(3.) The title with which a proprietor of freehold land is registered in pursuance of this section shall not be less than a possessory title; but nothing in this section shall prevent any person from being registered with any other title if the registrar is satisfied of his title. (4.) It shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to revoke or vary any order made under this section. (5.) Provided that in the case of every order made under this section except an order revoking or varying an order : (i.) A draft of the proposed order shall be communicated to the council of the county to which it is to apply, and notice thereof shall be inserted in the Gazette for not less than six months previously to its coming into operation, and that (ii.) The county council or any public body within the county may, at any time not less than three months before the order is to come into operation, present a petition that the order may be amended, or not proceeded with, and in that case the order shall not be made until the petition has been considered by Her Majesty in Council, who may thereupon take such further steps as she may think fit. (iii.) Proceedings in regard to any proposed order may be taken at any time after the passing of this Act, 20.-(1.) For the purpose of providing indemnity payable under this Act, there shall be established an insurance fund to be raised by setting apart at the end of each financial year such portion of the receipts from fees taken in the land registry as the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury shall by order determine. (2.) The insurance fund shall be invested in such names and manner as the Treasury from time to time direct. (3.) If the insurance fund is at any time insufficient to pay indemnity for any loss chargeable thereon, the deficiency shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof; but any sum so paid out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, shall be repaid out of the money subsequently standing to the credit of the insurance fund. (4.) Accounts of the fund shall be kept, land be audited as public accounts, in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury from time to time make. 21.-(1.) General rules under section one hundred and eleven of the principal Act shall be made by the Lord Chancellor with the advice and assistance of the registrar, a judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court to be chosen by the judges of that division, and three other persons, one to be chosen by the General Council of the Bar, one by the Board of Agriculture, and one by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. (2.) Orders under section one hundred and twelve and one hundred and twenty-two of the principal Act shall be made by the Lord Chancellor with the advice and assistance of the same persons, and with the concurrence of the Treasury. (3.) The fee orders relating and incidental to registration of title shall be arranged from time to time so as to produce an annual amount sufficient to discharge the salaries and other expenses (including the annual contribution to the insurance fund) incidental to the working of the principal Act, and this Act, and no more. (4.) Subject to any alterations that may be made in accordance with sections one hundred and twelve and one hundred and twenty-two of the principal Act and this section, the fees to be charged in districts where registration of title is compulsory shall, as regards the matters mentioned in the Second Schednle hereto, be as therein set forth. (5.) Provision may be made by general rules, under section one hundred and eleven of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, for carrying this Act into effect, and in particular for the following purposes : (a.) For carrying out the provisions of this Act with respect to compulsory registration; (b.) For adapting to the registration of proprietors of leasehold land the provisions of the principal Act, as to absolute and possessory titles, and as to land certificates; (c.) For adapting to sub-mortgages and to incumbrances prior to registration the provisions of the principal Act with regard to charges; (d.) For enabling cautions to be entered against the registration of possessory and qualified titles as qualified or absolute; (e.) For applying to the grant of leases and dealings with leasehold land, the provisions of this Act with respect to compulsory registration; and (f.) For regulating any such matters as are authorised by this Act to be prescribed. (6.) Provided that nothing in the rules under the said section shall extend to allow the inspection of any entry in the register, except by or under the authority of some person interested in the land or charge to which the entry refers. (7.) Provision may be made by general orders under section one hundred and eighteen of the principal Act, for modifying the provisions of that Act with respect to the formation and constitution of district registries, and for providing the mode in which district registrars are to be remunerated, but nothing in any such order shall affect the provisions as to qualification contained in section one hundred and nineteen of the principal Act. 22. (1.) All hereditaments, corporeal and incorporeal, shall be deemed land within the meaning of the principal Act and this Act, except that nothing in this Act shall render compulsory the registration of the title to an incorporeal hereditament, or to mines or minerals apart from the surface, or to a lease having less than forty years to run or two lives yet to fall in, or to an undivided share in land, or to freeholds intermixed and indistinguishable from lands of other tenure, or to corporeal hereditaments parcel of a manor, and included in a sale of the manor as such. (2.) In this Act the expression "personal representative" means an executor or administrator. 23. This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight. 24. This Act may be cited as the "Land Transfer Act 1897," and shall be construed as one with the principal Act, and that Act and this Act may be cited together as the "Land Transfer Acts 1875 and 1897." HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. BUXTON (Alice Clapham), Birkdale, near Southport, formerly of Blackburn, Lancashire, widow. Persons claiming to be her heir-at-law living at the time of her death on Nov. 11, 1891, to come in, by April 22, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Byrne, Government-bldgs, Victoria-st, Liverpool. May 3, at the said chambers, at half-past eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the claims. Margaret, daughter of John Dixon, of Preston, reedmaker, and of Ann or Nancy his wife, who was born about 1811, was entitled to a share of the property in question if living on Nov. 11, 1891; if she was then dead, her heir-at-law was entitled to such share; she was last heard of in Liverpool about 1842. GOOD (Elizabeth), 22, Commercial-rd, Landport, Hampshire, who died on or about Oct. 13, 1896. Persons claiming to be her heir-at-law to come in, by April 5, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Kekewich. April 13, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. The said E. Good is believed to have been the heiressat-law of Thomas Michael Verity Kidd, formerly of 202 and 220, Commercial-rd, Landport. MCCANN (Pierce), formerly it is believed of Newcastle West, co. Limerick, Ireland, late of 139, High-rd, Lee, Lewisham, Kent, England, retired army major, who it is believed died a bachelor on March 23, 1896. His next of kin to come in, by May 5, and prove their ciaims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Kekewich. May 19, at two o'clock, at the said chambers, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. The said P. McCann is believed to have been the son of James McCann and Mary his wife (formerly Matthews), and to have been born in 1820 and baptized at Newcastle West aforesaid. PECHE (Donald McDougall), a son of Dougall McDougall's grandson Archibald McDougall Peché, if living, or, if dead, his legal personal representative, to come in, by June 10, and prove his claim at the chambers of Mr. Justice Romer. June 18, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the claim. The said D. McDougall Peché was a sailor, and was last seen or heard of in 1883, when he called upon an uncle and informed him that he intended to go to Cardiff and join a ship for another voyage under an assumed name. SYKES (Francis), Boltgate, Haldenby, Yorkshire, farmer, who died on Oct. 30, 1883, Persons claiming to be his nephews and nieces living at the death of his wife who died on June 26, 1896, or the children of such of his nephews and nieces as should have died in his lifetime or in the lifetime of his wife, to send in, forthwith or before April 28, their claim to participate in the distribution of the trust fund. England and Son, solicitors, Bank-chmbrs, Goole. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. ANGLO-CONTINENTAL CORPORATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 28, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any). Mr. P. H. Sainsbury, Worcester House, Walbrook, the liquidator of the company. BULTFONTEIN SUN DIAMOND MINE LIMITED.-Adjourned petition for winding-up to be heard March 24, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, when, in consequence of the shareholders having resolved that the company be wound-up voluntarily, and Mr. Julius Wilson Hetherington Byrne, 81, Gracechurch-st, chartered accountant, be appointed liquidator, the court will then be asked to make an order continuing the voluntary winding-up under the supervision of the court, instead of winding-up of the company. E. G. Barrett, 11, Poultry, solicitor for the petitioners. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on March 23. BRITISH UNION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.-Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up subject to the supervision of the court made by Mr. Justice Williams on March 3. A. J. Greenop and Co., solicitors for the liquidators. BENFIELD LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 13, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. G. R. Thorne and Haslam, Old Bank-chmbrs, Wolverhampton, solicitors for the liquidator. CALEDONIAN MINERAL OIL COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for continuance of voluntary winding-up, subject to the supervision of the High Court of Justice, to be heard March 24, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. Francis and Johnson, 26, Austin Friars, solicitors for the petitioners. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on March 23. ELLIS AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 30, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. H. S. Deacon, St. Stephen's-chmbrs, Telegraph-st, the liquidator of the company. R. Miller, Wiggins, and Naylor, St. Stephen's-chmbrs, Telegraph-st, solicitors to the liquidator. FRANK KNOWLES LIMITED. -Creditors to send in, by April 23, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. Smith, 7, King-st, Cheapside, the liquidator of the company. G. B. Howard, 9, Gray's-inn-sq, solicitor. FELBRIDGE" STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED. Creditors of the above-named company, now being wound-up in consequence of the sale of the steamship Felbridge, to send in, by April 24, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. Dixon, 81, Gracechurch-st, one of the liquidators of the company. HENRY DE JERSEY AND CO. LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard March 24, before the court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice. J. B. and F. Purchase, 11, Queen Victoria-st, solicitors for the petitioners. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on March 23. HANNANS UNITED GOLD ESTATES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 27, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. S. G. Campbell, 3 and 4, Great Winchester-st, the liquidator of the company. INTERNATIONAL MINING CORPORATION LIMITED (in liquidation).-Creditors to send in, by April 1, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. C. Lloyd, 77, Bishops gate-st Within, the liquidator of the company. LONDON AND EASTERN COUNTIES LOAN AND DISCOUNT COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard March 24, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. Everett and Hodgkinson, 124, Chancery-la, solicitors for the petitioner. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition, must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on March 23. MAGDEBURG TRAMWAYS COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 6, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. H. Gibson, 39, Waterloo-st, Birmingham, the liquidator of the company. MURCHISON GOLDFIELDS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 27, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. Hebden, Blomfleld House, London-wall, the liquidator of the company. Sutton, Ommanney, and Rendall, 3 and 4, Great Winchester-st, solicitors for the liquidator. ST. JAMES' HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in. by April 2, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. G. R. Smith, Berkeley Hotel, 77, Piccadilly, the liquidator of the company. SHEFFIELD TRAMWAYS COMPANY.-Creditors to send in, by May 10, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Messrs. Walter Webb and Co., 23, Queen Victoria-st, solicitors to the liquidators. THOMAS (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 29, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. E. H. Saunders, 63 and 64, New Broad-st, the liquidator of the company. Batchelor and Cousins, 13, Walbrook, solicitors to the liquidator. WATERLOO COLLIERY COMPANY LIMITED-Creditors to send in, by April 24, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. T. Broadhead, Bond-st, Dewsbury, the liquidator of the company. Holt and Sons, Bond-st, Dewsbury, solicitors to the liquidators. WESTWOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 1, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any). to Mr. F. Westwood, Aitken-chmbrs, Cannon-st, Birmingham, one of the liquidators of the company. F. H. Pepper and Tangye, 34, Waterloo-st, Birmingham, solicitors for the company. WELFORD AND FISH LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by April 6, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. M. J. Peters, 92, Lyndhurst-grove, Peckham, the liquidator of the company. F. G. B. Crawley, 5, Chancery-la, solicitor. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOFS. o'clock. BROMLEY (Austen), Capel-le-Ferne, Kent, farmer. April 14; Fielding and Son, solicitors, 14, Snargate-st, Dover. April 28; Mr. Justice Stirling, at twelve GOOD (Elizabeth), 22. Edinburgh-rd, Landport, Hampshire, who carried on business at 220, Commercial-rd, Landport. April 5; Blake, Reed, and Lapthorn, solicitors, Victoria-chmbrs, Portsmouth. April 13; Mr. Justice Kekewich, at twelve o'clock. GOODE (Harriet), Glen May, Stratford-rd, Shirley, Solihull, Warwickshire, widow. STRANGWAYES (Thomas Edward). Denton, and of Ashton-under-Lyne. near CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. ATTWOOD (John Frederick), Pearson-st, Hendon. April 3; Warburton and De Paula, solicitors, 16, Finsbury-circus. APPLEYARD (Anne), 201, Sutherland-av, Maida Vale, spinster. June 1; Todd, Dennes, and Lamb, solicitors, 22. Chancery-la. April 17; April 13; BRINE (Francis Libbess), 1. Hainault-villas, Leytonstone, Essex, gentleman. April 12; CORLASS (Ellen), Hessle, East Riding of Yorkshire, first wife of Henry Corlass. COLNAGHI (Charles Philip). Paruna, Sheringham, Norfolk, gentleman. April 24 Stead, solicitors, 9. Albert-8q, Manchester. DAVIES (Samuel Hart). Exchequer and Audit Department, Somerset House, and of 13. Southwick-st, Hyde Park, gentleman. April 17; Lovell, Son, aud Pitfield, solicitors, 3, Gray's-inn-sq. FLOWER (Thomas), 21, Edgar-rd. Margate, Kent, gentleman. April 19; Dawes and Sons, solicltors. 9, Angel-ct, Throgmorton-st. FOWLER (Reuben), Brinscall-in-Withnell, Lancashire, retired coal merchant. June 12; Stanton and Sons, solicitors. High-st, Chorley, Lancashire. FORDE (Arthur Randle), Junior United Service Club, Charles-st, Westminster, gentleman. April 30: Jolliffe and Jolliffe, solicitors, 13, St. John-st, Chester. GREENWOOD (Robert), Mayfleld-villas, Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire, coal and lime merchant and hay and straw dealer. April 14; Sutcliffes, solicitors, Hebden Bridge. Yorks. GALLIE (Charles Alexander McIntosh), St. Helens, Lancashire, wine and spirit merchant. April 19; Oppenheim and Malkin, solicitors, Windle-chmbrs, St. Helens. GIBSON (George), Fir Tree Farm, Kirby-in-Cleveland, farmer and clerk to the guardians of the Stokesley Union. March 31; F. Brown, chartered accountant, Finkle-chmbrs, Stockton-on-Tees, Durham. W. L. Carrick, solicitor, Stokesley, Yorkshire, R.S.O. GARDNER (Henry), 31, Hatton-grdn, and of Wychwood, Willesden-la, Brondesbury. March 31; Indermaur, Clark, and Parker, solicitors, 1, Devonshire-ter, Portland-pl. GLOVER (Rudolph Gustavus), War Office, Pall Mall, and of 59, St. James-st, gentleman. June 1: F. Richardson and Sadler. solicitors, 28, Golden-sq. GOLDSTEIN (Woolf, otherwise Wolf), formerly of 20, Princelet-st. Spitalfields, then of 15, Vivian rd, Roman-rd, E.. late of Jerusalem, jeweller. May 15; Dawes and Sons, solicitors, 9, Angel-ct, Throgmorton-st. GARLAND (Marian Wood), 14, Lansdown-pl East, Bath, widow of the late Capt. James Garland, R.N. April 24: Adam and Thing, solicitors. 4. Queen-sq, Bath. HERON (Thomas George), 6, Sandgate-rd, Folkestone, Kent, grocer and wine and spirit merchant. April 12; H. B. Bradley, solicitor, 52, Sandgate-rd, Folkestone. HOGG (Martha), 77, Seacombe-st. Great Homer-st, Liverpool. formerly of Christletonrd, Chester, spinster. April 14; W. H. Quilliam, solicitor, 15, Manchester-st, Liverpool. HULL (Richard), 60, Talbot-rd, Blackpool, Lancashire, who carried on business as a butcher in copartnership with Laurence Hull. April 27; A. Ascroft, solicitor, 36. Birley-st, Blackpool. HARSHAW (Agnes Julia Jane), 6, Via Garibaldi, Florence, Italy, spinster. April 15; Flint and Gardner, solicitors, 12, St. Helen's-pl. HAWKEY (Mary Frances), 2, Woodside-villas. Surbiton. Surrey, wife of Henry Hawkey. April 15: H. G. R. Aldridge, solicitor. 24, Portland-st, Southampton. HENDERSON (Peter), Castle Hills Lodge, Berwick-upon-Tweed. April 15; Willoby and Peters, solicitors, Berwick-upon-Tweed. HOPGOOD (James), South Side, Clapham Common, gentleman, J.P. April 12; Hopgoods and Dowson, solicitors, 17, Whitehall-pl. HOLROYD (Joseph), 28, Bank-st, Accrington, Lancashire, commission agent. April 12; Haworth and Broughton, solicitors, 5, Union-st, Accrington. HAYDEN (Clara Rosina), 51, High-st. Fulham, spinster. April 21; Debenham and Walker, solicitors, 2. Gresham-bldgs, Basinghall-st INGHAM (Thomas), Whalley, Lancashire, corn miller. June 1; Baldwin, Weeks, and Baldwin, solicitors, 4, Duck-st, Clitheroe. JACOX (Rev. Francis), 27, Blenheim-rd, St. John's Wood, clerk in holy orders. April 16; Paice and Cross, solicitors, 6, Furnival's inn. JONES (William), 70, Charles-st, Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, retired engineer in the Honourable Trinity Corporation's service. April 9: C. L. Hall, one of the executors, Pill, near Milford Haven. S. K. Greenish, solicitor, Dew-st, Haverfordwest. JACOBS (Jacob, known and trading as John), 13. Mount-pl, Whitechapel, and of KEMP (Ellen Martha), Eastleigh, Mount Pleasant-rd, Exeter, spinster. April 21; LOVELACE (Henry George), 7 and 11, Gerrard-st, Soho, electro-plater and gilder. MOORE (Rev. Augustus William George), St. John Baptist Vicarage, Spalding, Lincoln- MATTHEWS (George), 16, Beaconsfield-villas, Brighton, Sussex, gentleman. MASON (John James), Albion House, Hammersmith, and of Stanhope House. Herne MCNAUGHT (Alexander), Axminster, Devonshire, draper. April 8; W. Forward, solicitor. Axminster, Devon. MOODEY (William John), 15, Fort-cres. Margate, Kent, grocer and provision merchant. MEAD (Joseph Burgess). Endsleigh, Wickham-rd, Brockley, Kent, gentleman. May1; MALE (Rev. Edward), North Parade Villa, Oxford, clerk. May 1; H. Male, solicitor, 83, Colmore-row, Birmingham. MITCHELMORE (Charlotte), 58, Asylum-rd, Peckham, formerly of Palace-st, Pimlico, OWEN (Richard), the Farm, Llanbadarnfynydd, Radnorshire, farmer. April 12; PATMORE-SMITH (Eliza), the Laurels. Aldwincle, Thrapstone, Northamptonshire, formerly of 175, West End-la, Hampstead, and 17, Balcombe-st, Dorset-sq, widow. April 25; Rye and Eyre, solicitors, 16, Golden-sq. PHAYRE (General Sir Robert), G.C. B., 64, St. George's-sq, Belgravia. April 15; R. Miller, Wiggins, and Naylor, solicitors, St. Stephen's chmbrs, Telegraph-st. PLANT (Christopher). Horton, Staffordshire, farmer. April 24; R. Heaton and Son, solicitors. Burslem. ROBERTS (John), 2, John Roberts'-yd, Back Madoc-st, Llandudno, Carnarvonshire, RUMFORD (Joseph Kennerley), Woodcote Lodge, Epsom, Surrey, gentleman. April 15; ROBINSON (William), Woodside Farm, Fartown, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, gentleman. April 14; SIMMONDS (Harriette), 59, Belvedere-rd, Upper Norwood, Surrey, widow. TAYLOR (John), Oakenshaw, near Bradford, Yorkshire, farmer. March 31; Waddington and Firth, solicitors, 2, Piccadilly, Bradford. TILLEY (Samuel), Junior Athenæum Club. Piccadilly, and 32, West Kensington-grdns, gentleman. April 12 A. R. and H. Steele, solicitors, 21, College-hill. TORKINGTON (Andrew John), Peter-st, Denton, Lancashire; or HARRISON (Ellen), formerly Ellen Torkington, late of Peter-st aforesaid. April 11; Ridgway and Ridgway, solicitors, Union-st, Dewsbury. VAN HARRISS (Ellen Maria), Bargrove, Frant-rd, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, widow. WORTHINGTON (John), Blackpool, Lancashire, hotel-keeper. April 27; A. Ascroft, solicitor, 36, Birley-st, Blackpool. WATSON (Thomas Rouse), 81, Finsbury-pavement, and of 17, Canonbury-park South, solicitor. May 1; T. R. Watson, solicitor, S1, Finsbury-pavement. WYMAN (Elizabeth), North Hall, Royston, Hertfordshire. April 17; G. O. Jacob solicitor, 53, Lincoln's-inn-flds. WRIGHT (William), Talywain, near Pontypool, Monmouthshire, hay dealer and beerhouse-keeper. May 1; Watkins and Co., solicitors, Club-chmbrs, Pontypool. WEBB (Henry Francis Stephen), 6, Manor-rd, Salisbury, Wiltshire. April 10; A. Whitehead, solicitor, 35, Canal, Salisbury. WARRILLOW (Maud Josephine), formerly of the Saracen's Head inn, Stoke-uponTrent, late of the White Lion inn, Church-st, Longton, both in Staffordshire, licensed victualler, wife of Harry Warrillow and carrying on business as a beer dealer and bottler at Stoke-upon-Trent. March 25; Hawley and Jackson, solicitors, Longton, Stafis. WHITE (William), Wombleton, Yorkshire, yeoman. April 3; H. W. and R. Pearson, solicitors, Malton, Yorks. WHITLOW (John). Stretton, Cheshire, farmer. April 10: H. B. White and Sons, April 10; H. B. White and solicitors, 17, Cairo-st, Warrington. WHITLOW (Betty), Preston-o'-th'-Hill, Cheshire, widow. and Sons, solicitors, 17, Cairo-st, Warrington. COMMERCIAL FAILURES AND BILLS OF SALE.-According to Stubbs' Weekly Gazette, the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending the 13th March was 169. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 181, showing a decrease of 12. The number of bills of sale in England and Wales registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending the 13th March was 167. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 179. PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE PROFESSION. IN Bankruptcy on the 11th inst., before Mr. A. H. Wildy, Official Receiver, an application was made for the appointment of a special manager under the receiving order recently made against W. J. Winstanley, solicitor, late of Gracechurch-street. It was stated that the debts were about £20,000, and that the value of the assets was unknown. Mr. Cox (Messrs Cox and Lafone) was appointed special manager. LAW SOCIETIES. UNITED LAW SOCIETY. Mr. C. ON Monday, the 15th inst., Mr. J. R. Yates in the chair, the Rev. J. Fleming Shearer opened a debate on the motion, "That this society disapproves of the Education Bill now before Parliament." Garnett opposed, and the subsequent speakers were Dr. C. Herbert Smith, and Messrs. C. Kains-Jackson, A. C. F. Boulton, J. W. Weigall, P. H. Edwards, and Haythorne Reed. After a reply from Mr. Shearer, the motion was put to the vote, with the result that it was lost by six votes. HARDWICKE SOCIETY. AT the meeting, on Friday, the 12th March, the subject for debate was, "That it is desirable that the water supply of the metropolis should be transferred from private companies to the public authorities on payment of the fair intrinsic value of the undertakings, without any compensation for compulsory purchase." This was moved by Mr. A. Bassett-Hopkins and opposed by Mr. J. Duncan, and was carried. UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON. THE Society met at the Inner Temple Lecture-hall on Wednesday evening, the 17th inst.; Mr. J. Arthur Price, president, in the chair. After the reading of the minutes and the disposal of private business, Mr. V. Lyons brought forward the motion on the agenda papers, viz., “That it is essential to the well-being of the country that the Liberal and Labour parties should combine." Speakers: for the motion, Messrs. V. Lyons, Withers, Copeland, Kinipple, and Hilliard; against, Messrs. Hildesheimer, Price, and Willson. The motion was lost. WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house have the sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined, tested, and reported upon by an expert from Messrs. Carter Bros., 65, Victoria-street, Westminster. Fee quoted on receipt of full particulars. (Established 21 years.)-[ADVT.] SAUNDERS'S PRACTICE OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS.-Including the Practice under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts 1848, 1879, 1881; the Indictable Offences Act 1848; the Quarter Sessions Procedure Act 1849; and the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Act 1866, 1872. The Criminal and Civil Practice of Quarter Sessions, Appeals, and other proceedings in relation to Conviction, and orders in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. Together with an Appendix containing the foregoing and other Statutes relating to Magisterial proceedings; the Rules and Forms ander the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879; and the regulations as to payment of Costs in Indictable Cases. Fifth Edition. By James A. Foot, Barrister-at-Law.-HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, Bream'sbuildings, E.C.—[ADVT.] CORRESPONDENCE. This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. COUNTY COURT RULES (March) 1897.—I have been perusing these rules, and the first thought that occurs is, that additional trouble and expense are thrown upon plaintiffs to the advantage of recalcitrant debtors. Beyond this, the proceedings of the court are made more complicated instead of simplified, and more work is thrown upon solicitors (in cases in which they are instructed) without any fee, for, under the lower scale of costs, "no other fee is to be allowed" than those in the scale, as between party and party or solicitor and client. The prevailing and often expressed feelings of County Court practitioners and their clients is that, instead of the courts being for the speedy recovery of small debts, they are for the special protection of dishonest debtors. It often happens now that, after obtaining judgment at great expense and inconvenience, the creditor is worse off than before, for he has paid the heavy court fees (about 5s. 3d. in the £), his own expenses and loss of time in attending court, only to find that, where the debtor has no goods but is in regular work (or earns money by other means, i.e. poaching), that he must waste further time and money in finding out debtor's means, issuing judgment summons and attending court on hearing, when, in the majority of cases, the order is reduced to a few shillings a month and no commitment made. Is it to be wondered at that creditors prefer to lose their debts rather than go to court? I am often told this, and find court work is decreasing. What it will be with the new rules one can only surmise. Further complicated affidavits, deposit of sum for defendant's expenses (he can perhaps better afford them than plaintiff), all of which tend to embarrass a plaintiff to the greater immunity of the debtor. What is wanted is: 1. Great reduction of court fees; 2. Payment of plaintiffs for attending court and consequent loss of time; 3. Proper allowances to solicitors; 4. The onus of proving means (or want of means) put upon defendants, as in administration orders; 5. The more general commitment of debtors (often the only successful means of making them pay). Another desirable improvement would be the appointment of official reporters, so that full notes of evidence and points raised might be taken, and thus enable appeals to be decided on their merits and not dismissed because the judge has failed to make proper or intelligible notes. The growing tendency is to play into the hands of accountants (so called) and debt collectors, who pay no "annual duty." It is the young members of the Legal Profession, who have their way to make, who feel the pinch of these things, and not those with well-established practices who never, or seldom, touch the lower branch" of the Profession. What does the Incorporated Law Society for the young solicitors? I cannot tell, and have consequently resigned membership. I am glad to see the Bradford Incorporated Law Society and the Birmingham solicitors have condemned the new rules. With reference to your note on p. 406 of your issue of the 6th inst., what is wanted is not to "make the High Court as proportionately cheap, certain, and expeditious as the County Courts-for it is already cheaper where the aid of Order XIV. can be had, but to reduce the County Court fees and remove restrictions from plaintiffs. I trust some abler pen than mine will deal with this subject. THOS. HY. SMITH. As a provincial solicitor, practising in the County Courts, I beg to ask if something cannot be done by the Profession as a body with regard to these proposed new rules. Surely before the President of the Law Institution approved of the rules in question the committee should have the facts laid before them. I cannot help thinking that the procedure both at assizes and in County Courts seems to tend to the stoppage of business, and it will soon become a serious matter for solicitors if alterations are to be made in matters in which they are closely interested without allowing them an opportunity of expressing their opinions in any way. Everything is tending to make it easier for defendants to be relieved from their obligations, and to make it more difficult for plaintiffs to obtain their just dues and demands. Is there not now a chance for the committee of the Incorporated Law Society to do something useful on behalf of the Profession? or, failing this, is it not possible for the solicitors who practise in the various County Courts to memorialise the judges of their respective courts so that the views of the Profession may be properly ventilated? Personally, I feel something of this kind should be done, and that is my reason for addressing you upon the matter. J. B. P.S. Is it not a fact that when alterations were made in the Admiralty Rules some time ago, the assistance of solicitors who knew something about the matter was asked for and gladly rendered? The general public, as well as all solicitors who practise in the County Courts, are indebted to the LAW TIMES for calling attention to and condemning some of the new County Court rules, the commencement of the coming into operation of which, we are glad to see, is postponed to the 25th May. The objectionable rules to which your article refers are certainly calculated to needlessly and seriously hamper the business of the County Courts. Your article surmises that the object of the first rule is to reduce the work in the large centres of business. Whether that be the real purpose in view or not, the rules are well designed to bring about that result. Why, however, is that object desirable? It seems to be forgotten by the framers of the rules that the great bulk of the business of the County Courts at any of the large commercial centres is debt recovery. The disputed cases are comparatively very few, and form a small proportion of the cases entered in any of the larger courts. Very many of the claims are paid or settled before the hearing, and of the remainder which come into open court it is probably under-estimating the proportion to say that 90 per cent. are wholly undisputed cases, and are disposed of by the registrar of the court. Particularly is this true with regard to default summonses, and these are the very cases which will be most affected by the new rules. Of the 10 per cent. or so of cases which are bona fide defended, in perhaps less than one-half the defendant will establish his defence. The ninety-five plaintiffs are to be harassed and put to a great deal of unnecessary trouble and expense for the sake of the five defendants. If the matter be determined with reference to the whole business of the larger commercial courts, and not as is proposed-after an infinity of trouble, vexation, and expense-with regard to each particular case, however trumpery in amount, it is apparent at once on which side lies the 'balance of convenience." The plaint fee on a claim for £20 in the County Court, as your article points out, is double that for the issue of a writ; yet the writ may be issued anywhere, out of any district registry and without any affidavit at all. It is really astonishing that these rules should have had the approval of the President of the Incorporated Law Society. HARDING AND BARNETT. NOTES AND QUERIES. None are inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides. Answers. (Q. 22.) MARRIED WOMEN MORTGAGEES OF FREEHOLDS.-" Carador " fails to grasp the distinction between giving a receipt for the mortgage money and conveying the mortgaged land. It is admitted that the money invested in the mortgage is the separate property of the married woman, and that she may give an effectual receipt for her property, i.e.. her principal and interest, without her husband's concurrence. No case, however, has yet decided that she can convey the mortgaged land without a deed acknowledged in which her husband concurs. Sect. 1 (2) and sect. 13 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 render the separate property of a married woman liable for her debts. Therefore, if any property whatever vested in a married woman as mortgagee is deemed by virtue of the Act to be her separate property, it is liable for her debts; that is, a creditor of the married woman mortgagee may take in execution the property of another person, namely, the unfortunate mortgagor. This absurd result can only be avoided by adopting the reasoning of Mr. Justice North in the analogous trustee case of Re Harkness and Allsopp's Contract (74 L. T. Rep. 652), and by holding that property vested in a married woman as mortgagee is not her separate property. TRIADIS. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. STUDENTS' SOCIETIES. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.-The usual weekly meeting of the above society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday, the 16th inst.; chairman, Mr: Archibald Hair. The subject for debate was: 858.-"That the influence of modern fiction upon the minds of the young is injurious." Mr. David Nimmo opened in the affirmative, and Mr. A. C. F. Boulton in the negative. The following members also spoke: Messrs. A. W. Watson, G. H. Daniell, G. H. Head, C. A. McCurdy, Ernest Allen, Neville Tebbutt, E. Crews Thomas, Wm. Wilde, E. Hilliard, R. C. Atkinson, E. A. Alexander, and F. W. Robinson. The motion was lost by five votes.-The subject for debate at the next meeting of the society on Tuesday, the 23rd March, 1897, is: DXXXIII.-"That the case of Re Stephenson; Donaldson v. Bamber (75 L. T. Rep. 495; (1897) 1 Ch. 75) was wrongly decided." BIRMINGHAM.-A meeting of this society was held on the 16th inst. in the Law Library, Bennett's-hill; Mr. H. A. McCardie presiding. A debate took place on moot point No. 861, "That a Court of Criminal Appeal should be created." The speakers were: for the affirmative, Messrs. F. O. Hopson, M. F. Parish, G. E. T. Edalji, F. W. Green, S. J. Gateley, and H. Eaden; for the negative, Messrs. J. A. Lacy, F. Minton, C. E. Parish, A. F. Lovatt, G. J. Botteley, and S. Vernon. The Chairman having summed up, the question was put to the meeting, and decided in the negative by a majority of two votes. BLACKBURN AND DISTRICT DEBATING SOCIETY.-The 11th ordinary meeting of the society was held on Thursday the 11th March, in the Law Library, Blackburn. There was a good attendance; the Town Clerk, Mr. R. E. Fox, being in the chair. The subject for discussion was, "That the case of Garside v. Liverpool Railway Permanent Benefit Building Society (February 1897), should be overruled on appeal." Mr. E. Marsden and Mr. E. Riley appeared for the plaintiff, and contended (1) that it was not necessary to prove fraud in cases where the legal mortgagee did not inquire after or obtain possession of the title deeds, citing Clarke v. Palmer, and Brigg v. Jones; (2) that even if it was necessary to prove fraud, yet the evidence which must be proved before the court will impute fraud is not so stringent as in cases where the legal mortgagee, having obtained the deeds, gives them up to the mortgagor. Mr. R. Hilton appeared for the negative, and in favour of the decision in the courts below. He contended (1) that there was no duty imposed on the holder of the title deeds to keep them safe, citing Agra Bank v. Barry; (2) that mere carelessnes will not postpone a legal mortgagee. There must be fraud, and the court will not impute fraud, however gross or wilful the negligence may be, where the conduct of the mortgagee can be otherwise explained, and where such conduct is more likely to injure and not to enefit the legal mortgagee, citing Northern Counties Assurance Company v. Whipp. The following gentlemen also took part in the discussion: Messrs. Calvert, Campbell, Cooper, Ferguson, Hindle, and T. R. Thompson. The Chairman then summed up, and the question being put to the meeting, there was a majority of four in favour of the affirmative. CARDIFF. The students' debating society held a joint debate with the Newport Law Students' Debating Society at the Council Chamber, Townhall, Cardiff, on Thursday, the 11th inst.; Mr. John Sankey, barrister, presiding. The subject for debate was: "That all international disputes should be settled by arbitration." The Newport representatives: Messrs. R. Roberts, G. S. Godson, G. Ll. Lloyd, F. S. Cooper, and E. W. S. Portnell, took the affirmative, while the Cardiff Society, represented by Messrs. E. W. Pocock, W. J. Board, G. Robertson, C. S. Goodfellow, C. S. Bailey, and W. Lloyd Meyrick, took the negative side of the question. After a spirited debate the question was decided in the negative by eighteen votes. MANCHESTER.-At the ninth meeting of the session, Mr. J. F. Milne, J.P., in the chair, an interesting debate took place on the vexed question of the applicability of the "rule of perpetuities" to legal contingent remainders. Mr. Cyril Atkinson, for the affirmative, said there were three classes of legal contingent remainders, only one of which could possibly offend against the rule, viz., the rather out of the way case of a limitation to A. for life remainder to A.'s unborn son for life, with gift over on the death of A.'s son to the person in possession of a specified estate, and that there was no occasion to make a special rule for one case and so disturb the logical harmony of the law. The rule of perpetuities was primarily invented to cope with the evils arising under the Statute of Uses in the case of executory interests, but it had since been attracted, he said, to common law conditions, such as a condition of re-entry for breach of covenant; it had been attracted also to the case of a contingent remainder limited to take effect after a contingent remainder (citing Frost v. Frost), and there was no reason why it should not be attracted to legal contingent remainders in every case (citing Catlin v. Brown, Whitby v. Mitchell, and books on the subject by Marsden, Lewis, Fearne, and Jarman). Mr. H. Bury, in reply, argued that legal contingent remainders had flourished 400 or 500 years before the rule of perpetuities was ever heard of, and that the rule was modelled on the observed effect of legal limitations which it could therefore be surmised were not considered dangerous (citing Cole v. Sewell). He contended that legal contingent remainders were subject to special and sufficient rules of their own, and had no need therefore to be brought within the scope of the rule of perpetuities (citing Whitby v. Mitchell, Third Report of Real Property Commissioners, and Butler's note to Fearne), and finally he urged that the decision of Mr. Justice Kay in Frost v. Frost was in direct conflict with the same judge's view in Whitby v. Mitchell, which had recently been upheld in the Court of Appeal. An interesting discussion ensued, in which the following members took part: Messrs. J. S. Oppenheim, H. W. Watson, H. D. Judson, C. R. Allen, F. Preston, F. Hindle, F. H. Williamson, G. Buckley, W. Booth, and F. W. Lowndes. Mr. Milne, in summing up, said the question was not whether the universal applicability of the rule would be more convenient, but whether legal history and binding decisions said that the rule must be applied. He was aware that Mr. Justice Kay had so laid down the law in Frost v. Frost, but it seemed to him that the facts in that case did not require such a decision, as the limitation as now clearly shown by Whitby v. Mitchell was bad without applying to it the perpetuity rule. He left it to the society to decide the question on the facts and dicta before them. The meeting finally came to a decision in favour of the affirmative by a majority of eight. LEGAL OBITUARY. SIR EDWARD KAY. (From the Times.) THE Right Hon. Sir Edward Kay, until recently Lord Justice of Appeal, died on the 16th inst. at his residence in London. The learned judge had, during the last two years or more, been a great sufferer from painful and depressing ailments. His zeal and energy had, indeed, induced him many a day to sit in court under physical conditions which would have deterred a less resolute man from any exertion. He was unable to appear in court during the whole of the Michaelmas Sittings of 1895, and he was also absent during the corresponding period of last year. An operation, however, was successfully performed shortly before Christmas, and it was announced that he would be able to resume his seat at the opening of the present sittings. But the improvement was not so great as was hoped, and he found it necessary to resign. In view of the recent prolonged illnesses of several of the judges, which occasioned serious dislocation of business, it is only fair to the late Lord Justice to state that there was no disposition on his part to cling to office when he was no longer able to discharge its duties. He is believed more than once to have tendered his resignation before it was finally accepted. In the late Lord Justice the country has lost one of the ablest and most vigorous of her judges. Lord Bramwell used to observe that he would far rather be a good judge than a great judge. Certainly it will be admitted by all that Sir Edward Kay was a good judge-able, clear-headed, pains. taking, possessing a large knowledge of the world and affairs. He was not so great a lawyer as Jessel or Cotton, nor had his judgments the literary brilliance which occasionally characterised the utterances of Sir William James and of one or two judges who are still living. But in the administrative department of his duties-which forms so important a part of a Chancery judge's work-the late Lord Justice was surpassed by none of his contemporaries. Edward Ebenezer Kay was a son of Mr. Robert Kay, of Bury, Lancashire, and brother of the late Sir J. Kay-Shuttleworth. Another of his brothers was the late Mr. Joseph Kay, Q.C., Judge of the Manchester and Salford Palatine Court, a distinguished writer on the land question, which he treated from the advanced Liberal point of view. The late judge was born on the 2nd July 1822, and took an ordinary degree at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1844. He married in 1850 Mary Valence, daughter of Dr. French, Master of Jesus College and Canon of Ely. Like many other distinguished judges, Lord Campbell, Lord Blackburn, Vice-Chancellor Stuart, and two or three present occupants of the Bench, Kay began his career as a law reporter, first by the volume which bears his name alone, and afterwards in the four volumes which he published in conjunction with Mr. Vaughan Johnson. In this capacity he succeeded in the Court of Vice-Chancellor Page Wood, afterwards Lord Hatherley, the late Mr. Thomas Hare, author of the ingenious system of proportional representation which won the admiration and adherence of Stuart Mill. Kay remained a reporter long enough to benefit by the knowledge and experience thereby gained, but not long enough to become stranded whilst other men were borne into haven on the tide of business. In one of the volumes of his reports, in apologising for his inability to lower the high price at which they were sold, it is curious to note that the learned reporter expressed a hope that a system of reports should be organised by the Profession- a hope which was to be realised ten years later when the Law Reports were started. After twenty years' practice as a junior, Kay became a Queen's Counsel in 1866, in which year the creation was unusually large. There were included Cotton, E. K. Karslake, Schomberg, John Pearson, and others now dead; whilst Sir William Harcourt, Sir R. Garth, Mr. H. W. Cripps, and Dr. Spinks are the only survivors. He practised at first in ViceChancellor Wood's court and subsequently in those of Vice-Chancellors Giffard, James, and Bacon; but it is with the latter that his name is chiefly associated. Among his competitors were four who subsequently became, like himself, Lords Justices of Appeal-viz., Amphlett, Giffard, James, and Sir Edward Fry. At a later period in Vice-Chancellor Bacon's court his chief opponent was Sir Henry Jackson, who was appointed to a judgeship in the Queen's Bench Division, but did not live to take his seat on the Bench. Kay was a powerful advocate, more by force of character and strength of purpose than by persuasiveness of utterance. His manner, indeed, both to the judge and to his rivals was overbearing rather than conciliatory, and though he undoubtedly earned the good opinion, he was not successful in winning the good will, of his professional brethren. But both at the Bar and on the Bench he was emphatically a just man. story is told of him of a type too rare in forensic annals. A consultation was being held in his chambers in a suit in which many different interests had to be represented. It was not a specially difficult case, but as the estate was large the fees were in proportion, rather to the fund out of which they were to be provided than to the complication of the questions involved. In the middle of the conversation Kay sent for his clerk. "How much is marked on my brief?" he asked. The clerk mentioned the sum. "Far too high," said the conscientious leader, and he told the clerk to put down about a third of the amount. As this involved a corresponding reduction in the fees of the other counsel, it is to be feared they did not regard their leader's high principles with unmixed approbation. A The late judge was not at any time a prominent politician, but he contested Clitheroe at the general election in 1874 as a Liberal, when he was defeated by Mr. R. Assheton by 896 votes to 804. In April 1878 he gave up exclusive practice in Vice-Chancellor Bacon's court and became a "special," in succession, as it were, to Mr. Fry, who had been made a judge in the previous year. His most frequent opponent in the House of Lords and Privy Council, where he was retained in most of the heavy appeals, was the late Mr. Benjamin, whose learning and powers of advocacy were as extraordinary as was his adventurous career. Kay was scarcely the equal of the ex-Confederate statesman, but he was always able by the force of his character to hold his own. In the special field of Chancery practice the late Sir Henry Cotton and the present Lord Davey were his principal rivals. The failure of the City of Glasgow Bank brought a rich harvest to the late Lord Justice, as he was retained throughout for the respondents, the liquidators, in the many appeals brought by unfortunate trustees and others to the House of Lords. In 1881, on the retirement of Vice-Chancellor Malins, Kay was made "journeyman judge" of the Chancery Division, and in that position he remained till the resignation of Vice-Chancellor Bacon in 1886, his junior on the Bench, Mr. Justice (now Lord Justice) Chitty, having, on his appointment, succeeded to the Chambers of the Master of the Rolls, when the latter became exclusively a judge of appeal. The new judge was much better suited for the hearing of witness actions than most of his Chancery brethren, and he disposed of his work to general satisfaction, and in the experiment, which was tried for a short time, of sending the Equity judges on circuit, he was decidedly more successful than the other members of the Chancery Division. On the Bench he was, perhaps, a little severe and pompous - recalling Aristotle's portraiture of the magnanimous man - but he certainly escaped the besetting sin of Chancery judges, who, having before them day after day the same inner Bar, have been too prone to show themselves respecters of persons. A law officer or ex-law officer would be lectured quite as magisterially for any shortcoming as the humblest junior. The only sign of human weakness which he exhibited was his unconcealed sensitiveness with respect to newspaper reports and journalistic criticism. A tendency to suspiciousness is the proverbial failing of lawyers, but it is a failing which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish from a virtue. The late judge possessed it in a high degree, and was rather apt, in his indignation at supposed wrong, to confuse mere breach of contract with positive fraud. He was the terror of the cost-making solicitor, and endeavoured with no small success to diminish the cost and simplify the procedure o the Chancery Division. In particular he set his face strongly against needless administration actions-one of the last abuses of the Chancery Courts to be redressed-and the unnecessary payment of money into court, and saved many a small estate from serious loss. His judgments had no special merit beyond the palmary one of clearness. Scholarship, wit, or literary illustration such as brighten the recorded utterances of the late Lord Bowen or Vice-Chancellor Bacon were not to be found in his decisions; but, on the other hand, he never left his meaning obscure, and in giving judgment it was the judge's admirable habit to make a lucid statement of all the necessary facts. At the Bar, notwithstanding his long apprenticeship to reporting, he had been too busy to become learned: it used to be said, with a touch of sarcasm, that he knew the names of the cases in the books. As a judge, however, he improved daily, and mastered the decisions with which he had previously possessed but a cursory acquaintance; but, being a man of great business capacity, administration was his strong point, and he was generally held to be the best Chamber judge on the Chancery side. In the case of Andrews v. Barnes, in which an unjustifiable attempt was made to oust trustees from the management of a small charity, he gave the defendants costs as between solicitor and client, on the ground of the inherent jurisdiction of the court over costs, and because it was wrong to allow the charity to suffer, even to the extent of the differences between party and party and solicitor and client costs. His decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In the Michaelmas Sittings 1890, on the retirement of Sir Henry Cotton, Mr. Justice Kay was promoted to the Court of Appeal. In sitting with others he lost nothing of the decided individuality which had hitherto marked him. He was not content simply to acquiesce in the decisions of the other members of the court. In Bonnard v. Perryman, for example, he dissented, not as to the state of the law, but with respect to its application, from his five colleagues on the appeal-viz., Lord Coleridge, Lord Esher, and Lords Justices Lindley, Bowen, and Fry. The whole Court were agreed that the High Court has jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction, restraining the publication of a libel. The appeal raised fundamental questions, upon which men have always differed, and will always differ. The majority, whose mouthpiece was the late Lord Chief Justice, were against granting the injunction on the ground of "the importance of leaving free speech unfettered." But even lovers of liberty might allow that free speech about one's neighbours' characters ought to be subject to restriction, and inasmuch as the defendant stigmatised the plaintiffs as the associates and comrades of a City thief, a vulture," a person whose schemes have been aided by "fraud, conspiracy, burglary, and felony," many persons will be disposed to concur in the vigorous judgment in which the Lord Justice expressed his opinion that the injunction ought to have been pronounced. In Low v. Bouverie, in which the House of Lords affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Lord Justice, in an elaborate and learned judgment, agreed with his brethren in placing a salutary limit on the onerous duties of a trustee, and holding that it is no part of those duties to answer inquiries as to the trust estate by an intending incumbrancer. The late judge, though a Chancery lawyer, was free from the limitations, some might say the narrowness, of that branch of the Profession. In the Court of Appeal he was often called upon to break unfamiliar ground, but he was not, as others similarly placed have been, content to accept conclusions on authority, and in commercial cases or the intricacies of local government appeals he rapidly acquired all that needed to be known, and gave judgment according to his own reasoned convictions. The death of Lady Kay, in 1890, after forty years of married life, was a grievous trial. In her memory the Lord Justice founded Divinity scholarships at Jesus College to be held by members of the University who had taken at least a second-class in one or other of the various triposes, and intended to become clergymen of the Church of England. Great lawyers have often owed their success to University endowments. Few, indeed, of them have shown their gratitude in substantial form, and it is to be hoped that the example of the Lord Justice, who had never himself enjoyed such assistance, will be followed by others more fortunate at the outset of their careers. Sir Edward Kay has left two daughters to mourn his loss. Mr. HOMERSHAM Cox, ex-County Court judge, died at Tonbridge on Wednesday, the 10th inst., aged seventy-five. He was the son of the late Mr. Edward Treslove Cox. He was educated at Jesus College, Cambridge, and was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1851. He was appointed a County Court judge in 1871, his first circuit being that of Mid-Wales, from which he was transferred to Cardiff in 1884, and after a few months was again transferred to the Lambeth County Court. He retired in 1893. Among his published works are treatises on the differential calculus and the integral calculus, and also a treatise on the law of real property. ERRATUM. In our notice of the late Judge Bristowe the misstatement occurs that his brother is the present Vice-Chancellor of the Palatine Court of Lancashire. "Was Vice-Chancellor " we should have said. He died in 1893 when the present Vice-Chancellor Hall was appointed. HAYNES'S STUDENT'S STATUTES.-Being the Principal Provisions of some of the more general Acts of Parliament, with Notes of Important Decisions thereon, especially designed for the use of Students of English Law. Fourth Edition. Price 188.-HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.] |
