« PreviousContinue »
Then as to “the stipulated time for payment.” It was the common practice before the Act to make moneys lent on bills of sale repayable on demand, and in Dam v. Usher the Divisional Court held a covenant to pay on demand did not invalidate the bill, although that case was a
agrant evasion of section 12 of the Act, which avoids bills of sale to secure a less sum than £30. But in Hr!/127‘i)|g(0I1 v. Groom (33 W. R. 103) a covenant to pay on demand was held by the Court of Appeal (reversing the Divisional Court) to invalidate the bill of sale as not being “a stipulated time of payment.” Fry, L.J., in delivering the written judgment of himself and Brett, l\I.R., said “the words of the statute and of the schedule are perhaps not clear ; they may well include a time fixed by reference to any known event; they may perhaps include a time to be ascertained by the happening of some contingency; but they do not, in our opinion, include a time to be ascertained by nothing but the mere choice and volition of the holder of the bill of sale." This decision has been followed in subsequent cases (see Marl-ay v. srmm, V.C.B., 34 W. R. -133); and it may be now taken to be settled law that a covenant to pay on demand invalidates a bill of sale. It would not perhaps be wise to act on the opinions of the judges as to making the moneys payable at a time fixed by any known event or on the happening of a contingency.
We have now arrived at the question of the greatest difficulty-viz., What “terms as to insurance, payment oi rent, or otherwise, which the parties may agree ‘to for the maintenance or defeasanoe of the security," may inserted in bills of sale? Apart from judicial decision, this question would seem tobe sufiiciently ditficult. What is meant by “ maintennnce"? What is meant by “ defeasaiice"? A reasonable interpretation would seem to be that terms as to maintenance would cover any terms agreed on by the parties for the purpose of securing to the lender the benefit of his mort age over the assigned chattels during the continuance of the security. Tiese terms, of course, must, by virtue of section 7 of the Act, and of the proviso given in the form, be subject to the provision zlhat the clgitgels shaltll not7 be gable to sgzure for any causie zilther than
ose speoi e in sec ‘on . reasona e interpretation o t e section and the proviso would seem to be that whatever terms were inconsistent with the section and the proviso would be in0pe1'aliVe—e.y., a power of seizure and immediate removal would be controlled by the section and proviso just asin our common form of conveyancing (a form which has received legislative sanction by the Conveyancing Act) an absolute power of sale in a mortgage is controlled by rovisoes limiting its exercise. This '* would have secured to borrowers all 5'16 protection the Act gives them, and would not have added to the legal efiect of the statutory orm. The Court of Appeal, however, has not taken either of these views. In fact ‘ they have said that the last of them is “absurd” (Ea: parts Sm/iforzl, M W. R. 507). They have stringently confined the terms as to maintenance of the security, and the net result of their decisions has been the upsetting of many perfectly bonfijids bills of sale, and the encouragement of borrowers in the repudiation of their obligations under them.
The first thing which strikes a conveyancer about the statutory form is the absence of an express power of seizure or sale. There is no doubt he would think a power of seizure and sale necessary for the maintenance of the security. As to seizure, it is obviously no use inserting provisions which conflict with section 7 ; but, at any rate, the insertion in the deed Of an express power of seizure in the events specified in that section will help to shew on the face of the deed the rights of the parties. Seeing that the construction of any power of seizure would be limited by the proviso at_ the end of the statutory form, it seems hard to hold that a power which purports to be exercisable in other than the statutory events should be hel void, but so it has been in Davis v. Burton (32 \V. R. 423), Er parts Iran-1: (III. 187), Jlycrs v. Elliott (34 W. R. 339), and Bianrhi v. Qford (L. R. 17 Q. B. D. 484), and many other cases. A power to enter the %X6I:'nllBB where the goods are, and to break open windows and doors ‘i':'°Rt671§9)mdn;%satf)on, wss lheldeelay Stirling, J., in Lumh-y v. Sinmions (34
. . , n avoi t e d .
_ Then, as to the power of sale, a prudent lender could hardly rely on the
Implied power given by the Conveyancing Aot, 1881, which is limited by
leotion 20 of that Act, and cannot be exercised unless (1) three months’ , notice to pay off the principal has been given ; or (2) unless interestis two months in arrear; or (3) unless there has been a breach of some provision other than the covenant for payment of the mortgage money or interest. N01, as is clear from section '7 of the 1882 Act, was it intended that the lender should so rely. It may be presumed, therefore, that a bill of sale was not invalid which contains an express power of sale exercisable in the events specified in that section (see CUl|80lid1lt!d Umlit Corporation v. Gamay, 34 W. R. 106). Moreover, it has been held by Cave, J., in Ev pom Bentley (lb. 579), that a clause excluding the operation of section 20 of the C_°l1veyancing Act does not invalidate the bill of sale. The cases above 01?-ed as to the power of seizure apply also to powers of sale. That is l° "Y. that the power of sale must not conflict with section '7 of the Act. The common-form power of sale usually provides that any purchaser shall not be bound to inquire whether any default authorizing its €X€l'Cls8 has "risen. Nevertheless, a clause to this effect was held by Lord Coleridge, C-J-. and Cave, J., in Blaiberg v. 2..-.0... to invalidate the decd; C5". J-, saying, “ I am not sure that I quite know what ‘ in accordance ‘ with the form ' imports." This seems an extraordinary decision, having "8816 to the fact that, by sub-section 2 of section 21 of the Conveyancing ‘lav 1331. H1 equivalent provision is implied by statute. It was followed, h°"e'e3i in -Uloiberg and anotlm‘ v Derkett and another by Fry L J. at Ni“ I'M". but he gave leave to hppeal. The Conveyancing'Act was “PP3l’6l1tly not referred to in either case. The common-form clause . then. usually provides that out of the sale mone s the lender shall retaiii l I-110 “principal sum and the costs of sale &c Thii clause was held not to ' ire; idate the deed in Consolidated cmzh, g£., Co. v. Gomry (3-1 w. R. 100).
e clause there as to expenses was very wide, and I ain not sure that the
decision can stand with Lioarpool Commercial Invsstmmt Co. v. Richardson (30 Souciroizs’ JOURNAL, 433) decided after Er parts Stanford, Ito Borhrr (3-l \V. R. 507). In Comolidated, 40., Credit Co. v. Gurney a curious interpretation was given to the word “defeasanoe” by Day and Smith, JJ_. “Dcfeasance means getting rid of the deed—tliat is, doing something which will make it cease to be an operative investment. Tho realization of the security by seizure and sale has this effect, and therefore clauses to carry this out may be properly inserted."
_ Next. a common-form covenant before the Act was a covenant or proviso entitling the grantee to goods brought on the premises, either in addition to or substitution for the goods assigned. In the Consolida/M Credit Uo. v. Gamay (34 \V. R. 106), the Divisional Court held good a covenant to replace worn-out chattels by others of equal value ; but it is guestionable whether this case is now law, for in Levy v. Polar (52 L. T.
. S. 551), Bianc/ii v. Oflcrd (L. it. 17 Q. B. D. 48-1), and Furber v. Cobb (2 Times L. R. 873) somewhat similar clauses have been held to invalidate the deeds. The point is not of sufllcient importance to merit an exhaustive comparison of the authorities.
Next, the draftsman, following the forms common before the Act, would think it necessary for the maintenance of the security to insert covenants to pay rent, taxes, and insurance premiums, andto produce receipts on demand, and to take power for the grantee to make such payments, and to add them to his security, making them carry interest at the same rate as the principal. According to Rn Iirirlmr (34 W. R. 287) and Hummond v. Hockirig (L. R. 12 Q. B. D. 2H1) there is no objection to making the grantor covenant to pay rent, taxes, and insurance premiums, and to produce receipts on demand, and that in default the grantee may pay them and add them to_the amount secured by the deed; and a covenant to repay to the grantee the sums so paid “ on demand" does not invalidate the bill. liut Bowen, L.J., in a considered judgment in Ilmncliiv. Oflbrd, (L. R. l7 Q. B. D. 484), where the covenant went on to say that the sums paid by the grantee, together with interest thereon at the rate aforesaid, computed from the day of payment up to the actual day of repayment, should be charged on the goods assigned, and should be recoverable iii the same mniineras the principal moneys and interest thereby secured, held that these words invalidated the bill of sale because the mortgagees might, in events “ which may or may not happen, at their option advance from time to time indefinite sums and add the same to the principal moneys charged on the goods assigned." On this head the case seems in direct conflict with the decision in Rs Ii/lfilh‘. Moreover, in the absence of express stipulation, a clause to this effect is implied by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 19, sub-section 1, which was not referred to. The decision may, however, be supported on another ground—viz., that the bill of sale in question contained, in effect, a power to seize in default of repayment of these sums. Bowen, L.J., said, “ I do not think these sums could besums secured within the meaning of section 7, sub-section l." But this seems at least questionable. Until llianalii v. Oflbrd has been to the Court of Appeal, the question whether the covenant as to insurance can go to the full extent of the common form is doubtful.
Then as to covenants for title. Before the Act, the usual absolute mortgagee’s covenants were commonly inserted. Practically they are of little value—I might say of no value. Since the Act, numerous bills of sale have implied covenants for title, by making the grantor convey as “ beneficial owner " ; but in the case of Er parts Stanford, R1: Barlver S134 W. R. 287), which was twice heard before the Court of Appeal, and on t e second occasion by the full Court, the insertion of these wo was held to invalidate the deed. The decision of the majority of the court—Lord Esher, M.R., Cotton, Lindley, Bowen, and Lopes, L.JJ.—was given in a considered judgment. The basis of the judgment is found in the following words : " Whatever form the bill of sale takes, the form adopted by it must produce.
ot merel the like effect but the same effect—that is to say, the legal
n y . effect, and nothing but the legal effect, which it would produce if cast in " ‘ E fa Allum Rs illunduy
the exact mould of the schedule. (Sec p(I88|m, 1- pm‘ - , 1 , 33 W. R. 231.) “ Such a test as this contains no element of uncertainty, is one which every lawyer throughout the kingdom is competent to apply, and is based upon a method of interpretation familiar to our courts." The covenants implied by section 7 of the Conveyancing Act were then dealt with by the court .m~i:m'm. The questionwhether the first covenant impliedviz, that the grantor has power to o0nvey—had. any legal effect other than that of the statutory form was left open. The second implied covenant, the effect of which is that if default is made in payment of the money_ in
d to be secured 8:0 it shall be lawful for the mortgagee to enter into
point m the case. It was held that this covenant gave e e
beyond that of the scheduled form as read by the light of section 13 of the Act of 1882-—viz., the covenant would give the grantee power to remoye the goods without waiting for the expiration of the five days mentioned in the section. The remaining portions of implied covenants-—viz., those for quiet enjoyment, free from incumbrances, and for further assurance-were not specifically dealt with. Fry, L.J., eed in the result, but differed from the rule of construction arrived at byagiro majority. He declined to adopt the maxim mpeq//rm non mmnl, and was of opinion that “ Abill of sale may conmin everything which the statutory form contains, and may have no further or other operation in law than a bill of sale in that form would have, and may yet be not in accordance with that form." The rule of construction in .E.l‘1)fl/‘la -S'lm:foi'(! is said, by BOWe_!1, L.J., in Bmm-/is v. 0_fl'u2rl (L. R- 11 (2. B. D. 48-l), “ to constitute, as it were, a new departure in the law applicable to these cases " ; but that rule which the Judgment says can be applied by any lawyer in the country is open to two vital objections.
First, it does not state the legal effect of the statutory form; se<1011<ilY» "5 does not inform us what terms may be added “ as to insuraflflev Paymfmi‘ of rent, or otherwise, as may be agreed on by the parties _for_the main
tenauce or defcasancc of the security.” As to the first 0bJ°°°1°1‘i it ‘"7
Mr. Robert Few, solicitor, of 19, Surrcyjstreet, died on the 24th inst. in his eightieth year. Mr. Few was born in 1806. lie was admitted a solicitor in 1828. He practised for many years in Henrietta-street, Covent-tghaidsn, but a few years ago he_ removed Surrey-street. He was, at e time oi his death, associated in partnership with Mr. Charles Few and Mr. Robert Hamilton Few. _He had a large ¥5l'ti;lBt6 gractice, his firm being solicitors to the Metropolitan Asglums D ct_ . Mr. Few had been for many years Deputy-High ailifi of the City of Westminster, and he was deputy-chairman of tho Clergy Mutual Assurance Society.
At a meeting of the Institute of Shorthand Writers on Monday evening last, a paper was read by Mr. E. Howard on the “ Type-writer, and its Utilization by the Shorthand ‘Vriter." The author described the various machines and their mechanism, and discussed the questions of specd and legibility. He pointed out that there was considerably less fatigue to the operator than to the ordinary longhand writer; the body was more free and the hand less tired. In America a very high rate of speed had been obtained, and the use of the type-writer was very general. Barristers and solicitors preferred it to the ordinary writing, and no doubt in a short time England would adopt it to as great an extent as in the United States. It must be clearly understood that the type-writer did not compete with printing, but what was claimed for it was that it was infinitely superior to ordinary writing. In the discussion that followed many diificulties were pointed out which, it was thought, would militate against its use in the shorthand writer's ofllce. In replying, the author said the so-called difllculties had been overcome in America, and, when further improvements which were impending were carried out, he was certain the type-writer would be generally used in this country.
At the Liverpool County Magistrates’ Court, on the 23rd inst., before Messrs. S. S. Parker and J. Bingham, Thomas Constable and Valentine Constable were summoned to shew cause why they should not support liiary Constable, their mother, who is at present chargeable to the West Derby Guardians. Mr. A. J. Cleaver appeared for the guardians, and Mr. Hull for the defendants. Mr C saver explained that Mary Constable was divorced from her husband, who was still living, but he was not liable to support her. The nonliebility to support the woman only applied to the husband, and had nothing to do with the sons. Under an Act oi Elizabeth [43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 7], they were justas much liable as it there had been no divorce. Blood relations were liable to maintain their relations. There had been no case decided on the pointin dispute, but he held that the sons were liable. Supposing the mother were entitled to prcperty the sons would be entitled to administer, and, on the other hand, the mother would be entitled to administer to the eifects of the sons. Mr. Hull only wished to raise the point oi argument because it was a case never yet decided. Under a deed of separation the husband had to allow the woman 1-is. a week. In 1870 a decree of judicial separation was made, and the court ordered 12s. aweek for maintenance. In 1877, in consequence of an act oi adultery by the woman, a divorce was granted, but the court made no order of maintenance. Since 1866 this woman had been living apart from her husband. The sons were twenty-four and twenty-six years of age, and had had no consideration for that which they were called upon to pay, the woman not having taken the place of a mother to them. The Bench, after consideration, said they were of opinion that it was a hard case on the sons, but it the woman destroyed her right to maintenance from her husband the deficiency must be supplied by the sons. They would make an order, leaving it to the sons to take it to a higher court if they liked. It was then agreed to accept 3s. a week, the unmarried sou (Valentine) contributing 2s. and the married son (Thomas) ls.
Last week Messrs. Fox 8: Bousfield oiitered for sale at the Auction Mart a large number of shares and stock in several public companies. The sale included £20 shares, fully 'paid, and 170 £6 13s. 4d. new thirds shares in the Epsom Grand Stand Association. The dividend paid on the shares for the year ending July last was at the rate oi 20 per cent. per annum. The £20 shares were sold for £54 each, and the thirds shares realized £18 each, representing a premium of nearly 200 per cent. Two hundred £10 shares, fully paid, in the Orient Steam Navigation Co., upon which the dividends are at the rate oi 5 per cent., were sold at the reduced price ot £7 per share. Three hundred and fifty £18 shares (£3 paid) in the Land and Mortgage Co. oi Egypt were sold tor £1 12s. per share. It was stated that a dividend at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum was aid in March, 1884, but that there had been no dividend since that time. glighty £10 shares (£6 paid) in the Langham Hotel Co., upon which last year’s dividend was at the rate of 12) per cent., were sold at £12 10s. per share, and £514 ordinary stock in the City of London Brewery Co. realized £230 per £100 stock. The last dividend was 13 per cent.
SPECIAL No'ricI.—Queen's Bench Final Appeals in Court L, and Chancery Appeals (General List) in Court 11., will betnken on the usual days during Michaelmas Sittings. l
Queen's Bench Iuterlocutnry Appeals in Court I., and Chancery interlocutory Appeals in Court II., will be taken on uhs first and second days of the Siltlnts, October 25th and October 261b, and afterwards as usual, every Wednesday, during the Sittings. Bankruptcy Appeals also, as usual, on Fridays in Court I.
Appeals from the Lancaster Palnline Court, which have been passed over in the General List, will be taken in Court ll. on Thur-day, October 28th, and again on the first Thursday in the following months of November and December, namely :—Thursday, November 4th, and Thursday, December 2nd.
The Admiralty Appeals (with Assessors) will be taken in Court I. on days to be specially appointed by the court.
Arrests ron HIARINO. (Set down to Friday, October 16th, inclusive.) '
FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION, THE PROBATE, DIVORCE
In re Brazilian Rye Coustruoiion Corpu id app of E D Oppert from ord of Mi-
Newbigglng v Adam Adam v Newhigging apo of delts Alexander Adam A: nnr from judgt of V C Bacon, dated 5 May. 1386 July B
In re Contract for sale oi Copyhold Estate made between Eliza Nsylor (tenant for llie) and Richard Spend s and S L Act, l§8Z, and V & P Act, 1874 app of Richard Spendla & ors lrom order of Mr Justice Chiity in Chambers, dated 24 June, 1886 July I0 _
Robertson v Richardson app of W W Robertson (haviu; liberty. Etc) from put of ord of Mr Justice Pearsiu on fur con, dated 16 July, 1885 July 13 _
P J Jackson & Co v Northampton Street 'l‘raui\vays Co app oi delta from judgt of Mr Justice Stirling, dated 8 June, I886 July 14
The Ladywsll Mining Co v ilusgons app of plf Co from judgt oi Mr Justice Stirling, dated 7 July, l886 July 15 '
The Ladywell Mining Co v Brockes app oi pit Co from Judgt ot Mr Justice Stirling dated 7 July, 1886 July 15
In rs J Whitaker, deed Christian v Whitaker app of plls from ord oi V C Bacon at Chambers, dated 18 June, 1886 July 15
In we Conllact for sale of rsal estate made between Henrfy Harvey and Arthur Garrard, dated 7 Jan, i886, and Y & P Act, 1874 app o Henry Harvey from ord of V C Bacon, dsted 2 July, 1886 July 20
In re Isaac Evans, the younger, doc Daviesv Evan! sop oi the Gsrston and Medwsy Portland Cement Co from ord oi Mr Justice Kay, dated 8 July, i885
Henderson v Rothschild & Sons app of pit from jdgt of V C Bacon, dated Z0 June. 1886 Aug 13
In re The Queensland Steam Shiphlng Co ld 8: Co's Acts Expte C Psi-bury & ors app of petnrs from order of Mr J ustics North dismissing petn for winding up order Aug 14
In re Bolanaelii s Chocolate Cold 8-: Co's Aots (petn of A I M Bolanachi, debe_nture holders and creditors) app of C H Kirby & ors from order of Mr Justice North continuing voluntary winding uo Aug 16
In re The Trade Mark "Normal" No. 54259 & Patents, &c, Act, I883 app_0f the Normal Co from Mr J uatioe Chitty allowing preliminary ob] action to registration Aug 16 _
In re Courtier, dec Coles v Courtier Courtier v Coles app of R. Smith & anr (parties having liberty, &c) from order of Y C Bacon, dated Aug 4, 1886 Au 20
Woodward v Bansnm & Co app of defts from order of V C Bacon, dated 30 Aug, 1886 Aug ‘Z0 ,
In re an appln by Messrs Leaf, Sons & Co for registration of Trade Marlr, No 51,141, and Patent, Sac, Act, I883 app of Board of Trade A: anr from order of V C Bacon directing registration, dated 30 July, 1886 Aug 23 _
In re Randell, dec Hood v Randell app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice Kay, dated 28 July, 1886 Aug 26
Luigiley v Simmons app of pit from judgt of Mr Justice Stirling, dated 24 July, l S6 Aug 26
In re an aopln of Abraham Wehley to rectify registration of Trade Mark, No 5,105, Class B, registered by George Ogden Talbot, nu 25 March, l-S76 app of Abraham Weblev from order of V C Bacon refusing to reciify registration, dated 30 July, 1886 Aug 27
Jones v Powell (construction) anp of H J Jones from part of order of Mr Justice Chitty, dated 10 Aug, 1886 Aug 27
In re Minna, dec Minna v Andrews (construction) app of plt from order of Mr Justice Kay, dated ll Aug. 1886 Aug 28
In re Presser, dec Rickwood v Prosser (construction) app of plts from order of V C Bacon, dated 9 Aug, 1886 Aug 28
Bisooe v Jackson app of Attorney-Gen. from order of Mr Justice Kay, dated 9 Aug, 1836 refusing to vary Chief Clerk’s certificate Sept 2
Biickuiaster v Bnclrmaater (construction of settlement) app of L C Seaton from order of V C Bacon, dated 14 Aug, I886 Sent 3
In re 1_3oyse, dec Crofton v Crofion app of Philippe Canon e from rder of M
0 r Justice North. dated 3 Aug, 1886 Sept 2 g
Probate Joseph Crane dz ore v Edward Crane & anr app of pits from jndgt of the President dismissing action fo '
r revocation of Probate Sept 3 In re London & Leeds Bank ld & Co's Acts a p of T Noton from Mr Justice Grantham dismissing petition to wind up Co 6st 13
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Mas-runs IN Ci-iaiineus.
During the Michaelmas Sittings the Masters will attend Chambers as follows :-—A to F.—Mondays, Wednesdays, and F!'ld8YBi M"m1'd"h° Hon. R. Butler; Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Master Gor on. G to N.—Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Master Kaye; Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, Master G. Pollock. O to Z.—Monda_vs, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Master Manley-Smith: _T_Ll(:‘S(1ByS, Thursday!» "id Sgt-ugdayg, 151,-‘Ste: Francis. In the Ato F DIVISION all applications by summons or otherwise in actions assigned to Sir Frederick Pollock (late senior Master) are to be made returnable before the Masters _in Chambers, A to F Division. All applications by summons or otherwise 111 actions assigned by Master Johnson are to be made returnable before him in his own room (No. 175) at 11.30 a.m. on Mond_e.ys,_ Wednesdays, and Fridays. All applications by summons or otherwise in actions assigned to the late Master Romilly are to be made returnable _before the Masters in Chambers, A to F Division. In the to N Division all applications by summons or otherwise in actions assigned to Master Hodgson are to be made returnable before him in his own room (No. _112, at 11.30 a.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. All applications by summons or otherwise in actions assigned to Master the Hon. R Butler under these letters are to be made returnable before him in Chambers, A F_ Division. In the 0 to Z Division all npphcations by summons or otherwise in actions assigned to Master Walton are to be made returnable before him in his own room (No. 174) at 11.30 a.m. on Mondays, \Vednesdays, and Fridays. The parties are to meet in the ante-room of Masters‘ Chambers and the summonses will be inserted in the list for the day after the summonses to be heard before the Master Sitting in Chambers, and will be called over by the attendant on the respective rooms for a first and second time at 11.30, and will be dealt with by the Master in the same manner as if they were returnable at Chambers.
WINDING UP NOTICES.
CARDIFF Isos AND Tm PLATE Co. Lni'ri'sn.—By an order made by Grantham, J., dated Oct 13, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Currey 8: Co. Great George st, Westminster, colors tor petners
BURNITT. Tiiosms, k C0, Lrm'rr;r>.—Tbe Vacation J udgc line. bv an order dated Sept 17, a pointed Mr Oscar Berg,‘ 6, Arthur at East, to be official liquidator
NATIONAL Clbiusr Co, Lniiri-:n.—P for winding up. presented Oct 18, directed to be heard before North, J ., on Oct 30. Bcall er Co, Bucklei-sbury, solors for
up. Field 8: Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Sharman 6:00, Liverpool, solors for petner
Cotwrr Psnarmn or LANCASTER.
JOIIORE Dsvsnovsrzxr COMMITIEE, Lrin-mn.—Petn for wlndln up. presented
STANNABIB8 or Coimwann.
DUCHY PERU, LI1ri'1'i:n.—By)an order made by the Viee-Warden, dated Octi9, it was ordered that the uchy Peru, Limited, bc wound up. Hodge 8: Co, Truro, agents for Wild sz Co, Ironmongcr lime, solors tor pctrier
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.
DIXGLE SICK axn Brmmr. TOXTINE SOCIETY, Church Institute, Miles st, Liver
CREDITORS’ NOTICES. UNDER 2: 8: 23 VICT. CAP 35.
Fowmm, Ronsnr, Old Burlington st, Esq, M.D. Dec 10. Smith & Wilmer, Lincoln's inn fields
HANDBL, HENRY. Stanley rd, Teddington, Managing Director. Dec 1. Harcourt Lee, New inn. Strand
Hxsnsox, M.u-nr, High st, Barnstaple. Nov 8. Harding s: Son, Barnstaple
Hour, Tnouas, Cononley, York, Farmer. Nov 27. Hartley. Nelson
Nov 16 Qt 11
RANDALL, Cnsnrns, Newark upovn Trent, Glass Dealer. Nottingham. Pct Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam N ov 16
R1-LI-ID, RICHARD THEODORE, Swansea, no occupation. Swansea. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 10
REEDEWILLIAM, New rd, Croydon, Baker. Croydon. Pet Sept 30. Ord Oct 15.
xam Nov 12 Rrznsux, Manx, Brockley, Kent, Contractor. Greenwich. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct
19. Exam Oct 26 The following amended notice is substituted fo_r that published in the
13. Exam Nov 16 at 2 FIRST MEETINGS.
Bxncocx PETER HENRY. West Bromwich, Tailor. Nov 8 at 10.80. Court House.