Town in Wales, on the borders of England, having a small but respectable Practice, is desirous (on account of his health) of disposing of the same. The present is a favourable opportunity for any young Solicitor of business habits, as at present an excellent opening for such a Practitioner occurs in the town and neighbourhood, which are populous, and the language of the population is English. Most satisfactory references will be given and required. Address, A. B., care of Mr. Sweet, Law Bookseller, 1, Chancery-lane.

QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, and EXCHEQUER; the Eighth Edition, by CHITTY. And CHITTY'S FORMS of PRACTICAL PROCEEDINGS, to accompany the above.

*The Publishers beg leave to inform the Subscribers to the above Works that the Completion is now ready for Delivery; and may be obtained, without further Charge, from the Booksellers from whom the First Portion of the Work may have been purchased.

The PRACTICE, without the FORMS, in 2 thick Volumes, sells for

Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, opposite the British Museum, well adapted for a Solicitor or other Professional Gentleman, consisting of an excellent Front Room and two Back Rooms on the Ground Floor at a Private Residence. May be seen on application at No. 42, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury.

A

boards.

S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane; and V. and R. Stevens & G. S. Norton, 26 and 39, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn.

JEREMY'S ANALYTICAL DIGEST FOR 1846. This day is published, in royal 8vo. price 9s., boards,

CASES decided in the Courts of Common Law, and Equity, of Appeal, and Nisi Prius, and in the Ecclesiastical Courts, in the Year 1846. By H. JEREMY, Esq., Barrister at Law.

Stevens & Norton, Law Booksellers and Publishers, 26 and 39, Bellyard, Lincoln's Inn.

Law.

"In the meantime we recommend those who intend to practise, or in any way to connect themselves with the new courts, to procure the Part of Mr. Moseley's Work that we have here noticed, assuring them that they will find in it solid and practical information, such as they will find it useful to recollect in their county court practice."-Jurist.

"Mr. Moseley has given an elaborate exposition of the act.”—Legal Observer.

"The arrangement is excellent."-Law Times.

Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn.

LAW BOOKS recently published by W. BENNING & Co., Law Booksellers, 43, Fleet-street.

In royal 8vo., price 17. 28. boards,

STEWART'S PRACTICE OF CONVEYANCING, Vol. 1, Part 1, comprising every usual Deed, analytically and synthetically arranged. By JAMES STEWART, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law, and HARRIS PRENDERGAST, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn. Part 2 is in the Press.

Ninth Edition, in 8vo., price 188. boards, WATKINS on CONVEYANCING.-PRINCIPLES of CONVEYANCING, designed for the use of Students: with an Introduction on the Study of that Branch of Law. By CHARLES WATKINS, Esq., Barrister at Law. Revised and considerably enlarged, by HENRY HOPLEY WHITE, Esq., Barrister at Law.

In 12mo., price 5s. boards,

SOCIETY, No. 78, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury. The ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of Proprietors will be held at the Office of the Society, on THURSDAY, the 4th day of March next, at half-past 1 o'clock precisely, at which Meeting five Directors and one Auditor (on the part of the Proprietors) will be elected.

Any Proprietor desirous of proposing a Candidate for the Office of Director or Auditor must send the Name of such Candidate to the Secretary at least fourteen Days before the Day of Meeting. The Ballot will commence at 11 and close at 2 o'clock.

The Election of an Auditor on the part of the Assured will also take place on WEDNESDAY, the 3rd day of March, between the hours of 11 and 2 o'clock. All Persons assured for the whole Term of Life, and qualified to vote, are hereby referred to the Conditions indorsed on their Policies for information respecting the Candidate to be proposed. GEO. H. PINCKARD, Resident Sec.

FOURTH DIVISION OF PROFITS.

A detailed Report (just published) of the Bonus declared, and the state of the Society generally, can be obtained, free of expense, by addressing a Letter to the Secretary.

LAW LIBRARY (from the Country) of a Gentleman retiring from the Profession.

MR. HAMMOND will SELL by AUCTION, at his

great Rooms, 28, Chancery-lane, on THURSDAY, February 25th, at 1 o'clock, the above LIBRARY, including a Fine Collection of the best Reports, and various Modern Law Works of Reference and Practice. To be viewed and Catalogues had.

SALE OF CHAMBERS IN GRAY'S-INN, Held under the Society, and nearly equal to Freehold.

In 12mo, price 5s. boards,

A SUCCINCT VIEW of the OPERATION of FINES and RECOVERIES, for the use of Students and those who are engaged in the Investigation of Titles. With the Fines and Recoveries Act, and the subsequent Enactments, Orders, and Decisions relating thereto. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B. C. L., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law. THE NEW INCLOSURE ACT.

RE

This day is published, Vol. XII, Part V, price 12s., EPORTS of CASES decided in the HOUSE of LORDS in the SESSION 1845. By C. CLARK, Esq., and W. FINNELLY, M.A., Barristers at Law.

These Reports are regularly continued by appointment of the House. and are now the only Series of Reports of English and Irish Cases.

The Publisher has the satisfaction to announce that the present Part completes all the Cases decided in the House of Lords during the Sessions 1845-6. No Case that has received judicial Decision by the Lords during that Period is, therefore, now unreported. He has, also, to announce that the learned Reporters have given him authority to state, that the Reports of the Cases of the next Session will commence a New Series of this Work, to be called "THE HOUSE OF LORDS REPORTS," by appointment of the House.

In one vol. royal 12mo., price 148. boards,

A COLLECTION of the REAL PROPERTY STATUTES passed in the Reigns of WILLIAM IV and VICTORIA; with Explanatory Notes, containing short Statements of the decided Points, and a full Reference to all the Cases upon each Enactment, down to the Period of Publication; Index, &c. By WILLIAM F. BROWELL, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law.

JUDGMENTS and CROWN DEBTS, as they affect REAL PROPERTY. By FREDERICK PRIDEAUX, Esq., Barrister at Law. Third Edition, considerably enlarged. Price 78.

"Mr. Prideaux has collected the learning upon Judgments with admirable precision and clearness; and we can safely pronounce his Work one of very considerable merit and utility."-Jurist.

E. Spettigue, 67, Chancery-lane.

to sell by AUCTION, at his great Rooms, 28, Chancery-lane, on THURSDAY, February 25th, at 12 o'Clock, the Valuable Interest in a Capital Set of Business Chambers, with four Rooms, eligibly situate at No. 5, South-square, Gray's-inn, held for a Term, renewable according to the ancient Custom of the Inn, every seven Years, by a small Fine estimated at one-fourth the annual Value.

Particulars and Conditions of Sale to be had at the Auction Offices, No. 28, Chancery-lane.

SALE OF SUPERIOR BUSINESS CHAMBERS,
at Gray's-inn-square, overlooking the Gardens.

MR. HAMMOND is INSTRUCTED by the Executors to

SELL by AUCTION, at his great Room, No. 28, Chancery-lane, on THURSDAY, February 25th, at 12 o'Clock, the Valuable Interest in a First-rate Set of Chambers upon the First Floor of No. 5, Gray's-innsquare, in the Occupation of Messrs. Butterfield & Vennor, at a Rent of 100., and held under the Society of Gray's-inn, renewable every seven years, according to the ancient Custom of the Inn, upon the Payment of a small Fine, thereby rendering the Property nearly equal to Freehold. Particulars and Conditions of Sale to be had at the Steward's Office; and at the Estate Agency Offices, 28, Chancery-lane.

LAW BOOKS AND OFFICE FURNITURE. Mr. HODGSON will SELL by AUCTION, at his Great Room, 192, Fleet-street, (Corner of Chancery-lane), on MONDAY, 22nd, and TUESDAY, 23rd of February, at half-past 12,

THE VALUABLE LAW LIBRARY of RICHARD

RAYLEY, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law, deceased, (by Order of the Executors); including Runnington's Statutes at Large to 9 Victoriæ; Law Journal Reports to 1846; Comyns's Digest, by Hammond; Howell's State Trials; Hansard's Parliamentary Debates; complete Series of Reports in the Law, Equity, Bankruptcy, Admiralty, and Ecclesiastical Courts, modern Treatises and Books of Practice. The Office Furniture comprises Mahogany Winged Book-cases, Library Tables and Chairs, Desks, Sofa, Book-shelves, &c.

To be viewed, and Catalogues had.

Printed by LUKE JAMES HANSARD, PRINTER, residing at No. 7, Southampton Street, in the Parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, in the County of Middlesex, at his Printing Office, situate in Parker Street, in the Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, in the County aforesaid; and Published at No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, in the Parish of St. Dunstan in the West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, LAW BOOKSELLER and PUBLISHER, residing at No. 11, John Street, Bedford Row, in the County of Middlesex. Saturday, February 13, 1847.

No. 528-VOL. XI.

Price 1s., with Supplement, 28,

THE Court of Exchequer Chamber has recently given judgment in the case of Gossett v. Howard, which, as our readers probably recollect, was an action brought to try the validity of the imprisonment of the plaintiff below, under the warrant of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The case came before the judges on a writ of error from the Court of Queen's Bench, and was argued after the sittings of Trinity and Michaelmas Terms last. The points raised involved important questions touching the privileges of Parliament, but on these the judges abstained from giving, except incidentally, any opinion, as their decision proceeded upon the legality of the warrant.

Before entering into the question of law, it may, perhaps, be as well briefly to refer to the facts of the case as they arose. It appears, that certain matters came on to be discussed in the House of Commons, when it was considered necessary that the plaintiff below should be examined at the bar of the House. An order for his attendance was accordingly made and served, but, in the words of the plea, he "wilfully and contemptuously, without any reasonable cause, refused to attend, and thereupon, and in order to compel his attendance, to be questioned, &c., it was ordered and resolved by the House of Commons, in pursuance of, and according to, its ancient usages and privileges, and the law and custom of Parliament, that he should be sent for and brought before the House in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and that the Speaker should issue his warrant accordingly; whereupon the Speaker, in pursuance of the said order and resolution, and according to the ancient usages &c., in order that the plaintiff (below) might be brought before the House, by his warrant in that behalf duly made, after reciting therein that the said House of Commons had that day ordered VOL. XI. F

that the plaintiff should be sent for and brought in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, did require and authorise him the defendant (below) to take the plaintiff into custody; that such warrant was delivered by the Speaker to the defendant as such Serjeant, to be by him executed in due form of law, by virtue where of he arrested the plaintiff *." It was for this arrest that the plaintiff brought his action for an alleged trespass and assault committed on him, as the declaration stated, by carrying him along a passage to a room and detaining him there. There were three pleas on the record, but there was no substantial difference in their statements, and each set forth the warrant as above. To these pleas the plaintiff demurred, and after argument on the demurrer, the learned judges of the Court of Queen's Bench were divided in opinion. The late Mr. Justice Williams gave his judgment in favour of the defendant, but Lord Denman, C. J., Coleridge, J., and Wightman, J., decided that the pleas were bad, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover. This judgment proceeded on the grounds, that the warrant was defective, and that the other facts stated in the pleas could not be incorporated into the warrant, so as to cure its defects. The analogous cases, on which the majority of the learned judges chiefly relied on this occasion, were such as had been decided in reference to the warrants of magistrates, and, in accordance with such decisions, they held that the cause of commitment, and a limited time for the imprisonment, should have appeared on the face of the warrant; but Mr. Justice Williams considered that all cases of warrants emanating from inferior jurisdictions were inapplicable to the warrant of the Speaker of the House of Commons. It was said by Coleridge, J., "If, for the House of Commons in this warrant, you substitute any other authority known

*See Howard v. Gossett, 9 Jur. 842.

to the Constitution, it is quite clear that the warrant would be bad. . . . I cannot admit, that the degree of strictness in which formal accuracy is to be required in warrants has been measured, or ought to be, by the dignity of the Courts from which they issue." This judgment has been reversed in error, upon a ground directly opposite to that by which Mr. Justice Coleridge supported his opinion, in the words we have just quoted. Mr. Baron Parke delivered the judgment of the Court above; and the principle on which their decision is founded appears to be simple in itself, and capable of being supported by good sense and authority. It is this: that the warrant was not to be construed with the strictness which is applied to the warrants of magistrates or others acting by special statutory authority, and out of the course of the common law, but that it was to be regarded as the mandate or writ of a superior Court, acting according to the course of the common law. It had been admitted throughout the case, that the House of Commons possessed the power of committing for contempt; it was, therefore, a matter within the scope of their general jurisdiction. The House of Commons is a part of the High Court of Parliament, which is the supreme Court of the country, (per Lord Camden, 19 St. Tr. p. 1047; and see 4 Inst. 13, 27); and, therefore, jurisdiction being shewn, the maxim, "Omnia præsumuntur ritè esse acta," must apply. Had it, however, been a Court of even co-ordinate jurisdiction with the Courts in Westminster Hall, yet the same reasoning would hold good, as it is not competent for one of those Courts to interfere with the practice and course of proceeding of such other court. It is to be intended that such Courts understand the acts, which they sanction by their authority; and as one is not a Court of appeal from another, the proceedings cannot be questioned by one of equal jurisdiction.

Magistrates acting by special statutory powers, out of the course of the common law, must shew their authority on the face of the instruments by which they act, either by direct averment or reasonable intendment. But this rule is not applicable to superior Courts, acting according to the course of the common law. The process which issues from them, not appear ing to be beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, is presumed to be correctly issued, and to be correct in form their officers are bound to execute it, and are protected in the performance of such duty. (See Peacock v. Bell, 1 Wms. Saund. 74).

-

Thus, although some of their writs-as a writ of execution recite the cause of their issuing, and shew their legality; yet others do not. A writ of attachment for a contempt does not state the rule of court on which it issues, or the nature of the contempt; that in the Common Pleas orders the officer to bring the party into court "to answer to us of and concerning those things which, in our behalf, shall be then and there objected against him." (Tidd's Forms, 116).

There is in this no statement of any previous proceedings, or of the nature of the offence; and, although it would be undoubtedly bad if issued by a magistrate, yet, coming from a superior Court, the Court of Queen's Bench or Exchequer would not interfere with regard to it, or allow its validity to be questioned. They go

further even than this, and protect their officers in the execution of their process, which, on the face of it, is irregular,—as a capias against a peeress,—( The Countess of Rutland's case, 6 Coke, 364); or, which is void in form, as a capias ad respondendum, returnable in the next term. (Parsons v. Loyd, 3 Wils. 341).

In the late case of The Sheriff of Middlesex, (11 Adol. & Ell. 273), the warrant of the Speaker was similar to the one in Gossett v. Howard, except that it concluded with a direction,-"him safely to keep during the pleasure of the House." It was there held good, although it did not state the grounds for the commitment, and, therefore, would certainly have been bad if issued by a magistrate; and such a direction as was therein contained would appear to be implied in every Speaker's warrant.

In Reg. v. Paty, (2 Ld. Raym. 1105), the Speaker's warrant, returned to a habeas corpus, was similar to the one last mentioned; but the Court refused to discharge the prisoner. It was said in that case, by Gould, J., "If this had been a return of a commitment by an inferior Court, it had been naught, because it did not set out a sufficient cause of commitment; but this return being of a commitment by the House of Commons, which is superior to this Court, it is not reversible for form." "If all commitments for contempts," said Powys, J., "even those by this Court, should come to be narrowly scanned, they would not hold water. . . . The House of Commons is a great Court, and all things done by them are to be intended to have been ritè acta, and the matter need not be so specially recited in their warrants; by the same reason as we commit people by a rule of court of two lines, and such commitments are held good, because it is to be intended that we understand what we do. . . . We must take it that what they have done is warranted by their jurisdiction, and is well done."

...

So, on a like question, in Brass Crosby's case, (3 Wils. 188), Lord de Grey said, "It would be a sufficient return to state the breach of privilege generally; and Blackstone, J., said, “The House of Commons is a supreme Court. All Courts, by which I mean to include the two Houses of Parliament and the Courts of Westminster Hall, can have no control in matters of contempt. . . . Little nice objections of particular words, and forms and ceremonies of execution, are not to be regarded in the acts of the House of Commons; it is our duty to presume the orders of that House and their execution are according to law."

In the case of The Earl of Shaftesbury, (6 St. Tr. 1296), the Court refused to release him from a commitment of the House of Lords, although it was formally defective; and it was said by Sir Thomas Jones, « Such a commitment by an ordinary Court of justice would have been ill and uncertain; but the cause is different when it comes before this high Court." And to a like effect is the case of Rex v. Hobhouse, (2 Chit. 211). The rule is thus laid down by Hawkins, (P. C., v. 2, p. 165, s. 73):-" There can be no doubt but that the highest regard is to be paid to all the proceedings of either of those Houses of Parliament; and that, wherever the contrary does not plainly and expressly appear, it shall be presumed that they act within their

jurisdiction, and agreeably to the usages of Parliament and the rules of law and justice."

The Court of error, in their judgment, studiously avoided entering into the more general and interesting question, as to the House of Commons being the sole judge of its own privileges, and the right of a Court of law to inquire into the legality of its proceedings. Stockdale v. Hansard, (9 Adol. & Ell. 1), therefore, is still untouched, and the very occurrence of these cases are practical instances, that the Courts will investigate the process of the House of Commons; at all events, if the House of Commons be willing to submit to such investigation.

We have confined our remarks to the more narrow ground on which this late judgment was placed; and, even in this view, the result is by no means unimportant, as it has settled the principle of construction which is to be applied to parliamentary process by the Courts of justice; and it seems to establish their validity in all cases where it is not apparent that they have acted beyond the scope of their jurisdiction.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

HILARY TERM.-10 VICTORIÆ.-Feb. 13. This Court will, on Thursday the 25th day of February instant, at twelve o'clock A. M., hold a sitting, and will give judgment in cases which have been argued. BY THE COURT.

Feb. 10.-Lord Denman, C. J., delivered the judgment of the Court in the following cases:

Reg. v. The Inhabitants of East Stonehouse-Order of sessions confirmed.

Reg. v. The Churchwardens, &c. of Bangor-Judgment for defendants.

Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Crondall- Preliminary objection overruled.

Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Holme St. Cuthbert-Order confirmed.

Feb. 13.-Lord Denman, C. J., delivered judgment in the following cases:—

Turner v. Ambler-Rule discharged.
Bond v. Nurse-Rule discharged.
Reg. v. The Recorder of Leeds-Rule refused.

Reg. v. The Dean and Chapter of Chester--Rule absolute.

The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal, constituting and appointing The Right Hon. Lord Langdale, The Right Hon. Lord Beaumont, Joseph Humphry, Esq., one of her Majesty's Counsel, Henry Bellenden Ker, Esq., Barrister at Law, Walter Coulson, Esq., Barrister at Law, George Frere, Esq., and Francis Broderip, Esq., her Majesty's Commissioners for inquiring whether the burdens on land can be disminished by the establishment of an effective system for the registration of deeds and the simplification of the forms of conveyance.

MASTERS IN CHANCERY.-The Lord Chancellor has appointed the following gentlemen Masters Extraordinary in the high Court of Chancery:-Charles Stockdale Benning, of Luton, Bedfordshire; Robert Gard Edmonds, of Plymouth, Devonshire; Abraham Greenwood Eastwood, of Eastwood, near Todmorden, Yorkshire; Nathaniel Cowdry, of Bath.

London Gazettes.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16.

BANKRUPTS.

ROBERT LAYT, Hingham, Norfolk, spirit merchant and carrier, dealer and chapman, Feb. 26 at 11, and April 9 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Trehero & Co., Barge-yard-chambers.-Fiat dated Feb. 3.

JULES ROCHAT, St. Martin's-lane, Middlesex, jeweller, watchmaker, dealer and chapman, Feb. 26 at 12, and March 29 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Graham; Sols. Edward & Peake, New Palace-yard.-Fiat dated Feb. 13.

JENKIN H- LLEWELYN, Strand, Middlesex, surgeon, dealer and chapman, Feb. 25 at 11, and March 20 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Green; Sol. Noyes, Lincoln's Inn-fields.- Fiat dated Jan. 26.

CHARLES PROCTOR, Witham, Essex, wine merchant,

Feb. 25 at half-past 11, and March 20 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Follett; Sols. Blood & Douglas, Witham, Essex; Vallance & Vallance, 20, Essexst., Strand.-Fiat dated Feb. 8. HENRY HUNTER, Old-street, Middlesex, confectioner, (lately carrying on business in partnership with William Caulfield, under the name, style, or firm of Caulfield & Co.), March 4 at 1, and March 30 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Edwards; Sol. Fourdrinier, 1, Scott'syard, Bush-lane, Cannon-street.-Fiat dated Feb. 12. JONATHAN SMITH, Gloucester, innkeeper, March 2 and 30 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol: Off. Ass. Acraman; Sols. Smallridge, Gloucester; Jones & Co., Crosby-square, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 11. JOSEPH ALLISON, Penrith, Cumberland, bookseller and stationer, Feb. 22 at 2, and March 23 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Off. Ass. Wakley; Sols. Atkinson & Harrison, Penrith; Preston & Browne, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.-Fiat dated Feb. 8.

THOMAS N. BROWN, East Stonehouse, Devonshire, leather dealer, March 3 and 24 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter: Off. Ass. Hernaman; Sols. Beer & Rundle, Devonport; Stogdon, Exeter; Penkivil, Finsburycircus, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 8.

MEETINGS.

John Donaldson, Regent-st., and Margaret-st., Middlesex, coach maker, March 5 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-Charles Moses Brown, New Church, Isle of Wight,

Southampton, schoolmaster, March 6 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-James Peter Wilson, Clarenceplace, Pentonville, Middlesex, builder, Feb. 27 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-1 -Wm. Richards, Old-street, Middlesex, retailer of beer, March 6 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-Wm. Whisted Coleman, Hill, Southampton, provision merchant, March 9 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Thomas Morley, Oxford-st., Middlesex, jeweller, March 10 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Wm. Thos. Gooding, Old Brentford, Middlesex, glass cutter, March 10 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Jacob Montefiore and Joseph Barrow Montefiore, George-street, Mansion-house, London, merchants, Feb. 26 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. March 11 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.-Jos. Dodsworth Browning, Bristol, cabinet maker, setshire, grocer, dealer and chapman, March 11 at 12, Disac.; March 12 at 11, div.-Wm. Wonnacott, Bath, Somertrict Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.; March 12 at 12, div.-Vere Hare and J. Hare, Taunton, Somersetshire, house and estate agents, March 10 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter, aud. ac.; March 11 at 1, div.-Robt. Goodenough, Newton Abbott, Devonshire, woollen draper, March 10 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter, aud. ac.; Devonshire, gas manufacturer, March 10 at 11, District Court March 11 at 1, fin. div.-Samuel George Burton, Sidmouth, of Bankruptcy, Exeter, aud. ac.; March 11 at 1, first and fin. div.-Joseph Curtis, Liskeard, Cornwall, linendraper, March 10 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter, aud. ac.; March 11 at 1, fin. div.-Thomas Yates, Bolton-le-Moors,