Page images


[ocr errors]

If he intended to appeal he ought to have asked the judge to take a note of Obitty, he held that the proposed lease was within the power. HOLKER, the oral evidence, or to have had some note of it taken. If, by some accident, L.J., said that it seemed to bim that " necessary repairs" meant that the the note of the evidence had been lost, the court would have bad power by lessee was to do all the repairs. And as to the power, he thought the way of indulgence to allow the evidence to be taken again. But the Chief settlor meant that the property was not to be lot to anyone unless be should Judge was not entitled to decide the case in the absence of the evidence upon agree either to improve it or to repair it. The reasonable construction of which the county court judge had based his decision. In the Court of Appeal the word “repair 'was that when the lease was made the lessee should the parties agreed to admit a newspaper report of the oral evidence, and this be under an obligation to do or to covenant to do something which he was reed to the court. And Jessel, M.R., said that it would require a very would not otherwise have been obliged to do. The power required thisstrong case to induce the Court of Appeal, in a case of conflicting testimony, that the leggee should either do repairs or enter into a covenant to do to overrule the decision of the judge who had seen and heard the witnesses. repairs generally—that is, all repairs that were needful. And his lordship

A third point in the case was this :-There was some evidence tending to thought that the agreement imposed this obligation on the that the goods comprised in the deed were not in the apparent possession SOLICITORS, G. R. Pilgrim; Norton, Rose, & Co. of the bankrupt at the time when the bankruptcy petition was filed, and, if this was 60, the Bills of Sale Act would have had no application. This point, however, was not raised in the county court. It was raised before the Chief

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY-PRACTICE-EVIDENCE-CROSS-EXAMINATION Judge, but not much insisted on, because he was in favour of the grantee on the other point. In the Court of Appeal the grantee's counsel endeavoured to Court of Appeal on the 26th inst., an important question of bankruptcy

Right TO WITHDRAW AFFIDAVIT.-In a case of Ex parle Child, before the raise the point, but the conrt held that, as it had not been raised in the practice arose- viz., whether, when the respondent to a motion has filed county court, it could not be raised afterwards. JESSEL, M. R., said that if a point was not taken before the tribunal which heard the evidence, and

an affidavit, the moving party has an absolute right to cross-examine

the witness who bas made it, wbether the respondent intends to read evidence might have been adduced there which, by any possibility, would

the affidavit or not. have prevented the success of the point if it had been raised, it could not before the respondent's case

The applicant insisted that he had this right, and

was opened he asked his counsel to give be raised afterwards. The party was bound to raise the point in the first iostance, so as to enable his adversary to meet it by other evidence. The

an undertaking that he would use an affidavit made by the respond.

This the counsel declined to do, though he had no objection to evidence in the present case fell far short of conclusively proving that there the respondent being called by the applicant as å witness on his behalf

. The had been a change in the apparent possession of the property before the filing applicant's solicitor then insisted that he had a right to cross-examine the of the petition, and therefore the point could not now be raised.—SOLICITORS, respondent on his affidavit at once. The respondeat was called, and, by J. & J. Flower & Nussey ; Hamlin f Grammer.

The advice of his counsel, he refused to answer. Mr. Registrar Hazlitt held
that the respondent was bound to submit to the cross-examination. The Court

of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and Brett and HOLKER, L.JJ.) inquired of the POWER OF LEASING-CONSTRUCTION REPAIRING LEASE.-In a case of registrars in bankruptcy what is the practice in that court, and Ir. Registrar Truscott v; The Diamond Rock Boring Company, before the Court of Appeal Murray gave the following certificate, in which all the other registrars, after on the 18th inst., a question arose as to the construction of a power of leasing fully considering the matter, concurred :--"As a general rule, and in the contained in a settlement. The deed empowered the trustees to demise the absence of objection, all the affidavits which may have been filed in due property to any person who should "improve or repair the same, or covenant time (as regulated by the General Roles, No. 50, &c.), whether filed on behalf or agree to improve or repair the same." The trustees entered into an agree

of the applicant or respondent, including those (if any) filed in reply, are, ment to demise the property for seven years to the defendant company. The

on the opening of the case, read to the court, and if notice to cross-examine any agreement provided (inter alia) “lessee to do necessary repairs." The action of the witnesses on the one side or the other has been given, the cross-examina. was brought by the trustees for the specific performance of the agreement. On tion of the applicant's witnesses is taken first and concluded, and then the behalf of the defendants it was contended that a lease upon the terms of the cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses, after which the advocates for agreement would not be within the power. It was said that the power the respective parties are heard on the whole case. If, however, on the required that the lessee should do something in the nature of an improve opening, the respondent alleges that there is no case, and objects to his ment to the property, something which would add to its value. Ordinary aflidavits being read until that question has been disposed of, such objection is repairs would not be sufficient, but the property must be in such a state as

always allowed, and it frequently happens that, by reason of the applicant's that the putting of it into tenantable repair would result in a substantial evidence failing to establish his case, the respondent is not called upon to read improvement in its value, and it was not in that state. An ordinary repairing his affidavits, or to enter at all on his defence. Tbe result would be analogous lease would not do. Obitty, J., acceded to this view, and held that the to a nonsuit. I have never known a case in which a party has been held plaintiffs could not show a good tiile to grant the proposed lease. This compellable to read an affidavit (which he desired to withdraw) merely because decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and it had been filed; but this would not preclude the opposite party from being BRETT

HOLKER, L.JJ). JESSEL, M.R., said that the ques-

allowed to examine the deponent as his own witness. The question sometimes tion really arose on the words, “ covenant or agree to improve

arises in this way. An affidavit having been filed, the opposite party gives repair.” It was proposed that the lessees should covenant to “do necessary

notice to cross-examine. By acoident, or otherwise, the deponent is not repairs.” Was that a covenant to “repair" within the meaning of the present for cross-examination. On objection taken that the affidavit cannot be power ? His lordship had no doubt that it was. It was within the literal read, one of two alternatives happens. Either the party on whose behalf it has meaning of the words. The word “necessary” could neither add to nor take been filed elects to withdraw the affidavit, which the court invariably holds away from the meaning; if repairs were not necessary they were not wanted. bim at liberty to do; or, if he desires to use it, the court, on application, will The power was, therefore, literally complied with. Was there any reason for (upon terms as to costs) adjourn the further hearing, that the deponent may saying that it had not been complied with in substance ? A covenant on the attend for cross-examination.” The certificate added that the particular point part of the lessee was necessary only to compel bim to do that which otherwise which had arisen in Ex parle Child had never before arisen in practice, so the lessor would have to do, and if he covenanted to do the necessary repairs, far as the registrars were aware. JESSEL, M. R., said that, under the Judicathat was all which could be wanted. Did the power mear to put in repair or

ture Rules, the applicant would, on a motion in the High Court, have had the to keep in repair ? The latter would include the former. His lordship thought right which he claimed. But those rules did not apply to the Court of Bauk. it meant that there should be a general covenant to repair-.e., a covenant to ruptoy, and the registrar's certificate settled conclusively what the practice in do the repairs for all time during the continuance of the lease. If so, a

that court was. The appeal must be allowed, and the order of the registrar covenant to do necessary repairs must mean a covenant to repair during the discharged. But the costs of the appeal would be costs in the matter. The continuance of the term, and would be, both literally and substantially, within applicant would be at liberty to give such further evidence as he might be the power. As to the case of Doe v. Withers (2 B. & Ád. 896), whatever might be advised. BRETT and HOLKBR, L.JJ., concurred.-SOLICITORS, Eady: A. G. thought of some of the dicta there, it was not an authority binding on this court.

Ditton, The case of Easton v. Pratt (2 H. & C. 676) to a great extent governed the present case. The power there was differently worded, and, therefore, it was not CHOSE IN ACTION-POLICY or ASSURANCE - ASSIGNMENT-NOTICE exactly in point; but the power was stronger against the lease. In the present PRIORITY-SOLICITOR'S LIEN-30 & 31 Vict. c. 144-JUDICATURE ACT, case there was no power to grant an ordioary lease at a rack-rent, and, if the 1873, s. 25, SUB-SECTION 6.-In a case of The West of England Bank v. respondents were right, no lease could be granted if the property was in good Batchelor, before Fry, J., on the 24th inst., a curious question arose as to a repair. In Easton v. Pratt the Court of Exchequer Chamber decided that a

solicitor's lien. B., who held a policy of insurance on his own life, in 1872 covenant to repair and keep in repair would comply with a power which re- mortgaged it to O., and notice of the assignment was given to the insurance quired that a repairing lease should be granted. It was a decision that a corenant to repair and keep in repair made a lease a repairing lease. It covered of the policy to B., and handed back the policy. Notice of the re-assignment

company. In 1875 the mortgage was paid off, and 0. executed a re-assignment rather more than had to be decided on the present occasion. In his lordship’s was given to the company. B. left the re-assignment and the policy in the opinion, the agreement in the present case was entirely within the power. hands of his solicitors, to whom he then owed some costs. In 1878 he BRETT, L.J., said that every document must be construed according to the executed a mortgage of the policy to his bankers. On this occasion he told ordinary meaning of the English language, unless the words used had the bankers that he had lost or mislaid the original policy, and, upon his acquired some technical meaning, and come meaning most be given to all statement that he had done so, and that he had not assigned it, the iosurance the words. This power was not expressed in any technical language. He company gave him a certified copy of the original. The bankers were satisfied could not agree that the words "improve ” and “repair" were equivalent with this. They made inquiries of the company, and were informed that they worde. He thought the meaning was tbat the tenant was to take on had received no notice of any assignment of the policy, except that to O., himself all repairs which a landlord would ordinarily do-i.e., to put the and the bankers ascertained that o.'s claim had been satisfied. B.'s solicitors premises in ordinary tenantable repair at the beginning of the term, if they knew nothing of this transaction. Notice of the assignment to the bankers were out of repair, and to keep them doring the term in such repair by was at once given to the company, and acknowledged by them. It was addoing all which a landlord would ordinarily do during the term, and his mitted that B. had not been guilty of any fraud, but tbat he had forgotten lordship thought that the agreement imposed this obligation on the tenant. that the original policy was with his solicitors.' In 1880 the bankers were Therefore, though with some hesitation after the decision of Mr. Justice about to sell the policy, and they asked B. to make a fresh search for the


original, and be thereupon communicated with his solicitors. They then informed the bankers that they had held the policy since 1875, and that they

COUNTY COURTS. claimed a solicitor's lien on it for costs due to them by B. They also gave

MANCHESTER. notice to the insurance company, to whom they had given no previous notice. Tbe action was brought by the bankers against B. and the solicitors, claiming

(Before Join A. Russell, Esq., Q.O., Judge). a declaration that they were entitled to priority over the sülicitor's lien ; an

Jangary 6.-Ex parte Gillibrand, Re Frith and West. order for delivery up of the original policy; and the ordinary foreclosure

Right to distrain-Use and occupation. judgment against the defendants. B. did not defend the action. The solici. tors insisted on their lien. It was contended that they had lost their priority

This was an application by T. W. Gillibrand, as trastee of the property by omitting to give notice of their claim to the insurance company in the first of Frith and West ander resolutions for liquidation of their affairs, for an instance. FRY, J., said that the assignee of a chose in action took it sub order declaring that 0. Robinson and others (the respondents) were not, at ject to all equities affecting it, and he thought that this rule bad been in no the date of the levying by them of a distress for rent, amounting to was altered by the Act 30 & 31 Vict. c. 144, or by section 25, sub-section 6, £3,358 183. 3d., upon the effects of the debtors on premises ocoupied by of the Judicature Act, 1873. A prior equity might be lost by negligence in them, entitled so to distrain for any sum whatever, or, in the alternative, not giving potice of it. The question, therefore, was whether the solicitors, that they were only entitled so to distrain for £1,860 or some lesser som, in order that they might retain their lien, should have given notice to the com- or, in the further alternative, that they were entitled so to distrain for a pany. What was the nature of a solicitor's lien ? It was a merely passive lesser sam tban 63,358 188. 33., and to declare for what som they were right, a right to hold a piece of paper or a parchment until he was paid his costs. entitled to distrain, and for an order in accordance there with. It gave the solicitors in this case no right to be paid out of the fund ; it was

By indenture, dated 28th of September, 1869, the Obamber Mill and merely a right to embarrass the plaintiffs. It was necessary that the assignee premises at Hollinwood, Dear Manchester, were demised to Jobo Frith for of a fund in the hands of a trustee should, by notice to the trustee, make the term of three years from 30th of September, 1869, at the yearly rent himself a cestui que trust of the fund, and also, that by means of the notice, of £852 108. At the expiration of that term the lessee continued the be should prevent the possibility of a fraud being committed. In the present tenancy from year to year, the rent being raised at sundry times to case the solicitors had no right to convert the insurance company into trustees £874 14s. per annum. In January, 1876, John West joined Frith in for them. They had only a right to the policy itself, the piece of paper ; they partnership. In March, 1878, Frith gave written notice to quit in September had no right to the policy money. The mere fact that B. did not hold the paper following. In the month of September negotiations were entered into was notice to all the world that it was held by some one other than B., and between Frith and the landlords, and on the 11th of that month the that they held it was the only thing of wbich the solicitors could be bound landlord's solicitors wrote Frith's solioitors as follows :-"We yesterday had to give notice. No fraud could be committed by their not giving notice. an interview with our olients, the trustees of the late George Barlow, Esq., The bankers chose to ron the risk of the paper being in the hands of some who (since our last commanication with you have been in cunsultation person other than B. who might bave a lien on it. On this ground the with their beveficiaries, and have now come to a final decision. They are plaintiffs' case failed as against the solicitors. Another ground was that the prepared to grant to your client, Mr. John Frith, a lease of the Chamber plaintiffs bad not used due diligence. They knew that a re-assignment had Mill and premises now in his ooca pation on the following terms :-(1) That been executed by 0. They should have asked for it, and, if they had done so, all arrears of rent and accruing rent to the termination of the tenanoy on aod it bad not been produced, its absence wculd have suggested to a prudent the 30th of September instant be paid in cash; or otherwise that additional person to ask whether it bad not been executed in the presence of a solicitor, goods be deposited by Mr. Frith of adequate value to cover the amount. and who that solicitor was. This would have led to the discovery of both the (2) That the lease commence from the 1st of Ootober next and be for a re-assignment and the policy. The action must be dismissed as against the term of either five or seven years (at the option of Mr. Frith), solicitors, but the ordinary forecloɛure judgment must be pronounced as at a yearly rent of £550, payable quarterly in advance." The against B.-SOLICITORS, Clarke, Woodcock, & Ryland; Cunliffe, Beaumont, letter also contained stipulations as to the covenants to be entered into by & Davenport.

the lessors and lessee, respectively, and concluded, “On the unconditional acceptance of, and compliance with, the foregoing terms (but not otherwise),

our clients (acting upon the report of Mr. James Hardman) consent to make WILL-CONSTRUCTION GIFT OF RESIDUE BENEFICIAL INTEREST an allowance to Mr. Frith of the sum of £335 17s. 5d. in respect of his APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTOR-11 Geo. 4,4ND I WILL. 4, c. 40.-In a case of Re claim for improvements; but Mr. Frith will please distinctly to understand Sto-ey, Storey v. Jones, before Manisty, J., on the 23rd inst., a question was that this allowance must be treated as an act of grace, and is entirely condi. raised as to whether an executor took a gift of residue beneficially or not under tional upon the foregoing terms being carried out in tbeir integrity". On the following will. The testatrix gave a'l she had in the world to the the 23rd of September the landlords' solicitors again wrote Frith's solicitors, trecator, thereout to pay her funeral and testamentary expenses and debte. as follows :-"Our clients will not make any concession or deviate in any She then gare certaio specific legacies and appointed the defendant executor. way from the terms of the proposed new lease, as indicated in our letter of the For the plaintiff it was contendeš that there was a trust to pay the debts, 11th inst., beyond this-namely, that on your clients making to their satis. funeral and testamentary expenses, which bad partially failed, and therefore faction the repairs and improvements suggested by him, they will allow him that the executor took the residue subject to a resulting, trost in favour of the sum of £179 183., being his estimate of the cost of such repairs and the testatrix. For the defendant it was contended that the effect of the first improvements.” On the 25th of September Frith's solicitors wrote the landlords' gift was merely to charge the property with the debts, and that there was solicitors as follows :-“Mr. Frith will be prepared to accept a lease for five nothing to prevent the defendant taking, beneficially, as any other legatee. years on the terms proposed as modified in your letter of the 23rd instant." MANISTY, J., said that there were two classes of decisions applicable to the The arrears of rent owing by Frith on the 30th of September, 1878, amounted case, one where the property was given on trust, which partially failed, and the to £2,117 16s. lld., for which the laodlords held security which afterwards second, wbere the property was merely given charged with and subject to realized £1,000 12s. 4d. The debtors did not pay off those arrears or deposit certain things, in which case the executor took beneficially what remained any further security. They from time to time paid sums of money on after satisfying the charge, and that these rules had been laid down in King account which, with the £1,000 realized from the security, reduced the v. Denison (1 V. & B. 261), which he considered good law. The present, he arrears to £79 178. No lease was ever given. Only one rent-note was sent considered, fell within the second class of cases, and there was no trust in-viz., in May, 1880—in which the debtors were debited with rent at the which partially failed. The executor, therefore, took the residue beneficially. old rate of £874 14s. The evidence of the debtors was that, after the --SOLICITORS, Combe & Wainwright ; Peacock g Goddard.

termination of the tenancy in September, 1878, they never agreed to pay any more than the reduced rent of £550 per annum, and ropudiated any liability

for anything more. On the other hand, the landlords stated that they only Railway COMPANY-SUPERFLUOUS LAND-CONVEYANCE TO OTHER CO2- agreed to accept such reduced rental conditional on the debtors complying PANY-PRE-EMPTION-LANDS CLAUSES Act, 1845, ss. 127, 128.-In the

with the letter of September 11, 1878, and claimed rent at the old rate from case of Hobbs v. Midland Railway Company, also before Manisty, J., on the 23rd landlords distrained upon the debtors' premises for £3,353 185. 3d. for arrears

that date in default of such compliance. On the 17th of October, 1881, the iost., an important point was argued as to whether certain land was superfluous land under the 128th section of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. The of rent calculated at the higher rate. "On the 24th of the same month the lands were taken under their compulsory powers by the Midland debtors filed their petition for liquidation, and Gillibrand was appointed Company, and within the period of ten years they had conveyed a part away receiver. Sale under the distress was postponed by consent uotil the appoint. to ani ther railway company. The plaintiff had thereupon required the landsment of a trustee, which took place at the first meeting of creditors on the to be sold to bim, as the defendants had not given him any offer of pre-emptior,

11th of November, Gillibrand, the receiver, being appointed trustee. On the and on the defendants' refusal to convey to him he brought this action to

17th of November, the trustee tendered to the landlords £1,860 (the balance Lave it declared that be was entitied to have the lands conveyed to him. it owing calculated on the basis of the letter of the 11th of September, appeared that the lan's were occupied by sidings which were used by bith the 1878), and £100 for costs, which was refused. The value of the property railway coro panies, and that they had been sold under a bond fide belief that the seized was about sufficient to cover the amount distrained for, and if the Midland Company, were authorized to do so by two special Acts

. MANISTY, J., landicrds succeeded in their contention they would take the whole of the *23 of opinion that the mere fact of a conveyance having teen executed of

estate with the exception of about £150 of book debts. By arrangement, the lands was not conclusive as to their being superfluous lands, and that the property was being realized by the trustee, the proceeds to be held over such evidence might be rebutted. In the prezent case there was evidence

to abide the result of the application, and consent was given to the county that the lands were used by the Midland Company, although jointly with court exercising jurisdiction to determine the matter. another company, and therefore he could not say that they were

Taylor, for the trustee, in support of the application. There never was superfluous, although they might become so before the expiration of the any agreement or contract for tenancy after the expiration of the notice to ten y ars fixed by section 127. In his opinion, however, the Midland quit in September, 1878. There was not that consensus ad idem necessary to Company bad no right to convey away the lands without first offering constitute an agreement ; consequently, although the landlords had a right to them to the plaintiff; and, therefore, there must be a direction setting aside remuneratiou for use and occupation, they bad not a right of distress. With the conveyance by them. -SOLICITORS, Sawbridge; Beale & Co.; Tuisden, regard to balance of old rent, the statute 8 Anne, c. 14, gives a right of distress Parker, $ Co.

only during six months after the expiration of the tenancy. He cited



Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, 411; Alford v. Vickery (C. & M. 280);
Jenner v. Clegg (1 M. & R. 213); Williams v. Stiven (9 Q. B. 14); Tayleur

V. Wildin (L. R. 3 Ex. 303) ; Hiegan v. Johnson, (2 Taunt. 147); Dunk v.
Hunter ((5 B. & A. 322); Elgar v. Watson (C. & M. 494); Mayor of
Thetford v. Tyler (8 Q. B. 95).

His Honour referred to Anderson v. Midland Railway Company (30 L. J.

Mr. Arthur James Shirley, who died under melancholy circumstances at Q. B. 97). A. Hopkinson, for the respondents. Where a lessee holds orer after the Shirley, town clerk

Doncaster on Thursday, January 19, was the youngest son of Mr. W. E.

Doncaster; the eldest son being Mr. W. Shirley expiration of his lease be continues as yearly tenant on the terms of the loase Shirley, barrister-at-law. He was born in 1853 ; and was educated at Rugby so far as they are applicable. Any act of the parties recognizing that one is School ander Dr. Temple, the present Bishop of Exeter. In 1876 he was tenant and the other is landlord is sufficient to create a yearly tenancy. It is admitted a solicitor, and became a member of his father's firms—Shirley, not necessary that that recognition should be by payment of rent. He cited

Atkinson, & Shirley, of Doncaster, and Shirley, Atkinson, & Donner, of Platt ou Leases, 2ad vol., 521; Woodsall on Landlord and Tenant, 10th Scarborough. In 1879 he was elected by the corporation to the office of ed., 553; Robinson v. Hayward (3 C. & P. 432); Digby v. Atkinson (4

eoroner for the borough of Doncaster, a very important post for so young & Camp. 275); Thomas v. Packer (1 H. & N. 669). His Honour.— With regard to these cases it strikes me that they are not couple of years before this appointment.

He had, however, satisfactorily filled the office of deputy-coroner for a

His discharge of the duties of applicable to what we are dealing with bere, which is not a bolding over after

coroner answered the bighest expectations of his friends; tact, temper, and expiration of the lease but after notice to quit. The lease expired in 1872. The tenancy was determined on notice to quit in September, 1878. I apprehend the office of coroner, he was clerk to the School Attendance Committee ; and

common-sense being displayed in an eminent degree. In addition to holding that immediately the 29th of Septeinber arrived the tenant was there under

one of the last acts of his life, performed, indeed, only a few hours before his such circumstances that tbe landlords could turn him out if they liked, as he death, was to draw up the annual report of that committee. He was one of was a trespasser. By no process of distress cap the amoqot of reot be settled the church wardens of the Doncaster parish charch, and joiot bonorary secrebet ween the parties. In order to entitle the landlords to distrain there must tary of the Young Men's Christian Association. In addition to public usefulbe some fixed rent. Hopkinson. - The rent is not uncertain because, sweeping away the agreement ness, Mr. Arthur Shirley was much esteemed in private life. Of a kiodly

heart, and genial unpretending manners, be secured the attachment and of September, 1878, the old terms remain.

confidence of all with whom he came in contact ; and his funeral at tbe His Honour.—If you sweep away the agreement there is no defined rent, Doncaster Cemetery on Monday, January 23, was one of the largest ever seen and that being so, there is no right to distraio. Toe landlord is entitled to sue

in that town. Men felt generally that, short as was bis career, and clouded and get compensation, because there is a non-adjusted rent.

its close, he had left bebind him a bright example of usefulness and innocence. Hopkinson.—The acts of the parties show that there is a relation of landlord Mr. Arthur Shirley was a member of the Incorporated Law Society, and took and tenant.

an intelligeot interest in all subjects relatiog to his profession. He was also His HONOUR.-Assuming that it should turn out that the tenant is correct, attached to the Great Northern Railway Company, with a considerable knowand that he is liable for £550 instead of £870, there is no means of adjusting ledge of the works of the undertaking. Politics did not much interest him, that by procees of distress. The facts are these :--In September, 1878, this but he was a member of St. Stephen's Club, and gave an independent sapport negotiation takes place. It is perfectly evidect that the debtors considered to the Conservative party. Few careers só promising bave been cut short so that after the 29th of that month they were in possession of the property, under suddenly and so sadly. the terms of the agreement. It is equally clear that the landlords looked upon the agreement altogether as void, and that they were entitled to hold the tenants upon the old teras of roni. Now I offer no opinion upon what the

MR. HENRY CHILD. rights of the parties were, but it is abundantly plain that that was the conten- Mr. Henry Child, solicitor, of 2, Paul's Bakehouse-court, Doctors'-comtion on one side and the other, and that being so, the man was a mere occupier mons, died at his residence, Downs Park-road, Hackney, on the 21st inst., at of the premises—he insisted upon his right to occupy 'under this agreement, the age of seventy-nine. Úr. Child was born in 1802, and was admitted a which might or might not constitute him a tenant. The other side say, “ No, solicitor in 1837, and he had practised for over forty years in the city of we set this aside altogether, and until you pay the arrears of rent we will have Loodon, bis private practice beiog very extensive. He was for many years in nothing at all to do with the agreement”;

and, therefore, they appear to me to partnership with the late Alderman David Wise, M.P. (who was Lord Mayor be wide as the poles asunder. One says, We will recognize you as our tenant of London in 1858), and more recently he was associated with his sons, Mr. provided you do so-and-so, wbich the other side never complies with, and the Jobn Child, who was admitted in 1868, and Mr. Theophilas Child, who was relationship of landlord and tenant was never recognized by one side or the other admitted in 1869. Mr. Child had an extensive practice before the licensing except on those conditions. I am perfectly satisfied that the relation of land. magistrates for the various districts in and round the metropolis, and he had lord and tenant did not exist between these parties. There is no fixed rent been for many years solicitor to the Metropolitan Licensed Victoallers' Associaagreed upon, and therefore the landlords could not distrain.

tion. He was formerly returning officer for the Tower Hamlets, and on the Hopkinson.--My second point is that the tenancy which existed on the division of tbat constituency by the Reform Act of 1867, he booame returning expiry of the old lease never determined at all: Kelly v. Paterson (L, R. 9 officer for the borough of Hackney, but he resigned the latter office in 1874. C. P. 681).

His HONOUR.-All that class of cases I perfectly admit. I don't know what the effect might have been (sapposing we had been dealing with what took place, not in September, 1878, but in September, 1872, when the lease expired. The only difference to my mind is this, which is fatal to the

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. respondents' case, that on the notice to quit in September, 1878, expiring, the relation of landlord and tenant absolutely determined. The reversion came back into possession of the landlords, and from that time forth the parties had

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON. not the relation of landlord and tenant, but landlord and trespasser, and that

INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION IN LAW8, 1882. relation could only determine by some arrangement, which arrangement was

Dever made.
Hopkinson.— I say that if they did not come to an agreement the old

Jurisprudence and Roman Law. relationship continues.

First Class. His Honour.You put the matter in a very fair and intelligible way. You Wilberforoe, Herbert William W. (Exhibition).-University College. say that there being do agreement the old state of things continues. I should

Second Claga. be perfectly willing to listen to that, supposing there were nothing more, but it is shown from the facts that not only did the old agreement not con.

Adler, Elka. Natban, B.A.-University College. tinue, but that a new arrangement was contemplated between the parties,

Clarke, Peroy.---Private study. wbich arrangement itself came to nothing, and that whilst that was in a

Goodwin, Frederick.- Private study. state of uncertainty this distress took place, and holding as I do that you can- Symmons, Israel Alexander.- University College. pot distrain unless the amount of rent is adjusted between the parties, eit ber Labbook, John Birkbeck.–Balliol College, Oxford. by implication or agreement, and there being no implication here, because it

Third Class. is repudiated, and there being no fresh arrangement between the parties,

| Pemberton, Artbor.–Private study. because they could not agree, therefore you have no right to distrain. There

Webb, William Fisher.-Private stady. was no agreement, and there, it seems to me, is the weakness of your case. If things had gone on and nothing had taken place it would have been different,

Maoodachie, James Robert, B.A.- Private study.

Ritter, Frederick.- Private toition. but that is not so. The parties were sufficiently active to destroy the old state of tbings, and not sufficiently active as to make a new agreement. I will

Browogon, Thomas, B.A.-Owens College and private study.

Wood, Arthur Francis.—Private tuitioo. make a declaration that the respondents had no right to distrain. Order accordingly, with costs.

LL.B. EXAMINATION, 1882. Solicitors for the trustee, Sale, Seddon, Hilton, d Lord, Manchester.

EXAMINATION FOR HONOURS. Solicitors for the respondents, Wrigley & Morecroft, Oldham.

Common Law and Equity.

First Class.

Evans, Jobn William, B.Sc.-University College and Lincoln's-inn. The South-Eastern Railway (Channel Tunnel) Bill, the object of which was

Bowen, Henry Storer, B.A.- Private study. to construct a short railway near the commencement of the Channel Tunn-l,

Second Class. was before the House of Commons examiners of private Bills on Wednesday, Hart, Isaac Jobn.- Private study. and was thrown out for non-compliance with the standing orders.

Stable, Daniel Wintringbam.-Private study.

Tbird Clasf. Detai, Dolatray Surbbaj.- Private study. (Piper, Jobo Edwin.—University College.


Pass List. Gray, George Godirey.- Private study. White, Sidney, B.A. -Private study.

N.B.—The braoket indicates equality of merit.


Warden of the Stannaries, dated Jan 19, it was ordered that the above company bo
wonnd up. Paul, Truro, solicitor for the petitioners

[Gazette, Jan, 24.] FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. MINERS' PROVIDENT BENEFIT SOCIETY, Wheat Sheaf Inn, Rainford, Lancaster. Jan 17

[Gazette, Jan. 20. 1




CHANCERY DIVISION. Mr. FRANCIS FLEMING, berrister, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Regulations of his lordship the Vice-Chancellor Sir Charles Hall ag to Sapreme Court of the Colony of British Guiana, in succession to Mr. Hagh attendance before his lordship in obambers. Reilly Semper, who has been appointed Chief Justice of Gibraltar. Mr. The Vice-Chancellor directs that cases be called in the order in whiob Fleming was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, they appear in the list. 1866. He has been for several years Attorney-General of Barbadoes.

That all parties in two cases only be admitted into the room at the Mr. JAMES INSKIP, solicitor (of the firm of Brittan, Prese, Inskip, & Crewd.

same time. son), has been elected Chairman of the Taff Vale Railway Company, in suc

That notice in writing of attending by counsel be left at obambers as cession to bis partner, the late Mr. Heary Brittan. Mr. Ioskip was admitted follows, viz.:-In the A. to F. division on Thursday for ibe following a solicitor in 1862.

Monday; io the G. to N. division on Monday for the following Wednesday ; Mr. ANDREW RUTHERFORD, advocate, has been appointed Sheriff Depute and in the o. to 2. division on Wednesday for the following Friday.

And that in defaolt of snoh notice as aforesaid being given no precedence for the County of Midlothian.

be allowed to cases attended by coposel. Mr. Howell THOMAS, solicitor, of Neath and Maesteg, has been elected January, 1882. Clerk to the Maestog Local Board. Mr. Thomas was admitted a solicitor in 1877.

ORDER OF COURT. Mr. JOHN JAMES EDGECOMBE VENNING, solicitor, of Devonport, bas been

Wednesday, the 25th day of January, 1882. appointed Admiralty Law Agent for Plymouth and Devonport, in succession to Mr. William Eastlake, deceased. Mr. Venning is town clerk of the Sir Obarles Hall and Mr. Justice Kay, it is expedient that a portion of the

Whereas, from the present state of the fusiness before the Vice-Chancellor borough of Devonport. He was admitted a solicitor in 1858.

causes and matters assigned to Vice-Chancellor Hall should for the purpose Mr. William RAMSDEN, solicitor (of the firm of Ramsden, Sykes, & only of trial or hearing be transferred to Mr. Justice Kay. Now I, the Right Ramsden), of Huddersfield, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Honourable Roundell Baron Selborne, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. Ramsden was admitted in do hereby order that the several causes set forth in the schedule hereto be 1878.

accordingly transferred from the Vice-Chanoellor Sir Charles Hall to Mr. Mr. Thomas WILLIAM PAYNB, solicitor, of 9, John-street, Bedford.row, Justice Kay for the purpose only of trial or bearing, and be marked in the London, has been appointed & Perpetual Commissioner for taking the

cause books accordiugly. And this order is to be drawn op by the registrar Acknowledgments of Deeds to be executed by Married Women in and for and set up in the several offices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of

Justice. tbe County of Middlesex and the Cities of London and Westminster, and the

County of Surrey.

Jones v Jeffry es 1879 J 151 Hunt v Thomas 1881 H 209
Williams v Brisco 1881 W 379 In re Hours, decd Hours v Farndall

In re Luckie, decd Nixon v Lackie 1881 H 1,715

1879 L 103

In re Bennett, decd Icke v Podmore Uppleby v Horberry 1881 V 61 1878 B 200

Hills v Reeves 1881 H 1,793 Floyd v Inglefield 1881 F 1,228 WINDING-UP NOTICES.

Hawkes v Holland 1881 Á 2.261 Widdop v Pearson 1881 W 186 JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

Gregory v Seaton

1880 G 0,733 Clement v Hadson 1881 01323 UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

Roche y Roche 1880 R 817 Woodgate v Thomson 1881 W BUTE Docks Loan SOCIETY.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 14, directed to be Grover v Robinson 1881 G 683 heard before Chitty, J., on Feb 4: Wooler, John st, Bedford row, agents for

Morgan Kuhliger v Bailey 1879 K_101

2,348 and Scott, Cardiff, solicitors for the petitioner

, 20.

Carter v White 1880 C 115 LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

Williams v Williams 1881 W 3,544 In re Sterry, decd Sterry v Paddon ANGLO-AMERICAN CATTLE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated Hodges v Newport 1880 H 1,491 1881 S 3,193 Jan 14, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Heritage and Co, Clement's Adams v Madox 1881 A 11

Tebb v Edwards 1881 T 566 lane, solicitors for the petitioner ARGUS NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Hall, V.C., has, by an order, dated Jan 19, ap

Hickman v Say 1880 H 3,837 Jackson v Clark 1880 J 1,493 pointed Edmund Culpeper Weston, 74, Great Queen st, Lincoln's inn fields, to be Warren v Le Marchant 1880 W 2,150 Foster v Logge 1880 F 865 official liquidator

Koowles v Clark 1878 K 124 Hett v Collier 1881 H 4,437 CARDIFF SILICA FIRE BRICK COMPANY, LIMITED.—By an order made by Hall, V.C., Davies v Davies 1878 D 129 dated Jan 13, it was ordered that the company be wound up, Warry and Co, Lin.

Learoyd v Mayor, &c, of Halifax coln's inn fields, agents for Burges and Co, Bristol, solicitors for the petitioners In re Rewcastle, decd, Nicholson v 1881 L 1,692 COOMBE SLATE QUARRIES, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated Jan 13, it Thompson 1881 R 1,088 Nickels v Reeves 1881 N 24

was ordered that the Quarries be wound up. Rogers and Chave, Queen Victoria st, In re Turner, decl, Turner v Barwell Joliffe v Eden 1879 J189 solicitors for the petitioner DITTON BBOOK IRON COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 19.

1880 T 0,327

In re Denton, decd Buntiog v Dendirected to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Crowdy and Co, Serjeants' inn, Fleet

Macdonald v Paterson 1880 M 2,177 ton 1880 D 0,208 st, solicitors for the petitioners GENERAL FINANCIAL BANK, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 23, In re Buxton, decd Farmer v Buxton Foster v Gates 1881 F 903

Ashburner v Preston_1880 A 0,284 Baylis v Hewkeley 1878 B 515 directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Crump and Son, Philpot lane, solici. tors for the petitioner

1878 B 128

SELBORNE, C. GRISWOLD AND HAINWORTH, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 23,

directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Ashurst and Co, Old Jewry, solicitors for the petitioners HAWKSTOR CHINA CLAY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Kay, J, has fixed Thursday, Feb 2, at 12,

At the Stock and Share Auction Company's sale, beld on the 20th inst., at at the chambers of Chitty, J, for the appointment of an official liquidator

their sale-room, Crown-court-buildioge, oid Broad-street, the following were NILGHERRY AND SOUTH INDIAN GOLD MINING SYNDICATE, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated Jan 13, it was ordered that the syndicate be wound up. Confederate States of America 100dols. Bonde, 3s. 4d.; Oriental Telephone £1

amongst the prices obtained :-Rhodes Reef Gold Mining £1 shares, 128. 63. ; Eastwood, Gt St Helen's, solicitor for the petitioner Sosa-Y-MENDAZ GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED. --By an order made by Kay, J., shares, 10s. paid, 98. 9d.; Spanish Three per Cente., 26 11-16; Indian

dated Jan. 14, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company bé Trevelyan Gold Miping 1 shares, fully paid, 12s. 60.; Peruvian Six per continued. Heritage and Co, Clement's lane, solicitors for the petitioners UNITED SERVICE Provision MARKET, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan

Cents., 18 ; Hornachos Silver Lead Mining £10 sbares, £5 10s.; Egyptian Unified, 20, directed to be heard before Halí, V.C., on Feb 3. Bolton and Co, Lincoln's inn

66%; New Zealand Kapanga £1 shares, 108. ; Great Eastern Railway, 72} fields, solicitors for the petitioner

per cent. ; Rio Tinto £10 shares, 24; ; and other miscellaneoue securities Vxos COLLIERY COMPANY. LIMITED.--By an order made by Bacon, V.C., dated Jan. | fetcbed fair prices. 14, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Kennedy and Co., Clement's inn, amongst the

prices obtained :- London Road Car £10 sbares, £9; New Wye

At their sale held on the 24th inst., the following were WHITWORTH PARK GRAND ŠTAND COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., Valley Lead Mining £1 shares, 98.; Old Owlacombe Mines £l shares, 43. ;

dated Jan. 13, it was ordered that the said company be wound up. Harvey and Co., Wheal Jewell Mining, 78. ; Oriin!al Telephone £1 sharer, 108. paid, 4d. dis. Chancery lane, agents for Marshall, Durham, solicitor for the petitioner

[Gazette, Jan 24.]

count ; Belgium Date Coffre Company $5 shares, £2 103. paid, par ; West COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.

Craven Moor Lead, 78. 6d.; and other miscellaneous securities fetched fair First CAESBIBE PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.- Petition for winding up,

prices. presented Jan 18, directed to be heard at the Vice-Chancellor's Chambers on Jan 30. Danger, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioner

NO MORE DARK Rooms in DAYTIMB.–Use Chappuis' Daylight Reflectors. 30,000 are [Gazette, Jan. 20.]

fitted in London alone. They supersede gas or lamp light in daytime, and promote WALLASEY BRICK AND LAND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up presented health, comfort, and economy. They are also used as screens or blinds, and at the Jan 21, directed to be heard before the V.C. at his chambers on Monday, Feb 6. same time as daylight diffusers. For prospectuses, send two stamps to (8. J.) Chappuis, Mather, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioners

Gazette, Jan. 24.] Patentee, 69, Fleet-street.-[Advt.

1 1

POSTGATE, JOHN, Edgbaston, Warwick, Surgeon. Mar 1. Price and Co, Birmingham

ROWLAND, THOMAS, Chelmsford rd, Woodford, Essex. Mar 31. Milier and Wiggins,

Copthall ct, Throgmorton st
STRICKLAND, Joux, Accrington, Lancaster, Yeoman, Mar 10. Hall and Baldwin, Cli.


SWABY, WADHAM, SUTTON, Glasgow. Feb 15. Sutton and Ommanney, Great Winchos.


WELLUM, JOIN, New Shoreham, Oyster Merchant. Feb 25. Williams, New Shoreham Dunn, MARY SILINA, Plympton, Devon. Feb 10. Heinert v Dunn, Chitty, J. Green- WILLIAMS, JAMES JOHN, Lawn Bank, Sutton, Surrey, Gent. Mar 1. Pídcock and Sons, way, Plymouth

Evans, John, Llangadock, Carmarthen, Miller. Feb 25. Jones and Co v Thomas, WROUT, HORATIO VERDEN, Long Sutton, Lincoln, Gent. Mar 1. Mossop and Mossop
Hall, V.C. Maybery, Brecon

Long Sutton
RICHARDSON, CAROLINE, Hartlepool, Durham. Jan 31. Wigan v Scally, Hall, V.C.

[Gazette, Jan. 13.) Maddock, Liverpool

[Gazette, Jan. 13.]

[ocr errors]



ATKINSON, ROBERT, Carlisle, Cumberland, Tanner. Mar 1. Wright and Brown, Carlisle

BARR, CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH, Alexander eq, Brompton. Mar 10. Bevan and Daniell,
Chancery lane

BEWICK, Rev ROBERT, Sandown, Isle of Wight. Feb 17. Middleton and Marshall,

COURT OF Colchester


V. O. Bacon. V. C. Hall,

BUCKLEY, JEREMIAI, Salford, Lancaster, Millwright. Feb 1. Newton, Stockport
ANNE, Devonshire rd, Holloway. Feb 20. Cattell, Bedford row

Monday, Jan.

30 Mr. Merivale Mr. Pemberton Mr. Leach Bush, THOMAS, Honing, Norfolk, Farmer. Feb 15. Wilkinson, North Walsham, Nor

31 King


Latham folk

1 Wednesday, Feb.


Pemberton Leach CHABOT, CHARLES PHILIP, Queen's gdns, Gent. Mar 18. Thomas, South sq, Gray's inn


Ward CHASE, GEORGE, Hamstead cottage, Great Barr, Stafford, Commercial Traveller."


Latbam Mar Thursday 1. Allen, Birmingham


Merivale Pemberton Leach COLE, GEORGE, Hereford, City Surveyor. April 1. Humfrys, Hereford



Latham Evans, WILLIAM, Cornwall gdns, Kensington, Esq. Feb 28. Janson and Co, Finsbury

Mr. Justica Mr. Justice Mr. Justice circus


FRY, SAMPSON JOHN, Stoke Trister, Somerset, Manure Manufacturer, Jan 28.

Monday, Jan..... 30 Mr. Cobby Mr. Clowes Messiters and Bennett, Wincanton

Mr. Farrer HOPWOOD, JOHN, Ardwick, Manchester. Mar 6. Storer and Lloyd, Manchester Tuesday

31 Jackson


Teesdale INGLIS, WILLIA, Newgate st. Feb 15. Anderson and Sons, Ironmonger lane, Cheap. Wednesday, Feb.

1 Cobby


Farrer side


2 Jackson


Teesdale JORDISON, ROBERT BINKS, South Ockendon, Essex, Surgeon, Feb 11. Hunt and


3 Cobby


Farrer Williams, Lombard st



KEMPSON, HELEN LOUISA, South Lowestoft, Suffolk. Mar 1. Allen, Birmingham
Kipsox, CHARLES, Sunderland, Durham, Solicitor. Fob 1. Kidson and Co, Sunderland
RAWSTHORNE, HENRY, Haslingden, Lancaster, Gent. Mar 21. Tattersall, Blackburn
Robson, HARRIETT, Hartwith, York. Feb 20. Langhorne, Wakefield
SKARLE, JANE, Hoddesdon, Hertford. Feb 7. Armstrong and Lamb, Old Jewry.
STEPHEN, GEORGE MILNER ELMSLIE, Caulfield, Victoria, a Clerk in Her Majesty's At a meeting of the Liw Amendment Society held on Monday, at Adam-
Customs. Feb 6. Wadeson and Malleson, Austin Friars

street, Adelphi, Mr. Richard B. Martin, M.P., in the chair, two papers STEPHEN, HASTINGS FitzEDWARD MURPHY, St Kilda, Melbourne, Victoria, Surveyor. dealing with this subject were read and discussed. The first, "On the Bank.

Feb 6. Wadeson and Malleson, Austin Friars
STEPHEN, the Hon James WILBERFORCE, Victoria parade, Fitzroy. Feb 6. Wadeson ruptcy Law, with a view to Legislation in the coming Session," was by Mr.
and Malleson, Austin Friars

James Motteram, Q.C., judge of the Birmingham County Court; the second,
WAINWRIGHT, HARRIET, Wargrave, Berks. Feb 18. Whatley and Son, The Forbury, Bankruptcy and Liquidation," by Mr. Harold Brown, a solicitor. Mr.

Wilson, John, Torrington sq, Esq. Mar 25. Comins, Great Portland st, St Marylebone Motteram, whose paper was read for hira by Mr. Denny Urlin, said the
WILTON, HENRY Hooper, Gloucester, Esq. Feb 13. 'Wiltons and Riddiford, Gloucester problem was to frame a law which, while it should be effectual to deter dis.

[Gazette, Jan. 6.] honest men from dishonesty, should at the same tine not bear with severity BURGASS, WILLIAM, Nottingham, Managing Director of the Nottingham Patent Brick upon men whr, though unfortunate, were yet honest. Pointing out that Co. Feb 20. Wells and Hind, Nottingham

some of the difficulties arose from temptation to fraud wbich bestt many of CALLAGHAN, THOMAS FITZGERALD, Esq., C.M.G., Bahamas. Mar 25,

Arnold and Co, those interested in the property of an insolvent debtor, he remarked that there
Carey st, Lincoln'sinn
CLEMENTS, JOIN THOMAS, Deptford, Kent, Butcher. Mar 25. Bristow, Greenwich must be officialism of some kind introduced into the administration of the
CUSHEE, EDWARD, Holloway rd, Islington, Gent. Feb 25. Layton and Jaques, Ely pl, bankruptcy laws, as it had been conclusively proved that whatever was left to

DREWE, JEANNE SUSaxxa Adele, Grange, Broadhembury, Devon. Feb 18. Bucking-

the creditors to do was as a rule left undone. There must be a sufficient elemen: ham, Exeter

of officialism, but the less the better. Criticisiog certain provisions of the EVANS, WILLIAM, Cornwall gdns, Kensington, Esq. Feb 28. Janson and Co, Finsbury Bill introduced last session, which he feared might possibly lead to collisions

circus GOUBBAUX, MARIE THERESE HORTEUSE, Charrington st, St Pancras. Feb 15. Argles

between the Board of Trade and courts of law, he defined the duties he would and Argles, Gracechurch st

impose on the official receiver in the interest, not of a few, but of the wholo Guest, Emilá Ann, Birmingham. Feb 18. Cottrell and Son, Temple row, Birmingham tody of creditors. Among other suggestions for the amendment of the law; HARRIS, Rev HERBERT, Great Malvern, Worcester. Feb 28. Richards, Weekday cross, Mr. Motteram, speakiog from his experience of the hardships suffered by small

HAWKESWORTH, JOHN, Trebovir rd, South Kensington, Esq. Feb 21. Skewes-Cox, Red det tors, sail he would let county court judges bave power to give relief in
Lion sq

certain cases to poor persoos who ought not to be compelled to carry their debts HEWITT, PRISCILLA, Connah's Quay, Flint. Feb 6. Moss and Sharp, Chester

about with then for a lifetime. Mr. Harold Brown, in his paper, urged that HUNTER, DAVID, Greek st, Soho, Tailor. Mar 30. Allen and Son, Carlisle st, Soho sq

the iosolvent debtor should be made to feel that he was on his trial, and that KEDGE, ROBERT, Middleborough, Colchester, Essex, Licensed Victualler. Feb 1o. Laundy and Son, Cecil st, Strand

the burden of justification should be thrown upon him and not (as too often LEGGE, EDWIN GILLINGHAM, Philpot lane, Solicitor. Feb 28. Stokes, Chisenhale rd, it seemed to be at present) upon the creditor. Bankruptcy should be Victoria pk

made a disgrace, inst:ad of mers whitewashing and introduction to a new OSBORNE, JOHN WILLIAM WILLOUGHBY, Gwalior, East Indies. May 10. Shoubridge and May, Lincoln's inn fields

career of happy-go-lucky speculation or deliberate brigaodage. QUENNESSEN, FRANCOIS ADRIEN, Boulevard Eugene, France, Merchant, Feb 15.

Argles and Argles, Gracechurch'st
ROBERTS, Owen, Hulme, Manchester, out of business. Feb 20. Diggles and Ogden,

WARNER, JAMES, Commercial rd, East Dereham, Norfolk, Gent. Mar 3. Whites and

Co, Wymondham
WOODALL, WILLIAM, Kingston upon Hull, out of business. Mar 1. Goy and Cross,

Feb. 1.-Mr. F. ELLIS MORRIS, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Reversion (see advertise -
Barton upon Humber, Lincoln

ment, Jan. 14, page 4).

[Gazette, Jan. 10.) AULDJO, Thomas Rose, Torquay, Devon, Esq. Feb 11. Berkeley, Gray's inn sq BATHURST, Sir FreDERICK HUTCHISON Hervey, Clarendon pk, Salisbury, Wilts, Bart. Feb 25. Warrens, Great Russell st

LONDON GAZETTES. BUCKLEY, FREDERICK, Knighton, Radnor, Chemist. Feb 17. Clarke and Sons, Swan

hill, Shrewsbury
CARE, TAMAR, Walcot, Somerset. Feb 4. Furley, Canterbury

Down, FREDERICK THORNTON, Surbiton, Surrey, Clerk, Feb 13, Hopgood and Co,
Whitehall pl

FRIDAY, Jan. 20, 1882.
EDIS, FREDERICK POOLEY, St James's sq, Surgeon-Major, Feb 28. Boulton and Co

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.
FARRAR, JAMES, Holly Bank, Whitefield within Pilkington, Lancaster, Gent. Jan 31.
Grundy and Son, Manchester

Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.

To Surrender in London.
GREEN, HenBY, Pemberton, Lancaster, Licensed Victualler. Feb 7. Taylor and Sons, Austin, Henry Joseph De Bruno, jun, Queen Victoria st, Commission Agent. Pet Dec

GREEN, ROBERT, Attleborough, Norfolk, Farmer. Mar 1. Wilkinson and Slann, Attle.

19. Murray. Feb 3 at 11 borough

Barton, Harry Augustus, Queenhithe, Match Manufacturer. Pet Jan 17. Murray.

Feb 3 at 11.30
HIRST, ÉLEANOR, Wilshaw villa, Meltham, nr Huddersfield. Feb 6, Learoyd and Co,
Buxton rd, Huddersfield

Claridge, D Upper Canton pl, South Lambeth rd, Provision Dealer, Pet Jan 17.
HODGSON, CHARLES, Southend. Mar 1. Gibson and Co, Newcastle upon Tyne

Murray. Feb 3 at 11
HURST, Rev Joan, Thakeham, Sussex. Feb 13. Walker and Co, Theobald's rd, Gray's Herrmann, Edward, Leyton rd, Stratford, Cheesemonger. Pet Jan 18. Brougham.

Jan 31 at 12.30 JEYXIX, JOAN, Stowting, Kent. Feb 25. Sharpe and Co, New ct, Carey st

Renaud, Louis Gilbert, Wigmore st, Cavendish sq, Dress Maker. Pet Jan 18. Jonsson, JANs, Bolton rd, Pendleton. Jan 3. Gaunt and Grainger, Manchester Brougham. Feb 1 at 12 NUTTING, THOMAS SAUL, Camden avenue, Peckham, Gent. Feb 20. Johnson, St

To Surrender in the Country. Mildred's ct, Poultry

Bartlett, Caroline, Weston-super-Mare, Hotel Keeper. Pet Nov 19. Lovibond. Bridg. POND, CHRISTOPHER, New Bridge st, Blackfriars. Mar 1. Jones, Crosby sq

water, Feb 1 at 11

« PreviousContinue »