Friday.......... .............. 19 Petitions, adjourned summonses, and general paper Short causes, adjourned summonses, and general paper 15 General paper Saturday............ 20 Motions, ad journed summonses, and gene adjourned sum monses, and general paper Short causes, adjourned sum. monses and general paper Any causes intended to be heard as short causes before the Master of the Rolls or either of the ViceChancellors must be so marked at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard. N.B.-In Vice-Chancellor Hall's Court no cause, motion for decree or further cousideration, can, except by order of the court, be marked to stand over, if it be within twelve of the last cause or matter in the printed paper of the day for hearing. BROADHEAD, WILLIAM HENRY, joiner, Manchester. Pet. Nov. ROSENTHAL, DAVID, paper hangings dealer, Manchester. Pet. WELSBY, JOHNSON GORE, gene al broker, Liverpool. Pet. Nov. 13. Reg. Watson. Sur. Dec. 3 WILLIAMS, HUBERT BRYMER, clerk in holy orders, Fordington. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. LEAH, HENRY JAMES, auctioneer, Alma-villas, Dalston-la, and Union-ct, Broad-st. Pet. Nov. 20. Reg. Pepys. Sur. Dec. 9 MEALLIN, GEORGE, wine merchant, New Kent-rd. Pet. Nov. 19. Beg. Hazlitt. Sur. Dec. 10 PETIT, EDWARD, jeweller, Fulham.rd. SIDEROTHAM, NATHAN, and MARSH, JAMES, machinists, Ashton-under-Lyne. Pet. Nov. 21. Reg. Hall. Sur. Dec. 11 BANKRUPTCIES ANnulled. Gazette, Nov. 18. JEWELL, THOMAS, architect, Leadenhall-st. Feb. 2, 1872 Gazette, Nov. 21. GOLDSWORTHY, ROBERT, delivery clerk, Arlington-st, Camdentown. April 16, 1872 WOOD, SAMUEL HOYLE, yeast importer, Leeds. March 13, 1872 Liquidations by Arrangement. FIRST MEETINGS. Gazette, Nov. 21. APPS, GEORGE, umbrella maker, Mansell-st, Whitechapel. Pet. Nov. 12. Dec. 3, at ten, at office of Sol. Dobson, Southamptonbldg, Chancery-la BAXTER, ROBERT COWLEY, stationer, Manchester. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 10, at three, at offices of Sols. Farrar and Hall, Manchester BLACKBURN, JOSHUA, contractor, Heckmondwike. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 3, at half-past three, at office of Sol. Scholefield, Batley BRODZIAC, LEWIS, general merchant, Coleman-st, and Alexandrard, St. John's-wood. Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 12, at two, at the Guildhall tavern, Gresham-st. Sol. Emanuel, Walbrook BROWN, CHARLES, confectioner, Upper Wortley, near Leeds. Pet. Nov. 14. Nov. 29, at two, at office of Sol. Hardwick, Leeds BULL, GRENVILLE BALLAD, farmer, Aston Clinton. Pet. Now. 19. Dec. 11, at twelve, at office of Sols. Messrs. Parrott, Aylesbury CALDWELL, WILLIAM, jun., joiner, Latchford. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 5, at three, at Brooks, Commercial-chmbs, Horsemarketst, Warrington. Sols. Davies and Brook, Warrington CARLING, JOSHUA, wine merchant, Leamington. Pet. Nov, 14. Dec. 2, at eleven, at office of Sol. Hodgson, Birmingham CHADWICK, WILLIAM HENRY, beerhouse keeper, Chorlton-onMedlock. Pet. Nov. 10. Dec. 1, a four, at offices of Sols. Learoyd and Learoyd, Huddersfield CLARK, GEORGE, saddler, Batley. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 3, at ten, at office of Sol. Wooler, Batley CLEAVE, ROBERT, ironmonner, Wolsey-ter, Clarence-rd, Teddington, also Meard's-ct, Wardour-st, Soho. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 5, at two, at offices of Sol Seale, Lincoln's-inn-fields CLEGG, JAMES, grocer, Lowmoor, par. Bradford. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 6, at ten, at offices of Sols. Berry and Robinson, Bradford CLEMENT, JAMES WHITE, attorney, Alton. Pet Nov. 15. Dec. 2, at three, at the Swan hotel, Alton. Sols. Messrs. Parker, Bedford-row CONDON, JOHN, coal merchant, Perseverance-wharf, Millwalldock, and Kingsbridge.pl, Westferry-rd, Millwall. Pet Nov. 18. Dec. 5. at three, at the Ironmonger's Arms, Westferry-rd, Millwall. Sol. Fenton, Worship-st COOKE, WILLIAM, cordwainer, Metheringham. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 3. at eleven, at office of Sol. Tweed, Saltergate CRABB, RICHARD, bootmaker, James-st. Oxford-st, Paddington. st, and Harrow-rd, Marylebone. Pet. Nov. 8. Dec. 1, at eleven, at Coles, Wilson, and Co., 63, Bishopsgate-st-within. Sol. Dobson, Southampton bldgs CROOKALL, ROBERT, and CROOKALL, JOHN, tea dealers, Bolton. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 3. sep. creditors of R. Crookall and J Crookall, at ten, at offices of Sols. Richardson and Dowling. Bolton CROWTHER, TOM, farmer. Whistone's-farm, Thurstonland, par Kirkburton. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 4, at 2, at office of Sol. Booth Holmfirth CURTIS, FREDERICK, tailor, Warren-st, Fitzroy-sq. Pet. Nov. 12. Nov. 29, at eleven, at office of Sol. Willis, St. Martin's-ct, Leicester-sq Pet. DANCE, WILLIAM, brickburner, Shaw-cum-Donnington. DENTZ, JAMES, late tobacconist, Hull. DRAKE, JAMES, cellarman, Bristol. Pet. Nov. 18. Nov. 29, at Sol. eleven, at Clark, 1, Bristol-chmbs, Nicholas-st, Bristol. Stevens, Bristol DYKE, GEORGE, italian warehouseman, Liverpool. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 4, at three, at offices of Sols. Masters and Fletcher, Liverpool EMERY, JOHN WILLIAM HENRY, grocer, Langley, near Oldbury. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 5, at three, at office of Sol. Sheldon, Wednes. bury EYES, JOHN, joiner, Northwich. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 9, at eleven, at office of Sol. Cheshire, Northwich Pet. FARNHILL, FRANCIS, out of business, York. Pet. Nov. 14. Dec. FORD, PETER, rope manufacturer, Stroud. Pet. Nov. 19. Dec. 6, FRESHNEY, PARKINSON, draper, Beverley, and Hull. Pet. Nov. 11. Dec. 3, at twelve, at offices of Sols. Stead and Sibree. Hull GASKELL, JOHN, plumber, Southport. Pet. Nov. 19. Dec. 6, at eleven, at office of Sol. Barker, Southport GEORGE, AUGUSTUS, milliner, Birmingham. Pet. Nov. 19. Dec. 5, at eleven, at office of Sol. Duke, Birmingham GILL, WILLIAM BELL, grocer, Otley. Pet. Nov. 13. Nov 29, at ten, at Fawcett and Malcolm, solicitors, Leeds. Sols. Berry and Robinson GREEN, HARVEY ROBERT, farmer, Great Horksley. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 8, at three, at the Fleece hotel, Colchester. Sol. White, Colchester GREEN, RICHARD ANGELL, goldsmith, Strand. Pet. Nov. 7. Nov. 29, at eleven, at office of Sol. Roberts, Coleman-st HALL, JAMES, joiner, Reigate. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 4, at twelve at office of Sol. Morris, Cannon-st, London HARDACRE, ROBERT, and EDMONDSON, THOMAS, drapers, Blackburn. Pet. Nov. 14. Dec. 5, at two, at the White Bear hotel, Manchester. Sols. Hall and Holland, Blackburn HARDMAN, EDMUND, woolstapler, Bradford. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 4, at eleven, at office of Sols. Terry and Robinson, Bradford HEBB, GRAINGER, builder, North-gr west, Mildmay.pk. Nov. 18. Dec. 8, at two, at office of Sol. Pearpoint, Leicestersquare HOLLANDS, HENRY, butcher, Lydd. Pet. Nov. 12. Dec. 9, at three, at the White Hart hotel, Hythe. Sol. Minter, Folke stone Pet. JACKSON, FABIAN, diamond merchant, Moorgate-st. Pet. Nov. 14. Dec. 2, at two, at the Guildhall coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sol. Murray, Sackville-st, Piccadilly JACKSON, WILLIAM, grocer. Coatham. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 2, at three, at Graham, Ramsgate. Sol. Trotter KING, CHARLES, wool dealer, Hali'ax. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 5, at eleven, at office of Sol. Boocock, Halifax KRIEGSFELD, LOUIS, waterproofer, Manchester. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 8, at three, at office of Scl. Orton, Manchester LEAVERS, HENRY, lace manufacturer, Nottingham. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 4, at twelve, at the Assembly Rooms, Nottingham. Sol. A-hwell, Nottingham LEE, JOSEPH, tin plate worder, Warrington. Pet. Nov. 12. Nov. LIGHT, CHARLES LLEWELLYN, civil engineer, Stockwell-park-rd. MAYNARD, JOHN, grocer, Cheltenham. Pet. Nov. 15. Dec. 2, at eleven, at office of Sol Marshall Cheltenham NATHAN, SAMUEL LEWIS, jeweller, Hatton-gdn. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 9, at two, at Ridler's hotel, Holborn. Sols. Messrs. Lewis, Ely-pl, Holborn OSBORNE, HENRY ERNEST, optician, Sheffield. Pet. Nov. 19. Nov. 28, at half-past eleven, at office of Sols. Broomhead, Wightman, and Moore, Sheffield PRESBURY, JOHN, farmer, Boylestone. Pet. Nov. 19. Dec. 6, at three, at the White Hart hotel, Uttoxeter. Sol. Wilson, Burton-on-Trent PRICE, JAMES, fishmonger, Bristol. Pet. Nov. 20. Nov. 29, at eleven, at office of Sol. Essery, Bristol REED, GEORGE SOMMERS, builder, Ilfracombe. Pet. Nov. 15. Dec. 2, at two, at the Queen's hotel, Ilfracombe. Sol. Bencraft, Barnstaple RIGBY, JOHN, watchmaker, Blackburn. Pet. Nov. 15. Dec. 3, at twelve, at office of Sols. Messrs. Ainsworth, Blackburn ROBINSON, THOMAS, innkeeper, Middleham. Pet. Nov. 15. Dec. 4, at one, at office of Sols. Messrs. Teale, Bedale SKERRITT, CHARLES, plumber, Ruddington. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 5, at twelve, as office of Sol. Belk, Nottingham SMITH, BENJAMIN, hay dealer, Leeds. three, at office of Sol. Walker, Leeds Pet. Nov. 15. Dec. 1, at SMITH, BENJAMIN, coal dealer, Barrow-in-Furness. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 5, at ten, at the Ship inn, Barrow-in-Furness. Sol. Bradshaw, Barrow-in-Furness SMITH, ENOS, shoemaker, Chilmark. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 3, at three,at offices of Sol. Hill, Salisbury SMITH, FRANK, grocer Middlesbrough. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 3, at eleven, at Mrs. Barker's Temperance hotel, Middlesbrough. Sol. Bainbridge, Middlesbrough SOMERS, JOHN BARNES, farmer, Pinner. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 15, STICKELLS, GEORGE THOMAS, Ventnor. Pet. Nov. 13. Dec. 2, at WILKINSON, JAMES, soda water manufacturer, Warrington. Pet. Nov. 12. Nov. 24, at twelve, at office of Sol. Moore, Warington WILLIAMS, SAMUEL JOHN, bootmaker, Mount-st, Grosvenor-sq, Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 8, at twelve, at 90, Lower Thames-st. Sol. Farnfeld WILLMOTT, WILLIAM BALLARD, blacksmith, Queen's-rd, Notting-hill. Pet. Nov. 14. Dec. 1, at eleven, at the Biewery tavern, Goldhawk rd, Shepherd's-bush WOODCOCK, WILLIAM, confectioner, Bridlington-quay. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 5, at three, at the Black Lion hotel, Bridlington. Sol.. Harland, Bridlington WORTHY, JAMES, dealer, Templecombe. Pet. Nov. 14. Dec. 2, at three, at the Greyhound hotel, Wincanton. Sol. Davies, Sherborne WRIGHT, WILLIAM, draper, Liverpool. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 4, at three, at offices of Sol. Quinn, Liverpool Gazette, Nov. 25. AINSWORTH, ALFRED BROOKS, merchant's clerk, Liverpool. Pet. narvon BARBER, EDWIN, hairdresser, Glossop. Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 11, at two, at offices of Sols. Pinnell and Butterworth, Manchester BEARDSWORTH, HENRY, scale cutter, Sheffield Pet. Nov. 21. Dec. 8, at twelve. at office of Sol. Tattershall, Sheffield BELCHER, GEORGE GRESHAM, commission agent, Manchester. Pet. Nov. 21. Dec. 8, at three at office of Sol. Leigh, Manchester Pet. BENNETT, ROBERT CHRISTIE, architect, Melcombe Regis. BENT, EDWARD STANLEY, attorney at law, Manchester. Pet.* BERRY, VICTORIA HELENA, refreshment-room keeper, Southport Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 8, at twelve, at office of Sol. Culshaw, Liverpcol BISSICKS, JOSEPH JAMES, oilman, Bristol. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 9, at two, at office of Barnard, Thomas, Tribe, and Co. accountants, Bristol. Sol. Thick, Bristol BLEST, DAVID, shoemaker, Wolverhampton. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 6, at half-past ten, at office of Sol. Stratton, Wolverhampton BOULD, ENOCH, greengrocer, Hanley. Pet. Nov. 12. Nov. 27, at eleven, at othice of Sol. Stevenson, Hanley. BRAYFORD, JAMES, butcher, Hanley. Pet. Nov. 12. Nov. 27, at two, at office of Sol. Stevenson, Hanley BRIDGWOOD, WILLIAM, cab proprietor, Birmingham. Pet. Nov. Dec. 3, at two, at the Clarendon hotel, Birmingham. Sol. Gem, Aston 4. CADIOT, EMANUEL HORACE, and JOHNSTON, JOHN, commercial CHEAL, JOHN, accountant, Reigate. Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 5, at COLLINS, JAMES, builder, Weedington-rd, Kentish-town. Pet. JACKSON, ROBERT BURRA, upholsterer, Lyall-pl, Pimlico. FITZROY, ELIZABETH, widow, Halton, near Leeds. Pet. Nov. 15. HANDLEY, PHILIP, potato salesman, Pump-row, Spitalfieldsmarket, and Bethnalgreen-rd. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 3, at a quarter past ten, at the Victoria tavern, Morpeth-rd, Bethnalgreen. Sol. Long, Landsdown-ter, Grove-rd, Victoria.pk HODGSON, JOHN OSWALD, licensed victualler, Long-acre. Pet. HUBBARD, JOHN MICHAEL, ship's steward, Lynton-rd, Bermond- HUGHES, WILLIAM, draper, Manchester. Pet. Nov. 21. Dec. 11, H. T. merchant, first, old. At Trust. A. W. Chalmers, 5, Fenwick. Pet. Nov. 22. Apply at Provisional Assignee's Office, Portugal-st, Lincoln's- Dec. 8, at two, at office of Sol. Mcss, Gracechurch-st JONES, EVAN, builder, Merthyr Tydfil. Pet. Nov. 19. Dec. 6, at KIRKMAN, JAMES, draper, Bradford. Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 5, at LEE, ANN. refreshment-house keeper, Wigan. Pet. Nov. 20. Dec Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 5, at BIRTHS MARRIAGES AND DEATHS BIRTHS. HUNT.-On the 23rd inst., the wife of Joseph Hunt, Esq., solicitor, MERRICK. On the 23rd inst., at 2, Rayner's-road, Lime-grove- MILLS, GEORGE, bootmaker, Sunderland, and South Shields. PARTRIDGE AND COOPER, Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 5, at three, at the Commercial hotel, Leeds. MITCHELL, THOMAS, saddler, Sheffield. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 8, at Dec. 8, at three, at office of Sols. Fawcett and Malcolm, Leeds PAGE, JAMES, Salford, and Heaton Norris. Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 8, at three, at office of Sols. Sutton and Elliott, Manchester. PARKER, JOHN CHARLES, builder, Hastings, and Rye. Pet. Nov. 22. Dec. 8, at four, at office of Mr. Cogswell, 72, Gracechurchst. Sol. Rashleigh, Old Kent-rd, London PERTWEE, JAMES FREDERICK, farmer, Layer-de-la-Hay. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 13, at eleven, at the Saracen's Head hotel, Chelmsford. Sol. Arthy, Chelmsford POTTS, RICHARD, builder, Sunderland. Pet. Nov. 19. Dec. 9, at PUGH, FEEDERICK CHURCHILL, dress maker. Liverpool, Pet. RADFORD, CHARLES, wholesale provision merchant, Manchester. RIGBY, GEORGE, hat manufacturer, Ashton-under-Lyne. Pet. SCOTT, FALLOWS, tailor, Cockermouth. Pet. Nov. 19. Dec. 4, at SKIPWORTH, SARAH, widow, farmer, Billericay. Pet. Nov. 20 SLATER, CHARLES JOSEPH, merchant, Sheffield. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 4, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Wake, Sheffield SPIERS, WILLIAM, chemist, High-st, Leyton. Pet. Nov. 18. Dec. 4, at eleven, at office of Sol. Lind, Beaufort-bldgs, Strand STORR, JOHN EDWARD, jeweller's agent, Faunce-st, Kenningtonpk. Pet. Nov. 17. Dec. 4, at two, at office of Sol. Barnett, New Broad-st STONIER, JOHN BENSON, writing clerk, Birmingham. Pet. Nov. 5. Dec. 5, at ten, at office of Sol. East, Birmingham STRINGER, WILLIAM, beerhouse keeper, Huddersfield. Pet. Nov. 22. Dec. 11, at eleven, at office of Sol. Sykes, Huddersfield TARRY, HARRIS, baker, Grosvenor-pk, Camberwell. Pet. Nov. 19. Dec. 4, at three, at office of Sols. Stocken and Jupp, Leaden hall-st TAYLOR, HENRY, custom house agent, Leadenhall-st. Pet. Nov. TODD, ELLEN, boot manufacturer, Leeds. Pet. Nov. 19. Dec. 4, USHAW, WILLIAM, watchmaker. Kingston-on-Hull. Pet. Nov. 20. WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS, ream. BRIEF PAPER, 158. 6d., 17s. 6d., and 238. 61. per ream. THE NEW" VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE" NOTE, "We should direct particular attention to their New Club- INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled, to hold twenty SECONDS OF FOLLOWERS, Ruled, 1s. 11d. each, 22s. per dozen, RECORDS OF MEMORIALS, 7d. each, 68. 6d. per dozen. LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER OF MINUTE-BOOKS REFORM. The exorbitant Hunting Notes from Leicestershire, Ireland, &c. Emigrant Fields of North America. Prospects of British Columbia. Sport on the Coast of Mantchuria. A Trip in the Gulf of Siam. Athletics at Oxford and Cambridge. Rowing at the Universities. Bream Fishing on the South-west Coast of Ireland. Illustrative Whist Hands. Chess at the City of London Club, &c. Crib-biting and Wind-sucking in Horses. Preparing Young Vines for Planting. Golf, Bicycling, Football, Poultry, and Pigeons. FUNERAL. Bertaker's bill have long operated at FIELD OFFICE, 346, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. an oppressive tax upon all classes of the community. With MANEY and CONNOR, FASHIONABLE TAILORS, Dec. 11, at twelve, at office of Pickering, accountant, Kingston SCIENTIFIC TROUSERS MAKERS. upon-Hull. Sols. Stead and Sibree, Hull WARE, EDWIN, wine merchant, Portsea. Pet. Nov. 20. Dec. 10, at two, at office of Brett, Milford, Pattinson, and Co. 150. Leadenhall-st, London. Bols. Cousins and Burbidge, Ports mouth A LARGE VARIETY OF WHITEHURST, WILLIAM, and WHITEHURST, HUGH, elastic web NEW GOODS for COATS and TROUSERS WILKINSON, SAMUEL, licensed victualler, Wolverhampton. Pet. 315, HIGH HOLBORN Nov. 20. Dec. 6, at eleven, at office of Sol. Barrow, Wolverhampton Thames WILLIAMS, FRANCIS, builder, Kingston-on-Thames. Pet. Nov. WINTERS, GEORGE, tailor, Hitchin. Pet. Nov, 19. Dec. 8, at Stevens, A. auctioneer, final, ?s. 4d. Harle, Bristol "OLLOWAY'S OINTMENT and PILLS.Hereditary diseases are never more likely to develop their existence, and to display their intensity, than during the autumn months. It should, therefore, be known, that the tendency to particular ailments, transmitted from parent to child, exercises a wide influence in producing disease remedial by these preparations. Consumption, gout, and scrofulous disorders are from this cause ever present, and yearly rob us of our dearest treasures. Holloway's Ointment and Pills have the power of removing from the blood the morbid qualities, in which lies the essence of all hereditary diseases; and not only do they cleanse the blood, but purify every living tissue throughout the frame. DRESS AND FASHION: The Parisian Fashions (from our Black Silk, Grey Cloth, and Brown Faille Costumes: Faille own Correspondent).-Striped Velveteen Bodice and Tunic; and Velvet Indoor Toilette; Carriage, Dinner, and Evening Toilettes; Fashionable Buttons; Invalid's Flannel Jacket; Embroidered Chemise; Dress Improver; Caps, &c., with Illustrations. THE WORK TABLE.-Hibernian Embroidery; The School of Art Needlework, &c. THE HOUSEWIFE.-On Home Service; Notes and Queries; Music and Musicians. Gazette des Dames. The Tourist. AMERICAN AND ANGLO-AMERICAN STOVES. FOR HEATING AND COOKING. CAN BE PLACED ANYWHERE. Save half the fuel, half the labour, and half the dirt. Catalogues on application. Read, 30, Castle-st, Liverpool.-Jones, T. potato merchant, firs: MURDOCH AND CO., 115, CANNON 115, CANNON STREET. and final, 28. At Trust. J. Routh, Royal Insurance-bldgs, Parkrow, Leeds.- Macartney, D. Paddington, 74d. At Sols. Minet Smith and Harvie, 6, New Broad-st. Trust. T. Allen.-Naylor, WORKS-LARBERT, N.B. Now ready, price 58. 6d., PART I., VOL. II., of MARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series). By J. P. ASPINALL, Esq.. Barrister-at-Law, in the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in all the Superior Courts, with a Selection from the Decisions of the United States Courts, with Notes by the Editor. The First Series of "Maritime Law" may now be had complete in Three Volumes, half bound, price £5 58. for the set, or any single volume for £22. Back numbers may be had to complete sets. London: HORACE COX, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C. 66 96 90 A DEPUTY County Court Judge has decided that a pig is an investment within the first section of the Married Women's Property Act 1870. The married woman in question was separated from her husband by the operation of the poor law, he being in the workhouse. She managed to earn some money while he was there, which she invested in a pig. She, however, sold the pig to a creditor of her husband, who, instead of paying for the pig, claimed a set-off. The Deputy-Judge held that the pig was the VOL LVI-No. 1601. plaintiff's separate property, and gave her judgment. We think, however, that the Deputy-Judge should have drawn the plaintiff's attention to sect. 13 of the same Act, which makes a married woman liable to the parish for the maintenance of her husband. The pig or its proceeds ought certainly to have been claimed by the guardians and we might thus have had a very neat decision on this eccentric Act of Parliament. THE position taken by Dr. KENEALY in summing up the evidence for the defence in the Tichborne trial, namely, charging conspiracy upon the part of Romish ecclesiastics for the purpose of obtaining the control of the revenues of the TICHBORNE estates, reminds us that the Tichborne case is but an incident of the warfare which that learned gentleman is professedly waging against the Church of Rome. He was counsel for the defendant in Darby v. Ouseley in 1856, which was a very singular action. It was brought by a tide-waiter at Liverpool for a libel imputing to him that he was a rebel and a traitor by reason of his being a Roman Catholic, and a member of a certain Roman Catholic Society for the Conversion of England" by prayers and other means" to the Roman Catholic faith. The defendant's counsel, at the close of the plaintiff's case, did not intimate that he proposed to call witnesses and (having elicited on cross-examination of the plaintiff that he was a Roman Catholic, and considered himself bound by the canons of councils, and believed in the authority of the Pope) in his speech proposed to refer to the notes of the Rheimish Testament, and to describe to the jury the nature of the Austrian Concordat with the Church of Rome, and to read certain canons of the Councils of Lateran and Sens, Trent and Thurles, with a view of showing that the principles and opinions entertained by eminent members of the Roman Catholic Church were inimical to loyalty. The judge ruled that these matters were irrelevant and the defendant's counsel having in his speech repeated the charge against the plaintiff, the learned judge commented upon this in his summing up as evidence of malice, expressed his opinion on the libel in strong terms, and having left the question to the jury as one merely of amount of damages, they found for the plaintiff. This verdict the full court declined to disturb. SIR GEORGE JESSEL would appear to be setting an admirable example in more ways than one. His judgments which we have already reported, are remarkably pithy and concise, a good specimen being that afforded by Paull v. Mortimer (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 418.): Three executors allow an investment of 500l. to remain upon a security which is at the time quite insufficient. They then proceed to distribute the residue. One of them dies, and the legatee claims to be paid her legacy. The surviving executors, under a misapprehension of their duty, resist. The administration of the estate is thrown upon the court, and in the course of it they stop the suit by payment of the legacy. They then ask the executors of the deceased executor for the difference of the amount realised and the 5001., which is paid. Now they claim the costs of their abortive resistance. I am at a loss to understand upon what principle such a claim can be supported. If a legacy is paid by mistake, executors cannot claim it back from the residuary legatees. If the omission to set apart a sum to meet this legacy were a breach of trust, of course the liability might be established. But it is not a breach of trust, and I hold that the representative of the executor is not liable for the costs of a resistance to the demand of the legatee, which was undertaken without notice to him. The summons must be dismissed with costs." The question in this bare form, it was stated, had not occurred before. In another case (Fothergill v. Rowland, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 414) Sir GEORGE JESSEL said he did not approve when at the Bar, and does not now that he is on the Bench, of the practice of not deciding a substantial question when it is fairly raised between the parties and argued, simply because it is raised by demurrer. He thought demurring ought to be encouraged, and questions thus speedily and cheaply determined. LAW reform is attracting attention in the Australian colonies, and a somewhat remarkable article on the subject appears in the South Australian Advertiser for the 30th of last September, the object being to advocate the extension of the jurisdiction of the local courts. A very extraordinary illustration of elaborate pleading is given as evidence of the desirability of encouraging the simple procedure of the local courts. The pleading in question was a declaration in the case of the North Australian Company v. Blackmore, commenced three years ago, and still unsettled. The declaration is thus described by our contemporary: "It consisted of more than 650 pages of brief paper, equal to over 1300 pages of foolscap, containing about 5000 common law folios of seventy-two words each. The cost of a single copy of this immense monument of legal art, at the ordinary rate of 3d. per folio, would amount to the trifling sum of £62 10s., and it would take fifty days to write out such a copy." 'The court," we are told, “when the simple and concise statement of the plaintiff's cause of action was produced, consisted of three learned and experienced Judges. Even they were incredulous at first. They refused to believe that the art of man, or the skill of a pleader, could manufacture such a simple and concise declaration as was presented to them. It was only the serious assurance of counsel that this formidable mass of paper was really the declaration in the action that at length convinced the court of the correctness of the assertion as to this 'question of fact.' On the trial of the cause all parties were happily spared the pending infliction of having these simple and concise pleadings read. This was dispensed with by general consent. Consequently, the trial was had without the plaintiff's own statement of his cause of action being read." Pleaders who indulge in this monstrous and antiquated form of declaring are the worst enemies of their own calling, and when the Judicature Act comes into operation it is to be hoped that conciseness and verbal accuracy will be carefully cultivated. To the production of what documents a party is entitled at the hands of his adversary is a question of much practical importance, and there is a general principle that letters passing between codefendants are not privileged from production though written after the dispute has arisen, and in contemplation of litigation, or even after the institution of a suit, and with a view to defence in the suit-except as to such parts thereof as contain the opinions of legal advisers consulted by the defendants: (Kerr on Discovery, 146.) A further exception was made by the case of Hamilton v. Nott (L. Rep. 16 Eq. 112), where one defendant was a solicitor, and acted as agent for the solicitor on the record to collect evidence in the suit. The letters which passed between him and his co-defendant were held privileged from production. The principle has been further illustrated by the case of Carr v. New Qrelrada Company, before Vice-Chancellor MALINS on the 22nd ult., where it was sought to obtain production of correspondence which had passed between the company and their agent. The documents in question were rough notes kept, made and prepared by the agent, from which a statement was compiled for the use of an arbitrator appointed by the company on the occasion of an arbitration on the subject-matter of the suit. On the ground that the notes were compiled by an agent of the company they refused to produce them, and their refusal was held justifiable. WHEN our police are discovering such extraordinary capacity for false swearing and arresting harmless and unoffending people, it is some small satisfaction to find that the weakness is not confined to this country. A case recently reported from the Supreme Court of Illinois reveals a state of things in that State which we hope is not universal. CHRISTOPHER RAFFERTY was found guilty of the murder of PATRICK O'MEARA, a policeman. In giving judgment in error, Judge MCALLISTER said: "The record contains evidence tending to show that the homicide was committed by the prisoner in resisting the deceased, who was a policeman of the city of Chicago, whilst engaged, in connection with another policeman, whom he was aiding in the act of committing an illegal and wholly unjustifiable invasion of prisoner's liberty, by attempting to seize his person and take him off to prison without any authority to do so." The circumstances of the arrest strangely resemble those to which we are rapidly becoming accustomed. The prisoner, to use the Judge's own words, was sitting quietly and peaceably by a table in a saloon, when O'MEARA, the deceased, and another policeman of the name of SCANLAN, came in. O'MEARA immediately pointed the prisoner out to SCANLAN. The prisoner, upon seeing O'MEARA, addressed him in a friendly manner, asking him to take something to drink, or a cigar, which was declined.' He was then told that the police had a warrant for his arrest; the deceased stood at the door to prevent his escape, and then the fatal shot was fired. There was not the slightest pretence that the prisoner had been accused or suspected of having committed any felony, or that at the time he was in the act of committing a misdemeanor or even any violation of a city ordinance. The warrant held by the police was one of several which had been signed by a magistrate in blank, to be filled up by the inspector as emergency" required. At the trial this warrant was excluded from the attention of the jury, and upon that ground the prisoner's counsel excepted. The Court of Appeal has held that evidence of the illegal nature of the warrant was admissible, the law being clear that in resisting an illegal arrest, if death result, the crime is manslaughter-not murder. 66 THE question of the payment of the costs of liquidation proceedings where bankruptcy supervenes is one which should be understood by practitioners, and we therefore direct their attention to Ex parte Jeffery; re Hawes (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 433). There a debtor being unable to attend to his business, some bill of sale holders, with his consent, took possession of his estate, and called a meeting in order to make some arrangement with his creditors generally. Being, subsequently, apprehensive that his estate was being sold at an undervalue, he instructed his solicitor to file a petition for liquidation. A receiver was forthwith appointed, and took possession of the estate. At the first meeting, however, the proposition to liquidate was negatived by a large majority, and the next day a petition in bankruptcy was presented against the debtor, and he was adjudicated bankrupt. Thereupon the question arose as to how the costs of the liquidation proceedings should be paid. An application was made by the debtor to a County Court Judge for an order for payment of them out of the estate, but it was dismissed with costs: hence the appeal. The 292nd of the Bankruptcy Rules 1870 says "that where bankruptcy occurs pending proceedings for or towards liquidation by arrangement, the proper costs incurred in relation to such proceedings shall be paid by the trustee out of the debtor's estate, unless the court shall otherwise order." The Chief Judge states clearly the only circumstances under which the court should otherwise order. He said that he was of opinion that unless a corrupt and fraudulent motive could be proved against the bankrupt, the costs of the liquidation proceedings ought to be paid, and, in the particular case, the only possible motive of the debtor in filing his petition was to preserve the property for the general body of creditors. A contention was raised that liquidation by arrangement being negatived before the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the bankruptcy did not take place while the liquidation proceedings were pending. His Lordship, however, does not appear to have given any attention to this point, and the debtor got his costs of the liquidation and of the application in the court below. THE question whether not only the Croydon Court, but all County Courts within a radius of twenty miles of London should not be abolished, and their jurisdiction vested in the metropolitan courts is one of great importance, and the only objection that can be raised to it must necessarily come from those locally interested, and the meeting held at Croydon on the 25th ult. gives expression to the local feeling temperately and properly. But the public, we conceive, frequently suffer by being obliged to go into districts, carrying with them London counsel and attorneys, in cases which might with much greater convenience be tried in the City, or at Westminster or Marylebone. We suppose, however, that the argument which has been advanced in favour of maintaining the Home Circuit applies equally to the maintenance of the local courts round London. The Judicature Commission, however, has advised their removal, and, this being so, a very strong case must, we anticipate, be made out to save them from extinction. The tendency of recent legislation lies decidedly in that direction. The question of imprisonment for debt was also discussed at the Croydon meeting. On this question we think that the resolutions which were passed at the meeting, and which we publish elsewhere, call for observation. We quite agree that the power to commit to prison those who can and will not pay their debts vested in both the Judges of the Supreme and County Courts, ought to be continued, but we can see no reason for excepting from it any debtor, however much his debt or his earnings, always provided he comes within the clear and simple category of being able, and not willing to pay;" and indeed, this is one stronger reason for enforcing payment on the humbler classes according to their ability, because to them credit is absolutely necessary at certain times of want of work, or ability to work, and it is only by the guarantee afforded by the imprisonment of the dishonest that the honest can get credit. We know of no alteration that is required in the law which now wisely rejects all questions of fraud in contracting the debts, which are left to the criminal tribunal, but resolves all cases into the simple question--is the debtor able and not willing to pay his just debts? We hope, notwithstanding, the report of the committee of last session as to the law of imprisonment for debt, that we shall not have another added to the many recent changes for change sake. 66 Ir we may form an opinion upon some observations which appear in the last number of the Irish Law Times, we need have little scruple in reforming the courts of law in Ireland, and abolishing the intermediate Court of Appeal. We have rarely seen so graphic a description of utter confusion as we find in the columns of our contemporary, and in order that we may not understate the case, we will give his own words: "As the courts are at present constituted," we are told, "they do not satisfy the public or themselves, either in the manner they discharge their own business, or review each other's decisions. The courts of first instance, or those which hear and decide cases of pleading and practice on the common law side of the Hall of the Four Courts, and control the trial and decision of questions of law and fact after their disposal at Nisi Prius, are jealous of their respective regula tions, differ in their views, clash in the exercise of their respec tive jurisdictions, and when reviewing each other's decisions in the Court of Error, as at present constituted, "pay each other off," without much consideration or respect. When the Common Pleas and Exchequer fancy they catch the Queen's Bench at fault, they trip them up unmercifully, and when the Queen's Bench come round in their turn to take either of their former critics to task, they feel disposed to return the compliment with interest. We sometimes find great questions decided on appeal to the Court of Error, by a minority of judges overruling the decision of the majority, and the public are obliged to be content with the law thus laid down, although the reasoning, as well as the number, of the dissentients is more to be relied on. As to the courts of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-Chancellor, on the equity side, we are constrained to say they have each their respective views, and although in the main they have earned the respect and confidence of the public, yet their practice and procedure are not what the Profession and the public desire, especially in the subordinate offices attached to each." This we venture to think is a lively Irish sketch, and one in which implicit trust ought not to be placed. It is hardly credible that a number of educated gentlemen entrusted with the highest functions in the State, should administer the law according to the bias of their personal feelings. The Court of Appeal our contemporary is rather shy of, simply observing that matters there have become too exciting to be pleasant. Anything that the Legislature may do with these courts cannot assuredly make them worse than they are--if we believe the Irish Law Times. THERE seems to be as much inconsistency in the decisions arrived at by the Masters sitting for the Judges at Chambers in matters relating to articled clerks' notices, as there is want of uniformity in the notices themselves. Previous to a Preliminary Examination it is necessary to give one calendar month's notice prior to the day of examination. For an Intermediate one calendar month's notice, prior to the first day of the term in which the candidate proposes to present himself for examination, is requisite. In the ease of a Final Examination a clear term's notice must be given. Our last week's number contaiued a report of two cases determined by Masters sitting at Chambers. In the first application was made, on the 22nd ult., for leave to enter copies of an admission notice, given for Michaelmas Term last, in the Judges' books one day previous to the day appointed for admission, the rules of Hilary Term 1853 prescribing the period when such entries should be made, prior to the Term preceding that in which admission as an attorney is sought. The application seems to have been grounded on an affidavit of the applicant's ignorance of the rules, and an order was made in. the terms of the application. In the second case, as reported by us, an order was solicited on the 24th ult. for leave to give to the Masters of the Queen's Bench, and to enter in the same Judges' books, a similar admission notice for the ensuing Hilary Term, and the application was refused. The anomaly is apparent. In the first case the publication for one Term of the applicant's name in the usual list must have been taken as being all that was considered necessary, and the entry in the Judges' books a matter of no consequence. In the latter, the same publication for one term in the same list, coupled with the fact of the entries standing in the Judges' books for a period of nearly two months prior to admission, does not suffice, notwithstanding the statement on oath of the applicant that he had been led into the error of not giving his notice in due time, by supposing that a similar notice to that required in the case of an Intermediate Examination was all that was necessary. We commend these cases to the consideration of the various Articled Clerks' Societies in London and the provinces. LIBELS IN NEWSPAPERS. THE case of Gilbert v. Enoch, recently tried before Mr. Justice Brett, seems to have attracted a somewhat undue amount of attention, as if some novel principle had been established, or the old principles applied in some new manner. The alleged libel was contained in a criticism on a comedy, the criticism amounting to this: That the play was coarse, vulgar, and indecent. What did Mr. Justice Brett tell the jury? First, that however hostile in spirit and wrong as a criticism-rather a loose expression, we think -if it does not travel away from the work to slander the author, it is no libel. If the criticism goes beyond the work, and attributes to the composer some conduct or motive which, if truly imputed, would in the eyes of reasonable persons of right sentiment, cause a feeling of hatred, ridicule, and contempt for him, it is a libel. Bona fides and honest belief in its truth are then immaterial. What is there in this which was not already established law? Was it not said, in effect, by Lord Ellenborough, when he directed the jury, in Tabart v. Tipper (1 Camp. 351), thus: "That publication I shall not consider as a libel which has for its object, not to injure the reputation of any individual, but to... expose a vicious taste in literature, or to censure what is hostile to morality?" And further on, "Reflection upon personal character is another thing. Show me an attack on the moral character of the plaintiff, or any attack upon his character unconnected with his authorship, and I shall be as ready as any Judge who ever sat here to protect him." Or what did Mr. Justice Brett say which was not in effect said by Lord Tenterden in Macleod v. Wakley (3 C. & P. 313) ? "Whatever is fair and can be reasonably said of the authors of works, or of themselves as connected with their works, is not actionable unless it appear that, under the pretext of criticising the works, the defendant takes an opportunity of attacking the character of the author; and then it will be a libel." We do not, however, wish to detract from the admirable clearness and conciseness of Mr. Justice Brett's direction, which gives us the law applicable to the case under consideration in terms not to be misunderstood. There is a feature in the case apart from the direction which is of some interest and deserves discussion. In the action of Mr. Dixon against the Pall Mall Gazette, if we remember rightly, references to other criticisms which has reviewed his bock favourably were held inadmissible. In the action of Mr. Gilbert against the same newspaper the line pursued in criticising his previous plays was adverted to to support the suggestion that the critic had been actuated by malice, and this was allowed. The principles upon which matter other than that constituting the libel is admitted has been more than once discussed, and it is clear that such matter should be accepted with great caution. Chief Baron Pollock, in Darby v. Ouseley (25 L. J., Ex., at p. 229) says: "The rule is that other paragraphs or passages of a document put in by the plaintiff are to be read as part of his evidence, if they are connected with, or construe, or control, modify, qualify, or explain the passages which have been read by the plaintiff; but that was not the case in the present instance. Not only was the article an entirely distinct one, but it did not at all interpret, modify, or explain the passages put in by the plaintiff, and it was entirely irrelevant to it; except that it related to the plaintiff, it was upon a different subject." From this it would seem that in order to entitle a plaintiff to put in anything besides the article complained of, to give colour to it, it must not only refer to him but be relevant to the subject matter; and if it is sought to prove malice by such other publication it must directly affect the alleged libel. "The subsequent article put in by the plaintiff," said the Chief Baron in Darby v. Ouseley, was only admissible as evidence of malice, and the passage proposed to be read for the defendants could not be deemed part of that evidence, because it did not at all affect it.” In that case the plaintiff's counsel, in order to show actual malice, put in a number of the defendant's paper subsequent to that containing the libel. The defendant's counsel proposed to read as part of the plaintiff's evidence a paragraph in the same paper referring to the action which had then been commenced by plaintiff, but Mr. Justice Willes, not considering that such paragraph was one in any degree mitigating, modifying, or explaining the article put in as evidence of actual malice, ruled that it was not to be read as part of the plaintiff's evidence. 66 We think it may be contended, therefore, that, in strictness, the fact that in previous articles a newspaper has pursued a course apparently inimical to an author, ought not, unless actually affecting the subject-matter complained of, be admitted as evidence of malice. But publications subsequent to the article complained of may be taken together with it so as to prove malice. Malice, in strictness, is a question of law upon the libel itself, and the libel must be taken in connection only with anything subsequent which controls, explains, or aggravates it. The course which has been pursued in connection with the case of Gilbert v. Enoch is somewhat extraordinary, and one which we think ought not to be encouraged. Although the jury found both parties innocent of any offence, Mr. Gilbert has resorted to the newspapers to reiterate his charge against the Pall Mall Gazette, and the Pall Mall Gazette has printed its justification, saying in effect that the jury were not warranted in adding anything to their verdict, and that what they did add-namely, that the play was innocent and inoffensive-was untrue. The press generally seemed highly pleased with the verdict and the expression of the jury, and we think both parties might well have rested content. As it is, neither party is satisfied; even the Pall Mall, which has the verdict, quibbling concerning the observations of the jury. Obviously juries would do well to remember the privilege which Mr. Justice Brett reminded a jury a few days since that they enjoy, of giving no reasons for their verdict. The Pall Mall is now seeking to prove that the jury were wrong in saying that the play is innocent, and certainly it would seem that if the play is innocent, the criticism was a libel. Trial by jury will be worth very little if the litigation is to be prolonged in the columns of the press. And, as a rule, comments by a litigant upon his own case are dangerous. (Strauss v. Francis, second action.) THE ESTATES OF PARTNERS IN BANKRUPTCY.-I. NUMEROUS Cases with reference to the administration of the estates. of partners in bankruptcy, show clearly enough that the subject is not without difficulty, and it is desirable that the established principles of the bankruptcy law with reference to it should be well understood. We will first consider what is joint estate. A good illustration of the questions which may arise as to what is joint and what separate estate, is furnished by Re Rowland and Crankshaw (L. Rep. 1 Ch. App. 421). The arrangement there was this. Crankshaw was to employ Rowland as his traveller and superintendent for fifteen months; Rowland to purchase goods for Crankshaw without commission, and to receive a salary of £150 a year, and 10 per cent. on the profits remaining after deducting the salary; the business to be carried on under the firm of Rowland and Co.; and that at the end of the fifteen months a partnership should be formed between them on certain terms. In the March previous to the July at which the partnership was to be entered into, Rowland was adjudged bankrupt, and on the day following Crankshaw was also adjudged bankrupt on a separate petition. The question arising on the appeal was whether there was any partnership-whether |