ject, it is every day's practice that his application first, that he does not support by the facts the allefor a patent will be refused, and on these groundsgation of his petition to the Crown; his petition to the Crown, and his affidavits in support of it, stating that he is the true and first inventor; so that if he is not, he deceives the Crown by a false repreStatute of Monopolies, according to the construction sentation, besides not being within the exception of the put on that statute in reference to what constitutes the true inventor. Secondly, that he is committing a fraud on another of the Queen's subjects, who is the person really entitled to a patent, if he desires it. There may be points as to marriage settlements, &c., stolen or otherwise fraudulently obtained his knowthe fortune of the wife, the probable loss to the hus-ledge of the invention from any other British subband; the undersheriff's deputy either leaves the case entirely to the jury, as suggested by the counsel, or perhaps damages the defendant a little more, if it be possible. The jury may ask a question or two, whether the House of Lords will be more ready to grant a divorce if they give heavy damages than if they give light, and other equally irrelevant and improper questions, which, however, are often answered so as to swell the amount assessed; and thus led, prejudiced, and biased entirely to the plaintiff's side, the amount of damages given by them is in many instances enormously disproportionate to the real injury. We have no hesitation in saying, that in cases of this sort thousands are sometimes awarded where the proper amount would be as many hundreds. In other actions-trover, trespass, actions ex contractu, with special damage-equally difficult questions arise. (See Hadley and Others v. Baxendale, 18 Jur., part 1, p. 358). Then, again, it is not always easy to determine what amount of evidence should and should not be given after judgment by default *. It is true, that under special circumstances, by leave of the court or a judge, the writ of inquiry may be executed before a judge of one of the superior courts; and the jury, by like permission, may be summoned from the special jury book; but in practice such an application is rarely made, and would be but seldom granted. The defendant who suffers judgment by default is generally without professional assistance, and therefore is not aware that he has even the chance of having his But when a person applies for a patent for a foreign invention the same principles do not apply. The ground assigned in the old cases for granting letters-patent for inventions not the invention of the applicant, but communicated from foreign countries, is, that the object of the exception in the Statute of Monopolies was to encourage the introduction of new inventions within this first discovered here, or first brought here; the policy realm, and that therefore it was immaterial whether of the law was to get them for the improvement of the manufactures of this country; or, to use the quaint language of the leading case on the subject, (Edgeberry v. of new manufactures within this realm; and if they be Stephens, 2 Salk. 446), "the statute of James speaks to encourage new devices useful to the kingdom; and new here, it is within the statute, which was intended whether learned by travel or study, it is the same thing." Accordingly the importer has always been held the inventor within the meaning of the statute; but then he must apprise the Crown of the true character in which Our remarks, of course, apply also to the sheriff's of the affidavit in support of it, for a patent for an inhe applies. Accordingly the form of application, and jurisdiction in the assessment of compensation under vention imported from abroad, differs from the applicathe Railways and Lands Clauses Acts, when many question of an inventor: the inventor alleges, as we have tions of importance and difficulty have to be decided, observed, that he is the first or true inventor, or that as to taking into consideration the goodwill of a busi- he hath invented; the importer alleges that he has, "in ness, tenants' fixtures, improvements, the chance of a beneficial renewal of a lease, &c. (See Rex v. The consequence of a communication from a certain foreigner Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company, 4 Ad. & All that seems, therefore, necessary to support the alleresiding abroad, become possessed of an invention," &c. El. 650; Corrigall v. The London and Blackwall Rail- gation on which he is required to ground his applicaway Company, 5 Man. & G. 219; Atk. Shff. Law, 175 et tion, is the fact of his being in possession, and by reason seq., 2nd ed.) On these occasions, however, both parties of a communication from a foreigner residing abroad, are generally fully represented, and therefore there is and nothing is said about the mode of acquisition. That, not so great an opportunity for injustice as in cases of however, would leave untouched the broad question, assessment after judgment by default. whether the Crown of this country is intended by the statute to take notice of the equitable rights of an alien residing abroad, so as to refuse a patent to a British subject whose possession of the invention is obtained by a fraud committed on such alien in a foreign jurisdiction. case considered before a better tribunal. A QUESTION Of Some novelty and difficulty was raised in a case recently before the Lord Chancellor, on an opposition to the sealing of a patent for an invention obtained by a communication from a foreigner—viz. whether, if it be alleged or shewn that the applicant obtained the invention by fraud committed abroad, either actual or constructive, upon the inventor, the Lord Chancellor will, on behalf of the Crown, look at that circumstance in reference to granting or withholding the patent. In the case to which we refer the point did not call for adjudication, because the Court was of opinion that there was no fraud on the part of the applicant. It remains therefore still an open question, which turns upon the principle on which letters-patent for inventions are granted or refused. When a party comes forward as himself the inventor, there can be no doubt or difficulty. If he has, in fact, instead of being himself the true inventor, * See The Banbury Union Guardians v. Robinson (7 Jur., part 1, p. 599) and Cooper v. Blick, (2 Q. B. 915). If the question were to be treated on broad considerations of universal law, we apprehend the conclusion would be, that the Crown cannot be intended to recognise fraud in any shape, and that it would be contrary to the law of nations that one State should encourage, for its own benefit, fraud committed on the subjects of another; at any rate, assuming it to be a friendly State. But the question is much narrowed by the language of the statute, and the construction put upon it by the Courts-a construction which seems to ignore entirely everything beyond the fact of importaThe only tion into, and novelty in this country. authority of which we have any knowledge, if it can be called authority, is the case of Sir Thomas Lombe, who in 1718 obtained a patent in this country for bringing here from Sardinia the invention of certain silk machines, of which it was notorious that he had obtained his knowledge by disguising himself as a workman, and so obtaining access to the Italian manufactory, and secretly and fraudulently, as regarded the Italian manufacturers, making plans and models of the machinery; yet for this importation he was afterwards rewarded by Parliament by a considerable grant of money. Now, as Parliament must have been well aware that the communication from a foreigner was in fact a fraud on that foreigner, by making a grant (which Parliament in such matters does in a quasi-judicial capacity) it recognised the claim of the importer for the importation simply, without reference to the mode in which the knowledge was obtained. That much weight would be given to such a precedent at this day is not, however, probable; and the question, if ever it actually again arises, will have, we conceive, to be determined on principle. The principal argument against the exercise of any jurisdiction in the matter would be, that the Crown cannot take cognisance of a fraud committed against a person not its subject, and out of its jurisdiction; that the cognisance of such fraud belongs to the foreigq State and its tribunals. But, on the other hand, there are many foreign rights of which the Courts of this country take notice-at least, when the foreigner or his assignee brings them here. Besides, the question is not merely whether the Crown will notice the fraud on the foreigner, with reference to the foreigner's rights, but whether it will exercise a prerogative, exercised ex mero motu, in favour of a party guilty of a fraud in respect of the very subject of the grant which he seeks. The question, which is not at all unlikely to arise again, is not free from great difficulty. Correspondence. THE COUNTY COURTS. 66 TO THE EDITOR OF THE JURIST." SIR,-I once entertained the opinion of your correspondent "T.," (ante, p. 143), namely, that the orders for payment of debts by instalments in the county courts were objectionable. I am convinced by experience that I was in error. First, cases have several times been removed into my courts by actions on the judgment of the superior courts, for the sole purpose that the plaintiffs might obtain the payment of their debts by instalments. Without payment by instalments, the plaintiffs had no chance of payment; for if they imprisoned their debtors, the Insolvent Court would have deprived them of the best chance of payment. Secondly, when the defendant is not a labourer, or a poor man ordained priest, and the debt is on a bill of exchange or a promissory note, or of large amount, or the defendant is about to remove from the district, my rule is-and I believe it to be that of very many other county court judges to order immediate payment of the whole debt and costs, unless, which often happens even in these cases, the plaintiff requests the order to be payment by instalments. But in these cases, if the party cannot pay, and comes up on a judgment summons, (the fees for which are too high), then the law governs the duty of the judge. (County Courts Act, ss. 99, 100). The order must then be made, if there be no misconduct, after an inquiry into the means and ability of the party to pay; and if he cannot pay the whole sum at once, (the plaintiff having had every opportunity to levy an execution under the original order), then it is the duty of the judge to vary the original order, and to make the debt payable by such instalments as are within the means of the defendant to pay. Why should the public be burthened with the maintenance in prison of such a debtor, and why should courts of law aid the gratification and anger of a creditor? The plaintiff gets by these means an almost certain security for the payment of his debt, and without this order he would have none. Thirdly, tradesmen will grant improvident credit, and the labouring classes especially are willing to accept it. But what was the position of the labouring man before the county courts system permitted the payment of a debt by instalments? If he suspended his dealings, or did not pay what his creditor (not the judge) thought to be enough out of his earnings towards his debt, his home was destroyed, all his goods were sold, he was sent to prison, and the wife and children were sent to the workhouse. This is no exaggeration, and some parliamentary returns, moved for many years since by Mr. D. W. Harvey and others, shew the cruel system that then existed. I have been again and again told that the present system (though abused by some tradesmen, who think it saves the necessity of all inquiry by themselves, and justifies improvident credit)" preserves the hope of a labouring man to get out of his difficulties, and keeps his heart strong and unbroken." Moreover, the public are interested in the opinions of debtors as well as of creditors. Fourthly, the public see what the amount of the instalment is, and how it is measured, namely, by ascertaining what the wages and sources of subsistence of the debtor are. The judge is not in these cases "softhearted." He knows he has the charge of a new institution, and that the favourable opinions entertained towards him are to be carried to the credit of the institution committed to him and to his supervision, and that what he does has the jury of a large community to criticise, not in one, but actually in thousands of similar recurring cases. He cannot be corruptly "soft-hearted," unless incompetent for his office, for his own mind must be governed by a tolerably unerring guide when he knows the usual price of labour in the district in which he acts. Certainly, in the far majority of cases I have heard, both debtor and creditor agree on the amount of the instalment ordered to be paid. Fifthly, I think the fees too high, but the county courts are still by far the cheapest courts in all defended actions; and I affirm that, as respects all defended actions above 207. (for the appeals test these), the system does work well. Sixthly, as respects the "prandial, choreal, comitial, and ecclesiastical predilections" of the county court judges, and "their incomes being effaced by their outgoings," surely your correspondent can only recognise some single acquaintance of his own in this terrible charge. I have certainly rarely visited in my circuit, and in its largest town I have not dined in any private house, yet in that town I have no reason whatever to complain of disrespect. As respects, also, the behaviour of parties in court, I know that the decorum of my court is never disturbed until gentlemen of the bar appear, who commence their displays by assuming they are not required to be themselves decorous. Lastly, if a commission were issued to inquire into the mistakes of the judges of the superior courts, new trials arising out of their errors, compromises because final decisions are too expensive, references to arbitrators because the judge dislikes a long cause, and every plaintiff and defendant were invited to tell his grievances, and circulars were sent to all the attornies of the kingdom to relate the grievances of their clients, and the results were contrasted with the results of the present inquiry respecting county courts, I have no doubt there would be an unanimous verdict that the county courts work far better than the superior courts. A COUNTY COURT JUDGE. RECEIPT STAMPS. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE JURIST." SIR, I find it stated among notices to correspondents in a newspaper of wide circulation, that "it was sometime since settled by official authority, that the receipts of money for charitable institutions require a stamp under the new Stamp Act." Understanding that by the term "receipts of money for charitable institutions" is meant receipts for voluntary contributions, it seems to me desirable that this settlement of the question should not be acquiesced in. The words in stat. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 59, are, "receipt or discharge given for or upon the payment of any money amounting to two pounds or upwards." These are the very same words as are used in stat. 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, sched., part 1; the only difference is, that in the earlier statute there is a declaration that " any note, memorandum, or writing whatever given to any person for or upon the payment of money, whereby any sum of money, debt, or demand therein specified shall be expressed or acknowledged to have been paid, settled, balanced, or otherwise discharged or satisfied, . . . . shall be deemed to be a receipt for a sum of money of equal amount with the sum, debt, or demand so expressed or acknowledged to have been paid, &c., and shall be charged with a 'uty accordingly." In Tomkins v. Ashby, (6 B. & Cr. 541, 542), Lord Tenterden said, "All these words import that something formerly due has been discharged;" and he held that a memorandum acknowledging that A. B. had left a sum of money in the hands of C. D. was not within the act. Bryan Bryan, Esq.; Patrick M'Gregor Robertson, Esq.; London Gazettes. FRIDAY, APRIL 28. . EDWARD GROUND, Levrington Parsondrove, Cam- JOHN THOMAS HOLLOWAY, late of Lawrence-lane, This decision of Lord Tenterden shews that the duty under the earlier statute applies only to receipts for the payment of money duc, which, in a legal sense, cannot be affirmed of a voluntary contribution any more than of the deposit of a sum of money. No argument in favour of the imposition of the duty can be founded on the omission of the declaration in the recent statute, which in express terms confines the duty to receipts on the payment of money; that is, of money due under a legal obligation to pay it. But the preamble of the WILLIAM CLIFT, Ulting, Essex, cattle and sheep salesman, May 12 at 2, and June 6 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, recent statute, and sect. 2, which repeals the former London: Off. Ass. Lee; Sols. Crick, Maldon, Essex; Constamp duties and imposes the new duty, shew that it dell, 7, Copthall-court, London.-Petition filed April 19. was not intended to include instruments in respect of JOHN DUCKER, Bilston, Staffordshire, and Warwick, railwhich stamp duty was not before payable. way contractor, dealer in railway materials, and beerseller, dealer and chapman, May 29 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Whitmore; 'Sol. East, Birmingham.-Petition dated Feb. 18. For these reasons I think that the Courts would hold that a receipt for a voluntary contribution to a charitable institution is not liable to duty under stat. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 59. Temple, April, 1854. G. J. PHILIP SMITH. GENTLEMEN CALLED TO THE BAR. The following gentlemen have been called to the degree of Barrister at Law: LINCOLN'S INN.-Jasper Kenrick Peck, Esq.; John Hutton Taylor, Esq., M. A.; Geo. Pemberton, Esq., B. A.; Herbert Crichton Stuart, Esq., B. A.; Francis Barchard, jun., Esq., M. A.; W. Worsley Knox, Esq., B. A.; Charles Herbert Smith, Esq., M. A.; Charles Mahon Tyndall, Esq., M. A.; Cyrus Slater, Esq., B. A.; Chas. Meaburn Tatham, Esq., M. A.; Thos. Prothero, Esq.; Randolph Henry Crewe, Esq., M. A.; William Charles Wilks, Esq. MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Hubert Lewis, Esq., Precedence Certificate of Honour, Council of Legal Education, B.A., Emanuel, Cam.; Rowland Whitehall Kenyon, Esq., M. A., St. John's, Cam.; Abercromby Robert Dick, Esq., Advocate Scots Bar; John Turner Hopwood, Esq., Trinity, Oxford; Henry Edward Daniels, Esq., late of Queen's, Oxford; Fred. Benjamin D'Elwood Ramadge, Esq., B. A., Fellow of Caius, Cam.; John Kirke, Esq.; Wm. Thomas Greenhow, Esq., B. A., Lond. Univ.; Philip Meadows Martineau, Esq., LL.B., Lond. Univ. Robert Patten Adams, Esq.; and Edward Matthew Fenwick, Esq. INNER TEMPLE.-John Edward Palmer, Esq.; Wm. Rainy, Esq.; Mathias Calthrow Turner, Esq.; Geo. JAMES WATTS, Birmingham, tobacconist, May 11 and WILLIAM HENRY LUDFORD, Gloucester, brushseller BEN PEARSON, Golcar, near Huddersfield, Yorkshire, JOHN HAYWORTH, Haywood, Lancashire, plumber and MEETINGS. at 11, County Court of Yorkshire, at Pocklington.-Robert May 12 at 10, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. May 15 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIOner. Alexander P. Bartlet, Harrison-street, Gray's-inn-road, Middlesex, carpenter. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute : Richard Geo. Beesley, Manchester, cotton spinner, May 12 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, last ex.— Wm. Houghton, Kennington Oval, Lambeth, Surrey, licensed victualler, May 16 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Wm. John Watson, Upper Holloway, Middlesex, builder, May 23 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Thomas Colyer, High Holborn, Middlesex, licensed victualler, May 11 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac. --Francis Paul Becker, Stationers' Hall-court, Paternosterrow, London, engraver, May 19 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Wm. Cluff Hulme, High-st., Putney, Surrey, grocer, May 19 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Charles John Darkin Campbell, College-st., Camden-town, and John-st., Adelphi, Middlesex, and Bolton-terrace, Edward-st., Walworth, Surrey, builder, May 16 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Edw. Emerson and Barnabas Fenwick, Stella, Durham, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, ironfounders, May 10 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac. sep. est. of Barnabas Fenwick. -Thomas Evans, Manchester, ironmonger, May 8 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.-Wm. Hesketh, Blackburn, Lancashire, cotton manufacturer, May 10 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.— • Edmund Smith the younger, Swinton, Lancashire, coal owner, May 9 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.-Augustus Pickett, Brighton, Sussex, brick maker, May 25 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Edward Ablewhite, Mortimer-st., Cavendish-square, Middlesex, coach builder, May 23 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.—James Windeyer Lewty, Wilden, Worcestershire, William Henry Partridge, Birmingham, Warwickshire, and Edmund Lewty, Stourport, Worcestershire, tin-plate workers, May 17 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, May 15 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. div. joint est., and div. sep. ests. of James Windeyer Lewly James Gordon, Jewry-street, Aldgate, London, teacher of and Edmund Leuty.-Philip Jones, Llangattock, Monmouth- mathematics.- William Thomas Lambert, Jermyn-street, St. shire, banker, May 25 at 11, (and not May 19, as advertised James's, Middlesex, patent medicine vendor.-George Wigin the London Gazette of April 14), District Court of Bank-glesworth, Friendly-place, Old Kent-road, Surrey, tobacruptcy, Bristol, div. CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. William Kidston and Filmer Kidston, North-street, Sidney. street, Mile-end, and Liverpool-street, Bishopsgate, Middlesex, furniture dealers, May 23 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Joseph Rowe, Colchester, Essex, baker, May 23 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Francis Paul Becker, Stationers' Hall-court, Paternoster-row, London, engraver, May 19 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Huxtable, Frome, Selwood, Somersetshire, silversmith, May 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-J. Frater, Manchester, brewer, May 22 at 12, District Court of Bank. ruptcy, Manchester.-Richard Brownlow, Manchester, starch manufacturer, May 19 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-Joseph Parry, Liverpool, bricklayer, May 22 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.- Edwin Shaw, Birmingham, pocket-book maker, June 5 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Augustus Rizzi, Leeds, York. shire, looking-glass manufacturer, May 29 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds. To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. John Pointon, Monks Coppenhall, Cheshire, innkeeper.— John Salter, Backchurch-lane, Whitechapel, and Ratcliffehighway, Middlesex, yeast merchant.-W. Outram, Stocktonupon-Tees, Durham, timber merchant.-J. Clegg, Liverpool, licensed victualler.-Edmund Smith the younger, Swinton, Lancashire, coal owner. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION. George Gunn, Glasgow, carriage hirer. INSOLVENT DEBTORS Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process. Wm. Codling, Castleacre, Norfolk, general-shop keeper, May 10 at 3, County Court of Norfolk, at King's Lynn.Charles Morgan, Clodock, Herefordshire, farming bailiff, May 18 at 10, County Court of Herefordshire, at Hereford.-John Harrison, Pocklington, Yorkshire, licensed hawker, May 27 May 12 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY. Samuel Wood Graves, Warwick-street, Pimlico, and St. James's-square, Middlesex, gentleman. May 13 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. Joseph Bland, Chertsey, Surrey, out of business.-Catherine Mary Ladewig, Margaret-terrace, Harrow-road, Paddington, Middlesex, confectioner.-M. Merigan, Daly's-place, Southstreet, Isleworth, Middlesex, out of business. May 15 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSioner. tersea, Surrey, in no business.-Matthew Bromhead, LeatherLetitia E. Prescott, widow, Oak-place, Bridge-road, Batlane, Holborn, Middlesex, butcher. conist. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before a Judge of the County Court, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute: At the County Court of Durham, at DURHAM, May 12. John Hall, Gilesgate, out of business.-Edmund Ebdy, Gilesgate, twine manufacturer.-George Salmon, Gilesgate, out of business. - At the County Court of Lancashire, at LANCASTER, May 12 at 12. John Preston, Blackburn, cut looker.-Wm. Whiteley, Colne, out of business.-John Whitehead, Manchester, ironmonger.-Nathaniel Whewell, Oswaldtwistle, near Blackburn, grocer.-James Thorley, Manchester, mechanic.-B. Brown, Deansgate, Bolton-le-Moors, licensed victualler.— John Marshall, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Manchester, out of business.-William Richardson, Manchester, baker.-James Broad, Preston, pig dealer.-Joseph M'Knight, Salford, out of business.-John Hulm, Kirkdale, Liverpool, out of business. · George Rankin, Naas, Kildare, Ireland, grocer. — John Speakman, Bolton-le-Moors, fish hawker.-John M'Carthy, Manchester, grocer.-Christopher Bibby, Over Darwen, patten maker.-Wm. Chadwick, Manchester, out of business.Thomas Pickles, Lea, near Preston, licensed victualler. Henry Atharley, Manchester, out of business.—John Stout, Toxteth-park, Liverpool, dealer in ale.—Thomas Higham, Longsight, Manchester, out of business.-Wm. Upton, Manchester, out of business.-James Wilson, Blackburn, fishmonger. - Thomas Billington, Preston, out of business.Joseph Woodhouse, Manchester, grocer.-William Radcliffe, Oldham, assistant to a woollen rag dealer.-John Wilson, Manchester, clothes dealer.-J. Spencer, Salford, Clitheroe, out of business.-John Heath, Gorton-brook, near Manchester, beerseller. John Hirst, Great Bolton, Bolton-le-Moors, joiner.-William Smalley, Burnley, out of business.-James Bamber, Preston, out of business.-Hugh Fulton, Rusholme, near Manchester, out of business. At the County Court of Somersetshire, at Taunton, John Hedges, Baltonsborough, near Glastonbury, innkeeper. TUESDAY, MAY 2. BANKRUPTS. Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Charles Pollard, Wellington-street North, Strand, Middlesex, licensed victualler, May 26 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Robert F. Cooper, Three Colt-street, Limehouse, Middlesex, colourman, May 23 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Joseph Dunthorn, Broadwall, Christchurch, Blackfriars GEORGE FREDERICK ROSSITER, London-wall, London, wholesale clothier, dealer and chapman, May 13 at 12, and June 16 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Messrs. Harrison, 5, Walbrook, City.-road, Surrey, corn dealer, May 23 at half-past 12, Court of Petition filed April 27. CHARLES COWDERY, Coventry-street, Haymarket, and Hanworth-road, Hounslow, Isleworth, Middlesex, coffeehouse keeper and oyster dealer, dealer and chapman, May 12 at half-past 12, and June 16 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sols. Bridger & Collins, 37, King William-street, City.-Petition filed April 28. THOMAS HARRIS, West Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, chair manufacturer, May 9 at half-past 1, and May 31 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Stansfeld; Sol. Cordwell, 20, Old Fish-street.-Petition filed April 25. DAVID HOLDEN the younger, Horsham, Sussex, ironmonger, dealer and chapman, May 10 at 2, and June 14 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Graham; Sol. Jones, 9, Quality-court, Chancery-lane. - Petition' filed April 25. JOHN ROGER PURSSELL, Ludgate-hill, London, and WILLIAM MATTOCK, Liverpool, flour and provision FRANCIS WHITFIELD ROBINSON, Southport, Lancashire, printer, bookseller, and stationer, May 15 and June 7 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Cazenove; Sol. Forshaw, Liverpool.-Petition filed April 27. NICHOLAS KENNEDY, Shudehill, Manchester, ivory turner, dealer and chapman, May 12 and June 2 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Hernaman; Sols. Unwin, Sheffield; Sale & Co., Manchester.Petition filed April 19. aud. ac. MEETINGS. Bankruptcy, London, div.-G. Stewart Amsinck, Frederickstreet, Hampstead-road, Middlesex, common brewer, May 23 ston, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, licensed victualler, May 24 at at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Job Eggle2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.—Jas. Dauncy, Coaley Mills, near Uley, Gloucestershire, woollen manufacturer, May Whitehead, Fleet-st., London, printer, and Boyle-street, Bur23 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, fin. div.-George lington-gardens, Middlesex, scrivener, May 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Robert Smith, Gravesend, Kent, bricklayer, May 23 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. —Patrick Cruickshank, John Melville, and William Fauntleroy Street, Austin-friars, London, merchants, May 23 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. sep. est. of John Melville.-William Miller Anderson, Foley-place, St. Maryle. London, div.-W. Barnes, Hungerford, Berkshire, auctioneer, bone, Middlesex, surgeon, May 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, May 26 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.—T. Wilkinson, Cambridge-wharf, Wilton-road, Pimlico, and Grosvenor-street, Eaton-square, Middlesex, coal merchant, May 26 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Wm. Potter, 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, div.-J. Pointon, Birkenhead, Cheshire, and Liverpool, merchant, May 24 at Monks Coppenhall, Cheshire, innkeeper, May 23 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, div. Certificates. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. Edward Cahan and James Vicat the younger, Strand, Middlesex, tailors, June 1 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London.V. H. Gay, Blackfriars-road, Surrey, and Strand, Middlesex, tailor, May 24 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London. -Thomas C. Millington, Maldon, Essex, chemist, May 24 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London. -F. Bhear, George-yard, Lombard-street, London, hotel keeper, May 24 Geo. Havelock and Matthew B. Robson, Monkwearmouth, at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-J. Kingston, Reading, Durham, shipbuilders, May 19 at half-past 11, District Court Berkshire, draper, May 24 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, Lonof Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, last ex.-Thos. Teb- don.-Henry Meadows, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, butt, Manchester, merchant, May 26 at 12, District Court of druggist, May 23 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-SteBankruptcy, Manchester, last ex.-Thos. J. Burton, Baker phen Carlton, Darlington, Durham, coach manufacturer, May J. Gabb, and Fred. R. Cruchley, Wigmore-street, Cavendish- 30 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. square, Middlesex, church furnishers, May 25 at 12, Court of Joseph Munden the elder, Netherbury, Dorsetshire, flax Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-George Jones, Baker-street, spinner, May 23 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter. Lloyd-square, St. James's, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, manufac-Wm. Hart, Chester, banker, May 24 at 12, District Court turing jeweller, May 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, of Bankruptcy, Manchester. - Thomas M'Kenna, Belfast, -Mary Browne and John Read Browne, Middle-row Antrim, Ireland, and Manchester, draper, May 26 at 12, DisSouth, Knightsbridge, Middlesex, window-glass cutters, May Rainhill, Prescott, Lancashire, stonemason, May 24 at 11, trict Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-William Billinge, 25 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.- -Henry Johnson, Turnwheel-lane, Cannon-street, London, and Thames District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-Edwin Shaw, BirDitton, Surrey, machinist, May 26 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, mingham, pocket-book maker, June 5 at 10, District Court of London, aud. ac.-R. Hutchinson, Monkwearmouth Shore, Bankruptcy, Birmingham.—John Hunter, Fazeley, StaffordDurham, shipbuilder, May 23 at half-past 11, District Court shire, tape manufacturer, June 5 at 10, District Court of of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac.; May 26 at Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Charles Leake, Crowland, Lin12, div.-Jos. Grave, Manchester, warehouseman, May 17 at colnshire, grocer, May 26 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.; May Nottingham.-Isaac Steane, Coventry, Warwickshire, ribbon 24 at 12, div.-J. Bennett, Manchester, licensed victualler, manufacturer, June 8 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, May 18 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, Birmingham.-Joseph Horne, Leeds, Yorkshire, dyer, May aud. ac.-William Chesworth, Manchester, merchant, May 26 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-E. Michel18 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. son, Manchester, woollen merchant, May 26 at 11, District | ac.; May 25 at 12, div.-Mary Fouracre, Wigan, Lancashire, Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-Isaac Blackburn and Wm. S. innkeeper, May 18 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Man- Stiebel, Leeds, Yorkshire, ironfounders, May 26 at 11, Dischester, aud. ac. -Jas. Windeyer Lewty, Wilden, Worcester-trict Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-Thomas Štaniforth, Shefshire, William Henry Partridge, Birmingham, and Edmund field, Yorkshire, joiner, May 27 at 10, District Court of BankLewty, Stourport, Worcestershire, tin-plate workers, May ruptcy, Sheffield. 16 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-J. Bough, Kidderminster, Worcestershire, carpet manu. facturer, May 30 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-Tottenham Lee, Wakefield, Yorkshire, worsted yarn manufacturer, June 1 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac.; June 2 at 11, div.-Rebecca Allen, Alfreton, Derbyshire, innkeeper, May 27 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield, aud. ac.-Allan Stewart Hay, Old Broad-street, London, shipowner, May 26 at half-past 11, To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. L. D. Shields, Lime-street, London, merchant.-Henry H. Wood, Bognor, Sussex, victualler.-Thomas Young, Sunderland, Durham, shipowner.-John Rodway, Gloucester, victualler.-Joseph Watson, Liverpool, broker.-James Scoble Riley, Liverpool, commission merchant.-R. Milner, Doncaster, Yorkshire, hatter.-Edward B. Green, Bilston, Staffordshire, ironmonger.-Henry Green, Birmingham, button manufacturer.-Thomas Ballinger, Birmingham, confectioner. |