Page images



Tuis sum,



the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which provides that a debtor commits an act might not. Regard must be had to the circumstances of the case. If of bankruptcy “if he gives notice to any of his creditors that he has the debtor's language must necessarily lead the creditors to infer that suspended or is about to suspend payment of his debts.” The debtor their only alternatives were the acceptance of a composition, which they was a trader, and in April, 1885, his creditors agreed (out of court) to were not bound to accept, and a suspension of payment by him, the only accept a composition of 6s. 8d. in the pound, payable in three instalments reasonable inference was that he was about to suspend payment. It had at the expiration of three, six, and nine months from the date of a com. been argued that a debtor could not suspend payment unless he abstained position deed which was executed on the 1st of April, the third instalment from paying his debts when he had the means of paying them. That was being secured by the covenant of a surety. The first instalment was duly absurd, for the result would be that a man who was hopelessly insolvent paid. When the time for paying the second instalment was approaching, never could “suspend payment” within the meaning of sub-section 1 the debtor found that he should not be able to pay it without selling his (h.) Ex parte Oastler was decided by all the members of the court on the business and stock-in-trade, and he had to ask for the indulgence of the ground that a statement made in mere casual conversation would not creditors while he was making arrangements for this sale. He entered amount to a notice of suspension of payment. Two of the judges decided into an agreement for the sale of the goodwill of his business for £515, the case also on another ground-viz., that a statement by a debtor that and of his stock-in-trade at a valuation to be made by valuers named. he was unable to pay his debts, coupled with an offer of a composition of The value of the stock was afterwards determined to be £225, which twenty per cent., was not a notice that he had suspended, or was about was less than the debtor had expected, and much less than he had given to suspend, payment of his debts. In that case those two judges did not for the stock. On the 11th of November, 1885, some accountants who think that a suspension of payment by the debtor was the only alterna. were acting in the matter for him sent the following circular letter on his tive offered to the creditors if they did not accept the composition which behalf to his new creditors, whose debts had been contracted since the the debtor offered to them. There was a material difference between a date of the composition agreement:~"Re Lamb. The debtor in this case debtor saying to his creditors, “If you all come down upon me at once I claims your indulgence. In February of the present year he found shall not be able to pay you," and his saying, "I shall not be able to pay himself unable to meet his engagements, and we were employed to you if you come to me in the ordinary course of business." It was conprepare a statement of his affairs, which was submitted to a meeting of sistent with the former statement that, if the debtor was allowed to go on his creditors. It was resolved that his offer of 6s. 8d. in the pound should in the ordinary course of bis trade, he might be able to weather the be accepted, and that he should sign a declaration of insolvency, and also storm. In the present case the true construction of the circular was, an assignment of the estate, to protect it against execution creditors who that no alternative was left to the creditors but a suspension of payment might not assent. The debtor paid the first instalment of his composi- by the debtor, if they did not accept the 5s. in the pound. This distintion, but before the second became due he found that, in consequence of guished the present case from Ex parte Oastler.

When a man told you the increased depression of trade and his inability to obtain credit in that, if you would not take 5s. in the pound which he offered you, he London as hitherto, he was unable to meet the same, and he thereupon ; must go into the Court of Bankruptcy, as a matter of business the entered into treaty to sell his goodwill and stock for a sum sufficient, as inference was that he intended te suspend the payment of his debts. he considered, to pay off his old compositi n and his liabilities in respect Fry, L.J., had felt some doubt by reason of Ex parte Oastler ; but, in the of new debts ; but instead of £600 he obtained only £515, and his stock result, he had arrived at the same conclusion. The circular was an was taken at a valuation. This valuation is the main cause of his in- intimation that the debtor was about to suspend the payment of his ability to pay his new creditors in full.

The debtor, by the debts, or, at any rate, that he was insolvent, and that he intended either terms of his agreement, being bound to this valuation, received to suspend the payment of his debts at once, or to pay those creditors in payment for stock of £660 only £225.

less who came to him first, and to suspend the payment of the others as soon deductions for rent, &c., is sufficient to pay his as he should have come to the end of his resources, which would be very creditors 58. in the pound, and this offer he submi to them. soon.-COUNSEL, Yate-Lee; Muir Mackenzie. Solicitors, C. W. Dommett; The payment for the stocks is by bills, but, as he hopes to discount Solicitor to the Board of Trade. the same, he proposes to pay the 5s. in cash. The last instalment of his old composition will be paid by his surety. We may state, from an Ex parte RAWLINGS, Re CLEAVER-C.A. No. 1, 26th January. investigation of his affairs, that he has no other property except his household furniture, which was settled by ante-nuptial settlement Bill of Sale—ValIDITY—Power of Sale-Covenant For Further Assur. before he commenced business; and we may also state that it is not his

ANCE-PAYMENT OF MORTGAGE MONEY IN UNEQUAL INSTALMENTS-INTEREST intention to go again into business, but to look for a situation.” The

on Interest-TRUST OF PROCEEDS OF SALE-BILLS OF SALE Act, 1882, ss. creditors did not all assent to this proposition, and the result was that a

7, 9, 13-FORM IN SCHEDULE. bankruptcy petition was presented against the debtor, and on the 30th of The question in this case was whether a bill of sale given as security December he was adjudicated a bankrupt. In the meantime the account for money was valid. The bill of sale was dated the 30th of November, ants received moneys on behalf of the debtor, and one of them made 1885, and the chattels comprised in it were assigned to the grantees to payments to creditors and to the bankrupt. The official receiver, as secure a sum of £70 and interest thereon at the rate of sixty per cent. per trustee in the bankruptcy, sought to disallow these payments, on the annum. The grantor agreed to repay the principal sum by instalments ground that the circular was an act of bankruptcy within sub-section 1 as follows :-£6 on the 31st of December, 1885, and the like sum on the (n.), of section 4, and that the accountants, having received the moneys last day of every succeeding month until the last day of October, 1886, with notice of the act of bankruptcy, must account for them to the and the balance of the principal sum then remaining due, with interest at trustee. The judge of the Liverpool County Court held that the circular the rate aforesaid, on the last day of November, 1886. There was also a was an act of bankruptcy, and his decision was affirmed by the Divisional covenant by the grantor that he would, so long as the principal sum of Court (Cave and A. L. Smith, JJ.).

£70, or any part thercof, should remain unpaid at the times thereinbefore THE COURT OF APPEAL (Lord' Esher, M.R., and Bowen and Fry, appointed for payment of the instalments of the principal sum, pay L.JJ.), affirmed the decision. Lord Esner, M.R., said that he felt great interest after the rate agreed upon the said debt,” or upon so much as difficulty in understanding the observations of two of the judges in Ex parte should, for the time being, remain unpaid.

There was also a covenant Oastler (33 W. R. 126,13 Q.B. D.471) ; the distinctions which they took were by the grantor for farther assurance at his cost. The bill of sale also creditors that he was insolvent, and that he would pay them a composition events corresponding with those mentioned in section 7 of the Act of 1882 It was consistent with this that what he meant was, “I cannot pay you and there was a declaration that the grantee might, out of the proceeds the composition, and do not make me a bankrupt at once, I have enough charges, payments, and expenses incurred, made, or sustained in or about

of sale, retain, not only all principal and interest, but also all costs, means to pay all of you who come to me for payment in the ordinary entering upon the premises, and in discharging any distress, execution, course of business, and as I intend to go on with my business (at any rate, I do not say I am not going on), I shall probably make more possession of the chattels, and in and about the carriage, removal, ware:

or other incumbrance on the chattels, and seizing, taking, and keeping money.". In the present case the debtor said that he had only £225, and housing, valuing, or sale (including the cost of inventories, catalogues, that he was going out of business and intended to look for a situation. and advertising) of the chattels. It was absurd to suppose that any salary he would obtain in that way

Cave, J. (34 W. R. 760), held that the would enable him to pay his creditors. When he should have paid those Bowex and fry, L'JJ, afirmed the decision. It was argued that the

bill of sale was valid, and the Court of APPEAL (Lord Esher, M.R., and creditors who should first come to him, as he stated that he had no money beyond the £225, and would not have any more, the necessary implication

bill of sale was invalid (1) because the principal debt was to be repaid by was that he could not and would not pay the other creditors. It was, in because there was an agreement to pay interest on interest; (3) because effect, a statement that he "intended not to pay the other creditoras; in of the insertion of the Covenant for further assurance ; (4) ’by reason of other words, that he was about to suspend the payment of his debts, and, the trust of the proceeds of sale. giving notice that he would pay his creditors who came to him to- tion, their lordships were of opinion that the liberty given by the statutose

As to the first objecmorrow, but that he would not pay those who came afterwards. Bowen, form to insert stipulated times or time of payment other than those L.J., said that the term “ suspension of payment was a business term suggested by the form, excluded the necessity of the payments, being engagements and paying his debts in the ordinary course of business as payment, and, if only one time of payment was fixed, and one payment court must consider what the creditors who received the statementare the Mhe provision for the equality of the instalments was, therefore, int debtor would reasonably have a right, under the circumstances of the obligatory, but was subject to variation. case, to assume that the debtor intended to do with regard to the ment of his debts. In each case the court must go back to the words of it did not provide for the payment of interest on interest.

their lordships thought that, on the true construction of the covenant, the Act. It had been argued that a mere attempt by a debtor to commot per se vamount to a notice of suspenciclarat payments. ingere tikely they consequently, described principal only. Of and it was to be observed that

the words, *** said debt,” referred only to the debt mentioned in immediate


He thought

the contingency on which the covenant was made to operate was only in might have against the intermediate purchasers. In the affidavit made by the event of delay in payment of the principal sum or some part thereof, the official liquidator upon the application for the order to confirm the and that the covenant did not operate when there was default or delay in contract, he stated that the intermediate purchasers had requested him to payment only of interest. As to the third objection, their lordships sell the property, and, as an inducement to him to do so, they offered to thought that the covenant for further assurance was one " for the main- pay him £1,500 in compromise of his claims against them, and also to tenance of the security," and was, therefore, free from objection. As to pay £250 in discharge of the claim for coets set up by the former solicitors the fourth objection, according to the decision of the majority of the to the company; and on this understanding the official liquidator allowed court in Re Morritt, a power of sale arose on the exercise of the power to his name to be used as a matter of convenience. The official liquidator's seize. That power must carry with it implied trusts of the sale moneys, instructions to his solicitor with regard to the preparation of the contract and the question was, therefore, whether the express declaration in the were that he was willing to concur in the sale of the company'sinterest in bill of sale did, or did not, conform to and agree with those implied the brewery for £24,000. To hold, however, that the official liquidator trusts. The trusts expressly declared in the present case appeared to was merely a concurring party would be to take too narrow a view as their lordships reasonable and proper under the circumstances, and did against the solicitors. The substance of the case, when the matter was not, in their opinion, differ from those which would have been implied. looked at in all its bearing, was that the liquidator sold whatever interest For these reasons the bill of sale was free from objection.-COUNSEL, the company had in the concern for £1,750. It was argued that it was a Cooper Willis, Q.C., and T. Lee_Roberts ; Sir H. Davey, Q.C., Clay, and sale subject to incumbrances; but, on the facts as stated, it was not that, C. C. Scott. SOLICITORS, Andrew Trimble & Co.; P. E. Vanderpump. inasmuch as the liquidator would get his £1,750 whatever the amount of

the incumbrances might be ; therefore it was the sale of the interest of the company for £1,750, and, that being so, the taxing master was right in

applying the scale to that amount. His lordship went on to say that the CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.

taxing master had allowed nothing for the negotiation, and he thought the Re GREY'S BREWERY CO.-Chitty, J., 20th January.

view he had taken with reference to that point was also right because the

negotiations were those of the vendors, the parties principally interested. SOLICITOR-Costs OP SALES SUBJECT TO INCUMBRANCES—REMUNERATION There were no negotiations for sale on behalf of the official liquidator, but ORDER OF August, 1882, SCHEDULE 1, PART I. R. 9.

there were some with reference to the compromise of a claim. His lord. A limited liability company were, while being compulsorily wound up, ship thought that, as a matte of principle between a vendor and his own in possession of a brewery property which they had contracted to pura solicitor, it would not be right, in many cases, to look at the contract for chase, but which had not been conveyed to them, as only a portion of sale; the substance of the transaction should be gone to. In no caso the purchase-money had been paid. This property was sold for £24,900 wonld the solicitor, if he were so minded, be allowed to put the transaction by the solicitors to the official liquidator, and after satisfaction of the in such a form as would give him the larger fee; but there was no preclaims of former successive owners for unpaid purchase-money, a sum of

tence for making such a suggestion in the present case. The gist of his £1,750 remained for the official liquidator. The solicitors negotiated the judgment turned on this, that, looking at the whole of the matters with sale, no auctioneer or agent being employed or paid any commission by reference to the provisional contract, coupled with the order which made the vendors. The solicitors also acted for original former owners, to it binding on all the parties interested in the property, the liquidator's whom £21,000 out of the total £24,900 was payable ; but they did not act

name was used in the provisional contract merely for the purpose of confor an intermediate purchaser, who received £1,800, nor for the ultimate pur

venience the convenience of all the parties. The result, therefore, was chasers, both of whom were represented by uther solicitors. The ultimate that the taxing master's decision must stand.-COUNSEL, Whitehorne, Q.C., purchasers employed an auctioneer and valuer, who, hɔwever, did not act and Beale. SOLICITORS, Blunt f Lawford. for the vendors or receive any commission from them. By an order in the liquidation made in June, 1885, the sale was confirmed on the footing that the liquidator was to receive the £1,750 already mentioned, and the court fee (No. 69 in the Suprema Court Fees Order, 1884) was calculated upon the £1,750. The sale was completed in August, 1885, the parties to the conveyance being the company, the official liquidator, the original owners,

QUARTER SESSIONS AND ASSIZES. and the intermediate purchasers. In November, 1885, the solicitors' costs On Wednesday afternoon a deputation of Lancashire magistrates waited were being taxed in the liquidation, and they included in their bill scale upon the Home Secretary to urge upon the Government the inconveniences charges as upon a scale of £24,900, as follows :-Negotiating, £102 58.; arising from her Majesty's judges trying prisoners committed to quarter deducing title and completing, including contract, £107 5s. The taxing: sessions. master disallowed the negotiating fee, and only allowed £22 103. for Lord Derby said that in consequence of the changes which had been deducing and completing, being the scale charge upon the £1,750 received made within the last three years the judges of assize now considered by the liquidator. The solicitors carried in objections to the taxation, themselves bound to make a complete gaol delivery when they went on contending that the company was owner in equity of the property, and circuit. Formerly it was held that the judges of assize dealt only with that the official liquidator was, throughout the transaction, responsible cases not triable at quarter sessions, and all minor cases were left for as vendor That the business of the brewery had greatly depreciated, quarter sessions to dispose of. The deputation ventured to think that the the company realizing much less than had been anticipated, but latter was a more convenient arrangement for all parties. It saved the that nevertheless it was essential, in the winding up of the com time of the judges, and it imposed no duty upon the quarter sessions which pany, that the assets should be sold. That the official liquidator the magistrates were not perfectly willing to undertake. Unless there and the solicitors arranged the sale and price and the terms and conditions were some good reason against it, of which they were not informed, they thereof, and that no commission was paid to any auctioneer or estate or hoped that in future the judges of assize would not be required to underother agent, and the solicitors claimed that the negotiating fee and the take this very heavy addition to their labours. After remarks by Mr. deducing scale fee must both be calculated upon the entire and undivided J. T. Hibbert, M.P., and Mr. Higgin, Q.C., amount of the purchase-money. The taxing master disallowed the ob Mr. Matthews said that, speaking as an official and not as a lawyer, jections, on the ground that the solicitors were also the solicitors for the the invariable form of the Commission of Gaol Delivery empowered original owners, the parties most interested in the sale of the property, the judges to deal with all persons whom they found in gaols. In and who received the greater portion of the purchase-money, and that the the winter assizes commissions there was a special proviso giving the order sanctioning the sale provided for the payment to the liquidator of judges a discretion not to try quarter sessions cases. In 1881 a proviso £1,750, and that the court fee was only paid on that sum, and that he introduced into the spring and summer

assize commissions therefore had allowed the scale charge on that amount. He also stated that directing the judges not to try quarter esssions prisoners.

That the amount paid for the property included plant, goodwill, fixtures, &c., continued only during two years, and the proviso was struck out in and that the solicitors could not, in any case, be entitled to the scale January, 1883, in consequence of the opinion of the Lord Chancellor (Lord charge on the value of that portion of the property, they being only Selborne) that it was illegal. They would all feel that the opinion of entitled, in any case, to charge on the value of the leasehold premises, and Lord Selborne was entitled to the greatest weight, and it was in consethat the amount paid to the liquidator was not the balance on taking an quence of that opinion, that it was contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, account, but a lump sum for the liquidator's interest, whatever it might be. of the Habeas Corpus Act to prohibit judges from delivering a gaol when

CHITTY, J., confirmed the view taken by the taxing master. His lord- they went down to a commission of gaol delivery, that the proviso was ship, in the course of his judgment, said that, if he had decided the ques struck out. As he had said, the ordinary commission of gaol delivery tion on the formal contract entered into by the official liquidator for the enabled judges, if they pleased, and at their discretion, to leave quarter sale of the property for £24,000, the taxing master's conclusion would be sessions prisoners for trial at the next quarter sessions if the witnesses were erroncous, but that was not the whole of the case. The original vendors not in attendance. He had no hesitation in saying that he thought quarter cold the property to the intermediate purchasers, who, in their turn, sold sessions were admirable tribunals which tried their prisoners perfectly well to the company. The original vendors had a lien on the property to the ex ard sufficiently well for all purposes of justice. One would be very glad tent of over £21,000, and they had not parted with the legal estate. There is any machinery could be contrived by which they should have the trial was nothing coming to the company out of the sale for £24,000, because of all the prisoners which they had jurisdiction to try. With the opinion the claim of the first vendors exceeded £21,000, and the claim of the inter- of Lord Selborne before him, that the prohibition was illegal, he could mediate purchasers more than exhausted the balance. The official liquidator not take upon himself the responsibility of advising that the judges' comcame into the arrangement for the sale in order that he might obtain the missions should be altered as suggested. There remained the other settlement of a cross-claim which he had against the intermediate purchasers, alternative, which seemed a very valuable one--namely, that flexibility who had been the promoters of the company. The contract for the sale for should be allowed in the fixing of the dates of quarter cessions. He had $24,000 entered into by the official liquidator was not binding until it got so far as to draft a Bill – at least his predecessor had-for the purpose had been sanctioned by the court. This order was one which bound all of giving the same latitude to quarter sessions in varying the period of all the parties, as it provided that £21,000 should be paid to the original their sittings as they now had for the Easter sittings. (Mr. Higgix... vendors, £1,800 to the intermediate purchasers, and £1,750 to the official | The recorder of the borough is under no compulsion to hold his sessions liquidator by way of compromise and in full discharge of any claims he at any particular time. He can fix his own time. It is only the sessions for


the county that are fixed by statute.] Exactly; and no doubt recorders, Stirling should, for the purpose of trial or hearing only, be transwith a little good-will, could clear off all their sessions cases before the ferred to Mr. Justice Kekewich: Now I, the Right Honourable judges came down. It certainly seemed to him that the Act could be Hardinge Stanley, Baron Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great modified in this direction without inconvenience if there should be time Britain, do hereby order that the several causes set forth in the for any legislation this session. At any rate he would consider it and see

schedules hereto be accordingly transferred from the said Mr. in which way the amendment might best be made. Then there was the suggestion made by Mr. Higgin in his priuted letter, that there should be Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, and Mr. Justice Stirling to Mr. some official notification of the time for holding the assizes so that thes Justice Kekewich, for the purpose of trial or hearing only, and be sessions could be fixed at a date which would enable the gaols to be marked in the cause books accordingly. And this order is to be delivered of sessional prisoners before the assizes. He would like to know drawn up by the registrar and set up in the several offices of the what time would suffice for that.

Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. Some conversation then occurred, when the deputation said that a

FIRST SCHEDULE. fortnight's official notice would, perhaps, be sufficient. It was stated

From Mr. Justice Chitty (Witness Actions). that the judges generally gave about that notice, and the deputation thought their wishes would be met by a proviso 'in the proposed Bill Gould v Gould 1885 G 1,347 Aug 9

Green v Edwards 1885 G 2,787 Aug 11 requiring the clerk of assize to give such notice to the clerk of the peace.

In re Tinkler Lloyd v Allen 1886 T 447 Aug 13
Redford v Shoppee 1886 R 497 Aug 14
Anderson v Patent Oxonite Co & ors 1886 A 80 Oct 11
Turner v Tymm 1886 T 937 Oct 25

Great Western Forest of Dean Colliery Co v Trafalgar Colliery Co 1885

G 2,826 Oct 26

Gillibrand v Hope 1886 G 387 Oct 26

Eccleston v Eccleston 1886 E 295 Nov 10
The following gentlemen were on Wednesday called to the bar :-

Hobbs v Wayet 1885 H 2,366 Nov 10
Inner TEMPLE.—John Harris Stone, M.A., É.L.S., F.C.S. Cambridge ; Leith v Cooke 1886 L 1,034 Nov 11
Robert Henry Walter Woodward, B.A. Oxford; Frederick Feeney, M.A., Rait & Gardiner v Dry Docks Corporation of Londoo, ld 1886 R 990
LL.M. Cambridge; Henry Joseph Knowles ; William Robert Roberts, Nov 11
Oxford ; William Hessel Linsley, B.A. Oxford ; James Roberts M.A., Smith v McJannett 1886 S 1,403 Nov 16
LL.B. Dublin; Edward Alexander Sinclair Macmunn ; Andrew Cassels In re Roser Roser v Featherstone 1886 R 1,246 Nov 19
Kay, B.A. Oxford ; Clement David Clarke, B.A. Cambridge; Oscar Joachim Holt & ors v Duke & ors 1886 H 1,986 Nov 20
Bagram; David Emile Seligman, B.A. Cambridge; the Hon. Rowland London & Westminster Bank, ld v Turquand & ors 1886 L 182 Nov 22
Charles Frederick Leigh, B.A. Cambridge ; Duncan MacKenzie Keely, Hammersley, widow v Hammersley & ors 1884 H 3,371 Nov 22
B A., LL.B. Cambridge (holder of a scholarship in real property law, Alexander v London Founders’ Association, la 1886 A, 417 Nov 24
awarded in July, 1885); Ramdas Chubildas, B.A. LL.B., B.C.L. Cam. Hargreaves v Trustees of G. Massey & G. Á. Hargraves, bankrupts 1885
bridge (foundation scholar and senior Sanscrit prizeman of Christ's College, L 146 Nov 26
Cambridge); William Tudor Howell, B.A. Oxford; Edward Samuel Hall v Palmer 1886 H 2,740 Nov 27
Abinger; Anthony Micheal Coll, B.A. Oxford ; William Prichard Gordon, Williams v Neath Canal Navigation Proprietors Neath Canal Navigation
B.A. Oxford ; Herbert Levi Jacobs, B.A. London ; Percy Copeland Morris, Proprietors v Williams 1881 W 4,263 Nov 27
LL.B. Cambridge; Charles Edward Drummond 'Telfer; Samuel Wearin v Purkiss 1886 W 2,109 Nov 27
Wadsworth, M.A. Oxford ; James Morton Nicholson, B.A. Cambridge Boyd v Patrick 1883 B 4,359 Nov 29
(holder of a scholarship in equity, awarded in July 1885); Harry Joseph Ashley v Drew 1886 A 428 Nov 30
Turrell, B.A. Oxford; Frederick Lodge, B.A. Oxford, Joseph Shaw, Lichfield v Simmons 1886 L 1,840 Dec 3
B.A. Cambridge; Reginald Heber Jones, B.A. Oxford; Evan Edwin Coote v Ingram 1886 C4,601 Dec 6
Brook; John Sidney Snelgrove, B.A. Cambridge; Charles Storey Gilman' Wenham Co, Id v May & Co 1886 W 2,252 Dec 7
Joseph Hurst; William Higgins, London; and Arthur Coomber. Edison & Swan United Electric Light Co'v Shippey Bros 1886 E 844

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Herbert James Hay Mackay, M.A., LL.B. Glasgow Dec 8
University (£10 Roman law lecture prize, 1884; 200 guineas studentship London Tavern Co, ld v Worley 1886 L 1,390 Dec 9
in Roman law 1885); William Wallace, M.Á. Aberdeen University ; Duke of Northumberland v Bowman 1886 À 609 Dec 11
William Basil Worsfold, N.A. University College, Oxford ; John Risby
Warner; Anthony Hope Hawkins, B.A. Balliol College, Oxford ; John

Scott Abernethy, B.A. Worcester College, Oxford; Alfred Kalisch, B.A.

From Mr. Justice North (Witness Actions). (open Exhibitioner), Balliol College, Oxford ; Heber Leonidas Hart, LL B. Hodgkin, Barnett, & Co v Hopper 1885 H 4,629 June 29 University of London (first honours in jurisprudence and Roman law); Baron René de Bloney v Brin, Freres & Bins Oxygen Co, id 1886 D Inayatullah, B.A. Cambridge University ; James Curran; Abdul Jalil ; 400 July 1 Cyril Stephen Cobb, B.A. Merton College, Oxford ; Horace Edward Compton v Robinson 1883 C 3,233 July 3 Miller, LL B. London University (equity and common law scholar) ; In re McClure Bowers v Seddon '1882 M 2,161 July 3 Arthur Völkner Grace, LL.B. Clare College, Cambridge ; James Todá Evans v Manchester, Sheffield, & Lincolnshire Ry Co

1886 E 171 Josiah Charles Eagle Knight; Henry Milward Chataway; Maneckji B.

July 12
Dadabhoy, Bombay University ; James Gault; Pandit Bishan Narayan Wall v Stanwick 1885 W 4,487 July 12
Dar; John Knowles ; James Cecil Walter Pereira.

Humphrey v Scott 1886 H 1,695 July 19
LINCOLN'S-INN.-William Charles Braithwaite, B.A. and LL.B. London ; McClure v Pringle 1885 M 785 July 19
George Herbert Peake, B.A. and LL.B. Cambridge ; Robert Chignell, Hall v Ewin 1886 H 1,092 July 22
B.A. London ; Henry Stratton Izard, of Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Michael v Price 1886 M_1,201 July 24
Alexander Faulker Shand, B.A. Cambridge; Percy Holland (Lincoln's- Tritton v Bankart 1886 T 565 July 26
inn Scholarship in International and Constitutional Law, 1885), B.A. Holden v Collier 1886 H 1,628 July 29
Oxford ; John Eustace Harman, B.A. Cambridge; Bret Ince, of Trinity Balsom v Webb 1886 B 2,165 July 31
College, Cambridge; and Arthur Jackson.

Davies, Bros, & Co v Davies 1886 D 426 July 31

Newton v Barker 1886 N 436 Aug 3 At the Middle Temple the following scholarships awarded by the Gooding v Wiltshire 1886 G Treasurer and Masters of the Bench to students of the Honourable Society In re Woodward Woodward v Woodward 1885 W 2,593 Aug 5

769 Aug 4 of the Middle Temple were announced in hall, viz:- Real and Personay Edison & Swan United Electric Light, &c., Co v Davidson, Jackson, & Property-W. E. Vernon, a first-class scholarship of 50 guineas; H. Duncan 1886 E 353 Aug 5 Robinson, a second-class scholarship of 20 guineas. Common and Crim. In re J. Knapp Bennett v Knapp 1886 K 253 Aug 6 inal Law--R. J. Doyle, a first-class scholarship of 50 guineas; H. E. In re Allen Allen v Capps 1886 A Miller, a second-class scholarship of 20 guineas. Equity-Manook Zorab, Leslie v Cave 1884 L 3,312 Aug 12

159 Aug 11 a first-class scholarship of 50 guineas ; W. W. Watts, a second-class Soper v Arnold 1886 S 3,056 Aug 16 Toon, a first-class scholarthip of fifty guineas ; J. M. Gover, a second-class Walker v West Riding Union Banking Co West Riding Union Banking scholarship of 20 guineas.

Co v Walker 1886 W

483 Aug 25
Wood v Horne 1886 W 1,667 Oct 8
Franklin, Hockin, & Co, id Franklin, Hockin 1886 H 1,010 Oct 26
North v Davie 1885 N 762 Oct 26

Daniel v McMillan 1885 D 2,496 Oct 26

Nicol v Campbell 1886 N 635 Oct 27

Frank v Cottrell 1886 F 96 Oct 28

Collins v Castle 1886 C 2,129 Nov 1

Lusk, Bart v Richards 1886 L 1,661 Nov 1
Saturday, the 22nd day of January, 1887.

Bateman v Poplar District Board of Works 1886
Whereas, from the present state of the business before Mr. Justice In re Hope Hope v Porter 1886

Ware v Freeth 1886 W 957 Nov 9 Chitty, Mr. Justice North, Mr. Justice Stirling, and Mr. Justice Davies v Hodgson 1885 D 1,867 Nov 12

H 3,598 Nov 10 Kekewich respectively, it is expedient that a portion of the causes assigned to Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, and Mr. Justice Winter v Baker 1886 W 1,719 Nov 17

In re W.J. & J. Bodger_Bodger v Bodger 1884 B 5,198 Nov 17

B 1,652 Nov 4

Cowan v Midland & S. W. Junction Ry Co 1885 C 803 Nov 17 articles with the late Mr. William Burridge, of Wellington, where he had Lamplugh & anr v Powell, Foley & Co 1886 L 802 Nov 18

practised since his admission in 1878. He was associated in partnership

with Mr. Nathaniel Thatcher Beckingsale, and he also had an office at THIRD SCHEDULE,

Taunton. During his short professional career he had acquired a good From Mr. Justice Stirling (Witness Actions).

private practice, and he had been for some time clerk to the Samford Tolley v Nelson 1886 T 425 June 16

Arundell School Board. Mr. Bond was unmarried. He was buried at Willeringhaus v Klinker 1885 W 763 June 23

Kensal Green Cemetery on the 20th inst.
In re E. Lane Grove v Lane 1880 E_2,667 July 1
Humpherson v Syer 1885 H 4,975 July 3
Wells v Hammer 1886 W 4,160 July 5

Fraser v Pruvince of Brescia Steam Tramways Co, ld 1886 F 503 Mr. John Walter BUCHANAN RIDDELL, barrister, has been appointed
July 8

Receiver to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. Mr. Riddell is the Davis v Vickery 1886 D 280 July 10

eldest son of the Rev. Juhn Charles Buchanan Riddell, and was born in In re Lady Honeywood Finley v Denne 1885 H 4,696 July 13

1849. He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford. He was called to the Jones v Gehrke 1886 J 672 July 13

bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1874, and he is a member of the Lamb, Bart v Chambers 1885 L 2,060 July 15

South-Eastern Circuit. Mr. Riddell has been for some time Honorary Lambton & Co v Johnson Hall v Johnson 1885 L 1,540 July 20 Wardens of St. Saviour's Parish Church, Southwark v Gery 1885 S

Lay Secretary to the London Diocesan Conference. 3,844 July 20

Mr. John MALLET WILLIAMSON, solicitor, of Dublin, has been appointed Knight v Jones 1885 K 983 July 22

Under-Sheriff of the County of Dublin for the ensuing year. Burke v Jones 1886 B 2,090 July 23

Mr. RALPH NEVILLE, barrister, who has been elected M.P. for the Wadge v Garrold 1886 W 886 July 23

Exchange Division of the borough of Liverpool in the Gladstonian Humphrey v Sumner 1886 H 1,293 July 23

Liberal interest, is the only son of Dr. Henry Neville, of Esher, and was Schlusser v Hilton. 1885 S 4,071 July 27

born in 1848. He was educated at Tunbridge School and at Emmanuel In re H. Batt Jones v Peach 1886 B 2,178 July 29

College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Notton y Gunzel 1885 N 235 Aug 4

Term, 1872, and he practises in the Chancery Division and in the LanWhatford v East 1886 W 1,788 Aug 5

caster Palatine Court, being also a member of the Northern Circuit. Smith v Salaman 1886 S 2,104. Aug 5 Harper v Murray 1886 H 701 Aug 6

Mr. SPENCER PERCIVAL BUTLER, barrister, has been appointed one of the Jackson v Tatley 1886 J 196 Aug 7

Conveyancing Counsel of the Chancery Division, in succesion to Mr. Joseph Gurney v Winchester House Co, ld

Henry Dart, resigned. Mr. Butler is the second son of the Very Rev. 1886 G 974 Aug 11 In re Loftus Otway Otway v Loftus Otway 1886 0 130 Aug 11

George Butler, D.D., Dean of Peterborough, and was born in 1828. He In re J. Whitehead & M. A. Rees Whitehead v Tracy 1886 W 1,215 graduated as a wrangler, and also in the first class of the classical tripos-in

was educated at Rugby and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he Aug 12 Lewis v Evans & Co 1886 L 593 Aug 12

1851. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1856, Haywood v Whitaker 1885

and he practises as an equity draftsman and conveyancer. H 5,153 Aug 13 Smith v Bowler 1886 S 351 Aug 19

Sir MICHAEL MORRIS, Bart., Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Parker v Bingham 1885 P 1,495 Oct 15

Division in Ireland, who has been appointed Lord Chief Justice of HalsbURY, C.

Ireland, on the resignation of Lord Chief Justice May, is the eldest son of Mr. Martin Morris, of Spiddle, Galway, and was born in 1827. He was educated at Galway College and at Trinity College, Dublin, and he was called to the bar in Ireland in 1849. He became a Queen's Counsel

in 1863. He was formerly recorder of Galway, and he was elected M.P. LEGAL NEWS.

for that borough in the Conservative interest in 1865. He was Solicitor.

General for Ireland from July till November, 1866, when he was appointed OBITUARY.

Attorney-General, and was sworn in as a member of the Irish Privy Mr. WILLIAM LATHAM, solicitor (of the firm of Latham & New), of Council, and in the following year he was appointed a judge of the Court Leicester and Melton Mowbray, died at his residence at the latter place of Common Pleas. He became chief justice of that court in 1876, and on the 2nd inst, in his eighty-sixth year.

Mr. Latham was the son of he was created a baronet in 1885. Mr. Charles Latham, solicitor, and was born in 1800. He was admitted a Mr. FRANCIS JOHN GREENWELL, barrister, has been appointed Prosc. soliciter in 1822, and he had practised for over sixty years at Melton cuting Counsel to the Mint for Durham, Northumberland, and NewcastleMowbray. He was originally in practice with his father, afterwards with his son, the late Mr. Charles Latham, and, more recently, with Mr.

upon-Tyne, in succession to Mr. Adolphus George Charles Liddell, who Walter John New, the firm also having offices at Leicester.

has been appointed Chief Clerk of the Crown Office in the House of Lords.

Mr. Latham was a perpetual commissioner for Leicestershire and a commissioner for

Mr. Greenwell is the second son of Mr. Francis Greenwell, of Durham,

and was born in 1852. He was educated at Durham Grammar School and affidavits in the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland. He had also at Balliol College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple held several local appointments. He was clerk to the Melton Mowbray in November, 1877, and he practises on the North-Eastern Circuit, and at Local Board, clerk to the Hudson and Storer Charity Trustees, and deputy-coroner for the Framland Division of Leicestershire. He had also

the Durham, Northumberland, and Newcastle Sessions. Mr. Greenwell served the office of Under-Sheriff of Leicestershire.

was appointed recorder of the city of Durham in 1883. Mr. Adam GIFFORD, Lord GIFFORD, formerly a judge of the Court of

Mr. Thomas BURTON, solicitor, of 14, Spring-gardens, has been appointed Session in Scotland, who died at Granton Lodge, near Edinburgh, on the

a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. 20th inst., was born in 1820.

Mr. George DENISON LUMB, solicitor (of the firm of Lumb & Bailey), of Edinburgh, and he was admitted a member of the Faculty of Advocates Leeds, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the in cotland in 1849. He was an advocate depute from 1861 till 1865, in Supreme Court of Judicature. which year he was appointed Sheriff of Orkney and Shetland. He was Mr. HENRY RIMER, solicitor, of 8, Quality-court, Chancery-lane, and appointed a Lord Ordinary in 1870, when he assumed the honorary title Kingston-upon-Thames, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer of Lord Gifford, and he became a judge of the 2nd Division of the Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Court of Session in 1878.

In 1881, in consequence of an attack of paralysis, he retired on a pension. Lord Gifford had been for several

Mr. GEORGE EDWARD BOURNE Padley, solicitor, of Lincoln and Skegyears a widower, and he leaves one son. He was buried at the Calton

ness, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Cemetery, Edinburgh, on the 25th inst.

Supreme Court of Judicature. Sergeant William CAMPBELL SLEIGH, who died at Ventnor on the 23rd

Mr. J. T. EDMONDS, solicitor, of 4, Great Winchester-street, E.C., and Sleigh, and was born in 1818. He was called to the bar at the Middle

in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. Edmonds was admitted in Temple in Hilary Term, 1846, when he joined the Home Circuit. He

September, 1880. devoted most of his attention to criminal law, and he was for many years one of the leaders at the Central Criminal Court and at the Middlesex

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. Sessions. He had also a large licensing business. In 1868 he was created

J. VINER LEEDBR and W. Vazie Simons, solicitors (Simons & Leeder), å serjeant-at-law, at the same time as the late Sergeant Sargood and the Swansea. Jan. 1.

[Gazette, Jan. 21. ] late Sergeant Cox, this having been the latest instance of a creation of EDWARD BANNISTER, FRANCIS BANNISTER, and George PenkIVIL KING, serjeants except in the case of newly-appointed common law judges

solicitors (Bannisters & King), 13, John-street, Bedford-row, as far as Dr. Serjeant sleigh was for many years a prosecuting counsel to the Bank of regards the said Francis Bannister. Jan. 20.

ANDREW MALCOLM Bateson and William HANLEY HUTCHINSON, solicitors Clations. He made several efforts to enter Parliament, having contested (Bateson & Hutchinson), Ripon, Yorkshire. Jan. 1.

Evelyn BORRER BLAKER and John HASSALL KIRTLEY, solicitors (Blaker servative interest. A few years ago he went abroad for the beneft of his & Kirtley), Brighton. Jan. 21.

[Gazette, Jan. 25.] health, and he practised for a short time in Tasmania. Mr. CHARLES BARHAM Bond, solicitor (of the firm of Bond & Becking

GENERAL sale), of Taunton and Wellington, died at the latter place on the 15th In a recent case of Murdoch v. Murdoch on the 21st inst., Sir J. Hannen inbrari Mr. Bond was the son of Mr. Edward Augustus Bond, principal said it should be widely known that women who committed adultery librarian of the British Museum, and was born in 1854.

He served his would not b allowed to have access to the children of their marriage.


BOLTON EXCHANGE ROOMS.-By an order made by Fox. Bristowe, V.C., dated

Jan 6. it was ordered that the association be wound up. Crofton and Oraven,
Manchester, agents for Fullagar & Hulton, Bolton, solors for petners;

A meeting will be held in Lincoln's-inn hall, on Saturday next, at 2.15 p.m., to consider the advisability of establishing a society to encourage the study and advance the knowledge of the history of English law. Lord Justice Fry has consented to preside. It is suggested that the name of the society shall be the Selden Society, and that its objects shall include (1) The printing of inedited MSS. and the publication of new editions and translaticns of works having an important bearing on English legal history; (2) The collection of materials for a dictionary of AngloFrench and of law terms; (3) The collection of materials for a history of English law; (4) The holding of meetings for the reading and discussion of papers ; (5) The publication of a selection of the papers read at the meetings and of other original communications.



London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Jan. 18.
EDZARD, GEORGE, Devonshire st. Queen's sq. Feb 15. Central Investment and

Building Societies Co. v Thornhill, North, J. Fleet, Hatton garden,

[ocr errors]


London Gaxette or any newspaper, should be sent to Harrison and Sons, PubCOURT PAPERS.

lishers London Gazette, 45, St. Martin's-lane, W.C. The Gazette is published every

Tuesday and Friday.-(ADVT.]

UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35.

Mr. Justice

No. 1.
No. 2.


CHITTY. Mon., Jan. 31 Mr. Beal Mr. Carrington Mr. Godfrey Mr. Pugh

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Jan. 11.

March 25.
Tues., Feb. 1


AMPHLETT, JOSEPH, Bromsgrove, Worcester, Gent.
Wednesday 2 Leach
Carrington Godfrey


Thursday.. 3 Godfrey


BANCKS, BOBERT OLDDISS, Wells st, Camberwell, Card Manufacturer. Feb 5. Friday

Carrington Godfrey


Price, John st, Bedford row
Saturday... 5 Ward



BARRY, EMILY, Cleveland sq, Hyde park. Feb 12. Cooper & Walker, Birchin In
Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Mr. Justice BENNEWITH, FREDERICK, Abingdon st, Bethnal green, Bootmaker. Feb 8.

Chapman, Pancras lane
Monday, January 31 Mr. Pemberton Mr. Jackson Mr. Ward

BRADFIELD, CHARLES THOMAS, De Beauvoir rd, Kingsland, Horse Dealer. Feb Tuesday, February...... 1

19. Aylward, Clifford's inn

2 Pemberton Jackson


BROMLEY, CHARLES BAKEWELL, Walton, nr Stone, Stafford, Shoe Manufacturer.

Feb 28. Paddock & Sons, Hanley Thursday 3 Clowes



BUCHNER, JOHANN GEORG, Sydney, New South Wales, Surveyor. Jan 31.


Freund, Finsbury_circus 5 Clowes



DOUGHTY, ELIZABETH, Dronfield, Derby, April 5. Broomhead & Co, Sheffield
ELLIS, WILLIAM, Halifax, Farmer. Feb 7. Garsed, Halifax
ETZERODT, ALBERTUS FREDERICK, Ober Dobling, nr Vienna, Austria, Gent.

March 31. McMillip, Bloomsbury sq.

FARNELL, THOMAS, Birmingham, Silversmith. Feb 28. Bradley, Birmingham
London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Jan. 21.

FIELD, WALTER EDWARD JOHN, Oxton, nr Birkenhead, Draper's Salesman. Mar


FRADD, EDWIN, Symington House, Homerton, Esq. Feb 12. Cavell, Waterloo LIMITED IN CHANCERY.]


GROTE, ARTHUR, Ovington sq, Esq. Feb 28. Wickings Smith & Son, Lincoln's

inn fields LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Jan 14, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Saturday, Jan 29. Broad & Co, Laurence Pountney lane, solors

HARRISON, MARY, Portland rd, Notting hill. Feb 2. Meynell, Furnival st for petner

HAYWARD, Rev JOHN WHEELER, Flintham Vicarage, Notts. Feb 8. Stuart & STANDARD ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, Tull, Gray's inn sg

presented Jan 19, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Jan 29. Morley & JAMES, THOMAS, Stanwix, Cumberland, Yeoman. Jan 31. Bendle, Carlisle
Shirreff, Gresham house, solors for petner

KITCHENER, ANN, Hertford. Feb 23. Spence & Co, Hertford

MAIN, JAMES, Leicester, Gent. Jan 31. Curtis, Leicester
HUNCOAT MILL CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Jan 18, directed
to be heard before the Vice-Chancellor, at the Assize Courts, Manchester, on

McVEAGH, HENRY CHAPMAN, Bath, Esq. Feb 22. Gibbs, Bath Monday, Jan 31. Whitley & Co, Liverpool, solors for petners

MCVEAGH, MARY, Bath. Feb 22. Gibbs, Bath WILLIAM HARTLEY & Sons, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before Feb 15, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or

MARSDEN, JOHN, Brighton, Esq. Feb 1. Janson & Co, Finsbury circus claims, to Charles Henry Wade, 71, King st, Manchester, Friday, Feb 25, at NOBLE, HENRY, Wigginton, York, Shoemaker. Feb 11. Proctor, York 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the said claims FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

PAYNTER, FRANCIS, Bath. Feb 22. Gibbs, Bath DAVENHAM WORKING MEN'S CLUB, Meald Schoolhouse, Church st, Davenham. PRICE, WILLIAM, Goldcliff, Monmouth, Farmer. Feb 13. Davis & Lloyd, NewChester. Jan 14

port SILEBY DRUIDS' FEMALE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Undenominational Schools, Sileby, SHACKLELON, JOHN, Halifax, Retired Bookkeeper. Feb 19. Boocock, Halifax Leicester. Jan 17 SUSPENDED FOR THREE MONTHS.

SHAW, JAMES HENRY, Southampton, Music Dealer. Feb 19. Hickman & Son

Southampton CHURCH OF ENGLAND BENEFIT CLUB, Blue Boar Inn, Stone st, Dudley, Worces

SOUTHERN, GEORGE SAVAGE, Ashton on Mersey, Chester, Gent. Feb 24. Fox, ter. Jan 19

Manchester HOPE TEETOTAL FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Middlesex hall, 24a, Middlesex st, Clarendon sq, Somers Town, N.W. Jan 19

SUMMERFIELD, JACOB, Endsleigh gdns, Euston rd, Money Lender. March 1.

Joel & Parsons, Newcastle on Tyne
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Jan. 25.

TAYLOR, SAMUEL, Bedford, Esq. March 5. Smith, Sandy

TURNER, MARY, Broadhalgh, nr Rochdale. Feb 16. Standring & Taylor, Roch-

dale CARLYLE SLATE AND SLAB Co, LIMITED.-By an order made by Stirling, J., dated

WARD, HENRY, Landport, Portsea, Mariner. Feb 12, King, Portsea Jan 15, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Bolton & Co, agents

WOOD, SAMUEL, Castleford, York, Saddler. March 1. Phillips, Castleford for Withington & Co, Manchester, sosors for petners CHROMOGRAPHIC ENAMEL Co, LIMITED.-By an order made by North, J., dated

WYATT, Sir MATTHEW, Hyde Park sq, Knt. Feb 28. Fardell & Dashwood, Mitre Jan 15, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be con

chbrs, Temple tinued. Walker & Mewburn-Walker, Furnival's inn, solors for petner

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Jan. 14. GUTTERIDGE & CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Jan 15, it was

ASIITON, JOSEPH SKEFFINGTON, Lee, Kent, Brick’ Manufacturer. Feb 12. Dodd,

New Broad st ordered that the company be wound up. Tanner, Ciicus pl, Finsbury circus, solor for petner

BAILEY, Captain WILLIAM, R.N., Fenchurch st. Feb 14. Hallett & Spottiswoode, LLYNVI AND TONDU CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Jan 15,

Craven st, Charing Cross it was ordered that the company be wound up. Johnston & Co, Raymond

BENNETT, RICHARD MORISON, Plymouth, Chemist. March 1. Rooker & Co, bldgs, Gray's inn, agents for Winder, Bolton, solors for petner

Plymouth ROYAL EXCHANGE SHIPPING CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J.,

BIBBINGTON, SIMON, Rochdale, Lancaster, Gent. Feb 19. Standring & Taylor, dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Botterell &

Rochdale Roche, Leadenhall st, solors for petner

BIRCH, JOHN, Liverpool, Gent. Feb 12. Norris & Sons, Liverpool SHORTHORN DAIRY CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Stirling, J., dated Jan BLACKNELL, ALFRED, Rock Cottage, Sunbury, Gent. Feb 18. Stanley Evans, 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Jennings, Holborn, solor

Theobalds rd, Bedford row for petner

BOYD, ELIZABETH, Byker, Newcastle upon Tyne. Feb 12. Johnston, Newcastle SOMERSET BREWERY CO,.LIMITED.-By an order made by North, J., dated Jan 15, it upon Tyne was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. CAMBELL, CHARLOTTE, Bangor lsycoed, Flint. Feb 5.

Longueville & Co, Marsland & Co, Chancery lane, agents for Curtis & Son, Neath, solors for Oswestry SPEEGE'S (BRITISH) MOTIVE POWER SYNDICATE, LIMITED.-By an order made CLARK, SARAH MARY CATHERINE, Tottenham ter, Tottenham. Feb 12. Wolfer

CASTLE, MARY, Grantham, Lincoln. April 1. Thompson & Sons, Grantham by Chitty, J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the syndicate be wound up. Mew, King st, Cheapside, color for petrer

stan & Avery, Ironmonger lane VENEZUELA-PANAMA GOLD MINE CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Stirling,

COWARD, THOMAS JOHN, Guildhall chbis, Moorgate st, Solicitor. J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company

Lovell, Finsbury sq be continued. Blunt & Lawford, Gresham st, solors for petner

Evans, THOMAS, Barking. Essex, Licensed Victualler. March 15. Preston, Gt WHEELER HORSE SHOE NAIL Co, LIMITED.-North, J., has, by an order, dated

Eastern rd. Stratford Jan 13, appointed Alfred Augustus James, 66, Coleman st, to be official liqui

FIELDER, RICHARD RAMSAY, Folkestone, M.A. March 1. Johrson, Theobalds dator


FRESHWATER, MATILDA, Church rd, Islington. Feb 24. Jones & Co, John ste LIMITED IN CHANCERY. LUNE SHIPPING CO, LIMITED.-The Vice-Chancellor has fixed Friday, Feb 4, at GREENWOOD, JANE ELIZABETH, Fratton, Southampton. Feb 14. Tyrrell, Ray

GRAY, BENJAMIN, Pendleton, Lancaster. Feb 28. Cunliffe & Co, Manchester 12, at 9, Cook st, Liverpool, for the appointment of an official liquidator

monds bidgs, Gray's inn

March 1.

« PreviousContinue »