wicks, so disposed that the ends always turn outwards," is not proved to be infringed by the mere production of a candle, made by the defen. dant, in which the wicks were so plaited and turned outwards. It must be further shown that the defendant made it by the method described in the plaintiff's specification, or in some way that the jury might consider colourable. (9 Ex. 494; L. J., N. S. Ex. 217.) SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. SOLICITORS will be glad to hear that the long talked of and contemplated amalgamation of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association with the Incorporated Law Society is practically un fait accompli, as will be seen from a report in another column the of proceedings at the twentyseventh annual general meeting specially held on the 11th inst. at the hall of the Incorporated Law Society. As we said long since in reference to this subject, union is strength, and we trust the council of the Incorporated Law Society will mark this important era in the history of the society by redoubled energy and exertion to promote the professional prosperity of our branch of the Profession. This amalgamation accomplished, let the council at once direct its attention to similar objects, with a view to additional acquisition of strength. Let it, in fact, work out to its conclusion the excellent plan of organisation so forcibly and reasonably urged by Mr. Marshall, of Leeds. This achieved, and we are perfectly satisfied that we shall then no longer endure unjust exclusion from judicial offices, a subordination to the other branch which is warranted neither by any supposed inferiority in legal or general education, social position, or a continued deprivation of the enjoyment of those professional posts productive of the most pecuniary benefit; neither shall we then suffer such an exile from the dignity of the Profession as is suggestive of an inferiority in the status of the legal profession, which in truth is not warranted by the labours, responsibilities, and, above all, relative positions of trust and confidence of the two branches of our common profession. THE subject matter of a letter which last week appeared in a London morning lay newspaper, under the title "Leases of the London Corporations," and which bore the signature "A Solicitor of Thirty Years' Standing," is certainly not without interest and importance to our Profession. For the information of our readers, and, indeed, at the request of an influential member of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, we print the letter in question in another column. A perusal of it shows that there has long existed a monopoly in reference to the legal conveyancing business in question, which cannot for a moment be justified, either on the ground of expediency or in the interests of the public or the Profession. The matter has only to be brought to the notice of the governing bodies in order to secure the omission of this objectionable clause or covenant from the deeds and documents in question. It must often enough occur that the lessee knows nothing of this covenant when he completes the transaction; and annoyed he may well be afterwards to find that instead of being able, in the usual way, to entrust subsequent dealings with the property to his accustomed solicitor, in whom he would have complete confidence, he must accept the services of those who, after all, cannot faithfully serve two masters.' Indeed, it must often happen that the unfortunate lessee, not content with the legal professional assistance rendered by those in the Profession (both branches) who represent the Corporations in question, is driven to seek the advice of his own solicitor, thus incurring double expense and delay. To solicitors practising in the City of London interested in this matter, and we presume most of them are, we commend the provisions of 36 & 37 Vict. cap. 48, by which the newly appointed Railway Commissioners can require railway companies to give "reasonable facilities for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering, or to cease giving an undue preference." The Profession and the public may, with equal propriety, demand, not only that reasonable facilities should be afforded the latter for entrusting their legal business, connected with the London Corporation, &c., to whom they please, but also that no undue preference should be given to those professional gentlemen who transact the legal business of such corporations. A LETTER signed "A. B.," which appeared in our last issue, upon the subject of the remuneration to which solicitors practising in County Courts are at present entitled, is well worthy of attention. It cannot be doubted that in consequence of recent legislation practitioners in our County Courts are expected to have, and generally speaking have, a far better knowledge of the law and practice of such courts than was formerly necessary, and it certainly constantly happens that although a sum sought to be recovered is small in amount, yet questions of much more serious importance, as well pecuniarily as other wise, are often involved in the dispute. Process can be issued in the Superior Courts for the recovery of any amount on payment of a court fee of 5s., whilst the court fees payable on the issue of the process from the County Courts are often of serious consideration for creditors. We should gladly see such court fees in certain cases reduced in amount, and such a system of professional remuneration introduced as would secure payment for professional services to be regulated according to the nature of the case undertaken. At present a solicitor's costs for recovery of a simple contract debt of say £22 is far in excess of what would be allowed to the same gentleman if in seeking to recover a sum nominal in amount he was called upon to argue certain points of law involving indirectly large and important interests to his clients. FROM a case which came under the notice of the Master of the Rolls in Dublin last week it seems that the Attorneys and Solicitors Act (Ireland) (29 & 30 Vict. c. 84) is in some respects very difficult of construction. The matter before the court was in the nature of an application by a gentleman to be admitted on the Roll of the Court of Chancery, notwithstanding that the Master of the court refused to furnish the applicant with the usual certificate, and the ground for the application seems to have been that, notwithstanding the reference in the Act contemplating five years' service, yet by sect. 9 of the Act all that is necessary is to attend two years' law lectures and pass the law examination in the University of Dublin." This the applicant had done, but this provision was inconsistent with other sections in the Act in question. The learned judge took time to consider the question raised. 66 THE Consolidated Regulations of the several Societies of Lincoln's-inn, the Middle Temple, the Inner Temple, and Gray's-inn, dated Michaelmas Term 1872, will, we sincerely hope, soon be brought under the notice of Parliament, especially upon the subject of that portion of them which practically excludes solicitors from being called to the Bar. Why should attorneys at the present day be ear-marked and proscribed by the benchers? Had the arbitrary power now assumed by the benchers been of earlier existence, the integrity, the intellectual qualifications, and distinguished services of many illustrious men would have been lost to the community, to say nothing of the individual injustice they themselves would have sustained. The following instances strongly support our view of this important question: Lord Tenterden was engaged in an attorney's office (that of Messrs. Sandys and Horton, of Craig's-court, Charing Cross), Mr. Bently was for a considerable time in one of the principal agency houses in London. Baron Thompson pursued his studies in an attorney's office, so did Lord Wynford and Sir William Grant. Lord Thurlow was articled to a solicitor in Bedford-row; so was Lord Hard. wick. Mr. Dunning was engaged in the duties of his father's office, who was a practising attorney; Lord Macclesfield actually practised as an attorney. Lord Kenyon served his articles with an attorney; Sir William Garrow was some time in a solicitor's office; so was Sir Samuel Romilly. Lord Gifford, afterwards Chancellor of Ireland, was regularly articled, as were also Sir George Wood and Mr. Justice Buller. In our own immediate times Mr. Serjeant Wylde, afterwards Lord Chancellor Truro, was for many years in extensive practice as an attorney. One of Her Majesty's present judges now presiding at Westminster (than whom no more able and efficient judge exists) would by the present rules of the Inns of Court have been among the proscribed. We believe our present distinguished Attorney. General was once a clerk or student in the office of his father, a practising attorney; he, too, would have fallen under the same ban of "expediency." We will add one instance more. Lord Brougham was known to declare publicly in the Court of Chancery that if he had to recommence his legal studies he would begin as a clerk in an attorney's office. The exclusion of which we complain is most illiberal and unjust, for each kind of labour in the Profession should surely be as a step in the ladder affording to capable men an opportunity to reach the highest aim of their ambition. Ir may not be generally known that in order to secure a call to the Colonial Bar, the applicant must either have been called to the bar in this country, or, in some cases, in other colonies; but if not so called, he must be first articled to an attorney in practice in the Superior Court or courts of the colony to the Bar of which he seeks to be called. The term of service varies, we believe, from three to five years, and at the expiration of the articles, the candidate is called upon to pass an examination before the judges of such court. In most of our colonies the two branches are united, that is, each member of the legal profession may act at one and the same time as attorney and advocate in the colonial Superior Courts. It would indeed be of the utmost advantage if a short term of service under articles to an attorney was necessary before a call to the Bar in this country. THE case of Neate v. Denman, recently before the Court of Chancery, is another striking instance calling for an investigation of the assumed power of those voluntary societies, as they are termed, and of their practical utility. The benchers of the Inns of Court, acting upon a resolution made by themselves on the ground of expediency, have decreed that (though attorneys for centuries had enjoyed the privilege of membership) they shall be treated as unworthy and unfit to become members of that society. For upwards of two centuries down to the year 1852, it was compulsory on attorneys to be admitted members of one of the Inns of Court. Many attorneys are now members of Gray's Inn, some for upwards of a quarter of a century. It is worthy of note that the rule of 1852, excluding attorneys, was passed by the benchers only on the ground of expediency. It came into operation in Trinity Term 1852, and is as follows:-19. "That it is expedient that no attorney at law, solicitor, writer to the signet, or writer to the Scotch courts, proctor, notary public, clerk in Chancery, parlia mentary agent, or agent in any court, original or appellate, clerk to any justice of the peace, or person acting in any of these capacities, and no clerk of or to any barrister, conveyancer, special pleader, equity draftsman, attorney, solicitor, writer to the signet, or writer to the Scotch courts, proctor, notary public, parliamentary agent, or agent in any court, original or appellate, clerk in Chancery, clerk of the peace, clerk to any justice of the peace, or of or to any officer in any court of law or equity, or person acting in the capacity of any such clerk, should be admitted a member of any of the said societies for the purpose of being called to the Bar, or of practising under the Bar, until such person, being on the roll of any court, shall have taken his name off the roll thereof, nor until he and every other person abovenamed or described shall have entirely and bond fide ceased to act or practise in any of the capacities above-named or described." So that if A. B. C. and D. are a firm of attorneys-at-law, and Mr. A. desires to become a member of Gray's Inn, he cannot accomplish that wish until B. C. and D. It is a have taken their names off the rolls. singular fact that several of the present benchers of Gray's Inn who pronounced the order of expulsion in reference to Mr. Gresham, jun., have been in their day themselves on the roll of attorneys and in practice as such. The average number of members attending in the hall (exclusive of the benchers) is about a dozen. During sixteen terms, extending over four years, and with an annual income of upwards of 28309 the Honourable Society of Gray's Inn, called only thirteen members to the Bar. As we have often before pointed out, four years' income (£33,372 13s. 8d.) is no inconsiderable sum. society's chambers are numerous and commodious, and till lately one member, we believe, was a holder of no less than forty-eight sets of chambers, which were underlet. Of the present barristers, members of the Inn, some are, we believe, engaged in commercial pursuits, cr are members of other professions than the law. Why should attorneys at the present day be ear-marked and proscribed by the benchers? Had the arbitrary power now assumed by the benchers been of earlier existence, the integrity, the intellectual qualifications, and distinguished services of many illustrious men would have been lost to the community, to say nothing of the individual injustice they themselves would have sustained. The following instances strongly support our view of this important question: Lord Tenterden was engaged in an attorney's office (that of Messrs. Sandys and Horton of Craig's-court, Charing Cross), Mr. Bently was for a considerable time in one of the principal agency houses in London. Baron Thompson pursued his studies in an attorney's office, so did Lord Wynford and Sir William Grant. Lord Thurlow was articled to a solicitor in Bedford-row; so was Lord Hardwick. Mr. Dunning was engaged in the duties of his father's office, who was a practising attorney; Lord Macclesfield actually practised as an attorney. Lord Kenyon served his articles with an attorney; Sir William Garrow was some time in a solicitor's office; so was Sir Samuel Romilly. Lord Gifford, afterwards Chancellor of Ireland, was regularly articled, as were also Sir George Wood and Mr. Justice Buller. In our own immediate times Mr. Serjeant Wylde, afterwards Lord The Chancellor Truro, was for many years in exten-advise upon the most difficult matters in criminal sive practice as an attorney. One of Her Majesty's law, and, on the other hand, is expected to appoint present judges now presiding at Westminster the laundress and superintend the day and night (than whom no more able and efficient judge watchmen." exists) would by the present rules of the Inns of Court have been among the proscribed. We believe our present distinguished AttorneyGeneral was once a clerk or student in the office of his father, a practising attorney; he, too, would have fallen under the same ban of "expediency." We will add one instance more. Lord Brougham was known to declare publicly in the Court of Chancery that if he had to recommence his legal studies he would begin as a clerk in an attorney's office. AN official return lately issued from the Admiralty shows that courts martial were held in the last quarter of 1873 on thirteen officers and fifty-two seamen and marines. It is greatly to be hoped that the authorities will, in their way, shortly be entering upon an investigation of the present cumbrous mode of conducting these proceedings. It is hardly to be believed that in these days the evidence before such courts is taken in such a laborious manner that proceedings last days which would otherwise last only so many hours. To any extent to which the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Alexander Milne, G.C.B.) has it in his power to contribute to such desirable reforms in reference to such proceedings, as we have often before urged in these columns, we are sure he will, and we can assure him that it is only necessary for him to bring to the knowledge of the Judge Advocate General the injustice which, owing to the present cumbrous machinery, both prosecutor and prisoners at times experience and the difficulties under which they labour, to secure such an investigation as will lead to healthy reforms. THE Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have been pleased to order the name of Mr. Edwin John Harvey, solicitor, of Portsea, and Deputy Coroner for the County of Hants, to be inserted in the Navy List as Admiralty Law Agent for the Port of Portsmouth. Mr. Harvey was articled to the late Mr. William John Hellyer, of Portsea, then Deputy Judge Advocate of the Fleet, and was admitted an attorney in Trinity Term 1855, and is now the senior partner in the firm of Messrs. Harvey and Addison. He acted for some years as deputy to Mr. William Swainson, the late Admiralty Law Agent and Coroner of the Port, and since that gentleman's decease, which took place in the early part of 1870, Mr. Harvey has discharged the full duties of the office. ELSEWHERE We print a portion of the proceed. ings which took place at the recent annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom. The most important resolution, which we are pleased to notice was unanimously carried, was moved by a commercial man from Leeds; and, as will be seen from our report, was in reference to the onus of proof as to ability to pay by a debtor, which by the Debtor's Act 1869, sect. 5, sub-sect. 2, is thrown upon the creditor. Every solicitor who has ever issued a summons under the above provision knows how serious is the injury inflicted upon creditors in consequence of this statutory provision. We quite agree that it is, in the terms of the resolution, "unjust and unreasonable." A defendant ought, we certainly think, to be liable to be committed for contempt when failing to attend and answer a judgment summons; instead of which the practice at present is to direct a second summons to issue calling upon the defendant to attend personally before the Judge, and if he then so attends any excuse usually relieves him from payment. A PRACTICE has long obtained by which the clerks of the London agents of sheriffs leave the successful party in interpleader summonses to draw up the order. On taxation the drawing up of such orders is invariably disallowed, and we, therefore, think it necessary to call attention to this point of practice, so that common law clerks may make a point of seeing that the sheriff draws up the order himself in all such cases, and which it is perfectly clear he is, strictly speaking, bound to do. A SOLICITOR who contemplated offering himself as a candidate for the office of Chief Clerk to the Lord Mayor of the City of London, writes to us as follows in reference to the duties and emoluments: I certainly never saw such conditions. A professional man is required to perform the most arduous and responsible duties in the greatest and richest city in the world, and is required to perform them and give up every other kind of business for £800 to £1000 a year. It seems most illiberal treatment. They want a man who, on the one hand, must be competent to IN consequence of numerous communications from solicitors in town and country who are commis. sioners to administer oaths in Chancery in England upon the subject of their rights and powers in reference to swearing affidavits for use in the Court of Chancery (Ireland), we print below the several sections of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 44 (The Chancery (Ireland) Act 1867), which in any way affects the question: Sect. 80. Nothing herein contained shall abridge or lessen the power of the Lord Chancellor, as it now exists, to appoint fit persons to administer oaths, and take affidavits in Chancery, or to regulate the fees to be taken by them, and where any Act of Parliament refers to the Masters Extraordinary in Chancery, or to their powers or duties, the reference shall be held to apply to and include the commissioners herein before mentioned, or to their powers or duties, as the case may than five years' standing shall be preferred for such be: Provided that solicitors and attorneys of not less appointments if otherwise suited thereto. missioners for taking affidavits in common law English country solicitors are often country comdirectly after admission. Sect. 81. All answers, disclaimers, examinations, and Court of Chancery in Ireland, and also acknowledgments affidavits in causes or matters depending in the High required for the purpose of enrolling any deed in the said court, shall and may be sworn and taken in England or Scotland, or the Isle of Man, or the tion, or place under the dominion of Her Majesty Channel Islands, or in any colony, island, plantain foreign parts, before any judge, court, notary public, or person lawfully authorised to administer oaths in such country, colony, island, plantation, or place, respectively, or before any of Her Majesty's consuls or vice-consuls in any foreign parts out of Her Majesty's dominions; and the judges and other officers of the said Court of Chancery shall take judicial notice of the seal or signature, as the case may be, of any such court, judge, notary public, person, consul, or vice-consul attached, appended or subscribed to any such answers, disclaimers, examinations, and affidavits, acknowledg. ments, or other documents to be used in the said court. Sect. 82. All persons swearing before any person authorised by this Act to administer oaths and take affidavits shall be liable to all such penalties, punish: ment, and consequences for any wilful and corrupt had been sworn before any court or person now by law false swearing contained therein as if the matter sworn authorised to administer oaths and take declarations, affirmations, or attestations upon honour. The reference to acknowledgments in sect. 81 does not seem to refer to acknowledgments of deeds by married women, as suggested by a correspondent in our last issue, but it seems clear that a commissioner to administer in common law in England can take affidavits for use in the Irish Court of Chancery. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. ARBITRATION-POWER OF JUDGE TO ENLARGE TIME FOR MAKING AWARD.-A superior court or a judge at chambers may enlarge the time for making an award beyond that fixed by the parties themselves in the agreement of reference: (Re Denton, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 52. Q.B.) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR BANKRUPT AND OUT OF THE COUNTRY-REVOCATION OF GRANT REFUSED.-An administrator became bankrupt, and in his capacity as administrator proved for a debt owing by him to the deceased's estate, a dividend became payable to the deceased's estate, but in the meantime the administrator became bankrupt again, and left the country. The court refused to recall the letters of administration granted to him, and to make a fresh grant to his creditors' assignee: (In the goods of Hammond, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 76. Prob.) SLANDER Words NOT DEFAMATORY SPECIAL DAMAGE.-An action for slander cannot be maintained for words which are not necessarily of a defamatory nature, even although special damage may have resulted to the person of whom they were spoken. Therefore a declaration alleging, with proper inducement and innuendoes, that the defendant falsely and maliciously said of the plaintiff, "He was the ringleader of the nine hours' system," and "He has ruined the town by bringing about the nine hours' system, and he has stopped several good jobs from being carried out by being the ringleader of the system at Llanelly," laying special damage, was held bad on demurrer (Miller v. David, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 58. C. P.) Two WILLS-RESIDUARY CLAUSE-REVOCATION-PROBATE.-A testatrix left two wills, by the first of which, after giving certain legacies, she bequeathed a life interest in the bulk of her property to her daughter, whom she nominated her residuary legatee. By the second will, which din not expressly revoke the first, she increased the legacies, but directed they should not be paid until the death of her daughter. The second will contained no residuary clause. The court granted probate of both papers, as together constituting the will of the deceased: (In the goods of E. Pechell, 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 74. Prob.) COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. The rights of judgment creditors. THIS was an appeal from a decision of ViceChancellor Malins, and it involved a question of some importance as to the rights of judgment creditors. On the 23rd Dec. 1872, in an action for seduction brought by Caleb Houghton against Thomas Denton South, the plaintiff recovered judgment for £500 damages and £62 costs. The damages were afterwards reduced to £300. At this time South was an infant, he having been born on the 16th Feb. 1853. Under the will of his grandfather he was entitled to an estate in fee simple in remainder in a house in Kent, expectant on the death of his grandmother, and subject also to the contingency of his dying before her. He was also, under the will of his father, entitled to an estate in fee simple in remainder in some land in Middlesex, expectant on the deaths of his grandforce his judgment, served out writs of elegit dimother and his mother. Houghton, in order to enrected to the sheriffs of Kent and Middlesex respecsheriff of Middlesex caused an inquisition to be tively. In pursuance of the writ directed to him the held on the 5th June, 1873, by which it was found that South was "seised in his demesne of the mentioned land," being of the clear yearly value reversion in fee simple" of and in the aboveof £124," and in his return to the writ the sheriff stated that he had caused the said land to be extent, to hold to him and his assigns" until the delivered to Houghton "by a reasonable price and balance remaining unsatisfied of the judgment should have been levied. A similar return was debt and costs, together with interest thereon, made by the sheriff of Kent, stating that the annual value of the property extended by him was £20. On the 3rd Nov. 1873, the judgment and the two writs of elegit having been duly registered, Houghton presented a petition to the Court of Chancery, under the Judgment Act of 1861 (27 & 28 Vict. c.112), praying for a sale of South's interest in the house in Kent and the land in Middlesex in order to pay what was due in respect of the judg Jan. 1874, South' paid to Houghton's solicitor On the 22nd ment debt, costs, and interest. costs, and interest, but notwithstanding this £382 16s. 9d. in discharge of the judgment debt, payment, the Vice Chancellor on the 20th Feb. made an order that South should within a month (South meanwhile having attained twenty-one) pay to Houghton his costs of the petition, including his costs of the writs of elegit and inquisitions, and any charges properly payable by him to the sheriffs in relation thereto, Houghton undertaking, if the payments were made punctually, to accept his costs out of pocket in full discharge, but without prejudice to his right to enforce payment of his whole costs in default of punctual payment. From this order South ap pealed, and the question raised was whether it was competent to the court under the circumstances to direct an estate in remainder to be sold in order to pay the sheriffs' charges. This turned upon the question whether, by means of a writ of elegit, an estate in remainder could, within the meaning of sect. 4 of the Jndgment Act of 1864, be "actually delivered in execution" to the creditor, or whether it was not necessary that there should have been an "equitable execution" by means of a suit in Chancery. There was the further question whether, as in this case, the sheriffs' return had been untrue in calling the estate of the debtor a "reversion" instead of a "remainder," and in stating that it had an annual value, whereas in fact it had none, any sale could be made of such interest as the debtor really had. E. C. Willis and Clare for the appellant. Everitt (with whom was Glasse, Q.C.) supported the Vice-Chancellor's order. Lord Justice JAMES was of opinion that the Vice-Chancellor's order could not be sustained. The case was governed in substance by the recent decision of the full Court of Appeal in Hatton v. Haywood (22 Weekly Reporter, 356), that there must be a suit in equity before this debtor's interest could be taken in execution. But in dependently of that, the sheriff's duty was to seize lands of which the debtor was seized or possessed." A man could not be said to be "seized or possessed" of a remainder. Whoever prepared the returns to the writs in this case must have been well aware of the difference between a remainder and a reversion. The petition asked for a sale of a remainder upon a return which stated that the debtor was seized of a reversion. It was much the same thing as if the return had stated that the debtor was seized of Blackacre, and the petition had asked for a sale of Whiteacre. The petition must be dismissed, and, inasmuch as it was presented only a few months before the debtor attained twenty-one, and the petitioner might as well have waited till then, it must be dismissed with costs. Lord Justice MELLISH Concurred. T. V.C. BACON'S COURT. VAUGHAN V. HALLIDAY. Specific appropriation-Ex parte Waring. THIS was a mercantile case, of some technical interest, relating to the equitable doctrine of specific appropriation. The doctrine was first mooted in a case in bankruptcy, Ex parte Waring, so long ago as 1815, before Lord Eldon. In that case the drawer of bills of exchange lodged certain short bills for the protection of the acceptee. On the bankruptcy of both drawer and acceptee, both estates being liable to the holders, a question arose between the assignees as to which was entitled to the short bills which had been appropriated to meet the joint liabilities. Lord Eldon then held that, in order to clear both estates from the liability, the property held in stake was to be applied directly in paying the bills, and that the billholders were therefore entitled by a kind of parasitical equity or right. Though cases similar to Ex parte Waring are continually arising in the Court of Chancery, the exact circumstances which were now brought before the court were novel. Messrs. Ryder carried on business as Brazilian merchants at Liverpool, Bahia, and Pernambuco under slightly different names. Mr. F. W. Ashton, merchant and cotton spinner, of Manchester and elsewhere, was for some years engaged in bill transactions with Messrs. Ryder's Brazilian firms. The Bahia firm was in the habit of drawing bills, to the limit of £2000 a month, on Mr. Ashton, and sending other bills drawn on England, for Mr. Ashton to sell and appropriate the amount realised to meet his liabilities on his own acceptances. In Aug. 1871, Messrs. Ryder's Bahia firm drew three bills, for £800, £700, and £500 respectively, on Mr. Ashton, which were sold in Bahia and ultimately came into the hands of the plaintiff, Mr. Charles Vaughan, of Manchester. Mr. Wiatt, Messrs. Ryder's Bahia manager, bought two bills, one for £900 the other for £1000, and sent them in a letter to Mr. Ashton, dated the 8th Sept. 1871, by which, after advising the drawing of the three bills, purchased by the plaintiff, he wrote, "Remit. To cover the above exchange operations we enclose 90 days' sight bill," with a description of the two bills for £1900, which were drawn by the Bahia branch of the Brazilian Bank on their London branch. The bills drawn on Mr. Ashton were presented to him on the 2nd October 1871, but, owing to the then recent failure of Messrs. Ryder, his affairs were so embarrassed that he refused to accept them. Mr. Ashton was soon after adjudicated bankrupt, and Mr. H. W. Banner appointed trustee of his estate. Mr. C. W. Ryder, the surviving partner in all Messrs. Ryder's firms, filed a petition for liquidation of his estate by arrangement, and Mr. James Halliday was pointed his trustee. The plaintiff claimed to have the Brazilian Bank bills, which were in the hands of Mr. Halliday, applied to meet the bills he held, and instituted this suit to enforce his claim, making both Mr. Halliday and Mr. Banner parties. It was contended by both the defendants that, inasmuch as the bills held by the plaintiff had never been accepted, and Mr. Ashton's estate being, therefore, under no liabilities in respect of those bills, the rule in Ex parte Waring could not apply, and that, but for other circumstances, the securities ought simply to be handed back to the trustee of Messrs. Ryder, because the purpose for which Messrs. Ryder had intrusted the securities to their correspondent had failed as between themselves. Mr. Halliday contended that the estate be represented was entitled to a lien on the securities in respect of a general balance. Mr. Banner. on the other hand, claimed the benefit of the securities as having been assigned for a specific purpose only, which had failed. This question, however, was not directly before the court. tance had been earmarked to meet the particular SHAND v. DU BUISSON. H. M. Jackson, Q.C. and Bardswell for Poola- The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the defendant had failed to establish a good debt, and directed an inquiry of what was due to the plaintiffs for principal, interest, and costs, which was to be paid them out of the fund in court. put forward for this objectionable practice is, that it secures to the lessors, through their officer, an opportunity of knowing upon what terms the leasehold interest is changing hands, and thus enabling them, when the lease falls out, to obtain the highest rent the property will carry. But this object can be equally secured by prescribing that every assignment or underlease for a given term shall within a fixed period from its execution be brought to the lessor's solicitor or law clerk to have the contents noted. The provision objected to is not to he found in the leases of houses on the Duke of Westminster's, the Duke of Portland's, the Duke of Bedford's, the Duke of Devonshire's, Lord Portman's, the Pollen, or the Sutton estates, or those held under Smith's Charity, nor, So far as I know, in leases of any of the great estates throughout the kingdom, except those belonging to or managed by city corporations, including the hospitals and livery companies. It so happens that an eminent city firm are solicitors to one of the noblemen above-mentioned, and also to a great city corporation. The leases of the estate belonging to the nobleman contain no such clause. It is invariably inserted in the leases of the corporation property under their management. It may be argued that these bodies have a right to impose what conditions they please in the letting of their own property; but such provisions are surely in excess of their powers in granting leases of the large trust properties committed to their care. The impropriety of introducing such provisions has been pointed out to the Charity Commissioners, who fully admitted their injurious tendency, but thought it was not quite within their province to interfere. It is by no means clear that the enforcement of these covenants might not be resisted as contrary to public policy, but until some one is found with sufficient spirit to try the question, the only alternative seems to be to endeavour to bring public opinion to bear upon this objectionable (not to say disreputable) practice.—I am, Sir, yours, "A SOLICITOR OF THIRTY YEARS' STANDING." HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. BROWN (Maria Mangin), whose maiden name is alleged to have been Maria Charlotte Sophia Mangin, and whose mother's maiden name is alleged to have been Sarah Kemp. Next of kin to come in by May 30, at the chambers of V.C. M. June 29, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE FREEMAN (Right Hon. John Thos.), Lord Redesdale. LEASES OF THE LONDON CORPORATIONS. THE following letter appears in the Daily News: "Attention has been directed of late, on several occasions, to the conditions of tenancy, more especially as affecting the agricultural class, and the policy of effecting some arbitrary restrictions has been somewhat freely discussed. There is a growing feeling that property having its duties as well as its rights, the law should step in to abrogate, or at least modify, unreasonable and oppressive conditions, as being not only unfair to the ap-tenant, but indirectly injurious to the community at large. The discussions have been limited to the tenancy of land, but there is a class of conditions affecting that of house property held under certain great bodies within the metropolis which certainly call for some interference. It may not be generally known that it is the practice of the law officers of the London Corporations to insert in their leases covenants binding the lessee, under pain of forfeiture, to employ such law officer or solicitor to prepare all instruments (except wills) affecting in any way his leasehold interest. The lessee, therefore, who wishes to assign or mortgage his lease, or even to underlet the property (for any of which purposes he must furthermore obtain a licence from the landlord), is required to employ, for the preparation of the necessary documents, a person who may be, and generally is, a perfect stranger to him, and who, in a large number of cases, has had no legal train. ing. If the course prescribed by the covenant be ESSEX SHRIEVALTY FUND FOR DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES strictly followed, the business has to wait the leisure or convenience of the lessor's law officer, who acts under no sense of responsibility, and who, in the case of a mortgage, must be fully instructed in all the special arrangements agreed upon between the parties. This absurdity, however, is almost invariably avoided by payment of a fine (generally fixed at £5) which the law officer accepts as compensation for not being required to do the work. The practice, no doubt, originated with the law officers, who Kay, Q.C., and Giffard appeared for the plain- Bardswell for Mr. Banner. The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after stating the facts, said, as between receiver and remittee, the equities were the same as existed up to the bankruptcies. The securities were sent to cover the acceptances, and for nothing else. Neither Ashton nor any one else through him could honestly claim the securities for any other purpose. It had been argued that the principle in Ex parte Waring did not apply, inasmuch as there had been no acceptance. The cases were different to that extent, no doubt, but the principle did apply to this case, and if there had been any doubt on that point it would have been set at rest by the decision of Re Richardson (2 Law Jour. Bank. 23.) The securities had been as. signed, coupled with a trust which, under the circumstances, enured for the benefit of the plaintiff; they were sent for a specific purpose, which the accident of bankruptcy prevented being carried out in the way intended. But the remit S&W an opportunity of turning this power to account for their personal benefit, and it is still adhered to in leases granted by the municipal corporation, although its law officers are paid by salary, and all fees received are paid to the City Chamber, and with many of the City companies it seems resorted to as a means of eking out the clerk's remuneration. It is the client's grievance, for he must either pay the fine, or (unless he foregoes the assistance and advice of the solicitor whom he has been consulting up to the point of the preparation of the document) pay two solicitors' bills. When, as is often the case, two solicitors are employed, questions arise as to who is to bear the charges of the lessees' solicitor, and the settlement of this question again entails further expense. The plea APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. AUVERGNE BITUMINOUS ROCK AND PAVING COMPANY (LIMITED). Creditors to send in by April 16 their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to Smart and Marmont, 85, Cheap-ide. London, the official liquidators of the said company. April 30; at the chambers of V.C. M. at twelve o'clock is the time appointed for hear ing and adjudicating upon such claims. OF THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ESSEX-Creditors CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. CHUTER (Chas. S.), Hounslow, Middlesex, builder. April April 18; Samuel J. H. James, solicitor, 62, Lincoln's-inn fields, London. PERRIN (Samuel H.), 6, St. Stephen's-terrace, Lewisham, Kent, and 15, King-street, Cheapside, London, solicitor April 17; L. W. Gregory, solicitor, 15, King-street, Cu.ap. side. May 2; M R., at eleven o'clock. PUDGE (Wm.), Castle Frome, Hereford, butcher and farmer. April 2; Thos. Wm. Garrold, solicitor, Hereford. April 14; V. U. M.. at twelve o'clock. STANLEY (Henry Wm), 185, Clarendon road, Notting-hill, Middlesex, pawnbroker. April 20; S. Risley, sol citor. 14, Gray's inn-square, London. May 1; V.C. M.. at 12 o'clock. SYMONDS (Edwd.), 19, St. James-road, Victoria Park, Middlesex, gentleman. April 10; H. Harris, solicitor, 84, Moorgate-street, London. April 20; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. WEBSTER (John), Manchester, solicitor. April 6; A. B. Carpenter, solicitor, s, Elm-court, Temple, London. April 13; V.C.M., at twelve o'clock. WHITLEY (Mary), Row of Irees, Chorley, Chester. April 13: A. D. Edwards, solicitor. Drazenose-street, Manchester. April 20; M. R., at eleven o'clock. WOODFALL (Ann), 13, Camden Avenue. Peckham, Surrey, widow. April 20; J. Brennan, solicitor, Maidstone. May 4: M. R., at eleven o clock. WOODFALL Chas.), Glenview, Neilzherries, Madras, and 13, Camden avenue. L'eckham, Surrey, a major in the Hon. East India Company's Service. July 17; John Brennan, solicitor, Maidstone. July 31; M. R., at eleven o'clock CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ALDERSON (Rev. Edinund), Aslackby, Lincoln. April 15; T. H. Oldinan, solicitor, Gainsborough. BARNETT (Win.), 50, Holloway Head, Birmingham, ale and wine dealer. May 13; Wm. Cottrell, solicitor, 104, Newhall-street, Bi mingham. BARTLEY (Henry J., 50, Somerset-stroet, Portman-square, Middlesex, and 19, Abbey-place, St. John's-wood, and also of 4, Nelson-crescent, Ramsgate, Kent, gentleman. April 0; Bartley and Co, solicitors, 30, Somerset street, Portman-square, Middlesex ་ BEARBLOCK (Elizabeth). Rockstone, Ryde, Isle of Wight, spinster. April 15; Clifton and Haynes, solicitors, Komford, Essex. BEISLY (Sidney), The Cedars, Laurie Park, Sydenham, Kent, Esq. May 1; Pattison, Wigg, and Co., solicitors, 50, Lombard-street, Lon on. BELL (Isabella T., Merton Abbey, Merton, Surrey. April 21; Wm. A. Crump, solicitor, 1, Pilpot lane, Lond n. BIRCH Rev. Edward M.), Kirby-Moorside, York, clerk. May 18; Wm. Gray. solicitor, York. BISHOP (Anthony C.), Guestling, Sussex, gentleman. May 7: Meadows and Elliott, solicitors, 32, Havelock-road, Hastings. BORMAN (Josiah, 14, Aberdeen Park, Highbury. Middlesex and Shoe-lane, London, emery manufacturer. May 4; J. Edwin Carter, solicitor, 64, Austinfriars, London. BROTHERS (Mary), St. Paul, Deptford, New Cross, Kent, spinster. April 1; Williams and James, solicitors, 62, Lincoln's inn flel's, Middlesex. BROWN (Richard, Luton, Beds, timber merchant, April 4; Holams and Co., solicitors, M neing-lane, London. CEARNS (Ed. P., Beckenham, Kent, solicitor. May 10; Lowless, Nelson and Co., solicitors, 26, Martin's-iane, Cannon-street, London. CORDEAUX (Samuel), 65, Camden-square, Camden Town, Middlesex, Kentleman. April7; R. and E Bastard, solicitors, 2, Brabant-court, London. COK (Henry M.), Woodford Farm, Plympton St. Mary, Devon, yeom n. April 5; Deane and Co. solicitors, 14, South-square. Gray's-inn, London. CORNWALL (Geo., Parkview, near Bandon. Cork, late of 108, Jermyn-street, Middlesex, a major in H.M.'s 93rd Regiment of Highlanders. March 30; Dean and Co. solicitors, 14, South-quare, Gray's-inn, London. CROSLEY (Jas.), Lee s. chemist ani druggist. March 31; Henry Snowden, solicitor, Leeos. DYTE Henry, ate of 6, King's Bench-wa'k, Temple, London. and 12, Wa erloo-road, formerly of 6, Tillotsonpace, Waterloo Bridge, Surrey, gentleman. April 15; Wm. Venn, solicitor, 3, New-inn, Strand, Middlesex. EDEN (Sir Wra), Bart, windstone, Durham May 1; Watkins, Baker, and Baylis, solicitors, 11, Sackvillestreet, London. ELLIOTT (Andrew, otherwise Andrew Corrie, or Corrie), 155, Belgrave-street, Balsall Heath, near Birmingham, gentleman. May 1; D. Dimbleby, solicitor, 15, Bennett'shdi. Birmingham. FRIEND (Geo., formerly of 17, Canonbury Park, Islington, Middlesex, late of 1, Magdalen-teriace, St. Leonard's-onSea, Sussex. April 15; Johnson and Coote, solicitors, 11, Wardrobe-place, Doctor's-commons, London. GREEN (St. John), formerly a Lieutenant in H.M.'s 13th Regiment of L.I, late of Bedford, Esq. May 30; Jas. Pearse, solicitor, Bedford. GRIEVES (Richard), 2, Pruchce-place, Newcastle-uponTyne, gentleman. May 1; J. G. and J. Joel, solicitors, 1, Newgate-street, Newcastle-upon Tyne. HAZELDINE (Am), Danemore, Godstone, Surrey, widow. May 31; C. We lborne, solicitor, 17, Duke-street, Londonbridge, London. HENDERSON (John), Amble, Northumberland, fish curer. April 1; Allan and Davies, solicitor, 23, Granger-street, Newcastle upon-Tyne. HENLEY (Sarah F.), Thornton-villa, Richmond-hill. Clifton, Bristol. April 2: Sa man, Henley, and Co., Eolic tois, 85, Lincoln's-inn fields, London. HOLLOWAY Jane, Brewer's-green, Wallington Surrey, widow, wadding and mattress manufacturer. April 10; J. Murray, soliciter. 7, Whitehel-place, London. JOHNSON (Robert, formerly of Pageant's Wharf, Rotherh the, Surrey, and late of Forest Villa, Queen's-road, Buckhurst-hill, Essex, timber merchant. May 5; R. and A. Russell, solicitors, 19, Coleman-st eet, London. KINGDON (John H.), formerly of Chipping Norton, Oxford, wine merchant, late of 10, The Grove, Boltons, South Kensington. June 30; A. L. and A. C. Rawlinson, solicitors, Chipping Norton. LUCAS (Horatio J.), 5, Westbourne-terrace, Hyde park, and 13, New Broad street, London, merchant. April 22; circus, London. Samp on. Samuel and Emanuel, solicitors, 36, Finsbury LUDLOW (Rev. John T.), formerly of Compton Greenfield, Gloucester. April 6; J. Cooke and Sons, solicitors, Shannon-court. Corn-street, Bristol. LUEK (Cla. A. W.), Arundel Wharf House, Strand, Middlesex, coal merchant. April 11; G. R. Innes, solicitor, 106, Fenchurch-street, London. LUNXIS (Jas, Halesworth, Suffolk, yeoman. April 4; Cross and Ram. solicitore Halesworth. MEYER (Geo Victoria Hotel, Sheffield, hotel keeper. April 0; Smith and Hinde, solicitors, 17, Bank-street, Sheffield. NORRIS Wm.), late of the Crescent, Anglesey, near Gosport, Southampton, formerly a captain in H.M.'s Rifle Brigade. April 30; Oliver and Son, solicitors, 61, Careystreet, Lincoln's Inn, London. NORTH Chas.), Chesterfield, high bailiff. June 30; W. and B. Wake, solicitors, Castle Court, Sheffield. PAINTER (Thos.), formerly of Uffington, Berks, late of Uxmore Farm, Ipsden, Oxford, farmer. May 1; Crowdy and Son, solicitors, Faringdon, Berks. PARKER Rev. Edwin J. B.D., vicar of Waltham St. Lawrence, Berl s. April 30; Oliver and Sons, 61, Carey-street, Lincoln s-inn, Middlesex. Sparshoult, near Wantage, Berks, 1, Bedford-row, London. PONCIA (Joan, Chad House, Edgbaston, Warwick, mar chant. April 30 Sanders and Saith, solicitors. 13. PRIEST, otherwi e DUDLEY (Sophia), 83, Upper Seymour Temple-row, Birmingham. the ap PAYNE Dr. Chas. H., M.D., formerly of The Hill, Wimble- questions and matters shall be heard and disposed don, Surrey, late of 2, Stiriand-road, Maida Vale. Pad-of by one of the judges upon the rota, if praticable, dington, Middlesex. May 1; Rhodes and Son, solicitors, and if not, then by any judge at chambers." By 63, Chancery-lane, London. POLE (Edward S. C., Radburne Hall, near Derby. Park 57th General Order, it is provided that Hall, near Chesterfield, 14. Lewes.crescent, Brighton, plication to state a special case may be made by aud of Rugby, Esq. April 30; Gregory and Co., solicitors, rule in the Court of Common Pleas when sitting, or by a summons before a judge at chambers, upon hearing the parties." Reading the 37th and 41th General Orders together, the intention appears to have been to meet the very exigency that has arisen. The 37th General Order may be said to refer to such a judge as is pointed out by the 41th Rule, that is to say, a judge of the rota. [DowSE, B.-The rule is constructed in a rather slipshod manner; and there is no precedent to go by, as there has been only one similar application made since the passing of the Act, and that was made before Keogh, J., who was also a judge of He acted in his capa the Common Pleas.] The Vicara ze, Bibury, Gloucester, Vicar of Bibury. June 31; A. Dobie, solicitor, 2, Lancaster pace, Strand, London. SPERLING Heury J. S. No, formerly of Hampstead, Middiesex, late of 7, Bath-street, Brighton, Sussex, Esq. April 15; Baron, Yeates, and Hart, solicitors, 25, Chaucers-lane, London. street, Poranan-square, Middlesex. spinster. April 20; Chas. Holt and Son, solicitor, 93, Guildford-street, London. RAYNSFORD (Henrietta C.), 11, Keppel-street, Bloomsbury, Middlesex, widow. Ap122; A. F. and R. W. Tweedie, solicitors, 3, Lincoln'-inn-fields, London. RYDE (Harriet, Glenburne, West-end, Southampton, widow. April 30; Green and Moberly, solicitors, 10, Portland-terrace, Southampton. SMITH (Sir Francis P., Kn., Curator of the Patent Office Museum, South Kensington, lace of 15, Thurloe-place, South Kensingtou, Middlesex. April 10; F. W. Pamphilon, solicitor, 3, John-street, Adelphi Middlesex. SNOW (Re. Henry STACE (Elizabeth, commonly known as Elizabeth Laura), Gloucester House, Melcombe Regis, Dorset, schoolmistress. May 1; Phelps and Sidgwick, solicitors, S, Gres ham-street, London. STATHAM Thos.), Prospect-place, Topsham-road, near Exeter, gentleman. March 25; Geare and Co., solicitors, Queen-street, Exeter. SUMNER Wm.), formerly of Birmingham, Warwick, che nist, and late of Sparkbrook, near Birmingham, hop dealer. April 22; Sole and Co., Solicitors, 65, Aldermanbury, THOMPSON (Wm. G., 15. Dalston-terrace, Dalston, Middle London sex, gentleman. Ap i!25; Satchell and Chapple, solicitors, Queen-stre-t. Cheapside, London. TOLLMAN (thos.), formerly of the Devonshire Arms, Sherwood-street, Golden square, Middlesex, licensed victualler, and late of 2, South-ilas, Ealing, of no occupation. April 15; Shen, Roscoe, aud Massey, olicitors, Bedfordrow, London. VACHE, otherwise Wache (Marie M, 17, Somerset street, Portman-square, Middlesex, spinster. April 2; Anderson and Sons, solicitors, 17, Ironmonger-line, Cheapside, WARD (Thos) Melton Mowbray, Leicester, gentleman. London. May 1: E. I. M. Clarke, solicitor, Melton Mowbray. WHITE (Mary), 3, Pennsylvania, Exeter, widow. April 25; T. J. Bremridge, solicitor, Bampfylde-street, Exeter. WHITTINGTON (Adelaide S. S.),ormerly of 19, Orsett-terrace. Bayswater, late of 30, Weymouth-street Portlandplace, Middlesex, widow. May 1; J. W. Smith, solicitor, 3. Furnival's-mm, London. WOOLVERTON (James), Bramley, Surrey, gentleman. April 15; R. E. Mellersa, solicitor, Godalming, Surrey. ELECTION LAW. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (IRELAND). (From the Irish Law Times.) (Before DowsE, B., in Chamber.) Saturday, Feb. 28. O'DONEL . TIGHE AND ANOTHER.-SHIEL v. ENNIS AND ANOTHER. 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, s. 11, c. 16-37 General Rules 1868-Jurisdiction of judge on the rota, not being a judge of the Common Pleas. Motion to have the case raised by a Parliamentary election petition stated as a special case refused, the motion being made to a judge on the rota as election judge who was not a judge af the Court of Common Pleas, instead of being made to the Court of Common Pleas, or to a judge of that court on the rota in chamber. APPLICATIONS on behalf of the petitioners in the Mayo County and Athlone County Election Petitions respectively, to have special cases stated pursuant to the provisions of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, s. 11, c. 16, which provides: "Where, upon the application of any party to a petition made in the prescribed manner to the court, it appears to the court that the case raised by the petition can be conveniently stated as a special case, the court may direct the same to be stated accordingly, and heard before the court, and the decision of the any such special case shall, as far as may be, be court shall be final, and the court shall certify to the Speaker its determination in reference to such special case." The same point arising in both applications, they were, at the request of the court, argued together by the respective counsel. Armstrong, Serjt., for petitioners in the Mayo case, and (with him David Fitzgerald) for petitioners in the Athlone case.-By 44th General Order, it is provided that "all interlocutory questions and matters, except as to the sufficiency of the security, shall be heard and disposed of before a judge, who shall have the same control over the proceedings under the Parliamentary Elections farma April George Sheppard, Esq., Warblington, proceedings of the Superior Courts, and such Act 1868, as a judge at chambers in the ordinary PHILIPS (Henry R. B. near Havant, Hants. city as one of the judges on the rota. The order does not say that the application shall be made to "the Common Pleas, or to any judge thereof." The words are "a judge," which must mean any judge; the other construction would be a narrow one. If all the judges of the Court of Common Pleas were out of town, great delay and inconvenience would arise, unless it were held that a judge of another court on the rota could entertain the application. Purcell, Q.C. (with him Costello), for respondents in the Athlone case.-This application can only be made to the full Court of Common Pleas, or to a member of that court. The Act confers this power upon the "Court." By sect. 2 that word is defined to mean the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster or Dublin respectively. It is, therefore, plain that, unless there is some alteration caused by the rules which the judges are authorised to make by sect. 25, there is no jurisdiction, except in the Court of Common Pleas. Rule 37 only says such application shall be made to the Court of Common Pleas when sitting, or to a judge in chambers; and such a judge in chambers must manifestly mean a judge of the same court. Sheridan, for respondents in the Mayo case. DowSE, B.-The way the matter stands is this: This application is made to me under sub-sect. 16 of the 11th section of the Parliamentary Elections Act 1868. The 11th section of that Act deals with the trial of election petitions, and the 16th clause provides that if, upon the application of any party, it appears to the court that the case the court may direct it to be stated, and any such raised can be conveniently stated as a special case, special case may be heard by the court, and the decision of the court shall be final, and the court is to certify its determination to the Speaker of the House of Commons. The judges upon the rota are to hear and try the petition; but the present motion is to take the case out of the order of hearing before a judge in the country, and to make it, as it were, a question for demurrer, as contradistinguished from a case at Nisi Prius, and there is every reason why that application should be in strictness heard and decided by a judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and even by the full court. I have no jurisdiction except that conferred by the statute. The court that directs the case to be stated is the court that finally decides the case; and on referring to the interpretation clause of the Act, the word "court" is defined to mean the Court of Common Pleas at Dublin. Under the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act this word "court generally means the full court, though there are cases where it has been held to be applicable to a judge. The Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 gives the judges full power to make general orders, which are to have a statutory force. These rules so made are copied totidem verbis from the English rules, the judges wisely doing so for the sake of uniformity. Rule 37 prescribes that the application is be made to the Court of Common Pleas when sitting, which I take to mean the full court; but, considering that election petitions arise suddenly, and that the Court of Common Pleas only sits in banco for about twelve weeks in the year, the rule then provides that, if not before the court-that is, supposing the full court not to be available-the application may be made before a judge in chamber. But it seems to me that the words "a judge" there mean a judge of the Court of Common Pleas in chamber; and I think that the three learned judges who drew up the rule so intended. 44th General Order, in providing for interlocutory I am strengthened in that opinion because the motions, prescribes that they may be dealt with before a judge of the rota if practicable, and if not, before any judge at chamber." There the word "any" is used. Another difficulty I feel is, that supposing I were to entertain the applica tion, has the party against whom I would in such case decide the opportunity of controlling my decision? There is no appeal given. So that if, on the present application, I were to make an order to state a case, and if, when it came before diction to make the order, and if the court were the court, it were contended that I had no juris to allow that objection, what would be the result? I am not ambitious to undertake duties not imposed upon me by the terms of the statute, whilst at the same time I am willing to do whatever is imposed on me. There being no appeal if I were to grant the order, and entertaining as I do, not indeed a positive opinion, but a grave doubt as to my jurisdiction, I shall make no rule on these applications, saying nothing as to costs. No rule. Attorney for petitioners in both cases, Dillon. Attorney for respondents in Mayo case, Griffin and Plunkett. Attorneys for respondents in Athlone case, Costello. MAGISTRATES' LAW. JUDGES AT THE MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. MR. SERJEANT Cox writes to the Times: "Sir,A Bill is about to be submitted to Parliament to regulate the salary of the Assistant-Judge. Permit me, through your influential columns, to prefer the claim of the Second Court to be provided for in the same enactment. Having for nearly five years discharged the duties of judge of that court, I am enabled to state the facts, which will, doubtless, be a surprise to your readers. In this Second Court there are tried yearly upwards of 600 prisoners. One-eighth of the crime of England and Wales sent to a jury is disposed of at these sessions, and the offences are not of the same petty character as are those usually dealt with at quarter sessions. Metropolitan crime bas many peculiar features. It includes an extraordinary number of ingenious frauds, often involving difficult and complicated questions of law and fact. To deal satisfactorily with London crime demands much knowledge of localities, persons, the habits, the practices, and even the faces of its habitual criminals, such as can be acquired only by long experience. Skilled police magistrates dispose of all the more simple and trifling cases, and those alone are sent for trial which have in them something special. Hence it is that in the importance and difficulty of its business, as well as in the number of cases tried, this court is second only to the Central Crimiual Court. "The sessions are held fortnightly throughout the year, with three exceptions, when there is an interval of a fortnight. Usually they occupy one whole week, and often extend far into the next. I have no vacation. I have now sat for five years without a single holiday, and in that time have tried upwards of 4000 criminals. And for all this the payment is 5 guineas per day. In no year has the total exceeded £650, that is to say, just onehalf the salary of a police magistrate, and not one. half that of a County Court judge. Of the other qualifications required for a judge in such a court it would not become me to speak. "I venture to appeal to Parliament and to the public alike against the amount and the manner of payment. The judge of the second court of these sessions- the second criminal court in England-is the only judge in England paid by the day, and there is no other judge, nor even a recorder, who is not rewarded more liberally. "I have no personal motive for submitting this complaint. I have undertaken the office because I like the employment, and I would willingly discharge its duties were it only a post of honour. But ask for a revision of the present manner and amount of remuneration for the honour of all judges, for the credit of this court, in the interest of my successors, and as due to the administration of justice. OXFORD CIRCUIT STAFFORD. Saturday, March 14. Underhill prosecuted. Young defended the prisoner. COMPANY LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. | avoidable absence without the present inconve- The facts of the case were these: The prisoner was an old woman verging on eighty years of age, who lived at Wednesbury, and the prosecutor was a young Irish labourer who lodged in her house. In the early part of the year the prosecutor had saved a sum of £12 in gold, which he was in the habit of carrying about with him, having nowhere to put it. The prisoner represented to him that this was an unsafe proceeding on his part, and suggested that she should keep his money for him. This offer the prosecutor accepted and gave her the £12, which she put into a box, on the terms, as he said, that she should keep it safe for him and give it him when he wanted it. Subsequently, on different occasions, he gave the prisoner two more sovereigns to take charge of. On the 3rd March prosecutor's cousin, John O'Hara, came to borrow a sovereign, whereupon the prosecutor asked the prisoner to fetch him one of his sovereigns to lend to his cousin. The prisoner then said that she had put the money into the Post Office Savings Bank for him, and would show him the book on the following day. However, several days elapsed and the prisoner did not produce the book, and eventually these proceedings were taken. Upon the opening of the case by the learned counsel for the prosecution, Young raised the objection that there was no the stipulated time, but after that had expired His LORDSHIP said this was surely the ordinary The suggestion I would respectfully offer is that the assistant-judge should receive the proposed salary of £1500 per annum; that the judge of the second court should be constituted such, eo nomine, and receive a salary not less than that of a police magistrate; that the judges should have co-ordinate jurisdiction, so that either may at any time act for the other in illness or un- hard labour. Borough. Bolton Doncaster Dover Faversham Gloucester. Leeus Newcastle-on-Tyne Southampton Wigan BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. When holden. Thursday, April 2. Friday, April 10. Recorder. Wm. T. Greenhow, Esq... What notice of appeal to be given. 5 days | 10 days 8 days Statutory..... Mr. Parkes read the report of the association, claiming the cordial support of all classes of railway shareholders in its endeavours to obtain the repeal of the railway passenger duty. stated that the experiment of conveying pas sengers on railways at a speed exceeding that of stage coaches, initiated by the Liverpool and Manchester, and Stockton and Darlington Railways, having succeeded, the railway system began to develope in 1832 by the promotion of the London and Birmingham Railway, and Parliament, apprehensive of the loss of revenue from the transfer of passenger traffic from stage coaches to railways, imposed in that year on railway com panies a duty of d. per mile for every four pas sengers. In 1812 the duty was altered to 5 per cent. upon the receipts from passengers of all classes. In 1841 exemption (under certain conditions) was granted from the duty in respect of passenger traffic when the fare did not exceed 1d. per mile. The duty on stage carriages was finally abolished on the 31st Dec. 1869. The Inland Revenue Depart ment contended that the exemption from duty in respect of fares not exceeding 1d. per mile could only be allowed under certain conditions, the principal of which was that the train should stop at every station. The duty was disadvantageous to the public. Railways and, in fact, almost all public works in this country for the accommoHerbert T Sankey. dation of trade had been made by private enterJohn H. Barker. John Walker. John S. Barnes. William Smith. Clerk of the Peace. S. Sanderson. prise. If the railways had been left to the Government to construct, very few indeed would have been in existence at the present time, and the progress of the country would have been greatly retarded. Means of rapid locomotion for transaction of business, for residential purposes, and for health were a necessity in the present condition of the nation, and whatever tended to limit the facilities and power of a railway company to supply those means of locomotion was detriWm. W. Hayward. mental to the public. A portion of the public would receive an immediate benefit from the removal of the duty. The duty was oppressive on Edward Nicholson. Ed. Coxwell. Thomas Heald, |