Page images

decrease in the coat of the latter. The average cost of each case tried shows a decrease of Is. 8d., and, in summary proceedings, a decrease of 5d.

Government Prosecutions. There were 238 Mint cases prosecuted and concluded in 1880, and the total cost paid by the Treasury in these cases was £1,678 13s. 5d. Criminal cases other than Mint cases prosecuted by the Solicitor to the Treasury were 270, and the costs incurred in respect of these were £15,997 18s. In 1879 the Mint cases numbered 210, of which the cost was £1/277 lis. Id., and the other prosecutions wero 173, costing £10,102 9s.

Government Local Prisons. The returns for Government local prisons are for the year ending the 31st of March, 1881. During that year there were 67 such prisons, in the previous year 68, and in the year ending the 31st of March, 1879, the original number of 113 prisons was reduced by the closing of 45. During the year covered by this return, 179,069 prisoners were committed, being a decrease of 13,166 from the number of the previous year. Out of the number committed in 1881 it appears that 24,737 had been once previously committed, 11,272 twice, 6,839 thrice, 4,602 four times, 3,163 five times, 4,352 six or seven times, 3,676 eight, nine, or ten times, and 10,421 more than ten times, making a total of 69,062 out of 179,069 prisoners committed to prison in 1881 who had been previously committed. Exoluding debtors and naval and military prisoners, the ages of 166,263 of these prisoners are given as follows :—Under 12 years, 528; 12 years and under 16, 5,051; 16 and under 21, 28,196; 21 and under 30, 53,620; 30 and under 40, 37,984; 40 and under 50, 22,736; 50 and under 60, 10,973; 60 and above, 6,831; unascertained, 344. The number of those under 12 years of age who were committed has decreased from 1,084 in 1875 to 528 in 1881, and the total of those under 16 from 7,212 in 1875 to 5,579 in 1881. Of the 166,263 prisoners before mentioned, 55,793 could neither read nor write, 104,503 could read or read and write imperfectly, 5,331 could read and write well, 225 had received superior instruction, and as to 411 their state of education was not ascertained. Among the same prisoners it appears that there were 16,085 who were of no occupation, 126,920 were domestic servants, labourers, factory workers, and mechanics, and 656 in professional employments. At the beginning of the year the local prisons contained (including debtors and naval and military offenders) 18,979 prisoners; during the year 179,060 were committed and 6,230 were removed between several prisons ; of this number it appears that 186,949 were removed and that 17,329 remained at the end of the year, being a decrease of 1,650 from those at its commencement. The l£6,949 prisoners removed during the year were disposed of as follows :—1,734 were sent to Government prisons, 6,336 to county and borough prisons, 1,290 to reformatory schools, 135 to lunatic asylums, 309 wero discharged on pardon or commutation of their sentence, 1 on license, and 175,269 on termination of sentence; 1,680 were bailed, 2 escaped, 18 committed suicide, 163 died, and 12 were executed. The greatest number of prisoners at any one time occupying the 25,124 separate cells in local prisous was 22,081, and the highest daily average 18,027. Those uuder sentence of hard labour during the year numbered 125,316, being a decrease from the previous year of 8,883. During the year there were 163 deaths from natural causes in Government local prisons, and there were also 148,392 cooes of sickness, of which 143,969 were of a slight nature; there were, besides this, 153 cases of insanity. Prison punishments were inflicted in 43,312 cases, of which 173 wero corporal, 2,407 by means of punishment cells, 21,846 as regards diet, and 18,886 by loss of stage or privilege. There is a decrease in the number of prison punishments of 6,372. The prison officers were 2,127 in number, comprising 81 governors and deputy-governors, 93 chaplains and assistant chaplains, 72 surgeons and assistant surgeons, 218 clerks and schoolmasters and mistresses, 53 matrons, J ,304 warders, and 306 other sub-officers. These numbers give one officer to 8*4 of the daily average number of prisoners. The costs of Government local prisons consist of £223,316 for the staff, £152,229 maintenance of prisoners, and other expenses £34,973; to these three principal items should be added, £5,636 6s. Id. for rates, &c, and £5,522 for books and stationery, making up a total of £421,686. This item shows a decrease, as compared with the previous year, of £9,299, and, as compared with 1867, of £79,662. The average cost of each prisoner was £22 15s. 5d. Prisoners' labour, taken on an estimate, and sale of old stores, are credited at the sum of £149,943; in the previous year the amount was £151,931.

Convict Prisons.

There are 12 convict prisons which, at the commencement of the year, contained 10,376 convicts, and during the year 1,639 were received from local prisons, making in all 12,017, besides 198 received under revoked licenses. Of this number it appears that 7 were removed to local prison?, 26 to lunatic asylums, 1,850 were discharged, 246 on expiration of their sentence, 1,565 on license, 7 on medical grounds, and 82 on romiseion or commutation of their sentence, 135 died, 4 committed suicide, and 4 escaped, making a total of 2,026 disposed of during the year, and there remained in prison at the end of the year 10,268 convicts. The total number of infirmary cases in convict prisons during the year was 6,506 ; there were also 281 cases of insanity. Punishment for prison

offences in convict prisons was iu 82 cases corporal, ia 161 by means of punishment cells, in 10,703 dietary, and in 7,734 by loss of class or privilege. The staff establishment of convict prisons consisted of 1,741 persons, of whom 27 were governors or deputy-governors or superintendents, 25 ministers of religion, 69 schoolmasters, Scripture readers, and schoolmistresses, 21 medical officers, 11 stewards, 81 clerks, &o., and 1,507 subordinate officers, servants, and guards. The total cost of convict prisons amounted to £351,129 19s. 4d., consisting of £176,342 16s. 6d. for staff, £148,102 9s. Id. for maintenance of convicts, and £26,684 13s. 9d. for incidentals, and showing an average auuual cost per prisoner of £33 lis. lid. The total gross expenditure shows a decrease of £5,997 0s. 2d. as compared with the previous year, but in the average cost per convict there is an increase of 7s. 8d. Deducting the value of labour, exclusive of employment in the service of the prisons— viz., £202,552 4s. lOd.—and of the incidental receipts, the net cost of convict prisons was £147,045 14s., and the average cost per prisoner £14 Is. 4d.

Heformatoey Schools. The number of reformatory schools iu England and Wales in 1879-80 was 53, including three ships. There were 1,387 offenders committed to these schools during the year, being an increase of 137 on the number of the previous year. In addition to those committed during the year, and 4,838 who were in reformatories at the commencement of the year, 35 were received from other schools, 10 from prison, 7 were re-admitted after absconding in a previous year, and 81 returned from license or leave of absence, making a total of 6,358. Of this number 157 were discharged by order of the Secretary of State, 462 were discharged on completion of their sentence, 839 were permitted out on license or leave of absence or in service, 25 absconded and were not re-taken, 21 were committed to prison for refractory conduct, 36 were removed to other schools, and 24 died, making a total of 1,564, and leaving 4,794 in the schools at the end of the year. Of the 1,387 committed to reformatory schools during the year, 420 had been previously committed once, 134 twice, 49 thrice, 10 four times, 6 five times, and 3 six or seven times, while 765 had not been previously committed. Out of the same 1,381, it appears that 519 could neither read nor write, 746 could read or read and write imperfectly, 121 could read and write well, and not one is classed under the heading "superior instruction." The total amount payable by the Treasury on account of reformatory schools was £72,828 lis. 4d., being less than iu the previous year by £216 4s. 10d., and the amount recovered from parents was £6,015 3s. 6d., being a decrease of £291 4s. lOd.

Middlesex Industrial School. There were 92 commitments to Feltham iu the year ending 29th of September, 1880, as against 47 iu the previous year. The number in the school at the commencement of the year was 145, which, beiug added to the 92 committed, and 13 returned from license, gives 250 as the total number under detention during the year, as against 192 iu 1S79. Of this number 19 were discharged by order of the Secretary of State, 24 on completion of their term, 13 were permitted out on license, and 8 absconded and were not re-taken, leaving 186 under detention at the end of the year. The average cost per head was £26 0s. 6d., as against £24 3s. 7d. in 1879. The amount recovered from parents was £216 15s. 6d.

Industrial Schools. There are returns from 96 industrial schools, in which 10,096 were uuder detention at the commencement of the year, 2,988 were committed during the year, 10 were re-admitted after absconding, 57 were received from reformatories or other industrial schools, and 237 returned from license or leave of absence. This makes a total of 13,388 children in these schools during the year, who were disposed of as follows :—91 were removed to other schools, 1,709 were discharged, 69 died, 13 absconded and were not re-taken, and 1,040 were let out on license or leave of absence, and 10,466 remained in the schools at the end of the year. The total cost was £199,575, as against £188,533 in the previous year, and the amount received from parents was £10,853, as against £11,442 in 1879.

Criminal Lunatics. In the several asylums, hospitals, and licensed houses there were, during the year ending the 29th of September, 1880, 848 criminal lunatics, 532 of whom were at Broadmoor. At the commencement of the year there were 674 under detention, 168 were committed during the year, 5 were received from other asylums, and 1 was recaptured after escape. Of the total number during the year, it appears that 32 died, one escaped, 24 were discharged on becoming sane, 11 were removed sane for trial or punishment, 7 were removed to other asylums, and 102 were discharged on the expiration of their term of punishment, having ceased to be criminal lunatics, leaving 671 under detention at the end of the year. The average cost of the lunatics per head at Broadmoor was £47 15s. 3d., but at the 47 county asylums only £26 2s. 5d. The total cost was £29,815, of which £2,110 was contributed by county rates, £459 by borough rates or funds, £9,212 by union or parish rates, £16,408 from public revenues, and £1,626 from private sources.


[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir,—Haying read with much interest your rematks on the proposed curtailment of the jury system in civil causes, I am tempted to suggest that there is one important branch of the administration of our law in which trial by jury ought to be introduced—I mean in summary convictions by magistrates.

The growth of magisterial jurisdiction has been very great, if not alarming. That jurisdiction is anomalous and contrary to all our English notions that a man is entitled in a criminal case to be tried by his peers. Everyone with the slightest practical knowledge is aware that a police constable is generally a witness in cases before the justices. Yet the police are the eyes, ears, nose, and feelers of the magistracy. I have often seen one policeman believed by magistrates in preference to the oaths of several respectable but uuliveried citizens.

Between magistrates and culprits, the latter should be entitled to demand the verdict of a jury. This would perhaps not be needful in all oases; but there are many cases in which the decisions of justices involve far greater consequences than many cases triable at quarter sessions.

The county courts are presided over by trained judges; yet there, in cases over £5, the parties are entitled to a jury.

Why should there not be an optional jury, similar to that in use in the county courts, in a great number of the cases now punishable by summary conviction T F. Stroud.

Cheltenham, April 5.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Sir,—It may interest your readers to be informed with reforence to the leases on this estate, granted by the Corporation of London, which are renewable every fourteen years, provided sixty days' notice be given to the City Lands Committee, that the Court of Common Council, in June, 1866, passed a resolution that in all cases of omission to apply in proper time for renewal which should thenceforward be brought before the court, new leases should only be granted for absolute fixed terms, to be approved by the court, not exceeding in any case the term of ninety years, and that no covenant for renewal should be inserted therein. On Deoember 8 last, I brought forward a motion in the court to rescind this resolution, on the grounds, first, that no advantage should be taken by a great corporation of accident or oversight; and, secondly, that in particular it should not be done in the cases then before the court—(a) because no notice had been given by the comptroller to the lessees generally of the resolution of June, 1866; and (i) because no warning of the obligation to give notice had been given by the comptroller to the particular lessees in default. This motion to rescind was negatived, but duriug the present year a resolution has been carried on the motion of Mr. De Keyser, seconded by myself, in the following words :—" That the following proviso be added to the resolutions of this couit of June 21, 1866, and of December 8, 1881, in respect of the Conduit Mead Estate—viz., 'Provided always that the City Lands Committee be empowered to make a special recommendation to the court in respect of the tenure to be granted, and the terms thereof, in any case in which the particular circumstances appear to the committee to make it proper so to do.'"

It is, therefore, open to lessees in default to claim that renewals should be granted where an equivalent to a perpetually renewable lease cannot be given by means of a lease for ninety years or less, which happeus notably in cases where the lease is vested in trustees for tenants for life and remaindermen. John Nicholas Mason.

32, Gresham-street, April 12.

There cannot be said, remarks tbe Timit reporter, to be any "arrears" of the business in Bane at Westminster, all the oases being fresb. There are some cases in the "Crown Paper" and some "appeals from inferior Courts," but the ordinary business arising in the superior courts—especially the new trial business, in which the arrears used to be enormous—is all disposed of except cases entirely new. As regards new trials, all applications op to the 29th of March have been heard and disposed of except a few whioh have stood over by arrangement. At the London sittings, of the whole number of the oases in the list—viz., 387—243 have been disposed of in one way or another. Of the speoial jury oases 47 have been tried and 33 withdrawn or struck out, while 41 have been made remanets by order, and 33 have been made remanets from want of time to try them. Of the common jury oases 79 have been tried and 78 have been withdrawn or struck oat, while 34 have been made remanets by order, and 24 have been made remanett for want of time to try them. Of the 18 oases put down for trial without juries 11 have been tried, 3 have been withdrawn or struck ouf, fknd 4 have been made remanett by order.


Practice—Indorsement On WritClaim Job InjunctionRules Of Court, 1875, Appendix A, Part 2, Form No. 75.—In a case of In re Myers' Patent, before the Court of Appeal on the 5th inst., a qaestion incidentally arose as to the forms of indorsements of writs given in part 2 of appendix A. to the Rales of Court scheduled to the Judicature Aot, 1875. A writ in an aotion was indorsed with a olaim for (1) rescission of a specified indenture; (2) damages; (3) repayment by the defendant of moneys paid to him under the indenture; (4) an iojanotion; (5) a receiver; (6) accounts and inquiries; (7) farther or other relief. Jessel, M.R., said that the indorsement ought to have stated for what purpose the injunction was olaimed. It was urged that the olaim for an injunction timplieiter was in aooordaooe with the form No. 75 given in part 2 of appendix A., whioh is "Add to indorsement, and for an injunction." In the form, as Riven in Mr. Wilson's book, the word "iojanotion" is followed by a full stop. Jessel, M.R., said that the full stop is not in tbe Act, and it must have been inserted by the printer. The intention clearly was that the nature of the iojanotion olaimed ahonld be stated on the writ, though it was a very common mistake to ask merely for an injunction.—Solicitors, Field, Roecoe, ft Co.; Rowley, Page, <£• Rowley.

Sale Bt Order Op CourtInvalid OrderProtection Op Purchaser Conveyancing And Law Op Property Act, 1881, s. 70—Settled Estates Act, 1877, ss. 25—28, 40—Orders Op 1878, R. 24.—In a case of In re Mall Dare's Contract, before the Court of Appeal on the 5th iust., an important qaestion arose as to the effect of section 70 of the Conveyancing Act of 1881, whioh provides that (1) "an order of the oourt under any statutory or other jurisdiction shall not, as against a purchaser, be invalidated on the ground of want of jurisdiction or of want of any concurrence, consent, notice, or service, whether the purchaser has notice of any such want or not; " (2) "this section shall have effect with respect to any lease, sale, or other act under the authority of the court, and purporting to be in pursuance of the Settled Estates Aot, 1877, notwithstanding the exception in section 40 of that Act, or to be in pursuance of any former Act repealed by that Act, notwithstanding any exception in such former Act." And section 25 of tbe Settled Estates Act, 1877, provides that "when an infant is tenant in tail under the settlement, it shall be lawful for the court, if it shall think fit, to dispense with the concurrence or consent of the person, if only one, or all or any of the persons if more than one, entitled, whether beneficially or otherwise, to any estate or interest subsequent to the estate tail of such infant." Section 26 requires that " where, on an application under the Act, the concurrence or consent of any such person as aforesaid shall not have been obtained, notice shall be given to such person." Section 27 enables the court to dispense with notice in certain cases, and seothn 28 gives the court a general power of dispensing with consent and concurrence. Section 40 provides that " after the completion of any lease or sale or other act under the authority of the court, and purporting to be in pursuance of this Act, the same shall not be invalidated on the ground that the court was not hereby empowered to authorize the same, except that no such lease, sale, or other aot shall have any effect against such person as herein mentioned whose concurrence or consent ought to be obtained, or who ought to be served with notice, or in respect of whom an order dispensing with such service ought to be obtained in the case where such concurrence or consent has not been obtained and such service has not been made or dispensed with." And rule 24 of the Orders of 1878 under the Settled Estates Aot provides that " every order shall state, in addition to the names of the petitioners, the names of the persons other than the petitioners who concur or consent, or to whom notice of the application has been given, . . . and also the names of the persons, if any, notice to whom has been dispensed with." In the present oase an order had been made by the oourt upon a petition under the Settled Estates Aot approving of a contraot for the sale of part of a settled estate. In making this order the oourt had dispensed with the concurrence or oonsent of some persons entitled in remainder, subsequent to an estate tail wbioh was vested in an infant, but no notice was given to those persons, and neither the petition nor the order stated the names of those persons. The purohaser objected that these persons were not bound by the order for sale, and that, therefore, he would not obtain a good title to the property sold. A summons under the Vendor and Purohaser Act was taken out to determine the question. Hall, V.O, held that a good title could be made, and the Court of Appeal (jessel, M.R., and Cotton and Lindley, L.JJ.) affirmed his decision. On the appeal, it was urged that section 70 did not apply, beoause the order for sale was on the face of it a wrong order. Jessel, M.R., thought that the Vioe-Chanoellor's decision was quite right. He admitted that the original order was quite wrong. It was entirely opposed to the provisions of the Settled Estates Aot. The persons entitled in remainder onght to have been named in the petition and the order. The order was, therefore, wrong in form. But then came section 70 of the Conveyanoing Aot, and the exoeption in section 40 of the Aot of 1877 applied to this very oase. The only snggestion made was that section 70 did not apply when it could be seen on the face of tbe order that it was wrong Bat who was to see it P Tbe pnrohaser could not. It was true a learned lawyer might, and in this sense, bnt in no o'her, it appeared on the face of the order that it was wrong. To say that, beoause it might be found out by a person of skill and learning that the order on the face of it was wrong, section 70 did not apply, was simply to ask the oourt to repeal a very plain enactment, made for tbe proteotioD of a purchaser. Tbe purchaser was not bound to inquire, lie saw an order made by a oourt which might have had jurisdic.i u to make it, end he was not to suffer because the order was wronp. The olaims of the persons interested in the property were transferred to the purchase-money. Cotton, L.J., was of opinion that section 70 applied equally, whether it did or did not appear on the face of the order that it was wrong. Lindley, L. J., said that, so long as the order was made by the right court, seotion 70 was amply sufficient to care any snoh blander. The effeot of eeotion 70 was to give a statutory title to the purchaser when the order had been made by the right court.—Solicitors, Ramsden $ Austin; Freeman is Bothamley.

Landlord And TenantFashing) Lease—Reservation Of Mines And Minerals—Right Of Tenant To Sell Flints—Custom Of Country.— In a case of Tucker v. Linger, before the Court of Appeal on the 6th inst, a question arose as to the right of a tenant under an agreement for a farming lease to cell for his own profit flint stones, which he had ploughed up in the ordinary oourse of the cultivation of the land. The agreement contained stipulations by the tenant (the defendant) not to commit waste, and not to nse the land for other than agricultural purposes, and it reserved to the plaintiff, the landlord, all mines and minerals, sand, quarries of stone, brick earth, and gravel pits. The defendant contended that he had a right to remove and sell the flints under the custom of the county, and that he was not precluded from so doing by the terms of the agreement. Kay, J. (30 W. R. 425), decided in favour of the defendant, and the Conrt of Appeal (jessel, M.R., and Cotton and Lindley, L.JJ.) affirmed his decision. Jessel, M.R., said that the first question was whether a oustom had been proved to exist in the district. An agricultural custom need not have existed from time immemorial; it was sufficient if it was proved to have existed for a reasonable time. It depended not entirely on what the witnesses said the custom was, but on what they proved to have been publicly done in the district. On the evidence, his lordship thought it was proved that there was a custom for tenants of agricultural land to piok np the flints whioh were tnrned up in the ordinary oourse of husbandry, and to Fell them for their own profit, and he thought that suoh a custom was not unreasonable. It was proved that, if the flints were all left, tbey would prevent the growth of anything on the farm. All the witnesses agreed that the large flintB must be removed. It was not unreasonable that the tenant, who was compelled to remove the flints because they would be injurious to the land, should be able to sell them for his own profit. The court ought not to interfere with a well-established custom on the ground that it was unreasonable, without some very strong reasons for doing so. Farmers, like other people, knew their own business a great deal better than lawyers did. And, on the words of the agreement, his lordship came to the oonoluBion that there was not sufficient to exolude the oustom. The word "minerals " must be construed so as not to inolnde that whioh, according to the oustom of the country, the tenant was entitled to sell. Cotton, L.J., said that if the decision of the case had rested with him he should have felt very great difficulty in finding on the evidence that the alleged custom had been proved, and, if the oustom was nob proved, the word " minerals" in the agreement would include the flints. Lindley, L.J., agreed with IheMaBter of the Rolls that the custom was proved.—Solicitors, Mercer is Mercer; Morrisons.

AdministratorPower To Mortgage Intestate's Leaseholds For Repairs.—In a case of Ricketts v. Lewie, before Fry, J., on the 3rd inst., the question arose whether an administrator has power to mortgage leaseholds of the intestate in order to raise money for necessary repairs. The intestate died in 1833. In 1869 his administratrix (all his debts having been paid) mortgaged a leasehold farm, part of the property of the intestate, to her solicitor to secure £100. The mortgage deed (in which the mortgagor was described as administratrix) contained a recital that parts of the buildings of the farm had become dilapidated, and that the administratrix, as such, had no funds wherewith to repair and reinstate the same; and the deed purported to charge the £100 on the leasehold estate, as well as upon the beneficial interest of the administratrix therein. The lease under whioh the property was held had been granted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth for a term of 999 years, and it was not shown that it contained any covenant by the lessee to repair. Fry, J., held that the administratrix had no power to mortgage for the purpose of repairs, and that the mortgage was valid only to the extent of her own benefioial interest.—Solicitors, Field, Roecoe, £ Co.; I. H. Wrentmort.

SOLICITORS' CASES. High Court Of Justice.—Queen's Bkncj, Division. (Sittings in Sane before Grove, J., and Huddlbston, B.) April 5.—Ex parte Lewis. This was an application to the court, made at the suggestion of the Conrt of Appea<( to discbarge the writ of attachment granted agaiust Mr. E. D. Lewis, a solicitor (ante, p. 361), for a contempt in disobeying an order of the court to deliver up certain papers, documents, &c, which were necessary to the defeneo of a Mr. Maitland, a former client, who will shortly be tried for ■perjury at the Old Bailey.

c. Rutstll, Q.C., and Mwphy, Q.C., appeared in support of the application.

Lumley Smith, Q.C., and 0. Candy, appeared for Mr. Maitland.

Huddlbston, B.— Did the Court of Appoal direct us to entertain this application? I remember in a similar matter about a Mr. Owen, they consulted my biother Field and mystlf nith great courtesy as to the matter,

saying new and fresh matter had come before them. We preferred that they should deal with it, and they did so, and refused to disturb our decision.

Russell said there was no direction, only a suggestion to apply. This was an appeal to the merciful discretion of tbe court. The object of the order had been satisfied—the papers were given up the day the order was drawn up. Mr. Lewis had shown tbat, well or ill, he had acted on the advice of his counsel, Mr. Murphy, and two other members of the bar—a Ivice conscientiously given, and the soundness of which was not material. Thus acting on it he oould not be said to be contumacious. Mr. Maitland, who applied for the writ, said he was satisfied that all the documents he prayed for had been delivered up. It was quite sufficient penalty for Mr. Lewis to have to pay the serious costs already incurred, and the more serious penalty of the reflectijns cast on him by the bench. He thought the dignity of the court did not reqnire that Mr. Lewis should go to gaol.

Murphy said he did not wish to add anything to this, and

A. L. Smith said his olient quite oonourred in the application; he had got all the doonments he required, and had no personal feeling of animosity against Mr. Lewis.

Grotb, J.—To my mind this is a very serious matter indeed. As it now stands it is by no means free from doubt and difficulty. Mr. Lewis has been twice before the court—first, when the court made the order for the delivery of the papers, and again, on the motion for an attachment. But for one matter I oould not aocept the explanation now offered; and the Court of Appeal oould, if tbey liked, deal with the matter in their discretion. This matter is, that when Mr. Lewis handed over the doonments to Mr. ■ Maitland'a solicitor he was aoticg under the advice of counsel of eminence, and this weighs much with me, though the advioe was not judicious, to say the least of it. When Mr. Murphy said "his olient may have been ill advised" I did not know he was alluding to himself. He urged we had not made our order sufficiently specific; that is usually done by the offioer of the court. But any one must have known that its Boope and purport was to deliver np all doonments whioh Mr. Lewis had acquired whioh were essential to Mr. Maitland's defence, to enable the new solicitor to go on with the case, not to get possession of any property of Mr. Maitland's. And this is tolerably evident from Mr. Lewis's affidavit. I cannot help thinking if he had aoted candidly and honestly he wonld have given up all the doonments, and not construed "belonging to" au pied de la lettre in strictness, as exoluding any papers whioh he might have acquired qua solioitor by paying for them. This order was not a final one, merely to operate dnriog the trial, following the preoedent of Lord Cottenham. If the thing had been thought of it would have been specified. Mr. Lewis's lien was not destroyed, it was only superseded, and still oontinued. I still think if Mr. Lewis had behaved properly be would have delivered up the papers without demur, without " special pleading " to our order and cavilling at it. A contempt was, therefore, shown, and though Mr. Lewis was advised by three learned counsel, I dissent from the advice they gave. I should be sorry if it went forth to the world that a man could commit a contempt and then appeal until he was beaten and imprisoned, and then at the last moment explain and upset the judgment, and that after the court had been set at practical defiance, the sole penalty to be borne being to have to pay the costs of a properly brought motion. But for ibat matter I think the writ ought to have proceeded. I do not say tbe Court of Appeal indicated to us what course we ought to adopt. I think it was simply an act of courtesy on their part. It is a fact, also, that the documents were handed over on the day of the order, and tbat it was said that they were in court ready to be banded over. Though I have a very great deal of doubt, I think we may comply with the motion, and that tbe writ may drop. Bat it was a very grave contempt. Now, it seems that Mr. Lewis has submitted to tbe court, and he will have to pay all the costs. We do not act from vengeance or any personal feeling ; but the court has to see that the law is obeyed by force if required. If their orders are laughed at and eet at defiance, the sooner they cease to sit the better. I do this with much doubt and hesitation; but I do not wish to appear, nor, I hope, does any judge on the bench, to act from any personal feeling.

Huddlbston, B., concurred. The rule for an attachment would be discharged, Mr. Lewis paying all the costs both in that court, and in the Court of Appeal.

Ruetell asked that a writ of supersedeas might be granted to tbe sheriff, and the court granted it.—Times.



Mr. Sydney John Mitchell, solicitor, of Birmingham and Solihull, was killed near Solihull on tbe 22nd ult. He was witnessing some experiments in blowing up with gunpowder the roots of some trees whioh had been blown down during last autumn, when a sudden explosion took place, and he was struck on the head with a large piece of timber, and died almost immediately. Mr. Mitchell was the son of the late Mr. John Mitchell, of Birmingham (the well-known steel pen manufacturer), and was born in 1829. He was admitted a solicitor in 1851, and he had an extensive practice at Birmingham and SoliLull. His son, Mr. Sydney Mitchell, who was admitted a solicitor in 1880, was associated in partnership with him. Mr. Mitchell had been for several years principal Conservative registration agent for North Warwickshire. He was also registrar of the Solihull County Court (Circuit No. 22) and clerk to the oounty magistrates at Solihull. He leaves a widow and six children. He was) buried at Solihull on the 27th nit.


Mr. Richard Howse, solicitor (of the firm of Howse & Percival), of Northampton and Towcester, died at the former place on the 26th nit. Mr. Howse was bora in 1831. He wai admitted a solicitor in 1853, and he practised at Northampton and Towcester in partnership with Mr. Thomas Mieres Percival. He was a perpetual commissioner for Northamptonshire, and he had a very extensive private practice. He also held several public appointments at Towcester, being olerk to the Towcester Highway Board, to the county magistrates. Mr. Howse took an active part in municipal affairs at Northampton. He had been for many years a member of the t)wn council, and he was a feoffee of St. Giles's parish, a trustee of the General Charities, and a governor of the infirmary. He was a strong Conservative, and he took an aotive part against Mr. Bradlaugh in the recent election. It has been stated that Mr. Howse's death was caused by injuries inflicted by an eleotion mob, but this has been contradicted. The deceased leaves a widow, but no family. He was buried at Farnborough, Hampshire, on the 30th nit.


Mr. Osborne Dauncey, solioitor (the head of the firm of Dauncey, Turner, & Chanter), of Wotton-under-Edge, died on the 5th inst., after a long illness. Mr. Dauncey was bora in 1826. He wai educated at the Blue Coat School at Gloucester. He was admitted a solicitor in 1861, and he had sinoe practised at Wotton-under-Edge, where, mainly by his own exertions, he had acquired a very extensive and lucrative praotice. Mr. Arthur Henry Turner and Mr. Arthur Henry Chanter had been for some time associated in partnership with him. He was a perpetual commissioner for Gloucestershire, and he had been for several years olerk to the magistrates at Wotton-under-Edge. He was for three years mayor of the borough of Wotton, and he had also been ohurchwarden of the parish. Mr. Dauncey leaves a widow, but no family.


LAW ASSOCIATION. At the usual monthly meeting of the directors, held at the hall of the Incorporated Law Sooiety, Chanoery-lane, on the 6th inst,, the following being present—viz., Mr. Desborongh (chairman), and Messrs. Boodle, ColTisaoD, Desborough, jun., Soadding, and A. B. Carpenter (secretary)—a grant of £15 was made to the daughter of a deceased inembar, two new members were eleoted, and the ordinary general business was transacted.

Mr. Bobert Ellison- Burrows, solioitor (of the firm of Ellison, Burrows, & Freeman), of Cambridge, Royston, and Haverhill, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Cambridgeshire and Suffolk for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women.

Mr. Robert John Crosthwaite, barrister, has been appointed to officiate as Judicial Commissioner for the Central Provinces of India. Mr. Crostbwaite was educated at Merchant Taylors' School, and he was formerly scholar of Brasenose College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple n Trinity Term, 1868, and he is a member of the Bengal Civil Servioe.

Mr. James O'kinealy, barrister, has been appointed to act as a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. Mr. O'Kinealy was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1873.

Mr. Jons Gorrie, Chief Justice of Fiji, has received the honour of Knighthood. Sir John Goirie was born in 1830. He was admitted a member of the Faoulty of Advocates in Scotland in 1846, and he became an advocate depute in 1869. In the following year he was appointed Advocate-General for Mauritius, and he was a puisne judge in that colony from 1870 till 1876, when he was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the colony of Fiji.

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. George Francis Huggins and Edward Mallard, Birmingham, solicitors. March 31, The business will be henceforth carried on by the said Edward Mallard alone. [ Qasetti, April 7.]


Mr. William Cockerell, barrister, has been appointed Recorder of the Borough of Sudbury, in succession to the late Mr. Thomas Hacke Naylor. Mr. Cockerell was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1865. He is a member of the South-Eastern Circuit, practising locally at Cambridge.

Mr. Alfred Ewes, solicitor (of the firm of En en & Roberts), of Luton, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. Duncan Mackenzie, solicitor (of the firm of Sladen & Mackenzie), of 1,. Delahay-street, Westminster, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Married Women for the County of Middlesex and the Cities of London and Westminster.

Mr. Arthur Phillips, barrister, of Calcutta, has been appointed to officiate as Advocate-General of Bengal. Mr. Phillips was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Hilary Term, 1867.

, Mr. William Mustard, solicitor, of 7, Furnival's-inn, and of Manningtree and Mistley, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. William Bonnerjee, barrister, of Calcutta, has been appointed to act as Standing Counsel to the Bengal Government. Mr. Bonnerjee was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1867.

Mr. George William Jennings, solicitor, of Bishop Auckland, has been appointed Clerk to the Magistrates at that place, in succession to his partner, the late Mr. Richard Bowser.

Mr. Peter Gellatly, solioitor (of the firm of Gellatly, Son, & W&rton), of 2, Lombard-court, Gracechurch-street, has been appointed a Magistrate for the County of Essex. Mr. Gellatly was admitted a solicitor in 1856.

Mr. Sydney Mitchell, solicitor, of Birmingham and Solihull, has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at Solihull, in succession to his father, the late Mr. Sydney John Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell, junior, was admitted a solicitor in 1881.

Mr. Henry Belk, solicitor, of Hartlepool, has been elected Town Clerk of that borough on the resignation of Mr. Thomas Belk. Mr. H. Belk was ad' mitted a solicitor in 1878.

Mr. Frederick Langworthy, solicitor, of Modbury, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Devonshire for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women.


WINDING-UP NOTICES. Joint Stock Companies. Limited iir Chanceby. Aston Hail Coal And Beicx Company, Limited.—Ohitty, J., has fixed Apr 18 at 11,

at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator City Op London Pbinting And Stationbby Compact, Limited.—Hall, V.C., has fixed

Apr 18 at 1, at his chambers for the appointment of an official liquidator Chebambadi (wynaad) Dibtbici Gold Mining Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Apr 1, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., ou Apr 22. Richardson, Broad st bldgs, solicitor for the petitioners Countesthobpb Bbick Ahd Tilb Compin"y, Limited.—Creditors are required, on or before May 6, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or olftims, to John Thornton, 19, Conk st, Leicester. Ma; 19 at 11 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims Hensman And Co., Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Mar 20, directed to be hoard before Hall, V.C., on Apr 21. Eardley and Co, Charles st, St James'sq, solicitors for the petitioners House Sahiiaby Appliances And Inspection Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Apr 5, directed to be heard before Hall, V.O., on Apr 21. Patey and Warren, London wall, solicitors for the petitioners


by an order dated Mar 21, appointed Edward Llewellyn Ernest, Queen street place, Cannon st, to be official liquidator Nobth Wales Fbbbhold Coppbb Mines And Smelting Company, Limited.—By an order made by Fry, J., dated Mar 31, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Wynne and Son, Chancery lane, agents for Brabner and Court, Liverpool, solicitors for the petitioners

New Penhose Tin And Coppeb Mine Company, Limited.—By an order mode by Hall, V.C. dated Mar 31, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Campbell and Co, Warwick st. Regent st, solicitors for the petitioner

Standabd Cbbdit Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Apr 6, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Apr 21. Morgan, Coleman st, petitioner

Whitwobth Pabk Gband 8tand Company, Limitbd.—Creditors aro required, on or before May 1 to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims to Benjamin Smyrke, of Sunderland. May 10 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

[Gazette, April. 7.]

Capital Fibb Inbubancb Association, Limited.—Petition for winding up presented Apr 1, directed to be heard before Fry, J., on Apr 21. Brandon, Essex st. Strand, solicitor for the petitioner

Glbnboy Lead Mining Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up presented Apr 3 directed to be heard before Hall, V.C, on Apr 21. Jackson, Gracechurch st, agent for Scholey and Co, Wakefield, solicitors for the petitioners

Peel Pabk Beewaby Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up presented Apr S, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C, on Apr 21. Sykes, Old Broad st, agent for Watson and Dickons, Bradford, solicitors for the petitioner

Whitehaven Ibon Mikes, Limitbd.—By an order made by Bacon, V.C, dated Apr 1, it was ordered that the mines be wound up. Jackson, Gracechurch st, agent for Jackson, Malton, York, solicitor for the petitioner

Wood And Itbby, Limitbd.—By an order mado by Bacon, V.C, dated Apr 1, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up be continued. Tucker and Lake. Serle st, Lincoln's inn, agents for Wragge and Co, Birmingham, solicitors for the petitioners

[Gazette, Apr. 11.]


Mutual Aid Permanent Benefit Building Society.—Creditors are required, on or before May 12, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Frederick William Linley, 12, Broad st, Bristol. June 6 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

[Gazette, Apr. 7.]

Friendly Societies Dissolved. Bihall School Fbikndly Society Fob Males, School Room, Exhall, Warwick. Apr 4

Fbiendly Society Op Witchampton, Chalbuey, Hinion Mabtbl, Hinton Pabva, Long And Mobb Cbichel, Tabxaht Rushion, And Oihee Pabishbs, Witchampton, Dorset. Apr 3

Tentebdbn £10 Bubial Society, Working Men's Club, Jackson's lane, Tenterden, Kent. Apr 3

[Gazette, Apr. 7.]

Alfbeton Peohmni SocrETY Iob Mutual Self Aid, Red Lion Inn, Alfreton, Derby. Apr 8

Duke Of Yobk Dibtbici Bubial Fbibndlx Society, 198, Brownlow hill, Liverpool. Apr 6

Ozfobd Fbibndly Institction, 29, Pembroke st, Oxford. Apr 8

Royal Standabd Benefit Society, Greyhound Inn, Chalfont St Peter's, Bucks. Apr 5.

XJjtuiD Bbnehi Society, Plough Inn, Tring, Hertford. Apr 5



Objjeb Of Couet.

Saturday, April 8, 1882. Where**, from the present state of tfae business before Mr. Justice Kay and Mr. Justice Chitty, it is expedient that a portion of the causes assigned to Mr. Jastice Chitty should for the purpose only of trial or hearing be transferred to Mr. Justice Kay; Nov I, the Right Honourable Roundeil Baron Selborne, Lord High Chancellor of Great BritaiD, do hereby order tbat the several causes set forth in the schedule hereto be accordingly transferred from the said Mr. Jastice Cbitty to Mr. Jastice Kay, for the purpose only of (rial or hearing, and be marked in the cause-books accordingly. And this order is to be drawn np by the registrar and set up in the several offices of the Obanoery Division of the High Court of Justice.


Evorshed v Bvershed 1881 E 717 Harwood v Wbincup 1881 H 1,503 London and Provincial Traders' Wholesale Stores (Limited) v City Syndicate (Limited) 1881 L IS Austin v Bird 1880 A 670 Lloyd's Banking Company v Mac

alister 1881 L 3,050 Sutton v. Sutton 1880 S 3,047 Beedham v Simpson 1877 B 552 Lock v Olive 1880 L 0,195 Norwich and Norfolk, &c, Building Society v Martinson 1880 N 0,379 Piller v Roberts 1880 P 1,699 Piller v Roberts 1881 P 196 Pitman v Buckler 1881 P 908 Ross v Roes 1881 R 2,414 Ward v Ward 1881 W 4,367 Temporance Permanent, &c, Building Society v Banks 1881 T 2,610 The Mutual Society v Torkington

1881 M 1,324 Cox v Riley 1881 C 210 Stanford v Horsham Local Board

1881 S 3,751 King v Smith 1881 K 494 AVarren T Craik 1881 W 4,105 Thornton v Stone 1881 T 1,873 Wood v Smith 1881 W 4,487 Goodall v Hutchings 1881 O 2,881 Standing v Wolmershausen 1881 S 142

Cropper v Smith 1881 C 2,207
Martinson v Clowes 1880 M 0,649
Lakeman v Lose 1882 L 201
Harvey v Harvey 1881 H 5,121
Watson v Holliday 1881 W 1,439
Farwig v Macey & Co 1881 F 1,843
Sainsbury v Steeds 1881 S 1,016
Blakeley v Luke 1881 B 3,911
Plaxton v Plaxton 1881 P 1,450
Lane v Norman 1881 L 21
Cairnes v Whittle 1881 C 5,871
Beresford v Batthyany 1882 B 351
Dovener v Proctor 1881 D 1,862
North British Ry Co v Charlton 1881

C 1,878
Baker v Greayson 1882 B 473

De Zuccato v Fairholme 1881 D 1,061

Bettyes v Maynard 1880 B 0,516 Pierce v Entwisle 1881 P 1,025 Bateman v Browne 1881 B 3,032 Rust v Victoria Graving Dock Co

1881 R 206 Heiron v Foster 1881 H 1,035 Billyard v Swan 1881 B 6.410 Simpson v Sidebottom 1881 S 1,126 Clarke v. Yorke 1881 C 1,524 Pledger v Seabrook 1881 P 2,612 Oldbury Looal Board of Health v

Baker 1880 O 424 Charlton v North British Ry Co 1881

C 5,801

Central Bank of London, Limited v

Jackson 1881 C 937 Johnston v Liverpool Marine Credit

Co, Limited 1881 J 603 Hodgson v Mawer 1881 H 5,203 In re Smedley Chesterfield, &c, Bkg CovSmedley 1881 8 5,626

Vaughan, Brothers, 617

Shipman v


Newham v Boast

[ocr errors]

Leylsnd & Co v
&Co 188 L
In re Newham
1881 N 811
In re Newham

1881 N 1,076
Jenkins v Edwards 1881 J
Edwards v Jenkins 1881 B
Goldthorpe v Gilbraith 1881 G 1,725
Buxton v Sowter 1880 B 4,007
Wandsworth Board of Works v Stiff

1882 B 6,856

Punchard v Jones 1881 P 2,254 Tibbs v Blaiberg 1881 T 1,859 Anderson v Liebeg's Extract of Meat

Co 1881 A 1,673 Graham v Robson 1880 H 3,847 Dunball v Broad St, &e, Workshop

Co, Limited 1881 D 1,587 Foster v Addy 1881 F 1,279 Heatley v Junior Army and Navy

Stores, Limited 1882 H 84 Vaoderlinden v Lange 1880 V 334 Selborne, C.


CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. J3ceri.iT, Jeremiah, Salford, Lancaster, Millwright. April 28. Walker v Rowlands,

Chitty, J. Newton,'Stockport Chebteb, William, Swinnerton, Stafford, Brewer. April 28. Taylor v Chester, Chitty,

J. Slaney, Newcastlo-under-Lyme Cool, Rev Willi.ah, Wimbledon. April 28. Cook v Cook, Chitty, J. Copp, Essex st,


Ives, Hannah, Shipley, near Bradford. April Zi. Roebuck v Rhodes, Bacon V.C. Morgan, Shipley

Jokes, John, New Kent rd, Draper. April 24. Jones v Searle, Bacon, V.C. Fraser, Furniral's inn

Render, John, Sutton Coldflold, Warwick, House and Estate Agent. April 29. Render

v Stanley, Hall, V.C. Bickley, Birmingham Martin, Samuel, York, Farmer. April 29. Howarth v Smith, Chitty, J. Tattorshall,

Gt James st, Bedford row Owens, Owen, Cofully, Radnor, Farmor. April 24. Jones v Owons, Chitty, J. Cheese,

Chancery lane

Smith, Cnmis Abthub, Willesden. April 80. Smith v Manning, Hall, V.C. Davie, New inn. Strand

Tsuman, Jams, Netherton, Worcester, Boot Manufacturer. April 28. Dawbarn v Truman, Chitty, J. Smart, Kinsbury pavement

sK'cM*. Tl&M&J****' DorB9t' ^ AptU * Wo0<i V

Wboath, Dioobt, Truro, Cornwall. Gent. April 24. Ripper v Clark, Bacon, V.C

Cock, Truro

YQasettt, Mar. 31.]

Baowir, Thomas, Embleton, Durham, Farmer. May 12. Brown v Brown, Hall, V.C. Lawson, Sunderland

Douiidle, Thomas, Leather lane, Holborn, Gentleman. Apr 10. Doubble v Doubble,

Bacon, V.C. Metcalfe, Furnival's inn, Holborn Evans, Mary, Carmarthen. May 2. Ferrior v Evans, Chitty, J. Erans, Cardigan Gorr, Robert, The Albany, Piccadilly, Captain 16th Regiment of Lancers. Apr 30.

Goff v Dickson, Fry, J. Perkins, Gray's inn sq Jones Evans, Lampeter, Cardigan. Apr 28. Jenkins v Lloyd, Bacon, V.C. Lloyd,


{.Gazette, April 4.]

Alfobd, John Griffiths, Thorne, Birley, Hereford, Esq. May 8. Hunt v Parry, Fry,

J. Sale, Leominster

Bains, William, Haselmere, Surrey, Timber Merchant. May 5. Bams v Chandler,

Chitty, J. Mellersh, Godalming Bateman, Benjamin, White Lion ct, CornhiU, Merchant. May 15. Hlins V Bateman,

Hall, V.C. Hollams and Co, Mincing lane Corns, Thomas, Draycott, Derby, Farmer. May IS. Gregory v Olderahaw, Hall, V.C.

Abney, Derby

Cockebton, Jonas, Austin friars, Gent. May 15. Cockerton v Baker, Hall, V.C.

Pilgrim and Phillips, Coleman st Daniels, Mary Anns, Harwich, Essex, Miller. May 23, Alexander v Constable, Hall,

V.C. Elwes, Colchester Fbabnlby, Fairfax, Hooton Pagnell Hall, York, Esq. May 15. Fearnley v Feamley,

Hall, V.C. Nettleship, John st, Bedford row Fbabnley.maby Ann, Hooton Pagnell Hall, York. May 15. Fearnley v Feamley,

Hall, V.C. Bannister and Fache, John st, Bedford row Fellows, Susannah, Cradley Heath, Rowley Regis. April |20. Attwood V Bloomer,

District Registrar, Dudley. Homfray and Holbertson, Brierley Hill Firth, Mabia Jake, New Bond st. Superintendent of the Association of Nurses. May

6. Moorhouse v Sprigg, Chitty, J. Ingle, Threadneedle st Gilbert, Eliza Susanna, Hilldrop crescent, Holloway. May 2. Gilbert v Hudleston,

Hall, V.C. Room, Bouverie st, Fleet st Head, Henry Thomas, Black friars rd, Surgical Instrument Maker. May 3. Hogg v

Head, Hall, V.C. Todd and Dennes, Chancery lane Humbbb, William, Portland villas, Brixton hill, Civil Engineer. May 1. Humber v

Humber, Bacon, V.C. Bra and, Furnival's inn Moats, Septimus Richard, Little Wcstwood, Hereford, Gent. May 5. Moate v Cooke,

Hall, V.C. Cobb, Lincoln's inn fields Pallisbb, Sir William, Knt., C.B., M.P., Earl's Court sq, South Kensington. May

8. Palliser v Palliser, Chitty, J. Woodroffc, Lincoln's inn fields Riso, Gsoegb, Kendal, Westmorland, Retired Weaver. May 8. Hoaksey V Atkinson

Bacon, V.C. Dobson, Kendal Thompson, Sabah, Birmingham. May 2. Clarke v Cooper, Bacon, V.C. Turner and

Son, Carey st, Lincoln's inn fields Tudob, Frederic Charles, Raymond bldgs, Oray's inn, Solicitor. May 5. Tudor V

Tudor, Bacon, V.C. Calcott, Lincoln's inn fields Wadslby, Sabah Jane, Billinghay Dales, Lincoln. May 1. Auckland v Wadsley.

Hall, V.C. Hebb, Lincoln Wightman, Jambs, Pontefract, York, Gent. May 1. Midgley v Hall, Fry, J. Coleman,


Wilkins, Ebnbst Powell, Newport, Isle of Wight, Doctor ot Medicine. May 6. Wilkins v Mew, Bacon, V.C. Jarvis, Chancery lane




Coofib, Hrnby, Liverpool, Edge Tool Maker. May 1. Smith and Son, Liverpool
Ellis, Mart Ann, Plymouth. June 24. Booker and Co, Plymouth
Few Wick, Caroline, Great Malvern, Worcester. Apr 30. western ai
Fox, George, Plymouth, Gent. May 20. Fox, Plymouth
Fbeab, Paul, East Bridgford, Nottingham, Farmer. May 27. Pratt and Hodgkinsons,

Gilbbbt, Jane Daniel, Mutley, Devon. Apr 20. Graves, Devonport
Gregory, Matilda, Upton, Nottingham. May 13. Newbald and Falkner, Newark
Griffith, Ann, Tillington Court, Hereford. Apr 29. Swayne, Glastonbury
Habliss, James, Coningsby, Lincoln, Gent. May 18. Clitherow and Elsey, Horacastle
Hindlet, John, Sutton Coldflold, Warwick, Farmer. Apr 8. Holbecho and Adden-

brooke, Sutton Coldfleld Howaed, Emma, Norwood, Surrey. Apr 29. Paines and Co, Grosham House, E.C. Howard. Mabt Ann, Norwood. Apr 29. Paines and Co, Grosham House Ibbland, John, Birmingham. Apr 5. Beaton and Adcock, Birmingham Jacison, John, Milner Bt, Chelsea, Licensed Victualler. May 25. Holland, Knightrider

st, Doctors' commons Jones, Maria, Waterloo, Lancaster. May 16. Sale and Co, Manchester Jones, Robbbt, Leytonstone, Gardener. Apr 26. Lewis, Llanbedr, Merioneth Klein, Sophia Christina, Upper Lisson st, Marylebone, Baker. Apr 20. Chappell,

Molyneux st, Edgwaro rd Laycocx, William, Withington, Lancaster, Yam Merchant. Apr 29. Doyle, Manchester

Mills, Maria, Russell sq. May 8. Poole and Co, Chancerv lane
Murray, Auousta Eliza Anna, Bloxham, Oxford. Apr 22. Still and Son, Lincoln's inn
Mubbay, Geoeob St. Vinoeni Thomas Nblson, Shrivenham, Berks. May 17. Murray,

Owbn, Sir Hush, Hornsey lane, Knight. May 6. Lewis and Co, Queen Victoria st
Povah, Rer. John Vioden, Dawson pi, Bayswater. Apr 30. Prideaux, Goldsmiths'


Powbll, Chabloiti, Gelligaer, Glamorgan. Apr 22. Lewis and Jones, Morthyr Tydfil
Price, Maby Eliza, Cheltenham. June 1. Bubb and Co, Cheltenham
Prothero, Sophia Cecilia, Westbourae park. Apr 29. Macdonald


Raishley, William Chablbs Pbeby, South Wellington rd, Hounslow, Esq. May 3.

Harvey and Co, Chancery lane
Robson, Mubbay Ann Mclbod, Addison rd, Kensington. May 1. Robinson and

Hilder,Jermyn st
Ryder, Elizabbeh, Shrewsbury. May 1. Hirst, Shrewsbury

Say, Henry Hibsi, Braughiug, Hertford, Major. May 9. Booty and Bayliffe, Gray's


Spooneb, William Mathias, Strand, Print Seller. May 1. Lewin and Co, Southampton

st, Strand

Scthebland, Annie, Upper Norwood. May 1. Grane and Son, Bedford row Twynam, Maby, Portswood, Southampton. May 1. Twynam, Blandford sq Woodward, Chablbs Elliott, Halifax, Railway Clerk. May 1. Stansfeld, Halifax

[Gazette, Mar. 28.1

AirsiLL, Ohables, Brighton, Esq., J.P., D.L., F.R.S. May 1. Griffith and Eggar,


Baker, Francis Bbacxstonb, Belghton, Dorby, Surveyor of Taxes. May 15. Rodgora

and Co, Sheffield

Bishopp, Jambs, Boughton Aluph, Kent, Farmer. May 8. Hallett and Co, Ashford Bowbbs, Geoeob, Stratford pi, Camden Town, Gent. May 20. Sawbridge, Milk st<


Breach, John, Aston Upthorpe, Berks, Surgeon. May 7. Jones, Hart st, Bloomsbury square

Bbown, Eowabb, Holdomess, York, Yeoman, Mayi, Kldridge and Stophonson, Hul

« PreviousContinue »