OUR LITERARY COLUMN. STORIES FROM THE LAW REPORTS. VII. THE STORY OF THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS TRICKED INTO a MARRIAGE. (From Miss Turner's case. 1 Macq. H.L. Pr. 642.) A PRETTY young girl of fifteen years of age was going back to school: the carriage was waiting at the door for her, and she was just having a final cup of tea with her parents before she went. Her father, Mr. Turner of Shrigley Park, Cheshire, was of an old and distinguished family, and was moreover endowed with vast riches. This little Maggie was his only child. She was an affectionate daughter, her manners were gentle and refined, her nature simple and confiding, her character proud, bold and courageous. Maggie was telling him a sad story about one of her former schoolfellows, Lizzie Wright by name-how her father had suddenly become a bankrupt and she had accordingly been obliged to leave the school. The father meanwhile was sitting at a writing-table in the far end of the room, where he was signing a cheque for the school charges in respect of the ensuing term, the practice of the establishment being that these were payable in advance. He drew a long face-by way of a joke-and said: "I shall be bankrupt too, if I have to pay many more bills like this. A young lady like you is a terrible expense to a man." He little thought under what circumstances this "joke" of his would next recur to his sweet child's memory. Soon the time for farewell came, and, after the usual kisses and some tears, Maggie had torn herself away from her father and mother, and was speeding as fast as two good horses could carry her down the avenue of Shrigley Park. * * * Some three weeks later Maggie was in her bed-chamber at the school; she slept in a room with several other girls, but on this occasion she happened to have a slight headache, and so had retired somewhat earlier than the rest. She was just about to undress, when her attention was attracted by a stone striking the window of her room. She looked out, and saw a man outside. "Do not fear, Mademoiselle," he said, "I have come from Shrigley Park with a message from your home. Your mother is very ill, dying it is feared. Your father has sent the carriage for you; it is at the gate. You are to come home at once; the reason has been explained to your schoolmistress, and she says you are to go." The man was not one of her father's servants, nor had she ever to her knowledge seen the fellow before. He was an evil-looking scoundrel, who spoke with a foreign accent. But Maggie hardly looked at him; her mind was full of the idea that her darling mother was dying. She put on her hat at once, and ran downstairs. A moment later she was standing at the gate. She saw no sign of the carriage, and for a few moments she perceived no persons whatever in the road. But soon two figures emerged from under the trees--it was a pitch-black night-and advanced to meet her. One was the foreign rascal above alluded to, who seemed to be a servant; the other was a tall, good-looking gentleman, who was evidently his master. In "Oh! where is the carriage?" said Maggie, who could hardly speak for her tears. "I want to go at once; I do want to see her again.' "My poor little Maggie," said the gentleman in a kind voice, "listen to me. the first place, your mother is not dying. She is very well." "Then what have you brought me here for? and where is the carriage?" answered she. "Listen to me patiently," said the gentleman in a reassuring way. "There is no carriage, but I wanted to speak to you alone for your father's sake, and I had to employ a little deception to bring you here, or the schoolmistress would have spoilt all. Maggie, would you do something to help your father out of his trouble?" "Of course I would do anything," said Maggie, "but what trouble is he in? Is he ill?" "No," said the other; "but I am sorry to say that he is bankrupt." Maggie remembered what her father had said just before she had left home, and at once believed that the catastrophe, of which he then seemed to be afraid, had come to pass. She thought of poor Lizzie Wright, and how she had been obliged to leave the school. Now she supposed that it would be the same with her, though this was a small trouble compared with that which had first been announced to her. Her heart felt happy now that she knew her parents were well, and she supposed that there would be some way out of the other trouble, especially as this kind gentleman seemed to think that even she herself might do something to assist her father. She little dreamed what that something was to be. "What can I do?" she said. "I will explain the whole thing," said the gentleman. "I am your father's greatest friend, and I am very anxious to help him out of his troubles, because I am afraid that real poverty would kill him, for he has always been used to have every comfort. Besides, there is your poor dear mother to be considered. I know who the man is who has now the control of your father's estates, and everything depends on him. I have tried to think of everything which could influence him not to press his claims. I went to see him myself, and implored him to be merciful. But it was all no use. There is only one way he has often seen you, Maggie, and he loves you and wants you for his wife!" Maggie was fairly staggered. "But I have never seen him. How can I marry a man whom I do not even know ?" The gentleman said: "Maggie, you have no choice. If you do not marry him your father will be shut up for life in a debtor's prison, while your mother and yourself will have to go to the workhouse in the very county where the name of Turner has so long been loved and honoured. If you do marry him, he has promised that you and your parents shall all live together at Shrigley Park; and you shall all have every comfort which money can give you. If you will come with me, I will take you to your bridegroom? Say will you come ? Poor Maggie was distracted. Her ideas of marriage-for, of course, at her age some rude ideas of it had begun to occur to her mind had been so very different. She had hoped to fall in love herself with the man who should fall in love with her; and then to be wooed and won in the regular fashion. Now she was to marry she knew not whom; or else there was the workhouse for herself and her mother, and a debtor's prison for her father. It was a hard dilemma; but she loved her parents well; and, thinking of all which it meant to them, she resolved to sacrifice herself in any way rather than to cause them misery. Meanwhile the girls who shared Maggie's bedroom had been wondering where she could be! But they thought perhaps she had been taken to the sick-room, as she was not well. Therefore, although they were surprised that this should have been done without their having been told of it, they said nothing of it to the school authorities at the time. And they were all soon in bed and asleep. It was not till the morning that the truth was discovered that Maggie was nowhere on the premises. And then there was a fearful hue and cry! Maggie's footsteps were traced to the gate; but on the hard road no trace of them remained. A messenger was sent to Shrigley Park. And next day Mr. Turner appeared upon the scene. The police were instructed; and every effort was made which could lead to the discovery of the fugitive. Three days afterwards the police reported that they had heard of a stranger with a foreign servant travelling northwards with a young lady corresponding to the description of Miss Turner in their company. Pursuit was instantly ordered, and the necessary arrangements were made without delay. Meanwhile Maggie and her abductors had come to Carlisle; here she was to meet her future husband, and they came to the house of a lady, who behaved in a very good-natured way to Maggie, and took charge of her until the man who was to marry her could come. Maggie was delighted with this kind lady, especially when the lady told her that she had actually seen and spoken to her father. "Poor man!" she said, "he had to fly from his house; the house itself is shut up, and they said that his property was all going to be sold. When I saw him he was in an inn, surrounded by bailiffs. 'Tell Maggie,' he said, 'to do what is asked of her, and so save her poor old father from misery and disgrace. Let her lose no time about it either, or it may be too late.' Mr. Wakefield, who is to be your husband, will arrive to-day. So you can be married at once if you choose." Maggie firmly believed the kind lady's words; and was now quite resolved to carry out her determination as speedily as possible. Mr. Wakefield did arrive that day, and in the evening he and Maggie were flying away together, bound for Gretna Green. A day later Mr. Turner received another communication from the police. "We were too late," it said, "the parties were married at Gretna Green to-day. They have now started southwards again, and are supposed to be on their way to Calais." Mr. Turner accordingly crossed the Channel that evening in exceedingly great trouble of mind, when he went at once to a certain hotel whither his information led him to expect that the fugitives were gone. He found them sitting on a seat in a public square in front of the hotel. Maggie," he cried, "are you married?" "Yes, father dear, I am," she said, as she rushed to embrace him, "and suppose that is why you are free again? "Where were you married, and how? "At Gretna Green. It was a very simple marriage; but everyone says it is enough. We went to the blacksmith, and I said 'husband' and he saidwife.'' The father groaned. He also had heard that according to the Scotch law of the period this was a valid marriage. "Come home with me," he said. "This villain has imposed upon you. He will be arrested for conspiracy immediately." And before the scoundrel could look round, lo and behold! he was in custody. Mr. Turner walked gravely away with his daughter, and heard her whole story; how she had first been deluded by the tale of the gent eman who had come to the school and who had seemed to be so kind, how she had been confirmed in her confidence by the lady who looked after her at Carlisle, how her bridegroom had behaved to her with every courtesy, but how they had never been alone together from the time when first she saw him, but had travelled entirely by public conveyances in the company of others. When he had heard the story he explained to her the truth; how he was not bankrupt or likely to be so, but was a man of great wealth; and how she herself was the heiress to all his riches, which was doubtless the motive for the conspiracy by which she had been entrapped into this marriage. But," he concluded, stamping his foot, "this is no marriage before God and the laws. Parliament will annul it; and my pretty Maggie shall some day marry the husband of her choice, and remember this only as people remember a horrid dream." With this hope Maggie returned in great happiness to her father's roof. But, father," said she, "you said that you thought you would become 66 bankrupt if you had many more bills. That is why I thought the man's story was probably true." "Oh," said the father, "that was a joke!" but now he came to think of it he could not see that it was a very funny joke. Parliament did annul the marriage on the ground that there had been no real consent. The young lady had been induced to enter into the marriage by fraud. Meanwhile Edward Wakefield (the bridegroom of this story), William Wakefield (his brother-the kind gentleman who came to the school), Frances Wakefield (their sister-the good-natured lady of Carlisle), and Thévenot (their foreign servant), were all convicted of conspiracy, and had many a long year of punishment for their nefarious plot. Legal Proposition.-There can be no marriage without the real consent of both parties. Parliament in past times annulled, and the High Court now will annul a marriage which has been brought about by fraud or duress Vide Browne & Powles on Divorce, 5th edit., at p. 1888; and ef. Scott v. Sebright (12 P. D. 21). LAW LIBRARY. Mortuary Law. By SIDNEY PERLEY, of the Massachusetts Bar, Author of "The Law of Interest." Boston, U.S.A.: G. B. Reed. In this volume Mr. Perley has attempted to collect the law concerning "dead human bodies." It is written in a popular rather than a legal form, and at first sight it does not appear to what class of readers it is intended to appeal. Aware of the inherent grimness of his subject,' Mr. Perley has apparently endeavoured to soften its melancholy by poetical extracts, and for the benefit of the general reader has given a considerable quantity of interesting information as to customs long since fallen into disuse in England and other countries. We conclude that it is also for the benefit of the general reader that such passages as these are so abundantly scattered through the book: "It is a common belief in Eastern countries that the spirits of human beings ought to be allowed three days in which to leave their human tenements after notice has been served upon them by death"; or "A man's death is the most stupendous event of his life, morally as well as materially; and it is but natural that much attention should be paid to it. Lifelong companionships are severed, and objects of love, confidence, sympathy, and support are snatched away." In a chapter on funerals and mourning we learn that in England and America "the women wear black clothing, and the widow of the deceased properly wears for a time a black bonnet with a long and heavy black crape veil ;" and further, in regard to funerals, that "the use of liquors on such occasions has now become unfashionable, but refreshments served in the form of an ordinary meal still follow the burial exercise. In this only the mourners participate." But here again we seem to be in the domain of undertaker's etiquette rather than of Mortuary Law. Succeeding chapters deal with the transportation and exhumation of dead bodies, and the law relating to cemeteries, and in these chapters, as, indeed, throughout the book, it is satisfactory to note that the author has fortified his statements, in so far as they consist of law, by numerous references to both American and English authorities. In conclusion, it should be emphasised that the work is an American text-book, written with special reference to American law on the subject with which it deals. The Light Railways Act 1896, together with the Rules of the Board of Trade made under the Act. By EVANS AUSTIN, M.A., LL.D., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. London: Reeves and Turner, 100, Chancery-lane, and Carey street. The Law Relating to Light Railways, comprising the Light Railways Act 1896, together with the Enactments relating thereto, with Notes and Index. By CYRIL DODD, Q.C. and CHARLES E. ALLAN, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. MR. AUSTIN'S book on the Light Railways Act 1896 consists of an introduction giving the effect of the Act of Parliament, followed by the Act itself, with notes under each section, and an appendix containing the sections of such Acts as the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 and the Arbitration Act 1889, and the Rules of the Board of Trade made under the Light Railways Act 1896. Most of the editor's notes to the various sections of the Act consist of merely repeating, in a diffuse paraphrase, the words of the section which they are supposed to lend explain. We cannot congratulate the editor upon his notes, even where they are not practically a repetition of the text of the Act. For example, sub-sect. 2 of sect. 4 of the Act, which deals with loans by the Treasury to a light railway company, and provides that a loan under that section shall bear interest as the Treasury may authorise, not being less than 3 per cent. per annum, Mr. Austin's note is: " Although the Treasury can for the purposes of the Act at the rate of 3 per money cent. per annum, it is apprehended that the provisions of subsect. (2) will enable them to charge a higher rate if there is any reason to anticipate that by lending the money at the lower rate they run any risk." What does the editor mean by this? Is it that if the Treasury think their principal will not be safe when the interest charged is at 31 per cent. they will not lend at that rate, but will lend at a higher rate, and thereby make theprincipal and the interest secure? We hope the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury know their business better than to fall into such an error. As a work of literary merit we are afraid we cannot commend Mr. Austin's book, as will be seen. from the following sentence culled from the preface: "It is probable that the powers conferred by the Act will be principally availed of for the purpose of making branches of main lines of railways and tramways worked by steam or other mechanical power, and it is apprehended that most of the schemes will be so devised that they will be laid along the high roads, so as to save the expense, as far as possible, of purchasing land, and that they will only be laid upon private ground where it may be found necessary to deviate from the roads in order to avoid hills, &c." Are the powers of the Act to avail themselves of something; if so, what? If not, who is to avail himself of something? We observe that the schemes, and not the light railways, are to be laid upon the road; no doubt, if this is the case, it will save expense. As far as the publishers are concerned, their work is well done; the type is clear, the size of the book handy, and the price moderate. Messrs. Dodd and Allan have, in our opinion, produced a much better book than the one we have just considered, and this may, to some extent, justify its price, which is more than double that of Mr. Austin's. The editors, in an introduction of some 58 pages, have dealt with the various provisions of the Act, which they have considered under such headings as the powers of council under the Act, rights of landowners, the powers of existing railway companies, taking of land, and compensation, &c. The various sections of the Act are given with notes, which, so far as we have been able to test them, are useful and to the point. An appendix, which seems somewhat unduly large for the size of the book, gives the various Acts required for a complete understanding of the provisions of theLight Railwayз Act. On the whole, the book will be found of great use to those needing assistance upon the Light Railway Act. The information might, perhaps, have been more readily accessible if the editors had given a little more attention to the index. NEW EDITION. The sixth of the series of guides to the Bar Final by Messrs. Indermaur and Thwaites, namely, that on Constitutional Law and Legal History (London: Geo. Barber.), has reached a second edition. It fully maintains the reputation of the preceding works, and not only will it assist the student in marking out his course of reading, but will enable him to try his knowledge on the subjects, by means of the test questions. BOOKS RECEIVED. Faraday's Rating. Estates Gazette Office, 6, St. Bride-street, E.C.; Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane, W.C. Price 12s. 6d. Lewis and Porter's Law relating to Motor Cars. Butterworth and Co., 7, Fleet-street, E.C. Price 3s. Edwards' Compendium of the Law of Property in Land. Third Edition. Stevens and Haynes, Bell-yard, Temple Bar. Hunt's Law of Boundaries and Fences. Fourth Edition. Butterworth and Co., 7, Fleet-street, E.C. Price 148. WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house have the sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an expert from the Sanitary Engineering Co. (Carter Bros.) 65, Victoria-street, Westminster. Fee, for a London House, 2 guineas Country by arrangement. (Established 1875.)-[ADVт.] Bedford, Tuesday, Jan. 5 QUARTER SESSIONS. Berwick-upon-Tweed, Thursday, Dec. 31 Derby, Thursday, Jan. 7, at 10.30 Doncaster, Wednesday, Dec. 23 Hanley, Friday, Jan. 8 ADOPTION OF AGENCY IN CRIMINAL LAW. A MOOT point of great interest to jurists arose in a case tried at the Dublin Commission Court last week, over which the Irish Lord Chief Baron (the Right Hon. C. Pallas) presided. A man was indicted for obtaining goods under false pretences by falsely representing himself as the agent of a firm of woollen merchants. It appeared in the course of the case that the debts contracted by the prisoner had been adopted by the firm for which he professed to act as their own debts. The LORD CHIEF BARON, in charging the jury, said he proposed leaving to the jury the question, "Did the firm of Frederick J. Thompson and others within reasonable time after the goods mentioned in the indictment had been purchased, and after the said firm had knowledge of the purchase made by the prisoner, adopt the said purchase and offer to accept payment of the price thereof by instalments from the prisoner? He put the special issue to them, so that if there was a verdict of guilty the Court of Criminal Appeal would have an opportunity of saying whether the doctrine of authority in civil cases applied to criminal cases. In other words, that the subsequent adoption was an equivalent to a prior authority or command, or whether it applied in a case of this kind. In his opinion there never was a clearer case of adoption.-The jury, after a lengthened absence, returned into court and handed in the issue paper, answering the question put by his Lordship in the affirmative. The LORD CHIEF BARON: What about the verdict ?-Mr. Fottrell (Clerk of the Crown) : There is apparently none.-The Foreman of the Jury: On the question of false pretences the jury disagree.-The LORD CHIEF BARON: And is there any chance of your agreeing ?-The Foreman: No, my Lord.-The LORD CHIEF BARON said he would discharge the jury.-Thompson said he would like to appeal for the prisoner, and wished he would be let off,The LORD CHIEF BARON: I cannot do that. I will allow him out on his recognisances.-Sergeant Dodd: We are quite satisfied with that.-The prisoner then left the dock. It is, however, very gravely questionable whether the doctrine of authority in civil cases could be extended to criminal cases. The definition of all or nearly all crimes contains not only an outward and visible element, but a mental element varying according to the different nature of different crimes. The existence or non-existence of that mental element at the time of the commission of an act which amounts to a crime if there be a mens rea cannot be affected in its character by any subsequent transactions. Sir Fitzjames Stephen illustrates this phase of the doctrine of criminal responsibility thus: "A. finds a bank-note in the road with the owner's name upon it, and takes it intending at the time to return it to the owner, but afterwards changes his mind, and keeps it for himself. This is not theft" (Digest of Criminal Law, p. 215). LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF "FOOD" AND "DRUGS." If any argument were wanted to prove the necessity of some amendment in the legal definitions of "food" and "drugs," it is furnished by the deplorable confusion which now marks the administration of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. Within the past week there have been two magisterial decisions, both at Brentford, in prosecutions relating to the same article, which were diametrically opposed to each other. The article in question was "arsenical soap," which was admitted to contain arsenic in only an infinitesimal degree -merely introduced, in fact, in order to justify the name. It was the presence of the arsenic in this nominal quantity which led to the proceedings referred to. In one case the prosecution was met by the objection that the soap was not a drug. This, it is true, involved the admission that the article was not what it purported to be, as the presence in an appreciable degree of the poison alone would bring it within the category of drugs, the arsenic being alleged to contain medicinal virtues as regards the complexion. But if, as was admitted, there was no arsenic or only a nominal amount, it is difficult to see how it could be contended that it was a drug. The learned magistrates, however, thought otherwise, and convicted the defendant. In this connection it may be observed that soap is not considered to be a medicine for the purposes of the Patent Medicine Stamp Act, unless it is used as a plaster or salve; the Inland Revenue authorities not interfering with the many advertised skin soaps, if intended In the other prose to be used in the ordinary way for washing purposes. cution the defence was much sounder. Granted, said the defendant's counsel, that this soap was a drug, it was not recognised as such by the British Pharmacopoeia, and at any rate there was no legal standard which required the arsenic to be present in any given quantity, and therefore it could not be said that the purchaser got something which was not of the "nature, substance, or quality which he demanded. In face of this argument the Bench felt they had no option but to dismiss the summons. What a ridiculous inconsistency is here presented in the administration of this law. The Sale of Food and Drugs Acts are, however, largely responsible for the impasse. Their two main defects are the unsatisfactory definitions of "food" and " drugs," and the absence of any legal standards for such articles as are admittedly within either category. The latter has produced numberless abortive milk prosecutions, while articles of commerce, such as soda-water and vinegar, for which there is no recognised commercial standard or strength or composition have been condemned, because they did not conform to the standards prescribed by the British Pharmacopoeia for drugs bearing the same names. On the other hand, the meaning of "food" and "drugs' has, by judicial refinement, been absurdly narrowed with the result that articles in wide general use, such as baking powder, linseed meal, and beeswax, have been withdrawn from the operation of the Acts, and left at the mercy of the sophisticator. The whole law on the subject of the adulteration of food and drugs is in fact in a chaotic state, and stands in urgent need of amendment. The lines on which such amendment should proceed have been fairly indicated in the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Food Products Adulteration recently presented to Parliament. Recommendations numbered 19 and 20 of the Committee are as follows: 19. That the definition of the word "food" as used in the Acts should be amended so as to include expressly all articles intended to enter into, or be used in the preparation or flavouring of food. 20. That a scientific authority should be constituted who should act as a court of reference upon scientific questions arising under the Acts, and who should be empowered at their discretion to prescribe standards and limits of the quality and purity of food. The only objection to these recommendations appears to be in that they are confined to articles of food. It is true that adulteration of drugs is much less common than that of food, but the amendment might well be extended to include both; especially in view of such decisions as those which we have above noted, which are likely to lead to doubt and uncertainty with regard to other articles which may possibly be considered drugs. It is, indeed, difficult to see why on principle the adulteration of articles of commerce other than food or drugs should not be made a punishable offence, and the scope of the Merchandise Marks Act, which does to some extent meet the case, might with advantage be enlarged. COUNTY COURTS. SITTINGS OF THE COURTS. FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, DEC. 26. Barnstaple, Tuesday, at 10 Birmingham, Monday and Tuesday, at 10 Bolton, Tuesday, at 9.30 Bradford (Yorks),* Tuesday, at 9.45 Bury, Monday, at 9 Dewsbury, Monday (J.S.), at 10 Halesworth, Wednesday, at 12.30 Helston, Tuesday, at 11 Leeds, Monday and Tuesday, at 10 Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary. PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE PROFESSION. IN the Queen's Bench Division, on the 12th inst., before Cave, J., the case of Joyce v. Loe and Pocock was considered. It was an action brought by Mrs. Marian Joyce, wife of the former proprietor of the Ship hotel, Farnham, against Mr. Harry Loe, managing director of the Farnham United Breweries Limited, and Mr. H. E. Pocock, the present proprietor of the Ship hotel, to recover damages for alleged false imprisonmert. The action was tried last month, when the judge held that there was no case against the defendant Loe, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant Pocock with a farthing damages. Candy, Q.C. and Pocock appeared for the plaintiff, while J. Eldon Bankes represented the defendant Loe. Bankes now applied for an order directing that the plaintiff's solicitor should be directed personally to pay the defendant Loe's costs in the action. He said there were two classes of misconduct on the part of a solicitor which gave the court discretion to make such an order. First, where an action had been commenced by a solicitor without any proper authority from his client; and, secondly, where litigation had been commenced on behalf of an impecunious person without any reasonable prospect of success. The facts of the case were simple. In November last year the plaintiff returned home from the seaside and found that her husband had disappeared. Messrs. Passingham and Hall, acting on the instructions of the husband, found a new tenant for the hotel, but the plaintiff refused to quit the premises, notwithstanding that on the day of the change she had signed an agreement to give up possession on receiving £10 and an allowance of 25s. per week for six months from her father-in-law. It was alleged that the defendant Loe induced the plaintiff to leave her bed-room, which was her entrenched camp, and go into the club-room, that when she got into the club-room the defendant Pocock locked the door, and kept her imprisoned for a considerable time while the door of her bed-room was secured, and that afterwards she was got out of the hotel. He submitted that there was no evidence of any instructions to the solicitor to commence an action against the defendant Loe, and that the action was frivolous and vexatious. He further said that if the solicitor had made any inquiry of his client he must have known that an action could not succeed against Mr. Loe, and that if he did not know it, it was quite clear he had not made proper inquiries as to the facts. Candy submitted that, if anyone had a right to complain of what the solicitor did it was not Mr. Loe. The solicitor was instructed by the plaintiff in regard to what was taking place at the hotel, and he went down to Farnham to see Mr. Loe, in the presence of the plaintiff, but that gentleman refused to see him. The solicitor took the advice of counsel on the facts communicated to him by his client, and he acted on that advice. From first to last the solicitor had acted with perfect good faith in the interest of the plaintiff, who had been placed in a most unfortunate position. He denied that the action was a speculative one, or was frivolous and vexatious. CAVE, J., in delivering judgment, said the application was made against the solicitor on two grounds-first, that he had no authority to bring the action; and secondly, that the action was frivolous and vexatious. With regard to the first point he did not think that was made out. In fact it was quite clear that the action was brought with the plaintiff's authority in this sense, that if she had been a person with means she would have been liable for costs, and could not have got out of them. As to the action being vexatious and frivolous, the defendant Loe had not made an affidavit to the effect that he had no part in the locking of the club-room door, and therefore he could not arrive at the decision suggested by Mr. Bankes. The solicitor, however, ought to have written to Mr. Loe before action. He should make no order upon the application. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE, THE BAR AND THE BENCH. MR. W. H. BARTRAM, barrister, of this city, wrote a letter to the Free Press, which was published on the 18th May last, reflecting in anything but complimentary terms on the conduct of Chief Justice Armour. This letter was brought to the notice of the Benchers of the Law Society on the 29th May, who thereupon referred the matter to their Discipline Committee, before whom Mr. Bartram, while admitting the authorship of the letter refused to appear, on the ground that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the Law Society. The Discipline Committee, however, reported that Mr. Bartram was guilty of conduct unbecoming a barrister under sect. 44 of the Law Society Act, which provides that upon such report it shall be lawful for the Benchers in convocation to disbar any barrister found guilty of such conduct. Final action upon the report was deferred from time to time until Tuesday, the 17th inst., when Mr. Bartram appeared in person before Convocation at Osgoode Hall, Toronto, and made his defence in the following address, which speaks for itself. Mr. Bartram said: "Mr. Treasurer and Gentlemen of Convocation :-When I was called to the Bar some twenty-five years ago, I was sworn to maintain and uphold the British Constitution, the essential principles of which are government and administration of justice according to law. The exercise of despotic powers by the Sovereign or any of her subjects high or low is contrary to the Constitution, but in the case of Her Majesty and her judges, no general laws, providing against despotic and arbitrary actions, are made, because of the theoretical impossibility of their commission by Her Majesty, or by any of her judges who bear true allegiance to the British Crown. A subject, however, is not bound to submit tamely to despotism, and has the right of free speech to expose it and agitate for redress. I exercised that right when I wrote the letter which was published in the London Free Press on the 18th May last. Although my legal education was commenced by the conscientious reading of Warren's Law Studies, followed by Blackstone, my experience as a member of the Ontario Bar, particularly since the abolition of the Common Law Courts, and practice has not tended to retain or increase my respect for the administration of justice. Possibly I have been under the ban, or any rate not possessed of the ear of the courts, neither of which are mentioned in the statutes, text-books, or reports. From no judge on the Bench have I submitted, because I could not help myself, to more arbitrary and despotic treatment. than from the Honourable Chief Justice Armour, and from observation I have reason to think that I am not alone in such treatment. I had therefore resolved that on the first occasion that his Lordship should give me cause, which could be justifiably made use of, I would hold him up to the public contempt to the best of my ability in the perhaps vain hope that the result might be a Parliamentary investigation. The occasion came when I least expected it, on the trial of Reg. v. Meaden, and the Free Press report gave me an opportunity of putting it before a portion of the public shortly and concisely, and in such a manner as to invite proceedings for contempt of court against myself with the object of further publicity. I conceived, and still humbly conceive, that the facts justify my action in my own and the public interest. The official report of the trial which you have procured fails to give the expressive and forceful manner in which the learned judge spoke to the jury, or the way in which he reproved me for assisting the Crown Counsel at his request, to find the affidavit on which the perjury was assigned, and which was afterwards produced from the papers of the counsel for the defendant, or the manner in which he called up the solicitor for the defence and sent him to procure the Revised Statutes to enable him to expound the law of costs in actions for alimony. I do not propose to comment further upon the official report, than to submit that perjury charged was proved. If it was not the learned judge should have directed my indictment for forgery. In any event the language used by the learned judge was such as to make the crime of perjury and subornation of perjury of trifling importance to the defendant, his family, his solicitors, the jury and the audience in the court-room. His references to me, and the miserable prosecution, the effect of the affidavit, the effect of the prosecution and the nature of the previous litigation were all irrelevant, impertinent and grossly insulting, calculated to do me personal harm, which, according to his Lordship, should be a very trifling matter to me or to any members of the Profession from whom the judges are drawn. The fact that an affidavit was made, imputing forgery to me, and that I should desire to vindicate myself, seems to be a very miserable thing in the mind of his Lordship. If Convocation were in a position to pass judgment upon the conduct of the learned Chief Justice, there are several other matters collaterial to this trial itself, which I should consider it my duty to bring under notice, but, in the view which I propose to submit to Convocation it is unnecessary, and perhaps inadvisable to further discuss this matter, either in reference to his Lordship or myself. I had hoped that the production and perusal of the official report would have been sufficient to have induced Convocation to have abandoned the proceedings against me, and to have spared me the necessity of appearing here to-day. A member of the Imperial Parliament has recently, in a work extolling the supremacy of the empire of the Pope over that of Great Britain and all other empires, written, "That the network of papal authority has a mesh wherever men are living." There is ample evidence to fear that his assertion is true, and that British institutions are being undermined both in the motherland and in Canada, by the principles of papal despotism. Nevertheless, I prefer to assume that the Law Society of Upper Canada is still governed by British law, and I therefore respectfully submit the following reasons why Convocation has no jurisdiction to discipline me or to adopt the report of the committee finding me guilty of conduct unbecoming a barrister. First, the letter of which I am the author is either a justifiable criticism on the administration of justice, or it is a contempt of court, or a libel on Mr. Chief Justice Armour. Until it has been legally determined to be either a contempt of court or a libel, I conceive that it cannot be held that I am guilty of conduct unbecoming a barrister. Convocation does not, I apprehend, claim jurisdiction to try and determine contempt of court or libel. Second, admitting for the sake of argument that Convocation could pass upon my conduct, I submit that it could not do so impartially for the reason that so many of its members being in active practice at the Bar, any decision arrived at adversely to the Chief Justice would tend to prejudice their standing before him. I claim as of right an impartial tribunal. Third, Convocation cannot be both prosecutor and judge. I was not informed by Convocation as to how it became seised of the matter, but I find in the Law Journal report of the proceedings of Convocation that no one person is responsible for the charge brought against me, and that it was authorised by a convocation consisting of seven members present on the 29th May last. Fourth, by the Law Society Act, Convocation consists of thirty elected, besides the ex-officio Benchers. I respectfully submit that the function of Convocation cannot be exercised by less than one-fourth of the elected members. Fifth, the report of the Discipline Committee bases its finding on sect. 44 of this Act, as to which section I beg to point out that the offences therein mentioned are not defined in that or any other section of the Act, and that the Legislature had no constitutional power to delegate either directly or by implication unlimited arbitrary powers to define offences unknown to the law." After which the Benchers requested Mr. Bartram to await their decision, and proceeded to consider the matter, with the result that Mr. Bartram was recalled and informed by the chairman, Dr. Hoskins, that the Benchers disapproved of his conduct in writing the letter published in the London Free Press on the 18th May, and that his proper remedy was by impeachment of the learned Judge. This conclusion of the proceedings against Mr. Bartram would indicate that he was fully justified in the position taken by him, as the Benchers have not seen fit to impose the only penalty they are authorised to inflict upon a barrister found guilty of conduct unbecoming a barrister, and Mr. Bartram is still a member of the Ontario Bar, in good standing. METROPOLITAN POLICE COURT JOTTINGS.-By a MAGISTRATE. Price 2s., by post 2s. 2d.-HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Office, Bream'sbuildings, E.C.-[Advt.] HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. ADLEY (Rev. George Frederick), late curate at a church near the Agricultural Hall, Islington. His children will hear of something to their advantage on applying to Messrs. Lawrence, Graham, and Co., solicitors, 6, New-sq, Lincoln's-inn. CONNOR (William Henry), late Mill-la, Margate, who died Nov. 19 last, at 180B, High-st, Margate. Next of kin to apply to the Secretary of H.M. Treasury, Whitehall. DAY (George), late 48. Marney-rd, Clapham Common, who died Sept. 20 last, at St. Thomas's Hospital. Next of kin to apply to the Secretary of H. M. Treasury, Whitehall. LAING (David), Esq., late of 21, Daisy-bank, Longsight, Manchester. His personal representatives are requested to apply to Messrs. Morice and Blakesley, 8, Serjeants-inn, Fleet-st, solicitors for the executors of his late brother John Laing, Esq. MOTTRAM (Edward), St. Peter's hotel, 42, Cooper-st Manchester, Lancashire, who died on Dec. 20, 1895. Persons claiming to be his next of kin or heir, and all persons claiming through or under them, or any of them, to come in, by Jan. 16, and prove their claims at the chambers of the Registrar of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster (Manchester District), 4, Clarence-st, Manchester. Jan. 26, at eleven o'clock, at the said offices, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. AUTOMATIC SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 21, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. F. Tee, 68, Lewisham-pk, Surrey, the liquidator of the company. Worthington, Evans, Bird, and Hill, 35, Eastcheap, solicitors to the liquidator. ART NEEDLEWORK AND CHURCH SUPPLY ASSOCIATION LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 30, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. W. Smith, 36, Princessst. Leicester, the liquidator of the company. S. R. Wykes, 13, New-st, Leicester, solicitor for the liquidator. BELMORE HILL AMALGAMATED GOLD MINES LIMITED (in liquidation).-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 25, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. F. W. Smith, 113, Wool Exchange, 24, Basinghall-st, the liquidator of the company. Trinder and Capron, solicitors to the liquidator. CAPE INVESTMENT SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 10, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. C. N. Koch and L. Loewenstein, the liquidators of the company, care of Messrs. Mitchael Abrahams, Sons, and Co., 8, Old Jewry, the solicitors for the liquidators. CREDENDA TUBE COMPANY LIMITED-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 15, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. H. Tyther, care of the New Credenda Tube Company Limited, Smethwick, near Birmingham. the liquidator of the company. Smith, Pinsent, and Co., 6, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham, solicitors for the liquidator. Note. The above company is in liquidation in consequence of the sale of the business to the New Credenda Tube Company Limited. HAMILTON STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 31, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. C. Spencer, Central-bldgs, North John-st, Liverpool, the liquidator of the company. Batesons, Warr, and Wimshurst, 14, Castle-st, Liverpool, solicitors for the liquidator. HOLDER AND CO. LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Jan. 8, before the Lancashire County Court, sitting at Government-bldgs, Victoria-st, Liverpool, at eleven o'clock. Alsop, Stevens, Harvey, and Crooks, 14, Castle-st, Liverpool, agents for A. C. Tweedy, 5, Dock-chmbrs, Cardiff, solicitors for the petitioners. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the abovenamed not later than six o'clock on Jan. 7. KNIGHTSTONE WESTON-SUPER-MARE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 15, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. R. H. Carpenter, Bank-chmbrs, Corn-st, Bristol, the liquidator of the company. MUTUAL ASSOCIATION OF MERCHANTS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND LIMITED.Creditors to send in, by Jan. 4, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, to Mr. R. II. March, the Exchange, Cardiff, Glamorganshire, the liquidator of the association. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL TRUSTEES AND ASSETS CORPORATION LIMITED-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 30, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. A. L. Straus and G. W. Schoenfeld, 70, Queen-st, Cheapside, the liquidators of the company. W. H. Bosanquet, 11, Queen Victoria-st, solicitor for the liquidators. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BORN (Gustavus Edwin). Port Hall, Brighton, Sussex, and of 20. Bucklersbury, ROBINSON (Elizabeth Ann), 18, George's-rd, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Jan. 8; G. Armstrong, solicitor, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Jan. 19; Mr. Justice Chitty, at eleven o'clock. SCREETON (James, 177, Coltman-st, and of Chapel-la, both in Kingston-upon-Hull. bookbinder and wholesale stationer. Jan. 12; E. S. Wilson, solicitor, Kingstonupon-Hull. Jan. 22; Mr. Justice Chitty, at eleven o'clock. WHICHER (George), Havant, Southampton, butcher. Jan. 28: E. R. Longcroft, solicitor, Havant. Feb. 2; Mr. Justice North, at half-past twelve o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. ANSDELL (James Richard), Kingston-upon-Hull, yeast importer and agent. Feb. 1; BALDWIN (John Loraine), St. Anns, Tintern, Chepstow, Monmouthshire, and of 19, Marine-parade, Dover, Kent. Jan. 11; Gedge, Kirby, and Millett, solicitors, 11, Great George-st, Westminster. BARGENT (George), 47, Waltham-st, Landport, Portsea, Southampton, naval pensioner. Jan. 12; H. S. Lush, solicitor, 2, King's-ter, Southsea. BARR (Ann), 218, Edgware-rd, widow, draper. Jan. 31; C. and E. Woodroffe, solicitors, 18, Great Dover-st. BODDINGTON (Mary Anne), Rowls Croft. Ditchling, Sussex. Jan. 18; Howlett and Clarke, solicitors, 8, Ship-st, Brighton, Sussex. BENSON (His Grace Edward White), Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace, Lambeth, and of Addington Park, Surrey. Jan. 25; Phelps, Sidgwick, and Biddle, solicitors, 22, Aldermanbury. CLEGG (Levi), Yorkshire-st, Rochdale, Lancashire, woollen draper. Jan. 4; Wiles and Thompson, solicitors, Town Hall-sq, Rochdale. COOKE (Charles Edward Stephen), St. Catherine's Hall, Loversall, Yorkshire, gentleman, banker. Jan. 10; Parkin and Co., solicitors, 23, Priory-pl, Doncaster. CHAPMAN (David), 67, Baltic-rd, Attercliffe, Sheffield, Yorkshire, formerly tailor and woollen draper. Jan. 27; H. Vickers, Son, and Brown, solicitors, Bank-st, Sheffield. COPPAGE (Samuel), Shirley Heath, Solihull, Warwickshire, retired farmer. Jan. 12; CROFT (Martha), Church-st, Hunslet, Leeds, widow. Jan. 31; Granger and Son, solicitors, 7, Bank-st, Leeds. DINHAM (John Wharton), Louvain Broadhurst-grdns, West Hampstead, and of the DOYLE (Thomas), formerly of Liverpool, late of New York, U.S. of America, seaman. Norfolk-st, Sheffield. FIELD (Rev. Thomas), The Rectory, Bigby, Lincolnshire, clerk in holy orders. Jan. 20; Scholefleld, Dec. 31; GREGORY (Martha), 25, Springvale-rd, Pendleton, Salford, Lancashire. GROVE (Marian), Belgrave Mansions, Grosvenor-grdns, wife of Florence Craufurd HARBER (William Alexander), 10, Pitville-villas, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, Jan. 31; Williams JAMES (John), 13, Suffolk-st, Pall Mall East, and of 3, Brick-ct, Temple, and the JACKSON (Thomas), Whitehaven, Cumberland, timber merchant. Jan. 12; Brockbank, KING (George), formerly of Richmond, Yorkshire, late of 90, Clara-st, Newcastleupon-Tyne, retired saddler. Jan. 11; H. E. Richardson, solicitor, 26, Market-st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. LEGH (Edith Mabel), Adlington Hall, Cheshire, and of 6, Norfolk-st, Park-la, and of 4, Hesketh-cres, Torquay. Jan. 14; Brown and Co., solicitors, St. Petersgate, Stockport. LEE (George), 8, Alma-st, Plymouth, Devonshire, carrier. Dec. 19; W. Earl, solicitor, 9A, Princess-sq, Plymouth. LEEDHAM (Charles), 12, Burton-st, Sheffield, bailiff. Dec. 28; A. Howe, solicitor, MARQUIS (William), 4, Walton's-parade, Preston, Lancashire, retired land surveyor. Moss (Joseph), Highbridge, Somersetshire, merchant. Jan. 30; B. C. Board, solicitor, MUSGROVE (Henry Francis), 108, formerly 122, Ashley-rd, Bristol. Jan. 30; O'Donoghue and Anson, solicitors, 6, St. Stephen's-avenue, Bristol. NOWELL (Elizabeth), 15, Park-st, Congleton, Cheshire, widow. Jan. 7; Weston, Grover, and Lees, solicitors, 10, Norfolk-st, Manchester. merchant. PRIOR (Ellen), 21, Brunswick-st, Yeovil, Somersetshire, widow. March. 1; R. Knight, |