continues in force, the General Board of Healthing disease in ships and vessels, as well upon may issue directions and regulations, as the arms and parts of the sea aforesaid as upon insaid board think fitland waters; s. 11. Whenever, in compliance with any regulation For the speedy interment of the dead: of the General Board of Health, which they For house to house visitation : For the dispensing of medicines, guarding may be empowered to make under this Act, against the spread of disease, and afford- any medical officer appointed under and by ing to persons afflicted by or threatened virtue of the Laws for the time being for the with such epidemic, endemic, or contagi-relief of the poor shall perform any medical ous diseases such medical aid and such accommodation as may be required: And from time to time, in like manner, may revoke, renew, and alter any such directions and regulations as to the said board appears expedient, to extend to all parts in which the provisions of this Act for the prevention of disease shall for the time being be put in force under such orders as aforesaid, unless such directions and regulations be expressly confined to some of such parts, and then to such parts as there in are specified; and (subject to the power revocation and alteration herein contained) such directions and regulations shall continue in ferce so long as the said provisions of this Act shall, under such order, be applicable to the same parts; s. 6. of service on board of any vessel, such medical officer shall be entitled to charge extra for any such service, at the general rate of his allowance for his services for the union or place for which he is appointed, and such charges shall be payable by the captain of the vessel, on behalf of the owners, together with any reasonable expenses for the treatment of the sick; and if such services shail be rendered by any medical practitioner who is not a union or parish officer, he shall be entitled to charges for any service rendered on board, with extra remuneration on account of distance, at the same rate as those which he is in the babit of receiving from private patients of the class of those attended and treated on shipboard, to be paid as aforesaid; and in case of dispute in respect of such charges, such dispute may, where the charges do not exceed 20. be determined summarily, at the place where the dispute arises, as in case of seamen's wages not exceeding 501. according to the provisions of the law in that behalf for the time being in force: and any justice before whom complaint is made shall determine summarily as to the The local authority shall superintend and amount which is reasonable, according to the see to the execution of such directions and re-accustomed rate of charge within the place for gulations, and shall appoint and pay such me- attendance on patients of the like class or condical or other officers or persons, and do and dition as those in respect of whom the charge provide all such acts, matters, and things, as is made; s. 12. may be necessary for mitigating such disease, or for superintending or aiding in the execution of such directions and regulations, or for executing the same, as the case may require; Every such direction and regulation as aforesaid, when issued, shall be published in the London Gazette, and the Gazette in which such direction or regulation was published shall be conclusive evidence of the direction or regulation so published to all intents and purposes; s. 7. s. 8. The local authority may from time to time direct any prosecutions or legal proceeding for or in repect of the wilful violation or neglect of any such direction and regulation; s. 9. Every order of her Majesty's Privy Council, and every direction and regulation of the General Board of Health, under this Act, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, forthwith upon the issuing thereof, if Parliament be then sitting, and if not then within 14 days next after the commencement of the then next Session of Parliament; s. 10. The directions and regulations of the General Board of Health under this enactment shall be under the seal of the said board, and the hand of the president or two or more members thereof; and any copy of such regulations purporting to bear seal and signature, whether the said signature and seal be respectively impressed and written, or printed only, shall be evidence in all proceedings in which such regulations may come in question; s. 13. Whoever wilfully obstructs any person acting under the authority or employed in the execution of this Act, and whosoever wilfully violates any direction or regulation issued by the General Board of Health as aforesaid, shall be liable for every such offence to a penalty not exceeding 57., to be appropriated in or towards the defraying the expenses of executing this Act; s. 14. Orders in Council issued in pursuance of this Act for putting in force the provisions for the prevention of disease in the said Nuisances The provisions of any general Act in force Removal and Diseases Prevention Acts con- for the removal of nuisances, with regard to tained, in Great Britain, may extend to parts the service of notices, the proof of orders or and arms of the sea lying within the jurisdic- resolutions of the local authority, and the retion of the Admiralty; and the Board of Health covery of penalties, shall extend and apply to for England may issue under this Act direc- this Act; s. 15. tions and regulations for cleansing, purifying, ventilating, and disinfecting, and providing medical aid and accommodation, and prevent Sale of Beer Act.-I. w of Attorneys and Solicitors. SALE OF BEER ACT. 18 & 19 VICT. C. 118.' Ir recites that the Act then in force for further regulating the sale of fermented and distilled liquors on the Lord's Day has been found to be attended with inconvenience to the public: it is therefore enacted, that the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 79, be repealed; s. 1. LAW OF ATTORNEYS AND 91 WHAT A SUFFICIENT DELIVERY OF BILL IN an action to recover the balance of three bills of costs alleged to be due to the plaintiff upon a guarantee given to him by the defendants' testator, it appeared that It shall not be lawful for any licensed victu- the plaintiff was surviving partner in the aller, or person licensed to sell beer by retail, late firm of Walmsley and Lucas, Solicitors, to be drunk on the premises, or not to be of Wem, and that in September, 1848, the drunk on the premises, or any person licensed or authorised to sell any fermented or distilled plaintiff and his late partner were applied liquors, or any person who by reason of the to by one John Robinson to take out a fiat freedom of the mystery or craft of vintners of the City of London, or of any right or privilege, shall claim to be entitled to sell wine by retail, to be drunk or consumed on the premises, in any part of England or Wales to open or keep open his house for the sale of or to sell beer, spirits, or any other fermented or distilled. liquor between the hours of three and five o'clock in the afternoon, nor after eleven o'clock | in the afternoon on Sunday, or on Christmas Day, or Good Friday, or any day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving, or before four o'clock in the morning of the day following such Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, or such day of public fast or thanksgiving, except to a traveller or to a lodger therein; s. 2. in bankruptcy against him on his own petition, which they consented to do upon receiving the guarantee in question, and the fiat was issued and assignees appointed. No person shall open any house or place of public resort for the sale of fermented or distilled liquors, or sell therein such liquors, in any part of England or Wales, between three or five o'clock in the afternoon or after eleven o'clock in the afternoon on Sunday, or Christmas Day or Good Friday, or any day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving, or before four o'clock in the morning of the day following such Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, or such other days appointed as aforesaid, except to travellers; s. 3. On August 11, 1854, duplicates of the bills of costs signed by the plaintiff, and inclosed in an envelope addressed to Mr. John Robinson, 46, Brunswick Road, Liverpool, the bankrupt, were put in the post-office at Wem; and on the same day the plaintiff's clerk also left duplicates signed by the plaintiff at the residence of the defendant, James Roberts, in Wem, with his servant (he being then from home), in an envelope addressed to the executors of the late Mr. John Roberts. Each of the bills were headed In the matter of the bankruptcy of John Robinson, and signed thus:-" 1854, Aug. 11. This is the bill of Walmsley and Lucas. William Lucas, surviving partner of the said firm of Walmsley and Lucas." It further appeared that no letter or note accompanied the bills, and that neither the names of the defendants nor that of their testator were mentioned either at the head or in any part of the bills. No duplicates or copies were sent to the other defendant, Mr. John Roberts. insufficient. It shall be lawful for any constable at any time to enter into any house or place of public resort in England or Wales for the sale of beer, On the trial before the Judge of the Wem wine, spirits, or other fermented or distilled liquor or liquors; and every person who shall County Court, the plaintiff obtained judg refuse to admit or shall not admit such con-ment, and this appeal was presented on the stable into such house or place shall be deemed ground that the delivery of the bills was guilty of an offence against this Act; s. 4. Every person who shall offend against this Pollock, L. C. B., said,—“We are all Act shall be liable, upon a summary conviction agreed as to the answer to be returned to for the same before any justice of the peace the question submitted to us, viz., was for the county, riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place where the offence shall be committed, to a penalty not exceeding 51. for every such offence, and every separate sale shall be deemed a separate offence; s. 5. This Act, although not bearing much on professional duty, yet of course every wellinformed lawyer should know its provisions: we therefore state its enactments. there a good delivery of these bills of costs? That depends on whether the delivery of the bills in an envelope directed to the person intended to be charged is sufficient to satisfy the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37, s. 37. I am of opinion that it is. Cases might be put, and may possibly have arisen, which would lead to a different construction; but, in my judgment the question is always this, whether, under the circum 92 Law of Attorneys and Solicitors.-Law of Costs. stances of the particular case before the LAW OF COSTS. LEAVE TO LANDLORD TO DEFEND IN EJECT- position, it was said that the 221st section of the Act provides, that the Courts and Judges shall have the same power over matters in rebefore. It, however, appears to me independference to the action of ejectment as they had ently of this, that it was intended that all landlords should be placed in the same situation. The Statute makes no distinction between a landlord who is actually in possession and one who is in possession by his tenant; and I think that we ought to construe the Statute, and to administer the practice that may arise under it, so as to make no distinction where the that this consideration has much force in leadStatute itself does not make any; and I own ing me to the conclusion at which I have arrived. In the case of a landlord in actual personal possession, and called upon by an action of ejectment to defend his title, the Court indisputably has no power to require him to give security for costs. Why, then, should a landlord, who is in possession by his tenant, be clear to me that the Statute intended that, called upon to give security? It is perfectly whether a landlord is in possession by his own personal and actual possession, or by that of his tenant, he should be allowed to come in and defend simply on satisfying the Court or a Judge that he has the possession. In this case, it appears that the landlord is not actually in possession, and that he is so by his tenant. I think that in such a case, he has as much a right to come in and defend his property as if he were personally in possession; and it was admitted on all hands, that then the Court could not interfere to require him to give security for costs. I am not aware of any case upon this subject, except that of Doe dem. Hudson v. Jameson, 4 M. & R. 570; that however was under the old law, much inconvenience. It was admitted that and such a practice would certainly lead to there is a wide difference between a person's having to defend an action of ejectment, and being called upon as plaintiff to establish his title. Mr. Garth's argument was, that if the "I think that this rule ought to be made defendant cannot give security, he may lose absolute. Under the new order of things, his possession, and the plaintiff may recover, which the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, has introduced, but that the defendant does not lose his right, the action of ejectment is placed by that as the old action of ejectment was not like an Statute on the same footing as when it existed ordinary action, where the parties are conas the mere creature of the Court. Now, it is cluded by the result of the trial; and that the to be observed, that, according to this Statute, 207th section of the Statute gives to a judga landlord is to be at liberty to come in and ment in an action of ejectment the same effect defend, upon filing an affidavit that he is in as it had before, viz., that of determining the possession of the land either by himself or his right to the possession of the land, but not tenant; and that although provision is made the title to it; and consequently that a defendfor striking out appearances by certain de- ant so turned out of possession may bring a fendants, the Statute does not provide for fresh action, and recover the property. But striking out an appearance by a person who that might make all the difference. Á man's has satisfied the Court or a Judge that he is title may depend entirely upon his possession, in possession as landlord, either by himself or others. It was contended in support of the rule, that there is a distinction between the state of things which existed before the Statute, and since it has given to the action of ejectment a statutable form, and not left it the mere creature of the Court. But, in answer to that ALTHOUGH OUT OF JURISDICTION. In an action of ejectment under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, leave was given under sect. 172 to two foreigners residing in Spain to come in and defend as landlords, whereupon an order was obtained from Coleridge, J., requiring security for costs. On showing cause against a rule nisi to set this order aside, Pollock, L. C. B., said: and he may be unable, if once turned out of possession, to show such a title as would justify him in bringing an action to recover back the land;-to say nothing of the additional expense, trouble, and anxiety that might be cast upon him. It seems to me, therefore, that we ought to construe the provisions of the Act in Law of Costs.-Attorneys to be Admitted. such a way as to give full effect to it. Whether or no the Act was intended to create the difference for which Mr. Wilde contended, namely, absolutely to entitle a landlord to come in and defend, so as to make the order of my brother Coleridge a nullity, I do not pretend to say. It may be, that the matter was not adverted to at the time the Act passed; but, I am quite sure of this, that it was not intended by the Legislature, in passing that Act, to put a landlord, who is in possession by his tenant, in a different position from a landlord in actual and personal possession. On this short ground, it 93 appears to me, that we ought so to construe the Act, notwithstanding the case of Doe d. Hudson v. Jameson, which was decided at a time when the action of ejectment was purely the creature of the Courts. I am not aware that that decision has ever since been acted upon, so as to have had the attention of the Courts called to it. Moreover, the case was not fully argued, and the reasons of the Judges are exceedingly short; and, in the present state of the law, I do not feel myself bound by it." Butler v. Meredith, 11 Exch. R. 85. ATTORNEYS TO BE ADMITTED. Clerks' Names and Residences. Nichols, Thomas, 11, Owen's-row, St. John-streetroad; and Windsor-terrace Palmer, Robert Peach, 22, Argyle-square, King's cross; and Cambridge Parker, John, jun., High Wycombe Parnell, George, M. A., Upper Clapton Pears, William Thompson, 14, Milner-st., Upper Chelsea, and Warrington Pope, Stephen Ratcliffe, 10, Gloucester-street. Regent's-park; and Wisbeach St. Peter's Powell, Joseph, Moor-park, Chester; Birkenhead and Christleton, near Chester Prior, Joseph, jun., 9, Hornton-street, Kensington; and Jermyn-street, Piccadilly Rawson, Francis George, 30, Alfred-place, Bedford-square Reeves, Henry James, 23, Portsmouth-place, Kennington Richardson, John, 32, Wharton-street, Lloydsquare; Wells-street; and Knaresborough Robinson, William Joseph, 14, Calthorpe-street Gray's-inn-road; and Liverpool Roper, Samuel, 31, Victoria-street, Stapleton-road, Bristol. Roumieu, Edward Abraham, 8, Regent-square, St. Paneras Round, James, 1, Devonshire-street, Islington Roupell, William, 8, Copthall-court and Aspenbouse, Brixton-bill Sanders, Edward, 1, The Grove, Lewisham . Shoubridge, Harry, 2, St. Mark's square, Regent'spark Sills, John Saul, 3, Walpole-street, Chelsea; and Norwich Simonds, Henry Sanders, 9, Angel-court, Threg . To whom Articled, Assigned, &c. H. S. Stokes, Truro D. King, Cambridge J. Parker, High Wycombe F. H. Janson, Basinghall-street J. F. Marsh, Warrington C. Metcalfe, Wisbeach T. Helps, Chester W. A. Langdale, Southampton-buildings G. Rawson, Nottingham; B. Field, New-square H. D. Davies, Warwick-street, Regent-street M. Richardson, Knaresborough M. D. Lowndes, Liverpool B. Hope, Brompton; T. Hyatt, Shepton Mallet . Stone, William Stanley, 64, Guildford-street; W. Haslam, Copthall-court; W. H. Rees, Copthall R. W. Simonds, Winchester J. Hall, Manchester J.J. Simpson, Derby W. Fryer, Stroud J. M. Davenport, Oxford Sydney, Algernon Edward, 46, Finsbury-circus. E. J. Sydney, Finsbury-circus Tweedie, Richard Walter, 15, Circus, Greenwich D. Boys, Ely-place Upfill, James Marshall, 5, Mecklenburgh-street, Mecklenburgh square; Lower Calthorpe-st.; Upperton, Robert, jun., 24, Princes-street, Ca vendish-square; Calthorpe-st.; and Brighton. R. Upperton, Brighton Watson, William Francis, 26, Devonshire-street, Whitcombe, George, Chester White, Henry Brown, 6, Raymond's-buildings, Whittell, Eugene T. Curzon, 6, The Grange villas, Wilkins, Reginald Hay, 32, Half-moon-street, Piccadilly Wilson, Thomas, 38, Torriano-terrace, Kentish town; and Doncaster Wootton, John Cardy, 11, St. John's-wood-road; To whom Articled, Assigned, &c. Messrs Dyott, Lichfield J. Watson, sen., Pickering E. Margetts, Etwall; St. Pierre Butler Hook, C. T. Herring, Bedale J. J. Wheat, Sheffield J. A. Whitcombe, Gloucester; T. Helps, Chester S. B. Dixon, Pewsey; W. Lewis, Raymond-bldgs. G. Freeth,Nottingham; T. Borrett, Whitehall-place I. Wrentmore, Lincoln's-iun-fields Added to List pursuant to Judges' Orders. 1. Under the provisions of this Act, it shall and may be lawful to unite two or more benefices or one or more benefice or beneâces and tories, vicarage or vicarages, contiguous to one or more spiritual sinecure rectory or receach other, without regard to aggregate population or aggregate yearly value, and without union of such benefices shall and may be any limitation as to the same, and that the effected in the manner hereinafter provided. THIS is an Act to make better provision for the union of contiguous benefices, and to facilitate the building and endowing of new churches in spiritually destitute districts. It received the Royal Assent on the 14th August, 1855. It recites the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, in which Act provision is contained authorising the union, by order of her Majesty in Council, ing to the bishop of the diocese by the inhabi2. Whenever it shall be represented in writafter such inquiry and notice, and with such tants of any two or more such parishes in consent and upon such certificate as is therein vestry assembled, or the major part of them mentioned, of two or more benefices, or one or respectively, due notice of the representation more benefice or benefices, and one or more spiritual sinecure rectory or rectories, vicarage usual manner, that the benefices of the parishes proposed to be made having been given in the or vicarages, in the same parish or contiguous of which they are inhabitants may, with adto each other, of which the aggregate popula- vantage to the interests of religion, be united, tion should not exceed 1500 persons, and the the bishop of the diocese to whom such repreaggregate yearly value should not exceed 5007. sentation in writing may be made shall inquire It also recites the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 98, by which into the circumstances of the case; and if on Act the provision hereinbefore referred to was such inquiry it shall appear to such bishop that extended so as to be applicable to and for the such union may usefully be made, and that the union of benefices, sinecure rectories, and vi- patron or patrons of the benefices, rectories, or carages in the same parishes or contiguous to vicarages proposed to be united are consenting each other, and of which the aggregate popula- thereto, such consent being signified in writing tion should not exceed 1500 persons, notwith- under the hands of such patron or patrons, or standing the aggregate yearly value should that the patronage of any new church or exceed 500l. And it being expedient to amend churches proposed to be erected under this the recited Acts, and to extend the same, so as Act is to be vested in such patron or patrons to make better provision for the union of con- as hereinafter is provided, the said bishop shall tiguous benefices in cases where such union may be advantageous to the interests of re-tified and signed by himself, to be submitted cause a statement in writing of the facts, cerligion: It is therefore enacted :— to her Majesty's Commissioners for building |