Court of Appeal. Critchley's Trust's, Re, 575 Walbrook & Co, v Jones and Lewis, ICO Crookes, Re, 254 Lyon v Morris; Mutual Loan Fund Walker y General Mutual Investment Cunningham, Re, 111 Building Society, 703 Cuaning ham & Co, Re, 576 Walsh y Darwen Paper Mills Co, 523 Curry, Re, Gibson v Way, 233 Cutler v North London Railway Co, Arbitration Between Secretary of Maple & Co v Earl of Shrewsbury, Weldhen v Scattergood, 348 Watson v Strickland & Sons, 675 395 Darlington Forge Co, Re, 217 Davies Bros., & Co. v Davies, 331 Arnott v Hayes, 676 ment, and Cottage Improvement Co Wenlock (Baroness) and Another v Duy v Sykes, Walker, & Co, 155 Avery's Patent, Re, 863, 613 v Martin, 232 Dickson v Murray, 493 Marrett, Re, Chalmers v Wingfield, Whitaker, Re, Christian v Whitaker, Direct Spanish Telegraph Company Bannatyne v Direct Spanish Tele 575 200 (Limited), Re, 142 graph Co, 76 Mills' Estate, Re, 41 White v Peto, 44 District Bank of London, Re, 427 Trade Protection Society v Booth & Dudley's, Countess of, and London and Barnetts, Hoares, & Co v South Lon Co, 703 Wickham, Re, Marony v Taylor, 363 North-Western Railway Co's Condon Tramway Co, 477 Morgan, Re, Owen v Morgan, 477 Williams v Peel River Land an! tract, Re, 317 Bernina, The, Armstrong and Others v Morgan v Hardy (Fothergill, third Mineral Co, 60 E.C. Powder Co (Limited), Re, 443 Mills and Others, 216 party), 346 Willmott v London Celluloid Co Easton y London Joint Stock Bank, 812 Birmingham and District Land Co v Mowatt y Castle Steel and Ironworks (Cimited), 93 Eden v Weardale Iron and Coal Co, London and North-Western Railway Co, 44 Wilson and Greene, Re, 27 302 Co, 109 Muffett, Re, Jones v Mason, 442 Elmonds v Blaina Farna 3es C.), 559 Elwards v Stephens, 127 High Court. Faloke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Blake v Mayor and Corporation of 10 Oo, 693 Fairlamb and others v Beaumont, 272 Adams' Trusts, Re, 631 Bolton v Natal Land and Colonization Naylor and Spendla, Re, 141 Fawcett v Urwin, 331 Ainslie's Trade-Mark, Re, 391 Fenessy v Rabbits & Sons, 316 Albert Palace Association, Re, 333, 373 Fleming v Fleming & Lemon, 95 Bray v Gardener, 231 232 Fletcher, Re, Smith v Fletcher, 318 Anglo-Montana Mining C) (Limi-ed), Flint Coal and Cannel Co (Limitel), Calvert v Thomas and Lloyd, 557 Newport (Monmouth) Slipway Oj v Re, 427 Re, 183 Arnold, Re, 560 1: Foliv Doxonshire Club, 692 Casebourne & Oo v Houston & Co Norman and Another v Ricketts, 124 Ashworth v Lord, 603 Fowler, Re, 77 Ashworth v Munn, 156 and Avery & Co, 659 North Central Wagon 0o v Man Fox v Rothwell, 393 Challender v Royle, 676 chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Attorney-General v Barry Dock and France, Re, France v Clark, 23 Clarke, Re, Coombe v Carter, 676 Railway Co, 124, 300 Railway Co, 201 Fraser v Province of Brescia Steim Clough, Re, Bradford Commercial North and South-Western Junction v Mayor, &c, of Blackburn, 559 Tramways Co (Limited), 432 Joint-Stock Banking Co v Cure, 269 Railway Co V Brentford Union Avery's Patent, Re, 202 French v Hope, 251 Assessment Committee, 426 Fasee Vesta Co, v Bryant & May, 201 Collier v Chadwick, 27 Bailey v Sunderland Equitable Build. Gardiner, Re, Jones v Gardiner, 318 Official Receiver (as Trustee of Izon, a Commercial Bank of South Australia, ing Society, 77 Gas Light and Coke Co v Herber: Bankrupt) v Tailby, 75 Re, 10 Baines v Geary, 363 Smith & Co, 12 Ball, Re, Slattery v Ball, 575 Gaulard and Gibbs' Patent, Re, 181 Gee y Bell, 379 Bankes y Small, 202 Gibbons' Trusts, Re, 677 Goodfellow v Prince, 201 Crears y Hunter, 612 lock, 200 Barton v North Staffordshire Railway, Goodman v Robinson, Brown, Janson, Crompton v Anglo-American Brush Palliser v Gurney, 643 461 Electric Light Corporation, 363 & Co, 127 Palmer v Mallett, 643 Beddington v Atlee, 268 Crosby, Re, Munns v Burn, 231 Gray, Re, Acason v Greenwood, 28 Parker, Re, and Beech's Contract, 252 Berens y Fellowes, 302 Crossley, Re, Munns v Burn, 347 Great Western Steamship Co (Limited), Peperno v Harmiston, 154 Crowther v Elgood, 252 Rest v Applegate, 812 Re, 61 Bethell's Estate, Re, Bethell v Bethell, Gregson, Re, Christison v Bolam, 592 202 dians of Reigate Union, 507 Pike, Sons & Co v Ongley and Thorn Gregson's Trusts, Re, 94 Biegel's (J. H.) Trade-Mark, Re, 478 Dadswell v Jacobs, 200 Grimmett's Trusts, Re, 269 ton 377 Davies Brothers & Co v Davies, 691 Birmingham and District Land Co v Guilbert-Martin v Kerr & Jubb, 62 London and North-Western Railway Hall v Comfort, 29 Co, 94, 478 Hanley and Another v Mallett, 61 Blaine's Trust, Re, 126 Hargrave v Kettlewell, 110 Blakey v Hall, 379 Harris, 6 (deceased), Re, Harris v 702 Bolton y Mills, 462 Harris, 443 v Natal Land and Colonization Easy, Re, Ex parte Hill & Hymans, 702 Harris v Rothwell, 27 Co, 626 Harrison, Re, Parry v Spencer, 126 Reeves v Fowle, 92 Bosville v Attorney-General, 593 (Limited) v Jonas and Brothers, 284 Harrison v Harrison, 319 Boswell v Coaks, 703 Hartley, Re, Stedman v Dunster, 303 ard) v the Mayor and Corporation of Boyd y Farrar, 659 Eden v Weardale Coal and Iron Co, 378 Harvey v Olliver, 644, 679 Brewster v Prior, 126, 443 Hastings, Re, Hallett v Hastings, 60 Reg. v Judge of the Chelmsford Bridge, Re, Franks v Worth, 553 Hatchard v Mege, 395 British Marine Association v MacInnes, Hayward v Lely, 317 Henderson, Re, Nouviou v Freeman, surance Co, 109 Reid v Explosives Co (Limited), 441 428 Furber v Cobb, 330 Briton Life Association, Re, 559 Broad-street Station Dwellings and Hendry, Re, Watson v Blakeney, 443 Gapp v Bond, 477 Richards y Jenkins, 300 Goldstrom v Tallerman, 60 Workshops Co, Re, 644 Hermann Loog (Limited), Re, 559, 704 Buckland, Francis, Re (deceased), 201 Heron v Heron, 644 Buckpall's Gold' Estate (Limited), | Hetherington's Trusts, Re, 95 Re, 476 Hickie (James), Re (deceased), Hickie v Roe v Mutual Fund Loan Associati in Hall v Bromley, 442 Burrows v Holley, 379 Colmer, 46 Hamill v Lilley, 362 (Limited), 623 Burton, Re, Burton v Burton, 660 Hill & Uo, Hill, 111 Hilleary and Taylor, Re, 271 Capital Fire Insurance Association Hobson and Howes, Re, 254 Harsant v Blaine, Macdonald, & Co, Sailing Ship Garston Co v Hickie, Bor (Limited), Re, 94 Hobbs, Re, Hobbs v Wade, 626 558 Harwood, Re, 442 "Sara,” The, Baker v Owners of Ship Carden v Albert Palace Association, Hollingwood Estate Co (Limited), Re, 142 125 Carlyon, Re, Carlyon v Carlyon, 111 Holt & Co v Beagle and Others, 61 Chalk, Webb, & Oo, v Tennant, 660 Hope v Croydon and Norwood TramHockey v Evans and Another, 231 Shearwood, Re, 124 Charles v Jones, 461 ways Co, 269 Hotchkin's Settled Estates, Re, 284 Sheppard y Scinde, Punjaub, and Chelsea Waterworks Co, Re, 349 Hotchkin's Settled Estates, Re, 234 Hughes y Little, 9 Delhi Railway Co, 591 Christchurch Inclosure Act, Re, 380 Hubbuck y Helms, 271 Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Rail Sion College, Re, Ex parte Corporation Clarke, Re, Coombe v Carter, 302 Hughes, In the Goods of, 286 way. Co v Yorkshire and Derbyshire South Wales Mineral Railway Co v of London, 378 -- v Thornton, 201 Huggins v Jeffries, 28 Coal Co, 315 Coates to Parsons, Re, 110 Hurter, Re, 848 Davies, 110 Ingham v Walker; Elwood, Claimant, 271 Coleman v Llewellyn, 28 Indus, The, 123 Strangways, Re, Hickley v Strang- Collinge's Settled Estates, Re, 644 Jackson and Woodburn's Contract, Re, Irwell v Eden, 362 ways, 76 812 Colonial Bank v Hepworth, 493 Jackson & Co, v Napper; In re Kurtz v Spence, 692 Swindell and Another y Bulkeley and Commercial Bank of South Australia, Schmidt's Trade-mark, 156 Re, 269 Jacob's Settlement Trusts, Re, 479 well Mining Co v Huggons, 393 Condon v Vollum, 575 Jarret v Hunter, 93 Jenkinson v Brandley Mining Co Ex parte Conelly, 460 Coppard, Re, Howlett v Hodson, 334 Jenks, Olaimant, 693 Jones, Re, Greene v Gordon, 28 Jones v Evans, 11 v Harris, 201 Johnson y Johnson, 235 son, 127 Keily v Stevens, 125 v Mayor of Liverpool, 318 Blair and Girling v Cordner, 560, 662 Robson, Ex parte, 128 Keswick Old Brewery Co (Limited), Reichel v Bishop of Oxford, 184 Boswell y Coaks, 509, 661 Shoreditch Election, Re, 30 Brown y Great Western Railway Co, 445 King v Chamberlayne, 679 Richardson, H. T. (Deceased), Re, Castle (G.), Re, 569 Cases before the Vacation Knight, Re, Knight v Gardner, 644 Institution, 478 Cray.v Wray, 608 Judge. D'Aragon, Ex parte, In the Matter of a Firm of Solicitors, 680 Ackerman-Lawrence v Bouvet, Ladutage Improvement Co v Martin. 217 bay, & Co, 734 Adams, Re, 717 Alliance Supply Stores (Limited), 796 Automatic Weighing Machine Co, Leigh v Leigh, 94 Tiplady v Royal Liver Friendly Ford v Incorporated Law Society, 450 (Limited) v Knight, 705 Berridge v Turner, 773 Grey's Brewery Co, Re, 219 Bray v Gardner, 745 Loder, Re, 28 St Andrew's Hospital, Northampton, Guy y Churchill, 414 London and Provincial Electric Light v Shearsmith, 608 Harris, Powell, and Goodale, Re, 255, 365 Browne v La Trinidad (Limited), 796 Buffalo Bill's Wild West Co v Sanger, ing and Power Co (Limited), Re, St Botolph without Bishopsgate Parish Herbert, Re, 235 726, 734 Hale's Case, 10 Estate, Re, 350 Cone v Rimell, 745 Hettihewage Siman Appu v Queen's v Pritt, T. E., 607 De Bensaude v De Bensaude, 754 Schmidt's Trade-Mark, Re, 234 Advocate, Ceylon, 128 Doré v Pecorini, 726 London, Mayor and Corporation of, Ex Scott (otherwise Sebright) v Sebright, Hilleary and Taylor, Re, 495 Dove v Swindon, 784 Holloway, Re, Young v Holloway, 463 Emmanuel College v Chichester, 762 Lysaght, Re, Blythev Baumgartner, 233 Seyton, Re, Seyton v Satterthwaite, Kellock, T. c. & J. F. (Solicitors), Equestrian and Public Buildings Co Magnus y Queensland National Bank (Limited), 784 270 Re, 479 691 Shafto v Bolckow, Vaughan, & Co and Litchfield v Jones, 693 Fassett, Re, Wells v Dearle, 799 Mallet v Hanly, 318 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 302 London, Mayor, &c, of, Ex parte, Re Field & Co,v The American Exhibition Manchester, Corporation of, v Hamp- Shaw v Gervan, 318 Metropolitan and District Railways (Limited), 745 Act, 186 Firth, Re, Firth v Clarke, 781 Mandamus, In the Matter of an Appli of Sheffield Union, 271 Macdougall v Knight, 332 Forest Iron and Steel Co, (Limited v cation for a Rule for a, 29 Shepheard v Smith, 126 Munton v Lord Truro, 615 Barry Dock and Railway Co, 726 Marcus, Re, Marcus v Marcus, 645, 678 Shorthorn Dairy Co (Limited), v Hall, Osborne v Milman, 319 Grad jated County Schools Association Margary and Another v Robinson, 111 479 Park, Alfred (Solicitor), Re, Ex parte (Limited), Re. 717 Marret, Re, Chalmers v Wingfield, 286 Simpson's Trusts, Re, 607. Incorporated Law Society, 444 Hallett v The Marquis of Bristol, 731 Marshfield, Re, Marshfield v Hutch- Smeed, Deane, & Co (Limited', v A. Peace and Ellis, Re, 812 Hoare v Gray, 544 ings, 330 Cumberland, 659 Phillips, Ex parte. Ro Watson, 523 Howe Machine Co (Limited), The, 762 Medical Attendance Assurance Asgo- Smith, Re, Clements v Ward, 429 Postlethwaite, Re, Postlethwaite V Inderwick, Re. Ex parte Hanson, 705 ciation, Re, 46 Smith, Re, Lord v Hayward, 508 Rickman, 441 Jay v Ladler, 744 Jonas v Long, 717, 727 Pybus, W.M. (a Solicitor), Re, 480 Law (WF) and John Nicholls & Co, Egyptian Cigarette Co, 410 Somerset (Duke of), Re, Thynne v St Raven v Stevens & Sons. 63 Re, 717 Maur, 233 Longbottom v Woodhead, 796 Russell, Ex parte, Re Elderton, 235 Magnay, Re, Tipper v Tipper, 796 Trade Protection Societies (Limited) Soper v Arnold, 331 Scales v Moseley, 496 Matthews y The Maror and Corporaand J. Cox v Booth & Co, 626 Stanley y Mayor, Aldermen, and Citi- Scarlett, Re, 46° tion of Sheffield, 773 Montagu v Land Corporation of Eng. zens of the City of Norwich, 343 Solicitor, In the matter of a, 63 Middlesex Manufacturing Co (Limited) land, 269 Stewart v West Derby Burial Board, Staniar v Evans, 157 784 Moore v Moore, Chadwick, & Griffiths, 155 Municipal Corporations Act, 1892, and the Election of Revising Assessors v Morton, 110 Strick v Swansea Tin Plate Co, 660 Ward y Marshall, 429 for the Borough of Higham Ferrers, Morgan, Re, Owen v Morgan, 462 Tacon V National Standard Land Whitehead v Hall, 445 772 Murray v Stephenson, 508 Mortgage Co, 217 Munson v Odiam; Munson v Jordan ; Munson v Donald, 705 Pedder v Eiloart, 705 Plake v Hall, 744, 796 Bankruptcy Cases. Preston v Etherington; Etheriogton New Hollingbourne Paper Mills Co, Co, 461 v Etherington, 717 Re, 703 Toogood's Trusts, Re, 493 Betts, Re, Ex parte Board of Trade, 462 Shingleton Ice Co (Limited), Re, Bett Newport (Mon) Slipway Co (Limited', Toomer, Re, Hughes v Bennett, 678 Ball, Ex parte, Re Hutchinson, 235 v Shingleton Ice Co (Limited), 703 v Paynter, 11 Towgood v Pirie & Sons, 251 Bluck, Ex parte, Re Bluck, 681 Ship Edderside, Re, Bell and Others V Nixon, Edward, Re, 94 Troitzsch v Rees, 645 Bischoffsheim, Ex parte, Re Aylmer, Edderside Ship Owning Co (Limited), North Brazilian Sugar Factories (Lim- Trufort, Re, Trafford v Blanc, 661 463 744 ited), Re, 125 Tucker, Re, Boucbier v Gordon, 270 Board of Trade, Ex parte, Re Brunner, Taunton v Falla, 762, 772 Northumberland, Duke of, v Bowman Tunnel Mining Co, Re, 443 681 Thompson v The Mayor and Corpora479 Turner, In the Goods of, 112 Re Stainton, 577 tion of Stratford-upon-Avon, 772 Oakey & Sons y Dalton, 591 Union Bank of London v Kent and Broderick, Ex parte, Re Beetham, 349 Timson v Wilson, 745 O'Kelly v Callaghan, 269 Others, 677 Brown, Ex parte, Re M'Henry, 576 Tucker y Prior, 784 Burgess, Ex parte. Re Burgess, 593 West of England Paper Mills Oo Ongley v Chatham Local Board, 576 Unwin y Buck, 379 Carr, Ex parte, Re Carr, 96 (Limited), Re, 714 Oriental Bank Corporation, Re, 363, 493 Veale & Co, v Automatic Boiler Feeder Dever, Ex parte, Re Suse, 286 Wood's Ships' Woodite Protection Co Outlay Assurance Association, Re, 233 (Limited), 364 Feast, Ex parte, Re Feast, 286 (Limited), Re, 726 Oxford Building and Investment Vernon v Hallam, 111 Foreman, Ex parte, Re Hann, 203 Gibson, Ex parte, Re Lamb, 217 Grepe, Ex parte, Re Grepe, 396 Judges' Chambers. Kearsley, Ex parte, Re Genese, 78 Langworthy, Re, Ex parte Lang- Elkington v Fraser, 381 worthy, 693 Lindsey, Ex parte, Re Bates, 560 Lovering & Co, Ex parte, Re Aysh- County Courts. Nelson, Ex parte, Re Hockaday, 203 Norton, Ex parte, Re Mapsel, 577 Blackwell v Great Eastern Land and Building Co, 561 479 Re Morritt, 143 McHardy v Liptrott, 561 v Andrews, 217 Wigram v Fryer, 508 , Re Reed, Bowen, & Co, 494 Watkinson, Ex parte, Re Wilson, 578 Phipps v Jackson, 286 Wilcock, Re, 269 Paterson, Ex parte, Re Rathbone, 627 Payne, Re, Ex parte Castle Mail Packets Co, 62 Rawlings, Ex parte, Re Cleaver, 218 Criminal Law Cases. Saville, Ex parte, Re Saville, 680 Sayer, Ex parte, Re Mansel, 680 Evans v London and North-Western Co, Re, 126 Powell, 394 Taylor, Ex parte, Re Goldsmid, 96 and Great Western Railway Cos, 333 Pommery v Apthorpe, 143 Yorkshire Railway Co, v Mullan, 379 Thornber, Ex parte, Re Barlow, 156 Reg v Gibson, 332 Portishead Warehouse Co, v Bristol Ystalyfera Gas Co, Re, 270 Tidswell, Ex parte, Re Tidswell, 577 v Gunnel, 128 and Portishead Pier Railway Co, 364 Todd, Ex parte, Re Ashcroft, 491 v Juby, 128 Postmaster-General y Green, 645 v Riley, 333 Powell Bennett (Deceased), Re, 677 Prater, H. (Deceased), RA, 660 Solicitors' Cases. Price, In the Goods of, 348 Election Cases. Purret and Green v Duke of Bedford, Allen, Re, 78, 185 112 Arch v Bentinck, 319 Assize Cases. Hythe, In the Matter of a Municipal Guardians of the Thornbury Union v 95 Election in the Borough of, 366 Greenfield and Others, 690 762 Co ition 11 1 ition Re ......... 131 762 705 8 16 4 adjudications, schemes or compositions; and fees are added for the CASES REPORTED THIS WEEK. official receiver acting as interim receiver, and for the official In the Solicitors' Journal. The Mysore Reefs Gold Mining receiver supervising a special manager, or the carrying on of a Co., Re 10 debtor's business. The provisions of the direction as to stamps Blaiberg v. Beckett ........ Commercial Bank of South Aus The Newport (Mon.) Shipway, &c., affixed to the former order are now altered and amplified by a Co. (Lim.) v. Paynter separate order. 9 In the Weekly Reporter. Jones v. Evans 11 Cadman v. Cadman TIE LAMENTED DEATH of Lord MONKSWELL will not render neces- 15 sary any further judicial appointments. It is upon the death of Leslie v, Cave ...... 11 Hubbard, Ex parte. In re Hardwick 2 | two paid members of the Judicial Committee, not upon the death of London and Provincial Electric Lewis v. Ramsdale Lighting and Power Co. (Lim.), one, that such appointments may be made. The Judicial ComReg. v. Inhabitants of SouthRe; Hale's Case ... mittee Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 91), provided for the appoint10 ampton ment of four paid members of the Judicial Committee of the Oak, &c., Wire Co. 11 12 Privy Council. The power to appoint successors was limited ? Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), s. 14, provides that, whenever any two of these paid judges shall have died or resigned, her Majesty may successively appoint a third and fourth Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, to serve in the House LONDON, OCTOBER 30, 1886. of Lords as official peers and salaried judges to reinforce the two “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary," who, under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, sit in the House of Lords. The four paid memCURRENT TOPICS. bers of the Judicial Committee originally appointed were Lord MR. ROBERT SEPPINGS GODFREY has been appointed a Registrar of Peacock. The first double vacancy was created in 1881 by the MoxKSWELL, Sir M. SMITH, Sir JAMES COLVILE, and Sir BARNES the Supreme Court, to act in the Chancery Division, in succession retirement of Sir M. Suitu subsequent to the death of Sir JAMES to Mr. FARRER, resigned. COLVILE in 1880. Lord MONKSWELL is only the first of the second pair of paid Judicial Committee judges, and the practical union of the House of Lords and Judicial Committee into one court, so far THE CONSOLIDATED Bankruptcy Rules were published towards as the personnel of judges obliged to sit is concerned, which it was the close of last week. They constitute a bulky volume of 200 the object of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to bring about, will pages, and are, in the main, an incorporation of the Bankruptcy not be consummated until Sir BARNES PEACOCK should complete the Rules, 1883, and the rules subsequently made under the Bank- second double vacancy. ruptcy Act. We were enabled to point out in advance the only changes of any importance, in our articles, 30 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, pp. 781, 793. The Consolidated Rules came into operation on TIE CONTROVERSY to which Lord MONKSWELL’s appointment gave Monday last, and although the alterations made in the previous rise, though dating so far back as 1871, will still be fresh in the rules are trifling, we think that the profession has some reason to minds of our readers. The Judicial Committee Act provided that the complain of the very short interval which elapsed between the publication of the rules and their coming into opera- been "judge of one of the superior courts." person appointed should be “specially qualified” by being or having Sir R. COLLIER sat a tion. few days in the Court of Common Pleas for the mere purpose of gaining a qualification, and the late Lord Chief Justice of England WE PUBLISH else where a new order, made on Monday last, strenuously and properly contended that this was an evasion of Sir R. COLLIER, we may remark, sat long enough to as to fees and percentages in respect of proceedings under the deliver two reported judgments (see Townshend v. Marylebone Bankruptcy Act, 1883, in substitution for the order issued at Overseers (7 C. P. 143) and Ford v. Boon (16. 150), both of them the close of 1883. As soon as that order appeared we pointed registration cases. Singularly enough he seems never to have out the large increase in many of the charges upon the been made a serjeant. His name finds no place in the list of amount charged upon similar proceedings under the act of serjeants to be found in Pulling's “Order of the Coif,” at p. xvii., 1869.. Several of the fees to which we then drew particular though, curiously enough, we believe that he was described in the attention are now modified. Thus, the fee on applications for Gazette as serjeant. discharge is now reduced from £2 to £1 10s., which is to include the expense of Gazetting; and the ad valorem fee upon an application to the court to approve a scheme or composition has THE ANXIETY to obtain an allotment of shares in “Arthur been reduced to 28. 6d. on each £25 of estimated assets or Guinness, Son, & Co., Limited,” has led to much discussion amount of composition above £5,000. But the greatest change is in as to the duty of the directors in allotting the sbares among the portion of the scale relating to the celebrated £6 per cent. on the numerous applicants. It has been contended that the direcThe net assets realized or brought to credit by the official receiver. tors have no discretion in the matter, but are bound to allot the This fee is now to be estimated on a sliding scale, falling from £5 shares pro rata among all the applicants. The advocates of this per cent. on the first £1,000 to £1 when above £10,000; and it view appear to rest their contention on the notion that the is to be chargeable on the net assets after deducting sums paid to prospectus constitutes an offer of shares, which offer is accepted, secured creditors in respect of their securities. There is added and a contract constituted, by the application for shares. But, another sliding scale percentage on the amount distributed as in Re Richmond Hill Hotel Co., Pellatt's case (2 Ch. 527), dividend by the official receiver when acting as trustee under Lord Cairns said, “ that where an individual applies for shares OBJECTS CLAUSE in a company, there being no obligation to let him have any, by granting a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The there must be a response by the company, otherwise there is no question as to how far justices of the peace are justified in refusing contract.” The prospectus is, in fact, nothing more than an in- to consider whether a discretion ought to be exercised in a particuvitation for offers to take shares (see Spencer v. Harding, 5 C. P. lar way upon the ground that they conscientiously believe that to 561). It appears to be forgotten that a discretion as to allotment exercise it in that way, though according to law, would be upof shares is almost always expressly vested in the directors by the desirable, appears to be conclusively answered by Reg. v. Boteler articles of association of a company. The articles of “ Arthur (12 W. R. 466), in which justices were compelled to issue a Guinness, Son, & Co." provide (article 7 (2)) that, “ The distress warrant in a case in which they had declined to do so on authorized share capital of the company and forfeited or the ground that the statute (2 & 3 Vict. c. 84) empowering them surrendered shares) may be issued by the board to such persons, to act was unjust, COCKBURN, C.J., pointing out that the justices The at such times, and on such terms, as to discount or otherwise, and had no business to enter into any such consideration. for such purposes of the company, as they see fit.” particular question arising upon the construction of the Licensing Acts, which is not quite so clear, has two branches, that connected with the refusal of (1) the general licence, to which Sir W. Lawson's more recent declarations apply; and (2) the occasional THE " in the memorandum of association of licence, out of the refusal of which the controversy originally “ Arthur Guinness, Son, & Co., Limited” (perhaps owing to the sprung. As to the general licence, this, by section 1 of the decision in Guinness v. Land Corporation of Ireland, 22 Ch. D. Licensing Act, 1828, is granted to such persons as the justices in 349), certainly does not err on the side of restriction. There are the execution of the powers of that Act, “and in the exercise of no fewer than fifteen “objects" specified, in addition to the usual their discretion, deem fit and proper."' It is clear from Reg. v. general clause at the close of the specification. They include Walsall Justices (3 C. L. R. 100) that every applicant for a power to “ act as bankers"; to " undertake, subscribe to, or other licence is entitled to a hearing, and that to refuse a licence merely wise aid undertakings for purposes of opening out trade or making in pursuance of a general resolution to grant no more licences is so experiments or investigations in connection with any of the objects far illegal that a mandamus will issue to compel the justices to of the company, or any class or department of its business, directly hear and determine the application at another meeting, but or indirectly” ; and a cla use, the like of which we have not seen so long as each applicant has a formal hearing, the reasons before, which provides that one of the objects of the company of the bench for refusing the general licence appear to be shall be :-"To provide for the welfare of persons in the employ; quite immaterial in point of law. As to the occasional licence, ment of the company, or formerly engaged in any business acquired the words of the statutes (25 Vict. c. 22, s. 13, and 26 & 27 by the company, and the wives, widows, and families of such Vict. c. 33, e. 20) are different, and are bare of judicial interprepersons, by grants of money, pensions, or other payments, and by tation. By these enactments "it shall be lawful for the Comproviding or subscribing towards schools and places of recreation missioners of Inland Revenue, whenever they shall think it or otherwise, and hospitals, dispensaries, medical and other attend conducive to public convenience, comfort, and order, and with ance, and other assistance as the company shall think fit, and to the consent in writing of a justice of the peace usually acting form, subscribe to, or otherwise aid benevolent, religious, scientific at the petty sessions for the petty sessional division within national, or other institutions or objects which shall have any moral which the place of sale is situate,” to authorize an excise or other claims to support or aid by the company by reason of the officer to grant an occasional licence authorizing the holder to locality of its operations or otherwise.” sell upon other than licensed premises, and “upon the occasion of any public dinner or ball " to sell liquors“ during such hours, before or after sunrise or sunset, as shall be allowed and THE RETIREMENT of Mr. ANDERSON, Q.C., from the office of specified in that behalf in the consent ” to be given by the justice Official Referee seems to render it open to the authorities to recon- for the granting of such occasional licence. In this case the Inland sider the number of the Official Referees. By section 83 of the Judi- Revenue authorities take the initiative, and the justice of the cature Act, 1883, it is provided that “there shall be attached to the peace has first a veto, and secondly, in the case of a dinner or ball, Supreme Court permanent officers called official referees, for the trial the power of extending a special privilege. In either case the of such questions as shall, under the provisions of this Act, be directed functions of the justice of the peace appear to be ministerial rather to be tried by such referees. The number and the qualification of the than judicial, and it may be doubted whether, even if the most persons to be so appointed from time to time, and the tenure of their anti-liquor reasons were avowed by the non-consenting justice, a offices, shall be determined by the Lord Chancellor, with the con- rehearing could be forced from him, or a selection of ball and dinner currence of the presidents of the divisions of the High Court, or a hours could be enjoined upon him by any legal proceedings whatmajority of them (of which majority the Lord Chief Justice of ever. England shall be one) and with the sanction of the Treasury”; and by section 84 “all officers assigned to perform duties with THE RECENT CASE before the Liverpool magistrates, in which the respect to the Supreme Court generally”—which term appears to include official referees—" shall be appointed by the Lord Chan- without any provision for maintenance, were ordered to contribute sons of a woman, divorced on the ground of her adultery and cellor." When the Act of 1873 came into force there were established five divisions of the High Court, but on the occasion vision of 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 7, that'" the father and grandfather, and to the support of their mother, has drawn attention to the proof the merger of the Common Pleas and Exchequer Divisions into the mother and grandmother, and the children of every poor, old, the Queen's Bench Division under Order in Council of December, blind, lame, and impotent person, or other poor person not able 1880, it was provided that the Lord Chief Justice of England to work, being of a sufficient ability, shall at their own charges should exercise all the powers formerly exercised by the presid- relieve and maintain every such poor person.” The Liverpool ents of the merged divisions. The number and qualification of bench do not seem to have agreed with Serjeant SELLON’s remark (4 the official referees, therefore, seems to rest with the Lord East. 79) that the obligation to maintain imposed by the statute is Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the President of the Probate, &c., Division, with the sanction of the Treasury, while the expressed an opinion that the case was a hard one for the sons, “founded on the law of nature," and they are reported to have appointment is to be made by the Lord Chancellor. probably because the mother had not bestowed on them the usual maternal attention and oversight, and had by her own act forfeited SIR WILFRID Lawson tells “the whole body of brewers,” through to be remembered, on the other hand, that the statutory obligation the right to support by the father, who is still living. But it is the columns of he l'imes, that he "sees no reason whatever to alter is mutual, and that if the cases had been reversed, and the his practice in dealing with applications for licences ; that practice “impotent persons had been the children, the mother, if “ of being to refuse them all, unless evidence is laid before him which a sufficient ability,” would have had to contribute to the support convinces him that by granting them he should be benefiting the of children who might have cast her off. A case of even greater public, whose servant he is, and not the servant of the brewers," hardship came before the court in R. v. Munden (1 Stra. 190), and we are probably entitled to assume that no evidence would con. where an order had been made by justices to compel a husband to vince Sir WILFRID Lawson that he would be benefiting the public support his wife's mother. This iniquitous order was reversed |