Page images

ROBERTS, THOMAS, Claughton, Cheshire, Book Keeper. Birkenhead. Pet Dec 9 MANKLELOW, WILLIAM, Horsmonden, Kent, Builder. Dec 21 at 2.30. Spencer & Ord Dec 9

Reeves, Mount Pleasant, Tonbridge Wells SIBLEY, H J, Watling st, Agent. High Court. Pet Oct 18. Ord Dec 9

MANN, JOHN, Brentwood, Nurseryman. Dec 22 at 10. Bhirehall, Chelmsford SMALL, EDWARD, Hastings, Manager of Mineral Water Factory. Hastings. Pet MUSGREVE, ANDREW, Batley, Yorks, out of business. Dec 21 at 10. Off Rec, Nov 26. Ord Dec 9

Bank chbrs, Batley STUBBINGS, SAMUEL, Sawston, Cambs, Farmer. Cambridge. Pet Dec 9. Ord NUTMAN, GEORGE THOMAS, Gt Yarmouth, Twine Spinner. Dec 22 at 11. Off Dec 9

Kec, 8, King st, Norwich SUFFIELD, WILLIAM, Bridge rd, Poplar, Coppersmith. High Court. Pet Nov 12. PHILLIPS, MARY, DAVID PHILLIPS, and FRANCES PHILLIP3, Blaenbowy, CilrOrd Dec 9

hedyn. Farmers. Dec 23 at 2.15. Off Rec, 11, Quay st, Carmarthen TAYLOR, JOHN, Chippenham, Wilts, Baker. Bristol. Pet Nov 30. Ord Dec 10 PICKERING, RICHARD, Hawarden, Farmer. Dec 21 at 3. Crypt chbrs, Chester TAYLOR, THOMAS VALENTINE, Wolverhampton, Confectioner. Wolverhampton. ROSE, CHARLES, Harrold, Bedford, Engineer. Jan 7 at 10.30. 8, St Paul's sq, Pet Dec 7. Ord Dec 9

Bedford TEALE, GEORGE ARTHUR, Stroud, Cabinet Maker. Gloucester. Pet Dec 11. Ord SHELDON, GEORGE, Walsall, Potato Merchant. Dec 23 at 11.15. Of Rec, Walsall

Dec 11 THOMAS, Evan, Pontycymmer, nr Bridgend, Carpenter. Cardiff. Pet Dec 10. SKEEN, DENNIS, Sheffield, Butcher. Dec 22 at 8. Off Rec, Figtree lane, Sheffield

Ord Dec 10 THOMAS, HENRY, Oldham, Lancashire, out of business. Oldham. Pet Dec 9. SOWERBUTTS, WILLIAM FREDERICK, Hanbury st, Commercial st, Spitaifields, Ord Dec 9

Walking Stick Manufacturer. Dec 22 at 12. Bankruptcy blångs, Portu• TREVOR, JOHN HENRY, and MARY JANE TREVOR, Chippenham, Wilts, Mat gal st, Lincoln's inn Makers. Bath. Pet Dec 10. Ord Dec 10

STUBBINGS, SAMUEL, Sawston, Cambridgeshire, Farmer. Dec 21 at 12.30. Off ULRICI, JOHANN EBERHARD FRIEDRICH, Tower hill, Ship Chandler. High Court. Rec, Petty Cury, Cambridge Pet Dec 10. Ord Dec 10

TAYLOR, JOHN RICHARD, Vanbrugh Park rd West, Blackheath, Manager of a WALKER, BENJAMIN FAVELL, Spencer st, Barnsley, Joiner. Barnsley. Pet Dec Newspaper. Dec 21 at 3.109, Victoria st, Westminster 9. Ord Dec 9

TAYLOR, THOMAS VALENTINE, Wolverhampton, Confectioner. Dec 24 at 11. Off WALMSLEY, WILLIAM, Southport, Colliery Proprietor. Wigan. Pet Dec 10. Rec, Wolverhampton Ord Dec 10

TEAL, GEORGE ARTHUẾ, Stroud, Cabinet Maker. Dec 23 at 3.30. Imperial Hotel, WILLEY, JAMES, Stratford upon Avon, Cooper. Warwick. Pet Dec 9. Ord Stroud Dec 10

THOMAS, HENRY, Oldham, out of business. Dec 23 at 3. Off Rec, Priory chbrs,

Union street, Oldham
The following Amended Notice is substituted for that published in the THOMPSON, JOHN THOMAS, Gawber rd, Barnsley, out of business. Dec 22 at 10.30
London Gazette, Dec. 7.

Off Rec, 3, Eastgate, Barnsley
HURT, CHARLES WILLIAM, Birmingham, Watchmaker. Birmingham. Pet Nov

WADAMS, FREDERICK, The Bourne, nr Farnham, Gent. Dec 21 at 12. Town hall 23. Ord Dec 3


WALKER & Co., Ballater rd, Brixton, Dealers in India Dubber. Dec 22 at 2.30 FIRST MEETINGS.

33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn ADAMS, HENRY, Bedford, Carpenter. Jan 7 at 10. S, St Paul's sq, Bedford

WALMSLEY, WILLIAM, Southport, Colliery Proprietor. Dec 24 at 11. 16, Wood

st, Bolton ANDREWS, THOMAS, jun, Clapton pl, Lower Clapton, Upholsterer. Dec 21 at 11. WHITE, THOMAS, Buckingham, Grocer. Dec 22 at 11.30. Off Rec, 1, St Aldates, 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn

ANKERS, CHARLES, Southport, Watchmaker. Dec 22 at 11. Royal Hotel, Crewe

BALLARD, HENRY LEWIS, Haslemere, Surrey, Draper. Dec 22 at 12. 28 and 29,
St Swithin's lane

ALDRED, ABRAHAM, Edge Malpas, Cheshire, Timber Merchant. Chester. Pet BARNARD, ALFRED, Fleet st, Advertising Agent. Dec 23 at 12. Bankruptcy BALDOCK, WILLIAM, Hurst green, Sussex, Builder. Tonbridge Wells. Pet Dec BASSETT, JAMBS, Coverdale rd, Uxbridge rd, Gent. Dec 21 at 2.30. 33, Carey st, BAXTER, CHARLES ALBERT, Stourbridge, Corn Merchant. Stourbridge. Pet Nov

Lincoln's inn BEALE, WILLIAM, Ohiddingstone, Kent, Farmer. Dec 21 at 3. Spencer & Reeves, BAYNHAM. JAMES, Hereford, Seedsman. Hereford. Pet Dec 11. Ord Dec 11

15. Ord Dec 11 Camden rd, Tunbridge Wells BEEBEE, ARTHUR, Walsall, Beer Retailer. Dec 24 at 1. Off Rec, Walsall

BE EBEE, ARTHUR, Walsall, Beer Retailer. Walsall. Pet Dec 8. Ord Dec 8 BERRY, JOHN, Shefford, Bedford, out of business. Jan 7 at 11.15. 8, St Paul's sg, CASTREY, WILLIAM, Wollaston, nr Stourbridge, Glass Cutter. Stourbridge. Pet Bedford

Dec 6. Ord Dec 9 BLAKE, JOB, St Helen's, Glass Dealer. Dec 22 at 3. Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, COLE, JOSEPH, and ALFRED SAMUEL FRENCH, High st, Guildford, Grocers. Liverpool

Guildford and Godalming. Pet Dec 6. Ord Dec 11 BRADFORD, WILLIAM, Cannock, Stafford, Builder. Dec 23 at 12. Off Rec,


sington, Shippers. Bigh Court. Pet Nov 24. Ord Dec 9 BREALEY, HENRY, High Holborn, Confectioner. Dec 23 at 11. 38, Carey st, Lin- FRANKLIN, CHARLES, Barton upon Humber, Tailor. Gt Grimsby. Pet Dec 10. coln's inn

Ord Dec 10 BRIERLY, EDWIN, New Lenton, Nottingham, Grocer. Dec.23 at 11. Off Rec, 1, FRENCH, JOHN, Benwell, Northumberland, Builder. Newcastle on Tyne. Pet High pavement, Nottingham

Dec 7. Ord Dec 10 BRUNNER, LEOPOLD, Birmingham, Watchmaker. Dec 30 at 11. Luke Jesson GEORGE, WILLIAM, Llanychllwyddog, Pembrokeshire, Farmer. Carmarthen.

Sharp, Birmingham CANNELL, ALBERT FRANCIS, Norwich, Tailor. Dec 22 at 1. Of Rec, 8, King st, GOULD, SAMUEL APPLEBY, Stapleton, Gloucestersbire, Commercial Traveller. Norwich

Bristol. Pet Dec 7. Ord Dec 11 CHATWIN, GEORGE HENRY, Congleton, Cheshire, Master Fustian Cutter. Dec GREEN, GILBERT HUNTON, and JAMES STEWART, Liverpool, Merchants. Liver22 at 11. Off Rec, 23, King Edward st, Macclesfield

pool. Pet Nov 11, Ord Dec 10 CHIQUIDDEN, JOHN, Buckfastleigh, Devon, Mining Agent. Dec 21 at 3. 18, GRUN, FRANZ ROBERT JOHANNES, Minciog lane, Tea Broker. High Court. Pet Frankfort st, Plymouth

Oct 16. Ord Dec 9
CLARIDGE, WILLIAM, Bow Brick hill, Buckinghamshire, Baker. Dec 31 at 4. HAYNE, THOMAS, Bournemouth, Draper. Poole. Pet Dec 8, Ord Dec 11

County Court, Northampton
CLARK, JOSEPH, Speldhurst, Kent, Plumber. Dec 23 at 2.30. Spencer & Reeves,

HILL, JOHN THOMAS, Stourbridge, Worcesterehire, Farmer. Kidderminster

Pet Dec 3. Ord Dec 9 CLAYTON, JOHN HALL, Barton upon Humber, Draper. Dec 21 at 12. Hull Incor- HUGHES, JOHN, Woodchurch, Kent, Grocer. Hastings. Pet Dec 9. Ord Dec 9

porated Law Society, Lincoln's inn bldngs, Bowlalley lane, Hull COLEBROOKE, GEORGE, High st, Stratford, Clothier. Dec 23 at 2.30. 33, Carey st,

ILLINGWORTH, CHRISTOPHER, Thornley, nr Longridge, Lancs, Farmer. Black

burn. Pet Dec 10. Ord Dec 10 Lincoln's inn CORDINGLEY, CHARLES WILLIAM, Tadcaster, Yorks, Ironmonger. Dec 23 at 2.

JONES, GRIFFITH, Pontg cymmer, nr Bridgend, Builder. Cardiff. Pet Dec 10.

Ord Dec 10 Off Rec, York

KIDD, CHARLES HENRY, Bristol, Fish Merchant. Bristol. Pet Nov 17. Ord Dec 9 COULTER, THOMAS W, CHARLES A COULTER, and L D ENNERY, Addison rd, Kensington, Shippers. Dec 21 at 12. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn

KING, CHARLES JOSEPH, Red Lion sq, Hairdressers' Sundryman. High Court. DIGHTAM, HORATIO ALBERT, Leeds, Jeweller. Dec 22 at 11. Off Rec, 22, Park

Pet Nov 13. Ord Dec 9 row, Leeds

KING, SARAH, Upper st, Islington, Livery Stable Keeper. High Court. Pet Oct DUNGEY, JOHN, Leytonstone, Timber Merchant. Dec 22 at 11. Bankruptcy MAYALI, FRANCIS FREDERICK, Lowestoft, Suffolk, Fish Merchant. Great YarEDWARDES, WILLIAM MINCHIN, Darfield, nr Barnsley, Clerk in Holy Orders.

mouth, Pet Dec 10. Ord Dec 10 Dec 22 at 10. Off Rec, 3, Eastgate, Barnsley

MORGAN, DAVID, Cadoxton, nr Cardiff, Draper. Cardiff. Pet Nov 18. Ord ELLIS, THOMAS, jun, Balby, nr Doncaster, Contractor. Dec 22 at 12.30. Guild

Deo 10 hall, Doncaster

NEWTON, GEORGE JOHN, Nottingham, out of business. Nottingham. Pet Dec 1. FORD, WILLIAM, Heath Town, Staffs, Bolt Maker.

Ord Dec 10

Dec 22 at 4, Off Rec, Wolverhampton

ORGILL, EDWARD, Bodicote, Oxfordshire, Farner. Banbury. Pet Nov 17. Ord FRAMPTON, BRICE GRAHAM, Stoke Newington, Timber Merchant. Dec 23 at 2.30.

Dec 11 Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn

PUIG, MANUEL VALLESY, Crystal Palace rd; East Dulwich, Clerk. High Court. FREEMAN, JOHN, Birmingham, Builder. Dec 30 at 2. Luke Jesson Sharp, Off

Pet Dec 2. Ord Dec 9 Rec, Birmingham

ROBERTS, THOMAS, Claughton, Cheshire, Bookkeeper. Birkenhead. Pet Dec 9. FUSSELL, THOMAS W., Plymouth, Clerk in Holy Orders. Dec 21 at 11. 18, Frank

Ord Dec 9

SENIOR, SAM, Bradford, Beerhouse Keeper. Bradford. Pet Nov 23. Ord Dec 9 GIBBS WELLIAN, Eastbourne, Grocer. Dec 22 at 2. Champion, 63A, Terminus SPRINGATE, HENRY, Burgess Hill, Sussex, Corn Dealer. Brighton. Pet Nov 18.

Ord Dec 11 GOULD, SAMUEL APPLEBY, Stapleton, Glos, Commercial Traveller. Deo 21 at STAFFORD, WILLIAM, Westow hill, Upper Norwood, Boot Manufacturer. Croy. GROVES, WILLIAM POTTER, Nottingham, Tailor. Dec 22 at 11. Off Rec, 1, High STUBBINGS, SAMUEL, Sawston, Cambridgeshire, Farmer. Cambridge. Pet Dec

9. Ord Dec 10 HAYNE, THOMAS, Bournemouth, Draper. Dec 22 at 1. Off Rec, Salisbury TREVOR, JOHN HENRY, and MARY JANE TREVOR, Chippenham, Wilts, Mat HILL, JOHN THOMAS, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, Farmer. Dec 21 at 2. A. G. TAYLOR, FIOMASA VALENTINE, Wolverhampton, Confectioner. Wolverhampton. HURT; CHARLES WILLIAM, " Birmingham, Watchmaker. Dec 20 at 2. Luke TEAL, PE DROGIEZ ARTHUR, Stroud, Cabinet Maker. Gloucester. Pet Dec 11: Ord HUTCHINSON, WILLIAM, Park gate, or Rotherham, Butcher. Dec 22 at 3.30.

Dec 11 Off Rec, Figtree lane, Sheffield

THOMAS, EVAN, Pontycymmer, or Bridgend, Carpenter. Cardiff. Pet Dec 10. JACOBOWICZ, FABIAN, Milner sq, Islington, Diamond Merchant. Dec 23 at 12.

Ord 33. Carey st, Lincoln's ion

THOMAS, HENRY, Oldham, out of business. Oldham. Pet Dec 9. Ord Dec 9 JONES, LEWIS, Blaina, Mon, Grocer. Dec 21 at 12. Off Rec, Merthyr Tydfil

THORNE, WILLIAM, Bournemouth, Ironmonger. Poole. Pet Nov 8. Ord Dec 9 King, JOHN, Kessingland, Suffolk, Sailmaker. Dec 22 at 12. Of Rec, 8, King st, WALDER, JOHN, Worthing, Wheelwright. Brighton. Pet Dec 1. Ord Dec 10 BING, THOMAS, Tisbury, Wilts, Late Farmer. Dec 22 at 3. Of Rec, Salisbury

WALMSLEY, WILLIAM, Southport, Colliery Proprietor. Wigan. Pet Dec 10.

Ord Dec 11
LISNEY, WILLIAM HENRY, West end lane, Kilburn, Bullding Material Dealer.
Dec 22 at 11. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn

WEIGHTMAN, JAMES, Calverton, Nottingham, Farmer. Nottingham. Pet Nov

17. Ord Dec 11

[blocks in formation]





Ekolo kto just published, demy 8vo, 308. B; TELAW REPORTS (Second-band).

Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder,
Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality ROBE

with the excess of fat extracted.
The Faculty pronounce it “ the most nutritious, per.

BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT, fectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Hupper, and inyaluable for Invalids and Children.'

(HOWARD'S PATENT.) To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of Highly commended by the entire Medical Press.

the Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits

1000 Leaf Book, 5s. 6d.; 500 Leaf Book, all palates keeps for years in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WBAKENED ROBES FOR QUEEN'S COUNSEL AND BARRISTERS.

3s. 6d. English made. with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such


SOLICITORS' GOWNS. Made instaniaceo usly witu .iling water, a teaspoonful

Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town Clerks, WODDERSPOON & CO., to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny.

and Clerks of the Peace. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manilla. Chocolate, and may be taken when CORPORATION ROBES, UNIVERSITY AND CLERGY GOWNS 7, SERLE STREET, AND 1, PORTUGAL STREET,


In ting at, 38., 68. Bd., &c., by Chemists and

Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietor,
U. SCHWBITZBR& Co., 10, Adam-st., Strand, London, W.0

Now ready (26th year of publication), post-free 6d.
Now ready, demy 8vo, published at 12s. 6d. ; cash, TORS' USE for 1887 ; containing Stamp Duties,
108.; or post-free, 10s. 6d.
Law Terms, List of Law and Public Offices and

(UNLIKE MNEMONICS), MR. INDERMAUR'S NEW WORK for STUDENTS. London Bankers, Postal, and other useful informa

And Cure of Mind Wandering. A MANUAL of the PRINCIPLES of tion.

Any book learned in one reading. Great inducements EQUITY.-A new Concise and Explanatory WITHERBY & Co., Law and General Stationers (1740

to Correspondence Classes. New Prospectus from Work on Equity, specially written for Students. by

1873 Birchin-lane), Newman's-court, Cornhill, E.C. Prof. LOISETTE, 37, New Oxford-street, London. JOHN INDERMAUR, Solicitor, Author of "Principles of the Common Law," 7," "Epitomes of Leading

Now ready, price 9d. Cases," " Manual of Practice," &c., &c.

for 1887.

AUTHORITY, Published by LEO. BARBER, at the ofice of the “ Law THE LAW ALMANACK Students' Journal,” 16, Cursitor-street, Chancery- Information. -THOMAS SCOTT, Warwick court, Hol

Stamp Duties, Law Terme, and complete Postal lane, London. born, and all Law Booksellers and Stationers.

The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1883. H ISTORY of PRIVATE LEGISLATION.

Every requisito under the above Acts supplied on the Half-calf, including this year's. – LEX, Wm.

shortest notice. cated by permission to the Queen. Among other Clowes & Sons, Limited, 27, Fleet-street. subjects are :-History of London Water Supply (pp.

Tho BOOKS and FORMS kept in stock for immediato

280. Corporation Coal and Wine Duties Local Govern- BOOKS BOUGHT:-To Executors, Solici.


tors, &c. --HENRY SOTHERAN & co., 36, speedily printed in the proper form for registration, and gow, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Piccadilly, and 186, Strand, Second-hand Booksellers,

distribution, SHARE CERTIFICATES, DEBENTURES, Bradford, &c. - Marine, Fire, and Life Insurance

are prepared to PURCHASE LIBRARIES or smaller Docks in the Thames-Committees-Procedure-Sug. Collections of Books, in town or country, and to give &c., engraved and printed. OFFICIAL SEALS designed

the utmost value in cash. Experienced valuers sent. gested Changes in Private Legislation, &c.

and executed. No Charge for Sketches.
Removals without trouble or expense to vendors
BUTTERWORTHS, 7, Fleet-street, Her Majesty's Law
Established 1816.

Solicitors' Account Books. Publishers. Just published, post 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d.; post-free 28. 28. of INEBRIATES, High Shot House, Twicken

(Late ASH & FLINT),

Stationers, Printers, Engravers, Registratwa Agents, By ARTHUR LEE ELLIS, M.A., B.C.L., of under the Act. Charmingly secluded. Gentlemen Lincoln's-inn, Barrister-at-Law. only. Limited number taken. Billiard room, library,

49, FLEET-STREET, LONDON, E.C. (ourner London: REEVES & TURNER, 100, Chancery-lane. lawn tennis court, bowls, &c. The whole staff pledged

of Serjeants'-inn). abstainers. Terms-24 to 5 guineas weekly:-Particu

Annual and other Returns Stamped and Filed. REMEMBRANCER for 1887; containing, with a Diary for the Year, Digest of Stamp Laws, Lists of

Messrs. MUNTON & MORRIS, Solicitors, 954, Queen PARTRIDGE & COOPER,

Victoria.street, London. Perpetual Commissionere, Railways, Insurance Companies, Bankers, Members of Parliament, &c.,

LAW AND GENERAL STATIONERS, Analysis of Acts of last Session, and much other

LONDON GAZETTE (published by authority) and information. On November 1 (66th Annual Issue). LONDON and COUNTRY ADVERTISEMENT

1 & 2, CHANCERY LANE LONDON E.C. Prospectus on application. Price 38. upwards.

OFFICE.-No. 117, CHANCERY LANE, FLEET London : DUNN & DUNCAN, 87, Chancery-lane, W.C.

STREET. (from Temple Bar). Just out, New Edition, price 3s , by post 3s. 3d.

begs to direct the attention of the Legal Profession

Deeds and Writings engrossed and copied on the Premises TREATISE on HYPOCHONDRIASIS to the advantages of his long experience of upwards of

with punctuality and dispatch, at the lowest scale of forty years, in the special insertion of all pro forma in MAN, specially dealing with those affections notices, &c., and hereby solicits their continued support.

charges. A good Discount allowed on agreed accounts which, owing to unjust prejudices, have been too long N.B. One copy of advertisement only required, and the

LAW PRINTING. neglected.

strictest care and promptitude assured. Official stamped Published, 20, King William-street, Strand, London. forms for advertisement and file of "London Gazette "


DAVITS, and other PLEADING, Printed at 18. per folio. kedt. Bvappointment. Just published, demy 4to, in wrapper, price 1s.


in form for Registration. APUD

Discount allowed for cash on agreed accounts. CIVITATIBUS CIVIS ESSE POSSIT?” DISSER


LITHOGRAPHY. TATIO pro Gradu Doctoris in Jure Civili, a


The original, best, and most liberal.

ABSTRACTS, BRIEFS, PETITIONS, Ædis Christi olim Alumno. Coram Clarissimo et

Founded A.D. 1868.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, Lithographed Amplissimo Domino, THOMA ERSKINE HOL- Particulars, estimates, Press opinions, testimonials Cash prices. No extra charge for time given.

at reduced prices. LAND, J.C.D.. Professore Chicheleiano, &c., &c.

PLANS OF ESTATES, SPECIFICATIONS, BUILD Publice Recitata ix Kalendas Jul. Anno Domini



F. MOEDER, 248, 249, and 250, Tottenham-court- with accuracy and dispatch.
PARKER & Co., Oxford; and 6, Southampton-street, lished 1862.
Strand, London,

Samples and Catalogues sent post-free.


[ocr errors]

Law Copying and Engrossing.




road, and 18, 20, and 21, orwell-street, W. Estab- PARCHMENT AND LEGAL PAPERS



In re ...



143 143




at any rate, that the doctrine of professional privilege is not re

stricted to communications which have been made to the solicitor In the Solicitors' Journal. Carlyon, In re, Carlyon v. Carlyon 155

Carr. Ex parte, In re Carr)
... 150 by the client himself.

Any doubt as to the confidential nature of Carden v. The Albert Palace Asso Dewhirst's Trusts, In re

147 the document which was actually produced by Lord Colin CAMPciation


Falcke v. Scottish Imperial Assur-
Colyer v. Ferguson

ance Co.

143 BELL'S counsel is removed by the fact that one of his solicitors, or Direct Spanish Telegraph Co. Great Western Steamship Co., (Lim.), Re

one of the clerks of the firm, had actually written on the margin Gowan v. Wright

Petty v. Daniel

151 of the document certain comments upon the statements which had Kewney v. Attrill

Taylor, Ex parte, In re

GoldMallett v. Hanley and Another.... 141 smid

been made by the particular witness. There can be no doubt that

148 Naylor and Spendla, Re....


Townsend, In re, Townsend v. if Messrs. HUMPHREYS & Son had been served with a subpæna duces Official Receiver, Ex parte, Re


153 Morritt Vernon v. Hallam

tecum they could have successfully resisted production of their Pommery v. Apthorpe

Wakelin, v. London and South notes of the witness's statements. If the memoranda of every Riley to Streatfield, Re

142 In the Weekly Reporter. Wilmott v. London Celluloid Co... 145 witness's first statement to the solicitor could be called for as a

matter of right, cross-examinations would be indefinitely prolonged, Biscoe v. Jackson 162

and there would be no apparent reason why the draft briefs, or even

the proofs actually in the hands of counsel, should not be produced. The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter.

Two RECENT CASES, one in the Court of Appeal, the other in the LONDON, DECEMBER 25, 1886.

House of Lords, have been wholly concerned, so far as the reports go, in correcting a dictum of the late Master of the Rolls in Solo.

mon v. Bitton (8 Q. B. D. 176). He is there represented as having CURRENT TOPICS.

said that “the rule on which a new trial should be granted, on the IT WILL BE OBSERVED that the vacation notice provides for two ground that the verdict was unsatisfactory as being against the sittings by Mr. Justice GRANTHAM and three sittings by Mr. Justice weight of evidence, ought not to depend on whether the learned STIRLING in the Queen's Bench Judge's Chambers.

judge who tried the action was or not dissatisfied with the verdict, or whether he would have come to the same conclusion as the jury, but whether the verdict was such as reasonable men ought to have

come to.” This criterion manifestly throws upon the Divisional IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that on and after next sittings petitioners order to determine the right to a new trial. This was never the

Court or the Court of Appeal the duty of re-trying the case, in coming to any branch of the Chancery Division to establish their law, and the mistake was corrected in these columns as long ago as title to a fund in court will have to state in their petitions, July 7, 1883, when we called attention to a statement by Mr. within inverted commas, the exact words of the will or other Justice Denman that in answer to inquiries by some of the judges, instrument under which the money is claimed. This is the result Sir GEORGE JESSEL had stated that the report of Solomon v. Bitton of Mr. Justice Kay's recent mishap in ordering £1,000 to be paid out of court to a person having no claim to it. It may be added was not correct, and that what was said was that the rule should that the original instrument should be in court, as the judges, in depend upon whether the verdict was such as reasonable men might all probability, will not always be satisfied with the mere state- Halsbury in Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Wright (34 W.R. 746, 11

have come to. This is precisely the emendation suggested by Lord ment in the petition.

App. Cas. 152), and prevents a new trial, if by any possibility reasonable men could have found the verdict in question; but Lord Esher, in

the still more recent case of Webster v. Friedeberg (34 W. R. 728, THE LEGAL POINT of most interest in the Campbell case was the 17 Q: B. D. 736), with the judgment of Lord Halsbury before him, attempt to introduce a new principle of the law of evidence in the has fallen into the strange error of purporting to correct the enforcement of the production in court of the notes made by a

judgment in Solomon v. Bitton by substituting “ought not" for solicitor or his clerk of the statements of witnesses whom it was

-a verbal alteration which inverts, but does not essen. intended to call at the trial. One of these statements was handed tially affect, the issue to be determined. If a new trial is to be in by counsel under protest, but all subsequent demands of the granted, according to Lord Esmer's test, when the verdict is same kind were refused, and Mr. Justice Burt appears to have been that the subject of inquiry must be the general propriety of the

“such as reasonable men ought not to have come to” it is plain especially since no notice to produce or subpæna duces tecum had verdict, not its consistency with the hypothesis of a rational jury. been served. There appears to be no authority directly in point,

There can be no doubt that the present Master of the Rolls meant but the general rule of evidence on this subject has been discussed precisely the same thing as Lord Halsbury, and it is to be regretted

many actions against railway companies, where discovery has that he did not adopt the same words. As he states in his judgofficers and other agents. The decisions are somewhat conflicting, judge must have regarded with complacency his improvement on been sought of reports made to the defendants by their medical ment that he has * corrected” the court copy of 8 Q. B. D. by

inserting the word "not" after the word “ought," the learned but in Fenner v. The South-Eastern Railway Co. (20 W. R. 830; the language of his predecessor. 7.Q. B. 771), Lord BLACKBURN observed! “The principle, I think, to be derived from all the cases is that, where it appears that the documents are substantially rough notes for the case, to be laid before the legal adviser, or to supply the proof to be inserted A DIVISIONAL COURT has refused to grant a rule for a criminal in the brief, the discretion of the court should, as a general rule, information against the proprietor of the Evening News for the be to refuse the inspection.” A stronger authority against the publication of an alleged obscene libel, consisting of the report of admissibility of such documents is to be found in Greenough v. the proceedings in Campbell v. Campbell. Two questions were in: Gaskell (1° M. & K. 103), where Lord BROUGHAM said: “If, volved in the case, the first being whether the publication of such touching matters that come within the ordinary scope of profes- proceedings is a criminal offence at all, and the second, assuming sional employment, legal advisers receive communication that a criminal offence may have been committed, whether criminal in their professional capacity, either from client or

on information or indictment was the proper form of procedure. his account and for his benefit in the transaction of his Upon the second question only the court expressed an opinion, business, or which amounts to the same thing, they commit refusing the rule, partly, indeed, on the ground that the applicato paper, in the course of their employment on his behalf, tion had not been made earlier, but mainly because aftidavits matters which they know only through their professional would be required setting out the libel complained of, and these relation to the client, they are not only justified in withholding affidavits would be just as likely to be published as the libel itself, such matters, but bound to withhold them, and will not be com- whereas the proceedings before a grand jury are secret.

As to pelled to disclose the information or produce the papers in any the first point, all the court appears to have said was that the court of law or equity, either as party or as witness. This shews, question was "'a serious one which would have before long to be

“ought "



[ocr errors]


decided.” The point cannot be said ag yet to have been settled court or a judge, pay into court a sum of money by way of satisby authority. The cases of Steele v. Brennan (7 C. P. 261) and faction, which shall be taken to admit the claim or cause of action R. v. Carlile (3 B. & A. 167) are really no authorities (though in respect of which the payment is made; or he may, with a they might appear so to be at first sight) for abridging the liberty defence denying liability,

pay money into court which of publication, for in both those cases the matter which formed the shall be subject to the provisions of rule 6." The payment into subject of criminal proceedings had been already held libellous in court made by the defendants was a payment in in satisfaction, prior criminal proceedings. As was said by Mr. Justice KEATING and, as such, operated as an admission of liability. Subin Steele v. Brennan," the law would be self-contradictory if it sequently the defendants delivered a defence denying liability, made the publication of an indecent work an indictable offence, and an application on the part of the plaintiffs that the and yet sanctioned the re-publication of such a work under cover defence should be struck out as embarrassing was dismissed, of its being part of the proceedings in a court of justice.” | the judge being of opinion that the plaintiffs had been in no way But the case is very different where the publication of other pro- injured by the procedure adopted by the defendants. This may be ceedings is sought to be checked, because portions of such proceed- so. Still whether the judge was right or wrong in the interpretaings happen to be indecent. No doubt there are dicta (see tion he placed upon the rules of order 22—and with all deference we especially per BAYLEY, J., in R. v. Carlile) in favour of repressing are disposed to think that he was wrong--as a matter of convenisuch publications by criminal proceedings, and the liberty to publish ence it is certainly desirable that it should be made clear at as early reports of trials at all is itself entirely of modern growth (see per a stage as possible in the proceedings whether money paid into COCKBURN, C.J., in Wason v. Walter (4 Q. B., atp. 93). But we think court by a defendant is intended to be paid in as an acknowledg. the question, when it comes to be raised, will have to be decided ment of liability or with a defence denying liability. If the on the broad ground of the balance of public interest; and we defendants had desired to pay money into court, and at the same trust that it will be decided free from the disturbing influence of time deny their liability in respect of the whole cause of action, the just indignation occasioned by the recent outrageous abuse of they ought to have waited till they delivered their defence, when freedom of publication.

the position of the parties would have been regulated by rule 6 of order 22. If they desired to pay money into court in respect of

a portion of the plaintiffs' claim and defend as to the residue, THE QUESTION in volves much wider considerations than are

they could, of course, have done so. What they actually did was contemplated by correspondent whose letter will be found in to admit their liability on the whole cause of action by paying into another column. If you once begin to restrict the publicity, delivered some time afterwards.

court generally, and then deny all liability in their defence which is the safeguard of the administration of justice,

Taking rule 1 of order 22 in where are you going to stop ? There are many people (both conjunction with rule 5 (a.) of the same order, it certainly seems on and off the bench) who regard the publication of a full

to follow that, if a defendant desires to pay money into court and report of a trial for a blasphemous libel, or a seditious libel, the time he pays the money into court. It is not reasonable that

at the same time deny his liability, he must deliver his defence at or a libel on the private or public character of the Sovereign,

not less objectionable to the public interests than the a plaintiff should be first led to believe that money paid into court publication of indecent evidence. Are you, therefore, going is intended to operate as an admission of liability, and be afterto allow judges to charge juries, and decide points of evi" wards informed by a defence-delivered, perhaps, a month later, dence in these classes of cases, freed from the responsibility

that the defendant had no such intention. attaching to directions and charges given in the full light of publicity? The simple fact is (whatever our correspondent may think) that there are very few judges who can be trusted to THE ATTEMPT made on Tuesday to appeal against the order in administer justice in a Star Chamber. It seems to be supposed Mr. Dillon's case on the ground of want of jurisdiction was, of that when a judge puts on his ermine he puts off the old man course, unsuccessful. The question was fully discussed in Seymour with all his deeds. Talk to a judge at his club, or in society, and v. Davitt (12 L. R. Ir. 46), upon which we commented at the time you will soon find out the absurdity of this notion. Or take an (26 Solicitors' Journal, 80). The power of ordinary justices to reinstance : Suppose the present Lord Chancellor were to proceed by quire sureties for good behaviour from persons inciting to non-pay. criminal information against the Daily News for the article headed ment of rent had been settled shortly before by Reynolds v. Justices “ The Lord High Jobber," which appeared on Thursday; and of County Cork (10 L. R. Ir. 1) and Feehan v. Justices of Queen's suppose the defendants attemtted to prove the truth of the statements County (Ibid. 294). In the latter case Fitzgerald, J., carefully, made in that article: should any judge try in secret such a case ? considered the origin and extent of the jurisdiction of a justice of yet publicity would be in the highest degree undesirable. But our the peace, and adopted the judgments of Abbot, C.J., in Willes v; correspondent thinks that the interests of the morals of the Bridger (2 B. & Ald. 278), and of Lord CAMPBELL, C.J., in Haylock people far exceed the private interests” of litigants in the Divorce v. Sparke (1 El. & Bl. 471). Court. Certainly, but that is not the question : the question is he said,

“ Without citing further authority,

we may assume that where it shall be made reasonably whether more injury to the interests of the commonwealth is to appear to a justice of the peace that a person has incited others done by the occasionál publication of indecent details than would by act or language to a violation of the law and of right, and that be done by the universal distrust in the administration of justi there is reasonable ground to believe that the delinquent is likely which would inevitably follow from an extended system of secret to persevere in that course, such justice has authority by law, in trials. And what, we may add, would be the effect on the number the execution of preventive justice, to provide for the public of divorce cases if they could be snugly pushed through in a security by requiring the individual to give sureties for good beprivate room, without that most annoying publicity given by the haviour, and in default commit him to prison.” This jurisdiction newspapers ?

is supposed to have its origin in 34 Edw. 3, c. 1, which enacted :

" That in every county should be assigned for the keeping of the WE SHOULD have thought that the practice with regard to the pay-county, with some learned in the law, and they shall have power

peace one lord, and with him three or four of the most worthy of the ment of money into court had by this time become settled. To judge, however, from a recent decision of a learned judge in chambers, shall be found sufficient surety and mainprise of their good be

to take of all them that be not of good fame where they refer the plaintiffs brought an action for rent and dilapidations, that under this statute persons may be bound over to be of good and the defendants paid a sum of money into court under R. S. C. behaviour where no actual breach of the peace is to be appre1883, ord. 22, r. 1, the sum paid in being, in fact, the amount of hended from their conduct, as where it is simply contra bonus rent claimed by the defendants, although the defendants did not mores (Hawkins P. C., bk. 1, c. 28, s. 2). The question, therespecify that the sum paid in was in respect of any particular fore, in Seymour v. Davitt was how far a similar jurisdiction rule in question is as follows : —- Where any action is brought to diction in sureties for the peace was not denied; the contention recover a debt or damages, any defendant may, before or at the was that this did not extend to sureties for good behaviour, and that time of delivering his defence, or at any later time by leave of the no such jurisdiction had been conferred by statute.



But the

answer was twofold. No such distinction existed at common law, places respectively. In all probability Mr. Justice Kekewich, and the jurisdiction in question was expressly recognized by as being the junior judge of the Chancery Division, will be the statute. It was true that all the reported cases were cases of articles judge to whom this duty, under the new rule, will be assigned, of peace preferred by one subject against another; but Chief Justice though this, of course, is a question which will have to be conMay quoted from Pulton, a contemporary of Lambard, the following sidered hereafter. The effect of the new provisions will be to give passage, cited in Burns's Justice of the Peace, vol. v., p. 758: to Lancashire suitors the advantage of either having chancery " The surety for good abearing is ordained for the preservation of causes tried in the Palatine Court, or of having them carried the peace, and doth differ in nothing from that of the peace but through in the district registry without any necessity for the that there is more difficulty in the performance of it, and the party employment of London agents. The chief objection to the new bound may more easily slide into the peril and danger of it. The arrangement is, of course, obvious—viz., that the chambers of the surety for the good abearing is most commonly granted in open judge to whom the Lancashire chancery causes are assigned will sessions, or by two or three justices; or upon a supplicavit, and be two hundred miles from the judge. This will, probably, have greet cause shewn and proved, it is granted in the Chancery or the effect of causing the Liverpool and Manchester district regisQueen's Bench.” And, moreover, it is expressly recognized by trars to exercise their powers more independently than is usual in statute that the power in question belongs to the Queen's Bench, the case of the chief Clerks and taxing masters in London. At inasmuch as its exercise is regulated by 10 & 11 Car. 1, c. 10, an present, too, we presume it would be admitted that the Lancashire Irish statute, corresponding to 31 Jac. 1, c. 8, in England.' It Officers have not the advantage of the experience of their London appears to have been the custom to bring persons who were to be brethren. There may be some slight difficulties in the working bound over to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour from the of the rule at first, but no doubt these difficulties will soon country up to Dublin in order, by proceeding before a judge in disappear. chambers, to avoid the publicity of an examination before a local The third of the new rules is introduced in the form of a proviso justice. Hence it was enacted that any such proceedings must to ord. 35, r. 12; the rule providing that every reference to a take place in open court. Thus it is clear that both process of the judge by, or appeal to a judge from, a district registrar in a cause peace and process of good behaviour had frequently issued out of or matter in the Chancery Division shall be to the judge to whom the superior courts, and the statute in regulating the practice for the the cause or matter is assigned. The proviso is to the effect that future clearly assumed that the jurisdiction existed. It is, indeed, in any cause or matter proceeding in the District Registry of Maninherent in the court as supreme conservator of the peace in every chester or Liverpool, the reference or appeal may be to any judge county in Ireland. As Mr. Justice Johnson said, it has been inherent for the time being sitting either at Liverpool or Manchester. This in the court from the time when it followed the king about the will involve some addition to the work of the judges of assize when country to help in preserving the public peace. If more than this sitting at Liverpool or Manchester. It is not likely, however, that is wanted, the same construction which extends the Statute of these applications will be very numerous. Should they become so Edw. 3 to justices extends it to the court also (May, C.J., in they might seriously delay the assize business. Seymour v. Davitt, at p. 52), and the Statute of Car. 1, in The last of the new rules relates to an entirely different matter. regulating the jurisdiction, expressly recognizes it. In Mr. It is an addition to rule 27 of order 65, and deals with the vexed Dillon's case the incitement was not to withhold rent entirely, question of refreshers in a manner that will be satisfactory to the but as was said by Mr. Justice O'BRIEN, the rent was to be profession generally. The new rule empowers the taxing officer, withheld until reductions were made, and the contract was equally in the taxation of costs between solicitor and client, to allow larger broken. It is thus within the dictum of Mr. Justice FITZGERALD fees than those specified in ord. 65, r. 27 (48), under special quoted above.

circumstances to be stated by him. This extension of the discretionary powers of the taxing officer is evidently the outcome of

the case of Re Harrison in the Court of Appeal (34 W. R. 645, 33 THE NEW SUPREME COURT RULES.

Ch. D. 52), and closes the discussion which has several times We are enabled to publish elsewhere four new Rules of the occurred in our columns. The words of the new rule authorizing Supreme Court of considerable importance which come into the taxing master to allow larger refresher fees than those preoperation on the 1st of January next. Three of them are

scribed, under special circumstances to be stated by him, appear to supplementary to the rules of October, 1884, which provided for give the taxing master, in the case of taxation between solicitor the carrying out of the system of trials of chancery causes on

and client, an absolute discretion in the matter of refresher fees. circuit. The first of the new rules is an addition to ord. 5, r. 9, The change thus introduced is, we believe, in accordance with the and provides that, subject to the other provisions of rule 9,' every suggestion of the Bar Committee and the Incorporated Law Society, cause or matter in the Chancery Division commenced in the District as contained in the joint memorial recently presented by them upon Registry of Liverpool or Manchester shall be marked with the this subject. Doubtless these bodies will be gratified to learn name of such judge of the Chancery Division as the Lord Chancellor that their representations have been so promptly attended to. may direct.

The second new rule will come in as rule 6a of order 35. This rule empowers the district registrar, when a cause or matter, commenced in the Chancery Division,'is proceeding in the ON THE POWER OF SALE IN MORTGAGE BILLS OF District Registry of Manchester or Liverpool, to act throughout all

SALE. the proceedings as a chief clerk of the judge of the Chancery The case of Re Morritt, Ex parte the Official Receiver, on appeal Division to whom the cause or matter is assigned, and as registrar from Ex parte Bentley, Re Morritt (34 W. R. 579), was decided and taxing master according to directions to be given by the by the full Court of Appeal, consisting of the Master of the Rolls, judge. The rule further provides, however, that no order for the Cotton, Lindley, Bowen, Fry, and Lopes, L.JJ. Having regard payment of money out of court for an amount exceeding £50 may to the great importance of the decision, we shall proceed to disbe made except by the judge in person, and no district registrar cuss it, although we intend to postpone the remaining articles on who is a practising solicitor may tax the costs.

Mortgage Bills of Sale till after the Christmas Vacation. The The effect of these rules will be that the work of trying Liverpool question to be decided was whether the insertion of a proviso in a and Manchester chancery actions will be assigned to one particular bill of sale " that the power of sale conferred by the Conveyancing judge, and it will be the duty of the judge, to whom these actions Act, 1881, shall be exercised as if section 20 of that Act had not are assigned, to go down to Manchester or Liverpool and hold been enacted," rendered the bill of sale invalid. The case is special sittings for the trial of these actions. It will be curious, owing to the great diversity of opinion among the judges ; remembered that the rule of August, 1886, which was substituted the county court judge declared the bill of sale to be void as against for the rule 22a of the rules of October, 1884, provides thut if on the officiaż receiver. The Divisional Court declared it to be valid; June 1 and December 1 in any year it appears that ten or more the reasons given by Manisty, J., are not reported. Cave, J., thancery witness causes proceeding in the district registries of was of opinion that the Conveyancing Act applied, and that the down for trial in these registries, special sittings shall be Bowen, and Lopes, L.JJ., held that the provisions of the Conheld for the trial of the causes set down for trial at these peyancing Act, 1881, did not apply to bills of sale ; but the

« PreviousContinue »