« PreviousContinue »
facts were shortly these :-In 1876 the Cornwall Minerals Railway Com- administration by the court and payment in of the $5,000. Upon the trial pany were in want of money, and their borrowing powers under their Act he now asked that the money should bo invested in the names of the trustees were nearly exhausted. Negotiations took place between them and the nominated by the legatee, but under the control of the court, claiming such Yorkshire Railway Wagon Company for a loan of £30,000. The railway relief as of course. Hall, V.C., however, said that the modern tendency of company were advised that they could not give a valid security for the pro- the court was to leave trust funds in the hands and under the control of posed loan, and it was suggested that the railway company should obtain the trustees, whenever they were properly there, and there was no ground for money by selling part of their rolling stock to the wagon company for a sum inferring that they were unsafe, and he therefore refused the relief asked. By of £30,000, and that at the same time the railway company should agree to consent an order was taken, whereby the legatee yodertook to give the plainhire that rolling stock from the wagon company for the term of five years, at a tiff notice of changes of investment, but the plaintiff was ordered to pay the rent which would repay the £30,000 and interest by the end of that period. costs of the action, liberty to apply being reserved.-SOLICITORS, Sewell & This arrangement was carried out by an agreement under seal between the Edwards ; Bowker, Peake, Bird, & Collins. companies, dated the 20th of June, 1876. In case 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 PRACTICE-PARTIES BROUGHT IN BY NOTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT, price. At the same time three of the directors of the railway 1875, ORD. 16, R. 18—Issue BETWEEN SUCH PARTY AND THE DEFENDANT company personally guaranteed to the wagon company the payment of --Costs-Ord. 16, RR. 17, 18, 20, 21.-In an action of Pilke v. Roberts, the rent, The rent baving fallen into arrear the wagon company
before Kay, J., on the 6th and 8th inst., two questions were raised as to the brought the action against the railway company and the sureties for the practice under order 16. The action was brought to recover a sum of money amount of the rent due and for damages. Kay, J., beld that the professed said to be due under a building contract. The defendant claimed to have a sale and biring were in fact a borrowing of £30,000 on the security of the right of indemnity against a third person, as agent for whom he said he bad rolling stock, and therefore invalid as a security beyond the powers of the made the contract
. He accordingly issued, and served on such person, a company, and that the transaction was, so far as the railway company were
notice under ord. 16, r. 18. Tbe third party got leave to defend, and concerned, ultrà vires and void, but that the guarantee was valid, and that the delivered a defence and counter-claim. No reliof was asked by the plaintiffs sureties were liable on their guarantee. The wagon company appealed, and against the third party, and the defendant did not deny the plaintiff's claim, the sureties had also appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the transaction saying only that the third party was the person to pay. Kay, J., said that of sale and hiring was really what it purported to be, and not a loan in dis. proceedings, no doubt, might have been taken under rule 17 to get an order guise, and that it had been bona fide substituted for the loan which had been for the trial of the question between the defendant and the third party, but originally intended. The agreement was therefore valid and could be enforced
as this was not done, no such question could be tried; therefore, if the court against the railway company. The appeal of the sureties was dismissedon the facts could give judgment against the defendant, the case was at an SOLICITORS, Singleton & Tattershall ; Cope & Co.; Morley & Shirreff.
end. His lordship, on ihe facts, gave judgment against the desendant, with costs, the third party's counsel not having opened his counter-claim.
The plaintiff's counsel then asked for the costs occasioned by the third LUNATIC, ALLOWANCE TO NEXT OF Kin.-la a case of In re Evans, party's intervention. Against that it was contended that the order giving before the Court of Lunacy on the 6th inst., a question arose as to granting an leave to defend ought to bave made some terms as to the costs, that it not allowance out of the income of a lunatic to one of his next of kin. The having done so, no order could now be made. lunatic had an income of about £1,000 a year, of which only £425 a year was KAY, J., said that such a direction was not necessary, as a person coming required for his maintenance. His next of kin were first cousins. One of into an action is subject to the judge's order as to costs, equally with other these was an Irish clergyman over eighty years of age, who, in consequence matters. On the opposite contention, even if the third party had succeeded of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, bad been reduced to very poor in his counter-claim he could have bad no costs.--SOLICITORS, Savidge , circomstances. He desired to have
an allowance made to him out of the income Steward ; Henry Wickens ; Routh, Stacey, $ Castle, for George Mitchell of the lunatic, and the master had made a report by which be certified that Seabroke. he approved of making an allowance of £100 a year to the applicant, if the court should think that it ought to be made. The court (JESSEL, M.R., and CHARITY-APPOINTMENT OF NEW TRUSTEES AND VESTING ORDERLINDLEY, L.J.) resused to grant the allowance. JESSEL, M.R., said that the Consent of Charity COMMISSIONERS -CHARITABLE TRusts Act, 1853, s. applicant bad no legal claim and no moral claim. The princip on which the 62.- In the case of Ex parte The Committee of the Western Synagogue, St. court acted was laid down in Ex parte Whitbread (2 Mer. 99). No regard was Alban's place, Haymarket, before North, J., for Chitty, J., on the 4th inst., a to be paid to any interest of the next of kin in the lunatic's property. The petition was presented for the appointment of new trustees of the Jewish Burial question was what was for the benefit of the lunatic. If the next of kin was Ground in St. Luke'e, Chelsea, and for a vesting order. The burial ground was, a person whom he was under a legal obligation to provide for, or if he was by a deed dated 1817, vested in trustees for the benefit of the members of the under some moral obligation to do something for him, by reason of his having Jewish congregation of a synagogue then existing in Denmark-court, Strand, given some promise, or baving already made some allowance, the court might but closed since the year 1826, when the present synagogue was opened in grant or continue an allowance. Illustrations of this were to be found in In its place. It appeared that the ground was purchased and kept up by volun. re Blair (1 M. & C. 300) and in In re Frost (L. R. 5 Cb. 699), in the former tary subscriptions of the congregation. The trustees had long sinco died, of which cases Lord Cottenham said that the principle involved ought to be and it could not be ascertained who was the last survivor. The question was parrowed rather tban extended in its operation, and that he would never exer- raised whether the consent of the Charity Commissioners was necessary for cise such a jorisdiction without the greatest possible jealousy, and caution. the purposes of such an application. North, J., adopting the ruling of the LINDLEY, L.J., said that the grant of the allowance must be, in some way or late Master of the Rolls in The Governors of the Charity for the Relief of other, for the lunatic's benefit. --SOLICITORS, Bower, Cotton, Bower.
Poor Widows v. Sutton (27 Beav. 651), and of Hall, V.C., in The Royal
decided that the consent of the Charity Commissioners was not necessary, as PRIORITY OF INCUMBRANCENOTICE-ERRONEOUS REFERENCE IN Notice the property in question represented voluntary contributions. -SOLICITOR, - One of several points which arose upon an adjourned summons in an action
Lewis Davis. of Whittingstall v. 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
COPYRIGHT_Right OF REPRESENTATION-Prior PUBLICATION-MUSICAL of a will
, the person beneficially interested in the reversion mortgaged bis COMPOSITION -COPYRIGHT Acts-COPYRIGHT ACT, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. interest by deed, dated February 27, 1879, having previously put it into 45), s. 20. In the case of Chappell v. Boosey, before North, J., sitting settlement by a deed dated June 28, 1875. No effectual notice of the settle for Chitty, J., on the 3rd and 6th inst., the plaintiffs, a firm of music pube ment was given to the trustees of the will until May, 1880, but the mortgagee lishers in Bond-street, claimed to be the registered proprietors of the copy. under the deed of February 27, 1879, gave formal notice to them in April, right in a musical composition or song, with an accompaniment, called “The 1879, of a mortgage deed, stating the parties correctly as they appeared in Bell-ringer,” and also of the sole liberty of performing the same piece, and his security of February 27, 1879, but erroneously stating the data as being sued the defendant for having, as one of the dircctors of the London Billad November 27, 1878. No deed of that date, in fact, existed, and it was sworn
Concerts, infringed their rights by permitting the song to be performed, by the mortgagee's solicitor that the date was stated in error, wbich was,
without the plaintiffs' consent, at the St. James's Hall on the 14th of however, never corrected. The trustees of the settlement contended that the December last. The defence set up by the defendant was that the song in notice must be taken to be ineffectual, as it did not, in fact, refer to the question, with its accompaniment, was, some time prior to its public performalleged mortgage, but Hall, V.C., held that it was sufficient and operated to aoce, published and sold as a book within the meaning of that term in the give the mortgagee priority, and he made a declaration accordingly. --Solici. Copyright Act, 1842. The plaintiffs demurred to this defence, and the quesTORS, Barlee, Burgess, 8 Cosens ; Hepburn, Sons, $ Cutliffe.
tion thus raised for tbe decision of the court was whether the publication of a dramatic piece or musical composition as a book, before it bas been pablicly
represented or performed, deprives the author or his assignee of the exclusive PRACTICE-TRUST FUNDS-INVESTMENT.-In an action of Braithwaite v. right he would otherwise have of representing or performing it. North, J., Wallis, which was before Hall, V.C., for trial upon the 3rd inst., the plaintiff said that in his opinion the law stood thus. Under the Statute of Aone the sought to have a trust fund invested under the control of the court under the author of a dramatio piece cr musical composition acquired a copyright in following circumstances:-A testator beqneathed to a female legateo a sam his work so as to be enabled to prevent any other persons from multiplying of £5,000, free of duty, for her sole and separate use, and to be invested by copies of it, but this did not prevent any one who thought fit to do so from trastees to be nominated by her, so that she should have the income for her representing or performing it. The privilege of an author of a dramaris piece life and without power of anticipation, and after her death the principal sum was extended by the Act of 3 & 4. Will. 4, c. 15, commonly called Sir to fall into the testator's residuary estate, which he gave to his father, the Pulwer Lytton's Act, which provides that the author, or assign of the author plaintiff in the action. The testator appointed trustees and executors of his of any dramatic piece which was not printed or published, wbether theu will. The plaintiff desired that some control should be retained over the already composed, or thereafter to be composed, should have as his own fund, and, as the legatee had refused to allow any interference, had brought property, and be proprietor of, the sole liberty of representing the same at the action against her and the surviving executor of the will, asking for any place of dramatic entertainmeut for a period not clearly defined and got at present material, and that the anthor, or assign of the author, of any such
(Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.) piece, wbich was printed and published after or within ten years before the
May 3.-Ex parte Watkin, Re De Fernex Brothers. 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
Whether an agreement can be legally come to between a trustee in publication of the piece, if it was first printed and published after the passing bankruptcy and his solicitor that, after deducting their respective disof the Act, or until the end of seven years after the author's death, which bursements, their “other costs, charges, and remuneration" shall be ever should prove the longer. After the passing of this Act the author had, shared pro rata out of any sum available for that purpose, Qucere. therefore, two different rights, one that of copyright proper, preventing the Whether, when the terms of an agreement are in dispute, the Court of multiplication of copies of the piece itself, and the other being what may be Bankruptcy can exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties, called the acting or performing right, conferring upon him the power of Qucere. preventing others from representing the piece without his consent.
But in any case, where the trustee fails to establish to the satisfaction however, did not extend or apply to musical compositions, except so far as they came within the category of dramatic pieces or entertainmenis. By the taxed costs will be ordered out of the estate.
of the court the existence of the agreement, payment of the solicitor's Copyright Act, 1842, commonly known as Talfourd's Act, the rights of anthors were extended, and the authors of musical compositions acquired the This was an applicatioc on behalf of Mr. Thomas Edward Watkin, the double right-Damely, first, that of copyright proper in the piece itself as a solicitor for the trustee of the property of the bankrapts, for an order that book; and, secondly, the performing rights, such rights having a somewhat the trustee should, within four days after service of the order to be made different period of duration. Althoagh there were these two distinct statutory thereon, pay to the applioant the sam of £78 33. 9d., being the amount due rights, it was said by the defendant that no person would purobase the piece to him in respect of bis oosts as solicitor in the matter for the trustee, as in its book form, unless its sale conferred on the purchaser the right to make appeared by the taxing master's allocatur, dated February 9, 1882.
this The consequence did not follow, for it was only the performance of the piece bis bill of costs as the solicitor for the trostee of the bankrupts was carried in public which, under the Copyright Act, 1842, was prevented by the in for taxation, and, after many adjouroments, the same was ultimately existence of the performing right, and it was obvious that the greater duly taxed and allowed at the sam of £98 153. 101., as appeared by the number of sales of musical pieces took place merely for the purposes of allocatur of the taxing master (Mr. Higgins), dated February 9, 1882. private use. In the next place, if the publication of a musical composition On the taxation the trustee attended, and claimed have a former taxa. as a book before the piece had been publicly performed prevented the sub- tion of costs against the separate estate of John Henry de Fernes, one of sequent acquisition of any performing right, it must follow that the publica- the bankrupts, re-opened, and to have the applicant's bill of coats, which tion of the same composition as a book at any time after the piece had been had been taxed against such estate on the higher ecale, re-taxed on the publicly performed would, from that time forward, pat an end to any perform lower soale, and to have the difference between what was allowed and paid ing right in the piece existing prior to such publication, for the reasons to the applicant on the higher scale, and what should be allowed on re. existing in the former case would te of equal weight in the latter. taxation on the lower scale, repaid by the applicant to the trastee. If so, the author would be put to his choice either to abstain from publishing The taxing master acceded to the claim by the trustee, and re-opened the the book, and thus be unable to reap that copyright therein which the previous taxation, and found that, under the circumstances, the applicant Act had conferred upon him, in wbich case he would be confined to the had been overpaid the sum of £20 12:. 1d. He dedacted the amount, and enjoyment of the performing right alone, or he might publish the book, and ascertained that there was a net balance due to the applicant of £78 33. 9d., thereby lose his performing right; in other words, not only could the two for whiob an allocatur was issued. statutory rights be not enjoyed simultaneously, but, more than that, the enjoy- The trustee stated, with regard to a sum of £110 received by him as a ment of the one would be the destruction of the other. This would be the part of the joint estate, that he considered it as applicable towards pay. natural result if the defendant's contention was right, but his lordship was of ment of the costs and disbursements of the applicant and of himself in opinion that the Copyright Act, 1842, showed upon its face that the publica- connection with the joint and separate estates of the bankrupts. The only tion of the piece as a book did not prevent the continuance of the performing money received by him in respect of the joint estate other than the £110 right. Much stress bad been laid by the defendant on the Digest of the Law amounted to £47 8. 2d. of Copyright appended to the Report of the Copyright Commissioners, 1878, but that was not a binding authority on the court.
On the 7th of May, 1878, he was appointed trustee, and at the same time
The demurrer by the he was introduced to the applicant, and requested to appoint him his soli. plaintiffs was, therefore, allowed.-SOLICITORS, Wilkinson & Howlett ; Boulton, oitor in the matter. He had never previously, to bis knowledge, either seen Sons, Sandeman.
or heard of the applicant. The amount of the assets under the bankraptoy was extremely uncertaio, and it was a matter of importance to him (the trostee) that he sbould secure his own position when entering into business
relations with an unknown solicitor. He therefore took the precaution of CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS. making an agreement with him previously to his so aoting, upon the terms (Before Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM.)
"that he should incar no personal liability to the applioant, but that, after
deducting their respective disbursements, the other costs, charges and remu. May 2.-Ex parte Sadler, In re Hawes.
neration of the applicant and himself should be shared between them pro In this case Hawes was a hosier, oarrying on business in the Poultry, cant denied the existence of the agreement in question, and the trustee
rata out of any som available for or towards their discharge." The appliCheapside. He bad taken a lease of his premises in 1876 from Sadler, at & rental of £1,000 per annum. He at the same time porobaged of the landlord
admitted that he had received sufficient assets to pay the amount of the
applicant's claim. the fixtures and fittings of the shop for £800. In 1881 Hawes was made
Terrell, for the applicant. bankrapt, the above-mentioned fixtures, fittings, and furniture being still on
Yate Lee, for the trustee. the premises. A trustee was appointed, and in due course disolaimed the lease. The trustee baving recoved and sold the fixtures, fittings, and sanction of the committee of inspection, and prima facie his right was per
Mr. REGISTRAR MCRRAY said the solicitor was daly appointed with the fornitare, he was held wrong in doing so, and an inquiry was ordered as to fectly olear, and the order for payment of his costs would be made as a mere which of thera were attached to the premises, and the amount of damago matter of course. Bat in this case the trustee had set up by way of defence which had been caused by the removal. The inquiry was now taken before Mr. Registrar Broogbam.
& special agreement between the solicitor and himself. (His honour
referred to it.] The first question, which was open to considerable C. L. Chubb appeared for the landlord, and
doubt, was whether that kind of agreement could be legally come to J. C. Earle for the trustee.
between a trustee in baokruptcy and his solicitor, however clear and precise
it might be in its terms, and whether such an agreement was one wbich the The fittings included (1) gasburners, &o. ; (2) show-cases and counters court ought to regard or recognize in any shape or way in the administration attaobed to the walls and floors by short nails and screw8; (3) counters
of the estate. Being, moreover, an agreement outside the bankroptcy, could which had been placed on a floor wbioh was afterwards concreted over, but it be said, when the terms of the agreement were in dispute, the case was one which were not fired by any nails or sorewe ; (4) mirrors and clooks which came within the functions of this court to determine or adjudicate opon attached to the wall in the usual way, so that they could be readily detached between the parties? He should certainly hesitate before coming to any soch by drawing the nails wbich supported them ; (5) furniture which was quite conclusion, or deciding that it was expedient, or even proper, that this court loose and detached,
should exercise any jurisdiction in the matter. Assuming, however, the Witnesses were called on both sides as to the manner in whioh the things affirmative of both those propositions to be tenable in law, then how did the in dispute were attached to the premises, and as to their value, and Mr. case stand in regard to the question of fact ? On the one side the trustee Frank Lewis, of No. 95, Gresham-street, City, the anotioneer and valuer, deliberately stated upon oath a positive agreement between himself and the was called, and said that in his opinion, with the exception of the gas- solicitor. "On the other the solicitor as deliberately and as positively denied barnere, the things were fittings whioh were always regarded as more the trustee's statement and the existence of any agreement at all. Toe evid. obattels such as could be distrained for reat,
ence was all on affidarit, and there was no cross-examination. How was it Eventually Mr. RegistrAR BROUGHAM held that the trustee was wrong in possible for the court, sitting as a jury, to say which of the two is speaking removing or selling anything beyond the loose furniture, and that anything him to arrive at a verdict. His honour then referred to the auxiliary affidavits
the truth? There were positively no materials before him which could enable which was so attached to the premises that it could not be removed withoat filed on behalf of the trustee, which, in his opinion, amounted to pothing, and drawing a nail or a sorow was a tenant's fixture, and therefore beloaged to the landlord, and not to the trustee; the result of bis decision being that trustee who had set up the defence had failed to establish it to his satisfaction,
to the correspondence between the applicant and the trustee, and held that the the trustee had to pay to the landlord the value of the things he had wrong. and, that being so, the only course he could take was to make the order asked fully removed in addition to the damage done to the promises in the for, with costs out of the estate. removal.
Applicant in person. Solicitors, Deane & Chubb; William Slurt.
Solicitors for the trustee, Field, Roscoe, & Co.
HENRY MARRIOTT RICHARDSON and CHARLES FREDERIC MARSHALL SOLICITORS' CASES.
(Richards in & Marshall), solicitors, Bolton, Lancashire. April 4. The High COURT OF JUSTICE.-Queen's Bencu DIVISION.
business will te carried in by the said Henry Marriott Richardson, (Sittings in Banc, before Grove and LOPES, JJ.)
[Gazette, May 9.] May 8.-In re Pruen. This was the case of a solicitor, Frederick Langford Pruen, who had been convicted of forgery, and against whom a rule had been grapted to show
COMPANIES. Cause why he should not be struck off the rolls.
The COURT, upon the motion of Murray, for the Incorporated Law
LIMITED IN CHANCERY.
SANKEY BROOK AND Ashton's Green COLLIERIES COMPANY, LIMITED,-Creditors aro SOCIETIES.
required, on or before June 5, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Richardson, Preston. Monday, June 19, at 11, is
appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims LAW ASSOCIATION.
STRAHAN 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 At the usual monthly meeting of the directors, held at the ball of the
the petitioner Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, on Thursday, the 4th ivet., the
Vasa MurruInA GLASS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding pp, presented April
25, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on May 13. Snell and Co, George st, following being present-viz., Mr. Tylee (chairman), and Messrs. Biodle, Mansion House, solicitors for the petitioner Burges, Lucas, Desborough, jan., Parkio, Sidney Snith, and A. B. Car West Frontino AND BOLIVIA GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding penter (secretary), grants of £45 were made to three members, one
up, presented May 2, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Saturday, May 13.
Davis and Co, Coleman st, solicitors for the petitioner member was elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted. White Oak COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 4, The annual general court was fixed for the 25th inst., at three o’olock. directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on Saturday, May 13. Clarke and Co,
Lincoln's inn fields, solicitors for the petitioners
[Gazette, May 5.) ALYN BANK COAL AND CANXEL COMPAOY, LIMITED.-Hall, V.C., has, by an order dated April 6, appointed Robert Cockburn Miller, India st, Edinburgh, to be official
liquidator LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
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 LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.
GRAND DUCHESS SILVER, LEAD, AND BARYTES MIXING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors
are required, on or before June 3, to send their names and addresses, and the par. Taesday, May 9.-The society disoggsed the question_Is it desirable ticulars of their debts or claims, to John Martin Winter, Market st, Newcastle upon in the interests of England that a tonnel should be constructed between Tyne. Friday, June 16, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the
debts and claims Eogland and France ?" Mr. Kirk opened the question in the affirmative,
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIVE BRICKMAKING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, and was sapported by Messrs. Mallam, 8 rickland, W. F. Barry, and Austin, presented May 4, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on May 28. Powell, Essex st, while Messrs. E. Robinson, Whitehead, Nicholls, Waller, Lloyd Jones, Hood, Strand, solicitor for the petitioner C. E. Barry, and Lemon, spoke in favour of the pegative. The question was,
KEIGILEY HERALD NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by North, J.,
dated April 29, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Sharpe and Co, New on a vote being takeo, negatived by a majority of ten vote:. Thirty men. ct, Carey st, agents for Weatherhead and Burrs. Keighley, solicitors for the petitioner bers were presen!.
LONDON JUTE WORKS, 1871, LIMITED.-By an order made by Fry, J., dated April 23, it
was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the works be continued. Harwood 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, At a meeting of this society, held at Clement's-inn Hall, on Wednesday, solicitor for the petitioners May 3, Mr. E. F. Sponce in the chair, Mr. Jepks moved -" That the power
SANKEY BROOK AND Ashton's GREEN COLLIEBIES COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has, married women now have over property ought to be curtailed." The opener
by an order dated April 1, appointed William Richardson, Preston, to be official
liquidator was supported by Messrs. Bartram and Spence, and opposed by Mossre. UPLEES BRICKFIELDS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has, by an order datod Feb 27, Parsons, Tillotson, Sutoliffe, Dawbarn, Eiloart, and Harvey-Samge!. Mr. appointed Horace Woodburn Kirby, Coleman st, to be official liquidator Jenks then replied, and the motion, on being put to the meeting, was lost
(Gazette, May 9.1 by thirteen votes.
UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.
ordered that the society bo wound up. Rees and Co, Frederick's pi, Old Jewry, BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.
agents for Ensor, Cardiff, solicitor for the petitioner
CITY OF CAESTER BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Chitty, J., has fixed May 16, at 11, at The ngpal fortnightly meetiug of this society was held on Tuesday even- his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator ing, May 9, at the Law Library, W. Fowler Carter, Esq., B.A., B.L., in
(Gazette, May 5.] the obair. New members baving been elected, and other special business
COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY, disposed of, a debate took place on the following subject :-"1. Is there any
DERWEN DEG PANXOL-GWIN COPPER AND LEAD MIXING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition valid distinction between set-off' and counter-claim ?' 2. If so, should the for winding up, presented May 3, directed to be heard before the Vice-Chancellor, at distinction be abolished for parposes of procedare ?". The speakers on the St George's Hall, Liverpool, on Saturday, May 13. Mather, Liverpool, solicitor for affirmative were Messrs. Barrow, A. Hebbert, E. C. Rogers, Ryland, and
[Gazette, May 5.] Restall, and on the negative, Messrs. G. T. Edwards and Swarbrick. The chairman summed up, and pat each question separately to the vote, wben both were carried by large majorities in favour of the affirmative. A vote of thanks was then passed to Mr. Carter for presiding.
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOF.
MUSGROVE, Sir John, Speldhurst, Kent, Baronet. May 18. Tyer v Waters, Chitty, J.
Layton, Budge row, Cannon st admitted a solicitor in 1866.
SHAW, FRANCES Mary, Hyde park terr. May 8. Hughes v Evans, Hall, V.C. Surr Mr. CHARLES EVELYN WELLBORNE, solicitor, of 17, Duke-street, South. SIBBERING, WILLIAM, sen., Swansea, Grocer. May 25. Birchall v Brown, Fry, J.
and Co, Abchurch lane wark, Las been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Stevens, Swansea Court of Judicature.
[Gazette, April 21.] Mr. FREDERICK JAMES BLAKE, solicitor, of Wotton-under-Edge, has been ERE, HARRIET, Tennison st, Lambeth. May 10. Blatch v Woodman, Fry, J. Parnell, appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at that place, in succession to SEATON, LELIA, Alexander sq, Brompton. May 24. Russell v Baring, Chitty, J. Davis Mr. Osborne Dauncey, deceased. Mr. Blake was admitted & solicitor in Cork st, Burlington gdns 1864.
TEMPLE, GEORGE, Plymouth, Gentleman. May 24. Temple v Hingston, Hall, V.C.
Chitty, J. Crossman, Theobald's rd, Gray's inn
[Gazette, April 25.] CHARLES HEATON HINDE, JOSEPH FARMER MILNE, and John SUDLOW Fox, GEORGE, Bournemouth. May 26. Dawes v Druitt, Chitty, J. Druitt, jun, (Hinde, Milne, & Sadlow), solicitors, Manchester (as regards John Sudluw). PAUL, "THOMAS, Weelsby Clee, Lincoln, Licensed Victualler. May 31. Morris v Jan. 1.
Saweard, Hall, V.C. Haddelsey, Great Grimsby HORACE PAILBRICK and SANDERSON CORPE (Philbrick & Corpe), sulicitors, ROBERTS, CHRISTOPHER, Bristol, 'Drysalter. June 1. Tarleton v Bruton, Fry, J. 18, Austin Friars, London. May 2. The business of the late firm will in
Brittan, Bristol future be carried ou by Horace Philbrick solely, at 18, Austin Friars,
SOWDEN, ELIZABETH, Leeds. May 22, Jackson v Turner, Bacon, V.C. Wilkin,
Wakefield [Gazette, May 5.]
[Gazette, April 28.]
adjourned. He was, however, unable to resume his argument, and although CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35.
he returned to Dablin he did not afterwards recover. Mr. McDonogh was LAST DAY OF CLAIM.
buried at the Mount Jerome Cemetery, Dublin, on the 21st inst. Lord DAVIES, ELIZA MARY, Brighton rd, South Hornsey. May 27. Llewellyn and Ackrill O'Hagan and many members of the Irish bench and bar attended the funeral,
LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK,
HOUSE OF LORDS. HARRIS, CHARLES BILLITER, Konnington Park rd, Gent. June 8. Drake and Co, Rood
May 4.-Bills Read a Second Time. lane
PRIVATE BILLS.-Northampton Corporation ; Metropolitan Board of Works HARVEY, WILLIAM, Plymouth, Merchant. May 31. Curteis and Pearse, Plymouth HENRY, ELIZA, Princes sq, Bayswater. June 2. Coburn and Young, Leadenhall st (Various Powers). Hill, HENRY' THOMAS, Felton Rectory, Hereford, Clerk in Holy Orders. June 1.
Bills Read a Third Time. Beddoe, Hereford
PRIVATE BILLS.-Greenwich and Millwall Subway; Rhondda and Swaceea HOWELL, THOMAS, Birmingham Heath, Gent. May 28. Duke, Birmingham HUTTON, HENRY, Colnbrook, Buckingham, Esq. June 1. Stoneham and Co, Philpot Bay Railway. lane, Fenchurch st
Wightwick and Co, Canterbury
May 5.--Bill Read a Second Time. lington
PRIVATE BILL.Millwall Dock.
Bills Read a Third Time.
Private BILLS. -Limehouse Sabway ; Bristol City Corporation of the Poor, Moir, ROBERT, West Teignmouth, Devon, Esq. July 1. Whidborne and Tozer, Teign. mouth
May 8.-Bill Read a Third Time. OTTAWAY, GILLETT JONATHAN, Haringay pk, Hornsey, Gent. May 30. Pearce, Essex PRIVATE BILL.- Queenstown Water.
st, Strand PEARSON, Rev John, Suckley Rectory, Worcester, Clerk. June 24, Curtler and Davis,
May 9.-Bills Read a Second Time. Worcester
Private Bills.—Dixie's Estate ; Cyfarthfa Works ; Metropol tan Markets RAE, GEORGE, Liverpool. May 31. Thompson and Shatwell, Liverpool
(Fish, &c.) ; Horncastle Water. SPEDDING, Txomas, Southport, Lancaster, General Agent. May 27. Coppock, Stock- Union of Benefices (London) ; Pluralities Acts Amendment; Militia Store
houses. WHITE, JOHN, Leighton Buzzard, Bedford, Wine Merchant. June 10. Newton, Leighton
Bill Read a Third Time, Buzzard
Private BILL. -Birkenhead Borough. Wilcox, MATTHEW, Handsworth, Stafford, Jeweller. May 30. Fowke, Birmingham
[Gazette, April 28.]
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
May 4.-Bill Read a Second Time.
Bill in Committee.
Municipal Corporations (Clauses 9–108).
Bills Read a Third Time.
PRIVATE BILLS.- Abbotsbury Railway ; Bromsgrove Gas ; Ipswich TramThe Right Hon. Sir. Thomas Erskine Perry, knight, died at his resi- ways (Extensions) ; King's College, London ; Liverpool Improvement. dence, 36, Eaton-place, on the 22nd ult., alter several months' illness. The
May 8.—Bills Read a Second Time. deceased was the son of Mr. James Perry, many years editor of the Morning
PRIVATE BILLS.-Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assarance Society; Pier Chronicle, and was born in 1806. He was educated at the Charterbouse, and and Harbour Provigional Orders. at Trinity College, Cambridge, and afterwards studied at the University
Bills Read a Third Time. of Munich. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas
PRIVATE BILLS.—Todmorden Water ; Local Government (Highways) Provi. Term, 1834 (having previously been a pupil in the chambers of the late Mr. sional Orders. Justice Patteson), and he practised for several years on the Home Circuit. He
May 9.-Bills Read a Second Time. became known as a law reporter, in connection with Neville and Perry's, and PRIVATE BILL.-Carnarvon (Morfa Seiont Common). Perry and Davison's, series of Queen's Bench Reports. In 1841 he was ap- Settled Land ; Consolidated Fund (No. 2); Ballot Act Continuance and pointed puisne judge of the Supreme Court at Bombay, and he received the Amendment ; Copyright (Works of Art). honour of knighthood, and be held that office for eleven years. He was very
Bills in Committee. highly esteemed by both the European and the Native community at Bombay. Municipal Corporations (passed through Committee) ; Documentary Eviden e He was for some years President of the Indian
Board of Education, in recog. (passed through Committee ; Military Manoeuvres (passed through Committee) nition of his services in which capacity he was, on bis return to England, Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices). presented with a testimonial of £5,000, which was, at his request, applied to the foundation of a law professorship. Sir E. Perry was at all times an active
Bill Read a Third Time, member of the advanced Liberal party. In 1831 he was honorary secretary
Boiler Explosions. to the National Political Union of London, and he was for some time one of
Nero Bills. the proprietors of the Examiner. He was an unsuccessful Liberal candidate
Bill for the amendment of the Judicature Aots (Sir H. GIFPARD). for Chaibam in 1832, and for Liverpool in 1852, and be represented Devon.
Bill to amend the law of copyright relating to musical compositions (Mr. port from 1854 till 1859. He was a frequent speaker in the House of Commons,
GORST). especially on Indian subjects. In 1859 he was appointed by Lord Halifax to
May 10.-Bill Read a Second Time. a seat on the Council of the Secretary of State for India, and be held that post
Capital Panishment. for nearly twenty-three years. He retired on account of failing health about
Bill in Committee. four months ago, when, in recognition of his long publio services, he was
Consolidated Fund (No. 3). created a Privy Councillor. Sir E. Perry had been twice married, second
Bills Read a Third Timo. wise being a daughter of the late Sir John Johnstone, Bart.
Military Mancouvres ; Documentary Evidence.
MR. FRANCIS MCDONOGH, Q.C.
House soon enough to enable a fall discussion professional career may be illustrated by the circumstance that he was one of to take place upon them. The Attorney General said that these rules were ihe counsel for the defence in the O'Connell trial in 1843, while he also made under the Judicature Act of 1875, and would come into operation as defended some of the accused persons in the prosecution of the Land League in 2000 as they were promulgated. All that was required was that forty days the early part of last year. He was one of the leading advocates of the Irish after coming into operation they should be laid opon the table of the House. bar, being gifted with great eloquence and readiness, and he had considerable Sir H. Giffard said that, in consequence of the answer he had received, he influence with jaries. Mr. McDonogh's political career was a somewhat would move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act in that respect. In varied one, and he had more than once changed his politics
, but in 1865 he introducing this Bill on Tuesday last, he said that among other questions was elected M.P. for the borough of Sligo in the Conservative interest, though whieb had been brought to the attention of the Government were those of trial he failed to secure re-election at the general election in 1868. He had frequently by jury and the operation of the rules under the Judicature Acts. Under been engaged in Irish appeals before the House of Lords. Early in February those Acts the judges had it in their power, if they chose, by the mere pụbli. he was opening the appeal in Niel v. The Duke of Devonshire before the House cation of rules, to abolish trial by jury in several cases, and the only check on when he was seized with illness, end the further hearing of the case was that power was that, within forty days after the rules had been laid upon the
table of the House, the House might disagree to thenı ; but until a resolution to that effect was passed the rules were at once operative, so that it was
LONDON GAZETTES. possible by a mere rule at once to sweep away the safeguard of trial by jury. It was never intended tbat the Judicature Acts should have such an effect, and he believed the Bill he now proposed to introduce met with the approval of
Bankrupts. the Goveroment. He therefore moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend
FRIDAY, May 5, 1882. the Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875, so as to render it necessary that the rules
Under the Bankruptoy Act, 1869. made by the Committee of Judges should be laid upon the table of the House
Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.
To Surrender in the Country. for forty days before coming into operation.
Cook, John, Bristol, Wholsale Tea Dealer. Pet May 2. Harley. Bristol, May 19 at
22 at 11
Fisher, Alfred, Gorleston, Suffolk, Outfitter. Pet May 3. Worlledge. Great Yarmouth,
May 17 at 3
19 at 3
Jackson, George, Robert Maddison, and John Pattinson, 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
17 at 2 Monday, May
16 Mr. Koe
at 2 Tuesday
McKinnell, Alexander, Leeds, Tailor. Pet April 29. Marshall. Leeds, May 24 at 11 Wednesday.
Millard, Frederick John, Salisbury, Wilts, Innkeeper. Pet May 2. Wilson. Salisbury, Thursday 18 Cobby Merivale Clowes
May 17 at 11 Friday ................ 19 Koe
Pemberton Morton, Alfred, Clapham pk rd, Musical Instrument Maker. Pet April 25. Wil. Saturday
Clowes loughby. Wandsworth, May 19 at 11
Riley, Joshua Armitage, and Joseph Armitage Riley, Halifax, Estate Agents. Pet
TUESDAY, May 9, 1892. Tuesday 16 Teesdale King
Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.
Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar.
To Surrender in London.
Carrington Miller, Henry Edward Campbell, Seething lane, Wine Merchant. Pet May 4. Hazlitt. Friday
Jackson May 24 at 11 Saturday. 20 Teesdale King
Carrington Pearse, George, and Frederick Banyard, Rigeley rd, Kensal Green, Builders. Pet May
6. Hazlitt. May 24 at 11
To Surrender in the Country.
Archer, Smith, Dewsbury, Beerhouse Keeper. Pet May 5. Tennant. Dewsbury, May RECENT SALES,
22 at 12 At the Stock and Share Auction Company's sale, held on Friday, the 5th Bradford, Frank, Roath, Cardiff, Bank Clerk. Pet May 3. Langley. Cardiff, May inst., at their sale rooms, Crown-court-buildings, Old Broad-street, the Crossley, William, Halifax, Broker. Pet May 4. Rankin. Halifax, May 22 at 11 following were amongst the prices obtained :-La Plata Mining and Smelting Jagger, Thomas, Sandy, Bedford, Dealer in Jewellery. Pet May 4.' Pearse. Bedford, 10dol. shares, £2 Is. 3d. ; Electric Light and Power Generator £1 shares, Littlefair, William, Barnoldswicke, York, Greengrocer. Pet May 6. Lee. Bradford, £1 ls. 9d. ; Silver Peak Mining £1 shares, 48. 6d. ; Colombian
May 22 at 10 Hydraulic Mining £1 shares,
S. B. Lambe & Co. $1 Newton, John, Sunderland, Tailor. Pet May 4. Ellis. Sunderland, May 23 at 12 shares, 125. 60. ; Dieu Donne Gold £1 shares, 18. 6d. ; Pure Beverage £1 Spencor, Jabez, Huddersfield, Beerhouse Keeper. Pet May 5. Jones. Huddersfield, sbares, 95. 6d. ; Eureka (Nevada) Mines, 48. 40. ; aud other miscellaneous Tusting, John, Kingston upon Hull, Horse Dealer. Pet May 4. Rollit. Kingston upon securities fetched fair prices. At the sale, held on Tuesday, the 9th inst., the Hull, May 24 at 3 followiog were amongst the prices obtained :-Short Horn Dairy £1 shares, Wright, Thomas Hollis, Park shot, Richmond, Gentleman. Pet May 5. Willoughby. fully paid, 22s. ; Ladies' Dress Association £5 shares, £3 paid, 48. ; La Plata
Wandsworth, May 19 at 11
TUESDAY, May 9, 1882.
Liquidations by Arrangement. Messrs. Jenner & Dell, auctioneers and house agents, Regency-square,
FIRST MEETINGS OF CREDITORS. Brighton, bave sold by private treaty another of the freebold mansions in
FRIDAY, May 5, 1882. Queen's Gardens, Brighton, facing the sea, together with the contents of the residence, for the sum of £12,500.
Alberts, Charles, Leeds, Wool Merchant. May 17 at 3 at office of Killick and Co, Com
mercial Bank bldgs, Bradford Mr. F. Ellis Morris, of the Poultry, sold by auction at the Mart, on Wednes- Allen, Charles Burton, St John's hill, New Wandsworth, Baker. May 19 at 2 at office day, the freehold premises, No. 9, Cornbill. The property, covering an area of Armstrong, Chancory lane of 780 feet, realized £25,050, or about 533 per superficial foot, and Archer, William, and John Henry Archer, Brompton, nr Northallerton, York, out of £1,565 103. per foot frontage. These figures work out nearly at a million Asquith, Ezra, Thornhill, York, Farmer. May 18 at 3 at office of Ibberson, Westgate, and a half per acre.
Bath, Frederick John, Bradford on Avon, Wilts, of no occupation. May 18 at 1 at the SALES OF ENSUING WEEK.
George Hotel, Chard. Bartrum and Bartlett, Bath
Batten, William Rowsell, Taunton, Somerset, Butcher, May 12 at 11 at office of Foster, May 16.-Messrs. WEATHERALL & GREEN, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold
East st, Taunton Properties (see advertisment, this week, p. 4).
Bayliss, James, Cheltenham, General Dealer. May 18 at 11 at office of Clark, Regent May 17.-Mesere. FAREBROTHER, ELLIS, CLARK, & Co., at the Mart., at 2 p.m., Botten, William Henry, East Malling, Kent, Farmer. May 18 at 3 at 13, Earl st, Maid
st, Cheltenham Leasehold Property (see advertisement, May 6, p. 4),
stone. Norton and Son May 17.-Messrs. EDWIN Fox & BOUSFIELD, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold Bown, James, Abergavenny, Monmouth, Baker. May 18 at 10 at 11, Frogmore st, Property (see advertisement, May 6, p. 3).
Abergavenny. Hodgens, Abergavenny May 17.-Mr. ARTHUR JACKSON, at Enfield, at 7p.m., Leasehold Property and Bridge, John, Manchester, Sanitary Tube Dealer. May 24 at 3 at office of Almond, Building Land (seo advertisment, April 22, p. 4).
Kennedy st, Manchester
Cook, James William, Victoria pk rd, South Hackney, Boot and Shoe Manufacturer.
Albert rd, Dalston
Barstow sg, Wakefield
Crompton, Maria, Sale, Chester, Bookseller. May 17 at 3 at ofco of Shippey and Field,
Cooper st, Manchester
Crowther, Tom, John Crowther, and Alfred Crowther, Oldham, Builders. May 18 at
Cutting, Frederick William, Delaford rd, Rotherhithe New rd, Insurance Agent. ROBINSON.-May 2, at Beverley-house, Toronto, Canada, the wife of Christopher
May 18 at 3 at the Masons' Hall tavern, Masons' avenue. Fowler and Co, Borough Robinson, Q.C., of a daughter.
High st, Southwark
Dietz, Carl, Wardour st, Oxford st, Manufacturing Jeweller. May 18 at 2 at 269, High MARRIAGE.
Holborn. Solomon, Holford sq Cbatteris, Cambe, solicitor, to Emily Catherine, daughter of the late William Eaton, Henry Joseph, Broadwinsor, Dorset, Auctioneer, May 18 at 3.30 at King's Arm
12 at office of Shearman, Gresham st Dove, of old Hall, Debenham.
Hotel, Dorchester. Watts, Yeovil
English, James, Malmsbury rd, Bow, Grocer. May 23 at 11 at offices of Naylor and Co, CAPPUIS' RIFLECTORS FOR THI NAYY.- Manufactory, 69, Fleet-street, -[ADYT.] Broad st bldgs, Liverpool st. Everill, Marylebone rd
MARGETTS–Dove.--May 4, at Debenham, Suffolk
, Alan Clarke Mergotte, of Earl, Stephen, and William Woodheld Philp, London Wall, Brass Founders. May 16 at