Bankrupts.

Cox, Joseph Abraham, Union Street, Southwark, | Gill,
Surrey, Victualler. Green, Off. Ass.: Harper,
Kennington Cross. Jan. 3.

Coates, John, Manchester, Merchant and Dry

salter. Makinson & Co., Trmple: Atkinson & Co., Manchester. Jan. 17. Derham, Robert, Leeds, York, and Walter Alan

Hinde, and Jas. Derham, Dolphinbolme, Lancaster, Worsted Spinners. Robinson & Co., Essex Street, Strand: Ward & Co., Leeds. Jan. 10. Dawson, William Ambrose, Liverpool, Merchant. Whitley & Co., Liverpool: Messrs. Lowe, Southampton Buildings, Chancery Lane.

chester, Brace, Belt, and Web Manufac-Huxley, Thomas Croft, Liverpool, Cabinet Maker. turers. Sale & Co., Manchester: Messrs. Baxter, Lincoln's Inn Fields. Jan. 14. Edwards, John, Littleworth, Gloucester, Baker

Froud, Thos. Wilson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Ship
and Insurance Broker. Gibson, Newcastle-upon-Jones,
Tyne: Swain & Co., Old Jewry. Jan. 14.
Finch, George, Newbury, Berks, Cabinet Maker

and Upholsterer. Abbott, Off. Ass. Tate,
Basinghall Street. Jan. 17.
Guigell, George, West Smithfield, London, and of

York Street, York Road, Surrey, Hay Sales-
man. Gibson, Off. Ass.: M'Leod & Co.,
London Street, Fenchurch Street. Jan. 17.

Manufacturer and Shopkeeper. Jenkins & Co., New Inn George, Bradford. Dec. 24. Shuttleworth, Henry, Market Harborough, Leicester, and of the Light Pool Mills, Rodburgh, and King's Stanley, Gloucester, Pin Manufacturer. Johnson, Off. Ass.: White & Co., Lincoln's Inn Fields. Dec. 27. Senior, James, Lassell's Hall, Kirkheaton, York, Fancy Cloth Manufacturer, and Common Brewer. Lever, King's Road, Bedford Row: Barker & Co., Huddersfield. Jan. 10. Silver, James, Hatton Garden, Holborn, Silversmith. Pennell, Off. Ass.: Rice, Verulam Buildings. Jan. 14.

Kipling, Christopher, Warren Street, Fitzroy | Stocks, Isaac Clayton, Bradford, York, Stuff
Square, Victualler. Clark, Off. Ass.: Harpur,
Kennington Cross. Jan. 10.
Legh, William, New Windsor, Berks, Corn Dealer.
Hornidge & Co., Bloomsbury Square. Dec. 27.
Lockitt, Joseph, Congleton, Chester, Grocer and
Tea Dealer, and Brick Maker. Pickford,
Congleton James & Co., Old Jewry. Dec. 31.
Leonard, Charles, Sheffield, York, Bacon Factor.
Rodgers, Devonshire Sq., Bishopsgate Street :
Unwin, Sheffield. Jan. 17.
Moore, John, Finchley Common, Finchley, Mid-
dlesex, Victualler. Clark, Off. Ass.: Fry &
Co., Cheapside. Dec. 24.
Manning, Henry, Dulwich, Surrey, Boarding
House Keeper. Abbott, Off. Ass. Crosse,
Surrey Street, Strand. Dec. 27.

Mead, Samuel, and William Mead, Liverpool,

Iron Merchants. Duncan & Co., Liverpool: Adlington & Co., Bedford Row. Dec. 27. Mickelthwate, Arthur, Sheffield, York, Horn Mer

chant. Butterfield, Gray's Inn Square: Potter, Rotherham. Dec. 27.

Morris, Joseph, Pimlico, Middlesex, Coal Mer

chant. Lackington, Off, Ass.: Richards & Co., Lincoln's Inn Fields. Dec. 31. MacLintock, William, Barnsley, York, Linen Ma.

nufacturer. Shepherd, Barnsley: Perkins, Gray's Inn Square. Jan. 3. Miles, Thomas, Tongwinlas, near Cardiff, Glamorgan, Cordwainer. Jones & Co., Crosby Square: King, Bristol. Jan. 3.

Shuckard, George, Preston, Sussex, Brewer.
Altree & Co., Brighton: Sowton, Great James
Street, Bedford Row. Jan. 14.

Scholefield, Edward, Watling Street, London,
Warehouseman. Lackington, Off. Ass.: Tu-
ner & Co., Basing Lane. Jan. 17.

Scott, Joseph, Manchester, Paper Dealer. Ad-
lington & Co., Bedford Row: Street, Man-
chester. Jan. 17.

Trivett, Francis Thomas, Northumberland Place,
Commercial Road East, Draper. Lackington,

Off. Ass.: Ashurst & Co., Cheapside. Dec. 24.
Turnbull, Thomas, Friday Street, Cheapside,

Tavern Keeper. Alsager, Off. Ass. Wells, Charlotte Row, Mansion House. Dec. 24. Thurlow, Robert, Southampton, Oil and Colour Merchant. Mackey, Southampton : Plucknett & Co., Lincoln's Inn Fields. Dec. 31.

Naylor, William Burrows, Pitsmoor, Brightside
Bierlow, Sheffield, York, Brick Maker. Rod-Thomas, William, Ystradgimlais, Brecon, Timber
gers, Devonshire Square, Bishopsgate Street :
Ryalls, Sheffield: Rayner & Co., Sheffield.
Dec. 24.

Owen, Edward, Maesglas, Amlwch, Anglesea, and of
Liverpool, Cattle Dealer. Chester, Staple Inn :
Roose, Amlwch: Hodgson, Liverpool. Dec. 31.
Potter, Mark, Earle's Heaton, Dewsbury, York,

Blanket Manufacturer. Watts, Dewsbury :
Jaques & Co., Ely Place. Dec. 24.
Poynton, James, Liverpool, Draper. Abbott & Co., |

Charlotte Street, Bedford Sq. : Bennett & Co.,
Manchester: Brabner & Co., Liverpool. Dec. 31.
Polden, Alexander James, and Thomas Morton,

Fenchurch Street, London, Merchants. Green.
Off. Ass.: Dickson, Bucklersbury. Jan. 10.
Prichard, Thomas, Sidcup, Foot's Cray, Kent,
Surgeon. Graham, Off. Ass. Powell, Mar-
tin's Lane, Cannon Street. Jan. 17.
Perrier, Charles, Nottingham, Lace Manufacturer.
Capes & Co., Bedford Row: Wadsworth, Not-
tingham. Jan. 17.

Robinson, Frederick, Coventry, Ribbon

Merchant. Bicknell & Co., Lincoln's Inn Fields: Vaughan & Co., Brecon. Jan. 3. Tarte, James, Birmingham, Maltster, Cyder Merchant, Plated Wire Manufacturer, and Dealer in Metals. Chaplin, Gray's Inn Square: Harrison, Birmingham. Jan. 3.

Underhill, Richard, and John Underhill, Plymouth,
Devon, Linen Drapers. Pennell, Of. Ass.:
Burt, Aldermanbury. Dec. 31.

Walker, William, Nottingham, Silkman. Enfield
& Co., Nottingham: Cuvelje & Co., South-
ampton Buildings, Chancery Lane. Jan. 3.
Wharton, Charles James Wilson, Liverpool, Pro-

vision Dealer. Cornthwaite, Liverpool. Jan. 7. Willacy, Thomas, St. Helen's Mills, Windle, Lancaster, [no trade gazetted]. Taylor & Co., Bedford Row Lowndes & Co., Liverpool.

Jan. 14.

Wood, Samuel, Northampton, Ironmonger and Seedsman. Britten, Northampton: Messrs. B'ower & Co., Lincoln's Inn Fields. Jan. 14. Manu-Yallop, Rowland, Basinghall Street, Scrivener : Edwards, Off. Ass.: Rush, Austin Friars. Jan. 17.

facturer. Austen & Co., Gray's Inn: Troughton & Co., Coventry. Dec. 31. Richardson, Richard, Great Driffield, York, Draper. Milne & Co., Temple: Bent, Man

chester. Jan. 3.

Ridsdale, John, nnd Henry Ridsdale, Leeds, York,
Stuff and Blanket Merchants. Hawkins & Co.,
New Boswell Court, Lincoln's Inn: Atkinson
& Co., Leeds. Jan. 3.

Ross, Jesse, Leicester, Wool Stapler. Toller, Gray's
Inn Square: Messrs. Toller, Leicester. Jan. 14.
Silk, William Banks, Jewin Street, Cripplegate,
Builder. Belcher, Off. Ass.: Selby, Serjeant's
Inn, Fleet Street. Dec. 24.
Stanton, George, Regent Street, St. James's,
Westminster, Woollen Draper. Edwards, Off.
Ass. For & Co., Basinghall Street. Dec. 24.
Spence, William, Dewsbury, York, Grocer.
Jaques & Co., Ely Place, Holborn: Greves,
Dewsbury. Dec. 24.

:

And, first, we wish to say one word as to the privilege question. We have, as we have ever done, and shall continue to do, allowed both sides to be heard in these pages; but as the matter now assumes much of a party complexion, we shall content ourselves with the office of moderator. Each side has been most ably argued in the House of Commons, and if the friends of "privilege" can claim the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Mr. Erle, and, perhaps, Sir Wm. Follett, although he has not spoken for or voted recently on it, the not spoken for or voted recently on it, the friends of law" rank on their side, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Creswell, Serjeant Talfourd, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Law.

a

registration of voters. This will not only be a declaratory bill, settling certain disputed registration questions, but will go, as sent mode of revising votes by the fluctuating we understand, to the alteration of the prebody of revising barristers, and the appointment of a permanent body, as in Scotland and Ireland.

Returns have been ordered several years past. Besides these measures, of the expense of the present system for Mr. Serjeant Talfourd has renewed a notice as to his Copyright Bill, and Mr. Wakley has declared his intention, on its coming on, to move for a Select Committee on the whole subject of copyright, which, we think it very probable, will be agreed to by the

House.

Enfranchisement Bill has been referred, on In the House of Lords the Copyhold the motion of Lord Brougham, to the following Select Committee:-The Lord Chancellor, Duke of Norfolk, Duke of Richmond, Shaftesbury, Bishop of Llandaff, Bishop Marquis of Salisbury, Earl of Devon, Earl of Exeter, Lord Redesdale, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Wynford, Lord Besides this important question now pend- Hatherton. As it now stands, it is in all Brougham, Lord Duncannon, and Lord ing in the House of Commons, Lord John Russell has said that he will shortly introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. material points the same bill that was introduce a bill for the establishment of County Stewart last session, as first amended by the Courts. It is now under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and on his opinion clauses, with a power to the lord and twocommittee.b It contains the compulsory being obtained with respect to certain points thirds of the tenants of any manor to exrelating to it, it will be forthwith introduced into the House of Commons. Lord John bill by a petition to the commissioners. cept themselves from the operation of the Russell has also said that it is his intention We understand that the Select Committee shortly to bring in a bill for improving the will proceed in the bill with all dispatch.

a It is said that Sir William Follett, whatever he may think the law ought to be, is now of opinion that the construction of the Judges on the cases hitherto decided is the correct one.

VOL. XIX.-- No. 572.

the Bankruptcy Commission is bringing its Besides these proceedings in Parliament,

b See the Bill, 17 L. O. 360, and the amendments, 419.

T

258 Practical Points.-Exclusive Audience of the Serjeants in the Court of Common Pleas.

labours to a conclusion, and we soon expect saying that, unless a previous demand is to be in possession of their repor, which, it made by the officer, he is guilty of a tresis not unlikely, will be acted on in the pre-pass in taking the goods by force, but of a sent session.

trespass to the person only. This action however, is brought for a trespass in taking the goods; and if the goods were liable to be seized, as I think they were, the mode of

PRACTICAL POINTS OF GENERAL making the seizure cannot affect the liability

INTEREST.

CUSTOM HOUSE OFFICER.

THINGS in actual use, as a horse upon which a man is riding, or an axe in the hands of a man who is cutting wood, and the like, are privileged from distress, in order to prevent a breach of the peace, which might be occasioned by an attempt to distrain them. 1 Inst. 47 a.; Simpson v. Harlopp, Willes, 54; Story v. Robinson, 6 T. R. 138. This rule is to some extent applicable to the following case, in which the right of a custom-house officer over the person is

defined.

of the defendants on this head. In Story v. Robinson, 6 T. R. 138, the taking of the plantiff's horse was evidently stated in such a manner as to shew that the plaintiff was upon him, and therefore it involved a trespass to the person. Littledale, J.-The officers were justified in making the seizure; for on the evidence it appears that they were drawings, which brings them within the terms of the act, and no exception is made in favour of any particular kind. Patteson, J.-This is an action for taking goods only; and if any clause could be pointed out making a previous demand a condition precedent, no doubt an action would lie but there is no such clause, and the general law is relied upon that there ought to be a previous demand. Supposing that to be so, yet, if the goods are forfeited, the act of taking of them cannot be invalidated by an excess or violence to the goods, but it affords a ro ind for an action of another kind. Coleridge, J., concurred. Rule discharged. De Gondouin v. Lewis, 2 P. & D. 283.

EXCLUSIVE AUDIENCE OF THE SER-
JEANTS IN THE COURT OF COM-
MON PLEAS.

Trespass for seizing and carrying away certain goods of the plaintiff, to wit, three portfolios and one hundred drawings, &c.: plea, not guilty. At the trial at the Sussex Summer Assizes 1837, before Lord Denman, C. J., the following appeared to be the facts of the case. The plaintiff, a French youth, arrived at Brighton by the steam-boat one evening in September 1836, and as he was leaving the boat, accompanied by a friend who had gone on board to meet him, the defendants, who were custom-house officers, seized with some violence a portfolio which the plaintiff had under his arm, and which contained some school drawings and a few biscuits. They refused to restore it to him, but gave it back to him next morning. THE question of the right, or privilege of the The notice of action given to the defend-Serjeants, to practise in the Court of Common ants was signed by "A. Pilcher, Solicitor," Pleas, to the exclusion of all other barristers, came again before the Court on the 20th (who was the attorney conducting the suit) January "acting in the behalf and as the prochein amy of the plaintiff;" and it was contended for the defendants that as an infant could not appoint an attorney, the notice was bad. His Lordship overruled the objection, The defendants then contended that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, for that drawings under the 3 & 4 W. 4. c. 66, schedule, were liable to forfeiture, and that the act complained of was a lawful seizure by the defendants. His lordship was of this opinion, and directed a nonsuit, but required the jury to find what damages the plaintiff had sustained, who returned a verdict of one farthing. Lord Denman, C. J.-Where no fraud is attempted in concealing articles from the officers, I have no hesitation in

Mr. Newton observed, that the royal mandate of April 1834, which threw open the Court to the outer bar of England, was as binding as the writ, which was substantially a royal mandate, by the authority of which the Serjeants were invested with the privilege of pleading and audience in that Court. That Court itself had recognised the validity of the royal warrant of 1834, by ordering it to be entered on record; the Serjeants themselves had acquiesced in it for several years, and it was now too late for the Serjeants to turn round and ask the Judges of that Court to do that which they had failed in persuading either the Crown or the Legislature to do. He submitted to their Lordships that from the date of that royal mandate, every gentleman who had been called to the bar, had been called to the bar of that Court as much as of every other

Exclusive Audience of the Serjeants, &c.—Power of Appointment in Purchase Deeds,

court in the kingdom. He begged them to consider how unjust this proceeding would be to all those, and no doubt they were many, who had devoted themselves to studying the peculiar practice of this Court, which, until to day, had been open to them; and the practice of this court was so far peculiar as to require some degree of separate and peculiar study, whence, no doubt, in the first instance, had arisen the privileges of the Serjeants. He would not dilate upon the advantages or disadvantages to the public of closing this Court. It might be that the public derived great advantage from being confined to the learned Serjeants, and not having the liberty of selecting from the whole bar, those to whom they would entrust the advocacy of their causes in that Court; but the fact was, that the impression of the public was different upon the subject, as was proved by the great increase of business in that Court, since it has been thrown open. It had been said that if the royal mandate of 1834 were sustained, it must be on the principle that the Crown night open all the Courts of Westminster Hall to the public indiscriminataly; but in answer to that, he begged to say that they were not to suppose that the Crown would do anything obviously improper and absurd; but supposing the Crown were to issue a warrant of that sort, and parties, whether barristers or not, were allowed to plead in the Courts for several years, he should like to know whether the judges thought that it would be a very easy matter to return to the old system of exclusion. On the following day, January 21st,

The Lord Chief Justice gave the final decision of the Court.—This was a question as to the exclusive privileges of the Serjeants to plead and practise in the Court of Common Pleas, it having been contended that since the promulgation of the King's Warrant of Hilary Term, 1834, all barristers had an equal right with the Serjeants so to practise. They had been called upon by certain Serjeants to decide that question, and act upon their decision. If, when the warrant had been read, any one of the Serjeants had questioned its validity, the Court would have paused before it gave it effect, and would have decided the question deliberately, after hearing arguments, But, on the contrary, many of the Serjeants had accepted, at the hands of the Crown, the grace and favor of receiving more prominent rauk, and the rest had allowed the matter to pass sub silentio. It was not surprising, then, that the Court offered no objection to the warrant, more especially as the Common Law Commissioners had recommended the opening of the Court, though to a limited extent. However, notwithstanding the acquiescence of the Serjeants, they thought it due both to the suitors and officers of the Court, now that they were called upon, to declare their opinion. The single point was, whether the Serjeants had, by the constitution and by law, held and enjoyed the exclusive privilege of practising in the Court of Common Pleas; for, if so, it was the opinion of the Court that they could not

259

be deprived of it by a royal warrant, or any other power short of the whole legislature. The antiquity of the Serjeants was as great as that of the Court itself, as was proved by all the text writers. Bracton, in the reign of Henry 3d, mentioned the fact; and it was also proved by records which were to be found in the Tower in the reign of Edward 1. They were called to their rank, too, by writ, the form of which was found in those ancient records; their oath of office had existed from the earliest times; and they were bound, as no other barristers were, to give due attendance for the service of the king's people. The Lord Commissioner Whitlock's speech to the newly created Serjeants was another authority which led them to the conclusion that the Serjan s possessed this exclusive right from time immemorial. The rights of the Serjeants and of Peers of the realm, stood on the same foundation, immemorial enjoyment; and that being so, they held that this right was still in existence, notwithstanding the royal warrant, and they were bound, therefore, to allow that right to be exercised. In order to secure the due administration of justice, it might be necessary, in progress of time, in extraordinary cases, to admit others to practise, as, for instance, Justice Littleton (Year Book of the 11th of Edward 4th) said, that if the Serjeants were all dead, then they must hear the apprentices 3 and it appeared to them that as parties had been induced, by the voluntary acquiescence of the Serjeants, to instruct barristers not of the degree of the coif, it would be unjust to withdraw the privilege in cases now pending. While, therefore, they allowed the Serjeants their exclusive privilege, it was with this reservation, that barristers not of that rank should be heard in the suits in which they were already engaged, until they were brought to a completion."

[We are glad that this decision of the Court,-qualified as it very justly is, with regard to existing business, will restore the rights of the ancient order of Serjeants. An addition to that learned body, will, however, be requisite to meet the wants of the suitors of the Court. ED.]

POWER OF APPOINTMENT IN
PURCHASE DEEDS.

To the Editor of the Legal Observer. Sir,

In the course of my practice in conveyancing, I have never yet been able to convince myself of the propriety of the mode which has been adopted of late years, and now very generally prevails, of preparing purchase deeds of feesimple lands by power of appointment and limitation of uses,-at least to the extent to which it is carried. The better to explain my meaning I shall give a brief abstract of a mo

dern title.

1st & 2d Jan. 1800.-INDENTURES of Lease