there be subsequent conduct on either side making a divorce possible. For this purpose the statute 22 & 23 Vict. c. 61, s. 5, is available, which provides for the alteration of settlements, whether ante-nuptial or post-nuptial, upon the dissolution of the marriage. It was settled in Worsley v. Worsley (1 P. & D. 648) that this applies to all deeds whereby property is settled upon a woman in her character as wife, and to be paid to her while she continues a wife, and, consequently, to separation deeds in which such provision is made. Probably, however, the court has power, of its own inherent jurisdiction, to make fresh arrangements upon a dissolution of marriage. Thus, in Morrell v. Morrell (6 P. D. 98), where there was subsequent incestuous adultery by the husband, it was held that the wife was entitled to sue for dissolution, and, as incident to the suit, to ask for new maintenance. See, too, Benyon v. Benyon (1 P. D. 447). But there is no such power upon a judicial separation merely. Thus, in Gandy v. Gandy (7 P. D. 168), where, upon the husband's adultery, the wife obtained judicial separation and the custody of the children, she was refused any further alimony, since no conduct of the husband had so affected her as to entitle her to repudiate the deed. This is an authority, too, for the more general proposition that the deed is not avoided by subsequent adultery on either side, not even when it is followed by a dissolution of the marriage, unless provided by the court in the manner described above. Thus in Charlesworth v. Holt (9 Ex. 38) the husband's liability to pay an annuity continued because not expressly limited by the deed, although its terms contemplated the marriage relationship continuing, for otherwise it might be terminated through the husband's own misconduct. The point was thoroughly argued in Fearon v. Earl of Aylesford (supra) on the ground of public policy, and the preceding decisions were without hesitation confirmed. Provision is frequently made for such a case by introducing into the deed a dum casta clause, but it was decided in Hart v. Hart (18 Ch. D. 670) that this was not a usual provision, and it will only be inserted by the court in carrying out an executory agreement to contain "usual provisions," when adultery has been proved against the wife. As the deed is made with a view to separation, it has been held that its effect is limited to such separation. Hence it will be avoided by a subsequent reconciliation and return to cohabitation. Both these points, however, are essential. Thus the deed is not avoided by a reconciliation if the parties continue to live apart, as in Frampton v. Frampton (4 Beav. 287), nor by the living under the same roof, but in a state of the highest animosity, as in Bateman v. Ross (1 Dow. 235). When, however, trusts are created which may appear to look beyond a mere separation, it is best to provide for their cessation by an express clause if it is so intended. Thus, in Ruffles v. Alston (19 Eq. 539) and Randle v. Gould (6 W. R. 108), upon consideration of the whole scope of the deeds in either case, they were held not to be avoided by subsequent reconciliation. It appears, then, that the law of separation deeds is more firmly settled than the judical dicta which we placed at the beginning of the first article would lead us to expect. On the question of public policy there is now no doubt, and, but for the remark of Lord Selborne in Cahill v. Cahill above referred to, there would be just as little doubt as to enforcing them equally against husband and wife. The wife's power to contract to live apart and to forbear from litigation is the same as that of a feme sole, but all contracts relating to her separate property are subject to the same limitations as though they were made with a stranger. The other points relating to the nature of the contract and its subsequent variation and avoidance appear to be equally clear, and the whole subject is an example of judicial law gradually brought into harmony with public opinion and established upon a rational basis. Tuesday's Gazette contains a return shewing the number of receiving orders in the High Court, and in the several County Courts having Bankruptcy jurisdiction in England and Wales, gazetted in the quarters and nine months ending respectively 30th September, 1885, 1886, and 1887. In the High Court the figures for the three months were-in 1887, 204; in 1886, 197; and in 1885, 192. The corresponding figures in other courts were, 1,029, 969, and 890, the totals being 1,233, 1,166, and 1,082 respectively. For the nine months the figures for the three years in the High Court were 654, 643, and 606; in other courts, 2,990, 2,946, and 2,709; and the totals were 3,644, 3,589, and 3,315 respectively. REVIEWS. THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT. THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1875, ANNOTATED, WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE VARIOUS INCORPORATED STATUTES, &c. By W. G. LUMLEY, Esq., LL.M., Q.C., Counsel to the Local Government Board, and EDMUND LUMLEY, B.A., Barrister-at-Law. THIRD EDITION. By W. PATCHETT, Esq., Q.C., and ALEXANDER MACMORRAN, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Shaw & Sons. The last edition of this work appears to have met with the success which it deserved. Less than three years is a short period for the exhaustion of an edition of a work of this magnitude, and it is stated that the second edition has been out of print for some time. In the present edition the principal additions in the way of legislation are the Public Health (Members and Officers) Act, 1885; the Diseases (Animals) Act, 1886. These Acts are inserted in the text, and Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885; and the Contagicus are fully annotated, with exemplary care to place before the reader everything illustrating the operation of the different sections. Thus in section 12 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, which, in the case of houses let to "persons of the working classes," alters the rule of law and implies a condition that an unfurnished house is reasonably fit for human habitation, there is a most exhaustive collection of cases shewing the effect of such an implication in the case of furnished houses. The appendix has had added to it several statutes, including many of the last session, which are all shortly, but usefully, annotated. The recent decisions we have looked for we have found very satisfactorily stated or noticed, and we are glad to be able to repeat our commendation of the care which the editors have bestowed on the book. CORRESPONDENCE. THE COPYHOLD ACT, 1887. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, The Copyhold Act, 1887, s. 6, to which you refer in your issue of to-day, appears to mean this: (1) That the lord shall not hereafter (without the approval of the Land Commissioners) grant any part of the waste lands of the manor, which prior to the Act he might (with the consent of the homage) have done; thus making not only the consent of the homage but also the consent of the Commissioners necessary to any future grant. And (2) that any part of the waste so granted with such double consent as aforesaid (i.e., any grant "lawfully made") shall not, as heretofore, be of copyhold tenure, but shall eo instanti be or become AS of freehold tenure (i.e., held As in free and common socage). As you are aware, by the Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 56), s. 31, the lord's right to approve under the Statute of Merton was entitled by requiring the consent of the Commissioners; and so, by section 6 of the Copyhold Act, 1887, the lord's right to grant the waste with the sanction of the homage is entitled in like manner. After much consideration of the section, this is the only interpretation of it I can satisfactorily October 8, 1887. arrive at. 66 A. B. [See observations under head of "Current Topics." The word entitled," occurring twice in one of the sentences of the above letter, appears to be the word used in the M.S.-Ed. S. J. THE DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACT, 1887. To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-Perhaps you or some of your correspondents could throw some light on the following point in connection with the above Act -that is to say, whether, where a debtor enters into a separate composition deed with each of his creditors, there is any necessity for the benefit of his creditors generfor registration? The words ally in section 4 (2) would seem to shew that this is a correct interpretation of the Act. If this is the case the adoption of separate deeds would be an easy method of evading its provisions. 8, Old Jewry, Oct. 12. ARTHUR E. ABRAHAMS. [The words referred to appear to govern the whole of the definition of "deed of arrangement" in section 4, but has our correspondent considered the question of the validity of separate compositions with each creditor?-Ed. S. J.] It is stated that the Court of Common Council last week agreed to the report of the Law and City Courts Committee, recommending that the appointment of Mr. F. Roxburgh as permanent Assistant Judge of the Mayor's Court should not be confirmed. CASES BEFORE THE VACATION JUDGE. PETITION-TRUSTEES-REMOVAL-COSTS-BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 (46 & 47 VICT. c. 52), s. 147. In the case of Re Firth, Firth v. Clarke, before Charles, J., on the 7th nst., a question arose under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, as to the removal of trustees against whom a receiving order had been made. The case came on on petition on behalf of beneficiaries under the will of Joseph Firth, asking that two trustees might be removed and others appointed. The deed appointing the trustees was dated the 16th of December, 1864, and it was alleged that about £2,200 of the trust funds had been removed. An originating summors was then taken out. On the 9th of September, 1887, a receiving order was made against the trustees. Section 147 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, provides that where a bankrupt is a trustee within the Trustee Act, 1859, section 32 of that Act shall have effect so as to authorize the appointment of a new trustee in substitution for the bankrupt (whether voluntarily resigning or not), if it appears expedient to do so, and all provisions of that Act, aud of any other Act relative thereto, shall have effect accordingly. On behalf of the petitioners reference was made to Re Adams's Trusts (12 Ch. D. 634) and Re Lawson's Trusts (29 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 115), where Kay, J. considered the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Two beneficiaries were made respondents, and asked for their costs. The trustees did not appear. CHARLES, J., made the order as prayed by the petition, adding that the new trustees, when appointed, should raise and pay out of the trust funds the costs of the petitioner and of the two respondents who appeared, as between solicitor and client.-COUNSEL, Brett and Gazdar. SOLICITORS, Torr, Janeways, & Co., for Craven & Ingham, Todmorden; Stevens, Bawtrie, & Stevens. PARTNERSHIP-RECEIVER-DISPUTE-PRACTICE. In the case of Tucker v. Prior, before Charles, J., on the 7th inst., the question arose as to appointing a receiver where the existence of a partnership is in dispute. The action was brought by John E. Tucker, and asked for a declaration that certain documents and letters created a partnership between the plaintiff and the defendants, R. C. Prior and his wife, William Pyke, and Thomas J. Wickham. This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiff asking that John Groves Cooper, of Bideford, in the county of Devon, land agent, or some other fit and proper person, on giving security, might be appointed receiver of the Raleigh Estate, near Bideford, in the county of Devon, and the rents and profits thereof, and all other the assets of the partnership mentioned in the endorsement on the writ in the action. The property was purchased for building purposes. For the plaintiff it was said that the defendants excluded the plaintiff from the property, and had mortgaged it without his consent; the property was in danger, and he was entitled to a receiver: Lindley on Partnership, 4th ed., vol. 2, p. 1012: "The court will appoint a receiver if the defendant wrongfully excludes his co-partner from the management of the partnership affairs." That the partnership was in dispute was no bar to the appointment of a receiver where there had been misconduct. Section 25, sub-section 8, of the Judicature Act, 1873, provided that: "A receiver may be appointed by an interlocutory order of the court in all cases in which it shall appear to the court to be just or convenient that such order should be made." The plaintiff here had been excluded from his property, and the property had been dealt with and was in jeopardy. The defendants denied that there was auy partnership at all. It was an executory contract, and the condition precedent to the formation of the partnership was the completion of the purchase. This had not been completed because the plaintiff had not got the purchase-money ready. The mortgagees were in possession of the property and a receiver was appointed. Where the fact of the partnership was denied it was not the practice to appoint a receiver. The question of the existence of a partnership was the question to be tried at the hearing. Reference was made to Fairburn v. Pearson (2 Mac. & G. 144) and Chapman v. Beach (1 Jac. & W. 594). Here three persons in possession alleged that they were sole owners, and the plaintiff came and said that he was a joint owner with them. There was no ground for the appointment of a receiver; the joint ownership was in dispute, and there was no allegation of misconduct. Seton on Decrees, 4th ed., vol. 1, p. 434: "If the existence of the partnership is questioned a receiver will not usually be appointed": Walker v. Hirsch (27 Ch. D. 460). In Lindley on Partnership, 4th ed., p. 1012, it was stated that where a partnership was alleged on the one side and denied on the other it was not the practice to appoint a receiver: Peacock v. Peacock (16 Ves. 49). CHARLES, J., said that he did not see his way to appoint a receiver. A partnership was alleged on the one side and denied on the other; that was the very question to be tried at the hearing. There was a substantial controversy to be settled, and, in his opinion, no special danger was to be apprehended to the property. He should follow the practice as stated in Lindley on Partnership (supra), where a partnership was alleged on one side and denied on the other, and should refuse to appoint a receiver. The motion would be refused; no order as to costs.-COUNSEL, T. L. Wilkinson; Marten, Q.C., and Lemon. SOLICITORS, Indermaur & Brown, or Charles Smale, Bideford; Hepburn, Son, & Cutliffe. ATTACHMENT - ORDER - DISOBEDIENCE TIME · COSTS-R. S. C. 1883, XLI., 5. In the case of Dove v. Swindon, before Charles, J., on the 7th inst., the question arose as to whether a defendant, who, on motion for attachment, for disobedience to an order, raised the technical objection that no time was specified within which he must comply with the order, was entitled to the costs of the motion. On the 8th of July, 1877, an order was made directing the defendant to deliver to the receiver in the action all promissory notes, securities, and documents. This order had not been complied with. This was a motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment against the defendant for non-compliance with the order. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the defendant that no time was mentioned in the order within which the defendant was to comply with it. The plaintiff should get a four-day order. Rule 5 of order 41 provides that, " Every judgment or order made in any cause or matter time, or the time after service of the judgment or order, within which the requiring any person to do an act thereby ordered shall state the act is to be done." Reference was made to Gilbert v. Endean (9 Ch. D. 266). In cases which involved the liberty of the subject the utmost strictness should be observed, and the motion should be refused with costs. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was contended that the defendant bad allowed an enormous mass of affidavits to be filed, and then raised a purely technical objection. CHARLES, J., refused the motion, without costs.-COUNSEL, Kenyon Parker; Archibald Brown. SOLICITORS, Geare, Son, & Peace, for Wake & · COSTS Co., Sheffield; Pitman & Sons, for Auty, Sheffield. COMPANY-PETITION- PRESENTATION NOTICE PRIORITY R. S. C., 1883, V., 9. J., on the 12th inst., the question arose as to whether the petitioner, In the case of the Middlesex Manufacturing Co. (Limited), before Charles, where a petition had been previously, but without his knowledge, prepresented by creditors on the 16th of September, 1887, asking that the sented on the same day, was entitled to his costs. Two petitions were company might be wound up. On behalf of the first petitioner it was second petition should be dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the said that a compulsory order should be made on his petition, and the second petitioner must be taken to have had notice of the presentation of the first petition, the same clerk entering both petitions in the same office. The company and creditors supported the first petition. On behalf of the second petitioner it was submitted that he was a bond fide creditor, and the proper course would be to make the order on both petitions: Buckley on Companies, 4th ed., p. 225. CHARLES, J., made a compulsory order on the first petition, with the usual order as to costs, and dismissed the second petition, without costs.COUNSEL, Marten, Q.C., and A. Chitty; Seward Brice, Q.Ó., Eustace Smith, Hilbery, and R. Woodfall; Kenyon Parker. COMPANY-PETITION-CREDITOR-VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION-ORDER. In the case of the Equestrian and Public Buildings Co. (Limited), before Charles, J., on the 12th inst., the question arose whether, where a creditor had presented a petition, and a voluntary liquidation had subsequently to the presentation of the petition been decided upon, compulsory or a supervision order should be made. This was a petition presented by C. A. Wilkes, a creditor for £1,000, and a shareholder holding ten out of thirty-seven shares issued, asking that the company might be wound up. There was also a motion to appoint an official liquidator. The object of the company was to give equestrian and dramatic entertainments at the North London Coliseum and Theatre, Dalston. For the petitioner is was said that the petitioner was a creditor for £1,000, he had made the statutory demand for the money, and the company had not paid him. Since the petition was presented a resolution to wind up the company voluntarily had been passed and confirmed, and a provisional liquidator had been appointed; but that was too late, the petitioner was entitled ex debito justitia to a compulsory order. A creditor for £65 5s., and one for £40, supported the petition. For the company, it was contended that neither as a shareholder, nor as a creditor, was the petitioner entitled to an order. Reference was made to the Companies Act, 1862, s. 91, and to the Rica Gold- Washing Co. (11 Ch. D. 36). The company wished for a supervision order, and asked that Wilkes's nominee should not be appointed liquidator. Reference was also made to sections 51 and 149 of the Companies Act, 1862, and the Horbury Bridge Co. (11 Ch. D. 109), the Great Western Forest of Dean Coal Consumers Co. (21 Ch. D. 769). A creditor for £100, and another for £64, also asked for a supervision order. A mortgagee asked for leave to continue his foreclosure action; reference was made to Buckley on Companies (4th ed.). P. 202, and Campbell v. The Compagnie Generale de Bellegarde (2 Ch. D. 181); the mortgagee's rights should be protected. CHARLES, J., said he thought it was a case where he ought to make a winding-up order. He was satisfied with the position of Wilkes, as a creditor, supported as he was by two creditors. Two creditors opposed, but he had no evidence that the majority of the creditors opposed the petition, or that the majority of the creditors were desirous of having the voluntary winding up continued under the supervision of the court. Two creditors were in favour of a supervision order being made, but he did not see any reason why he should make such an order. He made the usual compulsory order, and the usual order as to costs. He made no order as to the mortgagee, except that he might add his costs to his security. He allowed the costs of another petition presented prior to this one, on which no costs had been incurred since the presentation of the second petition.-COUNSEL, Latham, Q.C., and Lemon; Oswald; Job Bradford; Millar, Q.C., and Baker; A. Wedderburn and Ryland. SOLICITORS, Curtis & Co.; W. R. Helmore; Vanderpump & Son; Thomson, Son, & Brooks. The judicial business of the House of Lords will be resumed on November 10th, when the appeal of Cooper v. Cooper and others will be in the paper for hearing. The present list contains 32 appeals, of which 17 are English, two are Irish, and 13 are Scotch appeals. There is only one cause standing for judgment, that of Pritchard v. The Mayor of Bangor. LEGAL NEWS. APPOINTMENTS. Mr. FRANCIS OSBORNE OATES CHUBB, solicitor (of the firm of Welsh, Son, & Chubb), of Wells, has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at that place, in succession to Mr. Edwin Welsh, deceased. Mr. Chubb was admitted a solicitor in 1883. Mr. FREDERICK HARDYMAN PARKER, barrister, has been appointed to act as Chief Justice of British Honduras. Mr. Parker is the only son of Mr. William Alexander Parker, formerly Chief Justice of British Honduras. He was educated at the University of Edinburgh, and he was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in June, 1880. He is Keeper of Records, Provost-Marshal, and Registrar of the Supreme Court of British Honduras, and he has been for some time acting as Attorney-General of the colony. Mr. ROBERT HENRY WALTER WOODWARD, barrister, has been appointed to act as Attorney-General of British Honduras. Mr. Woodward was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in January, 1887. Mr. EDWARD DOUGLAS GODWIN, solicitor, of Winchester, has been appointed Clerk to the Magistrates for that city, in succession to Mr. Frederick Barnes, resigned. Mr. God win was admitted a solicitor in 1865. He is registrar of the Winchester County Court, and district registrar under the Judicature Acts. PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED. ARTHUR JAMES O'CONNOR and WALTER STANLEY RESTALL, solicitors (A. J. O'Connor & Restall), Birmingham. Sept. 29. [Gazette, Oct. 11. GENERAL. The Albany Law Journal, in reviewing a work on "Trade- Mark Cases," notices the following decisions:-"Albany Beef" is not a valid trademark for canned sturgeon. A label of "Old Bachelor Smoking Tobacco,” with a picture of an "old bachelor," was held an infringement of a label of "Old Coon Smoking Tobacco," with a picture of a coon," although the former also stated that it was "Not Old Coon." On the other hand, "Rising Moon Stove Polish," with a picture of the moon, was held no infringement of "Rising Sun Stove Polish," with a picture of the sun. COURT PAPERS. 46 App. motns. ex pta-orgl. Friday 2 App mtns ex pte-original Thursday Saturdy....10 Apps from Chan gen list Monday......12 Wednesday 14 Thursday ...15 ... 16 App mtns ex pte-original Saturday...17 Apps from Chan gen list Mon. ......19 Tuesday......20 App mtns ex pte-original N.B.-Lunacy Petitions (if any) are taken HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCERY DIVISION. Mondy, Oct 24..Motions .251 Wednesday 26 General paper Friday ....28... Mots. adj. sumns. & gen. pa Saturdy.... 29{ Monday ....31 Sat, 3 General paper. Mtns, adj smns, and gen pa 4... General paper Mon., ...... Fr day....16... Motns, adj sums, & gen. pa. Wednesday 21... Mots. adj sumas, & gen pa Any cause intended to be heard as a short cause must be so marked in the cause book at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard, and the necessary papers must be left in court with the judge's officer the day before the cause is to be put into the paper. Tuesday......29 General paper. Wednes.....30 Thurs., Dec. 1. Friday .... 2... Motns. & adj. sums. Saturday 3..Sht. causes, pets, adj sums, Tuesday.... 6 ( Friday Sat., .... ... ..... 8 General paper. 9.. Mots. & adj. sumns Mon....... 12 Wed. ......14 Thursday ..15) General paper Friday....16...Mtns and adj sms Mon., Tuesday. ....20 Wednesday 21..Mots, adj sums & gen pa Any cause intended to be heard as a short cause must be so marked in the cause-book at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard, and the necessary papers must be left in court with the judge's officer the day before the cause is to be put in the paper. MR. JUSTICE KEKEWICH. On all other days Actions transferred to WINDING UP NOTICES. London Gazette. -FRIDAY, October 7. "HOME TREASURE" WASHING MACHINE CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, HOWE MACHINE CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by Charles, J., dated Sept 28, CITY AND COUNTY FINANCE CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Oct 6, MONTHLY LIFE ASSURANCE ENDOWMENT AND LOAN CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Sept 2, directed to be heard at Chancery Office, Liverpool, on Tuesday, Oct 18, at 11. Mearns & Boyle, Liverpool, solors for petner London Gazette.-TUESDAY, October 11. STANDARD LEAD MINE, LIMITED.-The Vacation Judge has fixed Thursday, Oct 20, at 12, at his chambers, for appointment of official liquidator WEST INDIES WATER RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. BANKRUPTCY NOTICES. London Gazette.-FRIDAY, October 7. Ord Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 ALLONBY, JOHN, Liverpool, Team Owner. Liverpool. Pet Sept 30. COOK, THOMAS WESLEY, Liverpool, Importer of Provisions. Liverpool. Pet Cox, JAMES RICHARD, Southsea, Baker. Portsmouth. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 4 DUNN, JAMES ALFRED, Rowland gdns, South Kensington. High Court. Pet EDWARDS, WILLIAM, Perry Barr, Staffordshire, out of business. Birmingham. FRANCIS, THOMAS, Bridgend, Draper. Cardiff. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 4 GEORGE, THOMAS, Ashton under Lyne, Builder. Ashton and Lyne and Staly- GLYNN, FREDERICK, Kidderminster, Builder. Kidderminster. Pet Sept 28. Ord GRAY, ALFRED, Shaftesbury, Hawker. Salisbury. Pet Oct 3. Ord Oct 3 HAYTER, TOM BAKER, Mile End, Hampshire, Builder. Portsmouth. Pet Oct 3. HOPKINS, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS, Station rd, Finchley, Clerk. High Court. Pet HUNT, JAMES HENRY, Birmingham, Electro Plate Manufacturer. Birmingham, ISAACSON, WILLIAM, jun, Depden, Suffolk, Farmer. Bury St Edmunds. Pet JESTER, ALFRED ALBERT THOMAS, Walsall, Corn Dealer. Walsall. Pet Oct 5. THE AUTUMN ASSIZES. NORTH EASTERN (Lord Coleridge, C.J.). Newcastle, Thursday, October 27; Durham, Monday, October 31; York, Saturday, November 5. SOUTH-EASTERN (Field, J.).-Maidstone, Monday, October 24; Chelmsford, Tuesday, November 1; Cambridge, Monday, November 7; Nor- LANE, EDWARD WILLIAM, Torquay, Draper. Exeter. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 4 wich, Thursday, November 10. JONES, EDMUND MATTHEW, Aberkenfig, nr Bridgend, Grocer. Cardiff. Pet Oct JONES, JOHN, Ruabon, Denbigh, Printer. Wrexham. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 4 MIDLAND (Huddleston, B.).-Bedford, Monday, October 24; Leicester, OXFORD (Hawkins, J.).-Oxford, Thursday, October 27; Worcester, Tuesday, November 1; Gloucester, Saturday, November 5; Stafford, Monday, November 14. NORTH AND SOUTH WALES (Cave, J.).-Chester, Thursday, October 27 ; Swansea, Thursday, November 3. NORTHERN (Day and Grantham, JJ.).—Carlisle, Tuesday, October 25; Manchester, Saturday, October 29; Liverpool, Wednesday, November 16. WESTERN (Wills, J.).-Bristol, Monday, October 24; Exeter, Saturday, October 29; Winchester, Saturday, November 5. Civil business will be taken only at Manchester and Liverpool. 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., Westmirs er (Estab. 1875), who also undertake the Ventilation of Offices, &c.-[ADVT.] Ord Oct 4 LANSDALE, ELIZA, Blackfriars rd, Mantle Manufacturer. High Court. Pet Oct LEVERITT, RICHARD, Clee, Lincolnshire, Master of Fishing Smack. Great MANLEY, EDWARD SAMUEL, Church, Lancashire, Draper. Blackburn. Pet Oct NALL, MARK, Buxton, Derbyshire, Joiner. Stockport. Pet Oct 5. Ord Oct 5 PARKER, GIBSON, Hartshead, nr Halifax, Currier. Halifax. Pet Oct 3. Ord PEARCE, JOHN, Worksop, Nottinghamshire, Grocer. Sheffield. Pet Oct 4. Ord ALLERTON, SAMUEL CHAMBERS, Lowestoft, Suffolk, Boat Builder. 12.30. Off Rec, 8, King st, Norwich Oct 15 at BANTOFT, PERCY, Kingston upon Hull, Corn Merchant. Oct 17 at 2. Incorporated Law Society, Lincoln's inn bldgs, Bowlalley lane, Hull BARRETT, WILLIAM, Kidderminster, Shopkeeper. Oct 14 at 12.45. Miller Corbet, solor. Kidderminster BICKLEY, THOMAS HENRY, Leicester, out of business. Oct 14 at 12.30. 28, Friar lane. Leicester BLYTH, WILLIAM FRANCIS, Victoria pk sq, Bethnal green, Surgeon. Oct 14 at 12. 33, Carey st, Lincoln's inn DALRYMPLE, WILLIAM, Glasgow, Leather Merchant. Oct 18 at 2.30. 28, Friar lane, Leicester GLYNN, FREDERICK, Kidderminster, Builder. Oct 14 at 12. Roden & Dawes, GRIFFIN, GEORGE, and THOMAS CALWALLADER KENWRICK, Kidderminster, Plum- JONES, CHARLES, Rhyl, Commission Agent. Oct 18 at 3.30. KENYON. JOSEPH, Clacton on Sea, Schoolmaster. Oct 14 at chester NAYLOR, GEORGE, Leeds, Clerk. Oct 17 at 11. Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds PARKER, GIBSON, Hartshead, nr Halifax, Currier. Oct 17 at 3.30. Off Rec, Halifax PAVY. BENJAMIN, Pewsham, Wilts, Shopkeeper. Oct 20 at 11.15. Angel Hotel, Chippenham PERRIS, ALBERT, Birmingham, Clothier. Oct 19 at 11. 25, Colmore row, Birmingham PINDER, THOMAS, Kingston upon Hull. Cart Man. Oct 14 at 11. Off Rec, Lincoln's inn bldngs, Bowlalley lane, Hull ROSENTHAL, EMANUEL, Birmingham, Tailor. Oct 18 at 11. 25, Colmore row, Birmingham Castle of Off Oct 14 at 3.30. SOUTHWOOD, RICHARD, Torquay, Commission Agent. Oct 17 at 11. STEPHENSON, FREDERICK GEORGE, Nottingham, Grocer. STONE, JACOB, Leeds, Boot Dealer. Oct 18 at 11. Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds WARD. JOHN, Forncett St Peter, Norfolk, Farmer. Oct 15 at 11.30. Off Rec, 8, King st, Norwich WILL, GEORGE, Bristol, Restaurant Manager. Oct 21 at 1.15. Off Rec, Bank chbrs, Bristol WILLIAMS. TREVOR LEWIS, Llanllyfni, Carnarvonshire, Quarryman. Nov 3 at 12. Queen's Head Cafe, Bangor WOODHEAD, TITUS, Leeds, Gardener. Oct 17 at 12. Off Rec, 22, Park row, Leeds YOUNGS, CHARLES, East Dereham, Norfolk, Coal Merchaut. Oct 15 at 11. Off Rec, 8, King st, Norwich BAINTON, HENRY, Stanningley, Yorks, Mason. Leeds. Pet Oct 3. Ord Oct 3 CARBINES, ROBERT RICHARDS, St Ives, Cornwall, Gardener. Truro. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 4 Cox, JAMES RICHARD, Southsea, Baker. Portsmouth. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 4 DAY, CHARLES WILLIAM, Market st, Barnsbury, Clerk. High Court. Pet Sept 26. Ord Oct 4 DA COSTA, ALFRED, Piccadilly, Gent. High Court. Pet July 29. Ord Oct 5 DYSON, EDWARD RICHARD, James st, Oxford st, Draper. High Court. Pet Sept 29. Ord Oct 4 EDWARDS, WILLIAM, Perry Barr, Staffordshire, out of business. Birmingham. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 5 ELSOM, ALFRED HOWARD, Crescent, Croydon, Accountant. High Court. Pet July 23. Ord Oct 5 ELWELL, THOMAS, Wolverhampton, Merchant. Wolverhampton. Pet Sept 1. Ord Oct 3 GLOVER, TOM, Warwick, Saddler. Warwick. Pet Sept 8. Ord Oct 1 Oct 3 GRAHAM. WILLIAM, address unknown, Solicitor. High Court. Pet Aug 16. Oct 5 20. Ord Oct 3 INDGE. THOMAS COVENTRY, Chard, Clock Maker. Taunton. Pet Sept 15. Ord Oct 1 JESTER, ALFRED ALBERT THOMAS, Walsall, Corn Dealer. Walsall. Pet Oct 5. Ord Oct 5 JONES, JOHN LEWIS, Merthyr Tydfil, Tea Dealer. Merthyr Tydfil. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 4 KURTZIG, LOUIE, address unknown. High Court. Pet July 18. Ord Oct 4 LANE, EDWARD WILLIAM, Torquay, Draper. Exeter. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 4 LEVERITT, RICHARD, Clee, Master of Fishing Smack. Gt Grimsby. Pet Oct 3 Ord Oct 3 MACKENZIE, JOSEPH ANTHONY, and THOMAS SLAID OGILVY, Redland, Bristol, Pianoforte Makers. Bristol. Pet Sept 2. Ord Oct 4 MANLEY, EDWARD SAMUEL, Church, Lancs, Draper. Blackburn. Pet Oct 3. Ord Oct 3 NALL, MARK, Buxton, Derby, Joiner. Stockport. Pet Oct 5. Ord Oct 5 NETTLETON, JOHN, Stanley, Wakefield, Builder. Wakefield. Pet Oct 4. Ord Oct 4 PARGETER, JAMES, Clapham rd, Provision Dealer. High Court. Pet Sept 30. Ord Oct 5 PARKER, GIBSON, Hartshead, nr Halifax, Currier. Halifax. Pet Oct 3. Ord Oct 3 PARKER, WILLIAM, Ropsley, nr Grantham, Builder. Nottingham. Pet Aug 29. Ord Oct 4 PEARCE, JOHN, Worksop, Nottingham, Grocer. Sheffield. Pet Oct 3. Ord Oct 4 Ord Oct 5 PERRIS, ALBERT, Birmingham, Clothier. Birmingham. Pet Sept 2. Ord Oct 3 TURNBULL, JOHN, Willington Quay, Northumberland, Innkeeper. Newcastle on Tyne. Pet Oct 5. Ord Oct 5 TURNER, ELIZA, East India rd, Poplar, Tailor. High Court. Pet Aug 26. Ord WILL, GEORGE, Bristol, Restaurant Manager. Bristol. Pet Oct 1. Ord Oct 5 WILLICOMBE, ALFRED, John st, Adelphi, Colliery Agent. High Court. Pet Aug 10. Ord Oct 3 WILSON, JOHN HENRY, Sutton Mill, nr Kildwick, Yorks, Tailor. Bradford. Pet WOOD, E, St Thomas rd, Finsbury pk, Builder. High Court. Pet Apr 13. Ord The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the ADJUDICATION ANNULLED. DEAN. SAMUEL HARRISON, Chester, Saddler. Chester. Adjud June 24. Annul Sept 15 London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Oct. 11. RECEIVING ORDERS. BILLS, THOMAS, Bushey Hill rd, Camberwell, Draper. High Court. Pet Sept 22. BUTLER, THOMAS, Cranborne, Dorsetshire, Farmer. Poole. Pet Oct 6. Ord DAVIS, THOMAS HENRY, and GEORGE LISTER LAIRD, Liverpool, Paint Manufac- ELVISH, FREDERICK, Kirby Cross, nr Colchester, Engine Driver. Colchester. EVANS, JOHN, Penygraig, Glamorganshire, Grocer. Pontypridd. Pet Oct 6. Ord HAWKINS, CHARLES EDWARD, Derby, Plumber. Derby. Pet Oct 7. Ord Oct 7 HORNER, JAMES READ. Salterhebble, nr Halifax, Chemical Manufacturer. Halifax. Pet Oct 6. Ord Oct 6 HUNT. CORNELIUS, Bournemouth, Provision Dealer. Poole. Pet Oct 8. Ord Oct 8 HURST, AUGUSTUS HENRY, Roseneath, Culverton rd, Balham, Builder. Wandsworth. Pet May 26. Ord Oct 6 JAMES, STANLEY CARLYLE, Derby, Commission Agent. Derby. Pet Oct 7. Ord Oct 7 JENKINS, THOMAS, Pontardawe, Glamorganshire, out of business. Neath. Pet Oct 6 KENT, ARTHUR, Woburn Sands, Bucks, Wheelwright. Northampton. Pet Oct 7. Ord Oct 7 |