suspension of the decree, added after the deliberate adjudication that the bonds of matrimony be dissolved, was a mere nullity. The Chief Judge said: "Justice is not a subject of bargain and sale, and cannot be granted or decreed because the parties are, or are not, of ability to pay the costs." Certain exceptional cases are referred to, but in general it was said that when a final decree was rendered granting relief, the costs must be collected by the usual processes of the courts. The Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey has declared unconstitutional an Act permitting limited divorce for adultery or desertion attended with a forfeiture of right to dower and curtesy, instead of an absolute divorce, when the person applying proves that he or she has conscientious scruples against asking for an absolute divorce. It was held to be unconstitutional to enact a statute that would select individuals from a class and subject them to peculiar rules, or impose upon them special obligations or burdens from which others in the same class are exempt. One of the earliest, if not the earliest case in which the Cathode or X-ray process, has been considered in the courts, arose in Colorado several weeks ago. The plaintiff in the action before Judge Lefevre, offered in evidence as exhibits, photographs taken by the X-ray process. Objection was made, especially on the ground that, as the objects shown were unseen by the human eye, there was no proof that the photographs accurately portrayed the objects apparently represented. The judge declared that the rule of law applied to ordinary photographs might not be conclusive when applied to photographs taken by means of a new scientific process. He finally admitted the pictures in evidence, saying, in the opinion which he rendered on the subject: "It must not be said of the law that it is wedded to precedent; that it will not lend a helping hand. Rather, that the courts throw open the door to all well-considered scientific discoveries. Modern science has made it possible to look beneath the tissues of the human body, and has aided surgery in telling of the hidden mysteries. We believe it to be our duty in this case, the first, if you please, to so consider it, in admitting in evidence the process known and acknowledged as a determinate science. The exhibits will be admitted in evidence." A case almost unique in the courts of the United States is that which arose in North Carolina recently over the action of a firm of druggists, in continuing to sell opium to the plaintiff's wife, after they had been warned of the results likely to follow. The plaintiff was at the head of a family consisting of a wife and six children, all of them minors. The complaint showed that he was wholly dependent upon his wife for the transaction of household affairs, and the supervision and direction of his children during his absence from home at his labour. His wife had been compelled, on account of some physical ailment, to take preparations of opium for relief, and afterwards, when she had recovered her health, continued the habit of taking opium, especially in the form of laudanum. The drug had been furnished by the defendants, and the plaintiff had several times protested against the selling to his wife of laudanum or opium in any form. The continued use of laudanum as a beverage so affected the plaintiff's wife, that she became incapable of attending to her household duties, or the care and direction of the children. The plaintiff asked damages to the amount of 3000 dollars. A demurrer to the complaint was made, and was sustained by the trial court. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has recently (Holleman v. Harward, 25 Southeast Rep. 972) reversed the judgment of the lower court. There is no law in North Carolina, such as exists in some other States, prohibiting the sale of laudanum except when furnished on the prescription of a physician. In spite of this absence of a statutory prohibition, the Court held that a recovery might be had in such an action as that then before it. "The defendants knew," the justice writing the opinion says, " taking the complaint in this appeal to be true, that the plaintiff's wife did not buy the laudanum for medicine. They knew that she was buying it as a beverage; that she was violating her duty to her husband and destroying her health, and thereby rendering herself unfit as a companion for him, and to render proper services in the household. They assisted her, and encouraged her for gain, with the means of doing all this, in the face of his frequent protests and warnings. The habit she had formed was the direct result of the use of the drug, which the defendants sold to her in large quantities, and they knew it, and persisted in it, although repeatedly warned and entreated by the husband not to do so." The Court held that there was no difference in principle between such an action and one begun by a husband to recover from a third person damages for assault and battery upon his wife. An attempt has recently been made in California to extend that which is known as the "Rule of the Turntable Cases." A turntable is a piece of mechanism by which locomotive engines are turned about so that they may be attached to the other end of a train of cars, and thus make the return journey without the necessity of going backward all the way. The highest courts of several of the States have approved the rule, which originated in a case where the railroad company had erected on its land, near a public highway, a turntable, unguarded and unfastened, so that young children, attracted by the turntable, went upon it and played, and started it in motion, causing the injury of one of them. This rule, allowing the recovery of damages from the owners of property on which accidents to children have occurred, has been applied to other cases on which the owner of land had erected dangerous machinery on it, and left it unprotected, so that young children could easily approach it and be injured. In the case of Peters v. Bowman (47 Pac. Rep. 113), which was recently before the Supreme Court of California, the owner of property allowed a pond to form upon it during the rainy season. The embankment which had caused the water to accumulate had been erected by the city, and the property owner had done nothing himself to create the pond or prevent the water from flowing away. Children living in the neighbourhood occasionally visited and played upon the pond. A boy of eleven years, who lived a few blocks from the pond, made a raft out of some railroad ties, and while playing upon the raft, slipped and fell into the water and was drowned. The boy's father began an action against the owner of the plot of ground, but the Supreme Court held that the case did not come within the rule of the turntable cases. Ordinarily, it said, the owner of premises owes no duty or immunity to trespassers, though the latter are infants. The case was not similar to one in which dangerous machinery, likely to attract infants, had been negligently left where access to it was easy, and where children would be likely to visit it. Many cases are quoted to show that the rule ought not to be extended to cases similar to that then before the court. JAMES PIERPONT DAVENPORT. LAW LIBRARY. BOOKS RECEIVED. Select Cases in Chancery, A. D. 1364 to 1471. Edited for the Selden Society by William Paley Baildon. Bernard Quaritch, 15, Piccadilly. Models of Bills of Costs. Fourth Edition. Waterlow Brothers and Layton Limited, 24 and 25, Birchin-lane, E.C. Maitland's Domesday Book and Beyond. C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse; and Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane. Price 15s. Willing's British and Irish Press Guide. 162, Piccadilly. Whitaker's Titled Persons 1897. Whitaker's Almanac Office, 12, Warwick-lane, E.C. Price 2s. 6d. CRIMINAL LAW AND THE FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISPUTES JURISDICTION OF JUSTICES. AT the Liverpool Police-court, on the 19th Feb., the case of Fowler v. Royal Liver Friendly Society came before Mr. W. J. Stewart, stipendiary. This case raised, in an entirely new form, a question as to the jurisdiction of the justices in friendly society disputes. The complainant was an expelled member of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, which is a collecting society coming within the provisions of sect. 30 of the Friendly Societies Act 1875. He was expelled by the committee under the following rule: "41. If any member should act in a manner which, in the opinion of the committee of management, is hurtful to the interests and well-being of the society, the committee of management shall intimate, in writing, to the said member warning him against such conduct; and if, after such notice, such member shall persist in such conduct, the committee of management shall, after calling him before them, or giving him an opportunity of attending before the committee, have power, subject to the provisions for the settlement of disputes contained in rule 3, to expel him from the society, and thenceforth after such expulsion his interest or benefit in the society shall cease, subject to confirmation at the next annual or special meeting." Rule 3 was simply a repetition of sect. 30 of the Act of 1875, of which sub-sect. 10 is as follows: "In all disputes between a society and any member or person insured, or any person claiming through a member or person insured, or under the rules, such member or person may, notwithstanding any provision of the rules of such society to the contrary, apply to the County Court, or to the court of summary jurisdiction, for the place where such member or other person resides, and such court may settle such dispute in manner herein provided." The material part of the complaint was as follows: "That Aaron John Fowler, a member of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, on the 22nd day of December last, as such member did tender the amount of his weekly subscription to the said society, but the same was refused, such society alleging that he had been expelled therefrom, that he disputes the lawfulness of such expulsion and refusal, and applies that such dispute may be settled as provided by the statute, &c." Ross-Brown (instructed by J. Sellers) for the complainant. Segar and Broadbridge (instructed by Bremner, Sons, and Corlett), for the society, took the preliminary objection that the court had no jurisdiction, because sect. 30 only applied to disputes with a member in his capacity as a member, whereas the dispute here was as to whether or not he was still a member. It has more than once been decided, on the same ground, that a rule referring disputes with a member to arbitration or to the justices did not apply to disputes with a person whose membership was itself in dispute, and that the existence of such a rule did not oust the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts, but the converse of the proposition has never been decided, namely, whether, in those circumstances, any jurisdiction at all is conferred on the tribunal named in the rules. The cases cited were: London v. Prentice, 1875 (33 L. T. Rep. 251; 10 L. Rep. C. P. 679) and Willis v. Wells (67 L. T. Rep. 316; (1892) 2 Q. B. 225). Ross Brown, for the complainant, contended that the cases did not apply, because here rule 41 expressly called in aid sub-sect. 10 of sect. 30, and thereby made the reference to justices an integral part of the rule as to expulsion. Segar, in reply, argued that rule 41 only called in sect. 30 (10) in those cases where the expulsion had not been actually made. The complainant ought to have come to the court when the dispute first arose, but having waited till he was actually expelled he was too late, as he was now no longer a member. His remedy was to appeal to the society in general meeting. The STIPENDIARY upheld the objection to his jurisdiction, and dismissed the complaint, but said he would state a case if desired to do so. COUNTY COURTS. SITTINGS OF THE COURTS. FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, MARCH 6. Alcester, Wednesday, at 10 Birkenhead,* Tuesday, at 10 Birmingham, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- Bradford (Yorks), Tuesday (R., Bky), Brighton, Thursday and Friday, at 10 Burton, Wednesday, at 9: Thursday, at 11 Chesterfield, Friday, at 9.30 Consett, Wednesday, at 10 Crewe, Monday Crewkerne, Friday, at 10 Llangefni, Tuesday Maldon, Thursday, at 11 Middlesbrough, Thursday, at 10 Oldham, Thursday and Saturday, at 9.30 Ryde, Wednesday, at 11 Salford. Wednesday, at 10 Sheffield, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10 Shoreditch, Tuesday and Thursday Soham, Saturday, at 2 Southampton, Tuesday, at 11 Southport, Tuesday, at 10 South Shields, Thursday, at 10 Southwark, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, at 10.30 Stafford, Thursday, at 9.30 Stockport, Friday Stockton-on-Tees, Friday, at 9.30 Stoke, Monday, at 9.30 Exeter, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thurs- Sunderland, Thursday (Reg., Bky) day, at 10 Faringdon, Friday, at 10.30 Thetford, Wednesday, at 11 Thrapstone, Thursday, at 10 Great Grimsby, Wednesday (Reg., Bky), Torquay, Saturday, at 10 ordinary conditions the drainage of the plaintiff's house was sufficient; but, in consequence of the low level of the premises, and of the great increase of population, and the sewers being to some extent used for flood water, the sewers had become overcharged, and sewage backed into the plaintiff's house, causing an intolerable nuisance. This occurred in 1880 and 1881, but no overflow took place between 1881 and 1895. From that time to the present it did not appear anything had been done by the corporation except to put in an overflow pipe of twelve inches in 1893. The same overflow nuisance occurred in 1895 and 1896, which is the cause of action now sued upon. It was alleged by the plaintiff's surveyor that this pipe was too small, but he admitted that in other respects the sewers were sufficient for ordinary purposes, and were in good order and condition. The corporation contended that they had done nothing to create or increase the nuisance, and consequently were not liable for nonfeasance, and that no act of misfeasance had been proved. The cases of Glossop v. Isleworth Local Board (40 L. T. Rep. 736; 12 Ch. Div. 102) and Stretton Derby Brewery Company v. Corporation of Derby (1894) 1 Ch. 431) had been cited in favour of this contention. In the first case it had been held that, where the local board did nothing themselves to increase or create the nuisance, mere neglect to perform the duty cast on them by statute was not a ground of action for damages by an individual. Mr. Collingwood Hope for the plaintiff had suggested active negligence on the part of the defendants, but it seemed to him that the worst that could be said of them was that they had tolerated a nuisance; it could not be alleged that they were guilty of a misfeasance in neglecting to enlarge their sewers to provide for an increase of population. Their duty was to the public generally, and there was a remedy provided in the Act for a neglect of that duty. Under those circumstances he should have held there was no case, and fortunately for him the decision of the Court of Appeal in Robinson v. Mayor of Workington (13 Times L. Rep. 148) was precisely in point in the present case, as the two cases were practically identical. He must be governed by that decision, and would therefore give judgment for the defendants. Wynn Evans asked whether under the circumstances the judge would give costs. Ralph Bankes submitted that under sect. 1, sub-sect. b, of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 the judge had no discretion, but that the judgment carried costs as between solicitor and client. His HONOUR said Mr. Justice Cave had deprived the defendants of costs in Robinson v. Mayor of Workington. Ralph Bankes said the point as to the Act of 1893 had not been called to the judge's attention. He submitted Mr. Justice Cave was wrong. His HONOUR said that the Public Authorities Protection Act provided that "where any action is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act of Parliament or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such act, duty, or authority, the following provisions shall have effect." (inter alia) (b) "wherever in any such action a judgment is obtained by the defendant, it shall carry costs to be taxed as between solicitor and client." This seemed to him to limit the discretion of the judge as to costs, and he felt bound to give them, though with regret in this case, as he thought that the defendants had unduly delayed the remedial measures, which might have avoided the consequences which had ensued. PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION ACT 1893.NEW POINT AS TO COSTS. AT Wrexham County Court, on the 3rd Feb., his Honour Sir Horatio Lloyd gave an important judgment in the case of Roberts v. Mayor and Corporation of Wrexham. Collingwood Hope, barrister (instructed by Wynn Evans, solicitor), for plaintiff; Ralph Bankes, barrister (instructed by Bury, town clerk), for defendants. His HONOUR said: This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages, which had been reduced to £50 to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendants in constructing and maintaining their sewers. Particulars of the negligence had been delivered, and were (1) that the defendants constructed the sewer connected with the plaintiff's premises in such a defective manner as to lead to the backing up of the contents of the sewer into the plaintiff's house; (2) that the contents of the sewers were emptied into an eighteen-inch iron pipe, which was insufficient; (3) that the defendants neglected to make proper provision for the requirement of the district; (4) that they negligently permitted an unnecessary quantity of surface water to be taken into the sewers; (5) that they had not exercised reasonable care, skill, and diligence in their duties under the Public Health Act 1875. There is singularly little dispute as to the facts. The sewers were originally constructed by Sir Robert Rawlinson in 1862, and are now practically in the same condition as when plaintiff bought his house in 1868. The premises were then connected with the sewers of the town in accordance with a plan submitted to and approved by the then borough surveyor. The drainage of cellars was then permitted, though now invariably disallowed. In all PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE PROFESSION. AT Lancaster, last week, in the Civil Court, before Collins, J., without a jury, the case of Muckalt v. Tilly and another was heard. The plaintiff in this action, a solicitor in Lancaster, appeared in person; Shee, Q.C. and Overend Evans appeared for the defendants. The plaintiff, in opening, said that in the year 1896 an action had been brought against him and a Miss Bond for malicious prosecution by the clerk to the magistrates at Lancaster. The jury decided that he should pay £180 damages and Miss Bond £20, and judgment was signed accordingly. An office copy of that judgment would be produced showing that that was so. On the day after the verdict Tilly, who was the solicitor to the plaintiff at the trial in Liverpool, wrote a letter saying that he would be glad to receive the £20 damages awarded against Miss Bond, which with the £180 paid by Muckalt would make up the £200 damages awarded by the jury, and adding that they would hold him as well as Miss Bond responsible for the £20. Muckalt then wrote to his solicitor in London, inclosing Tilly's letter to him. After getting his reply he wrote Tilly on the 11th Aug. telling him that his solicitor advised him to wait till taxation and till the final order was drawn up. On the 12th Aug. Tilly wrote that unless the £20 was paid at once he should take steps to recover the money. This Muckalt took to be a threat, and according to his statement, being afraid that execution would be issued, he went into his clerks' office and told them to write out a cheque for £20 in favour of Mr. Tilly, and that cheque was duly sent with a letter saying that the cheque was sent without prejudice to the entry of judgment. In conclusion, the plaintiff submitted that the money was recoverable as having been paid through fear of an execution being issued, and for no other reason. Mr. Muckalt called some evidence, but did not go into the box himself.-At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case Shee read some portions from the judg ment of Cave, J. in the action for malicious prosecution with the view of showing that the £20 had not been paid by Mr. Muckalt under any threat. The learned JUDGE said that in his opinion the present plaintiff had safeguarded his interests, and had intended when he made the payment to rely upon his rights, whatever they were, under the judgment. He accordingly held that the judgment in the former action was a several one, and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover the £20 for which he was suing. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £20 against the defendant Tilly, and the case against the other defendant was dismissed. DAVIES (David Thomas), late of No. 1, Clynmil, Merthyr Tydfil. Thomas Rosser Davies, son of the above, who left this country many years ago, to come in, by March 12, and prove his claim under the will of the above D. T. Davies, to Mr. David Rees Lewis, the Registrar of the Glamorganshire County Court holden at Merthyr Tydfil. PENDLE (Mary Ann), 28, St. Ann's-rd, New Wandsworth, Surrey, widow, who died on Jan. 4, 1896. Henry Charles George Goldin, Walter Goldin, and Mary Ann Elizabeth Bates, formerly Goldin, the wife of Thomas Godson Bates, respectively nephews and a niece of the said M. A. Pendle, who are believed to have left London about 1874 for the Australian colonies, and Louisa Stuckey, formerly Goldin, the wife of George Stuckey, another niece of the said M. A. Pendle, who left London for Canada subsequent to the year 1867, or the legal personal representatives of such of them as died subsequently to Jan. 4, 1896, to come in, by Oct. 25, at the chambers of Mr. Justice Romer and prove their claims as next of kin of the said M. A. Pendle. Nov. 1. at the said chambers, at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. THE JUDICATURE ACTS. (HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 23.) Mr. Atherley-Jones called attention to the unsatisfactory working of the Judicature Acts, and moved a resolution to the effect that an address should be presented to Her Majesty praying her to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of justice under those Acts with a view to secure greater efficiency and economy. The hon. member pointed out that a quarter of a century had elapsed since there had been any inquiry into the administration of justice in this country, and he declared that, with the single exception of France, our judicial system was the most extravagant one in the civilised world. For instance, we paid to our law lords, exclusive of the Lord Chancellor, no less than £24,000 a year, and the number of appeals disposed of annually was only between forty and fifty. He maintained that the continued existence of this tribunal was little short of a public scandal. Again, each of the two Railway Commissioners received a salary of £3000, and these two gentlemen in a recent year sat on twenty-one days out of the 365 and disposed of twenty-four cases; and this was a fair average of the work they transacted. Surely it was impossible to justify the perpetuation of that tribunal. The business of the Superior Courts was rapidly diminishing, while the business in the County Courts was as rapidly increasing. He condemned our system of vacations; argued that the circuit system had become a ridiculous anachronism; and advocated an extension of jurisdiction to County Courts, making them co-equal with the Superior Courts, as the best remedy for some of the evils which he had described. Mr. Warr seconded the resolution. The Attorney-General, although in hearty sympathy with the member for Durham, was unable to accede to the proposal that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the matters which had been referred to. He admitted that there was ample room for improvement, but a Royal Commission would be about the worst body that could be appointed for the purpose of conducting the investigation. Replying briefly to various points which had been mentioned, the Attorney-General asserted that no better legal reform had been carried out of late years than the appointment of the four Lords of Appeal, who sat alternately in the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The statement that they only sat on fifty days in the year was inaccurate, and it was much more likely that they held 150 sittings annually. In his opinion, the remuneration of these judges ought not to be diminished. With regard to the Railway Commissioners, their work could not be measured merely by the number of cases which they heard in court, and, moreover, the Commission had nothing whatever to do with the Judicature Acts. The amount which the country paid for the services of the judges of the Court of Appeal was none too much, and he hoped that some day they would receive more than they did at present. If, as had been suggested, the jurisdiction of the County Courts were made co-extensive with the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts, the County Courts would be practically doomed. In fact, it would be impossible to engraft on the County Court system any substantial share of the work of the Superior Courts. In his judgment, the circuit system ought to be maintained, although, no doubt, it sometimes seemed to lead to a waste of judicial strength. There had been an increasing demand for more frequent assizes, and the wishes of localities far removed from London could not be disregarded. Sir F. Lockwood thought many of the matters to which allusion had been made might be advantageously inquired into, but he cordially agreed with the Attorney-General's expression of opinion that it was not desirable to refer them to such a cumbrous piece of machinery as a Royal Commission. Mr. W. F. Lawrence suggested that the circuit system required some emendation. Sir H. Fowler referred to the present condition of the County Courts, and to the necessity for a wide extension of their jurisdiction and a drastic reform in a great deal of their procedure. Mr. Monk was also in favour of extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts. The resolution was then by leave withdrawn. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. BROWN (William Robert), York, gentleman, formerly architect, deceased. Persons claiming relationship with him, or with Robert Brown and Mary Brown, his late father and mother, who formerly resided in South-parade, York, are requested to communicate their names, addresses, and degree of relationship, without delay, to Mr. B. Dent, solicitor, St. Helen's-sq, York. CUMMINS (Robert King), formerly of Cork, merchant. Persons claiming through him to be entitled to the sums of £4615 7s. 6d. and £110 18s. 9d., or any part thereof, lodged in the Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland to the credit of a cause in which the Attorney-General for Ireland is informant, and Walter James Cummins and eighteen other persons named in the cause are defendants, to come in, by April 2, and prove their claims at the office of David E. Pigott, Master of the Exchequer Division, Ireland. April 23, at the said office, at one o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTSALBERT EADIE CHAIN COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors of the above-named company now in course of liquidation in consequence of the sale of its business and assets to a new company under the same name to send in, by April 2, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. H. Bryant, Park-rd, Redditch, Worcestershire, the liquidator of the company. W. S. Tenbridge, Redditch, solicitor to the liquidator. 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. BLACKPOOL MAZE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 20, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. H. Robinson, accountant, Talbotchmbrs, Talbot-sq, Blackpool. BRITISH UNION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up subject to the supervision of the High Court of Justice to be heard March 3, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. A. J. Greenop and Co., 15. Victoria-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 above- named not later than six o'clock on March 2. CITY AND WESTMINSTER CONTRACT CORPORATION LIMITED.-Creditors to send in. by April 12, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. G. C. Harrower, College Hill-chmbrs, Dowgate-hill, the liquidator of the company. W. H. Elphinstone Stone, Billiter-sq-bldgs, solicitors to the liquidator. CROKER'S REEF LIMITED.-Creditors to send in. by April 2, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. E. H. Saunders, 63 and 64, New Broad-st, the liquidator of the company. Francis and Johnson, 26, Austin Friars, solicitors to the liquidators. HABILIS PATENT SELF-OPENING UMBRELLA COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 31, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. S. D. Ross, and H. Heaven, 30, Cheapside, the liquidators of the company. Harvey and Speed, 1, Clement's-inn, solicitors for the liquidators. HENRY CASSWELL AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 9, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. C. Hodgkinson, 99, Corporation-st, Birmingham, the liquidator of the company. Snow and Atkins, Princes-chmbrs, Corporationst, Birmingham, solicitors for the liquidator. N.B. the above notice is issued in connection with the sale of the undertaking of the above company to Casswell Limited. HOWE CYCLE AND SEWING MACHINE COMPANY LIMITED-Creditors to send in, by March 29, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. H. E. Broad, 1, Walbrook, the liquidator of the company. Linklater, Addison, Brown, and Jones, 2, Bond-ct, Walbrook, solicitors to the liquidator. LEIPZIG TRAMWAYS COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 20, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. W. B. Hawkins and A. G. Kendall, 39, Lombard-st, the liquidators of the company. LIBERTY CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard March 3, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. Maddisons, 1, King's Arms-yd, 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 six o'clock on March 2. MILNROW EQUITABLE PIONEERS SOCIETY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 2. their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. T. Yarker, Two Bridges, Milnrow, near Rochdale, one of the liquidators of the society. Standring, Taylor, and Co., 1, King-st, Rochdale, solicitors for the iiquidators. NEWMARKET BREWERIES AND WHITE HART HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 7, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. E. L. Ernest, 63. Queen Victoria-st, the liquidator of the company. A. Myers, 3, South-sq, Gray's-inn, solicitor to the liquidator. SWANZY ESTATES AND GOLD MINING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 31, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. A. Clark, 17, St. Swithin's-la, the liquidator of the company. SHILL (PATENTS) GOLD EXTRACTION COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 7, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. W. Thornton, 80, Coleman-st, the liquidator of the company. J. and M. Solomon, 58, Finsbury-pavement, solicitors to the liquidator. THEATRICAL COMEDY SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Petition for compulsory winding-up to be heard March 3, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. P. K. Langdale, 50, Holborn-viaduct, solicitor for the petitioner. WATER TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 2, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. O. B. Cuvilje, 2, Stuart-st, Bute Docks, Cardiff, the liquidator of the company. WILLIAM BANKS AND CO. LIMITED 30. Corporation-st, Bolton (in voluntary liquidation).-Creditors to send in, by March 23, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to Mr. F. S. Marsh, 8, Bowker's-row, Bolton, one of the liquidators of the company. noon. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BEAVEN (William), jun, Hazeley, near Twyford, Hampshire, farmer. SILVESTER (William), Church-st, Silverdale, Staffordshire, grocer and provision dealer. March 19: E. Slaney, solicitor. Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire. March 26; Mr. Justice Romer, at eleven o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. ARMSTRONG (John), 103, Cranworth-st, Ardwick, Manchester. Lancashire, gentleman. March 19; ADAMS (Ann). 26, Coliston-rd, Merton-rd, Wandsworth, Surrey, wife of William Robert Adams. March 31; C. D. W. Fowler, solicitor, 6, St. Michael-st, Southhampton. ALLISON (Annie Sarah), Brooklands, Cheshire, widow. April 6; Dixon and Linnell, solicitors, 24, Cross-st, Manchester. ATKINSON (Louisa Lavinia), 14, Cambridge-st, Edgware-rd, widow. March 25; H. C. Godfrey, solicitor, 60, Finsbury-pavement. ALLEN (William Daniel), Endcliffe-cres. Sheffield, steel manufacturer. April 3; AINSLIE (Sophia Horatia), Clare Lodge, St. John's-rd, Putney-hill, Surrey, spinster. BOFFEY (Philip), Taxmere Farm, Sandbach, Cheshire, farmer. and Sons, solicitors, Sandbach, Cheshire. BARTON (Benjamin Thomas), 119, Peel-st. Farnworth, near Bolton, Lancashire, printer and stationer. April 30 F. W Coope, solicitor, 16. Acrasfield, Bolton. BRICK (Elizabeth), Liscard-rd, Liscard, Cheshire, boot and shoe dealer. April 2; Simpson, North, and Co., solicitors, 1, Water-st, Liverpool. BIRCHFIELD (William), Na Pu, one of the Marquesas Islands, merchant. March 27; Dixon and Linnell, solicitors, 24. Cross-st, Manchester. BIRD (Rev. Canon) Christopher), Chollerton Vicarage, Wall-on-Tyne, Northumberland. April 6; Garrard, James, and Wolfe, solicitors, 13, Suffolk-st, Pall Mall East. BRADLEY (Margaret). Sandfleld-cres. Liverpool-rd, St. Helens, Lancashire, lodginghouse keeper. March 20; R. W. H. Thomas, solicitor, 16, Ormskirk-st, St. Helens. BEAUMONT (James), Sunnyside, Leamington, Warwickshire, gentleman. May 1; BLAND (Eliza) 41, Haggard rd, Twickenham, spinster. March 17; Skewes, BOWDEN (Joe). Long Lee Farm, Rowarth, Derbyshire, farmer. March 20; A. Walker, solicitor. Spring Bank. New Mills. BARR (Elizabeth). 56. Monkgate, York, spinster. April 19; B. Dent, solicitor and executor, St. Helen's-sq, York. BEIRNE (William), Charles-st, Wrexham. Denbighshire, pawnbroker. March 15; J. A. Hughes, solicitor, 32, Regent-st, Wrexham. BUCKLAND (George Alexander), Fairview, Beaumont-rd, Wimbledon Park, Surrey, CHEW (Thomas), sen., 352, Queen's-rd, Cheetham, and of 4A, Cheetham-hill-rd, both DRYDEN (William), Preston, Lancashire, ironfounder. March 8; T. Ward, solicitor, 12, Lune-st, Preston. DENTON (Ann), Strawberry-grove, Englefield-green, Egham, Surrey, widow. April 1; Elcum and Lemon, solicitors, 13, Bedford-row. DRAGE (Edward), the Grange, Wortley, near Leeds, Yorkshire, locomotive superintendent of the Great Northern Railway Company. March 31; F. Brooke, solicitor, 51. Lincoln's-inn-flds. DEWS (Ezra), Ossett Spa, Ossett, Yorkshire, worsted spinner. March 8; Burton and Dickinson, solicitors, 16, Wood-st, Wakefield. DEVEY (Eleanor) Worfield Lodge, Southborough, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, spinster. March 31; Godden, Son, and Holme, solicitors, 34, Old Jewry. DORRINGTON (Benjamin), 11, Gunterstone-rd, West Kensington, and of 6, Gutter-la, merchant. March 23; Charles Stevens and Drayton, solicitors, 14, Queen Victoria-st. DRIVER (Charles Henry Thomas), Lilyhorn House, Bisley, Gloucestershire, gentleman. EDWARDS (James Moore, 13, Philip-st, Custom House, West Ham, Essex, laundry EDEN (Robert), Croft, North Riding of Yorkshire. March 13; Lucas, Hutchinson, and Meek, solicitors, Horsemarket, Darlington. Bradford. March 22; Henderson, FIRTH (John), Wibsey, North Bierley, Bradford, Yorkshire, estate agent, formerly butcher. March 1; H. Farrar, solicitor, Dixon's-bldgs, 5, Townhall-sq, FLUDGER (Rev. Sir John Henry), Ayston, Rutlandshire, baronet. May 1; Arnold and Henry White, solicitors, 12 and 14, Great Marlborough-st. FRY (Joseph), Fairkytes, Hornchurch, Essex, gentleman. Buckle, and Goodman, solicitors, 5, Philpot-la. GLASBROOK (Sydney Edward), 2, Gloucester-pl, and of the Cambrian Saw Mills and Timber Yard, both in Swansea, and of Norton House, Oystermouth, Glamorganshire, member of the firms of Glasbrook Brothers, of Swansea, colliery proprietors, and of John Glasbrook, Sons, and Company, of Swansea Steam Saw Mill, proprietors and timber merchants. March 31; Collins and Woods, solicitors, 1, Worcester-pl, Swansea. GRAMSHAW (Charles Robert), Saxonholme, Pelham-rd, and of 27, King-st, both in Gravesend, Kent, solicitor. March 31; W. H. Troughton, solicitor, 27, King-st, Gravesend. GEORGE (William), Dockyard, Malta, engineers' filtter in Government employment, March 25; Venn and Woodcock, solicitors, 15, New-inn, Strand. GRIFFIN (William Royle Mortimer), formerly of Rock House, Alphington, near Exeter, Devonshire, retired surgeon. Creditors and persons having any claims or demands upon or against his estate, and all persons having any claims against or in relation to the shares or interest of any beneficiary or reversioner under the trust of the will, in respect of any settlement, mortgage, or assignment of any of the said shares or interests, to send in, by March 25, the particulars of their claims to Messrs. Bowen and Symnes, solicitors, Weymouth. GRIFFIN (Ellen). San Remo, Melcombe Regis, Dorsetshire, widow. Bowen and Symes, solicitors, Weymouth. March 25; GOBLE (Mary Ann), 4, Woodbine-grdns. Kennington. near Ashford, Kent, formerly of 1, Claremont-villas, Beaver-rd, South Ashford. Kent, and formerly of the Paragon, Kennington, Surrey, previously of New Cottage, St. Ann's Hill, Chertsey, Surrey, and previously of Winchelsea, Sussex. April 22, G. Gordon, solicitor, 37, Golden-sq, Regent-st. Dublin. HEARD (Robert). April 2; Richardson and Synnott, solicitors, 31, Kildare-st, HOLMES (William), the Whetty, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. March 20; W. H. Scott, solicitor, Bromsgrove. HOWARD (John), Gressenhall, Norfolk, farmer. March 8; Cooper and Norgate, solicitors, East Dereham, Norfolk. HINGSTON (Mary), 27, Palmerston-rd, Garston, Lancashire, widow. March 31: G. W. Gray, executor, 14, Argyle-rd, Garston. Brown, Ringrose, and Lightbody, solicitors, 23, Abingdon-st, Westminster. HOBLYN (Cyril Onslow Peter), Colquite, Bodmin, Cornwall, gentleman. March 1; R. P. Edyvean, solicitor, Mount Folly, Bodmin. HUGGINS (George Thomas). Isca House, Barnet, Herts, retired chemist. March 31; W. O. Boyes, solicitor, Barnet, Herts. JACKSON (Phebe Matilda), Easthorpe, near Southwell, Nottinghamshire, widow. April 15; Watson, Wadsworth, and Ward, solicitors, 15. Weekday-cross, Nottingham. JUDGE (Robert Winn), 15, St. George's-rd, Kingston-upon-Hull, banker's clerk. March 1; Jacobs and Dixon, solicitors, 2, County-bldgs, Hull. KING (Daniel), 32, Pembury-rd. Lower Clapton, formerly of the firm of Bullard, King, and Co., of 14. St. Mary Axe, shipowner and shipbroker. April 17; F. W. and H. Hilbery, solicitors, 20, Great St. Helens. KISSNER-KNIGHT (Henry), 40, Canterbury-st, New Brompton, Kent, quartermastersergeant Royal Engineers, stationed at Chatham. March 25; Norman and Stigant, solicitors, 22, High-st, Chatham, Kent, KELLY (Juliana), Saltford House, Somersetshire. March 10; Griffith and Co., solicitors, 14, Royal Arcade, Newcastle on-Tyne. LOWNDES (Fanny), Barrington Hall, Hatfield Broad Oak, Essex, wife of G. A. Lowndes. Esq. March 30; Few and Co., solicitors, 19, Surrey-st, Strand. LAWRENCE (William), 6, Gironde-rd, formerly of 11, Homestead-rd, Fulham, fishmonger. March 17; J. C. Taylor, solicitor, 28. Essex-st, Strand. LLOYD (Mary Wolfinton), 48, Redcliffe-sq, South Kensington, widow. March 30; Fooks, Chadwick, Arnold, and Chadwick, solicitors, 60, Carey-st, Lincoln's-inn. MUERS (Ann Emily), 11, Glebe-pl. Chelsea. April 10; Radcliffe, Cator, and Hood, solicitors, 20, Craven-st, Charing Cross. MASAROON (William Robert), Calverley Park, Tunbridge Wells, Kent. March 25; Stibbard, Gibson, and Co., solicitors, 21, Leadenball-st. MACKENZIE (Henry), Acock's Green, Worcestershire, solder maker. March 18; Lane, Clutterbuck, and Tomiinson, solicitors, 10, Temple-row, Birmingham. MORSON (Henry Walton). Houghton-le-Spring, Durham, tailor and draper. March 17; Wilford and Son, solicitors, 17, Fawcett-st, Sunderland. NEWMAN (Percy James), Salisbury, British South Africa, miner and prospector. March 31; J. S. Longden, administrator, 8, Old Jewry. Munns and Longden, solicitors, 8, Old Jewry. NIELD (Mary). Butcher's Arms-inn, Micklehurst, Chesh ire, widow. April 8; Darnton and Bottomley, solicitors. 120, Stamford-st. Ashton-under-Lyne. NOAKES (John Tompsett). 8. Southwark-st, Southwark, Surrey, and of Brockley-hall, Lewisham, Kent, hop factor, trading in copartnership with Wickham Noakes, of the Black Eagle Brewery, Bermondsey, Surrey, as brewers under the style or firm of Day, Noakes, and Sons, and with Bertram Noakes, of 8, Southwark-st aforesaid, under the style or flrm of J. T. Noakes and Co., as hop factors. April 10; Ingle, Holmes, and Sons, solicitors, City Bank-chmbrs, 20, Threadneedle-st. NUTTALL (Sarah Ann), the Lee, Walmersley, Bury, Lancashire, widow. April 10; Earle, Sons, and Co., solicitors, 54, Brown-st, Manchester. PRYOR (Jane Ann), formerly of 7. Upper Grosvenor-st, Grosvenor-sq. late of 64, Prince's-gate, widow. April 1; Wadeson and Malleson, solicitors, 7, Devonshire-sq. Bishopsgate. PIERSON (Christiana Jane), Gothic Villa, 20. Cumberland-walk, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, widow. March 18; C, S. G. Howard and B. F. Howard, executors, 13, College-rd, Bromley, Kent. PITT (William James), formerly of Victoria House, 30, Newcastle-st, Strand, stationer. March 15; W. B. Glasier, solicitor, 47, Essex st. Strand. PASKE (James), Big Edgehill British, Trevethin, Monmouthshire. April 26; Bythway and Son, solicitors, Pontypool. POTT (Charlotte Catherine), 7, the Beach, Walmer, Kent, spinster. March 31; Bell, PRINGLE (Ann), 64, River View, Low Walker, Northumberland, widow. March 20; Powis (Eliza Anne), wife of Francis Keppel Powis, formerly of Weston-super-Mare, ROBERTSON (Ann), 50, Church-st. Kiugston-upon-Hull, spinster. March 1; Jacobs and RAVEN (Jane Augusta), Grove Cottage. Frognal, Hampstead, spinster. April 21; Simpson and Cullingford, solicitors, 85, Gracechurch-st. RILEY (Harry Percy), Ossett, Yorkshire, firework maker. March 31; B. Greenwood, solicitor, The Green. Ossett. SMITH (Louis David), Church House Farm, Brede, Sussex, gentleman. March 20; Young, Son, and Coles, solicitors, Bank-bldgs, Hastings. SMITH (Eleanor Elizabeth), 27, Banbury-rd, Oxford. March 21; Davenport and Rose, solicitors, County-hall, Oxford. SMITH (William Bryant), 4, George-ct, Strand, newsvendor. March 31; Laundy, Son, and Kedge, solicitors, 86 and 87, Strand. SPRING (George), 140 and 142, English-st, and 235, North Boulevard, Kingston-uponHull, fish curer. March 1: Jacobs and Dixon, solicitors, 2, County-bldgs, Hull. SCOTCHBURN (John Conrad), 16, Rochdale-rd, Manchester, and of 19, Upper Hulton-st, Moss Side, Manchester, surgeon. March 19; Dixon and Linnell, solicitors, 24, Cross-st, Manchester. SMITH (Mary Ann Emm), 95, Lewisham High-rd, Lewisham, Kent, formerly of Blackheath, Kent, and Guildford and Kingston-on-Thames, Surrey, widow. March 20; Hubbard, Son, and Eve, solicitors, 110, Cannon-st. SHAPLAND (George), 31, Charles-st, and of 3, West Bute Dock, both in Cardiff, Glamorganshire, fruit and potato merchant, or his widow; SHAPLAND (Cillian), late of 31, Charles-st. April 5; W. Bradley, solicitor, 3, High-st, Cardiff. STEVENS (Henry). 140, Leathwaite-rd, Clapham Common, Surrey, gentleman. March 15: H. Firth, solicitor, 7, Angel-ct. Throgmorton-st. SAVILE (Rt. Hon. John Baron), G.C.B., Rufford Abbey, Nottinghamshire, and of 38, South-st, Park la, London. April 22; Johnsons, Long, and Williamson, solicitors, 9, New-sq. Lincoln's-inn. SIMPSON (Ann), Pipe Gate, Shropshire, spinster. March 27; S. Till, solicitor, SIMPSON (Mary), Pipe Gate, Shropshire, spinster. SIMPSON (Julia), 104A, Lord-st, Etruria, Staffordshire, spinster. March 27; S. Till, solicitor, Newcastle-under-Lyme. SUTTON (Mary Ann), St. Denys-rd, Southampton, widow. March 25; Stanton, TALBOT (Hon. and Rt. Rev. Monsignor Gilbert Chetwynd), 11, Lansdowne-pl, THORNTON (Benjamin), 12, Booth-st, Middleton Junction, Lancashire, pattern maker. TAYLOR (John), Thurlstone, near Penistone, Yorkshire, plumber. April 1; Smith, TAUNTON (John), Downton, Wiltshire, gentleman. March 31; Fulton and Pye-Smith, solicitors, Salisbury. TAYLOR (Eliza), 55, Thistlewaite-rd, Lower Clapton, spinster. March 22; Stevenson and Couldwell, solicitors, 93, Gracechurch-st. TAYLOR (Jacob), who traded as T. Scammell, 14, Charles-st, St. James's-sq, hatter. TOPHAM (Dame Anne Tomlinson), No rmont, Weybridge, Surrey. March 25; Park, 24, Museum-st. Ipswich. WILLIAMS (Jane Edith Margaret), who died at the Denbigh Infirmary on Jan. 19, 1897, formerly of 1, Rhuddlan-pl, Rhyl. Flintshire, and Market Hall, Rhyl, greengrocer and fruiterer. March 25; Gamlin, Williams, and Co., solicitors. Rhyl WEITAKER (Mary). Dean Cottage, Triangle, Sowerby, Halifax, Yorkshire. widow. March 19; Armitage, Sykes, and Hinchcliffe, solicitors, 13, West-gate, Huddersfleld. WARE (James), Grasmere. Wembdon. Somersetshire, accountant and manager of building society. March 25; C. E. Hagon, solicitor, Bridgwater. WALKER (James), formerly of Wartington, late of 4, Talbot-st, Southport, both in Lancashire, retired ironfounder. March 20; Armitage, Sykes, and Hinchcliffe, solicitors, 13, Westgate, Huddersfield. Woon (John), 14, Crystal-ter, South Shore. Blackpool, Lancashire. gentleman. March 18; F. Anderton, solicitor, 18, Waterloo-rd, South Shore, Blackpool, WILLIS (Robert Frederick). the Quadrant, 2, Worcester-st, Birmingham, and of 12, Hunton-rd, Gravelly-hill, near Birmingham, fruiterer, March 17; F. M. Burton, solicitor, Warwick-chmbrs, 16A, Corporation-st, Birmingham. WATERMAN (Richard). Maidstore, Kent, auctioneer. March 31 F. S. Stenning, solicitor, 50, Earl-st, Maidstone. WEMYSS (James Carnegie), Kungsport savenyen. Gothenberg, Sweden. March 31 Mabel L. Wemyss, administratrix. 34, Anerley Park, Anerley, Surrey. Munns and Longden, solicitors. 8, Old Jewry. WRIGHT (Robert), formerly of Tynycelyn, Bodfari, Denbighshire and at the time of his death of Denbigh, colliery slate quarry and lead mine proprietor. April 5; Gold, Edwards, and Co., solicitors, Denbigh. 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 20th Feb. was 171. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 166, showing an increase of 5. The number of bills of sale in England and Wales registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending the 20th Feb. was 145. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 135. LAW SOCIETIES. SHEFFIELD DISTRICT INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. WE take the following from the report of the committee, presented at the twenty-second annual general meeting of the society, held at the Rooms, Bank-street, Sheffield, on Wednesday last : LEGISLATION OF THE YEAR (59 & 60 VICT.) 1896.-During the late Session only fifty-nine public statutes were passed. By far the most important are the two following: The Finance Act (59 & 60 Vict. c. 28), besides making certain concessions with regard to the payment and redemption of the land tax, amends certain provisions of the Finance Act 1894 as to death duties, which were found to work somewhat unjustly. By sect. 16, estate duty on the cesser of an annuity may now, at the option of the person delivering the account, be paid by four annual instalments, the unpaid part of the duty bearing interest after twelve months from the death, when the first instalment becomes due. Sect. 17 provides that duty shall not be charged, in respect of the principal value of an estate, on fractions of £100. By sect. 18, simple interest at 3 per cent. per annum (without deduction for income tax) is now payable upon all estate duty in arrear. Sect. 19 alters the law as laid down by Mr. Justice North in Re Webber; Gribble v. Webber (65 L. J. 544, Ch.; (1896) 1 Ch. 914), and provides that the settlement estate duty leviable in respect of personal property settled by the will of a deceased person shall (unless the will expressly directs to the contrary) be payable out of the settled property, and not out of the general residuary estate; but this, probably, only applies to wills of persons dying after the 1st July 1896, so that Re Webber may still govern in cases where the testator died between the 2nd Aug. 1894 and the 30th June 1896 inclusive, and cause such duty in those cases to be payable out of the general residuary estate. Sect. 21, rectifying a great injustice, allows, in certain cases, the deduction from the estate duty of succession duties, paid before the commencement of the Act on real estate on which the estate duty subsequently becomes payable. By the Judicial Trustees Act (59 & 60 Vict. c. 35) application may be made to the High Court, by or on behalf of the person creating, or intending to create, a trust, or by or on behalf of a trustee or beneficiary, to appoint a person (in the Act called a judicial trustee) to be a trustee of that trust, either jointly with any other person or as a sole trustee, and if sufficient cause is shown, in place of all or any of the existing trustees. It is provided that the administration of the property of a deceased person, whether a testator or intestate, shall be a trust, and the executor or administrator a trustee within the meaning of the Act. Any fit or proper person nominated in the application, or an official of the court, may be appointed a judicial trustee. By sect. 3, the court can relieve a trustee, either wholly or partly, from personal liability for a breach of trust, whenever committed, if satisfied that he has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust, and for omitting to obtain the directions of the court with regard to the matter in which he committed the breach. This last clause came into operation on the 14th Aug. last. The rest of the Act does not come into operation till the 1st May 1897. The whole Act only contains six sections, and all the detailed regulations as to judicial trustees have to be made by the Lord Chancellor, by means of rules, which have not yet been issued. The efficient working of this Act must largely depend upon solicitors, and it will be their duty, in cases where a judicial trustee is constituted, to do, if pessible, what they can to facilitate the working of the Act, but time will show whether the Act was called for by any really felt want. The Burglary Act (59 & 60 Vict. c. 57), s. 1, gives jurisdiction to a Court of Quarter Sessions to try a person charged with burglary. By sect. 2, however, a justice before whom a person is charged with burglary must commit him for trial to the assizes, unless, in the absence of any circumstances which make the case a grave or difficult one, he thinks it expedient, in the interests of justice, to commit him for trial at the sessions. This Act, which came into operation on the 14th Aug. last, should further reduce the work of the assizes, and render it even still less necessary than before for judges to go on circuit to more than a dozen or so of the largest towns in the kingdom. BILLS IN PARLIAMENT.-Mr. Wolstenholme's Land Transfer Bill to simplify the title to and transfer of land, prepared at the direction of the Incorporated Law Society, was, as indicated in the last year's report, sent to the Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury) for his consideration, but he is not known to have expressed opinion upon it. However, no Bill dealing with the question of land transfer was introduced by the Government during the last session, though the subject is slightly touched upon in the Queen's Speech, at the opening of the present session of Parliament. The Government have recently gone to the expense of collecting and printing the details of a foreign system of land transfer, and it may be inferred they intend to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject. The Incorporated Law Society may be relied on to be ready to act strenuously in the matter when the occasion arises, but they will need the support of every member of the Profession.-A petition in favour of the Solicitors' Magistracy Bill, which is to enable solicitors to act as justices in the counties where they practise, was forwarded last session to Mr. C. B. Stuart Wortley for presentation to Parliament. The Companies Bill was introduced into the House of Lords to give effect to the report of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade, which appeared in June 1895. Many of the proposed alterations will be useful, but some of them appear very undesirable, and calculated to interfere with honest and legitimate enterprise. A paper was read on the subject of this Bill, at the annual meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, by Mr. H. D. Bateson, of Liverpool.-The County Courts Right of Audience Bill, which, in the County Courts, (1) allows a right of audience to clerks of solicitors, who are themselves duly qualified solicitors, and (2) enables one solicitor to instruct another to appear as his advocate, has been approved of by your committee, and the members of Parliament of the city have been asked to give it their support when it is introduced. PAYMENT OF ESTATE DUTY ON INLAND REVENUE AFFIDAVITS.-A circular has been issued by the Inland Revenue authorities, dated the 26th March 1896, addressed to provincial solicitors, stating that all original estate duty affidavits (other than those bearing 30s. or 50s. adhesive stamps) should be transmitted, with the duty, either direct to Somerset House, or to any collector of inland revenue in the provinces. As members of the Profession in Sheffield did not seem to be taking advantage of the facilities now afforded of paying estate duty through the Inland Revenue Office at Sheffield, it was resolved by the committee to urge our members to do so. It is true that at present the distributor at Wakefield (along with those at two other district probate registries) is still allowed to receive estate duty, so that members, if they wish, can at present continue to send the affidavit and the duty thereon to their probate agent at Wakefield, as heretofore; but the payment of the duty in Sheffield obviates the risk of the cheque or draft being stolen or lost in transit, and, moreover, the more money passes through the Sheffield Stamp Office, the more importance will the Board of Inland Revenue attach to such office, and the more likely will they be to make concessions with regard to stamping at the local office. This course, too, saves interest on the duty whilst the papers are being passed. Members will accordingly be well advised to adopt the recommendations of the committee. COUNTY COURT FEES.-Your committee have had before them the question of the fees now charged in the County Court, and they resolved that, in their opinion, such fees were excessive, and required considerable reduction. A copy of this resolution was forwarded to the members of Parliament of the city, and to Sir F. T. Mappin, with a request that they would support any measure which might be brought forward for the purpose of getting the fees reduced. CONDITIONS OF SALE.-There has been a revision of the society's common form conditions of sale. The new conditions, issued on the 27th April last, have been registered at Stationers' Hall, and a copy sent to each member of your society, with a circular drawing his attention to the alterations from the old conditions. Prints are on sale at the offices of Messrs. Parker and Honey, North Church-street, Sheffield, and members are recommended to destroy all their existing copies of the old conditions. TRUSTEES' INVESTMENT POWERS.-A communication was received in May last from the Liverpool Incorporated Law Society upon the subject of obtaining an Act for the assimilation and extension of trustees' investment powers, and requesting your society to support the movement. A memorial to the Lord Chancellor, from the Liverpool Law Society, was inclosed, and your committee, in August last, prepared and sealed a similar one, in order to further the movement, but it was not sent owing to the prorogation of Parliament. It was suggested in this memorial that the statutory powers of investment should be extended to corporation securities, without limitation as to population or rateable value, to dock and harbour bonds, and other at present unauthorised securities. STAMP DUTY ON TRANSFERS OF MORTGAGE.-Referring to what was said on this head in the last report, the Incorporated Law Society on this subject approached the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who gave the following pronouncement:-"Where part of a sum of money secured on a mortgage of property is repaid, and the balance is transferred by a deed to which the mortgagor is a party, and by that deed |