No return has been made since March 1906. A return from that date was in April last ordered by Parliament. No explanation is given in the official returns that in any way explains why the expenses of the Middlesex Registry should have increased from $2030 in 1900 to 3'10,493 in 1906. It has been suggested that the explanation is that the registry officials who receive and apply the Middlesex Registry fees have debited this department with an undue proportion of the general expenses of the office so as to minimise the loss incurred in the Land Registry Department in connection with the experimental trial of the system of compulsory registration of title. If the expenses of the Middlesex Deed Registry were covered by £2030 in March 1900, it is suggested that this sum would cover the expenses to-day. In that case it is clear that, in view of the annual receipts of the registry as shown above, the estimate made that the profits amount to $15,000

per annum is fully justified. The profits made in the Middlesex Registry justify, it is submitted, the estimate made that the profits of the Deed Registry would amount to £12,000 per annum ii deed registry were extended to that portion of the county of London that lies south of the Thames. The area and population that this part of the county embrace suggests, indeed, that the estimate is a conservative one. In considering the profits made by a deet registry it must be borne in mind that the business is purely ministerial and largely automatic, so that the necessity for experts (to whom substantial salaries have to be paid) is non-existent, This is one of the principal distinctions between a registry of deeds and a registry of titlez.

LAW ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the directors was held at the Law Society's Hall on the 5th inst., Mr. W. P, Richardson in the chair, The other directors present were Mr. T. H. Gardiner (treasureri, Mr. F. W. Emery, Mr. A. Toovey, Mr. Mark Waters, Mr. W. M. Woodhouse, and Mr. E. E. Barron (secretary). A sum of £50 was voted for the relief of deserving applicants, a new life member ani two annual subscribers were elected, and other general business was transacted.

mersmith, Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, Paddington, Rotherhithe, St. James', Westminster, St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, St. Marylebone, and Stoke Newington; Holborn District Board, Lee District Board, St. Giles' District Board, St. Saviour's District Board, Strand District Board, Wandsworth District Board, Whitechapel District Board, Great Central Railway Company, Great Western Railway Company, London and North-Western Railway Company, London and South-Western Railway Company, London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company, Metropolitan District Railway Company, Midland Railway Company, Auctioneers’ Institute, Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Building Societies? Association, Institute of Bankers, Law Society, Lord Portman, Birkbeck Freehold Land Society, British Land Company, Chelsea Permanent Building Society, Cannon Brewery Company, Kensington Permanent Benefit Building Society, London Permanent Benefit Building Society, Property and Estates Company Limited, Royal Benefit Building Society, Freehold and Leasehold Permanent Benefit Building Society, Union of House and Land Investors Limited, Standard Benefit Building Society.

In 1903 the undermentioned London borough councils presented a sealed petition to Parliament with a view to bringing the experiment to an end. The Corporation of the City of London and the Stoke Newington Council took independent steps with the same object. It will be noticed that the above-mentioned bodies marked * joined in the petition : Battersea, Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Chelsea, Deptford. Fulham, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith, Hampstead, Holborn, Kensington, Lambeth, Poplar, St. Maryle. bone, St. Pancras, Wandsworth, Woolwich. 6.- Procedure on Transfer of Property Registered with an

“ Absolute” Title. 11) Attendance on client receiving instructions. (2) Obtaining copy of land certificate from vendor's solicitor. (3) Obtaining authority to inspect register. (4) Attendance at Land Registry inspecting 'register, which disclosed (inter alia) restrictive conditions. (5) Obtaining client's instructions on restrictive conditions. (6) Preparation of usual requisitions. (7) Inquiries of local authorities as to outstanding charges for road making, &c. (8) Inquiry of sanitary inspector if drainage system passed (if premises newly erected). (9) Inquiry of tenant as to terms of tenancy. (10) Preparation of instruments of transfer (the forms as printed are obviously incomplete, containing no receipt for purchase money and requiring other additions). (ii) Submitting same to vendor's solicitor for approval. (12) Engrossment thereof on form and forwarding to rendor's solicitor for execution and arranging appointment to complete. (13) Obtaining earlier title deeds (which

not retained at the Land Registry, and which a purchaser should therefore obtain). (14) Making the following usual searches against vendor : Bankruptcy-(a) debtor's declaration, (b) bankruptey index-book. (r) petitions, (d) receiving orders; Land Registry (all separate searches)-(a) land charges, (6) deeds of arrangement, (c) writs and orders, (d) annuities and rentcharges, (e) lis pendens; (f) map department, (9) final search of register. (15) Checking statement for completion. (16) Copy thereof to client with notice of appointment to complete. (17) Attending completion. (18) Attendance stamping deeds. (19) Attendance at registry registering documents (often occupying a whole afternoon). (20) Authority to tenants for payment of rent. (21) Fire policies to offices for indorsement. (22) Checking entries in documents on their return from registry and making schedule. (23) Acknowledging receipts of deeds to registry and transmitting documents to client.--Numerous other attendances, &c., as shown by requisitions or necessary by reason of special circumstances. Had property been previously mortgaged other inquiries, searches, &c., would be requisite.

11.-Re the Middleser Registry.-Statement as to Profits. Extract from a report (June 1879) of the Select Committee on Land Transfer appointed in 1878 : “From a return recently laid before Parliament it appears that the fees received in the Middlesex Registry Office amounted in the year 1877 to the sum £14,043 5s. 6d., whilst the necessary expense of such office amounted to a sum of £4372 Os. 5d. only." If in 1877 the profit of the registry was thus £10.000, it is not an unreasonable assumption that, in view of the growth of the population in Middlesex during the subsequent thirty-four years, the profits could now be safely estimated at £15,000. Since the system of compulsory registration of title under the Land Transfer Act 1897 came into operation in the county of London in Jan. 1899 the Land Registry has, in the case of transactions registered under the Land Transfer Act, superseded the Middlesex Registry, and has proportionately reduced the fees and consequently the profits of that registry. The following figures are taken from returns made under the Middlesex Registry Act 1708 and the Land Registry (Middlesex Deeds) Act 1891 :

Receipts.

Payments. £

£ March 1900

17,559

2,030 1.901 16,202

4.5.3 1902 17,656

5,560 1903 16,261

7,804 1904 18,205

9,586 1905 17.212

9,819 1906 16,874

10,493

are

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 CUSTODY OF PARISH REGISTERS.—May I draw your attention and that of your readers to the important and interesting paper real by Mr. Moser, of Kendal, at the recent meeting of the Law Society at Nottingham dealing with the custody of our parish registers, and the resolution which was adopted to the effect that it is desi". able that in the interests of the public the law should be amende 1' For many years past it has been common knowledge that the mode of preservation of these valuable records has been not only open to question, but has been a crying scandal, and yet the Legislature has done absolutely nothing to remedy the matter.

That these registers are of extreme value to the public few would be found to deny, but this fact does not appear as yet to have penetrated the brains of those whose duty it is to the public to preserve them. The view which antiquaries take with regard to the importance of these records is well exemplified by a footnote on parish registers which appeared in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne published in the year 1889, which is 15 follows : “ The estates in suspense or which were lately, so for want of heirs of the family of Stote, of Jesmond, in Northumberland, also that of Barnesley, of Barnesley Hill, in Worcestershire, and several others, are recent instances of the value of registers and of the utility that may arise to the community from them wher correct and carefully preserved.” Of the dangers and difficulties which may ensue in cases where the registers have not been care; fully preserved Mr. Moser's paper forms an unanswerable bill o? complaint. Ignorance of these dangers cannot be pleaded by the Legislature, for I find that so recently as the year 1908 Mr. Arthur Meredith Burke, in that excellent work of his entitled A key tri the Ancient Parish Registers of England and Wales, after mentioning the value of such registers to the family historian for the clues they afford, expressed his regret that so little had then been done by the Legislature to secure the safe custody of what he stvles 'these national records.” He refers to an actual case in which the registers had been sold by auction at the highest bid on the death of an incumbent, and he draws attention to the in: that it was stated before a Select Committee of the House of Commons that a certain rector used to direct his pheasants with the parchment of the old registers. Whilst on this subject I would like to draw attention to the want of preservation of what are known as the “bishops' transcripts," which are copies of the registers sent from time to time to the registrar of each diocese. It is well known that the greater portion of these transcripts ara kept in no sort of order or arrangement, and are therefore difficu" to consult. Now, Sir, it seems only too likely that the resolutwa passed at Nottingham will lead to no satisfactory result ups further action be taken, and my object in writing is to enlist na only your sympathies, but your active co-operation in an anitati in favour of such legislation as will ensure the effective cure of the evils to which Mr. Moser has alluded. EDGAR F. BRIGGS.

of

:::

ticket, or syllabus, which may be obtained at the office of the association, 12, New-court, Lincoln's-inn. Mr. John Verrall, Hon. Sec. of Lectures.

THE OPENING OF THE LAW Courts:— Having an inquiring mind, may I ask why it is that the solicitor branch of the Proiession take no official part in the Abbey service prior to the opening of the courts? A continental lawyer (who is solicitor and barrister as we understand the functions), unfamiliar with our system, might very well be excused if, on reading the usual notice of the Attorney-General, he came to the conclusion that solicitors have no responsibility and take no professional part in litigation in England. Do solicitors think prayers are unnecessary in the case of their branch, or is it extreme modesty that prevents them from taking part officially through the president of the Law Society and several members of the council in an official solemn service before the commencement of each legal year?

INQUIRER.

NOTES AND QUERIES: This column is intended for the use of members of the Legal Profession, and

therefore queries from lay correspondents cannot be inserted. Under no

circumstances are editorial replies undertaken. None arz inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, oot

necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides.

STUDENTS' SOCIETIES. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.–At a meeting held at the Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, on the 3rd inst. (chairman, Mr. R. W. Handley), the subject for debate was : “That the attitude of the Liberal Party towards national and Imperial affairs renders an immediate change of Government imperatively necessary in the interests of the country and of the Empire.' Mr. W. S. Jones opened in the affirmative, and Mr. C. P. Blackwell in the negative. The following members continued the debate : Messrs. C. S. Krauss, W. M. Pleadwell, F. Burgis, W. S. Meeke, E. D. Shearn, R. H. Willcocks, R. T. Davies, H. G. Meyer, C. F. King, and J. G. Heal. The motion was carried by one vote.

BIRMINGHAM.—The opening meeting of the autumn session was held at the Law Library, Bennett's-hill, on Tuesday, the 3rd inst., Mr. Edward Evershed in the chair and twenty members present. The Moot Point No. 1023 was debated : “ Can there be an absolute assignment of a definite portion of a debt within sect. 25, sub-sect 6, of the Judicature Act 1873?" Mr. E. C. G. Clarke opened in the affirmative, and was supported by Messrs. W. J. Blackham, H. Cooke, A. J. Adams, and R. W. Frazier. Mr. A. Cpton opened in the negative, and was supported by Messrs. A. J. Hat. well, J. D. Evans, W. F. Horden, T. L. Bayley, D. A. Parry, and B. B. Davis. After the openers had replied the chairman summed up, and, on the question being put to the meeting, the voting resulted : For the affirmative, six; for the negative, eleven. A hearty vote of thanks to the chairman concluding the proceedings.

Queries. 37. ILLEGITIMATE CHILD OF TESTATRIX-STRANGER IN BLOOD.Can any reader refer to any case or decision in which it has been decided that an illegitimate child of a testatrix is a stranger in blood for the purposes of the payment of the 10 per cent. legacy? There is a case of Anderson v. Atkinson (46 L. T. Rep. 850; 21 Ch. Div. 100), in which an illegitimate child of a testator is decided to be, within the meaning of the Stamp Act 1815 and the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1888, a stranger in blood. There appears to be a considerable distinction in the relationship of a mother of an illegitimate child as compared with the father; in the eye of the law she is the mother and the legal guardian of the child.

X. Y. Z.

LEGAL OBITUARY.

(Q. 34.) ARREARS OF INCOME TAX.-The legal right of the Crown in the case of an erroneous return is to recover £20 and treble duty for each of the three past years : (Finance Act 1907, s. 23, and see the very recent case of Attorney-General v. Till). The usual practice is for the surveyor to give the defaulter the option of making up the amount in default for some years back in lieu of the above penalties.

THE AUTHORS OF "A GUIDE TO INCOME TAX PRACTICE."

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. . TU SECRETARIES.-Reports of meetings shonld reach the office not later than is!

pust Thursday morning to ensure insertion in the current number.

LONDON UNIVERSITY.

THE WHITTUCK SCHOLARSHIP. THE Whittuck Scholarship in International Law tenable at the London School of Economics and Political Science has been awarded to Albert Cecil Dawes, B.A. (London).

a

The death has occured at Epsom of Mr. CHARLES BARRETT RUSSELL, who was in his ninetieth year, and was called to the Bar in 1851. He carried out the duties of a revising barrister for forty-five years, and his retirement took place only a few years ago.

Mr. STEPHEN PECKOVER, of Leeds, died on the 4th inst., at Bramley, in the fiftieth year of his age. Born in Leeds, of Leeds parents, in Jan. 1862, he was educated at the Leeds Middle Class School, and at fifteen years of age entered the office of the late Mr. Thomas Marshall, the senior registrar of the County Court. He was afterwards articled to Mr. John Bowling, the present official receiver for Leeds, and having served his articles he succeeded in obtaining third class honours at the solicitors' final examination. He commenced practice immediately on his own account about the year 1888, and was wonderfully successful at the very outset of his professional career. In 1894 he went into partnership with Mr. Charles Scriven, and the firm has since been carried on under the well-known names of the two partners, the style not being altered when, subsequently, Mr. Francis Dixon was admitted as a junior partner. He frequently sat as deputy registrar, and for one year occupied the presidential chair of the Leeds Law Society. Mr. Peckover was admitted in 1888.

Sir JAMES SPEARMAN WINTER, formerly Premier of Newfoundland, died in Ottawa on the 7th inst. The son of Mr. James Winter, of the Customs Service at St. Johns, he was born at Lamaline, in Newfoundland, in 1845. He was called to the Bar in 1867 and obtained a large practice, taking “silk" in 1880. He became successively a member of the Executive Council, SolicitorGeneral, and Attorney-General. He represented Newfoundland at the Washington Fisheries Conference in 1887, and was delegate from the colony to London on the French treaties question. In 1893 he was raised to the Newfoundland Bench, but three years later he resigned and resumed his practice at the Bar. Last year Sir James Winter was one of the counsel for Great Britain in the arbitration case at The Hague on the fisheries and other questions at issue with the United States.

The death took place on the 8th inst., at Winton Castle, East Lothian, of Mr. RALPH DUNDAS, Clerk to the Signet, senior partner of the firm of Dundas and Wilson, C.S., Edinburgh.

Mr. WILLIAM EDMUND BALL, LL.D., died on the 8th inst. at Brasted, aged fifty-seven. He was the second son of the Rev. Joseph Lancaster Ball, of Torquay. In 1875 he won the Holt Scholarship, was called by Gray's-inn in 1878, and joined the Midland Circuit. He was the author of a Student's Guide to the Bar, and Principles of Torts and Contracts

Colonel HENRY CRANSTOUN ADAMS, V.D., died at Exmouth on the 29th Sept.

He was the youngest son of General Sir George Adams, K.C.B., by Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of Sir Wm. Elfred, Bart., formerly of Bickham, Devon. Having been educated at Blundell's School, Tiverton, and King's College, London, he was articled to Messrs. Beadon and Sevett, of Taunton. Admitted solicitor in 1849, he went to practise at Exmouth, and in the same year married Matilda Winsloe, a daughter of Commander Thos. Patton, R.N. He became clerk to the Exmouth Local Board of Health on its establishment in 1850, and retained the appointment until the district council came into being; he remained its clerk until his death, although for over a year he had not been in his cffice. He was also clerk to the justices of the Woodbury Division

OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

ELDON LAW SCHOLARSHIP. An election to an Eldon Law Scholarship worth £200 a year will take place on the 15th Nov. Information as to the terms under which the scholarship is held is given in the Oxford University Calendar.

SOLICITORS' MANAGING CLERKS ASSOCIATION. The following is a syllabus of law lectures for the Michaelmas session 1911, to be delivered in the halls of the respective Inns :

Friday, Oct. 20.-Lecture : “ The Reconstruction and Amalgamation of Companies.” Lecturer, Mr. Alexander Grant, K.C. Chairman, Lord Justice Buckley. (In the Old Hall, Lincoln's-inn.)

Tuesday, Nov. 28.--Lecture : Bankruptcy.” Lecturer, Mr. Edward Clayton, K.C., Treasurer of Gray's-inn. Chairman, Lord Mersey of Toxteth. (In the Gray’s-inn Hall.)

Friday, Dec. 15.-Lecture : “ The Interpretation of Statute Law.” Lecturer, Mr. W. F. Craies. Chairman, Lord Robson. (In the Inner Temple Hall.)

The chair will be taken at seven o'clock precisely.

The lectures are open to all the members of the association, who will be allowed to introduce friends connected with the Legal Profession. Non-members will be admitted on production of

of Devon for about fifty years, and a Notary Public. His service in the Auxiliary Forces of the country extended over a period of about fifty years. He was highly esteemed by a large circle of friends.

Re O. H. Coliing (deceased); Collins r. Limited and in the Matter of the Trade Collins and others

Marks Act 1905 The Great Central Railway Company o.

Coleman and Co. Limited and S. Smith Th ind Railway Company

and Oo. Limited The Trustees of the London Parochial Re The Camden Brewery Company

Charities v. The London Life Associa- Limited ; Forder r. The Company tion Limited

Re F. G. Rimell (deceased) ; Bennett o. Re The Registered Trade Marks, Nos. Allsop and others. 305,293, and 306.121, of S. Smith and Co.

THE COURTS AND COURT PAPERS.

FROM THE ChancERY AND PROBATE AND DIVORCE Division.

Interlocutory List. 1910.

the Matter of the Lunacy Acts 1890 and Re John McFee (deceased): McFeer.

1891 Toner and others; Edwards and another Aktiengesellschaft Mix and Benest r. v. Toner and others.

Oppenheimer
1911.

Lord Ashburton v. Nocton
Divorce: Leslie (Marie Josephine) r. Same v. Same
Leslie (Charles John)

Re the Coinpapies (onsolidation) Act Jupes v. Bird

1908; Re The Law Guarantee Trost and Lunacy : In the Matter of the Most Hon. Accident Society Limited (Wishart and

J. J. Dudley Stuart Marquess of Towns- Saunderson's Claim). end, a person of unsound mind, and la

FROM THE COUNTY PALATINE COURT OF LANCASTER.

Final List.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-SESSION 1911.–No. 5.
List, as far as possible, of EFFECTIVE Causes only.

CAUSES STANDING FOR HEARING.
De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited c. British Sonth Africa Compavy. (England.)

In part heard. Lord Advocate (on behalf of His Majesty) and others v. Walker Trustres. (Scotland ) Jamee Noleon and Sons Limited v. Neison Line (Live pool) Limited (Second Appeal;.

(England.) Morgan r. William Dixon Limited. (Scotland.) Macway (pauper) o. Rosie. (Scotland ) Swifte v. Attorney-Genern] for Ireland and another. (Ireland.) Lon on and Sonth-Western Railway Company r. British Vacuum Cleaner Company

Limited. (England.) Prown and anothur r Turner, Brightman, and Cr. (England.) Low Accident Insurance Society Limited and another 1. Law Guarantee Trust and

Accident Society Limited and others. (England.) Russell r. Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners and othe:s. (England.) McVittie r. Townend. (England.) Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company r. Provost, &c., of Burgh of Ayr.

(Scotland ) Symington e. Caledonian Railway Company. (Scotland ) Leaver (pauper) o. Urban District Council if Pontypriud. (England.) Farmer (Surreyor of Taxes) r. Scottish North American Trust Limited. (Scotland.) Kerrison o. Glyn Mills Currie and Co. (Eoglana.) E. Clemens Horst Company v. Biddell broth-rs. (England.) Kilmarnock Thea'ra Company Limited (in liquidation) and others r. Buchanan acd

others. (Scotland.) Taylor r. Lomun and North-Western Railway Company. (England.) Scottish Widows Fund Life Assurance Society v. Blennerhasseit. (Iroland) Ques'ion

of competency. Barues (pauper) 1. Nunnery Colliery Company Limited. (England.) Caterham Congregational school r Atkinson and another. (Eogland.) Allen and others o. Bird. (England) Guardians of the Poor of Hackney Union r. Kiogston-upon-Hull Incorporation for

the Poor. (England.) Colley's Patents Limiteu c. Metropolitan Water Board. (England.)

1911. Croft o. The Urban District Council of Falwood.

FROM THE KING's BENCH DIVISION.

In Bankruptcy. Re F. C. Lupton ; Ex parte The Bank- | Re H. F. Campbell: Er parte Mary rupt

Gertrude Elliot, Widow Re A Debtor, No. 1839 of 1911; Er parte Re Thomas Coope (otherwise Thomas The Debtor

Ralph Douso); Er parte The Debtor. Rr The Dehior. Er parte The Debtor),

No. 773, of 1911

ance

CAUSES WAITING FOR JUDGMENT. Batler or Black and another r. Fife Coal Company Limited. Johoston and others v, O'Neill and others. Harris and another v. Earl of Chestertield and another. Keates v. Lewis Merthyr Consolidated Collieries Limited. Naw Monckton Collieries Limited v. Keeling. William Edge and Sons Limited v. William Niccolls and Sons Limited. Richard Evans and Co. Limited r'. Astley. Attorney General (at the relation of Mayor, &c., of Tamworth and others) r. Bir

mingham, Tame, and Rea District Drainage Board.

CLAIMS OF PEERAGE DEPENDING, Airth (Earldom)'

Oxford (Earldcm) Burgh, Strabolgi, and Cobham

Latymer Dynaunt and Fitzwaryn

Furnivall. Martin

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.-MICHAELMAS

SITTINGS 1911.

Court of Appeal. The appeals or other business proposed to be taken will, from time to time, te announced in the daily cause list, FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION, THE PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND

ADMIRALTY Division (PROBATE AND DIVORCE), AND THE COUNTY PALATINE AND STANNARIES COURTS.

General List. 1911.

In the Matter of the Estates of Mary Monckton r. The Gramophone Company Walford, J. A. H. Walford, and J. H. N. Limited

Walford (all deceased); Kenyon R: The Earl of Stamford and Warrington Walford

(deceased): Payne v. Grey and others Day and another. Thompson ard Re Same: Same v. Same

apother In the Matter of an Application of W. and Reihe Companies Consolidation Act 1908

G. du Cros Limiled and in the Matter and In the Matter of Sly, Spink, and Co. of the Trade Marks Act 1903

Limited In the Matter of tbe Companies (Con Mills r. The United Countieg Bank Limi'ed

solidation) Act 1908 and in the Matier Klawansky r. The Premier Petroleum of the Premier Underwriting Associa- Company Limited and others (The Pru. tion Limited

dential Trust Corporation Third Party, Same v, Same

Benno Maisel Fourth Party) In the Matter of the Companies Acts Re The Estate or J. W. Cockrell (ce

1862 to 1907 and in the latter of the ceased); Pinkey v. Cockrell

Premier Underwriting Association Burgho8 . Aitorney-General Palmer v. Emmerson

Re The Tewkesbury Gas Company Brock r. Pain and others

Limited: Tysoe r. The Company
In the Matter of Trade Mark. Wilson and others to Wilson Brothers

No. 135,036 and No. 161,072, and in the Bobbin Company Limited
Matter of The Trade Marks Act 1905

Re

Roberts (deceased); Leppard v. In the Master of the Middlesex Estates: Knight

Sir J. M. M. Wilson (deceased) and In Gill and others r. The Lee's Corporation tbe Matter of the Settled Lands Acts | The Vidal Dyes Syndicate Limited r. 1882 to 1890

Levinstein Limited Re The Estate of Rer. J. C. A. Roberts Same r. Read, Halliday, and Sons Lim.

(deceased) and te The Trustee Act 1893 Coleman and Co. Limited v. Stephen and R Judicial Trustee ict 1996

Sunith and Co. Limited The British Westinghouse Electric and Kynoch Limited r. Rowlands and Wells

Final and New Trial List. 1910,

Burdett v Horne and another Maceregor r. Peet ; Peet ”. Macgregor The Liverpool, London, and Globo Insur

Ellis r. Banyard and another Haggr. Ladoga Limited

Company (apps.) T.

Charles Wigglesworth (Suppliant) v. The King

Edmund Bennett

(resp.) (Surveyor

of Taxes) (Revenue Side) 1911.

Godsell v. Lloyd and another Re The Arbitration Act 1889 and Re en

Mentors Limited r. Erans
Arbitration between The Secretary of Bilo Manufacturing Company Limitei r.
State for War and H. J. Van Laun

Williamson
Liverpool Corporation v. The Assessment Hunt v. Rose and another.

Committee of the Chorley Union and Glasse r. Patent Lightning Crusher Comothers

pany Stoddartu Union Trust Limited

Ronald r. John Bull Limited and others Bright v. Bright

Humpbries r. Humphries Ames r. Whiteman

In the Matter of the Arbitration Act 1889 The Glasgow Assurance Corporation

and in the Matter of an Arbitration Limited v. Symondson and Co.

between John Lang and the Crude Hebert v. Royal Society of Medicine and

Rubber Washing Company Limited otherg

Thomas Free v. The Urban District CousHales v. London General Omnibus Com

cil of Sutton (Surrey). pany Limited

The Mayor, &c. of the Borough of Derby Blake r. Fenner and others

r. Pegg and Ellam Jones Limited Roberts v. Oales

The Continental Petroleum Company t. Gregory o. Watson Steamship Company Norsello Taylor and others

Meade King, Robinson, and Co.
Limited and others
Coleman v. Twining

Downing v. Easton and Fenner The American Thread Company Limited Rea Transport Company Limited c. v. Joyce (Surveyor of Taxes)

Stearns Skene . Thomas

Same v. Bowring Gosling v. The Mayor. &c., of the Metro Re an Arbitration between Mocatta and politan Borough of Holborn

the Franco-British Exhibition (Incorpo Anglo-Continental, &c., Company Limited rated)

and others r. McCreath and Sons Marcovitch o. Liverpool Victoria Friendly Mahoney r. R. Johnson Limited

Society Skene v. The Midland Railway Company In the Matter of an Arbitration betwera and James R. Howard

Bradley and the Essex and Sunolk Wilson r. Spiegel

Accident
and Indemnity

Society Thomas v. Tho Holt Brewery Company Wixon and others v. Thomas

Limited Limited In the Matter of an Issue between Corfield Brice r, The Ocean Accident and Guaranand King Farlow

tco Corporation Limited In the Matter of the London Building Act Travers v. The London General Omnibas

1894 and In the Matter of an Arbitration Company Limited between London, Gloucestershire, and Chetwynd r. Seth Smith Brothers North Hants Dairy Company and The Services Company (London) Limited Morley and Lanceley Limited and 0. Scott Engineering Company Limaiothers

ted Browder. Black

McRao v. Penman (Gee and Sheen, Tlund Hawkins r. Muff and others

Parties) Cunis v. Mcknight

Northtield Steamship Company Limited Société Coloniale Aurersoise and v. Compagnie L'linion des Gaz.

another v. London and Brazilian Bank Owen r. Evans Limited.

Lane v. George and another Kingsmill v. French

Piper v. Izod David Allen and Sons Limited and others Norman v. De Lille t: Illingworth

Robioson v Lutton and others Lundie . Thomas and others

Hall r. Whiteman Colden Manufacturing Company Limited Bird r. Tyler

. Carrington and Dewhurst Limited In the Matter of an Arbitration betweer Hughes r. Provincial Motor Cab Company Priddy aid Hale and the Guardians of Limited

the Woolwich Union McRae r. Penman

McConnell and others r. Steamship GlenMead r. Ball

Lang". Crude Rubber Wasbing Company Rennie r, Schobert
Limited

J. Orchard r. J. Orchard Limited British Association of Glass Bottle Manu- , Burford r. Jarratt and others facturers Limited r. Nettleford

Betts and another v. Gray and another Titus r. Winterfeldt

Croft v, Howitt Simper v. Watney and others

Mayor, &c., of the County Borough of Supple v. Blackler's Stores

Brighton r. Brighton, Hove, and Preston Parrish v. Mayor. &c., of the Metropolitan United Omnibus Company Limited Burough of Hackney

Parr v. Hilton
The Alexandra (Newport and South Gregory r. Torquay Corporation

Wales) Docks and Railway Company Warner. Leach

8. The Taff Vale Railway Company Symondson r, London and South-Western Fondu v. Calthorpe Motor Company Bank Limited Limited

Wauthier • Wilson and another
Buckleton v. Heilbut Symons and Co. Victor r. Victor
Badcock v. Ryder

Re Paine, & Solicitor (practising as Rosenthal r. Waddup

Paines) Jones Brothers (Holloway) Limited v. Jenkios r. Great Western Railway ComPelletier

pany Sharpe r. Haggith

North-Western Salt Company Limited r. Leach •. Great Central Railway

Electrolytic Alkali Company Limited Re_Municipal Corporation Act 1882; Bastow and another Braceras and Forrester r. Norton

Co. Re Municipal Corporation Act 1882; Natural Color Kinematograph Company Borley and others o, Norton

Limited s. Polycolor Syndicate Limited Fry and Mngon r. Smellie and Taylor Haworth v. Pilbrow. Chettle r. Sleger and others

Joyce r. The Wellingto:ough Iron Com- Jessop r. Maclay and another pany

Humber Towing Company Limited Beaumont r. Underground Electric Rail- Barclay

ways Company of London Limited Marriott and another v. Brett and Beney Tboburn t'. Bedlington Coal Company

Limited Limited

Leach r. Laverack and Goddard Limited Taylor v. Bolckow, Vaughan, and Co. Pomagolis 1. Owners of Steamship Limited

Pontiac Breakwell v. Clee Hill Granite Company Edmonds e. Owners of the Ship PetersLimited

ton Coulson r. The Worshipful Company of James r. Virian Drapers

Smith v. Morrison
Smith' v. Addams and Co. L mited (The Fry v. The Mayor, fc., of Cheltenham

Riley Manufacturing Company Limited, Dierens v. Insoles Limited
Third Parties)

Berant. The Energlyn Colliery ComNewhouse and Co, r. Johnson

pany. Pilt t'. Wolff N.B.—The above List contains Chancery, Palatine, and King's Bench Final and

Interlocutory Appeals, &c., set down to Oct. 2, 1911.

SUMMARY OF APPEALS. From the Chancery Division, general list, 38; interlocutory, 8: total, 46. From the Coun's Palatine Court of Lancaster, general list, 1; total. 1. From thi King's Bench Division, tinal and new trial, 122; interlocutory, 21; total, 143 From the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division (Admiralty) with nautica BB80ssors, inal and new trial, 1 ; total, 1. Same without nautical assessors, fina and new trial, 4; total, 4. From the King's Bench Division Sitting in Bankruptcy, final and new trial, 5; total, 5, Re the Workmen's Compensation Act, from County Courts, Anal and new trial, 70 ; total. 70. Totals: General list and inal and new trial, 241 ; interlocutory, 29; total, 270.

FROM TH E PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION (ADMIRALTY).

Judgment Reserved. Seacombe- The Owners of the Barge Dolly The Deronshire-The Owners of the Barge

and her Master anil Crew, suing for Leslie r. The Owners of the Steamship tbeir los t effects, and Owners of Cargo Deronshire. and Freight r.' Owners of Steamship Seacombe (damage)

With Nautical Assessors.-Final List.

1911. Tl IIoper No. 1-The Owners of Ketch Snood m ind others v. The Owners of thə

Steamship Hopper No. 1 of Dublin (damage).

High Court of Justice.
King's Bench Division.

THURSDAY, OCT. 12.

Middlesex Special Jury Actions. Actions beyond No. 1743 in this List will not be taken before Monduy, the 23rd Oct.

Some of the following Numbers will be in the List for Trial on Friday, the 13th Oct.: Nos. 1545 to 1632 inclusive.

Without Nautical Assessors. The l'msinga--W. Cory and Sons Limited The Fanny-Thos. Morgan r. J.S. Davies,

v. The Owners of the Steamsbip Umsinga the Owner of the Vessel Lily Green and (damage)

all others claiming against Vessel Medina-F. Chiesman and Co.

1. The

Fanny (limitation of liability) Owners of the Steamship Modina Dupleix-The Anglo-American Oil Com(damage to cargo)

pany Limited 0. The Owners of the Barque Dupleix and freight (damage)

FROM THE KING's BENCH DIVISION.

Interlocutory List. 1910.

The Shaftesbury Avenue Skating Rink Reeder r. Cooper

Limited r. Chaudoir and others (defea

dants) (F. L. Chaudoir, Third Party) 1911.

Pim, Vaughan, and Co. and others v. Clark v. Forster; Same r. Same; Forster Dimitri, Tchernine, and others

v. Aldridge; Re H. Forster ; Er parte J. Ginshurg and another r. Jonques and Jackson Clark, in Bankruptcy

others Walther . The Marlborough Theatre, Maple and Co. Limited r. Rossner London. Limited

W. Whiteley r. Campion Re The Arbitration Act 1889 and Re An Odhams r. Beecham

Arbitration between British Westing- Ashmead-Bartlett v. Beechom house Electric and Manufacturing Com- Priddy and Hale Limited r. The Guardians pany Limited and Underground Electric of the Poor of Woolwich Union Railways Company of London Limited; Actiosselskabet Dampskib * Hercules" v. Electric Railway Company (claimants) The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway

r. The Underground, &c. (respondeats) Company Slatford v. Erlebach

Coxeter and Sons Limited r. Mitchell Hutton u. Gubbins

Anderton (tradiog as Anderton and Co.) r. Flynn r. Todrick and another

Langa and another (Farnell, (Thiad Allant. Clarke and others

Party) Ollit r. Gcoling

| Smith r. Jeffs.

Re The WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS 1897 AND 1906.

From County Courts. 1910.

Bomer v. Gough and another Davies r. Hills Plymouth Colliery

Lee v. Owners of Ship Bessie and another

Davies r. Gillespie and another 1911.

Higgins r. Poulson Godwin ". The Lords Commissioners of Biggurt r. Owners of Steamship Minnethe Admiralty

1545 Curry and another r. London General | 1742 Hay .. Yorkshire Liberal Newspaper

Omnibus Company Limited and and Publishing Company Limited, anoiher. Pers. inj.

Libel 977 Jarrott v. Société Loraine, &c., and 1743 Walter r. Salmon. Possession

another. Declaration 1583 Vokins and Co. Limited v. Port of 1747 Peto v. Beesly. Libel

London Authority. Negligence 1756 Cohen add orbers r. Leyton Urban 1587 Brockett Armstrong.

Fraud.

District Council. Lord Campbell's reps.

Act 1592 Reeves and Prust v. Wertheimer. 1759 Harris v. Shales. Slander Stockbroker's account

1769 Brinckman •. Brinckman. Covenant 1595 Kiltyr. Sea Steamsbip Company 1770 Bilion v. Hooley. Detinue L mited. Pers. inj.

1776 Bevan r, Bright and another. Con. 1600 Ashburnham-Clement r. John Bull

Iract
Limited and others. Libel

1779 Patch 4. Clergue and another, 1619 Danzeyr. Metropolitan Bank of

Wrong dis.
England and Wales Limited. 1785 Ascroft Morris and others.
Money received

Detinue 1627 Douglas e. singleton. Breach of 1789 Olden v. London General Omcibus promise

Company Limited. Pers. inj. 1632 Miller Temple Press Limited. 1797 National Cash Register Company Account

Limited v. Green. Contract

1799 Stehr r. Hairdressing Limited and 1642 Sargent v. London General Omnibus

others. Likel Company Limited and others. 1804 Held r. Pollak and ano her. Goods Pers. ini.

sold 1659 Frere . Frere. Libel

1806 Evans r. Thomas Beecham Opera 1660 Ogle v. Butterfield. Contrant

Company. Wrong mis. 1667 Johnson, Riddle, and Co. Limited r. 1807 Port of Lordon Authority v. Dale

London Society of Compositors aud Steamship Company. Indemnity others. Libel

1821 Hall Wright r. Times Publishing 1682 J. Pollak and Co. r, Duke of Man

Company and apother. Libel chester. Stockbroker's account. 182? Clarke v. Newton. Negligence 1685 Bass". Hendon Utban District 1820 Gosling ". Bridgeman and others. Council. Pers. inj.

Pound breach 1689 Smart and another t. Edwards. ' 1899 White r. Belverstone. Sladder Trover

18:36 Stoneham and Co. r. Newton. Work 1691 Sparenborg 1. Edinburgh Life 1837 Gorer v. Dodson. Bill

Assurance Company. Money re- 1839 Kearley and Tonge Limited 4. W. ceived

Blythe and Co. Limited.

War1351 Browo. v. Kent and another. Libel

ranty 14:33 Field r. Whiteman. Trespass 1850 J. Turner and Co. r. Vardy. Stock. 1459 Forsyth v. Whiteman and another.

broker's account. Injunction

1857 Lang v. Société Coloniale Anversoise. 75 Deen 0. Whinney and another.

Commission
Warranty

1865 Baxter and another v. illam. Money 179 London Trading Bank o. Master and

lent another. Bill

1867 Forbes and others r. Draper. Libel 294 Darbishire u. Field. Declaration 1871 Marshall r. Rosber. Contract 1104 Rapaport r. Gethen. Contract. 1872 Maass v. Gas Light and Coke Com22 Grover and Grover r. Langford. pany. False impt. Negligence

1873 Léretus r. Oliver Typewriter Com232 Paine r. Countess of Warwick, Bill pany. Declaration 6:53 Atherton v. Paul and Wife. Slander 1875 Dobsin v. Cotton and others. Fraud. 838 Mason r. Bathurst Trading Com

raps pany. Contract

189? Crumpler r. Johnson. Covenant 992 Elliott v. Brorholme. Notes

1893 Kemp r. Beltrage and Saville. 1150 Acetylene Corporation, &c., and

Negligence anotber v. Heath and Son and 1898 Horne t. John Bull Limited and another. Libel

others. Libel 1693 Morier V. Fower. Breach of 1899 Sane r. Mrs. John Bull and others. promise

Libel 16:9 Rhodesia Gold fields Limited 19 3 Cousins r. Weil. Breach of promise

Partridge and another. Declara- 1901 Israel and Oppenheimer r. Soeffing. tion

r.

1918 Same r. Wilson and others. Libel 1992 Capsuloids (1909) Limited r. Duncan, 1921 Deane v. Taylor. Contract

Flockhart, and Co. Contract 1922 Wade v. Macaure Wrong dis. 1997 O'Byrne v. Hall. Detinue 1928 W. Judd Limited v. Aflective Cella. 1999 Vickers, Son, and Maxims Limited loid Syndicate Limited. Con.

v. Clergue. Commission tract

2070 Arlidge o. Oopolly and others. Libel. 1935 Booth 6. National Cash Register 2012 Weeks v. Palliser. Libel Company. Contract

2013 Goble and Sothers Limited 1946 Burgess, Coseds, and Co. r. Bourne.

Armour and Co. Limited. Libel Solicitor's bill

2018 Cox r. Twentieth Century Press 1958 With rs and

Wife .
Mitchell

Lim ted and others. Libel Brothers (London) Limited. Pers. 2020 Hughes 0. L. 0. Company Limited. inj.

Detinue 1959 Iroy Coast Rubber Estates 0. 2021 Pridgeon 0. Mellor an others. Harley. Money received

Trespass 1968 C. and W. Walker Limited v British 2023 Woolfe v. Tbompeon, Fraser RamCoalite Company Limited. Con

say Proprit tary Limited. Bill tract

2025 Knowles r. Taylor. Work 1973 Savage r. Bank of Montrea'. Pers. 21.26 Reed v. Kempster. Libel inj.

2027 Shervington o. Same. Libel 1986 Jones v. Beecham. Contract

2028 Reed v. I.

ted. Libel 1987 Brill and Wife 0. Anglo-Galician 2029 Shervington r. Same. Libel

Naptha Syndicate Limited and 2038 Bloor and others . Ball's Motor others. Contract

Garage. Goods sold.

1528 Marler r. Jacobus Marler Estates 1909 Higbbury Furn'shing Company r Limited. Rent

Lon. Wasonic Club, Goods sold 1381 Gover and 8nther 0. Day and 1923 Beaumont é. Morgan and another. others. Postession

Issue 1430 South-Eastern and Chatham Rail- 1925 Harris, Chetbam, and Coben r. Hal) way Company o. Kent Collieries

and Newman. Guarantee Limited. Contract

1930 Morris and others o. Oppert. Money 1433 Warren r. Reia and oth:rs. Money pa'd received

1939 Benison v. Tavlor, Contract 1466 W. W. Howard Brothers and Co. v. 1940 Same

Bitish Underwrit rs Guilliet, Sons, and Co. Contract

Limited Conrract 1615 Grapelax Limited. V. Anderson. 1947 Grout and Co. Limited t. Valentin Calls

and Co. Goods sold 1692 Moore . Chatterton and another. 1933 Elliott r, Bueno. Bills Solicitor's bill

1957 Shaw r. Porter. Possessin 1771 Kirkwood o. Daniels. Detinue 1960 Leathers r. Laight and Co. Goods 1772 Mazzoni v. Towler. Note

Bold 1783 H. Young and Co. Limited v. White. 1972 Jeokins and another o. Great CenWork

tral Railway Company, Veglia 1784 Lebus and another Jackson

gence Money lent

1975 Jones

And

another Sager. 1790 Baskett and another ». Lord Bate

Datinue man. Covenant

1979 Joly v. Chatterton. Money receired 1798 Hollis v. Kennedy. Money paid 1980 Public Trustes v. Tanne.t-Walker. 1803 Byfield v. Barnet Urban District

Contract
Council. Award

1983 New River Company Limited r. 1808 Amos v. Coney and Gale and

Mendbam and another. Posses another. Possession

sion 1824 Low 0. Rubber and Oil Finance 1985 Treasure r. Palser. Trespass

Corporation Limited. Contract 1990 Stone v. Dwelley. Possession 1847 Moglia 0. Allingham. Goods gold 1991 J. Russell, Grant, and Co. v. Byre. 1858 Hackett Hingrakadus Rubber

Declaration
Estates Limited. Work

1998 Braid, Pater, and Co. Limited . 1859 Sime v. Pacaya Rubber, &c. Limited.

Richardson. Contract
Work

2009 Woolfe c. Polack. Contract 1866 Todd v. O'Donnell and Co. Detipue 2011 Lea N.S.U. Motor Company 1894 Sandford . Burton. Vote

Limited. Patent 1896 Newbold o. Hallows. Money lent 2016 Matthias 7. Humphreys. Account ? 897 Inrook and Co. Limited r. Weid

stated Blandel!. Work

2022 Bennett r. Athey.

Money lent 1900 Fleidings v. Daniel. Issue

2024 Schröder o. Salisburg-Joues. Work. 1901 Oran r. Hunaley and others. Solici

tor's bill

Summary of Actions entered for Trial to the 8th Oct. Middlesex: Special Juries, 186; Oommon Juries, 147; Non-Juries, 125 Commer. cial Causes, 50. Set down under Order XIV., 34 Assigned Actions, 8. Total, 5:0.

NOTE:- This summary shows the total number of actions for trial up to and inclusive of the above date.

Midalesex Common Jury Actions. Actions beyond No. 1920 in this list will not be taken before Monday, the 23rd Oc.

Some of the following Numbers will be in the List for Trial on Friday, the 13th Oct.: N08. 405 to 1758 inclusive. 405 Bennett-Stanford r. Torkington and | 1834 Dare v Bognor Urban District another. Contract

Council. Contract 1604 Monk

Monk and another. 1838 Waterlow v. Sbankland and Wife. Account

Trespass 1016 Burford 2. London County Council. 1813 Clarkson r. Bigwood. Commission. Negligence

1814 Morris 0. London Theatres of 1749 Securities Excbange Limited r.

Varieties Limited. Contract
Meyer. Money received

1851 Choate r. Monk. Contract 1753 Barns v. St. Mary, Islington, Guar. 1868 Rose c. Knox. Money paid diung. Trover

1869 Millen v. Bunn. Pers. inj. 1302 Bloss Holland. Money re- 1870 Gennesson v. Dickman. Contract ceived

1877 Josephson r. Monk. Contract 1755 Gieatrex o. Metropolitan Electric 1895 Sabben v. Bish. Pers. inj. Tramways. Pers, inj.

190? Marks v. Snarey. Contract 1758 Dooglas v. London General Omnibus 1906 Miller v. Loudon County Council Company Limited. Pers. inj.

Pers, inj.

1911 Prattoa r. Coupé Company and 1760 Fowler , Lurion and others. Trover

Motor Cab Company Limited. 1773 Lock v. General Conference of the

Pers, inj.
New Church. Commission

1919 Chat-lain. Leal, and Co. v. J. O. and 1777 Bevan r, l'ickering. Money lent

W. Lord. Goods sold 1778 Munns v. Lonion County Council. 1920 Viola r. Pic'orial Newspaper ComPers. inj.

pany Limited. Contract 1782 Delmar Limited r. Ricketts, Bill 1786 Knapp r. Harrey. Pers. inj.

1924 Neuselo, Lewis:hn Brothers. Goods 1792 Shepbard 1. Manning and Vile.

sold Slander

1926 O'Kelly v. Cleaver. Trover 1805 Alford 0. Chapinan. Breach of 1927 Spack and another r. Brown and Co. promise

Libel 1811 International Granite Company v. 1931 Wright r. Harwood. Seduction Callow. Contract

1933 M dburst r. British Motor Boat Com1633 Walters r. Warter. Libel

pany. Warranty 1812 Cox . London General Omnibus 1937 Fiat Motors Limited Lesle. Company Limited. Pers. inj.

Work 1817 Midgley r. Mauley. Mal. pros. 1941 C. Grahame White and Co. 1818 Parker London Toeatre of

Rozerg. Goods sold Varieties Limited. Covenant 1942 Franklin r. Lady de Trafi urd. De1820 Elliot t'. Ingersoll and Brothers.

tinue Pers. ioj.

1964 Goodchild v. Clark. Pers, inj. 1826 Tremeer v. Foster. Contract 1965 Powis v. Lefley. Slander 1830 Williams v. McCarihy and Co. 1969 Ritterbrandt v. Kosminski. Work Gods sold

1971 Davie v. British Motor Cab Company 1833 Matthews and another v. Derry and

Limited and another. Pers, inj. Toms. Pers. iDj.

1974 Waterfield v. Squire and Co. Negli. 1835 Smith 1. Proud Brothers, Pers.

gence

1976 A. Mathews and Co. o. Byrne. Con78 Ross . Downey and another. Negli.

tract gence

2001 Simmons r. D. Smith and Co. and 94 Skoien r. Long. Contract

another. Bill 165 Woodward v. New Zealand A880- 2006 Joyce o. Goff. Sedoction ciated Press. 188ue

2008 Holland 0. P. I. P. Limited and 941 Bisman v. Israel and another. Bill

others. Libel 1573 J. Landau and Sons v. Wingate and 2017 Makua Trading Corporation Limited Johnston Limited Contract

r. Anglo . Continental Industries 1613 Russell and another 0. Chirgwin.

Limited. Colls
Declaration

2019 Cameron r. Short and Sons Limited. 1653 Dosteel v. King. Libel

Lord Campbell's Act 1718 Bolotoft

Goldsmiths' and 2030 Rost o. W. R. Taylor, Carr, and Co. Silversmitbs' Company Limited.

and another. Fraud. reps. Issue

2035 Curran o. Meux's Brewery Company 1720 Lewinson o. Southcomte. Detinue

Limited and acother. Pers. inj.

ini.

Probato, Divorce, and Admiralty Division.

ADMIRALTY.

Actions for Trial.
Ship Aberty
Sbip Empress

Ship Papanui
snip Alemania
sbip Endymun

Ship Penelope
Ship Alice Taylor
Sbip Ethel

Ship Pomer anian
Ship Ariadne
Ship Express

Ship Portsmouth
Ditto
Sbip Falcon

Sbip Prins Frederick Here
Diito
Ship Fingal

drik
Sbip Aimah
Ship Furih

Ship Primrose
Ship Auguste
Ship Fredheim

Ship Quten Oga
Ship Aurora
Ship Galician

Ditto
Saip A. Wicander
Ship Ileneig

Snip Ramillies
Ship Baldurin
Ship Goole No 7

Ship Roche Castle
Ship Ballochbuie
ship Gorli:

Saip Ryton
Ship Banderas
Ship Haake

Ship St. Etienne
Ship Bannockburn
Ship Harroco

Ship San Antonio
Ship Barbados
Ship Hercules

Ship Sea Biru
Ship Baron Selbourne
Ship Hallamshire

Snip Sea Flower
Ship Batarier II.
Ship Hilda

Ship Seamer
Ship Batavier IV.
Ship Holnis

Ship Silverdale
Ship Benarty
Ship Hope

Snip Siria
Ship Blou boat
Ship Hopper No. 5

Ship Storm ock
Sbip Bonneveine
Sbip Innt smoor

Ship Spondilus
Ship Braemar Castle
Ship Irena

Ship Sussex
Snip Briez lluel
Ship Jacana

Ship Swansea Bay
Ship Brigadier
Sbip James Westoll

Ship Tapton
Ship British Sun
sbip Karanja

Ship The President
Ship Calchas
Ship Katie

Ship Torpore
Ship Castor
Ship King Edward

Ship Treglisson
Ship Charles Alison
Ship Kirkley

Ship Tremont
Ship Chorley
Ship hurland

Snip Iroquois
Ship Clio
ship Lerfos

Ship Tyr
Ship Cloutsham
Ship L'Espoir d'Arenir

Ship Uriarte Vo.14
Ship Clumberhall
Ship Lillebourne

Ship l'rling
Ship Cordova
Ship Loch Lomond

Sbip Vigilant
Ship Cosme
Ship Locksley

Ship Welikij t'uas AlShip Cristoforo Vagliano Ship Lord Stewart

ander Michailouisach
Ship Croydale
Ship Loumoor

Ship Westmoreland
Ship Cymbeline
Ship Lucia

Ship Whaleley Hall
Ship Dartmoor
Ship Lucy Anderson

Ship While Jacket
Ship Druentia
sbip Jauge Bullantyne

Ditto
Ship Darnholme
Sbip Vary

Ship Winstanley
Ship Elizabeth
Ship Mary Elizabeth

Di to
Ship Elli
Ship Milton

Ship Woodlands
Ship Elton
Ship Norseman

Saip Zouiuc.
Ship Empress

Ship Ordunte Mendi

Non-Jury Actions. Actions beyond No. 1901 in this List will not be taken before Monday, the 23rd Oct.

Some of the following Numbers will be in the List for Trial on Friday, the 13th Oct. : Nos, 851 to 1679 iaclusive. 851 T. Henderson and Co. r. Young. 1719 Stutchburys Limited National Issue

Provincial Insurance Corporation 452 Marquise Chandieu r. Myriog Note

Limited. Contract 453 Same . Same Note

1727 Ehrmann and another 0. Harker. 1484 Hooker . Tanner and So. Work

Money paid 1247 Alison Venables and Co. Bill 1738 Meyer and another r. Barr. Pos1601 Bradley and Cohn Limited r. Ramsay

session. and Co. Detinue

1745 Legatte v. Great Northern Railway 1606 Kite v Whitehead. Contract

Appeals to the Divisional Court. Ship British Standard

Ship Kennet Ship Daggry

Ship innie Ship Gralia

Ship horno Ship l'peerne

Ship Inyati Actions for trial, 129 ; Appeals to Divisional Court, 8 ; total, 137. MEMORANDUM.-No complete list of actions to be triod in this division can to given in advance, as the number and order in which they will be tried are necessarily dependent upon the presence in this country of seafaring witnesses whose movements we uncertain. The list will therefore be subject to alterations and additions.

CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES.-AUTUMN ASSIZES. The following judges will remain in town: Grantham, J., Darling, J. Backnill, J., Bray, J., Lord Coleridge, J., Hamilton, J., Scrutton, J., and Bankes, J., during the whole of the circuits ; the other judges till tbeis respective commission days.