The reason he wrote the paper was this. There were two schemes placed before the remuneration tribunal-the London (South of England) scheme and the Liverpool (North of England). The latter was accepted, and the London scheme was rejected. If they took the scheme which had been given them, when conducting sales, it appeared to him that it was not open to a moment's argument, but that they must take the custom. If they took the scheme without the custom, it would be like a body without a soul. It would be a dead thing. It had been decided for them. The Legislature had given to them the Liverpool (North of England) scheme. It was not only to the interest of solicitors to conduct sales, but, considering that they were the trustees for the great profession coming after them, it was a much higher platform to take to see one of the things given to them they did not deliberately throw away. They were appointed by Act of Parliament conductors of sales; and it was absolutely essential under these circumstances, when it was probable a most radical system of registration would be introduced, that they should show that they were the men of affairs with regard to the transfer of land. If they took the Liverpool scheme without the Liverpool custom, the thing would be reduced to absolute nonsense. These were his reasons for bringing it forward, and he only wished to say that he was of the same opinion still. Mr. ADDISON had very little objection to the motion as altered, but he would have strongly objected if it were to go forth in a hasty way that they were all of opinion that they were to destroy the auctioneers of the City of London, and take their business into their own hands. Sales were conducted in London so totally differently from the way they were conducted in the country, that there was really no parallel between the two cases, and all they, as solicitors, could desire to do was to do that which was in the interest, not altogether of their own pockets, but principally of those of their clients; and one of the things which the committee must set itself most seriously to consider was whether it was, not for the advantage of the solicitor, but for the advantage of the client, that this division of labour in London, which had been allowed to grow up, and was now in force, should be put aside for another system. There was also another serious matter. It was not likely the auctioneers of London, as a body, would allow such an inroad to be made on their remuneration without some measure of retaliation; and he thought that the question of the transfer of land was one of serious moment, and those who were very anxious to cut down the proper remuneration for all sorts of work would begin to say, "The solicitors and auctioneers of London are quarrelling as to how they are to divide the remuneration for the sale of land," and that there was some reason to see whether the remuneration should not be further reduced. Mr. FORD suggested that the question was now so important that the report ought to go to the general body of members, instead of to the council. Mr. GRIBBLE, in reply, referring to Mr. Addison's remarks, said that he had never heard a more injurious doctrine started than the suggestion that the society should, before appointing a committee of the society to consider a matter affecting their own interests, consider whether the auctioneers would retaliate. He trusted that if they did the solicitors were quite strong enough to hold their own. He did not see that the auctioneers would be affected to any very great extent; but if they were, the solicitors were certainly strong enough to take care of themselves. The motion was carried unanimously, and the following gentlemen were appointed a committee, with power to add to their number:-Mr. C. E. Matthews (Birmingham), Mr. Kenion (Liverpool), Mr. Grinham Keen, Mr. T. Bellringer (Liverpool), Mr. Pennington, Mr. Howlett (Brighton), Mr. J. Hunter, Mr. Manisty, Mr. Morrell (Oxford), Mr. Cooper (Manchester), Mr. Bromhead (Sheffield), Mr. Walker (York), Mr. Pye-Smith (Sheffield), Mr. Waldron (Cardiff), Mr. Jones (Young, Jones, Roberts, & Hall), Mr. Vassall (Bristol), Mr. Burrell (Farrer & Co.), Mr. Wilmer (Richard Smith & Wilmer), Mr. J. A. Iliffe, Mr. Moberley (Southampton), Mr. Bassett (Rochester), Mr. Melvill Green (Worthing), Mr. H. E. Gribble, and Mr. J. Addison. Mr. WHITE asked if the committee were all in favour of the North of England scheme, or were they taken indiscriminately? He wished the gone on year after year and had increased in interest, and there was need for fresh regulations. The subjects appeared to be selected in a haphazard way, and it might be better for the council to select a few subjects of special interest. It would be well for a committee to be appointed to consider generally whether there could be any improvements and alterations in the mode of conducting these meetings. He moved that it be referred to a committee. The PRESIDENT suggested that Mr. Green should give notice of a resolution on the subject. Mr. GREEN accordingly gave notice for the April meeting. Mr. COULTON said he was quite willing that the whole matter should be brought forward in April, so that the subject might be referred to a committee, or to the council, as members might desire. Mr. HUNTER suggested that the word "provincial" should be omitted, and that any resolution should be made to apply to all the general meetings. THE CLUB AGAIN. Mr. FORD asked, according to notice :-"Is the president of the society, and are the members of the council, unanimously of opinion that the Law Club (as constituted after the commencement of my chancery action in regard to the old club) is beneficial to the general body of members of the society; what is the estimated value of the premises occupied by the club; and what is the present number of members of the club who are members of the society? Mr. MELVILL GREEN rose to order. He did not think that the members were entitled to get up and ask the president his opinion upon any particular question. He begged that the president would not answer Mr. Ford's question. It seemed to him not a proper question, and he did not see why the president should be liable to be cross-examined by any member who chose to do so. The PRESIDENT: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Green, but I have no objection to answering the question. For myself, I may say I was not a member of the club as it was constituted before Mr. Ford's action was brought. It was only after the club was reconstituted that I became a member of it, and I am now a member. I became a member of the club because I thought it was so extremely convenient to me, as I was continually in the Royal Courts adjacent, and I found it so convenient, that not only did I join it and am still a member, but both my partners joined it and are still members. This is my personal experience. As far as the members of the council are concerned I really do not know, for I have not asked them their tinually at the club, I should judge that, at all events, so far as they are but, I may say, for the members of the council whom I meet conopinion; concerned, they find it, in the terms of this inquiry, "beneficial" and "beneficial to the general body of members of the society." As to the estimated value of the premises I cannot answer that, because we have no separate estimate of the value of the premises occupied by the club. The whole building is assessed in one sum for parochial purposes, and we have no means of detaching from the general estimate what is the particular valne of the club. As to "the present number of members of the club who are members of the society," I can only answer in this way, that nobody can be a member of the club who is not a member of the society; therefore, all members of the club are necessarily members of the society. Mr. FORD: That is not my question. What is the number of members of the club? The PRESIDENT: That is not the question. Your question is, "What is I say all the members of the club are members of the society. the number of members of the club who are members of the society ?" and Mr. FORD: What number of members are there? The PRESIDENT: That I am not able to answer; but I have no doubt the secretary of the club will give you the information. STUDENTS' FEE FUND. Mr. FORD asked, according to notice: "Referring to the statements made by Mr. KEEN said he had suggested two or three names. Mr. Roscoe, when president of the society, at general meetings held in July, committee to be geographical entirely-a representative for every county, if 1885, and January, 1886, as to the Students' Fee Fund created by sections of the Solicitors Act, 1877, what is the sum now available for legal education in connection with that section ?" Mr. Roscoe had said, at the meeting in July, 1885, that the funds were more than absorbed, and at the meeting in July, 1886, that there were ample funds available. they pleased. Mr. FORD said there were no less than seven members of the council on the committee. It was not satisfactory. It should be more general in connection with each county. Mr. KEEN said that Mr. Ford would find one or two members of the council were representative men, purposely chosen because they represented country districts. PROVINCIAL MEETINGS. The following notice stood on the paper::-"Mr. J. Coulton will move: (1) That, at the annual provincial meetings of this society, a printed copy of all the papers be handed to every member on application at the place of meeting or during the meeting. (2) That the papers be taken as read, and the whole time of the meeting devoted to their discussion. (3) That the papers be grouped into sections, and the time apportioned to each section in proportion to quantity and importance. (4) That no speaker be allowed more than ten minutes. (5) That the author of a paper should have the right of reply. (6) That no thanks be given to any member or official of the society."" In moving the first resolution, he observed that it was much easier to follow a speaker with his paper before one. Mr. FORD seconded the motion. Mr. MELVILL GREEN expressed himself as quite opposed to the motion, believing that it would tend to spoil the provincial meetings if it were carried. He would prefer a motion passed that no one should be permitted to have copies of the papers until after they had been read. It would be better if a committee were appointed to consider whether any improvements should be made in the method of holding the provincial meetings. The meetings had but were quite reconcilable. What he had meant to say was that the council Mr. Roscoe said the two things were spoken under different circumstances, declined to allocate the particular expenses with regard to every particular item of their audits, such as registration of solicitors, education of articled clerks, general purposes, and so on. But he had said that if they were so apportioned, and that if they attributed to the articled clerks' fund all the educational expenses, a due proportion of the expenses connected with the building, and so on, that the articled clerks got their full value, and it was all absorbed. That was perfectly true according to the estimates the council had made. It might or might not be accurate, but that was what he had meant. He had meant to say that if the special expenses were taken, which were for the benefit of articled clerks, in the way of lectures, examinations, and so on, and a due proportion of the general expenses were added, the articled clerks got their value of their money, and all their money was spent upon them. On the second occasion the subject was as to how the education of articled clerks could be improved. Mr. Phillimore was speaking of large funds, and wanted to go minutely into the question in order to shew that the society ought to spend more money. All he (Mr. Roscoe) had said was that the council did not distribute the funds of the society in the way Mr. Phillimore proposed; but if he would shew that there were any objects of education which required the expenditure of money, there would be n difficulty in finding it. He had not meant to say that the society shoulo contribute any particular part of the articled clerks' fees, but out of thɖ Mr. FORD: Sine die. The motion was agreed to. The following were the motions in question:-"(1) This meeting, whilst recognising the good intentions of the council in the small grants recently made to Liverpool and Newcastle-on-Tyne for educational purposes, is of opinion that these and similar grants should be larger in amount, and should be made without the conditions hitherto imposed by the council." "(2) That the interests of solicitors and the public require that many public legal appointments, from which solicitors are at present excluded, should be thrown open to them." A vote of thanks to the president, moved by Mr. FORD, and seconded by Mr. MACARTHUR, terminated the proceedings. WORCESTER AND WORCESTERSHIRE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. The annual meeting of this society was held at the Law Library, Pierpoint-street, Worcester, on the 25th ult.; Mr. F. Corbett, president, in the chair. The report of the committee and treasurer's accounts for the past year were received and adopted. The following officers of the society were unanimously elected for the ensuing year:-Mr. Joseph Higgin Whatley, of Malvern, president; Mr. A. W. Knott, vice-president; Mr. E. A. Davis, hon. treasurer; and Mr. F. Ronald Jeffery, hon. secretary. The following gentlemen-viz., Messrs. F. Corbett, W. P. Hughes, T. G. Hyde, T. Southall, and J. Stallard, jun.-were appointed members of the committee for the ensuing year in addition to the officers of the society. On the motion of Mr. T. Southall, seconded by Mr. E. A. Davis, the best thanks of the society were accorded to Mr. F. Corbett for the very efficient manner in which he discharged the duties of president during the past year, and a cordial vote of thanks was also given to Mr. J. H. Whatley for his services as vice-president for the past year. At this meeting Mr. Anthony Swainson Allen, registrar of the Worcester County Court, and Mr. Samuel Bromley Garrard, of that city, were elected members of the society. The following are extracts from the report of the committee:Members. The present number of members of the society is sixty-three, as against sixty-one last year; two new members, Messrs. Lawrence Martin Curtler and Walter Thomas Curtler, of Worcester, having been elected. The number of subscribers is nine. Conducting Sales by Auction.-The committee desire to draw the attention of members to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Re Wilson (29 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 438, 29 Ch D. 790), where the court held that, where the conducting fee authorized to be charged by the order for con. ducting an auction sale is charged by the solicitor, the solicitor must do the whole of the work for which such ad valorem remuneration was provided. In the case in question an auctioneer had been employed, and his fee of £55s. had been allowed by the taxing master against the estate, and a surveyor had also been employed and his charges allowed by the taxing master; but certain matters had been done by the surveyor and charged for in his bill against the estate which the court considered should have been done by the person conducting the sale; under these circumstances the solicitor was not allowed the ad valorem fee for conducting the sale, but £2 2s. for instructing auctioneer and surveyor, and £3 3s. for particulars. It is believed that the work specified in the surveyor's charges was of the following nature:-surveying property and comparing plans attached to deeds with existing boundaries; preparing plan and dividing into lots for purposes of sale; making copies; conference with solicitor as to re-lotting; survey of house and grounds for particulars of sale; valuation of property; preparation of plan in detail; measuring boundaries and checking area, &c. The court seemed disposed to hold that the ad valorem conducting fee was never chargeable when the client pays the surveyor and auctioneer, but they did not give a concluded opinion on the point. Claims of the Crown for Duties.-In the last session of Parliament Mr. Gregory called attention to the position of trustees, executors, and others, liable to the payment of duties to the Crown, and moved for the introduction of certain clauses in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill providing for a certain limitation in point of time in respect of such liabilities. Your committee regret that the introduction of these clauses was not carried, a, in their opinion, the subject is one demanding early attention. Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883.-Referring to the report of the committee for the year 1885, and to the question of the right of bailiffs to the percentages for cost of distresses allowed by the Act, amounting to £3 per cent. on sums exceeding £20 and not exceeding £50, and of £2 per cent. on sums exceeding £50, the committee draw the attention of members to the case of Coode and Another v. Johns and Another (35 W. R. 477), where Grove and Grantham, JJ., on appeal from a decision of a county court judge, held that the bailiffs were not entitled to these percentages, but that the same belonged to the landlord, on the ground that it could never have been intended that the landlord should levy at his own cost, LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. The following candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order were successful at the intermediate examination held on the 13th day of January, 1887. Adderley, Rupert Thomas Bishop, Frederick William Cozens-Hardy, Ferneley Earle, Percy William Leighton Goodacre, Hugh George Leacroft, Frederick Richard Becher Lewis, Edward William Macdonald, George Alexander Marshall, Francis Eden, B.A. Marzetti, Eustace Maughan, George Rathbone, Herbert Reynolds, B.A. Richardson, Aubry Russell, John Stanley Vaughan Samuel, Thomas John Sarjeant, Frederick Arthur Scanes, Ernest Albert Sewart, Allan Sharman, Charles Crank Sidebotham, John James, LL.B. Sinnett, John Parry Slinger, George Nicholas Smith, Charles Arthur Smith, Charles Lawson, B.A., LL.B. Smith, Joshua Pritchard Fellowes Smyth, William Knight Spark, John Henry Swire, Samuel, B.A. Tatham, George Sinclair Watkin, Alfred Hobson Hutchins, William John Mortimer Westcott, Arthur Herbert Holden, Cecil Hole, Michael Holt, Henry Spawforth, B.A. Hulton, William Arthur Illingworth, Lawrence Bradley had for some time acted as deputy-coroner. He was admitted a solicitor in 1879. Mr. ARTHUR JOHN HANSLIP WARD, solicitor, of Harwich and Dovercourt, has been elected Town Clerk of the Borough of Harwich, in succession to Mr. Edward Chapman, resigned. Mr. Ward was admitted a solicitor in 1882. Mr. PHILIP SPENCER GREGORY, barrister, has been appointed by the Bishop of London to be Honorary Lay Secretary to the London Diocesan Conference, in succession to Mr. John Walter Buchanan Riddell, resigned. Mr. Gregory is the third son of Mr. John Gregory, and was born in 1851. He was educated at King's College, Cambridge, where he graduated in the second class of the Classical Tripos in 1873. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in November, 1875, and practises in the Chancery Jones, Llewellyn Golyddon Albert Division. Harries Kendall, Edmund Walter Macdonald, John William Marshall, Frederic the Younger Muspratt, Percy Camerom, B.A. Nelson, John James Newell, Matthew Banks Robinson, Hugh Mansfield Rutherford, Henry Taylor Sansom, Percy Burnett Sheffield, Robert William, B.A. Smith, Arthur, B.A. Smith-Spark, Gerald Spark, M.A. Spilsbury, George Hubball Spokes, William Silverthorne Stubbs, William Henry Taylor, Samuel Robert Thomson, Frederick Samuel Thurn, Colin Campbell im, M.A. Thursfield, William Brunton Tolhurst, Bernard Wilshire Tremellen, Edgar Herbert Veale, William George, B. A. EDWYN FRANCIS SCUDAMORE STANHOPE (Lord Stanhope) has succeeded to the Peerage on the death of his father, the ninth Earl of Chesterfield. Lord Chesterfield was born in 1854. He was educated at Eton and a Brasenose College, Oxford, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in November, 1880. He si a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Herefordshire. Mr. JOSEPH ARNALL, solicitor, of Leicester, has been elected President of the Leicester Law Society for the ensuing year. Mr. Arnall was admitted a solicitor in 1854. Mr. EDWARD MACNAGHTEN, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, has been sworn in as a member of the Privy Conncil, and has been created Baron Macnaghten of Runkerry. Mr. CHARLES BATHURST LUIS FERNANDES, solicitor, of Wakefield, has been appointed Clerk to the Wakefield Local Board. Mr. Fernandes was admitted a solicitor in 1857. Mr. RICHARD CLARENCE HALSE, solicitor, of 61, Cheapside, has been elected Chairman of the Markets Committee in the Court of Common Council. Mr. Halse was admitted a solicitor in 1860. He is a Common Councilman for Cheap Ward. Mr. CHARLES F. MARTELLI, solicitor, of 10, Staple-inn, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. G. M. ROBINSON, solicitor (of the firm of Robinson & Turnbull), of 4, Mitre-court-chambers, Temple, E.C., has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. BASIL WICKINGS SMITH, Solicitor (of the firm of F. Wickings Smith & Son), of 23, Lincoln's-inn-fields, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. JOSEPH HIGGINS WHATLEY, solicitor, of Great Malvern, has been elected President of the Worcester and Worcestestershire Incorporated Law Society for the ensuing year. Mr. Whatley was admitted a solicitor in 1856. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. ISAAC HALL, HERBERT GARNETT JANION, and MONTAGU HEATH HALL, solicitors, Manchester, so far as regards the said Isaac Hall. Jan. 19. [Gazette, Jan. 28.] ARTHUR OCTAVIUS BAYLY and EDWARD HENLEY, Solicitors (Combs, Bayly, & Henley), 25, Bucklersbury. Jan. 28. HARRY REID LEMPRIERE and THOMAS ASTLEY HORACE HAMOND, solicitors (Lempriere, Hamond, & Browne), 56, Lincoln's-inn-fields. Dec. 31. ARTHUR CRUWYS SHARLAND and EDWARD FREDERICK CHILDS CLARKE, solicitors (Sharland & Clarke), Tiverton, Devon. Jan. 13. The said Edward Frederick Childs Clarke will practise at the offices of the late firm under the style of Sharland & Clarke, but on his own account exclusively. GENERAL. [Gazette, Feb. 1.] A meeting was held on Saturday afternoon last in Lincoln's-inn Hall, to consider the advisability of establishing a society dealing with the history of English law. Lord Justice Fry presided, and there were present the American Minister, Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, Lord Justice Lindley, Messrs. Cookson, Q.C., Cock, Q.C., Romer, Q.C., Hyde Clarke, P. E. Dove, Jeune, S. Moore, W. A. Linsay (Portcullis), E. Walford, and about 100 members of the bar and others interested. Letters were read from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Derby, Mr. Justice Cave, Mr. Justice Wills, and others expressing interest in the society, and regretting their inability to attend. On the motion of the American Minister, seconded by Mr. M. Cookson, Q.C., it was resolved to establish the society, which it was resolved, on the motion of the Lord Chief Justice, seconded by Prof. F. Pollock, to call the "Selden Society." Other motions were proposed by Messrs. Hyde Clarke, Stuart Moore, J. C. Wilson (Oxford), Jeune, A. sisting of the American Minister, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Cock, and W. A. Linsay. A provisional committee was appointed, conFry, Mr. Justice Wills, M. Cookson, Q.C., F. Meadows White, QC, Professors A. V. Dicey, F. Pollock, W. W. Skeat, Messrs. R. Campbell, Hyde Clarke, H. W. Elphinstone, F. H. Jeune, C. Trice Martin, F.S.A., Stuart Moore, with the hon. secretary, Mr. P. Edward Dove. A cordial vote of thanks to the Benchers of Lincoln's-inn for the loan of the Hall was passed by acclamation, on the motion of Lord Justice Lindley, seconded by Mr. Meadows White, Q.C. A vote of thanks to the chairman (Lord Justice Fry), proposed by the American Minister, and seconded by the Lord Chief Justice, brought the meeting to a close. At the Guildhall Police Court on Tuesday, John Silas Poole, of 113, Vauxhall-bridge-road, was summoned at the instance of the Incorporated Law Society for, on the 3rd of September, 1886, unlawfully, wilfully, and falsely pretending to be duly qualified to act as a solicitor. Mr. C. O. Humphreys appeared in support of the summons. Mr. Charles Maynard stated that in September last he was clerk to Messrs. Fisher, Nichellas, & Co., at 43, London-wall, now of Billiter-square. He received the letter produced, demanding payment of £5, which he owed to a Mr. Bull. Ile understood that this communication came from a solicitor. Witness made inquiries, and then went to the Law Society. He wrote to the defendant and informed him of what he had done. Subsequently he received a county court summons from Mr. Bull. He paid the money into court. By the defendant.-He took no notice of the first letter; but when he received the second he shewed it to a friend, who advised him what to do. Mr. Lloyd Griffith Worth stated that in consequence of directions he went to 187, Stewart's-road, Clapham. Defendant had left there. Ultimately witness found the defendant at 113, Vauxhall-bridgeroad. He shewed him two letters, and informed him that they had been forwarded to the Law Society, and that he was instructed to make inquiries as to whether he had written them. The defendant told him that he did write them at the request of Mr. Bull. It was, the defendant added, Mr. Bull who took out the county court summons. The debt had been paid, and he had received 2s. 6d. for his trouble. The defendant said that his name was not in the "Law List." Moreover he did not act as a solicitor, nor did he pretend to be one. He was a debt collector, and acted in that capacity. He was a poor man. The Alderman imposed a penalty of 40s. and £1 1s. costs. Thomson & anr v Strickland & ors In re Arbitration between Holliday & C› & Lawry In re a Solicitor Expte Incorporated Law Soc Great West Shepherds Imd v Sargent, sued, &c Great West Shepherds Imd v Sargent, sued, &c Williams v Sebright & anr Hanbury & ora v Brocc Tuck & Sons v Priester, sued &o Skinner v Bamber Smith & anr v Webb & anr In re an Arbitration between A Sins and F Lenders & Co Wandsworth Common Conservators v The Official Trustees & the Patriotic Fund Set down 16th December, 1886 Middlesex TR Kemp Justice Mathew Martin v North Met Trams Co Mr Set down 16th December. 1886 Middlesex Mayor, &c, of the Staple of England Set down 17th December, 1886 Middlesex Callaghan v Frith Mr Buckaill Set down 17th Decembar, 1886 Middlesex Cleghorn MacDougall Justice Day Set down 18th December, 1886 Middlesex Boaler v Holder Pltff in Persɔn Justice Mathew Set down 18th December, 1886 Middlesex Jonas v Crawshay Mr A Cross Middlesex Gloucestorshire Bkg Co v Edwards, Middlesex Lovering & Co v Bluck, Bluck v Set down 20th December, 1886 Willis Justice Mathew Warwickshire Buchanan & anr v Hardy Magistrate's case Staffordshire, Burton-on-Trent Moorcroft v Harrison. County Court. Defendant's appeal HH Judge Woodforde Leicestershire, Loughborough Marson v Marriott County Court Plaintiff's appeal H H Jadge Hooper Middlesex, Westminster Ramsden v Musical Exchange 1d County Court Plaintiff's appeal HH Judge Bayley Northumberland Laycock & ors v Assessment Committee of Tynemouth Union. Quarter Sessions, 12 & 13 Vict, o 45, s 13 London Pascall & ors v Pilley Mayor's Court Defendant's appeal The Recorder Same Johnston v Moolla Mayor's Court Defendant's appeal The Recorder Met. Pol. Dist. Penny v Hanson Magistrate's case Middlesex, Bow Brown v Dowson & Worth County Court Plaintiff's appel HH Judge Prentice Nottingham Burton v Acton Magistrate's case Northumberland, Newcastle Pinkney & anr v Owners of Waldridge Colliery County Court Defendants' appeal H H Judge Holl Essex The Queen v Johnson Nisi for mandamus to elect Churchwardens Expte Vesey Yorkshire, Bradrord The Queen v H H the Judge of County Court of Yorkshire, holden at Bradford, and Craven Bank 1d Nisi to hear, &c appln for new trial of interpleader issue Expte E. Hartley Carmarthenshire The Queen v Jj of Carmarthen Nisi for mandamus to hear appeal Expte Bishop Nottingham, Mansfield Frost v Pogson & ors County Court Plaintiff's appeal. HH Judge Bristowe Middlesex, Shoreditch Turney v Cox & anr County Court Defendant Harriett Price's appeal HH Judge Prentice Norwich Guardians of St Pancras v Guardians of the Norwich Incorp ɔration Quarter Se sions 12 & 13 Vict, c 45, 11 Middlesex, Brompton Lang v Lovatt (sued, &c) County Court Plaintiff's appeal H H Judge Stonor Devonshire Kingsbury Union v Church wardens, &c of East Stonehouse Order Kent The Queen v Poole Nisi for quo warranto as member of Vestry of Essex, Colchester Shaw v Girvan County Court Plaintiff's appeal HH Liverpool The Queen v Raffles & Royal Liver Friendly Society Nisi to hear Met Pol Dist Patten v Wood Magistrate's case County Court Plain Defendant's appeal H Middlesex, Bow Watson v Weekes & anr County Court Defendant's appeal Hampshire, Portsmouth Pinto & Sons v Droncquer (Southern Count es &c Bank Merionethshire Foster ▾ Diphwys Casson Slate Co ld & anr Magistrate's London Stock & Share, &c, Co v Galmoye Mayor's Court Defendant's appeal case Bolton Whellan v Rodgers & anr Magistrate's case appeal H H Judge Holl letter Suffolk The Queen v Judge of the County Cour of Suff k holder at Ipswich and Mitchell Nisi to hear, &c, action "Mitchell v Blyth" (expte Blyth) Turner v Hickney County Court Defendant's Parts of Holland The Queen v Rev J T Dove & ors Jj, &c, & Re.d Nisi to Salop Lawley v Merricks Magistrate's case ment England The Queen v The Right Hon Baron Penzance and ors Niai for Yorkshire, Leeds Lomas & Co v Williamson, Dana, & Co County Court Glamorganshire, Swansea Shepherd & anr v Morris County Court Plaintiff's Ryde Munro v Watson Magistrate's case London Mendelssohn & anr v Cohen & ors Mayor's Court Plaintiffs' appeal Kent, Greenwich Steele v Easton County Court Defendant's appeal H H Met Asemt Dist The Queen v Jj's of General Assessment Sessions Nisi for Met Assmt Dist The Queen v Same Nisi for mandamus to draw up order Kent, Tonbridge Spencer & anr v Bartram & anr County Court Plaintiffs Sam, Gravesend The Queen v W Fletcher, Esq, Jj, &c, & aur Nisi to hear, Middlefex, Westminster Real & Personal Advance Staffordshire, Cheadle Ainsworth v Ainsworth Kent Rochester Fortune v Penn County Court Norfolk, Norwich Flint v Easton County Court Co ldv Clears County Defendant's appeal H H Lincolnshire, Brigg Chatterton v Cheesman County Court Defendant's Glamorganshire, Cardiff Trade Auxiliary Co v Jeham (Wiltshire, clmt) Middlesex, Shoreditch Masters v Morris HH Judge Prentice County Court Defendant's appeal Leicestershire, Hinckley Wills v Perkins County Court Defendant's appeal Worcestershire, Tenbury Davis v Harvey & Co County Court Defendant's Nottinghamshire, Mansfield Rudd & anr v The New Hucknall Colliery Co ld Durham, Gateshead Hind v R bertson & Son County Court Defendant's Shropshire, Ludlow Gwilliam & ors v Butcher County Court Defendant's Salford Walton v Hardman Hundred Court Plaintiff's appeal Lancashire Local Board for Waterloo & Seaforth v Lewis Magistrate's case Surrey, Southwark Tillett v Gosbe (Sherry, clmt) County Court Cimt's Buckinghamshire, Newport-Pagnall Yorke v Stroud County Court Plaintiff's Surrey, Kingston Roake v Cogswell County Court Defendant's appeal HH Kent, Maidstone Standen v Hook & Co County Court Plaintiff's appeal H H Lincolnshire, Parts of Lindsey The Queen v Jj for Parts of Lindsey Nisi for Surrey, Southwark Woodward v London. Chatham & Dover Ry County Court Glamorganshire, Swansea Matthews ▾ Matthews County Court Plaintiff's London H M Postmaster Gen v Bishop City of London Court Plaintiff'e Surrey, Lambeth Smith ▾ Wood & anr County Court Deft Marceau's appeal Same, Westminster Petite v Batley County Court Plaintiffs appeal H H Surrey Croydon Union v Reigate Union Quarter Sessions, 12 & 13 Vict c 45, London The Queen v Jadge of the City of Lon lon Court & Pris) Nisi to hear action (Ex parte Grey) Monmouthshire Rutherford v Straker Magistate's case Met Pol Dist Vestry of St Giles, Camberwell v Hunt Same Cheshire Catherall v Mersey Ry Co County Court Defendants' appeal H H Radnorshire The Queen on peosecution of J Reynolds v W Stephens & war, Warwickshire, Birmingham Wones & Co v Sealey (Homer, clmat) County London Williams v Campbell City Court Plaintiff's appeal Mr Commissioner Kerr Glamorganshire, Merthyr Tydfil Kirkhouse v Williams County Court Defendant's appeal H H Judge Williams Middlesex, Shoreditch Cook v North Met Trams Co County Court Plaintiff's appeal HH Judge Prentice Middlesex. Bow Clark v Marquis of Londonderry County Court Plaintiff's appeal H H Judge Prentice Leicestershire Dunkley & anr v Harrison Magistrate's case Warwickshire Worcester Union v Parish of Birmingham Order of Sessions Met Pol Dist Back v Holmes Magistrate's case Lincolnshire, Louth Mower v Plaskett County Court Defendant's appeal H H Kent Overseers of Parish of St Lawrence v Jj for County of Kent & ors of Sessions Appellants' nisi to quash Order Suffolk, Ipswich Bass & ors v Mescent County Court Plaintiffs' appeal H H London Spa goe v Hughes Prohibition Appeal from Judge at Chambers Holmes v Same Same Middlesex Bonella v Twickenham Local Board Magistrate's case Met Asemt Dist The Queen v Jj of Gen Assmt Sessions (expte L & N W Ry) Parts of Kesteven Asher v Calcraft Magistrate's case Monmouthshire, Newport Aiken & anr v Newport Slipway &e Cold County Sussex Pureer v Worthing Local Board Quarter Sessions, 12 & 13 Vict o 45, 8 11 London Cutler v North London Ry Co Mayor's Court Plaintiff's appeal Cent Crim Court, London The Queen v Angus & anr Nisi for certiorari for in- Middlesex, Westminster Atkinson & ors v Fletcher County Court Plaintiff's Yorkshire, West Riding Addy v Blake Magistrate's case Midlesex The Queen v Hubert Nisi for certiorari for indictment at the instance Met Pol Dist The Queen v H J Bushby, Esq, Met Pol Magistrate & Green Ni-i Surrey, Southwark Kellard v Rooke County Court Plaintiff's appeal |