Page images
PDF
EPUB

ROBERTS, THOMAS, Claughton, Cheshire, Book Keeper. Birkenhead. Pet Dec 9
Ord Dec 9

SIBLEY, HJ, Watling st, Agent. High Court. Pet Oct 18. Ord Dec 9
SMALL, EDWARD, Hastings, Manager of Mineral Water Factory. Hastings. Pet
Nov 26. Ord Dec 9

Dec 9

Ord

STUBBINGS, SAMUEL, Sawston, Cambs, Farmer. Cambridge. Pet Dec 9.
SUFFIELD, WILLIAM, Bridge rd, Poplar, Coppersmith. High Court. Pet Nov 12.
Ord Dec 9
TAYLOR, JOHN, Chippenham, Wilts, Baker. Bristol. Pet Nov 30. Ord Dec 10
TAYLOR, THOMAS VALENTINE, Wolverhampton, Confectioner. Wolverhampton.
TEALE, GEORGE ARTHUR, Stroud, Cabinet Maker. Gloucester. Pet Dec 11. Ord
THOMAS, EVAN, Pontycymmer, nr Bridgend, Carpenter. Cardiff. Pet Dec 10.
THOMAS, HENRY, Oldham, Lancashire, out of business. Oldham. Pet Dec 9.
Ord Dec 9

Pet Dec 7. Ord Dec 9

Dec 11

Ord Dec 10

TREVOR, JOHN HENRY, and MARY JANE TREVOR, Chippenham, Wilts, Mat Makers. Bath. Pet Dec 10. Ord Dec 10

ULRICI, JOHANN EBERHARD FRIEDRICH, Tower hill, Ship Chandler. High Court. Pet Dec 10. Ord Dec 10

WALKER, BENJAMIN FAVELL, Spencer st, Barnsley, Joiner. Barnsley. Pet Dec 9. Ord Dec 9

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

WILLEY, JAMES, Stratford upon Avon, Cooper. Warwick. Pet Dec 9. Ord
Dec 10

The following Amended Notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette, Dec. 7.

HURT, CHARLES WILLIAM, Birmingham, Watchmaker. Birmingham. Pet Nov 23. Ord Dec 3

St Swithin's lane

FIRST MEETINGS.

ADAMS, HENRY, Bedford, Carpenter. Jan 7 at 10. S, St Paul's sq, Bedford
ANDREWS, THOMAS, jun, Clapton pl, Lower Clapton, Upholsterer. Dec 21 at 11.
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,
BARNARD, ALFRED, Fleet st, Advertising Agent. Dec 23 at 12. Bankruptcy
bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn
BASSETT, JAMES, Coverdale rd, Uxbridge rd, Gent. Dec 21 at 2.30. 33, Carey st,
Lincoln's inn
BEALE, WILLIAM, Chiddingstone, Kent, Farmer. Dec 21 at 3. Spencer & Reeves,
Camden rd, Tunbridge Wells

BEEBEE, ARTHUR, Walsall, Beer Retailer. Dec 24 at 1. Off Rec, Walsall

BERRY, JOHN, Shefford, Bedford, out of business. Jan 7 at 11.15. 8, St Paul's sq, Bedford

BLAKE, JOB, St Helen's, Glass Dealer. Dec 22 at 3. Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liverpool

BRADFORD, WILLIAM, Cannock, Stafford, Builder. Dec 23 at 12. Off Rec, Walsall

coln's inn

BREALEY, HENRY, High Holborn, Confectioner. Dec 23 at 11. 33, Carey st, Lin-
BRIERLY, EDWIN, New Lenton, Nottingham, Grocer. Dec 23 at 11. Off Rec, 1,
High pavement, Nottingham

BRUNNER, LEOPOLD, Birmingham, Watchmaker. Dec 30 at 11. Luke Jesson
Sharp, Birmingham
CANNELL, ALBERT FRANCIS, Norwich, Tailor. Dec 22 at 1. Off Rec, 8, King st,
Norwich
CHATWIN, GEORGE HENRY, Congleton, Cheshire, Master Fustian Cutter. Dec
22 at 11. Off Rec, 23, King Edward st, Macclesfield
CHIQUIDDEN, JOHN, Buckfastleigh, Devon, Mining Agent. Dec 21 at 3. 18,
Frankfort st, Plymouth

CLARIDGE, WILLIAM, Bow Brick hill, Buckinghamshire, Baker. Dec 31 at 4.
County Court, Northampton

CLARK, JOSEPH, Speldhurst, Kent, Plumber. Dec 23 at 2.30. Spencer & Reeves, Mount Pleasant, Tunbridge Wells

CLAYTON, JOHN HALL, Barton upon Humber, Draper. Dec 21 at 12. Hull Incorporated Law Society, Lincoln's inn bldngs, Bowlalley lane, Hull COLEBROOKE, GEORGE, High st, Stratford, Clothier. Dec 23 at 2.30. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn

CORDINGLEY, CHARLES WILLIAM, Tadcaster, Yorks, Ironmonger. Dec 23 at 2. Off Rec, York

COULTER, THOMAS W, CHARLES A COULTER, and L D ENNERY, Addison rd, Kensington, Shippers. Dec 21 at 12. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn DIGHTAM, HORATIO ALBERT, Leeds, Jeweller. Dec 22 at 11. Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds

DUNGEY, JOHN, Leytonstone, Timber Merchant. Dec 22 at 11. Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn

EDWARDES, WILLIAM MINCHIN, Darfield, nr Barnsley, Clerk in Holy Orders. Dec 22 at 10. Off Rec, 3, Eastgate, Barnsley

ELLIS, THOMAS, jun, Balby, nr Doncaster, Contractor. Dec 22 at 12.30. Guildhall, Doncaster

FORD. WILLIAM, Heath Town, Staffs, Bolt Maker. Dec 22 at 4. Off Rec, Wolverhampton

FRAMPTON, BRICE GRAHAM, Stoke Newington, Timber Merchant. Dec 23 at 2.30. Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn

FREEMAN, JOHN, Birmingham, Builder. Dec 30 at 2. Luke Jesson Sharp, Off Rec, Birmingham

FUSSELL, THOMAS W., Plymouth, Clerk in Holy Orders. Dec 21 at 11. 18, Frank-
fort st. Plymouth
GIBBS, WILLIAM, Eastbourne, Grocer. Dec 22 at 2. Champion, 53A, Terminus
rd, Eastbourne
GOULD, SAMUEL APPLEBY, Stapleton, Glos, Commercial Traveller. Dec 21 at
12.80. Off Rec, Bank chbrs, Bristol
GROVES, WILLIAM POTTER, Nottingham, Tailor. Dec 22 at 11. Off Rec, 1, High
pavement, Nottingham

HAYNE, THOMAS, Bournemouth, Draper. Dec 22 at 1. Off Rec, Salisbury
HILL, JOHN THOMAS, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, Farmer. Dec 21 at 2.
Hooper, Kidderminster

A. G. HURT, CHARLES WILLIAM, Birmingham, Watchmaker. Dec 20 at 2. Luke Jesson Sharp, Off Rec, Birmingham

HUTCHINSON, WILLIAM, Park gate, nr Rotherham, Butcher. Dec 22 at 3.30. Off Rec, Figtree lane, Sheffield

JACOBOWICZ, FABIAN, Milner sq, Islington, Diamond Merchant. Dec 23 at 12. 33. Carey st, Lincolu's inn

JONES, LEWIS, Blaina, Mon, Grocer. Dec 21 at 12. Off Rec, Merthyr Tydfil KING, JOHN, Kessingland, Suffolk, Sailmaker. Dec 22 at 12. Off Rec, 8, King st, Norwich

KING, THOMAS, Tisbury, Wilts, Late Farmer. Dec 22 at 3. Off Rec, Salisbury LISNEY, WILLIAM HENRY, West end lane, Kilburn, Building Material Dealer. Dec 22 at 11. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn

Dec 21 at 2.30. Spencer & Shirehall, Chelmsford

MANKLELOW, WILLIAM, Horsmonden, Kent, Builder.
Reeves, Mount Pleasant, Tonbridge Wells
MANN, JOHN, Brentwood, Nurseryman. Dec 22 at 10.
MUSGREVE, ANDREW, Batley, Yorks, out of business. Dec 21 at 10. Off Rec,
Bank chbrs, Batley
NUTMAN, GEORGE THOMAS, Gt Yarmouth, Twine Spinner. Dec 22 at 11. Off
Kec, 8, King st. Norwich
PHILLIPS, MARY, DAVID PHILLIPS, and FRANCES PHILLIPS, Blaenbowy, Cilr-
hedyn. Farmers.__Dec 23 at 2.15. Off Rec, 11, Quay st, Carmarthen
PICKERING, RICHARD, Hawarden, Farmer. Dec 21 at 3. Crypt chbrs, Chester
ROSE, CHARLES, Harrold, Bedford, Engineer. Jan 7 at 10.30. 8, St Paul's sq,
SHELDON, GEORGE, Walsall, Potato Merchant. Dec 23 at 11.15. Off Rec, Walsall
SKEEN, DENNIS, Sheffield, Butcher. Dec 22 at 3. Off Rec, Figtree lane, Sheffield
SOWERBUTTS, WILLIAM FREDERICK, Hanbury st, Commercial st, Spitaifields,
Walking Stick Manufacturer. Dec 22 at 12. Bankruptcy bldngs, Portu-
gal st, Lincoln's inn

Bedford

STUBBINGS, SAMUEL, Sawston, Cambridgeshire, Farmer. Dec 21 at 12.30. Off
Rec, Petty Cury, Cambridge
TAYLOR, JOHN RICHARD, Vanbrugh Park rd West, Blackheath, Manager of a
Newspaper. Dec 21 at 3. 109, Victoria st, Westminster

TAYLOR, THOMAS VALENTINE, Wolverhampton, Confectioner. Dec 24 at 11. Off
Rec, Wolverhampton
TEAL, GEORGE ARTHUR, Stroud, Cabinet Maker. Dec 23 at 3.30. Imperial Hotel,
Stroud

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

THOMPSON, JOHN THOMAS, Gawber rd, Barnsley, out of business. Dec 22 at 10.30 Off Rec, 3, Eastgate, Barnsley

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

Farnham

[blocks in formation]

BAYNHAM. JAMES, Hereford, Seedsman. Hereford. Pet Dec 11. Ord Dec 11
BEEBEE, ARTHUR, Walsall, Beer Retailer. Walsall. Pet Dec 8. Ord Dec 8
CASTREY, WILLIAM, Wollaston, nr Stourbridge, Glass Cutter. Stourbridge. Pet
Dec 6. Ord Dec 9
COLE, JOSEPH, and ALFRED SAMUEL FRENCH, High st, Guildford, Grocers.
Guildford and Godalming. Pet Dec 6. Ord Dec 11
COULTER, THOMAS W, CHARLES A COULTER, and L D ENNERY, Addison rd, Ken-
sington, Shippers. High Court. Pet Nov 24. Ord Dec 9
FRANKLIN, CHARLES, Barton upon Humber, Tailor. Gt Grimsby. Pet Dec 10.
Ord Dec 10
FRENCH, JOHN, Benwell, Northumberland, Builder. Newcastle on Tyne. Pet
GEORGE, WILLIAM, Llanychllwyddog, Pembrokeshire, Farmer. Carmarthen.

Dec 7. Ord Dec 10

Pet Nov 12. Ord Dec 10

GOULD, SAMUEL APPLEBY, Stapleton, Gloucestershire, Commercial Traveller.
Bristol. Pet Dec 7. Ord Dec 11

GREEN, GILBERT HUNTON, and JAMES STEWART, Liverpool, Merchants. Liver-
pool. Pet Nov 11. Ord Dec 10
GRUN, FRANZ ROBERT JOHANNES, Mincing lane, Tea Broker. High Court. Pet
Oct 16. Ord Dec 9

HAYNE, THOMAS, Bournemouth, Draper. Poole. Pet Dec 8. Ord Dec 11

Pet Dec 3. Ord Dec 9

HILL, JOHN THOMAS, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, Farmer. Kidderminster HUGHES, JOHN, Woodchurch, Kent, Grocer. Hastings. Pet Dec 9. Ord Dec 9 ILLINGWORTH, CHRISTOPHER, Thornley, nr Longridge, Lancs, Farmer. Blackburn. Pet Dec 10. Ord Dec 10

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

KIDD, CHARLES HENRY, Bristol, Fish Merchant. Bristol. Pet Nov 17. Ord Dec 9

KING, CHARLES JOSEPH, Red Lion sq, Hairdressers' Sundryman. High Court. Pet Nov 13. Ord Dec 9

KING, SARAH, Upper st, Islington, Livery Stable Keeper. High Court. Pet Oct MAYALL, FRANCIS FREDERICK, Lowestoft, Suffolk, Fish Merchant. Great Yar 25. Ord Dec 8

mouth. Pet Dec 10. Ord Dec 10

MORGAN, DAVID, Cadoxton, nr Cardiff, Draper. Cardiff. Pet Nov 18. Ord Dec 10

NEWTON, GEORGE JOHN, Nottingham, out of business. Nottingham. Pet Dec 1. Ord Dec 10

ORGILL, EDWARD, Bodicote, Oxfordshire, Farmer. Banbury. Pet Nov 17. Ord Dec 11

PUIG, MANUEL VALLESY, Crystal Palace rd, East Dulwich, Clerk. High Court.
Pet Dec 2. Ord Dec 9

ROBERTS, THOMAS, Claughton, Cheshire, Bookkeeper. Birkenhead. Pet Dec 9.
SENIOR, SAM, Bradford, Beerhouse Keeper. Bradford. Pet Nov 23. Ord Dec 9
Ord Dec 9
SPRINGATE, HENRY, Burgess Hill, Sussex, Corn Dealer. Brighton. Pet Nov 18.
STAFFORD, WILLIAM, Westow hill, Upper Norwood, Boot Manufacturer. Croy-
STUBBINGS, SAMUEL, Sawston, Cambridgeshire, Farmer. Cambridge. Pet Dec

Ord Dec 11

[blocks in formation]

THOMAS, EVAN, Pontycymmer, nr Bridgend, Carpenter. Cardiff. Pet Dec 10.
Ord Dec 10

THOMAS, HENRY, Oldham, out of business. Oldham. Pet Dec 9. Ord Dec 9
THORNE, WILLIAM, Bournemouth, Ironmonger. Poole. Pet Nov 8. Ord Dec 9
WALDER, JOHN, Worthing, Wheelwright. Brighton. Pet Dec 1. Ord Dec 10
WALMSLEY, WILLIAM, Southport, Colliery Proprietor. Wigan. Pet Dec 10.
Ord Dec 11
WEIGHTMAN, JAMES, Calverton, Nottingham, Farmer. Nottingham. Pet Nov
17. Ord Dec 11

[blocks in formation]

SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA

Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children."

Highly commended by the entire Medical Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates keeps for years in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.

Made instantaneously with iling water, a teaspoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible,

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the Judicial Bench, Corporation of London, &c.

ROBES FOR QUEEN'S COUNSEL AND BARRISTERS. SOLICITORS' GOWNS.

Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town Clerks, and Clerks of the Peace.

LEGAL NEWS ........... 129 COURT PAPERS.. .......................... 129 WINDING-UP NOTICES.............. 130 CREDITORS' NOTICES................ 130 BANKRUPTCY NOTICES ............. 131

UNTEARABLE LETTER COPYING BOOKS.

(HOWARD'S PATENT.)

1000 Leaf Book, 5s. 6d. ; 500 Leaf Book, 3s. 6d. English made.

THE BEST LETTER COPYING BOOK OUT.

WODDERSPOON & CO.,

cheapest Manilla Chocolate, and may be taken when CORPORATION ROBES, UNIVERSITY AND CLERGY GOWNS 7, SERLE STREET, AND 1, PORTUGAL STREET,

richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tins at 1s. 6d., 38., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and

Grocers.

Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietor,

H. SCHWEITZER & Co., 10, Adam-st., Strand, London, W.C

ESTABLISHED 1689.

94, CHANCERY LANE LONDON. Now ready (26th year of publication), post-free 6d.

Now ready, demy 8vo, published at 12s. 6d. ; cash, THE OFFICE ALMANACK for SOLICI

A

108.; or post-free, 10s. 6d.

TORS' USE for 1887; containing Stamp Duties, Law Terms, List of Law and Public Offices and London Bankers, Postal, and other useful information.

WITHERBY & Co., Law and General Stationers (17401873 Birchin-lane), Newman's-court, Cornhill, E.C.

MR. INDERMAUR'S NEW WORK for STUDENTS.
MANUAL of the PRINCIPLES of
EQUITY.-A new Concise and Explanatory
Work on Equity, specially written for Students. by
JOHN INDERMAUR, Solicitor, Author of "Prin-
ciples of the Common Law," Epitomes of Leading
Cases," "Manual of Practice," &c., &c.
Published by GEO. BAREER, at the Office of the "Law THE LAW ALMANACK for 1887.—

Now ready, price 9d.

Students' Journal," 16, Cursitor-street, Chancery- Information.-THOMAS SCOTT, Warwick court, HolStamp Duties, Law Terms, and complete Postal lane, London. born, and all Law Booksellers and Stationers.

H'

ISTORY of PRIVATE LEGISLATION. Yol. II. just published, demy 8vo, 35s. By FREDERICK CLIFFORD, Barrister-at-Law. Dedicated by permission to the Queen. Among other subjects are:-History of London Water Supply (pp. 163)-Local Authorities (pp. 362)-Metropolitan Board Corporation-Coal and Wine Duties-Local Government in London-Municipal Improvements at Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford, &c.-Marine, Fire, and Life InsuranceDocks in the Thames-Committees-Procedure-Sug. gested Changes in Private Legislation, &c. BUTTERWORTHS, 7, Fleet-street, Her Majesty's Law Publishers.

Just published, post 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. ; post-free 2s. 2d.

TRUS

RUSTEES' GUIDE to INVESTMENTS. By ARTHUR LEE ELLIS, M.A., B.C.L., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister-at-Law.

London: REEVES & TURNER, 100, Chancery-lane. THE HE LAW and COMMERCIAL DAILY REMEMBRANCER for 1887; containing, with a Diary for the Year, Digest of Stamp Laws, Lists of Perpetual Commissioners, Railways, Insurance Companies, Bankers, Members of Parliament, &c., Analysis of Acts of last Session, and much other information. On November 1 (66th Annual Issue). Prospectus on application. Price 3s. upwards. London: DUNN & DUNCAN, 87, Chancery-lane, W.C. (from Temple Bar).

Just out, New Edition, price 3s, by post 3s. 3d.

A TREATISE on HYPOCHONDRIAS(S

in MAN, specially dealing with those affections which, owing to unjust prejudices, have been too long neglected. Published, 20, King William-street, Strand, London. Just published, demy 4to, in wrapper, price 18. CIVITATIS APUD

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

HOME for the ER, ATMENT and Twicken

OME for the TREATMENT and CURE

ham.-The sole establishment in Middlesex licensed under the Act. Charmingly secluded. Gentlemen only. Limited number taken. Billiard room, library, lawn tennis court, bowls, &c. The whole staff pledged abstainers. Terms-24 to 5 guineas weekly.-Particulars from the Medical Saperintendent, H. BRANTHWAITE, F.R.C.S. Ed.; and reference is permitted to Victoria-street, London. Messrs. MUNTON & MORRIS, Solicitors, 95A, Queen

LONDON GAZETTE (published by authority) and LONDON and COUNTRY ADVERTISEMENT OFFICE.-No. 117, CHANCERY LANE, FLEET STREET.

HENRY GREEN, Advertisement Agent

begs to direct the attention of the Legal Profession to the advantages of his long experience of upwards of forty years, in the special insertion of all pro forma notices, &c., and hereby solicits their continued support.N.B. One copy of advertisement only required, and the strictest care and promptitude assured. Official stamped forms for advertisement and file of "London Gazette" kept. By appointment.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The Companies Acts, 1862 to 1883. Every requisite under the above Acts supplied on the shortest notice.

180.

Tho BOOKS and FORMS kept in stock for immediate MEMORANDA and ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION speedily printed in the proper form for registration and distribution. SHARE CERTIFICATES, DEBENTURES, &c., engraved and printed. OFFICIAL SEALS designed and executed. No Charge for Sketches.

Solicitors' Account Books.

RICHARD FLINT & CO.

(Late ASH & FLINT), Stationers, Printers, Engravers, Registration Agents, 49, FLEET-STREET, LONDON, E.C. (corner of Serjeants'-inn). Annual and other Returns Stamped and Filed.

PARTRIDGE & COOPER,

LAW AND GENERAL STATIONERS,

1 & 2, CHANCERY LANE LONDON E.C.

Taw Copping and Engrossing.

Deeds and Writings engrossed and copied on the Premises with punctuality and dispatch, at the lowest scale of charges. A good Discount allowed on agreed accounts

LAW PRINTING. STATEMENTS OF CLAIM AND DEFENCE, AFFI DAVITS, and other PLEADING, Printed at 1s. per folio. DEEDS, CONVEYANCES, MORTGAGES, &c., Printed in form for Registration. Discount allowed for cash on agreed accounts. LITHOGRAPHY.

[blocks in formation]

PLANS OF ESTATES, SPECIFICATIONS, BUILD ING SOCIETIES' DEEDS, LEASES, &c., Lithographed with accuracy and dispatch.

PARCHMENT AND LEGAL PAPERS

Samples and Catalogues sent post-free.

CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK.

........

150

Carlyon, In re, Carlyon v. Carlyon 155
Carr. Ex parte, In re Carr}
Dewhirst's Trusts, In re
Falcke v. Scottish Imperial Assur-
ance Co.

143

at any rate, that the doctrine of professional privilege is not restricted to communications which have been made to the solicitor by the client himself. Any doubt as to the confidential nature of 147 the document which was actually produced by Lord COLIN CAMPBELL's counsel is removed by the fact that one of his solicitors, or one of the clerks of the firm, had actually written on the margin of the document certain comments upon the statements which had been made by the particular witness. There can be no doubt that if Messrs. HUMPHREYS & SON had been served with a subpœna duces tecum they could have successfully resisted production of their notes of the witness's statements. If the memoranda of every witness's first statement to the solicitor could be called for as a matter of right, cross-examinations would be indefinitely prolonged, 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.

[blocks in formation]

Petty v. Daniel

Great Western Steamship Co., In re

154 151

[blocks in formation]

Taylor, Ex parte, In re Goldsmid.

148

141

Townsend, In re, Townsend v.

Official Receiver, Ex parte, Re Morritt

[blocks in formation]

153 156

Pommery v. Apthorpe ............ 143

Riley to Streatfield, Re

[blocks in formation]

Wakelin, v. London and South-
141
Western Railway Co.
Willmott v. London Celluloid Co... 145

152

In the Weekly Reporter.

Biscoe v. Jackson

The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter.

LONDON, DECEMBER 25, 1886.

CURRENT TOPICS.

IT WILL BE OBSERVED that the vacation notice provides for two sittings by Mr. Justice GRANTHAM and three sittings by Mr. Justice

STIRLING in the Queen's Bench Judge's Chambers.

IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that on and after next sittings petitioners coming to any branch of the Chancery Division to establish their title to a fund in court will have to state in their petitions, within inverted commas, the exact words of the will or other instrument under which the money is claimed. This is the result 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 that the original instrument should be in court, as the judges, in all probability, will not always be satisfied with the mere statement in the petition.

THE LEGAL POINT of most interest in the Campbell case was the attempt to introduce a new principle of the law of evidence in the enforcement of the production in court of the notes made by a solicitor or his clerk of the statements of witnesses whom it was intended to call at the trial. One of these statements was handed in by counsel under protest, but all subsequent demands of the same kind were refused, and Mr. Justice BUTT appears to have been clearly of opinion that the production could not be enforced, especially since no notice to produce or subpana duces tecum had been served. There appears to be no authority directly in point, but the general rule of evidence on this subject has been discussed in many actions against railway companies, where discovery has been sought of reports made to the defendants by their medical officers and other agents. The decisions are somewhat conflicting, but in Fenner v. The South-Eastern Railway Co. (20 W. R. 830, 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 in the brief, the discretion of the court should, as a general rule, be to refuse the inspection." A stronger authority against the admissibility of such documents is to be found in Greenough v. Gaskell (1 M. & K. 103), where Lord BROUGHAM said: "If, touching matters that come within the ordinary scope of professional employment, legal advisers receive a communication in their professional capacity, either from a client or on his account and for his benefit in the transaction of his business, or which amounts to the same thing, if they commit to paper, in the course of their employment on his behalf, matters which they know only through their professional relation to the client, they are not only justified in withholding such matters, but bound to withhold them, and will not be compelled to disclose the information or produce the papers in any court of law or equity, either as party or as witness." This shews,

TWO RECENT CASES, one in the Court of Appeal, the other in the 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 Solomon v. Bitton (8 Q. B. D. 176). He is there represented as having said that "the rule on which a new trial should be granted, on the ground that the verdict was unsatisfactory as being against the weight of evidence, ought not to depend on whether the learned 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 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 law, and the mistake was corrected in these columns as long ago as July 7, 1883, when we called attention to a statement by Mr. Justice DENMAN that in answer to inquiries by some of the judges, Sir GEORGE JESSEL had stated that the report of Solomon v. Bitton was not correct, and that what was said was that the rule should depend upon whether the verdict was such as reasonable men might have come to. This is precisely the emendation suggested by Lord HALSBURY in Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Wright (34 W. R. 746, 11 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,

17 Q. B. D. 736), with the judgment of Lord HALSBURY before him, has fallen into the strange error of purporting to correct the judgment in Solomon v. Bitton by substituting "ought not" for "ought "-a verbal alteration which inverts, but does not essentially affect, the issue to be determined. If a new trial is to be granted, according to Lord ESHER'S test, when the verdict is 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 verdict, not its consistency with the hypothesis of a rational jury. There can be no doubt that the present Master of the Rolls meant precisely the same thing as Lord HALSBURY, and it is to be regretted As he states in his judgment that he has corrected" the court copy of 8 Q. B. D. by that he did not adopt the same words. inserting the word "not" after the word "ought," the learned judge must have regarded with complacency his improvement on the language of his predecessor.

A DIVISIONAL COURT has refused to grant a rule for a criminal information against the proprietor of the Evening News for the publication of an alleged obscene libel, consisting of the report of the proceedings in Campbell v. Campbell. Two questions were involved in the case, the first being whether the publication of such proceedings is a criminal offence at all, and the second, assuming that a criminal offence may have been committed, whether criminal information or indictment was the proper form of procedure. Upon the second question only the court expressed an opinion, refusing the rule, partly, indeed, on the ground that the application had not been made earlier, but mainly because affidavits would be required setting out the libel complained of, and these affidavits would be just as likely to be published as the libel itself, whereas the proceedings before a grand jury are secret. As to the first point, all the court appears to have said was that the question was "a serious one which would have before long to be

decided." The point cannot be said as yet to have been settled by authority. The cases of Steele v. Brennan (7 C. P. 261) and R. v. Carlile (3 B. & A. 167) are really no authorities (though they might appear so to be at first sight) for abridging the liberty of publication, for in both those cases the matter which formed the subject of criminal proceedings had been already held libellous in prior criminal proceedings. As was said by Mr. Justice KEATING in Steele v. Brennan, "the law would be self-contradictory if it made the publication of an indecent work an indictable offence, and yet sanctioned the re-publication of such a work under cover of its being part of the proceedings in a court of justice." But the case is very different where the publication of other proceedings is sought to be checked, because portions of such proceedings happen to be indecent. No doubt there are dicta (see especially per BAYLEY, J., in R. v. Carlile) in favour of repressing such publications by criminal proceedings, and the liberty to publish reports of trials at all is itself entirely of modern growth (see per COCKBURN, C.J., in Wason v. Walter (4 Q. B., at p. 93). But we think the question, when it comes to be raised, will have to be decided on the broad ground of the balance of public interest; and we trust that it will be decided free from the disturbing influence of the just indignation occasioned by the recent outrageous abuse of freedom of publication.

as

THE QUESTION involves much wider considerations than are contemplated by a correspondent whose letter will be found in another column. If you once begin to restrict the publicity, which is the safeguard of the safeguard of the administration of justice, where are you going to stop? There are many people (both on and off the bench) who regard the publication of a full report of a trial for a blasphemous libel, or a seditious libel, or a libel on the private or public character of the Sovereign, not less objectionable to the public interests than the not less objectionable to the public interests than the publication of indecent evidence. Are you, therefore, going to allow judges to charge juries, and decide points of evidence in these classes of cases, freed from the responsibility 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 administer justice in a Star Chamber. It seems to be supposed that when a judge puts on his ermine he puts off the old man with all his deeds. Talk to a judge at his club, or in society, and you will soon find out the absurdity of this notion. Or take an instance: Suppose the present Lord Chancellor were to proceed by criminal information against the Daily News for the article headed "The Lord High Jobber," which appeared on Thursday; and suppose the defendants attemtted to prove the truth of the statements made in that article: should any judge try in secret such a case? yet publicity would be in the highest degree undesirable. But our correspondent thinks that the "interests of the morals of the people far exceed the private interests" of litigants in the Divorce Court. Certainly, but that is not the question: the question is whether more injury to the interests of the commonwealth is done by the occasional publication of indecent details than would be done by the universal distrust in the administration of justice which would inevitably follow from an extended system of secret trials. And what, we may add, would be the effect on the number of divorce cases if they could be snugly pushed through in a private room, without that most annoying publicity given by the

newspapers?

WE SHOULD have thought that the practice with regard to the payment of money into court had by this time become settled. To judge, however, from a recent decision of a learned judge in chambers, this would be appear not to be the case. In the case to which we refer the plaintiffs brought an action for rent and dilapidations, and the defendants paid a sum of money into court under R. S. C. 1883, ord. 22, r. 1, the sum paid in being, in fact, the amount of rent claimed by the defendants, although the defendants did not specify that the sum paid in was in respect of any particular portion of the plaintiffs' claim. Now, the material part of the rule in question is as follows:-"Where any action is brought to recover a debt or damages, any defendant may, before or at the time of delivering his defence, or at any later time by leave of the

court or a judge, pay into court a sum of money by way of satisfaction, which shall be taken to admit the claim or cause of action in respect of which the payment is made; or he may, with a defence denying liability, pay money into court which shall be subject to the provisions of rule 6." The payment into court made by the defendants was a payment in in satisfaction, and, as such, operated as an admission of liability. Subsequently the defendants delivered a defence denying liability, and an application on the part of the plaintiffs that the defence should be struck out as embarrassing was dismissed, the judge being of opinion that the plaintiffs had been in no way injured by the procedure adopted by the defendants. This may be so. Still whether the judge was right or wrong in the interpretation he placed upon the rules of order 22-and with all deference we are disposed to think that he was wrong as a matter of convenience it is certainly desirable that it should be made clear at as early a stage as possible in the proceedings whether money paid into court by a defendant is intended to be paid in as an acknowledg ment of liability or with a defence denying liability. If the defendants had desired to pay money into court, and at the same time deny their liability in respect of the whole cause of action, they ought to have waited till they delivered their defence, when 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, they could, of course, have done so. What they actually did was to admit their liability on the whole cause of action by paying into delivered some time afterwards. Taking rule 1 of order 22 in court generally, and then deny all liability in their defence conjunction with rule 5 (a.) of the same order, it certainly seems to follow that, if a defendant desires to pay money into court and at the same time deny his liability, he must deliver his defence at the time he pays the money into court. It is not reasonable that a plaintiff should be first led to believe that money paid into court is intended to operate as an admission of liability, and be afterwards informed by a defence-delivered, perhaps, a month laterWaids informed by a defence-delivered, perhaps, a month later—

that the defendant had no such intention.

THE ATTEMPT made on Tuesday to appeal against the order in Mr. DILLON's case on the ground of want of jurisdiction was, of course, unsuccessful. The question was fully discussed in Seymour v. Davitt (12 L. R. Ir. 46), upon which we commented at the time (26 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 80). The power of ordinary justices to require sureties for good behaviour from persons inciting to non-payment of rent had been settled shortly before by Reynolds v. Justices of County Cork (10 L. R. Ir. 1) and Feehan v. Justices of Queen's County (Ibid. 294). In the latter case FITZGERALD, J., carefully considered the origin and extent of the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and adopted the judgments of ABBOT, C.J., in Willes v. Bridger (2 B. & Ald. 278), and of Lord CAMPBELL, C.J., in Haylock V. Sparke (1 El. & Bl. 471). "Without citing further authority," he said, "we may assume that where it shall be made reasonably to appear to a justice of the peace that a person has incited others by act or language to a violation of the law and of right, and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the delinquent is likely to persevere in that course, such justice has authority by law, in the execution of preventive justice, to provide for the public security by requiring the individual to give sureties for good behaviour, and in default commit him to prison." This jurisdiction 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 peace one lord, and with him three or four of the most worthy of the county, with some learned in the law, and they shall have power to take of all them that be not of good fame where they shall be found sufficient surety and mainprise of their good behaviour towards the king and his people." It is to be noticed that under this statute persons may be bound over to be of good behaviour where no actual breach of the peace is to be apprehended from their conduct, as where it is simply contra bonus mores (Hawkins P. C., bk. 1, c. 28, s. 2). The question, therefore, in Seymour v. Davitt was how far a similar jurisdiction was vested in the Queen's Bench. That it had a common law jurisdiction in sureties for the peace was not denied; the contention was that this did not extend to sureties for good behaviour, and that no such jurisdiction had been conferred by statute.

But the

answer was twofold. No such distinction existed at common law, and the jurisdiction in question was expressly recognized by statute. It was true that all the reported cases were cases of articles of peace preferred by one subject against another; but Chief Justice MAY quoted from Pulton, a contemporary of Lambard, the following passage, cited in Burns's Justice of the Peace, vol. v., p. 758 "The surety for good abearing is ordained for the preservation of the peace, and doth differ in nothing from that of the peace but that there is more difficulty in the performance of it, and the party bound may more easily slide into the peril and danger of it. The surety for the good abearing is most commonly granted in open sessions, or by two or three justices; or upon a supplicavit, and great cause shewn and proved, it is granted in the Chancery or Queen's Bench." And, moreover, it is expressly recognized by statute that the power in question belongs to the Queen's Bench, inasmuch as its exercise is regulated by 10 & 11 Car. 1, c. 10, an Irish statute, corresponding to 31 Jac. 1, c. 8, in England. It appears to have been the custom to bring persons who were to be bound over to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour from the country up to Dublin in order, by proceeding before a judge in chambers, to avoid the publicity of an examination before a local justice. Hence it was enacted that any such proceedings must take place in open court. Thus it is clear that both process of the peace and process of good behaviour had frequently issued out of the superior courts, and the statute in regulating the practice for the future clearly assumed that the jurisdiction existed. It is, indeed, inherent in the court as supreme conservator of the peace in every county in Ireland. As Mr. Justice JOHNSON said, it has been inherent in the court from the time when it followed the king about the country to help in preserving the public peace. If more than this is wanted, the same construction which extends the Statute of Edw. 3 to justices extends it to the court also (MAY, C.J., in Seymour v. Davitt, at p. 52), and the Statute of Car. 1, in regulating the jurisdiction, expressly recognizes it. In Mr. DILLON'S case the incitement was not to withhold rent entirely, but as was said by Mr. Justice O'BRIEN, the rent was to be withheld until reductions were made, and the contract was equally broken. It is thus within the dictum of Mr. Justice FITZGERALD quoted above.

THE NEW SUPREME COURT RULES. WE are enabled to publish elsewhere four new Rules of the Supreme Court of considerable importance which come into operation on the 1st of January next. Three of them are supplementary to the rules of October, 1884, which provided for the carrying out of the system of trials of chancery causes on circuit. The first of the new rules is an addition to ord. 5, r. 9, and provides that, subject to the other provisions of rule 9, every cause or matter in the Chancery Division commenced in the District Registry of Liverpool or Manchester shall be marked with the name of such judge of the Chancery Division as the Lord Chancellor 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 District Registry of Manchester or Liverpool, to act throughout all the proceedings as a chief clerk of the judge of the Chancery Division to whom the cause or matter is assigned, and as registrar and taxing master according to directions to be given by the judge. The rule further provides, however, that no order for the payment of money out of court for an amount exceeding £50 may be made except by the judge in person, and no district registrar who is a practising solicitor may tax the costs.

The effect of these rules will be that the work of trying Liverpool and Manchester chancery actions will be assigned to one particular judge, and it will be the duty of the judge, to whom these actions are assigned, to go down to Manchester or Liverpool and hold special sittings for the trial of these actions. It will be remembered that the rule of August, 1886, which was substituted for the rule 22a of the rules of October, 1884, provides that if on June 1 and December 1 in any year it appears that ten or more chancery witness causes proceeding in the district registries of Liverpool and Manchester, or either of them, have been set down for trial in these registries, special sittings shall be held for the trial of the causes set down for trial at these

places respectively. In all probability Mr. Justice Kekewich, as being the junior judge of the Chancery Division, will be the judge to whom this duty, under the new rule, will be assigned, though this, of course, is a question which will have to be considered hereafter. The effect of the new provisions will be to give to Lancashire suitors the advantage of either having chancery causes tried in the Palatine Court, or of having them carried through in the district registry without any necessity for the employment of London agents. The chief objection to the new arrangement is, of course, obvious-viz., that the chambers of the judge to whom the Lancashire chancery causes are assigned will be two hundred miles from the judge. This will, probably, have the effect of causing the Liverpool and Manchester district registrars to exercise their powers more independently than is usual in the case of the chief clerks and taxing masters in London. At present, too, we presume it would be admitted that the Lancashire officers have not the advantage of the experience of their London brethren. There may be some slight difficulties in the working of the rule at first, but no doubt these difficulties will soon disappear.

The third of the new rules is introduced in the form of a proviso to ord. 35, r. 12; the rule providing that every reference to a judge by, or appeal to a judge from, a district registrar in a cause or matter in the Chancery Division shall be to the judge to whom the cause or matter is assigned. The proviso is to the effect that in any cause or matter proceeding in the District Registry of Manchester or Liverpool, the reference or appeal may be to any judge for the time being sitting either at Liverpool or Manchester. This will involve some addition to the work of the judges of assize when sitting at Liverpool or Manchester. It is not likely, however, that these applications will be very numerous. Should they become so they might seriously delay the assize business.

The last of the new rules relates to an entirely different matter. It is an addition to rule 27 of order 65, and deals with the vexed question of refreshers in a manner that will be satisfactory to the profession generally. The new rule empowers the taxing officer, in the taxation of costs between solicitor and client, to allow larger fees than those specified in ord. 65, r. 27 (48), under special 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 Ch. D. 52), and closes the discussion which has several times occurred in our columns. The words of the new rule authorizing the taxing master to allow larger refresher fees than those prescribed, under special circumstances to be stated by him, appear to give the taxing master, in the case of taxation between solicitor and client, an absolute discretion in the matter of refresher fees. The change thus introduced is, we believe, in accordance with the suggestion of the Bar Committee and the Incorporated Law Society, as contained in the joint memorial recently presented by them upon this subject. Doubtless these bodies will be gratified to learn that their representations have been so promptly attended to.

[blocks in formation]

THE case of Re Morritt, Ex parte the Official Receiver, on appeal from Ex parte Bentley, Re Morritt (34 W. R. 579), was decided by the full Court of Appeal, consisting of the Master of the Rolls, Cotton, Lindley, Bowen, Fry, and Lopes, L.JJ. Having regard to the great importance of the decision, we shall proceed to discuss it, although we intend to postpone the remaining articles on Mortgage Bills of Sale till after the Christmas Vacation. The question to be decided was whether the insertion of a proviso in a bill of sale "that the power of sale conferred by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, shall be exercised as if section 20 of that Act had not been enacted," rendered the bill of sale invalid. The case is curious, owing to the great diversity of opinion among the judges; the county court judge declared the bill of sale to be void as against the official receiver. The Divisional Court declared it to be valid; the reasons given by Manisty, J., are not reported. Cave, J., was of opinion that the Conveyancing Act applied, and that the proviso was valid. The Master of the Rolls, Cotton, Lindley, Bowen, and Lopes, L.JJ., held that the provisions of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, did not apply to bills of sale; but the

« PreviousContinue »