Page images

was & Church of England clergyman, bad discovered that the Roman Catholic of injury to the reversioner. Fry, J., said that a reversioner could not mainpriest had been writing letters to the infant, telling him to read the Roman tain an action of trespass ; such an action could only be maintained by a Catholic Prayer-book and other works of that Church. The father had also | person who was in actual possession of land. A reversioner might, however, discovered an imitation altar in the youth's bedroom. The father objected to maintain an action in the nature of an action on the case in respect of an entry the Roman Catholic religion, and wus averse to his son going into that Church, on his land, or a nuisance. But, in order to do so, he must show either an or having any communication with Roman Catholic priests. CHITTY, J., said actual injury to the reversioner, or that the act complained of was of such a that the infant was being induced to depart from the religious belief in which permanent character that it must necessarily injure the reversioner. In the he had been trained by his father; that it was contrary to law for the priest to present case there was no evidence of actual injury, and the erection of poles induce the infant to leave the Church in which he had been brought up, and and a hoarding was not of such a permanent character as necessarily to therefore he granted the injunction asked for. SOLICITORS, Remnant, Penley, injore the reversioner. The action was accordingly dismissed, with costs.& Grubbe.

SOLICITORS, Jaques & Layton ; Williamson, Hill, g Co.

PRACTICE_EXECUTRIX-WIDOW AT DATE OF DECRBB-MARRIAGE DURING INFANT'S LEGACY_PAYMENT INTO COURT_PAYMENT OUT TO TESTAMENPROSECUTION OF ACCOUNTS— FORM OF ORDER ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION. TARY GUARDIAN-36 Geo. 3, c. 52, s. 32.-In a case of In re Cresswell, -In a case of Re Reeks, Reeks v. Pacy, before Chitty, J., on the 10th inst., | before Fry, J., on the 6th inst., & question arose as to the payment out of it appeared that the defendant, Sarah Randall, formerly Pacy, the executrix of court of the share of the residue of an estate to which an infant was entitled, the will of the testator in the cause, had married subsequently to the decree and which had been paid into court by the executor under section 32 of the directing the usual accounts in chambers. Certain sums appeared in the Act 36 Geo. 3, c. 52. The mother and testamentary guardian of the infant accounts to be due from the defendant, some of which had been received petitioned that the fund might be paid out to her. She did not allege that before and some after marriage. It was asked, on further consideration, that she intended to apply the money for the benefit of the infant, or adduce any the husband and wife might both be ordered to pay the amount due, but with evidence to satisfy the court that the proposed payment out would be for the a direction that the husband was only to be liable to the extent of the sums infant's benefit, but the petition was based on the decision of the Court of received by the wife since the marriage, and the moneys to which he became Chancery in Ireland in a case of McCreight v. McCreight (13 Ir. Eq. 314), in entitled by the marriage. CHITTY, J., made an order upon both husband and which it was held that, wbere an infant was entitled to a vested legacy, pay. wife, with an additional direction that the husband was not to be liable for ment of it during his minority by the executors to the infant's testamentary any portion of the sum received by the wife before the marriage, except to the guardian was valid, the guardian being able to give a valid discharge for it. extent of the value (if any) of the assets acquired by him in right of his wife FRY, J., refused the application, on the ground that, by section 32 of the Act at and after the marriage. -SOLICITORS, Nye f Greenwood ; J. W. Dawson. 36 Geo. 3, the money paid into court is to be paid to the person entitled

thereto, or otherwise applied for his benefit." He said that the testamentary

guardian was not the person entitled to the money, and that, if money was to WILL-NOMINATION BY TESTATOR OF SOLICITOR TO THE TRUSTEES

be applied for the benefit of an infant, the court must be satisfied that the VALIDITY—TRUST-DISCHARGE OF SOLICITOR.-In a case of Foster v. Elsley,

proposed application would be for his benefit. There was, therefore, no before Chitty, J., on the 13th inst., & motion was made for an injunction to

jurisdiction to do what was asked. He did not intend to question in any way restrain the defendants, who were the executors and trustees of a will, from

the authority of the Irish decision, but it did not apply to the present case, employing any person other than the plaintiff as the solicitor to the estate of

because there the application was made to the court under its general the testator, or in any business relating to the management or carrying out of

jurisdiction, not under the Legacy Duty Act.-SOLICITOR, J. N. Mason. the provisions of the will. The testator bad inserted in his will a direction that his solicitor, naming the plaintiff, should be the solicitor to bis estate and to his trustees in the management and carrying out of the provisions of his

MARRIED WOMAN-SEPARATE EstaTE-SATISFACTION OF ENGAGEMENTSwill. The plaintiff had acted for some time as solicitor to the trustees, but LIMITED POWER OF APPOINTMENT.-In a case of Skinner v. Todd, before dissensions having arisen between him and the trustees, the latter wrote Fry, J., on the 7th inst., a question arose as to the power of the court to to bim asking him to deliver up all documents and send in his bill of costs, direot the satisfaction of an engagement of a married woman out of with a view to employing another solicitor in his place. It was submitted on property over wbich she bad a very special power of appointment. By a bebalf of the plaintiff that the conduct of the defendants was in direct conflict post-nuptial settlement certain freehold and lease bold property was vested with the intention of the testator. CAITTY, J., said that the direction in trustees upon trust, during the joint lives of the husband and wife, to pay contained in the will did not impose on the trustees any duty of employing the the income to him, and after the death of such one of them as should first plaintiff in the trusts of the will, and the cases of Shaw v. Lawless (5 CI. & F. die, upon trust to pay the income to the survivor for his or her life, snob 129), and Finden v. Stephens (2 Phil. 142), were authorities against the propo payment being made to the wife, in the event of her surviving and marrying sition that such a direction constituted a trust in favour of the solicitor. again, to her separate use, without power of antioipation. The settlement The motion must be refused, with costs.-SOLICITORS, Swann & Co.; Johnson g contained a proviso that, during the continuance of the life estates, the Weatheralls.

trustees should, at the direction of the tenant for life, “direot repairs,

alterations, and improvements" of the property comprised in the settlement, PRACTICE-SOLICITOR'S BILL-TAXATION-OBJECTIONS TO ORDER OF

and that all expenses which should be properly incurred by the trustees in COURAB-MOTION TO VARY-TIME WITHIN WHICH BROUGHT-DELAY.-In

carrying out the trusts or powers of the deed should constitate a charge on a case of Re Tibbitts, also before Chitty, J., on the 13th inst., & motion was

the trost premises in their favour. The wiso survived the husband and made to vary an order of course for the taxation of a solicitor's bill, on the married again. After her second marriage she ordered a builder to perform ground'that the order contained certain matters on its face and in the recitals

some repairs to some houses whiob formed part of the settled property, and improper to be inserted, and which enlarged unduly the scope of the taxation. | be executed the work acoordingly. The trustees were not informed of it It appeared that the order to tax was obtained on the 29th of March, 1881, till afterwards. The builder, not having been able to obtain payment of his and that, on the same day, by a cross-examination, the facts were discovered

bill, bronght the present action against the husband and wife and the trustees, upon which it was contended the order was erroneous. On the 22nd of April claiming judgment against the trustees and against the wife for the amount the bill was carried in for taxation, and, on the 5th of July, 1881, the points of his bill, and that the judgment might be declared to be a obarge on the in issue as to the validity of the order were discussed before the taxing master. | wife's interest in the settled property, and that the charge might be On the 8th of August the taxation proceeded, and, on the 22nd of September,

enforced by sale or otherwise. Fry, J., held that the effect of the proviso in the formal objections to the taxation were carried in and overruled by the taxing deed was that the trustees were bound to do all such repairs to the property master. This motion to vary the order of course was not made until the 22nd as the tenant for life might direot, subjeot to this, that the cost did not of November. A preliminary objection to the motion was made that it was exceed the value of the property, so that they might be able to recoup too late, and reliance was placed upon the case of Re Springall (14 L. J. Ch. themselves the cost. And his lordship held that the plaintiff was entitled 12). For the applicant it was submitted that the motion was made as soon as to have the benefit of the wife's power to direot the trustees to direct repairs possible after the objections had been formally overruled, and that the same was to be executed. He came to this oonolusion, first, on the general principle in time. CHITTY, J., said that it was the duty of the applicant to come to the on which the court had dealt with the separate property of a married woman, court to rectify the error as soon as possible after it had been discovered and modifying its decisions so as to compel her to do that which was honest; the matter discussed before the taxing master. That he took to be the effect and, secondly, on the authority of the cases, which had established that, of the decision in Re Springall, though there the motion was made after report. wbere a married woman had a general power of appointment over property, He should refuse the motion on the preliminary ground, and with coste. she would, for the purpose of satisfying her general engagements, be treated SOLICITORS, J. W. Sykes ; Tibbitts & Son.

as the owner of the property. In the present case the power was not a general power but a particular one, but the same principle was applicable.

Effeot ought to be given to the particular direction or engagement out NUISANCE-OBSTRTCTION ON LAND-CAUSE OF ACTION-REVERSIONER

of the partioolar power, just as the court had given effeot to a WEEKLY TENANT.-In a case of Cooper v. Crabtree, before Fry, J., on the

general engagement out of a general power of appointment. 13th inst., the question arose whether a reversioner could maintain an action

There had been in substance an exercige of the power by the married for the placing of an obstruction on his land, or for a duisance. The defend. ant, whose land immediately adjoined that of the plaintiff, had erected a

woman. It was a matter of form, not of substance, whether she first boarding on poles, for the purpose of preventing the access of light to a window

directed the trustees to bave the repairs done, or directed a builder to do in a cottage wbich stood on the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff alleged that

them and the direotion was afterwards communicated to the trustees. His

lordsbip accordingly ordered the trustees to raise the amount of the the poles had been improperly placed on his land ; the defendant said that they stood on his own land. The plaintiff also alleged that the hoarding

builder's bill by means of a charge on the property, and, when they bad made a rattling and creaking, and that it caused an intolerable nuisance to

raised the amount, to pay it over to him.-SOLICITORS, S. B. Bennett ; Makin. bimself and bis tenant. And he claimed an injunction to restrain the trespass,

son & Carpenter ; G. S. Š H. Brandon. and, in any event, an injunction to restrain the nuisance, and also damages. The tenant of the cottage, who was only a weekly tenant, gave evidence of PARTITION ACTION-ORDE FOR SALE-PROCEEDS OP SALE_CONVERSION the nuisance to himself and his family, but the plaintiff adduced no evidence -REAL AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES–PARTITION ACT, 1868, 8. 8

LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES Act, 1856, ss. 23–25.--In & case The proof was made by the appellants for the amount due, less discount at of Mordaunt v, Benwell, before Fry, J., on the 10th inst., the question arose the rate of 21 per cent. wbether some money, which had been paid into court as the proceeds of sale The trustee alleged that it was the usual custom of the trade to allow & of property directed to be sold in a partition action, was to be treated as real discount of 74 per cent. off the invoice prices of the goods, and such discount or personal estate. Section 8 of the Partition Act, 1868, provides that sections had reference only to the price of the articles sold, and not to any period or 23 to 25 (both inclusive) of the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act, 1856, time for payment. A further discount of 25 per cent. was allowed on cash "shall extend and apply to money to be received on any sale effected under the payment within two months. These discounts were distinct and separate authority of this Act." And section 23 of the Leases and Sales Act provides allowances, the one being for the price of the goods, and the other a counting. that all money to be received on any sale under the authority of the Act house allowance. sball be applied (inter alia) in " the purchase of other hereditaments to be E. C. Willis, for the appellants. The appellants have a right to sue for settled in the same manner as the hereditaments in respect of wbich the money their whole debt, and, if the amount be paid, the debtor oan dedact the 71 was paid, or the payment to any person becoming absolutely entitled." And per cent. additional discount, but not otherwise. In Re Cumberland, Ex parte by section 24, the application of the money is to be made upon an order of the Worthington (L. R. 3 Ch. D. 803), where wholesale traders supplied goods to coart upon the petition of the person who would be entitled to the possession & retail dealer on the terms that he was to be allowed & discount of 20 per or the receipt of the rents and profits of the land if the money had been cent. from the invoice prices on payment in cash within a month, invested in the purchase of land. Three of the persons entitled to shares of Bacon, C.J., held that cash payments not having been made, proof must be the property sold were infants. They all died before their shares in the pro. admitted in the bankruptcy of the retail dealer fur the full amount of the in. ceeds of sale bad been dealt with, leaving their father their heir-at-law. "He voice price of the goods. then died intestate, and the question was whether their shares should be paid Birch, for the trustee.-The proof can only be admitted for the invoice prices out of court to his heir-at-law or to his administrator. FRY, J., beld that the of the goods, less the discount ; Ex parte Pigou (3 Madd. 136), shares formed part of the father's personal estate, and must be paid out to his Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY held that the evidence in support of the appeal administrator. His lordship said tbat, according to the ordinary rule, if & was clear and distinct that the discount of 10 per cent. was allowed only upon testator directed the conversion of his real estate into money for a purpose payment. He, therefore, admitted the proof for the full amount, and allowed which did not exhaust the whole, and the heir therefore became entitled to the appeal. the surplus, though he took it in the character of heir, he took it as personal Solicitor for the appellant, Thomas' Wright. estate, and it belonged to his personal estate. So here, the shares of the Solicitors for the trustee, T. & A. R. Gill. infants were in the condition of money when the father took them, and could not have been re-invested in land without his consent. He could have received them out as money. They were in fact money, and, as between his real and his personal representatives, they must be treated as money, there

SOLICITORS' CASES. being no controlling direction that they should go as land.-SOLICITORS, G. H.

COURT OF APPEAL, WESTMINSTER. Cole f Son; J. S. Solomon; Whyte, Collisson, di Prichard; G. Aldham.

(Before J1SSEL, M.R., and BRETT and Cotton, L.JJ.)


This was an appeal by Mr. Johnson from an order of the Queen's Benoh EXPENDITURE IN PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS.-In & case of Watson v. Gass, Division before Fry, J., on the 10th inst., a question arose whether, in determioing the amount to be paid by one of two sets of owners of property, wbicb

The matter was originally an application, on the part of Miss Edwards, was to be partitioned between them in shares of unequal values, for equality of

for a rule calling upon Mr. Johnson, a solioitor of the court, to show cause partition, à deduction ought to be made in respect of soms which had been

why he should not answer the matters of certain affidavits which alleged expended by them in permanent improvements of the shares which they were

that he bad improperly withheld from her & eun of £33 59., which had been respectively to take. The action was brought to obtain a partition on the foot

o recovered in an action brongh: by her against & Mr. Whitwell, and why ing of an agreement which had been entered into between the parties some

he should not pay the costs of the applioation. The matter was referred years previously, and under wbich the property had been since, in fact, epjɔyed

to a master, who reported as follows :-“ Do the 3rd of November, 1879, Mr. in severalty, as therein provided, but no legal conveyances had ever been

Johnson was instructed by Mr. Raynes, a solioitor, to commence an aotion, executed, because some of the persons interested were under disability. The

as the London agent, at the goit of a Miss Edwards against Mr. Whitwell. evidence showed that the one property was worth $1,960, and the other was

In that aotion judgment was recovered for the plaintiff ander ord. 14, r. 1. worth £1,070, the difference in valde being £890, so that on that footing the

Mr. Raynes instructed Mr. Johnson to issue execution for the amount of the sum to be paid for equality of partition would bave been half £890--that is,

debt, 533 59., and costs $9 169. 60., and & writ of fi. fa. was accordingly £495. Bat the evidenoe showed that, since the date of the agree

issued direoted to the sheriff of Essex. On or about the 13th of March, ment, the persons who had been in the several enjoyment of the property of

of 1880, Mr. Jobogon received from the sheriff of Essex £43 19. 6d., the amount the larger value bad expended £425 in permanent improvements upon it,

of debt and costs. Mr. Jobnson had no authority or instruotions from and that the persons who had been in the several enjoyment of the other prop

Migs Edwards or Mr. Raynes to receive this money, but he received it as erty bad expended $50 in permanently improving it-that in each case the | Mr. Raynes' London agent. At the time of receiving this money, Mr. Raynes expenditure bad resulted in a corresponding increase in the value of the prop- was indebted to Mr. Jobpson for posts inourred as his London agent erty. And it was contended that, in estimating the sum to be paid for 1 (ipoluding the sum of £8 103. 90, the amount of Mr. Johnson's agonoy equality of partition by the persons who were to take the property of larger obarges in the action Edwards v. Whitwell) in a sum equal to or exceeding yalne. the sums tbus expended in permanent improvement musts be first | the amount of £43 18. 60, 80 received, and Mr. Johnson Olaimed to retain deducted from the values of the two properties respectively. FRY, J., at first that amount in part payment of his oosts against Mr. Raynes." felt some difficulty in acceding to this view, but ultimately he did so, on the

On the 17th of November, 1880, on reading the above report, and authority of Parker V. Trigg (Weekly Notes, 1874, p. 27).-SOLICITORS, bearing counsel, the court ordered the matter to be referred baok to the Helder, Roberts, $ Gillett.

master to further report as to the general practio3 between solicitors and their London agents, and also as on the writ of sum nons and other

matterg. CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS. On the 9th of December, 1880, the master reported as follows:-"I find (Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.)

the general practice between country solicitors and their town agents to be

that, when the writ of execution is issued by the town agent, the town agent Dec. 6.-Ex parte Hall, Re Crozier.

receives the proceeds of such execution on behalf of the country solicitor ; that H. & Co. sold goods to C., a retail trader, and before they were paid for C. filed the town agent is not entitled to retain any debt or any part of a debt 80 a liquidation petition.

recovered; that he has a lien upon, and is entitled to retain, the costs so Held, that H. & Co. were ontitled to prove under C.'s liquidation for the full recovered for any costs that may be owing to him by the country solicitor on amount of his debt without dedacting trade discount.

bis general agency account; that the London agent is entitled to the same This was an appeal by Messrs. Hall & Wainwright from the partial rejection by the trnstee of a proof of debt mada intihar et a danten in den as, and no greater lien than, the country solicitor, abd, therefore, if the

the trustee of a proof of debt made against the estate of the debtor in country solicitor could not retain the debt recovered as aforesaid against bis liquidation.

client, 80 neither can the London agent retain it. The original writ was The appellants were hosiery manufacturers, and they bought to prove indorsed, so far as is material, as follows :—'This writ was issued by George under the liquidation for the sum of £184 48., in respect of goods sold | Johnson, of, &c., in the city of London, as agent for W. R. Raynes, to the debtor in the usual course of business. The debtor, up to the l&o.. solicitor for the plaintiff. I further find that there was not any practice date of the liquidation petition in

, petition in August, 1881, carried on business as a as to accounts between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Raynes, as this was the first

August, 1881, carried on business as a sba.), mantle, and mantle cloth merchant and warehouseman. The trustee re- time Mr. Johnson ever received any money for, or on behalf of, Mr. Raynes.” jected the proof to the extent of £14 78. 6d., on the ground that trade discount After the reading of the master's report, to that amount at the rate of 74 per cent. on the account of the appellants bad Dodd moved, on behalf of Miss Edwards, for an order directing Mr. Johnnot been allowed.

son to pay over to her the sum of £33 58., with costs. The appellants alleged that it was the custom of the hosiery trade to make THE COURT (Field and Manisty, JJ.) came to the conclusion that the court up accounts to the 20th of the montb, and for the purchaser to make payment had jurisdiction in the matter, and ought to interfere summarily to compel on one of the early days of the second following month, thus allowing a pur. Mr. Johnson, as an officer of the court, to pay over the money to Miss chaser a credit of about six weeks, and upon payment, but only upon payment, Edwards. The rule was made absolute (see 30 W. R. 14). the discount was allowed. The usual discount was 10 per cent., but, in some Mr. Johnson appealed. special departments of the trade and under special circumstances, such discount Tatlock, and Dodd, for Mr. Johnson. Taried, but there was no custom in the hosiery trade which recognized a trade The other side were not called upon. discount in contradistinction to a cash discount. The only discount allowed JESSEL, M.R.-This is an atlempt to appeal from & discretionary order as in the trade was upon the goods being paid for, and, if the goods were not paid for, the account was always “ net.”

* Reported by W. Blow, Esq., Barrister-at-Law,

to co-ts. As regards the appeal itself, I must say I have the strongest opinion rule calling on a solicitor to answer certain matters in affidavits, or in that the appeal should never have been brought ; tbere is no justification for default to show cause why he should not be struck off the rolls. The gentle. the appeal. The case is simple in the extreme. Money is recovered in an man, he said, had been appointed solicitor to a debt-collecting society in 1879, action, and the town agent receives the debt and costs; he receives the debt and in May, 1881, the manager said he discovered that the weekly accounts due to Miss Edwards, who owes nothing whatever to the country solicitor, had been falsified and all the moneys received for the society not accounted and Miss Edwards is entitled to receive the debt paid, by operation of law, to for. The solicitor was asked to send in his account ; and in the one first the town agent. But the town agent, having received the money, says that rendered he admitted a balance against him of £337 193, 5d., which he said he will not pay it, but will keep it in his own bands, because the country he had expended for his own purposes, and which he said he would pay by solicitor owes him money in respect of some other account. Two questions instalmenis. Subsequently he sent in another account, in which he admitted arise in this case. First, Is the the town agent entitled to keep this money ? a still larger deficit-viz., 5389 19s. 8d. and, secondly, If not, can an application be made under the summary juris. HAWKINS, J.--Do you suggest that he is now keepiog back any further diction? I think it clear that the town agent cannot retain this money, moneys ? and it is equally clear that this application may be made against him, in Murray.--Yes, my Lord; the manager swears he thinks he has the costs of the exercise by the court of its summary jurisdiction. In the first place, the other actions, especially one sum of £22 4s., recovered in an action, but he town agent receives Miss Edwards' money by virtue of his position as a says he does not know whether he can prove it, solicitor on the record, and for the reception of it he requires ao other DENMAN, J.-You can take a rule.-Times. authority. When he receives it, he sbould pay it over to the country solicitor, who should pay it to his client ; he has no greater right to money he receives as town agent than the country solicitor has. He cannot keep the money belonging to Miss Edwards for a debt due to him from the conntry solicitor, unless the country solicitor has a lien upon it to as great an amount as he has. As

LAW STUDENTS JOURNAL. between the town agent and the country solicitor he has no claim, and must pay the money to the country solicitor or the olient. Had there been no deci.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. sion, I should have thought it a clear case, but I happen to know a good deal of the chamber practice in equity, and I find from the decision in Hanley v

HONOURS EXAMINATION. Cassan (11 Jur. 1188), and also from the report of the master as to the practice

NOVEMBER, 1881. of London solicitors, that it is the practice of the profession. [The learned At the examination for honours of candidates for admission on the roll of judge read the master's report as given above.] As regards the suomary solicitors of the Supreme Court, the Examination Committee recommended the jurisdiction of the court, I said, during the argument, I never heard the following gentlemen as being entitled to honorary distinction :proposition that you must have fraud as a ground of an application. The very point was decided in another case ; that was an application

FIRST CLASS by the client against a town agent for the court to exercise its sum

[In order of merit.] mary jurisdiction without any fraud being imputed. If authority were Philip Scott Minor, who served his clerkship to Mr. W. R. Minor, of Man. wanting, there was another case as to the court's authority over solicitors. cheste

citore chester, When a solicitor is complained of, it must be in a case in which the solicitor is

Alexander Trotter, who served his clerkship to Mr. H, K, Hebb, of Lincoln ; acting qua solicitor, and it must be with regard to professional conduct. If the

and with Messrs. Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Co., of Loodon. court finds one of its officers retaioiog money belonging to a client, though not

Duncan Clerk Winter, wbo served his clerkship to Mr. Reginald Bury, of with a fraudulent mind, the court will say that the money must be paid

Barnsley; and Mr. Henry Turnbull, of Scarborough. over. It is as much for the benefit of the solicitor as for the public, and ob

Charles James Fox, who served his clerkship with Mr. Charles Edward Jacktaining a rule is quicker than proceeding by way of an action. It having

son, of 202, Bishopsgate-street Without; and Messrs. Pattison, Wigg, & Gurney, been decided that the court's jurisdiction is general, it seems to me that there

of London. is no ground for this appeal, which must be dismissed, with costs,

Cecil Crosskey, who served his clerkship with Mr. O. G. Beale, of the firm BRETT, L.J.-I am of the same opinion, and think that the appeal should

of Messrs. Beale, Marigold, Beale, & Groves, of London and Birmingham. never have been brought. The solicitor against whom this appeal is made was

David Oburtun Taylor, B.A., who served his clerkship with Mr. J. C. agent for a country solicitor and was instructed to bring an action; it may be,

Barnard, of London. also, by especial directions, that he bad conducted an execution against the de

Charles Edward Nankivell, who served his clerkship with Messrs. Sparkes & fendant and obtained payment of the debt and costs. Now an application was made

Pope, of Crediton ; and Mr. Daniel H. Shilson, of the firm of Messrs. Ooode, against him by notice calling upon bim to answer certain matters contained in

Shilson, & Co., of St. Austell. an affidavit. Upon that he does not say in answer that there was any lien

Francis Alban Barraud, who served his clerkship with Mr. C. A. A. Penley, upon the money, but he assumes to hold it against another account he has

of London. against the country solicitor. The question is whether the court can order him

John Kelly White, who served his clerkship with Mr. G. G. White, of Launto pay the sum to Mies Edwards. It was argued that the court could not so

ceston ; and Mr. G. H. Carthew, of London. order, because there was no privity of contract between the client and the

Adolphus Havergal Dickinson, who served his clerkship with Mr. T. G. London agent. It does not follow tbat the court could not exercise summary

Gibson, Newcastle-on-Tyne ; and Messrs. Stibbard, Gibson, & Co., of London. jurisdiction against the solicitor. That the court has always exercised sum.

James Mark McDonnell, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. B. Batten, of mary jurisdiction cannot be denied; the rule was laid down so long ago as by London. Lord Tenterden, then I think Chief Justice, that “the court exercises

Frederick Ferguson, who served his clerkship with Mr. M. Fielding, of Bolton. summary jurisdiction over solicitors, and that it ought to be exercised ccording to law and conscience, and not by any technical rules."

SECOND CLASS. It was said that this court would not exercise its jurisdiction unless there

[In alphabetical order.] were fraud on the part of the solicitor. Here there was no fraud, and no imputation of fraud, and nothing can be fraud in the proper sense unless

James Braidwood Birkbeck, who served his clerkship with Mr. F. T. there is a fraudulent mind, but the court will exercise its jurisdiction where

Maddock, of Liverpool; and Messrs. Byrne & Lucas, of London. there is no fraud. A case has been cited from 2 Scott's Rep., but the meaning

Richard Bowes, who served his clerkship with Mr. G. N. Watson, of Dar.

lington; and Messrs. Iliffe, Russell, & Co., of London. of that judgment is that, where the jurisdiction of the court is asked on the ground of alleged fraud on the part of the solicitor, the court will not act

Edwin Gardner, who served his clerkship with Mr. John Fortescue, of Ban. unless the fraud be clearly made out. In such a case as this the solicitor

bury. should pay. He was told to bring an action, and he knows that he is recover

Tasker Pierson Hart, who served his clerkship with Mr. W. Watts, of Scaring money for Mies Edwards, and, that being so, he could not retain the

borough ; and Messrs. Iliffe, Russell, & Co., of London. money. There is authority against the appellant in this case. Principle and

Herbert Francis Lowe, who served bis clerkship with Mr. J. T, Moss, of

| Hull; and Mr. A. R. Oldman, of London. authority are both against bim, and so is the practice of the court, and the

James William Mather, who served his clerkship with Mr. W. Dowling, of appeal must fail. COTTON, L.J.-There are two questions in this case. First, whether Mr.

Bolton. Johnson was right in retaining the money to satisfy a debt due to him byl

John Arthur Nicholson, who served his clerkship with Mr. H. Wood, of

York. Raynes ; secondly, can that sum be recovered by summary jurisdiction? I am against the appellant on both points. The appellant says that he may pay

Samuel Relph, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. R. Donald, and Mr. J. himself a debt due to him from

Ostell, of Carlisle. the country solicitor. The practice

John Edward Wage Rider, who served his clerkship with Mr. H, Wade, of is against him. Then, as to the question should we interfere, I think wo should. There is no imputation of fraud against Mr. Johnson, but he only

Shrewsbury; and Messrs. Brownlow & Howe, of London. makes a claim that could not be substantiated. He obtained this money by

John Russell Thomson Robertson, B.A., who served his clerkship with Mr, issuing a writ in the action in his own pame, according to the directions of the

Carr Wigg, of London.

Thomas Henry Scholfield, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. T. Doyle, of solicitor whose agent he was, and, that being so, he applies the money to himself. It is the duty of the court to interfere. The country solicitor had no

| Manchester ; and Mr. T. St. John Sewell, of London, right to retain the money from his client, and therefore the London agent

James Holker Sutcliffe, who served his clerkship with Mr. F. G. Hindle, of could have no possible right to do so.

Over Darwen.

Joseph Studholme Tiffen, who served his clerkship with Mr. C. B. Hodgson, Appeal dismissed, with costs, Solicitors, Johnson ; J. W. Sikes.

of Carlisle ; and Messrs. Ullithorpe, Currey, & Villiers, of London.

William de Vins Wade, who served his clerkship with Mr. W. W. Knocker,

of Sevenoaks; and Mr. Evan Hare, of London. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. -QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

James Turner Welldon, B.A., who served his clerkship with Mr. O. J. Fin. (Sittings in Banc before DENMAN, J., HUDDLESTON, B., and HAWKINS, J.) lay, of Ashford ; and Messrs. Duncan, Warren, & Gardner, of London, Dec. 13.- In re A Solicitor.

Herbert Whittingham, who served his olerkship with Mr. W. Whittingham, W. Murray, on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, moved for a of Bolton,



On the 5th of December the society met at the Law Institution for the [In alphabetical order.]

purpose of discussing the question, “Is there, on the sale of goods by a

manufacturer of such goods, who is not otherwise a dealer in them, and in the Dick Baker, who served his clerkship with Messrs. Emmerson & Cottew, of

absence of usage, an implied contract that the goods shall be of the manu.

facturer's own make ?!" (Johnston v. Raylton, L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 438). _Samuel Bartlett, who served his clerkship with Mr. C. C. Ellis, and Mr. J. H. Mundy, both of London.

The discussion was opened by Mr. Shirley Shirley, who took a negative view Sturgeon Nunn Pretyman Brewster, who served bis clerkship with Mr. A.

of the question, and was supported by Mr. Spence, the opposers being Messrs.

Richardson and Davies. Mr. Shirley replied, and the chairman having Cunnington, of Braintree; and Mr. E. Bromley, of London.

summed up, the question was put to the meeting, the result being an equal William Eli Charnley, wbo served his clerkship with Mr. R. Finch, of Pres.

division of votes. The chairman tben gave bis casting vote in favour of the ton ; and Mr. F. Brooke, of London. George David, who served his clerkship with Mr. C. M. Bailhache, of New

opener's contention.

At a general meeting of the society held at Clement's-inn Hall on the 7th port, Monmouth.

of December, Mr. Maclaren in the chair, a lively discussion took place Jobn Richards Davis, who served his clerkship with Mr. T. Ponsford, of Bardon, near Taunton.

upon the subject of “The general and special fines imposed by the rules of Bertram Greatrex, who served his clerkship with Mr. F. Oerton and Mr. E.

the society."' Mr. Spence's Bill to amend the criminal law was taken in comWestwood, both of Birmingham.

mittee, and after an animated debate sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 were agreed to,

and section 4 passed in an amended form. Messrs. Spence, Shirley, Richard. John Sheldon Hepworth, who served his clerkship with Mr. E. W. Parkes, of London.

son, Parsons, Tillotson, Cony beare, Hobbs, and Kaios-Jackson spoke upon

the various sections ; and the further consideration of the Bill was ultimately William John Hodges, who served his clerkship with Mr. F. A. Langham, ladi of Hastings; and Mr. S. F. Langham, of London.

| adjourned. Members present, 17. Visitors, 2.

The annual dinner of the society will take place in January.
Arthor Symond Jones, who served his clerkship with Messrs. Gold & Co.,
of Denbigh; and Messrs. Frankish & Buchanan, of London.
George Malpas, who served his clerkship with Mr. A. Addison, of Ports-

mouth; and Messrs. Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Co., of London.
Percy Edward Marshall, who served his clerksbip with Mr. J. J. Faulkner,

The third meeting of the session of this society was held at the Law of Northampton.

Library, Cross-street Chambers, on Taesday evening, the 29th ult., when James Armytage Robinson, who served his clerkship with Mr. R. Ascroft,

the chair was occupied by C. J. Fleming, Esq., barrister-at-law. The of Oldham.

question for discussion was—“Should a trader be allowed to mortgage his William Turner Rylance, who served his clerkship with Mr. W. E. Barker stook-intrade by a bill of sale ?” The affirmative was supported by Messrs. and Mr. W. Rylance, both of Manchester

Law, Coward, Oleworth, Iones, Howartb, Hardman, and the hoo, secretary Charles Richard Steele, who served his clerkship with Mr. F. Miller, of (Mr. Price), and the negative by Messrs. Peacock, Walley, and Rycroft, London.

and after the summing up of the chairman the question was decided in the Arthur Mollelt Styring, who served his clerkship with Mr. G. Smith, of affirmative by å majority of one vote. A vote of thanks to the obairman Salisbury ; and Messrs. Purkis & Perry, of London.

closed the proceedings. Theodore Tylor Trotter, who served his clerkship with Mr. W.T. Page, jun., and Mr. R. C. Carline, both of Lincoln ; and Messrs. Clarke, Wood.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. cock, & Ryland, of London.

Alfred Edwin Whittingham, who served his clerkship with Mr. E. D. The 697th ordinary meeting of the Birmingham Law Students' Society was Broughton, of Nantwich.

beld in the Law Library, Bennett's-bill, Birmingham, on Tuesday, the 6th William Wright, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. Walker, of Leeds. of December. The chair was taken by E. Orford Smith, Esq., town clerk

The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have accordingly given class of Birmingham. The following was the subject for debate:-“That in view certificates and awarded the following prizes of books:

of the protable legislation in favour of county boards being established for To Mr. Minor, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clement's-ino, value regulating the taxation and local government of rural England, it is expedient ten gaine 18. The Daniel Reardon Prize, value £24 78. 60,

that the union or rural sanitary district should be adopted as the primary area To Mr. Alexander Trotter, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clifford's for all purposes." Mr. Streetiy opened the discugsion on the affirmative side, inn, value five guineas.

and was followed by Messrs. Coley and W. S. Rogers. Messrs. Cochrane To Mr. Winter, the prize of the Honourable Society of New.inn, value five and G. Huggins spoke on the negative side of the question, arguing that the guineas.

parish would be a better primary area than the union. The opening speakers To Mr. Fox, Mr. Crosskey, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Nankivell, Mr. Barraud, Mr. on either side having replied, the chairman closed the discussion with an able White, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. McDonnell, and Mr. Ferguson, prizes of the

address, remarkable for its comprehensive treatment of the subject. Upon his Incorporated Law Society, value five guineas each.

putting the question to the meeting the voting was: for the affirmative 13, The council have given class certificates to the candidates in the second for the negative, 3. A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting. and third classes. The number of candidates who attended the examination was 95.

Tuesday, December 6.-Mr. W. A. Bilney in the chair. -Mr. H. A.

Mr. HENRY HARDINGE SAMUEL CONYNGHAME, barrister, bas been appointed Heard was elected & member. A report of the society's representative members

| a Commissioner to inquire into the Condition of the Office of the Adminis. at the meetings of the Social Science Association was laid before the meeting

trator-General for the Colony of British Guiana. Mr. Cunyoghame is a and adopted. After some business had been disposed of a debate took place

graduate of St. John's College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at the on the question, “ Is it desirable to substitute an affirmation for the oath in judicial proceedings ?" The discussion was opened by Mr. Bartlett in the

Inner Temple in November, 1875. affirmative, and he was followed on the same side by Messrs. Hutton, Rhys, Mr. RANDOLPH CHARLES WANT, solicitor, of 34, Clement's-lane, E.C., has Napier, and Richardson. The negative view was supported by Messrs. | been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths, &c., in the Supreme Courts of Randolph, O. E. Barry, Stevenson, and Pope. Mr. Bartlett having replied, | Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania. the question was pat to the meeting and decided in the affirmative by a

Mr. SAMUEL BRIGHT WILLIAMS, solicitor, of Redditoh, has been appointed majority of two votes. The number present at the meeting was 29. Tuesday, December 13.-Mr. Bartlett in the chair.-Messrs. J. Ballantyne

a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. and Henry Woolcott were elected members. A debate took place upon the | Mr. THOMAS GARROLD STALLARD, solicitor, of Worcester and Tewkesbury, question whether, in the case of a sale of manufactured articles by a maker has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of such articles, there was an implied condition that they should be of the of Judicature. vendor's own manufacture. The point was argued in the case of Johnson v. | Mr. John ADYE CURRAN, of the Irish bar, bas been appointed a Police Raylton (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 438) before the Court of Appeal, when the learned | Magistrate for the City of Dublin, in succession to the late Mr. William jadges differed in their judgments. (See 26 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 19.) Mr. J. Exham, Q.C. W. Ellis opened the debate in the affirmative, and after a discussion the ques

Mr. Quintus CHARLES COLMORE, solicitor, of Birmingham, has been tion, on being put to the meeting, was decided in the negative by the casting vote of the chairman.

elected Clerk to the Magistrates for that borough, in succession to Mr. Thomas There were twenty-seven members present. The next meeting of the society will be held on January 10, 1882, and not on the 2014

Henry Gem, deceased. Mr. Colmore was admitted a solicitor in 1876. inst, as announced.

Mr. EDWARD HARRY ADCOCK, solicitor, of Palmerston-buildings, Old Broad

street, E.C., and Croydon-road, Penge, Surrey, has been appointed a Com. UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

missioner for the States of New York, Obio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,

Illinois, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, North At a meeting held at Clement's-inn Hall on Wednesday, November 30,

Carolina, Tennessee, and California, United States of America, for taking Mr. Dowson in the chair, Mr. Hamilton moved—“That actions for breach Proofs and Evidence and Acknowledgments of Deeds and for Affidavits, and of promise of marriage ought to be abolished.” He was opposed by Messrs. also for certifying as to Patents and Records, &c. Mr. Adcock was admitted Richardson, Jenke, Shirley, and Robinson, and supported by Mr. Rundle- | in Hilary Term, 1865. Levey. Messrs, Brown ard Copybeare having spoken from a neutral point of view, Mr. Hamilton replied. The chairman then summed up, and the motion on being put to the meeting was negatived by a minority of four.

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. Members present, 16; visitor, 1. Mr. Sydney-Kempster was eleoted a ROBERT Thomas LEYSON and JENKIN JONES, solicitors, Swansea (Leyson member of the society.

& Jones). Nov. 26.

[Gazette, Dec. 13.)


ence as a law reporter. He resided for several years at Brentwood, at which place he often sat as judge of the county court in Essex, as deputy for Mr. Gurdor, the late judge of Cirouit No. 38. In 1867 Mr. French

was appointed Chief Justice of the colony of Sierra Leone. He returned WINDING-UP NOTICES.

to England in 1875, and in 1877 he was appointed Chief Judge of the Joint STOCK COMPANIES.

Supreme Consular Court for China and Japan, and he held that office antil LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

bis death. He leaves a large family. FAVERSTAM BRICKFIELDS COMPANY, LIMITED.--Petition for winding up, presented Dec

7, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Dec 17. Longcroft and Myers, Clement's

inn, solicitors for the petitioner HAFOD BREWERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Dec 6, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Dec 17. White, Poultry, agent for Leyson

MR. TOM JOHNSON MASON. Swansea, solicitor for the petitioner

Mr. Tom Johnson Mason, solicitor, of Chester, died in London on the 12th HAWKSTOR CHINA CLAY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Dec 7, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, at Roll's yard, Chancery lane, on Dec 17.

ult., from rheumatic gout. Mr. M2800 was born in 1841. He was for several Tibbitts and Son, Field ct, Gray's inn, solicitors for the petitioners

years a olerk in the office of Mr. Jobn Postlethwaite Cartwright, the PATENT AUTOMATIC KNITTING MACHINE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required,

present sheriff of the city of Chester, with whom he ultimately served bis on or before Jan 4, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of thei debts and claims, to Sidney Hersee, Palmerston bldgs, Old Broad st. Wednesday

articles, and be was admitted a solicitor in 1876. He was for a short time Jan 18, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims in partnership with Mr. Maurice Nordon, of Liverpool, but more recently SILICA COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Dec 5, directed to be

he had praotised alone. He held the office of Chief Conservative Registraheard before Chitty, J, on Doc 17. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioners

tion Agent for West Cheshire. Mr. Mason was a member of the Chester SOUTHEND MARINE PALACE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Fry, J, dated Town Counoil as a representative of Trinity Ward. When attacked with

that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. bis last illness he had come to town with a deputation to the President of Hollingsworth and Co, East India avenue, solicitors for the petitioners

the Local Government Board on the subject of the pollution of the River

(Gazette, Dec. 9.] COALVILLE BRICK AND TERRA COTTA COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty,

Dee. He leaves a widow and five obildren. Mr. Mason was buried at the J, dated Dec 3, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company

| Chester Cemetery on the 16th ult. continued. Wright, Fenchurch bldge, solicitor for the petitioner CUMBERLAND STEAM CULTIVATION COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J,

dated Dec 3, it was ordered that the said company be wound up. Speechly and Co,
New inn, solicitors for the petitioners

J, dated Dec 3, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the association be

Mr. Yard Eastly, solicitor and notary, of Paignton and Torquay, died at continued. Piesse and Son, Old Jewry chambers, solicitors for the petitioners

bis residence, Southfield, Paignton, on the 15th ult. Mr. Eastly was born NILGHERRY SOUTH INDIAN GOLD MINING SYNDICATE, LIMITED.-Petition for winding

in 1826. He was admitted a solicitor in 1848, and bad for many years up, presented Dec 10, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Jan 13 Eostwood, Great St Helens, solicitor for the petitioners

carried on business both at Paignton and Torquay. He was a perpetual ONLLWYN AND DULAIS COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Hall, V.O., has by an order, commissioner for Devonshire, and a notary public, and he had an extensive

dated Aug 9, appointed William Waddell, Queen Victoria st, to be official liquidator TEXAS FREEHOLD FARM AND EMIGRATION UNION, LIMITED.-By an order made by

private practice. He had also been for many years clerk to the CommisHall, V.C., dated Dec 2, it was ordered that the union be wound up. Labrow, Fins. sioners of Income Tax for the division of Hayton, steward of the manor of bury pavement, solicitor for the petitioner

Paignton, and Conservative registration agent for the Torquay district. [Gazette, Dec. 13.]

Mr. Eastly was a member of the Torquay School Board. He was baried at UNLIMITED IX CIANCERY.

Paignton at the 18th ult. COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE HORNCASTLE NAVIGATION.-Petition for winding up,

presented Dec 5, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Dec 17. Tempany, Bedford


MR. ROBERT ALLAN FITZGERALD. order made by Fry, J, dated Dec 2, it was ordered that the syndicate be wound up.

Mr. Robert Allan Fitzgerald, barrister, died at his residence, Ch orley wood, Edwards and Son, Cloak lane, solicitors for the petitioner

[Gazette, Dec. 9.] Hertfordshire, on the 28th ult., after a long illness. Mr. Fitzgerald was the HULL RECHABITE SAVINGS FUND AND EQUITABLE LOAN SOCIETY.-Chitty, J., has fixed

second son of Mr. Thomas Fitzgerald, of Shalstone, Buckinghamshire, and Dec 22, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

was born in 1834. He was educated at Harrow and at Prinity College,

[Gazette, Dec. 13.] | Cambridge, and was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Michaelmas Term, FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

1860. He was a member of the old Norfolk Circuit, but he had for some BROOKS LODGE, G.U.O.O.F., Black Bull Inn, Bentham, York. Nov 7

time ceased to practise. Mr. Fitzgerald was well known as a cricketer. He

(Gazette, Dec. 9.] played in the Harrow and Cambridge elevens, and he was for several years COVENTRY AND WARWICKSHIRE SICK AND FUNERAL SOCIETY, Meriden Tavern, New secretary to the Marylebone Cricket Club, the interests of which body he

bldge, Coventry, Warwick. Dec 9

actively promoted, the purchase of the freehold of Lord's Ground having been Brecon. Dec 9

carried out during his tenure of office. About four years ago he was compelled ROBERT BURNS SOCIETY, Stag Inn, Kinyer, Stafford. Deo 8

through ill-health to resign the secretaryship. In the summer of 1872 he was [Gazette, Dec. 13.]

captain of the amateor eleven of cricketers who visited Canada and the United States. Mr. Fitzgerald was married to a daughter of Mr. James Rigby,

of Moss House, Lancashire.


Mr. John Thomas Ambrose, solicitor, of Manningtree and Mistley, died at Mr. Ralph Dickinson Gongb, solicitor, formerly of Wolverhampton, died |

bis residence at the latter place on the 22nd ult., in his eighty-fourth year. Mr.

Ambrose was born in 1798. He was admitted & solicitor in 1836, and bad at his residence at Willenball on the 9th ingt. Mr. Gongh was born in

practised for nearly forty-five years at Manningtree and at Mistley, where he 1822. He was admitted a solicitor abont the year 1845, and praotised for

had an important practice. Mr. Ambrose was a man of quiet and retiring over fifteen years at Wolverhampton. In 1863, shortly after his retirement

habits, and was highly esteemed on account of his amiable disposition and bis from praotice, he was placed on the commission of the peace for Stafford

wide-spread liberality. He was a liberal supporter of the Essex and Colchesabire; and he was very active in his magisterial duties, his legal training

ter Hospital, and was also one of the founders of the Eastern Counties Asylum and knowledge proving extremely valuable. Mr. Gough was also a

|fur Idiots, of which institution he was vice-president. Mr. Ambrose was magistrate for Montgomeryshire. He was for many years chairman of the

unmarried. He was buried at Mistley on the 26th ult. Willenhall Local Board and of the Willenhall Board of Guardians, and both those bodies have passed resolutions expressive of condolence with his family.

It is stated that Lord Justice Lush, having had a return of the weakness from MR. THOMAS HENRY GEM.

which he suffered prior to the Long Vacation, has been advised to abstain Mr. Thomas Henry Gem, solicitor, of Birmingham, died at Leamington,

from performing his judicial duties during the remainder of the present from paralysis, on the 3rd ipgt. Mr. Gem was born in 1819. He was sitting 8. admitted a solicitor in 1841, and had ever since practiaed at Birmingham. Until the return of the judges from the winter circuits, one court will sit in He had an extensive private practice, and had been olerk to the magistrates Banc in the Queen's Bench Division on Mondays and Thursdays to hear for the borough of Birmingham sidoe 1856. He was also clerk to the motions, and two courts on those days will proceed with the trial of jury oounty magistrates, and to the Commissioners of Taxes for the hundred of actions, while on the other days of the week four courts will sit to try Hemlingford. Mr. Gem was one of the earliest supporters of the Volunteer actions. Mr. Justice Stephen will be the judge who will attend at chambers. movement at Birmingham, and at the time of his death held the rank of

According to Kemp's Mercantile Gazette, the number of bills of sale filed Major in the 1st Warwickshire Rifles. He was buried on the 10th inst.

in England and Wales during the week ending December 10 was 1,072. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 1,116, showing a decrease

of 44, being a net decrease, in 1881, to date, of 4,128. The number filed in CHIEF JUSTICE FRENCH.

Ireland during the same week was 26. The pumber in the corresponding Mr. George French, Chief Judge of the Sopreme Consolar Court for week of last year was 37, showing a decrease of 11, being a net increase in China and Japan, died at Kobe, Japan, on the 13th ult. The late Chief 1881, to date, of 287. The number of failures in England and Wales gazetted Justice was educated at Shrewsbury School and at Caius College, Cam. during the week ending Saturday, December 10, was 256. The number in the bridge. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1844, corresponding week of last year was 271, showing a decrease of 15, being a and formerly praotised in the Chancery Division. He had a long experi- total decrease, in 1881, to date, of 909.

« PreviousContinue »