SPINK (Rev. Francis), Hertford. March 24; Rev. J. Hookway, Catholic Church, Barnet. N. E. Barker, 9, Villiers-st, Hertford. STANDISH (Minnie Rebecca), Ealing. March 10; Raphael Zeffertt and Co., 17, Coleman-st, E.C. 2. TRILLING (Elias), Mentone, France. March 13; Oppenheimer, Nathan, and Vandyk, 1, Finsbury-sq, E.C. 2. TWYNAM (Elizabeth Anne), Kensington. March 13; Trotter, Goodhall, and Patteson, 64, Victoria-st, Westminster, S.W. 1. THORP (Arthur Ballantine Knight), Richmond, Surrey. March 31; E. H. Saunders, 79, Salisbury-house, London Wall, E.C. 2. THORNTON (Henry), Newcastle-upon-Tyne. March 9: Stanford and Lambert, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. WACE (Cornelia Gertrude), Kensington. March 10; Lewis and Yglesias, 6, Old Jewry, E.C. 2. WALTON (Joseph Platt), Halesworth. March 7; Trustee Dept., Barclays Bank, WATSON (Margaret Alice), Blackburn. Feb. 26; R. Ferguson, Blackburn. WOOD (James), Ansdell, Lytham. March 13; Lonsdale and Grey, St. Annes-onthe-Sea. WILLIAMS (Richard Westall), Parkstone, Dorset. March 7; T. Barton, Bourne mouth. WYLIE (Annie), Neston, Cheshire. March 18; Tyrer, Kenion, Tyrer, and Simpson, BANKRUPTS THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1914. RECEIVING ORDERS. GAZETTE, FEB. 6. ADAMS, EDWARD BUTLER, late Warfield, pig breeder. Ct. High Court. Feb. 3. ARTHUR, WALTER (trading as the Premier Tile Company), Oldham, tile slabber. Ct. Oldham. Feb. 2. BECK, GEOFFREY RONALD, late Worcester Park, air pilot. Ct. High Court. Feb. 2. BOVEY, FRANK CLARKE, Ashburton, poultry farmer. Ct. Exeter. Jan. 29. BURLEY, HUBERT VIVIAN, High Flatts, coal dealer. Ct. Huddersfield. Feb. 2. BALMFORTH, JOHN (late trading as J. and L. Balmforth), Rotherham, milk dealer. Ct. Sheffield. Feb. 3. BEANLANDS, HERBERT EMMOTT, Hornsea, garage proprietor. Ct. Kingston-uponHull and Patrington. Feb. 4. CRANE, ARTHUR JOHN, Clacton-on-Sea, hotel proprietor. Ct. Colchester. Jan. 28. CARLTON, JOHN WILLIAM, and CARLTON, JAMES ARTHUR (trading as William Carlton), Leeds, wheelwrights. Ct. Leeds. Feb. 2. CANN, MARY, Devonport, newsagent. Ct. Plymouth. Feb. 2. CLYNE, ERNEST JOHN, and ACTON, JACK (trading as the Lonsdale Candy Company), DAWES, HERBERT GEORGE, Chilworth-st. Ct. High Court. Feb. 3. DUERDEN, WILLIAM (trading as R. W. Duerden and Sons), Nelson, cotton manufacturer. Ct. Burnley. Feb. 3. DUXBURY, ALLAN, Carlisle, haulage contractor. Ct. Carlisle. Jan. 30. DYKES, WILLIAM, Ashington, builder. Ct. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Feb. 3. FULCHER, RUTH WHETTEM and KNIGHT, GLADYS CHRISTIANA (trading as the GINSBERG, POLLY, and GINSBERG, BARNETT (trading as P. and B. Ginsberg), HOOKER, HENRY, late Market-pl, Oxford-circus. Ct. High Court. Feb. 4. HIGGS, ALBERT ERNEST, Bristol, provision dealer. Ct. Bristol. Feb. 2. HAMPSTEAD, THOMAS, Rotherham, draper. Ct. Sheffield. Feb. 2. JONES, THOMAS OLIVER, and JONES, SOPHIA, Llandovery, late licensed victuallers. Ct. Carmarthen. Jan. 30. JONES, JAMES WOOD (trading as Jones and Sons), Shrewsbury, florist. Ct. LERNER, J., Hinde-st, Manchester-sq, French furrier. Ct. High Court. Feb. 3. MARSHALL, THOMAS LAWS, Sunderland, bedding manufacturer. Ct. Sunderland. MASON, ARTHUR JOHN, and PULLING, HARRY SEWALLIS (trading as Mason and Pulling), Seaford, builders. Ct. Brighton and Lewes (at Brighton). Feb. 2. MCEWAN, ROBERT, Westcliff-on-Sea, engineer. Ct. Chelmsford. Feb. 2. MOORE, OLIVER, Langley Mill, wheelwright. Ct. Derby and Long Eaton. Feb. 2. MOSS, THOMAS, Coppull, builder. Ct. Preston. Feb. 4. NICHOLSON, EDITH VERONA, Manchester, nursing home matron. Ct. Manchester. Feb. 2. O'HAGAN, CHARLES EDWARD (trading as Dodwell and O'Hagan), Cheltenham, licensed hawker. Ct. Cheltenham. Feb. 4. PACKHAM, HARRY, Bradford, late farmer. Ct. Bradford. Feb. 6. AYRES, SYDNEY, Hanwell, provision merchant. Ct. Brentford. BEDDOW, THOMAS, Newtown, farmer. Ct. Newtown. Feb. 7. COLE, FREDERICK THOMAS, Millom, grocer. Ct. Whitehaven and Millom. Feb. 6. DAVIS, AMELIA RYALL, and DAVIS, GILBERT WILLIAM (trading as The Ammonn EVANS, NOBLE (trading as the General Supply Company), Bradford. Ct. Bradford. Fox, W. A., Brentford, musical instrument dealer. Ct. Brentford. HARTOG, S. H., late Borough High-st. Ct. High Court. Feb. 4. HEAD, WILLIAM GEORGE, Ashford, electrical engineer. Ct. Canterbury. Feb. 6. Feb. 6. JACKSON, ARCHIBALD HARDIE KNOWLES, Bryanston-st, Marble Arch. Ct. High JONES, DAVID, Llanelly, tobacco dealer. Ct. Carmarthen. Feb. 3. LYME, HENRY, late Delamere-cres, Paddington, licensed victualler. Ct. High MIDDLEDITCH, ABRAHAM JOHN, Hollesley, farmer. Ct. Ipswich. Jan. 26. PHIPPS, HARRY WIGGIN, Langiey, grocer. Ct. West Bromwich. SPITTA, KATHLEEN, Maidenhead. Ct. Windsor. Feb. 4. SHARPE, JAMES WILLIAM, Bardon Mill, manager. Ct. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Feb. 4. SENN AND SCHULTEN, Thames-chmbrs, Beer-la, produce merchants. Ct. High Court. Feb. 5. TAYLOR, G. W., AND CO., Whitecross-st, clothiers. Ct. High Court. Feb. 5. TAYLOR, CHARLES EDWARD, Dorchester, job master. Ct. Dorchester. WHITE, ALBERT GEORGE, Southsea, late fruit hawker. Ct. Portsmouth. Feb. 4. WHEELER, A. AND G., Rathbone-pl, manufacturers of gowns. Ct. High Court. Feb. 5. WHITING, BERTRAM GORDON, Parkhurst-rd, Carisbrooke-rd, Walthamstow. Ct. High Court. Feb. 5. WATSON, ARTHUR, Chesterfield, slater. Ct. Chesterfield. Feb. 6. Amended notice substituted for that in Gazette, Jan. 16. GARSIDE, STANLEY, Mirfield, woollen manufacturer. Ct. Dewsbury. Jan. 12. ADJUDICATIONS. GAZETTE, FEB. 6. ARTHUR, WALTER (trading as the Premier Tile Company), Oldham, tile slabber. ARMSTRONG, JAMES, Egremont, builder. Ct. Whitehaven and Millom. Jan. 31. BALMFORTH, JOHN (late trading as J. and L. Balmforth), Rotherham, milk dealer. BARKER, ALFRED EDGAR VERE, St. James's Club, Piccadilly, company, director. Ct. High Court. Feb. 3. CAREY, HERBERT, Upper-st, Islington, drapers' manager. Ct. High Court. Feb. 3. Ct. Feb. 4. PARROTT, SIDNEY JAMES EDWARD, Heather, farmer. Ct. Burton-on-Trent. Feb. 3. PARKIN, WILFRED JOSEPH, Selby, blacksmith. Ct. Leeds. Feb. 2. Feb. 4. COHEN, LEWIS (described in Rec. Order as L. Cohen), Mile End-rd, builder. High Court. Feb. 2. RADCLIFFE, RICHARD, Shawforth, stripper. Ct. Rochdale. Jan. 31. CLYNE, ERNEST JOHN, and ACTON, JACK (trading as The Lonsdale Candy Company), Higher Broughton, confectionery manufacturers. Ct. Salford. Feb. 3. SMITH, CHARLES RAYMOND HENRY, Kingsway, advertising agent. Ct. High Court. Feb. 2. SWANN, ARTHUR WILLIAM, New Cleethorpes, mate of a steam trawler. Ct. Great Grimsby. Feb. 4. SILK, REGINALD GEORGE, Catford-hill, wine merchant. Ct. Greenwich, Nov. 25. SUTTON, CECIL GLENDY, Pentney, dealer. Ct. Ling's Lynn. Feb. 3. SILKSTONE, HARRY OXLEY, Northwold, coal merchant. Ct. Norwich. Feb. 4. TRIGG, RICHARD, and WHITE, JAMES HAROLD (trading as Richard Trigg), Milwoodrd, Herne Hill, blouse manufacturers. Ct. High Court. Feb. 2. DEAN, JAMES WILLIAM, Princes House, Kingsway, clerk. Ct. High Court. Feb. 3. DUERDEN, WILLIAM (trading as R. W. Duerden and Sons), Nelson, cotton manufacturer. Ct. Burnley. Feb. 3. DYKES, WILLIAM, Ashington, builder. Ct. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Feb. 3. FULCHER, RUTH WHETTEM, and KNIGHT, GLADYS CHRISTIANA (trading as The Feb. 2. GWILLIM, WILFRED HORNE, Foxhall, Ross, engineer. Ct. Hereford. HIGGS, ALBERT ERNEST, Bristol, provision dealer. Ct. Bristol. Feb. 2. JONES, THOMAS OLIVER, AND JONES, SOPHIA, Llandovery, licensed victualler. Ct. JONES, JAMES WOOD (trading as Jones and Sons), Shrewsbury, florist. Ct. Shrewsbury. Feb. 2. KAPOVITCH, ARTHUR MORRIS (described in Rec. Order as A. Morris Kapovitch) (trading as A. Morris), Lamb's Conduit-st, fruiterer. Ct. High Court. Feb. 2. KNIGHT, JOHN ALBERT (trading as The Grosvenor Boot Company), Manchester, boot factor. Ct. Manchester. Feb. 4. LEE, SIDNEY, Colne, general dealer. Ct. Burnley. Feb. 3. LUCAS, ALBERT, Croydon, builder. Ct. Croydon. Feb. 3. LELYVELD, JOHN (trading as J. Lilley), Kingston-on-Thames, fruiterer. Ct. LEGGE, ALFRED JOHN, late Brynmawr, licensed victualler. Ct. Tredegar and MILLER, GODFREY, Myddelton-st, City-rd. Ct. High Court. MASON, ARTHUR JOHN, and PULLING, HARRY (trading as Mason and Pulling), MOSS, THOMAS, Coppull, builder. Ct. Preston. Feb. 4. MARSHALL, THOMAS LAWS, Sunderland. bedding manufacturer. Ct. Sunderland. Feb. 3. NICHOLSON, EDITH VERONA, Manchester, nursing home matron. Ct. Manchester. Feb. 2. OLIVE, EDITH MAY, South Shields, fish merchant. Ct. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Jan. 30. Feb. 4. O'HAGAN, CHARLES EDWARD (trading as Dodwell and O'Hagan), Cheltenham, RADCLIFFE, RICHARD, Shawforth, stripper. Ct. Rochdale. Jan. 31. SAVORY, FREDERICK JAMES, Goodinge-rd, Holloway. Ct. High Court. Feb. 2. SMITH, CHARLES RAYMOND HENRY, Kingsway, advertising agent. Ct. High SILKSTONE, HARRY OXLEY, Northwold, coal merchant. Ct. Norwich. Feb. 4. Ct. Great SUTTON, CECIL GLENDY, Pentney, dealer. Ct. King's Lynn. Feb. 3. UTTING, BERTRAM EDWARD, Norwich, motor engineer. Ct. Norwich. Feb. 2. Amended notice substituted for that in Gazette, Oct. 31, 1924. MACGUIRE, SYDNEY MILSON, and SHERREN, EDWARD HERBERT (trading and described in Rec. Order as S. M. MacGuire and Co.), Westminster Palacegrdns, Victoria-st, public works contractors. Ct. High Court. Oct. 29. GAZETTE, FEB. 10. ANDERSON, GEORGE KELSEY, Southerndown, assistant schoolmaster. Ct. Bridgend. Feb. 7. Feb. 7. BEDDOW, THOMAS, Newtown, farmer. Ct. Newtown. COLE, FREDERICK THOMAS, Millom, grocer. Ct. Whitehaven and Millom. Feb. 6. EASTER, HAROLD WILLIAM, Queen's-rd, Battersea, baker. Ct. Wandsworth. Feb. 5. GRIFFITHS, FRANCIS JAMES, Manchester, buyer. Ct. Manchester. HAWTHORN, ARTHUR, Ely-pl, Holborn. Ct. High Court. Feb. 4. LYME, HENRY, late Delamere-cres, Paddington, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court. Feb. 6. MANZ, JAKOB (trading as the Ever Ready Spirit Measure Company), Charing TAYLOR, CHARLES EDWARD, Dorchester, job master. Ct. Dorchester. Feb. 7. THOMAS, LLEWELLYN, Perdine, provision dealer. Ct. Haverfordwest. Feb. 4. VICKERS, JOHN CECIL, Liverpool, motor engineer. Ct. Liverpool. Feb. 7. WEBSTER, WALTER, St. Anns-climbrs, Waithmian-st, printer. Ct, High Court. Feb. 5. WATSON, ARTHUR, Chesterfield, slater. Ct. Chesterfield. Feb. 6. WALLACE, PERCY JOHN, Hillside-rd, Stamford Hill, retired engineer. ton. Feb. 4. Ct. Edmon WARREN, HENRY EDWIN (described in Rec. Order as H. E. Warren), late Heacham. Ct. Leicester. Feb. 6 Ct. WALL, THOMAS WALTER JACKSON, Liverpool, steamship company's clerk. Amended notice substituted for that in Gazette, Jan. 16. Amended notice substituted for that in Gazette, Feb. 3. ADJUDICATIONS ANNULLED. Jan. 31. THEAKER, JOHN THOMAS, Hemsworth, farm labourer. Ct. Wakefield. Feb. 2. GAZETTE, FEB. 10. GOODYEAR, CHARLES, Hythe. Ct. Canterbury. Feb. 3. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS DEATHS. ADKINS. On the 30th ult., at Springfield, Northampton, Sir William Ryland Dent Adkins, K.C., aged 62. BELL. CARR. On the 3rd inst., at a nursing home, Francis James Bell, of Chilington, Surbiton, eldest son of the late James Bell, of Kingston-on-Thames, aged 58. On the 28th ult., William Carr, Esq., D.L., of Ditchingham Hall, Norfolk, and of Stackhouse and Gomersal, Yorkshire, aged 62. DE COLYAR.--On the 31st ult., at 24, Palace Gardens-terrace, Kensington, Henry PAIN. On the 25th ult., Arthur George Pain, solicitor and notary, of Dampeti POWELL. On the 31st ult., in a nursing home at Westcliff, Frederick William SMITH. On the 23rd ult., of heart failure, following pneumonia, at Ravensmere, Post-Office Orders payable to THE FIELD PRESS LTD. The Statutes and Index and the Indices to LAW TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS will not be sold to others than Subscribers to LAW TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS except at an additional charge. Portfolios or preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 6s. 6d. net. LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 6s. net. Parcels of Volumes for binding should be sent carriage paid to the Publisher, LAW TIMES Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4. The reduced charge for binding in half calf is as follows:-LAW TIMES JOURNAL, 12s. per volume; LAW TIMES REPORTS, 11s. per volume. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office should remit 1s. additional to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Advertisements. Advertisements must reach the office not later than 11.30 on Thursday, and must be accompanied by a remittance. Advertisements may be refused or discontinued at any time by the Proprietors without assigning any reason. They are only accepted or contracted for on this condition. All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent delay, be addressed to the "EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES.' All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected. Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully considered by the Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, provided that a stamped addressed wrapper is enclosed for that purpose. The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for, shall belong to the proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form they may think desirable. Apart from any express agreement that may be made, contributions are only received and considered on these conditions. THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS full force. By that section every litigant in all Administration of Justice common law actions where the amount in dispute exceeded £5 was entitled to the services of a jury, and no good reason whatever exists why those who resort to the County Courts should be denied what is now admitted the High Court suitor must have. LAST week Lord Cave introduced in the House of Lords this Bill, which, subject to the matters to which we shall refer later, in the main reproduces the former Bill of 1924, and with certain amendments the Bill of 1923. After a short but interesting A New Admiralty Judge debate, it was read a second time on Tuesday. Trial by Jury 66 So far as the High Court is concerned the new clause, which deals with this mode of trial, is quite satisfactory. Sect. 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 is to be repealed, and it is provided that provision may be made by rules of court in the same manner as if the Juries Act 1918 and sect. 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 had not been passed, for prescribing in what cases trials in the High Court are to be with a jury and in what cases they are to be without a jury.' That we take to mean, having regard to the memorandum to the Billwhich states that the law is restored to the exact position in which it was before 1918—that the rulemaking power is not at large, but is to be the same as existed in 1914. Until any rules are made under this power the rules in force before the passing of the Juries Act 1918-namely the 30th July 1918 are to have effect. But the clause relating to trial by jury in the County Court is identical with those which were contained in the two earlier Bills, and the judicial discretion to deprive a litigant of the right to trial by jury is retained. It is of equal importance that the pre-war right to a jury should be restored in the County Court as in the High Court, and for these tribunals sect. 101 of the County Courts Act 1888, as amended in 1919, should be reinstated in To ensure attention in matters appertaining to the administration of civil justice those who desire relief must be both influential and vocal. Authority is now sought by the Bill to appoint a second puisne judge to the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, Division, "with a view to relieving the great congestion of Admiralty business which has become increasingly serious of late years and is now causing great inconvenience to litigants." No doubt before a permanent judge is sanctioned by Parliament for this division some particulars of the delay and congestion will be required, for it is quite impossible to ascertain from the official publications the intervals that elapse between setting down for trial and actual hearing as in the King's Bench Division. At the present time common law actions set down last July are unheard, and no proposal is put forward to make the two additional judges of the King's Bench permanent appointments—a course repeatedly advocated by Lord Hewart-but the only relief suggested by the present Bill is to make an address under the Judicature Act 1910 effective for filling vacancies for twelve months. We have always advocated that the Bench-and we include all divisions of the High Court-should be adequate for the needs of litigants, and if an additional judge is required for the work of the Admiralty Court he should be appointed. But at the present time if that division is to be permanently increased the King's Bench has strong claims for equal treatment. As we pointed out a short time ago, the interests concerned in maritime matters are provided with continuous sittings in the Commercial Court. Last Monday's cause list is not an isolated example. One court taking the Special Jury list formed the only sitting at nisi prius, but the Commercial Court and the Admiralty Court were both provided for. Under the circumstances the ordinary British suitor may be forgiven if he does not share the pride felt by the signatories to the recent letter, in which they stated: As we write, a collision between a Norwegian and a Spanish ship off the coast of South America is being tried there [in the Admiralty Court] by agreement between the respective owners an instance typical of what is now common. And even the Commercial list has a distinct "international" flavour. Re-distribution of Business ONE matter which was brought into strong relief during the debate in the House of Lords was the necessity for considering at an early date the present distribution of business in the High Court. Practically all the speakers agreed that some rearrangement was necessary, and it is possible that if the changes indicated were carried into effect, no further addition to the Bench might be necessary. If, as suggested by Lord Phillimore, divorce were sent to the King's Bench and probate to the Chancery Division, the Admiralty Division, consisting of the President and one puisne judge, should be capable of dealing with the work. As a matter of fact most of the divorce work for years past has been dealt with by King's Bench judges, and if that division was increased permanently to its present strength it should be quite possible to cope with this business. Again, the trial of divorce actions at assizes would greatly benefit litigants. The Court of Chancery is well suited for dealing with probate matters. If, as a fact, the appointment of an additional judge for the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division cannot be postponed until the larger question has been considered, it would be well to impose the same conditions as to fresh appointments as obtain for the two judges in the King's Bench Division. Probate Registries CLAUSE 17 is new and provides a scheme for the establishment of district probate registries, following the recommendations of the committee presided over by Mr. Justice Tomlin in the summer of 1923. Eleven registry groups are to be formed, consisting of registries and sub-registries, and four new ones are to be established. These changes will increase efficiency and bring about considerable economy. THE WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL THE provisions of the Bill introduced in the House of Commons last week have evoked already much criticism in the Press and elsewhere, and some alarm also, in particular as to the powers of domiciliary search by the police for unlicenced wireless sets. The Bill is an important one, and a close examination of its provisions as compared with those of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904, the only existing legislation on the subject, is necessary in order to determine how far the proposed new legislation effects innovations. It should be observed at the outset that the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 continued in force until the 31st July 1906, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determined. By the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1906 the Act of 1904 was continued until the 31st Dec. 1909, and, by subsequent Expiring Laws Continuance Acts, it has been continued until the 31st Dec. 1925. The Bill now before the House of Commons is not limited in duration, which will no doubt be considered as an additional reason for examining closely its provisions and watching any amendments which may be proposed in committee. The fully expressed object of the Bill is" to re-enact and amend the law relating to wireless telegraphy, and to make provision with respect to visual and sound signalling, and the use of etheric waves for the transmission of energy," whereas the full title of the Act of 1904 was Act to provide for the regulation of Wireless Telegraphy." With this preface it is proposed now to see which parts of the new Bill are re-enactments of, and which amendments or additions to, the existing law. 66 66 66 99.66 "An Clauses 1 (1) to (4), which prohibit the working of wireless telegraphy except under licence, are a re-enactment of sect. 1 ((1) to (4)) of the 1904 Act, with the addition of the words or maintain to the words " establish,' install," "work," and or aircraft," and the "Air Council" is added as an authority for proceedings against offenders to the PostmasterGeneral, Admiralty, and Army Council. And, contrary to an impression created by statements which have appeared in the Press, clause 1 (4) of the Bill re-enacts word for word (with the addition only of the words or maintained " the provision of sect. 1 (4) of the Act of 1904 empowering a justice of the peace, if satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for supposing that a wireless station has been established, or is being maintained, without a licence in that behalf, or that any apparatus for wireless telegraphy has been installed, or is being worked, or maintained, in any place or on board any ship, or aircraft, within his jurisdiction without a licence in that behalf, to grant a search warrant to any police officer or any officer appointed in that behalf by the Postmaster-General, the Admiralty, the Army Council, the Air Council, or the Board of Trade, and named in the warrant. The warrant so granted authorises entry on the premises, inspection, and seizure of the apparatus. There is, therefore, nothing new in the provision in the Bill to which exception has been taken, and, safeguarded as the power is, it seems reasonable and necessary. The penalty or punishment prescribed by the 1904 Act for establishing a wireless station, or installing or working any apparatus for wireless telegraphy was, on conviction on indictment, a fine of £100, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than twelve months, or on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds and forfeiture of apparatus in either case. Under the new Bill the penalty or punishment on conviction on indictment is the same, but that on summary conviction is increased to a fine not exceeding £50, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, with forfeiture of apparatus in either case-the words or maintain" being added as before. In both the Act of 1904 and the Bill, no proceedings are to be taken against any person except by order of the Postmaster-General, the Admiralty, the Army Council, the Board of Trade, or the Air Council. 66 The same clause 1 (5) of the Bill re-enacts sect. 1 (7) of the 1904 Act, containing the all-important definition of “ wireless telegraphy" as meaning any system of communication by telegraph as defined in the Telegraph Acts 1863 to 1924, without the aid of any wire connecting the points from and at which the messages or other communications are sent and received," but omits the proviso contained in the 1904 Act: "Provided that nothing in this Act shall prevent any person from making or using electrical apparatus for actuating machinery or for any purpose other than the transmission of messages. This proviso was inserted in committee when the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904 was before Parliament, the mover urging that its addition was necessary to protect enterprise and scientific exploration from interference. Seeing that the Act already provided for the issue of experimenters' licences without rent or royalty, the proviso appears to have been of doubtful necessity, but it was accepted without discussion. Its existence has been rather a thorn in the side of the Postmaster-General, more particularly on account of the words "other than the transmission of messages." Questions arose as to whether or not the mere reception of messages, and, in particular, the reception of or listening to broadcast concerts, speeches, or lectures without a licence, was allowed by the terms of the proviso, there being no transmission by the receiver or the listener. Some authorities contended that "transmission " necessarily included reception, as on 66 scientific or technical grounds there could be no reception without "transmission" by the instrument. But, it is believed, sufficient confidence in this construction was not felt by the authorities to warrant the actual prosecution of defiant unlicensed broadcast listeners, and the Bill now before Parliament not only eliminates the proviso but also, in clause 11 (2), enacts as follows: "For removing doubts as to the construction of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904, it is hereby declared that any references in that Act to transmission in relation to messages shall be deemed always to have included references to the reception of messages. Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall render any person liable, in respect of any act or omission prior to the twelfth day of December 1924, to any penalty to which he would not but for this sub-section have been liable." It would have been preferable if the Bill had also cleared up the possible question whether, e.g., a musical performance, vocal or instrumental, apart from the announcement preceding it, is a message within the meaning of the Act. 66 Clause 2 (1) of the Bill relating to licences for experimental purposes without payment of rent or royalty, re-enacts sect. 2 (1) of the Act of 1904 without amendment, but a sub-clause (3) is added providing that, notwithstanding that the licence is not to be subject to any rent or royalty, this is not to prevent, and shall be deemed never to have prevented, fees (periodical or otherwise) being prescribed (i.e., by the Postmaster-General) for the purpose of being charged in respect of the grant or renewal thereof. It will no doubt be difficult for the lay mind, and probably to lawyers also, to discern the difference between "rent or royalty” and “fees periodical or otherwise "-in respect of the grant of a licence. The term “rent or royalty" seems in any case inapplicable to the grant of a licence to an experimenter to use his own premises for experiments which, in that stage at all events, are bringing him no income on which a royalty could arise. It would have been better to jettison this illusory privilege, and frankly prescribe fees for experimental licences if considered politic to charge these. The Bill also (clause 3 (b)) introduces, in the guise of power to the Postmaster-General to make regulations, provisions which have excited some alarm in that such regulations may enable the PostmasterGeneral to require operators to be provided with certificates, presumably of competence, with examinations and tests. Clause 2 (2) reproduces with slight amendment the provision of the 1904 Act applying to licences granted, without rent or royalty, to applicants satisfying the Postmaster-General that a wireless telegraph station is to be used solely for the sending or receiving of telegrams which are within the first or second exception from the exclusive privilege conferred upon the Postmaster-General by the Telegraph Act 1869, that is to say, private telegraph wires for which no charge is made to anyone, maintained and worked for the private use of persons, corporations, or companies. The same clause 2 of the Bill omits sub-sect. (3) of sect. 2 of the 1904 Act enabling the Postmaster-General to grant special licences at reduced terms for the establishment and working of wireless telegraph station, to be used exclusively for the transmission within the United Kingdom of news to public registered newspapers. Possibly this is intended to be covered by the general powers conferred on the PostmasterGeneral by clause 3 of the Bill to make regulations (inter alia) as to the terms, conditions, and restrictions on or subject to which licences or any class of licences under the Act are to be granted, renewed, suspended, or withdrawn. The provisions of this clause, enabling the PostmasterGeneral to make regulations, take the place of sect. 1 (6) of the Act of 1904 empowering the Postmaster-General to make regulations for prescribing the form and manner in which applications for licences under the Act are to be made and, with the consent of the Treasury, the fees payable on the part of any such licence." They also to some extent take the place of the enactments in the Act of 1904 on the subject of the application of the Act to ships and aircraft as contained in sect. 3 of that Act. The position, under the Bill, of British and foreign ships and aircraft and the practical working of its provisions with regard thereto, are matters which want of space prevents detailed or critical examination of. They are more elaborate than in the Act of 1904, and are contained in clauses 3 (1) (c) and 9 of the Bill. Criticisms will no doubt be evoked by clause 3 (2) and (3) of the Bill, which is of more general interest. Sub-clause (2) provides that the Postmaster-General's Regulations may provide a penalty on summary conviction for contravention of them or of the terms of licences, of imprisonment not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding £50, and in the case of a continuing offence a further fine not exceeding £5 a day, and sub-clause (3) enacts that every regulation under that clause is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House within twentyone days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. Substantially the power to make regulations is new, the only provision on the subject in the Act of 1904 being as regards the form and manner of applications for licences (sect. 1 (6) of the 1904 Act), and the making of regulations and imposition of penalties as regards the working of wireless apparatus on foreign ships whilst in territorial waters (sect. 3 (4) of the 1904 Act). Clause 4 of the Bill is new and contains provisions forbidding the sending of indecent, obscene, or offensive messages, or messages subversive of public order, false or misleading signals of distress, or false or misleading messages to vessels in distress, and the improper divulging of the purport of messages sent or proposed to be sent. The penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding £10, or on conviction on indictment imprisonment with or without hard labour not exceeding twelve months. There is power to the Postmaster-General (in a new section) to mitigate penalties incurred under the Act or regulations without taking proceedings, or to stay or compound proceedings, the power in Scotland being with the Lord Advocate. The Bill contains some more entirely new provisions (clause 6), applying its provisions to visual or sound signalling stations used, or intended to be used, for communication with ships at sea, but excluding stations and apparatus on board ships or aircraft, or Lloyd's stations under Lloyd's Signalling Stations Act 1888, or stations and lighthouses under the control of the Board of Trade, or general or local lighthouse authorities. Under clause 7 (also new) the provisions of the Act are to apply to the working of apparatus for utilising etheric waves for the purpose of sending or receiving energy without the aid of connecting wires. It is not very clear what is intended to be comprised in this, or what may not be included without such intention. And the scientific world is somewhat perturbed by this clause. Clause 8 (also new) provides for Government control on the arising of emergency, on notice published in the Gazette, and for consequent emergency regulations. Generally speaking the Bill may be described as legislation based on advanced scientific knowledge and practice, on experience of the working of the 1904 Act, and as embodying the growth of departmental legislation, with its attendant advantages and disadvantages. W. H. STOKER. THE CONVEYANCER Lassence v. Tierney THE recent case of Re Atkinson; Atkinson v. Weightman and others (ante, p. 115) shows the strength of what is sometimes called the rule in Lassence v. Tierney (1 Mac. & G. 551), namely, that if there is a gift to children, or legatees, the shares being absolute in the first instance, followed by a direction to settle the shares of some of the legatees, upon trusts which do not exhaust the whole interest;, subject to the qualifying trusts the legatees take their shares absolutely. As, for instance, if the shares of daughters be settled on themselves for life, with remainder to their children, the shares of those who die childless pass to their representatives (Hawkins on Wills, 2nd edit., by C. P. Sanger, p. 319). In Lassence v. Tierney the testator gave to his only daughter the residue of his property, "to receive the interest thereon during her lifetime "--she was not to have power to dispose of any part of it during her life, except for the purpose of changing investments, and the property was to be divided between her children after her death, males to have one half of their share when they attained twenty-three, and the other half during life, with remainder to their children, and with a gift over if the sons had no issue. Females were only to receive the interest during their lives, with remainder to their children, and if they had no issue, to their husbands for life, and then over. It was decided by Lord Cottenham that the daughters |