Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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 a trader, and in April, 1885, his creditors agreed (out of 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 composition deed which was executed on the 1st of April, the third instalment being secured by the covenant of a surety. The first instalment was duly paid. When the time for paying the second instalment was approaching, the debtor found that he should 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:-"Re 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 affairs, which was submitted to a meeting of his 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. The 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 compositi 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 sufficient 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 his old composition will be paid by his surety. We may state, from an investigation of his affairs, that he has no other property except his household furniture, which was settled by ante-nuptial settlement before he commenced business; and we may also state that it is not his intention to go again into 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 adjudicated a bankrupt. In the meantime the accountants received moneys on behalf of the debtor, and one of them made payments to creditors and to the bankrupt. The official receiver, as trustee in the bankruptcy, sought to disallow these payments, on the ground that the circular was an act of bankruptcy within sub-section 1 (.) of section 4, and that the accountants, having received the moneys with notice of the act of bankruptcy, 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 OF APPEAL (Lord ESHER, M.R., and BowEN and FRY, L.JJ.), affirmed the decision. Lord ESHER, M.R., said that he felt great difficulty in understanding the observations of two of the judges in Ex parte Oastler (33 W. R. 126, 13 Q. B. D. 471); the distinctions which they took were too fine for him to follow. In Ex parte 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 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 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 way would enable him to pay his creditors. When he should have paid those creditors who should first come to him, as he stated that he had no money beyond the £225, and would not have any riore, the necessary implication was that he could not and would not pay the other creditors. It was, in effect, a statement that he intended not to pay the other creditors; in other words, that he was about to suspend the payment of his debts, and, therefore, sub-section 1 (h.) applied. It was like the case of a banker giving notice that he would pay his creditors who came to him tomorrow, but that he would not pay those who came afterwards. BOWEN, L.J., said that the term "suspension of payment" was a business term used by traders, and he thought it meant the not carrying out of a man's engagements and paying his debts in the ordinary course of business as they became due and he was called upon to pay them. In each case the court must consider what the creditors who received the statement of the debtor would reasonably have a right, under the circumstances of the case, to assume that the debtor intended to do with regard to the payment of his debts. In each case the court must go back to the words of the Act. It had been argued that a mere attempt by a debtor to compromise with his creditors, or a mere declaration of his insolvency, would not per se amount to a notice of suspension of payment. Very likely they

might not. Regard must be had to the circumstances of the case. If the debtor's language must necessarily lead the creditors to infer that their only alternatives 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 1 (h.) Ex parte Oastler 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 debtor that he was unable to pay 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 alterna. tive offered to the creditors if 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 consistent 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 payment by the debtor, if they did not accept the 5s. in the pound. This distinguished the present case from Ex parte Oastler. When 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. FRY, L.J., had felt some doubt by reason of Ex parte Oastler; but, in the 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 creditors 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 soon.-COUNSEL, Yate-Lee; Muir Mackenzie. SOLICITORS, C. W. Dommett; Solicitor to the Board of Trade.

Ex parte RAWLINGS, Re CLEAVER-C.A. No. 1, 26th January. BILL OF SALE-VALIDITY-POWER OF SALE-COVENANT FOR FURTHER ASSUR•

ANCE-PAYMENT OF MORTGAGE MONEY IN UNEQUAL INSTALMENTS-INTEREST ON INTEREST-TRUST OF PROCEEDS OF SALE-BILLS OF SALE Act, 1882, ss. 7, 9, 13-FORM IN SCHEDULE.

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 grantees to secure a sum of £70 and interest thereon at the rate of sixty per cent. per annum. The grantor agreed to repay the principal sum by instalments 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, 1886, and the balance of the principal sum then remaining due, with interest at the rate aforesaid, on the last day of November, 1886. There was also a covenant by the grantor that he would, so long as the principal sum of £70, or any part thereof, should remain unpaid at the times therein before appointed for payment of the instalments of the principal sum, pay 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 grantee in events corresponding with those mentioned in section 7 of the Act of 188%, and there was a declaration that the grantee might, out of the proceeds of sale, retain, not only all principal and interest, but also all costs, charges, payments, and expenses incurred, made, or sustained in or about entering upon the premises, and in discharging any distress, execution, or other incumbrance on the chattels, and seizing, taking, and keeping possession of the chattels, and in and about the carriage, removal, warehousing, valuing, or sale (including the cost of inventories, catalogues, and advertising) of the chattels. Cave, J. (31 W. R. 760), held that the bill of sale was valid, and the COURT OF APPEAL (Lord ESHER, M.R., and BOWEN and FRY, LJJ) affirmed the decision. It was argued that the bill of sale was invalid (1) because the principal debt was to be repaid by unequal instalments, the last instalment being £4 instead of £6; (2) because there was an agreement to pay interest on interest; (3) because of the insertion of the covenant for further assurance; (4) by reason of the trust of the proceeds of sale.

FRY, L.J., delivered the judgment of the court. As to the first objec tion, their lordships were of opinion that the liberty given by the statutory form to insert stipulated times or time of payment other than those suggested by the form, excluded the necessity of the payments, being equal instalments. There was liberty to insert one single time for payment, and, if only one time of payment was fixed, and one payment only made, the repayment could not be said to be by equal instalments. The provision for the equality of the instalments was, therefore, not obligatory, but was subject to variation. As to the second objection, their lordships thought that, on the true construction of the covenant, it did not provide for the payment of interest on interest. He thought the words," said debt," referred only to the debt mentioned in immediate antecedence-viz., "the principal sum of £70, or any part thereof,” and, consequently, described principal only. And it was to be observed that

the contingency on which the covenant was made to operate was only in the event of delay 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 Morritt, 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 bill 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, differ from those which would have been implied. For these reasons the bill of sale was free from objection.—COUNSEL, Cooper Willis, Q.C., and T. Lee Roberts; Sir H. Davey, Q.C., Clay, and C. C. Scott. SOLICITORS, Andrew Trimble & Co.; P. E. Vanderpump.

CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.

Re GREY'S BREWERY CO.-Chitty, J., 20th January. SOLICITOR-COSTS OF SALES SUBJECT TO INCUMBRANCES-REMUNERATION ORDER OF AUGUST, 1882, SCHEDULE 1, PART I. R. 9.

QUARTER SESSIONS AND ASSIZES.

In no caso

ON Wednesday 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.

might have against the intermediate purchasers. In the affidavit made by the official liquidator upon the application for the order to confirm the contract, he stated that the intermediate purchasers had requested 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 official liquidator allowed his name to be used as a matter of convenience. The official 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 company's interest in the brewery for £24,000. To hold, however, that the official liquidator was merely a concurring party would be to take too narrow a view 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 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 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 official liquidator, but there were some with reference to the compromise of a claim. His lordA limited liability company were, while being compulsorily wound up, ship thought that, as a matter of principle between a vendor and his own in possession of a brewery property which they had contracted to pur- 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. the purchase-money had been paid. This property was sold for £24,900 would 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 other solicitors. The ultimate that the taxing master's decision must stand.-COUNSEL, Whitehorne, Q.C., purchasers employed an auctioneer and valuer, who, however, did not act and Beale. SOLICITORS, Blunt & 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 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 official liquidator, 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 58.; deducing title and completing, including contract, £107 5s. The taxing master disallowed the negotiating fee, and only allowed £22 10s. 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 official 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 official 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 property, and who received the greater portion of the purchase-money, and that the order sanctioning the sale provided for the payment to the liquidator of £1,750, 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 entitled, in any case, to charge on the value of the leasehold premises, and that the amount paid to the liquidator was not the balance on taking an account, but a lump sum for the liquidator's interest, whatever it might be. CHITTY, J., confirmed the view taken by the taxing master. His lordship, in the course of his judgment, said that, if he had decided the question on the formal contract entered into by the official liquidator for the sale of the property for £24,000, the taxing master's conclusion would be erroneous, but 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 property to the extent of over £21,000, and they had not parted 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 official liquidator came into the arrangement for the sale in order that he might obtain the settlement of a cross-claim which he had against the intermediate purchasers, who had been the promoters of the company. The contract for the sale for £24,000 entered into by the official liquidator was not binding until it had been sanctioned by the court. This order was one which bound all the parties, as it provided that £21,000 should be paid to the original vendors, £1,800 to the intermediate purchasers, and £1,750 to the official liquidator by way of compromise and in full discharge of any claims he

Lord DERBY 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 assize 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 latter 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 Mr. J. T. Hibbert, M.P., and Mr. Higgin, Q.C.,

Mr. MATTHEWS said that, speaking as an official and not as a lawyer, the invariable form of the Commission 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. In 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 consequence of the opinion of the Lord Chancellor (Lord Selborne) that it was illegal. They would all feel that the opinion of Lord Selborne was entitled to the greatest weight, and it was in consequence of that opinion, that it was contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Habeas Corpus Act to prohibit judges 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 tried their prisoners perfectly well and sufficiently well for all purposes of justice. One would be very glad if any machinery could be contrived by which they should have the trial of all the prisoners which they had jurisdiction to try. With the opinion of Lord Selborne before him, that the prohibition was illegal, he could not take upon himself the responsibility of advising that the judges' commissions should be altered as suggested. There remained the other alternative, which seemed a very valuable one-namely, that flexibility should be allowed in the fixing of the dates of quarter sessions. He had got so far as to draft a Bill-at least his predecessor had-for the purpose of giving the same latitude to quarter sessions in varying the period of all their sittings as they now had for the Easter sittings. [Mr. HIGGIN.The recorder of the borough is under no compulsion to hold his sessions at any particular time. He can fix his own time. It is only the sessions for

1

the county that are fixed by statute.] Exactly; and no doubt recorders, with a little good-will, could clear off all their sessions cases before the judges came down. It certainly seemed to 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 official notification of the time for 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 suffice for that.

Some conversation then occurred, when the deputation said that a fortnight's official notice would, perhaps, be sufficient. It was stated that the judges generally gave about that notice, and the deputation thought their wishes would be met by a proviso in the proposed Bill requiring the clerk of assize to give such notice to the clerk of the peace.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

CALLS TO THE BAR.

The following gentlemen were on Wednesday called to the bar:INNER TEMPLE.-John 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; William Hessel Linsley, B.A. Oxford; James Roberts M. A., LL.B. Dublin; Edward Alexander Sinclair Macmunn; 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 MacKenzie 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 prizeman 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 Morton 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.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-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 Warner; 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 Völkner 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.

LINCOLN'S INN.-William Charles Braithwaite, B.A. and LL.B. London; George Herbert Peake, B.A. and LL.B. Cambridge; Robert Chignell, 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-W. 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 scholarship of 50 guineas; H. E. Miller, a second-class scholarship of 20 guineas. Equity-Manook Zorab, a first-class scholarship of 50 guineas; W. W. Watts, a second-class scholarship of 20 guineas. International and Constitutional Law-Chan Toon, a first-class scholarship of fifty guineas; J. M. Gover, a second-class scholarship of 20 guineas.

NEW ORDERS, &c.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY DIVISION.
ORDER OF COURT.

Saturday, the 22nd day of January, 1887. Whereas, from the present state of the business before Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, Mr. Justice Stirling, and Mr. Justice Kekewich respectively, it is expedient that a portion of the causes assigned to Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, and Mr. Justice

Stirling should, for the purpose of trial or hearing only, be trans-
ferred to Mr. Justice Kekewich: Now I, the Right Honourable
Hardinge Stanley, Baron Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great
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.
Justice Kekewich, for the purpose of trial or hearing only, and be
marked in the cause books accordingly. And this order is to be
drawn up by the registrar and set up in the several offices of the
Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.
FIRST SCHEdule.

From Mr. Justice Chitty (Witness Actions).
Gould v Gould 1885 G 1,347 Aug 9
Green v Edwards 1885 G 2,787 Aug 11
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
Turner v Tymm 1886 T 937 Oct 25

1886 A 80 Oct 11

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

Hobbs v Wayet 1885 H 2,366 Nov 10
Leith v Cooke 1886 L 1,034 Nov 11

Nov 11

Rait & Gardiner v Dry Docks Corporation of London, ld 1886 R 990
Smith v McJannett 1886 S 1,403 Nov 16
In re Roser Roser v Featherstone 1886 R 1,246 Nov 19
Holt & ors v Duke & ors 1886 H 1,986 Nov 20
London & Westminster Bank, ld v Turquand & ors 1886 L 182 Nov 22
Hammersley, widow v Hammersley & ors 1884 H 3,371 Nov 22
Alexander v London Founders' Association, ld 1886 A 417 Nov 24
Hargreaves v Trustees of G. Massey & G. A. Hargraves, bankrupts 1885
L 146 Nov 26
Hall v Palmer 1886 H 2,740 Nov 27
Williams v Neath Canal Navigation Proprietors Neath Canal Navigation
Proprietors v Williams 1881 W 4,263 Nov 27
Wearing v Purkiss 1886 W 2,109 Nov 27
Boyd v Patrick 1883 B 4.359 Nov 29
Ashley v Drew 1886 A 428 Nov 30
Lichfield v Simmons 1886 L 1,840 Dec 3
Coote v Ingram 1886 C 4,601 Dec 6
Wenham Co, ld v May & Co 1886 W 2,252 Dec 7
Edison & Swan United Electric Light Co v Shippey Bros 1886 E 844
Dec 8
London Tavern Co, ld v Worley 1886 L 1,390 Dec 9
Duke of Northumberland v Bowman 1886 N 609 Dec 11

SECOND SCHedule.

From Mr. Justice North (Witness Actions). Hodgkin, Barnett, & Co v Hopper 1885 H 4,629 June 29 Baron René de Bloney v Brin, Freres & Bins Oxygen Co, ld 1886 D 400 July 1 Compton v Robinson 1883 C 3,233 July 3 In re McClure Bowers v Seddon 1882 M 2,161 July 3 Evans v Manchester, Sheffield, & Lincolnshire Ry Co July 12

July 24 July 26

1886 E 171

Wall v Stanwick 1885 W 4,487 July 12
Humphrey v Scott 1886 H 1,695 July 19
McClure v Pringle 1885 M 785 July 19
Hall v Ewin 1886 H 1,092 July 22
Michael v Price 1886 M 1,201
Tritton v Bankart 1886 T 565
Holden v Collier 1886 H 1,628 July 29
Balsom v Webb 1886 B 2,165 July 31
Davies, Bros, & Co v Davies 1886 D 426 July 31
Newton v Barker 1886 N 436 Aug 3
Gooding ▾ Wiltshire 1886 G 769 Aug 4
In re Woodward Woodward v Woodward 1885 W 2,593 Aug 5
Edison & Swan United Electric Light, &c., Co v Davidson, Jackson, &
Duncan 1886 E 353 Aug 5
In re J. Knapp Bennett v Knapp 1886 K 253 Aug 6
In re Allen Allen v Capps 1886 A 159 Aug 11
Leslie v Cave 1884 L 3,312 Aug 12
Soper v Arnold 1886 S 3,056 Aug 16
Locke v White 1886 L 1 Aug 20
Walker v West Riding Union Banking Co West Riding Union Banking
Co v Walker 1886 W 483 Aug 25
Wood v Horne 1886 W 1,667 Oct 8

Franklin, Hockin, & Co, ld v 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
Bateman v Poplar District Board of Works 1886 B 1,652 Nov 4
Ware v Freeth 1886 W 957 Nov 9

In re Hope Hope v Porter 1886 H 3,598 Nov 10
Davies v Hodgson 1885 D 1,867 Nov 12

In re W. J. & J. Bodger Bodger v Bodger 1884 B 5,198 Nov 17
Winter v Baker 1886 W 1,719 Nov 17

[blocks in formation]

Mr. WILLIAM LATHAM, solicitor (of the firm of Latham & New), of Leicester and Melton Mowbray, died at his residence at the latter place on the 2nd inst, in his eighty-sixth year. Mr. Latham was the son of Mr. Charles Latham, solicitor, and was born in 1800. He was admitted a soliciter in 1822, and he had practised for over sixty years at Melton Mowbray. He was originally in practice with his father, afterwards with his son, the late Mr. Charles Latham, and, more recently, with Mr. Walter John New, the firm also having offices at Leicester. Mr. Latham was a perpetual commissioner for Leicestershire and a commissioner for affidavits in the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland. He had also held several local appointments. He was clerk to the Melton Mowbray Local Board, clerk to the Hudson and Storer Charity Trustees, and deputy-coroner for the Framland Division of Leicestershire. He had also served the office of Under-Sheriff of Leicestershire.

Mr. ADAM GIFFORD, Lord GIFFORD, formerly a judge of the Court of Session in Scotland, who died at Granton Lodge, near Edinburgh, on the 20th inst., was born in 1820. He was educated at the University of Edinburgh, and he was admitted a member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland in 1849. He was an advocate depute from 1861 till 1865, in which year he was appointed Sheriff of Orkney and Shetland. He was appointed a Lord Ordinary in 1870, when he assumed the honorary title of Lord Gifford, and he became a judge of the 2nd Division of the 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 years a widower, and he leaves one son. He was buried at the Calton Cemetery, Edinburgh, on the 25th inst.

Sergeant WILLIAM CAMPBELL SLEIGH, who died at Ventnor on the 23rd inst., in his sixty-ninth year, was the eldest son of Dr. William Willcocks Sleigh, and was born in 1818. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Hilary Term, 1846, when he joined the Home Circuit. He 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 Sessions. He had also a large licensing business. In 1868 he was created a serjeant-at-law, at the same time as the late Sergeant Sargood and the late Sergeant Cox, this having been the latest instance of a creation of serjeants except in the case of newly-appointed common law judges Mr. Serjeant Sleigh was for many years a prosecuting counsel to the Bank of England, and he held briefs in the Rachel case and other important prosecutions. He made several efforts to enter Parliament, having contested Lambeth in 1865, Huddersfield in 1867, and Frome in 1868, in the Conservative interest. A few years ago he went abroad for the benefit of his health, and he practised for a short time in Tasmania.

Mr. CHARLES BARHAM BOND, solicitor (of the firm of Bond & Beckingsale), of Taunton and Wellington, died at the latter place on the 15th inst. Mr. Bond was the son of Mr. Edward Augustus Bond, principal librarian of the British Museum, and was born in 1854. He served his

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 Beckingsale, and he also had an office at Taunton. During his short professional career he had acquired a good private practice, and he had been for some time clerk to the Samford Arundell School Board. Mr. Bond was unmarried. He was buried at Kensal Green Cemetery on the 20th inst.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. JOHN WALTER BUCHANAN RIDDELL, barrister, has been appointed Receiver to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. Mr. Riddell is the eldest son of the Rev. John Charles Buchanan Riddell, and was born in 1849. He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1874, and he is a member of the South-Eastern Circuit. Mr. Riddell has been for some time Honorary Lay Secretary to the London Diocesan Conference.

Mr. JOHN MALLET WILLIAMSON, solicitor, of Dublin, has been appointed Under-Sheriff of the County of Dublin for the ensuing year.

Mr. RALPH NEVILLE, barrister, who has been elected M.P. for the Exchange Division of the borough of Liverpool in the Gladstonian Liberal interest, is the only son of Dr. Henry Neville, of Esher, and was born in 1848. He was educated at Tunbridge School and at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1872, and he practises in the Chancery Division and in the Lancaster Palatine Court, being also a member of the Northern Circuit.

Mr. SPENCER PERCIVAL BUTLER, barrister, has been appointed one of the Conveyancing Counsel of the Chancery Division, in succesion 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 MORRIS, 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 Salway, and he was elected M.P. 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.

cuting Counsel to the Mint for Durham, Northumberland, and NewcastleMr. FRANCIS John Greenwell, barrister, has been appointed Proscupon-Tyne, in succession to Mr. Adolphus George Charles Liddell, who has been appointed Chief Clerk of the Crown Office in the House of 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 North-Eastern Circuit, and at the Durham, Northumberland, and Newcastle Sessions. Mr. Greenwell was appointed recorder of the city of Durham in 1883.

Mr. THOMAS BURTON, Solicitor, of 14, Spring-gardens, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. GEORGE DENISON LUMB, Solicitor (of the firm of Lumb & Bailey), of Leeds, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. HENRY RIMER, 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. GEORGE EDWARD BOURNE PADLEY, solicitor, of Lincoln and SkegSupreme Court of Judicature. ness, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the

Mr. J. T. EDMONDS, 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.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. VINER LEEDER and W. VAZIE SIMONS, Solicitors (Simons & Leeder), Swansea. Jan. 1. [Gazette, Jan. 21.] EDWARD BANNISTER, FRANCIS BANNISTER, and GEORGE PENKIVIL KING, solicitors (Bannisters & King), 13, John-street, Bedford-row, as far as regards the said Francis Bannister. Jan. 20.

ANDREW MALCOLM BATESON and WILLIAM HANLEY HUTCHINSON, solicitors (Bateson & Hutchinson), Ripon, Yorkshire. Jan. 1. EVELYN BORRER BLAKER and JOHN HASSALL KIRTLEY, solicitors (Blaker & Kirtley), Brighton. Jan. 21. [Gazette, Jan. 25.]

GENERAL,

In a recent case of Murdoch v. Murdoch on the 21st inst., Sir J. Hannen said it should be widely known that women who committed adultery would not b allowed to have access to the children of their marriage.

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 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 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.

Date.

:

COURT PAPERS.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.

ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE ON APPEAL COURT APPEAL COURT Mr. Justice KAY.

Mon., Jan. 31 Mr. Beal

Mr. Carrington Mr. Godfrey

Leach

Carrington Godfrey

Carrington

[ocr errors]

Leach

Godfrey Leach

Mr. Justice CHITTY.

Mr. Pugh Beal

Pugh

Beal

Pugh

Beal

No. 1.

No. 2.

Tues., Feb. 1

Pugh

Lavie

Wednesday 2

Leach

Thursday.. 3

Godfrey

Lavie

Friday

4

King

Saturday... 5

[blocks in formation]

Wednesday..

[blocks in formation]

Thursday

3

Clowes

Koe

Ward King

Friday

[blocks in formation]

Ward

..............

Saturday

[blocks in formation]

King

Monday, January

Tuesday, February...... 1

Mr. Justice STIRLING.

WINDING UP NOTICES.

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Jan. 21. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

Mr. Justice KEKEWICH. Mr. Ward King

SOUTHEND ON SEA AND DISTRICT AUXILIARY RAILWAYS AND CARRIAGE Co 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 for petner

STANDARD ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Jan 19, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Jan 29. Morley & Shirreff, Gresham house, solors for petner

COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

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
Monday, Jan 31. Whitley & Co, Liverpool, solors for petners
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
claims, to Charles Henry Wade, 71, King st, Manchester. Friday, Feb 25, at
12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the said claims
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

DAVENHAM WORKING MEN'S CLUB, Meald Schoolhouse, Church st, Davenham.
Chester. Jan 14
SILEBY DRUIDS' FEMALE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Undenominational Schools, Sileby,
Leicester. Jan 17

[blocks in formation]

CARLYLE SLATE AND SLAB CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Stirling, J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Bolton & Co, agents for Withington & Co, Manchester, solors for petners CHROMOGRAPHIC ENAMEL CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by North, J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Walker & Mewburn-Walker, Furnival's inn, solors for petner GUTTERIDGE & CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Tanner, Circus pl, Finsbury circus, solor for petner

LLYNVI AND TONDU CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Johnston & Co, Raymond bldgs, Gray's inn, agents for Winder, Bolton, solors for petner

ROYAL EXCHANGE SHIPPING CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Botterell & Roche, Leadenhall st, solors for petner

SHORTHORN DAIRY CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Stirling, J., dated Jan 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Jennings, Holborn, solor for petner

SOMERSET BREWERY CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by North, J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Marsland & Co, Chancery lane, agents for Curtis & Son, Neath, solors for petner

STURGE'S (BRITISH) MOTIVE POWER SYNDICATE, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the syndicate be wound up. Mew, King st, Cheapside, solor for petner

VENEZUELA-PANAMA GOLD MINE CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Stirling, J., dated Jan 15, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Blunt & Lawford, Gresham st, solors for petner WHEELER HORSE SHOE NAIL CO, LIMITED.-North, J., has, by an order, dated Jan 13, appointed Alfred Augustus James, 66, Coleman st, to be official liquidator

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM. London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Jan. 11. AMPHLETT, JOSEPH, Bromsgrove, Worcester, Gent. March 25. Sanders, Bromsgrove BANCKS, BOBERT OLDDISS, Wells st, Camberwell, Card Manufacturer. Feb 5. Price, John st, Bedford row

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

BRADFIELD, CHARLES THOMAS, De Beauvoir rd, Kingsland, Horse Dealer. Feb 19. Aylward, Clifford's inn

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

Feb 28. Paddock & Sons, Hanley

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

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. McMillin, Bloomsbury sq

FARNELL, THOMAS, Birmingham, Silversmith. Feb 28. Bradley, Birmingham FIELD, WALTER EDWARD JOHN, Oxton, nr Birkenhead, Draper's Salesman. Mar 8. Kemp, Liverpool

FRADD, EDWIN. Symington House, Homerton, Esq. Feb 12. Cavell, Waterloo pl, Pall Mall

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

inn fields

HARRISON, MARY, Portland rd, Notting hill. Feb 2. Meynell, Furnival st
HAYWARD, Rev JOHN WHEELER, Flintham Vicarage, Notts. Feb 8. Stuart &
Tull, Gray's inn sq

JAMES, THOMAS, Stanwix, Cumberland, Yeoman. Jan 31. Bendle, Carlisle
KITCHENER, ANN, Hertford. Feb 23. Spence & Co, Hertford

MAIN, JAMES, Leicester, Gent. Jan 31. Curtis, Leicester
MCVEAGH, HENRY CHAPMAN, Bath, Esq. Feb 22. Gibbs, Bath
MCVEAGH, MARY, Bath. Feb 22. Gibbs, Bath

MARSDEN, JOHN, Brighton, Esq. Feb 1. Janson & Co, Finsbury circus
NOBLE, HENRY, Wigginton, York, Shoemaker. Feb11. Proctor, York
PAYNTER, FRANCIS, Bath. Feb 22. Gibbs, Bath

PRICE, WILLIAM, Goldcliff, Monmouth, Farmer. Feb 13. Davis & Lloyd, New-
port
SHACKLELON, JOHN, Halifax, Retired Bookkeeper. Feb 19. Boocock, Halifax
SHAW, JAMES HENRY, Southampton, Music Dealer. Feb 19. Hickman & Son
Southampton

SOUTHERN, GEORGE SAVAGE, Ashton on Mersey, Chester, Gent. Feb 24. Fox,
SUMMERFIELD, JACOB, Endsleigh gdns, Euston rd, Money Lender. March 1.
Manchester
Joel & Parsons, Newcastle on Tyne

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

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

WARD, HENRY, Landport, Portsea, Mariner. Feb 12. King, Portsea
WOOD, SAMUEL, Castleford, York, Saddler. March 1. Phillips, Castleford
WYATT, Sir MATTHEW, Hyde Park sq, Knt. Feb 28. Fardell & Dashwood, Mitre
chbrs, Temple

[blocks in formation]

CASTLE, MARY, Grantham, Lincoln. April 1. Thompson & Sons, Grantham
CLARK, SARAH MARY CATHERINE, Tottenham ter, Tottenham. Feb 12. Wolfer-
stan & Avery, Ironmonger lane
COWARD, THOMAS JOHN, Guildhall chbis, Moorgate st, Solicitor. March 1.
Lovell, Finsbury sq

EVANS, THOMAS, Barking, Essex, Licensed Victualler. March 15. Preston, Gt
Eastern rd. Stratford

FIELDER, RICHARD RAMSAY, Folkestone, M.A. March 1. Johrson, Theobalds rd, Bedford row

FRESHWATER, MATILDA, Church rd, Islington. Feb 24. Jones & Co, John st, Bedford row

GRAY, BENJAMIN, Pendleton, Lancaster. Feb 28. Cunliffe & Co, Manchester GREENWOOD, JANE ELIZABETH, Fratton, Southampton. Feb 14. Tyrrell, Ray monds bidgs, Gray's inn

« PreviousContinue »