Page images

Silversides, Frederick, Leamington Priors, Warwick, American Meat Salesman. May

12 at 11 at 19, Highst, Warwick. Boddington, Warwick Simmons, William, Birmingham, Provision Dealer. May 0 at 3 at office of Jaqueg,

Temple row, Birmingham Smith, Charles Arthur, Croydon, Stationer. May 18 at 3 at Masons' Hall Tavern,

Masons' avenue, Basinghall st. Kilvington and Stock, Walbrook Stead, Saul, Leeds, Grocer. May 11 at 11 at the Law Institute, Albion st, Leeds. Cross,


Ste-ckdale, William, Lancaster, Innkeeper. May 11 at 12 at Queen's Hotol, Penny st. Fryer, Preston

Styles, Augustine, Leicester, Brewer. May 10 at 3 at Boll Hotel, Leicester. Stone and Co, Leicester

Swift, Samuel, Southwell, Nottingham, Butcher. May 12 at 3 at office of Kirkland, Southwell

Taylor, Thomas, Saffron Walden, Essex, Ironmonger. May 15 at 11 at the Inns of

Court Hotel, Holborn. Ackland, Saffron Walden Thompson, Henry Charles, Mincing lane. Colonial Broker. May 19 at 3 at offices of

Fuller and Wise, Gresham st. Harwood and Stephenson, Lombaid st Wallace, William Henry, HuddersflcUl, Grocer. May 10 at 12 at offices of Sykes,

Market st, Huddersneld Ward, Joseph, Blackley, near Manchester, General Dealer. May 18 at 2 at tho Mitre

Hotel, Cathedral yard, Manchester. Leigh, Manchester Werrett, Nathaniel, Walworth rd, Hat Manufacturer. May 11 at 11 at offices of Chalk,

Flnsbury circus

White, George, Beeston, Nottingham, Boot Dealer. May 12 at 3 at offices of Stroud,

Low pavement, Nottingham White, Robert, and Thomas Joseph Nye, New Brompton, Kent, Builders. May 15 at 2

at 128, High st, Chatham. Norman, Chatham Wigg, Harm, East Grinstead, Susses, Tea Dealer. May 15 at 3 at offices of Cripps,

Tunbridge Wells

Wilkinson, John William, Folkestone, Kent, Tobacconist. May 10 at 2 at the Rose

Hotel, Folkestone. Ward, Folkestone Williams, Charles, Rushmcro, near Ipswich, Suffolk, Farmer. May 22 at 2 at offices of

Westhorp, Museum st, Ipswich Williams, Thomas, Dowlais, Glamorgan, Grocer. May 9 at 12 at offices of Lewis, Glebeland st. Merthyr Tydfil Wilson, John Bartholomew, Bethnal Green rd, Boot Manufacturer. May 8 at 2 at offices

of Tripp, Catherine st, Strand Woods, Albert, Warrington, Lancaster, Provision Merchant. May 10 at 3 at offices of

Davies and Co, Market pi, Warrington Wortman, Mark Gabriel, and Morris Michaolson, Strand, Tailors. May 11 at 3 at offices

of Willis, St Martin's ct, Leicester sq Wrathall, John, Barrow-in-Furness, Boot Manufacturer. May 12 at 2 at offices of

Hayes and Co, Britannia bldgs, Oxford pi, Leeds. Garnott, Barrow-in-Furness Wright, William George, Sheffield, Grocer. May 11 at 2 at tho Law Society, Hoole's

chmbrs, Bank st, Sheffield. Hickmott

TcssDir, May 2, 1882.

Allport, Samuel, Sedgley, Stafford, out of business. May 17 at 3 at offices of Stoke

and Hooper, Priory st, Dudley Ashmore, Charles Townsend, Fowkes bldgs, Great Tower st. Merchant. May 23 at 2 at offices of Flux and Co, East India avenue

offices of Quilliani,

Ayre, Charles, Fairfield, near Liverpool, Plumber. May 10 at 3 at

Whitechapel, Liverpool. Riley, Liverpool

May 12 at 3 at offices of Goody, North hill,

Bangh, Sarah, Richmond rd, Dalston. May 9 at 3 at offices of Taulin, Fen court, Fenchnrch st

Bennet, Charles, Dedham, Essex, Grocer

Bennett, Robert, and James Bennett, Strangeways, Manchester, Watch Makers. May

17 at 2 at offices of Horner, Clarence st, Manchester Benson, John, Westerdalo Mill, near Yarn, York, Miller. May 15 at 11 at offices of

Chilton, Mechanics' Institute, Dovecot st, Stockton-on-Tees Boyes, Robert, Bradford, Painter. May IX at 11 at offices of Peel and Co, Chapel lane,


Bradbury, Joseph, and Hervcy Bradbury, Batlev, York, Woollen Manufacturers. May

15 at 11 at Batlev Station Hotel, Batley Bradley, George Bristow, Fakenham, Worcester, Builder. May 17 at 12 at offices of

Corbett, Avenue House, the Cross, Worcester. Blick, Droitwich Burrington, Alfred Bragg, Shaftesbury rd, Hammersmith, Professor of Music. May 15

at 12 at offices of Webster, Gt James st, Bedford row Briggs, John, Brighton. May 22 at 12 at offices of Edmonds and Co, Cheapsido. Cooper

and Williams, Brighton Brown, John, jun, and James Brown, Upper Thames st, Iron and Marble Merchants.

May 11 at 3 at offices of Edmunds and Co, Cheapside. Wells, Paternoster row Brnnsden, Charles, Gorso Hill, Stratton, Wilts, out of business. May 11 at 3 at offices

of Boodle, Albion st, New Swindon, Wilts Burkinshaw, Matthew, Hanley, Stafford, Joiners' Tool Dealer. May 16 at 11 at offices

of Paddock, Old nail st, Hanley BushilL John, Wolston, near Coventry, Builder. May 11 at 2 at 17, Little Park st,

Coventry. Homer, Coventry Cannings, John, Birmingham, Leather Seller, May 11 at 3 at offices of East, Temple st,


Carter, Henry Denter, Leamington, Tailor. May 12 at 2.30 at offices of Parr and Hayes,

Colmorp row, Birmingham Christmas, Fred, March, Cambridge, Carpenter. May 11 at 11 at officos of Sidney and

OUard, March Churchill, Henry Gi

Hotel, Coventry. Ti Cole, Abraham, Brlstc


Coney, Thomas Worts, Uiiddersficld. Omnibus Proprietor. May 17 at 3 at Law Society, Imperial arcade, New st, Iluddcrsficld. Laycock and Co, Huddersfleld

Coombe, George, Bristol, Glass and China Dcalor. May 11 at 2 at offices of Sibly and Dickinson, Exchange West, Bristol

Cooper, Thomas, Maidstone, Clothier. Mu£ 13 at 11 at Cannon st, Hotel, Cannon St. Stenning, Maidstone

Dallaway, Joseph, Devizes, out of business. May 13 at 11 at offices of Smith, High st, Devises

Draper, William, Warwick, Boot and Shoo Dealer. May 15 at 11 at offices of Sandorson, Chnrch st, Warwick

Dunn, Walter, Oxford st, General Store Proprietor. May 24 at 2 at Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st. Van Sandau and Co, King st, Chepside

Evans, Alfred Palmer, Batheaston, Somerset, Clerk in Holy Orders. May 12 at 11 at 9, Old Bond st, Bath. How

Evans, Morgan, Llonychairn, Cardigan, Grocer. May 11 at 11 at offices of Griffith Jones and Co, Great Darkgate st, Aberystwith

Garner, John, Spurstow, Chester, Grocer. May 11 at 12.30 at Royal Hotol, Crewe. Walker and Co, Chester

Gibson, Moses Westmoreland, Lincoln, Joiner. May 10 at 11 at offices of Page, Flaxengate, Lincoln

Gratton, John, Fegg Hayes, near Tutstall. Stafford, Grocer. May 17 at 3 at offices of

Llewellyn and Ackrill, Piccadilly, Tunstall Gray, Henry, Seavdngton St Mary, Somerset, Farm Bailiff, May 21 at 11 at offices of

Paull, Court Barton, Ilminster Greenwood, William Watson, Bradford, Stuff Manufacturer. May 13 at 10 at 12,

Piccadilly, Bradford. Berry and Robinson, Bradford Grimmer, Frederic Arthur, Norwich, Corn Merchant. May 0 at 12 at offices of Stanley,


, of no occupation. May 15 at 11 at King's Head


095. May 10 at 12 at offices of Essory, Nicholas st,

Bank pi,

Hancox, Thomas, Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Warwick, Licensed Victualler. May 13 at 11 at

offices of Hughes and Masser, Little Park st, Coventry Hanger, Alfred Feary, Oxford, Boot Dealer. May 17 at 12 at New Iud, Oxford.

Galpin, Oxford

Harding, Needham, and William Isaac Jackson, Birmingham, General Factors. May 16 at 2.30 at offices of Dale and Vochell, Bennett's hill, Birmingham

Hardy, George William, Birmingham, Refreshment House Keeper. May 17 at 1.30 at offices of Bass and Co, limd, >V.\ hull st, Birmingham. Jennings and Co, Burton-ouTrent

Hart, George, Wakefield, York, Clerk of Works. May 15 at 3 at offices of Harrison and

Beaumont, Chancery lane, Wakefield Hewer, John, Bridford, Devon, Fanner. May 12 at 11 at offices of Friend, Post Office

chmbrs, Exeter

Hewitt, Louis William, Stretton-on-Dunsmore, Warwick, of no occupation. May 16 at

3 at offices of Owston and Dickinson, Friar lane, Leicester Higham, John Frederick, Hulme, Manchester, Musical Instrument Dealer. May 18 at

12 at offices of Pritehard and Co, Painters* Hall, Littlo Trinity lane, London. Hinde

and Co, Manchester

Hodgo, John Samuel, South Molton, Devon, Tailor. May 12 at 12 at offices of Riccard, South Molton

Hopkins, John, Walbrook, Solicitor. May 10 at 3 at Masons' Tavern, Masons' avenue,

Basinghall st. McLachlan, Croydon Howson, Richard Gregory, Clapham cum Newby, York, Joiner. May 10 at 1 at Flying

Horse Shoe Hotel, nr Clapham cum Nowby. Thompson Hurst, Edwin Henry, New London st, Seed Merchant. May 12 at 2 at offices of Lonsada and Emanuel, Austinfriars

Ireton, Arthur John, and Joseph Kilsby Ward, Piazza, men. May 25 at 12 at Ashley's Covent Garden Hotel, Button and Co, Henrietta st, Covent Garden

Henrietta st, Covent Garden,

James, Thomas, Much Wenlock, Salop, Grocer. May 18 at 12.30 at Raven Hotel, Much

Wenlock. Pbillip9 ond Co, Shifnal Jeffery, Henry, Cheltenham, Hotel Keeper. May 12 at 11 at Belle Vue Hotel, Cheltenham. Winterbotham and Co, Cheltenham Jennings, Samuel, Bradford, Innkeeper. May 12 at 11 at offices of Greaves and Taylor, Cheapside, Bradford

Jewkes, James, Dudley, Worcester, Straw Dealer. May 12 at 12 at offices of Tinslcy, Priory st, Dudley

Johnstone, Hannah, Bishop Auckland, Durham, Grocer. May 20 at 11 at offices of

Stillman, North Bondgate, Bishop Auckland Jones, George, Shrewsbury, Baker. May 17 at 11 at St John's Hill, Shrewsbury,


Jones, John, Sedgley, Blacksmith. May 15 at 11 at office of Whitchouse, Dudley rd,


Knightsbridgc, James, Provost st, Hoxton, Draper, May 9 at 3 at offices of Staniland, Queen st, Cheapside

Koppol, Bernard, Commercial rd East, Dealer in Boots. May 11 at 2 at Masons' Hall Tavern, Masons' avenue, Basinghall st,. Waring, Gresham bldgs, Guildhall

Langley, Thomas, Wellington, Salop, out of business. May 9 at 11 at office of Carrane, Wellington

Lee, John Edward, Manchester, Iron Worker. May 18 at 3 at office of Rylance, Esses St, Manchester

Lewis, Alfred Elias, North Malvern, Worcester, Builder. May 12 at 2.30 at Hop

Market Hotel, Worcester. Bowers, Great Malvern Lucas, John George, Worthing, Sussex, Draper. May 16 at 3 Serjeant's inn, Fleet st.

Nye, Brighton

Lupinsky, Abraham, Shoreditch, Tailor. May 18 at 3 at John st, Bedford row. Browne and Co

Makin, James Brierley, Rotherham, York, Boot and Shoo Doalor. May 12 at 3 at

offices of Clegg, Victoria chmbrs, Figtree lane, Sheffield Marshall, Thomas, Bristol, Baker. May 13 at 11 at office of Evans, Exchange bldgs

East, Bristol

Martin, John, Sheffield, Engraver. May 16 at 2 at offices of Taylor, Norfolk row, Sheffield

Martin, John, Osborne rd, Hackney Wick, Baker. May 10 at 11 at Unicorn Tavern,

Vivian rd, Roman rd, Old Ford. Hicks, Grove rd, Victoria pk Micklewright, Francis William, Hastings, Watchmaker. May 16 at 12 at the Guildhall

Tavern. Langham, Hastings Miroy, Ernest Leon, Queen Victoria st, Clock and Bronzo Manufacturer. May 23 at 3 at

Cannon st Hotel, Cannon St. Morris, Walbrook Morris, William, Worcester, Dispensing Chemist. May 12 at 12 at office of Goldingham,

jun, Forcgate st, Worcester Morse, Charles, Norwich, Clerk in Holy Orders. May 15 at 12 at office of Stanley, Bank

Plain, Norwich

Moulder, Elijah, Naunton, Gloucester, Farmer. May 15 at 11 at office of Clark, Regent st, Cheltenham

tho Red

Neighbour, Alfred Edmund, Mcdmenham, Bucks, Innkeeper, May 13 at 3 at

Lion Inn, Gt Marlow. Batting, Gt Marlow Newman, Robert, Worcester, Grocer. May 23 at 13 at office of Corbett, Ayenuo House,

tho Cross, Worcester

Normansell, Thomas, West Bromwich, Stafford, Contractor. May 13 at 11 at office of Stokes, Temple st, Birmingham

Parry, Richard, Craig Llaufair, Anglesey, Farmer. May 15 at 1.30 at Glandwr Llangefni, Anglesey. Owen, Bangor

Peacock, John Samuel, Worcester, Schoolmaster. May 19 at 12 at office of Corbett, Avenue House, tho Cross, Worcester

Pitcher, Douglas, Brighton, Wino Merchant. May 15 at 3 at 116, Cheapside. Goodman, North st, Brighton

Pitt, William, Wolverhampton, Grocer. May 18 at 11.30 at offices of Wkitehouse, Queen st, Wolverhampton

Flint, Thomas Edward, Loods, Stationer's Clerk. May 16 at 3 at offices of Saville, East parade, Leeds

Pre6ton, George Henry, Sheffield. May 17 at 2 at offices of Taylor, Norfolk row, Sheffield

Prothcroe, Francis Richard Henry, Bristol, Brick Manufacturer. M«y 11 at 11 at offico

of Nicholas, Corn st, Bristol Purchase, Edward, bridge rd, Cowkoeper. May 16 at 2 at offices of Hamlin and

Grammer, Staple Inn, Holborn Rich, James Crocker, Russell st, Leather Seller. May 17 at 2 at offices of Marshall,

Chancery lane

Roberts, William, Shefflold, Grocer. May 15 at 3 at offices of Smith and Co, Meetinghouse lane, Sheffield

Rogers, John, White Lion st, Chelsea, Ironmonger. May 12 at 3 at Inns of Court Hotel,

Holborn. Harrison, Pancras lane Russell, Thomas, Taunton, Somerset, Retired Tailor. May 22 at 11 at offices of Kite,

East st, Taunton

Seller, Michael Henry, 8trand, Bag Manufacturer. May 22 at 3 at 111, Cheapside.

Reed and Co, Guildhall chmbrs, Basinghall st Shenton, James, Wharton, Chester, Farmer. May 13 at 11 at offices of Green and

Dixon, High st, Winsford Simpson, Charles, Chichester, Sussex, Fishmonger. May 19 at 12 at offices of Edmonda

and Co, Cheapside. Janman, Chichcsier

Simpson, John Tidd, Nowland, York, Commission Agent. May 11 at 3 at offices of Gregson, Exchango bldgs, Bowlalley lane, Kingston-upon-Hnll. Thorp, Kingstonnpon-Hull

Smith, Jonathan, Tonbridge, Kent, Corn Dealer. May 19 at 12 at offices of Stenning, High st, Tonbridge

Smith, Roger Bickerton, Wellington Stables Farm, Northumberland, Farmer. May 13

at 12 at offices of Rhagg, Grainger st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Smith, William Wigley, Grundy st, Poplar, Furniture Dealer, May 10 at 12 at offices of

Plunkett and Loader, St Paul's churchyard

Stacey, Robert, York rd, Islington, Tobacconist. May 16 at 3 at offices of Medcalfe,

Union ct. Old Broad st Stanton, James, Ash, Surrey, Builder. May 16 at 3 at Bash Hotel, Farnham. Hollett

and Co, Farnham

Steele, John, Tunstall, Stafford, Hairdresser. May 17 at 3 at offices of Salt and Alcock, Market st, Tunstall

Summers, Frederick, Durant st, Bethnal Green, Buildor. May 17 at 3 at offices of

Willis, Charles sq, Hoxton Tewson, Frederick William, Bnnttay, Suffolk, Auctioneer. May 15 at 2 at King's Head

Hotel, Bungay. Bavin and Caynes, Norwich Thompson, Thomas, Morecambe, Lancaster. Boot Maker. May 15 at 2 at office of

Johnson and Tilly, Sun Bt, Lancaster Trott, John, Inwardleigh, Devon, Shoemaker. May 15 at 3.30 at Whito Hart Hotel,

Okehampton. Petherick, Exeter Wetherell, Mary Ann, Scarborough, Lodging House Keeper. May 13 at 12 at office of

Watts and Hitching, Queen st, Scarborough Wickham, Henry, Liverpool, Linen Draper. May 16 at 3 at office of Lupton, Sweeting

Bt, Liverpool

Wilson, Geofrey, and George Ralph Wilson, Halifax, Cabinet Makers. May 13 at 11 at

Old Cock Hotel, Halifax. Emmet and Walker, Halifax Wilson, Thomas Temple, Scarborough, Market Clerk. May 12 at 3 at office of Watts

and Kitching, Queen st, Scarborough Wood, William, Stourbridge, Provision Dealer. May 16 at 11 at offices of Collis, Union

chbrs, Stourbridge

Woodhouse, Albert, Rowley Regis, Stafford, Nail Manufacturer. May 16 at 11 at office of Wright, High st, Cradley Heath

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]


Arti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder.

Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the moBt nutritions, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children." Highly commended by the entire Medical Press.

Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times he strength of cocoas Thickened yet Weakened with starch, Ac, and is Hkality Cheapee than suoh Mixtures.

Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny.

Coco At i N A A La Vahillb is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may bo taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tin packets at Is. 6d., 3s.f 5s. 6d.» &c, by ChemisU and Grocers.

Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors, H. SCHWEITZER A CO 10, Adam-street, London, W.C,



This new Ink supplies the demand continually made but never before met, for a Red Ink which is uninjured by Steel or other Metallic Pens. Steel Pens left in this ink for months do not impair the beauty of its colour, nor are the Pens in the least corroded by it. The existing Red Inks rapidly destroy Steel Pens, and lose their red colour if used with othor than Gold or Quill Pens. This now colour is a very rich scarlet red of great beauty. The colour of this ink is not affected by use upon parchment and is consequently of great value to Solicitors and Draughtsmen.

Sold in stone bottles, retail at Is., 2s., 3s.; and imperial quarts of 40 ounces at 6s. each. Also in glass bottles at 6d. and Is. each.


[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]


Hewetson, Thexton, & Peart,


200, 203, and 204, TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD, W.

Estimates and Designs submitted free for entirely Furnishing Residences, Chambers, Offices, Ac. —PAINTING, DECORATING, A HOUSE REPAIRS.—

Carved Oak Furniture, Reproductions from Ancient Designs, Ac. Bedroom Furniture, including Bedstead and Bedding, from £7 10s. per set.


Hewetson, Thexton, & Peart,

200, 203, and 201, Tottenham Court-rood, London, W.

N.B.—Household Furniture Warehoused or Removed on reasonable terms.

YATES ALEXANDER & SHEPHEARD,. General Printers, Lonsdale Buildings, 27, Chancerylane, immediately opposite the Chancery-lane Post-office .

AW, Parliamentary, and General Printing 4 by Yates Alexander A Shepheard, 27, Chancery-lane.

AUCTIONEERS' Work, Particulars and Conditions of Sale, Posters, Ac, printed by Yates Alexander A Shepheard.

PAMPHLETS, Books, Newspapers, CircuI lars, Rules and Regulations of Societies printed by Yates Alexander A Shepheard.

PROSPECTUSES of Public Companies, L Memoranda and Articles of Association, Share Ceiu

flcates, Receipts Notices, Ac, printed by Yates Alexander

A Shepheard, 27, Chancery-lane.

[blocks in formation]

ROBE -* §£fy ' MAKERS


To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, Ac.











It is the most convenient and durable yet offered to the Profession.

[graphic][merged small]

The Solicitors' Journal.

LONDON, MAY 13, 1882.


It Is Undebstood that Mr. Justice Fey will go on circuit at the summer assises, and that Mr. Justice Kay will remain in town.

It Is Anticipated that a transfer of causes to Mr. Justice Kay from the lists of two or more of the other judges of the Chancery Division will shortly be made.

Lokd Colebidge will sit with the Court of Appeal at Lincoln'sinn on Monday next, to continue the hearing of a part-heard case with witnesses. The Master of the Rolls will sit on that day with the Westminster Division of the court.

With Beference to our statement last week as to the increase of business in the Chancery Division, we find that, while the five judges of first instance of that Division had, at the commencement of the present sittings, 615 causes on their lists, and 246 causes have been set down since, they have only disposed of 237 causes, leaving no fewer than 624 causes now on the books, a number which is daily increasing.

A Statute which is little known, and which has for many years lain dormant, might, perhaps, be temporarily put in force with a view of detecting crimes committed, if any, by Americans in Ireland. We allude to the Act 6 & 7 Will. 4, ell," for the registration of aliens," to which we recently drew attention. By this statute every alien on arriving " in any port of the United Kingdom from foreign parts must declare to the chief officer of Customs the day and place of his landing, and his name, and also to what country he belongs. The declaration is to be reduced into writing by the officer, and a copy of it sent, in the case of arrivals in Ireland, to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the alien himself being furnished with a certificate which he is to deliver up to the chief officer of Customs at the port of departure on leaving the country. The Passengers Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 119), contains a provision of still greater value for identification of strangers. By section 100 it is provided that the " master of every ship bringing passengers into the United Kingdom from any place out of Europe shall, within twenty-four hours after arrival, deliver to an "emigration officer" or his assistant, or in their absence to the chief officer of Customs at the port of arrival, a correct list, signed by such master, specifying the names, ages, and callings of all the passengers embarked."

Thebe Is No Subject on which the Court of Appeal has "wobbled " more than on the question of what is a proper setting forth of the consideration in a bill of sale. In Ex parte Challinor, In re Rogers (29 W. R. 205, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 260), Lord Justice James said, " It appears to me quite right to deduct the costs of preparing the bill of sale and the auctioneer's charges, for that is what happens in every mortgage transaction." And Lord Justice Cotton said that "£40 was retained . . . for costs partly due on other transactions, and the rest for preparing the bill of sale by the solicitor, who also happened to be the lender. There is no more difficulty in treating this money as paid to the borrower than if it had been handed to him and then applied by him in paying those costs." These observations have been naturally

taken to mean that the whole costs of the preparation) attestation, and execution of the bill of sale may be retained out of the consideration money. But in the recent case of Ex parte Firth, In re Cowlurn (30 W. R. 529), the Court of Appeal held that there is no debt for costs until after the transaction has been completed; hence, as on the principle of Ex parte Rolph (30 W. R. 52), a debt not yet due cannot be deducted from the sum stated as the consideration, the costs of attestation and execution of the bill of sale cannot be deducted. The Master of the Rolls said that the circumstance that costs were not actually a debt until after the transaction was complete was not present to the mind of Lord Justice James, when he made the observation above quoted. It must be borne in mind in future that only money paid by the lender to satisfy the existing debts of the borrower, by his direction, can be deducted from the sum stated as the consideration; and that the costs of preparation and execution of a bill of sale are not an existing debt.

Sib Habdinge Giffaed's Bill to amend the Judicature Acts, so as to render it necessary that the rules made by the Rule Committee of Judges should be laid upon the table of the House for forty days before coming into operation, will, we imagine, be very generally welcomed by the profession. If there were no other reason for the proposal than to secure that practitioners should have timely notice of rules effecting important changes in practice, this would be sufficient to justify the introduction of the Bill. The course which was at one time adopted of making rules to take effect before printed copies could be obtained was in the highest degree inconvenient. Of late there has been some improvement in this respect, the Rules of the Supreme Court of April, 1880, having been published three or four days before they came into operation. But this is quite insufficient to enable the profession to become acquainted with the effect of important changes in practice; and, moreover, the mode of publication is so inefficient that unless practitioners are wise enough to subscribe to a legal journal they are likely to remain in ignorance of the fact that such changes have been made. It will be remembered that three months after the Rules of April, 1880, were made, a learned Vice-Chancellor failed to recognize the existence of one of the rules specially relating to a class of actions among the most frequent in his branch of the High Court. But there are stronger reasons than the convenience of the profession for supporting Sir H. Giffabd's Bill. The legislative powers confided to the Rule Committee are too extensive to be exercised by any limited body, however eminent, without an effective opportunity for a veto by Parliament. There is a good deal of difference practically between vetoing rules not yet in operation, and rescinding rules which have already come into operation. Sir Habdinge Giffard's Bill is a return to the system in force in the Common Law Courts before the Judicature Acts, whereas the system in force in the Chancery Courts before that Act was similar to that adopted for the whole Supreme Court by that Act. By 13 Vict. c. 16, and by section 233 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, the operation of new Rules of Court was suspended until Parliament had approved of them, while by the Chancery Amendment Act, 1858, s. 12, and the Chancery Amendment Act, 1862, s. 2, Rules of Court came into force as soon as made, subject to the power of Parliament to annul them afterwards.

It Has Always Stettck us as strange that the compilers of precedent books should have bestowed so little attention on forms of leases to companies or trustees for companies. The preparation of these constitutes an important and responsible part of the business of a conveyancer, yet there are very few forms of such leases

to be found in the books, and some of those which are provided are imperfect. For instance, there are forms which omit to provide in the proviso for re-entry for the event of the winding up of the company, and in others the provision relating to this subject is inaccurately framed. Mr. Davidson (vol. 5, pt. 1, p. 371) words his proviso in case " the lessees shall commence to be wound up xinder any Act or Acts of Parliament," &c. This is right as regards voluntary winding up, which is to be deemed to commence at the time of the passing of the resolution authorizing such winding up (Companies Act, 1862, s. 130), but it is hardly just to the lessee in the case of winding up by the court, which is to be deemed to commence "at the time of the presentation of the petition for the winding up " {lb., section 84). In some instances which have come under our notice the event specified is " in case the company shall be wound up "; and in the recent case of In re Wetley Brick and Pottery Company (30 W. R. 445), the construction of this provision came before the court. It was contended that under it the power of re-entry only accrued when the company Whs completely wound up. The contention was hopeless enough, because itis obvious that upon this construction the proviso would be meaningless, for when the company is fully wound up all the property will have been sold, which could never take place, as regards the lease, so long as the lessor's right to re-enter existed. The fact that the question was raised at all, however, indicates the inaccuracy of this form of proviso. The proper form would appear to be " in case the lessees shall be in course of being wound up." The decision in the recent case shows the importance to the landlord of the insertion in the proviso for re-entry of such a provision. If it is inserted, he has only to apply by summons in the winding up for leave to re-enter, and the court will order the liquidator to deliver up possession, without waiting for an action to be brought to recover the land. The exception in section 14 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (6) (i.), of "a condition for forfeiture on the bankruptcy of the lessee," would probably be held to extend to a condition for forfeiture on winding up, for section 2 (xv.) defines "bankruptcy" as including " any other act or proceeding in law having, under any Act for the time being in force, effects or results similar to those in bankruptcy." But like most other parts of this wonderful measure, this provision leaves room for doubt.

We Recently Commented on the strict, but as we ventured to think correct, interpretation which the Court of Appeal has put on that section of the Public Health Act, 1875 (s. 174), which requires contracts by urban sanitary authorities of an amount exceeding £50 to be under seal. It was held in Young v. Corporation of Leamington (30 W. R. 500, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 579) that this section—which had already been held to be imperative and not directory only in Hunt v. Wimbledon Local Board (L. R. 4 C. P. D. 48)—applies to executed as well as executory contracts. But in Reg. v. Corporation of Norwich, decided by a divisional court on the 5th inst., Gbove and Lopes, JJ., declined to apply so strict a rule to the case of an order for payment of money out of the borough fund in discharge of a contract which the corporation might, if they pleased, have repudiated, as not being under seal, under cover of section 174 of the Public Health Act. The contract was a paving one, and the question of law arises on the construction of one of the amending Municipal Corporation Acts, 7 Will. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 44. That section provides that "whereas it is expedient to give all persons interested in the borough fund ... a more direct and easy remedy for any misapplication of such fund," an order of the council for the payment of any sum of money out of the borough fund may be removed by certiorari, and " may be disallowed or confirmed with costs, according to the judgment and discretion of the court." The corporation having made the order for payment of the contract price, it was sought to relieve the town of the burden of the payment by taking advantage of the section. But the two learned judges appear to have had no hesitation in discharging the rule which had been obtained. Ghove, J., chiefly put his elaborate judgment on the use of the word "misapplication" in the preamble, and pointed out that that word could only ^ cover cases of corrupt practices, or favouring an individual corporator, and could not apply to a case where no misconduct, properly so called, was alleged, but all that could be

charged against the corporation was a neglect to use the prescribed formalities; and Lopes, J., concurred on the same ground. The court also proceeded on the undoubtedly strong authority of Beg. v. Prest (16 Q. B. 32), in which the judicial discretion given by the section was applied to protect the disputed order for the payment of an allowance to a town clerk over nod above his stipulated salary, and not legally enforceable. We understand that the judgment will be appealed against, and there is no doubt, apart from the merits of the particular case, much to be said against it. In strictness, the corporation were making a present to the contractor of the contract price, and it may be doubted whether, without a stronger and more modern decision than Beg. v. Prest, an auditor would not be bound to disallow a payment so irregularly made.

The Success of the Government Bill for the further protection of life in Ireland, when it has passed into an Act, will depend, in some degree, on the extent to which its provisions are known; and with the view of making them known as soon and as accurately as possible, it may be well to provide that an abstract of the Act, or, if they be easily understood, of the principal sections, shall be posted up in conspicuous places in the principal towns, and perhaps even in public-houses and railway stations. It might also be convenient to add short extracts from the criminal statutes in force as to secret societies and the like. For instance, it is provided by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 28, s. 7, that if any person shall "make use of any manner of force, or inflict, or threaten to inflict, any manner of bodily pain in order ... to deter or prevent any person from giving evidence in any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, or on account of any persons having given evidence in any action or prosecution, civil or criminal, or on account of any person having declined or refused to enter into any unlawful combination or agreement," may be transported [or as the law now is, sent to penal servitude] for seven years, or imprisoned for three years. This offence, which was, by the Irish Act of Parliament, 27 Geo. 3, c. 15, a capital felony, is in England only an offence at common law, and the punishment, not being contained in the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts of 1861, which apply to England and Ireland equally, is perhaps not sufficiently known in Ireland.

Is Addition to the large Government reward offered for the detection of the Phoenix-park murderers, there has been at least one such offer from a municipal corporation in Ireland, and Mr. Paenell has suggested that all the municipal corporations should join in offering rewards. Whether this suggestion was made before or after the large Government reward was offered is not quite clear, but it is so very much to the point that it would be unfortunate if it were to meet with no response from the not unnatural belief that if ten thousand pounds will not produce the desired result nothing will. It might, therefore, perhaps, be well if the local rewards were to be directed to the detection of the very numerous local murders of which the various municipal corporations have been made so unhappily cognizant within the last two years. And with the view of throwing the required contributions equally upon all ratepayers, instead of the somewhat invidious practice of soliciting contributions from individuals, power might very fairly be given to the various municipal corporations in Ireland to charge upon their borough funds rewards not exceeding a certain moderate amount.

On the 6th inst., at the Central Criminal Court, Frederick George, a lawyer's clerk, who was convicted of having; forged a transfer of £172 3s. lOd. in the Consolidated Three per Cent. Annnities, and personated Mr. Robert Bland Goodrich, the holder of toe stock, in order to effect the transfer, was brought up to receive judgment. Mr. Justice Hawkins, in passing sentence upon him, remarked that the position which [he prisoner held as a solicitor's clerk was one requiring great integrity, and when confidence was betrayed by such a person a serious punishment mast follow. Moreover the prisoner had been convioted of a serious fraud upon the Bank of England, and if the offence were to be passed over with a light sentence, he should be endangering the property of hundreds of thousands of persons. Therefore, in the interest of the public and of justice, he felt that it was absolutely necessary that he should pass upon the prisoner a sentence of seven yean' penal servitude.


The case of Heath v. Pugh, which has recently been decided by the House of Lords (reported in this week's issue of the Weekly Reporter), is inferior to few in the vicissitudes of its fortunes, and the practical importance of its ruling. The litigation arose out of the frauds of one Crealock, a trustee of a settlement; who, being also a solicitor, acted as solicitor to, and practical manager of, the trust. In 1856 be and his co-trustee Heath, a guileless clergyman, lent some of the trust moneys to one Stephens, upon a mortgage in fee of certain lands, including the lands sought to be recovered in the recently decided action. In 1859 Stephens contracted for the sale of several portions of the mortgaged lands, including the present lot, which was contracted to be sold to the defendant Pugh. Crealock, who acted as solicitor for Stephens in relation to this contract, represented to him that his co-trustee Heath was abroad, and that great delay would be occasioned by obtaining his concurrence in the conveyance to the purchasers, or in a re-conveyance to Stephens; and the latter agreed that, to save trouble, the mortgage of 1856 should be concealed from the purchasers. whose hands the title deeds were deposited for safe custody, accordingly colluded with him to make a fraudulent conveyance to the purchasers, including the defendant Pugh, purporting to be free from all incumbrances except certain leases. Stephens, who had no design to do anything fraudulent, paid the purchase-money to Crealock, who embezzled it, concealed the payment, and continued, during some years, regularly to pay the interest upon the whole of the mortgage debt. This was only one of several other like transactions, into which we need not enter. Of course Crealock's embarrassments ultimately became overwhelming, and in 1870 he absconded, taking with him, among other things, the original mortgage deed of 1856. It only remained to determine which, out of several innocent persons, must suffer for Crealock's frauds. The other trustee Heath immediately filed a bill in chancery against Crealock, Stephens, and the several purchasers; praying, as against Pugh, for a declaration that the lands were still subject to the mortgage, for foreclosure, and that he might be ordered to deliver up the title deeds in his possession. This was the well-known case of Heath v. Crealock (23 W. R. 95, L. R. 18 Eq. 215, 10 Ch. 22). The right of Pugh to avail himself of the old equitable plea, that he was a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, in bar of any relief sought against bim iu a court of equity, evidently was, and the Court of Appeal held that it was, too clear to be questioned. But the Vice-Chancellor allowed himself to be misled by the case of Colyer v. Finch (19 Beav. 500, 5 H. L. C. 905). That case decided that a mortgagee may have foreclosure even against a purchaser for value without notice: a decision that is quite in accordance with principle; for foreclosure is in truth, not the granting of any equitable relief against the person foreclosed, but is merely a declaration that equity will not afterwards interfere to prevent the person foreclosing from enforcing at common law any rights to which he may be entitled. The ViceChancellor, apparently not apprehending this distinction, and forgetting that, though by the Chancery Procedure Act a sale might be ordered in a foreclosure suit, yet a sale is by no means the same thing as foreclosure, and ought not, therefore, to be granted as a matter of course in all cases in which foreclosure would be granted, ordered the lands to be sold and the title- deeds to be delivered to the purchasers. This decree was in 1874 varied by the then Court of Appeal in Chancery, consisting of the Lord Chancellor Cairns, and Lords Justices James and Mellish; who, as against Pugh, reduced this part of the decree to a bare foreclosure. The judgments then pronounced contain the most recent, ample, and authoritative exposition of the equitable privileges of a purchaser for value without notice. Though the decree also set aside a re-conveyance to Stephens which had been fraudulently obtained by Crealock's machinations, yet it left the defendant in possession of the lands, and no steps could be taken in the Court of Chancery to disturb him. Under the old system it was necessay for this purpose to bring an action of ejectment at law. For some reason the plaintiff Heath in whom, with Crealock, the legal estate was vested, delayed taking any such step until a new trustee was appointed in 1878, when the two

trustees commenced the present action of Heath v. Pugh in the Common Pleas Division. The action was brought, not only against Pugh, but also against his tenant who was in possession of the lands; but nothing was said on this point in any of the courts before which the case came, and the action was treated as if it had been against Pugh only. Had this action been brought immediately upon, or even within a year or two after, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Heath v. Crealock, there would have been practically no defence. But in 1878, more than twenty years had elapsed since the execution of the mortgage deed in 1856; and it so happened that the plaintiffs, chiefly by reason of the absence of Crealock, were unable to prove any such payment of principal or interest as would be binding upon the defendant Pugh. This enabled Pugh to raise the defence of the statute, and the whole interest and importance of the case lies in the varying fortunes of this defence.

At the trial at Jfisi Prius Denman, J., directed a verdict and gave judgment for the plaintiffs, upon the ground (as briefly stated in the report of the appeal) that the foreclosure decree prevented the statute from being a bar to the action. This is the view which has finally prevailed. The court in Banc, consisting of Lord Coleridge, C.J., and Lindley, J., reversed this decision, and entered judgment for the defendants. It was a question whether they should not rather direct a new trial, in order to give the plaintiffs (who alleged that they had been taken by surprise) another chance of proving a payment to take the case out of the statute; but, in the first place, it by no means clearly appeared that the plaintiffs had any evidence to produce; and, in the second place, the court thought that a new trial, which, when asked upon these grounds, and under these circumstances, is something in the nature of an indulgence, ought not, as against an innocent defendant who was a purchaser for value without notice, to be granted to plaintiffs who might, by proper diligence, have got all they wanted from the beginning. The last point is well worthy of notice; and we do not understand that upon this point the judgment has been overruled. To cut short the tale of litigation, the judgment of the court in Banc was reversed, and that of Denman, J., restored, by the Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Selborne, C, and Baggallay and Brett, L.J J., and the House of Lords has recently affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The decision thus finally arrived at is no doubt better suited to the public convenience than the opposite decision would have been; and we can easily guess that the courts must anxiously have desired to come to this conclusion if they possibly could. But we cannot regard with unmixed satisfaction the process by which the result, in itself desirable, was arrived at. There was no dispute about the state of the law before the Judicature Acts; and it was not disputed that before the Judicature Acts the result of the action must have been different. A foreclosure decree then had no effect whatever upon the running of the statute as against the right to bring an action of ejectment. By what means has a foreclosure decree acquired this power which it used not to have? It is useless, for this purpose, to insist upon the practical importance of the foreclosure decree, as bcinj; necessary to the secure prosecution of the mortgagee's legal claim ; because the decree possessed exactly the same practical importance before the Judicature Acts, and yet was of no avail to intercept the running of the statute. And the question was not, as some seem to have thought, whether a foreclosure decree might not very properly and reasonably possess this virtue of conferring a new right to bring an action within the meaning of 3 k 4 Will. 4, c. 27 ; but something quite different—namely, How did it get this recent virtue, which, by the admission of everybody, it used not to have? And to this question we have found no satisfactory reply.

The quality in question might have been expressly, and perhaps with great propriety, conferred upon foreclosure decrees by the Judicature Acts. But we think that such changes ought, when they are beneficial, to be openly introduced by legislation, instead of being smuggled in by dubious implication and remote consequence. No refutation of his own conclusion could possibly be more complete than the judgment of Lord Cairns. It is a specimen of such reasoning as he very seldom countenances by his example, and affords the best possible grounds for suspecting an opinion for which such an advocate could do so little. Let the reader judge. We grant his postulate, that if the mortgage had

« PreviousContinue »