Page images
PDF
EPUB

made in "consideration of £2,050 paid by the mortgagees to the mortgagor at or before the execution hereof." The evidence showed that, when the bank consented to make the advance, it had been agreed between them and the grantor that he should apply £550, part of the advance, in taking up two promissory notes and a bill of exchange which he had given to the bank as security for some previous advances made by them to him. One of the notes fell due a week, and the other about five weeks after the execution of the bill of sale. The bill of exchange fell due about a fortnight after. The Court of Appeal held that the requirement of section 8 had been complied with. JAMES, L.J., said that when the section said that the consideration must be set forth, it meant that it must be truly set forth; probably it was not necessary that it should be set forth with minute accuracy, but it must be set forth in substance. In this case he was of opinion that the consideration was the £2,050 which was lent to the grantor. It had been contended that any collateral bargain as to the application of the consideration ought to be set forth as part of the consideration, and that in the present case the deed ought to have contained recitals showing the whole of the transaction. His lordship could not, however, see that the Act required recitals of the motive and object of the advance. It seemed to him that the motive of the lender in making the loan formed no part of the consideration for the deed. The consideration was the money which was advanced to the borrower, though he was to pay money out of it in a particular way. The Act required that the actual consideration should be stated; it did not require the statement of any collateral bargain relating to it. Of course, if there was a bargain that the money should be at once returned to the lender, that would be a mere sham. But where the bargain was to apply part of the money advanced in payment of a real debt due at the time of the execution of the deed, there was no reason for calling it a sham, or for saying that the Act required it to be stated. What the Act required to be stated was the real consideration as between the grantor and the grantee, that which, if the Act had not been passed, would have been properly stated in the deed as the consideration for it. BAGGALLAY, L.J., said that he thought the case of Ex parte Carter (27 W. R. 943, L. R. 12 Ch. D. 908), which had been relied upon, was distinguishable, though he was by no means satisfied that he should have agreed with the decision of the Chief Judge in that case. BRAMWELL, L.J., said that he had felt a good deal of difficulty about the consideration, but on the whole, his opinion was in favour of the appellants. Although in a certain sense the grantor could have gone away from the bank with the whole £2,050, and the bank could not have stopped him, but could only have brought an action against him, yet there was a bargain that he should go away with only £1,500. But the Act only required that to be stated as the consideration which would, previously to the Act have been properly stated as the consideration; if the statement would have been accurate before the Act, it was accurate still. But his lordship said that he did not feel so contident on this point as on the other two. He also expressed an opinion that such a rigorous Act as the Bills of Sale Act ought not to be too rigorously enforced.SOLICITORS, J. J. Irving; Ashurst, Morris, & Co.

SECURITY FOR COSTS-MARRIED WOMAN-Next FRIEND -DISCRETION of Court-Ord. 16, R. 8-Ord. 55, R. 2.— In a case of Martano v. Mann, before the Court of Appeal on the 28th ult., a question arose as to security for costs. The action was brought by a married woman, by a widow as her next friend, for the execution of the trusts of a settlement. The defendants had consented to a motion for the appointment of a receiver, and after this they applied to Bacon, V.C., for an order that the next friend should give security for costs, alleging that she was a pauper, and that they had only recently discovered this fact. Bacon, V.C., refused the application. Before the argument on the appeal was concluded, the court (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) suggested that, as rule 8 of order 16 enables a married woman, with the leave of the court, to sue in her own name, the name of the next friend should be struck out. The defendants would thus have, by means of the separate property of the married woman, the same security for costs that a defendant has in an ordinary case. suggestion was acceded to, and an order was made accordingly. JESSEL, M.R., said that he was satisfied that, under the

This

Judicature Rules, the court had a judicial discretion to allow a married woman to sue in her own name with or without giving security for costs, and as to requiring a next friend to give security for costs. The old rule of the Court of Chancery, that the application for security must be made before the next material step in the cause was taken, had been abrogated, and neither the Chancery Division nor the common law divisions were now fettered by the old rule of the Court of Chancery, or by the old rule of the common law courts, that the application must be made before issue was joined. SOLICITORS, Hine-Haycock & Bridgman; Joseph E. S. King.

TRADE NAME-INFRINGEMENT RIGHT TO USE NAME OF DECEASED PERSON.-In a case of Massam v. J. W. Thorley's Cattle Food Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 27th ult., the action was brought by the executors of a testator named Joseph Thorley, who had manufactured and sold an article which he called "Thorley's Food for Cattle," and had by his will directed that his business should be carried on by his executors, to restrain the defendant company by them was manufactured and sold by the testator, or by from representing that any cattle food manufactured and sold his executors, and from representing that they were carrying on the business which had been carried on by the testator. J. W. Thorley, whose name was used by the company, was a brother of the testator, and had been in his employ, and had thus become acquainted with the secret of the composition of the cattle food. The defendant company was formed after the death of the testator, and J. W. Thorley was in. duced to allow the use of his name and to take one share in the company. It was proved that the article sold by the company was substantially the same as that which was sold by the plaintiffs. The company sold their article in packets enclosed in a wrapper almost exactly the same as that which was used by the plaintiffs. Malins, V.C., dismissed the action, and in so doing founded his judgment to a great extent on the order of Lord Romilly, M.R., in James v. James (20 W. R. 434, L. R. 13 Eq. 421), that after the death of an inventor, who has sold the article which he manufactures under his own name, any person making the same article is entitled to sell it, and to describe it by the name of the inventor, though he could not have done so during the inventor's lifetime. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, ard BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) were of opinion that the company had no right to use the name, "Thorley's Food for Cattle," and they granted the injunction asked for. JAMES, L.J., said that le could not agree with the reasoning of Lord Romilly in James v. James. He could not see how the right of the original inventor was lost by his death, nor why he cou'd not transmit it to his representatives. His lordship_al-o said that the well-known judgment of Knight Bruce, L.J., in the case of Burgess v. Burgess (3 De G. M. & G. 896) had been very much misunderstood, and that the judgment of Turner, L.J., in the same case was much more accurately expressed, and it has been adopted by the House of Lords in Wotherspoon v. Currie (L. R. 5 H. L. 508).—SOLICITORS, Collyer-Bristow, Withers, & Russell; W. Eley.

APPEAL OBJECTION AS TO TIME-COSTS-AFFIDAVITS FILED BY RESPONDENT AFTER APPEAL SET DOWN.-In a case of Ex parte Fardon's Vinegar Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 22nd ult., the appellants had, after they had set down their appeal, filed some new affidavits, and the respondent had filed affidavits in reply. On the opening of the appeal the respondent's counsel took the objection that the notice of appeal had been given too late. The appellants' counsel admitted that this was so, but urged that the respondent, if he intended to rely on this objection, ought not to have filed any new affidavits, and that the appellants ought not to be ordered to pay the costs of those affidavits,. The Court (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ) dismissed the appeal with costs, on the ground that it was too late, but expressly excluded the costs of the respondent's new affidavits-SOLICITORS, Llewellyn, Ackrill, & Hammack; Tippetts, Son, & Tickle.

ADMIRALTY ACTION-COLLISION AT SEA-ACTION BY OWNERS OF CARGO-COSTS.-In a case of The City of Manchester, before the Court of Appeal on the 23rd ult., the action was brought by the owners of the cargo of a ship which had been sunk in a collision at sea to recover the value of

the cargo from the owners of the other ship. Sir R. Phillimore held that both ships were to blame for the collision, and that, consequently, the plaintiffs could recover only half the damage. But he held (27 W. R. 697, L. R. 5 P. D. 3) that the ordinary rule that, when both ships are to blame, no costs are given on either side, did not apply when the action was brought, not by the shipowners, but by the owners of the cargo, and he gave the plaintiffs their costs against the defendants. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) held that, as the plaintiffs had claimed more than they were entitled to-viz., the whole damage instead of only half-they must bear their own costs. But their lordships did not decide how the costs must have been borne supposing that the plaintiffs had claimed only half the damage, and the defendants had refused to pay anything.SOLICITORS, Gellatly, Son, & Warton; Stokes, Saunders, & Stokes.

LEASE OF MINE-FORFEITURE - BREACH OF COVENANT BY LESSEE TO WORK.-On the 24th ult. the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision of Jessel, M.R., in the case of Kinsman v. Jackson (28 W. R. 337). The question was whether the lease of a china-clay mine had been forfeited by reason of a breach of contract by the lessees. The lease contained a licence by the lessees to dig, work, and search for china clay within certain land, and all such china clay, when found, to wash, cleanse, prepare, and make merchantable and fit for sale. And the lessees covenanted that they would, during the term, work for china clay in the most proper and effectual manner, and with a reasonable number of men kept employed on the works at all reasonable and usual working times, so that the china clay there to be found might be raised, washed, and made merchantable as speedily as possible. No clay had been raised for some months, but during all that time the lessees had employed their men in washing and preparing for sale clay which had been already raised. Jessel, M.R., held that there had been a breach of the covenant, and refused to restrain the lessor from enforcing the forfeiture of the lease. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. -SOLICITORS, J. & R. Gill; Bell & Steward.

[ocr errors]

WITNESS-PRIVILEGE-POURSUIVANT OF HERALDS' COLLEGE.—In a case of Slade v. Tucker, before the Master of the Rolls on the 23rd ult., a question was raised as to whether Rouge Croix," one of the poursuivants of the Heralds' College, was entitled to privilege from examination. The position of a poursuivant appears to be in the nature of a confidential adviser to persons attempting to make out their pedigrees, and it seems that such persons are obliged to appoint a poursuivant to act on their behalf in investigations in the Heralds' College. It was argued that, from their . position as quasi-legal advisers on matters of pedigree, they were within the ordinary doctrine of privilege as applying to counsel or solicitor, and hence are not bound to disclose any communication between themselves and the persons they were advising. JESSEL, M. R., was of opinion that the ordinary rule of privilege did not extend to poursuivants in the Heralds' in fact only extended to barristers and solicitors, or persons acting for the solicitors, such as their clerks or town agents. He therefore held that Rouge Croix was bound to answer. College. Such privilege had been unavailable for a priest as to matters communicated to him in confession, and it The action was brought to restrain Rouge Croix from parting with, or disclosing the contents of, certain books of evidence which it was alleged were in his possession, and which it had been agreed some years before by the defendant to a litigation, to whom they belonged, should be handed over to the present plaintiff. A motion was made to restrain any dealing with the books until the trial, and Rouge Croix was cross-examined on an affidavit he had made as to their custody, and denied that he had ever had the books in his possession, or had even seen them for some months. On this no order was made on the motion, his lordship remarking that the plaintiff had evidently made the wrong person defendant.-SOLICITORS, Ward, Mills, & Co.; Lodge.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

LENGTH"-RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 37, R. 3-RULES OF COURT (COSTS), ORD. 7, R. 18.-In a case of Bragenton v. Yates, before the Master of the Rolls on the 23rd ult., a motion was made to strike out an affidavit intended to be used at the trial on the ground of scandal. The affidavit set out verbatim numerous long letters filling many printed pages of the affidavit from a third person to the deponent, certain passages in which applied various epithets to the moving party, and made various charges against him, having no connection with the subject-matter of the action. The letters were also made exhibits to the affidavit. The affidavit also set out in full several long statements of account, and also a verbatim report of a long judgment of a registrar in bankruptcy. The respondent offered to expunge the admittedly irrelevant parts of the letters, and an order was eventually made to that effect. JESSEL, M.R., was, however, of opinion that the affidavit came distinctly within the words of Rules of Court, 1875 (Costs), ord. 7, r. 18, as being "improper, containing unnecessary matter, and as of unnecessary length," and he considered he could on the present application deal with the costs of the whole affidavit. The material words of the order are, "The court or judge may, at the hearing of any application or proceeding in any cause or matter in court or at chambers, and whether the same is objected to or not, direct the costs (inter alia) of any affidavit or any part thereof which is improper, unnecessary, or contains unnecessary matter, or is of unnecessary length, to be disallowed." JESSEL, M.R., said that the affidavit in question offended against every one of the points mentioned in the rule, quite independently of the merits of the affidavit itself, and therefore he considered he ought to direct the costs of the affidavit to be disallowed, and to direct the respondent to pay the costs occasioned by such affidavit. The applicant would also have the costs of the motion as between solicitor and client, and his lordship added that he was sorry practitioners did not call his attention to this class of affidavits more frequently.-SOLICTORS, Church, Sons, & Clarke, for Francis, Baker, & Watts, Newton Abbot; Henry Reid.

MORTGAGE-PRIORITY-BREACH OF TRUST-NOTICESOLICITOR. In a case of Cave v. Cave, before Fry, J., on the 22nd ult., a question arose as to the priorities of some mortgagees over cestuis que trust, who had been defrauded by their trustee, and as to constructive notice. The sole surviving trustee of a settlement, who was a solici tor, allowed his brother, who was the tenant for life under the settlement, to invest part of the trust fund in the parchase of land, which was conveyed to the tenant for life in fee. The tenant for life afterwards mortgaged the land as his own. The first mortgagee, to whom the legal estate was conveyed, had no notice of the trust, unless he had constructive notice of it through the trustee solicitor, who acted for both mortgagor and mortgagee in the mortgage transaction. The action was brought by the remaindermen under the settlement, claiming a charge on the land in priority to all the mortgagees. FRY, J., held that the trustee solicitor had been guilty of conduct in the nature of fraud, and that, consequently, it could not be assumed that he had communicated the circumstances to his client, the mortgagee. Therefore, no notice of the trust could be imputed to the first mortgagee, and he was entitled, by reason of his having the legal estate, to priority over the plaintiffs. But the subsequent mortgagees, having only equitable estates, must be postponed to the equitable right of the plaintiffs, which was the prior in time. The first mortgagee had advanced £500, part of his mortgage money, with notice of the second mortgage, and FRY, J., held that, as between the first and second mortgagees, the second mortgagee was entitled to priority in respect of the £500, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the extent of £500, to stand in the place of the second mortgagee, and to have the benefit of his priority over the first mortgagee. -SOLICITORS, Brook & Chapman; J. H. Howard; James Edell; Parker, Lee, & Co.; H. H. Hughes; Curtis & Betts.

PRACTICE-ORDER UPON SOLICITOR TO PAY COSTS OF ACTION-SUBStituted Service at Office-ATTACHMENTCOSTS OF APPLICATION.-An application was made to ViceChancellor Hall, on the 15th ult., for leave to issue a writ of attachment against A., a solicitor. The application was made on behalf of the defendants in the action of Tilney

Stansfeld, in which an order had been made on November 28, 1879, for a stay of proceedings and payment of their costs to the defendants by A., as the plaintiff's solicitor, on the ground that the action was frivolous and an abuse of the process of the court. The defendants' costs were taxed at £52 14s. A subpoena was duly issued, and an order obtained for substituted service of the order of November 28, and of the subpæna and for payment of £3 12s., the costs of the application. Substituted service was effected by leaving copies of the order and the subpoena at the office of the solicitor with one of his clerks, it having been found impossible to ascertain his private residence. No payment had been made. It was now asked that this service should be considered to be sufficient, and that the order now asked should provide for the costs of the attachment as between solicitor and client. The respondent had been served with notice of this application by the same substituted service as before, but did not appear. HALL, V.C., doubted whether the order should in form direct that the respondent be committed until the payment of the costs of the motion and the attachment, as being within the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 4, exception 4, but made an order for the attachment to issue for non-payment of the sums of £52 14s. and £3 12s., and a further order for payment of the costs of the application and the attachment, as between solicitor and client. His lordship further directed that the order should not be drawn up for a week, notice of it being given to the respondent, and of the intention to draw up and act upon the order at the end of that period.-SOLICITOR FOR APPLICANT, W. J. Milton.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT, 1875 (38 & 39 VICT. c. 40), s. 1, SUB-SECTION 2-FORM NO. 2 IN SCHEDULE THERETO— NUMBER ON THE BURGESS ROLL OF SECONDER WRONGLY GIVEN IN NOMINATION PAPER of CANDIDATE.-The case of Gothard and others v. Clark and others, before the Common Pleas Division on the 23rd ult., was a special case stated by order of Stephen, J. The petitioners and three of the respondents were candidates for the office of town councillor for the Heaton Norris Ward of the borough of Stockport. The petitioners were seconded by one George Chapman, a well-known inhabitant, whose number on the burgess roll was 704; but, in compiling the burgess roll, some of the numbers were, by an error, inserted twice, and in a proof of the roll, from which the petitioners filled in the nomination paper, Chapman's number was given as 695. This mistake was discovered and corrected by the town clerk in finally settling the burgess rell, by pasting in the proper numbers over those which had been wrongly inserted. On October 22 the respondents obtained a copy of the correct burgess roll, and thereupon filled in the registration numbers in the respondents' nomination papers; but the petitioners did not have the correct roll. An objection to the petitioners' nomination papers was made by the respondents' agent, on the grounds that the burgess number of George Chapman was wrongly given, that the nomination was insufficient, and the description misleading. The mayor allowed the objection, and declared the respondents duly elected. The case found that George Chapman was well known, that no person was misled by the wrong number, and that there was no doubt as to the identity of George Chapman. The question for the court was whether the decision of the mayor was right. The court (GROVE and LOPES, JJ.), in giving judgment for the respondents, decided that it was. They held that the schedule to the Act required the correct number to be given, and that as this had not been done, the nomination was bad.-SOLICITORS, Hopwood & Sons, for Newton, Stockport; Beal & De Soyres, for Lake, Stockport.

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE-BIGAMY-DIVORCE IN SCOTLAND. In the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, on the 22nd ult., the cise of Harvey (otherwise Farnie) v. Farnie was tried be ore the President of the division without a jury. The petitioner sued for a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that her husband had a wife living when he was married to her. The respondent was married in Wales in 1861. He was at that time a domiciled Scotchman, though his wife was an Englishwoman, and he cohaoited with her in Scotland. In 1863 she obtained in the Scotch courts a decree for a divorce on

the ground of his adultery. The respondent afterwards left Scotland, and had ever since resided in England, except during an absence of two years in America. In 1863 he was married to the petitioner in London, describing himself in the marriage-register as a widower. A few months ago the petitioner commenced a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery, cruelty, and desertion, but she afterwards abandoned it, and elected to sue for a declaration of nullity of marriage. The first wife was still living, but it was shown by the evidence of a member of the Scotch bar that the decree which she had obtained in Scotland left both parties free to marry again. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the decree of the Scotch court was not binding, since the marriage had been solemnized in England, and the divorce had been granted on the ground of the husband's adultery, which would not alone be a ground for a divorce in the English court. In support of this contention, Lolley's case (R. & M. 237) was relied upon. HANNEN, P., dismissed the petition on the ground that he was bound by the Scotch decree which had dissolved the marriage. The fact that the first wife was an English woman was immaterial, since the husband was a domiciled Scotchman, and the cohabitation had taken place in the country of his domicil. The Scotch court had, therefore, full power over the parties. and Warrender v. Warrender (2 C. & F. 488) showed that it had jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage which had been solemnized in England. Lolley's case was distinguishable, because there the parties had an English domicil, but the judgment of the Irish Court of Chancery in Maghee v. McAllister (2 Ir. Ch. R. 604) was directly in point. It was, therefore, clear that the marriage with the petitioner was not a bigamous one.-SOLICITORS, Tucker; Ward.

Appointments, Etc.

Mr. ROBERT HUXLEY ALDHAM, solicitor and notary, of Lynn, has been elected an Alderman for that borough Mr. Aldham was admitted a solicitor in 1854, and is clerk. to the county magistrates, to the Commissioners of Taxes, and to the Lynn Board of Guardians, superintendent-- registrar and vestry clerk of the parish of South Lynn.

Mr. EDWARD D'OYLEY BAYLEY, solicitor, of Stockton, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the County and City of Durham.

The Hon. ROBERT BOURKE, barrister, M.P., has been/ sworn in as a Member of the Privy Council. Mr. Bourke is the third son of the fifth Earl of Mayo, and was born in 1827. He is a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1852. He practised for several years on the South Wales and Chester Circuit, and he is the author of a work

on

"Parliamentary Precedents." Mr. Bourke has been M.P. for Lynn in the Conservative interest since 1868, and he was appointed Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in February, 1874.

Mr. EBENEZER JOHN BUCHANAN, barrister, has been appointed Recorder of the Supreme Court of the Colony of Griqualand West, in succession to Mr. Jacobus Petrus De Wet, who has been appointed Chief Justice of the Transvaal Colony. Mr. Buchanan was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1873, and he has acted for several months as Attorney-General of Griqualand West.

The Right Hon. RICHARD ASSHETON CROSS, barrister, M.P., has been appointed a Civil Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. Sir R. Cross is the son of Mr. William Cross, of Red Scar, near Preston, and was born in 1823. He was educated at Rugby, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as a senior optime in 1846. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1849, and he practised for several years on the Northern Circuit. He is the author (jointly with Mr. Henry Leeming) of a work on "Quarter Sessions Practice." From 1857 till 1862 he was M.P. for Preston in the Conservative interest, and since 1868 he has represented SouthWest Lancashire. In February, 1874, he was appointed Secretary of State for the Home Department, and was sworn a member of the Privy Council.

Mr. MONTAGU WILLIAM LOWRY CORRY, barrister, C.B., has been raised to the peerage with the title of Baron

Rowton. The new peer is the second son of the Right Hon. Henry Thomas Lowry Corry, M.P., formerly First Lord of the Admiralty, and was born in 1838. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1863. He was formerly a member of the Oxford Circuit, and he has been for many years private secretary to the Earl of Beaconsfield. He acted as one of the secretaries to the special embassy to Berlin in 1878, and he was shortly afterwards created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath.

Mr. CHARLES MATTHEW CLODE, barrister, has been created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath. Mr. Clode was educated at Merchant Taylor's School, and he practised for several years as a solicitor, being a member of the firm of Evans & Clode, 2, Gray's-inn-square. He was Solicitor to the War Office from 1858 till 1876, when he was appointed Legal Secretary to the same department. Mr. Clode was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1862.

Mr. WILLIAM STEPHEN DAGLISH, solicitor, of Newcastleupon-Tyne, Jarrow, Tynemouth, and Belford, has been appointed Deputy-Recorder of the Borough of Newcastleupon-Tyne, in succession to Mr. George William Hodge, deceased. Mr. Daglish was admitted a solicitor in 1853, and is town clerk and clerk to the magistrates of the Borough of Jarrow, registrar of the Belford County Court, and clerk to the Wallsend Local Board.

Mr. JACOBUS PETRUS DE WET, Recorder of the Supreme Court of the Colony of Griqualand West, has been appointed Chief Justice of the Transvaal Colony. Mr. De Wet was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1863.

Mr. GABRIEL GOLDNEY, M.P., has been created a Baronet. Sir G. Goldney is the eldest son of Mr. Harry Goldney, of Chippenham, and was born in 1813. He was admitted a solicitor in 1836, and practised for about thirty years at Chippenham. He has been M.P. for that borough in the Conservative interest since 1865, and he is a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Wiltshire.

Sir WILLIAM GEORGE GRANVILLE VERNON HARCOURT, Q.C., M.P., who has been appointed Secretary of State for the Home Department is the second son of the Rev. William Vernon Harcourt, of Nuneham Park, Oxfordshire, and was born in 1827. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated in the first class of the classical tripos in 1851, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1854. He formerly practised on the Home Circuit and at the Parliamentary bar, and he became a Queen's Counsel in 1866. Sir W. Harcourt has represented the city of Oxford in the Liberal interest since 1868, He was Solicitor-General from November, 1873, till February, 1874, having received the honour of knighthood on his appointment, and he is professor of international law in the University of Cambridge.

Mr. JOHN POPE HENNESSY, barrister, C.M.G., has been created a Knight Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Sir J. Hennessy is the son of Mr. John Hennessy, of Ballyhennessy, Kerry. He was born in 1834, and was educated at Queen's College, Cork. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1861, and he was formerly a member of the Home Circuit. He was M.P. for King's County from 1859 till 1865. He was appointed Governor of Labuan in 1867, Governor of the Bahamas in 1871, and Administrator-General of the WestAfrican Settlements in 1872. He was Governor of the Bahamas (for the second time) from 1873 till 1875, when he was appointed Governor of the Windward Islands, and he has been Governor of Hong Kong since 1877. He was created a C.M.G. in 1872.

Mr. ROBERT TOWNSEND HIPPISLEY, solicitor, of Bristol, Clifton, and Redland, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for Gloucestershire and Somersetshire, and for the City of Bristol.

Mr. EDWARD EBENEZER KAY, Q.C., has been elected an additional Chairman of Quarter Sessions for the County of Norfolk. Mr. Kay is the second son of Mr. Robert Kay of Brookshaw, Lancashire, and was born in 1822. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1847. He has practised for many years in the Court of Chancery, and he became a Queen's Counsel in 1866. Mr. Kay is a magistrate for Norfolk, and a bencher of Lincoln's-inn.

Mr. GEORGE HENRY LONG, solicitor (of the firm of Long Durnford, & Lovegrove), of Windsor, has been appointed a Magistrate for that borough. Mr. Long was admitted a solicitor in 1846, and is clerk to the county magistrates and to the Commissioners of Taxes for the Hundred of Stoke.

Mr. JOHN HAY ATHOLL MACDONALD, advocate, has been appointed Sheriff of Perthshire, in succession to Mr. Robert Lee, who has been appointed a Judge of the Court of Sessions in Scotland. Mr. Macdonald was called to the Scotch bar in 1859, and he has been Solicitor-General for Scotland since 1876.

Mr. EDWARD DANI EL MELLOR, solicitor (of the firm of Milne, Riddle, & Mellor), of 2, Harcourt-buildings, Temple, has been appointed a Chief Clerk in the chambers of Vice-Chancellor Bacon in succession to Mr. Joshua Bird, deceased. Mr. Mellor was admitted a solicitor in 1869.

Mr. JAMES MUIRHEAD, advocate, has been appointed Sheriff of Chancery in Scotland, on the resignation of Mr. John McLaren, M.P. Mr. Muirhead was called to the bar in Scotland in 1857. He has been for the last six years an advocate-depute, and he is Professor of Civil Law in the University of Edinburgh.

Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, Legal Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has been created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath. Sir J. 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 he was formerly a member of the Oxford Circuit. He was Attorney-General of Hong Kong from 1865 till 1873, when he was appointed Chief Justice of the Leeward Islands. He received the honour of knighthood in 1874, and was shortly afterwards appointed an Assistant Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in 1876 he was appointed Legal Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. WILLIAM RADCLIFFE, solicitor, of Liverpool, has been appointed a Magistrate for that borough. Mr. Radcliffe was admitted a solicitor in 1847, and is a member of the Liverpool Town Council.

Mr. THEODORE RYLAND, barrister, has been appointed Counsel to the General Post Office in Ireland. Mr. Ryland was called to the bar in Ireland in 1853, and practises on the Leinster Circuit.

Mr. WILLIAM SHERRATT, solicitor and notary, of Wrexham and Birkenhead, has been appointed a Borough Magictrate for Wrexham.

Mr. HERBERT BROOK TAYLOR, solicitor, of Bakewell, has been appointed Clerk to the county magistrates at that place, on the resignation of his father, Mr. John Taylor, who is clerk to the Bakewell Local Board and Burial Board. Mr. H. B. Taylor was admitted a solicitor in 1878.

Mr. WILLIAM THOMAS WALLER, solicitor (of Waller & Son), of 2, Duke-street, Adelphi, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

The Right Hon. WILLIAM WATSON, LL.D., a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, has been created a Peer for life, with the title of Baron Watson, of Thankerton.

Mr. JAMES LOWRY WHITTLE, barrister, has been appointed by the Lord Chancellor to the office of Registrar in Lunacy, on the resignation of Mr. Charles Norris Wilde. Mr. Whittle is an M.A. of Trinity College, Dublin, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1878, having been called to the bar in Ireland in 1862. He has been for several years Assistant Registrar of Designs and Assistant Registrar of Trade-marks.

Mr. CHARLES WATKIN WILLIAMS WYNN, barrister, has been appointed Recorder of the Borough of Oswestry, in succession to the late Mr. John Robert Kenyon, Q.C. Mr. Wynn is the eldest son of the Right Hon. Charles Watkin Williams Wynn, M.P., formerly president of the board of control, and was born in 1822. He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, and was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1846. He is a magistrate and deputylieutenant for Montgomeryshire, and was M.P. for that county in the Conservative interest from 1862 till the recent election, when he was unsuccessful.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. WILLIAM FINDLATER, solicitor, of Dublin, who has been elected M.P. for the County of Monaghan in the Liberal interest, is the son of Mr. William Findlater, of Londonderry, and was born in 1824. He was admitted a solicitor in Ireland in 1846, and was President of the Irish Incorporated Law Society in 1878.

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM FOLEY, solicitor, who has been elected M.P. for the Borough of New Ross in the Home Rule interest, is the son of Mr. William Foley, of New Ross. He was born in 1821, and was admitted a solicitor in 1847.

Mr. JOHN GIVAN, solicitor, of Dublin and Auquacloy, who has been elected M.P. for the County of Monaghan in the Liberal interest, is the eldest son of Mr. John Givan, of Castlecaulfield, Tyrone. He was born in 1847, and was admitted a solicitor at Dublin in 1870.

Mr. CHARLES HERBERT JAMES, solicitor, of Merthyr Tydvil and Aberdare, who has been elected M.P. for the Borough of Merthyr Tydvil in the Liberal interest, was born in 1815, and was admitted a solicitor in 1838.

Mr. JOHN COMPTON LAWRANCE, Q.C., who has been elected M.P. for the Southern Division of Lincolnshire in the Conservative interest, is the son of the late Mr. Thomas Lawrance, of Dunsby Hall, Lincolnshire. He was born in 1832, and he was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1859. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1877, and he practises on the Midland Circuit. Mr. Lawrance is a magistrate for Lincolnshire, a bencher of Lincoln'sinn, and Recorder of the Borough of Derby.

Mr. ROBERT LAYCOCK, barrister, who has been elected M.P. for the Northern Division of Lincolnshire, in the Liberal interest, is the son of Mr. Joseph Laycock, of Low Gosforth Hall, Northumberland, and was born in 1833. He is an M.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge, and he was -called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1857. He was formerly a member of the Northern Circuit.

Mr. EDWARD FALCONER LITTON, Q.C., who has been elscted M.P. for the County of Tyrone in the Liberal interest, is the son of Mr. Daniel Litton, and was born in 1827. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and he was called to the bar in Ireland in 1849. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1874, and practises on the Munster Circuit. He is a prosecuting Crown counsel for the Counties of Cork and Clare.

Mr. JAMES CARLILE MCCOAN, who has been elected M.P. for the County of Wicklow in the Home Rule interest, is the son of Mr. Clement McCoan, of Dunlow, Tyrone, and was born in 1829. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1856, and is a member of the South-Eastern Circuit, having practised for several years in the Supreme Consular Court at Constantinople. Mr. McCoan is the author of "Egypt as it is," and "Our New Protectorate."

Mr. BERNARD CHARLES MOLLOY, barrister, who has been elected M.P. for King's County in the Home Rule interest, is a son of the late Mr. Molloy, Q.C., of the Irish bar. He was educated at the University of Bonn, and was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Hilary Term, 1872. He is a member of the South-Eastern Circuit.

Mr. EDWARD PURCELL MULHALLEN MARUM, barrister, who has been elected M.P. for the County of Kilkenny in the Home Rule interest, is the son of Mr. Richard Marum, and was born in 1827. He is an LL.B. of the University of London. He was called to the bar at Dublin in 1846, and is a member of the Munster Circuit.

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. GEORGE FAIRFAX MORESBY-WHITE and WILLIAM HOWCAND JACKSON. solicitors, 24, Chancery-lane (MoresbyWhite & Jackson). George Fairfax Moresby-White will continue the business on his separate account.

(Gazette, April 27, 1880.)

Companies.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

ESTON ODD FELLOWS' BUILDING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up presented April 19, directed to be heard bofore the M.R.. May 1. Belfrage and Co, John st, Bedford row, agents for Bainbridge and Barnley, Middlesborough, solicitors for the petitioners EQUITABLE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.-The creditors are required on or before May 21 to send their names and addresses and particulars of their debts or claims to Charles Fitch Kemp, Walbrook. Friday, June 4, at 11, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

LLANDRINDOD ESTATE AND BUILDING COMPANY, LIMITED.-V.C. Bacon has by an order dated April 8, appointed Joseph Francis Swann, 38, Chancery lane, to be Official Liquidator. Creditors are required on or before May 24, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims to the above. Monday, May 31, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims TRADERS' BANKING AND SUPPLY COMPANY, LIMITED.-V.C. Hall has fixed Saturday, May 8, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an Official Liquidator

TYNEMOUTH AQUARIUM AND WINTER GARDEN COMPANY, LIMITED.— Creditors are required on or before May 21, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims to Thom is Young Strachan, Grainger st West, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Monday, May 31, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

[Gazette, Apr. 23.] ARTISTIC COLOUR PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R. dated April 17, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Wilkinson and Howlett, Bedford st, Covent Garden, solicitors for the petitioner JOHN WEBSTER AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Malins dated April 16, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Austen, De Gex, Harding, and Candler, Raymond bldgs, Gray'sinn, agents for Sadler and Eddowes, Sutton Coldfeld, solicitors for the petitioners

METROPOLITAN FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R. dated April 17, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Pettiver, College st, College Hill, solicitor for the petitioner

SOUTH DOROTHEA SLATE QUARRY COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Hall April 16, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Robinson, Hodding, and Cameron, Gracechurch st, solicitors for the petitioner VICTORIA MANSIONS, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Malins dated Mar 12, it was ordered that the Victoria Mansions, limd, be wound up. Bolton and Co, Temple gardens, solicitors for the petitioners [Gazette, Apr. 27.]

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY. CORNWALL MINERALS RAILWAY COMPANY.-Creditors are required on or before June 1, to send to Robert Arthur Read, 9, Victoria chambers, Westminster, the Receiver of the company, their names and addresses, the full particulars of their claims, and produce the same before V.C. Hall, at his chambers, on Wednesday, June 16. at 1 [Gazette, Apr. 23.] PADSTOW TOTAL. LOSS AND COLLISION ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION.Petition for winding up presented April 23, directed to be heard before V.C. Malins, May 7. Philbrick, Basinghall st, agent for Wallis, Bodmin, solicitor for the petitioners [Gazette, Apr. 27.]

Societies.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

The 44th half-yearly general meeting of this association was held on Wednesday, the 28th ult., at the Incorporated Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, Mr. Sidney Smith occupying the chair.

The following members, among others, were present:Messrs. John Lewis (Wrexham), deputy-chairman of the board; E. Banner (Liverpool), A. P. Bower, W. B. Brook, W. Chubb, R. Dawbarn (March), F. R. Franklyn, W. Greaves, E. Hedger, J. Hunter, G. Keen, J. Mackrell, T. F. Peacock, R. Pennington, R. Pidcock (Woolwich), H. S. Redpath, H. S. Styan, R. W. Wall, W. M. Walters, F. T.

Woolbert.

The Secretary read the notice of meeting, and the minutes of the previous general meeting.

The report of the directors, which follows, and of which a printed copy was in the hands of each member present, was agreed to be taken as read :

The board of directors have the pleasure of presenting, in obedience to the rules of the association, this their fortyfourth half-yearly report of the progress and operations of the association during the past six months.

Since their last report 44 new members have been admitted to the association, and the aggregate number is now 2,542

« PreviousContinue »