« PreviousContinue »
E, they Fer must there
of creditors. Ex parte BISCHOFFSHEIM, Re AYLMER-C. A. No. 1, 29th April.
If it was deficient in either of those qualities, it
failed. The present scheme itself shewed that the creditors considered BANKRUPTCY_SCHEME OP ARRANGEMENT-APPROVAL BY Court-ATTEMPT the large powers of discovery given by section 27 necessary under the
TO CONFER ON TRUSTEE POWERS OP TRUSTBE IN BANKRUPTCY-Bank circumstances of the case, and they desired to incorporate them. His
lordship agreed with the Master of the Rolls that the court could not, on The question in this case was whether a scheme for the arrangement
the application of a trustee under a scheme of arrangement, make an the affairs of a debtor against whom a receiving order had been made, order, under section 27, for the attendance of a third person for examiwhich had been accepted by the creditors, under the provisions of section
nation, an order obedience to which would be enforcible by pro18 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, was one which could be approved by the
cess of contempt. The effect of this scheme was simply to get rid court under that section. Section 18 provides, by sub-section 6, that, if of the control of the court—to push the court a little further away in the the court is of opinion that the terms of the scheme are not reasonable, or
administration of the estate. It gave the creditors less than they would are not calculated to benefit the general body of creditors," the court have had in a bankruptcy, though they desired to have the same powers as shall refuse to approve it. By sub-section 12, "if, under or in
in a bankruptcy. It was neither reasonable nor calculated to benefit the
pursuance of a composition or scheme, a trustee is appointed to administer the general body of creditors. Lopes, L.J., said that under this scheme the debtor's property or manage his business, Part V.of this Act shall apply the court the power and control which it would have in a bankruptcy.
creditors sought to obtain the advantages of a bankruptcy without giving to the trustee as if he were a trustee in a bankruptcy, and as if the terms 'bankruptcy,' bankrupt,' and 'order of adjudication, included respec
This was not contemplated by the Act, and he thought that no scheme tively a composition or scheme of arrangement, à compounding or
could be reasonable which was contrary to the policy of the Act.
The arranging debtor, and order approving the composition or scheme.” And; under a scheme. Nor was the scheme for the benefit of the creditors, for
Act did not contemplate that there should be these powers of discovery
Hansell. SOLICITORS, Freshfields & Williams; H. F. Barnett.
CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.
SOLICITOR IN ACTION- PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE. pected to have in his possession any of the estate or effects belonging to In this case the novel point was raised, whether anonymous letters sent the debtor, or supposed to be indebted to the debtor, or any person whom to the counsel and solicitor actiag for the plaintiff in an action, ard con. the court may deem capable of giving information respecting the debtor, taining information relating to the matters in question in the action, his dealings or property, and the court may require such person to pro must be produced for the inspection of the defendants. The suit was brought duce any documents in his custody or power relating to the debtor, in the Probate Division to recall the probate of a will, on the ground that his dealings or property,
and may examine on oath, either by the execution of the will was obtained by undue influence on the part of word of mouth or by written interrogatories, any person so brought before the defendants, and that the testator was not of testamentary capacity. it concerning the debtor, his dealings or property.” In the present case Among the documents included in the plaintiff's affidavit of documents the scheme of arrangement, as embodied in the resolutions passed by the which are admitted to be relevant to the matters in question, are four creditors, provided, inter alia, as follows:-(1) That the property of the anonymous letters, two of which were written to the plaintiff herself, one debtor wbich would become divisible among his creditors if he had been of the others being written to her solicitor, and the other to her counsel adjudged bankrupt should vest in a trustee to be appointed by the credi after the commencement of the suit. The plaintiff objected to produce tors under the scheme, and that the trustee should administer the prop- these four letters, and claimed privilege for them, and it was said that erty under the supervision of a committee of inspection, in the like the letters contained the names of persons who would be witnesses at manner and with the like powers and duties, and subject to the like the trial, and the purport of their evidence, and that the disclosure of conditions in all respects, as though the debtor had been adjudged the letters would be equivalent to shewing the defendants the plaintiff's bankrupt, and the trustee had been appointed trustee in the bankruptcy; brief. Butt, J., held that all the letters must be produced. (2) that, from the date of the approval of the scheme by the court, the The COURT OF APPEAL (COTTON, LINDLEY, and Bowen, L.JJ.) affirmed same stould be accepted by the creditors in full satisfaction of all debts the decision as to the letters to the plaintiff, but reversed it as to the due to them by the debtor from which an absolute discharge in bank other letters. COTTON, L.J., said that the case was a new one in its cirruptcy would release him, but that, notwithstanding such approval and cumstances, and the question was whether it came within any recognized acceptance, the debtor should give to the trustee such assistance in the principle upon which the court had admitted professional privilege as a realization and distribution of the property as the trustee might have defence to the production of documents. There was no ground for required of him had he been adjudged bankrupt and obtained his dis refusing to produce the two letters addressed to the plaintiff herself. She 1883, relating to the discovery of the property of a bankrupt, should, so had, unless she could swear that it had been obtained by her in order that far as the same were applicable, apply to the proceedings under the it might be communicated to her solicitor for the purposes of the suit. scheme; (4) that the trustee should receive such remuneration for his Her affidavit did not say that. With regard to the two letters written services as the committee of inspection might determine. A trustee was to the counsel and the solicitor, the defendants' counsel had admitted at appointed, and also a committee of inspection, consisting of five persons.
the bar that he could not suggest any other reason why those letters The Official Receiver reported to the court that the proposed scheme was were sent than that the persons to whom they were written were reasonable, having regard to the difficulty and delay which would probably employed as counsel and solicitor in this suit, and in reference to the attend the realization of the debtor's property, and to the provisions objects of the suit. The proper inference was that they were sent for relating to section 27; but he added that, in view of the nature of the that reason. If a solicitor was employed to collect information for the assets, and the fact that the scheme did not vest in or confer upon the purposes of an action, and he asked for information, either publicly or trustee any property yr power beyond that which would vest in or be from a particular individual, the information which he thus obtained exerciseable by a trustee in bankruptcy, he was unable to report that the would be protected from production, otherwise it would be impossible for scheme was calculated to benefit the creditors to any greater extent than administration in bankruptcy. Notwithstanding this report, and the action. The informaticn thus obtained was really the result of the soliciopposition of a dissentient creditor, Mr. Registrar Giffard made an order tor's labour and skill. In his lordship's opinion the letters in question approving the scheme.
were sent in pursuance of an implied request arising from the posiThe Court of Appeal (Lord Eshre, M.R., and Fry and Lopes, L.JJ.) tion of the persons to whom they were sent as counsel and solicitor, Teversed the decision, holding that the scheme was not one which could be and they came within the principle that information obtained by a approved under section 18. Lord Esher, M.R., said that the scheme solicitor for his client for the purposes of a litigation was proitself shewed that, in order to enable justice to be done to everyone, the tected from disclosure. The solicitor had really " obtained” the increditors wanted all the powers conferred by the Act, and, if the scheme formation containedin the letter, for it was sent to him freditors all those powers. An attempt was made to give the creditors LINDLEY, L.J., said the letters to the plaintiff herself could not be prothan if the matter went on in bankruptcy. But, in fact, the creditors did lordship had felt some doubt as to the other letters, because the plaintiff's for the provisions of section 27 could not be incorporated into a scheme by this litigation. But it was a fair inference that they must have been so toate the provisions of the section could not he enforced by the privilege did not depend upon whether the solicitor had sought for the
In his lord. libere was not a trustee at whose instance the court could enforce ship's opinion the principle laid down in Bustros v. White (1. Q. B. D. 423) a bankruptcy would. The scheme, therefore, gave the creditors less than and Lyell v. Kennedy (9 App. Cas. 81) applied. The distinction suggested,
obtained" by the solicitor, because therefore, not reasonable. It was not for the benefit of the creditors, it had been sent to him spontaneously, was too refined. Bowen, L.J.,
It was not one contemplated by the Act, and that the information had not been" in doronght not to be approved by the courto bene, 10.5., said that said that the letters to the plaintiff herself were obviously not entitled to be both reasonable and calculated to be onder that a scheme should be approved by the courty aid must any privilege. The question as to the other letters was more difficult.
benefit the general body The rule was thus laid down by Lord Blackburn in Lyell v. Kennedy (9 App.
Cas. 86) :-" The law of England, for the purpose of public policy and protection, has, from very early times, said that a client may consult a
LAW SOCIETIES. solicitor (I mean a legal agent) for the purposes of his cause, and of litigation which is pending, and the policy of the law says that, in order to
SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. encourage free intercourse between him and his solicitor, the client has
The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association the privilege of preventing his solicitor from disclosing anything which he gets when so employed, and of preventing its being used against him, i was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on Wedneeday, although it might otherwise be evidence against him.” If the solicitor the 11th inst., Mr. Sidney Smith in the chair. The other directors present had obtained the letter as the result of inquiries which he had made, were--Messrs. H. Holland Burne (Bath), H. Morten Cotton, Samuel there could be no doubt as to the privilege. The question was whether, Harris (Leicester), Edwin Hedger, J. H. Kays, F. P. Morrell (Oxford), under the circumstances, the letter had not been obtained ” by the R. Pennington, Henry Roscoe, H. S. Styan, Frederic T, Woolbert, and solicitor within the meaning of the rule. In strictness the plaintiff's J. T. Scott (secretary). A sum of £220 was distributed in grants of affidavit was not sufficient. But it must be read by the light of the admis- relief, thirty-four new members were admitted to the association, and sion made by counsel, that no other reason could be suggested why the other general business was transacted. It is announced that tickets (258. letter should have been sent to the solicitor, except that he was the each) can now be obtained for the anniversary festival of the association, plaintiff's solicitor in the suit, and for the purposes of this suit. Did a
to be held at the Hotel Métropole, on Thursday, June 9, when Mr. E. J. voluntary communication made to a solicitor, because he was the solicitor Bristow is to preside. in a suit, differ from any other information obtained by him for the purposes of the suit ? His lordship thought it did not. The solicitor's position THE LIVERPOOL BOARD OF LEGAL STUDIES. was an invitation to all the world to send him any honest information for the purposes of the suit, and such information voluntarily sent to him was The annual meeting of this board was held on the 10th inst. in the Law received by him for his client and for the purposes of the suit. The Library, Liverpool, the chair being taken by Mr. W. A. Jevons, chairman general principle of professional privilege applied. - COUNSEL, Inderwick, of the board. Q.C., Middleton, and Lipscomb ; Bargrave Deane. SOLICITORS, Clement, The report shewed that during the session there had been three courses Cheese, f Green; Clarkson,. Greenwell, f Wyles.
of lectures, the subjects of the lectures being the law of real property, Re JONES (A SOLICITOR)-Stirling, J., 7th May.
general principles of equity, and law of trusts and law of torts. The
lecturers appointed were Mr. T. Cyprian Williams, LL.B., Mr. J. S. SOLICITOR AND CLIENT-RETAINER—COMMON ORDER TO Tax-SOLICITOR Seaton, B.A. (first class honours B.O.L. examination), and Mr. Hugh APPOINTED CLERK AT A SALARY,
Fraser, M.A., LL.M. The attendance at the lectures were highly satisMr. Jones was, in 1839, by resolution, appointed clerk to the Com- factory, the average at each course being fifty, thirty-two, and thirty-three, missioners for the Deanhead Reservoir, without any mention of his re- respectively, whilst the numbers present at the examinations, held upon muneration. By resolution, in 1841, the commissioners fixed the yearly the conclusion of each course, were eighteen, ten, and nine, respectively. salary of the clerk at £15, such salary not to include money out of pocket In addition to the lectures classes were held, and these also were or law business arising out of the affairs of the commissioners; and Mr. regularly attended by the students, many of whom answered the papers Jones was subsequently paid the amount of various bills of costs. As to which were, from time to time, set' by the lecturers. The financial con. some bills, however, in respect of business done on behalf of the com- dition of the board appears to be satisfactory, there being a credit balance missioners between 1883 and 1886, the commissioners repudiated their of about £45. The board, however, are appealing for increased subscripliability in respect of these bills, as to some of the items, on the ground tions to enable them to extend the present scheme of lectures, both as that they had not authorized the business charged for in them. On the regards the number of lectures forming each course and also in the direc13th of December, 1886, Mr. Jones obtained the common order to tax, tion of providing lectures on additional subjects. but the commissioners moved to discharge the order, on the ground that, The CHAIRMAN, in submitting the report to the meeting, pointed out as the retainer of Mr. Jones was disputed, the order was not a proper one. that the systematic teaching of law was a matter of quite recent date.
STIRLING, J., in deciding the question, said that it was settled that, The credit seemed to belong to the Incorporated Law Society of the where it was the client who obtained the common order to tax, he could United Kingdom for having made the first attempt to establish anything not dispute the retainer as to the whole bill, though he might do so as to approaching to a complete system of instruction in law by lectures. particular items; if he desired to dispute the whole bill he must obtain These lectures were naturally confined to the practical departments of a special order enabling him to do so. There was no authority precisely law. In 1868, however, an agitation arose among solicitors for the in point where the solicitor obtained the common order ; it became establishment of a general law school, afterwards called a law university. necessary, therefore, to consider what was the reason for the rule This movement was soon joined by members of the bar, and, ultimately, a in the case of the client who had obtained a common order to society called the Legal Education Associatior, was formed for promoting tax. In Re Bracy (8 Beav. 266) the rule was thus laid down the formation of such a university. This association was joined by many The party prosecuting the common order for taxation may object, of the judges and the bar, and the presideney was accepted by the preon the ground of want of retainer, to any items of the biil, except sent Earl of Selborne, then Attorney-General. The proposal involved those for which he has admitted the retainer by his petition. This the giving up of the control of legal education by the bodies then inshewed that the rule was merely founded on the admission of retainer trusted with it-namely, the Inns of Court and the Incorporated Law which the practice required the client to make to obtain the common Society, the former of which gave no encouragement to the project and order to tax. But when the solicitor obtained the order the client was in the latter very little. The general public took no interest in the subject no way bound by the allegation of retainer (on the part of the solicitor). and so nothing was accomplished. As regards Liverpool an attempt was His lordship therefore held that when the solicitor obtained the order shortly afterwards made to establish a law school. The lectures failed to the reason for the rule failed, and consequently that the client might be self-supporting, and after two or three years were abandoned. The object to every item on the ground of want of retainer. understood that, in fact, the practice of the taxing masters was in accord selves, who, through their association, engaged and paid lecturers, but
His lordship matter was, however, in a few years revived by the law students them. ance with this view. In this case, therefore, he was of opinion that the their funds were inadequate to do more than provide a few courses of common order was not improper and ought to stand. Besides this point others were discussed in argument, and his lordship, by went on' to point out that the funds at the disposal of the board were in
lectures, which did not attempt to cover the whole ground. The chairmaan agreement, expressed his opinion upon them. They were as follows:-It sufficient to meet the requirements, and the board were, therefore, was contended on behalf of Mr. Jones, in respect of other items, that his making a strong appeal for increased subscriptions. The chairman coma sioners, who, on the other hand, regarded them as disbursements by him its lectures so as to supply a complete course of legal instruction extend. as clerk and not as solicitor, he not having been retained, and urged that ing over a three years' curriculum, they could not be brought into the bills of costs. His lordship was of opinion that, assuming that the resolution of 1839 was a retainer of
Professor MacCum (University College, Liverpool) then addressed the him as solicitor, he became by the resolution of 1841 simply the officer of meeting, stating the pleasure it had been to the University College to the tended, his appointment as clerk was not of itself a retainer. As to the hope that the board might soon be enabled to extend its usefulness by the other and remaining items, his lordship was of opinion that they could establishment of lectures on more theoretical subjects connected with the not be brought into the bills of costs, as the business in respect of which study of law.
Mr. J. H. KENION (the President of the Liverpool Law Society) and Mr. Counsel, Ingle Joyce; w. Baker. Solicitors, Gregory, kowcliffe, feco. ; w. F. TAYLOR (barrister-at-law) also expressed their approval of the Bevan & Berridge.
work of the board, and wished it hearty success.
The CHAIRMAN then presented the prizes to the following successful It is stated that the Recorder of London has nominated Mr. Francis H. Todd, and G. Hilton Lewis.
students :—G. W. Edwards (two prizes), F. U. Lewis (two prizes), Roxburgh, jun., to be assistant judge of the Mayor's Court in succession to the late Mr. Woodthorpe Brandon, and that the Lord Chancellor has
The proceedings were brought to a close with a vote of thanks to the signified his approval of the appointment. The matter is now in the
chairman, hands of the Law and City Courts Committee of the Corporation, who have had great difficulty in dealing with the question in consequence of the suggestion that the appointment of a permanent assistant judge in in accordance with that view. Thhe tommittee mense he prefere are coming to solidating the law relating to Stamp duties, which the Chancellor of the
The Standard understands that under the Bill for amending and conrecommend the Corporation not to make the appointment for an esistant Exchequer has promised to introduce the stamp on agreements to let for judge in the Mayor's Court.
one year will be fixed at one penny.
Tewson, Harry Theodore
Watts, William Arthur
Thomas, Lewis Cobden
Whatley, Henry Lawson
Thompson, John Charles Moreton White, Frank
Whitford, Charles Edward Shaw INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION.
Tillett, Lewis John
Williamson, Patrick Anderson, B.A. The following candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were
Tilley, Samuel Yardley
Williams, Alfred Frederick successful at the intermediate examination held on the 21st day of April, Trenfield, John William
Williams, Arthur Charles 1887 :
Williams, Robert Thesiger Watkin
Wilson, Frederick Robert
Walker, Frederic Lake
Wilson, John Charles
Walker, Henry Milnes
Wintringham, John Fildes
Wallis, Frank Gray
Ward, Charles Albert John Wood, Hubert Stephen
Ware, Charles Martin John, B.A. Woodhead, Edgar Thomas, B.A.
Warner, Henry Leonard, B.A.
Kirby, Arthur Forsell
Letchford, Sydney Robert
The following candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were
successful at the final examination held on the 19th and 20th of April,
Adams, William Henry, B.A. Irons, William
Lumley, Claude Basil
Jacobs, Lewis David Henriques
James, Henry Ernest
James, Thomas William
Banks, John Edward
Jekyll, Arthur Joseph
Barnard, Lionel Honry
Batchelor, Arthur George Stephens Kelsall, Samuel Jamer, B.A.
Beaumont, Arthur Morton, B.A. Knott, Joseph Robert
Beck, Frederic Walter
Large, Charles Henry
Layoock, John Benjamin
Bennett, Thomas, B.A., LL.B Lewis, Harry James
Black, James Henry
Blakiston, William Graham
Lewis, William Lyndhurst
Booth, Charles Joseph White Lloyd, William Morgan
Bottomley, Benjamin, B.A., LL B. Lomax, Thomas Duckworth
Boyce, Godfrey Hale
Lord, Arthur Edward
Luff, John Montagu George Aine,
Brown, Frederick William
Luxton, Arthur Philip
Brown, Henry Harold
Calvert, Thomas Laud
Ohester, Edward Grenado
Mason, Alfred Elliot
Matthews, Robert Edwin Ernest
Coles, Frederic William
Mawson, Isaac Holace
Corlett, William Ernest
Mills, George Harry, B.A.
Cowburn, Thomas Hatton
Money, Griffin Cant
Dale, Gordon William
Davies, Dixon Henry
Motion, George Edgerton
Deightov, Thomas Šoward
Munday, William Luscombe
Dixon, William Barwise
Muskett, Herbert George
Douglas, David Fraser, B.A. Neave, Frederick George
Douglas, Robert Bulmer
Newby, John William
Drake, Charles Rivers
Norris, William Buffton
Edwards, George William
Nott, Francis Robert
Elgar, James Frederick
Oldman, Henry Louis
Ellis, Edgar Mackay
Elmsall, Mansfeldt de Cardonnet Padmore, Frank Augustus
Elwin, Arthur Brooke
Paisley, Henry Nelson
Parker, Christopher John
Evans, Thomas Robert
Paterson William Hocken
Phillips, George Ingleton
Forster, Edmund Ryan, B.A. Pierce, John Hamilton
Price, Charles Thomas
Geach, William Gichard
Quennell, John Lewis
Gell-Woolley, Charles Webster Rede Rawlinson, Cecil John
Reed, Theophilus Haynes
Glasier, George Mason Glasier Richards, Frank Peet
Rickerby, Thomas Ellerson
Graham, Howard William
Ringrose, Bernard John
Greenland, William Richard Robinson, Frederick Winder
Gregeon, Leonard shuttleworth Rockliff, George
Haggitt, Henry Pell Heigham Rose, John William, B A.
Hamilton, William Vickers
Rowlands, John William
Hancock, Robert Lowth
Ruddock, Charles Lock, M.A. Smith, Sidney Buchanan
Harris, John Darke
Rylands, Richard Walter
Salmon, Harold Masterman
Serjeant, Bernard Gilpin
Shaw, Arthur Hugh
Shaw, Charles Garibaldi
Shotter, Stanley George
Howell, Stephen Nayler
Spurrell, Richard Edward
Hughes, Alfred Collingwood Stanley, Edward Lionel
Stenson, Richard James
Hutchings, John Henry
Thomas, Herbert Edward
he projecte in the sch
Herbage, Percy George
Hoare, Charles Henry
Hodding, George Montague
Welch, Alfred Bassett Starbuck
WINDING UP NOTICES.
London Gazette.-FRIDAY, May 6.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY.
Wilson, Frank Heron
DAKOTA STOCK AND GRAZING CO, LIMITED.- Petn fur continuance of voluntary
winding up, presented April 29, directed to be heard before Stirling, J, on Ward, James George Wire, Cecil David Travers
Saturday, May 14. And it was, by an order of the Lord Choncellor, made on Ware, Francis Woulfe, Algernon Thornton
May 4, transferred to Chitty, J., and that petn will now be heard on Saturday, Waterhouse, Thomas Francis Yarde, John Edward Whidborne May 14. Brandon, Essex st, Strand, solors for petuers
JOHORE CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented May 5, directed to be Watkins, Harry Yearsley, Charles Pryce
heard before Stirling, J., on Saturday, May 14. Hollams & Co, Mincing lane,
solors for petners UNIVERSAL DISCOUNT OO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented May 3,
directed to be heard before North, J., on Saturday, May 14. Foss & Ledsam, Abchurch lane, colors for petner
W. CHAPPELL & CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented April 21, directed LEGAL NEWS,
to be heard before Kay, J., on Saturday, May 14. Cooper & Co, Lincoln's inn
fields, solors for petner APPOINTMENTS.
YORKSHIRE AERATED WATER CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented
April 30, directed to be heard before Stirling, J., on May 14. Edmonds, TheoMr. EDWARD UTTERMORE BULLEN, barrister, who has been appointed bald's rd, Bedford row, agent for Milling, Leeds, solor for petner Recorder of the borough of Dartmouth, in succession to Mr. Albert
London Gazette.—TUESDAY, May 10. William Beetham, resigned, is the eldest son of the late Mr. Edward
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY. Bullen, special pleader. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple ADAM EYTON, LIMITED.-North, J, has fixed Tuesday, May 17, at 12, at his chamin Michaelmas Term, 1860. He practises on the Western Circuit and at bers, for the appointment of an official liquidator the Hampehire, Portsmouth, and Southampton Sessions, and he has been BOLTON AND PARTNERS, LIMITED. - Petn for winding up, presented May 7, for several years a revising barrister.
directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Saturday, May 21. Milward & Co,
New sq, Lincoln's ind, petners in person Mr. John WILLIAM Downer, Q.C., Prime_Minister and Attorney.
CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES OF MULATOS, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, preGeneral of South Australia, has been created a Knight Commander of the
fented May 7, directed to be heurd before North, J, on Saturday, May 21,
McDiarmid & Teather, Newman's ct, solors for petner Order of St. Michael and St. George. Sir J. Downer is a Queen's ELECTRIC PORTABLE BATTERY AND GAS IGNITING CO, LIMITED.-Petn ior winding Counsel for the colony, which he has represented at the Colonial Confer. up, presented May 7, girected to be heard before Chitty, J, on Saturday, May ence.
21. Miles, King st, Cheapside, solor for petners
INDESTRUCTIBLE ENAMEL CO, LIMITED. - Creditors are required, on or before DIr. WILLIAM FRANCIS FINLASON, barrister, has been elected a Bencher June 6, to send their names and addresses and particulars of their debts or of the Middle Temple.
claims to Allen Edwards. 82A. New st, Birmingham. Friday, June 21, at 12, is
appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debte and claims Mr. Saiyad MAHMUD, barrister, has been appointed a Judge of the ITALIAN RAILWAYS SYNDICATE, LIMITED.-- North, J., his fixed Friday, May 2), High Court of the North-West Provinces of India. Mr. Justice Mahmud
at 11, at his chamhers, for appointment of an official liquidator was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1872.
MYSORE ESTATES CO. LIMITED. North. J., has fixed Friday, May 20, at 1, at his
chambers, for appointment of an official liquidator Mr. CHARLES EDWARD POTHECARY, solicitor, of 26, Basinghall-street, has
SALFORD AND IRWELL RUBBER CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court
May 7, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Saturday, May 21. Gregory
& Co, Bedford row, agents for Addleshaw & Warburton, Manchester, solors of Judicature.
SALFORD AND IRWELL RUBBER CO, LIMITED.-Petn for wirding up, presented Mr LAWRENCE RICHARDS, solicitor (of the firm of Richards & Richards), May 6, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on May 21. Brook, & Co, Basingof Swansea, bas been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in
hall st, solors for petner the Supreme Court of Judicature.
SUTTON COLDFIELD ROYAL HOTEL CO. LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented
May 6, directed to be heard before Kay, J, on May 21. Wyone & Co, Chancery Mr. ROBERT SEBds, LL.D., Q C., has been appointed Queen's Advocate
lane, for Gorst, Liverpool, color for petners in Ireland, in succession to Mr. William Henry Kisbey, Q.C., who has
UNIVERSAL CONTRACT CORPORATION, LIMITED.-North, J, has fixed Thursday, been appointed County Court Judge and Chairman of Quarter Sessions
May 19, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator
FRIENDLY SOCIETY DISSOLVED. for the counties of Armagh and Louth. Mr. Seeds is an LL.D. of Trinity FARTHINGHOE BENEFIT SOCIETY, Club Room, Farthinghoe, Northampton. College, Dublin. He was called to the bar in Ireland in 1857, and he
May 4 became a Queeu's Counsel in 1877. He practises on the North-East Circuit.
UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF CLAIM.
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, April 26.
BIGNOLD, WILLIAM ATKINS, Kirkley, Norfolk, Gent. May 17. Bignold v Bignold,
North, J. Langlois & Biden, Leadenhall st
MILLER, JOSEPH, New rd, St Luke, Chelsea, Chandler Shop Keeper. May 15. GENERAL,
Chapman v Miller, Stirling, J. Chapman, London wall
MORLEY, WILLIAM, Brampton, Derby, Potter. May 24. Crompton & Evans In the House of Commons on the 5th inst. Mr. S. Buxton asked the Union Bank v Pendleton, Stirling, J. Kingsford, Dorma, & Co, Essex st, Secretary to the Treasury in how many instances during the years 1884,
Strand, for Shipton, Hallewell, & Co. Chesterfield 1885, and 1886 the opinion of the Attorney-General was obtained in cases
London Gazette.-FRIDAY, April 29. of non-contentious business. Mr. Jackson said :—The opinion of the EHRENSPERGER, CONRAD, Laurence Pountney lane, Merchant. May 27. Spence Attorney-General and Solicitor General was obtained in pon-contentious v Gregory, Chitty, J. Francis, Austin friars business in 1884, in 350 cases; in 1885, in 405 cases; in 1886, in 360 cases.
EDWARD ADOLPHUS, Duke of Semerset. May 23. Thynne v St Maur, Chitty, J, Theso figures do not include consultations or the numerous cases in which
Deverell, Lincoln's inn
London Gazette.- TUESDAY, May 8. the opinion of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General has been taken by the various departments of the State by means of personal inquiry, or
DICKENSON, FREDERICK BROUGHTON NEWTON, Weymouth June 1. Blanche in formal letter; nor do they include cases decided by the Attorney
Dickenson, Stirling, J. Dangerfield & Blyth, Craven st, Charing Croes, for
Melmoth & Bartlett, Sherborne, Dorset General as to licences in mortmain or cases referred to him for direction
HASWELL, FREDERICK, Burlington lane, Chiswick, Gent. under the Public Prosecutions Act, nor hearings under the Patent Act.
Haswell, North, J. Ivimey, Staple inn
J. Blood, Witham, Essex
May 26. Haswell y
ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE ON
APPEAL COURT APPEAL COURT Mr. Justice
CHITTY. Mon., May 16 Mr. Carrington Mr. Ward Mr. Koe
Mr. Godfrey Mr. Lavie
UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35.
LAST DAY OF CLAIM.
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, April 26.
New sq. Lincoln's inn
Overbury & Gilbert, Norwich
GORTON, RICHARD, High st, Whitechapel, Gent. May 31. Gardner, Leadenhall
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, May 3. HALL, SARAH ANN, Sandal Magna, York. June 7. Fernandes, Wakefield
ALLPORT, JOHN, Birmingham, Undertaker. June 1. Ansell f& Ashford, Bir
mingham; HAMILTON, CHARLES LESLIE BAILLIE, Prince-Town, Deven, Esq. June 1. BECKETT, ROBERT, Morecambe, Lancaster, Gent. May 23. Bharp & Son, LanStephens & Co. Plymouth
caster HARKRR, FRANCES PRISCILLA, Church Aston, Salop. June 1. Brandon, Essex st, BIRCH, EDWIN, Woolton, nr Liverpool, Gent. June 4. Thornley & Cameron, Strand
Liverpool HEY, SARAH, Thorne, York. June 1. Taylor & Newborn, Epworth
BIRCK, JANE, Woolton, nr Liverpool. June 4. Thornely & Cameron, Liverpool HOLROYD, THOMAS, Huddersfield, Tailor. July 1. Bottomley, Huddersfield CLAGETT, THOMAS WILLIAM, Exmouth. June 24. Smith & Co, Crediton HULL, Rev JOHN, Eaglescliffe, Durham, Clerk. June 8. Hunton & Bolsover, COATES, NICHOLAS CHARLES, Romford rd, Stratford, Gent. June 1. King, Stockton-on-Tees
Abchurch lane HUTTON, CHARLES, Lowades st, Belgrave sq, M.D. May 28. Hanbury & Co, COKER, JAMES, Christchurch, New Zealand. July 1. Payne & Fuller, Bath
New Broad st INMAN, EDWIN, Lymington, Hants, Shipbuilder. May 25. Moore & Co, Lyming- Cox, HARRIET, Yeovil. May 31. Phelps & Co, Gresham st ton, Hants
CUNNINGTON, JOHN, Oakley sq, Esq. June 14. Whittington & Co, Bishopsgate INMAN, GEORGE, Lymington, Shipbuilder. May 25. Moore & Co, Lymington
st Without LAWRENCE, JOHN, Littlebourne, Kent, Licensed Victualler. May 24. Hilton, DRUMMOND, JAMES, Great Cumberland pl. June 1. Newman & Co, Clement's LEADER, ELIZA, Sheffield. June 30. Burdekin & Co, Sheffield
DUTHOIT, JONATHAN, Kentwell Lodge, Highbury New Park, Silk Manufacturer.
May 31. Carritt & Son, Rood lane LOGAN, ELIZABETH, Cheltenham. June 4, Winterbothams & Gurney, Cheltenham FAWLEY, HENRY BAXTER, Long Sutton, Lincoln, Gent. May 24. Mossop & LUNT. HENRY, Fallowfield, nr Manchester, Accountant. June 1. Ormerod &
Mossop. Long Sutton Allen, Manchester
FENTON, WILLIAM, Birkby, nr Huddersfield, Gardener. June 4. Laycock & Co, MANN, CAMILLA VICTORIA, Sydney, N.S.W. June 1. Fraser, Lombard st
FLYNN, JAMES, Stonycroft, nr Liverpool, Lancaster, Cooper. May 20. Lynch & MCXIVEN, HENRY, Oxted, Surrey, Barrister. June 24. Ormerod & Allen, Man
Teebay, Liverpool chester Noor, John, Redberth, Pembroke, Farmer. May 27. Leman & Co, Lincoln's inn
GEORGE, ARTHUR, Gosport, Southampton, Gent. June 1. Coaks & Co, Norwich fields
GITTINGS, ISAIAH ROUND, Aston, nr Birmingham, Varnish Manufacturer. June'. POULTON, WILLIAM, Leominster, Painter. May 21. Robinson & Son, Leominster
Angell & Ashford, Birmingham
HALL, SARAH, Sheffield. May 30. Branson & Son, Sheffield REEVE, ABSALOM, Roydon, Norfolk, Keeper. May 27. Garrod, Diss
HARBOROUGH, MARY ELIZA, Countess of, Exmi uth. June 24. Smith & Co, SMITH, JOSEPH CHARLES, Southport, Gent. May 14. Whitworth, Manchester
LIVERSIDGE, JOHN, Bexley, Coach Maker. May 31. Marsh, Fen ct, Fenchurch st
LONGWORTH, HUGH, Manchester. June 80. Dixon, Manchester WILSON. GEORGE, Lindum ter, Lincoln, Gent. June 30. Danby & Son, Lincolo ; MAKIN, JOHN, Liverpool, Stationer. June 15. Seaman, Liverpool WOODS, SARAH, 'Southwell, Nottingham, June 4. Brewster, Nottingham MARRYAT, CATHERINE, Belgrave rd, South Belgravia. June 3. M'Clellan, Bed
ford row London Gazette.-FRIDAY, April 29.
METHVEN, JAMES, Hadlow, Kent, Beerhouse Keeper. May 31. Stenniog, Ton
bridge BARTON, ZEPHANIAH, Shanghai, Marine Surveyor. June 24. Hughes & Co, New MORETON, HIRAM, Dudley, Worcester, Innkeeper. May 18. Smith & Leech, Broad st
Derby BATES, LYDIA, Angus ter, Sheffield. June 1. Younge & Co, Sheffield
NEWTON, ÚARY, South Side, Clapham Common. June 11. Langham, Bartlett's
bldgs. Holborn BEADELL, WILLIAM, Vere st, Cavendish sq, Confectioner. Jun. 7. Stileman &
NICHOLAS, ROWLAND HENRY, Newport, Mon, Esq. June 1. Davis & Lloyd, Co Southampton at
Newport, Mon BELLAMY, MARGARET ANN, Devonshire rd, Balham. May 27. Bertram, Nor
RMAN. WILLIAM, Ashow, Warwick, Farmer. June 24. Field & Sons, folk st
Leamington BENTINCK, GEORGE WILLIAM PIERREPOINT, Tenington, Norfolk, Esq. June 1. PUCKRIDGE, HENRY, Bulkington, Wilts, Farmer. May 31. Marshall, Devizes
Davidson & Co, Spring_grdas BEWICK, JOHN WILLIAM, D D., Roman Oatholic Bishop, Hexbam. May 27. RICHARDS, CHRISTIAN, York st, Chorlton on Metlock, Manchester. June 30 Leadbitter & Harvey Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Dixon, Manchester BROOKS, OHARLES, Wandsworth rd, Chemist. "May 21. Copp, Essex st, Strand RICHARDSON, GEORGE, Penrith, Cumberland, Straw Merchant. April 29.
Harding, Penrith BROWN, GEORGE HOPPS FIELDHOUSE, Hans pl, Sloane st, Esq. June 4. Matthews, Scott. GEORGE, Hedley, Northumberland, Retired Innkeeper. June 1. Baty, Lincoln's inn fields
Hexham BULLOCK, WILLIAM, Ebury st, Pimlico, Builder and House Decorator. May 28. SHILTON, WILLIAM, Burton on Trent, Farmer. June 1. J & W J Drewry, Burton Howard, Laurence Pountney hull
on Trent CARROLL, FRANCIS, Tib st, Manchester, Tin-plate Worker. May 30. Dixon, SIMSON, ELIZABETH, Teignmouth, Devon. June 6. Honey, Aldermanbury. Manchester
Summers, CLARKE, JOB B, Royal Naval Hospital, Gt Yarmouth, Commander. June 1.
SLINGSBY, EDITH ELIZABETH, Salcombe Regis, Devon. May 31.
SMITH, JOSEPH, New John st West, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. June 1.
Ansell & Ashford, Birmingham sq, Lincoln's inn DAVIES, WILLIAM EDMUNDS, Battersea Park rd, Draper. May 21. Copp, Essex
SMYTH. LEIGH CHURCHILL, Tonbridge Wells, Esq. Jure 15. Alleyne & Walker, st, Strand
Tonbridge Wells FILDES. CHARLES, St Helens, Lancaster, Grocer. May 31. Barrow & Cook, St
SMYTH, MARY, Tonbridge Wells. June 16. Alleyne & Walker, Tonbridge Wells Helens
STALLARD, JAMES, Bath. June 1. Dixon, Bristol GORDON, MARY ANN, Fentonville st, Sheffield. Clegg & Sons, Sheffield
STREET, HENRY GEORGE, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. June 1. Ansell & GREENSLADE, SARAH FRANCES, Preston Plucknett, Somerset. June 24. Perham, Ashford. Birmingham Bristol
TOWNDROW, WILLIAM WALDOCK, Spencer st, Canonbury, Traveller. June 1. HARKER, ROBERT LEES, Church Aston, Salop. May 18. G. 8. & 8. Brandon, Tippetts & Son, Maiden lane Essex st, Strand
WATERS, WILLIAM, Scarborough, Ironfounder. May 14. Drawbridge & RownHEAP, JOHN, sen, Underbank, Bacup, Lancaster, Engineer. May 21. Stott, tree, Scarborough Leavengreave
WARD, JONATHAN, Derby, Fitter. May 18. Smith & Leech, Derby HESKETH, EDWARD FLEETWOOD, North Meols, Lancaster, Esq. June 4. Buck
WARRY, JOHN, Holwell, Dorset, Esq. May 31. Dashwood, Sturminster Newton HITCHCOCK, ALFRED, Branksome Wood rd, Bournemouth, Esq. June 1. Vardon, WHITEHEAD, ANN, Scarborough. May 16. Birdsall & Cross, Scarborough
WOOLLETT, ROBERT FRANCIS, Newport, Mon., Esq. June 1. Davis & Lloyd,
WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing LAWRENCE, NATHAN, She, bourne ter, Cheltenham, Auctioneer. June 1. Jones, or renting a house have the Sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an
expert from The Sanitary Engineering & Ventilation Co., 115, Victoria-st., WestLEEI AM, WILLIAM WHITTINGHAM, Hilderetone, Stafford, Gent. June 15. Small, micster (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.O. Branches at 121, Pall LIVINGSTON, ROBERT PARREN, Salford, Lancaster, Gent. June 30. Dixon, Man Mall, S.W., & 9. Liverpool-st., E.C. Goods delivered free.-(ADYT. MARLOW, FREDERICK JAMES, Brooklands, Chester, Gent. May 30. Dixon, ManMOGEACHEY, FORSTER ALLEYNE, Shenley hill, Barnet, Esq. June 6. Paine & Co, Mills: WILLIAM MOGowan, Treville st, Plymouth, Warehouseman. June 1.
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES. MuLs, MARY, Broad Blunsdon, Wilts. June 30. Elwell, Highworth, Wits
London Gazette.-FRIDAY, May 6. PUGE, MARY, Eardisley, Hereford. June 1. Temple & Philpin, Kington, Here
RECEIVING ORDERS. RIVERS, MARY ANN, Blenheim cres, Notting hill. June 14. Nicholls, Lincoln's
AUSTIN, EDWARD, Kidderminster, Commission Agent. SUTCLIFF, CHARLES, Stretford, Manchester, Manufacturer. June 6. A. & G. W.
April 7._Ord April 7
BEAUCLERK, HENRY WILLIAM, South st, Park lane, Gent. High Court. Pet Dec SUTCLIFF, EMMA, Park view, Stretford, Manchester. June 6. A. & G. W. Fox, BLOWS, JCOEN, Peckham Rye, Van Proprietor. High Court. Pet April 16. Ord THOMPSON, STEPHEN, Penn, Stafford. May 31. Fowler & Langley, Wolverhamp. Bogu May ARTHUR, Beak st, Regent st, Grocer. High Court. Pet April 18. Ord
May 3 YELLOWEEX, ELIZABETH, Cullercoats, Northumberland. June 1. Denison, New. BOSWELL, ALFRED, Sulby, Northampton, Ale Agent. Leicester. Pet May 3.
Ord May 3
St Helen's place
WILLIAMS: RICHARD, Clattwn Henllan, Denbigh, Labourer. May 25. Jones, BROWN, KORERT, Ely, Farmer. Peterborough. Pet May 3. Ord May 3