18 Balance of cash on the 1st October, 1859.. £19,902 10 10 £68,510 5 3 5,880 1 5 180,438 10 11 236,226 16 11 156,216 9 8 £80,010 7 3 £80,010 7 3 3 188,545 16 6 240,370 17 0 156,813 3 £83,557 13 £167,716 11 8 The surplus of income being 59. It remains for us to explain the nature of the third fund to which we have above referred, as being in our judgment properly available for the proposed objects. It consists of a sum of 88,254l. 5s. 1d. cash, forming part of the public balances now standing to the credit of the Paymaster-General at the Bank of England, and wholly unappropriated. 60. From the evidence of Mr. Seton, it appears that, under the authority of certain recent acts of Parliament, an account of all fees received from suitors in the superior courts of law is annually rendered to the Treasury by the Masters and other officers of the several courts, and the net amount of such fees, after deducting certain rents, salaries, and other expenses incurred in the respective offices, is paid over to the Treasury. A separate account is kept of the monies so received, and of other payments subsequently made thereout by the Treasury, and the net surplus thereof is shewn by Mr. Seton to have amounted, on the average of the last six years, to upwards of 14,000l. per annum. The sum of 88,2541. 5s. 1d., above referred to as Fund E., is the aggregate amount of such surplus from the year 1852 to the 1st January, 1860, and that sum now stands to the credit of an account called "The Fee Fund Account, Superior Courts of Law." For the fund thus accumulated, and for the monies hereafter to be received from the same source, no appropriation whatever has hitherto been provided by Parliament. 61. We have felt it necessary to enter thus fully into the nature and history of these several funds, the mode in which they have been from time to time dealt with, the conditions under which they are held, and the charges and incumbrances to which they are respec4 tively liable, because, without such a statement, it appeared to us that it would be impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on the practical question, whether they may, or may not, be made to supply the means of effecting the objects recommended in the earlier part of this our Report. To that question we shall now address ourselves; and in so doing our first inquiry will be, whether there is, in principle, any valid objection to the appropriation of these funds to the proposed objects; that is to say, whether such appropriation would involve the violation of the rights of property, or of any other existing right, legal, equitable, or moral? If it would, there is, of course, an end of the question, and the discussion of points of detail would be an idle waste of time and labour. If it would not, we may then fitly proceed to consider in what manner, to what extent, and subject to what conditions and limitations, those funds may, with your Majesty's sanction, and by the aid and under the authority of Parliament, be made available for carrying into effect the contemplated scheme. 8 £11,500 2 0 In the year 1858-9 there was some falling off in the fees received from suitors, a diminished transfer from Funds A. and B., and some increase in the payments for salaries, in consequence of whichThe income was only While the expenditure was Thus reducing the surplus income to £160,360 9 9 5 62. For all practical purposes, indeed, the scope of our inquiry may be in a great measure limited to the first of the three funds in question. Upon the applicability of the Profit or Accumulation Fund B. the £226,486 7 9 controversy substantially turns; and unless that fund can with justice be so applied, it would be superfluous to prosecute the inquiry with regard to the remaining funds. In that case, our reply to the question which your Majesty has referred to us, as to the existence of adequate means for the accomplishment of the desired end, must necessarily be in the negative. 217,803 1 10 £8,683 5 11 18 63. The first question, then, which we have to con- | 1739 to 1852, the Fund A., representing the suitors' sider is, whether the appropriation of Fund B. in the invested cash, has been, as we have shewn, gradually mode proposed would involve the violation of any formed. The formation of this fund, therefore, was not rights of property? A majority of us are clearly of the act of the court, exercising its inherent functions opinion that it does not, for the following reasons*. for the benefit of the suitors, but was the result of 64. It has been submitted to us, that this Fund B. special legislative interference; and although each sepabelongs to the suitors of the Court of Chancery; that rate investment was made by an order of the court, yet it is, in truth, a part of their, the suitors' fund; that it those orders were issued in pursuance only of a delehas been produced entirely by the profitable employ-gated authority, and for a specific and limited purpose. ment of their money; and consequently, that if not as matter of strict legal right, yet upon principles of justice, and by analogy to the recognised doctrines of courts of equity, it should be considered as their property. In support of this view, it has been suggested that, as regards money paid into court in the course of litigation, the Court of Chancery stands towards the suitors in the same relation in which an ordinary trustee stands towards his cestui que trust; and that as a trustee having trust money in his hands, and employing it to a profit, must account for such profit to the cestui que trust, so the court must account to the suitors for the profit which it (the court) has made by the investment of the suitors' cash. 65. We are of opinion that there is no foundation for this argument, and that the supposed analogy on which it rests wholly fails. The Court of Chancery can, in no proper sense of the term, be considered in the light of a trustee for the suitors. It exists for the purpose of administering justice between litigants; and lest, whilst their rights are under investigation, the money which may be the subject of litigation should be wasted by the actual possessor, whose possession may ultimately turn out to be wrongful, the court orders it to be impounded, and placed in secure deposit, to abide the eventual decision. When so deposited, the parties themselves may apply to have it invested, and if they do, they bear the loss or take the profit of the investment, as the case may be. If they do not, the court (which, as regards the possession of the money, is in the position of a mere stakeholder) transfers the stake to the successful litigant, when the litigation is terminated, without diminution on the one hand, and without increase on the other. 66. Independently, however, of the question as to the position of the Court of Chancery as a trustee, it appears to us that the course of the preceding narrative furnishes in itself the most complete answer to any claim which could be put forward to Fund B. as being the property of the suitors. It is clear that previously to 1725 the suitors' cash deposited with the Masters of the court was employed by them for their own profit, and that the profit derived from that employment constituted a portion of their official remuneration. But when, in the year 1725, that state of things was put an end to, and the office of AccountantGeneral was created, the money of the suitors, not required to meet current demands, remained in the Bank of England (to use the language of the statutes) "dead and unemployed." The court had no power to employ it, or, except at the instance of the suitors themselves, to direct its investment. It was not until the year 1739 that the Legislature for the first time interfered, and (by the act of the 12 Geo. 2, c. 24) gave to the court a power for that purpose which it did not before possess, limited, however, to the specific and definite sum mentioned in the act. When that sum was invested the power of the court was exhausted, and the suitors' cash again accumulated in the coffers of the Bank of England, until a further power, similarly defined and limited, was given by a succeeding act. And thus, by a succession of statutes, extending over the period from To what extent the opinion of Sir W. P. Wood, V. C., differs from that of the other commissioners will appear from his observations in the Appendix. 67. But in what manner did the Legislature deal with the fruits of these investments? Did it direct that the income should follow the capital, and that the profit should belong to those by the employment of whose money such profit had been produced? Quite the reverse. It from time to time, and on the occasion of each investment, specially appropriated the income arising therefrom to such objects and purposes as appeared suitable to the particular exigencies of the moment. Thus, at one time the expenses of the Accountant-General's office were to be provided for; at another, the salaries of the Masters were to be increased; at another, new buildings were to be erected for the transaction of the varied business of the court; at another, pensions were to be given to incapacitated or retiring officers, and compen sations to be provided for the holders of abolished offices; and in one remarkable instance, which has been specially noticed in the preceding narrative, the profits of the suitors' cash were employed, to the extent of 21,000l. and upwards, in making good to the income of the Rolls' estate the dilapidations which had been occasioned therein, either by the laxity of Parliament itself in the creation of leasing powers, or by the unscrupulous manner in which those powers had been exercised by successive Masters of the Rolls. And when all these various purposes had been answered, how did the Legislature deal with the surplus profit? Having from time to time declared the same to be "unappropriated," it directed this unappropriated income to be carried over to a distinct and separate account, and to form a new fund, the income of which was, in its turn, applied to similar purposes. Thus it is that Fund B. has been gradually formed, and this latter fund is as much the child and creature of legislation as Fund A., from which it was originally derived. It appears to us that these various dealings are entirely inconsistent with, nay, utterly destructive of, the theory that the profit made by the employment of the suitor' cash belongs to the suitors. They shew, on the contrary, that Parliament, by whose direct interference alone the profit was made, expressly reserved to itself the right of directing the mode in which it should be applied, and the purposes to which it should be from time to time appropriated. The profit was made, not by the Court of Chancery, but by Parliament, and Parliament determined for itself the purposes for which the same should be employed. 68. But further, as the fund in question is alleged to be the property of the suitors, we must proceed to inquire to what suitors it so belongs. The cash from time to time invested was not the cash of individual suitors, but such portion only of the general floating balance of suitors cash, then lying dead and unemployed in the Bank of England, as was not required to answer current demands. The income arising from such investments was uniformly directed to constitute part of the "common and general cash of the suitors," and to be promiscuously used and applied to answer the purposes to which it was destined. All traces of individuality are therefore lost, and no suitor could point to, and as it were earmark, his own cash, and affirm that such cash had been the specific subject of investment and profit. It is in evidence before us that in 1826 Fund B. amounted to 537,8001. stock. This stock had been the produce of investments of the sur plus interest of Fund A. made at antecedent periods, from 1739 downwards. Upon what principle, then, could the suitors of 1860 claim to participate in the profits made by the employment of the cash of other suitors prior to 1826? Between the year 1739 and the present time cash to the amount of some hundreds of millions has been paid into and drawn out of court by suitors, and yet during the whole of this long period not one single suitor has ever received anything beyond the cash actually paid into court, or has claimed any portion of the profit to which we are referring. It appears to us that this fact conclusively proves that such profit was never considered to be the property of the suitors, either by the court or by the suitors themselves. 69. But it has next been suggested to us, that although individual suitors may have no property in Fund B., and no right to interfere with its appropriation, yet that the collective body of suitors have just ground for objecting to its application to any purposes other than those by which they, as a body, are immediately benefited; and consequently, that the application of any portion of Fund B. to the erection of common-law courts and offices would be a violation of their equitable and moral rights and claims. This argument is rested upon two grounds-first, that the fund in question, having been derived exclusively from the monies of the suitors of the Court of Chancery, ought not to be employed except for the benefit of the suitors of that court; and, secondly, that Parliament having uniformly and exclusively dedicated the income, from the surplus of which the fund in question has arisen, to purposes connected with the Court of Chancery, has thereby impressed the fund with a species of trust, which would be violated by the application of any portion thereof otherwise than for the benefit of the suitors of the Court of Chancery. JOHN RICHARD TEALE, Leeds, Yorkshire, cabinet maker, Aug. 27 and Sept. 17 at 11, Leeds: Off. Ass. Hope; Sol. Simpson, Leeds.-Pet. d. Aug. 10. WILLIAM KAYE, Clayton West, High Hoyland, Yorkshire, grocer, Aug. 27 and Sept. 17 at 11, Leeds: Off. Ass. Hope; Sols. Clough, Huddersfield; Bond & Barwirk, Leeds.― JOSEPH ROTHERY, Halifax, Yorkshire, watchmaker, Pet. d. Aug. 9. Sept. 3 and 27 at 11, Leeds: Off. Ass. Hope; Sols. Wavill & Co., Halifax; Bond & Barwick, Leeds.-Pet. d. Aug. 9. JOSEPH WILSON HORN, Penrith, Cumberland, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tobacco manufacturer, Aug. 22 at halfpast 11, and Oct. 10 at half-past 12, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Off. Ass. Baker; Sols. Harle & Co., 20, Southamptonbuildings, Chancery-lane, London, and Newcastle-uponTyne.-Pet. f. Aug. 9. JOHN DODD, Hexham, Northumberland, tanner, Aug. 22 at half-past 11, and Oct. 4 at half-past 12, Newcastleupon-Tyne: Off. Ass. Baker; Sols. Hodge & Harle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.-Pet. f. July 19. MEETINGS. Timothy Spencer, Woolwich, Kent, tailor, Aug. 25 at 12, London, aud. ac.-James William Fergusson, Paternosterrow, City, and New-court, Middle Temple, bookseller, Aug. 25 at half-past 11, London, aud. ac.-Wm. Albert Stapley, Old Compton-street, Soho, Middlesex, shoe mercer, Aug. 25 at 11, London, aud. ac.-Samuel Wright, Manchester, hotel keeper, Aug. 31 at 12, Manchester, aud. ac.-L. Alexander and Wm. Bardgett, Old Broad-street, City, merchants, Sept. 5 at half-past 11, London, div.-John Clarke, King's Lynn, Norfolk, victualler, Sept. 5 at 11, London, div.-Sir Charles Fox and John Henderson, Smethwick, Staffordshire; Newstreet, Spring-gardens, Westminster; and Fore-street, Limehouse, Middlesex, engineers, Oct. 29 at 11, Birmingham, div. sep. est. of John Henderson.-Jonathan Higginson and Richard Deane, Liverpool, merchants, Sept. 5 at 11, Liverpool, div. CERTIFICATES. before the Day of Meeting. 70. We have given to this argument all the consideration to which the learning, character, and station of To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or the eminent person by whom it has been propounded justly entitle it; but, after mature reflection, we find ourselves unable to concur therein. 71. In the first place, it appears to us to be founded upon a distinction between courts of equity and courts of law, for which there is, in our judgment, no just or solid foundation. We cannot but consider that all the courts, whether of law or of equity, including therein the Courts of Divorce and Probate, and the High Court of Admiralty, and all the branches of each court, whether judicial or administrative, form together one great system for administering justice, in which all the subjects of the realm have a common interest, and to which, therefore, any funds, from whatever source derived, if those funds are at the free disposal of Parliament, may be legitimately applied; and we think that this may be more confidently affirmed at a time when, as we have already observed, the tendency of legislation is to assimilate the courts of law and equity by an attribution to each of powers and functions hitherto exercised exclusively by one of them. (To be continued). REVISING BARRISTERSHIP.-The Lord Chief Justice has appointed John Hurrell, Esq., to the Revising Barristership on the Home Circuit, vacant by the appointment of Mr. Norton to the Mastership of the Crown Office in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Right Hon. Sir William Erle, Knt., Lord Chief Justice of her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, has appointed the following gentlemen to be Perpetual Commissioners for taking the acknowledgments of deeds to be executed by married women:Edward Tompson, of Stone-buildings, Lincoln's-inn, in and for the city of London, also in and for the city and liberties of Westminster, and county of Middlesex; and John Jones, of Southport, Lancashire, in and for the county of Lancaster. Wm. D. Hoad, Rye, Sussex, shipbuilder, Sept. 6 at halfpast 1, London.-James B. Dunn and Edwin F. A. Boyle, New-street, Spring-gardens, Middlesex, dealers in iron, Sept. 4 at 2, London.-John Cooper, Manchester, illuminated glass manufacturer, Sept. 6 at 12, Manchester.-Thomas Bonser, Plungar, Leicestershire, auctioneer, Sept. 12 at half-past 11, Nottingham.-Barchel Cherrington, Donington, 'Lincolnshire, druggist, Sept. 12 at half-past 11, Nottingham.-F. Ward, Nottingham, victualler, Sept. 12 at half-past 11, Nottingham. To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. Edward Callow, Billiter-street, City, shipowner.-George Drake, Eversholt-street, Camden-town, Middlesex, jeweller. -Thomas Holland, Godalming, Surrey, manufacturer of hosiery.-George H. Walton, Somerton, Somersetshire, linendraper.-Jonathan Hodge, Helston, Cornwall, silversmith.— Joseph Wall and Joseph Buxton, Manchester, wholesale grocers.-Wm. Kirk, John Wale, and John Kirk, Mountsorrel, Leicestershire, coal merchants.-Robert Luke Tyler, Spalding, Lincolnshire, wine merchant.-John Clarke, Lichfield, miller. John Yates, Oldbury, Worcestershire.-A. Wale, Nottingham, hosier.-Sarah Anne Aulton, Nottingham, smallware dealer.-George Oldfield and Robert Oldfield, Lichfield, millers.-Samuel Freeman and John Clifford, Leicester, elastic web manufacturers.-Thomas Palmer, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire, maltster.-Daniel Swift, Deeping St. James, Lincolnshire, butcher.-Thomas Sweetlove, Great Bridge, Staffordshire, chemist. Third Edition. In royal 8vo., price 17. 12s. cloth, PRIDEAUX'S PRECEDENTS IN CONVEY ANCING, with Dissertations on its Law and By CHITTY'S ARCHBOLD'S PRACTICE. 18 FREDERICK PRIDEAUX, Esq., Barrister at Law, Practice BY PRACTICE of the COURT of QUEEN'S BENCH Considerably enlarged and improved, both by the elaboration and ex. tension of the Dissertations, and by the addition of upwards of 100 Precedents. V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. SMITH'S MANUAL OF EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE. A MANUAL of EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, founded on "Story's Commentaries" and " Spence's Equitable Jurisdiction," and comprising, in a small compass, the Points of Equity usually occurring in Chancery and Conveyancing, and in the General Practice of a Solicitor. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Esq., Barrister at Law. Fifth Edition. In 12mo., (1856), price 10s. 6d. boards. V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. A V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. BURTON ON REAL PROPERTY.-Eighth Edition. N ELEMENTARY COMPENDIUM of the LAW of REAL PROPERTY. By W. H. BURTON, Esq. With Notes, shewing the Alterations in the Law to the present time. To which is now prefixed an Introductory Chapter, giving a concise Historical Outline of such Parts of the Law as have been the subject of Statutory Alteration. By EDWARD PRIESTLEY COOPER, Esq., Barrister at Law. V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. THE DECISIONS of the RIGHT HON. LORD EVERSLEY. in PERSONAL ACTIONS and EJECTMENT. By THOMAS CHITTY, Esq. Including the Practice of the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer. The Tenth Edition. By SAMUEL PRENTICE, Esq., Barrister at Law. In 2 vols. royal 12mo., price 27. 10s.cloth. A SUMMARY of the LAW relating to PLEADING and EVIDENCE in CRIMINAL CASES. With the Statutes, Precedents of Indictments, &c.; the Practice relating to them, and the Evidence necessary to support them. By JOHN JERVIS, Esq., (late Lord Chief Justice of her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas). The Fourteenth Edition. Including the Practice in Criminal Proceedings generally. By W. N. WELSBY, Esq., Barrister at Law, Recorder of Chester. H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane; and V. & R. Stevens & Sons, Bell-yard, Temple-bar. A LORD ST. LEONARDS' ACT. H. Sweet; V. & R. Stevens & Sons; and W. Maxwell. THE DECISIONS of the Right Honourable Lord Barrister at Law. EVERSLEY, late Speaker of the House of Commons, on Points of Order, Rules of Debate, and the General Practice of the House. The Second Edition, revised, corrected, and continued to the present time. By the Hon. ROBERT BOURKE, of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane, Fleet-street. V. & R. Stevens & Sons; H. Sweet; and W. Maxwell. BILLS In 12mo., price 88. 6d. cloth, of SALE. A TREATISE on the LAW of BILLS of SALE. With an Appendix, containing the Regis tration Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, and Precedents, &c. By FRED. C. J. MILLAR and J. R. COLLIER, Esqrs., Barristers at Law. V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn; and H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane. SHELFORD'S REAL PROPERTY STATUTES. In 1 vol. royal 12mo., price 258. cloth boards, the Sixth Edition, with numerous Alterations and Additions, of THE HE REAL PROPERTY STATUTES of WILLIAM IV and VICTORIA; including Prescription, Limitation of Actions, Abolition of Fines, &c., Payment of Debts, Wills, Judg ments, the Trustee Acts, and Leases and Sales of Settled Estates. With copious Notes of Decided Cases, and Forms of Deeds. By LEONARD SHELFORD, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. H. Sweet; W. Maxwell; and V. & R. Stevens & Sons. ARNOLD'S JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OUT OF SESSIONS. Just published, in 1 vol. 8vo., price 11. 68. in cloth boards, SUMMARY of the DUTIES of a JUSTICE of the PEACE OUT of SESSIONS. Summary Convictions. With an Introduction, numerous Notes, and a full Index. By THOMAS Magistrates. A A TREATISE on the RAILWAY and CANAL JAMES ARNOLD, of Lincoln's-inn, Esq., one of the Metropolitan TRAFFIC ACT, 1854, (17 & 18 Vict. c. 31); with all the Cases decided to the present time. To which is appended the Act, and Regulæ Generales made pursuant thereto. By GILMORE EVANS, B. A., Barrister at Law. H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane, Fleet-street. CHITTY'S (JUN.) LAW OF CONTRACTS, BY RUSSELL. A PRACTICAL TREATISE on the LAW of H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane, Fleet-street. H. Sweet; V. & R. Stevens & Sons; and W. Maxwell. Orders for THE JURIST given to any Newsman, or letter (post paid) sent to the Office, No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, or to V. & R. STEVENS & SONS, 26, BELL YARD, LINCOLN'S INN, will insure its punctual delivery in London, or its being forwarded on the evening of publication, through the medium of the Post-office, to the Country. Printed by HENRY HANSARD, at his Printing Office, in Parker Street, in the Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, in the County of Middle. sex; and Published at No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, in the Parish of St. Dunstan-in-the-West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, residing at No. 34, Porchester Terrace, Bayswater, in the County of Middlesex.-Saturday, August 18, 1860. This day, in 1 vol., with numerous Fac-similes, 148., THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT. MR. CHARLES READE'S NEW WORK. WANTED, by a Law Student, during the Long Vacation, the USE of a SET of CHAMBERS, with Bed BY AUTHORITY. In royal 8vo., price 78. 6d. cloth, PRICE 18. Juum; in the Temple Terms moderate. Apply, by letter, to P. M., THE CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ORDERS Jurist Office, No. 3, Chancery-lane. LA AW PRACTICE.-A GOOD CONVEYANCING PRACTICE, of fifty years' standing, in a small Market Town of one of the Midland Counties, to be DISPOSED OF by a Gentleman about to retire. There is also an excellent opportunity for cultivating a County Court and Magistrates' Practice. Apply, by letter, to "Pri," E. Cox, Law Stationer, Chancery-lane, London, W. C. ACCOUNT BOOKS. Simple forms and convenient sizes of ACCOUNT BOOKS, for large or small Practices, designed by Mr. G. J. KAIN, the Law Accountant, are, by permission, made and sold by WATERLOWS, Birchin-lane, E. C. (See Law List, 1860, pages 826 and 827). List free by post. INCE'S TRUSTEE ACTS. Second Edition.-In 12mo., price 58. cloth, A SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF THE TRUSTEE ACT, 1850, and the Extension Act of 1852; with References to other Enactments having relation to the same subject of the HIGH COURT of CHANCERY: with Regulations as to certain Fees and Charges. SE V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. SELWYN'S NISI PRIUS.-New Edition. V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. PEACHEY ON MARRIAGE AND OTHER FAMILY SETTLEMENTS. Recently published, in 1 vol. royal Svo., price 17. 168. cloth boards, A TREATISE on the LAW of MARRIAGE and other FAMILY SETTLEMENTS; with Precedents and Practical Notes. By JAMES PEARSE PEACHEY, of the Inner Temple,' Esq., Barrister at Law. A H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane, Fleet-street. NEW EDITION OF BEST ON EVIDENCE. FOURTH EDITION OF WILLIAMS ON PERSONAL Recently published, in 1 vol. 8vo., price 16s. cloth boards, matter; and with Practical Notes, and the Cases to the present time: PRINCIPLES of the LAW of PERSONAL PRO and an Appendix containing the above Acts. By HENRY BRET INCE, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Second Edition. V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. COSTS IN THE PROBATE AND DIVORCE COURTS. COSTS in the SUPERIOR COURTS of COM MON LAW, and PROBATE and DIVORCE, and in Conveyancing; also in Bankruptcy, Insolvency, Proceedings in the Crown Office, on Circuit, and at Sessions; in the County Court, and the Sheriffs' Court, London. Together with Costs of Interlocutory Rules and Orders under the Common-law Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854; Bills of Exchange Act, 1855; and the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. By JOHN SCOTT, Esq., Barrister at Law. Second Edition. V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. PERTY, intended for the Use of Students in Conveyancing. The Fourth Edition. By JOSHUA WILLIAMS, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at Law. H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane, Fleet-street. NEW EDITION OF SMITH (C. MANLEY) ON THE LAW This day is published, in 1 vol. royal 8vo., price 168. cloth boards, A TREATISE on the LAW of MASTER and SERVANT, including therein MASTERS and WORKMEN in BOWYER'S COMMENTARIES on UNIVERSAL POLLOCK'S PRACTICE PUBLIC LAW. By GEORGE BOWYER, Esq., M. P., D. C. L., Author of "Commentaries on the Constitutional Law of England," "Commentaries on the Modern Civil Law," &c. V. & R. Stevens & Sons, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. of the COUNTY COURTS; with the Decisions of the Superior Courts, and Tables of Fees. Also Appendices, containing all the Statutes, Rules of Practice, and Forms. In Two Parts. The Fourth Edition. By CHARLES EDWARD POLLOCK and HENRY NICOL, Esqrs., Barristers at Law. H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane, Fleet-street. G G |