Ex parte BISCHOFFSHEIM, Re AYLMER-C. A. No. 1, 29th April. BANKRUPTCY-SCHEME OP ARRANGEMENI-APPROVAL BY COURT-ATTEMPT TO CONFER ON TRUSTEE POWERS OF TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY-BANK RUPTCY ACT, 1883, ss. 18, 27. The question in this case was whether a scheme for the arrangement the affairs of a debtor against whom a receiving order had been made, which had been accepted by the creditors, under the provisions of section 18 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, was one which could be approved by the court under that section. Section 18 provides, by sub-section 6, that, "if the court is of opinion that the terms of the scheme are not reasonable, or are not calculated to benefit the general body of creditors," the court shall refuse to approve it. By sub-section 12, "if, under or in pursuance of a composition or scheme, a trustee is appointed to administer the debtor's property or manage his business, Part V. of this Act shall apply to the trustee as if he were a trustee in a bankruptcy, and as if the terms 'bankruptcy,' 'bankrupt,' and 'order of adjudication,' included respectively a composition or scheme of arrangement, a compounding or arranging debtor, and order approving the composition or scheme." And, by sub-section 13, "Part III. of this Act shall, so far as the nature of the case and the terms of the composition or scheme admit, apply thereto, the same interpretation being given to the words 'trustee,' bankruptcy,' 'bankrupt,' and order of adjudication,' as in the last preceding subsection." Part III. of the Act is headed "Administration of Property," and Part V. is headed "Trustees in Bankruptcy." Section 168, which occurs in Part VIII. of the Act, provides that "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, 'trustee' means the trustee in bankruptcy of a debtor's estate." Section 27, which occurs in Part I. of the Act, provides that "the court may, on the application of the official receiver or trustee, at any time after a receiving order has been made against a debtor, summon before it the debtor or his wife, or any person known or suspected to have in his possession any of the estate or effects belonging to the debtor, or supposed to be indebted to the debtor, or any person whom the court may deem capable of giving information respecting the debtor, his dealings or property, and the court may require such person to produce any documents in his custody or power relating to the debtor, his dealings or property, and may examine on oath, either by word of mouth or by written interrogatories, any person so brought before it concerning the debtor, his dealings or property." In the present case the scheme of arrangement, as embodied in the resolutions passed by the creditors, provided, inter alia, as follows:-(1) That the property of the debtor which would become divisible among his creditors if he had been adjudged bankrupt should vest in a trustee to be appointed by the creditors under the scheme, and that the trustee should administer the property under the supervision of a committee of inspection, in the like manner and with the like powers and duties, and subject to the like conditions in all respects, as though the debtor had been adjudged bankrupt, and the trustee had been appointed trustee in the bankruptcy; (2) that, from the date of the approval of the scheme by the court, the same should be accepted by the creditors in full satisfaction of all debts due to them by the debtor from which an absolute discharge in bankruptcy would release him, but that, notwithstanding such approval and acceptance, the debtor should give to the trustee such assistance in the realization and distribution of the property as the trustee might have required of him had he been adjudged bankrupt and obtained his discharge; (3) that the provisions of section 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, relating to the discovery of the property of a bankrupt, should, so far as the same were applicable, apply to the proceedings under the scheme; (4) that the trustee should receive such remuneration for his services as the committee of inspection might determine. A trustee was appointed, and also a committee of inspection, consisting of five persons. The Official Receiver reported to the court that the proposed scheme was reasonable, having regard to the difficulty and delay which would probably attend the realization of the debtor's property, and to the provisions relating to section 27; but he added that, in view of the nature of the assets, and the fact that the scheme did not vest in or confer upon the trustee any property or power beyond that which would vest in or be exerciseable by a trustee in bankruptcy, he was unable to report that the scheme was calculated to benefit the creditors to any greater extent than administration in bankruptcy. Notwithstanding this report, and the opposition of a dissentient creditor, Mr. Registrar Giffard made an order approving the scheme. THE COURT OF APPEAL (Lord ESHER, M.R., and FRY and LOPES, L.JJ.) reversed the decision, holding that the scheme was not one which could be approved under section 18. Lord ESHER, M.R., said that the scheme itself shewed that, in order to enable justice to be done to everyone, the creditors wanted all the powers conferred by the Act, and, if the scheme was honestly intended, as he assumed it was, it was intended to give the creditors all those powers. An attempt was made to give the creditors those powers by agreement with the debtor, but they got nothing more than if the matter went on in bankruptcy. But, in fact, the creditors did not get all the powers conferred by the Act in the case of a bankruptcy, for the provisions of section 27 could not be incorporated into a scheme by agreement. It was decided in Ex parte Whinney (17 Q. B. D. 238), that the provisions of the section could not be enforced by the court under a scheme of arrangement, because the trustee under a scheme was not a trustee at whose instance the court could enforce those provisions. The scheme, therefore, gave the creditors less than a bankruptcy would. It was not one contemplated by the Act, and was, therefore, not reasonable. It was not for the benefit of the creditors, and ought not to be approved by the court. FRY, L.J., said that in order that a scheme should be approved by the court, it must be both reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors. If it was deficient in either of those qualities, it failed. The present scheme itself shewed that the creditors considered the large powers of discovery given by section 27 necessary under the 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 application of a trustee under a scheme of arrangement, make an order, under section 27, for the attendance of a third person for examination, an order obedience to which would be enforcible by process of contempt. The effect of this scheme was simply to get rid of the control of the court-to push the court a little further away in the administration of the estate. It gave the creditors less than they would have had in a bankruptcy, though they desired to have the same powers as in a bankruptcy. It was neither reasonable nor calculated to benefit the general body of creditors. LOPES, L.J., said that under this scheme the the court the power and control which it would have in a bankruptcy. creditors sought to obtain the advantages of a bankruptcy without giving This was not contemplated by the Act, and he thought that no scheme could be reasonable which was contrary to the policy of the Act. Act did not contemplate that there should be these powers of discovery under a scheme. Nor was the scheme for the benefit of the creditors, for The they clearly got nothing more by it than they would get in a bankruptcy, Hansell. SOLICITORS, Freshfields & Williams; H. F. Barnett. and they probably got less. COUNSEL, Cooper Willis, Q.C., and Woodfall; In this case the novel point was raised, whether anonymous letters sent to the counsel and solicitor acting for the plaintiff in an action, and containing information relating to the matters in question in the action, must be produced for the inspection of the defendants. The suit was brought in the Probate Division to recall the probate of a will, on the ground that the execution of the will was obtained by undue influence on the part of the defendants, and that the testator was not of testamentary capacity. Among the documents included in the plaintiff's affidavit of documents which are admitted to be relevant to the matters in question, are four anonymous letters, two of which were written to the plaintiff herself, one of the others being written to her solicitor, and the other to her counsel after the commencement of the suit. The plaintiff objected to produce these four letters, and claimed privilege for them, and it was said that the letters contained the names of persons who would be witnesses at the trial, and the purport of their evidence, and that the disclosure of the letters would be equivalent to shewing the defendants the plaintiff's brief. Butt, J., held that all the letters must be produced. THE COURT OF APPEAL (COTTON, LINDLEY, and BowEN, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision as to the letters to the plaintiff, but reversed it as to the other letters. COTTON, L.J., said that the case was a new one in its circumstances, and the question was whether it came within any recognized principle upon which the court had admitted professional privilege as a defence to the production of documents. There was no ground for refusing to produce the two letters addressed to the plaintiff herself. She was bound to give her opponents the benefit of all the information she had, unless she could swear that it had been obtained by her in order that it might be communicated to her solicitor for the purposes of the suit. Her affidavit did not say that. With regard to the two letters written to the counsel and the solicitor, the defendants' counsel had admitted at the bar that he could not suggest any other reason why those letters were sent than that the persons to whom they were written were employed as counsel and solicitor in this suit, and in reference to the objects of the suit. The proper inference was that they were sent for that reason. If a solicitor was employed to collect information for the purposes of an action, and he asked for information, either publicly or from a particular individual, the information which he thus obtained would be protected from production, otherwise it would be impossible for a client to employ a solicitor to obtain information for the purposes of an action. The information thus obtained was really the result of the solicitor's labour and skill. In his lordship's opinion the letters in question were sent in pursuance of an implied request arising from the position of the persons to whom they were sent as counsel and solicitor, and they came within the principle that information obtained by a solicitor for his client for the purposes of a litigation was protected from disclosure. The solicitor had really "obtained" the information contained in the letter, for it was sent to him on count of his position as solicitor. The principle, therefore, applied. LINDLEY, L.J., said the letters to the plaintiff herself could not be protected merely because she had communicated them to her solicitor. His lordship had felt some doubt as to the other letters, because the plaintiff's affidavit did not state explicitly that they were written with reference to this litigation. But it was a fair inference that they must have been so written. The principle of protection on the ground of professional privilege did not depend upon whether the solicitor had sought for the information, but upon the character in which he had got it. In his lordship's opinion the principle laid down in Bustros v. White (1 Q. B. D. 423) and Lyell v. Kennedy (9 App. Cas. 81) applied. The distinction suggested, that the information had not been "obtained" by the solicitor, because it had been sent to him spontaneously, was too refined. Bowen, L.J., said that the letters to the plaintiff herself were obviously not entitled to any privilege. The question as to the other letters was more difficult. The rule was thus laid down by Lord Blackburn in Lyell v. Kennedy (9 App. ac Cas. 86):- "The law of England, for the purpose of public policy and Re JONES (A SOLICITOR)-Stirling, J., 7th May. LAW SOCIETIES. SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on Wednesday, the 11th inst., Mr. Sidney Smith in the chair. The other directors present were-Messrs. H. Holland Burne (Bath), H. Morten Cotton, Samuel Harris (Leicester), Edwin Hedger, J. H. Kays, F. P. Morrell (Oxford), R. Pennington, Henry Roscoe, H. S. Styan, Frederic T. Woolbert, and J. T. Scott (secretary). A sum of £220 was distributed in grants of relief, thirty-four new members were admitted to the association, and other general business was transacted. It is announced that tickets (25s. each) can now be obtained for the anniversary festival of the association, to be held at the Hotel Métropole, on Thursday, June 9, when Mr. E. J. Bristow is to preside. THE LIVERPOOL BOARD OF LEGAL STUDIES. The annual meeting of this board was held on the 10th inst. in the Law Library, Liverpool, the chair being taken by Mr. W. A. JEVONs, chairman of the board. The report shewed that during the session there had been three courses of lectures, the subjects of the lectures being the law of real property, 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. Seaton, B.A. (first class honours B.C.L. examination), and Mr. Hugh Fraser, M.A., LL.M. The attendance at the lectures were highly satisrespectively, whilst the numbers present at the examinations, held upon the conclusion of each course, were eighteen, ten, and nine, respectively. In addition to the lectures classes were held, and these also were regularly attended by the students, many of whom answered the papers which were, from time to time, set by the lecturers. The financial condition of the board appears to be satisfactory, there being a credit balance of about £45. The board, however, are appealing for increased subscriptions to enable them to extend the present scheme of lectures, both as regards the number of lectures forming each course and also in the direction of providing lectures on additional subjects. Mr. 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 remuneration. By resolution, in 1841, the commissioners fixed the yearly salary of the clerk at £15, such salary not to include money out of pocket or law business arising out of the affairs of the commissioners; and Mr. Jones was subsequently paid the amount of various bills of costs. As to some bills, however, in respect of business done on behalf of the commissioners between 1883 and 1886, the commissioners repudiated their liability in respect of these bills, as to some of the items, on the ground that they had not authorized the business charged for in them. On the 13th of December, 1886, Mr. Jones obtained the common order to tax, but the commissioners moved to discharge the order, on the ground that, as the retainer of Mr. Jones was disputed, the order was not a proper one. STIRLING, J., in deciding the question, said that it was settled that, where it was the client who obtained the common order to tax, he could not dispute the retainer as to the whole bill, though he might do so as to particular items; if he desired to dispute the whole bill he must obtain a special order enabling him to do so. There was no authority precisely in point where the solicitor obtained the common order; it became necessary, therefore, to consider what was the reason for the rule in the case of the client who had obtained a common order to tax. In Re Bracy (8 Beav. 266) the rule was thus laid down The party prosecuting the common order for taxation may object, on the ground of want of retainer, to any items of the bill, except those for which he has admitted the retainer by his petition. This shewed that the rule was merely founded on the admission of retainer which the practice required the client to make to obtain the common order to tax. But when the solicitor obtained the order the client was in no way bound by the allegation of retainer (on the part of the solicitor). His lordship therefore held that when the solicitor obtained the order the reason for the rule failed, and consequently that the client might object to every item on the ground of want of retainer. His lordship understood that, in fact, the practice of the taxing masters was in accord-selves, who, through their association, engaged and paid lecturers, but ance with this view. In this case, therefore, he was of opinion that the common order was not improper and ought to stand. Besides this point others were discussed in argument, and his lordship, by agreement, expressed his opinion upon them. They were as follows:-It was contended on behalf of Mr. Jones, in respect of other items, that his appointment as clerk was a retainer of him as solicitor to the commissioners, who, on the other hand, regarded them as disbursements by him as clerk and not as solicitor, he not having been retained, and urged that 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 him as solicitor, he became by the resolution of 1841 simply the officer of the commissioners, and that during the time over which the bills extended, his appointment as clerk was not of itself a retainer. As to the other and remaining items, his lordship was of opinion that they could not be brought into the bills of costs, as the business in respect of which the items were charged was beyond the powers of the commissiouers.COUNSEL, Ingle Joyce; W. Baker. SOLICITORS, Gregory, Rowcliffe, & Co.; Bevan & Berridge. It is stated that the Recorder of London has nominated Mr. Francis 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 signified his approval of the appointment. The matter is now in the 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 the Mayor's Court is illegal. The Attorney-General has given an opinion in accordance with that view. The committee have therefore decided to recommend the Corporation not to make the appointment of an assistant judge in the Mayor's Court. The CHAIRMAN, in submitting the report to the meeting, pointed out that the systematic teaching of law was a matter of quite recent date. The credit seemed to belong to the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom for having made the first attempt to establish anything approaching to a complete system of instruction in law by lectures. These lectures were naturally confined to the practical departments of law. In 1868, however, an agitation arose among solicitors for the establishment of a general law school, afterwards called a law university. This movement was soon joined by members of the bar, and, ultimately, a society called the Legal Education Association was formed for promoting the formation of such a university. This association was joined by many of the judges and the bar, and the presidency was accepted by the present Earl of Selborne, then Attorney-General. The proposal involved the giving up of the control of legal education by the bodies then intrusted with it-namely, the Inns of Court and the Incorporated Law Society, the former of which gave no encouragement to the project and the latter very little. The general public took no interest in the subject and so nothing was accomplished. As regards Liverpool an attempt was shortly afterwards made to establish a law school. The lectures failed to be self-supporting, and after two or three years were abandoned. The matter was, however, in a few years revived by the law students themtheir funds were inadequate to do more than provide a few courses of lectures, which did not attempt to cover the whole ground. The chairman went on to point out that the funds at the disposal of the board were insufficient to meet the requirements, and the board were, therefore, making a strong appeal for increased subscriptions. The chairman concluded by expressing the hope that the board might be enabled to extend its lectures so as to supply a complete course of legal instruction extending over a three years' curriculum. Professor MACCUM (University College, Liverpool) then addressed the meeting, stating the pleasure it had been to the University College to cooperate with the legal profession in the present scheme, and expressed the hope that the board might soon be enabled to extend its usefulness by the establishment of lectures on more theoretical subjects connected with the study of law. Mr. J. H. KENION (the President of the Liverpool Law Society) and Mr. W. F. TAYLOR (barrister-at-law) also expressed their approval of the work of the board, and wished it hearty success. The CHAIRMAN then presented the prizes to the following successful students:-G. W. Edwards (two prizes), F. U. Lewis (two prizes), H. Todd, and G. Hilton Lewis. The proceedings were brought to a close with a vote of thanks to the chairman. The Standard understands that under the Bill for amending and consolidating the law relating to Stamp Duties, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to introduce, the stamp on agreements to let for one year will be fixed at one penny. Bevan, Percy Bilsborough, James Bolton, Henry Lushington, B.A. Bromley, Rupert Fitz Roy Bunting, Milward Dethick Bunting, Walter Sampson Burrows, Harold Calvert, Edward Wood Ceely, Alexander Robert Arthur Co ey, Herbert Charles Dobell, Percy, B.A. Egginton, John Peppercorn Forbes, Alexander Staats Fossick, Alfred, B.A. Freshfield, Edwin Hansen, B.A. Gilling, Henry Thomas, B.A., LL.B. Gratton, Herbert Sterland Green, William Thomas Halford, Harry Sebastian Hardy, William Hunter Harper, George Povey, M.A. Hayfield, Charles Herbage, Percy George Hind, Herbert Hirst, Francis Joseph, B.A Hoare, Charles Henry Hobbs, Edward Hocking, Thomas Richard Hodding, George Montague Horley, Edward, B.A., LL.B Humphreys, Francis Joseph, B.A. Jackson, Harold Ringrose Jackson, James Edward Lunnon, Frederic John, M.A. Mattley, Robert Dawson Mayo, Henry Herbert Worsfold Morland, Francis John Morris, Frank William Morton, Harry Barnsley, B.A., LL.B. Bradley, Charles Septimus Mote, Frederick John Mutlow, Alfred Tombs Price, Herbert Damarell Quincey, Augustus Evelyn Ravenor, Henry Temple Richardson, William James Lewes Sparrow, Alan Bertram Hanbury, Edward Collingwood Stobart, Charles Hugh Stuart, Robert Alexander, B A. Arm-Swindells, Philip Terry, George Russell Brierley, Arnold Brown, Frederick William Chester, Edward Grenado Elmsall, Mansfeldt de Cardonnet Euthoven, Charles Evans, Thomas Robert Forster, Edmund Ryan, B.A. Geach, William Gichard Glasier, George Mason Glasier Harvey, Leopold Charles Lord, Arthur Edward Luff, John Montagu George Aine, B.A. Luxton, Arthur Philip Maclean, Donald Marsland, Octavius Mason, Alfred Elliot Matthews, Robert Edwin Ernest Matthews, Sydney Mawson, Isaac Ho18ce Mills, George Harry, B.A. Money, Griffin Cant Morice, Andrew Motion, George Edgerton Munday, William Luscombe Reed, Theophilus Haynes Rose, John William, B A. Spurrell, Richard Edward Thomas, Herbert Edward WINDING UP NOTICES. London Gazette.-FRIDAY, May 6. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. DAKOTA STOCK AND GRAZING CO, LIMITED.- Petn for continuance of voluntary winding up, presented April 29, directed to be heard before Stirling, J, on Saturday, May 14. And it was, by an order of the Lord Choncellor, made on May 4, transfe red to Chitty, J.. and that petn will now be heard on Saturday, May 14. Brandon, Essex st, Strand, solors for petners JOHORE CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented May 5, directed to be heard before Stirling, J., on Saturday, May 14. Hollams & Co, Mincing lane, solors for petners UNIVERSAL DISCOUNT CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented May 3, directed to be heard before North, J., on Saturday, May 14. Foss & Ledsam, Abchurch lane. solors for petner W. CHAPPELL & CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented April 21, directed to be heard before Kay, J., on Saturday, May 14. Cooper & Co, Lincoln's inn fields, solors for petner YORKSHIRE AERATED WATER CO. LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented April 30, directed to be heard before Stirling, J., on May 14. Edmonds, Theobald's rd, Bedford row, agent for Milling, Leeds, solor for petner London Gazette.-TUESDAY, May 10. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. ADAM EYTON, LIMITED.-North, J, has fixed Tuesday, May 17, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator BOLTON AND PARTNERS, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented May 7, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Saturday, May 21. Milward & Co, New sq, Lincoln's inn, petners in person sented May 7, directed to be heard before North, J, on Saturday, May 21. McDiarmid & Teather, Newman's ct, solors for petner Mr. JOHN WILLIAM DOWNER, Q.C., Prime Minister and Attorney-CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES OF MULATOS, LIMITED-Petn for winding up. pre- ence. Mr. WILLIAM FRANCIS FINLASON, barrister, has been elected a Bencher of the Middle Temple. Mr. SAIYAD MAHMUD, barrister, has been appointed a Judge of the High Court of the North-West Provinces of India. Mr. Justice Mahmud was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1872. Mr. CHARLES EDWARD POTHECARY, solicitor, of 26, Basinghall-street, has been appointed & Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr LAWRENCE RICHARDS, Solicitor (of the firm of Richards & Richards), of Swansea, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. ROBERT SEEDS, LL.D., Q C., has been appointed Queen's Advocate in Ireland, in succession to Mr. William Henry Kisbey, Q.C., who has been appointed County Court Judge and Chairman of Quarter Sessions for the counties of Armagh and Louth. Mr. Seeds is an LL.D. of Trinity College, Dublin. He was called to the bar in Ireland in 1857, and he became a Queen's Counsel in 1877. He practises on the North-East Circuit. ELECTRIC PORTABLE BATTERY AND GAS IGNITING CO, LIMITED.-Petn or winding SUTTON COLDFIELD ROYAL HOTEL CO. LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED. WILLIAM SIMPSON and EDWARD REGINALD ELLIOT, Solicitors (Simpson & Elliot), Malton. The said practice will in future be carried on by the said William Simpson alone. January 1. [Gazette, May 6.] GENERAL. In the House of Commons on the 5th inst. Mr. S. Buxton asked the Secretary to the Treasury in how many instances during the years 1884, 1885, and 1886 the opinion of the Attorney-General was obtained in cases of non-contentious business. Mr. Jackson said:-The opinion of the Attorney-General and Solicitor General was obtained in non-contentious business in 1884, in 350 cases; in 1885, in 405 cases; in 1886, in 360 cases. These figures do not include consultations or the numerous cases in which 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 in formal letter; nor do they include cases decided by the AttorneyGeneral as to licences in mortmain or cases referred to him for direction under the Public Prosecutions Act, nor hearings under the Patent Act. BIGNOLD, WILLIAM ATKINS, Kirkley, Norfolk, Gent. May 17. Bignold v Bignold, London Gazette.-FRIDAY, April 29. EHRENSPERGER, CONRAD, Laurence Pountney lane, Merchant. May 27. Spence London Gazette.-TUESDAY, May 3. HASWELL. FREDERICK, Burlington laue, Chiswick, Gent. May 25. Haswell v Haswell, North, J. Ivimey, Staple inn WRIGHT, JOHN, Hatfield Priory, Essex. June 1. Bramston v Townsend, North, J. Blood, Witham, Essex UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM. London Gazette.-TUESDAY, April 26. ANDERTON, ELIZA, Sheffield. June 30. Burdekin & Co, Sheffield st ARTHUR, LUCIUS, Rev, Matlock Bath, Derby, Clerk. June 7. Harris, Coleman BRANDRETH, Mrs MARY ELIZABETH, Westerham, Kent. June 1. Bennett & Co, New sq. Lincoln's inn BRUTON, LEONARD, Bristol. June 8. Wise, Bristol BRYDGES, SARAH, Leominster, Earthenware Dealer. May 21. Robicson & Son, Leominster CODD, HIRAM. Brixton rd, Patentee. June 4. Wilson & Co, Cop thall bldgs COMYN, Rev HORATIO NELSON WILLIAM, Brunstead Rectory, Norfolk. May 18. Overbury & Gilbert, Norwich CORRIGAN, SUSANNA, Liverpool. May 31. Steinforth, Liverpool DIXON, FRANCES MARY, Leeds. May 31. Curry, Cleckheaton, viâ Normanton EDWARDS, EMIAH, Cardiff. June 1. Jones, Cardiff ELLIS, ARTHUR AYRES, Clerk, Stotfold, Bedford. May 31. Veasey & Co, Baldock FINCKEN, HENRY, East End, Finchley, Retired Dairyman. June 1. Wells, Paternoster row GORTON, RICHARD, High st, Whitechapel, Gent. May 31. Gardner, Leadenhall st HALL, SARAH ANN, Sandal Magna, York. June 7. Fernandes, Wakefield HAMILTON, CHARLES LESLIE BAILLIE, Prince-Town, Devon, Esq. June 1. Stephens & Co. Plymouth HARKER, FRANCES PRISCILLA, Church Aston, Salop. June 1. Brandon, Essex st, BIRCH, EDWIN, Woolton, nr Liverpool, Gent. June 4. Thornley & Cameron, Strand LOGAN, ELIZABETH, Cheltenham. June 4. Winterbothams & Gurney, Cheltenham June 24. Ormerod & Allen, Manchester NOOT, JOHN, Redberth, Pembroke, Farmer. May 27. Leman & Co, Lincoln's inn fields POULTON, WILLIAM, Leominster, Painter. May 21. Robinson & Son, Leominster REEVE, ABSALOM, Roydon, Norfolk, Keeper. May 27. Garrod, Diss SMITH, JOSEPH CHARLES, Southport, Gent. May 14. Whitworth, Manchester SWANN, Rev SAMUEL KIRKE, Carlton, nr Nottingham. May 31. Burten & Eking, Nottingham WATKINS, GEORGE WATKIN, Llwyny Brain, nr Llandovery, Carmarthen, Esq. WILSON. GEORGE. Lindum ter, Lincoln, Gent. June 30. Danby & Son, Lincoln; London Gazette.-FRIDAY, April 29. Liverpool BIRCH, JANE, Woolton, nr Liverpool. June 4. Thornely & Cameron, Liverpool COATES. NICHOLAS CHARLES, Romford rd, Stratford, Gent. June 1. King, CUNNINGTON, JOHN, Oakley sq, Esq. June 14. Whittington & Co, Bishopsgate st Without DRUMMOND, JAMES, Great Cumberland pl. June 1. Newman & Co, Clement's inn DUTHOIT, JONATHAN, Kentwell Lodge, Highbury New Park, Silk Manufacturer. FAWLEY, HENRY BAXTER, Long Sutton, Lincoln, Gent. May 24. Mossop & FLYNN, JAMES, Stonycroft, nr Liverpool, Lancaster, Cooper May 20. Lynch & GEORGE, ARTHUR, Gosport, Southampton, Gent. June 1. Coaks & Co, Norwich HARBOROUGH, MARY ELIZA, Countess of, Exmouth. June 24. Smith & Co, HARRIS, RACHEL, Draythan, Glamorgan. June 1. Lewis, Cardiff MAKIN, JOHN, Liverpool, Stationer. June 15. Seaman, Liverpool MARRYAT, CATHERINE, Belgrave rd, South Belgravia. June 3. M'Clellan, Bedford row METHVEN, JAMES, Hadlow, Kent, Beerhouse Keeper. May 31. Stenning, Tonbridge BARTON, ZEPHANIAH, Shanghai, Marine Surveyor. June 24. Hughes & Co, New MORETON, HIRAM, Dudley, Worcester, Innkeeper. May 18. Smith & Leech, BEADELL, WILLIAM, Vere st, Cavendish sq, Confectioner. June 7. Stileman & Co Southampton st folk st BELLAMY, MARGARET ANN, Devonshire rd, Balham. May 27. Bertram, Nor BENTINCK, GEORGE WILLIAM PIERREPOINT, Tenington, Norfolk, Esq. June 1. Davidson & Co, Spring grdus BEWICK, JOHN WILLIAM, D D., Roman Catholic Bishop, Hexham. May 27. BROOKS, CHARLES, Wandsworth rd, Chemist. May 21. Copp, Essex st, Strand CLARKE, JOB B, Royal Naval Hospital, Gt Yarmouth, Commander. June 1. DAVIES, WILLIAM EDMUNDS, Battersea Park rd, Draper. May 21. Copp, Essex st, Strand FILDES. CHARLES, St Helens, Lancaster, Grocer. May 31. Barrow & Cook, St Helens GORDON, MARY ANN, Fentonville st, Sheffield. Clegg & Sons, Sheffield GREENSLADE, SARAH FRANCES, Preston Plucknett, Somerset. June 24. Perham, Bristol HARKER, ROBERT LEES, Church Aston, Salop. May 18. G. S. & H. Brandon, Essex st, Strand HEAP, JOHN, sen, Underbank, Bacup, Lancaster, Engineer. May 21. Stott, Leavengreave HESKETH. EDWARD FLEETWOOD, North Meols, Lancaster, Esq. June 4. Buck & Co, Preston Beckenham HITCHCOCK, ALFRED, Branksome Wood rd, Bournemouth, Esq. June 1. Vardon, JONES. FRANCES, Tra'algar sq, Scarborough. June 17. Turnbull & Co, Scarborough JONES, ROBERT, Hafod Gwytherin, Denbigh, Farmer. May 25. Jones, Llanrwst KIDDLE, EDWARD, Cleveland villas, Richmond, Surrey, Retired Office Keeper, War Office. May 25. Davie, New inn LAW, JOHN, Englefield rd, Islington, Gent. July 1. Hird, Portland chambers, Gt Titchfield st LAWRENCE, NATHAN, She: bourne ter, Cheltenham, Auctioneer. June 1. Jones, LEEI AM, WILLIAM WHITTINGHAM, Hilderstone, Stafford, Gent. June 15. Small, Rundle & Martyn, Devonport MILLS, MARY, Broad Blunsdon, Wilts. June 30. Elwell, Highworth, Wilts PUGH. MARY, Eardisley, Hereford. June 1. Temple & Philpin, Kington, Herefordshire RIVERS, MARY ANN, Blenheim cres, Notting hill. June 14. Nicholls, Lincoln's inn fields SUTCLIFF, CHARLES, Stretford, Manchester, Manufacturer. June 6. A. & G. W. SUTCLIFF, EMMA, Park view, Stretford, Manchester. June 6. A. & G. W. Fox, ton Llanrwst WILLIAMS. RICHARD, Clattwn Henllan, Denbigh, Labourer. May 25. Jones, YELLOWLEY, ELIZABETH, Cullercoats, Northumberland. June 1. Denison, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Derby NEWTON, MARY, South Side, Clapham Common. June 11. Langham, Bartlett's PUCKRIDGE, HENRY, Bulkington, Wilts, Farmer. May 31. Marshall, Devizes SCOTT. GEORGE, Hedley, Northumberland, Retired Innkeeper. June 1. Baty, Summers, SMITH, JOSEPH, New John st West, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. June 1. SMYTH, MARY, Tonbridge Wells. June 15. Alleyne & Walker, Tonbridge Wells STREET, HENRY GEORGE, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. June 1. Ansell & TOWNDROW, WILLIAM WALDOCK, Spencer st, Canonbury, Traveller. June 1. Tippetts & Son, Maiden lane WATERS, WILLIAM, Scarborough, Ironfounder. May 14. Drawbridge & Rowntree, Scarborough WARD, JONATHAN, Derby, Fitter. May 18. Smith & Leech, Derby WARRY, JOHN, Holwell, Dorset, Esq. May 31. Dashwood, Sturminster Newton WHITEHEAD, ANN, Scarborough. May 16. Birdsall & Cross, Scarborough WOOLLETT, ROBERT FRANCIS, Newport, Mon., Esq. June 1. Davis & Lloyd, Newport, Mon. 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, Pall Mall, S. W., & 9. Liverpool-st., E.C. Goods delivered free.-[ADVT. BANKRUPTCY NOTICES. AUSTIN, EDWARD, Kidderminster, Commission Agent. May 3 BLOWS, JOHN, Peckham Rye, Van Proprietor. High Court. |