THE REGISTER OF BILLS OF SALE. 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, representatives of London bankers, and members of the Wholesale Drapers' and Grocers' Association, waited on the Lord Chancellor at his chambers at Westminster with reference to the order that has recently been issued respecting the publication of the names of persons who have registered bills of sale, the attention of his lordship being directed to the following clause of order 60:-"A person shall not inspect nor take any extract from any of these registers or indexes or any document filed in connection therewith, until he has specified in writing to the officer in charge of the register or index the name against which he wishes to search, and has satisfied the officer as to the object of the search." Mr. J. BARRAN, M.P. (Leeds), introduced the deputation and pointed out that from the year 1854 to the present time 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 had shown favour to creditors over other 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 these lists from being published. The object of the deputation was to ask his lordship to use his influence in securing the reinstatement of the original rule, which had proved so satisfactory to the trading community of the kingdom. The Association of the Trade Protection Societies represented that day no less than thirty-three associations in different parts of the country, having a total membership of 25,000. Alderman BENNETT (Manchester) presented a lengthy memorial setting forth in detail the objects of the deputation and urging several reasons in support of it. When the new order came into force country creditors would have to send up to London to cause separate searches to be made respecting debtors. Mr. SAMPSON S. LLOYD (Birmingham) said this was a matter of the utmost importance to the trading community, as the traders of the country would be at a loss to know who were giving bills of sale and who were not. In fact, if the present order continued it would upset to a very great extent the existing arrangements of traders. Alderman FOWLER, M.P., also presented a memorial, signed on behalf of all the bankers of London, with the exception of the Bank of England, strongly urging the re-introduction of the original order. Mr. MELLOR (secretary, Trade Protection Association) pointed out that at the present time out of every four bills of sale on an average three were given to moneylenders. If the present order continued, it would be an advantage to money-lenders, who lend money at an exorbitant rate of interest. He was prepared with a great deal of evidence in support of this assertion, but he would not trouble his lordship with it at that time. The LORD CHANCELLOR promised to give the subject his best attention, but he would not attempt to pass an opinion at that time one way or the other. The deputation thanked his lordship and withdrew. Law Students' Journal. UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A meeting of the above society was held at Clement'sinn Hall on the evening of Wednesday last, when Mr. E. F. Spence opened in the affirmative the subject for debate, viz.-"That it is desirable that marriage with a deceased wife's sister should be made legal," and was supported by Messrs. P. Mott-Whitehouse, A. D. Maclaren, D. D. Grigsby, D'A. B. Collyer, H. E. Barren, R. B. D. Acland, and H. N. Harvey, whilst Messrs. Rundle-Levy, F. O. Edlin, R. Gwynne Templer, and E. Robinson opposed. Mr. Spence replied, and the chairman (Mr. W. C. Owen) having summed up, the motion was put to the vote and carried by a majority of nine votes. The debate was well sustained and the attendance of members was large. BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. At a meeting of this society held on Tuesday last in the Law Library, the third of a series of lectures, promised to the society by several barristers and solicitors of the town, was given by Mr. William Johnson. The subject of the lecture was "Some Curiosities of the Law Reports." At the outset of the lecture Mr. Johnson referred to the great difficulties which beset the law student owing to the extensive range of his subject, and explained how great was the assistance afforded to the memory by the associa tion of ideas. The learned lecturer then proceeded to illustrate a variety of valuable legal principles by means of a number of amusing and interesting cases. At the close of the lecture a vote of thanks to Mr. Johnson was proposed by the hon. secretary (Mr. F. Harvey Samuel), seconded by Mr. B. Smith, and enthusiastically carried. Obituary. MR. GILLETT JONATHAN OTTAWAY. Mr. Gillett Jonathan Ottaway, solicitor, of 39, Essexstreet, Strand, died at his residence, Harengay-park, Crouch End, on the 24th ult., at the age of seventy-two. Mr. Ottaway was the son of Mr. John Ottaway, of Staplehurst, and was born in 1808. He was admitted a solicitor in 1829, and practised for many years at Staplehurst, in partnership with Mr. William Nash Ottaway, and his firm were formerly joint clerks to the Staplehurst Board of Guardians. About thirty years ago he removed to Salisbury, where he practised first in conjunction with Mr. Hector William Arney, and afterwards with Mr. Philip Watson Ottaway, having also a London office in Essex-street. Some years ago he resigned his business at Salisbury and thereafter carried on business alone. Mr. Ottaway was formerly solicitor to the Royal Panopticon of Science and Art Company. Mr. Ottaway was a zealous supporter of the Conservative party in the county of Middlesex. He was buried at Hornsey on the 29th ult. MR. ERNEST JAMES DAVIES. Mr. Ernest James Davies, solicitor (of the firm of Anderson & Davies), died recently at Ludlow. Mr. Davies served his articles with the firm of Urwick & Marston, of Ludlow, and was admitted a solicitor in 1867. Two or three years later he joined Mr. George Brydges Rodney Anderson, the clerk to the Commissioners of Taxes for the Overs and Minslow Divisions of Shropshire, and continued in partnership with that gentleman until his death. He had a good private practice, and was solicitor to the governors of the Ludlow Grammar School, and to the trustees of the Borough Municipal Charities; he was also clerk to the Ludlow Highway Board. Mr. Davies took an active interest in municipal business. He had been for several years a member of the Ludlow Town Council, and was elected mayor of the borough in 1877. The town council have unanimously passed a resolution expressive of their sympathy with the widow and family of the deceased. MR. PHILIP TWELLS. Mr. Philip Twells, barrister, died at Roseneath, Eastbourne, on the 8th inst., in his seventy-second year. Mr. Twells was the son of Mr. John Twells, of Sunbury, Middlesex, and was born in 1808. He was educated at the Charterhouse, and at Worcester College, Oxford, where he graduated second class in classics in 1830. Mr. Twells was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1834. He formerly practised in the Chancery Division, and was for several years equity editor of the Law Journal Reports. He retired from practice on becoming a member of the banking firm of Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Twells, & Co. In 1868, Mr. Twells contested the representation of the City of London in the Conservative interest, and was defeated by only a small majority. In 1874 he was again a candidate, and was returned second on the poll. His health had for a long time been failing, and at the recent dissolution of Parliament he did not seek re-election. He was a magistrate for the county of Middlesex, and a member of the Commission of Lieutenancy for the city of London. Mr. Twells was a bachelor. Appointments, Etc. Mr. ERNEST BROAD, solicitor (of the firm of Harper, Broad, & Battcock), of 25, Rood-lane, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. DONALD CRAWFORD, advocate, has been appointed Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate of Scotland. Mr. Crawford was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated second class in classics in 1860. He was subsequently elected fellow of Lincoln College, and was -called to the bar in Scotland in 1862. Mr. JOHN EDWIN CRAVEN, solicitor, of Todmorden, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the West Riding of Yorkshire. Mr. RICHARD RENDLE MILLER DAW, solicitor, of Exeter, has been appointed a Magistrate for that city. Mr. Daw was admitted a solicitor in 1859, and is in partnership with his father, Mr. John Daw. He is registrar of the Exeter County Court, district registrar under the Judicature Acts, and one of the borough aldermen. Mr. GEORGE FIELDING, solicitor and notary, of Dover, has been appointed a Magistrate for that borough. Mr. 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. Mr. WILLIAM GEE, solicitor, of Bishop's Stortford, has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at that place, in succession to Mr. John Dobede Taylor, deceased. Mr. Gee was admitted a solicitor in 1852, and has been for several years clerk to the Bishop's Stortford Local Board. Mr. WILLIAM MOORE JOHNSON, Q.C., M.P., who has been appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland, was born in 1822. He is an M.A. of Trinity College, Dublin, and was called to the Irish bar in 1853. He practises on the Munster Circuit, and became a Queen's Counsel in 1872. He was law adviser to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under Mr. Gladstone's first administration, and was recently elected M. P. for the borough of Mallow in the Liberal interest. Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, barrister, who has been elected M.P. for the Borough of Nottingham in the Liberal interest, is the son of Mr. Samuel Morley, M.P. for Bristol. He was born in 1849, and was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1873. He practises on the Midland Circuit, and at the Lincolnshire, Nottingham. shire, Derbyshire, and Birmingham Sessions. Mr. PARKER, solicitor, of Wellingborough, has been appointed Clerk to the Wellingborough Local Board of Health, in the place of Mr. Thomas Cook, resigned. Companies. WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. JAMES THORNE AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 3, directed to be heard before V.C. Malins, on May 14. Bolton and Co, Temple gardens, solicitors for the petitioner JOHN MARLAND DAVIES AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R., dated Apr 17, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Mead and Daubeny, King's Bench walk, Temple, agents for Nicholas, Bristol, solicitor for the petitioner NORTH WALES CARRIAGE AND WAGON COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Malis, dated Apr 27, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Heritage and Co, Clement's lane, solicitors for the petitioner OAK PITS COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has, by an order dated Mar 18, appointed Charles Frederick Finney, St George's crescent, Liverpool, to be official liquidator. Creditors are required, 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 at 11 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims VICTORIA MANSIONS, LIMITED.-V.C. Malins has, by an order dated Apr 23, appointed Edward Hart, Moorgate st, to be official liquidator. 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. June 17 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims [Gazette, May 7.] UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY. LAND, BUILDING, GOVERNMENT AND GUARANTEED SECURITIES SOCIETY. -Petition for winding up, presented May 6, directed to be heard before V.C. Bacon, on May 29. Jones, Queen Victoria st, solicitor for the petitioners SPURN VIEW BUILDING SOCIETY.-V.C. Bacon has, by an order dated Apr 27, appointed James Edward Garvey, Gt Grimsby, to be official liquidator [Gazette, May 7.] TOPSHAM, WOODBURY, AND LYMPSTONE WATERWORKS COMPANY.Petition for winding up, presented May 7, directed to be heard before the M. R., on May 29. Ballard, Clifford's inn, solicitor for the petitioner [Gazette, May 11.] FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. HOUGHTON BURIAL SOCIETY, Houghton, Cumberland. May 4 [Gazette, May 7.] May 11.-In the Matter of a Solicitor. This was a motion for a rule calling upon a solicitor to answer certain matters in an affidavit, or, in default, to show cause why be should not be struck off the rolls. Murray appeared for the Incorporated Law Society. It appeared that the solicitor had received certain moneys to assist him in settling an action in which he was acting for one of the parties, and the substance of the charge which he was called upon to meet was that he had appropriated these moneys, by his own admission, to his own use. The COURT granted the rule. (Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., and LOPES, J.) The May 13.-In the Matter of a Solicitor. Wills, Q. C., on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, moved for a rule calling upon the solicitor in question to show cause why he should not be struck off the roll. solicitor had been member of a firm of three, and had for client a very kind old friend who had assisted him on various occasions for a number of years by advancing money to him, and by becoming surety for him. Eventually an action was tried before Mr. Justice Lopes, in which questions 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 to whom he 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 another, the money had been paid over by the firm to the client, and then lent back again by the client to the individual partner, and that it was a debt due from him individually, and not from the firm. This individual solicitor produced a letter of Nov. 4, 1876, which, if genuine, went very far indeed to support his case. The letter was not written by the client but it purported to bear his signature. It was said on the part of the plaintiff, either that the letter was a forgery or that it was signed by the client under circumstances which prevented the client's mind from going with it; and that in that sense it was not a genuine document. Mr. JUSTICE LOPES, in summing up, said that the matter was one of vast importance to both parties, and more especially so to the solicitor now in question, and he added that he did not see how, if the jury should answer the questions in the way they afterwards did, it was possible that that gentleman's name should remain upon the roll. The jury found against the individual solicitor upon all the questions; they found that they did not believe any part of his story; and specifically with regard to that letter they found that it did not represent any genuine transaction between the parties. Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., observed that Mr. Justice Lopes, who knew the case, said that quite enough for him had been stated, and he (Lord Coleridge) quite agreed with him. There would, therefore, be a rule to show cause why the solicitor should not be struck off the roll. His lordship added, after some discussion, that what they proposed was that notice should be given to the solicitor of the time when the motion would come on, on cause being shown, and then if the court should think fit, he would be examined and cross-examined before the court. Rule granted. County Courts. HUDDERSFIELD. (Before J. W. DE LONGUEVILLE GIFFARD, Esq., Judge.) Re Gee and Brook. A trastee will be allowed to disclaim a lease, although he has severed fixtures after his appointment, but the order will be made subject to the payment of the value of the fixtures. A trustee has twenty-eight clear days within which to determine whether he will disclaim or not; the disclaimer itself need not be executed during that period. This was an application on the part of the trustee for leave to disclaim the tenancy of the debtors in Portland Mills, in Lindley, Huddersfield. S. Learoyd, of Huddersfield, appeared on behalf of the trustee. Lawrence Gane (instructed by Messrs. Ramsden, Sykes, & Ramsden), for the landlord. On It appeared that the debtors were tenants of room and power under Rowland Hall, the rent varving according to the quantity of machinery worked. Upon the 25th of November, 1879, the debtors filed a petition for liquidation. Frederick Dyson was appointed the trustee. The rent was due up to the end of 1879, and the trustee paid it; but a further sum of £5 was claimed as arrears, for which a distress was made and then paid. The trustee before the end of January, 1880, sold off the whole of the assets. the 2nd of January, 1880, Rowland Hall gave notice to the trustee to elect whether he would continue the tenancy or disclaim. On the 30th of January, the trustee saw the landlord, and then stated that he had no further use for the premises, that the landlord might have possession at once, and he was prepared to straighten off with him. The landlord refused to have anything to do with him, and referred him to his agent. On the following day he saw the landlord's agent, and told him that he was prepared to settle with him, but the agent refused to come to any arrangement. It was said, on the part of the trustee, that on the 30th of January an application was made for an extension of time within which the trustee should elect, and on the part of the landlord it was contended that this application was not made until the 31st of January. The order, however, on the face of it purported to be made on the 30th of January, and the judge held that in the absence of positive evidence the order must be taken as conclusive. It was also alleged by the landlord that the trustee had severed fixtures. denied on the part of the trustee, but the whole of the effects had been sold and everything removed. This was Learoyd contended that the intimation given on the 30th was a complete determination on the part of the trustee in the words of section 24, and that section 23 gave an absolute right to disclaim at any time, subject to the intimation being given within twenty-eight days, and that the twenty-eight days were to be clear and exclusive of the day on which the notice was given, and the following authorities were relied upon, viz. :-Davis v. Evans (9 M. & W. 48); Banner v. Johnson (L. R. 5 E. & I. App. 157); Goodwin v. Noble (8 E. & B. 587); Mellor v. Levin (16 L. T. N. S. 531); Welsh v. Abraham (3 Camp. 340); McIntosh v. Trotter (3 M. & W. 186); Saint v. Pilley (L. R. 10 Ex. 137); Re Sneezum, Ex parte Davis (25 W. R. 49). Gane, on behalf of the trustee, contended that a notice of the trustee's intimation must be in writing; that it must be something upon which the landlord could act ; that the interview that took place on the 30th could not in any way be considered as an intimation of intention to disclaim, and that the trustee was bound to rely upon the application to the court for an extension of time; that this application was not made until the 31st of January, which he contended was too late, and that the trustee, therefore, by not making his election within the time, had precluded himself from making it at all. He further contended that the trustee, by severing the fixtures, had adopted the tenancy, and that he could not adopt the tenancy and deprive the landlord of part of his property, and at the same time seek to abandon the tenancy entirely. He relied upon the cases of Ex parte Stephens, Re Lavies (26 W. R. 136); Ex parte Brook, Re Roberts (27 W. R. 255); Ex parte Lovering (L. R. 9 Ch. 586). His HONOUR, in giving judgment, said he was clearly of opinion that what had taken place at the interview which was spoken to by the trustee, amounted to a sufficient intimation of an intention to disclaim. All the landlord was entitled to was to be told within the twenty-eight days whether he might depend upon the trustee as his future tenant, or whether the trustee was prepared to give up the property to the landlord. He considered the trustee had a clear thirty days within which to make this application, and he was clearly of opinion, upon the evidence, that the application was made on the 30th, but that even this was not necessary, because the interview itself was sufficient. With reference to the fixtures, if the trustee had severed any fixtures, the landlord would not be damnified, because he would be entitled to be paid the value of them, and there was no express authority for saying that the severance of the fixtures disentitled the trustee to disclaim; and as to the liability of the trustee for rent, this could not be a personal liability, but the section expressly provided that the landlord should not be damnified, because he would be entitled to prove for any loss that he could establish; the landlord was, therefore, quite at liberty to bring in a claim for what he had suffered by the disclaimer being executed, and this could not be done until the disclaimer had first been made. With reference to the amount to be paid to the landlord, he (the judge) was quite prepared to adjust it afterwards, and suggested that the solicitors on each side should in the first instance endeavour to agree upon the amount to be paid, and if they could not do so he was willing to settle the matter between them. The trustee must be at liberty to disclaim, and had the landlord simply come to the court submitting to an order or relying upon his position with reference to the fixtures and the rent, his costs would have been allowed out of the estate, but as the landlord had raised a contention upon which he had failed, no costs could be allowed to him. LEEDS. (Before Mr. Serjeant TINDAL ATKINSON, Judge.) April 22.-Wordsworth v. Webster. Collision Trespass - Liability of principal for wrongful act of agent. His HONOUR, in delivering judgment, said :-This action, which was tried on Monday last, the 19th inst., arose out of the following facts. The plaintiff was possessed of a horse which on the 7th March last was in the care of one George Walker, and, while he was riding on his own side close to the causeway on the Burley-road, a man, Fredk. Tetley, to whom the defendant in the action had intrusted a pony defendant's) stables, whilst driving at great speed, suddenly and spring cart for the purpose of taking them to his (the and without due caution turned on one side, and coming into contact with the plaintiff's horse the shaft of the cart was driven with great force into the fleshy part of the animal's leg, the effect of which was, a short time afterwards, to cause its death. Tetley was not employed by the defendant in his business as a servant, but occasionally took the horse and cart to the stables, putting up the horse for the night, and receiv ing for such service a gratuity, sometimes in refreshment, and at others a small sum of money. There is no doubt the horse's death was caused by the wrongful act of Tetley, and the question is whether the defendant is liable to make compensation to the plaintiff. I reserved my decision at the trial in order to consider the facts, and inquire into the authorities as to how far this case fell within the rule that a master is answerable for a trespass which his servant, acting within the scope of his ordinary employment, has committed; and whether Tetley, acting more in the character of an agent, having to perform a limited duty, fell within the rule. The inquiry has satisfied me that the liability extends to principals who expressly employ an agent to perform a duty during the discharge of which, by the absence of ordinary care, injury is caused by such agent, and that the maxim of respondeat superior applies. There is in law an obligation cast upon the principal to select an agent from a knowledge of his aptitude for the particular employment which he is to perform, and in effect he warrants his good conduct in all matters of the agency. The cases of Weyland v. Elkins (Holt, 229), and Wanstall v. Pooley (6 C. & F. 910), are authorities for the proposition that it is not necessary that the permanent relation of master and servant should subsist beyond the particular act in which the agent is employed; deciding in principle that any man having authority over the acts of another, and who either expressly commands him to do an act, or puts him in a condition of doing that from which, by the negligent discharge of the duty intrusted to him, injury results to another, is responsible for the act of the agent in the same way as if it had been bis own act. In this class of cases the chief point to be regarded is whether an act done by any person is done in the capacity of servant or authorized agent, and if such relationship cannot be shown, then in that case the original wrong doer is alone liable. The facts before me in the present instance show that Tetley, although not a servant in the usual sense of that term, was specially authorized by the defendant to take the horse and cart to the stables, and that, in my opinion, brings the defendant within the rule that where a person acts by another he is bound to employ proper instruments, and to use sufficient care in the selection; and negligence on the part of the agent in the course of such employment, the result of which negligence is damage caused to third parties, renders the principal in law liable. A verdict in the present case must be entered for the plaintiff. Damages £17-£14 for the value of the horse, and £3 for expenses incurred. Solicitor for the plaintiff, Bedford. Creditors' Claims. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. GRANGER, WILLIAM, Bristol, Cooper. May 20. Granger v Granger, M.R. Bridges, Bristol ILDERTON, HANNAH, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. May 31. Buchanan v Blenkinsopp, V.C. Hall. Bruce, Bishop Auckland KNIGHT, ROBERT FARTHING, Hereford, Carrier. June 2. Tomkins v Knight, V.C. Hall. Humfrys, Hereford MARTIN, SAMUEL, Cowper ro, Stoke Newington, Gent. May 14. Gold v Martin. V.C. Bacon. Bradley, Mark lane MUSKETT, JOSEPH, Holt, Norfolk, Grocer. May 15. Muskett v Muskett, V.C. Malins. Yetts, Lincoln's inn fields Posso, MAURICE JOSEPH, Portland pl West, Merchant. May 21. Posno v Posno, V.C. Hall. Sydney, Finsbury circus SHEW, EMMA, Cricklewood lodge, Cricklewood, May 25. Goodridge v SWALLOW, THOMAS, Berwick st, Soho, Licensed Victualler. May 21. Simpson v [Gazette, Apr. 27.] BURLAND, JUDGE, BENJAMIN, Fore st, Bonnet Shape Manufacturer. May 31. POPKIN, ALFRED EUDE, Chadwell st, Middleton sq, Stationer. May 31. Clark v Forsey, V.C. Malins WARD, GEORGE, Lower Norwood, Builder. June 5. Ward v Matthews, CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 25- ABSOLON, SAMUEL, Isabella-road, Homerton. June 1. Harling, Fetter- ASHTON, GEORGE, Brady-street, Whitechapel. May 31. Jennings, BOWER, BENJAMIN, Staveley, Derby. May 31. Maltby, Mansfield BURRIDGE, MARY, Wiveliscombe, Somerset. May 31. Pearse, Wiveliscombe CONOLLY, ANNE, Mount Radford, Exeter. June 1. Whidborne and Tozer, Teignmouth COUPLAND, THOMAS, Retford, Nottingham, Gent. June 24. Newton and Co, East Ret.ord DILLON, Right Hon. Viscount THEOBALD DOMINICK GEOFFREY, Dytchley, Oxford. June 24. Markby and Co, New sq, Lincoln's inn DUFFETT, HENRY, Gloucester, Gent. July 27. Plummer and Parry, Bristol GARDNER, LUCY, Lowndes-street. June 15. Parkers, Bedford-row GEE, ARTHUR, St Mary Axe, Provision Merchant. June 7. Fitch, Well-street, Hackney HALDEN, JOSEPH, Kingston-upon-Hull, Brush Manufacturer. July 1. Lowe and Co, Kingston-upon-Hul HARRISON, JAMES, Belper, Derby, Gent. June 7. Jackson, Belper HARVEY, JEMIMA ANN, Dover, Dairy Keeper. June 1. Stilwell, Dover HAWKINS, JOHN, Burnham, Essex, Oyster Mer chant. June 1. Johnson, Lincoln's inn fields HOLDBACK, EMMA, Aston, nr Birmingham. June 19. Johnson and Co, Birmingham LETCHFORD, FREDERICK, St. John's, Lower Clapton, Gent. May 31. Frost, Leadenhall st LEWIS, JAMES, Lozelis, Birmingham, Brickmaker. June 4. Westwood, Birmingham LOCK, HENRY, Dorchester, Solicitor. May 29. Lock, Dorchester LORAINE, ISABELLA GREWS, Wallington, Surrey. May 31. Gamlen, and Son, Gray's-in-sq Low, JOHN, Clophill, Bedford, Farmer. May 31. Wade-Gery, Shefford MASON, JOSEPH, Talbot-grove, Notting-hill, Builder. June 1. Taylor and Taylor, Metrop litan-chambers, New Broad st MATTHEWS, EMMA, Shrewsbury, Salop. June 25. Talbot and Woodman, Newtown MIDDLEBROOK, JANE, Crespin st, Spitalfields. Fitch, Bishopsgate Without May 31. Clapham and NORMAN, MARGARET, Queensborough-terrace, Kensington Gardens. May 1. Tyrrell, Raymonds-bldgs RAW, DAVID BOLTON, Hemming-cottage, Hampton, Gent. May 30. Coburn and Young, Leadenhall-st RHODES, JOHN, Broaduead, Lancaster, Yeoman. May 15. Charnley and Finch, Preston SAMPSON, JOSEPH, Hallam Head, Sheffield, June 12. Bramley, Sheffield Licensed Victualler. BAILEY, FRANCIS, Holt, Wilts, Farmer. June 7. Keary and Co, Chippenhamn BARKER, JOSEPH, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Yeoman. July 1. Mather and Co, Newcastle-upon-Tyne BAKER, PHEBE, Leicester. June 19. Harris, Leicester BERNDES, ADOLPHUS, Strand, Restaurant Proprietor. June 31. Bartlett, Bedford-street BULL, ELIZABETH, Albion rd, Newington Green. June 4. Le Riche and Son, Rood lane CAVE, JANE, Leicester. June 1. Freer and Co, Leicester DONAGAN, ALFRED FREDERICK, Cambridge, Perfumer. July 1. Fosters and Lawrance, Cambridge EATON, MARIA BIRDSALL, Salford, Lancaster, Provision Dealer. June 14. Darnton and Bottomley, Ashton-under-Lyne ELLINGHAM, GABRIEL, Hemel Hempsted, Hertford, Farmer. June 24. Grover and Son, Hemel Hempsted ELLIS, RICHARD GREGSON, Plasnewydd, Denbigh, Mineral Water Manufacturer. June 7. Elis and Co, St. Swithin's-lane GRIFFIN, GEORGE, Boston, Lincoln, Plumber. June 1. Staniland and Wigelsworth, Boston HARRINGTON, FREDERICK, Liverpool, Coach Builder. June 15. Bremner and Co, Liverpool HENSHAW, HUGH, Monk's Heath, Chester, Blacksmith. June 10. Gaunt and Grainger, Manchester HODGE, JAMES, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Furniture Dealer. July 1. Dorset, Provision Merchant. 'HUTCHINS, SARAH, Twyford, Ber ks. June 1. Beattie, Old Broad st KENTESBER, JOHN JOHNSON, High st, Shadwell, Oil and Colour Man. June 1. Sandom and Co, Gracechurch st KENYON, JOHN AINSWORTH, Pendleton, nr Manchester, Pawnbroker. June 14. Farrar and Hall, Manchester LEATHERDALE, JOHN, Bromley, Kent, Esq. May 31. Smallpeice and LONGMAN, JOHN JAMES HAM, Melcombe Regis, Dorset, Licensed Vic- MATTHEWS, JACOB SCOTT, Penarth, Glamorgan. MILLS, WILLIAM Ross, Pimlico rd, Chelsea, Builder. May 28. June 30. Waldron, Licensed Victualler. OVEY, FREDERICK, Tregwerp, Denbigh, Gent. June 1. Richards and Son, Llangollen PAYNE, HENRY ADOLPHUS SEPTIMUS, Sidcot, Somerset, Solicitor. June 24. Woolfryes and Powell, Banwell PETTIPHER, MICHAEL, Pebworth, Gloucester, Yeoman. June 15. Hudson, Pershore PIGGOTT, ELIZA, Balsall Heath, Worcester. June 8. Tyndall and Co, Birmingham PITTET, JAME, Brighton, Esq. June 7. Stuart, 6, Gray's-inn-square PLOMER, CATHERINE WILHELMINA, Holland Villas rd, Kensington. June 1. Freshfields and Williams, Bank-blogs RIDGWAY, MATTHEW, Dewsbury, York, Draper. June 1. Ridgway and Ridgway, Dewsbury QB 100 Dickinson (Haywards, K and S) v S Stanbridge (Clapham and F) stayed Eg 101 Hackett (Scard and Son) v Gisby (Robert Wood) stayed QB 102 Schulte and Scheman (Hollams, Son and C) v Hopkins, Gilkes and Co (Van Sandau and C) stayed SJ CP 103 Berla, Cotram and Co (Norton, R and Co) v E Pallas and Co (Lowless and Co) com SJ QB 104 Eklof (Stokes, S and S) v Greenhow and Co (Billinghurst and W) stayed SJ CP 105 Bordes (Johnson, U B and A) v Peruvian Guana Co limd (JB Batten) com SJ Ex 106 Vickers and anr (W Tanner) v Bird and ors (Wilde, B M and W) stayed Ex 107 Gardner (Randall and A) v Withernsea Pier, &c. Co (Milne, R and M) com QB 108 Prieto (J Andrews) v Chadwick and Son (S Mayhew) postponed QB 109 Bramwell (Hollams, Son and C) v Levi and Co (Ingledew and Co) com SJ CP 110 Preston (Parker and Co) v The Cleveland Extension Mineral Railway Co (Chappell, Sons and Co) SJ QB 111 C Tennant and Co (N Sheppard) v Ellis, Kislingbury and Co (FW and H Hilbery )SJ QB 112 Berlin, &c, Co, limd (Rooks and Co) v Combe and Wainwright (In Person) SJ QB 113 Rogerson and Son (Courtenay and C) v Uzielli (Waltons, B and W) com SJ QB 114 Thomson and ors (Ingledew and I) v Grant and ors (Hughes, Hooker and Co) com SJ Ex 115 Bunnett and Co limd (Renshaw and R) v Potter and Sons (Prior, B C and A) SJ Arnold and Co (Robinson and H) v Grautoff and Co (Nicol, SANDHAM, ANNA, Bath. June 10. Tilleard, and Co, Old Jewry SHORTER, STEPHEN, Southborough, Kent, Retired Farmer. QB 116 June 24. Palmer, Tonbridge CP 117 Steel Bros and Co (Waltons, B and W) v Briggs and ors (Pritchard and Son) com SJ Q B 118 Ex 119 WASON, EDWARD SANDYS, Earl's Court rd, South Kensington, Capt 33rd Foot. June 1. Payne and Son, Liverpool WILLIAMS, ISAAC, Bronhaulog Hall, Denbigh, Quarry Owner. May 22. Mason, Chester WILLIAMS, JOHN, Maesmawr, Cileen, Flint. June 15. Kelly and Keene, Mold [Gazette, May 4.] Court Papers. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. This list contains all actions entered in Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions, in which notice of trial has been given; and also all actions in the Chancery Division, in which notice has been given of trial before a judge and jury, up to and including 10th May, 1880. LIST OF ACTIONS FOR TRIAL. CP 1 The Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China (Waltons, B and W) v The Netherlands Steam Navigation Co limd (Lovell and Co) com SJ CP 2 Frowein and ors (Stephen Scott) v Sonnethal (Ashurst, M and Co, stayed SJ CP 3 Breffit (Á Jones, T and G) v Williams, Norris, A and C) stayed Ex 4 Hanbury (Mercer and Mercer) v Grant and Clark and Punchard (Ashurst, M and Co; Blunt, T and L) And 77 other actions against the same defendants, postponed SJ Ex 82 Ostrom and Fischer (H J Coburn) v Heintz (Nash and F) stayed CP 83 Rathbone and ors (Freshfields and W) v Caldwell (J B QB 84 Leese (Jno Frost) v Household (Field, R and Co) stayed SJ Ex 85 Masaru and ors (Murray, Hutchins and Co) v Hobley (Hollams, Son and C) com SJ CP 86 Amazon Tug and Lighterage Co limd (Ashurst, M and Co) v Earle's Shipbuilding and Engineering Co limd (Chester, U and Co) com SJ QB 87 Dreyfus, Freres and Cie (Stibbard, G and Co) v Watts Milburn and Co (Torr and Co) comSJ CP 88 Gardiner (Waltons, B and W) v Warns (F Bradley) stayed CP 93 Reynolds (J P Garrod) v Cooper (Fisher and Co) postponed CP 94 Strauss and Co (F W Mount) v Continental Daily Parcels Express (Dalton and J) com QB 95 New South Wales Marine Assurance Co (Hollams, Son and C) v Reade (Waltons, B and W) com SJ QB 96 Alexander (J C Campbell) v McMaster (Venning, R and J) stayed QB 97 The Central African Trading Co limd (Flux and Co) v Walsh, Bros (Milne, R and M) com QB 98 Standard Lubricating Oils Co limd (H Kimber and Co) v Smith (Champion and Co) com QB 99 Dale and Spring (Hollams, Son and C) v Wakefield (Waltons, B and W) com SJ CP 120 Mapleson (J and R Gole) v Austin (W F Stokes) com Belmonte and ors (Ashurst, M and Co) v Gutschow and QB 121 Carver (Fry and H) v Grieves (Mozley and S) com CP 123 Hockley Hall and Whately Collrs and Brickworks limd Ex 125 Beeson (Whiles, R and Co) v Jacobs and anr (EJ Sydney and Son) Commission QB 126 Cazal (M Abrahams and R) v Beck and anr (E Lee) com Ex 130 Keeble (W F Morris) v Whitworth and ors (Ashurst, M and QB 131 McAlister and ors (Hollams, Son and Ci v Fenning (Freshfields and W) com SJ CP 132 Bolckow, Vaughan and Co (Waltons, B and W) v Fisher (Parker and Co) SJ CP 133 Thomas (Lowless and Co) v Larnder (Farnfields) Ex 136 Lovering, trustee, &c (Rooks and Co) v Salter and anr (J C QB 137 Bedford Pits Colliery Id (Simpson H and Co) v Roberts (JH Lydall) SJ QB 138 Same (Same) v Dixon (Same) SJ Ex 139 Barrett (Jackson and P) v Billinghurst (Wilkins, B and F) SJ QB 140 Greene (Elmslie, F and S) v Vardon (Janson, C and P) postponed SJ CP 141 Holmes (Pyke and M) v Inglis and wife (Oehme & S) QB 142 Brandt and ors (Goldberg and L) v Craig and anr (Roberts and B) com CP 143 Orange and anr (Pitman and S) v White (G L P Eyre and Co) Ex 144 Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris (Lyne and H) v Bolet, Forman and Co (Baker & N) com SJ Ex 149 Stephens (Hughes, H B and T) v McIsaac (Vallance and V) stayed CP 150 Lady Llanover (Freshfields and W) v The Ebbw Vale Steel, &c., Co limd (Robinson, P and S) SJ CP 151 Donnithorne (Wild, B and W) v Bolton (Gadsden & T) QB 153 Linton (Chester, M H and B) v Rogers (J Rae) SJ CP 155 Burnand (Waltons, B&W) v Rodocanachi (Markby and QB 156 Baynes (Blatchford, R K and W) v Smyth (Learoyd, Lazd PSJ) Ex 157 Prewett (Champion, R and P) v Simmons (Pittman and S) CP 159 Bank of New South Wales (Waltons B and W) v Merry |