CHRISTIE, WILLIAM LORENZO, Duke st, St James's High EVANS, SARAH ANN, Llandilo Graban, Radnors, Grocer FLEET, HENRY, Bunbury, Builder Nantwich Pet Jan 10 Ord Jan 11 FRANKLIN, SAMUEL JAMES, High Easter, Essex, Grocer Chelmsford Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 8 GOBLE, JOHN EDWARD, Brighton, Coal Dealer Brighton Pet Jan 10 Ord Jan 10 HAGARTY, JOнs, St Ann's rd, Stamford Hill, Undertaker Edmonton Pet Dec 6 Ord Jan 7 HARRISON, ALFRED, Seaforth, Butcher Liverpool Pet Nov 20 Ord Jan 12 HEY, JOHN TINKER, Upper Baker st High Court Pet Aug 11 Ord Jan 10 HOUGHTON, GEORGE, Bury St Edmunds, Coal Merchant Bury St Edmunds Pet Jan 11 Ord Jan 11 ISON, HARRY, Hartshill, Warwicks, Innkeeper Birmingham Pet Jan 11 Ord Jan 11 JONES, THOMAS LEWIS, Cwmbach, Aberdare Aberdare Pet Jan 10 Ord Jan 10 KEY, ARTHUR, Gt Easton, Essex, Butcher Chelmsford Pet Jan 4 Ord Jan 10 LACY, WILLIAM, Burnley Burnley Pet Dec 9 Ord Jan 11 LUMB, SHADRACH, Halifax, Slater Halifax Pet Jan 12 Ord Jan 12 MAY, ALBERT EUGENE, Leeds, Clerk Leeds Pet Jan 8 Órd Jan 8 MAYSTON, JOHN HENRY, jun, Great Yarmouth Ship Chandler's Assistant Great Yarmouth Pet Jan 11 Ord Jan 11 MOODY, THOMAS ARTHUR, Redhill, nr Rowland's Castle, Hants, Tailor Portsmouth Pet Jan 8 Ord Jan 8 MOORES, THOMAS, Warrington, Grocer Warrington Pet Dec 3 Ord Jan 12 MULLEY, WILLIAM, Bardwell, Suffolk, Baker Bury St Edmunds Pet Jan 12 Ord Jan 12 NEIL, JAMES, Gillingham, Dorsets, Farmer Salisbury Pet Jan 12 Ord Jan 12 PHARAOH, HENRY CHAMBERLAIN, Beckenham, Builder Croydon Pet Dec 21 Ord Jan 4 PLUNKETT, JAMES, Nottingham, Traveller Nottingham REYNOLDS, HENRY, Southrepps, Norfolk, Carter Norwich TAYLOR, JOSEPH, Wakefield, Watchmaker Wakefield Pet Jan 11 Gt Yar WAYMOUTH, WILLIAM HENRY, Torquay, Baker Exeter WESTACOTT, WILLIAM LEVER, Newport, Mon, Baker New- FERENS, FREDERICK JOSEPH, Sunderland, Mining Engineer Sunderland Pet Jan 12 Ord Jan 12 FRIEND, JOHN MELBOURNE, Kimpton, nr Andover, Farm Bailiff Salisbury Pet Jan 13 Ord Jan 13 GORMAN, Mrs, Bedminster, Licensed Victualler Pet Dec 30 Ord Jan 13 Bristol GUNNELL, WILLIAM, Gt Grimsby, Saddler Gt Grimsby HARDING, FREDERICK Henry, Liverpool, Car Driver Liver- KIRBY, RICHARD JEFFERSON, Gt Driffield, Yorks Scar- MARVELL, JAMES, Bradford, Furniture Dealer Bradford MOODY, FRANK WILLIAM, Gt Grimsby Gt Grimsby Pet Jan 10 Ord Jan 10 MOXON, WALTER, Bradford, Woollen Merchant Bradford Pet Jan 14 Ord Jan 14 PERRY, THOMAS, Mattersea, Nottingham, Farmer Sheffield Pet Jan 14 Ord Jan 14 PRYCE, THOMAS WOOSNAM, Kidderminster Foreign, Worcs, Farmer Kidderminster Pet Jan 13 Ord Jan 13 RICHARDS, DAVID, Pontardulais, Carmarthen, Grocer Carmarthen Pet Dec 1 Ord Jan 12 ROBERTS, DAVID RICHARD, Corwen, Merioneth, Blacksmith Wrexham Pet Jan 12 Ord Jan 12 SAUNDERS, WILLIAM ALLEN, Whitfield st, Tottenham Court rd, Timber Merchant High Court Pet Jan 14 Ord ST STEPHENS, RAYNOR, West Hampstead, Mining Engineer High Court Pet Aug 20 Ord Jan 13 TAYLOR, CHRISTOPHER JAMES, Bentham, York, Grocer Kendal Pet Dec 21 Ord Jan 14 THORNTON, JOHN, Cleckheaton, Yorks, Machine Maker Bradford Pet Jan 15 Ord Jan 15 TREWIN, JOHN ROBERT, St Blazey, Cornwall, Travelling Draper Truro Pet Jan 15 Örd Jan 15 WARD, ROBERT, Knutsford, Chester, Farmer Manchester Pet Jan 14 Ord Jan 14 WILLIAMS, EMILY, Shrewsbury, Salop, Ladies' Outfitter Shrewsbury Pet Jan 13 Ord Jan 13 WOOD, CHARLES, Leeds, Gas Office Clerk Leeds Pet Jan 13 Ord Jan 13 Amended notice substituted for that published in the London Gazette of Jan. 4: REVELL, ERNEST ALBERT, Stafford, Stoke Damerell, Devon, Painter Plymouth Pet Dec 30 Ord Dec 30 FIRST MEETINGS. BATTEN, WILLIAM WALTER, Southampton, Builder Jan 27 at 3.15 Off Rec, 172, High st, Southampton BAUGHAN, JOHN, Oxford, Farmer Jan 25 at 12.15 1, St Aldate's, Oxford BAYLY, WILLIAM THOMAS, Portsea, Builder Jan 25 at 3.30 Off Rec, Cambridge_junct, High st, Portsmouth BIRCHALL, MERRICK, Bolton, Pipe Maker Jan 27 at 11 16, Wood st, Bolton BIRD, EDWIN, Hockley, Birmingham, Shop Fitter Jan 26 at 11 174, Corporation st, Birmingham BLEASDALE, MARY, Burnley, Confectioner Jan 28 at 1 Exchange Hotel, Nicholas st, Burnley COOPER, JOSEPH MAWBEY, Claybrooke, nr Rugby, Commission Agent Jan 25 at 3 Off Rec, 1, Berridge st, Leicester COOPER, WILLIAM JAMES, Islington Jan 25 at 12 Bank-, ruptcy bldgs, Carey st CURRY, JAMES, Bristol Jan 26 at 12 Off Rec, Baldwin st Bristol DAVIES, ANNIE, Tyrcanol, Morriston, Glam, Grocer Jan 27 at 12 Off Rec, 31, Alexandra row, Swansea DAVIES, JAMES, Hindley, nr Wigan, Stationer Jan 26 at 11 16, Wood st, Bolton DUFFY, PETER, Darlington, Labourer Feb 2 at 3 Off Rec, 8, Albert rd, Middlesborough DUTTON, WILLIAM GEORGE, Walworth, Baker Jan 25 at FLINT, REGINALD ATTLEE, Bride ln, Ludgate cres Jan 25 FREEMAN, FREDERICK, Northampton Jan 26 at 11.30 County Court bldgs, Sheep st, Northampton GORMAN, ELLEN, Bedminster, Licensed Victualler Jan 26 at 12.45 Off Rec, Baldwin st, Bristol GRIESBACH, THOMAS SINGLETON, Handsworth Jan 28 at 11 174, Corporation st, Birmingham HENTON, JOSEPH, Tamworth, Staffs, Baker Jan 27 at 11 ISAAC, JOHN, Portland, Warrant Officer Jan 25 a 1 JOHNSON, ROBERT, Streetlam, nr Danby Wiske, Yorks KELSALL, GEORGE, Loughborough, Bookbinder Jan 25 at LAURILLARD, EDWARD, Moorgate st bldgs Jan 26 at 12 LESSER, ABRAHAM, Weaste, Salford Jan 26 at 3 Off Rec, Byrom st, Manchester Off MAY, ALBERT EUGENE, Leeds, Clerk Jan 26 at 11 PECKETT, FREDERICK, Featherstone, Yorks, Draper 25 at 10.15 Off Rec, Regent st, Barnsley REYNOLDS, HENRY, Southrepps, Norfolk, Carter Jan 29 at 12.30 Off Rec, 8, King st, Norwich RING, DANIEL EDWY, Yeovil, General Grocer Jan 25 at 12.30 Off Rec, City chmbrs, Endless st, Salisbury ROBERTS, JAMES NASMYTH, Edward st, Hampstead rd, Furniture Dealer Jan 27 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st SAUNDERS, WILLIAM ALLEN, Whitfield st, Tottenham Court rd, Timber Merchants Jan 26 at 2.3) Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st SNELL, RICHARD, Ficcadilly Jan 27 at 2.30 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st TAYLOR, JOSEPH, Wakefield, Watchmaker Jan 25 at 3 Off Rec, 6, Bond ter, Wakefield WARD, WILLIAM, Bungay, Suffolk, Fishmonger Jan 29 at 12 Off Rec, 8, King st, Norwich WEBSTER, JOSEPH, Rochdale, Licensed Victualler Jan 25 at 11.15 Townhall, Rochdale WHALE, JOSEPH, Porthill, nr Burslem, Staffs, Builder Jan 26 at 2.30 North Stafford Hotel, Stoke upon Trent WHITLOCK, FREDERICK BULSTRODE, Nottingham, Branch Bank Manager Jan 25 at 12 Off Rec, 4, Castle pl, Park st, Nottingham WILLIAMS, ALFRED EDWARD. Bargoed, Glam Jan 25 at 12 65, High st, Merthyr Tidfil WOODWARD, JAMES ADAM, Blackpool, Surveyor Feb 4 at 2.30 Off Rec, 14, Chapel st, Preston YATES, JOHN LEEMAN, New Crofton, Yorks, Grocer Jan ADJUDICATIONS. ANDREWS, WILLIE, South Reddish, Lancs, Silk Finisher Stockport Pet Jan 13 Ord Jan 13 BAMFORD, HENRY, Huddersfield, Silk Throwster Huddersfield Pet Jan 7 Ord Jan 12 BIRCHALL, MERRICK, Bolton, Pipe Maker Bolton Pet Jan 13 Ord Jan 13 BURY, FRED, Manchester, Joiner Manchester Pet Jan 13 Ord Jan 13 COOPER, WILLIAM JAMES, Islington High Court Pet Jan 13 Ord Jan 15 Cox, ALFRED MATTHIAS, Shanklin, I of W, Grocer Newport Pet Jan 15 Ord Jan 15 Cox, WILLIAM, Stockport, Labourer Stockport Pet Jan 13 Ord Jan 13 DUTTON, WILLIAM GEORGE, Walworth, Baker High Court Pet June 5 Ord Jan 13 FERENS, FREDERICK JOSEPH, Sunderland, Mining En- FRIEND, JOHN MELBOURNE, Kimpton, nr Audover, Farm GUNNELL, WILLIAM, Gt Grimsby, Saddler Gt Grimsby HARDING, FREDERICK HENRY, Liverpool, Car Driver Liver- JAQUES, JOHN, Wandsworth, Fruiterer Wandsworth Pet KIRBY, RICHARD JEFFERSON, Gt Driffield, Yorks Scarborough Pet Jan 14 Pet Jan 15 MARVELL, JAMES, Bradford, Furniture Dealer Bradford Pet Jan 15 Ord Jan 15 MATTHEWS, JANE RYMER, Almondsbury, Glos Bristol Pet Dec 4 Ord Jan 14 MOODY, FRANK WILLIAM, Gt Grimsby Gt Grimsby Pet Jan 10 Ord Jan 10 MOXON, WALTER, Bradford, Woollen Merchant Bradford Pet Jan 14 Órd Jan 14 NIGHTINGALE, FREDERICK RICHARD, and JOHN NIGHTINGALE, Heaton, Newcastle on Tyne, Hairdressers Newcartle on Tyne Pet Dec 14 Ord Jan 14 PATEMAN, HENRY, Houghton Regis, Bedford, Butcher PERRY, THOMAS, Mattersea, Notts, Farmer Sheffield Pet POOL, L FOWLER, Walthamstow High Court Pet Nov 18 ROBERTS, DAVID RICHARD, Corwen, Merioneths, Blacksmith SKELLON, JOSEPH ALOYSIUS, Catterick, York, Schoolmaster TREWIN, JOHN ROBERT, St Blazey, Cornwall, Travelling Dec 23 Ord Jan 15 To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the 29, TEMPLE ST., WOLVERHAMPTON. Manchester Pet Manchester ROBES FOR QUEEN'S COUNSEL AND BARRISTERS. WARD, ROBERT, Knutsford, Chester, Farmer WOOD, CHARLES, Leeds, Gas Office Clerk Leeds Pet Jan Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town 13 Ord Jan 13 Amended notice substituted for that published in the REVELL, ERNEST ALBERT, Alrewas, Stafford, Painter Ply- All letters intended for publication in the Clerks, and Clerks of the Peace, ESTABLISHED 1689. 94, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. ESTABLISHED 1851. Telegrams, "Deeds, Wolverhampton." HUNDREDS OF TESTIMONIALS. arch 21, 1896.-From Messrs. Poole & Robinson, 15, Unioncourt, Old Broad-street, London, E.C. Dear Sir,-We are very pleased with the Deed Boxes which you recently supplied to us, and now inclose cheque for £36 6s. 6d., the amount of your account for same, which kindly receipt and return in due course. We shall be happy to recommend your company to any of our friends who may require Deed Boxes. Yours faithfully, POOLE & ROBINSON. From Mr. GEORGE AYLWARD, Portsdown House, Cosham, Portsmouth, Sept. 15, 1897. Gentlemen,-The safe is duly to hand, and I am very much pleased with it; and if it is as you guarantee, fire and burglar proof, I think it is marvellously cheap. and steel Fire and "Solicitors' Journal" must be authenticated BIRKBECK BANK Wrought iron, Wedgeproof Cash and Jewellery Safe, Un by the name of the writer. Subscription, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE, which includes Indexes, Digests, Statutes, and Postage, 528. WEEKLY REPORTER, in wrapper, 268.; by Post, 288. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 26s.; by Post, 28s. Volumes bound at the office-cloth, 2s. 9d., half law calf, 5. 6d. Where difficulty is experienced in procuring the Journal with regularity, it is requested that application be made direct to the Publisher. PARENTS, THEIR CHILDREN, AND DR. TIBBLES' VI-COCOA. No matter whether physical or mental labour is meant, THE COMPANIES ACTS, 1862 TO 1890. or even if, as is too often the case in these days of fierce powers, adds to powers of endurance, and enables those who use it to undergo greater physical exertion and fatigue. The "British Medical Journal" says: "Vi-Cocoa is a very palatable beverage of great stimulating and sustaining properties." The "Lancet" says: "Vi-Cocoa is in the front rank of really valuable foods." We say that for breakfast and supper there is nothing to equal Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa; and the following is a very small portion of what the trade say in the leading University centres, being an extract from the "Cambridge Independent Press." The reporter writes: "Mr. Carley, whose shop is beneath the shadow of Magdalen College, says the people speak well of Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa. He had a customer only last Saturday who spoke wonderfully in praise of it. The sales had doubled and trebled. The University men ask for it, and it is clear that it has hit the public taste. Again, Messrs. Hattersley Bros., of Trinity-street, are known as high-class grocers who do a large University trade. They state that last term there were so many inquiries by undergraduates for Vi-Cocoa that they were bound to get a stock of it, and they have provided for a large sale this term, for which they find a large demand. Many 'Varsity men come to the shop and ask for it." All of which confirm the statements about this Wonderful Food Beverage appearing from time to time in the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. Merit, and merit alone, is what we claim for Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, and we are prepared to send to any reader who names the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL a dainty sample tin of Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa free and post-paid. There is no magic in all this. It is a plain, honest, straightforward offer. It is done to introduce the merits of Vi-Cocoa into every home. Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, as a concentrated form of nourishment and vitality, is invaluable; nay, more than this, for all who wish to face the strife and battle of life with greater endurance and more sustained exertion, it is absolutely indispensable. Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, 6d., 9d., 1s. 6d. Can be obtained from all Chemists, Grocers, and Stores, or from Dr Tibbles' The BOOKS and FORMS kept in stock for immediate use. MEMORANDA and ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION speedily printed in the proper form for registration and distribution. SHARE CERTIFICATES, DEBENTURES, CHEQUES, &c., engraved and printed. OFFICIAL SEALS designed and executed. No Charge for Sketche 49, Solicitors' Account Books. RICHARD FLINT & CO., Stationers, Printers, Engravers, Registration Agents, Annual and other Returns Stamped and Filed. EPPS'S COCOA EXTRACT FROM A LECTURE ON "FOODS AND THEIR VALUES," BY DR. ANDREW WILSON, F.R.S.E., &c.-"If any motives-first, of due regard for health, and second, of getting full food-value for money expended-can be said to weigh with us in choosing our foods, then I say that Cocoa (Epps's being the most nutritious) should be made to replace tea and coffee without hesitation. Cocoa is a food; tea and coffee are not foods. This is the whole science of the matter in a nutshell, and he who runs may read the obvious moral of the story." High. Wide. Deep. 2 in. Fire resisting chambers, best lever lock, duplicate keys EXTRA STRONG. No High Wide Deep £ s. d. B956. 24 by 17 by 17 in. #5 80 B957. 26 by 18 by 17 in. 6 20 B953. 28 by 19 by 19 in. 6 12 6 B959. 30 by 20 by 20 in. +7 26 B960. 32 by 22 by 21 in. +7 17 6 *With 1 drawer. 2 in. Fire resisting chambers, "handles, throw bolts in front, top, and bottom of door, very best lever lock, duplicate keys Fitted with Chubb's Lock, 78. 6d. each extra. Any size safe and strong-room doors quoted for on application. ALPHABET CASE (2 doors). Made of Best Tinned Steel, with Best Lever Spring Lock and 2 Keys. Stock Size, 30 by 17 by 14 May be made any size to Order. SPECIAL LINES IN BALLOT BOXES. REGISTERED FOLDING VOTING SCREENS. All kinds of Boxes made and Strong Rooms Fitted. Any of our Boxes not approved of money returned. We are appointing agents in every Town, and shall be pleased to receive applications from responsible men calling on Solicitors, Accountants, &c. 24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C. ALLIANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY. LONDON BRANCHES : 1, ST. JAMES'S ST., S.W.; 63, CHANCERY LANE, W.C.; Life Policies free from Restrictions, with Perfect Security and Liberal Bonuses. ROBERT LEWIS, Chief Secretary. Castell & Brown, Re. Ex parte Union Bartlett V. Mayfair Property Co. 213 (Limited). 199 Dye v. Patman 200 Drinkwater, Re. Drinkwater v. Field 212 Gosling v. Gaskell. 208 213 Peveril Gold Mines (Limited), In re 198 Millard v. Wastall 215 Piers, In re. Palmer, Re. Ex parte Brims Queensland National Bank v. Penin- 215 212 Ex parte Piers v. Read... 207 204 203 ..... 202 CURRENT TOPICS. WE UNDERSTAND that arrangements are in progress for enabling Mr. Justice BARNES to sit for the hearing of Chancery actions, and that he will probably commence his sittings for that purpose on Tuesday next. MR. JUSTICE DARLING'S accident has stimulated a correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, who calls himself "A Juris LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE consult," to recall a fall from his horse which occurred to Lord THE LORD Chief Justice has again raised his protest against the existing system, or rather want of system, of legal education. Two years ago he made his address, delivered under the auspices of the Council of Legal Education, the occasion for advocating the establishment in London of a law school common to both branches of the profession. He renewed the proposal at the recent annual dinner of the Hastings and St. Leonards' Law Students' Society, suggesting the alternatives either of an independent school of law with London as its centre, or a faculty of law in the projected teaching University of London in some respects under the control of the Inns of Court. Hitherto, the former of the proposals has not taken practical shape, and there seems to be no likelihood that it will. The Inns of Court have their own scheme of education, and they show no indication of any desire for a school of law worthy of the name such as was advocated thirty years ago by Lord SELBORNE and the late Mr. JEVONS, of Liverpool. Their opposition was then powerful enough to defeat the Bill for the establishment of his scheme which Lord SELBORNE brought forward, and we imagine that they are still unregenerate. Outside the Inns of Court there seems, since Lord RUSSELL does not himself move in the matter, to be no indication of the project being taken up. A faculty of law in a teaching University of London is not unlikely to be carried into effect, but whether it will meet Lord RUSSELL'S requirements is doubtful. THE DECISION of NORTH, J., a week ago in Re S. furnishes an additional reason, if any were needed, why a solicitor should not by any inadvertence allow himself to be unprotected by a certificate. For any period when he is not duly qualified he is, as is well known, debarred from recovering his costs, but in Re Jones (L. R. 9 Eq. 63) Lord ROMILLY, M.R., held that this disability did not prevent the costs from being due as a debt. Hence, although under section 26 of the Solicitors Act, 1843-the enactment then in force-the solicitor was unable to sue for the costs, yet, if the client obtained an order for taxation and thereby submitted to pay what was due, the costs in question, being a debt, were to be taken into account. The principle that a right, though not enforceable by action, may exist, and may be taken advantage of by any means not involving the bringing of an action, is well known, and is illustrated by the case of a debt under the Statute of Limitations. But section 12 of the Solicitors Act, 1874, goes somewhat further than the earlier enactment, and provides that no costs, fee, reward, or disbursement on account of or in relation to any act or proceeding done or taken by any person who acts as a solicitor, without being duly qualified so to act, shall be recoverable in any action, suit, or matter by any person or persons whomsoever." In Fowler v. Monmouthshire Canal Co. (4 Q. B. D. 334) it was held that these last words, "" any person or persons whomsoever," had the effect of preventing a successful litigant from recovering from the other side his costs incurred while his solicitor was uncertificated; but there has been hitherto no decision shewing that the distinction established by Re Jones has been abolished. In Kent v. Ward (70 L. T. 612), where section 12 was enforced, the solicitor was suing for his costs, and so was clearly within the section. Upon the strict words of the section it is perhaps difficult to see why Re Jones should not still be applicable. Under the Act of 1874, as under that of 1843, it is the recovery of the costs that is barred, and it is not stated expressly that the costs are not to be available as a debt in any other way. At the same time it is an undoubted anomaly that by the mere form of the procedure upon taxation at the instance of a client the solicitor should get costs which the Act declares he ought not to have, and the decision in Re S. will probably be accepted as governing the practice for the future. THE RECENT case of Re Castell & Brown (Limited), before ROMER, J., shews the danger which debenture-holders run who are content to take simply a floating charge upon the real property of a company and to leave the deeds in the possession of the company. Debentures were issued by the company purporting to charge all its property, and the conditions provided that the charge was to be a floating security, but so that the company was not to be at liberty to create any mortgage or charge upon its freehold or leasehold hereditaments in priority to the debentures. No legal mortgage of the freehold or leasehold hereditaments was ever made in favour of the shareholders, and the title deeds were left in the possession of the company. The company deposited them with a bank in order to secure an overdraft, and upon the company being wound up a contest for priority arose between the bank and the debenture-holders. Each had only an equitable security, and that of the debentureholders was prima facie entitled to priority as being prior in date, but the bank relied upon the possession of the title deeds. ROMER, J., seems to have considered that the mere omission of the debenture-holders to withdraw the title deeds from the control of the company was negligence sufficient to postpone their claim, but it is possible that this view ascribes to mere negligence an effect inconsistent with the later cases. According to the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered by FRY, L.J., in Northern Counties Fire Insurance Co. v. Whipp (26 Ch. D., at p. 494), negligence in getting or keeping deeds is only a ground for postponing a legal mortgagee when it is so gross as to be evidence of a fraudulent concurrence in the subsequent disposal of them by the owner. The same principle seems to be applicable as regards an equitable mortgagee, and there was no such fraud here. ROMER, J., however, based his judgment on the analogy of the decision in Perry-Herrick v. Attwood (2 De G. & J. 21). There a mortgagee lent the deeds to the owner for the purpose of raising a specific sum, and the owner raised a larger sum. It was held that the mortgagee must take the risk of the mortgagor exceeding his authority, and that his mortgage was to be postponed to the whole sum raised on the deeds. In the present case ROMER, J., inferred that, since the security was a floating one, the deeds were left with the company in order to enable it to dispose of such parts of the property as might be desirable. Hence the debenture-holders took the risk of the company exceeding its authority and mortgaging the property, notwithstanding the express prohibition against mortgaging. This prohibition was effectual only as between the company and the debentureholders. It is interesting to observe that ROMER, J., considered that the bank were under no duty to inquire as to the existence of debentures, and their omission to do so did not affect them with notice of the prohibition against mortgaging. The debenture-holders accordingly were postponed to the bank. THE DECISION Of KENNEDY, J., in Marks v. Frogley and Others must have caused a shock to many members of the volunteer force. That a sergeant and two privates of a volunteer battalion should, by acting in strict accordance with the commands of their superior officer, render themselves liable to be mulcted in damages at the suit of another member of the same battalion is, to say the least of it, surprising. The case arose out of an unfortunate accusation of theft made against the plaintiff by some of his comrades. The charge was made when the battalion in question was taking part in a camp of exercise or training at Shorncliffe with other portions of the auxiliary and of the regular forces; the camp was at the moment in course of breaking up, and the plaintiff's battalion was about to march to the railway station on its journey to Hertfordshire, the county to which it belonged. By the order of the adjutant and other officers, the plaintiff was kept in the custody of the three unsuccessful defendants during the railway journey, and afterwards on the march to the neighbouring police-station, where he was given over to the police superintendent on the charge of larceny. He was afterwards tried and honourably acquitted. The action was for false imprisonment, and the verdict was in favour of the police superintendent, but substantial damages were awarded against the three volunteer defendants in case the judge should hold them liable. This he has done. The defence rested upon several sections of the Army Act, 1881. It is clear that, under section 176 of that Act, volunteers are subject to military law "when they are being trained or exercised with any portion of the regular forces"; and also that, under sections 41 and 45, a person under military law, when charged with such an offence as larceny, may be ordered into arrest by any officer and kept in custody with a view to his case being investigated by the proper military authority; and a non-commissioned officer is, by the section last referred to, prohibited from refusing to receive and keep in custody such a person upon the order of his superior behalf of these defendants, provides that "where an offence officer. Section 158, upon which also reliance was placed on under this Act has been committed by any person while subject to military law, such person may be taken into and kept in military custody and tried and punished for such offence,' although he or his battalion has ceased to be subject to military law. APPLYING THESE sections to the facts of this case, the learned judge held, first, that the parties concerned were subject to military law until their departure from Shorncliffe station, or, at all events, until they left the camp itself, and that therefore the order of the adjutant, so far as it related to the actual arrest of the plaintiff, was a lawful order. But he went on to hold that the plaintiff and defendants ceased to be subject to military law, and reverted to the status of ordinary civilians, on the train leaving Shorncliffe station, and that the provisions of the Army Act afforded no justification for retaining the plaintiff in custody. He declined to accede to the argument that the training, and therefore the subjection to military law, continued until the dismissal of the volunteers on arriving at their respective destinations on their return from the camp. The result seems to be that volunteers who receive an order which is properly given to them and which they are bound to obey while under military law, must, as soon as they cease to be subject to that law (a moment of time which would generally be very difficult to determine), either disregard that order or run the risk of incurring heavy liability at the suit of the person aggrieved by the carrying out of the order. The defence, based on section 158, was demolished by the learned judge as applying (as the language used does in strictness apply) only where an offence had actually been committed, not charged merely; and he expressed the opinion that, even if it had been worded so as to apply to a person charged, it would not have justified his being kept in custody during a railway journey in order to his being handed over to the civil authority in a distant county instead of being tried by court-martial. The last line of defence of the volunteers was also carried by the learned judge; this was that the order of the adjutant was, if illegal, not obviously illegal, and that the defendants ought not to be held liable for obeying it; this defence, it was decided, was of no avail to protect the defendants from the consequences of their acts done while not under military law. In so holding Mr. Justice KENNEDY relied on the decisions of WILLES, J., in Keighley v. Bell (4 F. & F. 763), and Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby (ib. 806). In the former case that learned judge laid it down that "a soldier acting honestly in the discharge of his duty-that is, acting in obedience to the orders of his commanding officersis not liable for what he does, unless it be shown that the orders were such as were obviously illegal." This principle is unquestionable, but it may be doubted whether it covers such a case as the present. WILLES, J., had not to deal with questions as to the effect of a change, during the carrying out of the order, of the status of the parties concerned from military to civil, which renders the present case so difficult and so interesting. in THERE SEEMS to be at the present time almost an epidemic of blackmailing, and one can seldom take up a daily newspaper of late without seeing a report of some charge of the sort. Of all crimes of dishonesty, probably most people will agree that, in its worst shape, blackmailing is far the most atrocious. There are probably not a few innocent persons in the country who are the constant prey of scoundrels of the worst sort, and who keep on paying these wretches money rather than run the risk of having to face an accusation of which they are guiltless, or of having to suffer some other unmerited evil. Such persons, most cases, have to thank their own weakness for their troubles. Blackmailers ought to be faced with boldness, and if this is done it will seldom be found that they dare carry out their threats. Nothing can be gained by making the law more stringent, for as it stands it is very severe on this crime. To demand any money, either by letter or otherwise, by means of threats to accuse any person of any serious crime, or of any attempt to commit rape or infamous crime, is a felony punishable with penal servitude for life, and the maximum sentence has been passed more than once. To demand any money by letter without reasonable cause, with threats of any sort, is a felony punishable with penal servitude for three years. It was decided in Reg. v. Tomlinson (43 W. R. 544; 1895, 1 Q. B. 706), that a person may be convicted of this offence even though the threats are to do something which is not a crime, or to accuse of some misconduct which does not amount to a crime. As laid down by the Lord Chief Justice, any words may constitute a threat if they are such as would naturally and reasonably operate on the mind of a reasonable man so as to deprive him of his free volition and put a compulsion on him to act as he would not act otherwise. It has also been held that it is not material whether the accusation be true or false; it is an offence to demand money from a person by threats to accuse him of misconduct of which he is really guilty, provided the person threatening has no reasonable claim to the money demanded. There are many other severe provisions relating to various forms of the offence known as blackmailing. The profits gained from the practice of this horrible crime are often very great, and the risk is often comparatively small, owing to the great reluctance felt by most people to face an accusation even when it is entirely unfounded, and still more so when there is some atom of foundation. For these reasons it is very hard to stamp out the crime in spite of the severity of the law, and nothing can avail but a little courage and selfsacrifice on the part of the victims. ACCORDING TO the judgment of KEKEWICH, J., in Lauchbury v. Bode, the parish of Haddenham, in Buckinghamshire, will have to dispense henceforth with the common bull and the common boar which, from time immemorial (so the story goes), have been provided "for the common use of the kine and sows of the parishioners for the increase of calves and pigs within the said parish." Originally custom imposed the duty of keeping the animals in question upon the parson of the parish, as the owner of the great tithes; but the great tithes now no longer exist, and perforce the custom is at an end. It is sad to see the relics of the past fading in this way. The custom appears to have survived various vicissitudes in the ownership of the great tithes. In 1312 the parsonage, and the tithes with it, were appropriated by the Priory of Rochester. This was dissolved in 1540, and two years later the parsonage and tithes were granted to the Dean and Chapter of Rochester. But in 1830 an Inclosure Act was passed, and certain lands were allotted to the Dean and Chapter in lieu of the great tithes. In 1866 these lands were transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and in 1881 the greater part of them were sold to HENRY BODE, the husband of the defendant. He died in 1892, having devised the lands to the defendant. Apparently Mr. BODE was content to comply with the custom, and it may be inferred that in his time there was no falling off in the increase of calves and pigs in Haddenham parish. But the defendant has refused to pay the same respect to antiquity, and has withdrawn the common bull and the common boar. To the claim for damages she avers that there is, and always has been, a sufficient supply of bulls and boars in the parish and in the adjoining parishes, and that the parishioners are not in fact damnified. But for the Inclosure Act of 1830 she might very possibly have found the custom too strong for her. The custom, however, assuming it to have been established, was a charge upon the great tithes, which exchanged them for land said nothing of the custom, and and the great tithes are gone. The section of the Act Mr. Justice KEKEWICH holds that the lands were taken custom free. Moreover, Mr. BODE was not the purchaser of the whole of the lands, and it is not clear that, even if the custom were still existent and attached to the lands, it would run upon a Severance with each part of them. Henceforth the custom will live only in the report of the decision which sanctions its extinction. THE CASE of the will of Mr. STOKES, who was killed, in January, 1895, in the Congo Free State, raises a question of considerable interest. He had made two wills, one in 1891 and the other in 1894. The second will was a holograph will made in the Congo Free State, and it was admitted that, according to Belgian law, it was duly executed. Under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 114 a will made out of the United Kingdom by a British subject is, as regards personal estate, to be held to be well executed for the purpose of being admitted to probate in England if it is made " according to the forms required either by the law of the place where the same was made or by the law of the place of the testator's domicile." In the present case Mr. STOKES was domiciled in England, and therefore the will of 1894 could only be supported if it was made according to the law of the Congo Free State. Unfortunately the King of Belgium, who is the sovereign authority in the State, has not yet decreed any special mode of making wills, and it does not appear that any mode is indigenous to the soil. There is, however, a general rule decreed by an ordinance of May, 1886, that, in the absence of any special provision, matters are to be governed by local custom or by the general principles of law and equity. There being no local custom, the court was thrown back upon the principles of law and equity; and in regard to the making of wills it is not easy to say what these are. Sir FRANCIS JEUNE, however, took the reasonable view that, in a matter depending upon law which would have to be administered by Belgian judges, any form of will which would be valid in Belgium would certainly be regarded as complying with the principles of law and equity. Thus, the |