Page images

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




In the matter of a petition presented in an administration action of Jones v. 8. 39.-In a case of Spencer v. Hart, before the Court of Appeal on the 201h

Hensler, beard on the 20th inst., Hall, V.C., had to deal with a new inst., the question arose whether solicitors had been properly made a party to

and curious point which arose under the 33rd section of the Wills Act. The an action for the administration of the estate of a testator and the execution of

section provides that “where a child ... of a testator to whom any real the trusts of his will, ard whether a beneficiary under the will could maintain

... estate is devised . . . shall die in the lifetime of the testator an action against the solicitors, who had been employed by the trustees and

leaving issue, and any such issue shall be living at the death of tbe testator, executors, for the taxation of the solicitors' bill of costs in relation to the trust.

the devise shall not lapse, but shall take effect as if the death of such person The testator by his will gave the residue of his property to trustees, whom he bad happened immediately after the death of the testator", unless a contrary also appointed executors, upon trust to pay the income to his wife for her life, intention shall appear by the will. In the present case a testator had devised and after her death to divide the capital equally between certain persons, of

a freehold house to his son absolutely, and had given his residuary real estate: wbom tbe plaintiff was one. After the death of the widow the action was to other devisees. The son predeceased his father, but left issue who were brought against the irustees and the solicitors who had acted for them in living at the time of the father's death. The son had also made a will, relation to the trust. One of the trustees had been a managing clerk in the whereby he gave all bis real and pereonal estate to his father absolutely. office of the solicitors. By his statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that, | Upon the death of the father an action was instituted for tbe administration after the death of the widow, the trustees converted the estate into money and of his estate, and the freehold house specifically devised by his will was sold, presented a statement of accounts to the beneficiaries, and divided among them

and the proceeds paid into court. Upon the present petition the heir-at-law of the sum wbich they represented that they had in their hands for division. The the sou claimed the fuod. The question which arose was whether, inasmuch plaintiff alleged that he had since discovered that the trustees had omitted

as by the operation of the Wills Act the son must be taken to have survived from the accounts various large sums of money which they had received as the father in order to give effect to the devise, the property bad passed back trustees, and, in particular, had failed to give credit for a sum of £700 which

again under the son's will to the father, and, if so, had again become subject they had received on account of some houses forming part of the testator's either to the specific or residuary gift in that will, or whether there had been estate. The plaintiff also alleged that the trustees had charged in the

a lapse in respect of the devise by the son. HALL, V.C., after hearing the accounts various large sums by way of disbursements or allowances which they

disbursements or allowances which they arguments, held tbat the father's will could not operate a second time upon were not entitled so to charge, and that they had (inter alia) taken credit for a the property, and that since, by the fiotion created by the section of the sum of £455, being the amount of a bill of costs alleged by them to have been statute, the son had survived the father, the latter bad, by the same fiction, paid to the defendants, the solicitors. The plaintiff alleged that the bill of costs predeceased the son, and the devise by the will of the latter had consequently was not in fact paid by the trustees, but that the amount thereof was deducted lapsed by the operation of the ordinary law. He held, therefore, that the by tbe solicitors out of moneys received by them on the sale of the testator's petitioner, as heir-at-law of the son, was entitled to the fund.-SOLICITORS, property, and that the bill had never been taxed. The plaintiff alleged that the Jones. Blarland, & Son. 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 INFANT-MAINTENANCE-ALLOWANCE BEYOND SUM FIXED BY TESTATOR the solicitors in all things connected with the testator's estate, and that all -JURISDICTION ON SUMMONS.-10 a case of In re Colgan, before Fry, J., on moneys arising from the sale and conversion of the estate passed through their the 20th iost., a question arose as to granting for the maintenance and educahands, and that the trustees never caused any cash account of such receipts to tion of infants, who were entiiled under a will to interest partly vested and be taken. The plaintiff claimed to have the testator's estate administered, partly contingent, an allowance in excess of the sum which the testator had and the trusts of his will carried into execution under the direction directed to be paid for the purpose. The question was also raised whether the: of the court, and, for that purpose to have all necessary accounts court had jurisdiction to make such an order on summons. The testator gave taken and inquiries made ; to have an account taken of all moneys come to the the residue of his estate to trustees, on trust out of the income to pay an hands of the solicitors on account of the estate; and to have the bill of annuity of £220 to bis wife, and then to pay to his daughter the yearly sum: costs taxed under the direction of the court. The solicitors put in a demurrer, of £100 for each of his two grandchildren, Arthur and Emily (the children of and the demurrer was allowed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Lancaster the daughter by a former husband), as regarded Arthur so long as he should Chancery Court (Mr. Bristowe, Q.C.), on the ground that the case was | be under the age of twenty-five, and as regarded Emily so long as she should governed by the decision of Lord Romilly, M.R., in Maw v. Pearson (28 Beav. be under the age of twenty one and unmarried, these sums to be paid to the 196), and his decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (BAGGALLAY and daughter for the maintenance, education, and support of the grandchildrea LINDLEY, L.JJ.). BAGGALLAY, L.J., said that the application was by a cestui respectively. The residue of the income was to be a cumulated during the que trust to have a bill of costs against his trustees taxed. By section 39 of life of the iestator's wife, and upon her death he directed that the trustee should the Solicitors Act of 1843, power was given to a third party to have a bill of stand possessed of the trust funds on trust to pay to his son T., if he should costs taxed, but bis lordship was not aware of any anthority before that Act to living, the sum of £3,000, but, if the same should not be personally claimed for the taxation of a bill of costs on the application of a third party. The case by him within two years from the testator's death, it was to form part of the of Vincent v. Venner (1 M. & K. 212) had been relied on. But in that case residue, and on further trust to invest the sum of £3,000 and pay the income one of the defendants to the suit had entered into an agreement with the thereof to the testator's daughter for her life, and on her death the trustees plaintiff's solicitor to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, and to pay the costs of the were to stand possessed of the £3,000 on trust for such person or persons as suit as between solicitor and client. The defendant pe:itioned the court for the daughter should by will appoint, and in default of appointment on trust to taxation of the solicitor's bills of costs. This was, in fact, an application for apply the same as part of the testator's residue. And on furiher trust: the specific performance of the agreement, which involved the taxation of the to pay to the grandson Arthur, on bis attaining the age of twenty-five, the, costs which were agreed to be paid. The court, in ordering the taxation, was sum of £10,000. And on further trust to pay to the granddaughter Emily, on. only giving effect to the agreement. No case had been cited in which the her attaining twenty-one or marrying under that age, the sum of £10,000, jarisdiction suggested had been exercised. There were many cases in which and, in the event of her death beforo she should have attained twentytaxation of a solicitor's bill had been directed in a suit for the purpose by his one or married, upon trust to apply the £10,000 as part of the testator's client, but none in which this had been done at the suit of a third party. residue. And the testator gave the residue of his trust estate on trust Were the solicitors then liable to the plaintiff in any other character than as for his daughter and her children, Arthur and Emily, in equal shares, the solicitors ? The principle on which agents could be made parties to a suit as shares of the two grandchildren to be paid to them on their respectively constructive trustees was well defined by Lord Selborne in the case of Barnes attaining twenty-one. By a codicil i he testator revoked the legacy of £3,000 V. Addy (22 W.R. 505, L. R. 9 Ch. 244, 251) thus : that “strangers are not to his son T., and bequeathed to him in lieu thereof a rum of £500, to be paid to be made constructive trustees merely because they act as the agents of to him as soon as possible after the testator's death. After the death of the trustees in transactions within their legal powers, transactions, perhaps, of testator an order was made by Fry, J., appointing the mother of the two which a court of equity may disapprove, unless those agents receive and grandchildren and her second husband their guardians during their become chargeable with some part of the trust property, or unless they assist respective minorities, and it was ordered that the two sums of £100 should be with knowledge in a dishonest and fraudulent design on the part of the paid to the guardians. A summons was afterwards taken out in the name of trustees." His lordsbip could see nothing in the allegations in the present the infants, by their step-father as their next friend, asking that the further case which justified making the solicitors parties to the action as constrnctive sum of £150 per annum might be allowed for the maintenance and education trustees. There was no ground for giving leave to amend the statement of of the grandson Arthur, and the further sum of £120 per annum for the main. claim. Even if there was jurisdiction to tax a solicitor's bill in an action by a tenance and education of the granddaughter Emily, during their respective third party, it was not right to adopt the more expensive remedy instead of minorities, or until further order, and the then increased allowances might be proceeding in a summary way under the Solicitors Act. LINDLEY, L.J., was paid by the trustees to the guardians out of the income of the of the same opinion. Prima facie an agent, whether he was a solicitor or not, fund set apart to meet the two legacies of £10,000 each. The grand. could not be sued by a third party, but if an agent had so acted in a breach son was twenty-one years of age ; the granddaughter was fifteen. The of trust as to stand in the position of a quasi-trustee, a bill would lie against residue of the testator's estate was estimated as worth more than £14,000. him by the cestui que trust. No such case was made out here. It was alleged The only near relations of the infants on the mother's side living were their that the solicitors bad retained the anount of a bill of costs in which there grandmother, the testator's widow, who was aged seventy-seven ; their mother were overcharges, and the question was whether the cestui que trust could and their maternal uncle, the testator's son T. These all, so far as they briog an action against i he trustees and the solicitors. Vincent v. Venner did could, consented to the application, except the maternal uncle, who was not go so far as that. There there was an agreement “by a third party" to absent abroad. Fry, J., held that he had jurisdiction to make the order on pay a solicitor's costs as bttween solicitor and client, and that could not be summons, and be directed the increased allowance asked for to be paid by the done without a taxation cf the costs. That decision might be quite right, but trustees out of the income of the estate. The order contained a recital that it did not govern the present case. In his lordship's opinion such an action the only persons interested under the terms of the will in the trust moneys

were, in addition to the infante, the testator's son and his daughter and her Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY. -I must refuse to appoint a receiver or to grant husband, and that the persons entitled under the Statute of Distributions who any injunction without an office copy of the petition. Tbere is a case pending were or might become interested in the accumulations of income, in the event of before me at this moment in wbich a receiver was appointed and an injuncthe testator's widow surviving the period of twenty-one years from the death | tion granted before the petition was actually filed. I must have some evidence of the testator, were the testator's widow and his son and daughter; that the that the petition has been filed; an office copy must be produced, or the widow was aged seventy-seven, and that she consented to the application; and original file of proceedings should be brought into court. that the daughter and ber husband consented so far as they were able. And Solicitor to the petition, Harris White. 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

COUNTY COURTS. would have arisen from the accumulation of such part of the income as should

SALISBURY. be applied in payment of the increased allowances instead of being accuinu.

lated. And it was ordered that a copy of the order should be indorsed on
the probate of the testator's will.-SOLICITORS, Redpath & Holdsworth.

Dec. 5.-- Alexander v. The Great Western Railway Company.
Carriers Act, 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c. 68, s. 1-Insurance-In ufficiency of

declaration of sile.

His Honour, in giving judgment in this case, said :CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants the (Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, aoting as Chief Judge.)

sum of £4 85. 8d. for damage done negligently to goods intrusted by him to December 21.-Ex parte Lovering, Re Bliss.

the defendants as common carriers, and which goods, it is alleged, were to be At the time of B.'s bankruptcy, G., a creditor, held a policy of assur.

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 ance upon B.'s life, and also an equitable mortgage upon leasehold

employ them for the purposes of goods traffic--camely, as to what constitutes property belonging to B., as security for the debt due to her.

a sufficient declaration of the value and nature of articles which reqnire to be G. proved her debt under the bankruptcy after assessing the value of

insured, in order to bring the sender within the protection of tho Carriers Act, the securities, and B.'s trustee applied for leave to disclaim the leasc, 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c. 68; and I thought the case of sufficient importa without reference to the policy.

ance to delay giving judgment until I had had an opportunity of considering Held, that he was at liberty to do so.

the evidence and consulting such authorities as I might find bore upon the This was an application on behalf of the trastes under the bankroptcy

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 of Frederio Henry Bliss, a bankrupt, for an order that he might be at

Salisbury, being in London in May of this year, had occasion to send to liberty to disclaim all the bankrupt's interest in a leasehold dwelling-house

Salisbury a quantity of china and a number of oroamental tiles. Desirous to and premises known as Wallfield House, Whetstone, held by the bankrapt under a lease dated 23rd of September, 1878, for a term of fourteen years

avoid the risk of carriage from damage or loss to the china, which, in default

of insurance, be was aware would fall upon bim, he went to one of the defend. computed from Micbaelmas-day, 1878, at the yearly rental of £52 109.,

ants' receiving offices at Oxford-street, in London, and communicated to a subject to an equitable mortgago to Mrs. C. M. Gurney.

clerk whom he found there that he was desirous of sending to Salisbury a At tbe date of the adjadication Mrs. Gurney was a creditor of the estate

case containing china of the value of between £20 and $30, and for the sum of £200, and held as security (1) a policy of angarance on the

also that it was to be carried at the company's risk. At that bankrupt's life for £500 effected with the City of Glasgow Assurance

time there was a legibly prioted notice of the terms of insurance as Company in 1874, subject to premiams amounting to £12 108. per annum ;

required by the Carriers Act put up in tbe office in a conspicuous position, and (2) the lease of the house and premises, Wallfield IIouse.

but which notice the plaintiff did not see nor was his attention called to it by The bankruptoy occurred in Aogast, 1880, and at that time the office

anyone. The word "insurance” was not named, but the plaintiff offered to surrender value of the life policy was $21 178. Mre. Garney proved her

pay any rate that might be demanded for the china being carried at the debt against the estate, and valued the policy at £30, and she had since

company's risk. The case was delivered subsequently to the defendants' paid the ball-yearly premiums as they became due. She also valued the

carman, who collected it with a note containing the charge of 10s. 8d., which security wbich she held on Wallfield House at £10. The trustee stated that

was the carriage merely, and did not include any sum for insurance, nor was the premises were let at a rack rental, and he desired to disclaim the

any declaration made to the carman at the time of the value or nature of the bankrupt's interest in the lease. He declined, however, either to take over

articles in the package. On the case being delivered in Salisbury it was found the policy or to disclaim it, but expressed his intention to claim the benefit

to have been damaged in the transit, and on being opened a quantity of the of it if tbe life fell in.

china and some of the ornamental tiles were broken, of the value claimed in G. A. Rooks (solicitor), in support of the application.

the plaintiff's particulars-namely, £3 169. for the cbina, and 121. 8d. for E. C. Willis, for Mrs. Gurney.--The trustee cannot disclaim the lease, and tiles. It does not appear from the evidence that the injury which had arisen at the same time say, "I do not desire to disclaim the policy," which is part was caused by bad or imperfect packing. Upon these facts it is contende 1 of the same security. Tbe respondent has certain securities for her debt, that the defendants ara protected by the provisions of the Carriers Act, 11 Geo. and she has the ordinary rights of a mortgagee, including a right to fore. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c. 68, which enacts that no common carrier shall be liable close.

for the loss of, or injury to, certain articles enumerated, among which chin u is Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY.—The mortgagee may assess the value of her one, when the value of such articles contained in any package or parcel shall security according to the rules and if she does so, and the security is after exceed £10, unless at the time of the delivery at any office or receive wards realized by sale, and it produces more than the amount at which it was iog-office of the carrier, or to his book-keeper or other servant, the assessed, the surplus will belong to the trustee.

value and nature of such articles shall be declared by the person Willis.-The question is whether the trustee con disclaim the lease with sending them, and the iocreased charge ba accepted by the person ont making some provision as to the policy. He ought not to disclaim a part receiving the parcel or package containing such articles. In the present of the property without disclaiming the whole.

case the question is raised, has the plaintiff by what he did when he went Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY said tbe trustee bad a right, an absolute right, under to the defendants' receiving-house in Oxford-street brought himself within the 23rd section, to disclaim the lease. Mrs. Gurney had proved her debt

the protection of the statute? The facts show that wbatever was done or against the estate, and in her proof sbe said that she held ng security or satis

said respecting the value of the china was said or done before any delivery faction except tbe policy, wbich she valued at £30, and a lease wbich she

took place, and, as it appears to me, partook more of the natore of an valued at £10. The trustee might have disclaimed without leave; that was

inquiry than of a completed transaction. No money was demanded or paid a matter which rested between him and the court, and he could not under

at the time, nor was any of the printed forms ordinarily used by the comstand the objection which had been made. The rules showed the course to be

pany between them and the genders of goods when they are to be ingured adopted, and if, upon the sale of the policy, there was more than enough to

by them against risk of loss or damage employed or filled ap, por, when pay the assegsed value, the surplus must be handed to the trustee ; and, on

the actual delivery to the defendants' carman took place, was the value the other hand, if there was a deficiency, the mortgagee would be at liberty

mentioned to bim. The mere fact of stating the value to a carrier's servant to prove. The objection raised on behalf of the mortgagee was really unten

when obtaining information as to the rate of insurance in the absence of able, and an order would be made giving the trustee liberty to disclaim the

the thing to be insured is not a declaration of its value within the terms of lease.

the statute. Nor does tbe expressed opinion of the oarrier as to the value Solicitors for the trustee, Rooks & Co.

of a thing to be carried obviate the necessity of a formal declaration : Boys Solicitors for the mortgagee, Chappell & Gibbons.

v. Pink (8 C. & P. 361). A later decision, Bradbury v. Sutton (21 W. R.

128), Exobequer Chamber, bas, no doubt, modified this roling at Nisi Prius, December 21.-Re Hockings.

by holding tbat 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, The court will not entertain an application for the appointment of a

of a | it must be so framed as to convey to the mind of the carrier or bis agent receiver without the production of the original file of proceedings in the

the value and nature of the thing delivered, and that at a time when the matter, or of an office copy of the petition for liquidation.

means of examination of the article or articles to be insured are open and This was an application on behalf of a debtor who had presented a petition available to the insorer. The case relied upon by Mr. Nodder for the för liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors under the 125th plaintiff-namely, Behrens v. The Great Northern Railway Company (31 and 126th sections of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, for the appointment of a L. J. Ex. 299-in my reading of it, differs in a material fact from the prereceiver, and for an injunction to restrain actions by creditors until after the sept case. There the sender of the package declared the value and nature first meeting.

of its contents at the time of the delivery to the carman; here there was Harris White (solicitor), in support of the application.

nothing more than a previous inquiry as to the rate of carriage, which the Mr. RegistrAR MURRAY.-Have you an office copy of the petition ? company would charge for carrying the goods at their risk, made, it must H. White.-One has not yet been made.

be observed, antecedently to the delivery ; and the words of the section are


clear and precise that the thing to be insa ed must have been delivered to Perhaps the most interesting incident of his professional career was his con. the carrier before or at the time the contract for insurance is completed. duct of the case of the successful claimant in the great Chadwick lawsuit of A construotive delivery, in my opinion, is not within the terms or meaning 1842. Circumstances directed his strong scientific tastes towards the geology of the statute. Tbis being the view I take of the facts before me, the claim of this district, and every hour that could be snatched from his office was for the cbida most bo dieallowed. The plaintiff's case, however, does not devoted to diligent examinations of the local strata, with especial regard to entirely fail. The package contained a number of ornamental tiles, some of those of the coal formation. On this branch of his favourite pursuit he soon which were damaged in the transit, and they, not being within tbe excepted became the leading authority-an honourable distinction which his unflagging articles of the Carriers Aot, render the defendants regponsible under their industry well sustained. In association with friends of kindred tastes, he common law liability as common carriers, fhe case of Treadwin v. The shared in the foundation of the Manchester Geologioal Society in 1838. He Great Eastern Railway Company (L. R. 3 C. P. 308) being an authority that was the most liberal contributor to its museum, many of the specimens being where & packing oase contains articles, some within the statute and otbers

the product of his personal research and indefatigable activity. By his not, the value of the latter may, when lost or damaged by the negligence of

lamented death the Literary and Philosophical Society loses its president, and tbe carrier, be recovered from him by the sender. There will therefore bo

one of its oldest and most valued members. Until recently he was almost a a verdiot for the plaintiff for tbo damaged tiles for 123. 81., with costs on

daily visitor at its rooms. Since bis election as an ordinary member, in that amount.

January, 1842, he had successively ocoupied almost every one of its principal Nodder, for the plaintiff.

honoriry offices, and his papers and notes occapy a promiaent place in its Powning, for the defendants.

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 OBITUARY.

every honest labourer in science, and especially if belonging to the working olasses. The industry of Mr. Binney is evidenced by the number of bis

scientific memoirs and notes. They are about one hundred in number, and LORD JUSTICE LUSH.

include à few written in conjunction with other savants. These papers The Right Hon. Sir Robert Logb, knight, one of the judges of the

| included reports presented to the British Association and contributions to the Court of Appeal, died at big residence, 60, Avenue-road, Regent's-park, on

publications of the Royal Society, the West Yorkshire Geological Society, the

Philosophical Magazine, Sturgeon's "Annals of Electricity," the Geological the 27th inst., at the age of seventy-four. Lord Justice Lash was the

Society, and, above all, the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society. son of Mr. Robert Losb, of Shaftesbury, where he was born in

For the Palæontographical Society, of which he was a vice-president, he wrote 1807. He was called to the bar at Gray's-inn in 1840, when he joined the

a monograph on the "Structure of Fossil Plants found in the Carboniferous Home Circuit. A short time after his call to the bar be published a work

Strata." Four parts were issued between 1868 and 1875; it is still incom. on the Act for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt. This was afterwards

plete. Mr. Binney was elected a Fellow of the Geological Society in 1853, followed by a book on Qneen's Bench Practice, which was a recognized text

and of the Royal Society in 1856. He was honorary member Of the Geological book on common law practice until tbe passing of the Jadicature Aots,

Societies of Edinburgh and Liverpool, and of the Geological and Polytechnical and first established his professional reputation. He steadily rose

Society of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Mr. Binney was one of those into a leading position as a janior both in London and on circuit. In 1857

whose investigations gave a commercial importance to the paraffin oil manuhe received a silk gown from Lord Cranworth, and was at once introduced

facture, and this yielded him a handsome fortune. It is not, however, as the into leading business. He was a sound mercantile lawyer, and was for successful man of business that he will be remembered, but as a genuine love many years engaged in nearly every important shipping case at Guildball. of science for its own sake. His sterling nature, his stroog and original Without any pretensions to ologuence, he was gifted with the faculty of character, deserve and will insure him an honourable place in the record of our laying intricate facts before a jury with remarkable plearness, while local worthies. his uniform taot, patience, and good temper made him always a most popular and successfol 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 Ostober, 1865, on the death of Mr. |

Mr. CHARLES ALBERT CARTER, solioitor, of Walsall, has been appointed Justice Crompton, he was appointed by Lord Cranworth to a puisne judgship

Managing Clerk in the Legal Department of the Office of the Town Clerk in the Court of Queen's Bench, and shortly afterwards received the honour

of Birmingham. Mr. Carter was admitted a solicitor in 1872, and has been of knighthood. The appointment was warmly welcomed by the profession,

for several years in partnership with Mr. George Cotterell. and was fully justified by subsequent results. No judge was ever more popular with the bar and with juries owing to bis unfailing amiability

Mr. ARTHUR ELFORD ADAMS, solicitor, of Truro, has been appointed Clerk and courtesy of demeanour. He was most patient and industrious in the to the West Ponder Highway Board, on the resignation of his partner, dispatch of all his judicial business, and his judgments always bore traces of Mr. John Paul. great care and accuracy in their composition. Sir R. Lush will be Mr. WORTHINGTON Evans, solicitor, of 34, Eastoheap, has been appointed remembered as having been one of the three judges who presided at the trial by Alderman Hadgon to the office of Ward Clerk of Billingsgate Ward, in at bar of the Tichborne claimant, and the labour and anxiety attendant upon

succession to Mr. Charles Frederick Murray, resigned. that case seriously undermined his health. It may also be remembered that be tried the case of Angus v. Dalton, which has occasioned so much

Mr. EDWARD HARRY ADCOCK, solicitor, of Palmerston-buildings, Old discussion and was recently finally decided in the House of Lords; and

Broad-street, London, E.C., and Penge, has been appointed a Commis. that, although his two colleagues in the Qaeen's Bench Division differed

sioner for the Provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, and Nova Scotie, in the from him, his ruling at the trial was upheld by the majority oi the Court of

Dominion of Canada. Mr. Adcock was admitted Hilary, 1865. Appeal, and by all the five law lords. In November, 1875, on the Judicatare Acts coming into force, he attended continuously

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. at judges' chambers for several weeks, and rendered most valuable aid in settling the new practice. In 1878 he was made a Privy Councillor,

JOHN STEVENSON, HENRY LYCETT, and HENRY STEVENSON, solicitore, an honour very rarely conferred upon a puigne judge, and in October, 1880, Manchester. December 16. The business will in future be carried on by on the death of Lord Justica Thesiger, he was transferred to the Court of John Stevenson and Henry Lycett. Appeal. His promotion gave general satisfaction, though it was felt that it | TAOMAS Swift and John OAKDEN Swift, solicitors, St. Helen's (Swift had been too long delayed. Unfortunately he soon showed signs of failing and Sop). October 26. The said John Oakden Swift continues the practice healtb, and he sustained a severe blow by the death of Lady Lush in the alone under the style of Swift and Son,

[Gazette, December 16.] early part of the present year. About a month ago he was taken ill wbile 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 commodity, and was a most generous supporter of all the charities

COMPANIES. connected with that body. Lord Jastice Lush was a bencher of Gray's-ipn. He was å member of the Jadicature Commission, and of the Commission

WINDING-UP NOTICES. 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

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. daughters is married to Mr. Justice Williams.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY. ANGLO-FRENCI 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 MR. EDWARD WILLIAM BINNEY.


sented Dec 20, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Jan 14. Bohm, Old Jewry, Mr. E. W. Bioney, F.R.S., F.G.S., solicitor, of Manchester, died on the solicitor for the petitioners 19th inst., at Cheetham-hill, Manchester. The following interes ing account


before Jan 28, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts and of his career appears in the Manchester Guardian :-Mr. Binney was born

claims, to Bolton and Co, Birmingham, Wednesday, Mar 1, at 12, is appointed for in 1812, at Morton, in Nottinghamshire. Adopting the legal profession, he hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims served his articles with a solicitor at Chesterfield. About the year 1836 he 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 came to Manchester, residing for some time in the house of the late Mr.

inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner Harland, with whom he then began an intimate and enduring friendship.

[Gazette, Dec. 23.1



FAFERSHAN BRICKFIELDS COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated LONGEE, Noan SMITH, Bradford, York, Merchant. Feb 1. Taylor and Co, Bradford

Dec 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Longcroft ant 'Myers, MACKENZIE, HARRIETT, Falmouth, Cornwall. Feb 16. Tompson and Co, Stone bldgs, Clement's inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner

Lincoln's inn HAFOD BREWERY COMPANY, LIMITED.--By an order made by Chitty, J., dated Dec 17, MARSHALL, MARY, Abingdon, Berks. Jan 9. Simpson and Co, Furnival's inn

it was ordered that the company be wound up. White, Poultry, agent for Leyson, MILSOM, Joun, Northgate, Wakefield, Retired Innkeeper. Dec 31. Lister, Wakefield Swansea, solicitor for the petitioner

PAYNTER, JOHN, Berkeley sq. Feb 1. Hores and Pattison, Lincoln's inn fields HARZER NATURAL MINERAL WATRE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J, POOLE, SARAH AN, Gresford, Denbigh. Feb 1. Bankes, Oxford chmbrs, Liverpool

Dec 19, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Lindo and Co, Coleman POWELL, TIMOTHY SAMPSON, Charlton, Henbury, Gloucester, Esq. Jan 10. Danger and st, solicitors for the petitioner

Cartwright, Bristol
LIBERIA LAND AND INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED. By an order made by Chitty, ROGERSON, NATHANIEL, Crewe, Chester, Grocer. Jan 11. Hill, Crewe

dated Dec 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Heritage and Oo, St Rost, MAXIMILIAN LUDWIG, Amoy, China, Storekeeper. Feb 25. Fielder and Sumner, Clement's House, Clement's lane, solicitors for the petitioner

Godliman st, Doctor's commons LONDON AND PROVINCIAL SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.-Chitty, J, has fixed Monday, SCHWEICKER, JOHN FREDERICK, Lindau, Bavaria, Germany, Merchant. Feb 25. Fielder Jan 9, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

and Sumner, Godliman st, Doctor's commons TURNBULL PATENT PONTOON DOCK AND SLIPWAY COMPANY, LIMITED.--Chitty, J, has, SMITH, RICHARD, Layham, Suffolk, Maltster. Feb 1. Grimwade. Hadleigh, Suffolk! by an order dated Dec 7, appointed Benjamin Smyrke, of Sunderland, to be official SMITH, SAMURL, Althorpe rd, Wandsworth common, Surrey, Retired Licensed Victualler. liquidator

[Gazette, Dec. 27.] Feb 10. Coldham, New inn, Strand COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER,

STOKES, ALLATIA SÁRAH, Wolverhampton. Feb 1. Flewker and Page, Wolverhampton

SWEETING, RICHARD, Lorano, Clapham pk, Surrey, M.D. Jan 21. Barker and Son, CLITHEROE PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Petition for winding up, pre Bedford row

sented Dec 24, directed to be heard before Bristowe, V.C., on Jan 5. Sale and TOPHAM, John, Boroughbridge, York, Butcher. Jan 17. Hirst and Capes, BoroughManchester, solicitors for the petitioner

bridge [Gazette, Dec. 27.] WALL, WALTER, Boxmoor, Hemel Hempstead, Hertford. Jan 20. Few and Co. Surrey


[Gazette, Dec. 20.] IMPROVED BENEFIT SOCIETY, Register No. 327, Masons' Arms Inn, Finedon, Northampton. Dec 17

[Gazette, Dec. 23.]
LANDSEER FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Register No. 6943, 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.]

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. Tillsione, 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 map. On a division Mr. Tillstone wag CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.

selected by twenty-four to fifteen.

New rules have been made with reference to write of summons in Ireland. LAST DAY OF PROOF.

The following is a summary of the rules :---(1) That from and after the 2nd ARMSTRONG, WILLIAM, Hawnes, Bedford, Farmer. Jan 10. Rushbrooke y Armstrong, of January, 1882, all writs of summons for the commencement of actions in the Chitty, J. Ward, Lincoln's inn flelds

Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of BAULETT, GEORGE, Sunderland, Painter. Jan 17, Newman v Alcock, Chitty, J.

Justice shall issue in rotations of twenty-fives—that is to say, the first twenty. Robson, Monkwearmonth BYWATER, JABEZ, Prince's End, Stafford, Auctioneer. Jan 17. Hughes y Jones, Chitty,

five for the Queen's Bench Division, the second twenty-five for the Common J. Stokes, Dudley

Pleas Division, and the third twenty-five for the Exchequer Division, and so Cars, Tuomas, Goldhawk rd, Shepherd's Bush, Traveller, Feb 1. Gibbs y Cave, Hall,

on, and the clerk of the Consolidated Record and Writ Office shall require V.C. Bowen, Moorgate st CEUTTWELL, THOMAS, Newbury, Berks, Gent. Feb 1. Hales v Wilton, Hall, V.C.

every person who may commenoe an action in the said divisions to assign the Adams, Lincoln's inn fields

action in such rotation. (2) Tbat from and after the 2nd of January, EDWARDS, THOMAS, Tredegar, Monmouth, Grocer. Feb 1. Edwards v Williams, Hall, 1882, in all cases where any defendant named in any writ of summons issuing Y.C. Shepard, Tredegar

out of any division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland shall reside within FORTNIM, Joun, Grimsbury, Northampton, Farmer. Feb 1. Harrison v Harrison, Hall, V.C. Hawtin, Banbury

any district for the time being preecribed under the Act for the better ProtecGorgi, WALTER, Holmwood, Dorking, Surrey, Gent. Jan 13. Gough v Gough, Bacon, tion of Person and Property in Ireland, such place or residence not being V.C. Galmoye, Essex st, Strand

within a county of a city, or county of a town, service of such writ shall be HARE, JOSEPH WILLIAM, Desborough pl, Harrow rd, Printer. Jan 24. Harrild v Hare, Halí, v.. Lovell, Guildhall chbrs, Basinghall st

made on such defendant by stnding to him a copy of such writ and a copy of Hoxt,'JAMES, Peterborough Northampton, Builder. Jan 0. Rippon y Hunt, Bacon, this order by letter through the Post Office, addressed to him at his usua V.C. Jones, Mark lane

residence, and posting a copy of such writ at the police station nearest tol MAXTINUCCI, ANTONIO LOMBARDI, Pall Mall East, Photographic Artist. Jan 7. Fulton

his said residence shall be good and sufficient service of such writ, provided y Martinucci, Bacon, V.C. Hewitt, Nicholas lane SLOPER, ELIZABETI, Abergavenny. Jan 16. Harris y Morgan, Bacon, V.C. Baker, that the plaintiff or plaintiffs named in such writ of summons, or one of them, Abergavenny

or his or their attorney, shall make and cause to be filed in the division out WICKS, JOHN, Kilburn, Builder. Jan 20. Wicks v Wicks, Chitty, J. Haines, Serjeant's of which such writ shall have issued an affidavit stating the parish and barony

inn, Fleet st WITHERS, ALFRED, Southsea, Hants, Timber Merchant. Jan 20. Driver v Withers,

in wbich the defendant resides, and that such place of residence is Chitty, J. Brown, Basinghall st

[Gazette, Dec. 20.] within a district which has been and is prescribed as aforesai), BEREDON, THOMAS HENRY, Bere ct, Berks, Esq. Feb 1. Breedon v Breedon, Hall, V.C. and that the above particulars to service have been duly observed and per

Witherington, Reading
CROCEE, JANE DI LA, Fopstone rd, Kensington. Feb 1. De la Crouée v De la Crouée,

formed. Thò time li dired for the appearance of the defendant to any writ Hall, V.C. Rickards, Crown ct, Old Broad st

served under this rule shall be twelve days after the service thereof. By JOWLINGS, WILLIAM, Rodborough, Gloucester, Clothier. Jan 31. Jowlings v Roberts, | the last rule, in consideration of the change of practice, four days are added

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

to the time within which the defendant is required to enter an appearance. Drinkwater, Hyde

The prescribed districts comprise the whole of the provinces of Leinster and MEESON, David, Warnford ct, Stockbroker. Jan 20. Brander v Merson, Chitty, J. Connaught, the barony of Tullyhaw in the county Cavan, and å barony and

Gibb, Fenchurch avenue
SMITH, ARTHUR DENMAN TYLER, Seaford, Sussex, Esq. Jan 19. Abrahams v Smith,

two parishes in Donegal.
Chitty, J. Gardiner, John st, Adelphi
WATKINS, JOIN, Flanhowell Glascombe, Radnor, Farmer, Jan 17. Drew y Watkins,
Chitty, J. Bazele, Builth

[Gazette, Dec. 23.]



LETCHER.Dec. 21, at Ripley Lodge, Belvedere. Kent, the wife of Mark J.

Letcher, solicitor, of a daughter.
ARCHEB, WILLIAM ROBSON, Lowestoft, Suffolk. Feb 16. Miller and Co, Norwich
BARROW, EDWARD SHEARSON, Golborne, Lancaster, Surgeon, Jan 14. Mayhew and

CHAMBERLAYNE. --Dec. 21, at Weddington Grove, Nuneaton, the wife of Stanes

Chamberlayne, barrister-at-law, of a son.
Son, Wigan
BIED, THoxas, Patricroft, Lancaster, Plumber. Jan 12, Horner and Son, Manchester

Broome, ABRAHAM, Soothill, Dewsbury, York, Esq. Feb 1. Scholefield' and Taylor, Watson.—Dec. 24, at Wimbledon, H. Watson, solicitor to the Post Office, aged

CALDICOTT, HENRY, Worcester, Solicitor. Jan 17. Thorn, Worcester

Cocks, BENJAMIN, Holdgate, Salop, Gent. Feb 1. Marston and Sons, Ludlow
Comis, HENRY EDWARD, Caversham, Oxford, Esq. Jan 10. Robins and Cameron,

Gresham house, Old Broad st
Coorbe, EDWARD, Slleby, Leicester, Miller. Feb 14. Bartlett, Loughborough

At the Stock and Share Auction Company's sale held on Friday, the 23rd DETAYXES, CLARA MATILDA, Osnaburgh st, Regent's pk. Jan 28. Armstrong, Broad ct, inst.. at their sale room, Crown-court-buildings, Old Broad-street, the

Bow st, Covent gdni
POESTER, MATTHEW, Temple guns, Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Jan 27. Booty

following were amongst the prices obtained :-Norway Copper Mines £1 Ten and Bayliffe, Raymond bldgs, Gray's inn

per Cent. Preterence Shares, 108. paid, 11s, 6d. ; United Horse Nail Company GREENSLADE, CHARLES, Weston super Mare, Somerset, Gent. Feb 15. Bakers and Co, £1 Shares, 8. ; East Argentine Railway, 16); Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold

Weston saper Mare
Gayix, LUCY, Warwick st, Pimlico. Jan 20. Hudson, Furnival's inn

Mining $1 Shares, fully paid, 103. 6d. ; Standard Union Investment £l Shares, HAILY, MABY, Berkhampstead, Herts. Feb 1. James and Horwood, Aylesbury

fully paid, 20s. 60. ; Indian Kingston and Sandburse Gold Mining £1 Shares, HABBERLEY, JANE, Shrewsbury, Salop. Jan 5. Sprott and Co, Shrewsbury

9s. 60.; Oriental Telephone £1 Sbares, 10. paid, par ; Egyptian Unified 13 JASIOx, ROBERT CHESHYRE, Woolton, Liverpool. Feb 28. Hall and Co. Manchester

premium for end of January, 70 and 7-16 ; and other securities fetched fair Jonssox, SUSANXAI, Torbay st, Kentish Town. Jan 25. Moon, Lincoln's inn fields JOXES, MARY, Hereford. Feb 10, Bishop, Brecon

prices. KIDGELL, ELIZABETI, Birmingham. Feb 1. Flewker and Page, Wolverhampton

KITCHENS MADE LIGIT BY MEANS OF CHAPPUIS' DAYLIGHT REFLECTORS. The cost LEXEY, FREDERICK, Orpines, Wateringbury, Kent, Brewer. Feb 12. Oase and Son; I is from 25s. The saving in gas or oil soon makes up for that outlay. Prospectuses sent

Case and Son, Maidstone

on receipt of two stamps, addressed (S. J.) Chappuis, Patentee, 00, Fleet-street, LLOYD, WILLIAM, Hay, Brecon, Auctioneer. Feb 20. Corner, Hereford

| London.-[ADVT.]


Friday, .... 3 & gen. pa.




Monday ....23 Appeals.

Monday ....30



26 > General paper.


Mond y .... 20
Tuesday....31 General paper.

Wednes, Feb 1)

Wednsday..245 General paper.
Thursd .... 2.. Mots, adj. sumns & gen. pa. Thursday ..23

Sht. caus, pets., adj. samns., Fr day ... 21

Saturday ..25 )
Saturday .. 4.. Adj. sums & gen. pa.

Monday ... 27 ) General paper.

Monday .... 6)

Tuesday....28] General paper.

Tuesday.... 7 General paper.

Wednsday., 8)
Y.C. Bacon.

Thursd .... 9.. Mots. adj. sumns, & gen. pa.

At the Rolls House.
Saturday, Jan. .......... 7 Nr. Ward

Sht. caus., pets., adj. sumo.,
Mr. Jackson

Friday ....10 & gen. pa.
Mr. Farrer

Wed., Jan.. 11..Moins & gen pa.
Saturday.. 11.. Adj. sums. & gen. pa.

Thursday ..12
Mr. Justice Mr. Justice

General paper.
Mr. Justice Monday....13)

Friday ....13
CHITTY. Tuesday....14 General paper.

daturdy,...14(procedure), and gen. pa.

via Pets.,sht. causes, adj. sums. Saturday, Jan. .......... 7 Mr. King Mr. Latham Mr. Clowes

Wednesday 15 )
Thursday ..16.. Motns, adj. sum. & gen. pa.

(Fur. cons dem3., & non

Monday ....16 wit causes.
Frid y ....17 & gen. pa.
14 ( Sht. caus, pete., adj. sums.,


Saturday ../8.. Adj. sums, & gen. pa. Wednesday..18 General paper
Monday ....20

Thursday ..19)

Tuesday ....21 General paper

Friday .......20..Mtng.& gen, pa.
Wednesday..22 )

Pets., sht. ca'ls. adj. sums,

Saturday ..21 (Procedure), & gen. pa. At Lincoln's-ion and Westminster. | Friday ....10.. Motno, ali. gume & ven da. Thirsday ..23.. Motns. adj. sum. & gen. pa. CAD. motos. ex pte. apps. Saturday ...11...Pets., 8ht causes, & gen. pa.

Sht. caus, pets. adj. sumns.,

92 Fur. cons., dems., & non

Mon., ......23 wit causes
Monday .....13 ..In Bankruptcy.
Wednes, Janll from orders made on inter-

& gen pap.
(locutory motns, & oibr apps Tuesday....14)

Saturday ..25..Adj. sums. & gen. pa. Tuesday....24 Thursday 12..Bkcy apps and othr apps Wednesday, 15 General paper.

Monday ....27 General paper.

Wedsdy.....25 General paper.
Friday ....
Thursd ....16
Tuesday. ..23 General paper,

Thursday ..2)
Satrday ..
Friday....17.. Mts. adj. soms. & gen pa.

Friday, ....27.. Motns, & gen pa.
Sitarday ..10..Pets, sht. cause; & g?n. pa.


38 | Pets, sht. caus., adj. sums.

Saturday ... 28
Tresday ..
Monday ....20..In Bankruptcy.

(Procedure), & gen. pa.

At Lincoln's-inn.
App. mots. ex pte, apps. Tuesday, ..21

Fur. cons., dems. & non

Monday.....30 { wit causes Wednesday 18 } from orders made on inter Wednesday, 22 General paper.

Wed., Jan...11 ) llocutory moins., &othr apps Thursday ..23%

Thirsday ..12 General paper

Tuesday ....31
Thursday ..19.,Bkcy, apps. & othr apps. Friday...... 24.. Motns, adj. sum. & gen. pa Friday, ....13

Wed., Feb ! General paper,
Friday.... 20
Saturday ..25..Pets, sht. caus, & gen. p.. Saturday ..14)

Thursday .. 2)
Saturday ..21
Monday ....27...In Bankruptcy.
Monday .....16

Friday, .... 3..Motns. & gen. pa.
Tuesday.... 28.. General paper.

Pets, sht. caus, adj. sumns. fuesday.... 24)

Wednesday .18 5 General paper.

Saturday .. 41 (Proedure), and gen. pa. App. motns. er pta apps.

Thurs. ..... 19

Monday .... 6 { wit causes

Fur COLS., dems., & non Wednesday, 25 } from orders made on inter


Frday.....20 locutory motns & othr apps

Saturday ..21

Tucsday ....7)
Thurs, ....26..Bkcy, apps. & othr apps.

At Lincoln's-inn.
Monday .... 23

Wednsday.. 8 General paper.
Friday ....27

Tuesday ..24

Wed., Jan..11... Motns. & gen. pa.

Saturday ..28
Thursday. .12..General paper
Wednesday 2i (

Friday......10.. Motns, & gen. på

Pets, sht. caus, adj., snm:1s. Friday ....13..Pets, & gen. pı,

Saturday ..11 Tuesday....31)

Friday ....27

" (Procedure), and gen. pa. , App. motns. ex pte apps.

1 Sht. caus., adj suns., &
Saturday ..28

non Wednes, Feb 1 } from orders made on intergen. pa

Monday ....13 Hir. cons., dems., &
Monday ....30

wit causes
Monday ....16)
locutory morns, & othr apps

Tuesday .. .31

Tuesday .....14
Tuerday....17 General paper.
Thursday .. 2.. Bkcy, apps, & othr apps.

Wed., Feb. 15 General paper.

Wednesday. 15 General paper.
Friday, .... 3

Thursday .. 2

Thursday ..16
Thursday ..19..Mots, & gen. pa.
Saturday .. 4

Friday ....

Friday .... 17.. Motns. & gen. pa.
Friday ....20.. Pers. & gen. på.
Monday, 67 Appeals

Saturday ..4

Pets., sht. caus. adj. sums, Tuesday.... 7) 9 Sht. causes, a lj sums. &

Saturday ...18
Saturday ..21

(Procedure) and gen. pa. App. mots, ex pte, apps.

1 gen. pa.
Tuesday.... 7

on Fur, cons., dens. & non wit
Wednday .. 8} from orders mada on inter-
Monday.... 23
Wednsday.. 85 General piper.

Monday....* cause
locutory mots., & othr apps
Tuesday....24 General paper
Thursday ... 9


Wednesday.25 ) ..Bkcy apps and othr apps

riday ....10

Wednesday 22 Genral paper,
Thurs, .... 26.. Mot. & gen. pa.

Thorsday ..23 )
Saturday 11
Friday .... 27...Petus. & gen, pa.
Monday ..13

Friday .... 24.. Moins., & gen pa.
Monday ... 13 Appeals.

Saturday ..28
28 Sht. caus., adj. sums., &

(Petns. sht. cans. adj. sams. Tuesday ....14

1 gen. pa
Wednsday..15 General paper.

Sat., ...... 25) (Procedure), & gen. pa.
App. mots. ex pte. apps.
Monday .. 30
Thursday .. 16

. | Fur. cons., de ms., & non wit Weds

Tuesday....31 General paper.
from orders made on inter-

Wed., Feb. 1)
Toutory mots, & othr apps.

Saturday ..18

Tuesday....28..General paper. Thursday ..16. Bkcy, apps. & othr apps.

Thursday .. 2.. Mtns. & gen. pa. Friday......17)

Friday, .... 3.. Pets, & gen. pa. Saturday ..18

Saturday .. Sat. caus., adj sums. &

. gen. pa.

Monday.... 6
Tuesday...,21 )
App. motns. ex pte, apps.

Tuesdy .... 7 General paper.
from ordrs made on inter-

Wednsdy .. 8)

Thurs. .... 9.. Motos, & gen. p.
locutory motns & othr apps
Thursday ..23.. Bkcy, apps. & othr apps.

Friday ....10..Pins, & gen. pa.
Saturday.. 11

Friday, .... 24
Sht. caus., adj. sums., &

Bankrupts. Saturday .. 25

gen. pa.
57 Appeals.

FRIDAY, Dec 23, 1881.
Tuesday...,28 )
Tuesday ..14 General paper.

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.
Wednesday, 15 )
Thursday .. 16... Motns, & gen. pa.

Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.
Friday ....17..Pets, & gen. pa.

To Surrender in London.
Saturday J18 Short caus., ad. sums. &

Barritt, William, Ordnance ter, Barking rd, Cheesemonger. Pet Dec 20. Brougham, " I gen. pa.

Jan 13 at 12.30
Monday ....20

Botten, Henry, Canrobert st, Bethnal Green rd, Licensed Victualler. Pet Dec 20.
Tuesday....21 General paper.

Brougham. Jan 13 at 12
Wednesday. 22)

Filbey, William, Bethnal Green rd, Butcher. Pet Dec 21. Brougham. Jan 17
Thursday.. 23.. Mots, & gen. pa.
At Lincoln's Ion.

Horder, Frederick Henry, The Parade, Shepherd's Bush, Grocer. Pet Dec 21.
Friday ....24.. Pets. & gen. pa.

Brougham. Jan 17 at 2
Wednes,Jan11 Motions, adj. sumy., and

Saturday ..251
os Sht. caus., ad. sum3. &

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

gen, pa.

Jan 11 at 1

Redhead, John Allen, Mark lane, Solicitor. Pet Dec 22. Hazlitt. Jan 11 at 2
General paper.
Friday.... 13 "en
Tuesday....28 General paper.

Ropkins, George Edward, Clacton on Sea, Essex, Builder. Pet Dec 19. Brougham. Satrdyl....14 Petns. sbt. causes, and gen.

Jan 11 at 1 2 paper Monday....16..In Bankruptcy.

Tippins, Samuel, Little Newport st, Newport Market, Boot Manufacturer. Pet Dec 20.

Murray. Jan 11 at 12
At Lincoln's-inn.

To Surrender in the Country: Pet Dec 20.
Wednesday 18 General paper.

Claydon, Agnes Charlotte,

Pitt-Taylor. Thurs......19)

Wednes, Janll.. Motos. adj. sum. & gen. på. Friday ....20..Motns, adj. sums, & Thursday ..12..General paper.

Cowan, William, Stockton on Tees, Grocer. Pet Dec 20. Crosby, Stockton on Tees, Sat., ......21.. Pets, sht. causes, & gen, pa. Friday .... 13 Shr, caus., ptos. adj.sumos.

Jan 6 at 2.30 Monday....23... In Bankruptcy.

and gen. pa. Tuesday ..24) Satrdy, ....14.. Adj, sums. & gen. pa.

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

at 12 Wedsdy ...25 General paper Monday.... 16)

15. Cripps.

| Ramsden, Arthur Charles, Ashurst, Tunbridge Wells, Kent. Pet D Thursday..26) Tuesday....17 General paper.

Tunbridge Wells, Jan 5 at 3 Friday ...27, Motns., adj. sms. & gen. pa. Wednesday 18 )

Shilabeer, Eli, Pembroke Dock, Pembroke, Confectioner. Pet Dec 20. Parry. Pem. Sat, .........28..Petns, sht. causes, & gen. pa. Thursday ..19.. Vots, adj. sumn, & gen. pa.

broke Dock, Jan 4 at 12 Monday....30..In Bankruptcy. Friday......20 Sht, caus., pets., adj.sumns.,

Welham, Frederick, Great Yarmouth, Ironmonger. Pet Dec 20. Worlledge. Great Tuesday....31)

1 & gen. pa.

Yarmouth, Jan 4 at 11
Wed., Feb. General paper.
Saturday ..21.. Adj,sums. & gen. pa.

TUESDAY, Dec. 27, 1881.
Thursday... 2)

Fri ay, .... 3.. Motos, adj. sums & gen. pa. Tuesday.... 24 General paper.

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.
Saturday .. 4.. Petns., sht. caus. & gen pa.

Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.
Monday .... 6..In Bankruptcy.
Thursday ..26.. Mots. a tj. sumns. & gen. pa.

To Surrender in London.
Tuesday.... 7)

Sht. caus, pets. adj. sumDS, Ker, Robert, Walton st, Brompton. Pet Dec 22.Hazlitt. Jan 18 at 11

Walton st, Brompton. Pet Dec 22. Hazlitt. Jan 18 at 11
Wednsdy .. 8 General paper.
Friday •.•.25 & gen. pa.

Levy, Robert, Walworth rd, Fruit and Potato Salesman. Pet Dec 22, Hazlitt. Jan 11 Thursday .. 9

Saturday ..28..Adj. sums. & gen. pa.

. 10

Monday ....27 }


Monday....20 Appeals.


Greenwich, Jan 17 at ite, Plumstead, Kent, Millinery. Dat

at 2

« PreviousContinue »