Page images
PDF
EPUB

IRVING, SAMUEL, Coventry, Glass Dealer Coventry Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7

ISAACS, EDWARD ABRAHAM, Maida Vale, Stationer High Court Pet Sept 13 Ord Oct 7

JUDSON, CHARLES. Manchester, Weighing Machine Fitter Manchester Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7

KENSHOLE, JOHN WILLIAM, Torquay, Butcher Exeter Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 7

LANGNEY, JOHN, Holmfield, nr Halifax, Builder Halifax Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 8

LEWIS, EVAN, Kennington cross, Milk Seller High Court Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6

LEWIS, JOHN, Pontyberem, Carmarthens, Builder Carmarthen Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5

MABBETT, FRANK BURMAN, Whitminster, Glos, Farmer
Gloucester Pet Sept 23 Ord Oct 5
MURGATROYD, SAMUEL, Luddenden, nr Halifax, Joiner
Halifax Pet Oct 8 Ord Oct 8

OERTON, SIDNEY, Walsall, Traveller Walsall Pet Oct 6
Ord Oct 6

O'SULLIVAN, JAMES ALEXANDER, Chancery In High Court
Pet March 24 Ord May 25

PAGE, ABRAHAM ENOCH, West Bromwich, Hay Dealer
West Bromwich Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7
SKELTON, EDWARD HARRY, Bexley Heath, Kent, Mining
Engineer Rochester Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6
SLATTER, OLIVER THOMAS, Caronbury, Medical Practitioner
High Court Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6
STEELE, WILLIAM, Hatfield Peverel,

Essex, Butcher

[blocks in formation]

ANSAH, JOHN Ossoo, Brixton Oct 18 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

BARRETT, HERBERT J, Kensington Oct 19 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

BASTENDORFF, JOSEPH, Islington, Bamboo Furniture Manufacturer Oct 18 at 1 Bankruptcy bldgs,

Carey st
BELLAMY, ARTHUR, Leicester Oct 19 at 12.30 Off Rec, 1,
Berridge st, Leicester

BLUNDEN, HENRY JAMES, Old Chesterton, Cambs Oct 19
at 10.15 Off Rec, 5, Petty Cury, Cambridge
BOWYER, WILLIAM, jun, Northwich, Cheshire, Builder
Oct 18 at 11 Royal Hotel, Crewe

CARD, EPHRAIM, Yeovil, Tailor Oct 18 at 1 Off Rec,
Endless st, Salisbury

CHESTER, CHARLES JOSEPH, St Leonards, Commercial Traveller Oct 18 at 12.30 Young & Co, Bank bldgs, Hastings

COLE, CHARLES WILLIAM, Tooting Graveney, Surrey Oct 20 at 11 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st COOMBES, FREDERICK JOHN, Torquay, Fruiterer Oct 20 at 10.45 Off Rec, 13, Bedford circus, Exeter Cox, HARRY WILLIAM, Landport, Hants, Ironmonger Oct 18 at 3 Off Rec, Cambridge junction, High st, Portsmouth

DAVIES, JAMES, Troedyrhiwfwch, Glam, Grocer Oct 18 at 3 65, High st, Merthyr Tydfil

DE BULNES, ELIAS FERNANDEZ, Liverpool, Manager Nov 2
at 2.30 Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liverpool
DIBB, GEORGE, Manchester, Cabdriver Oct 21 at 2.30 Off
Rec, Byrom st, Manchester

Oct

ELLIS, JOHN WILLIAM, Batley, Yorks, Hairdresser Oct 18
at 11 Off Rec. Bank chibrs, Batley
EVANS, RICHARD HENRY, Aberdare, Glam, Decorator
21 at 12 65, High st, Merthyr Tydfil
FARRANT, JOHN QUILLIN, York Oct 20 at 12.15 Off Rec,
28, Stonegate, York

FEWINS, JULIA JOAN, North Evington, Leicester, Baker
Oct 18 at 3 Off Rec, 1, Berridge st, Leicester
FRANCIS, JOHN, Armley, Leeds, Coal Merchant Oct 19 at
11 Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds
GALLEHAWK, WILLIAM JAMES, Sheerness, Journey Coach-
builder Oct 31 at 12.30 115, High st, Rochester
HASSELL, LEWIS, and WILLIAM EDWARDS, Birmingham,
Tailors Oct 19 at 11 174, Corporation st, Birming ham
IRVING, SAMUEL, Coventry, Glass Dealer Oct 20 at 12 Off
Rec, 17, Hertford st, Coventry

JAMES, FLORENCE, Brompton rd Oct 18 at 12 Bankruptcy bidgs, Carey st

KEENAN, JAMES, West Hartlepool, Labourer Oct 18 at
3 Off Rec, 25, John st, Sunderland
KELLAM, WILLIAM, Snienton, Nottingham, Engine Driver
Oct 18 at 12 Off Rec, 4, Castle pl, Park st,
Nottingham
KENSHOLE, JOHN WILLIAM, Torquay, Butcher Oct 20 at
10.45 Off Rec, 13. Bedford circus, Exeter
LANE, CHARLES, Cardiff, Baker Oct 20 at 11
Queen st, Cardiff
LANGLEY, JOHN, Halifax, Builder Oct 19 at 11 Off Rec,
Townhall chmbrs, Halifax

Off Rec, 29,

LONSDALE, WILLIAM HENRY, Stockton on Tees, Fruiterer Oct 18 at 11 Off Rec, S, Albert rd, Middlesborough

MABBETT, FRANK BURMAN, Whitminster, Glos, Farmer
Oct 18 Off Rec, Station rd, Gloucester
MARLES, JOHN, Walsall, Coal Dealer Oct 20 at 11 Off
Rec, Walsall

MARTINDALE, GEORGE H, Bridlington Quay, Yorks, Tobacconist Oct 19 at 11 Off Rec, 74, Newborough, Scarborough

MITCHELL, HENRY, Birstal!, Yorks, Wine Merchant Oct
18 at 3 Off Rec, Bank chmbrs, Batley
MURGATROYD, SAMUEL, Luddenden, nr Halifax, Joiner
Oct 19 at 11.30 Off Rec, Townhall chmbrs, Halifax
OLD, WILLIAM CHARLES, Birmingham, Tobacconist Oct 21
at 11 174, Corporation st, Birmingham
PRITCHARD, HENRY GEORGE, Parson's Green Oct 19 at 1
Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

PURKIS, CHARLES, Kingston on Thames, Clothier Oct 18
at 12.30 24, Railway app, London bridge
REES. DAVID, Rhymney, Mon, Grocer Oct 20 at 12 65,
High st, Merthyr Tydfil

REEVES, AARON, Parkstone, Dorsets, Grocer Oct 18 at
12.30 Off Rec, City chmbrs, Endless st, Salisbury
SELLENS, WILLIAM, Coventry, Seedsman Oct 20 at 11.30
Off Rec, 17, Hertford st, Coventry
SHELDON, JOSEPH, Oldbury, Worcester, Brickworks Fore-
man Oct 19 at 2 County Court. West Bromwich
SKELTON, EDWARD HARRY, Bexley Heath, Kent, Mining
Engineer Oct 31 at 12 115, High st, Rochester
STANT, JOHN, Walsall, Butcher Oct 20 at 11.30 Off Rec,
Walsall

TURNER, JAMES VINCENT, Hanley, Staffs, Solicitor Oct 19
at 11.30 Off Rec, King st, Newcastle under Lyme
VINES, H KENRICK, Brockley, Kent, Medical Practitioner
Oct 18 at 11.30 24, Railway app, London bridge
WALKER, RICHARD HEATH, Catford, Kent Oct 19 at 11.30
24, Railway app, London bridge
WATTERS, JOHN WILLIAM, West Hartlepool, Steel Worker
Oct 18 at 3.30 Off Rec, 25, John st, Sunderland
WELLS, THOMAS, Princes st, Cavendish sq Oct 18 at 11
Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st

WHITE, JOIN OSBORN, Freshwater, I W, Builder

at 2 Off Rec, Newport, I W
ADJUDICATIONS.

Oct 22

[blocks in formation]

ANDERSON, WESLEY HERBERT, Kingston upon Hull, Plum-
ber Kingston upon Hull Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7
ASTON, GEORGE, Cardiff, Grocer Cardiff Pet Oct 4 Ord
Oct 4

BACON, RICHARD, and EDGAR BACON, Ketley Brook, nr
Wellington, Cycle Makers Madeley Pet Oct 7 Ord
Oct 7
BASTENDORFF, JOSEPH. Islington, Bamboo Furniture
Manufacturer High Court Pet Sept 2. Ord Oct 5
BREW, JOHN ARCHER. Gospel End, Staffs, Licensed Vic-
tualler Dudley Pet Oct 1 Ord Oct 6

BURROWS, GEORGE GOLDEN, Dawlish, Devon, Baker
Exeter Pet Oct S Ord Oct 8

CARTL IDGE, THOMAS JAME?. 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, Sherwood Rise, Nottingham. Commercial
Traveller Nottingham Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6
CLEAR, JAMES THOMAS, Cullercoats, Northumberland,
Grocer Newcastle on Tyne Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7
COOMBES, FREDERICK JOHN, Torquay, Fruiterer Exeter
Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5

COOMBES, WILLIAM THOMAS, Cardiff, Chemist Cardiff Pet

Oct 4 Ord Oct 4

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 Ord
Oct 7

DAND, CHARLES, Copthall ct High Court Pet Aug 26 Ord Oct 4

DIBB, GEORGE, Manchester, Cabdriver Manchester Pet Sept 13 Ord Oct S

ELLIS, GEORGE, Walsall, Grocer Walsall Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7

FIELD, HARRY, Whitby Scarborough Pet Oct 7 Ord
Oct 7

GALLEHAWK, WILLIAM JAMES, Sheerness, Journeyman
Coachbuilder Rochester Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7
HASSELL, LEWIS, and WILLIAM EDWARDS, Birmingham
Tailors Birmingham Pet Aug 19 Ord Oct 8
HENSBY, ALBERT WILLIAM, Upper Holloway, Builder High
Court Pet Aug 6 Ord Oct 6

HOLT, WILLIAM, Prestwich, nr Manchester, Milk Dealer
Salford Pet Oct 8 Ord Oct 8

Hoy, Jous, Leeds, Chemist Leeds Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6
IRVING, SAMUEL, Coventry, Glass Dealer Coventry Pet
Oct 7 Ord Oct 7

JUDSON, CHARLES, Manchester, Weighing Machine Fitter
Manchester Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7
KENSHOLE. JOHN WILLIAM, Torquay, Butcher
Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5

Exeter

LEWIS, EVAN, Kennington Cross, Milkseller High Court Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6

LEWIS, JOHN, Pontyberem, Carmarthens, Builder Carmarthen Pet Oct 5 Ord Oct 5

LYNES, BENJAMIN CHARLES, Brixton, Licensed Victualler
High Court Pet July 25 Ord Oct 8
MABBETT, FRANK BURMAN, Whitminster, Glos, Farmer
Gloucester Pet Sept 23 Ord Oct 8

MAY, HENRY, Hampstead, Fruiterer High Court Pet
Sept 24 Ord Oct 8

MURGATROYD, SAMUEL, Luddenden, nr Halifax, Joiner Halifax Pet Oct 8 Ord Oct 8

MUSSELWHITE, CHARLES, Wilton, Wilts, Saddler Salisbury Pet Sept 28 Ord Oct 8

OERTON, SIDNEY, Walsall, Traveller, Walsall Ord Oct 6

Pet Oct 6

PAGE, ABRAHAM ENOCH, West Bromwich, Hay Dealer
West Bromwich Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7
ROWAN, THOMAS, St Mary Axe High Court Pet July 8
Ord Oct 6

SKELTON, EDWARD HARRY, Bexley Heath, Mining Engineer
Rochester Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6

SLATTER, OLIVER THOMAS, Canonbury, Medical Practi-
tioner High Court Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6
STEELE, WILLIAM, Hatfield Peverel, Essex, Butcher
Chelmsford Pet Oct 7 Ord Oct 7
THOMAS, WILLIAM JOHN, Dowlais, Glam, Draper Merthyr
Tydfil Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 7

TOON, JOSEPH JOHN, Leamington, House Decorator Warwick Pet Sept 30 Ord Oct 5

VINES, H KENRICK, Brockley, Medical Practitioner Greenwich Pet Aug 24 Ord Oct 7

WALKER, RICHARD HEATH, Catford Greenwich Pet Sept 5 Ord Oct 7

WOODWARD, CHARLES JAMES, Clapton, Fruiterer High Court Pet Aug 5 Ord Oct 6

WRIGHT, WILLIAM, Hucknall Torkard, Notts, Farmer Nottingham Pet Sept 16 Ord Oct 7

ADJUDICATION ANNULLED. DAY, WILLIAM HENRY SILVESTER, St Helens, Lancs, Veterinary Surgeon Liverpool Adjud Feb 2, 1895 Annul Oct 7

Al

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. Subscription, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE, which includes Indexes, Digests, Statutes, and Postage, 528. WEEKLY REPORTER, in wrapper, 268.; by Post, 288. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 26s.; by Post, 28s. Volumes bound at the office-cloth, 2s. 9d., half law calf, 5s. 6d.

EXCESSIVE EATING AND DRINKING.

We all eat two much flesh food and drink too much tea. The former militates against working energy, and the tannic acid and other deleterious properties to be found in tea lower the spirits and injure the health. The body, in fact, is a working engine, and as such it must be treated. The waste of tissue which daily goes on can only be replaced by the proper assimilation of food.

It cannot be done with medicine.

Science, however, has again come to the rescue, and it cannot be too widely known that tone and vigour can be promoted, and the rosy cheeks natural to health restored by the vitalising and restorative properties of a most valuable discovery. The evidence of medical men and the public is conclusive on this point.

It proves that Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa as a Food-beverage possesses nutrient, restorative, and vitalising properties, which have hitherto been non-existent.

It aids the digestive powers, and is invaluable to tired men and delicate women and children.

It has the refreshing properties of fine tea, the nourishment of the best cocoas, and a tonic and recuperative force possessed by neither, and can be used in all cases where tea and coffee are prohibited.

It is not a medicine, but a unique and wonderful foodbeverage.

Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa is made up in 6d. packets and 9d. and 1s. 6d. tins. It can be obtained from all Grocers, Chemists, and Stores, or from 60, 61, and 62, Bunhill-row, London, E.C,

As an unparalleled test of merit, a dainty sample tin of Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa will be sent post free on application to any address, if when writing (a postcard will do) the reader will name the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL.

LAW. A Solicitor and Notary of great

experience desires a Situation; salary £100.INGERTHA, 2, Marsden-street, South Shields.

ATENTS.-Mr. F. W. GOLBY, A.I.M.E.,

PATE

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.

PATENTS and TRADE-MARKS.

W. P. THOMPSON & CO., 322, High Holborn, W.C. (and at LIVERPOOL, MANCHESTER, and BIRMINGHAM), LONDON and INTERNATIONAL AGENTS of Provincial and Foreign SOLICITORS in PATENT matters. Representatives in all Capitals.

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

By the Articles of Association the issue of Debentures

[blocks in formation]

is restricted to the amount of the uncalled capital, and HIGH SHOT HOUSE,

they are secured by a Trust Deed, establishing a preferential charge thereon for the holders.

Prospectuses and full information as to the rates of interest may be obtained from the Manager, 8, Great Winchester-street, London, E.C.

[blocks in formation]

To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the
Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c.

ROBES FOR QUEEN'S COUNSEL AND BARRISTI RS.
SOLICITORS' GOWNS.

ST. MARGARET'S, TWICKENHAM,

For Gentlemen under the Acts and privately. Terms,
23 to 4 Guineas.
Apply to Medical Superintendent,

F. BROMHEAD, B.A., M.B. (Camb.), M.R.C.S. (Eng.)

[blocks in formation]

Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town THE COMPANIES ACTS, 1862 TO 1898.

Clerks, and Clerke of the Peace.

Corporation Robes, University and Clergy Gowns.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed]

BRISTOL and WESTERN COUNTIES SALES and VALUATIONS of LANDED, RESIDENTIAL, and BUSINESS PROPERTY, SHARES, REVERSIONS, &c., by

ME

TESSRS. DUROSE SUTTON & CO., THE COUNTY AUCTION MART, BRISTOL. The attention of Solicitors, Trustees, &c., is invited to the central and commanding position of the Mart, affording the greatest publicity to Sale Announcements. The Auctioneers have numerous Clients at all times prepared to Purchase or make Advances on Mortgage of Real Property.

PETERBOROUGH. Established 1820.

MESSRS.

BRISTOW, WARWICK,
POTTER,

SURVEYORS, LAND AGENTS. AUCTIONEERS,
AND VALUERS,

&

MARKET SQUARE, PETERBOROUGH. Surveys made, Reports and Valuations for Mortgage, Partition, Exchange, Enfranchisement, Estate Duty, Tenantright, and Timber; Estates Managed and Rents Collected. Bankers: Stamford, Boston, & Spalding Bank, Peterborough.

QUARTERLY ACCOUNTS RENDERED.

FULLER, HORSEY, SONS, & CASSELL,

11, BILLITER SQUARE, LONDON, E.C. Established 1807.

AUCTIONEERS, VALUERS, AND SURVEYORS

OF

MILLS AND MANUFACTORIES.
PLANT AND MACHINERY
WHARVES AND WAREHOUSES

Telegraphic Address-"FULLER, HORSEY, LONDON.

VA

ALUATIONS of Modern and Old LACES. Highest price given for Old Point and Modern Real Laces, Old Embroideries, &c.-HAYWARD'S, 11, Old Bond-street. Established 1770 in Oxford-street.

ASPATRIA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

(via Carlisle), situated in one of the finest Stockraising districts of the country. Practical and scientific instruction. Success in Examinations of Surveyors' Institution. Preparation for colonies. Six farms, creamery, workshops.

J. SMITH HILL, B.A., B.Sc., Principal.

LONSDALE PRINTING WORKS.

LONSDALE BUILDINGS, 27, CHANCERY LANE.

ALEXANDER & SHEPHEARD
PRINTERS and PUBLISHERS.
BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, MAGAZINES.
NEWSPAPERS & PERIODICALS.
And all General and Commercial Work.
Every description of Printing-large or small.

Printers of THE SOLICITORS' JOURNAL Newspaper.

Authors advised with as to Printing and Publishing.
Estimates and all information furnished.

Contracts entered into.

THE MOST NUTRITIOUS.

EPPS'S

GRATEFUL-COMFORTING.

СОСОА

BREAKFAST-SUPPER.

DIAMONDS, PEARLS,

GOLD JEWELLERY,
PLATE MEDALS

[graphic]

Valuations

FOR THE

+ LEGAL + PROFESSION PROBATE, &c.

PROMPTITUDE.

LOW CHARGES,

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

Suitable clauses, settled by Counsel, can be obtained on application to THE LICENSES INSURANCE CORPORATION AND GUARANTEE FUND, LIMITED,

24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C. Mortgages Guaranteed on Licensed Properties promptly, without special valuation and at low rates.

ALLIANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

Established 1824. Capital, £5,000,000 Sterling.
HEAD OFFICE: BARTHOLOMEW LANE, LONDON.
Chairman: RIGHT HON. LORD ROTHSCHILD.

LONDON BRANCHES 1, ST. JAMES'S ST., 8.W.; 63, CHANCERY LANE, W.C.;
NORFOLK ST., STRAND; WIGMORE ST.; 3, MINCING LANE, E.C.
LIFE AND FIRE INSURANCES AT MODERATE RATES.

Life Policies free from Restrictions, with Perfect Security and Liberal Bonuses.
Special forms of Policies have been prepared to provide for payment of ESTATE DUTIES.
LEASEHOLD AND SINKING FUND POLICIES.
Full Prospectuses on application.
ROBERT LEWIS, Chief Secretary.

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

THE CHANCERY Division cause lists show a decline in the LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE number of causes and matters. There are in all 585 causes and matters as compared with 743 actions and matters a year ago, and 617 at the commencement of the last sittings.

SOCIETY.

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

A DECLINE in numbers is also a feature of some of the Queen's Bench lists, which contain 603 causes in all, as against 1,041 a year ago. There are 453 actions for trial, as against 906 a year ago, and 431 at the commencement of the last sittings. On the other hand, there are 122 matters in the Divisional Court list, in place of 44 matters at the commencement of the last sittings.

THE ARRANGEMENTS made by the Judges of the Chancery Division for the trial of witness actions during the ensuing sittings are as follow: Mr. Justice NORTH will take his Witness List for the fortnight beginning on Tuesday, the 15th of November, and will sit continuously (Monday, the 21st of November, excepted) until Saturday, the 26th of November, his motions, &c., being taken by ROMER, J. Mr. Justice STIRLING will begin on Tuesday, the 15th of November, and sit continuously (Monday, the 21st of November, excepted) until Saturday, the 26th of November, his motions &c., being taken by KEKEWICH, J. Mr. Justice KEKEWICH will begin on Tuesday, the 1st of November, and sit continuously (Monday, the 7th of November, excepted) until Saturday, the 12th of November, his motions, &c., being taken by STIRLING, J. Mr. Justice ROMER will take his Witness List as stated in the Sittings Paper, his motions, &c., being taken by NORTH, J.

THE CRIMINAL Evidence Act has now been in force for over a week, and as far as can be gathered from the newspaper accounts of trials in which the accused persons have given evidence, it has worked very satisfactorily up to the present. Cases

have been reported in which persons have been acquitted when the evidence for the prosecution made things look very black indeed for them, apparently entirely because of the new aspect put upon the facts by the sworn testimony of the accused. On the other hand, more than one case has occurred in which a guilty person has secured his own just punishment by clearing up in the course of cross-examination any doubts which the evidence for the prosecution might have left in the minds of the jury. Not many serious difficulties seem to have yet arisen as to the construction of the Act, but at least two decisions have been given which will probably be generally disapproved of. The first of these is a matter of small importance. The Act provides that an accused person "shall not be called as a witness in pursuance of this Act except upon his own application." At the London Sessions, counsel defending a prisoner proposed, at the end of the evidence for the prosecution, to call his client as a witness. The Deputy-Chairman, however, ruled that counsel must not make the application for the person charged, but that such person must apply with his own mouth for leave to go into the witness-box. We cannot think that the Act means this. Surely an application made by a prisoner through his counsel is his own application. If the Act does mean what Mr. LOVELAND-LOVELAND thinks it means, there does not seem to be any good reason for such a provision, as a prisoner will, of course, make the application as a rule on the prompting of his counsel. Moreover, it is hardly seemly, when a prisoner is defended by counsel who advises that he shall give evidence, for a judge to intervene and deter the man from following his counsel's advice by an exposition of the law as to perjury.

C.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE OTHER decision referred to is one of much greater importance, and is really a serious matter. Section 2 of the Act provides that when the only witness called for the defence is the accused person himself, he shall be called immediately after the close of the evidence for the prosecution. Also, by section 3 it is enacted that where the right of reply depends upon the question whether evidence has been called for the defence, the fact that the person charged has been called as a witness shall not of itself confer on the prosecution the right of reply. On these two sections the Recorder of Nottingham has decided, in a case defended by counsel in which the prisoner alone gave evidence for the defence, that counsel for the prosecution had no right to sum up his case after the prisoner had given evidence. Now, it is expressly provided by 28 Vict. 18 (commonly known as Denman's Act), that where a prisoner is defended by counsel, counsel for the prosecution shall have the right to address the jury a second time "for the purpose of summing up the evidence against such person," in case witnesses are not called for the defence; and further, that save for this alteration in the practice the "right of reply should be as theretofore. It is clear, therefore, that a "summing up" is not the same as a 'reply." Both are mentioned in the same section of Denman's Act. The Recorder of Nottingham, however, seems to have rather confused the two. A speech in reply, it is submitted, is one in answer to speech by the other side. If it is proper for counsel for the Crown to sum up his case where no witnesses are called for the defence, still more desirable is it that he should do so when the prisoner gives evidence, and the Criminal Evidence Act could never have intended to take away the power given by Denman's Act. It is to be observed that where the prisoner alone gives evidence for the defence, it is the express purpose of the Act to reserve to his counsel the valuable privilege of having the last word to the jury, and this is a most fair and proper provision. If, however, the Recorder of Nottingham is right, we are brought to face this absurdity, that in a long and complicated case, where it is most desirable for counsel for the Crown to sum up his case, he can be deprived of the right so to do by the calling of the accused alone as a witness, which perhaps still further complicates the case, though it in no way deprives the prisoner's counsel of his privilege of the last word. We observe that Lord LUDLOW, in his remarks on the new Act, which our readers will find elsewhere, says that the object of section 2 "is to give the prosecution in cases defended by counsel, in summing up the evidence, an opportunity of commenting on the evidence so given" [i.e., by the prisoner].

THE CASE of Barnes v. Glenton (1898, 2 Q. B. 223) is the latest of the series of decisions relating to the operation of section 8 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874. Money was lent to A. and others in 1882 on security which may be shortly described as a sub-mortgage not containing any covenant for repayment of the advance. Interest was paid from time to time by A.'s co-debtors up to 1896, and, the above action being subsequently brought against A. and his co-debtors, the question arose whether such payment by them kept the debt alive as against A. Section 8 bars any action or suit to recover any money secured by "any mortgage, judgment, or lien, or otherwise charged upon or payable out of any land or rent" after twelve years, "unless in the meantime some part of the principal money or some interest thereon shall have been paid," or such acknowledgment given as the section requires. If, then, the case fell within section 8, it would seem to follow, on a literal construction of the words of the enactment, that any payment on account of principal, or any payment of interest thereon, would altogether stop the statute from running. But it was contended for A. that, there being no express covenant, the liability, if any, was for a simple contract debt within the Limitation Act, 1623, with the result that the six years' limitation of actions applied, and with the further result that A. was protected by the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, s. 14, from being chargeable by reason of any payment made by A.'s co-contractors or co-debtors, which enactment, it was admitted, did not apply to the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874: see Re Frisby, Allison v. Frisby (38 W. R. 65, 43 Ch. D. 106). In Sutton v. Sutton (31 W. R. 369, 22 Ch. D. 511) section 8 was held to apply not only to the remedy against the land, but also to an action on an express personal covenant to repay in a mortgage. The decision of the Court of Appeal in that case was a surprise to the profession (see 43 Ch. D., at p. 108), and the subsequent history of the case (which is to be found in the judgment of CHITTY, J., in Re Turner, Turner v. Spencer, 43 W. R. 153) shews that the plaintiff's claim might have been so framed as not to have raised the point decided, which proved not to be conclusive of the case, but it leaves the decision untouched, and that has become a landmark in the law of limitation. In Barnes v. Glenton the court (Lord RUSSELL, C.J.) refused to confine section 8 to cases where there was a specialty, holding that the effect of section 8 was to take out of the Limitation Act of James I. for all purposes all actions of debt secured by mortgage or otherwise charged upon or payable out of land. It was pointed cut that cases of security by lien, which were not often effected by specialty contract, were expressly included in section 8. The case was therefore governed by section 8, and the only question left was whether the payments made by A.'s co-debtors were sufficient to keep the claim alive against A., as to which the decision in the Court of In the opinion of FRY, L.J., in that case, "a payment satisfying Appeal in Re Frisby (supra) was held to be conclusive against A. the words of the section is made whenever there is a render of money to a person entitled to receive it by a person liable to pay it" (38 W. R. at p. 66, 43 Ch. D. at p. 117).

IT is, perhaps, one of the chief functions of the courts to apply Acts of Parliament to cases which the wisdom of the Legislature has not foreseen. A good illustration is afforded by the case of Jones v. Walker in the Birmingham County Court, which is reported elsewhere. A man who had been working as a blacksmith applied for employment in the erection of a gasholder for the Birmingham Corporation. There was no vacancy for him in that capacity, but the contractors' foreman put him on to a job which only required unskilled labour. Nothing was said as to the rate of wages. He had not worked more than three hours when an accident occurred by which he was severely injured and rendered incapable of work. The nature of the accident brought the case within the Act of 1897, but a dispute arose as to the rate of compensation. The rule upon this subject is laid down by clause 1 (b) of the first Schedule. In case of total or partial incapacity for work the compensation is to be a weekly payment not exceeding 50 per cent. of the workman's "average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed, but if not, then

The

for any less period during which he has been in the employment the termination of a voluntary winding up (sections 142, 143) of the same employer, such weekly payment not to exceed £1." require the liquidators to call a general meeting for the purpose This is clear enough for cases where the workman's employment of receiving a final account. The liquidators then make a has lasted for a sufficient number of weeks to make it possible return to the registrar of the meeting having been held and of to strike an average-possibly one week would give an average its date, and on the expiration of three months from the date for this purpose. But what is to be done where, as in the of the registration of the return, the company is to be deemed to present case, there has neither been a week's work nor has any be dissolved. Such dissolution, however, is not an absolute bar rate of wages been agreed upon? The claimant pro- to all further proceedings in relation to the company. In Re posed to refer back to his previous employment as a Crookhaven Mining Co. (L. R. 3 Eq. 69) it was held that the blacksmith, where he was earning 33s. 6d. a week. court had jurisdiction to make an order in the voluntary He accordingly claimed a weekly payment of 16s. 9d. winding up after the expiration of the three months, if the But this was obviously inadmissible, and so Judge WHITE- application for the order was made before the expiraHORNE held. The rate of wages contemplated by the Act tion of such period. There the delay in the hearing of refers only to the time of employment under the employer the application had been due to the intervention of the Long against whom the claim is made. It would be possible to argue Vacation. Lord ROMILLY, M.R., held that this could not affect that the case was not within the Act at all, no weekly earnings the rights of the applicant, and that he was entitled to stand in upon which to strike an average having accrued. But this the same position as though the application had been heard view was not put forward by the insurance company who were before the expiration of the three months. A similar delay has behind the defendants, and if it had been it seems the judge led to a similar decision in Whiteley Exerciser (Lim.) v. Gamage would not have adopted it. His desire, he said, was to carry | (1898, 2 Ch. 405), the delay on this occasion, however, being due out the purpose of the Act loyally, and this was inconsistent to the congested state of business in the court. The general with a narrow interpretation of its provisions. But if some scale meeting under section 142 in the winding up of the plaintiff of wages had to be applied, and none had been agreed upon company was held on the 8th of January, 1898. between the parties, it seemed inevitable to adopt the current rate return was registered under section 143 on the 14th of January. for the kind of work to which the plaintiff had been actually put. Consequently the company was to be deemed to be dissolved For the unskilled labour in which he was employed at the time on the 14th of April. A summons dealing with the taxation of the accident the current rate was 24s. a week, and at half of the costs in the action was taken out by the defendant on the this, or 128. a week-the amount which the contractor had 4th of February, but it did not come on for hearing until the 15th originally offered to pay-the compensation was fixed by the of July. NORTH, J., however, considered that the decision of Lord ROMILLY in Re Crookhaven Mining Co. was ample justification for his adjudicating upon the matter, notwithstanding the statutory dissolution of the company. In Coxon v. Gorst (1891, 2 Ch., P. 75) CHITTY, J., is reported to have intimated in the course of the argument that Re Crookhaven was contrary to the later decisions, and that the dissolution was an absolute bar to the jurisdiction of the court. But apparently this was said under a misapprehension. In Re Pinto Silver Mining Co. (8 Ch. D. 273) and Re London and Caledonian Marine Insurance Co. (11 Ch. D. 140) the Court of Appeal refused to make a compulsory order for winding up after the company had been dissolved under the voluntary liquidation, and it was said that such an order could only be made on the ground of fraud. But these cases do not seem to prohibit the jurisdiction in matters which are pending at the date of the statutory dissolution. Otherwise the delay of the court would mean a denial of justice.

court.

THE DECISION of the Court of Appeal in New London Credit Syndicate (Limited) v. Neale (1898, 2. B. 487) is an apt illustration of the rule that the effect of a written contract cannot be varied by evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement. An action was brought against a company by B. and C. A., who was the chairman of the company and interested in it, accepted a bill for £110, a sum which it was agreed should be paid to B. and C. in settlement of the action. The bill, which was at three months, was drawn by B. and C. and made payable to their order. When it was given it appears that a verbal arrangement was made under which the drawers were to renew the bill should the acceptor not be in a position to pay it at maturity. B. and C. indorsed the bill over to the syndicate, who were the plaintiffs in the present action and who took with notice of the agreement for renewal. They declined, however, to renew at maturity, and sued upon the bill. Practically the agreement to renew was an undertaking that the bill should not be negotiated, and DARLING, J., held that, since the syndicate took with notice of this agreement, their title to the bill was defective and they had no right of action. But the only effect of notice to them was to put them in the same position as the drawers, and their title to the bill and their right to sue on it were alike good, save in so far as the right to sue was qualified by the verbal agreement. Here the acceptor found that the arrangement proved useless to him. It is not competent to the party to a bill to stipulate verbally that it shall not be met at maturity. "What is to become," said Lord ELLENBOROUGH in Hoare v. Graham (3 Camp. 57), "of bills of exchange and promissory notes if they may be cut down by a secret agreement that they shall not be put in suit. The condition for a renewal entirely contradicts the instrument which the defendants have signed. Such an agreement rests in confidence and honour only, and is not an obligation of law." So in Young v. Austen (L. R. 4 C. P. 553) it was said to be clear that the defendant could not set up a contemporaneous oral agreement for renewal to contradict the contract on the face of the bill, though by a written agreement entered into at the time the bill was accepted the parties might regulate their rights between themselves. This, of course, is continually done when bills are given as security for loans. In the present case the verbal agreement for renewal of the bill was excluded upon the above principle, and the plaintiffs obtained judgment in the Court of Appeal.

IT IS, as was observed by VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, J., in Re Smith & Logan (43 W. R. 413), a constant practice in proving against a bankrupt's estate for a creditor who has several distinct debts due to him to lump his debts and securities in one proof, although this does not prevent the trustee from subsequently requiring the securities to be valued separately should he desire to redeem any particular security. The decision of ROMER, J., in Re Morris (46 W. R. 627) suggests a further case in which a distinction between the debts should be made. A creditor had a right under a creditor's deed to prove against the debtor's estate in respect of three bills of exchange for £2,000 each and one bill for £1,000. Various other parties who were also insolvent were liable on the bills and the creditor had proved against their estates also. The result was that upon two of the bills the creditor received in dividends from the various estates sufficient to pay more than 20s. in the £, but in respect of the others he had received less than the full value. He had, however, in accordance with the practice referred to above, proved against the estate of MORRIS for a lump sum in respect of the four bills, and he now claimed to apply the surplus upon the two paid bills to make good the deficiency upon the other two. Clearly, however, this was a wrong to the parties who were liable on the former two bills. The parties liable upon the four bills were not the same, and, this being so, there could be no right to charge the parties liable upon any one bill more in the aggregate than 208. in the £. The proofs in respect of the various bills had, therefore, to be separated and the surplus on the two overTHE PROVISIONS of the Companies Act, 1862, which relate to paid bills handed back for distribution among the parties en

« PreviousContinue »