NICHOLLS, SIMEON, Walsall, Licensed Victualler. March 12 at 11.45. Off Rec, Walsall NOBLE, JOHN WALTER, Carlisle, Roper. March 14 at 12. Off Rec, 34, Fisher st, Carlisle NORMAN, WILLIAM JOSEPH, Somerton, Somersetshire, Plumber. March 11 at 1. PEGLER. FREDERICK URIAH, Newtown Brynhyfrydd, Glamorganshire, Iron- PINNOCK, WILLIAM, Kencott, Oxfordshire, Farmer. March 31 at 11. Off Rec, PLAYER, OCTAVIUS R., Bath, Hay Dealer. March 12 at 12. R. H. Moore, County Court, York st, Bath POTTAGE, JOHN WILLIAM, Newport, Mon, Tailor. March 14 at 12. Off Rec, 12, Tredegar pl, Newport, Mon PULMAN, GEORGE, Merthyr Tydfil, Confectioner. March 14 at 12. Off Rec, RAYNOR, BENJAMIN, Barnsley, Yorks, Builder. March 14 at 10. Off Rec, 3, SIDEBOTTOM. WILLIAM, Rothwell, Yorks, Greengrocer. March 11 at 12. Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds SIMPSON, JOSEPH, St James's rd, nr Carlisle, Corn Merchant. March 16 at 12. Off Rec, 34, Fisher st, Carlisle SMITH, JAMES, Stoke upon Trent, Estate Agent. March 14 at 12.30. North Stafford Hotel, Stoke upon Trent STEVENS. WARWICK ALAN, Southsea, no occupation. March 18 at 3. Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, Liverpool March 14 at 1. Off Rec, 12, Tredegar THOMAS, JAMES, Newort, Mon, Baker. pl. Newport, Mon THOMPSON, JOHN, Worcester, Solicitor. March 14 at 11. Off Rec, Worcester TURNPENNY, WALTER DAVID TALBOT, Red Lion ct, Cann n st, Button Maker. Mar 11 at 12. Bankruptcy blogs, Portugal st. Lincoln's inn fields WAKEMAN, PHILIP, Taplow, Bucks, Carpenter. Mar 14 at 12 30. Bell Hotel, Maidenhead WORSLEY, WILLIAM, Pemberton, Lancs, Manure Maker. Mar 15 at 10. Wigan County Court WRIGHT, THOMAS, Scarborough, Innkeeper. Mar 11 at 12. Off Rec, 74, Newborough st, Scarborough YOUNG, FRANK, Hyson Green, Nottingham, Draper. Mar 12 at 12. Off Rec, 1, The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the ADAMS, FREDERICK WILLIAM HENRY, High st, Sydenham, Baker. Mar 7 at 3. 109, Victoria st, Westminster ASKEW, WILLIAM, Keswick, Cumberland, Hotel Keeper. Cockermouth and Workington. Pet Feb 14. Ord March 2 BALE, JOHN, Derby, Licensed Victualler. Derby. Pet Feb 24. Ord March 2 BANYARD, REUBEN, and WALTER BANYARD, Lexden, Colchester, Bakers. Colchester. Pet Feb 24. Ord March 2 BLEASDALE, WILLIAM, Blackburn, Farmer. Preston, Pet March 1. Ord March 1 BUNTING, JOSEPH, Nottingham, Commission Agent. Nottingham. Pet Jan 26. Ord March 2 CHATTERTON, JOHN, Northwich, out of business. Nantwich and Crewe. Pet Feb 4. Ord Feb 23 COLLIER, RICHARD GEORGE, Worthing, Stonemason. Brighton. Pet March 1. Ord March 2 DAVIS, EDMUND FRANCIS, Burlington gdns, Solicitor. High Court. Pet Jan 17. Ord March 1 DONKIN, SAMUEL, jun, Bywell, nr Felton, Northumberland, Farmer. Newcastle on Tyne. Pet Feb 23. Ord Feb 28 EVANS, MORGAN, Llanfihangel y Croyddyn, Cardigan, Labourer. Aberystwith. Ord JONES. EDWARD, dec, Maenan, Carnarvonshire, Retired Farmer. Bangor. Pet Jan 20. Ord Feb 28 LIPSCOMBE, HENRY ROGERS, Fairfax rd, Teddington, Filter Maker. High Court. Pet Feb 5. Ord NEWLAND, STEPHEN, High st, Stepney, Tailor. High Court. Ori Mar 1 REES, LEWIS, Aberdulais, nr Neath, Draper. Neath. Pet Feb 14. Ord Feb 28 SEMPLE, CHARLES EDWARD ARMAND, Goldhawk rd, Shepherd's Bush, Doctor of Medicine. High Court. Pet Feb 14. Ord Feb 28 borough. Pet March 1. Ord March 1 SEVERS, HENRY, Middlesborough, Builder. Stockton on Tees and MiddlesSHEPHERD, WILLIAM, Colchester, Baker. Colchester. Pet Jan 29. Ord March 2 SIMPSON, JOSEPH, St James's rd, nr Carlisle, Corn Merchant. Carlisle. Pet March 2. Ord March 2 SKRINE, CHARLES, Bagshot, Surrey, Builder. Kingston, Surrey. Pet Jan 24. Ord Feb 26 STEPHENS, WILLIAM JAMES BORROW, High st, Chatham, Draper. Rochester. Pet Jan 21. Ord March 2 STONE, RICHARD, the younger, Childrey, nr Wantage, Farmer. Oxford. Pet March 1. Ord March 1 THOMAS, JAMES, Newport, Mon, Baker. Newport, Mon. Pet Feb 28. Ord 5. Ord March 5 RECEIVING ORDERS. ASHMAN, HENRY JOHN, Glastonbury, Somerset, Auctioneer. Wells. Pet March BONTOFT, WALTER SEYMOUR, Spalding, Lincoln, Veterinary Surgeon. Peter- March 8 Pet March 4. Ord March 4 DEAN, ISAIAH, Birmingham, Carpet Factor. Birmingham. Pet March 3. Ord LEAMON, PHILIP, Whitwell, Norfolk, Farmer. Norwich. Pet March 4. Ord MCKAY, ROBERT, Wardour st, Soho, Licensed Victualler. High Court. Pet OSBORNE, JOSEPII, Liversedge, Yorks, Fuller. Dewsbury. Pet March 4. Ord OUTON, CHARLES RICHARD SMITH, Newhaven, General Dealer. Lewes and Eastbourne. Pet March 5. Ord March 5 PADGHAM, ROBERT APPLETON, Beastfair, Pontefract, Tailor. Wakefield. Pet PENNINGTON, CHARLES PLUMER residence unknown. High Court. Pet Feb 15. PETERS, PHOEBE, Portslade, Sussex, Baker. Brighton. Pet Feb 21. Ord March 3 4. Ord March 4 Ord March 3 THORN, THOMAS, Broadhembury, Devon, out of business. Exeter. Pet March March 3 WEST, CHARLES, Leeds, Corn Merchant. Leeds. Pet Feb 22. Ord March 4 WHITING, JOSEPH, West green rd, Tottenham, Traveller. Edmonton. WILMSHURST, HENRY, Maidstone, Fruiterer. Maidstone. Pet March 3. Ord The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the ISAACS, COLMAN, Manchester, Stationer. Manchester. Pet Feb 9. Ord Feb 24 FIRST MEETINGS. APPLEBY, JAMES, Brough, Yorks, Timber Merchant. March 15 at 2. Law Society, Rec, 31, Manor row, Bradford BARTON, ALFRED, Carlyle terr, Rosendale rd, West Dulwich, Builder. March 15 at 12. Bankruptcy bldgs, Lincoln's inn BEER, JOHN, Stokeinteigahead, Devon, Baker. March 18 at 3. Queen's Hotel, Newton Abbot BERRY, WILLIAM, Gt St Helens, Merchant Shipper. March 15 at 2.30. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn BLEASDALE, WILLIAM, Blackburn, Farmer. March 15 at 3. Off Rec, 14, Chapel st, Preston BRINDLEY, THOMAS TAIT, Southampton bldgs, Mining Agent. March 15 at 11. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn BROWN, JAMES, Clee, Lincoln, Skipper. March 16 at 12. Off Rec, 3, Haven st, Gt Grimsby BUTCHER, WILLIAM, Basingstoke, Grocer. March 18 at ,2. Off Rec, 4, East st, CHATWIN, HENRY JOHN, Sparkbrook, Warwick, Commercial Traveller. March COATES. ALLEN MARTIN, Sheffield, Station Master. March 16 at 11. COLLIER, RICHARD GEORGE, Worthing, Stonemason. March 15 at 12. Off Rec, DAVIS, EDMUND FRANCIS, Burlington gardens, Solicitor. March 15 at 12. Bank- ruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields DICKENS, STEPHEN FRANCIS, Peterborough, out of business. March 17 at 12.45. DRYSDALE. PETER, Newcastle on Tyne, Builder. March 19 at 10.30. Off Rec, DUNFORD, JAMES, Poole, Dorset, Builder. March 17 at 3.45. London Hotel, DYSON, ELI, and THOMAS DYSON, Oldham, Joiners. March 16 at 3.30. Off Rec, Priory chmbrs, Union st. Oldham DYSON. ELI (sep estate), Oldham, Joiner. March 16 at 3.30. Off Rec, Priory DYSON, THOMAS (sep estate), Oldham, Joiner. March 16 at 3.30. Off Rec, Priory EPHGRAVE, ELI, Redbourn, Hertfordshire, Baker. March 15 at 11. Off Rec, 29, Park st West, Luton, Bedfordshire EVANS, JOHN, Abererch, nr Pwllheli, Carnarvonshire, Master Mariner. March 28 at 2.30. Queen's Head Cafe, Bangor EVANS, MORGAN, Llanfihangel y Croyddin, Cardiganshire, Labourer. March 23 at FLOCKTON, ALICE JANE, Dewsbury, Yorks, Confectioner. Mar 15 at 3. Off Rec, GRIFFITHS, ELIZABETH MARY, Swansea, Colliery Proprietress. Mar 16 at 11. Off Rec. 6, Rutland st, Swansea HALLIDAY, WILLIAM, Maldon, Essex, Draper. Mar 15 at 12.45. Gt Eastern HARRISON, JOHN, Springhead, Yorks, Builder. Mar 16 at 3. Off Rec, Priory HASHIM, KHALIL. Manchester, Merchant. Mar 16 at 11. Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields HESLOP, JOHN, Manchester, Theatrical Manager. Mar 15 at 3. Off Rec, Ogden's HINDLET, JULES, Old Compton st, Soho sq, Dealer in Foreign Provisions. Mar 16 at 12. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn HUGHES, OWEN, Aberffraw, Anglesey, General Dealer. Mar 28 at 2. Queen's ISAACS, COLEMAN, Manchester, Stationer. Mar 15 at 11.30. Off Rec, Ogden's KING. WILLIAM, Burstow, Surrey, Builder. Mar 17 at 2.30. Station Hotel, KNEESHAW, RICHARD, Pickering, Yorks, Watchmaker. March 16 at 11.30. Off Rec. 74, Newborough st, Scarborough LLOYD, JOHN JAMES, and CHARLES HENRY LLOYD, Pembroke Dock, Ironmongers. March 15 at 12. Grand Hotel, Broad st, Bristol MARSHALL, JOHN, Liverpool, Grocer. March 16 at 3. Off Rec, 35, Victoria st, MINISTER, EDWARD WILLIAM, Argyll pl, Regent st. March 17 at 12. Bank- ruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields MORTON, JOHN, Victoria grove, Kensington. Wine Merchant. March 17 at 2.30. Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields MUTLOW, JOHN, Tarrington, Herefordshire, Farmer. March 17 at 12. Court PATTON, JOHN, and JOHN JACOB VICKERS, Fenchurch avenue, Steamship Managers. March 16 at 12. Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inu PETTIT, WILLIAM, Haldane rd, Fulham, Cowkeeper. March 17 at 2.30. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn fields PICKERSGILL, HENRY. Gt Queen st, Lincoln's inn fields, Builder. 2.30. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn QUILLIAM, ALFRED, Fairfield, Lancs, Accountant. March 18 at 12. REES, DANIEL, New Swindon, Tea Dealer. March 16 at 11.30. Off Rec, 32, High st, Swindon WILSON, JAMES, Sheffield, Licensed Victualler. March 16 at 12. Off Rec, Fig- The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the STEWART, CHARLES MALCOLM, Liverpool, Broker. March 16 at 2.30. Off Rec, 35, BARHAM, THOMAS, Brookthorpe, Gloucester, Farmer. Gloucester. Pet March 5. BEER. JOHN, Stokeinteignhead, Devon, Baker. Exeter. Pet March 4. Ord BLACKBURN, GEORGE FREDERICK, and JOHN GEORGE BLATHERWICK, Hanley, Boot Dealers. Hanley, Burslem, and Tunstall. Pet Jan 31. Ord March 2 BODEN, GEORGE, Sheffield, Coal Merchant. Sheffield. Pet Feb 1. Ord March 4 BULLETT, HENRY SAMUEL, Springfield, Essex, Baker. Chelmsford. Pet Feb 25. CLINCH, ALBERT, and PHILIP HENRY PATTEN, Rotherfield st, Islington, Builders. High Court. Pet Feb 28. Ord March 4 COGGIN, THOMAS, Viceroy rd, South Lambeth, Clerk of Rates. High Court. Pet COOK, ALFRED, Stratford, Essex, Baker. High Court. Pet Feb 7. Ord March 4. COOKE, EDWIN, Leamington, Hatter. Warwick. Pet Feb 15. Ord March 3 EVANS, JOHN, Abererch, nr Pwllheli, Carnarvonshire, Mariner. Bangor. Pet FISHER, JOHN JAMES, Bernard st, Russell sq, Licensed Victualler. High Court. GANDY, MAURICE, Liverpool, Manager to a Company. Liverpool. Pet Feb 10. GoOODING, WILLIAM, Deopham, Norfolk, Miller. Norwich. Pet March 1. Ord HARRISON, ROBERT, Stockton on Tees, Grocer. Stockton on Tees and Middles- borough. Pet Feb 17. Ord March 2 HAUBERG, WILLIAM, Bristol, Clothier. Bristol. Pet Feb 15. Ord March 4 HESLOP, JOHN, Withington, nr Manchester, Theatrical Manager. Manches- HODGETTS, EDWIN, Upton on Severn, Worcestershire, Boatman. Worcester. HOE, CHARLES WILLIAM, Oxford st, Trunk Maker. High Court. Pet Feb 17. HYSLOP, DAVID, Formosa st, Warwick rd, Maida hill, Upholsterer. High Court. JARVIS, ELIZA, Bury St Edmunds, Stationer. Bury St Edmunds. Pet Feb 19. JORDAN, WILLIAM HENRY, Rothwell, Yorks, Farmer. Leeds. Pet March 5. KITCHING, JOHN, High st, Kingsland, Mantle Manufacturer. High Court. KNEESHAW, RICHARD, Pickering, Yorks, Watchmaker. Scarborough. Pet March LEWIS, JOHN, Llangurig, Montgomeryshire, Innkeeper. Newtown. Pet Feb 11. MARKS, FREDERICK MOSES, Moorgate st, Lithographic Artist. High Court. Pet MCKAY, ROBERT, Wardour st, Soho, Licensed Victualler. High Court. Pet MONTAGUE, MONTAGUE, Moorgate st, Lithographic Artist. High Court. Pet MORTON,-, High st, Peckham, Draper. High Court. Pet Dec 17. Ord Mar 3 OSBORNE, JOSEPH, Liversedge, Yorks, Fuller. Dewsbury. Pet Mar 4. Ord Mar 4 OCKENDEN, EDMUND JURY, Hove, Sussex, Builder. Brighton. Pet Feb 26. Ord PADGHAM, ROBERT APPLETON, Beastfair, Pontefract, Tailor. Wakefield. Pet PARKER, RICHARD, Birmingham, Horse Dealer. Birmingham. Pet Feb 5. Ord PICKERSGILL, HENRY, Dumbleton rd, Camberwell, Builder. High Court. Pet QUILLIAM, ALFRED, Fairfield, Lancs, Accountant. Liverpool. Pet Feb 14. Ord REGAN, ELIZABETH, Church Enstone, Oxford, Publican. Oxford. Pet March 2. RUTHERFORD, WILLIAM, Kingston upon Hull, Currier. Kingston upon Hull. SADLER, PHILIP, Sidmouth, Devon, Grocer. Exeter. Pet Feb 17. Ord March 3 SHELLARD, ALFRED TOM, Coventry, Bicycle Maker. Coventry. Pet March 2. SHORE. WILLIAM JAMES, Runcorn, Agent. Warrington. Pet Feb 23. Ord TRERISE, KICHARD, Over Whitacre, Warwick, Farmer. Birmingham. Pet Feb WALKER, JAMES, Froxfield, Wilts, Clerk in Holy Orders. Newbury. Pet March WATT, ROBERT ALDRED, Victoria Docks, Essex, Coppersmith. High Court. Pet WEDGE, GEORGE, Chirton, Wilts, Blacksmith. WESTON, LOUISA, Cheltenham, Widow. Cheltenham. Pet Feb 25. Ord March 3 WHERRY, JAMES, Clee, Lincoln, Farm Foreman. Gt Grimsby, Pet March 3, Ord WILMSHURST, HENRY, Maidstone, Fruiterer. Maidstone. Pet March 3. Ord The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the HARRISON, THOMAS, South Stockton, Yorks, Pawnbroker. Stockton on Tees and March 15.-Mr. R. T. HAMILTON, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Property (see March 18.-Messrs. ELLIS & SON, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Leasehold Properties 366 356 Clough. In re, Bradford Com- 360 Bagley v. Searle...... ............ Coote v. Ingram.. 331 ... 330 Davies Bros. & Co. v. Davies 331 Evans v. The London and North Western and Great Western Railway Cos.... ............. 333 Fawcett v. Urwin........................................ 331 353 Furber v. Cobb 330 Macdougall v. Knight 332 Eden v. Weardale Iron and Coal Marshfield, Re, Marshfield V. "England," The Hutchings 332 Mav v. Newton Reg. v. Riley 333 Robinson v. Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry Soper v. Arnold ..... Ruddiman's Trusts, Re ............ 331 Williamson v. Farnell.. Mytton v. Mytton.. Parker and Beech, In re .... ...... ..... IT WAS NOT AT ALL LIKELY that the Council of the Incorporated Law Society would be overlooked by the indefatigable organizers of the Imperial Institute, whose scheme is apparently to put pressure on every known authority, from the heads of collegiate institutions to the chairmen of local boards, to induce them to send round the hat. And, when it was announced that the Attorney-General (apparently assuming the functions of a "Solicitor-General") had undertaken to organize a system of contributions from the members of the English bar, it was, no doubt, 365 difficult for the council to refuse to make an appeal to the members of their society. As we announced some time ago, they have 353 acceded to the request of the "organizing secretary," and they have this week issued a circular to the solicitors of England and Wales asking for subscriptions. In doing so they have acted wisely in enclosing a copy of the missive under which they proceed, and in restraining the exuberant generosity of contributors to the modest sum of two guineas. The point in which their 357 363 ....... 368 Pearce, In re, McLean v. Smith ... 358 355 The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter. circular appears to us to fail is in evidence in support of the state LONDON, MARCH 19, 1887. CURRENT TOPICS. REFERRING TO OUR OBSERVATIONS last week on the rule of December, 1885, now numbered as R. S. C., 1883, LV. 74, relating to the drawing of orders in chambers, we have reason to believe that the attention of the judges of the Chancery Division is being directed to the subject; and that some general regulations defining, and in effect restricting, the operation of the rule above referred to may be framed, which will save the Rule Committee of Judges the trouble of considering the subject. IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the executive committee appointed to carry out the entertainments at the approaching London meeting of the Incorporated Law Society have already engaged the Lyceum Theatre and Mr. IRVING's company for one evening: Probably also another theatre and company will be retained, and of course a dinner and a dance will form part of the entertainments. IF THE LORD CHANCELLOR and the Government require any evidence to convince the Treasury as to the necessity for the appointment of another judge of the Chancery Division, they should call for a return for the last two years of the number of days the four existing judges who have chief clerks have been able to devote to the hearing of witness actions, and how many of such actions they have been able to dispose of, and what proportion the number of those heard bore to the total number on each list at the beginning of each sittings, taking transfers into account. The fact that Mr. Justice KEKEWICH is rapidly disposing of his list only affects the question by raising the presumption that another judge devoting his time exclusively to the hearing of witness actions would materially assist in reducing the cause lists and in avoiding arrears. ABOUT 170 London members of the Incorporated Law Society had, up to a recent date, sent in their names as guaranteeing ten guineas each towards the costs of the entertainments to be given in June next to the country members of the society. There are a considerable number of five-guinea guarantors, but, having regard to the fact that there are about 2,500 London members of the society, the response so far made to the council's appeal can hardly be considered satisfactory, or quite fair to those members who have promptly come forward to undertake the liability. It is probable, however, that in many cases the matter has been overlooked in the pressure of business, and the Grand Committee have done well to afford a further opportunity for sending in names of guarantors. It should be remembered that an early intimation of guarantees is particularly desirable, inasmuch as the arrangements made by the Executive Committee must, to a considerable extent, depend on the amount of support which is forthcoming, and those arrangements must necessarily be made at an early date. ments in the enclosed "brief" as to the claims on solicitors of "the admirable scheme prepared by the committee " nominated by the Prince of Wales. There is probably no class which surpasses the English solicitors in respect and loyalty to the Queen, but there is also no class the members of which are more likely to decide for themselves as to the mode in which their satisfaction at the completion of fifty years of her Majesty's reign would be best expressed. In the case of most solicitors there are local memorials to which they are bound to contribute; others will be likely to think that some of the charitable objects which are promoted as a remembrance of the occasion are most worthy of their liberality. We confess we regret that the council have yielded to the pressure put upon them; their appeal is not likely to be successful, and the precedent they have set of travelling out of their proper functions is not a good one. There was, however, a com whether the Government intend to take any steps to give effect to 66 LORD BRAMWELL, in the debate on the second reading of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, is reported to have said, confidently, speaking as a lawyer," that the well-known clause, which has been inserted in every railway construction Act passed in and since 1845, whereby the railway by each such Act authorized is declared not to be exempt from any future railway Act, does not bear the construction put upon it by Lord STANLEY of Preston, so as to authorize the Parliamentary revision of rates proposed by the Bill. With the greatest deference, but quite as confidently, we maintain that the clause not only bears the construction referred to, but could bear no other. The words of the clause are: "Nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to exempt the railway by this Act authorized to be made from the provisions of any general Act now in force, or which may hereafter pass during this or any future session of Parliament, or from any future revision and alteration under the authority of Parliament of the maximum rates and fares authorized by this Act." The words being "any future revision" under the authority of Parliament, it is clear as the English language can make it that the proposed Parliamentary revision is, at any rate, grammatically within them. But if there be anything in the subject-matter or the context to exclude the grammatical construction, of course the grammatical construction is not the true one. As to the subject-matter, Lord BRAMWELL says no one would have subscribed his money if he had thought that Parliament would revise the rates authorized by the original construction Act. Surely it is an equally strong argument that no rates could ever be intended by Parliament to be irrevocable and perpetual whatever might be the changes in the value of money, in the expense of locomotion, and in the pressure of a railway monopoly. As to the context, using the word in its widest sense and admitting all railway Acts, general and special, as part of the context of the clause, we are brought face to face with a more specious argument. In 1844 an Act (7 & 8 Vict. c. 85) authorized revision, by the combined action of the Treasury and Parliament, of the rates and fares of companies paying dividends of ten per cent. or upwards, such revision to be on such a scale as would, in the judgment of the revising authority, reduce the dividends to ten per cent. It is this revision and no other, says Lord BRAMWELL, that is within the purview of the saving clause, which, "he has no doubt, was to prevent new companies saying they were not within this Act of Parliament (7 & 8 Vict. c. 85) because they came into existence after it was passed, and that there was nothing in their own Acts to limit their right to make more than ten per cent." We think this view wrong for three reasons. First, the saving clause is at least ambiguous, and it is a well-known rule of law (see the cases of which Stockton and Darlington Railway Co. v. Barrett, 11 Cl. & F. 590, is the best known, cited, 66 among many other authorities,' in Maxwell on Statutes, 2nd ed., at p. 364) that where a local or personal Act is ambiguous, "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to those who might be prejudiced by the exercise of the powers which the enactment grants, and against those who claim to exercise them." Secondly, the Act of 1844 had no retrospective operation at all, but was prospective only, and railways authorized after its passing were essentially and solely the objects comprehended in it, so that, if the saving clause is put in for the reason suggested by Lord BRAMWELL, it is put in for no reason at all. Thirdly, the Act of 1844 provided for Government purchase as well as revision, and if the Act of 1844 only, and revision thereunder, had been intended to be included under the words "future revision under the authority of Parliament," purchase as well as revision would have been specially mentioned. Now that so great a legal authority as Lord BRAMWELL, "speaking as a lawyer," has publicly put forward the view that Parliament, in passing the 24th clause of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, will be acting with as much injustice as if it took away "an acre from every ten" held by his brother peers, it is, we think, highly desirable that the law officers of the Crown should give an opinion on the subject, and that such opinion should be printed and circulated with the Bill before it is introduced into the House of Commons. ON MONDAY LAST, in a case of Re The Wholesale Grocery Co. (Limited), on the hearing of two petitions presented for the winding up of a company, Mr. Justice NORTH intimated that, wherever a second petition is presented for the winding up of a company he will require explanation, presumably with a view to visiting the second petitioner with costs, or at least disallowing his costs. The learned judge considered that the second petitioner could not be ignorant of the presentation of the first petition, seeing that when he went to the petition clerk to get the name of a judge balloted for, in accordance with R. S. C., V., 9 (d.), he would be made aware of the existence of the previous petition by reason of his petition being marked with the name of a judge without ballot, in accordance with section (e.) of the same rule. On ascertaining the existence of the previous petition it would presumably be his duty to procure a copy of it, and on finding that the hearing of it would effect the object of his own further petition, his duty would be to abstain from incurring any expense. In other cases of second petitions a similar consideration arises, and has been observed on by the court; and notably on Saturday last, Mr. Justice STIRLING, in a case of Re Ruddiman's Trusts, which was under the Trustee Relief Act, refused to allow any costs of a second petition other than the costs of its preparation. This course would probably be adopted by Mr. Justice NORTH in the case of a second petition for winding up prepared in ignorance of the first. IT HAS BEEN STATED that a coroner recently fined a jury man forty shillings for appearing in the jury box drunk, and that, when the juryman protested and announced his intention to appeal, the coroner asked the other jurors to decide by a show of hands whether their fellow-juryman was drunk or not, and, upon their deciding in the affirmative, "confirmed his judgment." We can find no precise authority for the power of a coroner to fine a drunken juryman. The statutory power to fine under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 92, s. 17, is clearly confined to cases of refusal to serve after summons, and the common law power, which is general and not confined to jurors, appears to be limited to cases of actual obstruction of the coroner in the performance of his duty (see Jervis on Coroners, 4th ed., p. 240). A juror, however, must be probus et legalis homo and able to write his name legibly on the inquisition (see Jervis, p. 200, citing Lord Raymond, 1305), so that, although jurors upon coroners' inquests cannot be challenged, it would seem to be almost a matter of necessity to reject a drunken man from the jury, "for the not swearing of a juryman is of less consequence than the risk and hazard of a plea to the inquisition " (Jervis, p. 201). In THE COURT OF APPEAL No. 2, on Wednesday last, had in its list three cases in each of which one side was represented by a suitor in person. It rarely happens that a suitor in person is not obstructive to the business of the court, and Mr. Justice CHITTY recently made some strong remarks about the "torture, vexation, and unnecessary expense" caused by some of these litigants. As a rule, a person in this position, while absolutely convinced of the righteousness of his own cause, is abundantly ignorant as to the law, the rules and practice of the court, the rules of advocacy, and as to most things connected with the conduct of his case. this state of things the court is in a sense forced to instruct him in order to minimize the waste of time, seeing that he cannot be sent away unheard, and, if allowed to talk on at his own discretion, he will introduce all kinds of irrelevant matters into his speech. Some few of these suitors are worthy of consideration, and, indeed, of commiseration, by reason of their want of means. But the purely litigious suitor in person ought to be suppressed. Cases have occurred of motions being made from time to time by a suitor in person, each one more idle than the last, and each one dismissed with costs. It is a difficult matter for the court to protect such a suitor against the results of his own folly and persistent pugnacity, but it would, in the case of the purely litigious suitor, be highly beneficial to that suitor, as well as to the court, if he could be put down. In the House of Commons on the 15th inst. Mr. Plunket obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the acquisition of property and the provision of `new buildings for the Bankruptcy department. ASSIGNMENT OF AFTER-ACQUIRED THE decision of the Court of Appeal in the recent case of The it is properly applicable. We doubt a little as to its applicability PROPERTY to the case in question, because it seems to us that the description there might reasonably have been construed to include a subjectmatter which was originally sufficiently defined. We think that a good deal of confusion is caused in relation to this question by not distinguishing sufficiently between the subject-matter and the description of it. There may be a description so indefinite that it is impossible to say for certain whether anything comes within it. There may be a description which is definite enough in one sense, but the subject-matter may be indefinite. If a man assigns all his future property the description is clear enough, but the subjectmatter is indefinite. In the case in question the description was clear enough; part of the subject-matter was definite enough, and part was altogether indefinite. We can conceive of cases where, such a description having been used, on applying the description by the light of the context and the circumstances, it might seem doubtful whether the description was intended to include any definite subject-matter. If a man assigned all his future book-debts, it would not, perhaps, be enough to shew that there was a class of probable future book-debts which would have been covered by the description, and would have formed a sufficiently definite subject-matter for assignment, unless the context and circumstances shewed that the parties intended to include them. If the description, fairly construed by the light of the context and the circumstances, does not amount to an assignment of the particular class of future bookdebts as well as any other; if the parties do not appear to have intended, by their description, a sufficiently definite subject-matter as well as more which is not sufficiently defined, then, of course, the whole assignment must fail. We feel a difficulty with regard to the decision in Official Receiver v. Tailby, because it seems to us that, under the circumstances, and having regard to the context, the words of the assignment, fairly construed, may have meant the future book-debts to arise in the particular business, whatever they might be intended to include besides. At any rate we cannot help thinking that a business layman would be likely to think that such was the meaning. The facts were these:-A bill of sale given to secure an advance contained an assignment of the stock-in-trade, fixtures, shop and office furniture, &c., of the grantor upon the premises where he carried on the business of a packing-case maker, and the bookdebts due and owing to him, and also of all book-debts "which, during the continuance of the security, might become due and owing to him." It was held, reversing the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division, that the assignment of future book-debts, not being limited to book-debts to arise in any particular business, was invalid, on the ground that the subject-matter was not sufficiently defined, and therefore that it did not operate to pass the property in a book-debt which came into existence after the assignment. We fully admit that this decision, if it had applied to a book-debt arising after the assignment in some other business than that carried on by the grantor at the time of such assignment, would have been clearly good sense and good law. But the debt in question was, it would appear, a book-debt that afterwards became due to the grantor in the course of his business of a packing-case maker carried on by him at the time of the assignment; and the court seemed to admit that, if the assignment of future debts had been in terms confined to the future debts to arise in that business, it would have been sufficiently definite and good. We cannot help feeling some difficulty as to the application of the principle involved, looking to the substance of the thing. The parties, as it appears to us, most clearly in fact contemplated future bookdebts to arise in the course of the particular business, whatever else they may have contemplated; and probably those were the only future book-debts they did really contemplate. But they no doubt used terms which would cover, not only those, but all possible future book-debts which might arise in the course of any business carried on by the grantor, at any time and in any place. The assignment might well be inoperative so far as regarded such other book-debts, because the subject-matter was too indefinite; but why should it be bad quoad a subject-matter clearly included within the limits of the description, which the parties obviously contemplated, and which it was competent for them to convey? If a man conveys by a description which is clearly intended to include A and X, A being a defined matter and X an undefined matter, why should not the assignment operate so far as A is concerned, though it cannot operate so far as X is concerned? It was argued for the grantee of the bill of sale that, "assuming the description to cover all future book-debts to arise during the continuance of the security, it must cover future book-debts to arise in the particular business before mentioned, and as to those it would be sufficiently definite and good, though it might be bad as to any other book-debts." We fail to see that the court gave any very satisfactory answer to this argument. Omne majus continet in se minus. This applies, although the limits of the majus are not accurately ascertained. The Continent of Europe includes England, although the limits of the Continent towards the North Pole may not be exactly ascertained. As the grantee's counsel observed, "surely the effect of saying 'all book-debts to become due' cannot be different for this purpose from that of saying 'all book-debts to become due in the said business or otherwise.'" The Court of Appeal laid great stress on the proposition that, if the description of the subject-matter is not originally sufficiently definite, it is not enough that a definite subject-matter afterwards comes into existence that answers the description. We believe that proposition to be perfectly true as applied to the cases to which INCUMBRANCES UNDER THE YORKSHIRE REGIS- II. Elegit.-The mere issuing of a writ of elegit has no effect on the debtor's land, for the writ merely commands the sheriff to do certain things. When he makes the return to the writ, or, in other words, delivers the land in execution, the rents and profits of the land become charged with the execution creditor's debt, and the land itself may be sold after registration of the writ under 27 & 28 Vict. c. 112 (see ante, p. 39). The Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884, contains no provision for registering the return to the writ, though the writ itself can be registered. If the land is not situated in Yorkshire, every contract or conveyance by a judgment debtor prior to his land being delivered in execution is valid as against the execution creditor; it has even been held that a conveyance for value made by a debtor for the express purpose of defeating an execution, so as to leave nothing in himself which can Harribe seized, is not fraudulent within 13 Eliz. c. 5: Alton v. son (4 Ch. App. 622); Hale v. Saloon Omnibus Co. (4 Drew. 492); Holbird v. Anderson (5 T. R. 235); Darvill v. Terry (6 H. & N. 807); Wood v. Dixie (7 Q. B. 892); Meux v. Howell (4 East. 1); Pickstock v. Lyster (3 M. & S. 371); secus when the convey ance is voluntary, Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp (12 Beav. 568, 1 De. G. M. & G. 495). If, therefore, it makes no difference to a purchaser who has contracted or taken a conveyance for value before the land is delivered in execution whether his contract or conveyance is executed before or after the writ is issued, it appears that the question whether the conveyance is registered in Yorkshire before or after the writ was registered is immaterial. A purchaser who entered into a contract to purchase, or, in cases where there was no contract, whose conveyance was executed after the land was delivered in execution, takes subject to the rights thereby conferred on the execution creditor, but it may be a question if (in the case where there is no prior contract) the conveyance is registered in Yorkshire before the registration of the writ, the purchaser might not have priority over the execution |