Page images

Cases of the week.

under section 115.-SOLICITORS, Harper, Broad, f Battcock ; Newman, Stretton, & Hilliard.

COMPANY – WINDING UP — FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF SHARES-STANNARIES Act, 1869 (32 & 33 VICT. c. 19), s. COMPANY-WINDING UP-FULLY PAID-UP SHARES 35.-In a case of In Re The Wheal Unity Wood Mining Non-REGISTRATION OF CONTRACT FOR Issue–TRANSFEREE Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 7th inst., a FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE-SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER TO question arose as to the construction of section 35 of the PURCHASER WITH NOTICE-COMPANIES Act, 1867, s. 25.Stannaries Act, 1869. The Act relates to companies within In a case of In re The Stapleford Collieries Company, on the the jurisdiction of the Stannaries Court, and section 35 12th inst., the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and JAMES provides that “a transfer of shares made for the purpose of and BAGGALLAY, L.JJ.), reversed in part the decision of getting rid of the further liability of a shareholder, as such, Bacon, V.C. (28 W. R. 270). In pursuance of a contract for a nominal or no consideration, or to a person without any which was not registered, the company had issued fully paidapparent pecuniary ability to pay the reasonable expeuses of up shares to the vendors of a mine to the company in part working a mine, or to a person in the menial or domestic payment of the purchase-money. One of the vendors afterservice of the transferor, shall be presumed to be a fraudulent wards sold and transferred some of his fully paid-ap shares transfer, and need not be recognized by the company or by to a person who had no notice of the fact that the shares had the court on the winding up of the company, whether the not been paid for in casb, and the company registered the company be a registered or unregistered company.” In the transferee, and issued to him a certificate that his shares case before the court a shareholder in a cost-book mining were fully paid. According, therefore, to the decision in company in October, 1876, transferred 510 shares for £5 to a Burkinshaw v. Nicolls (27 W. R. 819, L. R. 3 App. Cas. person of no means. The company accepted the transferee, 1004), the company were, as against the transferee, estopped and entered the transfer in their books. Soon after the from saying that the shares were not fully paid up, and he transfer a call of five shillings per share was made on the was entitled to hold the shares, notwithstanding the provi. shareholders, which the transferee failed to pay. The com. sions of section 25, free from any liability to pay for them pany then made some inquiries about his position, but they in cash. The transferee afterwards sold and transferred the took no steps to set aside the transfer. In February, 1877, shares to the other vendor, who was a director of the comanother call of five shillings per share was made, which the pany, and in the winding up of the company the liquidator transferee also failed to pay, and in April, 1877, the company claimed to put the executor of the director on the list of sued bim for the amount of the two calls, and recovered contributories in respect of the shares thus acquired from the judgment against him. They issued execution ou the judg. innocent transferee. Bacon, V.C., held that the estoppel, ment, but failed to obtain anything thereby. In June, 1877, which applied to the transferee without notice, did the company passed a resolution forfeiting the transferee's not apply to his transferee who had notice that shares. In March, 1879, an order was made to wind up the the requirements of section 25 had not been comcompany. The liquidator applied to the Stannaries Court plied with. The Court of Appeal reversed this under section 35 to set aside the transfer as a fraudulent one, decision, holding that the transferee without notice and to place the transferor on the list of contributories, and could transmit to any purchaser from him, whether he the Vice-Warden made an order accordingly. The Court of had or had not notice, as good a title as he himself had Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) dis- to the shares, and that consequently the executor was not charged the order. They held that, after what had taken liable as a contributory. Jessel, M. R., said that the only place, the company would have been estopped from question. exceptions from the ordinary rule, that a purchaser for value ing the validity of the transfer (assuming that it was fraudu. | without notice could transmit to any one as good a title as he lent), and that section 35 did not empower the court to set himself had, were when the sub-purchaser bad himself been aside a transfer which the company itself could not, under guilty of a fraud or breach of trust in relation to the pro

the circumstances, have questioned.-SOLICITORS, J. E. Fox perty purchased. In such a case he would not be allowed to of Co.; Bolton, Robbins, f Busk.

take advantage of his own wrong. But in the case before the court there was nothing wrong in the original sale of the

shares, and nothing wrong in the purchase of them by the COMPANY-WINDING UP-SUMMONING OFFICER OF Com- director.-SOLICITORS, Crossley & Burn ; F. C. Greenfield. PANY FOR EXAMINATION_DISCOVERY-COMPANIES Act, 1862, s. 115—ORDER 31.-In a case of In re The Metropolitan Bank, before the Court of Appeal on the 16th inst., a

SOLICITOR AND CLIENT_TAXATION OF Costs—INTEREST question arose as to the exercise of the power given to the court by section 115 of the Companies Act, 1862, to sum

on DISBURSEMENTS BY SOLICITOR-COUNTRY SOLICITOR AND mon for examination an officer of a company in liquidation. 28), ss.

3, 17.-In a case of Ward v. Eyre, before the Court

Town AGENT–SOLICITORS Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. C. The liquidator of the company bad brought an action against a former director of the company, claiming

of Appeal on the 10th inst., a question arose upon the condamages from him on the ground that be had, by misre- vides that,“ subject to any general rules or orders hereinafter

struction of section 17 of the Solicitors Act, 1870, which pro. presentation as to the pecuniary position of a person who owed a large debt to the company, induced the company to

to be made, upon every taxation of costs, fees, charges, or compromise their claim against that person for a very

disbursements, the taxing officer may allow interest at such

rate and from such time as he thinks just on moneys dissmall sum. In that action interrogatories were adminis

bursed by the attorney or solicitor for his client, and on tered to the defendant, and his answers to them were held

moneys of the client in the hands of the attorney or solicitor, to be sufficient upon an application by the plaintiff for a

and improperly retained by him.” And by section 3 ". client' farther answer. After the action had been set down for

includes any person who, as a principal or on behalf of trial, the liquidator issued a summons under section 115

another person, retains or employs, or is about to retain or for the examination of the defendant in relation to the

employ, an attorney or solicitor, and any person who is or matters in question in the aotion. The defendant objected

may be liable to pay the bill of an attorney or solicitor for to answer, and Bacon, V.C., held, that he was bound to attend

any services, fees, costs, charges, or disbursements." The suit and be examined. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAG

was commenced in 1872 by a bill in the Court of Chancery. GALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) discharged the Vice-Chan

The plaintiff was a country solicitor, the defendants being his cellor's order. They said that the issue of a summons London agents. The bill prayed for a discovery of all the under section 115 was not a matter of right on the part matters of business transacted by the defendants on behalf of the liquidator, but the court mast exercise a discretion. ) of a railway company for which the plaintiff had acted as The inquisitorial powers conferred by the section must solicitor, the defendants being his London agents from 1860 not be used vexatiously or oppressively, and, after the to 1867 ; that the defendants might deliver to the plaintiff liquidator had used the inquisitorial power of discovery their bills of costs of such business, and that it might be in the action which was given to him by order 31 under referred to the taxing master to tax any bills of costs the Judicatore Acts, and had obtained in that way what of the defendants which the plaintiff was liable to pay. The the court had held to be the fullest discovery to which he bill prayed also that an account might be taken of all sums was entitled in the action, it would be both vexations and paid or advanced by the defendants to, or for the use, or on perpossive if he was permitted to harass the defendant account of, the plaintiff; an account of all sums of money with a second examination in relation to the same matters received by, or come to the hands of, the defendants, tu or

for the use of the plaintiff, or otherwise in respect of any TRADE-MARK — REGISTRATION – WORDS IN FOREIGN payments or advances as aforesaid, and an account of all CHARACTER-TRADE-MARKS REGISTRATION ACT, 1875 (38 dealings and transactions between the plaintiff and the & 39 Vict. c. 91), s. 10.-In a case of In re Rotherham's defendants. The bill also prayed payment of the balance Trade-mark, before the Court of Appeal on the 11th inst., which might be found due from the defendants to the plain the question arose whether a trade-mark consisting of a word tiff, the plaintiff submitting to pay any balance which in Arabic characters ought to be registered as a trade-mark. might be found due from him to the defendants. The decree Rotherham & Sons were watchmakers at Coventry, and they made in November, 1873, contained a declaration that the supplied watches to Tod, Mullen, & Co., of Alexandria, for defendants were bound to account to the plaintiff as his sale in the East. For many years Rotherham & Sons had been agents for all the matters of business transacted by them for in the habit of stamping on the dial plate of the watches or on behalf of the railway company, and their receipts and supplied by them to Tod & Co. the word “Tod" in Arabic payments in respect thereof from January 1860, to September, characters. The Registrar of Trade-marks, acting under a 1867. And it was ordered that the accounts asked for should general regulation issued by the Commissioners of Patents be taken in relation to the particular matters in question, not to register marks comprising words in foreign characters, that the balance due from either party should be cer- refused to register the mark. Bacon, V.C. (27 W. R. 503), tified, and either party to wbom any balance might be ordered the mark to be registered. The Court of Appeal (JANES certified to be due was to be at liberty to apply in cham- BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.) affirmed this decision. bers as to the payment thereof. Notbing was said about BAGGALLAY, L.J., said that the mark came clearly within the payment of interest on the balance, and further considera- words of section 10, “A name of an individual or firm tion was not adjourned. The defendants, in 1879, took out printed, impressed, or woven in some particular and dis. a summons, asking that, in taking the general agency tinctive manner." The respondent's counsel asked that, as account of the defendants against the plaintiff under the the registrar had not been content with the Vice-Chancellor's deoree, the plaintiff might be charged with intorest on the order, but had chosen to appeal, he might be ordered to pay agency costs and payments out of pocket from the end of costs. The Court said that they could not give costs against each year during the period in question. Jessel, M.R., a public officer.-SOLICITORS, Solicitor to the Treasury; disallowed the claim for interest, though he expressed a Whately, Milward, & Whitehead. strong opinion that the law was defective in not providing that interest should be payable. The grounds of his decision were identical with those of the Court of Appeal

PRACTICE-CLAIMS AS BETWEEN CO-DEFENDANTS-CLAIMS (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and BRAMWELL, L.JJ.), who beld that FOR CostS-DEFENCE TREATED AS NOTICE-ORDER 16. the allowance of interest was preoluded by tbe form of R. 17.-In a case of Official Liquidator of Economie the decree, fortber consideration pot having been reserved, Benefit Building Society V. Swift, before the Master of and that there bad been no demand in writing within the

the Rolls on the lith inst., a question was raised meaning of sectiou 28 of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42. But it was whether a defendant could claim costs against her co-defendurged that under section 17 of the Act of 1870 the London ant on the ground that a case was made for them on her agent was entitled to interest on the disbursements wbioh be

statement of defence. An order had been made in the had made for his principal, as being, within the meaning

action that the delivery of the statement of defence to the of seotion 3, “the person liable to pay the bill" of the

co-defendant should be notice of her claim within the London agent. The court held that seotion 17 applies only

meaning of ord. 16, r. 17. The action was one for ejectto transactions between a solicitor and his client in the

ment for breach of covenant, and it was alleged by the destriotest sense of the word, and that it does not apply as

fendant in possession, a sub-lessee, that she had been indaced between a country solicitor and his London agent, even

to take the lease from the other defendant by certain misthough the country solicitor might be able to obtain a tax

representations that no breach of the covenant in question ation of his London agent's bill. The court also expressed

would be committed by carrying on the business of a an opinion that the section applies only on a taxation of

dressmaker. This defence had been delivered to the other costs by the taxing officer, and that it does not apply to

defendant, and the first defendant now asked, as judgment the taking of an account by the court in such a suit as

for possession was given against the defendants, for that before it, and also that the Aot of 1870 is not retro.

damages for the misrepresentation, and also the costs of the spective in its operation--i.e., that it does not apply to

action which she would have to pay. Reliance was placed disburgements made before it was passed. The order of

upon Bagot v. Easton, 27 W. R. 404, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 394.

JESSEL, M.R., considered he had jurisdiction to entertain the the Master of the Rolls was accordingly affirmed.-SOLI.

question having regard to the order previously made; but on CITORS, G. L. P. Eyre & Co.; Taylor, Mason, & Taylor.

the merits be came to the conclusion no case was made for
either damages or costs.-SOLICITORS, W. C. Hall; Scott,

Jarmain & Trass; Davenport Knight.
ORD. 39, R. 1.-In a case of Jones v. Baxter, before the Court

COPYRIGHT OF Designs Act (5 & 6 Vict. C. 100)of Appeal on the 12th inst., a question arose as to the proper

ARRANGEMENT OF BRAID-REGISTRATION OF PHOTOGRAPH court in which to move for a rule nisi for a new trial. Tbe

MANUFACTURER-NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT-KNOWLEDGE. action was brought in the Chancery Division, and was set -In a case of Brown v. Lomas, before the Master of the down before Bacon, V.C. Notice was given of trial before a Rolls on the 7th inst., a motion was made under the 7th judge and jury at Westminster, and the action was entered section of the Copyright of Designs Act, 1842, to restrain the accordingly for trial in the general list of actions for trial infringement of a registered design for braid. The plaintiffs there, and was tried before Hawkins, J., with a jury. The had registered a design for braid by a photograph of a child's motion for a new trial was in the first instance made in the jacket, with the arrangement of the braid upon it. The Exchequer Division, who thcught that it ought to have been defendants had manufactured jackets with an arrangement made before Bacon. V.C. Application was then made to the l of braid said to be an imitation of the plaintiffs' desion. Vice-Chancellor, and he thought that the Exchequer Divi. JESSEL, M.R., said that the first question was whether the sion was the proper court to apply to. The matter was then

design was well registered, and, in bis opinion, the design of mentioned to the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R, JAMES and which the photograph was a copy was well registered within BAGGALLAY, L.JJ.), who were of opinion that the case was the meaning of the Act. The certificate of registration governed by Hunt v. The City of London Real Property merely said that the design was registered, and did not say Company (26 W.R. 37, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 19), and that the ap in respect of what articles, and it might be a difficult quesplication should be made to the Exchequer Division. JESSEL,

tion to say how far the design would be held to apply to M.R., said that this rule would not apply to the case of

articles other than jackets. That question did not arise, an issue directed by a judge of the Chancery Division to be because the defendant had placed his braid upon an article tried by a judge of a common law division with a exactly similar to that on which the braid was placed by the jury. In such a case the motion for a new trial must be plaintiffs. The next question was whether the defendants, made to the judge who had directed the trial of the issue. who were manufacturers, and, therefore within the the 1st SOLICITOR, W. Crook,

sub-section of section 7, were liable whether they had notice of the infringement or not. In his opinion, manufacturers were liable whether they had notice the article was an I infringement or not, and it was their duty to see that they




did not commit a piracy. The section said they were liable a jury ; that the court bad no jurisdiction to restrain by for “any fraudulent imitation" of the design, and it was injunction the publication of a libel, even though it was. not necessary that the piracy should be an exact copy of the injurious to property, relying for this proposition on the original. There might be many imitations which would decision of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, before the not be fraudulent, and, in fact, he thought the imitation Judicatore Act came into operation, in The Prudential intended was an imitation with knowledge, and that the Assurance Company v. Knott (23 W. R. 249, L. R. 10 Ch. same could not be unconscious. Looking at the patterns of 142), or that at any rate it could not be "jast or convenient," the plaintiffs and defendants, the differences were so slight within the meaning of section 25, sub-section 8, of the that, unless pointed out, the eye would scarcely notice them. Judicature Act of 1873, to grant an injunction until the fact Under these circumstances, the defendants' jacket was an of the libel had been determined by a jury. It was also imitation, and, not using the word in an offensive sense, a objected that no injunction could be granted unless the fraudulent imitation of that of the plaintiffs, and they were plaintiffs proved, as they bad not done, that they had entitled to an injunction.-SOLICITORS, Paterson, Snow, sustained actual damage in their trade by the alleged libel. Bloxam; Torr & Co.

FRY, J., held that the publication in question was a libel, and that its necessary effect was to injure the plaintiffs' trade.

He held that the argument founded on Fox's Act was unPUBLIC PARK-POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY— ExcluSION OF PUBLIC.-In a cage of Attorney-General v. Mayor | way of criminal information or indictment, and it had no of Leeds, before the Master of Rolls on the 11th inst.,

on the 11th inst., | application to a civil action. Under the Judicature Act an a question was raised whether, on the construction of section action for libel might be tried like any other action. The 35 of the Leeds Improvement Act, 1872, the corporation choice of the mode of trial was in the first instance with the were entitled to admit the public to a public park on pay. I plaintiff, but this was subject to the right of the defendant to ment of sixpence each on days when the park was closed ask for, and the power of the court to order, a different mode under the section. A park was appropriated for public of trial. No application for a trial by jury having been made use and recreation under the Leeds Improvement Act, by the defendants, it was now too late to take the objection. 1866, and by the Leeds Improvement Act, 1872, s. 35, the No doubt the court, in the exercise of its discretion, could corporation had power "from time to time, and on such order an action for libel to be tried by a jury, and Fox's Act occasions as they think fit, not exceeding in all ten days in might influence the court in the exercise of its discretion. the year, to close " the park" against the public, and may And as to the question of damages, his lordship held that it on such occasions admit to any such park the members of was sufficient to prove that the libel was necessarly calcuany society, or of any public or private institution, or per-| lated to injure the plaintiff's trade. If it was necessary to eons being attendants at or supported by any publio or | prove that actual damage had been sustained, the preventive private institution, or such other persons as the corporation jurisdiction of the court would fall short of what it ought to think fit, and the admission of every individual to any such do. In cases of trade-mark the court was in the coustant park on such occasions may be either with or without pay. habit of restraining the improper use of a mark, without ment, as directed by the corporation.” It appeared that proof of actual damage, if the use of it was necessarily the corporation had closed the park to the public, and bad calculated to injure the plaintiff. But the cases of let tbe same for the day to a swimming club for a gala, Riding v. Smith (24 W. R. 487, L. R. 1 Ex. D. 91), and the publio being admitted at sixpence each, and the pro Thorley's Cattle Company v. Massam (28 W. R. 295), since ceeds being divided between the club and the corporation. affirmed by the Court of Appeal, were direct authorities that. This information and action had been commenced to in such a case as the present it was sufficient to prove that restrain the defendants from using the park in contraven. the statement in question was necessarily calculated to injure tion of the terms of the 35th section, and it was contended the plaintiff's trade. That objection, therefore, failed. there was no power to exclade the public, and, in fact, | And, as to the objection that an injunction could not be re-admit them on terms of a money payment, that, in fact, granted to restrain the publication of a libel, his lordship being not an exclusion. It was also contended that the | was at a loss to see why a libel affecting property or trade paying public were not within the words “such other was not the proper subject of an injunction. The intention persons " in the section, and that those words only applied

of the Legislature, as shown by section 25, snb-section 8, of to persons of the same class as those previously mentioned.

the Judicature Act, was to enlarge rather than diminish the JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that the effect of the earlier

power of the court as to granting injunctions. But the case Act was to require the corporation to allow the public a

of James v, James (20 W. R. 434, L. R. 13 Eq. 421) was a free and gratuitous dser of the park, and that they could

distinct authority for granting an injunction in such a case, only exclude the public by reason of the powers in the Act

though that particular part of the judgment was not the subof 1872. The first part of section 35 would goarcely confer

ject of much discussion then. And in Thorley's Cattle the right of accepting payments for the user of the park,

Company v. Massam (28 W. R. 295), Malins, V.C., granted and the last part of the section was evidently passed to

an injunction in a similar case, and his decision had boen enable the corporation to make a profit by the closing of

affirmed by the Court of Appeal, James, L.J., who was a the park to the poblic. What the informant asked him

party to the decision of The Prudential Assurance Company Y. to do was to limit the generality of the words "such other

Knott, being one of the judges who affirmed it. The injuncpersons as the corporation think fit," and be saw no reason

tion claimed by the plaintiffs must, therefore, be granted. to do so. In his opinion the corporation did, in fact,

SOLICITORS, S. Whitehead; Lee & Brocklesby. exclude the public if they only admitted those of the public who made a money payment, and there would be such an exclusion if any special qualification was imposed on those seeking admission. The paying publio came within the

New Orders, Etc. meaning of the above worde, and, in his opinion, the corporation had committed no illegal act. The information WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1878. must, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.-SOLICITORS. Paterson, Snow, & Bloxam, for' Dibb, Atkinson, & Braith

The Gazette of the 7th inst. contains an Order in Council waite, Leeds; Learoyd, Learoyd, & Peace, for G, Munson,

to the effect that her Majesty is pleased to approve of the Leels.

“five-gallon measure” as a new denomination of standard and directs that the same shall be a Board of Trade

standard in like manner as if it was mentioned in the LIBEL-INJURY TO TRADE-INJUNCTION-RIGHT TO JURY second schedule to the Weights and Measures Act, 1878. -Fox's Act (32 Geo. 3, c. 60)-JUDICATURE Act, 1873, S. 25, SUB-SECTION 8-ORD. 36, R. 3.-In a case of Thomas 5. Williams, before Fry, J., on the 7th inst., a question arose

OFFICES OF THE SUPREME COURT. as to the power of the court to grant an injunction to restrain The Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Lords the publication of a libel injurious to trade. The defendants Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, hereby gives had not given any notice under rule 3 of order 36 to have the notice that the following offices of the Supreme Court are: action tried by a jury. After the evidence on both sides had added to Schedule B. of the Order in Council of 4th June, been taken, the defendants' counsel objected that by virtue of 1870, viz. :-The offices of official stationers to distribute Fox's Act (32 Geo. 3, c. 60) the defendant to an action for stamps and forms of the Royal Courts of Justice.-May 4, libel was entitled to have the question of libel determined by ) 1880.

& majority of nine votes. The debate was well sustained THE REGISTER OF BILLS OF SALE.

and the attendance of members was large. On Friday week a deputation from the Association of Trade Protection Societies, members of several Chambers of Commerce in different parts of the United Kingdom,

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS SOCIETY. representatives of London bankers, and members of the At a meeting of this society held on Tuesday last in the Wholesale Drapers' and Grocers' Association, waited on the Law Library, the third of a series of lectures, promised to Lord Chancellor at his chambers at Westminster with the society by several barristers and solicitors of the town, reference to the order that has recently been issued re- was given by Mr. William Johnson. The subject of the apeoting the publication of the names of persons who have leotare was “ Some Curiosition of the Law Reports." At registered bills of sale, the attention of his lordship being the outset of the leotare Mr. Johnson referred to the great directed to the following olause of order 60:-“A person difficulties which beget the law student owing to the shall not inspect nor take any extract from any of these extensive range of his subject, and explained how great registers or indexes or any document filed in connection | was the assistance afforded to the memory by the associa. therewitb, until he has specified in writing to the officer in tion of ideas. The learned lecturer then proceeded to obarge of the register or index the name against which he illustrate & variety of valuable legal principles by means wishes to search, and has satisfied the officer as to the of a number of amusing and interesting cases. At the objeot of the searcb."

close of the lecture a vote of thanks to Mr. Johnson was Mr. J. BARRAN, M.P. (Leeds), introdaced the deputation | proposed by the hon. secretary (Mr. F. Harvey Samuel), and pointed out that from the year 1854 to the present time seconded by Mr. B. Smith, and enthusiastically carried, it had been customary to publish the names of all persons who had registered bills of sale in weekly lists, and thus the trading community of the country were enabled to know what debtors bad shown favour to creditors over other

Obituary. creditors by giving them bills of sale on their property. Very great inconvenience would result from this order that had recently been made, and it would virtually prevent MR. GILLETT JONATHAN OTTAWAY. these lists from being published. The object of the depata Mr. Gillett Jonathan Ottaway, solicitor, of 39, Essex. tion was to ask his lordship to use his influence in securing street, Strand, died at his residence, Harengay-park, Crouch the reinstatement of the original role, which had proved End, on the 24th ult., at the age of seventy-two. Mr. H0 satisfactory to the trading community of the kingdom. Ottaway was the son of Mr. John Ottaway, of Staplehurst, The Association of the Trade Protection Societies repre and was born in 1808. He was admitted a solicitor in 1829, sented that day no less than thirty-three associations in

and practised for many years at Staplehurst, in partnership different parts of the country, having a total membership with Mr. William Nash Ottaway, and his firm were formerly of 25,000.

joint clerks to the Staplehurst Board of Guardians. About Alderman BENNETT (Manchester) presented a lengthy thirty years ago he removed to Salisbury, where he practised memorial setting forth in detail the objects of the deputa first in conjunction with Mr. Hector William Arney, and tion and urging several reasons in support of it. When afterwards with Mr. Philip Watson Ottaway, having also & the new order came into force country creditors would have London office in Essex-street. Some years ago he resigned to send op to London to cause separate searches to be his business at Salisbury and thereafter carried on business made respecting debtors.

alone. Mr. Ottaway was formerly solicitor to the Royal Mr. SAMPSON S. LLOYD (Birmingham) said this was a Panopticon of Science and Art Company. Mr. Ottaway matter of the utmost importance to the trading community, was a zealous supporter of the Conservative party in the as the traders of the country would be at a loss to know county of Middlesex. He was buried at Hornsey on the who were giving bills of sale and who were not. In fact, 29th ult. if the present order continued it would upset to a very great extent the existing arrangements of traders.

MR. ERNEST JAMES DAVIES. Alderman FOWLER, M.P., also presented a memorial, signed on behalf of all the bankers of London, with the Mr. Ernest James Davies, solicitor (of the firm of Anderson exception of the Bank of England, strongly urging the & Davies), died recently at Ludlow. Mr. Davies served bis re-introduction of the original order.

articles with the firm of Urwick & Marston, of Ludlow, and Mr. MELLOR (secretary, Trade Protection Associa. | was admitted a solicitor in 1867. Two or three years later tion) pointed out that at the present time ont of every

he joined Mr. George Brydges Rodney Anderson, the clerk to four bills of sale on an average three were given to money

the Commissioners of Taxes for the Overs and Minslow lenders. If the present order continued, it would be an

Divisions of Shropshire, and continued in partnership with advantage to money-lenders, who lend money at an exor

that gentleman until his death. He had a good private bitant rate of interest. He was prepared with a great deal

practice, and was solicitor to the governors of the Ludlow of evidence in support of this assertion, but he would not

Grammar School, and to the trustees of the Borough tronble his lordship with it at that time.

Municipal Charities; he was also clerk to the Ludlow HighThe LORD CHANCELLOR promised to give the subjeot his

way Board. Mr. Davies took an active interest in municipal best attention, but he would not attempt to pass an opinion

business. He had been for several years a member of the at that time one way or the other. The deputation tbanked

Ludlow Town Council, and was elected mayor of the his lordship and withdrew.

borough in 1877. The town council have unanimously passed & resolution expressive of their sympathy with the widow and family of the deceased.

Law Students' Journal.


Mr. Philip Twells, barrister, died at Roseneath, East. UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

bourne, on the 8th inst., in his seventy-second year. Mr.

Twells was the son of Mr. John Twells, of Sunbury, MiddleA meeting of the above society was held at Clementis. |

sex, and was born in 1808. He was educated at the Charterinn Hall on the evening of Wednesday last, wben Mr. E. F. house, and at Worcester College, Oxford, where he Spence opened in the affirmative the subject for debate, graduated second class in classics in 1830. Mr. Twells Piz.-"That it is desirable that marriage with a deceased was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1834. wife's sister shoold be made legal," and was supported by He formerly practised in the Chancery Division, and was Messrs. P. Mott-Whitebouse, A. D. Maclaren, D. D. Grigsby, for several years equity editor of the Law Journal Reports. D'A. B. Collyer, H. E. Barren, R. B. D. Acland, and H. N. He retired from practice on becoming a member of the Harvey, whilst Messrs. Rondle-Levy, F. 0. Edlin, R. banking firm of Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Twells, & Co. Gwynne Templer, and E. Robinson opposed. Mr. Spence | In 1868, Mr. Twells contested the representation of the City replied, and the chairman (Mr. W. C. Owen) having of London in the Conservativo interest, and was defeated by summed up, the motion was pat to the vote and carried by only a small majority. In 1874 he was again a candidate,

and was returned second on the poll. His health had for dated Mar 18, appointed Charles Frederick Finney, St George's a long time been failing, and at the recent dissolution of

crescent, Liverpool, to be official liquidator. Creditors are required, Parliament he did not seek re-election. He was a magistrate

on or before June 4, to send their names and addresses and the

particulars of their debts and claims to the above liquidator. June 18 for the county of Middlesex, and a member of the Com at 11 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and mission of Lieutenancy for the city of London. Mr. Twells

claims was a bachelor.

VICTORIA MANSIONS, LIMITED.-V.0. Malins has, by an order dated

Apr 23, appointed Edward Hart, Moorgate st, to be official liquida. tor. Creditors are required, on or before June 12, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims

to the above liquidator. Jane 17 at 12 is appointed for hearing and Appointments, Etc.

adjudicating upon the debts and claims

(Gazette, May 7.)

ESTON ODD Fellows' BUILDING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order Mr. ERNEST BROAD, solicitor (of the firm of Harper,

made by the M.R., dated May 1, it was ordered that the above com

pany be wound up. Belfrage and Co, John st, Bedford row, agents Broad, & Battoock), of 25, Rood-lane, has been appointed for Bainbridge and Barnley, Middlesborough, solicitors for the petia Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Sapreme Court

tioners of Judicature.


the M.R., dated May 1, it was ordered that the above club be wound Mr. DONALD CRAWFORD, advocate, has been appointed

np. Patience, solicitor for the petitioner

[Gazette, May 11.) Legal Secretary to the Lo Advocate of Sootland. Mr

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY. Crawford was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where

LAND, BUILDING, GOVERNMENT AND GUARANTEED SECURITIES SOCIETY. he graduated second class in classics in 1860. He was

-Petition for winding up, presented May 6, directed to be heard sobsequently elected fellow of Lincolo College, and was

before V.O. Bacon, on May 29. Jones, Queen Victoria st, solicitor

for the petitioners called to the bar in Scotland in 1862.

SPURN VIEW BUILDING SOCIETY.-V... Bacon has, by an order dated Mr. JOHN EDWIN CRAVEN, solicitor, of Todmorden, has

Apr 27, appointed James Edward Garvey, Gt Grimsby, to be official

liquidator been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the

[Gazette, May 7.] Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the TOPBAAN, WONDBURY, AND LYMPSTONE WATERWORES COMPANY. West Riding of Yorkshire.

Petition for winding up, presented May 7, directed to be heard

before the M. R., on May 29. Ballard, Cliffurd's inn, solicitor for the Mr. RICHARD RENDLE MILLER DAW, solicitor, of Exeter,

petitioner has been appointed a Magistrate for that city. Mr. Daw

[Gazette, May 11.)

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. was admitted a solicitor in 1859, and is in partnership

HOUGHTON BURIAL SOCIETY, Houghton, Cumberland. May 4 with his father, Mr. John Daw. He is registrar of the

[Gazette, May 7.) Exeter County Court, district registrar under the Judicature Acts, and one of the borough alderasen.

Mr. GEORGE FIELDING, solicitor and notary, of Dover, has been appointed a Magistrate for that borough. Mr.

Solicitors' Cases.
Fielding is an alderman, and was mayor of Dover in 1876.
He was admitted a sollcitor in 1849, and is registrar of the

Dover County Court, district registrar under the Judicature
Acts, and clerk to St. Mary's Burial Board.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord COLERIDGE, O.J., and

GROVE and LINDLEY, JJ.) Mr. WILLIAM GEE, solicitor, of Bishop's Stortford, has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at that

May 11.-In the Matter of a Solicitor, place, in succession to Mr. Jobo Dobede Taylor, deceased.

This was a motion for a rule calling upon a solicitor to Mr. Gee was admitted a solicitor in 1852, and has been for answer certain matters in an affidavit, or, in default, to several years clerk to the Bishop's Stortford Local Board. sbow cause why be should not be struck off the rolls. Mr. WILLIAM MOORE JOHNSON, Q.C., M.P., who has

Murray appeared for the Incorporated Law Society.

It appeared that the solicitor had received certain been appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland, was born in 1822. He is an M.A. of Trinity College, Dublin, and was

moneys to assist him in settling an action in which he was called to the Irish bar in 1853. He practises on the

acting for one of the parties, and the substance of the Munster Circuit, and became a Queen's Counsel in 1872. charge which he was called apon to meet was that he had He was law adviser to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under appropriated these moneys, by his own admission, to his

own use. Mr. Gladstone's first administration, and was recently elected M.P. for the borough of Mallow in tbe Liberal interest.

The Court granted the rule. Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, barrister, who bas been elected (Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., and LOPES, J.) M.P. for the Borough of Nottingham in the Liberal

May 13.- In the Matter of a Solicitor. interest, is the son of Mr. Samuel Morley, M.P. for Bristol. He was born in 1849, and was educated at Trinity College, moved for a rule calling upon the solicitor in question to

Wills, Q.C., on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, Cambridge, and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1873. He practises on the

show cause why he should not be struck off the roll. The Midland Circnit, and at the Lincolnshire, Nottingham. client a very kind old friend who had assisted him on

solicitor had been member of a firm of three, and had for shire, Derbyshire, and Birmingham Sessions.

various occasions for a number of years by advancing money Mr. PARKER, solicitor, of Wellingborough, has been ap to him, and by becoming surety for him. Eventually an pointed Clerk' to the Wellingborough Local Board of action was tried before Mr. Justice Lopes, in which ques. Health, in the place of Mr. Thomas Cook, resigned. tions were raised between this gentleman and the solicitor.

There was some £7,000, consisting of five items involved.
As to four of these items the money had been received by

the firm, or it had been handed to the particular partner as Companies.

to whom be now moved. According to the plaintiff's case, it had been handed to him to invest; whilst the case for

the defendants was that in each instance, in one way or WINDING-UP NOTICES.

another, the money had been paid over by the firm to the JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

client, and then lent back again by the client to the indi. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

vidual partner, and that it was a debt due from him indi. JAMES THORNE AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up,

vidually, and not from the firm. This individual solicitor presented May 3, directed to be heard before V.O. Malins, on May 14. Bolton and Co, Temple gardens, solicitors for the petitioner

produced a letter of Nov. 4, 1876, which, if geonine, went JOHN MARLAND DAVIES AND COMPANY, LIMITED.---By an order made very far indeed to support his case. The letter was not

by tbe M.R., dated Apr 17, it was ordered that the above company be found up. Mead and Diubeny, King's Bench walk, Temple,

written by the client but it parported to bear his signature. agents for Nicholas, Bristol, solicitor for the petitioner

It was said on the part of the plaintiff, either that the NORTH WALES CARRIAGE AND WAGON COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an letter was a forgery or that it was signed by the client order made by V.C. Malice, dated Apr 27, it was ordered that the onder circumstances which evented the client's mind above company be wound up. Heritage and Co, Ciement's lane, solicitors for the petitioner

from going with it; and that in that sense it was not a JAK PITS COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. bag, by an order | genuine document.

« PreviousContinue »