Page images
PDF
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Psrrixsos, Ass, Newcastle on Tyne June 1 Maughan & Hall, Newcastle on Tyne .
PIACOOK, MARIA, Clyde rd, Tottenham May 26 Vincent & Vincent, Budge row

Poona, DAVID, Kingston, Jamaica, West Indies June 6 Minet & Co, King William st
Pmcs, Msar Ass, Cwncarn, Mon May 25 Edwards, Newport

PBIISTLEY, SAMUEL Pssros W1'NN, Criccieth, Carnarvon June 3 Carter & Co, Bangor
BAILTON, HENRY J orm, Brighton June 30 King & Hughes, Maidstone

Biciuinns, Fsssr SUSANXAH HARRIET, Derby May 25 Cooke, Derby

ROBlNBON, RICHARD Hsxar, Oxford st June 1 Wilson & Co, Preston

Rows, JOHN, Falmouth May 80 Borlase& Co, Penzance

BAYNOR, ELIZABETH, Carleton, nr Pontcfrsct, Yorks May 27 Claude 6: Co,

Wakefield

SHEPPARD, Siiaanouass Fnsolaicir, Damusi, British Central Africa May 19 Maddisons,
Kin s Arms ard

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[graphic]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

P

CHUIKSHANK, WILLIAM Crr.\i:i.rs, Norwich, Paper Hanger Norwich Pet April 20 Ord April 25

DAVII5, DAVID Tiioins, Abertillery, Mon, Grocer Tredegar Petigfiiil 26 Ord April 26

DAVIS, Hainir, eaelborne, Dorset, Grocer Dorchester Pet April 26 Ord April 26

DRAGON, EDWARD Kiiro, \Vhitley, Beading, Professor of Music Reading Pct April23 Ord April23

D: gltgugugi E, Gray's inn rd High Court Pet March 30

p 26 Dionr, Arrarn JAIL! Siiona, Blackheath Greenwich Pet April 27 Ord April 27 FIAT}!!!-1, Baioos, Shipley, Yorlrs, General Dealer Bradford Pet April 26 Urd April 26 GABVIY, Jossrir, llkeston, Der-bys, Grocer Derby Pet April 26 Ord yril 25 Gl0B0l,C1lABL!B lsav, Briggste, Leeds, Commission Agent Leeds Pet Agril26 Ord April 26 GODYlBY,JOHK Hasar, etex-borough, Publican Peterborough Pet ipril 27 Ord April 27 Gonoos, Ciriiarns, arquis of Huntly, Longueville, Hunts Peterborongh Pet April 26 Ord Apflril 28 Gmoos, Haxar Enwsno, Bread st igh Court Pet March 14 Ord April 20 Gaovas & Soil, Southwick, Sussex, Builders Brighton Pet April 1 oi-d spgi 26 HADIXILD, TIIOIAS, therham, Yorlrs, Hay Dealer Sheffield Pet April 27 Ord April 27 HICKS, (Iii/isms CLKMBNTS, Writer ooville, Hunts Portsmouth I‘et April 25 Ord April 25 Hui-s, J Auras, Lostock Junction, nr Bolton Bolton Pet April 25 Ord April 25 Jsrirsos, Wii.i.isn, Manchester, Drysaltcr Manchester Pet April 25 Ord April 25 JDllNHOI, RICIIABD, Hereford, China Dealer Hereford Pet April 25 Ord April 25 Kim, Fnanaaicir Jsiras, Stupenbill, Derhys, Fishmonger Burton on Trent Pot April 26 Ord April 26 Kxorr, Wii.i.i.\ir, Crowcombe, Somerset, Boolmalrcr Taunton Pet April 27 Ord April 27 LAWRIHCI, Gaoaair, Liverpool, Fish Salesman Liverpool Pet April 6 Ord April 27 Lewis, WiI.i.iii.u, Armley, Leeds Ixeds Pet April 26 Ord April 26 Livisosron, Wi:.i.i.ui, Leicester, Clothier Leicester Pet April as Ord April 23

[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

MABCRBANK, Janus, Carlisle, Baker Carlisle Pet April 26 Ord April 26

MXLLIOBI, J inns, Shanlrlin, I of W, Coal Merchant Newport Pet April 13 Ord April 25

Nirovs, J AIRS, Foxton Cambridge, Farmer Cambridge Pet April as om April 26

Pscir, Saunas, Goole,Yorks, Compositcr Wakefield Pet April 13 Ord April 25

Pirsa, ALFRED J AMES, Melbourn, Cambridge, Draper Cambridge Pet April 26 Ord April 26

Powai.i., J soon, and JOHN HINBY HIFFORD. Leicester, Boot Manufacturers Leicester Pet April 23 Ord April 23

Paws, Jossrrr Hsssv, and J orrs Snrosr. Hisros, Knightrider st, Mantle Manufacturers High Court Pet April 27 Ord April 27

Ronisrsos, Jouiw, Leeds, Bricklayer Leeds Pet April 26 oi-d April 26

Sirarnuirsr, ALFRED Winnrsu Brrriinx. Stretford, Iaucs, Flour Dealer Manchester Pet April 25 Ord April 25

Siririi. WILLIAM Anasirr, East Rat ord. Notts, Grocer Lincoln Pet April 26 Ord April 26

S-rsiinixo, J suns, Cardifl, Fish Merchant Cardin‘ Pet

- April 27 Ord April 2'7

Sronnaar. Hssar Mioiun, Siaines, Licensed Victunller Kingston, Surrey Pet April 26 OrdA ril 26

Urrox, owm, Pontardulais, Glam, Boot Maker Swansea Pet April 25 Ord April 25

Wsnnssrr. Faiiircis MAIIIILIAN, Leeds, Fishing Tackle Manufacturer Deeds Pet April 25 Ord April 26

Warsos, CHART-EB, and Janus BAXTIIR Hu dersfleld, Dyer Huddersfield Pet April 25 Ord April 25

Wnirs, Asri-ioa, Leicester, Boot Manufacturer Leicester Pet April 16 Ord April 25

Wirr-rros, Cnaatss Rorsn, Nantwich, Commission Agent Nantwich Pet April 26 Ord April26

WILKEY Fairnirarcir Barnstaple, Insurance Agent Burnstaple Pet April 25 Ord April 25

Wooo, Coasnuus, Walsall, sen, Coal Dealer Walsall Pet April 26 Ord April 26

Wmonr, Louis Cnairssr, Thornton Heath, Hotel Preprietor Croydon Pet April 15 Ord April 15

Zimiirniniisis. Winciiiu, Bamerfon st, Caledonian rd, Baker High Court Pet April 26 Ord April 26

Amended notice substituted for that published in the London Gazette of April 22:

Bsxssnsns, Captain Sis, Droylsden, La.ncs,Tailor Ashton

under Lyne Pet April 18 Ord April 18 FIRST MEETINGS. Asinroiio, FRANCIS Ricriiiiro, Bideford, Devons, Butcher May 17 at 11 Sanders & Son, High st, Barnstable Asnwis. Gannon, Brockley, Clerk May 9 at 11.30~ 24, Railway app, London Bridge

B.\n.i.ow, Ton, Brierflcld, Lnncs, Clothier Mayo at3 Exchange Hotel, Nicholas st, Burnlciyfl

Bsxssosss, Captain Sin, Droylsden, ncs, Tailor May 6 at 2.30 Oil’ Rec, Byrom st, Manchester

BINBOW, Gnorios Moirmis, Llanidlocs, Tailor May 6 at 12.30 1, High st, Newtown

BlBlg0JAl1BB RXCIIARI), Bradford May 9 at 3 16, Wood st,

lton

Bormm, Bmisnr, Worcester, Cool Meichant May 7 at 11.90 Oi!’ Rec. 45, Copenhagen st, Worcester

BRADSHAW, Wri.i.uir, Myerscough, nr Preston, Engine Tenter May 6 at 9 Ofl Bee, 14, Chapel st, Preston

[ocr errors]
[graphic][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Youggdgfnss, Thornton 1e Beans, Yorks May 16 at 11.30
Court house, N ortliallerton
Amended notice substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of April 26:
Csvnnr, R B, Strand May 8 at 11 Bankruptcy bldgs,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Woon, CORNBLXUS, sen, Walsall, Coal Dealer Walsall Pet April 26 Ord April 26

Ziirniiiuumr W1Ll.1AM, (Liledonian rd, Baker High Court Pet April 26 om April 26

Amended notice substituted for that published 1n the London Gazette of April 19 :

DI Riionirs, Muir JOSEPH MATTHl\V THOMAS STANISLAB $TANlSLAB .ALUYSlL'J BABXL, Dulwich High Court Pet March 11 Ord April 14

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][graphic][merged small][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][graphic][merged small][graphic][ocr errors]
[graphic]

I

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][graphic][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]

Butler, In the Goods of .................. .. 445 ...... ........ .. 488 I Hmwkes, In re‘ Ackerman V. Loch "Elm" l ° °- 7- 9 Wm“ hart ........................................... .. 445 Syndicate ..................................... .. 490 59,13, In m_ Gregory v_ 59,-1° __________ __ 440 MONEY D00181111 EH50!!!‘ B08-Pd V- Spencer v. Lancnshiro and Yorkshire Twigge 8: Butters ......................... .. 490 Railway Co ................................... .. 443 Painter v. Watson ......................... .. 490 Stiles, In the Goods of ..................... .. 444

[graphic][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

IN OOMMENTING (ante, p. 374) on the recent decision of MrJustice S'rmLINo in Re Keck and ]Tarl’s Contract (ante, p. 3&0, 46 W. R. 389), we pointed out that the decision left open one of the questions decided by Ra Tibbits’ Settled Estatvs (46 W. R. 3 ; 1897, 2 Ch. 149)--namely, that under section 4 of the Settled Land Act, 1890, a. charge on the estate of the tenant for life creates a compound settlement. This appears to have been expressly decided by Nonru, J ., in the last-mentioned case, and was relied upon by Mr. Justice SrInLIxo as one ground for distinguishing that case from Re II'o:I.- and II/zrt’s Contract. We ventured (as we had done before), with great deference to Mr. Justice Nonru, to urge that ho had taken an erroneous view of the eifect of section 4; that the sole object of that provision was to render it unnecessary for a. person entitled under an instrument of the description therein mentioned to consent, under section 50 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, to the exercise by the tenant for lite of his statutory powers ; that the section did not in any sense relatetothe appointment of trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts, and that the phrase “ one oi the instruments creating the settlement ” could not be construed as meaning “one of the instruments creating a compound settlement.” \Ve reported last week a fresh decision by Mr. Justice STIRLING in Re Du Cane and N¢ttlefold’a Contract (ante, p. 463), in which, as we understand the judgment, that learned judge completely sanctions the construction of section 4 for which we have always contended. He said : “The vendor contends that the section is limited to excluding the operation of section 50 of the Act oi 1882. That contention is borne out by the concluding words of the section. It seems to me that the language of the Act is satisfied by the limited construction placed on it by the vendor, end that the section does not make any assignment to which it refers an instrument for all the purposes of the Act. In coming to that conclusion I found myself on the last words of the section,

[graphic]
[graphic]

and on the consideration that that appears to be the difliculty which was intended to be met by the section as a whole, and the only difficulty so far as I can see. I cannot say that everything for the purposes of the Act is to be read into the section.” And, apart from section 4, the learned judge held that there was nothing in the Settled Land Acts, “ as a general rule,” to compel trustees of a compound settlement to be appointed "whenever a deed is executed affecting interests under the original settlement so that that settlement is no longer the only instrument by which land stands limited to persons by way of succession.” He also took occasion to say that, on consideration, he adhered to his decision in Ra Keck and I[art’s Contract that an appointment of jointures would not create a compound settlement, and added that there was “nothing in the Act which says that trustees of the settlement for the purposes of the Act are to be deprived of their power of receiving and giving receipts for purchase-money by a charge of portions.” The profession owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Justice STIRuxc for his decisions and for the admirable reasoning by which they are supported. We will not venture to indicate as yet the course which practitioners will consider it advisable to take in dealing with the questions involved in the above-mentioned cases, but we may point out that while, in the case of jointures and portions, the decision of the Irish judge and of Noarn, J., have been explained as not applicable, in the case of charges on the interest of the tenant for life, we have apparently conflicting decisions of two learned judges of the Chancery Division.

THE DECISION of the Court of Appeal in Marks v. Frogley, overruling the decision of KENNEDY, J. (1898, 1 Q. B. 396), will be received with general satisfaction. It was felt that, whatever might be the true construction of the relevant sections of the Army Act, 1881, the law ought not to be that a volunteer private, by carrying out an order of his superior cflicer, which at the time it was given he was bound to obey, should render himself liable in damages at the suit of another volunteer, against whom the order was directed. The facts of the case were simple: The plaintiflf, a member of a volunteer corps, was, by order of the adjutent, kept in custody by the defendants, a lance-corporal and two privates of the same corps, during the railway journey from Shorncliffe, where the corps had been taking part in a week’s training with the regular forces, to Hertfordshire, where the corps was dismissed. The reason for the order was that an accusation of theft, afterwards proved to be utterly unfounded, had been made against the plaintiff while in camp at Shornclifie. One defence set up was, that the plaintiff and the defendants were subject to military law during the occurrence of the events complained of, in which case the defendants’ conduct was clearly justifiable. As to this point section 176 of the Army Act, 188], provides that volunteers shall be subject to military law “ when they are being trained or exercised with any portion of the regular forces " ; but KENNEDY, J., held that the training, and therefore the subjection to military law, ceased when the volunteers left the camp, or, if not then, at least when they left Shorncliffe Station in the train. The Court of Appeal have held that the training and the military law continued so long as the corps remained under arms—viz., until it was dismissed in Hertfordshire. They were assisted in arriving at this satisfactory conclusion by article 374 of the Volunteer Regulations, which provides that the subjection to military law is to arise when volunteers “joiu a camp with regular forces or are assembled for training or exercise with any portion of the regular forces.” But even apart from this regulation (which was not before the judge in the court below), the construction put by the Court of Appeal on section 176 seems to be in accordance with good sense, and preferable to that adopted by Knmsanx, J . A further defence was that, under section 158 of the same Act, “where an offence 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,” though he orhis battalion has ceased to be subject to military law. Here, again, the Court of Appeal differed from KENNEDY, J., and held that the section means “ where a

[graphic]

person is alleged to have committed an ofience." There can be little doubt that this construction is correct ; the contrary view, by which the language is taken in its strict literal sense, reduces the section to an absurdity. A further point mentioned by the Court of Appeal is that, assuming that the plaintiff was a soldier subject to military law at the time of the alleged injuries, an express remedy is given to him by section 43 of the Army Act, and he has, therefore, no other remedy. This principle is laid down by Lnsrr, J., in Dawkina v. Lord Paulst (L. R. 5 Q. B. 94), and is in accordance with Kmlqhley v. Bell (4 F. & F. 763) and ])awl-z'n.s v. Lard Roi.-eby (lb. 706)—oases which were relied on by KENNEDY, J., in support of parts of his judgment. The result is eminently satisfactory, and the decision is important.

THE EVIDENCE given by Mr. BUCKLEY, Q.C., at the last two meetings of the House of Lords Committee on the Companies Bill has ranged over most of the points covered by the Bill. Mr. Bucxnrzv joins in the general approval of clause 4, which requires that the company shall not go to allotment save upon a minimum subscription to be fixed by the memorandum or articles of association and named in the prospectus, and he sees also what has been already pointed out, that the provision of clause 6, forbidding the company to exercise its borrowing powers until certain conditions as to allotment of and payment for shares have been complied with, will render impossible the present practice of offering shares and debentures to the public at the same time. He proposes to get over the difiiculty by allowing the company to enter at once into a provisional contract for the issue of debentures, the contract to become binding so soon as the registrar gives his certificate that the requirements of the section have been complied with. In respect of underwriting, Mr. BUCKLEY confirms the general opinion that this mode of securing the flotation of a company must be permitted, though it is permissible to doubt the oundness of his suggestion for limiting the amount of commission payable and for requiring it to be paid only in cash. Payment in cash would suit the underwriters exactly, but in many cases it would be less advantageous for the company, and if the practice of underwriting is recognized at all, the amount of the commission must be left to be settled by the parties. A large commission does not necessarily mean that the venture is commercially unsound. It may be a proper reward for floating a business which is good enough in itself, but which is not of a kind just at the time fashionable with the investing public. Mr. Buoxnav joins in the general objection to clause 14, with its minute requirements as to the contents of prospectuses, and he is averse to increasing the responsibility of directors. Directors have to take commercial risks, and it may be their business “not to be prudent, but to be in a reasonable and honest sense imprudent.” He expressed himself in favour of the registration of debenture mortgages, but stipulated for the freedom of companies in respect of ordinary commercial charges. Apparently this is secured by the Bill, which expressly provides (clause 20 (2) ) that it shall not be necessary to register liens by law or charges created in the ordinary course of business. In respect of accounts, Mr. BUCKLEY has carried the criticism of the Bill further, we believe, than has hitherto been done, and has referred to the case of companies where all the ordinary shares are held by members of the original firm, and the preference shareholders are excluded from knowledge of the accounts. He would accordingly strike out of the Bill the provision for laying a yearly balance-sheet before the members of the company, as well as the provision for publication of accounts. The latter provision, he considers, would make limited liability go out of fashion, and, as regards private companies at any rate, it is very possible that it would have this effect.

A cvrtrous question as to the power of directors of a company to secure for themselves compensation for loss of ofiice arose in the case of Kaye v. C'ro_1/don Tramwaya Co. (46 W. R. 405). A provisional agreement was made by the directors of the defendant company for the sale of the company’s undertaking and assets to the British Electric Traction O0. for a sum of £30,543.

« PreviousContinue »