« PreviousContinue »
Baniiis-i-ox Ci'ci.s AND Courosasrs Co, Linn-sn—Petn for winding up, presented Feb 1, directed to be heard on Wednesday, Feb 16 Collyer-Bristow Co, 4, Bodford row, agents for Forsyth 8: Bettinson, Birmingham, solors for petners. Notice of appearing riiust reach‘ Colléier-Bristow & Co not later than G o'clock in the afternoon of Feb 15
GREYLIKGSTADT ow Misiso AND Exrioaxriox Co, Liiiii-so——Petn for winding up, presented Feb 3, directed to be heard on Feb 16. Cameron & Co, Gresham House, Old Broad st, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o’cl0ck in the afternoon of Fe
b l5 Loax ssn FINANCE Cosi-os.\-rios, Luii'riiD—Credit'irs are re: uired, on or before Feb 19, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars oi their debts or claims. to Mr Egerton Hugh Edmonstone Hensley, 96 and 97, Palmerston bldgs, Old Broad st. Francis & Johnson, 26 Auatinfri lo fo 1i idat
, ars, so rs r u or
Nswronr sxn Mosiioorasiiias Bir.i.i>os-riso Co, Lliniran—(.'reditors are required, on or before March 21, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Thomas Parry, Albany CIIDN, Skinner st, Newport, Mon
Rosana‘ Yovnss BILLPOBTINO SYNDICATE, Liiiirsn—Petn for winding up, presented Feb 7, directed ,to be heard on Feb 23. Elclred & Bignold, 11, Queen Victoria st, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Feb 22
Snorrssrzss’ slfI'l’LY Co, Liiiii-sn—Creditors are required, on or before March 3, to send ithqrrpanes and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Emanuel ‘Williams, 12. Norfolk st, Manchester
.‘S'ruiisnir “ Was-riirioir ” Co, Liiii-rsn—('rPditoi~s are required on or before March 21, to se_nd their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Robert Clark, 25, Water st, Liverpoo . Hill & Co, solors to liquidator
TIXTILE Anvsa-risi.\'n Msoinii Co, Lnirrsn (is LiQuiosrio\~)-Creditors are required, on or before March 15, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr. John William Gibson, Bindloss chmbm, 4, Chapel walks, Manchester. Ashworth & Inman, Manchester, solors to company
Wann dc Co, LIll1'1'ED—C1:€dlb0l‘tl are required, on or before March 5, to send their names :€do:g~, and particulars of their debts or claims, to Charles J’. March, 8, Church
HAWLBY Saaan Ass, Ardwick, Manchester Feb 23 Croften & Co, Manchester
Hii.i., Rsuisann Eowsso Lass, Panfleld, Essex April 1 Cunnington & 0), Braintree
Issorr, WILLIAIM, Walton on the Hill, Liverpool, Rope Manufacturer March 1 Webster, Li 0
Morrsrr, Wiiiiau Joiis, North Shields Feb 11 Davidson, South Shields
Pmu. Criaanus Puss, New sq, Lincoln's inn, Barrister March 1 Dawson 6: Ca
STANTIFOBD, JANE TRYPIIINA, Hurst, Berks March 1 Barrett, Slough
Caarins, ROBERT, South Killingliolms, Lincoln, Sloop Owner April 20 Nowell &Co,
Yin, Joni, Maidenhead March 4 Rivington $1 Son, Fenchungh bldgi!
Bar Buns, Forest Gate March 1 Monro & Co, Queen Victoria at
BIITB, Wiiniu, Eling, Southampton, Builder March 25 Coxwell & Pope, South
Wsrsox, Winniiii, Ilkley, York, Fine Art Dealer Feb 16
Winxins, HARRY Gsoaos, Bristol, Builder Feb 16 at 12.30
1 r an
Boss, Tiioiiss AMADENS Tiioax-roiv, Margntc, Journey-
Buys, Rosaar Enwsni), William st Financial
Burnsa, RICHABD, Southsea, Hunts, Painter Portsmouth
CHALONRR, Tnoiiss Osnoims, Newmarlret, Suffolk, Trainer
Coorna, Joux,Ysadon. nr Leeds, Shuttle Maker Leeds
Dswnonsr, Joris, West Kensington, Electrician High
DURRAN1‘, ERNRBT Hininr CHAPLIN, Hadleigh, Suflolk,
EDWARDS, FRANCIS Hiiiiar, Upper Holloway, Commercial
Fuivnsa, FIANDXB Joirs, Riodland, Bristol, Provision Mer.
l chant Bristol Pet Feb 1 Ord Feb 1 ii
Sioai:-Wioo, Joiiir, Tunbridge Wells, J P March 31 King it Co, Queen Victoria st TOPPING, Joan, Greenwich, Licensed Victuallcr March 4 Sampson, Parson's hill,
TOWABU, J sirrs, Waterloo, nrLiverpoo1 March 31 Grierson & Mason, Liverpool Taznoss, ELIZA BARBARA, Kingswear, Devon March 25 Marsden & Co, Old Cavendish
WALTON, MABK, Ashton under Lyne, Grocer March 1 Jno Clayton Jr Son, Ashton WABBBICK, Wiiiisir, Lancsstbr, Stonemason Feb28 Sanderson, Lancaster
Wooo, SARAH Ass, Allrham rd, Stamford Hill March 1 Howse, Abchurch yard
Agent High Court Pet Nov 21 Ord Feb 2
ADJUDICATION ANNULLED. GOADDY, Sziiiusn, Leicester, Warehousernsn Leicester Adjud Sept 4, 1888 Annul Jan 29
All letters intended for publication in the “Sols'citon’ Journal” must be authmticatcd by ths no/me of the writer.
DRUGS WON'T DO.
FREE TRIAL OF SOMETHLYG THAT WILL D0.
You would be perfectly astonished if you were nude aware of the many thousands of pounds abs ilutely thrown away from year to year upon so-called curativcs that are foisted upon n public only too willing to believe the specious arguments laid before them.
Even the hard-earned shillings of the very poor are wasted in this way; in fact, it is to the ignorant, anxious to rid themselves of the various ailments which handicap them in the race for life, that such arguments are ton often addressed.
Now, strength and muscular activity, rosy cheeks, plumpnesn, and health can be obtained without medicine.
The replenishing of the system from the wasting oi tissues which is going on every dag cm only be accomplished by the proper assimilation o food.
It Cimlol be done with medicine. It can, however, be _ B-0’}01D%llSi1€d with a perfect. tle-h-forming, palatable, and 1 agrees. la Food Beverage. Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa is such s i Food Beverage, possessing, as it does, wonderful nourish‘ ing, strengthening, and stimulntive powers unsurpamed by any other Food Bwerage. Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Sowsis no: s medicine. It does simply what it is claimed to do, and its strengthening powers are being recognized to an extent hitherto unknown in the history of any preparation. Merit, and merit alone, is what we c aim for Dr. Tibblu‘ Vi-Cocoa, and we are preparel to send to any reader who names the Souciroas’ Jormuin. s. post-card will do, I1 ‘ 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 ofler. It is done to introduce the mmts ' of Vi-Cocoa into every home. Dr. '1‘ibbles' Vi-Cocos,_ss a concentrated form of nourishment and vitality, is iiiI valuable; nay, more than this, for to all who wish to face the strife and battle of life with greater endurance and l more sustained exertion, it is absolutel indispensable. I Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, can be obtained from all Chemists. ~ Grocers, and Stores, or from Dr 'I‘ibbles' Vi-Cocoa, Limited, I30. 61, and 62, Bunhill-row. London, EC.
BRAND 8:. CO.'S
ESSENCE OF BEEF. BEEF TEA.
BREAKFAST AND SUPPER. A
we PICCADILLY " W
Under the patnmags of HJI. The Queen and H.S.H. Prince Louis Battenberg, K.0.B.
Western Australia (Lim.), Re ....... .. 270 Barnes v. Youngs ............................ .. 269 Duthy and Jesson‘s Contract, Re .... .. 269
In the Matter of an Action oi Dunmore
v. Wharam in the Court of Chancery
of the County Palatine of Lancaster 270 John Jones (Deceased), Be. Richards
v. Jones ........................................ .. 269 Lower Rhine and Wurtemberg Insurance Association v. Sedgwick ....... .. 270
Bannnrror No'r1on.............. 2'79 In the Weekly Reporter. Ajello v. Worsley ............................ .. 245 Attorney-General v.Earl 251
Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Basie Chemical Works, Bindschedler 255 Ce.stell&B L‘ ‘ted In Ex
rown ( 1m1 ), re,
(pgrte Union Bank of London ....... .. 248 “ ioigin," The .............. .. 258 Deutsc e National Bank v. Pau 243 Marks v. Frogley) ................ .. 249 Pegge v. Neath istrict Trsnnways . 243 Reg. v. Thornton and Another (Jus
tices). Ex parts Lacon & Co Sweating, In re White, In re. Pennell v. Fran
WE HAVE an inquiry from esteemed correspondents as to the names oi the committee appointed to frame the rules under the Land Transfer Act, 1897. We sup osed that its constitution was tolerably well known ; but it may be well to state that it consists oi Mr. Justice Nonrn, who was appointed by the judges of the Chancery Division; Sir Howann Enrnmsroxn, who was appointed by the Council of the Bar; Mr. B. G. Luna, who was appointed by the Council oi the Incorporated Law Society; Mr. J . W. CLARK, Legal Adviser to the Board of Agriculture, who was appointed by that Board; and Mr. R. H. Hour, the Registrar of the Land Registry.
THE DIE is now cast, and on the lst of July next the sohcztors of London will be face to face with compulsory registration of title. As was generally anticipated, the London County Council at their meeting on Tuesday refused to veto the application to London oi the Land Transfer Act, 1897 ; passing a feeble resolution “that the Privy Council be informed that the London County Council relies on the Order applying the Land Transfer Act, I897, to London being so framed that it shall be made to take effect according to the letter from the clerk of the Privy Council oi the 18th of January, 1898.” As that letter specified no periods for the “taking effect progressively” oi the Act, it would be “according to the letter ” if the Act were applied to one-fourth of the county on the let oi July, to another onefourth on the let oi August, and so on. It is safe to predict that the Act will be applied exactly as may suit the convenience of the Land Registry Oflice. We print elsewhere a full report oi the discussion, and we desire to draw the special attention of solicitors who entertain the notion that the result oi the Act will be to increase solicitors’ remuneration to the observations made by Mr. SHAW-Lnrsvan. He is not likely to have touched the subject of s0licitor’s costs without having been “coached” upon it by the Land Registry. He said that it was “ a pure delusion ” to suppose that landowners would be compelled to employ lawyers ; it would be found perfectly possible to register even an absolute tztle without the intervention oi a lawyer. “ He did not pretend that the Act would not
interfere with the lawyers’ profits.” That is, at all events, a straightforward statement of the objects of the Act, and it accords with what we have maintained ever since the controversy commenced.
Mssuwnmn the Corporation of the City of London have declined the invitation of the spider to step into its little parlour. It is stated that the corporation had communicated with the Incorporated Law Society, the London Chamber of Commerce, the Surveyors’ Institution, the Institute of Bankers, the Auctioneers’ Institute, and the Royal Institute of British Architects, and with leading firms of conveyancing solicitors and land agents and surveyors practising in the City, asking for their opinion as to whether it was expedient in the public interest that the Act should be applied to the City. Thirty-six replies had been received, three being in favour of the Act being applied and thirty-three opposed to it. Unlike the London County Council, the corporation have followed the advice for which they asked. The exceptional value of property in the city and the magnitude of the pecuniary interests involved appeared to the corporation to render it undesirable that the Act should be applied to the City in the interests of owners of property. The Act, they thought, should be first applied to some portion of a county where the volume and importance of conveyancing were less than in the City, and where there would be less disturbance or prejudice to owners. The corporation therefore considered that the Act should not be applied to the county of London or the city, and they communicated this opinion both to the Lord Chancellor and the London County Council.
Ir Is always interesting to see a novel point of law worked out upon principle, especially when the principle is stated and applied so clear y, if we may be allowed to say so, as was done by Ksxswrcn, J., in the recent case of Re dc Nicola (ante, p. 252). Two persons who were both domiciled in France were married in Paris in 1854. They were, under the French law, capable of making any disposition they chose by way of marriage settlement of the property then existing or thereafter to be acquired by them, but in the absence of such special settlement they became subject to the French law of community. Under this the goods forming the common property include all the personal property which the husband and wife own at the time of the marriage, and all personal property coming to them during the marriage, unless, in the case of donation, the donor has provided differently. During the marriage the husband has the sole management of the common property, and when the coverture has ceased the property is divided equally between the husband and wife or their representatives. In the present instance the husband was adjudicated a bankrupt in France in 1863, and in the same year he and his wife came to this country and subsequently became naturalized British subjects. In 1897 the husband died, having by a will made in the English form given his residuary real and personal estate, consisting of property acquired in England, to his wife for life. It was claimed, however, on the part of the wife, that the property thus acquired was subject to the French law of community, and that she was entitled to one-half of it absolutely. The point is by no means free from difficulty, but it seems to depend upon whether the marriage of the parties without an express settlement was equivalent to a contract that all property then existing or afterwards acquired was to be held under the French law applicable in the absence of a settlement. Kannwrcn, J., held that it was, and that the contract was not affected by the subsequent change of domicil. In the case of an English marriage it seems pretty clear that the absence ofa settlement does not amount to a contract between the parties to hold property in any particular manner. They take such interests as the law for the time being provides and their interests vary with a change of the law or a change of domicil. But the French law of community is in itself a form of settlement, and the omission of the parties to adopt any of the other forms of settlement may well be taken to be in pursuance of a contract that their rights shall be governed by the common
form. In Re dc Nicola, consequently, there was a contract giving the wife one-half of the property of the husband, and since nothing had occurred to vary the contract, that half was outside the husband’s will and went to the wife absolutely.
A TRIAL for manslaughter of an unusual kind took place this week before HAWKINS, J ., at the Leicester Assizes, and the case is one of the greatest importance to football players. The facts may be stated very shortly. The accused, in playing a game of football under the Association Rules, charged the deceased from behind and threw him violently forward against the knee of another player who was in the act of kicking the ball. The deceased was seriously injured internally and died in consequence. Charging from behind is against the rules of the game. The judge, however, would not allow the rules to be put in evidence, and held that they were quite irrelevant, and that it did not matter whether the prisonerjhad broken the rules or not. There seems to be only one other case of the sort reported, and that was also tried at Leicester before BRAMWELL, L.J., in 1878. In that case (Rey. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cox 83) the judge gave directions to the jury very similar to those given by Hawxms, J. He said: “No rules or practice of any game whatever can make that lawful which is unlawful by the law of the land ; and the law of the land says you shall not do that which is likely to cause the death of another. . . . . Therefore in one way you need not concern yourselves with the rules of football. But, on the other hand, if a man is playing according to the rules and practice of the game, and not going beyond it, it may be reasonable to infer that he is not actuated by any malicious motive or intention, and that he is not acting in a manner which he knows will be likely to be productive of death or injury. But independently of the rules, if the prisoner intended to cause serious hurt to the deceased, or if he knew that in charging as he did he might produce serious injury, and was indifierent and reckless as to whether he would produce serious injury or not, then the act would be unlawful.” Hnwxms, J ., told the jury that the only question for them was whether tho deceased came by his death as the result of gross negligence, or intentional violence on the part of the prisoner. If they thought he had come by his death from any such cause, they should convict. They accordingly did convict. It is submitted, however, that, although the rules are immaterial to the question of “guilty” or “ not guilty," anything should be admitted in evidence which afiects the degree of the prisoner's guilt, and from this point of view it may be most important to know whether or not the rules were broken. Lord BRAMWELL seems to have held this opinion. No rules can justify an illegal act; but where a person has acted within rules which regulate the play of thousands of young men every day, it seems reasonable that a presumption in favour of accident should be raised, or, at all events, that there should],be a pre sumption against any intention to hurt.
Tun nacrsrou of Brawn, J., in Bio-minylzana Breweries (Limited) v. Jameson is instructive with reference to the position of the lessees of “tied” houses. “It certainly is rather a startling thing,” said Lmnnnv, L.J., in Clegg v. Hands (38 W. R. 433, 41 Ch. D. 503), “to anybody to be told that when you have agreed to buy beer of a particular brewer, you may find yourself bound to take beer from somebody else”; yet this isa result which will ordinarily follow from a covenant by the lessee to take beer from the lessor or his assigns, whether the word “ assigns” is expressly used in the covenant, or is left to be brought in by the interpretation clause. In Cleyg v. Hands the latter form was adopted. In a lease by A. and B., who were brewers at the X. brewery, the lessee covenanted not to sell beer other than such as should have been purchased of the lessors or either of them ; and the term “ lessors ” was defined to include their assigns. A. and B. assigned their business and also the demised premises to C., a brewer carrying on business at the Y. brewery, and the X. brewery was shut up. It was held, upon the construction of the covenant, that the benefit of it was not restricted to assigns carrying on the same brewer’s business as the lessors, and that since it was a covenant