stop unnecestary litigation as the earliest possible disclosure of the strength or weakness of a case. They think that the existing rule, which requires a deposit of £5 to be paid before discovery can be obtained, is objectionable in principle and ineffectual in practice. It often operates in the case of a poor litigant to prevent discovery in a case where discovery is required; while it has no operation where the party seeking discovery is possessed of means. The costs recoverable on taxation upon the paying in and taking out the £5 are wholly disproportionate, and amount to more than 25 per cent. on the security. They recommend the abolition of the rule contained in Order XXXI., r. 26, and, with regard to discovery of documents generally, they recommend: ་ ་ 1. That the defendant by indorsement on his statement of defence, and the plaintiff by indorsement on his reply, or either party by notice delivered subsequently, should be entitled to claim the usual affidavit of discovery, and that thereupon the opposite party should within ten days after delivery of the indorsed pleading or of the notice file such affidavit, subject to the power of the Court or a judge to order such affidavit to be filed at any other stage of the action. "2. In the case of any proceedings being taken by any party to an action in regard to the sufficiency of the opportunity given by his opponent for inspecting and taking copies of documents for which no privilege is claimed, or in regard to claims of privilege in respect to any document, the costs of such proceedings, in the absence of special circumstances, should always follow the event of the application. "With regard to interrogatories, the case is, they think, different. They agree with the view that in very many of the cases in which they are administered, little or no result is obtained, except a considerable increase of cost and delay. But they think there are, on the other hand, cases where it is essential that interrogatories should be administered. For instance, when a party to an action has himself no knowledge of the circumstances, as in the case of a personal representative or a surety, as a general rule, the litigant should have the power of administering interrogatories. There are, again, other cases, incapable of classification, in which the exercise of such a power is useful, even though not absolutely necessary. Often incidental advantages arise, although the interrogatories and answers may not be put in evidence at the trial. Sometimes interrogatories, or the answers to them, stop an action; and more often still they elicit information which materially narrows the issues to be tried. The committee think that these considerations point to the advisability, not of the abolition, but of the more effective control of the power of administering interrogatories. "They think that the objections to the £5 rule apply to the case of interrogatories, as well as to the case of discovery of documents. They recommend in this cese also the abolition of the rule, and they are inclined to think that, in order to provide an effective check upon unnecessary or unreasonable interrogatories, it would be desirable to revert to the former practice, viz., that the judge or master in chambers should consider and decide, not merely whether the case is one in which interrogatories may properly be administered, but also whether the particular interrogatories proposed should be allowed. They think that, in order to give the party to be interrogated a fair opportunity of challenging any particular interrogatory, a copy of the proposed interrogatories should be served with the summons. "They think that the party interrogated, if the judge or the master allows the proposed interrogatories, should not be permitted to raise any objection in his affidavit in answer, except on the ground that answering may tend to incriminate him. They think, further, that in many cases the necessity for interrogatories might be obviated if a more strigent rule were adopted with regard to the necessity of delivering proper particulars. It was apparently the original intention of the framer of the judicature rules that the pleadings should in each case contain particulars sufficient to render an application for particulars or for further particulars unnecessary. This intention has not been fulfilled in practice, and a great deal of unnecessary expense and delay is at present caused by applications for particulars, and for further and better particulars, which should have been given with the pleading in the action. They therefore think that a plaintiff and a defendant respectively should be bound to deliver with his pleading all requisite particulars, and that in the event of an order being made for particulrrs, or for further or better particulars, the cost of obtaining such order should, in the absence of special circumstances, be paid by the party whose failure to give any or any further particulars with his pleading has rendered such order necessary. If an order is refused, the party who took out the summons should pay the costs attending the same." 10. It will be seen, as to interrogatories, that these recommendations substantially agree with the report of the judges, though the judges' resolutions do not seem to fully carry out their report. 11. As to discovery and inspection, the proposals of the judges appear to depend to some extent upon the summons for directions, but whether that is introduced or not the committee do not approve of giving the master so large a discretion, nor do they approve of Resolution 21. 12. The committee desire to add that it is desirable that it should be made clear that no alteration is intended to be made in the present practice as to the affidavits of ships' papers. 13. Resolutions to 38a.-As to commercial causes, the committee agree with these suggestions, but they are of opinion that the usefulness of the commercial court would be very greatly increased by attaching to it a registrar with powers and duties similar to those of the registrar in the Court of Admiralty. One of the masters might be assigned to act as registrar, but he should, where necessary, be assisted by commercial assessors, a system which has worked extremely well in the Admiralty Registry... PART II. CHANCERY DIVISION. 14. Resolutions 39, 40.-The committee regard the block of witness actions in the Chancery Division, and the interruptions and adjournments which take place after the hearing of these actions has been commenced as a crying evil, and they are strongly in favour of the additional judge, and of the separate witness list suggested by these resolutions, and also recommended by Lord Esher's Committee of 1885, and by the joint committee appointed by the Bar Committee and the Incorporated Law Society in Jan. 1889. The following is an extract from the report of the last-mentioned joint committee: "It is the opinion of the committee that the most urgent of all reforms required in the Chancery Division is that better provision should be made for the continuous trial of witness actions. "Since the passing of the Judicature Acts and the trial of Chancery actions with vivâ voce evicence, witness actions have materially changed the course of business in that division. The necessary interruption of witness actions under the existing practice by interlocutory and other business seriously increases the expense of such actions, and prolongs the time actually occupied in their hearing. Where (as under the present practice) witness actions are taken only on three days a week, the expenses of witnesses are much aggravated. Fvery adjournment for a longer period than until the next day requires old ground to be again gone over to a greater or less extent. "It is not only in witness actions that time is lost by the present breaking up of the business of the courts. It not unfrequently happens that an opposed petition or adjourned summons, interrupted by witness actions, is heard piecemeal. So long as witness actions are taken with other business, as at present, the hearing mast necessarily be intermittent. "In the present condition of the businesss other than the trial of witness actions, it is not possible for rny judge of the Chancery Division, except Mr. Justice Kekewich (for whom now read Mr. Justice Romer), even under favourable circumstances, to give more than three days a week to witness actions. Witness actions are frequently kept out of the paper for weeks together. In all the courts the delay between the time when the action is ready for hearing, and the time when it is actually tried is a grievous hardship on the suitor. "The committee, while recognising the propriety of the trial by a judge and jury of actions specially suited for such a mode of trial, do not think the difficulty above pointed out can be met either by sending other Chancery witness actions to the assizes or by transferring groups of them from time to time to the Queen's Bench Division. "The committee are unanimously of opinion that, with the present judicial staff, it is not possible to devise any scheme which will effectually relieve the pressure of witness actions or remove the inconveniences above pointed out. "It is therefore absolutely necessary for the efficient disposal of business in the Chancery Division that an additional judge should be appointed, so that two judges of the Chancery Division may sit continuously for the trial of witness actions. The occasional services of a judge attached in the Queen's Bench Division would not meet the difficulty. The new judge should be a permanent judge, familiar with the principles of equity and the practice of the Chancery Division." 15. Resolution 41. In reference to the suggestion that the registrars should be gradually replaced by additional chief clerks, the committee desire to point out that the orders made in the Chancery Division (particularly in administration matters) are often unavoidably long and intricate, requiring specinl qualifications and experience on the part of those who draw them up. Whatever change may be made in the names of the officers intrusted with these duties, the duties themselves must necessarily be distinct from those of the officers who have to work out the orders. Uniformity of procedure in the Chancery Division seems to require that the two sets of officers should be distinct also. 16. The committee are also of opinion that, while it is advantageous that each judge of the Chancery Division should be in touch with his own staff of clerks, there would be considerable disadvantage in attaching particular taxing masters to particular judges. 17. Resolutions 54 to 61.-The committee cordially approve of the proposed supervision order. It is not, however, an entire novelty, orders of a similar kind having been made by the late Mr. Pearson, and by other Chancry judges. Such orders have, as the committee believe, been found to work well in practice. 18. Resolutions 62 and 63 raise a question of great difficulty. If an executor or administrator is deprived of the power of preferring particular creditors, he will be bound to delay the payment of any debts until all the liabilities of the estate have been ascertained, a period which may be of serious length by reason of doubtful claims. This delay may inflict great hardships on creditors whose claims are not doubtful. If the right of preference is to cease, the committee think it should only cease when a creditor commences an action to enforce his claim, and notice of the action is brought home to the executor or administrator. 19. The right of an executor or administrator to retain his debt (i.e., ta prefer himself), appears to stand on a different footing. The committee are of opinion that it should be so far abolished as to give no priority or advantage to an execuior creditor over other creditors of whose claim he has notice at the time when he pays himself, such modified right of retainer not to be exercisable until a reasonable time has elapsed to enable the debts generally to be ascertained. The administrator ereditor's right of retainer is, it may be observed, precluden by the form of the 21. Resolutions 75 and 76 seem unnecessary as only expressing the present practice. 22. Resolution 77.--This slso seems to express the present practice, shares as to which there is any special difficulty being carried over to separate accounts, so as not to delay the distribution of the rest of the fund. PART III. 23. Resolution 41.-The committee adhere to the opinion expressed in in their report, dated February 1890, which was as follows:- "Nn new rules are required for the purpose of assimilating costs in the Queen's Bench Division and the Chancery Division. Any want of uniformity in the system of taxation prevailing in the two divisions must arise from the different modes in which the various taxing officers-that is to say, the masters of the Queen's Bench Division and the taxing masters in Chancery-apply and administer the same rules. This, in the opinion of the committee, would best be remedied by commiting all taxations to the same authority. In other words, the recommend that the taxation of costs in any Queen's Bench Division case should be referred, as in a Chancery case, to one of the taxing masters in rotation, and that the number of these taxing masters should be increased, and the number of the masters of the Queen's Bench Division correspondingly diminished, the necessary adjustment in the first instance being made by a transfer of some of the last-mentioned masters to the Chancery taxing office." COSTS. 24. Resolution 70.-By "client" is here apparently meant the successful party in the litigation, and the object seems to be to repeal Order LXV., 8. 27 (29), and to give a reasonable indemnity to such party for all the costs he has incurred in the litigation. The committee approve of the principle of the alteration, but think that the increased costs should not, without a special direction from the judge, go further back than the ommencement of the action. In any case the resolution appears to equire revision. 25. Resolution 71 appears to the committee to be objectionable, as likely to deter the best practitioners from undertaking contentious business, and needlessly embarrassing the conduct of an action. In lieu of resolutions 70 and 71, they suggest the following: Every order by which costs are ordered to be paid to any person shall entitle him to have such costs taxed as between himself and the person by whom such costs are to be paid, on the same footing as they would be taxed as between himself and his own solicitor, but such costs are not to include any charges which, according to the present practice, would not be allowed to such solicitor in the absence of a special authority from his client, and also are not to include any costs incurred before action brought or proceeding commenced without a special direction of the judge." 26. Resolution 74. The committee suggest that this be extended so as to embrace the case of a married woman who is an unsuccessful defendant. APPEALS. 27. Resolution 79 (Queens Bench Division side).-Referring to the proposal for forming a divisional court of the judges to hear appeals from Judges' Chambers in the Queen's Bench Division, the committee desire to state their preference for the suggestion made by Mr. Justice Cave in his memorandum of June 6, 1892, that divisional courts should be abolished altogether, and that a third division of the Court of Appeal should be formed to take all work now done by divisional courts, which it is not thought right to intrust to a single judge sitting alone. They also agree in thinking that two divisions of the Court of Appeal only should sit during the long circuits, and that the judges proposed to be added to the Court of Appeal, or some three judges of the existing Court Appeal, should go circuit in turn. 28. Same Resolution (Chancery Division side).-It should be made clear whether the practice of moving in court to discharge an order made in chambers is to be abolished. If not, what is equivalent to an intermediate appeal will be preserved in such cases. At the same time provision should be made for expediting the hearing of procedure summonses which are of an urgent nature. 29. Resolution 80.-The committee emphatically object to any rule by which the leave of a judge of first instance is made necessary to an appeal. 30. They are further of opinion that if the necessity of obtaining such leave be in any case imposed, the cases in which the leave must be obtained should be stated, rather than the cases in which it is not to be required. As the resolution stands, it is by no means clear that it would not exclude many cases in which the refusal of the right to appeal would work very great injustice. Moreover, the cases in which the resolution is to apply are left doubtful, with a definition of what is meant by an "interlocutory order." An order may be interlocutory for certain purposes, though it finally disposes of the rights of the parties (see Pheysey v. Pheysey, 12 C.D., 305). 31. In all cases of appeal by leave only, in the opinion of the committee, the Court of Appeal should have power to give leave if refused by the court below. 32. Resolutions 82 and 83.-The committee recommend that the time should be fourteen days in each case. 32. Resolution 84.-They thinfi that two months is too short, and suggest four months. CRIMINAL APPEALS. 34. Resolutions 89 to 100.-The suggestion that a permanent Court of Criminal Appeal should be established raises a question of policy rather than of practice or procedure. For this reason it is not dealt with in this report. The committee consider that the right time to consider it is when a Bill for the purpose has been introduced. CONTINUOUS SITTINGS AT LIVERPOOL. AT a sitting of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce on the 14th inst., a report drawn up by the chairman of the Commercial Law Committee was submitted to the council. The committee reported that they had read and given most careful consideration to the report to the Secretary of State by the Council of Judges, and were greatly disappointed to find that the suggestions contained therein did not satisfy the local requirements. On several occasions the chamber had pointed out in detail the pressing need for the more efficient and rapid administration of justice in civil cases in the district of Liverpool, and all that had been said in the past might. with increased force, be urged at the present time. The committee fully recognised the difficulty the Council of Judges had encountered in providing for the requirements of London, and they felt that the suggestions in the report would do much to provide for such requirements; but, so far as Liverpool was concerned, the suggestion would, the committee were convinced, be seriously detrimental to local interests, and tend to interfere with the administration of justice in local cases. Under these circumstances, the committee would again urge the pressing need for provincial sittings, on the principle of the Provincial Sittings Bill brought forward by the representatives of Liverpool and Manchester in the year 1886, and, if need be, the appointment of an additional judge. Such sittings would be held at all such times as those now held at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, and the judge would have power to deal with all cases capable of being dealt with by a single judge of the High Court, or by a judge sitting at chambers. Such judge should also dispose of all probate, divorce, and admiralty cases in the district. The committee cordially approve of the principle of the suggestion of the judges, that all costs reasonably incurred in litigious matters should be recovered by the successful party. Mr. Danson referred to Mr. Justice Grantham's recent charge to the grand jury, in which his Lordship spoke against continuous law sittings in Liverpool and Manchester. Mr. Justice Grantham gave a number of reasons as to why the judges thought it was undesirable to recommend anything like continuous sittings in Liverpool. Mr. Danson asserted that his Lordship's objections were not important, and that the Chamber of Commerce had a conclusive answer to them. In Liverpool and Manchester they wanted rapid administration of justice in civil cases, and this could only be had by having continuous sittings. They wished that the judge should be a judge from the High Court, and come down in turns with other judges, and take the cases. Mr. Justice Grantham said that every barrister of any position believed it would be most injurious to have such sittings. Surely, the mercantile community of this great centre knew better what it required than the gentlemen who came down and assisted in the cases. He would ask the council to give the Commercial Law Committee power to proceed, and to adopt any method they might think desirable to promote such a very desirable object. Mr. Squarey, in seconding the motion, said he had a certain amount of diffidence, as a barrister, in criticising one of Her Majesty's judges. He however, disagreed with Mr. Justice Grantham when he stated that any barrister of any standing believed it would be a most injurious thing to have continuous sittings in Liverpool and Manchester. A certain section of the Bar and no doubt an influential section-did not agree with the proposition; but another section of the Bar-not as influential, perhaps, as the first section had come to the conclusion that continuous sittings, divided between Manchester and Liverpool, would be conducive to the well-being of the Bar, as well as of the commercial community. The ViceChancellor divided his time between Liverpool and Manchester, and he sat as long as there was sufficient business on hand. Mr. Thorburn said the commercial community of Liverpoool were con vinced of the absolute necessity for continuous sittings. Mr. F. Henderson said that, so far as the shipowners were concerned, such a scheme of continual sittings in Liverpool and Manchester would meet with their unanimous approval. The proposition was carried. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months from the date given, unless other claimants sooner appear.] DEBAUNE (Maria), widow, and DEBEAUNE (Maria), spinster, both of Reverdy-rd, Southwark. £400 £2 15s. per Cent. Consolidated Stock, late New Three per Cent Annuities. Claimant, Maria Debeaune, widow, the surviving stockholder. Dec. 17. LUCAS (Sarah), Nottingham-pl, Marylebone, widow. One dividend on the sum of 1926 28. 3d. Old South Sea Annuities. Claimant, Thomas Lupton, sole executor of George Lucas, who was sole executor of the said S. Lucas, deceased. Dec. 16. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. DAVIS (James Crone), North Arm, Fraser River, British Columbia, who died in or since the month of Nov. 1883. His next of kin, or the legal personal representatives of such as are now dead, to come in, by March 7, and prove their claims at the chambers of the registrar of the Liverpool District County Palatine of Lancaster, 9, Cook-st, Liverpool. March 15, at the said chambers, at eleven. o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. HAMPTON (Walter), 76, Neville-rd, Upton Park, Essex, engineer, who died on board the s.s. Mackay Bennett, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Aug. 24. His next of kin to send in, by Jan. 31, the particulars of their claims to Messrs. Piesse and Son, solicitors, 15, Old Jewry-chinbrs. HAYNES (Jane), 23, St. James's-pl, St. James's-st, housekeeper, spinster, who died on March 26, 1891. Her next of kin to apply to the Solicitor for the Treasury. Treasury-chmbrs, Whitehall. VERNON (Anne Frances), Fir Tree Cottage, Hucclecote, Gloucestershire. Her next of kin living at the time of her death on March 16, 1891, or the legal personal representatives of any who have since died, and in particular the daughter of Joseph Vernon, and sister of John Henry Vernon, late of Whyke, Sussex, a pensioner in the Royal household in England, which said daughter, it is believed, was married to a man of French nationality, but whose name is unknown, if she claims to be one of such next of kin, to come in, by Jan. 23, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Kekewich. Feb. 6, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed to adjudicate upon such claims. The said daughter was last heard of at Cannes, France, in or about the year 1868. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. ATLAS SPINNING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 28, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. H. Pownall, 69, Princess-st, Manchester, one of the liquidators of the company. Feb. 16, at twelve o'clock, at the Townhall, Ashton-under-Lyne, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. BOOTHMAN'S LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up, or in case a valid resolution for voluntary winding-up shall be duly passed for the continuation of such voluntary winding-up, to be heard Jan. 11, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. Jackson and Jackson, 61, Lincoln's-inn-flds, solicitors for the petitioners. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition inust be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on Jan. 10. BRADFORD VICTORIA HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 18, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, to Mr. R. T. Heselton, 9, Market-st. Bradford, Yorks, the liquidator the company. Taylor, Jeffery, and Jessop 5, Piccadilly, Bradford, solicitors for the liquidator. C. M. TAYLOR'S PATENT BOTTLING COMPANY LIMITED (New Company).-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 31, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. T. Turketine, 19A, Coleman-st, the liquidator of the company. KENT AND SURREY TERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 31, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. H. Pannell, 31, Green's-end, Woolwich, Kent, the liquidator of the society. Burn and Berridge, 11, Old Broad-st, solicitors for the liquidator. LYE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Jan. 12, before the Worcestershire County Court sitting at the Court-house, Hagley-st, Stourbridge, at twelve o'clock. C. H. Collis, Stourbridge, solicitor for the petitioner. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on Jan. 4. LIVERPOOL CALEDONIANS LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Dec. 30, before the Lancashire County Court sitting at the Court-house, Government-bldgs, Victoria-st, Liverpool, at eleven o'clock. C. E. Nield, 11, Lord-st, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioner. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on Dec. 29. OLD CROWN INN FRIENDLY SOCIETY AT GREAT WIGSTON.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Jan. 24, before the Leicestershire County Court, sitting at the Castle, Leicester. Owston, Dickinson, and Simpson, 23, Friar-la, Leicester, solicitors for the petitioner. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on Jan. 23. RANKEN, ELLIS, AND CO. LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Jan. 11, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. Bolton and Co., 3, Temple-grdns, Temple, solicitors for the petitioners. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on Jan. 10. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BURGESS (Thomas), 15, Buxton-st, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Manchester, gentleman. DYER (John William), Thatched House, Chapel-la, Gosport, licensed victualler. Jan. 18; A. Gard, solicitor, 19, St. Aubyn-st, Devenport. Feb. 1; Mr. Justice North, at twelve o'clock. DICKSON (Henrietta), 6, Cary-parade, Torquay, Devonshire, formerly of 93, King's-rd, Brighton, Sussex. Jan. 18; J. H. Maynard, solicitor, 3, Langham-pl. Feb. 2; Mr. Justice Chitty, at eleven o'clock. GREGORY (William), Leicester, late a partner in the firm of Miles, Gregory, and Bouskell, of Leicester, solicitors. All persons having any claims or demands outstanding against his estate to send in, by Jan. 17, to Mr. R. B. Berridge, solicitor, Leicester. Jan. 26; Mr. Justice Chitty, at twelve o'clock. GRAYGOOSE (William Winter), 4, Beaconsfield-ter, Buckingham-rd, Margate, Kent, gentleman. Jan. 16; W. Hills, solicitor, Margate. Jan. 26; Mr. Justice Chitty, at two o'clock. MOLYNEUX (William), Woodland House, Seaforth, Lancashire. Jan. 16; W. Ayrton, solicitor, 9, Cook-st, Liverpool. Jan. 24; the Registrar of the Liverpool District Court of Chancery, 9, Cook-st, Liverpool, at half-past eleven o'clock. NASSAU (D'Arcy Nassau), 11, Baron's Court-rd, West Kensington, and of 5, Copthallbldgs, gentleman. Jan. 12; Dunster and Chapman, solicitors, 1, Henrietta-st, Cavendish-sq. Jan. 25; Mr. Justice Chitty, at twelve o'clock. SHURLY (Frances), Guildford-st, Chertsey, widow. Jan. 7 R. Kent, solicitor, 51, Lincoln's-inn-flds. Jan. 13; Mr. Justice North, at half-past twelve o'clock. TATE (George Price), 32, Beaconsfield-ter, Preston, Sussex, Civil Service clerk. Jan. 6; M. H. Stow, solicitor, 35, Lincoln's-inn-flds. Jan. 13; Mr. Justice Kekewich, at twelve o'clock. WILSON (William), the elder, Haughton, near Denton, Lancashire, hat manufacturer. Jan. 13; T. and G. F. Drinkwater, solicitors, Hyde, Cheshire. Jan. 23; the Registrar of the Manchester District County Palatine of Lancaster, 2, Clarence-st, Manchester, at eleven o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. ATKINSON (Ridley George), Clitheroe, Lancashire, dentist. Jan. 21; Robinson and Sons, solicitors, Clitheroe. ANGEL (Maurice Crawcour), formerly of 4. New Zealand-avenue, late of Capetown and Port Elizabeth, both in the Cape of Good Hope, ostrich feather merchant. Jan. 31; A. E. Sydney, solicitor, 46, Finsbury-circus. ALABASTER (James), the Hollies, King's-rd, Richmond-hill, Surrey, and of Fann-st Aldersgate-st, printer and publisher. Feb. 1; Arkcoll and Cockell, solicitors, 67, Tooley-st, Southwark. AVELINE (Louisa Hargood), 36, Windmill-st, Brighton, Sussex, spinster. Jan. 10; Lamb and Gates, solicitors, 14, Ship-3t, Brighton. ADDAMS (Matilda), Chelmer, Vansittart-rd, Torquay, Devonshire, widow. Feb. 8; Hooper and Wollen, solicitors, Carlton House, Torquay. BUCHANAN (Charles Sibbald), lately stationed in the island of Cyprus, assistant Commissary General of Ordnance. Jan. 31; Nicholson and Crouch, solicitors, 4, Lancaster-pl, Strand. BENNETT (Simon), formerly of Brierley Hill, Staffordshire, builder. Jan. 8; T. Homer solicitor, Brierley Hill. BARTON (Catharine), Norton-st, Liverpool, spinster. Feb. 1; W. F. Morecroft and Co., solicitors, 5, Castle-st, Liverpool. BEST (Samuel), formerly of 5, Blenheim-rd, Manningham, Yorkshire, late of 7. Victoria-ter, Headingley, Leeds, gentleman. Jan. 9; Markland, Davy, and Wood, solicitors, 42, Albion-st, Leeds. CHAMBERS (Eliza), wife of Henry Chambers, 36, Dame Agnes-st, Nottingham, CAMPBELL (William), Harrogate hotel, Starbeck, Yorkshire, innkeeper. England, solicitor, Townhall-chmbrs, Halifax. CROSBY (Hannah), Durham House, Sydenham Rise, Forest Hill, Surrey, widow. CHRISTIE (Thomas William), Ash House, Broad Green, near Liverpool, surgeon. DIXEY (John), New Park Farm, Messing, Essex, farmer. Jan. 30; Pope, Marshall, and Potter, solicitors, Trinity-st, Colchester. EVANS (Thomas), Beverley, Yorkshire, boot and shoe dealer. Jan. 20; G. Whiteing, solicitor, Lady-gate, Beverley. ELLIOT (Jean), 41, Markham-sq, Chelsea, formerly of 10, Thurloe-sq, South Kensington, spinster. Jan. 20; W. Robinson, Son, and May, solicitors, 18, Charterhouse-sq. ELLIOT (Sarah Georgiana), 41, Markham-sq. Chelsea, widow. Jan. 20; W. Robinsonson, Son, and May, solicitors. 18, Charterhouse-sq. Jan 31; EVANS (Thomas Merrett), Portland House, Knighton, Leicester, gentleman. Hanley, Partridge, and Waring, solicitors, 11, Belvoir-st, Leicester. FRIEND (George), Horsted Keynes, Sussex, miller. Jan. 10; Pearless and Sons, solicitors, East Grinstead, Sussex. GAINES (George), 10, King-st, Covent Garden, and of North-row. Covent Garden, herbalist and seedsman. Jan. 17; Starling and Giblett, solicitors, 9, Gray'sinn-sq. GIBSON (John Rowland), 10, Russell-sq, Bloomsbury. F.R.C.S. England. Feb. 1; GLEN (Eliza, otherwise Eliza Cunningham), 63, Holland-rd, Kensington, widow. Jan. 14; Buller and HALLIWELL (Nicholas), formerly of Alston, Lancashire, afterwards of Whittingham, HILL (Surgeon Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Walter), 6, St. Mark's-rd, St. Heliers, Jersey. HARTWICH (William), 14, Delafield-rd. Old Charlton, Kent, secretary to the Spanish HAMPTON (Walter), 76, Neville-rd, Upton Park, Essex, engineer. Son, solicitors, 15, Old Jewry-chmbrs. Jan. 31; Piesse and HELLIER (William), 49, Londoun-sq, Cardiff, ale and porter merchant. Jan. 20: JACKSON (James Dommett), 22, Beatrice-rd, Finsbury Park, manager of a brick com- Jan. 21; W. LATTA (James Campbell), 4, Park-rd, West Kirby, Cheshire, cork merchant. Jan. 15; LOWES (William), Chesters, Haltwhistle, Northumberland, farmer. Jan. 28; J. Baty, solicitor, Hexham. MCALPINE (Robert Moore), Naval and Military Club, and 3, Hertford-st, Mayfair, Major, late Captain, in Her Majesty's Royal Horse Guards. Jan. 10; Frith Needham, solicitor, 10, New-inn. MICHAN (Caroline Amelia Elizabeth Hervey), 40, Gloucester-grdns, Hyde Park, and formerly of Ashleigh House, Western-ter, Brighton, Sussex, widow, Jan. 20; Robins, Hay, Waters, and Lucas, solicitors, 9, Lincoln's-inn-fids. NEWSOME (Charles), St. Mark's-ter, Dewsbury,Yorkshire, woollen manufacturer. Jan. PLATT (Joseph), Market-st, Stalybridge, Lancashire, tobacconist. Jan. 25; J. Whitehead, solicitor, 131, Stamford-st, Stalybridge. PLATT (Henry), 3, Ousey's-yd, off Market-st, Stalybridge, Lancashire, carter, Jan. 25; J. Whitehead, solicitor, 131, Stamford-st, Stalybridge. PLATT (Sarah Jane), 3, Ousey's-yd, off Market-st, Stalybridge, spinster. Jan. 25; J. Whitehead, solicitor, 131, Stamford-st, Stalybridge. PARNELL (Matthew John), West Hanningfield, Essex, gentleman. Jan. 23; Duffield and Bruty, solicitors, 96, High-st, Chelmsford, Essex. PASSMORE (George), Sidmouth, Devonshire, retired currier. Dec. 27; Dunn and Linford Brown, solicitors, Castle-chmbrs, Exeter. PURKISS (Charles William), 79, College-st, Camden Town. Jan. 13; A. Donaldson, solicitor, 37, Bedford-row. RUSSELL (Thomas), Purton House, Purton, Wiltshire, gentleman. Feb. 16; Russell and Co., solicitors, 59, Coleman-st. Ross (Thomas), Sutton, Yorkshire, managing director of Hall's Barton Ropery Company Limited. March 30; Rollit and Sons, solicitors, Cogan House, Hull. RICHARDS (George), formerly of 87, Claybrooke-rd, Fulham Palace-rd, Hammersmith, late of Denham Villa, St. Dunstan's-rd, Hanwell. Jan. 16; Waddington and Cheesman, solicitors, 11, Poultry. ROBERTS (James), Gowdall, near Snaith, Yorkshire, farmer. Jan. 27; E. and T. Clark. solicitors, Snaith, Yorkshire. Feb. 15: Barker and Feb. 1; W. F. SYKES (James), 75. Spring-st, Kingston-upon-Hull, gentleman. TURNER (John Coham), 41, Fort-st, Barnstaple, Devonshire, gentleman. Feb. 1; THOMAS (Llewellyn), formerly of Fyd-y-celyn Farm, Llanfabon, Glamorganshire, late of Merthyr Tydfil Workhouse, Merthyr Tydfil, fitter. Jan. 11; J. Nash Leigh, solicitor, 31, Queen-st, Cardiff. VEEVERS (William Robinson), Alnwick, Northumberland, timber merchant. Jan. 31; W. T. Hindmarsh, solicitor, 26, Bondgate Without, Alnwick. COMMERCIAL FAILURES AND BILLS OF SALE.-According to Stubbs' Weekly Gazette, the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending the 17th Dec. was 177. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 147, showing an increase of 30. The number of bills of sale in England and Wales registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending the 17th Dec. was 195. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 192, and the corresponding weeks for the three previous years 188, 189, and 283. CORRESPONDENCE. This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. FORGED TRANSFER ACTS.-Your correspondent "A. H. E." in the LAW TIMES of the 10th instant, is under a misapprehension when he cites the case of Re Bahia and San Francisco Railway Company as an authority for the proposition that existing certificate proprietors of railway shares are already entitled to compensation, irrespective of the Forged Transfers Acts, "should it turn out that their certificates have been issued directly or indirectly by means of forgeries." The case in question clearly does not go so far as your correspondent suggests. The principle there laid down is, that the giving of a certificate by a company to a person (who had acquired the shares under a forged transfer) amounted to a statement by the company intended by the company to be acted upon by purchasers of shares in the market that he was legally entitled to the shares; that a purchaser from such person, having acted upon that statement, the company were estopped from denying its truth; and that such purchaser was therefore entitled to recover from the company, as damages for the loss of the shares, the value of the same. Your correspondent "W.," in last week's issue, agrees with the opinion of "A. H. E.," and says he cannot see on what principle the contention of the Great Western Railway Company-which seems to accord with my own can be correct. I submit the principle is clear enough, and, as the point is of great importance at the present time, I quote an extract from the judgment of Mr. Justice Lush in the case above referred to: "I take it, the claimants having bargained in the share market for a certain number of shares each, they were offered a transfer of the shares which had been transferred by a forged transfer, the certificate at the same time having been handed to them before the completion of the purchase, and by this certificate, in the usual form, and under the seal of the company, it is certified that Stocken and Goldner are the registered holders of the specific shares, giving the numbers. Now there is no doubt that the certificate was given by the company to Stocken and Goldner in order that they might use it in the usual way in which such certificates are used, viz., as a voucher to the purchaser of their names being on the register. And the claimants, having acted on this statement by the company, there arises an estoppel as against the company prohibiting them from denying that what is stated is true." There is no case that I know of that carries the principle further. It is clear, therefore, that existing registered holders of shares are not so secure as may be supposed. It is only in the case of a purchase from a holder, registered under a forged transfer, that the case above referred to can be of any avail to the purchaser. Existing shareholders do, therefore, run a risk (see Barton v. London and North-Western Railway) of losing their shares in consequence of the transfers under which they bought having been forged. While on the subject of the Forged Transfer Acts, perhaps you will allow me to mention a difficulty which has arisen on the construction of sect. 1 of the Act of 1891. What is the meaning of the expression in sect. 1, "for any loss arising from a transfer in pursuance of a forged transfer," in respect of which a company may make compensation? Does the former word transfer " refer to the transfer effected in the register of the company in pursuance of a forged transfer deed. If so--and this appears to be the natural interpretation-how can any loss arise from such a transfer? Surely, if at all, the loss arises on the payment of the purchase money under the transfer deed. The case of Barton v. London and North-Western Railway Company is an authority for the statement that no loss is occasioned to an innocent shareholder by reason of his shares having been dealt with under a forged transfer. W. H. T. LIGHT SENTENCES.-Having through most of a rather long life taken much interest in the subject of repressing crime, and having for nearly twenty years been an active magistrate in two populous districts, and for many years a visiting justice of a prison, I may perhaps be permitted to express an opinion on the subject of the article in the LAW TIMES of 10th inst., entitled as above, especially seeing that several of our judges and recorders seem to be following the practice avowed by the Lord Chief Justice, of disregarding previous convictions, looking at the charge before the court as the only matter to be considered in passing sentence. The Recorder of Liverpool (Mr. Hopwood), who seems to have carried the new views to the greatest extent, states that he has saved 2500 years of imprisonment without increasing, and, indeed, with diminishing crime. If this were really the case, it would be the greatest discovery ever made in crime-repression, and might effect great public economy by making "Othello's occupation o'er," for if the sole duty of judges is to release offenders however hardened, this might be done by the police, and thus the cost of judges and recorders and trials be saved to the community; but it is unhappily too good to be true. First offenders whose transgressions are not very heinous may no doubt be safely dealt with leniently, though few of these-save in the not numerous cases which as yet cannot legally be tried summarily-ever come before judges or recorders, for the magistrates at petty sessions nearly always dispose of them, only the more hardened and heinous offenders being as a rule committed for trial. Now, to persons acquainted with the ways of habitual criminals, the antecedent improbability of Mr. Hopwood's proposition that they can be reformed by the simple process of discharge without punishment is so great that to prove it would require enormously strong evidence, and the statistics mentioned in your article certainly do not go far in that direction. The evils produced by habitual or dangerous criminals at large are very serious, judging from those which have come to my personal knowledge. Thus, in prison-visiting I saw a man under sentence of death and who was hanged a few days afterwards. He had been previously convicted of shooting a woman before some judge who took Mr. Hopwood's views, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, on the termination of which he went straightway to the house of a man with whom he had formerly been on friendly terms, but who had refused further intercourse, revolver in hand, and shot the wife and several of the children, one of whom died of the wound, and the prisoner was thus convicted of murder. It can hardly be denied that the blood of this child is on the head of the judge who turned so dangerous a ruffian loose on society. The Recorder of Liverpool prides himself upon his mercy. Did he never hear that Sir Matthew Hale once said, when asked to have mercy upon an offender, "There is a mercy due to my country.' The mercy shown to ruffians is anything but mercy to their victims. So much for the human wolves; but the human rats, considering the vast number of their offences, are scarcely less mischievous. In one of our public offices a piece of leaden piping was stolen, for which the thief would obtain from the receiver a few pence; but the effect was to let out the water from a huge cistern, and thus much paper was spoilt, the stock of coals was damped so that the engine was stopped, and thus a large number of men were kept idle, and an amount of overwork was needed to make up for the lost time, costing Government altogether some £50. A valuable institution here was nearly ruined by a man who, having been its collector and dismissed for dishonesty, unlawfully continued to collect. He was several times detected, convicted, and sent to prison, but in every case recommenced his practices as soon as he got free. Not only was the institution robbed of much money, but the nonappearance in its reports of the names of those who had, as they thought, subscribed, brought much discredit on the management. When we consider the vast number of depredations which even one thief must perpetrate to obtain a livelihood, we can perhaps form some idea of the burden which 2500 years of criminals at large must impose on a city. ALFRED HILL, Barrister-at-Law and J.P. of Warwickshire and Birmingham. THE INSPECTION OF AN ADVERSARY'S BANKERS' BOOKS.-I have read your article in last week's LAW TIMES with much interest, but venture to differ from your conclusions. The Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 (as I read it) has not altered a banker's liability to be served with a subpœna duces, but simply provides an alternative method of complying with the writ. He can either produce the original books, or verified copies, as he pleases, but he must produce either the one or the other. The banker being no longer bound to produce the original books, sect. 6 was very properly inserted to provide for those cases (they must be very few) where "for special cause it might be thought necessary to have the original books at the trial, or to have the banker in court for the purpose of explaining the account. Assuming a subpona duces to have been served on a banker, and no special order to have been made under sect. 6, he would be bound, but for the Act, to attend in court with the original books, and he is still so bound unless he takes advantage of the Act. I submit that the proper course for him to adopt is to make copies of the accounts, verify them by affidavit, and let any clerk attend at the trial with the copies, and hand them in from the witness-box in the ordinary way. The customer's counsel could then object to their production if he thought fit. It would certainly be a gross breach of faith for the banker to hand the copies to the party serving him with the subpoena, or to allow him to inspect either the originals or the copies. The service of a subpoena confers no rights of inspection before trial. Hence the introduction of sect. 7. This section was inserted to meet those cases where the absence of all information as to the accounts until the very day of trial would be prejudicial to the party requiring such information, and it accordingly provides that the judge may authorise a party to inspect and take copies. It is entirely in the discretion of the judge, and if, in his opinion, a subpoena duces would be sufficient without prior inspection, then inspection would, properly, be refused, as it was in the case of Emmott v. The Star Company Limited. Liverpool, Dec. 20. HENRY WOOLCOTT. METROPOLITAN POLICE COURT JOTTINGS.--By a MAGISTRATE. Price 2s., by post 2s. 2d.-HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, Bream'sbuildings E.C.-[ADVT. LAW SOCIETIES. NEWCASTLE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. THE sixty-sixth anniversary meeting of this society was held on the 15th inst. at the society's rooms, Royal Arcade, Mr. H. C. Harvey, president, in the chair. The report of the Standing Committee dealing with various interesting subjects both for the Profession and the public, including the use of the library, the Public Trust Bill, legal procedure, &c., was, on the motion of Alderman T. G. Gibson, seconded by Mr. J. Gibson Youll, unanimously passed. The Standing Committee was desired to reconsider the decision as to the use of the library by the Law Students' Society. The officers for the ensuing year were elected- -president, Mr. Geo. A. Boyd, B.A.; vice-president, Mr. W. T. Hindmarsh (Alnwick); treasurer, Mr. J. Gibson Youll; hon. secretary, Mr. Robert Pybus; hon. auditors, Messrs. J. B. Lazenby and H. W. Sample, and twelve other members as the Standing Committee. Hearty votes of thanks were passed to Mr. R. R. Dees, on his retiring from the office of treasurer, after fiftytwo years' servitude, and to the president and committee for the past year. SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION (IRELAND). THE fortnightly meeting of the directors was held on the 14th inst., at the association's rooms, Four Courts, Dublin, Mr. Wm. Findlater, D.L.. in the chair. The following members attended: Messrs. W. Grove White, G. W. Shannon, Henry T. Dix, James Goff, A. D. Kennedy, Keith H. Hallowes, P. Lambert, Wm. Hayes, John D. Rosenthal, Arthur L. Barlee, R. Keating Clay, and F. C. Erle Bland, secretary. The Secretary reported having received since last meeting the sum of £5 5s., making the total annual subscriptions received since the 1st Jan. last £410 11s. The directors then proceeded to consider the various cases for relief, and made grants to seven applicants, amounting in all to £50, making the total amount given in relief since the 1st Jan. 1892, £505 19s. Directions were given as to the date of the next annual meeting and the preparation of the annual report. THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND. THE Council met on Wednesday, the 14th inst., Mr. Edward Fitzgerald, President, in the chair, and twenty-two other members were present. The election of vice-presidents for the year ending Nov. 26, 1893, took place. Mr. W. H. Dunne and Mr. H. S. Moore were duly elected vicepresidents, who thanked the council for the honour conferred upon them. A vote of thanks to the outgoing vice-presidents, Mr. Overend and Mr. D'Alton, was carried unanimously. A report from the Court of Examiners was read, detailing the steps already taken by them with reference to the regulations of the Civil Service Commissioners as to the examination for clerkships in the Legacy Duty Office, which would have the effect of excluding members of the Profession in Ireland and their apprentices from obtaining any of the appointments in question. The letters which had been addressed to the Civil Service Commissioners and to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject were read. Other matters of a routine nature were considered, and the council adjourned till Jan. 11, 1893. LEGAL OBITUARY. Mr. WILLIAM MAYD, of Willow Bank, Withersfield, Suffolk, and 15, Montagu-place, Bryanston-square, Recorder of Bury St. Edmunds, died on the 15th inst., at his country seat, at the age of sixty-three. The second but only surviving son of the late Rev. William Mayd, J.P., of Withersfield, by his marriage with Emily Matilda, daughter of Mr. John Kemp-Jardine, of Wixoe House, Suffolk, he was born in 1829, educated at Eton and Queen's College, Oxford, and called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1854, joining the South-Eastern Circuit. He was counsel to the Mint at the Cambridge Sessions, and a Revising Barrister, and had been Recorder of Bury St. Edmunds since Jan. 1878. Mr. Mayd, who was lord of the manor of Withersfield, and a Conservative in politics, married in 1858 Lucy Eliza, youngest daughter of the late Mr. William Fowler-Jones, of Ashurst Park, Kent. His Honour Judge MACKONOCHIE, brother of the late Rev. A. H. Mackonochie, the well-known Ritualist clergyman, died at Kenilworth, Bournemouth, on Sunday night, the 18th inst. Judge Mackonochie was a son of Col. George Mackonochie, of the East India Company's Service, and was born in 1823. He studied for the Scotch Bar, and became an advocate in 1845. Eleven years later he was called at the Inner Temple and joined the Western Circuit. He was a revising barrister from 1873 to 1888, and Recorder of Winchester from 1880 to 1888, since which time he has been judge of County Court Circuit No. 55, having jurisdiction chiefly in Hants and Dorset. Mr. J. J. SUDBURY, of the firm of Clarke, Sudbury, Williams, and Green, solicitors, Ludlow, died at his residence, Wonersk Park, Guildford, Surrey, on the 13th inst. Deceased, who was between forty and fifty years of age, entered the above firm as a partner in 1875, and on the the Bankruptcy Act of 1884 coming into force, he was appointed official receiver for the Shrewsbury, Stafford, and Madeley districts, but this office he ceased to hold after these districts were merged into the Newcastleunder-Lyme district some twelve months ago. Deceased leaves a widow and a large family. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.-HONOURS The names of the solicitors to whom the candidates served under articles of clerkship are printed in parentheses. AT the Examination for Honours of Candidates for admission on the Roll of Solicitors of the Supreme Court, the Examination Committee recommended the following as being entitled to honorary distinction: In the opinion of the Committee the standard attained by the candidates does not justify the issue of any first-class list. SECOND CLASS (in alphabetical order). George Dayrell Calender (Mr. Joseph H. Stretton, of London; and Mr. George Herbert Newman, of the firm of Messrs. Stretton, Hilliard, Dale, and Newman, of London); William Glasgow (Messrs. Simpson, North, and Johnson, of Liverpool; and Messrs. Wynne, Holme, and Wynne, of London); Arthur William Page (Mr. William Day Watts, of Bristol); Francis McNeil Rushforth (Messrs. Robbins, Billing, and Co., of London): Harold Thomas Stevenson, B.A. (Messrs. Pontifex, Hewitt, and Pitt, of London); Charles North Wright (The Right Hon. Henry Hartley Fowler, M.P., of the firm of Messrs. Fowler and Langley, of Wolverhampton; and Mr. Henry John Smith, of the firm of Messrs. Miller, Smith, and Bell, of London). THIRD CLASS (in alphabetical order). Allen Bathurst (Mr. Harry Woodward, of the firm of Messrs. Ravenscroft, Hills, and Woodward, of London); Vernon Reilly Cockerton (Mr. Frank Swetnam Goodwin, of Bakewell; and Messrs. Woodcock, Ryland, and Parker, of London); William James Gandy (Mr. Algernon Fletcher, firm of Messrs. A. and J. E. Fletcher, of Northwich); Alfred David Levi (Mr. Lewis Emanuel, of the firm of Messrs. Emanuel and Simmons, of London); Walter Robbs (Mr. Decimus Mallet Robbs, of the firm of Messrs. Robbs and Forrest, of Gainsborough; and with Messrs. Collyer-Bristow, Russell, and Hill, of London); Herbert Simpson (Mr. James Thorp Hincks, of the firm of Messrs. Hincks and Beites, of London); Ronald Japheth Tickle (Mr. Japheth Tickle, of London); Frederick Joseph Tootell (Mr. Thomas John Broad, of Watford; and Messrs. Bower, Cotton, and Bower, of London). The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have accordingly awarded to Mr. Page the John Mackrell prize, value about £12 10s. And have given class certificates to the candidates in the second and third classes. Eighty-six candidates gave notice for the examination. BIRMINGHAM.-The last meeting of the autumn session of this society was held at the Law Library, on Tuesday evening, the 13th inst., Mr. J. Atkins presiding. The following question was discussed: "Should the system of unpaid magistracy be abolished?" The speakers on the affirmative side were Messrs. F. T. Redfern, G. Botteley, H. Warmington, C. C. Harding, H. F. Simpson, H. R. Hodgkinson, W. Tomlinson, and C. Cattell; and on the negative Messrs. H. A. McCardie, W. J. Plows, O. Snow, J. P. Lambert, and A. Danks. After the Chairman had summed up a vote was taken, and resulted in favour of the affirmative by a majority of four. SUNDERLAND.-A meeting of the members of the above society was held on the 14th inst., at the Subscription Library, Fawcettstreet, Mr. A. R. Gales, solicitor, presiding, and a number of honorary and ordinary members being present. A debate took place on the following question: "A., a joiner employed by B. and Co., a firm of lift contractors, in the construction of a lift in a house in the course of erection, having, with the sanction of B. and Co., borrowed a workman, C., from a firm of builders engaged on the premises, ordered him to put a plank across the well of the lift and stand upon it. and then started the lift, whereby the plank was upset and C. was injured. Can C. sustain an action for damages against B. and Co. ?" Mr. A. B. Allan opened the debate in the affirmative, and was seconded by Mr. N. Way, and supported by Messrs. F. M. Frater (solicitor) and P. Waller. Mr. N. A. Ritson, supported by Messrs. J. H. Speeding and T. E. Bryers. argued in the negative. After the openers had replied, the Chairman summed up the arguments adduced, and put the question to the meeting. when it was decided in favour of the affirmative. A cordial vote of thanks to the chairman closed the meeting. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.--Tuesday 20th Dec., at the weekly meeting, held at the Law Institution. Mr. Clarence Harcourt in the chair, Mr. Archer M. Whitefopened the debate and moved, “That this Society is of opinion that music-halls, as at present conducted, sre detrimental to public morals." Mr. H. M. Giveen opposed. The following gentlemen also spoke : Messrs. W. M. Woodhouse, Brownjohn. Brinkworth, Arthur Smith, Wilkinson, Herbert Smith, Burgess (Manager. of the Royal Music Hall), Mr. McDougal (London County Council). M. White replied. The motion was lost. NOTICE OF REMOVAL.---Hepburn and Cocks, manufacturers of Legal and other Boxes, beg to inform their customers and the public generally that through expiration of lease they have removed from 93, Chancery-lane, to 49A, Lincoln's-inn-fields. Over 100 years' reputation for quality and good value. ADVT.] HAYNES'S STUDENT'S GUIDE TO THE JURISDICTION AND PRACTICE OF THE ADMIRALTY SUBDIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Especially prepared for the use of Candidates for the Final and Honours Examinations of the Incorporated Law Society. Price 2s. 6d.-HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.[ADVT.] |