Page images
[ocr errors]

as any great improvement on the form adopted by Davidson, and Ke and Elphinstone. Division_by the number of clients only seemh to be absurd unless a provision is added for drawing their names out of a hat, each partner taking every other name_ And it poems tpflbe unwise _to circularize the clients, who may think it a avoura e opportunity for going to some solicitor other than either partner, or for taking the papers into their own hands.

f At Present 1t BPPBQTB us that Mr. Jarman"s first-mentioned orm affords the best basis for a clause of the kind we desire, but in the course of some experience of this kind of deed we do not roniepnber to haiie seen this clause used or suggested. It has one $25‘ est defiicti lflla-5l11}l(_3l1 as it leaves open_ the question of the ado beg!‘ 111%, 8 gndgision _of the new business which is to be thiapdeféct e s a glad if our readers can help us to amend

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

Meumd1m_ 5181194 by A. :—“ I hereby give and make over ” (a Bpecified India bond) “to B.,” without handing over the bond. Held. to operate as a declaration of trust : llforgrin v. lllalleson (l0_ Eq. 475). Deed poll by a husband :-“ I do hereby settle, assign, and transfer unto my wife, as if she were a single woman,” several leasehold houses. Held. to operate as a declaration of trust : Baddeley v. Bruldeley (9 Ch. D. 113), following Grant v. Grant (34 Bear. 623, stated suprd). See also For v. Hawkers (13 Ch. D. 822) _to the some effect.

Prior to the Married Women’s Property Act, 1882, a husband could not at law make a gift to his wife, but where he made a clear, irreyocable gift to her it used to be considered that he constituted himself a trustee for her : Mews v. Mews (15 Bsav. 529), Grant v. Grant (34 Beav. 625), but these decisions would not now be followed : llloore v. Moore (L. R. 18 Eq. 474), Hayes v. Alli_ancc Co. (8 L. R. Ir. 149), Re Breton (17 Ch. D. 416) ; see in Grant y. Grant as to the effect of wedding presents made to a lady. Possibly in some of these cases the gift might have been :}lpp0l'l56d without having regard to the doctrine under ccnsidera


Imperfect assignment of property not construed as a declaration of trust.—Assignment by deed by A. to S. of shares which passed only by entry in the bank books on trust for T. At that time S. held a general power of attorney authorizing him to transfer A.’s shares. After the assignment A. gave to S. a further power authorizing him to receive the dividends on the shares. S. received the dividends by virtue of the power, and paid them to T. It was held (1) that A. did not intend to make himself a trustee, but to constitute S. a trustee; (2) That no valid trust was constituted in S., for although he held a power of attorney, under which he might have vested the shares in himself, he had not done so, and was not bound to do so without directions from A. : Milrny v. Lord (4 De G. F. & J. 264).

Parol declaration of trust.--The following circumstances have been held to amount to a parol declaration of trust by the donor, or to the creation of a trust in another person in favourof a third person :—

A. directs in writing B. to purchase an annuity in France for the benefit of C. with A.’s money. The annuity was purchased, but as C. was a married woman it was purchased in A.’s name. A., on hearing of this, sends a power of attorney to B., authorizing him to transfer the annuity to C. B. acts on the power, in ignorance of the testator’s death. The transfer made under this circumstance was valid by the law of France. Held that, without regard to the

rovisions of the French law, A had sufliciently declared himself

p .

a trustee for C. : Ex parts Eye (18 Ves. 140). A transfer by the

donor of money standing at her own account at a bank to the . . . t

account of herself as trustee for B., coupled with a receipt given o her in that form by the bank (the marginal note is incorrect): Wheatley v. Purr (1 Keen, 551). Atrustee adds his money to trust moneys, invests the aggregate sum, and treats the investment as trust property: T horpc v. Owen (5 Beav. 224); Gray v. Gray

S' ‘T S 273) in both of which cases the trustee, after the

(2 im. i . . ' _ _ investment was made, declared that he intended it as a gift. On ' ttl t the

the purchase of land by the trustees of a marnage se emen

husband, who was tenant for life, added some money of his own to the money in the hands of the trustees : Ouseley v. Ans-{rut/mr ( 10 Beav. 461). A testator appoints B. his executor. Shortly before h' d th he draws a cheque for £900 in B.’s favour on a sheet of

[ocr errors]

being cashed in the testators lifetime a e v , 658). Parol declaration of trust by third party, to whom money was handed by person in enrtremis : Peclcham v. Taylor (31 Beav. 250). A partner in a bank opens an account in the books of his firm, “Mrs. A., for the education of B., C., and D. ” : Stapcltan v. Stapelton (14 Sim. 186). V., a merchant in China, directs his

' Lo d to transfer £1 000 from his tea account

correspondents in n on , _ and to employ it in exchange transactions for the benefit of his ' ' ' as to the

children. Subsequently he declines to give any opinion investments of the fund, “as I consider myself to have no control over the fund, as it belongs to my children " : Vandcrbcry v. Palnmr

(4 K. & J. 204). _ _ On the other hand, no trust was constituted in the following

cases :— Where A. directed his bankers to carry over certain funds to the account of himself and other persons as trustees for his wife, and


after her death for his son, and the funds were carried over accordingly. It was proved that the transfer was made with an intent to avoid legacy duty. A. died shortly afterwards. Alexander, C.B., said: “ It is clearly a gift inter vfvoe. I cannot consider it as a binding appropriation. The appropriation was made with afraudulent intent. and would not have bound A. : Gaskell v.

Gaokell (2 Y. & J. 502). Atestatrix drew a cheque on her bankers for £150 in favour of A., directing him to apply that sum, or so much of it as might be necessary, to make up to a legatee the difference in value between a legacy of £100, which she had given by her will, and the price of a £100 share in a certain railway. The cheque was cashed in the lifetime of the testatrix. Held, no trust (Hughes v. Stubbs, 1 Ha. 476), the court being of opinion that the arrangement was to stand on the same footing as a will. A. directed his agents to purchase £4,000 stock in the names of himself and his wife in trust for his infant son. The agents made the purchase in the joint names, but without any trust expressed, because, as they informed A., the bank declined to state a trust in their books. A. did nothing more except receiving the dividends down to his decease. Held, that no trust was created, on the ground that, whatever A.’s original intention may have been, he was content that the stock should remain under his absolute dominion: Smith v. Wards (15 Sim. 56). Where a farmer's wife, with his sanction, deposited the surplus produce of the butter, _&c., with a firm in her own name. The husband constantly called it “his wife's fund.” Held, that this did not amount to the husband having deprived himself of all control over the property, and that, therefore, he was not a trustee for her. Some weight was given to language used by him on his death-bed, which shewed that he did not believe himself to have made a gift: M6103 v. Mews (l5 Beav. 529). A., after depositing in a savings bank to the full extent allowed, made further deposits in the names of his sister_ and himself as trustee for her. Held, that no trust was constituted, as the intention was only to evade the provisions of the Act under which the bank was constituted: Field v. Lonsdale (13 Ileay. 78). Note in a memorandum book: I intend to make certain investments, and I intend to leave them, at my death, to A. An account of the investments, “from the period that I determined thus to appropriate the money,” in the testator’s handwriting was found after his death. Held that “ I intend to leave” created no trust: Re Glover (2 J. & H. 186). A. gives to B. a power of attorney to sell Consols, and directs him to hold the proceeds on certain trusts, but B. did not act on the power in A. slifetime. Held, that there was no trust, as the money did not get into B.’s hands during A.’s lifetime, and as A. might have revoked the power at any time before it was acted on : Peeklzam v. Taylor (31 l_3eav. 250). A father puts a cheque, paid to him by a stranger, into the hands of his baby, saying, “I give this to ;BB,l'1y. . . . It is his own, and he may do what he likes with 51$ The cheque was not presented during the father's lifetime. Tfiltl, that no_ trust was created: Jones v. Lock (l Ch. 25).

h e consent given by a married woman before commissioners for t e transfer_aud_ payment to her husband of sums of stock and money standing in court to her separate account does not operate pa a declaration of trust, and she can revoke her consent at any ime before transfer or payment: Peafolzl v. Mon-Id (4 Eq. 562).

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

through his own wilful default; and I accordingly direct and declare that the rule of the High Court, as to the amount which trustees may lend on mortgage, and their duties in relation thereto, shall not apply to the trustees of this my will, but, on the contrary, that they shall have the fullest discretion. not only as to the amount which they may consider it desirable to advance on mortgage securities, but as to the nature and position of such securities, and the assistance (if any) which they may decide to avail themselves of in connection therewith, and that none of them shall, by any means, or in any court, be made r sponsible for any loss which may be sustained by my estate by reason of any bond fide act [query, omission] or error of judgment on the part of any one or more of my trustees.

[merged small][ocr errors]

In the case of De Bmszuuiz v. De Bmsaude, before Charles, J ., on the 21st inst, the question arose whether the court slionld grant an intern» injunction restraining a husband from molesting his wife in breach of acovennnt, or whether she should not rather seek her remedy in a police court. This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiff, Mrs. De Bensaude, known on the stage as Miss Violet Cameron, to restrain the defendant, Mr. David De Bensaude, her husband, from committing a breach of a covenant contained in a deed made on the 7th of July, 1887, between the parties, whereby the defendant covcnanted not to molest or interfere with the plaintiff in her professional menus of livelihood, or otherwise, for a year. The parties were married in "1884, and there was issue one child. On the 7th of July, 1887, the plaintiff and defendant executed s deed staying certain proceedings in the Divorce Court, the Queen's Bench Division, and the American courts on the understanding that the parties should live apart for a year, the defendant should not molest the plaintiff, and the plaintifi’s earnings should be for her separate use. The defendant also signed two receipts for two sums of £750 and £350 in full discharge of all claims on the Earl of Lonsdale for damages and costs. On the 9th of July counsel mentioned the case in the Divorce Court, saying that the defendant had inquired carefully into the case, and had come to the conclusion that his position was founded on statements exaggerated or untrue, the relations between the parties had been indiscreet, but he was now fully, honestly, and firmly convinced that the relations were not immoral, and he withdrew his petition. The plaintiffs petition was also withdrawn. The defendant also wrote to Lord Lonsdale expressing regret at causing him annoyance by the petition. Evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant since the 7th of July pursued a course of molestation. On the 21th of July ho called at her house and crested a disturbance, ringing the bfill and knocking for some time. The defendant did not contribute a penny to the plaintiff's support, and it was alleged that the molestation was for the purpose of getting her earnings. On the 3rd of August the defendant followed the plaintiff to Malmesbury. On the 6th of September 118 threatened to send a notice to all the managers of theatres telling them not to employ her. On the Sth of August a summons, taken Ont under the Metropolitan Police Act at the Mnrylebone Police Cflilfti W” dismissed on the ground that the case did not come within section 16. The defendant said that he had executed the deed without having legal advice, and on the assurance that there was no criminal intercourse between Lord Lonsdale and the plaintiff; that he afterwardsfound t_hl\l? on the 15th of May, 1887, the plaintiff gave birth to an illegitimatechild. and that at the time of his executing the deed she was living l_l\ adultery with Lord Lonsdale. All he desired was to put a stop to_i-ills conduct. On behalf of the defendant it was contended that the plslntlfi should have applied to a. police magistrate for protection under the Summary Jurisdiction Act ; she could not get the help of a court of eqiuty as she had not come with clean hands. The defendant had not mvlefllfid the plaintiff, he had taken the reasonable means of a husband to prfliiflii his wife. In the first place the deed was not binding: Evans v. Edmund! (22 L. J. C. P. 211), Evans v. Curington (30 L. J. Ch. 365). Glmdfl '- 0””? (7 Prob. D. 7 7). Secondly, assuming that the deed was binding, there had been no molestation within the meaning of the covenant: Fanron V- L074 Ag/lesford (14 Q. B. D. 805). The question was, had the acts been done to vex and annoy, or with the object of severing the intimacy: Sanders v. Rorlway (16 Beav. 207.) All the acts prior to the 7th of July, 1887, were irrelevant to the case. This was not a case for an interlocutory order, and the motion should be dismissed.

CHAILLES, J ., said that he took into consideration that he was not hearing the cause, was not deciding the true construction of the deed except in one sense, nor was he deciding whether the deed was obtained _by fraud and misrepresentation. The defendant would have an opportunity of raising that question in his statement of defence. For the putpofles °f that day he assumed that thc deed was a valid and binding deed. BY that deed the defendant covenantcd not in any wise to molest or interfere with the plaintiff in her professional means of livelihood or otherwiseHe came to the conclusion that there was a primii facia case made out of molestation of the plaintiff in her professional means of livelihofid and otherwise. While saying that he did not overlook the aflidavit of the defendant. He was disposed to agree with Mr. Kisch, in considerinfl the question whether he should grant an interlocutory injunction, that he Ought not to regard acts done before the 7th of July, 1887, and ought W


confine himself to a consideration of the acts done since that date up to the present time. Afildavits _had been filed since the notice of motion setting out a vast number of grievances on both sides of the most contradictory nature, but he came to no decision as to these. Looking at the defendant's answer to the original aflidavits in support of the motion he was not satisfied. Taking the acts of molestation of the 27th of Julyand the 3rd of august, and especially_tlie threats of the defendant to prevent the plaintiff from earning her living by acting on the st.age—looking at these acts he could not say that the defendant had satisfactorily met the plaintiff's allegations. He therefore decided for the purposes of that day. and assuming the deed to be valid, to grant an inierim injunction until the trial or further order.—C0uxsaL, illarlen, Q.C., and IE3/land, Henry Kiacll, Soircrroiis, Lewis 4» Lewis; Seabama Q 00.



Mr. Roirsrir Fvanar, solicitor, F.S.A., died at Ashford, on the 9th inst. , at the age of seventy-eight. Mr. Furley was the third son of Mr. Robert Furley, of Canterbury, and was born in 1809. He was admitted a solicitor about the year 183-i, and he practised for many years at Ashford, where he hada large business. He was for several years clerk to the county magistrates and to the Ashford Burial Board. He was solicitor and secretary to the Ashford Cattle Market Co. He was formerly clerk to the Ashford Improvement Commissioners, and he was the first clerk to the Ashford_Board of Health. He was also local secretary at Ashford to the Kant Fire and Life Assurance Co. Mr. Furley retired from practice about eighteen years ago, and he was shortly afterwards appointed a magistrate for the county of Kent. He was the author of a “ History of the Werild of Kent.” Mr. Furley leaves one son and two daughters. He was buried on the llth inst.

Mr. JAMES INGLIS, solicitor, died at Colchester on the 30th ult. Mr. Inglis was born in 1819. He served his articles with his uncle, the late Mr. William Mason, and he was admitted a solicitor about the year 1843. He Practised for many years at Colchester, where he was formerly a member of the firm of Howard, Inglis, & Keeling Mr. William Howard, his former partner, was formerly clerk to the county magistrates, and the Commissioners of Taxes, and Mr. Inglis was himself for several years treasurer of the Colchester Union. Mr. Inglis retired from practice about SIX years ago. He was unmarried.


Mr. \l_/_rLLiiii Bass, solicitor, of Kingsbridge, has been appointed Clerk ‘Mlle 1\"18Bbridge and Dodbrooke United District School Board. Mr. Beer was admitted a solicitor in 1885.

Mr. Joan Bowiixo, solicitor (of the firm of Bowling 8: Hirst) of Leeds, has been appomted Clerk to the Methley Local Board. Mr. Bowling is also solicitor tothe Horsforth Local Board, and Oificial Receiver in Bankruptcy for the Leeds District. He was admitted a solicitor in 1880.

Mr. Tiioirss WILLIAMS, solicitor, of Neath and Pontardawe, has been 5PP°111i;d Registrar of Births and Deaths for the Neath District, in 9"°_°§BB10}1 to the late Mr. Martin Scale. Mr. \Villiams was admitted a solicitor in 1881, t°Mr. RICHARD Wrinrsir Susi-sroxa Grnnv, barrister, has been appointed Cy act as Legal Adviser to the Government of the Cape Colony. Mr.

widdy was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in May, 1878.

Messrs. Jvr_in_, Boo-r-rr, & Hsrrrwnnn, solicitors, of Halifax, have been “PPOinted Sohcitors to the Halifax Trade Protection Society. th Mr. Anrasn PROCTER, solicitor, of York, has been appointed Solicitor to

6_ York Starr-Bowkett Building Society. Mr. Procter was admitted a solicitor in 1882, collir. _ Joi-iii Toiiniirsoii HIBBERT, barrister, has been appointed a mmmissioner under the Local Government Boundaries Act, 1887. Mr. _ bbcrt is the eldest son of Mr. Elijah Hibbert, of Oldham, and was born 11111324. He was educated at St. John's College Cambridge, and he was ca led to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1849. Mr. Hibbert W“. secret"! to the Local Government Board from 1872 till 1874, and iigsigll from 1880 till 1883, and Financial Secretary to the Treasury from 1886 till 1885, and Secretary to the Admiralty from January to July,

C L°1‘d Enircirn Giioiroa FITZMAURICB, barrister, has been appointed a E°';§P1l$B10I1er under the Local Government Boundaries Act, 1887. Lord - lfzmaurice is the second son of the fourth Marquis of Lansdowne, and SB! born in 1846. He was educated atwestminster, and at Trinity College, lgégbrldge, Where he graduated in the first class of the classical tripos in 1871. lmd he was called to the bar at Lincoln’s-inn in Michaelmas Term, and -h He was M.P. for Calne in the Liberal interest from 1868 till 1885, 188_ 6 was Under7Secretary of State for Foreign Afiairs from 1883 till Q 9- L01'd_ E. Fitzmaurice is a Magistrate and Deputy Chairman of uarter Sessions for Wi1tshi1e_

[ocr errors][ocr errors]



William Gillespie will hereafter practise as a solicitor on his own account, at Globe-chambers, Bridge-street, VVa1sall. [G:rzelte, Sept. 16 ] GEORGE CDPPLESTONE Rica and ALLAN Beams-r'r, solicitors (Rice & Burnett). Devereux-buildings, Devereux-court, Strand, London. Sept. 16- [Ga:atle, Sept. 20.]


On days when Mr. J ristice Charles is not sitting either at judges’ chambers or in court, applications of an urgent character arising during the vacation may be addressed to him at his private residence, Gsrtlett, Clarendon-road, Watford, Herts.

At ill. meeting of the Watch Committee of the Leeds Corporation on the 16th inst., a communication was read from the Home Secretary statin that he had under consideration the manner in which the punishment 0% buching was at present carried out in the case of youthful offenders, and suggesting that the rod used for children under ten should be lighter than that used in the case of older offenders, and that if there was reason to suppose that a child was in delicate health a medical man should be consulted as to the propriety of the punishment being carried out.

_We are requested to state that the late firm of Hickin & Graham, of 29, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, was dissolved by mutual consent on the lst of Janiiary last, and that Mr. William Graham has not, and never had, any connection with or interest in the business since carried on by Messrs. Hickin & Fox alone at the same address.

[graphic][ocr errors]

London Gautte.—FnmaY, September 16.

Lmirnn us CHANCEBY.

Coxnnrysan Worn sun BREWING MEAL Co, Lisn"ri2n.—By an order made by Kekewich. J., dated Selpt i0, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Philbrick & Free, New road st, solors for petners

CUNARD CYCLE C0. Lmrrsn.—By an order made by Kekewich, J ., dated Sept 7, it was ordered that the company be wound rip. Smith 8: Co, Bread st, agents for Strrk 6: Brewer. Wolverhriruptori, solors for petner

Erna Aims Horizi. Co, Lrzrriri:n.—Kay, J., has fixed Tuesday, Sept 27, at 12, at his chambers, as the time and place for the appoiniment of an ofiicinl Liquidator

Oormrr Psrnrma or LANCASTER.

ALEXANDBA Horar. Lrvisaroor. Co, Lmrran.—By an order, dated Sept 0, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Harris, 4, Harrington st, Liverpool, solor for petner

London Grizetfs.—TU'Esn1iY, Setpt 20.

Lrirrran XN CHANCEBY. _

Bnanroun Disraicr STEAM Tnsirwsrs, Lriuirisn.—Petn _for winding up, presented Sept i3, directed to be heard before the Vacation J udge, on Sept 28. Harper & Brrtvcock, 28, Rood lane, solors for petners _

COLCHESTER TRAMWAYS Co, LIMI'l‘ED.—By an order made by Kelrewich. J., dated Supt 7. it was ordered that the company be wound up. Atkinson 8: Dresser, 3, Circus place, Finsbury circus. solors for petrrer _

EQUESTRIAN AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS U0, Lnrrirsn.-Petn for winding up. presented Sa t I9, directed to be heard before Charles, J ., Sept 28. Curtis & Hilton, 7, %'nioii court. Old Broad st, solors for petiier _

HOWE Mscmxn Co. L1m1'im.—Petn for winding up, presented Sept 16, directed to he heard before Charles, J., Bept 28. Smart, 9, Old Jewry chmbrs, Old Jewry, solor for petner _ _

MIDDLKSEX Msuvrscrnamo Co, Li:in'i'En.—P_etn for winding up, presented Sept ls, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge, Sept "12. Raphael, 47,

' Mooryate st, solor for petner _

Wnsr or ENGLAND PAPER MILLS Co, Lmrrsn.—By an order made by Kekewioh, J ., dated Sept 9, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Bradley, Lombard st, solor for petner

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

KING. THOMAS BBLLAMY. Grove lane, Camberwvll, no occupation. High C "Yt-
Pet Sept 12. Ord Sept 12 _
MEADWELL, WILLIAM. Peterborough, Pamter. Peterborough. Pet Sept 14.
Ord Scot 14 _
MIrsog.AvE. CHARLES, Wildsworth, Lincoln, Farmer. Lincoln. Pet Sept 13. Ord
ept I8
MUssE)LI(.1. qJ0ItIN3TH0MAS, Plymouth, Builder. East Stonchouse. Pet Sept 13.
r - ep 1 ,
NYRI-:N. THOMAS BRowN, Lower Broughton, nr Manchester, Manufacturers
Manchester. Pet Sept 13. Ord Seplt I3
OKELY, CHARLES, Beresford st, Walwort , Tobacconist. High Court. Pet 3 pt
14. () d Se t 14
PARsoNs, HlENR\'I.)MilbOrn6 St Andrew, Dorset, Baker. Dorchester. PetSept
I2. Ord Sign 12
PITT, CHARLES, ournemouth,Ironmonger. Poole. Pet Sept 12. Ord Sept 12

PRIO1:)r3IhIiAS.t Wolverhampton, Rope Maker. Wolverhampton. Pet Sept 13. A ) PUCKEY, J :\llES, Plymouth, Butcher. East Stonehouse. Pet Sept 14. Ord Sept H

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Ord Sept 14 WRIGHT. RQBERT, Newport, Mon, Tobacconist. Newport, Mon. Pet Spt I4. Ord Sept 14 FIRST MEETINGS.

ADERCROMBIE, EDGAR, Market pl. Oxford st. Brass Manufacturer. Sept 23 at 12Baukruptcy bdgs, Portugal st, Lincoln's inn fields Z _

ALLEIE HENRY, Exeter, General Merchant. Sept 26 at 11. Castle of Exetc .


ALLEN, ltoRERT, Latimer rd, Notting hill, Pianoforte Manufacturer. Sept 27 at 11. 38, Carey st, Lincoln's inn _

BARGER. THOMAS JonN, Rhyl, Hotel Keeper. Sept 27 at 2. Off Rec. CF31" chmbrs, Chester Q

BEARD. GEORoE WILLIAM, Westbourne, out of business. Sept 27 at 2.30. 0

Rec, Salisbury _ BIRD. HENRY. Coventry, Watch Manufacturer. Sept 26 at 12.30. Oil Rec. 14. Hertford st. Coventry t BIRD. Jo1IN. Lorton, nr Cockermouth, Farmer. Sept 23 at 2. 67, Duke 8, Whitehaven . BLAcE, lgsonos Gow, Lime st, Shipowner. Sept 28 at 12. 33, Carey $9, 1'1"‘ co ’s inn

BOND. J oIIN, Cambridge rd, Bethnal Green, Licensed Victualler. Sept 28 at ll33, Carey st. Lincoln's Inn , t

BBOMLEY, Ronanr BELL. Goole, Yorks, Gent. Sept 23 at 12.30. William Evrrnt Booth, Ferry rd, Goole Pi k

BRowN, CHARLES, South Shields, Auctioneer. Sept 27 at 2.80. Oi! Rec. ll

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

CHAMBERS: WILLIAM, York Bootmaker. Sept 24 at 2. Oif Rec, York

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

Ord Sept 14 THoiIéis.WILLIAI1I, Cardigan, Cabinet Maker. Carmaithen. Pet Sept 15. Ord eptlb ULLYgT'1‘, EDWIN, Folkestone, Carpenter. Canterbury. Pet Sept 1-3. Ord ept 15

VAssALLI, JOHN, New Brighton, Cheshire, Tallow Chandler. Birkenhead. Pet
Aug 26. Ord Sept 14

WALLACE,JAMES J EFFRIES. Philpot lane, Financial Agent. High Court. Pet
Aug I7. Ord SI-pt 8

WALTON, (WIILLIAM. Boston, Lincolnshire, Dealer in China. Boston. Pet Sept
16. r Sept 16

W101-‘ALL,O\lVILLIAM.jl1n.,sh8fiiBld, Brush Manufacturer. Sheiiield. Pet Sept
15. rd rcpt 15

VVILSON, CHARLES, Knottingley, Yorks, Draper. Tlfakefield. Pet Sept 17. Ord
Sept 1"

WOOD, G. '1‘:. Miles lane. High Court. Pet Aug 2. Ord Sept 15

Woondifins. JOHN NEWMAN. Erdington, Traveller. Birmingham. Pet Sept 15.

r :-ept 15 The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the London Gazette of Sept 9.

LOWE, WALTER, Irlam, nr Warrington. Chemist. Manchester. Pet Sept 7.

Ord Sept 7


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

BISHOP, Gannon, and HORATIO WHITE, Boscombe, nr Bournemouth, Builders.
Sept 27 at 12.80. Oil’ Rec Salisbury _
BLOOD. JOHN, Heather Mill, Leicester, Miller. Sept 80 at 12. 28, Friar lare,

[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]
« PreviousContinue »