74. Is it admissible to put more charges of embezzlement than one in the same indictment? If so, how many; and is there any limit as to time, and if so, what is the limit? 75. Define the offence of burglary. Smith, Basil Wickings Smith, Edwin Aug. Cleave Somers-Smith, R. Vernon Spofforth, Samuel Geo. N. Stanley, Arthur James Stapleton, James Arthur Stevens, Wm., the younger Steward, George Ernest Stewart, Thomas 76. State whether burglary is felony or mis- Toynbee, Walter Turner demeanour, and how punishable? 77. Define the offence of housebreaking. 78. State whether housebreaking is felony or misdemeanour, and how punishable? 79. Name all the offences within the Vexatious Indictments Acts, and quote the Act? 80. What evidence is necessary to sustain an indictment for perjury, and how is the offence punishable? 81. A purchaser at the shop of B. certain goods, and promises to pay for them on delivery. C., the porter of B., is directed by B. to deliver the goods to A., but not to leave them without the money. C. delivers the goods to A., and demands payment for them. A. refuses to pay for the goods or return them, and retains possession of them, and gets rid of C. by saying he will call and pay for them, but never does. Has A. committed any indictable offence, and if so, what and why? 82. State the least number of persons in an indictment who can be convicted of conspiracy. 83. A. enters B.'s shop and purchases goods, and takes them with him, and promises to call the following day and pay for them, but does not keep his promise. Can A. be convicted or not of obtaining such goods by means of false pretences, and state the reason? 84. What is the punishment on conviction for maliciously publishing a defamatory libel? 85. Name the principal Bastardy Acts or Acst in force, and the nature of the evidence required to obtain an order of affiliation. LIST OF GENTLEMEN APPLYING TO BE ADMITTED. TRINITY TERM, 1875. Allbutt, Alfred Henry Astley, Robert (articled Bartlett, Edward Henry Bruxner, Henry Robert Buckle, John William Bucknil, Samuel P. B. Burton, Clement Ferrier Bury, Charles Butler, Thomas Byron, Robert Stevens Cannon, William Walter, Des Forges, Chas. Edward Haworth, Bancroft Haworth, Eli Hedgcock, Walter Chave Morris, Edward Harold Perrott, Robert Owen Pringle, Edward Rigg Triscot, Richard Anthony Abrahams, Abraham Carr, John Charles Tyler, Arthur plaintiff and defendant were disputing about the payment to the plaintiff of money on account, the Wedmore, A. Henry Thos. plaintiff threatened to discontinue his work, and Ward, Arthur Eruest Watts, William Arthur Weekes, Bartholomew Whitwell, Henry VACATION, 1875. Clarkson, John Francis Dickinson, Matthew, J.A. Ferns, Alfred Ernest Kennedy, Leonard Moss, Frederick Blundell Von Dommer, Geo. Fredk. Waltham, George Joshua Werlow, William Henry Way. Norris Alfred Ernest Whitehead, Thomas Williams, Robert Parsons Wolseley, Edwd. St. Geo. Yearsley, Edwin Evans Young, Walter William COUNTY COURTS. (Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Q.C., Judge.) Under a contract for executing work, a provision that the balance shall be paid three months after production of an architect's certificate is a condition precedent to the right to sue (Morgan v. Birnie, 9 Bing. 672). Under a verbal contract to execute work for a stipulated sum the contractor is not entitled to any pay. ment until work completed; and if a dispute arise, and a written contract is signed by both parties after the work is partly done, that is not a new contract, but operates to define the terms of the original parol contract. Bing (Bing and Robinson), Bradford, for the plaintiff. Hutchinson, Bradford, for defendant. THIS action is brought to recover the sum of £73, for balance of an account alleged to be due for work and labour. The action is tried before this Court by agreement. The plaintiff is a plasterer, and the sum claimed is for plastering work done and materials supplied by the plaintiff for the defendant in certain houses which the defendant had contracted to build for the owners for £2178, under a contract by the terms of which the defendant was entitled to be paid upon the certificate of the architect (Mr. Peterson). The defendant's contract with the owners included the plasterer's work. In June, 1874, the plaintiff verbally contracted with the defendant to do the plasterer's work for the sum of £198, and he at once entered upon and duly proceeded with his work. In August he demanded payment of money on account; the defendant refused to make him any payment; the plaintiff insisted he was entitled to payment as part of the original bargain. This the defendant denied. Unless it were part of the original bargain, the plaintiff would not by law be entitled to any payment on account. He must complete the work he contracted to do, before he would be entitled to demand payment of the sum contracted to be paid. Under the contract between the defendant and the owners, the defendant was not under any restriction against subletting any portion of the works he had contracted to execute; he was therefore at liberty to sublet; and it appeared from the evidence of the architect, Mr. Peterson, that it was considered probable the defendant would sublet parts of his contract, and with that view the architect supplied the defendant with a few of his forms of contract, and was willing to act as the architect between the defendant and the sub-contractor, and examine and certify the work as between them. When the the defendant refused to make any payment unless the plaintiff signed one of the architects' agreements. The plaintiff consented to do so, and on the 24th Aug. gave the defendant a tender in writing to do the plasterer's work for £198, and signed an agreement, by one of the clauses of which (the 15th) he was to be paid two-thirds of the contract price as the work proceeded, upon the certificate of the architect, and the balance was to be paid three months after the architect certified that the work had been properly completed. About a fortnight after signing the agreement the defendant paid the plaintiff £75 on account, and on the 17th Oct. the further sum of £50, and on each occasion without the plaintiff producing or the defendant signing the architect's certificate. The plaintiff proceeded with and completed his work, but did not obtain or apply to the architect for his certificate. The sum sued for is the balance of the contract price (£198), after giving credit for the two sums of £75 and £50, paid as before stated. It was contended on the part of the plaintiff that the original contract was by parol, and, having completed it, he is now entitled to sue for the balance without reference to the terms of the written contract of the 24th Aug.; that that contract must be considered as a new agreement for which there was no consideration; and that he never understood or intended to be bound to obtain or produce the architect's certificate. I am of opinion that the contract of the 24th Aug. is not a new agreement. but its effect was merely to reduce to certainty the terms of the original agreement which was in dispute, particularly as to the right of the plaintiff to receive payments on account before the work was completed; and the plaintiff, having had two sums paid to him on account before his work was completed, has had the benefit of the agreement, and cannot be heard to say he did not understand or intend to be bound to obtain The and produce the architect's certificate. plaintiff deposed that he signed the agreement without reading it, and did not know its contents; but, if that be true, it was his own fault that he did not read it over. No fraud was practised upon him by the defendant. He required the plaintiff to sign it before he would pay him any money on account, and the plaintiff signed the agreement to get a payment on account, and he got it. Ever since the case of Morgan v. Birnie (9 Bing. 672), decided in 1833, it has been held that, in contracts like the present, the architect's certificate is a condition precedent to the right to sue. The provision is as much for the benefit of one party as the other. The certificate secures to the owner proper evidence that the work contracted for has been properly done, and it secures the party doing the work against any pretence that the work has not been properly done. It is unfortunate for the plaintiff in this case that the certificate was not obtained, because it appeared from the architect's evi dence that he would have certified that the work was properly done, and in proper time, had he been asked to do so. It appeared that disputes had arisen between the owners and the defendant as to the proper completion of other parts of his work, and in consequence thereof the architect had refused to give him a certificate so as to enable to recover his contract price from the owners; but with those disputes the plaintiff has nothing to do, and the defendant is entitled to rely on the objection that the plaintiff had not procured the architect's certificate before action brought, and therefore cannot maintain this action. The plaintiff, therefore, is nonsuited, and with costs. The plaintiff appears not to have told his solicitors that he had signed the agreement of the 24th Aug., and he proceeded by debtor's summons under the Bankruptcy Act 1869 to recover payment of the £73 from the defendant as a trader. And the defendant having on the hearing of the summons denied the debt on the ground of the agreement of the 24th Aug., this action has been brought to try the question so raised. And the plaintiff having failed, the costs follow as a matter of course. well-known auctioneers, to recover the sum of The plaintiff having proved these facts, BANKRUPTCY LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. hold effects which had been taken in execu- WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT. (Before J. BAILEY, Esq., Judge.) PATERSON V. BONHAM AND ANOTHER. Charges by auctioneers for legal work. Poncione, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff, and in opening the case stated that this was an action brought against Messrs. Bonham and Sons, the tion of a composition, and, after all the creditors have been paid, a balance remains in the trustee's hands, the Court of Bankruptey has jurisdiction to take an account as between the trustee and the debtor in order to ascertain the amount of the surplus, and to order the surplus so ascertained to be paid over by the trustee to the debtor. A creditor whose claim is not mentioned in a compounding debtor's statement in such a way as to make him bound by the composition, is nevertheless entitled to take advantage of the composition: (Ex parte Carew; Re Carew, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 318. Chan.) BANKRUPTCY AND LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS PENDING TOGETHER-ADJUDICATIONSTAY OF PROCEEDINGS.-When a debtor against whom a bankruptcy petition petition has been presented files a liquidation petition before the hearing of bankruptcy petition, the court has a discretion either to postpone the adjudication till after the meeting of the creditors under the liquidation petition, or to make an adjudication and suspend the proceedings under it till after the meeting of the creditors, or to make a simple adjudication. The last course ought to be adopted where it appears that the liquidation petition is not a bona fide one: (Ex parte Walton; Re Dando, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 313. Chan.). PROTECTED TRANSACTION-NOTICE OF ACT OF BANKRUPTCY.-The act of bankruptcy defined in the 6th sub-section of the 6th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, is complete upon the debtor's failure to comply with the summons during the time limited by the sub-section, and notice of such an act of bankruptcy is sufficient to take a payment out of the protection of sect. 95, sub-sect. 1 of the Act: (Ex parte Hanken; Re Buchan, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 316. Chan.) BIRKENHEAD BANKRUPTCY COURT. (Before Mr. MATHER, Deputy Registrar.) Liquidation-Application to register resolutionsPractice-The use and abuse of proxies. Walton, barrister, instructed by Thos. Goffey, solicitor, Liverpool, made an application to set aside the resolution of a meeting of the creditors of Mr. John Brearley Wood, of Chesnut-grove, Tranmere, formerly carrying on business as an African merchant. The resolution was one accepting 1d. in the pound. OF CHOICE OF TRUSTEE-BANKRUPTCY RULES EXECUTION CREDITOR-INJUNCTION-DAMAGES.-A creditor sued out execution against his debtor for a debt exceeding £50, and the sheriff took possession of the debtor's goods. Before sale of the goods, the debtor filed a liquidation petition, under which a receiver was appointed, who obtained an injunction staying the execution on giving an undertaking for damages. The debtor was subsequently adjudicated bankrupt, and the sheriff gave up the goods to the trustee in the bankruptcy. In an action by the execution creditor against the sheriff it was held that the bankrupt was a trader, and that consequently the trustee was entitled to the goods. The execution creditor then applied to the Court of Bankruptcy for an inquiry as to damages under the undertaking given by the receiver: Held, that the matter was res judicata, by the action at law, and that the Court of Bankruptcy could not entertain the application: (Ex parte Harper; Re Bremner, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 317. Chan.) COMPOSITION TRUSTEE APPOINTED FOR RECEIPT AND DISTRIBUTION OF COMPOSITION -BALANCE IN TRUSTEE'S HANDS. - Where a trustee has been appointed under the 279th of the Bankruptcy Rules 1870, for receipt and distribu to the meeting was the acceptance of a composition of a penny in the pound in full satisfaction of all debts the debtor might owe, and the composition to be payable on demand at the expiration of three calendar months from that date. At a second meeting the resolution was confirmed, all the creditors who took the trouble to attend voting against it, and the only creditors who voted for it were those who did so by proxy through Mr. Downham. No doubt they had adopted such a resolution out of motives of kindness to the debtor, and although there had been no moral fraud, yet there had been a legal fraud. Under those circumstances he objected, on behalf of several creditors, to the registration of the resolutions. A claim on the debtor's estate to the amount of £250, by the debtor's wife, Mrs. Wood, who voted by proxy in favour of the composition, was also objected to. It was stated that the bankrupt was indebted to her deceased mother's estate, of which she was the administratrix. The bankrupt was then placed in the box, and swore that he was indebted to the amount of £250 to his wife in respect to her deceased mother's estate, to which she administered. He Downham, in reply, said that it did not matter what the composition was, whether it was a penny or a farthing in the pound, there was nothing in the Bankruptcy Act to prevent the creditors accepting it if they chose. (Downham) represented the bulk of the creditors, who could not be termed friendly creditors. He never knew the debtor until he consulted him in the matter, and he filed his petition in consequence of several creditors putting him in the County Court and sending him to Chester Castle for debt. He (Downham) found that the man was in a state of absolute bankruptcy, and had scarcely a shirt to his back. Under these circumstances he thought it was his duty, representing various creditors, to accept the smallest composition he could. Had he not accepted it he would not have done his duty to those persons who had entrusted their proxies to him. Mr. G. W. Wood, shipbroker, of Fenwick-street, Liverpool, was put into the box, and swore that the debtor, who was his brother, was indebted to him for £2644. On being pressed by Mr. Walton, he said that the debt was contracted on account of general transactions connected with his business. He could not give a detailed account of them, as his books had been taken possession of by the Court of Chancery. It had been very unfortunate for him, as he had been obliged to file a petition in consequence of the debt. There was over £3000 owing to him by his brother. Mr. Rogers, an accountant, Lord-street, Liverpool, appeared to support the claim of another firm, on account of a debt of £46 for goods supplied to the debtor's wife. Downham objected to the claim, as it was not presented at the meeting of creditors in time, before the resolutions were signed. Mr. Rogers swore that he handed in the claim just as Mr. Downham was beginning to sign the resolutions. Mrs. Wood went to the shop the very day the petition was filed, and ordered a large parcel of goods. Fortunately, however, they were not sent, and the debt was for the last quarter's account. Downham denied upon oath that the claim was handed to him before the resolutions were signed. He signed the resolutions while Mr. Rogers was cross-examining the debtor. His (Downham's) practice was to get rid of the meeting as soon as he could, and if he knew he had the majority of proxies in his pocket he got the resolutions ready and signed them, and let the other creditors talk as long as they liked. (Laughter.) Had the proof been handed to him in time nothing would have induced him to leave it out, but it was not. Walton pointed out that the bulk of the creditors which Mr. Downham represented were the relatives of the debtor. Mr. G. W. Wood claimed £2614; Mrs. Wood, the debtor's wife, £250; and Messrs. G. W. and J. H. Wood, a joint debt of £187; thus making £3081 out of the £3906 which Mr. Downham represented. After considerable discussion, the DEPUTYREGISTRAR said all that he had to do was to see whether the requirements of the statute had been complied with. It was not proved to his satisfaction otherwise, and he would therefore register the resolutions. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND). Re HOLMES; Ex parte GOOLD. (a) Retracting proof of debt by creditor-Attachment of specific debt paid to assignees by debtor to bankrupt. F. G., a secured creditor, had proved for the balance of a mortgage debt after sale of the lands mortgaged, and without stating the fact of his having any othar security therefor. He had not voted in choice of a trade assignee, nor had he been paid any dividend. In the meantime after proof, but before dividend declared, a sum of £22 was realised in respect of the collateral security held by F. G.: Held, that F. G. was entitled to retract his proof, and to be paid the £22. MOTION by a creditor to attach a specific sum of money paid to the assignees by a debtor to the bankrupt. The facts appearing were as follows: In the end of the year 1872, W. Holmes negociated through Brooks, a money broker, a loan from the Civil Service Discount Company, on the security of a mortgage of his interest in leasehold premises held under F. G., one of the conditions of the loan being that all outgoings for rent, &c., should be paid thereout up to the day of granting of loan. Holmes, at the same time, was indebted to F. G. in a considerable sum, and being pressed for payment, he offered a mortgage of the same leasehold interest to secure £400, representing the same as unincumbered. Upon F. G.'s solicitor registering the mortgage, he discovered that Holmes had made a prior mortgage to the Discount Company, and thereupon remonstrated with him. In reply, Holmes stated, in & letter to the solicitor of F. G.: "I wrote to Mr. Brooks to pay you; no doubt the balance is ready for you." F. G.'s solicitor at once communicated with Brooks, and received from him a letter, the same day, admitting a balance in his hands on Holmes' account of £144, and expressing his willingness to pay him the amount, provided Holmes would sign his account as correct. Holmes refused to sign the account, objecting to some of the charges, and the balance remained in Brooks' hands till within a short time of Holmes' presenting his petition of bankruptcy, when Brooks paid him £100 on account of the said balance. In Dec. 1873 Holmes presented his petition, and was adjudged a bankrupt. In the schedule filed no mention was made of Brooks as (a) (From the Irish Law Times). a debtor, but, during the bankruptcy proceedings, it came to light that Brooks had a balance of £22 in his hands, of the loan, which he was ordered to pay to the assignees, and which he did pay. The leasehold premises, having been sold by order of the court, did not produce enough to pay the Discount Company and F. G., and there remained a balance of upwards of £90 due to F. G. The rent agreed to be paid out of the loan was not paid; an ejectment was brought therefore, and the premises evicted. The Discount Company, by leave of the court, redeemed the same, and added the amount to their claim. Eames, on behalf of F. G., in support of the motion. The proof of debt having been made in ignorance of the fact that any money remained in Brooks' hands, his name not appearing on the bankrupt's schedule as a debtor to the estate, he is entitled to retract it in order to entitle him to claim the £22: (Ex parte Solomon, 1 Gly. & Jam. 25; Re Axtell, 14 L.T. Rep. N. S. 260; Ex parte Bilby, 13 Ves. 70. The letter of Holmes to F. G.'s solicitor, coupled with the notice to Brooks and his admission of the balance then in his hands, amounts to a good equitable assignment to F. G. of the chose in action in Brooks's hands, and the notice had irrevocably attached the money then in his hands with a trust for F. G.: and by virtue of that equitable assignment and notice, F. G. is entitled, as against the assignees in bankruptcy, to the £22: (Gurnell v. Gardiner, 9 Jur. N. S. 1220; Yeates v. Yeates, 1 Ves. Sen. 281; Holroyd v. Marshall, 10 H. of L. Cas. 209; Re Barr's Trusts, 4 K. & J. 219.) Perry, for the assignees, contra.-The arrangement appears to be one by which the rent due F. G. should be paid, and the rent having been paid, it made no difference who paid it. The assignment was inchoate, and the transaction not complete. allow F. G. to retract his proof of debt. A cre MILLER, J.-Upon the facts of this case, I shall ditor, having once proved, has not an unqualified right to retract his proof; it is a favour which its discretion. the court will grant or refuse in the exercise of The letters are conclusive proof F. G., and the transaction became complete on that the chose in action was assigned in equity to Braoks getting notice. It has been shown that the £22 paid by him did in fact form a portion of the £144 assigned, and the assignees must pay it to F. G. Owing to the lapse of time and delay in F. G. asserting his rights, I give no costs against the assignees: F. G. to pay his own costs and those of realising the fund, and the assignees to have their costs out of the estate. SIR R. COUCH tendered his resignation of the office of Chief Justice of Bengal from the 5th of April. MR. P. S. MELVILL, one of the members of the late Baroda commission, goes home shortly on leave. MR. JUSTICE KEMP, for thirteen years a judge of the High Court, Calcutta, and after forty-four years service in India, has left Calcutta on leave for England. IN the Court of Probate has been tried a case in which two elderly maiden sisters made wills in each other's favour, but by some error one signed the will of the other and vice versa. One of these wills was in dispute, and the court declined to grant a probate. THE defendant in an equity suit in the Wolverhampton County Court, who disobeyed the judge's order to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff, was deemed to have committed contempt of court, and stands committed to prison until he has satisfied his Honour that he has made all possible reɛtitu. tion. ON Tuesday last, in the House of Lords, Lord Redesdale presented a petition from the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool in reference to the Artisans' Dwellings Bill, pointing out certain difficulties which would occur in carrying out its provisions and praying that arrangements might be made to meet those difficulties. IN the Court of Common Pleas an election for a municipal councillor at Barnstaple was declared valid, notwithstanding that the candidate had been twice nominated-once formally and once informally, both nominations appearing on the ballot papers. The mistake was held to have been cured by the 13th section of the Ballot Act. IN an action brought by the Claimant against Mr. Murray, the Clerk of the Petty Bag Office, for refusing to issue a writ of error, a rule was moved for to set aside an order made by Mr. Justice Huddleston declaring the action frivolous and vexatious. The applieation was made in banco before Barons Bramwell and Cleasby, who reserved judgment in order to consult their colleagues. "Sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas." This maxim was once discarded unceremoniously by Mr. Justice Erle. "The maxim," he said, "is mere verbiage. A party may damage property where the law permits, and may not where the law prohibits, so that the maxim can never be applied till the law is ascertained, and when it has been the maxim is superfluous."-Bonomi v. Backhouse, 36 L. J. Q. B., 388. SPEAKING of Serjeant Ballantine's cross-examination in the Guik war's case, the London correspondent of the New York Tribune says "The American public has been taking a good deal of interest lately in the art of cross-examination. You would perhaps find Mr. Serjeant Ballantine's performance not less masterly than those of Mr. Evarts and Mr. Fullerton. I have read my share of all three, and I am not clear which ought to be called the most subtle, the most persuasive, or the most deadly." THE ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST THE "ATHENEUM."-The Athenæum announces its intention to move for a new trial of the action for libel recently brought against it by Mr. T. B. Johnston, of Edinburgh, and says:-"It is obvious that the expenses that a new trial must entail will swallow up the money that we may save through not being called upon to pay Mr. Johnston £1275. But our object is not to avoid expense; we desire to establish our own title and that of our contemporaries to a free yet moderate expression of opinion, and we are prepared to meet the costs, be they what they may, that the struggle to vindicate the independence of the press may entail upon us. feel, therefore, obliged still to decline, as we have before declined, the subscriptions offered so generally and so generously." We THE QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY.-The following order of Court has been issued by direction of the Lord Chancellor :-" Whereas, by the 5th of the Consolidated Orders of this court, Rule 6, it is provided that the Lord Chancellor may from time to time by special order, direct the offices to be closed on days other than those mentioned in the first rule of the said order; and whereas Saturday May 29th next, has been appointed for the birthday, and such event has been heretofore celebration of the anniversary of Her Majesty's observed as a general holiday in the several offices of this court, his Lordship doth therefore order that the several offices of this court be closed on Saturday the 29th May next.-CAIRNS, C." THE NEW JUDGE.-A rearrangement of the judicial bench (says the Times) has been rendered necessary by the lamented death of Baron Pigott. The new judge will be Mr. Lindley, Q.C., one of the leaders in the court of Vice-Chancellor Hall, and author of a treatise on the Law of Partnership. He will go to the Common Pleas, where the presence of a judge with a knowledge of equity is desired by the court, especially in view of the new judicial arrangements, the Exchequer having already that advantage in the presence of Baron Amphlett. In order to enable this arrangement to be made, Mr. Justice Huddleston has, with great consideration, consented to transfer his services to the Court of Exchequer. LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL.-On Monday the Attorney-General, replying to Mr. O. Morgan, said that this bill at present stood for a second reading on Monday next, but in consequence of the notice of the hon. member himself it would be impossible to move it after half-past twelve o'clock. Within the last few days he had communicated with most hon. members who took part in the discussion upon the bill last year, and they were disposed to acquiesce in the second reading being taken on Monday next, and that the discussion should be taken upon the motion for going into committee. If, therefore, his hon. friend would withdraw his motion the second reading could be taken on Monday next.-Mr. O. Morgan said that he had not the slightest desire to throw any obstacle in the way of the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Government carrying all the measures that he could; and he would therefore accede to the suggestion that had just been made. COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.-A Court of Common Council was held at the Guildhall last week, the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor presiding. A letter was read from Mr. Kerr, judge of the City of London Court, requesting the approval of the court to his appointing a deputy to act for him in the court for the statutory period of two months during the ensuing twelve months. In answer to Mr. Deputy H. L. Taylor, the Town Clerk (Mr. Monckton) said the judge did not say who he was going to appoint as his substitute. Mr. Deputy H. L. Taylor moved that the request should be complied with, provided the name of the barrister to act for the judge be specified. Mr. Deputy Farrar was opposed to this, as was Mr. Beard and Mr. Edmeston, the latter saying that he thought the responsibility of appointing a deputy should rest with the judge. The motion was agreed to, with the exception of the provision attached to it. Books of Legal Reference.-Mr. Innes, jun., had the following motion on the paper: "That it be referred to the Law, Parliamentary, and City Courts Committee to consider and report whether there is any and, if any, what need of books of legal reference in the courts of law under the control of the Corporation." He asked that it should stand over, but, complying with a wish of the court, he withdrew it, saying that he would repeat at at a future time. The request was complied with. LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL. The Government Bill upon this subject proposes to provide that local authorities borrowing money may do so either by debentures (with coupons for receiving the interest), payable to bearer, and transferable by delivery, or by annuity certificates, also payable to bearer, these instruments to be in such form as may be directed by the Local Government Board, and to have annexed (if the Board so require) a statement as to the indebtedness of the borrowing authority. Every such debenture or annuity certificate is to bear the official mark of the Local Government Board, and this is to be conclusive evidence that the instrument is duly issued by an authority having power to issue it. In case of default a mandamus may be claimed, or where there is default to the extent of £500 the persons to whom the amount is due may obtain from any County Court the appointment of a receiver to raise the requisite funds by a rate. Annual accounts are to be rendered to and audited by the Local Government Board. Local authorities already empowered to borrow on the security of the rates may, and shall if they borrow otherwise than in pursuance of the provisions of a local Act, borrow in the manner provided by this Bill; and local authorities empowered to borrow by any future Act are to borrow in the manner provided by this Bill, unless express provision to the contrary is made. Local authorities may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, borrow under this Bill to discharge existing debts borrowed under special Acts. The County Debentures Act of 1873 is repealed. This Bill is not to extend to Scotland, Ireland, or the metropolis. liquidation as in bankruptcy. One agent (sometimes the debtor's attorney or accountant) frequently represents the whole or the majority of creditors nominally voting at meetings, and so, the other agents and the committee of inspection being his nominees, has, practically, uncontrolled disposal of the estate. There can be no objection to such an arrangement when the creditors are represented by a person who conscientiously studies their interests. But it cannot be doubted that in many of the about 30,000 resolutions already registered under the liquidation clauses the creditors were not so represented, and it is needless to suggest what would result in such cases from the secrecy of liquidation proceedings. The advantages that an unscrupulous debtor may derive from initiating proceedings are obviously the same in liquidation as in composition.Judicial Statistics. GRESHAM COLLEGE.-The law lectures of the present term were delivered on the 28th, 29th, and 30th ult., by Dr. Abdy, the Gresham Law Professor. In the Latin lectures, at 6 p.m., the lecturer treated of the Roman Law "De Nautis Cauponibus et Stabularis," Digest IV., 9. In the English lectures, at 7 p.m., the subject was the English Law relating to land carriers of goods, the lecturer at the same time briefly restating in English the Roman Law on the same subject. At the conclusion of the courses the professor intimated that he intended in the ensuing Trinity Term to lecture in Latin upon the Roman Law of Partnership, and in English, after making some closing remarks on the subject of his lectures of the present term, to treat of the laws of land carriers of passengers, and then to touch a few salient points of the law of carriers of goods by water. THE TITLE OF "REVEREND." - On Monday the Chancellor of the Diocese of Lincoln, Mr. Walter Phillimore, had an application before him whether a dissenting minister was entitled to be designated the "Reverend Henry Keet." Mr. Brooks (Brooks, Tanner, and Jenkins), applied to the Chancellor for a faculty or licence to erect a tombstone in the churchyard of Owston Ferry, Lincoln, over the grave of his daughter, and the inscription was that she was the daughter of "The Reverend Henry Keet, Wesleyan Minister." The vicar and incumbent of the parish, the Rev. G. E. Smith, had refused to allow such an inscription, and the present application was to obtain a faculty that it might be allowed. Mr. Brooks applied to amend the petition by adding two letters which the petitioner had received on the subject from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Lincoln. The learned chancellor having granted leave to make the proposed amendment, Mr. Brooks then asked the court to grant a citation to be issued for a faculty.-The Chancellor asked what reasons were urged for the application. It was usual on applying for anything out of the usual course to have some reasons urged.-Mr. Brooks apprehended that the citation could be issued as a matter of course, and the legal question dis. cussed on a future occasion.-The Chancellor said reasons could be stated by a proctor or counsel. On the petition he saw no reason alleged, and he had heard no argument to induce him to alter his opinion.-Mr. Brooks remarked that on a refusal of the application he could apply to the Appeal Court (the Court of Arches) without further expense.-The Chanceller was of opinion that if he refused the application and the matter went to the Appeal Court, without any reasons alleged or argument used, that court, on the want of information, might not entertain the application.Mr. Brooks said he would instruct counsel on a future occasion to diseuss the question. THE INNS OF COURT RIFLES.-On Saturday afternoon a detachment of the Inns of Court (23rd Middlesex) Rifles, 130 strong, under the command of Major Russell, commenced a march from Tap. low to Oxford, in order to take part in a brigade day with the University corps. The detachment was headed by Captain Coltman, acting as adjutant, and Captains Murray and Deane. The men marched from Taplow to High Wycombe-a distance of ten miles-on Saturday, and early next morning, after attending a special service at the parish church, they set out for Thame, sixteen miles off, where they arrived about five o'clock. The local Volunteers, with their band, met the detachment about a mile from the town, and escorted them to head-quarters. On Monday morning the Inns of Court regiment went by train from Thame to Wheatley, and thence marched over Shotover Hill to Oxford, where they met the rest of the battalion, which had come by special train from London. The corps, 250 in number, was then formed into companies, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Bulwer, M.P., and Majors Chitty, Q.C., and Russell. Preceded by their band, the regiment marched through the city to the quadrangle of Queen's College, where they After piled arms and separated for luncheon. wards, in conjunction with the Oxford University Corps, 150 strong, they went through a series of manoeuvres in the parks. The acting-brigadier was Lieutenant-Colonel the Hon. W. E. Sackville. West. At the conclusion of the movements the two regiments marched to "Tom Quad," and the members of the Inns of Court were afterwards sumptuously entertained at one or other of the college halls. The University corps accompanied their guests to the railway station on their de--At parture, and the train from Oxford to London left the station amid boisterous cheering on all sides. The weather was most favourable. During the day Major Chitty, QC., was thrown from a restive horse, but, beyond a shaking, he sus tained little injury. WINDING-UPIN BANKRUPTCY.-The inferiority of the class of estates wound-up in bankruptcy arises, no doubt, from the facilities offered to debtors who may prefer liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors, under sects. 125 and 126 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869. The results of administration under liquidation by arrangement cannot be stated, no returns being required of trustees. So far as regards the realisation and distribution of assets, the procedure under liquidation by arrangement is precisely the same as under bankruptcy, except that in bankruptcy, copies of the accounts of trustees are periodically transmitted to the comptroller, in order to secure (inter alia) that the bills of costs of agents are not paid without taxation, and that the resolutions of creditors are carried out, especially as to the disposal of moneys received by the trustee, and the amount charged by him for remuneration. From the resolutions registered it arpears that the system of proxies prevails in Gross Fraud BY A BANKRUPT AUCTIONEER. Middlesex Sessions on Tuesday, James Charles Harding, 34, described as an auctioneer, surrendered to take his trial for fraudulently concealing a portion of his estate, after he had been adjudicated a bankrupt, with intent to cheat and defraud his creditors. The defendant commenced business in the year 1872 at Edmonton as an auctioneer and estate agent, and he appeared to have carried on a somewhat extensive business until July 1874, when he was adjudicated a bankrupt upon the petition of one of his creditors, and his accounts showed an indebtedness to the amount of £3000, with assets represented to be of the value of £800, but which, it appeared, subsequently realised about £300. The creditors, it appeared, were not satisfied with this state of affairs, and an order was made by the Court of Bankruptcy upon the defendant to make out the full statement of accounts, and explain how the deficiency had arisen. The prisoner was represented never to have given a satisfactory explanation, and it was alleged that he had made away with a considerable portion of his estate, and appropriated the proceeds to his own use very shortly before his bankruptcy. A portion of the case against the prisoner was that he had obtained £500 from a lady named Butcher by the false pretence that he had been entrusted with the sale of a large estate in Cambridgeshire, and that the CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. NOTE. This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics the Editors are not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. Re ADAMS (AN ARTICLED CLERK.)-Allow me to draw attention to the case of Re Adams, reported in yours of the 1st May. Surely there must be something which does not appear on the surface, otherwise a large proportion of the services of articled clerks in England are bad, common than an assignfor what is more ment of articles, not simply on account of death, &c., of the master, but as a matter of convenience, and to give the clerk an opportunity of seeing variety of practice? Will you or some of your readers enlighten us on the subject, as the point Possibly the "fifteen is a most serious one? months may have affected the decision, whilst an assignment for the whole residue of term would have been good? A CONSTANT READER. [We have received other similar letters. We refer to the matter elsewhere.-ED. SOLS'. DEPT.] AGENTS IN COUNTY COURTS.-I have always understood that solicitors' clerks were prohibited from attending in county courts as advocates, even as representatives of their principals; and solicitors are mostly very jealous of their clerks transacting any business on their own account. Now I should like to be informed upon what authority people who are not connected with the legal profession in any way, but who style themselves accountants, debt, and rent collectors, appear in the County Courts, and act as a kind of semi-advocates, enjoy many privileges as a sort of collateral appendage to the court, and should be treated with an extraordinary amount of respect and courtesy by the judges. This subject was brought prominently before my notice about six months ago owing to my having been myself summoned for the amount of a doctor's bill. The doctor attended by his agent, who proved the debt, or rather satisfied the judge that same was owing. On my telling the judge, in reply to his question, that my income was only 23s. per week, and that I had a wife and four children to main tain out of it, and that I could not afford to pay more than 2s. per month, he immediately turned to the agent and asked him if that would suit him, to which the agent replied that he should require 4s. per month. The judge said that was quite little enough; and solely on the agent's suggestion, without taking into consideration that situated as I am, with so large a salary as 233. per 6d. per week is of consequence to a person made the order accordingly to that effect. I have week on which to maintain six people, his Honour always understood it to be a leading rule in the reception of evidence that the best only should be received. However, there seems to be quite a different rule prevailing at the County Courts. Tallymen, I found, were great favourites with the judge. I do not know whether it is because they are such an upright class of men in their dealings with the working men, and because they are so fair and reasonable in their charges. At all events, the judge based his decisions upon what these men told him of the circumstances of the defendants-which decisions in several cases were far from equitable. Will some of your readers be good enough to enlighten me on these subjects? I will again repeat my questions-By what law are these agents entitled to appear in the capacity Are their statethey do in the County Courts? ments which are received as evidence legal evidence? A LAWYER'S CLERK. THE COUNTY COURTS' AMENDMENT BILL.In your issue on Saturday last, in a leader under the heading "County Courts' Amendment Bill,' a statement is made (no doubt unintentionally) which is not correct, and which, therefore, may mislead some who do not look minutely into Acts of Parliament. The statement I refer to is that "sect. 28, 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108," is now repealed by the County Court Act of 1867. If you will refer to both Acts you will find that both sect. 28 of the former Act and sect. 2 of the latter Act are in operation. The section in the former Act could only be made use of where the claim exceeded £20, whereas under the latter Act the section contained in it may be used for any amount where the goods or chattels, or some part thereof, were sold and delivered to the defendant to be dealt with in the way of his trade, profession, or calling. I venture to trouble you with this letter in order to correct what is an obvious error, and one which, as it seems to me, is calculated to convey a very wrong idea of the operation of the two Acts referred to. REGISTRAR. [Our contributor admits that he made the mistake by inadvertence.-ED. LAW TIMES.] Ex parte KING; Re PALETHORPE.-Notwithstanding your remarks, I think there is much difficulty in this case as well as hardship. 1. Suppose the policy had fallen in to the creditor, say after thirty years, is the creditor not to be allowed any income on the value he allowed; or is he still to hand over all the excess received beyond the assessed value, which value was assessed because the amount was defined or uncertain? Suppose a creditor takes the property in security to him, say at its value of £1000, and receives the rents for several years, and then sells and receives the produce of sale, say £1000, is he to hand over to the assignees all the rents received in the meanwhile ? 2. The spirit of the Act is that the creditor should not assess his security at less than it is really worth, at the peril of handing Over what the security may prove to have been in fact worth beyond the assessed value, but he should have, what is valued to him, if correctly valued. To my mind the Act does not apply to a policy of assurance, fairly assessed when it was retained, or at least some allowance should be made in the shape of interest on the assessed value until the policy does fall in. According to the decision a creditor taking a policy would inevitably have to hand over to the assignees at some time the difference between the assessed value and the amount ultimately received, which is absurd. EDWD. SAXTON. THE COUNTY COURTS.-I have read with interest your remarks on the County Courts Amend. ment Bill now before the House. Though I have been in practice twenty-five years, County Court business has not come much in my way, but whenever it has, I have been struck with the defects in the practice, which to me seems arbitrary and inconvenient, in comparison with that of the Superior Courts. I would submit that a judgment by default should be obtainable in all cases with the same facility as in the Superior Courts. As it now is, the following conditions must be complied with: first, the claim must be a trade debt; secondly, plaintiff must make an affidavit of debt; thirdly, if he wish to serve summons himself he must give written notice to the registrar; fourthly, in such case it must be served by plaintiff or his attorney or some person in the permanent employ of one of them. Now it does not pay me to send a clerk to serve the summons in another town for the small allowance made, and I am debarred from sending it to another attorney for service, as I should do in the case of Superior Court process. Further, there is no provision for substituted service of a summons requiring personal service where defendant is keeping out of the way. I may make twenty attempts to serve him, for which I am allowed the handsome sum of 58. Again, if I make a mistake in defendant's residence, and consequently the bailiff does not serve him in time (I allude to personal service) I can have a successive summons without paying the fee again. But if I give the right address and the bailiff neglects to serve the summons in time, I cannot have it renewed but must pay the fees on a new summons. Thus in one case I obtain an advantage by my own carelessness, and in the other I am punished for the bailiff's carelessness, being at the same time blameless myself. Further, it I issue a judgment summons and the bailiff neglects to serve it in time I must pay the fees over again. ONE, &C. LEGAL PRACTITIONERS' SOCIETY.-I think special provision should be made in the society's Bill in the following cases: Before magistrates, solicitors or counsel only should be empowered to appear in indictable offences either to prosecute or defend. Officers of excise and other Govern. ment officers who are not qualified men should not be allowed to appear as advocates in any cases whatever. Solicitors or counsel only should be allowed to appear in the registration courts. I dare say the above have not escaped notice, and that solicitors will be glad to see an alteration in the law in regard to the right of only solicitors or counsel appearing in all cases before the magis. trates. A COUNTRY SOLICITOR. TOUTING ADVERTISEMENTS.-The advertisement of "a young solicitor," of which I send you a copy, appears in the advertising columns of the LAW TIMES of the 8th inst. It needs no comment from me. At a time when our Profession is being encroached on by numbers of persons having no COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT BILL-I see by the copy of the above Bill in your last issue that it is intended to repeal the 26th section of the 19 & 20 Vict., which enables a judge in chambers, after issue joined, to order any action of contract, where the amount sought to be recovered does not exceed £50, or if it originally exceeded £50, but has been reduced by payment into court, admitted set-off or otherwise, to £50, or less, to be tried in a County Court. Why this section is to be repealed I cannot understand, especially as the new Act, if it passes, will not provide an efficient substitute, and numerous cases of paltry amount will have to be tried in the Superior Courts at a great cost, which are now tried under the 26th section at a very trifling cost. Take the case of a writ being issued for £90. Defendant admits bypayment into court £80 to be due; plaintiff insists on having his full money, although there is only £10 in difference between the parties, both sides will have to retain counsel, prepare briefs, and subpoena witnesses to attend at the assizes, to try the question. Whereas, under the present system, as soon as plaintiff's claim is reduced below £50, his attorneys take out a summons for the action to be remitted for trial in the County Court; the order is made, left with the registrar, day of trial fixed, usually in about a month, the cause is tried, the registrar sends a certificate to the Superior Court, and judgment is entered in accordance with the verdict. If either parties are dissatisfied with the trial, the law is debated on a motion for a rule nisi for a new trial, and if required afterwards, on making the rule absolute, a much speedier, cheaper, and effectual procedure than the cumbersome case on appeal in ordinary actions, which are not reached sometimes for two years after the trial in the County Court. I trust some legal member of the House of Commons will, when the Bill is in committee, get struck out of schedule C the mention of sect. 26. May 8. A SOLICITOR. I beg to direct your attention to the County Courts Amendment Bill, contained in your last number, and to a change in the law which I suppose is an oversight on the part of the framers of it. By sect. 2 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, manufacturers and wholesale tradesmen have already extensive powers in obtaining judgment by default, which, according to my reading, will be considerably curtailed by the bill as it now stands. From entering a large number of plaints yearly under that statute, I am able to say that such persons have now a very convenient remedy for the recovery of their debts, without being put to the excessive inconvenience of being obliged to be prepared fully to prove all the cases, and so being compelled to withdraw them. The first section of the bill is obscurely worded, but according to my reading of it, it deprives such persons in all cages when the sum claimed is under £5 of the power they already possess, and will compel them in all such cases to issue a common summons. The records of County Courts in manufacturing districts would, I believe, show a large number of cases entered for sums under £5 when the debt has been originally larger, and has been reduced by payment of instalments, and when the debtor refuses or neglects to pay the small balance still remaining due. Why a plaintiff should be thus prejudiced by his own good nature and the proposed change I am at a loss to understand, as there has been no suggestion that the law as it now stands works any injustice, and I have always understood that the design of change has been to extend and not curtail powers persons are at present in possession of. P. S. RAWLINS. NOTES AND POINTS OF PRACTICE. NOTICE. We must remind our correspondents that this column is not open to questions involving points of law such as a solicitor should be consulted upon. Queries will be excluded which go beyond our limits. N.B. None are inserted unless the name and address of the writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona fides. Queries. 13. PARTICULARS OF DEBATNG SOCIETY.-You stated that you would be willing to acquaint any articled society in his neighbourhood. I should be much obliged clerk with the particulars of the newest debating if you would do so in my case. I am articled to a firm of solicitors in this town. I should also be much LEGAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. AT a meeting of the executive committee of the council of the Association, held on the 7th instant, at which Lord Selborne, Baron Amphlett, Mr. Justice Quain, Professor Sheldon Amos, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Bircham, Mr. Clabon, Mr. Janson, Mr. Macqueen, Q.C., Mr. J. C. Mathew, and several other members of both branches of the Profession were present, the report (a copy of which is given below) of the sub-committee, appointed on the 19th Feb., was adopted, and the Council of the Incorporated Law Society having invited the association to hold their annual meeting in the hall of the society, it was resolved that the invitation be accepted, and that, if convenient to the society, the meeting should be held at a quarter past four o'clock on Wednesday, the 2nd June. REPORT of the SUB-COMMITTEE, appointed on the 19th Feb. 1875, to Consider aud Report upon the Suggestions made by the Deputation from the Council of the Incorporated Law Society with Reference to the General School of Law Bill 1874. suggestions made by the deputation from the Incor The sub-committee, having carefully considered the which should be adopted for rezulating the subjects porated Law Society with reference to the method in which proficiency must be certified in order to qualify for practice, have unanimously come to the following conclusions: 1. That the standard of acquirement which may from time to time be considered necessary as a qualid cation for practising in both branches of the Profes sion, should be determined by the Senate of the School of Law. 2. That the best method of determining this standard of acquirement will be by bye-laws made by the Senate under sect. 21 of the General School of Law Bill, presented to the House of Lords by Lord Selborne in the session of 1874. If this method is adopted the benefit of the opinion of the whole senate will be secured, whilst the provision in that section which requires that bye-laws affecting the qualification to practise in other branches of the Profession should be approved by the majority of the representatives of that branch will afford ample protection to both branches. (Signed) JOHN M. CLABON, WM. FARRER. WM. MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS DEBATING SOCIETY. THE final meeting of this society during the present session was held at the Law Society's Rooms, Cross-street, on Tuesday evening in last week. There was a good attendance of members. Thomas Nash, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, presided. The subject for discussion was one involving the conflicting decisions represented by the recent cases of Mors le Blanchv. Wilson (42 L. J., N. S., 70, C. P.), and Baxendale v. London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company (41 L. J., N. S., 20, Ex.) An of the meeting in favour of the latter case by a animated discussion was followed by the decision majority of nine. A vote of thanks to the chair |