« EelmineJätka »
OUR LITERARY COLUMN.
Health (London) Act 1891, but the court was relactant to impose upon the defendant by injunction a duty which he could not reasonably be expected to perform ; having regard, therefore, to sect. 35 of the Act, which enables the vestry to remove the matter and to make the owner pay the expenses, the defendant B. was entitled to have the action dismissed, so far as it sought to restrain him from allowing the land to be and remain in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious to health.
[Attorney-General v. Tod-Heatley and Brownrigg. Ch. Div. : Kekewich, J. Nov. 24.-Counsel : Warrington, Q.C. and Morton W. Smith ; Renshaw, Q.C. and Ingpen. Solicitors : J. C. F. W. Rogers ;
Last and Sons.] Will-Construction - Tenant for Life and Remaindermen- Absolute
Trust for Sale-Discretionary Power to post pone-- Trustees not agreed -- Absolute Trust takes Efect---Sanitary Works executed pursuant to Notice by Local Authority -- Costs and Expenses thereof directed to come out of Corpus- Public Health (London) Act 1891 (54 d: 55 Vict. c. 76), 88. 11, 117, 121.-A testator gave all his real and leasehold estates to trustees upon trust for sale, and, after providing for investment of the proceeds and payment of the income thereof to his widow and another person for their lives, and afterwards for distribution among certain persons, he declared " that it shall be lawful for my trustees or trustee, with the consent of my said wife, during her life, to allow any part or parts of my said residuary estate to remain in their actual state of investment at the time of my decease, and that it shall not be necessary for them to sell my real or leasehold estates or any part thereof during the life of my said wife, unless she shall in writing request them so to do." The trustees were not agreed as to a sale, but the remaindermen desired it. Held, (1) that the above clauses amounted to a discretionary power to postpone, and, the trustees not agreeing, the absolute trust took effect. Certain sanitary works in relation to some of the premises having been executed by the trustees pursuant to a notice by the local authority : Held, (2) that, having regard to sects. 11, 117, and 121 of the Public Health (London) Act 1891, the costs and expenses incident thereto were not repayable to the trustees by the tenant for life, but were properly chargeable by them on the corpus of the fund. Re Tucker's Settled Estates (72 L. T. Rep. 619) distinguished.
[Re Lever; Cordwell_v. Lerer. Ch. Div.: Stirling, J. Nov. 26.Counsel: P. S. Stokes ; D. Cowan; Grosvenor Woods, Q C. and K. G. Metcalfe; Graham Hastings, Q.C. and Dunham. Solicitors : G. Cordwell; Gasquet and Metcalfe.]
STORIES FROM THE LAW REPORTS.
PREVENTED A MARRIAGE.
(From S.! . Facy, 2 Bulstrode, 276 ; 1 Roll Rep. 79.) An autumnal moon shone upon two lovers, John Sell and Susie Watts, who were sitting upon a gate together beneath the shade of a large tree, delighting in its reddening leaves and the beautiful evening picture which displayed itself before their eyes. We have called them lovers, but their lips spoke no words of love. They were speaking of things in general, and of the meaning of the world-their world. Yet they were indeed lovers then, and they knew it, though neither had ever distinctly told the other in spoken language what was in the hearts of both.
Susie was a maiden of Paritan origin, though she was not, as we have seen, too much of a Puritan herself to enjoy an evening stroll with a member of the opposite sex; nor was the light which made itself seen in her eyes to-night peculiarly suggestive of the strictest Calvinism. But she was a good girl- -none the less good that she had rejected the canting manner and unnatural behaviour of her parents, without abandoning their love of modesty and their high principle. Puritanism was, in the year 1613, not yet fashionable even among the lower orders of the people, and Susie's father and mother, who were well-to-do farmers, were exceptions among their class in the part of England to which they belonged, solitarily testifying to the truth, or their idea of it, in a somewhat ostentations fasbion, although perfectly sincere in their faith.
Jobn Sell was a Churchman, and bad no Puritanical sympathies ; but he was a steady young fellow of hitherto irreproachable character, who led the ordinary life of a farmer, going to church on Sundays, and taking religion, like everything else in life, very much as he found it. He took it absolutely for granted that Sasie would be his wife one day, if both of them lived ; but she was very young, and he did not wish the question mooted yet awhile, for many reasons. For one thing, Susie's father was an old man and a very difficult one to deal with. It might be that by the time Jobn had a home ready for Susie he might have gone the way of all flesh, and there was no reason why he should not die happy, without any disturbing reflection as to Susie's future as the wife of one whom he would consider as insufficiently godly to be mated with a child of his.
So John was biding his time, and, if you could have seen the face of Susie Watts as she bade him “good night,” you would not have thought that he need have much cause for apprehension as to ber view of the matter.
They thought they were alone and unobserved, but they were not.
Beneath the cover of the tree, whose autumnal tints had been delighting them, there stood an evil-looking man, tall and lank, with a low forehead and a beard of iron grey. He loved Susie ; that is to say, he would bave called his feeling love ; but it was really something altogether different. He hated John Sell, and his angry passion gleamed from his rolling eyeballs. But he kept quiet, and he listened. He did not stir.
John and Sasie went their several ways.
Three days afterwards, at the hour of sunset, John Sell was sitting again on the gate where first we saw him ; but Susie was not there. was evidently, however, expecting her, and he kept rising up from his seat and standing on the gate, looking in every direction for her possible approach. The darkness fell; there was no moon this night; and still John Sell was waiting there. Another hour passed by, and then, very uneasily and reluctantly, he came to the conclusion that she could not be coming that evening. Perbaps she had been kept at home. Such a thing had happened once before, though it did not often happen, for Susie was a bright-witted little girl, and had made an excuse which satisfied her parents as to her reason for being absent from them two evenings in the week.
Threo days afterwards he cime again. It was raining this time, but it wanted more than this rain to quench Susie's love. Sarely she would come, he thought, to-day?
But she did not.
Then did John Sell become uneasy indeed, and wended his way, as he had intended not to do until his secret was mature for being disclosed, to the home of the parents Watts. Possibly Susio was ill, or unbappy, or something had happened. He knocked and opened the door, and to his surprise found Susie alone within, apparently in her usual health. Why had she not come to him ?
As soon as she saw him her face became scarlet, not with the pleasing blush of coy maidenhood, but with the dire colour of shame. She looked at him so a moment, and waited for him to speak. “What is it, dear one?” said he. You know," said she. “I bave discovered about the other woman. “ There is no other woman," retorted John, roused to sudden anger with the girl who had never caused anger in him before this night. "Are you beside yourself ? ” Susie, however, said nothing more ; but, with her eyes upon the ground and shaking as if with horror, withdrew into the inner room and left him alone. He waited some little while for her, and then, finding that neither she nor her parents returned, he suddenly rose and opened the door to leave the house.
As he did so he heard a rustling sound bebind a bush near the open window of the room in which the conversation between him and Susie Watts, which we have described, took place. Had there been an eavesdropper? If so, who could he be, and why was he there ?
John was still trembling with anger at the unjust accusation which had jast been made against him by his sweetheart, and, in this condition, he strode rapidly to the bash and beheld a man cowering beneath it “ What devil's work have we here?” be said. Speak. Who are you?
It was the tall, lank man with the low forehead and the iron grey beard !
PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION.
DIVORCE BUSINESE. Husband and Wife-Intermittent Cohabitation-Summary Jurisdiction
(Married Women) Act 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39), s. 4–Desertion and wilful Neglect.-Upon the hearing of a summons taken out by a wife against her husband under sect, 4 of the Act of 1895, the wife proved that, being in domestic service, she married the respondent in Dec. 1893, and that she then went to her friends and was subsequently confined at the Queen Charlotte Lying-in Hospital. Her husband would not go and see her or the child, which lived only three weeks, and he contributed nothing towards the expense of its burial, and she had to sell and pawn her things to pay that expense. She subsequently went into another situation and allowed the respondent to visit her there on some occasions, and sometimes to pass part of the night with her. In the result, she again became pregnant and subsequently went to the hospital, where she was delivered of a second child in July 1895. That child also died, but, although the respondent knew about it, he provided nothing towards the funeral. The wife afterwards took a situation again. The respondent had told her that, if sbe sent her boxes to the house where he was living, he would return them. Tbe respondent was called by the wife's solicitor and admitted the truth of his wife's evidence, but stated that he had no
He assisted his father in his business of a bootmaker. At the conclusion of the evidence, the magistrates dismissed the summons, holding that they had no jurisdiction, upon the ground that there was no existing cohabitation between the parties, and that, without this, there could be no desertion. The wife appealed. Held, by the Divisional Court, that the magistrates were wrong; that there was cohabitation, albeit intermittent; and that, as they had dismissed the summons upon the ground of want of jurisdiction, the case should be remitted to the court below, to be considered and dealt with upon the merits.
Bradshaw v. Bradshaw. P. & D. Div.: Divisional Court, the President (Sir F. H. Jeune), a ni Barnes, J. Dec. 1.–Counsel : for the appellant, L. D. Powles ; for the respondent, Lynch. Solicitors : for appellant, G. W. Lay; for the respondent, Chas. Robinson and Co.]
TEMPLE RESTAURANT.—This establishment, situate in Tudor-street, adjoining King's Bench Walk (four miautes from the High Courts of Justice), has been entirely rebuilt and enlarged. The Temple Restaurant is now replete with every convenience and comfort which experience and capital can command. Table d'Hôte daily, consisting of soups, entrées, joints, vegetables, &c., at 2a. each. No charge for attendance. Dinners à la Carte quickly served. Choice wines, spirits, and malt liqnors. Chops, steaks, tea, and coffee. The Legal Profession is respectfully informed that Breakfasts, Dinners, and Teas are supplied in cbambers if desired. Menas and tariffs forwarded daily for selection upon application.-[Advt.]
John pulled him forth and smote him upon the head. 66 'Tis thou, then,” said he, readily divining the situation, “ who hast made mischief between us ? Confess it was thy lie ; confesa, thou rogue, varlet, and vagabond, confess," and he smote him again and again, glad to have found an object upon which to vent his wrath, and instinctively assured that the man who stood before him was his enemy and the author of the wrong.
Whether the tall, lank man would have confessed, in compliance with the other's demands, or whether he would have tried retaliation, when he first recovered breath from the unexpected assault, or what else would have happened, it is impossible to say ; but at this moment old Watts came out and said, “Cease, young man ; touch not the head of the righteous. What want you ? " John Sell was startled, and looked in the direction of the newcomer, and his enemy took the opportunity of running away into the safety of the house.
“Has that man said aught against me?” said the irate John. know what he has said,” replied the old man,
and it is true. He has said you have begotten a child who lies in the village yonder, and he has named the mother. My poor Susunnah is horribly and awfully affected by the news ; for it seems she had known and respected you, wretch that you are. You shall never see her again !"
“It is not true,” began john angrily. But the old man, without stopping to listen to him, strode back solemnly into his house.
Jobn Sell went to his own home, and there for some days waited within doors. He wrote to Susie a full denial of what she had charged him with ; but received no answer. Either she had never had the letter, or she was resolved to adhere to the belief that he was guilty. In either case, he thought himself of all men in the world most miserable.
What should he do ? Sbonld he fall on the slanderer and slay him or beat him mercilessly? He would like to do that, but it would not convince Susie of his innocence. On the contrary, if she thought him a
man of blood," it would but widen the breach between them. For though Susie was not, as we have seen, exactly a Puritan, her ideas of right and the remedies of wrong were not, he knew, precisely those of the old Tory school. How could he right his character ? Was it a case in which to go to law ?
Having got to this point in his reflections, he rose to his feet, and went and searched among some old letters in a drawer. He had a remote kinsman an attorney, who lived in a county town some five-and-twenty miles off. If he could find his address, he would go there. After a brief search he found it; and, acting on his resolution at once, he went to saddle his horse.
He rode fast, and indeed never would have stopped at all, even for a moment, but from consideration for his beast, and when he arrived at the town he rushed in upon the old attorney, who was sitting down and reading some papers. Hastily introducing himself, he poured forth the story of his wrongs. The attorney listened quietly, and then said, “Let me ask you some questions." Certainly,” said the other.
The first question he asked was as to the value of the Briar Farm, John's property. John did not see the importance of this, but it was evident that the attorney did.
Satisfied as to this, he said next, speaking slowly and cautiously, “Well, I do not say that you may not have an action of slander, but where is your damage ?
“ The damage I have suffered, you mean ? ” “ Yes."
John began to think the man was a fool. " Why,” said he, “I've lost what a man prizes above all other things-the respect of the woman he loves! Why, man, she would have been my wife
“Your wife! Oh, that is very different," said the attorney, eagerly taking writing materials. " When was the promise ?”
“She had not promised to be my wife, but she wonld have been. I meant to marry her, and I feel sure she intended to marry me.”
“That won't do. You must swear there was a promise, or the action will fail, in my opinion."
“I can't swear that. I never spoke a word to her upon the subject of marriage.”
The attorney shrugged his shoulders, as who would say, “ You must swear that, be it true or false." But John Sell was firm, though the temptation was great. He knew that it had been virtually agreed between them : if only he had spoken that last night when they sat together on the gate! But there was no use in wishing this. “ If you can't win my case," he said, “ without my lying, I must go away. For lie I never will!"
The old attorney thought. “It's not so good,” he muttered. “I fear there will be a difficulty about the special damage. But we'll try. We must say, ' Quod intendebat et conatus fuit' to marry the said Watts. It sounds weak, but it might go through.”
At last he said aload, “ Well, Mr. Sell, I'll do my best. I'll get a good man to draw the declaration, and we may yet clear your character. Besides, it may not strike them to demur."
* I cannot see any difficulty,” said John Sell. “I have certainly been slandered, and I can prove it.”
The attorney next asked for particulars about the slanderer. John told all he knew. The name of the man, he said, was “ Facy;" but some called him “ Fairee,” though no one less fairy-like in spirit or appearance was ever seen. * Double-facy” he should call him. His character in the village was not good ; but he posed as a Puritan, and had deceived many persons, including the parents Watts, and, he feared, Sasie herself. And so he rambled on, giving his lawyer, like so many litigants of after days, a small fraction of material fact and an enormous proportion of irrelevant matter.
Three-quarters of a year passed by, and John all that time never saw Susie, except in passing, when she carefully avoided his ghance. Ho kept
longing for the trial which should clear his character. At last the day of trial came. John looked for Facy to appear, but he never came! The other side had not demurred to the declaration, and the trial proceeded. The slander was proved, and John went into the box and swore that the slanderous words were untrue. Then the “ other woman ” came and said the same, and, what was more to the point, she brought a number of excellent witnesses to the same effect; and still Facy never appeared.
The jury gave large damages to the plaintiff John Sell, and added that they thought the conduct of the defendant Facy was monstrous.
Susie heard this result in due time ; and one evening not long afterwards, when John was walking near the old-remembered gate, a hand stole into his, and a few moments afterwards the lovers were united again, and it would take more than a slanderer, more than unfavourable parental views, more than anything short of murder, which human wit could devise, to part them now.
John rode off again soon after this, but more rationally and less hotly than upon the previous occasion, to see the old attorney. He thanked him for all he had done, and said that though the bill shonld be a heavy one he should consider the money well spent. He exulted in his victory so fluently that it was some time before the old attorney, who was looking more doubtful about it all, could put in a word.
At last he stopped, and the attorney answered, “I am afraid that was a bad declaration after all. They will move in arrest of judgment."
“They may move in anything they like as far as I'm concerned,” said the happy lover. “They can't take my Susie away from me now
However, John had to pay for his satisfaction, for the wily Facy had acted wisely in his own generation. He had not appeared to justify the slander, for he knew that it was untrue ; but now he appealed against the judgment upon a legal technicality to the Court of King's Bench.
Autumn had come again by the time the day of hearing arrived. Unfortunately for Jobn Sell the greatest lawyer of the age, if not the greatest lawyer of any age, was upon the bench, namely, the Lord Chief Justice Coke himself, and he was supported by Mr. Justice Haughton, Mr. Justice Dodderidge, and Mr. Justice Croke.
Now it happened that the slanderer Facy was right upon his point of law, and so the judges held. “If all the women in the town,” said Mr. Justice Haughton--this was the very language that he used-“should say, hearing of these words, that they would not have him for a husband, shall this be sufficient to give him cause of action ? By no means it shall not; but he ought to lay ially in his declaration that there was a motion of marriage for him, and tben also to lay a refusal for this, and so a breaking off by reason of the words thus spoken of him ;. and, being thus laid, the declaration would have been good and the words actionable, but here this declaration is not good, and so the plaintiff ought not to have his judgment.”
So thought the others. And the illustrious Lord Chief Justice said, “We all advise you to begin your suit again, and to lay in your declaration an express colloquium de matrimonio, and a breach or falling off by reason of these words."
“So," thought John Sell, “ the old attorney was right. But I could not have said there was a promise of marriage, for there was not. I shall not bring another action now, for now there is a promise ; but, please God, there will be no breach. The legal result of the first trial may have been upset, but the main purpose of it has succeeded. I have got my character and Susie Watts; I do not mind the costs.” Then, after a pause, he added, “I should like to have punished that villain, though!”
Still, it is not every villain slenderer nowadays who gets as good a punishment as Facy got the first few moments after he was found by Sell behind the bush. We may add that a few days after the judgment of the King's Bench Susie met the slanderer by chance, and what she said to bim, and how she looked at him, amounted to something of a punishment as well.
Legal Proposition.-An action does not lic for slander in imputing immorality to a man without proof of special damage; and it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to allege, by way of special damage, that he was intending to marry a certain woman, and that she refused on account of the slanderous words to be married to him, withont alleging that there had been a promise to marry and a breach of that promise. On the general subject of the special damage which must be proved in actions for slander imputing immorality, vide Odgers on Libel and Slander (3rd edit., p. 92), and cf. Lumby v. Allday (1 Cr. & J. 301), Brayne v. Cooper (5 M. & W. 249), and Riding v. Smith (34 L. T. Rep. 500). With regard to imputing unchastity to women, of course the law is now different, in consequence of the provisions of statute 54 & 55 Vict. c. 51.
A PERSIAN CONVEYANCE. The following is taken from a Persian conveyance, from which it would appear that in Persia there is need of some Conveyancing Act to reduce the language of compliment and humility :
Now the cause of writing these legal and manifestly evident words, and the object of these manifest phrases from beginning to end of this document which is concluded with the pen of eloquence, is this, that here was present the Reverend, the illustrious and venerable, the most distinguished, learned, and virtuous of the Christians, and the support of the successors of the followers of Jesus, A. B., an English clergyman, the son of the deceased C. B., an inhabitant of the parish of X., in the seat of the Government of Y., and with the utmost willingness and full consent, without any suspicion of compulsion or urgency or force, but on the contrary, voluntarily and with pleasure and by choice, he made & proper legal and binding contract according to the law of Islam, with the
Reverend, the illustrious and venerable, the most distinguished, learned, and virtuous of the Christians, and the support of the successors of the followers of Jesus, D. E., the son of F. E., who agrees to accept and keep wholly and entirely the whole premises known as, &c., with all the legal appurtenances and castomary dependencies as to passage and entrance, and house tax and buildings, doors, windows, stones, and wood, whether named or not named, whether mentioned or not mentioned, without any. thing excepted, the conditions being known and understood, it was decided with the money of contract, viz., current cash to the amount of one hundred denars of copper, and also one-fourth of a mann of wheat according to the Royal weight (these two gifts both being voluntarily returned) that the above-mentioned purchaser shonld occupy all the property, and should have the benefit of it, and that the right of control should be with the members of the M. Society, located in the seat of Government of London, and this committee, whoever the members of it at any time may be, whenever they may wish, have the power to give any kind of instruction, either that the property should be given up or intrusted to whomsoever they think advisable, or again transferred ; in other words, the purchaser is in possession only by the authority of the said committee, and the possession of the parchaser does not carry with it the right of proprietorship, but is held in trust on behalf of the abovementioned committee. The legal and perfect contract, and the formula of proposal and acceptance of the two laws (i.e., ecclesiastical and civil) comprehending all the conditions, necessaries, and essentials, free of all disabilities, omissions, and deficiencies, and the legal formula came into force, including all the particulars indicated, on the 7th of the month, &c.
A. B., D. E. All that has been written in this document oncerning proposal and acceptance according to what has been indicated, took place before me, a sinner, on the 7th, &c.
(Sealed) M. M. What has been written in this document happened completely, and the formala was issued at the date.
(Sealed) M. A.
OUR AMERICAN LETTER.
Johnson to belong to that class of cattle thieves which was especially detested by Western farmers. The first indictment against Johnson was dismissed, because of some irregularity. Another one was procured, and the venue was changed to another county of the State. A long trial, in which many lawyers were engaged, followed, and the jury disagreed, eleven of them being for acquittal. A few months later, another trial was had, and Johnson was acquitted. This ended the second branch of the litigation. The third and longest part of the legal proceedings began when Johnson, after his acquittal, brought suit for 10,000 dols. damages for malicious prosecution against those members of the Anti-Horse-Thief Association, who had been most active in prosecuting him. The venue was changed to still another county, and a verdict in favour of Johnson for about 3000 dols. was obtained. A new trial was, however, granted, and the case was tried again in still another county of Iowa. The new trial lasted three weeks, and Johnson obtained a verdict of 7500 dols. This verdict also was set aside by the court and a new trial granted, which took place in another county of the State. The long trial which then took place ended in a verdict for Johnson for about 5000 dols. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and reversed on a technicality. Another trial was had, which also resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Another appeal was taken, and again the judgment was reversed on some technical point. Again a trial of the case was had, and this time Johnson obtained a verdict for 1000 dols. and costs. This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and was finally paid with interest and costs. In the twenty years' litigation, almost every one of the prosperous farmers who had been parties to one or another of the suits was financially ruined, Johnson among the number. The costs of the trial are said to have amounted to over 30,000 dollars, more than one thousand times the value of the calves, over the sale of which the litigation began. Many of the judges and most of the lawyers who took part in the earlier proceedings are dead. The only useful result of the long proceedings is the rendering of several opinions in the Supreme Court of Iowa, which are leading authorities on almost every branch of the law pertaining to malicious prosecution.
The eloquence of prosecuting officers in murder cases continues to be restricted by the courts, and the old time freedoni of oratory is restrained by fear of saying something which may lead to a reversal of a conviction. The New York Court of Appeal has recently atlirmed a conviction of murder, although some of the judges believed that errors had been made such as to require a new trial. The principal exception was founded on the reference of court and counsel to the right of the defendant to appear as a witness in his own behalf. The prosecutirg attorney, in his address to the jury, made use of a sentence which would have been considered in the earlier years of American courts an allowable bit of eloquence. He said, " The little mound under the snow knows, and the defendant will not speak,” referring to the difficulty of obtaining the real facts as to the shooting of a young girl, for whose murder the defendant was indicted. The counsel for the defendant objected to the use of the expression, " The defendant will not speak,” as the law does not permit any allusion to the failure of a defendant to testify in his own behalf in a criminal case. The prosecuting attorney said that he was willing to have the words stricken out, and the trial judge remarked, “If you are willing, they may be stricken out." In delivering his charge to the jury the court eaid: “The defendant did not testify in his own defence. Why did he not? That is of no legal consequence. In our country the defendant is not compellable to testify against himself on a criminal charge.” The majority of the judges thought that there was nothing in the remarks of the lawyer and judge prejudicial to the defendant, but two of the judges believed that there was prejudicial error in not rebuking more strongly the District Attorney for his remark, and in asking the jury the question," Why did be not testify ?” Several new trials in murder cases have resulted from allusions by counsel to the right of the defendant to testify. The New York statute says that the defendant's refusal to testify shall not be used against him.
A warning against placing too great reliance on photographs in endeavouring to corvey to a jury information as to some matter of which witnesses have testified, is contained in a recent opinion of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals (Scott v. City of New Orleans, 75 Fed. Rep. 373). An elderly man was walking along a street in New Orleans and stumbled over an abrupt inequality in the grade of the sidewalk. He was severely injured. On the trial of an action against the city for damages in maintaining the street in an improper condition he obtained a verdict, but, a new trial having been granted, the judge on the second trial directed a verdict for the defendants. The Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the judgment in the second
One of the errors alleged was the admission in evidence of photographs of the street in which the accident occurred. The counsel made an elaborate argument against the propriety of admitting this evidence on the ground that photographs do not represent an object in the way in which it appears to the eye. He said : " An ancient manuscript, subjected to the analysis of a photographic plate, will yield up mysteries of inscription absolutely unsuspected by the eye. The skin of a human face, which under the microscopic inspection of a plıysician is smooth and absolutely free from eruption, under the pitiless revelation of a photographic plate may be found to be dense with the pustules of small-pox. How irrational, therefore, to measure the human eye by the same criteria of judgment that we measure the camera; and hence how unjust to hold the retina to the same capacity of imaging, and to imaging with the same depth of shadows and grades in the picture imaged, that the photograph is held to. The photograph gives the story told to (or the efligy made on) the photographic plate of the camera by the object. On the other hand, the picture the eye sees and communicates to the mind is the image the object makes on the retina. All that a man can be held to a responsibility for seeing, therefore, in
New York, Nov. 18. SOME of the results of the recent elections throughout the country were of special interest to lawyers. One of the most effective arguments used by the Republicans among members of the Bar was that the platform of the Democratic party attacked the United States Supreme Court for its decision in the income tax cases, and intimated that it might be advisable to change the membership of the court, so as to secure a different decision in the future. The Democratic platform also opposed life tenures in office, which was said to be an attack upon the appointment for life of the Federal judges. Most members of the Bar, in the East, at least, have a high regard for the United States Supreme Court, and also favour the appointments of judges for life tenures rather than for short periods. Special appeals were made to the lawyers on these grounds, and so much interest was shown by members of the New York Bar that between two and three thousand of them took part in the large business-men's parade along Broadway and Fifth Avenue, on the Saturday preceding the election. Lawyers who stand at the head of the New York Bar, some of them long past middle age, walked in the procession, a distance of nearly five miles, to testify to their interest in the issues of the campaign.
One of the peculiar incidents of the political campaign was the election to the Bench of the Supreme Court of Kansas of a man who was said to bave announced his belief that the rights of the user of property were superior to those of the owner. Some of the farms in the State of Kansas have been so heavily mortgaged that the payment of interest has been difficult, and various schemes for preventing the foreclosure of mortgages have been discussed by the debt-burdened farmers. Some of the judges are said to be disinclined to allow proceedings to foreclose mortgages held by persons who reside out of the State. If the statements published in some of the newspapers as to the belief of the new Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court are correct, there may be some peculiar doctrines laid down in that court as to property rights.
One of the attorneys who was connected with the famous Jones County Calf case has just written a fuil description of this extended litigation, which has troubled the Iowa courts for more than twenty years.
A man named Potter, living in another part of Iowa, went to Jones' County in that State in June 1874 to buy some calves, which he wished to feed on his farm. One of the farmers of whom he sought to purchase calves was Robert Johnson, who said that he would try to find some animals such as Potter wanted. Johnson met a stranger who said that he had four calves to sell, and Johnson bought them for about 24 dollars, and afterwards delivered them to Potter. The calves were of the common cheap grade. A short time afterwards a farmer named Foreman, who was a neighbour of Mr. Johnson, ascertained that four of his calves, which had been feeding on the commons, were missing, and he found them in Potter's possession. They were supposed to be the same that Potter had purchased from Johnson, though it was afterwards discovered that they were not those animals, but others of superior grade. Johnson, believing that the calves which he had sold to Potter were those which had been stolen from Foreman, gave the latter a promissory note in payment for them. In the meantime, some farmers living nearby, who had formed an Anti-Horse. Thief Association, procured the indictment of Johnson for larceny. The first litigation arose over the note given by Johnson. As it bad passed into the bands of an innocent purchaser he was compelled to pay it after a long and hotly contested litigation, which had cost him about 1500 dollars. There was much excitement among the farmers, who believed
respect to any particular object brought within his field of vision, is the image the object makes on his retina, and not the image it makes on the vastly more sensitised plate of the camera.” The counsel thought that the photographs offered in this case represented the obstruction as much greater than it would appear to the eye, on account of certain shadows affecting the photographs. The Court, while not agreeing fully with the counsel, and not reversing the case on that particular ground, said: “There is, however, much force in the suggestions of the counsel, and, touching the effect of this testimony, the jury should be fully and carefully instructed and warned against its liability to mislead.”
One of the questions relating to domicile and change of residence, concerning which there has been much dispute, was recently passed upon by the United States Circuit Court in Tennessee : (Marks v. Marks, 75 Fed. Rep. 321). Mrs. Marks, who was born in Texas, lived with her husband in Tennessee for several years, and on her husband's death returned to Texas with her child. She expected to remain in Texas as her home, but had not established any definite place of residence, when the action was begun in which the question of citizenship arose. The general rule that a change of residence implies an actual change or removal of residence, and the intention to make such change permanent is usually applied to cases in which a definite place of residence has been adopted. The status of a person who has left one place of residence with the intention of residing somewhere in another State or county, and has not yet decided upon a definite place for a permanent home, is more difficult to fix. It bas been held in many cases that a change of domicile takes place immediately upon the arrival of the person at his new place of residence. When, however, no definite place of residence has been fixed, it has been argued that the person still remains a resident of his old domicile until the new one is occupied. Judge Clark, in the Marks case, holds, however, and he supports his opinion by quoting from many authorities, that a “house of residence or a fixed residence within the State is not essential to establish a domicile. Jacob's “ Law of Domicile” and Dicey's “ Conflict of Laws” are quoted to show that it is not necessary in order to work a change of domicile that the person should bave a permanent home within the immediate division of the State or county which be claims as his place of residence. The opinion of Lord Jeffrey in Arnott v. Groom (9 Cases in Court of Sess., 2nd series, p. 142) is referred to. He said in that case : * Many old bachelors never have a house they can call their own. They go from hotel to hotel, and from watering place to watering place, careless of the comforts of more permanent residence, and unwilling to submit to the gêne attendant on it. There was a case of a nobleman who always lived at inns, and would have no servants but waiters; but he did not lose his domicile on that account. If the purpose of remaining in the territory be clearly proved aliter, a particular home is not necessary." Arguing from these authorities, the judge held that Mrs. Marks was a resident of Texas, her native domicile, to which she had returned after a long absence, although she had established no permanent home.
The sentimental lovers of the aboriginal American Indian may raise the cry that the courts are taking away the last few privileges remaining to the descendants of those who were once the possessors of the whole soil. A New York statute makes it a crime to kill fish in the waters of the State by use of dynamite or a similar explosive. James Pierce, a Seneca Indian living on the Alleghany Reservation, having the inherited love of sport, but a degraded and wholly modern idea as to the means of obtaining his ancestral food, exploded a dynamite cartridge in the Alleghany river, and by this barbarous method killed many fish than a true disciple of Izaak Walton could have secured in many days. The Indian was arrested and convicted and sent to jail, but he appealed from the conviction, and the County Court has now sustained the judgment of the justice of the peace. One of the grounds of the appeal was that, when not long after the American Revolution the Seneca Nation gave a deed of the larger part of western New York to Robert Morris for the State of New York, the right to hunt and fish in that territory was reserved. The Court beld (People v. Pierce, 18 N. Y. Misc. 83) that the terms of the ancient deed did not prevent the State of New York from exercising its sovereignty over the land and in making such police regulations for those who lived in the reservation as applied to other inhabitants of the State.
JAMES PIERPONT DAVENPORT.
SITTINGS OF THE COURTS.
FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, Dec. 12. Aberayron, Wednesday
Leigh,* Friday Aberdare, Wednesday
Leighton-Buzzard, Thursday Abergavenny, Monday, at 10
Leominster,* Monday, at 10 Alton, Wednesday, at 11
| Lewes, Tuesday Altrincham,* Wednesday, at 10
Lincoln, Monday, at 10 Ambleside, Thursday, at 1
Liskeard, Monday, at 10 Ashborne, Wednesday, at 10
Liverpool, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Ashford, Monday, at 10
Thursday, and Friday Ashton-under-Lyne.* Thursday
Llangefni, Tuesday Aylesbury, Wednesday
Lowestoft, Thursday, at 10 Aylsham, Thursday, at 11.30
Ludlow,* Wednesday, at 10 Bakewell, Tuesday, at 10
| Lutterworth, * Saturday, at 10 Banbury, Wednesday (Reg., Bky) and Lynn, Wednesday, at 10 Friday, at 10
Malmesbury, Monday Bath. Thursday (J.S. and B.), at 10 Manchester, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes Beccles, Wednesday, at 11
day, ano Friday, at 10 Birkenhead,* Tuesday, at 10
Mansfeld, Monday, at 10 Birmingham, Monday (Adj.), Tuesday Melton Mowbray,* Friday, at 11
(Adj.), Wednesday (Adj.), Thursday Merthyr Tydfil, Friday (Adj.), and Friday (Adj.), at 10
Middlesbrough, Monday, at 10 Bishop Auckland, Tuesday and Wednes. ' Newcastle-in-Einlyn, Friday day, at 10
Newcastle-on-Tyne, Monday, Tuesday, Bishop's Castle,* Thursday, at 10
Wednesda', Toursday and Friday Blackburn, Monday, at 10
(J.S.), at 10 Blackpool, Wednesday, at 10
Newnham, Wednesday Blandford, Friday, at 10
Newport (Mon.), Thursday, at 10.30; Bolton,* Wednesday, at 9.30
Friday, at 11
Northampton, Tuesday (Reg., Bky), at 12 Bow. Monday and Friday
Wednesday, at 10 Bradford (Wilts), Friday, at 10
Worthleach, Saturday Bradford (Yorks),* Tuesday and Wednes- ' Oldham,* Thursday, at 9.30: Friday (Reg., day, at 9.45
Bky), at 11; Saturday, at 9 30 Braintree, Thursday, at 11
Otley,* Monday, at 9.45 Brecon, Tuesday
Oundle, Wednesday, at 10 Brentford, Friday, at 10
Oxford, Thursday, at 10 Briigend, Thursday
Penrith, Monday, at 10.30 Bridgwater, Friday, at 10
Peterborough, Tuesday, at 10 Brighton,* Friday, at 10
Petersfield, Monday, at 11 Bristol, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. Plynouth,* Wednesday and Thursday,
and Thursday, at 10; Friday (Bky). at 10 at 11
Pontypool, Wednesday, at 10 Brompton, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Portsmouth, Thursday, at 12 and Friday
Preston, Tuesday, at 10 Burnley,* Thursday (R.) and Friday, Ringwood, Saturday, at 11 at 10; Saturday, at 9.30
Ripon, Saturday, at 9.30 Burslem,* Thursday, at 9.30
Rochdale,* Friday, at 9 Bury,* Wednesday (Reg.), at 9
Rochester, Tuesday and Wednesday, Buxton, Monday, at 10.30
at 9 30 Camelford, Thursday, at 12
Romsey, Friday, at 11 Cardigan, Thursday
Ross, Saturday, at 9.30 Carnarvon, Wednesday
Rugby, Thursday, at 10 Chesham, Monday
Rugeley, * Saturday, at 10.30 Chesterfield, Friday, at 9.80
St. Helens, Wednesday Chipping Norton,* Saturday, at 11
Salford, Thursday, at 10 Chorley, Thursday, at 9.30
Salisbury, Thursday, at 10 Cirencester, Thursday
Scarborough,* Tuesday Clerkenwell, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- Seaham Harbour, Monday, at 10 day, Thursday, and Friday
Shaftesbury, Wednesday, at 11 Conway, Thursday
Sheffield, Thursday and Friday, at 10 Coventry, Tuesday, at 9.30
Shoreditch, Tuesday and Thursday Crewe, * Monday
Skipton,* Thursday, at 9.45 Croydon, Tuesday
Sleaford, Saturday, at 10 Derby, Tuesday (Reg., Bky), at 11
Solihull,. Friday, at 10 Devizes, Monday, at 10
Southampton, Tuesday, at 11 Dorcaster, Friday, at 10
Southport, Tuesday, at 10 Dunmow, Saturday, at 12
South Shields, Thursday, at 10 Durham, Tuesday (Rez., Bky)
Southwark, Monday, Tuesday, and ThursDursley, Friday
day, at 10.30 Eastbourne, Thursday
Stamford.* Wednesday, at 1 East Grinstead, Wednesday
Stockport,* Friday East Retford, Wednesday, at 11
Stoke,* Monday, at 9.30 East Stonehouse, * Monday, Tuesday, and Stourbridge,* Wednesday and Thursday, Friday, at 10
at 10 Edmonton, Monday and Tuesday, at 11 Stratford-on-Avon.. Monday, at 11.30 Epsom, Friday
Sunderland, Thursday (Reg , Bky) Eye, Tuesday, at 11.30
Swaffham. Tuesday, at 11.30 Fekenham, Friday, at 11
Swindon, Tuesday, and Wednesday (J.S. Falmouth, Friday, at 10
and Reg., Bky), at 10 Farnham, Wednesday
Taunton, Thursday, at 10 Faversham, Friday, at 10
Tavistock, Saturday, at 10 Gainsborough, Wednesday, at 10
Temple Cloud, Saturday, at 10.30 Garstang, Saturday, at 11
Thirsk, Wednesday, at 10 Gloucester, Tuesday
Thorne, Saturday, at 11 Grantham,* Tuesday, at 10.30
Thrapstone, Thursday, at 10 Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30
Tiverton, Saturday, at 10 Guildford, Thursday
Todmorden, Friday, at 10 Halifax, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thurs- Tredegar, Tuesday, at 9.30 day (J.S.), et 10
Tunstall,* Friday, at 9.30 Hanley, * Tuesday and Wednesday, at 9.30 Ulverston, Saturday, at 9 45 Harleston, Monday, at 1
Uppingham,* Thursday, at I Hastings, Monday
Waketield, Tuesday, at 10 Helmsley, Thursday, at 10.30
Walsall,* Wednesday and Thursday, at 1 Hereford,* Tuesday and Friday, at 10 Waltham Abbey, Friday, at 11 Hertford, Wednesday, at 12
Wandsworth, Monday High Wycombe, Tuesday
Warwick, Wednesday, at 10 Hitchin, Monday, at 10
Wellingborough, Monday, at 10 Holbeach. Tuesday, at 10
Wellington (Somerset). Monday, at 11 Holsworthy, Tuesday, at 10
Westbromwich." Friday, at 10 Holt, Saturday, at 12
Westminste: , Monday. Tuesday, We ines Horncastle, Friday, at 10
day, Thursday, and Friday Huddersfield, Monday (Reg., Bky), at 10 Weymouth, Monday, at 10 Hull.* Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Whitchurch. Tuesday and Friday (sky)
Whitechapel, Tuesday, Wednesday, ThursHyde,* Wednesday
day, and Friday Kendal, Wednesday, at 12
Widnes, Friday Keswick, Tuesday, at 10
Williton, Tuesday, at 12 Kidderminster, Tuesday, at 9
Wincanton, Tuesday, at 11.30 Kirkby Lonsdale, Friday, at 10.45
Winsford,* Thursday, at 1] Kirkham, Friday, at 10.30
Wirksworth, Thursday, at 11.30 Knaresbrough, Friday, at 10
Wisbech, Monday, at in Lampeter, Tuesday
Wolverhampton," Morsiay and Tuesday, Langport, Wednesday, at 10
at 10 Launceston, Wednesday, at 10
Woolwich, Wednesday, at 10.30 Ledbury,* Friday, at 10
Worksop, Tuesday, at 10 Leeds, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Yarmouth, Friday and Saturday, at 10 and Friday, at 10
York, Tuesday, at 9.30, . Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary.
CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURIS
DICTION OF MAGISTRATES.
Manchester, Thursday, Dec. 10 Chester, Friday, Jan. 1
Norwich, Thursday, Dec. 31 Colchester, Friday, Jan 8, at 10
Sheffield, Thursday, Jan. 14 Croydon, Thursday, Jan. 7, at 11
Wenlock, Friday, Jan. 8 Doncaster, Wedresday, Dec. 23
West Ham. Friday, Dec. 18 Faversham, Monday, Jan. 4
Windsor, Wednesday, Jan. 9. Grimsby, Tuesday, Jan, 12
HEPBURN and Cocks (from Chancery-lane), 49A, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London, W.C., Deed and Cash Box Makers. Offices and Strong Rooms fitted with Iron Frames ; strong Deed Boxes from 58. ; Cash Boxes from 38. 6d. Estimates submitted; price lists. (Established 1790.)--[Advt.]
PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE
In Bankruptcy on the 1st inst., before Mr. Registrar Linklater, a sitting was held for public examination under the bankruptcy of Samuel Yardley Tilley, described as a solicitor, of Cambridge-avenue, Kilburn. His statement of affairs showed liabilities £6386, of which £5213 were unsecured, with assets £50.- Mr. C. A. Pope attended as Assistant Official Receiver ; and Bartley Denniss appeared as connsel for the debtor. -In reply to the Assistant Official Receiver, the debtor stated that he was admitted a solicitor in 1890, and was then taken into partnership by his father and another. Two years later one of the partners retired, and the debtor and his father thenceforth carried on business under the style of Tilley and Son until Dec. 1895. He was entitled to one-fourth share of the profits, but never received any, as his father paid him £5 per week. ---The Assistant Official Receiver: Is it not a fact that you were merely a puppet in the hands of your father ?—The debtor demurred to this, but admitted that he signed anything his father asked him, and that he was not allowed to interfere in any way with the management of the business. In 1895 he became somewhat dissatisfied with his position in the firm, and the partnership was dissolved in December of that year.
He attributed his insolvency chiefly to his liability for the late firm's debts, contracted in many instances, he asserted, without his consent; to excess of expenditure over income during the past five or six years ; and to interest on borrowed money. He bad signed bills in respect of which he kad received no consideration, but he never expected to be called upon to pay, as his father said that would be all right. He ascertained that things were going all wrong in the middle of 1893.-By Bartley Denniss : The whole of his conduct as a so.called partner of his father was investi. gated by a committee of the Incorporated Law Society, and he had been acquitted.—The examination was ordered to be concluded.
APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. BLACK HAWTHORNE AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, bs Jan. (i, their
names and addresses and the particulars of tbeir claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to Mr. T. Harrison, of the firm of Monkhouse, Goddard and Co. St. Nicholas-cbmbs, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. the liquidator of the suid company. Cooper and Goodger, 27, Grey-st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, solicitors
for the liquidator. COVENTRY MACHINISIS' COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec, 31, their
names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and adiresses of their solicitors (if any), to Vesgrs. J. Maycock and C. Baker, the liquidators of the company, care of Messrs. Charles Baker and Co., 39. Bennett'shill, Birmingham. Browetts, 23, Bayley-la, Coventry, solicitors to the
liquidators. ESSENTIAL OILS COMPANY LIMITED.--Creditors to send in, by Feh, 15, their names and
addresses and the particulars of their claims, and ihe names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. B. Jiaxell, 45 and 4*, Leadenhall-st, the
liquidator of the company. S. Morse, 4, Fenchurch-av, solicitor to the liquidator. FREEHOLD LAND SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 12, their names
and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. Potter, 160 and 161, Alderogate-bt, one of the liquidators of the company. Godfrey and Webb, 4 and 5, West Smithfield,
solicitors for the liquidators. GOLD REEFS OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LIMITED. — Petition for winding up under the
supervision of the High Court of Justice, to be beard on Dec, 7 berore the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. Campion and Simmons, 90 and 91. Queen-st, solicitors for the petitioner. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the said petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-nanied not later than six o'clock on
Dec. 5. LOTEL AND CAFÉ RESTAURANT CENTRAL LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by
Jan. 7, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. H. Battams, 4, Brabant-ct, the liquidator of the company. E. S. Coulson, 26, Leadenhall-st, solicitor to the
liquidator. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF AUCTIONEERS AND VALLERS.-Petition for winding
up to be heard on Dec. 7, bufore the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, Grant Bulcraig and Co., Norfolk House, Norfolk-st, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner. Notices of intention to appear on the bearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any),
and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on Dec. 5, JAMES BROTHERS LIMITED. - Creditors to send in, by Jan. 9, their names and
addresses and the particulars of their claims to Messrs. Becke and Green, 20, Market-sq, Northanıpton, the solicitors for Mr. A. C. Palmer, of Northampton, the liquidator of the company. All persons indebted to the company to pay the
amount of their indebtedness to Messrs. Becke and Green forthwiin. LEASOWE CASTLE HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 5, their
names and addresses and the particulars of their claime, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Jr. J. Simm, 56, Hamilton-sq, Birken.
head, the liquidator of the company. MORRIS GREEN COAL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec, 29, their
names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and ddresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. F. Wulmsley, 59, Jawdsley-st, Bolton, the liquidator of the company. All persons owing any money to such company are also required to pay the same to the said F. Walin:ley, forth with.
F. S. Foley, 17, Acrestielu, Bolton, solicitor io the liquidator. T. MILNES AND CO. LIMITED. --Creditors, who hare not yet done so, to send in by Jan.
4. their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names anıl addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. E. Witham, Barun House, Harrison-rd, Halifax, the liquidator of the said compiny. Humphreys and Hirst,
o, Harrison-rd, Halifax, solicitors to the liquidator. VENEZUELAN MINES LIMITED -Creditors to send in, by Dec. 10, their names and
addresses and the particulars of their claims to Messrs. J. C. F. Lee and P. G. Sechiari, 6, Great Winchester-st, the liquidators of the company. Cheston and
Sons, 1, Great Winchester-s1, solicitors to the liquidators. VENEZUELAN AUSTIN GOLD MINING COMPANY LIMITED --Creditors to send in, by
Dec. 10, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, to Mr. J. T. Dillon, 6, Great Winchester-st. the liquidator of the company. Cheston and Sons, 1, Great Winchester-st, licitors to the liquidator.
CORONERS' LAW AMENDMENT. The Lord Chancellor received a deputation on the 27th ult., from the Public Control Committee of the London County Council in support of suggestions for the amendment of the law as to coroners' inquests.
Mr. Haydon, the chairman of the committee, pointed out that, in the exercise of its statutory duties in relation to coroners, the council had experience of the anomalies and inconvenience of a system which had not been adapted to meet the requirements of the present day. The committee bad, therefore, drawn up and submitted to the late Government a series of twenty-two suggestions for amending the law, which included the recommendations of the Death Certification Committee for ensuring inquiry into all deaths not certified by a properly qualified medical man, and proposed the appointment of medical investigators to inquire into all uncertified deaths. These officers are also to identify and examine the body, and where necessary make post-mortems, which will render unnecessary the viewing of tie body by the jury and the holding of many inquests now held. The most important of the remaining proposals is the reduction in the number of the jury to half the present number.
Dr. Collins, vice-chairman of the council, pointed out that the Coroners Act of 1887, although valuable as a measure of codification, did not touch procedure, ard that much of the procedure at coroners' court was obsolete and ineffective. What was wanted was thorough preliminary investigation by competent medical men, in lieu of by coroners' officers. Tb's would at once get rid of many abuses of the prezent system, and render the holding of formal inquests unnecessary in more than 50 per (ent. of the cases, Probably a small jury would be desirable in some cases, but it was clear that the hardship and inco ven once now experier ce l from the necessity of summoning so many jurymen should be largely reduced.
The Lord Chancellor expressed much sympathy with the objects of the deputation but thought that grave difficulty might be experienced in any attempt to reduce the number of the jury. On the other hand he saw many advantages in the proposal to create medical investigators to make the preliminary investigation, and he promised that that proposal and many others in the series of suggestions submitted should receive his careful and sympathetic attention.
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOFS. JOENSTON (James), Sherwood, Cheam-rd, Sutton, Surrey, and of 40 and 68, Hay
market, trading under the style or orm of : herston und Co., jobmaster and livery stable keeper. Dec. 30; John Holmes and Son, solicitors, 3+, Clementis-li,
Lombard-st. Jan. 14; Mr. Justice Stirling, at twelve o'clock. LYLES (George), Still House, Upper Batley, Yorkshire, retired yarn spinner. Jan. 1;
Scholefield, Taylor, and Maggs, sulicitors, Batley, Yorkshire. Jan. 14; Mr.
Justice Chitty, at twelve o'clock. MERRY (George), Sydney, New South Wales, gold miner, a native of Worton or
Steeple Aston, or elsewhere in Oxfordshire. June 1; Cape, Kent, and Gaden, solicitors, Commercial Union-cbmbrs, Pitt-st and Hunter-st, Sydney, New South Wales, or their agents, Messrs. Bell, Brodrick, and Gray, Omond House, Great Trinity-la, London.
UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF
ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which
will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are pretxed to each in three
months from the date given, unless other claimants sooner appear.) COLDSMITH (Harriet Jane), 27, Windsor-rd, Holloway, spinster. £54 135. 40. 42 159,
per Cent. Consolidated Stork, late Consolidated Three per Cent. Annuities, Claimant, said H. J. Goldsmith, of 6, St. George's-parade, Cheltenham.
Nov. 26. LYNNE (Spencer). 4. Lansdowne-cres, Cheltenham, gentleman, and LYNNE (Audrey).
a minor. now of sye. £135 17s 8d. £2 158. per Cent. Consolidated Stock, late Consolidated Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimants, said s. Lynne and A. Lynne, Nov. 25.
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. C. 35.
LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICOLARS TO BE SENT. ADAMS (William Alexander), Gaines, Herefordshire, gentleman. Dec. 24; Dent and
Adams, solicitors, 80, Darlington-st, Wolverhampton. BOTLY (Eliza), 103, Lincoln-rd, Peterborough, widow, a partner of the firm of Botly
and Lewis, of 25, King-st, Reading, Berks, jewellers. Jan. 1; Horsley aud
Weightman, solicitors, 1, Guildhall-chmbrs, Basinghall-st. BOUGH (James), Hanley Castle, Worcestershire, machinist. Jan, 5; G. Powell,
solicitor, Public Onices, Upton-upon-Severn. BUTCHER (Joseph), Chesham, Bucks. banker. Jan. 1; C. Cheese, solicitor, 123, Pall
Mall. Brown (Richard), Criftin House, Wentnor, Shropshire, gentleman. Feb. 27; Marston
and Sons, solicitors, Ludlow. BURKILL (Lenry). Winteringham, Lincolnshire, retired coal merchant. Jan. 18; Gay
and Cross, solicitors, Burton-on-Humber. BAKER (John), Ditebinghamn, Norfolk, gentleman. Jan. 9; Hardisty, Rhodes, and
Hardisty, solicitors, 48, Great Marlborough-st.
solicitors, Chippenham, Wilts. CHRISTIAN (Elizabeth Fisher), formerly of 20, St. Luke's-rd. subsequently of 86, Fitz
william-ru, lalo of 16. Lydon-rd, Old Town, all of Clapham, Surrey, spinster.
Jan. 5 ; D. Stock, solicitor, 171, Queen Victoria-st. DYER (Frederick Swinnerion), Lingdale, Bournemouth, Hants. Dec. 31; Kate C.
Swinnerton Dyer, Lingdale, Bournemouth. DAY (John Angell), Uckriela House, Uchfield, Sussex, gentleman. Jan. 15; Ingram,
Harrison, and Ingram, solicitors, 67, Lincoln's-inn-ilds. ECKERSLEY (Georgiana Grace), Denby Old Hall, Denby, Derbyshire, widow. Jan. 26 ;
Thorpe and Perry, solicitors, Friar-la, Nottingham, EDENSOR (John), Upton Lodge, Bexley Heath, Kent. Dec. 31; Wilson and Son,
solicitors, 20, Basinghall-st.
HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. ELEM (Leon). 15, Perry-st, Tottenham Court-rd, who died there on Sept. 6, 1998.
Next of kin to apply to the Solicitor for the Treasury, Treasury-chmbrs, Wbitehall.