the second edition, by inserting precedents of bills of costs on winding up a company. They have also added precedents of bills of costs in proceedings before the Privy Council, and on passing residuary and succession accounts. The work is now very complete and will probably take its place as a necessary part of the solicitors' library. General Correspondence. TO CORRESPONDENTS.-All letters intended for publication in the "Solicitors' Journal" must be authenticated by the name of the writer. The Editor cannot undertake to return MSS. forwarded to him. CONVEYANCING MONOPOLY. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-Referring to the editorial remarks in your issue of the 25th ult. on the subject of the conveyancing monopoly insisted on by the Corporation of London and the city companies, the following letter, which is recorded in the transactions of the Newcastle-uponTyne and Gateshead Law Society, may be of interest to those by whom the grievance alluded to is felt : "Town Clerk's Office, Newcastle. "November 13, 1833. "To the Secretaries of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Law Societies. "Dear Sirs,-Will you have the kindness to communicate to the profession that I have obtained the consent of the Common Council to omit in all future renewals of leases the clause which confines the preparation of assignments to the Town Clerk, and that with respect to the existing leases, I forego the benefit of that clause in favour of my professional brethren. THE COMMON LAW CAUSE LISTS. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-Permit me to thank you for the extremely kind terms in which you speak of my pamphlet on the Cause Lists. Your article puts the main part of my argument into a clearer and more concise form than I was able to accomplish. Your criticisms are plainly fair, well considered, and forcible, and without expressing any opinion as to how far they should prevail, I will not fail to call the attention of my official superior, Lord Coleridge, to them. I shall do so in accordance with my sole object in writing the pamphlet, which was that of submitting to the authorities and the legal profession any points in the subject of the lists which seemed to be material, with the view of supplying such aid as my experience as Associate enabled me to offer towards the final establishment, with general acceptance, of a proper system. T. W. ERLE. Common Pleas Division, Westminster Hall, Nov. 6. THE BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1878. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-Has the point ever been raised as to whether an assignment of part of a piece of leasehold land, subject to a proportionate part of the rent reserved in the lease, such assignment containing the usual cross powers of distress for securing payment of the rent, requires to be registered under section 6 of this Act? The power would seem to be given by one person to another person by way of security for a " contingent debt." A SUBSCRIBER. [No doubt, but has not our correspondent overlooked the subsequent words of the section, AND whereby any rent is received or made payable as a mode of providing for the payment of interest on such debt or advance"? These words are inapplicable to the case he mentions.ED. S.J.] DIGEST OF LAW. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-The subject of this letter has frequently occupied your columns, and was submitted to the consideration of a Royal Commission in 1866. That commission was appointed "to inquire into the expediency of a digest of law, and the best means of accomplishing that object, and of otherwise exhibiting in a compendious and accessible form the law as embodied in judicial decisions." In their first report (May 13, 1867) the commissioners, after referring to the three great heads of the common law, the statute law, and "the law embodied in, and to a great extent created by, judicial decisions and dicta," and pointing out the evils arising "from the extent and variety of the materials from which the existing law has to be ascertained," say that "a digest, correctly framed, and revised from time to time, would go far to remedy" those evils, and they proceed :"For a digest (in the sense in which we understand the term to be used in your Majesty's Commission, and in which we use it in this report) would be a condensed summary of the law as it exists, arranged in systematic order, under apprc. priate titles and sub-divisions, and divided into distinct articles or propositions, which would be supported by references to the sources of law whence they were severally derived, and might be illustrated by citations of the principal instances in which the rules stated had been discussed or applied." They then answer the first branch of the inquiry committed to them by reporting their opinion that a digest of law is expedient. As to the second branch of their inquiry, the commissioners say:-" We do not desire to conceal that the task of forming such a digest as we contemplate would necessarily require a considerable expenditure of time and money, though we are strongly of opinion that the benefits that would result from it would amply compensate for any such expenditure. "We think it clear that a work of this nature (regard being had especially to the importance of its carrying with it the greatest weight) could not be accomplished by private enterprize, and that it must be executed by public authority, and at the national expense. "With respect to the means of accomplishing it, we have considered various plans. Any plan must, we think, involve the appointment of a commission or body for executing or superintending the execution of the work." They "recommend that a portion of the digest, sufficient in extent to be a fair specimen of the whole, should be in the first instance prepared, before your Majesty's Government is committed to an expenditure which will be considerable, and which, when once begun, must continue for several years, if it is to be at all efficacious." The commissioners continue:-"We are not authorized by the terms of your Majesty's Commission to undertake the execution or direction of such a work, but we are of opinion that it might be conveniently executed under our superintendence." They further say :-"In the progress of the work.. difficulties, not now foreseen in detail, will doubtless be encountered, and the best way to overcome them will be ascertained. The solution of questions which have already occurred to us will be attained, or at any rate promoted. Some of these questions are the following, what is the best mode of dealing with statute law in the digest, how should conflicting rules of law (if any), and doubts which have been authoritatively raised respecting particular cases or doctrines of law, be treated?" The commissioners, having obtained the sanction of the Government to the preparation of specimen digests and determined on three subjects for the purpose, issued in November, 1867 a circular letter to the four Inns of Court inviting competition for the several works; three gentlemen were selected and their specimens sent in to the commissioners, who subsequently made their second (and final) report May 11, 1870, in which they say : "The gentlemen whose assistance we have had have laid before us materials of considerable value, and have enabled us to form conclusions as to the conduct of the entire work. "But we think it unadvisable to continue any further this mode of proceeding." They then, after pointing out that the proper examination and revision of these materials would involve considerable further delay and expense, and that these specimens would have to be revised and perhaps re-cast when the time arrived for inserting them as portions of a complete work, say "The experiment, however, has served a useful purpose. It has brought out very clearly the difficulties to be contended with, and the conditions under which the work must be executed;" and afterwards continue-". are of opinion that the work of a general digest, based on a comprehensive plan, and with a uniform method, should be at once undertaken. we "A complete digest cannot be executed without the assistance of the most highly-skilled persons whose services can be procured. The success of the work will depend on their efficiency. They must give to the undertaking the whole of their time and energy. And it is obvious that the services of such persons, and under such conditions, cannot be obtained without the offer of permanent employment and high remuneration." They therefore reported their opinion that it was expedient that a body of persons such as they had described, not exceeding three in number, should be constituted for executing the digest as a whole, being provided with the necessary means and assistance, and acting under such directions and control, either of a committee of her Majesty's Privy Council, or otherwise, as to her Majesty should seem fit. From this report Mr. Justice Willes dissented, but inasmuch as he agreed that a first-rate modern digest of English law was to be desired (for professional use), and his objection was only that it would be the makeshift for a code, which he advocated, I think he may, for practical purposes, be considered really not to have differed from his brother commissioners. Several years being now elapsed since the date of the last of the reports referred to, I have thought it desirable to quote them in some detail, in order to show, in what appeared to me the best way, the commissioners' views in favour of a digest, of the plan of the work, and of the difficulties of its execution, also their scheme for getting the work executed. Now, as the ultimate recommendations of the commissioners appear to have produced no direct result-and seem unlikely to produce any-and as there can scarcely be two opinions as to the desirability of a good digest, I wish, through your columns, to draw attention to the fact that, among the objects mentioned in the memorandum of association of the Council of Law Reporting, is "the issue of subsidiary or other publications relating to legal subjects," and to this further fact, that it appears from the annual reports and financial statements circulated among the profession that the council have a considerable and increasing surplus, and I wish then to suggest (the suggestion may not be new, for the question of judiciously applying their surplus has evidently been before the council) that some of the fund could be very suitably applied to the execution of a digest, under the superintendence of the council or a select number of their body. The council would probably be able either to give it to their subscribers or to issue it to their subscribers for a small payment. I would desire to add that, in thus aiding in the great work of digesting the English law, there could be no necessity that the council should be pledged to undertake the whole work of a digest. If really the work begun and ended with a single volume on any one branch of our law it could not fail to be a boon to the profession. Temple. A. J. WOOD. Cases of the Week. his PRACTICE-APPEAL-SECURITY FOR COSTS-POVERTY OF APPELLANT-ORD. 58, R. 15.-In a case of Cruse v. Smith an application was made to the Court of Appeal, on the 3rd inst., that an appellant might be ordered to give security for the costs of his appeal. The appellant had been ordered by the court below to pay costs which it was sworn would amount, on taxation, to at least £70, but the taxation had not yet been completed. The ground of the application was that the appellant lived in lodgings, that furniture was not worth more than £5, and that he was engaged in an employment for which he received wages amounting to 258. a week. Hence, it was argued, he would be totally unable to pay the costs which he had been ordered to pay, or to pay the costs of the appeal if it should be unsuccessful. The court (Earl CAIRNS, C., BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) refused the application. Earl CAIRNS, C., said that he could see no ground for the application. There was no evidence whether the appellant's wages were his whole means of subsistence. There was no proof of his insolvency, or of his inability to pay the costs of the appeal, or even the costs which he had been already ordered to pay. If the court were to grant the application it would be proceeding merely on conjecture. BAGGALLAY L.J., said that, no doubt, the actual insolvency of an appellant or proof of his inability to pay costs was a special circumstance, and a very strong circumstance, which of itself was enough to entitle the respondent to security, unless its effect was removed by other circumstances. APPEAL PRACTICE SECURITY FOR COSTS FOREIGNER RESIDING ABROAD.-In a case of De Oleaga v. The West Cumberland Iron and Steel Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 3rd inst., application was made for an order that the plaintiff shonld give security for the costs of his appeal. He was a Spanish subject, domiciled and resident in Spain, but he had an office in Liverpool where be carried on business. There was no evidence whether he was in the habit of coming to England and staying there for any time. The court (Earl CAIRNS, C., and BAGGALLAY and THESIGER, L.JJ.) ordered security to the amount of £50 to be given. PRACTICE-TRANSFER OF ACTION-COGNATE ACTIONS -COSTS OF MOTION.-In a case of De Bergue v. De Bergue, an application was made to the Lord Chancellor on the 3rd inst. for a transfer to Malins, V.C., of an action which had been commenced before the Master of the Rolls, on the ground that a decree had been made by Malins, V.C., in a cognate action. The LORD CHANCELLOR made the order for transfer, observing that the question was one of convenience, and that it was most convenient that cognate actions should be disposed of by the same judge. But his lordship refused to give the applicant any costs of the motion, on the ground that he had not, before making the motion, applied to the respondent to consent to the transfer. FORE PRACTICE-DISCOVERY-APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF BEDELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE-ORD. 31, RR. 11, 12-In a case of The Union Bank of London v. Manby, before the Court of Appeal on the 4th inst., the question arose whether an order for discovery by a defendant had been properly made before he had delivered his statement of defence. The action was brought by second mortgagees against the first mortgagee and the mortgagor for the redemption of the first mortgagee, and the foreclosure of the mortgagor. Immediately after the delivery of the statement of claim the plaintiffs moved for an order that the defendants should make the common affidavit of documents, and for production. Hall, V.C., made the order, and the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) affirmed his decision. The case of Hancock v. Guerin (27 W.R. 112, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 3) was relied upon by the appellant, but the court said that in such an action as that before them the issues to be tried were quite plain before the delivery of the statement of defence, and there was no reason why the discovery should not be given at once. ADMINISTRATION ACTION-APPLICATION BY CREDITOR TO INCREASE AMOUNT FOUND DUE TO HIM BY CERTIFICATE. In a case of Re Metcalfe's Estate, before the Court of Appeal on the 4th inst., a sum had been found due by the chief clerk's certificate to a creditor of the testator in the action (which was for the administration of the testator's estate), and, on further consideration before Fry, J., on April 9, an order was made for the raising and payment of the sum so found due. In June the creditor (who was the executor of another testator) presented a petition, alleging that since the hearing on further consideration he had discovered that a further sum was due to his testator for interest on the debt, and asking that this further sum might also be raised and paid to him. Fry, J., dismissed the petition, with costs, but the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) held that the petitioner was entitled to the order which he asked. They treated the case as analogous to those in which a creditor who has omitted altogether to prove against an estate at the proper time has been allowed afterwards to come in and prove against funds remaining undistributed. the discretion of any other judge, but his own practice was not to order a member of a company to answer interrogations, unless he was satisfied that there was no officer of the company who could give the discovery, and that the member could give it. It must be a member who had placed himself in such a position that he ought to answer as if he were an officer of the company. For instance, he might have been the chairman of the company during the whole of the transactions in question, and might have resigned only the day before. The company were always served with notice of the application, and they had the greatest interest in having a proper person to answer. The usual practice was for the company's solicitor to act for the member, and then he would charge the costs against the company, and the member would incur no expense. His lordship did not wish to encourage the employment of a separate solicitor by the member in such a case. He had never heard the question raised whether such costs were costs in the action. They were taxed as a matter of course, and if the company were successful they got them as part of the costs of the action. The practice introduced by Fry, J., would bring back the mischief of the old system of making defendants for the mere purpose of discovery. BAGGALLAY, L.J., was by no means so satisfied as the Master of the Rolls was, that the member, if he acted independently of the company, would ever be able to get his costs. But, if he could not, this was a liability to which he was exposed by becoming a member of the company. THESIGER, L.J., said that the rule was a mere extension of section 51 of the Common Law Procedure Act, and ought to be worked as that had been. It would not produce any injustice. It was clear that the examination was intended to be of a person who was an alter ego of the corporation which could not be examined. Under the Common Law Procedure Act the corporation alone was represented; the officer never appeared in any shape or way, and could make no application for costs. The corporation alone had any claim to costs. Consequently there could be no duplication of costs, which there would be if this new practice was allowed. PRACTICE-TAKING ACCOUNTS-COURT FEES-Order of 28TH OF OCTOBER, 1875.-In a case of Armitage v. ElPRACTICE-DISCOVERY-MEMBER OF COMPANY-COSTS-worthy, before the Court of Appeal on the 5th inst., a ques ORD. 31, RR. 4, 6, 10.-On the 5th inst. the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and THESIGER, L.JJ.) reversed the decision of Fry, J., in the case of Berkeley v. The Standard Discount Company (27 W. R. 835, L. R. 12 Ch. P. 295, 23 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 741). Under the provision of rule 4 of order 31 that, when a party to an action is a jeint stock company, "any opposite party may apply at chambers for an order allowing him to deliver interrogatories to any member or officer of such company, and an order may be made accordingly," an order had been made giving the plaintiff liberty to deliver interrogatories for the examination of a Mr. Stirling, who was a member, but not an officer, of the defendant company, though he had formerly been a director. The interrogatories were delivered, and an affidavit in answer to them was prepared on Stirling's behalf, but he refused to file it until he had been paid by the plaintiff his taxed costs of the affidavit. The plaintiff then took out a summons to compel Stirling to answer the interrogatories, and Fry, J., held that he could only be compelled to answer on payment of his taxed costs by the plaintiff. His lordship thought it was not reasonable that a mere member of the company should be compelled to make the discovery at his own expense, and that the case was governed by the analogy of a witness, subpoenaed in the ordinary way in an action, who is entitled to refuse to answer until his expenses have been paid. JESSEL, M.R., said that he could not recognize the propriety of the new practice which Fry, J., had attempted to introduce. There had been a long experience of the working of section 51 of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, which only differed from rule 4 of order 31 in that the latter extended to a member as well as an officer of a company. When the company was a party to an action a member was really in the position, not of a witness, but of a party. A member was a partner or quasi-partner in the company, and, though, by reason of a technical rule the members were not named on the record, they were the real defendants to the action. The Master of the Rolls said that he was not disposed to lay down any rule which would fetter tion arose as to the amount of the court fees to be charged under the above rule. The action was an administration one, and the decree had directed an account to be taken of the receipts of the testator's executors, and another account of the receipts of the trustees of the will. There were three trustees, two of whom were also the executors. The executors in their account discharged themselves of the sums received by them mainly by means of payments made to the trustees, and the sums thus paid over to the trustees appeared in their account as receipts by them. In this way sums amounting altogether to £290,000 appeared as receipts in both accounts. The rule provides for the payment of a court fee of sixpence for every £50 found to have been received by executors, trustees, and others on taking their accounts, and the question was whether a double fee was payable in this case-i.e., a fee on the receipts by the executors, and a fee on the receipts by the trustees. Fry, J., held that the double fee must be paid, and the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and THESIGER, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision, saying that the case fell literally within the words of the rule. There was the further question whether, when the trustees had placed sums of money on deposit at their bankers, and had afterwards withdrawn them, the withdrawals ought to be treated as receipts by the trustees, chargeable with the percentage. Both Fry, J., and the Court of Appeal held that the withdrawals ought to be so treated. JESSEL, M. R., said that the reason for making this new rule, which substituted a percentage on receipts for the old fee of £1 on the certificate, was this-that under the old practice the cost of the administrative business of the Court of Chancery was really borne by the Consolidated Fund instead of by the parties whose property was being administered. Therefore the percentage was introduced, which was a rough way of apportioning the costs, though no doubt it had the effect of making the rich estates pay for the poor ones. It would not have done to charge a percentage on the net surplus realized, for then the insolvent estates would have paid nothing, and they were often the most troublesome to administer. Societies. LIVERPOOL INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. week. The PRESIDENT, in moving the adoption of the report, said :—I think there are few of you who are in the habit of practising in the Chancery of Lancashire who will not sympathize with the committee in their desire to obtain increased official strength in the Liverpool District Registry, or who could not give frequent instances of delays which promise to rival those of the High Court of Chancery in its unreformed days. I do not wish, nor do the committee, to speak in any other than the kindest language of the district registrar, whose ability and experience are of the highest order, but it is quite obvious that the work of the registry has grown beyond his strength and is still growing; and while we may admire the ease with which, when at his chambers, he gets through as much of that work as any one man can possibly do, and far more than most men could, we must not, in the interests of our clients, relax our efforts to procure the appointment of an assistant or deputy registrar. With reference to the clerkship of the peace of the county, it is, I venture to say, impossible to read the report of the Committee of Justices to the last annual session at Preston, and the documents set out in it, without coming, however reluctantly we may do so, to the inevitable conclusion that that large and influential body of gentlemen -the justices of Lancashire-who should by virtue of their office be examples to others of a ready obedience to the law, have deliberately laid their heads together to try to frustrate the beneficial objects of an Act of Parliament for which they have no liking, notwithstanding that it was afterwards amended at their request, and this action has been taken in the teeth of the strong opposition of the Chancellor of the Duchy. To the minds of most reasonable men a provision in an Act of Parliament that rules shall be made for distributing the business of an office, previously held by one officer, among three officers, and for fixing the places where such officers are to live, plainly indicated the intention of the Legislature that such officers shall live in different places, and that each shall transact in such place such duties as may be assigned to him ; in fact, that there shall be what has been called a "territorial division" of the duties of the clerk of the peace so far as such duties can be properly divided. Our letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy, who was good enough to consult us on the subject, shows to what a considerable extent those duties can be divided; but even the duties enumerated under the first three heads would furnish ample employ ment for deputy clerks of the peace at Liverpool and Manchester. And yet we had the justices stating to the Chancellor their opinion that it is neither possible nor advisable to divide the duties of the office, and that consequently if the deputy clerks of the peace resided elsewhere than in Preston they would in effect hold almost sinecure offices. It is somewhat significant that, although it is provided by the Act of 1871 that the deputy clerks of the peace are to be paid such salaries as the justices may, with the approval of the Chancellor, determine-and the provision is not repealed by the amending Act of 1876, which merely provides that the salaries of the deputy clerks shall be paid by the clerk of the peace out of his salary-yet the justices in their report avoid fixing the salaries of the deputy clerks, whom they apparently wish to reduce as nearly as possible to the position of managing clerks in a solicitor's office. I cannot possibly believe that the Legislature passed two Acts of Parliament for the purpose of enabling the appointment of two such unimportant officials, and I hope that in the next session of Parliament the justices, if they act upon the advice of the Chancellor of the Duchy and attempt to procure further legislation upon the subject in the direction indi Per cated in their report, will find themselves frustrated. Bill. Mr. STONE, in seconding the resolution, said he had hoped that they would have got to a better condition of things as regarded the trial of civil causes at the assizes; but as a matter of fact, they had got to a worse. Suitors were kept waiting for their causes to be heard for two consecutive periods of six months each; and that was a state of things which ought not to happen in a commercial town like Liverpool. Mr. HILL expressed the opinion that the action which the authorities were taking in the matter was simply abominable. Public convenience should be considered; but that was not the principle on which the bar, not to say higher authorities, had proceeded. Mr. I. GILL said he hoped they would receive the active support and help of the mercantile bodies of Liverpool. The report was adopted, and after the transaction of some other business the proceedings terminated. The term of the Supreme Court of the United States commenced on the 13th of October. There are 821 cases on the docket. The Central Law Journal says that lottery speculations have received a severe blow in the opinion just issued from the office of the Assistant Attorney-General for the United States Post-Office Department. Its purport is that, according to the provisions of the statutes, letters addressed to lottery companies, or to individuals as agents of such companies, are unmailable per se, and that postmasters must refuse to register such letters. There are said to be at least one hundred lottery schemes which hereafter will be cut off from the use of the Post-Office. They can neither send circulars, nor can letters to be sent by mail be addressed to them. It will now be held that the fact that the letter is addressed to a lottery company must be taken as furnishing sufficient evidence that it is a letter concerning a lottery, and therefore is unmailable. Law Student's Journal. SUBJECTS FOR DISCUSSION BY LAW STUDENTS SOCIETIES. We have had occasion before to comment on the importance of exercising care in the selection of suitable questions for discussion by the members of the numerous law students' societies. We are quite aware of the difficulty of devising new matter for debate, but we should like to see one or two principles of selection more acted upon than they appear to be. In the first place, societies should avoid very wide questions which cannot by possibility be thoroughly discussed. We remember, for instance, to have seen in the paper of an excellently conducted society the following question for discussion: "Is the tendency of modern times towards the obliteration of national distinctions in Europe?" If that society had sat continuously for a few weeks, perhaps some answer worth having might have been obtained; but the notion of answering such a question in an hour or two is somewhat absurd. Secondly, avoid the old stock subjects. We fervently hope we may not have to record any reference to the subject of primogeniture or the game laws. We suppose the interest of the question of "whether competitive examinations are desirable" is perennial, but capital punishment might now be interred, and the venerable conclusion that "honesty is the best policy" need not, we think, again be impeached. Thirdly, questions which involve the getting up of knowledge which will be useful to the articled clerk in his profession are obviously to be preferred to social or political questions. And it tends, of course, to impart interest to the discussion if the legal question relates to some matter of the day. We have said before, and we say again, without intending to disparage other societies, that the legal questions discussed by the Birmingham Law Students' Society are usually models of appropriateness. We have no private knowledge of the society or any of its members, but it seems to us that, taking only the three last questions the discussion of which we have recorded, viz.-(1) the question in Boby v. Foster; (2) the question in Household Insurance Company (27 W. R. 858); and (3) the question in Niboyet v. Niboyet (26 W. R. 683)-it would be difficult to find three better subjects for discussion. LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE. Mr. H. E. Barren, of 46, Lyndhurst-road, Peckham, S.E., the hon. secretary of the Legal Correspondence Department of the United Law Students' Society, desires to draw attention to that department of the society. He says that "Although the ranks of legal correspondents are pretty extensive, still I constantly find that the department is unknown. The advantage to law students in becoming skilful in writing legal opinions is obvious; the art cannot be too early practised. They acquire the useful habit of expressing themselves clearly and forcibly on legal points. The habit proves of service in the answering of examination questions Three members recently obtained honours. One essential feature of the system is the bringing into amicable controversy both London and country law students. They peruse one another's opinions, and it is not improbable that their knowledge in this respect becomes augmented. A paper, just returned, has passed through London, Birmingham, Newport, Bristol, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Lampeter, Canterbury, Hitchin, and Portsea. The opinions, respectively, are interestingly various. Many articled clerks decline to join on the ground that they have not read enough to be able to derive any advantage from the department. The result of my experience points in a contrary direction. Even if at first they refrain from writing opinions, the attention bestowed in looking up the points cannot be otherwise than beneficial, and a text-book grows more familiar when in perusal a land mark' is met with in the shape of a knotty point which is remembered to have been keenly debated. I shall be happy to give any information to law students, and to forward them specimen papers for inspection." INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. The lectures on conveyancing, by Alan Stewart, Esq., barrister-at-law, commenced on Thursday last, and will be continued on successive Thursdays till December 11th. The course of lectures will embrace some or all of the following subjects:-Joint tenancies and tenancies in common; reversions, remainders, and executory interests; leaseholds -landlord and tenant; marriage settlements-real and personal; voluntary settlements; mortgages; bills of sale. Students are recommended to study, in connection with these lectures, Mr. Joshua Williams' books on Real and Personal Property, and also the dissertations in Davidson's Conveyancing. COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION. MICHAELMAS EXAMINATION, 1879. GENERAL EXAMINATION of STUDENTS of the INNS of COURT, held at Lincoln's Inn Hall, on the 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd of October, 1879. The Council of Legal Education have awarded to the following Students Certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a Public Fxamination:-Abul Fazl Mohammad Abdur-Rahman, Edward Berger, Barada Das Bose, George Spencer Bower, Nathaniel Foderingham Briggs, Eldred John Brook Smith, Robert Jardine Browning, John Fielden Cobbett, Eustace Conway, Frederick Augustus D'Arenberg, Benedictus D'Korte, Walter Morgan D'Saram, Harry Duff, Hugh Edward Egerton, Alfred Charles Richard Emden, Evelyn Leighton Fanshawe, Henry Alfred Harding Goodridge, Richard Foulkes Griffiths, James Archibald Gordon Hamilton, Henry Sheehy Keating, George Alexander Leon, Benjamin James Leverson, Fitz Hardinge Robert Bayfield Liebenrood, John Thomas Meeson, Frederick Lancelot Hamilton Morrice, William Herbert Pardoe, Edward Pon. sonby, Fitzpatrick William Bulkley Praed, Felton George Randolph, Arnold George Rogers, Sydney Henry Shadbolt, William Thornton Sharp, Charles John Syer Wilkinson, and Frederick Sims Williams, of the Inner Temple; William Atkinson Daniel, Edmund Robert Bartley Denniss, Vasudev Krishnarav Dhairyavan, Edgar Clement Dumbleton, Frank Foster, Reginald Cunningham Glen, Robert Goddard, William Herbert Greaves, Samuel Robert Groom, Thomas Anstey Guthrie, Abdul Haleem, Joseph Turner Hutchinson, Arthur Robert Ingpen, Sidney Jerrold, Chester Jones, Abul Hosen Khan, Mark Knowles, John Lloyd, Julien Adrien Hilaire Louis, Henry Milton, Frederick George Rücker, Francis Robert Winn Sampson, Mahommed feld, and Frederick Taylor, of the Middle Temple; ArchiSerajuddin, Alfred William Stanfield, Joseph James Stansbald John Allen, Francis Alan Bower, George Earle Buckle, William Henley Chater, Josias Cunningham, John Entwistle, James Lysaght Finigan, Charles Frost Foster, William Coryton Graham, Harry Baird Hemming, Thomas Simpson Jones, Nicholas Algernon Mercer, Robert McKillian Routledge, Henry Shera, and Walter Sydney Sichel, of Levey, of Gray's-inn, Esqs. Lincoln's-inn; and Theodore Le Gallais and Edward Rundle The following students passed a satisfactory examination in Roman law:-Reginald Brodie Dyke Acland, Herbert Percy Alleyne, William Herbert Booth, Moses Nathaniel Bottomley, Alfred Clayton Cole, Clement Kinloch Cooke, Cecil Henry Cranstoun Machell Cowper, Hanbury Davies, Saumarez De Havilland, Walter Russell Donogh, Arthur Lee Ellis, William Ellis Chute Ellis, Arthur Evans, Paul Henry Foley, George Francis Gregory, Vincent Walda Calmady Hamlyn, Edward William Hansell, William Dugdale Harland, Alfred Edward Hippisley, John Muir Hunter, Frederick Willoughby Jones, Henry George Lefroy, Henry John Hopwood Marlen, Ralph Staveley McKerrell, Sandford Moore, George Musgrave, Francis James Newton, Thomas Arthur Roberts, Charles Read Seymour, Bovill William Smith, Thomas Henry Yorke Trotter, Stanley John Weyman, and Robert Augustus Arthur Wright, of the Inner Temple; Charles William Black, Reginald Brett, R. Douglas Broad foot, Arthur B. Catty, Malcolm P. Douglas, George Ennis, John Gibson Gartside, Henry Parkes Greenhow, Henry Campbell Jenkins, Harry Norman Lachlan, Mark Louis, Paul Gregory Melitus, Arthur H. Moriarty, |