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. THE NEW ORDERS. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,--Since my letter to you under this head of last week, which only alluded to the common law side, I have been informed that the officials of the Chancery Division have taken the same view of the new orders and refuse to give time, unless a previous application has been made to the other side for a consent and refused. From inquiries I have made, the loss to the Revenue has been much under-estimated by me. Take the Chancery Division, however, to be the same as the Common Law Divisions, and you have a total loss of £30,000 per year. In addition, the construction put upon the rule is causing great inconvenience to agency and other firms doing a large common law and chancery business. 8, Ely-place, London, May 3. J. F. GILES. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-It is certainly important that the new practice as to obtaining "time" should be settled by some higher authority than the fluctuating decisions of the "masters," for at present it is not safe to take out a summons for time, although the omission to do so may enable an opponent to snatch a judgment. As an example, on Tuesday last an application was made by letter for an extension of time. No answer having been received up to three o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, a clerk was sent down to issue a summons. While he was gone a consent was delivered. At the return of the summons this morning, the circumstances were explained to the master, who nevertheless indorsed "no order," the consequence being that the applicant must in any event pay the costs, although no alternative was open but to take out the summons, or run the risk to which I have alluded. BINDING THE CAUSE BOOKS. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, I beg to call the attention of your readers and the profession generally to what I consider is the means of causing a great amount of unnecessary trouble and delay in dispatch of business, and which might lead to rather serious consequences. It is the practice, at the Central Office, of sending the cause books a great distance from that office to be bound. Wishing to search appearance and sign judgment, &c., on the 28th ult., in an action commenced in the Common Pleas Division at the end of October last, I attended at the Central Office for that purpose, but on presenting my præcipe for search, was informed that the cause books were at Messrs. Waterlow's, Hill-street, Finsbury, for the purpose of being bound, and I was handed a permit addressed to that firm to inspect the book. As it was then twenty minutes to four there was, under the circumstances, no chance of doing anything that day. On the following day I again called at the Central Office and found that the books were still at Messrs. Waterlow's, and eventually I was forced to go to Hillstreet and back before judgment could be signed and execution issued. It is needless for me to point out what might have been the result of this unnecessary delay. But apart from that I think it very wrong that the cause books should be allowed to go out of the building without a duplicate being provided for means of reference. They might accidentally be destroyed, as a bookbinder's shop is not the safest place in which to keep books of that description. Surely some arrangement might be made for having the books bound at, or at least near, the Central Office, where they could be seen if required without any difficulty. I am sure the authorities at the Central Office, who are most obliging in studying the interests of the profession and public, will,on learning the trouble that they unknowingly cause, only be too willing to remedy the evil. April 30. A READER. Boddington, R. St. J., B.A. Lockett, G. B. Owen, E. T. Phillips, T. H. Postlethwaite, Wm., B.A. Rhodes, F. Robinson, C. E. Rose, H. N. Seddon, Wm., LL.B. Smith, F. Smith, J. Muir Elliott, H. G. V. Fabling, A. Fletcher, C. H. E. Gater, W. H., B.A. GRAY'S INN MOOT SOCIETY. A meeting of this society was held on Thursday evening, the 29th ult., when the following question was argued before Alfred Wills, Esq., Q.C.: “ A. was manager to B. B. owed him £250 for salary. B. also owed C. £150. A. by falsely representing to B. that C. owed A. £150, and that it had been agreed between A. and C. that B. should pay the £150 to A. instead of to C., and that B.'s debt to C. should be satisfied by such payment, induced B. to give him a cheque for £400.A. altered the cheque into one for £1,400, and obtained from B.'s bank £1,300 in notes and £100 in gold. A. also stole from B.'s strong box £600 in gold. A. had a banking account at another bank, which was overdrawn to the extent of £400. He paid into his bank £1,200 in notes and £600 in gold, part of the identical proceeds of the above transaction; whether the £600 included any portion of the £100 obtained from B.'s bank or not it was impossible to ascertain. B. sues A.'s bank for £1,750. Is he entitled to recover anything? and if so, how much? Mr. H. F. Boyd (Inner Temple), and Mr. F. B. de M. Gibbons (Gray's-inn); appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. R. Ingpen and Mr. Giles (Middle Temple) for the bank. The learned president gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for £500. The notice in our last issue as to the moot to be held on the 29th inst. referred to the above meeting. There will be two meetings in the ensuing term, the dates of which are not as yet definitely fixed. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY, The weekly meeting of this society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday evening last, Mr. A. E. Hemsley in the chair. The subject appointed for the evening's debate was the following: "Are there the elements of permanency in a Liberal Government?" Mr. Lloyd Jones opened the question in the negative. Messrs. W. Bartlett, Israel Abrahams, Wright, Napier, and Hemsley supported the affirmative, and Messrs. C. J. Etherington, B.A., A. M. Ellis, LL.B., and W. H. Skelton, the negative. Mr. Lloyd Jones having replied, the question was decided in the negative by a majority of one. UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A meeting of the above society was held at Clement's-inn Hall on the evening of Wednesday last. Mr. W. Dowson presided. The meeting devoted itself to the discussion of business motions, and, in particular, motions were carried giving greater facilities for the use of books from the library, and of which it is expected that members will promptly and beneficially avail themselves. On Wednesday next, the 12th inst., Mr. E. F. Spence will open the subject for debate, "That it is desirable that marriage with a deceased wife's sister should be made legal," and it is hoped that members and their friends will then largely attend. BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A meeting of this society was held in the Law Library, on Tuesday, May 4, Mr. J. E. Deakin, M.A., LL.M., in the chair. After the transaction of the special business, a debate took place on the following moot point: "Criminal Code Bill (43 Vict. 1880), section 24, enacts that No presumption shall be made that a married woman committing an offence does so under compulsion, because she commits it in the presence of her husband.' Is this alteration of the law desirable ?"-Stephen's Commentaries, 4th vol., p. 32 (7th ed.); Stephen's General View of the Criminal Law of England, p. 84; Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law, article 30, p. 17, and note ii., p. 332; Harris' Principles of the Criminal Law, p. 29; Russell on Crimes, 1st vol., p. 139 (5th ed.); Burn's Justice of the Peace, 5th vol., p. 1235. The speakers in the affirmative were Messrs. Davis, Smith, Gover, King, Ludlow, Dennison, and Rogers, and in the negative Messrs. Barrows, Cochrane, Samuel, and Crosskey. At the conclusion of a very animated debate, the chairman carefully reviewed the arguments of both sides and put the question to the meeting, which was carried in the affirmative by a majority of six votes. A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting. LIVERPOOL LAW STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION. The eighth meeting of the session of this association was held on the 19th of April, F. M. Hall, Esq., solicitor, in the chair. Mr. T. S. Mills was elected secretary, in the place of Mr. F. J. Leslie, who had resigned. The new secretary then brought forward a motion to the following effect :-"That a hearty vote of thanks be accorded to Mr. F. J. Leslie for his valuable services and unwearied exertions as hon. secretary of this association." The motion was seconded by Mr. A. Wilson, and, after being Supported by several members, was carried with acolamation. During Mr. Leslie's secretaryship, and mainly through his exertions, the association has increased its members from seventy to over 230, and from being a mere debating society has assumed the character of an educational institution. It is to be hoped that the association will maintain the flourishing condition into which it has been brought by Mr. Leslie. A discussion afterwards took place upon the following subject:-"A. bays goods from C. through C.'s agent B. On receipt of the goods, A. writes a letter to B., in which he says, 'C.'s goods are of short weight, and perfectly valueless, and C. knew of this. I consider such conduct fraudulent, and C. is a disgrace to our business, and a cheat.' Is such a communication privileged ?" Mr. H. S. Clegg opened the debate in the affirmative, and was followed by Mr. E. H. Blease in support of the negative. After a spirited discussion, on the question being put to the vote, it was decided in the negative by a majority of five. Cases of the Week. PROOF IN BANKRUPTCY-CONTINGENT LIABILITY" INCAPABLE OF BEING FAIRLY ESTIMATED ANNUITY IN SEPARATION DEED-BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1869, s. 31.-In a case of Ex parte Neal, before the Court of Appeal on the 29th ult., the question arose whether a proof could be admitted in the bankruptcy of a husband for the value of an annuity which he had covenanted to pay to the trustees of a separation deed during the joint lives of himself and his wife on trust for her benefit. The deed provided that the annuity should cease in case the wife should not lead a chaste life, and in case the husband and wife should resume cohabitation. The annuity was also to be diminished proportionally in case the wife should become entitled to an income independently of her husband. Mr. Registrar Murray rejected the proof, on the ground that the value of the liability was incapable of being fairly estimated. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) held that the case was substantially governed by Ex parte Blakemore (25 W. R. 488, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 372), in which it was held that the value of an annuity given to a widow during her widowhood was capable of being estimated. The proof was accordingly admitted.-SOLICITORS, James Neal; G. J. Jennings. FOR BY LIQUIDATION BY ARRANGEMENT-EXCESSIVE CHARGES REMUNERATION OF TRUSTEES APPLICATION CREDITOR FOR PAYMENT OT DIVIDEND.-In a case of Ex parte Snell, before the Court of Appeal on the 29th ult., an application had been made by a secured creditor of some liquidating debtors, after he had realized his security, for an order that the trustees should pay him a dividend on the balance remaining due to him, at the same rate as they had already paid to the other creditors. The judge of the Chelmsford County Court made the order asked for, on the ground that the trustees had assets in their hands applicable to the purpose. His reason for so holding was that the amounts which the trustees claimed to retain for their own remuneration, and the costs of their solicitors, were excessive. The assets realized amounted to about £2,100. The trustees claimed for their remuneration nearly £600, the solicitors' costs were stated at about £600, and the amount distributed in dividend was about £700. The trustees' remuneration had been sanctioned by two persons who had acted as a committee of inspection, and the accounts of the trustees had been passed by a general meeting of the creditors, which had been sum. moned to release the trustees and to fix the close of the liquidation. The creditors, at their first meeting, had appointed three persons as a committee of inspection, but one of those persons declined to act, and no one was ever appointed in his place. The trustees' remuneration was calculated with reference to the number of hours which they stated to have been employed by themselves and their clerks in the business of the liquidation, at the rate of payment per hour allowed by the London Bankruptcy Court. The Chief Judge affirmed the order, but, on the ground (which has since been held by the the Court of Appeal in Ex parte Good, 28 W. R. 553, ante p. 403, to be untenable)-viz., that the creditor had sent in a sufficient proof of his debt before the declaration of the dividend, though he had not then either realized or valued his security. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision, on the ground that the sum claimed for the trustees' remuneration was, on the face of it, so monstrous and extortionate for the realization of such a small estate, and the payment of one dividend, that it was impossible that the number of hours stated to have been employed could have been honestly employed for the purpose. The court held that that, under the circumstances, there never was any committee of inspection validly appointed, and the voting of the trustees' remuneration by the two persons who affected to act as a committee went for nothing. JAMES, L.J., said that the audit of the trustees' accounts by the general meeting was a mere sham. And BRAMWELL, L. J., said the general meeting had power to audit the trustees' accounts, but they had no power to dispense with an audit, which was what they appeared to have really done. The court accordingly simply affirmed the order appealed, without directing, as they were asked to do, a fresh audit, or a quasitaxation of the trustees' accounts.-SOLICITORS, Tippetts, Son, & Tickle; E. Woodard. COMPANY WINDING UP-DIRECTOR MISFEASANCE ACTING WITHOUT QUALIFICATION IN SHARES-COMPANIES ACT, 1862, s. 165.-In a case of In re The Canadian Land Reclaiming and Colonising Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 1st inst., the question arose whether a director of a company could be made liable, under section 165, for a misfeasance, on the ground that he had acted as a director without acquiring any shares as a qualification in accordance with the provisions of the articles of association. Jessel, M.R., held that the director could not be deemed to have entered into any implied contract to take the qualifying number of shares; but his lordship held (ante, p. 271) that in not taking the shares the director had been guilty of a misfeasance towards the company, and that he must pay as damages the whole nominal amount of the shares which he ought to have taken. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) reversed this decision, holding that, at any rate in the absence of any evidence that the company had sustained damage by the director's omission to acquire the shares, there had been no misfeasance for which he could be made liable. JAMES, L.J., thought that the Master of the Rolls had not been construing the Act, but had been rather legislating for the purpose of repressing and punishing a wrongful act. The Legislature had not thought fit to impose any penalty for the acting as a director without the proper qualification. Section 165 did not create any new liability or give any new right, but merely provided a more convenient machinery for the enforcing of previously existing rights and liabilities in the winding up of a company. In order to apply the machinery of section 165 it must be shown that there would have been some cause of action against the director if the company was not being wound up. By a "misfeasance" was meant something in the nature of a breach of trust; some act which had done wrong to the company, and had resulted in pecuniary loss to them. De facto directors, or directors de son tort as they had been called, would be liable for any acts of omission or commission in relation to the company in exactly the same way as if they had been directors de jure. In the present case no damage had resulted to the company. The director ought to have taken 100 shares, but there were in fact no shares to be taken. The company had issued a prospectus, which stated that 700 shares had already been taken, and the public were invited to subscribe for the remaining 1,400 shares, but it was stipulated that no shares should be issued unless the whole 1,400 were taken. His lordship was utterly at a loss to see that any damage had resulted to the company, or why the director should be liable for the value of the shares any more than for all the debts of the company. BRAMWELL, L.J., said that in his opinion it was impossible to hold that a man who had done nothing wrong, except that he had done an act without being qualified to do it, had been guilty of a misfeasance within the meaning of section 165. That section was intended to provide a summary remedy for acts for which there would, also have been a remedy at common law. It ought to be shown first that there had been a misfeasance; and, secondly, that damage had resulted to the company in respect of which the person guilty of the misfeasance was bound to make compensation, and the onus of proof was on the person who alleged that the company had sustained a loss.-SOLICITORS, E. Beall; Wilde, Browne, § Wilde. ANNUITY DEED-REGISTRATION-PRIORITY-NOTICE-18 & 19 VICT. c. 15.-In a case of Greaves v. Tofield, before the Court of Appeal on the 3rd inst., the question arose whether the grantee of an annuity, charged by deed on land, was entitled to priority over some subsequent incambrancers on the land, whose incumbrances had been created before the annuity deed had been registered under section 12 of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 15, but who had express notice of the annuity by means of recitals in their mortgage deeds. There was also a question whether the annuity was valid as against the trustee in the bankruptcy of the grantor. Section 12 provides that, until registration in the mode thereby prescribed, “Any annuity or rent-charge granted after the passing of this Act, otherwise than by marriage settlement, for one or more life or lives, or for any term of years, or greater estate determinable on one or more life or lives, shall not affect any lands, tenements, or hereditaments as to purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors." Jessel, M.R., held that, notwithstanding the notice to the subsequent mortgagees, they were entitled to priority over the annuitant, and that the trustee in bankruptcy was also entitled to priority. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) reversed this decision, and held that the annuitant was entitled to priority over the subsequent incumbrancers, who had notice of the grant of the annuity, and also over the trustee in bankruptcy of the grantor. JAMES, L.J., said that there was nothing in section 12 of the Act to put an end to or affect the equitable doctrine as to notice laid down in such cases as Le Neve v. Le Neve (Amb. 436), and the trustee in bankruptcy could only take that which the bankrupt himself had. BRAMWELL, L.J., said that he concurred in the reversal of the decision of the Master of the Rolls with great doubt and reluctance, but, upon the authorities, he could come to no other conclusion. He could not, however, help thinking that it was the intention of the Legislature that a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer was not to be affected by any notice but that derived from the register. -SOLICITORS, Pilgrim & Phillips; Peacock & Goddard; Cattarns, Jehu, & Hughes. TRADE-MARK - INJUNCTION -SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIVAL MARKS-Selvage-DifferENT COLOURED INTERWOVEN THREADS.-In a case of Mitchell v. Henry, before the Master of the Rolls on the 30th ult., a question was argued whether certain marks used by the defendants were an infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trade-marks. The plaintiffs had registered seven marks in respect of certain black mohair goods, the marks registered being a white selvage on each side of the piece, with a white thread interwoven running the full length of the selvage between the edge of the piece and the edge of the selvage, this white thread being interwoven in the different marks with threads coloured blue, red, yellow, violet, brown, green, and black. Owing to the difficulty of advertizing the marks, the original specimens had been exhibited at the Patent Museum, at Kensington. The defendant had sold goods having a black or dark selvage and with an interwoven thread at the edge of the piece comprised of three different strands, namely, red, white, and yellow. JESSEL, M.R., said that he had teen somewhat unwilling to allow the plaintiffs' marks to be registered, having regard to their peculiarity and the difficulty of advertizing them, but he had not wished to act on his own opinion contrary to the wishes of the trade, and had accordingly allowed them to be registered. The marks could only be good in respect of the distinct device contained on the goods in respect of which they had been registered. What the plaintiffs evidently considered as the principal feature in their marks was the white selvage with the peculiar interwoven thread mottled with different cross-mixtures of two colours. The defendants had made their goods up with a thread composed of three colours, and in his opinion that was quite sufficient to distinguish their goods from those of the plaintiffs and so prevent any she claimed it as her separate property. FRY, J., held, on infringement of their marks. The defendants, moreover, in the authority of Ashworth v. Outram (25 W. R. 896, L. R. effect, used a black selvage, and no number of affidavits would 5 Ch. D. 923), that though section 1 of the Act in terms convince him that black was white. Even if the traders at only protects the wages and earnings of a married woman the place where the parties carried on business chose to call acquired or gained by her in any employment, occupation, or the defendants' selvage a white selvage, that fact was not trade in which she is engaged, or which she carries on mentioned on the register, and the defendant had not regis-separately from her husband," yet the protection extends to tered a "white" selvage according to the custom of the trade of a particular place. The plaintiffs' case, therefore, failed, and the motion for an injunction must be dismissed with costs.-SOLICITORS, Paterson, Snow, & Bloxam, for Gardiner & Jeffreys, Bradford; W. & J. Flower & Nussey, for Killick, Hutton, & Vint, Bradford. SETTLEMENT-TRUST TO PAY ANNUITY TO HUSBAND AND WIFE JUDGMENT CREDITOR OF HUSBAND - CLAIM TO WHOLE OF ANNUITY.-In a case of Ward v. Ward, before the Master of the Rolls on the 1st inst., a question was raised whether a wife was entitled to any portion of an annuity to be paid to her husband and herself. By a deed executed upon a marriage, the lady's father covenanted with trustees to pay to them during his life an annuity of £60, to be held upon trust to pay the same to the husband and wife during their joint lives, and after the death of the husband to the wife. The husband had assigned the annuity to certain judgment creditors, and an order had been made directing certain sums to be paid to them. They had obtained on summons an order nisi against the trustees attaching the annuity, and an application was now made to make the order absolute. The covenantor had failed, and the trustees had proved against his estate for the value of the annuity and had purchased a Government annuity with the principal sum received. The wife now claimed the right to have half the annuity paid to her, or in the alternative she asserted her equity to a settlement out of the fund. JESSEL, M.R., although considering it a hard case, held that the effect of the trust was to make the whole annuity payable to the husband, and therefore the same must be applied in payment of costs and subsequently in satisfaction of the judgment creditor's debt.-SOLICITORS, Dixon, Ward, & Co.; Collyer-Bristow, Withers, & Russell. COMPANY-MEMORANDUM-POWER TO TAKE SHARES IN ANOTHER COMPANY.-In a case of In re Financial Corporation (Limited), before the Master of the Rolls on the 3rd inst., a summons had been taken out by a Mr. Goodson, the holder of 100 shares in another company, asking that the above company might be ordered to repay to him certain calls which he had been compelled to pay on the 100 shares, on the ground that he held them as trustee for the Financial Corporation, and they were bound to indemnify him in respect thereof. A preliminary objection was taken that the purchase of the shares was ultrà vires the company. By their memorandum of association the company established (inter alia) for the "undertaking, assisting, and participating in financial, commercial, and industrial operations and undertakings both in England and abroad, and both singly or in connection with other persons, firms, companies, and corporations, as well as principal as agent." JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that the words were quite large enough to include a power to purchase shares in another company, and he accordingly overruled the preliminary objection.SOLICITORS, Lawrence, Plews, & Baker; Argles, Rand-Bailey, & Argles. was MARRIED WOMAN SEPARATE BUSINESS SALE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE BY HUSBAND'S ORDER LIABILITY OF AUCTIONEER - INQUIRY AS TO DAMAGES COSTS MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1870 (33 & 34 VICT. c. 93), ss. 1, 11.-In a case of Davis v. Artingstall, before Fry, J., on the 1st inst., the action was brought by a married woman, who had carried on a business separately from her husband, against the husband and some auctioneers who had, by his direction, put up for sale the stock-in-trade of the business, and had sold a considerable portion. The part which was not sold was given up to the husband. The plaintiff claimed to recover from the auctioneers the value of the whole of the property which they had put up for sale, both that which was actually sold and that which was in the husband's possession. After the property had been advertized for sale, and before the sale took place, the plaintiff gave notice to the auctioneers that i the stock-in-trade and property employed by her in the separate business. The Act, as his lordship said, in terms protects only the fruit; the effect of the decision in Ashworth v. Outram is to protect also the tree which bears the fruit. And he held, upon the authority of Williams v. Millington (1 H. Black, 81), that the auctioneers had a possession coupled with an interest or a special property in the goods which were intrusted to them for sale, and that consequently they were liable for the fair value, both of the goods which were sold and of those which the husband had taken away, and his lordship directed an inquiry as to the fair value of all the goods. He gave the plaintiff her costs of the action up to and including the trial, but reserved the costs of the inquiry, on the ground that when damages have to be assessed it would generally be much better that the case should be tried by a jury, who could at once determine the amount of the damages, instead of having first a trial before a judge, and then a second trial in chambers, with possibly a reference to the judge again.-SOLICITORS, R. W. Marsland; Matthews & Greetham; Milne, Riddle, & Mellor. SEPARATE ESTATE OF MARRIED WOMAN-GENERAL ENGAGEMENT-RESTRAINT ON ANTICIPATION.-In a case of Pike v. Fitz-Gibbon, before Vice-Chancellor Malins on the 5th inst., the question arose whether the general engagement of a married woman binds her separate estate acquired after the date of the contract; and whether it binds separate estate which, at the time of the contract, she was restrained from anticipating, if the restraint has since, by the death of her husband, become inoperative. MALINS, V.C, held that in both cases the general engagement bound the separate estate. It may be added that the woman had some separate estate at the time of the contract, but the Vice-Chancellor considered this fact immaterial.-SOLICITORS, Duffield & Bruty; Beaumont & Warren, for Stevens, Bawtree, & Stevens, Witham, Essex; Bray & Co. Appointments, Etc. The Hon. ANTHONY EVELYN MELBOURNE ASHLEY, bar rister, M.P., who has been appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, is the second son of the present Earl of Shaftesbury, and was born in 1836. He was educated at Harrow, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1863. Mr. Ashley was formerly a member of the Oxford Circuit. He was formerly a treasurer of county courts, and was private secretary to Lord Palmerston. He represented Poole in the Liberal interest from May, 1874, until April last, when he was returned for the Isle of Wight. Mr. JOHN BLAIR BALFOUR, advocate, has been appointed Solicitor-General for Scotland. Mr. Balfour was admitted a member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland in 1861. Mr. THOMAS BRASSEY, barrister, M.P., who has been appointed a Civil Lord of the Admiralty, is the eldest son of the late Mr. Thomas Brassey, and was born in 1837. He was educated at Rugby and at University College, Oxford, where he graduated third class in law and modern history in 1859. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Hilary Term, 1866, and he has been M.P. for the borough of Hastings in the Liberal interest since 1868. Mr. EDWARD ARUNDEL CARTTAR, solicitor, of Greenwich, has been elected, after a poll, Coroner for the Greenwich Division of the County of Kent, in succession to his father, the late Mr. Charles Joseph Carttar. Mr. WALTER HARRY WILSON CRUTTWELL, solicitor (of the firm of Cruttwell, Daniel, & Cruttwell), of Frome, bas been elected Clerk to the County Magistrates at that place, on the resignation of his father, Mr. Wilson Clement Cruttwell. Mr. W. H. W. Cruttwell was admitted a solicitor in 1874. Sir CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE, Bart., M.P., who has been appointed Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is the eldest son of Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke. He was born in 1843, and succeeded his father in the baronetcy in 1869. He is an LL.M. of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and graduated first class in the law tripos in 1865. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1866, and he has been M.P. for the borough of Chelsea in the Liberal interest since 1868. Mr. JOHN GAMON, solicitor and notary (of the firm of Parry, Gamon, & Farmer), of Chester, has been appointed Registrar of the newly-formed Diocese of Liverpool. Mr. Gamon was admitted a solicitor in 1860, and is also registrar of the diocese and archdeaconry of Chester, and secretary to the Bishop of Chester. Mr. HENRY RICHARD GILES, solicitor, of Oswestry and Ellesmere, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Shropshire for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women. Mr. HENRY LEWIS GREGORY, Solicitor, has been appointed a Magistrate for that borough, and also for the Borough of Southport. Mr. Gregory was admitted a solicitor in 1852. Mr. FARRER HERSCHELL, Q.C., M.P., has been appointed Solicitor-General. Mr. Herschell was educated at University College, London, and graduated B.A. of the University of London in 1857. He was called to the bar at Lincoln'sinn, in Michaelmas Term 1866, and he is a member of the Northern Circuit. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1872, and has been M.P. for the city of Durham in the Liberal interest since 1874. Mr. Herschell is a bencher of Lincoln'sinn, and recorder of the city of Carlisle. Sir HENRY JAMES, Q.C., M.P., has been appointed Attorney-General. Sir H. James is the son of the late Mr. Philip Turner James, surgeon, of Hereford, and was born in 1828. He was educated at Cheltenham College, and was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Hilary Term, 1852. He formerly practised on the Oxford Circuit. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1869, and he is a bencher of the Middle Temple. He has been M.P. for Taunton in the Liberal interest since 1869, and in October, 1873, he succeeded Sir George Jessel as Solicitor-General, and received the honour of knighthood. Shortly afterwards he became Attorney-General, but in the following February he retired with his party. The Right Hon. HUGH LAW, LL.D., Q.C., M.P., has been appointed Attorney-General for Ireland. Mr. Law is the only s n of Mr. John Law, of Woodlawn, Down, and was born in 1818. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and he was called to the bar in Ireland in 1840. He be came a Queen's Counsel in 1860, and a bencher of the King's Inn in 1870. He was Solicitor-General for Ireland from November, 1872, till January 1874, when he was appointed Attorney-General and was sworn a member of the Irish Privy Council, but a few weeks afterwards he retired with his party. Mr. Law has been M.P. for the county of Londonderry in the Liberal interest since February, 1874. Mr. EDMUND LEE, solicitor, of Bradford, has been appointed Registrar of the Bradford County Court (Circuit No. 11), to act jointly with the present registrar, Mr. George Robinson. Mr. Lee was admitted a solicitor in 1874, and has for some time acted as deputy-registrar of the court. Mr. GEORGE MARSHALL, solicitor, of Retford and Tuxford, has been appointed a Magistrate for the Borough of East Retford. Mr. Marshall was admitted a solicitor in 1858, and is a member of the East Retford Town Council. Mr. JOHN MCLAREN, advocate, M.P., has been appointed Lord Advocate of Scotland. Mr. McLaren is the eldest son of Mr. Duncan McLaren, M.P. for Edinburgh, and was born in 1831. He was educated at the University of Edinburgh, and was admitted a member of the Faculty of Adcates in Scotland in 1856. He was for several years sheriff of Chancery in Scotland, and was recently elected M P. for Wigtown in the Liberal interest. Mr. McLaren is the author of a work on the Scotch law of "Wills and Successions." Mr. GEORGE OSBORNE MORGAN, Q.C., M.P., who has been appointed Judge Advocate-General, is the son of the Rev. Morgan Morgan, vicar of Conway, and was born in 1826. He was educated at Shrewsbury School and at Worcester College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in classics in 1848. He obtained the Crave n Scholarship in 1844, the Newdegate Prize for English Verse in 1846, the Chancellor's English Essay Prize in 1850, and the Eldon Law Scholarship in 1851. He was subsequently elected Stowell Law Fellow of University College, and was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1853. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1869, and has practised for several years in the court of Vice-Chancellor Hall. Mr. Morgan has been M.P. for Denbighshire in the Liberal interest since 1868, and he is a magistrate for that county and a bencher of Lincoln'sinn. The Right Hon. JOHN ROBERT MOWBRAY, barrister, M.P., has been created a Baronet. Sir J. Mowbray is the son of Mr. Robert Stribling Cornish, of Exeter. He was born in 1815, and assumed the name of Mowbray by Royal licence in 1847. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1841, and formerly practised on the Western Circuit. He was Judge AdvocateGeneral from March, 1858, till June, 1859, and from July, 1866, till December, 1868. He was M.P. for the city of Durham in the Conservative interest from 1853 till 1863, when he was elected M.P. for the University of Oxford. Sir J. Mowbray is a Church Estates Commissioner, and a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Durham. Mr. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL ONSLOW, barrister, has been appointed Attorney-General of the Colony of West Australia, in succession to Mr. Henry Hicks Hocking, who has been appointed Attorney-General of Jamaica. Mr. Onslow is the fourth son of Captain Arthur Alexander Onslow, R.N., and was born in 1842. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1868. He formerly practised on the Home Circuit, and he has been for some time Attorney-General of British Honduras. Mr. RALPH CHARLTON PALMER, barrister, who has been appointed Principal Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, is the third son of Mr. George Palmer, of Nazing Park, Essex. He was born in 1839, and was educated at Winchester, and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated third class in classics in 1861. He was called to the bar at Lincoln'sinn in Trinity Term, 1864, and practises as an equity draughtsman and conveyancer, being also a member of the Home Circuit. Mr. Palmer was for some time secretary to the Public Schools Commissioners. Mr. ROBERT GEORGE RAPER, solicitor and notary, of Chichester, has been appointed a Magistrate for that city. Mr. Roper was admitted a solicitor in 1850, and is in partnership with Mr. William Bennett Barton Freeland, the clerk to the county magistrates at Chichester. He is an alderman for the city, and was mayor in 1878. He was appointed lecturer in ecclesiastical and parochial law at the Chichester Theological College in 1876, and he is also clerk to the county magistrates, district probate registrar, deputy-registrar of the diocese and archdeaconry of Chiches. ter, secretary to the Bishop of Chichester, and chapter clerk of Chichester Cathedral. Mr. GEORGE TURNER, solicitor, of Bideford, has been appointed a Magistrate for that borough. Mr. Turner was admitted a solicitor in 1852, and is clerk to the Bideford Highway Board. Mr. GEORGE WESTHORP, solicitor, of Ross, Herefordshire, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature, and a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the County of Hereford. DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. HARRY REID LEMPRIERE, KENRICK PECK, and GEORGE EDWARD BROWNE, solicitors, 56 and 57, Lincoln's-inn-fields (Lempriere, Peck, & Browne). December 31, 1879. Harry Reid Lempriere and George Edward Browne will carry on business in co-partnership together at 56, Lincoln's-innfields, under the style of Lempriere & Browne. Kenrick Peck will carry on business in his own name at 57, Lincoln'sinn-fields. (Gazette, April 30, 1880.) |
