BAWDEN, WILLIAM, Camborne, Cornwall, Farmer Truro Pet Nov 8 Ord Nov 8 BEEGLEMYER, JOSEPH WILLIAM, Oxford st, Tailor High Court Pet Oct 18 Ord Nov 9 BLACKMAN, JAMES HENRY, Hove, Sussex Brighton Pet Nov 8 Ord Nov 8 BRAMWELL, JOHN, Nottingham Nottingham Pet Nov 9 Ord Nov 9 BULMER, WILLIAM, Selby, Potato Dealer York Pet Nov 9 Ord Nov 9 CART, JOHN, Birmingham, Cattle Dealer Leicester Pet Nov 8 Ord Nov 8 CHARLES, JAMES, Aldersgate st, Fancy Goods Dealer High Court Pet Oct 2 Ord Nov 8 CLARK, CHARLES STANLEY, Great Clacton, Essex, Butcher Colchester Pet Nov 9 Ord Nov 9 COOKE, ROBERT, Plymouth, Dairyman Nov 9 Ord Nov 9 Plymouth Pet COOPER, RICHARD, Croydon, Solicitor Croydon Pet Nov 10 Ord Nov 10 JENKINS, THOMAS, Ferndale, Glam. Colliery Fireman Chelmsford MCCANN, JOSEPH FREDERICK, St John's Wood, Fishmonger MASON, ROBERT Farrer, Milford Haven, Solicitor Pem- Manches PICK, WILLIAM, Bradford, Carrier Bradford Pet Órd Nov 10 Nov 10 Ports RAGGETT, GEORGE WILLIAM, Landport, Grocer Pet Nov 9 SERMAN, FRANCIS GEORGE, Bourton on the Water, Glos, Printer Cheltenham Pet Oct 25 Ord Nov 5 SMITH, CHRISTOPHER, Malvern Link, Worcester, Boot Maker Worcester Pet Nov 6 Ord Nov 6 SWANN, ANN, Nottingham, Greengrocer Nottingham Pet Oct 26 Ord Nov 8 THACKER, WILLIAM, Leicester, Shoe Mercer's Foreman THORNE, A, and S THORNE, Brasted, Kent, Butchers Tun- SELBY, GEORGE WILLIAM COLEMAN, Ightham, Kent, FIRST MEETINGS. AMEY, Tox, Leicester Nov 19 at 3 Off Rec, 1, Berridge st, Leicester BARCLAY, HJ, Sydenham Nov 19 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st BATEMAN, SAMUEL, Amroth, Pembroke, Grocer Nov 20 at at 12.30 Off Rec, 4, Queen st, Carmarthen BAWDEN, WILLIAM, Camborne, Cornwall, Farmer Nov 20 at 10 Off Rec, Boscawen st, Truro BLEWETT & Sox, Plymouth, Stock Brokers Nov 23 at 11 10, Athenæum ter, Plymouth BLACKMAN, JAMES HENRY, Hove Nov 19 at 12 Off Rec, Pavilion bldgs, Brighton BOWETT, REUBEN JOHN, Altrincham, Chester, Grocer Nov 19 at 2.30 Off Rec, Byrom st, Manchester UNWIN, ESTHER, Coggeshall, Essex Dec 18 Beaumont & Son, Coggeshall VILE, CHARLES EVERY, Hatch, Beauchamp, Somerset, Innkeeper Dec 8 Goode, North YOUNG, RICHARD, Matlock Moor, Derby Dec 1 Potter, Matlock Bridge BULMER, WILLIAM, Selby, York, Potato Dealer Nov 23 at 12.30 Off Rec, 28, Stonegate, York CARL, JOHN, Syston, Leicester, Cattle Dealer Nov 19 at 12 Off Rec, 1, Berridge st, Leicester CHARLES, JAMES, Aldersgate st, Fancy Goods Dealer Nov 19 at 2.30 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st CHEVERTON, ALBERT MILTON, Newport, I of W, Cycle Agent Nov 19 at 12 Chamber of Commerce, 145, Cheapside CoоKE, ROBERT, Plymouth, Dairyman Nov 23 at 10.30 10, Athenæum ter, Plymouth CORNTHWAITE, ROBERT, Lupton, Westmrld, Farmer Nov COULSON, SAMUEL, Eastwood, Notts, Draper Nov 19 at 11 DAVIES, REES, Tylorstown, Glam, General Dealer Nov 19 at 12 65, High st, Merthyr Tydfil GARDNER, WILLIAM HOWSON, Newcastle on Tyne, Boot Dealer Nov 22 at 11.30 Off Rec, 30, Mosley st, Newcastle on Tyne GRAY, MARTHA HANNAH, Blackpool Nov 19 at 2.30 Albion Hotel, Promenade, Blackpool HAIGH, J W, Bradford, Wool Merchant Nov 22 at 11 Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford HUSTLER, BENJAMIN, Morley, York, Cloth Finisher Nov 19 JOHNSON, JAMES, Needwood, Staffs, Labourer at 3 Off Rec, Bank chmbrs, Batley Nov 19 at 11.30 Off Rec, 40, St Mary's gate, Derby LAW, RAISTRICK, Pudsey, Yorks, General Draper Nov 22 at 12 Off Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford MCCANN, JOSEPH FREDERICK, St John's Wood, Fishmonger Nov 19 at 2.30 Bankruptcy bldgs. Carey st MITCHELL, WALTER SWIRE, and WILLIAM HERBERT MITCHELL, Halifax, Bakers Nov 20 at 11 Off Rec, Halifax NASCH, ISIDOR, Whitechapel rd, Engineer Nov 19 at 12 PARKER, GEORGE, Leyburn, York, Rural Postman Nov 29 SMITH, SAM, Red Lion street, St George's in the East, STEVENS, JOHN, Sheffield, Grocer Nov 22 at 2 Off Rec, TIBBITS, HERBERT, Eastbourne ter, Paddington, Doctor ADJUDICATIONS. AMEY, TOM, Leicester Leicester Pet Nov 8 Ord Nov 8 BAWDEN, WILLIAM, Camborne, Cornwall, Farmer Truro Pet Nov 8 Ord Nov 8 BLACKMAN, JAMES HENRY, Hove Brighton Pet Nov 4 Ord Nov 10 BRAKEFIELD, CHARLES, Charing, Kent Maidstone Pet Nov 6 Ord Nov 8 BRAMWELL, JOHN, Nottingham Nottingham Pet Nov 9 Ord Nov 9 BULMER, WILLIAM, Selby, Potato Dealer York Pet Nov 9 Ord Nov 9 BURNS, ALFRED LEONARD, Bolton, Tailor Bolton Pet Oct 12 Ord Nov 8 CART, JOHN, Syston, Leicester, Cattle Dealer Leicester CHANTLER, DANIEL, Charlwood, Surrey, Farmer HUTCHINSON, FRANCIS, Southport, Joiner Liverpool Pet Oct 28 Ord Nov 8 LAW, RAISTRICK, Pudsey, Yorks, General Draper Bradford LEWIN, WALTER, Park side, Hyde Park Corner, Water- MARTIN, JOSEPH HENDERSON, Leicester, Surgeon Leicester MAYGER, FREDERICK JEANS, Bournemouth, Provision Factor Poole Pet Nov 8 Ord Nov 9 SMITH, CHRISTOPHER, Malvern Link. Wores, Bootmaker SMYRKE, BENJAMIN, Notting Hill High Court Pet Aug 11 TATTERSFIELD, GEORGE HENRY, Mirfield, York, Blanket Manufacturer Dewsbury Pet Sept 27 Ord Nov 6 THACKER, WILLIAM, Leicester, Shoe Mercer's Foreman TRUMPER, THOMAS WILLIAM WALWYN, Grosmont, Mon, Leicester Pet Nov 8 Ord Nov 8 Farmer Hereford Pet Oct 15 Ord Nov 9 VINCENT, ALFRED, Bitton, Glos, Farmer Bristol Pet Nov 3 Ord Nov 9 WALKER, JOSEPH, Kingston upon Hull, Baker Kingston WATERHOUSE, JAMES WILLIAM, Manchester, Baker Man- ADJUDICATION ANNULLED. Croydon London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Nov. 16. RECEIVING ORDERS. AMBLER, ALBERT, Thornton, nr Bradford, Grocer Pet Nov 13 Ord Nov 13 BATES, CLARA LETITIA, and WILLIAM CUFFLIN, Leicester Leicester Pet Nov 10 Ord Nov 10 BILLINGTON, GIDEON MORLEY, Cobridge, Staffs, Earthenware Manufacturer Hanley Pet Oct 26 Ord Nov 10 CARTER, HERBERT THOMAS, Bracknell, Berks, Butcher Windsor Pet Nov 10 Ord Nov 10 CUBITT, T A, Shoeburyness, Lieutenant Chelmsford Pet Sept 25 Ord Nov 10 DAVIES, WILLIAM, Birmingham, Wholesale Stationer Birmingham Pet Nov 11 Ord Nov 11 EBBERSON, WILLIAM JOHN, Fakenham, Norfolk, Grocer Norwich Pet Nov 12 Ord Nov 12 FAHERTY, FREDERICK THOMAS, Birmingham, Builder Birmingham Pet Nov 10 Ord Nov 10 FRITH, PHILIP, Lombard ct, Accountant High Court Pet Oct 12 Ord Nov 5 FULLER, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Gt Eastern st High Court Pet Oct 21 Ord Nov 12 FURNISS, JAMES, Sheffield, Druggist Leeds Pet Nov 10 Ord Nov 10 GODSELL, JAMES NELSON, Cheltenham Warwick Pet Nov 13 Ord Nov 13 GOULD, ANNIE ELIZABETH, Cheltenham Cheltenham Pet GREENWOOD, WALTER, and REUBEN WILSON, Oldham, Hay HANSON, JOHN, Dewsbury, Greengrocer Dewsbury Pet W & E JAMES & Co, Devonshire st High Court Pet Oct KING, FOARD, Tillington, Sussex Brighton Pet Nov 11 MATHER, JAMES KENNETH, Cambridge, Student Cam- MAUD, GEORGE, Beeston Hill, Leeds Leeds Pet Nov 13 Ord PARROCK, JOSEPH, Quarry Bank, nr Brierley Hill, Stafford, ROSSLYN, EARL of. The Portland Club, St. James's square ROYLE, ARTHUR WILLIAM, Gainsborough, General Dealer SANDERSON, W, Willesden Green High Court Pet Oct 9 SIMONS, ARTHUR JOSEPH, Leicester, Beer Agent Leicester SLADE, JOHN, Laureath, Cornwall, Farmer Plymouth Pet SMITH, MOSES JOHN, Margate, Grocer Nov 12 Ord Nov 12 Canterbury Pet SQUIRES, WILLIAM JOHN, jun, Leagrave, Bedford, Wheel wright Luton Pet Nov 13 Ord Nov 13 TENNICK, EDWARD, Darlington, Shearman Stockton on Tees Pet Nov 12 Ord Nov 12 Amended notice substituted for that published in the BOWETT, REUBEN JOHN, Altrincham, Grocer Manchester COLE, WILLIAM, Cwmbran, Greengrocer Nov 24 at 12 Off DINGWALL, WILLIAM, Goole, Yorks Nov 23 at 11.30 Off Rec, 6, Bond ter, Wakefield GILL, ESTHER DIANA, Oldbury, Worcesters Nov 24 at 11.5 GODKIN, ELIZA, Derby, Grocer Nov 23 at 11 Off Rec, 40, GREENWOOD, WALTER, and REUBEN WILSON, Oldham, Hay Merchants Nov 24 at 3 GREGORY, GEORGE WILLIAM, Ashborne, Derbys, Grocer JAMES, EDWARD WILLIAM, Devonshire st Nov 23 at 11 JAY, GEORGE, Swansea, Joiner Nov 24 at 12 Off Rec, 31, MARTIN, JOSEPH HENDERSON, Leicester, Surgeon Nov 23 MYNHEER, WILLIAM HENRY, Ramsgate, Smackowner Nov PICK, WILLIAM, Bradford, Carrier Nov 25 at 11 Off Rec, RAGGETT, GEORGE WILLIAM, Landport, Grocer Nov 23 at 3 Off Rec, Cambridge Junction, High st, Ports mouth RUNCIMAN, JOHN FINLAY, Gt James st, Bedford row, 23, Colmore row, Birmingham ADJUDICATIONS. Nov All letters intended for publication in the "Solicitors' Journal" must be authenticated by the name of the writer. Where difficulty is experienced in procuring the Journal with regularity, it is requested that application be made direct to the Publisher. PATENTS. Mr. F. W. GOLBY, A.I.M.E., M.S A., Patent Agent (late of H.M. Patent Office), 36, Chancery-lane, London, W.C. Letters Patent obSained and Registration effected in all parts of the World. Oppositions conducted. Opinions and Searches as to novelty. ALABONE, HENRY WILLIAM, Pentonville rd Edmonton Pet PLEASURE CRUISE to the WEST Oct 1 Ord Nov 11 AMBLER, ALBERT, Thornton, nr Bradford, Grocer Brad- COCHRANE, ROBERT BROWN, Tiverton, Devon, Coal Mer- GODSALI, JAMES NELSON, Cheltenham Warwick Pet GREENWOOD, WALTER, and REUBEN WILSON, Oldham, GWYNNE, JOHN, Llanfihangel Cilfargen, Farmer Carmar- HAMAR, HENRY BRYAN, Peterchurch, Hereford, Farmer HUTCHINSON, LYDIA, Liversedge, York Nov 9 Ord Nov 12 Dewsbury Pet JAMES, EDWARD WILLIAM, Devonshire st High Court Pet JENKINS, THOMAS, Quaker's Yard, Glam, Colliery Fireman KENT, JOHN, Wednesbury, Staffs, Butcher Walsall Pet Ord Nov 11 Visiting TENERIFFE, BARBADOS, TRINIDAD, GRENADA, MAR- Arriving back in London 10th March. Managers: F. Green & Co.; Anderson, Anderson, & Co. For passage apply to the latter firm at 5, Fenchurchavenue, London, E.C.; or to the West-End Branch Office, 16, Cockspur-street, S.W. LONDON GAZETTE (published by authority) and HENRY GREEN, Advertisement Agent, begs to direct the attention of the Legal Profession to the advantages of his long experience of upwards of fifty years, in the special insertion of all pro forma notices, &c., and hereby solicits their continued support.-N.B. Forms, Gratis, for Statutory Notices to Creditors and Dissolutions of Partnership, with necessary Declaration. Official stamps for advertisements and file of "London Gazette "" kent. By appointment. TREATMENT OF INEBRIETY. KING, FOARD, Tillington, Sussex Brighton Pet Nov 10 DALRYMPLE LEAVER, THOMAS BIRD, Gracechurch st, Printer High LUCAS, THOMAS WILLIAM, Kilburn, Costumier High MARSHALL, PETER, Brighton Brighton Pet Oct 29 Ord MAUD, GEORGE, Beeston Hill, Leeds Leeds Pet Nov 13 PARROCK, JOSEPH, Quarry Bank, nr Brierley Hill, Stafford, НОМЕ, RICKMANSWORTH, HERTS. For Gentlemen, under the Act and privately. R. WELSH BRANTHWAITE, Forge Carpenter Stourbridge Pet Nov 8 Ord Nov 8 HIGH SHOT HOUSE, PARTINGTON, THOMAS, Oldham, Bobbin Manufacturer Old- ROBINSON, ALFRED, and ELIZA HEALEY, Manchester, ROYLE, ARTHUR WILLIAM, Gainsborough, General Dealer SHIPMAN, JOSEPH ERNEST, Leicester, Butcher Leicester SIMONS, ARTHUR JOSEPH, Leicester Beer Agent Leicester SIMPSON, FRANCES, Birkenhead, Confectioner Liverpool SMITH, WILLIAM GEORGE, Bexley Heath, Kent, Grocer BOWETT, REUBEN JOHN, Altrincham, Grocer WYNNSTANLEY, HENRY, Newport, I of W, Licensed Vic- 29, 1897 ST. MARGARET'S, TWICKENHAM, For Gentlemen under the Acts and privately. Terms, INEBRIETY. MELBOURNE HOUSE, LEICESTER. PRIVATE HOME FOR LADIES. Medical Attendant: CHAS. J. BOND, F.R.C.S. Eng. L.R.C.P. Lond. Principal: H. M. RILEY, Assoc. Soc. Study of Inebriety. Thirty years' Experience. Excellent Legal and Medical References. For terms and particulars apply Miss RILEY, or the Principal. M. W. EDGLEY, 40 & 41, Fleet-st. AMERICAN ROLL TOP DESKS. M. W. Edgley, 40 & 41, Fleet-st. M. W. Edgley, 40 & 41, Fleet-st, In Drawing LEASES or MORTGAGES of To see that the Insurance Covenants include a policy covering the risk of LOSS OR FORFEITURE OF THE LICENSE. Suitable clauses, settled by Counsel, can be obtained on application to THE LICENSES INSURANCE CORPORATION GUARANTEE FUND, LIMITED, 24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C. AND THE FOLLOWING are the names and dates of call to the bar of the new Queen's Counsel: Mr. RICHARD LOVELAND LOVELAND Mortgages Guaranteed on Licensed Properties promptly, without (Assistant Judge, London Sessions), 1865; Mr. WILLIAM special valuation and at low rates. LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE ESTABLISHED OVER HALF A CENTURY. FREE, SIMPLE, THE OF PERFECTED SYSTEM LIFE ASSURANCE. AND SECURE. INCOME TRUSTEES. £373,000. £11,000,000. ENGLISH HARRISON, South-Eastern Circuit, 1867; Mr. REGINALD THE DEATH of Baron POLLOCK removes from the bench a capable and highly-esteemed judge. His title indicates the length of his service in that office. He was appointed a Baron of the old Court of Exchequer in 1873, and practically he was at work to the last. But, though he was the senior_judge-his appointment being three years prior to that of Mr. Justice HAWKINS-he had shewn no indication of declining powers, and when it was announced that he was returning from the Essex Assizes on account of indisposition it was not anticipated that his illness would assume a serious aspect. The announcement on Monday of his death on the previous day came as a painful shock to the many who had learned to appreciate his sterling qualities. With his early associations and training it was natural that he should attain to judicial office. His father, Chief Baron POLLOCK, was one of the most noteworthy judges of the middle of the century, and the son-though he was by no means the only son-has carried on in a less conspicuous way the same vocation. To the vast majority of present day lawyers his career at the bar is known only by hearsay. His early diligence is shown by the reports and by the work on merchant shipping with which his name was associated. Diligence, with such opportunities as he possessed, materially led to professional advancement. But as a Mellor, The Right Hon. John W., a.c., judge he has been well known and universally respected. In M.P. Mills, Richard, Esq. Morrell, Frederic P., Esq. (Oxford). Saltwell, Wm. Henry, Esq. Williams, C. Reynolds, Esq. Williams, Romer, Esq. trying prisoners he spared no pains to ensure that his sentences should be just to the prisoner as well as to the public; to the consideration of civil cases he brought a judicial mind and a competent knowledge of law; and in his treatment of all who had business before him he was kind and courteous. He was a judge who worthily maintained the traditions of his order. WE DO NOT understand all this mighty hurry about bringing the Land Transfer Act, 1897, into force. Section 25 of the Act provides that it shall come into operation on the 1st of January next; and until that day, there is, of course, no power to make an Order in Council under section 20. Nor, it would appear, can the formal notice under sub-section 5 of that section be sent to the county council or the accompanying draft Order be formally served before that day. But someone seems to have discovered that there is no objection to sending a draft of the proposed Order to the county council before that day, and getting them to decide beforehand whether they will accept compulsory registration. Accordingly, we learn that an intimation has been given to the London County Council that it is proposed to make an Order applying Part III. of the Land Transfer Act to the county of London, and that the Order will declare that, "As respects the county of London, on and after the 1st of July, 1898, registration of title to land is to be compulsory on sale. This order may be amended or added to, or repealed by Order in Council." This notice is dated the 19th of November, and it seems to be concluded that if the county council does not before the 19th of February, at a meeting specially called for the purpose, at which two-thirds (ninety-two) members shall be present, resolve and communicate to the Privy Council their resolution that, in their opinion, compulsory registration of title would not be desirable in their county, the Order will be made. We should be glad to know how this notion is reconciled with the provisions of the Act. It is, no doubt, highly desirable for the Land Registry to "nobble" the existing county council, before a new election has taken place, but how can any notice be validly given under the Act before it has come into operation? A still more serious matter appears to be the letter from the Lord Chancellor to the Court of Common Council of the City of London "with reference to the Land Transfer Act of last Session, and the desirability, or otherwise, of extending its provisions to the City." As our readers all remember, a solemn pledge was given in the House of Commons by the AttorneyGeneral, and assented to by Mr. BALFOUR, that the first county to be selected should "be the administrative county of London, excluding the City." Now we hear of a letter, in effect, asking the City of London to apply to be included in the first compulsory order. If this is done, a very grave breach of faith will be committed with the solicitors to whom the pledge was practically given-namely, those opposing the Bill. These strange proceedings, however, are of a piece with the whole course of the manoeuvres by which the Bill was carried through Parliament, and they give a pleasing foretaste of the despotic sway which will be exercised when the compulsion clause has been put into force. WE HAVE Considerable sympathy with the members of the profession who have urged, and are urging, opposition on the part of solicitors to the selection of London as the first district to be put under compulsion, but we do not think it would be advisable for members of the profession to associate themselves together, in their capacity of solicitors, for that purpose. Let them do all in their power, as individual citizens, to enlighten the Committee of the London County Council upon the matter, and especially to point out to them that they ought not to be called on to express an opinion as to compulsion until the Act has come into operation. But for solicitors to organize themselves to oppose the application of compulsion to London would, we think, be likely to defeat the object in view. The county council would be told that the opposition simply arose from the irreconcilable hostility of solicitors, who desired to deprive their clients of the priceless boon which compulsion will bestow. Solicitors generally have done quite enough in the way of opposition to the measure to clear their consciences of any complicity in the scheme, and we think that, while exercising all their rights as citizens, they should rather carefully stand aloof from organized opposition to the application of the Act to London. IN THE course of proceedings in the North London policecourt last week, objection was taken by a solicitor holding a London certificate to the appearance of a solicitor holding a as a country certificate, but the magistrate, Mr. D'EYNCOURT, though at first he was against the country solicitor, and adjourned the case, on the following day allowed it to proceed, holding that, provided the solicitor was properly qualified, it was not for the court to inquire whether he had a London or a country certificate. If the country solicitor was in the wrong, it would seem that the law is quite strong enough to deal with the case, without the necessity for magisterial interference. Under section 43 of the Stamp Act, 1891, a person who "acts or practises solicitor in any court without having in force at the time a duly stamped certificate incurs a penalty of £50, and is also incapable of maintaining any action for the recovery of his costs. In the case of a person who has no solicitor's certificate at all, it would seem that a single appearance in court would constitute acting as a solicitor, which would bring him within the section and make the penalty recoverable. But in the case of a certificated solicitor it is necessary to refer to the schedule in order to discover whether he is entitled, under his certificate, to appear in the court in question, and the wording of the schedule differs slightly from that of the section. If the solicitor "practises or carries on his business" within ten miles from the General Post Office he has to pay, after three years, a duty of £9; elsewhere in England, a duty of £6. The effect of these enactments was considered by a Divisional Court (FIELD and CAVE, JJ.) in Re Horton (8 Q. B. D. 434), where a Birmingham solicitor had attended a taxation in London, and it was held that a single appearance did not disqualify him from recovering his costs. Stress was laid upon the phrase "carries on his business," and FIELD, J., intimated that the intention of the Legislature was, not to strike at one particular transaction within the ten-mile radius, but at the general carrying on of business and practising. So CAVE, J., was of opinion that the words "practises or carries on his business" pointed to a series of acts and not to an isolated transaction. trustees may make himself liable for a breach of trust are clearly THE CIRCUMSTANCES under which a solicitor who is acting for defined in the judgment of Lord SELBORNE, C., in Barnes v. Addy (L. R. 9 Ch., p. 251). "Strangers "—that is, persons other than the trustees" are not to be made constructive actions within their legal powers, transactions, perhaps, of which trustees merely because they act as agents of trustees in transand become chargeable with some part of the trust property, or a court of equity may disapprove, unless those agents receive unless they assist with knowledge in a dishonest and fraudulent design on the part of the trustees." solicitor has simply failed in his duty to the trustees, or where Where, however, the he has omitted to inform them that a proposed investment would be a breach of trust, it seems clear that the solicitor is The not liable for the breach of trust, whatever may be his liability for negligence. Nor, as appears from the judgment of STIRLING, J., in the case of Stokes v. Prance (reported elsewhere), will the negligence interfere with, any collateral rights which the that case the solicitors acting for the trustees took a transfer of solicitor may have acquired in the course of the transaction. In a mortgage for £6,000, one-half the amount being advanced by the trustees and one-half by the solicitors themselves. security was insufficient for the advance, but the solicitors omitted to advise the trustees of this. It did not appear that the solicitors obtained any indirect benefit by the transaction, so that they could not, upon the principles of Barnes v. Addy, be held liable for a breach of trust, but it was contended that, under the circumstances, their moiety of the security ought to be postponed to the moiety held by the trustees. The solicitors had become bankrupt, so that if the trustees failed to secure themselves in this way, their only remedy would be by proof in solicitors personally. But though, under certain circumstances, the bankruptcy for such claim as they might have against the solicitor may doubtless prejudice his own position by omitting to give his client proper advice, this result only seems to follow where the neglect to give advice secures some consequent advantage to the solicitor. A solicitor, for instance, who takes a security from a client is not allowed to profit by an unusual power of sale the effect of which is not explained to the client Cockburn v. Edwards, 18 Ch. D. 449). Where, however, the solicitor, as in Stokes v. Prance, is interested jointly with his client in the transaction, both standing on the same footing in the matter, this principle does not apply, and STIRLING, J., held accordingly that the trustees had no priority over the solicitors in regard to the security. IT APPEARS from the decision of NORTH, J., in Pegge v. Neath Tramways Co. to be of comparatively slight importance whether an intending debenture holder actually gets his debentures from the company or not, provided he obtains an undertaking from the company to issue them. This result follows from the cases in which incomplete debentures have been held to constitute a good equitable security, though the principle does not seem to have been applied hitherto in a case where no debentures at all have been issued. In Re Strand Music Hall Co. (3 De G. J. & Sm. 147) bonds were issued as security for advances, the name of the obligee being left blank, and in the liquidation of the company it was contended that the bonds were invalid, and that the lender could only rank as a simple contract creditor. But the Court of Appeal held that, though the bonds were invalid, the intention to create the security was sufficient to make it good in equity. "Where this court," said TURNER, L.J., "is satisfied that it was intended to create a charge, and that the parties who intended to create it had the power to do so, it will give effect to the intention, notwithstanding any mistake that may have occurred in the attempt to effect it." And so in Ross v. Army and Navy Hotel Co. (35 W. R. 40, 34 Ch. D. 43), where a covering deed was assumed to be void for want of registration under the Bills of Sale Acts, it was held that a good security was created by the contract in the debentures to give such a security as was intended to be given by the deed. Another instance of the invalidity of instruments in consequence of their being issued in blank occurred in Re Queensland Land and Coal Co. (42 W. R. 600; 1894, 3 Ch. 181), where debentures were issued in this manner. That at law they were ineffectual until the blanks had been filled in and the debentures redelivered there was no doubt (Powell v. London and Provincial Bank, 41 W. R. 545; 1893, 2 Ch. 555), but NORTH, J., held that they were good in equity. "Assuming," he said, "a clear, definite contract that debentures are to be issued in respect of a loan, the [lender] has as good a claim as if the debentures had been actually issued, the only difference being that the claim is equitable and not legal, and he is entitled to hold these debentures in the same manner as if the name of the person to whom payment is to be made had been filled up before execution." This passage expressly states that the actual issue of the debentures is immaterial, provided a contract to issue them exists, and it covers, therefore, the circumstances of Pegge v. Neath Tramways Co. The plaintiff had advanced money to the defendant company on the security of promissory notes and of an undertaking by the company to issue to him at any time debentures to a corresponding amount of a series then being issued. It was held by NORTH, J., that, although no debentures were ever issued to the plaintiff, he was entitled by virtue of the undertaking to rank pari passu with the actual debenture-holders. the section by implication applied to the case of a breach of these regulations the provisions of the Highway Acts as to the apprehension of persons guilty of offences under those Acts, would have been to distort the language of a very plain section. The Legislature has not thought fit to provide any special means of apprehending offenders against the regulations as to bicycles contained in section 85, and if the result is to make these regulations very difficult to enforce, the remedy lies with the Legislature alone. As to furious riding the case is very different: the law on this subject, as applied to bicycles, depends upon the earlier part of section 85 and upon the Highway Acts there referred to. Bicycles are carriages within the Highway Acts, and therefore the law as to carriages contained in those Acts is applicable to them. Turning to section 78 of the Highway Act, 1835, it is found to be an offence if a person drives any sort of carriage furiously so as to endanger the life or limb of any passenger, and every such offending driver may, by the authority of the Act, with or without warrant, be apprehended by any person who shall see such offence committed; and section 79 contains further provisions enabling the officers of the highway authority to seize any unknown person whom they have seen committing an offence against the Act, and to take him before a justice. That the rider of a bicycle is "driving a carriage," and may be convicted of furious driving under the Highway Act, 1835, was actually decided by MELLOR and LusH, JJ., nearly ten years before the Local Government Act, 1888, was passed (Taylor v. Goodwin, 4 Q. B. D. 228), so that the declaration, contained in section 85 of that Act, that a bicycle is a carriage was almost superfluous. It is thus abundantly clear that the provisions of sections 78 and 79 of the Act of 1835 as to the apprehension and punishment of offenders are applicable to furiously-riding bicyclists, for they are guilty of an offence under that Act; and it is equally clear that bicyclists riding at night without a light, or failing to give audible warning of their approach, are not amenable to the provisions of that Act, but are guilty only of a breach of the regulations contained in section 85 of the Act of 1888, which section does not provide for their summary arrest by the casual constable or other onlooker. LAST WEEK, at the London Sessions, a young man was convicted upon an indictment for obtaining the sum of one penny by a false pretence. He was selling newspapers in the street, and by crying false news of a sensational character induced the prosecutor to buy one of his papers. This is certainly a comof men and boys shouting false news. Undoubtedly steps mon offence in the Metropolis. At night certain streets are full should be taken to punish such offenders, but it will probably strike most persons as rather strange that there is no summary method of dealing with them. To set in motion the elaborate and costly procedure by indictment in order to punish a wretched boy who sells a halfpenny journal by telling some trumpery lie walnut. It seems, however, that there is no other way of as to its contents, is very like using a steam-hammer to crack a attaining the desired end, and that even this heavy engine can be used only where the person defrauded of his halfpenny is willing to undergo all the trouble and loss of time of appearing THE DECISION in Hatton v. Treeby (1897, 1 Q. B. 452), that a before a magistrate, grand jury, and petty jury. Surely it ought constable has no power to stop a bicyclist riding at night without to be made an offence, punishable summarily with some small a light, has given rise to a misapprehension in some quarters. penalty, for newsvendors to cry news which they have no reason It has been thought that the decision applies to cases of furious to believe is contained in their papers, whether they obtain riding as well as of riding without a light. But a glance at money thereby or not. The very wide powers, however, which the case, and the enactments upon which it turned, easily magistrates and police possess in some directions, especially in disposes of this notion. The section which requires bicyclists London, are as remarkable as their limitations in other directo carry lights after dark is section 85 of the Local Government tions. It will surprise many people (even lawyers) to learn that Act, 1888. That section begins by declaring that bicycles and there is any restriction upon the distribution in the streets of other similar machines are "carriages within the meaning of inoffensive handbills. Nevertheless, at the Guildhall policethe Highway Acts," and it goes on to provide that "the follow-court a few days ago a boy was convicted of distributing handing additional regulations shall be observed by any person or bills outside the Stock Exchange without the permission of the persons riding or being upon such carriages"; then follow the Commissioner of Police. This conviction was under section 9 regulations as to carrying lights and sounding bells or whistles, of the Metropolis Streets Act, 1867, which provides that "no and the penalty for breach of these regulations. It will at once picture, print, board, placard, or notice, except in such form be observed that the regulations thus prescribed rest upon their and manner as may be approved of by the Commissioner of own authority alone, and are in no way dependent upon the Police, shall, by way of advertisement, be carried or distributed Highway Acts, or upon the fact that bicycles have been declared in any street" within four miles of Charing Cross by any by the earlier part of the section to be "carriages." To hold that person riding in a vehicle or on horseback or on foot, under pain |