that the stewards' decision was final. This case and the case of Dines v. Wolfe (20 L. T. Rep. N. N. 251; L. Rep. 2 P. C. App. 280) were distinguished from the present case by Mr. Justice O'Brien, on the ground that these cases only go so far as to decide that on a dispute as to a matter of fact the award of the stewards must be final. Mr. Justice O'Brien seems to have rested his decision, to a considerable extent, on the case of Carr v. Martinson, or rather on a dictum of Mr. Justice Wightman, in deciding thaî case. There the stakeholder, who stood in the same position as the stewards in the present case, decided that the fact of a certain person acting as starter, who it had been originally decided between the parties should act in that capacity, was not material to the race; this decision was held by the court to be bad, as the stakeholder, who it had been agreed was to act as judge, has no jurisdiction to decide as he had done, as his jurisdiction was incidental only to the race, which never was run according to the condition agreed on. Sadler v. Smith (19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 779; L. Rep. 4 Q. B. 214), was also relied on by the learned Judge, which was decided on the general rule that an award of an arbitrator or referee will only be binding when made upon matters falling within his jurisdiction. In giving judgment on the facts of the present case, his Lordship continued: "In the case before us, it is clear from the minutes of the stewards' proceedings, that their award in the defendant's favour was grounded upon their having decided that his violation of the rule as to the statement of his horse's age was not material, but I am of opinion that the materiality of the rules in this case was for their consideration, and that they exceeded their jurisdiction in deciding that the violation of that rule was not material, and in making that decision the ground of their award." Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, although declining to differ with the opinion of the majority of the court, expressed in a decided manner the doubts he felt as to the propriety of the decision; he pointed out that had the stewards confined themselves to awarding the prize to the defendant's horse, without assigning any reasons for it, they would have been acting within their jurisdiction, and their decision could not have been successfully impeached. The result of the present judgment, he observed, was that the court assumed the function of a court of appeal from the stewards, on a question on which they were competent to decide, because the stewards gave bad reasons for their decision. In the present case, besides the express language of the rules, the parties agreed that the particular question in dispute, "Is a six year old horse, entered as an aged horse, disqualified from running the Forster-street Plate, weights being identical between a six year old and an aged horse?" was reduced to writing, and submitted to the stewards for their decision, so that the stewards were constituted both by the rules and by the question so agreed to, judges of law and of fact. Under these circumstances it certainly would seem to us that the doubts entertained by the learned Judge were far from unfounded, and that the Court of Queen's Bench have placed themselves in a false position, by assuming a jurisdiction which would be far more properly exercised by a committee of the Jockey Club. LEGISLATION AND JURIS PRUDENCE. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, April 23. THE JUDICATURE ACT AMENDMENT BILL. he should say AFTER an explanation from Lord Granville in reference to some observations made by the Lord Chancellor on the occasion when the Bill was last under consideration, Lord Selborne declared that 66 Non-content "" to the second clause of the Bill, which suspended the operation of the clauses of the Judicature Act of 1873 constituting a Supreme Court of Appeal, and at another opportunity he would enter fully into his reasons for rejecting the proposed change with regard to the Appellate Jurisdiction. On Clause 4, Lord COLERIDGE objected to the proposal to remove from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which, as the Lord Chancellor had stated, performed its work satisfactorily, any of the paid members for the purpose of placing them on the Intermediate Court of Appeal. -The LORD CHANCELLOR anticipated that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would, under the arrangements proposed, perform its work as satisfactorily as before. The Intermediate Court of Appeal was strongly composed, and was similar in its constitution to the Supreme Court of Appeal of the Bill of 1873, though curtailed in the number of its members, for it was not intended to prejudge the decision of Parliament next year on the question of the Final Court of Appeal.Lord SELBORNE said, as the clause was now stated to be only provisional, he should not take upon himself the responsibility of objecting to it. -The clause was agreed to, and with respect to clause 26, relating to the salaries and officers of the courts of Lancaster and Durham, the LORD CHANCELLOR,, on an appeal from Lord WINMARLEIGH, said he would reconsider whether the change there proposed should be made. The Bill then passed through committee. The Indian Legislature Bill was reported with amend. ments, and the County Courts Bill passed through committee. Monday, April 26. LORD COLERIDGE AND DR. KENEALY. Lord COLERIDGE called attention to the attack made on him by Dr. Kenealy in the House of Commons on Friday night, for he thought that anything which concerned the honour of any member of the House of Lords must be of interest to the assembly at large. He was accused of having put forward, while conducting the case of the young Sir H. Tichborne, documents which he knew to be false and forged. He had received no notice that such an accusation was to be urged against him, though he had from time to time heard that attacks of the same kind had been made in the Englishman-a newspaper purporting to be edited by Dr. Kenealy. Attacks made anonymously in the Englishman he should treat with the silence of disdain, but it was a different matter when they were made by a member of Parliament in his place in the House of Commons. Having related the facts of the case connected BILL. with the Pittendreigh letters, Lord COLERIDGE, PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS (HOUR OF OPENING MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENTS BILL. On the order of the day for the second reading of Earl BEAUCHAMP, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it was in some degree similar to that which had just been postponed by the noble duke. The discussion in their Lordships' House early this session brought out the anomalous position in which music halls were placed in not being able to open before five o'clock in the afternoon. In buildings like Exeter Hall or St. James's Hall the performance of Handel's oratorios would not merely be illegal, but would subject the proprietor to forfeit his licence. Whatever might have been the state of society when the Act of Geo. II. was passed, there could be no objection at the present day to music in the afternoon, and therefore the present Bill proposed to alter the limit of time from five o'clock p.m. to noon. If the Bill was read a second time, he would in committee propose the insertion of a clause with regard to the hour of closing. He would also propose a clause by which the Bill should take effect from Michaelmas 1874. The result of that would be that in cases where the provisions of the Act of Geo. II. had been transgressed no forfeiture would be entailed in that respect. The Bill would relieve music halls in Westminster from the necessity of taking out a licence from the Lord Chamberlain. The noble earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.The Earl of ROSEBERY was very much disappointed in finding that the scope of the Bill was so limited. He had expected that the noble earl would have introduced a measure to establish a uniform system of licensing, but this was a measure which was of the smallest importance, and affected only the smallest part of the metropolis. He hoped the noble earl would give a pledge to deal with the subject in a larger spirit and in a more general manner. -The Marquis of HERTFORD said the anomalies connected with this subject arose from the licensing jurisdiction being in the hands of so many benches of magistrates besides the Lord Chamberlain. After a few words from the Earl of MORLEY, the Bill was read a second time. BOSTON ELECTION. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the House agree with the House of Commons in the Address to Her Majesty for a Royal Commission to inquire into the circumstances attending the last election for the borough of Boston. The motion was agreed to. Tuesday, April 27. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE QUALIFICATION BILL. Their Lordships having gone into Committee on this Bill, a short conversation was entered upon in respect of the qualification which should be substituted in lieu of that of £300 per annum derived from personal property, as proposed in the first clause of the Bill. The Earl of Albemarle, who has charge of the Bill, had given notice of an amendment by way of a substitution for the first clause, which amendment provided for a qualification to be derived from an occupation of lands or tenements of the rateable value of £200.On the suggestion of the Lord CHANCELLOR, the noble Earl guinea by the solicitor to the proceedings in every case in which even a single witness is examined before the registrar. In another column we publish a letter upon the subject, and another solicitor, in writing to us, observes, "It is becoming a serious evil, and loud complaints are made by many solicitors about it." No doubt the rule presses unduly on small estates, and where, perhaps, only one or two questions are asked. We cannot but suppose, however, that some modification of the rule would follow upon the matter being properly represented to the registrar. A BILL now before Parliament promises to limit very materially the power of the Lord Mayor's Court, and in the desirability of this, it is probable that the Judges of the Superior Courts will concur. Foreign attachment being a power greater than that of a similar kind enjoyed by the courts at Westminster, will practically be at an end if the Bill becomes law. We must admit that unless means are devised for fulfilling the spirit of the decisions of the Superior Courts as they affect the jurisdiction of this city court, the latter must expect to have to undergo the same process as was contemplated by the Home Secretary towards a coroner for Middlesex, namely, to have its "wings clipped." The Lord Mayor's Court is, no doubt, an useful tribunal, but it must be remembered that it is an inferior Dr. PLAYFAIR asked the Lord Advocate whether the Government intended to bring in a Bill, indicated by the answer his Lordship gave on the 16th of July last, to give effect to many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, including an increase in the salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Courts. -The LORD ADVOCATE.-I do not think my right hon. friend quite accurately describes the answer which I gave to him on the 16th of July last. On referring to the usual source of information, I see I stated that "it is intended to give effect to many of the recom-court. mendations of the Royal Commission next session, and the matter of the increase of the salaries of IN our last issue, page 454, we gave a short report the Judges of the Supreme Courts will be sub- of a case on appeal before Mr. Registrar Murray mitted for consideration." I did not then indi- in the Bankruptcy Court, in which it was objected cate, as I had no authority to do so, that the by counsel for the applicant that Mr. Registrar Government would during this session bring in a Keene had improperly declined to register certain Bill providing for an increase in the salaries of the resolutions under a liquidation in which the Judges of the Supreme Courts in Scotland. At debtor offered one shilling in the pound. We the same time, it is proper I should say that I regret that the appeal was allowed. Mr. Registrar have submitted for the consideration of the Keene, by adopting the course he did, left it open Government many of the recommendations of to any creditor to make the debtor a bankrupt, the Royal Commission, including those relating when he would, at all events, have found it less to the increase of the salaries of the Judges of easy to free himself from his liabilities. Speaking the Supreme Courts; but I have not yet received generally, we are fully alive to the fact that liquiauthority to propose to Parliament any legisla-dations are now more often than not used as tion, except upon the matters dealt with in the means of doing little less than defrauding creditwo Bills relating to the Sheriff and other inferior tors. The compositions offered are usually not Courts in Scotland, which were read a first time worth the trouble of making the necessary proof on Friday last. of debt. It has become a serious question whether the present session of Parliament ought not to witness some of the more urgent bankruptcy reforms so much required. THE NEW LAW COURTS. Mr. GOLDSMID asked the First Commissioner of Works why such slow progress was made with the building of the New Law Courts ?-Lord H. LENNOX.-The progress has not been what was expected; but the delay has arisen in a great measure from the very severe weather which prevailed during the four winter months. The east block is up to the first floor. Considering the magnitude of the work great indulgence is due to the contractors at the commencement of it. I am informed that since the fine weather has set in the contractors are pushing on with greater vigour. Wednesday, April 28. In the House of Commons the High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) Bill was read a second time, and the Sheriffs Court (Scotland) Bill was with drawn. The second reading of the Licensing Courts Appeal (Scotland) Bill was then moved, but it was rejected by 176 to 99. Mr. M'LAREN also moved the second reading of the Church Rates (Scotland) Abolition Bill, but ultimately it Was "talked out." Afterwards the Explosive Substances Bill and the Bank Holidays Act Extension Bill were severally read a third time and passed. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. MR. COOKE, Q.C. (the learned judge of the Oxford County Court) declared on a recent occasion, that he would allow none but solicitors to appear before him, and he refused to hear the clerk of a London solicitor who sought to appear in a case before the court, for one of the parties. His Honour pointed out that solicitors are very heavily taxed, and a re at a large cost for professional education and otherwise. To us it is surprising that solicitors should attempt to send clerks to represent them as advocates, even if County Court Judges are disposed to allow such an infraction of the law, intended as much for the protection of the public as the Profession. None but a suitor or his solicitor can lawfully obtain the issue of a plaint, even from a County Court; any other person doing so is guilty of contempt of court. Mr. Cooke, Q.C., is one of those judges of County Courts who have already discovered the evil effects of sanctioning or acquiescing in, a lax enforcement of the law securing members of the legal profession in their rights. SOLICITORS who practise largely in bankruptcy complain loudly of a practice insisted on by Mr. Registrar Keene requiring that a shorthand writer must be employed and paid a fee of one LEGAL education for articled clerks is fast becoming a question of great importance in the minds of solicitors. For a long period of time the doors of the Inns of Court have been shut against us, and in establishing the system of legal education for students of our branch of the Profession have presented themselves. First and foremost which at present exists, innumberable difficulties is the question of funds, for not content with excluding solicitors and articled clerks from the advantages for study which the Inns of Court afford, the whole of the revenues of these wealthy corporations are expended with lavishness on the education of students for the Bar only. Then again, in the case of articled clerks they are for the most part, articled in the country, and many could not in any case be absent from their local duties for any length of time. We must not be understood to underrate the exertions of the Incorporated Law Society in establishing a system of legal education for students who propose to enter our branch of the Profession. We have long had, as requisites for admission on the Rolls three examinations. At the final examinations prizes and certificates are awarded, and for some years a system of classes and lectures has been in vogue at the Law Institution. Much more remains to be done, notwithstanding the difficulties that present themselves; and it is a fact worthy of comment, that hardly a week passes in which we do not publish inquiries from articled clerks on the subject of honours at and study for the examinations. Students for the Bar enjoy the advantage of competing for valuable exhibitions, and although the examinations are much in keeping with those at the Law Institution, still the system of education in the Inns of Court is, no doubt, much more com. plete. Lord Selborne's great measure for establishing a school or university of law is, it seems, buried for the present; but, as a sign of the times, we direct the attention of the Profession to the very important fact that on Tuesday last in the Hall of the Manchester Incorporated Law Association, was held an important meeting of members of both branches of the legal profession for the purpose of receiving and considering a communication from the council of the Owens College. Mr. Ponsonby was in the chair. Mr. Chancellor Christie, Dr. Greenwood, and Mr. Darbishire, on behalf of the college, explained its purpose in originating law courses in that institution for law students and others-namely, to secure the provision of more regular instruction than pupils in chambers or clerks in solicitors' offices can be expected to provide for themselves, and that, moreover, under the skilled direction of teachers able to survey and indicate the principles which underlie the thousand petty details of "practice," and furnish a mastery, of the subject such as merely empirical acquaintance with what is known as "the Law," can never afford. It was pointed out that the fact of the holding of such courses in connection with the college, where law students, if they have not or do not (as an increasing number of them appear to do) become themselves students in other departments, have at least the advantage of mixing with students and acquiring more or less of the student habits of reading, and reproducing what they have learned, is in itself a guarantee of no slight importance for the actual usefulness of such lectures to those who attend them. Hitherto it was said students had been much tried by a certain want of sequence within each session, by a want of more advanced lectures in succeeding sessions, and by the compression of many lectures within short terms. It had been considered that to secure the aid of a professor and induce him to take so onerous a charge, and one which would doubtless interfere to a certain extent with his professional engagements, a proper stipend would be essential in addition to his share of fees-say not less than £250 per annum. The college had already endowments yielding £100 per annum for the Law chair, and would require about £3500 at least to justify the council in constituting the chair upon the desired permanent basis. The meeting discussed the desirability of the proposed foundation, and the means of enabling the college to make it. Several very practical addresses were made, and promises were immediately offered amounting to £1400. The following resolutions were unanimously adopted :-"That in the opinion of this meeting it would be of very great advantage to those who are preparing in Manchester to enter the profession of the law if the courses on law in Owens College could be systematised in the charge of a resident professor. That a subscription be forthwith entered into for the purpose of forming an endowment fund to establish a Law Professorship in connection with the college; and that the object be cordially recommended to the support of the Profession and others interested in the promotion of methodical education for lawyers. Messrs. Ponsonby, Christie, Darbishire, Unwin, and M. B. Wood, with power to add to their number, be appointed a committee to carry out the foregoing resolution." Contributions may be sent to any of the committee. We believe in the success of the project, which will be of immense advantage to articled clerks in Manchester. We are glad to notice that students for That the Bar are not to be excluded from the advantages proposed to be offered. A BILL has been introduced into the American Senate to abbreviate the forms of deeds, mort gages, and covenants. The well known prolixity of legal documents, "especially those relating to interests in real estate," says the Albany Law Journal, has "occasioned considerable dissatisfaction and even ridicule in the non-professional community. The process of simplification and abbreviation has been pretty well carried out in this and other States in pleadings. And there is nothing to hinder any contract or conveyance relating to any interest whatsoever being made in the simplest, shortest, and plainest form possible. But the Profession adheres to its traditions when the statutes do not intervene." The first section of the Bill provides that a deed may be made in the following form: This deed, made the day of in the year between [here insert names of parties], witnesseth, that in consideration of [here state the consideration], the said doth [or do] grant unto the said all here describe the property, and insert covenants and other provisions]. Other provisions of the Bill are intended to declare that any forms of expression such as "This is a quit-claim deed," or "This is a mortgage," shall mean just what they say. It certainly would be a great saving of time and expense, a great avoidance of trouble and misconstruction, and give a greater impetus to business, if short forms for deeds could be universally adopted. There is little force in the old plea that prolixity, verbosity, and formality are symbols of the gravity and significance of the act, and that a man should not be deemed to have intended to do an important thing, unless it is accompanied with corresponding formality and fullness of expression. THE thirty-fourth half-yearly meeting of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association, was held on the 21st April, when the usual report was submitted by the directors, and which seems to call for no comment. Particular attention was directed to the fact that at the annual festival, to be held on the 25th inst., the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor of London (who is a solicitor) will preside. We are confident that the attendance at the approaching banquet will be unusually large. THE present constitution of the (London) Articled Clerks' Society, which was established in 1864, illustrates the value of such institutions. The president is the Right Hon. Lord Chelmsford, D.C.L., F.R.S., and there are twenty-four vicepresidents, all eminent lawyers. The other officers are, an hon. standing counsel, a secretary of the legal correspondence department, a secretary for societies in union, treasurer, secretary, reporter and auditor, and a committee of management. The societies in union are, Scots' Law Society, Edinburgh; Manchester Law Students' Debating Society, Nottingham Articled Clerks' Society, the Articled Clerks' Association of Hobart Town, Tasmania, Hull Law Students' Society, Newcastle and Gateshead Articled Clerks' Society, the Lincoln Articled Clerks' Society, Chichester Law Students' Society, Birmingham Law Students' Society, Wakefield Articled Clerks' Society, Liverpool Law Students' Society, Yarmouth Articled Clerks' Society, Exeter Articled Clerks' Society, the Leicester Law Students' Society, the Huddersfield Law Students' Debating Society, the_Norwich Law Students' Debating Scciety, Leeds Law Students' Society, Bristol Articled Clerks' Debating Society, Worcester and Worcestershire Law Students' Society, Portsmouth Law Students' Society, Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport Law Students' Society; Sheffield Law Students' Society. The objects of the society are (1) the promotion of the general interests of the Legal Profession, and of the interests of law studeats in particular; (2) the acquisition of information upon subjects connected with the study and practice of the law; (3) the cultivation of the art of public speaking. We A CASE was recently before Mr. E. P. Price, Q.C., COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. (Before BLACKBURN, LUSH, and FIELD, JJ.) The Attorneys' Roll. said the facts were that on the 6th Sept. 1870, appli- COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. MAN, and HUDDLESTON, JJ.) roll. THIS was a rule to strike Mr. Condy off the rolls, Gibbons now appeared for the attorney. The affidavit upon which the rule was granted Gibbons admitted the facts stated in the affidavit, but stated that there was great reason to doubt the correctness of the verdict at the trial for conspiracy. One of the principal witnesses against his client, a Mrs. Fox, had been convicted of perjury since the trial. He admitted, however, that his affidavits were unsatisfactory; but asked the court for further time, and for a reference of the facts to one of the masters of the court. THIS was an action for malicious prosecution tried Murphy, Q.C., moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, the agreement of compromise having been made by the now plaintiff's attorney in court, and also on other grounds. He argued that the principle of Strauss v. Francis (L. Rep. Q.B. 379; 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 322), that counsel bound his client by an agreement to withdraw a juror, notwithstanding the client dissented, unless it was shown that the other side had knowledge of the dissent, applied to the present case, and that the now plaintiff, whether she understood it or not, was bound by the compromise. KELLY, C.B., atter reciting the facts of the case, said that he fully endorsed and agreed with the finding of the jury, and that to hold that in a criminal case an attorney acting as advocate or the consent or assent of the person charged, would be carrying the authority of advocate or counsel to an extent beyond what was necessary or reasonable. The rule, therefore, must be refused. POLLOCK, B.-I am of the same opinion. It is not enough that the attorney agreed to the com. promise; it must be shown that the agreement was within the scope of his authority, either express or implied. The authority of counsel does not extend to matters collateral to the cause. The plaintiff, when present, is said not to have expressed any dissent to the compromise. The jury, however, have found in the plaintiff's favour, and I am not disposed to say that, under the circumstances, they were wrong. I therefore think The case of Swinfen v. Swinfen is somewhat in we are justified in allowing their verdict to stand. point (1 C. B., N. S., 364; 2 De Gex & J. 381). THE amount of ignorance that exists in regard to the rights and privileges of solicitors is certainly far greater than that in regard to the medical and surgical, or indeed any other profession. extract the following from the leading article of a class newspaper:-"For a layman' to interfere in any way,-to draw a simple agreement, to make a will, to prepare the plainest possible legal documentis a high misdemeanor, and punishable by law. In any of these cases a solicitor must be called in, and the whole routine of attendances, examination of deeds, perusing, preparing, and (Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., and BRETT, DEN- & Counsel, could compromise the charge against reading over gone through, much to the profit of the solicitors, and the increase of expense to the client. As a matter of fact, this professional rule is infringed daily. Every law stationer sells blank forms that may be readily used for any simple matter; there are plenty of books designed to instruct the most inexperienced in legal learning; and the standard work of reference on the duties of medical men, prepared by a barrister, and to be found in every law library, contains a chapter expressly devoted to the enabling of doctors to make wills for their patients. There is no obligation for any one to go to either solicitor or doctor, except the fear of an unpleasant blunder. As a matter of fact, accountants are quite innocent of the heinous crines so freely laid to their charge. They do not interfere in matters of conveyancing, they do not prepare wills, and their advice to any one who sought their opinion on a matter of law would be to go at once to a respectable solicitor." Our readers will appreciate the vein of ridicule in which the article is written, and it is well calcu Lord COLERIDGE said that the rule calling lated to mislead the very persons (accountants) upon the attorney to show cause why he should whom it is intended to instruct. We say ad- not be struck off the rolls, as having been convisedly that "to prepare the plainest possible victed of conspiracy in Oct. 1872, was obtained legal document" for fee or reward is (with few by the Law Society in June 1874. The matter exceptions, namely, wills and agreements under was simple, and the notice of it distinct and hand only) punishable by law" in every case separate. Mrs. Fox, a witness against the attor. where such legal document is prepared by other ney, had been convicted of perjury in Jan. 1873, that a member of the legal profession. The but the assignment of perjury was that she had above extract will be found somewhat incon-lived an immoral life and denied it in evidence, gruous, but let that pass, Our sole object in re- and the jury which convicted her appended to producing it is to show the mistaken notions that their verdict that she had committed perjury exist in quarters where more perfect information only to conceal her shame, and not to defeat the may be looked for. As in America so in England ends of justice. Nothing was said in the attor the tendency is to simplify and shorten all legal ney's affidavit as to any application for his forins and documents, but, of course, strictly pardon having been made to the Home Secretary, without prejudice to the rights of the legal so the court could not assume the facts one way Irofession to prepare them. or the other. He had been convicted after three days' trial and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and now, after ten months to prepare his answer to the rule, he appeared before the court with absolutely inade. quate affidavits, containing a long, rambling statement of his own virtues, and an attack upon the character of others, but not stating specifically that Mrs. Fox had told any falsehoods, except as to her own personal character, or that he himself was innocent of the offence which he was convicted. He had been convicted of a conspiracy to defraud his clients, and the court would be neglecting its duty if it allowed him to remain another day upon the rolls. 66 MR. JOHN ROBERT TAYLOR, a candidate for the office of Collector of Brokers' Rents, in the gift of the corporation of the City of London, is the same gentleman who took a very active part in the abolition of the Old Chancery folio, culminating in the Order of Court of the 21st June 1851, and in the obtaining of the legal Saturday half hol day, and on which he compiled, from articles from his own pen and those of others, originally inserted in this journal, a very interest ing pamphlet on the subject. Now, as there are many members of the legal profession in the Court the compromise she is bound by it. The jury are AMPHLETT, B.-If the plaintiff consented to asked whether she consented, or acted in such a way as to induce the other side to think she consented; they have found both questions in the plaintiff's favour, and there is evidence to support their finding. The rule, therefore, must be refused. CLEASBY, B.-To compromise such a charge as this is beyond the general authority of any attorney or counsel acting for a defendant, and I effect that there was am not satisfied that the verdict, which found in wrong. I therefore also think the rule ought to no special authority, is be refused. Rule refused. Venereal DIVORCE COURT. disease-Evidence of adultery—32 & 33 The petitioner was called, and swore that after marriage she found herself infected with venereal disease. She had not committed adultery nor caught the disease accidently. Her doctor deposed that he had attended her for, and cured her of such disease. No other evidence of adultery was given. But it being proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disease was UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] CALOW (Elizabeth Amy), Little James'-street, Bedford-row, spinster. £300 Three per Cent. Annuities, £83 68. 8d. New Three per Cent. Annuities, and £71 168, 4d. Reduced Three per Cent Annuities. Claimant, said Elizabeth Amy Calow, spinster. LE GRICE (Rev. Frederick), Great Gransden, Caxton, Hunts, clerk. £458 9s. 3d. Three per Cent Annuities. Claimant, said Rev. Frederick Le Grice. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. ALDERSHOT BRICK AND TILE WORKS COMPANY, LIMITED.Creditors to send in by May 24 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to W. H. McCreight, 6, Raymond-buildings, Gray's Inn, W.C., the official liqui dator of the said company. June 7, at the chambers of the M. R., at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. CROCK FORD'S AUCTION HALL COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors to send in by June 1 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to George Lyons, 66, Old Broadstreet, London, the official liquidator of the said company. June 15, at the chambers of the M. R., at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. CORNISH CONSOLIDATED IRON MINES CORPORATION, LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard May 7, before V.C. M. ENGLISH CONDENSED MILK COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors to send in by May 24 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to Lockwood and Boas, 96, Leadenhall-street, London, the liquidator of the said company. June 2, at the chambers of V. C. M., at twelve o'clock is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. IMPERIAL MINERAL WATER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors to send in by May 31 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to F. Gardner, 31, Abchurchlane, London, the official liquidator of the said company. June 7, at the chambers of V. C. M., at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. LONDON AND PARIS BANKING CORPORATION, LIMITED.-Creditors to send in by May 31, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to Geo, A. Cape, 8, Old Jewry, London, the official liquidator of the said company. June 7, at the chambers of V. C. M., at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. PETERSBURG AND VIBORG GAS COMPANY (LIMITED). Peti tion for winding-up to be heard May 7, before V.C. M. TEPLITZ COLLIERY AND COAL OIL COMPANY (LIMITED). Creditors to send in by May 20, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to George A. Cape, 8, Old Jewry, London, the official liquidator of the said company. June 3; at the chambers of the M. R., at eleven o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. BAKER (Jos.), Southwater, Horsham, Sussex, farmer. May 21; Thos. Bedford, solicitor, Horsham. May 28; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. BELBEN (Jas.), Yeovil, Somerset, general merchant. May 12; Nicholas M. Loggin, solicitor, Bridport, Dorset. May 21; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. BLACK TT (Lancelot F.), Cliff Villa, Headingly, Leeds, and of Calverley, York, Merchant. May 15; Wm. B. Craven, solicitor, Leeds. May 24; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock, CLAY (John), Davies-street, Berkeley-street, Middlesex, coal merchant. May 24; Jas. Goren, solicitor, 27, South Molton-street, Oxford-street, London. June 2; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. COUSESS (Robert L.), Penrhyn, Marchog, Holyhead, Isle of Anglesea, civil engineer. May 2; H. V. Tebb, solicitor, 15, Knight Rider-street, Doctor's Commons. London. June S; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. DAVIES Daniel), Cardigan, dissenting minister. May 20; R. H. Peacock, solicitor, 3, South-square, Gray's-inn, London. June 3; M. R., at eleven o'clock. DESFORD (Henry), Farnham, Surrey, grocer and baker. May; Owen C. Ward, solicitor, Farnham, Surrey. June 4; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. EDWARDS (Thomas), Nixoe, Suffolk, gentleman. June 1; Grover and Humphreys, solicitors, 4, King's Bench Walk, Temple, London. June 8; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. Fxx Henry), 2, St. Paul's-alley, Paternoster-row, London, hairdresser and perfumer. May 15; H. Wickens, 96, Palmerston-buildings, Old Broad-street, London. May 31; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. GATEHOUSE (John E. P.), formerly of the Railway Gatehouse Inn, Lincoln, but at the time of his death of 7, Alfredstreet, Lincoln. May 24; T. Geo. Dale, solicitor, Lincoln. June 7; M.R., at eleven o'clock. HUMPHRY (Ozias), Hotham, near Melbourne, Australia, Esq. Oct. 1; Buckler and Co., solicitors, 137, Fenchurchstreet, London. Nov. 1; M.R., at twelve o'clock. KISSESSLY (Wm. T.), formerly of Barfield, Berks, and late, of Les Tonillets, Catel, Island of Guernsey, gentleman. May Si; F. A. Snow, solicitor, 22, College-hill, London. June 14; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. LLOYD John), late of 105, Stanley-street, Warwick-square, Middlesex, and formerly of 26, Avenue-road, Lower Clapton, Middlesex, clerk in the Money Order Office, St. Martin's-le-grand, London. May 22; R. C. Halse, solicitor, 1. Cheapside, London. June 1; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. LUBY (Georgina J.), 22, Brahma-road, Brixton, Surrey, PULLINGER (W:n.), Farnham, Surrey, grocer and baker. THISELTON (Cha. A.), Heworth Cottage, near York. May 24; Henry J. Ware, solicitor, York. June 3; V. C. H. at twelve o'clock. WALPOLE (John Lee), 12, South-street, Finsbury, Middlesex, gentleman. May 21; W. F. Farmer, solicitor, 11, Pancras-lane, London. May 31; V. C. M. at twelve o'clock. WOODYER (Chas. M.), Lansdown Lodge, Margate, Kent, gentleman. May 18; F. A. Snow, solicitor, 22, College-hill, London. June 1; M. R. at twelve o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. APTHORP (Major-General East), C.B., Amhurst Lodge, Tunbridge Wells, Kent. June 10; Rev. East Apthorp, Abinger, Surrey. ASH (Mary), Starcross, Devon, spinster. June 1; H. and B. J. Ford, solicitors, 25, Southernhay, Exeter. AUSTIN (Caroline), formerly of Shefford, Bedford, afterwards of Hitchin, Hertford, widow. A. S. Wade-Gery, solicitor, Shefford. BERGONZIE (Mary Anne), Pont du Brique, Boulogne-surMer, France, widow. May 31; Gimblett and Porter, at Kearsay and Co., solicitors, 35, Old Jewry, London. BIRCH (Lieut.-Gen. Sir Richard Jas. H.) K.C.B., formerly of South-street, Thurlow-square, Brompton, Middlesex, late of Venice, Italy. July 31; E. W. Crosse, solicitor, 7, Lancaster-place, Strand, London. BIRD (Francis C. W.), 6, Boscobel-place, Regent's Park, Middlesex. July 3; M. and F. Davidson solicitors, 35, Spring-gardens, London. BRADFORD (Job), Thorney within Kingsbury Episcopi, BRIDGER (Wm.), formerly of the Queen's Hotel, Upper BURTON (Thos.), New-street, Sawbridgeworth, Herts. CLEPHAN (Wm.), Stockton, Durham, architect and builder. COPPEN (Geo.), Dagenham, Essex, farmer. May 31; Champness and Death, at Surridge and Hunt, solicitors, Romford, Essex. COPPEN (Jos.), Dagenham, Essex, farmer. May 31; Thos. Champness, at Surridge and Hunt, solicitor, Romford, Essex. COOMBS (Jas.), Albert Arms Inn, Bowness, Westmoreland, innkeeper. May 21; Fisher and Gate, solicitors, Winder mere. COTHER (Philip P.), Milford Grove, Salisbury, Wilts, Esq. COURTIER (John), Portway-place, Wantage, Berks, gentleman. June 30; Geare and Co., solicitors, Queen-street, Exeter. COVE (Rev. Edwd.), The Rectory, Thoresway, Lincoln. July 5; R. H. Daubney, solicitor, Market Rasen, Lincolnshire. CRAVEN (Aaron), formerly of Harrogate, York, grocer, but lately residing at 4, Bartholomew-road, Kentish Town, Middlesex, and lately carrying on the business of a grocer, tea dealer, and cocoa and chocolate manufacturer, at 396 and 397, Strand, Middlesex. July Tidy and Co., solicitors, 27. Sackville-street, Piccadilly, Middlesex. CROPPER (Frances), formerly of Louth, late of Hundleby, Lincoln, widow. May 31; Mason and Falkner, solicitors, 31, Eastgate, Louth. CROSS (Geo. R.), Barge Farm, Taplow, Bucks, farmer. DRIFFIELD (Wm.), Keelby, Lincoln, innkeeper. May 31; FINCH John S), Romford, Essex, gentlemen. June 14; FLOYDE (Wm.), Alphington, Devon. gentleman. July 1; London. GILBERT (John), Beaconsfield, Bucks, Esq. May 31; Geo. A. Charsley, solicitor, Beaconsfield. GOWER (Lord Albert L.), late of 28, Dover-street, Piccadilly, Middlesex, formerly of H. M.'s 2nd Regiment of Life Guards. June 21; Wing and Du Cane, solicitors, 1, Gray's-inn-square, London. HANCOCK (Henry), 30s, Edgware-road, Middlesex, licensed victualler. June 24; Chas. Rogers and Son, solicitors. 7, We tminster Chambers Victoria-street, Westminster, Middlesex. HANDS (Benjamin), formerly of Hornsey, Middlesex, surgeon, late of Kirkdale Lodge, Sydenham, Kent, gentleman. June 12; Chas, E. Strong, solicitor, 41, Jewin-street, Cripplegate, London. HARE (Mary E.), Handleby, Lincoln, spinster. May 31; Mason and Falkner, solicitors, 34, Eastgate, Lonth. HELYAR (Maria). Combe Florey House, Combe Florey, Somerset, widow. May 25; John T. Nicholetts, so-icitor, South Petherton, Somerset. HOPKINS (Sir John P.). Knight, late of Governor's Tower, Lower Ward, Windsor Castle, Berks, Knight of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order, Governor of the Military Knights of Windsor, and formerly a Major in H. M.'s 96th Regt. of Foot. May 17; Darvill, Darvill, and Last, solicitors, New Windsor, Berks. HUNT (Roger), Lower Clapton, Middlesex, Esq. June 1; T. H. Devonshire, solicitor, 1, Frederick's place, Old Jewry, London. HUSTWITT (Wm. Thos.), 28A, Lonsdale-square, Islington, Middlesex, and of the Stock Exchange, London. July 6; Humne and Co., solicitors, 10, Great James-street, Bedfordrow, London, JACKSON (Frances A.), 1. Woodstock-terrace, Stroud, Green Lanes, Hornsey, Middlesex, widow, who carried the business of contractors and coal merchants under the firm of F. A. Jackson and Son. May 30; S. Price, solicitor, 8, Walbrook, London. KESTEVEN (Rt. Hon. John Baron), Casewick, Lincoln. July ; Young, Jones, and Co., solicitors, 2, St. Mildred'scourt, Poultry, London. LACY (Susannah), Withdeane Hall, Sussex, widow. June 24; B. W. and V. Powys, solicitors, 1, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London. LAMB (Euphemia), Mountford Villa, Wood Green, Middlesex, widow. May 24; Taylor and Co., solicitors, 15, Furnival's Inn, Holborn, London. LEE (John L.), Dillington Park, Somerset. June 22; J. T. LEIGH (John Gerard), Luton Hoo Park, Bedford, and 158, Piccadilly, Middlesex, Esq. June 30; Gregory and Co., solicitors, 1. Bedford-row, London. LOCKETT (Thos.), St. Peter, Hereford, gentleman. June 12; W. J. Humfrys, solicitor, Hereford. LOWDEN (Wm.), 71, Cominercial-road, Lambeth, Surrey, tailor. May 31; F. Broughton, solicitor, 48, Finsburysquare, London. LYB (Daniel), Buckland, Portsea, Esq., a commander in the MASON (Mary M.), 134, St. Owen's-street, Hereford, widow. MESSITER (Thos.), Barwick House, Barwick, Somerset, MORGAN (Matilda H., 7, Ventnor-villas, Cliftonville, Brigh ton, Sussex, spinster. June 1; Leman and Co., solicitors. 51, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London. MORLEY (Smith). Burgli-le-Marsh, Lincoln, farmer. May 31; Mason and Falkner, solicitors, 34, Eastgate, Louth. MORRIS (Henry Wm.), Kington, Hereford, druggist. June 5; Bodenham and Temple, solicitors, Kington. MORTON (Edwd.), Wolverley, Worcester, Esq. June 1; Day, Ivens, and Morton, solicitors, Kidderminster. NICOL Jas), Rose Villa, St. John's-road, West Croydon, Surrey, gentleman. May 30; Fallows and Brown, solicitors, 4, Lancaster-place, Strand, Middlesex. NORRIS (John), Sion Hill, Isleworth, Middlesex, farmer and market gardener. June 8; Woodbridge and Sons, solicitors, 8, Clifford's-inn, Fleet-street, London. O'LEARY, usually known as FREDERICKS (Frederick), formerly of Leicester, late of Canning-lawn, Barking-road, Essex, travelling comedian. June 28; Geo. Bailey solicitor, 5, Union-street, Luton, Beds. O'MALLEY (Charles John), late of 3, Brick-court, Temple, London, and formerly of Leinster-road, Rathmines, Dublin, Barrister-at-Law,. June 21; Hicklin and Washington, solicitors, 1, Trinity-square, Southwark, London. PAKENHAM (Hon. Lady Emily). Langford Lodge, Co. Antrim, Ireland. June 24; Whyte Collisson, and Prichard, solicitors, 27. Bedford-row, London. PETTIT (Walter), 105, Charlotte-street, Fitzroy-square, and 32, Crowndale-road, St. Pancras, Middlesex, appraiser and house agent. May 3; Wm. F. Watson, solicitor, 11, Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, London. RODGERS (Hannah), Kingston-upon-Hull, spinster. June 26; Stamp and Co., solicitors, Quay-chambers, Hull. THOMAS (Anne A.), Wilberforce-place. King's-read, Reading, Berks, widow. May 31; C. W. Hoffman, solicitor, 59, Broad-street, Reading. TOLBUTT (Edwd.), Romford, Essex. May 31; Surridge and Hunt, solicitors, Romford. SHAILER (Frederick J.), Broadway, Worcester, estate agent and farmer. May 20; New, Prance, and Garrard, Evesham. STANBRIDGE (Eliza), late of 323, Brixton-road, Surrey, and formerly of 15, Westbourne-terrace-road. Middlesex, widow. June 20; R. T. Jarvis, solicitor, 22, Chancery-lane, London. STEVENS (Wm.), 2, Prospect-place, Peckham Rye, Surrey, WESTON (Richard), 1, Trilford-place, Alpha-street, Slough, WHITFIELD (Thos.) Hamsey, Sussex, Esq. July 1; Inigo Gell, solicitor, Lewes, Sussex. WILLIAMS Lady Mary H.), widow. May 25; John T. Nicholetts, solicitor, South Petherton, Somerset. WING (Major Vincent), formerly of Belmont House, West Cowes, Isle of Wight, late of Burton Hall, Christchurch. Hants, and of North Ormsby, Lincoln. June 21; Wing and Du Cane, solicitors, 1, Gray's-inn-square, London. WOODHAM (Henry A.), LL.D., 66, Hills-road, Cambridge June 1; J Crowdy and Son, solicitors, 17, Serjeant's Inn, Fleet-street, London. WRIGHTSON (Catharine R.), Tower-street, York, widow. July 1; Robert Dale, solicitor, Museum-street, York. WALFF (Sarah), Victoria-road, Charlton, Kent, widow. June 17; Walters and Co., solicitors, 9, New-square, Lincoln'sinn, London. YEARWOOD (Henry), formerly of the Turk's Head, Motcombe-street, Belgrave-square, Middlesex, licensed victualler, late of 7 Milbourne-grove, Gilstone-road, Brompton, Middlesex, out of business. May 20; Mackeson, Taylor, and Arnould, solicitors, 59, Lincoln's-inn-Fields, London. Leicester-square, YOUNG (Martha K.), 49, Lisle-street, Middlesex, spinster. June 5; J. G. Shearman, solicitor, 10, Gresham-street, London. REPORTS OF SALES. Tuesday, April 13. By Messrs. OLIVER, NEWBOLD, and OLIVER, at Derby. Derbyshire, Normanton.-Enclosures of freehold accommodation land, 34a. Ir. 2p.-sold for £5926. Thursday, April 22. By Messrs. ORGILL, SWANN, and ORGILL, at the London Tavern. Kensington, Earl's-court-road.-The lease of the Princess Victoria wine establishment, term 34 years-sold for £4800. By Messrs. MARSH, MILNER, and Co., at the Mart. West Smithfield.-The lease of 23, Duke-street, terin 80 years -sold for £250. By Mr. C. F. HUMBERT, at the Mart. Grosvenor-square.-No. 56, Green-street, term 64 years-sold for £1200. Sudbury. A ground-rent of £5 158. per annum, term 68 years -sold for £100. A ditto of £110 per annum-sold for £YGO. By Messrs. WINSTANLEY and HORWOOD, at the Mart. Islington.-Twenty-one freehold houses in Hanover-streetsold for £12.005. Nos. 86 and 88, St. Peter's-street, freehold-sold for £1090. Dalston.-No. 49 and 51, Holly-street, term 46 years-sold for £590. Hackney.-Nos. 10 and 11, Tudor-grove, term 56 years-sold for £490. Wandsworth.-Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12, Seymour-terrace, term 91 years-sold for £1920. Nos. 4 to 8, Church-row, term 71 years-sold for £385. Wednesday, April 21. By Mr. H. SoWDON, at the Mart. Old Kent-road.-Nos. 758 and 760, freehold-sold for £725. Regent's-park.-No. 33, St. John's Wood-road, freehold-sold for £3200. St. Marylebone.-No. 23, Sherborne-street, term 66 years-sold for £515. By Mr. G. J. ELGOOD, at the Mart. Paddington.-No. 59, Cambridge-street, and Nos. 9, 10, and 11, Berkeley-mews West, term 41 years-sold for £2150, No. 9, Torrington-mews, term 35 years-sold for £360. No. 11, Torrington-mews-sold for £365, Connaught-square.-No. 2, Berkeley-place, term 41 yearssold for £1000. No. 13, Berkeley-mews West.-sold for £450. for £1500. By Messrs. GREEN and Sox, at the Mart. Lambeth.-Nos. 1 to 11, Regent-street, term 28 years-sold New North-road.-No. 1, Newton-street, term 10 years; Nos. 42, 43, and 41, Cavendish-street, same term; Bermondsey.No. 32, Brook-street, and 44, Edward-street, same termsold for £250. Peckham Rye.-Two plots of land-sold for £51. By Messrs. PRICKETT and Sox, at the Mart. Wood Green, Lordship-lane.-Durham Lodge, freeholdsold for £500. Lee-road.Nos. 11 and 12, Turner-terrace, term 82 yearssold for £1140. Finchley.-Freehold ground rents of £15 per annum-sold for £300. A plot of land, la. Or. 2p.-sold for £330. Freehold ground rents of £9 per annum--sold for £195. ELECTION LAW. ONTARIO. CORNWALL ELECTION PETITION (a); BERGIN v. MACDONALD. Dominion Election Acts 1873, 1874-Bribery by agents -Whether candidate disqualified Evidence on second election of bribery at first-Report to Speaker. A petition was filed by one Bergin, the unuccessful candidate, against the return of the respondent in Jan. 1874, on the usual grounds. This "election was avoided on the ground of the corrupt acts of respondent's agents. But the Chancellor reported to the Speaker of the House of Commons that these acts had been committed without the knowledge and consent of the respondent. A new writ was issued, and the same persons were again candidates, when respondent was again elected. The present petition was filed by electors claiming the set for Bergin, charging corruption against respondent and his agents at the second election, and also that persons guilty of corrupt practices at the first election could not vote at the second election, because the two elections were one in law. The petitioners also claimed that respondent was ineligible by reason of the acts of his agents at the first election, and that public notice had been given of such disqualification, and that Bergin should be seated, although respondent had the majority of votes. pre Held: First, That the two elections were one in law. Secondly, That evidence may be given by petitioners in a petition attacking the second election, of corrupt practices by agents of respondents at the vious election, and if these corrupt acts are proved on the second trial, the votes of persons guilty of corrupt practices at the first election are void if polled at the second election, and must be struck out. This also applies to the unsuccessful candidate. The premises known as King's Corner, freehold sold for Thirdly, But the mere fact of persons being “reported" £360. Highgate.-The residence called Springfield House, copyhold -sold for £1175. Friday April 23. By Messrs. LEWIS and KEMP, at the Mart. Leicester-square.-Nos. 20 and 21, term 53 years-sold for £2470. to the Speaker as guilty of corrupt practices at first election does not require the disallowance of their votes at second election. Fourthly, That the respondent is not ineligible because his election was set aside on account af corrupt practices by his agents without his knowledge or consent. By Messrs. WINSTANLEY and HORWOOD, at the Mart. Islington. Fourteen freehold houses in Hanover-street-Fifthly, That a candidate is not disqualified by the sold for £9160. corrupt acts of his agents, under sect. 18 of Act of 1873, without his knowledge or consent. Freehold ground rent of £45 per annum-sold for £995. Ten freehold houses in Hanover-street-sold for £6050. King's-cross-road. Nos. 5 and 6, Vernon-street, term 44 Sixthly, It is not material that the two elections were years sold for £765. Pentonville. Nos. 30 to 34, Holford-square, term 57 years- Seventhly. The difference between the "adjudication" held under different Acts of Parliament. By Messrs. ROGERS and CHAPMAN, at the Mart. Pimlico. No. 179, Buckingham Palace-road, term 48 yearssold for £3.00. By Mr. J. BRIANT, at the Mart. Clapham-road.-Nos. 13 and 14, Hanover-place, term 60 years sold for £400. Nos. 3, 4, 5, Hanover-square, same term-sold for £790. By Mr. H. BEAN, at the Mart. of the Judge and his "report" to the Speaker discussed and explained. Addiscombe.-Nos. 7 and 8, Frederick-terrace, term 89 years caused, and both respondent and Bergin were -sold for £350. By Mr. H. A. Cox, at the Mart. Bermondsey.-No. 56, West-lane, term 63 years-sold for £60. By Messrs. SMITII and READ, at the London Tavern. Paddington.-The lease and goodwill of the Fountain's Abbey Wine Vaults, term 2 years-sold for £14,150. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart. Regent's-park.-No. 11, Park-village West, term 47 yearssold for £95. By Messrs. COOPER and GOULDING, at the Mart. A PETITION was filed by Dr. Bergin, the unsuccessful candidate, against the return of the respondent in Jan. 1874, on the usual grounds. It came on for trial before the Chancellor on 3rd Sept., when the election was avoided on the ground of the corrupt acts of respondent's agents. But the learned Chancelfor reported to the Speaker of the House of Commons that these acts had been committed without the knowledge and consent of the respondent. A new writ was issued to fill the vacancy thus again candidates, and respondent was again elected. The present petition was filed by electors claiming the seat for Bergin, charging corruption against respondent and his agents at the second election, and also that persons guilty of corrupt practices at the first election could not vote at the second election, because the two elections were one in law. The petitioners also claimed that respondent was first election, and that public notice had been given of such disqualification, and that Bergin should be scated, although respondent had majority of votes. Preliminary objections were filed by the respondent, raising the following points. First, whether the two elections were one in law; secondly, whether the respondent was disqualified. Surrey, near Woking Station.-Gunner's Land Farm of ineligible by reason of the acts of his agents at the 31a. 2r. 33p., freehold--sold for £1700. Two enclosures, containing sa. Ir. 5p.-sold for £480. Brighton-No. 40, Queen's-road, freehold-sold for £1130. Brixton-hill. The residence called Felix House, term 95 years-sold for £1300. Harrow, London-hill.-Calwich and Ilam villas, freehold-sold for 1350. Stoke Newington.-Nos. 28 and 30, Cowper-road, term 77 years sold for £100. By Messrs. VENTOM, BULL, and COOPER, at the Mart. Lambeth.-Nos. 19 and 20, Brook-street, term 12 years-sold for £200. REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. RIGHT TO LIGHT AND AIR-MANDATORY INJUNCTION DAMAGES.-The Court of Chancery will not, in general, grant a mandatory injunction to pull down buildings alleged to obstruct ancient lights, if the defendant has completed such buildings before the bill is filed. But if the plaintiff's premises appear to have been rendered substantially less enjoyable or comfortable, the court will grant an inquiry as to damages, though such relief was not asked for by the bill: (Lady Stanley v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 218. V.C. H) GAS SUPERSEDED IN DAYTIME.-In these days of high prices for gas, it is well the public should be reminded of that eminently useful invention, Chappuis' Patent Daylight Re ectors. The price is moderate, and the apparatus lasts for a considerable time. Prospectuses may be had at the Factory, 69, Fleet-street, London.[ADVT.] Bethune moved before the learned Chancellor of Ontario to over-rule these objections. Harrison, Q.C., supported the objections. SPRAGGE, C.-The election now petitioned against was held under the Election Act of 1874, the respondent and Dr. Bergin being the candidates. At the next preceding election for the same constituency, which was held under the Election Act of present respondent was returned. 1873, the same gentlemen were candidates, and the petitioned against, the adjudication upon the trial of His return being the election petition, was that the respondent was not duly elected or returned, and that the election tion," as it is called in the statute, having been cerwas void; and that adjudication, or "determinatified to the Speaker, a writ for a new election was ordered, and a new election had, with the result that I have stated. Preliminary objectious have been taken against portions of the petition against the second election. The 14th paragraph is objected to. It runs thus: "On the trial of the said former petition, a great number of persons were reported by the said judge in his report to the House of Commons as guilty of corrupt practices on behalf of the respondcut at the said first election, and a great many persons voted at the said last election who were guilty of corrupt practices on behalf of (a) From the Canada Law Journal. the respondent at the said former election who were not reported, and such persons 80 reported as aforesaid voted at the said election, and a numbor of votes equal to the number of persons so reported as aforesaid, and so guilty of corrupt practices as aforesaid at the first election should be struck off the number of votes polled for the said respondent." This raises two questionsone as to persons who were reported at the trial of the former petition to have been guilty of corrupt practices at the first election, and who voted for the respondent; the other as to persons who voted in the same way, and who were also guilty of corrupt practices, but who were not reported. The objection is as to the whole paragraph, and raises first the general question whether corrupt practices by voters at the first election affect their right to vote at the second; and supposing that proposition answered in the affirmative, the second question is as to the class first named-those reported-whether the report is as to them an adjudication that they were at the first election guilty of corrupt practices. The contention upon the general question on behalf of the petitioner is that the first election having been determined to be null and void, it was in law no election; and that the first and second elections, though two elections in fact, are one election only in law. The point was fully discussed in the judgment given by Sir Joseph Napier in the Dungarvan Case (2 P. R. & D. 300), and that judgment is well summarised in Mr. Rogers' Treatise on the Law of Elections 10th edit., 227, thus: Where an election has been set aside by an Election Committee as null and void,' the committee upon the trial of the subsequent election are at liberty to inquire into any corrupt acts whatever which have been committed at the previous election, after the vacancy, on the ground that although there have been two elections in fact, and two writs have actually issued, yet there never has been a valid return according to the proper exigency of the first writ; in short, that the proceedings subsequent to the issuing of the first writ, until a legal return has been made to it according to its exigency, constitute in point of law one election, into which the committee are then inquiring. In the words of the learned chairman: The party who offends against the prohibition of this Act is disabled to serve in Parliament upon such election, which in a restricted sense would apply only to the election in relation if this election be subsequently declared null and to which the offence shall have been committed. But void, and a new election take place under a new writ in order to supply the vacancy by the due election of a qualified candidate, then on & petition upon this new election against the return of a party who may have committed bribery, &c., at the previous election, which has been set aside as null and void, it may be open to show those previous acts of bribery, &c., as constituting a disqualification of the offending candidate, and disentitling him to be returned upon such new election, because the vacancy still remains until it is supplied by the return of a qualified candidate upon a valid and lawful election, which ultimately takes place, not under but according to the proper exigency of the first writ. In this way the language. of the statute is adapted to the case of one entire process of election, ending in a single valid and recognised return of a duly qualified candidate, so as to supply the original vacancy: (Acc. 2nd Horsham, 1 P. R. & D., 240; 2nd Cheltenham, 1b., 224; 2nd Lisburn, W. & Br., 233.) All the above-mentioned corrupt acts, therefore, if taking place at a former election, operate as a disqualification at a subsequent one, provided the first has been set aside by a competent authority as null and void." The same view has been taken in other cases of the legal effect of an election being determined by a competent tribunal to be void; and so in the late case of Drinkwater v. Deakni (L. Rep. 9 C. P. 626), Lord Coleridge speaks of an election after an election determined to be void, which he says is "regarded as an adjournment only, or continuance of the election so avoided." In another passage, p. 637, "the second election under these circumstances is but a continuation of the first, the exigency of the writ not being satisfied till there is a good return." In the earlier case (though still a recent case) of Stevens v. Tillett (L. Rep. 6 C. P. 147), Mr. Justice Willes appears to have entertained considerable doubt upon the point. He says, p. 171: "But I do not feel sufliciently confident, in respect of concluding that the first and second proceedings are to be treated as one proceeding, to lay that down in point of law"-and after referring to the Dungarvan case, he explains how in subsequent cases a person disqualified for corrupt practices cannot be a candidate for the same place at the next election for the same place (or, indeed, at any subsequent election during the same Parliament) without resorting to the doctrine of an avoided election followed by another election being in law only one election. He explains it by the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act 1854, s. 36, "That if any candidate at an election for any county, &c., shall be declared by any Election Committed guilty, by himself or his agents, of bribery, treating, or undue influence at such election, such candidate shall be incapable of being elected or sitting in Parliament for such county, &c., during |