Page images
PDF
[graphic]
[graphic]

the second petitioner insisted that costs ought to be allowed him. And It was urged thin, under the old practice, the second petitioner would not, on presenting his petition, have been informed of the presentation of any prior petition. _ _ _ _ _

Non-rri, J ., said that it was immaterial how a petitioner obtained micrmation of a previous petition before he presented his oW1i- The 8900115 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 1t.—Cou:isi;r., Cosme-Hardy, Q-C-. and Oswald; 1v"P"" H'9.¢"'§» Q-C» and Hatfield Green ; Dunliam ,' Poi-.'u'n. Somcirous, Hulbert ; Pitman Q Sons; Miller j Jliller; Burclicll.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

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 representative, 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 rson who was interested in the matter in question 15188 no legalfpersonalpgepresentative, thteilcourttnrir ]'El(:g6 rgay prod coed in t e absence o an erson re resenting e es 0 e ecease person, or may appoint sgmle personpto represent his estate for all purposes of the cause, matter, or other proceeding, on such notice to such persons, if any, as the cou_rt or judge shall think fit, either specially or ‘.’l§’“"“° “‘l.Z.‘i‘{"€*"il°‘2l.' $12’ ":.’."*.:“..:r;;;‘..::*.’.:"Z.:: conse uen ereon, s in e es eo e same (inanner in every respect as if a duly-constituted legal personal representative of the deceased had been a party to the cause, matter, or prpcteeding.” Tlhe acgjgnbwas éort the égreclosuge ‘oftat lfiiortogage cgrrzaé er-ae,au was rou ya rs mo eeaains mi-tgag the second mortgagge. The second moggagee 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, blecause the widow had not been added as a defendant to the action, and t e point was mentioned to the court.

Nonrii, J ., directed the order to be drawn up without adding the widow as a defendant.-—Coimssi., J. F. Waggm. SOLICITORS, Hicks 4- Son.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The question in this case was whether a judgment, which had been obtained against a testaior in a Spanish Court, was of such a nature as to give a good cause of action in an nglish 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 p\irchasemoney being payablein instalments. The vendor was the laintifi; the defendants were the executors of the tcstator. The defendhnts pleaded that the Spanish judgment was not a final judgment, and that it did not afford agood 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 judgment. 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 hind. 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 judgment.

Non-rii, 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 m 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 reniedy 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 imm°"b1° P'°P91'W—"m°nR °t11"B» in cases where a debt was shewn to exist by an HCkIlOWi¢"d§IIll>llt before ii competent judge, or by any Public document executed by the debtor; and it was not disputed that ihe agreement to pay contained in the purchase deed was a suflieient Wis f<>= swim"! P=°°@<=<1i11s=- To deal properly with the defence om,

[graphic]

as 5 " 1-gmat/e " judgment in a summary proceeding might displaced. by aplenary judgment, the former was not final and conclusive in Spain, and, therefore, did not constitute a good cause of action here, it was necessary to consider upon what principles the courts of this country enforced the judgments of foreign courts. In Schibsby v. Wastmliolz (6 Q. B- 155). Blackburn. J-. “Id-_(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 1:1-ae principle on which the judgments of foreign tribunals are enforced in England is that stated by Mr. Baron Parke in Ru.i.\-ell v. SW1]/III (9 M. 8: W. 819), and again repeated by him in Wi'lliams v. Jones (13 hi. 6: 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 toenforce; 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 c early stated the rinciple in a way which was blndl11B “Wu him notwithstanding the dOl1%t thrown out by Lord Coleridge, C.J., in Aboislofv. Oppenheimer (10 Q. B. D. 300) as to whether the principle was accurately stated there. The jurisdiction of the Spanish c_0u1'f-B Over tl_1B testatcr in the summary proceeding being clear and not in dispute, did the “remate" judgment impose spoil him H duty or 9b_1is@=w1= to £1! the sum adjudicated to be due? His lordship was of opinion that it d, 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 R11!thing which negatived the existence of such duty or obligation or excused them from the performance of it. That, however, was lmmaterifll 501' the present purpose and he had to decide merely whether the action would lie — nbt whether it could be successfully defended. His lordship held that the “summary " or “ remote" judgment did im

ose a duty or obligation on the testator to pay the B11111! 5°! Which j)udgment was given unless he could negative the existence of such obligation or establish some legal excuse for not performing if; 9-lid 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 roceedings 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 unfoftunate for the plaintiff if they could. for he, having relied _oii his judgment had allowed the time to ela e within which he could bring In action on, the original contract, and this statute would now be_ a bar W such an action. His lordship was glad to be able to see his "BY t.° holdin the Spanish judgment to give a good cause of action. is 1° s eargd from the evidence that the Spanish courts carried into Bfiecf tgp 'ud ents of those countries only which gave eifectto priorjudgmflm isseuin iiiim B nish courts —COUN8BL Napier 1lI_<19iM- Q-Co and M" Lee ; iisnelm E.p;)i'gb_|/ and Dlwmport. Sonrcrroas, Eu-bank *1‘ Pm"9'°" 1' Freeman Q Bothamley.

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

I

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

my

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

h §B:EWICl-I, _J., said there were two questions, one of fact, whether there
3 ell '3 llulfilmle. and the other of law, whether the defendant Baker was
responsible. The things complained of were (1) shooting in galleries, (2)

[graphic]

LEGAL NEWS.
OBITUARY.

,w,,,g,, (3) 8 roundabout mm an organ, (4) the collection of crowds more QThe Right Hon. Sir JOHN Miii.r.oii-, Knt-, many years sludge of the

or less disorderly. The law was well established, and was laid down with

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

what might possibly influence a jury had no effect on a judge He must 8

nd was calledto the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1833,

p,,,,;en against the mt, th . d - when he joined the Midland Circuit, and speedily acquired a good crimi

kd B a d _ on _ ata ju ge could not_act on the general know- H
andghe 31 exlperience which he had acquired in a somewhat active life, 0

oug t he was bound to give suitors the benefit of the knowledge. C
¢'\PP1B0h1i1g the case, not only with a knowledge of what he had heard 0
$3 "$33106, but with a general knowledge of what occurred in daily life, b
mum point out that shooting, if properly conducted, was not a 8

uce in itself, but it might have conduced to bring large crowds

[ocr errors]

al business at sessions and assizes, and became known as a rising junior
n the circuit, practising also at the Parliamentary bar. In 1851 he re-

eived a silk gown from Lord Trure, and he steadily rose to the position
f leader of the Midland Circuit, besides acquiring a fair share of eading
usiness in London. He was recorder of Warwick from 1848 till 1852,
nd of Leicester from 1855 until his elevation to the bench. At the
eneral election of 1852 he unsuccessfully contested Warwick in the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

rmouth, and at the general election two years later he was returned

[ocr errors]

e House of Commons, but he always gave a steady support M Lord

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

naccount of ill-health, when the vacant seat in the Court of Queen's
6

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

terwards received the honour of knighthood. In conjunction with the
resent Lord Blackburn he sat in 1867 as a member of the Special Com-

gggmtj) lgble for nuisances committed by his tenant, but Baker was B lnéission for the trial of the Manchester Fenians, and he will also be

membered as one of the three jud es who sat during the pro

racted trial at bar for perjury of the qfichborne claimant. In June,
879, after seventeen and a half years of judicial service, he retired on a

[ocr errors]

CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.

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

[ocr errors]

This PRIVILEGED Corinna"ica'rroivs—Soi.ici'i‘oii’s DIARY

aetioii was on a bill of exchange drawn by one Scales upon and aczellgfi lathe defendant and endorsed by Scales to Ward, the plaintiff, demugledl The defendant pleaded, in effect, that he had been it mm tout of_the bill by Scales and that the plaintiff Ward had taken mtem t: .°°“s1d°mt10!1_ o_r value. The defendant had administered that hegfiagnea ime Pifilllfilif, in answer to which the plaintifi had stated him Th taken the bill in payment of a bill of costs which Scales owed femfonfllgll the defendant desired to obtain production of Ward’s proScalea buéari f°T_ the purpose of inspecting entries as to business with machin tot e disclosure was resisted on the ground of the privilege umnicmi bgrofessional confidence, the entries being minutes of compmductimlilfl I tween Ward and his client. The question was whether

Lord C0 ° ‘he diary should be enforced.

c0mpened'£1“D°B1 O-J-, said he was of opinion that Ward could not be transacted beflhflw the entries _1n his diary relating to professional business 0, pmessio ifiween him and his client. The entries were, in fact, records on the Sm" _\'=0l_11munic_ationa between them, and were to be dealt with ,me com e P:}n°1Pl9 as if the solicitor was asked in cross-examination to he could 121:8 gas between him and his client. He was of opinion that It did not 1, H Baked in the witness box to disclose such conversations. he was “ti: gw that because the solicitor himself disclosed the fact that disclosed qgh or Scales, as his solicitor, these communications should be client and the °".‘Y=s 11° Bliggestion of a corrupt connection between the mofiveum sohcitor or that the confidence was created with a corrupt have appuedR‘g'v' CPI (33 W. R. 396). If it had been so then that case might ,.,,1eon‘wa1 £15 it was not so in the present case. Then the ordinary in pmfemongp ed that communications between a solicitor and his client tended to con Ciiiifldence could not be disclosed. It was urged that this and as Lord J06? the truth, but that was always the efiect of the privilege, mhe dimlomrusdice Knight Bruce once said “ Truth may cost too much, them suspicions igmiba the fifllifidential relations of life and introduces into sms,J. cone antwat '= Pearse v, Pearce (1 De c. & am. 12). 4. L. 1‘-he nlkéum ‘“'"‘d- The defendant, he said, desired to test the truth of

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.

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

Mr. Aiiri-iva Darmsx, barrister, has been appointed Clerk of _Assize o_l1 the South-Eastern Circuit for the Home Counties in succession f/o 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 the bar at the Inner Temple in May, 1881, and he is a member of the Midland Circuit. Mr. Tiioius 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 Coimsel for the Cape Colony, and he is a representative of the Colony at the Colonial Conference.

M1‘. Jossrn GUBDALLA, solicitor, of 21, Essex-street, Strand, W.C., has been appointed a Commissioner to the State of New York.

Mr. Wii.i.i.ui Sriirnim Fasncs, jun., solicitor, of Wigan, has been

elected Clerk to the Commissioners of Land and Income Tax for lihfl
Wigan district, on the resignation of his father, Mr. Williamkstephen

[graphic]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

France, sen. Mr. Fiance, jun., was admitted a solicitor in 1886.

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

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. Roiisri-r PATTEN Amine, 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. ames White Adams, of lilartock, 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 stats 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 Huddlcston, 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 oi 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 Oflice 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 _threc criminal assizes were sufllcient, 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 D1: Taurville case, stating in effect that the aflidavit of the solicitor, which alleged that the suppression of the knowledge that the infant De Tourvills 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 aflidavit. 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 proper proceeding for such a purpose. With regard to this matter, the

ollowing letters have passed :—
“ .Bri_r]liam‘s Trus-!s—Re De Tour-ville.
“ 45, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, April 25, 1887.

“Dear Ei.r,—In the letter you wrote to Mr. Justice Kay in this matter you first refer to the allidavit of Mr. Lea (the managing clerk of Messrs. Weston, Grover, 8: Lees, the Manchester solicitors), but subsequently you refer to the solicitors in the case, and you say ‘ but the aflldavits 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.’

_ “We shall be glad to know from you without delay whether you intended to limit your allegation of falsity to Messrs. Weston, Grover, 8: 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 lgnixl the numbers of the paragraphs in our aflldavit which you allege to

s se.

“ 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 “ Ygur-5 faithfully,

H “BoL'r0>:, Roiiiiins, BUSK, & Co.

J . H. Slater, Esq., 3, Plowden-buildings, Temple, E.C.”

“ Ra De Taurville.
" _ “ 3, Plowdcii-buildings, Temple, April 26, 1887.

Dear 'S1l'S,——I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday s date, and in reply beg to state the remarks contained in the communication to which you refer had no reference to the atiidavit filed bY 1°“! fi1'm- “ Yours faithfully,

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

APPaal| from the County Palatine Court of Lanoalten
From Interlocutory Orders.
1 6

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

2313108 to appoint receiver (S O till Judgment in Q ll action—restcred by E

[ocr errors]

anr v Lord Esme S Gordon app of plts from like order Harrison & anr v

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

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

Y .
Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Corpn, ld v R E Crompton & Co app of Hopkins v Vickers app of plt from Baron Huddleston and Mr J usticeA L Smith

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

setting aside signed jdgt and giving leave to amend April 7
hbridge v Tillett app of dft from order of Mr Justice Stephen at trial refer-
ring to Ofiicial Referee to take account April 7

Banister v Clift app of plt_from Mr Justice A L Smith sitting as Vacation Judge Lord Lascelles app of plts from like order April 5
k ’ I ' - . ' .
et

FROM PROBATE, DIVORCE, & ADMIRALTY DIVISION.
(ADMIRALTY).
For Hearing.
With Nautical Assessors.
1887.

India Steam Navigation Co Id app of dfts from jdgt of the President, dated

[ocr errors]

Ship General Pel (damage) Owners of the St Elmo and her cargo v Netherlands
hi

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

NOTICES TO CBEDITORS UNDER Tnosmss RELIEI‘ Acr, for insertion 111 tlw

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

JUNCTION IRON Wonxs Co. Lnn'rEn.—Bv an order of the court, dated March 2'2,

it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. A ddleshr w & Warburton. Manchester. solors for petners _

L/mcasnrnn Housn OWNERS’ INvns'rMEN'r Co, L1M1'rnn.—-The Vise-Chancellor has fixed Tuesday. May 3, at 12, at 9, Cook st, Liverpool, for the appointment of an oflicial liquidator Z

Vrcmnm SPINNINQ Co. or DROYLSDBN. 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. Mane ester. solors for petner

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. SANCTUARY HEART AND HAND. Black Lion Hotel, Middlesborouh, York.

April 18 London Gazette.—TUEsDAY, April 26. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. te te

Fnisrsnmn O11. AND Canaan Po, LIMITED.-Petn for winding‘ up. presen d Apiil 21. directed to be heard before North. J .. on Saturday, ay 7. Gregory & Co. Bedford row, agents for Hill & Co, Livernool. solors for petner

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL HALL Co. L1Mrr1m.—Petn for windimr up, presen d April 23. directed to be heard before North. J ., on Saturday. May 7. Barber 8: Son. St Swithin’s lane. solors for petners

SHORTIIORN D.un§(l*o, LrMrrnn.—Stirling. J .. has. by an order dated Feb 25, appointed John oung, 41, Coleman st, to be oflicial liquidator

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

HOCKXQ Jungns, Plymouth, Bootmaker. East Stonehouse. Pet April 19. Ord
r 1
HOLMES), J omr. Leeds. Plumber. Leeds. Pet April 19. Ord April 19

[ocr errors]

JOHNSON, A W, Oxford, Retired Captain. Oxford. Pet March 21. Ord April 18 JONES. ROBERT, Llangollen, Denbigh, Innkeeper. Wrexham. Pet April 18.

[ocr errors]

Louomoma, BENJAMIN. HENRY Loroxomz, and Snmon LONGMOBE. Goscote Lodge. nr \Valeall. Farmers. Walsall. Pet gfiril 2. Ord April 18

LoosMom~:. J unis. Kidwelly, Carmarthen, Hay erchant. Carmarthen. Pet April 19. Ord April 19 _

M0ODg.dAi.F?iIl§Ig6 Wimborne Minster, Dorset, Chemist. Poole. Pet April 20.

r p

NUTTALL, THOMAS, Todmorden. Lancashire, Hawker Of Drapery Goods. Bumley. Pet April 6. Ord April 18

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

PIDDOCKE. MORRIS, ooler. Northumbev-land. Clerk in Holy Orders. Newcastle on Tyne. Pet April 20. Ord April 20

Potwgsgé. A}Eo|noE, Bipon,1orks, Retired Tailor. Northallerton. Pet April 1.

pri 19

POWELL. THO!‘-ZAB. Mountain Ash, Glamorganshire, Bootmakcr. Aberdare. Pet April 20. Ord April 20

REYNOLDS, Davm FBEELOVE, Swansea, Licen sed Victualler. Swansea. Pet April 19 Ord April '9

ROBI1§0I;i'i.1G8EORGE, Birmingham, Painter. Birmingham. Pet April 18. Ord

p i Snaw, J osnrn. Elland, Yorks, Grocer Halifax. Pet April 18. Ord Aprll18

SMITH. JOHN WILLIAM, Fakenham, Norfolk, Carpenter. Norwich. Pet April 19. Ord April 19

Sraoxr. JOHN. and ISRAEL SCARGILL, Barnsley, Yorks, Grocers. Barnsley. PetA ril19 OrdA ril19

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