« EelmineJätka »
ITCH, WILLIAM, butoher, Peasenhall. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 30, at
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
two, at office of Sol. Crozier, Liverpool
Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 30, at eleven, at office of Sol Page, jun., Lin
30, at half past ten, at office of Sol. Duke, Birmingham
14. Feb. 12, at eleven, at the Warren Bulkeley Arms hotel, • Stockport. Sol. Sampson, Manchester HAXSON,L SYDENHAM GEORGE, tear dealer, Little Tower-st. Pet.
Jan. 7. Jan. 24, at one, at the Guildhall coffee-house, Greshamst. Sols. Edmands and Mayhew, Poultry HAZLEHURST, GEORGE, grocer, Button-within-Macclesfield. Pet.
Jan. 14. Jan. 23, at two, at office of Sol. Hand, Macclesfield HERBERT, WILLIAM, and QUICK, JOHN, boot manufacturers, · Webb's-cottages, Albion-rd, Haminersmith. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan.
26, at three, at office of Alcock, accountant, Southerton-rd, Ham- mersmith. Sols. Bartlett and Forbes, Bedford-st, Covent-gdn HIND, WILLIAM, assistant warehouseman, Nottingham. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 2, at three, at office of Sols. Cranch, Rowe, and
3, at twelve, at Hall Quay-chbs, Great Yarmouth, Sol. Palmer,
twelve, at office of Sol. Machen, Sheffeld
29, at three, at office of Sols. Treherne and Wolferstan, Iron
monger-la, Cheapside JEFFERIES, JOSEPH, beer retailer, Ebley. Pet.Jan. 12. Feb. 2, at
eleven, at office of Sol. Witchell, Stroud JOHNSON, EDMUND, tinner, Lachford. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 2, at
three, at office of Messrs. 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.
30, at three, at the Inns of Court hotel, Holbom. Sol. Owston,
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.
WILKINSON, JAMES HENSHALL, worsted spinner, Leeds. Pet. PRINCF, CHARLES HENRY, Ticer, Chorley. Pet. Jan. 17. Feb.
10, at two, at offices of Sols. Chew and Sons, Manchester, WILLIAMS, JOHN, chemist's assistant, Wrexham. Pet. Jan. 10. REYNOLDS, RICHARD, stone merchant, Weymouth, and Nine
Jan. 27, at twelve, at office of Sols. Acton and Bury, Wrexham Elms, Vauxhall, London. Pet Jan. 19. Feb. 4, at eleven, at the WILLIAMS, ROBERT, victualler, Conway. Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 31, Guildhall Coffee-house, London. Sol. Howard, Meloombe Regis at twelve, at office of Sol. Jones, Conway
ROCH, JAMES, grocer, Narberth. Pet. Jan. 17. Feb. 2, at one, at WILLIAMSON, GEORGE, shoe manufacturer, the Grove, Hackney. the Townhall, Carmarthen. Sol, Lloyd, Haverfordwest
Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 24, at eleven, at office of Sol. Dobson, South- ROWCLIFFE, WILLIAM, clerk to a riding master, Studley-road, ampton-bldge
Stockwell. Pet. Jan. 17. Feb. 4, at two, at office of Sol. Oblein, WILLS, JAMER, artist, Kentish-town-rd. Pet. Dec. 31. Jan. 26, at Queen Victoria-st, E.C.
eleven, at office of Hunter, 47, London-wall. Sol. Ede, Clement's. SARSHOTT, HENRY BARTLET, cooper, Winchester. Pet. Jan. la, Lombard-st
17. Feb. 2, at one, at office of Sols. Lee and Best, Lincoln's-inn. WILSON, GEORGE DANIEL, commission agent, Manchester. Pet. fields
Jan. 13. Feb. 3, at three, at office of Sols. Sale, Shipman, Seddon, SHIRLEY, WILLIAM, tailor, Brighton. Pet. Jan. 15. Feb. 3, at and Sale, Manchester
three, at office of Sol. Brandreth, Brighton
Jan. 14. Jan. 29, at eleven, at office of Conway and Almond, 44, 16. Feb. 2, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Cottrell, 104, Newhall-st,
sey. Pet. Jan. 19. Feb. 18, at two, at office of Sols. Nash, Feld, YOU'NGE, RICHARD WILLIAM, comedian, Elgin-crescent, Notting- and Layton, Suffolk-la, E.C.
hill, and Theatre Royal, Norwich. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 29, at SPARROW, FRANK JOHN, carrier, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 16. twelve, at office of Sol. Montagu, Bucklersbury
Jan. 28, at four, at office of Sol. Parry, Birmingham
SPURR, WILLIAM HENRY, estate agent, Manchester. Pet. Jan. Gazetto, Jan, 20.
17. Feb. 9, at three, at office of Sol. Sampson, Manchester
STANDLEY, HENRY, shoe manufacturer, Kettering. Pet. Jan, 15. ATKINS, WILLIAM, shoemaker, Abercarn. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. 28, Jan. 30, at eleven, at offices of Bol. Jeffery, Northampton at one, at office of Sols. Messrs. Lloyd, Newport
STENNING, JOHN, shoemaker, West Bromwich. Pet. Jan. 13 ATKINS, MARTUA AXN, innkeeper, St. Osyth Pet. Jan. 16. Feb.
Jan. 31, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Topham, West Bromwich 7, at three, at the Fleece hotel, Colchester. Sol. Goody, Col. TEBBY, ALFRED, provision dealer, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. 17. Feb. chester
7, at two, at office of Sol. Lowe, Liverpool BAKER, WILLIAM, farmer, Skirbeck. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 3, at THOMPSON, THOMAS, house decorator, Turnham-green. Pet. twelve, at office of Sols. Wise and Harwood, Boston
Jan. 12. Jan. 28, at eleven, at office of Sol. Marshal, King.it,
4, at three, at the Dolphin hotel, Chichester. Sol. Janman, hall-st. Sol. Foster
TRANTER, JOSEPH, provision dealer, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 16.
VAN NIEROP, SOLOMON ISAAC, butcher, Walworth-rd. Pet. Jan.
8. Feb. 4, at three, at office of Sol. Jonas, King's Bench-walk, 15. Feb. 4, at three, at office of Sols. Addleshaw and Warburton, Ternple Manchester
VERNALL, GEORGE, out of business, Great Malvern. Pet. Jan. 15. BROOKS, GEORGE, engineer, Horsington. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 31, Feb. 4, at thiee, at office of Sol. Pitt, Worcester at two, at offices of Sol. Hobbs, Wells
WARREN, CHARLES, furniture dealer, Homer-st, Marylebone. BRUTON, EDWARD GEORGE, architect, Oxford. Pet. Jan. 7. Jan,
Pet. Jan. 15. Feb. 2, at four, at office of Sol. Pain, Marylebone-rd 28, at eleven, at office of Sol. Biokerton, Oxford
WALKER, HENRY WILLIAM, bootmaker, Crescent-pl, Mathias-rd, BIDDLE, WILLIAM, out of employment, Thrussington. Pet. Jan. Stoke Newington-green. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb. 4, at twelve, at 16. Jan. 6, at twelve, at oftices of Sols. Parsons and Bright,
office of Sol. Nind, St. Benet-pl, Gracechurch-st Eldon-chmbs, Nottingham
WARNER, WILLIAM, miller, Worcester. Pet. Jan. 15. Jan. at BULLION, JAMES, and WILSON, REUBEN, wholesale grocers,
office of Sol. Tree, Worcester Leicester Pet. Jan. 15. Feb. 3, at three, at the Guildhall WESTWELL, JOSEPH, joiner, Blackburn. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 8, Coffee-house, Groshan-st, London. Sol. Haxby, Leicester
at a quarter-post ten, at office of Sol. Marriott, Blackburn BULL, BENJAMIN, carpenter, Bury St. Edmunds. Pet. Jan. 15.
WHITE, CHARLES, baker, Liverpool. Pet. Jain. 15. Feb. , at Feb. 2, at ten, at the Guildhall, Bury St. Edmunds. Sol. Gross. two, at office of Vine, accountant, 62, Dale-st, Liverpool. BURR, WILLIAM ALFRED, and BURR, ARTHUR, merchants, Sol. Crozier, Liverpool
Grucechurch-st. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb. 12, at three, at the Guild WILKINSON, MATTHEW, solicitor, Peterborough. Pet. Jan. 16. hall tavern, Gresham-st. Sol. Clark, King-st, Cheapside
Feb. 3, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Gaches, Peterborough BUTLER, BENJAMIN, out of business, Northfield. Pet. Jan. 16. WOOD, JOSEPH FREDERICK, shopkeeper, Barnsley. Pet. Jan. 15. Feb. 3, at 12, at offices of Sol. Fallows, Birmingham
Jan. 31, at three, at offices of Sol. Freeman, Barnsley
twelve, at office of Sol. Thorne, Barnstaple
12. Feb. 2, at two, at office of Webster, solicitor, Basinghall-st.
Sol. Brown, Goswell-rd
cres. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan. 27, at three, at office of Sol. Godfrey,
12. Jan. 29, at two, at the Wheatsheaf public-house, Henry-st,
Woolwich. Sol. Cooper, Charing-cross
Jan. 31, at eleven, at the Guildhall coffee-house, Gresham-street.
8. Jan. 24, at eleven, at the Claremont Arms coffee-room, Upper
lane MARSHALL, WILLIAM, brewer, Bedford. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. 27, at
twelve, at the Red Lion hotel, Bedford. SOL Jeffery, Luton MITCHELL, GEORGE, Innkeeper, Bruton. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan, 28,
at eleven, at the Castle inn, Bruton, Sol. Watts, Yeovil MCWILLIAMS, DAVID, furniture dealer, Lower Sloane-st, Chelsen. Pet. Jan. 8. Jan. 29, at three, at office of Sol. Smith, Rochester
row, Westminster MUIRHEAD, JAMES, picture dealer, Jermyn-st. Pet. Jan. 9. Jan.
29, at three, at ofñce of Sol. Davies, Furnival's-inn NORRIS, BENJAMIN, tailor, Ramsgate. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 2, at
three, at the Bull and George hotel, Ramsgate. Sol. Walford,
at twelve, at office of Sol. Smedley, Fleet-et
twelve, at the Queen's Commercial hotel, Chester. Sol. Wil
liams, Rhyl PANKHURST, JAMES, fish dealer, Newcastle-under-Lyne. Pet.
Jan. 10. Jan. 23, at three, at office of Sol. Turner, Hanley PARKER, THOMAS, grocer, Napier-rd, West Kensington. Pet.
Jan. 13. Feb. 2, at two, at 51, Chancery-la. Sole. Nickinson,
Prall, and Nickinson
Mold. Pet. Jan. 10. Jan. 28, at twelve, at office of Sols. Boydell,
Feb. 2, at two, at office of Sol. Geach, Guildford
Jan. 30, at eleven, at office of Sol. Shakespeare, Oldbury
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 RICHARDS, SAMUEL DYSON, druper, Faringdon. Pet. Jan. 3.
Jan. 22, at two, at office of Sol. Swaine, Cheapside
7. Jan. 27, at one, at office of Sols. Merriman, Powell, and Co.,
Jan. 29, at two, at office of Sol. Stimson, Bedford
31, at one, at office of Sol. Hlearys, Fenchurch-bldge SHEPPARD, GEORGE, baker, Weston-super-Mare. Pet. Jan. 12.
Jan. 28, at eleven, at office of Sol. Smith, Weston-super-Mare SIMPSON, JOHx, plumber, Ashdown-st, Kentish-town. Pet. Jan,
13. Jan. 29, at two, at office of Sol. Moore, Doughty-et, Mecklenburgh-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
Feb. 3, at eleven, at office of Sol. Morgan, Cardiff
29, at two, at office of Sols. Brown, Atter, and 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. 30, at twelve, at office of Chamberlaine, solicitor, Basing.
hall-st. Sol. Petherick, Exeter STALEY, TOM PEACE, ship broker, Leadenhall-st. Pet. Jan. 10.
Jan. 28, at twelve, at office of Sols. Plews and Irvine, Mark-la TODER, WILLIAM, farmer, West Burton. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan. 31,
at eleven, at office of Sol. Page, jun., Lincoln
Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 5, at twelve, at the Green Dragon hotel,
four, at 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, Altrincham. Pet. Jan. 14.
Jan. 29, at three, at office of Hinde Milne, and Sudlow, solicitors, ManchesterSols. Nicholls, Hinde, and Co., Altrincham WARWICK, HENRY, boot manufacturer, Great Suffolk-st, South
wark. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 30, at two, at office of M. Banes, 22, Basinghall-st. Sol. Wataon, Basinghall-st WATT, CHARLOTTE, widow, Newport, Isle of Wight. Pet. Jan.
10. Jan. 28, at eleven, at office of Sol. Joyce, Newport WEBB, WILLIAM, tailor, Euston-rd. Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 29, at
three, at office of Sols. Lewis, Munns, and Longden, oid Jewry WELSH, HENRY, glazier, Glonoester. Pet. Jan. 14. Jan, 24, .at
eleven, at office of Sol. Essery, Bristol
Addleshaw and Warburton, Manchester
The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the
Benn, J. and Benn, H. cloth manufacturers, first, 206. At offee of
Dean, Gordon, and Hinde, accountants, 23, Albion-st, Leeds.COLLS, HENRY, sen., and COLLS, HENRY, jun. Pet. Jan. 17.
Blackburn, Schoteld, and Schofield, cotton brokers, second and final, Feb. 6, at three, at offices of Sols. Rowlands and Bagnall, Bir
7 d.; third and final, 41d. At Trust. H. Bolland, 19, South Johnmingham
st, Liverpool.- Carter, J. manufacturer, third and final, Is. d. DEMETRIUS, GEORGE, boarding house keeper, Liverpool. Pet.
At Trust. c. H. Wade, St. Andrew's.chmbs, Albert-89, Manches Jan, 16. Feb. 6, at three, at office of Sol. Ponton, Liverpool
ter.-Chadwick, J. H. cotton spinner, ls. Gid. At Trust. J. Kerr, DIXON, GEORGE, husbandman, Patterdale. Pet. Jan. 15. Feb. 28, Faulkner-st, Manchester.Hime and Anthony, cotton brokers, 6, at two, at office of Sol. Bolton, Kendal
fifth and final, 6 d. At Trust. H. W. Banner, 24, North John-st, DUNLOP, JOHN, auctioneer, White Hart-ot, Bishopsgate-st, and
Liverpool.-Jannings, J. R. farmer, first, 78. At the National Pro Stansfield-rd, Brixton. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb. 12, at two, at office
vincial Bank, Cornhill, Ipswich.--Kidd, 8. G. seed crusher, second,
60. of Sol. Briant, Old Broad-st
At Carlill and Burkinshaw, 4, Parliament-st, Hull. --Moore, DUNN, RICHARD, general dealer, Wolverhampton. Pet. Jan. 15. W. H. wine merchant, second, 1s. At Becke and Green, 20, Market Jan. 30, at three, at the Star and Garter hotel, Wolverhampton.
sq, Northampton.-Parrish and Howarth, ironmongers, final, %. Id. Sol. Dallow, Wolverhampton
At Sols. Saunders and Bradbury, Birmingham. - Sanders, H. EASTWOOD, JOSEPH, corn dealer, Chippenham-ter, Paddington.
tailor, first and final, Is. 3d. At Trust. J. Huggins, 194, High-st, Pet. Jan. 13. Jan. 20, at three, at office of Sol. Webster, Basing
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
BENXETT.-On the 18th inst., at Marksdanes, Bruton, the wife of
William Bennett, solicitor, of a son. at office of Sol. Hooper, Newport
CLARE.-On the 19th inst., at East Sheen, Surrey, the wife of FRANCIS, EDWARD, grocer, Wrexham. Pet. Jan. 16. Jan. 31, at
Octavius Leigh Clare, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter. eleven, at 32, Regent-st, Wrexham. Sol. Hughes
FARDELL.-On the 16th inst.,_at 1, Upper Brunswick-place, GILLSON, ROBERT, fruit salesman, Crown-ct, Covent-gdn. Pet.
Brighton, the wife of George Fardell, Esq., barrister at-law, of Jan. 15. Feb. 9, at eleven, at office of Sol. Roberts, Clement's-inn
MELLOR.-On the 18th inst., at 59, Gloucester-terrace, Hyde park,
the wife of James R. Mellor, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a
daughter. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 9, at three, at office of Sols. Messrs. Bastard
SUTTON.-On the 16th inst., at 36, Pembroke-rond, Kensington, Brabant-ct
W., the wife of Henry Sutton, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a HADFIELD, JOHN, bookkeeper, Bury. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb. 4, at
READ.-VAUTIER.-On the 15th inst., at Kenyn, Cornwall,
assisted by the Rev. George Woolloombe, Rector of St. Mewon, ger-la
Odden Frederick Rend, of Thetford, solicitor, to Amy, youngest
James Pratt, solicitor. KING, JOSEPH, baker, Oxford. Pet. Jan. 9. Jan. 30, at two, at STURGE.On the 4th inst., at 24, The Grove, Boltons, S.W., ged offioe of Sol. Swerurse, Oxford
34, Lewis Joseph Sturge, of the Inner Temple, barrister-at-law. LARK, ROBERT FRANCIS, tailor, Great Yarmouth. Pet. Jan. 16.
Feb. 6. at twelve at office of Sol. Wiltshire, Great Yarmouth LOVETT, GEORGE, coal merchant, Runcorn. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb. 2, at eleven, at office of Sol. Linaker, Runcorn
PARTRIDGE AND COOPER, LUCAS, BENJAMIN, jun., brickmaker, Eastham. Pet. Jan. 14.
Feb. 2, at two, at the Swan hotel, Tenbury. Sol. Crowther, WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS,
Carriage paid to the Country on Orders exceeding 20s.
DRAFT PAPER, 58., 6s, 6d., 78. 6d., 78. 9d., and gs. 9d. per
ream. MALIN, THOMAS BAYES, boot dealer, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 15. BRIEF PAPER, 158. 6d., 178. 60., and 28s. 61. per ream. Jan. 29, at ten, at office of Sol., East, Birmingham
FOOLSCAP PAPER, 108. 6d., 128. 6d., and 158. 6d. per ream.
CREAN LAID NOTE, 3s., 18., and 58. per ream.
LARGE CREAM LAID NOTE, 4s. 6d., 6s. 6d., and 8s. per ream.
LARGE BLUE NOTE, 3s. 6d., 48.6d., and 6s. 6d. per ream. at eleven, at office of Sol. Dobson, Middlesborough
ENVELOPES, CREAM OR BLUE, 4s. 6d., and 6s.
6d., per 1000. MILLS, THOMAS, and MILLS, GEORGE, military tailors, Greens.
THE "TEMPLE" ENVELOPE, extra secure, 9s. 6d. per 1000. end, Woolwich. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb. 13, at twelve, at office of
FOOLSCAP OFFICIAL ENVELOPES, 19. 9d. per 100.
THE NEW “ VELLUM WOVE OLUB-HOUSE” NOTE,
93. 6d. per ream,
Jan. 31, at three, at office of Sols. Simons and Plewe, Merthyr house Paper: in our opinion it is the very best paper we ever
wrote upon."- London Mirror.
or thirty folios, 25. 8d. per skin, 263. per dozen, 1938. per PICKARD, SAMUEL, builder, Leeds. Pet. Jan. 16. Feb. 2, at
roll. two, at office of Sols. Simpson and Burrell, Leeds PICKERING, THOMAS, grocer, Burniston. Pet. Jan. 14. Feb. 3, at SECONDS OG FOLLOWERS, Ruled, 1s. lid, each, 228. per dosen, two, at offices of Sol. Spurr, 30, Queen-st, Scarborough
1058. per roll. PIDGEON, JAMES, Jwine merchant, Beaumaris. Pet. Jan. 12. Jan.
RECORDS or MEMORIALS, 7d. each, 6s. 6d. per dozen.
LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER Or MINUTE-BOOK!
An immense stock in various bindings.
Lavender-hill, Wandsworth. Pet. Jan. 13. Feb. 6, at eleven, at Copying Presses, Writing Caser, Despatch Boxes, Oak ani
adapted to Library or Office, post free.
...... Os. 60.
To Readers and Correspondents.
The learned County Court Judge found as a fact that the value
was over £500, and thereupon, instead of ordering the cause to be A. G. W.-A table of cases such as you refer to will be found at the beginning of
transferred to the Court of Chancery, dismissed the plaint with each volume of the LAW TIMEReports.
costs. The question turned on sect. 9 of the Act of 1865 and sect. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected,
14 of the Act of 1867. These two sections, the VICE-CHANCELLOR All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith.
said, must be taken as standing together, and it was clearly,
therefore, the duty of the County Court Judge to transfer the CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS.
cause to the Court of Chancery. His HONOUR considered the case
similor to that of Birks v. Silverwood (L. Rep. 14 Eq. 101; 27 Four lines or thirty words........... 3s. 60. | Every additional ten words Advertisements specially ordered for the first page are charged one-fourth more
L. T. Rep. N. S. 18), and the appeal against the decision of the than the above scale.
County Court Judge was allowed, but as no application had been Advertisements must reach the Office not later than five o'clock on Thursday
made at the hearing to transfer the cause, no costs of the appeal afternoon,
were given. TO SUBSCRIBERS. l'he volumes of the LAW TIMES, and of the Law TIMES REPORTS, are strongly and One or two of the Judges make a practice of receiving citations uniformly bound at the Office, as completed, for 5s, 6d. for the Journal, and 4s. 6d.
from the Law TIMES Reports with hesitation, and Mr. Justice for the Reports. Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 5s. 6d., by
BLACKBURN has more than once objected that they are not of post 5d. extra. Law Times REPORTs, price 3s. 6d., by post 3d. extra.
the highest authority.” No ground has been alleged, to our
knowledge, for such an aspersion, whereas the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE NOTICE.
of ENGLAND has on one occasion at least commended the ability The Law TIMES goes to press on Thursday evening, that it muy de received in the remotest with which cases, to be found in those reports only, are reported.
parts of the country on Saturday morning. Communications and Advertisements must We think it only due to as able a staff of reporters as the Bar be transmitted accordingly. None can appear that do not reach the office by Thursday afternoon's post.
of England can furnish, to say that editorially we have constantly When payment is made in postage stamps, not more than 58. may be remitted at one time.
occasion to admire the extraordinary care and skill employed in All communications intended for the Editor of the Solicitors' Department should be so
the service of the Law TIMEs Reports. We make no invidious addressed.
distinctions, but from the nature of things we believe that in
bankruptcy these reports are simply indispensable, and are Just published, price 5s. 6d., VOL. VIII., Part 4, of
received as authority-as they certainly are in all the courts REPOETSO SA MAGISTRATES LAW APA Cidea PAROCHIAT: throughout the provinces. With regard to speed, coupled with
ELECTION, and ECCLESIASTICAL LAW CASES, decided by all the Courts. Gent post free to subscribers, N.B.-The back volumes and parts may be had; the vols. fulness, the Law TIMEs Reports are without a rival. We have at Bs. each, half-bound.
the testimony of large numbers of members of the Bar to the London: HORACE Cox, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C.
great usefulness and value of our reports, and the objection Now ready, price 5s, 6d., VOL. II., Part 1, of
that they are not "of the highest authority" ought not to be MARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series) By D-ASPINAINT advanced without specific grounds. From the excessive care
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,
which is devoted to revision, we believe we may say that the with Notes by the Editor. The First Series of "Maritime Law" may now be had com. plete in Three Volumes, half bound, price 5 58. for the set, or any single volume for
reports are as absolutely perfect as they can be made consistently 22 29. Back numbers may be had to complete sets,
with the rapidity with which they are produced, and moreover London : HORACE Cox, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C.
that this rapidity of production detracts very slightly from the
accuracy which is, of course, essential. CON TEN TS.
sanction of Court of Chancery-Juris
diction in bankruptcy to arinul sale 757 Ex parte JAMES; Re O'REARDONBankruptcy - Partnership - Separate adjudication in England
761 V.C. BACON'S COURT. HEATH . CREALOCK Purchaser for value without noticeMortgage--Trustees advancing money on joint account
Officer of parish--Salaried solicitor
COURT OF EXCHEQUER. DATSON AND OTHERS 0. LORD OTHO FITZGERALD Landlord and tenant-Contract-Agreement to pay compensation for damage done by hares and rabbits...
Admiralty Jurisdiction Damage to
220 LAW LIBRARY
Winding-up Acts ....
Accused Persons in Coroners' Court......... 333
The Bastardy Luws Amendment Act 1873 238
Birmingham County Court.....
The Associated Law Clerks of Ireland 242
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, however, 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 administer the law of the country.
EUROPEAN ASSURANCE ARBITRATION.
137 MURHET'S CASE
Transfer of shares set aside-Misrepre
sentation MACKENZIE'S CASE
Contributory-Liability of person to
whom shares have been allotted ....... 141 WILLIAM HEYRY BEXTINCK'S CASE
Contributory - Infant not liable on shares
143 DTXOCK'S CASETransfer of shares set aside-Misrepresentation
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 641. 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. 1d. and 1671. 78., which Gray had discounted with the Adelphi Bank of Liverpool; that H. (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 MEGRATH, 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. An 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 Gray.
VOL. LVI.-No. 1609.
The Law and the Lawyers.
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),
Giffard, Q.c. (Cardiff), Sir John Karslake, Q.c. (Huntingdon), Mr. W. Forsyth, Q.C. (Marylebone), Mr. M. Lloyd, Q.O. (Beaumaris), Mr. Ĝ. 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. d. 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 a 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 the 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 of 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 the foundation for foul imputations and unjust accusations against parties and witnesses, and to send forth invective and foul slime wherewith to blacken the character of men whose reputations have hitherto been without reproach, it is impossible for the Judge to remain 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 undertake 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 administration 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 28 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
AFTER INSOLVENCY. THERE has been some conflict of decision in recent years as to the claims of mortgagees and transferees of an insolvent before and after insolvency as against assignees, and the cases were reviewed in a decision given by Vice-Chancellor Hall last term in the case of Semphill v. The Queensland Sheep Investment Company (Limited). There the facts were these : Hickey, a domiciled Australian, agreed to sell an estate to the Queensland Company, but previously to the execution of the agreement he assigned half his interest under it to one Wright. Hickey became insolvent in Australia, and an official assignee was appointed there. Subsequently Wright gave notice to the company of his assignment, and afterwards the official assignee gave the company notice of the insolvency. The notice given by Wright was held to be inoperative as against the official assignee (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 737.) The position there will be seen to have been this : Notice given by Wright after the insolvency of Hickey, but before the official assignee had given notice of the insolvency. Notice having been given by Wright after the insolvency, could he be in as good a position as if he had given notice before the insolvency, simply because the official assignee delayed giving his notice until after Wright had given his ? We shall briefly consider the authorities presently. Upon principle and the balance of authority the Vice-Chancellor came to the conclusion that notice after bankruptcy or insolvency is inoperative as against the bankrupt or insolvent, in the case of the party giving notice claiming under a title acquired previously to the bankruptcy or insolvency, His Honour said, * It would certainly be strange if such a person having omitted to give notice and thus left the property in the order and disposition of the bankrupt or insolvent, should be able immediately after the insolvency and bankruptcy to perfect his title and take from the general creditors that which he had led them to believe was the insolvent's or bankrupt's property and upon the faith of which the general creditors had dealt with him."
We quite agree with the learned Vice-Chancellor that “this would be against the spirit of the law, which is that persons who have unconscientiously intrusted the bankrupt with personal property under circumstances in which a false credit might be acquired in respect of such intrusting should, upon the bankruptcy, lose their their right to the property."
A word here about notice to assignees, which, in a collateral manner, affects the general question. Is there any necessity for an assignee of a bankrupt's interest, or a mortgagee of his property, to give notice to his trustee? Mr. Justice Willes pointed out in Cooke v. Hemming (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 772), what indeed, we think, has always been clear as a legal principle, that notice to assignees or trustees in bankruptcy is necessary only to defeat the reputed ownership clause in the Bankruptcy Act. Assignees or trustees are not in the position of subsequent purchasers for value without notice.
A prominent case on the general question is Stuart v. Cockerell (23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 442), where the tenant for life of a fund in 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 order, and the mortgagee was held entitled to priority over the assignee in bankruptcy. Vice-Chancellor Malins, in giving judgment in that case, said: “It is clearly settled by a line of authorities ending with Bartlett v. Bartlett (1 De G. & J. 127), that if the assignee of a chose in action omits to give notice of the assignment to the debtor or trustee, or, in the case of a fund in court, to obtain a stop order, and the assignor becomes bankrupt, the chose in action remains in the order and disposition of the bankrupt with the consent of the assignee, and passes to the assignee in bankruptcy. The Vice-Chancellor had previously decided Re Brown's Trusts (17 L. T. Rep. N. S. 241), where one Brocklebank, in 1838, being entitled in right of his wife to a reversionary interest in a sum of stock standing in the names of trustees, became insolvent, and in the schedule of his assets filed under his insolvency he inserted such reversionary interest. No formal notice of the insolvency was ever given by the provisional assignee to the trustees of the fund, and no creditors' assignee was appointed until shortly before the hearing of the cause. In 1844 Brocklebank and his wife assigned the reversionary interest to a Mr. Burkitt to secure an annuity, and in 1819 mortgaged it to one Boston. Formal notice of these deeds was given to the trustees of the fund. Mrs. Brocklebank died in 1861, and the fund representing the reversionary interest being in court, a petition was presented by Boston for payment out. The ViceChancellor there said: “The true priuciple on which questions of priority depend is, that it is incumbent on all persons dealing with choses in action to do all that is in their power to perfect their title, and they do not do so unless they give notice to the persons in whose hands such property is.” His Honour, said, moreover, “ I think these questions of notice should not be left open to speculation, but that formal notice should be required," and he held that the mere fact of the trustees' solicitors knowing of the insolvency was not sufficient notice to the trustees to take
the fund out of the disposition of the insolvent. The assignee was therefore postponed to the two mortgagees.
We may here mention that Vice-Chancellor Malins, in Re Russell's Policy Trusts (27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 706) declined to follow an earlier case of Re Webb's Policy (16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 529), and acted on Stuart y. Cockerell. In Webb's case it was decided that no act of an assignee for value of a chose in action done after the bankruptcy of the assignor can give effect to his assignment as against the assignees in bankruptcy, unless his title is perfected before the bankruptcy by notice to the legal holders of such chose in action. Stuart v. Cockerell, as we have seen, supports the proposition that by notice or a stop order subsequent to the bankruptcy the operation of the law as to reputed ownership may be prevented. In Re Russell's Policy Trusts a policy effected by A. on his life was mortgaged in 1860 without notice to the office. A. became bankrupt in 1862, and in 1868 joined in a transfer of the mortgage to B., who had no notice of the bankruptcy. After the death of A., B.'s solicitor gave notice to the office that this and other policies were mortgaged, and that he acted for the mortgagees, not naming them. Subsequently notice of the bankruptcy was given to the office. " The question is not,” said his Honour, “ between the assignee in bankruptcy and a general assignee, but between him and an assignee of the particular thing; and I can see no grounds for thinking that there is any difference between an assignee in bankruptcy and a particular assignee. The particular assignee loses
priority by not giving notice, and the assignee in bankruptcy does the same thing.'
Now as to these cases, Vice-Chancellor Hall points out that in Re Webb’s Policy and in Stuart v. Cockerell, the assignments preceded the bankruptcy, and in Brown's Trusts and Russell's Policy Trusts, the assignment took place after the insolvency or bankruptcy, and His Honour said: “I apprehend a great distinction exists between a case in wbich the bankrupt or insolvent has made an assignment after the bankruptcy or insolvency, and a case in which he has done so previously to bankruptcy or insolvency. In the former case it may be that the bankrupt's or insolvent's assignee, having neglected to give notice, his title will be postponed. His omission to give notice enabled the bankrupt or insolvent to deal with the fund.” There doubtless ought to be this distinction, and in Re Tichener (35 Beav. 317), where the assignment (which was by way of mortgage), preceded the bankruptcy, Lord Romilly held that the title of the bankrupt's assignee prevailed over the title of the mortgagee, although he gave notice, and in Bartlett v. Bartlett (1 De G. & J. 127), the assignee before bankruptcy who had given notice, was held not entitled as against the assignee in bankruptcy, although it does not appear that the assignee in bankruptcy had given notice.
Having thus considered all the cases, the conclusion of ViceChancellor Hall seems sound, as we have already given it, that notice after bankruptcy or insolvency is inoperative against the bankrupt or insolvent in the case of the party giving notice claiming under a title acquired previous to the bankruptcy or insolvency. And this is the view which in our issue of Feb. 1873 we expressed in opposition to the decision of Vice-Chancellor Malins in Stuart v. Cockerell.
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION_DAMAGE TO CARGO. A RECENT decision of the High Court of Admiralty has reopened the question of the jurisdiction of that court under the Admiralty Court Act 1861, sect. 6, over foreign vessels carrying goods into English ports. By that Act the court has “jurisdiction over any claim by the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of lading of any goods carried into any port in England or Wales in any ship, for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the negligence or misconduct of or for breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of the owner, master, or crew of the ship.” The only limitation to the jurisdiction expressly provided by the Act is, that if any owner or part owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales the jurisdiction does not attach; otherwise the court may proceed in any such suit either in rem or in personam. It will be noticed that to confer the jurisdiction it is requisite that the goods should be “carried into any port in England or Wales,” but as far as the plain meaning of the words is concerned, it is sufficient that the goods should be so carried; the Act does not in any way say that they are to be carried into such a port in pursuance of any contract, nor for the purpose of being there discharged. In spite, however, of the wideness of expression in the Act, various attempts have been made to limit the effect of the words just noticed.
In The Bahia (Bro. & Lush. 61), a foreign ship under charter to load goods abroad and deliver them abroad was forced into Ramsgate Harbour by stress of weather, and once there the master refused either to proceed to his destination or to deliver the cargo to the consignees at Ramsgate. The consignees thereupon instituted a suit in rem against the ship under the 6th section of the Admiralty Court Act. The shipowners entered an appearance under protest, and in the argument contended that the words “ carried into any port” must mean “carried into any port under a contract by which the consignees were to finally discharge in that port.”. Dr. Lushington held, however, that as the master had 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 ere, 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 remenubered that it is only conanother 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 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 con. based 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.
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 givingjurisdiction 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, not 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