PATENT LAW. knife for crimping fabrics in a sewing machine; and the third, for the peculiar manufacture of (By C. HIGGINS, Esq., M.A., F.C.S., Barrister-at-Law.) before described " and illustrated by a drawing. crimped or plaited frills or trimmings" as herein COMPLETE SPECIFICATION. (Continued from p. 250.) Held, first, that the patent was not for the manufactured product, but for the process of manuSimpson v. Holliday. 1866.-A patent for "im-facturing it; secondly, that the patent was not provements in the preparation of red and purple limited to the manufacture of plaited fabrics by dyes," thus described the process: "I mix aniline the knife in combination with a sewing machine. with dry arsenic acid, and allow the mixture to The title of the patent being for improvements stand for some time, or I accelerate the operation in the manufacture of frills or ruffles, and the by heating it to, or near to, its boiling point, until provisional specification describing the invention it assumes a rich purple colour." It was proved as relating to a particular manufacture of frills (and not denied by the patentee) that it was ne- and ruffles, the complete specification described cessary to apply heat in order to produce the the invention as relating to a particular manucolour; but evidence was given that a competent facture of frills, ruffles, or trimmings. Held, workman would apply heat. Held, however, that that this was no such material variation as to this description in the specification was bad, and render the patent invalid. Kelly, C.B., said: "A the patent founded thereon was invalid. (13 third point made is that there is an inconsistency W. R. 577; 12 L. T. Rep. N. S. 99; affirmed in between the provisional and the final specificathe House of Lords, L. Rep. 1 H. L. 315; 35 L. J., tion, the word 'trimming' not being added in N.S.,Ch., 811.) Westbury, L.C., hearing the case on the latter. But by whatever name it is described, appeal from Wood, V.C., in the course of his judg- the thing is in itself identical; it is something ment, said: "If the true construction of the specifi- attached to any part of the dress, either of cation be, that two distinct processes are described men or women, whether it is called the frill as being both efficient, and are both claimed as part of a sleeve, or the ruffle of a shirt, or the of the invention, but one is found upon trial to be trimming of a lady's dress. These are all inefficient and useless, it is plain that the patent ejusdem generis, and the description is only imporhas been granted on a false suggestion, and is, tant for the purpose of showing for what purpose therefore, invalid and bad at law. When it the product may be ultimately used when it has is stated that an error in a specification which been manufactured by means of the plaintiff's any workman of ordinary skill and experience invention." Channell, B.-" One of the objections would perceive and correct, will not vitiate a turns on the form of the specification, the final patent, it must be understood of errors which specification going, it is said, beyond the proviappear on the face of the specification, or the sional. I do not think it necessary to discuss drawings it refers to; or which would be at once in general the relation of the provisional and discovered and corrected in following out the complete specifications. In the view which I take instructions given for any process or manufacture; of the circumstances of the case that question and the reason is, because such errors cannot does not arise, for there being no proof or suggespossibly mislead. But the proposition is not a tion of fraud, I do not think that there is any correct statement of the law, if applied to errors such extension of the claim in the final specificawhich are discoverable only by experiment and tion as disables the plaintiff from claiming this as further inquiry. Neither is the proposition true a good patent." (L. Rep. 5 Ex. 37; 39 L. J. of an erroneous statement in a specification Ex. 97.) amounting to a false suggestion, even though the error would be at once observed by a workman possessed of ordinary knowledge of the subject. With respect to the rules that govern the construction of specifications, they are the ordinary rules for the interpretation of written instruments, having regard especially to the fact that the specification must clearly fulfil the obligation imposed on the patentee by the proviso contained in all letters patent, viz., that the grant shall be void if the patentee shall not particularly describe and ascertain the nature of his invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed. It is therefore made a settled rule, that the specification must be so expressed as to be perfectly intelligible to a workman of ordinary knowledge, and it must follow that if there be any obscurity or ambiguity in the specification which is likely to mislead, this defect ought not to be helped by any refined or secondary interpretation of the language. It was contended before me, and the Vice-Chancellor is reported to have said, that it has been settled by authority that the most liberal construction is to be given to the patent that will sustain it, especially in those cases where the court is satisfied that the invention is really new and useful. If the words, 'the most liberal construction' are intended to denote some principle of interpretation different from the ordinary rules for the construction of written instruments, I am not aware of any such authority." Parkes v. Stevens. 1869.-The sufficiency of a specification is not a question of law, but a question of fact in each particular case. Where a patentee has taken out a fresh patent for improvements on his original invention it is sufficient if, reading his second specification with the first, an artisan would have no substantial difficulty in ascertaining what was claimed. Sir W. M. James, V.C., in the course of his judgment, said: "It is obvious that a patentee does not comply, as he ought to do, with the condition of his grant, if the improvement is only to be found, like a piece of gold, mixed up with a great quantity of alloy, and if a person desiring to find out what was new and what was claimed as new, would have to get rid of a large portion of the specification by eliminating from it all that was old and common-place, all that was the subject of other patents, or of other improvements, bringing to the subject not only the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, but of a patent lawyer or agent,' (L. Rep. 8 Eq. 358; 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 635; judgment affirmed L. Rep. 5 Ch. 36). Wright v. Hitchcock. 1870.-A patent was taken out for "Improvements in the manufacture of frills or ruffles, and in the machinery or apparatus employed therein." The specification described a process of plaiting fabrics by means of a reciprocating knife in combination with a sewing machine. The first claim was for the general construction, arrangement, and combination of machinery for producing plaited frills or trimmings in a sewing machine; the second was for the application and use of a reciprocating Arnold v. Bradbury. Ch. 1871.- Where a patentee, in his specification, professes to do by machinery what has never been done before by machinery, and describes the machinery by which he does it,' his claim is not too large on the face of it, because it claims generally to perform the operation "by machinery.' A patentee in his specification described an improved ruffle or frill, and the machinery by which he proposed to make such improved ruffle, and to fasten it to a plain fabric by a single series of stitches. By his claim he claimed "the production by machinery of ruffles, and the simultaneous attachment of them to a plain fabric by a single series of stitches. Held, that the claim was not, on the face of it, too large. (24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 613; L. Rep. 6 Ch. 706.) Neilson v. Betts. H. L. 1871.-After a patent has stood inquiry and the test of time, courts do not encourage verbal objections to the form of the specification. (L. Rep. 5 H. L. Cas. 1; 40 L. J. Ch. 317; 19 W. R. 1121.) SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. IN addition to those solicitors named by us in our societies was called to the Bill by means of united THE office of President of the Council of the says Mr. THE Secretary of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland (Mr. J. H. Goddard) has found time, notwithstanding the onerous duties devolving upon him, owing to the unceasing action of the council of that society, to protect and advance the interests of solicitors, to edit a work entitled "Oaths in Chancery (Ireland)," being a very useful guide for commissioners in that court; containing numerous forms of jurats and oaths, together with instructions and observations. WE publish in another column the thirty-fifth sioners can take Irish Chancery affidavits. Not formal, as we have pointed out before, and it is necessary to have both counsel and attorney present in open court to support an application which ought-following the mode in which similar commissions are issued by English judges to English applicants-to be granted, as of course where the applicant satisfies the judge that he is fitted, by good reputation and by practical experience, for the office. We say advisedly that much inconvenience and pecuniary loss is occasioned to the public and the Profession in this country by the formal and expensive process required by the antiquated rules still in vogue in Ireland relating to such ap. pointments as those to which we again direct attention. In comparison with larger questions of interest to the Profession, this is no doubt of small import; but that is the very reason why it should only be necessary to direct attention to it in order to insure a speedy rectification. The Irish judges have only to issue fresh rules on the subject and the necessary reform is accomplished. We hope that some one or more of the several solicitors returned to Parliament will take steps with a view to the repeal of sect. 37 of 6 & 7 Vict. cap. 73, which prevents solicitors commencing an action for fees till one month after delivery of their bills. To us it is surprising that solicitors should have so long suffered under this now unnecessary imposition. Small bills of costs are constantly lost to the members of the Profession, through their being deprived of the ordinary right enjoyed by all other creditors. In these days the principal operation of the enactment is to open the door for the perpetration of fraud upon our branch of the Profession. REFERRING to the report of the committee of the Birmingham Law Society, published in our last issue, upon the subject of the "requirement of written authorisation for payment of money to solicitors," their observations will, we feel sure, occasion much surprise to members of the Profession in other parts of the country, not only because in many counties the rule requiring such written authorisation obtains, as a matter of course, but also because of the delicacy evidently felt, at all events by a part of the Profession in Birmingham, in connection with such requirement. Of all business men, solicitors should be the most business-like, and surely it is nothing less than absolutely necessary that such written authorisation should be given and required under such circumstances as those contemplated by the committee. The question of suggested doubt or distrust being implied from such a requirement, ought not in our opinion to have been considered either by the committee or the meeting of the society to whom the report was submitted. FROM numerous inquiries which we have received we gather that many articled clerks who intend presenting themselves for final examination next Michaelmas Term are in doubt as to whether they will be examined inter alia upon the subject of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The Act may or may not then be in operation, probably not. Yet the asking of questions upon it does not depend upon whether it will at the time be in operation, although it may be fairly assumed that no question will be asked upon it if its operation is postponed, the more so as it has not in recent examinations been referred to by the examiners. On the other hand, should such questions be asked, they can only be those to be answered by a careful consideration of the Act itself. A CORRESPONDENT writes to us upon the subject of the large number of prosecutions conducted principally before magistrates throughout the country by supervisors of excise and other officials connected with the several public departments of the State. The writer urges that these prosecutions ought only to be conducted by members of the legal Profession, who should be appointed to undertake the work. Except for the expense which such a system would occasion we should certainly agree with our correspondent, and no doubt many of the prosecutions which take place ought, in all propriety, to be conducted by professional men. A DISTINGUISHED member of the higher branch of the Profession, a member of the Commons House of Parliament, calls our attention to the fact that it often happens in Parliamentary business, dealt with before select committees of the House of Parliament, that while one side is represented by a distinguished silk gownsman, the other may be, and often is, represented by those who are not members of the legal Profession. No doubt many Parliamentary agents are not solicitors, and it may be fairly urged that they ought to be. On the other hand, the work undertaken by such agents is of comparatively recent origin, and RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE UNDER THE JUDICATURE ACT. THE following is a report of the discussion which followed Mr. Dowdeswell's paper which we pub most of them constitute firms of the highest standing. It is an anomaly similar to that referred to by us in a recent issue as regards agents who conduct the business relating to Indian appeals heard before the Judicial Com-lished last week: mittee of the Privy Council. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. ARBITRATION-AWARD-COMPLAINT - LIMIT OF TIME FOR COMPLAINING-9 & 10 WILL. 3, c. 15, s. 2.-The last day of term is not within the limit of the time fixed by 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 15, s. 2, for making complaint of corrupt or undue practice in making an award on an arbitration. Complaint is made on the day on which notice of motion to set aside the award is served. Harvey v. Shelton (7 Bed. 455), not followed: (Corporation of Huddersfield and Jacomb, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 824. V.C.M.) PENDING BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1855, s. 2-PETITION FOR LIQUIDATION REFERENCE. Money paid into court under the Bills of Exchange Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 67), pursuant to a judge's order to abide the event of an action then pending, forms no part of the debtor's estate, but is a security to the creditor for the payment of the amount recoverable in the action, notwithstanding that the matters in dispute in the action have been referred, and bankruptcy supervened before any proceedings are taken in the matter of the arbitration: (Ex parte Tate and Co; re Key worth, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 849. Bank.) COMPROMISE OF ACTION FOR CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE-ACTION FOR NOT APPORTIONING DAMAGES-9 & 10 VICT. c. 93; 27 & 28 VICT. c. 95.-The declaration alleged that defendant had brought an action as administrator of the plaintiff's mother, whose death was caused by the negligence of a railway company, against the railway company, for the benefit of himself and the plaintiff, according to 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93; that defendant, under 27 & 28 Vict. c. 95, compromised the action for a lump sum of money, without any apportionment by a jury of the amount of damages payable to the piaintiff in respect of his interest; and that defendant received the whole of the said sum, and retained it to his own use. Defendant pleaded that he, being plaintiff's father, had sued the said railway company in two actions, one for causing injury to himself, and the other under the statute mentioned in the declaration on behalf of himself, the plaintiff, and another child of defendant; the judgment in both actions was obtained in default of plea, that he compromised the said actions for the amount mentioned under a judge's order, in good faith, and believing the terms of the compromise to be the best he could obtain; and that no division or apportionment of the said money was ever required or made: Held, that under the circumstances stated in the plea, no action was maintainable at law: (Condliff v. Condliff, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 831. Q. B.). COVENANT BY TWO PARTIES, TO BE PERFORMED ON NOTICE--NOTICE TO ONE ONLY INSUFFICIENT.-The defendant and F. M. covenanted with the plaintiffs that they would, upon receiving six months' notice in writing, pay to the plaintiffs two several sums of money. Notice to pay one of the sums was given to the defendant only. Held, that the notice ought to have been given to both the covenanting parties, and that a notice to the defendant only was insufficient: (Moul v. Moul, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 844. Ex.) INFANT-RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID UNDER PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT RESCISSION OF AGREEMENT BEFORE MAJORITY-FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.-The plaintiff, during infancy, agreed with the defendant in writing to buy one half share of a public-house business of the defendant, agreeing to pay an instalment of the purchase-money at once, and the balance at a future uncertain time, the defendant to provide board and lodging for the plaintiff and his wife, and the plaintiff not to receive any fruits of the partnership until the balance should be paid. The plaintiff paid an instalment of the purchasemoney, and went with his wife to board and lodge with the defendant, and shared the management of the business, but afterwards, and before his majority, rescinded the agreement. Held, that the plaintiff might, in an action for money had and received, recover back the instalment paid under the agreement, less the amount expended by the defendant in providing board and lodging for the plaintiff and his wife: (Everett v. Wilkins, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 846. Ex.) 66 PRACTICE-LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION AcT 1845, s. 69-FUND IN COURT-PAYMENT OUT TO TENANT IN TAIL-DISENTAILING DEEDSURVIVOR READ OTHER."-A fund in court, representing land purchased by a railway com. pany by agreement, for the purposes of their undertaking, will be paid out to a tenant in tail, without a disentailing deed having been executed. Re Butler's Will (L. Rep. 16 Eq. 479) not followed: (Re Row's Estate, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 824. V.C. M.) Mr. E. Kimber thought that Mr. Dowdeswell was entitled to the gratitude of each branch of the Profession for the way in which he had handled this subject. They were informed that three gentlemen were now engaged in framing rules. But he (Mr. Kimber) thought it was only by the combined expression of the opinions of the Profession that any public good could be accomplished in this direction. It seemed to him to be absurd to suppose that any three gentlemen could do justice to the subject without some communication with the members of the Profession and the societies. Such a work, to be effectually done, would be a very serious tax upon their time and health. In the question of notices, he quite agreed with the writer of the paper, and thought that in the simple delivery of the notices there was security enough. For instance, the present "notice to plead" at common law was one of the strongest proceedings that could possibly be taken. It was given under the hand of the plaintiff's attorney, without any filing or proof of service being necessary, and yet, if no plea came in within eight days, judgment could be signed, and execution issued forthwith. The security against the misuse of this gigantic but simple power is the responsibility of the attorneys on both sides. For, if judgment and execution took place without such notice, the plaintiff would be liable to an action for damages by the defendant, and he, again, would have his remedy against the attorney. Besides that, the judge would immediately set aside such judgment, with costs against the attorney, to be paid personally, as an officer of the court. The consequence is, such a thing as the misuse of this process is never heard of. He could not conceive why all the forms of procedure could not be governed analogously by the same form. The notices to admit and to produce he looked upon as very useful, and as proofs that no filing or issuing were in any way necessary for the most responsible proceedings. All these things proved that there was no necessity for filing or issuing even a writ, or entering an appear. ance, but certainly not affidavits. As solicitors were responsible officers of the court, a claim or summons, under their signature, and a notice of defence, was all that was necessary. In nine cases out of ten, the original summonses and office copies were never asked for. The court even often relied upon copies in counsel's briefs. It was done every day. Why, therefore, cannot the Profession be made completely responsible to one another for the proper conduct of business? In motions the common law practice might take a leaf out of that of equity. It was a monstrous thing to allow a man to make a public ex parte application, it might be against persons of eminence and unimpeachable character, simply for the purpose of libelling and injuring their reputa tion; for even when the application was refused, the object in view was gained. Supposing such a thing were allowed in the Chancery Court, tice. every one would loathe the administration of jus Mr. E. C. Dunn thought that the object of requiring an appearance to be entered in a public office seemed to have been rather lost sight of by the last speaker. The appearance gave notice that the proceeding was defended, and of the place where notices not requiring personal service were to be served; and it surely was useful that it should be entered, so as to be of record, and where a person who might have to make application in a proceeding could discover whom he would have to serve with notice of his application, and at what place. It was also necessary that summonses should be issued from the judges' chambers. It would never do to allow the parties to fix, without any reference to the state of the business at the chambers, any time they pleased for their attendance there. It was necessary that the person making the application should know when it could be heard. This was attained by the attendance to issue the summonses, and the summons itself was the notice to be served on the other parties to the proceeding, of the appointment which had been given by the judge. Mr. Edgar thought it must be admitted that, where actions were defended, there were very considerable advantages in the entering of appearances. The effect of the introductory part of the 18th Rule appeared to him to be that, where the defendant admitted the claim and did not require the delivery of the statement, it was open to him to make a statement of defence, the nature of the claim of the plaintiff being disclosed in the writ of summons. He agreed with the observations that had been made, that the filing of so many But it was things was entirely unnecessary. obvious there was no option for the framers in the matter of the statements of claim and defence under the 18th rule. There would be under the Act two sets of rules-one framed before the Act Eame into force, and those which it would be in the power of the judges to frame when this took place. They had the power given them by the Act to modify the rules, and in that way they might alter the rules in the schedule, and dispense with filing in the case of claims and defences. To his wind it would be better to assign all merely legal ims to the jurisdiction of the three Common Law Divisions, rather than, as the Act does, to Leave it open to plaintiffs to take them into the Chancery Division. It was advisable to make as little disturbance as possible in the existing system. He quite agreed that the great power given to the judges to modify the whole system of procedure ought to be carefully watched; but he thought its results were likely to be beneficial. There would be some difficulties at first in the working of the Act, and it was a great thing that the power of remedying any defects which experience disclosed should be vested in the judges, without the necessity of going to Parliament for mending Acts. Mr. A. E. Miller, Q.C., thought there were dvantages in filing both pleadings and affidavits. The Registrar's Book in Chancery had been found to be extremely important when questions as to the effect of proceedings had arisen at a subsequent period. He could not think that any hardship was inflicted by requiring the deposit of one copy of every pleading in a public office-its cost was inappreciable. The filing of affidavits as of great consequence in some cases. It obwiated the necessity of hunting up solicitors in cases which had been settled, and information ought was by this means ready at hand. He was quite of the opinion that in most cases office copies were of no use; but he had occasionally found great discrepancies between the affidavits of two pposing counsel, and in this case the office copy was of use, as the only umpire. But generally the opposing sides had copies which could be rusted. In regard to the divisions for business, ad matters in the nature of concurrent jurisdiczon, the first proposals had been somewhat modied in passing through parliament. The object Zept in view had been fusion and not division. There would be at first a difficulty in getting cases in the common law division, and also in getting the Judges to act out of the way in which they have Seen accustomed to act. If there were hard and fast dividing lines of jurisdiction, there would be mo power of making a selection of the division, according to special circumstances. The more it was left open tc parties to choose the division into which they might see fit to take their cases, the better. He quite thought it was a great hardship on the plaintiff that he could not get discovery from his opponent at law, except under certain conditions. On the other hand, the proceedings in equity were often very oppressive to defendants, as plaintiffs unnecessarily resorted to this most expensive way of getting admissions from the opposing side, which were often so quali ied as to be useless. The schedule to the Act hit this difficulty, and he believed in the best way. A man by this could file his interrogatories, requiring most minute details from the defendant, as to every point he alleged, but if the court thought his conduct vexatious, he might be made to pay the costs, even though he succeeded in the suit. Mr. J. Sewell White expressed his concurrence in Mr. Dowdeswell's views as to the principles which should guide the framers of the rules under the new Act. He thought there should also be ample provision for amending the proceedings at ny stage of the cause, and for adjourning its further hearing on reasonable terms, where such course was necessary to prevent the surprises which a liberal exercise of the power of amendment might sometimes occasion. He did not agree with a former speaker that an entry of appearance by a defendant was a superfluous step. It was an indisputable notice of an important act. Neither did he agree with the statement that the filing of affidavits was unnecessary. It pinned the depositions to the order of the court, and prevented a misuse of them, which night easily be made if a laxer practice prevailed. As to model pleadings and forms, he believed they were generally disregarded by the draftsmen. Such was his experience of the forms published in the Pleading Rules of 1845, the Rules for Claims a Equity, and the Indian Code of Civil Procedure. He hoped that under the new rules common courts and general forms would disappear, and that, whilst ample opportunity was allowed to either party to examine his opponent before the hearing by interrogarories on the material points of dispute between them, the practice of interrogating a party upon a written statement of the case drawn up by his opponent would be put an end to. As to ejectment suits, he thought there wonld be no greater difficulty in dealing with them under the new rules than with other suits, and he should have liked to have heard from Mr. Dowdeswell the precise nature of the difficulties which She appeared to apprehend. Mr. Thomas Webster, Q.C., regarded the Act under discussion as the greatest step that had yet and the effect of their findings; it might be C. W. Ryalls said that he thought there were some objections to the statement of the plaintiff's The Chairman said the question of giving the case being contained on the citation, whether court power to review the findings of a legal arbithe citation took the form of a writ of summons trator on the merits, required great consideration, or any other form. Many actions were commenced as it would open the door afresh to all the litigation which never advanced further than the citation which his award had closed. In the case of a or writ. If the cause of action were set out in the verdict by a jury, it was necessary the court should citation, then the costs of the citation must be very have this power on account of the mistakes which considerably increased, because the statement they often fell into through want of experience and must, in many cases, be somewhat lengthy, if it ignorance of the law; but this did not apply to a were full and sufficient. Such a statement would legal referee; and it might be better to hold his be unnecessary where there was no intention of verdict final, on the principle, "Interest reipub. contesting the plaintiff's demand, and the cost lica ut sit finis litium," subject to any points of and trouble of making it ought to be saved. law which might be stated in a special case. Also, The citation and the pleading ought to be kept the majority of cases decided by arbitrators distinct, and nothing could be gained by uniting would be cases of account, which the court cannot them. There was much difference between filing deal with without enormous waste of time. Mr. affidavits and being compelled to take copies of Webster had objected to the double proceeding of them when filed. If affidavits were used they a writ and declaration or bill, and proposed to disshould be filed; and all proceedings in a cause pense with the writ; but he thought Mr. Webster which was decided should be filed, though there had overlooked the fact that, out of ten writs issued was not the same necessity as to those which were not above three or four ever came to a declaration, never adjudicated upon. Some effectual pro- being settled before declaration. So that if a vision should be made against speculative inter- declaration or bill were obliged to be served rogatories. It was right that parties should have instead of a writ, the expense of drawing a dethe power of delivering interrogatories without claration by a pleader or counsel would be unobtaining the leave of the court to do so; but necessarily incurred in a great majority of cases. it must be remembered that speculative actions He could not see any reason why proceedings have been used by reckless people as a means of should be both filed and delivered; for out of a extortion and vexation, and it will become intole-hundred actions, there was not the slightest necesrable if reckless suitors are allowed to cause the sity generally that one of them should remain on additional expense of lengthy interrogatories. record. Full ninety-nine out of a hundred of The most important question for consideration those preserved in the Record Office were nothing with reference to the rules to be drawn under better than waste parchment. Affidavits were the Act arose with reference to those provisions filed for the reason of securing evidence in cases of the Act which were similar to other previous of perjury. If these were kept by the parties provisions in former Acts of Parliament, and themselves there would be no available evidence which were as yet unrepealed, except so far as to procure a conviction for this crime. In regard they might be inferentially repealed by the to the system of pleading, the result of the new Judicature Act; take, for instance, the Sum- Act, he thought, would be to give more employ. mary Procedure on Bills of Exchange Act, and ment to special pleaders and junior counsel than rule 7 in schedule to Judicature Act. An Act at present. When in a trial for any liquidated should be passed repealing all former procedure demand a defendant did not appear, he thought Acts, and a complete code of procedure should judgment should go by default without putting be found in the Judicature Act and in the rules the plaintiff to proof. He had seen, in such a to be passed in pursuance of it, so that there case, a learned judge acting as counsel for the may be no possibility of suitors being com- defendant, and exhibiting a mischievous ingenuity pelled to ascertain by legal proceedings which in picking holes in the evidence. In such a case, Act of Parliament is repealed, and which is not. why should not the plaintiff be entitled, without As to the arrangement of circuits under sect. 68, further ceremony, to a verdict for the claim, proit might be well to hold the circuits immediately vided it were a liquidated one? He would suggest before instead of immediately after the sittings that it might be a desirable thing for the gentleof the full court in London, when all points re- men who were engaged on the work under conserved could be determined at once, and with- sideration, to circulate amongst the members of out the lapse of a long vacation between trial the Profession a few queries on any questions of and motion, on leave reserved or for a new trial. doubt. By that means they might obtain some If the present long vacation should be continued, valuable suggestions. a court should sit for this purpose immediately after the end of the circuits. Where leave was given to move by the judge at the trial, there should be no necessity of a rule nisi; but notice of the motion should be given, and the point reserved should be at once argued and determined. Sects. 58 and 59 provided for referees Mr. H. N. Mozley thought that in the class of cases in which the defendant could plead or demur, it was a question whether the Chancery practice should not prevail. Mr. Rose was of opinion that, as regarded the public in general, the present was a most disastrous Act. The practice of the Common Law and Chancery had hitherto been so certain that a most ordinary practitioner was able to conduct his case from the beginning. But the Act of Par. liament reduces the two branches of law to chaos. There were certain grievances which might have been stated and the remedies for them given on one sheet of paper. His own impression of the Act was, that the best thing to be done would be to repeal it. It was, he thought, impossible to make rules for the Act to work satisfactorily. Mr. Dowdeswell said, that in regard to entering an appearance in a case where the defendant did not choose to appear, it was unnecessary to go to the judges for that purpose and then to file a declaration: although the mere fee was small, there were incidental expenses connected with it which materially altered the amount, He did not suggest that entering appearances generally should be abolished. The advantage of entering appearances is, that it gives the name of the attorney or place where the proceedings may be served. Filing the proceedings, in his own view, as derived from experience at common law, was that it was cumbrous and unproductive of good. Reference to those records might in after times settle some vexed questions; but the benefit was not commensurate with the burden. He did not see why we should tax living persons for some possible benefit to posterity. He was induced to make the last observation as to ejectment, because, under the present statute, judgment might be signed on non-appearance, or a person might defend for the whole or only a part of the property claimed. Though power was given in the new Act to sign judgment for liquidated demands if the defendant did not appear, this was not extended to ejectment. If the defendant, too, upon being called at the trial did not appear, the plaintiff, without proof, was entitled to judgment. There were no pleadings, only the writ and defence for all or part. The action under the Judicature Act was an entirely novel thing, and no provisions corresponding with them were contained in it. They had been found extremely convenient, and he hardly thought those who framed the Act had the action for ejectment in view when they drew up the 73rd section, which he feared would hardly meet the case. LORD MAYOR'S COURT. (Before Sir T. CHAMBERS.) LANE v. OAKES (MACKENZIE, Garnishee). It Married Women's Property Act, s. 7. THIS was an attachment cause, which raised an important question under The Married Women's Property Act. It was tried before the recorder on the 19th Dec. last, when a verdict for the plaintiff was returned. A rule was subsequently obtained for a new trial, which was now argued. appeared that the money in question (£137) was bequeathed to Mrs. Oakes, the wife of the defendant, subject to the life interest of a Miss Milner. The will was proved in 1865, and an order for the administration of the estate was made in 1866. The defendant married in 1871, and the life interest expired in 1873. Shortly afterwards a petition was presented to the Court of Chancery by defendant and his wife, and the money was paid to the garnishee under a power of attorney given by the defendant alone, and this money the plaintiff, a creditor of the defendant, sought to attach in the hands of the garnishee. Kemp appeared for the plaintiff. The DEPUTY-RECORDER made the rule absolute, holding that the case came within sect. 7 of the Married Women's Property Act, which enacts that where any woman married after 9th Aug. 1870, shall during her marriage become entitled to any sum of money not exceeding £200 under any deed or will, such property shall belong to the woman for her separate use. "Become entitled" meant become entitled in possession, therefore this money, being the separate property of the wife, under this section was not attachable for the debt of the husband. Rule absolute for a new trial. Ferris, John Henry Hammonds, John Alfred Harting, Robert A. Heaven, Nicholas Gyde Jennings, Isaac Gaitskill Lewis, Wm. Henry Newton, Alexander F. Owen, C. Maynard, B.A. Parr, Robert Jeffery Pears, Henry Temple, B.A. Pearse, William Buid Turner, Wm. Rd. Eaton Walker, Hugh Mewburn Watts, Albert Webster, Thos. Wilkinson HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. EDMETT (Thos.), Arreton House, Maidstone, Kent, gentleman. Next of kin to come in by March 1, at the chambers of V.C. H. March 9, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. WRIGHT (Hannah), Brookfield, Hathersage, Derby. Heirat-law to come in by March 3, at the chambers of the M. R. March 17, at the said chambers, at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] CoLE (Henry), Onslow-square, Brompton, Esq., and VIZARD (Wm.), 55, Lincoln's-inn-fields. gentleman, one dividend on the sum of £1556 17s. 2d., New Three per Cent. Annuities; claimant said Wm. Vizard. LANDON (Francis Newcombe), and LANDON (Charles Harcourt), both of Brentwood, Essex, Esqrs.; £33 6s. sd., Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant said Chas. Harcourt Landon, the survivor. MILES (Samuel), ABCOCK (Halford), and HARDY (John Stockdale), of Leicester, Eqrs., £25417s. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant said Halford Adcock, the sur vivor. SCHREIBER (John C.), Henhurst, Woodchurch, Kent, Esq., £2743 108. 1d. Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimants Amelia Susannah Schreiber, widow, and Arthur Thos. Schreiber, executors of John Charles Schreiber, deceased. TRENT (Lieut. John) of H. M.'s Regiment Horse Guards (Blue), and DASHWOOD (George Henry), West Wycombe, Bucks, Esq. £10,000 New Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Dame Elizabeth Dashwood, widow. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. ANGLO-FRENCH MAREZZO MARBLE COMPANY (LIMITED). Creditors to send in by March 15, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to A. A. McLean, 29, Gresham-street, London, the official liquidator of the said company, March 27; at the chambers of the M. R. at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjndicating upon such claims. NEX BUXTON LIME COMPANY (Limited). Petition for winding-up; to be heard Feb. 28, before the M.R. RUST'S PATENT VITRIFIED MARBLE COMPANY (Limited). Petition for winding-up; to be heard Feb. 27, before V. C. H. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. ALKIN (Francis R.), Maidstone, Kent, widow. March 15: Wm. Beale, solicitor, March 25. V. Ć. M., at 12 o'clock. ANDREW (Ratcliff), King's-cross, Duffield, engineer and machinist. March 21; H. Tyrrell, solicitor, 14, Gray'sinn-square, Middlesex. April 13; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. AVIS (Elizabeth), Kenninghall, Norfolk, widow. March 20; Lancelot Gane, solicitor, Kenninghall. April 16; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. BEECROFT (Ebenezer, 19, Warner-street, Dover-road, Newington, Surrey, fish salesman. Feb. 28: G. R. Jaquet, solicitor, 15, South-street, Finsbury-square, London. March 11: V.C. M. at twelve o'clock. BRADLEY (John), Se by, common brewer. March 9; Thos. M. Weddall, solicitor, Selby. March 18; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. BREWER (John), Wimborne, Dorset, grocer and baker. March 4; Thos. Rawlins, solicitor, Wimborne. March 18; V. C. H. at one o'clock. CHALON (Thos. B.). formerly of Red Hill, near Herefor!, late of Stuttgart, Wurtemberg, formerly a Lieut.and Brevet Col. in the 46tn Reg. of H. M.'s Indian Force. March 27; T. W. Nelson, solicitor, 6, Laurence Pountney Lane, London. April 16; V. C. B. at twelve o'clock, DEACON (Francis, Cold Harbour-road, Lambeth, Surrey, Esq. March 7: F. W. Arkcoll,olicitor, 190, Tooleystreet, Southwark, Surrey. March 21; M. R., at eleven o'clock. FLACK (Abraham), King's Arms, Aldersgate-street, London, licen ed victualler. March 6; T. Edwards, soli itor, 7, Douzhty-treet, Mecklenburgh - square, Middlesex. March 20; M. R., at eleven o'clock. FORD (John), 21, Lower Gun-alley, St. George's-in-theEast, Middlesex. March 9; Stone and Co., solicitors, 5, Finsbury-circus. March 27; M. R., at twelve o'clock. FOWLES (Horatio N., 27. Briton-street, Southampton. March 3; Wm. A. Killby, solicitor, Southampton. March 17; M. K., at eleven o'clock. GODFREY (Robert W.), Beeston, Norfolk, farmer. March 2: B. Nurse, solicitor, King's Lynn, Norfolk. March 17; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. GREGORY (Susan), Clarence-place, Dover, spinster. Feb. 23; Crook and Smith, solicitors, 173, Fenchurch-street, Dover. Ma ch 14, V C. H., at twelve o'clock. GWYER (Edmund), 7, West Clifton-terrace, Bristol, merchant. March 2; Bush and Ray, solicitors, Bristol. March 14; M.R, at twelve o'clock. JOHNSON (Geo.), Millfield House, York. March 19; O. B. Wooler, solicitor, Darlington. March 30; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. KEKEWICH (Samuel T., Peamore, Devon, Esq., M.P. March 18; Chas. J. Follett, solicitor, Exeter. April 15; V.C. B. at twelve o'clock. LZE Wm.), Sheffield, grinder. March 9: Edwd. Swift, solicitor, Sheffield. March 23; M. R. at twelve o'clock. STEVENSON (Ceo. H.), Hope House, near Ripon, gentleman. March 12; H. Calvert, solicitor, Mashain, near Bedale. March 26; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. SWAIN (Jonathan S.), Friskney, Lincoln, farmer. Feb. 27; Wm. H. Bailes, solicitor, Boston, Lincoln. March 6; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. TUCKER (John), Berwick, St. James, Wilts, gentleman. March 10: Cobb and Smith. solicitors, Salisbury. March 20; V.C. H. at one o'clock. WARREN (Jas. J.), Eglinton Arms, Upper Maudlin-street, Bristol licensed victualler. March 5; Jas. Cook, jun., Bridgwater. March 19; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. BAKER Richard D.), Fort Wiliam, Cork, Ireland, a captain on half-pay, in H.M.'s army. March 14; G. A. Baker solicitor, so, Cleveland-square, London. BLAKE (Frederic), Staverton, Trowbridge, Wilts, farmer, March 25; Rodway and Mann, solicitors, Trowbridge. BLAKE (Robert), formerly of Bath, afterwards of Maidenhead, subsequently of Brighton, and late of 65, Eustonroad, Middlesex, Esq. March 16; Geo. Carew, solicitor, 9, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London. BROWNE (Richard), Bromtrees Hall, Bishops' Frome, Hereford, gentleman. May 1; Wm. West, solicitor, Bromyard, Hereford. BULFORD (Mary), formerly of 41, New North-road, Hoxton, New Town, Middlesex, late of 2, New North-road, Middlesex, widow. March 21; Shepheard and Sons, solicitors, 82, Finsbury-circus, London. CHRISTY (John), Aperfield-court, Cudham, Kent, Esq. March 25; Bailey and Co., solicitors, 5, Berners-street, London. COTGRAVE (Richard E. F.), 74, Gloucester-street, Pimlico, Middlesex, a retired Colonel in the Royal Engineers Bombay Army. March 20; Wm. Woolfryes, solicitor Banwell, Somerset. COWPER (John), New Inn, Askham, York, innkeeper. April 10; W. Walker, solicitor, 18, Lendal, York. CoxON (Richard G.), Newton West Farm, near Stocksfield, Northumberland, farmer. March 10; Hoyle and Co., solicitors, 20, Collingwood-street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. CROSLEY (Jas), Lee is, chemist and druggist. March 31; Henry Snowdon, solicitor, Leeds. DEACON (Chas. E.), Southampton and Lordswood. Nursling, Hants, gentleman. April 13; Walker and Co., solicitors, 5, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury, Middlesex. FIRMIN (John H.), Colne Engaine, Essex, larmer. May 1; Harris and Morton, solicitor, Halstead, Essex. HARRAFT (Charles), late of Greenbank, Bootle, near Liverpool. and formerly of Buenos Ayres, South America, sheep farmer. March 31; Field and Co., solicitors, 36, Lincoln's-inn fields, London. HOGHTON (Aubrey A.), Abbey-road, St. John's Wood, Middlesex, Esq. April 1; C. Morgan, solicitor, 15, Old Jewry, London. JACKSON (Francis J.), Berkhampstead, Hertford, spinster. March 31; Fielder and Sumner, solicitors, 14, Godlimanstreet, Doctor's-commons, London. JOHNSTON (Henry), formerly of New Alresford, Hants, late of Lyminster Court, near Arundel, Sussex, Esq. Feb. 28; F. Carter, solicitor, 9, Old Jewry-chambers, London. LAMBERT (Wm. B.), formerly of Prior-place, East-lane, Walworth, Surrey, afterwards of 2, Coronation-place Stoke Newington, Middlesex, and late of 158, Ball's-pondroad, Islington, formerly an accountant's clerk, but late retired from business. April 2; Clapham and Fitch, solicitors, 181, Bishopsgate-street Without, London. LAWRENCE (Reuben), 13. Caroline-street, Bloomsbury, Middlesex, gentleman. March 31; S. Potter, solicitor, 36, King-street, Cheapside, London. MCDOWALL (Harriet), Norwood Lodge, Norwood Green, Middlesex, widow. March 12; A. Cope, solicitor, & King's-road, Bedford-row, Middlesex. MONTGOMERY (Emma A.), formerly of 19, Marlboroughbuildings, late of 19, Milsom-street, Bath, widow. April 30; H. W. Hooper, solicitor, 1, Bedford-circus, Exeter. OKE (Geo. C., Rosedale, St. Mary's, Peckham, Surrey, chief clerk to the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor. March 21; Wm. B. Kidder, solicitor, 19, Bedford-row, London. ORR (Robert), formerly of Church-lane. Islington, late of 1, St. John street, Essex-road, Islington, Middlesex, gentleman March 7; M. Boyce, solicitor, 21, Abchurchlane, London. PRIOR (John, otherwise John Fewter), formerly of 12. King's-road, Ball's-pond-road, Middlesex, afterwards of 16, Gordon-road, South Hornsey, late of 74, Walford-road, Stoke Newington, Middlesex, appraiser. March 10; Thomson and Edwards, solicitors, 7, Doughty-street, Mecklenburgh-square, Middlesex. QUICK (Geo.). Southampton, and of Bitterne, common brewer. March 31; H ckman and Son, solicitors, 7, Albion-place, Southampton. RAY (Edmund B, 15, Princes Gate, Hyde-park, Middlesex, Esq. March 5; T. W. S. Bowlby, solicitor, 44, Lincoln's Inn-fields, Middlesex. ROBSON (Elizabeth), Darlington, widow. April 6; Thos. Dowse, solicitor, Darlington. ROBSON (Wm., Darlington, Esq., April 6; Thos. Bowes, solicitor, Darlington. SCOTT (Jas. H., formerly of H. M.'s Paymaster-General's Office, Whitehall, late of 25, George street, Ryde, Isle of Wight, Esq. March 12; Park and Co., solicitors, 11, Essex-street, Strand. SELLS (John), Somerset House, York-road, Montpellier, Bristol, gentleman. March 9; J. Miller, solicitor, Nicho las-street, Bristol. SMITH (Chas.). Arundel-street, Sheffield, tinner and brazier. March 7; Watson and Esam, solicitors, 29, Bank-street, Sheffield. SMITH (Chas. C.), formerly of Bury St Edmunds, late of 6, Woodfield-terrace, Palace-road, Upper Norwood, Surrey, Esq. April 6; H. Avis, solicitor, 25, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex. The STAPLETON (Geo J.), formerly of St. Alban's, Herts, late of 34 Chepstow-place, Pembridge-square, Bayswater. March 15: Hunter and Co., solicitors, 9, New-square, Lincoln'sinn, Middlesex. SWINGLER (Thos.), Douglas House, Litchurch, near Derby, ironmaster, manufacturer of bar iron, railway engineer, and coal innster. March 25; Henry Swingler, Laur-ls," Duffield-road, Derby. TONKS (Elizabeth), Athol House, Soho-park, Handsworth, Staford, and of Bythorn, Torquay, widow. May 1; D. Dimbleby, solicitor, 15, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham. WELSTEAD (John R.), Kimbolton, Huntingdon, and of Key Dell, Catherington, Southampton, Etq. March 31; Bird and Moore, solicitors, 5, Gray's Inn-square, London. WHITAKER (John), Blackheath, and Abchurch Lane, London, banker. April 1; White and Co., solicitors, 6 Whitehall-place, London. REPORTS OF SALES. Thursday, Feb. 12. By Messrs. C. C. and T. MOORE, at the Mart. Mile-end-road.-No. 622, freehold house with shop-sold for In rear of above freehold stabling-sold for £185. aunum-sold for £1330. No. 14, Colman-street, term 55 years-sold for £255. Commercial-road. - Nos. 33 and 34, Colet-place, term 33 years-sold for £460. Nos. 2 and 3, King's-terrace, freehold-sold for £2120. Whitechapel. - No. 10, Glassnouse-street, copyhold-sold St. George's-in-the-East-Nos. 1 toll, Palmer's-place, term for £439. 38 years-sold for £435. Lastcheap,-No. 16, Love-lane, freehold-sold for £1900. Fifty shares, of £10 each (fully paid), in the Nitro-Phos phate and Odam's Manure Company-sold for £750. Twenty-five shares, of £10 each (£6 paid, in the Animal Charcoal Company-sold for £150. Fifteen £5 shares in the Crystal Palace Company-sold for 123 10s. By Messrs. HARDS and VAUGHAN. Clerkenwell.-No. 1, Ann-street, and a ground rent of £8 per annnn, terin 47 years-sold for £475. St. Luke's.-No. 12, Hall-treet, term 68 years-sold for £350. Islington. street, term 20 years-sold for £20. Hackney.-Nos. 1, A, 5, and 6, Seabright-street, and No. 12, Caroline-place, term 43 years-sold for £695. £250. Kingstand.-No. 3, Ufton-grove, term is years-sold for In your impression of Wednesday last an extract from a letter in the Times from Mr. Gerald A. R. Fitzgerald appeared, commenting upon the course adopted by the returning officer for Finsbury in rejecting certain ballot papers at the recent Parliamentary election there, on account of their not being marked in conformity with the directions for the guidance of voters in voting contained in the second schedule of the Ballot Aot. Mr. Fitzgerald says that these directions are not imperative, but merely directory. There can be little doubt that this was the intention of the Legislature, or it would have been directly provided that ballot papers marked otherwise than in accordance with such directions should be rejected by the returning officer. The second section of the Act provides that any ballot papers on which anything except the said number on the back (i.e., the number of the ballot paper corresponding with the number of the counterfoil) is written or marked by which the voter can be identified shall be void and not counted. Having had considerable experience in the official working of elections under the Ballot Act (having conducted six elections in a constituency numbering over 16,000), and having paid particular attention to the Act and the variety of ballot papers which came before the returning officer for his decision as to their validity, I shall be obliged if you will allow me an opportunity of stating a few facts which have come under my own observation, and of which only those who have a practical acquaintance with the subject can be aware. 1. The returning officer must reject all ballot -No. 1, Windsor-place, and No. 77, Windsor-papers not marked with the official mark. In the whole of the elections in which I have been concerned it happens, fortunately, and to the credit of the officers engaged, that there has not been a single ballot paper rejected under this head. If any papers are rejected, it must be through the neglect of the presiding officer, who, if he does his duty, and sees that every ballot paper bears the official mark before he allows it to be placed in the ballot box, must have a check on any remissness on the part of his clerk, who should stamp the paper, and on any attempt to introduce forged ballot papers. years sold for £114, Great Portland-street-No. 27, Riding-house-street, term 19 years-sold for £450. Walworth.-No. 11, Fleming-road, term 76 years-sold for the mode of dealing with ballot papers under the Tottenham.-Nos. 1 and 2, Markfield-terrace, term 88 years -sold for £195. Friday, Feb. 13. By Messrs. NORTON, TRIST, WATNEY, and Co., at the Mart Westminster.-Nos. 17 to 25, Buckingham-cottages, term 32 years-sold for £1300. The lea ehold Carriage Repository, with stabling, &c.-sold for £1800. In the elections in which I have been engaged, head of " writing or mark by which the voter could be identified," is precisely the same as that adopted at Finsbury and numerous other places within my own knowledge. Mr. Fitzgerald advises, in effect that the returning officer can only reject such ballot papers as are actually marked with the name and address of the voter; for by these particulars alone could the voter be actually identified. According to Mr. Fitzgerald, if, instead of putting the necessary x, the voter signed the name of "John Smith," the returning officer would not be justified in rejecting the paper if A policy for 15000, with bonus, on a life aged 66 years-sold there were several John Smiths on the register, I consider that if the leniency in dealing with these ballot papers in Mr. Fitzgerald's letter security to parties bribing that the majority of were generally adopted, it would be a means of the parties bribed voted for the right candidates. I will explain how this could be done. The candidates usually appoint a certain number of agents to attend at the counting of the ballot papers, and all the ballot papers come Surrey, Chobham.-Two enclosures of land, 11a. Sr. 26p., under the personal observation of such agents. freebold-sold for £700. An enclosure, containing 9a. 3r. 20p.-sold for £850. For example, suppose an agent has promised a bribe to a large number of voters (say 500), and that he instructed them to mark their ballot papers in a certain way contrary to the directions in the Act, say either by marking the cross with a coloured pencil, or in ink, or on the left hand side, or marking a figure 1, or any other distinctive mark than a cross. Then he instructs his subagents who attend the counting to take note of how many ballot papers so marked pass under their observation. He gets this information from his agents, by which he can tell whether the majority of persons bribed have gone the right way, and thereby ensures that the money expended or about to be expended in bribery has answered its purpose. It would be a most dangerous system to adopt Mr. Fitzgerald's notions; for depend upon it, whilst the candidates' agents and the persons who are always open to take bribes are aware that cating the voters; for if they find their vote is lost, depend upon it, if they value it, they will be more careful in the future. 66 OPERATION OF THE BALLOT ACT. The following letters appeared in the Times Sir,-I have just read the letter of Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald, which appeared in the Times of the 9th inst. on the subject of rejected ballot papers and the effect to be given to the 2nd schedule of the Ballot Act. Having acted at five Parliamen tary and at several municipal elections under the Ballot Act, and having in my official capacity had to advise the returning officers as to the rejection of ballot papers, I can, I think, point out the difficulty with which the matter is beset. Mr. Fitzgerald has, I think, overlooked the 28th section of the Act, which enacts that" the schedules and directions therein shall be construed and have effect as part of the Act." When, therefore, we find that the form given in the schedule directs that the voter is to place a cross on the right-hand side opposite the name of the candidate for whom he votes, how can this be departed from without opening the door to all kinds of marks by which the voter or a number of votersas a class may be identified by those employed at the counting of the votes? It is the Legisla ture's and not the returning officer's fault if a large number of ballot papers are rejected. There is a very simple remedy for this, which I hope will be adopted by the new Government,-viz., let the voter be directed to strike out the name of the candidate he does not wish to vote for. This will be intelligible to the most illiterate voter, many of whom I verily believe put the cross against the name of the candidates they object to, simply because they are accustomed to use the cross as a sign by which they indicate their objection to anything. So long as the present directions are in force it is not unlikely that there will be a considerable number of rejected ballot papers.--Your obedient servant, C. M. HOLE, Town Clerk. Sir,-The returning officer for Marylebone urges an extension of time between the nomination and polling day for large boroughs. I trust it may be extended to counties. Fortunately for me, in Suffolk, we had a walk over for the Western Division, but for the Eastern Division I had to provide for nineteen polling places scattered over the county and some most inconveniently situated for access. Another difficulty arose (except in one place where the returning officer may happen to be), it being necessary that the declaration of secrecy by all claiming right of admission should be taken by a magistrate before the opening of the poll. At more than one of the polling places was assured that no magistrate was resident within many miles. Is it reasonable to expect in the winter time nineteen gentlemen to attend at half-past 7 in the morning? Had it not been for a warning I gave all parties concerned, to take the declaration beforehand, and be in a position to produce it, I am well assured that difficulties, even amounting to vacating the election, would have arisen. My remedy would be that each presiding officer, having himself taken an oath or declaration, should be empowered to administer it to all others at his station. As to counting the votes, I have had experience of more than one way, and I am of opinion that the sorting process is the quickest.-I am, Sir, your obedient servant, JAMES SPARKE, Under-Sheriff of Suffolk. PREPARATIONS FOR POLLING. - Sir,- Referappears in your issue of the 14th inst., p. 271, a ring to Messrs. Knight and Co.'s letter, which misapprehension exists that the parties who supplied the stamping machines to the returning officer for Lambeth were Messrs. Knight and Co.. This is not the fact, as I personally furnished the stamping instruments (eight in number) direct to. Mr. Abbott, as he is willing to testify, if necessary. Since the passing of the Ballot Act I have made the manufacture of my embosser and lever presses the subject of my especial attention, and I have supplied all the city and metropolitan returning officers (except Westminster) therewith, in addition to a very large number in the country, and to many of the School Board and municipal elections.-M. LOWENHEIM. PAUPER ELECTORS.-At the meeting of the Kidderminster guardians on Tuesday, Mr. Pountney asked whether it was legal to fetch a pauper out of a workhouse to poll at an election. A man who was admitted to the house some time ago under a note from the medical officer was fetched from the workhouse on the day of the Parliamentary election and taken to the poll. The chairman (Mr. Kiteley) said it was an abstract question. The man could give notice of his intention to leave the house, and then he could do what he chose. Mr. Holloway said the pauper, being on the register, |