Crankshaw, William, Standish, Licensed Victualler. Nov 10 at 3 at Manorca Hotel, Wigan. Parkinson Deacon, Alfred Andrew, Lavenham, Suffolk. Innkeeper. Nov 11 at 12 at Gdildhall, Bury St. Edmonds. Salmon and Son, Bury St Edmunds Dean, Samuel, Warwick, Upholsterer. Nov 7 at 11 at offices of Sanderson, Church st Warwick Dobson, George, York, Cowkeeper. Nov 15 at 12 at offices of Wilkinson, St Helen's sq, York Ellis, John, Marlborough, Wilts, Tailor. Nov 8 at 12 at offices of Rodway, Forest, Trowbridge Fiddler, John, Worcester, Picture Frame Maker. Nov 8 at 4 at offices of Tree and Son, High st, Worcester Filbey, William, Bethnal Green rd, Butcher. Nov 16 at 11 at offices of Ratcliff, Bishopsgate st Within Flashman, George Tarring, Scarborough villas, Wood Green, Painter. Nov 9 at 11.30 Frith, John, and John West, Manchester, Cotton Spinners. Nov 11 at 3 at offices of Geary, Edwin, Cannock, Stafford, Dentist. Nov 7 at 11 at offices of Duignan and Co, the Bridge, Walsall George, Charles, Worcester, Fruit Dealer. Worcester Nov 15 at 11 at offices of Hulme, Angel st, Green, John, Newton Moor, Chester, Grocer. Nov 10 at 3 at offices of Drinkwater, Ridling lane, Hyde Green, Richard, Essendon, Herts, Miller. Nov 17 at 3 at Law Institution, Chancery lane. Greening, Charles Joseph, Birmingham, Shoe Dealer. Nov 9 at 2 at offices of Sargent 11 at 11 at offices of Randell, Gronow, Daniel, Pontypridd, Glamorgan, Shoemaker. Nov 9 at 12 at offices of Lewis, Church st, Pontypridd Groves, William, jun, Shrewsbury, Innkeeper. Nov 7 at 12 at offices of Edwards, Pride hill, Shrewsbury Gwyer, Joseph, Bishopsgate st|Within, Merchant. Nov 23 at 3 at offices of Watney and Co, Clement's lane, Lombard st Hadfield, John, and William Hadfield, Nottingham, Shoe Manufacturers. Nov 14 at 12 at 14, Low pavement, Nottingham. Black Hallam, Arthur, Leicester, Harness Maker. Nov 11 at 12 at offices of Hunter and Curtis, Halford st, Leicester Hampson, William Simpson, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Traveller. Nov 14 at 3 at offices of Rycroft, Brown st, Manchester Harkness, James, Oxford st, Licensed Victualler. Nov 14 at 2 at offices of Layton and Co, Budge row Harland, Henry, Redcar, York, out of business. Nov 5 at 10 at Black Swan Hotel, Hawke, Thomas Gaggs, Braishfield, Hants, Farmer. Heal, John George, Southsea, Hants, Wholesale Grocer. Hemmings, John Wright, Halford, Warwick, Farmer. Nov 11 at 3 at offices of Kilby, Nov 9 at 3 at 145, Cheapside. Nov 21 at 1 at offices of Han Herbert, David, Aberdovey, Merioneth, Clerk in Holy Orders. Nov 8 at 12 at offices of Hughes and Sons, Pier st, Aberystwith Hinckley, William, and Isaiah Hinckley, Willenhall, Stafford, Rim Lock Manufacturers. Nov 10 at 11 at offices of Clark, New rd, Willenhall Hind, William Blakeston, Barnard Castle, Durham, Licensed Victualler. Nov 14 at 2 at fices of Brewis and Co, Grey st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hingeley, Emma, Birmingham, Fancy Draper. Nov 10 at 12 at offices of Garland, Colmore row, Birmingham Head, George Hewlett, Knighton, Radnor, Ostler. Nov 11 at 1 at Horse and Jockey Inn, Knighton. Bowles, Ludlow Humphreys, Daniel, Llanfyllin, Montgomery, Jeweller. Nov 15 at 1 at Queen's Hotel, New st, Birmingham. Roberts, Llanfyllin Hartington, Richard Henry, Goole, York, Grocer. Nov 10 at 2 at offices of Hind and C, Goole Jackson, Robert, Leicester, Confectioner. Nov 16 at 3 at offices of Hincks, Bowling Green st, Leicester Jensen, Hans Peter Fredrik, Wardour st, Soho, Watchmaker. Nov 16 at 3 at Inns of Court Hotel, High Holborn. Levy, Surrey st, Strand Kidd, Thomas, Birkenhead, Chester, Grocer. Nov 10 at 2 at offices of Francis, Hamilton sq, Birkenhead King, Thomas, Cuddington, Bedford, Hay and Straw Dealer. Nov 16 at 2.30 at offices of Ewen and Co, Park st West, Luton Kirk, Francis, Scarborough, York, Hotel Proprietor. Nov 9 at 3 at St Thomas's Hotel, Museum st, York. Watson, Leeds Lawley, Francis Charles, Victoria st, Westminster, Journalist. Nov 10 at 2 at offices of Beyfus and Co, Lincoln's inn fields Leaver, James, jun, Blackburn, Lancaster, Draper. Oct 31 at 3 at offices of Gillibrand, George st, Manchester. Scott, Blackburn Lees, Samuel, Dewsbury, York, Provision Merchant. Ridgway and Co, Union st, Dewsbury Nov 15 at 10.30 at offices of 2 at Brayshaw's Northern Hotel, Wellington st, Leeds. Burton, Ossett Mokton, William Palmer, St John's rd, Hoxton, Butcher. Nov 7 at 3 at offices of Oliver, Fenchurch st Moore, Griffith, Bugbrooke, Northampton, Licensed Victualler. Nov 11 at 3 at offices of Becke, Derngate, Northampton Korris, Matthew, Westbury, Wilts, Butcher. Nov 9 at 3 at offices of Ames, Frome Mort, Charles Frederick, Farnworth, near Bolton, Lancaster, Grocer. Nov 9 at 3 at offices of Eckersley, Mawdsley st, Bolton Moxon, Edmund Oliver, Wakefield, York, Plumber. Nov 9 at 11 at offices of Lake and Price, Joseph, Hanley, Stafford, out of business. Nov 7 at 10 at offices of Ashmall, Priest, Edward, Dudley Hill, nr Bradford, York, Grocer. Nov 9 at 3 at offices of Lake and Lake, Southgate, Wakefeld Banford, Samuel Henry, Lewisham, Kent, Cattle Dealer. Nov 15 at 3 at Masons Hall, Tavern, Masons avenue, Basinghall st Rawnsley, James, Clayton, Bradford, York, Grocer. Nov 7 at 2.30 at Chamber of Commerce, Market st, Bradford. Terry and Co, Bradford Phodes, John, Plumber, Heywood, Lancaster. Nov 7 at 3 at offices of Simpson and Hockin, Mount st, Albert sq, Manchester Roberts, David, Colwyn Bay, Denbigh, Coal Merchant. Nov 9 at 1 at offices of Owen, High st, Bangor Robertson, Hector, Mount Pleasant, North Shields, out of business. Nov 8 at 3 at offices of Macdonald, Mosley st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Rose, Samuel, Ripley, Derby, Fishmonger. Nov 11 at 11 at offices of Heath, Amen alley, Derby Salmon, Frederick, Gateshead, Draper. Nov 9 at 1 at offices of Robson, Town hall, Gateshead-on-Tyne Searle, Francis, Redhill, Surrey, out of business. Nov 9 at 3 at offices of Brewer, City rd, Finsbury sq Sharp, Henry William, William st, Kennington pk rd, Dairyman. Nov 17 at 2 at offices of Apps, South sq, Gray's inn Shaw, Edwin, Staniland, Halifax, Grocer. Nov 10 at 11 at offices of Garsed, Barum-top, Shaw, William, Fenton, Stafford, out of business. Nov 11 at 3 at offices of Sword, Skeet, William, Aldershot, Ironmonger. Nov 11 at 11 at Anderton's Hotel, Fleet st. Smith, Frank, Leamington, Warwick, Grocer. Nov 9 at 11 at offices of East, Temple st, Birmingham Stacey, William Urbane, Isleworth, Grocer. Nov 18 at 3 at offices of Woodbridge and Sons, Clifford's inn Sunter, Robert, Thwaite Bridge, nr Hawes, York, Farmer. Nov 11 at 2 at White Hart Hotel, Hawes. Jefferson, Northallerton" Swatman, Thomas, jun, Lowestoft, Suffolk, Builder. Nov 14 at 12 at offices of Seago and Son, High st, Lowestoft Taylor, Jabez, Swaffham, Norfolk, Baker. Nov 10 at 11 at offices of Palmer, Swaffham, Norfolk Thomas, Thomas, Cross Inn, Llandebie, Carmarthen, Builder. Nov 17 at 1 at offices of Tucker, Isaac, Middlesborough, Butcher. Nov 8 at 10 at offices of Catchpole, Argye Waterston, Joseph. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Merchant. Nov 9 at 2 at offices of Joel, Wheater, William, Leeds, Surveyor. Nov 10 at 3 at offices of Hardcastle and Barnfather Whitehouse, Cornelius, Edgbaston, Warwick, Shoe Manufacturer. Nov 16 at 11 at office of Taylor, Colmore row, Birmingham Wightman, Richard, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Mineral Water Manufacturer. Nov 8 at 2 at offices of Pybus, Post Office chbrs, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Wilson, William, Stockton-on-Tees, Engineer. Nov 7 at 11 at offices of Chambers, Sadler st, Durham Winfield, Job, Mayfield, Stafford, Coal Merchant. Nov 8 at 11 at offices of Wilson, Winter, James John, Fulham rd, Shoemaker. Nov 10 at 2 at offices of Webb, Austin TUESDAY, Nov. 1, 1881. Abrahams, James Hunt, Salisbury, Wilts, Clothier. Nov 14 at 3 at offices of Josolyne and Co, King st, Cheapside. Hodding, Salisbury Aldridge, James William Darnell, Ainsly ter, Lee, Pawnbroker. Nov 15 at 3 at offices of Parkes, Queen Victoria st Allen, Thomas, Leicester, Engineer. Nov 15 at 12 at offices of Buckby, Gallowtree gate, Leicester Armishaw, George Watson, and Roland New, Liverpool, General Merchants. Nov 15 at 2 at offices of Harmood and Co, North John st, Liverpool. Stone and Co, Liverpool Armstrong, James, Hartlepool, Durham, Saw Mill Proprietor. Nov 9 at 11 at offices of Simpson, Church st, West Hartlepool Arnold, Francis, and John Thomas Cave, Northampton, Shoe Manufacturers. Nov 15 at 3 at offices of Walker, Market sq, Northampton Askell, George, Stamfordham, Northumberland, Farmer. Nov 11 at 1 at offices of Jeel, Newgate st, Newcastle upon Tyne Bailey, Alfred, Lower Kennington lane, Lambeth, Cheesemonger. Nov 18 at 3 at offices of Fowler and Co, Borough High st Barnby, Thomas, Wansford, nr Great Driffield, York, Farmer. Nov 11 at 3 at Keys Hotel, Driffield. Foster and Co, Great Driffield Bast, Walter Herbert, Salisbury, Wilts, Bill Poster. Nov 11 at 11 at offices of Hill and Slader, Crown chmbrs, Salisbury Bavin, John, Metheringham, Lincoln, Farmer. Nov 10 at 11 at offices of Page, junior, Flaxengate, Lincoln Bland, William Mountain, Darlington, Durham, Tailor. Nov 17 at 11 at offices of Robinson, Chancery lane, Darlington Brall, Conrad, Church st, Deptford, Baker. Nov 14 at 3 at offices of Sandom and Co, Gracechurch st Bongers, Henry Augustus, Queen Victoria st, Colour Manufacturer. Nov 17 at 3 at offices,of Munns and Longder, Old Jewry Boughton, Joseph Guest, Cheltenham, Surgeon. Nov 15 at 12 at Bath Hotel, Albion st, Buchan, Charles Forbes, Bedford, Surgeon. Nov 15 at 11 at offices of Ewen and Cannon, William, High st, Vauxhall, Licensed Victualler. Nov 12 at 12 at 10, Bassing- Ferguson, James, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Commission Agent. Nov 8 at 11 at offices of Bow Finlaw, James, South Shields, Durham, Builder. Nov 11 at 3 at offices of Green, King Garstang, Elizabeth, Manchester, Finisher. Nov 16 at 3 at offices of Earle and Co, Brown st, Manchester offices of Collier, Meynell Cromwell, Lombard st, Financial Agent. Nov 22 at 11 at Crabb, William, Littleport, Cambridge, Farmer. Nov 16 at 1.30 at Lamb Hotel, Ely. Dale. Charles Matthias, Sheffield, Cabinet Case Maker. Nov 9 at 11 at offices of Mellor, Queen st, Sheffield Davison, Frances, Rochester, Kent, Pork Butcher. Nov 21 at 3 at Kings Head Hotel High st, Rochester. Shakespeare, Newgate st Edwards, Henry, Fisher-lane, Turnham Green, Dairyman. Nov 15 at 11 at Law Nov 16 at 3 at Station Nov 14 at 3 at offices of Evans, Walter William, Bracknell, Berks, Harness Maker. Gee, Thomas, Aston, nr Birmingham, Builder. Nov 12 at 11 at offices of Jaques, Temple row, Birmingham Gill, William, Littleport, Cambridge, Farmer. Nov 12 at 1.30 at Lamb Hotel, Ely. Wilkin, King's Lynn Glynn, James, St. Mary's Cemetery, Harrow rd, Master Stonemason. Nov 17 at 2 at offices of Armstrong, Chancery lane Green, Mark, Leicester, Tobacconist. Nov 18 at 3 at offices of Wright, Belvoir st, Leicester Grieve, Walter, Newbold-upon-Avon, Warwick, Trainer of Race Horses. Nov 12 at 1 at Crewe Arms Hotel, Crewe. Fowler, Liverpool Haffner, Leonard, and Frederick Haffner, Lineholt, Ombersley, Worcester, Farmers. Nov 14 at 11 at offices of Tree and Son, High st, Worcester Hannaford, William John, Ramsgate, Smack Owner. Nov 12 at 2 at Royal Harbour Inn, Addington st, Ramsgate. Hills, Ramsgate Harris, Charles, Wingham, Kent, Builder. Nov 18 at 1 at Fleece Hotel, Canierbury. Parry, Ramsgate Hilyer, William, Cheltenham, Greengrocer. Nov 9 at 12 at 12, Regent st, Cheltenham. Billings Hollingbery, Charles, East st, Victoria Park, Shoe Manufacturer. Nov 19 at 11 at 40, Churton st, Pimlico. Dutton Hope, John Henry, Ancoats, Manchester, Brush Manufacturer. Nov 17 at 11 at offices of Jones, Kennedy st, Manchester Hurst, William, Didsbury, Lancaster, Bricklayer. Nov 14 at 3 at offices of Farrington, Princess st, Manchester Jones, Richard Ranson, Walbrook, Commission Agent. Nov 16 at 3 at offices of Fitch, Jordan, William, Commercial rd East, Window Blind Maker. Nov 11 at 3 at offices of Limpus, James Dainty, High st, Putney, Dairyman. Nov 14 at 3 at offices of Chandler Nov 14 at 3 at 3, Portugal st, Nov 16 at 11 at offices of Griffith, Lad lane, Mannheimer, Wolfgang Gustav, Mark lane, Merchant. Nov 17 at 12 at offices of Crump and Son, Philpot lane Martin, George, Liverpool, Licensed Victualler. Nov 16 at 2 at offices of Knowles, Cook st, Liverpool Matts, George Henry, Leicester, Hay and Corn Dealer. Nov 15 at 3 at offices of Wright, Belvoir st, Leicester McComb, William, Wolstanton, Stafford, Ale and Porter Merchant. Nov 14 at 11 at offices of Alcock, Newcastle et, Burslem Mellor, Obadiah, Ladmanlow, near Buxton, Derby, Greengrocer. Nov 14 at 11 at White Bear Inn, King Edward st, Macclesfield. Cooper, Congleton Memmott, Walter George, Sheffield, Electro Plate Manufacturer. Nov 16 at 4 at offices of Binney and Co, Queen st chmbrs, Sheffield Moore, Daniel, Walsall, Stafford, Builder. Nov 16 at 3 at offices of Cotterell and Carter, Bridge st, Walsall Nov 11 at 3 at offices of Hollinshead and Poskitt, Mark, Kellington, near Fenybridge, York, Farmer. Nov 14 at 3 at Red Lion Hotel, Pontefract. Kaberry, Pontefract Priest, Enoch, Oldbury, Worcester, Coal Dealer. Nov 16 at 11 at offices of Shakespeare, Church st, Oldbury Nov 22 at 3 at Pybus, Henry, Central Market, West Smithfield, Provision Salesman. Robinson, Charles, Park Mews, Kilburn, Cab Proprietor. Nov 10 at 11 at 10, Bell yard, Roe, William, Chatham, Hoopmaker. Nov 14 at 3 at the King's Head Hotel, High st, Rochester. Shakespear, Newgate st Rogers, William, Albert ter, King's Cross, Cab Proprietor. Nov 21 at 12 at offices of Howard, Southampton bldgs, Chancery lane Salberg, Frederick Sigismund, Louis Salberg, and Samuel Heymann, Aldermanbury Avenue, General Merchants. Nov 24 at 3 at Cannon st Hotel, Cannon st. Goldberg and Co, West st, Finsbury circus SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA, Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted. The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children." Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures. Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny." COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited. In tin packets at 1s. 6d., 3s., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and Grocers. Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors, H. SCHWEITZER & CO, 10, Adam-street, London, W.C HAMPTON & SONS make NO CHARGE for inserting particulars in their FREE MONTHLY REGISTER of ESTATES, TOWN and COUNTRY HOUSES, Furnished or Unfurnished, or for Sale, to be had GRATIS at their Offices, or post-free for two stamps. Published on the 1st of the month, and particulars for insertion should be sent not later than five days previous to end of preceding month. Valuations for Probate and Transfer. Surveys. Sibley, Robert, Newport, Isle of Wight, Glover, Nov 16 at 12 at offices of Sole and Co. Aldermanbury. Hooper, Newport Shipton, Abraham, Princes rd, Notting Hill, Corn Dealer. Nov 11 at 3 at offices of Smerdon, Thomas, Harrow, Coal Merchant. Nov 21 at 2 at offices of Coxwell and Corp Smith, Samuel, Sedgley, Stafford, Licensed Victualler. Nov 11 at 3 at offices of Stokes Suthsell, William, Gosberton, Lincoln, Farmer. Nov 14 at 1 at Great Northern Inn, Surfleet. Deacon and Wilkins, Peterborough Taylor, William Forster, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, out of business, Nov 8 at 3 at offices of Sewell, Grey st, Newcastle-upon Tyne Tonge, Charles, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, York, Livery Stable Keeper. Nov 14 at 11 at offices of Ward, Albert rd, Middlesborough Truman, John, Nottingham, Upholsterer. Nov 14 at 3 at offices of Lees, Severn Vickers, Tom, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Butcher. Nov 14 at 3 at Market pl, Manchester. Nov 11 at 2 at Shoulder of Mutton Inn, Walmsley, Edmund Bloxam, Porchester sq, no occupation. Nov 21 at 11 at offices of Roberts, Coleman st Ward, James, Chester, Fruiterer. Nov 16 at 3 at offices of Tibbits and Sons, Old Post Office pl, the Eastgate, Chester Wasley, Emmanuel, Brierley Hill, Stafford, Publican. Nov 12 at 10.30 at offices of Clulow, High st, Brierley Hill White, Frederick, Barnard's Green, nr Great Malvern, Builder. Nov 17 at 11 at Star Hotel, Upton-upon-Severn. Moores and Romney, Tewkesbury Williams, Mary Ann, Malvern Wells, Lodging house keeper. Nov 14 at 3 at offices of Lambert, the Promenade, Gt Malvern Williams, Philip, Aberaman, Aberdare, Grocer. Nov 14 at 12 at 39, Broad st, Bristol. Linton and Kenshole, Aberdare Williams, Richard, Wrexham, Denbigh, Farmer. Nov 15 at 3 at offices of Culshaw, Lord st, Liverpool Wilson, John, Leeds, Grocer. Nov 11 at 2 at offices of Middleton and Sons, Calverley chbrs, Victoria sq, Leeds Wilson, Joseph, Ryther, nr Tadcaster, York, Farmer. Nov 16 at 12 at offices of Weddall and Parker, Abbey yd, Selby Wimbles, Richard, Liverpool, Stationer. Nov 16 at 2 at offices of Lynch and Tebar, Lord st, Liverpool Wiskar, Walter Christian, St James's rd, Bermondsey, Licensed Victualler. Nov 17 at 3 at offices of Wright, Walbrook Woolley, Joseph, Maxey, Northampton, Farmer. Nov 14 at 12 at Angel Hotel, Peterborough. Gaches, Peterborough Wright, Joseph, sen, Ossory rd, Old Kent rd, Licensed Victualler. Nov 18 at 3 at offices of Clapham and Fitch, Bishopsgate Without CURRENT TOPICS THE NEWSPAPER LIBEL ACT THE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE'S REPORT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE CONVEYANCING ACT................................. REVIEWS ..................... CORRESPONDENCE CASES OF THE WEEK A Solicitor, In re .................................. Dowd v. Hawtin 667 LONDON GAZETTES, &C., &C........... 14 NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.-All communications intended for publication in the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer. The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the return of rejected communications. The Publisher requests that early application should be made by persons desirous of obtaining back numbers of the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, as only a small number of copies remain on hand. It is announced that the share certificates of the Royal Courts of Justice Chambers Company (Limited) are now ready for delivery. The Solicitors' Journal. CURRENT TOPICS. LONDON, NOVEMBER 12, 1881. JAMES HANNEN thereupon remarked that he "had often had occasion to observe on the unsatisfactory character of proof by photographs, and never acted on it alone." In a case recently decided by Vice-Chancellor BACON, that learned judge THE COURT OF APPEAL at Westminster commenced its sittings made some observations on the extreme caution necessary in receivon Thursday. WE BELIEVE that the orders made in the Chancery Division during the last Long Vacation exceeded by about 200 those made during any previous vacation. THE MEETING of the members of the Incorporated Law Society, to consider the report of the Legal Procedure Committee, is fixed for the 18th inst., at two o'clock. WE PRINT ELSEWHERE a list of seventy-five causes which are to be transferred from the list of Mr. Justice CHITTY to that of Vice-Chancellor BACON. Twelve of these causes have already been transferred to Mr. Justice KAY for the purposes of trial or hearing only, and when heard they will remain in the cause-book of Vice-Chancellor BACON for all other purposes. framers of the Act. ing as evidence even photographs of buildings, which, one would suppose, do not vary greatly in expression. Although, he said, no blame attached to any party, or to the witness who produced a photograph of certain buildings to which the case related, yet that photograph, if unaccompanied by other evidence, would," in the opinion of the learned judge, have seriously misled the court. There was no fraud in that case, but the reason for the warning becomes more obvious when we remember that there are modes of manipulating the process of printing so as, by means of the combination of two or more negatives, to produce a totally different effect from that presented by the object taken. Practitioners should be careful not to place too much reliance on this kind of evidence. refused to allow IN THE COURSE of his summing-up in the LEFROY trial, Lord COLERIDGE pointedly expressed his disapproval of the practice, sanctioned by the late Lord Chief Justice, of counsel for the defence repeating in his speech statements made by the prisoner. The history of the practice is a little singular. More than forty years ago, in the trial of a man called BUTCHER (the case is MR. WOLSTENHOLME having retired from the field, we have reported: R. v. Butcher, 2 Moo. & Rob. 228) the late Lord now the pleasure of welcoming into our columns Mr. F. S. Chief Justice, then at the bar, in his address to the jury, REILLY, his coadjutor in the drafting of the Conveyancing Act, was stating the prisoner's account of what had taken place, who this week takes up the cudgels in defence of the measure. when he was interrupted by Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, who We again leave our readers to judge whether our criticisms the prisoner's counsel to state to the have been successfully impugned. Mr. REILLY's reputation is jury facts which he had heard from the prisoner, but sufficiently high to make us suspect that if he had remained which he was not in a position to prove. Two years ago, in a silent the public would have thought him capable of making a trial before the late Lord Chief Justice, counsel for the prisoner better defence. We may add that we notice with pleasure the happened to use the time-honoured phrase that his "unfortunate more courteous tone which now marks the communications of the client's mouth was closed," when the learned judge at once remarked that "he could not acquiesce in that, for counsel represented the accused, and whatever the prisoner would be entitled to say, that his counsel was entitled to say on his behalf." With great deference to the opinion of Lord COLERIDGE, we venThere is the decision of Mr. Justice CROWDER (R. v. Haines, 1 F. & F. 86), " that what a prisoner said before the magistrate he might repeat through his counsel at the trial"; the observation of Mr. Justice BYLES in another case, that the prisoner has the option of either speaking himself or of having his counsel to speak for him"; and last, but not least, the decision of Mr. Justice HAWKINS, with the concurrence of Lord Justice LUSH, in a case at the Leeds Spring Assizes (February 3, 1880; 24 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 266), that, "as a general principle, a prisoner may make his statement, and give his version of the transaction in respect of which he stands charged. The statement might be made by his counsel, but I think it may be made by the prisoner." THERE ARE SYMPTOMS that the report of the Procedure Com-ture to think that the weight of authority is against his view. mittee will not be adopted in its entirety by the Rule Committee of judges. In a case of Earl De La Warr v. Miles, of which a report will be found in another column, a question was raised before the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, as to the allowance on taxation of the costs of copies of a shorthand writer's notes of evidence. In the course of the argument reference was made by counsel to the recommendation contained in the recent report of the Procedure Committee of the appointment of an official shorthand writer in each court, which he characterized as a "suggested improvement." The Master of the Rolls thereupon expressed a doubt whether this alteration would be any improvement. Our readers may remember that, in commenting upon this suggestion (25 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 894), we said that," although it is more than probable that a very considerable revenue might be derived from the employment of official shorthand writers remunerated in the manner here sketched out, it appears that the result of such employment will be to impose an additional burden on litigants." We are glad to find that our view seems to be, to some extent, indorsed by the high authority of the Master of the Rolls. also SEVERAL YEARS AGO, in discussing the case of Miles v. Furber (21 W. R. 262, L. R. 8 Q. B. 77), we drew attention to the two conflicting principles which had from time to time prevailed during the long series of decisions on the question of exemption from distress for rent for the benefit of trade: the principle of restriction, represented by Parsons v. Gingell (4 C. B. 545), SOME TIME AGO in the Divorce Court a lodging-house keeper which says that only goods placed in the hands of the tenant was called to prove the identity of a co-respondent, by means of with the intent to have human labour or skill bestowed upon a photograph, and after carefully examining the picture, she them" are to be privileged from distress by the trader's landdeclared her opinion in the following peculiar language:-lord; and the principle of relaxation, represented by Swire v. "I have no doubt it is him, and it isn't like him." Sir Leach (13 W. R. 385, 18 C. B. N. S. 479), which says that 66 all goods sent to a trader "to be taken care of and dealt with by him in the way of his trade" are to be privileged from such distress. It will be remembered that in Miles v. Furber the court, having to decide between these two principles, and admitting that the previous cases were irreconcileable, deliberately chose to follow the latter principle. In a case of Gould v. Usher, decided by the Queen's Bench Division this week, the question has once more been discussed. A county court judge had decided that certain cows standing in the stables of an innkeeper, waiting to be sold, were privileged from distress levied for rent due from the innkeeper's landlord to his superior landlord. The court held that the cows were not privileged from distress. We have not before us the full facts of the case, or the grounds on which the decision of the court rested, but it seems probable that the court may have relied on the distinction suggested by MELLOR, J., in Miles v. Furber between the facts of that case and those of Parsons v. Gingell. In the latter case the owner of the horse merely used the innkeeper's stable instead of his own, retaining to himself the entire control of the animal. If our supposition is correct, there has now been introduced yet another distinction into this complicated branch of law. The CONJECTURES ARE CURRENT as to the possibility of the Great Seal being placed in commission, and it may be worth while to consider what the effect of such a proceeding would be. 98th section of the Judicature Act, 1873, provides that "when the Great Seal is in commission, the Lords Commissioners shall represent the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Act, save that as to the presidency of the Court of Appeal, and the appointment or approval of officers, or the sanction to any order for the removal of officers, or any other act to which the concurrence or presence of the Lord Chancellor is hereby made necessary, the powers given to the Lord Chancellor by this Act may be excrcised by the senior Lord Commissioner for the time being." It would seem that the exceptions of this section do not apply to the 31st section, whereby the Lord Chancellor is a member of, and president of, the Chancery Division of the High Court; and in this capacity he would apparently be represented by all the Lords Commissioners. The Great Seal has been twice placed in commission during the present century, first in 1835, when the commissioners were Sir C. PEPYS, M.R., SHADWELL, V.C., and BOSANQUET, J., and secondly in 1850, when they were Lord LANGDALE, M.R., SHADWELL, V.C., and ROLFE, B. The commissioners do not preside in the House of Lords; when the Great Seal is in commission it is the practice to appoint a Deputy-Speaker by a separate commission, or three Deputy-Speakers, each to act in order of a prescribed seniority, the Lords having power to elect their own Speaker in the absence of all the Deputy-Speakers so named. The administrative powers of the Lord Chancellor-such as the appointment of justices of the peace, the presentation to Chancellor's livings, &c.-would seem to be exerciseable by all the commissioners together. In the event of a person professing the Jewish religion being placed on the commission, his rights as to presentation to an ecclesiastical benefice would probably, by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 49, s. 4, devolve upon the Archbishop of Canterbury; but that statute does not in terms provide for the case. OUR READERS may remember the great surprise of the profession at the decision of Vice-Chancellor MALINS in Paul v. Paul (29 W. R. 281, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 580). The facts of that case were these:-By the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs. PAUL, executed in 1845, certain property belonging to the lady only was settled upon the husband for life, then upon the wife for life, then to go among the children of the marriage, but if no children the capital to go absolutely to the wife on her surviving her husband, but if she predeceased him she had a general testamentary power of appointment, and in default of appointment the capital to go to the wife's next of kin. The husband and wife were afterwards separated by mutual consent, and the separation deed provided that during the husband's life half of the income should be paid to the wife for her separate use. An action having been brought by Mrs. PAUL against her husband and the trustees to administer the trusts of the settlement and the separation deed, an application was made by motion, with the consent of the husband, that the capital of a part of the trust funds should be applied in payment of certain debts incurred by the wife. There had been no issue of the marriage, and it was considered to be clear that the wife was past child-bearing. The Vice-Chancellor acceded to this application, upon the ground that the next of kin were mere volunteers, and that, the interests of children of the marriage being out of the question, the wife was entitled to have (with the husband's consent) the capital applied for her benefit during the husband's lifetime. The action is now in the court of Mr. Justice FRY, and a petition was recently presented by the husband and wife for the payment to them of the whole remaining capital in certain agreed shares. Nobody thought it possible to deny that the principle which had been held by the Vice-Chancellor to be applicable to the previous motion was equally well applicable to the present petition. But Mr. Justice FRY, after taking time to consider, declined on Monday last to follow that precedent, and refused to make any order on the petition, except that the trustees (who had appeared and opposed) should have their costs. The learned judge expressed a hope that the Court of Appeal would have an opportunity of composing this strife of judicial opinion; but the counsel for the petitioners emphatically disclaimed any intention of appealing. Mr. Justice FRY's decision may be said to have destroyed whatever authority that of Vice-Chancellor MALINS ever had. The new WE RECENTLY CRITICIZED the provisions of the curious Bill which the Farmers' Alliance intend next session to present for the consideration of Parliament; we may now add a few words as to the principle on which it is based. Between the principle of compensation by the landlord according to a valuation, with the important addition that he shall not be able to get rid of his liability to make it, and the proposal of the Farmers' Alliance that the outgoing tenant shall have the right to take his improvements into the market, and sell them at the best price they will fetch, subject to a right of pre-emption at that price in the landlord, we will not pretend to decide; but we will compare them both with the maxim, which we suppose every one will admit, that the basis of all reforms in the land laws in this country is to be found in the principle of free contract, limited only in those directions in which its exercise results in public injury. Now, in the proposal for allowing the tenant to sell his improvements for what they will fetch, there is an interference with the right of contract in three distinct directions. The purchaser must be allowed to enter and occupy in order to benefit by his purchase; thus the landlord is deprived of the right of free choice as to the tenant to whom he will let. tenant must be secured against having the rent raised upon him in consequence of the improvements; so comes the necessity for the assistance of a court in fixing the rent at which the purchaser is to hold. The fixing of a rent is impossible independently of the conditions of the holding, and the period for which it is to continue; consequently, it is proposed to be enacted that the conditions on which the new tenant is to be admitted shall not be more onerous" than those on which the farm was held by his predecessor, and that the holding shall be for a term of not less than seven years. Free sale, fair rent, and fixity of tenure are thus all to be introduced, within certain limits, into English landholding for the purpose of securing to the tenant a payment which the landlord is already competent, or may easily be rendered competent, to make without any such machinery at all. On the other hand, the principle of compulsory compensation by valuation at the determination of the tenancy is the smallest possible interference with the right of contract. It is for the good of the public that the soil shall be developed by the application to it of all the energies and resources of the person cultivating it; therefore it is the simplest sense and reason that no contract shall be permitted which, by depriving the tenant of a right to compensation for increasing the letting value of the holding, prevents him from expending his capital upon it. To say that compensation by valuation necessitates the introduction of professional valuers whose opinions are mistrusted by both parties is no argument in favour of the alternative scheme. For the latter leaves to the decision of a court questions which would but too 66 frequently involve the evidence of a dozen valuers instead of a single reference to two. The application of the tenant's capital to the soil would no doubt by either method be encouraged, and the interference with ordinary commercial principles to that extent justified. But the development of the land by expenditure on the part of the landlord would, by the free-sale scheme, be finally prevented, for the sense of personal dominion and of the interest attached to such dominion could scarcely survive the extinction of his power to choose his own tenant and to fix with him the terms of the holding. Is such an interference with the right of contract justified by political necessity, or is it not rather, by shutting up the principal source from which has flowed the means necessary for agricultural improvements, directly opposed to the public good? and see if the facts relied on by the plaintiffs bring this case within what has been so said." He then proceeds very forcibly to combat the proposition that, when goods which have to be made are ordered of a man who makes them, the goods are necessarily to be of his own make. It is admitted by the Lord Justice, and indeed it would be impossible to deny, that if upon the facts it is shown that the make of a particular person or firm has a special value or reputation, the implication would be that the articles ordered were to be of that make. As, for instance, if an order were given to a painter for a portrait, or to Erard or Collard for a pianoforte; but the question now under discussion is whether there is any proposition of law to the same effect when it is not shown that there is any special repute or distinction about the make, but the articles are articles of which one maker's make is as good as another's. THE recent case of Johnson v. Raylton (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. Lord Justice Bramwell expresses an opinion that there ought to be very little difficulty about the point in question in the case we are discussing. He says, "If there is an uncertainty in this case, it is an uncertainty of the law. This ought not to be. There ought to be, and I think is, a rule by which to decide this case. That rule, I think, is, that we must look at what the parties have said: add nothing to and take nothing from it without necessity, We sympathize strongly with the spirit of Lord Justice Bramwell's remarks, but we cannot say the particular question seems so easy to us as it does to his broad and robust vision. Questions of this sort may, by the rigid application of clear, strict general principles— which, no doubt, in the main are sound and wholesome principlesbe rendered easy of solution; but there is constantly in law a conflict between what one may call general expediency and the expediency of the particular class of cases; and the clear, broad rule, notwithstanding the general advantages of breadth and clearness, may in its application to particular classes of cases or relations of life be so manifestly contrary to justice or the more limited expediency of the particular class of cases, that some special limitation or modification of its operation is absolutely necessary. In relation to contracts it is obvious that life is not really long enough, and the tide of business is too rapid, to admit of the terms of a contract being always set forth with the accuracy of a proposition of Euclid, and courts must constantly be obliged, to some extent, to read between the lines in order to do justice. It is, no doubt, a good general rule to be chary of implications, but in particular cases it is sometimes necessary to make them. It is a question of the balance of conflicting expediencies, and in many cases it will be difficult to say where the line is to be drawn. Notwithstanding our general sympathy with Lord Justice Bramwell's view, we incline to think that the majority of the court were, this particular case, right. We think if you asked a number of business men what they would expect if they ordered articles of a person who carried on business, and held himself out only, as a manufacturer of those particular articles, and not as a dealer in such articles manufactured by others as well as a manufacturer, they would answer that they should expect that the articles would be of his own manufacture, though it was not so stipulated. We think, therefore, that the true proposition is as laid down by Brett, L.J. The difficulty that really would arise in many cases is that of ascertaining in what capacity the vendor holds himself out. There are many cases, especially of businesses of a mixed wholesale and retail character, in which it would be difficult to say whether vendors professed to supply goods of their own manufacture or not. But if goods are ordered of a firm of manufacturers who are known in the trade not to be dealers except in goods manufactured by themselves-and surely there must be numberless instances of such firms-it seems to us that the natural meaning of a contract for the supply of goods by such firms is clearly that the goods are to be manufactured by them. The fact that it cannot be shown affirmatively that there is anything peculiar or of special value about the make, is not, to our mind, conclusive. A man may have an irrational, but at the same time real, confidence in or preference for the make of a particular manufacturer. It would be a very difficult thing to draw the line in estimating how far the repute of a manufacturing firm could be considered to give a special value or repute to the goods. There seems to us little doubt that the fact that goods were manufactured by a good firm would afford some ground of preference for them, and a man who goes to a manufacturer seems entitled to say that he enter tained that preference. It seems to us that the admissions, which cannot be avoided by the advocates of the other view, with regard to certain cases, as of orders of paintings from painters or other cases where an element of personal skill or repute comes in, if followed out, press them much harder than they suppose. Why, if I order a portrait of A., can he not make me take one by B.? Assume that B. was the more eminent painter of the two, and his portraits generally fetched more in the market, and that to oblige |