« PreviousContinue »
rule as to the exclusion of evidence having the effect of bastardising issue was superseded. The cases of In re Rideouťs Trusts (L. R. 10 Eq. 41), and In re Yearwood's Trusts (25 W. R. 461, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 545), were relied upon in support of this contention, but Justices Grove and Lopes both observed that in the former case James, V.C., had not decided that the old rule was superseded, and that his judgment had been misapprehended by Hall, V.C., in the latter case. They held that the evidence tendered by the husband was inadmissible, the proceedings before the magistrates not having been instituted " in consequence of adultery,” but rather with & view to establish the child's legitimacy, while the section relied upon seemed to refer only to divorce proceeding.
BARRISTERS AND ADVOCATES.
AYRSHIRE, NORTH-Mr. John Blair Balfour (L)
John McLaren (L)
AN APPENDIX OF STATUTES AND OP THE RULES OF
This new edition reaches us too late for examination this week, but we observe it contains the Act which received the Royal assent on Wednesday last; printed of course from the Bill, and with Sir H. Jackson's amendment to clause 2 in a footnote. The general nature of the contents of the book may be gathered from the titles of chapters-Preliminaries to Writ ; The Writ; Preparations for Election ; Proceedings at and after Election ; Elections at Universities, and Avoidance of Elections.
DUMFRIES, DISTRICT-Mr. William Gordon (C)
Recent Becisions. .
EVIDENCE OF PARENTS BASTARDIZING
Cases of the UN eek.
BANKRUPTCY — DOUBLE PROOF-DISTINCT ESTATESBoth these cases raised the question of the admissi
BILL OF EXCHANGE-DRAWER AND ACCEPTOR-FOREIGN bility in evidence of the declarations of a parent tending
LIQUIDATION, BANKRUPTCY Act, 1869, S. 37. - In to bastardize his child.
the House of Lords on Friday, the 19th inst., the appeal of In Murray v. Milner the point arose under the
Banco de Portugal v. Waddell was decided. The question following circumstances :-The question whether John
arose in the liquidation of Messrs. John Kynnersley Hooper Murray was the legitimate son of John Murray, the partnership, at Oporto, as port wine shippers, in the name
and John Kynnersley Hooper, jun., who had traded in elder (deceased), was in issue in an administration action, of Hooper Brothers, and in London as wholesale wine and and the defendants, who alleged that he was not born in spirit
merchants, in the name of Richard Hooper & Sons. wedlock, proposed to read as evidence the will of the The Banco de Portugal were the holders of five bills of exelder Murray, by which an annuity was given to the testa change which had been drawn by the Oporto firm upon, and tor's “son, or reputed son, commonly called, or known accepted by, the London firm. In December, 1877, Messrs
. by the name of, John Murray," the same person being Hooper presented a petition for liquidation in the London afterwards spoken of as 'my said reputed son John Court of Bankruptcy, and shortly afterwards the affairs of Murray." Mr. Justice Fry declined to exclude this
the Oporto firm were liquidated under Portuguese law. evidence, proceeding upon the distinction established by
The Banco de Portugal received in the Portuguese liquida. Lord Mansfield in Goodright v. Ro88 (2 Cowper, 591),
tion property amounting to a dividend of eight shillings in that, while a parent's declarations are inadmissible to
the pound upon the amount of the five bills of exchange. prove the bastardy of a child born during coverture, English liquidation, but the trustee refused to admit the
They then tendered a proof for the same amount in the they may be accepted to show that the child was, in proof until they had accounted for the dividend
received fact, born before marriage; and he added that the under the Portuguese liquidation. Mr. Registrar Murray, former rule “has nothing to do with the case in which sitting as Chief Judge, ordered the proof to be admitted, but the question is marriage or no marriage."
only upon the condition that the bank should not receive In Nottingham Guardians v. Tomkinson the respond any dividend nntil the other creditors should have received ent had been summoned, under the 31 & 32 Vict. c. a dividend equal to that already received by the bank. 122, s. 36, to show cause why an order should not be On the 4th of April, 1879, the Court of Appeal (James, made against him for the maintenance of a child born Baggallay, and Bramwell, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision of to his wife when living separate from him. The child
the registrar (see 23, SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 461, 20 W. Pre was born more than a year after the cohabitation had 564, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 317). On appeal to the House of ceased, and the respondent tendered evidence to show
Lords by the Banco de Portugal, it was argued that secnon-access during the interval.
tion 37 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, expressly gave them The justices had
a right of double proof, since the respective obligations of declined to make an order, but had granted a case to
the drawer and of the acceptor of the bills of exchange were raise the question of the admissibility of this evidence.
“distinct contracts,” and there were also two " distinct It was argued that the summons was a proceeding firms,” since the insolvents carried on two separate trades "instituted in consequence of adultery" within the in two separate countries. Ex parte Wilson, 21 W. Ry 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, s. 3, and that in such a case the L. R. 8 Ch. 914, upon the authority of which the Court of
Appeal bad proceeded, was decided under the corresponding no creditor who has omitted to prove his debt, or to send to provision of section 152 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, but the trustee the particulars of his claim, or whose name does the words “having distinct estates to be wound up in bank not appear in the debtor's statement, shall be entitled to dis. ruptcy" did not appear in the latter statute. Earl CAIRNB, turb any such dividend, or to make any claim in respect thereof C., Lords SELBORNE and BLACKBURN, affirmed the judgment against the trustee; but upon proof of his debt any such of the Court of Appeal. Independently of the statutes, creditor shall be entitled to receive the same prior to the there would have been a right of double proof, but as a con. payment of any farther dividend to the other creditors." dition precedent to the right of proof in the English liqui- And rule 272 provides that "& secured creditor, unless he dation, the bank must have accounted for the dividend shall have realized bis security, shall, previously to being received in Portugal. The statute had given no new right, allowed to prove or vote, state in bis proof the particulars of but only removed certain difficulties in the way of the proof, his security and the value at which he assesses the same, and and it supposed a case quite foreign to that which was he shall be deemed to be a creditor only in respect of the before the House. Ex parte Wilson was correctly decided, balance due to him after deducting such assessed value of and was precisely in point.-SOLICITORS, Abrahams & the security.” If the security realizes more than the assessed Roffey ; Loxley & Morley.
value, the creditor must pay the excess to the trustee; and if it realizes less than the assessed value, the creditor's proof is
not to be increased. In Ex parte Good, the liquidating BANKRUPTCY-SECURED CREDITOR-PROOF — DECLARA
debtors, who were blanket manufacturers, owed a large debt TION OF DIVIDEND BEFORE REALIZATION OR VALUATION OF
to their bankers, for which the bankers held a number SECURITY_RESERVATION OF DIVIDEND— BANKRUPTCY ACT,
of bales of blankets as security. The debtors in their state1869, ss. 40, 41, 42, 43, 72-BANKRUPTCY RULES, 1870,
ment of affairs stated that the value of the security exRR. 72, 136, 272, 311, 312, 313, 314.-In a case of Ex parte
ceeded by £1,000 the amount of the debt. Immediately Good, before the Court of Appeal on the 18th inst., the
after the appointment of the trustees, early in July, question
arose whether a secured creditor of a liquidating 1878, communications took place between them and the bank debtor, who has given notice to the trustee of his debt, buč respecting the bank's claim, and a suggestion was made who has not, prior to the declaration of a dividend by the
that the trustees should pay the claim and take the blankets. trustee, either realized his security or assessed the value of
On the 21st of August, the manager of the bank sent to the it, is entitled to have a reserve made by the trustee for the
trustees a formal proof, being an affidavit by one of the officers purpose of paying him a dividend, corresponding to that paid
of the bank which stated the amount of the debt, and the to the other creditors, when the balance of his debt, ultra particulars of the securities held for it, but said, “The value his security, shall have been ascertained. The question estimate." A letter to the trustees sent with the proof stated
of such securities I am unable and do not now propose to depended upon the construction of several sections of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and of several of the Rules of 1870.
that some additions would have to be made to it in respect Section 40 provides that “a creditor holding a specific it iu in its present state, in order that you may have an affi
of payments for insurance, storage, &c., but added, “I send security on the property of the bankrupt, or on any part thereof, may, on giving up his security, prove for his whole
davit of the debt owing, as a basis for settlement." The debt. He shall also be entitled to a dividend in respect
of blankets for sale in a month or so.
letter also stated that the bank intended to expose the the balance due to him after realizing or giving credit for
On the 22nd of August, the value of his security, in manner and at the time the trustees sent a formal notice to the bank, requiring them prescribed. A creditor holding such security as aforesaid, and within fourteen days to assess the value of their security. not complying with the foregoing conditions, shall be ex
This notice purported to be sent under rule 136. On the. cluded from all share in any dividend.” Section 42_“In 3rd of September, the bank manager wrote, "We do not in. the calculation and distribution of a dividend it shall be
tend to value the securities, but to make default with regard obligatory on the trustee to make provision for debts proveable unless arrangements are immediately made
for taking it
to your notice, and to proceed at once to realize the property, in bankruptcy, appearing from the bankrupt's statements, or
On the 7th of otherwise, to be due to persons resident in places so distant out of our hands and paying off the debt.” from the place where the trustee is acting, that in the September, the trustees gave the bank a formal notice of the ordinary course of communication they have not had
rejection of their proof, on the ground that they had not sufficient time to tender their proofs, or to establish them if
valued their security pursuant to the notice to do so, and disputed, and also for debts proveable in bankruptcy, the that they were therefore not entitled to prove, and that they subject of claims not yet determined.” Section 43—" Any
would be excluded from dividend unless they applied to the creditor who has not proved his debt before the declaration
court to prove their debt. On the 16th of September, the of any dividend or dividends shall be entitled to be paid out
bank manager wrote that he thought there was no occasion of any moneys for the time being in the hands of the trustee
for any application to the court, but “I have no objecany dividend or dividends he may have failed to receive,
tion to consent to the rejection of the proof, or to withbefore such moneys are made applicable to the payment of
draw it altogether, and substitute a fresh one when any futare dividend or dividends, but he shall not be entitled
our securities are realized, as I hope they shortly will be. to disturb the distribution of any dividend declared before
I am unable at the present moment to assess the his debt was proved by reason that he has not participated value until I have an opportanity of determining the same therein.” And, of the rules relating to liquidation by by actual eale." He asked whether the trustees had given arrangement, rule 311 provides that all debts must be any notice of their intention to declare a dividend, " as in proved prior to the payment of dividend thereon by the the event of the whole estate being about to be shortly irustee.” Rule 312 provides that seven days at least before distributed, I should, of course, rather adopt a forced declaring a dividend the trustee is to gazette a notice re
valuation than allow the bank to be excluded from the quiring the creditors to send him “ the particulars of their
chance of participating in & dividend, although, at the debts or claims; and on declaring a dividend, a sufficient same time, I have no reason to believe that we shall ultireserve shall be made by the trustee for such dividend upon mately bave occasion to lodge a claim at all.” He added, all debts or claims notified to him in pursuance of such however, that, by withdrawing the proof, or consenting to notice. The trustee shall also be deemed to have notice of its rejection in its present form, "we in no way preolude the debts of all creditors whose names are inserted in the ourselves from lodging a fresh one, should we at any future debtor's statement of affairs, and (except where any such time find ourselves in a position requiring us to do so." debt has been adjudicated upon prior to the declaration of The trustees replied that they should reject any further the dividend) a similar reserve shall be made in respect proof which the bank might tender. The bank manager thereof." Rule 313 provides that whenever the trustee repeated his notice that the bank had a claim upon the shall reject the claim or proof of any creditor, he is to estate, a proof for which they would submit as soon as give him notice, and he is to be entitled “to exclude they should be in a position to do so. Some farther from dividend any such claimant or creditor whose correspondence took place, and ultimately, the trustees, on debt he so rejects,” unless the creditor shall, within the 3rd of January, 1879, without giving any express fourteen days, apply to the court to admit his proof, and notice to the bank, declared a dividend of 35. 6d. in the proceed with his application with due diligence. And by pound, payable on the 15th of January: On the 16th of rule 314, “Except as before mentioned, the trustee sball de January the bank, having realized all their securities, clare dividends among such creditors only as have proved except some blankets, the value of whioh they assessed at their debts up to the time of such declaration of dividend, and £50, sent to the trustees a formal proof for the unpaid
balance of their debt, and the manager wrote asking when the power given to the court by section 72, which would a dividend was likely to be declared. The trustees replied enable it to order the declaration of a dividend to be postthat the proof was received after the dividend had been poned. Cotton, L.J., said that rule 136, which had been declared, and that the bank were not entitled to receive relied upon, bad, he thought, no application to the case. It dividend on any proof not sent in previous to the declara- applied only to the case of a creditor who desired to give tion of dividend. After some more correspondence the bank credit for the value of his security in order to entitle him applied to the county coart for a personal order against to a dividend in respect of the balance of his debt. In such the trustees for payment of a dividend of 38. 6d. in the a case the trustee, if he was dissatisfied with the value put pound in respect of their proof. The judge made the order by the creditor on the security, might require the security to asked for, and his decision was affirmed by the Chief be realized, but the rule did not empower the trustee to make Judge (28 W.R. 278), on the ground that the trustees had that requisition in any other case. The bank bad the right to had express potice of the claim of the bank, and that
ascertain the value of their security, and then to come in and therefore rule 312 applied, and the trustees were bound to
prove for the balance of their debt. If the trustee then dismake a sufficient reserve for dividend on the claim. puted it, he must, if he declared a dividend, have made a The order was disebarged by the Court of Appeal (JAMBB,
reserve for them. But it would require very strong words to BRETT, and COTTON, L.JJ.). JAMES, L.J., said that the
show that a reserve ought to be made for a person who order proceeded entirely opon the footing of making the might or might not turn out to be a creditor, and who had trustees personally liable for a misfeasance. Bat beyond it in his owo power to fix the amount for which he claimed all question the dividend was declared before any proof, or
to be a creditor. The order of the county court was accordanything which was even alleged to be a proof in com
ingly discharged, but without prejudice to any application by pliance with the requirements of the Act and the Rules, the bank to be paid in priority, out of any assets to be herehad been sent in by the bank. It was admitted that the after realized by the trustees, a dividend on the balanse of 80-called proof which was sent in in September was sent
their debt equal to that which had been paid to the other in only for the purpose of the negotiation which was then
creditors.-SOLICITORS, Walker 4 Co.; Bischoff, Bompas, $ going on between the trustees and the bank. Why, tben,
Bischoff. were the trustees to make any reserve to meet the bank's claim? The only debt to the bank “proveable in bankruptcy" was the balance which might remain due to them
DISCOVERY OF BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY - SUMMONING after the property which they held as security had been realized, WITNESSES FOR EXAMINATION-APPLICATION BY CREDITOR or after deducting from their whole debt the amount of the -DISCRETION OF JUDGE-BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1869, s. 96 valnation which they might choose to put on their security -BANKRUPTCY Rules, 1870, R. 171.- In a case of Ex at their own risk. There was, therefore, no debt “prove- parte Nicholson, before the Court of Appeal on the 18th inst., able in bankruptcy" in respect of which the trustees could have retained anything. The words “debts proveable in summoned for examination, under the power conferred by
a question arose as to the right of a creditor to have witnesses bankruptcy, the subject of claims not yet determined,” at the end of section 43, did not enlarge the meaning of the dealings and property. Section 96 gives the power to the
section 96, with a view to the discovery of the bankrapt's words proveable in bankruptcy.”. They referred to cases in which the trustee had reserved the admission of a proof rule 171 says that, - Where the application is not made on
court (in terms) only “on the application of the trustee." but for further consideration, or where he had decided adversely behalf of the trustee the grounds upon which the application to a creditor and the creditor had applied to the court to is made shall be verified by affidavit"—thus, by implication, reverse the decision. The section did not apply to the case authorizing the making
of such an application by a creditor
. of there being something which might at some future time In Ex parte Nicholson the application was made by a creditor result in a debt proveable in bankruptcy. There was noth
who had previously asked the trustee to authorize the ing to show that the trustees bad misled the bank in any
use of his name, which the trustee had refused to do. way. It was a mere question of the legal rights of a secured creditor who did not choose either to realize or to The creditor filed an affidavit stating the grounds of bis
Notice of the application was given to the trustee only, value his security tefore a dividend was declared. There application, and said that he was willing to bear the might, no doubt, be cases in which a secured creditor was taking steps to realize his security-e.g., by means of an
expense of the investigation, and to put the depositions on
the file for the use of the trustea. The trustee filed affiaction in the Chancery Division-and was prevented from doing so before the declaration of a dividend, and injustice Pepys refused the application. He said that all investiga
davits in opposition to the application. Mr. Registrar might occur if a reserve were not made by the trustee for the purpose of paying him a dividend.' But such a
tions into the affairs of a bankrupt ought to be made
by case as that was fully met by section 72 of the Act,
or through the trustee, until it was distinctly sbown that which gave the Court of Bankruptcy full power to
his interests were adverse to those of the general body of remedy every wrong which might otherwise arise in
creditors, or tbat he was incapable of conducting the the administration of an estate in bankruptcy, and to
examination. On the simple suggestion of one creditor that give effect to every just claim. Under that section a secured
he was entitled to parsne this course, the registrar did not creditor could apply to the court to order the trustee to
think that he ought to open the door to an extent which make a proper reserve for the purpose of paying him a
would allow an investigation to be made by every creditor dividend. In the present case this bank bad not, before the
as to every imaginable debt of the bankrupt. Every credidividend was declared, placed themselves in the position of tor, who might think himself in some way aggrieved, might having a "debt proveable in bankruptcy" in respect of which indulge in this luxury, not for the benefit of all the credithe trustees ought to have reserved a dividend. BRETT,
tors, and might sommon witnesses from any part of the L.J., said that the first proof sent in by the bank was in country, and harass them by examining them before the effect withdrawn. The question was whether, in order to
court for hours. The Conrt of Appeal (JAMES, Brett, and bind the trustee to make a reserve, it was enough for the Cotton, L.JJ.) affirmed the registrar's decision. JAMES creditor to give him notice that a proof would be sent in at L.J., said that the appeal was brought from an exercise of some future time, or whether it was not necessary that a
the judicial discretion of the registrar. His lordship quite claim should be made in such a form that, if the trustee ad agreed with the observations
of the registrar. It would mitted it, it would amount to 8 proof. His lordsbip was of
be a sad, a monstrous thing if any one who claimed to be opinion that a secured creditor could not prove till he had
a creditor should be entitled, ex debito justitie, to summon either realized or valued his security. If the trustee wished any one he chose for examination as to the property and to dispute the amount which the creditor asserted that his dealings of a bankrupt. It was difficult to see what the security had realized, or the accuracy of his
valuation, then, end of it would be. The provisions of section 96 were in if he declared a dividend, he must make a sufficient reserve quisitorial enough, but the trustee was a person who filled in respect of the creditor's claim, and, if he did not do that, a responsible position. If the trustee declined to put in he would fail in his duty. But, before he could be called force the powers given to him by the section, a creditor upon to say whether he would allow or disallow the credi- who wished to avail himself of them must make out to the tor's claim, the security must have been either realized or satisfaction of the court a prima facie probability tbat
some valued. The difficulty which might arise in a case in which, benefit would result to the estate by allowing him to do so. though the creditor was bound either to realize or value his In the present case the registrar thought that such a case security, yet practically he was unable to do so, was met by I had not been established. He had exercised bis judicial
discretion, and his lordship could see no ground for differing Bill OF SALE-BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1878, ss. 8, 10– from his conclusion. The trustee bad no interest in the VALIDITY AS BETWEEN GRANTOR AND GRANTEE.-In the matter, except for the purpose of saying whether he would case of Davies v. Goodman, before the Court of Appeal at make the application bimsell, and there was no reason | Westminster on the 19th inst., the facts were that since why he should file affidavits. BRETT, L.J., said that the | the coming into operation of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, necessary logical conclusion from the argument on behalf the plaintiff applied to the defendant and another for a of the creditor was, that any creditor who entertained a | loan of £14 on the security of his household goods. Before suspicion about the bankrupt's dealings was absolutely | the loan was granted the plaintiff had to sign a bill of sale entitled to such an examination. This showed that the for £21, which was never read over or explained to him. argument was not well founded. The court had a discre
Shortly afterwards the defendant seized the plaintiff's goods tion in the matter, and if no reasonable probability was to the value of about £40, and sold them under the bill of shown of any benefit resulting to the estate or the creditors
sale. The plaintiff then brought the action against the defrom the examination, the application ought to be refused.
fendant for the wrongful conversion of his goods. The -SOLICITORS, Nash & Field ; Layton, Son, f Lendon. Common Pless Division (on appeal from a county court
judge) held that the bill of sale, not having been attested as directed by the 10th section of the Act of 1878, was
wholly puid, and therefore that the defendant, the grantee COMPANY-WINDING UP--SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS FOR A
thereof, was not protected by the provisions thereof in YEAR-DISCRETION OF COURT-WISHES OF CONTRIBUTORIES
seizing and converting the plaintiff's goods. It was now SHAREHOLDER'S PETITION-COMPANIES Act, 1862, ss. 79,
contended that one object of the Act was the protection 91.-In a case of In Re The Middlesborough Assembly Rooms
of illiterate grantors, wbo were often induced to sigo bills Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 22nd inst., a
of sale wbich they did not understand. It could not be petition had been presented by a shareholder for the winding
important to the execution creditor whether the bill of up of the company, on the ground that it had suspended its
sale was explained and attested by a solicitor or not, but it business for a whole year. The company was formed in 1874
might be extremely important to the grantor ; the provi. to purchase a site and erect assembly-rooms thereon. The
sions as to attestation were therefore intended for the prosite was purchased, and the building of the room was com
tection of the latter and not the former. The court menced, but not completed, only the basement having been
(BRAMWELL, BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) reversed constructed. In consequence of the bad state of trade nothing
the decision of the Common Pleas Division. They held had been done since 1876, and the shareholders, by a large
tbat the whole of the Act of 1878, both that part which majority, bad approved of the postponement of the works till ttere should be a reasonable prospect of success. The
relates to registration and that which relates to attestation,
was intended to protect execution creditors and the other petition was presented in 1879. There were scarcely any
specified classes of persons, and not grantors of bills of sale, debts, and the large majority of the shareholders disapproved
and therefore bills of sale not made in compliance with the of the petition. Bacon, V.C., held that section 79 applied,
Act were void as against the former onls. They added that and made a compulsory winding-up order. Tbe Court of
the 8th section, and that the execution creditor might be Appeal (JAMES, BRETT, and COTTON, L.JJ.) agreed with the
the 10th section of the Act must be read in connection with Vice-Chancellor that the company had suspended its business
interested in having a bill of sale properly explained to the for a year within the meaning of section 79, but said that the
grantor.-SOLICITORS, Milne, Riddle of Mollor ; Harper, court ought to attená to the wishes of the majority of the
Broad, & Battock. contributorier, unless there was something oppressive or tyrannical in their conduct. No injury would be done to the petitioner by refusing the winding-up order ; the only result
PRACTICE-RECEIVER-OPENING ACCOUNTS—ATTENDANCE would be that his contributions to the costs of a compulsory | OF SURETY-EFFECT ON LIABILITY OF OTHER SURETY.-In winding up would be postponed for the present. The petition a case of Cowderay v. Brooks, before the Master of the Rolls was accordingly dismissed.--SOLICITORS, Bower & Cotton ;
on the 19th inst., it was desired to re-open certain receiverRobinson, Preston, f Stowe.
ship accounts, under which the sureties bad been held liable to make good a large amount. The application was made by
one of the sureties who desired to attend the taking of the PLEADING-INCONSISTENT ALTERNATIVE RELIEF-MODE accounts, and the question discussed was upon what terms OF TRIAL-DISCRETION OF JUDGE-JUDICATURE ACT, 1873, 1 this should be allowed. JESSEL, M.R., stated that the S. 24-ORD. 17, R. 1.-In a case of Hartridge v. Hartridge, general rule was that the sureties were not entitled to attend before the Court of Appeal on the 22nd inst., a question arose on the taking of the accounts except under special circumas to the right of a plaintiff to claim inconsistent alternative stances. In the present case there had, in his opinion, been relief against the same defendant. The plaintiff claimed a a slip in taking the accounts, and therefore he considered declaration that a certain brewery business, which they should be re-opened, and that the surety should have he bad carried on in his own name, belonged abso- liberty to attend on paying the costs of the present applicalutely to him, and that the defendant, who had sold the tion and a sum of £500 into court. As to the question business, was liable to account to the plaintiff for the moneys
whether the order could be enforced in the meanwhile which he had received by the sale. And, in the alternative, the
against the other surety, he considered that if the accounts plaintiff claimed a declaration that the business had belonged
were opened, they were opened once for all, and against both to the defendant, and that the plaintiff had carried it on as
sureties, and that the payment could not be enforced until his agent, and that the defendant was liable to indemnify
the result of the account was known. — SOLICITORS, him against all liabilities which he had incurred in connec Willoughby f Cox ; Miller f Wiggins. tion with the business, and to pay him a salary for his services. At the trial Bacon, V.C., ordered the plaintiff to elect which case he would attempt to prove, that of owner
ANNUITY-APPORTIONMENT.-In a case of Re Blenkinsop ship or that of agency. The plaintiff's counsel elected to
Wilkinson v. Blenkinsop, before the Master of the Rolls on the prove the case of ownership, and on the evidence the ViceChancellor held that the plaintiff had failed to prove bis
22nd inst, an action had been brought to determine how an case. The plaintiff's counsel then asked to be allowed to
annuity was to be raised, and it was stated that the difficulty open the alternative case of agency, but the Vice-Chancellor
had occurred by reason of a case of Yates v. Yates (28 Beav. refused to allow this, and dismissed the action. The plaintiff
642). JESSEL, M.R., after carefully reading the case, said appealed, and by his notice of appeal asked only for relief
he could not understand the grounds of the decision, and
he conside red on the footing of agency. The Court of Appeal (JAMES,
the case perfectly unintelligible. If the BRETT, and COTTON, LJJ.) beld that the alternative cases
annuity was paid out of capital it was apportioned, and were so inconsistent that they ought not to be tried in the
the ratio decidendi was beyond his comprehension. He then same action, and that the Vice-Chancellor was right in
said that in the case before him the annuity would be paid by putting the plaintiff to his electiop. 'They accordingly
making payments out of capital.-SOLICITORS FOR ALL dismissed the appeal, but added to the Vice-Chancellor's
PARTIES, James Crowdy & Sons. order a direction that the dismissal of the action was to be without prejudice to any other action by the plaintiff on the footing of agency.-SOLICITORS, T. E. Watkin ; Hughes, Hooker, & Butlanshaw.
MR. JOHN DRUMMOND.
Mr. Henry JosCELEN BARBER, solicitor, Halifax and Mr. John Drummond, solicitor (the head of the firm of Brighouse, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Drummonds, Robinson, & Till), died very suddenly at
Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicatore. Croydon, on the 19th inst. Mr. Drummond, who was one
Mr. SAMUEL MARTIN Beale, solicitor, of Worcester and of the oldest solicitors in Surrey, was the son of Mr. Patrick
Great Malvern, has been appointed Registrar of the Drummond. He was admitted a solicitor in 1830, and had
Worcester County Court (Circuit No. 23), to act jointly with
Mr. Henry Crisp. Mr. Beale was admitted a solicitor in practised for exactly fifty years. He was formerly associated in partnership with his father, and more recently with Messrs.
1854, and has been for several years registrar of the Malvern William Drummond, Carew Sanders Robinson, and George
County Court. John Till. He was a perpetual commissioner for Surrey, Mr. P. BirneY BROWN, solicitor (of the firm of Brown, and his private practice was very large, his office being Donaldson, & Woolnough), of No. 70, Lircola's-ian-fields, the largest at Croydon. Mr. Drummond held many im has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the portant appointments. He was clerk to the county magistrates, Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Wonen in and for to the Commissioners of Land, Assessed, and Income Taxes, the cities of London and Westminster, and county of and to the governors of the Croydon Middle Class School, Middlesex. and he was vestry clerk of Croydon. His firm are solicitors to Archbishop. Whitgift's Hospital, and they also formerly | been created a Civil Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the
The Right Hon. STEPHEN Cave, barrister, M.P., bas acted for the Croydon Canal Company. He
Bath, Sir S. Cave is the eldest son of the late Mr. Daniel for many years Conservative registration agent for the Cave, of Cleeve Hill, Bristol. He was born in 1820, and Croydon district.
was educated at Harrow, and at Balliol College, Oxford,
where he graduated second class in classics in 1843. He MR. CHARLES JOSEPH CARTTAR.
was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas
Term, 1846, and formerly practised on the Western Circait. Mr. Charles Joseph Carttar, solicitor, coroner for West He was formerly a director of the Bank of England, and has Kent, died at his residence, Catherine House, Blackheath been M.P. for Shoreham in the Conservatire interest since road, Greenwich, on the 19th inst., after a somewhat long 1859. He was appointed Vice-President of the Board of illness. Mr. Carttar was the son of Mr. Joseph Carttar, Trade and Paymaster-General in 1866, and was sworn a solicitor, of Greenwich. He was admitted a solicitor in 1830, member of the Privy Council. He retired with his party in and a few years later succeeded to the business of his father, December, 1868, and in February, 1874, he was appointed whom, in 1832, be succeeded in the office of coroner for the Judge Advocate General and Pay master-General.
He Western Division of the county of Kent. He was a perpetual resigned the former office in December, 1875, when he procommissioner for the county of Kent, and had a very good ceeded to Egypt upon a special financial mission, and he has local practice. He was secretary to the Kent Dispensary, recently resigned the office of Paymaster-General on account and was also for several years secretary to the Greenwich of ill-health. Pier and Steam Packet Company. Mr. Carttar was a warnı supporter of the Conservative party, for whom he had
Mr. John Coode, solicitor (of the firm of Coode, Shilson, managed several elections at Greenwich. As coroner for a
& Co.), of St. Austell, has been appointed by Mr. Charles populous and increasing suburban district his duties were
Glyon Prideaux Brune, High Sheriff of Cornwall
, to be very laborious. It may be remembered that he conducted
Under-Shoriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. the preliminary investigation into the cause of the death of
Coode was admitted a solicitor in 185t, and is county
treasurer for Cornwall. Mrs. Staunton, at Penge, as well as the inquest upon the sufferers by the sinking of The Princess Alice. The fatigue Mr. Thomas Astley HORACE HAMOND, solicitor, of 56, and anxiety attendant upon the latter inquiry had a pre Lincoln's-inn-fields, has been appointed by Mr. Hamon judicial effect upon the state of his health, which, for the Lestrange, High Sheriff of Norfolk, to be Únder-Sheriff of last twelve months had been very precarious.
that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Hamond is the fourth son of the late Mr. Anthony Hamond, of Westacre, Norfolk, and was born in 1845. He is an M.A. of Magdalen College, Cambridge, and he was admitted a solicitor in
1871. Law Students' Journal.
Mr. Walter EDWARD PERRIN HARDWICKE, solicitor, of MANCHESTER LAIV STUDENTS' SOCIETY.
Norwich, has been appointed Registrar of the Malvern County
Court. Mr. Hard wicke was admitted a solicitor in 1869, The annual (mock) trial in counection with this society
and is clerk to the Hempnall and Woodton School Boards. was held on the 17th inst. in the Sessions Court, Minshull. street, Manchester, the Town Hall Committee having kindly
Mr. George WILLIAM WELLINGTON LANGDON, solicitor, granted the use of the court for the purpose. Admission
of Buckingham, has been appointed Clerk to the Buckingham was by ticket only, and at 6.30, when the learned judge
Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural (Mr. T. H. Jordan, barrister-at-law) took his seat upon the
Sanitary Authority, on the resignation of his partner, Mr. bench there were about 400 people present, the galleries Henry Hearn, who is superintendent registrar, and town being occupied principally by ladies. The trial was a
clerk, and clerk of the peace for the borough of Buckingcriminal one, the prisoners being indicted for murder and
ham. poaching. Mr. Hodgkinson opened the case for the prosecution, Mr. William WILKIN LUMB (of the firm of Lumb & and Mr. Millar, junior counsel for the prosecution, examined Howson), solicitor, of Whitehaven, has been appointed by the witnesses. The solicitors for the prosecution were Mr. John Lumb, High Sheriff of Cumberland, to be UnderMessrs. Hardman and Law; for the defence, Messrs. Peacock Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Mr. Lumb is and Butcher. Mr. Hislop, counsel for the prisoners, baving the son of Mr. William Lumb, solicitor, coroner for West stated that the defence relied upon was an alibi, Mr. Solly, Cumberland. He was admitted a solicitor in 1868, and is his junior, called the father of one of the prisoners and deputy-coroner for West Cumberland. another witness to give evidence for the defence, and they were severely cross-examined by Mr. Hodgkinson and Mr.
Mr. WILLIAM HUGHES MORRIS, solicitor, of Carmarthed, Millar. Mr. Hislop then addressed the jury for the defence,
has been appointed by Mr. Andrew Llewellyn, High Sheriff and Mr. Hodgkinson replied for the prosecution, both counsel
of Carmarthenshire to be Under-Sheriff of that county for being loudly applauded when they resumed their seats.
the ensuing year. Mr. Morris was admitted a solicitor in Tie applause was, however, immediately suppressed. The
1868. learned judge then summed up in favour of the prisoners, Mr. HENRY LUSHINGTON PHILLIPS, C.M.G., judicial and the jury found them all not guilty. A hearty vote of commissioner of the High Court of Justice in Cyprus, has thanks to the Town Hall Committee and to Mr. Jordan received the honour of Knighthood. Sir H. Phillips was brought the trial, which was in every way a success, to a called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, close.
| 1850, and he formerly practised on the Northern Circuit.