By Messrs. GAIRDNER and SoNs, at the Mart. Falham.-No. 15, Stanford-road, term 68 years-sold for £210. By Mr. HULLAH, at the London Tavern. Hyde-park.-No. 23, Bryanston-street, term 45 years-sold for £1000. Notting-hill.-No. 160, Lancaster-road, term 88 years-sold for £760. By Messrs. NORTON, TRIST, WATNEY, and Co., at the Mart. Upper Clapton.-Improved ground-rents of £91 per annum, term 70 years-sold for £1460. Hackney.-No. 85, Amhurst-road, term 84 years-sold for An improved ground rent of £30 per annum, term 77 years- Nos. 35 and 42, Warburton-square, term 87 years-sold for No. 5, Warburton-terrace, and 52, Warburton-square, term 70 years-sold for £250. Nos. 69, 70, and 71, Palace-road, term 80 years-sold for £490. Nos. 1 to 5, Percy-road, copyhold-sold for £900. Improved ground rents of £25 per annum, term 89 yearssold for £110. Bromley-by-Bow.-Improved ground rents of £76 48. per annum, terin 87 years-sold for £1150. By Mr. E. ROBINS, at the Mart. Regent's Park.-No. 18, York-terrace, with stabling, term 16 years-sold for £3710. Lower Clapton.-Copyhold residence, with pleasure grounds Holloway.-Nos. 22 and 23, Medina-road, term 85 years-sold Holborn.-No. 66, Leather-lane, term 15 years-sold for £120. Drury-lane Theatre.-Two renters' shares-sold for £188. --sold for £1220. for £610. honour and distinction in the Corporation to fill a similar post in another Corporation-he left a second clerkship here to fill a head clerkship in Bristol. He (the speaker) thought it a great compliment to this city that Mr. Gore should be so elected, and still more so that he should be elected without a contest. The Town Clerk then, speaking of his friendship with Mr. Gore in the most cordial terms, presented him with the testimonial. Mr. Gore, in the course of his reply, thanking his colleagues for their present, said he believed that it was a unique circumstance for an officer of the Corporation to leave it at his time of life. He had received kind recommendations from the aldermen to his new post, which he was glad to be able to acknowledge. He feared that he had not the faculty for making friends which their chairman possessed, but he was much cheered by the unanimous feeling of friendship which had been manifested towards him by his brother By Mr. F. S. HOBSON, at the Mart. sold for £605. Hackney.-Nos. 13 to 24, and 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, and 65, Montague-road, term 96 years-sold for £1440. By Messrs. FULLER and MOON, at the Mart. Surrey.-Cheam, a freehold cottage, with stabling, &c.-sold for £110. The Cheam Brewery, with house and malting premises, freehold-sold for £1700. Twenty shares in the Sutton District Waterworks Company -sold for £54. Ten £20 shares in the Epsom Grand Stand Associationsold for £1080. Seven New Third shares of £6 138. 4d. each-sold for £126. By Messrs. WILLIS and Son, at the Mart. Lambeth.-No. 45, York-street, term 42 years-sold for £155. Mortlake.-Nos. 7 and 8, The Vineyard, copyhold-sold for £105. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WATCH HOUSES-COUNTY POLICE STATIONS 5 & 6 WILL. 4, c. 76, s. 84.-The Municipal Act 1835, s. 81, enacts a penalty on summary conviction for refusal to give up to watch committees of boroughs, all watch houses within their boroughs, the expenses for which had been provided for by previous Acts. By a local Act of 1873, the borough of Brighton, which was incorporated in 1854, was extended to include East Preston, in which were a police office and cells, forming part of a police station which had been provided for the county by the quarter sessions in 1870, under the powers of the County Police Acts, the first of which was passed in 1839: Held, upon a case stated in a summary conviction of the superintendent of the county police station, for refusing to give up these offices and cells to the Brighton Watch Committee, that sect. 84 of the Municipal Act applies only to such watch houses as those the expenses of which had been provided for by earlier Acts, and not to county police stations authorised by subsequent Acts: (Bald. win v. White, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 365. Q. B) FROME PETTY SESSIONS. WE have received the following explanation from the Clerk to the Frome Justices with reference to the case noticed in our columns:-" The real facts are that the Superintendent of Police, having been informed ten days before the occurrence that the woman in question, who was employed to clean out the schoolroom, might be caught any morning taking coal or wood from the schoolroom, sent a policeman, who, the first time he watched, caught the woman coming from the iron gate,' which was the gate of the schoolroom, with something under her shawl. He accosted her, and asked her what she had got. She at first denied that she had anything, but on being threatened with a search, she, desirous to avoid public exposure, told the man if he would come inside her house she would tell him. He went in, and she then took a large piece of coal from under her shawl, confessed she had taken it, and asked to be forgiven. Upon this she was convicted, and the Justices deeming it to be a breach of trust as well as a theft, sentenced her to fourteen days. The woman did not cry bitterly, but seemed unconcerned, and quite prepared for what she got. The story that she had taken coal from the mixen' was an afterthought, and was not likely to be believed by any who are accustomed to criminal courts, eceing it was quite fresh coal and had never been on the fire. What notice of appeal to be given. 14 days 5 days 14 days 10 days 1 day 8 days 10 days Clerk of the Peace. Thomas Lamb. "I should add, that the superintendent knew nothing of the woman for or against, and that the justices have received a letter from the Home Secretary, stating that after inquiry he saw no reason to interfere with the sentence; and I have yet to learn that the value of the thing stolen is that which constitutes the offence. If it is not theft to steal a piece of coal, upon the same principle it is not murder to kill a baby." TESTIMONIAL TO MR. T. H. GORE.-The testi monial to Mr. Gore, which has been subscribed for by his colleagues of the Corporation, was presented to that gentleman at the Guildhall Tavern on Friday week. In the unavoidable absence (through illness in his family) of the Chamberlain (Mr. Scott), the chair was taken by the Town Clerk (Mr. J. B. Monckton); and amongst the subscribers present were the Rev. T. E. L. Jones, Mr. W. H. Overall, Mr. G. J. Winzar, Major Campbell, Captain Skey, Mr. H. T. Youle, Mr. Sidney Smith, Mr. Murray, Mr. H. C. Overall, Mr. F. S. Knott, Captain Sewell, &c. The testimonial consisted of a black marble and bronze timepiece, of a new design, with quarter chimes, manufactured by Sir John Bennett, and a gold Albert guard, with seal key. The inscription on the timepiece was as follows: "Presented to T. Holmes Gore, Esq., on his appointment as clerk to the justices of the City of Bristol, by his late colleagues, officers of the Corporation of London, in testimony of their personal esteem and regard; 14th May, 1875." The Town Clerk said that he only occupied the position of chairman in the absence of the Chamberlain, who was almost a professional "presentor," being accustomed to make presentations to all manner of people, and Mr. Gore would doubtless have liked to receive the testimonial at the hands of the Chamberlain. But after all there was some fitness in his (the Town Clerk's) filling the chair, for he began life with Mr. Gore in the same way-as an attorney in the county of Kent, where they little thought that circumstances would ever bring them into the service of the same corporation. There were some testimonials which were given as a matter of course, but others were exceptional, as he thought they would say this was. It was an exceptional thing for Mr. Gore to leave the service at his time of life. Most men left it in the fulness of time, when they had the best of all testimonials, not only in their pension, but in the hearty goodwill of all their colleagues; but he might say that Mr. Gore was still "in the prime of his early youth." He was leaving a post of that his occasional visits to London would bring him in contact with many of his old colleagues. An expression of the thanks of the meeting to the Town Clerk for presiding ended the proceedings. COMPANY LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WINDING-UP-CONTRIBUTION-ENGLISH AND INDIAN SHAREHOLDERS.-B., under instructions from the board of directors of a company regis tered in England, went to India for the purpose of getting shares in the company taken up there. A large number of shares were allotted in India by B. The names of the Indian shareholders were registered in a book kept at the company's office in Bombay, but not in the books at the London office, and no return of their names was ever made to the Registrar of Joint-Stock Companies. In 1867 the company was wound-up, and in 1869 the English shareholders were placed on the lis tof contributories and calls made on them, by means of which all the debts, &c., were paid. In 1874 the official liquidator filed a supplemental list of contributories, on which he placed all the Indian shareholders, with a view of making them contribute rateably to the debts which the English shareholders had paid. Held, that S., whose name was on the register which had been kept at Bombay, and who had accepted shares and paid calls on them, was properly placed on such supplemental list. Held, also, that under sect. 25 of the Companies Act 1862, which requires a register of shareholders to be kept "in one or more books," shareholders can keep a register abroad as well a company which has foreign as well as English as at home: (Sana's case, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 299. V. C. B.) CARRIERS-BREACH OF CONTRACT TO CARRYDAMAGES-MEASURE OF-PLAINTIFF'S COSTS OF DEFENDING AN ACTION ARISING OUT OF ACTS OF DEFENDANTS.-The plaintiffs having, as carriers, contracted with H. for the carriage of certain pictures of his from London to Paris, effected a separate and independent contract with the defendant railway company for the carriage of the pictures by the latter as far as Calais; and, in the course of transit from London to Calais, the pictures were, by the negligence of defendants' servants, dropped into the sea at Dover and greatly injured. To recover compensation for such injury H. sued the plaintiffs, claiming £1000 damages, and therefore the plaintiffs gave notice to the defendants, and called on them to come in and defend the action, which the defendants, repudiating all liability, and alleging that they had a defence under the Carriers' Act, refused to do, and told the plaintiffs to deal with the action as they thought proper. Accordingly the plaintiff's defended the action, but unsuccessfully; and in a subsequent action by them against the defendants, to recover not only £650 the amount of the damage found by the jury in H.'s action to have been done to his pictures, but also the costs paid and incurred by the plaintiffs in defending that action, the defendants paid £650 into court, and denied any further liability; and it was held by the court below (Bramwell and Cleasby, BB.), on the authority of Mors Le Blanch and another Wilson and another (28 L. T. Rep. N. S. 415; L. Rep. 8 C. P. 297; 42 L. J. 70, C. B.), that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as damages caused by the default of the railway company, such costs of the former action as were reasonably incurred, and that such reasonableness was a question for the jury. And that, in consideration of the defendants having threatened to set up the Carriers' Act against the plaintiffs, such a defence was reasonably set up by the plaintiffs against them, although it was untenable in law; and on appeal, therefrom, it was held, by the Exchequer Chamber (Lord Coleridge, C.J., and Keating, Lush, Quain, and Archibald, JJ.), reversing the decision of the court below, that such costs were V. not recoverable, on the ground that, inasmuch s the contract between the plaintiffs and H., and the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants were entirely separate and independent contracts, the costs in question were not the natural and proximate result of the defendants' default, and were not incurred by the plaintiffs at the request, by the authority, or for the benefit of the defendants. Mors Le Blanch v. Wilson (ubi sup.) disapproved and overruled (Lush, J., who distinguished it, dissentients): (Baxendale and others v. The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 330. Ex. Ch.) MERCANTILE LAW. THE LAW OF PLEDGE. A CASE which has already been reported in our columns, and which Mr. Justice Blackburn described as "of general importance to the commerce of the country," and one of special interest to the mercantile community of Liverpool, has been decided in the Court of Exchequer Chamber. It will be recollected that quite a sensation was created some time ago in commercial circles in Liverpool by the failure and absconding of Mr. Slee, a merchant well known in the wool trade. His affairs went into bankruptcy, and the result was that some curious legal complications arose out of the proceedings. Among them was the case of Cole v. The North-Western Bank, which has just been decided. The plaintiff, Mr. Cole, was the owner of certain sheep and goat wools, which on arrival at Liverpool were warehoused by Mr. Slee. After Slee had absconded, it was found that he had been carrying on a system unfortunately then not very uncommon. He had obtained large advances from the North-Western Bank, giving as security, among other things, the wool belonging to Mr. Cole-in other words, he pledged with his bankers in order to obtain money when he was pressed, property that did not belong to him. After Slee's bankruptcy, the bank claimed the wool pledged with them, and a long legal contention arose as to whether they or Mr. Cole were entitled to it. For Mr. Cole it was urged that Slee merely acted as the warehouseman in respect of the wool; that he had no authority to pledge it; that the bank should have taken precautions to satisfy themselves as to the ownership of the wool, and that, having failed to do that, they were not entitled to their security. For the bankers, it was stated that, so far as they were concerned, the proceeding was perfectly bona fide; that Slee had been a customer with them; that the advance was made in the ordinary way of business; and that there was nothing to lead them to suppose that the wool belonged to Cole, and that it was not at Slee's order and disposition. The first stage of the case, which is now likely to be regarded as a leading one, came before Mr. Serjeant Wheeler at the Liverpool Bankruptcy Court. There was a difficulty as to the learned serjeant's authority to hear the case, and the view of the judge himself was that he had not the jurisdiction; but it was understood that the objection was withdrawn by the bank, and that it was the desire of the parties interested that he should try the case. After a long hearing Judge Wheeler decided against the bank. Upon an appeal against his judgment to Vice-Chancellor Bacon, the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, some surprise was created that the bank should then take the objection that the serjeant had no authority to hear the case. But the objection was taken, and the consequence was that the judgment given in the Liverpool Bankruptcy Court fell to the ground. This necessitated the case being, gone over again from the beginning; and the result of the rehearing is that the Court of Common Pleas decided against the bank (therefore, in fact, supporting the decision of Mr. Serjeant Wheeler), and now the court of error has uranimously affirmed the decision. The decision of the court seems to have been arrived at after the most careful research by Baron Bramwell and Mr. Justice Blackburn into statutes and authorities. One good has come of this protracted and expensive litigation; the court has laid down a principle which will no doubt have an important bearing upon similar banking transactions in future-that if a bank choose to trust such a person as Slee as the possessor of goods without making due inquiry as to what the character is in which he is entrusted with them, they cannot take advantage of their neglect to do so.-Liverpool Mercury. COUNTY COURTS. CHESTER COUNTY COURT. Thursday, May 13. (Before HORATIO LLOYD, Esq., Judge.) SELLER v. HUGHES. Interpleader-Right of landlord. Churton appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mar shall (instructed by Nordon) for the execution creditors. Churton stated that an execution was put into the premises of Mr. John Blaney, a plasterer, carrying on business in Foregate-street, and, being the tenant of the premises belonging to the plaintiffs, Messrs. E. R. and J. L. Seller. The amount owing by Mr. Blaney to the defendants was £47 10s. 7d., and the execution was put in on the 14th April. Under an agreement between the plaintiffs and Mr. Blaney, the tenancy was a yearly one, the rent being payable quarterly in advance, but as a fact it was never demanded in advance until the defendants put in the execution, and on the following day, the 15th April, the quarter's rent in advance became due. Mr. Churton then referred to the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, sect. 75, by which, as in this instance, when goods are taken in execution, under the warrant of the County Court, the landlord may claim for rent by giving notice and stating the amount due; and the bailiff or officer shall then in addition distrain for the rent so claimed and the costs of such distress. In this case the bailiff was in possession, the goods were not removed, and the landlord had a right to come in, but he must use the bailiff to distrain. His HONOUR.-He cannot before the rent is due. Churton.-The rent became due in advance on the 15th. The bailiff went into possession on the 14th, and he (Mr. Smith) gave a written undertaking to the plaintiffs that he would pay the sum of £10 out of the proceeds of the sale, provided that it was really owing. COLCHESTER COUNTY COURT. (Before J. T. ABDY, Esq., Judge.) The Bench and the Bar-Professional decorum. IN a case of no interest in itself in which the managers of a theatrical company were sued for the hire of furniture. Jones, solicitor, for the defence, objected to an alleged agreement being put in evidence, as the document was not stamped. His HONOUR, in directing a nonsuit, said the defendants might be very good players, but they lacked the virtue of honesty. Mr. Perry, one of the defendants, desired to explain that the claim was resisted as an attempt at extortion. His HONOUR said that plaintiff ought to be paid. Jones protested against his Honour making deprecatory remarks upon a case, the facts of which had not been fully disclosed. His HONOUR.-Perhaps you will put me into prison for saying it? Jones.-I do protest against the right of your Honour to make these remarks when you have only partly heard a case-remarks with respect to men who are as respectable, for all we know, the other day to a client of mine; and, whatever as any person in this court. You did the same the consequences may be to me-even if I never again practise in this court-I must protest against its occurring again. In the case of Sebburn v. Corder, heard last court day, your Honour said the plaintiff was, in your opinion, a liar, that he was the dullest of dolts, and other language, the result of which has been that he says he will give up his ownership of the property rather than come into court again. And here, upon my making an objection, which I had the right to do, as the law of the land required the agreement to be stamped, your Honour turns round upon these unfortunate players and says their defence is a dishonest one and shabby. I protest against the By the High Bailiff.-I drew up the under-right of your Honour to say that which there is taking for Mr. Smith to sign, and said that unno evidence to justify. less he signed it I would not allow the goods to be removed. Mr. E. R. Seller was called and proved the agreement between the firm and Mr. Blaney; and Mr. G. L. Jones, clerk to the plaintiffs, said that he went and saw Mr. Smith, the bailiff, and informed him that £10 was due for rent, and that the money was required before the sale took place. Mr. Smith said in that case he would give an undertaking to pay the rent out of the proceeds of the sale if due, according to the agreement, in advance. Upon that he (witness) withdrew the man in possession. Cross-examined.-That man was put in on the morning of the sale, 21st April. Marshall, for the execution creditors, contended that the claimants had not complied with the terms of the statute which had been quoted by Mr. Churton. There must be a written notice given of the claim for rent, and that notice must be in a certain form. Besides, the things were not distrainable for rent, as at the time they were in the custody of the law, and yet the claimant assumed to put a man in possession. Without discussing the question of law raised by Mr. Churton, it was obvious that the process was a mistaken one from the beginning. Marshall proceeded to point out that though the section of the Act quoted by Mr. Churton enacted that the 8 Anne, c. 110, should not apply to goods taken in execution under the warrant of a County Court, yet any claim made must be in writing, and in the form provided. His HONOUR.-A man must not merely come and say, "I have got a claim for rent. Turn out!" But if he has a claim it must be made by giving notice in writing to the bailiff. All the notice there was is that George Jones says he told the bailiff the rent was due. The statute says the notice must be in writing "signed by himself or his agent, which shall state the amount in arrear, and the time for and in respect of which such rent is due; and if such claim be made," then so-and-so. Churton said that those words were simply directory. His HONOUR said he was quite of opinion that they were something more than directory. Churton said he believed there was notice in writing, and proposed to recall Mr. Jones, but Marshall objected, and said his friend had closed his case. Churton then said that the section had been acted upon by the undertaking given by the bailiff. His HONOUR called attention to the proviso. Churton said it was simply a question whether the rent was due or not. THE GAS QUESTION.-The attention of our readers is earnestly invited to a modern invention, by adopting which they will be able to dispense with gas in daytime, thereby evading the advance imposed upon consumers His HONOUR said it was something more, and by the various companies. The invention we allude to is Chappuis' Patent Daylight Reflectors, manufactured it was really not worth while discussing whether at 69, Fleet-street, London.-[ADVT.] rent was due on the 21st or not. It was much His HONOUR, without making any reply, directed the next case to be called on. CROYDON COUNTY COURT. Monday, May 10. (Before H. J. STONOR, Esq., Judge.) BRAILSFORD v. WILSON. Sect. 4, Statute of Frauds. THE plaintiff claimed 168. 8d. from the defendant, a domestic servant, for breach of contract. Parry appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff's case was, that the defendant on the 3rd of April, agreed to enter his service on the 16th April, at £10 per annum, if her character suited. He applied for her character, and wrote to her telling her that his wife expected her on the 16th April. She sent him a reply intimating that she had heard a bad account of the situation and should decline it. He wrote back to the defendant reminding her of the terms of her engage ment, and informing her that he should hold her responsible for breach of contract. plaintiff said there was no doubt that had the breach been on his side he should have been summoned, he, therefore, on principle, claimed from the defendant what she would otherwise have claimed from him. The Parry contended that as the defendant did not enter the service when the agreement was made, there should have been a written contract, and His HONOUR held that this was an agreement for a year's service (although determinable by a month's notice) to commence on a day subsequent to the contract, which would extend beyond a year from the time of making such contract, and that as it was not in writing, nor executed by the servant having entered into the situation, no action could be brought upon it by either party under the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds; and briefly referred to the authorities on the subject: viz., Addison on Contracts, chap. 1, 8. 2; and the cases cited in the note to the case of Peter v. Compton, Sm. L. C. vol. 1. Verdict for defendant. COUNTY COURT JUDGES. THE following letter was recently published in the columns of the Times :— you SIR,-I said a few words in the House of Lords yesterday about County Court judges which have not been reported. I shall be much obliged if will insert this letter, as I do think those learned persons are rather hardly used. My attention was drawn to the matter by a printed statement which I have seen from one of the ablest of them. Many recent statutes have thrown upon them additional onerous duties quite foreign to those for which they were originally constituted. The Agricultural Holdings Bill and the Pollution of Rivers Bill, now before Parliament, would do so to a very serious extent. These duties are, or are to be, unpaid. It is not denied that the office is a desirable one, and that the regular work, though not small in quantity, is light in quality; but the statement I have alluded to shows that popular notions on this subject may be somewhat exaggerated; and, on the other side, it should be remembered that the salaries are not very high, and that the office is always understood to be a complete "shelving," without hope of promotion. For the Pollution of Rivers Bill, all that Lord Salisbury said was that the County Court judges are the only possible tribunal. But, if this be so, and if, as may be presumed, the same be true as to other additional duties, it seems to give them a claim on Parliament for some improvement in their position. Hoping that these observations may not be met by the unsavoury proverb, "Proffered service stinks,"-I am, your obedient servant, LYTTELTON. BANKRUPTCY LAW. BEDFORD COUNTY COURT. His HONOUR.-They exceed £200 ? The Registrar.-If the provable debts don't exceed £750 or the assets don't exceed £250 then the lower scale should be allowed; for the present I take it that the provable debts don't exceed £750 (quoting) The lower scale of attorneys' costs shall be allowed if the provable debts don't exceed £750." Then I tax Mr. Clare with the lower scale. 66 Clare. That is the thing I object to, and I may say that is not the interpretation of the rule, and it is in the interests of the Profession that I make the application. I am unfortunate, I know, in having the learned Registrar against me. His HONOUR.-Suppose the debts are £100, well then the lower scale can only be allowed, and suppose the estimated assets are £150 then the lower scale must be allowed; but suppose the debts are £800 or the estimated assets £250 then the higher scale is to be allowed. The Registrar.-Then you are putting both? His HONOUR.-Supposing the debts are £800 and the assets £150, I presume the higher scale would be used? Clare. That is my view. His HONOUR.-Is there any case on the point? The Registrar.-I don't know what the practice is at the London Bankruptcy Court, and very likely I should not be able to ascertain because the cases usually go beyond the amounts stated. Clare. I have both assets and debts above the amounts, but I did not care to take both if your Honour was satisfied with the first. The Registrar.-I should like your Honour to give a formal decision. His HONOUR.-It appears to me that in either alternative here the higher scale should be allowed; as the gross proceeds realise more than £200 they entitle Mr. Clare to the higher scale of costs. The application was accordingly granted. BRADFORD COUNTY COURT. Feb. 23, March 9, and April 6. Terry (Terry and Robinson) Bradford for motion. furniture, &c., at Upper Park-street, £50; and the clerk to the debtor's solicitors certified that the amount of assets did not exceed £3200. At the meeting (the present trustee representing as proxy the requisite majority in number and value of the creditors) resolutions were passed that the affairs of the debtor should be liquidated by arrangement, and not in bankruptcy; that the said James Douglas be appointed trustee, and that the proceedings be removed from the County Court of Carmarthenshire, holden at Carmarthen, to the County Court of Yorkshire, holden at Bradford. These resolutions were duly registered, and the proceedings duly transferred. The amount of assets appears to have been fictitious. The debtor left his house at Llanelly immediately after the meeting, but he had made an appointment with the trustee at the meeting to meet the trustee's agent next morning at Llanelly to give up his books and estate. This agent attended the next morning (the 14th October) at Llanelly accordingly, but the debtor had gone away and taken his trade books with him, there was no stock in trade on the premises, and only some furniture and household effects in the house, which was left in charge of the debtor's housekeeper, who was there alone. The agent on that day made an inventory of the furniture and effects in the house, and included in such inventory the piano and bookcase, with the books in it, which are the subject of this motion. The bookcase was locked; there was no key in it. The agent did not open it, and therefore did not take a list of the books inside. The agent stayed at Llanelly from the 14th to the 16th Oct., during which time he and the debtor's housekeeper were the only persons in the house. The agent returned to Llanelly on the evening of the 19th Oct., and at eight o'clock on the morning of the 20th, went to the debtor's house and saw the housekeeper, and left word that he would call again in an hour. He did so, but found the house locked up and he could not get in. About half an hour afterwards he met the respondent Powell, and who told him he (Powell) had taken possession of some of the debtor's effects under an execution issued out of the County Court of Llanelly, in an action against the debtor instituted by Messrs Candy and Son, of Bristol. The agent told Powell he could not legally do so, as a petition had been filed, and the said James Douglas had been appointed trustee. That Powell replied the petition had fallen through, that it was all right, that the goods were in the warehouse of Joshua Hughes, of Llanelly, and that he, Powell, was going to sell them to Hughes; but that the debtor could have them back at any time by refunding the money. Upon this information being communi cated to the trustee by his agent he went into Wales, and on the 27th Oct. last saw the respon. dents Gardiner and Powell, and demanded the goods from them, but they refused to give them up. Gardiner (who is a solicitor as well as high bailiff), in his affidavit filed 23rd Jan. 1875, in oppo. sition to this motion, says (par. 1): "On the 27th Oct 1874, I met Mr. James Douglas (the alleged trustee of the debtor John Watson) at Llanelly, who claimed from me the proceeds of the sale of the informed him that the amount, £18. 10s., had been paid to the registrar of the said court at Llanelly on the 21st day of Oct. previously, and that I had no further control over the same, but that I understood the registrar had not then paid the same to the execution creditor, and he might interplead the registrar if he thought fit to do so; (par. 2) I had no previous knowledge of a petition having been filed against or by the debtor John Watson; (par. 3) that at that interview I heard Samuel Powell, my sub-bailiff, inform the said James Douglas that he had levied an execution at the suit of James Candy, and Son on the 14th Sept. 1874, and had continued in possession until the 21st Oct. 1874, when the same were sold by public auction for £18 10s.; (par 4) that the said James Powell also informed the said James Douglas that the said John Watson handed to him, the said Samuel Powell, a cheque for £16 13s., which he declined to receive in payment of debt and costs, gave no receipt for them, and never gave up possession until the sale on the 21st Oct. 1874." The respondent, Samuel Powell, has also made an affidavit in opposition to the motion filed the 23rd Jan. 1875, and thereby states (par 1) "that execution was issued at the suit of James Candy and Son against the said John Watson on the 11th Sept. last for the sum of £14 13s., debt and costs (and such execution is hereunto annexed and marked with the letter A); (par. 2) that on the 12th day of Sept. last I proceeded to the defendant's residence for the purpose of levying upon his goods, and found the house locked up, and no one at home; that afterwards, viz., Monday, the 14th Sept. last, I called upon three distinct occasions during the day, and found the premises still locked up; and I examined the whole of the premises, and found upon looking through the windows that there was furniture in the house, which I then (the 14th day of Sept. last) levied upon (to wit): one piano and one His HONOUR. This was a motion on behalf of James Douglas, the trustee under the proceedings for liquidation of the affairs of John Watson, of Llanelly, in the county of Carmarthen, draper, for an order directing that Richard Gardiner, high bailiff of the County Court of Carmarthen, held at Llanelly, and Samuel Powell, sub-bailiff of the same court, or one of them, should forthwith pay to Mr. James Douglas, as such trustee, the value of a certain piano, bookcase and books therein unlawfully seized by the said Richard Gardiner and Samuel Powell, or one of them, on or about the 17th Oct. 1874, being the property of the said debtor, John Watson, at the time of filing his petition for liquidation in this matter, and that such value should be estimated and fixed at the sum of £50, and that the respondents may pay the costs of this application. The petition in this case was filed on the 18th Sept. 1874, in the County Court of Carmarthen, held at Carmarthen, Llanelly, where the debtor resided, being in the district of that court, and the only question of fact I have to decide is whether the goods in question had been seized under an execution before the 18th Sept. The circumstances of this case are so strange, and the conduct of the respondents in the matter so reprehensible, that I feel it my duty to state the circumstances more in detail than I should otherwise have considered it necessary to do. The respondent, R. Gardiner, is a solicitor and high bailiff of the Carmarthen Court, and also of the Llanelly Court, and the respondent Samuel Powell is the sub-bailiff of the Llanelly Court, acting on behalf and under the authority of the said Richard Gardiner. The petition was advertised in the Gazette on the 22nd Sept., and as appears by the solicitor's bill as taxed and now on the file, such advertisement was inserted by the said Richard Gardiner in discharge of his duty as high bailiff according to rule 58, and he was paid 15s. 8d. for such insertion. The list of creditors filed with the petition contained the names of fourteen persons or firms represented to be creditors for various sums amounting altogether to £517 10s. None of these creditors resided in Wales, but seven resided in the West Riding, two in Manchester, three in Bristol, two in Scot-piano, bookcase, and the books levied upon. I land, and two in London. The solicitors who filed the petition for the debtor, and conducted the proceedings under it, are described as Messrs. Clifton and Woodward, 57, Wind-street, Swansea. The notices for holding the first meeting of creditors, fixed the 13th Oct. as the day, and the offices of Messrs Clifton and Woodward, 57, Windstreet, Swansea, as the place of meeting; and the names of these solicitors are signed to the certificate required by the rules that, in their belief, it would be most convenient to the creditors of the petitioner that the general meeting should be held at their office, 57, Wind-street, Swansea. From the solicitors' bill of costs it appears that the debtor through his solictors, Messrs Clifton and Woodward, had, previous to the 13th Oct., sent a circular letter to each of his fourteen creditors, informing them that he intended at the meeting to offer a composition of 20s. in the pound, payable in twelve months, and alleging that his present embarrassments were attributable to a recent loss of £2000. Several of the creditors not trusting this circular, and being desirous of ascertaining the real position of the debtor's affairs, gave their proxies to the present trustee, and authorised him to attend the meeting at Swansea, and act in protection of their interests as he might think proper. He attended the meeting accordingly, and one other creditor by proxy also attended. The debtor was present and one of his solicitors, and the debtor's statement of affairs and accounts were presented. These, as it would appear from the bill of costs on the file, had been prepared by the solicitors. Upon the face of this statement it appeared that his total liabilities amounted to £516 10s., consisting of £527 10s. unsecured debts, and £19 for rent. The assets were represented to amount to £3177, consisting of stock-in-trade, Upper Parkstreet, Llanelly, £540; book debts, £1143 16s. 8d., estimated to produce £650; bills of exchange and other similar securities estimated to produce £1937; bookcase, containing books; (par. 3) that I called at defendant's dwelling-house upon each succeeding day until the 17th Sept., on which day I had ingress into the house by the defendant's wife, who said her husband was from home, and did not know when he would return, and begged me not to remove or make sale of his goods until he returned, in which I acquiesced, but never gave up possession of the goods seized by me; that neither at that time, nor at any previous time, had I any notice of the filing of a petition or any act of bankruptcy; (par. 4) that I afterwards saw the said John Watson, who said everything would be all right, and the money should be paid in a day or two, when I assented; and on or about the 26th Sept. last I received from the said John Watson a cheque for £16 13s., dated the 17th Oct. last, which I told him was of no value, but that I would keep possession of the goods until the execution was paid; (par. 5) that I refused to accept the said cheque as payment of debt and costs, and never abandoned possession of the said goods, but called at the defendant's house daily, sometimes as often as three times a day, until the goods were sold on the 21st Oct. last; (par. 6) that I never had any notice of the first meeting of creditors held at Swansea, in the county of Glamorgan, on the 13th Oct. last, or any other notice of bankruptcy, until the 27th Oct. last, when the said James Douglas came to Llanelly with the warrant of seizure (which I executed, and handed over the possession of the defendant's goods), and notice of his appointment as trustee, at which time the goods had been sold, and their sale realised £18 10s. ; and the amount of debt and costs was paid into court on the 21st Oct. last, as per receipt indorsed on the said warrant before referred to." The Exhibit A (the warrant of seizure) shows, upon the face of it, the debt and costs recovered amounted to £13 12s., to which being added the poundage for issuing the warrant, £1 1s., made the total amount to be levied £14 13s. The indorsements on the warrant shewed the amount of levy £14 13s.-no charge for possession or broker's charges-thus showing, as far as the record goes, that the amount to be levied was paid without possession being taken or any sale being made, and the sum paid into court and received by the registrar, as verified by his signature, was £14 13s., received by him on the 21st Oct. 1874. And the warrant also contains a pencil memorandum in these words: " Levy. 14th Sept. 1874. All the household furniture and other effects in the house." The facts thus appearing upon the Exhibit A being so different from the facts deposed to in the affidavits of the respondent, they were subpoenaed to attend this court for cross-examination. The respondent, Richard Gardiner did not attend on his subpoena, but as an excuse for his non attendance a medical certificate was produced, stating that he was unable, from ill health, to undertake so long a journey. I accepted that certificate as an excuse. I am obliged, therefore, to deal with his affidavit without having the advantage of any explanation from him. The material fact to be shown in order to displace the title of the trustee is that there was an actual seizure of the goods in question prior to the 18th Sept. 1874, the day on which the petition for liquidation was filed, and that possession of them was duly kept from the date of the seizure up to the sale on the 21st Oct. The statement in paragraph 1 of Gardiner's affidavit that he informed Douglas that £18 10s., the money produced by the sale of the goods in question had been paid to the registrar of the court at Llanelly I am unwilling to look upon it as a wilful mistatement, but I must look upon as evidence of culpable neglect of his duty as high bailiff in not correctly informing himself of the real fact, the amount paid to the registrar being only £14 13s., the sum authorised to be levied, and not £18 10s., the sum alleged to have been produced by the sale. His further statement" that he had no further control over the £18 108., but that he understood the registrar had not then paid the sum to the execution creditor, and that Douglas might interplead the registrar if he thought fit to do so," is a statement which cannot be read without feeling surprise that any high bailiff (especially one who is also a solicitor) should be so ignorant of his duty as not to know that if the case was one for interpleader, he and he alone could take out the interpleader summons and bring the execution creditor and the trustee before the court to have their conflicting claims determined. His statement in paragraph 2, that he had no previous knowledge (that is, no knowledge before the interview with Douglas on the 27th Oct. 1874) of a petition having been filed against or by the debtor John Watson, is a statement which I have great difficulty in not regarding as untrue. The petition was filed by Watson in the County Court of Carmarthen on the 18th Sept. 1874, of which court Gardiner is high bailiff. In that character it was his duty to insert the advertisement of the petition in the London Gazette, and it appears from the file of proceedings that such advertisement was inserted in the London Gazette of the LIVERPOOL BANKRUPTCY COURT. (Before Mr. Registrar WATSON.) The debtor, a team and cart owner in Collingwood-street, it appeared, presented his petition some three weeks ago, and at the first meeting a creditor, who held a bill of sale upon the debtor's property, proved his debt and relinquished his security, it being one of the anomalies of the law that, although a creditor may have taken a bill of sale as security, and had the same duly registered, it has no virtue unless he be in absolute possession of the property conveyed to him by the debtor at the time when the petition is presented, a provision of the Bankruptcy Act being that all property in the apparent or reputed ownership of the debtor on presenting his petition passes to the general body of creditors. Nordon appeared for the bill of sale creditor, and objected to a number of proofs of debts, and also claimed the right to examine the debtor. having heard the statement of accounts read and J.J. Yates, who appeared for a large creditor, the receiver's report thereon, said as there was no proposal on the part of the debtor, the simple course was to resolve that the estate be liquidated and to appoint a trustee, and as the creditors represented by himself and Mr. Lowe were statutory majority sufficient to carry the resolutions, he objected to his time being wasted by which could be much better undertaken by the listening to a long explanation of the debtor, trustee when appointed. He therefore insisted upon the votes of the creditors being taken at once. tion of the debtor would influence the determinaThe Chairman, being satisfied that no examination of the creditors, ruled that the votes might be taken, and any examination required might be pursued afterwards. 22nd Sept. 1874, and from the solicitor's bill now done. Had such proceedings taken place in any may A resolution to liquidate was therefore passed, and Yates retired. The examination of the debtor by Nordon was allowed to proceed at some length, and was duly recorded. On the resolutions, however, being lodged for registration, Nordon gave notice of his objections to the proceeding, and the question of registration now came before the registrar. Nordon urged that the resolutions were invalid, inasmuch as he had been debarred from examining the debtor till the meeting was virtually at an end. He referred to sub-sect. 3 of sect. 125, which enacts that the debtor shall be present at the meeting and answer all inquiries of the credi tors; but here he had failed to do so until the resolutions were passed and the meeting was over. Lowe, in reply, submitted that the sole question for consideration was whether any examination of the debtor would have affected the passing of the resolution. Here the statutory majority of creditors were represented by himself and Mr. Yates, and it was idle to suppose that, in carrying out the instructions of their clients, they could be affected by the debtor's examination. Further, the debtor had not refused to answer inquiries, but, on the contrary, was willing to have answered every inquiry; and it would be a great hardship upon him if he was to suffer from the default of the chairman. The objection also to register on the ground that the debtor had not answered inquiries could not be urged by a creditor who had waived his right to object by remaining at the meeting and examining the debtor at length. If, as was contended by Mr. Nordon, the meeting was over when the resolutions were passed, why did he remain and submit the debtor to a long and searching examination? He was aware of a case before the Chief Judge bearing upon the point which was somewhat against his contention, but there the circumstances were different; and, as had been frequently said by the learned Chief Judge, Every tub must stand on its own bottom." The REGISTRAR said that he saw no material distinction between the case referred to and the present, and he must therefore refuse registration. At a subsequent period of the day Lowe, on behalf of a creditor, presented a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy, and Mr. Bolland was reappointed receiver. LEGAL NEWS. THE Mayor of Winchester has received a letter from Lord Selborne, informing him that his Lordship will open the Science and Art Exhibition at the New Guildhall, on the 31st inst. AT a friendly societies' fete, held at Ashby-dela-Zouch, Mr. Albert Pell, M.P., spoke on the relations subsisting between such societies and poor-law relief. He strongly condemned the poor laws as a premium on improvidence. INSTRUCTIONS have been issued from the War Office to commanding officers, stating that when prosecutions are instituted against soldiers before the civil criminal tribunals of England or Wales, the fees to which the justices' clerks have a claim are to be paid at the time by the officer bringing the offender to trial. MR. WYNNE FOULKES, judge of the Birkenhead County Court, took his seat for the first time on Monday. In reply to the congratulations of the Bar, the learned gentleman observed that there seemed to be no limits to the duties which the law now imposed upon those tribunals. BOSTON ELECTION COMMISSION.-A Royal Commission has just issued, appointing Mr. E. J. M'Intyre, Q.C., Mr. Wyndham Slade, and Mr. Douglas Straight commissioners to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices reported by Mr. Justice Grove to have extensively prevailed at the last election for Boston. The inquiry will be held in August. Mr. Ernest Baggallay has been appointed secretary to the commission. THE Leeds Mercury London correspondent understands that Mr. Waddy's Bill for the compulsory registration of the names of editors, publishers, and proprietors of papers, intended principally, he believes, to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question, which the law courts are unable to determine, as to who edits the English. man, will not be pressed beyond a second reading, as it has provoked a perfect storm of opposition from the provincial press. THE Queen has conferred the honour of knighthood on the following gentlemen :-John Walter Huddleston, Esq., one of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer : Nathaniel Lindley, Esq., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; William Ventris Field, Esq., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench; Richard Garth, Esq., Q.C., Chief Justice of Bengal; and William Henry Walton, Esq., late Senior Master of the Court of Exchequer and Queen's Remembrancer. thereof. The recited Act provided that nothing in it The MARSHAL OF THE ADMIRALTY.-The office of Marshal of the Admiralty, in which a new appoint. ment is about to be made, is one of considerable importance, and has, in times past, had associated with it duties of a peculiar and somewhat interesting nature. The appointment rests with the Lords of the Admiralty, and the nominee holds office under Letters Patent from the Crown, bearing the seal of the High Court of Admiralty, with which court the duties are now solely connected. Previous to the passing of the Central Criminal Court Act in 1834, which took away from the Admiralty Court the oyer and terminer, or rather criminal jurisdiction in all cases arising on the high seas, and of which, previously, the ordinary courts of law had no cognizance, the marshal's duties were of a very varied nature. In addition to carrying out the process in connection with the arrest or sale of ships and other matters emanating from the Admiralty Court, prisoners in the Royal Navy were handed over to him for safe conduct to prison, and it was his duty not only to arrest but to hunt up deserters. He was also required, at the oyer and terminer sessions, to apprehend or remove prisoners, and, where sentence of death was passed, to see that This latter the law was properly carried out. duty was performed under very different arrange. ments to those which nowadays prevail. death warrant was issued by the Lords of the Admiralty, and was addressed personally to the marshal, directing him to proceed to Newgate, and from thence to convey the criminal" under safe custody unto the gallows set and placed in the public stream in the river Thames, within the flux of the sea and water, and jurisdiction of the Admiralty, before the bank called Wapping, and THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE SOUTH- at the time of the reflux of the sea and water, him the said (mentioning the prisoner by name), AMPTON ATTORNEYS.-At the conclusion of the there you hang, or cause to be hanged by the celebrated Tichborne trial the attorneys of South-neck until he shall be dead, according to the ampton, at the instance of Mr. W. A. Lomer, premaritime custom anciently used and observed." sented an address to the Lord Chief Justice of These executions would appear to have been by England expressive of their admiration of the no means rare. They were in many cases for manner in which he had conducted that great mutiny at sea, for scuttling ships, or perhaps for judicial inquiry. Sir Axexander Cockburn not murdering the officers by throwing them overonly intimated his high appreciation of the comboard, shooting, or otherwise killing them; and pliment, but forwarded, through Mr. Lomer, a two sometimes, as in a case of mutiny occurring in volume copy of his summing up, inscribed with 1769, as many as six were hanged at the same time his own hand, for each of the gentlemen who had and in the manner described. The marsigned the address. These valuable gifts have shal's heaviest duties, however, occurred in recently been distributed by Mr. Lomer, who has time of war. All prizes brought to Engreceived many cordial acknowledgments from lish ports were placed in his custody, pendmembers of the legal profession, both of his re- ing adjudication, when, if condemned as lawful presentative action and of the Lord Chief Justice's captures, he sold them, but if proved to be legally exempt from seizure they were released. As a specimen of the prize duties devolving on the marshal, it might be stated that in 1801, when, in consequence of an embargo being laid on Russian, Danish, and Swedish vessels he was directed to seize all property belonging to those nations that might be in English ports, he took possession of 532 vessels, searched them for papers to show their nationality, quieted disturbances which not unnaturally occurred on board, and kept them until their disposal was finally settled. During the last Russian war, too, the prizes sold under the present marshal's directions realised over £150,000, and the fact of all this money passing through his hands shows that the marshal's office is one of great responsibility and trust. Of course, in times of peace the marshal's duties are more limited, but, nevertheless, the Legal Departments Commissioners only lately reported that they deemed them to be of a highly important nature. The gentleman who is now retiring, Mr. Evan Jones, has held the appointment for a quarter of a cen tury, but he has worked for many more years with the practitioners in the Admiralty Court, and, after a total service of sixty-six years, he carries with him into retirement the most sincere respect and kindliest feelings of all.-Civil Service Review. consideration. THE JUDICATURE BILL.-On Wednesday a deputation from the Liverpool Law Society and the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce waited upon the Home Secretary, the Right Hon. R. A. Cross, at the house of Mr. Gilbert Moss, Aigburth, near Liverpool, for the purpose of pointing out to him that in the Judicature Bill the vested rights of the County Palatine of Lancaster were ignored. By representations to the Lord Chancellor some modifications of the Bill had been obtained, but according to the proposed measure the facilities for transacting business in the County Palatine would be curtailed. Mr. Cross expressed his sympathy with the views of the deputation, but said that as the Bill was in a very advanced stage he could not do more than present to the Lord Chancellor a statement of the views of the deputation. INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT. An Act has just been printed to amend the law relating to International Copyright. By the 15 Vict. c. 12, Her Majesty was enabled to carry into effect a convention with France on the subject of copyright, and empowered by an order in council to grant certain privileges to dramatic authors; and it was further enacted that, subject to any pro. visions or qualifications contained in the order and to the provisions in the said Act, the law for the time being in force for insuring to the author of any dramatic piece first publicly represented in the British dominions the sole liberty of representing the same should be applied for the purpose of preventing the representations of any translations of the dramatic pieces to which such order extends which were not sanctioned by the authors' -- THE FORTHCOMING TRINITY TERM.-On Wednesday the Common Law offices were re-opened after the vacation, and to-day all the courts will be opened at the usual hour, as the Lord Chancellor will not receive the judges; and the new judge, Mr. Justice Lindley, will sit in banco. 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. THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.—In a very short time the Supreme Court of JudicaWe English ture will be an established fact. solicitors will be entitled, in common with our Scotch brethren, to write after our names the distinguishing marks of our degree. It is to be hoped that, like the Edinburgh solicitors to the Supreme Courts, we shall employ, in our correspondence, and on our doorplates, the proper initials "S.S.C." after our names. They are to Would it not be as us what the letters "M.R.C.S." are to a surgeon, or billiard markers, and there seems, therefore, no J. J. B. SUNDAY AMUSEMENTS.-I deeply regret to observe in the LAW TIMES for the 8th inst., page 21, a statement that "the remark of Mr. Justice Field that' drunkenness might well turn their attention to persons who wished to put down people is the most valuable obiter dictum that devising means of rational recreation for the we have read from the Bench for some time." I infer from this that your opinion is that it is most desirable to promote in every possible way Sunday amusements, and to introduce the "Continental Sunday" into England. I am sure your views on this subject will give pain to all who love our old English Sabbath, and believe that a strict observance of Sunday (or of one day in Scriptural English Church. Our Profession have seven) is enjoined by Holy Scripture, and our also the precept and example of their brightest Hale to guide them in this matter. ornament the late Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew A YOUNG SOLICITOR. ADVOCACY.-Would it not be desirable that some provision should be made by the Incorporated Law Society for the instruction of articled clerks in the art of public speaking, in addition to the present scheme for improving the standard of legal education. The utility of such a course would, I venture to think, be too obvious to require a great amount of argument, and more especially as solicitors may in all probability be eligible for the offices of public prosecutors, should the Bill for their appointment be ever introduced into Parliament. About the end of the Roman Republic, when Cicero flourished, which might not perhaps be improperly termed the golden age of advocacy, the abilities of the advocate were by no means allowed to be developed by accident, as at the present time, but were matured by a systematic and elaborate training. After a Roman youth had acquired sufficient in |