ELLIS, JOTHER, Killamarsh, Derbys, Licensed Victualler | KNIGHT, FREDERICK BLACKBURN LYSAGHT, Hampton Fox. JAMES ARMITAGE, Macclesfield, Soap Manufacturer Hoy, JOHN, Leeds, Chemist Oct 24 at 11 Park row, Leeds Oct 21 at 1 ISAACS, EDWARD ABRAHAM, Maida vale LEWIS, JOHN, Pontyberem, Carmarthens, Builder Oct Nottingham, Lace Manufacturer Oct 21 at 12 Off Rec, 4, Castle pl, Park RAYSON, JOHN ARTHUR, Herne Hill, Commission Agent ROWE, JOHN WILLIS, Herne Hill, Cycle Manufacturer Oct 21 at 11 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st RUDDOCK, CHARLES ALFRED, Willesden Green, Grocer Oct 25 at 11 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st SLATER, THOMAS, Annesley, Notts Oct 21 at 11.30 Off Re:, TOMLINSON, JOHN HINKS, Shepherd's Bush, Pawnbroker Oct 21 at 10.30 Off kec, 8, King st, Norwich WILLS, JOHN, Shepherd's Bush, Baker AJUDICATIONS. Oct 24 at 12 BREES, JOHN, Dinas Mawddwy, Merioneths, Joiner Aberystwith Pet Oct 12 Ord Oct 12 BRENTON, JOHN, Camborne, Cornwall, Mine Agent Truro Pet Oct 11 Ord Oct 12 BROOMHEAD, JOHN CHARLESWORTH, Sheffield, Hairdresser Sheffield Pet Oct 12 Ord Oct 12 BROWN, HENRY VINCENT, Retford, Vanman Lincoln Pet Oct 10 Ord Oct 10 BROWN, SIDNEY HERBERT, Freshwater, I W, Jeweller Newport Pet Oct 11 Ord Oct 11 CANHAM, HENRY ROBERT FIELD, Bourne, Lincs Peterborough Pet Oct 12 Ord Oct 12 CARR, ROBERT JAMES EWING, Tokenhouse bldgs, Solicitor Court Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 10 CROSSLAND, WILLIAM, Misterton, Notts, Fitter Lincoln Pet Oct 10 Ord Oct 10 DAVIES, JAMES, Swansea Valley, Licensed Victualler Neath Pet Oct 12 Ord Oct 12 DAY, JOHN WILLIAM, Blackpool, Linen Salesman Preston Pet Oct 11 Ord Oct 11 ELLIS, JETHER, Killamarsh, Licensed Victualler Chesterfield Pet Oct 10 Ord Oct 10 EMERY WILLIAM, Lincoln, Fishmonger Lincoln Pet Oct 10 Ord Oct 10 FARNDELL, JOSEPH ROUT, Noble st, Gresham st, Manufacturers' Agent High Court Pet July 13 Ord Oct 12 FARRANT, JOHN QUILLIN, Clifton, York York Pet Oct 6 Ord Oct 6 FIDLER, BENJAMIN, Sheffield, Builder Sheffield Pet Oct 11 HARKIS, WILLIAM HENRY, St John's Wood, Coal Merchant Ord Oct 11 ISAACS, EDWARD ABRAHAM, Maida Vale High Court Pet Sept 13 Ord Oct 10 Bishop, Hereford Hereford Pet Aug 11 Ord Oct 10 LONGSLOW, CHARLES, Coventry, Coal Dealer Coventry Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 12 MACCABE, HENRY, Lea Bridge rd, Publican High Court Pet July 5 Ord Oct 8 MERCER, HENRY RYE, Folkestone, Builder Canterbury Pet Aug 27 Ord Oct 11 Moss, Jons, Warrington, Butcher Warrington Pet Oct 12 Ord Oct 12 PARKES. ABRAHAM, Prince's End, Staffs, Charter Master RABENOWITZ, MYER, Cinderford, Glos, Outfitter Gloucester READ, THOMAS, Thurnscoe, nr Rotherham, Farmer Sheffield Pet Oct 10 Ord Oct 10 RIGBY, THOMAS JAMES, Warrington, Builder Warrington SCUTTS. WILLIAM NICHOLAS MERCER, Water In, Gt Tower st, SLATER, THOMAS, Annesley, Notts Derby Pet Oct 10 Ord SMITH, THOMAS JOHN, St Peter's, Thanet, Hairdresser Shepherd's Bush, Pawnbroker WARD, AGNES, Quebec, Durham, Boot Dealer Durham Pet Oct 10 Ord Oct 10 WHITEHEAD, ARTHUR ELLIS, Ilkeston, Licensed Victualler WRIGHT, THOMAS, Kingsthorpe, Northampton, Builder YOUNG, JAMES, Saddleworth, Yorks, Tanner Oldham Pet Amended notice substituted for that published in the MITCHELL, HENRY, Birstall, Yorks, Wine Mer chant Dewsbury Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 Amended notice substituted for that published in the HOLT, WILLIAM, Prestwich, nr Manchester Salford Fet London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Oct. 18. BATCHELOR, MARY, Accrington, Milliner Blackburn Pet BROWN, JOHN WILLIAM, Wakefield, Fish Dealer Wake- FLINDERS, ELIZABETH SCOTT, Bath Bath Pet Oct 13 Ord GREAVES. WILLIAM, York, Fishmonger York Pet Oct 15 HARRIS, JAMES TRESCOWTHICK, Hounslow, Lodging-house Pet Aug 31 Ord Oct 14 Lincoln Nock, EDWIN HERBERT, Brierley Hill, Staffs, Corn PAXTON, JAMES, Newgate st. General Hardware Factor, PEER, THOMAS, and PEER, ALBERT, Eastcourt, nr Malmesbury, Pig Dealers Swindon Pet Oct 12 Ord Oct 12 SEARS, WILLIAM, Camberwell, Grocer High Court Pet Oct 15 Ord Oct 15 SHREAD, GEORGE, Birmingham, Plumber Birmingham Pet Oct 14 Ord Oct 14 SHUTT. JAMES, Darlington, Fitter Stockton-on-Tees Pet Oct 12 Ord Oct 12 SKINNER, JOHN, Sutton, Surrey, Machinist Croydon Pet Oct 13 Ord Oct 13 SMITH, ELIJAH, Willenhall, Stafford, Latch Manufacturer Wolverhampton Pet Oct 14 Ord Oct 14 STONE, EDMUND THOMAS, Hertford, Builder Hertford TAYLOR, JOHN COCHRAN, Lewisham, Fruit Salesman High ANGUS, JOHN, Wolsingham, Durham, Innkeeper Oct 25 at BERRY, ROBERT, Silverton, Devon, Builder Oct 27 at 10.30 BROWN, HENRY VINCENT, Retford, Vanman Oct 27 at 12 30 BURR, ARTHUR, Walbrook, Land Agent Nov 16 at 12 Law Courts, New rd, Peterborough CARTLIDGE, THOMAS JAMES, Burslem, Oven Builder Oct 25 at 3.30 Off Rec, King st, Newcastle under Lyme CLARK, WILLIAM, Elwick, Durham, Innkeeper Oct 25 at 3.30 Off Rec, 25, John st, sunderland COLE, ARTHUR DAVID, Coventry, Tailor Oct 25 at 11.30 Off Rec, 17, Hertford st, Coventry COOK, HENRY SAMUEL, Birmingham, Doctor Oct 26 at 11 174, Corporation st, Birmingham CRAWFORD, MIDDLETON, and ARTHUR FRANCIS MARTIN, New Oxford st, Engineers Oct 28 at 12 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st CROSSLAND, WILLIAM, Misterton, Notts, Fitter Oct 27 at 12 Off Rec, 31. Silver st, Lincoln CROWE, WILLIAM. Halifax Oct 28 at 1 Exchange Hotel, Nicholas st, Burnley CURD, GEORGE, ELIJAU CURD, and WILLIAM CURD. City rd, Cabinet Makers Oct 25 at 2 30 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st DAY, JOHN WILLIAM, Blackpool, Linen Salesman Nov 4 at 2 30 Off Rec, 14, Chapel st, Preston DE VALHERMEY, Count, Fulham Oct 25 at 1 Bankruptcy bldgs. Carey st EMERY, WILLIAM, Lincoln, Fishmonger Oct 27 at 11.30 Oct 25 at 230 Off Rec, 31, Silver st, Lincoln HEAD, ANNIE, and JULIA EMILY HARDING, Hove, Drapers LUMSDEN, A, Marylebone Oct 26 at 11 Bankruptcy bldgs, Moss, JOHN, Warrington, Butcher Nov 4 at 10.50 Court house, Palmyra sq, Warrington MURGATROYD, H & J, Bow, Shoe Manufacturers Oct 25 at 2.30 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st NICHOLSON, JOHN HENRY, Bury st, Bloomsbury Oct 26 at 2.30 Bankruptcy bldgs, Carey st PARKES, ABRAHAM, Princes End, Staffs, Charter Master Oct 27 at 11 Off Rec, Wolverhampton st, Dudley PEARSON, JOHN, Darlington, Commission Agent Oct 27 at 11 Off Rec, 8, Albert rd, Middlesborough PENNY, DELIA, Wimbledon Oct 27 at 11.30 24, Railway app, London Bridge READ, THOMAS, Thurnscoe, nr Rotherham, Farmer Oct 25 at 2 Off Rec, Figtree lane, Sheffield SLATTER, OLIVER THOMAS, Canonbury, Medical Practitioner SMITH, THOMAS JOHN, St Peter's, Thanet, Hairdresser ADJUDICATIONS. BERRY, ROBERT, Silverton, Devons, Builder Exeter Pet CARLETON, JOHN SHAW, Newnham, Glos, Medical Prac- SERIES III.-YOUR CHILDREN. No matter whether physical or mental labour is meant, or even if, as is too often the case in these days of fierce struggle for existence, an excess of either has to be accom-IFE ASSURANCE Funds exceed Pet Oct 7 SOCIETY. £3,200,000. further effort and exertion so often experienced will be- LONG-TERM POLICIES AT LOW RATES, with right to change come a thing of the past; and heat in summer, and cold in winter, and all the bleak uncertainties of our trying climate can be faced with Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, which has concentrated powers of nutriment, and imparts stamina and staying powers, adds to powers of endurance, and enables those who use it to undergo greater physical exertion and fatigue. The British Medical Journal says: 66 Vi-Cocoa is a very palatable beverage of great stimulating and sustaining properties." The Lancet says: "Vi-Cocoa is in the front rank of really valuable foods." We say that for breakfast and supper there is nothing to equal Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa. Merit, and merit alone, is what we claim for Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, and we are prepared to send to any reader who names the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL a dainty sample tin of Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa free and post paid. There is no magic in all this. It is a plain, honest, straightforward offer. It is done to introduce the merits of Vi-Cocoa into every home. Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, as a concentrated form of nourishment and vitality, is invaluable; nay, more than this, for all who wish to face the strife and battle of life with greater endurance and more sustained exertion, it is absolutely indispensable. Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa, 6d., 9d., 18. 6d. Can be obtained from all Chemists, Grocers, and Stores, or from 60, 61, and 62, Bunhill-row, London, E.C. to ordinary Assurances, thus giving THE CHEAPEST ASSURANCE PROCURABLE. Write for NEW PROSPECTUS, containing full information and other important alterations, to Just out. SECRETARY, 18, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS, LONDON. THE CRIMINAL Price 1/- nett. EVIDENCE ACT, 1898. Embarking passengers at London (Tilbury) 11th January, BY . BRONTE MORGAN. BOUVERIE DEEDES (DECEASED). LONDON: EFFINGHAM WILSON, Any person holding a Will made by, or any document belonging to, the late Mr. Bouverie Deedes, of 10, Lancaster-place, W.C., and Downside, Epsom, is requested to communicate with Messrs. MULLENS & BOSANQUET, of 11, Queen Victoria-street, E.C. BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT. BOARD, Education, and Clothing for To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the And arriving back in London 13th March, 1899. The following places will be visited :-TENERIFFE, BARBADOS, TRINIDAD, GRENADA, ST. LUCIA, MARTINIQUE, SANTA CRUZ, JAMAICA, CUBA (Santiago), BERMUDA, and MADEIRA. "Winter afloat in the West Indies is most like a glorious summer, and at such a time-when yachts and steam launches are laid up at home-the trip should be taken." Fares from 75 Guineas. Managers: F. Green & Co.; Anderson, Anderson, & Co. Head Offices: Fenchurch-avenue. For passage apply to the latter firm at 5, Fenchurchavenue, London, E.C.; or to the West-End Branch Office, CHANCERY-LANE.Suite of Four Excel- Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town avenue, London, B... or WILLIAMS, L.JJ. CAVE, DAY, GRANTHAM, HAWKINS, COMPANY OF NEW ZEALAND, LIMITED. НОМЕ, RICKMANSWORTH, HERTS. For Gentlemen, under the Act and privately. R. WELSH BRANTHWAITE, HIGH SHOT HOUSE, ST. MARGARET'S, TWICKENHAM, For Gentlemen under the Acts and privately. Terms, F. BROMHEAD, B.A., M.B. (Camb.), M.R.C.S. (Eng.) INEBRIETY. MELBOURNE HOUSE, LEICESTER. Medical Attendant: CHAS. J. BOND, F.R.C.S. Eng., IMPERIAL INSURANCE LIMITED. FIRE. Established 1803. COMPANY HE ENRY GREEN, Advertisement Agent, begs to direct the attention of the Legal Profession to the advantages of his long experience of upwards of fifty years, in the special insertion of all pro forma notices, &c., and hereby solicits their continued support.-N.B. Forms, Gratis, for Statutory Notices to Creditors and Dissolutions of Partnership, with necessary Declaration. Official stamps for advertisements and file of "London THE COMPANIES ACTS, 1862 TO 1898. Gazette" kept. By appointment. BY AUTHORITY. LONSDALE PRINTING WORKS, LONSDALE BUILDINGS, 27, CHANCERY LANE. THIS EVENING, at 8.30, BROTHER OFFICERS: shortest notice. Leyton, Alice de Winton, Lydia West, Dora Dent, Lois BRAND & CO.'S Everard, and Kate Cutler. SPECIALTIES FOR INVALIDS. ESSENCE OF BEEF, MEAT JUICE, &c., Prepared from finest ENGLISH MEATS BRAND & CO., LTD., MAYFAIR, W., & MAYFAIR DIAMONDS, PEARLS, COLD JEWELLERY, PLATE MEDALS EST: 1772 Diamond Merchants AND FROM 1&2 GRACECHURCH ST LONDON. &C. VALUED PURCHASED OR EXCHANGED £5 TO $10,000 Valuations FOR THE LEGAL + PROFESSION LOW CHARGES. 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. FUNDS ESTABLISHED OVER HALF A CENTURY. 10, FLEET STREET, LONDON. LIFE SYSTEM ASSURANCE. AND SECURE. - £3,000,000. INCOME £390,000. YEARLY NEW BUSINESS - £1,000,000. BUSINESS IN FORCE- £11,700,000. TRUSTEES. The Right Hon. Lord HALSBURY (Lord High Chancellor of England). The Hon. Mr. Justice KEKEWICH. The Right Hon. Sir JAMES PARKER DEANE, Q.C., D.C.L. RICHARD PENNINGTON, Esq. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Esq. The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. LONDON, OCTOBER 29, 1898. The Editor cannot undertake to return rejected contributions, aud copies should be kept of all articles sent by writers who are not on the regular staff of the JOURNAL. CURRENT TOPICS ...... THE NEW INEBRIATES ACT NEW ORDERS, &C. ONE OF the questions arising on the above-mentioned Act, which we discussed last week (ante, p. 828), was decided by Mr. Justice BIGHAM during the trial of WHITMARSH at the Old Bailey. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, says the Times, counsel for the prisoner said he should call the prisoner as a witness, and as he understood the new Act, it would be the right of counsel for the Crown to sum up, but not to reply. Mr. Justice BIGHAM said: "After you have called the prisoner and he has given his evidence, Mr. GILL [counsel for the prosecution] will be entitled to make a speech, and then you can address the jury." IT HAS often been laid down by the judges that, as a matter of public policy, judicial proceedings shall not only be free from actual bias on the part of any judge, but also shall be free from the least suspicion of any bias or prejudice in favour of the one side or the other. The Lord Chief Justice has this week given the world an illustration of how rigidly this rule should, in his opinion, be observed. A case was called on before him and WILLS, J., on appeal from a decision of justices. The appellants were represented by counsel, but there was no appearance Mellor, The Right Hon. John W., Q.C., for the respondents, and counsel was about to proceed with DIRECTORS. Deane, The Right Hon. Sir James Parker, Mathew, The Hon. Mr. Justice. M.P. Mills, Richard, Esq. Morrell, Frederic P., Esq. (Oxford). the case in the absence of the other side, when it became known to the court that the Fishmongers' Company had instituted the proceedings. On this fact being stated, the Lord Chief Justice immediately intimated that he was unable to hear the appeal. The learned judge is himself a Fishmonger, and therefore, in his opinion, it would be open to the respondents to object to his adjudicating in the case. The respondents, however, not being represented, could neither object nor waive their right to object, and so Lord RUSSELL ordered the case to stand over till it could be argued before a court differently constituted. This scrupulous care to avoid the least appearance of partiality should be noted by magistrates throughout the country. Convictions are often quashed by the High Court because a convicting justice was in some way interested. Seldom does it happen, however, that such interest is more than a mere technical interest, and these convictions are usually overruled, not because of any substantial injustice, but in order to avoid even a suspicion of partiality. IN A CASE tried at the Northamptonshire Quarter Sessions last week, the prisoner's counsel, on the completion of the evidence for the prosecution, declared his intention of calling several witnesses in addition to the prisoner. He thereupon called a witness who was not the prisoner. The prosecuting counsel immediately objected, and argued that to call the prisoner as a witness after other witnesses had given evidence for him in his presence, was contrary to the intention of the Criminal Evidence Act. On the other hand, counsel for the prisoner argued that nothing in the Act put any restriction on his right to call witnesses in whatever order he thought best, except where the prisoner was the only witness for the defence. The bench strongly objected to counsel taking the proposed course, but he stood on his strict rights; and when, after examining several witnesses, he tendered the evidence of the prisoner, the chairman did not venture to reject it. There can be no doubt that, as far as the Act goes, the court could not have refused to hear the evidence of the accused person. Section 2 expressly provides that he shall he called as a witness immediately after the close of the evidence for the prosecution, "where the only witness to the facts of the case called by the defence is the person charged." Surely the maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius must apply. Hence, as the statute directs that in one particular case the person charged shall be called at a certain point in the proceedings, it follows that in all other cases the ordinary rule holds good, that counsel has discretion to call his witnesses in whatever order he thinks right. All the same, we think most persons will agree that there is a certain impropriety in calling a number of witnesses to support a story told for the defence, and after they have given their evidence, then calling the person most interested, who has been carefully listening all the time and must at his peril make his evidence fit in with that which has gone before. In a criminal case it is almost an invariable practice that all witnesses should be out of court until they are required to give evidence. A witness, therefore, does not usually hear the evidence of any other witness until he has given his own. The prisoner, however, cannot be ordered out of court while his witnesses are giving their testimony. It seems right, therefore, that he should tell his story before he hears the other witnesses. To call him first also deprives the prosecution of the very obvious argument, which is often likely to weigh with the jury, that the prisoner has been merely backing up the other witnesses. Sir FORREST FULTON, in his charge to the grand jury at the Old Bailey this week, admitted that counsel has discretion to call the prisoner when he pleases, but at the same time strongly commented on the inexpediency of not calling him before he hears the other witnesses. The Common Sergeant also expressed much regret that Parliament had not enacted that in all cases in which the prisoner gives evidence he should do so before any other witnesses are examined in his behalf. A CORRESPONDENT who takes pleasure in scrutinizing the statutes of each successive session from the point of view of elegant draftsmanship, calls our attention to some curious blunders in the Inebriates Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 60). The chief object of this statute is, as we explain elsewhere, to authorize the detention of habitual drunkards convicted of crime in public inebriate reformatories. By section 1, power is given to a court, when a habitual drunkard has been con victed on indictment of any offence punishable with imprisonment, to order, "in addition to or in substitution for any other sentence," "that he be detained for a term not exceeding three years in a State inebriate reformatory, or in any certified inebriate reformatory the managers of which are willing to receive him." By section 2, a similar power is given to a court, including a court of summary jurisdiction, in the case of a habitual drunkard four times convicted of drunkenness; but unfortunately the power is not conferred in the same words. In this section it is not expressly stated whether the order for detention in an inebriate reformatory is to be in addition to or in substitution for any other sentence, which is certain to give rise to difficulty; and-what is of much more importance-the court may only order the person "to be detained for a period not exceeding three years in any certified inebriate reformatory the managers of which are willing to receive him." There is here no power to order detention in a State inebriate reformatory; and therefore, until a certified inebriate reformatory is established, this section must apparently remain inoperative. The establishment of certified inebriate reformatories is provided for in section 5; and here again it seems that another blunder has been committed. By this section the Secretary of State is empowered to certify an inebriate reformatory "on the application of the council of any borough or of any persons desirous of establishing an inebriate reformatory." By a later section (9), it is true that a county council is authorized (inter alia) to undertake the establishment of a "reformatory certified or intended to be certified under this Act." But it is submitted that the Secretary of State has no power to certify a reformatory established by a county council (as opposed to a borough council), unless a county council can be held to be included under the phrase " any persons desirous of establishing an inebriate reformatory." The effect of these two blunders in the Act would seem to be cumulative. Under section 2, a habitual drunkard convicted of drunkenness for the fourth time can only be sentenced to detention in a certified inebriate reformatory; but by section 5 such a reformatory can only be certified when established by a borough council or by private persons. Consequently, in the administrative county of London habitual drunkards may continue for some time to come to laugh at the terrors of the Inebriates Act, 1898. PRACTICALLY the decision of MALINS, V.C., in Montague v. Flockton (L. R. 16 Eq. 189) was overruled by the Court of Appeal in Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman (1891, 2 Ch. 416). It has this week been directly overruled by the same court in Fredericks v. Waller. The discussion of the point involved may, for the present purpose, be said to commence with the judgment of Lord ST. LEONARDS, C., in Lumley v. Wagner (1 D. M. & G. 604). A singer agreed with the lessee of a theatre that she would for a specified period sing at his theatre, and would not sing elsewhere. The contract was one of which the court would not order specific performance, but Lord ST. LEONARDS did not regard this as a reason for neglecting the express negative stipulation, and he granted an injunction to prevent the singer from performing elsewhere. The judgment, however, was couched in terms which made it possible to suppose that, even in the absence of an express negative term, there would have been an implied engagement not to perform at any other theatre which would have justified the injunction. A positive agreement to perform at one place involves, it might be supposed, an agreement not to perform anywhere else. Hence, in Montague v. Flockton, MALINS, V.C., granted an injunction in a case where an actor had contracted to perform for a certain period at a particular theatre, notwithstanding that the contract contained no negative clause prohibiting him from performing elsewhere. This means, however, that the court is attempting indirectly to compel a specific performance of the contract, although it is of such a nature that a direct order for specific performance would be out of the question, and in Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman it was held by the Court of Appeal that such a course was improper. "The court," said LINDLEY, L.J., "will generally do much more harm by attempting to decree specific performance in cases of personal service than by leaving them alone; and whether it is attempted to enforce these contracts |