« PreviousContinue »
facts were shortly these :—In 1876 the Cornwall Minerals Railway Company were in want of money, and their borrowing powers under their Act were nearly exhausted. Negotiations took place between them anil the Yorkshire Railway Wagon Company for a loan of £30,000. The railway company were advised that they could not give a valid security for the proposed loan, and it was suggested that the railway company should obtain the money by selling part of their rolling stock to the wagon company for a sum of £30,000, and that at the same time the railway company should agree to hire that rolling stock from the wagon company for the term of five years, at a rent which would repay the £30,000 and interest by the end of thnt period. This arrangement was carried out by an agreement under seal between the companies, dated the 20th of June, 1376. In cas3 of the due fulfilment of the agreement the railway company were to have the option, at the end of the five years, of repurchasing the rolling stock at a merely nominal price. At the same time three of the directors of the railway company personally guaranteed to the wagon company the payment ol the rent. The rent having fallen into arrear the wagon company brought the action against the railway company and the sureties for the amount of the rent due and for damages. Kay, J., held that the professed sale and hiring were in fact a borrowing of £30,000 on the security of the rolling stock, and therefore invalid as a security beyond the powers of the company, and that the transaction was, so far as the railway company were concerned, ultrd vires and void, but that the guarantee was valid, and that the sureties were liable on their guarantee. The wagon company appealed, and the sureties had also appealed. The Court of Appeal hold that the transaction of sale and hiring was really what it purported to be, and not a loan in disguise, and that it had been bona fide substituted for the loan which had been originally intended. The agreement was therefore valid and coull be enforced against the railway company. The appeal of the sureties was dismissed.— Solicitors, Singleton <£• Tattershall; Cope i- Co. ; Morley # Shirreff.
Lunatic—Allowancb To Next Of Kin.—In a case of In re Evans, before the Court of Lunacy on the 6th inst., a question arose as to granting an allowance out of the income of a lunatic to one of his next of kin. The lunatic had an income of about £1,000 a year, of which only £425 a year was required for his maintenance. His next of kin were first cousins. One of these was an Irish clergyman over eighty years of age, who, in consequence of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, bad been reduced to very poor circumstances. He desired to have an allowance made to him out of the income of the lunatic, and the master had made a report by whioh be certified that he approved of making an allowance of £100 a year to the applicant, if the curt should think that it ought to be made. The conrt (jessel, M.R., and Linddat, L.J.) refused to grant the allowance. Jessel, M.E., slid that the applicant had no legal claim and no moral claim. The principle on which the court acted was laid down in Ex parte Whilbread (2 Mer. 99). No regard was to be paid to any interest of the next of kin in the lunatic's property. The question was what was for the benefit of the lunatic. If the next of kin was a person whom he was under a legal obligation to provide for, or if he was under some moral obligation to do something for him, by reason of his having given some promise, or having already made some allowance, the court might grant or continue an allowance. Illustrations of this were to bs found in In re Blair (I M. & C. 300) and in In re Frott (L. R. 5 Cb. 699), in the former of which cases Lord Cottenham said that the prinoiple involved ought to be narrowed rather tban extended in its operation, and that he would never exercise such a jurisdiction without the greatest possible jealousy and caution. Lindley, L.J., said that the grant of the allowance must be, in some way or other, for the lunatio's benefit.—Solicitobs, Bower, Cotton, <fc Bower.
Priority Of Incumbrance—Notice—Erroneous Reference In Notice. — One of several points which arose upon an adjourned summons in an action of fFhitting stall y. King, before Hall, V.C., on the 6th inst., was as to the respective priorities of claimants to a reversionary estate. The question arose under the following circumstances:—The estate being in the hands of trustees of a will, the person beneficially interested in the reversion mortgaged his interest by deed, dated February 27, 1879, having previously put it into settlement by a deed dated June 28, 1875. No effectual notice of the settlement was given to the trustees of the will until May, 1880, but the mortgagee under the deed of February 27, 1879, gave formal notioe to them in April, 1879, of a mortgage deed, stating the parties correctly as they appeared in his security of February 27, 1879, but erroneously stating the date as being November 27, 1878. No deed of that date, in fact, existed, and it was sworn by the mortgagee's solicitor that the date was stated in error, which was, however, never corrected. The trustees of the settlement contended that the notice must be taken to be ineffectual, as it did not, in fact, refer to the alleged mortgage, but Hall, V.C., held that it was sufficient and operated to give the mortgagee priority, and he made a declaration accordingly.—SoliciTors, Barlee, Burgess, Cosens ;\Eepburn, Sons, £ Cutlife,
Practice—Trust Funds—Investment.—In an action of Braithicaite v. Wallis, which was before Hall, V.C., for trial upon the 3rd inst., the plaintiff sought to have a trust fund invested nnder the control of the court under the following circumstsnces:—A testator bequeathed to a female legatee a sum of £5,000, free of duty, for her sole and separate use, and to be invested by trustees to be nominated by her, so that she should have the income for her life and without power of anticipation, and after her, death the principal sum to fall into the testator's residuary estate, which he gave to his father, the plaintiff in the action. The testator appointed trustees and executors of his will. The plaiutiff desired that some control should be retained over the fund, and, as the legatee had refused to allow any interference, had brought the action against her and the surviving executor of the will, asking for
administration by the court and payment in of the £5,000. Upon the trial he now asked that the money should be invested in the names of the trustees nominated by the legatee, but under the control of the court, claiming suoh relief as of course. Hall, V.C., however, said that the modern tendency of the court was to leavo trust funds in the hands and under the control of trustees, whenever they were properly there, anJ there was no ground for inferring tha' they were unsare, and he therefore refused the relief asked. 11/ consent an order was taken, whereby the legatee undertook to give the plaintiff notice of changes of investment, but the plaintiff was ordered t) pay the costs of the action, liberty to apply being reserved.—Solicitors, Sewell <& Edioards ; Bowker, Peaks, Bird, § Collins.
Practice—Parties Brought In By Notice Under Rules Of Court, 1875, Ord. 1G, R. 18—Issue Between Such Party And The Defendant —Costs-Ohd. 16, Br. 17, 18, 20, 21.—In an action of Pilke v. Roberts, before Kiy, J., on the 6th and 8th inst., two questions were raised as to the practice under order 16. The action was brought to recover a sum of money slid to be due unler a building contract. The defendant claimed to have a right of indemnity again<t a third person, as agent for whom he said he bad ma'le the contract. He accordingly issued, and served on Buch person, a notice under ord. 16, r. 18. Tbe third psrty got leave to defend, and delivered a defence and counter-cUim. No relief was aaXed by the plaintiffs against the third party, and the defendant did not deny the plaintiff s claim, Faj ing only that tho third party was the penoa to pay. Kay, J., said that proceeding*, no doult, might have been taken under rule 17 to get an order for the trid of the question between the defendant and the third party, but as this was not done, no such question could be tried; therefore, if the court on the facts could give judgment against the defendant, the case was at an end. Bis lordship, on the facts, gave judgment against the defendant, with costs, thfl third party's counsel not having opened his counter-claim.
Tbe plaintiff's counsel then asked for tbe costs occasioned by the third party's intervention. Against that it was contended that the order giving leave to defend ought to have made some terms as to the costs, that it not having done so, no order could now be made.
Kay, J., said that such a direction was not necessary, as a person coming into an action is subject to the judge's order as to cost*, squally with other matters. On the opposite contention, even if the third party bad succeeded in his counter-claim he could have had no costs.—Solicitors, Savidge Steward; Eenry Wiekens; Routh, Staeey, $ Castle, for George Mitchell Seabroke.
Charity—Appointment Of New Trustees And Vesting Order— Consent Of Charity Commissioners—Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, s. 62.—In the case of Ex parte The Committee of the Western Synagogue, St. Alban's-place, Eaymarket, before North, J., for Chitty, J., on the 4th Inst., a petition was presented for the appointment of new trustees of the Jewish Burial Ground in St. Luke's, Chelsea, and for a vesting order. The burial ground was, by a deed dated 1817, vested in trustees for the benefit of the members of the Jewish congregation of a synagogue then existing in Denmirk-court, Strand, but closed since the year 1826, when the present synagogue was opened in its place. It appeared that the ground was purchased and kept up by voluntary subscriptions of the congregation. The trustees had long since died, and it could not be ascertained who was the last survivor. The question was raised whether the consent of tbe Charity Commissioners was neoessary for the purposes of suoh an application. North, J., adopting tbe ruling of the late Master of the Rolls in The Governors of the Charity for the Relief of Poor Widows v. Sutton (27 Beav. 651), and of Hall, V.C., in The Royal Society of London and Thompson (29 W. R. 838, L. R. 17 Cb. D. 407), decided that the consent of the Charity Commissioners was not necessary, as the property in question represented volumary contributions.—Solicitor, Lewis Davis.
Copyright—Right Of Representation—Prior Publication—Musical Composition—Copyright Acts—Copyright Act, 1842 (5 4 6 Vict. C. 45), s. 20.—In the case of Chappell v. Boosey, before North, J., sitting for Chitty, J., on the 3rd and 6th inst., the plaintiffs, a firm of musio publishers in Bond-street, claimed to be the registered proprietors of tbe copyright in a musioal composition or song, with an accompaniment, called "The Bell-ringer," and also of the sole liberty of performing the same pieo*. and sued the defendant for baviog, as one of the directors of the London Billad Concerts, infringed their rights by permitting the song to be performed, without the plaintiffs' consent, at the St. James's Hall on the 14th of December last. The defence set up by the defendant was that the sons; in question, with its accompaniment, was, some time prior to its public performance, published and sold as a book within the meaning of that term in the Copyright Act, 1842. Tbe plaintiffs demurred to this defenoe, and the question thus raised for tbe decision of the court was whether the publication of a dramatic piece or musical composition as a book, before it has been pnblioly represented or performed, deprives the author or his assignee of the exclusive right he would otherwise have of representing or poiforming it. North, J., siid that in his opinion the law stood thus. Under tha Statute of Anne the author of a dramatio pieoe cr musical composition acquired a copyright in his work so as to be enabled to prevent any other persons from multiplying copies of it, but this did not prevent any one who thought fit to do so from representing or performing it. The privilege of an author of a drama' i ■ piece was extendfd by the Act of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 15, commonly called Sir I'ulwer Lytton's Act, which provides that the author, or assign of tbe author of any dramatic piece whioh was not printed or published, whether theu already composed, or thereafter to be oomposed, should have as his own property, and be proprietor of, the sole liberty of representing the same at any place of dramatic entertainmeut for a period not clearly defined and not at present material, and that tbe author, or assign of the author, of any such piece, which was printed and published after or within ton years before the passing of that Act, should have the like sole liberty of representing the same for the term of twenty-eight years from the passing of the Act, or from the publication of the piece, if it was first printed and published after the passing of the Act, or until the end of seven years after the author's death, which, ever should prove the longer. After the passing of this Act the author had, therefore, two different rights, one* that of copyright proper, preventing the multiplication of copies of the piece itself, and the other being what may be called the acting or performing right, conferring npon him the power of preventing others from representing the piece without his consent. That Act, however, did not extend or apply to musical compositions, except so far as they came within the category of dramatio pieces or entertainments. By the Copyright Act, 1842, commonly known as Talfourd's Aot, the rights of authors were extended, and the authors of musical compositions acquired the donble right—namely, first, that of copyright proper in the pieoe itself as a book; and, secondly, the performing rights, such rights having a somewhat different period of duration. Although there were these two distinct statutory rights, it was said by the defendant that no person would purchase the piece in its book form, unless its sale oonferred on the purchaser the right to make any Bed every use of it he thought fit. But, in his lordship's opinion, this consequence did not follow, for it was only the performance of the piece in public which, under the Copyright Act, 1842, was prefented by the existence of the performing right, and it was obvious that the greater number of sales of musical pece* took place merely for the purposes of private use. In the next place, if tbe publication of a musical composition as a book before the piece had been publicly performed prevented the subsequent acquisition of any performing right, it must follow that the publication of the same composition as a book at any time after the piece had been publicly performed would, from that time forward, put an end to any performing right in the piece existing prior to such publication, for the reasons existing in the former case would be of equal weight in the latter. If so, the author would be put to his choice either to abstain from publishing tbe book, and thus be unable to reap that copyright therein wh:ch the Act had conferred upon him, in which case he would be confined to the enjoyment of the performing right alone, or he might publish the book, and thereby lose his performing right; in other words, not only could the two statutory rights be not enjoyed simultaneously, but, more than that, the enjoyment of the one would be the destruction of the other. This would be the natural result if the defendant's contention was right, but his lordship was of opinion that the Copyright Act, 1842, showed upon its face that the publication of the piece as a book did not prevent tbe continuance of the performing right. Much stress had been laid by the defendant on the Digest of the Law of Copyright appended to the Report of the Copyright Commissioners, 1878, but that was not a binding authority on the court. The demurrer by the plaintiffs was, therefore, allowed.—Solicitors, Wilkinson $■ Hewlett; Boulton, Sons, $ Sandman.
CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS.
(Before Mr. Registrar Brougham.)
May 2.—Ex parte Sadler, In re Hawee.
In this case Hawes was a hosier, carrying on business in the Poultry, Cheapside. He bad taken a lease of his premises in 1876 from Sadler, at a rental of £1,000 per aonnm. He at tbe same time purchased of the landlord the fixtures and fittings of the shop for £800. In 1881 Hawes Wsb made bankrupt, the above-mentioned fixture?, fittings, and furniture being still on the premises. A trustee was appointed, and in due course disolaimed the lease. The trustee having removed and sold the fixtures, fittings, and furniture, be was held wrong in doing so, and an inquiry was ordered as to which of tbetn were attaohed to the premises, and the amount of damage which had been eaused by the removal. The inquiry was now taken before Mr. Registrar Brougham.
C. L. Chubb appeared for the landlord, and
/. C. JEarle for the trustee.
Tbe fittings included (1) gasburners, &a.; (2) show-oases and counters attaohed to the walls and floors by short nails and screws; (3) oonnters whioh bad been placed on a floor whioh was afterwards conoreted over, but whioh were not fixed by any nails or screws; (4) mirrors and clocks attached to the wall in the usual way, so that they could be readily detached by drawing the nails whioh supported them ; (5) furniture whioh was quite loose and detached.
Witnesses were called on both sides as to the manner in whioh the things in dispute were attaohed to the premises, and aa to their value, and Mr. Frank Lewis, of No. 95, Gresham-street, City, tbe auctioneer and valuer, was called, and said that in his opinion, with the exception of the gasburners', tbe things were fittings whioh were always regarded as mere chattels such as could be distrained for rent.
Eventually Mr. Registrar Brougham held that the trustee was wrong in removing or selling anything beyond tbe loose furniture, and that anything whioh was so attached to the premises that it oould not be removed without drawing a nail or a screw was a tenant's fixture, and therefore belonged to tbe landlord, and not to the trustee; the result of his deoision being that the trustee bad to pay to the landlord the value of tbe things he had wrongfully removed in addition to the damage done to the premises in the removal.
Solicitors, Dean* <fc Chuib; William Slurt.
(Before Mr. Registrar Murray, acting as Chief Judge.)
May 3.—Ex parte Wathin, Re De Fern ex Brothere.
Whether an agreement can be legally come to between a trustee in bankruptcy and his solicitor that, after deducting their respective disbursements, their "other costs, charges, and remuneration" shall be shared pro rata out of any sum available for that purpose, Qucere.
Whether, when the terms of an agreement are in dispute, the Court of Bankruptcy can exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties, Qucere.
But in any case, where the trustee fails to establish to the satisfaction of the court the existence of the agreement, payment of the solicitor's taxed costs will be ordered out of the estate.
This was an application on behalf of Mr. Thomas Edward Watkin, the solicitor for the trustee of the property of the bankrupts, for an order that the trustee should, within four days after service of the order to be made thereon, pay to the applicant the snm of £78 3s. 91., being the amount due to him in respeot of his coats as solicitor in the matter for the trustee, as appeared by the taxing master's allocatur, dated February 9, 1882.
The applicant, in his affidavit, stated that io the month of May, 1881, his bill of costs as the solioitor for the trustee of the bankrupts was carried in for taxation, and, after many adjournments, the same was ultimately duly taxed and allowed at tbe sum of £98 15s. 101., as appeared by tbe allocator of the taxing master (Mr. Higgins), dated February 9, 1882.
On the taxation the trustee attended, and claimed to have a former taxation of costs against the separate estate of John Henry de Fernex, one of the bankrupts, re-opened, and to have the applicant's bill of costs, whioh had been taxed against snoh estate on the higher eoale, re-taxed on the lower scale, and to have the difference between what was allowed and paid to the applioant on the higher soale, and what should be allowed on retaxation on the lower soale, repaid by the applicant to the trustee.
The taxing master aoceded to the claim by the trustee, and re-opened the previous taxation, and found that, under the oiroumstanoes, the applicant had been overpaid the sum of £20 12s. Id. He deduoted the amount, and ascertained that there was a net balance due to tbe applioant of £78 3s. 9d., for whioh an allocatur was issued.
The trustee stated, with regard to a sum of £110 reoeived by him as a part of the joint estate, that he considered it as applicable towards payment of the oosts and disbursements of the applioant and of himself in connection with the joint and separate estates of the bankrupts. The only money reoeived by him in respeot of the joint estate other than the £110 amounted to £47 8". 2d.
On the 7th of May, 1878, be was appointed trustee, and at the same time he was introduced to the applicant, and requested to appoint him his solicitor in the matter. He had never previously, to his knowledge, either seen or heard of the applioant. The amount of the assets under the bankrnptoy was extremely uncertain, and it was a matter of importance to him (the trustee) that he should seoure his own position when entering into business relations with an unknown solioitor. He therefore took the precaution of making an agreement with him previously to his so acting, upon the terms "that be should inonr no personal liability to the applioant, but that, after deduoting their respective disbursements, the other costs, oharges and remuneration of the applioant and himself should be shared between them pro rata out of any sum available for or towards their disoharge." The applicant denied the existence of the agreement in question, and the trustee admitted that be had received sufficient asBets to pay the amount of the applicant's claim.
Terrell, for the applioant.
Yale Lee, for the trustee.
Mr. Registrar Murray said the solioitor was duly appointed with the sanction of the committee of inspection, and prima facie his right was perfectly dear, and the order for payment of his oosts wonld be made as a mere matter of oonrse. But in this case the trustee had set up by way of defenoe a special agreement between the solioitor and himself. [His honour referred to it.] The first question, whioh was open to considerable doubt, was whether that kind of agreement oould be legally come to between a trustee in bankruptcy and his solicitor, however clear and precise it might be in its terms, and whether such an agreement was one which the court ought to regard or recognize in any shape or way in the administration of the estate. Being, moreover, an agreement outside the bankruptcy, could it be said, when the terms of the agreement were in dispute, tbe case was one which came within the functions of this court to determine or adjudicate upon between the parties P He should certainly hesitate before coming to any such conclusion, or deciding that it was expedient, or even proper, that this court should exercise any jurisdiction in the matter. Assuming, however, the affirmative of both those propositions to be tenable in law, then how did the case stand in regard to the question of foot? On tbe one aide the trustee deliberately stated upon oath a positive agreement between himself and the solicitor. On the other the solicitor as deliberately and as positively denied the trustee's statement and tbe existence of any agreement at all. Toe evidence was all on affidavit, and there was no cross-examination. How was it possible for tbe court, sitting as a jury, to say which of tbe two is speaking the truth? There were positively no materials before him whioh could enable him to arrive at a verdict. His honour then referred to the auxiliary affidavits filed on behalf of the trustee, which, in his opinion, amounted to nothing, and to the correspondence between the applicant and the trustee, and held that the trustee who had set up the defence had failed to establish it to his satisfaction, and, that being so, tbe only course he could take wae to make the order asked for, with costs out of the estate.
Applicant in person.
Solicitors for the trustee, Field, Rotcoe, <L Co.
SOLICITORS' CASES. High Court Of Justice.—Queen S Bench Division. (Sittings in Banc, before Grove and Lopes, JJ.) May 8.—In re Pruen. This was the case of a solicitor, Frederick Langford Pruen, who had been convicted of forgery, and ajainst whom a rnle had been granted to show cause why be should not be struck off the rolls.
The Court, upon the motion of Murray, for the Incorporated Law Society, and no one appearing to ahow cause, mede the rnle absolute.—Timet,
At the nsnal monthly meeting of the directors, held at the hall of the Incorporated Law Sooiety, Chancery-lane, on Thursday, the 4'h icnr,., th<> following being present—viz., Mr. Trlee (ohairman), and Messrs. Biodle, Bargee, Lucas, Desborough, jnn., Parkin, Sidney S r Hi, and A. B. Carpenter (secretary), grants of £45 were made to three members, One new member was elected, and the ordinary general bosiuess was transacted. The annual general oourt was fixed for the 25ih inst., at three o'olock.
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. Tuesday, May 9.—The society discussed the question—" Is it desirable in the interests of England that a tunnel should be oonstrnoted between England and Franoe?" Mr. Kirk opened the question in the affi mttive, and was supported by Messrs. Mallam, Strickland, W. F. Barry, and Anstip, while Messrs. E. Robinson, Whitehead, Nioholls, Waller, Lloyd Jones, Hooil, C. E. Barry, and L?mon, spoke in favour of the negative. Trio question was, on a vote being taken, negatived by a majority of ten vote>. Thirty me n bers were present.
UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. At a meeting of this society, held at Clement's-inn Hall, on Werlnefday, May 3, Mr. E. F. Spenoe in the chair, Mr. Jenks moved—" That the power married women now have over property ought to be curtailed." The opener was supported by Messrs. Bartram and Spence, and opposed by Messrs. Parsons, Tillotson, Sutcliffe, Dawbarn, Eiloart, and Harvey-Samuel. Mr. Jenks then replied, and the motion, on being pat to the meeting, was losi by thirteen votes.
BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. The nsnal fortnightly meetiug of this sooiety was held on Tuesday evening, May 9, at the Law Library, W. Fowler Carter, Er-q., B.A., B.L., in the ohair. New members having been elected, and other special business disposed of, a debate took plaoe on the following snbjeot:—" 1. Is there any valid distinction between ' set-off' and 1 oounter-olaim ?1 2. If so, should the distinction be abolished for purposes of prooedore F" The speakers on the affirmative were Messrs. Barrow, A. Hebbert, E. 0. Sogers, Byland, and Reetall, and on the negative, Messrs. G. T. Edwards and Swarbriok. The chairman summed np, and put eaoh question separately to the vote, when both were oarried by large majorities in favonr of the affirmative. A vote of thanks was then passed to Mr. Carter for presiding.
Mr. Robert Benson, solioitor, of Wigton, has been appointel Clerk to the Wigton Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, and Superintendent Registrar for the district. Mr. Beaton was admitted a solicitor in 1866.
Mr. Charles Evelyn Wellborne, solioitor, of 17, Duke-street, Southwark, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Mr. Frederick James Blake, solicitor, of Wotton-under-Edge, baa been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at that place, in succession to Mr. Oiborne Daancey, deceased. Mr. Blake was admitted a solicitor in 1864.
DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. Charles Beaton Hinde, Joseph Farmer Milne, and John Sudlow (Hinde, Milne, & Sudlow), solicitors, Manchester (as regards John Sudlow). Jan. 1.
Horace Philbrick and Sanderson Corpe (Philbrick & Corps), solicitors, 18, Austin Friars, London. May 2. The business of the late firm will in future be carried ou by Horace Philbrick solely, at 18, Austin Friars.
[Gazette, May 5.]
Henry Marriott Ricbardson and Charles Frederic Marshall (Ricl ardgm & Marshall), solicitors, Bolton, Lancashire. April 4. The bus'neis w 11 te carried 1 n by the said Henry Marriott Richardson.
[Gazette, May 9.]
Sanxry Brook And Ashton's Gain* Collieries Company, Limited,—Creditors aro require:), on or before June 5. to scud their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Richardson, Preston. Monday, June 10, at 11, ia appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims
Straiiax And Company, Limited.—By an order of Chitty, J., dated April 29, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Phelps and Co, Gresham st, solicitors for the petitioner
Vasa Murrhina Glass Company, Limited.—Petition for winding np, presented April
25, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on May 13. Snell and Co, George at,
Mansion liouso, solicitors for the petitioner West Fhontino And Bolivia Gold Mining Company, Limited.—Petition for winding
up, presented May 2, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Saturday, May 13.
Davis and Co, Coleman st, solicitors for the petitioner White Oak Colliery Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented May 4,
directed to bo heard before Bacon, V.C., on Saturday, May 13. Clarke and Co,
Lincoln's inn fields, solicitors for the petitioners
Alyn Bane Coal And Cannbl Compaoy, Limited.—Hall, V.C, has, by an order,dated April 0, appointed Robert Cockburn Miller, India st, Edinburgh, to be official
Cotion Waste Cleansing Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented May 3, directed to be heard before Fry, J., on Friday, May 19. Greene, Bedford row, solicitor for the petitioners
Grand Dcciiess Silver, Lead, And Babytes Mining Company, Limited.—Creditors are required, on or before June 3, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to John Martin Winter, M arket st, Newcastle upon Tyne. Friday, June 10, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims
Industrial Operative Bbickmaking Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up,
presented May 4, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on May 28. Powell, Essex st,
Strand, solicitor for the petitioner Keighley Herald Newspaper Company, Limited.—By an order made by North, J.,
dated April 29, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Bharpe and Co, New
ct, Carey st, agents for Weatherhead and Burrs. Keighley, solicitors for the petitioner London Jdth Works, 1871, Limited.—By an order made by Fry, J., dated April 23, it
was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the works bo continued. Horwood and
Stephenson, solicitors for the petitioner Plymouth Pier Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented May 4,
directed to be heard before Fry, J., on May 19. Chamberlayne, Lincoln's inn fields,
solicitor for the petitioners Sankey Brook And Ashton's Gbeen Collieries Company, Limited.—Chitty, J., has,
by an order dated April 1, appointed William Richardson, Preston, to be official
Uplees Brickfields Company, Limited.—Chitty, J., has, by an order dated Feb 27,
appointed Horace Woodburu Kirby, Coleman st, to be official liquidator
iGazette, May 9.]
Unlimited In Chancery. Bute Docks Loan Society. —By an order made by Chitty, J., dated April 26, it was
ordered that the sooiety bo wound up. Roes and Co, Frederick's pi, Old Jewry,
agents for Ensor, Cardiff, solicitor for the petitioner City Op Chester Benefit Building Society.—Chitty, J., hoe fixed May 10, at 11, at
his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator
IGazette, May 6.]
County Palatine Of Lancaster. Limited In Chancery. Derwen Dbg Pannol-gwyn Copper And Lead Mining Com Pant, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented May 3, directed to bo heard before the Vice-Chanoellor, at St George's Hall, Liverpool, on Saturday, May 13. Mather, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioner
IGazette, May 5.]
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOF.
Birckall, Thomas, Swansea, Grocer. May 25. Bircball v Brown, Fry, J. Stevens, Swansea
Manning, John, Madeira villas, Twickenham, Secretary. May 18. Stone vManning,
Chitty, J. Lewis, Ely place, Holborn Mcsgrovr, Sir John, Spoldhurst, Kent, Baronet. May 18. Tyer v Waters, Chitty, J.
Layton, Budge row. Cannon st Shaw, Francrs Mary, Hyde pork terr. May 8. Hughes v Evans, Hall, V.C. Burr
and Co, Abchurch lane Sibbehing, William, sen., Swansea, Grocer. May 25. Birchall v Brown, Fry, J.
IGazette, April 21.J
Eyre, Harriet, Tennison st, Lambeth. May 10. Blotch v Woodman, Fry, J. Parnell,
Seaton, Lelia, Alexander sq, Brompton. May 24. Russell v Baring, Chitty, J. Davis
Cork st, Burlington gdns Temfli, Georgr, Plymouth, Gentleman. May 24. Temple v Hingston, Hall, V.C.
Webb, Sarah Maxwrll, Upper Richmond rd. Putney. May 23. Faithfull v Faithfull. Chitty, J. Grossman, Theobald's rd, Gray's inn
[Gazette, April 25.]
Fox, Gxorgr, Bournemouth. May 26. Dawes v Druitt, Chitty, J. Druitt, jun, Bournemouth
Paul, Thomas, Weelsby Clee, Lincoln, Licensed Victualler. May 31. Morris v
Saweard, Hall, V.C. Haddelsey, Great Grimsby Roberts, Christopher, Bristol, Drysalter, June 1. Tarleton v Bruton, Fry, J.
Sowden, Elizabeth, Leeds. May 22, Jackson v Turner, Bacon, V.C. Wilkin, Wakefield
IQatette, April 28.]
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35.
Dowiu, Thomas, Beadlam, York, Fanner. June 1. Jackson and Jackson, Middlesbrough
Dowliico, Fsbdseick, Hartley Wintney, Southampton, Gent. June 1. Eagleton, Chancery lane
G Vrlahb, Eliza, Colchester, Essex. May 81. Wittey, Colchester
Haxcocxe, William Mortimer, Fishguard, Pembroke, Tanner. May 19. Davies and
Co, Frederick's pi, Old Jewry Harms, Chaslis Billitee, Kennington Park rd, Gent. June 8. Drake and Co, Bood
Haevey, William, Plymouth, Merchant. May 31. Curteis and Pearse, Plymouth Heitit, Eliza, Princes sq, Bayswater. June 2. Coburn and Young, Leadenhall st Hill, Hsvey Thomas, Felton Beotory, Hereford, Clerk in Holy Orders. June 1. Beddoo, Hereford
Howell, Thomas, Birmingham Heath, Gent. May 28. Duke, Birmingham Huttok, Heket, Colnbrook, Buckingham, Esq. June 1. Stoneham and Co, Philpot lane, Fenchurch st
KELLy, JoHir, Wells st, Oxford st, Professor of Music. May 26. Barker, Bedford row KiNosFomi, Bev Bsehchley, Shadwell Bectory, Clerk in Holy Orders. July 1.
Wightwick and Co, Canterbury Kitciiihg, Alfred, Darlington, Durham, Esq. May 31. Hutchinson and Lucas, Darlington
Marbiott, Geoboe Pheasaut, Leamington, Warwick, Gent. May 31. Wright and
Hassall, Leamington Miller, Mart, Waverley rd, Faddington. June 3. Wright, Walbrook Moir, Robbbt, West Teignmoutb, Devon, Esq. July 1. Whidborne and Tozer, Teign.
Ottawat, Gillett JonAthah, Haringay pk, Hornsey, Gent. May 30. Pearce, Essex st, Strand
Pearson, Kev Johk, Suckley Bectory, Worcester, Clerk. June 24. Curtlor and Davis, Worcester
Eae, Geoboe, Liverpool. May 31. Thompson and Shatwell, Liverpool
Taylor, Robert, Derby, Hotel Manager. June 10. Flint, Derby
Wilcox, Matthew, Handsworth, Stafford, Jeweller. May 30. Fowke, Birmingham
[Gazette, April 28.]
SIR THOMAS ERSKTNE PERRY.
The Right Hon. Sir Thomas Erekine Perry, knight, died at his residence, 86, Eaton-place, on the 22nd alt., after several months' illness. The deceased was the son of Mr. James Perry, many years editor of the Morning Chroniclf, and was born in 1806. He was educated at the Charterhouse, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, and afterwards studied at the University of Munich. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1834 (having previously been a pupil in the chambers of the late Mr. Justice Patteson), and be practised for several years on the Home Circuit. He became known as a law reporter, in connection with Neville and Perry's, and Perry and Davison's, series of Queen's Bench Reports. In 1841 he was appointed puisne judge of the Supreme Court at Bombay, and he received the honour of knighthood, and he held that ofEoe for eleven years. He was very highly esteemed by both the European and the Native community at Bombay. He was for some years President of the Indian Board of Eduoation, in recognition of his services in which capacity he was, on his return to England, presented with a testimonial of £5,000, which was, at his request, applied to the foundation of a law professorship. Sir E. Ferry was at all times an active member of the advanced Liberal party. In 1831 he was honorary secretary to the National Political Union of London, and be was for some time one of the proprietors of the Examiner. He was an unsuccessful Liberal candidate for Chatham in 1832, and for Liverpool in 1852, and he represented Devonport from 1854 till 1859. He was a frequent speaker in the House of Commons, especially on Indian subjects. In 1859 he was appointed by Lord Halifax to a seat on the Council of the Secretary of State for India, and he held that post for nearly twenty-three years. He retired on account of failing health about four months age, when, in recognition of his long publio services, he was created a Privy Councillor. Sir E. Perry had been twice married, bis second wife being a daughter of the late Sir John Johnstone, Bart.
MR. FRANCIS McDONOGH, Q.C. Mr. Francis McDonogh, Q.C., died at his residence, 41, Rutland-square, Dublin, on the 18th nit., at the age of seventy-seven, after a few weeks' illness. Mr. McDonogh was born in 1805. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and he was called to the Irish bar about the year 1828, and be practis'd until within a few weeks of bis death. He was a bencher of the King's Inns, and almost the oldest Queen's Counsel in practice, and the length of his professional career may be illustrated by the circumstance that he was one of the counsel for the defenoe in the O'Connell trial in 1843, while he also defended some of the accused persons in the prosecution of the Land League in the early part of last year. He was one of the leading advocates of the Irish bar, being gifted with great eloquence and readiness, and be had considerable influence with jaries. Mr. McDonogh's political career was a somewhat varied one, and he had more than once changed his politic, but in 1865 he was elected M.P. for the borough of Sligo in the Conservative interest, though he failed to secure re-eleotion at the general election in 1868. He had frequently been engaged in Irish appeals before the House of Lords. Early in February he was opening the appeal in Kid v. The Duke of Devonshire before the House when he was seized with illness, >nd the farther bearing of the case was
adjourned. He was, however, unable to resume his argument, and although he returned to Dublin he did not afterwards recover. Mr. McDonogh was butied at the Mount Jerome Cemetery, Dublin, on the 21st inst. Lord O'Hagan and many members of the Irish bench and bar attenJed the funeral.
LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK,
HOUSE OF LORDS. May 4.—Bills Read a Second Time. Private Bills.—Northampton Corporation; Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers).
Bills Read a Third Time. Private Bills.—Greenwich and Millwall Subway; Rhondda and Swacsea Bay Railway.
Bill to alter and amend the law relating to marriage with a deceased wife's si iter (eabl of Dalhousie).
May 5.—Bill Read a Second Time. Pbivate Bill.—Millwall Dock.
Bills Head a Third Time. Private Bills.—Linn house Subway; Bristol City Corporation of the Poor.
May 8.—Bill Head a Third Time. Private Bill.—Queenetown Water.
May 9.—Bills Bead a Second Time. Private Bills.—Dixie's Estate; Cvfarthfa Works 1 Metropolitan Markets (Fish, &c.) j Horncastle Water.
Union of Benefices (London) ; Pluralities Acts Amendment; Milit'a Storehouses.
Bill Bead a Third Time. Privatb Bill.—Birkenhead Borough.
HOUSE OF COMMONS. May 4.—Bill Read a Second Time. Documentary Evidence.
Bill in Committee. Municipal Corporations (Clauses 9—108).
Bills Bead a Third Time. Privatb Bills.—Ahbotsbury Railway; Bromsgrove Gas ; Ipswich Tramways (Extensions) 5 King's College, London; Liverpool Improvement. May 8.—Bills Read a Second Time. Private Bills.—Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.
Bills Read a Third Time. Private Bills.—Todmorden Water j Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders.
May 9.—Bills Read a Second Time. Private Bill.—Carnarvon (Morfa Seiont Common). Settled Land; Consolidated Fund (No. 3); Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment; Copyright (Works of Art).
Bills in Committee.
Municipal Corporations (passed through Committee) ; Documentary Evidence (passed through Committee; Militsry Manoeuvres (passed through Committee) Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices).
Bill Read a Third Time.
Bill for the amendment of the Judicature Aots (Sir H. Giffabd).
Bill to amend the law of copyright relating to musical compositions (Mr.
May 10.—Bill Read a Second Time. Capital Punishment
Bill in Committee.
Consolidated Fund (No. 3).
Bills Read a Third Tim*. Military Manoeuvres ; Documentary Evidence.
On the 5th inst., in the House of Commons, Sir H. Giffard asked the Attorney-General whether he conld give any assnrance that the miss about to be promulgated in relation to trial by jury, pleadings, and appeals would be laid npon the table of the House soon enough to enable a full discussion to take place upon them. The Attorney.Genernl said that these rnles were made under tbe Judicature Act of 1875, and would come into operation as scon as they were promulgated. All that was required was that forty days after coming into operation tbey should be laid upon the table of the House. Sir H. GiSard said that, in consequence of the answer he had received, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act in that respect. In introducing this Bill on Tuesday last, he said that among other questions which had been brought to the attention of tbe Government were those of trial by jury and the operation of the ruleB under the Judicature Acts. Under those Acts the judges had it in their power, if they chose, by ths mere publication of rules, to abolish trial by jury in several cases, and the only check on that power was that, within forty days after the rnles had been laid upon the table of the House, the House might disagree to them ; bat until a resolution to that effect was passed the rules were at once operative, so that it was possible by a mere rule at once to sweep away the safeguard of trial by jury. It was never intended that the Judicature Acts should have such an effect, and he believed the Bill he now proposed to introduce met with the approval of the Government. He therefore moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875, so at to render it necessary that the rules made by the Committee of Judges should be laid upon the table of the Home for forty days before coming into operation.
At the Stock and Share Auction Company's sale, held on Friday, the 6th in-t., at their sale rooms, Crown-court-buildings, Old Broad-street, the following were amongst the prices obtained :—La Plata Mining and Smelting lOdol. shares, £2 Is. 3d. ; Electric Light and Power Generator £1 shares, XI Is. 9d.; Silver Peak Mining £1 .-hirec, 4s. 6d.; Colombian Uydraulio Mining £1 shares, 10s.; S. B. Lambe & Co. £1 shares, 12*. 6d. ; Dieu Donne Gold £1 shares, Is. Gi.; Pure Beverage £l shares. 9s. 6d.; Eureka (Nevada) Mines, 4s. 4d. ; and other miscellaneous securities fetched fair prices. At the sale, held on Tuesday, the 9th inst., the following were amongst the prices obtained :—Short Horn Dairy £1 shares, fully paid, 22*. ; Ladies' Dress Association £5 shares, £3 paid, 4s. ; La Plata Mining and Smelting lOdol. share*, fully paid, £2 2s. 6d.; Lady Bertba United Copper £1 shares, fully paid, 15s. ; Silver Peak Mining £1 shares, fully paid, 4s. 6d.; Electric Light and Power, Is. 9d. premium; and other miscellaneous securities fetohed fair prices.
Messrs. Jenner & Dell, auctioneers and house agents, Regency-square, Brighton, have sold by private treaty another of the freehold mansions in Queen's Gardens, Brighton, facing the sea, together with the contents of the residence, for the sum of £12,500.
Mr. F. Ellis Morris, of the Poultry, sold by auction at the Mart, on Wednesday, the freehold premises, No. 9, Cornhill. The property, covering an area of 780 feet, realized £25,050, or about £33 per superficial foot, and £1,565 10,-. per foot frontage. These figures work out nearly at a million and a half per acre.
SALES OF ENSUING WEEK.
May 16.—Messrs. Weathbball & Green, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold
Properties (see advert immnt, ih'a week, p. 4). May 17.—Mea*rs. Fabebrotheb, Ellis, Clark, & Co., at the Mart., at 2p.m.,
Leasehold Property (see advertisement, May 6, p. 4). May 17.—Messrs. Edwin Fox & Bousfield, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold
Property (see advertisement, May 6, p. 3). May 17.—Mr. Arthur Jackson, at Enfield, at 7 p.m., Leasehold Property and
building Land (see ad vert is mint, April 22, p. 4). May 17.—Mr. Alfrbd Savill, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Properties (see
aivertisement, April 29, p. 4). _ Mav 19.—Messrs. Norton, Tbist, Watnet, & Co., at the Mart, Freehold Property (see advertisement, May 6, p. 4).
Fbidit, May 6, 1882. Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar. To Surrender in the Countrv. Cook, John, Bristol, Wholsale Tea Dealer. Pet May 2. Harloy. Bristol, May 19 at 2.30
Dodd, Joseph, Llanelly, Brecknock, Tanner. Pet May 1. Shepard. Tredegar, May 22 at 11
Fisher, Alfred, Gorleeton, Suffolk, Outfitter. Pet May 3. Worlledge. Great Yarmouth, May 17 at 3
Gibbs, Charles, Framlingham, Suffolk, Baker. Pet May 2. Grimsey. Ipswich, May 19 at 3
Jackson, George, Robert Maddison, and John Pattinaon, Alston, Cumberland, Alston
Lime Company. Pet May 3. Norman. Carlisle, May 17 at 3 Johnson, Samuel, Nottingham, Grocer. Pet May 1. Patchitt. Nottingham, May 16
Maggs, Oliver, Bourton, Dorset, Flax Spinner. Pet May 4. Wilson. Salisbury, May 17 at 2
Matts, Joseph, Isleworth, Wagon Builder. Pet May 2. Ruston. Brentford, May 23 at 2
McKinnell, Alexander, Leeds, Tailor. Pet April 29. Marshall. Leeds. May 24 at 11 Millard, Frederick John, Salisbury, Wilts, Innkeeper. Pet May 2. Wilson. Salisbury, May 17 at 11
Morton, Alfred, Clapham pk rd, Musical Instrument Maker. Pet April 25. Wil
loughby. Wandsworth, May 19 at 11 Riley, Joshua Armitage, and Joseph Armitago Riley, Halifax, Estate Agents. Pet
May 1. Rankin. Halifax, May 18 at 11
Tuesday, May 9, 1882. Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar. To Surrender in London. Miller, Henry Edward Campbell, Seething lane, Wine Merchant. Pet May 4. Hazlitt. May 24 at 11
Pearse, George, and Frederick Banyard, Rigeley rd, Kensal Green, Builders. Pet May
6. Hazlitt. May 24 at 11 Sheen, Henry, Camden st, Walworth, Corn Dealer. Pet May 5. Popys. May 21 at
To Surrender in the Country. Archer, Smith, Dewsbury, Beerhouse Keeper. Pet May 5. Tennant. Dewsbury, May
22 at 12
Bradford, Frank, Roath, Cardiff, Bank Clerk. Pet May 3. Langley. Cardiff, May
23 at 12.30
Crossley, William, Halifax, Broker. Pet May 4. Rankin. Halifax, May 22 at 11 Jagger, Thomas, Sandy, Bedford, Dealer in Jewellery. Pet May 4. Pearse. Bedford, May 17 at 11.30
Littlefair, William, Barnoldswicke, York, Greengrocer. Pet May 6. Lee. Bradford, May 22 at 10
Newton, John, Sunderland, Tailor. Pet May 4. Ellis. Sunderland, May 23 at 12 Spencer, Jabez, Huddersfield, Beerhouse Keeper. Pet May 5. Jones. Huddcrsfield, May 24 at 11
Tusting, John, Kingston upon Hull, Horse Dealer. Pot May 4. Rollit. Kingston upon HuU, May 24 at 3
Wright, Thomas Hollis, Park shot, Richmond, Gentleman. Pet May 6. Willoughbr.
Liquidations by Arrangement.
FIRST MEETINGS OF CREDITORS.
Alberts, Charles, Leeds, Wool Merchant. May 17 at 3 at office of Killick and Co, Commercial Bank bides, Bradford
Allen, Charles Burton, St John's hill, New Wandsworth, Baker. May 19 at 2 at office of Armstrong, Chancory lane
Archer, William, and John Henry Archer, Brompton, nr Northallerton, York, out of business. May 24 at 3 at office of Teale, Northallerton
Asqnith, Ezra, Thornhill, York, Fanner. May 18 at 3 at office of Ibberson, Westgate, Dewsbury
Attwood, James, Birmingham, Tailor. May IS at 2 at office of East, Temple st, Birmingham
Bath, Frederick John, Bradford on Avon, Wilts, of no occupation. May 18 at 1 at the
George Hotel, Chard. Bartrum and Bartlett, Bath Batten, William Rowsell, Taunton, Somerset, Butcher. May 12 at 11 at office of Foster,
East st, Taunton
Bayliss, James, Cheltenham, General Dealer. May 18 at 11 at office of Clark, Regent
st, Cheltenham Botten, William Henry, East Mailing, Kent, Farmer.
stone. Norton and Son Bown, James, Abergavenny, Monmouth, Baker. May 18 at 10 at 11, Frogmore st,
Abergavenny. Hodgens, Abergavenny Bridge, John, Manchester, Sanitary Tube Dealer. May 24 at 3 at office of Almond,
Kennedy st, Manchester Brittan, George, jun, Balham, Surrey, Builder. May 19 at 2 at Guildhall Coffee-house,
Gresham st. Davie, New inn, Strand Clark, William Henry, Ware, Hertford, Hotel Keeper. May 26 at 12.30 at Saracen's
Head Hotel, Ware. Gisby Cook, James William, Victoria pk rd, South Hackney, Boot and Shoe Manufacturer.
May 24 at 12 at Masons' Hall Tavern, Masons' Avenue, Baaingnall st. Fulcher,
Albert rd, Dalston
Coupe, John, Doncaster, York, Coal Dealer. May 26 at 11.30 at office of Gill and Hall,
Barstow so, Wakefield Crompton, Maria, Sale, Chester, Bookseller. May 17 at 3 at office of Shippey and Field,
Cooper st, Manchester Crowther, Tom, John Crowther, and Alfred Crowther, Oldham, Builders. May 18 at
3 at King's Arms Inn, Yorkshire st, Oldham. Watson, Oldham Cutting, Frederick William, Delaford rd, Rotherhithe New nl, Insurance Agent.
May 18 at 3 at the Masons' Hall tavern, Masons' avenue. Fowler and Co, Borough
High st, Southwark
Diets, Carl, Wardour st, Oxford st, Manufacturing Jowoller. May 18 at 2 at 209, High
Holborn. Solomon, Holford sq Earl, Stephen, and William Woodfield Philp, London Wall, Brass Founders. May 16 at
12 at office of Shearman, Gresham st Eaton, Henry Joseph, Broadwiusor, Dorset, Auctioneer. May 13 at 3.30 at King's Arm
Hotel, Dorchostor. Watts, Yeovil Elliott, John, Rye, Sussex, Hoop Maker. May 16 at 11 at offices of Dawes, Watchbell
English, James, Malmsbury rd, Bow, Grocer. May 23 at 11 at offices of Naylor and Co, Broad st Wdgs, Liverpool st, Eyerill, Marylebono rd
May 18 at 3 at 13, Earl st, Maid