Page images
PDF

CASES OF LAST WEEK.

Administration ActionBreach Op TrustPasties—AgentSoliciTor—costsTaxationThird PartySolicitors Act (6 & 7 Vict. C. 73, s. 39.—In a case of Spencer v. Hart, before the Court of Appeal on the 20th inst., the question arose whether solicitors had been properly made a party to an action tor the administration of the estate of a testator and the execution of the trus's of his will, and whether a beneficiary under the will could maintain an action against the solicitors, who had been employed hy the trustees and execntors, for the taxation of the solicitors' bill of costs in relation to the trust. The testator hy his will gave the residue of his property to trustees, whom he also appointed ixecutors, upon trust to pay the income to his wife for her life, and alter her death to divide the capital equally between certain persons, of whom the plaintiff was om\ After the death of the widow the action was brought against the trustees and the solicitors who had acted for them in relation to the trust. One of the trustees had been a managing clerk in the office of the solicitors. By his statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that, after the death of the widow, the tiustees converted the estate into money and presented a statement of accounts to the beneficiaries, and divided among them the sum which they represented that they had in their hands for division. The plaintiff alleged that he had since discovered that the trustees had omitted from the accounts various large sums of money which they had received as trustees, and, in particular, had failed to give credit for a sum of £700 which they had received on account of some houses forming part of the testator's estate. The plaintiff also alleged that the trustees had charged in the accounts various large sums by way of disbursements or allowances which they were not entitled so to charge, and that they had (inter alia) taken credit fcr a sum of £455, being the amount of a bill of costs alleged by them to have been paid to the defendants, the solicitors. The plaintiff alleged that the bill of costs was not in fact paid by the trustees, but that the amount thereof was deducted by the solicitors out of moneys received by them on the sale of the testator's property, and that the bill bad never been taxed. The plaintiff alleged that the bill of costs'contained gross and excessive overcharges and serious errors and omissions-, and that the Bame would, if taxed, be greatly reduced. The plaintiff further alleged that the tiustees bad acted under the advice and direction of the solicitors in all things connected with the testator's estate, and that all moneys arising from the sale and conversion of the estate passed through their hands, and that the trustees never caused any cash aocount of such receipts to be taken. The plaintiff claimed to have the testator's estate administered, and the trusts of his will carried into exocution under the direction of the court, and, for that purpose to have all necessary accounts taken and inquiries made; to have an account taken of all moneys come to the h.nds of the solicitors on accouot of the estate; and to have the bill of costs taxed under the direction of the court. The solicitors put in a demurrer, and the demurrer was allowed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Lancaster Chancery Court (Mr. Bristowe, Q.C.), on the ground that the case was governed by the decision of Lord Romilly, M.K., in Maw v. Pearson (28 Beav. 196), and his decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (baqoallay and Lindlet, L.JJ.). Baqoallay, L.J., said that the application was by a cettui q< e trust to have a bill of costs against his trustees taxed. By section 39 of the Solicitors Act of 1843, power was given to a third party to have a bill of costs taxed, but bis lordship was not aware of any authority before that Act for the taxation of a bill of costs on the application of a third party. The case of Vincent v. Venner (1 M. & K. 212) had been relied on. Hut in that case one of the defendants to the suit had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff s solicitor to satisfy the plaintiff s claim, and to pay the costs of the suit as between solicitor and client. The defendant petitioned the court for taxation of the solicitor's bills of costs. This was, in fact, an application for the specific performance of the agreement, which involved the taxation of the costs which were agreed to be paid. The court, in ordering the taxation, was only giving effect to the agreement. No cse had been cited in which the jurisdiction suggested had been exercised. There wore many ctses in which taxation of a solicitor's bill had been directed in a suit for the purpose by his client, but none in which this had been done at the suit of a third party. Were the solicitors then liable to the plaintiff in any other character than as solicitors? The principle on which agents conld be made parties to a suit as constructive trustees was well defined by Lord Selborne irl the exse of Barnes Y. Addy (22 W. R. 505, L. R. 9 Ch. 244, 251) thus: that "strangers are not to be made constructive trustees merely because they act as the agents of trustees in transactions within their legal powers, transactions, perhaps, of which a court of equity may disapprove, unless those agents receive and become chargeable with some part of the trust property, or unless they assist with knowledge in a dishonest and fraudulent design on the part of the trustees." His lordship could see nothing in the allegations in the present case which justified making the solicitors parties to the action as constructive trustees. '1 here was no ground for giving leave to amend the statement of claim. Even if there was jurisdiction to tax a solicitor's bill in an actioo by a third party, it was not right to adopt the more expensive remedy instead of proceeding in a summary wny under the Solicitors Act. Lindley, L.J., was of the Bame opinion. Primd facie an agent, whether he was a solicitor or not, could not be sued by a third party, hut if an agent ha 1 so ncted in a breach of trust as to stand in the position of a quasi-Uuatee, a bill would iie against him by the cestui que trust. No such case was made out here. It was alleged that the solicitors bad retained the amount of a bill of cists in which there were overcharges, and the question was whether the cestui que trust could bring an action agaiust ihe trustees and the solicitors. Vincent v. Vomer did not go so far as that. There there was an agreement '' by a third party" to pay a solicitor's costs as Vtneen solicitor and client, an.l that could not be done without a taxation cf the costs. That decision might be quite righ', but it did not govern the. present case. In his lordship's opinion such au action

against an agent was not maintainable.—Solicitors, Pritchard, EugUfield, <fc Co. ; & W. Owlts.

Will—Wilis Act (1 Vict. C. 26), s. 33—Gift To Child Leaving Issue Living At Testator's DeathGift By Child To FatherLapse.— In the matter of a petition presented in an administration action of Jones v, Hensler, heard on the 20th iust., Hall, V.C., had to deal with a new and curious point which arose under the 33rd section of the Wills Act. The section provides that " where a child . . . of a testator to whom any real

. . . estate is devised . . . shall die in the lifetime of the testator leaving is.stir, and any such issue shall be living at the death of the testator, the devise shall not lapse, but shall take effect as if the deith of such person had happened immediately after the death of the testator ", unless a contrary intention shall appear by the will. In the present case a testator had devised a freehold house to his eon absolutely, and had given his residuary real estate to other devisees. The son predeceased his father, but left issue who were' living at the time ol the father's death. The son had also made a will, whereby he gave all his real and pereonal estate to his father absolutely. Upon the death of the father nn action was instituted for the administration of bis estate, and the freehold house, specifically devised by his will was sold, and the proceeds paid into court. Upon the present petition the heir-at-law of the sou claimed thu fund. The question which arose was whether, inasmuch as by the operation of the Wills Act the son must bo taken to have survived the father in order to give effect to the devise, the property had passed back again under the son's will to the father, and, if so, had again become subject either to the specific or residuary gift in that will, or whether there had been a lapse in respect of the de?ise by the son. Hall, V.C., after hearing the arguments, held that the fither's will could not operate a second time upon the property, and that since, by the fiction created by the section of the statute, the son had survive! the father, the latter had, by the same fiction, predeceased the son, and the deviso by the will of the latter had consequently lapsed by the operation of the ordinary law. He held, therefore, that the petitioner, as heir-at-law of the son, was entitled to the fund.—Solicitors, Jones, Blaxland, ifc Son.

InfantMaintenanceAllowance Beyond Sum Fixed By Testator Jurisdiction On Summons.—In a case of In re Colgan, before Fry, J., on the 20th iost., a question arose as to granting for the maintenance and education of infants, who were enti'led under a will to interest partly vested and partly contingent, an allowance in excess of the sum which the testator had directed to be paid for the purpose. The question was also raised whether the court had jurisdiction to make such an order on summons. The testator gave the residue of his estate to trustees, on trust out of the income to nay an> annuity of £220 to bis wife, and then to pay to his daughter the yearly suun of £100 for each of his two grandchildren, Arthur and Emily (the children of. the daughter by a former husband), as regarded Arthur so long as he should be under the age of twenty-five, and as regarded Emily so long aa she should! bs under the age of twenty-one and unmarried, these sums to be paid to the daughter for the maintenance, education, an! support of the grandchildren respectively. The residue of the income was to be aBcumulated during thelife of the testator's wife, and upon her death he directed that the trustee should' stand possessed of the trust funds on trust to pay to his son T., if he should' be living, the sum of £3,000, but, if the same should not be personally chimed by him within two yeats from the testator's dtatl', it was to form part of the nsidue, and on further trust to invest the sum of £3,000 and pay the income thereof to the testator's daughter for her life, and on her death the trustees were to stand possessed of the £3,000 on trust for such person or persons as. the daughter should by will appoint, and in default of appointment on trust toapply the same as part of the testator's residue. And on fun her trust, to pay to the grandson Arthur, on his attaining the age of twenty-five, the. sum of £10,000. And on further trust to pay to the granddaughter Emily, on. her attaining twenty-one or marrying under that age, the sum of £10,000,, and, in the event of her death before she should have attained twentyone or married, upon trust to apply the £10,000 as part of the testator'sresidue. And the testator gave the residue of his trust estate on trust for his daughter and her children, Arthur and Emily, in equal shares, theshares of the two grandchildren to be paid to them on their respectively attaining twenty-one. By a codicil the testator revoked the legacy of £3,000* to his son T., and bequeathed to him in lieu thereof a sum of £500, to be paid to him as soon as possible after the testator's death. After the death of thetestator an order was made by Fry, J., appointing the mother of the two grandchildren and her second husband their guardians during their respective minorities, and it was ordered that the two sums of £100 should be paid to the guardians. A summons was afterwards taken out in the name of the infants, by their step-father is their next friend, asking that the further sum of £150 per annum might be allowed for the maintenance and education of the grandson Arthur, and the further sum of £120 per annum for the maintenance and education of the granddaughter Emily, during their respective minorities, or nntil further order, and the then increased allowances might be paid by the trustees to the guardians out of the income of the fund set apart to meet the two legacies of £10,000 each. The grandson was twenty-one years of age; the granddaughter was fifteen. The residue of the testator's estato was estimated as worth more than £14,000. The only near relati ns of the infants on the mother's side living were their grandmother, the testator's widow, who was aged seventy-seven j their mother and their maternal uncle, the ttst ttor's sou T. These all, so far as they could, consented to the application, except the maternal uncle, who was absent abroad. Fry, J., held that he had jurisdiction to make the order on summons, and he directid the increased allowance asked fi r to be paid hy the trustees out of the income of the estate. The order contained a recital that the only persons interested under the terms of the will in the trust moneys ▼ere, in addition to the infant?, the testator's son and his daughter and her husband, and that the persons entitled under the Statute of Distributions who were or might become interested in the accumulations of income, in the event of the testator's widow surviving the period of twenty-one years from the desth of the testator, were the testator's widow and his son and daughter; that the widow was aged seventy-seven, and that she consented to the application; and that the daughter and her husband consented so far as tbey were able. And the order directed that the trustees should hold the interests of the infant*, respectively, in the legacies of £10,000 and the residue under the will, as a security for the purpose of recouping to any person entitled thereto wh at would have arisen from the accumulation of such part of the income as should be applied in payment of the increased allowances instead of being accumulated. And it was ordered that a copy of the order should be indorsed on the probate of the testator's will.—Solicitors, Redpath 4; Holdsworth.

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS. (Before Mr. Registrar Murray, aoting as Chief Judge.) December 21.—Ex parte Lovering, Re Blue. At the time of B.'a bankruptcy, G., a creditor, held a policy of assur. ance upon B.'s life, and also an equitable mortgage upon leasehold property belonging to B., as aeourity for the debt due to her.

G. proved her debt under the bankruptcy after assessing the value of the securities, and B.'s trustee applied for leave to disclaim the lease, without reference to the policy.

Held, that he was at liberty to do so.

This wae an application on behalf of the trustee under the bankruptcy of Frederio Henry Bliss, a bankrupt, for an order that he might be at liberty to disolaim all the bankrupt's interest in a leasehold dwelling-house and premises known as Wallfield House, Whetstone, held by the bankrupt under a lease dated 23rd of September, 1878, for a term of fourteen years computed from Micbaelmaa-day, 1878, at the yearly rental of £52 10?., ■abject to an equitable mortgage to Mrs. C. M. Gurney.

At tbe date of the adjudication Mrs. Garney was a creditor of the estate for the sum of £200, and held aa security (1) a policy of assuranoe on the bankrupt's life for £500 (footed with the City of Glasgow Assurance Company in 1874, subject to premiums amounting to £12 10s. per annum; and (2) the lease of tbe house and premises, Wallfield House.

The bankruptcy occurred in August, 1830, and at that time the offioe surrender value of the life policy wag £21 17s. Mrs. Gurney proved her debt against the estate, and valued the policy at £30, and she had sinoe paid the half-yearly premiums as tbny became due. She also valued the security wbioh she beld on Wallfield Houseat £10. The trustee stated that tLe premises were let at a rack rental, and he desired to disolaim the bankrupt's interest in the lease. He deolined, however, either to take over tbe policy or to disclaim it, but expressed his intention to olaim the benefit of it if tbe life fell in.

O. A. Rooks (solicitor), in support of the application.

E. C. Willis, for Mrs. Gurney.—The trustee cannot disclaim the lease, and at the same time gay, "I do not desire to disclaim the policy," which is part of the tame security. Tbe respondent has certain securities for her debt, and she has the ordinary rights of a mortgagee, including a right to foreclose.

Mr. Registrar Murray.—The mortgagee may assess the value of her seenrity according to the rules and if she does eo, and the seourity is afterwards realized by sale, and it produces more than the amount at which it was assessed, the surplus will belong to the trustee.

Willis.—The question is whether the trustee ctn disclaim the lease without making some provision as to the policy. He ought not to disclaim a part of the property wi'hout disclaiming the whole.

Mr .registrar Murray said tbe trustee had a right, an absolute right, under the 23rd section, to disclaim the lease. Mrs. Gurney had proved her debt against the estate, and in her proof she said that she held no security or satisfaction except tbe policy, which she valued at £30, and a lease which she valued at £10. The trustee might have disclaimed without leave; that was a matter which rested between htm and the nourt, and he could not understand the objection which had been made. The rules showed the course to be adopted, and if, upon the sale of the policy, there was more than enough to pay the assessed value, the surplus must be handed to the trustee ; nnd, on the other hand, if there was a deficiency, the mortgagee would ba at liberty to prove. The objection raised on behalf of the mortgagee was really untenable, and an order would be made giving the trustee liberty to disclaim tbe lease.

Solic'tors for the trustee, Rooks ii Co.

Solicitors for the mortgagee, Chappell tfc Gibbons.

December 21.—Re Hockings.

The court will not entertain an application for the appointment of a receiver without the production of the original file of proceedings iu th e matter, or of an office copy of the petition for liquidation.

This was an application on behalf of a debtor who had presented a petition fjr liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors under the 125th •r.d 126th sections of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, for the appointment of a receiver, and for an injunction to restrain actions by creditors until after the first meeting.

Harris White (solicitor), in support of the application.

Mr. Registrar Murray.—Have you an office copy of the petition P

H. White.—One has not yet been made.

Mr. Registrar Murbat.—I must refuse to appoint a receiver or to grant anv iojuncinn without an office copy of the petition. There is a case pending before me at this moment in which a receiver was appointed and an injunction granted before the petition was actually filed. I must have some evidence that the petition has been filed; an office copy must be produced, or the original file of proceedings should be brought into court.

Solicitor to tbe petition, Harris White.

COUNTY COURTS.
Salisbury.

(Before Mr. Serjeant Tindal Atkinsox, Judge.)

Dec. 5.—Alexander v. The Great Western Itailioag Company.

Carriers Aot, 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c. 68, s. I—Insurance—In.uffijlenoy of declaration of s tie.

His Honour, in giving judgment iu this case, said :—

This ia an action brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants the sum of £4 89. 8d. for damage done negligently to goods intrusted by him to the defendants as common carriers, and which goods, it is alleged, were to be carried at their risk. Although the amount in dispute is small, the facts raise a question of some moment between railway companies aid the public who employ them for the purposes of goods traffic.—namely, as to what constitutes a sufficient declaration of the value and nature of articles which require to be insured, in order to bring the sender within the protection of th« Carriers Act, 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c. 63; and I thought the case of sufficient importance to delay giving judgment until I had had an opportunity of considering the evidence and consulting such authorities as I might find bore upon the matter in issue between the parties. The short facts upon which the question turns are that the plaintiff, who carries on tbe business of an upholsterer in Salisbury, being in London in May of this year, had occasion to senl to Salisbury a quantity of china and a number of ornamental tiles. Desirous to avoid the risk of carriage from damage or loss to the china, which, in default of insurance, he was aware would fall upon bim, he went to one of the defendants' receiving offices at Oxford-street, in London, and communicated to a clerk whom he found there that he was desirous of sending to S ilisbury a case containing china of the value of between £20 and £30, and also that it was to be carried at the company's risk. At that time there was a legibly printed notice of the terms of insurance as required by the Carriers Ac^ put up iu tbe office in a conspicuous position, but which notioe the plaintiff did not see nor was his attention called to it by anyone. The word "iusoranoe" was not named, but the plaintiff offered to pay any rate that might be demanded for tbe china being carried at the company's risk. The case was delivered subsequently to tha defendants' carman, who collected it with a note containing the charge of 10s. 8d., which was the carriage merely, and did not include any sum for insuranoe, nor was any declaration made to fie carman at the time of tbe value or nature of the articles in the package. On the case being delivered in Salisbury it was found to have been damaged in the transit, and on being opened a quantity of the china and some of the ornamental tiles were broken, of the value claimed in the plaintiffs particulars—namely, £3 16s. for the china, and 12*. 8d. for tiles. It does not appear from the evidence that tbe injury which had arisen was caused by bad or imperfect packing. Upon these facts it is contendel that the defendants an protected by the provisions of the Carriers Act, 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c. 68, which enacts that no common carrier shall be liable for the loss of, or injury to, certain articles enumerated, among which china is one, when the value of such articles oontained in any package or parcel shall exceed £10, unless at tbe time of the delivery at any office or receiving-office of the oarrier, or to bis book-keeper or other servant, the value and nature of such articles shall he declared by the person sending them, and the iocreased charge he accepted by the person receiving the parcel or package containing such articles. In the present case the question is raised, baa the plaintiff by what he did when he went to tbe defendants' receiving-house in Oxford-street brought himself within the protection of the statute? The faots show that whatever was done or said respecting the value of the china was said or done before any delivery took plaoe, and, as it appears to me, partook more of tbe nature of an inqniry than of a completed transaction. No money was demanded or paid at the time, nor was any of the printed forms ordinarily used by the 00mpany between them and the senders of goods when they are to be insured by them against risk of loss or damage employed or filled up, nor, when the actual delivery to the defendants' oarman took place, was the value mentioned to him. The mere fact of stating the value to a oarrier's servant when obtaining information as to the rate of insuranoe in the absenoe of the thing to be insured is not a declaration of its value within the terms of the statute. Nor does tbe expressed opinion of the oarrier as to the value of a thing to be carried obviate the necessity of a formal declaration : Bogs v. Pink (8C. 4 P. 361). A later decision, Bradbury v. Sutton (21 W. R. 128), Exohequer Chamber, has, no doubt, modified this ruling at Nisi Print, by holding that it is not essential that a declaration of value under the Carriers Aot should be express or formal, but in whatever form it ia made, it muBt be so framed as to convey to the mind of the oarrier or bis agent the value and nature of the thing delivered, and that at a time when the means of examination of the artiole or artioles to be insured are open and available to the insurer. The case relied npon by Mr. Nodder for the plaintiff—namely, Behrent v. The Great Northern Railway Company (31 L. J. Ex. 299)—in my reading of it, differs in a material fact from the present oase. There the sender of the package declared the value and nature of its contents at the time of the delivery to the oarman; here there was nothing more than a previous inquiry as to the rate of oarriage, whioh the oompany would oharge for carrying tbe goods at their risk, made, it must be observed, antecedently to the delivery j and the words of tbe section are clear and preoise that the thina; to ba insu ed moat have been delivered to the carrier before or at the time the contraot for insuranoe is completed. A constructive delivery, in my opinion, is not within the terms or meaning of the atatnte. This being the view I take of tha facta before me, the claim for the ohina most be disallowed. The plaintiff's case, however, does not entirely fail. The paokage contained a number of orna-nental tile?, some of which were damaged in the transit, and they, not baing within the ezoepted articles of the Carriers Aor, render the defendants responsible nnder their onmmon law liability as common curriers, fhe oase of Treadmin v. The Great Eastern Railuoay Company (L. R. 3CP. 308) being an authority that where a packing oase contains articles, Borne within the stttute and otbera not, the value of the latter may, when lost or damaged by the negligence of the carrier, be reoovered from him by the sender. There will therefore be a verdiot for the plaintiff for the damaged tiles for 12j. 81., with coats on that amonnt.

Xodder, for the plaintiff.

Povming, for the defendants.

OBITUARY.

LORD JUSTICE LUSH.

The Right Hon. Sir Robert Lnab, knight, one of the judges of the Court of Appeal, died at his residence, 60, Avenue-road, Regent'a-park, on the 27th inat., at the age of seventy-four. Lord Justioe Lush waa the son of Mr. Robert Lush, of Shaftesbury, where he waa born" in 1807. He was called to the bar at Gray's-inn in 1840, when he joined the Home Circuit. A short time after his call to the bar he published a work on the Act for the Abolition of Imprisonment fur Debt. This waa afterwards followed by a book on Queen's Benoh Practice, which was a recognized textbook on common law practice until the passing of the Judicature Acta, and first established his professional reputation. He steadily rose into a leading position as a junior both in London and on circnit. In 1857 he received a silk gown from Lord Cronworth, and was at once introduced into leading business. He was a sound mercantile lawyer, and was for many years engaged in nearly every important shipping case at Guildhall. Without any pretensions to eloquence, he waa gifted with the faoulty of laying intricate facta before a jury with remarkable clearness, while his uniform taot, patience, and good temper made him always a most popular and successful advocate. He shared with the late Sir William Bovill the best portion of the leading business of the Home Circuit, while in London he for a long time confined himself to the Court of Common Pleas, not going into the other common law courts without a special retainer. In October, I860, on the death of Mr. Justice Crompton, he was appointed by Lord Cranworth to a puisne judgship in the Court of Queen's Beocb, and shortly afterwards received the honour of knighthood. The appointment was warmly welcomed by the profession, and waa fully justified by subsequent results. Ko judge was ever more popular with the bar and with juries owing to his unfailing amiability and courtesy of demeanour. He Whs most patient and industrious iu the dispatch of all his judicial business, and his judgments always bore traces of great care and accuracy in iheir composition. Sir R. Lush will be remembered as having been one of the three judges who presided at the trial at bar of the Tichborne claimant, and the labour and anxiety attendant upon that case seriously undermined his health. It may also be remembered that he tried the case of Angus v. Dalton, which has occasioned so much discussion and was recently finally decided in the House of Lords; and that, although his two colleagues in the Queen's Bench Division differed from him, his ruling nt tho trial was upheld by the majority of the Court of Appeal, and by all the five law lords. In November, 1875, on the Judicature Acts coming into force, he attended continuously at judges' chambers for several weeks, and rendered most valuable aid in settling the new practice. In 1S78 he waa made a Privy Councillor, an honour very rarely conferred npon a puisne judge, and in October, 1880, on the death of Lord Justice Tbesiger, he was transferred to the Court of Appeal. His promotion gave general satisfaction, though it was felt that it had been too long delayed. Unfortunately he soon showed signs of failing health, and he sustained a severe blow by the death of Lady Lush in the early part of the present year. About a month ago he was taken ill while Bitting in the Cmrt of Appeal, and he waa never again able to resume his judioi 1 duties. Lord Justioe Luah's loss will long be felt, aa he was among the most popular and respected of our judges. He was a member of the Baptist community, and waa a most generous supporter of all the obarities connected with that body. Lord Justice Lush waa a bencher of Gray's-inn. He was a member of the Judicature Commission, and of the Commission on the Penal Code. He was married in 1839 to the daughter of the Rev. Christopher Woollacott, and he leaves several children. One of hia daughters is married to Mr. Justioe Williams.

MR. EDWARD WILLIAM BINXEY.

Mr. E. W. Bioney, F.R.S., F.G.S., solicitor, of Manchester, died on the 19tb inst., at Chcetham-hill, Manchester. The following inter s ing account of his career appears in tho Manchester Guardian :—Mr. Binney was b rn in 1812, at Morton, in Nottinghamshire. Adopting the legal profession, he served his articles with a solicitor at Chesterfield. About the year 1836 he came to Manchester, residing for some time in the house of the late Mr. Harlaud, with whom he then began an intimate and enduring friendship.

Perhaps the most interesting incident of his professional career was hia conduct of the cue of the successful claimant in the great Chadvoick lawsuit of 1842. Circumstances directed his strong scientific tastes towards the geology of this district, and every hour that could be snatched from hia office was devoted to diligent anamination* of the local strata, with especial regard to those of the coal formation. On this branch of his favourite pursuit he soon became the leading authority—an honourable distinction which hia unflagging industry well sustained. In association with friends of kindred tastes, he shared in the foundation of the Manchester Geological Society iu 1838. He was tha most liberal contributor to its museum, many of the specimen* being the product of his personal research and indefatigable activity. By his lamented death the Literary and Philosophical Society loses its president, and one of its oldest and moat valued members. Until recently he was almost a daily visitor at its rooms. Since hia election as an ordinary member, in January, 1842, he had successively occupied almost every one ot its principal honor try offices, and his papers and cotes occupy a prominent place in its volumes. A portrait of him, painted by Mr. W. H. Johnston, waa presented to thi society by his distinguished friend Dr. Joule, and now adorns its wall*. Mr. Binney waa a man of singularly robust character—mentally as well as physically. His preferences and antipathies were manifested with signal frankness. But he was truly kind-hearted, and was warmly sympathetic with every honest labourer in science, and especially if belonging to the working olassea. The indu8try of Mr. Binney is evidenced by the number of his Eoientiflo memoirs and notes. They are about one hundred in number, and include a few written in conjuncion with other savants. These papers included reports presented to the British Association and contrioutions to tho publications of the Royal Society, the West Yorkshire Geological Society, the Philosophical Magazine, Sturgeon's "Annals of Electricity," the Geological Society, and, above all, the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society. For the Paiseontographical S)cisty, of which he was a vioe-president, he wrote a monograph on the " Structure of Fos3il Plants found in the Carboniferous Strata," Four parts were issued between 1868 and 1875; it is still incomplete. Mr. Binney was elected a Fallow of the Geological Society in 1853, and of the Hoyal Society in 1856. He was honorary member of tha Geological Societies of Edinburgh and Liverpool, and of the Geological and Polytechnicil So'iiety of the West Riding of Yorkshire Mr. Binney was one of those whose investigations gave a commercial importance to the paraffin oil manufacture, and this yielded him a handsome fortune. It is not, however, as the successful man of business that he will be remembered, but as a genuine love of science for its own sake. His sterling nature, his strong and original character, deserve and will insure him an honourable place in the record of our local worthies.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. Charles Albert Carter, solioitor, of Walsall, has been appointed Managing Clerk in the Legal Department of the Office of the Town Clerk of Birmingham. Mr. Carter waa admitted a solioitor in 1872, and has been for several yeara in partnership with Mr. George Cotterell.

Mr. Arthur Elfohd Adams, solioitor, of Truro, has been appointed Clerk to the West Ponder Highway Board, on the resignation of hia partner, Mr. John Paul.

Mr. Wort in Ngton Evans, solicitor, of 34, E istoheap, has been appointed by Alderman Hanson to the office of Ward Clerk of Billingsgate Ward, in succession to Mr. Charles Frederiok Murray, resigned.

Mr. Edward Harry Adcock, solioitor, of Palmerston-buildings, Old Broad-street, London, B.C., and Penge, has been appointed a Commissioner for the Provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, in the Dominion of Canada. Mr. Adcock was admitted Hilary, 1865.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS.

John Stevenson, Henry Lyoett, and Henry Stevenson, solicitors, Manchester. Deoember 16. The business will in future be oarried on by John StevenBon and Henry Lyoett.

Thomas Swift and John Oakden Swift, solicitors, St. Helen's (Swift and Son). October 26. The said John Oakden Swift continues the practice alone nnder the style of Swift and Sou. {Gazette, December 16.]

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. Joint Stock Companies. Limited Is Chancery. Asglo-fehnch Union Baits, Limited.—By aa order made by Hall. V.C., it waa

ordered that the winding up be continued. Paddison and Co, Castle Bt, Holbom,

solicitors for tho petitioner Anglo-vikginian Freehold Land Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, pre

sentcd Dec 20, directed to bo beard before Chitty, J., on Jan 14. Bohm, Old Jewry,

solicitor for the petitioners Midland Land And Investment Corporation, Limited.—Creditors are required, on or

before J.in 28, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts and

claims, to Bolton and Co, Birmingham. "Wednesday, Mar 1, at 12, is appointed for

hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims Uplebs Brickfields Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Dec 20,

directed to bo heard before Chitty, J., on Jan 14. Longcroft and Myers, Clement's

inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner

[ Gazette, Dec. 23.1

Fatirshjlm Bbicxfiblds Cowpajty, Limited.—Hy nn order mado by Chitty, J,, dated

Dec 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Longcroft anl Myera,

Clement's inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner
Iiafoi> Brkwhbt Compaxt, Limited—By nn order made by Chitty, J., dated Dec 17,

it was ordered that tho company be wound up. White, Poultry, agent for Leyson,

Swansea, solicitor for the petitioner Itabzxr Natural Mineral Water Compakt, Limited.—By an order made by Chitty, J,

dated Dec 19, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Lindo and Co, Coleman

sfc, solicitors for the petitioner Liberia L.utd And Investment Company, Limited.—By an order mado by Chitty, J,

dated Dec 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Heritage and Co, Bt.

Clement's House, Clement's lane, solicitors for the petitioner London And Provincial Supply Association, Limited.—Chitty, J, has fixed Monday,

Jan 0, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator Tcrnbull Patent Pontoon Dock And Slipway Company, Limited.—Chitty, J, has,

by an order dated Dec 7, appointed Benjamin Smyrko, of Sunderland, to be official

liquidator [Gazette, Dec. 27.J

County Palatine Of Lancaster,

Clithkbok Permanent Benkpit Building Society.—Petition for winding up, presented. Dec 24, directed to be heard, before Bristowe, V.C, on Jan 5. Sale and Co, Manchester, solicitors lor the petitioner

[Gazette, Dec. 27.]

Fbiendly Societies Dissolved.

Improved Benefit Society, Register No. 327, Masons'Anns Inn, Finedon, Nortbamp' ton. Dec 17

[Gazette^Vec 23.]

Landsekr Friendly Society, Register No. 8943, Landseer rd, Liverpool. Dec 23 Loyal Beehive Friendly Society, Improved Order of Old Friends, Lodge 103, r No. 903, Rose and Crown Inn, Church st, Croydon. Dec 23

[Gazette, Dec. 27.]

CREDITORS' CLAIMS.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAT OF PROOF.

Aemsteong, William, Hawnes, Bedford, Farmer. Jan 10. Rusbbrooko v Armstrong,

Chitty, J. Ward, Lincoln's inn fields Bamlett, George, Sunderland, Fainter. Jan 17. Newman v Alcock, Chitty, J.

Robson, Monkwoannouth Bywateb, Jabez, Prince's End, Stafford, Auctioneer. Jan 17. Hughes v Jones, Chitty,

J. Stokes, Dudley

Cavm, Tuomas, Goltlhawk rd, Sbopherd'B Bush, Traveller. Feb 1. Gibbs v Cave, Hall,

V.C. Bowen, Moorgatc st
CinrwiLi, Thomas, Newbury, Berks, Gent. Feb 1. Hales v Wilton, Hall, V.C.

Adams, Lincoln's inn fields
Edwaeds, Thomas, Tredegar, Monmouth, Grocer. Feb 1. Edwards v Williams. Hall,

V.C. Shopard, Tredegar
Foetncm, John, Grimsbury, Northampton, Farmer. Feb 1. Harrison v Harrison,

Hall, V.C. Hawtin, Banbury Got Oh, Waltee, Holmwood, Dorking, Surrey, Gent. Jan 13. Gough v Gough, Bacon,

V.C. Galmoye, Essex st, Strand Hi», Joseph William, Desborough pi, Harrow rd, Printer. Jan 2-1. Harrild v Hare,

Hall, V.C. Lovell, Guildhall chbrs, Basinghall st Hut, James, Peterborough Northampton, Builder. Jan 0. Rippon v Hunt, Bacon,

V.C. Jones, Mark lane XiiTiJCCCL, Aistonio Lomsasdi, Pall Mall East, Photographic Artist. Jan 7. Fulton

T Martinncci, Bacon, V.C. Hewitt, Nicholas lane BLorxs, Elizabeth, Abergavenny. Jan 16. Harris v Morgan, Bacon, V.C. Baker,

Abergavenny

Wicxs, John, Kllbum, Builder. Jan 20. Wicks v Wicks, Chitty, J. Haines, Serjeant's inn. Fleet st

Wiihees, Alvexd, Southsca, Hants, Timber Merchant. Jan 20. Driver v Withers,

Chitty, J. Brown, Basinghall st ^Gazette, Dec. 20."1

Beeedon, Thomas Hehet, Bero ct, Berks, Esq. Febl. Breedon v Breedon, Hall, V.C.

Withenngton, Beading Ceocee, J Abb De La, Fopstone rd, Kensington. Feb 1. De la Crouee v De la Crouee,

Hall, V.C. Rickards, Crown ct. Old Broad st
Jowlings, William, Rodborough, Gloucester, Clothier. Jan 31. Jowlings v Roberts,

Fry, J. Witchell, Cainscross
Loxgden, John, Bomily, Chester, Innkeeper. Jan 13. Allott v Longden, Bacon, V.C.

Drinkwater, Hyde

Hume, David, Warnford ct, Stockbroker. Jan 20. Brandor v Merson, Chitty, J.

Gibb, Fenchurch avenue Smith, Abtuub Denmaw Ttleb, Seafjrd, Sussex, Esq. Jan 19. Abrahams v Smith,

Chitty, J. Gardiner, John st, Adelphi Watxins, John, Flanhowell Glascombe, Radnor, Farmer, Jan 17. Drew v Watkins, '"y, J. Bazele, Builth [Gazette, Doc. 23.]

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 25.

LA8T DAT OF CLAIM.

Aecheb, William RoBSOir, Lowestoft, Suffolk. Feb 18. Millor and Co, Norwich Baeeow, Edwaxd Sueaesok, Golborne, Lancaster, Surgeon. Jan 14. Mayhewand Son, Wigan

Bied, Thomas, Patricroft, Lancaster, Plumber. Jan 12. Horner and Son, Manchester Beooxb, Abbaham, Sootbill, Dewsbury, York, Esq. Feb 1. Scholefield and Taylor, Batley

Caldicott, Henby, Worcester, Solicitor. Jan 17. Thorn, Worcester

1 'ocx*, BiiiixuT, Uoldgate, Salop, Gent. Feb 1. Marston and Sons, Ludlow

Cormr, Heitby Edwabd, Caversham, Oxford, Esq. Jan 10. Robins and Cameron,

(iresbam house, Old Broad st Cooeee, Kdwaed, Slloby, Leicester, Miller. Feb 11. Bartlett, Loughborough Dai-owes, Claea Matilda, Osnaburgh st, Regent's pk. Jan 28. Armstrong, Broad ct,

Bow st, Covent gdn

Foestxb, Matthew, Temple gdns, Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Jan 27. Booty

and Bayliffe, Raymond bldgs, Gray's inn
GUSX9LADE, C'haeles, Weston super Mare, Somerset, Gent. Feb 15. Bakers and Co,

Weston super Mare
Gurro, Lsct, Warwick st, Pimlico. Jan 20. Hudson, Furnival's inn
Hiilt, Mast, BerkbampHtead, Herts. Feb 1. James and Horwood, Aylesbury
Uibeeelet, Jane, Shrewsbury, Salop. Jan 5. Sprott and Co, Shrewsbury
Jaeion, Robeet Ckeshtee, Woolton, Liverpool. Feb 28. Hall anil Co, Manchester
lonsos, Scsaitxah, Torbay st, Kentish Town. Jan 25. Moon, Lincoln's inn fields
Joxes, Mart, Hereford. Feb 10. Bishop, Brecon

Sjbsell, Elizabeth, Birmingham. Febl. Flewker and Page, Wolverhampton
Lieet, Peedbeicx, Orpines, Wateringbury, Kent, Brewer. Feb 12. Case and Son,

Uoid, William, Hay, Brecon, Auctioneer. Feb 20. Corner, Hereford

Longee, Noah Smith, Bradford, York, Merchant. Feb 1. Taylor anil Co, Bradford
Mackenzie, Haeeiett, Falmouth, Cornwall. Feb 16. Tompson and Co, Stone bldgs,
Lincoln's inn

Maksiiai.l, Maet, Abingdon, Berks. Jan 9. Simpson and Co, Furnival's inn
Milsou, John, Northgate, Wakefield, Retired Innkeeper. Dec 31. Lister, Wakefield
Payntbr, John, Berkeley sq. Feb 1. Hores and Pattison, Lincoln's inn fields
Poole, SiRAn Ann, Gresford, Denbigh. Feb 1. Bankcs, Oxford chmbra, Liverpool
Powell, Timothy' Sampson, Charlton, Henbury, Gloucester, Esq. Jan 10. Danger and

Cartwright, Bristol
Rogrbson, Nathaniel, Crewe, Chester, Grocer. Jan 11. Hill, Crewe
Rost, Maximilian Ludwig, Amoy, China, Storekeeper. Feb 25. Fielder and Sumner,

Godliman st, Doctor's commons Schweicker, John Frederick, Lindau, Bavaria, Germany, Merchant. Feb25. Fielder

and Sumner, Godliman st, Doctor's commons Smith, Richard. Layham, Suffolk, Maltster. Feb 1. Grimwado. Hadleigh, Suffolk' Smith, Samuel, Althorpc rd, Wandsworth common, Surrey, Retired Licensed Victualler.

Feb 10. Coldham, New inn, Strand Stokes, Allitha Sabah, Wolverhampton. Feb 1. Flewker and Page, Wolverhampton Sweeting, Richabd, Lorano, Clapham pk, Surrey, M.D. Jan 21. Barker and Son,

Bedford row

Topham, John, Boroughbridge, York, Butchor. Jan 17. Hirst and Capes, Boroughbridge

Wall, Walter, Boxmoor, Hemel Hempstead, Hertford. Jan 20. Few and Co. Surroy st, Strand - [Gazette, Dec. 20.J

LEGAL NEWS.

At a special meeting of the Brighton Town Council on Wednesday the formal resignation of Mr. J. A. Neeman, town clerk, was handed in, and accepted. The General Purposes Committee recommended the appointment of Mr. J. Tilts' one, the chief clerk, to the office, but an amendment was moved, on the ground that Mr. Tillstone was not a solicitor, and that it was requisite for the post to be occupied by a thoroughly qualified man. On a division Mr. Tillstone was Belected by twenty-four to fifteen.

New rules have been made with reference to writ* of summons in Ireland. The following is a summary of the rules:—(1) That from and after the 2nd of January, 1832, all writs of summons for tie commencement ol° actions in the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice shall issue in rotations of twenty-fives—that is to say, the first twentyfive for the Queen's Bench Division, the second twenty-five for the Common Pleas Division, and the third twenty-five for the Exchequer Division, and so on, and ihe clerk of the Consolidated Record and Writ Office shall require every person who may commence an action in the said divisiona to assign the action in such rotuion. (2) That from and after the 2nd of January, 1882, in all cases where any defendant named in any writ of summons issuing out of any division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland shall reside within any district for the time being prescribed under the Act for the belter Protection of Person and Property in Ireland, such place or residenoe not being within a county of a city, or county of a town, service of such writ shall be made on such defendant by amding to him a copy of such writ and a copy of this order by letter through the Post Office, addressed to him at his usua residence, and pos'ing a copy of such writ at the police station nearest tol his said residence shall be good and sufficient service of such writ, p-ovided that the plaintiff or plaintiff, named in such writ of summons, or one of them, or his or their attorney, shall make and cause to be filed in the division out of which such writ shall have is?ued an affidavit staling the parish and barony in which the defendant resides, and that such place of residence is within a district which has been and is prescribed as aforesail, and that the above particulars to service have beeu duly observed and performed. The time li i.ied for the appearance of the defendant to any writ (erved under this rule shall be twelve days after the service thereof. By the last rule, in consideration of the change of practice, four days are added to the time within which the defendant is required to enter an appearance. The prescribed districts comprise the whole of the provinces of Leicster and Connanght, the barony of Tullyhaw in the oonnty Cavan, and a barony and two parishes in Donegal.

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

Letcher.—Deo. 21, at Ripley Lodge, Belvedere, Kent, the wife of Mark J.

Letcher, solicitor, of a daughter. Chamheklayne.— Dec. 21, at Weddington Grove, Nuneaton, the wife of Stanos

Chamberlavne, barriater-at-law, of a son.

DEATH.

Watsoh.—Dec. 24, at Wimbledon, H. Watson, solicitor to the Post Office, aged

m.

At the Stock and Share Auction Company's sale held on Friday, the 23rd inst., at their sale room, Crown-coort-bnildings, Old Broad-street, the following were among«t the prices obtniped:—Norway Copper Mines £1 Ten per Cent. Preference Shares, 10s. paid, lis. Od.; United Horse Nail Company £1 Shares, 8«. ; East Argentine Railway, 161Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining £1 Shares, fully paid, 10s. 6d.; Standard Union Investment £1 Shsres, fully paid, 20s. 01. ; Indian Kingston and Sandhurst Gold Mining £1 Shares, 9s. (3d.; Oriental Telephone £1 Shares, 10<. paid, par; Egyptian Unified 1J premium for end of January, 70 and 7-16 j and other securities fetched fair prices.

Kitchens Made Lionr By Means Op Chappl'is' Daylight Rbvlectoes.—The cost is from 25s. The saving in gas or oil soon makes up for that outlay. Prospectuses sent on receipt of two stamps, addressed (S. J.) Chappuis, London.—[An Vt.]

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

Bankrupts.

Friday, Dec 23, 1881. Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar. To Surrender in London. Barritt, William, Ordnance ter, Barking rd, Cheesemonger. Pet Doc 20. Brougham. Jan 13 at 12.30

Botten, Henry, Canrobert at, Bethnal Green rd, Licensed Victualler. Fet Dec 20.

Brougham. Jan 13 at 12 Filboy, William, Bethnal Green rd, Butcher. Pet Dec 21. Brougham. Jan 17 Horder, Frederick Henry, The Parade, Shopherd's Bush, Grocor. Pet Dec 21.

Brougham. Jan 17 at 2 Masterman, Henry, Seward st, Goswell rd. Rug Manufacturer. Pet Oct 21. Hazlitt.

Jan II at 1

Redhead, John Allen, Mark lane, Solicitor. Pet Dec 22. Hazlitt. Jan 11 at 2
Ropkius, George Edward, Clacton on Sea, Essex, Builder. Pet Deo 19. Brougham.
Jim 11 at 1

Tipping, Samuel, Littlo Newport st, Newport Market, Boot Manufacturer. Pot Dec 20.
Murray. Jan 11 at 12

To Surrender in the Country. Claydon, Agnes Charlotte, Plumstead, Kent, Milliner. Pet Dec 20. Pitt-Taylor.

Greenwich, Jan 17 at 1 Cowan, William, Stockton on Tees, Grocer. Pet Dec 20. CroBby. Stockton on Tecs,

Jan 6 at 2.30

Hammond, William, jun, Norwich, Merchant. Pet Dec 21. Cooke
at 12

Ramsden, Arthur Charles, Ashurst, Tunbridge Welle, Kent. Pet D
Tuiibridge Wells, Jan 5 at 3

Shilabeer, Eli, Pembroke Dock, Pembroke, Confectioner. Pet Dec 20. Parry. Pembroke Dock, Jan 4 at 12

Welham, Frederick, Great Yarmouth, Ironmonger. Pot Dec 20. Worlledge. Great Yarmouth, Jan 4 at 11

Tuesdat, Dec. 27, 1881.

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar. To Surrender in London. Ker, Robert, Walton st, Brompton. Pet Dec 22. Hazlitt. Jan 18 at 11 Levy, Robert, Walworth rd. Fruit and Potato Salesman. Fet Doc 22. Hazlitt. Jan 11 at 2

Norwich. Jan G Cripps.

15.

« PreviousContinue »