Page images
PDF
EPUB

Oct. 30, 1886.

THE SOLICITORS' JOURNAL.

[ocr errors]

son (30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 433) decided after Ex parte Stanford, Re Barber Then as to "the stipulated time for payment." It was the common decision can stand with Liverpool Commercial Investment Co. v. Richardpractice before the Act to make moneys lent on bills of sale repayable on demand, and in Davis v. Usher the Divisional Court held a covenant to (34 W. R. 507). In Consolidated, &c., Credit Co. v. Gosney a curious "Defeasance means getting rid of the deed-that is, doing somepay on demand did not invalidate the bill, although that case was a interpretation was given to the word "defeasance" by Day and Smith, flagrant evasion of section 12 of the Act, which avoids bills of sale to JJ. secure a less sum than £30. But in Hetherington v. Groom (33 W. R. 103) thing which will make it cease to be an operative investment. The a covenant to pay on demand was held by the Court of Appeal realization of the security by seizure and sale has this effect, and thereNext, a common-form covenant before the Act was a covenant or pro(reversing the Divisional Court) to invalidate the bill of sale as not being fore clauses to carry this out may be properly inserted." a stipulated time of payment." Fry, L.J., in delivering the written judgment of himself and Brett, M.R., said "the words of the statute and viso entitling the grantee to goods brought on the premises, either in Credit Co. v. Gosney (34 W. R. 106), the Divisional Court held good a of the schedule are perhaps not clear; they may well include a time fixed addition to or substitution for the goods assigned. In the Consolidated 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 covenant to replace worn-out chattels by others of equal value; but it is our opinion, include a time to be ascertained by nothing but the mere questionable whether this case is now law, for in Levy v. Polac (52 L. T. choice and volition of the holder of the bill of sale." This decision has Ñ. S. 551), Bianchi v. Offord (L. R. 17 Q. B. D. 484), and Furber v. Cobb been followed in subsequent cases (see Mackay v. Merritt, V.C.B., 34 W. (2 Times L. R. 873) somewhat similar clauses have been held to inR. 433); and it may be now taken to be settled law that a covenant to validate the deeds. The point is not of sufficient importance to merit an Next, the draftsman, following the forms common before the Act, pay on demand invalidates a bill of sale. It would not perhaps be wise exhaustive comparison of the authorities. would think it necessary for the maintenance of the security to insert 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., covenants to pay rent, taxes, and insurance premiums, and to produce ments, and to add them to his security, making them carry interest at the What "terms as to insurance, payment of rent, or otherwise, which the receipts on demand, and to take power for the grantee to make such paysame rate as the principal. According to Re Barber (34 W. R. 287) and Hamparties may agree to for the maintenance or defeasance of the security,' may be inserted in bills of sale? Apart from judicial decision, this question would seem to be sufficiently difficult. What is meant by "main-mond v. Hocking (L. R. 12 Q. B. D. 291) there is no objection to making the "defeasance"? A reasonable interpreta- grantor covenant to pay rent, taxes, and insurance premiums, and to protenance"? What is meant by tion would seem to be that terms as to maintenance would cover any terms duce receipts on demand, and that in default the grantee may pay them agreed on by the parties for the purpose of securing to the lender the and add them to the amount secured by the deed; and a covenant to repay benefit of his mortgage over the assigned chattels during the continuance to the grantee the sums so paid "on demand" does not invalidate the of the security. These terms, of course, must, by virtue of section 7 of bill. But Bowen, L.J., in a considered judgment in Bianchi v. Offord, the Act, and of the proviso given in the form, be subject to the provision (L. R. 17 Q. B. D. 484), where the covenant went on to say that the sums that the chattels shall not be liable to seizure for any cause other than paid by the grantee, together with interest thereon at the rate aforesaid, those specified in section 7. A reasonable interpretation of the section computed from the day of payment up to the actual day of repayment, and the proviso would seem to be that whatever terms were inconsistent should be charged on the goods assigned, and should be recoverable in with the section and the proviso would be inoperative-e.g., a power of the same manner as the principal moneys and interest thereby secured, seizure and immediate removal would be controlled by the section and held that these words invalidated the bill of sale because the mortgagees On this head the case seems proviso just as in our common form of conveyancing (a form which has might, in events "which may or may not happen, at their option advance received legislative sanction by the Conveyancing Act) an absolute power from time to time indefinite sums and add the same to the principal of sale in a mortgage is controlled by provisoes limiting its exercise. This moneys charged on the goods assigned." would have secured to borrowers all the protection the Act gives them, in direct conflict with the decision in Re Barber. Moreover, in the absence and would not have added to the legal effect of the statutory form. The of express stipulation, a clause to this effect is implied by the ConveyCourt of Appeal, however, has not taken either of these views. In fact ancing Act, 1881, s. 19, sub-section 1, which was not referred to. The they have said that the last of them is "absurd" (Ex parte Stanford, decision may, however, be supported on another ground-viz., that the bill as to of sale in question contained, in effect, a power to seize in default of re34 W. R. 507). They have stringently confined the terms maintenance of the security, and the net result of their decisions has been payment of these sums. Bowen, L.J., said, "I do not think these sums But this seems at least questionable. Until Bianchi v. Offord has been to the upsetting of many perfectly bond fide bilis of sale, and the encourage- could be sums secured within the meaning of section 7, sub-section 1." ment of borrowers in the repudiation of their obligations under them. The first thing which strikes a conveyancer about the statutory form the Court of Appeal, the question whether the covenant as to insurance There is no doubt can go to the full extent of the common form is doubtful. is the absence of an express power of seizure or sale.

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 held void, but so it has been in Davis v. Burton (32 W. R. 423),
Ex parte Pearce (Ib. 187), Myers v. Elliott (34 W. R. 339), and Bianchi v.
A power to enter
Offord (L. R. 17 Q. B. D. 484), and many other cases.
the premises where the goods are, and to break open windows and doors
to obtain admission, was held by Stirling, J., in Lumley v. Simmons (34
W. R. 759), not to avoid the deed.

Then, as to the power of sale, a prudent lender could hardly rely on the implied power given by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, which is limited by section 20 of that Act, and cannot be exercised unless (1) three months' notice to pay off the principal has been given; or (2) unless interest is 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. Nor, 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 Consolidated Credit Corporation v. Gosney, 34 W. R. 106). Moreover, it has been held by Cave, J., in Ex parte Bentley (Ib. 579), that a clause excluding the operation of section 20 of the Conveyancing Act does not invalidate the bill of sale. The cases above cited as to the power of seizure apply also to powers of sale. That is to say, 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 exercise has arisen. Nevertheless, a clause to this effect was held by Lord Coleridge, C.J., and Cave, J., in Blaiberg v. Parsons, to invalidate the deed; Cave, J., saying, "I am not sure that I quite know what 'in accordance with the form' imports." This seems an extraordinary decision, having regard to the fact that, by sub-section 2 of section 21 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, an equivalent provision is implied by statute. It was followed, however, in Blaiberg and another v. Beckett and another by Fry, L. J., at Nisi Prius, but he gave leave to appeal. The Conveyancing Act was apparently not referred to in either case. The common-form clause, then, usually provides that out of the sale moneys the lender shall retain the principal sum and the costs of sale, &c. This clause was held not to invalidate the deed in Consolidated Credit, &c., Co. v. Gosney (34 W. R. 106). The clause there as to expenses was very wide, and I am not sure that the

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 Ex parte Stanford, Re Barber (34 W. R. 287), which was twice heard before the Court of Appeal, and on the second occasion by the full Court, the insertion of these words 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 "Whatever form the bill of sale takes, the form adopted by it must produce, judgment. The basis of the judgment is found in the following words : not merely the like effect, but the same effect-that is to say, the legal (See passim, Ex parte Allam, Re Munday, the exact mould of the schedule." effect, and nothing but the legal effect, which it would produce if cast in

The 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.' covenants implied by section 7 of the Conveyancing Act were then dealt with by the court seriatim. The question whether the first covenant impliedthat of the statutory form was left open. The second implied covenant, viz., that the grantor has power to convey-had any legal effect other than the effect of which is that if default is made in payment of the money intended to be secured, &c., it shall be lawful for the mortgagee to enter into It was held that this covenant gave the deed an effect and upon or receive and thenceforth quietly hold, &c., was the turning point in the case. Act of 1882-viz., the covenant would give the grantee power to remove the beyond that of the scheduled form as read by the light of section 13 of 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., agreed in the result, but differed from maxim superflua non nocent, and was of opinion that "A bill of sale may conthe rule of construction arrived at by the majority. He declined to adopt the The rule of construction tain 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." in Ex parte Stanford is said, by Bowen, L.J., in Bianchi v. Offord (L. R. 17 Q. B. D. 484), "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; secondly, it does not inform us what terms may be added "as to insurance, payment of rent, or otherwise, as may be agreed on by the parties for the maintenance or defeasance of the security." As to the first objection, it may

at once be said that the legal effect of the statutory form is so far from clear that it has many times occasioned the judges of the Court of Appeal much difficulty-e.g., in Ex parte Stanford, Re Barber, it took them some time to make up their minds whether the Conveyancing Act, 1881, applied to these deeds-a point on which the legal effect of them depends to a vast extent. In fact, nearly all the cases on this subject have turned more or less on the point whether the deed in question had the same effect as the statutory form. The truth is that the case of Re Barber, after all the anxious care of the judges, is only a guide to us to this extent-viz., that at any rate the covenant for quiet enjoyment implied by the use of the words "beneficial owner" must not be introduced into bills of sale. In the Liverpool Commercial Investment Co. v. Richardson (30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 433), a covenant nearly similar in terms to the implied covenant for further assurance was held to invalidate the bill of sale, and this case was followed in an unreported case of Ex parte Turner (cited in the Consolidated Credit, &c., Co. v. Cleaver, 34 W. R. 106). But in this last-mentioned case Cave, J., held that a covenant for further assurance by the grantor and "those claiming under her" did not invalidate the bill of sale; and this was followed in Ex parte Rawlings (2 Times L. R. 796).

With respect to collateral securities, a covenant to observe the covenants contained in a recited deed avoids the bill of sale (Lee and Another v. Barnes, 34 W. R. 640, and in Simpson and Wife v. The Charing Cross Bank, Ib. 568), where a bill of sale and a promissory note were given to secure an advance, and the terms of the note were different from those of the bill of sale, the deed was held void.

I think I have now referred to all the reported decisions on the construction of the Act, so far as I have dealt with it. The paper has been long, and, I am afraid, not entertaining. I trust, however, that it may be of use to my brother practitioners hereafter, if only as a collection of the cases. Whether, after reading it and all the cases cited in it, they will ever be able to draw a bill of sale and be confident that it is in accordance

with the form, I am very doubtful. Whether, on reading any bill of sale, they will be able to say what are the rights and liabilities of the parties to it, I am dubious. The uncertainty of the present state of the law on this subject is a disgrace to our civilization. The statue is, from its title to its schedule, as discreditable a piece of drafting as is known to the statute book, and that is saying a great deal. In my opinion, it is just as useless in conception for the protection of borrowers as were the usury laws, and in execution of its leading idea a method has been adopted which is simply barbaric. In days gone by judges have done much to alleviate the hardships caused by ill-drawn statutes. Rightly enough they now say that their business is not to legislate but to interpret legislation. With all the profound respect which I, in common I am sure with all here, feel for our judges, I am constrained to say that I never studied a series of decisions on an Act which enlightened me less as to its meaning than those which I have just reviewed. This is not to be wondered at considering that in more than one case they have said that they themselves are not sure of its meaning.

OBITUARY.

LORD MONKSWELL.

The Right Hon. Robert Porrett Collier, first Lord Monkswell, one of the judges of the Privy Council, died at Grasse, near Cannes, on the 27th inst., in his sixty-ninth year. Lord Monkswell was the eldest son of Mr. John Collier, many years M.P. for Plymouth, and was born in 1817. He was educated at the Plymouth Grammar School and at Trinity College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1843, when he joined the Western Circuit and the Devonshire, Plymouth, and Devonport Sessions. He was for several years recorder of the borough of Penzance, he received a silk gown from Lord Cranworth in 1854, and he was appointed counsel to the Admiralty and Judge Advocate of the Fleet in 1859. In 1841 he unsuccessfully contested the borough of Launceston in the Liberal interest, out in 1852 he was returned for Plymouth, and he retained the seat for nineteen years. He was for many years the recognized leader of the Western Circuit, even with such rivals as Montague Smith, Karslake, and Coleridge. In October, 1863, Sir William Atherton resigned the office of Attorney-General on account of ill-health, and was succeeded by the present Earl of Selborne, and the Solicitor-Generalship was conferred upon Mr. Collier, who shortly afterwards received the honour of knighthood. He retired with his party in June, 1866, but in December, 1868, on the formation of Mr. Gladstone's first Administration, he was appointed Attorney-General. He carried the Bankruptcy Bill of 1869 through the House of Commons. November, 1871, he was appointed a puisne judge of the Court of Common Pleas, in succession to Sir Montague Smith, who had been appointed a judge of the Privy Council, and in less than a month he was transferred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a judge under the Privy Council Act, 1871. It may be remembered that this arrangement was made the subject of a motion in each House for a vote of censure upon Mr. Gladstone's Government, and that both resolutions were defeated by narrow majorities. Sir R. Collier shewed considerable ability as appellate judge, and in dealing with the varied questions of Ecclesiastical, Colonial, and Indian law which occupy the attention of the Judicial Committee. In July, 1885, he was raised to the peerage as Baron Monkswell. He was a bencher of the Inner Temple. Lord Monkswell devoted most of his leisure to painting, and several of his pictures had been exhibited at the Royal Academy. He was married, in 1844, to the daughter of Mr. William Rose, of Woolston-heath, Warwick, but he became a widower a few months ago. He is succeeded in the peerage by his eldest son, the Hon. Robert Collier,

In

an

MR. ROBERT FEW.

in his eightieth year. Mr. Few was born in 1806. He was admitted a Mr. Robert Few, solicitor, of 19, Surrey-street, died on the 24th inst. solicitor in 1828. He practised for many years in Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, but a few years ago he removed to Surrey-street. He was, at the time of his death, associated in partnership with Mr. Charles Few and Mr. Robert Hamilton Few. He had a large private practice, his firm being solicitors to the Metropolitan Asylums District Board. Mr. minster, and he was deputy-chairman of the Clergy Mutual Assurance Few had been for many years Deputy-High Bailiff of the City of WestSociety.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.

[ocr errors]

The subject for discussion upon the paper at the meeting of this socie on Tuesday, the 26th inst., was "That it is desirable to rate pure personalty, and ground-rents in addition to other classes of property now rateable. The debate was opened by Mr. Ernest Todd, who took the negative view' and was continued by Messrs. Mossop, Phillips, Biden, and Pattinson At the conclusion of the debate a vote was taken, when there voted for declared it lost. the resolution two, and against it eleven, whereupon the chairman

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

On Monday last, Mr. E. E. Keep, moved a vote of want of confidence in the present Government. Mr. Shirley, M.P., supported the opener, and was followed, amongst others, by Mr. Moyle and Mr. Kains-Jackson in opposition. The motion was lost by two votes.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

been appointed Lieutenant-Governor of that colony, and has also been
Sir WILLIAM FOSTER STAWELL, late Chief Justice of Victoria, who has
created a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, is the son of Mr.
he was called to the bar in Ireland in 1839.
Jonas Stawell, of Cork. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and
Chief Justice of Victoria, which office he has just resigned. He received
He was for many years
the honour of knighthood in 1857.

Mr. FREDERICK BAYFORD PARROTT, solicitor, of Aylesbury, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Buckinghamshire for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women.

Mr. CHARLES GREENWOOD, solicitor (of the firm of Nye, Greenwood, & Moreton), of 12, Serjeant's-inn and 82, Blackfriars-road, has been appointed Steward of the Manor of Old Parr's Garden, Southwark. Mr. Greenwood was admitted a solicitor in 1878. He is vestry clerk of the parishes of St. Saviour and Christ Church, and solicitor to the St. Saviour's District Board of Works.

been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for the county of Durham for
Mr. JOHN JAMES STUART EDWARDS, solicitor, of Bishop Auckland, has
taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women.

Assistant to the Board of Trade. Mr. Davidson is the only son of Mr.
Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD DAVIDSON, barrister, has been appointed Legal
William Davidson, of Braintree, Essex, and was born in 1853. He was
Natural Science in 1875. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in
educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in
May, 1879, and he has practised on the South Wales and Chester Circuit.
Chancellor.
Mr. Davidson was private secretary to Lord Herschell when Lord

Mr. GEORGE MORLEY DOWDESWELL, Q.C., official referee and recorder of Newbury, has been appointed a Magistrate for the county of Sussex.

PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED, &c.

HENRY WATSON and CHARLES HENRY WATSON, solicitors (Watson & Son), Aylesbury. October 1. [Gazette, Oct. 22.

LEGAL NEWS.

Mr. James Anderson, Q.C., the senior Official Referee, has, it is stated, sent in his resignation of that office to the Lord Chancellor.

have been appointed to try election petitions during the ensuing year.
Mr. Baron Pollock, Mr. Justice Stephen, and Mr. Justice A. L. Smith
Sir James Hannen intimated on Wednesday that in actions for trial in
the Admiralty Division the parties may, in suitable cases, apply to have
their causes tried by jury.

day, the registrar informed the court that this case stood over by consent.
In a case of Fass v. Gunter, before the Court of Appeal No. 2, on Tues-
Lord Justice Cotton said it ought to be known that there was a third
party necessary to such a consent-namely, the court-and that counsel,

solicitors, and litigants could not, by agreement between themselves, put parties in other cases to inconvenience. The appeal must be struck out. 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 Writer." The author described the various machines and their mechanism, and discussed the questions of speed 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 difficulties were pointed out which, it was thought, would militate against its use in the shorthand writer's office. In replying, the author said the so-called difficulties 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 Mary 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 Cleaver explained that Mary Constable was divorced from her husband, who was still living, but he was not liable to support her. The nonliability to support the woman only applied to the husband, and had nothing to do with the sons. Under an Act of Elizabeth [43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 7], they were just as much liable as if there had been no divorce. Blood relations were liable to maintain their relations. There had been no case decided on the point in dispute, but he held that the sons were liable. Supposing the mother were entitled to property the sons would be entitled to administer, and, on the other hand, the mother would be entitled to administer to the effects of the sons. Mr. Hull only wished to raise the point of argument because it was a case never yet decided. Under a deed of separation the husband had to allow the woman 14s. a week. In 1870 a decree of judicial separation was made, and the court ordered 12s. a week for maintenance. In 1877, in consequence of an act of 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 if 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 son (Valentine) contributing 2s. and the married son (Thomas) 1s.

LAND AND STOCK SALES.

Nov. 4.-Messrs. MARSH, MILNER, & LANGTON, at the Mart, at 2 p.m, Reversions, &c. (see advertisement. this week, p. 4).

Mr. G. A. Wilkinson, of 7, Poultry, sold, at the Auction Mart, on the 15th inst., £52,565 Five per Cent. Perpetual Debenture Stock of the South Metropolitan Gas Co. The total amount realized was £69,652, or an average of a trifle over £132 10s. per £100 Stock.

Last week Messrs. Fox & Bousfield offered for sale at the Auction Mart a large number of shares and stock in several public companies. The sale included 55 £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 of 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 of 5 per cent., were sold at the reduced price of £7 per share. Three hundred and fifty £18 shares (£3 paid) in the Land and Mortgage Co. of Egypt were sold for £1 12s. per share. It was stated that a dividend at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum was paid in March, 1884, but that there had been no dividend since that time. Eighty £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.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Queen's Bench Interlocatory Appeals in Court I., and Chancery Interlocutory Appeals in Court II., will be taken on the firet and second days of the Sittings, October 25th and October 26th, and afterwards as usual, every Wednesday, during the Sittings. Bankruptcy Appeals also, as usual, on Fridays in Court I. Appeals from the Lancaster Palatine Court, which have been passed over in the General List, will be taken in Court II. on Thursday, 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. APPEALS FOR HEARING.

(Set down to Friday, October 15th, inclusive.)

FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION, THE PROBATE, DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION (PROBATE AND DIVORCE), AND THE COUNTY PALATINE AND STANNARIES COURTS. For Hearing. (General List.) 1886.

(Continued from p. 824.)

In re Brazilian Rys Construction Corpn ld app of E D Oppert from ord of Mr
Justice Chitty, dated 3 June, 1886 July 7
Newbigging v Adam Adam v Newbigging app of defts Alexander Adam &
anr from judgt of VC Bacon, dated 5 May, 1886 July 8
In re Contract for sale of Copyhold Estate made between Eliza Naylor (tenant
for life) and Richard Spendla and S L Act, 1882, and V & P Act, 1874 app of
Richard Spendla & ors from order of Mr Justice Chitty in Chambers, dated 24
June, 1886 July 10

Robertson v Richardson app of W W Robertson (having liberty, &c) from part
of ord of Mr Justice Pearson on fur con, dated 16 July, 1885 July 13
P J Jackson & Co v Northampton Street Tramways Co app of defts from judgt
of Mr Justice Stirling, dated 8 June, 1886 July 14

The Ladywell Mining Co v Huggons app of plf Co from judgt of Mr Justice Stirling, dated 7 July, 1886 July 15

The Ladywell Mining Co v Brookes app of plt Co from judgt of Mr Justice Stirling, dated 7 July, 1886 July 15

In re J Whitaker, decd Christian v Whitaker app of plts from ord of V C Bacon at Chambers, dated 18 June, 1886 July 15

In re Contract for sale of real estate made between Henry Harvey and Arthur Garrard, dated 7 Jan, 1886, and ▼ & P Act, 1874 app of Heary Harvey from ord of VC Bacoa, dated 2 July, 1886 July 20

In re Isaac Evans, the younger, dec Davies v Evans app of the Garston and Medway Portland Cement Co from ord of Mr Justice Kay, dated 8 July, 1885 July 23

Greenwood v Hornsey app of deft from judgt of V C Bacon, dated 24 July, 1886 July 26

In re W Sugden, dec Hirst v Sugden app of the Halifax Commercial Banking Co from refusal of Mr Justice Chitty to vary Chief Clerk's certificate, dated 2 2 July, 1886 July 26

In re Robert Smith, deo Watts v Watts app of defts from part of order of Mr Justice Kay on originating sumas, dated 3 July, 1886 July 27

in re T Price, the elder, dec Price v Gregory app of deft Horatio Gregory from judgt of Mr Justice Kay on originating tumas, dated 8 July, 1885 July 27

In re Thomas Williamson, dec Gray v Williamson app of deft Rebecca Williamson from order of V C Bacon on fur con, dated 12 Apri1, 1886 July 28

In

In re TH Whorwood, dec Ogle v Lord Sherborne app of deft Lord Sherborne re an Appla of Selah Reeve Van Duzer, trading as Reeve & Co, for registrafrom judgt of Mr Justice North, dated 28 June, 1886 July 29 tion of Trade Mark No. 7509 & 47510 and Patents, Designs, &o, Act, 1883 app of Board of Trade from order of V C Bacon dated 9 July 1886 July 29 In re Lewis Lewie, dec Jenkins Lewis app of plt from ordor of VC Bacon on smns dated 12 July 1886 July 30 In re The New City Constitutional Club Co ld app of Official Liquidator from order of Mr Justice Kay dated 7 & 22 July, 1886 Aug 4

Divorce Ingham, orwse Sachs, petar, v Sachs, respt app of petar from decre of Mr Justice Butt dismissing petn for declaration of nullity of marriage, dated 13 July, 1886 Aug 6

Vicary v Stroud app of plt from judgt of Mr. Justice Chitty, dated 17 March 1886 Aug 6

In re N. Corsellis, dec Lawton v Elwes app of defts from order of Mr. Justice Kay, dated 23 June, 1886 Aug 6

In Mary Harrison, dec Daubeny v Harrison app of defts C J Harrison & ors from order of VC Bacon, dated 15 July 1886 Aug 7

Rawson v Minshull app of plt from Mr Justice Chitty dated 7 July 1886 Aug 9 In re Vincent, dec Vincent v Vincent app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Stirling, dated 14 July, 1886 Aug 10

Rust v Victoria Graving Dock Co ld and London & St Katharine Docks Co app of defts from orders of Mr Justice Chitty on appins to set aside referee's report, dated 19 July, 1886 Aug 11

Marquis of Londonderry v Russell app of plt from jadgt of V C Bacon, dated 24 June, 1886 Aug 13

Henderson v Rothschild & Sons app of plt from jdgt of V C Bacon, dated 20 June, 1886 Aug 13

In re The Queensland Steam Shipping Co ld & Co's Acts Expte C Parbury & ors app of peturs from order of Mr Justice North dismissing petn for winding up order Aug 14

In re Bolanachi's Chocolate Co ld & Co's Acts (petn of A I M Bolanachi, debenture holders and creditors) app of C H Kirby & ors from order of Mr Justice North continuing voluntary winding up Aug 16 In re The Trade Mark "Normal" No. 54259 & Patents, &c, Act, 1883 app of the Normal Co from Mr Justice Chitty allowing preliminary objection 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 C Bacon, dated Aug 4, 1886 Aug 20 Woodward v Sansum & Co app of defts from order of V C Bacon, dated 30 Aug, 1886 Aug 20

In re an appin by Messrs Leaf, Sons & Co for registration of Trade Mark, No 51,141, and Patent, &c, Act, 1883 app of Board of Trade & anr from order of VC 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 Lumley v Simmons app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Stirling, dated 24 July,

1886 Aug 26

In re an appln of Abraham Webley to rectify registration of Trade Mark, No 5,105, Class B, registered by George Ogden Talbot, on 25 March, 1876 app of Abraham Weblev from order of VC Bacon refusing to rectify registration, dated 30 July, 1886 Aug 27

Jones v Powell (construction) app of H J Jones from part of order of Mr
Justice Chitty, dated 10 Aug, 1886 Aug 27

In re Minne, dec Minns v Andrews (construction) app of plt from order of Mr
Justice Kay, dated 11 Aug, 1886 Aug 28
In re Prosser, dec Rickwood v Prosser (construction) app of plts from order
of V C Bacon, dated 9 Aug, 1886 Aug 28
Biscoe v Jackson app of Attorney-Gen. from order of Mr Justice Kay, dated 9
Aug, 1886 refusing to vary Chief Clerk's certificate Sept 2
Buckmaster v Buckmaster (construction of settlement) app of LC Seaton from
order of V C Bacon, dated 14 Aug, 1886 Sept 3
In re Boyse, dec Crofton v Crofton app of Philippe Canonge from order of Mr
Justice North, dated 3 Aug, 1886 Sept 2

Probate Joseph Crane & ors v Edward Crane & anr app of plts from judgt of
the President dismissing action for revocation of Probate Sept 3
In re London & Leeds Bank ld & Co's Acts app of T Noton from Mr Justice
Grantham dismissing petition to wind up Co Oct 13

Appeals from the County Palatine Court of Lancaster.

From Interlocutory Orders.

1886.

Ebrard & Co v Gassier and anr disallowing objections to taxn In re Thomas Etty, Gent, one, &o, and In re Toxteth Brewery Co & Co's Acts ad Chancery Lancaster Acts app of liquidator from refusal of Vice-Chancellor to direct account and payment of assets in hands of solicitor Oct 4

app of dfts from order of the Vice-Chancellor Aug 11

From Final Orders and Judgments. 1886.

In re W Jordan, dec In re T A Jordan's Estate (petn of Frances Mary Wakeman) app of petar from order of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 25 March, 1886 May 1

In re Estate of Edwin Hughes, dec app of F C Hengler and anr (trustees and exors) from jdgt of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 29 March, 1886 May 10 N.B.-The County Palatine Appeals as the dates of setting down are reached in the General and Separate Lists are set aside and taken on the first Thursday in every Sitting, and afterwards on the first Thursday in the following months during the Sittings.

Reichel v Bishop of Oxford app of plt from Mr Justice Grantham (sitting as Vacation Judge) refusing injunction, dated 22 Sept, 1886 Sept 24

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION,

MASTERS IN CHAMBERS.

follows:-A to F.-Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Master the During the Michaelmas Sittings the Masters will attend Chambers as Hon. R. Butler; Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, Master Gordon. G to N.-Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Master Kaye; Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, Master G. Pollock. O to Z.-Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Master Manley-Smith; Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, Master Francis. In the A to 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 in actions assigned by Master Johnson are to be made returnable before him in his own room (No. 175) at 11.30 a.m. on Mondays, 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 G 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 to F Division. In the O to Z Division all applications 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, Wednesdays, 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.

London Gazette.- FRIDAY, Oct. 22, 1886.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

CARDIFF IRON AND TIN PLATE CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Grantham, J., dated Oct 13, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Currey & Co, Great George st, Westminster, solors for petners BURNITT, THOMAS, & CO, LIMITED.-The Vacation Judge has, by an order dated Sept 17, appointed Mr Oscar Berry, 6, Arthur st East, to be official liquidator NATIONAL TRUST CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up. presented Oct 18, directed to be heard before North, J., on Oct 30. Beall & Co, Bucklersbury, solors for petner

UNITED MAY LUNDY GOLD CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding ur, presented Oct 1, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Saturday, Oct 30. Poole & Co, Chancery lane, solors for petner

UNITED PATENTS CORPORATION, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Oct 19, directed to be heard before Kay, J, on Oct 30. Darley & Cumberland, John st, Bedford row, solors for petner

WRIGHT, E. J., LIMITED. By an order made by Grantham, J, dated Oct 13, it was ordered that E. J. Wright, Limited, be wound up. Piesse & Son, Old Jewry chbrs, solors for creditors

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

NESTON AND DISTRICT PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-By an order made by Grantham, J, dated Oct 13, it was ordered that the society be wound up. Field & Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Sharman & Co, Liverpool, solors for petner COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

N.B.-During Michaelmas Sittings Palatine Appeals (if any reached) will be taken JoHORE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented on the following days, viz :

Thursday, October 28.

[blocks in formation]

In re J. G. Alford, dec Hunt v Parry app of plt from Mr Justice Pearson refusing allowance of payment out of estate for maintenance and education, dated 5 April, 1886 April 22 The London & Leicester Hosiery Co, ld v Greswold app of plts from order of Mr Justice North restraining sale of stockings contrary to covenant June 3 (order not perfected) The Germ Milling Co ld v Robinson app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Stirling and appln to C A for new trial under art 3 of rule 1. ord 39 July 14 Melior v Thompson app of dft from refusal of Mr Justice Chitty of appln for tral by jury July 15

In re Hilleary & Taylor, solrs In re Hilleary & Hilleary, solrs app of Messrs Hillary & Taylor from Mr Justice Kay disallowing objections to taxation July 17

Mallet, on behalf, &c, v Hanby appln of plt from Mr. Justice North in chambers Jefusing liberty to serve fresh notice of motion and proceed with action Aug 13 In re The Mysore Reefs Gold Mining Co ld app of the Co from order of Mr Justice Chitty as to remuneration of official liquidator Aug 16

In re Sugg, dec Sugg v Sugg app of defts N Sugg & ors from order of Mr Justice Stirling, dated 31 July, 1886, varying minutes of judgt dated 1 July Aug 28

Paddock v Edwards app of Ann Edwards from order of Mr Justice Kay, dated August, 1886 Aug 31

Fass Gunter app of plt from Mr Justice Stirling (sitting as Vacation Judge) refusing to restrain erection of buildings, dated 1 Sept, 1886 Sept 24

Oct 20, directed to be heard at Assize Courts, Manchester, on Monday, Nov 1. Brabner & Court, Liverpool, solors for petner

STANNARIES OF CORNWALL. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

DUCHY PERU, LIMITED.-By an order made by the Vice-Warden, dated Oct 19, it was ordered that the Duchy Peru, Limited, be wound up. Hodge & Co, Truro, agents for Wild & Co, Ironmonger lane, solors for petner

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. DINGLE SICK AND BURIAL TONTINE SOCIETY, Church Institute, Miles st, Liverpool. Oct 16 London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Oct. 26, 1886. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

AUTOMATIC BOILER FEEDER, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Oct 22, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on Nov 6. Clinton, Serle st, Lincoln's inn, solor for petner

KESWICK OLD BREWERY CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up. presented Oct 22. directed to be heard before Chitty. J, on Nov 6. Speechly & Co, New inn, agents for Atkinson & Bennett, Whitehaven, solors for petners LIVERPOOL AND ISLE OF MAN STEAMSHIP CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up. presented Oct 23, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on Nov 6. Pritchard & Co, Painters' Hall, Little Trinity st, solors for petner

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

MORNING STAR SICK AND BURIAL SOCIETY, High Sheriff Inn, Rochdale. Oct 22 REVIVING STAG LODGE LOYAL AND INDEPENDENT MODERN ORDER OF FORESTERS, White Horse Inn, Milford, Hants. Oct 21

FEE, TWO GUINEAS, for a sanitary inspection and report on a London dwellinghouse. Country surveys by arrangement. The Sanitary Engineering and Ventilation Company, 115, Victoria-street, Westminster. Prospectus free.-[Advt.

FURNISH ON NORMAN & STACEY'S HIRE PURCHASE SYSTEM; No Deposit; 1. 2, or 3 years; 60 wholesale firms. Offices, 79, Queen Victoria-street, E.C. Branches at 121, Pall Mall, S. W., and 9. Liverpool-street, E.C.-ADVT.

t

CREDITORS' NOTICES. UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP 35.

LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

BULLEN, BLANCHE MARY TOWNEND, Preston Lea, Faversham, Kent. Nov 30.
Cunliffes & Davenport, Chancery_lane
CRUTCHER, WILLIAM, Lower Norwood, Surrey, Corn Merchant. Nov 7. Tarn,
Philpot lane

DALTON, LOUISA BRIDGET ANNE ST CLARE, Abingdon villas, Kensington. Nov 22. Frere & Co, Lincoln's inn fields

DETTMAR, JOHN, Wanstead, Essex, Esq. Nov 29. Dawes & Sons, Angel ct, Throgmorton st

DYKE, CHARLES JAMES, Sittingbourne, Major. Dec 15. Plaskitt, Lincoln's inn fields

FARRER, REBECCA, Plashet, Upton pk, Essex. Nov 30. Quilter, Fore st
FOWLER, ROBERT, Old Burlington st, Esq, M.D. Dec 10. Smith & Wilmer,

Lincoln's inn fields

HANDEL, HENRY, Stanley rd, Teddington, Managing Director. Dec 1. Harcourt Lee, New inn, Strand

HEARSON, MARY, High st, Barnstaple. Nov 8. Harding & Son, Barnstaple
HOLT, THOMAS, Cononley, York, Farmer. Nov 27. Hartley, Nelson
JAMES, WILLIAM VAUGHAN, Haverfordwest, Solicitor. Nov 1. Eliz Marion
James, Cliff cottage, Harroldstone West
JONES, EDWARD, Henley upon Thames, Seedsman. Dec 1. Cooper & Son, Henley
LAMBERT, ROBERT, Wallington, Surrey, Snuff Manufacturer. Nov 15. Streeter,
Croydon

on Thames

LEA, WILLIAM, Brunswick rd, Gloucester, Gent. Nov 6. Bretherton & Son,
Gloucester

LYNE, HUGH, Penzance, Cornwall, Omnibus Proprietor.
Helston

MIDDLETON, HENRY, Grange st, Old Kent rd, Engineer.
Guildhall chmbrs, Basinghall st

MOODY, FRANCIS WOLLASTON, Grosvenor rd, Pimlico, Gent.

Bedford row

OGLE, ELIZA SOPHIA FRANCES, Patcham, Sussex. Dec 25. Brighton

Dec 16. Plomer, Nov 30. Peddell, Jan 31. Glyn, Stuckey & Co,

PEARSE, WILLIAM LADELL, Bawdeswell, Norfolk, Farmer. Nov 10. Collyer, Reepham, Norfolk

PICKNELL, CATHERINE, Hastings. Nov 26. Meadows & Elliott, Hastings

ROPER, SARAH ANN, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derby. Nov 20. Bennett & Co, Chapelen-le-Frith

SLACK. ELIZA, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derby. Nov 20. Bennett & Co, Chapel-en-le-
Frith

SMITH, JOAN, Howard st, Reading. Dec 15. Dryland, Reading
SUTCLIFFE, ALLEN, Bradford, York, Cotton Spinner. Nov 30.

WALFORD, CAROLINE, Lyall st, Belgrave sq. Dec 1. Piccadilly

Newton Rhodes,

Bradford TALBOT, JOHN, Milnthorpe, Westmoreland, Solicitor. Nov 20. Talbot & Rheam, Milnthorpe Walfords, Bolton st, WALKER, CHARLOTTE, Knockholt, Kent. Nov 18. Latter & Willett, Bromley WALKER, GEORGE, Nottingham, Licensed Victualler. Dec 23. Watson & Co, Nottingham

WHITEHEAD, FRANCIS FREDERICK, Greenfield, Saddleworth, York. Dec 1. Rowntree, Oldham

WILLIAMS, ROBERT SAMUEL, Lee, Kent, Gent. Nov 30. Hanbury & Co, New Broad st

WOOD, WILLIAM, Lydney, Gloucester, Timber Merchant. Nov 20. Fyrer, Coleford

BUTT, THORNTON, Bristol, Grocer. Bristol. Pet Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam
Nov 19 at 12 at Guildhall, Bristol
CLARIDGE, GEORGE, Earl's Barton, Northampton, Boot Manufacturer. North-
ampton. Pet Oct 16. Ord Oct 16. Exam Nov 2
DIXON, MARY, Church Coniston, Lancashire, Licensed Victualler. Kendal. Pet
Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 20 at 2 at Court house, Townhall, Kendal
DONALD, DAVID, Victoria rd, Surbiton, Baker, Kingston, Surrey. Pet Oct 18.
Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 12

ELLIS, JOHN WILLIAM, Comberton, Cambs, Builder. Cambridge. Pet Oct 19.
Ord Oct 19. Exam Oct 27 at 2

FIELD, WILLIAM, Tipton, Stafford, Brick Manufacturer. Oldbury. Pet Oct 9. Ord Oct 9, Exam Nov 8

Fox, MARKS. Bethnal green rd, Furrier. High Court. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 26 at 11.30 at 34, Lincoln's inn fields

GODFREY, FREDERICK CHARLES, Hampstead Norris, Berks, Grocer. Newbury. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 17 at 2

18. Exam Nov 5

GRIEVES, ROBERT, Faversham, Ironmonger. Canterbury. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct
HASTIE, JAMES, Russell rd, Kensington, Gent. High Court. Pet Sept 23. Ord
Oct 20. Exam Nov 26 at 11.30 at 34, Lincoln's inn fields
HAWES, GEORGE, Wescott Barton, Oxford, Farmer. Oxford. Pet Oct 2. Ord
Oct 20. Exam Nov 25 at 11.30

HEAD, GEORGE, and GEORGE HEAD, jun, Worthing, Builders. Brighton. Pet
Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 11 at 11
HILL, HENRY EDWARD, Clee, Lincoln, Auctioneer. Gt Grimsby. Pet Oct 19.
HOGAN, JAMES, Birmingham, Clothier. Birmingham. Pet Sept 2. Ord Oct 19.
Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 10 at 11 at Townhall, Grimsby
HOPPER, CHARLES RICHARD, Kingston upon Hull, out of business. Kingston
upon Hull. Pet Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 15 at 2 at Court house,
Townhall, Hull
Pet Oct 20. Ord Oct 20.

Exam Nov 16 at 2

HULME, WILLIAM, Worcester, Hatter. Worcester.

Exam Nov 3 at 11.30

[blocks in formation]

JOHNSON, THOMAS JAMES, and ROBERT JONES WILLIAMS, Liverpool, Merchants. Liverpool. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 1 at 11 at Court house, Government bdgs, Victoria st, Liverpool

KAY, JOHN, Hunslet, Yorks, Model Maker. Leeds. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 16 at 11

KITSON, GEORGE, Dewsbury, Yorks, Mason. Dewsbury. Pet Oct 16. Ord Oct 16. Exam Oct 26

LAVENDER, WILLIAM, and EDWARD LAVENDER, Manor st, Clapham, Builders. High Court. Pet Sept 16. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 25 at 11.30 at 34, Lincoln's inn fields

MILLS, JOHN SAMUEL, Oldham, out of business. Oldham. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 9 at 12.30 MORTER, FREDERICK, Norwich, Ticket Writer. Norwich. Pet Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 17 at 12 at Shirehall, Norwich Castle MORTON, THOMAS, Sheffield, Horn Cutter. Sheffield. Pet Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 18 at 11.30

NEWCOME, FREDERICK NATHANIEL, Brunswick sq. High Court. Pet July 24. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 25 at 11.30 at 34, Lincoln's inn fields

NISBECK, GEORGE, Pontymister, Mon, Grocer. Newport, Mon. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Oct 28 at 11

O'CONNELL, WINIFRED, Carlisle, Milliner. Carlisle. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 2 at 11 at Court house. Carlisle

OSBORNE, GEORGE, West Bromwich, Staffordshire, Greengrocer. Oldbury. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 15

WOODWARD, DAVID, Upton, nr Macclesfield, Gent. Nov 28. Procter, Macclesfield
WORSDELL, NATHANIEL, Oxton, nr Birkenhead, Gent. Dec 8. Watson & Dendy, PARK, ROBERT, address unknown, Licensed Victualler. High Court. Pet Sept

Newcastle upon Tyne

London Gazette-Oct. 22.]

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

FULTON.-Oct. 21, at 52, Clarendon-road, Notting-hill, the wife of Forrest Fulton,
M.P., barrister-at-law, of a daughter.

GLEN-Oct. 24, at 2, Wynnstay-gardens, Kensington, W., the wife of
R. Cunningham Glen, M.A., LL.B., barrister-at-law, of a son.
MCCALL.-Oct. 19, at 28, Lexham-gardens, the wife of R. A. McCall, barrister-at-
law, of a son.
MCNAUGHTON.- Oct. 22, at Guilsfield, Clapham-park, S.W., the wife of D.
Norman McNaughton, barrister-at-la w, of a son.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ADCOCK, JONATHAN, Woodhall Spa, Lincoln, Cottager. Lincoln. Pet Oct 20.
Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 10 at 2.30 at Sessions House, Lincoln
ATKINSON, JOHN EDWARD, Sheffield, Joiner. Sheffield. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19,
Exam Nov 18 at 11.30

BANCROFT, JOSEPH, Manchester, Schoolmaster. Salford. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 3 at 11

BEBB, NATHANIEL, Trelystan, Montgomery, Farmer. Newtown. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 3

BELLERBY, HENRY, South Stockton, Innkeeper. Stockton on Tees and Middlesborough. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Oct 27

BEESON, HENRY, Sheffield, Refreshment House Keeper. Sheffield. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 11 at 11.30

BEETON, ELIZABETH, Rattlesden, Suffolk, Shopkeeper. Bury St Edmunds. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 4 at 1.30 at Guildhall, Bury St Edmunds BOOKER, JOHN GEORGE, Nottingham, Draper. Nottingham. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 16

BOWDEN, ALFRED TIDBALL, Newport, Mon, Saddler. Newport, Mon. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Oct 28 at 11.30

BROOKS, JOSEPH, Radcliffe. Lancashire, Painter. Bolton. Pet Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 15 at 11.30

23. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 25 at 11.30 at 34, Lincoln's inn fields PAYNE, JOHN, Dartford, Bootmaker. Rochester. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 15 at 2

PICKUP, THOMAS BARNES, Scunthorpe. Lincolnshire. Grocer. Great Grimsby.
Pet Oct 1. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 10 at 11 at Townhall, Grimsby
PLOWRIGHT, WILLIAM, Upton, Nottinghamshire, Farmer. Nottingham. Pet
Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 16

PRECIOUS, JOHN, Wetherby, Innkeeper. York. Pet Oct 20.
Nov 12 at 11.30 at Guildhall, York

PRINCE, GEORGE, Leeds, Whitesmith. Leeds. Pet Oct 18.
Nov 16 at 11

[blocks in formation]

REDMAN, MARK, Brockley, Kent, Contractor. Greenwich. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct ROBSON, GEORGE, Liverpool, Contractor. Liverpool. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19.

Exam Nov 1 at 11 at Court house, Government bldgs, Victoria st, Liverpool SHEPHERD, GEORGE, Church st, Croydon, House Decorator. Croydon, Pet Oct 15. Ord Oct 15. Exam Nov 12

SINGLETON, BONSER, Nottingham, Boot Maker. Nottingham. Pet Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 16

SNOWBALL, JOHN, Pudsey, Yorks, Tailor. Bradford. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 18. Exam Nov 16

SPICER, HENRY, Enfield rd, Brentford, Beerhouse Keeper. Brentford. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 23 at 2.30

SULLIVAN, ALFRED, Puddington, nr Morchard Bishop, Devon, Baker. Exeter. Pet Oct 18. Ord Oct 13. Exam Nov 18 at 11

TAYLOR, ROBERT, Mildenhall, Coach Builder. Bury St Edmunds. Pet Oct 19.
Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 4 at 1.30 at Guildhall, Bury St Edmunds
THISTLETHWAITE, WILLIAM, New Brighton, Cheshire, Cigar Merchant. Birken-
head. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 3 at 11

WILLETTS, JOSEPH, Causeway Green, nr Oldbury, Carpenter.
Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 15

Oldbury. Pet

WOOD, MARY ANNA MARIA ELIZABETH, and MARY ALICE WOOD, Shrewsbury, Schoolmistresses. Shrewsbury. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Nov 16 WORTHINGTON, WALTER, Tyldesley, Lancs, Beerseller. Bolton. Pet Oct 20. Ord Oct 20. Exam Nov 15 at 11

YOUNG, EDWARD, Dewsbury, Yorks, Dyer. Dewsbury. Pet Oct 19. Ord Oct 19. Exam Oct 26

The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the London Gazette of Oct 15. ANTHONY, FRANCIS, Birmingham, Draper. Birmingham, Pet Oct 13. Ord Oct 13. Exam Nov 16 at 2

FIRST MEETINGS.

BADCOCK, PETER HENRY, West Bromwich, Tailor. Nov 8 at 10.30. Court House, Oldbury

BEBB, NATHANIEL, Trelystan, Montgomeryshire, Farmer. Nov 2 at 1. Off Rec, Llanidloes

« PreviousContinue »