Page images

Canal Company. The expedition does not affect either the con- ment's name. It would, indeed, seem paradoxical to allow to an stitution of the company or the rights of its members as between invader rights over a neutral's property in the enemy's country themselves. Nor, again, could the local tribunals take any effec- which were denied to a Government putting down a rebellion in its tive cognizance of a question of this kind. If the point is ever to own country. In either case, the neutral Power is entitled to demand be seriously raised, it must be raised, as M. Beaulieu urges, by the compensation for its subjects in respect of the direct damage inflicted French Government, and must be settled between the foreign on them, but has no ground of complaint as for a violation of interna offices of the two countries.

tional law. It may be remembered that during the late war some M. Beaulieu refers to the Alabama arbitration to prove that excitement was caused in this country by the Germans sinking England is liable to pay indirect damages for the violation of the certain English vessels in the Seine at Duclair, in order to bar Suez Canal. It is, however, in our opinion, easy to show that the the passage of French gunboats. In reply to the representations two cases are different. We went into the Alabama arbitration of the English Government Count Bismarck claimed that "the admitting certain principles according to which it was decided measure in question, however exceptional in its nature, did not that we had sinned against international law, and it was as overstep the bounds of international warlike usage.

The report offenders against international law that we incurred the heavy shows that a pressing danger was at hand, and every

other means penalty of several millions. Now, in the case of the Suez Canal, of meeting it was wanting; the case was therefore one of our conduct has been in full accordance with international law. necessity, which, even in time of peace, may render the employ. When war is going on in any country, it is not disputed that a ment or destruction of foreign property admissible under the belligerent has the right of seizing for military uses a neutral's reservation of indemnification." Compensation was made for the property which is passing through that country. This is called vessels and their cargoes ; but the English Government did not the right of angary. Thus, during 1870, the Germans in Alsace question the principle which Count Bismarck then laid down, seized, for military purposes, upwards of six bundred railway and which amply justifies our recent occupation of the Suez carriages belonging to the Central Swiss Railway. A fortiori, a Canal. belligerent has the right of occupying immovable property belonging to a neutral, such as a railway line or a canal. " It would be possible, indeed, to quote against us Lord Derby's despatch of the LIABILITY OF TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY 16th of May, 1877, during the war between Russia and Turkey, in which he wrote :-“Her Majesty's Government will expect

IN RESPECT OF LEASEHOLDS. that the Porte and the Khedive will

, on their side, abstain from To those who imagine that the office of trustee in bankruptcy or impeding the navigation of the Canal, or adopting any measures liquidation is one with little risk and great profit, the recent likely to injure the Canal or its approaches, and they are firmly decision of the Court of Appeal in Titterton v. Cooper (30 W. R. determined not to permit the Canal to be made the scene of any 866) may afford some instruction. The case is of the utmost combat or other warlike operations.". But it will be observed practical importance to the profession and requires very careful that Lord Derby does not rest this decision of the British Govern- consideration. The facts were that the plaintiff, the owner of a ment on any principle of international law, and its only justifica wharf, leased it to one Morrison, the lease containing covenants to tion is the right of every country to defend its own interests. In pay rent and to repair the premises. In December, 1880, the just the same manner any foreign nation might have made lessee filed a petition for liquidation, and, in January following, our occupation of the Canal a casus belli, not as an offence resolutions for liquidation and appointing the defendant trustee against international law, but as an act injurious to its were duly passed. Upon the appointment of the defendant as interests. A more plausible objection would be that, as Mr. trustee the plaintiff served him with notice, under section 24 of Gladstone has said, we are not at war in Egypt, and therefore not the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, requiring him to decide whether he entitled to the privileges of a belligerent. It might be replied that would disclaim the lease or not. The defendant did not disclaim, our army is acting in the name and under the authority of the but, though never entering into actual possession of the premises, Khedive, and that by article 9 of the Convention of 1866 the he commenced negotiations for the assignment of the lease, which preservation of public order on the Canal was expressly reserved negotiations, however, fell through. The plaintiffsued the to him.

defendant to recover damages for non-repair and for rent accrued “Le Canal Maritime et toutes ses dépendances restent soumis à due prior, and also subsequently, to the defendant's appointment as la police Egyptienne, qui s'exercera librement comme sur tout trustee. The case was tried before Huddleston, B., without a autre point du territoire, de façon à assurer le bon ordre, la jury, and he gave judgment for the plaintiff on all points, followsécurité publique, et l'exécution des lois et réglements du pays. ing the judgment of Stephen, J., in Wilson v. Wallani (28 W. R.

“Le Gouvernement Egyptien jouira de la servitude de passage à 597, L. R. 5 Ex. D. 155). This decision was upheld by the Court travers le Canal Maritime sur les points qu'il jugera nécessaires, of Appeal except as to the rent accrued due prior to the defendant tant pour ses propres communications que pour la libre circulation being appointed trustee. A number of cases were cited on behalf du commerce et du public, sans que la compagnie puisse percevoir of the defendant as to the law upon the point under the Act of aucun droit de péage ou autre redevance sous quelque prétexte 1849, and reliance was also placed upon the cases of Ex parte

Davis, In re Sneezum (25 W. R. 49, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 463), and Ex But we may frankly admit that such an event as the occupation parte Dressler, In re Solomon (27 W. R. 144, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 252), of the Canal by British soldiers, even in the Khedive's name, was Lord Coleridge, in delivering judgment, made no reference to not contemplated by this article. Nor is this of any importance. these cases, but Brett and Cotton, L.JJ., both did so, explaining Without this article the Khedive would, we conceive, have retained the distinction between them and the case before the court. We the right of preserving public order on a canal which lies entirely extract these portions of their judgments at length, as they within his territory, whoever its proprietors might be. However, appear to us to be the most important part of the case. After though not technically at war, but only engaged in suppressing an stating that the case rested entirely upon the true construction of insurrection, our right to seize the Canal for military uses is section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, Brett, L.J., said :—" It determined by the same principles as when a regular war exists. was said we were prevented from giving to section 17 the interWhenever a rebellion attains the proportions of a civil war, there pretation which I have now said to be the right view, because of is an interval of time before the insurgent forces are recognized as certain decided cases which are said to be binding on us. As to belligerents. Any premature recognition of them in this character the case of Ex parte Davis, In re Sneezum, it seems to me that it by a foreign Power would be regarded as an unfriendly act by does not govern this case and is not applicable. That was not an the legitimate Government; and it may well happen that a struggle action against the trustee to make him personally liable, though, of considerable proportions may be concluded without any such certainly, the question of his personal liability did arise. But the recognition ever taking place. But during the whole interval contract there was a mere mercantile executory contract, and prior to recognition the legitimate Government has exactly the was not a lease at all. There being such a contract between the same right as in a state of war, of seizing a neutral's property in bankrupt and the applicant in that case, the trustee had, for a the country for military purposes. And the right of the Govern- time, fulfilled the obligations of the bankrupt, but after a time he ment is no less the right of an allied force acting in the Govern- ceased to fulfil them. There was, therefore, & non-fulfilment of

que ce soit.



that contract as regarded the applicant, and the question was same law would still exist to relieve from liability a trustee who raised whether the trustee could be personally liable for that non- had not so elected. fulfilment. It was said he could not, in any circumstances, be The law as to the personal liability of a trustee who neglects to personally liable for non-performance of such a contract made with disclaim an onerous lease, upon the covenants of such lease, as now the bankrupt. I take the ground of the decision on that point to definitely laid down by the Court of Appeal, must occasion conbe that, whether the contract vested in him or not, and whether siderable anxiety to trustees who find themselves placed in such a he took to it or not, in taking to it as trustee he could only take position. On the one hand, if they are too precipitate they may to it as assignee of the contract, but that an assignee cannot be throw away a valuable asset by disclaiming, and, on the other hand, personally sued, in his own name, by the original party to the they may find themselves fixed with a personal liability to an almost contract, because there is no privity of contract. But, as was indefinite amount, with no estate out of which to indemnify thempointed out, the assignee of a lease is personally liable to an action selves. What then are they to do in such a case? It is only for rent because no privity of contract is required, but he is liable natural that trustees should prefer sacrificing part of the estate to by reason of privity of estate.

It was said the court was running the risk of such responsibility. The decision may have a bound by the case of Ex parte Dressler, In re Solomon ; that was very detrimental effect upon the administration of bankrupts' a mere argumentum ad hominem addressed to certain members here. estates in the future, so that in any amendment of the law of It was said the court had there relied upon affirmative acts of the bankruptcy the point should not be lost sight of. But the question trustee as showing acceptance. Well, it is true, I admit, that in now naturally arises, Has a trustee, placed in the position of the stating the facts of that case for the purposes of that decision I defendant in the case we are discussing, any means whatever of did state such facts, but if there are facts in a case which are escaping from further liability under the lease ? a fortiori, judges usually state them because they make the case The first point to consider is that the trustee is only an assignee more clear. But relying on the facts in that case does not seem to (by operation of law it is true, but still only an assignee) of leaseme to show that the judges thought the non-existence of those facts holds. His liability, therefore, arises, as was said by Brett, L.J., would have altered the decision, and I am of opinion there is nothing by reason of the privity of estate between him and the lessor. in that judgment to make the present interpretation of section 17 This can only be in respect of such covenants as run with the land. inconsistent with it.” Cotton, L.J., said: “As to Ex parte He will not, therefore (independently of the doctrine of notice), Davis, In re Sneezum, all that it decides is that sections 23 and be liable upon covenants which do not run with the land, as, for 24, connected with section 25, sub-section 2, enabling the trustee instance, to do some act upon premises not comprised in the to carry on the business of the bankrupt, did not amount to a lease. That would clearly come within the decision in statutory enactment that the trustee should be liable upon the Ex parte Davis, In re Sneezum, and be the subject of proof contract. Mellish, L.J., says with reference to section 25, sub- upon the bankrupt's estate only. If then he is only liable section 2: 'Are those words sufficient to make the trustee per- as assignee upon such covenants run with the sonally liable for any damages the other party to the contract may land, by assigning the lease to another his liability would cease as have sustained by reason of the trustee throwing up a contract of to any future breach of the covenants, and he would not be the bankrupt after he had carried it on for a time, and after he personally liable for rent becoming due after the assignment. had neglected to disclaim it, or are they sufficient to make the Then if the trustee can succeed in inducing anyone to accept an trustee liable to pay out of the estate the full amount of the assignment of the lease upon any terms, he will escape future damages occasioned by the breach? In my opinion those words liability. This course was, we believe, frequently adopted under are wholly insufficient for that purpose. There the trustee had the old Act, after a creditors' assignee had taken to a lease and not disclaimed, and the question was whether the estate, or the then discovered it to be onerous. Is there anything in the present trustee to the extent of the estate, or the trustee himself, was Act to prevent the same course being followed ? Cotton, L.J., liable for damages. If he had been assignee independently of says that “the assignee of a lease is left in the same position as statutory enactment, neither he nor the estate would be liable. before the Act of 1869," so we presume that whatever course was The only decision was, not whether that act would make a differ- open for a creditors' assignee to adopt to get rid of leaseholds ence as to leaseholds, but whether there was anything to alter the under the former law is still open to trustees under the present law as to the liability of an assignee of a contract. They said Act. there was not, and the liability was left as before ; so here, I say, One other course may be followed under the Act-namely, the assignee of a lease is left in the same position as before the Act to remove the trustee from his office and appoint a successor. of 1869. As to Ex parté Dressler, In re Solomon, I agree with The words of section 83, sub-section 6, appear to be quite as Brett, L.J. There the trustee had taken actual possession, and no comprehensive as those used in section 17 upon which the Court doubt that was an acceptance of a lease, and he was the assignee of Appeal based its decision. The words of section 17 are, “ Until of the lease, whether or not, under the Act of 1869, it was neces- a trustee is appointed the registrar shall be the trustee for the sary there should be acceptance. Therefore the judges said he purposes of this Act, and, immediately upon the order of adjudicahad taken possession, and therefore was personally liable.” The tion being made, the property of the bankrupt shall vest in the concluding portion of the same judge's judgment is also important registrar. On the appointment of a trustee the property shall in the view of the case which we propose to discuss. He pro- forthwith pass to and vest in the trustee appointed." Sub-section ceeds: "I am of opinion he is not liable for any rent due before 6 of section 83 is as follows :—“ The property of the bankrupt the time when he became assignee. He is liable because the shall pass from trustee to trustee, including under that term the statute makes him assignee, and, therefore, the ordinary liability registrar when he fills the office of trustee, and shall rest in the of an assignee applies. The Act vests in him at the date of his trustee for the time being during his continuance in office, withappointment something which would not rest in an ordinary out any conveyance, assignment, or transfer whatever." Upon assignee by a conveyance-i.e., all the property vested in the the appointment of the new trustee, therefore, the lease would bankrupt at the commencement of the bankruptcy. He is not in become vested in him and he would become liable upon the covethe position of an ordinary assignee with regard to property dealt nants running with the land, and the former trustee would be with by the bankrupt between the bankruptcy and the appoint- relieved therefrom. It has been suggested that the trustee might ment of trustee; his liability is the liability of an assignee simply resign his office and allow the registrar to become trustee resulting from his possession in consequence of this statutory and deal with the question. But in the case of Titterton v. transfer.'

Cooper the debtor's affairs were being administered in liquidation As to the remarks of Brett, L.J., upon the case of Ex parte and not in bankruptcy, and it is doubtful whether the provisions Dressler, In re Solomon, we would only observe that it is unfor- of the Act as to the registrar becoming trustee in case of a vacancy tunate that judges should lay stress upon facts which, after all, in the office apply to liquidation. turn out to be of no importance to the case. To a reader of that case it might certainly appear that the election by the trustee to accept the lease was the ground of the decision, and that inasmuch as the old law as to election applied to charge a trustee who of Chambers on the site of the southern block of the buildings in Chancery.

We under-tand that the Society of Lincoln's-inn propose to create new sets had elected with liability upon the corenants, by implication the lane formerly occupied

as Charcery


[ocr errors]


cluding leaseholds for years from this class of tenures, you have to REVIEWS.

rely on feudal principles which are confessedly obsolete, anomalous, and

unsuited to the practice of modern times ; and the question is how long THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT.

the inconvenient distinction is to be kept up. The Conveyancing Act

essays, at all events, to treat leaseholds for years as comprehended The BILLS OF EXCHANGE Act, 1882, with EXPLANATORY Notes AND under the definition “land of any tenure"; and to my mind there is a

INDEX. By M. D. CHALMERS, Barrister-at-Law. Waterlow & Sons, significant justification for its doing so in the fact that any practical Limited.

reason for the distinction reaches its vanishing point in the section

H. The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), which is an Act which eracts that a loog term is potentially a fee simple. to codify the law relating to bills of exchange, cheques, and promissory Aug. 8. noter, received the Royal assent and came into operation on the 18th of [Our correspondent will see by the letter from Mr. A. J. Wood, which last month. Mr. Chalmers, who was the draughtsman of the Bill, has appeared in our number of the 19th inst., that the latter gentleman, lost no time in getting out a little handbook of the Act, designed rather who is, without doubt, one of the ablest defenders that the Act for men of business than for lawyers. In his introduction he says, “ Acould find, lends no countenanco to “ H.'s" views about tenure, b'it handy edition of the Act, with an index and short explanatory notes of a prefers to drop out that word from the Act as mere amplification. We nou-technical character, may, perhaps, be acceptable to merchants, do not think it worth while further to discuss the precise inport au'! bankers, and others, who will frequently have to consult the Act in the applicability of such phrases as “leasehold tenuto," &c., and will merely hurry of business. I hopo later on to publish a legal treatise on the point out to our correspondent that, in the passage which he cites Act, dealing more completely with the whole luw ou the subject of from Mr. Joshua Williams, that learued writer seem", by a slip of the negotiable instruments, and comparing the Act with the foreign codes." pen, to use the word " tenure" iustead of the word " tenancy."— We have pleasure in commending the present handbook to the public, Ed. S. J.] and we look forward with much interest to the work with which Mr. Chalmers promises to favour the legal profession,

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,- The case of Paul v. Paul (51 L. J. Ch. 5) discloses a very unsatis.

factory state of judge-made law on the important question of declarations CORRESPONDENCE.

of trust or limitations in favour of the next of kin of one of the settlors contained in marriage settlements.

The judgment of Fry, J., is just the reverse of that of Malins, V.C., STATUTORY RECONVEYANCE.

in the same case, that of the last-named judge being reported in 50 L. J. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Ch. 14, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 580. Each judge seems equally positive as to the Sir,- With reference to the letter you inserted last week on the correctness of his decision, and expresses surprise there can be two efficacy of a statutory re-conveyance where section 29 of the Conveyancing opinions on the matter. The case, as before Fry, J., is stated thus in

the margin Act dces pot apply, will you allow me to suggest that the only question is whether the words of the statutory form are in themselves sufficient to

“ By a marriage settlement, personal property belonging to the wife pass the legal estate free from the mortgage and to imply the proper event of there being no children, if the wifo should die in the lifetime of

was settled (subject to the life interest of the husband and wife), ia the covenant? Looking at sections 7, 49, and 51, there can be no doubt that those words are sufficient, being, in fact, with the exception of the in default of appointment, for her next of kin according to the statute,

the husband, in trust for such persons as she should by will appoint, aud, expression “statutory,” those which would naturally be employed in any and if the husband should die in the lifetime of the wife, for her abso. re-conveyance since the Act. It ie impossible to conceive that the intro. lutely. There were no children of the marriage and no possibility of any. duction of the shibboleth “statutory" make the slightest

Upon a petition by the wife asking for the division of the settled property difference. It is difficult to see why a statutory form of re-conveyance was inserted the marriage settlement a complete and irrevocable declaration of trust

in certain proportions between herself and her husband, -Held, that by by the framers of the Act unless it were from a pure love of symmetry.

had been made in favour of the next of kin, and application refused.” August 30.


In the last sentence, if you substitute the following, you have the judg. ment of Malins, V.C.: "Held, that the corpus of the fund might be

applied in payment of the debts of the wife, the next of kiu being mere GENERAL ORDERS UNDER THE SOLICITORS' REMUNERA. volunteers and not within the marriage consideration.” The learned TION ACT.

judge goes so far as to say that "the objection raised by the trustees is [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

wholly unsustainable."

These contradictory decisions will, I imagine, fetter and embarrass Sir,-A client is purchaser and mortgagor of real estate, and I act also trustees, and impose on solicitors a serious responsibility in advising their for the mortgagee. I wish to charge according to the above order. Will trustee clients. For my own part, I think common sense and expediency you, or any of your readers, kindly furnish me with a calculation in

are with Malins, V.C., as I cannot see the reason why the lady should be detail, shewing what my costs should be ? To simplify the calculation,

fettered by a limitation to an upkuowu and unascertained class from the purchase and mortgage money may both be taken at £5,000. There doing what she likes with her own property, when the object for which are no “negociations" of any kind to charge for. I may mention that the settlement was made--the provision for the children-cannot be the reason for my letter is a difference of opinion between another solicitor carried out, and when she can defeat the claim of the next of kin by an and myself as to whether rale 3 must be read with rule 6 as governing appointment by will. Surely the life interest in her own property, costs in a transaction of the kind.

B. D. H.

coupled with such a power, should make her mistress of the fund, subAugust 29.

ject, of course, to the life interest of the husband. I am not aware if the case is under appeal, but it is very desirable that the law should be

placed on a more definite and satisfactory footing. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

Cheltenham, August 30.

ROBERT WHEELER. Sir,- Referring to the remarks in your article of last week as to the

[The decision of Fry, J., was appealed from, and the appeal disremuneration scale, is there any legal reason why a solicitor should not, missed, on the 15th of July, 1882. The case is noted in the Weekly after this year, take up an auctioneer's license ? I believe that most of Notes of July 29.-Ed. S. J.] the business of an auctioneer as to the sale of land or house property is now carried to the auctioneers instead of being brought by them to soli. citors. Why should not solicitors retain the business? They thoroughly understand it and could probably do the clients as much service as the auctioneer can.


CASES OF THE WEEK. London, August 30. [We propose to discuss both these letters in an article next week.-Ed.





R. 4.-In the case of In re The Bellevue Prechold Land Society, before [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]

North, J., sitting as Vacation Judge on Friday, the 25th alt., an order baring Sir,-It is part of the alphabet of the law," to use your own phrase

been made on the preceding Wednesday to wind up the society, it afterwariis (p. 575), that “the most familiar instance of a tenure is given by a

appeared that a copy only of the winding-ap petitio i had been made an exhibit

to the statutory affidavit filed in support of the petition, but that a new affidavit common lease of a house or land for a term of years" (Williams on Real bad been bled more than four days since the presentation of the petition, Property, "of the tenure of an estate in fee simple”). To justify ex. making the petition i'şelf an exhibit. NORTH, J., gave leave for an extension

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

of time in which to file the statutory affidavit.-SOLICITORS, Hickens No. 9.-Hertfordshire, and so much of Essex as is not within the Central Graham; Cattarns, Jehu, g Hughes, for Younge, Wilson, & Co., Sheffield. Criminal Court District-Assizes at Chelmsford.

No. 10.-Sussex, City of Canterbury, and so much of Kent as is not

within the Central Criminal Court District-Assizes at Maidstone. PRACTICE- RECEIVER-INTESTAOY-ADMINISTRATION-CREDITOR'S ACTION No. 11.-Oxfordsbire and Berkshire-Assizes at Oxford. -APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER AND MANAGER BEFORE GRANT OP ADMINISTRA

No. 12.--Worcestershire, Herefordsbire, Monmouthshire, Gloucestershire, TION.- In the case of In re Baker (deceased), Giddings v. Baker, also before North, and City of Worcester--Assizes at Gloucester. J., on the 25th ult, an ex parte motion was made in a creditor's administra. No. 13.-Shropshire and Staffordsbire-Assizes at Stafford. tion action for the appointment of a receiver and manager of the estate of the No. 14.-Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Dorset-Assizes at Winchester, deceased, who had died intestate and insolvent. It appeared that the jotestate, No. 15.-Devonshire and Cornwall-Assizes at Exeter. who was carrying on the business of a publican, had died very recently and No. 16.-Somerset and City of Bristol - Assizes at Bristol. tbat letters of administration had not as yet been taken out. The case of Blackett v. Blackett (19 W. R. 559) was cited, where Stuart, V.C., uoder Anglesea, Denbighshire, and Flintshire-Assizes at Chester.

No. 17.--Cheshire, Montgomeryshire, Morionethshire, Carnarvonshire, similar circumstances, had made an order like that now asked for. NORTH, J.,

No. 18.-Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire, Borough of Carmarthen, after referring to the case cited, made the order. -SOLICITOR, Kingsford, Pembrokeshire, Town of Haverford west, Cardiganshire, Brecknockshire, and for Marshall, Devizes.

Radnorshire-Assiz98 at Swansea.

No. 19.-Northumberland, and Town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne-Assizes at PRACTICE-TRUSTEE AND CESTUI QUB TRUST— PURCHASE BY TRUSTEB– Newcastle-upon-Tyne. PURCHASE BY WIFE OF TRUSTEE-LIBERTY TO PURCHASE-ORDER MADR An Order in Council, dated the 18th of August, contained in the Gazette ON MOTION BEFORE Decree.- In the case of In re Mackness (deceased), of August 22, provides that from and after the 30th of September, 1882, Mackness v. Mackness, also before North, J., on the 25th ult., a writ having the County Court of Hampsbire, bolden at Fordinbridge, shall be holden at been issued by the plaintiff, an infant legatee saing by her next friend, against Ringwood as well as at Fordinbridge; and that the County Court of Cum. the trustees and executors of the testator's will for the administration of his berland, holden at Cockermouth, shall be holden at Workington as wil as at estate, a motion was made that the defendants might be at liberty to sell part Cockermouth. of the testator's estate consisting of leasehold houses to the wife of one of the defendants at the price of £600, to be paid out of moneys to which she was entitled for ber separate use. The testator by bis will, after appointing his widow and two other persons his trustees and executors, devised and boqueathed

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS. all his real and personal property to bis trustees upon trusts for sale in any manner and at any time they should think fit, and investment and conversion and directed them to pay the income of his estate to his widow for life, and Commission on Historioal Manuscripts. Mr. Romilly was called to the bar

Mr. John ROMILLY, barrister, has been appointed Secretary to the Royal after her death to divide the corpus amongst bis five children equally, of whom

He is secretary of causes to the the plaintiff was the only one who was an infant. The intending 'purchaser at Gray's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1865.

Master of the Rolle. was one of the children entitled under the will, and by the affidavits it appeared that the proposed sale was an advantageous one and approved of by all the Mr. FRANCIS HENRY CANDY, solicitor, of Southampton, has been appointed beneficiaries who were of age. An objection was taken by the registrar during Clerk to the County, Magistrates for the Hythe Division, Mr. Candy was the bearing of the motion to the effect that the order asked for could not be admitted a solicitor in 1871. made before decree (Farmer v. Dean, 32 Beav. 327, 12 W. R. Ch. Dig. 106). Mr. EDWARD JAMES BRUTTON, solicitor, of Exeter and Ottery St. Mary, An unreported case before Hall, v.C., was, however, mentioned by the bas been appointed Clerk to the Ottery Local Board, and to the Fooffees of the counsel for the plaintiff, where, in an action brought simply for the purpose of Parish Charities of Ottery St Mary. Both offices were held by the late Mr. obtaining an order like that now asked for, the Vice-Chancellor, after referring Albert Edwards. to Farmer v. Dean and also Campbell v. Walker (5 Ves. 678), made the order before decree upon being satisfied with the affidavits filed in support.

Messrs. Newton & Down, of High-street, Lewisham, have beun appointe! NORTH, J., after doubting whether ihe preferable course would not be to make Solicitors to the Guardians of tbe Poor for the Parish of Lewisham ; and Mr. the order in the form of a judgment, said that the case before Hall, v.o., Newton, of the same firm, has been elected Clerk to the Lewisham Vestry. might be followed.-SOLICITOR, Henry Tyrrell,


EDWARD Borges, WILLIAM EDWARD LAWRENCE, and WALTER JOSEPH In the case of In re The North Western Credit Company (Limited), before RUSCOMBE POOLE, solicitors (Barges, Lawrence, & Poole), Stephen-street, Day, J., sitting as Vacation Judge, on the 30th ult., a petition for the com.

Bristol. Aug. 11. pulsory winding up of the company was presented by a sharebolder holding GEORGE LONGLEY LEPPER and JOIN LAKE BLAXLAND, solicitors, 72, five €1 shares, pot folly paid up. The petitioner alleged that the company Mark-lane, London. Ang. 18. All debts due and owing to or by the said had paid dividends out of capital and issued a fraudulent balance-sheet. The peti partnership will be received and paid by George Longlog Lopper. tion was opposed by the company, on the ground that there was no case shown which came within the grounds for winding up a limited company set forth in

FRANKLIN WILLIAM TONKIN and FRED BURFORD, solioitors, Albion. the Companies Act, 1862, 6. 79, and it was also stated that the company bad obambers, Bristol, and Chipping Sodbary. , Ang. 16. All debts owing to recovered judgment against the petitioner for money lent, to the amount of and by the firm will be received and paid by the said Franklin William £48 odd, and that the judgment was not satisfied. DAY, J., said that the Tonkin, by whom the praotice will in, fatare be carried on. petitioner should bave paid his debt to the company before presenting a peti.

[Gazetle, Aug. 25.) tion to wind it up. The petition would be dismissed with costs,





CATEWORX BRICKWORKS AND COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by The London Gazette of August 22 contains a series of Orders in Council in North, J., dated Aug 16, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Rogers and pursuance of the Winter Assizes Acts, 1876 and 1877.

Chave, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner The first order directs that the jurisdiction the justices and judges of the CARTA PARA GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED. --By an order made by North, J., dated

Aug 16, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Kimber, Walbrook; Beall Central Crimioal Court at any session of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery

and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioners held or continued for the Central Criminal Court District in the months of CENTRAL WYNAND GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the VacaOctober, November, or December, 1882, or January, 1883, shall extend to tion Judgo, dated Aug 16, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Snell and such part of the county of Surrey as is not pow included in the Central NORTH WESTERN CREDIT COMPANT, LIMITED. -Petition for winding op, presented Ang Criminal Court District, subject to sundry provisions contained in the order. 16, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Wednesday, Aug 30, 40 the court of Hall,

Other orders constitute the following combined winter assize counties for the V.c. Lee, Bow st, Covent garden next winter assizes :

Pure BEVERAGE COMPANY, LIMITED. --By an order mado by North, J., dated Aug 16, it

was ordered that the company bo wound up. Norton, Queen st, Cheapside, solicitor No. 1.-Cumberland and Westmoreland-- Assizes held at Carlisle.

for the potitioners No. 2.—Northern and Salford Divisions of Lancashiro-Assizes at Mag

[Gazette, Aug. 25.7 hester.


LIMITED IN CHANCERY, No. 3.-North and East Riding Division and West Riding Division of York. South WIRAL CREBOR, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Ang 10, directed phire-Assizes at York.

to be heard before the Vice-Warden, at the Law Institution, Chancery lane, on Wed. No. 4.- Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, and City of Lincoln-Assizes at nesday, Aug 30, at 12.30. Affidavits intended to be used at the hearing, in opposition Nottiogbam.

to the

petition, must be filed at the registrar's office, Truro, on or before Aug 28, and

notice thereof must, at the same time, be given to the petitioner, his solicitor, or his No. 5.-Derbyshire, Leicestershire, and Rutland-Assizes at Leicester.

agent. Hodge and Co., Truro, agents for Gregory, Bishopsgate st Within, petitioner's No. 6.- Northamptonshire, Bedfordsbire, and Buokinghamshire-Assizes at solicitor Bedford.

[Gazette, Aug. 25.]

No. 7.-Norfolk and Suffolk-Assizes at Norwich.
No, 8.-Huntingdopshire and Cambridgeshire-Assiges at Chesterton.


Gazette, Aug. 25.1

ford row

linor and Co

Brown, Isaac, West Hallam, Derby, Builder. Sept 9 (not 7 as previously advertised) at

3 at office of Fraser, St John's chmbrs, Bridlesmith gate, Nottingham LEGAL NEWS.

Burrow, Francis, Redruth, Outfitter, Sept 12 at 11.30 at office of Paigo and Co, West

End, Redruth

Chapman, Adam, Patricroft, Lancaster, Grocer. Sept 6 at 3 at office of Gardner, Cooper Kemp's Mercantile Gazette states that the number of failures in England st, Manchester and Wales gazetted during the week ending Saturday, August 26, was 157. Chatterton, Percy, Elgin chmbrs, Ironmonger lane, Physician. Sept 4 at 12 at Inns of

Court Hotel, Holborn. Bartlett, Bedford st, Covent Garden The number in the corresponding week of last year was 204, showing a Clark, Andrew Grahame, Croydon, Wholesale Bedding Manufacturer. Sept 6 at 3 at deorease of 47, being a net decrease in 1882, to date, of 658. The number office of Young, North End, Croydon in the corresponding week of 1880 was 205. The numbers for the United Cottrell, Charles, Nottingham, Railway Clerk. Sept 15 at 3 at office of Truman, Poultry Kingdom were 172 in 1882, 224 in 1881, and 224 in 1880. We hope it is of Cox, William, Eastcote, nr Pinner, Carpenter. Sept 11 at 3 at George Inn, Uxbridge. good omen that no failures of farmers are recorded last week, whereas there Philp, Hayes were dine in the corresponding week of 1881. The number of bills of sale Crocker, Robert Field, Chertsey, Butcher. Sept 7 at 1 at Sun Hotel, Kingston. Newman, published in England and Wales for the week ending August 26 was 895. The Dwyer, Edward Michael, Manchester, Egg Dealer. Sept 11 at 3 at office of Chew, Swan pumber in the corresponding week of last year was 957, showing a decrease of st, Manchester 62, being a net decrease in 1882, to date, of 1,124.

Eccleston, Robert, Preston, Lancaster, Carver. Sept 11 at 3 at office of Cooper, Lune st, The Vice-Warden of the Stannaries' Court recently (Jaly 31, 1882) gave Elphick, Edward, Duke st, Grosvenor sq, Hosier. Sept 4 at 10 at 260, High Holborn. judgment upon an application in the matter of The TValkham United Mines.

Fisher, Finsbury pavement The applicant had presented a petition in the High Court for winding up Firth, John, Halifax, Wine Merchant. Sept 7 at 3 at George Hotel, Brighouse, Halifax. the company, and another creditor's petition being before the Standaries Goldsmith, “thomas, Bristol, Licensed Victoaller. Sept 4 at 2 at ofice of Clifton and Court, the present application was for a certificate in favour of winding up

Carter, Broad st, Bristol company as an ordinary company by the High Court. The applicant appears Griffith, Charles John, Essex rd, Islington, Oilman. Sept 4 at 3 at office of Cooper and to have contended tbat the mide had not been actually carried on by the Co, Lincoln's inn fields company, but that the works done alleged to have been at an outlay of Gunning: Patrick, Newcastle under Lyme, Stafford, Baker. Sept 4 at 11 at office of

£2,000) bad been merely for exploration; and also that a winding up in Lon: Haimes, Francis, Tue Brook, nr Liverpool, Grocer. Sept 7 at 3 at office of Jackson, don would be more convenient. The judge, in dismissing the application, said Dale st, Liverpool. Massey and Co, Liverpcol that be regarded the precedent sought to be established as a most objectionable Hand, George, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, Grocer. Sept 8 at 11 at office of Hughes and one. The Legislature intended that the Court of the Staonaries should

Hawley, George, Rawmarsh, York, Earthenware Manufacturer. Sept 6 at 11 at office be the tribunal for companies working mines in Corowall. It was said tbe of Willis, Bank chbrs, Wellgate, Rotherbam mines had not been in operation except for purposes of exploration, though Heirons, William, Vining st, Brixton, out of business. Sept 1 at 12 at office of Bilton, that was not consistent with £2,000 baving been spent there. To open the Inwood, Henry, Edgware rd, Builder. Sept 18 at 2 at office of Wright and Pilley, Beddoor to considerations of this kind as to what was exploration and wbat was mining would open the door to continual and wasteful controversy.. Those Jackson, James, Stalybridge, Chester, Bobbin and skewer Manufactarer, Sept 7 at 3 who were anxious to have a company wound up in the High Court would alwayJackson, John Myers, Leeds, Butcher. Sept 7 at 3 at office of Harland, South Parad find out that unsuccess'ul workings were only "explorations." He doubted Leeds if £2,000 bad been spent on the mine, but the creditors in London might very Jones, John John, Llanberis, Carnarvon, Grocer. Sept 9 at 1 at office of Tomkinson, probably prefer the Štandaries Court as a cheaper tribunal. Unpaid calls

Market st, Carnarvon formed tho greater part of the assets, it was stated, but the collection of these Joseph, Thomas Fenchurch st, Colliery Proprietor. Sept 21 at 3 at Royal Hotel, so

Mary st, Cardiff. Webster and Styring, Sheffield calls could be carried on as well from Troro as from London.

King, Job, and George Otley, Lewisham, Auctioneers. Sert 14 at 3 at Cambridge house,

High rd, Lee. Tucker, Lee
Little, Archibald John, and Robert William Little, Shanghai, China, Merchants. Oct 23

at 3 at office of Wainewright, Balfour bldgs, Shanghai

Little, John, Killingworth, Northumberland, Licensed Victualler. Sept 7 at 2 at office SALE OF ENSUING WEEK.

of Joel, Newgate st, Newcastle upon Tyne Sept. 5. Mr. Davm BURNETT, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Estate (rec Lloydiel, il yard Llantysilio: Denbigh, Sheep Salesman. Sept 11 at 12.30 at Eagle's advertisement, Aug. 26, p. 4).

Lowe, William, Leek, Wine and Spirit Merchant. Sept 7 at 2 at Derby st, Leek. Chal.
May, Charles, Bath, Butcher. Sept 8 at 12 at offices of Wilton, Westgate bldgs, Bath
McDowell, Henry, Commercial rd, Fruiterer. Sept 8 at 1 at office of Dobson, Mino.

Morrison, James, jun, North Bierley, York, Worsted Manufacturor. Sept 4 at 11 al

office of Hutchinson, Piccadilly chbrs, Piccadilly, Bradford
Northway, Charles, Torquay, Devon, Glass and China Dealer. Sept 9 at 12.30 at Grand

Hotel, Bristol. Creed, Newton Abbot

Oakly, Benjamin, Smethwick, Stafford, Grocer. Sept 6 at 11 at office of Stokes, Temple
FRIDAY, Aug. 28, 1882.

st, Birmingbam Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

Palframan, Thomas, Dewsbury, Painter. Sept 8 at 10 at office of Shaw, Bona st, Dews. Creditors must forward their proof of debts to the Registrar.

bury To Surrender in London,

Pinch, Edwin Felis, Bath, Engraver. Sept 7 at 11 at Wood st, Bath. Moger Harris, Nathan, Kennington rd, Jeweller. Pet Aug 23. Brougham. Sept 6 at 11

Plant, William, Cheadle, Stafford, Licensed Victualler. Sept 5 at 11 at office of Welch, Stevens, William Henry, Commercial rd, Draper. Pet Aug 22. Pepys. Sept 7 at 11

Caroline st, Longton
To Surrender in the Country.

Proctor, Frederick, Bournemouth, Hants, Lodging House Keeper. Sept 7 at 11 Jones, Samuel, Cradley, Worcester, Commission Agent. Pet Aug 18. Collis. Stour

at Pembroke Hotel, Bournemouth. Basil and Co bridge, Sept 8 at 11

Richards, George, Victoria pk sq, Boot Manufacturer. Sept 7 at 3 at office of Davis, Pagani, Louis, Brighton, Restaurani 1 Coprietor. Pet Aug 22. Jones. Brighton, Sept Richards, Robert, Chatteris, Cambridge, Furnishing Ironmonger. Sept 7 at 3 at office

5 at 11 Raly, William, Downham ter, Blenheim rd, Wood Green, Builder. Pet Aug 15. Gough. Roberts, William, Portmadoc, Carnarvon, Grocer. Sept 11 at 1 at Commercial Hotel,

of Margetts, Chatteris Edmonton, Sept 7 at 12 Sansome, Benjamin William, Salford, Provision Dealer. 'Pet Aug 23. Hulton. Salford, Rowe, Charles Courtney, Fulham rd, Jeweller. Sept 12 at 3 at Guildhall Tavern,

Portmadoc. Jones and Jones, Portmadoc
Sept 13 at 11
TUESDAY, Aug. 20, 1882.

Gresham st. Marsland, St Swithin's lane
Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

Ruckert, George, Market bldge, Mincing lane, East India Merchant. Nov 16 at
Creditors must forward their proofs
of debts to the Registrar.

office of Cooper and Co, George st, Mansion House, in lieu of the day originally

named To Surrender in London, James, Reginald Hawels, Union ct, Old Broad st. Pet Aug 26. Brougham, Sept 13

Savidge, William Mason, Corby, Lincoln, Chemist. Sept 8 at 12 at George Hotel,

Grantham. Cockayne, Nottingham Reed, John Foster, York pl, Portman sq, Barrister-at-Law. Pet Aug 24, Brougham. Smith, Henry, Rochdale, Lancaster, Traveller. Sept 6 at 3 at office of Worth, Lower To Surrender in the Country.

Sutton, William, St John st, Clerkenwell, Printer. Aug 31 at 3 at office of Weall, Bell

yard, Doctor's Commons Bailey, Walter, Fareham, Hants, Licensed Victualler. Pet Aug 24. Renny. Ports. Taylor, Arthur, Porchester rd, Bayswater, Watchmaker. Sept 8 at 12 at office of mouth, Sept 21 at 12

Sampson, Marylebone rd Brown, William, Frithville, Lincoln, Farmer. Pet Aug 23. Staniland. Boston, Sept Taylor, William, Salford, Lancaster, Grocer. Sept 14 at 3 at office of Cobbett and Co, Kirby, Luke Hall, Sale, Chester, Commercial Traveller. Pet Aug 24. Lister. Man. Thomas, John, Ilfracombe, Devon, Carriage Builder. Sept 1 at 12 at office of Bencraft,

Brown st, Manchester chester, Sept 11 at 1.30

Bridge chmbrs, Barnstaple Ling, Tom Theophilus, Scarborough, Hotel Proprietor. Pet Aug 19. Woodall. Scar | Vickers, John, Bolton,

Lancaster, Milliner. Sept 15 at 3 at Public Sale Rooms, Bow. borough, Sept 11 at 3 Wilkie, Ebenezer, Liverpool, Manager of a Tobacco Factory. Pet Aug 24. Cooper. Warrington, George Hedry, Liverpool, Tea Merchant. Sept 6 at 3 at office of Quilliam

ker's row, Bolton. Finney, Bolton Liverpool, Sept 11 at 11.30

and Co, Elliot st, Liverpool BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED.

Waterhouse, Edward, Halesowen, Worcester, Tobacconist. Sept 7 at 11 at Queen's

Hotel, Birmingham. Shakespeare, Oldbory
FRIDAY, Aug. 25, 1882.
Henry, Old Kent rd, Miller. Aug

Wickes, Thomas, Northampton, Boot and Shoe Manufacturer. Sept 8 at 3.30 at office

of Becke, Derngate, Northampton Liquidations by Arrangement.

Williams, Thomas Middleton, Manchester, Furniture Dealer. Sept 8 at 3 at office of

Garthwaite, Brazennose st, Manchester

Winfield, John, jun, Hanley, Stafford, Beerseller. Sept 7 at 10 at office of Ashmall,
FRIDAY, Aug. 25, 1882.

Albion st Adams, Edward John, Newport st, Lambeth walk, Wheelwright: Sept 14 at 3 at office Winstanley, Thomas, Wigan, Lancaster, Brass Founder. Sept 6 at 11 at office of Wilson, of Lloyd, London wall

King st, Wigan Ainsworth, Benjamin, Bolton, Provision Dealer, Sept 6 at 3 at office of Richardson, Wragg, Michael Gifford, Walworth rd, Grocer. Sopt 12 at 2 at 83, Gresham st. Tilling, Wood st, Bolton

Devonshire chmbrs, Bishopsgate
Atherton, Samuel, Manchester, Hotel Keoper. Sept 11 at 3 at office of Edmondson, John Wright, William, Peudlebury, Lancaster, Licensed Victualler. Sept 8 at 12 at offiso of

Dalton st, Manchester
Barker, Robert, Manchester, Music Dealer. Sept 15 at 3 at office of Cobbett and Co,

Preston and Young, Townhall_chmbrs, King st, Manchester
Brown st, Manchester

TUESDAY, Aug. 29, 1882. Barnard, Moses, Willenball, Stafford, Grocer, Sept 8 at 11 at office of Baker, Market pl,

Adams, Thomas William, Birkenhead, Chester, Brassfounder. Sept 11 at 11 at offices

of Bleakley and Downham, Hamilton sq, Birkenhead Willenhall Body, John, Leyton, Builder. Sept 7 at 12 at office of Ellen, Chancery lanej

Allan, William, Appleby, Westmoreland, Rotired Butcher, Sept 10 at 2 at offices of

Heelis, Appleby


at 11

8 at 12

« PreviousContinue »