There was also the difference between the defendants' mottled thread and that of the plaintiffs'. Evidence had been adduced to prove that the selvages actually used by the plaintiffs and the defendants, though nearly black in appearance, were known in the trade ag white selvages. But his lordship refused to look at this evidence, and said that no amount of evidence would convince him that black was white. He accordingly dismissed the motion with costs. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, COTTON, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) were of opinion that this was not the proper mode of disposing of the case. They held that the plaintiffs ought to be allowed -to show by the evidence of experts that the term "white selvage," as understood in the trade, would include the selvage actually used by the plaintiffs. But, there being a conflict of evidence on this point, and also on the question whether the defendants' goods were calculated to deceive, their lordships were of opinion that the matter ought to be decided at the trial of the action and not upon an interlocutory motion. They accordingly discharged the order of the Master of the Rolls, and ordered the motion to stand over to the trial, requiring the defendants to keep an account, and making the costs costs in the action.SOLICITORS, Paterson, Snow, & Bloxam; W. & J. Flower & Nussey. PRACTICE-SPECIALLY-INDORSED WRIT-FINAL JUDGMENT-LEAVE TO DEFEND-QUESTION TO BE TRIEDDISCRETION OF JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE-APPEALORDER 14.-In a case of Herring v. The Erie Railway Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 23rd ult., an appeal was brought from the refusal of Jessel, M R., to allow the plaintiff to enter immediate final judgment upon a specially-indorsed writ under order 14. His lordship was of opinion that there was a serious question to be tried, and that the action must go on to trial in the ordinary way. The Court of Appeal (JAMES, COTTON, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) declined to alter this decision. They said that, though the opinion of the judge of first instance was not absolutely conclusive, yet, when he had expressed an opinion that there was a serious question to be tried, the Court of Appeal ought not to reverse his decision except upon very strong grounds. They should be able to see very clearly that the defendant was merely trying to gain time. Their lordships were not satisfied that the decision in the present case was wrong, and therefore they dismissed the appeal, and ordered that the respondents should have their costs of it in any event.SOLICITORS, Taylor & Hales; Ashurst, Morris, & Co. use such a distinctive device as could not possibly deceive. SOLICITORS, Allen & Greenop; W. & A. Ranken Ford. ARTICLED CLERK - LEAVE TO CARRY ON BUSINESS DURING ARTICLES-SOLICITORS ACTS PRACTICE-MODE OF APPLICATION.-In a case of Re Morris, an articled clerk, before the Master of the Rolls on the 2nd inst., an application was made to the court for leave for the applicant during his articles to carry on a certain business. JESSEL, M.R., said that the application was irregular, that the proper practice in such a case was to issue a summons and serve the Clerk of the Petty Bag with a statement of the facts. If the application was regular the statement was forwarded by the clerk of the Petty Bag to the Incorporated Law Society, and they made a report to him (the Master of the Rolls). If the Law Society did not assent to the application, then they would appear by counsel before him and oppose. In the present case there had evidently been some mistake, and the matter must go to the Clerk of the Petty Bag in the usual way.-SOLICITOR, Banyard. COMPANY-WINDING-UP PETITION-TITLE OF PETITION -COMPANIES ACTS, 1862, 1880.-In a case of Re Frith House Paper Mills Company (Limited), before the Master of the Rolls on the 2nd inst., it was stated that the registrar refused to draw up an order on a winding-up petition on the ground that the petition was entitled, "In the matter of the Companies Acts, 1862-1880," instead of "In the matter of the Companies Acts, 1862 and 1867," ascording to No. 1 of the General Orders under the Companies Act, 1867. It was submitted that the petition was entitled in the right way, under section 1 of the Companies Act, 1880, which allowed all the Acts to be cited as the Companies Acts, 1862-1880, and that it was not necessary that any matter arising especially on the Acte subsequent to 1867 need appear in the petition for the petition to be entitled in that way. JESSEL, M.R., said that, in his opinion, the registrar was right in his objection. The only Winding-up Acts were the Acts of 1862 and 1867, and in the heading of a winding-up petition it was not correct to refer to any other Acts. The object of section 1 of the Act of 1880 was to enable all the Companies Acts, where necessary, to be cited, shortly, as the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1880. In the present case he should not require the petition to be re-advertised, but would allow the applicant to amend the indorsement.SOLICITORS, Emmet & Son. TRADE-MARK-SIMILARITY-INFRINGEMENT INJUNCTION -FRAUD-COSTS.-In a case of Goodwin v. Venning, before PRACTICE-EX PARTE INJUNCTION-ACTION BY COMPANY the Master of the Rolls on the 2nd inst., the plaintiffs were IN LIQUIDATION-UNDERTAKING IN DAMAGES-LIQUIDATOR the registered owners of a trade-mark in respect of tobacco,INDORSEMENT OF BRIEF BY COUNSEL.-In a case of and consisting of a judge's head, with the words above "Old Westminster Association (Limited) v. Upward, before the Judge sun-cured Virginia smoking tobacco," and the name Master of the Rolls on the 2nd inst., an ex parte inof the plaintiffs underneath. The defendants had recently junction had been obtained in the action, which was one by a registered a trade-mark consisting of the full figure of a judge company in liquidation, to restrain the defendant from dealdancing with a pipe in his mouth, and an interwoven scrolling with certain shares mentioned in the writ, but by some with the words "Young Judge tobacco and cigarettes," and mistake the order had been drawn up so as to include all, the name of the defendants. The plaintiff's moved for an in- instead of part only, of the shares there n mentioned, and as to junction to restrain the infringement of their mark, and they which it was desired the injunction should extend. It also adduced evidence showing that their tobacco was well appeared that the undertaking in damages had been given known in the market as "Old Judge," or "Judge" tobacco, by the plaintiff company instead of the official liquidator. An but there was no evidence that any person had been actually application was now made for an adjournment to answer the deceived by the defendants' labels. Some of the witnesses defendant's affidavits, and counsel for the plaintiffs offered to deposed that if they heard the word "Judge" applied to limit the injunction, as he had intended it, by the indorse tobacco they should consider it meant the plaintiffs' tobacco. ment on his brief, and also to give the undertaking of the JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion on a comparison of the two liquidator. The fact had been mentioned to the court that marks, that the defendants' mark did not so closely resemble the plaintiffs were a company in liquidation, as leave to that of the plaintiffs' as to be calculated to deceive. As to the institute the action had at the same time been asked. JESSEL, other ground on which the motion was based, that the M.R., said that there had been some mistake on the part of defendants had taken their mark with the view of passing off the plaintiffs' solicitor in not limiting the order as intended, their goods as those of the plaintiffs, he said he did not think and that as to the undertaking that was inserted in accord the evidence was sufficient to entitle him to interfere on the ance with the general direction given to the registrars, but interlocutory application. There was no evidence that any the attention of the registrar could not have been called to person had been actually deceived, and therefore he should the fact that the plaintiffs were a company in liquidation, make no order on the motion, and the costs would be costs which it was the solicitor's duty to have brought to his in the action. He added that, although he did not interfere notice. Had it been so brought to his notice, the registrar at present, he could not approve of the mark the defendants would as a matter of course have inserted the undertaking of had taken, and they had evidently gone as near to the plain- the liquidator or not drawn up the order, and it was always tiffs' as they could without infringing the law. proper for counsel to indorse on his brief that the under in his opinion, the duty of traders in taking a new It was, mark to taking by the liquidator was given. He should now amend the order and allow the liquidator to give the undertaking as to the limited number of shares, and that would date back to the original order.-SCLICITORS, Gedge & Co.; John Holmes. DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA-BANKER'S DEPOSIT NOTE.-In a case of Austin v. Mead, before Fry, J., on the 21st ult., the question arose whether a testator had made a valid donatio mortis causâ to his wife of part of a sum for which he held a banker's deposit note. The note was for the sum of £2,700, and the money could be withdrawn only on giving seven days' notice to the bankers. Two days before the testator's death he told a friend, in the presence of his wife, that he wished to give her £500, part of the £2,700. At his request the friend filled up a notice to withdraw the money, and the testator signed it and sent it to the bank by the friend. This was on the 23rd of May. The deposit note had on the back of it an ordinary form of a banker's cheque. The friend at the testator's request filled up this form with the sum of £500, and the testator signed it. The cheque directed payment of the £500 to himself or bearer. He died on the 25th of May. He gave no directions as to the disposal of the balance of the £2,700. The practice of the bankers was, when a customer withdrew a part of a deposit, to give him a new note for the balance. FRY, J., held that there had not been a valid donatio mortis causa. He said that a gift of a deposit note with a view to give the whole sum secured by it had been held to be a good donatio mortis causa, but a gift of a cheque not payable during the testator's life had been held to be not a good donatio mortis causâ. He thought that the present case was analogous to the latter class of decisions. The effect of the notice to withdraw was to set the £2,700 free on the 30th of May, and upon that fund the testator drew a cheque which was not payable until that day. His lordship thought that, looking at all the circumstances, and at the practice of the bank as to giving a new deposit note for the balance not withdrawn, the delivery of the note was not made by the testator with the intention of giving either it or the money secured by it, but his intention was to give the cheque for £500, and, as that did not become payable nntil after his death, it was, according to the authorities, not a good donatio mortis causâ.-SOLICITOR, T. Noton. DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA-BILL OF EXCHANGE.-In a case of Austin v. Mead, before Fry, J., on the 29th ult., the question arose whether there had been a valid donatio mortis causa of some bills of exchange. Shortly before his death the testator in this action handed the bills of exchange (which were payable to himself or order) to a friend, asking him to present the bills when they became due, and to receive the money from the acceptors, and hand it to his (the testator's) wife. The testator did not indorse the bills. died before they became due. There being a conflict in the authorities on the point, FRY, J., reserved his judgment, and, after considering them, he said that he was prepared to follow the case of Veal v. Veal (27 Beav. 303), and to hold that there had been a valid donatio mortis causâ to the wife.—SOLICITOR, T. Noton. He AGREEMENT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY-STIFLING A PROSECUTION FOR FELONY-DEPOSIT OF DEEDS-DECLARATION OF TITLE.-In a case of Whitmore v. Farley, before Fry, J., on the 2nd inst., the action was brought to enforce a charge on the separate property of a married woman which she had agreed to give to the plaintiff. On the evidence his lordship came to the conclusion that the agreement had been entered into in consideration of the plaintiff's withdrawing a charge which she had made before a magistrate against the husband of the married woman of wrongfully converting to his own use some securities which the plaintiff had deposited with him. And, on this ground, though the objection had not been taken by the defendaut, his lordship held that the agreement could not be enforced. In pursuance of the agreement some deeds representing the separate estate of the married woman had been deposited with some bankers in the names of trustees, and there was a counter-claim for the delivery up of these deeds. There was a prior mortgage on the property in favour of a person who was not before the court. This being so, his lordship said that he could not make an order for the delivery up of the deeds, but he thought that the deeds being in medio he ought to make a declaration that, as between the parties to the action, the defendant was entitled to them, notwithstanding the argument that the court would not assist either party to an agreement which was contrary to public policy.-SOLICI TORS, F. Bradley; Remnant, Penley, & Grubbe. PARTIES-ACTION TO RECTIFY MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT― ORD. 16, RR. 9, 13-15 & 16 VICT. c. 86, s. 51.-In a case of Lovesy v. Smith, before Denman, J. (sitting for Fry, J.), on the 6th inst., a question arose as to parties. The action was brought by a widow to rectify a settlement of her property, which had been made upon her marriage with her deceased husband. The effect of the settlement was to give one-half of the property (subject to the life interest of the plaintiff) to the next of kin of the deceased husband. One of the next of kin (who were five or six in number) and the trustees of the settlement were made defendants. The defendant next of kin objected, by his statement of defence, that all the next of kin ought to have been made parties. No order had been made authorizing the defendant to defend the action on behalf of the other next of kin. DENMAN, J., at first expressed some doubt whether the court could, in the absence of the other next of kin, pronounce a judgment which would bind them, and whether the court would treat one of a class as representing the class, except in a case where the class was so numerous that it would be practically impossible to make them all parties. But ultimately he came to the conclusion that he ought to allow the trial to proceed in the actual state of the record. He said that he was sent to try witness causes for Mr. Justice Fry, and it was very unfortunate that in almost the first case tried before him there should have arisen a somewhat nice question of practice which be did not feel competent to decide without the greatest misgiving. But he must do the best he could to construe the provisions of the Judicature Rules, and the Chancery Amendment Act. And he thought he ought not to refuse to go on with the trial, and that he could properly adopt the course which had been suggested by the plaintiff's counsel, and assented to by the counsel for the trustees-viz., to give judgment, and then, if necessary, to suspend the drawing up of the judgment until notice should have been served on the other next of kin, so as to give them an opportunity of coming in and opposing the judgment if they should think fit to do so. There was no suggestion that there was any difference between the interests of the next of kin, or that the matter would not be as well contested by the one who was before the court as by any of the others. The trial of the action was accordingly proceeded with.-Solicitors, Iliffe, Russell, & Co. ; R. S. Taylor & Son; Pawle & Fearon. The Board of Trade have issued a circular calling attention to a Bill which has been brought in by Mr. Whitwell, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Mackintosh, and Mr. Lewis Fry, and which is entitled "Partnership (No. 2) Bill, a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law of Partnership." Mr. Farrer, the assistant secretary, in the letter, remarks that the Bill, besides codifying the existing law, introduces fundamental changes into it. "1. It legalizes, under the name of limited partnerships, the form of association known as commandite, in which certain partners conduct the business and are liable to an unlimited extent for its debts, while other partners, who take no part in the management of the business, are liable only to the extent of the amount which they contribute. 2. It repeals the law adopted after much discussion so recently as 1865, under which it was distinctly made lawful for one who is not a partner to lend money to a trader in consideration of receiving a share of profits by way of interest, and it makes such loans impossible in future except under the form of a registered commandite partnership. 3. It requires every person or partnership in England carrying on business of any kind, under any name other than the name or names of the acting person or partners, to be registered at the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, with full particulars of the names, addresses, and occupations of the persons carrying on the business and all changes therein." The Board of Trade consider that such alterations ought not to be adopted by the Legislature in silence and without an expression of opinion from those who are interested, and they will be glad to receive any observations on the Bill. Societies. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. The following are extracts from the annual report of the conncil, intended to be submitted to the general meeting of the members on the 16th inst. Remuneration of Solicitors.-Intimately connected with the amendment of real property law is the improvement of the system of remuneration of solicitors in conveyancing and other non-contentious business. It is now many years since the council first considered the question of regulating the remuneration of solicitors, in conveyancing business, by an ad valorem scale. In 1873 the council published a scale of commission on loans and sales, which is well known to the profession. This scale was considered to require revision in several respects, and it applied only to sales and loans. Au improved system of remuneration for other non-contentious business remained to be devised. The council have at various times devoted much time and thought to the subject. At the date of the last annual report, a special committee of the council was engaged in framing a revised ad valorem scale. The committee, after frequent meetings, and after consultations with the committee of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, framed a scale of ad valorem commission applicable to sales, purchases, loans, and leases, which, as to loans, adopted the scale of 1873, without alteration, but as to the other transactions, was lower than the scale of 1873. This new scale, after consideration by the council, was forwarded to the Provincial Law Societies for their consideration. Thirteen societies favoured the council with observations which were carefully considered. Finally, the scale was adopted by the council on the 16th of February, 1880, and forwarded to Lord Chancellor Cairns on the 21st of that month. The council further considered the means by which legal effect could best be given to the proposed change in the system of solicitors' remuneration. They were of opinion that the change ought to be effected by an Act of Parliament, which should lay down principles, and establish an authority to settle details. But they felt that it was of extreme importance to provide for the due constitution of the authority; and also to find some means for securing that the authority, when constituted, should give to the opinions and wishes of the profession their just weight. With these views, the council prepared a series of clauses for settling the details of the new system. On the 3rd of February, a deputation from the council waited upon Lord Chancellor Cairns on the subject of the scale, and submitted to him the clauses which they had drawn. His lordship expressed the opinion that an ad valorem scale should include all disbursements, as well as the charges of the solicitor, and told the deputation that it was his intention to propose an enactment, such as he afterwards introduced, under the title of the "Solicitors' Remuneration Bill." The Solicitors' Remuneration Bill of Lord Cairns was not in accordance with the clauses drawn by the council, and the council in no way assented to it, but they did not see reason to oppose it. They made several suggestions for its amendment, some of which were adopted. The Bill was brought into the House of Lords during the late Parliament by Lord Cairns, while Lord Chancellor, as a necessary supplement to his Land Bills, and has been re-introduced by him, with the same Bills, into the present Parliament. It is not now likely to pass into law; but some similar measure will probably form part of any new proposal for the general amendment of real property law. The Bill, as originally framed, contained a proviso to the effect that, where, by general orders under the Act, remneration for any business was allowed to be by a scale of percentage, a solicitor should not be entitled under any agreement to recover, in respect of that business, any greater amount than that allowed by the scale. This proviso appeared to the council to be objectionable. There occur in business, not infrequently, exceptional cases, in which a scale of commission would be inadequate remuneration, for instance, where a piece of land of small value is essential to the enjoyment of a large estate, and great trouble and expense are necessary in order to clear the title, and obtain a conveyance. The council brought the subject before the Associated Provincial Law Societies, and, in conjunction with them, made such representations to Lord Chancellor Cairns as induced him to strike the proviso out of his Bill. Before the introduction of this Bill, and as soon as the scale of January last had been submitted to Lord Chancellor Cairns, the council referred the whole subject back to their committee. The committee assumed that some authority would be constituted by Parliament for settling a new system; and, on this assumption, proceeded to consider what proposal it would be desirable for the society to make to such an authority. The result of their labours appears in their report to the council which is printed in the appendix. The subject is one of great importance and difficulty, and requires the serious consideration of the profession. Call of Solicitors to the Bar.-The Bill prepared by the council for removing the restrictions on the call of solicitors to the bar was, as mentioned in the last annual report, to the effect that a solicitor of five years' standing, who has procured his name to be struck off the rolls with a view to being called to the bar, shall be entitled to be admitted as a student of any of the Inns of Court without examination, and shall immediately afterwards be entitled to enter for the bar final examination, and shall, on passing that examination, be qualified to be called to the bar. The council requested Lord Selborne to take charge of the Bill in the House of Lords. His lordship, before answering, requested to be in formed of the view taken by Lord Chancellor Cairns, and by the Inns of Court. In order to bring the question before Lord Cairns, the council prepared a statement which they laid before his lordship, together with a print of the proposed Bill. This paper, after setting forth the facts of the case, and expressing the strong feeling of solicitors on the subject, proceeded to state the arguments in favour of the desired change, as follows:--"In considering the change advocated by the council, it must be borne in mind that they are seeking no relaxation of the standard of learning required for a call to the bar. They have no desire to procure the admission of any unqualified person to the bar. They ask only that a solicitor, who has practised for five years, may be called to the bar, if he shows, in a public examination, that he is possessed of the necessary qualifications. That it is desirable that solicitors should not be excluded from the bar is shown by the numerous examples of men eminent on the bench, and at the bar, who have practised as solici tors, and who, happily for themselves and for the public who benefited by their services, have had the means of living, during their three years of studentship, without income from their profession. The present regulation excludes those who are dependent for their support upon their pro fession. The possession or the want of independent means is an accident which ought not to determine whether a man, fit to be a barrister, should be permitted to serve the public and the profession in that capacity. Considering the great and important functions which the bar has to perform, and that it is the only avenue to the judicial bench, it is a matter, in which the public are deeply interested, that no fit persons should be arbitrarily excluded from it, and that it should comprise all those who are specially qualified for its arduous duties. To the solicitor, who feels conscious of talents and learning which would win for him the prizes of the profession, it is clearly 8 hardship that he should be excluded because his means are not such as to enable him to live for three years without practising his profession. The functions of a solicitor are undoubtedly in many respects a useful preparation for the bar. Since the alterations in pleading and practice, which have been effected by recent legislation, it has become difficult for a barrister to learn the practical part of his profession in the chambers of counsel as heretofore. This is acquired by the solicitor in the ordinary transaction of his business. possession of the requisite learning is secured by the bar examination. He will gain nothing, but is likely to lose much, by an enforced absence of three years from practical work." A deputation from the council had an interview with Lord Chancellor Cairns on this subject on the 3rd of February. The Lord Chancellor appeared to be in favour of the proposed change. He said that what the solicitors required could be effected in two ways—viz, either by simply removing the regulation of the Inns of Court, which imposed the disqualification, or by legislative enactment, as proposed by the council; that he must be excused from expressing any opinion as to whether he preferred the mode pointed out by the Bill, and that, before pledging the Government in any way, he should like to have an opportunity of communicating with the Inns His of Court. A few days afterwards Lord Chancellor Cairns informed the council that he had sent their statement and draft Bill to each of the Inns of Court, and that they had referred the matter to a joint committee of the four Inns. On the 8th of March Mr. Gregory gave notice in the House of Commons that he would call the attention of the House to the bar regulation in question, and would move that, so far as it governs the case of solicitors of five years' standing, it is unnecessarily stringent, and ought to be relaxed. Mr. Watkin Williams, Q.C., agreed to second the motion, but the dissolution of Parliament prevented Mr. Gregory from bringing it on. He has given notice of a similar motion in the new Parliament, and Mr. Watkin Williams has again agreed to second it. Soon after the accession of the present Government to office, the president wrote, with the approval of the council, to Lord Chancellor Selborne to inform him of what had been done in the matter, and to request him to ascertain what resolution the Inns of Court had arrived at. In reply, the Lord Chancellor informed the president that the Inns of Court had not yet come to a resolution, and that, until they did so, he must reserve the consideration of the subject. Action in Parliament has been unfortunataly rendered impossible by the dissolution and the change of Government. But, notwithstanding this adverse influence, the council are satisfied that they have been able to advance this important question nearer to a favourable solution. Power of dispensing with Preliminary Examination.—The council added to their draft Bill for removing the restrictions on the call of solicitors to the bar, a clause enacting that the power to exempt from preliminary examination should, in future, be intrusted to the Incorporated Law Society, acting by their council, subject to an appeal to the Master of the Rolls. Lord Chancellor Cairns, at the interview with a deputation from the council on the 3rd of February, expressed approval of the proposed enactment. But for the dissolution of Parliament, and the change of Government, there is little doubt that it would have become law during the present year. The council will not relax in their efforts to attain this result. Stamp on Transfer of Mortgage.-In their report for 1878, the council referred to a case (Wale v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, L. R. 4 Ex. D. 270) in which a mortgagor of whom repayment was required, borrowed a larger sum, out of which the lender, at the request of the mortgagor, paid off the original mortgage, taking, at the same time, a new mortgage for the larger sum. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue claimed that the instrument was chargeable with the ad valorem duty on the whole amount. The council contended that, although there was no formal assignment of the old debt, the deed was in substance a transfer of mortgage, within the meaning of the schedule to the Stamp Act, 1670) and liable to duty as such, with a further duty on the fresh advance. The question was raised by way of appeal from the assessment of the commissioners, which was heard in the Exchequer Division before Chief Baron Kelly and Baron Pollock on June 26 and July 4, 1879, when judgment was given for the appellant. Applications for Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration. In the last annual report the council adverted to the irregular practice of employing law stationers to transact non-contentious business in the Probate Division of the High Court, for and in the names of solicitors, on terms of remuneration or agency; and it was stated that a letter had been addressed to the leading firms of law stationers pointing out the illegality of the practice, and suggesting that it should be discontinued, or, if that was not acceded to, that the question should be raised in a simple form for judicial decision. In reply to this circular, several law stationers have expressed their intention of abandoning the practice complained of; but certain leading firms persist in the practice, and decline to concur with the society in any application to the court for the purpose of testing its legality. The council have taken the opinion of Sir Hardinge Giffard, Mr. G. A. R. Fitzgerald, and Mr. R. T. Reid, which entirely confirms the view expressed by the council in their last annual report that the law stationers who practise in the manner complained of are liable to penalties under the Stamp Act, 1870, and under the Solicitors Act, 1860, and are further guilty, under the last-mentioned Act, of a contempt of court. The council are now proceeding to put in force these provisions against certain leading firms of law stationers. The council desire to repeat the observation in their last annual report that the practice would cease if the profession, as a body, declined to countenance it. Office Copies of Wills.-It is the practice in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division to issue copies of documents from the registry which have not been examined, and are therefore frequently inaccurate in important particulars. Some of these copies are marked as "office copies," and they all purport on their face to have been extracted from the registry. The charge for the copy is sixpence per folio of ninety words. Where an examined copy is bespoken, an additional fee of threepence per folio of ninety words is charged. The practice of issuing from a registry of the court, papers, which profess to be copies, but which are not true copies, is objectionable in principle, and calculated to mislead, and it does, in fact, mislead, not only the public, but the profession. The great body of solicitors are not aware that the "office copies" ordinarily issued from the registry have not been examined. They rely upon them as true copies and frequently suffer inconvenience in consequence. The council made a representation to Sir James Hannen on the subject, and suggested that the practice of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court with reference to office copies should be assimilated, in all respects, to that which prevails with regard to office copies in the Chancery Division. Sir James Hannen, however, did not feel able to adopt the suggestion. He explained that if the desired change were made the work of the registry would be greatly increased, and an addition to the number of clerks would be necessary, which he did not think that the Treasury would consent to. The subject was afterwards brought before Lord Chancellor Cairns, and the request was repeated that the practice of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division with respect to office copie, should be assimilated, in all respects, to that of the Chancery Division. The council have received no reply, beyond an acknowledgment, to this letter. The proposed change would no doubt require an addition to the number of clerks in the registry, to which it is probably difficult to obtain the consent of the Treasury. ASSOCIATION FOR THE REFORM AND CODI- The conference will hold its sittings in the hall of the National Council, at the Federal Palace, Berne; and the inaugural meeting will take place on Tuesday, the 24th of August, at twelve o'clock. Members attending the conference are required to sign a list, setting forth their names and their addresses in Berne, and are requested to procure their tickets of membership immediately on arrival in Berne. The preliminary proceedings will be reception of the members by the Bernese Committee; opening of the conference by the president; annual report of the council; communication of letters, &c., and reports by the secretaries. The subjects proposed for discussion are : 1. Public International Law.-Consular jurisdiction in Oriental countries; domicil as regulating testamentary and matrimonial rights; territorial rights of aboriginal races on the status of foreigners in the law courts of the Ottoman; Empire; international protection of telegraphic cables under the high seas. 2. International Commercial Law.-Bills of exchange; negotiable securities (shares, bonds, and coupons, nominative or to bearer); bankruptcy; copyright; codification of commercial law. 3. International Maritime Law.-General average; maritime insurance; law of affreightment. Miscellaneous papers on different subjects. The London correspondent of the Manchester Guardian hears that the Russian Government has instructed Professor Martens, the well-known professor of international law, to draw up a report upon the international rules in force in regard to the law of blockade, with the intention of issuing on the receipt of the report a handbook of instructions for the guidance of the commanders of the Russian men-of-war in the Pacific. Appointments, Etc. Mr. F. BUCKLAND, solicitor, of Kingston-on-Thames, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. PERCY WILSON DAVID CRUTTWELL, solicitor (of the firm of Cruttwell, Daniel, & Cruttwell), of Frome, has been appointed Registrar of the Frome County Court (Circuit No. 52), in succession to Mr. Malim Messiter, deceased. Mr. Cruttwell is the son of Mr. Wilson Clement Cruttwell, solicitor, clerk to the county magistrates at Frome. He was admitted a solicitor in 1870, and is in partnership with his father, with his brother, Mr. Walter Harry Wilson Cruttwell, and with Mr. George Alfred Daniel, clerk to the Frome Highway Board. Mr. CHARLES DALRYMPLE, barrister, who has been elected M.P. for Butesbire in the Conservative interest, is the third son of Sir Charles Dalyrmple Fergusson, baronet. He was born in 1839, and assumed the name of Dalrymple by Royal licence, in conformity with the will of the late Lord Hailes. He was educated at Harrow and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated in the third class of the classical tripos in 1862. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Michaelmas Tern, 1865, and was formerly a member of the Northern Circuit. He represented Buteshire from December, 1868, until April last, when he was an unsuccessful candidate. Mr. JENKIN JONES, solicitor (of the firm of Leyson & Jones), of Swansea and Pontardawe, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. EDWARD FREDERICK KELSEY, solicitor, of Salisbury and West Lavington, has been appointed a Magistrate for the City of Salisbury. Mr. Kelsey is the son of Mr. Edward Edmund Peach Kelsey, solicitor. He was admitted a solicitor in 1867, and is a member of the Salisbury Town Council, steward of the manor of West Lavington, and solicitor and secretary to the Salisbury Gas Company. Mr. ALBERT EDMUND LOUGHBOROUGH, solicitor, of 23, Austinfriars, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. MEADOWS, solicitor, of Bond Court Chambers, Walbrook, and of 10, Manor-road, Stoke Newington, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. SYDNEY CHARLES SCOTT, sclicitor (of the firm of Scott & Barham), of 39, King-street, Cheapside, has been appointed a Commissioner in England for taking the Acknowledgments of Married Women in respect of Property in India, and for taking Affidavits and Affirmations in suits and proceedings depending in the High Court of Judicature in Bengal. Mr. HENRY JOHN SMITH, Solicitor (of the firm of Miller, Smith, & Bell), of 3, Salter's Hall-court, Cannon-street, has been elected Vestry Clerk of the Parish of Lambeth, in succession to Mr. Thomas Roffey, resigned. Mr. Smith was admitted a solicitor in 1854, and has been for several years a member of the Lambeth Vestry. Companies. WINDING UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. CHEMICAL AND AMMONIACAL LIQUOR COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up presented June 29, directed to be heard before the M. R. on July 10. Burton and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agent for Johnson and Co, Birmingham, solicitors for the petitioner FINANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.-V.C. Hall has, by an order dated Feb 10, appointed Alfred Audrey Broad, Walbrook, to be official liquidator OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE TOILET CLUB, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up presented July 1, directed to be heard before the M.R. on July 10. Bartrum, Old Jewry chambers, solicitor for the peti tioner SYDENHAM STORES, LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R. dated June 5, it was ordered that the above stores be wound up. Badham, Salters' hall ct, Cannon et, solicitor for the petitioner [Gazette, July 2.] CHARLES DENHAM AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R. dated June 26, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the above company be continued. Emmet and Son, Bloomsbury sq, agents for Wavell and Co, Halifax, solicitors for the petitioner COCKSHEAD COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up presented June 29, directed to be heard before V.C. Hall on July 16. Carritt and Son, Fenchurch st, solicitors for the pati tioner FAULKNER, TAYLOR, AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has fixed July 15 at 11 at his chambers as the time and place for the appointment of an official liquidator GREAT EASTERN GLACIARUM COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has fixed July 15 at 12 as the time and place for the appointment of an official liquidator LONDON AND COUNTY SUPPLY ASSOCIATION LIMITED (FORMERLY THE WAREHOUSEMEN AND CLERKS' DIRECT SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED). By an order made by V.C. Malins dated June 25, i was ordered that the above association be wound up. Saxelby and Faulkner, Ironmonger lane, solicitors for the petitioners PATENT LIQUID METALLIC CAPSULING, PAINT, GILDING, AND SILVERING COMPANY, LIMITED.-V.C. Malins has fixed July 15 a 11 at his chambers as the time and place for the appointment of an official liquidator SHIPOWNERS' AND MARINERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.By an order made by the M. R. dated June 26, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. De Fivas, Devonshire st, Portland pl, solicitors for the petitioner ULSTER STEAM TRAMWAYS, LIMITED-Creditors are required on or before Aug 23, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims to George Chandler, Coleman st. Oct 29 at 11 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims [Gazette, July 6.] Creditors' Claims. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BARKER, WILLIAM, Alsager, Cheshire. July 21. Barker v Barker, July 19. July 26. Cockeram v HOLLYMAN, WILLIAM, Clevedon, Somerset, Butcher. July 21. Holly- TURNER, THOMAS WALL, Old Burlington st, Licensed Victualler July 17. McOscar v Docker, V.C. Malins. Alsop, Great Mariborough st WILLES, WILLIAM, Gravesend, Gent. July 8. Donohoe v Willes, [Gazette, June 22] Friars WOOLGAR, MARY, Wisley, Surrey. July 21. Woolgar v Winch, V.C. Bacon. Jenkins, Tavistock st, Covent Garden [Gazette, June 25.7 BARBER, MARY, Close House, Colne. July 22. Barber v Williamson, Hodgson v Williamson. V.C. Bacon. Le Riche, Rood lane BARNES, ARTHUR, Eling, Southampton, Innkeeper. Aug 1. Lobh v Withers, V.C. Hall. Angove, Serjeants' inn, Fleet st BURNELL, ANN, Plymouth. July 19. Trown v Burnell, V.C. Hal Phillips, Plymouth PLOMER, CHARLES, Trevor sq, Knightsbridge, Gent. July 2 Governors of St George's Hospital v Scott, M.R. Cole, Salisbury st, Strand GRAHAM, ROBERT FULLER, Newbury, Berks. July 22. Graham v SCHRADER, ALOYS, Upper Thames st, July 26. Rosenthall v Politza, M.R. SPENCER, THOMAS, Balsal, Warwick, Farmer. July 26. George v Hayes, M.R. Twist, Coventry THOMSON, DONALD, Sandel villa, Upper Norwood, Merchant, July 30. Thomson v Somerville, V.C. Malins. Morgan, Somerset St, Portman sq VINALL, ARTHUR WALTER, Grafton ter, Acton, Brewer's Agend. |