carried on by Henry Fison Killick and Frederick Douglas Hutton, in co-partnership with Charles John Vint, under the firm of Killick, Hutton, & Vint.) December 31. (Gazette, January 6.)

CHARLES REYNOLDS WILLIAMS, John Henry JAMES, and EUGENE WASON, solicitors, 62, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. (Firm will in future be carried on by John Henry James, Eugene Wason, & Romer Williams.) December 31. (Gazette, January 6.)

CHARLES FRANCIS YORKE and ARTHUR ALFRED BREWER, solicitors, 29, Conduit-street, Bond-street (Yorke & Brewer). December 11. (Gazette, January 6.)

Messrs. ALSOP & Co., solicitors, 23, Great Marlboroughstreet, London, W., have taken into partnership, Mr. J. P. Mann, solicitor (late of 37, Essex-street, Strand, and of Kingston-on-Thames).

Companies.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

FURNESS PAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Dec 31, directed to be heard before V.C. Bacon, on Jan 17. Tahourdins and Hargreaves, Victoria st, Westminster, agents for Jackson, Ulverston, solicitor for the petitioners SILVERTOWN LAND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Dec 22, directed to be heard before V.C. Malins, on Jan 16. Marsh, Fen et, Fenchurch st, solicitor for the petitioner [Gazette, Jan. 2.] STANNARIES OF CORNWALL. UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY. NORTH TRESKERBY MININO COMPANY.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 1, directed to be heard before the V.W., at the Princes Hall, Truro, on Jan 14 at 11. Affidavits intended to be used at the hearing, in opposition to the petition, must be filed at the registrars office, Traro, on or before Jan 12, and notice thereof must at the same time be given to the petitioner or his solicitors. Hodge and Co, Truro, solicitors for the petitioners [Gazette, Jan. 6.] FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. LONGSTONE COW CLUB, Cattle Insurance Society, Schoolroom, Great Longstone, Derby. Dec 31 Gazette, Jan. 2.] GREAT WESTERN AND BRISTOL AND EXETER AND METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS PROVIDENT SOCIETY, Great Western Railway Station, Paddington. Dec 31 VICTORIA FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Crown Inn, Appleby, Leicester. Jan 2 [Gazette, Jan. 6.]

Mayor's Conrt, London.

(Before the ASSISTANT JUDGE.)

Dec. 22.-Dermer v. Mott. Judicature Act, 1873, s. 91-Order 55-Application of to the Mayor's Court.

This was an application to review the taxation of the registrar, who had allowed the plaintiff costs upon the ordinary scale in actions under £10, the verdict having been found for him for one farthing damages in an action for slander.

The ASSISTANT JUDGE said: I order that the taxation be amended, and the amount of costs allowed to the plaintiff be reduced to one farthing, but I wish, in deference to the case of King v. Hawkesworth (L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 371), cited before me, to say why I have not considered myself bound by it. It appears to me that there is an error in that report. The case, as reported, appears to determine two questions. (1) The effect of order 55 in the schedule to the Judicature Act of 1875 upon certain proceedings in the Passage Court of Liverpool. (2) That order 55 is a rule of law, and applicable to the Passage Court of Liverpool as an inferior court, and to all other inferior courts, under section 91 of the Judicature Act, 1873, which says that, "the several rules of law enacted and declared by this Act shall be in force and receive effect in all courts whatsover in England, so far as the matters to which such rules relate shall be respectively cognizable by such courts." I conceive that the judgment of the court in that case really turned upon the first question-viz., the effect of rule 55 in connection with the Court of Passage Act and the several Acts and sections set out in the report and the proceedings on the part of the assessor, and

did not touch the question of whether rule 55 applied to the Court of Passage. Thus Cockburn, C.J., says, "The effect of this rule is that a mere negative proceeding on the part of the judge is not sufficient to deprive the plaintiff of his costs, but it is necessary that there should be some positive act, and this is not proved, for the learned assessor seems only to have said that he should allow the law to take its course. If follows that the plaintiff is entitled to his costs." As to the second question, it is true the Lord Chief Justice is made to say, "I think there can be no doubt that section 91 of the Judicature Act of 1873 applies to actions brought in the Passage Court of Liverpool, and this section is to the effect that the several rules of law enacted in the Act shall be in force in all courts in England. Now one of the rules in the schedule to the Judicature Act, 1875, which are substituted for those under the Judicature Act, 1873, is order 55, which provides that where any action is tried by a jury the costs shall follow the event unless upon application at the trial the judge, on good cause shown, shall otherwise order." Mellor, J., is also made to say, "I think it a necessary result of section 91 of the Judicature Act, 1873, which brings in order 55, and makes it regulate the procedure in the Passage Court." And Lush, J., is made to say, "I am of the same opinion. I think section 91 can have no other construction than that which my lord has stated. Section 1 of the Judicature Act, 1875, declares that the Act shall he construed as one with the Judicature Act, 1873, so that the rules contained in the latter Act may be taken to be referred to in section 91 of the Act of 1873. The section is not limited to the superior courts properly so called, but applies generally to all courts in England, and must therefore extend to the Passage Court." This is the point in which I presume the error exists, as it could not have been suggested in argument that the rule did not apply to the Court of Passage, and thus the High Court could not have been called upon to give judgment whether it did or did not apply, because the application of this rule 55 to the Court of Passage was known, and is admitted in the case, and it is stated in the report that "the assessor had with the consent of three judges of the High Court of Justice adapted the rules and orders of the Judicature Act, 1875," to that court. question therefore could not have been argued that the rules did not apply to that court, but merely the effect of rule 55, taken in connection with the Court of Passage Acts, and the proceedings of the assessor.

The

I think, therefore, that the question is still open as to how far the Mayor's Court is affected by the Judicature Acts and by the rules of law, or rules of court, or of practice and procedure in the Act and schedule to the Act of 1875. In the Act of 1873 there are rules of law expressed as such, and these are, by the 91st section of the Act, applied to inferior courts. It says: The several rules of law enacted and declared by this Act shall be in force and receive effect in all courts whatsoever in England so far as the matters to which such rules relate shall be respectively cognizable by such courts." These rules of law are to be found specified in sections 24 and 25. Independently of these rules of law the Acts provided for the creation of other rules. These other rules are spoken of in the Acts as rules of court-rules of procedure and practice. Thus the 23rd section of the Act of 1873 says:— "The jurisdiction transferred to the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal shall be exercised ('so far as regards procedure and practice') in manner provided by this Act, or by such rules and orders of court" as may be made pursuant to this Act. Section 68 of the same Act provided that the Lord Chancellor and judges should cause to be prepared rules in this Act referred to as Rules of Court,' providing as follows" :-(1) For the sittings of the High Court and divisions. (2) The circuits. (3) Regulation of matter not expressly determined by the rules in the schedule. (4) Generally for the regulation of any matters relating to the practice and procedure of the said courts. Section 74 of the same Act gave power to alter or annul any rules of court for the time being in force, and make any new rules "for the purpose of regulating all such matters of practice and procedure in the Supreme Court." In substitution for these provisions the 16th section of the Act of 1875 enacts that the "Rules of Court in the 1st schedule to this Act shall come into operation at the commencement of this Act, and as to all matters to which they extend shall thenceforth regulate

66

the proceedings of the High Court of Justice," and in sec tion 17 there is a provision for making "Rules of Court after the commencement of the Act, and, in particular, for all or any of the following matters so far as they are not provided for by the rules in the 1st schedule of this Act; that is to say:-(1) Regulating the sittings. (2) Regulating the pleading, practice, and procedure of the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal. (3) Generally for regulating any matter relating to the practice and procedure of the said courts. And power is given by this section to alter and amend, in substitution of the 74th section of the Act of 1873.

These are the only provisions relative to rules other than rules of law mentioned in sections 24 and 25—that is, rules of practice and procedure. It will be observed that in the Acts themselves they are called Rules of Court to regulate the practice, and in the authority to create other rules they are still termed "Rules of Court to regulate the proceedings and practice." Thus, the 68th section of the Act of 1873 says that the Lord Chancellor, &c., shall cause to be "prepared rules in this Act referred to as Rules of Court," and the rules so to be prepared related to the practice and procedure of the said High Court. This was repealed, but it showed the intention of the framers of the Act. The 16th and 17th sections of the Act of 1875 substitute other rules for those of the Act of 1873. Section 16 says, "The Rules of Court" in the 1st schedule shall come into operation, and, as to all matters to which they extend, shall thenceforth "regulate the proceedings of the High Court of Justice," and the schedule is headed "Rules of Court." Section 17 gives power to make other rules still to regulate the proceedings, &c.

All the rules in the schedule appear to be simply rules of practice, and relate not to courts in general, but simply to the High Court of Justice. There does not appear to be one rule of law in them. The 69th section of the Act of 1873 made the rules in the schedule to that Act part of the Act, but that section is repealed; the Act of 1875 simply saying that the rules in the schedule shall come into operation at the commencement of the Act, and giving authority to prepare others in pursuance of the Act. Thus the title and effect of these rules are separate and distinct from the rules of law, and it may be said that there is not one rule of practice in the Act, or one rule of law properly so-called in the schedule; nor is there any authority in any part of the Acts for the Lord Chancellor, &c., to prepare rules other than the "rules of practice and procedure." I consider that section 16 of the Act of 1875 is very clear. It declares that the rules of court in the schedule, "regulating the proceedings of the High Court of Justice," shall come into operation with the Act. The schedule is headed "Rules of Court," and those rules throughout refer to the practice of the High Court. Rule 55 is in the schedule, and I cannot think that those rules can be termed rules of law applicable to all courts, superior as well as inferior.

It therefore appears to me that the only rules of law applied to inferior courts are the rules in sections 24 and 25, and that all the other rules are mere rules of practice separate and distinct from the rules of law, and are not applied or applicable by the Act to any inferior court. It has been usual, when any provisions of an Act of Parliament relating to the superior tribunals has been sought to be applied to an inferior court, to obtain an order of the Queen in Council for such application; this the Queen is authorized to grant by various Acts of Parliament-e.g., under the Common Law Procedure Acts, 1852, section 228; 1854, section 105; 1860, Bection 44. The orders thus made have set out what provisions shall be applied, and how they are to be executed. The same authority is also given by the Mayor's Court Procedure Act, and it appears that such provisions and rules may also be applied to the Court of Passage by the Liverpool Court of Passage Act, 1853 (16 Vict. c. 21), ss. 52, 53, with the assent of a certain number of the judges now of the High Court of Justice, and thus the assessor of that court, under section 52, had, with the consent of three judges of the High Court of Justice, adapted the rules and orders of the Judicature Acts. This, it is presumed, is upon the supposition that the rules so applied are rules of practice or procedure in the High Court only, or, whatever they may be, that they are not by the Judicature Acts applied to all inferior courts including the Court of Passage. In this view the rules as applied by the said judges' order are modified, and that order directs in

what manner they shall be carried out. For example, No. 6 says the assessor or judge, registrar, deputy registrar, serjeant-at-mace, and other officers shall, mutatis mutandis, perform the duties, &c. This proceeding appears to me to be perfectly clear, supposing that the rules are rules of procedure applicable to the High Court of Justice only; but if the rules in the schedule are "rules of law" and are applied by the Act itself to all inferior courts, then there appears to have been no reason for the order of the judges, for the rules were already applied. If this were so it would lead to a confusion which could not have been contemplated by the Legislature, for every rule is a rule applied to and directing the practice of the High Court of Justice, and, consequently, all inferior courts would become diminutive High Courts of Justice. If rule 55, which is only one of a series, applies to all inferior courts, the whole must be so applied, and inasmuch as there is no qualification taken without any qualification and restriction, and literally as to how they are to be applied, the application must be as they are declared by the Act, or any schedule or rules from time to time.

If the rules in the schedule are applicable to the inferior courts, I must confess I do not see in what manner they are to be carried out in the Mayor's Court, for I do not see any way in which the proceedings of that court are to be conducted under them. This will equally apply to the Passage Court, for the order made by the judges would be ultrà vires, for it modifies or varies an Act of Parliament. This would also apply to the Queen in Council. The provisions of an Act of Parliament relating only to the High Court may be made applicable to an inferior court under the powers already mentioned, and the order made in pursuance would direct how these provisions should be carried out, having regard to the jurisdiction and character of such inferior court; but if the Act of Parliament at once itself applies by these rules to inferior courts, it appears to me that no power exists in any person or body to alter or vary the rules so as to make them applicable to any inferior court, always supposing that no power exists in the Act for that purpose.

Again, if order 55 is a rule of law, it might have an effect somewhat startling as to the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals. Order 11 says that service out of the jurisdiction of a writ of summons may be allowed when the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the action is land, or stock, or other property situate within the jurisdiction, or where relief is sought for breach of contract made within the jurisdiction, or a breach within the jurisdiction of a contract made anywhere. This, if it applies to an inferior court, may confer a jurisdiction beyond its local limits, if all words in an Act of Parliament are considered to have some meaning or force. There is no mention of the High Court in the rule; it is general. Therefore, this rule, referring to an inferior court, might be construed as acknowledging or granting such a jurisdiction to an inferior court, and it is quite clear that an inferior court, say the Mayor's Court, may have cognizance of the "matter" of law to which such rules relate. Again, if these rules are rules of law applied to all courts in England, then they must apply to the county courts, and thus create a revolution in the practice of those courts so far as these rules may extend, and it is no reply to say that the county courts are courts created and having a particular procedure under special Acts of Parliament, for, according to the case of Garnet v. Bradley (25 W. R. 653, L. R. 3 H. L. 944), as these rules override and repeal contrary enactments in Acts of Parliament, and, thus, in this respect, virtually repeal the Statute of James, so they must override and repeal any provisions of Acts of Parliament which are inconsistent with the rules in the Judicature Act, a thing which I feel assured could never have been in the contemplation of the Legislature.

For these reasons it appears to me that the rules in the schedule to the Act of 1875 were not intended to apply, and do not apply to the Mayor's Court, and that the Act of James is still in existence as regards proceedings in that court.

It is stated that a writ of mandamus has issued unopposed directed to the registrar to tax the costs in this cause, and that he has returned that he has taxed them. So far he has obeyed the writ. I do not interfere with his act of taxation as he is directed by the mandamus. I simply direct that the same be reduced to one farthing. It is to be regretted that a question of such vital importance to the court should have escaped argument, and I trust that there may be found some way in which it may receive full con→

sideration, not only as to whether the rules in the schedule apply to this court, but if so how they are to be applied, and by whom they are to be carried out. I do not think that I need say one word excusing myself from any intention to act in opposition to the ruling of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, nor do I consider that I am so acting, but I believe that the question has not received full consideration; I also feel that it is of vital importance to this court, for I do not see how the practice of this court is to be carried on under the rules in the schedule to the Judicature Act, and I do not see where any authority exists to modify them so as to make them applicable.

Creditors' Claims.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOF.

BAYLIS, THOMAS, Redditch, Worcester, Needle Manufacturer. Jan 19.
Baylis v. Baylis, M.R. Cox, Evesham
DUGGAN, WILLIAM, Cardiff, Woollen Draper. Jan 31. Duggan v.
Duggan, V.C. Malins. Waldron, Cardiff
HENRY, DAVID, Bath, Merchant. Jan 15. Henry v. Malcolm, V.C.
Bacon. Braikenridge, Bartlett's bldgs, Holborn
LUER, CHARLES AUGUSTUS WILLIAM, Arundel Wharf House, Strand,
Coal Merchant. Jan 15. Tegetmier v. Manus, V.C. Bacon. Innes,
Billiter st

MATHEW, Sir GEORGE BENVENUTO BUCKLEY, Suffolk st, Pall Mall, K.C.M.G. Jan 20. De Berends v. Earle, V.C, Hall. Pym, Frederick's pl, Old Jewry

PHILLIPS, WILLIAM, Pontnewynwydd, Monmouth, Colliery Proprietor.
Jan 21. Price v. Phillips, V.C. Hall. Plews, Merthyr Tydfil
PRIDGEON, CHARLOTTE HARRIET, Oxford Cottages, Clapham. Jan 19.
Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, V.C. Malins. Brady, St. Swithin's lane
THOMPSON, WILLIAM, Underley Hall, Westmoreland, Alderman of
City of London. Jan 31. Kealis v. Hodgson, V.C. Bacon.
mont, New sq, Lincoln's inn

Beau

[Gazette, Dec. 19.]

v. Miller, V.C. Malins. Lydall, Southampton buildings, Chancery lane

CREIGHTON, ELIZABETH, Plumstead. Jan 31. Tidswell v. Cotter, V.C. Malins. Lloyd, Bloomsbury sq

DAWES, EDWARD ALLEYNE, Burgess hill, Sussex. Jan 23. Smith v. Dawes, M.R. Lopez, Bucklersbury

Jan 23.

EASTWOOD, SOLOMON, Daw Green, Dewsbury, Cowkeeper.
Eastwood v. Gledhill, M.R. Ibberson, Heckmondwike
EVANS, GRIFFITH WHITTINGTON, Welshpool, Montgomery, Tanner.
Feb 2. Beck v. Evans, V.C. Hall. Blaxland, Lincoln's inn fields
HANCOCK, GEORGE, Weston, nr Bath. Jan 31. Southcombe v. Han-
Cock, Registrar of the Bristol District Registry. Burges and Co,
Bristol

LEAKE, CHARLES, Faxfleet, York. Jan 24. Richardson v. Leake, V.C.
Malins. Leak, Kingston-upon-Hull

LONG, JOHN, Hemingborough, York, Yeoman. Jan 24, Swales v. Long, M.R. Weddal, Selby

MILIS, ALFRED OSMOND, Rangoon, Licensed Pilot. Jan 26. Mills v. Benison, V.C. Hall. Bradley, Mark lane

MORRIS, ROBERT,, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Licensed Victualler. Jan 16. Wilkinson and Co v. Morris, V.C. Hall. Macdonald, Newcastle-uponTyne

Mar 31.

SCOTT, ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, Mincing lane, Merchant.
Benecke Souchay and Co v. Scott, V.C. Hall. Stephens and Stephens
Essex st, Strand

SIMPSON, MARGARET, Whitburn, Durham. Jan 27. Williamson v.
Simpson, M.R. Kidson, Sunderland

STANNARD, WILLIAM, Ryde, Plumber. Jan 21. Capital and Counties Bank v. Stannard, District Registrar, Newport, Isle of Wight. Fardell, Ryde

WATTS, HENRY, Leicester, Innkeeper. Jan 29. Watts v. Curtis, and Parsons v. Curtis, M.R. Curtis, Leicester

WHITE, JOHN, Leeds, Leather Merchant. Jan 31. White v. White, V.C. Hall. Patience, Gracechurch st

WHITFIELD, ALLISON, Sunderland, Ship Owner. Jan 26. Whitfield v. Whitfield, M.R. Brown, Sunderland

WILDE, MARY, Moorhouse Ford, Salop. Jan 29. Wilde v. Salt, M.R. Salt, Shrewsbury

WINSLADE, CHARLES, St. Helen's, Lancashire, Builder. Jan 30. Hodgson v. Winslade, V.C. Bacon. Massey, St. Helen's

[Gazette, Dec. 26.] LAMB, NATHAN, Wilmot sq, Bethnal Green. Jan 30. Lamb v. Lamb, V.C. Hall. Love, Scott yd, Cannon st

STAFFURTH, ABRAHAM, Milverton, Leamington, Gent. Jan 27. Staffurth v. Payne, M.R. Smith, Gt James st, Bedford row TINES, BRIDGET RODD, Catherine Grove, Greenwich. Jan 21. McClean v. Vines, V.C. Hall. Oliver, Corbet ct, Gracechurch st VINES, RICHARD, Gt College st, Camden Town, Veterinary Surgeon. Jan 21. McClean v. Vines, V.C. Hall. Oliver, Corbet ct, Gracechurch st

[Gazette, Dec 30.] ALBESON, WILLIAM, Altrincham, Cheshire, Public House Manager. Feb 10. Albeson v. Street, V.C. Hall. Radford, Manchester BROADHURST, JAMES CHRISTOPHER, Campbell rd, Bow, Gent. Jan 31. Broadhurst v. Broadhurst and Morton, V.C. Bacon. Frost, Leadenhall st

LAMB, NATHAN, Wilmot sq, Bethnal Green rd. Jan 30. Lamb v. Wood, V.C. Hall. Love, Scott yd, Cannon st

[Gazette, Jan. 2.]

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 25.

LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

BAGGALY, WILLIAM, King's Norton, Worcester. Jan 31. Johnson and Birmingham

BATEMAN, SAMUEL, Burslem, Stafford, Potter. Jan 31. Tomkinson and Furnival, Burslem

BENNETT, JAMES, Dronfield, Derby, Farmer. Feb 26. Smith and Son, Sheffield

BOXALL, Sir WILLIAM, Welbeck st, Knight, R.A. Feb 17. Wilde and Co, College-hill

BRIDLE, JANE, Rumboldswhyke, Sussex. Feb 1. Arnold, Chichester BRIDLE, WILLIAM, Rumboldswbyke, Sussex, Painter. Feb 1. Arnold, Chichester

COATSWORTH, EMMA, Ribey Villa, Great Grimsby. Feb 12. Tenney and Dawber, Hull

COCK, EDMUND RAND, Alexandra rd, Southampton, Gent. Jan 20. Guscotte and Co, Essex st, Strand

Cox, EDWARD WILLIAM, Moat Mount, Hendon, Serjeant-at-Law. Feb 2. Harris and Powell, Essex st, Strand

CROSS, WILLIAM, Frating, Essex, Farmer. Feb 1. Grimwade, Hadleigh

DALLEN, ABRAHAM, Great Bookham, Surrey, Bootmaker. Jan 31. Smallpeice and Sens, Guildford

DITCHBURN, WILFRID FISHER, Liverpool, Master Mariner. Feb 25. Rae and Thompson, Liverpool

DUGDALE, ALICE, Wigton, Cumberland, Hosier. Jun 20. Carrick and Son, Wigton

FAIRBANK, JOHN, Headingley, Leeds, Cloth Manufacturer. Feb 10. Simpson and Burrell, Leeds

FERRIS, WILLIAM, Milton, Lilborne, Wilts, Gent. Jan 19. Dixon, Pewsey

FOSTER, GEORGE, Fleetwood, Lancaster, Hotel Proprietor. Jan 31. Barker, Fleetwood

FRATER, JOHN, Didsbury, nr Manchester, Gent. Feb 2. Chapman and Co, Manchester

FRICOUR, AUGUSTUS, Scarkorough, York, Gent. Jan 29. Walton and Smith, Southport

GOLDSMITH, WILLIAM, Winchalsea, Sussex, Bootmaker. Feb 6. Smith and Atkinson, Rye

HANDLEY, SAMEL, Pendleton, Manchester, Rope aad Twine Manufac turer. Jan 17. Potter and Lowe, Manchester

HARRIS, WILLIAM, Clifton, Bristol, Linen Merchant. Jan 31. Beck ingham, Bristol

HEATH, MARY ANN, Hanley, Stafford. Feb 2. Lawrence, Hanley HUNT, JOAN, Springford, Southampton, Esq. Feb 3. Gseen and Moberley, Southampton

KITCHEN, ROBERT BERTRUM, Grange rd, Bermondsey, Dyer. March 20. Wellborne and Son, Duke st, London Bridge

MAYLETT, SARAH, Clifton, Bristol. Feb 21. Perham, Bristo 1 NICHOLSON, WILLIAM, Leeds, Builder. Jan 31. Ward and Sons,

Leeds

RIDGWAY, JOSEPH, Brandfold, Kent, Esq. March 1. Fullagar and Co, Bolton-le-Moors

ROBERTS, JOHN, Thorne rd, Lambeth, Licensed Victualler. Jan 26. Slee and Co, Tooley st, Southwark

ROGERS, LOUISA, Harrogate, York. Feb 28. Wood and Co, Bradford

RUTLAND, HARRIETT, Preston, Lancaster. Jan 10. Newman and Co, Cornhill

SCHOFIELD, ROBERT, Oldham, Cotton Spinner. Feb 19. Learoyd and Co, Huddersfield

wen

Jan 10. Costeker, Dar

GUILLAMORE, the Right Hon. Viscountess ELIZA, Claverton st Feb 7. Chapman, London-wall

MILES, JOHN, Horsmonden, Kent, Farmer. Feb 1. Hinds and Son, Goudhurst

ROLLS, RICHARD EVERETT, Sunnyside, Peckham Rye, Floor Cloth Manufacturer. Jan 31. Tadman, Gray's-inn-pl, Gray's-inn SOUTHORN, PHOEBE, Allesley, Warwick. Jan 24. Minster, Coventry SUTCLIFFE, WILLIAM, Elland, York, Maltster. Feb 16. Sutcliffe, Hebden Bridge

VERRIER, JOHN HENRY, Bridge, Kent, Plumber. Jan 24. Furley, Canterbury

WARDLE, JOSHUA, Cheddleton, Stafford, Gent. Feb 12. Hacker and Allen, Leek

WATLING, ARTHUR CAPON, Brunswick sq, Esq. Feb 10. Yarde and Loader, Raymond bldgs, Gray's inn

WILCOCK, MATILDA FANNY, Murree, Punjaub, India. Feb 1. Merriman, King's Bench Walk, Temple

WILLIAMS, HUGH, Widnes, Lancaster, Contractor. Feb 20. Sharp and Kirkconnel, Warrington

[Gazette, Dec 30.]

Thursday Friday .... 6 Saturday 7 Monday Tuesday....10,

Friday 20 aturday.. 21

Bkcy apps and or apps

Appeals

Lunacy petitions will be taken every Saturday during the sitt ings.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
CHANCERY DIVISION.

MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
At the Rolls House.
Mondy.,Jan.12.. Sitting in Ct Ap.
Tuesday...13 Causes without
Wednesday 14
wits & adj sums
Thursd.....15
motions., adj.
Friday ....16
sums., & gen. pa.
Pets., sht. caus.,
adj. sums.
gen. pa.

Saturday...17

Mon., ....19 Tuesday....20 Wedsdy.....21 Thursday

..22

General paper.

and

Motns.,adj. sums. 23 & gen. pa. Pets.,sht. causes, adj. sums., and

Friday Saturday .. 24

Monday......26 Tuesday.. ....27 Wednesy....28 Thursday..29 Friday....30 Saturday ..31

Monday, Feb 2 Tuesday.... 3 Wednesday.. 4 Thursday 5

Friday...... 6

Saturday 7

....

Monday 9 Tuesday....10 Wedsdy.....11 Thrsdy....12, Friday

....

Sat.....

13

.. 14

Monday....16) Tuesday....17 Wednesday. 18 Thursday ..19, Friday ....20

Saturday ..21

gen. pa.

General paper.

M otns. adj. sum & gen. pa.

Pets, sht causes, adj. sumns, and gen. pa.

General paper.

(Mots., adj. sums., & gen. pa. Petns, sht causes. adj. sumns., and gen. pa.

General paper.

Mots., adj. sums. & gen. pa. Pets., sht. caus. adj. sums. & gen. pa.

General paper.

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.

V C. SIR JAMES BACON.
At Lincoln's-inn.
Monday, Jan.12
Tuesday..
....13
Wednesday..14)
Thurs., ....15,

In Bankruptcy.
Motns, adj. sums.
& gen. pa.

General paper.

Thursday..19

Friday....20

Saturday ..21

Motus. adj. sums. & General paper. Pets., sht. caus, & gen. pa.

Further Considerations will be taken as part of the General Paper in priority to Original Causes which have not already appeared in the Paper. 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.

Thursday ..29..Mtns. & gen. pa. Friday ....30..Pets. & Gen. pa. Sht. .31 sums. & gen. pa. caus., adj

Saturday

Monday, Feb.2)

....

3 General paper.

Tuesdy
Wednesday 4
Thurs.
Friday
Saturday 7

....

5.. Motns. & gen. pa. 6..Petns & gen. pa. Sht. caus., adj. sums. & gen. pa.

Monday.... 9

Tuesday ..10 General paper.
Wedsdy....11)

Thrsdy....12..Mtns. & gen, pa.
Friday....13.. Pets. & gen. pa.
Sht. causes, adj.
Saturday ..14
sums. & gen pa.
Monday....16)
Tuesday....17 General paper.
Wednesday..18)

Thursday..19.. Mots. & gen. pa.
Friday ....20..Ptns. & gen. pa.
(Sht. caus., adj.
Saturday ..21
sums., & gen. pa.
Further Considerations will be
taken as part of the General
Paper in priority to Original
Causes which have not already
appeared in the Paper.

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.

MR. JUSTICE FRY.
At Lincoln's-inn.

Monday, Jan.12
Tuesday....13
Wednesday. 14
Thursday.. 15
Friday ....16
Saturday ..17.
Monday....19.
Tuesday....20
Wednesday .21
Thursday..22
Friday
....23
Saturday ..24
| Monday....26
Tuesday....27
Wednesday. 28
Thursday..29
Friday ....30
Saturday ..31
Monday, Feb. 2
Tuesday. 3
Wednesday.. 4
Thursday 5
Friday 6
Saturday 7
Monday.... 9
Tuesday ..10
Wednesday. 11
Thursday..12
Friday ....13
Saturday ..14
Monday....16
Tuesday....17
Wednesday .18
Thursday ..19
Friday ....20
Saturday ..21

..

CHANCERY DIVISION.

ORDER OF COURT.

Friday, the 26th day of December, 1879. Whereas from the present state of the business before the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor Sir James Bacon, and Mr. Justice Fry, it is expedient that a portion of the causes assigned to the Master of the Rolls, and now standing for trial or hearing before his lordship, should be transferred to the Vice-Chancellor Sir James Bacon; and that the causes so to be transferred should for the purpose only of trial or hearing be transferred from the Vice-Chancellor Sir James Bacon to Mr. Justice Fry; Now I, the right honourable Hugh MacCalmont Earl Cairns, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do hereby order that the several causes set forth in the schedule hereto be accordingly transferred from the Master of the Rolls to the Vice-Chancellor Sir James Bacon, and taken as causes assigned to the Vice-Chancellor Sir James Bacon, and be marked in the cause-books accordingly. And I do further order that the same causes, when

so transferred, be for the purpose only of trial or of hearing transferred from the Vice-Chancellor Sir James Bacon to Mr. Justice Fry. And this order is to be drawn up by the registrar and set up in the several offices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.

Southall Stevens act wits 1879 S 261
Boorer ▾ Miles act wits 1879 B 38
Lloyds v Harper act wits 1879 L 59

Daniels v Beresford act wits 1879 D 420
Strelley Pearson act wits 1879 S 257

Manchester, &c., Banking Co. v Thorley act wits 1879
M 146

Crowther v. Bone act wits 1879 C 112
Shore ▾ The Colonial Trusts Corporation limd act and
motn for judgt wits 1879 S 161
McStevens ▾ Carnegie

act wits 1878 M 216 In re S. Hart, Wood v Newton act wits 1879 H 315 Union Bank of London v Ashwin act & motn for judgt, wits 1878 U 39

Rogers v Deedy act wits 1879 R 67

Met Board of Works v Hammersmith Bridge Co act witns 1879 M 137

Linney Wood act wits 1879 L 123

Attorney-Gen, Brecon, &c, Railway v L & N W Ry Co act wits 1878 B 266

Fawcett v Law act wits 1878 F 99

Stubbs ▾ Wilkinson act wits 1879 S 315
Greenough v Littler act wits 1879 G 148
The Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 v Roya
Horticultural Society act wits 1879 C 144

Rowan v Forsythe act wits 1879 R 236
Blackman v Bowchier act wits 1879 B 198
Airey v Bowes act wits 1878 A 123

In re Sanderson, Fisher v Payne act wits 1879 S 274
Willats ▾ Metropolitan Board of Works act wits 1879
W 259