Page images

ORGANISATION AMONG SOLICITORS. A PAPER read at the meeting of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, at Birmingham, by Mr. Marshall, M.A., solicitor, Registrar of the Leeds County Court, and hon. sec. of the Leeds Incorporated Law Society, containing the follow. ing observations :

Organisation of the Profession.

I use these words to describe the manner in which the forces at the disposal of our branch of the Profession are applied to secure the ends which we desire. In order to determine whether this organisation is good or bad it is necessary to estimate, first, the amount of the force at disposal, and, secondly, the result produced by that force. If the result be considerable in proportion to the forces involved, we shall conclude the organisation to be good; if inconsiderable, we shall conclude it to be bad. Now the force at disposal, and which a theoretically perfect organisation would render effective, is the influence, direct or indirect, of some 10,000 attorneys (the real numbers are 10,350, of whom 3600 practise in London, 6750 in the country), spread like a net over the face of the country; collected in large numbers in the centres of population and business, more sparsely distributed in thinlypeopled districts, arranged, in fact, in a kind of rough proportion to the importance of the particular district. And the course of business is such that the attorneys of a given town or district are necessarily thrown together and know each other; they are acquainted more or less with the leading practitioners in the neighbourhood, and they are certainly associated with an agent in London of their own profession.

Influence of Solicitors.

While the nature of their business tends to throw them together, it also tends to give them considerable influence, especially in public and quasi-public affairs. These affairs have almost invariably their legal side, on which the opinion and assistance of a lawyer is desired, and he thus has an opportunity of causing his opinion to be felt without appearing to obtrude it on matters outside the professional sphere. It will be conceded that the force at the disposal of our profession is not only considerable in itself, but exercised under conditions which enable it to be used with great effect. To what effect and purpose has it been used? The answer to this question is really very curious. Our position as regards the State is this. The State says to us, "It is of importance to the community that you gentlemen should be properly qualified for your duties, and, therefore, we will take unusual precautions in your case. We will examine you before you enter upon your professional studies; we will examine you while you are engaged in them, and when you have finished them. You must be articled to some member of your own calling, and you must pay a considerable stamp duty for the privilege. You will, of course, have to pay an annual tax for the liberty to practice. But we must take care that you do not abuse the liberty. We will, therefore, frame a scale to regulate your charges, and we will be slow to alter that scale. You are officers of our courts, and, therefore, our judges have the fullest and most arbitrary powers over you. You are at liberty to make as much money as you can under these conditions, but the prizes of your own Profession are not for you." Such is our position as regards the State, and it is not so good but that it might easily be improved. The two branches of the Profession, the certificate duty and the reservation of all important appointments for the Bar, are matters which would bear a little alteration. It might not be an unwholesome change if we were permitted to exercise in all the Superior Courts the right of speech which is at present limited to the Court of Bankruptcy. I am not aware that any subversion of the relations between ourselves and the Bar has followed from that particular concession. What has happened is exactly what might have been expected. In important matters the most experienced barristers are engaged points of practice and cases which will not bear expense are argued by the solicitor, in whose hands the business lies, and with entirely satisfactory results. Remuneration.

the most limited kind. Any human being may advertise himself as a law agent; he may advise, prepare all kinds of documents, and if he take the precaution to get paid beforehand and to keep clear of proceedings in court, he may do an attorney's business on his own terms. He is liable to an action for negligence, but so are It is plain that we do not get, in the shape of state protection, an equivalent for the stamp duties we pay and the regulated charges we submit to.


Solicitors Officers af the Court. But we are officers of the courts. And why are we officers of the courts ? Because in the old time the appointment of an attorney was a branch of the royal prerogative. The king granted a monopoly to practise law as he granted a monopoly to sell wine or salt. It is for the members of a liberal profession to consider whether it is consistent with their dignity and interest that they should be subordinates of the courts, and as such, liable to dismissal at the discretion of the judges, or whether it would not be better that they should follow their calling with the same responsibilities and under the same obligations to the general law and to public opinion as other members of the community. I say nothing of minor matters, such as our exclusion from the Inns of Court and the like; but, looking at our position broadly, and considering how much the State exacts and how little it gives in return, I maintain that there is urgent need of some change; that a body of men having the very great power, which I assume attorneys to possess, should allow things to remain as they are, can only be explained by supposing that our power is not available, and is known not to be available, for concerted action. This is the conclusion at which I think everyone must arrive who contrasts the means we have with the result obtained by those means. Given, the present circumstances and professional status of attorneys, and their opportunities of improving those circumstances, it follows, from a comparison of one and the other, that our organisation must be bad.

Machinery of the Profession.

The same conclusion will be drawn from an

examination of the machinery actually at work. It is not well adapted to secure its ends. Let us consider what that machinery is. It consists of three parts-the Incorporated Law Society, the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Society, and thirty-four local law societies.

The Incorporated Law Society is a corporation consisting of about 2500 members, of whom more than one-third are country practitioners, and it has been in existence nearly half a century. (The members of the Incorporated Law Society were, on the 29th July, 1873, London members, 1806; country members, 689-total, 2495.) It is in many respects the official and accredited representative of our branch of the profession, and it is invested by the various Acts of Parliament with important duties relating to the examination, admission, and registration of attorneys and solicitors. It is, in a sense, the guardian of the profession, and the censor of its morals. All law bills, and especially bills directly affecting us, are watched by its Council, who frequently interfere with good effect during their progress through Parliament. But it is only in a limited sense the representative of the profession at large, considerably more than two-thirds of whom do not belong to it. A large number both of its members and of those who are not members complain of its policy, as too acquiescent-with what justice it is immaterial here to consider. One thing is clear; were the Incorporated Law Society disposed to be ever so active, the effective force which it could wield would be in no sense commensurate either with the needs or with the aggregate power of those on whose behalf it would assume to act. Suppose, for example, that some Chancellor of the Exchequer were to propose to increase the solicitors' certificate duty. What would the Incorporated Law Society do? It would no doubt prepare an able and conclusive statement on the question. Its council would address the Government, and would be listened to with the polite attention which people who have made up their minds bestow on adverse critics. Representation in the House of Commons. Some members of Parliament who are directly accessible to the council would be induced to support them. Then the scale of costs requires revision, as- The pressure of public opinion could not be suming that we are to have a scale of costs. brought to bear; if it came into the scale it would Physicians, barristers, engineers, land surveyors, probably be on the wrong side. A contest of this and accountants ask what they think they can kind is fought in the lobbies. Now, what would get, and the best of them get pretty nearly what be the answer of the gentlemen who advises the they choose to ask. The profits of mercantile Government on such matters where he asked the men are only limited by the effect of competition. probable result of a division depending on the The wage-earing population have succeeded by efforts of the Incorporated Law Society? It is combination in obtaining an advance which goes not necessary to answer that question. I have put far to meet the increased cost of the necessaries a case affecting our interests only, and uncompliof life. But our tariff is the same, and unless we cated with other considerations; still one on take steps to raise it nobody else will. If it be which the Incorporated Law Society would be objected that we get a monopoly as a set-off to bound to exert its whole strength, and I maintain this fixed charge, I reply that the monopoly is of that if we had to fight out such a battle with no

other resources, and no other machinery than such as the Incorporated Law Society could furnish, we should be hopelessly beaten. The society is not furnished with arms for this warfare. It has no means of getting at the 600 and odd members of the House of Commons. It has no means of getting at those who can influence those members.

Incorporated Law Society as representing

In Manchester, out of 295 practising solicitors, thirteen only belong to the Incorporated Law Society. In Liverpool, out of 283 solicitors, it counts sixteen members only. In Birmingham, with 193 solicitors, it numbers twenty-four. In Bristol with 189 solicitors, there are ten who belong to it; and in Leeds, with 104 solicitors, five only are of that society.

The Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association occupies somewhat different ground. It has 614 members, 194 of whom are London solicitors, and 420 country solicitors; while in the Incorpo rated Law Society the country members form about one-third of the whole body, in the Metropolitan and Provincial Association they form more than two-thirds. I need not describe the consti tution of a society to which we all belong, nor need I say much as to the work it does. By its autumn meetings it has rendered us an invaluable service; it has brought representatives of the whole Profession together; it has made us acquainted with each other; it has rendered co-operation on a large scale possible. In this and in its provincial connection it contributes precisely that element of strength which is wanting to the Incorporated Law Society. But I am doing it no injustice in saying that in every other respect it is less powerful and less complete in its administrative machinery than the sister association. The actual work of this association is conducted in Londonnecessarily and inevitably the London members on the spot conduct it, just as the London members of the Incorporated Law Society, being on the spot, conduct its business. And I am not aware that there are any sufficient means of directing from this London office the power which is undoubtedly given by the wide-spread local connection of the associa tion. I do not forget the Northern Union, but from some reason or another that experiment has not worked well. With its own members the association communicates of course, but those members scarcely constitute more than a twentieth of the Profession. Sending circulars to individuals We know the fate which awaits circulars. Granted is not a hopeful way of inducing energetic action. that that which I believe has never yet been all the towns in which the Metropolitan and Proattempted were done, and committees formed in vincial Association possesses sufficient members to form a working body, what would that amount to ? At most to this-that active influences might be set up in some twenty or thirty different centres. That falls far short of our requirements. Considering then, that the ground in London is already occupied by the Incorporated Law Society, and that the ground in the country is, for purposes of conjoint action, scarcely occupied at all, I am led to conclude that this society is not an effective machine for the organisation of the proIncorporated Law Society nor in union with it, fession, and that, neither independently of the does it furnish adequate means for bringing to a focus the considerable, but diffused, force at our


Local Law Societies.

I now come to this, the third and only remaining part of our existing machinery.

There are 6750 country solicitors in England and Wales, carrying on business in 1319 towns and villages. There are just thirty-five local law societies, some of which are probably rather in existence than in active operation. Let us consider the distribution of these thirty-five societies.

The county of Northumberland possesses one, at Newcastle. The county of Cumberland pos sesses one, at Carlisle. Westmoreland has one at Kendal, and Durham one at Sunderland. Lanca shire owns five; Manchester, Liverpool, Preston, Lancaster, and Bolton-le-Moors. Yorkshire has three, namely, Leeds, Hull, and the Yorkshire Society at York. The county of Lincoln is represented by the society of Lincoln; the county of Stafford counts the societies of Wolverhamptom and Bilston, and Leicestershire the society of Leicester. Worcestershire has one representative at Worcester, and Warwickshire one in the active society of this town. There are law societies in Northampton, and Cambridge for those counties. Suffolk gives us Bury St. Edmunds; and there is one at Buckingham. Gloucestershire has two, one at Gloucester and one at Bristol; and Devonshire has two at Exeter and Plymouth respectively. The county of Somerset has two, one at Bath and a county society whose head quarters are at Taunton; and the county of Dorset one at Dorchester. Hampshire, Kent, Surrey, and Sussex are each represented by one county law society, while in Wales, Denbighshire and Flintshire have a joint

society, and Anglesea and Carnarvon a joint Society likewise. Of the forty English counties sixteen are unrepresented by any law society. Those counties are Nottingham, Derby, Chester, Salop, Rutland, Norfolk, Hereford, Huntingdon, Bedford, Hertford, Essex, Oxford, Berks, Wilts, Monmouth, Cornwall. In Wales it suffices to say that none of the twelve counties are represented, except the four which form the northern boundary of the principality. Considering, then, the geographical distribution of our thirty-five law societies, we find that twelve belong to the six counties north of the Humber; twelve belong to the twenty-three counties of the Midland District, including in that division those which lie on the north of a line connecting Gloucester with Ipswich and south of the six northern counties; and nine to the ten counties south of that line. In Wales the two law societies are confined to the four northern counties. The northern and southern counties are therefore relatively the best represented; the northern counties having an average of two law societies each, and the southern counties something less than one each, while the Midland counties possess as nearly as possible an average of one law society for every two counties. (To be continued.)

[ocr errors]

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WILL INTERPOLATED SHEET PRESUMP. TION.-Testator's will was engrossed on fifteen sheets of paper by a law stationer. They were numbered consecutively, and on a sheet numbered sixteen, testator had written a codicil, and on another sheet, numbered eighteen, a schedule of plate, pictures, &c., referred to in his will. At testator's death the will was found with the original page four taken out, and a page substituted in the testator's handwriting, the numbering of which had been altered from seventeen to four. The several sheets were tied up with red tape, and the original page four was found loose in the testator's davenport. Held, that in the absence of any direct evidence, the presumption was, that when the will was executed the pages were bound together, and were in the same state as when it was found after the testator's death: (Rees v. Rees and Rees, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 374. Prob.).

SOLICITOR AND CLIENT-COSTS CHARGING ORDER PROPERTY RECOVERED OR PRESERVED -23 & 24 VICT. c. 127, s. 28.-A solicitor is not entitled to a charging order under 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 28, in respect of costs incurred by him whilst acting for the plaintiffs in a suit in which a decree has been made for the administration of a testator's estate, and for the appointment of a new trustee where proceedings in the suit have been stopped by the plaintiff after the decree has been carried into chambers and accounts brought in by the defendant, and no certificate has been made by the chief clerk, and no new trustee appointed: (Pinkerton v. Easton, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 364. M. R.)

WILL-TRUST TO LAY OUT PERSONALTY IN LAND TO GO ALONG WITH SETTLED PROPERTYOUTLAYS IN REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS ON SETTLED PROPERTY.-A testator by his will directed his trustees to lay out his residuary personalty in the purchase of lands, to go along with certain settled property. Held, that the court had no power to direct part of the residuary personalty to be laid out upon repairs and improvements on the settled estate: Re Lord Hotham's Trusts (L. Rep. 12 Eq. 76), not followed: Brunskill v. Caird, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 365. M. R.)


PROMISSORY NOTE-İNTEREST-INSTALMENT OF A CERTAIN SUM OR MORE-INDEFINITE TIME FOR FINAL PAYMENT.-Defendant, on the 25th April 1872, promised in writing to pay to the plaintiff £170, with interest at 5 per cent. as follows: The first payment, to wit, £40 or more, to be paid on the 1st Feb. 1873, and £5 on the fi rst day of each month following, until the note and interest should be fully satisfied. Upon default in pay. ment of any of the said instalments, the full amount then remaining due was to be forthwith payable. Held, that this was a valid promissory note: (Cooke v. Horn, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 369. Q.B.) PATENT-GENERAL AGENT-INFRINGEMENT -PARTICIPATION IN PROFITS-RIGHT TO SUEDEMURRER. To a bill stating an agreement made between a general agent of the patentees of an American invention to introduce and sell the invention in Great Britain, and the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff was to have the sole agency and control of the working of the patent in England, upon certain terms, including a share of royalties and profits, praying for an account for damages, and an injunction to restrain future infringement, the defendants, who were alleged to be using the invention, demurred. Held, that the plaintiff was a mere agent for the sale of the invention, and was in no such position as gave him the right to file such a bill, which was in the form of a patentee's bill for infringement: (Adams v. The North British Railway Company, 29 L. T. Rep. N. §. 367. V.C. W.)

COSTS-COPYRIGHT-PIRACY-INQUIRY AS TO PROFITS.-Where in a suit for the infringement of copyright the chief clerk's certificate, made in pursuance of the decree, was, on the application of the plaintiff, referred back to the chief clerk and subsequently confirmed, the court refused to make any order as to the costs of the summons and subsequent reference: (Kelly v. Hodge, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 387. V.C. B.).


INNKEEPER- Loss oF VALUABLES GENCE.-Where a guest at an inn has an opportunity given him of securing valuables in his possession, by giving them over to the custody of the innkeeper or otherwise, and neglects such opportunity: Held, by the Court of Exchequer (Kelly, C.B., and Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott, BB.), that his conduct amounts to such negligence as to deprive him of his rignt to recover against the innkeeper, in case of such valuables being lost or stolen: (Jones v. Jackson, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 399. Ex.)


[ocr errors]

SUSPENSION OF BY SUPERIOR COURTS-DIFFERENCE IN PRACTICE.-When an attorney and solicitor has, for misconduct, been suspended by order of one of the courts of equity from practising in the Court of Chancery for ten years, the Court of Exchequer, upon proof and verification being laid before it, by affidavits, of, first, copies of the petition and order of the court of equity and the affidavit used there on the hearing of the petition; secondly, a transcript of a shorthand writer's notes of the judgment of suspension in Chancery; and thirdly, the identity of the attorney-will grant a rule nisi for suspension for a like period from practising in that court, and such rule will make itself absolute, without being further moved, in default of cause being shown within the time therein limited. In the Court of Queen's Bench, in such a case, the rule is granted absolute in the first instance, whilst the practice of the Court of Common Pleas in a similar case is to grant a rule to show cause: Re C. Wright (1 Ex. 658; 17 L. J. 128), and Re Brutton (26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 33; 41 L. J. 58, C. P) cited Re Marshall Turner (29 L. T. Rep. N.S. 345. Ex.).


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

CONVEYANCE-COVENANT FOR CERTAIN LAND ΤΟ BE NEVER SOLD," BUT LEFT FOR THE COMMON BENEFIT OF BOTH PARTIESVALIDITY - CONSTRUCTION. A deed of conveyance contained an agreement that certain land, described in the deed, should "never be hereafter sold, but should be left for the common benefit of both parties and their successors." In a suit brought to compel the removal of a house alleged to have been built on the said land in contravention of the said agreement. Held (reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Halifax, Nova Scotia), that the agreement was one the performance of which might be enforced in equity, because (1) on the true construction of its terms it amounted, not to a perpetual restriction of sale, but to an agreement on the part of the grantor to leave the land in the state in which it was at the time of the conveyance; and (2) the agreement contemplated, not an uncertain and indefinite use of the land by the parties, but that the land should be left open for the advantage of the parties as adjoining proprietors: (McKlean v. McKay, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 353. Priv. Con.)

SUMMONS BEFORE A MASTER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, OR TO REMIT THE CAUSE TO A COUNTY COURT.-By the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 68, s. 1, the superior judges are directed to make general rules empowering the masters of the courts to do any such thing and to transact any such business, tion in respect of the same, as by virtue of any and to exercise any such authority and jurisdic. statute or custom, or by the rules and practice of the said courts are now done, transacted, or exercised by a judge of the said courts sitting at chambers. And by the General Rules of Michaelmas Term 1867, the judges ordered that the masters should transact all such business, except certain matters therein excepted. By a subsequent Act (30 & 31 Vict. c. 142) it is enacted by sect. 10 that it shall be lawful for anyone against whom any action of tort may be brought in a Superior Court, to make an affidavit that the plaintiff has no visible means of paying the costs of the defendant, should a verdict not be found for the plaintiff, and thereupon a judge of the court shall have power to make an order that unless the plaintiff shall, within a time to be therein mentioned, give full security for the defendant's costs, to the satisfaction of one of the masters, or satisfy the judge that he has a cause of action fit to be prosecuted to the Superior Court, all proceedings in the action shall be stayed, or in the event of the plaintiff being unable or unwilling to give such security, or failing to satisfy the judge as aforesaid, that the cause be remitted for trial before a County Court to be therein named : Held, that the master has jurisdiction, under the before-mentioned rules, to hear such an application: Held also, that the master having refused to make an order, the court will not review his decision: (Parker v. Roberts, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 402. Ex.)


FINAL EXAMINATION.-Can any of your readers

inform me where some practical hints as to the books to be read for this examination and where the method of reading them can be found ?-EPSILON BETA-[Apply to the Secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, for particulars of the lectures and classes; this will give you some clue, and inquire of someone lately passed. -ED. Sols.' Dept.]

When a clerk's articles expire in the long vacation, the first time he can offer himself for examination is in Trinity Term. If however he does not do this until Michaelmas, is it the prac tice of the examiners in such a case to take into consideration the extra time the candidate will have had to prepare himself and thus require more perfect answers than they would have done had he presented himself in Trinity Term.OMEGA. The examiners not being remunerated cannot be expected to and do not deal so precisely with applicants as is suggested by the question The object should be to win honours, not merely to pass.-ED. Sols.' Dept.]

[blocks in formation]

unique that I beg to send it to your journal. The AGENCIES.-The enclosed is so remarkably circular in question was placed under the door of my private house on Saturday night last by the billsticker's man. SUBSCRIBER.

(Under Professional auspices.)

Chief Offices:-192, Bute-road, Cardiff. A widespread want bas long been felt in the provinces,. and more especially in Welsh districts, of efficient, unencumbered, and highly experienced assistance in business and domestic matters, demanding the enlistment of thorough culture. As a rule, ordinary detectives, unavoidably, intermix with so vulgar a class, as necesmingle with its particular vein. Therefore, such men sarily to partake of its habits, and helplessly to interare rendered peculiarly unfit, for even temporary introduction into drawing rooms and other polite circles. That being so, satisfactory arrangements have been completed whereby, in painful domestic circumstances and delicate embarrassments of business, effectual and. experienced services are immediately available. The promoters of this agency are themselves gentlemen of good social position and undeniable business capabilities, that have been sharpened by lengthened and incessant services in such legal and general matters as peremptorily and invariably tend to mould the polished man of the world and complete man of business. These gentlemen can, at a moment's glance, point out the shoals and quicksands of life that are to be avoided, and surely rebuild, and safely pilot forth again into the calmest sea, smiling beneath an unsullied sky, the most shattered and hopeless social wrecks. They, therefore, confidently expect at the hands of a discriminating may always demand at the hands of Britons. It must public, that liberal patronage that talent and experience be remembered that the agency is under the immediate direction of a solicitor of many years professional experience, that has been principally derived from the very morning to night, it likewise commands the ever watchfirst London and Provincial law offices; whilst, from ful and energetic services of a gentleman of thorough experience in all matters of everyday, as well as peculiar and especial business. The agency has further at its ciples:-A consultation fee of three guineas is, in the immediate command, a potential staff of able and reliable men. The charges are based on the following prinfirst instance, payable by every patron, and at the same time, a further sum, proportionable to the distance to be travelled, &c., is agreed upon aud arranged. A final agreement, providing for the payment of a further sum, in proportion to the amount of success achieved, is at cations must, in the first instance, be addressed to the the same time prepared and executed. All communiGeneral Manager, Mr. HENRY WILLIAMS, or to WM. DAVIES, Esq., Solicitor, at the chief oflices of the agency, 192, Bute-road, Cardiff.


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.] FARRANT (Sarah), Chertsey, Surrey, spinster, £150 Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant. said Sarah Farrant. LANDER (John Drought), Moyclare, King's Co., Esq.. HEALY (Rev. Robert), Tyrrel's Pass, Westmeath, and FRAZER Robert Enraght), Ferbane, King's Co., Esq., £299 Ss. Three per Cent Annuities. Claimants, said John. Drought Lander, Rev. Robert Healy, and Robert Enraght Frazer.

MIREHOUSE (Agnes), Upper Seymour-street, Portman

square, spinster, £74 68. Three per Cent Annuities, Claimant, Agnes Fisher, wife of the Rev. Cecil Edward Fisher, formerly Agnes Mirehouse, spinster. MORSE (Arthur), Swanham, Norfold, brewer, and MORSE (Rev. Herbert), Emsworth, Hants, clerk, £104 19s. 1ld. New Three per Cent Annuities. Claimants, Frances Denning, widow, sole executrix of Rev. Stephen Poyntz Denning, deceased, who was sole executor of Rev. Herbert Morse, deceased.

SMITH (Chas.), 21, Norfolk-st, Lower-road, Islington, Middlesex, gentleman, £215 128, 8d. New Three per Cert Annuities. Claimant, said Charles Smith.

WARNER (Rev. Geo. Brydges Lee); DANE (John). Canter-
bury and EDGELL (Alexander), Raymond-buildings,
Gray's-inn, Middlesex, gentleman; £3088 165. Reduced
Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said Rev. Geo.
Brydges Lee Warner, the survivor.
WELLER (Elizabeth Jane), West Wycombe, Bucks, spinster.
23 13. 3d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said
Elizabeth Jane Weller.

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. MORLEY (Geo.), Guisborough, York, landed proprietor. Next of kin to come in by Dec. 20, at the chambers of V. C. M. Jan 8, at the said chambers, at 12 o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.


CO-OPERATIVE OMNIBUS ASSOCIATION (Limited.)-Creditors to send in by Dec. 1 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to J. Cooper, 3, Coleman-streetbuildings, London, the official liquidator of the said association. Dec. 15, at the chambers of the M. R., at 11 o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

ESSEX BREWERY COMPANY (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in by Dec. 12 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to A. Thomas, 2. Adelaide-place, London-bridge. London, the official liquidator of the said company. Dec. 19, at the chambers of the M.R., at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

LA GAULOISE COMPANY (LIMITED).-Petition for winding. up to be heard Dec. 13, before the M.R. LICENSED VICTUALLBRS' CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATION (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in by Dec. 1, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to James Boyes, 2. Carey-lane, London, the official liquidator of the said association. Dec. 20, at the chambers of the M. R. at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

MALAGA LEAD COMPANY (LIMITED).-Petition for winding. up to be heard Dec. 6, before the M. R.

SATURN SILVER MINING COMPANY OF UTAH (LIMITED).— Petition for winding-up to be heard Dec. 5, before V.C. M. SKAGER HOLM ESTATE Co. (Limited).-Creditors to send in by Dec. 30 their names and addresses, and the particu lars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to L. Tiden, 34, Clement's-lane, London, the liquidator of the said company. Jan. 14, at the chambers of the M.R., at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.


BILLINGTON (Wm.), Nelson-street, Greenwich, Kent, undertaker. Dec. 15; Wm. Bristow, solicitor, Greenwich. Dec. 99, at twelve o'clock. BULL Henry W.), formerly of 12, Wilton-crescent, afterwards of 25. Ely-place, and late of 21, James-street, Buckingham-gate, Middlesex, gentleman. Dec. 6; J. C. Deverell, solicitor, 9, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, Middlesex. Dec. 22; M. R., at twelve o'clock. CARR (Ralph), 1, Savage-gardens, London, and Walthamstow, Essex, cork merchant. Dec. 6; B. F. French, solicitor, 51, Crutchedfriars, London. Dec. 15; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

CLEMENTS (Geo.), Ryde, Isle of Wight, Hampshire, brewer. Dec. 15; Chas, Cole, solicitor, Portsea. Jan. 8; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

COMBS (Joanna), 11, Belitha-villas, Barnsbury, Middlesex, spinster. Dec. 12; J. Combs, solicitor, 25, Bucklersbury, London. Dec. 22; V.C. B. at twelve o'clock. DEACON (Grosvenor), 155, Stanhope-street, Morningtoncrescent, Middlesex. gentleman. Dec. 1; E. Pope, solicitor, 12, Gray's-inn-square, Middlesex. Dec. 15; V.C. B. at twelve o'clock.

GOMON (Mary) formerly of Goodwyns East Cosham, Southampton, late of Granville House, Nelson-street, Ryde, Isle of Wight, widow. Dec. 8; F. Jackson, solicitor, 55, Chancery-lane, Middlesex. Dec. 15; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

GRAHAM (Chas. J.), Brighton, Sussex. Dec. 1; Crawley and Arnold, solicitors, 20, Whitehall-place, Middlesex. Dec. 5; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.

HIGTON (Ellen S.), Southport, Lancaster. Jan. 5; Blagg and Son, solicitors, Cheadle, Stafford. Jan. 15; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

HODGSON (Jos.), formerly of 12, Church-row, Limehouse, Middlesex, and late of 4, Tyndale place, Islington, Middlesex, iron merchant. Dec. 22; H. F. Pullen, solicitor, 2. Gresham-buildings, Guildhall, London. Jan. 14; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. HOLBOROW (Ethelbert), 18, Ledbury-streeet, Peckham, Surrey, elastic gusset manufacturer. Dec. 8: F. C. Adams, solicitor, 61, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex. Dec. 20; M. R., at twelve o'clock. HOLT Robert), Bury, Lancashire, timber merchant. Dec. 6: Thomas Dodds, solicitor, Bury. Dec. 15; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

HORN (John), Middleton-in-Teesdale, Durham, tailor and
draper. Dec. 5; Wm. Robinson, solicitor, Darlington.
Dec. 15; M. R,, at eleven o'clock.
HOYLE (Henry), Little Harwood, near Blackburn, Lan-
caster, gentleman. Dec. 15; H. J. Robinson, solicitor,
Blackburn. Jan. 9; M. R., at twelve o'clock,
HUGHES (Jenny), Netley Cottage, Fawley, Southampton,
widow. Dec. 4: J. Thomson, solicitor, 23, Great Win-
chester-street, London. Dec. 18; M.R., at twelve o'clock.
IRVING Wm.), Workington, Cumberland, colliery proprie-
tor. Dec. 13; A. Helder, solicitor, Whitehaven. Dec. 22;
V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.
PANNELL JOS., Liverpool, bookseller and stationer. Dec.
3: Thos. H. Sampson, solicitor, Liverpool. Dec. 23;
M.R., at eleven o'clock.

PHILLIPS John A. P.), 3, Alexander Villas, King Edward-
road, Hackney. Middlesex, warehouseman. Dec. 1; Geo.
Webb, solicitor. 3. Crosby-square, London. Dec. 12;
V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.
BESTALL (Henrietta),

101, Marylebone road, Middlesex, spinster. Dec. 15; Thos. S. Lewis, solicitor, 7, Wilming ton-square, Middlesex. Jan. 7; M. R. at eleven o'clock. RUSSELL (John), Terhill House, Cheltenham, Esq. Dec. 8; Chas. J. C. Prichard, solicitor, Bristol. Dec. 20; M. R. at twelve o'clock.

SAUSSE Sir Matthew R.), formerly Chief Justice of Bom. bay, late of 5, Hume-street, Dublin. Ireland. Feb. 14; A. Norris, solicitor, 2. Bedford-row, Middlesex. March 6; M. R., at eleven o'clock. STACKHOUSE (Thos.), Taitlands, Stainforth, Giggleswick, York, gentleman. Dec. 20; Wm. Hartley, solicitor, Settle. Jan. 13; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. TIZARD (John). Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, Dorset, solicitor, and late a partner in the firm of Eldridge, Pope, and Co., Dorchester, brewers. Dec. 17; H. T. George, solicitor, Weymouth. Jan. 12; M. R., at eleven o'clock. TURNER (Mary), Derwent-hill, Crosthwaite, Cumberland, widow. Jan. 12; V.C. H. at one o'clock. WESTBURY (Right Hon. Richard, Baron), Westbury, Wilts. and 75, Lancaster-gate, Hyde-park, Middlesex. Jan. 7; Harrison and Co., solicitors, 19, Bedford-row, Holborn, Middlesex, Jan. 21, M. R., at eleven o'clock.

WILDING (John), New Accrington, Lancaster, innkeeper. Dec. 16; H. Bannister, solicitor, Accrington, Dec. 22, V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.

Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ADAMS (Thos.), Nottingham and Lenton Firs, Lenton, Nottingham, Esq. Dec. 31; Watson and Wandsworth, solicitors, 13, Weekday Cross, Nottingham. ANDREW (Geo.), Ludworth, Derby, of Compstall, Chester, of Manchester and of Leamington, cotton manufacturer, calico printer, collier, and merchant. Jan. 6; Stevenson Lycett and Co., solicitors, Chancery-place, Manchester. ASHTON (Jas.), Mimwood, Herts, Esq. Jan. 12; Cunliffe and Leaf, solicitors, 56. Brown-street, Manchester. ASTON (Wm.), 1. St. Ethelbert-street, Hereford, solicitor. Dee. 25; 8. Farmer, solicitor, Hereford. BAINBRIDGE (John H.), Bishop Auckland, Durham, brewer. Jan. 1; J. Proud, solicitor, 16, Market-place, Bishop Auckland. BELLMAN (Rayner, Earl Soham, Suffolk. surgeon. Dec. 1; Kerrison and Preston, solicitors, Bank-street, Norwich. BENSON (Amelia St. George B.), formerly of Gloucesterplace, Portman-square, and 34, York-street, Portmansquare, and late of 13, Wyndham-place, Bryanstonesquare, Middlesex, widow. Dec. 15; Merediths, Roberts, and Mills, solicitors, 8, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, Middlesex. BIDWELL (John), formerly of the Foreign Office, then of 91, Onslow-square, Middlesex, late of Danygarth House, Crickhowell, Brecon, Esq. Jan. 1; Newman and Lyon, solicitors, 7, King's Bench-walk, Temple, London. BINDLEY (Geo.), Coventry, haberdasher. Jan. 14; Twist and Sons, solicitors, 16, Hertford-street, Coventry. BLISS (Henry), Q.C., 5, Paper-buildings. Temple, and 26, Eccleston-square, Middlesex, Esq. Jan. 24; Young and Co., solicitors, 6, Fredericks-place, Old Jewry, London. BROWN (Wm. H., 40, Chrisp-street, Poplar, Middlesex, draper. Dec. 31; Wm. Sturt, solicitor, 14, Ironmonger. lane, London.

BUTLER (Martha), 1, Merton-terrace, Iffley-road, Oxford, spinster. Dec. 18; W. H. Walsh, solicitor, Oxford. CHRISTIE (Robert M.), late of Bankside, Surrey. civil engineer, but afterwards at the time of his decease of Blanc Pignon, near Boulogne-sur-Mer, France. Dec. 15; Lewis and Watson, solicitors, 89, Gracechurch-street, London.

COWELL (Richard), Cardiff, Glamorgan, merchant. Feb. 1; Ingledew, Ince, and Vachell, solicitors, 124, Bute-street, Cardiff.

CROOK (John), North-street, Bedminster, Bristol, brewer. Jan. 1; Fry, Otter, and Brown, solicitors, Shannoncourt, Bristol.

DANIELS (Lydia), Bocking, Essex, widow. Jan. 1; Edward E. Clark, solicitor, Snaith, near Selby, York. DETTMAR Harriott), 33, Lansdown-place, Brighton, Sussex, widow. Dec. 8;1Humphreys and Morgan, solicitors, Giltspur-chambers, Holborn Viaduct, London. EDGELL (Caroline), 21, Cadogan-place, Chelsea, Middlesex, widow. Nov. 10; J. Edgell, solicitor, 17, Clifford's Inn, Fleet-street, London.

EDWARDS (Richard W.), 40, Harnington-street, Hampstead. road, Middlesex, gentleman. Deo. 2; Whittakers and Woolbert, solicitors, 12, Lincoln's Inn-fields, Middlesex. EIN (John), 4, Great Winchester-street-buildings, London, nd 7, Kent-terrace, Regent's-park, Middlesex, merchant. Jan. 1; Bischoff and Co., solicitors, 4, Great Winchester-street-buildings, London.

ELLERTON (Richard), Ellerton Lodge, Downholme, York, gentleman. Jan. 1; John Wm. Teale, solicitor, Leyburn. ELSDEN (Wm.), formerly of 57, Regent-street, Lambethwalk, and 21, Lambeth-walk, Surrey, late of 60, or 69, Loughborough-road, North Brixton, Surrey, gentleman. Dec. 5; Whitakers and Woolbert, solicitors, 12, Lincoln'sinn-fields, Middlesex.

ELSMERE (Peter), Birmingham, secretary to the Society of Artists. Dec. 15; Webb and Spencer, solicitors, 56, Newstreet, Birmingham.

FFINCH (Rev. Benjamin S.), The Rectory House, St. Paul, Deptford, Kent, clerk. Dec. 7; Park and W. B. Nelson, solicitors, 11, Essex-street, Strand, London. FLEWKER (John), formerly ot Derby, late of Dawlish, Devon, gentleman. Dec. 6; Pearson and Whidhorne, solicitors, Dawlish, Devon.

FORD (Walter), 159, Gray's-inn-road, Middlesex and Guildford Lodge, Margate, Kent, gas meter manufacturer. Dec. 12; Sharp and Ullithorne, solicitors, 1, Field-court, Gray's-inn, Middlesex,

FOSKETT (Maria M. G.), Ashley House, Southlands-grove, Bickley, Kent, widow. Dec. 31: Shepheard and Sons, solicitors, 32, Finsbury-circus, London.

Dec. 22;

FOWLES (Ralph), Malpas, Chester, yeoman. Eyton P. Jones, so.icitor, Whitchurch, Salop. GARDNER (John P.), Kendal, brazier. Dec. 15; C. Gardner Thomson, solicitor, Finkle-street, Kendal, Westmoreland. GARNIER (The Very Rev. Thos.), D.C.L., The Close, Winchester, clerk, formerly Dean of the Cathedral Church. Dec. 20; F. Bowker, solicitor, 23, St. Peter's-street, Winchester.

GERARD (Josiah), African trader, late of Lagos, Africa, and formerly a lieutenant in H.M. 2nd West Indian Regiment, and police magistrate. April 15, 1874; H. Quinn, solicitor, 2, South John-street, Liverpool, England. HALE (Wm.), Ropley, Southampton, yeoman. Dec. 24; Blackmore and Son, solicitors, Alresford, Hants. HANBURY (Sarah), formerly of Merfield, Yorkshire, late of 88, Piccadilly, Westminster. Dec. 31; Woollacott and Leonard, solicitors, 61, Gracechurch-street, London. HARRISON (Wm.), Leicester, gentleman. Jan. 31; Miles and Co. solicitors, Bank-street, Leicester. HOGG (Charles), Lanesfield, Cheltenham, Esq. Dec. 17; Ticehurst and Sons, solicitors, Essex-place, Cheltenham. HOKER (Samuel), Waterhouses, near Ashton-under-Lyne, yeoman. Dec. 18; Rushton and Co., solicitors, 7, Meal. house-lane, Bolton-le-Moors.

HOLT (Jas.), formerly of Sydney, New South Wales, and late of Lawn House, Upper Tooting, Surrey, Esq. Dec. 8; T. W. Denby, solicitor, 8, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry, London.

HORNE (Margaret) Kendal, Westmoreland, widow, Dec. 15; E. Gardner Thompson, solicitor, Finkle-street, Kendal. HOYLE (Eliza K.), formerly of 1, Camden-cottages, Denmark-road, Camberwell, Surrey, late of 272, Camberwellroad, Surrey, widow, Jan. 14; C. Mott, solicitor, 15, Paternoster-row, London.

IZARD (William), Brigton, Sussex, gentleman. Dec. 31; W. A. Stuckey, solicitor, 4, Prince's-place, North-street, Brighton.

JOHNSON (William S.), North Shields, gentleman. Jan. 30; Leitch and Dodd, solicitors, Howard-street, North Shields.

JOHNSTON (Alexander), Shanghai, China, Esq. Dec. 20; Nelson and Son, solicitors, 6, Godliman-street, Doctor's Commons, London.

JONES (Hugh), Rumworth, Lancaster, brickmaker. Dec. 18; Rushton, Armitstead and Co., solicitors, 1, Mealhouselany, Bolton-le- Moors.

KIRK (John), late of Richmond Lodge, Devon, linen merchant. and lately trading at Belfast, Co. Antrim, and at Keady, Armagh, and in New York, U.S., under the style and firm of William Kirk and Son. March 1; William Miller Kirk, 12, Bedford-street, Belfast.

Kiss (William D.), 2, Fen-court, Fenchurch-street, London, and 32, Deacon-street, Walworth, Surrey, gentleman. Dec. 30; J. W. Marsh, solicitor, 2, Fen-court, Fenchurch. street, E.C.

LACY (Bernard G.), late of 32, Hampden-road, Brighton, and formerly of Poole, Dorset. Dec. 23; Thomas C. A. Brine, solicitor. Market-street, Poole, Dorset. LANDS (Christopher), Running Horses, 1, Austin-road, Battersea, Surrey, carpenter and beershop keeper. Dec. 13; R. Wastell, solicitor, 24, Cecil-street, Strand, Middle


LEESON (Henry), Ship and Rising Sun, High-street, Shadwell, and the Fishmongers' Arms, Holles-street, Claremarket, Middlesex, licensed victualler. Dec. 10; Young, Jones, and Co., solicitors, 2, St. Mildred's-court, Poultry, London.

LEWIS (Lieut.-Col. John), 27, Dorchester-place, Marylebone, Middlesex. Dec. 12; Law, Massey, and Halbert, solicitors 10, New square, Lincola's-inn, Middlesex. LLOYD (Ann), 67, Brecknock-road, London, spinster. Jan. 1; Henry Sowton, solicitor, 13, Bedford-row, London. LONG (Wm. H.), Brackley park, Great Lever, near Bolton, commercial traveller. Dec. 18; Rushton, Armit stead, and Co., solicitors, 1, Mealhouse-lane, Bolton-leMoors.

MAITLAND (Lady Sarah). The Palace, Hampton Court, Middlesex, widow. Dec. 31: Parkin and Pagden, solicitors, 5, New-square, Lincoln's inn, Middlesex. MALLET (Henry), Nottingham and Sherwood Rise, Nottingham, lace manufacturer. Dec. 81; Watson and Wadsworth, solicitors, 13, Weekday Cross, Nottingham. MIERS (Simeon L.), 4, Upper Montague-street, Russellsquare, Middlesex (carrying on business at 45, Hounds. ditch), wholesale clothier. Jan. 1; H. Harris, solicitor, 34A, Moorgate-street, London.

[ocr errors]

MOON (William), formerly of Liverpool, late of Woolton Hill-house, within Woolton, Lancaster, Esq. Dec. 1; Pears and Co., solicitors, 3, Harrington-street, Liverpool. MOSES (Samuel), 19, York-terrace, Regent's-park, Middlesex, Esq. Dec. 28; Montagu, solicitor, 3, Bucklersbury. London, E.C. NIXON (Jas. C.), Nottingham and Sherwood Rise, Nottingham, ironmonger, Dec. 31; Watson and Wadsworth, soli citors, 13, Weekday Cross, Nottingham. ORGAN (Richard), Brockworth, Gloucester, timber merchant, innkeeper, and farmer. Dec. 29; Mullings, Ellett, and Co., solicitors, Cirencester.

PARROTT (John), 2, City-terrace, Peterborough, Northampton, city missionary. Dec. 14; J. H. Lydall, solicitor, 12, Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, London. PENNELL (Dr. Richard L.) M.D., Venbridge, Cheriton Bishop, Devon. Dec. 30; Geare and Co., solicitors, Queenstreet, Exeter.

PEPPERCORN (Francis), late of Wood-green, Middlesex, gentleman, formerly of West-street, Hereford. Dec. 6; Burdekin and Co., solicitors, Sheffield. RANSON (John), Manor Farm. Monksleigh, Suffolk, farmer. Dec. 31: G. C. Sherard, solicitor, 11, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex.

RAVES (Mary A.), 33, Amwell-street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, spinster. Jan. 1; J. L. Dale, solicitor, 8, Furnival'sinn, Holborn, Middlesex.

SALE (Rev. Canon), Sheffield, clerk, doctor of divinity, and vicar of Sheffield. Dec. 13; Rodgers and Thomas, solicitors, Bank-street, Sheffield.

SALB (Edward). Honington, Warwickshire, gentleman. Dec. 18: E. V. Nicoll, solicitor, Shipston-on-Stour. SEMPER (Harriet), 14, Grove-road, St. John's-wood, Middlesex, widow. Dec. 18; Norris and Sons, solicitors, 2, Bedford-row, Middlesex.

SMITH (John B.), formerly of Honiton and Comberaleigh, late of Awliscombe, Devon, solicitor. Jan. 1; Stamp and Son, solicitors, Honiton, Devon.

SOLOMON (Samuel), Pineapple-lodge, Peckham Rye, Surrey, and of Covent-garden, Middlesex, grower of fruit. Dec. 1; W. H. Oliver, solicitor, 64, Lincoln's-inn, London SOWERBY (Wm.). Massingham, Lincoln, farmer. Dec. 16; Oldman and Iveson, solicitors, Gainsborough.

SULIVAN (Emily A. F.), 4, Grange-terrace, Brompton, Middlesex, spinster. Jan. 1; J. V. Franklin, solicitor, 2, Tanfield-court, Inner Temple, London.

TOOTAL (Edward), The Wenste, in Pendleton, Lancaster, Esq. Dec. 31; Slater, Heelis, and Co., solicitors, 74, Princes-street, Manchester.

TRAVIS (Dr. Nathaniel A.), M.D., Nice. Feb. 1; E. S. Wilson, solicitor, 6, Whitefriargate, Hull, England. VICARS (Jas.), 2, Scotland-place, Liverpool, wine and spirit merchant. Dec. 30: Taylor and Son, solicitors, 1, Mawdsley-street, Bolton.

WADE (John), late of S, Beech Grove-terrace (formerly of 22, Moorland-road), Leeds, gentleman (formerly wool merchant). Dec. 23; Burdekin and Co., solicitors, 41, Norfolk-street, Sheffield.

WARNER (Stephen), North Petherton, Somerset, tailor. Dec. 20; Ruddock and Auber, solicitors, Bridgewater, Somerset.

WHITE (Henry), 53, Great Marlborough-street, Regentstreet, Middlesex, tailor. Jan. 1; Crouch and Spencer, solicitors, 8, Gray's-inn-square, London.

WHITNEY (Susan), formerly of Cork, late of 7, Draytongrove, Old Brompton (now known as 77, Thistle-grovo, West Brompton), Middlesex, spinster. Dec. 1; H. Tyrrell, solicitor, 14, Gray's-inn-square, London. WHITTAKER (John), Strand-lane, Radcliffe, Lancaster, ironmonger. Feb. 1; Greenhalgh and Finney, solicitors. 8, Acres-field, Bolton.

WHITTLE (Geo. S.), lately residing at 31, Brixton-road, Brixton, Surrey, and carrying on business as a wine and spirit merchant, at 20, Miles-lane, London. Dec. 31: G. B. Welsford, solicitor, Weymouth. WILLIAMS (John), Park-terrace, Regent's-park, Middlesex, fishmonger. Dec. 1;. Walker and Co., solicitors,

Founders'-hall, St. Swithin's-lane, London. WINNINGTON (Henry J.), 18, Petersham-terrace, Kensington. Middlesex, Esq. Jan. 1; B. Gardner, solicitor, Bewdley.


Thursday, Nov. 20.


City of London.-Nos. 1, and 2, Poultry, partly freehold and partly leasehold, was knocked down at the sum of £25,500 to a person in the room who had no means of paying the deposit; the property will in consequence be again offered to public competition. at the Mart, on Wednesday, the 3rd of December, at two o'clock.

By Messrs. WINSTANLEY and HORWOOD, at the Mart. Pimlico.-No. 4, Vauxhall-bridge-rd, term 58 years-sold for £610.

Nos. 6 and 8, same road, term 54 years-sold for £1050. Bloomsbury.-No. 41, Devonshire-street, freehold-sold for


West Croydon.-St. James's-road, a plot of land-sold for £390.

Shadwell.-No. 93, Anthony-street, and No. 1, Cornwallstreet, term 19 years-sold for £205.

No. 93, Anthony-street, and Nos. 3 and 5, Cornwall-streetsold for £150.

Thirty-three houses in Cornwall-street, term 19 years-sold for 1195.

Nos. 205 and 207, Cable-street, same term-sold for £205. By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING. Islington.-Nos. 65, 67, 69, Canonbury-road, and an improved ground rent of £20 per annum, term 45 years-sold for £1130.

Nos. 36, 38, and 40, Spencer-road, same term-sold for £800. South Hackney.-Nos. 48 and 49, Hedger's-grove, term 80 years-sold for £195.

[blocks in formation]

By Messrs. BROAD, PRITCHARD, and WILTSHIRE, at the Soho.- No. 27 and 28, St. Ann's-court, freehold-sold for 21210.

By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER. Whitechapel-road.-Nos. 124 and 125, freehold - sold for City.-No. 81, Aldersgate-street freehold-sold for £1620.



[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. INNKEEPER-LICENSING ACT 1872-BONA FIDE TRAVELLER-ONUS OF PROOF.-If a person licensed to sell intoxicating liquors on his premises supplies persons within the hours prohibited by the Licensing Act (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 24, the onus lies upon him of showing that the persons so supplied are bona fide travellers. Quare, whether the existence of an honest, though mistaken belief on his part that the persons so supplied are bona fide travellers, is sufficient to exempt him from liability under the Act. QUARTER SESSIONS APPEAL POWER OF JUSTICES TO MAKE RULES OF PRACTICE-REASONABLENESS OF RULE. A court of quarter sessions has no power to refuse to allow the entry of an appeal against the refusal of justices to grant a certificate for a licence, on the ground of non-compliance with a rule of the sessions requiring that appeals must be entered and the grounds of appeal given to the clerk of the peace three clear days before the first day of sessions, when all the requirements of 9 Geo. 4, c. 61, s. 27, have been complied with. A court of quarter sessions having refused solely on such a ground to allow an appeal to be entered on the first day of sessions, made an order under 12 & 13 Vict. c. 65, s. 6 for the payment of costs by the appellant to the respondents, as on an appeal which had not been entered or prosecuted. Held, that the order for the payment of costs must be quashed: (Reg. v. Pawlett, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 390. Q.B.)

The Magistrates' Clerk.-Could you distinguish between heads and tails?

Witness.-No, but I heard them say it. I saw them look at them, and heard them say, They are all tails," and then put them into the hat again, There was no money passed then. At twenty-five minntes to three the gentleman on Mr. Foster's right hand pulled a bag out of his right hand trousers pocket, and took out of the bag what I thought was a sovereign, and put it on the table, at the same time saying, "I have another sovereign to lose." A minute or two afterwards one of them said, "What are we going to have to drink?"

This evidence was not shaken. Cartwright, in addressing the bench on behalf of the defendant, said that it appeared that upon the night in question, Mr. Foster was compelled to be up, awaiting the coming in of the Irish mail, which, as their worships knew, arrived a little after half-past two in the morning. While so waiting, he was no doubt in the commercial room with two customers who had come in rather late. But his explanation of what took place was this. Upon that night, as well as upon the night preceding, Herr Dobler had been giving a performance, and something was said about his trick of taking money from a hat; and so it could be only inferred that what did take place received an interpretation by the witnesses unfavourable to the defendant, resulting in this serious charge, when there really was no gaming whatever. What was done was done in a " larkish" mood, and not for the purposes of gaming. He (Cartwright) had not had his attention directed to the section under which the information had been laid, but he assumed it was under a section of the last Licensing Act. [The Magistrates' Clerk: Yes, the 17th section.] Then of course it would be an important consideration for their worships whether the evidence, if they decided to place that construction upon it given by the witnesses, established the fact that there was gaming. The witnesses were outside the house, and he was prepared with evidence to show that, taking it for granted that everything took place which they said they saw, they could not possibly have heard what was said. They were nineteen feet from the party, and separated from them by a thick wall, by the window, curtains, gauze blind, and the rest of the appur tenances, so that it was next to an absolute impossibility to hear the conversation. It necessarily LARCENY-SERVANT-BAILEE. A traveller followed, therefore, in describing what took place, was entrusted with pieces of silk (about 95yds. that the witnesses rather allowed their minds to each) to carry about with him for sale to such come to the conclusion that gaming was going on. customers as he might procure. It was his duty In point of fact, this was more like a prosecution to send by the next post after sale the names and instituted upon a theory or basis arrived at by addresses of the customers to whom any might persons who were simply spectators. But in case have been sold, and the numbers, quantities, and their worships should consider that the facts were prices of the silk sold. All goods not so accounted as the witnesses had stated, then he would call for remained in his hands, and were counted by their attention to the law. The words in the Act his employers as stock. At the end of each half-were, if any licensed person" suffers any gaming year it was his duty to send in an account for the or any unlawful game to be carried on.' Now entire six months, and to return the unsold silk. what was an unlawful game? There was no law Within six months after four pieces of silk had which he was aware of, except the Vagrant Act, been delivered to him, the traveller rendered an which dealt with the subject of coins at all. account of the same, and entered them as sold to There was an Act which dealt with pitching and two persons, with instructions to his employers to tossing, the 31 & 32 Vict., which was an amend. send invoices to the alleged customers. It turned ment of the 5 & 6 Geo. 4. It was difficult to out that this was false, and that he had appro- understand how the former could be made to apply priated the silk to his own use. Held, that he to that case. What did the Act mean by the could be properly convicted of larceny as a bailee: word gaming? Did it mean all sorts of offences (Reg. v. Richmond, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 408. Cr. which came under the term gaming in that parCas Rǝs.) ticular section, or what did it mean? Because they knew full well that there were games which were lawful; they also knew that games might be played, so long as they were not played for money or money's worth. It was no offence for men to play at cards, so long as they did not play for money, or to play at dominoes or backgammon, so long as it was not for money. The learned gentleman then quoted the words of the Vagrant Amend. ment Act 1868, which made pitching and tossing in a public place an offence, and having cited a case as to what was meant by a public place, and also the late Lord Campbell's definition of gaming, which included the staking of money, he said it was clear from that it was necessary to show that money was staked.

Tuesday, Nov. 18.
Gaming in a licensed house-Licensing Act, 1872,

sect. 17.

MR. DAVID FOSTER, the manager of the Grosvenor Hotel, was charged upon an information, laid by Mr. J. L. Fenwick, the chief constable, with having permitted gaming, contrary to the provisions of the 17th section of the Licensing Act.

Cartwright appeared for the defendant.

P.C. 15 (Holland) said-At half past two on Tuesday morning last I was on duty in Eastgatestreet. I was passing the Grosvenor Hotel, when I saw a light in the commercial room, and I heard people talking inside. I looked through the window-the blind was down, but there was a distance of two or three inches between that and the window frame-and I saw Mr. Foster and two other gentlemen, one on each side of him.

[ocr errors]

Mr. SALISBURY. Were they standing or sitting?

Witness.-Sitting down. Mr. Foster had a hat in his hand, and was shaking it. Presently he turned it upside down upon the table, and there came out of it what I thought to be a halfpenny, a penny, and a two-shilling piece or a half-crown. The CHAIRMAN.-Were they pushed towards the winner? Witness.-Yes, they were. I stood there a quarter of an hour, during which time the shaking of the hat was continued, and money passed each time, except when they all came heads or tails.

Mr. SALISBURY.-So far as I am concerned, and I am sure my friends will go with me, I don't want to stop you in any argument, but don't you think you should confine yourself to this 17th section ?

Cartwright.-I have been trying to make out that there is no gaming according to law.

Mr. SALISBURY.-But the offence is against this Act, that he has permitted an unlawful game or gaming.

Cartwright said he had been arguing upon the assumption that there had been no gaming; and there was no law, so far as he could make out, which declared what took place to be gaming, as the only Act of Parliament he could find which bore upon the user of coin was the 31 & 32 Vict., and he asked how far that was recognized by the last Licensing Act? He argued that what took place was analogous to pitching and tossing in a private room, which, if there were no stakes, was no

offence whatever, and said he did not see how the case could be proved when the 17th section mentioned the word gaming, and they had to go back to other statutes to explain that word. As to the facts, he believed he should be able to dispose entirely of the idea that there was any gambling, to show that it was impossible for any one outside to distinguish between different coins, or to hear what was said.

Evidence was then called.

The Magistrates retired, but were only absent two minutes. On their return, the CHAIRMAN (Major French) said-We are very sorry to think that the conductor of so respectable an hotel should have forgotten himself and lent himself to an indiscretion which I don't think he would have done if he had considered the thing. He has been exceedingly well defended, but the preponderance of evidence is against him, so strongly, that there cannot be a doubt in our minds that gambling was going on in that room contrary to the Act that governs licensed houses, and therefore we sentence the defendant to pay a fine of £10, and in default of payment of the penalty and costs, there will be imprisonment, which there is no occasion to dwell upon, but, for the sake of form, we will say one month. We are not inclined to say anything further, because we think the defendant committed an act of indiscretion contrary to the wishes of the directors of that hotel, whose servant he is.

Mr. SALISBURY.-You will understand from what the Chairman says that we do not intend to endorse the license, because that would be unjust to the proprietors, who have suffered quite enough from what he has done.

Friday, Nov. 21.
(Before Mr. Bridge.)


Gas rates-City of London Gas Act 1868-Rise in
price-Notice to consumer-Award of commis-

IN this case, a report of the first hearing of which appeared in the LAW TIMES of Nov. 15,

Besley (instructed by Curtis and Bedford, solicitors to the Gas Light and Coke Company) appeared and said that he was prepared to prove that a contract had been entered into by the defendant with the Western Gas Light Company, which company was amalgamated after the date of the contract with the complainant company, who thereupon became entitled to enforce all contracts entered into with the Western. The contract of the defendant was to pay 5s. per 1000, or other gas rate for the time being. The rates were varied from time to time, and on the 7th April 1873, the defendant ceased to consume the gas at the house in respect of which this charge was made. On the 17th the commissioners appointed to revise the price appointed by the Board of Trade, made an award fixing the maximum price at 6s. 3d. By a notice served on all consumers, on Dec. 16, 1872, notice was given that the price would be 5s. 5d., or such other price as might be fixed by the Board of Trade. In March 1873 a meter index card was left with the defendant on which the gas rate was stated to be 5s. 6d. per 1000. By the City of London Gas Act 1868 the award of the commissioners fixing the price is to take effect as on and from the 1st Jan. of the year of revision (s. 66). He submitted that the facts being proved the gas rate for the time being, which the defendant was liable to pay pursuant to his contract, was that which was fixed by the commissioners, namely, 6s. 3d.

Mr. BRIDGE remarked that what the commissioners had power to fix was the maximum price. It did not follow that that would be the charge to


F. O. Crump (instructed by Bartholomew) said that was his point, and the defendant's contract having terminated on the 7th April he could not be affected by an award of the commissioners made on the 17th. The commissioners having power only to fix the maximum price it was necessary that the company should prove that by some resolution it authorised the charge of 6s. 3d. upon the consumer. No evidence of any resolution had been adduced. If this were an action for calls it could not be sustained without proof of the resolution authorising the call.

Mr. BRIDGE said he should adjourn again to give the company an opportunity of supplying this evidence. It was clearly necessary.

The point, however, was waived for the time being, in order to test the merits, and

Crump_proceeded to argue that the notice of the 16th Dec. was insufficient. The intention of the Legislature that public notice should be given of a rise or reduction by advertisement in a local newspaper or the Gazette was plain from sect. 40 of the Metropolis Gas Act of 1860, and sect. 55 of the City of London Gas Act of 1868, the former providing for notice by advertisement on a rise of

price, and the latter for notice in the Gazette in the case of reduction by consent. The proper course for the company to pursue was to give notice in January that they would charge from that date the maximum price which should be fixed by the commissioners. The meter card fixed the rate at 5s. 6d. and the defendant could not be affected by an ex post facto award.

Mr. BRIDGE said that the notice of Dec. 16 had been left at the defendant's house, as it had been left at others, and he should hold it to be a good notice. He thought the meaning of the Act of Parliament was, that although the commissioners did not make their award until long after January, the power of the company under the award was to take effect as from the 1st January in each year. If there were no application for revision the price was fixed at that at which it stood in 1870 (s. 57). The commissioners are to fix the maximum. The company in this case gave notice that they would charge 5s. 5d., or such other price as might be fixed by the Board of Trade. This notice was not precisely accurate, but he did not think notices of this nature should be required to be as precise as in other cases. The question was, whether they gave sufficient notice to the consumer. Mr. Crump's argument might be very good to show that the legislation ought to be amended, but, being as it was, he thought he ought to order payment of the


Crump applied for a case, which was at once granted.


NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PRACTICE-COLLISION-CROSS CAUSE-SECURITY-FOREIGN PARTIES.-Where a cause of damage is instituted in the High Court of Admiralty against a ship, in respect of a collision in which the ship of the plaintiffs is totally lost, and the defendants institute a cross cause in personam against the plaintiffs in respect of the same collision, both parties being foreigners resident abroad, and the plaintiffs decline to give security to answer judgment in the cross cause, or to enter an appearance, the court will apply the provisions of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10, s. 34), and will order proceedings to be stayed in the principal cause until security is given in the cross cause: (The Charkieh, 29 L. T. Rep. N.S. 404. Adm.)

SALVAGE-ATTEMPT TO ASSIST IN REMOVING SALVAGE BY OTHERS-RIGHT TO REWARD.Where a vessel makes a signal of distress, and another goes out with the bona fide intention of assisting that distress, and as far as she can does 30, but some accident occurs which prevents her services being as effectual as she intended them to be, and no blame attaches to her, the Court of Admiralty will not allow her to go entirely unrewarded, but for the interests of commerce and navigation, and as an encouragement to perform salvage services will give some reward. Semble, if the property is salved by other means: (The Melpomene, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 405. Adm.)

MASTER'S WAGES AND DISBURSEMENTSMASTER ALSO CO-OWNER-RIGHT OF CO-OWNERS TO SET-OFF SHIP'S EXPENSES.-In a suit for wages and disbursements by a master, who is also coowner, the other co-owners may, under the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 191, set up a counter claim or set-off in respect of outstanding co-ownership accounts, and claim that the balance (if any) be paid to them. To a petition claiming master's wages and disbursements, and praying a reference of any accounts arising in respect thereto to the registrar and merchants, an answer alleging the master to be also co-owner, and that accounts are outstanding between the plaintiff and the defendants, as coowners, showing a balance on all accounts in favour of the defendants, and praying a reference to the registrar and merchants of all master's and Co-ownership accounts, will be allowed by the High Court of Admiralty: (The City of Mobile, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 406. Adm.).


NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. CAPACITY OF TRADING CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE LAND.-In an action on a warranty of title brought by the appellants, as vendees of mining property in Lower Canada, against the respondents as the representatives of the vendor of the appellants' vendor: Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Lower Canada), that the appellants, as a trading corpo. ration, were incapable by the law of the colony of acquiring lands without the licence of the Crown, which it was not alleged that the appellants had obtained; and therefore that the sale having been invalid, the right to sue on the warranty did not

[ocr errors]

arise. Held, further, that it was for the appel-
lants to allege the licence of the Crown, and that
such licence was not, on demurrer to the declara-
tion, to be assumed until the contrary was averred
by plea (Chaudière Gold Mining Company v.
Desbarats, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 377. Priv. Co.)
the station to which she was going, and which she
-Plaintiff was travelling on defendants' line; at
knew well, the train went beyond the platform;
the plaintiff saw that this was so, but having heard
the name of the station called by the porters, and
her compartment being close to the end of the
platform, she put her foot on the step in order to
get out; at that moment the train was backed,
plaintiff was jerked on to the ground, and received
injury. The door had been opened by another
passenger, and plaintiff heard no warning that the
train was about to move back. Held that these
facts did not amount to evidence of negligence on
the defendants' part to go to a jury: (Lewis v.
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, 28 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 397. Q.B.)



ACQUIESCENCE.-By the terms of an agreement
for amalgamation entered into between the P.
Company, which was a limited company, and the
U. Company, which was an unlimited company,
the P. Company was to be wound-up voluntarily,
and its members were to be entitled for every
fully paid-up £5 share held by them in the P.
Company to five shares of £1 each, fully paid up,
in the U. Company. W., who had been a director
of the P. Company, and a holder of twenty fully
paid-up shares in it, applied, in July, for 100 fully
paid-up shares in the U. Company in accordance
with the terms of the agreement for amalgama-
tion," but an order having been made to wind-
up the P. Company compulsorily before his ap:
plication reached the U. Company, W. requested
the chairman of a committee of shareholders of
the P. Company, to whom he had sent his appli-
cation not to forward it to the U. Company
until the compulsory winding-up had been
stayed and all impediments in the way of
the amalgamation removed.
order having been stayed and the winding-
The compulsory
up continued under supervision, W's appli-
cation was sent into the U. Company, and on
the 7th Aug. a letter was sent to him stating that
the 100 shares had been allotted to him and his
name entered on the register, and that the amount
to be credited on the shares would be "the pro-
portionate amount of the net assets of the P. Com-
pany." W., being absent from home on a yacht-
ing cruise, did not receive this letter till the end
of August. On his return to London, early in
October, he repudiated the shares, and was told
by the chairman of the U. Company that his name
was not on the register. In the following month
an order was made to wind-up the U. Company,
and W.'s name was found to be on the register in
respect of the 100 shares. The deed carrying out
the agreement for amalgamation was engrossed in
duplicate, and one part was executed by each
company. The part executed by the U. Company
differed materially from that executed by the P.
Company: Held, that there was no binding agree-
ment for amalgamation between the two companies,
and that W.'s delay in repudiating the shares
allotted to him not in accordance with the terms
of his application, did not amount to acquiescence,
and that his name must be removed from the list
of contributories of the U. Company. Decision of
Bacon, V.C., reversed: (Wynne's Case, 29 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 381. L.JJ.)

Wednesday, Nov. 26.
(Before Lord ROMILLY.)

Company solvent-Transfer-Subsequent winding-
THE facts of the case were these. In Sept. 1869,
a petition was presented to the Court of Chancery
to wind-up the European Assurance Society, but
it was unsuccessful. Mr. Mushet, who held 1400
shares in the society, thought it advisable to make
inquiries into the real condition of the society,
and he was ultimately advised by Mr. Bell, a
stockbroker of Edinburgh, to part with his shares,
and even to pay a small sum in order to be relieved
of them. He accordingly authorised Mr. Bell to
dispose of the shares. Mr. Bell then went to Mr.
Robert Stewart, another Edinburgh stockbroker,
who undertook to find a purchaser on condition of
6d. per share, or £35, being paid to the purchaser.
Mr. Steward supplied the name of the purchaser
as "George Taylor, engineer, Coltbridge, Edin-
burgh." A transfer to him was executed and sent
to the society on the 1st Nov. 1869. Objections
to this transfer were raised by the directors
on the ground that proper notice had not
been given according to the regulations of

the society, and that a call which was due
had not been paid. The call was subsequently
paid, and on the 21st of March, 1870, a formal
notice of the wish to transfer the shares to
"George Taylor, engineer," was sent to the
society. On the 7th April, 1870, a transfer was
executed, whereby Mr. Mushet transferred the
shares to Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Taylor accepted
them in consideration of £35 paid to him by the
After some delay and objections the
transfer was registered and Taylor's name placed
on the register of shareholders. It appears that
Taylor was the son of the laundress of Mr.
Stewart's business chambers, and, instead of being
an engineer, was a stoker on a railway with wages
of 278. a week, and was wholly unable to meet the
liability on the shares. Taylor was never paid the
sum of £35.; he was merely promised £1 by
Stewart, but he never received it. In the winding-
up of the society the official liquidators impeached
the validity of the transfer, and applied to have
Mr. Mushet's name placed on the list of contribu-

Napier Higgins, Q.C. (with him Montague Cookson), in the argument for the official liquidators, relied on the decision of Lord Westbury in Walton Williams case (L. T. European Rep., p. 125), and contended that full information as to the proposed transferee had not been given to the society by the transferor, and that the misrepresentations made to the society were sufficient to invalidate the transfer.

Cotton, Q.C. (with him Kekewich), for Mr. Mushet contended that the shares had been disposed of the ordinary way on the Stock Exchange, and that if there had been any misrepresentation, it had been made by Mr. Stewart, who was not Mr. Mushet's agent.

case, proceeded.-Without meaning to assert that,
Lord ROMILLY, after stating the facts of the
when a company is failing, one of the share-
holders may not get rid of his shares by disposing
of them to a pauper, and thereby throw his por-
tion of the debts upon the other shareholders
(though I consider that this proposition was not
laid down by the Lords Justices in any case, and it
was strongly dissented from by Lord Campbell),
still I am of opinion that if such a transfer of
the transferor to supply the company with all the
shares can ever be supported, it is incumbent on
materials and means in his power to enable them
fitness of the transferee to be supplied in the
to form a just and accurate conclusion as to the
place of the transferrer. Unless this is done, it
appears to me that the transferor is conniving at
a fraud against the society, and cannot gain any
advantage from the transaction in which he is so
implicated. These conditions, which I consider
necessary, do not seem to have been fulfilled by
Mr. Mushet. He knew that Mr. Stewart was a
person regularly employed for getting rid of un-
safe shares. Without saying that Stewart was
technically the agent of Mr. Mushet, there are
many circumstances which show that he was
much more cognisant of Mr. Stewart's proceed-
ings and of the situation of George Taylor
(all of which he ought to have communicated
to the society) than he thought fit to make
known to them. The conduct of Stewart is
open to the gravest suspicion; he acts as no
who regarded his own character; he agrees to
broker would have acted on any Stock Exchange
take the shares for £35, to be paid to his client;
he seeks for a client in the son of his housekeeper,
to whom nothing appears to be said about the
£35 at all events, who never gets that sum,
which is disposed of by Mr. Stewart's direction-
leaving the directors to suppose that it was a
transaction bona fide with the person who wanted
to speculate on the probable rise of the shares.
If they had been acquainted with the whole trans-
action it would have been a clear breach of duty
on the part of the directors, of which no person
cognisant could have allowed any one to have
taken advantage without gross misconduct to the
shareholders, for whom they were trustees. I
doubt whether Mr. Mushet himself considered
the transaction a bona fide one-nay, it appears
that Mr. Mushet himself, in February, 1870, was
trying to sell the same shares to a fresh transferee.
I am confirmed in the view I take of this case by
observing what Lord Westbury did respecting it
in June last, and nothing that has since been done
appears to me to affect the then position of the
parties. It appears to me that Mr. Stewart, for
£35, got George Taylor to accept the shares,
giving him nothing; that he was a mere catspaw
to enable Stewart to carry on the transaction for
his own benefit, intending George Taylor to take
nothing: and I think that Mr. Mushet, both by
his agents and by himself, was aware of the
nature of the transaction, or was so bound by the
inquiry that he was bound to make that the trans-
fer of shares made by Mushet to George Taylor
does not exonerate Mr. Mushet or relieve him
from the liability that he incurred by taking the
shares. I am of opinion, therefore, that Mr.
Mushet must be restored to the list of share-

« EelmineJätka »