« PreviousContinue »
PAIILARD. ARTHUR. Holbom Viaduct, Musical Instrument Importer. High Court. Pet Aug 10. Ord Aug 10
PALMER. ALBERT. and ALBERT EDWARD PALMER, Yeovil, Somersetshire, Glove Manufacturers. Yeovil. Pet Aug 8. Ord Aug8
PEMRERTON. OLIYER J AMES, Sutton Coldfleld. Warwickshire, Licensed Victualler. Birmingham. Pet July 28. Ord Aug 9
PRIPPARD. JORN. Swanage, Dorsctshire, Lodging-house Keeper. Poole. Pet Aug 10. Ord Aug 10
POPE, HENRY ALEXANDER, Swansea, Licensed Victualler. Swansea. Pet Aug 10. Ord Aug 10
Rnongsh :RANIgL, Dewsbury, Yorkshire, Newsagent. Dewsbury. Pet Aug 9.
ROBER:;I‘SOg. gOASEPIg. Tokenhouse yard, Financial Agent. High Court. Pet July 9 . I‘ 11$
SANGER, XVILLIAM, Margate. Proprietor of Steam Roundabouts. Canterbury. Pet July I4. Ord Aug 8
SPAREE. J OHN, Deal. Schoolmaster. Can erbury. Pet July 13. Ord Aug 8
H REDOATE. HERBERT. Nottingham, Lacemaker. Aug 19 at 12. Oii Rec, 1, High
RHODES. DANIEL, Dewsbury, Yorks, Newsagent. Aug 19 at 3. Off Rec, Bank chbrs. Batley
SANGER, WILLIAM. Margate, Proprietor of Steam Roundabouts. Aug 22 at 11.30. Bankruptcy bldgs, Lincoln's inn
SEAOE, WILLIAM, Coles Thurdon, Kilkhampton. Cornwal', Farmer. Aug 19 at 11. Stanhope Hotel, Holsworthy
SIIEPRERD. THOMAS. Warrenby, Yorke, Grocer. Aug 23 at 11. Oif Rec, 8, Albert rd. Middlesborough
SPRUOE. FRANK. Kmitsford. Cheshire, Coal Merchant. Aug 19 at 11.30. Ofl Rec. Ogrlen’s chhrs, Bridge st. Manchester
SQUIRE. J OHN. and ALRERT SQUIBE, Acle, Norfolk, Farmers. Aug 20 at 12. Ofi Rec. S. King st. Norwich
TAYLOR, EDWARD BROWN. Oat lane, Trimming Manufacturer. Aug 19 at 12. Bankruptcy bldgfs. Port ugal st, Lincoln’:-I inn fields
TAYLOR. FREDERIOR. unslet, Leeds, Earthenware Manufacturer. Aug 21 at ii. Off Rec. 22, Park row. Leeds
TAYLOR, JAMES, Hexham, Northumberland, Publican. Aug 22 at 11. Off Rec, Pink lane. Newcastle on Tyne
THORNTON, JAMES, Oxford, Bookseller. Aug 19 at 11.30. Law Society, Chancery, lane
TURNER. WALTER ERNEST, Bath, Eating House Keeper. Aug 22 at 12. Mr. R. H. Moore. High Bailifl’. York st. Bath
WERsTER. FISIIER. and J AMRS WILLIAM WEBSTER, Swavesey, Cambs, Millers. Aug 24 at 1. Fountain Hotel. Huntingdon
YAPP, THOMAS, Hereford, Confectioner. Aug 23 at 10. 2, Oiifa st, Hereford
The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the London Gazette of Aug 5. MORRISH. RICHARD WOOD. Leamington, Boot Dealer. Aug 19 at 11. Oii Rec, 17, Hertford st, Coventry
ADJUDICATIONS. ADAMS. Hl£!)NRY CADWALLADER, Twickenliam, Esq. Brentford. Pet Aug 4. Ord
Pet ug9 r ug _
APLIN. HENRY. Combe St Nicholas, Somsrsetsliire, Farmer. Taunton. Pct Mav 27. Ord Aug8 _
BAINES. WILLIAM HENRY, Nottingham, Grocer. Nottingham. Pet July ii. Ord
BATTs. WILLIAM BEASANT, Hambledon, Hants, Bricklayer. Southampton. Pet Aug 9. Ord Aug 9
BIRD, JOIIN, Hammcrwich, Staffordshire, Farmer. Walsall. Pet Aug 8. Ord
HILTON, WILLIAM, Oldham, Builder. Oldham. Pet Aug 11. Ord Aug 11
JONESAJOIS’, Nantcwnlle, Cardigan, Labourer. Carmarthcn. Pet Aug 13. Ord
JONES. WILLIAM. Rhyl, Flint, Grocer. Bangor. Pet Aug 13. Ord Aug 13
K1119. HENRY. Landport, Hampshire, Tobacconist. Portsmouth. Pet Aug 12.
KING. ARTHUR PERCY. Ingersoll rd. Shepherd's Bush, no occupation. High
HIRST, SAMUEL, Leeds, Bill Discounter. Aug 24 at 11. Off Rec, 22, Park row.
HUGHES. WILLIAII. and THOMAS Owen, Bangor, Ironuiongers. Aug 24 at 12. Off
J AMES, ROBERT, Gruveley, Cambridge, Farmer. Aug 23 at 11. Bedford
County Court Office. Uheltenham
a1TH_E Msiiasns or PARLIAIENT who call in question the vote for
put upon him both inside and outside the House of Commons in
to be congratulated _on_ having resisted the pressure sought to he order to induce him to prolong the period of respite; but it was r
8 apes and “P91111680! the Supreme Court of Judicature should be perhaps scarcely worth while for Mr. Justice STEPHEN to cont
3113311195 that, even where reforms and reductions are decided
ellstence an Act of Parliament providing for the abolition of
adict the reports as to the absurd and unbecoming observations which had been attributed to his clerk.
prevalent delusion that the whole of the funds in court in the Chan,cery Division, which, in fact, amount to about £76,000,000 in value, are unclaimed. This delusion is fostered by advertisements which
R 1 o cer of the Supreme Court aa may be designated by the appear from time to time and by tales circulated in local news
papers of the recovery of fabulous sums by persons in a humble position of life. A suggestion was made in the House of Commons
L on Monday last that when next the triennial list of dormant funds
s published the amounts standing to the several accounts should be
stated. It is difiicult to see how anyone would he prejudiced by
CourtJ d (funnier of the_Circuits and Districts of the County the adoption of this plan, and it would most certainly help to Ion d £11 K65 1§ R change which, in all probability, cannot be very dispel delusions which are calculated to assist fraudulent attempts hg e 911911, 111 View of the unequal distribution of 'udicial work to obtain fees for investigating alleged claims. It is certain that
does t _ y e statistics of the last few years; but it very few of the amounts standing to the accounts mentioned in the in th1:1nfig:§ssanly_f0llow that it will involve any great reduction published list are worth the expense of getting in. The cost of
T er of Judges. _The Attorney-General pointed out on
establishing a title to them would swallow up the whole fund, and
he claimant would not have even the shell of the oyster wherewith
to celebrate his success. On the other hand, where the fund _is ar
ge, although it might be equally costly to prove the title to it, ustice requires that every facility should be given to bond fide
Hi ht f _ 01' Ounty Court Judges to pass alternate fort- claimants. The actual amount of the funds in court at the date of juggeswlocgntmuous work and absolute rest; but the favoured the last return was £3,931,054 Os. 8d. in cash; £7l,946,527 5s. 8d.
evoted only seventy-six days of last year to Judicial, nominal value of securities; rupees, 22,14,339; dollars, 45,500;
francs, 15,300; guilders, 23,000; marks, 194,000; and pesetas, 44,000. The supplement to the London Gazette _of the 8th of March, 1837, contains in 137 double-column pages a list of the accounts to which such of these lunds as have not been dealt with for fifteen years are standing, and a note in the same supplement informs us that only one-nineteenth of those several accounts shew a balance exceeding £l,000, and only one-third shew a balance exceeding £100.
Tna CASE of Reg. v. Riley (35 W. R. 382, 18 Q. B. D. 481) raised a question as to the extent to which the prosecutrix upon a charge of rape or indecent assault can be cross-examined as to character and the extent to which her statements may be contradicted by rebutting evidence. The prisoner was charged with an assault withjntent to commit a rape, and his counsel set up the defence that the prosecutrix had consented to what he had done. The prosecutrix was cross-examined as to previous sexual intercourse with the prisoner with her consent, but she denied that such intercourse had ever taken place, and the Court of Quarter Sessions refused to admit evidence on the prisoner’s behalf of previous intercourse between them. There has been some uncertainty as to the rule of evidence on this subject, but the exclusion of evidence to discredit the prosecutrix appears to have applied only to intercourse with men other than the accused. ln Reg. v. Coo/crqft (ll Cox C. C. 140) WILLES, J., refused evidence as to intercourse with other men, but expressed his willingness to hear evidence as to previous intercourse with the prisoner, and in Reg. v. Holmes (1 C. C. R. 334), where the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved held that, on an indictment for an indecent assault, the denial of the prosecutrix as to sexual intercourse with other men could not be rebutted by other evidence, KELLY, C.B., said that evidence as to intercourse with the prisoner “ is undoubtedly admissible, for it has a direct bearing upon the question of consent.” Moreover, Mr. Justice Srarnrav, in his Digest of the Law of Evidence (Art. 134) lays down that the prosecutrix may be questioned as to intercourse with the prisoner on previous occasions, and adds, “ if she denies it, she (probably) may be contradicted.” In Reg. v. Riley the court (which included Mr. Justice STEPHEN) held that the rebutting evidence ought to have been admitted, all the judges recognising the distinction between evidence as to intercourse with the prisoner and as to intercourse with other men. The Lord Chief Justice observed that the former evidence “leads directly to the point in issue," and Mr. Justice Msrnnw said that the admission of such evidence was “ in accordance with justice and common sense." Mr. Justice Srnrnniv only guarded himself against being supposed to lay down that evidence could be admitted to shew that the prosccutrix was a common prostitute.
surveyor ” (Fry v. Tapson), says the solicitor. “ I will send for the Directory for Kent and extract for you the names of the local surveyors given therein, and you must select from the list the name of some person whom you will employ.” This is done; the trustees select at random Mr. ROBINSON, a Kentish surveyor, and then the managing trustee says to the solicitor, “ You will instruct this Mr. B/OBINSON to value the property if” “ I cannot do that with any safety to myself," replies the solicitor, “ unless I first verify all the statements in the particulars of _the property furnished by Messrs. Siuirn; if I frame instructions without doing this I shall be guilty of negligence (Pretlg v. Fowke, ante, p. 693). This will cause considerable expense and delay, and I am not at all clear that you will be able to recover the costs of the necessary inquiries from the mortgagor as part of the proper costs of the mortgage. Besides, you will be ‘ delegating your duty and responsibility as a trustec’ (Re Partington, ante, p. _704);_and, moreover, it is now laid down that you must ‘exercise an independent judgment’ on the valuer’s report before advancing the trust-money (Whileley v. Learoyd, ante, p. 672; Re Partmyton); how can you do this unless you have seen the property? Your best course will be to go down to Kent; carefully look over the property; be sure you ask the tenant to show you his lease, and ascertain whether its terms are correctly stated i_n the particulars ; ask the mortgagor whether there is any land improvement charge on the property—and, by the way, you had better search at the Land Commissioner's Oiiice to ascertain whether _there is; you see the existence of such a charge would make an important difference in the estimate of the value of the property.” “ Good heavens,” says the trustee, “ do you mean to say we must do all this? ” “Yes, and when you have done it you must be careful to instruct your valuer not to state merely whether the property is a good security for £2,000, but to give all the details adecting its value as a security. And you must particularly tell him not merely to state the selling value of the property as it stands: you see a hop garden and oasthouse is a property ‘of a speculative character, and the surveyor ought to be asked the value of the property apart from its value as a hop garden’ (Re Partinyt0n)§ you must therefore instruct the surveyor to tell you what is the selling value of the land and buildings apart from the hop industry." “Anything more?" “Yes; you see you know nothing about the value of property in Kent; you are not allowed to employ a surveyor in whom you have confidence, hecaiiw. 1791118 resident in London, it is assumed that he knows llxlilllllg about property in Kent; you also are resident in London and know nothing of the value of property in Kent; but nevertheless, when you have got the report of the local valuer, you must not ‘adopt his advice blindly,’ you must ‘exercise your Jlldfilllent upon it.’ ” “How?” “That I cannot tell you; perm‘?! 7°“ had better go down to Kent again, see the valuer, and crossexamine him upon his report.” “ Thank you ; and when all this is done, what about the amount to be advanced?” “W911, the rule as to one-half the estimated value is ‘nota hfl-Yd-flnd'f‘“°t rule,’ but nevertheless, if it is transgressed, you will have justity ’ your conduct; so, of course, if you are W186: Y°“ “Y” observe it. And, mind, the value to the extent of half of which you will advance is the ‘ prairie value,’ not the value filth’? purposes of the hop industry” (Re Partington). “ Good morning , we will take no further steps with reference to advances on mortgage; we can buy Consols, although they may be l1l>°"° Par’ without any inquiry or investigation, and although no prudent mfltll would invest his own money in them; but it seems that the C0\11't° are determined to prohibit investments of trust-money on m°1'l' gage.” We commend to our readers’ attention this ha-"ll Y exaggerated statement of the practical working of the 1"" recently laid down.
l The number of failures in England and Wales gazetted d\1!'1"8 the giek ending Saturday, August 20, was 106. The number in the correspon "lg week of last year was 103, shewing an increase of 3, being a Q99 1“°"1°“d in 1887, to date, of 62. The number of bills oi sale published in E118 “tn and Wales for the week ending August 20, was 254. The fl\lml)?2l1 the corresponding week of last year was 233, shewiiig an increase 09d ii; being a net increase in 1887, to date, of 133. The number publish di Ireland for the same week was 14. The number in the cor1'95P°n “iii week of last year was 14, sliswing no alteration, leaving a net decrease 1887, to date, of 154.—-Kemp's Mercantile Gazette.