than mining leases." And by rule 6, "fractions of £5 are to be reckoned as £5." From the decision of the taxing master the committee appealed. Held, that the words "per cent." having been omitted, and, no doubt, intentionally, from the first scale after the first £100 of rent, the framers of the rules were clearly not thinking about a percentage after the first £100 of rent; that, although rule 6 applied to both scales, to the first scale as regarded rents between £5 and £100, and to all leases under the second scale, yet that rule had no application to the present case; and that therefore the taxing master was quite right and the appeal must be dismissed with costs. [Re M'Garel. Ct. of App. No. 2: Lindley, Smith, and Rigby, L.JJ., sitting in lunacy. Feb. 15.-Counsel: for the applicant, R. F. Norton ; for the respondent, Borthwick. Solicitors: for the applicant, Frere, Cholmeley, and Co.; for the respondent, Lawford, Waterhouse, and Lawford.] Will-Hotchpot Clause-Construction - Settlement-Trusts of Settled Fund. By a marriage settlement, dated in June 1885, A., the father of the husband, B., settled the sum of £10,000, with interest, in trust for B. for life, and after his death for the wife of B. during the residue of her lifetime if she should survive B., for her separate use without power of anticipation, and after the death of the survivor of them in trust for the issue of the marriage as therein mentioned; and if there should be no issue the settled fund was to be held in trust for A. absolutely. By his will, dated in Nov. 1886, A. gave his residuary estate in trust for his son B. and his daughter C. in equal shares, the share of C. to be invested and held in trust for her and her children in manner therein mentioned. The will also contained the following proviso: "Provided also, and I declare, that any and all sums of money, annuities, or annual sums and property which I have already covenanted or agreed to give, or which I may hereafter covenant or agree to give to or with any child of mine on his or her marriage, shall in default of any direction to the contrary in writing under my hand be taken in or towards satisfaction of the respective share of such child, or the person or persons claiming under or in substitution for her or him, under my will, and shall be brought into hotchpot and accounted for accordingly, and for this purpose the annual sum, annuities, or other properties, if any, which I have already so covenanted or agreed to give, or which I shall hereafter so agree to give, or covenant to give, may be valued in such manner or by such person or persons as my trustees or trustee think fit, and any such valuation shall be conclusive on all persons claiming under my will." In Dec. 1886 A. died. In June 1894 B. died; there was no issue of his marriage. C. had married in the lifetime of A., and had two children. The estate of B was being administered by the court, and in the course of the proceedings the question arose as to the rights and interests of B. in the settled fund. An originating summons was accordingly issued, asking whether in the events which had happened the settled fund was held by the trustees subject to the life interest of B.'s widow upon trust for the executors of B.'s will, or as part of A.'s residuary estate; and whether the settled fund, if it formed part of the said residuary estate (subject to the said life interest), was divisible between B.'s estate and C. and her children. It was decided by Chitty, J. that the reversion of the settled fund under the trusts of the settlement formed part of A.'s residuary estate. On appeal: Held, that the whole of the settled fund was given by A.'s will to B. as part of his share of the residuary estate; that what was so given included all A. could give-i.e., the whole of his contingent reversionary interest in the settled fund; that as between A.'s residuary estate and B. the whole of the settled fund became B.'s property; and that the ultimate trust in the settlement ceased to be a trust for A., and became by virtue of his will a trust for B., his executors, administrators, and assigns. Held, therefore, that the executors of B.'s will were entitled to the settled fund, subject to the life interest of B.'s widow therein. Decision of Chitty, J. reversed. [Re Cosier; Humphreys v. Gadsden. Ct. of App. No. 2: Lindley, Smith, and Rigby, L.JJ. Feb. 9, 10, and 16.-Counsel: for the appellants, Levett, Q.C. and E. Ford; for the respondents, Farwell, Q.C. and J. G. Wood; Gordon Fellowes. Solicitors: for the appellants, Beyfus and Beyfus; for the respondents, Flower, Nussey, and Fellowes.] HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Company-Debenture-holder's Action-Uncalled Capital-CertificateShareholder-Liability in Action-Practice. In a debenture-holder's action the usual inquiry was directed of what particulars the property comprised in and charged by the debentures respectively consisted, and in whom the same was vested. The district registrar found that the property consisted in part of £13,700 uncalled capital in respect of which the plaintiff was liable as executrix of W. Madeley for £2690. He also found that seven other perssons who were not parties to the action were liable for the residue. No call had been made in respect of uncalled capital. The defendants were second debenture-holders of the company, which was not in liquidation. The plaintiff alleged that the shares were fully paid up, and bore no liability in respect of uncalled capital. Summons to vary the certificate in the first place as a matter of procedure on the ground that the district registrar ought not to have gone into the question of the plaintiff's liability in this action. Held, as a matter of procedure, that the certificate contained a proper finding in answer to the inquiry directed. In the analogous case of a creditor's action it would be the ordinary practice for the certificate to find that part of the outstanding estate consisted of a debt due to the estate from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could not object to the question being determined in his action rather than in an independent proceeding, By analogy to that proceeding the plaintiff here could not object to the question of her liability being determined in this action. Held, on the evidence, having regard to the fact that the case of the alleged shareholders, who were in no way before the court, was substantially the same as that of the plaintiff, the court would give no decision on the plaintiff's liability. Certificate varied by limiting the finding to the property other than the uncalled capital comprised in and charged by the debentures. Kekewich, J. [Madeley v. Ross, Sleeman, and Co. Limited. Ch. Div. Feb. 10.-Counsel: P. O. Lawrence, Q.C. and E. C. Macnaghten; Renshaw, Q.C. and E. S. Ford. Solicitors: Pritchard, Englefield, and Co., for John Leigh, Manchester; Phelps, Sidgwick, and Biddle.] Solicitor-Lien-Production of Deeds.-Motion by a lady that her former solicitors might be ordered to produce to her or to her present solicitors all deeds or papers in their possession, but without prejudice to their lien (if any), and that copies and abstracts of the deeds might be taken. There were costs due to the former solicitors, who relied on their lien. Counsel for the applicant referred to Lockett v. Carey (10 Jur. N. S. 144), where Lord Romilly states that the lien of a solicitor does not prevent his client from inspecting documents. Held, that it would destroy the entire principle of a solicitor's lien if the client was to be at liberty to see the documents in the possession of the solicitor, and carry away the contents in his head or make copies of them. Motion dismissed with costs. [Re Biggs and Roche. Ch. Div.: Kekewich, J. Feb. 12.-Counsel: E. C. Macnaghten; Warrington, Q.C. and George F. Hart. Solicitors: Mear and Fowler; Biggs, Roche, and Co.] Vendor and Purchaser-Conditions of Sale-Defective Title-Error in Particulars-Compensation.-On the 4th June 1896 certain pasture land, called Westfields, in the parish of Yate, in the county of Gloucester, was sold by public auction. The particulars of sale described the property as freehold, and stated that valuable deposits of a mineral called strontia were believed to underlie the property. Before completion the purchaser ascertained that the minerals under a small part of the property belonged to the lord of the manor of Yate under an Inclosure Act and award, dated prior to the commencement of title. The 7th public sale condition contained the following; Any incorrect statement, error, or omission which may be discoversd in the particulars of sale affecting the nature of the property shall not annul the sale; but, provided the same be pointed out before completion, the vendor or purchaser, as the case may be and require, shall allow and pay compensation, the amount whereof in case of dispute shall be settled by the arbitration of two referees, &c." Under this condition the purchaser now claimed compensation for the omission in the particulars of sale to disclose the reservation of minerals to the lord of the manor. Held, that the purchaser was in effect claiming compensation because of a defect in title prior to the commencement of title, and that the 7th condition being directed not against defective title, but against errors in the particulars of sale, the purchaser was not entitled under it to any compensation. [Re Neale and Drews' Contract. Ch. Div.: Kekewich, J.-Counsel: Dibdin; H. M. Humphrey. Solicitors: Bridges, Sawtell, Heywood, Ram, and Dibdin, for Thurstons and Jolly, Thornbury, Gloucester; Torr, Gribble, Oddie, and Sinclair, for Osborne and Co., Bristol.] Vendor and Purchaser-Voluntary Settlement-Notice-Title-Conflict of Authority-Too doubtful to force on unwilling Purchaser-Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 47.-A summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act 1894 was taken out by vendors of freehold property contracted to be sold, to which they derived their title as grantees under a voluntary settlement made in March 1896, asking for a declaration that they could make a good title to the property notwithstanding sect. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, which enacts, " (1) Any settlement of property not being a settlement made before and in consideration of marriage, or made in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration, or a settlement made on or for the wife or children of the settlor of property which has accrued to the settlor after marriage in right of his wife, shall, if the settlor becomes bankrupt within two years after the date of the settlement, be void against the trustee in the bankruptcy, and shall, if the settlor becomes bankrupt at any subsequent time within ten years after the date of the settlement, be void against the trustee in bankruptcy unless the parties claiming under the settlement can prove that the settlor was at the time of making the settlement able to pay all his debts without the aid of the property comprised in the settlement; and that the interest of the settlor in such property had passed to the trustee of such settlement upon the execution thereof." Held, that, having regard to the conflicting decisions of Re Vansittart: Ex parte Brown (68 L. T. Rep. 233; (1893) 2 Q. B. 377), and Re L. and W. H. Brall; Ex parte Norton (69 L. T. Rep. 323; (1893) 2 Q. B. 381) in favour of the vendor's title, and of Re Briggs and Spicer (64 L. T. Rep. 187; (1891) 2 Ch. 127) in favour of the pur. chaser's objection thereto, the title could not be forced upon the purchaser. [Re Carter and Kenderdine and Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874. Ch. Div.: North, J. Feb. 11.-Counsel: Borthwick; Eustace Smith. Solicitors: Miller, Smith, and Bell; Gerrish and Foster.] NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE STATISTICS.-According to the Newspaper Press Directory for 1897 (Fifty-second Annual Issue), there are now published in the United Kingdom 2396 newspapers, of which no less than 218 are issued daily. In 1846 there were published in the United Kingdom 551 journals; of these fourteen were issued daily, showing that the Press of the country has more than quadrupled during the last fiftyone years. there are now published in the United Kingdom 2186 magazines, of which at least 537 are of a decidedly religious character. In 1846 there were only 200 of such publication in existence. OUR LITERARY COLUMN. SHAKESPEARE AT THE MIDDLE TEMPLE. THE only anachronism in the cultured performances of "Twelfth Night" in the Middle Temple Hall on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday last week by the Elizabethan Stage Society was the acting of women's parts by women. The Elizabethan, like the Grecian, stage gave such parts to youths, and in a representation that purports to reproduce the histrionic manners of either period it would have been more accurate, though less elegant, to have given such parts to boys or young men. In running the play in one continuous piece, without rests between either scenes or acts, the players followed the accepted traditions of the Elizabethan period. The performance itself proved how little a really great play depends on stage setting. The actors set themselves to render the comedy in accordance with that rule of simplicity which, in Shakespeare's time, was applied to the drama as distinguished from the masque. They succeeded in giving an exquisite and delicate representation, though their efforts were handicapped by the acoustic weakness of the hall. The quaint stage and the quainter costumes indeed took the mind back to those Elizabethan days which during the last ten years the Inns of Court have endeavoured to revive. For two hundred years, save for a few traditions passed on with faltering hands, the Inns of Court forgot the merriment of elder days, and gave to laborious learning the time that their predecessors had devoted to revels, masques, and mediæval merrymaking. The masque at Gray's-inn in 1887, in honour of the Jubilee, inaugurated a new era in which the revival of social intercourse seems to be not unconnected with the development of legal interests. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, however, saw scenes of revelry that no revival could either hope or, perhaps, desire to entirely resuscitate. Gerard Leigh, in his book, "The Accidence of Armoury," published in 1576, gives us an elaborate and extremely detailed account of the magnificent Christmas revels held in the Inner Temple in 1562, at which Robert Dudley (afterwards Earl of Leicester) was the Constable and Marshall, and sustained the principal part in the masque, whilst Sir Christopher Hatton-famous alike in the arts of law and of the dance-was the Master of the Game. It is not improbable that these revels gave rise to certain traditions about Queen Elizabeth to which we refer below. In 1613 Gray's-inn initiated and the other Inns (particularly the Inner Temple) joined in the production of a great Court masque at Whitehall. Dugdale, in his "Origines Juridicales " (published in 1666), refers to it in these words: "There was also a mask performed at the Court by the gentlemen of this House (Inner Temple) and of Gray's Inn at the marriage of the Lady Elizabeth (daughter to King James) unto Frederick Prince Elector Palatine of the Rhene." In other passages the writer tells us that the other Inns joined in the masque, and that the cost was no less a sum than £1086. In 1634 an even more magnificent pageant was presented at a cost of £2400: "At Christmas 9 Car. 1 there was a mask presented to his Majesty at the equal charges of the four Innes." The performance was given at the instance of Lincoln's-inn. The Middle Temple was in no way behind the other Inns in the variety and extravagance of its revels and its masques, though, curiously enough, its most historical production is only known to posterity by an accident. The chief periods of revelling at the Middle Temple were All Saints, Christmas, and Candlemas-in fact, from the beginning of November till the beginning of February we find a succession of festivities. The most interesting of these revels were those that came after Christmas -the Post Revels, as they were called. They were "performed by the better sort of the young gentlemen of the Society with galliards, corrantoes, and other dances; or else with stage plays. years these post revells have been disused, both here and in the other Inns of Court" (Dugdale). This was written before 1666, and marks the date of the disappearance of merrie England beside Temple Bar. A more modern writer tells us that on the "grand banquetting night" the Inns of Chancery were invited to see a play and masque. The hall was furnished with scaffolds, and at the conclusion of the entertainment the ladies and other company were plentifully feasted. Doubtless this old practice is the origin of the supper given to the guests after the performances last week. Of late What was the nature of the "stage play" produced at the Middle Temple Possibly in early times mystery plays, or, more possibly still, adaptations of Latin comedies, were there performed. We have, however, on record, the name of one play that was performed in the Middle Temple Hall at the time when the glory of the Elizabethan drama was approaching its zenith. This was "Twelfth Night," which was acted in the hall on the 2nd Feb. 1601. What is the evidence for this fact, which, as we shall point out, is seemingly one of the greatest importance? The records of the Inn do not mention the fact, but in the diary of John Manningham, Barrister-at-law of the Middle Temple, which he kept while he was a student in the first years of the seventeenth century, and the manuscript of which is still extant, we find, under the date the 2nd Feb. 1601, a remarkable entry, which may be here set out in full, as it is frequently misquoted: "At our feast wee had a play called Twelue Night, or What You Will,' much like the Comedy of Errores,' or Menechmi in Plautus,' but most like and neere to that in Italian called Inganni.' A good practise in it to make the steward believe his lady widdowe was in love with him, by counterfeyting a letter as from his lady in generall termes, telling him what shee liked best in him, and prescribing his gesture in smiling, his apparaile, &c., and then when he came to practise making him beleeve they tooke him to be mad." That is the sole written evidence for the performance, but a variety of curious oral tradition, concerning it has been passed on from one generation of students to another. These may be summarised as follows: (1) That William Shakespeare either acted in or stage-managed the performance; (2) that in the Hall he read this play, or Midsummer Night's Dream,' or both plays, to Queen Elizabeth; (3) that Queen Elizabeth was present at this particular performance; (4) that she danced in the hall at some time or another with Sir Christopher Hatton, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the Earl of Leicester. Though these traditions are for the most part valueless, the last seems not entirely devoid of credibility when we remember that the revels of 1562 at the Inner Temple were managed by Hatton and Leicester. The first tradition is, however, for a peculiar reason, an extremely plausible one. The reason is connected with the date of the writing of "Twelfth Night." The extant evidence on the subject of the date of the Shakespeare's plays (such as Meere's List of 1598) prove almost conclusively that "Twelfth Night" was not written, or at any rate was not produced, before the year 1600. Now Manningham's diary proves conclusively that it was performed in the Middle Temple Hall on the 2nd Feb. 1601. Was this the first performance? If so, it is certainly extremely likely that the tradition is right, when it says that Shakespeare either acted in or stage-managed the play. The use of internal evidence in matters connected with Shakespeare's plays is always somewhat dangerous, but it is impossible not to draw attention to two facts that make it seem within the bounds of reasonable probability that the play was either written for this particular performance or adapted to it. The first is the title-"Twelfth Night-" a title which towards the play itself bears little particular significance, whilst with reference to the occasionwhich was a continuation of the Christmas festivities-it had an apt and appropriate meaning. That is the first fact. The second is to be found in the third scene of the first act, where Sir Toby Belch converses with Sir Andrew Aguecheek. We must here note that the festivities of the Inns were popularly known as "Masks and Revels," and that the chief dances given were "galliards and corrantoes." Now, in the conversation between Belch and Aguecheek, the latter cries out," I am a fellow o' the strangest mind i' the world; I delight in masques and revels sometimes altogether." Later on Sir Toby says: "Why dost thou not go to Church in a galliard and come home in a coranto ? " The entire scene is full of hits at revels and set dancing. Moreover, it is necessary to note that legal references and quips are more than usually frequent in this play, especially in the Challenge scene: "Still you keep o' the windy side of the law," says Fabian. On the whole it seems therefore not an entirely absurd supposition that Shakespeare wrote the play for this performance and stage-managed it himself. The hall where the acting took place last week is, despite certain structural repairs made in 1730 and 1759, in almost every respect the same building that the play was performed in on the 2nd Feb. 1601, and it is well to notice the fact that it is the only building now extant in which a play of Shakespeare's was acted during the dramatist's life. This magnificent structure with its deeplycarved dark-oaken lofty roof, its windows and wainscotting blazoned in every colour with the arms of its distinguished members, with its superb sixteenth-century Renaissance screen in the east, with its priceless Vandyke in the western end forms one of the greatest treasures of modern London. It was begun in 1562 and finished in 1574. The play performed in it last week will revive the memory of the great Elizabethan days that saw its inception. J. E. G. DE MONTMORENCY. STORIES FROM THE LAW REPORTS. XI. THE STORY OF THE HOUSE WHICH WAS PULLED DOWN WHILE THE PEOPLE WERE IN IT. (From Perry v. Fitzhowe, 8 Q. B. 757.) IT was pouring with rain, and the Perry family were seated round the fire listening to the raindrops as they pattered upon the roof and against the windows, and congratulating themselves that they were all safe under cover and warm within doors. Like Tweedledum, in "Alice through the Looking-glass," they said: "It may rain, but not under here; it may rain if it likes outside." Perry, the old smith, sat in his chair smoking; no one was likely to come to his smithy in this soaking rain; and, even if anyone should come, well, the smithy was close behind the house and he could go there immediately. For the moment he was idle; Sarah, his wife, sat by his side, and his children, James and John, were opposite to them. Now John, the younger of the children, had placed himself where he could command a view out of the window. But for some while he saw nothing but the driving rain, beneath which the corn was bending to the earth and the ditches overflowing their banks. If havoc like this must be wrought, there is a subtle pleasure, especially to the young, in being there to watch and see; and John expected to see nothing more exciting on that particular morning. Suddenly, however, he exclaimed. Something more interesting was taking place. For, lo and behold! a party of men, seven or eight in number, came within sight, and were seen running towards the house of the Perrys. They were workmen, having the appearance of carpenters or masons, and they carried their bags of tools with them. On hearing John's exclamation Mrs. Perry said, "I expect that the poor things are wet, and that they are coming to us to beg shelter," and the hospitable old soul began to consider the best way of giving them shelter. In a few moments they were at the door knocking. "Have you come to get shelter here? asked Mrs. Perry. "No, but we've come to do a job at this here house," said the foreman of the party. "A job? what sort of a job?" "Well, to tell the truth, ma'am," said the foreman, "we have got to pull down this house. I am sorry it is so wet, but our orders are to pull it down this morning. Sarah Perry could hardly believe her ears, but she called to her husband and told him what the foreman of the newly-arrived party said. "Oh! nonsense," said the husband when he heard what she said, 66 you don't really propose to pull this house down to-day, while I and my wife and children are in it, do you?" "Them's our orders" said the foreman. Old Perry was dumbfounded. He knew that his neighbour Fitzhowe had a grievance against him; for Fitzhowe had once said, "I have a right to pasture my sheep upon this bit of the heath. Your house is in my way." But he had never said, "Pull down your house, or pay me enough money to compensate me for the loss, or else, by George! I'll pull it down for you. The law is on my side." Perry had not had a word of notice which led him to expect Fitzhowe to take such a course. Fitzhowe had, indeed, spoken somewhat to this effect not three days since to another neighbour named Hodges; but Perry had never heard a word of the conversation which then passed. Hodges had merely laughed and said, "I don't think you'll find it so easy to pull down Perry's house, and it would be absurd for you to ask him to turn out with his wife and children to make room for a lot of sheep." Fitzhowe had then said, "It's all very well, but the loss is a serious one to me. I've nowhere else to put the sheep; the only grazing in the neighbourhood is old Farmer Herbert's, and he won't divide his grazing. I must take the whole or none, and I have not sheep enough to take the whole." "Perry would deny your claim," had been the answer of Hodges, " and I'll tell you why. Old Howe, who had your house before you, gave Perry leave to build this house where he has built it, and I don't believe you have any right to turn him out of it." "Old Howe had no right to give any such leave," Fitzhowe had retorted. "Yes he had." I could pull the house The law would hold me "I tell you he hadn't. Perry is a trespasser. down myself to-morrow if I wanted to do so. harmless. I should only be abating a nuisance." "What! Without giving him any notice?" "Yes. I could pull the house down at once, and, to show I believe in my own opinion, I'm willing to lay money on it that I do this thing within three days, and that I make good my position at law." And Fitzhowe and Hodges had made a substantial wager on the question. Perry had, since his own conversation with Fitzhowe, certainly been expecting the possibility of legal proceedings being taken against him, and had even been calculating how much it would be worth his while to pay Fitzhowe to compromise the matter, for he was by no means certain that Fitzhowe would not prove to be in the right. Old Howe might have had no business to give him leave to build upon the heath, and in any case it was a long time ago and the promise was not in writing. It was unreasonable to expect him to unbuild the house again at this date, but he did think that he might have to pay Fitzhowe something to get rid of his claim. But this was something altogether beyond his expectations (for, of course, he knew nothing of the wager). The workmen arriving to pull the house down while he was in it! their calmly telling his wife that this was their intention! and (for they soon suited the action to the word) their beginning at once to perform their errand of destruction! Perry was no longer young enough to attempt physical resistance. He threatened the workmen with the vengeance of the law, and told them that Mr. Fitzhowe, by whom doubtless they had been sent, was exceeding any possible legal right which he might have in commanding them to perform such an outrage. May be," said the foreman, "but we'll take the risk of that. He has promised us our pay!" Before Perry could bring any further remonstrance to bear, the workmen with a great noise began their destructive work. They forced and broke open the doors. They broke the locks to pieces; and finally, while the smith and his wife were still in the house and were running hither and thither to avoid the falling of rafters and stones, they deliberately prostrated and destroyed the chimneys, the roof, and the walls of the house. Then, having pulled down every valuable fixture, they departed, leaving Perry's dwelling nothing but a dismantled ruin. The rain continued to pour for a large part of the day. The family party, who were but lately congratulating themselves on being warm by their own firesides, were all now damp and chill, and they were quite uncertain for a while as to their next movements. At last old Perry said, "I must go into the town to get some money from the bank and take lodgings for all of you. Then I will see my man of law, and ask him whether I can't make Fitzhowe pay for this. You must wait here till my return." There was little more than a shed in one corner of the house remaining to shelter them; but, fortunately, soon after old Perry had departed the rain stopped, and the sun began to shine. Then Fitzhowe himself appeared and said, "Ha! ha! old Perry has had to decamp. I have long meant to pasture my sheep here, and by Jingo I will. This time to-morrow my sheep will be grazing there" (pointing to the little garden which the Perry's had made within the fence of the house). Perry meanwhile was interviewing his lawyer. The latter at first was not very sanguine. "Can you prove he gave you leave to build?" "I can't prove that, but I can prove that the man before him did so.' "Is it in writing? No." "If he proves his right of common over this land, then you are a trespasser; and why may he not abate the nuisance of having your house there where he wants the sheep to be?" But surely he musn't abate my house, or whatever you call it, while I and my family are in it, and without giving me any notice," said Perry. dreadfully dangerous. I thought one of us would have been killed." Perry spoke with great indignation. "It was The little lawyer's face brightened. "I think that may make a difference," he said. "It's worth trying at any rate. Leave it all to me." "Why, yes, certainly," said Perry. "I'll leave it all to you." Accordingly an action was brought in the Queen's Bench in which the plaintiff Perry alleged that the defendant Fitzhowe "with force and arms broke and entered a certain dwelling-house of the plaintiff, in which said dwelling-house the plaintiff and his family were at the said several times inhabiting and actually present"; and then the declaration proceeded to set out the breaking of the doors and locks and prostrating of the chimneys, roof, and walls. Fitzhowe answered that he was entitled to rights of common for "commonable sheep, levant and couchant," upon the very spot where Perry had built his house; and said, "Without a little forcing and breaking open the said doors and a little breaking to pieces of the said locks," and so on, "he could not have and enjoy his said common of pasture." The case was argued on demurrer in the Queen's Bench; and the Lord Chief Justice Denman delivered the judgment of the court, which was in favour of the plaintiff Perry. 66 There is no doubt," said Lord Denman, "that, as a general rule, a person who is injured by a private nuisance may abate it. The case of a commoner falls within the general rule; and, if there be any erection upon the place over which he has the right and which prevents his exercising it, he may abate it so far as is necessary for the exercise of his right. No case has been found which establishes any distinction arising from the nature of the building which obstructs the exercise of the right; and therefore it may be assumed that the pulling down of a house, provided no one be in it at the time, may be justified as much as the pulling down a barn or any other building. In this case, however, the declaration expressly alleges that the plaintiff and his family were in the house at the time when it was pulled down; and the question is whether that circumstance renders the pulling down unlawful. No express authority on this point is to be found; but it is said that the law respecting distresses, in which, as in the abatement of a nuisance, the party injured takes the remedy into his own hands, affords an analogy by which we ought to be guided. The law certainly forbids the distraining a horse on which a man is riding, or tools which he is using, on account of the imminent risk of a breach of the peace taking place if such a distress be made. Surely the risk of a breach of the peace is much more imminent in the case of pulling down a house in which persons actually are at the time. It is obvious that the act done is, under certain circumstances, probably dangerous to human life, and calculated in the highest degree to excite violence and breach of the peace. The law will not permit any man to pursue his remedy at such risks; and therefore we think it unnecessary for the plaintiff to show that there was an actual breach of the peace; and the imminent risk of it is sufficiently shown in the declaration that the plaintiff was in his own house at the time when the defendant committed the act complained of." So spake Lord Denman, and an evil scowl of disappointment came over the face of Fitzhowe as he saw that his legal point was gone, and that he would have to pay the damages claimed by Perry, to compensate him for the deprivation of the use and benefit of his said dwelling-bouse, and for the expense he had been put to in procuring and removing to another residence for himself and family, and for the loss he had suffered by being prevented from carrying on his business, and, beyond all this, he had lost his wager. Legal Proposition.-A man suffering from a private nuisance may take reasonable steps to abate it, but he must not suddenly pull a man's house about his ears when he is in it without reasonable notice. Lord Denman, C.J., does not, it is true, in this case lay stress on the question of notice, but in the case of Davies v. Williams (16 Q. B. 546) a contrary conclusion to that of Lord Denman was arrived at, where the circumstances were almost precisely similar to those of Perry v. Fitzhowe, except that in Davies v. Williams reasonable notice had been given by the defendant of his intention to pull down the house. Cf. also Burley v. Reed (11 Q. B. 904), where Perry v. Fitzhowe was distinguished on the ground that in that case the plaintiff Perry had a right to the possession of the house, whereas the house in Burley v. Reed was the defendant's, and the plaintiff was then altogether a stranger. Birmingham, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- Oxford, Thursday (Reg., Bky), at 11.30 day, and Thursday, at 10 Blackburn, Monday. at 10 Blaenau Festiniog, Wednesday Bodmin, Wednesday, at 10 Boston, Thursday (Reg., Bky), at 10 Bradford (Yorks). Tuesday, Wednesday (R.), and Friday (J.S.), at 10 * Brighton, Tuesday, at 10: Thursday (J.S.), at 11.30; Friday, at 10 Bristol, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, at 10: Friday (Bky), at 11 Brompton, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday Buckingham, Monday, at 12 Christchurch, Monday, at 10 Colchester, Tuesday, at 11 Corwen, Friday Croydon, Tuesday Diss, Thursday Durham, Tuesday (Reg., Bky) Gainsborough, Wednesday, at 10 Gloucester, Tuesday Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30 Halesworth, Wednesday Hastings. Monday Helston, Tuesday, at 11 Henley-on-Thames, Tuesday Holbeach, Tuesday, at 10 Horncastle, Friday, at 10 Howden, Monday Pontefract, Wednesday and Friday Portsmouth, Monday (Reg., Bky) and St. Columb, Monday, at 12.30 Salford, Monday and Wednesday, at 10 Sheffield, Thursday and Friday, at 10 Southampton, Wednesday (Reg., Bky), at 11 Huddersfield, Wednesday, Thursday, and Wallingford, Wednesday Friday, at 10 Wandsworth, Monday and Wednesday Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary. PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE PROFESSION. IN Bankruptcy, on the 12th inst., before Mr. A. H. Wildy, official receiver, a first meeting of creditors was held under a receiving order made against John Cole Stogdon, described as a solicitor, of 2, Clement'sinn, Strand. It appears that the debtor was admitted a solicitor in 1869, and about two years later he established a practice bringing in about £4000 per annum, and he continued the same until the date of the receiving order, with the exception of two years (1894-95). He states that he became connected with the affairs of Mr. R. C. Leigh, a minor, and that he is now liable for about £30,000 under a judgment in respect thereof. He ascribes his insolvency to bad debts, and forced realisation of securities, and to other causes.-Howard Rumney appeared for the petitioning creditor; and Stopher and Soames for other creditors.-The Official Receiver reported that the statement of affairs had only recently been filed. It showed liabilities £48,514, of which £33,589 were expected to rank, with assets £77, wholly covered by preferential claims.-The proceedings resulted in the appointment of Mr. A. E. Preston, chartered accountant, as trustee of the estate, with a committee of inspection. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. BIG FEES. THE extravagant fees obtained by lawyers (says the Albany Law Journal), as appears from time to time in the press of the country, is about as much overestimated as the estimate placed upon a man's wealth. A writer in the Pittsburg Leader says: "How much do Pittsburg lawyers charge for their services on the average?" is a question which I asked several well-informed attorneys the other day, and by means of which I acquired quite a fund of information without getting any very definite answer. 'Average?" said one gentleman. Why, you couldn't average the charges of one man, let alone the whole Profession. Fees range from 5 dollars to 100,000 66 66 dollars, according to the ability of the attorney and the disposition of the client, or rather, according to what he can make the client think his ability is and how much he will stand being charged for it." The statement that a fee amounting to 100,000 dollars was paid for legal advice in this city seems rather incredible, and I was not able to confirm it fully enough to justify giving the names of the parties said to be concerned, but a story to the effect that it was once done has been in circulation among lawyers for quite a considerable time, and is believed by some of them at least to be true. It is said that a gentleman who has acquired wealth enough in manufacturing enterprises to rank as a magnate became interested, along with capitalists of other cities, in a large railway property. After they had acquired the property a question as to the validity of the charter they held arose, and several of the most eminent lawyers in the country informed them that their case was worthless, and they would lose a suit which had been instituted against them. Then the Pittsburg magnate consulted with his Pittsburg lawyer, and the latter thought out a theory upon which it appeared to him that the charter could be made to hold. This theory was submitted to the eminent counsel who had previously pronounced the charter worthless, and by them was admitted to contain a decided element of plausibility. So much were they impressed, in fact, that they got ready to fight the case along the lines which the Pittsburger had indicated. As the time for the argument of the case before a court in a distant city approached, it came to the ears of the Pittsburg capitalist that his Pittsburg lawyer was getting ready to take a trip to Europe. He visited him and entered a decided objection. "You are my attorney," he said, "and it is your view of the law upon which this case is to be submitted. You must stay here and prepare the case and make the argument." "It will cost you a good deal if I forego my summer trip," said the lawyer, as the concluding argument of a dispute in which the magnate had the best of it. 66 Stay here and win this case and I will pay you 100,000 dollars," said the magnate, and the lawyer stayed. It is related, too, that he not only won the case and got the 100,000 dollars, but that he still made his trip to Europe, though a little late in the season. After this the best story which is told of a big fee is that the Standard Oil Company once received a bill for 25,000 dollars from D. T. Watson, and responded with a cheque for 35,000 dollars. This case was one in which an attempt was made to tax them on their income in Pennsylvania, the ground of the attempt being that they were a foreign corporation, and Mr. Watson won the suit after a long and hard legal battle. There are thought to be half a dozen lawyers of legal firms in the city with whom it is a comparatively frequent occurrence to render a bill of from 5000 dollars to 10,000 dollars, and have it promptly paid, and Mr. Watson is generally admitted to head the list, and to be the leader of the Pittsburg Bar. J. Scott Ferguson and the firm of Knox and Reed, Dalzell, Scott and Gordon, and a few others, are believed to be in possession of a legal practice worth from 40,000 dollars to 50,000 dollars per year, and from these figures the incomes of the local attorneys range down to sums too low to contemplate. There are in the neighbour hood 600 practising attorneys, and it is thought by very wellinformed lawyers that not to exceed 150 of them do nearly all the business, and that the incomes of the rest average considerably less than 1000 dollars a year. The guess was also made that not less than 1,500,000 dollars a year is paid in this city as attorneys' fees, and when its vast interests and the frequency with which they are in the courts are concerned it would seem that this, if correct, is a very moderate sum. "People who have suits involving big money," said one lawyer with whom I talked, do not, as a rule, care what the cost of an atterney's services is going to be, and so it is not generally the case that any stipulation is made, unless the case of a plaintiff seeking a lawyer to take a case upon a contingent fee. It has thus happened sometimes that lawyers have acquired reputations very largely by the nerve displayed in making high charges. Let a man have a high opinion of his own abilities, and make his client aware of the fact by charging big fees, and the thing will result to his advantage, provided he is a good enough judge of human nature to know just when to exact all that his client will stand. A man who has a case of a peculiar character, and has inquired and learned what lawyer is likely to conduct it for him to the best advantage, and who has found his lawyer to meet his expectations, is not going to quit that lawyer for another because he is made to understand that the lawyer know what the service he has rendered is worth. "For this statement to hold good, of course the business has to be of a character where big money is involved. There are many kinds of service where, no matter who performs them, the charge must be moderate. For instance, the least fee which it is considered professional to accept is 5 dollars, for such work, for instance, as drawing a deed. There are, of course, lawyers who do not want such work as this at all, yet if they consented to do it I do not think there is one in the city who would feel justified in charging more than 25 dollars for it. To get a big fee almost always implies that the case shall be a big one; that is, involving big money. The exceptions are where some very wealthy man is charged with a criminal offence, and wants the very best lawyers, and several of them, to defend him. Criminal business, as a rule, is not very profitable, and there have been very few really great lawyers who care to have much of it. The prosecution of accused persons in particular does not pay well. A client may come in while his blood is hot and declare that he will pay thousands of dollars to have an adversary convicted, but before the time comes to go on with the case his blood will cool, and he will think differently about the matter. Very few persons, as a rule, want to spend money to get revenge. "It sometimes happens, though, that a large corporation will be willing to hire first-class lawyers, at a good stiff price, to secure the conviction of some defaulting employee, and to give its men everywhere an object lesson on the results of dishonesty. Such a concern as the Adams Express Company, for instance, if one of its men is caught robbing it, does not want to miss the opportunity of making an example of him, so that wherever there are Adams Express employees they shall hear of the matter, lay it to heart and be good. Contrary to the general notion about the matter, the fact that it is difficult to obtain admission to this Bar is not a great protection to the business of those lawyers who already have an established practice, nor would the admission of everybody that applied greatly affect them. I think we might admit any lawyer who came here from a Bar of this or any other State, and still we should not have competition, except among those who would get very little business, and the established large practices would not be injured. In particular it would not hurt the older lawyers for the attorneys with well-earned reputations to come from other places. There are, in fact, some of them here now, and they are not making any great headway toward getting a large share of the rewards of the business. "It appears to be a rule, to which there have been very few exceptions, that, after a lawyer has passed middle life, it is not worth while for him to change his location, and expect to get a practice. He may be a better attorney than any at the Bar to which he comes, but will not get the business away from those who have it, and may consider himself fortunate if he even makes a comfortable living. I have never seen the fact explained, but I presume it is largely because of the extent to which getting a law practice is a matter of making acquaintances. There must also be something in the very air of a locality, so to speak, that is, in the peculiarities of its people, and the little eccentricities which they have in doing business, which the established lawyer will have gradually absorbed, and which the stranger, coming as an attorney already a master of his profession and not disposed to learn it all over again, cannot appreciate. It is strange that such trifles should constitute the difference between a big income and a poor living, but it seems to be a fact." HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. ALLCOAT (Re James), Great Wigston, Leicestershire, carpenter, who died on Sept. 15, 1876. Joseph Townsend, formerly of London, tobacconist, the husband of Martha Allcoat, of Great Wigston, one of the daughters of the said J. Allcoat, or his representatives, if dead, also Caroline, otherwise Carry Allcoat, the widow of Thomas Allcoat, formerly of Great Wigston, and one of the sons of the said J. Allcoat, are entitled to a share of deceased's effects, amounting to about £35 each, and they are requested to communicate within three months from Feb. 1, 1897, with Mr. J. H. Douglass, solicitor, Market Harborough, or their deaths will be presumed and the amounts distributed amongst other parties interested. BOARD (Joseph Henry), who was last heard of in or about the year 1878, when he was employed as a boundary rider in Queensland, if living, or, if dead. his legal personal representative or his children, to come in, by July 19, at the chambers of Mr. Justice Stirling, and prove their claim to share in the estate of Joseph Board, formerly of Victoria, Australia, who died on Aug. 14, 1894, at Ararat, Victoria. July 21, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. HARRIS (David), Trinity-st, Cardiff, Glamorganshire, maltster, who died in Oct. 1835. Any person claiming to be his heir-at-law to come in, by March 31, and prove his claim at the chambers of Mr. Justice Stirling. April 7, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the claims (if any). It is suggested, but not shown, that the said D. Harris was a native of Pembrokeshire, or came from Merthyr, Glamorganshire. Prior to 1801 he was said to be engaged in the Welsh coasting trade, and was for some time landlord of the Green Dragoa public-house. Duke-st, Cardiff; he is alleged to have been married twice, first, to Elizabeth Lemmuel in 1803, and secondly, to Mary Jacob in 1825, by whom it is said he had children. HILDT (William Edward), son of Adelbert Hildt, formerly of 121, Grocers'-hall-ct, is entitled to a legacy under the will of the late William Edward Moore, of Alcombe, Dunster, Somersetshire. He or any member of his family to communicate with Messrs. Eardley, Holt, Hulbert. and Hubbard, solicitors, 28, Charles-st, St. James's-sq. HIGNELL (Thomas), Cirencester, Gloucestershire, shoemaker. Persons claiming to be his next of kin to send in, by March 20, the particulars of their claims to Messrs. Mullings, Ellett, and Co. solicitors, Cirencester. ROBINSON (George North), late of Leadwell House, Sandford, Oxon., M.D., who died July 21, 1858. Persons claiming to be descendants of William Robinson named in the will of G. N. Robinson, living at his death; or persons living at the death of George Robinson Barnes in the said will named (who died Aug. 25, 1892); or the legal personal representatives of such persons as have since died; also persons claiming to be descendants of Ann Willis (formerly Ann King), who was a descendant of the above William Robinson, formerly of St. Thomas, Oxford, to come in, by April 2, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice North. April 6, at the said chambers, at 12.30 o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.-NOTE: The said Ann Willis resided at Ontario, Canada, and afterwards removed to Buffalo, U.S.A. SKIPSEE (Mary), a daughter of Robert Temple, brother of Samuel Temple, a farmer, of Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire, who died June 28, 1873, and whose widow, Hannah Temple, the tenant for life, died March 17, 1895. The said Mary Skipsee (whose husband is said to have worked at the Halifax Gasworks about 1870), or any person claiming an interest under the will of the said Samuel Temple, to come in, by March 22, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Romer. March 29, at the said chambers, at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. TIPPING (John Thomas), and any persons claiming by, through, or under him, to be interested in the property in question in the action of Jenkins v. Stainforth, to come in, by April 1, and establish their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice North. April 6, at the said chambers, at one o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. WESTON (Frances Danvers), who died at 4, Church-st, Hoxton, on June 19, 1882, the wife of the late William Thomas Weston, and daughter of Robert Thompson, formerly of Newry, co. Down, Ireland. Persons claiming to be her next of kin to come in, by April 5, and enter their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Stirling. April 13, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. ARGUS FINANCIAL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 22, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. C. Stronge, 317, 319, Winchester House, Old Broad-st, the liquidator of the company. Linklater, Addison, Brown, and Jones, 2, Bond-ct, Walbrook, solicitors to the liquidator. ANGLO-FRENCH COLONIAL MINING TRUST LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Feb. 22, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. Francis and Johnson, 26, Austin Friars, 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 above-named not later than two o'clock on Feb. 20.-Adjourned petition for winding-up to be heard Feb. 22, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, when, in consequence of the shareholders having resolved that the company be wound-up voluntarily, and Mr. Alfred Willie Sully, 19 and 21, Queen Victoria-st, chartered accountant, be appointed liquidator, the court will then be asked to make an order for the winding-up of the company, or to make an order continuing the voluntary winding-up under the supervision of the court. Linklater, Addison, Brown, and Jones, 2, Bond-ct, Walbrook, solicitors for the petitioner. 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 two o'clock on Feb. 20. ASBESTOS TIPPED LAMP WICK COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 12, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. G. S. Oldam, 30, the Temple, Dale-st, Liverpool, the liquidator of the company. BRICE AND CO. LIMITED.-Adjourned petition for winding-up to be heard Feb. 22, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, when, in consequence of the shareholders of the company having resolved that the company be wound-up voluntarily, and Mr. Augustus C. Palmer, St. Giles'chmbrs, Northampton, chartered accountant, and Mr. Henry Butcher, of the firm of Ham, Dennehy, and Butcher, chartered accountants of Bristol, be appointed liquidators, the court will then be asked to make an order continuing the voluntary winding-up under the supervision of the court instead of winding-up of the company. Le Brasseur and Oakley, 12, New-ct, Lincoln's-inn, agents for Stone, King, and Co., Bath, 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 above-named Le Brasseur and Oakley not later than two o'clock on Feb. 20. CYPRUS COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 27, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. H. Fox, 9, Austin Friars, the liquidator of the company. FLEUSS PNEUMATIC TYRE SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 23, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. B. Jackson, 28, Fenchurch-st, one of the liquidators of the company. T. W, Rogers, 28, Fenchurch-st, solicitor to the liquidators. GREY CONSOLIDATED LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 26, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. Goddard, St. George's House, Eastcheap, the liquidator of the company. Ingle, Holmes, and Sons, 20, Threadneedle-st, solicitors for the liquidator. IDAHO EXPLORING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 26, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. R. C. Power, 13, Copthall-av, the liquidator. "KLYDE" STEAMSHIP COMPANY OF GLASGOW LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 26, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. Jacks, 23, Royal Exchange-sq, Glasgow, the liquidator of the company. Botterell and Roche, 26, St. Thomas-st, Sunderland, solicitors for the liquidator. NEW MUSIC HALL AND THEATRE REVIEW LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Feb. 22, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. A. G. Dinn, 1, Gresham-bldgs, Basinghall-st, solicitor for the petitioner. 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 Feb. 20. NORTH-EASTERN STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 26, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. Dixon, Deptfordyard, Sunderland, the liquidator of the company. Botterell and Roche, 26, St. Thomas-st, Sunderland, solicitors to the liquidator. NOLTZYKOP GOLD MINES LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up by, or, in the alternative, subject to the supervision of the High Court of Justice to be heard Feb. 22, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. Wyatt, Digby, and Co., 5 and 6, Clement's-inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner. 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 two o'clock on Feb. 20. PARNALL AND EVANS LIMITED.-Creditors of the above-named company for debts or claims arising during the carrying-on of the business by the liquidator to send in, by March 25, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. T. Parry, Albanychmbrs, Newport, Mon., the liqutdator of the company. Le Brasseur and Bowen. Gloucester Bank-chmbrs, Newport, Mon., solicitors to the iiquidator. RUSSELL INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 25, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. R. W. Wood, Russell-mansions, Southampton-row, the liquidator of the company. SOUTH LUIPAARDSVLEI GOLD MINES LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard March 3, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. Morley, Shirreff, and Co., 53, Gresham House, Old Broad-st, solicitors for the petitioner. 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 March 2. S. H. SWIRE AND CO. LIMITED.-Adjourned petition for winding-up to be heard Feb. 22, before the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster sitting at the Assize Courts, Strangeways, Manchester, when, in consequence of the shareholders having resolved that the company be wound-up voluntarily, and Mr. Charles Haigh Cooper. Ashton-under-Lyne, be appointed liquidator, the court will then be asked to make an order continuing the voluntary winding-up under the supervision of the court. Hardings, Wood, and Wilson, 69. Princess-st, Manchester, agents for J. Whitworth, Ashton-under-Lyne, solicitors to the petitioner. 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 two o'clock on Feb. 20. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. ASPLEN (William Ward), Foxton Hall, Cambridge, gentleman. March 9: T. M. BACK (Elizabeth Anna), wife of William Mercer Back, 5, Clifton-ter, Upper Richmondrd, Putney, Surrey. March 15: F. Ince, solicitor, St. Bene't-chimbrs, Fenchurchst. March 30; Mr. Justice Romer, at eleven o'clock. I |
