« PreviousContinue »
ne to the profhat the plaintaining cos 1880, the
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 forits 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 internap 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
BILITY 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 Iessee 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 plaintiff sued 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 que ce soit.”
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 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 eonbe 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 Idefendant 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 an assignee upon such covenants as 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 haye 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 parte 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- forth with 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 vest 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 vest 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 inas
We under-tand that the Society of Lincoln's-inn propose to create new sets much as the old law as to election applied to charge a trustee who
awasto election applied to charge a trustee who of chambers on the site of tbe southern block of the buildings in Chancery. had elected with liability upon the covenants, by implication the lane formerly occupied as Char.cory offices,
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 ite vanishing point in the section The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), which is an Act which eracts that a long term is potentially a fee simple. to codify the law relating to bills of exchange, cheques, and promissory Aug. 8. notes, 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, “ A could find, lends no countenanco to " H.'s" views about tenire, biit 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 nov-technical character, may, perhaps, be acceptable to merchants, do not think it worth while further to discuss the precise inport aul bankers, and others, who will frequently have to consult the Act in the applicability of such phrases as “leasehold tenuro," &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 law on the subject of from Mr. Joshua Williams, that learned 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, En. 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
opinions on the matter. The case, as before Fry, J., is stated thus in efficacy of a statutory re-conveyance where section 29 of the Conveyancing
the margin : Act does not apply, will you allow me to suggest that the only question
" By a marriage settlement, personal property belonging to the wife is whether the words of the statutory form are in themselves sufficient to pass the legal estate free from the mortgage and to imply the proper
was settled (subject to the life interest of the husband and wife), ia the
event of there being no children, if the wifo should die in the lifetime of covenant? Looking at sections 7, 49, and 51, there can be no doubt that
the husband, in trust for such persons as she should by will appoint, and, 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, 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 is impossible to conceive that the intro.
lutely. There were no children of the marriage and no possibility of any. duction of the shibboleth “statutory" can make the slightest
Upon a petition by the wife asking for the division of the eettled property difference. It is difficult to see why a statutory form of re-conveyance was inserted
in certain proportions between herself and her husband, -Held, that by
the marriage settlement a complete and irrevocable declaration of trust by the framers of the Act upless 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 kin 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.]
These contradictory decisions will, I imagine, fetter and embarrass Sir -A client is purchaser and mortgagor of real estate, and I act also
mortgagor. or 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 unknowu 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 au 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 IVeekly 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.
BEFORE THE VACATION JUDGE. S. J.]
PRACTICE_WINDING-UP PETITION-STATUTORY AFFIDAVIT IN SOPPORT
EXHIBIT OP COPY OF PETITION-AFFIDAVIT FILED AFTER FOUR DAY " LAND OF ANY TENURE.”
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE-COMPANIES Acr, 1862 --GENERAL ORDERS,
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 having fir,- 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 afterwards (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 tbe petition, Property,“ of the tenure of an estate in fee simple "'). To justify ex. making the petition itself an exhibit. NORTH, J., gave leave for an extension
of time in which to file the statutory affidavit.--SOLICITORS, Hicken & No. 9.-Hertsordshire, and so much of Essex as is not within the Central Graham; Cattarns, Jehu, S Hughes, for Younge, Wilson, & Co., Sheffield. Oriminal 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-INTESTACY-ADMINISTRATION-CREDITOR'S ACTION
No. 11.-Oxfordsbire and Berkshire-Assizes at Oxford. - APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER AND MANAGER BEFORE GRANT OF ADMINISTRA No. 12.-Worcestersbire, Herefordsbire, Monmoutbshire, 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 Staffordabire-Assizes at Stafford. lion 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, bad 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 No. 17.–Chesbire, Montgomeryshire, Merionethshire, Carnarvonshire, Blackett v. Blackett (19 W. R. 559) was cited, where Stuart, V.C., under Anglesea, Denbighshire, and Flintshire-Agsizes at Chester. similar circumstances, had made an order like that now asked for. NORTH, J.,
No. 18.-Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire, Borough of Carmarthen. after referriog to the case cited, made the order. -SOLIQITOR, Kingsford, Pembrokeshire, Town of Haverfordwest, Cardiganshire, Brecknockshire, and for Marshall, Devizes.
Radnorshire - AsBiz98 at Swansea.
No. 19.-Northumberland, and Town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne-Assizes at PRACTICE-TRUSTEE AND CESTUI QUB TRUST-PURCHASE BY TRUSTEB Nowoastle-upon-Tyne. PURCHASE BY WIFE OF TRUSTEE-LIBERTY TO PURCHASE-ORDER MADB 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 Fordiobridge ; 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 bolden at Workington as wl 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 timo ihey should think fit, and investment and conversion and directed them to pay the income of his estate to his widow for life, and
Mr. John ROMILLY, barrister, has been appointed Secretary to the Royal
Commission on Historioal Manuscripts. Mr. Romilly was called to the bar after her death to divide the corpus amongst his five cbildren equally, of whom the plaintiff was the only one who was an infant. The intending purchaser
at Gray's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1865. He is secretary of causes to the was one of the children entitled under the will, and by the affidavits it appeared
Master of the Rolls. 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 Feoffees 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 the 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 Hull, V.O.,
NEWTON, of the same firm, has been elected Clerk to the Lewisham Vestry. might be followed.-SOLICITOR, Henry Tyrrell.
DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. LIMITED COMPANY-WINDING UP-SHAREHOLDER'S PETITION-COMPANY -JUDGMENT CREDITOR OF THE PETITIONER-COMPANIES Act, 1862, 8, 79,
EDWARD BORGES, WILLIAM EDWARD Lawrence, and WALTER JOSEPA In the case of In re The North Western Credit Company (Limited), before
| RUSCOMBE POOLE, solioitors (Barges, Lawronoe, & Poole), Stephen-street, Day, J., sitting as Vacation Judgs, 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 Jown LAKE BLAXLAND, solicitors, 72, five £i shares, not fully paid up. The petitioner alleged that the company Mark-lane, London. Aug. 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 Löngley Lopper, tion was opposed by the company, on the ground that there was no case shown
FRANKLIN WILLIAM TONKIN and FRED BURPORD, solioitors, Albion. which came within the grounds for winding up a limited company set forth in the Companies Act, 1862, 1. 79, and it was also stated that the company bad
obambers, Bristol, and Chipping Sodbary, Aug. 16. All debts owiog 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, fatora bo oarried 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,
NEW ORDERS, &c.
WINTER ASSIZES ACTS. The London Gazette of August 22 contains a series of Orders in Council in pursuance of the Winter Assizes Acts, 1876 and 1877.
The first order diroots that the jurisdiction of the justices and judges of the Central Criminal Court at any session of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery held or continued for the Central Criminal Court District in the months of October, November, or December, 1882, or Jangary, 1883, shall extend to such part of the county of Surrey as is not now included in the Central Criminal Court District, subject to sundry provisions contained in the order.
Other orders constitute the followiog combined winter assize counties for the next winter assizes :-
No. 1.-Cumberland and Westmoreland-Agsizes held at Carlisle. No. 2.-Northern and Salford Divisions of Lancashire-Assizes at Mag. hester.
No. 3.- North and East Riding Division and West Riding Division of York, phire-Assizes at York.
No. 4.-Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, and City of Lincoln-Assizes at Nottingbam.
No. 5. - Derbyshire, Leicestershire, and Rutland-Assizes at Leicester.
No. 6.-Northamptonshire, Bedfordsbiro, and Buokinghamshire-Assizes at
No. 7.-- Norfolk and Suffolk-Assizes at Norwich.
LIMITBD IX CHANCERY,
North, J., dated Aug 16, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Rogers and
Chave, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner
Aug 10, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Kimber, Walbrook; Boall
and Co, Quoon Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioners CENTRAL WYNAAD GOLD Mining COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the Vaca
tion Judge, dated Aug 16, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Snell and George st, Mansion House, solicitors for the petitioners NORTH WESTERN CREDIT COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Ang
16, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Wednesday, Aug 30, at the court of Hall,
V.C. Lee, Bow st, Covent garden PURE BEVERAGE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by North, J., dated Aug 16, it was ordered that the company bo wound up. Norton, Queen st, Cheapside, solicitor for the petitioners
(Gazette, Aug. 25.7 STAXXARII Devox.
LIMITED IX CHANCERY,
to be heard before the Vice-Warden, at the Law Institution, Chancery lane, on Wed-
[Gazette, Aug. 25. ] FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. KIDSGROTI FEMALE FBIBYDLY SOCIETY, Kidsgrovo, Staford, Aug 22
T Gazette, Aug. 25.1
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 Burrow, Francis, Redruth, Outfitter, Sept 12 at 11.30 at office of Paige and Co, West
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 5 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
arcade, Nottingham 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,
Reading 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 Dumber 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 Standaries Court recently (Jaly 31, 1882) gave
Elphick, Edward, Duke st, Grosvenor sq, Hosier. Sept 4 at 10 at 269, High Holborn, judgment upon an application in the matter of The Walkham 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.
Bransfield, Huddersfield !he company, and another creditor's petition being before the Standaries
Goldsmith, Thomas, Bristol, Licensed Victaaller. Sept 4 at 2 at office 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 that 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. I imaginanciare nel caso underhyme
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 he 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
Pritchard, Bangor 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 the 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 ofice of Bilton,
Renfrew rd, Kennington lane, Lambeth 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 Pilloy, Bed. door to considerations of this kind as to what was exploration and wbat was ford row mining would open the door to continual and wasteful controversy. Those Jackson, James, Stalybridge, Chester, Bobbin and Skewer Manufacturer. Sept 7 at 3 who were anxious to have a company wound up in the High Court would always
at Pitt and Nólson Hotel, Ashton under Lyne. Jackson, Ashton under Lyne
Jackson, 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 had been spent on tbe 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
Joseph, Thomas, Fenchurch st, Colliery Proprietor. Sept 21 at 3 at Royal Hotel, so formed tho greater part of the assets, it was stated, but the collection of these
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
at 3 at office of Wainewright, Balfour bldgs, Shanghai
Little, John, Killingworth, Northumberland, Licensed Victuallor. Sept 7 at 2 at office SALE OF ENSUING WEEK.
of Joel, Newgate st, Newcastle upon Tyne
Lloyd, Edward, Llantysilio, Denbigh, Sheep Salesman. Sept 11 at 12.30 at Eagle's Sept. 6.-Mr. David BURNETT, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Estate (fee Hotel, Bridge st, Llangollen. Jones, Wrexham advertisement, Aug. 26, p. 4).
Lowe, William, Leek, Wine and Spirit Merchant. Sept 7 at 2 at Derby st, Leek. Chal.
linor and Co May, Charles, Bath, Butcher. Sept 1 at 12 at offices of Wilton, Westgate bldgs, Bath McDowell, Henry, Commercial rd, Fruiterer. Sept 8 at 1 at oflice of Dobson, Mino.
Morrison, James, jun, North Bierley, York, Worsted Manufacturer, Sept 4 at 11 al LONDON GAZETTES.
office of Hutchinson, Piccadilly chbrs, Piccadilly, Bradford
Hotel, Bristol. Creed, Newton Abbot
Oakly, Benjamin, Smethwick, Stafford, Grocer. Sept 6 at 11 at office of Stokes, Temple
Palframan, Thomas, Dewsbury, Painter. Sept 8 at 10 at office of Shaw, Bona st, Dews.
Pinch, Edwin Felix, 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,
Caroline st, Longton
Proctor, Frederick, Bournemouth, Hants, Lodging House Keeper. Sopt 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,
Moorgate st Pagani, Louis, Brighton, Restaurani I oprietor. Pet Aug 22. Jones. Brighton, Sept 5 at 11
Richards, Robert, Chatteris, Cambridge, Furnishing Ironmonger. Sept 7 at 3 at office Raly, William, Downham ter, Blenheim rd, Wood Green, Builder. Pet Aug 16. Gough.
of Margetts, Chatteris Edmonton, Sept 7 at 12
Roberts, William, Portmadoc, Carnarvon, Grocer. Sept 11 at 1 at Commercial Hotel, Sansome, Benjamin William, Salford, Provision Dealer. 'Pet Aug 23. Hulton, Salford,
Portmadoc. Jones and Jones, Portmadoc Sept 13 at 11
Rowe, Charles Courtney, Fulham rd, Jeweller, Sept 12 at 3 at Guildhall Tavern,
Gresham st. Marsland, St Swithin's lane
Ruckert, George, Market bldgs, Mincing lane, East India Merchant. Nov 16 at
office of Cooper and Co, George st, Mansion House, in lieu of the day originally
named To Surrender in London,
Savidge, William Mason, Corby, Lincoln, Chemist. Sept 8 at 12 at George Hotel, James, Reginald Hawels, Union ct, Old Broad st. Pet Aug 26. Brougham. Sept 13
Grantham, Cockayne, Nottingham at 11 Reed, John Foster, York pl, Portman sq, Barrister-at-Law. Pet Aug 21. Brougham.
Smith, Henry, Rochdale, Lancaster, Traveller. Sept 6 at 3 at office of Worth, Lower
Satton, 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,
8 at 12
Brown st, Manchester
Bridge chmbrs, Barnstaple Ling, Tom Theophilus, Scarborough, Hotel Proprietor. Pet Aug 19. Woodall. Scar Vickers, John, Bolton, Lancaster, Milliner. Sept 16 at 3 at Public Sale Rooms, Bow. borough, Sept 11 at 3
1 ker's row, Bolton, Finney, Bolton Wilkie, Ebenezer, Liverpool, Manager of a Tobacco Factory. Pet Aug 24. Cooper. Warrington, George Henry, Liverpool, Tea Merchant. Sept 6 at 3 at office of Quillian Liverpool, Sept 11 at 11,30
and Co, Elliot st, Liverpool BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED.
Waterhouse, Edward, Halesowen, Worcester, Tobacconist. Sept 14 at 11 at Queen's
Hotel, Birmingham. Shakespeare, Oldbory
Wickes, Thomas, Northampton, Boot and Shoe Manufacturer. Sept 8 at 3.30 at offico
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. Sept7 at 10 at office of Ashmall,
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 chmbre, 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 office of Dalton st, Manchester
Preston and Young, Townhall_chmbrs, King st, Manchester Barker, Robert, Manchester, Music Dealer. Sept 15 at 3 at office of Cobbett and Co,
TUESDAY, Aug. 29, 1882 Brown st, Manchester
Adams, Thomas William, Birkenhead, Chester, Brassfounder. Barnard, Moses, Willenball, Stafford, Grocer, Sept 8 at 11 at office of Baker, Market pl,
Sept 11 at 11 at offices
of Bleakley and Downham, Hamilton sq, Birkenhead Willenhall Body, John, Leyton, BallderSept 7 at 12 at office of Ellen, Chancery lane ]
Allan, William, Appleby, Westmoreland, “Rotired Butcher, Sept 10 at 2 at offices of
en branchester, Music Dealer.