66 made for good rule and government in their own localities. But that power is accompanied by certain safeguards; there must be antecedent publication of the bye-law, with a view, I presume, of eliciting the public opinion of the locality upon it, and such bye-laws shall have no force until after they have been forwarded to the Secretary of State. Further, the Queen, with the advice of her Priv Council, may disallow the byelaw wholly or in part, and may enlarge the suspensory period before it comes into operation. I agree that the presence of these safeguards in no way relieves the court of the responsibility of inquiring in the validity of bye-laws where they are brought in question, or in any way affects the authority of the court in the determination of their validity or invalidity. It is to be observed, mcreover, that the bye-laws having come into force they are not like the laws, or what were said to be the laws, of the Medes and Persians-they are not unchangeable. The power is to make bye-laws from time to time as to the authority shall seem meet, and if experience shews that in any respect exist ig bye-laws work hardly or inconveniently the local authority, acted upon by public opinion, as it must necessarily be, of those concerned, has full power to repeal or alter them. It need hardly be added that should experience warrant that course the Legislature, which has given, may modify or take away the powers they have delegated. I have thought it well to deal with these points in some detail, and for this reason that the great majority of the cases in which the question of byc-laws has been discussed are not cases of bye-laws of bodies of a public representative character entrusted by Parliament with delegated authority, but are for the most part cases of railway companies, dock companies, or other like companies which carry on their business for their own profit, although incidentally for the advantage of the public. In this class of case it is right that the courts should jealously watch the exercise of these rowers and guard against their unnecessary or unreasonable exercise to the public disadvantage. But when the court is called upon to consider the bye-laws of public representative bodies clothed with the ample authority which I have described, and exercising that authority accompanied by the checks and safeguards which have been mentioned, I think the consideration of such bye-laws ought to be approached from a different standpoint. They ought to be supported if possible. They ought to be, as has been said, benevolently" interpreted, and credit ought to be given to those who have to administer them that they will be reasonably administered. This involves the introduction of no new canon of construction. But, further, looking to the character of the body legislating under the delegated authority of Parliament, to the subjectmatter of such legislation, and to the nature and extent of the authority given to deal with matters which concern them, and in the manner which to them shall seem meet, I think courts of justice ought to be slow to condemn as invalid any bye-laws so made under such conditions on the ground of supposed unreasonableness. Notwithstanding what Cockburn, C.J., said in Bailey v. Williamson (3 L. R. Q. B. 124, 1873)—an analogous case-I do not mean to say that there may not be cases in which it would be the duty of the court to condemn bye-laws made under such authority as these were made as invalid because unreasonable. But unreasonable in what sense? If, for instance, they were found to be partial and unequal in their operation as between different classes, if they were manifestly unjust, if they disclosed bad faith, if they involved such oppressive or gratuitous interference with the rights of those subject to them as could find no justification in the minds of reasonable men, the court might well say Parliament never intended to give authority to make such rules; they are unreasonable and ultra vires. But it is in this sense, and in this sense only, as I conceive, that the question of unreasonableness can properly by regarded. It is not contended that the bye-law should, in order to be valid, be confined to cases where the playing or singing amounted to a nuisance, but the objections are, as I understand them, that the bye-law is bad-first, because it is not confined to cases where the playing or singing is in fact causing annoyance, and next, because it enables a police-constable to bring it into operation by a request on his part to the player or singer to desist. As to the first of these objections, if the geral principles upon which these bye-laws ought to be dealt with are those which I have already stated, it is clear that the absence of this qualification cannot make the byelaw invalid. But, further, such a qualification, in my judgment, would render the bye-law ineffective. What is to be the standard of annoyance? What may be a cause of annoyance to one person may be no annoyance, and may even be pleasurable, to another person. Again, who is to be the judge in such a case of whether there is or is not an annoyance? Is it to be the resident of the house within fifty yards of the playing or singing, or is it to be the magistrate who hears the charge? It is enough to say that in my judgment the absence of the suggested qualification cannot make the bye-law invalid, even if it be admitted that its presence would be an improvement. Ás to the second objection-namely, that the policeman has the power of putting the bye-law in operation by requiring the player or singer to desist, I again say that, even if the absence of this power would be an improvement and would make the bye-law in the apprehension of some more reasonable, it is not on the principles I have already stated any ground for declaring the bye-law to be invalid. The facts of this case are certainly no illustration of the bye-law having been gratuitously or vexatiously put in force. The case states (paragraph 5) that although it was not proved that the occupier of the house within fifty yards had on the day in question requested the constable to require the appellant to desist, yet it was proved that the singing was an annoyance to the occupier and that he had on previous cccasions complained to the police of such singing. Indeed, it was stated during the argument that the conviction here appealed from was the second conviction of the appellant for an offence against this bye-law. I have carefully read the cases cited in argument, but I do not propose to consider them in detail. Many of them relate to bye-laws made under different statutes; others it is difficult to reconcile; few deal with the principles upon which bye-laws like those in question are to be dealt with by the courts; and some of themas, for instance, Munro v. Watson (51 J. P. 660) and perhaps Johnson v. Mayor of Croydon (16 Q. B. D., p. 708) may be distinguished from the present case. In weighing previous authorities it is further to be recolTected that the cases have come before Divisional Court, usually consisting of two members, and that those cases, being in their nature criminal, there has been no judgment of a Court of Appeal upon them. It is for this reason that the present special court has been constituted. I cannot doubt that this court has authority to review, and if it thinks fit to differ from, any prior decision of a Divisional Court on this subject (see Fortescue v. The Vestry of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green (1891, 2 Q. B. 170). [His lordship then referred to the decision of the Privy Council in Slattery v. Naylor (13 App. Cas. 446, and continued:] In my opinion, judged by the test of reasonableness, even in its narrower sense, this a reasonable bye-law; but, whether I am right or wrong in this view, I am clearly of opinion that no court of law can properly say that it is invalid. In the result the conviction appealed from must, in my opinion, be affirmed; but, as the question is one of wide importance, and as to which there has been a contrariety of judicial opinion, it will be affirmed without costs. Sir FRANCIS JEUNE, P., read a judgment concurring with Lord Russell, C.J. CHITTY, L.J., concurred. MATHEW, J., in the course of a witten judgment, in which he differed from the opinion of the other members of the court, said: It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the bye-law in the present case was not reasonable and was not certain. It forbade, without qualification of any Lind, conduct which might be perfectly innocent and unobjectionable. It did not provide, as had been done in similar enactments, that the act prohibited shor'd be an anuoyance to any one. It contained no exception, and would, according to its terms, condemn all music and singing within fifty yards of a dwelling-house as in the nature of a nuisance. The right to prohibit was conferred on any policeman. A policeman had no such authority in the metropolis. Why should a policeman in the country be entrusted with powers so easily abused? For the respondent it was argued that the bye-law had been framed by a representative body created under recent legislation, whose regulations should be indulgently treated, and that Parliament intended that local authorities should be upheld, and to this end that new canons of construction should be adopted by the corts to preserve their bye-laws from being declared invalid. The argument was that it was no longer enough to point out that a bye-law according to its terms was unreasonable; it should be upheld if it might be reasonably enforced, and it was no longer an objection that it might be urreasonably enforced. It was urged that there were adequate safeguards for the public which, though not expressed, ought to be implied; but his lordship for reasons which he stated, considered these safeguards inadequate. From the earliest times when charters were granted to towns municipal affair had been managed by elected representatives of the inhabitants, and the bye-laws made by such bodies had been frequently declared to be invalid. No case had been cited in which there was any trace of the principle now contended for, that such bye-laws were to be interpreted with any particular indulgence because of their popular origin. curred in the view that deference should be shewn by the courts to the bye-laws of a local authority which might appear to interfere unduly with personal liberty, where there was reason to suppose that the regulations were called for by the requirements of the particular place. But this bye-law was not confined to a particular locality. It applied to the whole of rural Kent. It seemed to him that it was practically proposed in this case that they should add a proviso to the bye-law to the effect that it ought not to be unnecessarily or unreasonably enforced. He regretted being unable to concur with the view of the majority of the court. Their judgment appeared to him to conflict with the recent decisions referred to, and with the views expressed by Hawkins, J., Cave, J., the present Master of the Rolls, and Kay, L.J. The principle of Alty v. Farrell (1896, 1 Q. B. 636), a case which had the high authority of the Lord Chief Justice and Wright, J., seemed to him to be applicable to the present case. The judgment of the majority of the judges by whom the present case was decided would, no doubt, be entitled to great respect from those who might have to decide similar cases, though not binding on them. In the present state of the law, there seemed to be no mode of finally settling differences of judicial opinion that might arise in cases like the present. A change of procedure would seem to be necessary which would permit an appeal in the ordinary way. In his opinion, the conviction should be quashed. He con WRIGHT, DARLING, and CHANNELL, JJ., agreed with the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice. Conviction affirmed.-COUNSEL, Robson, Q.C., and Hohler; Dickens, Q.C, and A. Gill. SOLICITORS, Schultz & Son, for A. J. Ellis, Maidstone; Hoar, Howlett, & Tatham, Maidstone. [Reported by T. R. C. DILL, Barrister-at-Law.] MILLER . THE JUSTICES OF DUDLEY. Div. Court. 13th May. LICENSING ACTS-SERVING REPUTED PROSTITUTES-REASONABLE TIME For REFRESHMENTS-ONES OF PROOF RESTS ON PROSECUTION-AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE MUST BE GIVEN-LICENSING ACT, 1872 (c. 94), s. 14SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1879 (c. 49), s. 39. Special case stated by the justices for the county of Worcester. The appellant, Mary Miller, had been convicted before the justices at quarter sessiors of an offence under section 14 of the Licensing Act, 1872, and the question for the decision of the High Court was whether that convic. tion ought to stand. The appellant was the occupier of a beer-house known as the "Mountain Ash," in the borough of Dudley, and was summoned for having, on the 29th of September last, permitted reputed prostitutes to frequent her licensed premises, and remain thereon longer than was necessary for the purpose of their obtaining reasonable refreshments, contrary to the 14th section of the Licensing Act, 1872. That section provides that if a licensed person permits his premises to be the habitual resort or place of meeting of such a class of women for any purpose whatever, and allows them to remain thereon longer than is necessary for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment, he shall be liable to a penalty; and any conviction for an offence under this section shall, unless the magistrates direct otherwise, be recorded on the licence of the person convicted. The facts proved before the magistrates as stated in the case were that on the night in question a woman of the unfortunate class, named Margaret Higgins, was found upon the appellant's premises by the informant, a police-constable. As soon as he entered the appellant spoke to Higgins, who immediately left. No evidence was offered as to whether the woman had gone to the house for the purpose of obtaining refreshment or not, nor how long she had been upon the premises, and all that the case stated was that at the time the policeconstable saw Higgins she was not partaking of any refreshments. No witnesses were called on behalf of the appellant, and it was contended on her behalf that the evidence offered by the prosecution was not sufficient to maintain a conviction under the section, since the prosecution was bound to prove, not only that the licensed person baowingly permitted his licensed premises to be the habitual resort of reputed prostitutes, but also that he allowed women of that class to remain there longer than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment-the mere serving of such persons being in itself no offence-and that here the prosecution had failed to prove that the licensed person bad allowed Higgins to remain longer on the premises than was necessary for her to partake of refreshment. For the prosecution it was contended that all they had to prove was that the licensed person knowingly permitted a reputed prostitute to resort to her premises, that the onus of proving that such women went there merely to obtain refreshment and that they left so soon as they had obtained it was, by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, cast upon the owner of the premises; and, further, the fact that the woman was not seen to be taking refreshment on the premises rendered it unnecessary for them to prove how long she had been permitted to remain thereon, and that the appellant, by suffering her to remain for any time, however short, except for the purposes of refreshment, on her premises, was an offence under the section. The majority of the justices were of opinion that upon the evidence the appeal should be dismissed with costs, subject to the decision of the High Court whether, on the facts stated, the conviction could be maintained. THE COURT allowed the appeal. 1 was WILLS, J., said the conviction could not be supported. He would be most reluctant indeed to give a decision which would throw any real difficulty in the way of administering the law under this section; but he was bound to consider the evidence from both sides, and it was clear, whatever might be the real facts, that the evidence offered by the prosecution did not support the charge. There was no evidence to prove that the innkeeper knew the woman was on the premises-she might have been there an hour, or only just have come in—or that the woman had gone there except for refreshment, or had remained longer than a reasonable time to take refreshment. The appellant might have thought it wise, when she saw the constable come in, to tell the woman to go out. a question of fact, and a conviction ought not to be obtained on mere suspicion, however strong the circumstantial evidence might appear to be. During the argument the attention of the court has had been drawn to the changes the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 39, had made in the procedure under the Act of 1872. It was alleged that the onus of proving that reputed prostitutes had not remained beyond the time reasonably required for them to take refreshment now rested on the innkeeper. The charge, Mr. Avory contended, having been made against the defendant, the onus of disproving it rested on him. In his opinion that argument was incorrect. It rested with the prosecution in every case to prove the charge. He thought there should be no order for costs made against the justices, although they had opposed the appeal, since, he added, in doing so they had assisted the court very much. KENNEDY, J., concurred. It was not sufficient for a prosecution to offer evidence upon which an inference of fact might be drawn that would lead to the assumption that the offence charged had been committed. For a prosecution to succeed the party alleging the offence must make out an affirmative case. The question was raised, although not argued, whether it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that more than one reputed prostitute frequented the house before the publican could be convicted of an offence under section 14 of the Act of 1872. They had, therefore, not to decide that question, but there appeared to be authority for holding that on that ground of objection alone this conviction would have stood. Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.-COUNSEL, Hon. A. Lyttelton and J.R. V. Marchant; Horace Avory. SOLICITORS, G. S. Warmington & Co., for Warmington, Thompson, & Warmington, Dudley; Emmett & Co., for A. W. Barradale, Clerk to the Justices. [Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.] REG. v. DR. TRISTRAM, JUDGE OF THE CONSISTORY COURT OF LONDON. Div. Court. 12th and 13th May. ECCLESIASTICAL LAW-FACULTY-APPLICATION TO OPEN COFFIN-JURISDICTION OF CHANCELLOR-LICENCE OF HOME SECRETARY-PROHIBITIONBURIALS ACT, 1857 (20 & 21 VICT. c. 81), s. 25. seen 66 to Dr. Tristram, judge of the Consistory Court of London, to shew cause why he should issue a faculty enabling Mrs. Anna Maria Druce to open a vault in Highgate Cemetery for the purpose of ascertaining if there were any human remains in the coffin which purported to hold the body of Thomas Charles Druce, whose will she sought to get revoked on the ground that he did not die till long after the date at which he was said to have been buried. The rule had been obtained at the instance of Druce's executors and certain other persons who were said to be interested under the will. The decision of the court depended partly upon what was the effect of section 25 of the Burials Act, 1857, on the jurisdiction of the Consistory Court with regard to granting faculties for opening graves, and partly upon the general rules relating to prohibition. That section is as follows: Except in the case where a body is removed from one consecrated place of burial to another by faculty granted by the Ordinary for that purpose, it shall not be lawful to remove any body, or the remains of any body which may have been interred in any place of burial, without licence under the hand of one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and with such precautions as such Secretary of State may prescribe as the condition of such licence; and any person who shall remove any such body or remains contrary to this enactment, or who shall neglect to observe the precautions prescribed as the condition of the licence for removal shall, on summary conviction before any two justices of the peace, forfeit and pay for every such offence a sum not exceeding £10." The petition alleged certain facts as to the man having been alive after the date of his alleged burial. The rule for the prohibition raised six points: (1) As to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts prior to the Burials Act, 1857. (2) As to how that Act affected the jurisdiction of such courts. (3) As to the licence of the Secretary of State. It was submitted that the Leglslature had not substituted the licence for the order of the Ordinary, but had provided it as an additional security. (4) It was submitted that prohibition was not the proper remedy, but an appeal from the decision of the Chancellor, because the matter was not wholly foreign to the jurisdiction of the Chancellor's Court. (5) The application for a prohibition was premature. The applicants had the opportunity of arguing the question in the Chancellor's Court, and they ought to do so. (6) The construction of section 25 of the Burials Act, 1857, contended for by the applicants for the prohibition was greatly against public interest; it would affect the position of coroners and all Chancellors in the land. Counsel, in shewing cause against the rule, submitted that all that the learned judge of the Consistory Court had done was to grant a faculty upon an ex parte application, and that his decision could be reversed if anybody intervening shewed that, upon the merits of the question, the faoulty should not be granted. In accordance with the practice of the court, the order had been in the office for fifteen days in order to give time for intervention, and although the other side had declined to enter an appearance for fear of recognizing the jurisdiction of the court, they had actually intervened, and were in a position even now to have the case heard upon its merits. Further, that a faculty of this nature was not without precedent. See Sarah Pope's case (15 Jurist 614), also a precedent in 2 Oughton 331, and the protection of corpses buried in consecrated ground had repeatedly been recognized by the civil courts. Dodd (L. R 3 Q. B. 67, at p. 77), Mardman v. Malpas (1 Hagg. Cons. 205, at p. 208), Hutchins v. Denziloe (1 Hagg. Cɔns. 170, at p. 172), Adlam v. Coulthurst (L. R. 2 Adm. & Ecc. 30, at p. 38). The rule for prohibition ought, therefore, never to have been granted, and should be discharged. In support of the rule couusel contended that under the Burials Act, 1857, it was a condition precedent to the granting of any faculty for moving a body that the licence of the Home Secretary should be obtained, except in the case where the application was to remove a body for re-interment in some other consecrated ground. That was not the nature of the present application. These being the terms of the statute, Dr. Tristram had no jurisdiction to grant the faculty in the absence of a licence from the Secretary of State since the application did not come within the express exception referred to in the statute THE COURT discharged the rule. Foster V. the Home Secretary was not a condition precedent to the issue of a WILLS, J.-The rule must be discharged with costs, since the licence of faculty. A writ of prohibition was only to be granted if the learned judge of the Consistory Court (in this instance Dr. Tristram) had no jurisdiction or was doing something contrary to law. If the application ground, then a faculty could not be carried into effect until a licence to was not for the purpose of re-interring a body in some other consecrated do so had also been obtained from the Home Secretary. The Consistory judge had exercised jurisdiction on these matters from very ancient times, and there was authority for that court to hold that his jurisdiction was not restricted to cases of mere removal of a body for burial purposes. So faculty which would have to be carried out according to the law and far all that had happened was that the Ecclesiastical Court had granted a according to the provisions of the Act of 1857, under which the licence, if needed, of the Home Secretary would have to be obtain 1. The learned rule could be heard on the merits of the faculty before the learned judge; judge drew attention to the fact that the applicants who had obtained the and, if he decided against them, they would still have a remedy by way of appeal from his decision. KENNEDY, J., pointed out that if the applicants had entered an appearance when they intervened the order in question would have gone, and they could have been heard as to the merits of the case by the Consistory judge. The order that had been obtained was obtained ex parte. It followed, therefore, that if they availed themselves of their rights to intervene when the order was finally granted and it then appeared that the licence of the Home Secretary was necessary and it had not been In this case a rule had been obtained for a writ of prohibition directed obtained, any person who acted upon the faculty would be liable to be proceeded against under the section. Rule discharged.-COUNSEL, Bargrave Deane, Q.C., G. G. Phillimore, and H. O. Buckle; Arnold Statham and Campbell-Johnston. SOLICITORS, Freshfield & Williams; MacArthur & Co. [Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.] KINNIS v. GRAVES. Div. Court. 11th May. PUBLIC HEALTH-BUILDING LINE-INFORMATION DISMISSAL JUSTICES EQUALLY DIVIDED-CONTINUING OFFENCE-PUBLIC HEALTH (BUILDING IN STREETS) ACT, 1888 (51 & 52 VICT. c. 55), s. 3. This was a case stated by justices of St. Leonard's upon an information laid on the 19th of November, 1897, charging the appellant that, having unlawfully and without the consent of the urban authority erected a certain house in a certain street not in accordance with the proper building line, he did continue the offence for fifty days after the 6th of March, 1897, and after written notice to set back the house, contrary to section 3 of the Public Health (Building in Streets) Act, 1888. On the 5th of March, 1897, an information had been laid against the appellant charging him that on the 30th of December, 1896, he did unlawfully erect the same house as that alluded to in the later information, and did continue the offence for twenty-eight days after the written notice. This information was dismissed by the justices before whom it was heard on the ground that they were equally divided and were of opinion that there could be no conviction except by a majority. The justices who heard the later information convicted the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that he ought to have been acquitted on the later information because the decision of the justices who heard the first information amounted to an acquittal of the offence charged, and it could not be an offence to continue to do that which had been held not to be an offence. Reg. v. Ashplant (52 J. P. 474) and Ex parte Evans (1894, A. C. 16) were cited. For the respondent it was contended that the decision of the justices on the first information was not an acquittal. THE COURT (WILLS and KENNEDY, JJ.) allowed the appeal and quashed WILLS, J., said that, on the authority of the cases cited, they must hold that the effect of what the justices did in the first information was a dismissal of the information, and that the information having been dismissed the justices must be taken to have decided that no offence had been committed. That was an end of the matter, and the justices who heard the second information were bound by the decision of the justices who heard the first.-COUNSEL, Ashton; H. C. Richards. SOLICITORS, Martin & Co. for Albert Neve, St. Leonard's; Langham, Son, & Douglas, Hastings. the conviction. [Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.] SOLICITORS ORDERED TO BE STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS. 18 May.-HORACE MALINGS (Plumstead). 18 May.-DANIEL JONES (47, Chancery-lane, London). 18 May.-WILLIAM RICHARD DENT (2, New-court, Lincoln's-inn, and Harlow). 18 May. LLEWELYN MALCOLM WYNNE (31, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London). SOLICITOR SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICE FOR SIX MONTHS. 18 May.-CAMPBELL MOUNTAGUE EDWARD WYNNE (6, Clement's-inn, London). LEGAL NEWS. GENERAL. It is stated that Mr. Justice Byrne has left town for St. Margaret's Bay, and is not expected to return to his court during the present sittings. Mr. Justice Bigham has been appointed the judge to try civil causes at the Manchester and Liverpool Assizes for the coming year, commencing at the ensuing autumn assizes. Mr. Justice Hawkins has fixed the following commission days for holding the summer assizes on the South-Eastern Circuit-viz., Huntingdon, Monday, the 30th of May; Cambridge, Monday, the 6th of June; Bury St. Edmunds, Friday, the 10th of June; Norwich, Friday, the 17th of June; Chelmsford, Tuesday, the 28th of June; Hertford, Monday, the 4th of July; Lewes, Friday, the 8th of July. The Times says that as the Lord Chief Justice will be engaged at the Assizes on the Western Circuit during the Whitsun holidays, he will take a short vacation prior to the rising of the courts, and he is consequently not expected to sit again after this week. Mr. Justice Wright who will be similarly engaged on the Home Circuit, will also take a few days, but is expected to sit for the purpose of taking companies winding-up business on Wednesday. Mr. Justice Hawkins, the third judge who will be away at the assizes during the holidays, took his share of the vacation at the beginning of the present sittings. The practice is still kept up in New York, says the American Law Review, of retiring judges when they reach the age of seventy, though we understand that they may still be called upon by the Governor to render judicial services. When the New York Court of Appeals adjourned on Friday, the 17th of December, Chief Judge Andrews had attained the constitutional limit of seventy years. He therefore retires from the bench of that court, but will be entitled to draw his full salary during the term for which he was elected, about eight years of which are unexpired. The Albany Law Journal says that the Hon. J. N. Dean, of Xenia, probate judge of Greene county, Ohio, in making out the papers for committing a man by the name of J. W. Murphy to the insane department of the county infirmary, absent-mindedly inserted his own name in the papers where that of the crazy man's should have appeared, and the mistake was not discovered until Constable Matthews presented Murphy at the infirmary. The officer then came back to town and informed the judge that he had proper papers for his commitment to a mad-house, and asked if he would go quietly or would have the handcuffs on. The judge altered the papers and grimly remarked that he would beg to be excused just now. In the House of Commons last week Mr. Gibson Bowles asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, having regard to the undertaking given by him on the 3rd of July, 1896, that he would be prepared to pay the reasonable costs of both sides if a case arose in which a general principle could be submitted to the court for deciding the question whether settled property in which the deceased's life interest had been transferred to the reversioner more than twelve months prior to death was or was not chargeable with duty under the Finance Act, 1894, and to the fact that the case of the Attorney-General v. Beach had been so submitted to the sides in that case in both courts had been or would be paid by her Divisional Court and to the Court of Appeal, the reasonable costs of both Majesty's Government; and, if not, why not; whether, during the existence of the doubt whether duty was lawfully chargeable in such cases, the duty had been in such cases exacted and levied in and since 1896: and, if so, what was the amount of duty so levied in 1896-7 and 1897-8; whether, in view of the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that the duty was not chargeable in such cases, the Inland Revenue authorities would now abstain from exacting it, and would continue so to abstain until their costs of both sides in that appeal would be paid by her Majesty's Government. appeal to the House of Lords had been decided; and, whether the reasonable The Chancellor of the Exchequer said: The costs of the respondents in the Divisional Court have been paid by the Crown, in accordance with the undertaking to which the hon. member refers. In the Appeal Court costs were given against the Crown and will be paid according to the order of the court. Duty has been levied in and since 1896 in cases in which, according to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, duty is not chargeable. I do not know what may be the precise amount of the duty it. In view of the fact that two conflicting decisions have now been so paid, and, unless it has to be repaid, there seems no reason for stating precedent that, pending the appeal to the House of Lords, the duty given on the point at issue, I believe it would be in accordance with should be claimed in such cases and the parties liable informed that, if the contention of the Crown fails, any over-payment will be refunded. It is not intended to pay the costs of the respondents in the appeal to the House of Lords. On Tuesday last Mr. Gibson Bowles put a further question on the matter. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that for a period of nearly a year after the 2nd of August, 1894, when the Finance Act came into operation, the Inland Revenue authorities neither exacted or claimed estate duty on settled property in which the deceased's life interest had been transferred to the reversioner more than twelve months prior to death; whether he could state the date upon which the duty was first claimed and exacted in such cases; and, whether, since the doubt as to the legality of such a claim was first raised in 1896, the persons from whom duty had in such cases been exacted had been informed by the Department of Inland Revenue that if the contention of the Crown failed any over-payment would be refunded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said: A claim for estate duty was first made in cases such as that mentioned by the hon. member in July, 1895, on the advice of the law officers. In certain cases the parties had paid the duty on condition that if within a given time the point at issue should be finally decided against the Crown any duty over-paid would be refunded. May 26.-Messrs. ELOART, at the Mart, at 12, Freehold Chambers in New-square, comprising 12 rooms. Solicitors, Messrs. Upton, Atkey, & Co., London. (See advertisement, this week, p. 4). May 24.-Messrs. EDWIN Fox & BOUSFIELD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Impotant Bu ̈ding Land at Clapham Common, with frontages of over 1,000 feet to exist ig roads; the estate is close to the tramway. Solicito, Messrs. Russell, Son, & Cng, London. (See adve..isement, May 14, p. 5.) of appearing much reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon o BITTESWELL FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Bitteswell, Leicester. May 11 LOYAL PERSEVERANCE FEMALE LODGE, West st, Sutton, Surrey. May 11 SLAITHWAITE WESLEYAN METHODIST SUNDAY SCHOOL FUNERAL FUND SOCIETY, Slaithwaite, Yorks. May 4 UNITED FRIENDS BENEFIT SOCIETY, Baptist Chapel, Hartley row, Hartley, Winchfield, Southampton. Feb 9 CREDITORS' NOTICES. UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. £ Sold 200 760 6,350 8,0 LAST DAY OF CLAIM. London Gazette.-TUESDAY, April 26. Absolute to One-fourth of about £10,000; lives 55 e id 63 INFORMATION WANTED.-Re Miss Caroline Rintoul, deceased.—Any person having information as to any Will, Codicil, or Property of the above lady, who died at 42, Colls-road, Peckham, Surrey, in April, 1898, and who has also resided during recent years at Rickmansworth; Artesianroad, Bayswater; Argyle-square, King's-cross; 92, Peckham-rye, and Blenheim-grove, Rye-lane, Peckham, is requested to communicate with Mr. Thomas Francis Peacock, Solicitor, 12, South-square, Gray's-inn, W.C.-[ADVT.] B. DUBOWSKI & SONS, LIMITED -Creditors are required, on or before Monday, June 27, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or clans, to W. P. Campbell-Everden, Suffolk House, Laurence Pountney hill BRADBURN & Co, LIMITED-Creditors are required to send in particulars of claims, on or before June 10, to Philip Bates, 110, Edmund st, Birmingham BRITISH ELECTROZONE CORPORATION, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before June 25, to send their names and addresses, and particulars of their debts or claims, to Alfred Edmund Edwards, S, Trafalgar bldgs, Northumberland avenue CONSOLIDATED CONTRACT CORPORATION, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented May 10, directed to be heard on May 25. Stanley Woodhouse & Hedderwick, 45, Ludgate hill, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of May 24 COONEY PROPRIETARY MINES, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before June 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Grosvenor George Walker, 19, St Swithin's lane FOX STEAM TUG CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before June 21, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to W. Charles W. Vincent, 85, Gresham st. Faithfull & Son, 51, Borough High st, so'ɔrs for liquidator OPHIR CONCESSIONS AND EXPLORATION CO, LIMITED-Cre litors are required, on or before June 10, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Sidney Wells Money, 31, Lombard st. Reader & Co, Chapel pl, Poultry, solors for the liquidator PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before June 13, SAILING SHIP "LORD SPENCER" CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before June LIMITED IN CHANCERY. TURTON BLEACHING AND DYEING CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented May 12, directed to be heard at St. George's Hall, Liverpool, on May 23, at 10.30. Grundy, Son, & Co, 78, King st, Manchester, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 2 o'clock in the afternoon of May 21 London Gazette.-TUESDAY, May 17. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. AFRICAN ALLUVIAL GOLD MINES, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Tuesday, July 19, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Josiah Richards, 11, Poultry. Hands, 10, Angel ct, solor for liquidator BREWERS' AND GENERAL FIRE INSURANCE AND GUARANTEE CORPORATION, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented May 12, directed to be heard on Wednesday, May 25. J. E. Lickfold, 4, Copthall chbrs, Telegraph st, solor for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of May 21 MINING AND ENGINEBRS' STORES, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before June 28, to send their names and addresses, and particulars of their debts or claims, to Henry Crewdson Howard, 17, Coleman st CW & HB Taylor, Crutched Friars, solors for liquidator SECURITIES REALIZATION CORPORATION, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before June 24, to send their names and addresses, and particulars of their debts or claims, to Henry Spain, 76, Coleman st Munns & Longden, 8, Old Jewry, solors to liquidator THOM, BAKER, & Co, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented May 9, directed to be heard May 25. Cecil J. Rawlinson, 47, New Broad st, solor for the petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of May 24 TOWER PUBLISHING CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented May 11, directed to be heard May 25. McKenna & Co, 17 and 18, Basinghall st, solors for the petners. Notice Woollen Co v Jackson, Romer, J WILLIAMS, ROBERT NANNEY, Llwyn Dolgelly, Merioneth June 7 Williams v Williams, North, J Griffith, Son, & Adams, Dolgelly CHEESWRIGHT, FREDERICK, St Dunstan's hill, Ship and Insurance Broker June 6 Evans & Sons v Cheeswright, Stirling, J Rushton, New inn, Strand WILLIAMS, GEORGE EDWIN, Tunbridge Wells, Esq June 8 Claris v Sadler, North, J Claris, Dover London Gazette.-FRIDAY, May 6. HERBERT, JANE, Old Rectory, nr Crumlin, Monmouth Romer, J Edwards, Pontypool June 9 Fowler v Phillips, London Gazette.-TUESDAY, May 10. WOOLGROVE, JOSEPH, Sibford, Oxford, Farmer June 11 Thornit v Marshall, Kekewich, J Stockton, Banbury UNDER 22 & 23 VICг. CAP. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM. London Gazette.-TUESDAY, May 3. ANDREWS, HARRIETTE AMELIA WEECKS, Albion st, Hyde park June 24 Lovell & Co, Gray's irn sq BARBER, JOSEPH, Holling worth, Chester June 14 Hand & Co, Macclesfield BATHURST, HENRY ALLEN, Chapel st, Belgrave sq June 13 Hores & Co, Lincoln's inn fields BOWEN, SABINA CATHARINE, Reading, Berks June 4 Smith & Sons, Weston super Mare BROWN, RALPH, Banstead, nr Epsom, Butcher June 30 Balderston & Warrens, Bedford row BUCKWORTH, PLEASANCE GRACE, Coltishall, Norfolk June 28 Archer & Archer, King's Lynn CECIL, MARY ANN, Hove, Sussex June 6 Upperton & Bacon, Brighton COBB, THOMAS Pix, Finsbury circus, Solicitor June 16 Janson & Co, Finsbury circus EDWARDS, JOHN, Fenton, Stafford May 9 Sproston, Newcastle under Lyme FINDLAY, JOHN, Liverpool, Ironfounder May 31 Batesons & Co, Liverpool PRATT, HANNAH, Great Yarmouth May 11 Burton & Son, Great Yarmouth STRANGE, WILLIAM, Leicester June 4 Neale, Leicester VICKERS, Edward, Oxford June 14 BERRY, ABRAHAM, Barnoldswick, York, Weaver Bradford Pet May 11 Ord May 11 BLACK, SILAS, South Shields, Public house Manager New- Pet April 5 Ord April 26 Bradford Pet Ord BOWLER, LOUIS PATRICK, Brixton, Mining Engineer High BirmingES TREVELYAN, Aberavon, Glam, License 1 EDWARDS, Victualler Neath Pet May 10 Ord May 10 FAWKES, DAVID HENRY, Hempstead, Glos, Gloucester Pet May 9 Ord May 9 HARDCASTLE, THOMAS, Leeds May 11 Leeds Pet May 11 Farmer Ord HEDLEY, CHARLES AUBREY, Newcastle on Tyne, Innkeeper LAW, JOHN, Dewsbury Dewsbury Carmarthen Pet Pet May 10 Ord LEWIS, JOHN POWELL, and WILLIAM MOYTHAM LEWIS, Pontypridd, Grocers Pontypridd Pet April 28 Ord May 7 LISTER, FERGUS, Leeds, Commercial Traveller Leeds Pet May 9 Ord May 9 LYNER, WILLIAM, Hunslet, Leeds, Boot Repairer Leeds Pet May 10 Ora May 10 MARSHALL, WILLIAM, Sheffield, Sausage Manufacturer Sheffield Pet May 9 Ord May 9 MENDELSOHN, JULIUS, High Holborn, Tailor High Court Pet May 10 Ord May 10 PERKINS, JOHN, Halifax, Blacksmith Halifax Pet May 10 Ord May 10 PIPER, EDWARD, Nunney, Somersets, Baker Frome Pet May 11 Ord May 11 RAMSAY, WILLIAM DAVID, Cornwall rd, Westbourne pk High Court Pet April 19 Ord May 11 ROBINSON, WILLIAM JOSEPH, Bristol, Watchmaker Bristol Pet May 11 Ord May 11 SHELDON, ALBERT, Leeds Leeds Pet May 11 Ord May 11 SKINNER, FREDERICK HERBERT, Howgrave, nr Ripon, SKINNER, JEFFREY CHARLES MUERTONE, Cambridge, Insur- STABLES, WILLIAM HENRY, Barmborough, nr Doncaster, VINE, PERCY ADOLPHUS JAMES, Egloskerry, Cornwall, Corn royd, York, Wholesale Clothiers Burnley Pet May 9 WHITTLES, JOHN GIBSON, Urmston, Lancs, Commission COLBON, HARRY, Eastbourne, Baker May 20 at 2.30 Coles ERSKINE, The Hon ALBANY, Piccadilly May 20 at 2.30 FREW, FRANCIS, Wick nr Littlehampton, Nursery man GARRATT, FREDERICK, Birmingham, Plumber May 25 at 11 HOLLOWAY, LEMUEL HOLMES, Saltley, Birmingham, Car- | peater May 24 at 11 174, Corporation st, Birmingham HUGHES, HAROLD M, Threadneedle st, Bank Clerk May 20 at 11.20 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st JONES, DANIEL, Treherbert, Glun, Insurance Agent May 23 at 12 65, High st, Merthyr Tydfil JONES, HENRY, Crickhowell, Brecons, Grocer May 20 at 3 65, High st, Merthyr Tydfil JONES, JOHN JENKIN, Ferndale, Glam, Gro.er May 21 at 3 65, High st, Merthyr Tydfil MADDOCKS, WILLIAM ARTHUR, Cadoxton juxta Barry, Glam, Grocer May 21 at 11.30 Off Rec, 29, Queen st, Cardiff MENDELSOHN, JULIUS, High Holborn, Tailor May 21 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st NORRINGTON, THOMAS, Chelmsford, Essex, Builder May 24 at 11 Shirehall, Chelmsford ORMROD, ELLIS, Hindley, Lancs, Farmer May 20 at 3 16, Wood st, Bolton Off PEARCE, ARTHUR, Balham, Provision Dealer May 20 at SKINNER, FREDERICK HERBERT, Howgrave, nr Ripon, SLATER, WILLIAM, and HEZEKIAH SLATER, Padiham, STOLLERY, HENRY MICHAEL, Staines, Licensed Victualler MONKHOUSE, CHARLES EDWIN, Parliament st, Company CROAGER, THOMAS II, Chancery in, Public House Valuer HEDLEY, CHARLES AUBREY, Newcastle on Tyne, Innkeeper May 9 HUNTER, JOHN, Pwllheli, Carnarvon, Contractor Portmadoc Pet April 1 Ord May 7 LAW, JOHN, Savile Town, nr Dewsbury Dewsbury Pet May 9 Ord May 10 LEVY, AGNES, Kilburn High Court Pet April 14 Ord May 11 LEWIS, JOHN POWELL, and MOYTHAM WILLIAM LEWIS, Pontypridd, Grocers Pontypridd Pet April 28 Ord LISTER, FERGUS, Leeds, Commercial Traveller Leeds Pet LYNER, WILLIAM, Hunslet, Leeds, Boot Repairer Leeds Pet May 10 Ord May 10 MARSHALL, WILLIAM, Sheffield, Sausage Manufacturer Sheffield Pet May 9 Ord May 9 MILLMORE, JAMES, Shanklin, I W, Coal Merchant Newport Pet April 13 Ord May 9 ONYETT, THOMAS EDWARD, Petty Cury, Cambs Brentford Pet March 11 Ord May 11 PECK, SAMUEL, Goole, Yorks, Compositor Wakefield Pet April 7 Ord May 11 PERKINS, JOHN, Halifax, Blacksmith Halifax Pet May 10 Ord May 10 PIPER, EDWARD, Nunney, Somersets, Baker Frome Pet May 11 Ord May 11 PRICE, JOSEPH HENRY, and JOHN SAMUEL HINTON, Knightider st, Mantle Manufacturers High Court Pet April 27 Ord May 11 SKINNER, JEFFREY CHARLES MUERTONE, Cambridge, Ord SMITH, ALFRED JAMFS, Newcastle on Tyne, Confectioner Newcastle on Tyne Pet May 9 Ord May 10 SOTHCOTT, ALFRED THOMAS, Landport, Ironmonger Por's. TIMMISS, SAMUEL RICHARD, Derby, Draper's Manager WARD, CHARLES, Newcastle on Tyne, Boot Maker New- WITHERS, REUBEN, Senghenith, Glam, Collier Pontypridd WRAY, HERBERT WILLIAM, West Bromwich, Dairyman London Gazette.-TUESDAY, May 17. RECEIVING ORDERS. BISHOP, ABRAHAM, Chartham, Kent, Butcher Canterbury Pet May 13 Ord May 13 BREWER, DAVID KIRK, York, Tailor York Tet May 12 Ord May 12 BYRNE, ARTHUR EDWARD, Lower Edmonton, Grocer COWARD, JAMES MUNRO, Teddington, Professor of Music DENNIS, JOHN, Marwood, Devon, Farmer Barnstaple FIRTH, SIDNEY, Leeds, Hardware Factor Leeds Pet May 11 Ord May 11 HAIME, EDWARD ARTHUR THOMAS, Birmingham, Hosier HERRTAGE, H C, Chancery lane, Public house Broker High HORNE, CHARLES MOUNT, Kingsthorpe, Northamptons, Commercial Clerk Northampton Pet May 12 Orl May 12 JEFFERSON, DANIEL, Grassings, nr Kickbride, Labourer Carlisle Pet May 12 Ord May 12 JOHN DEWHURST & SON, Sheffield Sheffield Pet April 23 Ord May 12 LANGTON, STEPHEN, Bulwell, Notts, Fruit Salesman Nottingham Pet May 13 Ord May 13 LOGAN, JAMES, Pokesdown, Hants Poole Pet May 12 Ord May 12 MACDONALD, WALLACE WHITT, Wallington, Surrey, Fruiterer Croydon Pet May 12 Ord May 12 MILNES, ROBERT, Rochdale, Woolstapler Rochdale Pet May 5 Ord May 14 MORGAN, Jons, Talgarth, Brecknock, Boot Dealer Hereford Pet May 13 Ord May 13 MORRIS, WILLIAM, Trawsfynydd, Merioneth, Licensed Victualler Portmadoc Pet May 12 Ord May 12 NICHOLS, JAMES, Old Catten, Norfolk, Grocer Norwich Pet May 11 Ord May 13 NORMAN, TOM, Alconbury Weston, Hunts, Hay Dealer PATMORE, GEORGE HELLEN, Wickford, Essex, Grocer SINKINS, WILLIAM JAMES, Frome, Somerset, Baker Frome Pet May 14 Ord May 14 TAYLOR, JOHN ALDERT, Eg.emont, Cheshire Birkenhead Pet May 12 Ord May 12 TERRY, ELIJAH, Barnsley, Yorks, Joiner Barnsley Pet May 14 Ord May 14 VERNON, HENRY CHARLES, Clifton, Bristol Bristol Pet May 13 Or1 May 13 WALKER, ALBERT ARTHUR, Ossett, Yorks, Cabinet Maker Dewsbury Pet April 30 Ord May 14 WOOD, JOHN, Market Drayton, Licensed Victualler Nantwich Pet May 3 Ord May 12 WOOD, THOMAS, jun, Gt Grimsby, Fish Merchant, Gt Amended notice substituted for that published in the GOLDSMITH, GEORGE WILLIAM, Crowborough, Sussex, Builder Tunbridge Wells Pet May 7 Ord May 7 Amended notices substituted for those published in the London Gazette of May 13: BROWN, CHARLES ARCHIBALD, Longsight, Manchester, BAMES, SUSAN ANN, Plymouth May 21 at 11 6, Athenæum |