46 The Legal Musical Society held their fourth annual dinner on Wednesday evening at the Freemasons' Tavern. Mr. Joseph Walton, Q.C. presided, and was supported by several members of the Bar, and a large gathering of the members and their friends. Among those who contributed to the musical part of the evening were Mr. Robert Grice, Mr. H. Hinley, Mr. C. Linwood, and the always welcome Mr. E. W. Smith, whose pieces Alice where art thou" and "Auld Robin Gray were much applauded. Lord Kinnear, upon whom the Queen has conferred the dignity of a peerage, was appointed a Lord of Session in 1882, with the courtesy title by which he is well known in the Scotch judiciary. He is the son of Mr. John Kinnear, and was born in Edinburgh in 1833, educated at the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, called to the Scotch Bar in 1856, made Q.C. in 1881, and appointed Dean of Faculty of Advocates in the same year. As a judge Lord Kinnear has been especially distinguished for his decisions in the department of company and commercial law. Mr. Wm. Clarke, one of the oldest legal practitioners in Leeds, has retired from business, and will for the future reside in Scotland. Mr. Clarke took a keen interest in poor law matters, and for about thirty years had a seat on the Leeds Board of Guardians. He was in politics a Conservative, and for a long period represented his party in the Leeds Revision Courts. He was at one time chairman of the Mill-hill Ward Conservative Association. For many years he was likewise a sidesman at the Parish Church. Mr. Clarke, who is seventy-four years of age, is a Norfolk man, and went to Leeds in 1845. It is stated that eleven applications have been made to the Light Railway Commissioners from the promoters of light railway schemes throughout the country, and, as the 31st ult. was the last day for receiving the same, preparations will be at once made by the commissioners for considering them. In view of the fact that the Act was passed as recently as August last, the number of applications is considered very satisfactory. The next date upon which applications will be received is the 1st May 1897. The commissioners are the Earl of Jersey, Col. Boughey, and Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Newton's resignation has brought to an end a career as a magistrate extending over a period of thirty years, he having been appointed as far back as 1866. During a considerable part of that time the learned gentleman has presided at the Marlborough-street Police-court, at which court, being located in the heart of the West-end, he had to deal with a very varied and, sometimes, very important class of business. Mr. Newton was the second son of Mr. W. Newton, of Elveden, Suffolk, and was born in 1821, so that he is now in his seventy-fifth year. He was called to the Bar in 1847 at Lincoln's-inn, and, as has been stated, was made a magistrate nineteen years later. The Council of Judges is a body which shows singular inability to perform its work efficiently, says the Sunday Times. In fact, its efforts at organisation are a positive discredit to the Bench. The Council has more than once appointed a committee to draw up a scheme, and has then quietly put the scheme in the waste-paper basket. The Council is even now incubating a new set of rules of procedure. But the Council's eggs seldom hatch out well, and, to use a shooting phrase, the birds even when hatched will not fly. When the inability of the judges to organise their work has been sufficiently demonstrated, we shall then require additional judges. From the records of the Probate Office for 1896, we find that there are no less than forty-three cases of personal properties and estates, sworn to, whose individual values exceed £200,000. There are two only that reach the "million" and over. There are ten that pass the half million, six that are over £400,000, ten over £300,000, and the remainder are filled in at sums varying from £213,000 (the lowest on the list) to £294,411. The late Baron Hirsch's English property, although but a small part of his estate, places him at the top of the record, and his name is followed by that of the late Right Hon. Sir Julian Goldsmid, Bart., their respective personalties being, in the first case £1,372,163, and in the latter £1,093,493. There is more ground than there usually is for such movements in a projected agitation against the Benchers of the Inns of Court, says the Sunday Times. It is not often that the proceedings of a debating society attract attention. The Hardwicke Society is a debating society for barristers and students, and it lately carried a resolution hostile to the continuance of the present state of things in the Temple and Lincoln'sinn, and it is highly probable that this resolution will not be allowed to be as barren of fruit as their resolutions invariably are. The Benchers are like the Royal Academy of Arts in some respects. They co-opt new members to fill vacancies, and no one can call on them to publish their accounts. They derive large corporate incomes from barristers and students, from letting chambers and from invested funds. The question is whether the Benchers spend this income in the manner most advantageous to all the members of the Inns. It would be interesting to ascertain by legal process (necessarily before a judge who is a Bencher) whether a barrister has not a right to see a copy of the annual accounts. If, as is probable, it was found he had no right to such inspection, there wonld be ample ground for a Royal Commission, on the report of which legislation might be based. Such a commission would have power to inquire into sources of revenue, income and expenditure, and the extent to which the expenditure might be improved; and the evidence would be published. It seems to us that the humble debating society has set a stone rolling which no man may stop until it has completed its course, and that this is likely to be the case although there are four Royal K.G.'s among the Benchers, although the Benchers are directly represented in the Cabinet, and although both the law officers of the Crown are Benchers. It would be better for all parties that the thing should be done by a Conservative than a Radical Government. A return showing the total amount of public local rates raised in the United Kingdom has just been issued as a Parliamentary paper. It gives the total amount so raised in 1894, excluding rates charged for water supplied to private individuals, or for private improvement works, as £32,223,972 for England and Wales, £3,355,022 for Scotland, and £2,867,770 for Ireland. The expenditure borne by such rates for the relief of the poor was £7,228,679 for England and Wales, £675,276 for Scotland, and £860,989 for Ireland; for elementary education, £3,727,423 for England and Wales, £633,350 for Scotland, and £24,684 for Ireland; for police, £2,252,561 for England and Wales, £279,437 for Scotland, and £43,998 for Ireland. Lord Justice Kay, who has just resigned on account of his health, and has occupied a seat on the Bench for sixteen years, is one of three sons of Mr. R. Kay, of Meadowcroft, near Rochdale, all of whom rose to distinction. The eldest, Sir James, as secretary of the Committee of Council on Education, did much in the early years of the century to pave the way for a national system of education; and, marrying the heiress of the Gawthorpe estate in South Lancashire, he assumed the name of KayShuttleworth. The youngest brother, Joseph, became judge of the Salford Court of Record. The Lord Justice was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and called to the Bar of Lincoln's-inn in 1847. In 1866 he took silk; and in 1881 was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. He succeeded Sir H. Cotton as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 1890. He married, in 1850, a daughter of Dr. French, master of Jesus College, Cambridge, and was left a widower in 1889. Solicitors are constantly requested to accept payment by cheque for purchase or mortgage money, and any refusal to do so has very often led to their being roundly abused. We always understood that the law was that, no matter what credit a man might be in, a solicitor was not justified, on behalf of his client, in accepting payment otherwise than in cash or by deposit receipt. We wish now to call attention to two important decisions that lay the matter at rest, and which, when widely known, as they deserve to be, will protect solicitors in future from any hardship in this regard. The first decision is Papé v. Westacott (10 Times L. Rep. 51), a decision of the Court of Appeal, in which it was held that an estate agent was liable for negligence in accepting a cheque instead of cash in payment of arrears of rent. We wish our readers to note with attention the following extract from Lord Justice Lindley's judgment: "Where the authority to the agent was merely to collect a debt, taking a cheque from a person in good credit would not be a departure from the authority, but it was not always right to accept a cheque from a person in good credit. For example, in the case of a sale of real property an agent would not be wrong in accepting a cheque for the deposit money, but if he were intrusted with the completion of the transaction he would not be justified in parting with the title deeds until the cheque was cashed." This decision has now been followed by Blumberg v. Life Interests and Reversionary Securities Corporation Limited (1896) W. N. 176), decided so late as the 16th Dec. last. In that case it was decided that a solicitor who has authority to accept a tender of mortgage money on behalf of his client is not at liberty to accept a banker's cheque, and a tender of a cheque to him is accordingly insufficient. These two cases now place the law beyond doubt, and we trust in future that solicitors will take care under no circumstances to accept payment of purchase or mortgage money otherwise than in cash or by deposit receipt.-Irish Law Times. The following are the arrangements made by the judges of the Queen's Bench Division for the transaction of business during the ensuing Hilary Sittings, viz.: The Lord Chief Justice (Lord Russell) will sit and try actions until the 19th Feb., when he will go on the North-Eastern Circuit, from which he will return to resume actions about the end of March; Baron Pollock will try actions until he joins the Midland Circuit on the 8th March, but should the state of business at Nottingham require it he will go there on or after the 2nd March; Mr. Justice Hawkins will try actions during the sittings when he is not engaged at the Central Criminal Court; Mr. Justice Mathew will hear commercial causes until the 20th inst., when he leaves for the Home and Western Circuits, and on his return, about the 20th Feb., will resume those cases; Mr. Justice Cave will be absent on the South-Eastern Circuit until about the 19th Feb., after which he will sit with a Divisional Court; Mr. Justice Day will proceed with actions until the 30th inst., when he goes on the Oxford Circuit, and returns about the 12th March; Mr. Justice Wills will be in attendance at Judges' Chambers during the whole of the sittings; Mr. Justice Grantham will be away on the North Wales Circuit until about the 16th Feb., and on his return will try actions; Mr. Justice Charles will try actions until he joins the Midland Circuit on the 30th inst., and on his return about the 3rd March will resume actions; Mr. Justice Williams will be away on the Western Circuit until about the 17th March, and on his return will hear companies winding-up and bankruptcy business; Mr. Justice Lawrance will sit with a Divisional Court until the 16th inst., when he goes on the South Wales Circuit, and on his return about the 18th Feb. will again sit with a Divisional Court; Mr. Justice Wright will sit with a Divisional Court until the 6th March, when he joins the Oxford Circuit, whereon he will remain until the end of March; Mr. Justice Collins will sit with a Divisional Court (commercial work and the sittings of the Railway and Canal Commission intervening) until the 10th Feb., when he joins the Northern Circuit, from which he will return about the end of March; Mr. Justice Bruce will sit with a Divisional Court until the 19th Feb., when he goes on the North-Eastern Circuit with the Lord Chief Justice, from which he returns about the end of March; Mr. Justice Kennedy will sit with a Divisional Court and also try commercial causes until he starts for the Northern Circuit on the 22nd Feb., from whence he will return about the end of March, after which he will sit with a Divisional Court until the 12th April, when he returns to the Northern Circuit. Mr. W. J. Stewart, the Liverpool stipendiary, on Tuesday, from the bench of the City Police-court, said he sympathised with the object of those who were trying to spread abroad the knowledge of the fact that the oath may be taken in the Scotch form without the necessity of kissing the New Testament. He desired it to be widely known that any person who desired to be sworn with uplifted hand in the Scotch form was perfectly at liberty to mention the fact to the officer when he came to be sworn. The following is the form of the Scotch oath, which is repeated whilst the person who swears it holds his right hand above his head: "I swear by Almighty God I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Sir Harry Bodkin Poland, Q.C., Recorder of Dover, in his charge to the grand jury last Monday at the quarter sessions, intimated that there would, if necessary, be more than four sessions held during the year, in accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Judges, communicated to him by the Home Secretary. This was in order to lighten the labours of the judges at assize. Sir H. B. Poland pointed out the great desirability of this. Speaking of the assizes he instanced the fact that, instead of their being held at intervals of four months, as one would think would be the case, seeing that the law fixed three assizes for one year, the intervals ranged from two and a half to five months. At the last Kent Assizes there were forty-three prisoners, and one of these, after waiting trial five and a half months, was discharged. Of the other cases, eight had been awaiting trial for periods ranging from three to five and a half months. Anyone who considered this matter for one moment could not come to any other conclusion than that it was most unsatisfactory that people should be kept in dreary waiting in gaol for such a length of time. They would be all glad to hear that the Home Secretary was in communication with the Lord Chancellor upon this subject, and it was certainly to be hoped that a change would soon be made. NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT YET REPORTED. BY OUR REPORTERS IN THE SEVERAL COURTS. COURT OF APPEAL. Nuisance-Liability of Landlord-House let with defective StaircaseInjury to Person on Premises at Request of Tenant. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the defendant for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The defendant was the landlord of a house which was let to a weekly tenant. The defendant had not agreed with his tenant to do any repairs. The plaintiff was employed by the tenant to remove some furniture from the house. While he was engaged in removing the furniture he was injured owing to the staircase breaking beneath him. Evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff that the staircase was defective and unsafe in its construction, and that it was so at the time when it was let by the defendant. The action was tried before Lord Russell, C.J., and a jury. After evidence had been given in support of the plaintiff's case, the Lord Chief Justice held that there was no case to go to the jury, and directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed and asked for a new trial. Held (dismissing the appeal), that the defendant was not liable to the plaintifi for any injury caused to him by the defective and unsafe condition of the staircase. [Lane v. Cox. Ct. of App.: Lord Esher, M.R., Lopes and Rigby, L.JJ. Dec. 11 and 19.-Counsel: for the appellant, Sinclair Cox; for the respondent, B. F. Williams, Q.C. and F. R. Y. Radcliffe. Solicitors: for the appellant, A. Savage Cooper; for the respondent, Powell and Skues.] LAW LIBRARY. BOOKS RECEIVED. Key and Elphinstone's Precedents in Conveyancing. 2 Vols. Fifth Edition. Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane. Price £2 16s. cloth; £3 58. half calf. The Scottish Law Directory 1897. William Hodge and Co., Glasgow; and William Green and Sons, Edinburgh. Ham's Inland Revenue Year Book 1897. Effingham Wilson and Co., 11, Royal Exchange, E.C. Price 4s. 6d. Code Civil Portugais du 1er Juillet 1867. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris. The Revised Reports. Vol. XXVII. Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane, and Little, Brown, and Co., Boston. Alpe's Law of Stamp Duties. Fifth Edition. Jordan and Sons Limited, 120, Chancery-lane, and 8, Bell-yard, Temple Bar. Price 6s. net. Atkinson's Magistrates' Annual Practice, 1897. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane; and Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane. Price 18s. Penalties on Summary Convictions (Reprinted from the Magistrates' Annual Practice, 1897). Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane; and Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane. Price 18. The Law Quarterly Review for January. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane. Price 5s. The Annual County Courts Practice, 1897. 2 Vols. Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane; and Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane. Price 25s. CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES. QUARTER SESSIONS. Banbury, Tuesday, Jan. 12 A COURT King's Lynn, Thursday, Jan. 14 OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. (To the Editor of the LAW TIMES.) SIR, Since my letters on a Court of Criminal Appeal appeared in your columns last year many facts have occurred which strengthen the arguments in favour of such a court, and none, so far as I am aware, on the other side. By a Court of Criminal Appeal I mean, of course, a genuine court, holding its sittings in public, pronouncing reasoned decisions, and hearing nothing except legal evidence and such additional matter as may be defined by the general rules of the court; for, while admitting that the ordinary rules of evidence might sometimes be relaxed with advantage, the question how far they should be relaxed is one for the court when constituted. The first circumstance to which I refer is the celebrated Maybrick case, which has done so much (at the expense of the unfortunate prisoner) to establish the utter inefficacy of our present appellate system. The Lord Chief Justice has written that, in his opinion, "as the head of the criminal justiciary of England," the prisoner is entitled to an immediate release. The Home Secretary, who has not even, as far as I know, the experience of a juror, replies that he is most emphatically of opinion that no reduction whatever should be made in the life-sentence-for which emphatic opinion he refuses to assign any reason whatever. On being questioned as to whether the crime, which he regards as conclusively proved, is murder or attempt to murder, he gives an evasive answer. He declines to give his finding on any single question of fact involved in the case, and confines his decision to the sentence, which must be upheld at all hazards -with reason or without reason. He states, indeed, that he consulted the Lord Chancellor-after his own mind was made up-but does not state what advice the Lord Chancellor gave him. In any event, the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction being equitable, he can hardly be regarded in the same light as the Chief Justice in a matter of this kind. The Home Secretary does not allege that the law officers of the Crown or any judge of eminence in the Criminal Department was consulted. An attempt has been made to discredit the Chief Justice on the ground that he was prejudiced in favour of his former client, and did not, therefore, give an impartial opinion. Then why not obtain an impartial opinion from some eminent criminal lawyer, whose opinion on the subject was previously unknown? But the Chief Justice not merely gave his opinion, but gave the reasons for it. He desires that these reasons should be made public, and the Home Secretary refuses to publish them. Does this look like a weak case on the part of the Chief Justice, or on that of the Home Secretary? I need not enlarge on the Irish political prisoners for inasmuch as they were convicted of treason-felony only this is their proper designation. It seems hardly to be disputed that Whitehead and Gallagher, the reasons for whose liberation were of a mental rather than a physical character, were no worse mentally than they had been in Mr. Asquith's time, and during the preceding part of Sir. M. W. Ridley's tenure of office; while, if Daly's health was the real cause of his liberation, he at all events made a rapid recovery. It would be curious to compare the medical reports in these cases with those in the case of Mrs. Maybrick, already referred to, who would hardly recover with the rapidity of Daly if she were liberated to-morrow; but such reports are treated as secret and confidential, and can be dealt with as the officials desire. At all events, the liberation of these prisoners and the alleged grounds of it were foreseen for some time, and confidently predicted in the London correspondence of some of the Dublin papers; while Sir M. W. Ridley's utterances in the House showed that he was as much disposed to strain a point in their favour as to strain it against Mrs. Maybrick. Her illness will have to assume a much more serious aspect than this before she can hope for a liberation. The medical reports in the case of the Hon. Major Coventry would also be worth producing. Are they worse than those in the case of Mr. Oscar Wilde? Sir M. W. Ridley has not corrected a single miscarriage of justice openly and honestly since his accession to office, and I fear he is not likely to do so during its continuance. The nearest approach was in the case of a man named George Young, whom no jury would now dream of convicting. Young was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude, and was liberated after about a year; but he was liberated on a ticket-of-leave only, and with no reason assigned. Is this the proper mode of dealing either with an innocent man or with a guilty man ? Or does the Home Secretary mean to say, "I cannot find out whether he is innocent or guilty: so I will let him out for the present, retaining the power of running him in again if I obtain further proofs of his guilt, or if he makes himself troublesome to the Home Office." This latter threat has been actually held out to John Daly in a leading Ministerial journal, but Daly disregards it, knowing that public opinion would not tolerate a renewed term of penal servitude imposed for such an offence as this. In his case the officials are showing their teeth where they dare not bite, but in the case of an obscure personage like Young the threat might be carried out with com parative safety. If facts come to light after a trial which ought to have prevented a conviction if known earlier, the prisoner ought to be forthwith released. This occurred in the cases of George Young, of John Kelsall (before he succeeded in convicting the perjurers), of Mrs. May brick, of Dr. Bynoe, and no doubt of many others. In none of these cases was there a prompt and unconditional release, and in three or four which I have mentioned the sentence was upheld in its entirety, notwithstanding the strong protest of the Chief Justice in one of them. In another case it was recently mentioned that, the prisoner having claimed to be innocent, the Home Secretary directed the head of the local police to investigate the case, and on his report-apparently not communicated to the prisoner-the conviction and sentence was affirmed. Can any one-even a Home Office official-feel confident that justice has been done in this case? The police are thanked and rewarded for obtaining a conviction. Then they are asked whether they have blundered and procured the conviction of the wrong man! And, it is added, "Your report will be kept secret, and you can safely tell as many lies as you please, unless the truth should chance to be discovered hereafter by some unexpected process." It is hardly disputed, however, that such a report would have decided the fate of Kelsall if he had not found means of indirectly appealing to a court of justice, and I do not think it will be denied that the same course was adopted in the case of Mrs. Maybrick.-Truly yours, APPELLANT. BANKRUPTCY LAW AND PRACTICE. THE BANKRUPTCY ACTS 1883 AND 1890.RECEIVING ORDERS. RETURN showing the Number of Receiving Orders in the High Court, and in the several County Courts having Bankruptcy Jurisdiction in England and Wales, gazetted in the Quarters and in the Years ending respectively 31st Dec. 1896, 1895, and 1894. For Quarter For Quarter ending ending ending 30 14 31st Dec. 9 11 1896. 1895. 1894. ... Stockport... 14 Stockton-on-Tees & Middlesbrough Stoke-on-Trent and Longton ... Stourbridge 3 17 16 12 Sunderland 8 15 7 11 14 9 3 Tunbridge Wells Tredegar 3 3 Truro... Wakefield... Wandsworth Warrington Warwick Wells... West Bromwich ... 11 10 30 33 48 Whitehaven Wigan Winchester 5 4 19 Windsor 25 18 1 3 7 6 15 Wolverhampton 19 12 61 58 Worcester Wrexham and Llan ... gollen 5 ... 24 Yeovil York ... 12 93 84 83 ............... 16 21 25 35 25 16 19 26 Total for High Court and County Courts 1046 1164 1150 4155 4440 4778 PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS. Information intended for publication under the above heading should reach us not later than Thursday morning in each week, as publication is otherwise delayed. The Hon. Sir JOSEPH CHITTY has been appointed a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, in the room of the Right Hon. Sir Edward Kay, resigned. Mr. E. C. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT has been appointed a metropolitan police magistrate, in the room of Mr. R. Milnes Newton, resigned. Mr. D'Eyncourt was called to the Bar in 1881. Mr. WALTER H. DAY, solicitor, of Maidstone, has been appointed Clerk of the Peace for the Borough of Maidstone. Mr. Day was admitted in 1890. Mr. JOHN WHITAKER LITTLEWOOD, of the firm of Knowles and Littlewood, solicitors, Wellington, Shropshire, has been appointed Clerk to the Wellington School Board, Secretary to the Wellington Markets Company, and Secretary to the Oakengates Gas Company, in succession to his late partner Mr. Isaac Knowles deceased. Mr. Littlewood was admitted in April 1884. Mr. C. F. CORBOULD-ELLIS, of the firm of C. R. Sawyer & Ellis, 7, Laurence Pountney-hill, Cannon-street, and of 18, Place Vendöme, Paris, has been elected to serve on the Common Council of the City of London for the ward of Dowgate. Mr. W. H. PUCKRIDGE, solicitor, of 97, St. Mary street, Cardiff, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Puckridge was admitted in December 1887. COUNTY COURTS. SITTINGS OF THE COURTS. FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, JAN. 16. Aberdare, Wednesday Ashford, Monday, at 10 Aylesbury, Wednesday Bangor, Monday Barnstaple, Tuesday, at 10 Basingstoke, Monday, at 11.30 Blackburn, Monday, at 10 Bradford (Yorks), Tuesday, Wednesday Bristol, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, at 10: Friday (Bky), at 11 Brompton, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday Liverpool, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Manchester, Monday, Wednesday, Thurs- Market Drayton,* Saturday, at 10 North Walsham, Friday, at 11.30 at 10 Cardiff, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Portsmouth, Thursday, at 12 and Saturday, at 10 Carlisle, Tuesday, at 9.30 Cirencester, Thursday Chepstow, Monday, at 10 Chester, Thursday Chesterfield, Friday, at 9.30 Chorley, Thursday, at 9.30 Preston, Tuesday, at 10 Redhill, Wednesday, at 11 Rochester, Wednesday and Thursday, at 9.30 Rugby, Thursday, at 10 Clerkenwell, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- Salford, Tuesday, at 10 Shoreditch, Tuesday and Thursday at 10 Derby, Monday (J.S. and A.O.), at 11; Southampton, Tuesday, at 11 Tuesday, at 10 Devizes, Monday, at 10 Dewsbury, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thurs day. and Friday (J.S.), at 10 Dorcaster, Thursday, at 10 Dorchester, Wednesday, at 11 Dudley, Tuesday, at 10 Durham, Tuesday (Reg., Bky) Dursley, Friday South Shields, Thursday, at 10 Stoke,* Monday, at 9.30 Torrington, Monday, at 11 Wakefield, Tuesday, at 10; Thursday Warwick, Wednesday, at 10 Westminster, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thurs- Whitechapel, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thurs- Wigan, Tuesday and Saturday, at 9.30 and Wolverhampton, Leeds, Monday. Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10 at 10 Woodstock, Friday, at 11 Woolwich, Wednesday, at 10.30 Worksop, Tuesday, at 10 Wrexham, Wednesday Wymondham, Saturday, at 10.30 Yarmouth, Tuursday and Friday Yeovil. Thursday, at 10 York, Tuesday, at 9.30. Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary. Leicester, Tuesday and Wednesday, at 10 Lincoln. Thursday (Reg., Bky), at 3 COMMERCIAL FAILURES AND BILLS OF SALE.-According to Stubbs' Weekly Gazette, the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending the 2nd Jan. was 95. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 87, showing an increase of 8. The number of bills of sale in England and Wales registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending the 2nd Jan. was 125. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 125. NOTICE TO SOLICITORS.-The Provincial Solicitors' Union Limited (93, Chancery-lane, W.C.) undertakes only such lay agency as is usually transacted by Law Stationers, and accepts the same scale of charges. The Union does not undertake any agency which legally requires the services of a London solicitor. All the members of the Union are solicitors. Established 1894.-[ADVT.] IN the Marylebone County Court, on the 17th Dec., Ludford v. Bennett was decided. The Deputy-Judge (Mr. Fitzroy Cowper) read the following judgment of his Honour Judge Stonor:-This is a summons whereby the plaintiff demands of the defendant possession of a house and premises at Notting Hill, let to the defendant by the plaintiff, in which the defendant's interest is alleged to have been determined at the expiration of a month's notice to quit, given to the defendant by the plaintiff. By an agreement dated the 6th Feb. 1880 the plaintiff let the premises in question to the defendant upon the following terms: "The tenancy to be from month to month, commencing on the 1st Jan. 1880, and the clear monthly rent or sum of £3 9s. 4d. free from any deductions whatever, all repairs necessary from time to time during the said tenancy to be done at the sole cost and expense of the said lessee, and such repairs from time to time to be done as may be required by notice in writing by the said lessor or his agent for the purpose of keeping the interior of the said premises in good and tenantable repair. The tenancy to continue from month to month for a period of three years from the said date on the conditions following-namely, that the tenant do not sublet or underlet the premises; that the business of marine store dealing be carried on therein; that nothing is done that shall be noisome or offensive to the adjoining premises or the neighbourhood; that the rent be paid when due, whether demanded or not; that the repairs are carried out as agreed. The tenant failing in all or any one of these conditions shall, upon one month's notice in writing from the said George Henry Ludford, or his agent or agents, deliver up possession of the said premises, and the tenant failing so to deliver up, it shall be lawful for the said George Henry Ludford, or his agent or agents, to enter into and upon the said premises and take full possession thereof, with power to eject the said tenant forthwith." After the expiration of the "period" or term of three years mentioned in this agreement, the defendant continued tenant of the premises in question at the monthly rent thereby reserved until very recently, when the plaintiff gave the defendant one month's notice to quit, and on his failing to quit at the expiration of such notice issued the present summons. It was admitted by the defendant that he was in arrear with one week.'s rent at the date of the notice, but he claimed to be a yearly tenant, and entitled to a six months' notice, notwithstanding the provisions of the agreement to which I have referred, and his having been in arrear of the rent at the date of the notice. Whether he has failed as to any other of the conditions in the agreement does not appear. The first question is, whether the defendant is a monthly or yearly tenant, and this depends, I think, on the question whether he was originally a monthly tenant or a tenant for a term of three years under the agreement. Now, I am of opinion that, under that agreement, he was originally a tenant for a term of three years, subject to the conditions expressed in the agreement, and not a monthly tenant. It is true that in the first part of the agreement the tenancy is described as one "from month to month," and that the rent is reserved monthly; but, in the subsequent part of the agreement, it is declared that it shall " continue for a period of three years on certain conditions, and that, on his "failing in all or any of these conditions," the lessee shall, upon one month's notice, give up possession of the premises, and the lessor shall be entitled to enter upon the premises. Now it is quite clear that, if the tenancy was a monthly tenancy, it would be terminable by a month's notice at any time, whether the conditions failed or not, and the provision as to the continuance of the term for three years would have scarcely any effect, and the provision as to the delivery of possession and re-entry of the lessor, at the expiration of one month's notice, on the lessee's failure as to the conditions would have none at all. It is therefore necessary to construe the original tenancy as a tenancy for three years according to the rule ut res magis valeat. consequence is, that the defendant, at the expiration of the three years and subsequent payment of rent, became a tenant from year to year, subject to such provisions of the agreement as are applicable to a tenancy from year to year. The next question is, whether the conditions as to underletting and user of the premises and payment of the rent, and the provisions as to the delivery up of possession by the lessee and re-entry by the landlord, at the expiration of one month's notice, on his failure as to such conditions, are applicable to a yearly tenancy; and I am of opinion that they are, on the authority of the cases of Richardson v. Giffard (1 Ad. & Ell. 52); Doe v. Stratton (4 Bing. 416). It follows that, as the defendant was in arrear with his rent, and a month's notice was given to him, the plaintiff is entitled to an order for possession; but, as it is a case of hardship, I shall direct possession to be given at one month, without costs. LEGAL OBITUARY. The Mr. ARTHUR LINAKER, solicitor, Runcorn, died at his residence, Mill Bank, Frodsham, on the 31st ult. The deceased, who was thirty-five years of age, was the son of the late Mr. Henry Linaker, estate agent, Frodsham. He was articled to bis brother, the late Mr. W. H. Linaker, solicitor, Runcorn, and after his admission, in April 1883, he joined him in partnership, under the title of Linaker and Linaker, which continued until March 13, 1859, when the senior member of the firm died. The business has since been conducted by Mr. Arthur Linaker under the same title. He leaves a widow and one child. He was a member of the Incorporated Law Society and the Solicitors' Benevolent Association. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. NEW YEAR'S HONOURS. THE Queen has been graciously pleased to confer the honours of Knighthood upon the Hon. Charles Arthur Roe, Chief Judge of the Chief Court of the Punjab, and the Hon. John Morrell Carrington, C.M.G., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at Hong Kong. The honour of C.B. is conferred upon William Edward Davidson, Esq., Q.C., legal adviser to the Foreign Office, and William J. Mure, Esq., legal secretary to the Lord Advocate of Scotland. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. SCHOFIELD (Mary Ann), late of Aberford, near Leeds, Yorks, who died Aug. 6, 1892, was the child of John Schofield and Mary Schofield (formerly Mary Smith), Persons claiming to be her heir-at-law living at her death, or. if such heir-at-law be dead, persons claiming to be entitled as next of kin under the Statutes of Distribution to such real estate as descended to the said M. A. Schofield, or the legal personal representatives of such next of kin as have since died, to come in, by Feb. 15, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice North. Feb. 19, at the said chambers, at 12:30 o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. CAMBORNE MODEL BUILDING SOCIETY.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Jan. 22, before the County Court of Cornwall sitting at Truro. W. G. Kempthorne, Basset-rd, Camborne, solicitor 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 above-named not later than six o'clock on Jan. 21. HALL AND CO. LIMITED, of 47, Stanley-st, Bury, drapers.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 1, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. H. J. Chaloner, 49, Princess-st, Manchester, the liquidator of the company. W. Walker, 20, Cross-st, Manchester, solicitor to the liquidator. MAX GREGER LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 15, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. C. W. Grimwade, 38, Coleman-st, the liquidator of the company. NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE THEATRE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 12, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. E. C. Hoile, 16, Victoria-st, Westminster, the liquidator of the company. SAM'S WEALTH OF NATIONS GOLD AND EXPLORATION LIMITED. Creditors to send in, by Feb. 6, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. C. H. Venning, 33, Old Broad-st, the liquidator of the company. Burgoyne, Watts, and Co., 77, Gresham-st, Guildhall, solicitors for the liquidator. UNITED KINGDOM STEAM TRAWLING COMPANY LIMITED (in liquidation). - Creditors to send in, by Feb. 15, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. G. Croshaw, 116, Fenchurch-st, the liquidator of the company. A. J. M. Duncan, 21, Leadenhall st, solicitor. WORLD'S TREASURE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 27, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. Gaskell and Horne, 8, Princes-st, the liquidators of the company. Steadmann and Van Praagh, 23, Old Broad-st, solicitors to the liquidators. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOFS. CHALLES (Ebenezer George), Wellington, Somersetshire, baker. Jan. 18 W. T. Booker, solicitor, Wellington, Somerset. Jan. 25; the Registrar of the Somersetshire County Court at his chambers, Townhall, Wellington, at twelve o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. BLAKE (Alfred James), 7, King's-ter, Southsea, Hampshire, and of Carlton House, Western-parade, Southsea, solicitor. Feb. 20; R. W. Sherwin, solicitor, 30, Commercial-rd, Portsmouth. BASTEN (James), Albion Villas, 56, Churchfield-rd, Acton, gentleman. Feb. 16; W. A. Brown, solicitor, 55, Lincoln's-inn-flds. BROWNSWORD (Walter Henry), 30, Lady Margaret-rd, Kentish Town, and of 10, Bushla, Cannon-st, printer and stationer. Feb. 16; J. Tickle, solicitor, Crown-et, 63, Cheapside. CARTER (William Richard), 45, Southbrook-rd, Lee, Kent, gentleman. Feb. 7; G. Kirk, solicitor, 1A, Paternoster-row. COLDWELLS (Francis Moses), formerly of Croydon, and of Tyne View, St. Helen's, DEAR (Charles Power), 213, Boxley-rd, Maidstone, Kent, gentleman. Jan. 31; F. S. DYSON (Arthur Kaye), Fernacre, Brooklands, Cheshire, and of Manchester, merchant. Feb. 6: Crofton, Craven, and Worthington, solicitors, 36, Brazenose-st, Manchester. DIXEY (William), Great Clacton, Essex. Maich 1; Marshall and Potter, solicitors, Trinity-st, Colchester. ELLIS (Henry Emily), 93, Ramsden-rd. Balham, Surrey, gentleman. Feb. 13; Rooper and Whately, solicitors, 17, Lincoln's-inn-flds. FAIR (William), 18, Moore-st, Withington, Lancashire, gardener. Jan. 28; Dixon and Linnell, solicitors, 24, Cross-st, Manchester. FORSTER (Eliza), 14, Becheley-rd, Tunbridge Wells, widow of the late John Bishop C. and E. Woodroffe, solicitors, 39, Eastcheap. Feb. 4; GARBUTT (Elizabeth), formerly of 13, Regent's-ier, Anlaby-rd, Kingston-upon-Hull, wife of Henry Garbutt, gentleman, now deceased. Feb. 1; Thompson, Cook, and Babington, solicitors, 14, Parliament-st, Hull. GREEN (Edward Benton). Broadreed Farm, Stoughton, Sussex, farmer. Jan. 30; A. Gregory, solicitor, 4, East Pallant, Chichester. GLEAVE (John), Frodsham, Cheshire, joiner and builder. Jan. 18; Linaker and Linaker, solicitors, 58, High-st, Runcorn. GULL (Arthur Manico), Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, gentleman. Feb. 13; Radcliffe, Cator, and Hood, solicitors, 20, Craven-st. Charing Cross. HAMBLOCH (Hermann Arnold), 22, Middlesex-st, Whitechapel, and of 1, Inglewood-rd, West Hampstead, cigar manufacturer. Feb. 15; S. M. Simmons, solicitor, 49, Finsbury-pavement. HOUGHTON (Agnes), Melrose Hall, Wilbury-rd, Hove, Sussex, widow. Feb. 7; Foster, HARDING (Agnes Julia), 4, Hill-st, Knightsbridge, widow. Jan. 30: C. W. Carter, JACKSON (Wyrill Bottomley), 20, Paxton-pl, Clarkehouse-rd, Sheffield, cabinet case KHAN (Meer Wuzier Alli), otherwise Meer Wazeer Ali Khan, Koot-rigerani, Hydera- LEE (Spencer). 49 and 51, Stanhope-st, Regent's Fark, and of 51 and 52, Munster-sq, Regent's Park, and of Bathford Lodge, 1, Park-rd, Hampstead, pawnbroker and silversmith. Feb 8; W. W. Comins, solicitor, 83, Great Portland-st. LAFFAN (Dame Emma), 28, Hyde Park-gate, Kensington, widow. Feb. 2; W. Reeve, solicitor, 8, Gray's-inn-sq. MARCHANT (Henry), Hollyhurst, Lingfield, Surrey, gentleman. Feb. 2; W. A. Head and Sons, solicitors, East Grinstead. MERRY (Isabella), 8, Newton-grove, Bedford Park, Chiswick, widow. Feb. 6; S. B. Carnley, solicitor, Alford, Lincolnshire. MERRY (Samuel Williamson), 9, Marlborough-cres, Bedford Park, Chiswick, clerk in holy orders. Feb. 6; S. B. Carnley, solicitor, Alford, Lincolnshire. Moss (Joseph), formerly of 42, Parkville-rd. late of 54, Mirabel-1d, Fulham, gentleman. March 1; Blake, Reed, and Lapthorn, solicitors, Victoria-chmbrs, PortsMILLARD (John), Ogbourne, Wiltshire. Jan. 31; A. E. Withy, solicitor, New Swindon, Wilts. mouth. and Jackson, solicitors, 7, Exchange-pl, Middlesbrough. MITCHELL (James), formerly of Poleffeld. Prestwich, near Manchester, butcher. March 1; Withington, Petty, and Boutflower, solicitors, 11, Spring-gidns, Manchester. MORGAN (Sarah Ann), Fountain inn, St. Leonard's-on-Sea, Sussex. Feb. 6; E. L. NADIN (Hannah Fisher), Claremont House, Kersal, near Manchester, Lancashire, PERROTT (Mary Caroline), Commercial hotel, Ferndale, Glamorganshire, widow. ROBERTS (Rev. John), Fron, Berriew, Montgomeryshire, clerk in boly orders. Feb. 6; SEYMOUR (William), Chalvey, Buckinghamshire, caiman. Feb. 12; R. H. Barrett, solicitor, Slough, Bucks. TOWN (Francis), 6, Osborne-st, Hove, Sussex. solicitor, 17, Middle-st, Brighton. Feb. 13; H. Montagu Williams, WHITELEY (John), Littletown, Liversedge, Yorkshire. yeoman. Jan. 31; T. Mitcheson, solicitor, Union-st, Heckmondwike. WHALE (Thomas William), Temperance hotel, Horley, Surrey, formerly of Brighton, Sussex, tobacconist. Feb. 5; T. P. Harker, solicitor, 6, New-rd, Brighton. LAW SOCIETIES. UNITED LAW SOCIETY. THE usual weekly meetings of this society were resumed on Monday, the 4th inst.; Mr. C. W. Williams taking the chair. After the election of new members, and the transaction of other business, a debate was opened by Mr. J. S. Green on the motion, "That the decision of the Court of Appeal in De la Rochefoucauld v. Boustead was wrong." Mr. Neville Tebbutt opposed, and Messrs. W. J. Boycott, W. F. Symonds, S. E. Hubbard, W. L. Westcott, and A. M. Begg also spoke on the motion. Mr. Kains-Jackson replied on behalf of Mr. Green, and, on a division, the motion was lost by the casting vote of the Chairman. UNITED LAW CLERKS' SOCIETY. THE annual general meeting of this society was held on Monday evening at the Freemasons' Tavern, Great Queen-street; Mr. J. Freeman, of the Royal Courts of Justice, presided. There was so large a gathering of the members that the room would not hold them all, and many went away. The Chairman, in the course of his observations, stated that the society had lost by death during the past year several most valuable members, and touchingly referred to the late Charles Button, whose loss was sadly felt. The number of members on the Rolls at the end of 1896 was 1056, which was the largest on record. Mr. Spray, the treasurer, rendered his financial statement, which disclosed a very satisfactory condition of the society. He stated that the invested funds amounted to £89,226, but that the market price to-day was £114,000. There were forty-nine members on the superannuation fund, which was nine less than last year. The festival last year realised £241, besides adding several new annual subscribers. During the year £2000 was added to the invested funds. The members elected to serve on the Committee of Management for 1897 were Messrs. W. G. Andrews, W. E. Barnes, C. F. Button, C. J. Cocks, J. Freeman, Godfrey Gough, C. W. Meallin, G. Swindon, W. F. Wybroo, and Edward Wildey. The auditors elected |
