Faringdon. Pet. Jan. 3.
Jun. 2, at two, at ofice of Sol. Swuine, Cheap ide ROBERT, GUSTAVE DIDIER, victunller, Dean-st, Soho. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan 27, at one, at office of Sols. Merriman, Powell, and Co.,
Queen-st, Cheapside SANDERN, PETER LEWIS, letter carrier, Bedford. Pet. Jan. 12.
Jan, 29, at two, at office of Sol. Stimson, Bedford SCALES, HENRY, fancy draper, Graverend. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan.
31, ut one, at office of Sol. Hullearys, Fenchurch-bldgs SHEPPARD, GEORGE, buker, Weston-super-Mare. Pet. Jan. 12.
Jan. 28, at eleven, at office of Sol. Smith, Weston-super-Mare SIMPSON, JOulx, plumber, Ashdown-st, Kentish-town. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 29, at two, at office of Sol. Moore, Doughty-et, Mecklen.
buryh-sq SKIPWORTH, JAMES, poulterer, Boston. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 29,
at one, at the Peacock hotel, Boston. Sol. Bailes, Boston SMITH, FRANK, metal mounter, Hanley, and Shrewsbury. Pet.
Jan. 6. Jan. 22, at eleven, at office of Sol. Welch, Longton SMITH, JOHX, late grocer, Whitchurch, near Cardiff. Pet. Jan. 14.
Feb. 3, at eleven, at office of Sol. Morgan, Cardiff SMITH, JOHEPH, bootmaker, Peterborough. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan.
29. at two, at office of Sols. Brown, Atter, und Brown, Peter
borough SMITH, SEPTIMUS, innkeeper, Colchester. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 20,
at three, at the Fleece hotel, Colchester. Sol. Goody, Colchester SPIEGHALDER, ANSELM, watchmaker, Exeter. Pet. Jan. 12.
Jan, 31), at twelve, at office of Chamberlaine, solicitor, Basing
hall.st. Sol. Petherick, Exeter STALEY, TOM PEACE, ship broker, Leadenhall-st. Pet. Jan. 10.
Jan. 2, at twelve, at office of Sols. Plews and Irvine, Mark-la TODER, WILLIAM, Inrmer, West Burton. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 31,
at eleven, ut office of Sol. Page, jun., Lincoln TUCK, WHITBREAD HARRISON, grocer, Buttsbury, near Stock.
Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 5, st twelve, at the Green Dragon hotel, Bishopsgate-st-within. Sol. Woodward, Ingrum-ct, Fenchurch.
street UTTING, JOKx, bootmaker, Norwich. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan, 31, at
four, nt office of Sol, Sadd, Norwich VALE, HARRY WILLIAM, victualler, Crown-st, Soho. Pet. Jan. 6.
Jan. 26, at eleven, at office of Sol. Lewis, Hatton.gdn, Holborn VAUGHAN, FRANCIS, provision dealer, Altrinchain. Pet. Jan. 14.
Jan. 2, at three, at office of Hinde, Milne, and Sudlow, Folici
tors, Manchester. Sols. Nicholls, Hinde, and Co., Altrincham WARWICK, HENRY, boot manufacturer, Great Suffolk st, South.
wark, Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 30, it two), at office of M. Banes, 22, Basinghall.st. Sol. Watson, Brwinghall-st WATT, CHARLOTTE, widow, Newport, Isle of Wight. Pet. Jan.
10. Jan. 2, at eleven, at office of Sol. Joyce, Newport WEBE, WILLIAM, tailor, Euston-rd. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 29, at
three, at office of Sols. Lewis, Munns, and Longden, Old Jewry WELSH, HENRY, glazier, Gloncerter. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 24, at
eleven, at office of Sol. Essery, Bristol
WILKINSON, JAMES HEXSHALL, worsted spinner, Leeds.
Jun. 27, at twelve, at office of Sols. Acton and Bury, Wrexham
at twelve, at office of Sol. Jones, Conway
Pet. Jun. 8. Jan. 24, at eleven, at office of Sol. Dobson, Southampton-bldgs WILLY, JAEN, artist, Kentish-town-rd. Pet. Dec. 31. Jan. 26, at
eleven, it office of Hunter, 47, London-wall, Sol. Ede, Clementis.
la, Lombard-at WILSON, GEORGE DANIEL, commission agent, Manchester. Pet.
Jun. 13. Feb. 3, at three, at office of Sols. Sale, Shipman, Seddon,
and Sale, Manchester WROTII, CHARLES COCKAYNE, wine merchant, Plymouth. Pet.
Jan. 14. Jan. 29, at cleven, at office of Conway and Almond, 44, George-st, Plymouth. Sols, Greenway und Adams, Plymouth YALLOP, JAMES, lodging-house keeper, Lowestoft. Pet. Jan. 13.
Feb. 5, at twelve, at office of Sol. Archer, Lowestoft YOUNGE, RICHARD WILLIAM, comedian, Elgis crescent, Nottinghill, and Theatre Royal, Norwich. Pet. Jan. 13.
Jan. 29, ut twelve, at office of Sol. Montagu, Bucklersbury
Gazette, Jan. 20.
at one, at office of Sols. Messrs. Lloyd, Newport
7, at three, at the Fleece hotel, Colchester, Sol Goody, Col.
chester BAKER, WILLIAM, farmer, Skirbeck. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 3, at
twelve, at office of Suls, Wise and Harwood, Boston
Eust Greenwich. Pet. Jan. 3. Jan. 29. at twelve, at offices of
Spitalfields. Pet. Jun. 15. Jan. 30, at three, at office of Sol.
15. Feb. 4, at threc, at office of Sols. Addleshaw and Warburton,
ut two, at ottices of Sol Hobbs, Wells BRUTON, EDWARD GEORGE, architect, Oxford. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan,
28, at eleven, at office of Sol. Bickerton, Oxford BIDDLF, WILLIAM, out of employment, Thrissington. Pet. Jan.
16. Jan, 6, at twelve, at ottices of Sols. Parsons and Bright,
Leicester Pet. Jan. 15. Feb. 3, at three, at the Guildhall
Coffee-house, Gresham-st, London, Sol. Haxby, Leicester
Feb. 2, at ten, at the Guildhall, Bury St. Edmunds. Sol. Gross.
Grucechurch-st. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb. 12, at three, at the Guild
hull tavern, Gresham.st. Sol. Clark, Kine-st, Cheep-ide BUTLER, BENJAMIN, out of business, Northfield. Pet. Jan. 16.
Feb. 3, at 12, at office of Sol Falows, Birmingham
twelve, at ottice of Sol. Thorne, Barnstaple
Addleshaw and Warburton, Manchester
14. Feb. 4, at two, at office of Sol. Thorn, Barnstaple
twelvo, at office of Sol. Cook, Truro COLLINSON, CHARLES, earthenware manufacturer, Buyblem.
Pet. Jun. 9. Jan. 28, at eleven, at ottice of Sol. Heuton, Burslem COLLS, HENRY, sen., and COLLS, HENRY, jun. Pet. Jan. 17.
Feb. 6, at three, at offices of Sols. Rowlands and Bagnall, Bir.
mingham DEMETRIUS, GEORGE, boarding house keeper, Liverpool. Pet.
Jan. 16. Feb. 6, at three, at office of Sol. Ponton, Liverpool DIXON, GEORGE, husbandman, Patterdale. Pet. Jan. 15. Feb.
6, at two, at office of Sol. Bolton, Kendal DUNLOP, JOHN, auctioneer, White Hart-ct, Bishopsgatest, and
Stansfield-rd, Brixton. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb. 12, at two, at office
Jan. 30, at three, at the Star and Garter hotel, Wolverhampton.
Jan. 29, at twelve, ut office of Sol Fallows, Birmingham
ut office of sol. Hooper, Newport
eleven, at 32, Rogent-st, Wrexham. Sol. Hughes
Jan. 15. Feb. 9, at eleven, ut office of Sol. Roberts, Clement's.inn
Jan. 28, at eleven, at office of Sol, Hirtzel, Exeter
Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 9, at three, at office of Sols. Messrs. Bastard
three, at the Commercial hotel, Manchester. Sol. Hadtiela HINDSON, JOSEPH, grocer, Carlisle. Pet. Jan. 15. Feb. 2, ut two,
at the Crown and Mitre hotel, Carlisle. Sol. Wannop, Carlisle HAYTER, FREDERICK, grocer, High st, Mortlake, Pet. Jan. 16.
Feb. 2, at eleven, at office of Sols. Mesars. Anderson, Ironmonger.la HOARE, Joux, grocer, Charlotte-pl, Mile-end New-town. Pet.
Dec. 31. Jan. 27, at eleven, at office of Hunter, London-wall.
Sol. Ede, Clement'n-la, Lombard-et
9. Jan. 27, at three, at the Guildhall coffee-house, Gresham-st.
Sol. Kilby, Southampton
twelve, at office of Sol. Clarke, Great Yarmouth
office of Sol. Swerve, Oxford LARK, ROBERT FRANCIS, tailor, Great Yarmouth. Pet. Jan. 16.
Feb. 6. at twelve at office of Sol. W1lt-hire, Great Yermonth LOVETT, GEORGE, coal merchant, Runcorn. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb.
2, at eleven, ut office of Sol Linaker, Runcorn LUCAN, BENJAMIN, jun., brickmaker, Enstham. Pet. Jan. 14.
Feb. 2, at two, at the Swan hotel, Tenbury. Sol. Crowther,
heath, and farmer, Kidbrook, Blackheath. Pet. Jan, 17. Feb.
7, at eleven, at office of Sol. Kilsby, Cheapside MAGER, LUDWIG, baker, Copley-st. Stepney-green. Pet. Jan. 16.
Feb. &, ut three, at office of Sol. Boulton, Northampton-square,
Jan. 29, at ten, at office of Sol., E14, Birmingham
Strand. Sol. Lind
at eleven, it office or Sol. Dobson, Middlesborough
Sol. Buchanan, Basinyhdl.st
three, at office of Sol. Hampson, Manchester
Jan. 31, at three, at office of Soly. Simons and Plews, Merthyr
two, at office of Sols, Simpson and Burrell, Leeds
two, at offices of Sol. Spurr, 30, Queen-et, Scarborough PIDGEON, JAMES, wine inerchant, Beaumaris. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan.
31, at twelve, at the Queen's hotel, Cheater. Sol. Roberts, Beau
Jan. 27, at twelve, at office of Sol. Fallows, Birmingham
Lavender hill, Wandsworth, Pet. Jan. 13. Feb. 6, at eleven, at
BANKRUPTS' ESTATER. The Official Assignces, &c., are given, to whom apply for the
Dividends. Bonn, J. and Benn, H. cloth in mufacturers, first, 208. At office of Dean, Gordon, and Hinde, accountants, 23. Albion-st, LedsBlackburn, Schild, and schuftetui, cotton brokers, second and anal, 7 d.; third and timl, 4.d. At Trust. H. Bolland, 10, $o.th John st, Liverpool.-Carter, J. manufacturer, third and find, 1s. 3.d. At Trut. c. H. Wade, St. Andrew's.chmbs, Alberts L, Vanches ter. --Churdairk, J. H, cotton spinner, Is. Gid. At Trust. J. Kerr, 23, Faulkner-st, Manchester.-Him and Anthony, cotton brokers, fifth and final, 6 d. At Trust. H. W. Buiner. 24, North Johnst, Liverpool. - Jannines, J. R. farmer, first, 78. At the National Provincial Bank, Cornhill, Ipswich.--Kidd, S. G. seed crusher, second, 60.
At Carlill and Burkinshaw, 4, Parliament-st. Hull. --- Mon, W. H. wine merchant, second, Is. At Becke and Green, 20, Market sq. Northampton.-- Parrish and Hwarth, ironmongers, final, .. At Sols, Saunders and Bradbury, Birmingham. - Sanders, H. tailor, first and final, ls. 3d. At Trust. J. II aggins, 194, High, Exeter.
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
BIRTHS. BENNETT.-On the 18th inst., at Marksdanes, Bruton, the wife of
William Bennett, solicitor, of a con. CLARE. ---On the 19th in t., at East Sheon, Surrey, the wife di
Octavius Leigh Clare, Esq., barrister-at-liw. of a daughter. FARDELI..-On the 16th inst., at 1, Upper Brunswick.place,
Brighton. the wife of George Fardell, Esq., barrister-at-law, o admughter. MELLOR. -On the 18th inst., at 59, Gloucester-terrace, Hyde park,
the wife of James R. Mellor, Esq., barister-at-law, of
daughter. SUTTON.-On the 16th inst., at 36, Pembroke-road, Kensington,
w, the wife of Henry Sutton, Esq., barrister-at-law, of daughter.
MARRIAGES. READ.-VAUTIER.-On the 15th inst... at Kenwyn, Cornwall,
by the Ven. Archdeacon Phillpotta, Chancellor of the Diocese, assisted by the Rev. George Woolloome, Rutor of St. Mewan, Odden Frederick Rend, of Thetford, solicitor, to Amy. youngest daughter of the Rev. Richard Vautier, Rector of Kenwyn and Kea.
DEATHS. ITALY.-On the 10th inst., at Queensborough terrace, W. aged 55,
Willian Taylor Haly, Esq., of the Middle Temple, barrister 4i
law. PRATT.-On the 6th inst., at Wootton Bassett, Wilts, aged 75,
James Pritt, solicitor. STIRGE.On the 4th inst., at 24. The Grove, Boltons, S.W., wed
34, Lewis Joseph Sturge, of the Inner Temple, barrister-at-las.
PARTRIDGE AND COOPER,
WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS, 192, FLEET-STREET, AND 1 & 2, CHANCERY-LAXE, London, E.C.
Carriage paid to the Country on Orders exceeding 20s. DRAFT PAPER, 58., 6s, 6d., 78. 6d., 78. 9d., and 93. 91. Per
ream. Brief PAPER, 158. 6d., 178. 6d., and 23s. 81. per ream, FOOLSCAP PAPER, 108. 6d., 12s. 6d., and 156. 6d. per ream. CREAN LAID NOTE, 38., 19., and 5s, per ream, LARGE CREAN LAID NOTE, 48.6d., 6s. 6d., and es, per ream. LARGE BLUE NOTE, 38. od., 48. 61., and 6s. 6d. per ream. ENVELOPES, CREAM OR BLUE, 48. 6d., and 63. 6d., per 1000. The “TENPLE" ENVELOPE, extra secure, gs. 6d. per 1000. FOOLSCAP OFFICIAL ENVELOPES, 1s. Si. per 100. THE NEW “ VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE" NOTE, Os. 60. per ream,
"We should direct particular attention to their Nex Club honse Paper: in our opinion it is the very best paper weeter wrote upon."- London Mirror. INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled, to hold twenty
or thirty folios, 25. 3d. per skin, 263. per dozen, 1232. per
roll. SECONDS or FOLLOWERS, Ruled, 1s. Iid. each, 228. per doser.
105s. per roll. RECORDS or MEMORIALS, 7d. each, 6s. Ed. per dozen. LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER OG MINUTE-BOOKS
An immense stock in various bindings. ILLUSTRATED Price-LIST of Inkstands, Postage Scale Copying Presses, Writing Cases, Despatch Boxes, Oak and Walnut Stationery Cabinets, and other useful articies adapted to Library or Office, post free.
To Readers and Correspondents.
A. G. W.-A table of cases such as you refer to will be found at the beginning of
each volume of the LAW TIMEN Reports,
The learned County Court Judge found as a fact that the value was over £500, and thereupon, instead of ordering the cause to be transferred to the Court of Chancery, dismissed the plaint with costs. The question turned on sect. 9 of the Act of 1865 and sect. 14 of the Act of 1867. These two sections, the VICE-CHANCELLOR said, must be taken as standing together, and it was clearly, therefore, the duty of the County Court Judge to transfer the cause to the Court of Chancery. His Honour considered the case similor to that of Birks v. Šilverwood (L. Rep. 14 Eq. 101; 27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 18), and the appeal against the decision of the County Court Judge was allowed, but as no application had been made at the hearing to transfer the cause, no costs of the appeal were given.
One or two of the Judges make a practice of receiving citations from the Law Times Reports with hesitation, and Mr. Justice BLACKBURN has more than once objected that they are not "of the highest authority.” No ground has been alleged, to our knowledge, for such an aspersion, whereas the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of England has on one occasion at least commended the ability with which cases, to be found in those reports only, are reported. We think it only due to as able a staff of reporters as the Bar of England can furnish, to say that editorially we have constantly occasion to admire the extraordinary care and skill employed in the service of the Law Tres Reports. We make no insidious distinctions, but from the nature of things we believe that in bankruptcy these reports are simply indispensable, and are received as authority-as they certainly are in all the courts throughout the provinces. With regard to speed, coupled with fulness, the Law TIMES Reports are without a rival. We have the testimony of large numbers of members of the Bar to the great usefulness and value of our reports, and the objection that they are not "of the highest authority” ought not to be advanced without specific grounds. From the excessive care which is devoted to revision, we believe we may say that the reports are as absolutely perfect as they can be made consistently with the rapidity with which they are produced, and moreover that this rapidity of production detracts very slightly from the accuracy which is, of course, essential.
Just published, price 5s. 6d., VOL. VIII., Part 4, of
Sent post free to subscribers. N.B.-The back volumes and parts inay be had; the vols. at 255. each, hall-bound.
London: HORACE Cox, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C.
Now ready, price 53. 6d., VOL. II., Part 1, of
Esq., Barrister-at-Law, in the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in all the Superior Courts, with a Selection from the Decisions of the United States Courts, with Votes by the Elitor. The First Series of " Maritime Law" may now be had com. plete in Three Volumes, half bound, price 43 58. for the set, or any single volume for 222s. Back numbers may be had to complete sets,
London : HORACE Cox, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C.
CON TEN TS.
sanction of Court of Chancery--Juris
diction in bankruptcy to annul sule 757 Er part. JAMES ; R: O'REARDOX. Bankruptcy - Partnership - Separate adjudication in England.
Mortgage--Trustees advancing money
COURT OF EXCHEQUER. DAWSON AND OTHERS , LORD OTHO FITZ, ERALD Landlord and tenant-Contract--Agreement to pay compensation for damuge done by hares and rabbits....
Admiralty Jurisdiction - Damage to
............ 230 LAW LIBRARY
Bank of England
Tuunton Election Petition..................... 234
Accused Persons in Coroners' Court......... 333
Birmingham County Court
The Associated Law Clerks of Ireland
243 BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AXD DEATHS ... 244
ADVOCATES who have been retained in any way connected with the Tichborne Defence would appear to have been seized with an extraordinary mania for being irregular and insulting dignitaries. The Albany Law Journal, quoting a scene between Dr. Kenealy and the Court; which we published sometime since, taunts us with our boasted regard for decorum, and observes that had counsel in America ventured to be equally insolent, he would have received something more than a lecture. Our contemporary, we think, overlooks the difficulty of doing anything more than lecture under the circumstances. To have committed counsel for the defence in the middle of his address, or indeed at any period of his progress in the case, would have had a most unfortunate effect. The disposition to make inopportune and insolent observations has, howerer, shown itself outside the Court of Queen's Bench, and at Bow. street we have seen the extraordinary spectacle of an attorney addressing a magistrate, but extending his remarks to “the body of men from which English juries are drawn” in anticipation of the commitment of his client. The Luie prosecution going on con. currently with the prosecution of the Claimant has encouraged the attempt to rebut the rebutting evidence of the Crown, and has tended to complicate the already extraordinary conditions under which great efforts are being made to adıninister the law of the country.
EUROPEAN ASSCRANCE ARBITRATION.
Transfer of shares set aside-Misreprefentation
139 MACKENZIE'S CASE
Contributory-Liability of person to
whom shares have been allotted ........ 141 WILLIAM HESRY BEXTINCK'S CASE Contributory - Infant not liable on share
143 DYXOR'S CASE
Transfer of shares set aside-Misreprebentation
TO READERS AND CORRESPONDENTS ...... 227
227 Assignments of choses in Action before and after Insolvency
An interesting question of bankruptcy law was raised in the cross actions of Megrath v. Gray and Gray v. Megrath in the Common Pleas on the 12th instant, namely, whether the liquidation and discharge of one of two joint debtors releases his co-debtor. In the first action it appeared that GRAY was indebted to MEGrath in a balance of 6+1. 88. 11d. for goods sold; that MEGRATA and H., who traded in partnership down to May 1870, had bought goods of
GRAY, for which they had given him two acceptances of LEADING ARTICLES, &c.
2491. 198. ld, and 1671. 78., which Gray had discounted with the Adelphi Bank of Liverpool; that I. (who upon the dissolution of the partnership had undertaken to pay the debts of the firm) filed a petition under sect. 126 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, and paid 108. in the pound; that Gray afterwards filed a petition for liquidation by arrangement under sect. 125, and under a resolution paid his creditors 98. in the pound, and got an assignment of the debts and effects from the trustee; and that the Adelphi Bank received both dividends, and in January 1872, gave up the two
bills to Gray. The first question was whether the discharge of A CASE which will be of service to County Court Judges in con- H. in his liquidation by arrangement was a release of MEGRATI, ducting the equity business of their courts was decided by Vice- his solvent co-debtor, or whether such discharge released only H., Chancellor Malins on Monday last. A nlaint had been filed in the leaving Megrath to be the sole debtor; secondly, if the latter, Lambeth County Court, and there was the usual allegation that whether the interest of GRAY in the right of action against the value of the property did not exceed £500. objection was MEGRATH was re-transferred to Gray under his liquidation by raised when the cause came on for hearing that the value of the arrangement, or was still in his trustee, or had lapsed, or was property was over £500, and a valuer was called who so deposed. ' legally in his trustee but held by him as trustee for Grar.
VOL. LVI.-No. 1609.
The Law and the Lawyers m
The Court held that the general enactments in sects. 49 and 50 of the Bankruptcy Act 1849, apply to the discharges under sects. 125 and 126, and the rules and forms applicable to them; that the word "bankrupt in sects. 49 and 50 is to be read as applicable to any debtor obtaining an order of discharge under the statute; that an order of discharge, whether in pure bankruptcy, or under a liquidation by arrangement under sect. 125, or under a composition under sect. 126, releases only the debtor in whose favour it is given, and leaves his solvent co-debtor liable to be sued separately by a joint creditor who had been a party to the release of the insolvent debtor; and, consequently, that the discharge of H. did not release MEGRATI, but left him liable to a separate suit by Gray.
THE Bar will be strongly represented in the coming elections. We shall probably omit some names which we have not recognised, but we already notice the following, which are familiar: Mr. Joseph Napier Higgins, Q.C. (Evesham), Mr. C. P. Butt, Q.C. (Tamworth), Mr. H. Giffard, Q.C. (Cardiff), Sir John Karslake, Q.C. (Hunting. don), Mr. W. Forsyth, Q.C. (Marylebone), Mr. M. Lloyd, Q.T. (Beaumaris), Mr. G. O. Morgan, Q.C. (Denbighshire), Mr. H. Lopes, Q.C. (Frome), Mr. J. J. Powell, Q.C. (Gloucester), Mr. W. H. West, Q.C. (Ipswich), Mr. J. Torr, Q.C. (Liverpool), Mr. T. Hughes, Q.C. (Marylebone), Mr. Huddleston, Q.C. (Norwich), Mr. W. E. Dowdeswell, Q.C. (Worcester, West), Mr. Swanston, Q.C. (Portsmouth), Mr. Kay, Q.C. (Salford), Mr. Serjt. Spinks (Oldham), Sir W. Harcourt (Oxford), Mr. H. T. Cole, Q.C. (Penryn), Mr. R. M. Kerr (Peterborough), Mr. Holker, Q.C. (Preston), Mr. G. J. S. Lefevre, Q.C. (Reading), Sir R. Baggallay (Mid-Surrey), Sir H. James (Taunton), Sir T. Chambers, Q.c. (Marylebone), Mr. Clement Milward, Q.C. (Christchurch), Mr. S. D. Waddy (Barnstaple), Mr. R. J. Biron (Canterbury), Hon. G. T. Kenyon (Denbigh District), Mr. F. C. Inderwick (Dover), Mr. M. Howard (Lambeth), Mr. Wheelhouse (Leeds), Hon. E. Stanhope (Lincolnshire), Hon. R. Bourke (Lynn Regis), Mr. Gainsford Bruce (Newcastle-on-Tyne), Mr. C. G. Merewether (Northampton), Mr. Jenkins (Penryn), Mr. Wrensfordsley (Peterborough), Mr. Marriott (Peterborough), Sir G. Young (Plymouth), Mr. W. T. Charley (Saiford), Mr. Straight (Shrewsbury) Mr. W. Grantham (East Surrey), Mr. Cohen (Lewes), and Mr. A. G. Marten (Cambridge).
haste which would not be done if there were more time for deliberation-the judgment of Mr. Justice Grove is of large importance. He goes to this extent—that the question of agency is one to be determined by the evidence in each particular case ; that the candidate must have placed himself in the hands of persons authorised by his agents to canvass; and that mere noninterference with persons who, feeling interested in the success of a candidate, may act in support of his canvass, is not sufficient to saddle the candidate with any unlawful act of theirs of which the tribunal is satisfied he or his authorised agent is ignorant. It is extremely difficult to follow the learned Judge in his examination of the evidence on this basis, because if we differed from him in his method of argument, we might possibly arrive at a conclusion different from that at which he has arrived, and it is no part of & journalist's duty to consider decided issues of fact. The doctrine of partisanship is, however, in our opinion a dangerous one, and if it is to prevail it will be very easy for candidates to reap all the advantages of corrupt agency without the inconveniences. A candidate has only to employ a single agent and shut his eyes to all the acts of self-appointed canvassers, whilst, however, adopting and ratifying all their work, and he will escape. And further than this, according to Mr. Justice Grove, if it plainly appear that by someone or other a great deal that is prohibited by statute has been committed, the acts must be proved. Under this ruling a constituency might be demoralised and tainted to the core, but if specific acts are not proved the election stands. We confess that we prefer the broader definitions of Baron Martin, and we anticipate that if the law of agency is narrowed to suit the evidence in each particular case, it will be very easy to fritter away the doctrines which have been established and make bribery under the Ballot almost impossible of punishment.
The doctrine of constructive notice is one which is not to be extended, and the limit of its operation has again been defined in Cavander v. Bulteel (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 710). There two persons purchased a piece of land which was conveyed to them as tenants in common, subject to a joint power of appointment in the two purchasers. They erected thereon premises for the purposes of a business which they carried on in partnership, and the articles of partnership made the premises partnership property. In 1866 one of tbe partners mortgaged one undivided moiety of the premises to the bankers of the firm to secure repayment of an advance made to him. In 1870 the partnership was dissolved. The other partner filed a bill against the bankers claiming priority over their mortgage in respect of sums advanced by him to his firm. ViceChancellor WICKENS, being of opinion that it was not proved that the bankers knew that the premises were in the joint occupation of the two partners, decided against the plaintiff. But on appeal this decision was reversed, one of the bankers being examined in court, and admitting that they knew that the premises were in the joint occupation of the plaintiff and his partner for the purposes of their business. This knowledge, the Lords JUSTICES Considered, brought the case within the doctrine of Daniels v. Davison (16 Ves. 249). There Lord Eldon held that the purchaser of a property which was in possession of a lessee was bound by constructive notice of an agreement by the latter to purchase the reversion. Mr. ROBINSON, in his Law of Priority, regards this as an extreme case, but adds " The decision would, however, seem to come within the general principle of constructive notice-namely, that a person who makes no inquiry whatever shall be deemed to have notice of what, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, he would presumably have learned." Lord Justice JAMES considered that Cavander v. Bulteel was a stronger case than Daniels v. Davison, “ for it would be much more reasonable to expect a mortgagee or purchaser to make inquiries in a case like this, than that he should inquire into the interest of every tenant on the estate in the case of an ordinary mortgage or sale."
The end of the speech of Mr. Hawkins in the Tichborne case, and the opening of the summing up of the LORD Chief JUSTICE, furnish us with perhaps the most scathing denunciation of a member of the English Bar which is to be found in the records of forensic oratory. Mr. HAWKINS has risen to a height which his greatest admirers did not consider him capable of attaining to. The patience on the part of the Judges which he took occasion to commend and to wonder at, would appear, however, to represent an amount of suppressed indignation which language is really inadequate to convey. This has now burst forth, and let those who, in the future, may deem it courageous to insult the English Bench, read the following, and, we say again, as we have said before, take warning :
This has been a painful case, among others, by reason of the course that has been pursued in the conduct of the detence. It is most distressing for a Judge who presides over a trial to find himself in frequent conflict with the learned counsel engaged in the case. That has been the case, unfortunately, over and over again in the course of this inquiry, and the Judge cannot fail to be conscious that to a bystander, who only sees the case on the surface, it may have the effect ot creating a suspicion of partiality and prejudice pervading the Judge's mind. When point after point, either of attack or defence, is taken of a most frivolous and untenable character, the Judge has no alternative but to overrule them, and when they are multiplied, either through ignorance of the law, or, as was the case here, from & desire to produce an effect on the outside world, and lead them to think that the counsel was unfairly treated, the Judge in such cases must do his duty regardless of the consequences. In this case we have had to interfere to correct the misstatements or misrepresentations which we could not allow to pass unnoticed. When witnesses are misrepresented and their statements are distorted ; when facts are perverted, and when dates are set at nought, not for the purpose of argument, but in order to lay thọ foundation for foul imputations and unjust accusations against parties and witnesses, and to send forth invective and foul slime where with to blacken the character of men whose reputations have hitherto been without reproach, it is impossible for the Judge to reinain silent. It is not enough to say that a Judge should wait and set counsel right at the end of his address, but in a case like this it was impossible for the Judge to remain silent until the end in order to correct the impression that must have gone forth fatal to the honour and character of persons thus assailed, and which must have inflicted wounds which possibly never could have been healed. In ordinary cases, in the heat of argument, in the fervour of oratory, or in the zeal with which learned counsel engage in a case, the strict bounds of propriety will occasionally be overstepped, but for the honour of the Bar of England they are very rare indeed, and then a word or a hint from the Judge is sufficient to restrain overflowing zeal within its proper and legitimate bounds. Here the Judges have been assailed by continual disrespect and insult, and by covert allusions to Scroggs and Jeffreys, Judges of infamous repute, but if the spirit of those Judges had animated the present administrators of justice, the learned counsel would have speedily been laid by their heels. We have also been charged with interfering with the liberties and privileges of the Bar, but I will undertako to say there are no three Judges on the Bench to whom the liberty of the Bar is more dear and sacred than to my learned brothers and myself. We know full well that the freedom of the Bar is essential to the administra. tion of justice, and it will be an evil day indeed for this country whenever it is interfered with. It might be argued that this single case is the single exception which, perhaps, would prove the rule-but is that so? What, interfere with the liberties of the Bar in checking the licence of unscrupulous abuse, in restraining remarks which amounted to misstatement and slander! The Bar is the most noble-minded and generous. spirited body in the world, and has never claimed the right to slander as one of their privileges or considered the restraint of undue licence an interference with their rights. Never, I trust, will slander be considered & weapon in their armoury to be used in their advocacy. Here unfortunately the living and the dead have been equally aspersed, and there never was, in the history of jurisprudence, a case in which so much invective and abuse have been used. I trust it will never occur again.
When an Election Judge gives a decision, setting forth all his reasons, it is perhaps more unreasonable to take exception to it than it is to differ from the finding of a jury. In declaring Sir HENRY JAMES duly elected for Taunton, Mr. Justice Grove will receive universally the credit of having weighed with scrupulous care the evidence laid before him, and to have performed with careful impartiality the functions of a juryman. His Lordship found, as many Judges have found before, the difficulty of defining agency, and he even anticipated that objectiou might be taken to the approximate limitation which he expressed. At this particular juncture—when time is short and many acts may be done in
ASSIGNMENTS OF CHOSES IN ACTION BEFORE AND the fund out of the disposition of the insolvent. The assignee AFTER INSOLVENCY.
was therefore postponed to the two mortgagees. THERE has been some conflict of decision in recent years as to the
We may here mention that Vice-Chancellor Malins, in Re claims of mortgagees and transferees of an insolvent before and Russell's Policy Trusts (27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 706) declined to follow after insolvency as against assignees, and the cases were reviewed
an earlier case of Re Webb's Policy (16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 529), and in a decision given by Vice-Chancellor Hall last term in the case of
acted on Stuart v. Cockerell. In Webb's case it was decided that Semphill v. The Queensland Sheep Investment Company (Limited).
no act of an assignee for value of a chose in action done after the There the facts were these : Hickey, a domiciled Australian,
bankruptcy of the assignor can give effect to his assignment as agreed to sell an estate to the Queensland Company, but pre
against the assignees in bankruptcy, unless his title is perfected viously to the execution of the agreement he assigned half his
before the bankruptcy by notice to the legal holders of such chose interest under it to one Wright. Hickey became insolvent in
in action. Stuart v. Cockerell, as we have seen, supports the proAustralia, and an official assignee was appointed there. Subse
position that by notice or a stop order subsequent to the bankquently Wright gave notice to the company of his assignment,
ruptcy the operation of the law as to reputed ownership may be and afterwards the official assignee gave the company notice of
In Re Russell's Policy Trusts a policy effected by A. the insolvency. The notice given by Wright was held to be
on his life was mortgaged in 1860 without notice to the office. A. inoperative as against the official assignee (29 L. T. Rep. N. S.
became bankrupt in 1862, and in 1868 joined in a transfer of the 737.) The position there will be seen to have been this : mortgage to B., who had no notice of the bankruptcy. After the Notice given by Wright after the insolvency of Hickey, but
death of A., B.'s solicitor gave notice to the office that this and other before the official assignee had given notice of the insolvency.
policies were mortgaged, and that he acted for the mortgagees, Notice having been given by Wright after the insolvency,
not naming them. Subsequently notice of the bankruptcy was could he be in as good a position as if he had given notice
given to the office. " The question is not,” said his Honour, before the insolvency, simply because the official assignee
“ between the assignee in bankruptcy and a general assignee, but delayed giving his notice until after Wright had given his ? We
between him and an assignee of the particular thing; and I can shall briefly consider the authorities presently. Upon principle
see no grounds for thinking that there is any difference between and the balance of authority the Vice-Chancellor came to the
an assignee in bankruptcy and a particular assignee. The parconclusion that notice after bankruptcy or insolvency is in
ticular assignee loses priority by not giving notice, and the assignee operative as against the bankrupt or insolvent, in the case
in bankruptcy does the same thing. of the party giving notice claiming under a title acquired
Now as to these cases, Vice-Chancellor Hall points out that in previously to the bankruptcy or insolvency: His Honour said,
Re Webb's Policy and in Stuart v. Cockerell, the assignments pre** It would certainly be strange if such a person having
ceded the bankruptcy, and in Brown's Trusts and Russell's Policy omitted to give notice and thus left the property in the order
Trusts, the assignment to place after the insolvency or bankand disposition of the bankrupt or insolvent, should be able
ruptcy, and His Honour said: “I apprehend a great distinction immediately after the insolvency and bankruptcy to perfect his
exists between a case in wbich the bankrupt or insolvent has made title and take from the general creditors that which he had led
an assignment after the bankruptcy or insolvency, and a case in them to believe was the insolvent's or bankrupt's property and
which he has done so previously to bankruptcy or insolvency. In upon the faith of which the general creditors had dealt with the former case it may be that the bankrupt's or insolvent's him."
assignee, having neglected to give notice, his title will be postWe quite agree with the learned Vice-Chancellor that “this would poned. His omission to give notice enabled the bankrupt or be against the spirit of the law, which is that persons who have
insolvent to deal with the fund.” There doubtless ought to be this unconscientiously intrusted the bankrupt with personal property
distinction, and in Re Tichener (35 Beav. 317), where the assignunder circumstances in which a false credit might be acquired in
ment (which was by way of mortgage), preceded the bankruptcy, respect of such intrusting should, upon the bankruptcy, lose their
Lord; Romilly held that the title of the bankrupt's assignee prevailed their right to the property."
over the title of the mortgagee, although he gave notice, and in A word here about notice to assignees, which, in a collateral
Bartlett v. Bartlett (1 De G. & J. 127), the assignee before bankmanner, affects the general question. Is there any necessity for
ruptcy who had given notice, was held not entitled as against the an assignee of a bankrupt's interest, or a mortgagee of his pro
assignee in bankruptcy, although it does not appear that the asperty, to give notice to his trustee? Mr. Justice Willes pointed signee in bankruptcy had given notice. out in Cooke v. Hemming (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 772), what indeed, Having thus considered all the cases, the conclusion of Vicewe think, has always been clear as a legal principle, that notice to
Chancellor Hall seems sound, as we have already given it, that assignees or trustees in bankruptcy is necessary only to defeat the
notice after bankruptcy or insolvency is inoperative against the reputed ownership clause in the Bankruptcy Act. Assignees or
bankrupt or insolvent in the case of the party giving notice trustees are not in the position of subsequent purchasers for value
claiming under a title acquired previous to the bankruptcy or without notice.
insolvency. And this is the view which in our issue of Feb. 1873 A prominent case on the general question is Stuart v. Cockerell we expressed in opposition to the decision of Vice-Chance llor (23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 442), where the tenant for life of a fund in
Malins in Stuart v. Cockerell. court mortgaged his interest, and afterwards became bankrupt. After the bankruptcy the mortgagee obtained a stop order on the dividends; the assignee in bankruptcy did not obtain a stop
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION_DAMAGE TO CARGO. order, and the mortgagee was held entitled to priority over the A RECENT decision of the High Court of Admiralty has reopened assignee in bankruptcy. Vice-Chancellor Malins, in giving the question of the jurisdiction of that court under the Admiralty judgment in that case, said: “It is clearly settled by a line of Court Act 1861, sect. 6, over foreign vessels carrying goods into authorities ending with Bartlett v. Bartlett (1‘De G. & J. 127), that English ports. By that Act the court has “jurisdiction over any if the assignee of a chose in action omits to give notice of the claim by the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of lading assignment to the debtor or trustee, or, in the case of a fund in of any goods carried into any port in England or Wales in any court, to obtain a stop order, and the assignor becomes bankrupt, ship, for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the the chose in action remains in the order and disposition of the negligence or misconduct of or for breach of duty or breach of conbankrupt with the consent of the assignee, and passes to the tract on the part of the owner, master, or crew of the ship.” The only assignee in bankruptcy. The
to jurisdiction expressly by the Act is, decided the Bronkara permis de cha Yico Chrepeller had previously lihaitat
any on her ju partictioner of the skipis domiciled in England one Brocklebank, in 1838, being entitled in right of his or Wales the jurisdiction does not attach ; otherwise the court wife to a reversionary interest in a sum of stock standing may proceed in any such suit either in rem or in personam. It will in the names of trustees, became insolvent, and in the schedule be noticed that to confer the jurisdiction it is requisite that the goods of his assets filed under his insolvency he inserted such rever- should be “carried into any port in England or Wales,” but as far sionary interest. No formal notice of the insolvency was ever as the plain meaning of the words is concerned, it is sufficient that given by the provisional assignee to the trustees of the fund, and the goods should be so carried; the Act does not in any way say that no creditors' assignee was appointed until shortly before the hear- they are to be carried into such a port in pursuance of any contract, ing of the cause.
In 1841 Brocklebank and his wife assigned the nor for the purpose of being there discharged. In spite, however, reversionary interest to a Mr. Burkitt to secure an annuity, and in of the wideness of expression in the Act, various attempts have 18 19 mortgaged it to one Boston. Formal notice of these deeds was been made to limit the effect of the words just noticed. given to the trustees of the fund. Mrs. Brocklebank died in 1861, In The Bahia (Bro. & Lush. 61), a foreign ship under charter to and the fund representing the reversionary interest being in court, load goods abroad and deliver them abroad was forced into Ramsa petition was presented by Boston for payment out. The Vice- gate Harbour by stress of weather, and once there the master Chancellor there said: “The true priuciple on which questions of refused either to proceed to his destination or to deliver the priority depend is, that it is incumbent on all persons dealing cargo to the consignees at Ramsgate. The consignees thereupon with choses in action to do all that is in their power to perfect instituted a suit in rem against the ship under the 6th section of their title, and they do not do so unless they give notice to the the Admiralty Court Act. The shipowners entered an appearance persons in whose hands such property is." His Honour, said, under protest, and in the argument contended that the words moreover, “I think these questions of notice should not be left “ carried into any port " must mean “carried into any port under a open to peculation, but that formal notice should be required,” contract by which the consignees were to finally discharge in that and he held that the mere fact of the trustees' solicitors knowing port.”. Dr. Lushington held, howerer, that as the master had of the insolvency was not sufficient notice to the trustees to take brought the cargo into an English port and, whilst there was
guilty of a breach of contract in refusing to proceed to his destina- ralty. Sir R. Phillimore held, however, that within the plain tion, the court had jurisdiction over the suit. The effect of this and ordinary meaning of the words of the Act, there was a carrying decision, it will be noticed, was to pronounce that the court had into an English port in pursuance of the charter-party, and that jurisdiction over a ship whose contract of carriage did not in any hence the court had jurisdiction. From this decision, there is way require the performance in English territory or within the now pending an appeal to the Privy Council, but as it is a pure jurisdiction of the court; but at the same time the jurisdiction was question of law there can be no impropriety in calling attention conferred by a breach of the contract committed within the juris.
to it. diction, viz., the refusal to proceed. Another case on the subject The object of the statute is plain : it was intended to give a was The Kasan (Bro. & Lush. 1), in which it was held, that a ship, remedy to owners and consignees of goods brought here by ships which had loaded in an English port under a charter-party by which whose owners did not reside in England. Formerly when a ship she was to carry and deliver an outward cargo for the charterers arrived in this country and discharged her cargo, in whatever and on her arrivaloutwards ship and carry another cargo for the char- condition it might be, and by whosever negligence it had got into terers, to an English port, was not within the meaning of the Act in that condition,
she might leave the country without the unforturespect of the outward cargo, and that the charterers could not on
nate consignee having any remedy. It was useless to sue the her return to this country proceed against her in respect of that master, and to attack the owners it would have been necessary to cargo, because the words of the section could not be held to apply seek them out in their own place of residence. To remedy this to goods exported from this country. The reason of this decision evil the right of arresting the ship was conferred on the consignee, is not very obvious, because if the section was intended to give a and this, of course, had the effect of compelling the shipowner to remedy against foreign shipowners, non-resident here, it can enter an appearance in a court here. Consignees no doubt have scarcely be said that an owner of goods suffering from a breach the right of bringing an action at common law in such cases, but of contract in respect of a charter-party covering both an outward then they cannot make the process of the court touch the delinand a homeward voyage, is not entitled to the same remedy when quents. The arrest of the ship was necessary to give a full and the whole contract is completed, as another whose goods are complete remedy. The reason and good sense of this is obvious carried between two foreign ports, and who comes within the when applied to cases where the ship discharges or commits a jurisdiction by accident. In The Ironsides (Lush. 458), the goods breach of contract within the jurisdiction, and a little considerahad been transshipped abroad, and were brought home by another tion will show it to be no less so when the ship comes during the ship, and the original ship, with whose owners the contract was made, performance of her contract in any way within the jurisdiction. was subsequently arrested on her arrival in this country on In the first place it should be remembered that it is only con. .another voyage. It was there held that to give the court juris- signees resident in England who are likely to take the benefit of diction the goods must have been carried into the English port the operation of the Act; secondly, any contract by virtue of by the ship against which proceedings were taken. This ruling, which a master puts into an English port for orders, will be with a modification introduced by a subsequent decision, seems generally, if not always, an English contract; thirdly, the trade to follow necessarily on the wording of the statute, for the suit between England and the northern ports, is so great that for the lies for breach of contract, &c. on the part of the owner of “the purposes of commerce and the tribunals regulating that commerce, ship,” that is to say the ship mentioned in the earlier part of the there ought to be equal facility of obtaining redress in any place section, which carried the goods into port. It is to be regretted where the consignee is able to sue; fifthly, the mere coming that the jurisdiction is so restricted for the reason already men- into port with the cargo is a submission to the English jurisdictioned, but the correctness of the ruling can scarcely be tion, which clearly ought, by the principle of reciprocity to give disputed. Not long after the above case the question again jurisdiction, on the ground that almost every nation in the world arose in The Danzig (Bro. & Lush. 107). There the master would, under similar circumstances, exercise the jurisdiction. It had in the course of his voyage thrown overboard part must be remembered that the procedure, in maritime matters at of the cargo, and it was objected that as the breach of least, of all other nations than our own, is founded upon the civil contract alleged was in respect of this jettison, the goods could law, which allows the proceeding in rem; hence in any continental not be said to have been carried into” port. Dr. Lushington, or American port the ship would be arrested for breach of conhowever, held that the words “carried into" must be read “carried tract. This is a sufficient reason why, so long as the words of the or to be carried into" port. This decision, it would seem, was statute allow it, the jurisdiction should be upheld. English conbased entirely upon the fact that there was a contract by which signees ought to have their remedy, even if they order their goods the owner was bound to carry the goods into port, and that he to be delivered abroad, and foreign shipowners ought not to be broke this contract. It is true that part of the goods were exempt from a process to which English ships are liable abroad. carried into port under the contract, but still this case seems We can only express our hope that the Court of Appeal may see somewhat inconsistent with the last cited, because if the section fit to confirm the judgment of the High Court of Admiralty. covers goods “ to be carried into” an English port, it ought to have covered the goods that were to be carried into
port in the Ironsides, but were not. However, it may be said that there is a
GIFTS TO ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. distinction between a case where a ship performs its contract in part The limits of the application of the rule or maxim of law, "Qui by bringing the rest of the cargo to its destination, and the other damnato coitu nascuntur inter liberos non computentur," have been where the contract is completed by a totally different vessel, and the defined, and to a great extent settled by a long series of recent delinquent ship never comes within the jurisdiction of the court at cases, the general tendency of which, undoubtedly, is to admit all in the performance of its contract. The decision in the Bahia illegitimate children to participate in the bounty of a donor or was followed by the present learned Judge of the Admiralty testator under expressions in a deed or will, or under extrinsic Court in one of the cases arising out of the late Franco-German circumstances, which formerly would have been deemed inadequate war (The Patria, 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 849), where a master bound for the purpose. From the decisions in Wilkinson v. Adam from America to Hamburgh put into Falmouth, and refused to (1 Ves. & B. 422), and Beachcroft v. Beachcroft (1 Mad. 430)—to proceed or to deliver at Falmouth.
go back no further-down to that in Occleston v. Fullalove, decided From these decisions the following deductions are to be made : during the present week, this general tendency may be clearly First, that for the purpose of giving jurisdiction it is not necessary traced. By the case of Crook v. Hill (24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 488), that there should be a contract to deliver in England, provided that one of the most valuable of the series, and subsequent to our there is a carrying into an English port and a breach of contract remarks (Law TIMEs, vol. I. p. 495) on the decision therein by the there ; secondly, that the carrying into port must be from a Lords Justices, affirmed by the House of Lords, two points foreign (that is, but an English or Welsh) port; thirdly, that the were made clear: First, that though the intention to include ship, with whose owners the contract was made, must carry the illegitimate children must be inferrable with certainty, by that goods or part thereof into port.
expression is meant only moral as distinguished from matheThis being the state of the decided cases, the Court of Admir- matical or metaphysical certainty, i.e., in point of fact a certainty alty has recently had before it the question whether a carrying appearing as such to a judicial mind; and secondly, that though into an English port, the breach of contract charged not having future illegitimate children might be capable of taking as a class occurred in that port, and the ship not being arrested at that under the gift, that circumstance would not, per se, be conclusive time, but on its return on a subsequent voyage, would confer against the admission of existing illegitimate children to particijurisdiction. In The Pieve Superiore (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 702) it pation. appeared that a shipowner had entered into a charter-party, by The recent case of Occleston v. Fullalove, decided by the Lords which he contracted to carry a cargo from Rangoon to any port in Justices in opposition to the Lord Chancellor, carries this tenGreat Britain or on the Continent, between Havre and Hamburg, dency in favour of illegitimate children to a length which we believe as ordered, at one of several ports of call named, and to be selected will be a surprise in the Profession. Occleston v. Fullalove was an by the master. Some of these ports of call were within the appeal from a decision of the late Vice-Chancellor Wickens, jurisdiction, others without. The master called at Falmouth for which will be found reported 28 L. T. Rep. N. S. 615. It was orders, and was duly sent to Hamburg, where he sent and deli- elaborately argued before the full Court of Appeal in December last vered his cargo.
On his return to Cardiff to load under another and judgment, which had been reserved, was delivered on the 26th contract, the ship was arrested for breach of the former charter. inst. The facts briefly stated were these : James Occleston, by party. It was objected that there was no carrying into an English his will of the 9th July 1868, directed his trustees to pay a moiety port within the meaning of the Act; it was said that Falmouth, of the rents and profits of his real and personal estate to his not being the port of destination, and there having been no breach sister-in-law, Margaret Lewis, for life, and after her decease to of contract there, no jurisdiction accrued to the Court of Admi- stand possessed of a moiety of his said estates "for his re