Profession to help the poor, and everyone should, so far as possible, help the council in the restricted field which apparently they intended to enter upon. The report of Mr. Justice Lawrence's committee did apparently indicate a step in the right direction. He did not agree with the previous speaker, and thought that the Society should support the council in their efforts to carry the scheme into operation. If the conditions under which the scheme was to be worked were such that the solicitor would not receive his out-of-pocket expenses, it would be so unworkable that it would break down.

Mr. BARRY O'BRIEN said that he did not know exactly what scheme the council had in mind, and until the society received some information on that point he thought that those who in the past had undertaken the poor persons' cases and were prepared to do so again would hesitate about doing so. Speaking as one who had undertaken these cases, he believed that there were very few members of the Profession who would not recognise the duty to assist in the matter. But there were two sides to the question. There was the poor persons' side and there was also the solicitors' side to be considered. He had known of solicitors ceasing to take these cases because of the absurd system, as he had heard it called, with regard to out-of-pocket expenses. The fact of the solicitor having to account for every penny was ridiculous and degrading; and until that was altered he, personally, would not take any further cases. He hoped the committee of the council would give fair consideration to the position of solicitors undertaking the work. They ought to be able to look forward to doing it without being out of pocket. A speaker had regretted that the Poor Persons Procedure was passing to the council of the society and away from a Government department. Without casting any reflection upon that department, or upon those who discharged the work, it was generally to be admitted that work administered by Government departments suffered under the disadvantages of red tape and dilatory methods. If the work were administered by the society it was to be hoped there would be efficiency, and, above all, celerity. The PRESIDENT promised that the suggestions that had been made would be carefully considered by the council. Poor Persons Procedure was a very difficult matter. The whole of the solicitors of the country would have to be brought into line; all the local societies would have to be consulted. The committee were holding frequent meetings.

Sir J. R. B. GREGORY (chairman of the special committee), referring to the remarks of Mr. Lea, said that it was true that it was proposed to do away with the Poor Persons Department; but he thought Mr. Lea had unconsciously exaggerated the work done by that department, which had only the duty of seeing that the cases were dealt with, and of selecting the people to deal with them. The council proposed to eliminate the great objection which the last speaker had referred to, namely, that the solicitor had to submit to having the small details of expenditure criticised by a person who was more or less ignorant of the subject. It was considered by the society's central committee, and by the committees in the provinces, all of them composed of solicitors, advisable to undertake the conduct of the work and see it through, not only for the benefit of the poor persons, but for the honour of the Profession. The difficulty with regard to the recoupment of out-of-pocket expenses arose from the fact of the solicitor's bill having to be delivered to the prescribed officer. His account would not now be submitted to any official but to the committee, and the committee would be able to exercise a wide discretion and to allot to the solicitor such sum as they might think proper for his out-of-pocket expenses, provided, of course, there were sufficient funds. In divorce cases there would be a deposit of £5-in special cases possibly £10-and solicitors would be under no obligation to provide a single penny of expense. In most cases the deposit would be sufficient, but if it were not, the solicitor might go to the committee and ask the poor person client to make some addition to the amount already deposited. He realised that in taking over the work the council were accepting a very serious burden; but the fact of Mr. Justice Lawrence's committee having recommended that the society should undertake the work formed welcome evidence, in his opinion, of the confidence of the committee in the honour of the Profession. He believed the council would do the work better than it was done at present. They would do it on a wider basis, and with a knowledge that was not within the scope of the prescribed officer-the registrar of the Chancery Division, or a master of the High Court; and he thought it would be found, having regard to the controlling point in the report, that the work of the divorce cases should be spread over the whole of the country, instead of being centered entirely in London. That would enable a fair division of the work to be made between London and country practitioners, and the work would go through with very much less labour being thrown on any particular practitioner. The committee were engaged in making to the council their report, which was already in draft, upon the report of Mr. Justice Lawrence's committee. The society's committee had tried to deal with the many criticisms which had been made and with many of the difficulties which occurred, or which might be raised, in the working of the scheme. It was important to anticipate all the small details that might arise in the working; but he did not think they would be insuperable. He was quite sure that the meeting would believe that the council would do their best to carry out the work, and if they succeeded it would be a complete answer to anybody who might-quite improperly-suggest that the

members of the Profession were regardless of anything but their own interests.

The motion for the adoption of the report was carried.
EXPLANATIONS IN COURT.

Mr. GUILFORD E. LEWIS moved : That it be referred to a committee consisting of six members of the council and six members not being members of the council, to consider and report upon the desirability of solicitors having the right to address the court on matters affecting them personally arising out of actions in which they are professionally concerned, with a view, if so thought desirable, to measures being taken to secure this right of address." He said that the members of every profession-the Army, the Navy, the medical profession, and of every calling who were subjected to indignity-possessed the right to stand up for the honour not only of himself but of the profession or calling to which he belonged, and that right ought not to be denied to solicitors. He had no notion, in moving the resolution, of claiming audience for solicitors in the High Court, and he could not see how anyone could use the resolution in furtherance of that idea. If it were passed it would devolve upon the committee which was proposed to determine whether or not it was desirable that it should be carried into effect. During a practice of forty years, on many occasions remarks had been made professionally by counsel which had reflected more or less upon his conduct of the matters in which he was engaged. He had spoken to innumerable solicitors on the subject and had found scarcely one whose experience did not coincide with his own. There was no body of men who performed work of any description who had not the right to defend their reputation, and why should solicitors have to submit in silence to the remarks made and the reflections cast upon them? It was not only humiliating to the individual but degrading to the entire Profession. In a case in which his counsel was attacked by the opposing counsel, when counsel attempted to reply, he was met with the observation from the judge, "Don't tread on the tail of my coat; let sleeping judges lie," and his counsel thereupon sat down. It was a good old adage, very much acted upon by counsel, that with a weak case you should throw mud at the opposing attorney. What he had said would be endorsed by every man in the hall. Such things left a nasty taste in the mouth. He, personally, wrote to the judge, giving him an explanation, and the judge replied through his clerk that he was pleased to accept "his explanation. That explanation should have been given in court, and if it were the practice to make such explanations, it was possible that an end would come to solicitors being subjected in open court to the animadversions of the judge. It was the right of the solicitor, as of anyone else, where he was attacked, to be either acquitted or condemned, and it was unfair that his mouth should be shut.

66

Mr. R. H. WHITWORTH Seconded the motion, observing that he, too, had had the misfortune to fall foul of a judge, and many of the members of the Profession were smarting under the remarks made by judges at various times, when they had no means whatever of defending themselves. Counsel seemed to believe that their duty had been carried out when they had done their best for the lay client, and that they were not called upon to defend the man who had put the case into their hands.

Mr. BELL spoke in opposition to the motion. He remarked that "hard cases make good laws." A solicitor, he said, should not be thin-skinned—-he should be a man of the world. The solicitor should not have written over his door, “Nemo me impune lacessit," but should recollect that he was a dispassionate person and, if anyone should say unkind things with regard to him he should look upon it as a matter which should be allowed to rest and die of its own inanition. To rise in court and expostulate on such an occasion would take up public time, and sometimes invite ridicule. He did not think that counsel would allow any obviously disparaging remark which was ill-founded to be made about the solicitor who instructed him without protest. Solicitors should not make themselves ridiculous. He urged that the meeting should not adopt the motion.

Mr. BARRY O'BRIEN said he agreed with Mr. Bell, although he was entirely in sympathy with the mover of the motion. One knew that in many cases remarks were made which were entirely unjustified. But it was the duty of the solicitors' counsel to defend him. If solicitors were to be allowed to address the court in such cases it was difficult to say where the line was to be drawn. Some of them were earnestly looking forward to the day when the two branches of the Profession would be amalgamated. When the time came, as he certainly thought it would come, there would be no need for such a resolution, for solicitors would then be able to conduct their own cases.

Mr. C. F. FISHER said it was a monstrous thing that judges should be able to make remarks about those who had no opportunity of defending themselves. He had suffered financially by an observation made by a judge in a case in which he was engaged which he had no opportunity of publicly refuting. It was high time that the judges should recognise that they were not at liberty to make these observations.

The motion was rejected by twenty-five votes to twenty-one.

Mr. WEEDEN DAWES.

At a recent meeting of the council of the Law Society a letter was read from Mr. Weeden Dawes, stating that, having retired from

practice, he had decided to resign his membership of the council.

It was unanimously resolved: That the council have received with very great regret Mr. Dawes's letter of resignation. His long service and experience have been most valuable to the Profession, and his regular attendance at meetings of the council and of committees of which he has been a member has been greatly valued and appreciated by his colleagues. The council desire especially to thank him for his arduous labours on the Finance and Examination Committees. They wish to him and to Mrs. Dawes many years of health in which to enjoy their well-earned leisure.

THE HON. R. H. LYTTELTON.

A letter was read from the Hon. R. H. Lyttelton, requesting the council to accept his resignation of membership, on the ground, inter alia, that he had ceased active practice.

It was unanimously resolved that the council have received with the utmost regret Mr. Lyttelton's letter of resignation. They have always regarded his presence at their board as ensuring just and fair comment upon any matters submitted for their deliberation, particularly in connection with any question of professional etiquette or conduct. His services on the Professional Purposes Committee, with whose labours he has so closely identified himself, have been of the greatest value to the Profession and the council.

MANORS AND MANORIAL DOCUMENTS.

The President has received from the Master of the Rolls, under whose charge and superintendence all manorial documents are to be placed, a letter expressing the hope that members of the society who might be in a position to supply information concerning any manors, whether existing or now extinct, would send him particulars as to the names and situations of such manors, and the names and addresses of the lords and stewards.

The President and the council hoped that members who were in the possession of the required information would communicate the particulars to the Master of the Rolls at the Public Record Office, as requested.

SOCIETY OF PUBLIC TEACHERS OF LAW THE members of the Society of Public Teachers of Law were entertained at dinner on Thursday evening (July 9th) by the Court of Governors, the Director (Sir William Beveridge, K.C.B.), and members of the Law Staff of the London School of Economics and Political Science, at the School, on the occasion of the seventeenth annual meeting of the society. The company numbered about seventy, and the guests included the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Atkin, Professor Butler, Sir Claud Schuster, Sir Cecil Hurst, Mr. Justice Wright, the president of the Law Society (Mr. W. H. Norton), Mr. Langdon, K.C., Professor Lambert (of the University of Lyons), and Mr. Wilson Potter. After the royal toast (proposed by Sir William Beveridge), the Lord Chief Justice proposed The Society of Public Teachers of Law," which was responded to by the president of the society, Professor J. L. Brierly. Lord Justice Atkin proposed "The Visitors," which was responded to by Professor Butler and Sir Cecil Hurst.

The annual meeting of the society was held on Friday morning at the School, to transact the formal business of the society. The thanks of the society were conveyed to Mr. H. F. Jolowics for his labours as editor of the society's journal. Professor Brierly delivered his presidential address, his subject being, "The Place of International Law in Legal Education." Professor Buckland was elected president for the ensuing year, Dr. Burgin as vicepresident, Dr. Winfield as treasurer, and Mr. E. C. S. Wade as hon. secretary. After votes of thanks to the auditors and officers for their work during the past year, and to the governors and the directors of the School of Economics for their generous hospitality, the meeting adjourned, and members of the Society were entertained privately during the middle of the day. In the afternoon, the members re-assembled at the School for tea as guests of the director, after which Professor Lambert, of the University of Lyons, read a paper on "L'enseignement de la jurisprudence comparative, et les instituts de droit comparé en France."

Professor Jenks then read a note on the handling of the new property legislation for teaching purposes, which gave rise to an interesting discussion.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION THE monthly meeting of the directors was held at the Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, London, on the 8th inst., Mr. E. F. Knapp-Fisher in the chair. The other directors present were Messrs. A. G. Gibson (vice-chairman), Right Hon. Sir William Bull, T. S. Curtis, E. F. Dent, F. R. James (Hereford), Major C. A. Markham (Northampton), C. G. May, H. A. H. Newington, R. W. Poole, M. A. Tweedie, and A. B. Urmston (Maidstone). £1317 was distributed in grants of relief, eleven new members were admitted and other general business transacted. Mr. Frederick L. Steward (Wolverhampton), was elected as a director.

LAW ASSOCIATION

THE usual monthly meeting of the directors was held at the Law Society's Hall on Thursday, the 9th July, Mr. J. E. W. Rider in the chair. The other directors present were Mr. F. W. Emery, Mr. P. E.

THE Council, acting on the recommendation of the Legal Education Committee, has made the following award for 1925 of studentships of the annual value of £40 each, tenable for one year, but renewable at the discretion of the council: Class A. (for candidates under nineteen): Mr. William Henry Jervis Parish (Portsmouth Grammar School and University College, Southampton); Mr. John Baxter Somerville (St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate, and the Law Society); Mr. Ben Atkinson Wortley (King James' Grammar School, Almondbury, and the University of Leeds). Class B. (for articled clerks having at least three years to serve): No award. Highly commended in Class A.: Mr. William Alban Lunn (Guildford Royal Grammar School). Mr. Parish is articled to L. G. Groves, Esq., of Southsea; Mr. Somerville to R. B. Somerville, Esq., of London; Mr. Wortley to T. Goodall, Esq., of Mirfield, Yorks.

APPOINTMENTS

Information intended for publication under the above heading should reach us not later than Wednesday evening in each week, as publication is otherwise delayed.

Mr. HERBERT STAINER, Solicitor, has been appointed to be Town Clerk of Hythe. Mr. Stainer was admitted in 1894, and is a member of the firm of Messrs. Atkinson and Stainer.

Mr. REGINALD ARTHUR CHRISTIAN has been appointed to be Registrar of Chesterfield County Court in succession to the late Mr. A. E. Hopkins. Mr. Christian was admitted in 1889, and has been Registrar of Alfreton, Bakewell, Ilkeston, and Belper County Courts.

Mr. ROGER JOHN RODWELL HASLEWOOD, solicitor, has been appointed to be Clerk to the Borough Justices of Bridgnorth, Salop. He has also been appointed to be Clerk to the County Justices sitting at Bridgnorth. Mr. Haslewood was admitted in 1909, and is Coroner for the Bridgnorth and Stottesdon District. Mr. HERBERT DAVEY, M.B.E., has been appointed Recorder of Much Wenlock, Salop, in place of the late Mr. W. E. Mirehouse, Mr. Davey was called by the Middle Temple in 1897.

NOTES AND QUERIES

This column is intended for the use of members of the Legal Pofession, and therefore queries from lay correspondents cannot be inserted. Under no circumstances are editorial replies undertaken.

None are inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides.

QUERIES

5. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-INFANT LIMIT.-A. an infant workman was partially incapacitated by accident occurring prior to the 31st Dec. 1923. A. is (more than twelve months after accident) applying for review of the amount of weekly compensation paid. He is still under twenty-one years. Under the 1906 Act the proviso to Sched. I. (16) imposes a limit of £1 to the weekly sum. The Act of 1923 (sect. 30) provides that sects. 2-10 of 1923 Act, including sect. 4 which lays down basis of compensation, do not apply to accidents before 1924. Sect. 24 (6) of the Act of 1923 substitutes a new proviso, which in effect removes the limit to the weekly sum. The employers claim that the new proviso has no application, and that the £1 limit obtains. It would seem that whilst Sched. I. of the Act of 1906 would still apply, it would be with the substitution of the new proviso contained in sect. 24 (6) of the Act of 1923, and that A. can be awarded on the review a weekly sum above the £1 limit. Opinions would oblige, with any references. REVIEW.

6. MARRIED WOMAN-TORT-COUNTY COURT JUDGMENT-FORM OF.--It seems important at the present moment to be quite clear as to what shape a judgment against a married woman in tort should assume. I presume both High Court and County Court judgments would be pretty much to the same effect. I recently obtained

The National Guarantee & Suretyship Association, Ltd.

The only British Company directing its whole energies to the development of Guarantee and Suretyship business in all its branches. Surety Bonds for Administrators, Receivers, Special Managers, Liquidators, Trustees, etc. ¶ Indemnities for Lost Documents, Defective Titles, Missing Beneficiaries and other Contingencies. Write for new Booklet with attractive character study on cover of an old Legal gentleman, from a water-colour drawing by HENRY W. KERR, Esq., R.S.A.

HEAD OFFICE: 67, George St., Edinburgh.

London Office: FINSBURY PAVEMENT HOUSE, MOORGATE, E.C.2. Ring up Legal Department-London Wall 9833.

THE LICENSES AND GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

CONDUCTING

FIRE, BURGLARY,

LOSS OF
OF PROFIT,

EMPLOYERS', FIDELITY,

GLASS, MOTOR,

PUBLIC LIABILITY,

etc., etc.

LICENSE INSURANCE.

SPECIALISTS IN ALL LICENSING MATTERS.

Suitable Clauses for Insertion in Leases and Mortgages of Licensed Property, settled by Counsel, will be sent on application.

For further Information write :

24, 26, & 28, MOORGATE, E.C. 2.

judgment for £20 and costs in the County Court against a married woman for a serious trespass to the person (during coverture), and the County Court registrar drew up the judgment in Form 151A (2), which, in view of the decisions in Dillon v. Cunningham (8 Ex 23), Meager v. Pellew (53 L. T. Rep. 67; 14 Q. B. Div. 973) I contended was incorrect, and that Form 151 applied. Who is right?

Perhaps some of your readers would express their views. A married woman, who has means, and against whom a judgment in tort, during coverture, has been pronounced, can be committed under the Debtor's Act, but can she be committed under a judgment drawn up in Form 151A (2) C. Ct. Rules? ALFRED T. IVENS.

7. BANKRUPTCY-MARRIED WOMAN.-Can a married woman who carries on a trade or business, be made a bankrupt in respect of debts, other than trade debts? In short, she owes no trade debts, but during the period that she was trading she contracted other debts. Can she be made bankrupt in respect of such debts?

B. N. P.

8. WILL-NEW TRUSTEES APPOINTMENT.-A. died in 1892, having by his will appointed B. and C. his executors and trustees, and giving to B. the power of appointing new trustees. C. survived B. and died in 1906 without any new trustees of A.'s will having been appointed, but leaving a will whereby he appointed D. his executor and trustee. D. died a few years later, leaving E. and F. his executors. Can E. and F. now appoint new trustees of A.'s will? It is not known whether other trustees of C.'s will were appointed after D.'s death. If they were, would they be the persons to make the appointment instead of E. and F. ? UBIQUE.

ANSWERS

(Q. 2.) REALISATION OF MORTGAGE SECURITIES BY TRUSTEES. -Where a trustee has properly paid or incurred expenses in performing a trust, he is entitled to reimbursement out of the trust property. The question as to what expenses are, and what are not, properly incurred depends upon the circumstances of each particular case: (Leedham v. Chawner, 32 L. T. Rep. 221; 4 K. and J. 458). If I were trustee in this case, I would require the beneficiaries to consent and agree to pay the costs of the reconveyances and transfers. JOHN BOYD.

I do not think the trustees can legally enter into any agreement with their mortgagors even with the consent of the beneficiaries, for contracting out of the Rent Acts is not authorised. Decisions affecting landlord and tenant, such as Barton v. Fincham (124 L. T. Rep. 495; (1921) 2 K. B. 291) and Rossiter v. Langley (133 L. T. Rep. 42; (1925) 1 K. B. 741) show that. Supposing the mortgagors changed their minds, the trustees could not rely on any agreement, but must show that they are entitled to call in the mortgages under sect. 7 of the Rent Act 1920. As to leaseholds, see proviso (ii.) to that section. G. O. S. (Q. 3.) DEED-WILL-DESCRIPTION.-The wife might make a will in favour of the "husband " and children in such a way that there would be no question as to their identification, or a settlement might be made securing a life interest to the "wife." In the latter case, however, the settlement, being voluntary, would attract ad valorem duty on the value of the property settled: (Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, s. 74). If the wife parted with all her interest and survived the settlement by three years, no death duties would be payable: (Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, s. 59). JOHN BOYD.

66

This is a difficult matter to advise upon. If the woman bears the reputation of being the man's wife as well as being known by his name I think the principle of the cases hereinafter mentioned would apply, and a gift to her "husband and children by her will would be valid whether she had gone through a ceremony of marriage with the man or not (see Re Boddington, 50 L. T. Rep. 761; 25 Ch. Div. 685; Lepine v. Bean, 22 L. T. Rep. 833; L. Rep. 10 Eq. 160; Re Wagstaff, 98 L. T. Rep. 149; (1908) 1 Ch. 162). The will should refer to "my husband A.," and each child should be named when first mentioned. A precedent which can be adapted will be found in Key and Elph. Conv. Prec., 10th edit., vol. 2, p. 1024).

G. O. S. (Q. 4.) MAINTENANCE ORDERS (FACILITIES FOR ENFORCEMENT) ACT 1920.-In my opinion the County Court's powers under Order XXV., r. 30, are excluded. The words in sect. 1, subsect. 1, of this Act, as if it had been an order originally obtained in the court in which it is so registered," seem to me to show that the court in which the order is registered must be one in which the order could be obtained, and as the County Court has no jurisdiction in divorce, the order could not be originally obtained in that court. Further, the Act specifically enacts in what courts the order is to be registered, so that if it is registered in any other court proceedings cannot be taken on it: (see sect. 1, sub-sect. 2, of the Act). G. O. S.

Mr. James Morrah Whitmore, solicitor, left £38,779. Mr. Francis Willis Taylor, barrister-at-law, left £3,934. Mr. Samuel Arthur Sampson, barrister-at-law, left unsettled estate £38,276 (net personalty £32,758).

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.

LAW OF PROPERTY ACTS.-With reference to Mr. Wilkinson's suggestion as to the formation of a class for the discussion of these Acts, the council of the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association considered this idea some months ago when arranging for the series of lectures which are to be delivered by Mr. Topham. The conclusion come to was that such a class would be more useful after the lectures had been delivered, or at any rate some of them, as the Profession would then have some knowledge of the Acts and the difficulties which would arise in practice. One of the matters which requires useful consideration in the formation of a class is the question of numbers. So many members of the Profession have applied for permission to attend the lectures that the list will be closed shortly, and it is apprehended that there would be an almost equal number of applications with respect to any class that might be formed. The matter is still under consideration by the council, and when any definite conclusion has been arrived at an announcement will be made. WILLIAM F. GILLHAM, President.

OBITUARY

Mr. LEICESTER CALDECUTT, solicitor, of Knutsford, died on the 11th inst., at the age of fifty-eight years. Mr. Caldecutt was admitted in 1892, and practised at Knutsford till his death. He filled many public offices, among others that of Clerk to the Justices, a position from which he retired three years ago. Mr. Caldecutt was Clerk to the Visiting Committee H.M. Prison, to the Commissioners of Taxes for the Division of Bucklow, and was also Agent to the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church College, Oxford. He was a member of the Law Society, of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association, of the Incorporated Justices Clerks' Society, and of the Chester and North Wales Incorporated Law Society, of which latter he was at one time president. Mr. Caldecutt was senior partner in the firm of Messrs. Sedgley, Caldecutt, and Co., of Knutsford.

Mr. ARTHUR JOHN LOSEBY, solicitor, of Market Bosworth, Leicestershire, died there recently at the age of eighty-four years. Mr. Loseby was admitted in 1863, and was a member of the firm of Messrs. Loseby and Son. He filled the office of Registrar of the County Court for more than fifty years, and was respected member of the Profession.

a much

Saturday

Jolly
Bloxam

Hicks Beach
Bloxam

Synge
Ritchie

More
Jolly

CHINNER, FREDERICK OLDHAM; SHAFFER, BERNARD LOUIS; and WEBSTER, BERNARD PERCY, solicitors, 32, Maddox-st, under style of F. O. Chinner and Co. June 24. So far as regards B. L. Schaffer.

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN

Note. A claimant not residing in England or Wales must send with his claim the name and address of a person in England or Wales to whom notice to the claimant can be sent.

CORRINGHAM (John Benjamin), Great Grimsby, who died March 10, 1918. By an order in an action in the matter of the estate of John Benjamin Corringham, Corringham v. Gill, 1924, C. No. 4812, an inquiry is made whether Samuel Corringham, a son of the testator, is living or dead, and if he died subsequently to the testator who is his legal personal representative, and if he predeceased him whether any of his children attained 21, or being female married. persons claiming under the inquiry to send in, by Sept. 16, to H. T. Birks, of Collyer-Bristow and Co., 4, Bedford-row, W.C. 1. Hearing before Master Watkin Williams, at chambers of the judge, Room 157, Royal Courts of Justice, at 12.

All

GIORDANO (Calixte Henri Antoine Korab d'Orzeszko Czarnoluski, Duke of Oratino), Weybridge, formerly of Jermyn-st, who died March 31, 1915. By an order in an action in the matter of the estate of Calixte Henri Antoine Korab d'Orzeszko Czarnoluski Giordano, Duke of Oratino (dec.); The Public Trustee v. Noetinger, 1918, O. 608, an inquiry is made who upon the death of the testator became entitled to any personal estate of his as to which he died intestate, and if any have since died who are their legal personal representatives. Persons claiming under the inquiry to send in, by Dec. 1, to R. C. Pearman, of Amery-Parkes and Co., 1, Arundel-st, Strand, W.C. 2. Hearing Dec. 15, before Master Hamnett, chambers of the judge, Room 163, Royal Courts of Justice, at 12.