Page images

A portion of it should perhaps only raise a smile on the faces of men means, and that, apart from the question how far the wife was restricted of business at the iguorance displayed, for all the world in the columns by the terms of the separation deed to an allowance of £250 per annum, of the Times, but another part will raise other emotions.

the inquiry, if carried out, must result in a much larger allowance to her First, as to the ignorance displayed. The writer sagely remarks that than £250 per annum. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and CoTTON when he renewed a long lease he was required to insure the house. Of

and LINDLEY, L.JJ.), held that the wife was not entitled to any course he was. Every lessee is required to do so, unless the lessor prefers

allowance beyond the $250, JESSEL, M.R., said that the question was to insure himself, and to charge the premium paid as rent. The

at once novel and of great importance. The separation deed was executed

after the husband had committed adultery with the knowledge of the wife, reasons for the requirement are too obvious for me to waste words in

and, in fact, had its whole origin in that adultery, At a subsequent period, stating them.

the husband renewed his illicit intercourse with the woman with whom he had Then-increasing in wisdom-he goes on to say that the obligation on

before the separation deed committed adultery with the wife's knowledge, and him to insure “was doubly unnecessary on account of the length of the thə wife thereupon instituted the suit, and obtained the deoree for judicial lease, and the self-insuring multitude of the landlord's houses.” Why, separation. She also in that suit claimed the right to the custody of the two Sir, this is absolute nonsense. The chances that a house may be burnt youngest children and succeeded in obtaining a direction to that effect. Con, down during a long term must be greater than that it will be burnt sidering that the two youngest children were girls, and that the mother had down during a short term, and how can a multitude of houses be self not been to blame, it would have been impossible to have interfered to prevent insuring!!

her from bringing the suit. The husband, however, still remained liable under Now, as to the part of the matter which is not laughable--the writer

the deed for the maintenance of the two youngest children and for the allowsays that a certain office was prescribed in the lease, and proceeds to

ance to the wife. In the meantime he had obtained an accession of fortune give as the reason for its being prescribed, “of course, because the land.

which seemed to have been an additional inducement for the wife's application

for permanent alimony. This application was granted by the Presideat in lord's solicitor had been bribed to put it in '--the context showing that

substance, for he held that she was entitled to apply for and obtain a larger he means bribed by the receipt of a commission from the insurance

sum than £250 per annum as alimony. The question was whether, in so office. Did the writer never hear that somo insurance offices are at least holding, he had rightly exercised his discretion. Now, the contract contained gupposed to be sounder or more liberal in their treatment of claims in the separation deed could not be affected by the adultery of the husband or than others, and could he not suppose it at least possible that a given wife. The husband would remain liable to pay the allowance under his office was preferred by the landlord or the solicitor on one or other of covenant whether be committed adultery or not. In cases of judicial separathese grounds; or "would he be surprised to hear” that landlords are tion the Legislature had not thought fit to give the same power to the court to themselves sometimes directors of insurance offices, and do all they can deal with settlements as in the case of dissolution of marriage. There the to secure business to such offices; or-but why should I state, as I courtwas empowered to vary not only post-nuptial but also ante-nuptial settlemight, twenty other reasons (none of them having anything to do with ments, but in the case of a judicial separation only there was no such power. the solicitor) why an office should be prescribed ?

It was impossible, therefore, for the court to take upon itself to allot such No; according to this writer, it must necessarily be the ever-wicked

alimony as might be just, as if it thought that a lees amount than what was pro

vided by the deed would be just, it could not reduce the amount, there being solicitor who has done the deed, and from the basest motives ; and this

no power to set aside the deed. The court could not, therefore, interfere, ugcalumny on the honourable profession to which I am proud to belong is

legs one of the party had so acted as to disentitle himself, or herself, from put forth without stating a particle of proof of its truth. This Irelying on the contract. The exeroise of this discretion had been rested on denounce as a shameful act, and it has stirred me to write this the ground of public policy; but this was a very dangerous principle on which letter.

to proceed. Then it was said that if the wife was not allowed to apply for I should perhaps add that Sir Edmund Beckett is a stranger to me, increased maintenance, it would be allowing the husband to commit adultery and that I have no suspicion even who the solicitor mentioned in his with impunity. But non-payment of money was not freedom from punishletter may be.

G. F. KING. ment. The husband and wife in this case were living separate, and it was ia. 66, Cannon-street, E.C., April 11.

possible to say that by his committing an act which did not affect her directly she had become entitled to receive a larger bum than by the separation deed was covenanted to be allowed to her. It might be said that the

subsequent adultery of the husband rendered a return to cohabitation less A PRINTER'S PROTEST.

probable, but persons who executed a separation deed were not presumed or [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

supposed to be likely to return to cohabitation. It appeared to his lordship, Sir, In your Cases of the Week, p. 371, In re Myer's Patent, the

therefore, that there bad not been misconduct on the part of the husband of such Master of the Rolls, referring to Mr. Wilson's book on the Judicature | deed. Cotton, L.J., and LINDLEY, L.J., conourred.- SOLICITORS, Gregory,

a nature as to entitle the wife to set aside the provisions of the separation Acts, is reported to say, "The full stop is not in the Act, it must have Rowcliffes, & Co.; W. & A. Ranken Ford. been inserted by the printer," I am not the printer of Mr. Wilson's book, but, as a mild protest on behalf of a too-frequently found.faultwith fraternity, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that in a Queen's Printers' copy of the Act, now before me, lines 5 and 6 of p. 114 are as DISCRETION OF JUDGE-APPEAL-ORD, 36, RR. 3, 26.-In a case of Hunt v.

MODE OF TRIAL-RIGHT OF DEFENDANT TO JURY-CHANCERY Actionfollows—"Add to Indorsement :- And for an injunction,"—with a full Chambers, before the Court of Appeal on the 19th inst., a question arose as stop.

H. W. B. to the right of a defendant to have an action tried before a judge and jury. April 15.

The action was brought by a landlord against the executors (who were also devisees of real estate) of a deceased tenant of a faro, to recover some rent, and also claiming damages for the alleged improper coltivation of the

farm. The plaintiff claimed payment by the defendants of what should be CASES OF THE WEEK.

found due to him, and that, in case the defendants should not admit assets of

the testator, bis real and personal estate might be administered. The action HUSBAND AND WIFE-JUDICIAL SEPARATION - PRIOR SEPARATION DEED

purported to be brought by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other ALIMONY-JURISDICTION OF Court,-In a case of Gandy V. Gandy, before

the creditors of the testator. The defendants afterwards paid the amount of the Court of Appeal on the 18th inst., a question arogo as to the jurisdio.

the rent claimed into court, and admitted aseets of the testator to answer the tion of the Divorce Division to order alimony to be paid to a wife who

rest of the plaintiff's demand. The plaintiff gave notice of trial by a judge had obtained a judicial separation from her husband in a case where &

without a jury; the defendants gave notice that they desired to have the separation deed had been previously exeonted by which the husband bad

action tried by a judge and jury. Bacon, V.C., ordered that, notwithstanding

The defendants' notice, the trial should take place before himself without a covedanted to pay an annual allowance to the wife. The husband and wife liory, on the ground that the defendants had shown no sufficient reason why were married in 1854, and in 1879, differences having arisen, a separation I the action should be tried with a jury. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., deed wan executed by which the husband, after agreeing to pay all the and Cotton and LINDLEY, L.JJ.) reversed this decision. JESSEL, M.R., expenses of the maintenance and education of two younger daughters, I said that under the rules either party was entitled to have the action tried by covenanted to pay to the trustees for the benefit of the wife an allowance a iury, unless some reason to the contrary was shown, Rule 3 gave tho of £250 per annum, and the trustees entered in a covenant with the husband | defendant a right to a trial before a judge and jury, and role 26 said that, in tbat the wife would not at any time commence or prosecute any suit or apy cause which would formerly have been brought in the Court of Chancery, other proceeding for the purpose of compelling the husband to allow her the court might direct a trial without a jury of any question or issue of fact, any support, maintenance, or alimony except the above-mentioned £250 " it it shall appear desirable," which meant, if some reason was shown for per annam. On the 30th of Jaly, 1881, on the petition of the wife, a decree depriving the party of his right to a trial by jury. The next question was under for judicial separation on the ground of the husband's adultery was made what circumstances the Court of Appeal would interfero with the exercise of the by the Divorce Division. The wife subsequently applied for an order that discretion of the judge of first instance, It must be a plain and clear case. the husband's means should be ascertained by the registrar for the purpose As a general rule, the Court of Appeal could not interfere ; there must be of fixing the permanent alimony to which she woald be entitled. This some special reason for doing so. "His lordship was satisfied that in Ruston application was opposed by the husband, on the ground that the provisions v. Tobin (27 W. R. 588, L. Ř. 10 Ch. D. 558), the late Lord Justice James of the separation deed preoluded the allowance to the wife of any larger did not intend to say, as he was reported to have said, that in no case would amount than the $250 which he had covenanted to pay and had paid her the Court of Appeal interfere. That would have been incon

what by way of permanent maintenanoe. Hannen, P., was of opinion that, he had said in the previous case of Golding v. Wharton Salt Works (24 W. R. notwithstanding this deed, the court had power to allot alimony to the 423, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 374). Moreover, in Ruston v. Tobin he said that if the wife, and direoted that she should be at liberty to file the petition for judge were to say that he exeroised his discretion in a particular way because permanent alimony. It was admitted that the hosband had considerable he held a certain opinion on a matter of law, and the Court of Appeal con. sidered that he was wrong in that opinion, it wonld interfere. It appeared to estate to the debtors for such a sum as will, after payment of all costs and the Master of the Rolls tbat Bacon, V.C., had, in the present case, exercised expenses, pay a dividend or composition of 58. in the pound to the creditors his discretion in consequence of his opinion upon a point of law, in which on their respective debts, by two instalment3—viz., 28. 6d. in the pound opinion the Master of the Rolls thought be was wrong. He proceeded on the within seven days from the confirmation of this resolution by the court, and grouud that no reason bad been shown why the action should be tried by a 2s. 6d. in the pound twelve months after the date of the said confirmation jury, whereas under the rules it was for the party who said that there should such last-mentioned instalment of dividend or composition to be secured by not be a trial by jury to show a reason for it. The discretion of the judge bad bills of exchange or promissory notes of the debtors payable at the time been exercised on a ground not well founded in law, and, therefore, the rule aforesaid. that the Court of Appeal would not readily interfere with the judge's exercise To grant the debtors their discharge upon payment of the first-mentioned of his discretion did not apply. But his lordship was, by no means, prepared instalment or dividend, together with all costs and charges, including the to say that the mere fact that the judge had exercised his discretion, without costs of the trustee of and incidental to these proceedings ; also to release giving any reasons for it, would be a sufficient ground for the Court of Appeal the trustee, and to close the liquidation as and from the 24th day of Marcb, not to interfere. The present action must, therefore, be tried by a jury, and, 1882. that being so, the practice now was to transfer the action altogether to the The statement of affairs filed by the debtors returned debts amounting to Queen's Bench Division, when there was nothing remaining in the nature of £1,575, with assets £1,137, consisting of the equities of redemption of a chancery action. In the present case, the executors having admitted assets, property in mortgage. there was only a question of damages left to be tried. There were several Marshall (solicitor), in support of the application. reasons for this practice. It was more convenient to the solicitors, there were T. Lee Roberts, for opposing creditors.—The scheme is not for the benefit many points of practice in jury cases with which the common law masters of the creditors, but for the benefit of the debtors only. The assets are sbown were more in the habit of dealing than the chief clerks and registrars in the to be sufficient for payment of a dividend of 15%, in the pound, otherwise the Chancery Division, and the common law masters more familiar with statement of affairs is illusory to the knowledge of those who prepared it. the taxation of costs in such cases than the chancery taxing masters. The The court is to exercise a judicial discretion in these cases, and to decide action would, therefore, be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division, but it wbether the scheme is for the benefit of the creditors : Ex parte Merchant would be better to strike out the words on behalf of himself and the other | Banking Company, Re Durham (29 W. R. 363, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 623), which creditors," because, now that the executors bad admitted assets, the plain. ig upon all foors with the present case ; Ex parte Page, Re Page (24 W. R. tiff could only get judgment for payment of his own debt, and to preface 502, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 323). The opposing creditors ask that they may have an the order with a declaration that the defendants, having admitted a sets, opportunity of examining the debtors and the trustee. were personally liable to the plaintiff. Cotton, L.J., said that rule 3 | Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY said that, although the opposing creditors did not gave the party a right to bave the action tried by a jury, subject to the seem to have attended the meeting at which the resolutions were passed, still provisions of rule 26, which applied when the action would formerly bave been the balance-sheet and the resolutions themselves showed, prima facie, a state of properly instituted in the Court of Chancery. And, in order that the judge things which the creditors very naturally desired to bring to the knowledge of should exercise bis discretion to direct that the action should be tried without the court. The debtors, according to the accounts, were entitled to these a jory, some reason must be shown which rendered it so desirable that it equities, which appeared to be worth sufficient to produce 159. in should be tried in that way as to afford a ground for depriving the party of the pound, and the resolutions provided for the acceptance of a composition of the right otherwise given to him to have it tried with a jury. But the Court 28. 6d. in the pound payable within seven days, and 23. 60. in twelve months; of Appeal would be very slow to interfere with the exercise of the discretion and they also provided for the release of the trustee, and the close of the liquiof the judge, unless he had exercised his discretion on a wrong ground of law. dation. Having regard to the terms of the resolutions, he thought the opposing In the present case the Vice-Chancellor had no doubt exercised a discretion, creditors were entitled to hare an opportunity of examining the debtors and but not the discretion given to him by the rule. LINDLEY, L.J., said that the trustee, and he would adjourn the application for that purpose, the Vice-Chancellor had exercised his discretion on an erroneous view as to the Solicitors for the opposing creditors, J. Tickle. party upon whom the burden of proof lay. The defendants had, under rule 3, a right to a jury, unless it should appear desirable that the action should not be tried by a jury. This was an erroneous exercise of the judge's discretion which the Court of Appeal ought to review.-SOLICITORS, Monckton, Long, 4

SOLICITORS' CASES. Co. ; Rooks & Co.


(Before Hall, V.C.) CONTEMPT OF COURT-FRIENDLY SOCIETY-DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS IN April 18.-Little v. Kingswood and Parkhurst Colliery Company and Dyer. DEFIANCE OF INJUNCTION-COMMITMENT-PART REPAYMENT-RELEASE OF | In this action an application was made for an injunction to restrain the PRISONERS.-In the case of Avery v. Andrews, before Nortb, J., on the 18th |

18th employment by the defendants of a particular solicitor in an action by the inst., an application was made for the release of certain persons who had been nlaintiff against the defendants. The plaintiff's CARA was that he had employed committed to prison for contempt of court. It appeared that in October last

a Mr. Dyer as his solicitor in a former action against the company, in which

Me Dor as his solie the head office of the Order of Oddfellows brought an action against the trug. the compana set

the trus. the company set up a certain counter-claim. The result of this action was tees of their Redditch Lodge to restrain them from distributing a sum of

that, under Mr. Dyer's advice, the plaintiff accepted certain of the company's £2,000 amongst the members of the lodge, in contravention of the rules of the

debentures in discharge of bis claim against them. The plaintiff sa bsequenily society, and, by an arrangement between the parties to the action, an injunc.

ceased to employ Mr. Dyer as his solicitor, and afterwards brought a second tion was granted by the court. The defendants in the present action having

action against the company to enforce his debentures, in wbich action the been subsequently appointed new trustees to the lodge, together with one

company intended to set up the old counter-claim, and employed Mr, Mogg, an abettor, distributed the £2,000 in defiance of the injunction of the

Dyer as their solicitor. The plaintiff alleged that, in acting for him, Mr. court, and were, on February 10 last, ordered by Kay, J., sitting for Chitty,

Dyer bad acquired confidential information, the disclosure of which would J., to be committed to prison. It was now stated on behalf of the prisoners

seriously prejudice the plaintiff in bis action to enforce his debentures, and that a sum of £1,500 and a fund for costs had been subscribed by the mem.

he therefore claimed to be entitled to an injunction restraining the employ. bors of the lodge and the friends of the prisoners, in satisfaction of the sum

ment of Mr. Dyer, and the communication by him of any information of £2,000 and the costs incurred by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, however,

acquired by bim when acting for the plaintiff. It appeared that Mr. Dyer being in the position of trustees, were unwilling to support the application to

was not the regular solicitor of the company, although he had been employed release the prisoners unless the whole £2,000 was refunded. NORTH, J., said that

by them in that capacity, and that when the plaintiff originally employed the prisoners bad been sufficiently punished by an imprisonment of upwards of

him he purposely put to him the question whether he would bave any two months. To keep them in prison would be to "put the screw on " the

difficulty in acting for him, and received an assurance to the contrary. friends of the prisoners in the interests of the plaintiffs. His lordship then

W. Pearson, Q.O., and E. W. Byrne, appeared for the plaintiff ; made an order for the release of the prisoners upon payment to a deposit

Graham Hastings, Q.C., and E. Ford, for the defendants. account of £172 to meet costs taxed as butween party and party; and if the

HALL, V.O., after observing that cases of this kind were fortunately rare, costs, when taxed, shoald exceed £172, which bis lordsbip did not think

said that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief asked by him. Mr. Dyer, in was likely, upon the personal undertaking of the prisoners to pay the excese. — SOLICITORS, Ricons, for E. C. Browning, Redditch ; Worthington Evans.

accepting employment by the plaintiff, must have been aware that the communications which would be made to him were conâdential, and could not complain that by reason of his having accepted them he was shut out from being employed on some subsequent business by some other persons, as, for instance,

this company. Nor would the company bo prejudiced by being prevented CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS.

from employiog him, for the world was large enough, and there were enough (Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.)

solicitors in it ready and willing to accept retainers. With reference to the April 5.-Ex parte Cawley, Re Cawley.

argument which had been addressed to him, that the rule that a solicitor ought The statement of affairs filed by debtors in liquidation showed assets

to be restrained from acting for the adversary of his client was confined to the

case where the solicitor had discharged himself, and did not apply where he sufficient to pay a composition of 15s, in the pound, but at a meeting

had been discharged by the client, bis lordsbip thought that the principle was held under section 28 a statutory majority of the creditors passed

the broader one, that the solicitor should not act contrary to his duty, and that resolutions accepting 5s, in the pound.

it was essential to the interests of mankind that the jurisdiction should be Held, that, under the circumstances, dissenting creditors were entitled extended to a case such as the present. He therefore granted an injunction to examine the debtors and the trustee, and an application to confirm the in conformity with the application of the plaintiff,—Times. resolutions stood adjourned for that purpose.

This was an application by the trustee, under proceedings for liquidation by arrangement with creditors instituted by S. & R. Cawley, builders, to confirm the resolutions passed under section 28 in the following terms:

Mr. R. 8. Mitford, late private secretary to Sir William Harcourt, has That the trustee be, and is hereby, authorized to sell and re-convey the

been appointed to a commiesionership of prisone,



NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, pre. sented April 12, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on April 22. Shephard, College st, solicitor for the petitioner

[Gazette, Apr. 14.]

STANDARD BANK OF LOxdox, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Apr 15, Mr. WILLIAM Bowen ROWLANDS, Q.O., has been elected a Bencher of

directed to be heard before Hall, V.O., on Apr 28. Norton, Queen st, Cheapside, Gray's-inn.

solicitor for the petitioner

[Gazette, Apr. 18.] Mr. FRANCIS SAVAGE REILLY, Q.C., Conosel to the Speaker of the House

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. of Commons, has been created a Knight Commander of the Order of St.

BoxrORD BENEFIT SOCIETY, Boxford, Berks. Apr 8 Michael and St. George, in recognition of his legal services to the STAUNCA BRITONS' BENEFIT SOCIETY, Kenton Arms, Kenton rd, South Hackney, Apr 12 Colonial and Foreign Departments. Sir F. Reilly is the son of the

[Gazette, Apr, 18.] late Mr. James Miles Reilly, of the Irish bar, and was born in 1825. He is a graduate of Trinity College, Dablin. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-ion in Easter Term, 1851, and he has practised as an equity and parliamentary draftsman and as a conveyancer. He is a member of the Statote Law Commission, and has drafted many important Government Bille. He was assessor to the Marquis of Salisbury and Lord

Cairns in the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Arbitration, to Lord
Cairns in the Albert Life Assurance Arbitration, and to Lords Westbary

April 17.-Bills Read a Second Time.
and Romilly in the Earopean Life Assurance Arbitration, which (after Lord | Private Bills.—Abbotsbury Railway ; Bristol Port and Channel Dock;
Romilly's deatb) ho completed as arbitrator. Sir F. Reilly was appointed Falwood and Whittingham Water; King's College, London ; London (City)
Coqogel to the Speaker a few weeks ago, and was also created a Queen's Court ; Rotherham and Bawtry Railway ; Sawley, Harrington, and Shard.

low (Cavendish) Bridges ; South Essex Water. Mr. RICHARD ORRY, solicitor (of the firm of Urry & Thirkill), of Ryde

Electric Lighting. and Ventnor, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the

Bills Read a Third Time. Supreme Court of Judioature.

PRIVATE Bills.-Birkenbead Borough ; Llangammarch and Neath and Mr. ALEXANDER Asher, 0.0., M.P., Solicitor-General for Scotland, has Brecon Junction Railway ; London Riverside Fishmarket; Rhymoey Railbeen appointed a Deputy-Lieutenant for the County of Edinburgh.

way; South Metropolitan Gås. Mr. GEORGE Doe, solicitor, has been elected Clerk to the Torrington

April 18.-Bills Read a Second Time, Board of Guardians, Asessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority,

Private Bills.—Blyth Harbour ; Bristol Water ; Edison's Electric Light. Mr. Doe has been for several years town clerk of Torrington, and vestry clerk Ling: Westgate and South-Eastern Junction Railway. of that parish. He was admitted a solicitor in 1843. Mr. MATTHEW WRIGHTON WEBB, solicitor, of Barbican-chambers, Barbi.

Bilis Read a Third Time. can, has been unanimously elected Solicitor to the Parish of St. Botolph, Private Bills.-E1st and West India Dock Extersion; Teign Valley Aldersgate, in succession to his father, the late Mr. Matthew Webb. Mr. Railway. Webb, junior, was admitted a solicitor in 1876. He is honorary solicitor to

April 19.-Bill Read a Second Time, the City of London Provident Dispensary.

Parliamentary Elections Expenses. Mr. ALFRED Ernest Ferns, solicitor, of Stockport, has been appointed

New Bills. Deputy-Coroner for the Stockport Division of Cheshire. Mr. Ferns was admitted a solicitor in 1875.

Bill to make provision for the better preservation of the ancient parochial

registers of England and Wales (Mr. BORLASE). Mr. JOSEPH HARKNESS TICKELL, barrister, has been appointed Deputy.

Bill for making provision for facilitating tho manoeuvres of troops to be Clerk of Assize and Clerk of Arraigns on the Western Circuit, in succession

assembled during the present summer (Mr. Childers). to the late Mr. Thomas Chambre. Mr. Tickell was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1873. He is a member of the Western Circuit, and has also practised at the Central Criminal Court, and at the Middlesex, Hampshire, Winchester, Portsmouth, Southampton and Poole Sessions. He has been for several years clerk of indictments for the same

COURT PAPERS. circuit.

Mr. WILLIAM CHARLES CRIPPB, solicitor, of Tunbridge Wells, has been appointed Solicitor to the Tunbridge Wells Licensed Victuallers' Association.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. Mr. Cripps was admitted a solicitor in 1877.

ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE ON Mr. John BASELEY Tooke HALES, solicitor, of Norwich, has been appointed



y. 0. Bacon, V. C. HALL,

APPEAL. Registrar of the Aylsham County Court (Circuit No. 32), io succession to Mr. William Henry Scott, deceased. Mr. Hales was admitted a solicitor Monday, April ........ Mr. King Mr. Clowes Mr. Latham in 1874.

Tuesday ......


Pemberton Merivale


Latham Mr. JOSIAH SADLER EMPSON, solicitor, of North Walsham, has been Thursday'.......


Pemberton Merivalo appointed Clerk to the Felmingham United District School Board, in suc- Friday ....


Latham cession to Mr. William Henry Scott, deceased. Mr. Empson was admitted a Saturday ........


Pemberton Merivale solicitor in 1869. He is also clerk to the North Walsham Local Board, and

Mr. Justico Mr. Justice Mr. Justico cl rk to the magistrates and the Commissioners of Taxes for the divisions of


CHITTY. Tanstead and Hopping.

Monday, April ....... Mr. Jackson Mr. Koe

Nr. Teesdale Tuesday ......

Carrington Mr, THOMAS MEIRES PERCIVAL, solicitor, of Northampton and Towcester,




Teesdale has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at the latter place, in

Thursday .......

Carrington Cobby

Ward saccession to his partner, the late Mr. Richard Howes, Mr. Percival was

Friday ..........


Teesdale admitted a solicitor in 1872.


Carrington Cobby

Ward Mr. Samuel GEORGE JOHNSON, solicitor, of Nottingham, has been elected Clerk of the Peace for that borough. Mr. Johnson is also town clerk of Nottingham. He was admitted a solicitor in 1854.




1882. EDWARD PHILIPS CHARLEWOOD and FRANK ASPDEN, Manchester, solicitors. Gila y Willis

citors. Giles y Williams app of plt M R July 1, 1881.

-June 14 (part heard Dec 10 by Lords

_Justices Baggallay, Lush, and Lindley) JOHN BATTYE and JOHN RICHARD HOLMES (Battye & Bolmes), Birstal,

Festing v Ellery app of deft MR-Aug 5 Yorks, solicitors. March 31,

[Gazelte, April 18.] Harris v Fleming app of plt vCH-Dec 8 (Security ordered)

Harris v Fleming app of deft W Morton VCH-Dec 8 (Security ordered)
In re The United Shepherd's Wheal Rose, limd app of petitioner Speller Chitty,

J—Dec 23 (S. O. May 4).

Williams v Preston app of deft Mary W Elliott MR-Feb 21
In re Clagett, decd Fordham v Clagett app of Sydney A Wyllie Kay, J-

Feb 22 (s. O. May 1)

In re The Potteries, Shrewsbury and North Wales Ry Co app of L H Elkington

and ors Kay, J-Feb 25 ($. 0. May 15) JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

Henty v Wrey app of plt. Nenty v Wrey app of deft Henry Smith Kay, J LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

-Feb 28 (s. 0. Apr 25) BCoron RESIDENCES AND HOTEL COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, pre. In re Liverpool and London Guarantee and Accident Insurance Co limd and Co's sented April 6, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.O., on April 22. Cridge and Acts app of Official Liquidator Kay, J-Feb 28 Bell, Bishopsgate st within, solicitors for the petitioner

In re J B Palmer's Appln and Trade Marks Registration Act, 1875 app of W B GREAT SOUTHERN MYSORE GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated April 3, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Beall and

Bryant and ors Chitty, J-Mar 2 Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

May Y Thomson app of pst V CB-Mar 8


In re Oak Pits Colliery Co liind and Co's Acts app of Official Liquidator Kay' Thomas v Connell and Co app of plt from judgt of Baron Pollock at trial Nov 30 J Mar 8

Tyrell v Henville, clerk app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Dec 1 Nordon v Nordon app of Mauria Nordon Kay, J-Mar 10

Davenport v Kendrick app of deft from judgt of Justice Field and Cave upon In re Brown, decd Tyas v Brown app of deft Fry, J-Mar 11

report of official referee-Dec l Bostook v Pearson app of deft in person from VC of County Palatine of Lan. caster Mar 11

Neilson v James app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Stephen at trial-Dec 2 In re Searle, decd Killick v Seyfang app of plts Fry, J-Mar 11

Lon'ion and County Banking Co v Wilkinson app of deft from judgt of Mr. In re Ovey, deod Broadbent v Barrow app of Broadbent, wife and ors Fry, J

Justice Williams at trial at Westminster-Dec 9 -Mar 13

Brown v Great Western Ry Co app of defts from jadgt of Jastices Field and In re Avgrove, a Solicitor app of JC St Aubyn Angrove Chitty, J-Mar 14 North-Deo 14 Hurst v Žurst app of A M Hurst Fry, J-Mar 14"

Simson v Moon, Bower & Co app of defts from Mr Justice Denman, Baron New London and Brazilian Bank limd v Brocklebank Brocklebank v The New Huddleston and Sir H Hawkins, directing entry of julgt for plt-Dec 17

London and Brazilian Bank limd app of defts in original action Mar 16 Boby v Davenport app of defts from judgt of Baron Pollook at trial-Dec 17 Mayor, &o of Manchester v Lyons app of Mayor, &c of Manchester from V C of Watson & Co. v Moss Bay Hematite Iron and Steel Co, limd app of plts from County Palatine of Lancaster Mar 17

judgt of non-suit by LCJ at trial-Dec 22 In re London and Staffordshire Fire Assurance Co limd and Co's Acts app of Wm

Cory & Sons v Burr app of plts from judgt of Justices Field and Cave on special L Sturdy V C BẠMar 21

case-Dec 24 In re Brown, Bayley and Dixon limd and Co's Aots app of West Yorksbire Iron

| Clack v Wood app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice North at trial-Dec 31 and Coal Co, limd Fry, J-Mar 22 Collins v Ray' app of plis MR-Mar 22 The Yorksbire Ry and Wagon Co v Marlure app of plt Co The Yorkshire Ry Pope v The Wanzer Sawing Machine Co, limd app of plts from jadgt of Me and Wagon Co v Maclare app of deft Maolure The Yorkshire Ry and Wagon

| Justice Stephen at trial-Jan 3 Co v Maclure app of deft J S Virtue Kay, J-Mar 23

The Ironmongers' Co, London v Stephens app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice Gibb v The Great Southern Mysore Gold Co app of defts Kay, J-Mar 23 Stephen at trial-Jan 6 In re Sparling, decd Sparling' v Jones app of plts Chitty, J-Mar 23

Van Nierop and Sons v Henderson app of plt from part of judgt of Justices Field In re Owen, deod Jones v Owen app of pit and har Manisty, J-Mar 23

and Cavo on special case stated in action-Jan 9 In re Cottrell, deod Woods v Cottrell app of plts and anr Manisty, J-Var 28 Rooth v The Midland Ry Co app of plt from judgment of Mr Justice Steph n at In re H W Párker app of H W Parker "Chitty, J-Mar 28

trial Jan 10 Corbett v Bowers app of defte V CB-Mar 28

Allen y Johnstone app of pltf from judgt of Baron Pollock on sur con Jan 11 In re J Girdlestone app of J Y Fynn VCB-Mar 28

Webber v Lee app of pltf from judgt of Mr. Justice Bowen at trial Jan 12 Paul v Paul app of pit Fry, J-Mar 29

Bain and Co v Wrightson Bain and Co v Wrightson (con acts) app of pltfe from Smith v Day app of deft Francis Day VCB-Mar 29

judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial without jury Jan 13 Berry v Gaukroger app of plts MR-Apr 4

Heiron v The Metrop Bank, limd app of plit from judgt of Lord Chief Justica In re Kirk, decd Kirk v Kirk app of plts Fry, J- Apr 12

at trial in London Jan 14 Kirk v Todd app of plts VCH-Apr 12

Smitherman v South Eastern Ry Co app of defts from judgt of Baron Pollock Kirby v Kirby app of Lawrence Kirby VCM-Apr 12

at trial Jan 18 Davies v Jones app of deft Kay, J- Apr 13

Cruikshank and Co (Owners of Roxellana) v Rodgers and Co app of defts from In re New Callao limd app of New Callao limd Chitty, J-Apr 13

judgt of the Lord Chief Justice on fur con Jan 20 From Orders made on Interlocutory Motions in the Chancery Division.

Lynch v Godwin app of deft from judgt of the Lord Chief Justice at trial with

out a jury Jan 25 1881.

Bobbett v South Eastern Ry Co app of pltf from judgt of Mr Justice Denman In re Liberia Coffee Co, limd app of Co MR-Aug 9 (S O Nov 16)

at trial Jan 26 In re Horner's Petition of Right app of C P Slagg Chitty, J-Doc 8 (to be in Mersey Steel and Iron Co, limd v Naylor, Benzon and Co app of defts from jodgt the paper as an appeal from the Master of Rolls by order)

of the Lord Chief Justice at trial without a jary Jan 31 Mitchell v Walker app of defts Chitty, J-Dec 24 (Security ordered)

Meyers v Brown app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice North at trial Feb 1 1882.

Willett v Woolloton app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes on fur coa Snow v Bolton app of pltff Fry, J-Mar 4 (8 O till security given by consent)

Feb 1 Elizabeth Gendy, petnr v Maurice Gandy, respt (Divorce) appl of respt from

Davison v Donaldson app of pltf from judgt of Mr Justice Mathew at trial order as to alimony The President- March 27

without a jury Feb 3 Protberoe v Synge appl of deft A H Synge Kay, J-April 6

Byrne v Cooper app of pltf from judgt of Mr Justice Denman at trial without a Io ce Swire, decd Mellor v Swire appl of E Storer VCB-April 6

jury Feb 7 Hind v Breit and org appl of pltff VCH- April 8

Maspons y Hermano v Mildred, Goyenecke & Co app of plt from jadgt of Mr

Justice Manisty at trial with jury Feb 7

Coachman v Greener app of pit from judgt of Baron Pollock at trial Feb 11
For Judgment.

Bourke v Tufnell app of plt from judgt of Baron Huddleston at trial Feb 14 Pitman & apr v Universal Marine Insurance Co app of plts from Mr. Justice

Riley v North Staffordshire Ry Co app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at Lindley referring to arbitrator to ascertain damages (c a v Dec 10–present MR

trial Feb 15 and LJ J Brett and Cotton)

Cato v Thompson app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Fib 18 Turner v Bridgett (C H Wright, trustee in liqo) app of trustee from refusal of

(Security ordered) Mathew and Cave, JJ, to make interpleader order (o a v Apr 5-present Brett

Flower v Sadler Sadler v Flower (original action and counter claim) app of deft and Holker, LJJ)

WJ Sadler from jadgt of Mr Justice Denman at trial Feb 20
For Hearing,

Taylor and anr v Howarth app of plt Bamford from judgt of Baron Pollock at

trial Feb 20 1880.

The Panteg Steel Works and Engineering Co, limd v Wrightson app of deft from In re Charles M Roche, gentn. one &c app of Mr Roche from order of Lord judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Feb 23 Coleridge, LC J, and Mr. Justice Grove-April 27

Titterton v Cooper app of deft from judgt of Baron Huddleston at trial Feb 24

Davidson v Hellivell and ors app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice Mathew at Fleming v The Mayor &c of Manchester argument of rule nisi for new trial trial Feb 27

granted by Court of Appeal on application of deft (set down with final appls by Cowgill v Saxton and anr app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Cave at trial Feb order)

28 Fleming v The Mayor &c of Manchester app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Allum v Dickenson app of plt from Justices Mathew and Cave directing entry Stephen at trial-May 26

of judgt for deft ou special case Mar 2 The Board of Works of the Hackney District v The Great Eastern Ry Co Fenner v Smith app of defts from Baron Pollock and Justices Manisty and Stephen

(QB Crown side) app of Hackney Board from judgt of Lord Coleridge, L CJ, giving judgt to plt Mar 4 and Mr Justice Manisty on app from Inferior Court June 25

Stent v Harrison app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Manisty at trial Mar 7 Suffell - Governor and Co of the Bank of England app of defts from judgt Edwards v Shearman app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Mar 8 of Lord Coleridge, LC J, at trial in London July 11

(Security offered) Berlin Phosphate Sewage and Madure Co limd v Combe and anr app of defts Blaiberg v London and Westminster Loan and Discount Co app of plt from from judgt of Mr Justice Denman at trial in London July 21

judge of Mr Justice Lopes at trial Mar 8 Reffell v Fowell app of plıf from judgt of Lord Coleridge, LC J, at trial at Ship Mac JN McAdam, Owner of Mac v Petts and ors, Master and Crew of Kingston July 25

Sauoy Polly app of plt from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore (without Assessors) The Prison Commissioners v Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex app of deft from Mar 9 judgment of Lord Coleridge, LC J, at trial at Westminster July 26

Storry v Honywood app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Grove at trial Mar 9 Saxby and anr v Gloucester Wagon Co, limd app of plts from judgt of Lord Cole Beckett & Co v Addyman app of deft froin judgt of Mr Justice Field on demr

ridge L CJ, and Justices Manisty, Field, and Bowen upon findings and report Mar 9

of Official referee July 30 Gantes Bros. & Co v Leyland & Co and ors app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice

Lancaster v South Eastern Ry Co app of plt from juigt of the Lord Chief

Justice on fur conson Mar 15 Field, directing non-suit with costs Oct 12

Murphy v Harris app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Williams at trial Mar 18 Quilter v Mapleson app of dft from judgt of Lord Coleridge, LCJ, at West Guardians of Mansfield Union, in Counties of Derby and Nottingham v Wright minster without a jary Oct 24

app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Williams at trial Mar 20° Shaw v Earl of Jersey app of plt from ord of Justices Lopes and Stephen on sp Griffin v Seelie app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Field at trial Mar 21

0 June 23 (Placed at end of printed List for Michaelmas sittings by order) Méléogue v Treeby app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Denman at trial Mar 23 Burke v Rooney app of dft from judgt of Justices Field and North on spc (Security ordered) Nov 9

In re Geo Thos Condy (a Solicitor struck off Rolls) North Staffordshire Ry Co v Peake app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Williams

app of G T Condy in person,

from Justices Grovo and Lindley, refusing applica for restoration Mar 25 at trial Nov 11

Ship Guy Mannering Owners of Wiston Hall v Owners of Gay Mannering Ships Gaetano and Maria McAndrew and Co v Owners of Gaetano and Maria app of defts from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore (without assessora) March 27

the Cargo and Freight appl of pltffs from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore (without Jackson v Fletcher ' app of deft Fletcher from part of judgt of Mr Jastice Cava

assessore) Nov 23 Zuccani v Sinclair, Moorhead and Co app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Stephen

at trial as to costs of third parties Maroh 28"

Cooke v Winby app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Manisty at trial March 30 on fur con at Westminster Nov 29 Jenkins v Jones app of plt from judgt of Baron Pollock on fur con Nov 29

Mackley and Co v Sowell and grs app of plt from Baron Pollock and Mr Justice

Manisty setting aside yerdiet and judgt March 31


Jan 18

Marshall and org v Schofield and Co app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice Chitty Smith v Keal app of plt from rule nisi discharged by Baron Pollock and Justices at trial April 3

Mapisty and Stephen-action tried by Baron Pollock April 3 Chartered and Mercantile Bank of India, London and China v Netherlands Iodia Angas v Bannister app of plt from rale nisi discharged by Baron Poliook ani

Steam Navigation Co, limd app of defts from judgt of Baron Pollock and Jus Mr Justice Manisty-action tried by Lord Chief Justice April 3 tices Manisty and Stephen April 4

Allcock and org, trustees, &o, v Moorhouse app of plts fron rule nisi discharged On appeal from the Lord Mayor's Court of London Davies v Baxter app of by Justices Mathew and Cave-action tried by Baron Pollock April 3.

dest from Assistant Judge, W Brandon, Esq, allowing demurrer to deft's pleas Alams v Severn and Canal Carrying Shipping and Steam Towing Co, lind ap) and counter-claim April 4

of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave-action tried by Simpson and anr (trading as John Simpson and Co) v Tamar and Kit Hül Granite Mr Justice Bowen April 3 Co, limd app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Chitty on fo April 5

Browngon v Henshaw app of plt from rulo nisi discharged by Justices Mathew In Surrey County Court holden at Southwark Eaton, an infant, by next friend, and Cave-action tried by Baron Pollock April 5

v Western and org app of plt from Justices Mathew and Cave, setting aside Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co app of judgt and directing entry for defts April 5

defts from Mr Justice Field and Baron Huddleston refusiog reference as to Allan v Upited Kingdom Electrio Telegraph Co, Imd Christopher V The Same damages April 6 Co app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Mavisty at trial April 6

FROM PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. Wilden v White app of plt from Justices Manisty and Stephen setting aside

For Hearing. verdict and judgt-action tried by Mr Justica Lopes April Bucknall and Song v Hunter and Co app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice

Appeals from Orders made on Interlocutory Motions.

Admiralty. Hawkins at trial April 8


Ship Signet Richardson v Ris epp of defis from Sir R J Phillimore refusing From Orders made on Interlocutory Motions in the Queen's Bench Division.

commission-Feb 11 1881.

Divorce. Ccoper v Breffit argument of rule nisi granted on appln of plt by Court of Appeal

Gandy v Gandy app of resp from the President giving leave to fille petn for permt Cooper v Breffit app of defts from order of Baron Pollock and Mr Jastice Madisty

alimody-Mar 27"

Appeals from Final Judgments. for new trial-action tried in London by Mr Justice Mathew

(Admiralty) without Assessore. Thompson v Farrer argument of role nisi for new trial granted by Court of

granted by Court of Ship Gaetano and Maria McAndrew and Co v Owners of Gaetano and Maria Appeal- action tried by Lord Chief Justice Nov 24

her cargo add freight app of plts from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore without Eaton v Higginson app of defts from rule nisi discharged by Mr Jus ice Denman,

assessor-Nov 23 Baron Huddleston, and Sir H Hawking-action tried at Liverpool by Lord Chief

Ship Mac JN McAdam, Owner of Mao v Petts and ore, master of crew of Saucy Justice Dec 15

Polly app of plt from judgt of Sir R J Phillimora wi hout as:etbors-Mar 9 1882. Percival v Hughes app of deft from rule nisi digcharged by Lord Chief Justice

Ship Gay Mannering Owners of Whiston Hall v Owners of Guy Mangering app and Justices Manisty and Bowen Jan 2

of defis from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore without assessors-Mar 27 The Onean on Prosecution of the Treasury v Borough of Maidenhead App of

(Admiralty) with Assessors. dets from judgt of Lord Chief Justice, Baron Pollock, and Mr Justice Manisty

'1882. on mandamus subjeot to special case Jan 30

Ships Mathilde and Dwina Owners of Dwina v Owners of Mathilde Owners of Sbip Signet Richardson v Ross app of defts from Sir R J Phillimore refusing Mathilde v Owners of Dwina (consolidated actions) app of Owners of Dwina commission Feb 11 (S O ill Apr 26)

from jud gt of Sir R J Phillimore with assessors-Jan 16 Madras Ry Co v Coverdale app of pltfs from Justices Mathew and Cavo refusing Ship Elysia Jenkins and ors v Owners of Elysia app of defts from judgt of Sir order to make and file further and better answer to interrogatories Merch 1 RJ Phillimore with assessors— Jan 18 (S O sine die by order)

Ships Tredegar and Cogarea Owners of Cosarea v Owners of Tredegar Tredegar Worley Dobbin app of pltf from Mr Justice Lopes directiog on isgue entry of Steam Shipping Co v Owners of Cosarea (consolidated actione) app of Owners verdict for deft Mar 3

of Tredegar from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore with assessors -- Feb 7 Phillimore v Smith and anr app of pltf in person from order of Justices Mathew Ship Sportsman Wilkins v Owners of Sportsman app of pltff from judgt of Sir and Cave allowing demr March 4

RJ Phillimore (with assessors) Feb 13 Weston and anr v Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District app of defts Ship Hector (con actns) Owners of Augustus v Owners of Hector and freight

from order of Justice Mathew and Cavo allowing demr of pltfs to statement of app of defts from judgt of Sir R J Phillimore (with assessors) April 1 defence March 8

N.B.--The Admiralty appeals will be taken with the Queen's Beach Appeals at Taylor v Hodkinson app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew

Westminster. The assessor cases on special days to be appointed by the court. and Cave action tried by Mr Justice Lopes in Middlesex March 8

| The non-assessor cases will come into the list for hearing in the order of date of Ware v Criepin app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and setting down. The Probate and Divorce Appeals will be taken with the Chancery Cave-action tried by Mr Justice Stephen at Westminster Mar 9

Appeals at Lincoln's Inn.
Rudeforth v Willett app of deft Willett from order of Baron Pollock and Justices
Manisty and Stephen for new trial-action tried by Baron Pollock at Westmin-


In re Strousberg

Ex parte Apperley Turner v Bridgett (CH Wright, trustee in liquidation) app of trustee from In re Poole and Sons

Ex parte Cocks and Co Justices Mathew and Cave refusing on application of sheriff to make interpleader In re Storey

Ex parte Popplewell order Mar 16 (S O pending judgt on preliminary objection)

In re Gobling

Ex parte Pitt and ors Tobitt v Henry app of defts from rule nisi discharged by Baron Pollock and Jus In re Huggins

Ex parte Rabbbidge tices Manisty and Stephen Mör 16

N.B.-The above list contains final and interlocutory appoals set down to Jordan v The New River Co app of plt from role nisi discharged by Baron | Thursday, April 13, inclusive.

Pollock and Justices Manisty and Stephen Mar 17 (Security ordered)
Babbage v Coulburn app of plt from rulo nisi discharged by Buron Huddleston HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Betjemann v Howe act, wits

and Mr Justice Field--action tried by F Bayley, Éeq, Westmioster County CHANCERY DIVISION. O'Bryen v O'Bryen act
Court Mar 18

List or CAUSES FOR EASTER SITTINGS, Lloyd's Banking Co v Macalister act, Lory and Co v Steeves Bros and Co app of plts from order of Baron Pollock and


wits Mr Justice Manisty for new trial Mar 18 (8 O till after circuit)

Before Vice-Chancellor Bacon. | Loxley v Norman act, wits Smitherman v South-Eastero Ry Co app of defts from rule nisi discharged by

Causes for Trial.

Ulrici v Metropolitan Ry Co act, wits Justices Mathew and Cave Mar 20

Transferred from Mr. Justice Chitty by Todd v Thornton act, wits Abouloff v Oppenheimer app of plt from order of Justices Mathew and Cave over

order datod Nov. 10, 1881. Robinson y Fulham District Board of ruling demurrer to paragraph 14 of statement of defence Mar 21

Mostyn v Lancaster act, wits

Works act, wits Blanchard v King app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Taylor v Mostyn act

Tankard v Alexander act, wits Cave actn tried by Lord Justice Cotton Marab 21

Smith v North Staffordshire Ry Co Noel v Tyler act, wits Watkins and Co v Manders app of deft from rule niei discharged by Justices Parker v Turner act

Green v Société Générale de Paris aet, Mathew and Cave March 24

Grey y Burn Act, wits

wits Boylan v Jackson app of deft from Justices Mathew and Stephen refusing writ In ie Taylor, decd Jones y Edwards Williams v Dollar act, wits of prohibition and now trial March 25

act, wits

Rowland v Meakin act, wits Birdett v Kirkwood app of deft from order of Justices Mathew and Cavə for new Thomas v Foster act, wits

Merritt v Johnstone act, wits trial actn tried at Warwick by Mr Justice Hawkins March 25

Rausome v Graham act, wits pt hd Alcock y Banner motn for judgt Sontt v Sampson app of deft from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and In re Williams Williams v Stratton Blaiberg v Eyles act, wits Cave aotn tried at Westminster by Lord Chief Justice March 25


Blaiberg v Eyles act, wits The Blaina Iron and Tin Plate Co, limd v Garbutt, Blumer and Co app of defts Samuel v Bluck act

In re Cooper 'Godwin'v Berridge mota from Baron Huddleston and Mr Justice Field refusing to give directions as to Finch v Gouteire fur con

for judgt mode of trial under ord 16 r 21 March 27 (not before April 26 by order) In re Whittaker Whittaker v Whittaker Higcock v Emerson app of pltf from Justices Manisty and Stephen refusing act, wits

Halsey v Marcussen act, wits conditional liberty to defend or sign fical judgt March 28

Willán v Gt Northern Ry Co act, wits Adams v Army and Navy Hotel Co, Friend, Iredale and Co v McIlwraith and Co app of defts from Justices Mathew Whitaker v Pearce act, wits

limd act, wits and Cave refusing to set aside verdict and judgt for pltf March 28

Daweon v Walker moth for judgt Syer v Mulkern act Travers and Son v Tomlinson and Co app of defts from rule nisi discharged by

Sampson v Webbaot Baron Pollock and Mr Justice Manisty actn tried at Guildhall by Mr Justice Causes transferred from Mr. Justice In ra Burton, Boulton v Jones act, wits Mathew March 29

Chitty by order dated Feb. 7, 1882. Godfrey v Foreshen act, wits Cook v Wiaby app of p't from rule nisi discharged by Justices Mathew and Cave Maynard v Marks act, wits

Davies v Davies act -action tried by Mr Justice Munisty in Middlesex® March 29

In re Speight Speight'v Gaunt act & Heuschel v Heuschel act & mf judgt Prudential Assurance Co, limd, v Western Provident Association and anr app of moto for judgt, wits

Livett y Foster act, wits plts from rule nisi disobarged by Baron Pollock and Mr Justice Manisty-action Chawner v MoLean act, wits

Tebb v Quick act tried by Mr Justice Field April 30

Charles v Jones motn for judge Meakin v Rowland act, wits Miller v Pilling app of plt from order of Mr. Justice Field on mf j on report of Brown v McCowan act

In re Nicholle, Nicholls v Nicholls fur official referee Maroh 31

Jones v Blow act, wits

con Hurst v Bushell app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Field on interpleader issge Jackson v Winnifrith act, wits Stamford, &c, Ry v Lindridge Colliery April 1

Camp v Conder act, wits

| Co fur con

« PreviousContinue »