« PreviousContinue »
value, but it may be increased to one-fourth under special circumstances of danger attaching to the enterprize. One-eighth is awarded in the case of recapture from pirates. Capture may be actual or constructive. Constructive, or joint captors, are those who have assisted the actual captors by conveying encouragement to them or intimidation to the enemy. All public ships within signalling distance are usually held entitled to participate in the proceeds of the capture. Prize captured in breach of the neutrality of Great Britain may be restored by the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice under powers conferred by the Foreign. Enlistment Act, 1870. By the Naval Prize Act, 1864, what is now the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice has jurisdiction as a prize court throughout the British dominions, and by this Act the procedure of prize courts in the British dominions may be regulated by an Order in Council. Questions of booty may be referred to the present Admiralty Division of the High Court as a prize court under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 22. Where the captor is a public ship of war, the officers and crew have only such an interest in the proceeds of a prize as the Crown may from time to time grant them. Besides a share in the prize, prize bounty is usually granted under the provisions of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, at the rate of £5 for each person on board an enemy's ship of war. As an incident to the right of maritime capture, there still exists the right of visit and search, or the privilege attaching to any belligerent of boarding any merchant vessel on the high seas to ascertain its nationality and the nature of its cargo, with all its possibilities for international complications, as witness the notorious Trent affair.
To finally summarize the existing law. Upon the outbreak of hostilities, so far as nations who have not signed the Declaration of Parisare concerned, any neutral vessels carrying cargo belonging to a belligerent can be seized and taken to port for condemnation, though under these circumstances the usage is for the captor to pay freight to the owner of the vessel. In any case, goods constituting contraband of war destined for delivery to a belligerent are liable to capture and confiscation, and the carrier cannot claim freight. There are dicta in some English cases that when the shipowner is privy to the carriage of contraband the ship is liable to condemnation, but there exists no actual decision to that effect. A vessel attempting to violate an effective blockade is, with its freight, liable to capture, and opposition constitutes piracy. Some authorities, however, consider that if the owner of the vessel was ignorant of the destiny of the cargo, the former will escape confiscation. A charter made by an English shipowner to run a blockade cannot be repudiated by him. Performance of a contract is excused where, before loading, the port of destination becomes blockaded, and the charter includes an exception of restraints of princes. \Vhere, however, the blockade occurs subsequent to the actual sailing, the question is more involved, but the captor would in all probability release his prize. Insurance of a belligerent property is valid unless the policy includes a guarantee of neutrality. Of course, unless the character of the property be disclosed, a policy could be avoided on the ground of concealment of a material fact. That the possible acquisition of prize money is of material service as an incentive to effort to our seamen is considered by some authorities as very doubtful, for it is coimterbalanced by many grave objections, and has proved on numerous occasions to have operated or resulted very disadvantageously. For instances of the truth of this contention, the feud between Rodney and Arbuthnot, on the coast of North America; the disruption of the friendly relations between Nelson and St. Vincent, terminating in a law suit; and the hostile criticism of Lord Howe’s conduct on the lst of June, on the ground that his anxiety to secure the prizes prevented him following up his advantage to the full, may be cited. In considering what the effect of the abolition of the maritime capture would be upon the legal profession, one’s mind at once reverts to the somewhat grotesque experiences of the famous Lord Cochrane in connection with the Maltose prize courts in 1811, and the incident in relation thereto in the House of Commons on the llth of June of the same year, when he produced his proctor’s bill, stating that it measured six fathoins and a quarter, and contained (as it did) many curious charges. This, of course, is an exceptional case, and could not occur to-day, and the profession may be excused if they express the same opinion at his lordship, which he maintained to his death, in spite of his unfortunate experiences in the matter of condemned prizes—“ that if this right were abolished, certain I am that the prestige of our Navy is gone till the old system is restored.”
for his vacation on the 13th of August, and will not be back until the 22nd of October, when the Long Vacation ends. When he returns another week or two will probably be occupied in completing the order, which may be reiuly to be acted upon by the beginning or November. Several of the parties llll'8l'IBlB(1 in the money have been obhgecl to mortgage their shares of it. This is only one of nmnerous cases where the Long Vacation works a serious injury to suitors and the delay to whom seems intolerable. Do you not think it time the vacation was shortened?
Undefended matrimonial causes will he taken in the Probate and Divorce Division after motions on each Monday du.ring the sittings ; and on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 20th and 21st December. Special jury causes will be taken on and after Tuesday, the 25th October. Probate and defended matrimonial causes, for hearing before the court itself, will taken after the special juries are disposed of; and may also be taken in Court II. between October the 25th and November the llth, when Admiralty cases are not appointed to be heard. Common jury causes will be taken on and after Tuesday, November the 29th. Divisional Court, Tuesdays, I\oveinber the 1st and December the 6th. Motions will be heard in court at 11 a.m. on each Monday during the sittings. Summonses before the judge will be heard at 10.30 a.m. on each Saturday during the sittings. Summonses before the Registrars will be heard at the Probate Registry, Somerset House, at 11.30 a.m. on each Tuesday and Friday during the sittings. All papers for motions must be left in the Contentious Department of the Principal Probate Registry at Somerset House before 2 p.m. on the preceding Wednesday.
Maitre Labori, M. Zola's counsel, is, says the World, still a young man, being only in his thirty-eighth year; indeed, by many he would be scarcely considered to have reached his prime; yet by dint of ability and hard work, combined, it must be admitted, with good fortune, he stands to-day in the front rank of his profession in France, and his name is a synonym in every civilized country for fearless and skilful advocacy He was born at Rheims in 1860, and was educated at the Lycée there. Choosing the law as his profession, he enrolled himself as a student at the Ecole de Droit. In 1884 he proceeded to the degree _ of_ aoomt, having previously served in the army for the statutory term, which inspired him, as it does inost Frenchman, with a deep interest in the Repu _lic's first line of defence. In France the profession of the law is as proverbially slow as in this country, and consequently young Labori had to wait. _ His first important case was in 1894, when he defended the miscreant Vaillant, who threw the bomb into the Chambre des Députés. In that case the prisoner’s guilt was too clear to admit of being obscured by any art of advocacy, but Labori left nothing unsaid that could possibly benefit his client. From this point M. Labor-i's rise in his profession was rapid, and it was his conduct of the case for his client in the Zola trial which gave him his place in the front rank of advocates.
In charging the grand jury at the Wiltshirs Sessions at Marlborough, Lord Ludlow referred to the Criminal Evidence Act. He said: I cannot disguise from my mind that there are serious questions which will arise with regard to the procedure to be adopted in carrying into effect some of its provisions, questions as to which legal minds may reasonably differ. I am in hopes, therefore, that a council of judges will meet, who will lay down and promulgate some settled rules of procedure for the guidance of those who have to administer the Act. The old and fundamental rule of our criminal law—-that the complaining party must make out his case beyond reasonable doubt without any assistance from the person charged — remains absolutely untouched by the Act. Unless a strong priimi jiwie case was made out, I should not myself allow the person charged to give evidence, but should dismiss the case. Criminal cases must not be decided on the preponderance of probabilities, but on the proof of guilt. If the person c argsd is the only witness to the facts of the case called for the defence when is he _to give his evidence P Section 2 of the Act says, “immediately after the close of the evidence for the prosecution.” The object of this, I believe, is to give the prosecution in cases defended by counsel, in summing up the evidence, an opportunity of commenting on the evidence so given. Some doubts have been expressed when the parson charged is the only witness called as to whether the right to sum up the evidence has not been lost. I do not entertain that view : on the contrary, I believe the evidence of the person charged was interposed at this particular point to enable the prosecution to deal with it. The person charged has the right of the general reply or last word. Section l (a) says the person charged is not to be called as a witness except on his own application. \Vhat is the duty of the judge? The person charged, if imdefended by counsel or solicitor, probably does not know that he may ak to be called. Is he to be told? I answer in the afiirmative, and I shall, at the close of the evidence for the prosecution, ask him if he would like to tell his story where he is, or to tell it on oath in the witnessbox. I have been fearful that the mere failure of the person charged or his wife or husband to give evidence might be regarded as corroboration of guilt, and I tried to introduce into the Bill, when in the House of Lords, the provision contained in section 1 (b), which is, "The failure of any person charged with an offence or of his wife or husband to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution." I was unable to do so there, but it was carried in the House of Commons, and to my mind will, to a considerable extent, protect the person charged, and to some extent help to preserve the fundamental rule, that the prosecution must make out their case nitliout any assistance from the party charged, a rule which the court should forcibly impress on lhe minds of the jury. Sectionl says that the person charged should be n compsrent witness “ at every stage of the proceedings.” Some doubts have been expressed as to whether this includes proceedings before the grand j urv. I am quite clear that it does not. Such proceedings are er parts, and the inquiry is one to
D.“ Arrlsr. Conar Mr. Justice Mr. Justice
heard. Two copies of minutes of the proposed judgment or order must be left in court with the judge’s clerk the day before the cause is to be put in the paper.
If witness actions can be taken on any days other than those appointed, due notice will be given.
M0nday..... 14...Sitting in chambers
Wed. ....... ..l6 _ _
Monday .... ..21...Sitting in chambers
“led. (l _
Monday .... ..2S...Sitting in chambers
Wednesday 80 General paper
Thurs., Dec. 1 l
Friday ...... 2...Mots,iuij sums, and gen pa
Friday (except November 4 and 11)—-
The first day of the Sittings, Monday.
Suturdny—-Short Causes and Petitions will be taken on Satui-days, Oct. 2:7, N01 19. and Dec. 3 and 17. _
The Business for the other Eaturduys will be from time to time announced in the Daily Cause List. _
Actions for Trial with lvitnesses will be taken on Tuesday, Nov. 1, and C911tinued until the end of the following: week. Motions will be heard durmg that period by Mr. Justice Stirling. _
Actions for Trial with Wiinrzsses will also be taken at other times. Notice will be given in the Daily Cause List. _
Mr. Justice Stirliug’s Motions will be _t-alteil in this Court while he is hcanng Witness Actions—viz., on Thursdays, Nov. 17 and 2-L.
‘i non witlist Monday .... .. 5...Bitting in chambers Tuesday I; 1) Wednesday 7,-Witness list Th da .. S I
Monday .... ..l9...Sitting in chambers Tuesday ...20...Non wit list Wednesday 21...Motions
Any cause intended to be heard as a short cause must be so marked in the cause book at least one clear day before the samecanbeputinthepapertoboso heard. Two copies of minutes of the proposed judgment or order must be left in court with the judge’s clerk one clear day before the cause is to be put in the
N.B.—The following Papers on Further Consider-ntion are required for the use of the Judge, viz. :-—Tw0 Copies of Minutes of the proposed Judgment or Order, 1 Copy Pl8Il(Illl€‘R, and 1 Copy Chief Clerk's Certificate, w ich must be left in Court with the J udge’s Clerk one_ clear day before the Fiu-ther Consideration is ready to come into the paper.
N.B.-Interlocutory appeals from the Chancery and Probate and Divorce Divisions will be taken in Court II. on Monday, Oct 2-1, and afterwards on every Wednesday (except Wednesday, Oct 26) in Michaelmas Sittings, and Bankruptcy appeals will be taken on Friday, Oct 28, and following Fridays.
N.B.—Subject to Chancery interlocutory appeals on lvednesdays, Chancery final appeals will be taken every day in Court II. imtil further notice.
N .B.—\Vhen the interlocutory appeals are not enough for a day’s paper, Chancery final appeals will bc added on interlocutory days.
N .B.--Probate and Divorce final appeals will be taken in the Chancery Appeal List as reached.
Appeals from the Lancaster and Durham Palatine Courts (if any) will be taken in Court II. on Thursday, Nov 3, and Thursday, Dec 1.
FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION, THE PROBATE, DIVORCE,
In re Gyde Ward v Little appl of H M Attorney-Gen from order of
In re Perry Almshouses Charity, Winterbourne, Gloucester-shire, and In re Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 to 1894, and Local Government Act, 139-1, app of Charity Commissioners for England and Wales from order of Mr. Justice Stirling, dated Feb 2, 1898 April 26
In re Mary Ross Charity & Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894 app of the Churchwardens of the Parish of Hatfield from order of Mr. Justice North, dated July 10, 1897 (restored. by order)
The Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co, ld v New Ixion Tyre and Cyclo Co, ld app of plts from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated May 4, 1898 (Oct
2-I by order) May 7 ,
In re Roworth Featherstone v Feather-stone app of dits M A Featherstone & ors from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated Feb 24, 1898 May 23
Boileau v Heath app of plt from order of Mr Justice Bigham (sitting, 8:0), dated May 23, 1898 (order not perfected) May 25
Armstrong v Croft appl of pltif & plttf J Armstrong as deft to counterclaim from order of Mr Justice Bigham (sitting, &c), dated May 25, 1898 June 3
In re Rubbins Gill v \Vorrall appl of deft S A K Henry from order of l\[r Justice Stirling, dated March 22, 1898 June 7
Allen v Oates 8: Green, ld appl of pltif from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated April 29, 1898 June 9
In re Mundy and Roper and In re The Vendor and Purchasers Act, 1874 appl of C F Massuigberd Mundy from order of Mr Justice Kckewich, dated May 1-1, 1898 Jiuie ll
Thomas v Penley appl of deft from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated May 17, 1898 J ime 13
In re The Middlesex Gold Mines (W A), ld & the Co’s Acts, 1862 to 1890 appl of H T Foster from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated June 9, 1898 June 13
Jackson v Normuuby Brick Co, ld appl of pltff from order of Mr Justice Kekcwich, dated April 27, 1898 Jiuie 13
Levy v Stogdon appl of J M Birch from order of M1‘ Justice Stirling, dated March 3, 1898 June 16
Holt v May appl of deft from order of Mr Justice Bigham (sitting, 8:0), dated May 24, 1898 June 16
United Empire Trading Co, ld v Smith appl of deft from order of Mr Justice Wright, dated June 9, 1898 J une 17
Sinclair v Melia appl of deft from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated June 14, 1898 June 18
In re The Railway Time Tables Publishing Co, ld, and Co’s Acts appl of ‘T A gtielton from order of Mr Justice Kekowich, dated May 25, 1898
Lever Bros, ld v Bedingfield. appl of deft from order of Mr Justice Kekcwich, dated June 9, 1898 June 22
Lennox v. Peters appl of pltif and deft E J Lennox from order of Mr Justice Bigham (sitting, &c), dated May 17, 1898 J une 25
Hill v Kirby appl of pltfi? from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated June 21, 1898 June 25
Newbury v Gibbon appl of deft H Gibbon from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated March 17, 1898 Juno 27
In re Heath Parker & Brett, Solicitors, &c appl of A A Marks from order of Mr Justice North, dated May 25, 1898 June 27
West v Williams appl of pltfl and deft F. Temple from order of Mr Justice Kekewicb, dated Feb 15, 1898 June 28
In re Halifax Commercial Bank, ld v Wood & V & P Act, 1874 appl of the Halifax Commercial Bank, ld, from order of Mr Justice Stirling, dated June 15, 1898 June 28
In re Ritson Ritson v Ritson appl of defts M Ritson & ors from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated April 22, 1898 J une 29
Hoe v Foster & Sons appl of pltff from order of Mr J uatice Kckcwich, dated June 17. 1898 (order not perfected) June 30
Lyon & Sonav Wilkins appl of deft from order of Mr Justice Byrne, dated Feb 3, 1898 June 30
Smith v Warde appl of pltfi from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated July 1, 1898 (order not perfected) July 2
Bramston v Manchester, Shefiield & Lincolushire Ry Co appl of pltifs from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated May 4, 1898 July 4
In re Preston Preston v Boimey appl of deft from order of Mr J uetice Romer. dated May 4, 1898, and notice of contention of pltff, dated July 28,1898 July 5
In re Buckett Aldridge v Buckett appl of pltif from order of Mr Justice Bigham (sitting, &c), dated May 27, 1898 July 6
In re Morris James v London & County Banking Co ld appl of defts from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated June 25, 1898 July 6
Hodgson v House appl of deft from order of Mr Justice North, dated May 18, 1898 July 7
Vestry of Parish of St Mary, Battersea v Company of London and Brush Electric Lighting Co ld appl of defts from order of The President of P, D Sc A Division (sitting, &c), dated April 21, 1898 July 8
Allen v Pyatt & Co appl of pltif from order'0f Mr Justice Bigham (sitting, &c), dated July 6, 1898 July 9
In re Carl Haggenmachefls Patents, No 10,64-1 of 1887 and No 13,443 of 1889 appl of respt from order of Justice ROIIIGI‘, dated June 1-1, 1898 July 11
In re Prince Goodwin v Prince appl of deft E Prince (widow) from grderlof Mr Justice Stirling, dated May 24, 1898 (order not perfected)
Bennett v Hudson appl of pltif from order of Mr Justice liekewich, dated June 22, 1898 July 12
In re Millais Millais v. Millais appl of deft Sir J E Millais from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated J une 28, 1898 July 13
Peters v Owen appl of pltfi from order of Mr Justice Bighorn (sitting, &c), dated J une 28, 1898 July 14
Pemberton v Hughes appl of pltif from order of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated July 12, 1898 (order not perfected) July 14
Royal Baking Powder Co v Wright, Crossley it Co appl of defts from order of Mr Justice Romer, dated July 2, 189$ July 16
Dunlop Piieuuiatic Tyre Co, ld v New Ixion Tyre and. Cycle Co appl of defis from order of Mr Justice Kckewich, dated May -1, 1898 (Oct 24, by order) July 18
In re Baker Thomson v Baker appl of pliffs from order of Mr Justice
Bigham (sitting, &c), dated May 13, 1898 May 20 > Kekewich, dated July 4, 1898 (order not perfected) July 18
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 pimishment 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.
Tm: ornna 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 alter the prisoner had given evidence. Now, it is expressly provided by 28 Vict. c. 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 npl _1/, 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 along and complicated case, where it is most desirable for coimsel 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 Lunnow, 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” [z'.e., by the
Tm: cxsa 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. Friaby (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 CIIITIY, J., in Re Turner, Turner v. Spencer, 43 W. R. 153) shews that the plaintifi’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 Jfarncs v. Glanton 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 out 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 sufiicient to keep the claim alive against A., as to which the decision in the Court of Appeal in Ra Frz'sby (supra) was held to be conclusive against A. In the opinion of FRY, L.J., in that case, “ a payment satisfying 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 WV. R. at p. 66, 43 Ch. D. at p. 117).
Ir 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 Jonas 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
Oct. 20.~Messrs. Bsanri.,Woon, & Co., at the Mart, at 12 precisely, in 92 Ints, the First Portion of the Fntates of the late William Angerstein, Esq., comprising highly-importaut and valuable Freehold (iround-rents, amounting to £1,460 17s. 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. Hartciip, Esq, Norwich.—Greenwish and Wmtcombe-hill, Kent, close to the Westcomb‘p;Ea.rk Station on the Woolwich branch of the South-Eastern Railway : Freehold arf 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 uilding Land of about six acres, with frontage of 1,100 feet, near the \Voolwich-road, forming excellent sites for manufacturing premises; a Plot of Valuable Freehold Land, situate near Y-glegtiiombeapprk Station, containing about half an acre frontage. (See advertisements,
. 7, p. .
Asono-Arnieai\' Gonn Paorlariss, Liiii-ran-Petn for winding up presented Sept 22, directed to be heard on Oct 12 instead of Oct 26. Beal dz Payne, hudge row, petner's N'O\i09l0€)8%)§lf&1'lIlQ must reach the above-named not later than 6 o‘clock in the alternoon 0 c
Conan G0i.n Mixirs, Liiii-ran (ix LlQUlDA'l‘l0l3]— Creditors are required, on or before Feb 10, to send their names and addresses, and e particulars of their debts or claims, to \Vm. B. Peat, 3, Lcthbury
Docs Soar C0, Liiii'rsn—Creditars are required, on or before Nov 18, to send their names and addresses, and the lpearticulars of their debts or claims, to E. W. Helps, Bank chmbrs, Bridgwater. ed 8: Co, Brldgvvnter, solors
Gonn Finnns or Masons, Luirrsn (is Liouina-rioi~')—-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 15, to send their names and addremes and particulars of their debts or claims, to William Frederick Garland, 6, Queen at place. Ashurst & Co, Throginorton avenue, solors for liquidator
Hons INDUSTBIRS Co, Liiii-rsn—Petn for winding up, presented Sept 20, directed to be be heard on Oct 26. Truss dz Enever, Coleman st, solors fortgetners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock m e afternoon of Oct 25
Isrlnsarioiut s_lCUll1TlIS Tausr CORPORATION, Liiii'rsn—Petn for winding u , presented Aiig 3, directed to be heard on Oct 26. Thomas, Finsbury pavement solor for
Ippgier. lii516>:t0;‘ appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6o'ciock in the a rnoon o 3
Mizrrsii SYNDICATE, Lnii-riin—~Petn for winding up, presented Oct 3, directed to be heard on Oct 26. Allen dz Son, Carlisle st, Soho sq, so ors for petneis. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o‘clock in the afternoon of Oct 25
Rsatisarios /lsn Dsvsaoeliaxr Co, Liiiii'sn—Petn forvwindin up, presented Sept 30, directed to be heard on Oct 26. Learogd & Co, Coleman st. sugars for petner
Bur-roi.ir Basso, LlIll'l"lD*P8'-I1 for win ing up preted Oct 8, directed to be heard on Oct 26. Ralph Raphael 6: 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 2':
" Sorsiin " Sill!‘ C0, Liiii-ri:n——Creditors are required on or before Nov 12, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their d,ebts or claims, to R. Hughes-J ones Swassaa OLD BSE\_Yl.l'lY Co, Liiiirsn (Oi.n COIPANY) (is Voausrsiir LlQUlDATlO.\’)—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 Cnwker, 11, Temple st, Swan
sea. Hartland .\' (Jo. Swansea, solors to liquidator
Taoius Tavaoii & Soss, Liiii-ri:o—Ci'editors are requested, on or before Nov 19, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Kevan, 12, Acresfleld, Bolton Holden 8: Holden, Bolton, solors for liquidiitor
Wauucas‘ Ainn B.(\LI an Mii.i.iso C0, Liiii'ri:n—Creditora are required, on or before Nov 17, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to John Edwin Whitlism, Barum House, Halifax
“ Gnasnaiiors " Srniisiiir Co, Liiii'rzn—Creditors an required to send in particulars of cl.aim.stoGMAllsn,4,StMa.ryAre _
Csosnasn COAL Co, Liar-ran-—Creditors are refliiiii-ed, on or before Nov 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of t eir debts or claims, to Richard Nsylor & Co, at the oflice of the company at Scholes, Cleckheaton Wavell & Co, Halifax, solors for the liquidators
HALSAL1. 8: HAMPTON, Liiii'rsi>—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 _
“Josi:i=ii Joan’ S-rsaiisnir Co, Lixi'ran—-Creditors are required to send in particulars of claims to G M Allan, 4, St Mary Axe
Kiso or was WEST GOLD llfisiso Co, Liiuran $124 Lioi:inArios)—Creditors are required. on or before Nov 19, tosend their names an addresses. and the particulars o their debts or claims, to H St John Hodges, Finabury House, Blomflald st
“ Lasv " STEAMSIIII‘ Co, Liiiirnn-Creditors are required to send in particulars of claims to G. M. Allan, 4, St Mary Axe
Si-miieair “Cirv or Bsu-‘as'r,” Liiii'rsn—Cred.itors are required to send in particulars of claims to G. M. Allan, 4 Et Mary Axe
Tusaiiinos Watts Maiiirsr Co, Liuirzn (is Lioriolli-io.v)—Creditors are required, nn 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, Tun ridge Wells. Martin, Tunbridge Wells, solor to liquidators
Wli.i.-s'i"ai=:a'i' OIL Worms, Liiii-ran—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
Wiiizau-ors, Liiii-ren—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.