Hoskins, Thomas, Gosport Johnson, Richard, Southport Justice, Walter, 2, Brecknock-street, Camdentown; and Park-village-east, Regent's Park Jubb, Henry, 2, New Millman-street; and Wathupon-Dearne Jones, John Parry, formerly called John Jones, Ruthin; Denbigh; and Alfred-street, Bedford-square Jones, John Humphrey, 25, River-street, Myddelton-square; Pwllheli; Red-lion-court; and Surrey-terrace Johnson, Janies Henry, 9, Ampton-street, Gray's inn-road Keeling, Frederick John, 14, Calthorpe-street, Gray's-inn-road; Colchester; and New Ormond-street Henry Walker, Southampton-street John Hawkins, New Boswell-court Francis Collins, Leominster and Lambeth James Chapman, Manchester William Wells, Bradford John Henning, Weymouth Henry Bury, Manchester Dixon Robinson, Blackburn Already admitted in C. P. at Lancaster H. James, Exeter E. W. Paul, Exeter Henry Smith, Bedford-row J. F. Justice, Berners-street G. P. Nicholson, Wath-upon-Dearne J. V. Horne, Denbigh C. Procter, New-square C. Williams, Pwllheli William Ghrimes Kell, Bedford-row F. P. Keeling, Colchester King, Samuel L. Wickens, 22, Wilmington-square. Samuel King, Wilmington-square; Furnival's-inn Knapp, Richard, 4, Mortimer-terrace, Kentish town; Southampton - buildings; Lower Charles-street; Devonshire-street; and Oldsquare, Lincoln's-inn Leigh, Frederick, jun., Collumpton Latham, William Frederick, 9, Doughty-street Lanfear, William Burbridge, 5, Lamb's-conduit Lawrence, Charles William, 8, Bolton-street, Piccadilly; and Half-moon-street Leith, Frederick, 37, King's-square, Goswellstreet-road; and Jewin-street Martineau, John Philip, 29, Montagu-place, Bedford-square Molineux, Joseph, Cordwainers-hall Milne, William Henry, Prestwick-wood, near Manchester Mears, St. John John, Bagshot Maxwell, William Albert, 8, Arthur-street, Gray'sinn-road; Ramsay Mellor, John William, 21, Queen's-row, Penton B. Holloway, New Woodstock F. P. Chappell, Golden-square F. Leigh, Collumpton A. Walker, King's-road, Gray's-inn H. R. Hill, Throgmorton-street William Talbot, Kidderminster W. J. Lyne, Whitehaven L. Winterbotham, Tewkesbury J. Thomas, Tewkesbury J. B. Winterbotham, Cheltenham Charles Lawrence, Cirencester R. R. Bayley, Basinghall-street John Mourilyan, Sandwich Joseph Raw, Furnival's-inn A. W. Grant, King's-road E. C. Milne, Manchester John Serjeant, Ramsay, Huntingdons. W. G. Taylor, 14, John-street, Bedford-row John Forster, Walsall William Slater, Manchester W. T. Lambourne, South-square John Mee, East Retford Henry Anderson, York Charles Lever, 10, King's-road Nicholls, C. Kerry, formerly called C. K. Whitaker, 8, Bridge-row, Battersea Nicholson, Samuel Pearce, 9, High-street, Isling ton; Lincoln's-inn-fields; Launceston Owen, Owen, 5, Warwick-court, Holborn; Pwllheli Ottaway, Philip Watson, 35, Charter-house-square; Staplehurst; and Burton-street Oxley, John, jun., 20, Bury-street, Bloomsburysquare; Rotherham; Gerrard-st; River-st. Pratt, James, jun., York Padley, Frederick John, 43, Liverpool-street; Argyle-square; and Lincoln Prescott, George William, Stourbridge Pretty, Henry Granger, Tettenhall, near Wolverhampton; and Albert-street Pike, F. Christopher Vernon, 9, Canonburyterrace, Islington Paitson, William, 11, Dalby-terrace; and Cocker. mouth . Scott, Henry, 2, Lamb's-conduit-place; and Odiham H. R. Wigley, Pickett-street, Strand Samuel Rowles Pattison, Launceston Thomas Ellis, Pwllheli G. J. Ottaway, Staplehurst John Oxley, Rotherham G. H. Watson, York W. F. Clarke, York J. W. Danby, Lincoln Rowland Price, Stourbridge A. H. Browne, Wolverhampton F. W. Pike, Bedford-row John Steel, Cockermouth Charles Bischoff, Coleman-street Robert Parker, Axbridge J. W. Bradford, Langford J. B. Deakin and W. Dent, Wolverhampton Robert Weddell, Berwick-upon-Tweed William Everett, Andover Henry Hargreaves, Blackburn C. Richard Craddock, Gray's-inn-square William Phelps, 14, Red-lion-square Edward Lawrance, Old Jury-chambers Henry Power, Atherstone Thomas Phippard, Wareham Charles Wilson, Bedford-row Edward Norton, Diss John Day, Margaret-street F. Browne, Margaret-street John Hayward, Oswestry C. J. Palmer, Great Yarmouth John Ilderton Burn, South-square, Gray's-inn Richard Roy, Lothbury Charles Long, Southampton John Slater, Hawkeshead Thomas Barneby, Worcester John Cole, Odiham G. Lamb, Odiham J. H. Benbow, Stone-buildings, Lincoln's-inn H. H. Statham and F. Horner, Liverpool John Teesdale, Fenchurch-street John M. Teesdale, Fenchurch-street Messrs. Scoones and Alleyne, Tonbridge Charles Davison Scott, Furnival's-inn John Physick, Bath G. L. Shackles, Kingston-upon-Hull John Smith, Devonport Attorneys to be Admitted. Sandys, William George, Covent-garden Shaw, Henry, Billericay; Norfolk-street; Soho square Smith, William Ackers, Lower-road, Deptford Sladen, Douglas Brooke, Brompton; Cranbrook; and Doughty-street Shekell, Thomas Stevens, 5, Harpur-street, Red- Tizard, John, 9, Trellick-terrace, Pimlico; and Taylor, William, 18, Featherstone-buildings, Holborn Townsend, Frederick, 14, Manchester-street, Windus, John William, 48, Judd-street Webb, Josiah Joseph, 8, Great Ormond-street; Whiting, Charles David, 14, Calthorpe-street; 15, Withall, William Henry, 7, Parliament-street Walker, John Fraser, 12, Bayham-street, south, Whitehouse, W. M. Mills, 5, Gray's-inn-square; Winfred, William, 31, Hart-street, Bloomsbury; Wheeler, William, 18, Cranmer-place, Waterloo- Worthington, Thomas, 60, Carey-street, Lincoln'sinn; Myddelton-square; East-street, Lamb'sconduit-street Windsor, William, Birmingham William Sandys, 5, Gray's-inn-square Robert Smart, Sunderland George Shaw, Billericay G. Hilyard, Furnival's-inn Thomas France, Bedford-row Edwin Ball, Pershore John M. Templeman, sen., Crewkerne R. C. Phillips, Weymouth G. T. Taylor, Featherstone-buildings Edward Bennett, Wolverhampton W. O. Hare, Bristol D. Howard, Portsea J. E. Marshall, Cambridge R. Frodsham, Liverpool John Gregson, Bedford-row William Bartholomew, Gray's-inn-place D. Erskine Forbes, Warnford-court Gregory Faux, Thetford 95 James Crowdy, 25, Old Fish-street, Doctors'-com. George Dawes, Angel-court James Call Weddell, Berwick-upon-Tweed Thomas James Rooke, Raymond-buildings Charles Addis, Great Queen-street, Westminster Robert Trappes, Clitheroe Samuel Danks, Birmingham Yates, Alfred, 46, Finsbury-circus; and 7, Liver- Saul Yates, Bury-street pool-street, Broad-street E. J. Sydney, Finsbury-circus Admissions in Hilary Term, pursuant to Judges' Orders. De Boos, T. J. Redman, 6, Skinner-street, Snowhill; Pulford-street, Pimlico Hayward, Charles Edward, Browfort, Devizes; Maddox-street; Kensington; and Eustonplace Hinton, Richard Thomas, Wenlock 96 Superior Courts: Rolls-Vice-Chancellor. RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, Rolls Court. Paget v. Lillington. Nov. 11, 1847. 63RD ORDER OF MAY, 1845. If the bill be not revived within the time limited on an application made under this order, a fresh application should be made to the court to dismiss the bill. In this case an order had been obtained in the alternative, that the administrator of the plaintiff revive within a month, or that the bill be dismissed. The month had elapsed and the bill had not been revived. Mr. Kindersley now stated, that there was a question with the registrars, whether there should not be a new order that the bill be dismissed, or whether the bill could be dismissed under the former order. The present motion was without notice. Lord Langdale said that he thought there should be a new order. Ordered accordingly. Re Mackerill. Nov. 18, 1847. TAXATION.-IRREGULARITY.-WAIVER. An objection to an order for taxation for irregularity, cannot be considered as waived by ambiguous acts on the part of the party taking it.-The waiver must be formal. THIS was a motion, on the part of Mr. Mackerill, to discharge an order obtained as of course for the taxation of his bill of costs after payment, for irregularity. The irregularity complained of was that the order had been obtained without mentioning the circumstance of an agreement having been come to between Mr. Mackerill and his clients, under which the bill was to be paid on being reduced 15 per cent. The bill related to business done for a defunct railway company; and the persons with whom the agreement was made were four out of five members of the committee of management, who formed what was called "the finance committee." sworn that this was done not under any intention of proceeding with the taxation at all, but in order to bring up Mr. Mackerill, when the time for taxation should arrive, to produce the agreement before the master, as a prelimi nary objection to the whole proceeding. An allegation that there had been a distinct offer, on the part of Mr Mackerill's London solicitor to waive the question of irregularity, was distinctly denied. Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Glasse for the motion. Mr. Turner contrà. Lord Langdale said he thought the conduct of the party moving did not amount to a waiver of the irregularity. He believed there had been cases, where an order to tax had been discharged for irregularity, though some progress had been made in the taxation under it, before the irregularity was discovered. He thought it would have been the better course, had a more distinct intimation of the intention to insist upon the agreement as an objection to the order, been given in the first instance. But to waive the irregularity, there must have been some more formal act than appeared to have been done in this case. The order must be discharged for irregularity, with costs. Vice-Chancellor of England. 1847. PUBLIC COMPANY.-SIMILARITY OF NAME. Where one public company assumed a name in some respects similar to another public company, but it appeared that the former was not likely to suffer any injury from the resemblance; an injunction to restrain the latter from continuing their name and title refused, with liberty to plaintiffs to bring an action at law. The defendants attempted to sustain their order by suggesting that they had no power This was a motion on behalf of the London to enter into the agreement made, without the and Provincial Law Assurance Company, for sanction of the other members of the manag- an injunction to restrain the London and Proing committee; an objection, however, which vincial Joint-Stock Life Insurance Company Lord Langdale immediately overruled, observ- from continuing to use the words "London ing that he had not to consider whether the and Provincial, as part of their name and agreement was binding, but whether the de- style. The plaintiff's company was registered fendants had a right to treat it as a nullity. in November, 1846, and the defendant's comIt was then contended that the irregularity pany in June, 1847. had been waived by the conduct of the solici- Mr. Bethell, Mr. Rolt, and Mr. Glasse, for the tor for Mr. Mackerill, who, it appeared, had injunction, contended, that as the defendants induced the solicitor on the other side to had prefixed the words "London and Provin postpone a warrant for one hour, which he had cial" to their title, the public would be misled, obtained for taxing the bills, alleging that it and much confusion caused, the plaintiffs would be more convenient to procure a war- being in the habit of calling themselves merely rant for a longer time, and had himself at- The London and Provincial Assurance Comtended at the Taxing-Master's office, to ar-pany," and that on several occasions letters range for the postponement. It was now addressed to the defendants had been delivered Superior Courts: Vice-Chancellor.-V. C. Knight Bruce. at the offices of the plaintiffs. Perry v. True- Mr. Stuart and Mr. F. J. Hall were for the defendants, but were not heard. It appeared, however, that the prospectuses of the two companies were very dissimilar, and that the offices of the plaintiffs were in Nicholas Lane, Lombard Street, and those of the defendants in Bridge Street, Blackfriars. 97 executors were precluded, in case an insufficient probate duty had been paid, from suing in any court of law or equity. The plea now came on for hearing. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Renshaw objected to the form of the plea, that, being in fact a negative one, it was in form affirmative; that it should have averred that the executrix had not duly proved the will, or simply that there was no probate. The Vice-Chancellor said, it appeared to Mr. Stuart and Mr. Craig, contra, submitted him to be a very simple case; it was not an that the plea was in a proper form. The deapplication to restrain the use of an entire fendant could not conscientiously swear that name, but only the two first words of it. The the plaintiff had not proved the will, for the principle on which the court acted was clear; fact was well known to be otherwise, neither it always had regard to the two questions, first, could he swear to a matter of law; what he whether the plaintiff had carried on his trade had done was to aver the fact and conclude for such a length of time with the exclusive with the matter of law. If the defendant had usage of a certain name as to justify a sum- pleaded negatively, and the plea had been remary intereference with the defendant; and plied to, the probate would have been put in secondly, whether the title adopted by the evidence, and the defendant would have been defendant was likely to mislead the public, unable to prove that the probate did not cover and so produce an injury to the plaintiff. so large a sum as that sought to be recovered, Now it appeared to him that when persons in- for the pleadings in the bill of revivor would tended to insure in a society they would make not have raised the question as to the suffiparticular inquiries as to its merits, and the ciency of the stamp. Christian v. Devereux, first thing that would strike them on reading 12 Sim. 272; Hunt v. Stevens, 3 Taun. 113; the plaintiff's title would be the word "Law," Simon v. Milman, 2 Sim. 241. and they would immediately be apprized that the society was one maintained by lawyers; the word Law was not attempted to be used by the defendants, but merely the term JointStock "Life" Insurance Company. He did not think, therefore, that any mistake was likely to occur. As to any particular damage that might arise to the plaintiffs, he thought that might be a fair question to be tried at law. He should therefore refuse the injunction, but would allow the motion to stand over to direct a trial at law in the usual way. Roberts v. Madocks. Nov. 16, 1847. STAMP.-NEGATIVE PLEA. To a bill of revivor filed by the executrix of the original plaintiff, a plea of the statutes regulating the stamps on probates, and averring that the stamp on the probate was insufficient, overruled, the court holding that the plea should have been simply "not executrix," and that a plea in substance negative but in form affirmative is bad. In this case the original bill had been filed to recover a sum of 18,000l. and upwards, one of the plaintiff's had died, and the present plaintiff revived the suit by a bill of revivor, suing in the character of executrix of the testator, the former plaintiff in the cause. To this bill of revivor a plea was put in, setting forth that the assets of the testator had been sworn under 5,000l., and duty had been paid on that sum only by the executrix, that the original bill sought to recover a sum of 18,000l. and upwards, and that the probate duty was therefore insufficient, and by the statute 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 25, ss. 19 & 59, in conjunction with the statute 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, s. 8, The Vice-Chancellor said, that if the defendant had pleaded, following the words in the bill, that the plaintiff was not the sole legal representative of the testator, issue would have been taken on that fact, and then the statement on the original bill might have been discussed. He could understand the plea, but the only question was as to the form of its being affirmative when it was in reality a negative plea. Take the case of a person claiming to be heir, and filing his bill, as a defence to such bill, instead of putting in a plea of not heir, would it be a good substitute to go through a long rambling, genealogical statement, which might eventually establish that some other person was heir? His opinion was, that if the plea had been negative in its form it would have been good, but that in its present shape it was bad. Plea overruled with costs. A legacy was bequeathed to an unmarried woman, who, after the date of the will and before the death of the testatrix, married, The legacy was given out of the produce of real estate directed to be sold. The wife possessed herself of part of the assets of the testatrix, consisting of a deposit note, and the executors brought an action against the husband for the same, and recovered a verdict with damages. A suit was instituted against the executors, and the party to whom the produce of the real estate was bequeathed (subject to payment of the legacy) for payment of the legacy. Held, |