been complied with, for that no notice had been given of the intention to ask for the issue of an attachment. The court (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and COTTON, LJJ.) held that the order ought to have been drawn up (as, indeed, the ViceChancellor had made it) in the terms of the notice of motion, and in accordance with the form given in the schedule to the rules, and that it must be rectified accordingly. It was then urged on behalf of the defendant that the evidence did not show that he had the means of paying the amount in question, and that the Vice-Chancellor ought to have come to a different conclusion on this point. The plaintiff's counsel contended that section 5 gave the judge of first instance a judicial discretion to decide upon the ability of the debtor to pay, and that no appeal lay from his decision. JAMES, L.J., said that, without laying down an inflexible rule that the Court of Appeal would never differ from the decision of the judge of first instance, still, as a general rule, they would not differ from his conclusion upon the evidence before him as to the debtor's ability to pay the debt. It would require an overwhelming case induce them to do so. The mischief of appeals in such cases would be enormous. The court accordingly rectified the Vice-Chancellor's order in form, and as there had been a miscarriage in drawing it up, they gave no costs of the appeal.

to

CHIEF CLERK'S CERTIFICATE-EVIDENCE--CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM-SHORTHAND WRITER'S NOTES.-In a case of Dicks v. Brooks, before the Court of Appeal on the 14th inst., a question arose as to the evidence on which the ehief clerk had based his certificate. The plaintiffs were the proprietors of a weekly periodical. The defendants were the proprietors of the copyright of an engraving of a picture. The plaintiff's had published in one of the numbers of their periodical a pattern for wool-work, which embodied the principal incident in the picture. The defendant issued a circular containing a warning against the sale of any copy of the subject of the picture without their stamp, and stating that all unstamped copies were unlawful imitations. The plaintiffs alleged that the publication of this circular was a libel on their pattern, which they said was not an imitation of any picture the copyright of which belonged to the defendants, and they claimed an injunction to restrain the publication of the circular, and damages for slander of

title. The defendants delivered a statement of defence and counter-claim, by which they asserted their title to the engraving, and alleged that the plaintiffs had unlawfully copied it. And they claimed an injunction to restrain the publication by the plaintiffs, and the penalty of 5s. for every copy sold by the plaintiffs, under the Act, 8 Geo. 2, c. 13, which provides that half the penalty shall go to the Crown and half to the owner of the pirated engraving. Bacon, V.C., held that the plaintiffs had been guilty of piracy, and dismissed the action with costs. And on the counter-claim, he held that the defendants were entitled to the injunction which they claimed, and that the plaintiff's must pay the penalty on every copy which they had sold of their pattern, referring it to chambers to ascertain the number of copies which had been sold. The chief clerk by his certificate found that 25,000 copies had been sold, and stated that his finding was based upon the evidence taken at the trial. The plaintiffs applied to the Vice-Chancellor to vary the certificate, and the application being refused by him, was renewed in the Court of Appeal. Two objections were taken (1) that the chief clerk had read the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence taken at the trial, there being no affidavit of their accuracy; (2) that the evidence upon which he had relied had been taken upon the trial of the claim, before the counter-claim had been opened. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and COTTON, L.JJ.) ultimately ordered the hearing of the appeal to stand over until the hearing of an appeal which the plaintiff's had presented from the judgment at the trial. But they expressed an opinion that the chief clerk was justified in making use of the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence. JAMES, L.J., also said that the strong inclination of his opinion was that in such a case the evidence given on the claim was not evidence on the counter-claim, which was not for anything in the nature of a set-off or a cross-demand, but was an action by the defendants, on behalf of the Crown and themselves, to recover a statutory penalty. BAGGALLAY and COTTON, L.JJ., however, declined to express any opinion at present on the second point.

TIME FOR APPEALING-INTERLOCUTORY ORDER-SUMMONS UNDER VENDOR AND PURCHASER ACT, 1874-ORD. 58, RR. 9, 15.-In a case. of In re Blyth, before the Court of Appeal on the 13th inst., the appeal was brought from an order made upon a summons under the Vendor and Pur. chaser Act. The notice of appeal had not been given within twenty-one days, and it was objected that the appeal was consequently too late. On the other side it was urged that the order was not interlocatory, but final. The court (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and COTTON, L.JJ.) held that the order having been made in a "matter not being an action," was governed by rule 8, and that consequently the appeal ought to have been brought within twenty-one days, and was therefore too late.

ATTACHMENT-DEFAULT BY TRUSTEE-INABILITY TO PAY -DEBTORS ACT, 1869, s. 4-DEBTORS ACT, 1878, s. 1.—In a case of Macquoid v. Robson, before the Court of Appeal on the 12th inst., an application was made for an order to attach a trustee who had failed to obey an order of the court for the payment of trust-money which he had retained in his hands. It was alleged that the trustee had not the means of paying the money, and it was argued that the power of imprisonment reserved by section 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869, in the case of debts of this nature was not intended to be used by way of punishment, but merely for the purpose of compelling payment of the debt, and that no order of attachment ought to be made when it was shown that the debtor was unable to pay the debt. JESSEL, M.R., took occasion to repeat what he said, when sitting in the Rolls Court, in the case of Mains v. Ingram (ante, p. 144). He said that he dissented Hammond (L. R. 10 Ch. D. 285), that the object of the Act from the view expressed by Bacon, V.C., in Barrett v. was not vindictive, and that the power of committal was not intended as a punishment. On the contrary, he was of opinion that the whole object of retaining the power of imprisonment in such cases was punishment; and the court (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and COTTON, L.JJ.) the defaulting trustee the discretion given by the Act of held that there was no ground for exercising in favour of 1878, and made the order for his attachment.

NON-APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT-PRACTICE - FILING OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM-PERSONAL SERVICE OF CLAIM WITH WRIT-RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 19, R. 6; ORD. 21, R. 1 (b). In a case of Renshaw v. Renshaw, before the Master of the Rolls on the 18th inst., a judgment was taken on the 13th of December against a defendant who had not appeared. It appeared that he had been served personally with the statement of claim with the amended writ, but that, owing to a mistake, the statement of claim had not been filed pursuant to ord. 19, r. 6. On an objection to draw up the order an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff that the order might be drawn up, notwithstanding that the statement of claim had not been filed. It was argued that inasmuch as the statement of claim had been delivered personally to the defendant, under ord. 21, r. 1 (b), it was not necessary subsequently to file the same; and reliance was placed upon a case of Whitaker v. Thurston (Weekly Notes, 1876, s. 232), where it was held that a summons personally served need not be filed, a summons being within ord. 19, г. 6. JESSEL, M. R., was of opinion that it was not necessary to file the claim when it had been personally served, and directed the order to be drawn up without the filing.

PRACTICE COSTS ADMINISTRATION ACTION-PARTIES APPEARING IN CHAMBERS BY THE SOLICITOR-SUBSEQUENT SEPARATE APPEARANCE IN COURT CONSOLIDATED ORD. 40, R. 28-RULES OF COURT (COSTS), 1875, R. 21.-In a case of Re Steggles (deceased), Steggles v. Haslam, before the Master of the Rolls on the 13th inst., a question arose on further consideration whether the beneficiaries were entitled to separate costs of their appearance in court, or whether only those beneficiaries were entitled to appear and have their costs who had represented the others in chambers. It was contended, on the authority of Sharp v. Lush (L. R. 10 Ch. D. 648), that the separate

appearance in court could not be allowed. JESSEL, M.R., said that the general order did not refer to the appearance in court; and, therefore, that such costs were in his discretion. Where there was any bona fide question to be argued he should allow such costs, but he certainly would not permit any such appearance merely for the purpose of making costs. In the present case he thought the appearance was bona fide, and allowed the costs.

ASSURANCE COMPANY-POLICY-PAYMENT TO DEPOSITEE ABSENCE OF LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE INTEREST. In a case of Webster v. British Empire Assurance Company, before the Master of the Rolls on the 14th inst., a question arose whether an assurance company were liable to pay interest on a policy where the policy-holder could not give a discharge, and where the company had kept the money at call. The policy had been deposited with one William Brown, but no written assignment had been taken. On the death of the life assured, W. Brown duly proved his birth and death, and thereupon, according to the terms of the policy, the money became payable. The office declined to pay except to, or with the concurrence of, the legal personal representative of the person assured, and as he had died insolvent, his will had not been proved. The above action had been commenced by W. Brown's executors, on the authority of Crossley v. City of Glasgow Assurance Society (L. R. 4 Ch. D. 421), asking for payment of the policy moneys in the absence of the legal personal representative of the person assured, and for interest from March, 1875, when the money had become payable. The secretary of the company filed an affidavit, in which he stated that the company had been willing to pay over the money, but could not get a discharge; that they had kept the money at call, expecting the appointment of a legal personal representative, and that they had not made any interest or profit with the money. On this it was contended they

ought not to pay interest. JESSEL, M.R., said it would be monstrous to allow the company to retain the money, and yet not pay interest. They could have paid the money into court, and they did not even allege that they had placed it to a separate account. They must pay interest at four per cent. from March, 1875. As the action had been caused by the negligence of the parties, the company would have their costs as between solicitor and client, and would deduct the costs from the amount payable under the policy.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1855, s. 96MEANING OF WORD "VEST "-STREET-DISUSER.-In a case of Rolls v. Vestry of St. George, before the Master of the Rolls on the 13th inst., a question was raised as to the meaning of the word "vest" in the 96th section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855. By that section "a vestry or district board shall, within their parish and district, execute the office of and be surveyor of highways, and all streets being highways, and the pavements, stones, and other materials thereof shall vest in, and be under the management and control of, the vestry or district board in which such highways are situated." By the 154th section, the vestry or district have power "to sell and dispose of any property whatever vested in them under the Act, which it may appear to them may be properly sold or disposed of." Certain streets, of which the plaintiff was tenant for life, had been stopped up and disused, new streets having been made in their places. The old streets had been streets within the above Act, and the plaintiff desired to convert the land forming the old streets to his own use. The vestry contended that the effect of the above section was to vest the land in them, so as to prevent the owner from dealing with the same, except on a repurchase and conveyance from the vestry. Reference was made to a decision on a similar section of the Public Health Act, 1875, of Coverdale v. Charlton (L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 104), where the Appeal Court had held that the effect of the section was to vest the land to a certain depth in the local board, but it was attempted to distinguish that case from the present. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that the case was really within the case of Coverdale v. Charlton, and therefore he should pronounce no opinion himself on the case. The decision in Coverdale v. Charlton was this, that a property in the street to a certain depth, though the judges did not define what depth, vested in the local board, and that

the surface and subsoil to a certain extent passed to the board. If, therefore, the property in the street were once vested in the local board, he did not see how it could be taken away again, even if the street became disused. There was nothing in the Act to take away the property given to the vestry, and, in fact, the 154th section distinctly showed they had a right of sale, and therefore of dealing with the land. He should therefore make a declaration that the plaintiff was not entitled to convert to his own use any part of the streets ordered to be stopped up.

WILL-DIRECTION TO SETTLE REAL ESTATE-POWER OF SALE AND EXCHANGE.-In a case of Wise v. Piper, before Fry, J., on the 13th inst., a question arose as to the validity of a power of sale in a marriage settlement which had been executed in accordance with directions contained in the will of the wife's father. The action was brought by a vendor for the specific performance of an agreement for the purchase of real estate. The vendor's title was derived through a person to whom the property had been sold under the power of sale, and the purchaser objected that the insertion of the power in the settlement was not authorized by the will of the testator so far as regarded an undivided moiety of the settled property. The testator by his will, made in 1810, had given the remainder of his property to his trustees, on trust for all his children living at his death, and had directed that his daughters' shares should be so settled that, if they married, one-half of their fortune should be settled on them and their children, exclusive of their husbands. He died in 1820, leaving an only child, a She was then an infant. daughter, living at his death. Soon after the testator's death his trustees and executors instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery for the administration of his estate and the execution of the trusts of his will. In 1824, the daughter, who was still under age, married with the sanction of the court, articles for the settlement of her fortune being previously executed with the approbation of the master. By these articles it was agreed that one moiety of the testator's devised real estates should, when the wife should attain twentyone, be conveyed to trustees upon trusts in accordance with the directions contained in the will, and that the other moiety should be conveyed to the trustees upon certain other trusts. And it was agreed that in the settlement to be executed there should be contained a power for the trustees, at the request, during their joint lives, of the husband and wife, to sell or exchange all or any part of the settled estates; "but as to the said moiety first hereinafter settled, so far only as the same moiety may be lawfully or equitably sold or exchanged in reference to the trusts affecting the same by virtue of these presents and of, the will of the testator." A conveyance of the devised estates to the trustees was made in 1827 in accordance with the articles. In 1874 the trustees of the settlement, professing to act in exercise of the power of sale, and at the request of the husband and wife, conveyed a part of the settled estates to a predecessor in title of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff afterwards agreed to sell the part so acquired to the defendant. The validity of the plaintiff's title depended upon the validity of the power of sale in reference to a moiety of the property. FRY, J., held, upon the authority of Peake v. Penlington (2 V. & B. 311) and Turner v. Sargent (17 Beav. 515), that the power of sale and exchange was a usual and proper power to insert in a marriage settlement, and that its insertion was authorized by the testator's direction to settle his daughter's shares, and he held that the effect of the provision (above quoted from the settlement) was that, if the power of sale could be lawfully inserted in regard to the moiety first settled, it was to stand as to that moiety. His lordship therefore held that the will justified the insertion of the power, and that it had been properly inserted. The plaintiff had therefore shown a good title, and there must be judgment for the specific performance of the agreement,

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-CONTRACT FOR SALE OF REAL ESTATE STATUTE OF FRAUDS. In a case of Mundy v. Asprey, before Fry, J., on the 14th inst., the action was brought by a vendor for the specific performance of an agreement for the purchase of land. The agreement was originally a parol one. A conveyance was prepared by the purchaser's solicitors, and the ingrossment was, on the 10th

of April, sent by them to the vendor's solicitors, together with a letter signed by them. The ingrossment contained a recital of an agreement between the vendor and the purchaser for the purchase of the property. On the 16th of April the vendor executed the ingrossment, and after this another letter was written by the purchaser's solicitors, stating his readiness to complete the purchase. Subsequently the purchaser repudiated the agreement, and by his statement of defence he pleaded the statute. On behalf of the vendor it was urged that the recital in the ingrossment of an agreement to purchase, coupled with the letters signed by the purchaser's solicitors as his agents, constituted a memorandum in writing of the agreement sufficient to satisfy the statute. Fry, J., however, held that there was no sufficient memorandum, and dismissed the action.

Obituary.

MR. SERJEANT PARRY.

Mr. Serjeant John Humffreys Parry, died at his residence, 66, Holland-park, Kensington, on the 10th inst., from congestion of the lungs. He was the son of the late John Humffreys Parry, barrister, author of several works on Welsh literature, and he was born in 1816. He was educated at the London Philological School, and was for a short time in a merchant's office in the City. He was afterwards engaged in the literary department of the British Musum, and was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1843. He joined the Home Circuit, and soon obtained an extensive criminal business, becoming one of the leaders at the Central Criminal Court and Middlesex Sessions. In 1856 he became a serjeant-at-law, being appointed at the same time as Mr. Serjeant Ballantine. His advancement was extremely beneficial to him, for while continuing to be specially retained in large criminal cases he gradually acquired a lead at Nisi Prius, both on circuit and in London, and in 1864 he received a patent of precedence. He was a most successful advocate, being gifted with a commanding presence, a clear voice and a manner impressive but unaffected. He never failed to exercise great weight with a jury. He was largely engaged in compensation cases, and frequently appeared as leading counsel for the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company. He had also held briefs in many important and interesting cases. was junior counsel for the prisoner, Manning, in the Bermondsey murder case in 1849; leading counsel for the defence of Muller for the murder of Mr. Briggs; and he was also retained in the Overend and Gurney prosecution. He was associated with the present Mr. Justice Hawkins in the conduct of the Tichborne prosecution in 1873-4, and he was one of the counsel in the Bravo inquest. He was also leading counsel for the defendant in the recent protracted lunacy case of Nowell v. Williams. His disposition was most amiable and genial, and he was greatly esteemed by all the members of the bar. He unsuccessfully contested the city of Norwich in the Liberal interest in 1847, and Finsbury in 1857. Mr. Serjeant Parry was elected a bencher of the Middle Temple soon after the dissolution of Serjeant'sinn. He was twice married. His second wife predeceased him by only a few hours.

MR. HENRY GARTSIDE.

He

Mr. Henry Gartside, solicitor, town clerk of Ashton-underLyne, died suddenly on the 8th inst. Mr. Gartside was admitted a solicitor in 1838, and had ever since practised at Ashton. He conducted the legal proceedings for obtaining a charter of incorporation for the borough, and in 1847 was elected the first town clerk. He was also for several years clerk to the borough magistrates jointly with Mr. Henry Hall, but in 1862 he resigned both offices. He was, however, re-elected town clerk in 1874, and retained that office unti) his death. He was a perpetual commissioner for Lancashire and Cheshire, clerk and solicitor to the Ashton and Dukinfield Bridge Company, and solicitor to the Ashton-underLyne, Staley bridge, and Dukinfield Waterworks Company. He was married to his cousin, a daughter of the late Captain Gartside. Mr. Gartside was a man of very liberal and charitable disposition. Christ Church, Denshaw, was built and endowed at the sole cost of himself and his wife.

Appointments, Etc.

Mr. JAMES MARSHALL, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast Colony, has been appointed Chief Justice of the Gold Coast Colony, in succession to Mr. Philip Anstie Smith, deceased. The new Chief Justice was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Hilary Term, 1868. He was appointed chief magistrate for the Gold Coast in 1873, and puisne judge of the Supreme Court in 1876.

Mr. THOMAS JAMES NEWMAN, solicitor, of Barnsley, has been elected Clerk to the Trustees of Hemsworth Hospital, in succession to his father, the late Mr. Edward Newman. Mr. T. J. Newman was admitted a solicitor in 1855.

Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, Legal Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has been created a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Sir Julian Pauncefote is the third son of Mr. Robert Pauncefote, of Preston Court, Gloucestershire, and was born in 1828. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1852, and formerly practised on the Oxford Circuit. He was private secretary to the late Sir William Molesworth, when Colonial Secretary, and he was appointed Attorney-General of Hong-Kong in 1865. He became Chief Justice of the Leeward Islands in 1873, and was soon afterwards knighted. He was an Assistant Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1874 till 1876, when he was appointed Legal Assistant Under-Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. ERNEST ALGERNON SPARKS, barrister, has been appointed Assistant Director of Prosecutions for England and Wales. Mr. Sparks was called to the bar of the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1863, and has practised on the Midland Circuit, and at the Lincolshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Birmingham Sessions.

Mr. FRANCIS Caulfield Wade, solicitor, of Kidsgrove, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. JOHN WEBSTER, solicitor, of Whitehaven, has been elected Coroner for the Egremont District of the County of Cumberland. Mr. Webster was admitted a solicitor in 1854, and is clerk to the county magistrates for the Bootle Division.

MR. JAMES EDWARD WRIGHT, solicitor (of the firm of Wright & Son), of Bacup, Rawtenstall, and Haslingden, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. OSMOND ARTHUR WYATT, barrister, has been appointed by the Duke of Beaufort, Lord Lieutenant of Monmouthshire, to be Clerk of the Peace for that county, ia succession to the late Mr. Charles Burton Fox, of Newport. Mr. Wyatt was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in shire, and agent for the Duke of Beaufort's estates in that Michaelmas Term, 1837. He is a magistrate for Monmouth

county.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIP.

JOHN FOSTER JOHNSON and JOE ARTHUR ROBINSON, solicitors, Huddersfield (Robinson & Johnson). December 31. (Gazette, January 9.)

JOSEPH SEWELL, GEORGE FREDERICK NEWMARCH, and EDWARD CLARE SEWELL, solicitors, Cirencester_(Sewell, Newmarch, & Sewell). (So far as regards George Frederick Newmarch; business will in future be carried on by Joseph Sewell and Edward Clare Sewell, under the firm of Sewell & Son.) December 31. (Gazette, January 9.)

CHARLES ALFRED SWINBURNE, and HENRY WILLIAM PARKER, solicitors, 28, Bedford-row, London (Swinburne & Parker), and 87, Fountain-street, Mauchester (Swinburne, Parker, & Company). December 31. (Gazette, January 13.)

Several of the clerks engaged at judges' chambers having been withdrawn for circuit duties, great inconvenience has been caused to the public by the general dispatch of business there being delayed by reason of the insufficient number of clerks remaining to do the work. It is stated that an application for the appointment of temporaay assistants has been made to the judge sitting at chambers, who promised. that the matter should receive his early attention.

Equity, and real and personal property law.-J. J. Brown, of the Middle Temple, a prize of £70; and Charles Valentine Hickie, of the Middle Temple, a prize of £30.

HILARY EXAMINATION, 1880.

GENERAL EXAMINATION of STUDENTS of the INNS of COURT, held at Lincoln's-inn Hall, on the 29th, 30th, and 31st of December, 1879, and 1st, 2nd, and 3rd of January, 1880.

The Council of Legal Education have awarded to William Percy Pain, of the Inner Temple, and William Edward Johnson, of the Middle Temple, studentships in jurisprudence and Roman law of one hundred guineas, to continue for a period of two years; and to Simon John Fraser Macleod, of the Middle Temple, and Percy Ferdinand Wheeler, of Lincoln's-inn, studentships in jurisprudence and Roman law, of one hundred guineas, for one year.

The Council have also awarded to the following students certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination: --Frederic Michael Abrahams, Charles Comber Arnold, James Kenyon Bourne, William Stewart Brancker, Robert Berkeley Butt, Arthur William Montgomery Campbell, Herbert Cavan-Irving, William Clifford, William Henry Cross, Charles Robert Southwell Dimsdale, Frank Joseph Fisher, Edgar Cæsar Foà, Robert Arthur Germaine, Francis Hugh Irvine, Charles Hyndman Jones, Sir Kenneth Hagar Kemp, James Lumb, Ralph Stavely McKerrell, Keith Maitland, Orlando Bridgman Martyn, George Mason, William Bunce Milton, Reginald Edwin Morris, Richard Nevill, Charles Fletcher D'Anyers Orred, Edward Robert Portal, Arthur Gustavus Sieveking, Robert Henville Simonds, Hans Mark Hamill Stewart, Archibald William Stirling, Graham Tahourdin, Allen Cottrell Travis, Hon. Edward Reginald Clement Villiers, and Alexander Dundas Ogilvy Wedderburn, of the Inner Temple; Edward Bushnell Chambers, Alexander Colgan, Dinsha Danjishai Davar, John Edwin Hewick, Sayyid Nurul Huda, George Victor De K. Vern, Teruhiko Okamura, James Pickup, Charles Augustin Prideaux, Ernest William Radford, John Francis Scully, Sud Sharfudden, Frank Davis Thomas, Alfred Aspinall

Tobin, George Frederick Vernon, and James Wilson, of the Middle Temple; Herbert Mainwaring Baily, Andrew Rae Banks, Harold De Vaux Brougham, Emile Henri Cannot, Arthur Capel, Frederic John Church, Harry Claude Edmonds, Howard Douglas Leonard Galton, Oswald Henry Hardy, John Arthur Dakeyne Heaton, Francis William Henstock, Herbert Harrison Kettlewell, Louis Perrin, Louis Edward Raphael, James Louis Somers Roosmale Cocq, Edgar Rossiter Simpson, and Arthur John Wright, of Lincoln's-inn; James Cranstoun, Hugh William Elcum, and Thomas Trevor White, of Gray's-inn, Esqs.

The following students passed a satisfactory examination in Roman law;-James Edward Aldous, Henry Frederick Amedroz, Philip Arthur Ashworth, William Lehman Ashmead Bartlett, Robert John Bealey, Archibald_Bence Bence-Jones, Robert Augustus Bennett, Herbert Francis Blaine, Henry Jacob Canekeratne, Edward Palmer Chapman, William Francis Clerke, Walter Baker Clode, Churchill William Coster, William Fielden Craies, Cecil Fane de Salis, Frederick Henry de Vos, Ernest Crawshaw Elgood, Charles Henry Evil, Henry Archibald Forman, Tetley Gant, Herbert Wilson Greene, William Hiddingh, Edward Windsor Hussey, Colin Jamieson, Robert Malcolm Napier Kerr, John Henry Graham Lang, John Grant Lawson, Arthur Brooke Lloyd, Charles Patrick Dalrymple Maclagan, Arthur Herbert Pearson, William Radcliffe, John Ramsey Reid, William Snowdon Robson, Shirley Harris Salt, William Philip Schreiner, Kounr Shivanath Sinha, Hugh Arundell Trevanion, Sayyed Waris-Ali, and Thomas Howard Wright, of the Inner Temple; John Brainerd Capper, Philip Henry Clifford, Robert W. Clifton, Alfred Crooke, Alexander Cumming, Charles John Assheton Duke, George Charles Frames, R. T. Hobart, William Mitchell, Charles Henry L. Neish, Thomas Morgan Phillips, Thomas William Phillips, Hume C. Pinsent, John O'Connor Power, Martin Luther Ronce, Robert Roy, Daniel Ward, and Bernhard Ringrose Wise, of the Middle Temple; Francis Anderton, Walter Mew Barnes, William Craddock Bolland, Abraham Crompton, Francis Gaskell, Charles Vernon Peacock Keene, Walter Norman Powys, Robert Arthur Berthon Preston, James McMullen Rigg, John Auchmedden Baird

Amedroz, Henry Frederick.-Private study.
Anderton, Francis Ince, M.A.-Lincoln's Inn.
Bowen, Henry Storer, B.A.-Lincoln's Inn.
Chaster, Albert William.-Private study.
Hart, Isaac John.-Private study.
Jones, Alfred Hawkins.-Private study.
Jones, Joseph Birdsall.-Private study.
Morris, Reginald Burnet.-Trinity College, Cambridge.
Norman, Arthur William.-Private study.
Orme, Eliza.-Private study.

Piper, John Edwin.-King's College and private study.
Schreiner, William Philip.-Downing College, Cambridge.
Stable, Daniel Wintringham.-Private study.
Watson, David Jouffroy.-Private study.

Second Division.

Avery, Arthur Robinson.-Private study and tuition. Clarke, Edmund Wearne.-Univ. Edinb. and private study and tuition.

Duncan, James Archibald.-Trinity College, Cambridge. Evans, John Overend.-Private study.

Fraser, Arthur.-Private tuition.

Greig, James William, B. A.-University College.
Gupta, Matilal.-University College.
Gurney, Walter Gerald.-Private study.
Lawrence, Arthur Moss.-University College.
Rutherford, John.-Private study.

Spence, Thomas Edward Joseph.-Private study and

The London Gazette for the 9th inst. contains the following declaration between Great Britain and Portugal for the protec tion of trade-marks, signed at London, January 6, 1880:-"The Government of her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Government of his Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, with a view to the reciprocal protection of trade-marks and tradelabels, as well as industrial designs and patterns in the two countries, have agreed as follows:-The subjects of each of the contracting parties shall have, in the dominions and possessions of the other, the same rights as belong to native subjects, or as are now granted, or may bereafter be granted to the subjects of the most favoured nation, in everything relating to property in trade-marks and trade-labels, as well as in industrial designs and patterns. It is understood that any person who desires to obtain the aforesaid protection must fulfil the formalities required by the laws of the respective countries."

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT.

In a circular respecting the above Act addressed to magistrates, the Home Secretary says:" It is not intended that the new system shall supplant, but only supplement, the system at present in use. In the great majority of cases there will be no need for the interference ' of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Should he, in any case which may be brought in any way to his notice, think that the prosecution should be taken up by