THERE can be no question that, in the case of Re Brown; Brown v. Acomb (noted ante, p. 85), the intention of the testator, though inaccurately expressed, was carried into effect. He gave certain properties to named children, and directed that the property given to each child, if that child died without issue, should go to the surviving children. When there were only two children left, one of them died without issue, and the question arose, was the survivor intended to take that child's property, or was the divesting clause operative only so long as there were two surviving? In 1856, in the case of Hearn v. Baker (2 J. & H. 383), a testator had bequeathed a sum of stock to his wife for life, and, after her death, to five named persons or the survivors of them. All except one had predeceased the widow, though one of those had survived the testator. ViceChancellor Sir John Leach, in 1819, had laid down the rule that, where a legacy was given to two or more equally between them or to the survivors or survivor of them, and there was no special intent to be found in the will, the survivorship is to be referred to the period of division, which, where a previous life interest is given, is the death of the tenant for life: (Cripps v. Wolcott, 4 Madd. 11). Hence, in Hearn v. Baker the death of the wife was the period at which the survivorship was fixed, and Sir W. Page Wood was of opinion "that the word 'survivors' must be taken to include the case of one of the legatees only surviving." Mr. Justice Chitty, in Re Brown, followed that opinion, and held that the words "surviving children" included a sole surviving child, in whose favour the divesting clause consequently operated.

WHETHER the judges have grown more lenient in dealing with bills of sale or otherwise, fewer of these securities have recently been reported as having failed to pass the judicial ordeal; but still there are certain formal parts which cannot be omitted. Sect. 9 of the Act of 1882 provides that, "a bill of sale made or given by way of security for the payment of money by the grantor thereof shall be void unless made in accordance with the form in the schedule to this Act annexed." To show the difficulties that have been incurred through this section, it is enough to say that twentynine pages of Mr. Weir's recent work on Bills of Sale are devoted to it. The form in the schedule closes with the words "add witness's name, address, and description." These words are not strictly part of the bill of sale any more than the attestation clause is part of an ordinary deed; but, as they are employed in the statutory form, the Court of Appeal decided, in Parsons v. Brand (62 L. T. Rep. 479; 25 Q. B. Div. 110), that the name, address, and description of the attesting witness were part of the scheduled form with which persons must comply. "It has been said," observed Lord Justice Lopes, "the Act is tyrannical, but I am not sure that the Legislature did not intend it so to be." Still harder is the case of Sims v. Trollope and Sons (noted ante, p. 84), where the witness's name and address were given, but no description. As the witness had no occupation, it would have been difficult to give any description that would be of service; but the Court of Appeal (affirming Mr. Justice Grantham) held that, as there was no description at all, the bill was void.

TEMPLE RESTAURANT.-This establishment, situate in Tudor-street, adjoining King's Bench Walk (four minutes 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 28. each. No charge for attendance. Dinners à la Carte quickly served. Choice wines, spirits, and malt liquors. Chops, steaks, tea, and coffee. The Legal Profession is respectfully informed that Breakfasts, Dinners, and Teas are supplied in chambers if desired. Menus and tariffs forwarded daily for selection upon application.-[ADVT.]

OCCASIONAL NOTES.

No other witness action will be taken these sittings by Mr. Justice North.

An order of transfer of witness actions, from Justices Chitty, North, Stirling, and Kekewich, to Mr. Justice Romer is about to be made. The list of matters proposed to be transferred can be seen on application to the Cause Clerk, Room 136, Royal Courts of Justice.

Mr. Justice Chitty will act as vacation judge from the 22nd to the 31st inst., inclusive, and Mr. Justice Cave will be the judge from the 1st Jan. to the 9th, inclusive. Mr. Justice Chitty will attend at Queen's Bench Judges' Chambers on Tuesday, the 29th inst., and, if necessary, on the following day; while Mr. Justice Cave will be in attendance there on Tuesday, the 5th Jan.

The Master of the Rolls will spend the Christmas vacation in Paris. The National Observer says that Sir Robert Reid, Q.C., is not an unimportant member of the Radical party.

A smoking concert is to be given in the hall of the Middle Temple, on the 21st inst., by the Inns of Court Rifle Volunteers.

"Lord Justice Lindley is the title of the seventh of a series of articles on "Our Judges and Famous Lawyers" now appearing in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper.

The Saturday Review rejoices in Mr. Justice Day's conversion to the conviction that it is no good punishing criminals in prison. The Review agrees, and recommends permanent isolation of the habitual criminal.

A youthful debater at the Hardwicke Society last week said that he had never seen a Bencher except when he came in to dinner, and he concluded that Benchers had nothing else to do but dine.

There is to be a representation of Twelfth Night" in the Middle Temple Hall, during the month of February next, by the Elizabethan Stage Society.

The Supreme Court of Illinois has declared the so-called "Torrens Land Title Act" unconstitutional on the ground that it conferred judicial power on the registrar of titles and his examiner of titles.

The members of the Bar practising in the Probate and Divorce Division will entertain Mr. Bargrave Deane, Q.C., at a complimentary dinner at the Café Royal this evening in celebration of his recent appointment as one of Her Majesty's Counsel.

A ball in aid of the funds of the Home for Deserted Mothers and Children, situate at Carlton-vale, Kilburn, of which Lady Jeune is the hon. secretary, will be given in Lincoln's-inn Hall, by permission of the Benchers, on Wednesday, the 3rd Feb.

Mr. Samuel Pope, Q.C. has been retained to represent the Chartered Company of South Africa before the Parliamentary Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the Jameson raid. Mr. Pope has already been retained, with Mr. Pember, QC., to represent Mr. Cecil Rhodes.

As a result of the recent smoking concert on behalf of the Royal Courts of Justice Staff Sick and Provident Fund, the concert committee were enabled to hand over to the credit of the fund the sum of £119 17s. 9d. The treasurer and Benchers of the Inner Temple kindly sent £8 to defray the expenses of the hall.

A private discussion on the subject of the licensing question will take place at the National Liberal Club on Monday evening, the 14th inst., under the auspices of the Eighty Club, when Sir F. Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., is expected to preside, and Mr. R. Reid, Q.C., M.P., will open the discussion.

Sir William H. Marling, Bart., of Stanley Park, Stroud, has been appointed chairman of the board of the Chancery-lane Safe Deposit and Offices Company Limited, in place of Mr. J. Jas. Cousins, who has retired on account of ill-health. Mr. Cousins's seat at the board has been filled by the appointment of his son, Mr. W. James Cousins, solicitor, Leeds.

The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U. S. 537), that legislative provision, by a State requiring for its coloured citizens separate railroad cars, in which they are compelled to travel, under pain of fine and imprisonment, is constitutional and valid.

The December General Sessions of the Peace for the County of London -North side were opened last Monday, at Clerkenwell, by Mr. William Robert McConnell, Q.C., chairman, and Mr. Loveland-Loveland, deputychairman. The calendar is numerically much heavier than usual, containing, as it does, the names and descriptions of 109 persons alleged to have committed some ninety offences, including those of burglary, intimidation, malicious wounding, theft, fraud, embezzlement, &c.

Mr. H. B. Raven, who has been appointed a chief clerk to Mr. Justice North, has, since his admission as a solicitor in 1883, been a member of the well-known firm of Hare and Co., which for ninety years have been the agents of the Solicitor to the Treasury. Mr. Raven, who has obtained the post at an exceptionally early age, is a grandson of the founder of that firm, and obtained the degree of B.A. at Cambridge in 1880. The appointment of a chief clerk is in the gift of the Lord Chancellor.

An amalgamation has been formed between two of the legal firms in Carnarvonshire. The firms are Messrs. Lloyd Carter, Vincent, and Douglas-Jones, Bangor and Carnarvon, the solicitors of the Penrhyn estate, who associate themselves with Mr. Mostyn Roberts, Carnarvon, the solicitor to the Vaynol estate. At Bangor, the firm will be known as Messrs. Lloyd Carter, Vincent, Douglas-Jones, and Co., and at Carnarvon as Messrs. Lloyd Carter, Mostyn Roberts, Vincent, and Co.

The presentation by Mr. Hooley of a service of gold communion plate to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral may render it of interest to know that the quantity of real gold plate that is now to be seen is extremely small, and that one of the few pieces of gold plate extant has a peculiar interest to lawyers. A small salver of pure gold was noted by Mr. Octavius Morgan amongst the plate of King William IV., which was said to have been made of the presentation rings of Serjeants-at-law. This is no doubt still preserved: (Cripps' Old English Plate, p. 220.)

Mr. J. E. Barker, Q.C., has resigned the office of Recorder of Leeds owing to continued ill-health. Mr. Barker was called to the Bar in 1862, made a Queen's Counsel in 1891, and was appointed to the Recordership in Jan., 1880, in succession to Mr. J. B. Maule, Q.C., who at that time became Public Prosecutor. Mr. Barker has long enjoyed a large practice, chiefly in South Yorkshire, where his special local knowledge has enabled him to render important help in the adjustment, by arbitration and otherwise, of coal-trade and other disputes. He is a nephew of the late Mr. Overend, Q.C., who was for many years the leader of the circuit.

In furtherance of the movement to perpetuate the memory of the late Mr. Charles Button, J.P., a general committee, composed of some sixty of the most influential gentlemen in Hackney, under the chairmanship of Lord Russell of Killowen, have issued an appeal for funds. Mr. Button's long connection with the Probate and Divorce Court and the United Law Clerks' Society, made for him a large circle or friends in the Legal Profession, and it is thought that many of them might like to subscribe to the fund. The hon. treasurer to the fund is Mr. W. P. Stock, London and County Bank, Hackney.

The following are the circuits chosen by the judges of the Queen's Bench Division for the ensuing Winter Assizes, viz.: North-Eastern Circuit, the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Bruce; Midland Circuit, Mr. Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Charles; Home Circuit, Mr. Justice Mathew South-Eastern Circuit, Mr. Justice Cave; Oxford Circuit, Mr. Justice Day and Mr. Justice Wright; North Wales Circuit, Mr. Justice Grantham; South Wales Circuit, Mr. Justice Lawrance; Western Circuit, Mr. Justice Williams; Northern Circuit, Mr. Justice Collins and Mr. Justice Kennedy. Both civil and criminal business will be taken at these Assizes.

The Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association hold their fourth annual dinner on the 17th inst. at the King's Hall, Holborn Restaurant, at 7 p.m. The following are some of the guests and visitors who have promised to be present-Sir Francis H. Jeune, Mr. Justice Kekewich, Mr. Justice Romer, Mr. Justice Lawrance, Sir W. W. Karslake, Q.C., Mr. H. H. CozensHardy, Q.C., M.P., Mr. C. M. Warmington, Q.C., Mr. Joseph Walton, Q.C., Mr. T. T. Bucknill, Q.C., M.P., the Venerable Archdeacon Burney, and Messrs. E. C. Macnaghten, E. W. Martelli, Butler Aspinall, Lauriston Batten, E. Lionel Clarke, Charles Burney, L. L. Pemberton, E. S. Roscoe, F. R. M. Phillips, Arnold Trinder, Ronald Peake, W. B. Pritchard, and Selwyn Image.

The Hardwicke Society held an interesting debate on the 4th inst. as to whether the Benchers of the Inns of Court should be elected by the members of the Bar. It was carried by a large majority of the society, aud it is hoped that the resolution, says the Westminster Gazette, will be the beginning of a movement for that object. Among those who supported the motion was Mr. Crump, Q.C., who made a brilliant speech, while among the opposers was Mr. Candy, Q.C. The hon. opener, Mr. Cavanagh, made effective speeches at the opening and closing of the debate, his final remarks in condemnation of the present system of affairs as conducted by the Benchers being received with especial applause.

Imprisonment is a far commoner feature of Scotch than of English life, says the Manchester City News. The report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland shows that whereas six persons per thousand of the population go to prison in England, exactly a dozen are committed in Scotland. The cause, says the report, is to be found in the enormous number of imprisonments for breach of the peace and drunkenness. The sentences are short-they only average fourteen days and it is quite possible that a larger percentage of Scotchmen elect to go to prison instead of paying a fine. Something must be allowed, too, for the habit of arresting persons for being "fou," who in England would be given over to their friends by the police or simply ignored.

An election will be held at New College, Oxford, in Jan. 1897, to a Lectureship in Law and Modern History. The lecturer will be required to assist in the teaching of undergraduates reading for honours in these schools and for the preliminary examination in jurisprudence. The appointment will be made in the first instance for two years, but at the end of that time or earlier the lecturer may be elected to a Fellowship. The salary will be £250 per annum, with certain allowances. Candidates should apply by letter to the Warden, inclosing references and not more than four testimonials, on or before the 31st Dec. They are required to furnish proof that they are already familiar with some part of the work, but it is not necessary that they should have taken honours in either of the schools.

A deputation, representing the Council of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, waited on the 4th inst., in Dublin, on the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Gerald Balfour, for the purpose of urging on him the desirability and necessity of some change in the present system of private Bill legislation. After hearing the views of the deputation, the Chief Secretary said that the existing system could not be maintained. It was not defended by anybody, no matter to what section of opinion he belonged. universally conceded that the present method was doomed. It was unduly expensive, unduly cumbrous, and unduly inconvenient. It very often prejudiced the conclusions of the Parliamentary tribunal from the fact that local knowledge was absent, and it hindered and impeded commerce and industry alike in the country.

It was

Amongst the ceremonies and observances on the creation of Serjeants-atlaw one of the most ancient was that of the presentation of gold rings to the Sovereign, and it was retained till our own time. Mottoes on the Serjeants' rings, or posies as they were called, do not appear to have been adopted till the middle of the reign of Elizabeth. The practice at one time was for the same motto to be adopted by all the Serjeants included in the call. The law-worshipping Coke, on taking the coif in 1606, took for his motto Lex est tutissima cassis. The motto on the Serjeants' rings at the call just after the Restoration was Adest Carolus, after the Præsens divinus Augustus of Horace. The motto of the time-serving Jeffreys was A Deo Rex a Rege Lex. The Serjeants who were made in 1842, after Sir John Campbell's ineffectual attempt to destroy the order, took for their motto Honor nomenque manebunt.

A large number of the past and present members of the Western Circuit accepted Sir Walter Phillimore's invitation to dine with him at his house in Eaton-place, on the 4th inst., to meet his Honour Judge Bompas, Q.C. snd celebrate his recent appointment as a County Court judge. Among those present were Lord Justice Lopes, Lord Coleridge, Q.C., Mr. Bucknill, Q.C. M.P., Mr. Pitt-Lewis, Q.C., Mr. Poole, Q.C., Mr. Bousfield, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Castle, Q.C., Mr. Pyke, Q.C., Dr. Blake Odgers, Q.C., Mr. Ruegg, Q.C., and Messrs. E. U. Bullen, A. J. Mackey, A. B. Kempe, J. A. Foote, H. E. Duke, A. E. Nelson, F. R. Radcliffe, B. D. Kilburn, R. G. Seton, G. S. Phillimore, &c. During the evening Mr. Bompas took the opportunity of presenting a silver bowl to the members of the Western Circuit, of which he was leader for many years.

As the time comes round for the renewal of solicitors' certificates of practice, the usual expressions of discontent are heard on all sides in regard to the formalities necessary for obtaining their authority to practise," says the Westminster Gazette. Solicitors have to submit to extremely tedious formalities, both at the hands of the Incorporated Law Society, and of the Inland Revenue authorities, before they can obtain their annual certificate. Several journeys, involving considerable loss of time, and not infrequently of temper, have to be made between Chancerylane and Somerset House. Pressure will probably soon be brought to bear upon the authorities with a view to enable the Incorporated Law Society to carry through the requisite formalities, and so dispense with the necessity of attending at Somerset House for the payment of Government duty and for obtaining the certificate.

In the hall of the Inner Temple the Bar Musical Society, of which Lord Herschell is president, opened its eleventh season on Saturday with an enjoyable and largely attended ladies' afternoon concert. Among the solo performers were Mrs. Graham Keith, who sang "Angel Faces," the 'cello obligato accompaniment being played by Mr. Foster Cooke; Mr. H. J. Rowlands, who gave the ever-delightful "Gather ye Rosebuds "; Miss Florence Shee, whose fine voice was well suited in Gounod's "Nuit resplendissante"; and Miss Margaret Kekewich, Miss Hilda Kekewich playing some violin solos with great charm. The choir contributed several glees and part songs, including Mr. King Hall's setting of Drayton's quaint poem "The Cryer," Hatton's 'Good Night, Beloved," Webbe's "Discord Dire Sister," and Mendelssohn's cantata, "To the Sons of Art," Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Cunliffe, Mr. Rawson, and Mr. Williams taking the solo quartet.

There is a probability that the hour for commencing the business of the Thorpe and Mistley Petty Sessions will be altered to 12.30 for Thorpe and 12 for Mistley. Nothing definite has yet been decided upon in the matter by the magistrates, but we believe, says the Essex County Standard, the question will be dealt with at the next sitting, and we should imagine that the suggested alteration will be readily agreed to. The present arrangement fits in badly with the train service, involving a long wait for professional men and witnesses from Colchester, while it is impossible for counsel, London solicitors, and witnesses to be present at the hour of commencement unless they come down over night or leave London at 7 a.m. At the same time there is no train from Ipswich to convey remanded prisoners in time to reach Thorpe at the hour of 11.30, and it is remarkable that with so many attendant inconveniences the change has not been made before. The business of the court is not often so protracted as to prevent the due hearing of all the cases after 12.30, and even if occasionally an adjournment were involved through beginning at the later hour an exceptional inconvenience of this character is obviously outweighed by the general advantages whieh we have pointed out above.

The International Association for Comparative Jurisprudence and Political Economy of Berlin offers a prize of 1600 marks (equal to about £80) for the best essay on the following subject, "A comparative survey of the principles which prevail in the Colonies of the more important countries as to the acquisition and colonisation of land by settlors and of the economical results of such principles." The competition is subject to the following conditions: (1) Competitors must send in their respective essays to the honorary secretary of the association, Kammergerichtsrat Dr. Kronecker, 241, Kurfurstendamm, Berlin, W., so as to reach him before the 1st April 1898; (2) the treatises must be written in German, French, or English, and Roman characters must be used for the German MS. It is highly desirable that the MS. sent by competitors should be typewritten; (3) the essays must not disclose the name of the author, but must be marked with a motto, and a sealed envelope on which the same motto is shown, and which incloses the author's name and address, must accompany them; (4) the board of judges is comprised of the following members of the association: (a) German members, His Highness Johann Albrecht Duke of Mecklenburg, president of the German Colonial Society, Potsdam, Dr. Paul Kayser, formerly director of the Colonial Division of the German Foreign Office, now divisional president of the German Imperial Court (Leipzig), Dr. Freiherr Carl von Stengal, Professor of Law (Munich); (b) English member, the Right Honourable

James Bryce, D.C.L., M.P., &c. (London); (c) French member, Dr. Charles Lyon-Caen, Professor of Law, membre de l'Institut (Paris); (d) Italian member, Dr. Attilio Brunialti, Councillor of State, Professor of Law (Rome); (e) Dutch member, Dr. P. A. van der Lith, Professor of Law, rector of the University (Leiden): (f) Austro-Hungarian member, Dr. Eugen Philippovich, Edler von Philippsberg, Professor of Political Science (Vienna); (g) Russian member, Dr Fedor Fedorovic von Martens, Professor of Law, membre de l'Institut (St. Petersburg); (h) Spanish member, Marquis de Dalman de Olivart, late Professor of Law (Barcelona); (i) American member, William James Ashley, Professor of Political Science in the Harvard University (Cambridge, U.S.A.). The copyright in the successful essay or essays, and more particularly the exclusive right to publish the same or any translation thereof, shall, on payment of the prize, become vested in the International Association for Comparative Jurisprudence and Political Economy of Berlin.

Last Monday afternoon Mr. A. Birrell, Q.C., M.P., delivered, in the old hall, Lincoln's-inn, the introductory lecture of his course of Quain Law Lectures in connection with University College, London. The lecturer said that in the matter of legal education there was no room for their tough and tiresome old friend, laudator temporis acti. He suspected the best idea of life in the olden time in the Inns of Chancery was to be gained from the brief but lively reminiscences of Mr Justice Shallow, formerly of Clement's-inn. But somehow or other lawyers got educated, and great lawyers too. How did they manage it? From what rock were they hewn? Out of what pit were they dug? English lawyers had ever been a race of practitioners, not of jurists of advocates, not of philosophers. They had not been systematisers, but advisers of particular men in particular difficulties for particular fees. Most distinguished lawyers, if they were to be believed, had begun their acquaintance with the law with not a little of that aversion which Mrs Malaprop thought so safe in the early days of matrimony. The poet Gray, perhaps the best read man in a well-read century, remarked, "In the study of the law the labour is long and the elements dry and uninteresting, nor was anybody (especially those that afterwards made a figure in it) amused or even not disgusted at the beginning." The lecturer did not think it could be said that affection for the law, regarded as a science rather than a source of income, had been, since the days of the Commonwealth, a note or mark of English lawyers. Moreover, the profession was an unpopular one with those who did not belong to it. Dr. Johnson was nearly alone in his admiration either of English law or English lawyers. Lord Bolingbroke, Dean Swift, and Jeremy Bentham-representatives of the fashionable world, the wits, and the jurists--had directed their sneers at them. This antipathy-deep-rooted in our social structure, universal, perennial to the law was more concerned with its form than with its substance. The lecturer proceeded to give an account of the reading pursued by students in former days, and, after sketching the great change which has come over the law in recent times, asked what was left to take the place of the old order of things? First, there were the modern statutes, which more and more engaged the attention of the practitioner, and not infrequently required the construction of the judges (laughter), and such measures as the Companies Acts, the Bankruptcy Acts, the Conveyancing Acts, the Settled Land Acts, and others. In conveyancing there were the precedents now in use; in case law there were of course all the reports; and lastly, there remained the ominous word "practice," so intimately associated with the name of Mr Tidd. It was once thought that the Judicature Acts had got rid of Mr. Tidd and his foundation-stone, for ever; but what were they to say of the White Book, the Annual Practice for 1897, with its 1200 odd pages and its 7000 cited cases. The materials for the manufacture of the new race of lawyers were, then, the Statute Book, the cases as digested, conveyancing under the Act of 1881. pleading under the Judicature Acts, and practice. From such materials we might expect to see manufactured, when subjected to the test of competition at the Bar, ready men and sensible men, somewhat impatient of antiquity, a little restless under research, and disposed to believe that as much as possible law should be based on common sense and common honesty. A marked characteristic of modern legislation was to leave a great deal to the discretion of the judges. To limit unreasonably the discretion of a judge was to mutilate the hand of justice. In conclusion, the lecturer said that he proposed to begin his course of lectures by considering the legal history and practical development and expansion of the doctrines of our courts with regard to fraud. Having discussed that subject, he hoped to be able to treat comparatively, and with due reference to the laws of other countries, the subject of employers' liability.

The "black man' is once more to the front as a subject for sympathetic interest, says the Daily Mail. It is not in connection with cricket this time, but with our volunteers in general, and the Inns of Court Rifles in particular. A short time since an Indian law student expressed a desire to join the corps, the "Devil's Own," but his application has been refused -on account of the colour of his skin. Some time ago circulars were sent out to each of the Inns calling upon "all students and members" to join the corps. The circulars were signed by the officers of the regiment, and by eminent lawyers like Sir Richard Webster, Sir Edward Clarke, Sir Frank Lockwood, and Sir R. Finlay. In reply to this comprehensive invitation. Mr. Mullick, a student of Gray's-inn, applied for admission. Mr. Mullick is a native of India-a fellow-countryman of Prince Ranjitsinhji and is possessed of some six feet of bone and sinew, which he declared to be at the service of his Queen. The then colonel of the regiment (Mr. Coltman) was first asked to propose Mr. Mullick, who was introduced by a mutual friend. The gallant colonel's letter, declining to do so, was probably not one of his happiest efforts. It gave Mr. Mullick to understand that his only objection to him was his nationality. It added a broad hint that if Mr. Mullick presented himself in any other way, he

(the colonel) should veto his election. Mr. Mullick was then proposed and seconded in the usual way by two members of the corps, who did not consider "all Injuns pizen." It is admitted now that private pressure was brought to bear upon Mr. Mullick's proposer to withdraw his nomination. Afterwards, the new colonel-Mr.. Coltman having in the meantime retired-wrote the following letter: "Dear Noble,-A recruit proposed by you has come before me for my approval, namely Mr. Mullick. I understand he is an Indian native gentleman. If so, he is not eligible for an English Volunteer corps.-Very truly yours, S. H. LOFTHOUSE." As a sequence to this letter, Mr. Mullick has presented a petition to the Masters of Lincoln's-inn, the Middle Temple, the Inner Temple, and Gray's-inn, asking them to give the matter their consideration. The Benchers take a lively interest in the affairs of the corps, and the Daily Mail representative has it on the best authority that each of the inns will accede to Mr. Mullick's request. The Lord Chief Justice, it is understood, has already brought the matter before his fellowbenchers at Lincoln's-inn, and the War Office has been approached in reference to the matter. In his efforts to get the restriction removed, Mr. Mullick is receiving many promises of support. He is also able to make out a strong case in his favour. He has ascertained that the Oxford and Cambridge Rifle Corps, the Queen's Westminster, and the London Rifle Brigade, have, or have had Indian native gentlemen in their ranks. He has also the support of the Honourable Artillery Company, the officers of which have signified their willingness to receive him if he cared to join. "In conclusion," observes Mr. Mullick, in the words of his petition, "I wish to state that in allowing my candidature to remain, I have acted solely from principle. The question affects the social status of all Indian students at the Inns of Court, for if for the future, contrary to precedent, we are to be debarred from joining the corps- disability rendered all the harder by the fact that outsiders are now admitted-our position among our white fellow-students must be one of social inferiority. As no objection was taken to me personally, the question being made simply one of colour, I feel that I ought not to allow the matter to pass without an appeal to those at whose invitation I became a candidate." The Prince of Wales (who, by the way, is hon. colonel of the H.A.C.) has promised to be present at a smoking concert to be given by the "Devil's Own" on the 21st. It remains to be seen whether in the meantime the colonel and his officers will voluntarily remove the restriction that no Indian student need apply.

NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT YET REPORTED.

BY OUR REPORTERS IN THE SEVERAL COURTS.

HOUSE OF LORDS. Defamation-Libel-Privileged Occasion-Excess of Privilege-Malice.The appellant acted as agent for the respondents, a limited company. He was dissatisfied with his position, and negotiations took place for a fresh agreement, but the parties could not come to terms, and the appellant ultimately resigned his agency. The secretary of the company then sent the following circular to customers who had effected insurances through the appellant's agency: "I beg to inform you that the West-end office of this company has been opened at 19, J.-street, under F. The agency of N., at 27, C.-street, has been closed by the directors." The appellant brought an action for libel in respect of the last statement in this circular. The judge at the trial ruled that the occasion was privileged, and the jury, in answer to questions, found that the statement was not true, and was in excess of the privilege, but did not find actual malice. The judge gave judgment for the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal entered judgment for the defendants. Held, that the statement was not a libel, as the ordinary and natural meaning of the words did not impute anything discreditable to the plaintiff in any way; and, further, that the occasion being privileged, in the absence of any evidence of actual malice, the action could not be maintained. Judgment of the Court of Appeal (72 L. T. Rep. 525; (1895) 2 Q. B. 156) affirmed.

[Nevill v. Fine Arts and General Insurance Company. H. of L. Dec. 8.-Counsel: Asquith, Q.C. and Poyser; Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Bankes, and Marriott. Solicitors: R. C. Ponsonby; Deacon, Gibson, and Medcalf.]

COURT OF APPEAL.

Revenue Succession Duty New Succession-Contract for Valuable Consideration-Succession Duty Act 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c, 51), 88. 2, 15, 17, 18. This was an information by the Attorney-General claiming succession duty upon an annuity of £15,000. The second Lord Wolverton by his will bequeathed certain bank shares upon trust to pay to his nephew, who was heir presumptive to the title, an annuity of £15,000, and to accumulate the surplus income until 1892 for the benefit of that nephew the testator gave his residuary estate to his wife for life, and after her decease to his said nephew, if then living, but if not, to the person who should then be the testator's right heir at common law. The testator died in 1887. His said nephew succeeded to the title as third Lord Wolverton, and in July 1888 died without issue, during the life of the testator's widow. He was succeeded by his brother, the defendant, as fourth Lord Wolverton. A person, other than the defendant, was then the right heir at common law of the testator. In December 1888 a deed of arrangement was entered into between the widow, the heir, and the defendant, by which the widow assigned her interest in the bank shares, and the heir and the defendant assigned their respective interests under the will in the bank shares and residuary estate, to

trustees upon certain trusts:-(1) subject to the widow's life interest, an annuity of £15,000 was during her life to be paid to the defendant for life, and an annuity was to be paid to the heir; (2) after the death of the widow, to continue to pay the sail annuity of £15,000 to the person entitled for the time being to the title of Lord Wolverton. The widow died in 1894, and the Crown then claimed succession duty from the defendant in respect of the annuity to which he became entitled under the second trust in the deed of arrangement. The Divisional Court (Pollock, B., and Bruce, J.) gave judgment in favour of the Crown, holding that the annuity given by clause 2 was not the same as that given by clause 1 of the deed of arrangement, but was a new annuity, and that the deed of arrangement was not a contract for valuable consideration within the meaning of sect. 17 of the Succession Duty Act 1864 (75 L. T. Rep. 71). The defendant appealed. Held (affirming the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division), that succession duty was payable by the defendant in respect of the annuity.

[Attorney-General v. Lord Wolverton. Ct. of App.: Lord Esher, M.R., Lopes and Rigby, L.JJ., Dec. 3 and 4.- Counsel for the appellant, Cozens-Hardy, QC., Cripps, Q.C. and Danckwerts; for the respondent, Sir Richard Webster (A.-G.), Sir Robert Finlay (S.-G.), and Vaugl an Hawkins. Solicitors: for the appellant, Waterhouse, Winterbottom, Harrison, and Harper; for the respondent, Solicitor of Inland Revenue.]

Probate-Will

Revocation - Destruction of one of duplicate Wills— Declarations of Testatrix-Evidence as to-Admissibility of Wills Act 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26) s. 20.-A testatrix by her will, dated the 8th Aug. 1878, gave the residue of her estate to a nephew of her deceased husband, Charles Thomas Atkinson, and she appointed him and his mother, Emma Atkinson, executor and executrix of her will. Those persons were the plaintiffs in an action against the defendants, the next of kin of the testatrix, in which they propounded the will. The defendants alleged that the will had been revoked, and they tendered evidence to the effect that, after the execution of the will, the testatrix had made declarations to a lady who lived with her, that she had executed her will in duplicate, and that she had destroyed one of the parts with the intention of revoking the will. This, if it could have been proved, would have amounted to revocation of the will, but it was decided by Barnes, J., the learned judge before whom the action was tried, that the evidence was inadmissible. In the will as propounded it appeared that the testatrix had run her pen through her own signature and partly through the signature of one of the attesting witnesses, and had written the following note at the foot of the will, to which she had added her initials " Null and void. A. K. A. Through injustice on the part of Mrs. Emma Atkinson and family from time to time." A motion was made by the defendant, J. C. Morris, to set aside the verdict of the jury at the trial of the action before Barnes, J., and his judgment pronounced in favour of the will, and for a new trial on the grounds that the learned judge had misdirected the jury, and that he had improperly rejected the evidence which had been tendered to him concerning the declarations of the testatrix. By sect. 20 of the Wills Act 1837 it is enacted: "That no will or codicil, or any part thereof, shall be revoked otherwise than as aforesaid "―i.e., by marriage under sect. 18-" or by another will or codicil executed in manner hereinbefore required, or by some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same, and executed in the manner in which a will is hereinbefore required to be executed, or by the burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same, by the testator, or by some person in his presence and by his direction, with the intention of revoking the same. Held, that there had not been any misdirection to the jury by the learned judge. Held also, that, although the will bore upon its face the clearest indication that the testatrix intended to revoke it, and the court ought to give effect to that intention if it could do so consistently with the law, yet, unless the formalities prescribed by sect. 20 of the Wills Act 1837, for the revocation of a will by writing, were complied with (which was not the case here), such intended revocation had no operation. Held further, that, although the destruction of one of the parts of the will with the intention of revoking it would operate as a destruction of the will, yet it was clear that by the rules of the court evidence of declarations to establish that destruction were not admissible. Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards (34 L. T. Rep. 372; 1 Prob. Div. 154), Doe d. Shallcross v. Palmer (16 Q. B. 747); and In the Goods of Ripley (1 Sw. & Tr. 68) considered and applied. Decision of Barnes, J. affirmed.

[Atkinson v. Morris. Ct. of App. No. 2: Lord Russell, C.J., Lindley and Smith, L.JJ. Dec. 2. Counsel for the appellant, Bayford, Q.C. and Barnard; for the respondents, Inderwick, Q.C. and L. D. Powles. Solicitors: for the appellant, C. T. Wilkinson, agent for Timbrell and Wilkinson, Stratford; for the respondents, A. Hunt, agent for Brown and Rooke, Westerham.]

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Companies Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89). s. 43-Companies Clauses Act 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 118), s. 28-Inspection of Register of Company -Debenture-holder-Taking Copies of Addresses of Persons on Register. -The plaintiff was a debenture-holder of the defendant company, and the defendants prevented the plaintiff and his solicitor from inspecting and taking copies from the register of mortgages and charges affecting property of the company, and kept by the defendants pursuant to sect. 43 of the Companies Act 1862. Upon motion to restrain the defendants from interfering with or impeding the plaintiff in the exercise of his alleged statutory rights under the above section of the Act, it was contended that the plaintiff had an absolute right to take copies of everything appearing upon the register

including the addresses of persons whose names appeared thereon. The defendant submitted that the Act of 1862 did not authorise the plaintiff to do more than inspect the register, and that they had never denied him access to the register, but that they were justified in declining to allow copies of the register to be taken upon such inspection. The section is silent as to "taking copies," and as to inserting the addresses on the register, and a penalty is imposed for refusing to allow inspection by a creditor or member of the company. Held, that the decision in Mutter v. Eastern and Midlands Raitway Company (59 L. T. Rep. 117; 38 Ch. Div. 92), though on a different Act of Parliament (the Companies Clauses Act 1863), was equally applicable to sect. 43 of the Companies Act 1862, and should be followed, and that an injunction must be granted. The motion was by consent treated as the trial of the action, and judgment given for the plaintiff with costs.

[Nelson v. The Anglo-American Land, Mortgage, and Agency Company Limited. Ch. Div.: Stirling, J. Nov. 28.-Counsel: Buckley, Q.C. and Younger; Graham Hastings, Q.C. and Ashworth James. Solicitors: Henry Smith; Dale, Newman, and Hood.] Company-Winding-up-Creditor's Petition-Right of Creditor to a Winding-up Order-Companies (Winding-up) Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c 63). A private company, i.e. one where the vendors to the company and the shareholders were identical, and the company was entirely under the control of its debenture and share holders, being admittedly insolvent, a petition for its winding-up was presented. It was argued for the company and its debenture-holders that, as all the property of the company was covered by debentures and no good could result from the order being made, the petition should be dismissed, following the rule laid down in Re Chapel House Colliery Company (49 L. T. Rep. 575; 24 Ch. Div. 259). Held, that the petition must be dismissed, there being no primâ facie case made out for impeaching the debentures; but that, in the case of a private company, the court ought carefully to inquire into the circumstances and obtain very full information as to what had become of the property, and whether there was any ground for impeaching the debentures, and thus obtaining something for the unsecured creditors, before dismissing a petition for winding-up.

[Re London Health Electrical Institute Limited. Ch. Div.: Williams, J. Dec. 2.-Counsel: Waghorn; Butcher; Austen-Cartmell. Solicitors: A. Arnold Hannay; Mann and Taylor.] Company-Winding-up-Just and equitable Cause for Winding-up— Substratum of Business gone-Fraudulent Purpose- Companies Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 79, sub-sect. 5.-One T. E. B. with his two sons, and another workman, who had all been in the employment of the old-established firm of John B. and Sons, pianoforte manufacturers, started a rival business, and finally formed a company of T. E. B. and Sons Limited, with the deliberate intention (as shown by cogent evidence) of getting as much of the old firm's trade into their own hands as they possibly could by using this name. The company had been restrained by North, J. (affirmed by the Court of Appeal) from using the name of T. E. B. and Sons Limited or the name of B., in connection with the manufacture for sale or hire of pianos, without adding thereto an express statement that the new company were distinct from and had no connection with the old firm of J. B. and Sons. There was evidence that the company was doing a considerable business, and at a meeting of shareholders held by order of the court a majority of those present desired that the business should be continued, and that the company should not be compulsorily wound-up. This was a petition by a shareholder, though it was also obviously presented in the interest of the old firm of J. B. and Sons, to wind-up the company compulsorily under sect. 79 (5) of the Act of 1862, on the main grounds that the substratum of the business which this company was incorporated to carry on had become impossible; and that this was a bubble company. It was also urged that, it being impossible for the company to use its corporate name, either altogether or as a trade name, after the injunction that had been granted, the business defined by the memorandum of association had become impossible; and that it being proved that the company was formed in fact for a fraudulent purpose, it was just and equitable that it should be wound-up. Further, that a prima facie case of fraud having been made out, a winding-up order would afford the best means of making the vendors disgorge the large amount of cash paid to them for purchase money, for the benefit of shareholders who should make out their right to repudiate on the ground that they were induced to take shares by fraud in the prospectus. Held, upon a consideration of all the facts, that a very material part of the substratum of the company's business was gone, and that, there being clearly a state of things which would justify the court, in the exercise of its discretion, in making a winding-up order, the balance of the facts showed that such an order ought to be made.

[Re Thomas Edward Brinsmead and Sons Limited. Ch. Div.: Williams, J. Dec. 3.-Counsel: Warmington, Q.C. and C. Lyttelton Chubb; Swinfen Eady, Q.C. and E. E. Fletcher; Stokes; Cosmo Rose Innes; Ashton Cross; F. T. Duka; Eve, Q.C. and Mark Romer; Alexander, Q.C. and A. Rowden; W. Higgins; Wildy Wright. Solicitors: W. Maskell; Pownall and Co.; Hugh Rose Innes; Moggridge; Thompson and Co.; Holden and Co.; Beale and Co.; Taunton and Dude.] Practice Plaintiff improperly joined-Discontinuance-Costs-Solicitor --Company-R. S. C., Order XXVI., r. 1.—This action was commenced in the name of a company, two directors and two shareholders, as plaintiffs, to restrain further proceedings in a voluntary winding-up. A motion for an injunction to this effect was dismissed, and the plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs. The company then gave notice of motion to strike out their name as plaintiff on the ground that the

solicitors had no authority to join the company, and that the solicitors might pay all the costs. After service of this order, the solicitor gave notice of discontinuance of the action. The company now brought on their motion. The solicitors took the preliminary objection that the action was gone, and the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the motion. Held, that as the rules made no special provision on the point, the old practice in Chancery prevailed, according to which such a motion could be made after dismissal of a bill; therefore the court had jurisdiction.

[Gold Reefs of Western Australia v. Dawson. Ch. Div.: North, J. Dec. 8.-Counsel: Swinfen Eady, Q.C. and Duka; Kenyon Parker. Solicitors: Gover and Chiles; Wyatt, Digby, and Co.]

Contract Agreement for Lease-Escrow-Parol Evidence.- -A clerk to house agents, acting for the defendant in respect of the letting of a house, wrote the defendant that there was a bona fide offer for the house, without mentioning any name, and asking for instructions. The defendant thereupon communicated with his solicitor, and said he would arrange a meeting between him and the proposed tenant. Subsequently the plaintiff called on the solicitor and signed an agreement, and handed it to the solicitor, who was in the habit of telling intending tenants that they must satisfy the landlord as to their responsibility, but who did not remember what actually passed on this occasion. The agreement was sent to the defendant, who also signed it, but without any intention of accepting the plaintiff as tenant, and retained it. He then called on the house agents where he saw the plaintiff's brother, and suggested that two gentlemen whose names were written on a sheet of paper should act as security. He then left the agreement and paper with his solicitor, with instructions not to complete until those names were added by way of security. The negotiations were subsequently broken off, and the house let to someone else. In an action for specific performance or damages: Held, that parol evidence was admissible to show that there was no agreement, and that this being established, the action must be dismissed.

Solicitors:

[Pattle v. Hornibrook. Ch. Div. Stirling, J. Nov. 12 and 21.Counsel: Germaine; Graham Hastings, Q.C. and Younger. Rogers, Hartley, and Bastard; Nisbet, Daw, and Nisbet.] Solicitor and Client-Lien for Costs-Extent thereof-Taxation-Payment into Court to answer Costs thereof Solicitors discharged by client-Delivery up of Papers-Tender of Balance claimed, but not in Settlement -Refusal to accept the same, or to deliver up Papers-Undertaking to return in case any Balance found due to them-Motion-Costs thereof. -A firm of solicitors were discharged by their client. The new solicitor obtained the usual order for delivery of a bill of costs and taxation, and afterwards tendered to them (but not in settlement) the amount claimed, and requested delivery up of papers. Both the tender and request were refused on the grounds, as to the tender, that they were first entitled to their balance in settlement, and as to the papers, that they had a lien on them for their costs, including those of certain habeas corpus proceedings commenced against them and others on behalf of the client, and which they were defending; that they were entitled to have a sufficient sum paid into court to answer the costs of taxation, and also to an undertaking to return the papers in case any balance was found due on the taxation to them. On a motion for an order for delivery up: Held, (1) that in the circumstances the solicitors were wrong in refusing to accept the tender; (2) that it was their duty to deliver up on a proper receipt being given (which had not been refused); (3) following Re Bevan and Whitting (33 Beav. 439), that they were entitled to an undertaking to return in case any sum was found due to them on taxation; (4) following Re Taylor, Stileman, and Underwood (64 L. T. Rep. 605), that the costs relating to the habeas corpus not being taxable costs, charges, and expenses incurred by them as solicitors for the client, could not be included in the lien; (5) following Be Galland (53 L. T. Rep. 921), that they were entitled to the payment into court of a proper sum to answer the costs of taxation; and (6) following Re Bevan and Whitting (ubi sup.), that, the motion having been rendered necessary by the solicitors taking up a wrong ground, they must bear the costs thereof.

[Re Hanbury, Whitting, and Nicholson. Ch. Div.: Stirling J. Dec. 4. Counsel: Graham Hastings, Q.C., and T. H. Carson; Buckley, Q.C., aed T. T. Methold. Solicitors: G. B. Crook; Hanbury, Whitting, and Nicholson.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

Marine Insurance-Construction of Policy-" Final Port"-Meaning of. --Commercial action tried by Mathew, J. The plaintiffs and defendants are respectively underwriters at Lloyd's, and the action was brought to recover a total loss under a policy of re-insurance effected by the plaintiffs with the defendants. This re-insurance, which was dated the 30th Dec. 1895, was" £100 on hull warranted free of all average to pay no salvage charges"; and was stated to be upon the ship or vessel Talavera “at and from Newcastle (N.S.W.) to any port or ports, place or places, in any order on the West Coast of South America, and for thirty days after arrival in final port, however employed." The plaintiffs had insured the Talavera under a policy dated the 2nd Dec. 1895, which covered the vessel "at and from Sydney, N.S. W., while there, to Newcastle, and thence to any port or ports, place or places, on the West Coast of South America, and (or) islands adjacent, in any order, once or oftener while there, and thence to any port or ports of call, and (or) discharge in the United Kingdom and (or) continent of Europe between Bordeaux and Hamburg, both included, and for thirty days in port after final arrival however employed." The plaintiffs desiring to re-insure a portion of their risk instructed their broker to effect such re-insurance, and accordingly the policy now sued upon was effected. On the 5th Jan. 1896 the Talavera sailed from Newcastle, N.S.W. with a cargo of

coal, bound for Valparaiso. The policy now in question attached from Newcastle, N.S.W. The vessel arrived at Valparaiso on the 12th Feb. 1896, and there discharged the whole of her cargo, and remained there for more than thirty days. At Valparaiso the ship loaded about 600 tons of ballast and 200 tons of sugar, being part of her cargo for the United Kingdom, and she sailed therewith for Talcahuano, where she was to load the remainder of her cargo for the United Kingdom. Whilst proceeding towards Talcahuano she stranded on Santa Maria Island, and became a total loss. It was also admitted that vessels making the Vovage from Newcastle to the West Coast of South America sometimes discharge their Newcastle cargo at more than one port on the coast, and that vessels loading from the West Coast for the United Kingdom sometimes load at more than one port on the coast. The plaintiffs were required by the owner of the ship to pay under their policy, and did pay, a total loss, and they now sued the defendants under the re-insurance, and contended that the vessel was covered to any port or ports, place or places on the West Coast of South America, and for thirty days after she arrived at the last port upon the West Coast of South America before leaving for home, and therefore until her arrival at Talcahuanə and thirty days after. The defendants contended that the vessel was covered by the re-insurance only to her port of discharge (Valparaiso) and thirty days after. Cur. adv. vult. Held, that the construction placed upon the policy of re-insurance by the plaintiffs was the correct one, namely, that the vessel was covered until her arrival at her final port and for thirty days after, and was therefore covered at the time of the loss. Judgment for plaintiffs.

[Crocker and others v. Sturge and others. Q. B. Div.: Mathew, J. Dec. 7.-Counsel: Joseph Walton, Q.C. and Percy Mori; Boyd, Q.C Solicitors: Thomas Cooper and Co.; W. A. Crump and Son.]

IN BANKRUPTCY. Bankruptcy-Composition with Creditors-Bankruptcy Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 71), ss. 125 and 126-Default-Determination of Deed-Right of Creditors to prove in the subsequent Bankruptcy of the Debtor-Statute of Limitations.-The debtor in 1881 entered into an arrangement with his creditors under sects. 125, 126 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869. A deed was executed which provided for the payment of a composition of 5s. in the pound in satisfaction of all debts. The debtor was authorised to trade under the control of inspectors, who were to allow the debtor £500 a year. The trading was unsuccessful, and in 1884 the resignation of the inspectors was agreed to, but no declaration in writing declaring the deed void was made, as provided by the deed. In 1889 the debtor, who had continued to trade, became bankrupt. At the date of the bankruptcy there were no assets; but in 1895 a considerable sum became available for distribution among the creditors of his bankruptcy. The surviving trustee of the deed then declared it determined. Held, that the creditors under the composition deed had a right of proof in the bankruptcy, for the Statute of Limitations did not begin to run until the deed had been determined, from which date a new promise to pay ought to be inferred. Irving v. Veitch (3 M. & W. 90) followed.

[Re Stock; Ex parte Amos. Q. B. Div. in Bank.: Williams and Wright, JJ. Nov. 27.-Counsel: Cooper Willis, Q.C.; Muir Mackenzie. Solicitors Chester, Mayhew, Broome, and Griffiths, for Baker and Langworthy, Bristol; Whites and Co., for Press, Inskip, and Press, Bristol.]

Bankruptcy-Voluntary Settlement-Extent of Avoidance-Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, 8, 47.-The debtor had made a voluntary settlement of property of the value of £16,000, and within two years of the date of that settlement became bankrupt. His debts amounted to about £2000. Held, that the settlement was void as against the trustee in bankruptcy, and that the property had vested in him, and that the property and documents must be handed over to him without prejudice to any application as to the surplus proceeds. The trustee was directed not to realise the settled property until he had ascertained the amount of the debts and the costs incurred in the bankruptcy. Sanguinetti v. Stuckey's Banking Company (71 L. T. Rep. 872; (1895) 1 Ch. 176). Re Farnham (73 L. T. Rep. 231; (1895) 2 Ch. 799) considered.

[Re Sims; Ex parte Sheffield v. Prince. Williams, J. Nov. 16 and Dec. 1.-Counsel: H. Reed, Q.C. and Ashton Cross; Muir Mackenzie; Ribton. Solicitors: Rogers, Hartley and Bastard; Prince and Co.; H. Stanley Jones.]

OUR LITERARY COLUMN.

STORIES FROM THE LAW REPORTS. VI. THE STORY OF THE LOYAL SOLDIER WHO TRIED TO SHOOT HIS KING.

(From Rex v. Hadfield, 27 St. Tr. 1281.)

It was in the year 1793, on the day after the battle of Famars, in which Frederick, Duke of York, had successfully fought against the armies of France. The conquering general, who was young and inexperienced, had not altogether distinguished himself as a warrior, but on this day in particular the honours of war were thick upon him, and there was no memory for any blunders he had committed earlier in the campaign. He was his soldiers' darling anyhow; there was no doubt about that. You could see that Hadfield, his orderly, followed his every movement with his eyes with the deep devotion of an animal. Hadfield was full of enthusiasm for the prince, who had led his troops to victory the day before; and his