Page images
PDF
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Tlie question in this case was whether a married woman, who is. an appellant, can be required to give security for the costs o£_her appeal if it is shewn that she has not the means of paving the costs if unsuccessful. Sub-section 2 of section l of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, provides that a married woman shall be capable of suing and being sued, either in contract or tort, or otherwise, in all respects as if she were a _/Iema sole, and “ any damages or costs recovered against her in any such action or proceeding shall be payable out of her separate property, and not otherwise." It was argued that the above words in inverted commas prevent the court from requiring a married woman to give security for costs.

Tim Coimr or A1-Paar. (Corros and Lrrmnev, L JJ.) held that therc was no foundation for this argument, and required the appellant to give security.—Coimsizr,, J. Cutler; J. l{rnd¢1-son. Somciroas, Pitman Q Sons; F. J. 4' G. J. Braikanridgc.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The Metropolitan Board of Works, acting under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, purchased compulsorily certain lands belonging to the Chelsea Waterworks Co. in fee, which were actually in use at the time for the purposes of the company; and another site for the wafer pipes was provided. The company was incorporated under an Act of 1852, which incorporated the Lands Clauses Act, and they had no power to sell other than superfluous land. The purchase-money was paid into court under section 69, and the company now petitioned that it might be paid out to them as being rsons “absolutely entitled to such money ” within the section. It was 23:0 argued that it ought not to have been paid into court.

KAY, J., said that he could not follow Tlw Cliledonian Railway Co. v. T/re City of Glasgow Union Railway Ca. (Sc. Sass. Ca-s., 3rd series, vol. 7, p. 1072), and must hold that it was right to pa the money into court. But it could not be applied according to any cg the directions given in section 69, except that to pay to the persons absolutely entitled. The company were absolutely entitled, and the money must be paid out to them.—-Coimsaiz, .7. Dixon ; F. Pownall. s0l’.XCIT0lI.H, Few 4- U0. ; Solicitors to the Hairopolitan Board of Works.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The question in this case was whether certain expenditure which the trustees of a will proposed to make was authorized by a power given to them_by the will to expend money in the completion and furnishing of a mansion house. The tesrator was a domiciled Englishman, but he had an estate in Scotland called the L. Estate. Ho made an English will of his personiilty; he also made a Scotch deed of disposition and settlement of his Scotch real estate. By this instrument he settled the L. Estate on his son F., whom he constituted heir in entail. The testator had before his death commenced extensive alterations in the mansion house on the_I,. Estate, which were not completed at the time of his death. By a codicil to his English will he directed that, in case he should die before the mansion house which he was building on his L. Estate and the outbuilding; gardens, and grounds thereto should be comPleieii» fllmlfihed. find p ted respective y, his executors should pay to the trustees of his Scotch trust disposition and settlement such a sum not less than £5,000, nor more than £15,000, as such trustees in their absolute discretion should deem necessary or roper for the purpose, to be expended by them in_ or towards the completion, furnishing, and planting respectively of the said mansion house and the outbuildings, gardens, and grounds thereto._ The Scotch trustees desired to apply the whole sum of -‘31_-1.000 011 certain proposed expenditure. As the executors of the English will were to a great extent the same persons as the Scotch trustees, they wished to have the decision of the court whether the proposed expenditure was authorized by the power. Among the items of the proposed expenditure was a large sum for the installation of apparatus for lighting the premises by electricity, a suin of £3,738 for garden houses, a sum of nearly £3,000 for plate, pictures, china, books, and other articles, and a sum of £1,000 for one picture, which had been already bought by the son F. himself.

Npimi, J ., was of opinion that the expenditure of a proper amount on the installation of electric lighting apparatus was within the power, as was 545° i'h° ‘~‘X11'3it‘"’° 011 Harden houses and plate, pictures, and books £2?! ‘:2;-lziottgfiigrgzd considered necessary and proper. But _he thought hady 51" My bou M _"!CP8_Ylng the £1,000 for the picture which the son Finlay Q0 and§' '1. J °““”' “"‘P'" Hwm, Q.o._, and mould.

» -, "9 ayes. Soiiciroiis, G;-Wary, Row,-hip, Q gm

[ocr errors]

give security for the costs of the opponents. And it was ordered that, until the security was given, the app ‘cant should not take any further proceedintgs in the matter against the opponents. The security was not ,given, an on the 15th of March the opponents gave notice of a motion

or the 18th of March, before North, J ., in court, that the applicant might be ordered to give the security within seven days, and that, in default of his doing so, his application might be dismissed with costs, without any further order.

NORTH, J., held that the opponents were entitled to the preremptory order for which they asked. But he said that the application ought to have

[been made, not by motion in court, but by summons in chambers, and

therefore he should only allow the opponents the costs of a summons.COUNSEL, Cozena-Hardy, Q..C. ; Ingpm. Soniciroiia, Jansen, Cobb, Q Co. ; E’. Kennedy.

[merged small][ocr errors]

In this action, which was brought by four freeman of Norwich on behalf of themselves and the other freemen, the plaintiffs claimed as their private propert some eighty acres of building land, called the Town Close, at Norwich. It formed part of land formerly belonging to the Prior of Norwich, which he had released to the “ mayor, sherifis, citizens, and commonalty ” in pursuance of a compromise of a dispute about the respective rights of the priory and the city. In 1524 the corporation directed that no “ foreign inhabitant" should put any beast to pasture on this land, but only “citizen inhabitants,” and it appeared from the evidence that the rent of the land had, until a year or two since, been paid to the freemen. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the property belonged to the corporation for the benefit of all the citizens and not to one particular class of them.

KBKBWKCH, J .. said there were many questions of interest in the case, but the main one was whether, having regard to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, s. 2, the property in question was the private property of one particular class of the inhabitants. The clause of the Act wasin these terms :—“ And whereas, in divers cities, towns, and boroughs, the common land and public stock of such cities, towns, and boroughs, and the rents and profits thereof, have been held and applied for the particular benefit of the citizens, freemen, and burgessea of the said cities, towns, and boroughs respectively, or of certain of them, or of the widows or kindred of them, or certain of them, and have not been applied to public purposes: be it therefore enacted: That every person who now is, or hereafter may be, an inhabitant of any borough, and also every person who has been admitted, or who now is, or hereafter may be, the wife or widow, or son or daughter, of any freeman or burgess, or who may have espoused, or may hereafter espouse, the daughter or widow of any freeman or burgess, or who may have been, or may hereafter be, bound an apprentice, shall have and enjoy and be entitled to acquire and enjoy the same share and benefit of the lands, tenements, hereditaments, and of the rents and profits therefor, and of the common lands and public stock of any borough or body corporate . . . as fully and effectually, and for such time and in such marmer as he or she, by any statute, charter, bye-law, or custom in force at the time of passing this Act, might 01' could have had, acquired, or enjoyed in case this Act had not been passed." He should decide the case as if it had been brought the day after the passing of the Act. The question really reduced itself totlus —how had the property been held and enjoyed for the last 350 years? From the extracts produced from the documents of the C0rp0l'B15i°l1- 1'5 was clear that, when there were receipts from the land, freeman. and freemen alone, were entitled to share them. It had been suggestedtllfl-9 their enjoyment of these rents and profits was of grace, not of right. but the entries did not bear this out. At the time, then, of the pBB§1°B of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, the freemen were in the €l1]°y' ment of certain property, and their enjoyment, he thought, came under the word “custom ’ in section 2 of that Act, which, however, was 110$ “ custom" in the strict legal sense, and that without reference $116 origin and legality of the rights. Prestney v. Mayor and Corporation if Oalcliesler and the Attorney-General ('21 Ch. D. Ill) seemed very 11111011 111» point, and he should follow it. There would be a declaration that the Corporation held the Town Close in trust for the frcemen of the city Oi Norwich, and an account accordingly; also an inquiry as to who were the freemen entitled to the benefit of the declaration, and any e%l1@5h°“ as to what constituted a freeman of Norwich could be determin under that inquiry. It would be open to the Attorney-General to BPP1!f_°' “ schema upon the footing of a charitable trust if he should be so advised—C0uNsaL, Warminylon, Q,C., Swinfon Eady, and Sbaarman,' Bflfbfli Q'C'I E/Hm. Q.C-, and W. I’/iipaon Beale; Ingle-Jug/ce. Soucrroiifii 0- F' Mar/elli, for J. Stanley, Norwich; S.'nlrpe, Parkers, Pritchnrd, Q Sharp!» for II. II. Jlliller, Norwich ; Hare Q O0.

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

, Mar. 26, .887. _, ,_, THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL. 349

[graphic]

Price, and the said Frances Amelia Price her executor and executrix. In support of the motion it was contended that since the (passing of the Married Women's Pgperty Act, 1882, there was no groun for following the old form of limi grant. Section l, sub-section 1, had rendered a married woman capable of acquiring, holding, and disposing, by will or otherwise, of any property as if she were a fem: sole, and the power thus conferred was subject to no limitation. The provisions of sections 5, 6, and 23 were also referred to, and it was urged that the limited form of grant caused much inconvenience when stock had to be sold. The case stood over, in order to enable Butt, J ., to consult the registrars of the division as to the ractice.

P Bu-rr, J ., now said that, while understanding the reasons for the form of grant hitherto followed in the case of the wills of married women, he had never been able to understand its necessity, but it appeared to him that, in the face of recent legislation, the old form ought not to be insisted upon, and since the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, had altered the position of a married woman with regard to her powers of holding and disposing of separate property, the probate might issue in the ordinary form. He added that the president of the division had expressed his approval of that course being followod.—Consssi., Houghton. Soucrroas, Tatlmm Q Son.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Judgment was given in this suit on a petition for variation of settlements and for permanent maintenance after a decree dissolving the marriage on the ground of the husband's cruelty and adultery. It appeared from the registrar‘s report that the respondent had brought no property into settlement, and that the property brought into settlement comprised a sumof£l,000invested on mortgage and producing about £40 per auuum, and the petitioner‘s reversionary interest in one-fifth of a fund of £5,074 4s. 2d., after the death of a lady now about seventy-five years of age. The trusts of the settlement were for the petitioner for life, and aft er her death, in default of children, for such person or persons as the wife should by deed or will appoint, and, in default of appointment, as if she had died intestate and unmarried. There were no children of the marriage. The husband's income, derived from various stocks and shares, was about £400 er annum, and he had a reversionary interest in a fund of about £7,700 (producing an income of about £340 per annum) on the death of his uncle. The wife's present income out of the settled Property was about £40 per annum, and on the falling in of her reversionary interest it would be increased by about the same sum. The registrar's report proposed that the respondent should pay to the petitioner a yearly sum of £110 during their joint lives and until the falling in of his reversion, after which he should pay an additional £100 per annum, his payments to be reduced by £40 whenever the petitioner's revarsions should fall in. On the motion to confirm the registrar's report the respondent’s counsel contended that the court could not take the respondent's reversionary interest into account, but could only deal with the state of things existing Ht the date oi the decree. Apphcation was also made to the courtto direct the insertion of a dam sola 0! casla clause in the deed. The following authorities were referred to:—Fis}m- v. Fisher (2 S. & T. 410) ; Sydney v. 2:? (23. 178) ; Gladstone v. Glarimme (24 \V. B. 739, l IEODW4-12%;

v. ar _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ 937' 7 P‘ D. 1(22).W R 8, 18 Ch D 670), Medley v Medky (

Bvrr, J., now said that he could not accede to the full extent to the mP°ndent's contention that upon a petition for permanent maintenance the court had no power to deal with the reversionary interest belonging ‘° the husband; but he should not be disposed to deal with it except under e*°*Pt19lIal circumstances, as, for instance, it there were no other means °f mlhug provision for the wife. Under these circumstances he ordered the ,1'"P°l1d_cnt to secure to the petitioner an annual payment of £130 dunnfi their joint lives, leaving the respondent’s reversionary interest untouched. The dum solo at casta clause was an unusual one under the circumstances, and he declined to order it to be inserted in the deed.-— Commuo BWf°""1, Q-0., and Barnard; Inderwiek, Q-C-, lmd ~5'¢'"’1¢8°‘-"""'°K8, 17“97~¢~* 6' SM ; A. T. Cor.

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

place, and the trustee in the bankruptcy claimed the bankrupt‘s one-fifth share of the rents ot the property. The Divisional Court (Cave and Wills, JJ.) held (18 Q. B. D. 380) that no valid equitable mortgage had been created, and that the trustee was entitled. Cave, J ., said that he was not aware of any case which went the length of holding that, where a third person already had possession of title deeds for another purpose, an oral communication bya part owner of the property to which the deeds related, purporting to make the third person a trustee of the deeds for a creditor, could create a good equitable mortgage in favour of that creditor. So to hold would be to repeal the Statute of Frauds so far as the creation of equitable mortgages was concerned.

Tun COURT or APPEAL (Lord Esnim, M.R., and Bowsrr and Fiw, L.JJ'.) afllrmed the decision. Lord Eslifllt, M.R., said that, there being nothing but a verbal promise by the bankrupt to give security, in order to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds it must be shewn that there had been part performance of the promise. The deeds were not handed by the

ankrupt to his brother. When the direction was given by the bankrupt to hold the deeds from the bank nothing more was done with them, they were left in precisely the same position as before. The one brother said something and the other said something. Was that such a part performance of the original verbal promise as would take the case out of the statute? His lordship agreed with what Cave, J ., had said. \Vhon a verbal promise had been given to do athing, and nothing tool;place afterwards but the speaking of more words by the person who h given the promise, when nothing was done in fact, the statute could not be satisfied. If goods were in the hands of a warehouseman, and the owner of them sold them and then directed the warehouseman to hold them thenceforth for the purchaser, and the wareliouseman transferred the goods in his books into the name of the purchaser, an act would have been done which would exclude the Statute of Frauds. But in the present case nothing had taken place but a verbal communication, and that did not amount to a part performance of the original promise. Bowss, L_-T., said that the bank were bound to prove a part performance of something which there had been a promise to perform, and he could see nothing which amounted to a change of the legal rights of the parties. Nothing passed between the two brothers but conversation, and to hold that this was part performance of the promise would be to repeal the Statute of Frauds so far as it related to equitable mortgages. Dew v. Terrell (33 Beav. 218), which had been referred to, was entirely distinguishable. Far, L.J , entirely concurred in the view that the mere words spoken by_ the bankrupt to his brother as to the custody of the deeds could not be said to have been a part performance of the verbal promise to give secllfiti-— COUNSEL, Evrritt, Q.G., and Luck; Ambrose. Q.C., and J’. Broughtan Edge. Somcirous, Clarke, Rawlinr, 4- Co. ; Torr _4' Co.

CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.

UNQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS IN COUNTY UOURTS—Croydon County Court, before Judge Lushington and Mr. J . E. Fox, Registrar, 16th March.

When his Honour took his seat Mr. . Appleby asked leflve 170 milk? B statement. He stated that that morning he had four or five cases put into his hands on behalf of poor persons who were unable to pay a solicitor's fees but on appearing before the registrar that morning he had refused tohear him, and had stated that agents could not be permitted to conduct cases. He should like to have information on this subject, because this would be a very great loss to them. The registrar Bald his opinion was and he had been confirmed by the Treasnrii that it was illegal and ibiproper for persons not duly qualified to appear in the county courts “for fee or reward.” He had communicated with Mr. Nicol and he had the authority of the Treasury for refusing to hear un

uulificd persons Section 10 of tho County Courts Act, 1356, Pl'°'id9d tlhat those who might be heard were persons duly qualified to flPP°'"- “ltd that persons defending should be duly authorized, and the view Mr._Nicol took was that a person was not duly authorized who was actin8 1“ contravention of an Act of Parliament. _

His HONOUlt remarked that it was the custom in the _Croydon and other county courts to allow suitorstoappear by agents, and it was a thing which could not be altered without gpeat cpcnsideration. He quite MW

. . . e _ thayhbhellilgggacifniiiiicdlltidntfelaesqdhhe haiidafor investigating Hlifl W48 that rave irregularities with which Mr. Appleby was in no way °°“‘ cerneg had taken place with reference to the actions of “ agents."

Mr lhri-tsnr ' Of course this will be a great loss to me and to others.

His Hosonu-It is not your interests so much as the interests of U16

'to I am onsiderin Ho said it was an important question, because iduallsthe cdbrts persgiis called debt O0ll8GtOl3v wh°1 11° d°‘-lb‘: we"

. ~ d h ed 't was to the conP*“‘?» "Z", 'f,‘I,'}§,§'§;‘§11f',¢“§ii§"rii:>'i{1<iliippeirfuiiiiioie diii not know that he glibliielldcbd) justified in excluding them. He would give hiBd66i8i°ll 11°" court day, but he did not think he should be able to exclude them.

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

ACCOMMODATION FOR PRISONERS AWAITING TRIAL.

T1-I3 report of the committee appointed last year “ to inquire into the present accommodation for prisoners in court-houses and other places while awaiting trial at assizes and sessions, and to report what alterations they may consider desirable in the oxistinglarrsngements," has recently appeared. The committee deal in detail wit the existing accommodation in about 200 of the court-house lock-ups. They say that “ m some order and. decency are attempted to be enforced by the presence of an oflicer among the prisoners ; in others no oflilcer could be expected to endure the atmosphere in which the prisoners have to spend their time; and the worst evils of that promiscuous association, against which it has been a primary object of modern prison disci line to guard, must be encountered for hours, and even days together, gy children, women, and men who may be, and some of whom are, innocent. In some places where separation is effected it is by means which appear to be capable of amounting to positive torture. Men and women are, in many such places of detention, bolted for many consecutive hours, sometimes for many consecutive days, into boxes or cupboards measuring, in some instances, as little as 2ft. 4in. by 2ft.1in. (Gloucester, where prisoners have been confined in these boxes six days running), and even 2ft. 6in. by 1ft. 9in.'in one instance (Bodmin). This practice is more common than might be suppzsed, as the following specimens will shew:—Ceiitral Criminal Court,

xes, 2ft. 6in. by 3ft. ; Surrey Sessions, 3ft. 10in. by 2ft. 2in. ; Clerkenwell Sessions, 4ft. by 2ft. 9in. ; Devizss, 2ft. 4in. by 2ft. 6in. ; Salisbury, 3ft. by 2ft. 6in.; Marlborough, 2ft. by 2ft. 4in. ; Gloucester, 2ft. lin. by 2ft. 4in. ; Lewes, 2ft. 6in. by 3ft. ; and Bodmin, 2ft. 6in. by 1ft. 9in.

“ When it is considered that a great many of such cells are all but dark, that for their inmates there is no ssibility of distraction of any kind, that some are close‘ and overheategoby hot-water pipes or gas burners, while in others the temperature in winter is often as low as 40 to 45 degrees, with damp and unprotected stone floors, it is not using the language of exaggeration to say that such a method of confinement may inflict great suffering, both of body and mind, and that its wholesale adoption savours little of the humanity which is extended to convicted criminals. In some of such places there are either no seats at all (Newcastle-under-Lyme), or seats o brick (Dorchester), or of stone (Lancaster). In very many instances the rooms or cells are without any means of procuring warmth ; in_ many others, the only method of warming is by burning the gas jet, without which the inmates would be in partial or total darkness ; and, as it is rather the exception than the rule to find adequate ventilation, the state of the atmosphere at the close of the day must necessarily be foul and unwholesome. In some cases the oillces of nature, if performed at :11, niust be performed in the presence from two to eight or ten specta

ors.

The committee say :-“ It will be necessary as things stand, and in any case desirable, to work through the local authorities, and as far as possible with them, and it is very satisfactory to observe the number of instaness inwliich the representations of the Prison Commissioners have been favourably received and acted upon by the authorities. In some instances, however, a different spirit has prevailed, and it is obvious that such of the lccal authorities as have been so far forgetful of their duties as to have allowed such things as have been pointed out topass must need some efiectnal pressure from without.”

The committee then enumerate the matters to be amended. These arei shortly, separation; increased space; proper warmth and ventilation; an deeentlsan tary accommodation. With regard to warmth the committee say:—- Many of the places of confinement in question are liable to fall to 40deg. or 45deg., or even lower in very cold weather; The persons confined in them can generally take no exercise of any kind. They are, as a rule, poorly clad, and not particularly well _fed. It offends any due ilense of lair play to keep a person under conditions which must benumb

is faculties, paralyze his energies, and make him physically miserable, and then, after some hours of this treatment, to call upon him at a moment s notice to struggle for his liberty, perhaps for many years, against

sviadglnnthe presence of persons who are, generally speaking, at all events

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

I If the property is personalty (other than leasehold), the

laiutiff shou d be appointed receiver limiting the amount to gs received to the amount of his Judgment debt and costs of obtaining the order, not exceeding £4.

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

g Mar. 26, 1887.‘, p___ THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL, J V 35;

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

this court, and those present who watch the administration of justice, my high opinion of the manner in which Mr. Brandon always discharged the duties of the office he had undertaken, and our very great regret that we should be deprived of his services." Mr. Glyn expressed the profound feeling of regret with which the members of the bar had received the intelligence

Mr. GUILDFORD WiLi,ia.\r Dans RICHARDSON, solicitor, of 13, Pall Mall, died on the 21st ult. Mr. Richardson was the eldest son of Mr. Guildford Barker Richardson, of Blackheath, and was born in 1847. He was educated at Blackhesth School, and he was formerly scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as tenth wrangler in 1870. He was admitted a solicitor in 1876.

Mr. Ronanr Bates Russsnn, barrister, died on the 18th inst., from pneumonia. Mr. Russell was the second son of Mr. James Russell, Q.C., and was born in 1845. He was educated at Magdalen College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1871, and he practised on the Midland Circuit and at the Linoolnshire, Nottingliamshire, and Derbyshire Sessions. Mr. Russell was an examiner of the High Court. He had had considerable‘ experience as a law reporter. He was formerly one of the staif of the l!’re/l-ly Reporlcr, and rather more than a year ago he was placed on the staff of the Law Reports.

Mr. WItLIAM Bares, solicitor, late town clerk of Bristol, died suddenly on the14t inst., in his seventy-fifth year. Mr. Brice was born in 1812. He (pas adipitteda solicitor about the year 1834, and for many years he con ucted an extensive practice at Bristol, in partnership with the late Mr. Daniel Burges. He was clerk to the city magistrates from 1849 till 1874, when, on the death of Mr. Burges, he succeeded to the town clerkship. He resigned the latter oifice and retired from practice about seven years ago. Mr. Brice was a magistrate for Gloucestershire. He was unmarried He was buried at Clifton on the 19th inst.

Mr. Winniau Trwaooon, solicitor, of Saifron Walden, Essex, who died at Littlehampton on the 12th inst., in the seventy-third year of his age, was tlié eldest son of the late Mr. Robert Driver Thurgood, conveyaucer, of Saffron \Valden. He was born at Saffron Waldon in the year 1815. Ha was educated at Mill Hill, and was admitted a solicitor in 1835. He was appointed in 1836 clerk to the magistrates at Saffron W'a.lden, and on the death of his father received the position of clerk to the guardians, which appointment he held until the end of 1885, when he retired from business. He married in 1839 Charlotte, second daughter of the lute Mr. Michael Lane, solicitor, of Braintree, Essex, by whom he has left four sons. His remains were interred at Littlehampton on the 15th lust.

r.

[ocr errors]

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. J OHN Turxuavrnns Gonoxsr, a Puisne Judge of the Colony of British Guiana, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements. Mr. Justice GI-oldney is the youngest son of Sir Gabriel Goldney, Bart., and was born in 1846, and he was educated at Harrow, and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1869. He formerly {practised on the Northern Circuit. He was Attomey- General of the eeward Islands from‘1880 till 1883, when he was appointed a Puisne Judge of the Colony of British Guiana.

Mr. WILLIAM Arwnoxr MUSGHAVB Siiaairr, a Puisne _Judge of _the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Colony of British Guiana. Mr. Justice Sherifi‘ is the youngest son of Mr. James Watson Sheriff, of Antigua. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1867. He was Attorney-General of Grenada from 1872 till 1880, when he became Attorney-General of the Bahamas, and he was appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements m 1885.

Mr. Fnanimicx PIPER Bannsnnv, solicitor, of 60, Leadenhall-street, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. Wii.i.i.in Connsrr, solicitor (of the_flrm of Cobbett, Wheeler, & Cobbett), of Manchester, has been appointed _by the High Sheriff of Staifordshire (Mr. George Fox) to be nder-Sherilf o_f that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Cobbett was admitted a solicitor in 1868.

Mr. Joi-ix Hanna’ ROBINSON, solicitor, of_ East Retford, _has been appointed by the High Sheriif of Nottlnghamshire (Mr. BGHJBIDIII Huntsman) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Robinson was admitted a solicitor in 1882.

Mr. CLAUD Hsanimr Lisin, solicitor, of Audlem, has been appointed n Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

Essex.

[ocr errors][merged small]
[graphic]

Mr. WILLIAM Paws Huaiiss, solicitor (of the firm of Hughes & Price), of Worcester, has been appointed by the High Slieriflf of Worcestershire (Mr. William Edward Everitt) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Hughes is also under - sherifi for the city of Worcester. He was admitted a solicitor in 1859.

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

solicitor in 1860.

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

in 1872. He is a representative of Tasmania at the present Colonial at H, at ma chambers‘ for appompment 0, “mam uqumamr

[subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. WILLIAM Ansxssoaa BAILLIE Hsiiiixros, barrister, has be is the eldest son of the late Admiral William Alexander Baillie Hamilton

CREDITORS’ NOTICES.
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

He was born in 1844, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in L A51. DAY OF cull ry .

Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he is now private secretary to the Secrets of State for the Colonies.

[ocr errors]

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
Cu,iiu.ss Bu-ram and GEORGE Pm solicitors Butlin 8: Parr

appointed to act as secretary to the Colonial Conference. Mr. Hamilton ted

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

business in co artnership with Herbert Charles Butlin (son of the s

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