that the salt was obtained by pumping up brine-water from a depth of 150 MARRIED WOMAN-RESTRAINT ON ANTICIPATION-POWER OF COURT TO BIND INTEREST-CONSENT OF MARRIED WOMAN-CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1881, s. 39-SEPARATE USE-POWER OF APPOINTMENTPAYMENT OF DEBTS.-In a case of Hodges v. Hodges, before Fry, J., on the 3rd inst., a question arose as to the exercise of the power which is given to the court by section 39 of the Conveyancing Act of 1881, to remove a restraint on anticipation which is imposed on an estate limited to the separate estate of a married woman. Section 39 provides that, "Notwithstanding that a married woman is restrained from anticipation, the court may, if it thinks fit, where it appears to the court to be for her benefit, by judgment or order, with her consent, bind her interest in any property." The facts were these. A testator who died in 1843 bequeathed a legacy to trustees, on trust to pay the income to his daughter for her life, for her separate use, without power of anticipation; and after her death to hold the legacy on certain trusts for the benefit of her children. And, in case she should die without leaving any child or children, then to hold the fund in trust for such persons and in such manner as the daughter, whether covert or sole, should by will appoint, and, in default of appointment, in trust for the daughter absolutely. The suit was instituted in the Court of Chancery, in 1845, to administer the testator's estate, and an administration decree was made in that year. The daughter's legacy was invested and carried over to a separate account for herself and others in succession. In 1874 she married a Frenchman, who was a domiciled French subject, and was residing in France. A contrat de marriage, according to French law, was executed in France upon the marriage, but it did not affect in any way the fund in court, and no other settlement affecting that fund was made. In 1882, there having been no issue of the marriage, and the wife being fifty-five years of age, an application, by summons in the suit, was made on behalf of the wife (by a next friend) and the husband, asking that, notwithstanding the restraint on anticipation imposed by the will, an order might be made, pursuant to section 39 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, that a part of the fund in court should be sold, and the proceeds of sale paid to the wife on her separate receipt. The wife made an affidavit, in which she said that she had during several years past been contracting debts with tradespeople and others, in the neighbourhood where she lived in France, in excess of her means of payment, and that she was then indebted to the extent of several hundreds of pounds, and was being much harassed by her creditors, who, knowing that she was entitled to a large sum in the Court of Chancery in England, were causing her very great annoyance and trouble by their importunity. A letter was also in evidence, written by the wife to the solicitors who had issued the summons, urging them in the strongest terms to obtain the money for her. No one was served with the summons, and no one appeared in opposition to it. It was urged that it was clearly for the benefit of the wife that she should be freed from the annoyance caused to her by her creditors. FRY, J., said that under the circumstances he thought it would be for the benefit of the wife that the restraint on anticipation should be removed to the extent asked by the present application, and he was prepared to exercise the power given to him by section 39 for that purpose. The next question was whether, that restriction being removed, a part of the capital of the fund should be paid out to her. She had no child and was now past the age of child-bearing. According to the decision of Hall, V.C., in In re Harvey's Estate (28 W. R. 73, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 216), if she should execute the power of appointment given to her by the will, her appointees would take subject to the payment of her debts contracted on the faith of her separate estate. And, if she did not exercise the power of appointment, it was equally clear that her executors would take the fund, subject to the payment of the same debts. Therefore, quacunque vid, the fund would, after her death, be subject to the payment of her debts. His Jordship therefore thought that the order asked for might be made. He had felt some doubt whether he ought not to require the attendance of the married woman to be separately examined as to her consent. But he understood that in other branches of the court this formal consent had not been required under section 39, and, therefore, he would not require it in the present case. But at the same time he thought it was worthy of consideration whether upon an application of this kind a separate examination of the married woman should not be taken, for there was great danger that such applications might be made without the knowledge of the married woman.-SOLICITORS, Harting, Son, & Ellis. PRACTICE-MOTION TO VARY MINUTES-PRODUCTION OF COPY OF REGIS TRAR'S NOTE.-In a case of Robinson v. The Local Board for Barton, before Fry, J., on the 3rd inst., a motion was made to vary the minutes of an order on a special case pronounced by his lordship on the 27th of February. FRY, J., granted the application. And he said that when such a notice is made the solicitor of the moving party ought to make a previous application to the registrar who was in court at the time when the order was made, for a copy of the note which he then entered in his book, and this copy ought to be produced in court on the hearing of the motion. This would prevent the delay which would otherwise be caused by the judge having himself to apply to the registrar for his note.-SOLICITORS, Byrne & Lucas; Le Riche & Son. Clifford, before Fry, J., on the 4th inst., the question was raised BILL OF EXCHANGE-ALTERATION AFTER ACCEPTANCE-NEGLIGENCE OF ACCEPTOR-RIGHTS OF INDORSEE-STAMPING AFTER ALTERATION.—In a case of Adelphi Banh v. Edwards, before Chitty, J., on the 4th inst., an important question was raised as to whether the indorsee of a bill of exchange could recover on the bill under the following circumstances :-The bill was drawn for £22 2s., payable four months after date in London, but before the figures 22 and after the word London blanks were left which were filled in by the insertion of the figure 2 so as to make the bill to be for the sum of £222 23., and the words "Two hundred and" were also inserted. The bill was impressed with a stamp for 3s., capable of being used for a sum of £300. The defendant pleaded as a defence that the bill was altered in a material part after acceptance, and was, therefore, void; to which the plaintiffs replied that the defendant had contributed by his negligence to the fraud, and, therefore, was not entitled to raise the objection. Another defence was raised that the bill was void, as it was not stamped after the alteration. CHITTY, J., said that the alteration in a material part voided the bill unless the defendant had precluded himself from raising the objection. He did not think the defendant, who was a Welsh farmer, could claim any indulgence on that ground, and that the same rule must apply whether the defendant was a farmer or a director of the Bank of England. There had been no actual representation by the defendant, as the plaintiffs had not inquired of him whether the bill in its present form had been accepted by him, so that the only question was whether he could impute negligence to him. covered by that of the Société Générale v. The Metropolitan Bank (21 W. K. 335). The plaintiffs, no doubt, relied greatly upon the case of Young v. Grote (2 Bing. 453) and some more recent cases, but in Young v. Grote the case was one of banker and customer, and the customer, by giving a blank cheque which was subsequently filled in for a larger amount than he had intended, had himself contributed to the fraud. Moreover, there the customer did not sue on the cheque, but for the balance of his account. The present case was also distinguishable from those where the acceptance had been in blank. Two Scotch cases had been relied upon, but he did not think they governed this case, and he thought the loss must remain where it had fallen, that was, on the plaintiffs, who had trusted the drawers, and against The defence that the bill was whom they would have their remedy over. stamped before the alteration was, in his opinion, also a good one, and the Stamp Act clearly required a bill of exchange to be stamped after any alteration which in effect made it a new bill. On the whole, therefore, there must be judgment for the defendant with costs. He would, however, allow a stay of execution pending an appeal, if an appeal were brought within fourteen days. -SOLICITORS, Brock & Chapman; Toulmin & Son; C. Richards & Son. He considered the case VENDOR AND PURCHASER-LOSS BY FIRE-PAYMENT BY INSURANCE COMPANY TO VENDOR-RIGHT TO OBTAIN REPAYMENT-CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY. In a case of Castellain ▼. Preston, before Chitty, J., on the 4th inst., an important question was argued, whether an insurance company could recover from a vendor of property certain policy-moneys in respect of a fire on the property, after the contract for sale, where the whole purchase-money bad been subsequently paid to the vendor. In the case of Rayner v. Preston, an action brought by the purchaser against the same defendant, claiming an abatement out of the purchase-money in respect of the policy-moneys, or a direction that they might be applied in reinstating the property, Cotton and Brett, L.JJ., James, L.J., diss., held (L. R. 8 Ch. D. 1) that the purchaser was not entitled to either form of relief, and that the aotion must be dismissed. Cotton and Brett, L.JJ., however, suggested that the insurance company might be entitled to recover the amount paid from the vendor, and hence this action was subsequently brought by the insurance company for the amount, and the case was tried at the last assizes by Chitty, J. After argument, upon farther consideration, CHITTY, J., held that there was no express authority upon the point, and therefore that it must be considered upon principle. The question really was whether the principle of subroga. tion applied, as in such cases as North British, &c., Company ▼. London, Liverpool, and Globe Insurance Company (L. R. 5 Ch. D. 569) and Simpson v. Thomson (L. R. 3 App. 279). In the present case, however, he was asked to go much beyond any previous decision, and he considered the contract of insurance here was one entirely collateral to the contract of sale. The result was that, in his opinion, the action failed, and that the same must be dismissed, with costs.-SOLICITORS, Laces, Bird, Newton, & Richardson, Liverpool; Anthony & Imlach, Liverpool. SOCIETIES. BARRISTERS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The annual meeting of this association was held in the Middle Temple-hall, on Friday, the 31st ult. Lord Justice Brett presided. COMPANY-WINDING-UP PETITION-FORMAL AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING PETI TION-EFFECT OF SUCH AFFIDAVIT DEALING WITH MEASURES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF-Rule 4, GENERAL ORDERS, NOVEMBER, 1862. In a case of In re New Callao Company, also before Chitty, J., on the 4th inst., on the opening of a winding-up petition the objection was taken that there was no sufficient evidence of the facts stated in the petition. The usual formal affidavit verifying the petition had been filed under rule 4 of the General Orders under the Companies Act, 1862; but this affidavit also went into other matters, and stated the deponent's information and belief as to the allegations in the petition. It was contended by the company who opposed the petition that the affidavit could not be relied on, as the formal affidavit made prima facie evidence by rule, as it went beyond such formal affidavit, and, so far as it dealt with matters of information and belief, such statements were not evid-relief ence in reliance on Gilbert v. Endean (L. R. 9 Ch. D. 259). It was therefore contended that there was no evidence in support of the petition. CHITTY, J., said he did not think the affidavit was less the formal affidavit meant by the rule because it dealt with other matters, and that even if the allegations as to information and belief were not evidence, still the effect of that would simply be to avoid that part of the affidavit, and not to affect the formal part verifying the petition. He, therefore, held there was sufficient prima facie evidence in support of the petition, and he accordingly gave the respondents leave to adduce evidence in answer, reserving the question of costs.-SOLICITORS, Greenfield & Abbott; Lewis Davis. ago. SOLICITORS' CASES. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Candy moved, pursuant to notice, that an attachment should issue against the defendant for a contempt of court in disobeying an order made a few days Murphy, Q.C., appeared for the defendant to oppose the motion. The order in question was to deliver up to the present solicitors of Mr. Maitland certain papers and documents in possession of the defendant, who, up to February 28, had acted as solicitor to Mr. Maitland, and who will shortly be tried for perjury at the Old Bailey. On the above date the court, acting on a report of Master Mellor, had held that Mr. Lewis discharged himself, as he said he would not go on acting, or tantamount to it, unless Mr. Maitland brought him £30 more than the fifty guineas already paid him by Mrs. Heath, who entered into a contract in writing with the defendant for him to defend Maitland at the police court. Candy said the only documents handed over to the present solicitor of Mr. Maitland were some newspapers, programmes, letters, and play-bills, which had no bearing on the criminal charge whatever. Murphy said his client claimed to retain the brief he had drawn up for counsel, copies of depositions, for which he had paid £1 78. 6d., and official copies of documents. These, he contended, were not "belonging to the client, but were the fruit of his own outlay and industry. Mr. Maitland bad, in fact, paid nothing, and Mrs. Heath did not complain of the scale of the defendant's charges. The order had been virtually complied with, and there had been no wilful disobedience on the part of Mr. Lewis. GROVE, J., thought the rule should be made absolute for an attachment. The court had not looked at the form of the rule, and that, perhaps, might have been made more specific ; but enough had been said to show that it had been evaded. It was idle to suppose the order merely applied to the irrelevant matter handed to the client. In his judgment, Mr. Lewis had been amply and more than amply remunerated, and he was not pushed by his client into any straits or impoverished condition. He thought the documents did belong to Maitland, though with a lien on them for the solicitor's costs; at all events, within the meaning of the order, which was that they were to be returned undefaced in twelve days after the trial to the defendant. To allow such a compliance would be utterly to frustrate and disobey the order of the court. Mr. Maitland's whole defence at the Old Bailey might be cut short and destroyed for want of these papers. He (the learned judge) felt convinced that the defendant knew perfectly well that he was evading the order of the court when he handed the useless papers over. HUDDLESTON, B., thought a gross and scandalous contempt had been committed by the defendant, who must have known the intention of the court, and have set himself deliberately to evade that authority which they were bound to vindicate. Rule absolute, with costs.-Times. On Tuesday last leave to appeal in the case of Copp v. Lynch and the Law Life Assurance Company was again refused by Mathew and Cave, JJ., Mathew, J., remarking that "the only effect of the decision was that solicitors, if they received commission in such cases, must let their clients know that they received it; so that it should be received openly and 'above board.' That was all, and how was that of importance ?" Mr. Justice Hawkins has fixed the following dates for holding the ensuing Spring Assizes on the Western Circuit-viz., for the county of Somerset and the county of the city of Bristol, at Taunton, Tuesday, April 18; for the counties of Devon and Cornwall, at Exeter, Monday, April 24; and for the counties of Southampton, Wilts, and Dorset, at Winchester, Tuesday, May 16. Mr. Baron Huddleston has fixed the following dates for holding the Spring Assizes on the Oxford Circuit:-Reading, Tuesday, April 18; Worcester, Saturday, April 22; Stafford, Friday, April 28. Mr. MACRORY read the report, which stated that the growth of the demands funds. During the past year the subscriptions received were £186 less than on the association was rapid, but no equivalent increase was found in its in the preceding twelve months, amounting only to £963. Applications for were numerous and urgent, but many most deserving cases were necessarily refused assistance. The report referred with regret to the death of Sir John Karslake, one of the trustees, whose place was taken by Mr. Justice Manisty. the Northern Circuit whenever a sum Lord Justice BRETT, in moving the adoption of the report, said that on circuit subscribed a guinea, those who supposed themselves in good business was wanted every member of the did not think it would be at all a bad plan if the Attorney and Solicitor subscribed two guineas, and all Queen's Counsel gave three guineas. He General, the heads of the bar, were to send round a circular to every member of the bar and ask him, in support of that society, to allow his name to be put down for at least a guinea. Mr. S. PRENTICE, Q.C., treasurer of the Middle Temple, seconded the resolu. tion. The RECORDER of London and Mr. Justice MATHEW moved and seconded a resolution appointing Mr. Justice Manisty one of the trustees. Lord COLERIDGE, in moving the election of the committee of management, said he always thought the Barristers' Benevolent Institution the most valuable institution in connection with the profession, and he regretted that that all bis charity was done when he subscribed to an institution of that it did not receive a larger amount of support. Of course, no man would feel kind. He could not for one instant believe that the sources of his generosity dried up because he supported a society which did that for him which he could not do personally; but there were numbers and numbers of persons to whom a little help from time to time, such as this society could give, was a matter of paramount necessity. The Lord Chief Justice then referred, with much feeling, to the death of Sir John Karslake, to whose great qualities he had tried to bear public witness as he could to the virtues of one who for many years had been his greatest opponent and his greatest friend. He was one of the most genial, high-minded, and generous men. Q.C.), the Solicitor-General (Sir F. Herschell, Q.C.), Vice-Chancellor Hall, The meeting was also addressed by the Attorney-General (Sir H. James, Turner, and Mr. Justice Manisty, who said that out of 7,000 gentlemen who were Mr. Baron Huddleston, Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. Baron Pollock, Mr. R. E. really or nominally members of the profession, only 633 subscribed to the society. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. Tuesday, March 28.—Mr. C. E. Barry in the chair.-Messrs. W. E. John son and H. J. Randolph Hemming were elected members of the society. Mr. Prankerd opened the question, "Should the Church of England be disestablished and disendowed ?" in the affirmative. After a very ani mated debate, extending over three hours, in the course of which Messrs. T. P. Rhys, T. B. Napier, and W. A. Bilney supported the opener, and Messrs. Fargus, Price, W. Austin, Strickland, J. Van Sommer, Hick, and R. B. Pope the negative, a division was taken, which resulted in the question being negatived by a majority of one vote. The number present was thirty seven. UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. At a meeting held at Clement's-inn-hall, on Wednesday, March 22, Mr. B. T. Bartrum in the chair, Mr. Mott Whitehouse moved, "That the laws of England ought to be codified." The opener was supported by Messrs. Tillotson, Spence, Symes, and Blackwell, and opposed by Messrs. Clarkson and Jenks. Mr. Mott Whitehouse having raplied, the motion was put to the meeting, and carried by a majority of nine votes. BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. in the chair. Several new honorary ad ordinary members were elected, and A meeting of this society was held on the 14th ult., Alfred Canning, Esq., other business transacted, after which a debate took place on the subject:"Are the legal difficulties whica have been suggested as attendant upon the construction of the proposed Channel Tunnel worthy of serious consideration ?" The speakers on the affirmative were, Messrs. Streetly, Platnauer, Steere, Jeffreys, G. T. Edwards, and E. C. Rogers; and on the negative, Messrs. T. A. Jenkyn Brown, Barrows, Whitaker, and Ryland. The debate, which was an interesting one, was carried in the negative by a majority of one. There was a large attendance of members and a few visitors. The 702nd ordinary meeting of this society was held on Tuesday, the 28th of March, A. G. Baller, Esq., in the chair. The subject for debate was, "Is Hobbs v. The London and South-Western Railway Company, viewed in the light of recent decisions, a safe guide as to the law on remoteness of damage?" The chief recent decision referred to was that of McMahon v. Field (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 591), decided last year. The speakers on the affirmative were Messrs. Ryland, W. Thompson, Stevens, and Coley; and on the negative, Messrs. G. T. Edwards, Atkins, and Cochrane. The debate was decided in favour of the affirmative by the casting vote of the chairman. MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. The eleventh meeting of the session of this society was held on Tuesday evening, March 28, at the Law Library, Cross-street, the chair being taken by Mr. J. W. Hamilton, LL.B., barrister-at-law. The question for discussion was as follows:-"Is Hobbs v. London and South-Western Railway Company, viewed in the light of recent decisions, a safe guide as to the law on remoteness of damage?" Hobbs v. London and South-Western Railway Company (L. B. 10 Q. B. D. 111), Lilley v. Doubleday (L. R. 7 Q. B. 510), McMahon v. Field (L. R. 7 Q. B. 591). The affirmative was opened by Mr. Solly, and he was supported by Messrs. Gibb, Higham, Brooks, Coward, and Hawkins. For the negative there spoke Messrs. Branthwaite, Fox, Rayner, and Carr. The chairman summed up the arguments, and on the voting being taken the question was decided in the affirmative by a majority of one. Members present, 28. OBITUARY. MR. THOMAS WOODCOCK. Mr. Thomas Woodcock, solicitor, of Haslingden and Ramsbottom, died on the 9th ult. Mr. Woodcock was born in 1810. He was admitted a sclicitor in 1833, and he had practised for many years at Haslingden. He was associated in partnership with his sons, Mr. John Woodcock, who was admitted in 1863, and Mr. Thomas Woodcock, junior, who was admitted in 1865. He was a perpetual commissioner for Lancashire, and he had a very extensive private practice. He was registrar of the Haslingden County Court (Circuit No. 4), and was formerly clerk to the county magistrates, in which position he had been succeeded by his eldest son. MR. EDWARD AUGUSTUS HILDER. Mr. Edward Augustus Hilder, solicitor, of Gravesend, died on the 21st ult., in his seventy-first year. Mr. Hilder was born in 1811. He was admitted a solicitor in 1836, and had practised for many years at Gravesend. He was a perpetual commissioner for the county of Kent, and had a very extensive private business. Mr. Hilder also held several important appointments. He had been for several years high bailiff of the Gravesend and Dartford County Courts (Circuit No. 48), and clerk to the deputy-lieutenants for the Gravesend District of the county. He was also coroner for the borough of Gravesend. A few years ago he was appointed a magistrate for the borough. NEW ORDERS, &c. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Notice.-Easter Vacation, 1882. There will be no sitting in court in the Easter Vacation. During the vacation all applications which may require to be immediately or promptly heard are to be made to the honourable Mr. Justice Kay, at Judges' Chambers, Royal Courts of Justice. In any case of great urgency, when not sitting in judges' chambers, the brief of counsel may be sent to the Vacation Judge by book-post, or parcel, prepaid, accompanied by office copies of the affidavits in support of the application, and also by a minute, on a separate sheet of paper, signed by counsel, of the order he may consider the applicant entitled to, and an envelope capable of receiving the papers, and addressed as follows:Chancery Official Letter: To the Registrar in Vacation, Chancery Registrars' Office, Chancery-lane, Lordon, W.C." On applications for injunctions or writs of ne exeat regno, in addition to the above, there must also be sent the original writ, or a copy of it with the indorsements thereon, a copy of the statement of claim (if any), and, if the original writ is not sent, a certificate that it has been issued. The papers sent to the vacation judge will be returned to the registrar. The address of the vacation judge when not sitting in judges' chambers can be obtained on application at the Chancery Registrars' Chambers, Royal Courts of Justice (Room 136). The chambers of Mr. Justice Chitty will be open on Saturday, April 8, from 11 till 1. On Good Friday, and on Monday and Tuesday in Easter week, the judges' chambers and Chancery offices will not be open: ord. 61, r. 4. Chancery Registrars' Chambers, April 5, 1882. The committee for promoting a memorial to the late Mr. Street met on Tuesday in the central hall of the Royal Courts of Justice, when, on the proposal of the Prince of Wales, it was resolved to place a full-length figure of the lamented architect in one of the bays of the central hall. Mr. H, H. Armstead, R.A., was selected as the sculptor. LEGAL APPOINTMENTS. Mr. CHARLES DYKE ACLAND, barrister, who has been elected M.P. for the Eastern Division of the County of Cornwall in the Liberal interest, is the eldest son of Sir Thomas Dyke Acland, Bart. He was born in 1842, and was educated at Christ Church, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1869, and he is a member of the Western Circuit. Mr. THOMAS PENNY, solicitor (of the firm of Bullock & Penny), of Berkhampstead, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Mr. AUGUSTUS HENRY MAULE, solicitor, of Newnham and Lydney, has Judicature. The Hon. WILLIAM MACNAGHTEN ERSKINE, barrister, has succeeded to the Peerage on the death of his father, the fourth Lord Erskine. The new peer was born in 1841. He was for several years a captain in the 9th Lancers, and he was called to the bar at Lincoln's-ina in Trinity Term, 1873. He has practised in the Chancery Division. Mr. WILLIAM JESSE FREER, solicitor (of the firm of Freer, Reeve, Blunt, & Rowlatt), of Leicester, has been appointed by the high sheriff of Leicestershire (Mr. William Winterton) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the current year. Mr. Freer was admitted a solicitor in 1875. Mr. EDWARD CRESSWELL PEELE, solicitor, of Shrewsbury, has been appointed by the high sheriff of Shropshire (Mr. James Jenkinson) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the current year. Mr. Peele is town clerk of the borough of Shrewsbury, and clerk to the county magistrates. He was admitted a solicitor in 1868. Mr. RICHARD HUGHES PRITCHARD, solicitor (of the firm of Hughes & Pritchard), of Bangor, has been appointed by the high sheriff of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Joseph Evans) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the current year. Mr. Pritchard was admitted a solicitor in 1875. Mr. THOMAS DEWHURST LINGARD, solicitor, of Manchester, has been appointed by the high sheriff of Rutlandshire (Mr. John William Davenport Hindley), to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the current year. Mr. Lingard was admitted a solicitor in 1870. Mr. THOMAS WALTERS, solicitor, of Carmarthen, has been appointed by the high sheriff of Carmarthenshire (Mr. Frederick Lewis) to be UnderSheriff of that county for the current year. Mr. Walters was admitted a solicitor in 1876. Mr. JOHN LLOYD GRIFFITHS, solicitor and notary, of Beaumaris and Holyhead, has been appointed by the high sheriff of Anglesea (Mr. Hugh Edwards) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the current year. Mr. Griffiths was admitted a solicitor in 1865. He is town clerk of the borough of Beaumaris. Mr. FRANCIS TREGONWELL JOHNS, solicitor, proctor, and notary, of Blandford, has been appointed by the high sheriff of Dorsetshire (Mr. Charles Hambro) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the current year. Mr. Johns is registrar of the Blandford County Court, district probate registrar, and registrar of the Archdeaconry of Dorset. He was admitted a solicitor in 1843, and he is in partnership with Mr. Sinclair Traill, the clerk to the Blandford Local Board. Mr. EDWARD LAMB WAUGH, solicitor, of Cockermouth, has been appointed by the high sheriff of Cumberland (Mr. George Routledge) to be UnderEdward Waugh, solicitor, M.P. for Cookermouth. Sheriff of that county for the current year. Mr. Waugh is the son of Mr. He was admitted a solicitor in 1873. Mr. GEORGE CHARLES KENT, solicitor, of Longton, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for Staffordshire and the City of Lichfield. Mr. HUMPHREY THOMAS CROWTHER GWYNN, solicitor (of the firm of Gwynn, Nunneley, & Gwynn), of Bristol and Thornbury, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for Gloucestershire and Somersetshire, and the City of Bristol. Mr. BENJAMIN BONNER, solicitor, proctor, and notary, of Gloucestershire, solicitor in 1852. He is secretary to the Bishop of Gloucester, and registrar of has been appointed a Magistrate for that city. Mr. Bonner was admitted a the diocese. Mr. WILLIAM CHARLES CRIPPS, solicitor, of Tunbridge Wells, has been appointed Solicitor to the Tunbridge Wells Freehold Land Society, in succession to his father, the late Mr. William Charles Cripps, senior. Mr. GEORGE LAYTON, solicitor (of the firm of Radcliffe, Layton & Steel), Liverpool, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women. DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. HORACE COLLINS, THOMAS WILKINSON, and J. WATSON STOCKER, solicitors, 88, London-street, Greenwich. March 24. The business will henceforth be continued by Horace Collins and Thomas Wilkinson. [Gazette, March 31.] HORATIO WILLIAM SOUTHALL and WILLIAM THOMAS, Solicitors, 24, Waterloo-street, Birmingham (Southall, Thomas, & Southall). March 25. The said Horatio William Southall will in future carry on business at No. 32, Waterloo-street aforesaid, and the said William Thomas will continue to carry on business at No. 24, Waterloo-street, aforesaid. CREDITORS' CLAIMS. [Gazette, April 4.] COMPANIES. WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. CAPITAL FIRE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, LIMITED,-Petition for winding up, presented ENGLISH MOUNT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has, by an order NEW HEY COTTON SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for HAWKSTOR CHINA CLAY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Kay, J., has by an order, dated Feb 7, STANDARD CREDIT COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Mar 29, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Apr 21. Solomon, Finsbury pavement, solicitor for the petitioner STRAHAN AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Apr 1, directed SUN ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before May 10, [Gazette, Mar. 31.] CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. ANDREWS, GEORGE, Gt Suffolk st, Southwark, Sorter in the General Post Office. April BANCROFT, JOHN, Sheffield, Gentleman. April 18. Baker v Buxton, Chitty, J. Porrett, BROME, MARGARET, Bath. April 29. Martindale v Freeman, Hall, V.C. Gordon, New HAYWOOD, WILLIAM, Littleham, Devon, Farmer. April 29. Haywood v Haywood, MILLINGTON, JOHN, Leicester, Brick Maker. May 1. Millington v Millington, Hall, [Gazette, Mar. 21.] FRANCIS, WILLIAM GEORGE KNAPP, East Dereham, Norfolk, Auctioneer. April 21. GORE, CLARA ERSWELL, Margate. April 21. Starkey v The Governors of Queen Anne's KING, BERNARD, Richmond rd, Barnsbury, Boot Manufacturer. April 29. King v King, TORKINGTON, OSGOOD, Holly lodge, Clapham park, Esq. April 21. Smith v Williams, [Gazette, Mar. 24.] BURY, RICHARD LEE, New Haw, Addlestone, Chertsey. April 25. Madeley v Bury, HALLER, WILLIAM, Cliffe-cum-Lund, York, Farmer. April 24. Haller v Haller, Chitty, HICKMAN, SHADRACH, Oaken, Stafford, Farmer. April 25. Fisher v Hartill, Fry, J. MOFFATT, JAMES ROMULUS, Mirfield, York, Maltster. April 25. Moffatt v Moffatt, Fry, PULTON, HARRIET, Witchampton, Dorset. April 22. Lake v Warren, Chitty, J. Smith, [Gazette, Mar. 28.] BALLERAS, GUILLERMO ESTEBAN, Carlton rd, Maida Vale, Merchant. May 1. Thomson BATTYE, WYNYARD, Weybridge, Surrey, Retired Major. May 1. Nisbet and Daw, BOYCE, ALFRED GEORGE, Eastmeon, Southampton, Saddler. May 25. Albery and BROAD, JAMES COTTLE, Upper st, Islington, Builder. May 1. Mason, Chancery lane CASSAN, THOMAS, Lewisham High rd, Captain. Apr 24. Tompson and Co, Lincoln's inn CLARK, JOHN, Comberbach, Chester, Gent. Apr 30. Fletcher, Northwich ECCLES, FRANCES COATES, Lansdowne crescent, Kensington park. April 28. Tidswell, EXALL, WILLIAM, Reading, Engineer. June 1. Andrewes, Gresham bldgs GILMOUR, JOHN, Sandringham gardens, Ealing. May 10. Gresham and Davies, Basing hall st GRIERSON, HARRIET DOROTHEA DANIELL, Great Yarmouth. May 1. Nisbet and Daw, ter HALL, CHARLES, Tolleshunt Knights, Essex, Farmer. May 8. Turner and Co, Colches- HEAD, GEORGE, Newgate Market, Licensed Victualler. Apr 26. Nowbon and Co, inn fields At the Worship-street Police Court on Saturday, Mr. Bushby gave his decision regarding an application made on behalf of a firm of cigar makers for summonses against two female apprentices, who having, since their signing of their indentures, married, now repudiated the contract. Mr. Bushby said he had carefully considered the matter, and he was of opinion that the marriage HERBERT, JOHN, Church st, Fulham, Licensed Victualler. May 1. Nicholls, Lincoln's of the apprentices had rendered the contract void. He therefore refused to grant the summonses. He had searched the law reports, and could find nothing directly bearing on the point, and he should, therefore, be glad if the applicants would apply for a mandamus, so that the matter could be argued before a superior court. Mr. Abbott said he had no doubt his clients would take that course, as it was a matter of great importance, not only to them, but to all large firms who were employers of female labour. At the Stock and Share Auction Company's sale, held on Tuesday at their sale-room, the following were amongst the prices obtained :-Port Philip and Colonial Gold Mining, 3s. 6d. ; Pary's Copper Corporation £1 shares, 10s.; Consolidated Mining, 3s. 6d.; La Plata Mining £2 shares, par; Devon Friendship Mining £1 shares, 5s. 9d.; South Darren Mining £1 10. shares, 15s.; Tocopilla Copper Mining and Smelting £1 shares, 78. 6d. paid, 98. 6d. PERFECT DAYLIGHT.-Chappuis' Reflectors supersede gas in daytime, and improve natural daylight. They can be adapted to any window, fanlight, skylight, arca-light, &c., wherever natural light is impeded owing to the bad construction of premises or the proximity of walls or buildings. They will be found to promote health, comfort, and economy. They can also be used as screens or blinds, and at the same time they act as daylight diffusers. More than 30,000 are in use in London alone. For prospectuses, address two stamps to (S. J.) Chappuis, patentee and manufacturer, 69, Fleet-street.[ADYZ.] High st SCOTT, JAMES, Southend, Hotel Proprietor. Apr 29. Gregson, Southend Ledbury WHITTINGHAM, WILLIAM, Liverpool, Gent, May 1, Morecroft and Winstanley, Liver HOUSE OF COMMONS. March 30.-Bill Read a Second Time. PRIVATE BILL.-Peckham, East Dulwich, and Crystal Palace Tramways. PRIVATE BILLS.-Golden Valley Railway; Nottingham Corporation. Bill to disfranchise, permanently or temporarily, on account of corrupt practices, certain cities and boroughs, and to disqualify certain voters (The ATTORNEY-GENERAL). March 31.-Bills Read a Second Time. PRIVATE BILLS.-Forcett Railway (Extension); Lynn and Fakenham Railway; Thames Deep Water Dock Railway. Backett, Isaac, Angell rd, Brixton, Accountant. Apr 17 at 2 at office of Norris and Norris, Bedford row Bagnall, Ephraim, Eccleshall, Machine Proprietor. Apr 14 at 11.30 at Vine Hotel, Stafford. Tennant and Co, Hanley Bainbridge, Walter, Grantham, Draper. Apr 12 at 12 at office of Schofield, St Peter's hill, Grantham PRIVATE BILLS.-Alnwick_Corporation; Welshpool and Llanfair Railway Baker, William, Towcester, Northampton, Shoe Manufacturer. Apr 14 at 11 at Angel (Abandonment); West Ham Local Board." Bills Read a Third Time. April 3.-Bills Read a Second Time. Hotel, Northampton. Whitton, Towcester Banks, Samuel, Featherstone, York, Shopkeeper. Apr 13 at 3 at offices of Horner and Edmondson, Wood st, Wakefield PRIVATE BILLS.-Agricultural Company of Mauritius; Maidstone Water; Barnes, Thomas, Tilehurst, Berks, out of business. Apr 14 at 3 at 18, the Forbury, Bills Read a Third Time. Toomer, Frederick, Sandringham rd, Cabinet Manufacturer. Pet Mar 29. Brougham. at 12 Reading. Creed Barnett, Dawson, Finsbury pavement, Umbrella Manufacturer. Apr 12 at 3 at office of Goldring, White Lion st, Norton Folgate Belcher, James, Reading, Builder. Apr 17 at 11 at offices of Newman, Friar st, Reading Bianchi, Francis, and Robert Maxwell Fabris, Gresham st, Wholesale Ironmongers. Apr 18 at 3 at Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st. Wilkins and Fanshawe, Founders' Hall, St Swithin's lane Bradshaw, Nicholas, Accrington, Draper. Apr 13 at 3 at Peel's Arms Hotel, Whalley rd, Accrington. Whalley, Accrington Briggs, William Alexander, Salford, Licensed Victualler. Apr 24 at 3 at offices of Smythe and Sykes, King st, Manchester Brown, Samuel George, High st, Shadwell, Plumber. Apr 19 at 2 at office of Wood. leigh, Guildhall chmbrs, Basinghall st. Hewitt, Nicholas lane Brown, William, Shrewsbury, Salop, Coal Merchant. Apr 14 at 11 at office of Morris, Swan Hill, Shrewsbury Brown, William Frederick, Northampton, Baker. Apr 13 at 11 at office of Andrew, Market sq, Northampton Bryant, William, Bristol, Butcher. Apr 13 at 12 at office of Clifton and Carter, Broad st, Bristol Buckley, John, and George Buckley, Hockley, Warwick, Spoon and Fork Makers. Apr 17 at 11 at 57, Colmore row, Birmingham. Bayley Clark, John, Longtown, Cumberland, Watch Maker. Apr 17 at 3 at office of Errington, Bank st, Carlisle Collins, George, Greet, Worcester, Accountant's Clerk. Apr 14 at 12 at office of Jelf, Waterloo st, Birmingham Collins, John, Birmingham, Wholesale Grocer. Apr 13 at 3 at office of Wright and Marshall, New st, Birmingham Coutts, William George, Pershore, Worcester, Painter. Apr 13 at 11 at office of Pace, Bridge st, Pershore Crichton, James, Commercial Sale Room, Mincing lane, Merchant. Apr 24 at 3 at office of Cooper and Co, George st, Mansion House Hollams and Co, Mincing lane Dickerson, Charles, sen, Weldegrave rd, Turnpike rd, Hornsey. Apr 8 at 11 at office of Hawkins, North bldgs, Eldon st, Finsbury Dickin, John, Birmingham, Window Blind Maker. Apr 13 at 3 at office of Southall, Waterloo st, Birmingham Dunn, Edward Thomas, Bouverie st, Fleet st, Varnish Manufacturer. Apr 17 at 3 at office of Dyte and Stead, Chancery lane. Venn and Woodcock, New inn, Strand Durling, George, Chatham, Grocer. Apr 13 at 3 at King's Head Hotel, High st, Rochester. Shakespear, Chatham Emmerson, Alexander George, Kew Bridge rd, Brentford, Sailmaker. Apr 24 at 3 at office of Incorporated Law Society, Chancery lane. Woodbridge and Sons, Brentford Everitt, Henry, Ardleigh, Essex, Farmer. Apr 14 at 11 at office of Pope and Co, Trinity st, Colchester. Marshall, Colchester Evison, John, Falsgrave, Scarborough, York, Grocer. Apr 11 at 11 at Bell Hotel, Driffield. Appleyard, Scarborough Fairman, Francis, Bletchingly, Surrey, Farmer. Apr 18 at 3 at office of Morrison, High st, Reiga te Farr, Edward Robinson, Nottingham, Provision Merchant. Apr 14 at 2 at Assembly rooms, Low pavement, Nottingham. Martin and Son, Nottingham Fenton, James, and John Long, Deptford Bridge, Kent, Coal and Coke Merchants. Fisher, Walter, Bristol, Printer. Apr 12 at 2 at offices of Cumberland, Clare st, Fisher, Walter, Filey, York, Photographer. Apr 12 at 3 at offices of Watts and Kitching, Queen st, Scarborough Flanagan, William, Oldham, Greengrocer. Apr 19 at 3 at offices of Simpson and Hockin, Mount st, Albert sq, Manchester Flexman, David, Great Beddow, Essex, Farmer. Apr 14 at 11 at offices of Meggy, Duke st, Chelmsford Gregory, John Moss, Rosslyn hill, Hampstead, Watchmaker. Apr 13 at 3 at offices of Dear, Gresham st Hancox, Thomas, and William Hancox, King's heath, Builders. Apr 14 at 11 at offices of Thomas, Waterloo st, Birmingham Haward, Horace, Portland rd, Wholesale Grocer. Apr 13 at 12 at offices of Creditors' Hertzog, Alfred, Salford, Lancaster, Clothes Dealer. Apr 19 at 3 at offices of Sims, Higham, Maria, Barrow in Furness, Draper. Apr 11 at 11 at the Imperial Hotel, Cornwallis st, Barrow in Furness. Nalder and Jones, Barrow in Furness Gill, John, Low Butterknowle Farm, nr Cockfield, Durham, Farmer, Pet Mar 29. Holgate, Octavius, Ipswich, Baker, Apr 19 at 2 at No. 7, St. Lawrence st, Ipswich, Marshall, Durham, Mar 29 at 11 Pollard |