NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.-The fifteenth annual general meeting of this society was held on Wednesday, the 28th of September. Mr. H. G. Harvey, M.A., in the chair. On the motion of Mr. C. S. Hadaway, seconded by Mr. J. H. Youll, the report of the committee was adopted. The treasurer's report was also adopted. Notices of motion were brought forward for the society's consideration at its next meeting. Several new ordinary members and the officers for the ensuing session were elected, the president being Mr. H. C. Harvey, M.A., and the vice-president Mr. Edward Clark, and the hon. secretaries Messrs. A. B. Lemon and R. E. B. Lisle. The president then presented the society's prizes. Then followed a speaking competition. The president, in the course of an interesting address which he then delivered, referred to certain anomalies existing in the present legal system, dealing more especially with the subjects of land transfer, the duties and liabilities of trustees, and the insufficient remuneration of solicitors. A vote of thanks to the chairman, proposed by Mr. W. M. Pybus, jun., and seconded by Mr. L. H. Booth, concluded the proceedings. THE RIGHT OF MARITIME CAPTURE. THE following paper was read at the recent Swansea meeting by Mr. H. G. CAMPION, F.R.G S. (London). It is with considerable confidence that I venture to introduce to this meeting a subject which is exclusively a matter of international law, and of more concern to humanity at large than affecting any common interest of the profession. The study of international law possesses a fascination to which many lawyers have succumbed, and in this particular instance, standing as we do upon this Western soil replete with its maritime associations, its importance is brought home to our minds with a force which renders its consideration not inopportune. The matter, moreover, is one to which public attention has been peculiarly attracted of late. It is difficult in dealing with any question of international law in a paper such as this to consider it solely in the abstract and resist the almost overpowering influence which prompts one to approach it from that standpoint which most nearly concerns the interests of that particular nation to which one belongs. It is also well-nigh impossible to deal but in the most superficial manner with the mass of authority and expressions of opinion existing upon the subject. International law mainly consists in certain rules of conduct which modern civilized and independent States regard as being binding on them in their dealings with one another. Two principal views may be held as to the nature and origin of these rules. They may be considered to be an imperfect attempt to give effect to an absolute right which is assumed to exist or to be capable of being discovered, or they may be looked upon simply as a reflection of the moral development and the external life of the particular nations which recognize them. The doctrine that the regulation of war does not affect individuals, except in so far as they contribute to the prosecution of hostilities, starts with the admitted fact that international law is concerned chiefly with the relations of States, the individual so far as he is affected at all being generally affected only through the State. But individuals occupy a double position. In one respect they are private persons with individual rights of person and property apart from the State, and in the other they are members of the State from whom it derives its means of carrying on the war, and whom it employs as its agents. The two aspects establish a substantial distinction, to which come writers give effect by supposing an individual to be an enemy only whilst actively engaged in the conduct of hostilities, and others by regarding him as such to the extent only that he is in the service of his State and assists in the maintenance of hostilities. Both consider that in all matters outside these lines he is a stranger to the war in person and property. Again, it is contended that individuals, though not actively engaged in the prosecution of hostilities, assist by the contributions they make through the medium of taxation in supplying the State of which they constitute members with the funds necessary for the prosecution of the war, and as such are indirectly actively hostile, and that to admit the general principle that war should be conducted solely on the basis of one State operating against another would abrogate the well-established principle that on entering an enemy's territory an invader replaces the civil government by military control, and may make any changes which are necessary to secure his safety and success. The measure of violence which is permitted in war is that which is required to put stress on the enemy and reduce him to terms. International law as applied to war consists of customary rules by which the maximum of violence which can be regarded as necessary at a given time is determined. These rules, though sufficiently ascertained at any one moment to afford a test of the conduct of a State, have been, and still are, changing under the double influence of the growth of humane feeling and the self-interests of belligerents. Sovereign States are independent entities, subject to no control and owning no superior, and are therefore only bound by these rules and obligations of which they approve. If States therefore are to be subject to anything which can strictly or analogically be called law they must accept a body of rules by general consent as an arbitrary code irrespective of its origin, or else they must be agreed as to the general principles by which they will be governed. No formal code has been adopted by the body of civilized States, and scarcely any principles have been laid down by common consent. The evidence of the existence of such principles must, therefore, be sought in national acts, in other words, in such international usage as can be looked upon as authoritative. They come under two great divisions-namely, (1) unilateral acts; and (2) treaties and other compacts. The former find their sanction in decisions of competent courts, and declarations and expressions of opinion by the particular States from which they respectively emanate. They may be subdivided into two categories: (1) Those which are declaratory of the law as understood by the State avowing the same; (2) those which stipulate for practices which the State asserting the same wishes to see incorporated in the usages of the law, but which it knows to be not generally accepted as law. The latter may be described as compacts solemnly entered into by the respective parties thereto relative to the matters to which they refer, and are only binding upon the contracting parties; and most jurists again separate these in their turn into three further divisions-viz., (1) Those rules which are declaratory of the law as understood by the contracting parties; (2) those which stipulate for practices which the contracting parties wish to incorporate into the usages of the law, but which they know to be outside the actual law; (3) those which are in fact mere bargains, in which, without any reference to legal considerations, something is bought by one party at the price of an equivalent given to the other. The consensus of modern opinion seems to be that the principle that war is conducted on the basis of State operating against State is sound, with the sole exception of such exigencies as may arise in the local conduct of a war upon hostile territory which necessitate interference with the rights of local private individuals, but then only to such an extent as such exigencies locally require. War, speaking generally, may be conducted on three bases: (1) Community against community, individual striving against individual; (2) the recognized naval and military forces of any one Power (assisted by authorized individuals operating on their own initiative and responsibility) contending against the recognized naval and military forces of another Power or Powers similarly assisted; and (3) the naval and military forces exclusively of the one Power operating against the exclusive naval and military forces of the other. In its origin war was conducted under the first head with indescribable horrors, being literally a war of extermination, ruthless destruction, and confiscation of private property. To-day among civilized nations war is, broadly speaking, conducted under the third head so far as operations ashore are concerned, and under the second head as regards things maritime, being with regard to the latter but little advance upon primeval ideas except in relation to extermina. tion, ruthless destruction, and confiscation; the right of maritime capture originating in, and constituting a survival from, the most remote ages of antiquity, and being one of the oldest customs of the sea. The first authoritative recorded recognition of the right of maritime capture, apart from the lex non scripta, is to be found in the "Book of the Consulate,' the earliest extant edition of which was printed in Barcelona in 1494, and consists of: (1) A code of procedure issued by the Kings of Aragon for the guidance of the courts of the consulate of the sea; (2) a collection of ancient customs of war. By the rules established by this code a belligerent was enabled to seize the property of his enemy wherever he found it, but he was prohibited from robbing his friend. While, therefore, an enemy's ship was subjected to confiscation, its neutral cargo remained free, and it was even provided that the owners of the cargo should be permitted to purchase the ship from the captain at a fair price in order to avoid the loss attendant upon being carried into his ports. An early usage to the like effect probably existed in the northern seas, for the Hollanders, during the war with Lubeck, and other Hanse-towns, in 1438, crdained that goods belonging to neutrals in an enemy's ship should not be made prize, and it is said that until the middle of the sixteenth century France followed a like rule. Subsequently, however, the Dutch, upon their becoming the great ocean carriers, changed this rule to one by which the character of the ship alone was regarded. France, by the Royal Declaration of 1650, granted the freedom of neutral goods to enemy's ships, but she concluded a series of treaties from 1659 onwards in which the older custom was embodied. However, she formally re-enacted the confiscation of neutral goods by the Ordonnance of 1681. Generally speaking, the whole question was one of policy, and was dealt with by each nation as best coincided with its own peculiar maritime requirements on the subject for the time being. In the last century England maintained the old rule that goods of neutrals were free, but France held to her old opinion, which subsequently received the adhesion of Spain. In the present century the confiscation of neutral property reappears in the treaties of France and the United States, set off, as usual, against the freedom of enemy's goods in neutral vessels; but the United States admitted in principle that neutral goods should be free. Thus, while England and the United States were, apart from treaties, committed to the principle that the property of neutrals in course of transport by a belligerent is free, and the lesser maritime nations were by self-interest compelled to adopt the same doctrine, France and Spain stood alone in maintaining that its confiscation was permitted by accepted usage. When, therefore, France, at England's request, abandoned her assertion in 1854, Spain alone adhered to it in principle; and though neither America nor Spain signed the Declaration of Paris, the outcome of the Hispano-American war has been to secure no permanent expression of opinion from either belligerent. Before proceeding to discuss the provisions of the Declaration of Paris it is necessary that the vexed question of "Contraband of War and the system of "Privateering" should be considered. The former term (Low Lat. contrabannium) arising from the words merces banno interdicta was, according to Ducange, originally applied to a prohibited domestic trade in time of peace, such as salt. The expression was first used by us to denote a prohibited neutral trade with a belligerent in the Treaty of Southampton (September 17th, 1625), between Charles I. and the States General of Holland. Originally the utmost diversity of views prevailed as to its interpretation, and it is to be feared that no two authorities could compile a list of contraband and non-contraband of war without a very wide divergence of opinion. Grotius incorporates all commodities under three heads: (1) For direct and immediate use in war alone-as arms; (2) useless for warlike purposes and which serve only as luxuries; (3) useful both in war and peace-as money, provisions, ships, and articles of equipment. Of the first, it is true that he is on the enemy's side who supplies him with war material. The second gives rise to no questions. With reference to the third res ancipitis usus, the state of the war and the circumstances attending the contest must be considered. If the seizure is necessary for defence, the necessity confers the right of arresting the goods. The subject from its broad standpoint is very ancient, it being considered by many authorities, including Vattel and Bynkerschoek, to be referred to in the Jus Gentium of Justinian, whilst Marcian prohibits the sale to "Barbari" of oil, wine, arms, and iron. So also the Decretals of Gregory (v. 6-12) and the Bull "In Coena Domini" denounce excommunication against all who should supply the Saracens with arms. Early modern writers assume that, apart from treaties, a belligerent has a right indefinitely to vary the list of articles constituting munitions of war, and it is clear that the question of immediate subserviency must vary with the character of the hostilities, the resources of the combatants, and the actual location of the conflict. In 1589 Elizabeth successfully justified the capture of a fleet of vessels belonging to the Hanse Confederation and carrying corn and naval munitions to Spain. In the seventeenth century opinions varied to such a degree with the political situation that it is difficult to extract from any contemporary treaties the prevailing custom even of one nation. In 1674 Sir Leoline Jenkins told Charles II, that nothing ought to be deemed contraband "but what is directly and immediately subservient to the use of war except it be in the case of besieged places," which raises the question of blockade. Powerful neutrals, dissatisfied with the decision of a captor's prize, might issue letters of reprisal. This was done by England when a cargo of tobacco bound for Holland was condemned in Spain, on the ground that by its use "the consumption of victuals might be prolonged." It is apprehend that means other than reprisals would be resorted to by modern nations to remedy similar grievances. All the treaties of the eighteenth century excluded provisions. In the nineteenth century fourteen treaties (all with one exception contracted with the United States) mention munitions of war and horses, and treat provisions, money, metals, ships, and articles of naval construction as innocent. The doctrine of the English Courts at the commencement of the present century with respect to provisions was that generally they were not contraband, but might become so in circumstances arising out of the particular situation of the war or the conditions of the parties engaged in it. This would appear, speaking generally, to be the rule with reference to all articles under the second head, for it is obvious that no rule or list of articles entitled to immunity can be compiled which will operate equably under all circumstances and conditions, and it is idle to ask nations to accept rules - which may not coincide with belligerent exigencies. The United States in the Civil War went so far as to regard cotton as contraband, upon the specious argument that "cotton was useful as collateral security for loans negotiated by the Confederate States for cash to meet current expenses or to purchase arms or munitions of war." It need hardly be said that, per sequitur, money was invariably regarded as contraband. Among Continental jurists two currents of opinion are visible. Some writers endeavour to reduce the list of contraband within the narrowest dimensions, notwithstanding the increased variety of material which is applicable more or less immediately to the purposes of war. Others, recognizing the difficulty of making a fixed and restricted list of articles and the improbability that assent to any such list would be generally given, or, if given, would be adhered to in circumstances of temptation, retain the principle of variability, while in most cases giving evidence of a healthy wish to confine its effect within reasonable limits. In strictness, every article contraband in its essence, or made so by the special circumstances of the war, is liable to confiscation, but it is usual for those nations who vary their list of contraband to subject the latter class to preemption, which by English law means purchase of the commodity at its net cost price, together with a reasonable profit calculated at 10 per cent. on that amount. This mitigation is also allowed in the case of products native to the exporting country even when they are affected by an inseparable taint of contraband. A privateer may be defined as a vessel belonging to and manned by a private owner, but empowered by a commission from the State to conduct hostilities at sea. The commission is either a commission of war or of marque and reprisals in time of peace. It was marque in this sense which was granted to the aggrieved subjects of the realm of England as early as the statute 4 Henry 5, c. 7. The term "letters of marque are now generally less strictly applied to the commission under which a privateer sails in time of war By the Naval Prize Act, 1864, prize by privateer belongs to the Crown in its office of Admiralty. The statement in the Declaration of Paris that "privateering is abolished" is only binding upon signatories and powers who afterwards assented, and these only when engaged in war inter se. The United States of America, Spain, Mexico, and Uruguay have not acceded to the Declaration of Paris, and by the Constitution of the United States of America Congress has power to grant letters of marque and reprisals. In the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, Prussia, in spite of the Declaration of Paris, created a volunteer fleet, the crews being subjected to naval discipline, and the officers commissioned by that Power with the promise that according to their success in the war they should receive standing commissions in the Imperial Navy. France remonstrated to England, but Lord Granville stated he could not object as Prussia's action was outside the Declaration of Paris. The operations of this fleet appear, however, to have been restricted to a desultory preying upon French men-of-war. Before granting a privateering commission, it is usual for the Government issuing it to require the lodgment of certain money or the execution of a bond by way of security against illegal conduct on the part of the holder, and against any breach of the instructions which are issued for his guidance. The commission is revocable on proof of its misuse being adduced, and by the English law, at least, the owners of the vessel were liable in damages, and it was usual for the Lords of the Admiralty to institute proceedings in the Admiralty Court upon complaint of ill-conduct. As a further safeguard, a privateer was liable to visit by public vessels of war, and neutral ships of war were permitted to verify the lawfulness of the commission it sailed under by requiring its production. For the future privateers can only be employed by signatories to the Declaration of Paris during war with countries other than signatories or by nonsignatories. Non-commissioned ships have the right to resist when summoned to surrender, and in these circumstances acquire the rights of belligerents. Some writers assert that non-commissioned ships have the right of attack, but the weight of practice and legal authority is against this. Privateering was abandoned because it was thought that no armaments maintained at private expense with the object of private gain, and often, necessarily, for long periods together operating beyond the reach of the naval forces of the State to which they were accredited, could be kept under proper control. The general sea law down to 1856 may be said to have been that neutral vessels and neutral goods were to be restored to their owners without compensation for loss or inconvenience attending capture, but doctrines inconsistent with this rule met with the sanction of two nations: (1) The French doctrine of hostile infection, whereby neutral property on hostile vessels and enemies' property on neutral ships became good prize; and (2) the Dutch rule, by which the character of the ship alone was regarded. In this relation it is interesting to note that boats engaged in coast fishing, even when owned by belligerents, were exempted from seizure. In establishing this rule France was mainly instrumental for its introduction, though the principle was recognized and acted upon by the United States of America in the Mexican War. Hostile vessels which, at the outbreak of war, are on their voyage to the port of & belligerent from a neutral or hostile country, and even vessels which, without having issued from an enemy's or other foreign port, have commenced loading at that time, are occasionally exempted from capture during a specific period. At the beginning of the Crimean War an Order in Council directed that "any Russian merchant vessel which, prior to the date of this order, shall have sailed from any foreign port bound for any port or place in her Majesty's dominions, shall be permitted to enter such port or place and to discharge her cargo and to depart forthwith without molestation, and any such vessel if met at sea by any of her Majesty's ships shall be permitted to continue her voyage to any port not blockaded." France, in 1870, gave a like indulgence, and German vessels, which had begun to leave upon the date of the declaration of war, were permitted to enter French ports without limit of time and to reissue with a safe conduct to a German port. In 1877, also, Turkish vessels were allowed to remain in Russian ports until they had taken in cargo, and to issue freely afterwards. It is worthy of attention that somewhat inconsistently this privilege does not extend to ships of belligerents bound to neutral ports. Shipwrecked vessels, vessels driven to take refuge in any enemy's port by stress of weather or want of provisions, are stated to be exempt from seizure, but the law is doubtful. In 1799 & Prussian vessel called The Diana, which had taken refuge in Dunkirk, was restored by the French Courts, but a French Ordonnance, in the year 1800, prescribed a contrary rule, and in the same year the precedent established by the case of The Diana was reversed, and a vessel entering a French port under similar circumstances was condemned. It is of interest to note as evidence of the extent to which privateering prevailed, that between the months of July, 1778, and May, 1779, prizes to the value of £1,025,600 were taken by the Liverpool ships alone, and on the 17th of January, 1781, thirteen days after the declaration of war, 545 letters of marque passed the English stamp office. The Declaration of Paris, 1856, which supervened upon the Treaty of Paris, was occasioned by the inconvenience resulting from two nations in alliance against a common foe holding different principles regarding the law of maritime capture, and was intended to supply a basis for a uniform doctrine on maritime law, and to which all States not represented at the Congress were invited to acquiesce; for upon the outbreak of the Crimean War France had maintained the system of seizing with an enemy's ship all the goods on board, even though they belonged to a neutral State, but she respected neutral vessels and their cargo, even when the latter was owned by the enemy. England, on the contrary, respected neutral cargo although under an enemy's flag, but seized her antagonist's goods on a neutral vessel. France attacked the ships, England the freight. Upon the outbreak of hostilities the Allied Powers decided to each abandon what was prejudicial to the other, and to adopt a very broad basis, and to abandon the right itself of authorizing privateers. The new system, dated the 30th of March, 1854, was definitely confirmed by the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which provided that: (1) Privateering is definitely and altogether abandoned; (2) a neutral flag protects an enemy's goods, with the exception of arms and munitions of war; (3) neutral goods, arms always excepted, may not be seized under an enemy's flag; (4) blockades to be obligatory must be effective. A belligerent, if strong enough at sea to close one or more ports of his enemy, may give notice to neutral Powers that such port or ports are blockaded, and thereafter, if any neutral vessel attempts to enter or leave them the belligerent may treat it as an enemy, and may destroy or capture and condemn it as an ordinary prize. (To be continued.) We regret that by an error in our issue last week (p. 788) the paper of Mr. Cooke. on the Workmen's Compensation Act was ascribed to Mr. Reid, instead LEGAL NEWS. APPOINTMENT. Mr. JAMES WILLIS MILLS, of the firm of Crust, Todd, Mills, & Sons, of Beverley, has been appointed a Commissioner for taking Affidavits to be used in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, Canada. CHANGES IN PARTNERSHIPS, &c. DISSOLUTIONS. RALPH CECIL LEACH and THOMAS WILLIAM OGLE WHEELER, solicitors (Leach & Wheeler), 10, Serjeant's-inn, Fleet-street, London, and 21, Lower Phillimore-place, Kensington. Dec. 31. The said Ralph Cecil Leach will continue to practise at No. 10, Serjeant's-inn, Fleetstreet, aforesaid, and the said Thomas William Ogle Wheeler will continue to practise at 21, Lower Phillimore-place, Kensington, aforesaid. [Gazette, Oct. 11. GENERAL. It is stated that Mr. Henry Hall, of the Solicitors' Department of the Treasury, has resigned his appointment there after a considerable term of service. He was formerly in the Public Prosecutor's Office, when that post was held by Sir John Maule, Q.C. The Globe refers to the threefold defence successfully put forward against a claim for damages for dog-bite: "Firstly, defendant denies that plaintiff was bitten; secondly, defendant denies that it was his dog which bit the plaintiff; and, thirdly, defendant never had any dog." The Times says it is understood that Sir Francis Jeune's Load Line Committee is nearing the end of its labours, and that, unless some unforeseen hitch occurs, its report will be in the hands of ministers in time for a Bill embodying such of its recommendations as may need legislative sanction to be introduced early next Session. The Exchange Telegraph Company states that two or three members of the Money-lending Committee, who took a specially active part in the inquiry of last session, are preparing a Bill on the lines of the committee's report, which they intend to introduce in the event of the Queen's Speech of next session containing no specific promise that the Government will bring forward a Bill dealing with the evils of the usury system. The judges (Bigham and Phillimore, JJ.) have fixed the following commission days for the Autumn Assizes on the Northern Circuit: Carlisle, Tuesday, November 1; Lancaster, Friday, November 4; Manchester, Tuesday, November 8; Liverpool, Monday, November 28. There will be no civil business at Carlisle or Lancaster, but at Manchester and Liverpool both civil and criminal business will be taken. Mr. Justice Kennedy has fixed the following dates for the Autumn Assizes on the Western Circuit: Salisbury, Tuesday, October 25; Dorchester, Saturday, October 29; Taunton, Wednesday, November 2; Bodmin, Tuesday, November 8; Exeter, Friday, November 11; Winchester, Thursday, November 17; Bristol, Thursday, November 24. Criminal business only will be taken, and the court will sit at each place at 11 a.m. on the morning following the above dates. The Chicago Legal News eays that there are several hundred persons engaged in the practice of the law in Chicago whose names do not appear upon the roll in the Supreme Court as having been admitted. They are advised to take the next examination before the State board of law examiners, the 4th of October, 1898, and in the meantime cease practising law or go into some other business. The Grievance Committee of the Chicago Bar Association, it is understood, has the names of all such persons, and is taking steps to proceed against them. On the occasion of the re-opening of the Law Courts, a special service will be held at Westminster Abbey, at 11.45 a.m., which the Lord Chancellor and Her Majesty's judges will attend. Members of the bar wishing to be present are requested to send their names on or before Wednesday, the 19th of October, to the Secretary of the General Council of the Bar, 2, Hare-court, Temple, E.C. Barristers attending the service must wear robes, and should be at the Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster Abbey (Dean's-yard entrance), where robing accommodation will be provided, not later than 11.30 a.m. The Daily News says that Mr. Dane, Q.C., who has lately been appointed county court judge of Mayo, one day (according to a friend of his) took a short drive on an outside car to the Four Courts in Dublin, and, on getting down, paid the exact fare to the driver, who was evidently about to demand more when a comrade, who had just put down another fare, stopped him with a loud whisper: "Be aisy, Mike; don't you see it's Mr. Daue?" "Oh," answered the other in a tone of perfect enlightenment, "it's one o' thim Danes, is it? Well, annyhow, this is a mighty poor way of takin' revenge for Clontarf; an' me wid a family of seven small childer." Mr. Dane heard this allusion to Brian Boru's victory over the Danes, as its author intended, and he so much appreciated its wit that he gave the man an extra shilling. A New York paper says that an army of mosquitoes recently laid siege to the Flatbush police-court and succeeded in utterly routing judge, clerks, prisoners, and big policemen, so that administration of justice had to be suspended until such time as the victorious hosts chose to vacate the stronghold they had won. The moment that Judge Bristow took his seat it was seen that there was trouble in the air. The atmosphere was so thick with it that he had to fight his way to the bench, and on arriving there he immediately detailed two stalwart policemen to clear the court of all intruders. This they attempted to do with the aid of towels and coats and any available weapon, which they swung vigorously about them. But the wily insects merely flitted from place to place, buzzing awhile around the unkempt heads of the early morning drunks and disorderlies, now and then seeking shelter up the sleeves or on the expansive necks of the policemen themselves, only to return again and circle gaily around the attractive scalp of the presiding magistrate. Huge palm-leaf fans were procured, and two athletic policemen were stationed on either side of the judge with orders to keep them in perpetual motion. Still the ubiquitous insects sang their song of victory in the ears of justice. Candles were lighted around the altar of the blind goddess and cheerful invitation was extended to the insects to singe their wings in the fascinating flame, but they didn't see it in that light. Eventually when the court and attendants realized that there was no escape but flight, books and papers were hastily piled together, and after the prisoners had been returned to their peaceful cells the session was adjourned until such time as the mosquitoes should decide to seek fresh fields and pastures new. The following is the rota of arrangements fixed by the judges of the Queen's Bench Division for the ensuing Michaelmas sittings-viz.: The Lord Chief Justice will sit with a Divisional Court during the sittings (the hearing of commercial causes intervening from the 10th to about the 30th of November); Mr. Justice Hawkins will be absent on the SouthEastern Circuit until the beginning of December, and on his return will try actions; Mr. Justice Mathew will proceed with the commercial list Justice Day will be away on the North and South Wales Circuit until until his departure for the Midland Circuit on the 10th of November; Mr. about the end of November, and on his return will try actions; Mr. Justice Wills will sit with a Divisional Court during the sittings, and Mr. Justice Grantham, Mr. Justice Lawrance, and Mr. Justice Bruce are expected to try actions during the whole of the sittings; Mr. Justice Wright will be engaged on companies work and bankruptcy business (sittings with the Railway and Canal Commission intervening); Mr. Justice Kennedy will be away on the Western Circuit until about the end of November, and on his return will proceed with the commercial list; Mr. Justice Ridley will be in attendance at judge's chambers until his departure for the Oxford Circuit on the 7th of November; Mr. Justice Bigham will try actions (a sitting at the Central Criminal Court intervening) until he leaves for the Northern Circuit on the 1st of November; Mr. Justice Darling will try actions until he goes on the North-Eastern Circuit on the 16th of November, as also will Mr. Justice Channell until he joins the same circuit on the 2nd of December; and Mr. Justice Phillimore will try actions until he goes on the Northern Circuit on the 8th of November. The Paris correspondent of the Westminster Gazette, in an interesting letter on the French Court of Cassation, says: "The Court of Cassation, which is the supreme Court of France, is held in Paris, and is composed of three chambers: the Chambre des Requêtes, the Chambre Civile, and the Chambre Criminelle. It is the lastnamed chamber which has charge of the Dreyfus dossier, which M. Loew, the President, upon whom the decision of the Court entirely depends, has already examined in conjunction with the charge of M. Manau, the Procurator-General of the Republic, who sent the case before the court for revision. M. Loew has appointed M. Bard, the well-known Councillor of the Court of Cassation-who, by the bye, was the Reporter' in the appeal which Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart made against the decision of the Indictment Court in regard to the charge against Major Esterhazy and his mistress, Marguerite Pays-as' Reporter' in the Dreyfus case, and that lawyer is engaged at the present time upon the examination of documents which constitute the Dreyfus dossier, an undertaking which one may not expect him to conclude before three weeks have elapsed. Upon the report of M. Bard the court will act, and one of three courses is open to it to follow. The President of the Criminal Chamber which case M. Bard, the 'Reporter,' would make a deeper and still more of the Court of Cassation may either order an inquiry to be made, in come to light, or, having obtained fresh instructions from the Minister of detailed examination of the dossier, or decide that no new fact' had Justice, simply annul the judgment of the Dreyfus court-martial. But whatever the Court of Cassation may decide there can be no doubt that confidence of all parties." its decision will be held in great respect, the court having the entire THE PROPERTY MART. SALES OF THE ENSUING WEEK. Oct. 18. Mr. ALFRED RICHARDS, at the Mart, at 2, £22,000 Four per Cent. Perpetual Debenture Stock of Alliance and Dublin Consumers Gas Co. (See advertisement, this week, p. 3.) Oct 19.-Messrs. EDWIN Fox & BOUSFIELD, at the Mart, at 2, Long Leasehold Investment in the City of London, known as St. Andrew's chambers, Nos. 37, 39, and 41, St. Mary-axe, of the rental value of about £1,220 per annum; held for a long tem at a ground-rent of £500 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Samuel Price & Sons, London. (See advertisement, Oct. 8, p. 4.) Oct. 19.-Messrs. DOUGLAS YOUNG & Co., at the Mart:-Freeholds: Semi-detached double-fronted Residence at Balham; rental value, £65. Seven Houses at Thorntonheath, all let at rentals producing £185 per annum. Leaseholds: Eight Weekly Houses at South Norwood; rental, £193 14s. Solicitor, W. M. Willcocks, Esq., London.Semi-detached Residence at Streatham; rental, £60. Solicitors, Messrs. Caldecott & Bowden, and Messrs. Shaen, Roscoe, Massey, & Co., of London.-Leasehold Residence at Camden-Town; rental, £55. Stoke Newington: Shop and Dwelling-house; rental, £50. Two Weekly Houses; rental, £78. And 48, Palatine-road; rental, £30. Dalston; Two Residences; rentals, £40 each. Nos. 96 and 98, Greenwood-road; producing £81. Solicitors, Messrs. Pettiver & Pearkes, London. Oct. 19.-Messrs. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Detached Residence at Enfield; lease 83 years Solicitor, Geo. J. Dowse, Esq., London. Freehold Residence at Gravesend; value £60 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Hatchett-Jones & Co., London. Freehold Shop and Premises in Walworth-road; let at £60 per annum. Solicitor, E. Elvy Robb, Esq., Tunbridge Wells. Oct. 20.-Messrs. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m. : REVERSIONS: To the Moiety of 3 Houses in Essex-road, Islington, producing £135 per annum ; lady aged 84. Solicitors, Messrs. Crosse & Sons, London. To One-fourteenth of a Trust Estate, value £15,390; lady aged 68, provided lady aged 37 survive her; also a Legacy of £500 on same conditions, with covering policies. Solicitor, Grantham R. Dodd, Esq., London. To One-eighth of a Residuary Estate represented by Railway and other Stock value £20,752; lady aged 59. Solicitors, Messrs. Radcliffe, Cator, & Hood, London. To a Trust Fund of £776 New Zealand 4 per Cent. Stock; lady aged 83. Oct. 20.-Messrs. BEADEL, WOOD, & Co., at the Mart, at 12 precisely, in 92 Lots, the First Portion of the Estates of the late William Angerstein, Esq., comprising highly-important and valuable Freehold Ground-rents, amounting to £1,460 178. per annum, upon about 140 high-class Residences and Villas situate on and near Blackheath, the rackrents amounting to an estimated gross annual value of over £11,000. Solicitor, W. T. Hartcup, Esq., Norwich.-Greenwich and Westcombe-hill, Kent, close to the Westcombe-park Station on the Woolwich branch of the South-Eastern Railway: Freehold Wharf Premises and Building Land, having extensive frontages to the River Thames, let at a rent of £120, also 14 acres of land; a Block of Freehold Building Land of about six acres, with frontage of 1,100 feet, near the Woolwich-road, forming excellent sites for manufacturing premises; a Plot of Valuable Freehold Land, situate near Westcombe-park Station, containing about half an acre frontage. (See advertisements, Sept. 17, p. 3.) WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house, have the Sanitary Arrangements thoroughly Examined, Tested, and Reported Upon by an Expert from Messrs. Carter Bros., 65, Victoria-street, Westminster. Fee quoted on receipt of full particulars. (Established 21 years.)—[ADVт.] WINDING UP NOTICES. London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Oct. 7. ANGLO-AFRICAN GOLD PROPERTIES, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Sept 22, directed to be heard on Oct 12 instead of Oct 26. Peal & Payne, Budge row, petner's Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Oct 11 COBAR GOLD MINES, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)- Creditors are required, on or before Feb 10, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Wm. B. Peat, 3, Lothbury DOCK SOAP CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 18, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to E. W. Helps, Bank chmbrs, Bridgwater. Reed & Co, Bridgwater, solors GOLD FIELDS OF MYSORE, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 15, to send their names and addresses, and particulars of their debts or claims, to William Frederick Garland, 6, Queen st place. Ashurst & Co, Throgmorton avenue, solors for liquidator HOME INDUSTRIES CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Sept 29, directed to be be heard on Oct 26. Trass & Enever, Coleman st, solors for petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Oct 25 INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES TRUST CORPORATION, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Aug 3, directed to be heard on Oct 26. Thomas, Finsbury pavement, solor for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Oct 25 MEITER SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Oct 3, directed to be heard on Oct 26. Allen & Son, Carlisle st, Soho sq, solors for petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Oct 25 REALISATION AND DEVELOPMENT CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Sept 30, directed to be heard on Oct 26. Learoyd & Co, Coleman st, solors for petner SUFFOLK BREAD, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Oct 3, directed to be heard on Oct 26. Ralph Raphael & Co, Moorgate st, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Oct 25 "SUPERB" SHIP CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 12, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to R. Hughes-Jones SWANSEA OLD BREWERY CO, LIMITED (OLD COMPANY) (IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) Creditors are required, on or before Nov 7, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Richard Garnaut Cawker, 11, Temple st, Swansea. Hartland & Co, Swansea, solors to liquidator THOMAS TAYLOR & SONS, LIMITED-Creditors are requested, on or before Nov 19, to send their names and addresses, and the particulara of their debts or claims, to William Kevan, 12, Acresfield, Bolton Holden & Holden, Bolton, solors for liquidator WALKERS' AIRE ROLLER MILLING CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 17, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to John Edwin Whitham, Barum House, Halifax FRIENDLY SOCIETY DISSOLVED. "CLANDEBOYE "STEAMSHIP CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required to send in particulars of claims to G M Allan, 4, St Mary Axe CROSLAND COAL CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Richard Naylor & Co, at the office of the company at Scholes, Cleckheaton Wavell & Co, Halifax, solors for the liquidators HALSALL & HAMPTON, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 25, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Frederick Arthur Fitton, 26, Brown st, Manchester "JOSEPH JOHN STEAMSHIP CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required to send in particulars of claims to G M Allan, 4, St Mary Axe KING OF THE WEST GOLD MINING CO, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 19, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to H St John Hodges, Finsbury House, Blomfield st "LENY" STEAMSHIP CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required to send in particulars of claims to G. M. Allan, 4, St Mary Axe STEAMSHIP CITY OF BELFAST," LIMITED-Creditors are required to send in particulars of claims to G. M. Allan, 4, Et Mary Axe TUNBRIDGE WELLS MARKET CO, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before Oct 25. to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Henry Delves & Co, 44, High st, Tunbridge Wells. Martin, Tunbridge Wells, solor to liquidators WELL-STREET OIL WORKS, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 23, to send their names and addresses, and particulars of their debts or claims, to Lionel Henry Lemon, 4, King st, Cheapside WHEELDONS, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 20, to send their names and addresses, and particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr John William Withnell, 20, Booth st, Manchester Tucker & Co, Manchester, solors CREDITORS' NOTICES. UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM. London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Sept. 27. ASHWELL, PHILIP HENRY, Herne Bay, Baths Proprietor Oct 31 Taylor & Taylor, Ne Broad st BAKER, ALEXANDER, San Salvador, Central America, Bank Manager Nov 1 Preston, Óld Broad st BERLEY, JOSEPH, Sheffield Nov 30 Taylor & Co, Sheffield BOOTH, EMMA JANE, Oldham Nov 30 Knott, Oldham BOYD, HUGH FENWICK, South Kensington Oct 31 Tarry & Co, Serjeant's inn, Fleet st CORNISH, WILLIAM, Baddow, Essex, Farm Labourer Oct 22 Gray, Chelmsford DOUGLAS, EDWARD, Newcastle on Tyne, Bootmaker Nov 11 Brown & Son, Newcastle on HEMMING, HENRY, Wisborough Green, Sussex, Auctioneer and Land Valuer Oct 22 Holmes HOLLAND, MATTHEW HENRY, Chorlton cum Hardy, Lancs, Licensed Victualler Oct 15 HOLMES, ESTHER, Walworth Oct 31 Lardner, Hosier lane JOHNSON, WILLIAM GEORGE, Brighton Oct 21 W J & E H Tremellen, Chancery lane MEAD, THOMAS SEYMOUR, Brooklands, Chester Oct 15 Payne & Co, Manchester MORPHEW, JEFFERY, Richmond Nov 24 Mead & Sons, Arundell st, Piccadilly circus NEEDHAM, BEN, Oldham Oct 29 Lees, Oldham NORRINGTON, CHARLES, Epsom, Surrey Oct 24 Courtney Lewis, Adelaide pl, London Bridge RICH, JOHN EDWARD, Biddisham, Somerset, Yeoman Oct 31 March, Axbridge SHARP, BENJAMIN ALLISON, Marsden, nr Huddersfield, Shoemaker Oct 31 Wilmshurst & Stones, Huddersfield SINGLEHURST, CHARLES REUBEN, Litherland, nr Liverpool, Commission Agent Oct 27 Rodway & Co, Liverpool SINGLEHURST, MARY CATHERINE, Litherland, nr Liverpool Oct 27 Rodway & Co, Liverpool SKENE, ELIZABETH ANN, Seghill, Northumberland Oct 31 JD & D M Macdonald, Newcastle upon Tyne SMITH, JAMES BARKELEY, Liverpool Nov 15 Alsop & Co, Liverpool SNOWDEN, GEORGE, Dukinfield, Chester Nov 9 Ellison, Ashton under Lyne BUILDERS' LABOURERS' ROCHDALE GOOD INTENT ACCIDENT AND BURIAL SOCIETY, THORNTON, HENRY, Huddersfield Oct 31 Wilmshurst & Stones, Huddersfield Northern Star, Rope st, Rochdale, Lancaster Sept 28 London Gazette.- TUESDAY, Oct. 11. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. "BLUE STAR" STEAMSHIP CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required to send in particulars of claims to G M Allan, 4, St Mary Axe Walker, GeorGE, Sheffield Nov 30 Taylor & Co, Sheffield WARD, FRANCES MARY, Hampstead Oct 31 Few & Co, Surrey st, Strand WATKINS, WILLIAM, Reading Oct 24 Beale & Martin, Reading WILSON, WILLIAM, Huddersfield, Tailor Oct 31 Wilmshurst & Stones, Huddersfield BANKRUPTCY NOTICES. London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Oct. 7. RECEIVING ORDERS. BARRETT, HERBERT J, Kensington High Court Pet July 21 Ord Oct 5 BASTENDORFF, J. & Co, Islington, Bamboo Furniture Manu BLUNDEN, HENRY JAMES, Clacton on Sea Cambridge BREARLEY, WILLIAM MARSHALL, Heckmondwike, York, COOPER, JOHN MOXHAM, Salisbury, Wilts, Decorator Salisbury Pet Cct 4 Ord Oct 4 CROWE, WILLIAM, Halifax Burnley Pet Oct 5 Ord DIBB, GEORGE, Hulme, Lancs, Sugar Boiler Manchester Pet Sept 13 Ord Oct 5 ELLIS, JOHN WILLIAM, Batley, York, Hairdresser Dewsbury Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 FEWINS, JULIA JOAN, North Evington, Leicester, Baker GREGORY, JOHN THOMAS, and WALTER GREGORY, Hathersage, Derbys, Mill Stone Manufacturers Derby Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 HOLLAND, EDWIN HARRIS, Nottingham pl, Regent's pk, Professor of Music High Court Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 HOWARD, WILLIAM, Peckham rye, Clothier High Court Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 JAMES, FLORENCE, Brompton rd High Court Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5 KEENAN, JAMES, West Hartlepool, Labourer Sunderland Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 LE MESURIER, F N, Portsmouth, Lieutenant High Court LEWIS, JOHN, and JOSHUA LEWIS, Grangetown, Cardiff, MANN, JAMES, Burton on Trent, Beerhouse Keeper Buiton on Trent Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 MARLES, JOHN, Walsall, Coal Dealer Walsall Pet Oct 1 Ord Oct 1 MITCHELL, HENRY, Birstall, York, Wine Merchant Dewsbury Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 PACKER, ELLEN, Nottingham, Lace Manufacturer Nottingham Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 PEARSON, JOHN, Darlington, Commission Agent Stockton on Tees Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5 PENNY, DELIA, Wimbledon Kingston, Surrey Pet Sept 15 Ord Oct 4 RAYSON, JOHN ARTHUB, Bas ghall avue, Commissi on STEVENSON, FREDERICK, Belgrave, Leicester Leicester TILLING, WILLIAM RICHARD, Carnarvon, General Merchant WATTERS, JOHN WILLIAM, West Hartlepool, Steel Worker WILLS, JOHN, Shepherd's Bush, Baker Figh Court Pet WISE, THOMAS HAROLD, Coventry, Grocer Coventry Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 WRIGHT, NICHOLAS, Birkdale, Cab Froprietor Liverpool Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 Amended notice substituted for that published in the London Gazette of Aug 26: LIDDLE, THOMAS TEASDALE, Gateshead, Durham, Glass Manufacturer Newcastle on Tyne Pet Aug 23 Ord Aug 23 Amended notice substituted for that published in the London Gazette of Sept 30: BENDALL, ARCHIBALD HARRY, Cheltenham, Athletic Outfitter Cheltenham Pet Sept 27 Ord Sept 27 FIRST MEETINGS. BAGSHAW, SAMUEL MARK, sen, Lowestoft, Marine Store BUCK, WILLIAM, Ipswich, Builder Oct 21 at 2 Off Rec, COATEN, MARK, Leicester, Fruit Salesman Oct 14 at 3 Off Rec, 1, Berridge st, Leicester CONDUIT, GEORGE EDWIN, Alton, Hants, Music Seller Oct 17 at 3.15 Off Rec, 172, High st, Southampton CROSTHWAITE, THOMAS ELLERAY, jun, Windermere, Westmorland, Grocer Oct 15 at 12 Grosvenor Hotel, Stramongate, Kendal CRUMP, RICHARD, Bewdley, Worcesters, Timber Merchant Oct 14 at 2 John Nicholls, Commercial bldgs, Kidderminster, Auctioneer DAVIS, GEORGE, Mile End rd, Egg Merchant Oct 18 at 11 DAY, ARTHUR, Leicester, Plasterer Off Rec, 1, Berridge st, Leicester FELLS, JOSEPH, Whitechapel rd, Coffee House Keeper Oct 17 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st FORSHAW, ALFRED, Liverpool, Solicitor Oct 18 at 12 Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liverpool Off GANE, WILLIAM JAMES, Wath upon Dearne, York, Printer HOLLY, JAMES EDWARD, Boscombe, Hants, Commission Crypt LEES, EMMA, Saddleworth, Yorks, Farmer Oct 14 at 10 15 dresser Oct 15 at 12.30 Off Rec, 8, King st, Norwich SUCH, CHARLES FREDERICK, Bootle, Lancs, Boot Dealer Oct 14 at 12.40 Off Rec, 17, Hertford st, Coventry TRIPP, GEORGE WILLIAM, Gt Yarmouth Oct 15 at 1.30 Off Rec, S, King st, Norwich TYSOE, DAVID, Walthamstow, Shopfitter Oct 17 at 11 WINCHESTER, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Ilkeston, Boot Dealer WOOLLEN, THOMAS, Bristol, Hay Dealer Oct 19 at 12 Off ADJUDICATIONS. ADAMS, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Walsall, Greengrocer Wal. BEAUMONT, JOSEPH, Micklehurst, nr Mosley, Cheshire, BLUNDEN, HENRY JAMES, Clacton on Sea Cambridge Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5 CAPPS, EDMUND, jun, Turnham Green, Builder Brentford Pet Sept 30 Ord Oct 4 CHESTER, CHARLES JOSEPH, St Leonards, Sussex, Commercial Traveller Hastings Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 CLELLAND, ROBERT, Sleekbu, Northumberland, House Agent Newcastle on Tyne Pet Sept 29 Ord Sept 29 COLE, CHARLES WILLIAM, Cha..ng Cross High Court Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 COOPER, JOHN MOXHAM, Salisbury, Wilts, Decorator Salisbury Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 CROWE, WILLIAM, Halifax Burrley Pet Oct 5 Ord DAVIDSON, JOHN, South Shields, Cycle Manufacturer ELLIS, JOHN WILLIAM, Batley, Yorks, Hairdresser Dewsbury Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 FEWINS, JULIA JOAN, North Evington, Leicester, Baker Leicester Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5 GERRARD, JOHN BURTON, Oldham, Plumber Oldham Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 GOLD, FREDERICK, St Leonards on Sea, Coal Merchant Hastings Pet Sept 15 Ord Oct 4 GREGORY, JOHN THOMAS, and WALTER GREGORY, Hathersage, Derbys, Mill Stone Manufacturers Derby Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 HOLLAND, EDWIN HARRIS, Nottingham pl, Regent's Park, Professor of Music High Court Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 HoWARD, WILLIAM, Peckham rye, Clothier High Court Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 JAMES, FLORENCE, Brompton rd High Court Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5 JENNINGS, ARTHUR EDWARD, Idle, Yorks Bradford Pet Sept 12 Ord Oct 5 JONES, ISAAC, Harlesden, Dairyman High Court Pet July 25 Ord Oct 4 KEENAN, JAMES, West Hartlepool, Labourer Sunderland Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 LEWIS, JOHN, and JOSHUA LEWIS, Grangetown, Cardiff MANN, JAMES, Burton on Trent, Beerhouse Keeper Burton MITCHELL, HARRY, Birstall, York, Wine Merchant Dews- PEARSON, JOHN, Darlington, Commission Agent Stockton PRICHARD, HENRY GEORGE, Parson's Green High Court ROWE, JOHN WILLIS, Dulwich rd, Herne Hill, Cycle Manufacturer High Court Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 SELLENS, WILLIAM, Coventry, Seedsman Coventry Pet Pet Sept 20 Oct 5 Ord Oct 5 STANT, JOHN, Walsall, Butcher Ord Oct 3 Walɛall STEVENSON, FREDERICK, Leicester Leicester Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 WATTERS, JOHN WILLIAM, West Hartlepool, Steel Worker WILLIAMS, ROBERT, Kingsbridge, nr Gorseinon, Glam, WISE, THOMAS HAROLD, Coventry, Grocer Coventry Pet WOODYATT, JOHN, Chiswick Brentford Pet June 16 Ord Sept 30 WOOLLEN, THOMAS, Bristol, Hay Dealer Bristol Pet Oct 1 Ord Oct 4 WRIGHT, NICHOLAS, Birkdale, Lancs, Cab Proprietor Liverpool Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 Amended notice substituted for that published in the London Gazette of Aug 26: LIDDLE, THOMAS TEASDALE, Gateshead, Durham, Glass Manufacturer Newcastle on Tyne Pet Aug 23 Ord Aug 23 Amended notice substituted for that published in the London Gazette of Sept 30: BENDALL, ARCHIBALD HARRY, Cheltenham, Athletic OutOrd Sept 27 fitter Cheltenham Pet Sept 27 London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Oct. 11. RECEIVING ORDERS. ADAMS, SAM, High Halden, Kent, Farmer Hastings Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6 ALLEN, WILLIAM, Bristol Bristol Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7 ANDERSON, WESLEY HERBERT, Kingston upon Hull, Plumber Kingston upon Hull Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7 ANSAH, JOHN Ossoo, Brixton High Court Pet Aug 27 Ord Sept 19 ASTON, GEORGE, Cardiff, Grocer Cardiff Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 BACON, BEN, Manchester, Merchant Manchester Pet Sept 14 Ord Oct 7 BACON, RICHARD, and EDGAR BACON, Ketley Brook, nr BASTABLE, WILLIAM THOMAS, West Lulworth, Dorset, Pet Oct 8 Ord Oct 8 BURROWS, GEORGE GOLDEN, Dawlish, Devon, Baker Exeter Pet Oct 8 Ord Oct 8 CARTLIDGE, THOMAS JAMES, Burslem, Staffs, Oven Builder Hanley Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6 CLARK, WILLIAM, Elwick, Durham, Innkeeper Sunderland Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5 CLARKE, THOMAS, Nottingham, Commercial Traveller CLEAR, JAMES THOMAS, Cullercoats, Northumberland, COOMBES, FREDERICK JOHN, Torquay, Fruiterer Exeter COOMBS, WILLIAM THOMAS, Canton, Ca rdiff, Chemist Cardiff Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 Cox, EDWARD RANDALL, Oxford st, Boot Dealer High Court Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 7 Cox, HARRY WILLIAM, Landport, Hants, Ironmonger Portsmouth Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6 CRAFT, HENRY, Gt Grimsby Gt Grimsby Pet Oct 4 Ord Oct 4 CURD, GEORGE, ELIJAH CURD, and WILLIAM CURD, City rd, Cabinet Makers High Court Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7 DALLING, WILLIAM, Swansea Swansea Pet Oct 6 Od |