EAR-RESISTING FABRICS. POULTON, WILLIAM, in lodgings, Smallheath, near Birmingham. PARTRIDGE AND COOPER, WE ham Pet. May 13. June 1, at three, at office of Sol. Parry, PRINGLE, HENRY STRACHAN, and PRINGLE, WILLIAM JOHN, colliery owners, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Pet. May 15. June 4, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Forster, Newcastle-upon-Tyne RADCLIFFE, ROBERT, grocer, Rusholme, near Manchester. Pet. May 14. June 7, at three, at the Union-chambers, 15, Dickensonst, Manchester. Sols. Bond and Son ROBERTS, THOMAS, and WILSON, JOHN HESELGRAVE, merchant tailors, Liverpool. Pet. May 12. June 3, at twelve, at offices of Sheen and Broadhurst, accountants, 10, North John-street, Liverpool. Sols. Lawrence and Dixon, Liverpool ROGERS, JOSEPH, general dealer, Wellington-rd, St. John's Wood. Pet. May 14. May 29, at ten, at office of Sol. Harris, Duke. st, Manchester-sq ROWE, HENRY, butcher, Cullompton. Pet. May 13. June 1, at one, at the Half Moon hotel, Exeter. Sol. Burrow, Cullomp ton RUSSELL, JOHN RAY, tailor, Jarrow-on-Tyne. Pet. May 15. June 1, at one, at office of Sol. Purvis, South Shields SCOTT, RICHARD, watchmaker, Kingston-upon-Thames. Pet. SHAW, JOHN, chemist, Broughton-in-Furness. STARKEY, EDWARD ACRAMAN, out of business, Bristol. Pet. May 13. June 1, at two, at office of Sols, Saimon and Henderson, Bristol STATHAM, FRANCIS FREEMAN, clerk in holy orders, East-st, Walworth. Pet. May 12. May 31, at two, at office of Sol. Chubb, Pancras-la, Queen-st TAYLOR, WILLIAM, confectioner, Suffolk-place, St. John's-hill, TINKER, JOHN, jun., clothier, Shepley, par. Kirkburton. Pet. TRUBSHAW, JOHN, grocer, Churchbridge, near Walsall. Pet. VAN MINDEN, JOE SOLOMON, commission merchant, St. Maryaxe, Leadenhall-st. Pet. May 8. May 24, at three, at office of Sol. Edmands, Poultry WHITE, JOHN, fly proprietor, Southampton. Pet. May 14. June 1, at three, at office of Sol. Shutte, Southampton WICKS, HENRY, coal merchant, Mousehill, par. Whitley. Pet. May 11. May 25, at three, at office of Sol. Durbidge, Guildford WILLANS, GEORGE HUMPHREYS, carpenter, Hillingdon. Pet. May 12. June 1, at four, at the Chequers hotel, High-st, Uxbridge. Sol, Marshall WRIGHT, SYDNEY WALTER TOM, licensed victualler. Pet. May 13. May 29, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Barrow, Wolverhampton YORKE, RICHARD, auctioneer, Lower Broughton. Pet. May 14. June 4, at three, at offices of Sol. Ambler, Manchester Dibidends. BANKRUPTS' ESTATES. WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS. 192, FLEET-STREET, AND 1 & 2, CHANCERY-LANE, LONDON, E.C. THE TIMES, Nov. 25, 1874. " THE NEW "VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE" NOTE, 9s. 6d. per ream. INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled, to hold SAMUEL BROTHERS, MERCHANT TAILORS and BOYS' OUTFITTERS, are the sole proprietors of these approved and novel materials for Gentlemen's and Youths' Clothing, obtainable ONLY at 50, LUDGATEHILL, E.C.-These superior woollen textures claim the notice of parents and guardians in particular and the publie in general. The fleeces in their primary state are from the best breeds of Cheviot and Saxony sheep, the wool being carefully selected for fineness, strength, colour, cleanness, regularity, and tenuity of fibre. twenty or thirty folios, 2s. 3d. per skin, 268. per dozen, W 1258. per roll. SECONDS OF FOLLOWERS, Ruled, 1s. 11d. each, 22s. per dozen, 1058. per roll. RECORDS OF MEMORIALS, 7d. each, 6s. 6d. per dozen. LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER OF MINUTE-BOOKS An immense stock in various bindings. ILLUSTRATED PRICE-LIST of Inkstands, Postage Scales, Copying Presses, Writing Cases, Despatch Boxes, Oak and Walnut Stationery Cabinets and other useful articles adapted to Library or Office, post free. REFORM. The exorbitant FUNERA the undertaker's bill have long operated at an oppressive tax upon all classes of the community. With a view of applying a remedy to this serious evil the LONDON NECROPOLIS COMPANY, when opening their extensive cemetery at Woking, held themselves prepared to undertake the whole duties relating to interments at fixed and moderate scales of charge, from which survivors may choose according to their means and the requirements of the case. The Company also undertakes the conduct of Funerals to other cemeteries, and to all parts of the United Kingdom. A pamphlet containing full particulars inay be obtained, or will be forwarded, upon application to the hief Office, 2, Lancaster-place, Strand, W.C. MOURNING REFORM ASSOCIATION. -Established with a view to curtailing the unconventionalities connecessary expenses and foolish nected with the present system of mourning. Entrance Fee 28. For the Rules, &c., apply to the Hon. Secretaries, Mrs. J. W. TURNER, Raby House, Stockwell, London; Mrs. W. T. OWEN, 35, Huntly-road, Elm-park, Liverpool; and Miss WHITBY, Peckleton House, Hinckley, Leicestershire. JOHN TANN'S RELIANCE FOR SAFES THIEVES AND FIRE. Daris, A. clerk in Somerset House, first, 1s. 6d. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Hurst, W. L. wine merchant, first, 7id. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Linckner, E. Bohemian glass importer, second, id. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Rogers, W. publican, first, 4d. Paget, Basinghallst.-Wood, R. J. china and glass dealer, second, 3s. 04d. Paget, Basinghall-st Callie, James and John, joiners and builders, second, 1s. At Trust. H. Bolland, 10, South John-st, Liverpool.-Clark, E. A. hotel keeper, first and final, 18. 7d. At Sol. Crumbie, York.Foster, Clayton, and Foster, umbrella manufacturers, first, 5s. At Sols. Minton, Boyes, and Child, Carey-la.-Hargreaves, J. attorney, At Trust. J. solicitor, and scrivener, first and final, 1s. 6d. Routh, Royal Insurance-bldgs, Park row, Leeds.-Hesse, G. A. Stanstead, second, 58. At Trust. R. B. Postans, Brentwood.Pitchford, E. B. and A. T. lead manufacturers, first, 1s. At Trust. C. F. Kemp, 8, Walbrook.-Rawnsley, J. worsted spinner, second and final, 4s. 3d. At Trust. C. J. Buckley, Market-st, Bradford. -Roberts, W. A. stock broker and share dealer, first, 28. 9d. Trust. J. Waddell, 12, Queen Victoria-st.-Tall, G. oil refiner, second, 10d. At offices of J. G. Carlill and W. P. Burkinshaw, 4, Parliament-st, Hull.-Taylor, George, wheelwright, first and final, 38. At Sols. Stone and Simpson, Tunbridge Wells.- Woolf, S. pawnbroker, first, 2s. 7d. At Trust. L. J. Sharp, 47, Ann-st, Birmingham. FARQUHAR-On the 18th inst., at 18, Frogmore-street, Abergavenny, the wife of James H. Farquhar, solicitor, of a son. HILL.-On the 16th inst, at 6, Oxford-square, Hyde park, the wife of James Eardley Hill, barrister-at-law, of a son. LEA. On the 13th inst., at Oakhill, Hampstead, the wife of George Harris Lea, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a son. MARRIAGES. HOWARD SOUTHEY.-On the 13th inst., at Caversham, Henry Blunt Howard, of Lincoln's-inn, barrister-at-law, to Ellen, the youngest daughter of Thomas Southey, Esq., of Balmore, Caversham, Oxon. LUCAS LUCAS.-On the 20th inst., at St. James's Church, Louth, Lincolnshire. by the Rev. Canon Wilde, Rector, assisted by the Rev. J. B. Oldroyd, Lionel Richard Lucas, the younger, of Louth, solicitor, to Alice Marion, second daughter of the late Chaales Edward Lucas, of the same place, wine merchant. DEATH. JEMMETT.-On the 17th inst., at Langhorn-gardens, Folkestone. aged 76, W. T. Jemmeta, Esq., Recorder of Kingston-on Thames, and late one of Her Majesty's Commissioners of Bankrupts. BOXES PROFESSIONS. EAR-RESISTING FABRICS. WEAR-RESISTING FABRICS. LUDGATE-HILL. The machinery employed in the earlier stages of the manufacture of these cloths is the newest and best, combining every known improvement, the important processes technically termed SCRIBBLING, CARDING, and SLUBBING are regulated to a nicety, so that every fibre of the raw wool is precisely separated before being made into yarn. So fine is the staple that each individual thread is only the 1500th part of an inch in diameter! The clearness and "whiteness" before dyeing, and the purity of the drugs used, render the colours of the cloth exquisitely beautiful. WEAR-RESISTING FABRICS. SAMUEL BROTHERS. WEAR-RESISTING FABRICS. WEAR-RESISTING FABRICS. SAMUEL BROTHERS confidently recommend these materials, which are in great and increasing demand both in London and throughout the Provir ces, families and the general public having appreciated the unusual advan tages offered by these excellent and enduring textures. It should be observed that they are most peculiarly and favourably spun in the yarn (extra twisted), and the cloth is so woven that it is rendered remarkably strong (almost untearable). The processes of "cropping" the nap, teazling the surface, boiling, pressing, and steaming of the raw wool are specially conducted by the best operatives in the cloth mills. AND STANDS. WEAR-RESISTING LISTS FREE. 11, NEWGATE STREET, E.C. ILLIARD TABLE, by Thurston, 11ft., dition, with marking board and some cues. Price thirty guineas only.-Address Mr. GINGER, Highwood, Hendon, N.W. CAUTION. ME WATERMARK TOBACCO. ESSRS. W. D. and H. O. WILLS intimate that, to prevent Fraud, every packet of their "BEST BIRDS-EYE" Tobacco now bears the NAME and TRADE MARK of their firm, both printed on and WOVEN IN the paper. NORTHAMPTON Established in 1835. ASYLUM. FOR THE MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASSES. President-The Right Hon. the Earl Spencer, K.G. Chairman of Committe of Management-His Grace The Duke of Grafton. Vice-Chairman-The Venerable the Lord Alwyne Compton. The main object of the directors of this Asylum is to provide, in a public institution, accommodation and comforts suitable to the former social and present mental condition of persons belonging to the middle and upper classes at moderate rates of payment. The terms of admission vary from 15s. to £5 58. per week, according to the accommodation required, but the rate paid on admission may be reduced after the first quarter, if the friends of the patient prove to the satisfaction of the committee of management that they are not in a position to afford so much. For further information apply to the Medical Superintendent. WEAR-RESISTING FABRICS." The Attention of Gentlemen and Guardians is invited to the fact that the "WEAR-RESISTING FABRICS are Manufactured in every style of Gentlemen's, Youths', and Boys' Costume. Gentlemen's Suits C class, 50s.; D class, 59s. Suit for a Boy 4ft. in height C class, 258.; D class, 30s. 6d. A Vast Assortment Ready for Immediate Use. AMUEL BROTHERS, Merchant Tailors, SYDENHAM indicates the special manufacture of Messrs SAMUEL BROTHERS. THE BOOK of FASHIONS contains forty-five portraits of Boy Princes of Europe, eminent Statesmen and Merchant Princes, selected from all ranks and parties. Each por trait (with brief biographical memoir) adorns a figure illustrating the newest and most gentlemanly styles of costume. Price 6d., or gratis to purchasers. Patterns and Guide to Self-measurement sent free. SAMUEL BROTHERS, Sydenham-house, 50, Ludgatr-hill, London, E.C To Readers and Correspondents. H. G. GOLDINGHAM.-We will endeavour to search out these names. You should have written earlier. We think Hartlepool, Exeter, and Portsmouth are three of the places. The Lord Chancellor's secretary would, no doubt, supply you with full information.-ED. Sols'. Dept. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected. All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. All communications intended for the EDITOR OF THE SOLICITORS' DEPARTMENT should be so addressed. Now ready, price 58. 6d., VOL. II., Part 5, of MARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series). 91 By J. P. ASPINALL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, in the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in all the Superior Courts, with a Selection from the Decisions of the United States Courts, with Notes by the Editor. The First Series of "Maritime Law" may now be had complete in Three Volumes, half-bound, price £5 5s. for the set, or any single volume for £22. Back numbers may be had to complete sets. The 1st Vol. of "Aspinall's Maritime Cases," from 1871 to 1873, price half-calf, £2 9s. London: "LAW TIMES" Office, 10, Wellington-street, Strand. Now ready, price 5s. 6d., Vol. XII., Part X. YOX'S CRIMINAL LAW CASES. Edited by EDWARD W. COX, Serjeant-at-Law, Recorder of Portsmouth. The Parts and Volumes may still be had to complete sets. It is the only complete series of Criminal Cases published in England. An Appendix contains a valuable collection of Precedents of Indictments. London; "LAW TIMES" Office. 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C. The Law and the Lawyers. WE learn on good authority that the law officers of the Crown advised the prosecution of Dr. KENEALY, for libels published in the Englishman, but the Government were disinclined to enter upon another prosecution in any way connected with the Orton case. This disinclination is intelligible, but we still consider that the determination thus arrived at was decidedly unfortunate. We were very sorry to see a letter addressed by Serjeant BALLANTINE to the Times on the subject of the trial of the GUIKWAR, in which he expressed his intention of resorting to some means of showing how cruelly and unjustly the deposed prince has been treated. The example of Dr. KENEALY is not one to be followed VOL. LIX.-No. 1678. by counsel. It is quite sufficient that an advocate should give his client the benefit of his skill in court. It is altogether beyond a barrister's functions to enter upon a paper controversy concerning the results following the decision of the cause in which he has been engaged. A departure from the long-established rule is likely to have most mischievous results. MR. JUSTICE BLACKBURN made a remark in court a few days ago which suggests serious doubts as to the wisdom of the enactment in the Debtors' Act 1869, which gives power to commit debtors who, having the means to pay, fail to do so. In the case before the Court Baron HUDDLESTON had refused to order the debtor to come before him for examination; and when deciding not to interfere, Mr. Justice BLACKBURN said he never exercised the power of commitment under the Act without feeling grave doubts whether he had acted with due discretion. He thought an order of this kind was rarely made by a Judge which might not be open to criticism, as showing a failure to exercise perfect discretion. THE select committee appointed by the House of Commons to consider the method of framing Acts of Parliament is eliciting opinions which point out the evils of the existing system if they are not altogether satisfactory as suggesting possible reform. The first witness called, Mr. BOUVERIE, considers that there is little hope of any improvement taking place in the drafting of Bills. In the first place, he says, legislation is too rapid; and in the next place, he says that ability to put a new Bill into clear language is a rare accomplishment-"it is an extremely difficult thing for a layman to do it, and it is rare even to find a professional draftsman who has such a knowledge of the construction of the English language as to express legal ideas clearly and well." Much as this is to be regretted, the fact must be admitted, but it must be also admitted that the Government offers no inducements to members of the Bar to cultivate any capacity for clearly expressing law, and our present system of text-writing encourages verbosity and condones obscurity. THE judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench on Wednesday last, in Reg. v. Chantrell is very instructive upon some questions connected with Quarter Sessions, and the duties of magistrates generally. The actual point for the decision of the court was whether the insertion in a statute of a provision which took away the certiorari, was to preclude the practice of sending up cases to the Court of Queen's Bench for its opinion. Inasmuch, however, as in Lord MANSFIELD's time the question had been decided in the negative, the question before the court was practically whether this decision should be upheld. It was affirmed. We are not so much concerned with the case itself as with the historical part of the judgment, which was another of the many examples furnished in our law courts of the continuity of our legal system. Doubtless many lawyers will be surprised to learn that even so late as the seventeenth century the Justices at sessions were supported by the presence of Judges. Besides this, other interesting historical facts were referred to in the course of the case; with respect to the decision it may be remarked that it is supported incidentally by a dictum of Mr. Justice ERLE in Reg. v. Dickenson (7 El. & Bl. 838), where he says "The Legislature took away the writ of certiorari in many cases because it had been used for the purpose of enforcing objections to mere informality in the proceedings; but if the use of it were restored for the purpose of raising questions of substance for the opinion of the Superior Courts, it would be a salutory addition to the laws." Probably the suggestion of the Court of Queen's Bench that the attention of the Legislature should be directed to the subject will have the desired effect. THE decision of Vice-Chancellor MALINS in the case of Harnett v. Baker (32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 382), seems certainly to be a sound one, but the most valid reasons in its favour appear to be other than these stated in the judgment. The plaintiff sought to enforce specific performance of a contract for sale of certain property at Eashott, Middlesex, of which the defendant became purchaser. The defendant refused to complete, on the ground that the conditions of sale were misleading, and a good title had not been shown. The 4th condition provided that the title to the beneficial ownership should commence with the will of a Dr. CLARKE, dated 1829, and the purchaser was to assume that Dr. CLARKE, at his death, was entitled in fee free from incumbrances, and was not to make any objection or requisition as to the earlier title; the 6th condition stated that the property had been beneficially enjoyed for more than thirty years past by Mr. JOHN HARNETT, together with his wife, or alone; but that the legal estate did not become vested in him till 1867. The legal title was to begin with a settlement of 1853, and no requisition was to be made as to earlier legal title. It appeared, however, that Dr. CLARKE had attempted to purchase the estate in 1824 from persons who had no title; that he had invested the purchase money, which was not paid in full till 1867, and that there was an indenture of mortgage dated 1849. It was shown also by the deeds of 1853 and 1867, that the parties who assumed to convey the legal estate at the latter date had no power to do so. And the defendant contended that he was entitled to an open reference as to title. The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after a very long judgment and review of the authorities, dismissed the bill for specific performance on the ground of misstatement of facts in the 4th condition. But there is really no statement of facts in the fourth condition: "The title to the beneficial ownership shall commence with the will of Dr. ADAM CLARKE, dated 17th Aug. 1829, and the purchaser shall assume that the said Dr. ADAM CLARKE was at his death beneficially entitled to the property in fee simple, free from incumbrances.". . . . The vendor does not state that Dr. ADAM CLARKE was so entitled, but that the purchaser was to assume that he was. It seems to us that it is the sixth condition which is really misleading. There the vendor commits himself to the statement that the property had been beneficially enjoyed for thirty years, whereas the full purchase money was not paid till 1867. Beneficial enjoyment would naturally be construed as the enjoyment of a cestui que trust, the legal estate being outstanding, but an enjoyment free from incumbrances. There are, of course, in addition to this, the general rules as to conditions of sale laid down in Dart's V. & P. pp. 138, 139, some of which apply to this case and justify the decision, especially the rule that the purchaser, "although bound to accept the title as it stands. may yet require to be satisfied, to the best of the vendor's ability, as to what that title really is." It is singular that no allusion seems to have been made to the registry, although the property in question was situated in Middlesex, THE case of Skinner v. The Great Eastern Railway Company, which was decided on the 25th inst. by the Court of Exchequer, is of more than ordinary importance, as elucidating some questions connected with the admissibility of evidence in considering the measure of damages to be awarded under Lord Campbell's Act. The case arose out of the Thorpe railway accident, the action having been brought to recover compensation under the above Act, for the widow and two children of one of the passengers killed by that accident on the 10th Sept. 1874. The deceased was the son of a rector in Suffolk, and thirty-five years old at the time of his death. At the trial the jury assessed the damages at £850. The father of the deceased had by will dated Oct. 1869, bequeathed to his son, the deceased, a legacy of £500, and the advowson of a living, provided the deceased should enter Holy Orders and be inducted. He also appointed some house property of the yearly rent of £175 in favour of the deceased, but with a power of revocation. A rule for a new trial was granted upon three grounds. These were, that the contents of the will which was destroyed after the accident, and the evidence of a deed of revocation of the appointment also made after the accident, were inadmissible, and, thirdly, that the damages were excessive. The two former questions are all with which we are concerned. The counsel for the defendants tried to move the court to refuse to admit of such evidence by an application of the rule laid down in Hadley v. Baxendale. The court thought such evidence admissible. "It was thought," said the LORD CHIEF BARON, "they (the documents) were not a legal certainty, but they raised the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit. I express no opinion on the amount awarded, but I think the plaintiff entitled to substantial damages." To contend that the admission of such instruments would extend the liability of railway companies, may have a basis of truth, but it is certainly the right view to consider the admission as in thorough harmony with the provisions of Lord Campbell's Act, since the jury are thus enabled the better to estimate a probable pecuniary loss, although it must often prove a difficult task to value aright a possible contingency. The latter fact, however, should not prevent the jury having the best data before them as a basis for the calculation of the amount of damages, nor does there seem any cogent reason why instruments of the above kind should not be taken by the jury for what they are worth in their judgment. VAGUE words such as "reasonable" must of necessity admit of various interpretations, but there can be little doubt that the construction this word received in the case of Re William Smith (32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 394), in the Court of Queen's Bench on the 22nd ult., will not be questioned. One SMITH had been convicted in his absence and sentenced by the magistrates at Southwold to six months' imprisonment with hard labour for an assault. He now applied to set aside the conviction on the ground that he had not been duly summoned, and had not had any opportunity of making a defence. A summons had been issued against him on the 9th of March for an assault on the 6th; on the 10th it was received at the house of his mother where he lived; on the 12th he was convicted. He put in an affidavit stating that he had not committed the assault, that he had never heard of the summons until after he was convicted, and that he had gone to sea on the 9th, and was at sea until the night of the 12th. There were in this case two difficulties for the magistrates to surmount. In the first place there was no service; and in the second, there was no service in a "reasonable time." The former difficulty is of course very slight, as Jervis's Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 2), allows the summons to be served at the "last or usual place of residence." The second difficulty is more real. In reference to this latter the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that it was hardly sufficient to serve a summons at a man's residence after he had left the country, requiring him to appear in twodays afterwards, while he was at sea. To proceed upon ex parte statements under such circumstances might be often productive of much wrong. The question of SMITH'S innocence was not the question; the point for decision was whether a dangerous precedent should be introduced. The learned Judges were unanimous in granting a rule to bring up the conviction that it might be quashed. Mr. Justice MELLOR thought that on an ex parte statement the summons must appear to have reached the party; and Mr. Justice QUAIN expressed an opinion that the power to proceed ex parte was so extraordinary that the magistrates would do well not to act upon it such cases. THE law of carriers is of such general interest, that we need make no apology for noticing the case of Drayson v. Horne, which came before the Court of Queen's Bench for decision on Tuesday last. It was an action in which a jeweller sought to recover the value of a parcel of jewels which was sent in a cigar box by railway through the defendant's office, but stolen by one of their servants. The Carriers' Act allows carriers to protect themselves from liability for articles of value unless the value is declared. There is, however, an exception in the case of felony. At the trial it was proved that a felony had been committed by the defendants' servants, and that the plaintiff was bound by a notice placarded in the defendants' office, by the terms of which notice reference was made to the Carriers Act as well as to a limitation of the carrier's liability to cases in which the value was declared, and the increased rate paid; no mention being made of the exception in the Act relating to felony. Plaintiff admitted that he was aware that the goods were carried on the terms stated. It should be noticed that the placard was headed, "Act of Parliament," in very large letters. Thereupon the question arose whether this knowledge and implied consent constituted a special contract. The court decided that the assent of the plaintiff was really only equivalent to assent to the terms of a notice under the Carriers' Act. "The mere exhibition of a notice not assented to as a contract," said the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, "did not protect the carrier until the Carriers' Act, which, however, contained the important exception of losses from felony. The protection under that Act required the exhibition of a notice, and the carriers here had exhibited at their office a placard headed 'Act of Parliament,” and purporting to be under the Carriers' Act. That was a notice in express terms under the Carriers' Act, which excepted losses by felony." It certainly would be a very novel way of creating a special contract, and thereby limiting the liability of carriers if the defendants' plea in this instance were held good. Of course there is nothing to prevent a carrier making a special contract, but that is no reason why the making of such a contract should be assumed rather than proved. The decision is all the more satisfactory, inasmuch as all the learned judges were unanimous in treating the plaintiff's assent as being no more than an assent to a notice under the Carriers' Act. A FORTNIGHT ago we offered some remarks upon Lord ALBEMARLE'S Justices of the Peace Qualification Bill, by which it was proposed to render eligible for the magistracy persons entitled to an income of £300 a year derived from personalty. The object of the Bill, as stated by its promoter, was to meet the difficulty which is experienced in many districts of finding gentlemen possessed of the property qualification now requisite. In the discussion which took place on the secoud reading, the difficulty was admitted, but the proposal to render an income of £300 a year a qualification found no favour, and though the Bill was read a second time, it was so altered that scarcely any traces remain by which it is possible to recognise it as Lord ALBEMARLE'S Bill. The alterations were principally suggested by the LORD CHANCELLOR, and adopted by the House of Lords. The Bill has passed that House, and will shortly come for discussion before the House of Commons. Strange to say, however, not a word was said about the absurdity of a property qualification for an office which has no necessary connection with property. Lord ALBEMARLE for several years introduced a Bill to do away altogether with property qualification, but he has since discovered that in a House which represents nothing unless it represents property, such a measure would have no chance. As the Bill now stands it proposes that a person assessed to the inhabited house duty of no less than £100 a year shall be qualified to be nominated and placed in the commission of the peace, and to act as a justice in the district in which his house is situate. Even admitting, for argument, that a property qualification is necessary, it is quite clear that the Bill will not meet the difficulty which has given occasion for its introduction. The difficulty of finding quali fied persons is only experienced in sparsely populated districts, where there are no resident gentry. In such districts it will generally be found impossible to find houses assessed to an inhabited house duty of £100 a year. We trust the House of Commons will not sanction a Bill which is only calculated to retain the mischievous practice of appointing men as magistrates simply because they own certain property, and without any regard to their fitness to perform the duties of the office. And as we said before, the only solution for the difficulty is the appointment of trained and paid magistrates. THE Patents for Inventions Bill is met by considerable opposition outside the House of Commons. On Tuesday last a conference upon the subject was held at the Society of Arts, where a number of objections to the Bill were discussed. Apparently these objections, briefly stated, are of six classes. In the terms of the resoIntion of the day, the Bill is objectionable in regard to the examiners and their duties, and especially as it empowers them to decide on the utility or frivolity of inventions; in abolishing provisional protection before the provisional specifications without providing any substitute affecting the same object; as it tends to reduce the term of letters patent to seven years; as it forfeits patents because licences have not been granted or the invention worked within a very limited period; because it empowers the commissioners to compel the deposit of models; and, finally, because the Bill does not appreciably reduce the costs of patents, whereas the cost as regards the first or provisional stage ought to be very trifling. Granting that the State ought to foster and encourage invention, no doubt several of the above objections have great weight, and their embodiment in the Bill would be beneficial to inventors. The instance, given by Mr. MUNDELLA, of a poor man who had reduced himself almost to beggary in the perfection of a patent showed clearly enough the great value of monetary assistance. But few people we suppose have not known or heard of cases where inventors have been checked in their enterprises by the preliminary expenses of patents on invention. Doubtless in many instances this is no loss to the world, yet it is manifest that nothing would conduce more to giving inventors an opportunity of testing their inventions, than a reduction in the preliminary expenses. That, however, is a question for other than legal papers; our only task is to note the changes proposed in the law. BILLS OF SALE AMENDMENT BILL. THIS is the title of a Bill introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Lopes and Mr. Gregory, which proposes some impornant changes in the law relating to bills of sale and charges upon property of the nature of bills of sale. The great object of the Bills of Sale Acts was to prevent "frauds upon creditors by secret bills of sale of personal chattels, whereby persons were enabled to keep up the appearance of being in good circumstances and possessed of property " when in fact their possession was only colourable, and the holder of the bill of sale could take possession at any time to the exclusion of other creditors. In order to prevent such frauds the Act of 1854 required that every such bill of sale should be registered in the Court of Queen's Bench within twenty-one days after its execution, and for default of registration such bill of sale was to have no force as against assignees in bankruptcy, sheriff's officers, or other persons seizing under a process of court. A book, containing particulars of all such registered bills of sale was to be kept, and to be open for public inspection. The provisions of this Act, and of the Act amending it, passed in 1866, have, however, been regularly evaded, so that the register is by no means to be depended upon as a safe guide to creditors. The Act requires that a bill of sale should be registered within twenty-one days of its execution. During those twenty-one days the grantee has the same power and the bill the same force as it would have after registration. There was, therefore, no difficulty in evading the Act by the constant renewal of bills of sale, always taking care that such renewal was effected within the twenty-one days allowed by law. The Bill now before Parliament proposes a very simple remedy for this, by proposing that whenever hereafter a bill of sale is executed on consideration of a debt, money, or money's worth and afterwards another bill of sale is executed to secure the same debt, or any part thereof, the subsequent bill of sale shall be void to the same extent and as against the same persons as the former bill of sale under the existing Acts would be void, notwithstanding such subsequent bill of sale may have been duly registered or the twenty-one days from its execution shall not have elapsed. In fact the first bill of sale must be registered. All sales or mortgages of or securities or charges on, any personal chattels of such a character that they might have been effected by means of bills of sale, must also be registered in the same way, otherwise they are to be void to the same extent as non-registered bills of sale would be void. The creation of the relationship on the part of a debtor of tenant and landlord with a person not actually his landlord so as to give such a person the right of distress, and that for the purpose of securing any debt, &c., is to be void unless registered. When the first bill has not been registered through ignorance, inadvertence, or without any design to evade the Act, and such error or mistake is made innocently, a subsequent bill of sale, if registered within twentyone days after such omission or mistake is discovered by the person claiming under it, will be valid. A most important clause in the Bill is clause 7, which proposes that after the first three of the twenty-one days allowed for registration, a bill of sale shall not, during the remainder of the twentyone days, have, or be deemed to have had, any operative effect against the persons as against whom a bill of sale under the Act of 1854 is declared void, nor shall its registration, if made during the remainder of the twenty-one days, have any retrospective effect to defeat any title or claim acquired by any of these persons prior to such registration. This will make it absolutely necessary to register a bill of sale within three days, which we venture to think is a rather strict and narrow limitation, more particularly affecting country practitioners. Three days will hardly allow sufficient time to prepare copy or statement necessary to be filed, and the proper affidavits to accompany, and allow for the transmission by post from remote and inconveniently situated small towns. If this clause is passed as it stands it will cause some inconvenience, and, probably, some injustice. Seven days would be a more liberal provision. As to the practice of registration, the Bill introduces some new provisions, to which we will revert on a future occasion. Of the drafting of the Bill it must be confessed that we cannot speak highly. It is by no means easy to understand, and is slovenly drawn. As a specimen we may refer to clause 5, part 2, which begins thus, " And no person who knows that bills of sale require registration, and with that knowledge," &c. We should very much like to know what proof of this could be given. Ignorance of the law was, we always thought, a plea not accepted in our courts. COSTS OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. THE efficiency of the criminal administration of the country is of such moment that it should never be absent from the minds of legal reformers. Any suggestion tending to its improvement should not be lightly passed over, but treated with the care and consideration befitting one of the chief subjects (so far at least as concerns the domestic affairs of a nation) that can engage the time of the Legislature. This is a sufficient reason for a brief survey of the position taken on the 14th inst. in the House of Commons by Mr. Gorst, in his speech upon the costs of criminal prosecutions. In order that we may better understand the views of the hon. member, it will be well to say a word or two in respect to the manner in which the payment of such costs has been and is now regulated. For this purpose the year 1835 will serve as our starting point. Until that time the costs of criminal prosecutions were paid by the several counties. A change was then made, and the Treasury undertook to pay one half of the costs thus incurred. This state of things continued until 1846, when, through the influence of Sir Robert Peel, the Treasury undertook the whole burden of the costs. The relations assumed by the Treasury to the local authorities will be clearer when it is remembered that the latter still continued to pay in the first instance as before, and looked to the former for reimbursement. This arrangement did not last very long, without modification. The Government of 1846 was well aware that the change made was important as affording a better " means of establishing some control over prosecutions," and that to obtain such an increased control was worth any outlay granted; but there were not wanting early signs of dissatisfaction on the part of the Treasury. This will appear by the following extract from a lately published minute: "Within two or three years of the time when a vote was taken to repay these sums in full, and they were paid without any scrutiny, they were found to exceed by more than a fifth the amount of the average of the preceding years, when a moiety only was repaid without, so far as is known, any increase of crime to account legiti mately for the difference." Obviously, as soon as a suspicion of this kind possessed the Government, steps would be taken to put an end to the causes which brought it into existence. Accordingly we find that two measures were adopted, by means of which it was hoped to check any abuses in the new system. By the operation of the Expenses of Prosecutions Act 1851, a reduction of £100,000 was made. Six years afterwards two examiners were appointed to revise the amounts certified by the local authorities. This brings us to the question now agitated. It will be borne in mind that the local authorities continued to pay the costs in the first instance, though they looked to the Treasury for repayment. By the introduction of the two examiners with power to disallow costs, clearly cases might often arise in which the authorities would fail to recover moneys paid by them in the conduct of prosecutions. And such was the case. Unfortunately our courts of law could do nothing in the matter. Thus the Treasury was, to all intents and purposes, practically empowered to make alterations in the scale of costs without any legal right. To remedy this unsatisfactory state of things a minute was made by the Treasury in January last, and this minute has become itself the object of some severe criticism. Its most important provisions may be summed up in a few words. The full costs at assizes are to be paid by the Treasury for the future; but for each prosecution at quarter sessions the county will be repaid a commuted sum, the amount to be ascertained by taking the number of prosecutions in the three years preceding the 30th June 1874, and the amounts, after examination at the Treasury to the jurisdiction in respect thereof, during the same period, and dividing the second by the first." Such is a short history of the payment of the costs of prosecutions. As we have already observed, the provisions of the Treasury Minute have themselves been discussed in the House of Commons. Mr. Gorst went into the subject at some length, and pointed out a number of objections to which we shall now refer. One objection to the old system was that costs which it was intended should be paid out of the Imperial Treasury, were cast upon local ratepayers; now it may be objected to the new system that it proceeded upon an assumption that all disallowances made in past years were lawful. The hon. member gave several instances of such disallowances. In January 1874, the chairman of the Lancaster Quarter Sessions expressly ordered the attendance of a witness resident in London. The summons was served at a cost of £1 1s. 5d., but the sum was disallowed. If a prisoner who had been previously convicted pleaded guilty, the costs of a warder attending at the trial were disallowed, although, as a matter of fact, that plea might have been, and probably was, the result of the presence of the warder. Besides, disallowances had been made in spite of the condemnation of the judges of the land. One of the strongest instances of the injustice of many of the disallowances was that in the case of a prisoner recently convicted at the Liverpool Assizes for felony. The man possessed £33. The Treasury took this sum, and disallowed the expenses of the witness by whose evidence the prisoner had been convicted. Another objection to the minute was that it made an improper and invidious distinction been clerks of assize and clerks of the peace, and another that the proposal to strike an average of the costs for the last three years would perpetuate the illegal transactions of the last three years. This proposal ignored the fact that the costs of these prosecutions were on the increase, and that chiefly owing to the heavier nature of the cases tried at quarter sessions than formerly. Further, nothing was said about abolishing the examiners of criminal law courts. Finally, there were two grounds for modifying the minute: The Judges had declared the system recognised by the minute to be illegal; and in the second place cases would be remitted in an increasing proportion to the assizes rather than to the quarter sessions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not deny the truth of many of these objections, yet he thought these examinations, being in the nature of an audit, were reasonable and necessary. The usual practice of Parliament when it has made a grant is undoubtedly to appoint to its own officers the task of seeing that the grant is properly applied. In using this argument the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have lost sight of the peculiarity of the case before the House of Commons. The Treasury undertakes to pay all expenses incurred in certain proceedings of imperial concern; at the same time it is invested with little or no direct responsibility in the details of expenditure. The Treasury may thus be regarded in the light of a principal bound to indemnify an agent for expenses incurred. Hence the fallacy of the Chancellor's argument; the grant in this case has been applied practically before it is paid by the Treasury, and it savours somewhat of injustice to disallow an expense which has been impliedly authorised. After all has been said, the question is one of national interest. If, as it was suggested by one hon. member, the economy on the part of the Treasury is creating alarm in the country, and producing a feeling that justice is being continually defeated, then the economy, if economy it is, would be miserable indeed. The action, or inaction, of the Government in the matter, appears to us quite mistaken. We are no advocates for allowing an unrestrained expenditure of public money under the head of costs of criminal prosecutions, nor do we suppose that expenses are not sometimes incurred without any reasonable excuse, nevertheless, we are convinced that a better method of solving the difficulty might be discovered than a resort to the fallacious system of averages. The weak point in this system was touched upon by Mr. Gorst, but not examined in all its consequences. Heavy cases, the expenses of which would not be covered by the quarter sessions average, would, he thought, be sent to the assizes, so that all costs might be allowed. But will there be no cases in which the average allowed will be an inducement to apathy and dereliction of duty? If human nature were perfect such a result could not be, but we must accept it as imperfect, and act accordingly, putting a premium not upon the neglect, but upon the performance, of a duty. Perhaps no better solution of the difficulty can be given than one which is based upon an abandonment of the average system, and the acceptance of one of the superior courts of law as a final court of appeal in any disputes that may arise between the examiners and the local authorities. The benefits of this course are obvious. Yet even this plan would surely give rise to ill feelings now and again, for it might very reasonably be said that the Government acted in bad faith by allowing at one moment the discretion of another body or person to be exercised in its name, and at another repudiating the expense thereby incurred. However, local authorities would feel far more security in trusting the decision to a body of judges than to two or more examiners, who probably are but imperfectly acquainted with the facts upon which a claim may have been founded. STOCK EXCHANGE CONTRACTS. THE case of Dent v. Nickalls (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 536; 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 645) is on all fours with Merry v. Nickalls (see p. 45), which immediately preceded it in point of time, and it will, therefore, not be necessary to detail the facts at any length. The plaintiff, through his broker, sold to the defendant, a stock jobber, a number of shares in a bank. On the name day the jobber gave to the plaintiff's broker a ticket with the name of George Eaton upon it, as the intended purchaser, and which name had been passed to him from another jobber. The plaintiff executed a transfer to George Eaton, whose name was registered as a shareholder. The bank being wound-up it was discovered that at the time George Eaton's name was passed to the plaintiff as the transferree of the shares he was an infant, and by order of the Court of Chancery the plaintiff's name was placed upon the list of contributories in his stead. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant to indemnify him for the amount of calls paid. The jury found: 5. That it is not by the usage of the Stock Exchange a part of the contract between the first seller and first buyer of shares which must be registered, that if there be several intermediate sales, and if the first seller execute a transfer to the person named to him on the name-ticket, and receive the price without having made an objection to the name, the first and all intermediate buyers are irresponsible, though when the name is objected to after the transfer, it is proved that it is the name of a person who would not, when the transfer was made, be liable as a transferree, but would be struck off the register if placed on it, and the name of the transferor be restored. 6. That it is the usage in such a case that the first buyer is liable to the first seller if damage accrue. 7. That the word " buyer" in the year 1866 meant, according to the general usage and understanding on the Stock Exchange, the real ultimate buyer. 8. That there is by the usage a contract between the first seller and the last real buyer, when the transfer is completed by which the last real buyer is bound to indemnify the first seller if the name given as transferee is the name of a person who could not be a valid transferee. A verdict was accordingly directed to be entered for the plaintiff. Subsequently a rule nisi was obtained to enter the verdict for the defendant if the court should be of opinion that there was no evidence to establish the liability of the defendant, or that the Judge ought to have so directed the jury, and also for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, and also on the ground of misdirection. Upon the rule coming on for argument, the Court of Common Pleas gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, and discharged the rule. Mr. Justice Keating, in the course of his judgment, said: "The usage in these cases is so well known that it is familiar to everybody who has anything to do with the Stock Exchange that when shares come into the hands of the ultimate buyer, his name is passed up the chain of vendees and vendors to the selling broker, and there are then ten days, during which time the broker may object to this name. . . . The findings of the jury are in accordance with the finding of the Lords Justices in Merry v. Nickalls (see p. 45). There they had submitted to them nearly an identical question, and they gave the same answers as the jury have done; and having all the cases in review before from Grissell v. Bristowe (L. Rep. 3 C. P. 112; 4 C. P. 36), to the present time, they have come to the same conclusion as the jury have done here." Mr. Justice Brett concurred, and quoted from the judgment of Lord Justice Mellish, in Merry v. Nickalls (see p. 45). His Lordship concluded as follows:-"As to the question of the verdict being against the weight of evidence, I think the Judges ought to be careful how they set aside the finding of a mercantile jury, and even if I differ with them that is not a consideration for setting aside a verdict. I think the jury were right in their answer to the fifth question, and I agree with them. The Lords Justices answer the same question in substantially the same way. In order to succeed here the defendant was bound to show that the answers to the fifth, sixth, and seventh questions were against evidence. I admit the eighth question was answered wrongly, and that finding cannot be supported, but it was not a material question, as there was a case for a jury. They have found a right verdict, and at last, instead of having a supposed usage of the Stock Exchange stated by the consent of the parties compelling the court to embark on intricate questions, we have facts found in a far more satisfactory way by a jury, and I for one am glad that the question as to what comes within that usage should be determined." Justices Grove and Denman concurred. On appeal to the Exchequer Chamber the decision of the court below was affirmed. Baron Bramwell gave judgment as follows: "I am very sorry to say that upon the findings of the jury we must give judgment for the plaintiff. In some mysterious way the jury have come to certain conclusions upon which we are bound to decide as we now do. Whether those conclusions were against evidence or not, we cannot inquire here." Justices Blackburn, Mellor and Archibald, and Barons Cleasby and Amphlett, concurred. The remaining case where the name that was passed to the transferor was the name of an infant, is Rennie v. Morris (L. Rep. 13 Eq. 203; 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 862), the facts of which were as follows: The plaintiff, George Rennie, was at the time of the transactions in question, the owner and registered holder of certain shares in Overend, Gurney, and Co., Limited. The defendant, William Morris, was a member of the Stock Exchange, and a dealer and jobber in shares. On the 14th May 1866 (four days after Overend, Gurney, and Co. had stopped paymont), the plaintiff s brokers offered the shares for sale in the market, and the defendant agreed to purchase them at 5s. a share, and on the same day handed in a ticket with the name of Robert Graham as the intended transferee. The plaintiff executed the transfer of shares into the name of Robert Graham, and on the 21st May the plaintiff's brokers handed to the defendant the transfer and share certificates, and made no objection to the name of the transferee. Neither party was aware till long afterwards that Graham was an infant. The defendant's name was never registered, and the plaintiff's name remained on the list of shareholders. In June, 1866, a resolution was passed for the voluntary winding up of the company, and on the 3rd July 1866, an order was made to continue the |