regards the main point in this case, by one of the most eminent courts of jurisprudence in the whole world-the Supreme Court of the United Statesim which this very question as to whether a common carrier can, by entering into a special contract with a party for carrying his goods or person on modified terms, stipulate for immunity for the negligence of himself and his servants, has been made the subject of a most elaborate and exhaustive judgment in the negative. By that judgment, after a full review of the law of carriers, and after a special reference to our Railway and Canal Traffic Act, as substantially a return to the rules of the common law, and after commenting on the necessity of standing firmly to those principles of law by which the public interests are protected, now that the carrier and his customer do not stand on a footing of equality, the business being mostly concentrated in a few powerful corporations, whose position enables them to impose such conditions on travel and transport as they think fit, the customers being completely in their power, the decision of the court was pro. nounced to be "that it is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law for a common carrier to stipulate for exemption from respousibility for the negligence of himself or his servants." I could not have desired a more complete vindication of the views I had previously formed on this subject, and in accordance with which I decided the case of Taylor v. the Great Eastern Railway Company. I have only further to add, gentlemen, for your satisfaction as to my rulings in general, otherwise I should not have condescended to allude to the matter, that only one appeal from my decisions had succeeded up to the time of this late extraordinary affair in the Court of Queen's Bench. In all other cases my rulings had been affirmed. With regard to the one exception, being that of an appeal from a judgment of mine in this court, I have been quite unable to ascertain upon what grounds or to what extent the Superior Court dissented, if it did dissent, from that judgment, and I much regret being thus unable to obtain this information, as the ease involved a question of some nicety and novelty in the law of real property, in which I had had large practical experience when at the bar, having been for several years conveyancing counsel to one of the largest of our railway companies, and having advised on the title to great part of the property over which their lines now run. I cannot conclude these remarks without again deeply thanking you, Mr. Cockerell, and all who have signed or concurred in this address, for the exceeding great gratification I have derived from it. It will be ever treasured by me with warm feelings of both pride and pleasure, and with a constant and grateful remembrance of so ample a testimony of confidence, respect, and sympathy under somewhat trying circumstances, and I can but hope that no conduct on my part in future, any more than in the past, will tend to diminish that respect and confidence, or cause less agreeable relations to exist between us. to: The following is the text of the address referred "To Edmond Boales, Esq., Judge of the County Courts of Circuit No. 35. "Dear Sir,-We, the undersigned, barristersat-law or attorneys practising before you in the Courts of which you are the judge, have read with much pain and regret a report in the Law Times of 17th Feb. 1874, of a remark alleged to have been made by Mr Justice Blackburn in reversing a decision given by you in the case of Taylor v. The Great Eastern Railway, that if you were in the habit of making such rulings he Mr Justice Blackburn) owned he thought the Lord Chancellor should be made aware of it. "Without discussing the particular point before the Court of Queen's Bench in the case alluded to, or presuming in any way to question the correctness of the views taken by that eminent judge, we think it due to you to state that we have been perfectly satisfied with your ruling generally; that we consider you bestow more than usual attention and care on all cases coming before you; that your judicial conduct during the whole time you have been the judge of this circuit has commanded our high respect and esteem; and that we have the fullest coufidence in your able and impartial administration of the law in your several courts." [Signed by four barristers and thirty attorneys practising in the several courts.] THE Liberal party in Preston have decided not to oppose the return of Mr. Holker. IN charging the Grand Jury at the Salford Hundred Quarter Sessions, on Monday, the Deputy Chairman remarked that out of the sixtysix prisoners for trial twenty-three could neither rcad nor write, twenty-one could only read and write imperfectly, and only two could read and write well. BANKRUPTCY LAW. KINGSTON-ON-THAMES COUNTY COURT. Friday, April 17. Re THREADKELL; Ex parte SHRUBSOLE. THE KINGSTON BURIAL BOARD, GARNISHEES. Liquidation by arrangement-Absolute garnishee order a" charge" on debt attached within the 12th and 16th sections of the Bankruptcy Act 1869. IN this case the liquidating debtor had entered into a contract, dated 24th Nov. 1873, with the Kingston Burial Board for the execution of cer tain works. On the 9th Jan. 1874, a garnishee summons was issued against the board by Messrs. Shrubsole, the judgment creditors of the liquidating debtor; and on the 16th Jan. an absolute order was made thereon for £44 10s. 3d., debt and costs. On the 19th Jan, a certificate was signed by the surveyor of the completion of the works in the contract, and of a balance of £76 4s. 4d. being due to the liquidating debtor. On the 20th Jan. the petition for liquidation was filed, and on the 5th Feb. resolutions were duly passed and a trustee appointed. The trustee now applies for an order upon the burial board to pay to him the balance of £76 4s. 4d., certified to be due as above. Messrs. Shrubsole oppose this application and apply for an order that the sum of £41 10s. 3d., for which they have obtained a garnishee order against the burial board as above, may be paid to them on the ground that under such last mentioned order they are creditors holding a "charge," and therefore a security on property of the bankrupt, under the 12th and 16th sections of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. According to the recent case of Emmanuel v. Bridger, Roberts Garnishee (Q. B. Weekly Notes, Feb. 21st, 1871.) That case, as reported, indeed goes much farther than the present, for it decides that an absolute garnishee order is a charge not only on the debt due from the garnishee, but on goods belonging to the garnishee of which his creditor had taken possession by his agent under a bill of sale, and on which the agent had a lien for an advance of £50 made by him without notice of any attachment. I confess that I have some difficulty in following the latter part of this decision, and have some doubt as to the correctness of the report; but I think that it is quite clear that an absolute garnishee order constitutes a charge upon the debt due from the garnishee within the meanings of the above sections of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and therefore that Messrs. Shrubsole are entitled under the order obtained by them to a on the balance of charge for £44 10s. 3d. £76 48. 4d., found due from the burial board as above, and to the receipt of the same from the burial board, and likewise to receive their costs of this application from the estate. Ex parte MARSH; Ex parte BAYLEY. Written orders to debtor-"Charges" under the 12th and 16th sections of the B. A. 1869. THESE two claimants obtained written orders from the liquidating debtor, dated respectively the 3rd and 16th Jan., for the respective sums of £17 11s. 9d. and £10, addressed to the burial board, and directing them to pay the above amounts out of any moneys due from them under the above contract to the debtor, and which orders were therefore given previously to the surveyor's certificate, and also to the filing of the petition for liquidation above stated. I think that such orders are clearly equitable charges, and amount to assignments in equity of so much of the debt. Row v. Dawson (1 Ves. 331), and Bell v. The London and North-Western Railway Company (15 Beav. 548), and are also charges within the meaning of the 12th and 16th sections of the Bank. ruptcy Act 1869. The claimants are therefore entitled to receive the above sums of £17 11s. 9d. and £10 respectively from the burial board, which together with the sum of £14 10s. 3d., payable to Messrs. Shrubsole, make the sum of £72 2s. Od., leaving the sum of £4 28. 2d. only payable to the trustee. The claimants, Marsh and Bayley, are of course also entitled to their costs from the estate. With regard to these two charges, I have assumed that they were given for present value, and not for previous debts, in which case they would be fraudulent preferences, and void under the 92nd section. The burial board must also have their costs from the estate. MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT. Friday, April 17. (Before J. A. RUSSELL, Q.C., Judge.) Re C. L. CLARKE. Bankruptcy-Partnership—Admission of proof of official liquidator of creditor company without proof of appointment-Admission of proof of debt of a partner of the debtor. B., official liquidator of a company of which bank. rupt was a debtor, applied to prove the debt, offering no evidence of his appointment as official liquidator beyond making his affidavit, and stating that the debt was due to him in that capacity. The registrar refused to admit the proof, but admitted it as a claim. Held, that he ought to have admitted the proof. W. applied to prove against the estate for money advanced to the bankrupt on condition that he should share in the profits of the bankrupt's business. The registrar admitted the proof, allowing W. to vote, but postponing his right to a dividend till the other creditors were satisfied. Held, that the proof ought to have been rejected, and that as a matter of course the resolution passed at the first meeting must be set aside, and a fresh meeting held. and Co., in support of the appeal from the regis Smyly, barrister, instructed by Messrs. Sal trar's decision. Jordan, barrister, instructed by Partington and Allen, for the trustees appointed at the first meeting. This was a motion on behalf of Alfred Audrey Broad, of 35, Walbrook, London, public ac countant, the official liquidator of the Imperial Rubber Company, Limited, in liquidation, for an order that the decision of the registrar, at the first meeting of creditors on the 26th March last, whereby he refused to admit the proof of Mr. Broad as official liquidator for the sum of £111 88. 6d. as a proof, but admitted the same as a claim only, and refused to allow him to vote at the meeting, should be reversed and set aside, and the proof admitted on the estate. 2. That the decision of the registrar, whereby he admitted the proof of Richard Wood, of John-street Mill, Heywood, Manufacturer, for the sum of £417 13s. 9d., and allowed Mr. Wood to vote at the meeting in respect thereof, should also be reversed and set aside. 3. That the resolutions alleged to have boen passed at the first meeting should be set aside, and a fresh meeting called to appoint a trustee, and for such other purposes as it is competent for a first meeting of creditors to transact. The bankrupt carried on business as an iron merchant at 5, Todd-street, Manchester. It appeared from an affidavit of Mr. Paterson, who attended as the proxy of Mr. Broad at the first meeting, that at that meeting he presented a proof on behalf of Mr. Broad, the official liqui dator, for £141 8s. 6d., at the foot of which he was appointed proxy of Mr. Broad. On his presenting the proof it was objected to by the solicitor for the petitioning creditor, on the ground that no evidence of the appointment of Mr. Broad as official liquidator was given, beyond the statement in the affidavit of debt that he was official liquidator, and the registrar allowed the objection and admitted the proof as a claim only, and refused to allow Mr. Paterson, as Mr. Broad's proxy, to vote in the proceedings of the meeting. At the same meeting a proof was presented by Mr. Wood for the sum of £417 13s. 9d, in respect of money lent and advanced. That proof was objected to by one of the creditors present, and Mr. Wood was thereupon examined upon oath before the registrar, when he admitted that the money for which he sought to prove against the estate had been lent under the stipulation that he should share in the profits of the business. He alleged that the loan was made under a written contract pursuant to the Partnership Amendment Act, whereby, although he was to participate in the profits, he was still not to be constituted a partner. That objection was overruled by the registrar, and the proof admitted, and Mr. Wood allowed to vote at the meeting. Thereupon reso lutions appointing Mr. Wood and another cre ditor trustees in the matter, without security, and without a committee of inspection, were declared by the registrar to have been passed; hence the present application to reverse this decision, and to order a fresh meeting to be called. Upon the first point Smyly submitted that for the purpose of mere proof of debt, inasmuch as the debt itself was not disputed, the statement of Mr. Broad that he was official ligator was sufficient to have the proof admitted, although Mr. Broad had not as a separate allegation stated that he was official liquidator. Still having described himself as such, if such statement were false he was liable to be prosecuted for perjury; and he quoted the case of Ex parte Lowenthal (22 Weekly Reporter, p. 459), in support thereof. Upon the second question, as to the admission of Mr. Wood's proof, he submitted that Mr. Wood under the circumstances could not prove at all upon the estate. It might be contended that, although by the operation of the Partnership Amendment Act he was debarred from receiving a dividend until all the other creditors had been paid 20s. in the pound, he was still entitled to prove on the estate, subject to that disability; but the case of Ex parte Mills (L. Rep. 8 Ch. Ap. 569; 28 L. T. Rep. N. S. 606) covered the whole question. He also referred to sect. 16, sub-sect. 2, and to sect. 32 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, by the latter of which it is pro vided that, with the exception of certain pre-rity. He then contended that the agreements," receive dividend would be kept in abeyance until all the other creditors had been satisfied. sale. taken by Mr. Wimpenny before any act of bank- Leigh contended that possession having been The REGISTRAR said he was against Mr. Leigh on this point, and he should make the order asked for by the trustee. YARMOUTH COUNTY COURT. (Before J. WORLLEDGE, Esq., Judge.) His HONOUR said that independently altogether of the case quoted by Mr. Smyly on the first point, he should have been of opinion that the fact that Mr. Broad was the official liquidator was sufficiently averred in his affidavit. There could not certainly, in order to admit a proof upon the file, be more required than that the person making the proof should prima facie be entitled to prove. In the affidavit in this case there were three distinct affirmations-first, that he was Mr. A. A. Broad; secondly, that he was a public accountant; and, thirdly, that he was the official liquidator of the Imperial Rubber Company. Mr. Jordan had argued that that was not a sufficiently distinct affirmation, but he (his Honour) held. upon the authority of Lord Cairns, Seizure by sheriff under execution-Bankruptcy of in Re Lowenthal, that there was sufficient upon debtor within fourteen days-Sheriff not entitled the face of the affidavit to entitle Mr. Broad to to retain for the creditor his costs of action. put his proof upon the file in the character in Ilis HONOUR.-In this case a question has arisen which he described himself. With regard to the between the trustee, Mr. Etheridge, and the sheriff second point, namely, whether or not the debt in of Suffolk, as to the proper construction of the this case, having arisen out of a transaction 87th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869 as comwhich was within the statute of 1865-the Part-pared with the corresponding section, the 73rd of nership Law Amendment Act- -was capable of the Bankruptcy Act 1861, and which has been being proved under the bankruptcy, Ex parte brought before me in the form of a special case Mills was quite a distinct authority. The Lords without argument. The facts upon which the Justices had decided in that case that a lender in question has arisen are as follows:-The sheriff auch a case as this was not entitled to appear as a of Suffolk, under an execution at the suit of ereditor at all until the other creditors were satis- Messrs. Kent, ironmongers, Beccles, seized and sold fied. That being the case, he (his Honour) must goods of the debtor to the amount of £71 17s. 9d. disagree with the opinion formed by the chairman From which he made the following of the meeting, and hold, in the first place, that deductions :the proof of Mr. Broad had been improperly rejected, and in the next that the proof of Mr. Wood must be expunged. Mr. Smyly's third application, namely, that another meeting of creditors should be called for the appointment of a Iresh trustee, would follow. Costs of both sides to come out of the estate. (Before the REGISTRAR.) Re STUBBS, ROBERTON AND Co. Bill of sale-Assignment of partnership property by one partner. Addleshaw (Addleshaw and Warburton), on behalf of the trustee, applied for an order declaring two agreements and a bill of sale, dated respectively 10th Oct. 1871, 10th April 1872, and 17th May 1872, and given by the bankrupts to a gentleman named Winpenny, to be void as against the trustee. He said the bankrupts, on the 10th Oct. 1871, borrowed from Mr. Wimpenny a sum of £250, and signed an agreement of that date, by which they agreed when requested to execute a bill of sale. The debtors should have repaid that amount on the 10th April 1872, but they were unable to do so, and a second agreement was entered into to the like effect. It recited a then present advance which appeared to have been an error, as it was clear from the evidence of the debtors as well as the examinations of Wimpenny that no amount was advanced at that time. In the following month, May 1872, Mr. Leigh applied to the debtors to pay the amount due to Mr. Wimpenny or to execute a bill of sale which he had prepared. Roberton executed it, but Stubbs declined to do so, and wrote Mr. Leigh to that effect. On the 17th May possession was taken by Mr. Wimpenny, and on the 21st May 1872, Stubbs filed a petition for liquidation, and Roberton also filed a petition on the 2nd July following. They were both adjudicated bankrupts on the 11th July, and Mr. Milne was appointed trustee under the bankruptcy. He (Addleshaw) contended that the bill of sale was void against the trustee, as it purported to assign partnership property, and was signed by one partner only. He cited the case of Harrison v. Jackson (7 T. R. 207) in support of his contention that partners could not bind each other by deed unless the authority to do so was under seal. In this case Stubbs expressly repudiated Roberton's autho Expenses of the levy £ s. d. 2 16 6 3 11 9 7 4 0 700 560 £25 18s. 3d. £45 198. 6d. And the sheriff paid the balance £45 19s. 6d. to the trustee. The trustee admits that the sheriff had a right to deduct all the items except the last, the £5 6s. paid by the sheriff to the plaintiff's solicitor, which the trustee now claims from the sheriff. There is no authority at all bearing on the point in dispute, and the question depends solely on the construction of the 87th section of the Act of 1869. And the words of the section material to the decision of this case are as follows: "The sheriff shall retain the proceeds of such sale in his hands for a period of fourteen days, and upon notice being served upon him within that period of a bankruptcy petition having been presented against such trader shall hold the proceeds of such sale, after deducting expenses, on trust to pay the same to the trustee," and the section further enacts that if there be no notice of the presentation of a bank ruptcy petition within fourteen days, or no adjudication of bankruptcy within that period, the sheriff shall deal with the proceeds of the sale as if he had received no notice of a bankruptcy petition. In the present case it is clear the debtor is a trader, and the section applies as well to cases of liquidation as of bankruptcy. And the question is, are the costs of the writ and obtaining judgment included in the word "expenses." Now, the words "after deducting expenses," immediately following the words "the proceeds of such sale," would naturally, I think, mean (as contended by the trustee in the special case) the expenses of the sale, or at all events no more than the sheriff's expenses. But there is another consideration which appears to me almost conclusive in the trustee's favour. Had it been intended that the execution creditor should have his costs of action and obtaining judgment deducted before payment over to the trustee, I should have expected to find the words "costs of suit and obtaining judgment," or some such words, after and coupled with the word expenses;" and further, the words, "and as to such costs on trust to pay the same "to the execution creditor," but the section declares no trust in favour of the execution creditor. It therefore appears to me impossible to hold that after notice of the presentation of a bankruptcy petition, the sheriff holds any part of the proceeds of the sale on trust, to pay the same to the execution creditor, should the debtor be adjudged bankrupt within the fourteen days, and consequently in that event the sheriff is under no obligation and has no right to pay over any part of the proceeds of the sale to the execution creditor, and this conclusion is confirmed by a reference to the 73rd section of the Act of 1861, which concludes with this proviso, provided also that in case of bankruptcy the costs and expenses of such action and execution (i.e. reddendo singula singulis, the costs of such action, and the expenses of the execution) shall be retained and paid out of the proceeds of the sale and the balance only after such payment be paid to the assignees." Now there is no such proviso to the 87th section of the Act of 1869, and costs 66 that section omits entirely the words therefore is, that the Sheriff of Suffolk do within LEGAL NEWS. THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE NOTTS QUARTER SESSIONS.-At the Notts Quarter Sessions on Tuesday, a letter was read from Lord Belper held the position for a lengthened period. On resigning the chairmanship. His Lordship has being appointed lord lieutenant of the county, chairmanship, but was induced by the magistrates nine years ago, he was desirous of resigning the to retain it. Now, however, advancing years have compelled his Lordship to send in a positive resignation. It was accepted, and Mr. T. B. T. Hildyard was appointed to the position. JUSTICE IN THE MOFUSSIL.-The relations between the Bench and the Bar in India are not universally of the most amicable description, if a case reported in the Indian papers as having just occurred at Mysore may be taken as representing the ordinary state of affairs. The Bench figures in the person of Major Logan, and the Bar is that of Mr. Hayes, barrister-at-law. It may not unnaturally be asked how it happens that a gentleman bearing a title usually confined to persons of the military profession comes to administer justice in the Mofussil. This is explained by the fact that Major Logan belongs to the Bench on the strength of being a member of the Mysore Commission, "the officers of which," we are told, "used to conduct their business in a free and easy manner.' The introduction of the Bar in the provinces in 1867 necessitated a system and a regularity of procedure from which these officials were averse, and to which they have not yet reconciled themselves. Major Logan, at all events, has never quite got over the interference of professional advocates in the administration of justice, and lately took an opportunity of show. ing his sentiments. Mr. Hayes had refused to sign an entry brought him as he was going home by the Nazir of the court, on the grounds that it was incorrect. On his next appearance before the Major a scene occurred such as we are accustomed to associate only with courts of justice in the back States of America. 'Look here, Sir," cried the Major, "your conduct has been in the highest degree improper, and almost impertinent." Mr. Hayes, interrupting, solemnly protested against such language being addressed to him; but the Major would not listen, and, according to the Times of India, continued in these words:" Do you think I am going to allow a fellow styling himself a barrister-at-law-and barrister he may be for all I know and care-to flout my officers to the face as you have done? You do not understand your duties as a professional man should, and as a barrister should. I will turn you out of my court. I mean what [ say-I will turn you out of my court. I will report you to my superiors and have it done." Mr. Hayes then asked Major Logan in what capacity he was addressing him. He said: "The court is not particularly engaged just now. I have knocked off work. I am addressing you extra-judicially. Now I will hear you." The result was that the Nazir, being called on for for his version of the affair, the judge expressed himself as "thoroughly satisfied" with the explanation. Whether this little episode will have the effect of modifying the Major's horror of a barrister appearing before him we are not informed. It ought, at all events, to make him more cautious for the future how he expresses himself on the subiect.-Globe. A PETITION has been lodged in the Hanaper Office, Dublin, against the return of Mr. George O'Donnell, M.P. for Galway borough, on the grounds of intimidation and undue influence. IN a letter to the members of the legal profession at Southampton, with which town he was formerly connected, Lord Chief Justice Cock. burn has expressed his deep sense of their kindness in sending him an address warmly approving his conduct in the recent trial of the pretended Roger Tichborne. MUNICIPAL AND PARLIAMENTARY REGISTERS. -A communication has been received by the Kidderminster town council from the Home Secretary, asking whether the corporation considered it desirable that there should be one register only for municipal and parliamentary voters. With a view of getting over the difficulty of female voters being on the municipal and not on the parliamentary list, it is proposed that there should be but one list, and that the list should contain two columns, one for the parliamentary and one for the municipal franchise. The council were unanimously of opinion that there should be only one register for both. COURT OF ALDERMEN. A meeting of the magistrates of the City was held at Guildhall on Tuesday, the Lord Mayor presiding. The court proceeded to elect a chief clerk to the Lord Mayor at the Mansion House Justice-room. The three selected candidates who were considered by the committee most eligible for the appointment were Mr. James Harebooth Gresham, Mr. Charles J. B. Hertslet, and Mr. Walter Charles Metcalfe. On a show of hands the court reduced the number to two-Mr. Metcalfe retiring. On the final poll Mr. Gresham had a majority of fourteen votes over Mr. Hertslet. The election was thereupon declared to have fallen on Mr. Gresham, and he thereupon received the congratulations of the Lord Mayor. The salary of the office is 8001. a year. POSTMAN AND TUBMAN.-These are offices in the Court of Exchequer which are now merely honorary appointments, but they date from a very remote period, being almost coeval with the constitution of the court itself. In ancient times they conferred great privileges upon their holders. Amongst others the holders enjoyed a precedence of even the law officers of the Crown in making motions and in bringing other matters under the cognisance of the Bench. The Hon. A. Thesiger, Q.C., and Mr. A. Cohen, Q.C., who recently held these offices, having vacated them by reason of their acceptances of silk gowns, the Lord Chief Baron on Tuesday morning called upon Mr. R. E. Webster and Mr. Anstey, as senior members of the outer Bar, to take their seats respectively as postman and tubman. The learned gentlemen took their seats accordingly. THE NEW BARONET. Mr. Philip Rose, of Rayners, near Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, who is about to be raised to a baronetcy in recognition of his services to the Conservative party in reference to elections and the last Reform Bill, is a son of the late Mr. William Rose, of High Wycombe, by Charlotte, daughter of Mr. William Baly. He was born in the year 1816, and was admitted a solicitor in 1836. He practised for many years in Westminster as a partner in the well-known firm of Baxter, Rose, Norton, and Co., and was appointed a Treasurer of the County Courts during the tenure of office by the Conservative Party in 1858. He is a magistrate for Buckinghamshire, and also a Commissioner of Lieutenancy for Middlesex. He married in 1840, Margaret, daughter of Mr. Robert Ranking, by whom he has with other issue a son, Philip Frederick, who was born in 1842, and who married in 1866 Rose Anne, daughter of the late Rev. William Wollaston Pym, formerly Rector of Willian, Hertfordshire. CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. NOTE.-This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. COUNTY COURT COMMITTALS.-As the failure of Mr. Bass's Bill gives a new lease, so to speak, to this power, your observations as to the "strict proof in each case that the original summons had reached defendant" are most important. Allow me suggest an easy way of carrying out the sug and he gave evidence before the late committee against imprisonment for debt. While some 8000 annually go to prison, more than half for sums below 48s., it is clear the majority must do so from sheer inability, at any rate when arrested, and I still venture to deny the policy of so imprisoning them, almost entirely at the expense of the rates and taxes, and should like to see a return to the original system of the County Court Act 1846, by which the creditor directing the arrest paid for the conveyance of his debtor to the prison, if it be too much to seek the adoption of the Scotch system under which creditors have to support their debtor while in prison. If strict legal proof of means was always required, imprisonment as a punishment for obstinacy would be more defensible; but we all know that proof "to the satisfaction of the judge" is most variable. G. MANLEY WETHERFIELD. 1, Gresham-buildings, E.C. 20th April, 1874. CLERKS TO ATTORNEYS.-I would call the attention of "A Certificated Managing Clerk," whose letter appears in your issue of to-day, to the case of Bookham v. Potter, Ex parte Rogers (an Attorney) (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 479), in which the late Lord Chief Justice Bovill says: "There is nothing to prevent an attorney who is employed as clerk to another attorney from practising in a County Court; he must, however, satisfy the provision of the statute requiring him to be engaged generally as attorney in the cause. JOHN F. HAYNES. STATUTORY LEGISLATION.-At any time it is not a very easy matter to be posted up in the different branches of the law, especially in Acts of Parliament. One Act is passed; an amendment follows, certain sections of the former Act are repealed, others remain in force; another amend. ment follows, and this makes it exceedingly confusing to discover what is really enacted. Instead of attempting to engraft one Act upon another, would it not be sinpler and much more intelligible to incorporate the provisions of the first Act in the second, and thus entirely erase the former from the statute book. Instead of having several statutes to refer to, practitioners would find the whole of the law on one particular subject contained in one enactment. The only objection which there can be will be a little extra expense in printing. This suggestion occurred to me when perusing the 9th section of the Real Property Limitations Bill. MINO. READING FOR THE FINAL EXAMINATION.-As an articled clerk I wish to ask, through the medium of the LAW TIMES, if some one of your correspondents will kindly furnish a list of books that may be advantageously read for the final examination. I have twelve months' time in which to prepare, and have no intention of reading for honours. I should like a useful course, such as was contributed by Mr. Wilkinson, of Liverpool, through your columns some five years ago; perhaps that gentleman may do the like again. I have read thoroughly the intermediate text books. It will, no doubt, be a favour to others besides myself who read the LAW TIMES. VINGT-SEPT. THE ATTORNEYS' AND SOLICITORS' BILL.-It is well that the subject recently discussed by the Union Society of London, namely, that greater facilities should be afforded by barristers desirous of becoming solicitors, has now found its place in your columns. For I venture to doubt whether the cases in which barristers are so desirous are now-a-days quite so "few and far between" as some seem to imagine. All who consider the subject will surely agree in the justice of your observations in your last week's issue, when, after reminding your readers that a barrister is required to be disbarred, and then to serve in the office of an attorney-at-law for three years as an articled clerk before he can be admitted on the roll of attorneys (22 & 23 Vict. c. 127, s. 3), you express your opinion that to require a barrister to enter into articles of clerkship before he can become a solicitor is a degrading ceremony, and such a position cannot be defended for a moment. It is not to be overlooked that the law as it at present stands further obliges the barrister to go through both the "intermediate" and the "final" examinations: and my object in now troubling you is to suggest the desirability of seizing the opportunity offered by the present Attorneys and Solicitors' Bill to relieve barristers who have passed the general examination of the Inns of Court, 66 articled clerks proposed by the above Bill may be shortly stated as follows. After reciting the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 10, which prohibits articled clerks from holding any office or engaging in any employment other than as clerk to the attorney or solicitor to whom they are articled, the Bill pro poses to abolish such restriction in cases where the clerk, prior to entering upon the office, of engaging in the employment, shall obtain (1) the written consent of his master, and (2) the sanc tion of a judge of one of the Superior Courts of the Master of the Rolls, &c. With very much deference to the noble lord who presented the Bill and such of my professional brethren who approve of it, I venture to think that the proposed change will be detrimental to the best interests of the profession. The Bill is doubtless introduced in consequence of the recent case Ex parte Greville, in which the Court of Common Pleas held that the service of an articled clerk was insufficient be cause during the period of service he had, with the consent of his master, held the office of vestry clerk at a remuneration of about £100 per annum. This case appears to have been attended with a certain amount of hardship, inasmuch as the applicant's father, who had held the office, died, leaving a widow and children, whose support mainly depended upon the applicant. But "hard cases make bad law." Notwithstanding the conditions mentioned in the new Bill, I am of opinion that the proposed alteration will have an injurious tendency. The periods for which articled clerks according to circumstances, are bound to serve is certainly not too long to enable them to qualify themselves to pass their intermediate and firal examinations, and, what is of more practical im partance, to fit them to practise their profession, An articled clerk has to study both the theory and practice of the various branches of the law, and must make himself acquainted with book-keeping, in addition to which it is desirable he should practise elocution, attend law lectures, and, if possible, a law debating society. Surely the period now appropriated to these matters is not more than sufficient, especially when we know that in many cases study is frequently deferred until the last year or two of the term. In addition to these considerations, I think that the proposed Bill will open the door to abuses, and is derogatory to the dignity of our Profession. I have discussed the matter with a considerable number of my legal friends, and their coincidence with my views induces me to address you this letter. T. C. TOWN CLERKS AS POLITICAL AGENTS.-Will you allow me to refer to a question which was in several instances raised during the last Parlia mentary election, viz., the propriety of town clerks in municipal boroughs where the mayor is the returning officer, acting as the legal agents of either candidate at such election. The town clerk of this town, a solicitor of the most undoubted respectability, strongly maintaine his right to act, and did so, preparing the candi. date's nomination paper, and afterwards advising the returning officer (the mayor) that such nomina tion had been legally made. On the other hand the late Mr. Stone, in his Town Councillors' Manual says it is the town clerk's duty "To act as adviser to the Mayor at Parliamentary elec tions," and in his reply to a letter from me in Feb. 1873, states, "I should never have thought of taking a retainer for any candidate, and considering the many points which require attention under the Ballot Act, the employment of the town clerk, or his partner, would, I think, be inconsistent with their duty as advisers of the mayor in his capacity of returning officer. It would not have been tolerated in Leicester; and so careful was I to hold the scales evenly that I did not even vote." Which is right? Surely in a matter of this kind there should be some general understanding. AN OLD SUBSCRIBER. gestion where defendants have not been personally from the useless annoyance of being required to and tells him if he again finds the dog on his (A's) land, Ived with the first summons, by granting a new alat once on the sworn statement of the defendant pearing on the judgment summons that he had not onally contracted plaintiff's debt and then the doubted law in Jolly v. Rees should be applied, and the cases referred to in Parliament of debts contracted with tallymen by labourers' wives and daughters would cease. I do not quite follow your remarks as to Mr. Commissioner Kerr. Cer. tainly that judge has had very large experience, pass the intermediate examination. It is well known that the general examination of the Inns of Court is, to say the least, of a severe nature; and it is surely absurd to require anyone who, by passing it, has fulfilled what is now an essential qualification for a call to the bar to pass the intermediate in the event of his wishing to become X. a solicitor. The alterations in the law as to the service of 97. DOG TRESPASSING.-A. finds a dog hunting game on his land, the dog is the property of B. A. goes to B. he will shoot the dog. Has A. a right to do so? X. 98. LAW OF BANKING.-With reference to the statutes limiting the issues by Country bankers of notes payable on demand, and authorising such bankers to draw bills of exchange, at not exceeding 21 days after date, on their London correspondents on unstamped paper, and to pay a composition in lieu of stamp duty upon such bank notes and bills of exchange; would a banking company, when its circulation of notes is at the extent of its limit, be justified in drawing and issuing such drafts, using the name of one of its own clerks in the bank as payee of such bills of exchange? It is assumed that the object of using such bills of exchange would be to obtain a circulation exceeding the statutable limit, and that no value had been given by the payee on the making thereof. LAW SOCIETIES. Z. Bankrupts. Gazette, April 17. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. BROOKS, GEORGE, and BROOKS, JOHN, wood dealers, Bredhurst. Pet. April 14. Reg. Scudamore. Sur. April 30 Reg. Bencraft. Sur. April 25 Gazette, April 21. THE thirty-second half-yearly general meeting of Benevolent Association was held last Wednesday, the members and friends of the Solicitors' at the hall of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, for the purpose of receiving the OSBORNE, JAMES GODOLPHIN, accountant, the Crescent, Clap half-yearly report and statement of accounts from the directors, and to transact other business. ARTICLED CLERKS' SOCIETY. The chair was taken by Mr. Park Nelson; and OUR readers should be aware of the existence of amongst those present were Messrs. Williams, this society, which hold its meetings in the imme-Young, Smith, Redpath and Janson. Rendfoot, Brook, Williamson, Styan, Girand, diate vicinity of the law offices. The subscription is nominal, the advantages to be gained by persevering membership are beyond question. The questions are not of a merely technical character, but are sufficiently elastic and comprehensive to afford to speakers an opportunity to display their oratorical powers, and exhibit their acquaintance with matters interesting to the Profession. Members entering the society between the 2nd of April and the 2nd Nov. pay for the first year a subscription of 5s. All communications as to membership or otherwise are to be addressed to F. J. Baker, Hon. Sec. Rugby Chambers, Great James-street, Bedford-row, W.C. The Legal Correspondence Department of the above Society (an excellent medium for learning and discussing moot points of law), is open to all law-students without election or other preliminary. Annual subscription 2s. 6d. Full information may be obtained on application to J. S. Rubinstein, Hon. Sec., 5, Raymond-buildings, Gray's-inn, W.C.. Articled clerks should support all societies of this kind. SOCIATION. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. THE following circular has been issued by the council of the Incorporated Law Society: PROPOSED UNION OF THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY WITH THE METROPOLITAN AND PROVINCIAL LAW ASMore than a year ago, the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association mooted the question of the advisability of its dissolution, with a view to its merging in the Incorporated Law Society, which it was conidered would, under its new constitution, adequately represent the whole body of attorneys and solicitors, including the country section, whose interests the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association had been supposed to take more especially under their charge. A resolution was passed at the annual general meeting of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association in June 1872, to the effect that the managing committee should report at or before the next general meeting whether it would be for the advantage of the association that it should be amalgamated with the Incorporated Law Society, and if so, upon what terms, and that if necessary the managing committee should confer in the meantime with the council of the Incorporated Law Society on the subject. The Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association having ascertained, by means of a circular, that a very widely spread feeling existed that it would be advantageous to the Profession that the two societies should be united, entered upon a correspondence with the council of this society with reference to the terms apon which, on the dissolution of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, the council would be prepared to recommend the admission to this society of such members of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association as were not already members of it. A committee of the council had several meetings with a sub-committee of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, at which the terms and conditions of such admission were fully discussed. Some stipulations, made by the latter, were considered inadmissible, but the council, in December last, took upon themselves to inform the committee of management of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association that they were willing to recommend the proposed union to the members of this society upon the understanding that this society should hold, in the autumn of each year, a provincial meeting similar, as nearly as might be, to the autumnal provincial meetings which have been hitherto held by the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, and also that those members of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, who were not members of the Incorparated Law Society, should be admitted into membership, without entrance fee or ballot, on payment of the same annual subscription as that paid by the other members of this society. These terms were ultimately accepted by the committee of management of the Metropolitan and Pro. vincial Law Association, and, by a resolution of that association, passed at a general meeting of its members held on the 11th March last, it was resolved that the report of the committee of management be received and adopted, and that the association be dissolved accordingly as from the first day of Easter Term then next. In connection with this subject, the expediency of offering to the younger members of the Profession some further encouragement to join the society has been discussed. An impression exists that the necesBity for payment of the entrance fee may have deterred many persons who have been recently admitted on the roll from becoming members of the society, and the council recommend that the entrance fee of solicitors who may be proposed as members within five years from their first admission shall be reduced to the Solicitors taking out Town certificates... Country Jowing amounts, viz. £2 convening the meeting and also the minutes of A further sum of £800 had been invested in the previous account) had been £1361 18s. 44. The Chairman, in moving that the report and statement of the accounts be adopted and printed and circulated, congratulated the meeting on the satisfactory condition of the association. Within the last few days they had received from the Gloucestershire Law Society a cheque for 10 guineas towards the fund, this being the eighth donation from the same source; and to-day they had received from Miss Capes, daughter of Mr. George Capes, a deceased director, her fourth annual donation of £5. (Applause.) RICHMOND, CHARLES, grocer, Birmingham. Pet. April 17. Reg. BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED. BATTING, RICHARD, grocer, Falmouth. Pet. April 14. May 7, at BOORE, CHARLES, upholsterer, Brighton. Pet. April 15. May 4, BROADBELT, ROBERT, cattle dealer, Wakefield. Pet. April 11. April 28, at eleven, at office of Sols. Barratt and Senior, Wakefield The motion having been seconded and carrled, Mr. Girand moved "That the thanks of this meeting be and are hereby presented to the direc- BRYANT, WILLIAM WAY, coal merchant, Weymouth, and Wyke tors and auditors for their services during the past half year." This resolution was seconded by Mr. Rendford, and carried. Regis. Pet. April 11. May 4, at twelve, at the Auction Mart BUM FORD, JOSEPH, victualler, Bristol. Pet. April 10. May 6, at BURNET, JOHN, travelling draper, Nottingham. Pet. April 14. Mr. Redpath moved, Mr. Styan seconded, and BUTLER, HENRY WILLIAM, floor cloth manufacturer, Phipps. it was also carried, "That the thanks of this meeting be and are hereby presented to the council of the Incorporated Law Society for permitting the use of their hall for the meeting of this association." bridge, Merton. Pet. April 13. April 29, at one, at the Guild. COSSTICK, GEORGE FREDERICK, grocer, Brighton. Pet. April 14. Some conversation then ensued regarding the publishing of the "obituary of members" in the book which is circulated amongst the members; Cox, JAMES RICHARD, pastry cook, Southsea. Pet. April 14. and it was fully decided to continue its publication, it being urged that such obituary had its advantages, and was a convenient thing to refer to. Mr. Williams moved, and Mr. Brock seconded, a cordial vote of thanks to the chairman for presiding on the occasion, and the proceedings terminated. UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON. April 30, at half-past three, at office of Sol. Walker, Landport thenchmbs, Nicholas st, Becom FORSTER, EDWARD, schoolmaster, Buckingham Palace-rd, and FOWLER, CHARLES WALTER, cut of business, Walton. Pet. May 1, at three, at office of Sols. Reddish and Lake, Stockport AT a meeting of the Union Society of London, at FOWLER, FRANK, pawnbroker, Heaton Norris. Pet. April 15. FRITH, JOHN, grocer, Burnage, near Withington. Pet. April 14. PROMOTIONS AND APPOINT-GRAY, JOHN, builder, Ramsgate. N.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature MR. THOMAS JANMAN, of the city of Chichester, Bench. A special general meeting of the incorporated Law MR. FREDERICK MORGAN (Bartley, Saxton, to them. ampton. Pet. April 10. April 23, at three, at office of Sol. Becke, Northampton GOLDSTRAW, THOMAS, furniture dealer, Goldenhill, and Burslem Pet. April 8. April 27, at eleven, at the Copeland Arms inn Stoke-on-Trent. Sol. Sherratt, Kidsgrove Pet. April 15. April 30, af three, at 1, York-st, Ramsgate. Sol. Edwards, Ramsgate GUEST, JAMES ELIAS, builder, Dean-ter, Forest-hill. Pet April 8. April 27, at eleven, at office of Sols. Howard and Co., New Bridge-st HANNELL, EDWARD, grocer, Davies st, Berkeley-sq, and Fulhamrd. Pet. April 15. May 4, at twelve, at office of Chatteris, Nichols, and Chatteris, 1, Gresham-bldgs, Basinghall-st. Sol. Sawbridge HARRISON, JOHN, and LETT, SAMUEL, timber merchants, Liver pool, Pet. April 14. May 5, at three, at office of Messrs Har mood and Banner, accountants, 24, North John-st, Liverpool Sols. Whitley ahd Maddock, Liverpool HAWLEY, EDWARD, bootmaker, West Ham. Pet. April 11 April 30, at eleven, at office of Sols. Barker and Lane, Bedford HAYNES, JAMES, joiner, Derby. Pet. April 14. May 5, at twelve at office of Sol. Leech, Derby sail cloth manufacturers, Mark-la. Pet. April 14 May 4, at 470 HERBERT, LEVI JOHN, victualler, New Shoreham. Pet. April 15. HODGES, SAMUEL, beerhouse keeper, Tewkesbury. Pet. April 8. JEFFERSON, JOHN, corn and flour dealer, Leeds. Pet. April 10. BORD, SOLOMON, grocer, Stacksteads, in Rossendale. Pet. April HALLETT, MARY, and MALLETT, FANNY, corn dealers and bakers, YNN, WILLIAM PARKER DE MORLEY, and BALL, JAMES BALL, JOHN, grazier, Pendleton, Pendlebury, Clifton and Salford. BAYLOR, JAMES WHITELEGGE, carpet manufacturer, Brighouse. EWSOME, CHARLES, ribbon manufacturer, Kenilworth, and NEWTON, ISAAC, and ALDRIDGE, WILLIAM, auctioneers, Seven PERRY, RICHARD, joiner, Lockwood. Pet. April 14. April 29, at PHILLIPS, THOMAS, jeweller, Birmingham and Handsworth. Pet. PHILLIPS, WILLIAM, publican, March. Pet. April 13. PINK, THOMAS, builder, Willesden. Pet. April 11. April 30. at RIPPINGHAM, MARY ANN, grocer, Tipton. Pet. April 14. May ROBINSON, EBENEZER, tailor, Luton. Pet. April 13. May 5, at Pet. RODOCANACHI, DEMETRIUS, and RODOCANACHI, THEODORE, Pet. RUSSELL, WILLIAM, hotel keeper, Pontrilas. Pet. April 10. May 4, at eleven, at the Green Dragon hotel, Hereford, Sols. James and Bodenham, Hereford BALTER, JOHN, innkeeper, Chudleigh. Pet. April 15. May 5, at one, at office of Sol. Fryer, Exeter SANDERS, HENRY, grocer, Ticehurst. Pet. April 11. April 28, at twelve, at offices of Ladbury, Collison, and Viney, 99, Cheapside. Sols. Sole, Turner, and Turner, Aldermanbury BAUNDERS, SAMUEL, fish salesman, Manchester. Pet. April 14. April 28, at eleven, at office of Sols. Rideal and Shaw, Manchester SEAFORD, JOSEPH, draper, Brixham. Pet. April 8. May 2, at SHELDON, JOHN CHARLES, cabinet maker, Congleton. STOKES, JOHN, ironmonger, hardwareman, and general dealer, HORNTON, EDWIN, machine maker, Millbridge-in-Liversedge. RICHARD, TROMAS, GRIFFITHS, EDWARD, and GLORGE, RICHARD, iron THYTELEY, Jens, joiner, Halifax. Pet. April 13. April 29. at tice of Sol. Crossley. Halifax WILCOCK, THOMAS, milk dealer, Altrincham. April 29, at three, at office of Sols. Gardner and Horner, Man- WILLIAMS, ISAAC, grocer, Sedgley. Pot. April 14. April 30, at WOOD, WILLIAM, plumber, Wiveliscombe. Pet. April 13. May 1, DE MARIA, GUISEPPE, Italian warehouseman, Brewer-st. April Gazette, April 21. ADAMS, HENRY, carpenter, Ketley Sand. Pet. April 17. May 6, BABRER, JOSEPH, pawnbroker, Liverpool. Pet. April 16. May 5, BRITTON, JOSEPH ABRAHAM, fancy warehouseman, Hounds- BROWN, DANIEL, cutlery manufacturer, Sheffield. Pet. April 15. April 30, at twelve, at office of Messrs. Lovering, 35, Gresham-st. CAKE, PERCIVAL, out of business, Weston-super-Mare. Pet. COHN, GUSTAVE, rag merchant, Fieldgate-st, Whitechapel. Pet. street COLLINS, THOMAS WEDGE, jeweller, Birmingham. Pet. April 18. DAPP, TRAYTON, carpenter, Hove. Pet. April 13. May 5, at DAVIS, JOHN, licensed victualler, Redditch. Pet. April 16. May ford DOBRING, FREDERIC CROUTEL, wholesale grocer, Savage-gdns, DYSON, GEORGE, Quarryman, Saddleworth. Pet. April 16. May. 2, at two, at the White Swan Inn, Huddersfield. Sol. Freeman, FINLEY, FRANCIS JAMES, tailor, Wigan. Pet. April 17. May 2, FROST, WILLIAM, boot manufacturer, Birmingham. Pet. April HICKMAN, JAMES, builder, Manchester. Pet. April 17. May 13, INSALL, EDWIN, boot manufacturer, Tewkesbury. Pot. April 17. JAHN, JOHN GEORGE, and MEHL, WILLIAM ERNEST, merchants, JONES, THOMAS EVAN, clerk in holy orders, Bettws Evan. Pet. MANN, GEORGE, cloth manufacturer, Leeds. Pet. April 16. May Pet MARKHAM, ARTHUR THOMAS BENJAMIN, jeweller, Rathbone pl, 29, at eleven, at office of Sol. Willis, St. Martin's-ct, Leicester- Pet. April 18. May 4, at three, at offices of Sol. Wood, Birmingham Pet. METCALFE, JOHN, upholsterer. Pet. April 16. May 1, at three, Pet. MURDOCK, HENRY STANTON, pork butcher, Hastings. Pet. April 15. May 6, at eleven, at cfilee of Sol. Smoothy, Braintree PAICE, WILLIAM, corn dealer, Peading. Pet. April 17. May 4, Lyn, Gwyddelwern. Pet. [APRIL 25, 1874. PEARCE, THOMAS, baker, Swinton. Pet. April 16. May 4, at ROBINSON, RICHARD, farmer, Darlington. Pet. April 11. May 4, SMITH, GEORGE, draper, Liverpool. Pet. April 16. May 4, at SNOW, HENRY DODD, draper, Mile-end-rd. Pet. April 18. May 8, STANSFIELD, MITCHELL, boot and shoe makor, Hebdon Bridge. STEPHENSON, JAMES, hosier, Birmingham. TAYLOR, HARRY, woollen draper, Hackney rd. Pet. April 16 street TENNANT, MARY ELIZABETH, dressmaker, Northallerton. Pet. WEST, JAMES, grocer, Wallingford. Pet. April 15. May 2, at May 4, at two, at the Chamber of Commerce, Cheapside, London. Sal Walker, Londport WHITE, JOHN cab driver, Upper Chenies-mows, Bedford-square. Pet. April 20. May 7, at twelve, at office of Sol. Johnson, High st, Marylebone WILLIAM SNITH, carpenter, Lakenham. Pet. April 17. May 4, at twelve, at office of Sols. Emerson and Sparrow, Norwich WILLIAMS, EBENEZER, provision dealer, Bethesda. Pet. April 13. April 30, at one, at the Albion Hotel, Bangor. Sols, Barber and Hughes, Bangor WILSON, HENRY, grocer, Reading. Pet. April 15. twelve, at office of Sols. Tidy, Herbert, and Tidy, Reading an oppressive tax upon all classes of the community. MONEY £20,000 READY |