Page images
PDF
EPUB

the second petitioner insisted that costs ought to be allowed him. And it was urged that, under the old practice, the second petitioner would not, on presenting his petition, have been informed of the presentation of any prior petition. NORTH, J., said that it was immaterial how a petitioner obtained information of a previous petition before he presented his own. The second petition was presented deliberately after notice of the first, and the petitioner must take the consequence of what he had done. His petition must be dismissed with costs as against the company, who alone appeared on it.-COUNSEL, Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and Oswald; Napier Higgins, Q.C., and Hatfield Green; Dunham; Pochin. SOLICITORS, Hulbert; Pitman & Sons; Miller & Miller; Burchell.

NEAL v. BARRETT-North, J., 25th April.

R. S. C., 1883, XVI., 46-DEATH OF PARTY-WANT OF LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE-APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BY COURT. In this case the question arose whether a person who had, under rule 46 of order 16, been appointed to represent, for the purposes of the action, the estate of a deceased defendant, who had no legal personal representa tive, ought to be made a defendant in the action. Rule 46 provides that "if in any cause, matter, or other proceeding it shall appear to the court or a judge that any deceased person who was interested in the matter in question has no legal personal representative, the court or judge may proceed in the absence of any person representing the estate of the deceased person, or may appoint some person to represent his estate for all purposes of the cause, matter, or other proceeding, on such notice to such persons, if any, as the court or judge shall think fit, either specially or generally by public advertisement, and the order so made, and any order consequent thereon, shall bind the estate of the deceased person in the same manner in every respect as if a duly-constituted legal personal representative of the deceased had been a party to the cause, matter, or proceeding." The action was for the foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate, and was brought by a first mortgagee against the mortgagor and the second mortgagee. The second mortgagee did not appear to the writ; judgment for foreclosure was given, and the chief clerk made his certificate. After this, but before the time fixed for redemption had expired, the second mortgagee died. He had no legal personal representative. On the 5th of February the plaintiff obtained an order appointing the widow of the second mortgagee to represent his estate for the purposes of the action. The order was to be served on the widow, and it directed that she and the other defendant should, in default of payment, be foreclosed at the expiration of the period fixed for redemption. The order was served accordingly, and the plaintiff afterwards obtained an absolute order for foreclosure. The registrar declined to draw up the order, because the widow had not been added as a defendant to the action, and the point was mentioned to the court. NORTH, J., directed the order to be drawn up without adding the widow as a defendant.-COUNSEL, J. F. Waggett. SOLICITORS, Hicks & Son.

Re HENDERSON, NOUVIOU v. FREEMAN-North, J., 21st April. PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW-FOREIGN JUDGMENT-ENFORCING BY ENGLISH COURT.

The question in this case was whether a judgment, which had been obtained against a testator in a Spanish Court, was of such a nature as to give a good cause of action in an English Court. The Spanish judgment was in respect of unpaid instalments of the purchase-money of some mines in Spain, which had been conveyed to the testator, the purchasemoney being payable in instalments. The vendor was the plaintiff; the defendants were the executors of the testator. The defendants pleaded that the Spanish judgment was not a final judgment, and that it did not afford a good cause of action, and they also delivered a counter-claim, alleging that the sale to the testator was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation, and claiming repayment of the excess of the instalments of the purchase-money already paid over the real value of the property. An issue was directed to try the question whether (independently of the question of fraud) an action would lie on the Spanish judg. ment. According to the evidence there are two kinds of judgment in the Spanish Courts; the one being called "summary," "executive," or "remate"; the other "plenary," declaratory," or "ordinary." The judgment on which the plaintiff sued was of the former kind. The testator had given notice of appeal from it, but had never prosecuted the appeal, though he lived for more than two years after the date of the judgNORTH, J., held that the action could be maintained. He said that, according to the law of Spain, as disclosed by the evidence, proceedings were of two kinds, summary or 'executive," and "plenary," also called "declarative" or "ordinary." The object of the former was to enable creditors and others to enforce their claims by short and expeditious means when certain determined conditions existed. It was dictated by the same policy which in this country authorized summary applications for judgment on bills of exchange, and also under order 14 under the Judicature Act-viz., the expediency of providing a prompt and ready remedy in commercial cases, and frustrating the attempts of debtors to avoid or postpone by frivolous and fictitious defences and protracted litigation the payment of their just debts. This summary procedure might be resorted to in numerous cases, and even with respect to immovable property-among others, in cases where a debt was shewn to exist by an acknowledgment before a competent judge, or by any public document executed by the debtor; and it was not disputed that the agreement to pay contained in the purchase deed was a sufficient basis for summary proceedings. To deal properly with the defence that, |

ment.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

:

as a 'remate" judgment in a summary proceeding might be displaced by a plenary judgment, the former was not final and conclusive in Spain, and, therefore, did not constitute a good cause of action bere, it was necessary to consider upon what principles the courts of this country enforced the judgments of foreign courts. In Schibsby v. Westenholz (6 Q. B. 155), Blackburn, J., said (p. 159) :"It is unnecessary to repeat again what we have already said in Godard v. Gray (6 Q. B. 139). We think that, for the reasons there given, the true principle on which the judgments of foreign tribunals are enforced in England is that stated by Mr. Baron Parke in Russell v. Smyth (9 M. & W. 819), and again repeated by him in Williams v. Jones (13 M. & W. 633), that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction over the defendant imposes a duty or obligation on the defendant to pay the sum for which judgment is given, which the courts in this country are bound to enforce; and consequently that anything which negatives that duty, or forms a legal excuse for not performing it, is a defence to the action.' These cases clearly stated the principle in a way which was binding upon him, notwithstanding the doubt thrown out by Lord Coleridge, C.J., in Abouloff v. Oppenheimer (10 Q. B. D. 300) as to whether the principle was accurately stated there. The jurisdiction of the Spanish courts over the testator in the summary proceeding being clear and not in dispute, did the "remate" judgment impose upon him a duty or obligation to pay the sum adjudicated to be due? His lordship was of opinion that it did, and did therefore give a right or create a cause of action, though it, no doubt, left it open to the defendants to set up by way of defence anything which negatived the existence of such duty or obligation or excused them from the performance of it. That, however, was immaterial for the present purpose, and he had to decide merely whether the action would lie not whether it could be successfully defended. His lordship held that the "summary" or "remate" judgment did impose a duty or obligation on the testator to pay the sums for which judgment was given, unless he could negative the existence of such obligation or establish some legal excuse for not performing it; and did therefore give a good cause of action. His lordship did not see how he could come to an opposite conclusion without holding that no judgment of any court of common law before the Judicature Acts could have been final, as any such judgment might have been rendered of no effect by a decree of a court of equity staying all proceedings under it. Whether the testator and his executors, who had for thirteen years retained the mines without taking any proceedings to set aside the deed, and who did not seek to rescind the contract, but merely to have the purchase-money reduced, were entitled to succeed was a question for the trial. It would be unfortunate for the plaintiff if they could, for he, having relied on his judgment, had allowed the time to elapse within which he could bring an action on the original contract, and the statute would now be a bar to such an action. His lordship was glad to be able to see his way to holding the Spanish judgment to give a good cause of action, as it appeared from the evidence that the Spanish courts carried into effect the judgments of those countries only which gave effect to prior judgments issuing from Spanish courts.- COUNSEL, Napier Higgins, Q.C., and Yate Lee; Kenelm E. Digby and Davenport. SOLICITORS, Ewbank & Partington; Freeman & Bothamley.

[ocr errors]

Re SMITH, CLEMENTS v. WARD-Stirling, J., 21st April. WILL-BEQUEST FOR THE ERECTION OF A CHURCH-MARRIED WOMANMORTMAIN ACT (9 GEO. 2, c. 36)-43 GEO. 3, c. 108-MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1882.

In this case the question arose whether the disability of married women to make charitable bequests under 43 Geo. 3, c. 108, had been removed by section 1, sub-section 1, of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. By 43 Geo. 3, c. 108, it is provided that any person may, by will executed three months before death, vest in any person or persons land not exceeding five acres, or goods or chattels not exceeding £500 for or towards erecting or building any church in which the rites of the Church of England are observed. And the Act contains a proviso that nothing therein contained shall extend to enable a married woman, without her husband, to make such a bequest. The testatrix in this case was a woman married before 1870, who predeceased her husband. By her will she bequeathed £200 to the vicar and churchwardens of St. John's Church, Parkhill, to be applied by them in the erection of a new church, and to be paid out of such part of her property as could be legally bequeathed for charitable purposes. An order had been made at chambers declaring this legacy to be invalid, and the vicar and churchwardens now moved to discharge that order. It was contended that the effect of the above-stated proviso was removed by section 1, sub-section 1, of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, which enabled a married woman to dispose of her property as though she were a feme soie.

STIRLING, J., held that the gift was invalid. The Act of George III. had engrafted an exception upon the Mortmain Act, which exception did not extend to married women acting without their husbands. Married women, therefore, remained subject to the Mortmain Act. If the gift were valid it could only be because the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, had partially repealed the Mortmain Act. It had not done so expressly, nor, in his lordship's opinion, had it done so by implication, for (1) it contained no mention of or reference to the Mortmain Act, and (2) the partial repeal of the Mortmain Act was not necessary in order to give full effect to the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. The motion was, therefore, refused.-COUNSEL, Swinfen Eady; Pearson, Q C., and Bardswell; Phipson Beale & Minchin. SOLICITORS, Taylor, Hoare, Taylor, & Bere, for Horton, Lee, & Lee, Birmingham; Letts Brothers, for J. H. Baker, Birmingham; Beale & Co., for Beale & Co., Birmingham.

WINTER v. BAKER-Kekewich, J., 22nd April. INJUNCTION-NUISANCE-ORGAN PLAYING-LIABILITY OF LESSOR AND

LESSEE.

costs; and so an order had been obtained that Ward should produce his diary; but this could not be done. If it could be done, then in every case in which a party had consulted his solicitor, the communications between them of matters in an action in which the solicitor is interested This action raised two questions-(1) Whether the playing of certain must be disclosed. The privilege was that of the client, and the solicitor brass bands, organs, &c., created a nuisance which could be restrained by was entitled to set it up against the disclosure. There was no real danger injunction? and (2) whether the lessor of the person who put these instruof injustice succeeding at the trial in consequence of the refusal of such ments and other means of noise into operation was properly joined as a disclosure, for if at the trial Ward should decline to produce his bill of defendant? The plaintiff, S. Winter, occupied a house in King's-road, would not be likely to accept his story. And he did not believe that any costs and set up the privilege against any disclosure of the facts, a jury Brentwood, Essex; the defendants were B. Baker, who owned some model lodgings with a yard behind them where the alleged nuisance took real difficulty would arise as to the privilege. But the order for producplace, and his weekly tenant, W. Davies. The action claimed an injunction of the diary ccould not be supported. Order set aside.—COUNSEL, tion against the defendants to restrain them from using the yard for the Bigham, Q.C., and H. T. Atkinson; "Guiry.—Times. purposes of shows, steam circuses, organs, swings, roundabouts, rifleshooting galleries, or other sports or entertainments whereby a nuisance might be occasioned to the annoyance of the plaintiff. Davies had not entered an appearance, and the plaintiff moved for judgment against him in default.

KEKEWICH, J., said there were two questions, one of fact, whether there had been a nuisance, and the other of law, whether the defendant Baker was responsible. The things complained of were (1) shooting in galleries, (2) swings, (3) a roundabout with an organ, (4) the collection of crowds more or less disorderly. The law was well established, and was laid down with reference to these matters in Walker v. Brewster (5 Eq. 25), Soltau v. De Held (2 Sim. N. S. 133), and Walter v. Selfe (4 De G. & Sm. 315). A deal of time would be saved if parties would take the trouble to consider that what might possibly influence a jury had no effect on a judge. He must protest against the notion that a judge could not act on the general knowledge and experience which he had acquired in a somewhat active life, and he thought he was bound to give suitors the benefit of the knowledge. Approaching the case, not only with a knowledge of what he had heard in evidence, but with a general knowledge of what occurred in daily life, he must point out that shooting, if properly conducted, was not a nuisance in itself, but it might have conduced to bring large crowds together, and evidence had quite rightly been led with reference to it. There was no evidence of danger from the shooting or else the case would have fallen within Soltau v. De Held (ubi supra). But the band and the organ, which had twenty-seven trumpets, which were played from six till ten every evening, did create a nuisance, that was to say it interfered with the ordinary comfort of the neighbours, people who were not fastidious or over-sensitive, and only wanted to live like ordinary English people. There would be an injunction against Davies. Then was Baker liable? A plaintiff injured by a tort might join as defendants to his action all persons whom he could shew to be participes criminis: see Rich v. Baster field (4 C. B. 783) and White v. James (18 Eq. 303). A man was not in general liable for nuisances committed by his tenant, but Baker was a party to the nuisance, as he had let the yard knowing it was to be used ior these shows, and after it had been let for one week he had let it again, knowing well what had been done in themeantime. An injunction would go against Baker too; both defendants being liable for the costs.-COUNSEL, Warmington, Q.C., and Beddall; Forbes, Q.C., and Swinfen Eady.

CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.
WARD v. MARSHALL-Q. B. Div., 27th April.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS-SOLICITOR'S DIARY.

This action was on a bill of exchange drawn by one Scales upon and accepted by the defendant and endorsed by Scales to Ward, the plaintiff, a solicitor. The defendant pleaded, in effect, that he had been defrauded out of the bill by Scales and that the plaintiff Ward had taken it without consideration or value. The defendant had administered interrogatories to the plaintiff, in answer to which the plaintiff had stated that he had taken the bill in payment of a bill of costs which Scales owed him. Then the defendant desired to obtain production of Ward's professional diary for the purpose of inspecting entries as to business with Scales, but the disclosure was resisted on the ground of the privilege attaching to professional confidence, the entries being minutes of communications between Ward and his client. The question was whether production of the diary should be enforced.

Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., said he was of opinion that Ward could not be compelled to shew the entries in his diary relating to professional business transacted between him and his client. The entries were, in fact, records of professional communications between them, and were to be dealt with on the same principle as if the solicitor was asked in cross-examination to state conversations between him and his client. He was of opinion that he could not be asked in the witness box to disclose such conversations. It did not follow that because the solicitor himself disclosed the fact that he was acting for Scales, as his solicitor, these communications should be disclosed. There was no suggestion of a corrupt connection between the client and the solicitor or that the confidence was created with a corrupt motive as in Reg.v. Cox (33 W. R. 396). If it had been so then that case might have applied, but it was not so in the present case. Then the ordinary rule of law applied that communications between a solicitor and his client in professional confidence could not be disclosed. It was urged that this tended to conceal the truth, but that was always the effect of the privilege, and as Lord Justice Knight Bruce once said Truth may cost too much,

if the disclosure disturbs the confidential relations of life and introduces into them suspicion and distrust”: Pearse v. Pearse (1 De G. & Sm. 12). A. L. SMITH, J., Concurred. The defendant, he said, desired to test the truth of the statement of Ward, the plaintiff, that he took the bill from Scales for

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

The Right Hon. Sir JOHN MELLOR, Knt., many years a judge of the Queen's Bench Division, died at his residence, 16, Sussex-square. on the 26th inst., from congestion of the lungs, in his seventy-eighth year. Sir J. Mellor was the son of Mr. John Mellor, of Leicester, and was born in 1809. He was a pupil in the chambers of the late Mr. Thomas Chitty, and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1833, when he joined the Midland Circuit, and speedily acquired a good criminal business at sessions and assizes, and became known as a rising junior on the circuit, practising also at the Parliamentary bar. In 1851 he received a silk gown from Lord Truro, and he steadily rose to the position of leader of the Midland Circuit, besides acquiring a fair share of leading business in London. He was recorder of Warwick from 1848 till 1852, and of Leicester from 1855 until his elevation to the bench. At the general election of 1852 he unsuccessfully contested Warwick in the Liberal interest, and at the general election of 1857 he was unsuccessful at Coventry, but in the autumn of the same year he was elected M.P. for Yarmouth, and at the general election two years later he was returned for the borough of Nottingham. He was not a very frequent speaker in the House of Commons, but he always gave a steady support to Lord Palmerston. In December, 1861, Mr. Justice Hill retired from the bench on account of ill-health, when the vacant seat in the Court of Queen's Bench was conferred by Lord Westbury upon Mr. Mellor, who shortly afterwards received the honour of knighthood. In conjunction with the present Lord Blackburn he sat in 1867 as a member of the Special Commission for the trial of the Manchester Fenians, and he will also be remembered as one of the three judges who sat during the protracted trial at bar for perjury of the Tichborne claimant. In June, 1879, after seventeen and a half years of judicial service, he retired on a pension, and on his last appearance on the bench he received an eloquent valedictory address from the then Attorney-General, Sir John Holker. He was shortly afterwards sworn in as a member of the Privy Council. Sir J. Mellor was a bencher of the Inner Temple. He was married in 1833 to the daughter of Mr. William Moseley, of Peckham, Surrey, and he leaves eight sons. His eldest son, the Right Hon. John William Mellor, Q.C., was Judge Advocate-General in Mr. Gladstone's third Administration. His third son, Mr. James Robert Mellor, is one of the Masters of the Supreme Court. His fourth son, Mr. Edward David Mellor, is a chief clerk in the chambers of Mr. Justice Kay. His sixth son, Mr. Charles Mellor, is a member of the North-Eastern Circuit; and his youngest son, Mr. Francis Hamilton Mellor, is a member of the

Northern Circuit.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CHARLES MILLARD, solicitor, of Dolgelly, has been appointed Clerk to the Commissioners of Taxes at that place, in succession to the late Mr. David Pugh. Mr. Millard was admitted a solicitor in 1881.

Mr. ARTHUR DENMAN, barrister, has been appointed Clerk of Assize on the South-Eastern Circuit for the Home Counties in succession to his uncle, the Hon. Richard Denman, deceased. Mr. Denman is the second son of the Hon. Mr. Justice Denman, and was born in 1857. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in May, 1881, and he is a member of the Midland Circuit. Mr. THOMAS UPINGTON, Q.C., Attorney-General of the Cape Colony, has been created a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Sir T. Upington was called to the bar in Ireland in 1867. He is a Queen's Counsel for the Cape Colony, and he is a representative of the Colony at the Colonial Conference.

Mr. JOSEPH GUEDALLA, solicitor, of 21, Essex-street, Strand, W.C., has been appointed a Commissioner to the State of New York.

Mr. WILLIAM STEPHEN FRANCE, jun., solicitor, of Wigan, has been elected Clerk to the Commissioners of Land and Income Tax for the Wigan district, on the resignation of his father, Mr. William Stephen France, sen. Mr. France, jun., was admitted a solicitor in 1886.

Mr. ARTHUR JOHN HANSLIP WARD, solicitor, of Harwich, has been appointed Clerk to the Ramsey School Board. Mr. Ward is town clerk of the borough of Harwich. He was admitted a solicitor in 1882.

Mr. ROBERT PATTEN ADAMS, Solicitor-General of Tasmania, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of that colony. Mr. Justice Adams is the third son of Mr. James White Adams, of Martock, Somersetshire, and was born in 1831. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1854, and he has been Solicitor-General of Tasmania since 1867.

[blocks in formation]

We are desired to state that Mr. J. Harcourt Smith, law costs draftsman and law partnership agent, of 63 and 64, Chancery-lane, has never been connected in any way whatever with the Joseph Smith, assuming the name of Harcourt and signing his name J. Harcourt Smith, charged before the Lord Mayor with uttering a forged deed.

Mr. Baron Huddleston, at the Gloucester Assizes, complained of the condition of the court, which, he said, was one of the worst he had ever been in. He noticed that something was being done towards improving the accommodation of the prisoners awaiting trial, and he hoped consideration would, as soon as possible, be extended to her Majesty's judges.

At the Winchester Assizes, on Monday, Mr. Justice Denman alluded to complaints from the Home Office as to the inadequate cell accommodation for prisoners awaiting trial. He had inspected the cells at Winchester, and asserted that if England were searched over more humane and comfortable arrangements for prisoners could not be found. His lordship added that a council of judges had unanimously agreed that three criminal assizes were sufficient, and that this would be the last time the grand and petty juries of Hampshire would be inconvenienced by trying the prisoners of other counties.

Mr. Justice Kay, on coming into court on Saturday morning last, said that he had just received a letter from the junior counsel in the De Tourville case, stating in effect that the affidavit of the solicitor, which alleged that the suppression of the knowledge that the infant De Tourville was alive had been by his advice, was false, and requesting the judge to allow the case to be put in the paper again that he might have an opportunity of denying the fact on affidavit. Having read the letter, his lordship said it was very embarrassing to a judge to receive letters of that kind, and that the course he always followed was at once to make such letters public. Every facility would always be given to everyone who desired to clear his character from an imputation upon it, especially a member of the bar, if a proper proceeding for that purpose was taken, but to write such a letter to a judge at his private address was not a pro. per proceeding for such a purpose. With regard to this matter, the following letters have passed:

'Brigham's Trusts-Re De Tourville.

66

'45, Lincoln's-inn-fields, April 25, 1887. "Dear Sir,-In the letter you wrote to Mr. Justice Kay in this matter you first refer to the affidavit of Mr. Lea (the managing clerk of Messrs. Weston, Grover, & Lees, the Manchester solicitors), but subsequently you refer to the solicitors in the case, and you say 'but the affidavits filed are, so far as they relate to the alleged advice given by me as to the production of Dr. O'Reilly's letter, entirely false.'

66

'We shall be glad to know from you without delay whether you intended to limit your allegation of falsity to Messrs. Weston, Grover, & Lees (by their managing clerk, Mr. Lea), or whether you also include us (the London agents); and in the latter case we shall further be glad to know the numbers of the paragraphs in our affidavit which you allege to be false.

"We write this on our own account only, and as the above statement affecting us has been published, we reserve the right of publishing this letter, and your reply hereto, remaining "Yours faithfully, BOLTON, ROBBINS, BUSK, & Co. “J. H. Slater, Esq., 3, Plowden-buildings, Temple, E.C.”

66

"Re De Tourville.

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

WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house have the Sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an expert, from The Sanitary Engineering & Ventilation Co., 115, Victoria-st., Westmirster (Estab. 1875), who also undertake the Ventilation of Offices, &c.—[ADVT.] FURNISH ON NORMAN & STACEY'S SYSTEM; No Deposit; 1, 2, or 3 years credit; 60 wholesale firms. Offices, 79, Queen Victoria-st., E.C. Branches at 121, Pali M all, S.W., & 9. Liverpool-st., E.C. Goods delivered free.-[ADVT.

[blocks in formation]

Thursday 5 Friday Saturday... 7

[blocks in formation]

Ward

6

[blocks in formation]

Monday, May .... Tuesday

[blocks in formation]

Wednesday.

[blocks in formation]

Thursday

[blocks in formation]

Friday Saturday

Mr. Justice STIRLING.

Carrington Lavie Carrington Lavie Carrington

COURT OF APPEAL.

EASTER SITTINGS, 1887.

Mr. Justice CHITTY. Mr. Leach Godfrey Leach Godfrey Leach Godfrey Mr. Justice KEKEWICH.

Mr. Clowes

Pemberton
Clowes
Pemberton
Clowes
Pemberton

[blocks in formation]

In re John Smith, dec Smith v Daniell app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice
Kekewich (sitting for Mr Justice Kay), dated 8 Feb, 1887 Feb 28
Bankes v. Small app of dft from judgt of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated 11 Jan
1887 March 3
1887.

Thomas Weldhen v Scattergood app of dft Alice Scattergood from judgt of Mr
Justice Stirling, dated 24 July, 1886 March 9 (Security ordered March 23)
J W Weldhen v Scattergood app of dft Alice Scattergood from judgt of Mr
Justice Stirling, dated 24 July, 1886 March 9 (Security ordered March 23)
Cavendish v Cavendish app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice North, dated 1 Feb-
Juary, 1887 March 10

Seguin v Daugars (on behalf, &) app of dft G G Daugars from judgt of Mr
Justice Kekewich, dated 4 Feb 1887 March 12
In re R D D Duffield, dec Masters v Tabrum app of dft Brownson from order
of Mr Justice Kay, dated 16 Feb, 1887, refusing allowance of maintenance
March 14

In re G W Marrett, dec Chalmers v Wingfield app of plt from refusal of Mr
Just ce Stirling to vary Chief Clerk's certificate, dated 21 Feb, 1887 March 14
Towgood, trading as Towgood Bros v A Pirie & Sons app of plt from order of
Mr Justice Chitty, dated 4 Feb, 1887, on motn treated as trial of action
March 17

In re Towgood's Trade Mark No. 49,305, registered by Towgood Bros and Patents, &c. Act, 1883 app of Alfred Towgood from order of Mr Justice Chitty, dated 4 Feb, directing removal of trade mark from register March 17 Talbot v Talbot app of J L Frere from order of Mr Justice Chitty, dismissing petition March 17

Sheppard, on behalf, &c, v The Scinde, Purjaub, & Delhi Ry Co app of plte from judgt of Mr. Justice Kekewich, dated 16 Feb, 1887 March 23

In re TJ Coward, dec Coward v Larkman (construction) app of dft C M Larkman from judgt of Mr Justice Kay, dated 19 Feb, 1887 March 23

In re Tyringham's Marriage Settlement Markby v Tyringham app of dft W F Higgins & anr from order of Mr Justice Kay, dated 22 Feb, 1887, on sumns March 24

Cobb & Co v Woodward app of Thomas Foat from refusal of Mr Justice Stirling to vary Chief Clerk's Certificate, dated 4 March, 1887 March 25

Burr v Wimbledon Local Board app of dfts from judgt of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated 4 Marcb, 1887 March 25

Humpherson v Syer app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated 7 March, 1887 March 26

In re Robert Stewart, dec Clarke, Bart v Sandford app of F Sandford & anr from order of Mr Justice Kay, dated 1 March, 1887 March 26

In re Thos Clarke, dec Coombe v Carter app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Kay, dated 26 February, 1887 March 29

Gooding v Wiltshire app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated 2 March, 1887 March 29

In re E M Machan, dec Hogarth v Machan app of plt M A Robson from refusal of Mr Justice North to vary Chief Clerk's Certificate, dated 3 Feb, 1887 March 31

Schneider v Bodd app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Kay, dated 23 March, 1887 March 31

Brough & anr (on behalf, &c) v Dando, trading, &c app of T V Gurney from refusal of Mr Justice Chitty to vary Chief Clerk's Certificate, dated 10 March, 1887 March 31

Davies Bros & Co v Davies app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated 14 March, 1887 April 2

In re R C Leigh, late an Infant, now of age, and Infants' Settlement Act, 18 & 19 Vict c 43 Leigh v Leigh app of dft R C Leigh from order of Mr Justice Kay, dated 1 April, 1887, directing Settlement on Marriage April 4

Ager v Blacklock & Co and Robinson & Co app of plt from jdgt of Mr Justice Kekewicb, dated 13 Jan, 1887 April 6

Franklin Hocking & Co ld v Franklin Hocking app of dft from jdgt of Mr Justice Kekewich, dated 5 April, 1887 April 7

Bird v Andrew app of plt from jdgt of Mr Justice Kay, dated 7 March, 1887 April 7

In re Fitzgerald's Settled Estates Fitzgerald v White app of plt from order of
Mr Justice North, dated 21 March, 1887 April 13

Appeals from the County Palatine Court of Lancaster.
From Interlocutory Orders.
1886.

In re Thos Etty, Gent, one, &c, and In re Toxteth Brewery Co & Co's Acts

[blocks in formation]

Smith v Harris app of plts from order of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 29 Oct, 1886 Jan 6

White v Spencer app of plt from jadgt of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 11 Jan, 1887 Feb 21

Knowles y Heathcote app of plt from judgt of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 24 Jan, 1887 Feb 23

Proctor v Bennis app of plt from judgt of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 28 Feb, 1887 March 12

Proctor v Bennis & ors app of dft Edward Bennis from judgt of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 28 Feb, 1887 April 4

In re Old Swan and West Derby Permanent Bldg Soc & Co's Acts 1862-7, Wm IV o 32, Land Acts 1854 app of W Evatt from order of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 14 March, dismissing petition April 4

Clowes v McFarlane app of plt from judgt of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 28 Feb, 1887 April 7

N.B.-The County Palatine Appeals as the dates of setting down are reached in the General and Separate Lists are set aside and taken on the first Thursday in every Sitting, and afterwards on the first Thursday in the following months during the Sittings.

N.B.-During Easter Sittings Palatine Appeals (if any reached) will be taken on the following days, viz :

Thursday, April 21st. Thursday, May 5th.

[blocks in formation]

In re Somerville, dec Downes v Somerville app of dft from order of Mr Justice Kay, dated Jan 28, directing payment of interest on balances March 21 (S O generally)

Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Corpn, ld v R E Crompton & Co app of dfts from order of Mr Justice Kay, dated March 15, for commission to the United States March 25

Harvey v Dougherty app of dfts from refusal of Mr Justice Kay, dated
March 25, to set aside service of writ in Ireland April 1

O'Dowd v Griggs (originating sumns) app of plt from order of Mr Justice North,
dated March 14, dismissing summons to re-open accounts April 6
Linwood v Andrews app of dft from orders of Mr Justice Kay, dated Jan 21,
Feb 4 and April 1 April 7

FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH AND PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY (ADMIRALTY) DIVISIONS.

James v Bishop app of deft from judgt of Mr Justice Wills at trial at Cardiff without a jury March 21

Guardians of Poor of Worcester Union v Guardians of Poor of Parish of Birmingham (Q B Crown Side) app of Worcester Guardians from Justices A L Smith and Grantham affirming order of Justices on special case trom Sessions March 22

Crears v Burnyeat, the younger (Exor) & anr app of plt from order of Justices Day and Wills setting aside verdict and judgt at trial-action tried by Mr Justice A L Smith at Carlisle with a jury March 23

Roe v The Mutual Loan Fund Association, Id app of deft from judgt of Baron Pollock at trial in Middlesex Maron 24

Wm Lewis & ore v The Mayor, &c, of Borough of Swansea app of defts from judgt of Mr Justice Mathew at trial at Swansea without a jury March 26 Bakery McGeorge & ors app of plt from judgt of Baron Pollook at trial in Middlesex without a jury March 28

W CD Esdaile & aur v A sessment Committee of the City of London Union (Q B Crown Side) app of City of London Union from Justices Mathew and Cave affirming order of General Assessment Sessions March 29

Lea v Facey app of plt from judgt of Mr Justice Wills at trial at Monmouth without a jury March 29

The Adelphi Bank, ld, v The Halifax Sugar Refining Co, ld app of plt from
Justices Day and Wills directing entry of judgt for defts-action tried by Mr
Justice Cave at Liverpool with a jury March 31

The Glamorganshire Banking Co, id, v Angel & Co & Armstrong & Co app of
defts from judgt of Baron Pollock at trial in Middlesex April 1
Hamer v James & anr app of plt from judgt of Lord Justice Lopes at trial in
Middlesex with a jury April 5

Banister v Clift app of celts from judgt of Mr Justice Stephen at trial in Middlerex April 5

Jones & anr v Williams, Gittens, & anr (garnishees) app of defte from judgt of Mr McIntyre, Q.C., sitting as Commissioner after trial at Welshpool April 6

The Mayor, &c, of the Company of Merchants of the Staple of England v Bank of England app of plts from order of Justices Day and Wills on motn after trial before Baron Pollock reserving leave to move to enter judgt The Mayor &c of the Staple of England v The Bank of England app of dfts from same order April 7

Great Northern Ry Co v Kennedy & anr app of dft from judgt of Mr Justica Field at trial in Middlx without a jury April 13

City of London Contract Corporation, id v Styles (Q B Revenue Side) app of Contract Corporation from jadgt of Justices A L Smith and Grantham on ease stated by Commissioners of Income Tax April 13

From Orders made on Interlocutory Motions in the Queen's Bench Division. 1887.

The Indo-European (London to Bombay) Ry Co, ld v Gustavy Cipri app of plts from judgt of Mr Justice Stephen at trial of interpleader issue by order in 12 and 13 Vict c 45, s 13 North and S W Janction Ry Co, ld (represented, &c) action of Cipri v Bonville March 18 v The Brentford Union Assessment Committee (Q B Crown Side) app of Assessment Committee from order of Justices Day and Wills amending a poor rate on special case stated by arbitrator March 22

Macalpin v Young app of dft from Justices Grove and Wills rescinding order of Mr Justice Grantham for discharge of receiver Dec 18 Macalpin v Young app of dft from the Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Mathew affirming Judge's order and Master's report as to separate property March 22 The Queen v Lord Penzance (Q B Crown Side) app of J B Cox from Justices Mathew, Cave, and A L Smith, discharging rule nisi for prohibition March 24 Thomas v Edwards app of dfts from Justices A L Smith and Grantham affirming order of Nantwich County Court for committal of dft March 29 Marin v The Manchester Bonding Warehouse Co, ld (Reid and Son clats) app of dfts from Justices Day and Wills affirming order for delivery of goods and refusing liberty to interplead Mar 29

The Queen v H H Judge Abdy (Chelmsford) and anr (Q B Crown Side) app WEP Cotton and Wife from Justices Mathew and Cave refusing prohibition in County Court action of Clarke v Cotton Mar 30

Martin v North Met Trams Co app of dfts from Justices Day and Wills refusing new trial-action tried by Mr Justice Mathew with a special jury in Middlesex Mar 31

Boss v Palmer and Saville app of plt from Justices Day and Wills affirming refusal to direct further answer to interrogatories and postpone trial April 1 In re Alfred Park, a Solicitor, Expte Incorporated Law Soc app of Alfred Park from order of Justices Day and Wills to strike off rolls April 1

Spice (trustee, &c) ▼ R and W Hirst app of dfts from Justices Day and Will, affirming refusal to change venue to Leeds and rescission of order for special jury trial April 1

Mac Cunn, on behalf, &c v London and St Katherine Docks Co app of dfts from Justices Day and Wills refusing new trial-action tried by the Lord Chief Justice in Middlesex with a jury April 5

Harrison & anr v Lord Douglas Gordon app of plts from Justices A L Smith and Grantham affirming order for unconditional leave to defend Harrison & anr v Lord Esme S Gordon app of plts from like order Harrison & anr v Lord Lascelles app of plts from like order April 5

Evans v Saunders app of plt from Baron Huddleston and Mr Justice A L Smith refusing to set aside reference to arbitrator April 6

The London & Bristol Stock Exchange Co ld v Bloxsome app of dft from Justices Day and Wills giving liberty to sign jdgt for full amount and refusing leave to defend April 7

Hopkins v Vickers app of plt from Baron Huddleston and Mr Justice A L Smith setting aside signed jdgt and giving leave to amend April 7

Lethbridge v Tillett app of dft from order of Mr Justice Stephen at trial referring to Official Referee to take account April 7

FROM PROBATE, DIVORCE, & ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

(ADMIRALTY).
For Hearing.

With Nautical Assessors.

1887.

Ship General Pel (damage) Owners of the St Elmo and her cargo v Netherlands India Steam Navigation Cold app of dfts from jdgt of the President, dated Dec 16, 1886 Jan 12

Ship Sardinian (damage) JT Crampton & ors v Owners of the Sardinian app of plts from jdgt of the President, dated Dec 9, 1886 Feb 15

Ship Star of Persia (salvage) Pritchard & ors v Owners of the Star of Persia & her cargo and freight app of plts from jdgt of Mr Justice Butt, dated Jan 15, 1887 Feb 15

Ship Banshee (damage)

Co (owners of Banshee) 25, 1887 March 3

City of Dublin Steam Packet Co v London & NW Ry app of plts from jdgt of Mr Justice Butt, dated Feb

Ship Dragoman (damage) Workman & ors v Owners of the Dragoman & freight app of aft from jdgt of Mr Justice Butt, dated Feb 18, 1887 March 28

From the Queen's Bench Division, Sitting in Bankruptcy.

In re W H Palmer Expte W H Palmer app of debtor from Mr Registrar Hazlitt (heard Oct 29 by Master of Rolls and Lords Justices Lindley & Lopes -subsequent application-S O generally)

[blocks in formation]

WINDING UP NOTICES.

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, April 22. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

BOYTHORPE COLLIERY CO, LIMITED.-Stirling. J., has fixed Tuesday, May 3, at 19. at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator FLINTSHIRE OIL AND CANNEL CO. LIMITED.-Petn for winding up. presented April 21. directed to be heard before North. J., on Saturday, April 30. Gregory & Co, Bedford row, agents for Hill & Co, Liverpool, solors for petner JOSEPH AND JESSE SIDDONS, LIMITED. -Petn for winding up. presented April 19, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Saturday, April 30. Tucker & Lake, Serle st, Lincoln's inn, agents for Wragge & Co, Birmingham, solors for petners

PUNJAUB AND CASHMERE CARPET CO LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has fixed Saturday, April 30, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

JUNCTION IRON WORKS CO, LIMITED.-By an order of the court, dated March 22, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Addlesh w & Warburton, Manchester, solors for petners LANCASHIRE HOUSE OWNERS' INVESTMENT CO, LIMITED.-The Vice-Chancellor hes fixed Tuesday, May 3, at 12, at 9, Cook st, Liverpool, for the appointment of an official liquidator

VICTORIA SPINNING CO. OF DROYLSDEN, LIMITED.-By an order of the court, dated March 22. it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Addleshaw and Warburton, Manchester, solors for petner

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

FRETWELL, THOMAS HENRY, Rotherham, Yorks, Pork Butcher. Sheffield. Pet April 20. Ord April 20

GARRETT. CHARLES FREDERICK, Southsea, Surgeon. Portsmouth. Pet April 19. Ord April 19

HARRIS, JOHN THOMAS, High Wycombe, Buckingham, Builder. Aylesbury. Pet April 18. Ord April 18

HOCKIN, JAMES, Plymouth, Bootmaker. East Stonehouse. Pet April 19. Ord April 19

HOLMES, JOHN, Leeds, Plumber. Leeds. Pet April 19. Ord April 19

HOUGHTON, ROBERT, Redland, Bristol, Ironmonger. Bristol. Pet April 20.
Ord April 20
HUNT, CHARLES, Heanor, Derby, out of business. Derby. Pet April 19. Ord
April 19
ILLINGWORTH, JOSHUA MAUDE, York, Clerk. York. Pet April 19. Ord April 19
JOHNSON, A W, Oxford, Retired Captain. Oxford. Pet March 21. Ord April 19

JONES, ROBERT, Llangollen, Denbigh, Innkeeper. Wrexham. Pet April 18.
Órd April 18

JONES, THOMAS, Gellygaer, Glamorgan, Grocer. Merthyr Tydfil. Pet April 18.
Ord April 18
LOCKITT. CHARLES CLAYTON, George st, Croydon. Croydon. Pet March 29. Ord
April 18
LONGMORE, BENJAMIN. HENRY LONGMORE, and SIMEON LONGMORE. Goscote
Lodge. nr Walsall, Farmers. Walsall. Pet April 2. Ord April 18
LOOSMORE, JAMES. Kidwelly, Carmarthen, Hay Merchant. Carmarthen. Pet
April 19. Ord April 19

MOODY, ALFRED, Wimborne Minster, Dorset, Chemist. Poole. Pet April 20.
Ord April 20 -

NUTTALL, THOMAS, Todmorden, Lancashire, Hawker of Drapery Goods. Burnley. Pet April 6. Ord April 18

PARKER, ROLAND, jun, Sneinton, Nottingham, Centractor. Nottingham. Pet April 20. Ord April 20

SANCTUARY HEART AND HAND, Black Lion Hotel, Middlesborough, York. PIDDOCKE, MORRIS, Wooler, Northumberland. Clerk in Holy Orders. NewApril 18

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, April 26. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

FLINTSHIRE OIL AND CANNEL CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented April 21, directed to be heard before North, J., on Saturday, May 7. Gregory & Co, Bedford row, agents for Hill & Co, Liverpool, solors for petner NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL HALL CO. LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented April 23. directed to be heard before North, J., on Saturday, May 7. Barber & Son, St Swithin's lane. solors for petners SHORTHORN DAIRY CO, LIMITED.-Stirling. J., has, by an order dated Feb 25, appointed John Young, 41, Coleman st, to be official liquidator

[blocks in formation]

CREEKE, CHRISTOPHER CRABB, Bournemouth, Architect. May 16. Re Creeke's
Estate, Lance v Creek, Stirling, J. James Druitt, Bournemouth
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, April 19.
HARDING, LAWRENCE GEORGE, Lamyatt, Somerset, Gent. May 7. Harding v
Harding, Chitty, J. Huxtable, Dorchester

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, April 22.
BUTCHER, JOSEPH EDWARD, Strood, Brickmaker.
Butcher, Stirling, J. Woodgate, Rochester
WALLER, JOHN, Newcastle upon Tyne. May 16.
Robson, Newcastle upon Tyne

June 1. Eastwood & Co. v Surtees v Waller, Kay, J.

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, April 22. RECEIVING ORDERS.

AUSTIN, THOMAS, Birmingham, Tailor. Birmingham. Pet April 19. Ord April 19 BAMLETT. THOMAS. Haverton Hill, Durham, Farmer. Stockton on Tees and Middlesborough. Pet April 1. Ord April 16

BARFOOT, ENOS, Tunbridge Wells, Grocer. Tunbridge Wells. Pet April 18. Ord April 18

BEACHER, GEORGE, Great Grimsby, Smack Owner. Great Grimsby. Pet April 18. Ord April 18

BENT, THOMAS, Westleigh, Lancs, Baker. Bolton. Pet April 20. Ord April 20
CHURCH, JOHN, Coleman st, Builder. High Court. Pet Feb 22. Ord April 19
DAVIES, DANIEL, Talley, Carmarthenshire, Draper. Carmarthen. Pet April 20.
Oid April 20

DAVIES, HENRY HARRIS, Llangoed Vicarage, Auglesey, Clerk in Holy Orders.
Bangor. Pet April 19. Ord April 19
DRESEL, SIEGFRIED, Canton, Cardiff, out of business. Cardiff. Pet April 18.
Ord April 18

EATON, SAMUEL WILLIAM, Rothwell, Northampton, Shoemaker. Northampton.
Pet Apr 20. Ord Apr 20

EAYRS, WILLIAM, Hyson Green, Nottingham, Boot Dealer. Nottingham. Pet April 20. Ord April 20

castle on Tyne. Pet April 20. Ord April 20

POUNCEY, GEORGE, Ripon, Yorks, Retired Tailor. Northallerton. Pet April 1. Ord April 19

POWELL, THOMAS, Mountain Ash, Glamorganshire, Bootmaker. Aberdare. Pet April 20. Ord April 20

REYNOLDS, DAVID FREELOVE, Swansea, Licen sed Victualler. Swansea. Pet
April 19 Ord April 9

ROBINSON, GEORGE, Birmingham, Painter. Birmingham. Pet April 18. Ord
April 18
SHAW, JOSEPH, Elland, Yorks, Grocer Halifax. Pet April 18. Ord April 18
SMITH, JOHN WILLIAM, Fakenham, Norfolk, Carpenter. Norwich. Pet april
19. Ord April 19

SPROAT, JOHN. and ISRAEL SCARGILL, Barnsley, Yorks, Grocers. Barnsley.
Pet April 19. Ord April 19

TAYLOR, RICHARD CARTER, Oxford st, Licensed Victualler. High Court. Pet April 16. Ord April 18

THOMAS, SIDNEY, Albemarle st, Piccadilly, Jeweller. High Court. Pet April 20. Ord April 20

THOMPSON, THOMAS, Scarborough, Fisherman. Scarborough. Pet Apr 18. Ord Apr 18

THORPE, EDWARD, Hyson green, Nottingham, Beerhouse Keeper. Nottingham.
Pet Apr 4. Ord Apr 19

TOWLER, JOHN, Matlock Bath, Derbyshire, Joiner. Derby. Pet Apr 20. Ord
Apr 20
UNDERWOOD, CHARLES, Drury lane, Grocer. High Court. Pet Apr 20. Ord Apr 20
VILLANUEVA, FERNANDO LORENSO PEDRO, Erdington, Warwickshire, Iron-
monger's Assistant. Birmingham. Pet Apr 20. Ord Apr 20
WALKER, JAMES, Amcotts, Lincolnshire, Bricklayer. Sheffield. Pet Apr 20.
Ord Apr 20

WARREN-BONOMI, EGERTON, Cheltenham, Artist. Cheltenham. Pet Apr 18.
Ord Apr 18

YOUNG, CHARLES, Stockton on Tees, Ironmonger.
Middlesborough. Pet Apr 16. Ord Apr 16
FIRST MEETINGS.

Stockton on Tees and

[blocks in formation]

GREGORY, CHARLES FREDERICK, High st, Barnet, Baker. May 3 at 11. 16 Room, 30 and 31. St Swithin's laue

HEMPLEMAN, HENRY HERMAN, Lauristow rd, South Hackney, Clerk. April 29
at 2.30. Bankruptcy bdgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields
HODDINOTT, JAMES CHARLES, Swindon, Coal Merchant. April 29 at 2. Off Rec,
Swindon

HOLDEN, ISAAC, Chiddingfold, Surrey, Farm Bailiff, May 2 at 1. Boro' and
County Hall, Guildford

HORTON, ARTHUR, Sutherland gdns, Harrow rd, Window Glass Merchant.
April 29 at 12. Bankruptcy bdgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields
HUGHES, PHILIP, West Bromwich, Builder. May 2 at 10.30. County Court,
Olbury

HUMBERT, PIERRE, Coventry st, Leicester sq, Mining Engineer. April 29 at 11. 3. Carey st. Lincoln's inn

ILLINGWORTH, JOSHUA MAUDE, York, Clerk. April 30 at 3. Off Rec, 17, Blake st, York

JOHNSTON, WILLIAM, Appleby, Westmorland, Surveyor. April 30 at 11. 37,
Stramongate, Kendal

JONES, EBENEZER, Carnarvon, Draper. May 3 at 1. Royal Hotel, Carnarvon
JONES, ROBERT, Llangollen, Innkeeper. May 6 at 2.30. Off Rec, Chester
JONES, WALTER MEREDITH, Tredegar, Mon., Grocer. April 29 at 3. Off Rec,
Merthyr Tydfil

LAMB, SAMUEL, Heckington, Lincolnshire, Miller. May 5 at 12. Off Rec, 48,
High st. Boston
MARSTON, HENRY WALLIS, Kingston upon Hull, Broker. May 3 at 11. Off
Rec, Lincoln's inn bldgs, Bowlalley lane, Hull

NICHOLS, THOMAS, Leicester, Plasterer. April 29 at 12. 28, Friar lane Leicester
PALMER, GEORGE RUSSELL, Southsea, Grocer. May 2 at 3. 166, Queen st,

Portsea

PARRY. GRIFFITH, Llanbeblig, Carnarvonshire, Farmer. May 3 at 2. Royal Hotel, Carnarvon

« PreviousContinue »