she could obtain relief, or the husband be brought before the magistrate, and said the poorer orders required further legislation in a manner, to a certain extent, pointed out by Mr. Mathews. As regarded the richer classes, it was now the almost universal practice to insert a clause in the marriage settlement providing that any property afterwards acquired by the wife should be settled upon her, and he thought it a very wholesome provision. Mr. Mathews, replying upon the discussion, said that although magistrates were empowered to grant protection orders, securing to a wife her earnings, those orders could only be granted in the case of desertion, and it was found almost impossible to get a wife to go into a police court and make the grievances between herself and her husband known to the public. A case in point was furnished in Birmingham. A servant of his own married unhappily, and after she had borne her husband three children he deserted her, and was now living with another woman. He was earning £3 or 4 per week, but no provision could be got for the wife unless she went to the parish. The result was he (the speaker) and some of his friends had to support her and her children. THE JUDICATURE ACT. Mr. E. F. Burton (London) read a paper on this Act, examining the measure in detail, and pointing out the several ways in which it would affect solicitors in their everyday practice. It was a great experiment. Whether it would turn out, for the next twenty years, until a new race of men shall be at the bar or at the bench, a blessing or a curse, would, in his belief, depend upon the temper in which the common law judges interpreted and adopted it. If adopted by the common law judges (for it was in the common law division that the real change was to be worked out) in a broad and liberal spirit, it would simplify litigation, and avoid much scandal. But if received in the same sort of captious spirit in which the composition deeds were dealt with under the old Bankruptcy Act, suitors for the next twenty years would have a rough time of it. In conclusion, he adverted to the many important improvements introduced into this Act upon the suggestion of the Incorporated Law Society and other societies whose honesty of purpose had never been more completely displayed. The manner in which their suggestions were received did honour to the great mind of the present Lord Chancellor. A few words in commendation of the paper were made by the chairman, Mr. Sharpe, and others. As several members had to leave by an early train, thanks were voted to the Birmingham Law Society for the munificent hospitality with which they had received and entertained the gentlemen who had attended from a distance; to Mr. Horton, the hon. sec.; to the local committee, for their great and successful exertions to promote the business of the meeting; to the Royal Society of Artists, for their kindness in giving permission for the conversazione to be held in their rooms that evening; to the authors of paper read; and to the president, for his valuable address and his able conduct in the chair. 3 Mr. W. E. Shirley (Doncaster) afterwards read a paper "On the Education of Attorneys;" and the Hon. Sec. one by Mr. R.W. Griffith (of Cardiff), containing " Suggestions for the Revival of the Inns of Chancery.' The proceedings then terminated. The following members of the Profession were present: Mr. Pidcock, in the chair; Messrs. E. Turner Payne, of Bath; A. Ryland, G. J. Johnson, T. Horton, C. T. Saunders, R. H. Milward, S. Balden, jun.; W. S. Allen, T. E. Spencer, J. Marigold, E. L. Tyndall, E. J. Hayes, J. H. Barclay, H. W. Tyndall, E. B. Rawlings, C. E. Mathews, C. H. Edwards, F. Sanders, Thos. Martineau, C. B. King, F. Price, L. P. Rowley, D. W. H. Pemberton, Jacob Rowlands, G. F. James, G. W. Hickman, J. R. Holliday, W. Sextus Harding, J. Chirm, V. Bower, W. Septimus Harding, J. G. Bradbury, J. S. Canning, H. D. Crompton, Geo. Page, Joseph Rowlands, E. F. Mason, C. Harding, W. Lowe, W. Evans, W. Morgan, E. T. Ratcliffe, H. L. Smith, E. M. Coleman, C. H. Owen, H. T. Edges, T. G. Lee, J. B. Clarke, B. Chesshire, W. Brown, J. Jelf, J. Stubbin, and J. L. Smith, of Birmingham; J. Miller and H. F. Lawes, of Bristol; R. Ellett, of Cirencester; J. Slater, of Darlaston; W. E. Shirley, of Doncaster; H. New, of Evesham; G. Whitcombe, of Gloucester; G. England, of Howden; T. Marshall, J. Rider, J. D. Kay and G. H. Nelson, of Leeds; J. H. E. Gill, W. Radcliffe, R. A. Payne, J. Atkinson, E. W. Bird, R. S. Cleaver and J. H. Kenion, of Liverpool; A. W. Sadgrove, J. H. Kays, J. S. Torr, E. F. Burton, F. R. Parker, W. Shaen, E. Bromley, T. Eiffe and Philip Rickman, of London; T. Jepson, M. Bateson Wood, W. H. Guest and Percy Woolley, of Manchester; R. R. Dees, G. W. Hodge, T. G. Gibson and R. S. Watson, of Newcastle; B. T. Sharpe, of Norwich; T. Hawdon, of Selby; Lindsay W. Winterbotham, of Stroud; S. Alcock, jun., of Sunderland; H. Addenbroke and T. S. Eddowes, of Sutton Coldfield; T. Southall, W. P. Hughes, and T. G. Hyde, of Worcester; T. Marlow and Lauris Winterbotham, of Walsall; J. Lewis, of Wrexham; and J. Holtby, of York. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE. ON Thursday evening, the 23rd ultimo, Professor Sheldon Amos, M.A., delivered a lecture at the University College, Gower-street, on "The Value of Lectures in the Study of the Law," to a large audience. In the course of his remarks, the Professor said that about forty years ago saw the foundation of University College, the chief object of which was to encourage the faculties of law and medicine. Among those who had occupied the presidential chairs at this institution were the late Mr. Austin, as well as the lecturer's father, and many other eminent men. The college had since that time been distinguished in medicine, whereas the legal faculty had unfortunately fallen off to some extent; but, throughout the whole time he was of opinion that the college was not at fault, for it had always endeavoured, as far as possible, to encourage the scientific study of the law, and had always held out its arms to young men, not exclusively to barristers, but to all young men, to come and share in its teaching. In speaking of the condition of law at the present day, he said that the present time was a critical moment in the history of legal education. We were now contemplating a very great change in the whole judicial institutions of this country. There were two great works to be done-the reconstruction of the form of the law, and the ensuring of a complete and efficient legal education, to bring all members of both branches of the Profession in contact with the best teachers. There was no doubt but that this work would be done, as several schemes were contemplated by various bodies and associations, which schemes would, in a short time, converge, and there would be as good a system in England as in many other countries. The question of lectures would, he believed, become, very shortly, an important question; and the University College had already begun to avail itself in the use of them in the study of law. This college was the first that had offered public instruction to joint classes of men and women. But the point might arise in some minds whether there was in these days of abundant and easy access to every kind of literature anything for the lecturer to do. Notwithstanding the variety and number of books at the disposal of students, and in fact partly on that account, was it necessary for a student of law to have some one to guide him in his studies, by pointing out the course he should pursue, and also the course he should avoid; for oftentimes a student spends a great deal of time in wading through books which were of little or no use to him. It was also desirable when a par ticular branch of the law was to be studied that a person should be able to know the best authorities in the particular branch to which he directed himself. If a student desired to learn history, Henry Maine might be studied to advantage; or if he required to study law for practical purposes, and was endeavouring to ascertain what the law of England was at the present day, he might go to Blackstone. If for philosophical purposes, to know what was the meaning of law, and what place it held as a science, if it were a science, he would suggest the works of Austin. But in each of these methods of study the aid of the lecturer would be valuable. The law, as it concerned the relations of men to each other in society, and gave extended powers of freedom to some persons to restrain that power in others, was of great interest to all classes, although by the great controversy concerning terms it was far from being understood by them. It affected everyone directly or indirectly, by being associated with commerce, property, crime. &c., and formed part of the every-day life of all persons. But in all these relations, and in the difficult controversy respecting terms, it was the province of the lecturer to explain and suggest to his students the best books with which to become acquainted; and when a student met with vagueness or difficulty in a book, the lecturer was to do what the work would, could it but speak. And not merely by answering the questions of those whom he was teaching, but also by encouraging his class to get up short conversations, thereby inducing them when they met a small difficulty, they might to if it was a real difficulty, and then if it was they could refer it to their lecturer. In giving his advice with respect to the study of books, the lecturer said, that, speaking from experience, he could tell them what to avoid; but he should not endeavour to thrust upon them certain opinions, simply because he had pursued that particular course of study. Another valuable aid of the lecturer was to explain to the student the great changes which were continually taking place in law, which grew from generation to generation, and even from day to day. For instance, the laws of the present day had grown considerably since the times of the Romans; and the great question of to-day respecting international law, was consequent on the growth of law, great divergences of opinion existing upon this point, some persons holding that there was no such thing as international law; all these questions came within the province of the lecturer to elucidate for the benefit of his classes. Law, in its very materials, form, and conception, grew; it grew with all the changing incidents of society, and every new form of relation and commerce gave an impetus to it. It was, therefore, obvious that no books could keep pace with it, but it afforded to the lecturer an opportunity to display his usefulness by endeavouring to do what books were unable to do, and to keep his eye steadfast on the changes going on around him, to watch every moral change in society, and to say whether any real change was being introduced into the land. The lecturer then proceeded to speak of the advantages of both sexes studying together, and also of the categorical system of study-as tending to bring together a much greater divergence of opinion, and consequently an extended knowledge was obtained. THE UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON. THE first meeting of this Society after the Long Vacation was held at 1, Adam-street, Adelphi, on Tuesday evening last, when the President moved "That this House would view with regret the establishment of a Monarchy in France by the present National Assembly." A majority of the House approved the motion. SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. 1HE usual monthly meeting of the Board of Directors of this Association was held at the Law Institution, London, on Wednesday last, Nov. 5, Mr. Park Nelson in the chair; the other directors present being-Messrs. Brook, Hedger, Rickman, Roscoe, Shaen, Smith, Styan and Torr (Mr. Eiffe, secretary). A sum of 110l. was distributed in donations to nine necessitous families of deceased solicitors; twenty-two new members were ad mitted to the association, and other general busi ness transacted. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY THE first meeting after the long vacation took place on the 28th Oct., at the Law Institution, there being a large attendance of members. The following question was discussed: "Has a pecuniary legatee a right to call upon a residuary devisee to contribute to the payment of debts? and was decided in the negative. At the next meeting, held on 4th Nov., the question discussed "Is the Judicature Act a satisfactory measure?" and was decided in the affirmative by a moderate majority. was: LAW ASSOCIATION. AT the usual monthly meeting of the directors held at the Hall of the Incorporated Law Society in Chancery-lane, on Thursday, the 6th Nov. inst., (chairman), Mr. Bennett, Mr. Burges, Mr. Carthe following being present, viz.: Mr. Steward penter, Mr. Collisson, Mr. Drew, Mr. Hedger, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Nisbet, Mr. Sawtell, Mr. Sidney Boodle (secretary), a grant of £50 was made to Smith, Mr. Styan, Mr. Williamson, and Mr. the daughters of a deceased member, two grants of £10 each were made to the widows of nonmembers, three new members were elected, and other ordinary business was transacted. HUDDERSFIELD LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. On Friday evening, Oct. 24, E. Tindal Atkinson, Esq., barrister-at-law, delivered a lecture before this society on the first part of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873. On Monday, Oct. 27, the usual fortnightly debate took place. The follow ing question was appointed for discussion: "Is there any implied condition in letting a furnished house that it shall be reasonably fit for habita. tion? (Smith v. Marrable, 11 M. & W. 5; Hart v. Winsor, 12 M. & W. 68; Sutton v. Temple, 12 M. & W. 52). Messrs. R. Welsh and A. Ainley conducted the affirmative, and Messrs. J. Yeoman and W. Brown the negative. question was decided in the affirmative by a majority of three. The LEGAL OBITUARY. NOTE. This department of the Law TIMES, is contributed by EDWARD WALFORD, M. A., and late scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, and Fellow of the Genealogical and Historical Society of Great Britain; and, as it is desired to make it as perfect a record as possible, the families and friends of deceased members of the Profession will oblige by forwarding to the LAW TIMES Office any dates and materials required for a biographical notice. SIR W. BOVILL. THE late Right Hon. Sir William Bovill, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, who died, after a comparatively short illness, on Saturday last, the 1st inst., at Combe House, near Kingston-on-Thames, the residence of J. C. Sim, Esq., in the fifty-ninth year of his age,_was the second son of the late Benjamin Bovill, Esq., of Wimbledon, Surrey, who died in 1864. He was born in the year 1814, and having been privately educated, was articled to Messrs. Willis, Watson, Bower and Willis, of Tokenhouse-yard, Lothbury. Mr. Oxenford, articled with him, says :-" At an early age for he was about two years younger than myself-he was remarkable for the zeal with which he pursued his legal studies, a virtue which, in those days at least, was by no means universal among articles.' It was at the instance of Mr Bower, I believe, that he quitted the office for the Bar." He was first admitted a pleader under the Bar, and was called by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, in Hilary Term, 1841. He went the Home Circuit, and his course as a junior was marked by his rapid entrance into an extensive and lucrative practice, and he soon became one of the acknowledged leaders on the circuit he had chosen. The Surrey Standard says:—“There can be no doubt that his lordship's connection with a great East-end manufacturing In BENJAMIN, BENJAMIN, importer of foreign goods, Blackman-st, BURTON, JOHNSON, grocer, Birmngham. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 15, displayed towards the Bar. And at Nisi Prius he Sir William Bovill married, in 1844, Maria, daughter of John Henry Bolton, Esq., of Lee Park, near Blackheath, Kent, by whom he has had a family of eight sons and four daughters. His eldest son, Mr. William Channell Bovill, is a barrister of the Middle Temple, and Clerk of Assize on the Western Circuit. A. C. WALFORD, ESQ. THE GAZETTES. Professional Partnerships Dissolbed. Gazette, Oct. 28. GAMBLE and COOKE, solicitors and attorneys, Derby. March 15. (Edward Gamble and Frederick Duckering Cooke.) Debts by Bankrupts. firm contributed to his success at the Bar. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. COLLINS, MARK, hatter, Broad-st, Bloomsbury. To surrender in the Country. Mortimer. Sur. Nov. 11. Pet. Oct. 28. Reg. staplers, Halifax. Pet. Oct. 27. Reg. Rankin. Sur. Nov. 13. TRAGHEIM, NICOLAI, furniture dealer, West Hartlepool. Pet. Oct. 28. Reg. Elis. Sur. Nov. 12. Gazette, Nov. 4. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-st. To surrender in the Country. The article in the Surrey Standard, from which It was as a judge, perhaps, that the deceased was least successful. He succeeded a great judge who for years had presided over a strong court. He must have felt the superiority of Willes in learning, and indeed of Mr. Justice Keating also, both of whom possessed the advantage of long judicial experience when Mr. Bovill was promoted from the Bar to be their chief. The diffidence which such a feeling produced is said to have been the cause of the irritability of manner which he FIRST MEETINGS. Oct. 20. Nov. 11, at three, at the London Warehousemen's ASHBY, GEORGE, grocer, High-st, Hampstead. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 12, at two, at office of Sol. Tyrer, Prescot DALBY, WILLIAM, shopkeeper, York. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 14, at EVEREST, FRANK, grocer, High-st, Bow. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 24, FOX, WALTER, butcher, Cardiff. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 18, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Blelloch, Cardiff Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 14, FRIGOUT, HENRY ALFRED, and ARTAUT, LOUIS, lamp manu- GOODWIN, LORENZO, joiner, Leeds. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 12, at HALL, WILLIAM, apothecary, Brompton-rd, St. Mary Abbotts, HARPER, LEVI, miner, Sedgley. Pet. Oct. 25. Nov. 10, at eleven, HARVEY, GEORGE, grocer, Reading. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 13, at HAYWARD, CHARLES, hairdresser, Bridgewater. Pet. Oct. 28. HIRSCHMANN, JOSEPH, wine importer, Cannon-st. Pet. Oct 28. HODGSON, JOSEPH WILLIAM, fronmononger, Workington. Pet. HOWARD, ROBERT, ironfounder, Rochdale. Pet. Oct. 20. Nov von JACOBS, EDWARD, victualler, Bristol. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 12, at KINSEY, WILLIAM BARNS, and MERRITT, WILLIAM DOWNES, LANGAN, FRANCIS, shoemaker, Birmingham. Pet. Oct. 29. MARTIN, WILLIAM HATCH, faimer, Clovelly. Pet. Oct. 23. PARKER, WILLIAM, fruiterer, Nottingham. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov 18, POATE, RICHARD, artist, Portsmouth. Pet. Oct. 24. Nov. 12, at POLLARD, MARY, grocer, Que n's-head-la, Islington. Pet. Oct. RHODES, THOMAS, earthenware dealer, Hull. Pet. Oct. 24. Nov. SELLER, MICHAEL HENRY, trunk manufacturer, Buckingham- SNOWDEN, GEORGE JAMES, upholsterer, Mile-end-rd. Pet. Oct. SUNDERLAND, JAMES SMITH, warehouseman, Leeds. Pet. Oct. TINSLEY, EDWARD, draper, Hull. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 12, at Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 13, at twelve, at the St. Helen's Glass Co. 6, Nelson-st. TUCKER, JOSIAH, out of business, Sandringham-rd, Dalston. WHITEHOUSE, HENRY WRIGHT, grocer, Phonix-st, Somers. WILLIAMS, JOHN ROBERT, tailor, Exeter. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 15, at eleven, at office of J. O. Harris, Wreford, and Co. accountants, Exeter. Sol. Huggins, Exeter WOOD, JAMES, grocer, Congleton. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 19, at three at the Lion and Swan hotel, Congleton. So!. Vaudrey WRIGHT, WILLIAM, wheelwright, Manchester. Pe. Oct. 25. Nov. 20, at three, at office of Sol. Richardson, Manchester Gazette, Nov. 4. ALLEN, WILLIAM CHARLES, upholsterer, Tunstall, Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 12, at three, at office of Sol. Hollinshead, Tunstall ARTHUR, ARTHUR DAVID, asphalter, Lincoln. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 18, at eleven, at offices of Jay, public accountant, Lincoln. Sol. Page, Lincoln ASHBY, AARON DAVID, miller, Carshalton. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 18, at half past two, at the Guildhall tavern, Gresham-st. Sol. Arnold, Park-la, Croydon ASHMORE, JOHN, joiner, Manchester. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 19, at three, at office of Sol. Burton, Manchester BELL, WILLIAM, boot seller, Brecon. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 21, at two, at office of Sol. Bishop, Brecon BENNETT, EDWIN, potato salesman, Brushfield-st, Spitalfields. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 14, at three, at office of Sol. Webster, Basinghall-st BROADBENT, GEORGE, shoe merchant, Stockton-on-Tees. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 19, at eleven, at office of Sol. Robinson, Darling ton BROOKES, EDWIN, lapidary, Birmingham. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 14, at eleven, at office of Sol. Davies, Birmingham BROWN, ABRAHAM, grocer, Newcastle-under-Lyme. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 19, at eleven, at the County Court offices, Hanley. Sol. Hollinshead, Tunstall CAIN, JAMES, fish dealer, Bolton. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 17, at three, at offices of Sol. Dutton, Bolton CARDEN, RICHARD ARTHUR, doctor of medicine, Great Castlest, Oxford-st and clerk in holy orders, Augusta-ter, Grosvenorpk, Camberwell. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 18, at three, at offices of Sol. Debenham, Lincoln's-inn-fields CHUBB, JOSEPH WILLIAM HODDINOTT BUGLER, hairdresser, COTTON, MARY, shopkeeper, Birstall. Pet. Nov. 1. Nov. 19, at CULLEY, WILLIAM HENRY DUBINSON, baker, Cheltenham-pl, Acton. Pet. Oct. 23. Nov. 12, at two, at office of Sol. Vernede, Craven-st, Strand CUTTING, SAMUEL, miller, Stanton. Pet. Nov. 3. Nov. 21, at twelve, at the Council-chamber of the Guildhall, Bury St. Edmunds. Sol. Messrs. Salmon, Bury St. Edmunds DENISON, JOSEPH, draper, Bradford. Pet. Oct. 29 Nov. 14, at eleven, at office of Sols. Watson and Dickons, Bradford DILLON, ANDREW, licensed victualler, Bath. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 11, at eleven, at office of Sol. Bartrum, Bath DODD, THOMAS, painter, Chester. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 18, at twelve, at office of Sol. Churton, Chester DORMAN, HENRY, butcher, Lower Edmonton. Pet. Oct. 31. HAMLEY, RICHARD, butcher, East Stonehouse. Pet. Oct. 31. HEYS, RALPH HEATLEY, wine merchant, Southport. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 18, at twelve, at offices of Sols. Fowler and Carruthers, Liverpool HOMES, SAMUEL, hatter, Tunbridge Wells. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 17, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Arnold, Tunbridge Wells HOPKINSON, TOM, woollen cloth manufacturer, Slaithwaite. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 19, at three, at the Ramsden's Arms inn, Huddersfield. Sol. Armitage HOSKINS, EDWARD, baker, Eastry. Pet. Oct. 23. Nov. 21, at three, at offices of Sol. Minter, Folkestone HUDSON, JAMES, ironfounder, Burnley. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 21, at eleven, at office of Gill, accountant, 12, Hargreaves-st, Burnley. Sol. Baldwin, Burnley HUGGINS, SIMON, warehouse clerk, Upper Saltley, near Birmingham. Pet. Nov. 1. Nov. 17, at ten, at offices of Sol. Duke, Birmingham JONAS, JOHN, jun., furniture broker, trading as Barber and Co., Manchester. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 14, at three, at the Royal Hotel, Crewe. Sol. Salt, Tunstall SUCH, RICHARD, chaser, Aston, near Birmingham. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 6, at WEBB, WILLIAM, grocer, Sheffield. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 14, at WINNALL, JOHN, farmer, Berrow. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 19, at twelve, WINSER, HENRY JAMES, jun.. gas lamp manufacturer, Grafton- The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Hodge, A. seed crusher, first of Gs. At Carlill and Burkinshaw, INSOLVENTS' ESTATES. Halloran, A. L., master in Royal Navy, at St. George's-hall, BIRTHS MARRIAGES AND DEATHS BIRTHS. BAINES-On the 26th ult., at 9, Bevington-road, Oxford, the wife of Henry Baines, solicitor, of a son. BELL.-On the 24th ult., at Mapperley House, Lee, the wife of Charles Bell, solicitor, of a daughter. CHATTERTON.-On the 29th ult., at Florence Villa, Wood-green, the wife of Horace W. Chatterton, solicitor, of a son. DYNE.-On the 2nd inst., at Coombe House, Hampstead-lane, Highgate, the wife of John Bradley Dyne, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, barrister-at-law, of a daughter, HICKLIN.-On the 30th ult., at 163, Clapham-road, the wife of J. W. Hicklin, Esq., solicitor, of a daughter, KING. On the 31st ult., the wife of Thomas King, Esq., of ROSTRON.-On the 27th ult., at Beddington, Surrey, the wife of MARRIAGE. CHALK-BEZZELL.-On the 30th ult., at St. Mary's, Lewisham, Edmund Chalk, Moorgate-street, solicitor, to Mary Ann Bezzell, Westcourt, Lewisham hill, youngest daughter of the late Henry T. Bezzell, Deptford, Kent. DEATHS. BRANSON.-On the 29th ult., at Broom-grove, Sheffield, aged 80 years, Mr. Thomas Branson, solicitor. GOODE.-On the 2nd inst., at Belle Vue, Ryde, aged 80 years, Henry Goode, Esq., barrister-at-law. JOYCE, HENRY JOHN, licensed victualler, North Woolwich-rd. PARTRIDGE AND COOPER, Pet. Nov. 1. Nov. 19, at at three, at offices of Sols. Wood and Hace, Basinghall-st, London, also Reigate and Croydon KEMP, JOHN, builder. Lower Wandsworth-rd, Battersea-pk, Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 22, at twelve, at office of Sol. Easton, Clifford's-inn KENWORTHY, ROBERT JOHNSON. brickmaker, New Broad-st. Pet. Nov. 1. Nov. 21, at two, at offices of Sols. Green, Allin, and Greenhop, St. Peter's-alley, Cornhill LUCAS, WILLIAM, painter, Bishop's Castle. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 18, at eleven, at office of Sol. Morris, Shrewsbury LYONS, CORNELIUS, builder, Queen's-ter, York-rd, Battersea. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 17, at two, at office of Sol. Walls, Walbrook MARTIN, JOHN, engraver, Sheffield. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 18, at twelve, at office of Sol. Wake, Sheffield MCVEAGH, JOHN, tailor, Ripon. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 18, at halfpast eleven, at the White horse inn, Riron. Sol. Waistell, Northallerton MIDDLETON, CHARLES THOMAS, wire drawer, Birchfields, and Pet. GEORGE HENRY, grocer, Birmingham. MIDDLETON, Oct. 29. Nov. 15, at eleven, at office of Sol. Blewitt, Birmingham MILES, HARRISON, joiner, Burnley. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 12, at eleven, at offices of Sols. Backhouse and Whittam, Burnley MOON, MICHAEL ALFRED, mining engineer, Chester. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 21, at eleven, at office of Sol. Jones, Manchester OSBORNE, WILLIAM, printer, Birkenhead. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 17, at eleven, at offices of Roose and Price, accountants, Liverpool. Sols. Addleshaw and Warburton, Manchester PEATTIE, ISAAC HARPER, haberdasher, Eversholt st, Oakley-sq, Camden-town. Pet. Oct. 23. Nov. 7. at two, at offices of Coker and Keeler, public accountants, 32, Cheapside. Sol. Barrett, New-inn, Strand PETCHELL, JOHN, sen., and PETCHELL, JOHN jun., shoe manufacturers, Northampton. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 17, at eleven, at office of Sol. Jeffery, Northampton PRIOR, CHARLES, grocer, Halstead. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 14, at eleven, at office of Sol. Cardinall, Halstead REW, ROBERT MAY, chemist, Regent-st. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 26, at eleven, at offices of Sols. Davies, Campbell, Reeves, and Hooper, Warwick-st, Regent-st RHEIN, CARL, fancy portmanteau manufacturer, Foster-la, Cheapside, and St. Paul's-rd, Islington. Pet. Nov. 1. Nov. 18, at two, at offices of Minton, Boyes, and Child, 2, Carey-la, General Post Office, E.C., accountants. Sol. Buchanan, Basing. hall-st RILEY, JAMES, fishmonger, Hanley. Pet. Oct. 27. Nov. 13, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Stevenson, Hanley SEYMOUR, FREDERICK HENRY, out of business, High-st, Nottinghill. Pet. Nov. 3. Nov. 18, at two, at Langbourn-chmbs, 17, Fenchurch-st. Sol. Bradford SHIRLEY, WILLIAM OAKLEY, saddler, Brighouse. Pet. Nov. 1. Nov. 19, three, at office of Sols. Learoyd and Learoyd, Hudders field SILMAN, JAMES, out of business, Birmingham. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 14, at three, at offices of Sols. Wright and Marshall, Birmingham SMITH, PETER, bootmaker, Blackpool. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 17, at half-past two, at office of Sol. Edelston, Preston SMITH, WILLIAM, carpenter, White Hart-la, Barnes. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 22, at three, at offices of Sol. Howell, Cheapside SOLOMANS, MICHAEL, out of business, Holywell-la, par. St, Leonard, Shoreditch. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 27, at three, at office of Sol. Heathfield, Lincoln's-inn-fields SPIVEY, FRANK, farmer, Eastwood. Pet. Oct. 29. Nov. 18, at two, at office of Sol. Blyth, Chelmsford STEVENTON, ALFRED, accountant, Burslem. Pet. Oct. 28. Nov. 10, at two, at the Talbot inn, Stafford. Sol. Tomkinson, Burslem STEVENS, MATTHEW, baker, Cardiff. Pet. Oct. 31. Nov. 17, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Waldron, Cardiff STODDART, MARTIN SMITH, printer, Sunderland. WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS, 192, FLEET-STREET, AND 1 & 2, CHANCERY-LANE, LONDON, E.C. Carriage paid to the Country on Orders exceeding 208. DRAFT PAPER, 58., 68. 6d., 7s. 6d., 7s. 9d., and 9s. 9d. per ream. BRIEF PAPER, 15s. 6d., 178. 6d., and 23s. 6. per ream. THE NEW" VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE" NOTE, 9s. 6d. per ream, "We should direct particular attention to their New Clubhouse Paper: in our opinion it is the very best paper we ever wrote upon." "-London Mirror. INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled, to hold twenty or thirty folios, 2s. 3d. per skin, 26s. per dozen, 125s. per roll. SECONDS OF FOLLOWERS, Ruled, 1s. 11d. each, 22s. per dozen, 105s. per roll. RECORDS OF MEMORIALS, 7d. each, 6s. 6d. per dozen. LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER OF MINUTE-BOOKS An immense stock in various bindings. ILLUSTRATED PRICE-LIST of Inkstands, Postage Scales Copying Presses, Writing Cases, Despatch Boxes, Oak and Walnut Stationery Cabinets, and other useful articles adapted to Library or Office, post free. TRADE MARK.] GREAT CENTRAL WINE CELLARS, 22, FLEET-STREET, LONDON (OPPOSITE CHANCERY-LANE). Nov. 20, at ten, at omoes of Sols. Oliver and Botterell, Sunder: MURDOCH AND CO., 115, CANNON STREET. land STOREY, JAMES, painter, Sale. Pet. Oct. 30. Nov. 17, at three, at office of Sol. Sampson, Manchester WORKS-LARBERT, N.B. Now ready, price 6s. 6d. (including Index to Volume), PART VIII. of MARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series). By J. P. ASPINALL Esq., Barrister-at-Law, in the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in al 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 com plete in Three Volumes, kalf bound, price £5 5s. for the set, or any single volume fo 22 28. Back numbers may be had in complete sets. London: HORACE COX, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C. Just published, price 5s. 6d., PART III. of VOL. VIII. of REPORTS of MAGISTRATES, MUNICIPAL, PAROCHIAL, ELECTION, and ECCLESIASTICAL LAW CASES, decided by all the Courts. Sent post free to subscribers. N.B.-The back volumes and parts may be had; the vois. The late Chief Justice died before the commencement of Term. Eleven days of the Term have elapsed, and Sir JOHN COLERIDGE has not taken his seat. Under existing conditions, the loss of a judge is calculated to operate most prejudicially upon business, and we can quite understand the hesitation in determining which Judge should try the Taunton election petition. No Judge can be spared-and, nevertheless, a vacancy is unnecessarily kept WE are informed that in all probability the Taunton election petition will not be tried for some weeks to come. We have been unable to ascertain that any leading counsel have been retained to SOME curious statistics of the work done by Gray's-inn have ON an interesting question of bankruptcy law, a correspondent judgment of the Bacup Court was not appealed against, our County Courts being inferior courts of record, and analogous to the provincial courts in France under the Code Napoleon, where the decision of one court is not binding on another. If the County Courts were superior courts of law, the judgment of one court would stand until reversed on appeal, and I consider it a pity THE law as between husband and wife is not so abundantly cause? Bidgood v. Way (2 W. Bl. 123), was the case relied upon by the defendant, but, as pointed out by the LORD CHIEF BARON, that is a direct authority to this extent only, that an action at law for money had and received to the use of the husband and wife, simpliciter, is not maintainable. In Jones v. Cuthbertson, the declaration went on to allege what was not strictly in accordance with the facts, that the wife was entitled to receive the money for her sole and separate use. But that was held to be sufficiently supported by the fact that she was entitled to the money laid out upon her separate property. And it is to be further noticed that as against husband and wife, a chose in action cannot be taken to have been reduced into possession against the will of the husband. The defendant in Jones v. Cuthbertson was decided to be an agent for a particular purpose only. "The money," said Mr. Justice BRETT, "was received alio intuitu with no intention by the husband to reduce it into possession. There was therefore no reduction into possession by the husband, and consequently the wife might be joined in action." THE Commingling of Equity and Common Law Judges is one of the pet projects of law reformers, but from the judgments in the case of McLean v. McKay, decided before the Long Vacation by the Privy Council, it would appear that in Nova Scotia, the result of this process is not always satisfactory. The Privy Council reversed the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Halifax. That Court reversed the decree of the Judge in Equity in favour of the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit below. The Judges in the Supreme Court were divided in opinion. The Court consisted of five Judges, of whom the Judge in Equity was one. The four Judges who heard the cause for the first time were divided in opinion; but the learned Judge in Equity, having changed his own view of the case, created the majority of the Court, which reversed his own decree. The Judicial Committee regretted that the Judge in Equity should have changed his mind, his original judgment being in their opinion right in its reasoning and sound in its conclusions. This must be very mortifying to the "Judge in Equity;" to assist in reversing your own decree, and then to be reversed again to your original position, is about as uncomfortable a judicial experience as we can well imagine. THE case of Vian v. Maynard, tried last week in the Court of Exchequer before Baron CLEASBY, illustrates in a very forcible manner the anomalous condition of the English law on the subject of seduction. In that case there had been a previous trial for breach of promise of marriage brought by the daughter of the plaintiff, but as there was not sufficient evidence of a promise by the defendant the action failed. On this the father, in accordance with suggestions made at the former trial, brought an action for seduction against the defendant. Thus owing to the rule of law that no action lies against the seducer at the suit of the party immediately interested, but that the only right of action is founded on the loss of the girl's services to her father, reducing the question to a case of master and servant, all the parties in this case were put to the trouble and cost of two trials, when the whole matter might have been very well settled on the first occa sion but for the rule in question. If the woman who was seduced, and to whose father the jury awarded damages in the second action, could have brought an action for seduction in her own right, the two causes might have been joined, and all further trouble have been avoided. On what grounds such an anomaly is perpetuated it would be difficult to say, except that it has become venerable by age. It has been commented on over and over again, and nothing but the aversion of the Profession from all changes in what they have become accustomed to could have kept such a rule in force. The rule amounts to this, that the party really injured has suffered no injury sufficient for the law to notice, but that her father, or master, who has lost her services, can bring an action for such secondary and inferior loss. This loss of service may be of the most trifling description. In one case, indeed, tried by Chief Justice ABBOTT, his Lordship held that the loss by a father of his daughter's services in making tea was a sufficient loss to enable him to maintain this action. But when the loss of service has once been established, then damages are heaped up on other grounds, and this practice had become so inveterate in Lord ELLENBOROUGH's time, that he said it could not be shaken, So that the damages given frequently include an appraisement by the jury of the moral delinquency of the defendant, and the injury and dishonour sustained by the real plaintiff and her family. Is it not time that a rule of law, which places a father's inconvenience in having to make his own tea above the loss of his daughter's virtue, and the dishonour they both suffer, should be abrogated, and the seduction itself be made the ground of action, if any such actions are to be allowed? There are some who think, however, that such actions should not be maintainable, the consent of the woman taking away the right of action. Whichever opinion prevails, it is very desirable that the law should be placed on a reasonable footing, and that juries should not import into their verdicts damages for injuries quite distinct from the ostensible one on which the verdict is founded. ACCEPTANCES AGAINST CONSIGNMENTS. AN interesting question of commercial law has been raised more than once lately, with reference to the rights and liabilities of consignees who accept bills against consignments, such bills being discounted by the drawer, and bills of lading of the goods consigned deposited as collateral security. What is the interest of the consignee in the goods? Has he an insurable interest in them, so as to entitle him to effect an insurance upon them in his own name? And if the drawer and acceptor both become insolvent, what are the bill holder's rights ? Cover The question raised under a policy of marine insurance goes to the root of the matter, and the difficulty of dealing with it satisfactorily will appear upon a reference to the case of Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Insurance Company (L. Rep. 8 C. P. 596.) The action was brought to recover for a total loss of goods on a policy entered into by the plaintiffs "as well in their own names as for and in the name or names of all and every person or persons to whom the same doth, may, or shall appertain in part or in all." The plaintiffs were cotton brokers and agents in London, and were in the habit of receiving consignments of cotton from correspondents abroad, for sale on behalf of such correspondents, and making advances thereon by acceptances as they were from time to time advised of the shipments. They kept open policies with the defendants, and a certain consignment was declared upon two of the policies. The plaintiffs accepted a bill for £3000, drawn by the consignors against the consignmentvalued at £5000-and paid it at maturity. The goods were lost, and in opposition to the right of the plaintiffs to reon the policies, it was contended that they had no insurable interest at all in the cotton, but a mere expectancy of profit resting on a contingency: that if they had any insurable interest at all, it could only be to the extent of their own beneficial interest therein, viz., £3000; that they could only insure in their own names and on their own behalf to the extent of that beneficial interest; and that the only persons who, without having a beneficial interest in goods equal to the whole value, can insure in their own names to the full value, and recover the whole value, holding the surplus as trustees, are those who are in law owners and in equity trustees of the goods insured, which the plaintiffs were not. For those propositions an array of authorities was cited. The argument of the plaintiffs was that they had the whole legal interest in the goods when they accepted the draft for £3000, that all their duty to the consignors from that time was to account as trustees for them for the surplus proeeeds; and that, assuming that not to be so, they still had such an interest in the goods, and in every part of them, as gave them an insurable interest in the whole, so as to entitle them to insure them to their full value in their Own names, holding the surplus (if any) above their own actual beneficial interest in the goods as trustees for the consignors. The acceptance of the plaintiffs was hypothecated with the bill of lading by the consignors with the National Bank of India, and the bank, on presenting the shipping documents, were entitled to be paid the amount of the acceptance. As Chief Justice Bovill put it, "The bill of exchange being drawn by the shippers and accepted by the plaintiffs against the consignment, that consignment immediately became an equitable security to the plaintiffs for the amount of their acceptance, and they would have been entitled to have the cotton appropriated for their reimbursement." And his Lordship added, "The equitable interest of the plaintiffs, after coming under acceptance against the shipment, was not in any particular portion of the cotton, but in the whole and in every part of it; and no portion of it could have been withdrawn without diminishing their security." The court was equally divided in this case, and Mr. Justice Brett did not agree with the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Denman as to the ownership of the goods "This contract and position of affairs," said Mr. Justice Brett, "did not pass the legal property to the plaintiffs, for that was still in the National Bank of India. It did not give a present right of possession of the bill of lading, or even a right of possession of the cotton on arrival. . Until the acceptance should be met I should apprehend that the plaintiffs could not be held to be either legal or equitable owners of the cotton." It will be useful at this point to notice another case not having reference to marine insurance, namely, The Bank of Ireland v. Perry (L. Rep. 7 Ex. 14). There the question was whether acceptors of a bill of exchange drawn against a specific cargo were entitled to have the proceeds of the cargo in the hands of the bill holder applied to take up the acceptance. There was a double insolvency-of the drawers and acceptors of the bill-and without going into the particular facts of the case, we would refer to the judgment of Baron Cleasby who expressed his view of the construction to be put upon the case of Ex parte Waring (19 Ves. 345), and the cases which have followed that decision. He said, "I may illustrate by an example what I conceive to be the effect of these authorities. Suppose A. and B. are drawer and acceptor of a bill discounted by a bank, and by the agreement between them of which the bank at the discount time is utterly ignorant, a certain sum of money or the proceeds of a certain cargo is to be applied in discharge of the bill, then, in the event of there being a forced realization of assets of those two estates, that sum of |