GAZETTES.-FRIDAY, March 23. BANKRUPTS. JOSEPH CHARLES BALL, Salisbury, Wiltshire, miller, Strand, London.-Pet. f. March 21. street, City, tailor, April 13 at half-past 11, London, div.— W. Westrup and T. M. Cocksedge, Newcrane, Shadwell, Middlesex, and Northfleet, Kent, millers, April 13 at 11, London, div.-Thomas Simmons, Hurst, Berkshire, cattle salesman, April 13 at 11, London, div.-T. Roberts, Blackman-street, Southwark, Surrey, linendraper, April 13 at 1, London, div.-John Easton, Clapham-road-place, Claphamroad, builder, April 13 at half-past 12, London, div.— Robert A. Rüst, Great Marlborough-street, Regent-street, Middlesex, pianoforte manufacturer, April 13 at half-past 11, London, div.-B. W. Pearce, Bayham-terrace, Camden-town, Middlesex, builder, April 14 at 1, London, div.-Joseph Taylor, Sunbury, Middlesex, builder, April 16 at half-past 11, London, div.-George Selby, Ironmonger-lane, London, and Birmingham, and Smethwick-grove, near Birmingham, Warwickshire, iron enameller, April 14 at half-past 1, London, div.-John Thomas Rowe, Liverpool, merchant, April 13 at 11, Liverpool, div.-George Deane and Frederick Youle, Liverpool, merchants, April 13 at 11, Liverpool, div.—James L. Cross, Liverpool, insurance broker, April 16 at 11, Liverpool, div.-F. Saldorf, Plymouth, Devonshire, cornfactor, April 23 at half-past 12, Plymouth, div. + CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. Nicholas Coressy and Paul Maximos, Threadneedle-street, HENRY COOPER, Aldgate, City, grocer, April 2 at halfpast 2, and May 7 at 11, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sols. Wright & Bonner, 15, London-street, Fenchurch-street. Pet. f. March 20. RICHARD LOCKINGTON COLE, late of Cornhill, and now of Lime-street, City, merchant, April 4 at 11, and May 7 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sols. Ashurst & Co., 6, Old Jewry, City.-Pet. f. March 20. CHARLES HOLLINGSWORTH TIDBURY, Lavender Dock Wharf, Surrey, and Great James-street, Bedford-row, Middlesex, wharfinger, March 31 at half-past 12, and May 4 at half-past 1, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Flux & Argles, 68, Cheapside.-Pet. f. March 22. WILLIAM ROTHWELL, Enfield-highway, Middlesex, boarding-house keeper, April 4 at 12, and May 2 at half past 12, London: Off. Ass. Stansfeld; Sol. Abrahams, 17, Gresham-street, London.-Pet. f. March 23. JAMES SMITH SPENCER, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, Middlesex, wine merchant, April 7 and May 8 at 1, City, merchants, April 14 at 11, London.-John Moon the London: Off. Ass. Lee; Sols. Pawle & Co., 7, New-inn, younger, West India-road, Poplar, Middlesex, optician, April JOHN PERKINS, Oakham, Rutlandshire, haberdasher, cabinet maker, April 17 at 11, Bristol.-Thomas Underwood 13 at 2, London.-Richard Rees, Llanelly, Carmarthenshire, April 7 at half-past 1, and May 8 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Lee; Sols. Haxby, Leicester; Sole & Co., 68, Alderman- at 11, Bristol.-John Stoate Date, Cardiff, Glamorganshire, the younger, Cardiff, Glamorganshire, ironmonger, April 24 bury, London.-Pet. f. March 22. NATHANIEL SMITH the younger, formerly of London, flour merchant, April 17 at 11, Bristol.-Thomas Marshall, Canada West, America; since of Horsham, Martley, Wor- Plymouth, Devonshire, builder, April 23 at half-past 12, cestershire; and now a prisoner for debt in the Gaol of Plymouth.-Richard Nash, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, Worcester, hotel keeper, April 5 and May 3 at 11, Bir-innkeeper, April 20 at 11, Birmingham.-Joseph Bentley the mingham: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Wilson, Worcester; April 13 at 12, Liverpool. elder and Joseph Bentley the younger, Liverpool, gun makers, E. & H. Wright, Birmingham.-Pet. d. March 16. SOLOMON PORTMAN, Oldbury, Worcestershire, innTo be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. keeper, April 2 and 30 at 11, Birmingham: Off. Ass. KinThomas Haywood, Homerton, Middlesex, grocer.— Henry near; Sol. Saunders, Birmingham.-Pet. d. March 15. Cottrell, Bristol and Easton, Gloucestershire, glue manuJAMES HENDERSON, Nottingham, draper, April 3 and facturer.-Geo. Sully, Cardiff, Glamorganshire, ship broker. May 1 at half-past 11, Nottingham: Off. Ass. Harris; Sol.-George James Reid, Manchester, merchant.-Joseph Hick Wells, Nottingham.-Pet. d. March 22. son, Sheffield, Yorkshire, ironmonger. THOMAS SAMPSON, Stroud, shawl manufacturer, and WILLIAM BARNARD, Minchinhampton and Stroud, Gloucestershire, woollen cloth manufacturer, (trading under the firm of Thomas Sampson & Co.), April 3 and May 1 at 11, Bristol: Off. Ass. Acraman; Sols. Abbot & Co., Bristol.-Pet. f. March 9. JAMES SCOTT, Tweedmouth, Berwick-upon-Tweed, mill- MEETINGS. PETITION ANNULLED. Charles Kæber, Vigo-street, Regent-street, Middlesex, woollendraper. PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED. attornies and solicitors, (under the firm of Dixon & Pickslay). Benjamin Dixon and Edwin John Pickslay, Wakefield, TUESDAY, March 27. THOMAS AUGUSTUS FREETH, Edward-street, Hampstead-road, Middlesex, pianoforte manufacturer, April 5 at half-past 11, and May 3 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Johnson; Sol. Wells, 47, Moorgate-street, London. Pet. f. March 23. - ROBERT TANNER, Maryland-street, Stratford, Essex, tea dealer, April 14 at 11, and May 4 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sols. Blakeley & Stone, 5, Barge-yard, Bucklersbury.-Pet. f. March 24. DENIS NICHOLAS VERICCHIO, (by the name of Denis THOMAS JOHN BOYD WALLIS, Colchester, Essex, draper, Joseph Pattenden, Leonard-street, Shoreditch, Middlesex, general dealer, April 7 at 12, London, ch. ass.-H. Watts, Northampton, draper, April 11 at 1, London, last ex.-J. R. W. J. P. Woodward, Oundle, Northamptonshire, innkeeper, April 11 at 12, London, aud. ac.-David Sillar and John C. Sillar, Liverpool, and Shanghai, China, merchants, April 16 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac. sep. est. of David Sillar.-Robert Deam, Liverpool, plumber, April 2 at 1, Liverpool, aud. ac. -Henry Smith and Henry Mills, Chester, newspaper proprietors, April 13 at 12, Liverpool, aud. ac.-George Mellor and James Terras, Manchester, joiners, April 5 at 12, Manchester, aud. ac.; April 20 at 12, div.--John Walker, Bridlington, Yorkshire, coal merchant, April 25 at 12, Kingston-11, upon-Hull, aud. ac. and div.-John H. Rawll, Leadenhall JOHN LOUGH MORELAND, Lidford and Keinton, Somer- MEETINGS. Hugh Woodney Corbett, Liverpool, merchant, April 13 at Liverpool, pr. d.-Ellen Susannah West, Bingham[For continuation of Gazette, see p. 127, col. 2.] 1860. THE JURIST. LONDON, MARCH 31, 1860. ridicule carelessly thrown on his deceased father in Goldsmith's History of Animated Nature,' in which that celebrated mathematician is represented as being subject to fits of yawning so violent as to render him incapable of proceeding in his lecture-a story altogether unfounded, but for the publication of which the law would give no reparation. This led us to agitate the question, whether legal redress could be obtained Rand and Grimwade v. Green.-(Church rate-No- will be given to a man who is calumniated in his lifetime, because he may be hurt in his worldly interest, or at least hurt in his mind; but the law does not regard that uneasiness which a man feels on having his ancestor calumniated. That is too nice. Let him deny THE Imperial Court of Paris has lately decided that what is said, and let the matter have a fair chance by no action lies for defamation of a deceased person at the discussion. But if a man could say nothing against a suit of members of his family. This decision has re- character but what he can prove, history could not be called to us a conversation between Boswell and John-written; for a great deal is known of men of which son upon the subject. "I mentioned," says Boswell*, proof cannot be brought. A minister may be noto“Mr. Maclaurin's uneasiness on account of a degree of riously known to take bribes, and yet you may not be able to prove it.' author should be obliged to shew some sort of evidence, Mr. Murray suggested that the though he would not require a strict legal proof; but Johnson firmly and resolutely opposed any restraint whatever, as adverse to a free investigation of the characters of mankind." Boswell, confounding the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, adds, in a note-" What Dr. Johnson has here said is undoubtedly good sense, yet I am afraid that law, though defined by Lord Coke the perfection of reason,' is not altogether with him; for it is held in the books, that an attack on the reputation even of a dead man may be punished as a libel, because tending to a breach of the peace. There is, however, I believe, no modern decided case to that effect. In the King's Bench, Trinity Term, 1790, the question occurred on occasion of an indictment, The King v. Topham, who, as proprietor of a newspaper intitled 'The World,' was found guilty of even when a man's deceased relative was calumniated in a publication. Mr. Murray maintained that there should be reparation, unless the author could justify himself by proving the fact. Johnson-Sir, it is of so much more consequence that truth should be told than that individuals should not be made uneasy, that it is much better that the law does not restrain writing freely concerning the characters of the dead. Damages By Croker, vol. 3, p. 379. a libel against Earl Cowper, deceased, because certain injurious charges against his Lordship were published in that paper. An arrest of judgment having been moved for, the case was afterwards solemnly argued. My friend Mr. Const, whom I delight to have an opportunity to praise, not only for his abilities, but his manners a gentleman whose ancient German blood has been mellowed in England, and may be truly said to unite the baron and the barrister-was one of the counsel for Mr. Topham. He displayed much learning and ingenuity upon the general question, which, however, was not decided, as the Court granted an arrest, chiefly on the informality of the indictment." 1860. If the gentlemen who undertook to get the bill drawn despaired of finding a man gifted with the rare ability to draw an act of Parliament well, or, having found him, were unable to tempt him with the miserable fee which our Government is in the habit of offering for such work, they might surely have found in some individual the not uncommon gifts of a moderate knowledge of the use of language, some theoretical and a little practical familiarity with bankruptcy law, and conscientious industry, combined with the acci dent of such a deficiency of profitable employment as would render even the meagre Treasury allowance acceptable. We have not space for any detailed criticism of this miserable bill, but a few specimens, selected at random, must be given to justify our condemnation. In 2 Starkie on Slander and Libel, 212, 2nd ed., the law upon this question is thus stated:" An indictment lies for a libel reflecting upon the memory of a After clauses defining the procedure to obtain adjudiperson who is dead, if it be published with the male- cation of bankruptcy on the petition of a creditor, and volent purpose to injure his family and posterity, and on the petition of the debtor, we come to a clause conto expose them to contempt and disgrace; for the chief taining these words:-"In the computation of debts cause of punishing offences of this nature is their ten- for the purpose of any petition under this act, there dency to a breach of the peace; and although the party shall not be reckoned, 1, the amount of the debts in be dead at the time of publishing the libel, yet (accord- respect of which the petitioner has already taken the ing to Lord Coke) it stirs up others of the same family, benefit of insolvency, protection, or bankruptcy; 2, blood, or society, to revenge and to break the peace. debts barred by any Statute of Limitations." We (5 Rep. 125; Hawk. Pl. Cr., c. 73, ss. 1, 3; Rex v. have a faint suspicion that this clause is intended to Walter, 2 Esp. 51). In the case of The King v. Crichley refer exclusively to petitions by debtors; and by so (4 T. R. 129, in notis) an information was granted limiting it we should avoid the difficult problem of deagainst the defendant for publishing the following libel termining when a creditor has "taken the benefit of inupon Sir C. Gaunter Nicoll, Lady Dartmouth's father, solvency, protection, or bankruptcy." But when has and on the Government:-On Saturday evening died, a debtor taken the benefit of insolvency, of protection, of the small-pox, Sir C. G. Nicoll, Knight of the most or of bankruptcy? As we have hitherto, without any honourable Order of the Bath, and representative in enactment, excluded debts barred by the Statute of Parliament of the borough of Peterborough. He could Limitations, and also all other claims which the Courts, not be called a friend to his country, for he changed acting in analogy to that statute, refuse to enforce, his principles for a red riband, and voted for that per- from proof in bankruptcy, for any purpose, the express nicious project, the excise.' But, as was observed by provision which forms the second member of the above Lord Kenyon, C. J., in the case of The King v. Top-clause could serve no other purpose than to imply that ham, (4 T. R. 129), To say that the conduct of a dead person can at no time be canvassed-to hold that even after ages are past the conduct of bad men cannot be contrasted with that of the good-would be to exclude the most useful part of history.' The malicious intention of the defendant, therefore, to injure the family and posterity of the deceased must be expressly averred, and clearly proved." THE BANKRUPTCY BILL. In this number of THE JURIST is given as full an abstract of the Bankruptcy Bill as our limits will admit. In passing from the Attorney-General's speech on the bill to the bill itself, we encountered such a shock as we have often felt on turning from some forensic flight of the same successful advocate to the evidence in the cause. The measure was well designed, the advocate was well crammed, and he delivered himself of his cram in a most effective manner; but the promoters of the bill have so egregiously failed in their choice of a draftsman, that we cannot believe it to be possible to pass the bill until it has been entirely redrawn, even though, by an inversion of the usual fate of bills, it should be amended in committee. Amended it cannot fail to be if it suffer any change. The bill is a conglomeration of fragments from the Consolidation Act of 1849 (which we now see is by means the worst drawn of all possible acts) and the Insolvent Debtors Act; clauses probably drawn by the gentlemen who have suggested the various alterations they are intended to effect, (and these, though incomplete and inartistic, are easily recognised as the work of thinking men); and, lastly, clauses drawn to order by the hand that has tossed the whole mess of 538 sections and 11 schedules (filling 150 folio pages) into its present amorphous condition. no for any other purpose than that of supporting a petition, debts barred by the statute may be proved, and that, for any purpose, claims not within the statute, but only barred by analogy, may be proved. Here is a specimen of style:-"If upon such examination it shall appear that the creditors' assignee has kept in his hands, at any time during the space of one week, more than the sum of 50l. belonging to the estate, the creditors may, upon establishing such fact to the satisfaction of the Court, and if the assignee shall not shew cause to the contrary, debit such assignee with interest for the amount so kept, at any rate not exceeding 207. per cent. by the year, for the time such monies were kept in his hands." to see what would be the consequences of "debiting" It would be worth while to pass this clause, in order the assignee with interest. We can imagine the Court saying to the assignee, "Sir, you are debited with interest on this sum;" and the assignee replying, “Very well, sir; what then?" By sect. 381 the Court is authorised to make an order vesting the bankrupt's copyholds in any person without admittance, and without payment of any fees or a fine; and by sect. 333 the lord, or his steward, or steward's deputy, is bound to enter the vesting order on the rolls gratis. Sect. 158 coolly abolishes the remedy of every creditor to recover his debt by action at law, for it makes the levying of a judgment debt by seizure and sale an act of bankruptcy, upon which, at any time within a year, a petition in bankruptcy may be presented, with the effect of defeating the title of the purchaser from the sheriff, and of obliging the creditor to refund the proceeds of the sale, if the sheriff has been so regardless of his own security as to pay them over to him. But the draftsman, not content with defeating every exe cution actually levied by seizure and sale, takes care, in sect. 251, to import from the stat. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, a 1860. provision, that after adjudication no judgment creditor shall proceed to a seizure or sale; and by another independent clause (sect. 245) he provides that an execution levied sixty days before the filing of the petition shall be unavailable. In sect. 236 we have the reputed ownership clause from the act of 1849, under which the goods do not vest in the assignee, but may be sold by the Court. In sect. 246 we have a reputed ownership clause, which vests them in the assignee. Sect. 254 exempts sales in bankruptcy from auction duty. Sect. 247 invalidates, as a fraudulent preference, every payment made by a debtor to any creditor, on account of his claim, within sixty days before the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, unless the payment was made for a reasonable and sufficient consideration, given at the time! So that no one who asks for pay ment of his debt, and obtains it, can during the next two months call the money his own; and what would formerly have been set aside as a fraudulent preference will be protected if sixty days elapse before the filing of the petition. The framer of this clause was probably dreaming of the 59th section of the stat. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. The words " or any of such matters," in the 224th section of the act of 1849, (relating to arrangements by deed), which gave rise to the conflicting decisions in Tetley v. Taylor (1 El. & Bl. 521) and Drew v. Collins, (6 Exch. 670), and were, in effect, struck out of the act by the ultimate decision in Tetley v. Taylor, are reproduced in sect. 393 of the present bill, with a somewhat different context; so that one may expect to have a second course of litigation in order to strike them out again. REGULA GENERALIS. ORDER OF COURT.-March 20, 1860. THE Right Hon. JOHN Lord CAMPBELL, Lord High and assistance of the Right Hon. Sir JOHN ROMILLY, Chancellor of Great Britain, by and with the advice Master of the Rolls, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Sir JAMES LEWIS KNIGHT BRUCE, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Sir GEORGE JAMES TURNER, the Hon. the Vice-Chancellor Sir RICHARD TORIN KINDERSLEY, the Hon. the Vice-Chancellor Sir JOHN STUART, and the Hon. the Vice-Chancellor Sir WILLIAM PAGE WOOD, doth hereby, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions contained in the 30th section of stat. 22 & 23 Vict. c. 85, and intituled "An Act to further amend the Law of Property, and to relieve Trustees," and in pursuance and execution of all powers enabling him in that behalf, order and direct as follows: 1. All petitions, summonses, statements, affidavits, and other written proceedings under the 30th section of the said act, shall be intituled "In the matter of the said act, and in the matter of the particular trust, will, or administration;" and every such petition and statement shall be marked in manner directed by the 6th of the Consolidated General Orders, rule 6; and every such petition or statement shall state the facts concisely, and shall be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively; and every such summons shall, except as to its title, be in the form of the general summons in Schedule (K.), No. 1, subjoined to the Consolidated General Orders. 2. At the time when any such summons is sealed, the statement upon which the same is grounded shall be left at the chambers of the judge, and shall, on the conclusion of the proceeding, be transmitted to the registrar by the chief clerk, with the minutes of the opinion, advice, or direction given by the judge; and the registrar shall cause such statement to be transmitted to the Report Office, to be there filed. seven clear days before the hearing thereof, unless the 3. Every such petition or summons shall be served No deed of arrangement is to bind non-executing creditors unless it is executed by three-fourths of the creditors and by the trustees within seven days after the execution of the deed by the debtor. It will not do to postpone the execution by the debtor until the other signatures have been obtained; he must execute first, and within the next seven days three-fourths of his creditors in England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, In-person served shall consent to a shorter time. dia, or Australia, must execute. (There is an exemption from this condition as to creditors in a foreign country, if the deed is an assignment in a prescribed form. Sect. 401). We shall need a sealing as well as a writing telegraph. By sect. 394, no deed, by which a debtor makes an arrangement with his creditors, or any person on their behalf, touching the inspection or winding up of his affairs and estate, shall be valid "or good in law," unless it is registered in the Court of Bankruptcy within fourteen days after execution by the debtor; and the registration is to set out the date, and the names and descriptions of the parties to the deed; and all these particulars are to be published in the London Gazette! Of course the draftsman has not thought it necessary to say whether this impertinent interference is to be confined to arrangements between a debtor and all his creditors, (in which case it would be absolutely senseless), or to arrangements with a majority of the creditors. But the greatest curiosity is the 398th section, which gives to any such deed as is mentioned in sect. 394 the effect of bankruptcy, and by mere force of the deed, and without proof, places the creditors in the position of creditors who have proved their debts; while the next section makes the deed a summary protection against process. We recommend such of our readers as desire any further proof of the draftsman's incapacity to collate the marginal abstracts of the clauses with the clauses themselves. be passed and entered, and remain as of record, in the 4. The opinion, advice, or direction of the judge shall and the same shall be termed "a judicial opinion," or same manner as any order made by the court or judge, "judicial advice," or 'judicial direction," as the case may be. 66 5. The fees of court, and the fees and allowances to solicitors, on proceedings under the 30th section of the said act, shall be the same as are now payable under the Consolidated General Orders 38 and 39, and by the practice of the Court for business of a similar nature. CAMPBELL, C. JOHN ROMILLY, M. R. J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, L. J. RICHD. T. KINDERSLEY, V. C. W. P. WOOD, V. C. Court Papers. EQUITY SITTINGS, EASTER TERM, 1860. Monday Before the LORD CHANCELLOR. At Westminster. April 16 Appeal Motions and Appeals. At Lincoln's Inn. 17 .... 19 Petitions and Appeals. ...... Tuesday. |