pr.

Onions, and Edmund Lloyd, Gloucester, vinegar manufacturers, Aug. 15 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, d.-Robert Hewson, Louth, Lincolnshire, innkeeper, Aug. 23 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Kingston-upon-Hull, aud. ac.-W. Duncan, Kingston-upon-Hull, grocer, Aug. 23 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Kingston-upon-Hull, aud. ac.-Edward Hopewell and A. Thacker, Leadenhall-st., London, outfitters, Aug. 23 at half past 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, fin. div. - John Hales Sweet, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, seedsman, Aug. 29 at half-past 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Richard Beckett, Liverpool, currier, Aug. 23 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, div.-Thos. Casson, Liverpool, coach builder, Aug. 24 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.

Mary Thornton Steele, Norland-road, Notting-hill, Middlesex, licensed victualler, Aug. 24 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Lloyd Bullock, Conduit-st., Bond-st., Middlesex, operative chemist, Aug. 23 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-David Holden the younger, Horsham, Sussex, ironmonger, Aug. 23 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Joseph Buhrer, Holborn-hill, London, fancy warehouseman, Aug. 23 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-James Green, Northampton, carpenter, Aug. 23 at halfpast 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Thos. Brook Bridges Stevens, Pall-mall, Middlesex, bill broker, Aug. 22 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London. Algimiro Duroni, Fenchurch-st., London, merchant, Aug. 23 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Joseph Cooper, Liverpool, Lancashire, and Birkenhead, Cheshire, ironmonger, Aug. 24 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool. Thomas Stone Besley, Tiverton, Devonshire, grocer, Aug. 24 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-Thos. Barnsley, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, tailor, Aug. 23 at 12, District Court of Bank ruptcy, Manchester.-Edwin Ashley, Manchester, smallware manufacturer, Aug. 22 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-James Worrall, Bolton and Manchester, Lancashire, manufacturer, Aug. 23 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-Henry Anstey and Wm. Walton, Birmingham, drapers, Sept. 7 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham. George Taylor, Leicester, hosier, Sept. 19 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Nottingham.Robert Hewson, Louth, Lincolnshire, innkeeper, Aug. 23 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Kingston-upon-Hull.

at Newmarket.—William Mainprize, Bridlington, Yorkshire, gasfitter, Aug. 8 at 10, County Court of Yorkshire, at Bridlington.-James Hunwick, Haverhill, Suffolk, leather seller, Aug. 22 at 12, County Court of Suffolk, at Sudbury.—Luke Lund, Bradford, Yorkshire, butcher, Aug. 19 at 11, County Court of Yorkshire, at Bradford.-George Beale, Bradford, Yorkshire, upholsterer, Aug. 19 at 11, County Court of Yorkshire, at Bradford.-Jacob Antill, Bisley, Gloucestershire, baker, Aug. 23 at 10, County Court of Gloucestershire, at Stroud. Saturday, July 29.

Fur

Assignees have been appointed in the following Cases. ther particulars may be learned at the Office, in Portugalstreet, Lincoln's-inn-fields, on giving the Number of the Case.

J. Chaffers, New Wortley, near Leeds, Yorkshire, cabinet maker, No. 77,995 C.; Henry Barkworth, assignee.—Eliza A. Hayward, Birmingham, shoe manufacturer, No. 78,285 C.; William Marshal, assignee.-Robt. Adshead, Manchester, stonemason, No. 75,095 Č.; John Harpin, Thomas Tinker, and John Brierley, assignees.-William Mitchell, Horsham, Sussex, miller, No. 78,084 C.; Robert Sheppard and Henry Phillips Thorpe, assignees.—Ephraim Watson, Polstead, Suffolk, shoemaker, No. 78,134 C.; Edward Richardson and Stannard Borham, assignees. — Samuel Shaw, Mottram in Longdendale, Cheshire, draper, No. 78,261 C.; Matthew Newton Welch, assignee.

Saturday, July 29.

Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional Assignee the Estates and Effects of the following Persons:

(On their own Petitions).

Wm. Osborne, Hampstead-road, Middlesex, butcher: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-D. Williams, Wells-row, Upper-street, Islington, Middlesex, fruiterer's assistant: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex. -Chas. Perry, Lower-street, Islington, Middlesex, butcher: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Henry S. Smith, Friar-street, Blackfriars-road, Surrey, stay maker: in

the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.

(On Creditor's Petition).

Sarah Atlee, Oval-cottages, Hackney-road, Middlesex, out of business: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex. (On their own Petitions).

PETITION DISMISSED.

Bennett Alfred Burton and Henry Mortimer Burton, John's-place, Holland-street, Southwark, Surrey, engineers. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.

Robert Hamilton, Edinburgh, Signet Hall keeper -Alex. Turnbull, Glasgow, miller.-Anderson & Murphy, Glasgow, sewed muslin manufacturers.-James Somerville, Glasgow, hosier. James Dunlop, Ayton, Berwickshire, draper.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS

Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process.

Thos. Williams, Merthyr Tydfil, Glamorganshire, licensed victualler, Aug. 10 at 10, County Court of Glamorganshire, at Merthyr Tydfil.- Wm. Mills, Taunton, Somersetshire, rag dealer, Aug. 16 at 10, County Court of Somersetshire, at Taunton.-Mary A. Brewer, Taunton, Somersetshire, grocer, Aug. 16 at 10, County Court of Somersetshire, at Taunton.Thomas Jenkins, Neath, Glamorganshire, beer-house keeper, Aug. 12 at 10, County Court of Glamorganshire, at Neath.Morris Gibby the younger, Llansamlet, near Swansea, Glamorganshire, farmer, Aug. 12 at 10, County Court of Glamorganshire, at Neath.-Joseph Crick, Newmarket, Cambridgeshire, baker, Aug. 14 at 3, County Court of Cambridgeshire,

H. Bradley, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, clothes dealer in the Gaol of York.-H. Wright, Rotherham, Yorkshire, furniture broker in the Gaol of York.-W. Ross, Dover, Kent, gun. smith in the Gaol of Dover.-William Makin the younger, Manchester, baker: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-John Ashthe Gaol of Lancaster.-Jas. Taylor, Lancaster, out of business in the Gaol of Lancaster.-David Brierley, Middleton, near Manchester, silk dealer: in the Gaol of Lancaster.Edwin Slack, Leeds, Yorkshire, out of business: in the Gaol of York.-Wm. Jarvis, Ross, Herefordshire, town crier : in the Gaol of Hereford.-Charles Frankcom, Bath, Somersetshire, out of business: in the Gaol of Wilton.- John Logan, Oxford, draper: in the Gaol of Oxford.- Henry Evans, Woburn, Bedfordshire, hairdresser: in the Gaol of Bedford.James Thompson, Poddington, Bedfordshire, farm bailiff: in the Gaol of Bedford.-Thomas Armstrong, Salford, Lancashire, hat manufacturer: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Gregson Erasmus Brown, Salford, Lancashire, joiner: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Richard Ellis, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, out of business in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Martin Hague, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, provision-shop keeper: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Nicholas Livesey, Blackburn, Lancashire, bookseller: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-John Ramsbottom, Accrington, Lancashire, manufacturer of the elliptical rotatory steam-engine: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Alfred Eggington, Lichfield, solicitor: in the Gaol of Lichfield.S. Harrison, West Bromwich, Staffordshire, farming bailiff: in the Gaol of Stafford.-Joseph Malbon, Chesterton, near Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, potter: in the Gaol of Stafford.-William Burch, Mendlesham, Suffolk, veterinary surgeon: in the Gaol of Ipswich. Anne Hand, widow, Wilinslow, Cheshire: in the Gaol of Chester.-Jas. Phillips, Birmingham, marine store dealer: in the Gaol of Coventry.John Hodgetts, Walsall, Staffordshire, butcher: in the Gaol of Stafford. John Bower, Laister Dyke, near Bradford, Yorkshire, manufacturer: in the Gaol of York.-Ann Hop

ROLLS COURT.

The Attorney-General v. The Earl of Chesterfield.(Parties-Demurrer-Charity-Agent of Trustee, Possession of Property by)...

VICE-CHANCELLOR STUART'S COURT. Thomas v. Cooper.-(Banking Account, Mortgage of Real Estate to secure the Balance of-Warrant of Attorney-Redemption of Mortgage-In a Banking Account, where the Balance due is secured on Real Estate, Charges above 51. per Cent. in respect of Discount on Bills not protected by Stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 98, disallowed-Usury)

VICE-CHANCELLOR WOOD'S COURT.

685

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

PRICE 18.

Dewhurst v. Clarkson.-(Friendly Society-Alteration of Rules-Irregularity-Barrister's CertificateNon-compliance with Rules-Trustees and Treasurer) Reg. v. Evans.-(Friendly Society-Reference to Arbitrators-Election of new Arbitrators-Award. Jurisdiction of Justices-10 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 274 & 5 Will. 4, c. 40, s. 7)

693

696

686

Fagg v. Nudd.-(Common-law Procedure Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, Schedule (B.) and Sect. 91-Count on an Account stated-Demurrer).. Brown v. Byrne.-(Evidence-Written Contract Usage of Trade- Bill of Lading-Action for Freight-Deduction of Discount)...

699

700

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Saunderson v. Proctor.- (Practice-Appeal from Judge-County Court-Affidavit)..

ADMIRALTY PRIZE COURT.

The Johanna Emilie, or Emilia.-(Time of PeaceImpending War-War-Transfer-Spoliation of Papers-Further Proof-National Character).. 703

of an age so far mature as to render great manual fatigue

Ir has been held by Sir R. T. Kindersley, V. C., in a recent case, all the judges of the Court concurring, that the evidence taken orally before an examiner of the Court of Chancery, must be taken down by him personally, in his own handwriting; that it will not do if it is taken down by another and revised by him, or even at his dictation; it must be by him scribente personally. Such, it is said, is the effect of the 32nd section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86; and we are not going to dispute that such is the construction of the statute; for certainly, when a statute says that an act, being the act of writing, is to be done by A. B., it is most difficult to conceive how the writing of any other person could be a writing by A. B. However, on this point the statute ought to be amended, the result being sometimes inconvenient to an extent quite absurd. We have heard, for instance, of an examiner, and that not one of the regular examiners, who may be supposed to be men VOL. XVIII. E E

and energy, being obliged to break up an examination, not because he was mentally tired, nor because the counsel and witnesses were mentally tired, but because literally the examiner's wrist ached with writing, so that he could write no longer.

Now, what is the advantage of the examiner being also, as a matter of course, the scribe? And indeed what is the advantage of prescribing so minutely as the act does, the modo et formâ in which the examiner is to proceed? It must be confessed, the particularity of the directions savour much of the same kind of spirit which recently dictated, from another quarter, the two-inch line of demarcation between the corner of the soldier's mouth, and the boundary line of his whisker.

The great point, to be serious, is, that the evidence should be given and taken down in such a way as to express as far as possible not only what the witness said, but in reference to what, and how he said it. As long as we have separate examiners this can only be done very imperfectly. It is true, that if a series of photographic portraits of the witnesses could be taken at different stages of the examination, and appended to the margin of the depositions, the indignant look at one time, the half-open mouth at another, or the dogged yet vacant expression at another, might indicate the farouche virtue, the guilty terror, or the obdurate and predetermined mendacity of the witness. But as we fear the age is not yet far enough advanced to let the illumination of photographic art penetrate into the

recesses of the apartments in Rolls-yard, the judge and suitors of the Court of Chancery must at present be contented without the benefit of knowing what is called the demeanour of the witness. But there is no reason why they should not know, when he makes a statement, in answer to what precise question he makes it; nor is there any good reason why the witness should always be checked in the flow of his earnestness of statement, in order that he may not go too fast for the unfortunate examiner. There are cases in which it is of the greatest importance that the witness should be allowed to tell his own story with all the energy and rapidity that the sense of truthfulness, and the earnest desire to emit the truth, call forth. There are times when it is equally important that he should be forced on rapidly, that he may not have time to plot and plan and fence. There are, again, occasions when deliberate questions, answered precisely and specifically, have the greatest effect in eliciting the truth; and all these means ought to be at the disposal of the examiner.

We are not writing lightly on this subject; we have thought of it much, and we have, besides watching the various modes of oral examination that are practised under different forms of proceeding, been personally engaged frequently in conducting oral examinations. So that we are speaking, not as mere theoreticians, nor as mere practitioners, but as both, and we say, without hesitation, that the 32nd section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, is mischievously meddling and minute in details. If we had the task of reforming it on this point, we should recommend it to be as follows:

"The depositions taken upon any such oral examination as aforesaid shall be taken down in writing, in such form and manner and by such person or persons as the parties shall agree upon; and if the parties disagree, in such form and manner and by such person as the examiner shall direct. And if the parties shall agree upon the employment and selection of a shorthand writer, or the examiner shall direct the employment of a short-hand writer, the payment of such short-hand writer shall be costs in the cause, unless the Court shall otherwise direct."

We do not cling to our particular form of words, but we do trust that next session, if separate examination of witnesses is continued, the trammels imposed by the 32nd section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, in the mode of taking it, will be removed, and at any rate that the Legislature will have pity on the wrists and thumbs of examiners, and not compel them to be permanent copying machines.

ON THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN THE RECORD OF SPECIFICATIONS OF PATENTS.

It was for some time much doubted to what extent the Master of the Rolls had jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of correcting errors in the records of specifications of patents. It is now clear that it is confined to correcting clerical errors, and that it will be very cautiously exercised. The cases down to a recent period are referred to in Mr. Hindmarch's work on Patents, p. 223.

Rubery's case, there mentioned, and shortly stated in

Webst. Pat. Cas. 649, notis, was a case in which the draft specification stated correctly the date of the letters-patent. The copy of the specification, ingrossed for the purpose of being acknowledged, and deposited in the inrolment office by the patentee, was incorrectly made, owing to an error of the ingrossing clerk, and the date of the letters-patent was incorrectly recited. On a petition being presented to the Master of the Rolls, stating these facts and circumstances explaining how the error arose, the following order, reciting the facts, and stating that the Solicitor-General had subscribed the petition, and thereby signified his consent to the prayer thereof on behalf of the Crown, was made: it was ordered that the proper officer do attend his Lordship with the record of the inrolment of the petitioner's aforesaid specification, and that the same be altered and amended by inserting the word “November" in lieu of the word "October" in the recital or introductory part thereof; and it was ordered that a copy of this order be indorsed on the roll on which the said specification is inrolled.

This was in 1841. In July of this year the present Master of the Rolls made, principally on the authority of Rubery's case, a similar order in Dismore's case. In that case the petition alleged an error on the record of the specification, in the name of the patentee. His name in reality, and as correctly stated in the letterspatent, was "George Dismore," and he was so designated in the draft specification. It appeared, that by an error of the clerk who ingrossed it, he was designated in the ingrossed copy "Charles Dismore," and so it was copied on the rolls of Chancery. On a petition presented to the Master of the Rolls to alter this error, an order similar to that in Rubery's case was made. It must be recollected, however, that in cases of this kind, the fiat of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General to the petition must be obtained, and the patent itself must be produced to the Court, to see that the party claiming relief against the error is really the party designated in the letters-patent, and that the record, as existing, is not as it was intended to be by the parties. The distinction between this class of cases and that contemplated by the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 83, will be readily appreciated by the reader. The statute refers entirely to alterations of substance-to the remedying of errors of judgment or knowledge of the patentee-as distinguished from the correction of mere clerical errors in copying the actually expressed intention of the patentee. The class of cases which we have noticed relates entirely to the correction of mere clerical errors, and depends on the jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls over the rolls-not to alter them, but to see that they are correct; for if a specification were drawn, ingrossed, and copied on the rolls according to the intention of the patentee-if, in other words, the roll or record was a correct copy of the thing intended to be lodged for inrolment by the patentee-the Master of the Rolls would then have no jurisdiction to alter the roll. The patentee would have to call in aid the powers of Lord Brougham's Act, under which alone the substantial error of the patentee himself can be cured. The common-law jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls is strictly confined to the case where the roll is not what it was intended to be by the parties,

London Gazettes.

and where the fact of its not being so arises from the error or inadvertence of some agent or officer, irrespectively of, or rather contrary to, the intention of the patentee.

Correspondence.

66 TO THE EDITOR OF THE JURIST." SIR,-Your observations on the case of Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, in which you state the decision of Sir R. T. Kindersley, V. C., on the effect of fraud in a married woman on the property over which she has a mere power of appointment by will, do not indicate what your view is of the soundness of that decision. I venture to trouble you on the subject with a few observations, for the purpose of shewing that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor is quite untenable-contrary to all the principles laid down by himself on the subject of separate estate, and the power of a feme coverte to contract debts, and not supported by the authority to which he refers as the leading case. To take the last point first. The case of Savage v. Foster, (9 Mod. 35), on which the Vice-Chancellor relies, was a case in which the married woman who committed the fraud had, at the time she committed it, an estate of which she was owner, and which she could then have conveyed by apt assurances. The only difficulty which would then have existed would have been, how the Court could compel her, being coverte, to join in the necessary assurances. She afterwards became discoverte, and then the Court compelled her to convey-not on the principle that her fraud made that her property which would in no sense have been so without-not on the principle that by fraud she could, being coverte, contract a debt, except on her separate estate-but on the broad principle of equity, that if any one commits a fraud, the Court will make him cure it, whenever it can lay hold of him for the purpose. But how does that case apply to Vaughan v. Vanderstegen? In the latter case it was determined, and I apprehend soundly determined, by the ViceChancellor himself, that a married woman is incapable of debt by contract, except as regards her separate estate; that property over which she has a mere power of appointment by will is in no sense her separate estate, and therefore that her attempted debts do not fasten upon it, as her assets, in the hands of her appointees. If that is a correct view of the law, it goes upon this that the appointed assets never were and never could be hers-that is, hers in the sense of property. If so, how can her fraud make them her property? It may make her liable if and when the Court can reach her: it may make any property of hers, in respect of which she could have bound herself, her assets, or as her assets. But how can it convert a mere power into property, and enable the Court, not to compel her to do something she was capable of doing, as in Savage v. Foster, but to seize as her assets that in respect of which she never could have contracted a debt? A

fraud may subject the person to the grasp of the Court, and may enable the Court to force upon him some act over his own property, when, as against the property itself, there might have been no charge or lien. But fraud cannot alter the nature of the jus proprietatis; my fraud cannot make that my property, which never was and never could be property in me. I submit very respectfully, for the reasons above given, that the decision in Vaughan v. Vanderstegen cannot be supported as to the point made upon fraud, if it is, as I apprehend it is, right on the general doctrine.

R.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 4.

BANKRUPTS.

CHARLES STAPLES and JOHN COLLYER, Southampton, ship plumbers, glaziers, painters, gilders, dealers and chapmen, Aug. 14 at half-past 12, and Sept. 8 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Tippetts & Son, 2, Sise-lane, Bucklersbury, London.Petition filed July 31.

JAMES HENRY MACKEY, St. Helen's-place, London,

merchant, dealer and chapman, Aug. 17 at half-past 1, and Sept. 14 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sols. Lawrance & Co., 14, Old Jewry-chambers, Old Jewry.-Petition filed Aug. 3. NATHAN JACOB CALISHER, Norfolk-street, Strand, Middlesex, jeweller, dealer and chapman, Aug. 17 at 1, and Sept. 7 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sol. Sydney, 46, Finsbury-circus.-Petition BENEDETTO BERNASCONI, Red Lion-street, Clerkenfiled July 28. well, Middlesex, looking-glass frame manufacturer, dealer and chapman, Aug. 17 at 2, and Sept. 14 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sol. Roscoe, 14, King-street, Finsbury-square.-Petition filed July 27. THOMAS BOYDEN and JOSEPH EDWARD MANSFORD, Cullum-street, London, merchants, (trading under the firm of Boyden & Mansford), Aug. 15 at half-past 2, and Sept. 19 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Lee; Sols. Lawrance & Co., 14, Old Jewry-chambers, London.-Petition filed Aug. 3. JULIUS CALISHER, Norfolk-street, Strand, Middlesex, jeweller, dealer and chapman, Aug. 15 at half-past 1, and Sept. 19 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Edwards; Sol. Sydney, 46, Finsbury-circus, London.Petition filed July 28.

JOHN HOWARD, Norwich, butcher, Aug. 15 at 2, and Sept. 19 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Lee; Sols. Jay & Pilgrim, Norwich; Jay, 14, Bucklersbury, London.-Petition filed July 25.

JAMES WILSHER ALDRIDGE, Witham, Essex, corn

merchant, dealer and chapman, Aug. 15 at 3, and Sept. 19 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Edwards; Sols. Banks & Stevens, Witham, Essex; Stevens & Satchell, 6, Queen-st., Cheapside, London.-Petition filed July 5. WILLIAM BULLOCK, Warwick, ironmonger and brazier, Aug. 14 and Sept. 4 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Nicks, Warwick; Hodgson, Birmingham.-Petition dated July 27. SAMUEL HAMMOND, Leeds, Yorkshire, flax spinner, dealer and chapman, (carrying on business at Low Fold Mills, Leeds, under the style or firm of George Hammond & Son), Aug. 22 and Sept. 26 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Hope; Sols. J. & H. Richardson & Gaunt, Leeds.-Petition dated Aug. 3. JOHN HOLLAND OATES, Halifax, Yorkshire, painter, gilder, and paperhanger, dealer and chapman, Aug. 21 and Sept. 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Young; Sols. Wavell & Co., Halifax.-Petition dated July 28.

ROBERT MASON, Manchester, stationer, dealer and chapman, (carrying on business under the style or firm of Thomas Charlton & Co.), Aug. 16 and Sept. 6 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Pott; Sols. Atkinsons & Co., Manchester.-Petition filed July 31.

JOHN MILLIGAN, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Manchester, draper, dealer and chapman, Aug. 15 and Sept. 5 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Her. naman; Sols. Cobbett & Wheeler, Manchester.-Petition filed Aug. 3.

MEETINGS.

John Plimmer, Britten-street, Chelsea, Middlesex, brewer,

Aug. 16 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, pr. d.-Francis Edmund Hayman Fowler, Frederick's-place, Vauxhall-road, Surrey, builder, Aug. 17 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, ch. ass.-Samuel Walton, Macclesfield, Cheshire, silk manufacturer, Aug. 14 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, last ex.-Alfred Burrows, Mile-end, near Stockport,