Page images
PDF
EPUB

CASES OF LAST WEEK.

ADMINISTRATION ACTION-BREACH OF TRUST-PARTIES-AGENT-SOLICI TOR-COSTS-TAXATION-THIRD PARTY-SOLICITORS 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 for the administration of the estate of a testator and the execution of the trusts of his will, and whether a beneficiary under the will could maintain an action against the solicitors, who had been employed by the trustees and executors, for the taxation of the solicitors' bill of costs in relation to the trust. The testator by his will gave the residue of his property to trustees, whom he also appointed executors, upon trust to pay the income to his wife for her life, and after her death to divide the capital equally between certain persons, of whom the plaintiff was one. 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 trustees 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 for 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 had never been taxed. The plaintiff alleged that the bill of costs contained gross and excessive overcharges and serious errors and omissions, and that the same would, if taxed, be greatly reduced. The plaintiff further alleged that the trustees 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 account of such receipts to be taken. The plaintiff claimed to have the testator's estate administered, and the trusts of his will carried into execution 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 hands of the solicitors on account 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.R., in Maw v. Pearson (28 Beav. 196), and his decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (BAGGALLAY and LINDLEY, L.JJ.). BAGGALLAY, L.J., said that the application was by a cestui que 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 his 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. But 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 case had been cited in which the jurisdiction suggested had been exercised. There were many cases 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 could be made parties to a suit as constructive trustees was well defined by Lord Selborne in the case of Barnes v. 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. There 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 action by a third party, it was not right to adopt the more expensive remedy instead of proceeding in a summary way under the Solicitors Act. LINDLEY, L.J., was of the same opinion. Prima facie an agent, whether he was a solicitor or not, could not be sued by a third party, but if an agent hal so acted in a breach of trust as to stand in the position of a quasi-trustee, a bill would lie against him by the cestui que trust. No such case was made out here. It was alleged that the solicitors had retained the amount of a bill of cests in which there were overcharges, and the question was whether the cestui que trust could bring an action against the trustees and the solicitors. Vincent v. Venner did not go so far as that. There there was an agreement by a third party to pay a solicitor's costs as between solicitor and client, and that could not be done without a taxation cf the costs. That decision might be quite right, but it did not govern the present case. In his lordship's opinion such an action

[ocr errors]

against an agent was not maintainable.-SOLICITORS, Pritchard, Englefield, & Co.; E. W. Owles.

estate is devised

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

WILL-WILLS ACT (1 VICT. c. 26), s. 33-GIFT TO CHILD LEAVING ISSUE LIVING AT TESTATOR'S DEATH-GIPT BY CHILD TO FATHER-LAPSE.In the matter of a petition presented in an administration action of Jones v. Hensler, heard on the 20th inst., 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 shall die in the lifetime of the testator leaving issue, 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 death 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 son 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 of the father's death. The son had also made a will, whereby he gave all bis real and personal estate to his father absolutely. Upon the death of the father an action was instituted for the administration of his 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 son claimed the fund. The question which arose was whether, inasmuch as by the operation of the Wills Act the son must be 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 devise by the son. HALL, V. C., after hearing the arguments, held that the father'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 survived the father, the latter had, by the same fiction, predeceased the son, and the devise 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, & Son.

INFANT MAINTENANCE-ALLOWANCE BEYOND SUM FIXED BY TESTATOR -JURISDICTION ON SUMMONS.-In a case of In re Colgan, before Fry, J., on the 20th inst., a question arose as to granting for the maintenance and education of infants, who were entitled 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 pay an annuity of £220 to his wife, and then to pay to his daughter the yearly sum 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 as she should be under the age of twenty-one and unmarried, these sums to be paid to the daughter for the maintenance, education, and support of the grandchildren respectively. The residue of the income was to be accumulated during the life 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 claimed by him within two years from the testator's death, it was to form part of the residue, 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 to apply the same as part of the testator's residue. And on further 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's residue. And the testator gave the residue of his trust estate on trust for his daughter and her children, Arthur and Emily, in equal shares, the shares 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 the testator 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 as 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 until 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 grandThe

son

was twenty-one years of age; the granddaughter was fifteen. residue of the testator's estate was estimated as worth more than £14,000. The only near relations of the infants on the mother's side living were their grandmother, the testator's widow, who was aged seventy-seven; their mother and their maternal uncle, the testator's son 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 directed the increased allowance asked for to be paid by 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

were, in addition to the infants, 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 death 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 they were able. And the order directed that the trustees should hold the interests of the infants, 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 what 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 & Holdsworth.

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS.
(Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.)
December 21.-Ex parte Lovering, Re Bliss.

At the time of B.'s 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 security 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 was an application on behalf of the trustee under the bankruptcy of Frederic Henry Bliss, a bankrupt, for an order that he might be at liberty to disclaim 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 Michaelmas-day, 1878, at the yearly rental of £52 10s., subject to an equitable mortgage to Mrs. C. M. Gurney.

At the date of the adjudication Mrs. Gurney was a creditor of the estate for the sum of £200, and held as security (1) a policy of assurance on the bankrupt's life for £500 effected with the City of Glasgow Assurance Company in 1874, subject to premiums amounting to £12 10s. per annum; and (2) the lease of the house and premises, Wallfield House. The bankruptcy occurred in August, 1880, and at that time the office surrender value of the life policy was £21 178. Mre. Gurney proved her debt against the estate, and valued the policy at £30, and she had since paid the half-yearly premiums as they became due. She also valued the security which she held on Wallfield House at £10. The trustee stated that the premises were let at a rack rental, and he desired to disclaim the bankrupt's interest in the lease. He declined, however, either to take over the policy or to disclaim it, but expressed his intention to claim the benefit of it if the life fell in.

G. 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 say, "I do not desire to disclaim the policy," which is part of the same security. The 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 security according to the rules and if she does so, and the security is after wards 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 can disclaim the lease withont making some provision as to the policy. He ought not to disclaim a part of the property without disclaiming the whole. Mr.REGISTRAR MURRAY said the 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 the 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 him and the court, 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 ; and, on the other hand, if there was a deficiency, the mortgagee would be 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 the lease.

Solicitors for the trustee, Rooks & Co.

Solicitors for the mortgagee, Chappell & 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 in the 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 for liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors under the 125th and 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 ?
H. White.-One has not yet been made.

Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY. -I must refuse to appoint a receiver or to grant any injunction 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 the petition, Harris White.

COUNTY COURTS.

SALISBURY.

(Before Mr. SERJEANT TINDAL ATKINSON, Judge.) Dec. 5.-Alexander v. The Great Western Railway Company. Carriers Act, 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c. 68, s. 1-Insurance-Insufficiency of declaration of sale.

His HONOUR, in giving judgment in this case, said :—

This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants the sum of £4 8s. 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 and the public who employ them for the purposes of goods traffic-camely, 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 the Carriers Act, 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c. 68; 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 the business of an upholsterer in Salisbury a quantity of china and a number of ornamental tiles. Salisbury, being in London in May of this year, had occasion to send to 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 him, 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 Salisbury 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 Act put up in the office in a conspicuous position, but which notice the plaintiff did not see nor was his attention called to it by anyone. The word "insurance" was not named, but the plaintiff offered to pay any rate that might be demanded for the china being carried at the company's risk. The case was delivered subsequently to the 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 insurance, nor was any declaration made to the carman at the time of the 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 plaintiff's particulars-namely, £3 16s. for the china, and 12. 8d. for tiles. It does not appear from the evidence that the injury which had arisen was caused by bad or imperfect packing. Upon these facts it is contendel that the defendants are 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 contained in any package or parcel shall exceed £10, unless at the time of the delivery at any office or receiving-office of the carrier, or to his book-keeper or other servant, the value and nature of such articles shall be declared by the person sending them, and the increased charge be accepted by the person receiving the parcel or package containing such articles. In the present case the question is raised, has the plaintiff by what he did when he went to the defendants' receiving-house in Oxford-street brought himself within the protection of the statute? The facts show that whatever was done or said respecting the value of the china was said or done before any delivery took place, and, as it appears to me, partook more of the nature of an inquiry 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 company 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 mentioned to him. The mere fact of stating the value to a carrier's servant the actual delivery to the defendants' carman took place, was the value when obtaining information as to the rate of insurance in the absence of the thing to be insured is not a declaration of its value within the terms of the statute. Nor does the expressed opinion of the carrier as to the value of a thing to be carried obviate the necessity of a formal declaration : Boys v. Pink (8 C. & P. 361). A later decision, Bradbury v. Sutton (21 W. R. 128), Exobequer Chamber, has, no doubt, modified this raling at Nisi Prius, by holding that it is not essential that a declaration of value under the Carriers Act should be express or formal, but in whatever form it is made, it must be so framed as to convey to the mind of the carrier or bis agent the value and nature of the thing delivered, and that at a time when the means of examination of the article or articles to be insured are open and available to the insurer. The case relied upon by Mr. Nodder for the plaintiff-namely, Behrens v. The Great Northern Railway Company (31 L. J. Ex. 299)—in my reading of it, differs in a material fact from the present case. There the sender of the package declared the value and nature of its contents at the time of the delivery to the carman; here there was nothing more than a previous inquiry as to the rate of carriage, which the company would charge for carrying the goods at their risk, made, it must be observed, antecedently to the delivery; and the words of the section are

clear and precise that the thing to be insured must have been delivered to the carrier before or at the time the contract for insurance is completed. A constructive delivery, in my opinion, is not within the terms or meaning of the statute. This being the view I take of the facts before me, the claim for the china must be disallowed. The plaintiff's case, however, does not entirely fail. The package contained a number of ornamental tiles, some of which were damaged in the transit, and they, not being within the excepted articles of the Carriers Act, render the defendants responsible under their common law liability as common carriers, fhe case of Treadwin v. The Great Eastern Railway Company (L. R. 3 C. P. 308) being an authority that where a packing case contains articles, some within the statute and others not, the value of the latter may, when lost or damaged by the negligence of the carrier, be recovered from him by the sender. There will therefore be a verdict for the plaintiff for the damaged tiles for 12. 81., with costs on

that amount.

Nodder, for the plaintiff. Powning, for the defendants.

OBITUARY.

LORD JUSTICE LUSH. The Right Hon. Sir Robert Lush, knight, one of the judges of the Court of Appeal, died at his residence, 60, Avenue-road, Regent's-park, on the 27th inst., at the age of seventy-four. Lord Justice Lush was the son of Mr. Robert Lush, of Shaftesbury, where he was 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 for Debt. This was afterwards followed by a book on Queen's Bench Practice, which was a recognized textbook on common law practice until the passing of the Judicature Acts, and first established his professional reputation. He steadily rose into a leading position as a junior both in London and on circuit. In 1857 he received a silk gown from Lord Cranworth, 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 was gifted with the faculty of laying intricate facts before a jury with remarkable clearness, while his uniform tact, 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 special retainer. In October, 1865, on the death of Mr. Justice Crompton, he was appointed by Lord Crauworth to a puisne judgship in the Court of Queen's Bench, and shortly afterwards received the honour of knighthood. The appointment was warmly welcomed by the profession, and was fully justified by subsequent results. No judge was ever more popular with the bar and with juries owing to bis unfailing amiability and courtesy of demeanour. He was most patient and industrious in the dispatch of all his judicial business, and his judgments always bore traces of great care and accuracy in their 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 at the 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 1878 he was made a Privy Councillor, an honour very rarely conferred upon a puisne judge, and in October, 1880, on the death of Lord Justice Thesiger, 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 sitting in the Court of Appeal, and he was never again able to resume his judici 1 duties. Lord Justice Lush's loss will long be felt, as he was among the most popular and respected of our judges. He was a member of the Baptist community, and was a most generous supporter of all the charities connected with that body. Lord Justice Lush was 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 his daughters is married to Mr. Justice Williams.

MR. EDWARD WILLIAM BINNEY.

Mr. E. W. Binney, F. R.S., F. G. S., solicitor, of Manchester, died on the 19th inst., at Cheetham-hill, Manchester. The following interes ing account of his career appears in the Manchester Guardian-Mr. Binney was born 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. Harland, with whom he then began an intimate and enduring friendship.

Perhaps the most interesting incident of his professional career was his conduct of the case of the successful claimant in the great Chadwick lawsuit of 1842. Circumstances directed his strong scientific tastes towards the geology of this district, and every hour that could be snatched from his office was devoted to diligent examinations 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 his unflagging industry well sustained. In association with friends of kindred tastes, he shared in the foundation of the Manchester Geological Society in 1838. He was the most liberal contributor to its museum, many of the specimens 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 most valued members. Until recently he was almost a daily visitor at its rooms. Since his election as an ordinary member, in January, 1842, he had successively occupied almost every one of its principal honorary offices, and his papers and notes occupy a prominent place in its volumes. A portrait of him, painted by Mr. W. H. Johnston, was presented to the society by his distinguished friend Dr. Joule, and now adorns its walls. Mr. Binney was 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 olasses. The industry of Mr. Binney is evidenced by the number of his scientific memoirs and notes. They are about one hundred in number, and include a few written in conjunction with other savants. These papers included reports presented to the British Association and contributions to the 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 Palæontographical Society, of which he was a vice-president, he wrote a monograph on the "Structure of Fossil Plants found in the Carboniferous Strata," Four parts were issued between 1868 and 1875; it is still incomplete. Mr. Binney was elected a Fellow of the Geological Society in 1853, and of the Royal Society in 1856. He was honorary member of the Geological Societies of Edinburgh and Liverpool, and of the Geological and Polytechnical Society 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, solicitor, of Walsall, has been appointed Managing Clerk in the Legal Department of the Office of the Town Clerk of Birmingham. Mr. Carter was admitted a solicitor in 1872, and has been for several years in partnership with Mr. George Cotterell.

Mr. ARTHUR ELFORD ADAMS, Solicitor, of Truro, has been appointed Clerk to the West Ponder Highway Board, on the resignation of his partner, Mr. John Paul.

Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS, solicitor, of 34, Eastcheap, has been appointed by Alderman Hanson to the office of Ward Clerk of Billingsgate Ward, in succession to Mr. Charles Frederick Murray, resigned.

Mr. EDWARD HARRY ADCOCK, solicitor, of Palmerston-buildings, Old Broad-street, London, E.C., and Penge, has been appointed a Commis. sioner 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 LYCETT, and HENRY STEVENSON, solicitors, Manchester. December 16. The business will in future be carried on by John Stevenson and Henry Lycett.

THOMAS SWIFT and JOHN OAKDEN SWIFT, solicitors, St. Helen's (Swift and Son). October 26. The said John Oakden Swift continues the practice alone under the style of Swift and Son. [Gazette, December 16.]

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

ANGLO-FRENCH UNION BANK, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., it was ordered that the winding up be continued. Paddison and Co, Castle st, Holborn, solicitors for the petitioner

ANGLO-VIRGINIAN FREEHOLD LAND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Dec 20, directed to be heard 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 Jan 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

UPLEES BRICKFIELDS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Dec 20, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Jan 14. Longcroft and Myers, Clement's inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner

[Gazette, Dec. 23.]

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

FAVERSHAM BRICKFIELDS COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated Dec 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Longcroft and Myers, Clement's inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner

HAFOD BREWERY COMPANY, LIMITED-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated Dec 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. White, Poultry, agent for Leyson, Swansea, solicitor for the petitioner

HARZER NATURAL MINERAL WATER COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J, dated Dec 19, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Lindo and Co, Coleman st, solicitors for the petitioner

LIBERIA LAND AND INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED.—By an order made by Chitty, J, dated Dec 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Heritage and Co, St. Clement's House, Clement's lane, solicitors for the petitioner

LONDON AND PROVINCIAL SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED-Chitty, J, has fixed Monday, Jan 9, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator TURNBULL PATENT PONTOON DOCK AND SLIPWAY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J, has, by an order dated Dec 7, appointed Benjamin Smyrke, of Sunderland, to be official liquidator [Gazette, Dec. 27.] COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER, CLITHEROE PERMANENT BENEFIT 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 for the petitioner [Gazette, Dec. 27.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. IMPROVED BENEFIT SOCIETY, Register No. 327, Masons' Arms Inn, Finedon, Northamp ton. Dec 17 [Gazette, Dec. 23.] LANDSEER FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Register No. 6843, Landseer rd, Liverpool. Dec 23 LOYAL BEEHIVE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Improved Order of Old Friends, Lodge 103, Register No. 903, Rose and Crown Inn, Church st, Croydon. Dec 23 [Gazet te, Dec. 27.]

[blocks in formation]

EDWARDS, THOMAS, Tredegar, Monmouth, Grocer. Feb 1. Edwards v Williams, Hall,
V.C. Shepard, Tredegar

FORTNUM, Joux, Grimsbury, Northampton, Farmer. Feb 1.
Hall, V.C. Hawtin, Banbury

GOUGH, WALTER, Holmwood, Dorking, Surrey, Gent. Jan 13.
V.C. Galmoye, Essex st, Strand

HARE, JOSEPH WILLIAM, Desborough pl, Harrow rd, Printer.
Hall, V.C. Lovell, Guildhall chbrs, Basinghall st
HUNT, JAMES, Peterborough Northampton, Builder. Jan 0.
V.C. Jones, Mark lane

Harrison v Harrison,

Gough v Gough, Bacon, Jan 24. Harrild v Hare, Rippon v Hunt, Bacon,

MARTINUCCI, ANTONIO LOMBARDI, Pall Mall East, Photographic Artist. Jan 7.
v Martinucci, Bacon, V.C. Hewitt, Nicholas lane
SLOPER, ELIZABETH, Abergavenny. Jan 16. Harris v Morgan, Bacon, V.C.
Abergavenny

inn, Fleet st

Fulton

Baker, WICKS, JOHN, Kilburn, Builder. Jan 20. Wicks v Wicks, Chitty, J. Haines, Serjeant's WITHERS, ALFRED, Southsea, Hants, Timber Merchant. Jan 20. Driver v Withers, [Gazette, Dec. 20.1 Breedon v Breedon, Hall, V.C. De la Crouée v De la Crouée,

Chitty, J. Brown, Basinghall st
BREEDON, THOMAS HENRY, Bere ct, Berks, Esq. Feb 1.
Witherington, Reading
CROUEE, JANE DE LA, Fopstone rd, Kensington. Feb 1.

Hall, V.C. Rickards, Crown ct, Old Broad st
JOWLINGS, WILLIAM, Rodborough, Gloucester, Clothier.
Fry, J. Witchell, Cainscross
LONGDEN, JOHN, Romily, Chester, Innkeeper. Jan 13.
Drinkwater, Hyde

MERSON, DAVID, Warnford ct, Stockbroker. Jan 20.
Gibb, Fenchurch avenue

SMITH, ARTHUR DENMAN TYLER, Seaford, Sussex, Esq.
Chitty, J. Gardiner, John st, Adelphi

Jan 31. Jowlings v Roberts, Allott v Longden, Bacon, V.C. Brander v Merson, Chitty, J.

Jan 19. Abrahams v Smith,

WATKINS, JOHN, Flanhowell Glascombe, Radnor, Farmer, Chitty, J. Bazele, Builth

Jan 17. Drew v Watkins, [Gazette, Dec. 23.]

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 25.

LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

ARCHER, WILLIAM ROBSON, Lowestoft, Suffolk. Feb 16. Miller and Co, Norwich
BARROW, EDWARD SHEARSON, Golborne, Lancaster, Surgeon. Jan 14. Mayhew and
Son, Wigan

BIRD, THOMAS, Patricroft, Lancaster, Plumber. Jan 12. Horner and Son, Manchester
BROOKE, ABRAHAM, Soothill, Dewsbury, York, Esq. Feb 1. Scholefield and Taylor,
Batley
Thorn, Worcester
Marston and Sons, Ludlow
Jan 10. Robins and Cameron,

CALDICOTT, HENRY, Worcester, Solicitor. Jan 17.
COCKS, BENJAMIN, Holdgate, Salop, Gent. Feb 1.
COFFIN, HENRY EDWARD, Caversham, Oxford, Esq.
Gresham house, Old Broad st

COOPER, EDWARD, Sileby, Leicester, Miller. Feb 14. Bartlett, Loughborough
DEFAYNES, CLARA MATILDA, Osnaburgh st, Regent's pk. Jan 28. Armstrong, Broad ct,
Bow st, Covent gdn
FORSTER, MATTHEW, Temple gdns, Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Jan 27. Booty

and Bayliffe, Raymond bldgs, Gray's inn

GREENSLADE, CHARLES, Weston super Mare, Somerset, Gent. Feb 15. Bakers and Co,

Weston super Mare

GRIFFIN, LUCY, Warwick st, Pimlico. Jan 20. Hudson, Furnival's inn
HAILY, MARY, Berkhampstead, Herts. Feb 1. James and Horwood, Aylesbury
HABBERLEY, JANE, Shrewsbury, Salop. Jan 5. Sprott and Co, Shrewsbury
JANION, ROBERT CHESHYRE, Woolton, Liverpool. Feb 28. Hall and Co, Manchester
JOHNSON, SUSANNAH, Torbay st, Kentish Town. Jan 25. Moon, Lincoln's inn fields
JONES, MARY, Hereford. Feb 10. Bishop, Brecon
KIDGELL, ELIZABETH, Birmingham. Feb 1. Flewker and Page, Wolverhampton
LINEY, FREDERICK, Orpines, Wateringbury, Kent, Brewer. Feb 12. Case and Son,
Maidstone

LLOYD, WILLIAM, Hay, Brecon, Auctioneer. Feb 20. Corner, Hereford

LONGEE, NOAH SMITH, Bradford, York, Merchant. Feb 1. Taylor and Co, Bradford
MACKENZIE, HARRIETT, Falmouth, Cornwall. Feb 16. Tompson and Co, Stone bldgs,
Lincoln's inn

MARSHALL, MARY, Abingdon, Berks. Jan 9. Simpson and Co, Furnival's inn
MILSOM, JOHN, Northgate, Wakefield, Retired Innkeeper. Dec 31. Lister, Wakefield
PAYNTER, JOHN, Berkeley sq. Feb 1. Hores and Pattison, Lincoln's inn fields
POOLE, SARAH ANN, Gresford, Denbigh. Feb 1. Bankes, Oxford chmbrs, Liverpool
POWELL, TIMOTHY SAMPSON, Charlton, Henbury, Gloucester, Esq. Jan 10. Danger and
Cartwright, Bristol

ROGERSON, 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. Feb 25. Fielder and Sumner, Godliman st, Doctor's commons

SMITH, RICHARD. Layham, Suffolk, Maltster. Feb 1. Grimwade, Hadleigh, Suffolk '
SMITH, SAMUEL, Althorpe rd, Wandsworth common, Surrey, Retired Licensed Victualler.
Feb 10. Coldham, New inn, Strand

STOKES, ALLATHA SARAH, Wolverhampton. Feb 1. Flewker and Page, Wolverhampton
SWEETING, RICHARD, Lorano, Clapham pk, Surrey, M.D. Jan 21. Barker and Son,
Bedford row
Hirst and Capes, Borough-

TOPHAM, JOHN, Boroughbridge, York, Butcher.
bridge

Jan 17.

WALL, WALTER, Boxmoor, Hemel Hempstead, Hertford. Jan 20. st, Strand

LEGAL NEWS.

Few and Co. Surrey [Gazette, Dec. 20.j

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. Tillstone, 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 selected by twenty-four to fifteen.

New rules have been made with reference to writs of summons in Ireland. The following is a summary of the rules:-(1) That from and after the 2nd of January, 1882, all writs of summons for the commencement of 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 the clerk of the Consolidated Record and Writ Office shall require every person who may commence an action in the said divisions to assign the action in such rotation. (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 better Protection of Person and Property in Ireland, such place or residence not being within a county of a city, or county of a town, service of such writ shall be made on such defendant by sending 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 posting a copy of such writ at the police station nearest tol his said residence shall be good and sufficient service of such writ, provided that the plaintiff or plaintiffs 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 issued an affidavit stating 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 aforesai), and that the above particulars to service have been duly observed and performed. The time li ni ed for the appearance of the defendant to any writ served 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 Leinster and Connaught, the barony of Tullyhaw in the county Cavan, and a barony and two parishes in Donegal.

[blocks in formation]

At the Stock and Share Auction Company's sale held on Friday, the 23rd inst., at their sale room, Crown-court-buildings, Old Broad-street, the following were amongst the prices obtained:-Norway Copper Mines £1 Ten per Cent. Preterence Shares, 10s. paid, 11s. 6d. ; United Horse Nail Company £1 Shares, 8.; East Argentine Railway, 16; Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining £1 Shares, fully paid, 103. 6d. ; Standard Union Investment £1 Shares, fully paid, 20s. 6d. ; Indian Kingston and Sandhurst Gold Mining £1 Shares, 9. 6d.; Oriental Telephone £1 Shares, 10. paid, par; Egyptian Unified 1 premium for end of January, 70 and 7-16; and other securities fetched fair prices.

KITCHENS MADE LIGHT BY MEANS OF CHAPPUIS' DAYLIGHT REFLECTORS.-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, Patentee, 69, Fleet-street, London.-[ADVT.]

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

(Short caus., ad. sums. gen. pa.

&

Monday....201

Tuesday....21 General paper.

Wednesday. 22.

Thursday.. 23.. Mots. & gen. pa. Friday....24.. Pets. & gen. pa.

Saturday

Wednes,Jan11

..25 {

Thursday 127 Friday.... 13)

General

Satrdy)....14

paper. Petns. sht. causes, and gen. paper

Monday....27 Tuesday....28

Monday....16..In Bankruptcy.

Tuesday....17

Wednesday 18 General paper.

Thurs......19

Friday ....20..Motns. adj. sums. & gen.pa.

Sat.......21.. Pets. sht. causes, & gen. pa.
Monday....23...In Bankruptcy.

Tuesday ..24

Wedsdy...25 General paper

Thursday..26

Friday ...27.. Motns., adj. sms. & gen. pa.
Sat,........28.. Petns, sht. causes, & gen. pa.
Monday....30..In Bankruptcy.
Tuesday....31

Wed., Feb. 1 General paper.
Thursday... 2)

Fri ay, .... 3.. Motns, adj. sums & gen. pa.
Saturday .. 4.. Petns., sht. caus. & gen pa.
Monday. .... 6..In Bankruptcy.

Tuesday.... 7

..

Wednsdy 8 General paper. Thursday

[ocr errors]

Sht. caus., ad. sums. &
gen. pa.
General paper.

MR. JUSTICE FRY.

At Lincoln's-inn.

Wednes, Janll..Motns. adj. sum. & gen. pa.
Thursday ..12..General paper.

....13

Sht, caus., ptns. adj.sumns.

Friday
{and gen. pa.
Satrdy, ....14..Adj. sums. & gen. pa.
Monday.... 16

Tuesday....17 General paper.
Wednesday 18

Thursday ..19.. Mots. adj. sumn, & gen. pa.
Sht. caus., pets., adj.sumas.,
Friday......20
{& gen. pa

Saturday ..21..Adj. sums. & gen. pa.
Monday....23

Tuesday....24 General paper.
Wednesday..25,

Thursday ..26..Mots. adj. sumns. & gen. pa.
Sht. caus, pets. adj. sumus,
Friday ....27

[blocks in formation]

LONDON GAZETTES.

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 Dec 20. Brougham, Jan 13 at 12.30

Botten, Henry, Canrobert st, Bethnal Green rd, Licensed Victualler. Fet Dec 20.
Brougham. Jan 13 at 12

Filbey, William, Bethnal Green rd, Butcher. Pet Dec 21. Brougham. Jan 17
Horder, Frederick Henry, The Parade, Shepherd's Bush, Grocer. Pet Dec 21.
Brougham. Jan 17 at 2

Masterman, Henry, Seward st, Goswell rd, Rug Manufacturer. Pet Oct 21. Hazlitt.

[blocks in formation]

Cowan, William, Stockton on Tees, Grocer. Pet Dec 20. Crosby. Stockton on Tees, Jan 6 at 2.30

Hammond, William, jun, Norwich, Merchant. Pet Dec 21. Cooke. Norwich, Jan 6 at 12

Ramsden, Arthur Charles, Ashurst, Tunbridge Wells, Kent. Pet D 15. Cripps. Tunbridge 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. Pet Dec 20. Worlledge. Great Yarmouth, Jan 4 at 11

TUESDAY, 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. Pet Dec 22. Hazlitt. Jan 11

at 2

« PreviousContinue »