Page images

the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which provides that a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy “if he gives notice to any of his creditors that he has suspended or is about to suspend payment of his debts." The debtor was ii trader, and in April, 1885, his creditors agreed (out o_f court) to accept a composition of 6s. 8d. in the pound, payable in three instalments at the expiration of three, six, and nine months from the date _of a cornposition eed which was executed on the lst of April, the third instalment being secured by the covenant of a surety. The first instalment was duly paid. When the time for aying the second instalment was approaching, the debtor found that he sgould not be able to pay it without selling his business and stock-in-trade, and he had to ask for the indulgence of the creditors while he was making arrangements for this sale. He entered into an agreement for the sale of the goodwill of his business for £515, and of his stock-in-trade at a valuation to be made by valuers named. The value of the stock was afterwards determined to be £225, which was less than the debtor had expected, and much less than he had given for the stock. On the 11th of November, 1885, some accountants who were acting in the matter for him sent the following circular letter on his behalf to his new creditors, whose debts had been contracted since the date of the composition agreement :—“ Ra Lamb. The debtor in this case claims your indulgence. In February of the present year he found himself unable to meet his engagements, and we were employed to prepare a statement of his afiairs, which was submitted to a meeting of

is creditors. It was resolved that his offer of 6s. 8d. in the pound should be accepted, and that he should sign a declaration of insolvency, and also an assignment of the estate, to protect it against execution creditors who might not assent. ‘I he debtor paid the first instalment of his composition, but before the second became due he found that, in consequence of the increased depression of trade and his inability to obtain credit in London as hitherto, he was unable to meet the same, and he thereupon entered into treaty to sell his goodwill and stock for a sum sufficient, as he considered, to pay off his old composifi n and his liabilities in respect of new debts ; but instead of £600 he obtained only £515, and his stock was taken at a valuation. This valuation is the main cause of his inability to pay his new creditors in full. . . . The debtor, by the terms of his agreement. being bound to this valuation, received in payment _ for a stock of £660 only £225. This sum, less some deductions for rent, &c., is suficient to pay his new creditors 5s. in the pound, and this offer he submits to them. The payment for the stock is by bills, but, as he hopes to discount the same, he proposes to pay the 5s. in cash. The last instalment of l_us old coniposition_ will be paid by his surety. \Ve may state, from an mvestigation of_ his affairs, that he has no other property except his household furniture, which was settled by ante-nuptial settlement beforelie commenced business; and we may also state that it is not his 1l1be1_1t1on go agam mto business, but to look for a situation." The creditors did not _all assent to this proposition, and the result was that a bankruptcy petition was presented against the debtor, and on the 30th of December he was ad Judicated a bankrupt. In the meantime the accountants received mon_eys on behalf of the debtor, and one'of them made payments to creditors and to the bankrupt. The oflicial receiver, as trustee in the ba_nkruptcy, sought to disallow these payments, on the ground that the circular was an act of bankruptcy within sub-section 1 (/i_.) of section 4, and that the accountants, having received the moneys with notice of _the act of baiikruptcy, must account for them to the trustee. The Judge of the Liverpool County Court held that the circular was an act of bankruptcy, and his decision was affirmed by the Divisional Court (Cave and A. L. Smith, JJ.). '

THE COURT 01-‘ Ai-i-ski, (Lord Esiiiiii, M.R., and Bowax and Fiiv, L.JJ.), afiirmed the decision. Lord Esnsa, M.R., said that he felt great difficulty in understanding the observations _of two of the judges in Er parlc Oasller (33 W._R. 126, 13 Q.B. D.4'l1) ; the distinctions which they took were too fine for him to follow. In E.-v parts Oastler the debtor had told his creditors that he was insolvent, and that he would pay them a composition. It was consistent with this that what he meant was, “ I cannot pay you all, and you _can make me a bankrupt if you please; but if you refuse the composition, and do not make me a bankrupt at once, I have enough means to pay_all of you who _come to me for payment in the ordinary course of business, and as 1 intend to go on with my business (at any rate, I do not say_ I am not going on),_I shall probably make more

money.” In the present case the debtor said that he had only £225, and ‘

that he was going out of business and intended to look for a situation It was absurd to suppose that any salary he would obtain in that wawould enable him to pay his creditors. \Vhen he should have paid H105: creditors who should first come to him, as he stated that he had no money beyond the £225, and would not have any more, thc necessary implication was that he could not and would not pay the other creditors. It was in effect, astatenient that he intended not to pay the other creditors: i

other words, that he was about to suspend the payment of his debts dndn therefore, sub-section 1 (h.) applied. It was like the case of a b,a,nke;giving notice that he would pay his creditors who came to him to

morrow, but that he would not pay those who came afterwards B . ' L J , said that the term " sus ension f " ' mum

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

might not. Regard. must be had to the circumstances of the case. If the debtor's language must necessarily lead the creditors toinfer that their only albematives were the acceptance of a composition, which they were not bound to accept, and a suspension of payment by him, the only reasonable inference was that he was about to suspend payment. It had been argued that a debtor could not suspend payment unless he abstained from paying his debts when he had the means of paying them. That was absurd, for the result would be that a man who was hopelessly insolvent never could “suspend payment" within the meaning of sub-section l (b.) Ba: parte Oils!/0:‘ was decided by all the members of the court on the ground that a statement made in mere casual conversation would not amount to a notice of suspension of payment. Two of the judges decided the case also on another ground——viz., that a statement by a dcbtor that he was unable to pav his debts, coupled with an offer of a composition of twenty per cent., was not a notice that he had suspended, or was about to suspend, payment of his debts. In that case those two Judges did not think that a suspension of payment by the debtor was the only alternative offered to the creditors it they did not accept the composition which the debtor offered to them. There was a material difference between a debtor saying to his creditors, “ If you all come down upon me at once I shall not be able to pay you,” and his saying, “ I shall not be able to pay you if you come to me in the ordinary course of business." It was cousistent with the former statement that, if the debtor was allowed to go on in the ordinary course of his trade, he might be able to weather the storm. In the present case the true construction of the circular was, that no alternative was left to the creditors but a suspension of _pay_inent by the debtor, if they did not accept the 5s. in the vpound. This distinguished the present case from Er parts Oastler. \ ien a man told you that, if you would not take 5s. in the pound which he offered you, he must go into the Court of Bankruptcy, as a matter of business the inference was that he intended te suspend the payment of his debts. Fin", L..I., had felt some doubt by reason of Ex prirtc Orlsfler; but, mthe result, he had arrived at the same conclusion. The circular was an intimation that the debtor was about to suspend the payment of his debts, or, at any rate, that he was insolvent, and that he intended either to suspend the payment of his debts at once, or to pay those creditor! who came to him first, and to suspend the payment of the others as soon as he should have come to the end of his resources, which would be very fl00D.—COL'Z\'slEL. Yale-Lre; Muir illuckemie. Soniciroiis, 6'. W. Dammit; Solicitor to l/ie Board of Tnula.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The question in this case was whether a bill of sale given as security for money was valid. The bill of sale was dated the 30th of November, 1885, and the chattels comprised in it were assigned to the gran?-<19! W secure a sum of £70 and interest thereon at the rate of sixty pe_r cent. per annum. The grantor agreed to repay the principal sum by mstaluicnlfl as follows :—£6 on the 31st of December, 1885, and the like sum on the last day of every succeeding month until the last day of October, 1536» and the balance of the principal i-um then remaining due, with llll-"9571 1" the rate aforesaid, on the last day of November, 1886. There was A180 B covenant by the grantor that he would, so long as the prlncipabsuin Oi £70, or any part thereof, should remain unpaid at the times thereinbefoie appointed for payment of the instalments of the principal sum, P"! interest after the rate agreed upon the “ said debt," or upon so much as should, for the time being, remain unpaid. There was also a covenant by the grantor for further assurance at his cost. The bill of sale also provided that the chattels might be seized and sold by the gfl1l1V*‘° “1 events corresponding with those mentioned in section 7 of the Act of 18811 and there was a declaration that the grantee might, out of the plrflceedll of sale, retain, not only all principal and interest, but also a costs, charges, payments, and expenses incurred, made, or sustained in or abvlli entering upon the premises, and in discharging any distress, execulI19l1| or other incumbrance on the chattels, and seizing, taking, and kcellmg possession of the chattels, and in and about the carriage, removal, Wale housing, valuing, or sale (including the cost of inventories, cataloS“°°i and advertising) of the chattels. Cave, J. (3-L W. R. 760), held that U19 bill of sale was valid, and the Cornr or APPEAL (Lord Esiiaa, M.R., Bud Bowss and Fiiv, L JJ ) afllrmed the decision. It was argued that l-11° bill of sale was invalid ( l) because the principal debt was 110 be 1'°P“_1d by unequal instalments, thc last instalment being £4 instead of £0; (3) because there was an agreement to pay interest on interest; (3) W5“? of the insertion of the covenant for further assurance; (4) by Wm“ ° the trust of the proceeds of sale. .

Fin", L.J., delivered the judgment of the court. As to the first 0bJ°°' tion, their lordships were of opinion that the liberty given W the statutory form to insert stipulated times or time of payment other than I-11959 suggested by the form, excluded the necessity of the pflymellfs, being equal instalments. There was liberty to insert one single t1111° 1°; payment, and, if only one time of payment was fixed, and one pflyme“ only made, the repayment could not be said to be by equal instalm£'1"-‘The provision for the cqiiiility of the instalments was, tliercfore, ll°5 obligatory, but was subiect to variation. As to the second Oblecuon’ their lordships thought that on the true constriiction of the 00"n'mt" it did not provide for the payment of interest on interest. H6 thougm the W°Yd5»Haid debt.” referred only to the debt mentioned in immedwte antccedence—viz., “ tho principal sum of £70 or any part thereof," mldi consequently, described principal only. And ‘it was to be observed that

[ocr errors][graphic]

the contingency on which the covenant was made to operate was only in the event of de ay in payment of the principal sum or some part thereof, and that the covenant did not operate when there was default or delay in payment only of interest. As to the third objection, their lordships thought that the covenant for further assurance was one “ for the maintenance of the security," and was, therefore, free from objection. As to the fourth objection, according to the decision of the majority of the court in Re Mm-ritt, a power of sale arose on the exercise of the power to seize. That power must carry with it implied trusts of the sale moneys, and the question was, therefore, whether the express declaration in the hill of sale did, or did not, conform to and agree with those implied trusts. The trusts expressly declared in the present case appeared to their lordships reasonable and proper under the circumstances, and did not, in their opinion, diifer from those which would have been implied. For these reasons the bill of sale was free from objection.—Coi'ssai., Coupe)‘ Willis, Q,.C., and T. Lee Roberts; Sir H. Dairy, Q.C., Clay, and C’. C‘. Scott. Soiicirons, Andrew Trimble 4~ (30.; P. E. Vamiei-pump.

[merged small][ocr errors]

A limited liability company were, while being compulsorily wound up, in possession of a brewery property which they had contracted to purchase, but which had not been conveyed to them, as only a portion of the purchase-money had been paid. This property was sold for £24,900 by the solicitors to the oficial liquidator, and after satisfaction of the claims of former successive owners for unpaid purchase-money, a sum of £1,750 remained for the ofllcial liquidator. The solicitors negotiated the sale, no auctioneer or agent being employed or paid any commission by the vendors. The solicitors also acted for original former owners, to whom £21,000 out of the total £24,900 was payable ; but they did not act for an intermediate purchaser, who received£l,800, nor for the ultimate purchasers, both of whom were represented by other solicitors. The ultimate purchasers employed an auctioneer and valuor, who, however, did not act tor the vendors or receive any commission from them. By an order in the liquidation made in J une, 1885, the sale was confirmed on the footing that the liquidator was to receive the £1,750 already mentioned, and the court fee (N o. 69 in the Supreme 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 oflicial liqnidator, the original owners, and the intermediate purchasers. In November, 1885, the solicitors’ costs were being taxed in the liquidation, and they included in their bill scale charges as upon a scale of £24,900, as follows :—Negotiating, £102 5s. ; deducing title and completing, including contract, £107 5s. The taxingmaster disallowed the negotiating fee, and only allowed £22 l0s. for deducing and completing, being the scale charge upon the £1,750 received by the liquidator. The solicitors carried in objections to the taxation, contending that the company was owner in equity of the property, and that the olficial liquidator was, throughout the transaction, responsible as vendor That the business of the brewery had greatly depreciated, the company realizing much less than had been anticipated, but that nevertheless it was essential, in the winding up of the company, that the assets should be sold. That the ofllcial liquidator and the solicitors arranged the sale and price and the terms and conditions thereof, and that no commission was paid to any auctioneer or estate or other agent, and the solicitors claimed that the negotiating fee and the deducing scale fee must both be calculated upon the entire and undivided amount of the purchase-money. The taxing master disallowed the obJections, on the ground that the solicitors were also the solicitors for the Original owners, the parties most interested in the sale of the roperty, and who received the greater portion of the purchase-money, anii, that the ordpr sanctioning the sale provided for the payment to the liquidator of £1,100, and that the court fee was only paid on that sum, and that he therefore had allowed the scale charge on that amount. He also stated that the amount paid for the property included plant, goodwill, fixtures, &c., and that the solicitors could not, in any case, be entitled to the scale charge on the value of that portion of the property, they being only em-1ed, in any case, to charge on the value of the leasehold premises, and that the amoimt paid to the liquiclator was not the balance on taking an account, but a lump sum for the liquidator's interest, whatever it might be. Qiiirrr, J ., confirmed the view taken by the taxing master. His lordship, m the course of his judgment, said that, if he had decided the question on the formal contract entered into by the ofllcisl liquidator for the sale of the property for £24,000, the taxing master's conclusion would be erroneous, ut that was not the whole of the case. The original vendors sold the property to the intermediate purchasers, who, in their turn, sold to the company. The original vendors had a lien on the propertyto the extent of over £21,000, and they had not part/ed with the legal estate. There Was nothing coming to the company out of the sale for £24,000, because the claim of the first vendors exceeded £21,000, and the claim of the intermediate purchasers more than exhausted the balance. The otllcial liquidat/or came into the arrangement for the sale in order that he might obtain the settlement of a cross-claim which hchad against the intcrmcdiutepurchzwcrs, who had been the promoters of the company. The contract for the sale for £24,000 entered into by the ollicial liquidator was not binding until it hid been sanctioned by the court. This order was one which bound all the Pflmefl. as it provided that £21,000 should be paid to the original '_°'1‘§°1'9» £1,800 to the intermediate purchasers, and £1,750 to the ofllcial “qmdawr by way or compromise we in full discharge of any claims he


might have against the intermediate purchasers. In the aflldavit made by the otficial liquidator upon the application for the order to confirm the contract, he stated that the intermediate purchasers had request/ed him to sell the property, and, as an inducement to him to do so, they offered to pay him £1,500 in compromise of his claims against them, and also to pay £250 in discharge of the claim for costs set up by the former solicitors to the company ; and on this understanding the ofllcial liquidator allowed his name to be used as a matter of convenience. The otllcial liquidator's instructions to his solicitor with regard to the preparation of the contract were that he was willing to concur in the sale of the compauy’sinterest in the brewery for £24,000. To hold, however, that the olficial liquidator was merely a concurring party would be to take too narrow a viow as against the solicitors. The substance of the case, when the matter was looked at in all its bearing, was that the liquidator sold whatever interest the company had in the concern for £1,750. It was argued that it was a sale subject to incumbrances; but, on the facts as stated, it was not that, inasmuch as the liquidator would get his £1,750 whatever the amount of the iucunibrances 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 taxing master had allowed nothing for the negotiation, and he thought the view he had taken with reference to that point was also right because the negotiations were those of the vendors, the parties principally interested. There were no negotiations for sale on behalf of the oiflcia liquidator, but there were some with reference to the compromise of a claim. His lordship thought that, as a matter of principle between a vendor and his own solicitor, it would not be right, in many cases, to look at the contract for sale: the substance of the transaction should be gone to. In no case would the solicitor, if he were so minded, be allowed to put the transaction in sucha form as would give him the larger fee; but there was no pretence for making such a suggestion in the present case. The gist of his judgment tuined on this, that, looking at the whole of the matters with reference to the provisional contract, coupled with the order which made it binding on all the parties interested in the property, the liquidator's name was used in the provisional contract merely for the purpose of convenience—the convenience of all the parties. The result, therefore. was that the taxing master's decision must stand.—CoL'xsni., Whilehorne, Q..C., and Beale. Soniciroas, Blunt 75- Lawford.


Ox \Vcdnesday afternoon a deputation of Lancashire magistrates waited upon the Home Secretary to urge upon the Government the inconveniences arising from her Majesty's judges trying prisoners committed to quarter sessions.

Lord Dsiuir said that in consequence of the changes which had been made within the last three years the judges of assize now considered themselves bound to make a complete gaol delivery when they went _on circuit. Formerly it was held that the judges of nssize dealt only with cases not triable at quarter sessions, and all minor cases were left for quarter sessions to dispose of. The deputation ventured to think that the hitter was a more convenient arrangement for all parties. It saved the time of the judges, and it imposed no duty upon the quarter sessions which the magistrates were not perfectly willing to undertake. Unless there were some good reason against it, of which they were not informed, they hoped that in future the judges of assize would not be required to undertake this very heavy addition to their labours. After remarks by lllr. J. T. Hibbert, lll.P., and Mr. Higgin, Q.C.,

Mr. MA'i"l'HE\\'s said that, izpeaking as an oillcial and not as a lawyer, the invariable form of the ommission of Gaol Delivery empowered the judges to deal with all persons whom they found in gaols. In the winter assizes commissions there was a special proviso giving the judges a discretion not to try quarter sessions cases. _Iu 1881 a proviso was introduced into the spring and summer assize commissions directing the judges not to try quarter esssions prisoners. That continued only during two years, and the proviso was struck out in January, 1883, in conseijuence of the opinion of the Lord Chancellpr_( Lord Selborne) that it was il cgal. They would all feel that the opinion of Lord Sclborne was entitled to the greatest weight, and it_ was in consequence of that opinion, that it was contrary to the spirit, if not tho letter, of the Habeas Corpus Act to prohibit j udges_ from delivering a gaol when they went down to a commission of gaol delivery, that the proviso_ was struck out. As he had said, the ordinary commission of gaol delivery enabled judges, if they pleased, and at their discretion, to leave quarter sessions prisoners for trial at the next quarter sessions if the witnesses were not in attendance. He had no hesitation in saying that he thought quarter sessions were admirable tribunals which_trie_d their prisoners perfectly well and sutliciently well for all purposes of Justice. One would be very glad if any machinery could be contrived by which they should _have the _tr_ial of all the prisoners which they had jurisdiction to try. with the opinion of Lord Selborne before him, that the prohibition was illegal, 116,00‘-llii not take upon himself the responsibility of advising that the judges comniissions should be altered as suggested. There remained the _0_tl_ic\‘ altorniitivo, which socmcd a very valuable one —mimcly, that ilcsibility should be allowed in the lining oi the dates of quarter E05-510118. He had got so far as to draft a Bill—at least his predecessor had—for the_ piirpflgfi of giving the same latitude to quarter sessions in varying the period of_ _ their sittings as they now had for the Easter sittings. [M!i1!§IG0l:6ns The recorder of the borough is under no compulsion to hold sess £0: at any particular time. He can fix his own time. Itisonly the 508810118

[ocr errors]

I: the county that are fixed by statute] Exactly; and no doubt recorderfii with a little good-will, could clear off all their sessions cases before the judges came down. It certainly seemed t_o him that the Act could_ be modified in this direction without inconvenience if there should_ be time for any legislation this session. At any rate he would consider it and see in which way the amendment might best be made. Then there was the suggestion made by Mr. Higgin in his printed letter, that _there should be some oflicial notification of the time or holding the assizes so that thes sessions could be fixed at a date which would enable the gaols to be delivered of sessional prisoners before the assizes. He would like to know what time would sutflce for that. _ _

Some conversation then occurred, when the deputation Bold that 3 fortnight's ofiiicial notice would, perhaps, be suificient. It was stated that the judges generally gave about that notice,_ and the deputation thought their wishes would be met by a proviso m the proposed B111 requiring the clerk of assize to give such notice to the clerk of t e peace.


The following gentlemen were on Wednesday called to the bar :-—_

Isssu TEM1’LB.—J0l‘ll1 Harris Stone, M.A., F.L.S., F.C.S. Cambridge; Robert Henry Walter Woodward, B.A. Oxford; Frederick Feeney, M.A., LL.M. Cambridge; Henry Joseph Knowles; William Robert Roberts, Oxford; \Villiam Hessel Linsley, B.A. Oxford; James Roberts M.A., LL.B. Dublin; Edward Alexander Sinclair Macrnunn; Andrew Cassels Kay, B.A. Oxford; Clement David Clarke, B.A. Cambridge ; Oscar Joachim Bagram; David Emile Seligman, B.A. Cambridge; the Hon. Rowland Charles Frederick Leigh, B.A. Cambridge; Duncan l\IacKenzie Keely, B A., LL.B. Cambridge (holder of a scholarship in real property law, awarded in July, 1885); Ramdas Chubildas, B.A. LL.B., B.C.L. Cambridge (foundation scholar and senior Sanscrit prizenian of Christ's College, Cambridge); William Tudor Howell, B.A. Oxford; Edward Samuel Abinger; Anthony Micheal Coll, B.A. Oxford; William Prichard Gordon, B.A. Oxford; Herbert Levi Jacobs, B.A. London ; Percy Copeland Morris, LL.B. Cambridge; Charles Edward Drummond Telfer; Samuel Wadsworth, M.A. Oxford; James l\Iorton Nicholson, B.A. Cambridge (holder of a scholarship in equity, awarded in July 1885) ; Harry Joseph Turrell, B.A. Oxford; Frederick Lodge, B.A. Oxford; Joseph Shaw, B.A. Cambridge; Reginald Heber Jones, B.A. Oxford; Evan Edwin. Brook ; John Sidney Snelgrove, B.A. Cambridge ; Charles Storey Gilman ' Joseph Hurst ; William Higgins, London; and Arthur Coomber.

Illinois Tani-Ls.-—Herbert James Hay Mackay, M.A., LL.B. Glasgow University (£10 Roman law lecture prize, 1884; 200 guineas studentship in Roman law 1885); William Wallace, M.A. Aberdeen University; William Basil Worsfold, N .A. University College, Oxford; John Risby Wamer; Anthony Hope Hawkins, B.A. Balliol College, Oxford; John Scott Abernethy, B.A. Worcester College, Oxford; Alfred Kalisch, B.A. (open Exhibitioner), Balliol College, Oxford; Heber Leonidas Hart, LL B. University of London (first honours in jurisprudence and Roman law) ; Inayatullah, B.A. Cambridge University; James Curran; Abdul Jalil; Cyril Stephen Cobb, B.A. Merton College, Oxford; Horace Edward Miller, LL B. London University (equity and common law scholar); Arthur Viilkner Grace, LL.B. Clare College, Cambridge; James Todd; Josiah Charles Eagle Knight; Henry Milward Chataway; Maneckji B. Dadabhoy, Bombay University; James Gault; Pandit Bishan Narayan Dar ; John Knowles; James Cecil Walter Pereira.

Lmcox.u’s-nw.—William Charles Braithwaite, B.A. and LL.B. London ; George Herbert Peaks, B.A. and LL.B. Cambridge; Robert Ohignell, B.A. London; Henry Stratton Izard, of Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Alexander Faulker Shand, B.A. Cambridge; Percy Holland (Lincoln'sinn Scholarship in International and Constitutional Law, 1885), B.A. Oxford; John Eustace Harman, B.A. Cambridge; Bret Ince, of Trinity College, Cambridge; and Arthur Jackson.


At the Middle Temple the following scholarships awarded by the Treasurer and Masters of the Bench to students of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple were announced in hall, viz:—Real and Personal Property—\V. E. Vernon, a first-class scholarship of 50 guineas; H. Robinson, a second-class scholarship of 20 guineas. Common and Criminal Law~R. J . Doyle, a first-class scho arship of 50 guineas; H. E. Miller, a second-class scholarship of 20 guineas. Equity—Manook Zorab a first-class scholarship of 50 guinens; \V. \V. \Vatts, a second-clnsii scholarship of 20 guineas. International and Constitutional Law-Chan Toon, a first-class scholarship of fifty guineas ; J . M. Gover asecond-class scholarship of 20 guineas. '

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

' ' should, for the u ose of trial or hearing only, betransighlclilgto Mr. Justice lgelgwichz Now I,_the Right Honourable Hardinge Stanley, Baron Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of_G1-eat Britain, do hereby order that the several causes set forth_in the schedules hereto be accordingly transferred from the said Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, and Mr. Justice Stirling to Mr. i J usticc Kekewich, for the purpose of trial or hea_i-ing only, andbe marked in the cause books accordingly. And 11111! Order 15 to be drawn up by the registrar and set up in the several ofiices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.

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

L, —?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Ana.“ Giri-"onn, Lord Girroiin formerl ' , . . _ , y a Judge of the Court of 2555210111 1? Scotland, who died at Granton Lodge, near Edinburgh, on the Ediublilsil, was born in 1820. He was educated at the University of in Scot]? (i and he was admitted a member of the Faculty of _Advocates which u m 1849. He _was an advocate depute from 1861 till 1865, in Hp omgfiir he was appointed Sheriff of Orkney and Shetland. He was oflimd Ga Lord Ordinary in 1870, when he assumed the honorary title Court t éfi°{d. If-lid hf became a Judge of the 2nd Division of the pm] 9 hession in 18:8. In_ 1881, in consequence of an attack of ye"BYE1S,_d e retired on a pension. Lord Gifford had been for several Cememwl 0w_er, and he leaves one son. He was buried at the Cslton Y. Edinburgh, on the 25th inst.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

articles with the late Mr. William Burridge, of Wellington, where he had
practised since his admission in 1878. He was associated in partnership
with Mr. Nathaniel Thatcher Beckiugsale, and lie also had an ofllce at
Taunton. During his short professional career he had acquired a good
private practice, and he had been for some time clerk to the Samtord
Arundell School Board. Mr. Bond was unmarried. He was buried at
Kensal Green Cemetery on the 20th inst.

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Mr. SPENCER PERCIVAL BUTLER, barrister, has been appointed one of the Conveyancing Counsel of the Chancery Division, in suocesion to Mr. Joseph Henry Dart, resigned. Mr. Butler is the second son of the Very Rev. George Butler, D.D., Dean of Peterborough, and was born in 1828. He was educated at Rugby and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as a wrangler, and also in the first class of the classical tripos in 1851. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1856, and he practises as an equity draftsman and conveyancer.

Sir MICHAEL Moaiiis, Bart., Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Division in Ireland, who has been appointed Lord Chief Justice of 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 Balway, and he was elected M.1’. for that borough in the Conservative interest in 1865. He was SolicitorGeneral for Ireland from July till November, 1866, when he was appointed Attorney-General, and was sworn in as a member of the Irish Privy Council, and in the following year he was appointed a judge of the Court of Common Pleas. He became chief justice of that court in 1876, and he was created a baronet in 1885.

Mr. Faimcis J OI-IN Ganrxwnnn, barrister, has been appointed Prosccuting Counsel to the Mint for Durham, N orthumberland, and Newcastleupon-Tyne, in succession to Mr. Adolphus George Charles Liddell, who has been appointed Chief Clerk of the rown Oflice in the House oi Lords. 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 at Balliol College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in November, 1877, and he practises on the N orth-Eastern Circuit, and at the Durham, N orthumbei-land, and Newcastle Sessions. Mr. Greenwell was appointed recorder of the city of Durham in 1883.

Mr. THOMAS BURTON, solicitor, of ll, Spring-gardens, has been appointed
a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. Gsonoi: Dssisoiv Luna, solicitor (of the firm of Lumb S: Bailey), of
Leeds, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths m the
Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. Hnxnr Rinan, solicitor, of 8, Quality-court,Chancery-lane, and
Kingston-upon-Thames, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer
Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. Gsoaoir EDWARD Bovimi; l’Ai>i.i2i', solicitor, of Lincoln and _Skegness, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. J . T. Eimozms, solicitor, of 4, Great Winchester-street, E.C., and 15, Brixton-road, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. Edmonds was admitted in September, 1880. _


J . Vmxa Lssoim and W. Vazii; SIMONS, solicitors ESimons & Leeder),
Swansea. Jan. 1. 941111‘. JUL 2}-l

solicitors (Bannisters & King), 13, John-street, Bedford-row, as far as
regards the said Francis Bannister. Jan. 20. _ _

Aivnnnw MALCOLM Barssox and Wii.i.i_Aii HANLEY Hizrcnissou, solicitors
(Batesou 8: Hutchinson), Ripon, Yorkshire. Jan. 1. _ _

EVELYN Boaima BLAKRH. and J om: Hnssanr. kinrtzr, solicitors (Blake!
&Kirtley), Brighton. Jan. 21. [Gw=<'~v.Jsn- 2»-1

[ocr errors]
[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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 oi 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 translations 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 oi materials for a h_istory_ of English law : (4) The holding oi meetings for the reading and discussion of papers; (5) The publication oi‘ a selection of the papers read at the meetings and of other original communications.

[ocr errors][graphic][merged small][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic]
« PreviousContinue »