Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

apply the language of Bowen, L.J., it is enough to shaw that this course would constitute a legal wrong, but it was said to do so because was, within the meaning of the law, "malicious." If the representative the person inducing them acted maliciously. The Master of the Rolls of the men had, in good faith and without indirect motive, pointed out declined in the present case to define what was meant by “ maliciously"; the inconvenience that might result from having two sets of men working he considered this a question to be determined by a jury. But if acts together on the same ship, whose views upon the particular question wero are, or are not, unlawful and actionable, according as this element of so diverse that it would be inexpedient to bring them together, no one malice be present or absent, I think it is essential to determine what is could have complained; but if his object was to punish the men belonging meant by it. I can imagine no greater danger to the community than to another union because on some former occasion they had worked on an that a jury should be at liberty to impose the penalty, of paying iron ship, it seems to me that the difference of motive may make the damages for acts which are otherwise lawful because they choose, whole difference between the lawfulness or unlawfulness of what he did. without any legal definition of the term, to say that they are And, after considering the form of the pleading and the evidence, his malicious. No one would know what his rights were. The result would lordship concluded : If concerted collective action to enforce, by ruin- be to put all our actions at the mercy of a particular tribunal whose view ing the men's employment, the will of a large number of men upon a of their propriety might differ from our own. However malice may be minority, whether the minority consists of a small or of a large number, defined, if motive be an ingredient of it, my sense of the danger would not be a cause of action where the actual damage is produced, it would seem be diminished. The danger is, I think, emphasized by the opinions of to be a very singular result that the action of an individual who falsely some of the learned judges. [His lordship then considered several of the assumes the character of representing a large body, uses the name of that cases, and proceeded as follows :) If the judgment under appeal is to large body to give force and support to the threat which he utters, and stand, and the fact that the act procured was unlawful as being a breach 80 produces the injury to the individual, or to the minority, could shield of contract be immaterial, it follows that every person who persuades himself from responsibility by proving that the body whose power and another not to enter into any contract with a third person may be sued by influence he had falsely invoked as his supporters had given him no that third person if the object were to benefit himself at the expense of authority for his threats ; so that, if they in truth authorized him, he and such person. I understood it to be admitted at the bar, and it was indeed they might all have been responsible, while the false statement that he stated by one of the learned judges in the Court of Appeal, that it would made, though acting upon the employer by some pressure because it was have been perfectly lawful for all the ironworkers to leave their employbelieved and producing the same mischief to the person against whom it ment and not to accept a subsequent engagement to work in the company was directed, could establish no cause of action against himself because it of the plaintiffs. At all events, I cannot doubt that this would have been was false. I regret that I am compelled to differ so widely with some of I cannot doubt either that the appellant or the authorities of the your lordships, but my difference is founded on the belief that in denying union would equally have acted within his or their rights if he or they had this plaintiff a remedy we are departing from the principles which have called the men out." They were members of the union. It was for hitherto guided our courts in the preservation of individual liberty to all. then to determine whether they would become so or not, and whether I am encouraged, however, by the consideration that the adverse views they would follow or not follow the instructions of its authorities, though appear to me to overrule the views of most distinguished judges, going no doubt if they had refused to obey any instructions which under the back now for certainly 200 years, and that up to the period when this rules of the union it was competent for the authorities to give, they might case reached your lordships' House there was a unanimous censensus of have lost the benefits they derived from membership. It is not for your opinion; and that of eight judges who have given us the benefit of their lordships to express any opinion on the policy of trade unions, membership opinions six have concurred in the judgments which your lordships are of which may undoubtedly influence the action of those who have joined them. now asked to overrule.

They are now recognized by law; there are combinations of employers as Lord Watson, after going through the facts, in the course of his judgment well as of employed. The members of these unions, of whichever class they said: Although the rule may be otherwise with regard to crimes, the

are composed, act in the interest of their class. If they resort to unlawful law of England does not, according to my apprehension, take into account acts they may be indicted or sued. If they do not resort to unlawful acts motive as constituting an element of civil wrong. Any invasion of the they are entitled to further their interests in the manner which seems to civil rights of another person is in itself a legal wrong, carrying with it them best and most likely to be effectual. I now proceed to consider on liability to repair its necessary or natural consequences, in so far as these principle the proposition advanced by the respondents, the alleged are injurious to the person whose right is infringed, whether the motive authorities for which I have been discussing. I do not doubt that every: which prompted it be good, bad, or indifferent. But the existence of a

one has a right to pursue his tra or employment without "molestation' bad motive, in the case of an act which is not in itself illegal, will not

or "obstruction ” 'if those terms are used to imply some act in itself convert that act into a civil wrong, for which reparation is due.

A wrongful. This is only a branch of a much wider proposition-namely, wrongful act done knowingly and with a view to its injurious conse that everyone has a right to do any lawful act he pleases without molestaquences may, in the sense of law, be malicious; but such malice derives tion or obstruction. If it be intended to assert that an act not otherwise its essential character from the circumstance that the act done constitutes wrongful always becomes so if it interferes with another's trade or a violation of the law. There is a class of cases wbich have sometimes employment, and needs to be excused or justified, I say that such a been referred to as evidencing that a bad motive may be an element in proposition in my opinion has no solid foundation in reason to rest upon. the composition of civil wrong ; but in these cases the wrong must have A man's right not to work or not to pursue a particular trade or calling, its root in an act which the law generally regards as illegal, but excuses its

or to determine when or where or with whom he will work is in law & perpetration in certain exceptional circumstances, from considerations of right of precisely the same nature, and entitled to just the same protection public policy:. These are well known as caces of privilege, in which the as a man's right to trade or work. They are but examples of that wider protection which the law gives to an individual who is within the scope right of which I have already spoken. That wider right embraces also of these consideratioas coneists in this, that he may with immunity commit the right of free speech. A man has a right to say what he pleases, to an act which is a legal wrong, and but for his privilege would afford a ) induce, to advise, to exhort, to command, provided he does not slander or good cause of action against him; all that is required in order to raise i deceive or commit any other of the wrongs known to the law of which the privilege and entitle him to protection being that he shall act honestly speech may be the medium, Unless he is thus shewn to have abused his in the discharge of some duty which the law recognizes, and shall not be right, why is be to be called upon to excuse or justify himself because his prompted by a desire to injure the person who is affected by his act. words may interfere with someone else in his calling? Accordingly, in a suit brought by that person, it is necessary for him to

Lords ASHBOURNE and Morris agreed with the Lord Chancellor, but the prove an intent to injure in order to destroy the privilege of the defendant. other lords taking the same view as Lords Watson and HERSCHELL, But none of these cases tend to establish that an act which does not

The House (Lord HALSBURY, C., Lord Watson, Lord ASHBOURNE, Lord amount to a legal wrong, and therefore needs no protection, can have HERSCHELL, Lord MacNagHTEN, Lord Morris, Lord Shand, Lord Davey, privilege attached to it, and still less that an act in itself lawful is con

and Lord James op Hereford) allowed the appeal.-COUNSEL, Cohen, Q.C., verted into a legal wrong, if it was done from a bad motive. [And after Robson, Q.C., E. Morten ; Lawson Walton, Q.O., and R. Isaacs. Solicitors, dealing with the cases including Temperton v. Russell (41 W. R. 565; 1893, Shaen, Roscoe, Massey, f: Co.; Smith & Gofton. 1 Q. B. 715) and particularly Lumley v. Gye, and the statement of Erle,

[Reported by C. H. GRAFTON, Barrister-at-Law.] C.J., therein, continued :] These statements embody an intelligible and salutary principle, and they contain a full explanation of the law upon which the case was decided. He who wilfully induces another to do an unlawful act, which, but for his persuasion, would or might never have

High Court-Chancery Division. been committed is rightly held to be responsible for the wrong which he Re POWELL, CROSLAND v. HOLLIDAY. Kekewich, J. 10th Dec. procured.. [And after further examination of the authorities his lordship, in conclusion, said :) I am quite alive to the fact that the question which WILL-Girt of INCOME to Children op A. DURING THEIR Lives--Subwe have to decide is one of importance, and also that it has nerer been

SEQUENT GIFT TO THE CHILDREN OP A.'s CHILDREN_VALID GIFTpreviously considered by this House. Having come to the conclusion,

REMOTENESS. with the majority of your lordships who have heard the appeal, that the Summons. By his will, dated the 17th of October, 1877, Alvara doctrine advanced by the respondents is neither sound in principle nor Powell, after certain specific devises and bequests, gave, devised, and supported by authority, I move that the orders appealed from be reverred bequeathed all the residue of his real and personal estate and effects and judgment entered for the appellant, that the appellant have his costs whatsoever and wheresoever unto his trustee upon trust to pay certain legaof this appeal, and costs in both courts below, including the costs of the cies and an annuity, and as to all the residue of his personal estate, upon trial.

trust to divide the interest, dividends, and annual profits into three equal Lord Herschell, in the course of a long judgment, said : It is to be portions, and to pay one of such portions "unto the children of my sister observed, in the first place, that the company in declining to employ the Elizabeth Holmes, and to divide the same equally among them during plaintiffs were violating no contract; they were doing nothing wrongful their lives, and after their death to divide one-third part of my personal in the eye of the law. The course which they took was dictated by self- estate equally between their children, but if they shall all die without interest ; they were anxious to avoid the inconvenience to their business leaving any children, then I direct my trustee to divide the said third part which would ensue from a cessation of work on behalf of the ironworkers. of my personal estate equally among the children of my nephew Edward It was not contended at the bar that merely to induce them to take this Crosland, share and share alike,” The testator died on the 17th of July,

9

OF

1879, and his will was duly proved. Elizabeth Holmes was married once 814), Pommery v. Apthorpe (35 W. R. 307), Werle v. Colquhoun (20 Q. B. D. only-viz., to Charles Holmes-on the 15th of August, 1820. There were 753), Grainger v. Gough (1896, a. C. 325), and Sully v. Attorney-General (9 seven children of the marriage, three of whom predeceased the testator H. & N. 340). On behalf of the respondents it was contended that no without having been married ; of the remaining four, two were still case had gone so far as the present. In all cases where the tax was alive but had never been married, another had married and she and allowed the merchant charged was ostensibly carrying on his business in her only two children were alive, and the fourth had died on the 26th of the United Kingdom. But here the only profit which Squire & Co. made November, 1895, leaving her orly children surviving her, and they were was upon the price of the goods as between themselves and the respondstill living. Elizabeth Holmes died on the 9th of November, 1888. This ents, a price which was ultimately settled by means of the price obtained was a summons by the present trustees of the will for the determination, by the respondents. Squire & Co. did not, therefore, make a profit upon inter alia, of the question whether the trust by the said will declared of sales in this country. Ireland v. Livingston (5 H. L. C. 408) was cited. one-third of the testator's residuary personal estate in favour of the chil The Court (GRANTHAM and CHANNELL, JJ.) allowed the appeal. dren of the children of the testator's sister Elizabeth Holmes was valid, GRANTHAM, J , said that the goods though consigned to the respondents or void as transgressing the rule against perpetuities. It was argued on remained the property of Messrs. Squire & Co. until sale. All the trading behalf of the next-of-xin that this being a bequest of income, the rule of in the goods took place in England, but the trading was not by the convenience in Re Wenmoth's Estate (36 W. B. 409, 37 Ch. D. 266) did not respondents, whose powers in respect of the goods were very limited. apply, and that as children born after the testator's death might partici. The trading in them was therefore a trading by a foreign principal in the pate, therefore the gift to the grandchildren was void. The following United Kingdom through the intervention of agents in the persons of the cases were also referred to : Hill v. Chapman (1 Ves. jun. 405) and Re respondents, so that the profits arising from the trading was taxable Slone, Baker v. Stone (44 W. R. 235; 1895, 2 Ch. 196).

under section 2, Schedule D, of the Act of 1853. KEKEWICH, J.-On the question wbether on the language of the will the CHANNELT, J., said that the argument for the respondents was not gift to the children must be confined to the children living at the death of supported by the case. The only fact in support of the argument was the testator or not, I entertain no doubt. The argument which was that the ultimate sales were made in the name of the respondents. But urged to the contrary is founded upon an application, which I call a the presumption that in such a case credit was given to the agent and not misapplication, of Re Wenmoth’s Estate. It was said that Chitty, J., was to the foreign principal did not apply in all cases and did not prevent there dealing with a case similar to the present, but in my opinion that is the court from dealing with the matter on the footing that Squire & not so; Ohitty, J., was not dealing with the rule with which I am asked Co. were really the principals. That being the case, the question was to deal here. I venture with respect to Mr. Theobald's book to say that settled by the authorities.—COUNSEL, Sir Richard Webster, A.G., and the rule is better stated in Mr. Vaughan Hawkins' book, where in his Vaughan Hawkins ; A. T. Lawrence, Q C., and James Fox. SOLICITORS, chapter devoted to "children, &c., when ascertained,” he says, on p. Solicitor of Inland Revenue. 68,"" It might be supposed that a gift to the children of a person

[Reported by C, G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.] simpliciter would include all the children he might have, whenever coming into existence; but the testator is considered to intend the objects

LEWIS v. CLAY. Lord Russell, C.). 18th Dec. of his bounty to be ascertained at as early a period as possible, and it may be laid down as a general rule (qualified by the other rules which follow BILL

of EXCHANGE-SIGNATURE OF MAKER PROMISSORY Note in this chapter) that a devise or bequest to the children of A., or of the

OBTAINED BY FRAUD - LIABILITY OF Maker or Note to Payee-Bills testator, means, prima facie, the children in existence at the testator's

OF EXCHANGE Act, 1882, s. 29. death," and he cites Viner v. Francis (2 Cox 190), a case which is more Further consideration by Lord Russell of Killowen, C.J. The action was than one hundred years old. Further on, on p, 75, he deals with the tried before a special jury, and on the findings of the jury it was reserved further question which arose in Wenmoth's' Estate, and he gives the rule for further consideration. The case was argued on the 4th of December, thus, "Where there is a bequest of an aggregate fund to children as a when the Lord Chief Justice took time to consider his judgmen“. class, and the share of each child is made payable on attaining a given Dec. 18. The following written judgment was deliverej, in which age, or marriage, the period of distribution is the time when the first the facts and arguments are fully stated, by child becomes entitled to receive his share, and children coming into Lord RUSSELL OF KillowEN, C.J.—This is an action brought by the existence after that period are excluded.” In Re Wenmoth’s Estate Chitty, plaintiff as payee against the defendant to recover from him, as one of J., was only dealing with this latter rulo-viz., the rule fixing the period | two inakers, the amount of two joint and several promissory notes, dated of distribution at the time when the first child becomes entitled. The respectively the 15th of June, 1896, one for £3,113 158., payable three present case, however, in my opinion, depends upon the ordinary months after date, and the other for £8,000, payablo six months after date. application of the ordinary rule, and only those children who survived the The name of the other joint and several maker on each promissory note is testator became entitled ; the trust, therefore, in favour of the children of that of Lord William Nevill. It is admitted that the genuine signature of Elizabeth Holmes' children is valid.--Counsel, Henry Terrell, Q.C.; the defendant appears as maker on each of the promissory notes, which had Dibdin ; Warrington, Q.C., and Buckmaster ; Renshaw, Q.C., and Rowden. been prepared in the plaintiff's office, and also that his genuine signature SOLICITORS, Pitman of Sons, for Emsley, Son, f Smith, Leeds ; Peacock & appeare on two letters, one dated the 15th of June, referring to the note of Goddard ; Ernest Bevir.

smaller amount, and one dated the 21st of June, 1896, referring to the note [Reported by R. J. A. MORRISON, Barrister-at-Law.]

of larger amount, authorising the plaintiff to pay the process to Lord William Nevill. The latter brought the promissory notes and letters to the plaintiff, who, it is admitted, gave value for them, and who is found by the

jury to have taken them in good faith. The defendant contended that he High Court-Queen's Bench Division.

was not liable on the ground that he had never been asked, and that he WATSON (SURVEYOR OF TAXES) v. SANDIE & HULL. Div. Court.

never intended to put his name to any bill or promissory note, or to take 13th Dec.

upon himself any contractual obligation or legal liability of any kind. He

explained that he had just come of age in June, 1896; that he had known Revenue-Income Tax-Trade EXERCISED WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM- Lord William Nevill intimately for some years that he and Lord William

Iscome Tax Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 41-INCOME Tax Act, Nevill were members of the same Ascot party in that month ; and that on 1853 (16 & 17 VICT, c. 34), s. 2, SCHEDULE D.

Sunday, the 21st of June, Lord William Nevill had come to his bed-room This was a case stated by the Income Tax Commissioners. Messrs. and asked him to witness some deed or document; that he produced a roll of Squire & Co., provision dealers in America, exported their surplus stock of papers covered up by blotting or other paper, in which there were four provisions to this country. They consigned the goods to Messrs. Sandie openings ; that upon the defendant asking what the document was about, & Hull, the respondents, who were commission merchants. The respond - Lord William Nevill said he would shew it if the defendant insisted, ents received no remuneration beyond their usual charges and commission. but he would rather not, for that it was a private matter, that he The mode of dealing between Messrs. Squire & Co. and the respondents wanted a power of attorney, and that it had to do with his sister, was that Messrs. Squire & Co. wi each consignment sent forward docu- Lady Cowley's, marriage settlement, and with certain divorce proceed? ments comprising consignment notes, shewing in detail the amount drawn ings then pending ; that he (the defendant) did not insist on seeing against each lot of goods making up the consignment. Bills of lading, the document, trusting to Lord William Nevill; that upon this the with the draft attached, were sent forward through a bank by the same defendant signed his tame, he believed, four times, and he thought mail. The respondents took up the drafts and realized the goods. Some - Lord William Nevill signed twice in the openings He said he times the drafts exceeded the prices realized, and sometimes the prices had signed his name with the single intention of witnessing the realized exceeded the drafts. The risk of profit or loss rested with Messrs. signature of Lord William Nevill. He added that up to that time Squire & Co. The respondents had full discretion as to the prices at he had had no reason to doubt the honour of Lord William which the goods were sold. They invoiced the goods in their own name, Nevill, and that, so far as he knew, no one who kner Lord William received the proceeds of sales, assumed all responsibility of payment by had. The following questions were put to the jury, who gave the the purchasers, and from time to time rendered statements to Messrs. answer app'nded to each:-(1) Did the plaintiff take the promissory notes Squire & Co., shewing full receipts, and debiting the account with their in good faith? [It is admitted he took them for value.] Answer: --Yes. charges and commission. They remitted to or drew upon Messrs. Squire (2) Is the defendant's account of the circumstances under which he signed & Co. for the credit or debit balance, as the case might be. Assessments his name substantially true? Answer.-Yes. (3) Was the defendant, in were made for the year ended the 5th of April, 1895, and for the year siguing his name as he did, recklessly careless, and did he thereby enable ended the 5th of April, 1896, of £500 and £1,000 respectively, on the Lord William Nevill to perpetrato the fraud? Answer. -No; not under respondents as estimates on the annual profits arising from the trade thus the circumstances. (4) Were the signatures to the documents given by the exercised. The commissioners disallowed the assessments. The question defendant in misplaced confidence in the statements of Lord William Nevill was whether Messrs. Squire & Co. were persons exercising a trade within as to their nature ? Answer.-Yes. (5) Did the defendant sign his name the United Kingdom within the terms of Schedule D. of the Income Tax to be used by Lord William Nevill for any purpose he chose ? Answer. Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. o. 34), and within the Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 & No. (6) Did the defendant attach his signature to the documents without 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 41. On behalf of the Crown the following cases were due care? Answer.-No; not under the circumstances. I have now to cited : Erichsen v. Last (8 Q. B. D. 414), Tischler v. Apthorpe (52 L. T. consider in the light of these findings which of the parties is entitled to

judgment. It is clear that the proof of the signature of the defendant to knowledge cannot bind him. It is as if he had written his name for an the promissory notes, coupled with proof of their delivery to the plaintiff autograph collector, or in an album. The case differs in no material under the apparent authority of the defendant, makes out a primâ facie case respect from one in which a genuine signature is deftly transferred for the plaintiff. Is it a conclusive case ? Here two questions arise—(1) Is by delicate contrivance from one document to another, and 80 the defendant precluded or estopped from setting up the true circumstanc's skilfully as to escape notice under ordinary examioation. Or, again, under which his name came to appear on the documents in question ? (2) If if the body of the promissory notes had been fraudulently written above, and not, do those true circumstances afford an answer in point of law to the after his signature had been made, it would have been forgery, and in such plaintiff's claim ? As to the first question the defendant is not, in my case it is clear no recourse could be had upon it. Can it make any difference judgment, estopped or precluded froid setting up the actual facts upon any as to resulting contractual obligation that the body of the note was without principle of law. Apart from statute such preclusion or estoppel can only his knowledge filled up before he was fraudulently induced to put his name arise (in circumstances like the present) where the defendant had so conducted in the belief that it was something wholly different? I think not. In plain himself that it would be contrary to natural justice to permit him to reason it must be said that the use to which the defendant's signatura was assume a position inconsistent with that which he had ostensibly occupied, applied was in substance and effect forgery, whether or not it amounted to the or which he led others to believe ho occupied, and upon which others had, criminal offence of forgery? I think it well to point out that cases like the misled by his conduct, been suffered to act. In the present case the present differ widely from those in which the party sought to be charged has suggestion on the part of the plaintiff is that the defen lant had not agreed and intended to enter into contractual obligation by bill or note, but used due care in sigoing his name, and that he had signed in misplaced has been defrauded into agreeing, or been defrauded in the manner in which confidence in Lord William Nevill. The jury have foun) that there was, in the bill or note has been dealt with. In such cases he is liable on principle fact, no want of due care in the circumstances in signing his name as he and authority, to any one who has dealt with the bill or note in good did; but it was urged that the finding as to misplaced confidence was faith and for value. It was in argument admitted that the case of sufficient, and the authority of a distinguished American judge in the case Foster v. Mackinnon (17 W. R. 1105, 4 L. R. C. P. 704) is in point, and is an of Putnam v. Sullivan (4 Mass. Repts., p. 45), (1808) was cited. What authority binding on me if the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882 has not does misplaced confidence mean? It may mean confidence placed where you altered the law as there declared. I find that the law has not been so know or ought to know it is not safe, or confidence placed where you have altered. I see nothing in the Act to warrant the suggestion that it hus every right to believe it is safe, but where it is afterwards betrayed. The been altered, and it is noteworthy that all the text-writers dealing with the former, I think, is the case the learned judge had in his mind, and the facts Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (including, indeed, the draftsman of the Act), there may afford evidence of want of due care ; but that clearly is not here treat that case as an existing authority. The facts in Foster v. Mackinnon the meaning attributed by the jury to misplaced confidence, for they have were that an old man of feeble sight was induced—without, as the jury found that there was in the circumstances no want of due care on the part of found, any negligence on his part—to sign his name on the back of a bill the defendant. Taking the findings together they amount to this--that the by the fraudulent statement that it was a guarantee which, in fact, he had defendant was in the circumstances guilty of no want of due care in placing undertaken to sign. The Court of Common Pleas consisting of confidence in the statement made by Lord William Nevill, and accordingly, Bovill C.J., and Byles, Keating, and Montagu Snith, JJ.), held that in signing his name as he did ; and I decline to hold that the placing of he was not liable, and this in an action by what was then called a bona confidence as here shewn, which is afterwards betrayed, where it is not fide holder for value and without notice, of which "holder in due course, recklessly or negligently so placed, in any way precludes the defendant from is now the legal equivalent. In these islands, cases in litigation of setting up the true facts as a defence. I conclude, therefore, the defendant frauds such as that here practised are of rare occurrence, partly because of is not, upon any principle of law, estopped or precluded from setting up the the existence and character of our stamp la ws, but in the United States of true facts. How, then, is the plaintiff's case put? It was argued that America, where no such laws exist, there are many authorities dealing with whatever was the law before or apart from the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, points similar to that in the present case : Douglas v. Matting (4 Amer. Rep. the facts here did not under that Act afford a defence as against a "holder 238, 1870); Taylor v. Alchison (5 Amer. Rep. 118, 1870); Whitney v. Snyder in due course,

which, it was said, the plaintiff was within section (2 Lans. 477, 1870); Walker v. Egbert (9' Amer. Rep. 548, 1871); and 29, and that the question must be determined by reference to that Act Griffiths v. Kellogg (20 Amer. Rep. 48, 1876). The great weight of United alone. I think this argument involves a misconception both of the plaintiff's States authorities supports the view of the common law expressed by the position and of the scope and effect of the Act of 1882. It will be apparent English judges. I have thought it right to say so much, but in truth these from a consideration of the facts of the case that the plaintiff was not a authorities are not necessary for the purposes of this case. They are all "holder in due course at all, but that he was, in fact, simply the named cases where the bills or notes had been negotiated to persons now called payee of two promissory notes. Further, an examination of sections 20, 21, "holders in due course." It follows, if such a holder cannot in a case like 29, 30, and 38, relating expressly to bills, and sections 83, 84, the present recover, a fortiori that the plaintiff-who, as named payee, is one 88, and 89, relating to promissory notes, will make it quite clear that “a of the immediate parties—cannot recover. In the result, therefore, my holder in due course is a person to whom, after its completion by and as judgment must be for the defendant, and the plaintiff must be enjoined between the immediate parties, the bill or note has been negotiated. In the from in any way dealing with the notes, and the same must be cancelled so present case the plaintiff is named as payee on the face of the promissory far as they purport to be the notes of the defendant. note, and therefore is one of the immediate parties. The promissory notes A stay of execution for costs was granted, and an injunction against have, in fact, never been negotiated within the meaning of the Act. I desire dealing with the promissory notes until the hearing of the appeal. — to say here that, even if the plaintiff were holder in due course," it would, Counsel, Lawson Walton, Q.C., and Pollard; Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Carson, in my judgment, make no difference in the result. But is the contention Q.C., T. Atkinson, and Hume Williams. SOLICITORS, 4. Sydney ; Renshaw, right that the Act of 1882 must alone be looked to ? I think not. That Act Kekewich, f Smith. was intended to be mainly a codification of the existing law, but it is not

[Reported by Sir SAERSTON BAKER, Bart., Barrister-at-Law.] merely a codification Act, for some alterations of the law are clearly effected by it and it does not purport to be exhaustive, for by section 97 the rules of the Common Law (including the Law Merchant), save in so far as they are inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act, continue to apply. But I agree that in determining questions of liability on bills or notes it is

LAW SOCIETIES. proper to examine the Act before turning to the cases declaratory of the

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. Common Law decided before that Act. It is unnecessary to set out the provisions of the Act and to comment in detail upon them. It is enough to

SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING. say that there is nothing in the Act which prevents the defendant from setting up the defence that he never made the promissory note in question meeting held on the 15th of July, 1881, a special general meeting of the

In pursuance of the resolution passed at the adjourned annual general which is the real defence here. It would, indeed, be strange if it did... For members of the society will be held in the Hall of the Society on Friday, the purposes of the present case the question is precisely the same as if any the 28th day of January, 1898, at two o'clock precisely. other contract than one by promissory note had been written on the documents, to which the defendant was induced to sign his name-for notice of them to the secretary on or before the 6th of January, 1898, as

Members who desire to move resolutions or to ask questions should give instance, if it had been a contract of guarantee or suretyship. Then the it will be necessary to include them in the notice convening the meeting. question would have been - Did the defendant make the contract of guarantee or suretyship? Here it is-Did he make the promissory notes sued upon ? The question, then, is, on the facts as they are now found to be—Did the defendant make the promissory notes in question ? If he did not, then the finding of the jury that the defendant was not guilty of any want of due

LEGAL NEWS. care establishes that he is not precluded from sayiog so. That there is a

OBITUARY. prima facie case on the plaintiff's evidence that he did, I have already said ; but is that prima facie case rebutted and displaced by the defendant's Mr. CHARLES HARRISON, M.P. for Plymouth and a prominent member evidence ? According to that evidence it must, after the findings of of the London County Council, died on Friday, the 246h ult., from a very the jury, be taken to be the fact that he was witnessing, a deed sudden attack of laryngitis and failure of the heart. Mr. Harrison was

document ; that he was 80 told ; that he had no idea of born in 1835, the third son of the late Frederick Harrison, of Suttonsigning and was not asked to sign any bill or promissory note, or to place, Guildford. He was a brother of Mr. Frederic Harrison. He was undertake any contractual obligation of any kind. A promissory note is a educated at King's College School, and was admitted a solicitor in 1858. contract by the maker to pay the payee. Can it be said that in this case the He became the senior partner in the firm of C. & S. Harrison & Co., of defendant contracted to pay the plaintiff? His mind never went with such Bedford -row, and bas been for many years solicitor to the London, a transaction ; for all that appears, he bad never heard of the plaintiff, and Chatham, and Dover Railway and other large public companies, including his mind was fraudulently directed into a different channel by the statement the Law Fire Insurance Society. Mr. Harrison was from the first a that he was merely witnessing a deed or other document. He had no member of the London County Council, being elected for South-West contracting mind, and his signature obtained, by untrue statements Bethnal-green at the election in 1889 and re-elected in 1892 and 1895. fraudulently made, to a document of the existence of which he had no He took a considerable share in the proceedings of the council as a

or

London.

member of the Progressive party, and became one of the representatives of each inquest. With reference to the rate of payment, they considered of the council on the Thames Conservancy Board. His zeal and energy that, baving due regard to economy, 2s. per attendance could be fairly were recognized in 1895 by his election to be vice-chairman. He also fixed for the service and would be sufficient to meet the majority of cases. served a term of office as chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of They estimated the average attendance of jurors at fifteen, and that the the council. Mr. Harrison was greatly interested in the subjects of annual cost of payment, at the rate proposed, would not exceed £7,500. leasehold enfranchisement and the taxation of land values, and he was a strong advocate for applying the “betterment"_principle in cases where public improvements were carried out by the London County Council. After unsuccessfully contesting the Holborn Parliamentary division in For Throat IRRITATION AND COUGH.—“Epps's Glycerine Jujubes" 1880 and Plymouth in 1892, he was returned for the latter constituency in always prove effective. They soften and clear the voice, and are invaluable 1895 as a Radical, bis colleague in the representation of the borough to all suffering from cough, soreness, or dryness of the throat. Sold only being Sir Edward Clarke. Mr. Harrison had many pursuits apart from in labelled tins, price 7d. and 1s. 1}d.—James Epps & Co., Ltd., Homeobusiness and municipal affairs and politics. He was fond of yachting, pathic Chemists, London.-[Apvt.] and had travelled extensively in Europe, interesting himself in following the routes of the famous campaigns of modern wars. He was also an

WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.- Before pur. expert in the history of the various parishes and estates that make up the chasing or renting a house, have the Sanitary Arrangements thoroughly county of London, and had a large collection of old maps, books, and Examined, Tested, and Reported Upon by an Expert from Messrs. Carter documents hearing on the subject. Some of the maps he presented to the Bros., 65, Victoria-street, Westminster. Fee quoted on receipt of full London County Council, in the Committee Room of which they are now particulars. (Established 21 years.) –[Advt.] hung. Mr. Harrison married, in 1886, the Lady Harriet, sister of the present Earl of Lanesborough and widow of the late Mr. Francis Barlow. He leaves no family.

THE PROPERTY MART.
Sir John ROGERS JENNINGS, who died at his residence, Minster Lea,

SALES OF ENSUING WEEK,
Reigate, on the 24th of December, was the posthumous son of David
Jennings, Esq., Master of the Drapers Company in 1810, an office which

Jan. 6.-Messrs. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m.

REVERSIONS: was filled by Sir John in the Jubilee year, 1887, when he received the

To one-fifth of _£1,049 24 per cent. Consols; lady aged 57. Solicitor, Arthur honour of knighthood. He was admitted a solicitor in 1846, and resided

Tyler, Esq., London, for many years at Wanstead, where he held the offices of clerk to the To one-forrth of a Trust Estate valued at £65,C.); two ladies aged 60 and 67, Local Board of Health and vestry clerk, and he also practised as a

provided a lady aged 65 predeceases one of them and a gentleman aged 26 solicitor in the city until within a few years of his death. In connection

survives both; with policy. Solicitor, H. Stanley-Jones, Esq., London.

To one-seventh and other shares of West-end Freeholds producing £2,750 per with the Drapers Company Sir John took a prominent part in furthering

annum, and to £11,0.30 in Stocks, &c.; lady aged 47, with the income arising the cause of education.

from one-half of above during her life. Solicitor, C. W. Brown, Esq.,

To one-fourth of £3,583 24 per cent. Consols; lady aged 66. Solicitors, Messrs. APPOINTMENTS.

Godwin & Chater, London.

To one-ninth of one-third of Freehold and Leasehold Properties in the City, proMr. WILLIAM KENNY, Q.O., M.P., Solicitor-General for Ireland, has

ducing £4,264 per annum; lady aged 66. Also a like Share, less an Annuity been appointed a Judge of the High Court in Ireland, in the room of the

payable to a gentleman aged 71, which amounts to about £100 a year. SoliciRight Hon. Robert Warren, deceased.

tors, Messrs. Wm. Sturt & Son, and H. K. Hamilton Field, Esq., London.

To one-half of £1,178 27 per cent. Consols; gentleman aged 81. Solicitors, Messrs. Mr. DUNBAR PLUNKBT BARTON, Q.O., M.P., has been appointed Solicitor

Cnas. Rogers, Sons, & Russell, London. General for Ireland.

To one-sixth of Leasehold and Copyhold Properties at Chelsea, producing £726

per annum; lady aged 72, provided gentleman aged 43 survives her; with

policy. Solicitors, Messrs. Herbert W. Reeves & Son, London.

To a Moiety of a Trust Estate, value £3,191, in Railway and Gas Stock ; lady aged CHANGES IN PARTNERSHIPS.

70. Solicitor, A. S. C. Doyle, Esq., London. DISSOLUTIONS.

To a Legacy of £500 upon a Residuary Estate, receivable on the decease of three

ladies, aged 81, 74, and 73. So'icitors, Messrs. 8. M. & J. B. Benson, London. THOMAS JAMES Baillie and Thomas BUTLER Cato, solicitors (Baillie &

ANNUITY :

Of £20, payable to a gentleman aged 34 during the joint lives of himself and Cato), 15, George-street, Mansion House, E.O. March 1, 1897. The

three ladies, aged 81, 74, id 73; with policy. Solicitors, Messrs. S. M. & said Thomas James Baillie will continue the said business under the style

J. B. Benson, London. of Baillie & Co. The said Thomas Butler Cato will carry on business in

LIFE INTEREST: his own name at 53, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London, W.C.

Of gentleman aged 28 in a Moiety of £1,473 per annum, arising from Freehold

Properties in Liverpool ; with increase on decease of for“ ladies aged 79, 74, CLEMENT WALTER FIENNES CLINTON, ALBERT STOURTON CAFFERATA, and

72, and 46; with policy. Solicitor, H. Stanley-Jones, Esq., London.

REVERSIONARY J 'FE INTEREST: John ROWLAND CATTLE, solicitors (Clinton & Co.), 59 and 60, Chancery

Of a gentleman aged 35, on decease of his mother, aged 77; producing £329 per lane, London, W.C. Jan. 1, 1897.

[Gazette, Dec. 24.

annum; secured upon Property at Coventry and Leicester; with policy.

Solicitor, Edmund Kimber, Feq., London.

POLICIES :
GENERAL,

For £1,000, £750, £500, £500, £500, £500, £131. Solicitors, Messrs. A. C. Palmer

& Co., Messrs. James & Edwards, Messrs. Boulton, Sors, & Sandeman, and Mr. George Whale, clerk to the Board of Works for the Lee district,

Messrs. Learoyd, James, & Mellor, all of London. has presented a report to the board, dated the 22nd of December, with (See advertisements, this week, back page.) regard to the Land Transfer Act, 1897. He points out, with regard to the letter from the London Cu unty Council of the 25th of November, that Parliament has left to the county council to decide whether the Act shall be first tried in London. Before deciding the matter the council had invited

WINDING UP NOTICES. the opinion of the board, and the clerk points out, with regard to the

London Gazelle.-Friday, Dec. 24. registration required of any transaction affecting land or houses, that

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. for the following reasons the first experiment of compulsory

LIMITED IN CHANCERY. registration under the Act should not be made in London: Registration Ashford GAB AND CORE Co, LIMITED --Creditors are required, on or before Jan 22, to would be expensive, cause delay, would not prevent fraud; that it had

send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr been tried and found wanting; that the new Ordnance maps should be

Frank Hyland, 81, Cannon st. Hallett & Co, Ashford, solors to liquidator

CLUTHA GOLD MINES, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before March 5, to send awaited ; and, finally, that London is not the best place for the experi their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to J. T. Somerment. The board, after considering the report, passed the following vail, 23, College hill. Kimber & Co, Lombard st, solors to liquidator resolution : "That the clerk's report of this date be approved, and that HANNAN'S GOLDEN PEBBLES, LIMITED - Creditors are required, on or before March 17, to

send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr the London County Council be informed that, in the opinion of this board,

Arthur F. Whinney, 8, Old Jewry. Snell & Co., 1 and 2, George st, Mansion House, compulsory registration is not at present desirable in London, and that solors for liquidator the council be urged to object thereto, and that the clerk is instructed to HOLLOWAY & SHARPE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Jan 31, to send their write to the council accordingly, and to enclose a copy of his said report."

names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Nicholson,

12, Wood st. Morley, Cheapside, solor for liquidator On re-assembling after the Christmas recess, says the Times, the London HYTHE AND District Land Co, LIMITED--Petn for winding up, presented Dec 22, directed

to be heard Jan 12. A. R. and H. Steele, 21, College hill, solors for petner. Notice of County Council will be asked by their Public Control Committee to adopt

appearing must reach the above-named 'not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of a revised schedule of disbursements and fees which may be allowed by a coroner in the county of London, so as to include a payment to jurors. INTERNATIONAL FIBRE Chamois Co, LIMITED. Peto for winding up, presented Dec 24, The matter has been for a long time before the committee, who have already

directed to be heard on Jan 12. Ingle & Co, 20, Threadneedle st, solors for petners. reported upon the matter ; but when their recommendations came before

Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the

afternoon of Jan 11 the council they were referred back. In their report upon the new JOHN WAGSTAFF & Co, LIMITED-By an order made by Wright, J., date ] Dec 3, it was scheme they state that on previous occasions they had felt it to be their

ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Innes, Manduty to report against the payment of coroner's jurors, but in deference to

chester, solor for petners

LLEWELLYN, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Jan 10, to send their names the views of the council in favour of jurymen being allowed a sum and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr Horace Stanley sufficient to compensate a workman for actual loss of time incurred in Deacon, St. Stephen's chmbrs, Telegraph st. Miller & Co, Telegraph st, solors to serving at an inquest when summoned by rota, they had reconsidered the liquidator

Richard THOMPSON & Co, LIMITED--Creditors are required, on or before Feb 18, to send matter. They bad, however, come to the conclusion that any scheme that

their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Randolph attempted to make a distinction between workmen and other classes of Dodgeon, Bright st Mill, Blackbuis jurors would be unworkable. As there were a large number of cases in SCARBOROUGH PATENT TILED FLOOR Clotu Co, Limited-Creditors are required, on or which the same jury acted in a succession of inquests at the same place on

before Jan 18, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or

claims, to Andrew Orr, 13, Huntress row, Scarborough. Turnbull & Son, Scarborough, the same day, they also thought it would be simpler and more economical

solors for liquidators to pay a fee in respect of each time of attendance rather than in respect SOUTH AFRICAN Loan, MORTGAGE, AND MERCANTILE AGENCY, LIMITED-Creditors are

Jan 11

required, on or before Feb 12, to send their pames and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr Joseph Beecham Edwards, 33, old Broad st. Dawes & Sons, 9, Angel court, Throgmorton st, solors for liquidator

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.
EDINBURGH NORTHERN TRAMWAYS Co-Creditors are required, on or before Jan 22, to

send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to J.
Barber Glenn, 7, Poultry

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Dec. 28.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIEB.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.
ANGLO-WESTEBN PIONEER SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before
March 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or
claims, to Stephen Henry Molyneux Killik, 30, Moorgate st. Pakeman, Bucklersbury,
solor for liquidator
BEESTON PNEUMATIC TYRE CO, LIMITED-By an order dated Dec 21, creditors are required,

on or before Feb 7, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Walter Owen Clough, 89, Gresham st. Morley & Co, Gresham House,

solors for liquidator
GRFSLEY BREWERY, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Wednesday, Feb 23, to

send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Sidney
Frederick Isitt, 6, Old Jewry. Monday, March 14, at 2.15, at the chambers of the
Registrar of Companies, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and
claims
HOLLOWAY HALL Co, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Feb 8, to send their

names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Ernest G. Palmer,
54, Gresham st. Wood, Cheapside, solor
LIVERPOOL. PALACE OF VARIETIES, LIMITED Co-Petn for winding up, presented Dec 18,

directed to be heard on Jan 12.' Nowell, 27, Chancery lane, solor for petner. Notice of
appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of

Jan 11
MINES Co, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Jan 12, to send their names and

addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to C. J. Cooke, 42, Gresham

House, Old Broad st. Harries & Co, Nicholas lane, solors to liquidator
OLDHAM CARD Clothing Co, LIMITED--Creditors are required, on or before Jan 31, to send

in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to the liqui

dators of the company, Primrose Bank, Oldham. Booth, Oldham, solor for liquidators Shaw's PATENTS, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Jan 12, to send their

names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to A. J. Milne,

liquidator UNIVERSAL CASH REGISTER Co, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Jan 28, to

send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr George Henry Gibbs, 16, St Helen's place. Beck, East India avenue, solor for liqui. dator

CREDITORS' NOTICES.
UNDER 22 & 23 VICI. CAP. 35.

LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

London Gazette.—Tuesday, Dec. 21.
Best, Thomas SCBASE, Bradford, Auctioneer Jan 23 Taylor & Co, Bradford
BLAND, BENJAMIN, Garforth, York, Tailor Feb 21 Peckover & Scriven, Leeds
BUCKLEY, John, Disley, Chester Jan 30 Lynde & Branthwaite, Manchester
CAMERON, Hugh, Radcliffe sq Feb 21 Cunliffes & Davenport, Chancary In
COLSTON, THOMAS HENRY, Margate Feb 12 Hands, Gresham st
DARBY, JOSEPH, Dudley, Worcester Jan 8 Hooper & Fairbairn, Dudley
DAVEY, OLIVER, Bude, Cornwall, Merchant Jan 31 Cecil & Co, Holsworthy, Devon
EASTLAKE, CAROLINE, Plymouth Feb 17 Wilson, Plymouth
EASTLAKE, WILLIAM, Plymouth, Solicitor Feb 17 Wilson, Plymouth
ERWIN, WILLIAM HENRY, Bedminster Jan 18 Tarr & Arkell, Bristol
FARBAR, CHABLES, Chatteris, Cambridge, Physician Jan 31 Ruston, Chatteris
GREGORY, ROGER, Westhoughton, Lancs Jan 31 Ramwell, Hindley
Hardy, JOSEPH, Durham, Innkeeper Jan 11 Smithson & Turner, York
Hodgson, HENRY, Warwick Feb 12 Handley & Co, Warwick
HOLLAND, John, Ashton under Lyne, Tanner Jan 18 Wilson, Ashton under Lyne
HOLLAND, WILLIAM, Garvestone, Norfolk, Labourer Jan 15 Blyth, Norwich
JENKINS, THOMAS Joux ANDRÉ, Billinghurst, Sussex Jan 31 Ward & Son, Norfolk st,

Strand
John, EDWARD, Cotham, Bristol Jan 18 Wansburgh & Co, Bristol
LEA, JOHN EDWARD, Cirous place, London Wall Feb 1 Emanuel & Simmonds,

Finsbury circus
Miles, William, Rusholme, Manchester Jan 31 Rowland, Manchester
NEWMARCH, ELIZABETH, Norwood Jan 15 Devonshire & Co, Frederick's place, Old

Jewry
O'Sullivan, BARBARA, Liverpool Jan 21 Lamb & Kyffin Taylor, Liverpool
PARKER, Henry, Aston, Birmingham Jan 26 Jeffery, Birmingham
Pochin, EDWARD NORMAN, Leicester March 1 Owston & Co, Leicester
SEWELL, MARY Ann, Standon, nr Ware, Herts Jan 31 Hanne, Lavender grdns
THORPE, CHARLOTTE JANE, Kingston upon Hull Feb 1 Hebb, Lincoln
THORNBURY, HELEN, Aldeburgh, Suffolk Feb 1 Parker & Co, Cornhill

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.

SMITH, Tuomas, Coventry, Baker Coventry Pet Dec 3 Scott, 'JOSEPH, Leeds, Tailor Jan 5 at 11 Off Rec, 22,

Ord Dec 21
London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Dec. 24.

Park row, Leeds
RECEIVING ORDERS.

TAYLOR, HERBERT JAMES, Bromley, Kent, Draper Croy- SIMPSON, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Sawtry, Hunts, Farmer

don Pet Dec 21 Ord Dec 21 ANTHONY, JOHN, Chesterfield, Innkeeper Chesterfield Pet

Feb 4 at 11.30 Law Courts, New-road, Peterborough VINE, BENJAMIN, Dec 21 Ord Dec 21

Eastbourne, Laundry Keeper Eastbourne SKELLON, JOSEPH ALOYSIUS, Catterick, York, Schoolmaster Pet Dec 16 Ord Dec 16

Jan 5 at 12 Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds BARROWCLOUGH, WILLIAM, Burnley Burnley Pet Dec 22

WEBB, ELIZABETH, Oxford Oxford Pet Dec 22 Ord Ord Dec 22

Skym, Joux, Aberdare, Glam, Innkeeper Jan 3 at 2 65,

Dec 22 CHAPMAN, JOHN Edwin, Leeds Leeds Pet Dec Ord

High st, Merthyr Tydfil WRIGHT, ALICE, Brighton, Mantle Dealer High Court Smith, Thomas, Coventry, Baker Dec 31 at 12 Off Ree, Dec 21

Pet Deo 22 Ord Dec 22 CHRISTIE, WILLIAM LORENZO, St James's High Court

17, Hertford st, Coventry Pet Nov 4 Ord Dec 20

FIRST MEETINGS.

SPRINGTHORPE, JOSEPH, Calow, Chesterfield, Draper Dec CLARK, THOMAS HARBY, and FREDERICK CLABK, Bethnal BAXTER, HENBY, Burnley, Butcher Dec 31 at 2 Exchange STEPHEN, DAVID Ryhs, Caswell, Mumbles, nr Swansea,

31 at 4_Angel Hotel, Chesterfield
Green, Boot Manufacturers High Court Pet Dec 20 Hotel, Nicholas st, Burnley
Ord Dec 20
BISHOP, GEORGE, Skipton, Yorks, Cycle Manufacturer Dec

Coal Shipper Jan 7 at 12 Off Rec, 31, Alexandra rd,

Swansea
CRABB, Thomas, West Norwood, Builder High Court 31 at 11 Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford
Pet Nov 22 Ord Dec 21
BURRELL, JOSEPH, Windhill, Yorks, Bootmaker Dec 31 at

TALLBOY, JAMES EDWARD, Barry Dock, Glam, Auctioneer DAYCHES, THEODORE, Brixton High Court Pet Nov 25 12 Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford

Jan 4 at 11 Off Rec, 29, Queen st, Cardiff
Ord Dec 21
Byrom, EDMUND, Leeds, Greengrocer Jan 6 at 11

TOWLER, HERBERT JOHN, Birmingham, Grocer Dec 31 at

Off DUCKWORTH, JAMES TURNER, and SAMUEL SHAW, Barnolds Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds

12 174, Corporation st, Birmingham wick, York, Builders Bradford Pet Dec 22 Ord CLIFFORD, Thomas, Brough, Westmrld, Farmer Jan 5 at

Toy, FBANK, Leeds, Grocer Jan 6 at 12 Off Rec, 22, Park Dec 22 3 Off Rec, 16, Cornwallis st, Barrow in Furness

row, Leeds GOODALL, Louisa SOPHIA, Oxford Oxford Pet Nov 25 CRITCHLEY, FANNY, Lancaster, Grocer

VINE, BENJAMIN, Eastbourne, Laundry Keeper Jan 4 at 2

Dec 31 at 2.30
Ord Dec 22
Exchange Hotel, Nicholas st, Burnley

Coles & Sons, Seaside rd, Eastbourne
GRIESBACH, THOMAS SINGLETON, Handsworth Birming- CRUMP, ALFRED CHARLES, Birmingham, Brass Caster Dec

WAITE, Thomas BUSHBY, Albrighton, Salop, Schoolmaster

Dec 31 at 12.30 ham Pet Dec 18 Ord Dec 18 31 at 11 174, Corporation st, Birmingham

Off Rec, 42, St John's Hill, ShrewsHARDING, EDWARD, Buckland, Landport, Cycle Dealer Denton, FREDERICK, and JOSEPH ALLEN, Irthlingborough, WEARMOUTH, John,

bury Portsmouth Pet Dec 17 Ord Dec 17 Northamptons, Boot Manufacturers Jan 5 at 12.30

Brough, Westmoreland, Farmer HARRISON, ALFRED, Seaforth, Lancs, Butcher Liverpool County Court bldgs, Sheep st, Northampton

Jan 5 at 3.30 Off Rec, 16, Cornwollis st, Barrow in

Furness Pet Nov 20 Ord Dec 21

DOBBS, JAMES NICHOLAS, Rhymney, Mon Jan 6 at 11 Off HARRISON, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Fakenham, Norfolk Nor Rec, 29, Queen st, Cardiff

WILLIAMS, JABEZ, Bradford, Builder Dec 31 at 11.30 Off wich Pet Nov 8 Ord Dec 18 Dunn, John HINDMAS, Bradford, Draper Dec 31 at 3 Off

Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford HORSFALL, RICHARD James, Halifax, Printer Halifax Pet Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford

ADJUDICATIONS. Dec 21 Ord Dec 21

EDWARDS, SAMUEL, Buckingham, Cycle Dealer Dec 31 at 3 ANTHONY, Joux, Chesterfield, Innkeeper Chesterfield Pet Hudson, CHARLES, Walsall, Postman Walsall Pet Dec 1, St Aldate's, Oxford

Dec 21 Ord Dec 21 20 Ord Dec 20

HALL, JOHN VOCE, Boston, Lincs, Grocer Jan 10 at 12.15 BAKER, HORACE CHARLES WILLIAM, Mincing lane, MerIVES, ERNEST ALBERT, Bradford, Carrier Bradford Pet Off Rec, 4 and 6, West st, Boston

chant High Court Pet Nov 30 Ord Dec 18 Dec 21 Ord Dec 21

HIRSCH, HERMAN CHARLES CÆSAR, Southwark, Egg Mer- BARROWCLOUGH, WILLIAM, Burnley Burnley Pet Dec 23 JOHN, JOSEPH, Bettws, nr Bridgend, Collier Cardiff Pet chant Jan 4 at 2.30 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

Ord Dec 22 Dec 21 Ord Dec 21

HOLDEN, WILLIAM LEWIS, Whiston, nr Prescot, Lancs BrowŅE, WILLIAM ALEXANDER, Abergele, Denbighs, ComKITCHERMAN, William, Warley, nr Halifax, Farmer Potter Jan 4 at 1 Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liverpool mission Agent Bangor Pet Dec 16_Ord Dec 20 Halifax Pet Dec 20 Ord Dec 20 HORSFALL, CHARD JAMES, Halifax, Printer Jan 10 at CHAPMAN, EDWIN, Le Leeds Pet Dec 21

Ord MORTIMORE, ANDREW GEORGE, Kingsteignton, Devon, 11.30 Off Rec, Halifax

Dec 21 Grocer Exeter Pet Dec 20' Ord Dec 20

JENKINS, Joun, Penrhiwceiber, Glam, Stationer Jan 4 at CHARLTON, EDWARD James, Basingstoke, Hants WiuOWEN, RICHARD, Bryngwran, Anglesey, Licensed Victual 12 65, High st, Merthyr Tydfil

chester Pet Dec 16 Ord Dec 20 ler Bangor Pet Dec 21 Ord Dec 21

KINCH, FREDERICK JAMESON, Kingston upon Hull, Corn CLABK, Thomas HARRY, and FREDERICK CLARK, Bethnal PuaraOH, ŠENRY CHAMBERLAIN, Streatham, Builder Merchant Jan 5 at 11 Off Rec, Trinity House lane, Green, Boot Manufacturers High Court Pet Dec 20 Croydon Pet Dec 22 Ord Dec 22 Hull

Ord Dec 20 PORBITT, JOSIAH, ALBERT PORBITT, and MARSHALL Kitchen, Joseph HENRY, Rinsey, Breage, Cornwall, COUPLAND, ROBERT, Accrington, Draper Blackburn Pet PORRITT, Hunslet, Leeds, Yarn Spinners Leeds Pet Farmer Jan 4 at 12.30 Off Rec, Boscawen st,

Dec 6 Ord Dec 21 Dec 16 Ord Dec 16

Truro

CRITCHLEY, FANNY, Lancaster, Grocer Burnley Pet Oct PRIESTLEY, MARLON, Wibsey, nr Bradford, Innkeeper KITCHERMAN, William, Warley, nr Halifax, Farmer Jan 28 Ord Dec 20 Bradford Pet Dec 20 Ord Dec 20

10 at 11 Off Rec, Halifax

DUCKWORTH, JAMES TURNER, and SAMUEL SHAW, BarnoldsPugh, WILLIAM, Michaelchurch Escley, Hereford, Inpkeeper LONSDALE, WILLIAM, Southport, Provision Dealer Jan 3 wick, Yorks, Builders Bradford Pet Dec 22 Hereford Pet Dec 22 Ord Dec 22 at 12 Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liverpool

Dec 22 RUTH ERFORD, Harry, Retford, Notts Ashton under Lyne McBLAIN, Joun, Gloucester rd, Draper Jan 4 at 12 FULLER, BURRELL CLEVELAND, Fenchurch st, Grocer High Pet Dec 13 Ord Dec 16 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

Court Pet Nov 11 Ord Dec 20 SALL, Ernest WILLIAM HENRY, Southsea, Surgeon Ports- MORGAN, JOnn, Canton, Cardiff, Labourer Jan 4 at 11.30 GRICE, JOHN Austin, High Holborn, Licensed Victualler mouth Pet Dec 17 Ord Dec 17 Of Rec, 29, Queen'st, Cardiff

High Court Pet Dec 15 Ord Dec 18 SEELEY, Thomas WILLIAM, Newmarket, Builder Cam- NOBLE, GEORGE, Camborne, Cornwall, Fruiterer Jan 4 at GRIESBACH, THOMAS SINGLETON, Handsworth Birmingbridge Pet Dec 21 Ord Dec 21 12 Off Rec, Boscawen st, Truro

ham Pet Dec 18 Ord Dec 18 STARKINA, EARAH, Martham, Norfolk, Laundress Great NortII, CHABLES EDWARD, Bradford, Agent Jan 6 at 11 HARDING, EDWARD, Buckland, Landport, Cycle Agent Yarmouth Pet Dec 11 Ord Dec 22 Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford

Portsmouth Pet Dec 17 Ord Dec 17 SHARMAN, WILLIAM Henry, Barnsley, Yorks, Grocer OZYER, JOHN WILLIAM, Leeds, Joiner Jan 5 at 11.30 Off HARRISON, ALFRED H, Victoria st, Westminster High Barnsley Pet Dec 22 Ord Dec 22 Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds

Court Pet Aug 20 Ord Dec 17
SHAW, CHARLES, Sherwood, Notts, Gardener Nottingham PAYNE, RICHARD, Wandsworth, Butcher Jan 7 at 11.30 Harvey, Robert Douglas, jun, Caledonian rd High
Pet Dec 20 Ord Dec 20
24, Railway app, London bridge

Court Pet Aug 27 Ord Dec 21
Shelton, Thomas, Llanwnog, Montgomery, Schoolmaster POYNTON, RICHARD HERBERT, Smisby, Derbye, Butcher HOLMES, EDWARD, Oldham, Plumber Oldham
Newtown Pet Dec 21 Ord Dec 21
Dec 31 at 12.30 Off Reo, 40, St Mary's gate, Derby

16 Ord Dec 22
BAERIDAN, FORDYCE, Budge row, Barrister High Court ROBERTSON, ELLEX EMMA, Wakefeld Dec 31 at 11 of HORSFALL, RICHARD JAMES, Halifax, Printer Halifax
Pet Oct 27 Ord Dec 13
Rec, 6, Bond ter, Wakefild

Pet Dec 21 Ord Dec 21

Ord

Pet Nov

« PreviousContinue »