Page images
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to account, either at the times actually agreed upon, or at the times fixed
by the custom of trade, or within a reasonable time, and he was bound
not to state his accounts in such a way as to mislead the principals into
supposing that he had not received moneys which he had, in fact,
received. If, having received money which he ought to have accounted
for to his principals, he used it for his own purposes, and gave them mis-
leading accounts to conceal what he had done, he was guilty of a gross
fraud. On the evidence his lordship was of opinion that the present bank-
rupt had acted in this way, and, whether what he had done was an in-
dictable offence or not, it was a gross fraud. It might not, in the strict
sense of the words, amount to a fraudulent breach of trust, but anything
more fraudulent in business could not be conceived. Looking at this and
the other offences of the bankrupt under section 28, the proper course
was absolutely to refuse the bankrupt his discharge. Lmntav, L.J.,
could not understand how it could be said that an unpaid creditor could
not be aggrieved by the granting of an order of discharge to a bankrupt
The effect of the order would be topreclude him from all remedy against
the bankrupt and to affect his right to payment out of the estate. He
was clearly a “person aggrieved.” On the substance of the case his
lordship entirely agreed with the Master of the Rolls. Lorss, L.J.,

The question was then raised whether the bankrupt should be
ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, and it wis urged that it would
be contrary to the practice to order an undischarged bankrupt to pay
costs, he having no estate. Lord Esirsn, M.B., said that the court had
jurisdiction to make such an order, and they thought it right to do so in
the present Cll8B.—COUNSEL, Winslow, Q.C., and HvI'berl Reed ,- Cooper
Willis, Q..C. Soucrrons, .Pr1rke'r, Garrelt, 4- Parker,‘ Redpnth §- Holds-

[ocr errors]


Counsel, who appeared for the Incorporated Law Society in this case, said that the solicitor in question had acted for very many years for the trustees of the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs. D. Mrs. D. died in 1862, and since then her husband had received the dividends on a sum of £1,340 in Consols from the solicitor, but the latter had received and never paid over the dividends due in July, 1885, and January of the present year. One of the trustees under the marriage settlement had died, and the surviving trustee had resigned last year. In the autumn of 1885 the solicitor had given notice to Mr. D. that he should no longer act under a power of attorney which the trustees had given him to receive the dividends on this sum in Consols; but it appeared that in January last he had obtained payment of the dividend then due and that of the previous hali-year. The matter having been placed in the hands of the Incorporated Law Society last April, the solicitor, who had been instructed by Mr. D. to apply to the court for the appointment of new trustees, had expressed his willingness to pay over thc two dividends to Mr. D. if it was thought that he ought to do so. The secretary of the society had expressed an opinion that he ought to hand (ver the moneys, but he had. in fact, retained them. His excuse was that at the time of his having offered to part with the moneys he had not been able to look at his papers, from which it appeared that a larger sum was due to him for moneys advanced to Mr. D. than the amount of the dividends, and also for bills of costs. The solicitor, in his aflidavit, had further stated that he was possessed of landed property of the value of £50,000. There was no desire on the part of tho Incorporated Law Society to inculpate the solicitor, but they had thought the case, as brought before them when there had been no suggestion of any money having been due from Mr. D. to the solicitor, was one which oughtto be brought before the court. It would probably be best that there should. be an inquiry into the true facts of the case before a master. The court having intimated that there was no case for such inquiry, counsel briefly addressed the court on behalf of the solicitor, and Lord COLBRIDGE, C.J., ll! gliving judgment, said that the application must be dismissed. Before sue a charge was made against a solicitor, on whom it might inflict very severe injury, due investigation into the facts ought fo be made. The Law Society had made a mistake in not giving notice to the solicitor of their intention to make this application, and he had made a mistake in not informing them of the claim he had against Canon Drake, who had clearly, at times, received moneys from him before he himself could have received the dividends. ]!l.\.~:isri', J ., in concurring, said that the legal profession was under a deep debt of gratitude to the Incorporated Law Society for the work which it had done in purifying the roll of solicitors. There had, in the present case, no doubt been on anxious desire on the Pm Of the society w do its duty, but it had unfortunately failed to take ‘"19 important step in the matter. Application dismissed without costs.Covivsxn, F. W. Hollams ,-—T|‘me:.

[ocr errors]

This was an action by a Parliamentary agent against a solicitor to recover £47 10s., the amount of his bill of costs for services in connection Wltl_\ an application for the Lyndliurst Gas and \Vater Provisional Order, 188a. The defence was that the plaintiff had neglected to give to the defendant (who was acting as solicitor for the promoters of the order), notice of the necessity for the publication of the draft order by advertisement before the 25th of April, in accordance with the provisions of the Gas and Vi{ater_Facl1ities Act, 1870. In consequence of the order not being so


Trade Provisional Orders Confirmation Bill of that session, and the work lapsed. It was contended that it was the duty of the plaintiff as Parliamentary agent to give due notice of each step to be taken by the promoters, aud it appeared that he had given notice of the dates of the previous preliminary proceedings. The defendant counter-claimed damages for this alleged negligence. A gentleman from the oflioe of Messrs. Baxters 8: 00., Parliamentary agents, stated that it was their invariable practice to keep clients informed of the dates. The plaintiff's clerk, on the other hand, stated that on the 14th of April he had called the attention of Mr. Lobb, defendant's clerk, to the necessity of advertising by the 25th of April. Mr. Lobb denied this interview, but both Mr. Gale and his clerk stated that on a subsequent occasion at the Board of Trade Oifico Mr. Lobb said that he imputed no blame to Mr. Gale. After hearing the evidence, Srarnsx, J., said he must find for the plaintiff for the amount of his claim and also upon the counter-claim. His lordship could not see that it was the special duty of Mr. Gale to keep Mr. Kite informed of this matter. Both Mr. Kite and Mr. Lobb were solicitors. They had this Act before them. That was not all. They had the Board of Trade rules, which specially called attention to the dates. His lordship thought that these things were enough to relieve Mr. Gale of the necessity of giving notice; but beyond that thcre was evidence of express notice given on the 14th of April by Mr. Sawyer, the plaintiff's clerk. After explaining his reasons for accepting this evidence, his lordship said that in both views of the case, but more especially on the ground that there bad been express notice, he gave judgment for the plaintifi.—CoL'xsiii., C’. Crowley; .Edw_v/n Jonrs.—.’l’i:nu.

RAVEN 0. STEVENS & SONS—Q B. Div., Stephen, J., llth November.

This was an action brought against the publishers of the Law Lint to recover damages for an alleged libel in that publication, the libel consisting in a mis-statement of the date of the plaintiff's admission as a solicitor. Counsel, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff, Mr. John Raven, was a solicitor, admitted in 1869, and practising at Wandsworth and in London. The defendants duly published in the Law List particulars of his addresses and of his admission until 1885, when they announced him as admitted in 187$). The plaintiff called their attention to the error, but in spite of that they repeated it in 1886. The plaintiff could prove that he had suffered damage from the mistake—ainong other things the loss of two chancery actions. [Srai-nan, J . :—I don't see that the defendants were under any duty to give his admission correctly. The Law List is only a directory.] The Law List is an oflicial publication. It is accepted by your lordships as evidence. [Si-zi>iicr~', J. :—Is there any Act which makes it evidence F] It is made evidence by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 22, thatasolicitoris for that year entitled to practice. [S'i'sriiim, J., after referring to the statute :— There is nothing here about dates. It is only evidence that a person has taken out his certiflcate.] But if the person is misdescrihed he may not be identified with the person who has taken out the certificate. The defendants are the authorized publishers of the list. They are authorized by the Commissioners of Inland. Revenue. [sTEI‘ll8N, J. :—-But only to ublish a list of persons certificated. I don't see that there is a libel) or anything like it.] Arcliibald v. Sweet (5 C. &P.) is an authority that any untrue statement is actionable if injury results from it. [Si-si=i-rim, J. :—-I should like to see it. You do not say that there is express malice 5'] No; but negligence, gross negligence. After some further argument Si-zi*ira:z., J., said he was of opinion that there must be judgment of iionsiut with costs, which was entered accordingly. —-Tinmx.

[graphic][merged small]

The fifty-ninth annual general meeting of this society was held on the 3rd inst.

The report of the committee and the treasurer’s accounts having been taken as read, _

The PRISIDBNT (Mr. T. BBLLRINGBR) delivered an address, in which, after tracing the steps taken towards promoting the obgects of the Provincial Sittings Dill, he said:-In August last the objectionable order regulating the trial of witness causes in chancery was annulled, and n new rule passed, which has been circulated amongst the members. I‘ha effect of this new rule is that, if, on the lst of June and lst oi December respectively, ten or more witness causes in the Chancery Division_prcceeding in the District Registries of Liverpool and Manchester, or either of them, have been set down for trial, special sittings are to be held at Liverpool and Manchester for the trial of such causes. It appears doubtful whether the rule means that, if on either date there are flve causes proceeding and set down for trial in Manchester, five in Liverpool, there will be special sittings at both places or at neither,_oiwhether there will only be a sitting at that place in the registry of which there are ten causes set down. There has not yet been any opportunity of ascertaining how the rule will be interpreted, but it may reasonably

expected that her Majesty's judges will put a liberal construction upon it.

You will have observed that the rule deals with only witness causes in

the Chancery Division, and does not meet the well-known hardship and

increased cost arising from having to try non-witness causes in the same

division in London. The success of the_new_ rule depends _upon the

facilities which may be conferred of admuiistratively dealing with cauties

in the district registries. The rules_ for this purpose are doubtless un 81‘

the consideration of the Rule Committee of her l\Ifl]88l5Y B J\1d!


advertisod it was unable to be introduced in due course into the Board of

The report of the committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor W


inquire into the subject of procedure in the Chancery Division was issued a few months since, and will well repay perusal. That committee, which was presided over by the lilastei-_ of the Rolls (Lord Esh_er)- 116514 witnesses from Manchester and Liverpool, and _the society is indebted to Mr. Isham Gill for the very able manner in which, as the witness from Liverpool, he brought before _the _con_in_ii_ttee the present inadequate powers of the district registrars iii this division. _\ ou will be npleased to know that the committee recommend that in Liverpool and _ anchester the district registrars should, in causes and matters “proceeding in the district registry, exercise the jurisdiction (as propos _ to regulated) and perform all the duties of a chief clerk ; and that, in actions pending in the district registry, the registrar should act as taxing master. Unfortunately, reforms of this nature come but slowly. Seeing that our efforts have so far obtained only the small concession of the new rule, and as the condition of political affairs has prevented Mr._ \Vhitley pressing forward the Bill during the last t_wo Sessions of Parliament, it may be wise to consider whether, before it is again introduced, it should not be reconstructed in such a manner that, while securing by the Bill the facilities and privileges at present enjoyed in the Chancery of the County Palatine, the consolidation of that court with the };ligh_ Court should form part of the scheme, as recommended by the Judicature Commission in their second report ten years ago, orin the alternative that an extended and common law jurisdiction should be conferred on the Duchy Court. It cannot be too widely known that there are accumulations froin suitors’ lees in the Duchy Court of over £110,000, which can (may I say should) be made available for the purposes of the main objects of the Bill.

Before leaving this subject I desire to refer to the great hardship, inconvenience, and loss caused to suitors by the masters in London (whose decisions are upheld by the judges) refusing to sanction the delivery of pleadings during the Long1_—the far too long—\'acation. Consider for one moment the effect of 1: is refusal. The arrangement for the trial of civil causes at the assizes held in Manchester and Liverpool, beginning at the end of October, is supposed to be a special concession to meet the demand of these districts for the disposal of actions arising after, or which were not ripe for trial at, the Summer Assizes. Now observe how beautifully that which is granted by one hand is practically withdrawn by the other. An action is commenced, say on the 12th of August and the appearance is entered in London. _A defendant wishing_ to gain _tiine, and ll8V1lJ|iu16 option, will enter it there rather than in the district registry, w ere he knows that an order to proceed would be made as a matter of course. The district registry here is not only open for the whole of every day of the Long Vacation, but there is one registrar always in attendance. The result of the masters’ and judges’ desire for the strict observance of the rest the vacation affords is that under the rule they will not permit any pleadings to be delivered until the 24th of October, the end of the vacation. It is then absolutely impossible to try the action at the assizes in October or beginning of November, and it goes over until February, or six months after the action has been commenced, to the pre udice and injury of the plaintiff, whose only chance of recovering his demand is probably by an earl trial. In the meantime, rather than wait this long period, he is glad to compromise his claim even at a sacrifice, or he refers it to arbitration. And yet some of She juggps say, _“I_iopk_€.\é the pause list, and you getan answer to the

eman or provincia si ngs.‘

_It is to be lamented that political controversies have, amongst other tlimgs, prevented pressmg and urgent measures, such as the Bill relating to trustees formerly introduced by Mr. Ince and backed b Mr. Whitley, from being dealt with. I refer especially to that part by which it is proposed to authorize trustees to advance up to two-thirds of the value of house property. You are now, no doubt, all acquainted with the absurd rule that trustees may not advance more than two-thirds of the value of lands or more than half the value of buildings. We have been told, in recent cases, that this rule is an old one, but, if so, it has been more hcilnoprid in Bio breach than in the observance. The great depreciation w ic as t en place in the value of house ro ert has caused considcrable losses upon mortgage investments, dpndpnnfyortunate trustees, who have acted as they believed prudently, and as they would have done for themselves, have been made, somewhat harshly, to recoup the loss sustained to the trust estate. Until the recent cases were decided in which the rule was em hatically laid down, it was, I behave, alm0st,the universal practice to adiance up to two-thirds of the value of ho

use property. Had it been otherwise very little trust money would have been advanced on mo e Th l

upon this mbjeerzgai ~ up hast ogso, Re Og-z":ti,‘110liil's Westerman, , s ems ave een a c ar

the unfortunate trustees. There the trusteespdid not {)btl:l’l!I:1&°?06l'Df8li valuation of the property, that is to say, a certificate that it was worth so much and then divide it into one-half or two-thirds and lend that amount; but they consulted a surveyor and valuer of standing in the district in which the property was situate who advised that it would be safe to lend £8,000 upon it. The mortga or however, wanted £8,300. The surveyor .was again consulted ind he then wrote that he had no hesitation in assuring the tiiistces thatWY Would be sate in lending this amount The mono was accordingly lent. The property went down in value. and a loss reysulted in realizing the security. In giving judgment againgt the trustees Kay -T-1 59-lfi there was no suggestion that there was any corrupt dealing oi anything of that kind, and he had no reason to doubt that the trust did What @1197 th°“8115 was the best thingto be done with reference to this property of the testator, but added “surely trustees should tell th ‘e valuers that they are lending trust-money and that the do n t d ' etu lend more than one-half the actual value of the p!‘Opei'tyy Thegshodlhrhsfi 5°‘ '1 "*1““l'1°11 W111011 would enable them to judge whether they arc

[ocr errors]

The following are extracts from the report of the committee :—

illcmber.s.—The number of members at the present time is 286.

‘Corporation L:aa2s.—As soon as the committee became aware that the Corporation of Liverpool were about to make important alterations in their forms of lease, a request was made to the town clerk that the committee of this society might be aiforded an opportunity of considering the nature and objects of such alterations. Through the court/esy of the Estates and Finance Committee of the Council, the town clerk, and the deputy town clerk, the drafts of the proposed new forms of leases were submitted to this committee for their consideration. As at first drawn» the alterations were so drastic, and in several respects so objectionable, that this committee reported in the strongest terms against many of the clauses, and asked that the Estate and Finance Committee should receive a deputation to discuss the matter. This was arranged, and a lar8° deputation from this committee urged their views upon the Estate and Finance Committee, with the result that after three separate reports and considerable correspondence and several subsequent interviews with the deputy town clerk the most objectionable clauses were withdrawn. The main object of the corporation in preparing a new form of lease was to put an end to all claims by lessees to easements as against the corporation and other lessees of the corporation, but the principle was carried so far as to place lessees from the corporation in a worse position than freeholders, both as regards rights acquired under the Prescription Act prior to a surrender of an existing lease, and also as to rights which might be

acquired under the Prescription Act after the granting of a lease. T116 committee admitted th ' '

at it was not unreasonable that the corporation should protect themselves against the acquisition of easements by a lessee bi Vlmle of the maxim “ that n man cannot derogate from his own grlllii" but they insisted that a leoseholder should not bc placed in a worse


position with respect to the acquireinent of easeinents than a freeholder, and pointed out that such stringent conditions as it was sought to impose would have the inevitable effect of decreasing the value of corporation leaseholds. In the result the new form of corporation lease contains the following proviso: — “ Provided always that nothing herein-contained shall operate to grant, by way of implication or otherwise, any right or easement not hereinbefore expressly granted or not hereafter by resolution of thc council expressly given over or in respect of any land retained by or belonging to the corporation whether now held on lease from the corporation or not or over any land hereafter to be acquired by the corporation." It is, therefore, most important to note that any easement of whatever nature a lessee from the corporation may require, must be the subject of express grant, even though such easement be appurtenant to the prpperty under a lease which is being surrendered for the purpose of renew . The corporation have also inserted a covenant to insure against loss by the whether a ground-rent is reserved or not. As at first proposed, it was intended to require the name of the corporation to be inserted in the policy, but on the representations of this committee that this would have seriously injured the position of mortgagees, the proposal was withdrawn, and the usual form of covenant to insure with provisions as to production of the receipt for premiums, power for the corporation to insure in default of the lessee doing so, and as to rebuilding with insurance moneys, if required by the corporation, was adopted. The committee desire it to be understood that, while they have succeeded in securing many important modifications in the drafts as originally drawn, they are not in any way responsible for them as adopted. They do not, however, consider them in their present form to be unreasonable.

Judginmtv. —The attention of members is called to the case of Re Pope (3-i R. 65-1, 693) which decides that the registration of an order appointing a receiver confers a good title upon the judgment creditor as against a subsequent bomi fide purchaser without notice, notwithstanding that there are no means of ascertaining the existence of such an order. The attention of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society has been called to this decision, with a view to protective legislation. The subject was fully discussed in a paper read by Mr. Godden, of London, at the recent meeting of the Incorporated Law Society in York.

Attention is also directed to the case of Nuwbould v. Smith (29 Ch. D. 882, 33 Ch. D. 128), which is of practical importance to mortgagees.

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


Ar a recent sitting of the Brompton County Court, Judge Stonor made the following observations :—Beforo I hear the judgment summonses to-day, Ithink it right to make some observations with reference to the recent case of Km? v. Fowls, on prohibition in the Queen’: Bench Division, and to the practice hitherto prevailing in this court of suspending the issue of warrants under orders of committal whilst certain instalments are paid, in those cases where the defendants have been able to make the payments originally ordered by tho court and neglected to do so, and are, therefore, liable to committal, but nevertheless are, at the dates of the orders of committal, only able to pay such instalments. This practice has always been carried out by me by means of a simple direction to the registrar not to issue the warrant to the high bailiff so ong as the instalments are duly paid. Such direction is wholly distinct from the order of committal, and is similar to the direction which I understand is given by the High Court in like cases when it directs that the order of committal “ should lie in the otfice ” for a certain period ; but at the same time I must add that I understand some registrars have entered such suspension of the warrants on the minute book of the court, to which I see no objection. The order of committal itself, when issued, is, however, absolute, and only voidable on payment of the whole sum for the non-payment of which it was originally made. It is addressed to the high bailiff in thoprescribed form, signed by the registrar, and under the seal of the court. The practice has been followed in the various courts over which I have had the honour to preside for 22 years during the whole oi that period, and I believe that it has been followed in the great majority of the county courts of England during a much longer eriod. It has also, to my knowledge, been the subject of frequent and anxious consultations amongst the judges of county courts, and always with the result of its appnroval by the great majority. In 1880 we had the satisfaction of learn g the opinion of Lord Selborne, then Lord Chancellor, on the subject, and of finding it to be in conformity with the views of the majority of the judges. In a letter addressed to one of our body, dated November 3, 1880, and which for convenience was printed at the time, his lordship thus expressed himself with reference to an order of committal then under his consideration :—“ If you had satisfied yourself that the defendant could have paid the debt of £29 since the date of the judgment, then you could have committed him, or you might have, on being satisfied that he had not than the means of paying it, made a fresh order. If you had committed him on being so satisfied, you might have ordered that the order of commitment should not be issued so long as he complied with the terms you might impose " — which, in fact, had been the payment of the debt by monthly instalments of £1. The practice which has thus been so long and so widely adopted and so highly sanctioiicdjlias, I need pot say, proved most beneficial to the suitors and the public in diminishing the number of committals, and in insuring the payment of debts, and, indeed, is generally pursued with the consent of both plaintiffs and defendants. For the present, however, the decision of the DlI18l01li_1l Court, being subsequent to the contrary decision of Pollock, B.,_ in the same case (ante, p. 29), although not on appeal from it, must, I think be considered binding, and the practice in question must now_be discontinued. An appeal, however, will be entered against the decision of the Divisional Court, and if it be reversed that practice will, of course, _be restored. In tho meantime no directions will be given for the suspension of warrants, and no warrants will be issued under the numerous orders of committal as to which directions for the suspension of warrants have hitherto been made.

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

' Mr. Joan Enwiinn Fox,_ solioitor_(of the firm of Fox 6: Page), of 2, Serle-street, has been appointed Registrar of the _Croydon County Court (Circuit No. 45) in succession to the late Mr. Wilham Henry Rowland. Mr. Fox was admitted a solicitor in 1880.

Mr. ALFRED J ous Wis-ran, solicitor, of Swafiham, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. Tnouss Fosrsu BARHAM, solicitor, of Bridgewater, has'been appointed Assistant Clerk to the Bridzewater Board of Guardians. Mr. Barham was admitted a solicitor in 187:2. He is in partnership with his father, Mr. Eustace Barham. _

Mr. THOMAS WALTERS, solicitor, of Carmarthen, has been appointed Under-Sheriif of the Town and County of the Town of Carmarthen for the ensuing year. Mr. Walters was admitted a solicitor in 1875.

Mr. HERBERT PARSONS, solicitor, of Mildenhall, has been appointed Clerk to the Mildenhall Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, School Attendance Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, and Superintendent Registrar for the Mildenhall District. _

Mr. PATRICK Cums, barrister, secretary to the Education Department, has been created a Civil Companion of the Order of the.Bath. Mr. Cumin is the eldest son of Dr. William Cumin, of Clifton, Bristol, and was born in 1824. He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated third class in Classics in 1845. He was cal ed to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1855, and he formerly practised in the Court of Chancery. Mr. Cumin was secretary to the Scotch Education Commission, and he was private secretary to the late Mr. Forster when Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education. He was assistant secretary to the Education Department from 1871 till 1882, and counsel to the department from 1882 till 1884, when he was appointed secretary to the department.

Mr. Fniinsnicu ODDXN Tsrnon, solicitor, of Norwich, has been elected Sheriff of that city for the ensuing year. Mr. Taylor is superintendent registrar for the Norwich district. He was admitted a solicitor in 1872, and he is in partnership with his father, Mr. John Oddin Howard Taylor.

Mr. SYDNEY COZENS-HARDY, solicitor, of Norwich, has been appointed Under-Sheriif of that city for the ensuing year. Mr. Cozens-Hardy is an LL.B. of the University of London. He was admitted a solicitor in 1873.

Mr. Jonrv CROW Ponrizn, solicitor, of Billiter House, Billiter-street, and of Richmond, has been appointed Honorary Solicitor to the Wine innd Spirit Trades Benevolent Society. Mr. Porter was admitted a solicitor n 1878.

Mr. Ricnaim Romxsoa Roma, solicitor, of St/onehouse, has been appointed Clerk to the East Stonehouse Local Board. Mr. Rodd was admitted a solicitor in 1884.

Mr. EDWIN Docxaa, solicitor (of the firm of Docket 8: Jagger), of Birmingham and Smethwick, has been appointed Clerk to the King's Norton Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, School Attendance Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, on the resignation of his father, Mr. Ralph Docker, who is coroner for East Worcestershire. Mr. E. Docket was admitted a solicitor in 1879. He is superintendent registrar for the King's Norton District, and clerk to the Smethwick Local Board.

Mr. J.As.'riiim Eisnni.i., solicitor (of the firm of Eisdell 8: Thompson), of No. 16, Jermyn-street, London, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

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

- . . ‘Y 1“ year_divers sums of money, amounting in the aggregateto £4,083, received by him for and on acc u t f

o n o the London Leather Warehouse Co of which he was secretary. Mr. St. John Wontner appeared to proseciite and Mr. Lickfold for the defence. The prisoner had disappeared in January last and had been traced to Sydney, New South Wales where Inspector Lansdowne, of Scotland-yard, who had been sent out under the Fugitive Offenders Act, found him living under the name of Sir Arthur Adair. He appeared to have squandered a considerable fortune in a very short period. The evidence in the present case was that the prisoner had received certain sums on account of the company of which Mr. Alfred Lafone, M.P., is the manager, and paid them ind; his own banking account at the London and Westminster Bank, drawing out tho

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

Hssi-mos AND Sr. Laoiuims Passxsosn Srsaxsnrr Co. Lnn'ran.—Petn for winding ug. presented Nov 15, directed to be heard before Chitty, J-, 011 Saturday, ov 27. Mont-asru, Bucklersbnry, solor for the potner

H. F. Van & Co. Lurrri*.n.-Petn for winding up, presented Nov 18. directed to be heard before North, J., on Nov 21. Anderson 6: Sons, Ironmonger limo. solors for the petners

Liviiaroor. arm Isnr: or MAN STEAMSHIP Co Lnm's.n.—By an order nuidc by Bacon. V.C., dated Nov 6 it was ordered that the company be wound upPritchard & Co, Painters‘ Hall, Little Trinity lane, solors for etner

NATIONAL Tansr C0. Lmrrsn.—By an order made b North, J9, dated Nov 0, it pas oi‘-adored that the company be woimd up. Bcalfl Co, Buclilersbury. 501013

or pe ners

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

Famann, J unis. Ryde. Isle 0! Wisht, Retired Coal Merchant. Dec 24. Would. ridge. Hyde

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

HAwoRrrI. JOHN, Southport, Lancaster, Gent. Doc 25. Needham & Co, Manchester

JAYE. WILLIAM, Mildmay grove, Islington, Gent. Nov 30. Bridger, St Helen's pl, Bishopsgate st Within

JEWEL. HENRY. Salcombe Regis, Devon, Doctor of Medicine. Jan 1. Bxutton, Ottery St Mary

JONES. FANNY MARY FOXCBOFT, Folkestone. Dec 1. Pritchard 8.: Sons, Gracechurch st

KING, RICRARD HENRY, Little Glemham, Suffolk. Dec 1. Henry King, Gresham st

LALLAM, MICHAEL, Downham Market, Norfolk, Gent. Nov 30. Nunn, Downham Market

LAMPRELL, KATHERINE FRANcEs, Cecil st, Strand. Nov 25. Jenkins, Tavlstock st, Covent garden

MATTINSON, JOSEPH, Wood st, Warehouseman. Dec 6. Phelps & Co, Gresham st

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

18 O11 . 8 0 . I‘ OV Row'E, WILLIAM, Cardiif, Glass Dealer. Cardiff. Pet Nov 8. Ord Nov 8 SAMPSON HENRY, Southport, Lancashire, Photographer. Liverpool. Pet Nov 9.

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

Bo'rTINo, FREDERICK (Sep Estate), Shalford, Surrey, Farmer. Nov 20at 10 45. Borough and County Hall. Guildford. Surrey

BOTHNG THOMAS (Sep Estate). Chilworth, Farmer. Nov 20at10.45. Borough and County Hall, Gnildford. Surrey

BOT'1‘INO, THOMAS, and Fasnimicx BOTTING, Chilworth, Farmers. Nov 2) at 10.45. Borough and County Hall. Guildford

BBOMFIELD, CIIARLES. Exeter, Manufacturing Stationer. Nov 22 at 11. Castle of Exeter, Exeter

BUNNELL, J oivA'ri1AN, Middleton, Lancashire, Veterinary Stationer. Nov 22 at 11.30. Oil Rec Ogden's chmbrs, Bridge st, Manchester

COLLEFTE, CHARLES, Torquay, ‘Theatrical Lessee. Nov 25 at 2. Royal Hotel,


CoNNEI.I., FREDERIc HENRY, High rd, Kilburn, Watchmaker. Nov 19 at 11. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn

COUIFG FRA)£)CIS. Wingham, Kent, Farmer. Nov 19 at 10.30. 32, St George's st,

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