grouped into two classes-(1) cases relating to rent in arrear at the commencement of the winding up; (2) cases relating to rent accruing sub. sequently to that date. As to rent in arrear at the commencement of the winding up, if the landlord was a legal creditor of the company in respect of rent in arrear at the commencement of its winding up he was not allowed to distrain for the arrears of rent, but must prove his debt like any other creditor. Moreover, in cases of this kind the circumstance that the liquidator had retained possession and carried on the company's works had been held not to entitle a landlord, or a mortgagee with a power of distress as for rent, to distrain for rent in arrear. If, however, the landlord was not a legal creditor of the company, by reason of the company not being his tenant, he was permitted to distrain even for rent in arrear at the commencement of the winding up. And in such a case he would be allowed to distrain, although the liquidator offered to allow the arrears to be proved as a debt in the winding up. Next, as to rent accruing after the commencement of the winding up. If the liquidator had retained possession for the purposes of the winding up-i.e., if he had used the property for carrying on the company's business, or had kept the property in order to sell it or to do the best he could with itthe landlord would be allowed to distrain for rent which had become due since the commencement of the winding up. But, if he had kept po-session by arrangement with the landlord, and for his benefit as well as for the benefit of the company, and there was no agreement with the liquidator that he should pay rent, the landlord was not allowed to distrain. When the liquidator retained the property for the purpose of advantageously disposing of it, or when he continued to use it, the rent ought to be regarded as a debt contracted for the purpose of winding up the company, and ought to be paid in full, like any other debt or expense properly incurred by the liquidator for the same purpose; and in such a case it appeared to his lordship that the rent for the whole period during which the property was so retained or used ought to be paid in full, without reference to the amount which could be realized by a distress. This was the view taken by James, L.J., in In re The Lundy Granite Company (19 W. R. 609, L. R. 6 Ch.462), and by Fry, J., in Ex parte Roberts and Wright (L. R. 18 Ch. D. 649), and by Kay, J., in the present case. But no authority had yet gone the length of deciding that a landlord was entitled to distrain for, or be paid in full, rent accruing since the commencement of the winding up, when the liquidator had done nothing except abstain from trying to get into possession of the property which the company held as lessee. If the landlord had endeavoured to re-enter, and the liquidator had objected, the case might be different; but, having regard to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1862, his lordship was of opinion that in the case now supposed the landlord must rely on his right, if any, to re-enter, and prove for the arrears due to him, and that he was not entitled to anything more. In the present case the only facts the landlord had to rely upon were-1. The fact that the liquidator left the company's plant and machinery where he found them until he sold them in July, 1881; 2. The fact that he had them valued in May, 1880, with a view to a sale which was not carried out; 3. The fact that he took no steps to surrender the company's interest in the colliery and the 163 acres to the landlord. In his lordship's opinion these facts were not sufficient to entitle the landlord either to distrain or to be paid in full. He could not regard the rent ordered to be paid as a debt or cost, charge or expense incurred by the liquidator in the course of or for the purpose of the winding up, and in his opinion the order appealed from ought to be discharged and the summons dismissed with costs.-SOLICITORS, Venn & Co.; Simpson, Hammond, & Co.

DOWER-DIVORCED WIFE.-In a case of Frampton v. Stephens, before Fry, J., on the 11th inst., the question arose whether a wife, who had obtained a divorce on the ground of her husband's cruelty and adultery, was after his death entitled to dower out of his real estate. The wife and her second husband sued the heir-at-law of the first husband for dower out of real estate, which had descended from the first husband. The defendant demurred, and FRY, J., allowed the demurrer. He said that in Coke on Littleton, 32a, it is laid down that for a wife to have dower "it is necessary that the marriage doe continue, for if that be dissolved the dower ceaseth; ubi nullum matrimonium, ibi nulla dos. But this is to be understood when the husband and wife are divorced à vinculo matrimonii, as in the case of precontract, consanguinity, affinity, &c., and not a mensa et thoro only, as for adulterie." It had been contended that the rule in reference to the right to dower ceasing on a divorce a vinculo only referred to the cases specified by Lord Coke, and not to divorces obtained by the wife on the ground of adultery, which was then only a mensa et thoro. It was, perhaps, enough that the language of Lord Coke was general and meant what it said, but on examining the older authority of Bracton, to whom reference was made in Coke, the same rule was laid down, and under the old law the divorce was a vinculo, and it was only in 44 Eliz. that opinion changed and the new practice was introduced. His lordship thought, therefore, the law well established that a divorce a vinculo was a bar to dower. It was said that it would be a great hardship on the wife if, through no fault of her own, but on account of the misconduct of her husband, she were to lose her right to dower. The answer was that in pronouncing its decree the Divorce Court had power to provide alimony for the wife, and in doing so would no doubt take into account the legal effect of the divorce. It was also said that it was the practice, when a husband obtained an Act for divorce, to provide expressly that the right to dower should cease. That, however, was merely declaratory of the law. SOLICITORS, Saunders, Hawksford, & Bennett.

other in America, involving claims identically the same as those sought to be enforced in the action before his lordship. It appeared that the actions were all representative ones brought against the defendants, as trustees of a scheme for reconstructing the Atlantic and Great Western Railway Company, in respect of alleged breaches of trust in their carrying out the scheme. The defendants offered to give undertakings with the object of enabling the questions in the action to be determined in the American action. CHITTY, J., said that the two actions in England were not, in his opinion, precisely identical, and there was no authority for holding that the pendency of a foreign action was sufficient ground for staying an action in this country. None of the actions had yet been brought to a hearing, and it was not usual in the case of representative actions like the present-for instance, in a creditor's administration action-for the court to stay proceedings in a second action until judg. ment had been obtained in the first and similar action. Although the American action was more comprehensive than the English, yet his lord. ship did not consider that the offer of undertakings by the defendants to have the questions at issue between the parties tried in the American action was any ground for acceding to this motion. His lordship, therefore, refused the motion, but, taking into consideration the allegation of the trustees that they were being harassed by a multiplicity of actions, made an order that costs of the motion be costs in the action.-SOLICITORS, Trinders; Hores & Patti

son.

PRACTICE-TRIAL BEFORE A JUDGE AND JURY-RULES OF Court, 1875, ORD. 36, RR. 3, 4.-In the case of The Oldbury Local Board v. Baker, before Chitty, J., on the 12th inst., a motion having been made by the defendant for the trial of the action before a judge and jury, his lordship held that it was not the usual practice for the court to settle the actual issues of fact to be tried, and that it was sufficient for the party moving to state in his notice of motion that he required that "this action shall be tried before a judge and jury," without referring to the issues of fact.-SOLICITORS, Wilkins & Co., for Wright & Co., Oldbury; F. Needham.

PAYMENT OUT OF COURT-PRESUMPTION AGAINST CHILDBIRTH-SPINSTER AGED FIFTY. In the case of In re Howard, before Chitty, J., on the 13th inst., a petition was presented praying that a sum paid in under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act might be paid out on the joint receipt of the petitioners. Part of the fund represented real estate settled under a will upon petition, a spinster and within a fortnight of attaining the age of fifty years, one of the petitioners for life, who was, at the date of the hearing of the with remainder to uses in favour of her children, and in default of her having any children entitled to take, with remainder to uses in favour of the petitioners. It was submitted that the court would make the order prayed, as the lady was of an age which rendered maternity improbable, and the more so because she had never been and was not married. The case of Millner's Estate (20 W. R. 823, L. R. 14 Eq. 245) was referred to, where Malins, V.C., made an order similar to that prayed in the present case, upon had been married twenty-six years to a husband then living, and had never the presumption that a lady, aged forty-nine years and nine months, who had any children and would not have any by him. CHITTY, J., declined to decrease the likelihood of children being born if she married. There were, make the order. It might be said that the spinsterhood of the lady did not moreover, cases on record of maternity at an age certainly exceeding that of this lady. The usual order for investment would be made.-SOLICITORS, Alfred Howard; W. R. Stevens.

DIVORCE-CRUELTY-SEPARATION DEED-COVENANT NOT TO SUE-SUBSEQUENT ADULTERY-REVIVAL.-In the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, on the 11th inst., the case of Rose v. Rose, which was a wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery and cruelty, was tried before the President of the Division without a jury. The parties were married in 1861, and, in 1877, owing to repeated quarrels, they executed a deed of separation, which contained a covenant on the part of the wife that she woul i not avail herself of any previous act on her husband's part. After the execution of the deed of separation, the respondent committed adultery, and the petitioner alleged acts of cruelty both before and after the date of the deed. The adultery was admitted, but the respondent failed in proving any act of cruelty after the separation. In giving judgment, Sir J. HANNEN, P., said that the covenant in the deed had estopped the petitioner from obtaining relief in respect of any cruelty committed before the date of the deed. Accord ing to the old practice of the Division, the adultery committed after the date of the separation deed would have revived the previous cruelty, but in Gandy v. Gandy (26 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 385) the Court of Appeal had held that the commission of adultery after a deed of separation was no offence against a judicial separation.-SOLICITORS, Hunt; Willis. wife. He could not, therefore, decree a dissolution of marriage, but only a

COUNTY COURTS.

BRADFORD.

(Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Esq., Q.C., Judge.)

May 2, 9.-Ex parte Freeman, Re Berry.

Under an elegit the execution creditor cannot have the benefit of equitable execution; that must be obtained by appointment of a receiver in the action in which the judgment on which the elegit issues is obtained. Where the sheriff seized goods in the possession of the debtor, the legal title to which was in the grantee under a bill of sale, and the sheriff's officer, as agent of the bill of sale holder, sold the goods, and after pay

ing the bill of sale holder his debt and costs, there was a surplus, that surplus was not bound by the elegit, and did not belong to the execu tion creditor, but constituted assets of the debtor, and, on his becoming bankrupt before sale, would pass to the trustee: Salt v. Cooper (L. R. 16 Ch. D. 544).

Ringmead, instructed by Gush & Phillipp, London, for the execution creditora. West, instructed by Peel, Stanford, & Harris, Bradford, for the trustee. In delivering judgment in this case,

His HONOUR said:-This was an application made in the matter of proceed. ings for liquidation by arrangement of the affairs of John William Berry, manufacturer, by or on behalf of George Scott Freeman, of 103, Cannon-street, London, secretary of the General Life and Fire Insurance Company, for an order that the sum of £54 49. 6d., being the surplus proceeds arising from the sale of the goods and chattels of the above-named debtor, which were seized in execution by the sheriff of Yorkshire, under a writ of elegit issued upon a judgment recovered by the said George Scott Freeman in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice against the said debtor, and which said sum of £54 43. 6d. has been paid into court, pursuant to an order made in this matter by this court on December 13, 1881, may be paid out to the said G. S. Freeman, and that such further order as to costs or otherwise may be made as this court may seem fit.

The facts, which do not appear to be disputed, were as follow :—

1. On August 20, 1881, a judgment was recovered by Freeman against the debtor in the Qucer's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice for £74 17s. 2. On October 13, 1881, a writ of elegit founded on the said judgment was issued by Freeman, and sent to the sheriff of Yorkshire, under which he seized the goods and chattels of the debtor; but on October 15, 1881, the sheriff withdrew from such possession on receipt of a letter from the solicitors of Freeman authorizing the sheriff so to do.

3. On November 15, 1881, a second writ of elegit was issued and lodged with the sheriff to recover £53 19s. due on the said judgment, and £2 2s. costs, and on November 16, 1881, the sheriff seized the goods and chattels of the debtor under the said writ of elegit, and remained in possession until the 28th of November, 1881.

4. On the said 28th of November, the sheriff received notice from Mr. George Washington, of Halifax, wool and waste dealer, that he claimed to be the owner of the said goods and chattels under and by virtue of an assignment thereof, dated February 1, 1881, executed by the debtor for securing to Washington the repayment of £400, money lent, and interest, and which was duly registered as a bill of sale, and Washington claimed that the sum of £320 or thereabouts, on November 28, remained due to him on the said bill of sale, in payment of which default had been made by the debtor. And on that day Washington entered and took possession of the goods and chattels which had been seized and taken possession of by the said sheriff, and the sheriff retired.

5. The right of Washington under the said bill of sale to the legal ownership of the said goods and chattels was not disputed, and was not questioned on this motion. The original bill of sale, and an office copy thereof, were produced on the hearing of this motion, and no objection to the validity of the bill of sale was raised.

6. The sheriff's officer who had seized and remained in possession up to the 28th of November, upon production of the bill of sale arranged with Washington to sell the goods and chattels of the debtor as the agent of Washington, and not as the officer of the sheriff, and proceeded to make arrangements for the sale by public auction on December 9, 1881.

7. On November 29, 1881, the debtor filed a petition for liquidation, and on December 1, Henry Puckett was duly appointed receiver of the debtor's estate and effects, and manager of his business. On December 17, at the first general meeting of creditors, resolutions were duly passed for liquidation by arrangement, and Puckett was duly appointed trustee.

8. On December 6, an interim order was made, on the application of the debtor and receiver, restraining further proceedings under the sale until after December 14.

9. On the 8th of December Freeman's solicitors received from the solicitor of the debtor and receiver a telegram as follows:-" Bill of sale holder sells to-morrow. Will you consent to an order that the whole of plant be sold and the money paid into court without prejudice? If so plant can be sold as going concern and it will benefit all parties greatly. Reply paid." To this telegram the following reply was sent by Freeman's solicitors: "We have no objection to the sale if it is more beneficial and the proceeds are paid into court. But it must be distinctly understood that this is without prejudice to all our client's rights and remedies."

10. The arrangement thus assented to was carried out in good faith between the parties. The sale was held, the property sold, and after paying Washing ton his debt and costs (including costs of sale) there remained the sum of £54 4s. 6d. as the net proceeds of the sale, and which was duly paid into court, remains there, and has now to be disposed of upon this motion.

Mr. West, on behalf of the trustees, took a preliminary objection to the validity of the eligit issued on the 15th of November, on the ground that, it appearing that the original judgment was for £74 178., and the elegit only for £53 19., the elegit ought to show on its face how the difference between £74 178. and £53 19s. has been satisfied, and cited as his authority the case of Sherwood v. Clark (15 M. & W. 764). The answer was that, as appears from the second Faragraph of Molony's affidavit, the £53 193. was described as the balance due on the judgment. But the original writ was not produced, and the amount lodged with the sheriff, which was produced, described the writ as indorsed to levy £53 19s. and £2 28. costs, without more. I did not decide this technical question, preferring to hear and decide upon the merits. Of course the objection remains open to the trustee,

Upon the merits, it was contended by Mr. Ringmead on behalf of Freeman that the actual seizure by the sheriff on the 16th of November was effectual to bind the interest of the debtor in the goods seized, whether that interest was legal or equitable, and that therefore, on the 16th of November, by force of that seizure, Freeman became a secured creditor within section 16, sub-section 5, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. No authority was cited by Mr. Ringmead in support of that contention. The authorities he cited were confined to cases which establish that an equitable execution may be obtained by the appointment of a receiver on an application founded on the judgment, whether an elegit has been issued or not, and that such an application may be made ex parte. An elegit, it must be remembered, is a common law writ, and empowers the sheriff to seize the lands or goods of the debtor within his bailiwick which are at law the lands or goods of the debtor, but none other. If in this case the sheriff had seized and extended the goods of the debtor, and completed all the proceedings necessary for giving Freeman the right to acquire them under the elegit, the acts of the sheriff would have been wrongful as against Washington, who was the legal owner of the goods, and he might have recovered from the sheriff the value in trover. And so if, after the sheriff having had notice of Washington's title to the goods under the bill of sale, Freeman had ruled the sheriff to return the writ, the sheriff would have returned, and rightly returned, nulla bona. The attempt to treat the sheriff's seizure under the elegit as equivalent to equitable execution is an extension of the doctrine which, as judge of an inferior court, I have no authority to make. In the reply to the telegram of the 8th of December the solicitors carefully reserved their rights and remedies; but as the act of bankruptcy had been already committed by the debtor, of which they had notice, and a receiver had been appointed, any attempt to obtain equitable execution by an application founded on the judgment would have been futile, and therefore was prudently, as I conceive, not made. The case of Salt v. Cooper (L. R. 16 Ch. D. 544), a more recent decision than any cited by Mr. Ringmead, is an authority which clearly and most usefully states and illus trates the law upon the novel and somewhat pazzling questions which have arisen out of the recent exhumation of the long-buried and supposed to be defunct and obsolete writ of elegit used as an execution by a creditor of the goods and chattels of a debtor.

Mr. West's contention upon the merits was that, quoad any interest of the debtor in the goods seized by the sheriff which might remain after satisfying the debt and costs recoverable under the bill of sale, the execution was a nullity, and that such equitable interest as the debtor might have could only be reached by the appointment of a receiver, to be made upon an application under the judgment for that purpose, and I think that contention right.

The motion will therefore be refused, and the costs will follow the event, unless the parties have arranged otherwise.

SALISBURY.

(Before Mr. SERJEANT TINDAL ATKINSON, Judge.)

Dec. 5.-West v. South-Western Railway Company. Delay on delivering goods-Absence of special contract-Reasonable time in for delivery.

His HONOUR, in giving judgment in this case said :

The plaintiff in this action carries on the basiness of a gardener in Salisbury, and he seeks to recover from the defendants the sum of £15, for damages resulting from a breach of their duty as common carriers, in delaying the delivery of four boxes of potatoes intended for competition for a prize to be given at the International Exhibition held at the Crystal Palace, Sydenham, in May of this year. The facts proved at the hearing were that one King, a carrier, was employed by the plaintiff to forward the potatoes to the exhibition, and that for that purpose he made inquiries at the office of Messrs. Chaplin & Horne, who carry on the business of carriers and agents to railway companies, on Saturday, the 17th of September, when, if the packages were sent that day, they would reach the Crystal Palace, and was told by a clerk in their office that they would arrive on Monday morning following. On this assurance King delivered them on the part of the plaintiff, on the Saturday morning, saying at the same time that the potatoes were for the exhibition, and that it took place on the Tuesday following. The defendants admit the delivery on the Saturday, and that the packages did not arrive at the show until nine o'clock on Tuesday morning. The mode of forwarding goods by the defendants to stations on the Brighton and South Coast Railway, of which the Crystal Palace is one, is when they arrive at the defendants' central goods station at Nine Elms, in London, to convey them by cart to the Brighton Company's station at Ber mondsey to be forwarded. In the present instance the plaintiff's packages reached London late on Saturday night, and Sunday intervening, they were taken to the Brighton Company on the Monday morning, and were by that company delivered on the Tuesday morning at nine o'clock, but too late for the purpose for which the plaintiff had sent them. Upon these facts, Mr. Powning contended, at the hearing on the part of the defendants, that the contract for carriage being made with Chaplin & Horne, the action had been wrongly brought against the present defendants and that the plaintiff must be non-suited, but this is answered by the fact that the defendants have made out and delivered a debit note against the plaintiff's agent, King, in their own name and have received the money for the carriage, their way-bill also describing him as the consignor, the fact being, as is extensively known, that Chaplin & Horne act as collecting agents for most of the large railways. No special contract was made for the carriage in this case, and the only question in the ease is-was there unnecessary delay on the part of the defendants in the transit? It must be observed that a carrier is not, in the

absence of a special contract, bound to deliver the goods intrusted to him within any given time, but only within a time which is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Taylor v. The Great Northern Railway Company (L. R. 1 C. P. 385. In giving judgment, Erle, C.J., in that case said: "I think a common carrier's duty to deliver safely has nothing to do with the time of delivery: that is a matter of contract, and when there is no express contract there is an implied contract to deliver within a reasonable time, and that I take to mean a time within which the carrier can deliver using all reasonable exertions." In the same case it was said by Mr. Justice Montague Smith, "Common carriers do indeed insure to this extent, that they will safely and securely carry the goods, but not to the extent of guaranteeing their arrival at any particular time." A specified time of delivery, according to the decision in the above case, and by which decision I am, sitting as a judge in an inferior court, governed, must be the subject of contract; and whether there was, or was not, a special contract to carry the four packages to the exhibition by the Monday following the delivery on the Saturday, is the question the answer to which must govera the present inquiry. With regard to what was the real contract entered into by the carriers' clerk with King, the agent of the plaintiff, what actually took place is of importance. It must be assumed that the clerk was not aware, beyond the mere fact of the exhibition being held at the Crystal Palace as an agricultural show, of the special circumstance that prizes were to be awarded to the successful competitors, and, unless it was distinctly brought home to his knowledge that the goods were purposely sent for that object—that is, the chance of obtaining a prize-there is no contract by the defendants to carry the goods sent within a given time, but only with the ordinary practice and course of the defendants' business. The assurance of the clerk when the inquiry was made by the plaintiff's agent on the Saturday that the packages would reach the exhibition by the Monday morning was, it appears to me, only the expression of a belief on his part that they would do so, and although he was told that the contents of the packages were intended for the exhibition on Tuesday, no intimation was given that the object of sending them was to compete for a prize, and that unless they arrived there on the Monday the plaintiff would le deprived of his chance. "The law as it is to be found in the reported cases has fluctuated," says Cockburn, C.J., in giving judgment in Simpson v. North-Western Railway Company (1 Q. B. D. 274), but the prin ciple is now settled that whenever either the object of the sender is specially brought to the zotice of the carrier, or circumstances are known to the carrier from which the object ought in reason to be inferred, so that the object may be taken to have been within the contemplation of both parties, damages may be recovered for the natural consequences of the failure of that object." I am of opinion that the special circumstances of prizes being given at the exhibition to successful competitors was not known by the clerk of the carrier, or that it could fairly be inferred he did know the facts so as to make it part of a special contract to deliver the goods on the Monday for that purpose, and the only question that remains is, was there an unreasonable delay? Looking at the facts as a jury, I cannot come to the conclusion that in this case there was. The goods were delivered on the Saturday and forwarded to London on the same day, and delivered on the Monday to the Brighton Company, and by them delivered on the Tuesday morning, and it is clear that in the absence of a guarantee or a contract to deliver within a specified time that a carrier is not bound to neglect all other business to deliver a parcel out of the ordinary course of his business, and a delay in the delivery of a parcel, in the absence of a special contract, of twenty-four hours can scarcely be said to be unreasonable. In this case the verdict must be entered for the defendants, but inasmuch as the plaintiff's agent was misled by the clerk's assurance that the goods would be delivered by the Monday, I think i is a case in which he should not be visited with costs.

Nodder, for the plaintiff.

Pouning, for the defendants.

SWANSEA.

(Before B. T. WILLIAMS, Esq., Q.C., Judge.)

March 14.-Jones v. Hugglestone and Others (The Trustees of the "W". E. Gladstone" Lodge of Ancient Order of Shepherds.)

Davies (Evans & Davies), for the plaintiff, and T. Brown Richards, for the defendants. H'S HONOUR, in giving judgment, said:-This action Las been brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of £17, the value of household furniture, and other goods, alleged to have been illegally converted by the defendants. Thomas Merriam was the treasurer of a registered friendly society, and he as such treasurer had in his hands money belonging to the society to the amount of £25 198. 8d. Thereupon proceedings were taken against him under the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, s. 20, to recover this sum, and a warrant to raise it by a seizure and sale of his goods was issued by the stipendiary magistrate of Swansea. The warrant was dated on the 16th of June, and it was put into execution on the 17th. On the 24th of June, while the officers of the law were in possession, the plaintiff, who was Merriam's landlord, distrained for rent due upon the goods that were then in their custody. The goods were after. wards sold under the magistrate's warrant, and the plaintiff, the landlord, seeks in this action to recover damages in trover or for the conversion of these goods. Even assuming that he had made a legal distress, it is perfectly clear that he is not entitled to succeed. It is well established that a landlord who has distrained upon goods cannot maintain trover for them, for he has no property in them, but has them only as a pledge with a power to sell by statute (Mouceur v. Goreham, Selwyn's Nisi Prius, 1303, and other cases collected in 2 W. Saund., 89, in the note to Wilbraham v. Snow). In addition to that there was in this dase no legal distress. The goods when they were distrained upon on the

24th of June were then in the custody of the law, and not distrainable by the landlord (Peacock v. Purvis, 2 B. & B., Wharton v. Naylor, 12 Q. B.). Whatever rights the landlord has with reference to goods seized in execution are determined by the statute 9 Anne (and Anne c. 14, s. 1), which entitles him to the payment of rent due not exceeding in the whole a year's rent before they are removed. It is difficult to decide whether sub-section 7 of section 15 of the Friendly Societies Act of 1875 includes a landlord's distress, and if it does how far the landlord's right under the Statute of Anne is affected by the provisions of that sub-section. The Legislature has left these points in the greatest possible vagueness, and I have been able to find no authority throwing any light upon them, but in this case I need not consider them, as I am clearly of opinion, on the first two grounds, that the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in this action. I give judgment for the defendants with costs and with solicitors' fees.

SOCIETIES.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held on Wednesday, May 10, at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, the following directors being present:-Mr. Rickman in the chair; Messrs. Asker (Norwich), Brook, Harris (Leicester), Hedger, Hunter, Keen, Mellerah (Godalming), Pennington, Rose, Smith, Styan, Walters, and Woolbert (Mr. Eiffe, secretary). A sum of £350 was distributed in grants of relief to necessitons solicitors and their widows and families, fourteen new members were added to the association, and other general business transacted.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION, APRIL, 1882.

The following candidates were successful at the Intermediate Examination
held on the 27th of April, 1882:-
Adkins, Frederick William
Allerton, Albert Charles

Anderson, Herbert Simpson Edward
Atkinson, William Ernest
Avery, Arthur Robinson

Baddeley, Thomas Webḥ, B.A.
Baldwin, Percy

Barker, William
Barningham, Thomas
Barnes, Arthur William
Bell, John Corrin
Bennetts, John Messer
Bertie, Charles Henry
Benson, Harry

Birkett, Alexander Watson
Bishop, William

Boone, Edward Hugh
Bowen, Alfred Edward
Bowen, Frederick Shorthouse
Bradbury, Jobn Abraham
Bradshaw, Howard

Brooks, James Lane

Burch, Horace Ralph, B.A.

Burgh, Alexander Averil Hussey de Bornicle, James Fleck

Calley, Henry Jesse

Calman, Samuel James Whitaker
Carr, Edward Robert
Cather, John

Catterall, Frederic Peter
Checkley, William Camwell
Clarke, Percy
Clementson, Herbert
Cliff, Roland Benjamin
Colenutt, George William
Compton, James
Cook, Sam

Cooke, Philip Barrett
Coppock, Joseph Stoyle
Coward, Charles Grafton
Crawford, Robert Payne
Crosfield. Sydney Morland
Cross, Charles Bedford
Cunliffe, Robert Ellis, B. A.
Cutts, George Wintringham
Daintrey, Ernest Charles
Dale. Charles Alfred
Dale, James Osmonde
Darby, James Joseph
Davidson, Allen Herbert
Dean, Arthur Henry
Dennis, Robert

Devonshire, Robert Llewellyn
Dinn, Alfred George
Dobinson, William, B.A.
Duckworth, Hepsley Crabtree
Durell, James Philip, M.A.
Eland, Frederic Ernest
Ellis, Julian Augustus
Eltoft, Harry

Fell, Francis James
Fisher, Herbert John
Fisher, William, B.A.

Fletcher, John Lowther

Foster, Walter
Fowler, John

Franklin, Francis Sydney Herle t
Freeland, Francis George
Fry, Charles

Gandell, Thomas Pearse

Gardiner, Douglas William
Garner, Thomas
Gasquet, Louis

Geach, George Chambers

George, David Arthur Scale
Gibson, Edward James
Goodden, John Henry

Gorton, Walter Frederick
Graham, Arthur Lionel
Greenwood, John

Gyles, Charles Sidney George
Hall, John Roberts
Harrod, Henry Dawes
Harrison, Frank Ormerod
Hay, William Thomas
Haynes, John

Hellier, Edward William
Hennels, Walter

Henson, John Rossell, B.A.

Hertslet, Frank

Hewison, Arthur Edward
Hill, Arthur Norman

Hirst, Edward Theodore, B. A.
Hockin, Philip Roe
Holdich, Thomas White

Holdway, Geoffrey Fynes

Hooper, John Edmund

Hosking, Edgar

Howell, Alexander Nathaniel Yatman

Hughes, Percy Hamilton

Hurlston, Harold James

Jacok, Edward James
Jelf, Richard William
Jenkins, Charles Bevan

Kinneir, Walter Henry

Kinsey, Thomas Evans Morris

Lamb, Arthur

Lancaster, Turner

Langtam, Arthur Cuthbert

Lawton, George Fearns
Lazarus, Edward

Leader, George Gardner
Lee, Turner

Lendon, Frederick Dickes
Lewis, Walter Lauriston
Lilley, Arthur Palmer
Linnell, William Arnold
Little, Henry James
Lowe, Sydney Armeria
Mainwaring, Charles Agnew
Maitland, Edward
Marcus, Herbert John
Marcus, Herman William
Markland, Thomas Wild
Mason, George Stewart
Mattocks, Edward Richard
Maynard, Edmund Gregory
McAnulty, Bartholomew
McGuire, George
Mearns, John Patrick
Mercer, Edmund

Miller, Hubert William

Minett, Charles Ferdinand
Mirams, Arthur

Mitchell, John Hanson
Morgan, Fitzroy John
Morrison, Frank Cecil
Nalder, Charles Nelme

Newenham, Frederick George

Nerwich, Edward Philip

Nicholson, John Spours

Oakshott, Leigh Hunter

Onslow, Artbur Herbert
Owen, Daniel

Peacock, Anthony Fawcett
Pearce, George Samuel
Pellatt, Daniel

Pemberton, Cyril Warner Lee

Pethy bridge, Henry Madge
Phillips, Charles, B.A.

Platts, Arthur

Pollitt, James Burton

Pope, Walter Henry

Powles, Arthur Henry, B.A.

Pratt, William

Ryall, Frederick

Salaman, Ernest Seymour

Scutts, William Nicholas Mercer Seddon, Thomas

Sefton, John

Seldon, Williain Edward
Shortt, Walter Charles James
Shute, James Ashley Binford
Simpson, Harry Edward
Smith, Charles Janes
Smith, William Joseph

Smith, William Thomas Arundel
Spink, Albert Henry
Spink, Frederic Walter
Sprigge, John Joshua
Stephenson, William

Stewart, Charles James, B.A.
Stokes, Reginald Sewell
Taylor, Frank
Taylor, Gerald
Taylor, Reuben Price

Thomas, John Llewelyn Pugh
Thompson, Arthur Holt
Thompson, Simon Frederick
Timbrell, Andrew William
Tuckett, Richard Clapson
Turner, Arthur

Tarner, Charles Hastings
Tyrrell, Harry Richard
Underhill, John Edward, B.A.
Upton, Edmund

Urmston, Arthur Brabazon
Waddington, James Charles
Wallis, Arthur Thomas
Walsh, John Ernest

Ward, Arthur Egerton Neville
Warner, John

Waters, Stanley Edward

Watson, Edgar Henry

Watts, Walter

Webb, Robert Hervey

Webber, Alexander Herbert, M.A.
Wilks, George Stringer

Willcocks, George William Hamilton
Williams, Frank Harold
Williams, Laurence Gardner
Wilson, Thomas Watson
Winder, Reuben
Wood, Edwin

Woodforde, Herbert Chamberlaine
Wray, George Aaron

Harrison, William Robert
Harvey, Frederick
Harward, Lionel
Havers, Daniel

Hill, George Murray, B. A.
Hodgkinson, Thomas Mather
Hooper, William Frederick
Hudson, John William
Huff, Richard William Wolley
Hunt, Edward Allen
Jackson, Thomas Ormandy
James, Harold Bee
Lane, Arthur Bruce
Leake, Richard Henry
Lomas, George Edward
Lord, Arthur Drummond
Loxdale, Reginald James Race
Loxley, John Wakefield
Low, Frederick Percy
McKenna, Joseph P.
Macmaster, Robert McCheyne
Male, Henry, B. A., LL.M.
Marsland, John
Martin, James

Nash, Foster Harry Okey, B.A.
Neild, William Edward
Nelham, Thomas Ambrose
Owen, Hugh Beauchamp
Paul, Nicholas
Paxon, Gerard
Phillips, Charles

Philpin, John Ostler

Phythian, John Ernest

Plummer, Joseph William

Preston, Richard Price, Thomas

Radcliffe, Frederick Morton
Ramsbottom, William
Randolph, Francis Sherlock
Reece, Charles Howard Augustine
Richardson, William
Robinson, Andrew
Rodyk, Alexander Percy
Rowbotham, Edward
Siyer, William Latimer

Simpson, Francis Delafosse, B. A.
Smith, William Burberow

Spalding, Herbert Etheridge, B.A.
Spreat, Sydney George
Steed, Joshua George
Stunt, Alfred

Symes, Gustavus Phelps, B.A.
Taylor, Edward Kemp
Thomson, William
Thorp, Septimus James
Vince, William Bernard
Walker, Charles Robert
Wansborough, Henry Reginall
War 1, Arthur John Hanslip
Ward, John Bernard
Ward, John Wesney

Ware, John Tatham
Williams, Reynold

Williams, Roderic Lloyd

Wilson, Henry

Wilson, John

Woods, Herbert

Young, Heary Julian Waring

he graduated as a wrangler in 1837. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1840, and was formerly a member of the Home Circuit. He is best known to the profession as having held for very many years the post of Reader in Common Law at the Inner Temple. His work on "Legal Maxims" has a very wide circulation, having long been an established text-book for students. He was also the author of "Commentaries on the Common Law." Mr. Broom was married to a daughter of the late Mr. John Thomson, of Halifax.

MR. JOHN CLEAVE.

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

ALYN BANK COAL AND CANNEL COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before June 12, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Robert Cockburn Millar, 32, India st, Edinburgh. June 22 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

DERWEN DEG PANNOL GWYN COPPER AND LEAD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 11, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on May 20. Hodding, Chancery lane, solicitor for the petitioners

GERMAN DATE COFFEE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before June

29, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Horace Woodburn Kirby, 4, Coleman st. July 20 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

KEIGHLEY HERALD NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has fixed May 22 at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator STANDARD CREDIT COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated May 5, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Solomon, Finsbury pavement, solicitor for the petitioner

inst.

MR. WILLIAM JONES.

Mr. William Jones, solicitor, late of 7, Crosby-square, died at Glandwyr, Dolgelley, on the 8th ult., in his ninetieth year. Mr. Jones was born in 1792. He was admitted a solicitor about the year 1814, and he was for over fifty years in practice at 7, Crosby-square. He had a good private business, and he was for a long period vestry clerk of the parish of St. Helen, Bishops. gate. For several years he sat in the Court of Common Council, and he was subsequently deputy of Bishopsgate Ward. He was one of the oldest members of the Court of Assistants of the Turners' Company, of which body he was master in 1861. Mr. Jones finally retired from practice about ten years ago. His son, Mr. William Halse Gatty Jones was admitted a solicitor in 1846.

MR. WILLIAM HEWETT MANLEY.

Mr. William Hewett Manley, solicitor, died at Bridport, on the 9th inst. after a somewhat long illnes. Mr. Manley was born in 1828. He was admitted a solicitor in 1850, and he had a very large practice at Bridport. He had been for many years registrar of the Bridport County Court (Circuit No. 55), and he was formerly a town councillor, in which capacity he took a warm interest in all municipal business. Mr. Manley was well known for a long time as the leading Conservative agent at Bridport. His death was caused by cancer of the tongue, and his last illness was an extremely painful one.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. JAMES FREDERICK SYMONDS, solicitor, of Hereford, has been appointed by Lord Bateman, Lord-Lieutenant of Herefordshire, to be Clerk of the Peace for that county, in succession to the late Mr. John Cleave. Mr. Symonds is a magistrate for the city of Hereford. He was admitted a solicitor in 1841, and he is also clerk to the lieutenancy for Herefordshire.

Mr. THOMAS JOYCE, solicitor, of Minehead and Danster, has been appointed Clerk to the Magistrates for the Williton Division of Somersetshire. Mr. Joyce was admitted a solicitor in 1877.

Mr. EDWARD PAUL TOLLER, solicitor, of Kettering and Uppingham, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. WILLIAM DAWES, solicitor, clerk of the peace for the borough of Rye, has been elected Clerk to the Rye Harbour Commissioners, in succession to Mr George Slade Butler, deceased.

Mr. THOMAS FFOOKS, solicitor, of Sherborne, has been elected President of the new Dorsetshire Law Society. Mr. Ffooks was admitted a solicitor in 1841. He is clerk of the peace and clerk to the lieutenancy for Dorsetshire.

Mr. HENRY JOHN GIDNEY, solicitor, late of 46, Finsbury-circus, has been lected Clerk to the Aylsham Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, and Superintendent Registrar for the district. Mr. Gidney was admitted a solicitor in 1878.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN SMITH, Solicitor (of the firm of Thorne, Smith, & Thorne), of Wolverhampton, has been appointed solicitor to the Wolverhampton School Board, in succession to Mr. Henry Underhill, deceased. Mr. Smith was admitted a solicitor in 1866.

Mr. SAMUEL LEWIS, barrister, has been appointed a Member of the Legislative Council of the Colony of Sierra Leone. Mr. Lewis was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1871.

[Gazette, May 12.] STRAHAN AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has fixed May 24 at 11, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

[Gazette, May 16.] May 26 at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator [Gazette, May 16.] FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. COURT GLANSWERN, ANCIENT ORDER OF FORESTERS, Efel Fach, Berriew, Montgomery. May 4 MITCHELDEAN BENEFIT SOCIETY, George Hotel, Mitcheldean, Gloucester. May 5 WEST COWES BRITISH WORKMAN, High st, West Cowes, Isle of Wight. May 6 [Gazette, May 12.] FRIENDLY SOCIETY, the School, Stanton under Bardon, Leicester. May 11 SOCIETY OF GOOD FELLOWSHIP, Wheatsheaf Inn, Ailsworth, Northampton. May 12 [Gazette, May 16.]

CREDITORS' CLAIMS.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.

LAST DAY OF PROOF.

CULLIFORD, THOMAS, Woolston, Southampton, Hotel Keeper. May 31. Barford v
Culliford, Fry, J. Paris, Southampton
DALLISSON, JOHN, Warwick pl, St Luke. June 8. Dallisson v Howitt, Hall, V.C.
Lewis and Sons, Wilmington sq

FARLEY, JANE, Ramsgate. May 30. Coveney v Sondes, Chitty, J. Gray, Ludgate hill
FORSTER, THOMAS, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Solicitor. May 26. Brownlow v Forster,
Chitty, J. Cotton, St Martin's-le-grand

HOLLIER, ALICE, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, Hotel Proprietor. May 18. Coles v Wheeler,
Chitty, J. Blake, Newport
JONES, JOHN, Caron, Cardigan, Gent. June 1. Jones v Lewis, Bacon, V.C. Lloyd,
Lampeter
MARKWICK, MARK, Fernhead rd, Harrow rd, Esq. May 23. Ives v Markwick, Chitty,
J. Christmas, Walbrook
[Gazette, May 2.]

BAKER, GEORGE, Cranbourn st, Leicester sq, Dealer in Fine Arts. June 6. Baker v
Baker, Hall, V.C. Yarde and Loader, Raymond bldgs, Gray's inn
BARROW, MARY, Grange rd, Bermondsey. June 19. Poole v Barrow, Hall, V.C. Mote,
Walbrook

BIRCHALL, ELLEN, Swansea. June 17. Garland v Bath, Fry, J. Budd, Austin Friars
CAMP, EDWARD, Blenheim st, Oxford st, Carman. June 2. Camp v Camp, Chitty, J.
Powell, Old Burlington st

CLUBB, WILLIAM, Colchester, Hatter. June 15. Cattermole v Clubb, Hall, V.C. Wittey, Colchester

COLLINS, SARAH ANN, Chippenham terrace, Paddington. June 2. Lloyd v Head, Bacon, V.C. Lamb, Old Jewry

FAITHFULL, MARGARET, Brighton, and GEORGE FREDERICK PRINCE SUTTON, Coleman st. June 2. Hardwick v Sutton, Chitty, J. Etherington, Lincoln's inn fields HAWKINS, CHARLES, Brighton, Photographic Artist. May 23. Hawkins v Hawkins, Hall, V.C. Woods and Dempster, Brighton

LYALL, JOHN, Les Terres, Guernsey, Esq. May 30, Lyall v Fraser, Chitty, J. Summerhays, Gresham House, Old Broad st

NEALE, PHILIP, Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Gentleman, May 27. Neale v Deadman, Bacon, V.C. Barnes, Lambourn

REDFERN, WILLIAM, Findern, Derby, Gentleman. May 20. Redfern v Moore, Hall, V.C. Argyle, jun, Tamworth

RYDER, HENRY ROBERT, Hove, Devon, Shipwright, and ELIZABETH RYDER. May 24. Ryder v. Avent, Hall, V.C. Wilson, Plymouth

[Gazette, May 5.] June 6. Fleming v Mac

FLEMING, ARTHUR CECIL, Berwick st, Pimlico, Gentleman. donald, Chitty, J. Simpson, Tunbridge Wells GETHIN, WILLIAM, Frantwell, Shrewsbury, Builder. May 26, Gethin v Thomas, Hall, V.C. Nutsey, Shrewsbury SLOCOMBE, WILLIAM, St John's villas, Upper Holloway, Gentleman. June 1. Deacon ▾ Harbison, Bacon, V.C. Sandeman, Northampton sq, Clerkenwell

HARGREAVE, Jons, Barnsley, York, Master of the Grammar School. June 1. Hargreave v Stanley, Bacon, V.C. Bond, Barnsley

KING, WILLIAM, Bexley, Kent, Baker. June 7. King v¡King, Chitty, J. Haywood, Dartford

LLOYD, MARY JANE, Bath. May 27. Hodgens v Wilton. Bacon, V.C. Adams, Lincoln's inn fields

MOORE, FIELDING, Leicester, Contractor. June 12. Moore v Hallam, Fry, J. Place,
Leicester

PIGGIN, WILLIAM, Hose, Leicester, Gentleman. June 15. Swift v Smith, Hall, V.C.
Latham and New, Melton Mowbray
ROYSTON, THOMAS, Howden, York, Farmer. June 3. Green v Cogan, Chitty, J.
Green, Howden,
[Gazette, May 9.]

ANDREW, JOSEPH, Germoe, Cornwall. June 9. Andrew v Nicholls, Chitty, J. Tyacke,

Helston

CLARKE, FANNY, Stony Stratford, Buckingham. June 9. Sedding v Revill, Chitty, J.
Parrott, Stony Stratford
CLARKE, WILLIAM, Stony Stratford, Buckingham, Innkeeper. June 9. Sedding ▼
CUMMINS, JOHN, Leeds, Innkeeper. June 12. Lumb v Osburn, Fry, J. Braithwaite,
Revill, Chitty, J. Parrott, Stony Stratford

Leeds