Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.
Off Rec, Salisbury
OWEN, RICHARD EDWARD, Walsall, Grocer. March 12 at 10. Off Rec, Walsall
PARK, SOPHIA, Leeds, Publican. March 11 at 11. St Andrew's chmbrs, 22, Park
row, Leeds
PEARCE, JOSEPH, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, Licensed Victualler. March 12 at
10.45. Off Rec, Walsall

PEGLER. FREDERICK URIAH, Newtown Brynhyfrydd, Glamorganshire, Iron-
monger. March 14 at 3. Off Rec, 6, Rutland st, Swansea
PHILLIPS, ALFRED, Pontlottyn, Glamorganshire, Grocer. March 15 at 12. Off
Rec, Merthyr Tydfil

PINNOCK, WILLIAM, Kencott, Oxfordshire, Farmer. March 31 at 11. Off Rec,
St Aldates, Oxford

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,
Merthyr Tydfil

RAYNOR, BENJAMIN, Barnsley, Yorks, Builder. March 14 at 10. Off Rec, 3,
Eastgate, Barnsley
SCOTT. JOHN, Batley, Yorks, Rag Merchant. March 11 at 10. Off Rec, Bank
chbrs, Batley

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,
High pavement, Nottingham

The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of Feb. 22.

ADAMS, FREDERICK WILLIAM HENRY, High st, Sydenham, Baker. Mar 7 at 3. 109, Victoria st, Westminster

[blocks in formation]

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.
Pet March 2. Ord March 2
GAMLEN, WILLIAM GOULD BURLAND, Cheltenham, Outfitter. Cheltenham. Pet
Nov 15. Ord Feb 28
GIBSON, ROBERT, Purston, Yorks, Joiner. Wakefield. Pet Feb 25. Ord Mar 2
HARRISS, GEORGE, Weston super Mare, Grocer. Bridgwater. Pet Feb 28. Ord
Feb 28
HASHIM, KHALIL, Manchester, Merchant. High Court. Pet Nov 26. Ord Mar 1
HUGHES, OWEN, Anglesey, General Dealer. Bangor. Pet Feb 28. Ord Mar 2
JONES, DANIEL, Leadenhall st, Iron Merchant. High Court. Pet Jan 21.
Mar 1

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 Jan 31. Ord March 1
MCGOWAN, JAMES, Whitehaven, Boot Maker. Whitehaven. Pet Mar 1. Ord
March 2

Pet Feb 5. Ord
Ord Feb 28
Ord Feb 28

NEWLAND, STEPHEN, High st, Stepney, Tailor. High Court.
Feb 28
NOBLE, JOHN WALTER, Carlisle, Roper. Carlisle. Pet Feb 28.
OWEN, RICHARD EDWARD, Walsall, Grocer. Walsall. Pet Feb 28.
POTTAGE, JOHN WILLIAM, Newport, Mon, Tailor. Newport, Mon. Pet Feb 28.
PRIEST, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Lordship lane, East Dulwich, Plumber. High
Court. Pet Feb 18. Ord Feb 28

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
March 2
WATSON, ROBERT, Ledsham, Cheshire, Hotel Keeper. Birkenhead. Pet Feb 16.
Ord March 1
WILLIAMS, DANIEL, Eglwysilan, Glamorganshire, Farmer. Pontypridd. Pet
Feb 16. Ord March 1
WORSLEY, WILLIAM, Pemberton, Lancashire, Manure Manufacturer. Wigan.
Pet Feb 26. Ord March 1.
WRIGHT, THOMAS, Scarborough, Innkeeper. Scarborough. Pet Feb 17. Ord
March 2
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, March 8.

5. Ord March 5

RECEIVING ORDERS.

ASHMAN, HENRY JOHN, Glastonbury, Somerset, Auctioneer. Wells. Pet March
BARHAM, THOMAS, Brookthorpe, Gloucester, Farmer. Gloucester. Pet March
5. Ord March 5
BEER, JOHN, Stokeinteignhead, Devon, Baker. Exeter. Pet March 4. Ord
March 4

BONTOFT, WALTER SEYMOUR, Spalding, Lincoln, Veterinary Surgeon. Peter-
borough. Pet Feb 23. Ord March 5
BOWES, THOMAS, Bradford, Coal Merchant. Bradford. Pet March 4. Ord
March 4
CHAMBERS, ARTHUR, Blackburn, Hosier. Blackburn. Pet March 4. Ord
March 4

March 8

Pet March 4. Ord March 4

DEAN, ISAIAH, Birmingham, Carpet Factor. Birmingham. Pet March 3. Ord
DICKENS, STEPHEN FRANCIS, Peterborough, out of business. Peterborough.
DRYSDALE, PETER, Newcastle on Tyne, Builder. Newcastle. Pet March 5. Ord
March 5
DUNFORD, JAMES, Poole, Dorset, Builder. Poole. Pet March 3. Ord March 3
EDROP., and LANE, Birmingham, Coal Merchants. rmingham. Pet
Feb 22. Ord March 4
EVANS, JOHN, Abererch, nr Pwllheli, Carnarvon, Mariner. Bangor. Pet March
3. Ord March 3

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

LEAMON, PHILIP, Whitwell, Norfolk, Farmer. Norwich. Pet March 4. Ord
March 4
LOEWENSTEIN, JULES JOSEPH, Nottingham, Lace Manufacturer. Nottingham.
Pet March 4. Ord March 4

MCKAY, ROBERT, Wardour st, Soho, Licensed Victualler. High Court. Pet
March 5. Ord March 5
ORMANDY, JOHN, Mountbarrow, nr Ulverston, Farmer. Ulverston and Barrow
in Furness. Pet March 3. Ord March 4

OSBORNE, JOSEPII, Liversedge, Yorks, Fuller. Dewsbury. Pet March 4. Ord
March 4

OUTON, CHARLES RICHARD SMITH, Newhaven, General Dealer. Lewes and Eastbourne. Pet March 5. Ord March 5

PADGHAM, ROBERT APPLETON, Beastfair, Pontefract, Tailor. Wakefield. Pet
March 4. Ord March 4

PENNINGTON, CHARLES PLUMER residence unknown. High Court.
Ord March 4

Pet Feb 15.

PETERS, PHOEBE, Portslade, Sussex, Baker. Brighton. Pet Feb 21. Ord March 3
PICK, DEMETER, Aldersgate st, Furrier. High Court. Pet Feb 16. Ord March 4
ROWLANDS, HENRY, Cwmbran, Mon, Milkseller. Newport, Mon. Pet March 4.
Ord March 4
STOPS, WILLIAM, Hartington rd, Ealing, Builder. Brentford. Pet Feb 3. Ord
March 1
STREET, CAPTAIN, Bradford, Shutter Maker. Bradford. Pet March 5. Ord
March 5

4. Ord March 4

Ord March 3

THORN, THOMAS, Broadhembury, Devon, out of business. Exeter. Pet March
TURNER, CHARLES, Upton, Essex. Provision Dealer. High Court. Pet Jan 27.
WALKER, JAMES, Froxfield, Wilts, Clerk in Holy Orders. Newbury. Pet
March 4 Ord March 4
WATTS, EDWARD, St James' pl, St James. High Court. Pet Feb 10. Ord
WEDGE, GEORGE, Chirton, Wilts, Blacksmith. Bath. Pet March 4. Ord
March 4

March 3

WEST, CHARLES, Leeds, Corn Merchant. Leeds. Pet Feb 22. Ord March 4
WHERRY, JAMES, Clee, Lincs, Farm Foreman. Gt Grimsby. Pet March 3. Ord
March 3
Pet

WHITING, JOSEPH, West green rd, Tottenham, Traveller. Edmonton.
March 4. Ord March 4

WILMSHURST, HENRY, Maidstone, Fruiterer. Maidstone. Pet March 3. Ord
March 3

The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of Feb. 15.
HARRISON, THOMAS, South Stockton, Yorks, Pawnbroker. Stockton on Tees and
Middlesborough. Pet Jan 13. Ord Feb 10

The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the
London Gazette of March 1.

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,
Lincoln's inn bldgs, Hull
ARMITSTEAD, WILLIAM, Leeds, Provision Dealer's Cartman. March 15 at 3. Off

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,
Southampton

CHATWIN, HENRY JOHN, Sparkbrook, Warwick, Commercial Traveller. March
17 at 11. Off Rec, Birmingham

COATES. ALLEN MARTIN, Sheffield, Station Master. March 16 at 11.

Figtree lane, Sheffield

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

chmbrs, Union st, Oldham

DYSON, THOMAS (sep estate), Oldham, Joiner. March 16 at 3.30. Off Rec, Priory

chmbrs. Union st, Oldham

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

2. Townhall, Aberystwith

FLOCKTON, ALICE JANE, Dewsbury, Yorks, Confectioner. Mar 15 at 3. Off Rec,

Bank chbrs, Batley

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

Hotel, Liverpool st

HARRISON, JOHN, Springhead, Yorks, Builder. Mar 16 at 3. Off Rec, Priory

chbrs, Union st, Oldham

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

chibrs, Bridge st. Manchester

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

Head Cafe, Bangor

ISAACS, COLEMAN, Manchester, Stationer. Mar 15 at 11.30. Off Rec, Ogden's

chbrs, Bridge st, Manchester

KING. WILLIAM, Burstow, Surrey, Builder. Mar 17 at 2.30. Station Hotel,

Redhill

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,

Liverpool

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

House, Ledbury

PATTON, JOHN, and JOHN JACOB VICKERS, Fenchurch avenue, Steamship

Managers. March 16 at 12. Bankruptcy bldgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inu

fields

PETTIT, WILLIAM, Haldane rd, Fulham, Cowkeeper. March 17 at 2.30. 33,

Carey st, Lincoln's inn fields

March 16 at

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

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

GoOODING, WILLIAM, Deopham, Norfolk, Miller. Norwich. Pet March 1. Ord
GREEN, DANIEL, Thornton Heath, Croydon. Croydon. Pet Jan 8. Ord March 2
HARRIS, ESTHER, and SARAH HARRIS, Swansea, Pawnbrokers. Swansea. Pet
Feb 28. Ord March 3

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-

ter. Pet Feb 7. Ord March 4

HODGETTS, EDWIN, Upton on Severn, Worcestershire, Boatman. Worcester.

Pet Feb 24. Ord March 3

HOE, CHARLES WILLIAM, Oxford st, Trunk Maker. High Court. Pet Feb 17.

Ord Mar 4

HYSLOP, DAVID, Formosa st, Warwick rd, Maida hill, Upholsterer. High Court.

Pet March 2. Ord March 4

JARVIS, ELIZA, Bury St Edmunds, Stationer. Bury St Edmunds. Pet Feb 19.

Ord Feb 19

JORDAN, WILLIAM HENRY, Rothwell, Yorks, Farmer. Leeds. Pet March 5.

Ord March 5

KITCHING, JOHN, High st, Kingsland, Mantle Manufacturer. High Court.

Pet Jan 29. Ord March 4.

KNEESHAW, RICHARD, Pickering, Yorks, Watchmaker. Scarborough. Pet March

4. Ord March 4

LEWIS, JOHN, Llangurig, Montgomeryshire, Innkeeper. Newtown. Pet Feb 11.

Ord March 4

MARKS, FREDERICK MOSES, Moorgate st, Lithographic Artist. High Court. Pet

Jan 12. Ord Mar 4

MCKAY, ROBERT, Wardour st, Soho, Licensed Victualler. High Court. Pet

Mar 5. Ord Mar 5

MONTAGUE, MONTAGUE, Moorgate st, Lithographic Artist. High Court. Pet

Jan 12. Ord Mar 4

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

Mar 3

PADGHAM, ROBERT APPLETON, Beastfair, Pontefract, Tailor. Wakefield. Pet
Mar 4. Ord Mar 4

PARKER, RICHARD, Birmingham, Horse Dealer. Birmingham. Pet Feb 5. Ord

March 5

PICKERSGILL, HENRY, Dumbleton rd, Camberwell, Builder. High Court. Pet

Jan 20. Ord Mar 4

QUILLIAM, ALFRED, Fairfield, Lancs, Accountant. Liverpool. Pet Feb 14. Ord

March 3

REGAN, ELIZABETH, Church Enstone, Oxford, Publican. Oxford. Pet March 2.

Ord March 4

RUTHERFORD, WILLIAM, Kingston upon Hull, Currier. Kingston upon Hull.
Pet Feb 28. Ord March 3

SADLER, PHILIP, Sidmouth, Devon, Grocer. Exeter. Pet Feb 17. Ord March 3

SHELLARD, ALFRED TOM, Coventry, Bicycle Maker. Coventry. Pet March 2.

Ord March 3

SHORE. WILLIAM JAMES, Runcorn, Agent. Warrington. Pet Feb 23. Ord

STREET, CAPTAIN, Bradford, Shutter Måker.

March 5

Bradford. Pet March 4. Ord

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

366

356
Bourne, In re. Rymer v. Harpley.. 359
Buckle v. Lordonny

Clough. In re, Bradford Com-
mercial Joint-Stock Bank V.
Cure

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
Co. (3)

Marshfield, Re, Marshfield

V.

"England," The

Hutchings

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors]

332

Mav v. Newton

Reg. v. Riley

333

Robinson v. Duke of Buccleuch

and Queensberry

[ocr errors][merged small]

Soper v. Arnold

.....

Ruddiman's Trusts, Re ............ 331

Williamson v. Farnell..

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mytton v. Mytton..

Parker and Beech, In re

.... ......

[ocr errors]

.....

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
367

363

....... 368

Pearce, In re, McLean v. Smith
Richards v. Jenkins..

... 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
THE REPLY of the Attorney-General to Mr. MACLEAN's question,
the unanimous recommendation of Lord SELBORNE'S Committee
that an additional judge be appointed in the Chancery Division,
and that the same staff of clerks be attributed to each of the
judges," was not unfavourable. The matter, he said, was en-
gaging the attention of the Government, but at present no final
decision had been come to. If report is correct, there is not only
suggestion of the committee, but there is a wish to do so, provided
no disinclination on the part of the Government to carry out the
only the objections of the Treasury can be surmounted. It must
be remembered, however, that the appointment of an additional
judge is only the first step in the reforms which are necessary for
Division. The question of the division of the work among the
procuring the rapid and efficient disposal of business in the Chancery
judges is of the greatest importance; and upon this matter it will
be remembered the late Mr. Justice PEARSON dissented from the
scheme adopted by the committee.
plete agreement that provision must be made for hearing witness
might, we think, be reconciled by the adoption of the intermediate
causes continuously, and the divergence of opinion on other matters
scheme we ventured to propound (30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, p. 513).
But it need hardly be said that the most pressing question is the
disposal of the chamber business; and on this question one portion
of the committee's report adopted the strange idea which seems
nowadays to have taken possession of so many would-be reformers
of administrative departments-viz., that you can get more work
out of a given number of men if you group them differently.
There are twelve chief clerks; let six judges "have two chief
clerks each," and then, we suppose, we are to wait for some
wonderful improvement in the rapidity with which business is
transacted in chambers. It is hardly necessary to point out that
it is not in this way that any improvement can be effected. If
the Lord Chancellor would ask three experienced London solicitors
to investigate personally the conduct of business in the chancery
chambers and report to him as to the changes in organization
which are desirable, he would obtain suggestions which we venture
to say would be of infinitely more practical value than the report
of any committee which takes formal evidence and includes a
large proportion of members who have no practical experience of
where the shoe pinches.

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
WHEN TOO INDEFINITE.

THE decision of the Court of Appeal in the recent case of The
Official Receiver v. Tailby (35 W. R. 91, 18 Q. B. D. 25) affords
an illustration, as it seems to us, of the way in which legal
decisions with regard to the construction of documents sometimes
diverge from what, to a layman, would probably seem the common
sense of the matter. We are not prepared to say, without thorough
consideration of all the authorities, that the Court of Appeal were
wrong in the conclusion at which they arrived; but we cannot
help thinking that a common-sense business layman would most
likely have come to the opposite conclusion. It is quite certain
that the general principle on which the court acted was perfectly
correct, the only doubt being as to its application to the language
of the document in the particular case.

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-
TRIES ACTS, 1884, 1885.

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

« PreviousContinue »