did, that the property was not subject to any ground-rent. His lordship was of opinion that the fair reading of the particular was that no substantial ground-rent was reserved by the lease. The condition which was relied upon did not necessarily lead to the assumption that all, the leasehold lots were subject to ground-rents; it was consistent with it that some were and some were not, and it was well known in Liverpool that the corporation leases were generally made at a peppercorn rent. No doubt a careful purchaser would have made inquiries, but the vendors had been careless themselves, and could not complain of the carelessness of the purchaser. The particular was misleading, and the purchaser had a fair title to be misled by it. It was not a case in which the court, in the exercise of its discretion, ought to enforce specific performance. The court had refused to do so, even in cases where the purchaser had made a mistake without any fault of the vendor. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. -SOLICITORS, T. H. Lydall; Singleton & Tattersall.

PRACTICE-ORD. 15, R. 1-ACTION FOR ACCOUNT -COSTS-FURTHER CONSIDERATION.-In a case of Beaney Y. Elliott, before the Master of the Rolls on the 31st ult., a question was raised on the further consideration of the action, where an order for an account had been made under ord. 15, r. 1, whether certain evidence required for the purpose of determining who was to bear the costs of the action could be proved by affidavit. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that, under ord. 15, r. 1, any matter required on further consideration as to costs might be proved by affidavit.-SOLICITORS, W. F. Noakes; Price, Bigg, & Co.

PRACTICE- AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT-ACCIDENTAL SLIP OR OMISSION-ORD. 41A (DECEMBER, 1879).—In a case of Fritz v. Hobson, before Fry, J., on the 31st ult., a question arose as to the power conferred on the court by the new order, 41a of December, 1879 (ante, p. 174), which provides that "clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may, at any time, be corrected by the court or a judge on motion, without an appeal." The action was brought to restrain the defendant, who was a builder, and who was carrying on building operations on some land near to the plaintiff's house, the entrance to which was in a narrow court or passage leading out of a street in London (this passage being the shortest cut of several approaches leading to the land on which the defendant was building), from continuing or repeating certain alleged acts of trespass, from obstructing by his operations the access from the highway to the plaintiff's house, and the access of light and air thereto. The plaintiff moved for an interim injunction, and an order was made that the motion should stand over till the trial of the action. Nothing was said about the costs of the motion, and the order was never drawn up. Before the trial the defendant's building operations had been completed, and the only question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages. Fry, J., gave the plaintiff £60 damages in respect of loss of custom in his trade by reason of the obstruction to the access to his house from the highway, and the general costs of the action, less £10 for the costs of part of his claim which his lordship held to be unfounded. The plaintiff's counsel omitted to ask at the trial that the costs of the motion should be included, and the judgment, as drawn up by the registrar and passed and entered, made no express provision for those costs, and the taxing master refused to allow them to the plaintiff on taxation. The judgment expressly reserved liberty to either of the parties to apply to the court. The plaintiff then moved before Fry., J., that the judgment might be varied or corrected by giving the plaintiff the costs of, and occasioned by, the adjourned motion, including the evidence used upon it. The defendant's counsel raised the preliminary objection that the plaintiff was in effect asking the court to re-hear the action, a thing which, as was decided in In re The St. Nazaire Company (27 W. R. 854, L R. 12 Ch. D. 88), it had no jurisdiction to do. Fry, J., was of opinion on the merits that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs in question. And he held that the case of Viney v. Chaplin (3 De G. & J. 282), showed that under either the liberty to apply reserved by the judgment, or the liberty to apply implied in the order that the motion should stand over to the trial (for he was of opinion that every order carries within it in gremio liberty to apply to the court), he had

jurisdiction to order the costs to be paid to the plaintiff. But, if this was not so, he thought that the case fell within order 41a, the omission to provide for the costs of the motion having arisen from the accidental omission of counsel to ask for them at the trial. His lordship accordingly made a separate order (following the precedent of Viney v. Chaplin) that the costs of the motion for the injunction should be taxed and paid to the plaintiff. And, inasmuch as the plaintiff, before serving notice on the defendant of the motion to correct the judgment, had applied to him to consent to the proposed alteration, his lordship gave the plaintiff also the costs of that motion.-SOLICITORS, Moresby-White & Co.; W. M. Webster.

Obituary.

MR. WILLIAM DAVIES.

Mr. William Davies, solicitor, died at his residence, Norwood-grove, Liverpool, on the 29th alt. Mr. Davies olerk in the conveyancing department of the Town Clerk's was born in 1834, and was for several years engaged as a Office, at Liverpool. He was admitted a solicitor in 1867. Ten years later he was appointed by the corporation to the office of clerk of prosecutions for the borough, and he held that office until his death. Mr. Davies's health bad for some time been very bad, and he had recently obtained leave of absence from his official duties. The immediate cause of his death was a fit of apoplexy. A Liverpool journal thus speaks of Mr. Davies's official services:"He was most zealous in the discharge of his duties, and this was recognized by steady promotion, Mr. Davies having commenced at the small salary of £78, receiving increases until he attained £500 per annum. His loss will be felt, not only in the department of the corporation with which he was connected, but amongst a large circle of professional brethren, by whom he was highly respected."

MR. WILLIAM MACHIN INGLE.

Mr. William Machin Ingle, solicitor, died at Belper on the 29th ult. Mr. Ingle was born in 1827, and was admitted a solicitor in 1852, when he commenced to practise at Belper. He was shortly afterwards appointed registrar of the Belper County Court (Circuit No. 19), and more recently discharged the same duties at the Ilkeston County Court. He was also for many years clerk to the trustees of the Duffield and Heage and the Cromford and Kingley Mill Tarnpike Roads. He was a perpetual commissioner for Derbyshire, and had a very good private business. A few years ago he retired from practice, but he retained the county court registrarships until his death. Mr. Ingle was buried at St. Peter's, Belper, on the 1st inst.

MR. FREDERICK DANBY PALMER. Mr. Frederick Danby Palmer, solicitor, died at Southtown, Yarmouth, on the 28th ult. Mr. Palmer was the Bon of Mr. Frederick Danby Palmer, of Yarmouth. He was born in 1834, and was admitted a solicitor in 1861. He first practised at 13, South-square, Gray's-inn, but a few years later removed to Yarmouth, where he carried on business until his death. He was a notary public and a perpetual commissioner for the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and he had a very good private practice. He acted as solicitor to the Norfolk and Suffolk Building Society, to the Gorleston Gas Company, and to the Yar mouth Traders' Association. He was also secretary to the Yarmouth Volunteer Drill Hall Company, steward of the Manors of Hales Hall and Loddon Hall, clerk to the Yarmouth Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, and superintendent registrar for the district.

Messrs. Fox & Bousfield offered for sale at the Mart on Wednesday last, the valuable freehold property in Lincoln's-innfields formerly the premises of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The property was put up in three lots. Lot 1, comprising 67, Lincoln's-inn-fields and 77, Great Queen street, was not sold; lot 2, 76, Great Queen-street, realised £4,300, and lot 3, 72 and 73, Great Queen-street, was sold for £6,200.

Appointments, Etc.

Mr. ALAN HENRY BELLINGHAM, barrister, who has been elected M.P. for the county of Louth in the Home Rule interest, is the eldest son of Sir Alan Edward Bellingham, baronet, and was born in 1846. He was educated at Harrow

and at Exeter College, Oxford, and was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn, in November, 1875.

Mr. CHARLES STANHOPE BURKE BUSBY, solicitor, of Chesterfield, has been appointed by the Duke of Devonshire, Lord-Lieutenant of Derbyshire, to the office of Clerk of the Peace for that county, in succession to Mr. John Barber, deceased. Mr. Busby is coroner for the Hundred of Scarsdale. He was admitted a solicitor in 1838, and is in partnership with his son, Mr. Charles George Busby.

Mr. WILLIAM EASTON, Solicitor, of 13, Clifford's-inn, and Camberwell, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the Connties of Middlesex and Surrey, and for the Cities of London and Westminster.

Mr. JAMES FUNSTON, solicitor, of 4, Finsbury-pavement, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. HENRY HOLROYD, barrister, who has been appointed Judge of County Courts for Circuit No. 26, in succession to Mr. William Spooner, deceased, was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1853. He has practised on the Oxford Circuit, and at the Stafford and Lichfield Sessions, and he has been for several years a revising barrister.

Mr. JOHN ROBERTS JONES, solicitor, of Bala, has been appointed Clerk to the Bala Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority. Mr. Jones was admitted a solicitor in 1869.

Mr. LAYTON, Solicitor (of the firm of Paines, Layton, Cooper, & Pollock), of Gresham House, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. FREDERICK ARTHUR LAKE, solicitor (of the firm of Day & Lake), of Runcorn, has been appointed a Notary Public.

Mr. PHILIP PROTHEROE SMITH, solicitor, mayor of Truro, has received the honour of Knighthood in commemoration of the recent visit to Truro of the Prince and Princess of Wales. Sir P. Smith is the son of Mr. Thomas Smith, of Bideford, and brother of the Right Hon. Sir Montague Smith. He was admitted a solicitor in 1832, and is in partnership with Mr. Robert Maclean Paul. He is secretary to the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries, and an alderman for the borough.

Mr. WILLIAM HENRY TOLLER, solicitor and notary, of Barnstaple, has been appointed Deputy-Registrar of the Archdeaconry of Barnstaple. Mr. Toller is clerk to the Barnstaple Board of Guardians, and superintendent regis

trar.

He was admitted a solicitor in 1864, and is in partnership with his father, Mr. John Henry Toller, clerk of the peace for Barnstaple.

Mr. WILLIAM VENN, solicitor (of the firm of Venn & Woodcock), of 15, New-inn, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judi

cature.

Companies.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

CIVIL SERVICH MEAT SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 25, directed to be heard before the sitting judge at the court of V.C. Bacon on June 5. Vanderpump, Gray's inn square, solicitor for the petitioner

JAMES THORN AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Malins, dated May 14, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Bolton and Co, Temple gardens, Temple, solicitors for the petitioner LLANBERIS COPPER MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for windup, presented May 20, directed to be heard before the M.R. on June 5. Carr and Co, Rood lane, solicitors for the petitioner MADEIRA AND MAMORE RAILWAY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 27, directed to be heard before the M.R. on June 5. Clements, Gresham House, Old Broad st, solicitor for the petitioners SYDENHAM STORES, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 27, directed to be heard before the M. R. on June 5. Badham, Salters' hall ct, solicitor for the petitioner

[Gazette, May 28.] EASTBOURNE HOTEL, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 28, directed to be heard before the M.R., on June 12. Lowless and Co, Martin's-lane, Cannon-street, solicitors for the petitioner GRAFENBERG HOUSE (BARNET) HYDROPATHIC ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED. The M. R. has fixed June 10, at twelve, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

SLATE COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has by an order, dated Dec 19, appointed Mr Alfred Audrey Broad, Walbrook, to be official liquidator

[Gazette, June 1]

ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL LAW SOCIETIES. The following are extracts from the report of the committee for the year 1879 :

The association consists at present of twenty-two members, as against twenty-three at the date of the last report, the Denbighshire and Flintshire Law Society having ceased to be a member.

Two new law societies have been formed during the year-the Scarborough Law Society, whose hon. sec. is Mr. J. S. Kitching; and the Shropshire Law Society, whose hon. sec. is Mr. Henry J. Osborne, of Shifnal. These societies have not yet joined the association. The total number of country law societies is thirty-three, twenty-two of whom are members of the association. A list of these societies, in continuation of former liste, accompanies this report. No law societies have yet been established at Derby, Darham, Ipswich, Norwich, Oxford, or Yarmouth, or in the districts to which those towns belong.

The committee in its last report ventured to express the hope that the council of the Incorporated Law Society, in exercising the powers vested in them by their supplemental charter, would have special regard to the position of the several societies whose presidents might be elected extraordinary members of council. It is gratifying to add that at the last election of extraordinary members this principle was acted upon, and that the selection then made leaves little to be desired, the members having been chosen from the societies of Birmingham, Bristol, Glouces tershire, Kent, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Notting. ham, Sheffield, and Sussex.

LAND REGISTRATION.

Real Property Amendment and Conveyancing Bills.-The subject of the amendment of the law of real property was examined and discussed by the president of the Incorporated Law Society, Mr. N. T. Lawrence, and by Mr. Dees, in two most valuable and suggestive papers read by them

at the provincial meeting of the Incorporated Law Society at Cambridge, and it was subsequently considered by a committee of the council of the same body, in view of the criticisms and suggestions contained in those two papers and otherwise.

The result was a report on the subject of the amendment of the law of property, adopted by the council, and sent to the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Cairns, in the month of January last. This report did not deal with the question of the registration of titles or assurances, which had occupied so much of the attention of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. It proceeded, in the sense of the resolution passed at the general meeting of this association on the 21st of June, 1878, to recommend the following alterations of the existing law:

1. That the powers of leasing and selling, and the other powers usually inserted in well-drawn modern settlements, should be made by law incident to every settlement, whether existing or future, but that the settlor should have power to modify them.

2. That the court should have power to order a sale on the application of the tenant for life alone, whenever the court should in its discretion think a sale advisable, notwithstanding the dissent of any other person interested under the settlement, or of the trustees of the power of sale.

3. That the court should have power to sell or lease the real estate of infants on being satisfied that any such dealing would be for the benefit of the infant.

4. That the tenant for life or the court should have power to appoint trustees of settlements, existing or future, of which no trustee is originally appointed.

5. That no order for sale by the court should be impeached, as against a purchaser under it, for want of jurisdiction, or on the ground that necessary persons were not joined as parties, or served; and that all orders for sale by the court should, as regards purchasers, be of themselves conclusive evidence that all the consents on which they profess to be based were duly given.

6. That trustees of existing and future settlements of land may, if they see fit, out of any moneys in their hands arising from sales or otherwise, or out of money to be raised by way of mortgage on the settled lands, advance money to the tenant for life of the settled estate, or other limited owner, for permanent improvements on such estate, taking security from such tenant for life, or other limited owner, for the repayment of the sum advanced, without interest, by a rent-charge extending over a period not exceeding thirty years, the receipt of the tenant for life to be a discharge to the trustees.

7.-That with regard to loans authorized by the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, the Inclosure Commissioners should be substituted for the court as the protector of the remainderman and incumbrancer.

8.-That the necessity for the use of technical words, as "heirs," "heirs of the body," in deeds be dispensed with, and that limitations in deeds be construed in the same manner as limitations in wills, and that a grantor should be enabled to convey to himself and another.

9. That the rule in Shelley's case should apply where one of the estates to be united is legal and the other is equitable.

10. That the court should have full power to authorize the sale of land, discharged from charges, whether vested or contingent, and to authorize the setting aside of funds to answer such charges.

11. That conveyances to purchasers should be good against trustees in bankruptcy (notice or no notice) unless the trustee is in possession, or the proceedings in bankruptcy have been registered as a lis pendens.

12.-That all registrations of judgments and Crown debts, and of writs of execution on judgments and Crown debts, and all charges on land thereby created, should be swept away,

* See report, page 156, ante.-"That the improvements in the law of real property effected by the Transfer of Property Act, the Acts relating to trustees and mortgageee, the Real Property Limitation Act, the Vendor and Purchaser Act, the Settled Estates Act, and other recent statutes, indicate the direction which further legislation may usefully take."

"That while no system of registration which has hitherto been devised can be relied on as an absolute preventive of fraud, any system of registration will necessarily occasion considerable cost and some delay in dealing with real property."

and that in the place thereof the judgment creditor or the Crown should be entitled to apply to the court, in a summary way, to sell any interest in land, of whatever nature, to which the debtor may be entitled, whether in possession or reversion, and that such application may be registered as a lis pendens, which should have no force or effect for more than six months after registration.

13. That all rights and remedies to enforce covenants and conditions in existing and future leases should be vested in the person entitled for the time being to give a discharge for

the rent.

14. That the court should have discretionary power to relieve against forfeiture in all cases.

15. That consolidation of mortgages should be abolished. 16. That the doctrine of Dearle v. Hall (3 Russ. 1), as to notice, should be applied to real estate and chattels real; so that mortgages and other alienations of equitable interess should rank in order of priority of notice to the holder of the legal estate; but that the person acquiring the legal estate without notice of equitable interests should still be entitled to priority-i.e., if the holder of the legal estate, in forgetfulness or fraud of the notice, should convey, or agree to convey, the legal estate to a purchaser for value without notice, that purchaser should not be affected by the equitable in

terests.

17. That the powers of sale, and other powers usually inserted in mortgages should be made incident by law to every mortgage, either of real or personal property, subject to such modifications as may be expressed by deed; and that where a mortgage is made to more than one person, the mortgagees should be deemed to be joint tenants in equity as well as at law unless the contrary is expressed in the mortgage deed.

18. That both mortgagor and mortgagee, while in possession, should have by law the full powers of granting leases, other than building and mining leases, usually given in modern settlements to tenants for life, and that each, while in possession, should have all the rights and remedies of the other as against tenants.

19. That the law relating to the accounts of a mortgagee in possession should be revised, and that his accounts should be taken on the same footing as those of a receiver under the court.

20. That any person having a charge, annual or in gross, not paid after demand for a given time, should be entitled to apply for a receiver on summons in chambers without an action. The receiver to keep down all annual charges.

21. That the mortgagor should have the right of access to his title deeds upon payment of all costs attending their production.

22.-That the mortgagee should not be considered to have taken possession by reason of the mortgagor having attorned tenant to him in the mortgage deed.

23. That all estates held on mortgage or in trust should vest in the personal representative.

24. That Lord Cranworth's Act of 1860 should be revised and extended.

25. That the Trustee Acts of 1850 and 1852 should be consolidated and amended.

26. That a period of limitation should be prescribed for the right of the Crown to recover succession or legacy duty. 27. That there should be power to take land off the register under the Land Transfer Act, 1875, and, if the registration was with an absolute title, to obtain a certificate to that effect.

28.-That the court in actions for specific performance, and on applications under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, should have the same power of disregarding unimportant objectious to title which is given to the regis trar by the 17th section of the Land Transfer Act, 1875.

29. That the necessity for an indorsed receipt for the consideration money, and an authority to receive the money, should be done away with, and that an acknowledgment in any instrument of the payment of consideration should be sufficient, without an indorsed or other separate receipt, and that, in the absence of express notice to the contrary, where an instrument, in which there is an acknowledgment by a party executing the same of the payment of consideration money, is in the possession of a solicitor acting for that party, the possession of the instrument by the solicitor shall be a sufficient authority for the payment to him of the consideration money.

30.-That, on the acknowledgment of deeds by married women, no other certificate of acknowledgment should be

subject of the Land Laws, the practice of Conveyancing, | Bankruptcy, and County Court Jurisdiction, may be expected to be actively prosecuted. On all these matters solicitors are well qualified to give an opinion, and it is for the public advantage that effective expression should be given to their views. The co-operation of the country branch of the profession through this association with the Incorporated Law Society affords the best means which has yet been devised of bringing before the Legislature the collective experience of the large body of solicitors in this country, and your committee have only to regret that all the country law societies without exception do not lend their aid in making the expression of professional opinion as complete as possible.

LAW ASSOCIATION.

At the usual monthly meeting of the directors, held at the hall of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, on Thursday, June 3, the following being present, viz.: Mr. Desborough (chairman), and Messrs. Boodle, Collison, Desborough, jun., Hedger, Styan, Smith, Lucas, and A. B. Carpenter (secretary), grants amounting to £1,270 were made to twenty-four members of the primary class, and £40 to four non-members, one new member was elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted.

Solicitors' Cases.

COMMON PLEAS DIVISION. (Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., and GROVE and LOPES, JJ.) May 27.-Re John Frederick Robinson, a Solicitor. The solicitor was formerly a partner in the firm of Robinson, Safford, & Grimwade, solicitors, of Hadleigh, in Suffolk.

Between 1875 and 1878 the firm acted as solicitors for a gentleman named Norman, who was an old friend of Mr. Robinson, and had assisted him in monetary matters.

During this period of three years the firm received on behalf of their client nearly £7,000 in five different sums, four of which had been either received by the firm or by Mr. Robinson. Eventually the client, Mr. Norman, brought an action against his solicitors to recover the money due to him. The plaintiff's case was that the money was received by the firm, and not paid over to him. The defendants, Grimwade and Safford, on the one hand, alleged that each of the sums had been received by the firm, and had been paid over by them to their client, by whom it had been handed to Mr. Robinson by way of a personal loan, so that it was a debt due from him and not from the firm. The defendant Robinson made a separate defence, in which he alleged that, as regards £5,000 odd, that sum was lent to him by the plaintiff, and that on the 4th of November, 1876, the plaintiff gave him (Robinson) a letter, which stated "This is to acknowledge that I advanced to you the sums of [sums stated], and in consideration of your allowing me interest at the rate of five per cent. on such advances, I hereby undertake not to disturb the same without giving you one year's notice, unless in the event of death.-J. R. NORMAN." The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and in answer to a question left to them by Lopes, J., said that no such agreement as that contained in the letter of the 4th of November, 1876, and set up by Robinson, was ever made.

The circumstances of the action having come to the knowledge of the Incorporated Law Society, a rule was obtained on their behalf calling upon Robinson to show cause why he should not be struck off the rolls.

A. L. Smith showed cause.

Wills, Q.C., and Murray, for the Incorporated Law Society, were not called upon.

that Mr. Smith has not a perfect right to show that the verdict proceeded upon grounds which are not satisfactory; but I do not propose to rest my judgment on the tech. nical ground of estoppel. It is a grave matter that, in a civil action, in which juries are naturally loath to say either expressly or by implication that a man has done anything criminal, a jury was forced to come practically to a conclusion that the document by which the defendant sought to prove his case was forged. If it was forged by the defendant, we should be unworthy of our places on the bench were we to hesitate for one moment to say that a solicitor of the Supreme Court who had been guilty of such a thing should be at once struck off the rolls, for a man who could act in the way in which this solicitor is alleged to have acted must be a person of considerable baseness. Now, is the document a forgery? In the action by the client against Robinson, Safford, & Grimwade, the defence of the two latter partners was one and the same. As to & considerable portion of the money, they averred that it had been received by the firm of which Robinson was then a member, and paid by the firm to the plaintiff, Mr. Norman, and that if any of the money was owing to the plaintiff from Robinson, it had been returned to Robinson by the plaintiff in some private and personal transaction, of which Safford and Grimwade had no knowledge. Then Robinson, in his defence, said that the money had been advanced to him by way of loan, and the way in which it is pleaded is that these various sums having been received by the firm, some of them as early as the month of March, 1876, had been retained by the firm or by Mr. Norman, and two months afterwards that these identical sums were advanced to Robinson as a private loan. That is what Robinson states, and the evidence by which he attempts to make out his case is a letter purporting to be addressed by Norman to him, which is now alleged to be a forgery. It is simply incredible that, as this document states, this money should have been retained and lent again in the same sume, even down to the odd shillings and pence. The plaintiff repudiated the whole transaction in strong language. For two years this document had been supposed to have been written, but all knowledge of it was denied by the plaintiff. Mr. Smith has done for his client all that could be done in the case, and all that he has been able to show is that, when before Sir F. Pollock, in April, 1879, the plaintiff asserted that he did not sign certain documents that he had in fact signed, and from this he argued that the plaintiff's memory was at fault with respect to the letter in question. Those documents were, however, of a different kind to this one. In this instance it is supposed to have been a personal advance, which he would be likely to remember. But the case does not rest even there, for the plaintiff goes on to say that he had not at that time any money to lend, and that no each transactions took place as the alleged loan or the writing of the letter.

On the day of this supposed transaction, a different transaction took place, namely, an advance of £1,000 made, not to Robinson, but through him to a person named Clabon. But the case does not rest even there, because it appears that up to a very recent time Mr. Norman had been most careful in keeping accounts, and there is absolutely nothing to bear out Robinson's account of the matter. Mr. Norman's accounts make no mention of these loans, but they do of the sum of £300 which was beyond all doubt lent by him to Robinson, nor do Robinson's books contain any record of the loans. But the matter does not stop there, because besides the £5,000 received by the firm, another £1,150 was also due, and it is incredible that, if the sums of money had been really advanced, the £1,150 should not have been included. With regard to the particular advance which Norman did make to Robinson everything in relation to it is regular.

Now I come to the letter itself, and to my mind it carries its own condemnation on its face, and is suggestive of suspicious circumstances. It is dated from a place where it was not written, and on a day on which it which it was not written. I am convinced that Norman never signed it at all. Robinson's daughter, who was called as a witness, did not say that she saw the document written, but she says that in the earlier part of November she saw Robinson and Norman in the dining-room, both were writ