up by order of quarter sessions. The plaintiff was the owner of the land through which these streets passed, the site of the streets having originally belonged to his predecessors in title. He claimed to be entitled to the site of the stopped-up streets, on the ground that the Act gave to the vestry only a qualified estate or interest in them, which ceased when the streets ceased to be used as highways. Jessel, M.R., was of opinion that the case was governed by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Coverdale v. Charlton (27 W. R. 257, L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 104), upon the construction of similar words in section 149 of the Public Health Act of 1875, that the property in the street and the subsoil to a certain depth (though the court did not define to what depth) was vested in the vestry. He was of opinion that section 96 did not in any way limit the duration of the right of the vestry, but that the street was absolutely vested in them, and he thought that if it was otherwise section 154 would be absurd, for it would enable the vestry to sell a street in actual use. The Court of Appeal were of opinion that Coverdale v. Charlton did not affect the question of the duration of the estate of the vestry, and they expressed their concurrence in that decision. They were of opinion that what was vested in the vestry was "streets being highways"-i.e., streets so long as they were used as highways. When a street ceased to be used as a highway the estate of the vestry came to an end, like any other limited estate, by virtue of the original limitation imposed upon it in its creation. When the public purpcses for which the estate was given to the vestry came to an end, their estate came to an end. And, in the same way, when a new street became a highway, it would vest in the vestry. Their lordships thought that section 154 created no difficulty, for it only authorized the vestry to sell that, whatever it was, which was actually vested in them.-SOLICITORS, Markby, Wilde, & Burra; Cross, Sons, &Riley.

INTEREST-POLICY OF LIFE ASSURANCE-3 & 4 WILL. 4, c. 42, ss. 28, 29.-In a case of Webster v. The British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 15th inst., the question arose whether an insurance company were liable to pay interest on the sum payable under a life policy, under the following circumstances. The assured had deposited the policy with the plaintiff by way of security for a loan, but no written assignment was executed. By the terms of the policy the sum assured was made payable within two months after proof of the death of the assured. The assured having died insolvent, no administration was taken out to his estate, and the company declined to pay the sum assured to the plaintiff in the absence of a legal personal representative. After a delay of some years the plaintiff brought the action against the company. Jessel, M.R., held that the company could not have safely paid the money to the plaintiff, there being no one who could give a legal discharge for it, without the indemnity of the order of the court. And, under the power conferred by section 44 of the Act 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, his lordship dispensed with the presence of a legal personal representative, and ordered the money to be paid to the plaintiff, giving the company all their costs of the action. But, following his own previous decision in Crossley v. The City of Glasgow Life Assurance Company (25 W. R. 264, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 421), he held that the company must pay interest on the money from the date of proof of the death of the assured. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, COTTON, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) held that no interest was payable. They said that interest would only be given by way of damages for the wrongful detention of the money by the company, and here the company had been in no way in default. They could not have got a good discharge for the money in the absence of a legal personal representative of the assured, except under the order of the court in the action. The delay was due to the plaintiff's own default in not in the first instance procuring an assignment of the policy, and afterwards in not taking out administration to the assured on bringing his action against the company. Though the giving of interest was a matter within the discretion of the judge acting as a jury, the Court of Appeal could review his order when he had exercised his discretion on a wrong principle. The evidence showed that the company had kept the money lying idle, but THESIGER, L.J., said that, even if it had been shown that the company had made interest on the money, he should have been of opinion

that, as there had been no default on their part, they would not have been liable to pay interest to the plaintiff.-SOLICI TORS, O. B. Wooler; Watson, Sons, & Room.

INCUMBENTS RESIGNATION ACT, 1871, s. 10-ARREARS OF PENSION-ACTION AGAINST PRESENT INCUMBENT-Right of SET-OFF-APPLICATION TO STAY EXECUTION-TIME OF MAKING.-In a case of Gathercole v. Smith, before the Master of the Rolls on the 15th inst., a question was raised as to the construction of section 10 of the above Act, which is as follows:-"The pension so allowed shall be a charge upon the revenues of the benefice, and shall be recoverable as a debt at law or in equity from the incumbent of the said benefice by the retired clerk, his executors, administrators, or assigns, but such pension shall not be transferable at law or in equity." The action was brought by the present incumbent of a benefice who had resigned under the provisions of the Act, subject to the payment of a half-yearly pension, against the present incumbent for three half years' arrears of the annuity. The present incumbent had, it appeared, ob tained assignments of a mortgage of the advowson by the plaintiff, of a sequestration of the living, and also of a judg ment against the plaintiff, and he now by way of counterclaim claimed a set-off against the plaintiff's right to the arrears. It appeared that in a previous action for some arrears Lord Coleridge, C.J., had allowed the set off. JESSEL, M.R., declining to follow the decision of Lord Coleridge, considered that the effect of section 10 of the Act was to create an inalienbale provision for the benefit of the past incumbent, and that no right of set-off or right under any assignment of the pension was an answer to the plaintiff's claim. He therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the action, with costs, and dismissed the counter-claim with costs. He said that the sum must be paid within fourteen days, and that any application to stay execution in consequence of an appeal must be by way of substantive application on motion, when notice of appeal had been actually given.-SOLICITORS, l'enra & Woodcock; Packers.

PRACTICE OPPOSED APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TRADE-MARKS-MODE OF OBTAINING DECISION OF COURT -TRADE-MARKS RULES, 16, 44.-In a case of In re Simpson, Davies & Sons' Application, before the Master of the Rolls on the 11th inst., the motion was by the parties opposing the application to register, for a declaration that the applicants were not entitled to register and an injunc tion restraining them from taking further proceedings to obtain registration, and for leave to proceed under the notice of motion and not by special case. The matter stood for the determination of the court under rule 16, and the preliminary objection was taken that it was wrong in form for the opponents to bring the matter on, it was for the applicants to do that. On the other hand, it was argued that this mode of proceeding had been previously adopted in In re Farina (1) (26 W. R. 261); In re Farina (2) (27 W. R. 456), and other cases, in none of which had any objection been taken, and that it was convenient for the direction of the court as to the mode of trial to be asked on the same occasion as the substantial relief. JESSEL, M.R., held that the application was irregular in form, and that the proper course was for the applicant for registration to apply in chambers for a direction as to the mode of trial, and not for the opponent to begin. The usual course followed by his lordship was to direct the applicant to take out a summons for leave to register, which was adjourned into court and there argued.. If a different practice had been followed in previous cases, it was because the irregularity had not been noticed by the judge. The motion would stand over and come on with the summons, which his lordship then proceeded to direct the applicant to take out.-SOLICITORS, Higginson & Vigers ; Wright, Becket, & Co.

contained in a prospectus of the company which had been issued by the defendants. The company had proved unsuccessful, and the question was raised whether, inasmuch as the plaintiff had never attempted as against the company to rescind his contract to take shares, he was entitled to recover damages from the defendants. FRY, J., took time to consider this question, and ultimately held that the plaintiff was not precluded from recovering damages from the defendants.—SOLICITORS, Phelps, Sidgwick, & Biddle; Clarke, Woodcock, & Ryland.

PLEADING ISSUE BETWEEN CO-DEFENDANTS-NOTICEORD. 16, R. 17.-In a case of Steel v. Dixon, before Fry, J., on the 14th inst., a question arose as to raising issues between co-defendants. The action was brought by two persons named Steel and Chater, who had joined with two others named Dixon and Gurney in signing a promissory note as sureties for one Robinson. Robinson afterwards assigned his furniture to Dixon and Gurney as an indemnity to them against any liability they might incur on the note, and gave them a power of sale. Before the note became due, Robinson had filed a liqidation petition, and the sureties had to pay the note at maturity. Each of them paid a fourth part of the amount. Dixon and Garney sold the furniture under their power of sale, and Steel and Chater brought the action against them, claiming, as cosureties, the right to share rateably in the proceeds of sale, and an account of these proceeds, and payment accordingly. The trustee in Robinson's liquidation was also made a defendant to the action. He delivered to the plaintiffs a statement of defence, in which he said that at the date of the assignment of the furniture Robinson was utterly insolvent, and that the assignment was an act of bankruptcy and void as against the trustee; that Dixon and Gurney had sold effects belonging to Robinson which were not comprised in the assignment, and that they claimed to deduct from the proceeds of sale an exorbitant and improper amount for costs and expenses. And the trustee also said that he claimed to receive the whole of the proceeds of the sale of the furniture comprised in the assignment which had been received by Dixon and Gurney. The defendants Dixon and Gurney applied to the trustee's solicitors for a copy of their statement of defence, and a copy was furnished to them upon payment for it, but the statement was not delivered to them in any other way. They applied to the court by motion for an order that those paragraphs of the trustee's statement of defence which contained the above-mentioned allegations and claims might be struck out or amended, on the ground that they tended to prejudice, embarrass, and delay the fair trial of the action, or that the defendants Dixon and Saffery might be at liberty to deliver to the trustee a pleading to his statement of defence. FRY, J., held that, there being no question at issue between the applicants and their co-defendant, the trustee, they could not be heard to complain that the fair trial of the action would be embarrassed by his pleading, this being a matter which concerned the plaintiffs. But his lordship thought the points raised by the trustee affected the rights of the defendants Dixon and Gurney, and that it would be most convenient that they should be determined as between him and these defendants, as well as between him and the plaintiffs, in the same action. He could not compel the trustee, if he was unwilling to do so, to amend his pleading so as to raise the questions as against his co-defendants, but he would give them liberty to serve a notice, under rule 17 of order 16, on the trustee, so as to raise those points as between themselves and him. That notice must be served within four days, and then the trustee would have a week within which to deliver any further pleading which he might be advised to put in. The applicants must pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion, without prejudice to the question how these costs were ultimately to be borne, and the costs of the other parties would be reserved to the trial of the action. -SOLICITORS, Armstrong & Lamb; J. B. Churchill; Stocken & Jupp.

"Civis" writes to the Times to warn the public that the Leases Bill, which entirely alters the relations between landlord and tenant, is quietly making its way through the House of Commons without public attention being called to the subject. [We have already drawn attention to the Bill.]

Societies.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, on Wednesday, June 9, the following directors being present:Mr. Sidney Smith (in the chair); Messrs. Asker (Norwich), Brook, Hedger, Pennington, Pidcock (Woolwich), Roscoe, Rose, Walters, and Williamson-(Mr. Eiffe, secretary). A sum of £65 was distributed in grants to necessitous non-members and the families of deceased non-members, seven gentlemen were admitted members of the association, and other business transacted.

Law Students' Journal.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. The weekly meeting of this society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday evening last, Mr. A. E. Hemsley in the chair. The question appointed for the evening's debate was the following:-"Is it desirable to alter the constitution of the House of Lords by giving to life peers the right to sit and vote therein, and by making the holders of certain high political offices ex officio members?" and was opened in the negative by Mr. J. D. Williams. Mr. W. B. M. Bird followed in the negative. The following Kirk, Wright, Lloyd Jones, Napier. Mr. Ellis also spoke. gentlemen addressed the society in the affirmative:-Messrs. The opener having replied, the question having been put to the meeting, was decided in the negative.

GRAY'S INN MOOT SOCIETY.

A meeting of the above society was held in Gray's-inn Hall on Monday, the 7th inst., when the following question was argued before A. S. Eddis, Esq., Q.C. :—

A. in January, 1878, paid into his private account at his bankers £1,000, which arose from a security improperly realized, which he held in trust for B. In February, 1878, he paid into the same account £500 of his own moneys, and in the subsequent part of the same year drew out for his own purposes, by cheques in the ordinary manner, sums amounting in the whole to £1,000. He paid into the same account in January, 1879, £500 of his own moneys. In February, 1879, £2,000, which arose from a security improperly realized, which he held in trust for C., and in March, 1879, £1,500 of his own moneys. In the subsequent part of 1879 he drew out for his own purposes, by cheques in the ordinary manner, sums amounting in the whole to £2,500. He died in January, 1880.

B., C., and the personal representative of A. respectively, claim to be interested in the balance of £2,000 standing to his credit. What are their respective rights?

Mr. H. F. Boyd, Inner Temple, appeared for the representative of A.; Mr. F. B. de M. Gibbons, of Gray's-inn, for B.; and Mr. Todd, of Gray's-inn, for C. The president was accompanied by J. A. Russell, Esq., Q. C. (hon. president of the society), and several other benchers of the Inn; and there was a large attendance of barristers and students belonging to the various Inns of Court.

Judgment was given by the learned president in favour of C. for the whole amount.

On Friday, the 11th inst., the following question was argued before W. C. Fooks, Esq., Q.C., by Mr. H. F. Lester, Inner Temple, and Mr. C. A. V. Conybeare, Gray's-inn, for the affirmative case; and Mr. E. R. Levey, and Mr. Richards, of Gray's-inn, for the negative:

A. B., passing over a thronged thoroughfare, comes into collision with tools carried by a workman which project from his side.

The workman had been using the tools at an unfinished "piece-work job," upon which he was employed by aud under the direction of his master, and he was on his road, during his own time, to place the tools in his master's store from whence they had been supplied.

The rules of the master's service were that his workmen should deposit money to secure the master against loss of

tools, and that all tools supplied should be returned into store when not in actual use.

The workman had made a deposit on the footing of the rules.

The workman and A. B. could have passed each other without collision, if each or either had given way, for which there was sufficient room without either of them jolting against other passengers.

A. B. had not observed the tools until he felt himself injured by them, and but for the tools no collision would have ensued.

Is the master liable to compensate the injured passenger?

The learned president having given judgment affirming the master's liability, the society adjourned until next term.

Obituary.

MR. GEORGE CLIVE.

Mr. George Clive, barrister, many years M.P. for Hereford, died rather suddenly at Ferrystone, near Ross, on the 8th inst. Mr. Clive was the third son of Mr. Edward Bolton Clive, of Whitfield, Herefordshire. He was born in 1803, and was educated at Harrow and at Brasenose College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1830, and was formerly a member of the Oxford Circuit. He acted as an assistant poor law commissioner, and was for several years recorder of the borough of Wokingham. He was appointed stipendiary magistrate at Wandsworth Police-court in 1839, and on the passing of the first County Courts Act he was nominated by Lord Cottenham to the judgeship of the Southwark County Court. He discharged his judicial duties with great ability till his resignation in 1857, when he was elected M.P. for the city of Hereford in the Liberal interest. From 1859 till 1862 he was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department under Lord Palmerston's second administration. Clive sat for Hereford till 1869, when he was unseated on petition, but was again returned in 1874. He occupied an influential position in the House of Commons. During the last Parliament he gave his support to the foreign policy of the Conservative party, and in consequence of a difference of opinion with some of his supporters he retired at the recent general election. Mr. Clive was a magistrate and deputylieutenant for Herefordshire, and had been chairman of quarter sessions for that county since 1871, and in that capacity his former judicial experience was extremely valuable. He was married to a daughter of Sir Thomas Harvie Farquhar, baronet, and he leaves two sons and two daughters. One of his daughters is the wife of the present Lord Lyttel

ton.

Mr.

Mr. Clive was buried at Foy Church on the 12th inst.

Appointments, Etc.

Mr. SAMUEL BOTELER BRISTOWE, Q.C., has been appointed Judge of County Courts for Circuit No. 33, in succession to Mr. John Worlledge, resigned. Mr. Bristowe is the eldest son of Mr. Samuel Ellis Bristowe, of Beesthorpe Hall, Nottinghamshire. He was born in 1822, and was formerly fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where he graduated as a senior optime in 1845. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1848, and is a member of the Midland Circuit. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1872, and he is a bencher of the Inner Temple. Mr. Bristowe was for a short time recorder of Newark, and represented that borough in the Liberal interest from 1870 until the recent general election.

Mr. GEORGE PETER MARTIN, barrister, has been appointed Secretary to the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to investigate the cause of the loss of H.M.S. Atalanta. Mr. Martin was called to the bar in Hilary Term, 1872, and is deputy judge-advocate of the fleet at Portsmouth.

Mr. JAMES MOTTERAM, Q.C., judge of county courts, has been elected a Bencher of the Middle Temple.

Mr. JOSEPH SEWELL, solicitor (of the firm of Sewell & Son), of Cirencester, has been appointed a Perpetual Com

The Rev. HENRY WACE, M.A., Chaplain of Lincoln's-inn, has been appointed Preacher to that Society, in succession to the Rev. Frederick Charles Cook, resigned.

Mr. GEORGE WILKINSON, Solicitor (of the firm of Chartres, Youll, & Wilkinson), of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, has been appointed Clerk to the Visiting Justices of the Newcastle Prison. Mr. Wilkinson was admitted a solicitor in 1876, and is clerk to the magistrates at Newcastle.

Mr. WOODFORDE BEADON WOODFORDE, solicitor, of Sherborne, has been appointed Registrar of the Belper and Ilkeston County Courts (Circuit No. 19), in succession to Mr. William Machin Ingle, deceased. Mr. Woodforde was admitted a solicitor.in 1877.

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. WILLIAM ENGLAND HOWLETT and BARTHOLOMEW HOWLETT, solicitors, Kirton-in-Lindsey, Lincoln. May 31, 1880 (Gazette, June 11.)

Companies.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

FAULKNER, TAYLOR, AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented June 8, directed to be heard before the M.R. on June 19. Johnson and Weatheralls, King's Bench walk, Temple, for Clegg, Oldham, solicitor for the petitioner FIRTH HOUSE PAPER MILLS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for wind. ing up, presented June 8, directed to be heard before the M.R. on June 19. Emmet and Son, Bloomsbury sq, for Emmet and Walker, Halifax, solicitors for the petitioner

FIRTH HOUSE PAPER MILLS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented June 10, directed to be heard before the M. R. on July 19. Van Sandau and Cumming, King st, Cheapside, for Mills and Bibby, Huddersfield, solicitors for the petitioners LONDON AND PALATINE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before July 6, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts and claims, to Frederick Bertram Smart, 53, Cannon st. July 16 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the said claims

PATENT STAR FIRE LIGHTER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before July 4, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts and claims, to Francis Edward Street, 14, Queen Victoria st. July 12 at 12 is appointed for hear ing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims.

[Gazette, June 11.] CHRISTIAN SIGNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R., dated June 5, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Hewitt and Alexander, Ely pl, solicitors for the petitioners

LONDON AND COUNTY SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED (formerly called the Warehousemen and Clerks' Direct Supply Association, Limited).-Petition for winding up presented June 12, directed to be heard before V.C. Malins on June 25. Saxelby and Faulkner, Ironmonger lane, solicitors for the petitioners

MADEIRA AND MAMORE RAILWAY COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R., dated June 5, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Clements, Gresham House, Old Broad st, solicitor for the petitioners

TRANMERE FERRY COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Hall, dated June 4, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Robinson and Cameron, Gracechurch st, for Gill and Archer, Liverpool, solicitors for the company

[Gazette, June 15.]

Young added, in support of his statement, that the informality rested with the registration office; that Mr. Eadon assured him that the original was properly signed.

Daly said that would not help his friend in the least, for the filed copy, the only proof admissible-that of the registrar of the Queen's Bench Division-gave the signature as "Edward B."

His HONOUR drew attention to a case from which he said he might decide that the court would not take judicial notice of who were its commissioners; but

Daly pointed out that such a ruling would open a wide door to fraud.

After further discussion, his HONOUR adjourned the case to allow of further consideration of the matter on all sides.

HUDDERSFIELD.

(Before J. W. De Longueville Giffard, Esq., Jadge.) Re Tattersfield & Son.

Where debts have been incurred in carrying on a business under inspection with a view to the payment of the composition, such debts will be ordered to be paid in priority to the original debts of the debtor.

This was an application by George Tattersfield and James Walker Tattersfield, who had traded together as manufacturers at Mirfield, near Huddersfield, Yorkshire, and whose affairs were under liquidation, against Mr. J. D. Good, of Dewsbury, accountant, the trustee under their liquidation, for an order directing that the estate should be administered; that the trustee should be directed to distribute the same; and that he should be ordered to pay certain debts which had been contracted since the date of the liquidation.

S. Learoyd, of Huddersfield, appeared for Messrs. Tattersfield in support of the motion.

Chadwick, of Dewsbury, on behalf of the trustee. Learoyd, in support of the motion, stated that on the 14th of May, 1878, the debtors filed their petition, resolutions for liquidation were passed, and Mr. Good was appointed trustee. On the 21st of June, 1878, a meeting was called under section 28, and it was then resolved that the estate should remain vested in the trustee, that it should be worked by the debtors under the supervision of the trustee and committee of inspection, and that the profits that were made. should be applied in payment to the creditors of a composition of 13s. 4d. in the pound by four equal instalments; that a deed was then entered into which contained the usual provisions of a deed of inspection; that amongst other things it was by the deed provided that the composition should be paid; that in the meantime the estate should remain vested in the trustee, and that upon the payment of the composition the trustee should re-assign the estate to the debtors. The debtors covenanted that they would carry on the business subject to the directions and under the control of the trustee and the committee of inspection, and would perform and observe their orders and directions; that they would not dispose of any part of their estate, and would keep books and account to the trustee. The deed contained a proviso that if, at any time before any of the composition bills became due, the committee of inspection, in the exercise of their uncontrolled discretion, should be of opinion that the business was not progressing satisfactorily, and should not longer be carried on, that then they should have power to discontinue the business and enter into possession of the property and realize the same. The deed contained no provision as to the payment of the new debts, and the trust for payment was simply confined to the original creditors. The first instalment of the composition of 3s. 4d. in the pound was paid, but before the second instalment became payable all parties seemed to be agreed that the business could not be worked to advantage; the trustee then entered into possession, carried on the business under the direction of the debtors for some time, and had since realized and disposed of it. During the time the debtors were carrying on the business under the deed, goods were purchased and debts were con tracted; the trustee had not paid those debts, and the credi. tors were now taking proceedings against the debtors for the recovery of the amounts, and actions were pending. The trustee had received assets of a much greater amount than would discharge the whole of the debts. Mr. Learoyd contended under these circumstances, first, if the trustee had carried on the business for the benefit of the credi

tore, that this had been done with a view of creating assets out of the working of the business, and that it was not competent for the creditors to take these assets without, at the same time, undertaking the liabilities which had been incurred in order to create the assets, and that having taken the assets, they must pay the debts. Secondly, he contended that, assuming the trustee had not carried on the business, but that he had simply allowed the trustee to do so, then, that the trustee having allowed the debtors to have possession of the estate and to deal with it, the new creditors who had depended upon this estate were entitled to be paid before the old creditors took anything.

Chadwick, on behalf of the trustee, contended that the trustee had not carried on the business; that he was willing. to abide by any order the court might make; that the trustee had received express notice from the old creditors and from the solicitors discharging him from paying the new debts, and claiming the assets as belonging to them exclusively; and that he, therefore, could not consent to any order being made upon the motion.

His HONOUR, in giving judgment, stated that he had no hesitation whatever in ordering that the debts in question should be paid out of the estate. It would be a rank injustice if the new creditors were not to be paid, for their debts had been contracted in an experiment on the part of the old creditors to carry on the business to an advantage in order to make a larger sum out of it than they could have made by realizing. As they had undertaken the trading, or had sanctioned this trading for the purpose of benefiting themselves, they, of course, must pay for the trading which had thus been carried on before they could divide the estate amongst themselves. The creditors had undoubtedly held out the debtors as justified in carrying on the business with the assets which they had left in their hands, and it would be an injustice to the debtors that they should be personally burdened with the payment of these debts, while the whole of the assets which they had created in incurring the debts had been taken from them. He should order that the debts be forthwith paid by the trustee, and also the costs incurred by the suing creditors, and also the costs which had been incurred by the debtor in defending this motion, and in the several proceedings against the debtors.

Settled Land, Limitation of Actions, Conveyancing and Law of Property, Solicitors' Remuneration (all passed through Committee).

JUNE 11.-BILL READ A SECOND TIME. PRIVATE BILL.-Chipping Wycombe Borough Extension. BILLS READ A THIRD TIME. PRIVATE BILLS.-Woodside and South Croydon Railway, Blenheim Settled Estates, Bristol Corporation.

JUNE 14.-BILLS READ A SECOND TIME. PRIVATE BILLS.-Marquis of Abergavenny's Estate, South London Tramways (Extensions), Worcester and Aberystwith Junction Railway.

BILL READ A THIRD TIME. PRIVATE BILL.-Bury and Tollington District Railway. JUNE 15.-BILL READ A SECOND TIME. PRIVATE BILL.-Williamson's Patent.

BILL IN COMMITTEE.

Burials (passed through Committee).

BILLS READ A THIRD TIME. PRIVATE BILL.-Swindon, Marlborough, and Anlover Railway (Amendments)..

Limitation of Actions, Solicitors' Remuneration.